In an essay entitled “Biblical Studies and Jewish Studies” in The Oxford Handbook of Jewish Studies (2002), Alan Cooper compares and contrasts the authors and content of two Jewish commentaries on the book of Leviticus. David Zevi Hoffmann published a two volume commentary on Leviticus in 1905-1906. Jacob Milgrom’s three volumes in the Anchor Bible series appeared in 1991-2001.
As Cooper notes, Hoffmann’s approach to the study of Leviticus
was essentially anti-critical, apologetic, and “objectionist” (a characterization of Baruch
Levine's). Hoffmann’s approach was not new, but he pursued it with considerable
brilliance. A similar approach enjoys currency in conservative Orthodox circles
to this day.
The key planks of the “anti-critical”
approach are as follows (Cooper 2002: 17; based on Levy 1996: 39-80; 1992:
159-204): (1) the entire Torah was given at Sinai; (2) the Torah was divinely
authored and dictated to Moses; (3) the biblical text has been transmitted
accurately; (4) the rabbinic interpretation of the laws is correct; (5) only
traditional Jewish sources are required for a proper understanding of
Scripture.
Since I am a traditional believer in many
ways, I agree with the thrust of the five planks. For example, I believe that
all of Scripture is a form of revelation given in loci of revelation; that its
wording down to the last detail is a product of divine providence; that the
text as transmitted and “traditioned” over time is faithful and true to its
truth-content willed by God; that the traditional understanding of its key
teachings is correct.1 Furthermore, I hold that nothing of consequence has been written about
what Scripture teaches that tradition in the positive sense has not always
known.
Nevertheless, the “objectionist” approach is not intellectually or spiritually satisfying.
An alternative approach, that of
Milgrom, is available to those who want to stand on the planks on which the
“anti-critical” approach is based. But it is characterized by a both/and,
not an either/or, epistemology. Cooper refers to Milgrom’s approach as
accommodating and eclectic. I’m not sure, however, that that characterization captures its
essence.
Cooper notes that the bedrock of Milgrom’s
approach is a “a profound devotion to [the] subject-matter [of Scripture], an “intimate familiarity with
the Hebrew language,” “sound philology,” and a deep appreciation for
traditional interpretation, coupled nonetheless with a profound openness
to the contribution that “artifactual and textual evidence” brought to light by
archaeological excavations, “social-scientific models,” and “comparative
religion” make to an understanding of the religion and narrative identity and ritual
of ancient Israel embodied in its classical textual remains – the Hebrew Bible.
I construe this approach as “integrative”
rather than accommodating. It is an example of fides quarens intellectum.
Key graph (Cooper 2002: 20):
Milgrom embraces the higher-critical approach to Leviticus, taking up
precisely those questions about authorship, dating, and social location that
were anathema to Hoffmann. . . . [Nonetheless,]
Milgrom also stands the older critical approach on its head. Instead of ‘proving’
[à la Wellhausen] that Leviticus represents a late, decadent offshoot of
biblical religion, Milgrom shows that the book offers a coherent and
sophisticated world-view as well as profound theological insight. The book’s ‘Jewishness’,
therefore, is not a deficiency, but the source of its strength.
Cooper is right. Milgrom is not an “objectionist.”
On the contrary, he unflinchingly asks the questions that higher criticism
has always asked, in accord with the same methodologies. But he offers an
empathetic appraisal of the biblical text and the concerns it embodies, not a
negative appraisal.
Milgrom argues throughout his Anchor Bible Leviticus
commentary that P Torah (PT) preceded H Torah (HT) and that D Torah (DT) depended
on and modified both PT and HT. He dates PT to the 8th cent. bce, not earlier. To be sure, he argues
that PT’s origins go back to the Shiloh temple but, as it stands now, PT
reflects both the precentralized 8th cent. bce
Hezekian temple and the earlier regional temple at Shiloh (1991: 34). Milgrom dates
the Holiness document (H) to the late 8th cent. bce
(for example, see the discussion of slave laws, 2001: 2254-57, 64-65). Finally,
Milgrom backs the same date for D that De Wette suggested: the 7th cent. bce. Milgrom and De Wette are not far
apart, perhaps a decade or two, in their dating of D.
A 7th cent. date for DT is, of
course, the linchpin of the entire documentary hypothesis.
Milgrom is also careful to identify an exilic
stratum in H, and H interpolations in P.
Milgrom’s style of reasoning is consistent
with that of other higher-critical scholars, though such scholars differ among
themselves about exactly which portions of the Pentateuch are to be dated to
and reflect the concerns and milieu of the 9th, 8th, 7th,
6th, and 5th centuries bce,
respectively.
Does Milgrom have a high view of Torah, and a
steadfast appreciation of the contribution of traditional interpretation to an
understanding of the biblical text? Absolutely. Is he at odds in some way with the
religious tradition he claims as his own? Not as he understands it. On the contrary, he
upholds that tradition, without being a traditionalist in his interpretation of
the biblical text.
A like stance is not without problems, but
also, not without rewards.
Cooper’s essay is available online. Go here.
Enjoy.
1 My tradition is that of the Fathers and the Reformation, so by “traditional understanding” I mean the understanding of Scripture's teaching found in Athanasius, Augustine, and the Nicene Creed, and reinvigorated in Luther, Calvin, and the Heidelberg Catechism based on renewed engagement with Scripture itself.
Bibliography
Alan Cooper, “Biblical Studies and
Jewish Studies,” in The Oxford Handbook of Jewish Studies (Martin Goodman,
Jeremy Cohen, and David Sorkin, eds.; New York: Oxford University Press, 2002)
14-35; David Zevi Hoffmann, Das Buch Leviticus I-II (Berlin:
Poppelauer, 1905-1906); B. Barry Levy, “Artscroll: An Overview,” in Approaches
to Modern Judaism (Marc Lee Raphael, ed.; Brown Judaic Studies 49; Chico:
Scholars Press, 1983); idem, “On the Periphery: North American Orthodox
Judaism and Contemporary Scholarship,” in Students of the Covenant: A
History of Jewish Biblical Scholarship in North America (S. David Sperling,
with contributions by Baruch A. Levine and B. Barry Levy; Atlanta: Scholars
Press, 1992) 159-204; idem, “The State and Direction of Orthodox Bible Study,”
in Modern Scholarship in the Study of the Torah: Contributions and
Limitations (Shalom Carmy, ed., Orthodox Forum Series; Northvale: Aronson,
1996) 39-80: Jacob Milgrom, Leviticus 1-16 (AB 3; New York:
Doubleday, 1991); Leviticus 17-22 (AB 3A: New York: Doubleday, 2000); Leviticus
23-27 (AB 3B; New York: Doubleday, 2001)
Comments
You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.