Children Should Be Taught the Myth that Torah Is from Sinai

It is generally believed that there exists a conflict between the traditional concept of Torah from Sinai and biblical criticism. However, this contradiction resolves itself once we perceive the two as complementary stages in Torah study that aim to provide a suitable religious interpretation of the phenomenon of revelation.

With regard to the first stage of Torah study (i.e., the traditional approach), even from a fundamentalist perspective, which views the giving of the Torah on Mount Sinai as a singular and concrete historical event, the intent is not to sanctify the historicity of the narrative per se, but rather the revelatory aspect embodied therein. Thus, the mythic narrative concerning Mount Sinai, like many other stories in the Bible, illustrates the principle of revelation in a way that speaks clearly to all types of readers.

For this reason, children should be taught the story as it stands, without introducing issues of concern to biblical critics. As noted, however, this represents but the first stage in formulating a sober religious approach regarding the concept of revelation and its meaning. The importance of this first stage in Torah study derives from how it provides children with foundation for a positive predisposition towards the notion of revelation that will serve them well in the second stage of their religious quest, as they mature.

In contrast, a critical approach to biblical texts is required as a precondition for any mature philosophical and theological discussion. After all, one of the following fundamental questions may arise during the theological discussion: What is the phenomenon of revelation, and does it exist?

An answer to this question requires the students to take a stance on another series of questions regarding the boundaries of human consciousness and experience, and speculation regarding the possibility of the existence of a reality beyond the physical realm known to us, and the way in which peoples’ differing social, cultural, and historical experiences shape their interpretation of what does or does not exist beyond themselves.

These profound theological questions bear enormous educational and cultural weight, since they are necessary to formulate an understanding of whence our values come. However, just as a naïve approach to the biblical text is unable to provide the basis for conducting a mature discussion of these matters on its own, neither is the critical one.

That said, the critical approach is a necessary condition for conducting a comprehensive and judicious theological-philosophical discussion. Specifically, this approach reveals the breadth of the existential, literary, and cultural richness of the many otherwise contextless expressions of the phenomenon referred to in the Bible as the encounter between humanity and God.

The contribution of historical-critical research to the theological discussion about the concept of revelation stems from the fact that it presents the Holy Scriptures as an empirical platform containing a wide range of approaches, expressions, and ways in which God’s relationship to the world and humanity within concrete cultural and existential contexts has been discussed.

Therefore, in my view, the critical approach is needed in tandem with the religious predisposition to revelation engendered by the naïve approach, in order to allow for a serious conversation to take place about the nature of faith and the relationship between the finite and infinite, without preemptively rejecting the possibility of seeing that which lies beyond the boundaries of human consciousness and experience as holding meaning for human life.

Briefly put, the naïve approach to faith as it relates to Torah from Sinai is significant, since it formulates a religious language that accords honor to the concept of revelation and the other theological and philosophical questions related to it. However, this approach alone is insufficient for clarifying these issues . Such clarification is only possible when integrating this primary, naïve religious approach with the Bible’s rich religious, cultural, and historical expressions, whose contextual meaning can only be revealed through meticulous, analytical research.

Practically speaking, is it possible to hold both approaches at once? As I have described, my answer is a resounding yes. I believe the great German-Jewish philosopher Franz Rosenzweig directed us to this conclusion, when he wrote:

For us too it [the Bible] is the work of a single mind. We do not know who this mind was; we cannot believe that it was Moses. We name that mind among ourselves by the abbreviation with which the Higher Criticism of the Bible indicates its presumed final redactor of the text: R. We, however, take this R to stand not for redactor but for rabbenu [“Our Rabbi”]. For whoever he was, and whatever text lay before him, he is our teacher, and his theology is our teaching.^[1]