Bridging Tradition and the Academy: The Literary-Theological School in Orthodox Bible Study

Traditional Judaism includes core beliefs in prophecy, the divine revelation of the Torah through Moses, and the existence of an Oral Law that accompanies the Written Torah.¹ While the precise parameters of these beliefs have been debated over the millennia, these general axioms form the heart and soul of Jewish religious encounter with the Torah.²

Beginning in the seventeenth century with the philosophers Spinoza and Hobbes, and moving through the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries with Liberal Protestant critical Bible scholarship, these and other basic religious foundations came under attack by a host of studies and new assumptions. Simultaneously, critical Bible methodology brought with it fresh questions and tools that could enhance traditional Bible study.³

Over the past two centuries, analysis of literary tools, comparative linguistics, and the discovery of a wealth of ancient texts and artifacts have contributed immensely to our understanding of the rich tapestry and complexity of biblical texts. Much also has improved since the 1970s as a result of the literary revolution in biblical scholarship. After generations of dissecting the Torah and the rest of Tanakh, many scholars have recognized that these books can be analyzed effectively as unified texts. Every word is valuable. Passages have meaningful structures and are multilayered. Understanding the interplay between texts is vital. These assumptions were far more compatible with classical Orthodox Tanakh study.

Great Orthodox scholars of the previous generation such as the authors of the Da’at Mikra commentary series, Professor Nehama Leibowitz, and Rabbi Mordechai Breuer, exemplified different aspects of how Orthodox scholarship could benefit from the information and methodology of academic Bible scholarship through the prism of traditional faith. Similarly, the prolific writings of leading contemporary rabbinic scholars such as Yoel Bin-Nun, Elhanan Samet, and Shalom Carmy are intellectually and spiritually stimulating, as they benefit from the academy while working from the viewpoint of the yeshivah.

Shalom Carmy refers to this general methodology as the “literary-theological” approach to Tanakh. This methodology demands a finely tuned text reading, along with a focus on the religious significance of the passage. The premises of this approach include: (1) Oral Law and classical rabbinic commentary are central to the way we understand the revealed word of God, and (2) it is vital to study biblical passages in their literary and historical context.⁴

Although each scholar has his or her own particular style, all advocates of this methodology are driven by several underlying core assumptions. Ezra Bick (Yeshivat Har Etzion) enumerates the most important distinguishing principles of this school. Peshat (the primary intent of the biblical text) is discoverable from a rigorous study of the text, as the Torah was not given as an esoteric document to confuse people. There is an Oral Law, but that does not diminish the pursuit of peshat. We attempt to learn in the manner of our classical commentators, with the goal of uncovering the intended meaning of the text. In addition to attempting to understand each word and verse locally, it is critical to consider the bigger picture, whether of a passage, an entire book, or parallels between different parts of Tanakh. God revealed the Torah to people, and therefore the Torah speaks in the language of people.⁵ Since the Torah is divinely revealed, every word must be taken with utmost seriousness. Since it is written in human language, we may use literary tools that can expose dimensions of meaning in the text. There also is value to the study of the historical context of Tanakh, comparative linguistics, and archaeology. Since the Torah is a divine covenant with Israel, there is a religious obligation to understand its intended meaning and messages and to apply them to our lives.⁶

While Orthodox Tanakh scholarship is wedded to the primacy of classical rabbinic interpretation, scholars of each generation incorporate new trends into their thought. Since Jewish tradition places a premium on scholarship, we should hear the truth from whoever says it. Rambam stated this principle long ago,⁷ and many of the greatest rabbinic figures before and since have espoused this policy.⁸ This essay will consider some of the seminal developments since the mid-twentieth century in Orthodox Tanakh study, with an emphasis on the literary-theological school.⁹

Leading Figures of the Past Generation

Da’at Mikra

Well aware of the impact that critical Bible scholarship had in academic circles and beyond, Rabbi Abraham Isaac Kook inspired his student Moshe Seidel to embark on an ambitious project. Under Seidel’s leadership, a group of scholars convened in 1956 and formulated the principles for a new verse-by-verse traditional commentary on the entire Tanakh. In 1963, the first assignments were given out for individual biblical books. The first two volumes of the series were published in 1970, and its final volume was published in 2003. This monumental project is entitled Da’at Mikra (literally, “Knowledge of Scripture”), and was published by Mosad HaRav Kook in Jerusalem. The commentary incorporates the gamut of traditional interpretation as well as contemporary research.¹⁰

It also is worth noting that Professor Yehuda Elitzur (1911-1997), one of the original editors of the Da’at Mikra series, was also the head of the Bible Department at Bar-Ilan University. His prolific work highlights the inclusion of academic disciplines into Orthodox Tanakh study.¹¹

Professor Nehama Leibowitz

One of the greatest Tanakh teachers of the twentieth century was Professor Nehama Leibowitz (1905-1997). Through her Gilyonot (weekly parashah sheets) and Iyyunim (published, in English, as Studies in the Weekly Parashah), as well as her legendary devotion to teaching, she enlightened Jews from all backgrounds. Nehama (as she preferred to be called) incorporated contemporary scholarly methods into her studies on the Torah and projected them through the eyes of its classical rabbinic interpreters. Her close text analysis, coupled with a systematic presentation of traditional commentaries to develop compelling religious themes, has inspired generations of teachers and students. Nehama introduced the tools of academic scholarship to many Orthodox Jews, and simultaneously opened a window into the thinking of classical rabbinic commentary for many non-Orthodox Jews.¹²

Rabbi Mordechai Breuer

One of the most creative and controversial figures in modern religious Tanakh study was Mordechai Breuer (1921-2007). He posited that the proposed divisions of the Documentary Hypothesis are essentially correct, and he agreed with the critics that no one person could have composed the Torah. However, he disagreed with the critics most fundamentally by insisting that no person wrote the Torah. God revealed it to Moses in its complex form so that the multiple aspects of the infinite Torah could be presented in different sections. Since we are limited as humans, we cannot simultaneously entertain these perspectives, so they appear to us as contradictory. The complete truth emerges only when one takes all facets into account. He named his approach the Theory of Aspects. In this manner, Breuer accepted the text analysis of critical scholarship while rejecting its underlying beliefs and assumptions.¹³

Although Breuer’s commitment to the readings of the Documentary Hypothesis as “science” detracted from his work, his fundamental premise, that the Torah presents aspects of truth in different places, has significantly influenced the next generation of scholars,¹⁴ to whom we now turn.

Leading Contemporary Figures

Rabbi Yoel Bin-Nun

One of the most influential Tanakh teachers today, Yoel Bin-Nun of Herzog College presents a more comprehensive approach to Tanakh than many of his colleagues, a result of his unusual ability to address historical-archaeological scholarship on a serious level. He combines expertise in Tanakh, rabbinics, parshanut, halakhah, history, archaeology, linguistics, and theology. He actively confronts academic Bible study by using its own tools of scholarship to respond to its challenges.

In his writings, Rabbi Breuer steered clear of historical criticism, concentrating exclusively on literary issues.¹⁵ Rabbi Bin-Nun, in contrast, believes that these disciplines, when studied responsibly, combine harmoniously and deepen our understanding of Tanakh and other areas of Jewish thought.¹⁶

Rabbi Elhanan Samet

Another exemplar of the literary-theological approach is Rabbi Elhanan Samet, who also teaches at Herzog College. Classical commentators and thinkers, ancient Near Eastern sources, and literary tools contribute to his analyses, but Rabbi Samet is careful to evaluate all of these elements against the biblical text itself. Rabbi Samet selectively uses both traditional and modern sources, including those who are non-Orthodox as well as, on occasion, non-Jewish scholars. He places great emphasis on the overall structure of the passage, often identifying chiasms as well as imputing significance to the leitworten. One of Samet’s hallmark literary techniques is to divide a passage – narrative, poetic, or legal – in half. He applies this principle to determine the “central pivot” of a passage which he maintains helps the reader ascertain the inner meaning of the text.¹⁷

Rabbi Shalom Carmy

The leading exponent of the literary-theological approach in America is Shalom Carmy of Yeshiva University. A student of Rabbis Joseph Soloveitchik and Aharon Lichtenstein, Carmy has distinguished himself as a scholar of both Tanakh and Jewish thought. He has contributed substantially to the exploration of the philosophical underpinnings of the use of academic methodology within a religious framework.¹⁸ The principles of his approach include:

1. We learn Tanakh as an intensely religious pursuit. Philology and history are important disciplines, but not ends in themselves; they are the means to the greater end of connecting to the living messages of the prophets and our tradition.
2. Our Sages and later rabbinic commentators guide our inquiry, both as great scholars and as our religious polestars.
3. Great pashtanim like Ibn Ezra and Radak have more in common with Hasidic writers than with non-Orthodox academic scholarship. Traditional commentators view Tanakh as the revealed word of God, with enduring religious value and relevance. This central axiom defines our outlook on every sacred word.
4. Rabbinic views have religious value even if they may not be the most likely peshat reading of a biblical text.
5. We should draw on non-Orthodox academic scholarship when it contributes positively to the discussion.
6. Biblical books offer multiple perspectives on complex issues. Taken together, we can appreciate the depth of the issues they address and develop an increasingly refined religious worldview.

Other Figures

Rabbi Menachem Leibtag, a student of Rabbi Yoel Bin-Nun, successfully pioneered the dissemination of his teacher’s methodology over the Internet.¹⁹ Another of Rabbi Bin-Nun’s students, Rabbi Yaakov Medan, who currently is one of the Roshei Yeshivah at Yeshivat Har Etzion, also has published widely on Tanakh.²⁰ Many others teach in Herzog College and other schools, and publish in Megadim and other journals. Hundreds of articles are archived at the Virtual Beit Midrash of Yeshivat Har Etzion. While most of the best work emanates from Israel, the literary-theological approach has made significant strides in America too.²¹

Entering the twenty-first century, the next generation of Orthodox scholars have taken their place as leading educators. The most significant project to date is the Maggid Tanakh Commentary Series. A work in progress, Maggid Press (connected to Koren) has published collections of studies on the weekly Torah portion,²² and has embarked on an in-depth commentary series on the entire Tanakh. The commentary series largely features the younger generation of scholars, including Amnon Bazak (Samuel), Yitzchak Etshalom (Amos, forthcoming), Tova Ganzel (Ezekiel), Jonathan Grossman (Genesis), and Yael Ziegler (Ruth, Lamentations).

Jonathan Grossman stands out for his remarkably prolific output and his efforts to present literary analysis as a comprehensive commentary on the books of Genesis, Ruth, and Esther. Grossman’s work bridges the best of traditional Tanakh learning with contemporary literary methodology. A faculty member at both Herzog College of Yeshivat Har Etzion and Bar-Ilan University, Grossman moves seamlessly between traditional and academic scholarship, demonstrating how both modern literary analysis and our classical commentators contribute to our understanding of the Torah. Most importantly, he remains focused on deriving the religious messages from the text.²³

Moshe Shamah (Sephardic Synagogue, Brooklyn) composed a commentary on the Torah, based on previously published online essays. Rabbi Shamah justifies the need for his commentary by noting the lack of adequate material written on the Torah focusing on peshat that accepts the axioms of tradition along with the compelling features of modern scholarship. He addresses a wide range of issues, including linguistic elucidations of individual words; literary structures of passages; parallels between sections of the Torah; religious-philosophical issues; the relationship between the Written and Oral Law; surveys of parshanut; symbolic meanings of laws, narratives, and Midrashim; a consideration of the Torah in light of its ancient Near Eastern setting; and poetic techniques. It is particularly valuable to have a commentary of this high caliber that can be read by scholars and laypeople alike.²⁴

Also noteworthy is the website alhatorah.org, by Hillel Novetsky. The site contains many essays that survey approaches to a plethora of issues in Tanakh, editions of classical commentaries, and other learning tools that have brought online Tanakh education to a new level.

Archaeology and Realia

Archaeology was popular among early Zionist scholars, and was used extensively in the Da’at Mikra commentary series and by Professor Yehudah Elitzur (1911-1997).²⁵ Today, there is a heightened interest within the Orthodox world in quality scholarship of geography, archaeology, and realia. A growing body of literature addresses this gaping hole within the standard yeshivah education. Two particularly valuable recent contributions are Professor Yoel Elitzur’s Places in the Parasha: Biblical Geography and Its Meaning, and the new series, The Koren Tanakh of the Land of Israel.

When learning Tanakh with the literary-theological method, certain elements become primary. Others lend themselves less to this type of analysis and religious exploration. To cite a familiar example, one learning the Book of Joshua likely will focus on the gripping narratives of chapters 1–12 and then skip to chapters 22–24. Joshua’s role as leader and his relationship to Moses’ leadership, the balance between God’s intervention and human efforts, the reenactment of the covenant, the thorny question of war against the Canaanites, and many other vital religious and human issues dominate the discussion. The lengthy city lists in chapters 13–21 would receive scant attention at best, perhaps a few scattered bullet points. Further, the classical commentators do not offer extensive help expanding the middle chapters, since they generally were unaware of the geography of the Land of Israel.

Now imagine an entire book about those city list chapters, written by an expert in both the text of Tanakh and contemporary historical and archaeological scholarship. Imagine that book teaching a rigorous methodology in a clear accessible way that enlightens our understanding of Tanakh and strengthens our religious connection to the Land of Israel. Such a book would fill a monumental void in our learning. Elitzur’s new book, Places in the Parasha, helps to fill that void.

Elitzur is a researcher of the Hebrew language and biblical and historical geography, a member of the Academy of the Hebrew Language, and heads the Land of Israel Studies Department at Herzog College in Alon Shvut. He has made a remarkable contribution to religious Tanakh study by focusing on the oft-neglected biblical places and names. Elitzur combines pioneering academic research with careful text analysis, bringing both together with rigor and religious passion.

Elitzur has given us the opportunity to greatly enhance our understanding of many elements in Tanakh, rabbinic teachings, and even folk traditions. His volume enlightens our learning, and will foster a more profound love of the Land of Israel through intimate knowledge of the settings for the eternal prophetic narratives in Tanakh.²⁶

Koren Publishers also has embarked on an impressive new project, a popular companion to the Torah presenting contemporary research on archaeology, flora and fauna, geology, the languages and realia of the ancient Near East, and other areas that elucidate aspects of the biblical text. It is presented in a similar engaging manner to the Hebrew series, Olam HaTanakh, and like that Hebrew work was composed by a team of scholars who specialize in a variety of fields of scholarship. There are brief articles and glossy photographs, maps, and illustrations that bring these areas to light. Unlike Olam HaTanakh, which also offers a running commentary on biblical books, The Koren Tanakh of the Land of Israel discusses specifically those background areas that may enhance our understanding of the text within its real-world setting.

This series is written from an Orthodox perspective. Its authors believe that God revealed the Torah to Moses, and they utilize contemporary scholarship as a tool for understanding God’s word. The series does not purport to offer original scholarship, but rather synthesizes contemporary academic scholarship in an accessible and Orthodox-friendly manner. As of this writing, they have published volumes on Exodus and Samuel, and the series ultimately is expected to cover the entire Tanakh.²⁷

Addressing the Religious Challenges of Critical Study of Tanakh

Orthodoxy has matured significantly in the past generation, and has been increasingly willing to confront and benefit from developments in academic Bible study. The two most important books written recently are Amnon Bazak, Until This Very Day: Fundamental Questions in Bible Study (Maggid, 2020), and Joshua Berman, Ani Maamin: Biblical Criticism, Historical Truth, and the Thirteen Principles of Faith (Maggid, 2020). Both scholars are well-versed in classical Jewish sources as well as the gamut of contemporary academic discourse.

As the revealed word of God, the study of Tanakh should lie at the heart of the learning of religious Jews along with the Talmud and classical rabbinic thinkers. In Israel, particularly in the Religious Zionist community, there has been a flourishing of serious Tanakh learning in recent decades. Thankfully, some of this excitement has spilled over into America and beyond.

With every positive development, however, there are accompanying challenges. The scholarly values of the peshat school are espoused, unaccompanied by our religious beliefs, throughout much of the secular academic establishment. Academic Bible study offers a wealth of valuable information and analytic tools. However, it also poses severe challenges to the very heart of traditional faith. The academic consensus asserts that the Torah was composed by different people and schools, all from periods after Moses. Many scholars doubt or deny the historicity of our foundational narratives. The presence of ancient textual witnesses such as the Dead Sea Scrolls and Septuagint lead many to claim that these variant texts are sometimes more reliable than the Masoretic Text.

The ostensible conflicts between tradition and academic scholarship have led many scholars, including several who identify with the Orthodox community, to conclude that traditional faith is incompatible with good scholarship. This supposition has led some to reject traditional belief outright, or to radically redefine faith to make it compatible with their scholarly conclusions, or to reinterpret classical sources in an attempt to justify such radical paradigm shifts as being within tradition. These positions have led to counter-reactions in some Orthodox circles that adopt excessively dogmatic and restrictive positions to prohibit scholarly inquiry or peshat learning altogether. Both sides may be motivated by a profound and authentic religious desire to connect to God and the Torah, but they distort aspects of tradition and create dangerous and unnecessary rifts between us.

In Until This Very Day, Rabbi Amnon Bazak – one of the bright stars at Yeshivat Har Etzion and its affiliated Herzog College – surveys classical sources, and offers a sophisticated understanding of Tanakh and the axioms of our faith, while simultaneously being fully open to contemporary scholarship. Addressing the fact that many in the Orthodox world disregard contemporary scholarship, Bazak offers three reasons why such willful ignorance is inexcusable: these issues are widely publicized and available, and therefore rabbis and religious educators must be able to address them intelligently; many of the questions from the academy are genuine, and must be taken seriously on scholarly grounds; and we often stand to gain a better understanding of Tanakh with the aid of contemporary scholarship. Bazak’s book is indispensable for all who engage with the critical issues of learning Tanakh, and particularly for rabbis and educators.²⁸

Bazak frames his book as focused on the challenges from the secular academy. He explores the following topics: the authorship of the Torah and other biblical books; the reliability of the Masoretic Text; archaeology and the historicity of the narratives in Tanakh and comparative studies between Tanakh and ancient Near Eastern texts; the relationship between peshat and derash; and the sins of biblical heroes.

Bazak’s central premise is that we must distinguish between facts and compelling tools of analysis, which must be considered in our learning, and the assumptions of scholars, which we reject when they conflict with traditional beliefs. He argues that nothing based on facts forces one to choose between traditional faith and good scholarship.

Joshua Berman (Bar-Ilan University) has written a much-needed book for those in the Orthodox community who have read popular works on Bible criticism but who lack the tools to evaluate the merits of various theories or the religious implications of these theories. Informed by decades of research into both traditional and academic methods, Berman is uniquely qualified to address the religious and academic issues in the first book-length study of its kind.²⁹

Berman’s primary argument is that most purported faith-science conflicts arise from misunderstandings of the nature of academic truth. There are several influential academic Bible theories, such as the documentary hypothesis that posits multiple human authors of the Torah to account for the contradictions and redundancies in the Torah, or arguments that many narratives lack archaeological corroboration and therefore are fictional and irrelevant. Berman posits that these positions are based on anachronistic assumptions about literature, history, and law, rather than on the world of ideas in ancient Near Eastern texts and contexts. It is therefore critical from a scholarly perspective to abandon these assumptions, and to attempt to understand the Torah as a literary creation of the ancient world. By doing so, we also may better appreciate the revolutionary religious and moral developments that the Hebrew Bible contributed to ancient Near Eastern culture and literature. These values transformed many areas of world culture.

Berman’s book is vital for understanding the relationship between faith and academic Bible study, where we can benefit from those texts as useful tools in learning and appreciate the staggering revolution of the Torah within its ancient context. We should not impose our modern Western notions of history or Aristotelian consistency onto the Torah, nor should we impose our modern sentiments of statutory law onto the Torah. By focusing on the Torah’s eternal lessons, by attuning ourselves to differences between narratives to refine our understanding of the message of each passage, by recognizing that the Written Law was never intended as a comprehensive code of law but always required an Oral Law, we can maintain complete faith in revelation without hiding from the many beneficial aspects of contemporary scholarship.

In this context, it is worth noting a growing number of efforts by committed and observant Jews who attempt to bridge tradition and scholarship in different ways. Their conclusions sometimes attempt to push the boundaries of traditional understandings of faith in the revelation of the Torah and Tanakh, but these scholars clearly attempt to ascertain religious meaning in Tanakh and live religiously committed lives.³⁰

Mikra’ot Gedolot HaKeter

One other project of note is the monumental Mikraot Gedolot HaKeter, edited by Menahem Cohen (Bar-Ilan University). This series presents the biblical text based on the Aleppo Codex, and carefully edited critical editions of the classical medieval commentators.³¹

Conclusion

The ideal learning framework espouses traditional beliefs, regards study as a means to a religious end, and defines issues carefully, while striving for intellectual openness and honesty. Reaching this synthesis is difficult, since it requires passionate commitment alongside an effort at detachment while learning, in order to refine knowledge and understanding.

The literary-theological approach in contemporary Orthodox Tanakh study is an outstanding paradigm of this outlook and methodology. It combines a commitment to God and Torah coupled with an unwavering sense of intellectual honesty and pursuit of scholarship to further religious development and experience through learning.

Finally, and most importantly, as Shalom Carmy regularly emphasizes, our primary focus must be the encounter of God’s word in Tanakh, rather than the study of ancillary subjects such as history, linguistics, or literature for their own sake. Nor should we become overly distracted by the challenges of Bible Criticism: to the extent that we take seriously some of the things noticed by the critics that were previously overlooked, or in the case of the great Jewish exegetes, were noticed unsystematically, it is the task of contemporary Orthodox students to show how the Torah coheres in the light of our belief in Torah mi-Sinai. The goal of those engaged in this activity is not primarily to refute the Documentary Hypothesis but rather to do justice to worthwhile questions within the larger framework of Torah study.³²

We are privileged to live in a generation where a growing number of scholars and educators employ the highest caliber scholarship in the pursuit of religious truth in Tanakh. Our early morning daily liturgy challenges us: “Ever shall a person be God-fearing in secret as in public, who admits the truth and speaks truth in his heart.” May we be worthy of pursuing that noble combination in the study of Tanakh.