Q&A: My intuition tells me that the Torah scroll looks like a human creation
My intuition tells me that the Torah scroll looks like a human creation
Question
I accept the Rabbi’s proofs about the Planner who designed the laws of nature, and that He implanted moral laws within us.
Maybe I even accept that He expects something more from us and needs to convey it to us. But I can’t accept the belief that the Torah was written by, or under the inspiration of, that same Planner, because of the huge gap between inventing the laws of nature and writing a book like this.
When I expect to see a book that is a human creation from thousands of years ago, I expect the book to be written in a language that fits the place and time those people lived in, to reflect the writing level of that period, the moral level, and the level of scientific knowledge.
When I expect to see a book created by the smartest and most sophisticated being in the world, I expect a book written in the most brilliant way possible, one that it is hard to even imagine a human being wrote. Just as I cannot imagine a human being who could invent the laws of nature, or create a galaxy.
In my opinion, the Torah fits much more into the first category: it looks and sounds exactly like human works that match the spirit of the period in terms of knowledge, morality, and artistic level.
My intuition tells me that if it looks like a human creation, then it is a human creation. It is exactly the reverse of the argument from complexity. If it’s complex, then there is an intelligent designer. If it’s a clock that looks like a medieval clock, then apparently the clockmaker is medieval too.
And if God worked so hard to make the book look as though human beings wrote it, and not as though the entity that created all of nature wrote it, then maybe it isn’t all that important to Him that people think He wrote it.
Answer
All I can do is console you that your expectations were disappointed. I’ll speak here on behalf of the Holy One, blessed be He, and tell you in His name that He doesn’t work for you and isn’t obligated to write books according to your expectations.
Discussion on Answer
Rabbi, God doesn’t work for us, and that’s all well and good. Still, if it were critical to God that we do what He wants us to do, He at least could have made His will clearer.
A book whose divinity was proven from within itself would spare us the intellectual dilemmas (is the Torah true) and leave only the personal-instinctual dilemmas, thereby preserving the value of actions done by free choice.
I assume you do not accept the standard outreach-world assumption that things are intentionally ambiguous so that a person has the choice not to believe.
I didn’t understand the question. You’re stating your position, so that is your position. What do you mean by “a problem”? I don’t agree.
By “a problem” I mean that maybe there is some probabilistic flaw. If you don’t agree, then in your opinion there is a “problem” with my position.
Do you agree that this is a more reasonable assumption than “the entire Torah that is in our hands” was transmitted at Mount Sinai word for word?
If not, do you believe that “the entire Torah,” etc., or are you proposing some other alternative?
I don’t see the slightest connection here to probabilities. There are considerations of plausibility. In my view your position is much less plausible than the traditional position. And in general, I see no reason at all to separate the halakhic part (the commandments) from the other parts. I have already written that I am not inclined to accept that the entire Torah in our possession is from Sinai word for word.
Claims directed at God should be directed to Him. Not long ago I returned the mandate I had received to serve as His ambassador.
I’ve read quite a few of the Rabbi’s writings and several amazing books. For some reason I haven’t yet come across this topic. Where is the Rabbi’s doctrine presented? (If there is another place besides The First Cause, which I don’t currently have with me.)
My doctrine on which issue?
What was given and what was not given at Mount Sinai.
And maybe also, if there is one, some broader treatment of biblical criticism — although I’ve read that the Rabbi says again and again that this is not his field of work. (Maybe not a response to concrete claims, but more a general attitude toward the field.)
You wrote that you are not inclined to accept that the entire Torah in our possession was received word for word, but you also didn’t agree with my hypothesis. I’d be glad to see your view in more detail, if there is such a place.
In The First Cause I briefly described my doctrine on this matter, as well as my attitude toward biblical criticism. In general, I tend toward the approach of Yehuda Schwartz that was brought there.
I just now saw an article by Rabbi Yoel Bin-Nun here: https://www.knowingfaith.co.il/%D7%9E%D7%A7%D7%A8%D7%90-%D7%95%D7%90%D7%A8%D7%9B%D7%99%D7%90%D7%95%D7%9C%D7%95%D7%92%D7%99%D7%94/%D7%AA%D7%95%D7%A8%D7%AA-%D7%94%D7%AA%D7%A2%D7%95%D7%93%D7%95%D7%AA-%D7%9E%D7%A7%D7%A8%D7%90-%D7%95%D7%91%D7%99%D7%A7%D7%95%D7%A8%D7%AA-%D7%9E%D7%93%D7%A2-%D7%95%D7%9E%D7%A1%D7%95%D7%A8%D7%AA
It is accepted in our tradition that the Torah and some of the principles of the Oral Torah were given at Sinai. There are verses that are obviously later additions (the most prominent among them being “to this very day”). Beyond those, there is a presumption that everything is from Sinai, and therefore as long as no good proof is brought regarding this or that verse, they all retain that presumption. I see no logic at all in saying that the legal verses are from Sinai and the rest are additions.
Is there a problem with assuming that at the giving of the Torah the Jewish laws were given, and maybe a few guidelines and the thirteen interpretive principles, and later the Torah was written as a kind of memorandum?
That sounds more plausible to me, and it explains a lot when you can assume additions and human errors and the writing of irrelevant events.
Aside from becoming a de jure heretic, it leaves you as a normal religious person. Maybe with a bit less reverence for the text.
That’s what I had assumed until now; it sounded to me like a theory that fits modern findings and analyses well. Is there a problem with that?