The Literary Approach to the Bible as a Response to Biblical Criticism

Bible criticism (also known as the "Documentary Hypothesis") has been among the greatest intellectual threats to Judaism in modern times - indeed, not only to Judaism, but to all Biblically-based religions. Though its earliest proponents, like Julius Wellhausen, may have been motivated by anti-Semitic sentiments, the Bible critics of the modern era cannot be accused of such base motivations. And the success of the Bible criticism movement is unquestionable; it has so thoroughly pervaded the halls of academia as to have become a new form of intellectual dogma that most secular scholars are unwilling to even question. A number of Jewish scholars, including Rabbi David Tzvi Hoffman, Umberto Cassuto and Rabbi J.H. Hertz, have offered responses to Bible criticism; yet no real systematic approach has been offered. Of course, the most basic, and indeed most consistent, response is that the assumptions that the scholars work with is far different than the ones that the religious person does (therefore it is aptly named the Documentary Hypothesis, and not fact). Meaning, if one believes that the text was written divinely then many of the problems that arise are thoroughly diminished, since an omniscient being can definitely be expected to have the capability to juggle a few different writing styles and ideas at the same time. Yet to some, this answer is not completely satisfying. Recently scholarship has taken a turn away from disjointing the text to uniting it. Many scholars have begun to champion the literary approach to the bible, showing that verbal tools and structures are used by a competent author (or more appropriately - Author) throughout many texts, creating parallels and highlighting certain unifying themes. This approach treats the text holistically, as Meir Sternberg, a literary scholar, says: "If the Bible is ideologically singular - and I believe so - then its singularity lies in the world view projected, together with the rhetoric devised to bring it home. And as long as we adhere to the text's self-definition as religious literature with… singularities, we need not even submit to the dictate of identifying ourselves as religious or secular readers."i Though these scholars take the approach as a tool to better understand the message of the text, and not as a system to respond to biblical criticism, we will show how the holistic interpretation of the text (in Sternberg's words "ideological singularity" and "rhetoric devices") in vogue amongst modern scholars can serve both purposes. But before we begin, a quick disclaimer must be stated. All discussions on biblical criticism are shrouded with warning signs and flashing red lights, the danger lurking in the distance. Rabbi Samson Raphael Hirsch, on the topic of writing a book on taamey ha-mitzvot, says: "…There are worries to be weighed. Might I not cause harm instead of helping?" And in the continuation: "And suppose my attempt fails? Will not those who would gladly do away with the cause for which I am living use my abortive efforts to strangle this cause entirely? "See here," they would gloat, "some entirely new attempts to rehabilitate Judaism - total failures!""ii In other words, there is always a danger that the approaches offered and discussed do not appeal to the reader, and in response the reader abandons his faith entirely, or even minutely. Thus the disclaimer is as follows: this is an introduction and preliminary discussion only. This article does not offer all the approaches in existence, nor does the author believe that all viable approaches have already been thought of. Moreover, the author admits openly that this approach is not an overarching theory, solving all problems. Yet it is a start. To demonstrate how a literary approach to the Biblical text can serve both as a refutation of Bible critics, as well as to enhance the message of the text, let us begin with Genesis, the first Book of the Bible, and the story of Yosef. Yosef's story dominates the end of the Book of Genesis (Chapters 37-50). The flow of this story is, however, curiously interrupted by the story of Yehudah and his daughter-in-law, Tamar (Genesis 38), which seems to be entirely out of place and disconnected from the story's context. Indeed, E.A. Speiser, in the Anchor Bible's Book of Genesis, describes this story as "a completely independent unit," having "no connection with the drama of Joseph."iii Yet, through a number of verbal parallels, we can clearly demonstrate that the Yehudah and Tamar story should be linked to the larger Yosef story:

1. When describing Yosef's separation from his brothers, the Bible uses the verb "hurad"; when Yehudah separates from the brothers, the same verb is used: "va-yered". 2. In the climax of both narratives, the uncommon expressions "haker nah" and "va-yaker" are used. In Yosef's story, the terms are used when the brothers show their father Yosef's garment which they had doused in blood and ask him to identify it. "haker nah?" they ask him, and the text recounts that their father does indeed identify it: "va-yaker." Similarly, in the Yehudah and Tamar story, as Tamar is being led to execution, she sends Yehudah's possessions to him and asks him to identify them: "haker nah." Yehudah, in his redeeming moment, acknowledges them - "Va-yaker" - as well as his own guilt. Both Yehudah's and Yosef's garments are the object that must be identified - "Va-yaker". 3. While the Yehudah and Tamar story fits nicely with the story that immediately preceded it on account of verbal parallels, it also fits well with the next account thematically. As modern scholar, Robert Alter, notes: "When we return from the Judah to the Joseph story (Genesis 39), we move in pointed contrast from a tale of exposure through sexual continence to a tale of seeming defeat and ultimate triumph through sexual continence - Joseph and Potiphar's wife."iv

Indeed by skimming through the entire Yosef narrative (Genesis 37-Genesis 50) we see that the text is constantly comparing and contrasting the various brothers, specifically Yosef, Yehudah and Reuven, with Reuven's personality serving primarily as a foil for that of Yehudahv. In other words, a key theme underlying the Yosef narrative is to compare and contrast Yosef and Yehudah. Both leave the land - "hurad" and "va-yered". Both have trials and tribulations over a woman. The story ends with Yehudah rectifying his earlier sin of throwing Rachel's son, Yosef, into a pit by now offering to be thrown into a pit (jail) himself, this time to rescue Rachel's other son, Binyaminvi. In a sense, the story represents Yehudah's transition to family leader; from the sin of throwing Yosef into the pit he learns to admit his failures (by Tamar - "tzadka mimeni") and finally is willing to sacrifice his own life to rectify his earlier mistakes. Thus, by placing the Yehudah and Tamar story in the midst of the Yosef story the two are harmoniously linked, enabling us to easily identify the theme that runs throughout the end of Genesis; the similarities and differences between the two family leaders - Yosef and Yehudah. Thus, while Bible Criticism declares a multiplicity of texts from the fact that the flow of the story is immediately broken, we see that verbal cues from the text itself suggest that this was entirely intentional. Modern scholars also use another feature of the Biblical text - "Doublets" or repetitive sequences - to suggest the existence of multiple Biblical authors. These are common features of the Bible, particularly in its various discussions of the Law. What are we to make of these repetitions? Robert Alter offers the following theory: "Thinking in somewhat more concrete historical terms, various commentators have attributed the repetitive features of biblical narrative to its oral origins, to the background of folklore from which it draws, and to the composite nature of the text that has been transmitted to us. The last of these three explanations is the least interesting… under scrutiny most instances of repetition prove to be quite purposeful, and this would include the repetition not only of relatively brief statements but… of whole episodes."vii Repetition is thus a purposeful tool, not necessarily a reflection of multiple authors. This can be done in a number of ways. Repetition of an event can be done to highlight differences between them. For instance, Robert Alter says: "In II Kings 1, King Ahaziah sends a captain with his company three times to Elijah. The first two times, in identical verses, fire descends from the heavens and consumes the whole military contingent. The third time, the exact repetition is interrupted just as Elijah is about to perform his incendiary trick once more, when the third captain pleads for mercy and Elijah is prompted by an angel to grant the plea."viii After Elijah grants the captain his plea and allows him to survive, Elijah is commanded by God to accompany the captain. While the first two captains attempted to bring Elijah with them on their terms, Elijah now accompanies the captain - not by his command, but by the command of God. Thus, the repetition serves to create a contrast between the first two captains and the last, highlighting and emphasizing Elijah's transition from one who is pursued to one who leads, answering only to God. Another use of repetition is to create complimentary accounts, two distinct messages that are conveyed by means of the same text. Robert Alter says: "Just such a technique of placing two parallel accounts in dynamically complementary sequence is splendidly evident at the very beginning of the Hebrew Bible. There are, of course, two different creation stories. The first… begins with Genesis 1:1 and concludes with the report of the primeval Sabbath (Gen. 2:1-3)… The second version of the creation story… would then begin…. In the second half of Genesis 2:4… going on to the creation of man, the vegetable world, the animal kingdom, and woman, in that order, and after the completion of creation proper at the end of Chapter 2, moving directly into the story of the serpent and the banishment from Eden."ix He continues to explain the "problems," and explains how they are in fact quite intentional: "Now, it is obvious enough that the two accounts are complementary rather than overlapping, each giving a different kind of information about how the world came into being." The first account "is concerned with the cosmic plan of creation and so begins appropriately with the primordial abyss whose surface is rippled by the wind from (or spirit of) God." The second account "is interested in man as a cultivator of his environment and as a moral agent, and so he begins with a comment on the original lack of vegetation and irrigation and ends with an elaborate report of the creation of woman." The two creation accounts, says Alter, are purposely contrasted. They consistently avoid addressing the same topics. Rather, they each serve a distinctive purpose, focusing on completely different aspects of creation. Later, Alter explains the purpose of these complementary accounts. They give "divergent perspectives" that are "achieved through the combined versions in the broader vision of creation, man, and God. God is both transcendent and immanent… both magisterial in His omnipotence and actively, emphatically involved with His creation. The world is orderly, coherent, beautifully patterned, and at the same time it is a shifting tangle of resources and topography, both a mainstay and a baffling challenge to man. Humankind is the divinely appointed master of creation, and an internally divided rebel against the divine scheme, destined to scrabble a painful living from the soil that has been blighted because of man."x Alter's analysis bears a striking resemblance to that of Rabbi J.B. Soloveitchik in his book Lonely Man of Faith: "We all know that the Bible offers two accounts of the creation of man. We are also aware of the theory suggested by Bible critics attributing these two accounts to two different traditions and sources. Of course, since we do unreservedly accept the unity and integrity of the Scriptures and their divine character, we reject the hypothesis which is based, like much Biblical criticism, on literary categories invented by modern man, ignoring completely the eidetic-noetic content of the Biblical story. It is, of course, true that the two accounts of the creation of man differ considerably. This incongruity was not discovered by the Bible critics. Our sages of old were aware of it. However, the answer lies not in an alleged dual tradition but in dual man, not in an imaginary contradiction between two versions but in a real contradiction in the nature of man. The two accounts deal with two Adams, two men, two fathers of mankind, two types, two representatives of humanity, and it is no wonder that they are not identical."xi (Emphasis mine) Rabbi Soloveitchik takes the same track as Alter, arguing that the repetitive text is intentional, the purpose being to highlight and demonstrate two different (in this case paradoxical) aspects of man, history and the world. These are but a few of the many examples of recent scholarship's use of literary and verbal tools to unify texts that were previously held to be of differing authorshipxii. Moreover, as we have shown, a focus on these literary and verbal tools not only serves to unify the text, but also offers deep insight into the theme and message of the text itself, the desired goal in the study of Tanach.xiii xiv

Simcha Gross is a sophmore in YC, majoring in Jewish Studies and English

i Meir Sternberg, The Poetics of Biblical Narrative, p. 37, Bloomington (1987) ii Nineteen Letters, Letter Nineteen, Page 333 in the Feldheim edition iii Alter p. 3 iv The Art of Biblical Narrative p. 10 vFurther thematic parallels: Reuven and Yehudah are contrasted three times: At Mechirat Yosef they give differing suggestions regarding what to do with Yosef; when trying to convince Yaacov to allow Binyamin to return with the brothers to Mitzrayim so as to receive enough food to survive the famine Reuven offers his two sons in lieu of Binyamin and is rejected, while Yehudah offers only himself as compensation and is accepted; Yosef cries twice in the story - the first time this happens Reuven separates himself from the brothers by blaming them for the troubles while the second time Yosef cries Yehudah separates himself from his brothers and accepts full guilt upon himself. This is how Reuven serves as a foil for Yehudah, and is another indication of Yehudah's clear role in the "Yosef narratives." See DvarTorahProject.blogspot.com on Parshat Mikeitz for more on this parallel. vi The connection between Yehudah and Binyamin also plays out throughout Tanach: Jerusalem is split between them; Shaul is from Binyamin while David is from Yehudah; Mordechai is a fusion of the two etc. The point of this footnote as well as the one above is to further demonstrate the veracity of the literary parallels above by the fact that the themes play out throughout Genesis specifically as well as Tanach as a whole. vii Alter p. 88 viii Alter p. 90 ix Alter p. 141 x Alter p. 147 xi Lonely Man of Faith p. 9-10, See also p. 7 for his cryptic remarks on biblical criticism in general. xii Though these scholars may believe in variant authors, they nonetheless support a holistic approach to the bible. xiii For other reading see David Sykes' dissertation "Patterns in Genesis" as well as Bruce T. Dahlberg The Unity of Genesis, Literary Interpretations of Biblical Narratives Volume II (Abingdon 1982), Jed H. Abraham A Literary Solution to the Name Variations of Esau's wives, Torah u-madda journal volume 7 (1997) xiv I have not touched on Chiastic structures and other such holistic tools due to limited space availability. However, the chiastic structure is another tool utilized by the literary approach to the bible which is predicated on the belief of a holistic text. Indeed many Jewish scholars use these and other literary tools. See Rabbi Elchanan Samet's Iyunim BeParshat HaShavuah, as well as Rabbi Menachem Liebtag's website www.Tanach.org