Q&A: Methodology in Biblical Studies / Biblical History
Methodology in Biblical Studies / Biblical History
Question
Hello
In a debate I’m having with the Bible scholar Avraham HaIvri (I assume you know him), the following question came up regarding “Torah from Heaven” and its historical status during the First Temple period. What is more reasonable to assume:
That, as I maintain, during the First Temple period the foundational value of the priestly elite was “Torah from Heaven” — that is, the assumption that there was some text that God gave to the children of Israel in the wilderness, and that this text was the source of authority for the dynasty and its way of life, a dynasty to which the priests also belonged
or
that “we can’t know” (in Avraham’s words)
My reasoning for why it is reasonable to assume the centrality of this foundational value (at least over a significant stretch of the First Temple period):
The priests knew / believed the narrative (whether true or not) that at the heart of the Temple stood the Ark of the Covenant, and inside it was a sacred text given to their forefathers by God, and that this text was not merely the “flavor” of the Temple and the ritual service but the value-core of the entire dynasty, and in fact of the whole people (at least that is how the priests saw it).
To make the point more concrete, I directed Avraham to the question of the education of the priests’ sons: is it possible that for centuries the priests educated their children to inherit their place and status without the narrative of that sacred text preserved in the Temple playing a central role in that educational mission? In my opinion, absolutely not.
What do you think?
Answer
I don’t understand what the argument is about. Is he claiming that the priests themselves did not believe this, and nevertheless educated their children that way?
Discussion on Answer
I don’t know how central it was, or in which groups. But I agree that it was a real outlook.
Okay. Do you think so for reasons like mine? Other reasons? Avraham estimates that most scholars of biblical criticism (and perhaps also the historians of the period) think like he does. To deal with them, one has to explain what fails in their philosophy of science.
I know your position well — which in this case is also mine — regarding the lack of philosophical skill many experts have in interpreting their own discipline. I’m curious what your thoughts are.
I assume you don’t mind if I quote you by name in various places…?
It definitely doesn’t bother me. In general, anything I write or say can be quoted. Certainly if it’s published on the internet.
You simply see references in the Hebrew Bible to the revelation at Mount Sinai. Tradition also transmitted this to us that way. Of course, someone who thinks everything was fabricated in a later period need not accept that. He will also tell you that the priests really did not educate their children that way; only the later descriptions of the biblical era present it that way.
I don’t see any connection here to philosophy of science.
He argues that in light of the research findings we currently have, we have no ability to assess whether the foundational value of the Judaism of that period (especially among the priesthood) was the centrality of “Torah from Heaven.” In his view, the lack of sufficient support for that conclusion requires us, for now, to make do with the claim that “we don’t know.”
The example about education was mine. I wanted to show him the absurdity that results if one accepts his skeptical position.