The Controversy, Community & Politics (Scrapbook)

The Cases for and Against. Ken Zucker who spoke at the London Melaveh Malka is one of the contributors

The Jacobs Controversy
The cases for and against the position adopted by Dr. Jacobs are presented by two founder-members of the MOSAIC Editorial Board. Both served in the R.A.F. as Russian interpreters. Kenneth Zucker (Exeter) and Godfrey Silverman (Oriel) were also fellow-students at Oxford and, although in general they share a similar religious outlook, they differ on this issue and hope that the conclusions they draw will to some extent clarify the controversy that has lately shaken the community.

1. The End of the Affair by Godfrey Silverman

JEWS don't so much believe in God as believe him", Hugh Schonfield writes in a book interpreting Judaism for the non-Jew. This seemingly trite remark conveys the essential -religious" distinction between Judaism and Christianity, between Torah and Gospel. From Maimonides to the present day, theologians have speculated about the existence of dogma in the faith of Israel. but teachers in the authentic tradition have invariably stressed the primacy of Halakhah (the religio-legal code): it is this code which impresses Dr. James Parkes, a sympathetic Christian thinker, and which is inducing widely differing circles in Jewry to "involve" themselves in Judaism. The traditionalists, or "orthodox" Jews, watch these developments with interest and are delighted to find such unexpected support for their once derided "legalism". "Orthodoxy" itself, of course, varies in intensity from age to age, and from community to community. Anglo-Jewry contain three or four recognisable groupings of traditionalists, although until the recent dispute there was an unwritten agreement about allegiance to Torah authority and religious observance.

Dr. Jacobs, an alumnus of Gateshead and one time member of Poalei Aguda, has tried to swing British "orthodoxy" to the left by downgrading Halakah in favour of speculative theology. His hooks, lectures and polemics and the pseudo-Messianic frenzy of the press campaign engineered by his allies momentarily rocked Anglo-Jewry. Dr. Jacobs himself has shown that he is no mere mouthpiece for the dissident radicals in the United Synagogue; but it would be foolish to disregard the passions roused or the abuse heaped by the "Jacobites" upon their moderate as well as diehard opponents.

The theological argument, for what it is worth, may be traced through Dr. Jacobs's books, for, like Voltaire, he is haunted by a spectre (in this case "Fundamentalism", or acceptance of the literal Word of God), and therefore leaves no book uncited to disprove the Divine origin of the Pentateuch. Can we really believe, he asks,, that the Almighty sat dictating to Moses on Sinai "And the Lord said unto Moses"? And would an all merciful God have demanded the annihilation of heathen tribes? Obviously, he concludes there is a human element in the Chumash (Pentateuch) which "fundamentalist" conspirators will not admit.

Dr. Jacobs is happy to accept the "scientific" paraphernalia of the discredited "higher" Bible critics, and believes that the Five Books are the work of many human hands. No other "orthodox" teacher in or out of the rabbinate has challenged the authenticity of the Pentateuch, although all nowadays are as up-to-date about the "Documentary Hypothesis" as is Dr. Jacobs. When The Jewish Chronicle suggested that "no (Semitics) scholar of repute would differ from his views", a representative group of professors and lecturers published a letter stating their refusal to be drawn into a communal fracas; and, as a matter of fact, many of them vehemently disagree with the Jacobs line, knowing that, while some theories wear better than others, present evidence about the dating of the Five Books points back a very long way indeed.'

Of course, there are no ready-made answers to every theological problem, and the intellectual basis of Judaism has to be equal to the demands of each succeeding generation, but 1 believe that, in spite of his plausibility, Dr. Jacobs is a trifle less certain than some of his more vocal supporters. The "theological approach" has become a fad, and what began as an intellectual 'trend of great potentiality within "orthodoxy" has unfortunately since become a movement outwards. The theologian is not solely responsible for this; communal politics soon eclipsed calm debate.

When I discussed these matters with Dr. Jacobs I was as ever impressed by his frankness and by his readiness to hear criticism of his views. It was the more regrettable that so few of those who (to my mind rightly) oppose him can present a coherent case whether orally or in print. For a time he was my teacher at Jews' College, where some impressionable students, lacking other guidance, were dazzled by his approach and; like many older folk, attracted by his personal qualities. For my part, however, those qualities alone do not guarantee the excellence of his doctrines; and I find it strange that those in authority evidently never troubled to read the books which have latterly been such a bone of contention. Instead, as one gathers from the Chief Rabbi's Statement, his views were indulged and his ambitions first encouraged, then later frustrated. Nobody noted the forebodings expressed by Rabbi Dr. Joseph Litvin in his review of We Have Reason To Believe, published 7 years ago.'

From its 1st (1890) edition, the Authorised Daily Prayer Book ("Singer's Siddur") has followed the Polish ritual, but Dr. Jacobs told me he advocates the mysterious tradition of Minhag Anglia. This ritual, it appears, sanctions "mixed" choirs, a minimal use of the kappel, and other laxities. Now my ancestors who settled in Liverpool 150 years ago were accustomed to the clerical collar and "Englishry", but were probably no more aware of Minhag Anglia, and its sparse fruits, than I am today. I can easily forgive the old New West End families for their attachment to certain time-honoured forms, but ;I fail to see how a rabbi, trained in Halakhah, can righteously advocate them. Nor can I join Dr. Jacobs in multiplying Dr. Brodie's sins by asserting that, because the Chief Rabbi once blinked or condoned certain innovations, he must continue to do so. Time changes many men, but the increase of years does not mellow Dr. Jacobs's radicalism. If the increase in froomkeit (foreseen by Cecil Roth after the War) is unacceptable to Dr. Jacobs, he can hardly expect organised "orthodoxy" to accommodate itself to its nonconformity. In an independent congregation, however, he will be free to preserve his cherished "norms" together with his dedicated supporters who will, I understand, now have a long Sabbath walk from Kensington and elsewhere to St. John's Wood.

"Truth", Rabbi Jacobs observes in Jewish Values, "must not be made into a fetish". An intriguing and relevant thought. Can the pursuit of Truth actually justify a sterile battle against ancient teachings and observance "in the name of vital religion", as it was put to me? I feel for Louis Jacobs, but I fear for the future he has planned. And, in all conscience, I cannot follow him; Truth and Authority lie elsewhere.

I See Joseph Shaechter, "Yehezkel Kaufmann: New Vistas in Bible Studies," in Arid (Review of the Arts and Sciences in Israel), Spring, 1964; and C. M. Abelson, "Letter To A Student" (published correspondence on the "Jacobs Affair), July, 1963.
2 See The Gates of Zion (Quarterly Review of Judaism and Zionism), Vol. 11, No. 4. July, 1957.

2. Only the beginning by Kenneth Zucker

IN all religious disputes there comes a time when the point is obscured almost beyond recall. It occurs when the cry of "heresy" goes up. From then on, a feast of politics and personalities is assured. The Jacobite controversy has not proved an exception.

The tangle of charge and countercharge which has enlivened our weekend reading since the spring, has buried a real and fundamental principle. Is Judaism a religion which seeks truth whatever its source, or, in a clash between them, is dogma to prevail?

Because this issue has been forgotten it is worthwhile setting out the facts which lie at its root. According to Maimonides (who by now needs no further introduction) every word of the Torah, the five books of Moses, was handed down by Moses on Sinai. There can be no argument that this has been the standpoint of traditional Judaism to this day. In the last one hundred years serious objections have been raised against this concept. Research and discovery in many fields appear to prove that the Torah is not the work of a single person writing at one point of time. On the contrary, it grew up over many centuries and part of it came into existence after the death of Moses. It needs to be stressed that these conclusions, whatever other disagreements there may be between scholars, are accepted by nearly all of them, Jewish as well as Christian. The evidence against the tradition is extremely strong, has never been satisfactorily. answered, and it is difficult to foresee any answer that could restore in its clearcut simplicity the view that Maimonides endorsed.

In this situation there is a challenge to the resilience and vitality of Judaism, and to the depth of its faith. If the Chief Rabbi's attitude is typical, it possesses none of these qualities. He does not keep his mind open to the objections to the tradition, he does not refute them by logical argument. He simply takes refuge in dogma and calls the faithful to heel.

Dr. Brodie may be correct in his belief that the faith of some Jews can be upset if they were told that the old view of the Torah is untenable, That is a very important consideration but the danger will be far greater if orthodoxy is placed in the same predicament as the mediaeval Church which accepted as an article of faith the proposition that the earth was flat. To tie Judaism to a doctrine which is clearly false is to court disaster.

It is said that any watering down of the belief that every word of the Five Books comes from Moses, will utterly undermine Judaism: If the truth led to that conclusion we would have no choice but to follow it. In fact there is nothing in the discoveries of modern research which, when viewed through the eyes of a religious Jew, need in any way erode his justifiable reverence for the Torah, his belief in its divine impetus or his acceptance of the vast structure of law and commentary which has been built upon it. Of course the period of transition from a simple to a more sophisticated view is a difficult one. But it need hold no greater terrors for us than those facing the generation which was compelled to accept that the picture of creation described in Genesis is not literally true.

Louis Jacobs deserves the highest credit for being the first English orthodox Rabbi to openly acknowledge the fact that these problems exist. He has gone further. He has attempted to show that acceptance of the, conclusions already referred to is not incompatible with an outlook on Judaism that draws its faith and its strength from our tradi tions. It does not follow that his is the sole approach, that his conclusions are the only ones that can be held or that -in the end they will prevail. The important point is that he has made the attempt. It is a mark of his opponents sterility that their only reply was to cast him out as a heretic.

3. The Powers Behind The Protagonists by Michael Fox

CHARGES resented most by both the Chief Rabbi and Dr. Jacobs are that the Chief Rabbi, against his better judgment, was pressured into taking the stand he did and that Dr. Jacobs has been "used" by certain elements who intend bringing about a new orientation in the community.

Dr. Brodie's support comes first from the clergy who, with a few well-known exceptions, support him to the hilt. In the past twenty-years, the United Synagogue clergy has changed beyond all recognition. The old Anglo-Jewish type of minister has virtually disappeared and in his place have come ministers either foreign born or of immigrant stock, of a less sophisticated but more orthodox character. Dr. Brodie is of the latter type and Dr. Jacobs,' a University-educated yeshiva bachur* of the former. But to explain the controversy as a conflict between traditions would be too facile, though partly true. The remnant of the old Anglo-Jewish clergy also support Dr. Brodie, but rather out of respect for the Chief Rabbinate (an institution peculiar to Anglo-Jewry) than doctrine. Newer clergy support him also, because they do regard his stand on doctrine as right. Far from giving way to pressure from his clergy, Dr. Brodie never even asked their opinion.
When the Jews' College crisis first broke, the Beth Din put the issue firmly on the basis of heresy. Dr. Jacobs' acceptance of "Lower Criticism" made him unsuitable in their eyes. This uncompromising stand of his own Dayanim must have had a strong bearing on the Chief Rabbi and has led many to regard the Beth Din as one of the strongest influences on him.

Lay support for the Chief Rabbi within the United Synagogue is not as strong as is commonly supposed. He has vociferous support from the orthodox groups outside, who have been hostile to the Establishment for years.

The patrician support enjoyed by Dr. Jacobs sterns partly from a regard for the man himself but mainly from a xenophobic resentment of the revolution that has taken place in Anglo Jewry. It is not fair to say that they look to Dr. Jacobs for a justification for their own lax observance, but they do have little interest in practical Judaism and as the spearhead for a vital new orthodoxy they are distinctly unpromising material.

The Jewish Chronicle's part in the Affair cannot be over-emphasised. It has presented the facts fairly and has given publicity to the statements of Dr. Brodie and his supporters, but unfortunately the Chronicle has exceeded the bounds of freedom of editorial opinion ; it has turned the Affair into a crusade in which Dr. Brodie has been needlessly denigrated and Dr. Jacobs undeservedly canonised. Whilst it is not true that the Chronicle has caused the crisis, it has exploited it and has used its considerable power to oppose the community's orthodox trend.

Dr. Jacobs is not the great scholar and thinker that his more ardent supporters claim; nevertheless he is a thinker and he has deservedly strong support from those, particularly the young, who desire a perpetuation of traditional Judaism but cannot accept dogma where it collides with modern knowledge. In recent years there has been a resurgence of orthodoxy amongst the young and Dr. Jacobs, in seeking to find solutions to the same problems that beset them has identified with them-an identification that may well disappear if he continues to look for his main support to the elderly aristocrats in Bayswater.

In the final analysis, the Affair should be judged on the surface issue of heresy. The conclusions of Biblical criticism may not have been proved, but to say that, for an orthodox Jew, they can never be proved is myopic and can, in the long run, only be detrimental to traditional Judaism.

COMMUNITY OPINION 1
From the Evening News
Mr. Sidney Parnes put up a record player in his garden and played pop records as the first service of the breakaway New London Synagogue was held today. The service was at Montefiore Hall in Ashworth Road, Maida Vale. next door to Mr. Parnes. There 200 members gathered to hear Dr. Louis Jacobs, the man "banned" by the Central Authority of British Jewry for his modernistic views. The music from Mr. Parne's garden filtered through the open window of the hall. He said: "I protest most strongly about this service."
Mr. Parnes worships at the Spanish and Portuguese Synagogue a few yards away.

COMMUNITY OPINION 2
From the Naturei Karta (Stamford Hill) Newsletter:
"... When he (Jacobs) professes to call himself a Jew-orthodox and all -and to stay within our fold with the only aim of seducing people to blaspheme our Holiness, defaming our religion, of uprooting the foundations, of corrupting the mind, of defiling the soul, and of being, paid for it with fame and honour, then our only answer must be the Torah itself-`Bring forth him that has cursed beyond the Camp and let all that have heard him lay their hands upon his head, and let all the congregation overwhelm him with stones'. .. . Jacobs sold everything for a few words of flattery by Kessler and Frankel [of the Jewish Chronicle] who crowned him for his apikorsus with the so oft repeated titles of Scholar, Academician, etc. He does not stop, and has decided to become the main Maysis and Maydiach (the one who stirs up people and leads them to worship idols) trampling underfoot the Holy Torah- with the hypocrite's cry of 'honesty and broadmindedness' in his vanity and for his ignoble ambition... ."