The answer is not as much as you might think. In general, there are numerous ways to ascertain what happened in the past. There are fields of science, archeology, linguistics etc etc all of which can be brought to bear on the question of history.
Of course for something as recent as the Holocaust, you hardly need to resort to science, you have thousand of eye witnesses, documents, film footage etc etc. Though that doesn't stop many people from disbelieving it happened (people are very gullible).
But when it comes to more ancient history, such as the state of Ancient Israel, it becomes harder to prove. Do we have absolute proof that there was a Temple in Jerusalem? Do we have absolute proof that King David had a kingdom? Of course not. But we have rational analysis, ancient texts, archeology etc etc, and the global academic non-biased consensus is that indeed there was a Jewish temple in Jerusalem, and a Jewish state in Israel (though likely not as Chazal described it).
How can the Arabs deny such a thing? Very simple. They have emunah that there was no Temple, no Jewish State, and archeology or whatever else isn't going to trump their emunah, despite the fact that the global academic consensus is that there was a Temple and a State. Likewise Orthodox Jews have emunah that the Bible was complete by 1200 BCE, and no amount of archeology, linguistics or other evidence is going to sway them.
Is it acceptable to claim historical facts based on faith? Of course not. If it was, then we would have no leg to stand on vis-a-vis the Holocaust and Temple deniers. But we do have a leg to stand on, because a rational analysis of all the fact shows that there was a Holocaust, there was a Temple, and there was a Compilation of Biblical Texts.
Is the Documentary Hypothesis as proven as the Holocaust? Of course not. But the method and the approach is what is important. Either you submit to rational analysis, or you studiously ignore the evidence and maintain your biased faith.
Now faith might be fine in some cases, for example faith in the future (optimism and hope), or faith that God has an ultimate plan, but faith has no role in determining historical, physical fact.
People who resort to historical and scientific facts and other evidence based approaches when it comes to debates about Israel, but quite happily ignore the entire field of Biblical Criticism and global academic consensus when it comes to TMS, are simply intellectually dishonest hypocrites.
Posts
29 comments:
The thing is, nobody claims that the Holocaust didn't happen because they received a revelation about it. They all claim to be using the methods of science (both hard and soft sciences) for their disproof. The Temple denial people are the same. Only the DH skeptics claim that there is insufficient evidence to disprove what they know directly through revelation (and mesorah, for those who hold by the Kuzari Hypothesis). DH skeptics do not claim that an impartial study would necessarily confirm the Divine Revelation hypothesis, just that the evidence does not conclusively disprove it.
Huh?
Used the word rational twicw in this post. Weird.
Religious faith always gets more of a pass than it deserves. Conspiracy theorists like Oliver Stone are assumed to be nuts, but if your nutty beliefs are consistent with an established religion, it's socially acceptable. So deniers are nuts, but religious people who hold equally suspect beliefs are upstanding members of society.
Lots a of incorrect statements in this post of yours.
1. We DO have absolute proof that there was a temple, and a kingdom of david. The only question is how large was that kingdom, and how was the temple run/how did it operate. It's existence is tangible. You can go and touch it if you like.
2. Arabs believe there was a temple. However, they call it a mosque, and they believe it was a Mulsim, not Jewish site. I've heard and seen some really crazy statements about this. But in essence, Islam is the original religion, everything else is corruptions.
3. Orthodox Jews do not believe the bible was completed around 1200BCE. Perhaps you mean the Torah but certainly not the bible.
Now when it comes to DH... There is Zero archeological evidence for the DH as talked about by common people. Zero evidence for J, P, D, E, R etc.
It is easy to demonstrate to you that you don't believe in the "process" that leads to DH, and that the "process" is not related to history or actual historical fact. Ask yourself a few basic questions.
1. What is the hypothesis, and what is the evidence?
2. Is the experiment reproducible, or does each running of the experiment give you different results?
3. What is the control group/environment?
Finally, not even people who believe in human, multiple, authorship of the Torah believe in the DH.
http://lookstein.org/lookjed/read.php?1,19050,19114
The DH is about as scientific a principle, as any other literature class. That is, it isn't scientific at all.
> 1. We DO have absolute proof that there was a temple, and a kingdom of david. The only question is how large was that kingdom, and how was the temple run/how did it operate. It's existence is tangible. You can go and touch it if you like.
Thats not absolute.
> 2. Arabs believe there was a temple. However, they call it a mosque, and they believe it was a Mulsim, not Jewish site.
You know what I mean.
3. Orthodox Jews do not believe the bible was completed around 1200BCE. Perhaps you mean the Torah but certainly not the bible.
Again, you know what I mean.
> Finally, not even people who believe in human, multiple, authorship of the Torah believe in the DH.
Again, you know what I mean.
1. What is the hypothesis, and what is the evidence?
2. Is the experiment reproducible, or does each running of the experiment give you different results?
3. What is the control group/environment?
Please, using science language doesn't show anything. In fact, you've just demonstrated the point of my post. You utterly dismiss an entire field of global academic consensus based on studying available evidence (and evidence dcoesn't have to be archeological) based on nothing. Well done!
One of your best posts in a long time. Back to old form.
Good post, plus or minus some details. :-) This is the key: "Either you submit to rational analysis, or you studiously ignore the evidence and maintain your biased faith."
Orthodox Jews -- especially Modern Orthodox Jews -- want to have it both ways. When the evidence is on their side, they demand that people use it. When it isn't, they ignore it or even admit that their position is based on a leap of faith.
I recommend not getting too hung up on the DH specifically. People are right that it is far from proven (although to say there is no evidence is ludicrous.) The important part is that large parts of the chumash were clearly written and put together by somebody or somebodies during the time of the Second Temple.
I think the only orthodox adherents to the DH at this point are a few dead Germans. For most people DH = multiple authorship
It's true, sometimes people ignore all the evidence. For example, all the evidence points to the fact the purpose of this blog is to rant against OJ and to convince everyone that TMS is bogus. But instead of admitting it, GH keeps claiming that he doesn't want to destroy Judaism and that the goal of this blog is to create a new path within the Orthodox community! I guess everyone has difficulties in confronting certain painful truths.
"For most people DH = multiple authorship"
I don't understand - are you saying that multiple authorship should not really be called "Documentary Hypothesis"? Isn't DH just a convenient way of talking about any form of multiple authorship?
How can the Arabs deny such a thing? Very simple. They have emunah that there was no Temple, no Jewish State, and archeology or whatever else isn't going to trump their emunah,
I don't think that this is the case at all. The ones leading the denial are well aware that there was a Temple, and they are denying it for political purposes. And the masses who fall for it, have no idea about anything to do with archeology or academic scholarship. It's not comparable to denying DH.
Actually, some people have done research into the Documentary hypothesis.
http://books.google.com/books?id=y6FKPW2XsA4C&pg=PA215&lpg=PA215&dq=%22haim+shore%22&source=bl&ots=eYkn6XNtiG&sig=7P6KW8BKBvOuwAGGSOrdNT2tWlM&hl=en&ei=UA3pTeb9JsOgtgf7uLWpAQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=6&ved=0CEwQ6AEwBQ#v=onepage&q&f=false
Modern statistical moethods don't support the DH. THey even used computers, so it is all, like scientific.
"I think the only orthodox adherents to the DH at this point are a few dead Germans. For most people DH = multiple authorship"
When I say DH I really mean MA - I assumed that was obvious.
"I don't think that this is the case at all. The ones leading the denial are well aware that there was a Temple, and they are denying it for political purposes. And the masses who fall for it, have no idea about anything to do with archeology or academic scholarship. It's not comparable to denying DH."
Wow, sounds just like how MO approaches the DH.
"It's true, sometimes people ignore all the evidence. For example, all the evidence points to the fact the purpose of this blog is to rant against OJ and to convince everyone that TMS is bogus. But instead of admitting it, GH keeps claiming that he doesn't want to destroy Judaism and that the goal of this blog is to create a new path within the Orthodox community! I guess everyone has difficulties in confronting certain painful truths."
Cute. So who are you mr anonymous, and what is your agends?
In the world of Photoshop all one has left is faith. Everything else can be faked.
For those adamant that there is little evidence for multiple authorship (and presumably the related issue of when the Torah was written) - I recommend the following:
http://www.daatemet.org/articles/article.cfm?article_id=10
A few comments...there not being any positive evidence for Exodus-Sinai is conclusive if the initial a priori probability is very small. But if there were an initial decent probability, say .5,the lack of evidence makes it less probable, but not like 1 in a zillion. I believe the Cubs will win the world series, not particularly rational. I believe the Bulls will go all the way, not likely, but it's not a bubba
maaseh either, i.e. it's acceptable as a belief. I know of no halacha that I must believe the favorite will always win. “Everyone” is agreed the bible narrative is a fiction because the story as such is too fantastic to be at all initially plausible. But what is plausible or not differs from age to age, the degree to which the world is viewed as an enchanted place and much else.
The Scandinavian school, plus the Israeli archeologists whose names I forget, deny the temple was built in Solomon's times. They think in David's time Jerusalem was not much of anything. They require positive confirmation from non-biblical sources, and that doesn't happen until the Assyrian invasion.
Estimating how many died in the period between the wars is a bit of an art. The current estimate of the number Ukrainians who died because of the artificially created famine is 7 1/2 million give or take a million or two in either direction. To get a sense of how they come up with these numbers read "Bloodlands: Europe between Hitler and Stalin" by Timothy Snyder. It's deep, informative and will change your perceptions on life.
Archaeologist recently discovered a very large stone wall dating from Shlomo Hamelech's time. The wall could only have been built by a wealthy, powerful king. So it looks like the archaeologists mentioned above called that one wrong.
>>"I don't think that this is the case at all. The ones leading the denial are well aware that there was a Temple, and they are denying it for political purposes. And the masses who fall for it, have no idea about anything to do with archeology or academic scholarship. It's not comparable to denying DH."
>Wow, sounds just like how MO approaches the DH.
The Arab deniers are aware that raw physical evidence exists, and they deliberately destroy it. Just like MO deniers of DH? The Arab deniers engage in their denial so as to harm other people. Just like MO deniers of DH? Your comparisons are facile.
"
Please, using science language doesn't show anything. In fact, you've just demonstrated the point of my post. You utterly dismiss an entire field of global academic consensus based on studying available evidence (and evidence dcoesn't have to be archeological) based on nothing. Well done!
June 3, 2011 7:23 AM"
There is nothing scientific about DH. MA, is agreed upon by people who read the Talmud. So no, they are not shorthand for eachother, and don't mean the same thing at all.
Also, "consensus" is often wrong, and has nothing to do with science. Science is defined by facts, not by consensus. You wear consensus like Catholics wear the Pope. So yes, I dismiss consensus based on nothing, because consensus means 6billion flies eat shit, why don't you give it a try?
Solomon, let me paraphrase that link for you. A book presumably written 800 years after the bible was written tells us when the events of the bible supposedly took place. That timeline does not match the archeological record, ergo, the Bible bible must have been written 800 years before the Talmud was written because that is the only time the timeline lines up.
The proper conclusion from the facts, is that the Talmud's timeline is wrong. As for when the events in the Bible took place, or if they took place at all, we can't know save for the ones we can confirm. After we can confirm what events took place, then and only then, can we create a timeline around them. Anything else is non-scientific speculation of the worse sort. And the sort that people get paid large sums of money to engage in.
"It's true, sometimes people ignore all the evidence. For example, all the evidence points to the fact the purpose of this blog is to rant against OJ and to convince everyone that TMS is bogus. But instead of admitting it, GH keeps claiming that he doesn't want to destroy Judaism and that the goal of this blog is to create a new path within the Orthodox community! I guess everyone has difficulties in confronting certain painful truths."
Cute. So who are you mr anonymous, and what is your agends?
LOL, what a perfect confirmation! Instead of evaluating the comment on its own merits, you get defensive/aggressive and want to know the name and agenda of the commentator. Just like orthodox Jews who talk about the "agenda" of bible scholars instead of dealing with what they say. You're not more honest than them, you just get bothered by different things. Their holy bible is the holy bible, yours is your blog.
Forget all this MO, & OJ nonsense. It is a completely accepted fact that ANY Jew who does not believe that every single solitary word in the Torah is literally 100% true, from Bereishis to Devarim, and every event spoken of therein, is a total kofer. Nothing from YU or Soloveitchik or Slifkin or anyone else can disprove it or dispute it. All these so called proofs of science and archaeology means nothing. If one says the snake in the garden of Eden didn't speak to Eve, it is kefira. Period & the end. That is Daas Torah!
Poor Nate - he sounds quite frightened by all the kefira he insists on continuing to read on this and other blogs. If anyone on the list mows him, perhaps they can direct him to a local mashgiach ruchani who can counsel him to break this blog addiction.
Good luck Nate. We'll be davening for you.
"There is nothing scientific about DH. MA, is agreed upon by people who read the Talmud. So no, they are not shorthand for eachother, and don't mean the same thing at all"
When I say DH, I mean MA.
"LOL, what a perfect confirmation! Instead of evaluating the comment on its own merits, you get defensive/aggressive and want to know the name and agenda of the commentator"
Defensive Aggresive?! Yes Mr Pot.
"When I say DH, I mean MA"
When I say "evolution" I really mean, "Death ray wielding aliens" and the Torah is irreconcilable with "Death ray wielding aliens."
You can't mean MA when you say DH, because they aren't the same thing at all.
DH has set times, people, purposes, all of which can be argued over. MA is a generic phrase that runs from DH to Joshua editing 8 verses, and everything in between. (and even things that don't fit within the scale)
Post a Comment