Question

Hello Rabbi,
In Split you wrote that just as with Jewish law, authenticity is not a necessary condition for commitment, so too regarding the biblical text.
This is the closest thing we have to the original, and that is what we work with. This is a normative decision, not a determination of historical fact. Therefore, the Documentary Hypothesis does not force especially dramatic theological conclusions.
Why does that comparison hold?
With regard to Jewish law, we have philosophical considerations—in many cases it is impossible to understand anything from the Written Torah alone, and it is clear that interpretation is necessary. We also have religious considerations—”do not turn aside from the matter that they tell you,” the Torah itself says that one should listen to what the sages said (true, it is the sages who interpreted the verse that way, but from the plain meaning it clearly seems that this is the intent, and the philosophical consideration joins in here as well).
In other words, interpretation in Jewish law, and the lack of commitment to authenticity, are ideal from the outset and not merely ex post facto.
By contrast, with regard to the biblical text, what considerations do we have? I do not know of any philosophical ones, and I also do not know of any reference to this in the Torah (and if there were, it would run into the same problem itself… who says the text there is correct).
It sounds like regarding the text this is entirely ex post facto.
If so, what force and justification does this normative decision have? “The best we have” feels a bit shaky to me if it stands on its own.
Thank you,
Nathan
 
By the way, I think biblical criticism is one of the few issues that really challenges a believing person today. Issues like Torah and science, evolution, and even Jewish law and morality no longer trouble someone who knows the religious discourse a bit and is familiar with the classic questions and answers. And someone who is not troubled by it usually simply has not heard about the issue. You did write about it in the book, but I felt there were places where you could have gone into more detail (for example, the present question). If you have more to add on the subject and its theological implications beyond what was written in the book, I would be very glad if you could devote a column to it.