Is it not somewhat interesting that no Orthodox (that I know of - except maybe Cassuto) - TMS supporting - scholar has ever sat down and methodically discussed and given alternative explanations for the textual variations in the Pentateuch - the likes of which are used to establish the veracity of the Documentary Hypothesis. Sure, I think everyone has taken a crack at explaining the differences between YHWH and Elohim, or the differences between Yaakov and Yisrael - but I'm yet to see an Orthodox scholar sit down and explain the convergence of evidence surrounding these variations.
I've discussed the evidence of the DH in detail in the past. By convergence of evidence I mean the fact that not only does God's name change but also different sets of vocabulary and terminology accompany each name change AND name changes often correspond to parallel accounts.
So even if Umberto Cassuto, or M.Z. Segel give alternative explanations as to why God is sometimes called YHWH and sometimes called Elohim - AFAIK they have never explained WHY these changes are accompanied by other textual variations. When you find three or more types of variations all occurring in tandem - you have to wonder if there isn't some sort of pattern....
Orthodox "rebuttals" of Biblical criticism always deal with generalities. They will try to knock down general principles of the DH without even referring to the "boring", pedantic word lists which the theory is based on....
Part of the fault here is that of modern, popular supporters of the DH who fail to make their case. Richard Elliot Friedman's - Who Wrote the Bible - presents the conclusion of Biblical criticism - clearly explaining who is J who is E etc. But he barely makes any sort of convincing case for these divisions, he just assumes they are true. It is sad that I was only convinced of the (basic idea) of the DH by referring to books from the 20's. Maybe modern Biblical scholarship (or at least the type of Biblical scholarship available to us laypeople, perhaps in the academic world there is more discussion about the nitty gritty) suffers from misplaced confidence that it's theories are well established facts and no longer feels a need to try proving it...
Either ways I laugh every time I hear a response from Orthodoxy to Bible Criticism . Sometimes friends of mine confront me and ask me if I realize that it's all rubbish made up by Protestant antisemites. I invariably ask them if they sat with a Chumash and a word list and highlighted word and name variations in the different chapters of Genesis.
Most of them grudgingly have to admit they haven't.
For some reason these confident critics of Biblical scholarship never found the time to actually do the dirty work and check how many times it says והקימותי את בריתי or ויעצב אל לבו in Genesis.
Leave the Bible scholarship to those who are willing to sit and read word lists.
And don't trust the Kiruv Klowns because they are too busy looking for Torah codes to open up S.R. Driver....
Posts
No New Post Today
1 day ago
25 comments:
I cannot make sense of your first sentence: "Is it not somewhat interesting that no Orthodox (that I know of - except maybe Cassuto) - TMS supporting - scholar has ever sat down and methodically discussed and given alternative explanations for the textual variations in the Pentateuch - the likes of which are used to establish the veracity of the Documentary Hypothesis." Why would anyone who supports TMS want to offer an "alternative" (by which I assume you mean non-TMS) explanation of the textual variations that support TMS? TMS want to offer an "alternative" (by which I assume you mean non-TMS) explanation of the textual variations that support TMS?
I think I've done it.
Advocates of the Documentary Hypothesis point out that different parts of the Torah are written in different styles. There is a simple explanation for this. The Talmud many times mentions God’s twocharacter traits – the trait of mercy and the trait of justice. Mercy is represented by the name YHVH while justice is represented by Elohim (see Midrash Braishis Rabbah 73:3). The Talmud Tractate Megilah 31bstates that Deuteronomy was written by Moses – it is a speech given by Moses, rather than having been simply dictated to him by God. Based upon this, we can understand why different portions of the Torah are written in different styles although they actually have a Mosaic authorship. Rather than refuting the single authorship of the Torah, Bible critics have merely rediscovered the midrash.
http://jewishphilosopher.blogspot.com/2008/12/documentary-hypothesis-critique.html
Richard Elliot Friedman presents 30 or so pages in his "Collection of evidence" in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Bible_with_Sources_Revealed
BHB
I've got his book and Ive even personally corresponded with him. Again, rather than disproving Mosaic authorship, he merely confirms the midrashic comments.
For me, The DH is not a matter of disproving Mosaic authorship, (just as evolution is not a matter of disproving creation). It's aim is to provide a rational explanation for the origins of the Torah. And it does that imperfectly, but extremely well. I would not want nor expect that the DH turn a believer into kofer, just as I would not expect hearing about evolution to turn some oneone into a koifer. Rather, it's an academic issue that you can take it or leave it.
No I mean TMS supporting. If you believe in TMS the textual variations still exist but presumably have some OTHER explanation BESIDES multiple authorship
However a comprehensive OTHER explanation is yet to be formulated
If I remember correctly it wasn't comprehensive enough... It merely sketched the basic ideas without getting into too many details
> Sometimes friends of mine confront me and ask me if I realize that it's all rubbish made up by Protestant antisemites.
Because religious Christians have no problem with questioning the Divinity of the Bible, right?
Oy vey, I had my initialisms scrambled! Something wrong with my brain.
Actually, I might be wrong but, look at the introduction of S.R. Driver to his book on Biblical criticism where if i remember correctly he stresses that criticism of the Old Testament is ok because it was supplanted anyways by the New Testament.
So all this post proves is:
You haven't read the Malbim (in the original, not the namby-pamby Artscroll version)
You haven't read Rav Shimshon Rafael Hirsch
You haven't read the Ha'amek Davar.
Yet you have still have a definitive opinion on this?
With the exception of the Ha'amek Davar I'm familiar with all those commentaries. The fact that you think that the Malbim and Rav Hirsch deal with the same things as modern Biblical scholarship just prove that you merely have a vague notion of what the DH is all about (like most people btw) and just know that it has SOMETHING to do with words and variations in divine names....So you quote me traditional commentaries that deal with words.....
Do me a favor and read The Composition of the Hexateuch by J. Estlin Carpenter (from cover to cover) and
An Introduction to the Literature of the Old Testament by S.R. Driver
and sit with a Chumash and mark the various word variations. I found the patterns pretty convincing almost conclusive (but hey that;s just me)
If you're as certain in your assertions as you act then there is no fear and Hell maybe you can even write a nice critique on your blog. I would love to read it shoot me an email when you post it...
Till then...
Rav Dovid Tzvi Hoffman has a very detailed, dirty, and nitty-gritty response to the DH including a heads-on tackling of the linguistic arguments.
Rav Mordechai Breuer also founded an entire school towards dealing with the DH from an OJ perspective which deals in great detail with the arguments of DH, especially convergence.
The term etzev is a rather rate one in the Torah so it is difficult to draw any conclusions from such a word. This is especially so since two of the occurrences are in the same verse (Genesis 3:16) so its occurrence can't really be considered independent random variables. Moreover, the assignment of Genesis 34:7 to J and Genesis 45:5 to either J or E are on weak grounds since neither of these chapters contain the strong markers of specific Biblical authors found in other chapters. In fact, if I am not mistaken, there is some debate about these chapters with some scholars suggesting a possible authorship from an entirely different source.
Rav Dovid Tzvi Hoffman has a very detailed, dirty, and nitty-gritty response to the DH including a heads-on tackling of the linguistic arguments.
Rav Mordechai Breuer also founded an entire school towards dealing with the DH from an OJ perspective which deals in great detail with the arguments of DH, especially convergence.
The term etzev is a rather rate one in the Torah so it is difficult to draw any conclusions from such a word. This is especially so since two of the occurrences are in the same verse (Genesis 3:16) so its occurrence can't really be considered independent random variables. Moreover, the assignment of Genesis 34:7 to J and Genesis 45:5 to either J or E are on weak grounds since neither of these chapters contain the strong markers of specific Biblical authors found in other chapters. In fact, if I am not mistaken, there is some debate about these chapters with some scholars suggesting a possible authorship from an entirely different source.
Rav Dovid Tzvi Hoffman has a very detailed, dirty, and nitty-gritty response to the DH including a heads-on tackling of the linguistic arguments.
Rav Mordechai Breuer also founded an entire school towards dealing with the DH from an OJ perspective which deals in great detail with the arguments of DH, especially convergence.
The term etzev is a rather rate one in the Torah so it is difficult to draw any conclusions from such a word. This is especially so since two of the occurrences are in the same verse (Genesis 3:16) so its occurrence can't really be considered independent random variables. Moreover, the assignment of Genesis 34:7 to J and Genesis 45:5 to either J or E are on weak grounds since neither of these chapters contain the strong markers of specific Biblical authors found in other chapters. In fact, if I am not mistaken, there is some debate about these chapters with some scholars suggesting a possible authorship from an entirely different source.
>
Rav Dovid Tzvi Hoffman has a very detailed, dirty, and
nitty-gritty response to the DH including a heads-on tackling of the
linguistic arguments.
Need to take a look at him again. I forget why I didn't find him convincing the first time....
>Rav Mordechai Breuer
Yeah Breuer is just equivalent to the response "God writes weird, misleading books for the hell of it" It's really an epistemological response that essentially says כי לא מחשבותי מחשבותיכם
One doesn't even need to appeal to Breuer with such an approach you can just say. "Yeah, God's unknowable and just cuz his books look composite doesn't mean they are."
You realize incidentally, that Breuer and Hoffman are completely at odds with each other....
>Moreover, the assignment of Genesis 34:7 to J and Genesis 45:5 to either
J or E are on weak grounds since neither of these chapters contain the
strong markers of specific Biblical authors found in other chapters.
Hey I never said the DH is perfect -it's far from it. I just think the BASIC IDEA is correct.
Yes, yes, I'm well aware of the various claims, of the multiple authors, of the textual variations pointing to different add-ins at different times, and the whole thing being based on
a) historical texts of which there is no trace or mention anywhere
b) a horrible editor who wanted to create a unified text but apparently forget to do a spell check.
See Shilt, here's there difference between us and you. Me, I have no time to read your various literary suggestions. My priority is on building up my Judaism, firm in my faith that the foundation is fine.
You, all you seem to do is want to tear down, not build. Think about that.
You can read the Eslin book here:
http://www.archive.org/details/cu31924029286768
or:
http://books.google.com/books?id=CnAuAAAAYAAJ&printsec=frontcover
Driver book is here:
http://www.archive.org/details/introductiontoli00driv
GI,Even if you categorically reject the conclusions of multiple authorship advocated by DH scholars, taking some time to study the issues that scholars raise may enrich your understanding of the Torah, even from a single authorship viewpoint.
As an example, consider the lineage of the 10 generations from Adam to Noach compared to the 7 generations from Adam to Lemech. Scholars point out some striking similarities and resemblances between these two lineages. The similarities are so striking that it strains credulity to believe that these are accidental. So, scholars conclude that these accounts represent two versions of the same lineage by two different authors. Now, I understand and respect the fact that you reject this viewpoint for the reasons you articulated above. But, in my view, that doesn't end the discussion. Even if we all agree that these two accounts were written by the same author, aren't you at least a little bit interested to investigate further and try to answer the obvious follow-up question: why did one author include two lineages that are so similar to each-other? Was there some custom at that time to use names that followed this specific pattern? Are these lineages allegorical and are the parallels supposed to be some literary device? There are many possibilities but I would imagine that thinking about these types of questions might enhance your Torah study.
As another example, take the Ani/Anochi distinction. Deut uses almost exclusively Anoki while Lev uses almost exclusively Ani. DH concludes that these books had different authors. Again, I get and respect the fact that you reject that conclusion, but aren't you at least a little bit interested in understanding why this pattern exists?
If anything, I would think the sceptics would be the people who wouldn't care about DH since according to them the Torah isn't a special book. If you think that the Torah is God's eternal word, don't you want to understand it as best as you can?
GI,Even if you categorically reject the conclusions of multiple authorship advocated by DH scholars, taking some time to study the issues that scholars raise may enrich your understanding of the Torah, even from a single authorship viewpoint.
As an example, consider the lineage of the 10 generations from Adam to Noach compared to the 7 generations from Adam to Lemech. Scholars point out some striking similarities and resemblances between these two lineages. The similarities are so striking that it strains credulity to believe that these are accidental. So, scholars conclude that these accounts represent two versions of the same lineage by two different authors. Now, I understand and respect the fact that you reject this viewpoint for the reasons you articulated above. But, in my view, that doesn't end the discussion. Even if we all agree that these two accounts were written by the same author, aren't you at least a little bit interested to investigate further and try to answer the obvious follow-up question: why did one author include two lineages that are so similar to each-other? Was there some custom at that time to use names that followed this specific pattern? Are these lineages allegorical and are the parallels supposed to be some literary device? There are many possibilities but I would imagine that thinking about these types of questions might enhance your Torah study.
As another example, take the Ani/Anochi distinction. Deut uses almost exclusively Anoki while Lev uses almost exclusively Ani. DH concludes that these books had different authors. Again, I get and respect the fact that you reject that conclusion, but aren't you at least a little bit interested in understanding why this pattern exists?
If anything, I would think the sceptics would be the people who wouldn't care about DH since according to them the Torah isn't a special book. If you think that the Torah is God's eternal word, don't you want to understand it as best as you can?
OMG!! You mean your most urgent priority hasn't always been the relentless and unbiased pursuit of truth regardless of where it may lead?
I'm shocked. (Insert eye roll here).
>Me, I have no time to read your various literary suggestions.
In which case kindly refrain from arguing, as you clearly have not done the research.
Such hubris from someone who actually REFUSES to do the research is actually stunning.
Shame on you.
Only in religion is ignorance a virtue.
Keep searching, Shilton. Any man with integrity respects truth. It's too bad the truth lies so far away from 0J.
If you define rational as "we ignore and avoid all evidence for the existence of God," then, yes, your approach is rational. But why, in God's name, to you assume that ignoring evidence for God makes you rational.
Post a Comment