1.Methodological Criticism
The one is a criticism of the basic methodology which is to say that the theory behind the Documentary Hypothesis is just wrong. Either it's because they misinterpret the evidence, or it's because their evidence is non-existent in the first place etc. etc. This was the approach of Umberto Cassuto, who though no believer in Orthodox TMS, criticized the methodology and assumptions underlying the specifics of the Graf-Wellhausen Hypothesis. The logical implication of this approach is that the DH methodology is complete rubbish (or partially rubbish) and can NEVER be applied to literature Biblical or otherwise.
This above approach is somewhat difficult because according to this "school", the question of DH or not is not (theoretically) one of religion vs. atheism or Right Wing Religion vs. Left Wing Religion. Rather the question is purely one of literary criticism and is really one of bad literary criticism vs. good literary criticism. However we find that the fault line between the advocates of unified authorship and the advocates of single authorship almost invariably falls between Orthodox Jews and Right Wing Christians on the ones side and everyone else on the other which leads one to suspect that maybe this is a religious issue after all.
2. Epistemological Criticism
The other approach used to reject the DH is that the methodology is certainly sound but has unfortunately been misapplied. In other words were the Torah a natural man-made text then the advocates of the DH would be right. However the Torah is supernatural, a book revealed by God to Moshe and cannot be dissected with the same tools used on human works of literature. Mordechai Breur tried to turn this approach into an entire new methodology while most apologists merely comment (usually with little further explanation) that God cannot be expected to write books in the same way as man and his "writing style" is just as unknowable as him.
This harks back to the (primarily Christian) Medieval Averroist idea of the double truth. The double truth asserts in one way or another that naturalism and science (in those days Aristotleanism) definitively tell us one thing about God and the universe (e.g. that the universe is coeternal with God). In that respect a naturalistic methodology is correct. However there is another source of truth i.e. revelation or faith that gives us another view of the world. In other words one "knows" one thing as a philosopher and another as a man/woman of faith. In the case of the DH, as literary critics the DH'ers are correct, but we as Orthodox Jews know through supernatural revelation that the normal rules of literary analysis do not apply here because men didn't write this book the supernatural God did. אין כל חדש תחת השמש
(One little problem with this methodology BTW is that it can easily be modified to reject evolution or old Earth. If literary critics are right according to "science" and wrong according to revelation then why can't scientists be right according to science and wrong according to revelation/)
3. Now What?
I just want to end by making a point about the state of modern Orthodox apologetics about this critical issue. It seems to me that some Orthodox apologists kind of want to keep their feet in both camps. People who criticize the methodology of the DH often at the same time criticize the very use of methodological naturalism on the Torah. (e.g. Dovid Gottlieb here bringing both views )
Any Orthodox person who goes solely with the second approach really should admit that the DH'ers were right from a literary point of view and should STOP being so disparaging of Bible Criticism. Rejecting the DH'ers methodologically AND epistemologically is completely superfluous. I suppose it's theoretically possible that the DH'ers are wrong on two counts but it looks a bit fishy when a lot of people adopts two arguments with nothing in common except the result which just happens to be a result which is a required belief of an Orthodox Jew.
What do you think?
Posts
17 comments:
Yes, but you don't deal with the linguistic differences.
I think that the idea that the mabul made carbon dating inaccurate is something tacked onto the general idea that the mabul made the world look older than it is. I doubt that those who first came up with this insight had any idea how carbon dating works. It would actually make more sense to say that the ages derived from carbon dating are like dinosaur bones and starlight: artificially old because the world was created as an “adult” just as the animals were created fully grown.
You make a good point I think the "flood made things look old" idea was first expressed by the Malbim back in the 19th century long before carbon dating. It would seem that the idea has been superficially transferred to account for carbon dating. I think Meiselman's new book will expound on the "theory" behind all of this.
You're gonna make my head big with your kind compliments ;-) thank you.
I agree that the DH (like all theories) is based on facts and more importantly interpretation (which is hard by definition to quite remove from the realm of subjectivity) and I'm glad that you've reminded us of that important and oft forgotten distinction.
However any contending theory to the DH MUST deal SPECIFICALLY with the objective facts. The facts are objectively THERE and cannot be denied. The question is - is there a better theory to explain those oddities?
Any Orthodox response of academic value would have to not merely say "well this is how it happened" but rather would have to create a system which explains the textual variations as comprehensively as the DH. A possible explanation I suppose could be that the variations are not significant or that they are completely random and are expected in any text. Such arguments have effectively been made in opposition to Bible Codes but not as far as I know in opposition to the textual variations noted by the DH. (Though I do believe there might be one mathematical study in Israel on the topic but I'll have to check.)
Summing things up: a "successful" alternative to the DH must realize the distinction between facts and interpretation, accept the facts which are indisputable, and come up with a comprehensive system to interpret them differently. Most Orthodox apologetics that I have had the dubious privilege of hearing and reading avoid discussing the facts and focus solely on the interpretation. (For example all Orthodox apologetics stress the Hegelian and "Teutonic" influences on Wellhausen's system though in not so many words)
That must have been some pretty crazy flood water to cause ridiculously fast decay of carbon isotopes. I wonder if the Rabbis have ever tested the affects of water on carbon to see if it accelerates decay. Or is it not so much the water as direct intervention on God's part which coincidentally coincided with a big flood. Tzarich Iyun.
G*3,
nishtana hateva - how do you argue with that?!?!? seriously?
i love when i get an eye-roll from my rabbi when i bring up carbon dating - THE FLOOD MADE ALL THE DATA WRONG
And even made the light from each star have its own redshift, to super trick us!
> Thats what god wanted to do? trick us?
At least it’s consistent. After all, God put dinosaur bones in the ground to make the world look old, and created the universe with the light from distant stars already reaching Earth. Why not a book that reads like mythology, can only be understood through complex exegesis, and often says the exact opposite of what it means?
Maybe God likes a good practical joke.
I think when it comes to the DH (or source criticism in general) it's a little above mere subjective interpretation. Basically it comes down to this certain word or these certain idioms ALWAYS (or more frequent than can be attributed to chance) appear together. Those are more than interpretations but facts which can be checked. What you do with that information I suppose is up to the interpreter (maybe the author had a specific reason for doing that etc.) but the underlying facts are still not totally subjective.
But you do make a good point that one can agree to the underlying objective facts but interpret them differently (and that could be influence by religious considerations). So perhaps there is more of a middle road between complete rejection and complete acceptance.
Nevertheless I am yet to see a compelling Orthodox argument which takes account of linguistic and thematic elements yet comes out with single authorship and it is the Orthodox position which interests me in this post. (there are of course alternatives to the DH but they don't fit with Orthodoxy, Cassuto included)
"saying two seemingly contradictory things which are then reconciled by a Gemara is a rather peculiar way of conveying information"
taking a step back and trying to remove your bias (garnel, uh hum) - its just mind boggling to think that people really believe the creator of the universe gave these nomads a book, A BOOK - which is completely unreadable, does not flow, many many issues - and the explanation? torah she'ba'al peh! Thats what god wanted to do? trick us?
I mean, its just mind-boggling
which ones?
Lol perhaps. But I'm pretty consistent in calling the DH the DH (not "source criticism") and calling Jews Jews (not Hebrews or Israelites) but further analysis is definitely required ;)
>> Any Orthodox person who goes solely with the second approach really should admit that the DH'ers were right from a literary point of view and should STOP being so disparaging of Bible Criticism. Rejecting the DH'ers methodologically AND epistemologically is completely superfluous. I suppose it's theoretically possible that the DH'ers are wrong on two counts but it looks a bit fishy when a lot of people adopts two arguments with nothing in common except the result which just happens to be a result which is a required belief of an Orthodox Jew.
This is written with a slightly different writing style than the rest of your post. I'm going to assume it was written by someone else. O.o
>And his is the only word on the subject?
Of course not but you seemed to characterize the Netziv's and Rav Hirsch's view as "what every Orthodox Jew" believes. It's quite clear that at least one "Orthodox" Jew believed that the majority of what we call the Oral Torah was in fact innovative. If you have a kashya on the Rambam (which many notably the Chavot Yair do) then that's a different story.
>That's what a good 45% of the gemara is for, to explain those contradictions. One verse says this, one verse says that, so how does the gemara reconcile it?
I understand completely but one can ask why the Torah wasn't more clear and less misleading. One has to admit that saying two seemingly contradictory things which are then reconciled by a Gemara is a rather peculiar way of conveying information. The DH has it's explanation and the "Oral Torah Approach" would have to cite the Epistemological Approach.
>Again, it frequently does but not in a way accepted by modern academics.
I don't know very many cases but I would be extremely interested too be shown examples to that effect (besides the well known difference between the divine names)
>Only later on, oops, they discovered that in Avraham's time there were indeed camels.
That's a matter of archaeology and the DH has very little to do with Archaeology. But once on topic the question is not whether there were camels but rather when did camels become fully domesticated. You can find camel remnants without that necessarily indicating that the camels are domesticated. But I don't know enough about the archaeology to do the subject justice.
>As a result, any proof the DH brings about linguistic difficulties can either be explained as intentional in the text, put there by God Himself
Precisely that is the epistemological approach which I mentioned here.
>or the result of a linguistic twist not yet discovered.
It's a little more complex than "a linguistic twist" and I'm not sure how new discoveries could inform our ability to better analyze the text. But either way that would be the Methodological Approach and so it looks like your citing both approaches without quite drawing the line between them. This post was just a presentation of the approaches NOT a criticism of them.
>Actually they're mentioned over and over and over again. They're called z'keinim etc.
Zekenim/neviim are never described as scholars or rememberers. What I'm looking for is reference to people being "scholarly" just like we have references to people prophesying and people officiating as priests.
Shilton,
You draw a good distinction in identifying the 2 types of arguments against the DH.
I would offer a couple of thoughts.
In discussing the first argument, you write: "The logical implication of this approach is that the DH methodology is complete rubbish (or partially rubbish) and can NEVER be applied to literature Biblical or otherwise."
A number of careful thinkers have pointed out that because literary criticism--like various forms of psychology, sociology, and other "soft" sciences, and unlike a great deal of mathematics, biology, and other hard sciences--engages in so much interpretation and speculation, its conclusions should at best be seen as possibly accurate, to varying degrees of plausibility...and, of course, what degree one assigns any particular conclusion will rely heavily on subjective judgment.
Once we acknowledge that literary criticism of the sort applied by the DH is built heavily upon interpretation, alternative interpretations are fair game. Indeed, if one has an important reason to seek alternative explanations--such as religious commitment--it's understandable that one would go about doing so. And in this way, the first and second approach in a way get melded: the purported source of the Torah (according to religious tradition) makes alternative interpretations far more desirable and "plausible" to the religious.
And I think it would be fair to concede that academia overall, and the bulk of DH scholars in particular, are "nogeah b'davar" too. Just as we see how invested a rabbi is in Judaism, and don't consider him an unbiased authority on religion, so to some degree (though perhaps to a lesser degree) should we see experts in a highly speculative field, experts who have spent decades investing their time and energy and prestige in a particular theory and the world view it reflects.
So I would say that the DH can be legitimately criticized as subjective speculation--which is sometimes very intelligent and persuasive--even if one doesn't see it as "rubbish" or something that "can never be applied to literature..." Applied? Yes. But on matters that depend so much on interpretation, with what legitimate confidence of accuracy? There's the rub. When grown men weave “just so” stories—more sophisticated versions of how the camel got its hump—things can seem compelling; but they are not necessarily true. Neither a good svara nor an impressive drasha constitute a raiah.
In short—and I’m not religious, but do respect the Bible both as literature and the literary repository of ancient traditions—I think one can strike a moderate pose of neither rejecting out of hand the DH’s methods nor accepting their conclusions as anything close to the final word…on any kind of literature. It's not that it's rubbish, but it sure isn't hard science either.
>Academics assume that the Oral Law was invented by "the rabbis" around 1500-1800 years ago and that all the explanations of the irregularities and discrepancies are apologetics they invented to cover the problems with the Torah's text.
That's a parody of what academics believe. In fact academics tend to believe that we already find midrash (=Oral Law) in the later books of Tanach, and we also find a relationship between the language of the later books (yes, no Solomonic books) and Mishnaic Hebrew. Thus what we have is a seamless continuity from biblical to rabbinic Judaism. No one was making anything up, and traditions were generally reported as traditions, even if the actual antiquity of them were exaggerated, assumed or unknown. This, I believe, more accurately represents what academics believe about the development of rabbinic Judaism than that it was invented at a specific point in time.
Of course this is in a sense an inversion of Wellhausen, who had rabbinic Judaism as a debased form of the cultic Judaism of the Temple which itself was a devolved form of religion from the time of the prophets, with Jesus renewing the true spirituality of the prophets. Here the academics believe that Rabbinic Judaism is an authentic heir of biblical Judaism, that it even began during the biblical period.
Where to begin?
> the Rambam reduces explicit traditions from Sinai to only those halachot designated as such (halacha le'Moshe MiSinai) while leaving everything else to the cumulative innovations which exegetes derived using the 13 middot
And his is the only word on the subject? The gemara itself and other Rishonim note that the difference between Halacha l'Moshe MiSinai and other rules is that there are no disagreements with the former. No one disagrees that a sukkah needs 3 walls, no one disagrees with 39 categories of labour on Shabbos, etc. In addition, it's also easily acknowledged that the Oral Law grew after its initial appearance at Sinai to handle novel situations. That's where basic halachic principles come in.
> but does not explain why the contradictions (or if you prefer oddities) are there in the first place
It absolutely does. That's what a good 45% of the gemara is for, to explain those contradictions. One verse says this, one verse says that, so how does the gemara reconcile it? One verse seems repetitive or has superfluous words, why so? And so on.
> the Oral Torah does not really address the linguistic evidence offered by the DH
Again, it frequently does but not in a way accepted by modern academics. In addition, one must remember that modern academics only work with what information they have available and that the standard of current information is always changing. The famous example of this is Avraham Avinu and the camels. Once upon a time we were told "proof" of the Torah's late antiquity was Avraham using camels when it was clearly established that camels only appeared in Israel centuries later. Only later on, oops, they discovered that in Avraham's time there were indeed camels. As a result, any proof the DH brings about linguistic difficulties can either be explained as intentional in the text, put there by God Himself, or the result of a linguistic twist not yet discovered.
> Such a "scholarly class" is never mentioned anywhere in the Tanach
Actually they're mentioned over and over and over again. They're called z'keinim, "the Elders" in the text of Tanach from the time of Moshe Rabeinu, a"h, down to the destruction of the First Temple. In addition, the nevi'im were also part of this scholarly class responsible for the transmission of the Oral Tradition.
Post a Comment