{"id":36974,"date":"2024-03-21T18:53:11","date_gmt":"2024-03-22T01:53:11","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/blogs.georgefox.edu\/dlgp\/?p=36974"},"modified":"2024-03-21T18:53:11","modified_gmt":"2024-03-22T01:53:11","slug":"jordan-petersons-midrash","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/blogs.georgefox.edu\/dlgp\/jordan-petersons-midrash\/","title":{"rendered":"Jordan Peterson’s Midrash"},"content":{"rendered":"

\u201cIn Judaism, we take a strong view on this, and we have now for 2,000 years and we say reading the Bible literally is heresy\u201d.[i]<\/a> This surprising statement was made by Rabbi Jonathan Sacks, an orthodox chief Rabbi from the United Kingdom, in a lively debate with one of the most famous atheist and Evolutionary biologists in the world today, Richard Dawkins. Several topics were discussed during this hour-long back and forth, but one point Rabbi Sacks made in the conversation was that Richard\u2019s book, the God Delusion<\/em>, was attacking biblical literalism, specifically in America, over the Jewish or Judeo-Christian faith as a whole. While reading through Jordan Peterson\u2019s book, Maps of Meaning<\/em>, and listening to his lectures on the Bible, I was taken back to the statement above by Rabbi Sacks on biblical literalism which Peterson admits struggling with growing up.[ii]<\/a><\/p>\n

Jordan Peterson\u2019s approach to religious stories and cultural myths, similar to Joseph Campbell\u2019s work, moves beyond the literal meaning of a text in an attempt to excavate the psychological archetypes and realities hidden below the surface. This approach also reminded me of Jewish Midrash which is a method of \"\"<\/a>interpreting and expounding on Jewish Scriptures in a way that moves beyond the literal words, as Rabbi Sacks mentioned, to find deeper meaning and revelation.[iii]<\/a> If you\u2019ve ever explored this method it is easy for Christians to wonder, how did they get this<\/em> from that<\/em> passage? Although it can be a complex approach to Jewish Scripture, similar to Peterson\u2019s, it serves the purpose of remaining faithful to tradition while finding applicable relevance for new circumstances and discoveries. This is what Jordan Peterson attempts to do with ancient stories, some Judeo-Christian, and some not, for Westerners in this book. He is moving beyond \u201cliteralism\u201d to uncover universal patterns in ancient stories that can guide us today.<\/p>\n

Narratives like Adam and Eve, Cain and Abel, Noah, Moses, etc. that many in the West have disregarded as irrelevant, he utilizes to explore subjects like order and chaos, human nature, the shadow self, anxiety, personal responsibility, and rebirth. He reinforces the theory, like Campbell, that universal themes keep showing up all around the world in our religious and cultural stories which should get our attention. He says, \u201cIt is reasonable to presume that, over the long run, our species \u201cforgets\u201d most things that are useless: we do not forget our myths, however. Indeed, much of the activity broadly deemed \u2018cultural\u2019 is in fact the effort to ensure that myths are constantly represented and communicated.\u201d[iv]<\/a> This reinforces what other anthropologists and psychologists have noticed about stories and myths. If certain<\/em> patterns, archetypes, and themes keep showing up around the world in various narratives they must be expressing something deep within us and important for humans to survive and thrive.<\/p>\n

Peterson, from what I\u2019ve noticed over the years of watching his lectures, is concerned with how humans behave\u00a0and act<\/em> in the world. The stories that cultures believe and tell will determine, or at least highly influence, people\u2019s actions and values. Peterson says, \u201cNonetheless, to live, it is necessary to act. Action presupposes belief and interpretation (implicit, if not explicit). Belief has to be grounded in faith, in the final analysis (as the criteria by which a moral theory might be evaluated have to be chosen<\/em> as well).[v]<\/a> I have been thinking a lot about belief systems lately. For example, if someone, Christian, agnostic, Hindu, Buddhist, or hardcore atheist, comes along and says, \u201cYou can\u2019t treat people like that!\u201d \u00a0Another person could say, \u201cSays who?\u201d That same person could follow up by saying, \u201cProve to me empirically why I should care about or treat that person or people like I would my own <\/em>group\u201d. Without some kind of belief system to stand on, like \u2018all humans have inherited value and deserve dignity regardless of race, disability, gender, orientation, class, or age\u2019 <\/em>which many of us extrapolate from the Genesis myth, there is no legitimate ground to stand on. Fukuyama says we all desire dignity, but what is going to motivate others to care or live that reality out toward others?[vi]<\/a> These are truths woven in the Genesis story and found in the life and teachings of Christ. Although I can\u2019t prove <\/em>these things as self-evident through the scientific method, I ultimately choose to hold them as true. \u00a0After reading several history books, I don\u2019t want to live in a world that is not shaped by this theological belief system.<\/p>\n

Thoughts on Interpretation<\/strong><\/p>\n

Since implicit bias is on the brain from reading Pragya Agarwal\u2019s book, Sway<\/em>, I find it highly probable that Peterson\u2019s background in psychology is influencing how he interprets ancient stories. His connections and assumptions, especially about the details, and what they mean is likely a product of both exegesis<\/em> and eisegesis<\/em>.<\/p>\n

Exegesis:<\/strong> To draw out or explain.[vii]<\/a> Attempting to determine the historical context within which a passage or text was written or compiled to understand what it meant to them. What was the \u201cSitz im Leben\u201d or setting in life.[viii]<\/a><\/p>\n

Eisegeses: <\/strong>Reading meaning into a text. Interpreting a text in such a way that introduces one\u2019s own presuppositions, agendas, and biases into it. Many also call this \u201cproof-texting\u201d meaning I already believe something so I will go out and find a verse or passage to prove my case.[ix]<\/a><\/p>\n

What was interesting about my first few years of biblical education, is the time we spent on methods to \u201cproperly\u201d exegete a biblical text to discover its original meaning, if that is even possible. However, we spent very little time critically examining how humans, especially commentators, could have imposed their own ideas, biases, and perspectives onto their experiences or texts at any given era of time. Interpreters like Peterson always prompt me to wonder how much modern-day thought is being forced into these ancient stories, but then I think:<\/p>\n

Is that a bad thing? Is this part of the natural process of moving tradition forward?<\/p>\n

Is this not what is likely happening to one degree or another when any of us are making sense of material from the past. How can it not? Does this not happen with Midrash to an extent? We will inevitably carry our own modernity and religious tradition with us when interpreting texts in order to keep our traditions relevant and applicable as society and situations evolve. In a podcast I heard several years ago, Richard Dawkins, once again, was throwing arguments against religion. He claimed that religious folks keep \u201creinterpreting\u201d their text in light of modern advancements! Slavery, theology, divorce, science, interracial marriage, women\u2019s rights, excommunication, homosexuality, etc. He makes a good point in some ways, but he also misses the important role of story, tradition, and meta-narratives in shaping human beings. Once again with Dawkins, the issue may be literalism. If anything, Jordan Peterson\u2019s psychological and beyond-literal<\/i> interpretations of biblical stories are getting many in the modern world who had lost their interest in faith to reengage the Judeo-Christian tradition in a deeper and more meaningful way and I believe that is a win.<\/p>\n

[i]<\/a> 1. \u201cRethink – Debate with Rabbi Sacks and Richard Dawkins,\u201d YouTube, December 8, 2022, https:\/\/www.youtube.com\/watch?v=8Ad3rVRdgbI&t=739s.<\/p>\n

[ii]<\/a> Peterson, Jordan B. Maps of Meaning: The Architecture of Belief<\/em>, New York: Routledge, 1999, xii.<\/p>\n

[iii]<\/a> McKim, Donald K. Westminster Dictionary of Theological Terms<\/em>, Louisville, Ky: Westminster John Knox Press [u.a.], 1997, 173.<\/p>\n

[iv]<\/a> Peterson, Maps of Meaning, 91.<\/p>\n

[v]<\/a> Ibid.,92.<\/p>\n

[vi]<\/a> Fukuyama, Francis. Identity: The Demand for Dignity and the Politics of Resentment<\/em>. New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux, 2018.<\/p>\n

[vii]<\/a> McKim, Westminister, 98.<\/p>\n

[viii]<\/a> Ibid., 262.<\/p>\n

[ix]<\/a> Ibid., 87.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

\u201cIn Judaism, we take a strong view on this, and we have now for 2,000 years and we say reading the Bible literally is heresy\u201d.[i] This surprising statement was made by Rabbi Jonathan Sacks, an orthodox chief Rabbi from the United Kingdom, in a lively debate with one of the most famous atheist and Evolutionary […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":171,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_acf_changed":false,"_monsterinsights_skip_tracking":false,"_monsterinsights_sitenote_active":false,"_monsterinsights_sitenote_note":"","_monsterinsights_sitenote_category":0,"footnotes":""},"categories":[2310],"tags":[2489,2455],"class_list":["post-36974","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-doctor-of-leadership-3","tag-dlgp02","tag-jordanpeterson","cohort-dlgp02"],"acf":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.georgefox.edu\/dlgp\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/36974","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.georgefox.edu\/dlgp\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.georgefox.edu\/dlgp\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.georgefox.edu\/dlgp\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/171"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.georgefox.edu\/dlgp\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=36974"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.georgefox.edu\/dlgp\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/36974\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":36979,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.georgefox.edu\/dlgp\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/36974\/revisions\/36979"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.georgefox.edu\/dlgp\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=36974"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.georgefox.edu\/dlgp\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=36974"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.georgefox.edu\/dlgp\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=36974"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}