Bible Criticism

שו”ת › Category: faith › Bible Criticism

asked 8 years ago

Good week Rabbi
Recently I was exposed to various theories in “biblical criticism.” Some relate to comparisons with other cultures, some to the form of writing and the division into documents, etc.
Although I know that all of these are considered “theories” that are usually based on the opinions of researchers and not on objective foundations from Scripture, it seems that sometimes there is also truth in these claims.
I also read Rabbi Bezeq’s book on the subject and Rabbi Breuer’s opinion, and it’s nice to know that there are references to the subject.
But is it possible that beyond what Shazl has already addressed, for example the Rashbam, the researchers’ hypotheses (regarding the various documents, for example) actually show that we must change the way we view the Torah? That is, admit our mistakes? Or at least admit that we may be wrong and that the solutions we offer may not be satisfactory? And if so, what is the price we are forced to pay? Because I personally would be happy if I could accommodate such claims and at the same time not risk losing faith or losing the fundamental principles of Judaism.
I would love to hear your opinion on the matter.
Thank you very much and have a good week!

Discover more from הרב מיכאל אברהם

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

Leave a ReplyCancel reply

0 Answers

0 Vote Up Vote Down

מיכי Staff answered 8 years ago

Hello A. What Rabbi Breuer is trying to do is exactly that. To allow you to hold onto these theories and remain a believer and committed. He of course gives up on the historical dimension of biblical study and claims that all the “documents” are from Sinai. Perhaps you mean to ask whether it is possible to adopt the historical dimension as well. I think so, and as far as I remember, Rabbi Bezeq speaks of it this way. He does, however, speak of individual verses that were later (there is an article by Miriam Whitman in Magadim that cites several examples from the words of the first who wrote this way: Sefer Hasidim, Hatzioni, Abaz, and more). There are religious scholars today who go further, such as Baruch Schwartz. They claim that it is possible and right to adopt the claims of the later editing and remain a believer and committed. Biblical criticism does not show that there was no Mount Sinai event, but that the Torah given there developed and underwent a later editing before it reached us. To the best of my judgment, as long as we accept that there was an event there and that there was an encounter with God, there is no reason to hold to everything. The fact that the Torah was compiled does not mean that its origin is not divine. If prophets compiled various ancient books and traditions and did so in the Holy Spirit, this does not harm the divine origin. Schwartz also shows with research tools that it is very likely that such traditions existed and that the editing was only a later one.

Discover more from הרב מיכאל אברהם

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

מוש replied 8 years ago

Hello Rabbi, does Schwartz have a book or article that the Rabbi can refer to?

ממש לא סביר replied 8 years ago

In the 1st of Adar, 8th of the month

If there were different tribes, each with a different ‘Torah’, how could they all be united? Unity could be achieved by a single political or spiritual leadership, in front of which the opposing opinions would ‘bow down’. And even in the days of the First Temple, there was a deep political and tribal division among the people of Israel. There were only very brief periods of political unity (such as in the days of David and Solomon), when the division continued beneath the surface, and unity quickly disintegrated. There was a brief period of unity in the days of Josiah, and shortly after that the people were scattered to all corners of the earth.
And behold, it is a wonder, in all corners of the world Jews possess the same five books of the Torah. Even the Samaritans, who did not accept the centrality of Jerusalem, possess the same Torah scroll, with only minor changes. Such a situation of one Torah scroll for all the factions of the scattered and divided people – cannot be explained except by the fact that the Torah was the property of the Jewish people from the very beginning of its creation, before entering the land, which led to the division into different regions. The common basis was preserved despite the geographical and political division.

Best regards, Sh”z Levinger

מיכי Staff replied 8 years ago

I think his main article is here:
http://www.kotar.co.il/KotarApp/Viewer.aspx?nBookID=95229718#17.8741.6.default
(This is just a reference. Maybe you can find the article itself online. If you send me an email, I will send it to you in a file)

מוש replied 8 years ago

Thank you very much, Rabbi.

מיכי Staff replied 8 years ago

I did not address the inherent problematic nature of these areas of research. They are saturated with agendas and presuppositions that are not always well-founded. Everyone here is “religious,” much like evolution. Therefore, one must be very careful when reading such materials, because the full picture is usually not presented there. This is in addition to the fundamental weakness of these areas of research as part of the sciences of regret (sometimes a single finding can change the entire picture from end to end, and therefore I doubt to what extent it is possible to draw conclusions from such areas at all).