The Sages as Bible Critics (original) (raw)

2019, The Believer and the Modern Study of the Bible

Abstract

The Critical Reading of the Bible Devoutly religious Jews, even if they have never heard of biblical criticism or ventured outside the confines of traditional Torah study, are proficient in the critical reading of the Bible. Because strict adherence to the simple meaning of the biblical text is impossible, the reader cannot merely accept the text as it is written, and must therefore examine it critically. If under examination, the text appears to contradict reality, other verses, or reason, it must be stripped of its simple meaning and interpreted appropriately. The traditional Hebrew term for biblical criticism is "midrash"-the diametric opposite of a fundamentalist reading of the Bible that adheres to the literal meaning of the text. The Jewish encounter with Islam in the gaonic period generated a revolutionary trend toward studying the Bible according to its plain meaning. This deviation from the traditional method of bible study, rabbinic midrash, was influenced by Muslim literal interpretation of the Quran that also inspired the Karaite Jews. Rabbinic scholars were forced to make use of contemporary intellectual and hermeneutic tools in order to defend the traditional faith and halakhah. 1 Notwithstanding the opinion of early academic scholars of Judaism, the traditional midrashic method of studying the Bible developed by the sages is actually closer to modern biblical criticism than the method of the peshat (literal or contextual) exegetes of the Middle Ages, because it allows a wider range of possible interpretations. 2 The sages already posed all the questions later raised by biblical critics. Moreover, they enjoyed more intellectual freedom than traditional commentators of the modern period because, unlike the later, they did not have to face refutations of the sanctity of the Bible and the consequent challenges to Jewish religious belief. 3 The faith of the sages was neither

Loading...

Loading Preview

Sorry, preview is currently unavailable. You can download the paper by clicking the button above.

References (94)

  1. J. M. Grintz, Mevo'ay Mikra [Introductions to the Bible] (Tel Aviv: Yavneh, 1972), 158-181;
  2. Hava Lazarus-Yafeh, Intertwined Worlds: Medieval Islam and Bible Criticism (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1992). On Muslim influence on the Karaites, see Yoram Erder, Avlei Tzion ha-Kara'im u-Megilot Kumran: Le-Toldot Ḥalufa le-Yahadut ha-Rabanit [The Karaite mourners of Zion and the Qumran scrolls: The history of an alternative to rabbinic Judaism] (Ra'anana: Hakibbutz Hameuchad, 2004), 355-364; Mordechai Cohen, "Mekor Sefaradi Efshari le-Tefisat 'Peshuto shel Mikra' etzel Rashi" [A possible Sephardic source for Rashi's understanding of "peshuto shel mikra"], in Rashi: Demuto ve-Yetzirato: Mekorotav shel Rashi ve-Haspha'ato [Rashi: His image and works: Rashi's sources and his influence], ed. Sara Japhet and Avraham Grossman ( Jerusalem: Zalman Shazar, 2009), 2:353-379. On the Christian influence on peshat exegesis, see Joseph Dan, "Midrash: Me-Parshanut le-Anarkhia" [Midrash: From exegesis to anarchy], in Devarim u-Shivrei Devarim [The Jewishness of Israel], ed. Aviezer Ravitzky and Yedidia Z. Stern ( Jerusalem: Israel Democracy Institute, 2007), 237-279. On the essential difference between the classical rabbinic pattern of thought and Greek patterns of thought that were absorbed into Jewish thought from the beginning of the gaonic period, see also Yitzhak Ezuz, Meharsai'ikh u-Me- harivai'ikh me-Ohavai'ikh Yetzu [Thy destroyers and they that made thee waste shall come from amongst your lovers: On the process of the dissolution of the Jewish in the Western (from paradigm to "reasonable possibility")] (Tel Aviv: Mofet Institute, 2012).
  3. This article refers to the sages as a single unit only for the purposes of the discussion. Although the sages differed in their approaches to Bible and midrash, in order to argue that a particular approach enjoyed official rabbinic legitimacy it is sufficient to show it was accepted by some of the tannaim and amoraim, and preserved in the Talmuds and the classi- cal midrash.
  4. Judah Rosenthal, "She'elot Atikot be-Tanakh" [Ancient questions about the Bible], Hebrew Union College Annual 21 (1948): 29-91.
  5. Grintz, Mevo'ay Mikra, 38-48; Menahem Haran, Ha-Asufa ha-Mikrait [The biblical collec- tion] ( Jerusalem: Mosad Bialik, 1996), pt. 1A; Abraham Kahana, Ha-Sefarim ha-Hizoni'im [The Apocrypha], vol. 1, Mavo Klalli le-Sefarim ha-Hitzoni'im [General introduction to the Apocrypha] ( Jerusalem: Makor, 1970), 7-10.
  6. Eliezer Rosenthal, "Ha-Moreh" [The Teacher], Proceedings of the American Academy for Jewish Research 31 (1963): i-vxxi.
  7. Moshe Katz, "Yesh Shishim Ribo Otiot le-Torah, ha-Amnam?" [Are there really six hundred thousand letters in the Torah?], Teḥumin 21) 2001): 555ff.
  8. Jerusalem Talmud, tractate Ta'anit 4:2, 68a.
  9. Bereshit Rabbah 20:12.
  10. Babylonian Talmud, tractate Megillah 9a-b
  11. Babylonian Talmud, tractate Sukkah 35a, inter alia.
  12. Babylonian Talmud, tractate Pesaḥim 61a; Jerusalem Talmud, tractate Sotah 7:2, 21c.
  13. Babylonian Talmud, tractate Sanhedrin 4b.
  14. Babylonian Talmud, tractate Rosh Hashanah 26a. It would appear that this is an exegetical method typical of Rabbi Akiva, who used foreign words that he learned on his travels to "Arabia," "Gaul," and "Africa. "
  15. The Torah was given on Sinai in four languages. Sifrei Devarim, piska 343.
  16. Babylonian Talmud, tractate Avodah Zarah 58b, inter alia.
  17. Babylonian Talmud, tractate Shabbat 115a-b, inter alia.
  18. Primarily in Seder Olam Rabbah. See Anat Reizel, Mavo le-Midrashim [Introduction to the midrashic literature] (Alon Shvut: Herzog College, 2011), 305-314.
  19. Emanuel Tov, Bikoret Nusaḥ ha-Mikra [The textual criticism of the Bible: An introduction] ( Jerusalem: Mosad Bialik, 1989), 11-12.
  20. Babylonian Talmud, tractate Kiddushin 30a.
  21. Eliezer Schweid, Toldot Pilosofiat ha-Dat ha-Yehudit be-Zeman he-Ḥadash [A history of modern Jewish religious philosophy] (Ra'anana: Am Oved, 2002), pt. 2, 95-143.
  22. Moshe David Herr, "The Historical Significance of the Dialogues between Jewish Sages and Roman Dignitaries," Scripta Hierosalymitana 22 (1971): 123-150.
  23. Chayuta Deutsch, "Ha-Matrona Rabat ha-Panim" [Encounters between sages and matrons: Fixed patterns and variations], PhD diss., Bar Ilan University, 2011.
  24. E.g., Turnus Rufus (Bereshit Rabbah 11:5) and Adrianus (Bereshit Rabbah 28:6). See Ido Hevroni, "Brit Milah ke-Mered" (Brit Milah as rebellion), Tekhelet 28 (2007): 61-73.
  25. Jerusalem Talmud, tractate Shabbat 3:3, inter alia.
  26. Mishnah, tractate Ḥagigah 2:1. Tosefta, Megillah 3:31-35. See Yehuda Brandes "Bemai Kamipalgi: le-Maḥloket Ha-Aḥaronim be-Parshanut Ḥeto shel David" [What is this argu- ment about?: The controversy among contemporary scholars over the interpretation of the sin of David], Megadim 26 (1996): 107-127.
  27. Rabbi Aharon Lichtenstein, "U-be-Yad ha-Nevi'im Adameh: Nituaḥ Sifruti ve-Kitvei ha-Ko- desh" ["And spoke parables through the prophets": Literary analysis and the Bible], in Hi Siḥati: Al Derekh Limmud ha-Tanakh [It is my study], ed. Yehoshua Rice (Alon Shevut- Jerusalem: Yeshivat Har Etzion and Sifrei Maggid, 2013), 73-82.
  28. "The story of modern bible scholarship is thus essentially a Protestant story. . . . It can be said that the order is reversed, atheist biblical criticism began as it were with Spinoza. " James Kugel, "Ḥeker ha-Mikra le-Toldotav" [The history of biblical scholarship], in Sifrut ha-Mikra: Mevo'ot u-Meḥkarim [The literature of the Hebrew Bible: introductions and studies], ed. Zipora Talshir ( Jerusalem: Yad Ben-Zvi, 2011), 1:18, n. 22.
  29. "We have to reject deliberate tendentiousness and at least attempt to overcome our biases when we examine historical questions. " Alexander Rofé, Mavo le-Sifrut ha-Mikra [Introduction to the literature of Hebrew Bible] ( Jerusalem: Carmel, 2006), 16.
  30. Evidence of this can be found in the success of the peshat "revolution" in the period of the Rishonim (the Middle Ages). Rashbam (Samuel ben Meir), for example, lived in two worlds, and did not see a contradiction between them. He was a commentator on the Talmud, a scholar of halakhah and a Tosafist. As a biblical exegete, he was firmly entrenched in the world of the Sephardic peshat exegetes and created many of the new peshat interpretations (that were, in his words, appearing daily) without committing himself to the interpretation of the sages or that of his grandfather, Rashi.
  31. Babylonian Talmud, tractate Ḥagigah 15b.
  32. The tendency to base the principles of faith on the peshat exegesis of the Bible, while distancing them from the sages' method of midrash, is closely connected to the influence of Greek-Arabic philosophy on the Ge'onim. See Robert Brody, Rav Se'adya Gaon ( Jerusalem: Zalman Shazar, 2006), 70-90.
  33. Babylonian Talmud, tractate Shabbat 13b.
  34. Ze'ev Levy, Hermeneutica be-Maḥshevet ha-Yehudit be-Et ha-Ḥadasha [Hermeneutics in Jewish modern thought] (Haifa: University of Haifa, 2006), 25-34 and 67-86.
  35. Sara Japhet, Dor Dor u-Parshanav: Asufat Meḥkarim be-Parshnut ha-Mikra [Collected stud- ies in biblical exegesis] ( Jerusalem: Mosad Bialik, 2008), 35-54; Shalom Rosenberg, "Ben Peshat le-Derash" [Between peshat and derash], De'ot 37 (1969): 91-99; Rabbi Mordechai Breuer, "Limud Peshuto shel Mikra: Sakanot ve-Siku'im" [Studying the peshat of the Bible: Risks and chances], Ha-Ma'ayan 18 (1978): 1.
  36. This is the meaning of the aggadah that describes the astonishment of Moses at the insights that Rabbi Akiva derived from his Torah (Babylonian Talmud, tractate Menaḥot 29b).
  37. Babylonian Talmud, tractate Eruvin 23b and parallels. The sages differ in this respect from the derash and faith-based approaches that ascribe no value to the peshat, but rather regard the entire Torah as a type of code to reveal hidden secrets.
  38. Babylonian Talmud, tractate Shabbat 63a.
  39. Babylonian Talmud, tractate Bava Kamma 83b-84a. Rabbi Solomon Luria (Maharshal) in his commentary on these passages discussed the question of whether the sages interpreted the verses according to their own halakhic preconceptions, or whether their derashot shaped the develop- ment of the halakhah. See his commentary Yam shel Shlomo, Bava Kamma, chapter 8, siman 1. See also Shalom Rosenberg, Lo ba-Shamayim Hi: Torah She-be-al peh: Masoret ve-Ḥidushim [It is not in heaven: Oral Law: Tradition and reinterpretation] (Alon Shvut: Tevunot, 1997), 9-53.
  40. Rabbi Abraham Isaac Kook distinguished between these two types of derashah by means of a theoretical distinction between explanation and exegesis. See his introduction to Ein Ayah: Al Aggadot Ḥazal she-ba-Ein Yaakov ( Jerusalem: Ha-Makhon al shem ha-Ratziyah Kook, 1986), tractate Berakhot. See also Hananel Mack, Ha-Parshanut ha-Keduma le-Mikra [The early commentary to the Bible] ( Jerusalem, Ministry of Defense, 1993), 11-16.
  41. Isaac Heinemann, Darkhei Ha-Aggadah ( Jerusalem: Magnes, 1950), 1-13 and 153-157.
  42. This is the fundamental approach of Rabbi Akiva. Shmuel Safrai, Rabbi Akiva ben Yosef, Ḥayyav u-Mishanto [Rabbi Akiva ben Yosef: His life and teachings] ( Jerusalem: Mosad Bialik, 1970), 50-55.
  43. Tosafot commentary on Babylonian Talmud, tractate Kiddushin 2b, s.v. kashu k'ra'i: "Nevertheless, wherever it is possible to explain this, the Gemara does so. "
  44. Umberto Cassuto is attributed with the insight of understanding biblical criticism as one of the seventy facets (or faces) by which the Torah is interpreted.
  45. Yeshayahu Maori, "Midrashei Ḥazal ke-Edut le-Ḥilufei Nusaḥ ha-Mikra" [rabbinic midrash as evidence of textual variations in the Bible], in Iyunei Mikra u-Parshanut [Studies in Bible and exegesis], ed. Moshe Bar-Asher et al. (Ramat Gan: Bar Ilan University, 1993), 3:267-286;
  46. David Rosenthal, "Al Derekh Tipulam shel Ḥazal be-Ḥilufei Nusaḥ be-Mikra" [The sages' treatment of textual variations in the Bible], in Sefer Yitzhak Aryeh Zeligman: Ma'amarim be-mikra u-va-Olam he-Atik [Isaac Leo Seeligman Anniversary Volume: Essays in Bible and the ancient world], ed. Yair Zakovitch and Alexanader Rofé ( Jerusalem: Rubenstein, 1983), 2:395-417; Zipora Talshir, "Le-Toldot Nusaḥ Ha-Mikra" [The history of the biblical text], in Sifrut ha-Mikra: Mevo'ot u-Meḥkarim, 1:38-48.
  47. Babylonian Talmud, tractate Sanhedrin 21b-22a;
  48. Rosenberg, "Ben Peshat le-Drash," 28-36.
  49. Babylonian Talmud, tractate Kiddushin 30a.
  50. Daniel Sperber, Netivot Pesika [Paths of pesika: methods and approaches for proper halakhic decision making] ( Jerusalem: Reuven Mas, 2008), 72 and n. 120 there.
  51. Masekhet Soferim 1,7.
  52. The sages explained the discrepancies between their Torah and the Samaritan Torah as the result of forgery. Babylonian Talmud, tractate Sotah 33b, and parallels.
  53. In the midrash, the corrections are attributed to the Men of the Great Assembly. Tanḥuma Shemot, 16.
  54. Avot de-Rabbi Natan, nusaḥ B, chap. 37. Ba-midbar Rabbah 3, 13, indicates that Ezra wrote the text of the Bible and in doing so also added the vowel signs.
  55. The interchange of alef and ayin (Babylonian Talmud, tractate Berakhot 32a); hey and ḥet (ibid., 30b). See Jerusalem Talmud, tractate Shabbat 7:2, 9b on the legitimacy of interchang- ing hin and ḥitin.
  56. For example, ḥarut (engraved) and ḥerut (freedom). Avot de-Rabbi Natan, nusaḥ A, chap. 2.
  57. For example, shibbarta (you broke)-shirbabta (you stretched out), Babylonian Talmud, trac- tate Berakhot 54b; ain biltekha ("there is none beside You" [1 Sam. 2:2])-ain lebalotekha ("you cannot be consumed"). Ibid., 10a, inter alia.
  58. Naftali Herz Tur-Sinai, "Al Tikrei," Entzeklopedia Mikrait [Encyclopaedia biblica] ( Jerusalem: Mosad Bialik, 1950-1988) 1:420-422; Henoch Yalon, Pirkei Lashon [Essays on linguistics] ( Jerusalem: Mosad Bialik, 1971), 123-125.
  59. On Levinas' opinion of the role of midrash, see Elizabeth Goldwyn, Revaḥ ben ha-Otiot: Shiurav ha-Talmudi'im shel Levinas: Hatama ben Tokhen ve-Tzura [Space between the letters: Emmanuel Levinas' talmudic readings between form and content], ed. Yoram Vereté (Bnei Brak: Amutat Hillel ben Hayyim, 2011).
  60. Tractate Bava Batra 15a.
  61. Hananel Mack, Ele Mashal Haya: Iyov beinei Ḥazal [It was a metaphor: Job in the eyes of the sages] (Ramat Gan: Bar Ilan University, 2004).
  62. There are modern scholars who interpret other books, such as Jonah and Esther, in this manner.
  63. Babylonian Talmud, tractate Bava Batra 14b-15a.
  64. Babylonian Talmud, tractate Pesaḥim 117a
  65. According to the methodology of Hermann Gunkel, who identified sections of the Bible according to their genre, and Umberto Cassuto, who revealed ancient poetry integrated within the later biblical books.
  66. Ps. 137 ("By the rivers of Babylon . . . ") is described in the Gemara as a prophetical psalm by King David (Babylonian Talmud, tractate Gittin 57b). However, the midrashim on Lamentations indicate that Jeremiah and the exiles to Babylon wrote the psalm (Midrash Zuta, ed. Shlomo Buber [Vilna: Rem, 1925] parasha 1, piska 19).
  67. It is important to distinguish between discussion of the books of the Prophets and the Writings, and discussion of the five books of the Torah of Moses. The dating of the Torah to the time and place of Moses is the cornerstone of the belief in its divine origin. I will return to this point below.
  68. Mishnah, tractate Yadayim 3:8. Paradoxically, the sages ordained that it was holy books that render one ritually unclean, in order to prevent people from putting terumah (a food offering) next to the books and damaging them thereby.
  69. Haran, Ha-Asufa ha-Mikrait, pt. 1, 201-303.
  70. Grintz, Mevo'ay Mikra, 30-48.
  71. Rofé, Mavo le-Sifrut ha-Mikra, 112.
  72. See, e.g., M. H. Segal, Mavo ha-Mikra [Introduction to the Bible] ( Jerusalem: Kiryat Sefer), 127-147.
  73. Babylonian Talmud, tractate Yoma 3b.
  74. Babylonian Talmud, tractate Ḥagigah 13b.
  75. There are those who see in the idea that "the Torah was given in sections" (Babylonian Talmud, tractate Gittin 60a-b) the initial nucleus of the concept of identifying various docu- ments within the Torah.
  76. Jerusalem Talmud, tractate Nedarim 3:2.
  77. Babylonian Talmud, tractate Sanhedrin 34a.
  78. Yosef Ofer, ed, 'Shitat ha-Beḥinot' shel ha-Rav Mordekhai Breuer [The aspects theory of Rabbi Mordechai Breuer] (Alon Shvut: Tevunot, 2005).
  79. David Zohar, Mehuyavut Yehudit ba-Olam Moderni: ha-Rav Hayyim Hirschensohn ve-Yaḥaso el ha-Moderna [ Jewish responsibility in the modern world: Rav Hayyim Hirschensohn and his approach to modernity] ( Jerusalem: Shalom Hartman Institute, 2003), 277-283.
  80. Deut. 16:22. In contrast to Gen. 28:18, inter alia. Igrot ha-Ra'aya [The letters of Rabbi Abraham Isaac Ha-Kohen Kook] ( Jerusalem: Mosad Harav Kook, 1961-1965) 3:746.
  81. Rabbi Hayyim Hirschensohn argued that the chronology of the sages is binding according to the halakhah, despite the fact that it is based on derash and serves theological objectives. However, the halakhic requirement applies to dating a get (certificate of divorce) or calcu- lating sabbatical and Jubilee years. It is not relevant to a historian writing the history of the world. See Zohar, Mehuyavut Yehudit, 236.
  82. For example, the midrash that Isaac married Rebekah when she was three years old (see Rashi's commentary to Gen. 25:20). While Rabbi Eliyahu Mizraḥi attempted to explain the feasibility of this midrash, Isaac Abravanel rejected it because of its improbability. The Tosafot expressed the opinion that she was fourteen at the time of her marriage. It is possible that they had a variant text of Seder Olam Rabbah (chap. 1).
  83. In Seder Olam Rabbah the length of the Persian period of the era of the return to Zion is much shorter than the chronology accepted by historians. See Hayyim Hafetz, "Malkhut Paras u-Madai ba-Tekufat Bayit Sheni u-lefaneha: Iyun Meḥudash" [The Persian and Median kingdom in the Second Temple period and before: A new examination], Megadim 14 (1990): 78-147. See also the comments of Rabbi Yaakov Medan "Mavo le-Ma'amro shel Ḥ. Ḥafetz al Malkhut Paras u-Madai" [Introduction to Ḥ. Ḥafetz's article on the Persian and Median kingdom], Megadim 14 (1990): 47-77.
  84. Zohar, part 3, parashat Be-ha'alotekha, 149a-b.
  85. Deut. 1:1, and the Sifrei there.
  86. Jerusalem Talmud, tractate Sanhedrin 10:1, 27d.
  87. Babylonian Talmud, tractate Sanhedrin 99a.
  88. Maimonides included belief in the divine origin of the Torah in his thirteen principles of faith. The meaning of the concept as it appears in various places in his own writings requires close examination. Mark B. Shapiro, The Limits of Orthodox Theology: Maimonides' Thirteen Principles Reappraised (Oxford: Litman, 2004), 91-121. See also Shlomo Kassierer and Shlomo Glicksberg, Mi-Sinai le-Lishkat ha-Gazit: Torah she-be-al peh be-mishnatam shel ha-Rambam ve-ha-Ramban [From Sinai to Sanhedrin: The Oral Law in the thought of Maimonides and Nachmanides] (Ramat Gan: Bar Ilan University, 2007).
  89. See Izhak Englard, "'Tanuro shel Akhnai': Perusheiha shel Aggadah" [The oven of Akhnai: Interpretations of the aggadah] Shnaton ha-Mishpat ha-Ivri 1 (1974): 45-50.
  90. Babylonian Talmud, tractate Eruvin 13b.
  91. Jerusalem Talmud, tractate Pe'ah 2:4, 17a, inter alia.
  92. For example, Nachmanides' commentary to Gen. 18:1.
  93. The Guide of the Perplexed, 2:25. Rabbi Abraham Isaac Ha-Kohen Kook wrote in a simi- lar vein with regard to the idea of evolution. See his Orot ha-Kodesh ( Jererusalem: Mosad Harav Kook, 1964), 2:542. See also Rabbi Amit Kula, Havaya o lo haya [Existential or non- essential: History and literature, religious language and the nature of deity] ( Jerusalem: Ha-Kibbutz ha-Dati, 2011), 68-74. Rabbi Kula's book in its entirety addresses the ques- tion of the historicity of the Torah. Exegetes from Rabbi Isaac the Blind to modern think- ers perceived the Written Torah as a type of Oral Torah. See Alexander Even Chen, Akedat Yitzhak: Be-Parshanut ha-Mistit ve-ha-Pilosofit shel ha-Mikra [The Binding of Isaac: Mystical and philosophical interpretation of the Bible] (Tel Aviv: Mishkal, 2006), 11-13; and Tamar Ross, Expanding the Palace of Torah: Orthodoxy and Feminism (Hanover, NH: Brandeis University Press, 2004), 163-224.
  94. See the comment by Rabbi Samuel ben Meir (Rashbam) on Gen. 37:2.