Attitude to Biblical Criticism
Hello Rabbi, I wanted to ask you what your attitude is towards biblical criticism. I know of methods even among rabbis who see biblical criticism as something serious, such as the method of Rabbi Breuer, who said:
"About forty years ago, I examined the scholars' evidence and the counterclaims of Shlomi Amon Yisrael, and I was convinced beyond a shadow of a doubt that the scholars were right. Biblical scholars have proven, as is well known, that the Torah was not written by one person, but rather is the product of several authors. And it was not written in one generation – neither in forty days nor in forty years – but is the result of a development spanning hundreds of years, and it reached final formation only after the Babylonian exile.
The faithful of Israel were horrified by these proofs, which seemed to them to contradict the belief in the Torah from heaven. Therefore, they claimed that all the proofs of the scholars were nothing. Indeed, one author could have written the entire Torah – from Genesis to the eyes of all Israel – in one generation and in one place immediately after the Exodus from Egypt.
According to his understanding, the Torah was intentionally written by God in several different voices, which are supposed to express different "examinations" in His leadership of the world. The literary analysis presented by biblical critics reflects, according to the examination method, the combination of God's various modes of action in His world.
There are also more far-reaching methods, such as the method of biblical scholar Israel Knohl, who sees the Torah as a document that was not written entirely by Moses from the mouth of God, but by several prophets from the mouth of God and over a long period of time (at least that's how I understood it). It appears a bit in this link: http://www.daat.ac.il/daat/kitveyet/deot/kanohel.htm
I'm not knowledgeable enough to have an opinion. Since I don't generally know much about the humanities, and since there is a high dose of unfounded speculation there, I don't find much interest in engaging with this subject (and the Bible in general, even in the traditional form of its study).
Obviously, there are weighty arguments in favor of the criticism, and I got the impression that Breuer's method has become outdated (there are probably pretty good arguments against it). But all of this is worth discussing with people who are more knowledgeable than me.
Asks (differently):
peace,
You write, "I don't find much interest in dealing with this subject (and the Bible in general)."
why?
Aren't these critical questions for a person who lives his life in light of the law derived from the Bible?
Thank you very much!
ornament
———————————————————————————————————————-
Rabbi:
Hello, I'm fine.
I think none of us live in light of the Bible. Living in light of Halacha is not living according to the Bible. Absolutely not. Perhaps it would be more accurate to say that this is living despite the Bible (meaning we first determine what is right and then explain it in the Bible. It is only a hindering factor and not a guiding factor).
The Bible is a myth or ethos that we were all raised and educated on, but if we are honest, it does not stand the test of facts. The Bible can be interpreted in a thousand ways, and of course, it can also be preached. I was a boy and I have never seen anyone who intuitively thought one way but gave up their position because they found something different in the Bible. We all always interpret the Bible so that it fits our intuitions. Look at all the Bible commentators who always explain the Bible so that it fits our intuitions (some would define Bible interpretation this way). And if it doesn't work out that way, we have plenty of excuses for not implementing it (think about the obligation to adhere to the qualities of God, the Almighty, what He was jealous and avenged, you too would have been jealous and avenged. Alternatively, think about Jacob's deception and many other things. Should we implement it? How? Does this really mean that we should throw away our moral principles?). Therefore, I don't see much point in it. If you draw the target after shooting the arrow, what's the point of shooting it?!
Halacha has its own ways, and it does deal with the Bible, but it seems to me that dealing with the Bible without the halachic mediation of Toshefa is not related to our lives in any way. Of course, one can criticize this (and there are many who do), but I think that this is the nature of our tradition and it is difficult to deny it.
This is at least as long as we have not succeeded in reconstructing the methods of sermon and interpretation of the Sages. Quite a bit of work is being done on this matter today (I have also worked quite a bit on the qualities of sermon), and I hope that we will make progress and perhaps eventually succeed in understanding what the Bible really tells us.
———————————————————————————————————————-
Asks:
Thank you very much for your response.
A few things:
1. "At least as long as we have not succeeded in reconstructing the methods of preaching and interpretation of the Sages. There is quite a bit of work being done on this matter today (I have also worked quite a bit on the qualities of preaching), and I hope that we will make progress and perhaps eventually succeed in understanding what the Bible really tells us."
That's the thing - why invest in studying the Bible, if it is simply an accumulation and collection of clearly non-heavenly writings, which were written, edited, and copied inaccurately over the years? What is the relevance of the Bible to us?
2. "I was a boy and I have also grown old, and I have not seen anyone who intuitively thought one way but gave up their position because they found something different in the Bible."
Does the issue of homosexuality prove the opposite? People who think that homosexuality is a normal thing, that it is not an illness for them, but the Bible calls it "abomination" and forbids homosexual intercourse remember.
3. "Halacha has its own ways, and it does deal with the Bible, but it seems to me that dealing with the Bible without the halachic mediation of Toshefa is not related to our lives in any way. Of course, one can criticize this (and there are many who do), but I think that this is the nature of our tradition and it is difficult to deny it."
But from studying the Toshab'a, it seems that the path is the opposite - not from the Toshab'a to the Bible, as you say, but from the Bible to the Toshab'a. And so the sages bring evidence for their statements and their halachic interpretation.
Thank you very much!
ornament
———————————————————————————————————————-
Rabbi:
1. Who said they are not heavenly? What I said is that interpretation does not give us new conclusions. Regardless, I do tend to think that there are later additions to the Bible, but that does not mean that the Torah was not given from heaven. As for the relevance of the Bible to us, I wrote about that.
2. This is Halacha. I'm not talking about Halacha. In Halacha there are many contradictions between morality and Halacha. When I spoke about the interpretation of the Bible, I was referring to the interpretation of the narrative parts and not the Toshabeh. The Talmud and the Poskim certainly need to be studied, and certainly there are innovations in them.
3. Indeed, that is why I wrote that the methods they used need to be reconstructed. And I think that is not always the case with the Sages either. There is a clear impression that they also tampered with the Bible quite a bit to make it fit what they thought was right to do.
———————————————————————————————————————-
Asks:
peace,
Your answer concerns understanding the plain meaning of the Bible in the narrative dimension and drawing direct conclusions from it for our lives. In this area, you are certainly right, as we learned in a class at the time in the Lenbuch Hador regarding the story of creation and the theory of evolution, that scientific reality is certainly correct and can also be explained in the Bible. And to the extent that scientific understanding changes, the Bible will be forced to adapt to it, and not vice versa. Also, when we talked about myth and historical truth, you mentioned the pearly wisdom of the early pioneers, who did not see the Bible (at least the period of the patriarchs until the wilderness) as historical truth, but rather as ideas. This relates to the distinction that the Torah is not a book of history and facts.
There are two more aspects to the Torah, direct commands and using the text as a basis for study beyond writing in it.
Regarding the first aspect, it is true, as you wrote, that the Sages interpreted the text in their own way, and it often appears that the target was marked before the arrow. And in the future, when there is a Sanhedrin, the laws of the Torah may change. Are there not explicit laws and prohibitions that cannot be changed? How can we be bound by what is said by an unreliable and unknown source?
And in the second aspect, all logical halachic study carried out in the oral Torah is done on the basis of the text of the Bible. Everything starts from the premise that it is a foundational text from which to learn. If there are problems with the reliability of the text, how can we learn from it? Doesn't all halachic study start from the premise that the Torah is from heaven and therefore is the basis for the halachah that develops from it? How can we justify the existence of halachah that is sometimes based on a very technical study of the exactness of words and letters when the reliability of the text itself is in doubt?
You explained to me in the past that the source of the obligation today is the very acceptance of the Torah by the people of Israel. But doesn't this acceptance stem from the basic assumption that the Torah is from heaven?
thanks,
jubilee
———————————————————————————————————————-
Rabbi:
Indeed, the distinction is correct. The halakhic parts of the Torah have a different status, but that is not what is meant when we talk about the interpretation of the Bible. The interpretation of its halakhic parts is what we see in the Tosheva and the Talmud.
There are problems with the reliability of the text, although that's not what I'm talking about here. The assumption is that the text is reliable and original, but it's pretty clear that various elements have been added to it. Therefore, there is a presumption that it is reliable until proven otherwise. After all, everyone agrees that the text is based on evidence, as there are arguments even about letters and words in the Torah itself, and the Shulchan Aruch says that the majority and the evidence are decisive.
Kabbalah assumes that the Torah is from heaven, and it is indeed so. But this is only an assumption. There are exceptions that do not fundamentally change the situation.
———————————————————————————————————————-
Asks:
Thank you for your response!
What part do you think is from heaven?
Who said that the part that was added later is not the halakhic part?
And if so,
Why be committed to such a Torah?
Thank you very much!
ornament
———————————————————————————————————————-
Rabbi:
Here above in response to Yuval I addressed these questions. In short, I say that there is an assumption that the text before us is what is given from above, but as is the way with assumptions, they are based on a basic premise or starting point. Some of them are exceptions, but as long as something is not proven to be an exception, we refer to what is assumed. Thus, two witnesses are presumed to be kosher, although it is clear that there are also liars. Of course, when it is proven that they are liars, the assumption is deviated from. The same is true with respect to the biblical text. There is an assumption, but when there is good evidence, we deviate from it. As long as it is not proven, the assumption is that it is a divine text.
Already in the Shulchan Arbiter's Commentary it appears that in situations of doubt about the version in the Bible, most of the sources are followed, meaning that the text before us is not completely clean. This is also shown by biblical criticism. And yet the appeals are regarding relatively small parts (and the first ones have already commented on this). This can be in the halakhic parts or in others.
In the book I am currently writing on theology, I address these questions and their meanings in greater detail.
———————————————————————————————————————-
Asks:
"Kabbalah assumes that the Torah is from heaven and it is indeed so. But this is only an assumption. There are exceptions that do not fundamentally change the situation."
Who said that the majority is not the exception? Who said that the majority is given from heaven? Biblical criticism asserts, and provides convincing evidence for quite significant parts…
And regarding "In the book I am currently writing on theology, I deal with these questions and their meanings in greater detail" - we would be happy to give it a taste.
thanks!
ornament
———————————————————————————————————————-
Rabbi:
Hello, I'm fine.
The question of whether this is the majority is a question that every person must form a position on. The additions must also be discussed, whether they are secular additions or whether they were made in the Holy Spirit by prophets. Beyond that, as I wrote, our lives are not truly based on the Bible, and I do indeed take the accuracy of the letters in the Bible with quite limited guarantee. As is known, even in the traditional world there are disputes about the text of the Bible in certain letters or others.
To the best of my knowledge, biblical criticism does not provide evidence that there is anything late, except for a few isolated verses (like "until this day" and the like, and Rishon has already commented on this). Everything else there is a division of the text into documents. That's it. The timing of the writing of the documents is nothing more than a collection of unfounded and controversial speculation.
———————————————————————————————————————-
Asks:
And how do we know that the Tosha'a is from heaven?
ornament
———————————————————————————————————————-
Rabbi:
See the fifth notebook on the site about this. It is part of the tradition we have received, and it depends on the degree of trust you have in it.
Even if the Toshab'a is not from heaven, the Bible itself authorizes the sages to interpret the Bible (and do whatever it directs). And even if the Bible did not authorize the sages, the Talmudic interpretation was accepted by the Jewish people as the authentic and binding interpretation of the written Torah, so that even if there is a sage who thinks differently - the singular and the plural are the same as the plural. The principle of the singular and the plural are the same as the plural does not necessarily derive from the Toshab'a but rather from the understanding that the individual is subject to the halachic perception of the community, because it is the community that received the obligation at Sinai, and not the individual. More details here:
http://www.mikyab.com/single-post/2016/05/10/%D7%A1%D7%9E%D7%9B%D7%95%D7%AA-%D7%97%D7%96%D7%9C
Leave a Reply
Please login or Register to submit your answer