An introductory rant

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

Who am I?

I am an Orthoprax Jew.  I 'came out' as a non-believer a number of years ago to my wife and my close family and some friends. 

Reactions differ - the believers don't want to talk about the why and are quick to declare that my position is a belief that I have chosen.  On the other hand the non-believers always knew that I would fall out of love with Orthodoxy having taken it up with some zeal about 15 years ago.

Not that I care too much about other peoples' reactions.  Although it is a shame that the believers aren't prepared to discuss how I reached my position.  Perhaps we can?

Why?

I have been writing this blog in my mind for a few years and I think it is time it came out.  If anything, hopefully it can be a way of ordering my ideas and challenging myself.