[This case is a hypothetical based on Ben Chorin's latest riddle. I consider it an especially important dilemma, since the DH is one of the big emuna landmines for intellectually curious OJs. I guarantee you it is more common than you think. – aiwac]
A religious university student (or professor) is in a bind. He feels intellectually compelled to accept the Documentary Hypothesis (either wholly or in part), and none of the present Orthodox solutions (R. David Tzvi Hoffman's work, Rav Breuer's "shitat habehinot" &c) set him at ease. Nevertheless, he wishes to remain a frum, believing Jew. He approaches his Rabbi on the subject.
What should the Rabbi do, and why?
1) Tell him to take off his kipa, the damned apikores.
2) Try to provide him with some sort of fall-back position for TMS that is intellectually and religiously acceptable, if borderline (assuming one exists).
3) Convince him to continue living a frum life, in the hope that either he finds a personal solution for his dilemma, the DH is rebutted, or that he will at least have zechuyot against his kefira be'ikar emuna.
4) Other (elaborate)
5 comments:
maybe im just naive or ignorant, but is the dh really such a threat to orthodoxy?
i wish you would explain why it is necessarily so.
For the record, I don't think you're either for asking such a question.
The DH is a threat to a specific group of OJs, not to everyone (most of our problems stem from the way OJ is SOCIALLY practiced and taught, but that's a subject for another post).
Torah LeMoshe MiSinai is one of the (if not THE) legal and doctrinal bases for Orthodox Judaism. You can not have miderabanon without de'orayta and you can not have de'orayta without revelation at Sinai (at least, that's how I understand it).
Deny TMS, deny that Moshe ever existed &c, or that revelation happened, and you undermine the raison d'etre, the divine source of authority for the whole system.
This is why the DH, especially its more radical variants, is such a powerful challenge to Orthodoxy.
Im yirtzeh Hashem, I will spend some time over the coming weeks dealing with some of the "fall-back positions" OJ intellectuals of the past generation came up with to deal with the issue.
Thank you again for your important question.
i understand why tms is crucial to the whole structure of oj.
maybe you need to explain what about the dh is necessarily objectionable to tms [outside the belief that t is not ms], and why the various explanations dont hold water.
Anon...
You misunderstand. I personally don't have a problem with the various explanations. Combined they retain my hope that the questions raised by the Biblical Critics can be answered, or dealt with satisfactorily from an emuna point of view.
But there are many who don't, especially in the Jewish Studies field, and my hypothetical was based on them; I want to know how to help people like this.
The problems in BC? Where do I start?
The argument that four different people wrote four parts of the book at four different times (and which was Moses, if any)? The "Deuteronomistic" historical thesis that claims the whole of Devarim (and other books) was a biased, late invention meant to give retroactive justification to the Judaite Monarchy? Or how's about the claim that the whole creation story in Breishit was nothing more than a blatant rip-off of Babylonian mythos (rather than just begin similiar for various reasons)? The list goes on.
do you really find any of those elements conclusively persuasive? except for the multiple author thing [and even that is not so hot], i really think the evidence is not there.
i have read thru the bible more times than i care to count, and i just dont see it. and i have tried to see it, but what can i say?
i guess some people are still bothered...
Post a Comment