In the early days I was attracted to David Weiss-Halivni's book, “Revelation Restored”. His maculation of the text theory (the Torah was corrupted over time and was restored by Ezra [contra to documentary hypothesis]) explained discrepancies in the text.
There are parts of the Torah text that allowed me to accept that the text was divine. I had no reason to believe otherwise. Based on that assumption I was prepared to accept the Torah as divine and follow the Torah by living a halachic life.
This was despite the fact that I also felt that the Torah was homophobic, misogynist, genocidal etc. I was prepared to accept that my morality (being based on 20th century values) was wrong and the Torah was right – even if I could not understand or agree with the Torah’s values. After all the text was a divine text – who am I to disagree with God’s timeless values?
Originally I believed that the Torah was dictated to Moses at Sinai and was transmitted perfectly by the sages for 3,300 years. I held this view for several years. And I was happy.
But over time I became aware of the following:
• editorial comments in the text eg “The Canaanites were then in the Land”;
• contradictions in lists in the Torah, such as the names of children or destinations traveled in the wilderness;
• contradictions in laws between books of the Pentateuch such as whether a cow is a valid Passover sacrifice or regarding the manumission of slaves;
• repetitive resumptions followed by additional laws (eg Lev 23:39);
• ‘God of Old’ issues ie the text actually assumes that God walks and talks to people, is a warrior etc;
• confusion of the role of Cohanim and Leviim eg Deuteronomy assumes Leviim participate in the Mishkan service whereas other books of the Pentateuch understands otherwise;
• repetition of stories from Exodus appearing in Numbers but slightly reworked eg Moses striking the rock, quail etc;
• parts of the text are badly edited and missing text – Miriam and Aaron’s slander of Moses; songs of and description of war towards the end of Numbers [this supports maculation theory];
• the text gives the appearance of being edited by different hands over time – classic examples are the Genesis creation and Noah stories and the Korach story – but examples abound (Friedman’s Bible with sources revealed is very instructive);
• the text uses a similar style to ancient near east texts – copying the Suzerain/Vassal treaty texts and law codes (with moral adjustments) – unfortunately retaining its patriarchal tenor;
• the text is immoral [in part], for example committing genocide against Canaanites;
• historical inaccuracies, exaggerations and anachronisms also abound (eg size of and influence of Solomon’s empire, building projects and extent of his fame);
• archaeological inaccuracies;
• scientific inaccuracies (to say that the sun stood still for Joshua means that the author of the text understood that the sun moved around the earth);
• there is more than one version of the Torah – Masoretic, Septuagint, Samaritan and some texts that do not fall into either 3 of those categories; and
• text by its nature is subjective and meaning is difficult to transmit from person to person let alone from generation to generation.
The above leads me to the conclusion that the Torah is not a divine text but a human text, authored by many hands over hundreds of years.
I believe it is far more reasonable to accept that the torah is a man made document then a divine document.
This is not to say that you cannot answer all of the above by harmonizing the text etc or by other means (the text is maculated etc). Rashi does a good job as do the other peirushim. I tried to for years but the inescapable conclusion for me is that the text is humanly authored and not divine.
Assuming for a moment that the text is divine which was maculated over time and then restored by Ezra – even if that is the case – what component of the text is divine and what is man made? How do we choose what is divine and what is not? More importantly who will decide?
An example – on Succoth, do we say – the part of the text that relates to dwelling in booths follows a repetitive resumption so is most likely a later addition and therefore no longer binding – or do we say – Ezra didn’t reconstruct this part as well as he could and the dwelling of booths is original?
Do we shake a lulav and ethrog? Or use the materials to roof our booths?
That is not to say that I do not appreciate the Torah’s beauty and structure – I still live a halachic life – but it is a lifestyle choice (community, friends, marriage) –not because of any halachic imperative.
I hope to examine each of the above points in detail on this blog
I just need to say wow, your story is very similar to mine.
ReplyDeleteI became enamored with Orthodox Judaism, slowly came to realize all the flaws there are in the Torah text. I still maintained some faith, but the arguments against Orthodoxy seemed to make sense. Yeshiva University has some good shuirum online about biblical criticism (cite the usual: Hoffman, Breuer) but it still seemed lacking.
I just read a little bit of Halivni's work and he seemed to say that even though the text we have is not the correct text (great article by Menachem Cohen from Bar Ilan about textual differences, but thats a different topic) we must still treat the Torah text we have as holy because Ezra was a prophet. We must rely on the Oral Law to correct some mistakes (money, not corporal punishment) and evolving halacha, but that the Torah is still holy. But you are correct, what's correct and what's not and Halivni's argument is really a leap of faith.
Also it doesn't take into account that Ezra had authority not also because he was a scribe but because he was backed by the King of Persia. People will accept laws and stories if their lives depend on it.
I also made a document of mine documenting some problems and how to know when people are trying to trick you. Its not as comprehensive as yours, but it might still be of some use:
ReplyDeleteThings to avoid brainwashing:
1) Chanting
2) Slipping BS in
3) Controlling what you watch and read
4) Keeping you in line with shame
5) Black and white choices
6) Us vs Them.
Problems:
Historicity of Exodus: Number of people but no archaeological evidence. 20,000 or 600,000? Some verses imply one, other imply another.
Historicity of Conquest: Archaeology of cities rarely matches account in Joshua. Contradictions between Joshua and Judges (Iron Chariots).
Doublets/repetitions: Laws are repeated (especially with Deuteronomy) with inconsistencies with previous laws. Narratives are repeated or same plot is followed (Beer-Sheva, wife pretending to be sister, Noah, Creation, Covenant with Abraham)
Similarity of laws and narratives with other myths and law codes i.e. Gilgamesh, Hammurabi, Eshunna, etc.
Seemingly etiological and propagandist nature of stories. Explain later events (i.e. Edom).
What is the basis for Oral Torah?
Barbaric laws in Torah (seemingly altered by Oral Torah)
Was book Josiah discovered Deuteronomy and was it a new book written to help his reforms or was it actually an older book?
Conflicts with biology in terms of animals that chew their cud for laws of Kashrut.
Historical anachronisms: City of Dan, “Canaanites were then in the land”, list of Kings of Edom, “on the other side of the Jordan”.
Missing information: If Joseph instituted wide reforms why is there no mention of this or the famine in contemporary records? Dearth of evidence for powerful United Kingdom.
Again, some of these questions have been answered in part. Breuer has some good analysis on the literary level, and its only natural that texts get distorted through history. Its the archaelogical evidence (600,000 men and the Battle of Jericho) thats really the most troubling.
ReplyDeleteFinally, there was an interesting shuir on YUonline about interpreting the Avos allegorically a la the first 11 chapters of Bereshis, but its not widely accepted among Orthodoxy.
Luckily I never actually became a Ba'al Teshuva. All I do now is I'm more involved in Jewish life, eat kosher (to an extent) and try to go to shabbos services. I may do more when I get things sorted out.
I think you'll find that if you want to avoid cognitive dissonance it may be best to accept a RW Conservative view and maybe a LWMO theological view.
Good luck!
final edit to above post: I meant RW conservative and LWMO in terms of the rightward limit. There may be other valid ideas further to the left.
ReplyDelete