Skip to main content

Tradition in Conflict (2)

Text file

 

Germany: The Challenge of Biblical Criticism

 

            Rihal's depiction of history according to an innocent and simple reading of the Scriptures has come into conflict of late with the alternative approaches championed by modern historical theories.  This conflict brings us to one of the most difficult recent controversies in the relationship between religion and science.  The center of gravity of this relationship, where both elements complement and conflict with each other has shifted from the natural sciences to the arts and humanities.  Historical analysis played a pivotal role in this alteration.  This becomes evident when we compare various historical texts which describe the biblical period.  These positions cover a wide spectrum of opinions, ranging from the absolute rejection of scientific findings, to those who read the Scriptures completely out of context, and reject their status as transmitters of historical information.  In the range between the two extremes, we find various attempts to synthesize the two perspectives.  I described the characteristics of these positions in my book on science and religion; however, here I must make a point regarding the historical perspective, without making any attempt at a halakhic ruling on the issue.  The problem of the believer who is involved in this field is of course the difficulty of proving his opinion.  Strange as it may seem, the only possible proof is the one which the historians themselves will accept.  For the reality, cynical as it sounds, is that truth is defined by what the scientific community accepts as truth, until further notice.

 

            To discuss all the problems of the recent changes in historical perspectives would extend beyond the scope of this lecture.  However, I feel the need to briefly comment on this issue, and explain the positions of Rihal's modern successors, who continue to follow his lead in modern times, while suggesting new versions of his doctrine; for a look at their development will demonstrate that Rihal's approach has not brought us to a dead end, even in the wake of the great changes in the historical sciences.  His approach continues to serve as fertile ground for philosophical development up to this very day; it challenges those who dare to reexamine the facts from a new perspective.

 

            Let us begin by summarizing a number of central theses in Rihal's approach.

 

            Rihal maintained that the Jewish people are the descendants of Ever (great-grandson of Shem son of Noah).  This fact is essential to Rihal's understanding our ethnic roots and the origin of the Hebrew language.

 

            This lineage gives us our national identity card.  We are different from the inhabitants of Canaan.  We reached the land of Israel after the exodus from Egypt.  We will not enter into the question of the ethnic origins of the Canaanites, whether they are the descendants of Shem or Cham.  It is reasonable to assume that the inhabitants of the land of Israel were made up of a hodgepodge of different nations descending from Cham, although the language they spoke was a Semitic one.  This does not disprove the claim that both ethnic and linguistic characteristics distinguish us from the Canaanites.  As we shall see, this is one of the issues under debate in all the attempts at historical reconstruction undertaken by the scientific establishment.

 

            Rihal's second central thesis is the belief that we are linked to the ancient social tradition of the descendants of  Shem.  In other words, this links us to an ancient monotheistic tradition.  This ancient tradition included both a history and a legal system, the system of law which served as the background for the activities of the Patriarchs.  The Mt. Sinai revelation was both a continuation of this tradition and a revolutionary event which left the ancient tradition irrevocably behind.

 

            Surprisingly, religious reasons may prompt us to discard this approach.  Our religious tradition emphasizes the complete originality of the Torah, a uniqueness which separates it absolutely from everything that preceded it.  Rihal's position unites these two approaches.  On the one hand, Rihal assumes the existence of a tradition, while, on the other hand, he stresses the biblical revolution, describing it not as an evolution but as a break in history, a new beginning.

 

            Historical texts and popular scientific publications create an alternative history.  We often find ourselves in conflict with these depictions, which can deviate radically from the biblical tradition.  Their origins are shared, and reached their full expression in biblical criticism.  Biblical criticism attempted to reconstruct history through a new developmental approach, which viewed the transition from idolatry to monotheism as a slow process.  Rihal fought against this very conception.  Biblical criticism used literary analysis as a means to uncover the traces of this development in biblical literature.  The first result of this approach was that that biblical literature lost all its historical value, and was perceived as a sort of biased legend, attempting to reconstruct history on the basis of the religious, cultural and possibly the status-related interests of later periods.  This approach is particularly evident in the biblical criticism of the book of Genesis.

 

            The great change resulted from the discoveries of archeology.  The historical and literary descriptions of biblical criticism came into conflict with the new realities uncovered by recent archeological findings.  The new discoveries prompted a new interpretation of the past.  This revolution enabled Rihal's modern successors to prove the need to reexamine the book of Genesis.

 

            The book of Genesis is strikingly similar to the culture of the descendants of Shem and Ever, who preceded those civilizations which are thought to have existed in Abraham's day.  A good example is the war of the four kings against the five kings, a war which had been lost to history already in the days of the later great kingdoms which were situated in the place of the earlier ones.  The Scripture not only preserves ancient testimony about events which undoubtedly took place, but also is exact regarding the names, which are preserved in their ancient form, and not as they were used in later periods, when these languages changed.  First and foremost, these discoveries open up the possibility of the existence of a tradition of the descendants of Shem and Ever.  This is particularly interesting, since certain medieval philosophers interpreted many chapters in the book of Genesis allegorically, as describing spiritual realities or philosophical truths.  These interpretations stood at the core of a fierce debate between the proponents of peshat - literal interpretation, and the proponents of philosophical interpretation.  In any case, the new discoveries compel us to reexamine the literal interpretation of the stories of the Patriarchs.  Thus, we can attempt to reconstruct Rihal's position on the background of these new historical realities.

 

            Of course, even after positive developments such as these, many questions remain unsolved.  We must contend with the fundamental question of the need to construct the edifice of Torah upon the foundations of scientific knowledge, in any case as a temporary response.  The reason for this becomes apparent when we compare what would plausibly have been the position of the religious historian at the end of the previous century, and the position of the new historian, whom archeology has permitted to reinterpret the Scriptures.  For the first historian, biblical history was not proof of the truth as Rihal taught us; quite the contrary, it created religious doubts.  In this, as in many other areas, the final word is yet to be said.

 

Language

 

            Another of Rihal's principles which we must consider is the issue of the status of the Hebrew language.  Here, Rihal's modern successor is faced with a new challenge, a different chapter of history: the history of culture.  The history of linguistics tries to view the Hebrew language in the context of other languages.  It seems to me that Rihal's successors are faced with two alternatives.  The first is to maintain Rihal's original position, which views the Hebrew language as the most fundamental and ancient tongue.  The second alternative is to differentiate between the ancient Hebrew spoken by the descendants of Shem and Ever, and scriptural Hebrew, which is a later creation.  Rabbi Aaron Marcus maintains that scriptural Hebrew is an additional revelation which can be seen as a part of the revelation to Moses.  According to this approach, scriptural Hebrew constitutes a kind of revolution within ancient Hebrew.  The ramifications of this revolution are significant indeed, for it enables us to unearth the wonderful architectural structure hidden in the Hebrew language.  This structure demonstrates that the three letter root words of the Hebrew language are actually the result of the combining of smaller, two letter root words.  This principle, which was spoken of in the Middle Ages, returned to the academic consciousness in the last century, and was taken up by Jewish and non-Jewish scholars alike.  Among them, we will mention Rabbi Aaron Marcus once again, who tried to develop a modern version of Rihal's approach, by synthesizing the findings of the linguistic analysis of ancient languages with the a priori conceptual analysis of the Hebrew language.

 

            If our first conflict occurred as a result of the encounter with India, and the second, with Greece, the third conflict is characterized by the encounter with Germany.  As we have already hinted, this encounter was not lacking in anti-Semitic elements.  Our return to the land of Israel and our national rebirth have created a new opportunity to overcome this conflict.  However, this is not history; it is reality.

 

The Birth of Religion [I:80-81]

 

            These issues lead us to discuss the birth of the Jewish religion.

 

            The Chaver's central thesis is that there is a fundamental difference between the birth of the Jewish religion and the general history of religions.  He considers this the most important and central testimony to the uniqueness of the Jewish religion.  Every religion is born as the result of development.  A group forms around a charismatic leader.  He leads it, spreads its religion, sends emissaries to expand its activities, and at the end of the process, the religion is spread among various nations, usually with the aid of the sword.  This process certainly faithfully describes the formation of Christianity and Islam.  The Chaver maintains that the birth of the Jewish religion was different, because it was not the result of a process, but of a revolution, a revelation, something akin to the creation of the world.  It was a new creation, and not a development or a change in a given reality.  This is the central content of the book of Exodus.

 

            Another idea which Rihal develops in the sections before us, particularly in chapter I:91, is the idea that with the birth of the Jewish religion came the stamp of its authenticity, which is expressed through two different phenomena: miracles and revelation.  These two phenomena have a common characteristic, and both together can serve as the basis for the Jewish faith.  In fact, the Kuzari explains the central message of the book of Exodus to be "that whoever has witnessed those events, it is clear to him that this thing came from the Creator with no intermediary, all these things being similar to the first proof and the first creation."  The central message is that we are faced with something that is not fraudulent, and cannot be interpreted as such.  This section of the Kuzari is a detailed version of this central claim.

 

            Another important principle is found here, which we have already seen elsewhere in the Kuzari.  The Chaver tells us in chapter 91: "I do not conclude that the thing occurred exactly according to this description; it is possible that it occurred in a deeper way than I could possibly imagine."  The Chaver stresses that his claims are not necessarily historical.  The Kuzari uses this section to discuss the issue of the divine voice.  However, this concept may be expanded.  In fact, the central claim which arises from these sections is that whatever the explanation for these unnatural occurrences, it is clear that these are descriptions of the entrance of the divine into the sphere of nature, and the revelation of God to the nation, in a manner which leaves no room for doubt.  The Jewish people experienced phenomena which human speech, normal human perceptions, and the historical background of the people who saw these things, cannot describe.  Just as the creation of the world beggars description, so, too, the power of the miracle cannot be described, and we must search out models which will help us to describe these phenomena before we look for their explanations.  Divine forces invade the natural world.  The natural order of things, described by natural science and history, stands helpless when faced with the entrance of a different, divine system; this is the one and only explanation for all that is taking place before our eyes.

 

            Now we must examine these two bases of our religion, miracles and revelation, in greater detail.  The book of Exodus is testimony not only to the phenomena, but also to additional characteristics of the phenomena, which define their unique character.

 

            The common denominator between these two religious experiences is that they take place in public, before the nation.  This is true both of miracles and of revelation.  We will return to a more detailed discussion of each of these phenomena.

 

(This lecture was translated by Gila Weinberg.)

 

Copyright (c)1997 Prof. Shalom Rosenberg, Yeshivat Har Etzion.  All rights reserved.

 

This website is constantly being improved. We would appreciate hearing from you. Questions and comments on the classes are welcome, as is help in tagging, categorizing, and creating brief summaries of the classes. Thank you for being part of the Torat Har Etzion community!