Q&A: Attitude toward Biblical Criticism
Attitude toward Biblical Criticism
Question
Hello Rabbi, I wanted to ask what your attitude is toward biblical criticism. I know of approaches, even among rabbis, that see biblical criticism as something serious, like Rabbi Breuer’s approach, who said:
“About forty years ago I examined the proofs of the scholars and the counterarguments of the faithful believers of Israel, and I became convinced beyond any shadow of a doubt that the scholars were right. Biblical scholars proved, as is well known, that the Torah was not written by a single person, but is the work of several authors. And it was not written in one generation—not in forty days and not in forty years—but is the product of a development spanning hundreds of years, and it reached its final form only after the Babylonian exile.
The faithful believers of Israel were horrified by these proofs, which seemed to them to contradict belief in Torah from Heaven. Therefore they claimed that all the proofs of the scholars amount to nothing. And indeed, one author could have written the entire Torah—from Genesis to ‘before 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 the Holy One, blessed be He, in several different voices, which are meant to express different “aspects” of His governance of the world. The literary analysis presented by the biblical critics reflects, according to the aspect approach, the integration of the different modes of divine action in the world.
There are also more far-reaching approaches, like that of the Bible scholar Israel Knohl, who sees the Torah as a document that was not written entirely by Moses from the mouth of the Holy One, blessed be He, but rather by several prophets from the mouth of the Holy One, blessed be He, over a long period of time (at least that’s how I understood him). It appears a bit in this link: http://www.daat.ac.il/daat/kitveyet/deot/kanohel.htm
Answer
I’m not knowledgeable enough about it to give an opinion. Since in general I don’t think very highly of the humanities, and since there’s a high dose of unfounded speculation there, I don’t find much interest in dealing with this topic (or with the Bible in general, even in the traditional form of studying it).
It’s clear that there are weighty arguments in favor of criticism, and I got the impression that Breuer’s approach is already outdated (there are apparently some pretty good arguments against it). But all this should be clarified with people who are more expert in it than I am.
Discussion on Answer
Even if the Oral Torah is not from Heaven, the Bible itself authorizes the Sages to interpret the Bible (“and you shall do according to what they instruct you”). And even if the Bible had not authorized the Sages, the Talmudic interpretation was accepted by the Jewish people as the authentic and binding interpretation of the Written Torah, so even if there is a sage who thinks otherwise—the law follows the majority against the individual. The principle that the law follows the majority against the individual does not necessarily stem from the Oral Torah, but follows from the understanding that the individual is subordinate to the halakhic conception of the collective, because it is the collective that accepted the obligation at Sinai, not the individual. Explained further 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
Questioner (elsewhere):
Hello,
You write, “I don’t find much interest in dealing with this topic (or with the Bible in general).”
Why?
Aren’t these critical questions for a person who lives his life in light of Jewish law derived from the Bible?
Thank you very much!
Hali
———————————————————————————————————————-
Rabbi:
Hello Hali.
I think none of us really lives in light of the Bible. Living according to Jewish law is not living according to the Bible. Not at all. Maybe it would be more accurate to say that these are lives lived despite the Bible (that is, first we decide what is right and then explain it through the Bible. It is only a delaying factor, not a directing factor).
Drawing nourishment from the Bible is a myth or ethos that all of us grew up and were educated on, but if we are honest, it does not stand up to the test of the facts. The Bible can be interpreted in a thousand ways, and of course also expounded homiletically. I was young and now I am old, and I have not seen anyone who thought intuitively one way but gave up his position because he found something else in the Bible. We all always interpret the Bible so that it fits our intuitions. Look at all the commentators on the Bible: they always explain it so that it fits our intuitions (some would define biblical interpretation that way). And if it doesn’t come out that way, we have plenty of excuses for why it can’t be implemented (think of the obligation to cleave to the attributes of the Holy One, blessed be He: just as He is jealous and avenging, so too you should be jealous and avenging. Or alternatively think about Jacob’s deceit and many other things. Are we supposed to implement that? How? Does it really mean we should throw away our moral principles?). Therefore I don’t find much point in it. If you draw the target after shooting the arrow, what is the point of shooting it?!
Jewish law has its own methods, and it does indeed deal with the Bible, but it seems to me that engaging with the Bible without the halakhic mediation of the Oral Torah has no connection to our lives in any way. Of course one can criticize this (and many do), but it seems to me that this is the character of our tradition and it is hard to deny it.
That is at least so long as we have not succeeded in reconstructing the methods of interpretation and exposition of the Sages. Quite a bit of work is being done on this today (I too have worked quite a lot on the hermeneutical principles), and I hope we will make progress and perhaps in the end succeed in understanding what the Bible is really telling us.
———————————————————————————————————————-
Questioner:
Thank you very much for your response.
A few things:
1. “That is at least so long as we have not succeeded in reconstructing the methods of interpretation and exposition of the Sages. Quite a bit of work is being done on this today (I too have worked quite a lot on the hermeneutical principles), and I hope we will make progress and perhaps in the end succeed in understanding what the Bible is really telling us.”
That’s the point—why invest in studying the Bible if it is simply a heap and compilation of plainly non-heavenly writings, written, edited, and copied imprecisely over the years? What relevance does the Bible have for us?
2. “I was young and now I am old, and I have not seen anyone who thought intuitively one way but gave up his position because he found something else in the Bible.”
Doesn’t the issue of homosexuality prove the opposite? People who think homosexuality is perfectly fine, not a disease in their eyes, yet the Bible calls it “an abomination” and prohibits male same-sex intercourse.
3. “Jewish law has its own methods, and it does indeed deal with the Bible, but it seems to me that engaging with the Bible without the halakhic mediation of the Oral Torah has no connection to our lives in any way. Of course one can criticize this (and many do), but it seems to me that this is the character of our tradition and it is hard to deny it.”
But from studying the Oral Torah it seems that the direction is the opposite—not from the Oral Torah to the Bible, as you say, but from the Bible to the Oral Torah. That is how the Sages bring proofs for things and for the logic of their halakhic positions.
Thank you very much!
Hali
———————————————————————————————————————-
Rabbi:
1. Who said they are not heavenly? What I said is that interpretation does not give us new conclusions. Independently of that, I indeed tend to think there are later additions to the Bible, but even that does not mean the Torah was not given from Heaven. As for the relevance of the Bible to us, I already wrote about that.
2. That is Jewish law. I am not talking about Jewish law. In Jewish law there are many contradictions between morality and law. When I spoke about interpretation of the Bible, I meant interpretation of the narrative sections and not the Oral Torah. The Talmud and the halakhic decisors certainly do need to be studied, and of course there are innovations there.
3. Indeed, and that is why I wrote that we need to reconstruct the methods they used. And even among the Sages it seems to me that this was not always the case. There is a clear impression that they too forced the Bible quite a bit so that it would fit what they thought was right to do.
———————————————————————————————————————-
Questioner:
Hello,
Your answer relates to understanding the plain meaning of the Bible in its narrative dimension and drawing direct conclusions from it for our lives. In that area you are certainly right, as we learned in class back then on “The Perplexed of the Generation” regarding the story of creation and the theory of evolution—that scientific reality is certainly correct, and it can also be explained through the Bible. And if scientific understanding changes, the Bible will have to adapt to it and not the other way around. Likewise, when we spoke about myth and historical truth, you mentioned Yedaya HaPenini, that there were medieval authorities who did not see the Bible (at least from the period of the patriarchs until the wilderness) as historical truth but as ideas. This relates to the distinction that the Torah is not a book of history and facts.
The Torah has two other aspects: direct commandments, and the use of the text as a basis for learning things beyond what is written in it.
Regarding the first aspect, it is true as you wrote that the Sages interpreted the text in their own way, and many times it seems the target was marked before the arrow. And in the future, when there is a Sanhedrin, Torah-level laws could change. Are there not explicit laws and prohibitions that cannot be changed? How can we be bound by what was said by an unreliable and unknown source?
And in the second aspect, all the logical halakhic learning carried out in the Oral Torah is done on the basis of the biblical text. Everything proceeds from the assumption that this is a foundational text from which one can learn. If there are problems with the reliability of the text, how can we learn from it? Doesn’t all halakhic learning proceed from the assumption that the Torah is from Heaven, and therefore it is the basis for the Jewish law that develops from it? How can we justify observing Jewish law that is sometimes based on really technical inferences from precise words and letters when the reliability of the text itself is in doubt?
In the past you explained to me that the source of obligation today is the very acceptance by the Jewish people of the Torah upon themselves. But doesn’t that acceptance stem from the basic assumption that the Torah is from Heaven?
Thank you,
Yuval
———————————————————————————————————————-
Rabbi:
That is indeed a correct distinction. The halakhic parts of the Torah have a different status, but that is not what people mean when they talk about biblical interpretation. Interpretation of its halakhic parts is what we see in the Oral Torah and in the Talmuds.
There are problems with the reliability of the text, although here that is not what I was discussing. The assumption is that the text is reliable and original, but it is quite clear that various elements were 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 presumptions, because there are disputes even about letters and words in the Torah itself, and in the Shulchan Arukh it is written that we decide according to the majority and according to presumptions.
The acceptance assumes that the Torah is from Heaven, and indeed it is. But that is only the presumption. There are exceptions that do not essentially change the situation.
———————————————————————————————————————-
Questioner:
Thank you for your response!
Which part, in your opinion, is from Heaven?
Who says that the part added later is not the halakhic part?
And if so,
why be obligated to such a Torah?
Thank you very much!
Hali
———————————————————————————————————————-
Rabbi:
Above, in my answer to Yuval, I addressed these questions. In short I will say that there is a presumption that the text before us is what was given from above, but like presumptions in general they are based on an underlying assumption or point of departure. There are exceptions to them, but as long as it has not been proven that something is an exception, we treat it according to what is presumed. Thus two witnesses are presumed valid even though it is obvious that there are also liars. Of course, when it is proven that they are liars, we depart from the presumption. The same applies to the biblical text. There is a presumption, but when there is good evidence we depart from it. As long as it has not been proven otherwise, the assumption is that this is a divine text.
Already in the Shulchan Arukh it appears that in situations of uncertainty about the version in the Bible, one follows the majority of sources; that is, the text before us is not completely pristine. Biblical criticism shows this as well. Still, the challenges concern relatively small parts (and the medieval authorities already noted this). This could be in the halakhic parts or in others.
In the book I am currently writing on theology, I deal with these questions and their implications at much greater length.
———————————————————————————————————————-
Questioner:
“The acceptance assumes that the Torah is from Heaven, and indeed it is. But that is only the presumption. There are exceptions that do not essentially change the situation.”
Who says the majority is not the exception? That is, who says most of it was given from Heaven? Biblical criticism argues this, and brings convincing proofs regarding quite substantial parts…
And regarding “In the book I am currently writing on theology, I deal with these questions and their implications at much greater length”—we’d be happy for a taste..
Thanks!
Hali
———————————————————————————————————————-
Rabbi:
Hello Hali.
The question of whether it is the majority is a question each person needs to form a position about. And the additions too must be considered: are they ordinary human additions, or were they made with divine inspiration by prophets? Beyond that, as I wrote, our lives really are not based on the Bible, and I do indeed treat inferences from biblical letters with rather limited confidence. As is known, even in the traditional world there are disputes about the wording of the Bible in one letter or another.
To the best of my knowledge, biblical criticism does not bring evidence that anything is late, aside from a few isolated verses (such as “to this day” and the like, and the medieval authorities already noted this). Everything else there is just dividing the text into documents. That and no more. The dating of the documents is nothing but a collection of unfounded speculations, and disputed ones at that.
———————————————————————————————————————-
Questioner:
And how do we know that the Oral Torah is from Heaven?
Hali
———————————————————————————————————————-
Rabbi:
See about this in the fifth notebook on the site. It is part of the tradition we received, and the matter depends on the degree of trust you have in it.