Authority of Torah and Jewish Sects

Torah and Biblical Criticism

Though significant results were achieved by the as mentioned scholars of the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, nobody attempted to differentiate clearly between various parts of the Pentateuch. This process started with H. B. Witter whose Jura Israelitarum in Palastinam appeared in 1711. He pointed out the usage of different divine names in the Book of Genesis. Jean Astruc (born in 1684) identified these sources as one which used the divine name “Elohim”, and the other which used the divine name “Jehovah”. Eichhorn in his Einleitung in das Alte Testament (first edition 1780–3) proved that there existed two main strands and hence two sources for the ancient writings. English scholar Alexander Geddes and German scholar J. S. Vater developed “the fragment hypothesis” picturing the Pentateuch as a collection of fragments. Hupfeld in his book Die Quellen der Genesis und die Art ihrer Zusammensetzung, inaugurated a new phase in the history of Pentateuchal criticism. He identified three narrative strands in the Pentateuch.

As a result of biblical scholars Wilhelm Vatke’s Die Religion des Alten Testament I (1835) and Karl H. Graf’s Die geschichtlichen Bucher des Alten Testaments (1866), two independent research works, a historical or documentary hypothesis about the different sources of the Pentateuch came into the limelight. Vatke sought to trace from the biblical narration the historical development of the ancient Hebrew religion while Graf worked on the text itself so as to find which of the texts must have preceded or followed others. They identified four different source documents; J (the document associated with the divine name Yahweh or Jehovah), E (the one associated with Elohim, the Hebrew word for God), P (the passages emphasizing the legal aspects and the functions of priests), and D (the source responsible for composing the book of Deuteronomy). J. Wellhausen combined the research of his predecessors and propounded the “Documentary Hypothesis,” which brought a revolution in the field of biblical research in general and Pentateuch studies in particular. Since then most critics of the Pentateuch argue that it is a composite work, produced at different intervals, with contradictions, inconsistencies and different literary styles, and as such it cannot be the work of one individual (Moses) as has been claimed for centuries. Opposition to the critical study or examination of the Bible comes from the Church as well as Judaism, but the new scholarship has impacted on followers of both religions resulting in schism concerning the authority of the Torah. At present there are three main groups among those of the Jewish faith, each having a different view with regards to the authority of the Torah.

Reform or Progressive Judaism

Reform Judaism, which appeared in nineteenth-century Germany, recognizes the validity of the critical study of the Bible and accepts the picture of the Torah or Pentateuch which has emerged as a result of modern historical and critical research and investigation. The movement of Reform Judaism can be further divided into two main categories: the “Classical” and the “Radical”. The Classical Reform movement does not dispense with the traditional concept of the Torah altogether. These reformers attempt rather to reinterpret and adapt it to new requirements: “The emphasis at the outset was on adaptability, not on total rejection. The early Reformers understood very well that Jewish law was central to Jewish life. They acknowledged the need to discontinue the observance of antiquated commandments, but they staunchly defended the necessity of the legal process in determining Jewish belief and practice.”

The Classical Reform movement ended in 1881 when radical trends within the movement got a chance to dominate it. The outcome, the Radical Reform Judaism movement, practically dispensed with the concept of “Torah,” having lost faith in its divine origin. In the words of M. M. Kaplan, one of the pioneers of modern Jewish thought: “With critical and historical research proving that the Pentateuch is a composite document which began to function as a single code not earlier than in the days of Ezra, the laws and institutions contained in the Pentateuch are deprived at one blow of the infallibility and permanent validity which traditional Judaism was wont to ascribe to them.”

Contrary to the traditional view, Radical Reformers give more importance to Jewish history, the Jewish people, Jewish civilization, etc. and see Judaism as a constantly evolving organism rather than something revealed and static. Judaism, observes J. Neusner, “has a history, that history is single and unitary; and it has always been leading to its present outcome: Reformed Judaism.”21 This means that “the origin of the reliable definition of Judaism lies not in revealed records of God’s will but in human accounts of humanity’s works.”

For Radical Reform Judaism the source of religious authority, observes Danzger, is “the ethical and universalistic teachings of the prophets. Because conscience is a reflection of the Godhead for Reform, the ultimate authority is man’s own conscience, guided by the moral and ethical teachings of the Bible.” This perhaps is the reason why the Reformers are more concerned with philosophy than the Torah. Even the term “Torah” is missing from their vocabulary. This is evident from the language used in the historic Pittsburgh platform which declared: “We recognize in the Mosaic legislation a system of training the Jewish people for its mission during its national life in Palestine, and today we accept as binding only its moral laws and maintain only such ceremonies as elevate and sanctify our lives, but reject all such as are not adapted to the views and habits of modern civilization... We hold that all such Mosaic and rabbinical laws as regular diet, priestly purity, and dress... Their observance in our days is apt rather to obstruct than to further modern spiritual elevation.”

One cannot imagine a more forthright declaration addressed to the age that refutes or transforms the authority of the Written as well as the Oral Torah. Commenting on this revolution, Greenstein observes that “the principle of earlier Reform had been a commitment to evolution in Jewish law, not revolution. Classical Reform tried to adapt Jewish law to new conditions while still retaining the principle. The Pittsburgh Platform abandoned that effort altogether. Halakah, the Hebrew word for “Jewish law,” disappeared from Reform vocabulary.”

This trend continued in Reform circles till the early 1930s. In 1930 the Columbus Platform replaced the Pittsburgh Platform. It emphasized the evolution of Jewish law and life rather than revolution. It renewed the approach of Classical Reformers vis-à-vis the Torah and continues to be popular among Reform Jews today.

Orthodox or Traditional Judaism

Orthodox Judaism, contrary to popular impression, is not a monolithic movement. Orthodoxy spans a range of complexity about beliefs, customs, practices, and political views. However, there is one thing common among them: the Orthodox do not see Judaism as a constantly changing organism or as a human construct. They believe that the Torah was revealed on Sinai and is supernatural and eternal and in no way man-made or subject to change. Jacob Neusner defines orthodoxy as “all Jews who believe that God revealed the dual Torah at Sinai, and that Jews must carry out the requirements of Jewish law contained in the Torah as interpreted by the sages through time.” Therefore, the Orthodox or traditionalists are in line with the position held by the generality of Jewry at large for centuries. They maintain that the Torah is the word of God and by definition truth itself. They further maintain that the Torah “being given by God, must carry meaning in every word and not even one letter can be superfluous. One may not understand everything, but that is human shortcoming. If modern scientific knowledge appears to contradict the biblical word, then either our present-day science will prove to be in error or we do not understand the Bible properly.”

So to Orthodoxy, the Torah constitutes facts that are divinely oriented and above all doubt. As the facts of nature leave no room for any kind of doubt, so does the Torah. This view of the essential truthfulness or absolute inerrancy of the Torah also attended to its natural corollary that the Torah teachings are directed, precise, and full of divine wisdom. Human beings may not deny them even if they are at a loss to grasp the meanings. In short, the religious authority in orthodoxy is the Written as well as the Oral Torah (Talmud) along with the subsequent rabbinic traditions and not (as in Reform Judaism) the history of the Jewish people. Greenstein observes that “in more recent times, this appeal to authenticity through traditional sources has persuaded portions of [the] Orthodox community to define its theological stance as “Torah-true” Judaism. They perceive themselves as guardians of the Torah and its commandments with the duty to preserve them and follow them regardless of changing times or circumstances.”

Conservative Judaism

Conservative Judaism is a “counter-Reform” movement and is a mixture of both the above-discussed views. Conservative Jews maintain their belief in the revealed nature of the Dual Torah but do not seal the door of revelation with the rabbinical period. They believe in a continuity of revelation in Jewish tradition. This middle position espouses both the previous views, for it holds that God revealed the written Torah, which was supplemented by “the ongoing revelation manifesting itself throughout history in the spirit of the Jewish people.”

To the Conservatives, Jewish tradition, culture, customs, and the practices and value schemes of the Jewish people, are quite significant. They believe that Judaism is a tradition that includes not only the written and oral Torah, the Mishna. and the Talmud, but also the historical practices of Jews, and the traditions of the entire Jewish civilization. Robert Gordis summarizes the fundamental postulates of Conservative Judaism in the following words: “The maintenance of the twin principles of authority and development in Jewish law... together with the emphasis upon the worldwide peoplehood of Israel – these are the basic postulates of Conservative Judaism.” This emphasis upon the catholic Israel does not imply a lack of faith in the Torah. The Torah to the Conservatives is the word of God and divinely inspired. Such a strong faith in the validity of the Torah is clear from the words of Isaac Leeser, ‘the founder of Conservatism’ in the United States. He wrote in the preface to his English version of the Bible, “the translator believes in the Scriptures as they have been handed down to us, as also in the truth and authenticity of prophecies and their literal fulfillment.” Conservatives would allow the application of biblical criticism to the Hebrew Bible except the Pentateuch. Morris J. Raphall, for instance, “differentiated between the Five Books of Moses and the rest of the Scriptures. It was not possible, he believed, to apply the same measure of analysis to both. Whoever undertook the criticism of the Pentateuch would touch the basis of Judaism.”

In light of what has been discussed thus far, it may be asserted that although modern biblical criticism has left its traces in and imprint on modern Judaic thought and has caused some Jews to revise their faith in the supernatural origin and binding nature of the Torah, many Jews maintain a strong belief in the divine origin and nature of the Torah. They believe in its essential facticity and venerate it as the true “word of God”. In case of the Orthodox, the Torah is the inerrant and infallible Word of God in its literal sense. None of the Jewish groups, even Reformism in its radical form, has rejected its validity altogether. The phrase, all Scripture (Written + Oral), only Five Books of Moses, not five books of Moses in its entirety, but just the beliefs along with the ethical and moral teachings, will, perhaps, be fitting to convey the position regarding the Torah of the traditionalists, conservatives and reformists consecutively. Therefore, a student who intends to learn about the authentic Jewish concept of God, or transcendence or anthropomorphism, and compare these to their counterparts in other traditions, would have no choice but to go to the Hebrew Bible in general and the Five Books of Moses in particular, because the Torah, whatsoever may be the claims and findings of modern research, enjoys authoritative and authentic status among Jewry at large. This assertion may be substantiated by the words of one of the best-known Conservative Jewish scholars, Kohut, who observes, “to us, the Pentateuch is noli me tangere! Hands off! We disclaim all honor of handling the sharp knife which cuts the Bible into a thousand pieces.”

See details in my book "Concept of God in Judeo-Christian and Islamic Traditions", chapter 2