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
