Q&A: Biblical Criticism
Biblical Criticism
Question
Good week, Rabbi,
Recently I’ve been exposed a bit to various theories in “biblical criticism.” Some have to do with comparisons to other cultures, some with writing style and the division into documents, and so on.
True, I know that all these are in the category of “theories,” which are usually based on scholars’ opinions and not on objective proof from the text, but it seems that sometimes there is truth in these claims as well.
I also read Rabbi Bazak’s book on the subject and Rabbi Breuer’s view, and it’s nice to know there are ways of addressing the issue.
But is it possible that beyond what the Sages already addressed—for example Rashbam—there really are cases where the scholars’ hypotheses (regarding the different documents, for example) show that we need to change the way we see the Torah? That is, to admit our mistakes? Or at least to admit that we may be mistaken and that the solutions we offer may not be sufficient? And if so, what price would we have to pay? Because personally I would be happy if I could contain such claims while at the same time not risk losing faith or losing the fundamental principles of Judaism.
I would be glad to hear your opinion on the matter.
Thank you very much, and have a good week!
Answer
Hello A.,
What Rabbi Breuer is trying to do is exactly that: to enable you to hold those theories and remain believing and committed. He of course gives up the historical dimension of biblical scholarship and argues that all the “documents” are from Sinai.
Perhaps what you mean to ask is whether one can also adopt the historical dimension. I think so, and as far as I remember, Rabbi Bazak speaks that way. True, he speaks about individual verses that were later additions (there is an article by Miriam Witman in Megadim that brings quite a few examples from the medieval authorities who wrote this way: Sefer Hasidim, HaTzioni, Ibn Ezra, and others).
There are religious scholars today who go further, such as Baruch Schwartz. In their view, it is possible and proper to adopt the claims of later redaction and still remain believing and committed. Biblical criticism does not show that there was no revelation at Mount Sinai, but rather that the Torah given there developed and underwent later editing before reaching us. To the best of my judgment, as long as one accepts that there was such an event and that it involved an encounter with the Holy One, blessed be He, there is no obstacle to holding all of this.
The fact that the Torah was edited does not mean its source is not divine. If prophets edited books and various earlier traditions and did so with divine inspiration, that does not detract from the divine source. Schwartz also shows, using scholarly tools, that it is highly likely that such traditions existed and that only the editing was later.
Discussion on Answer
With God’s help, 11 Adar 5778
If there were different tribes, each with a different “Torah,” how could they all be unified? Unification can happen through a single political or spiritual leadership, before which conflicting views “bend.” But among the Jewish people there was, even in the First Temple period, deep political and tribal fragmentation. There were only very brief periods of political unity (such as in the days of David and Solomon), while beneath the surface the divisions continued, and very quickly the unity fell apart. There was another short period of unity in the days of Josiah, and shortly afterward the people were scattered to the ends of the earth.
And yet amazingly, in all corners of the world Jews hold the same Five Books of the Torah. Even the Samaritans, who did not accept the centrality of Jerusalem, preserve the same Torah scroll aside from minor changes. Such a situation—a single Torah scroll for all the factions of a scattered and divided people—cannot be explained except by the fact that the Torah was the possession of the Jewish people from the very beginning of its formation, before entering the Land, which brought about division into different regions. The common foundation was preserved despite the geographic and political fragmentation.
Best regards,
Shatz Levinger
I think his main article is here:
http://www.kotar.co.il/KotarApp/Viewer.aspx?nBookID=95229718#17.8741.6.default
(This is only a reference. Maybe the article itself can be found online. If you send me an email, I’ll send you the file.)
Thank you very much, Rabbi.
I didn’t address the built-in problems in these fields of research. They are saturated with agenda and with prior assumptions that are not always well founded. Everyone here is “religious,” more or less like in evolution. So one has to be very careful when reading such material, because the full picture is usually not presented there. That is aside from the inherent shakiness of these research fields as part of the pseudo-sciences (sometimes a single finding can change the whole picture from one extreme to the other, so I’m doubtful how far any conclusions can really be drawn from such fields at all).
Hello Rabbi, does Schwartz have a book or article the Rabbi could point me to?