Freedom from Bondage V

(Continued from these posts: I, II, III, IV)

CHAPTERS EIGHT & NINE: A REMARKABLE HISTORY

In these two chapters, Gold argues against the idea that Jewish history throughout the ages is remarkable. To do this, he gives examples of three other nations that have survived for millennia -- the Basques in the Pyrenees mountains, the Parsis in India, and the Armenians.

I don't understand his point. He began chapter 8 with a quote from R. Emanuel Feldman that ends: "Now all this may not necessarily prove that a God exists -- it may be a fluke of history, it may all have happened by chance, it could all be attributed to random occurrences -- but isn't it curious that no other people had benefitted from such randomness and that no other people has lived through such a history?" (p. 90)

Click here to read moreGold points out that the second half of that statement is not entirely correct because there are other ethnic groups that evidently demonstrated similar longevity, but how does that resolve the first half of the statement? It is still remarkable. It could be that they are all flukes of history but it could also be that they were intended by God. Who says that God only arranged for the Jews to survive throughout history?

The point is that the historical fact that the Jews have survived should raise important questions in your mind. R. Feldman does not say that this is a proof to Orthodox Judaism, just that it raises questions. Therefore, when Gold writes, "The Orthodox claim, then, is that this state of affairs, the present existence of a substantial Jewish community, cannot be given a naturalistic explanation" (p. 93) is a misrepresentation of R. Feldman's view that Gold quotes three pages earlier.

Gold then proceeds to argue that Jewish survival should not raise questions because it can be explained naturally. There is no question that it can be explained naturally. The issue is whether the reader finds the natural explanation to be more plausible than the supernatural explanation. This is a subjective evaluation that no one can force on you. Instead, Gold tries to increase the plausibility of the natural explanation. In my opinion, he fails miserably.

Gold points out that in any given decade in history, if you look at it in isolation, it is not surprising that the Jewish people survived through that decade. Add up all the decades and it is not surprising that Jews have survived for thousands of years.

I find this reductionist approach to be unconvincing. The disappearance of a people is a process that involves intermingling with other peoples and assimilation into them. You don't see that happen in any single decade, although there are turning points in history that can push the process along fairly rapidly. It is something that happens over a long period of time and has occurred with almost every nation in history. In which decade did the Romans disappear from history? Or the Babylonians?

Particularly remarkable is not only that the Jewish people has survived throughout history but that it has made contributions to history far beyond its proportions. Could this have been the reason for survival, pride in our heritage? I look at the people in America today who intermarry and I see among them Jews proud of their heritage, so I don't think it could be the reason. Jewish history has simply been an incredible story that defies the odds and boggles the mind, and there is no shortage of quotes from intellectuals who have marvelled at this wonder. Gold may not take it seriously but he is among a minority in the world in that respect.

Gold attempts to dissect various aspects of Jewish history in search of the single unique element. Only at the end of chapter 9 does he suggest the obvious: "[W]e might argue that [Jewish history] displays a unique combination of characteristics. Perhaps it was not the most turbulent history (compared with, say, Kurdish history), and perhaps the intellectual contributions are not unsurpassed (compared with, say, Greek contributions). But how about when we combine these? Among ethnic groups with turbulent histories, are there any who have made comparable intellectual contributions?" (p. 115).

Gold is wrong on two points here. First, there is no reason to demand that Jewish history be entirely unique in this respect. It only needs to be sufficiently different to be surprising and to raise questions. If there are enough other communities that have gone through similar experiences then there is nothing surprising about Jewish history. But if that is not the case, then there is no reason to assume that the Jews are the only people in the world who can have a remarkable history. That is irrelevant to the discussion.

His second error is in arguing that by combining characteristics to evaluate Jewish history we are manipulating the criteria in order to reach our predetermined conclusion. That is, in my opinion, an unfair argument that is largely a rhetorical trick. He took a fairly simple statement about Jewish history, deconstructed it into multiple pieces, and then said that the combination of those pieces is arbitrary and self-serving.

Looking at the larger statement on its own, however, I doubt that anyone would consider it arbitrary. It is only by rephrasing it in his own terms that Gold can make it seem arbitrary. It's a neat trick, but I can use the same tactic to deconstruct just about any evaluative statement and then say that its construction is arbitrary and self-serving.