One of the many topics that fascinate me is how traditionalists deal with the historical-critical method of Bible study. So I downloaded without hesitation the lecture "Who Wrote the Bible?" by Rabbi Ari Kahn found on YU Torah here. Now I didn't for a minute believe that any lecture with such a title hosted by YU would have as its answer anything but "God". And indeed Kahn stated that people would be disappointed if he gave the answer to the topic as a "one syllable word". Nevertheless, I am interested in all approaches to this topic, from the fundamentalist Chareidi to the minimalist DH adherents.
I initially gave up on the lecture no more than five minutes into it. Why? Because of a statement that Kahn made which was only peripherally related on a content level, yet told me all I needed to know about his approach. Here is an accurate paraphrase of what irritated me so much:
"Have any of you heard of the 2nd theory of thermodynamics? It is the principle that things on their own moves towards entropy, towards disorder. Is that a theory or is that a law? That is a law of physics. On the other hand, evolution - is it a theory or a law? It's a theory. Have any of you noticed that the theory of evolution flies in the face of the laws of physics? Did that occur to anybody till this point? There is a law of physics that things left on their own go from order to disorder. Nonetheless, we are being told that something has developed from complete disorder." He further adds, "the statisticians say the likelihood of this is what we call impossible". (Throwing a bone to the "rationalists", he parenthetically says "please don't misunderstand me. Judaism can absolutely tolerate a theory of evolution.")
OMG. Did he really say that? I screamed at the mp3 player in my car and advanced the playlist to the next selection.
When I calmed down, I reflected as to why this offended me so deeply.
1) Kahn starts off the lecture with attempting to implant the seeds of doubt regarding EVERY academic discipline, not just that of scholarly Biblical criticism. He does this by stating that all fields of study may be guilty of bias (e.g., people in universities who want to protect their positions, people who want to advance...) In fairness, Kahn does state that he has a bias, having been brought up in a religious home. Nevertheless, an honest look at the question "who wrote the Bible" should examine arguments on their own merit, not start off with an insidious attack on individuals engaged in scholarly pursuits.
(Kahn has lectured at Aish Hatorah, and I wonder whether this is where he learned - or perhaps promoted the use of - this technique, as I have experienced it many times with Aish kiruv workers.)
2) Kahn is obviously clueless regarding entropy and evolution since he brings up one of the most laughable arguments that young Earth creationists make: that the "theory" of evolution requires greater order while the second "law" of thermodynamics requires greater disorder. Ai yai yai. I'm not going to discuss the flaws of this assertion here (basically Kahn does not understand the difference between a "closed" and an "open" system); those unacquainted with his inanity are directed to Mark Isaak's Index to Creationist Claims or his Counter-Creationism Handbook.
After I cooled down, I returned to the lecture and was unsurprised to find that Kahn did not redeem himself. Here are some of his other gems.
"Is my starting point going to be that this is a book that God gave to people or that the book is basically a lie... that it was written by others to deceive people".
Don't you just love this false dichotomy and a very polarized one (bordering on a claim that smacks of "good vs evil") at that? (It reminds one of the "Was Jesus Lord, Liar, or Lunatic?" false trichotomy.)
"When I got to University and took undergraduate and graduate courses in the Bible"... and then he adds "specifically I took a course in Bible and the Ancient Near East"
Huh? You took a course??
"I was so disappointed with the level of the questions that were raised because these questions only worked when one's starting point is that the book is not what it claimed to be."
Seriously? You took a college course in Bible and the Ancient Near East and were disappointed because they didn't start off with the belief that God wrote the Bible??
Kahn then sets up a straw-man argument by stating that a cornerstone of the DH theory is that the use of YVHV vs Elohim represents different documents, rather than different relationships between God and man. Obviously he is unaware that DH adherents use the "names of God" as only one of several converging arguments (see Richard Elliot Friedman's "The Bible with Sources Revealed" in which he discusses the seven main arguments.)
And speaking of REF, Kahn goes on to say that "Who Wrote the Bible... was one of the silliest books that I have ever read in my life". He then repeatedly claims that Friedman is intellectually dishonest. Kahn says "His introduction was precious... He writes that according to Jewish tradition, cuz you have to be a little bit honest, the guy's name is Friedman, he really should be honest [chuckles from the audience]..."
WTF is he implying by this foolish statement - that all Jews are honest? But wait, he's only warming up.
"According to Jewish tradition, REF writes, the author of the Bible is Moses. [Kahn pauses to wait for some more chuckles which are soon forthcoming]. And then he has this way of throwing away all Jewish tradition in the next five lines." Supposedly quoting Friedman, 'the Biblical text says that Moses was the most modest man, a very strange modus operandi for a man who is modest... so therefore how could he really be the author and therefore we can now reject the Orthodox Jewish approach.'
I have the book in front of me and Friedman says nothing of the sort! This text is simply not in the Introduction, nor have I been able to find it elsewhere. I am not going to go through the book page by page again, but will note that the word "humblest" is referred to in the index twice, both references being in the Introduction. Regarding the idea that one would not expect the humblest man on earth to point out that he was the humblest man on earth, REF mentions this in the Intro as an historic overview, writing that this was one of the earliest ideas that led people to posit that the text wasn't written by Moses (he specifically names Baruch Spinoza.) Friedman does say that "some of the discoveries [of the last two centuries] challenge traditional belief". But he most definitely does not say that "we can now reject the Orthodox Jewish approach". (Nor did that quote match anything in Google. Well, maybe now it will with this post. Google did reference the book when I tried a couple of other random quotes.) Whether or not this indeed represents Friedman's beliefs is irrelevant; you don't score points for your side by a wholesale fabrication of quotes.
Kahn says that REF "makes a claim that isn't true, attacks the claim, and that's it, now I've dealt with Orthodoxy". That REF took a position that Orthodoxy Jews consider to be a heretical position (that Moses wrote the Torah, not that he only transcribed what God dictated) and claims that is what Orthodox Jews believe.
Oy oy oy. Kahn completely fabricates quotes and then accuses Friedman of being intellectually dishonest?? Talk about the pot calling the kettle black! Is Kahn an out and out liar, or is he just majorly confused? (Two can play at the dichotomy game!)
Kahn says that archaeological evidence of other ANE cultures show that these cultures had multiple names for their god. And that this essentially "cuts off the leg" of Wellhausen. Uh, you do know, Ari, that Wellhausen died almost 100 years ago and that the theory that he was largely responsible for turning into a serious academic discipline is today much more sophisticated that your seemingly juvenile understanding of it? But perhaps I am being dense since I don't even understand the logic of his assertion.
His arguments against a redactor bring nothing new to the table. The claim is that Bible critics use the word "redactor" rather than "editor" because an editor would have smoothed out the differences and eliminated textual problems and then we wouldn't have the theory of multiple documents. A redactor just "threw everything together". Did the best seller of all time have the worst editor of all time? Kahn claims that he caught Friedman in about "30 places" where his theory breaks down. Kahn especially does not like it when a single verse supposedly has multiple authors and REF answers that "problem" by saying that the redactor did it. At that point, Kahn says he gave up reading the book.
Perhaps Bible critics do overuse the redactor as a solution to perceived problems, but Kahn seems to be suggesting here that such an immensely popular book cannot be as flawed as it appears to be. I would remind him, however, that it is the Christian Bible that is the best seller of all time since it includes the New Testament. Would Kahn claim that the New Testament editors did a bang up job of smoothing out all of the contradictions and mistakes of the New Testament???
Next, Kahn presents his case study, that of Genesis 37-39; specifically the duplicate description of the sale of Joseph in 37 and 39, interrupted by chapter 38 which tells the story about Judah and Tamar. That time period spans 20 years and it doesn't fit into the time frame of the Joseph story in the order presented. The scholars say that the Torah is a history book and that it is a bad history book. A "bad" redactor just threw the Judah story in here. That's proof of multiple sources. Kahn responds, who said that it's a history book?? Rashi's opinion is that the Torah is not necessarily in chronological order. Just like a movie, where interspersed timelines of different characters do not imply that there were two different directors.
In 1975, Robert Alter published a revolutionary essay in Commentary Magazine which resulted in scholars looking at the Bible as literature, without regards to who the author is, an idea that Kahn is "particularly fond of". But Kahn reminds us that such an idea is more than 1500 years old, and Alter would have realized this had he just read the midrash. Kahn then tells us some deeper connections between the Joseph and Yehudah stories which show that there is a skilled writer weaving together the stories.
Here I actually agree with Kahn's premise. I believe that often there is a very real connection between stories that on the surface look completely disconnected. One of the weaknesses of the Documentary Hypothesis in my opinion is that proponents often ignore the interpretative tradition. It often rings true with me (especially after listening to a Rabbi David Fohrman lecture) that sometimes this tradition really does seem to reflect the original intent and that it isn't just a thousand years of skilled rabbis attempting to harmonize disparate texts. But this belief certainly isn't a proof against a multiple document theory.
One often used "proof of Torah" is that only a divine text would speak negatively about its people. Kahn also uses the Joseph story to this end. He says that the Maharal said that "the Bible itself is proof of divine authorship because only an anti-semite would have written these things." Regarding the selling of Joseph, etc, no religion would have written this about themselves. Christians used to read this on Christmas to show how diabolical the Jews were; just like they sold Joseph, so did Judas sell Jesus. Why would a redactor include such negative material about the Jewish people?
I'm sorry, but this argument just doesn't fly. If the purpose of the Torah is to install God-centered, ethical behavior among its followers, then one would expect admonishment and stories of divine punishment for deviant behavior. The claim (which Kahn does not mention, but which is in the same category) that no man-made religion would claim that its people were originally slaves, is equally bogus. To say that a people were redeemed from slavery by God by great signs and wonders makes it a much more uplifting and powerful story.
At the end of the lecture, Kahn says that the book was brilliant and wonderful... wonderful fantasy. He enjoyed it, but it was completely baseless.
Um, I thought that you "gave up" on the book and didn't finish it? Just one more example of you bending the truth?
Posts
12 comments:
I'm not sure what you could possibly have been expecting. It is simply impossible to be both intellectually honest about biblical criticism and Orthodox. If you know he's Orthodox, you know he can't be the other.
>The claim (which Kahn does not mention, but which is in the same category) that no man-made religion would claim that its people were originally slaves, is equally bogus.
I've yet to meet the Jew who was ashamed of it.
Great post. I have a couple comments about the issues that you brought up at the beginning that offended you.
1) I think that the bias in academia is very important to bring up. If you don't bring it up, many people will not be able to "examine the arguments on their own merit", instead, they will accept the DH on the authority of the academics.
2) The conflict between evolution and thermodynamics is, AFAICT, a problem that is taken seriously by theoretical physicists. There's an interesting (though wild, in my arrogant opinion) post by the great physicist/philosopher/atheist Sean Carrol called something like "Maxwell's Demon and the Meaning of Life" on this topic. No, Rabbi Kahn was *not* the first person who thought of it.
Just by the way, your article has saved me the time of listening to that lecture by Rabbi Kahn. Thanks!
Also by the way, I started reading Friedman's book, then gave up, because my impression was that it's a lot of speculation without evidence or justification. I thought that it was very ironic that he opens up with the Noah flood story as an example of how well the DH works. To me he showed the opposite, that the DH doesn't work well with the flood at all. (Needless to say, it doesn't work well with the traditional reading either.)
Anon 1: well folks like James Kugel would disagree, although some like to deny his DOXY and say that his is only PRAX. R. Mordechai Breur is an example of someone who actually agreed with much of the DH, but he said that God make it appear to look like multiple docs. Course, that may not fall under your category of intellectually honest!
S: true, and in a few weeks we will spend hours around a table discussing it!
Anon #2: Well, one can say that everyone is biased in some way but what does that add to the discussion? The question is "what is most reasonable?" As far a thermodynamics, it wouldn't be appropriate to discuss speculative philosophy or physics in the lecture, much less in a lecture on Biblical criticism! And I am sure that Kahn couldn't explain why crystals form, for that too seems to the most scientifically naive to violate thermodynamics.
I too have a big problem with REF and the DH because (as I alluded to in the post) it seems that they often go way overboard. But what I was hoping for, and would still very much like to hear, was a well-reasoned rebuttal of specific points by Bible critics. (Some rebuttals are frankly impossible on a scholarly level, because - for example - the traditional view begins with accepting the idea of prophecy.)
"Is my starting point going to be that this is a book that God gave to people or that the book is basically a lie... that it was written by others to deceive people".
"I was so disappointed with the level of the questions that were raised because these questions only worked when one's starting point is that the book is not what it claimed to be."
Thank you, Rabbi Kahn, for making me aware that all my life I have been reading nothing but defective texts of the Tanakh. In the versions that I've seen, none of the narrators identify themselves as YHWH. Rather, they speak of YHWH in the third person--just as if the text were written by human beings.
This kind of thing is so insulting to the listener. If I were still an Orthodox Jew, I'd hope that people like this would just keep their mouths shut rather than being so obviously intellectual dishonest. It's bound to cause some people to question even more.
Interesting point MKR - indeed the Torah makes no such claims as to its authorship. Thanks for pointing it out (guess I was asleep at the wheel when Kahn made that statement.)
Might give Sommers (JTS) lecture a listen on Machon Hadar.
Also here's a panel where most presume a real need to reconcile with the findings of Bib Crit and critical scholarship is not without defense, AND offer a few possibilities;
http://www.jliconline.org/shiurim/C35
Aster makes reference to this introduction as something he would offer;
http://books.google.com/books?id=ep3XiyuinhMC&pg=PA1&lpg=PA1&dq=milgrom+%22can+critical+scholarship+believe%22&source=bl&ots=wpI5Y2OiiD&sig=1emRMSoEXccNpBhoGm_XYMZNqp4&hl=en&ei=E4dTS-nRBIbElAel8_CgCg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CAcQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q&f=false
Also Moshe Halbertal's lecture on TMS is interesting.
http://www.blip.tv/file/1074888#
Thank you Pierre, I will make sure to check out all of those links.
Regarding evolution and physics – I have ran that idea by a number of physicists who did not find it as fundamentally preposterous as you did.
If you would like to point me in what you feel is the "proper direction" – please email me with the relevant references and I will be happy to try and digest them
(email adk1010@gmail.com)
I was indeed referring to the overview which Freedman provides, I will admit that I read it some years ago, and do not have it in front of me, but the only place I recall him dealing with "orthodox belief" was within that section where he cites (Spinoza regarding) the unlikelihood of Mosaic authorship.
Had he said in the introduction that Orthodox Jews believe in a Divine authorship and prophesy, two elements which cannot be evaluated in academic institutions and are therefore beyond academic interest – it would have been far more honest – instead, with the singular statement regarding Moses's lack of humility he completes his treatment of orthodox belief.
I fail to see why you used such harsh language – and accused me of fabrication, you agree that the text of the introduction indeed says what I cited. You understood me as making a direct quote – which I never claimed. You put words in my mouth which I never said – then attack me since the words are not there.
My point is I would have thought that in a book about the bible, especially within that historical overview there would have been more – the only quote that deal with "orthodox belief" is an unfortunate misquote ascribing Mosaic authorship – and then rejection due to his humility. This is there in the introduction (unless it has been removed in newer editions).
I do feel that the use of redactor – editor is conveniently used by REF in any area that the theory is weak.
I did read the entire book, and did find it clever – though I gave up on the book early on – similarly to you "giving up" on my lecture in the first 5 minutes nevertheless continuing to listen.
In summation – I accept your point about physics and await more material from you.
I think you accusing me of "fabrication" is unfair.
Regarding the simplistic level of the class, I apologize, this was not a university level discussion (though I did review my outline with a lecturer in the Bible department in Bar Ilan University before I gave the talk) rather a very popular one, and the major issue I did want to address was the literary aspects of the narratives, which was the vast majority of the talk. My bringing up the documents and the names was valid in my mind because people still refer to the "documentary hypothesis" and I was asked to make mention of it. Incidentally I am quite familiar with Rabbi Breuer and indeed studied with him, had I been speaking to a more sophisticated audience I may have introduced his theories.
I take offence against the charge of "intellectual dishonesty", I accept that you can disagree with my choice of topics, my treatment of the topics, but I did not fabricate anything to my knowledge. It was how understood REF.
Ari Kahn
I looked the Text and you clearly misunderstood me – the only treatment he has of the "traditional" belief is in this paragraph – which is patently wrong. Jews do not believe Moses is the AUTHOR.
"Moses is the major figure through most of these books and early Jewish and Christian tradition held that Moses himself wrote them, though nowhere in the Five Books themselves does the text say that he was the author. Pg 17"
A few lines later he ridicules that position which is not the orthodox position at all by showing the absurdity of the most modest man saying he is the most modest man, the implication is the untenability of the traditional belief which he in fact misstated.
"…People also noticed that the five Books of Moses included things that Moses could not have known or was not likely to have said. The text, after all, gave an account of Moses' death. It also said that Moses was the humblest man on earth; and normally one would not expect the humblest man to point out that he is the humblest man on earth." Pg 18
Paperback edition 1989
I did not quote the words "and now I have taken care of the orthodox belief" but that is the implication – by misstating the position and then ridiculing it – REF achieved his goal (in my opinion. Ironically, you then accuse me of, of doing the same thing – misstating something and then ridiculing it – but in fact you can be accused of doing the same to me. I do not believe that my understanding of the thrust of this argument is wrong – nor did I mislead by citing it as I did. This is not an issue of intellectual honesty – understanding perhaps – but not an issue of honesty. I hope you read my words and have the intellectual honesty to at least consider them – and hopefully accept my position as valid.
Ari Kahn
Side note -
I think you meant to type YHVH.
"Kahn then sets up a straw-man argument by stating that a cornerstone of the DH theory is that the use of YVHV vs Elohim represents different documents, rather than different relationships between God and man."
Post a Comment