I think I agree with all this, but there is danger of misunderstanding.
The distinctive doctrines of Biblical criticism--denial of Torah
miSinai, denial of nevua, are not merely educationally problematic.
They are heretical. I cannot speak for Conservative, Reform or
secular Jews, but for those who embrace these doctrines a Jewish
approach that includes the distinctive doctrines of Biblical
criticism is like an approach to Tanakh that includes christological
interpretation as a valid, perhaps primary tool of exegesis.
The question of whether we can learn something from the data and
insights brought to the fore by Bible critics is empirical. Here I
am on the side of R. Breuer and others--there is use to this study.
The third question is whether and when these considerations should
be introduced to students who do not have wide familiarity with
Tanakh, Hazal and traditional approaches. Here the analogy to
Christian exegesis is again in place, with a difference: Christian
interpretation differs less radically from Jewish teaching than
Bible criticism does, and students are more aware of where they
diverge, so it would probably be easier to employ Christian readings
in a Jewish Tanakh class than to incorporate the theories of
Biblical criticism.
The fourth question is how to prepare students for encounters with
academic Bible criticism later in life. I will not address this
here, except to emphasize that developing a serious and
sophisticated derekh ha-limmud lishmah is the way to a life of
Talmud Torah and yirat Shamayim and also, I believe, the best
antidote to external challenges.
For those who care, I have written about some of these issues
numerous times, in Modern Scholarship in the Study of Torah:
Contributions and Limitations, and most recently in two Tradition
editorials, "Homer and the Bible" and "A Peshat in the Dark:
reflections on the age of Cary Grant."
