Messianic Judaism Quest

The classical Jewish view of the Divine authorship of the Torah (and of the entire Hebrew Scriptures by extension) remains strong in traditional Jewish circles, but exclusive Mosaic authorship has been challenged for some time and dates back to the textual critics of the 18th and 19th centuries. The classical form of the documentary hypothesis is known as the Graf-Wellhausen model.

The traditional Jewish approach has almost unequivocally rejected this or any view which compromises the divine origin of the Torah and of the rest of the Tanakh.

That fundamentalist approach is typically held by most Messianic Jews. Until now, little toleration of critical approaches to the Scripture has been extended. Yet in light of archaeological and historical discoveries, a reconsideration may be warranted in Messianic Jewish circles. While our immediate discussion focuses on the text of the Torah, the general principles may be applied to all texts accepted as sacred.

The quest for the “real” Torah has largely been characterized by the tendency to gravitate to either end of the critical or divine pendulum swing. Despite attempts to view the Torah, both as a valid theological reflection of the Jewish people despite its historical development, more historically or critically minded circles in and outside the Jewish community appear to stand at opposite ends with more traditional conservative approaches. The seeming tension often existing between religious and historical approaches to the origin of the Torah is quite clear then.

Critical approaches and their supporters have often been accused of systemically falling prey to perspectives that consequently reduce miraculous phenomena described in the Torah to categories of sociology, psychosomatic experiences, folklore or simply pure invention. Conversely, religious treatments or explanations can be faulted with simply reducing all social, political, or psychological events in the Torah to transcendental forces and divine encounters.

One solution to this problem has been to understand that the true purpose of the historian lies in accounting for the Torah’s development instead of justifying it as an end theological product. It can be suggested that religious and historical-critical approaches need not be in conflict with one another. According to this view, neither is in fact superior to the other as long as they do not attempt to answer each other’s questions.

Unfortunately, for the religious Messianic Jew who retains an opened minded approach to faith and practice, historical study, cannot be so easily separated from his or her spiritual experience.

The possible answer to this dilemma may be solved by David Halvini’s concept of Chateu Yisrael. That is that Israel’s revelation at Sinai and later prophetic tradition was a genuine divine experience, but Israel’s tumultuous struggle to remain faithful to the covenant led to a poor adherence to, and preservation of their sacred texts. Consequently, later Judaism was confronted with maculate texts, often requiring the editing, redaction, and even composition by later biblical or rabbinic figures such as Ezra.

That Ezra’s role in reorienting Judaism towards its sacred texts, went beyond his task of rededicating the covenant is argued by many scholars, including David Halivni who refers to the following passage from Babylonian Talmud Sanhedrin 21b as evidence for
this view:

Mar Zutra, or as some say, Mar ‘Ukba, said: Originally the Torah was given in Hebrew characters and in the sacred [Hebrew] language; later, in the times of Ezra, the Torah as given in Ashurith [Assyrian] script and Aramaic language.[Finally], they selected for Israel the Ashurith script and Hebrew language. It has been taught: Rabbi Yose said: Had Moses not preceded him, Ezra would have been worthy of receiving the Torah for Israel. Of Moses it is written, “And Moses went up to G-d” (Exodus 19:3), and of Ezra it is written, “He Ezra, went up from Babylon” (Ezra 7:6). As the going up of the former refers to the [receiving of the] Law, so does the going up of the latter…and even though the Torah was not given through him [Ezra], its writing was changed through him… It has been taught: Rabbi said: The Torah was originally given to Israel in this [Ashurith] writing. When they [Israel] sinned, it was changed into Ro’atz. But when they repented, [Assyrian characters] were re-introduced…

Multiple authorship as reflected in the classical Wellhausen model and subsequent revisions need not deride the overarching belief of divine authorship. Faith derived from biblical texts must be able to transcend both text and study.

Share This