In Conversations Winter 2010, the journal of the Institute for Jewish Ideas and Ideals, an article was written by Daniel Jackson called Torah min haShamayim: Conflicts Between Religious Belief and Scientific Thinking. In this piece, he surveys and reviews the recent challenges to the divine authorship of the Bible. To start, Jackson makes the case that Torah min HaShamayim (TMS) is the current hot button challenge for a believing Jew. Evolution and science, while challenging, are predominantly accepted in one way or another in the MO and Centrist Orthodox communities (the Haredi community [in most of its forms] is still struggling with this, usually by denying science over Torah. As an example, see the Slifkin affair of this past decade. DH doesn’t even show up on their radar for the most part). TMS has many challenges, including feminist theory, biblical archeology, modern science, textual/literary criticism, modern morality.
I have struggled for many years with this topic. The typical Orthodox responses, such as the ideas of mass revelation, or bible codes, as offered most coherently by Lawrence Kelemen in Permission to Receive, are full of holes. For example, even if you accept TMS, it is extremely difficult to argue that there aren’t minor variants in different traditions Masoretic texts, as presented in various halachic arguments about kosher vs. pasul sifrei Torah. While most authorities are not concerned with the minor variants in the text when it comes to the general principle of TMS, the other issues are greater and potentially more concrete challenges.
In my first post on belief, I stated the following about belief in TMS:
2. Pirqei Avot 1:1 – Moses received the Torah at Sinai – The Sinaitic experience was some sort of climactic moment in which the Judeo-legal and ethical system was revealed to the Earth. The how and what of revelation become secondary to the concept of a revelatory experience. This eliminates the questions about the historical event as well as removes the challenge of Documentary Hypothesis or Ancient Near Eastern influences. It is not Hazal that dictate a pristine Torah from Sinai without a single mistake. The exactness of the text might be assumed but then again, the way texts were read in the Talmudic and pre-Talmudic times, it is hard to fully engage such a notion. Today, with the conclusiveness of the Torah containing linguistic layers, etc. it becomes challenging to concretely claim absolute single authorship at a single moment. I remain non-committal on the exactitude of TMS (Torah M’Sinai).
In reflecting more on my words, I was struck by the following post I saw on another blog, QED (Avi Woolf). He presents reader’s with an assignment to read a piece by Rav Yoel Bin Nun, one of the foremost Tanach teachers of today, on modern Orthodox approaches to Tanach study. Rav Bin Nun argues that both he and R. Mordechai Breuer are doing Orthodox Bible study and not academic study, so when it appears they are talking about DH or historical lacunae, it is all in the guise of legitimate Torah study. While I don’t agree with Rav Bin Nun’s assessment of the Breuer methodology, theirs are one of the few approaches out there for religious, believing Jews who are also educated in modern biblical criticism. Jackson, meanwhile, presents Kugel and Brettler as his other two examples of Orthodox men who are also involved in areas of academic Bible. Again, the challenge presented by those two thinkers is that their Bible study is set in academia and for most would cause tremendous difficulty.
More to come on this topic when I can better formulate the specifics of those mentioned above.