My comments answer both the threads "Orthodox Responses to Biblical Criticism" and "HS Curriculum for Sefer Bereishit". Regarding biblical criticism I think I can address all issues with statements about orthodoxy acceptable to everyone.
First Point: THE ISSUE, PROPHECY
If we are to claim that Judaism is more than ethical humanism then we must commit ourselves to a statement that the Torah, is a book of prophetic guidance, that is, that humans can a prophetic state with God and that the Torah was written under this prophetic state. If one does not believe the Torah was prophetically revealed, you can't claim to be orthodox.
Second Point: HIGHER CRITICISM vs PROPHECY.
Higher and lower criticism using their methodology which consists of archaeology, grammar, and near-eastern parallels can at most comment on texts; it can neither settle nor comment on the existence of prophecy
Using the ideas just mentioned, let me discuss a High School curriculum for Genesis. A suggested syllabus for Genesis is "Genesis as a book of Prophecy." The course would then study the individuals whether male or female who changed history through prophetic status. For example, Sarah's successful confrontation with Pharaoh is a confrontation between a single unaided female prophet and a vast empire. The important point in the course is to emphasize the values by which we have survived and developed (See my papers on Genesis, Dreams and Joseph at www.Rashiyomi.com/leftmenu.htm in which I show that the major figures/stories in Genesis – Adam, Noah, the Patriarchs, Joseph – were *individuals* without armies who nevertheless transformed history through the agency of prophecy).
Third Point: TORAH DATING
Shapiro, in his books, describes many religious authorities discussing biblical matters and doctrinal beliefs. We must balance what authorities say with explicit biblical texts. Abraham lived several 100 years before the revelation. He himself received a major revelation to circumcise. It is inconceivable that he did not write down his prophecies which were then preserved by both the Jews and Ishmaelites. I am well aware of the Talmudic dictum that Moses gave final authority to previous prophecies. However, it is clear that originally there were multiple authors. Each Torah prophet may have originally wrote his work (I have no problem with Moses either accepting these as is or changing these in the final version).
But if the Torah had several authors, what is important is ISSUE #1 above, prophecy. The important thing is that both Moses and Abraham were high ranking prophets (or angels). We follow their teachings because they were prophetically revealed.
Here is a stronger version of what I am saying. Suppose we found scrolls in a cave tomorrow. The scrolls date back to Abrahams' time and contain Genesis 17 in Acadian. Would that bother me? Should it bother me? Of course not. It would simply prove that Abraham existed, that he had prophecies and these influenced human history.
Fourth Point: HIGHER LOWER CRITICISM
Do different textual versions cast doubt on whether we have the Torah that Moses gave us? Do textual variants destroy orthodoxy? In the space of a posting I cannot completely answer this but four points are worthwhile noting.
4a) ORTHODOX RESPONSES: Since the time of the Talmud and Midrash including modern times with such great people as Rav Hirsch and Malbim and later Shadal and Kesuto, there have been serious attempts to respond to questions on the biblical text with new grammatical insights. Many of these approaches present new grammatical methods which should be part of our curricula.
4b) A MODEL FOR ERRORS: I heard at a lecture about the dead sea scrolls (I forget the presenter) that in ancient times there were no Microsoft word bubbles and no PDF sticky notes. People wrote their comments on the Torah in their personal copies by changing the texts. The fact that we find these texts and they are different should not therefore matter. A textual variant should only matter if it is authoritative (See next point).
4c) ACCURACY MODEL: Why should I (or anyone) believe that our Torah text was more/better preserved than other near eastern texts? Because of the people involved. Other religions were excessively involved in sexual rituals and did not have a highly developed intellectual approach to their underlying religious texts. Contrastively, the people who preserved the Torah and our text had very high standards of intellectual analysis and memorization. One further point on accuracy arises from comparisons of various texts of the Torah at various historical periods. It is well known that except for minor grammatical items like hyphens the texts are remarkably the same. The degree of information preservation is comparable to modern standards. But at this point I haven't denied that errors exist (I don't personally believe so) So see the next point for why this is not a problem.
4d) RAMBAM’s TORAH ACCURACY DOCTRINAL BELIEFT: Maimonides *never* said that a person who believed the text of the Torah is not what Moses said is a heretic. He said, "A person who both i) denies that the current text of the Torah is prophetically revealed ***and also that*** ii) Moses placed words in their himself" is a heretic. Maimonides never commented on a person who sincerely believes there are errors in the text. He commented on people who believe the text was maliciously changed.
SUMMARY: Orthodoxy is rooted in a belief in prophecy and the divine revelation of the Torah. Although not as publicly acknowledged as it should be, one is forced (from the text of the Torah) to see multiple authors and traditions. Modern scholarship is in no way able to comment for or against the idea of prophecy. Given the high standards of Torah preservation and the numerous responses to questions on the text throughout the ages it is clear that our text is a prophetically revealed text which we are privileged to follow.
Dr. Russell Jay Hendel
RashiYomi Home Page
www.rashiyomi.com
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 07/13/2017 08:17AM by mlb.
