Bible criticism - The Jewish view
(Excerpt from One People, Two Worlds -
It seems you feel
compelled by "clear evidence and reason" to deny that Moses wrote the Torah
at God's behest. You would rather espouse the theories of the Bible
critics who see the Torah as an imperfectly edited composite of ancient and
not so ancient records of Jewish mythology. You state again and again
that "volumes have been written ... let the readers review the evidence for
themselves and decide."
Well, then, let us start with you. How many
of these dusty volumes have you investigated carefully? And if you
yourself didn't do so, do you honestly expect others to plow through them
and decide on their reliability? No, what you've done is a clever
lawyer's trick. Point to a stack of thick books and declare that the
"clear evidence" is all there, relying on the power of suggestion to "prove"
Don't invest so much faith in these Bible critics,
Ammi. They aren't worthy of it. Professor Yechezkel Kaufman puts it very well in A History of the Jewish Faith
(Hebrew): "Biblical criticism finds itself today in a unique
situation. There is a dominant theory, yet no one knows why it
dominates. In the history of ideas, theories or concepts based on
certain accepted principles often enjoy a disembodied existence long after
those principles have been discredited. This is exactly what happened
to the scientific study of the Bible in our times ... [In the nineteenth
century,] Wellhausen ... based his theories on an interlocking system of
proofs that seemed to complement each other, forming layers of solid
intellectual foundations upon which he erected the definitive edifice of his
ideas. In the meantime, however, these foundations disintegrated one
by one. These proofs were refuted outright or at least seriously
questioned. The scholars of the Wellhausen school were forced to admit
that most of the proofs do not hold up under scrutiny. Nonetheless,
they did not abandon the conclusions."
Such is the nature of pseudoscience. Someone
tossed out a bit of wild speculation, and by the time it goes around the
block, it is an accepted fact; no one has the time or the inclination to
check it out. I used to wonder at the accepted chronology of the
Egyptian pharaohs; for instance, Thutmose I reigned from 1493 to 1481 B.C.E.
I asked a friend, a history professor at a university in New York, how they
pin down the dates with such amazing accuracy. He told me that some
academic takes a guess, and by the time it gets into the secondary and
tertiary sources, it's just a fact. Who's going to check it out?
I'm sure you know that the original Native
Americans migrated from Siberia to Alaska across a land bridge that existed
where the Bering Strait is now. It is a well-know fact. I
suggest you read Red Earth, White Lies, by Vine Deloria, Jr., the
eminent Native American author, which just tears this idea to shreds, but
you'll still find it in all the textbooks.
You and I both know that virtually none of our
readers will "review the evidence for themselves." So let us deal with
some of the issues you raised. You wrote in an earlier posting:
"Why would God have dictated to Moses two creation stories - one where the
world and beasts were created first and Man last, and another where Man is
created first? Why one passage where Man and Woman are created
together, as equals, and another where Man is created alone and first?"
Let us check the classic sources. The
Midrash, quoted by Rashi, explains that the first account is general, while
the second zeroes in on the man in the Garden of Eden and mentions only
details of creation relevant to the story. A very reasonable reading
of the texts. Now, if the second story is a duplicate account, as you
seem to believe, why is there no mention of the creation of the sun, moon,
and stars? Why is there no mention of the creation of the fishes of
the sea, only the animals and the birds? According to the Midrash,
however, this is not really a creation story. Therefore, the animals
and birds are mentioned in the context of Adam giving them names, but since
Adam did not name the fishes, they are not mentioned.
M.D. Cassuto, the prominent secular Bible scholar,
also understands the "second creation account" in this way. "The
subject of this chapter is the story of the Garden of Eden, and as a
preface, Scripture repeats the creation story, focusing on the creation of
man. The account differs from the first, but there are no
contradictions, just additional details."
For some reason, however, you seem more comfortable
subscribing to the view of the Bible critics that the Torah was assembled
from assorted documents, and that a duplicate creation story somehow slipped
through. Well, Ammi, do you think our ancestors, those brilliant
primitives who produced the most powerful and magnificent piece of
literature in history, ever heard of proofreading? If our hypothetical
chief editor had just let his proofreaders take a look at it, they would
have told him, "Sir! Big blooper right here in the first chapter. Send
it back to the typesetter!"
One of the famous ideas of Julius Wellhausen and
his German school of Bible criticism is the Documentary Hypothesis, the
theory that the Torah is woven together from the J and E documents among
others. These great minds noticed that the Bible sometimes refers to
God by the J name and sometimes by the E name. They scratched their
heads in bafflement. And then they had a flash of dazzling insight.
There must have been different documents referring to different deities, and
the hypothetical editors who blended them, in their usual sloppy style,
failed to make them consistent.
Check it out, Ammi. I am not kidding you.
This sort of reasoning is at the foundation of Bible criticism. This
is, of course, absurd. The Midrash (Mekhilta Beshalakh) explains that
the J name is used when the attribute of mercy is active and the E name when
the attribute of strict justice is active. Every eight-year-old child
in Hebrew school has always known this basic principle. But what can
you expect from German academics who didn't learn Hebrew until they were in
college, had no access to the oral Torah, and never bothered to ask Jewish
school teachers for the answer?
When I attended the International Book Fair in
Moscow in 1987, a professor of English from the University of Tbilisi in
Soviet Georgia struck up a conversation with me. He told me he had
written a two-volume dictionary of American slang, and he wanted to check
out a few things.
"Can I ask you a question?" he asked.
"Sure, go ahead."
"Do you know what 'ticked off' means?"
Of course I do, I said. "It means 'annoyed.'
He shook his head. "No. It means 'exhausted.'
It was my turn to shake my head. "It means
"I'm afraid you're wrong. I have made an
extensive study of the expression, and all the evidence indicates that it
means 'exhausted.' "
"Tell me," I said, "have you ever been to the
"No. But what difference does it make?"
"All the difference," I said.
Every street urchin in the United States knows more
about American slang than his hapless fellow in his study in Tbilisi.
And every child in Hebrew school knows more about the Torah than these
self-appointed Bible critics.
You have to consider the Bible critics in their
historical context. They had an agenda. In the nineteenth
century, after the fall of Napoleon, German nationalism sought expression in
its pagan Teutonic roots, and it struggled to break away from the albatross
of Christianity. The political and cultural mission of Wellhausen and
the other Bible critics was to discredit the Christian Bible and the
foundation upon which it rests - the Jewish Bible. every time they
found a redundancy, an anomaly, or any of the other plentiful signals that
call out so eloquently to Talmudists, these critics immediately discerned
imperfect editing, multiple authors, and all sorts of textual flaws.
Of course, it never occurred to them that the shortcomings might be in their
own understanding. In the end, their specious conclusions were
accepted as scientific fact, and religion was undermined.
But what about your, Ammi? Why should you
parrot the enemies of Judaism and the Jewish people? I am not
concerned about the decline of Judeo-Christian values in Germany, but I am
concerned about all the Jews who thought that being modern meant swallowing
the bitter pill of German devaluation of the Jewish heritage. It
doesn't matter that you couch your German-inspired reading of the Torah and
Jewish history in pretty words and glib platitudes. The plain fact is
that you and other Jews like you, who have been persuaded by the German
Bible critics and their successors, exemplify a tragic defeat for our
Even among the Bible critics themselves, many
thoughtful scholars are abandoning the Documentary Hypothesis. Listen
to Cassuto on the subject: "Among the proofs that many scholars bring to
support the hypothesis that the Torah is a composite drawn from multiple
sources, it is worthwhile to pay special attention to the interchanging of
divine names. ... Recent research has established that there is no basis for
the hypothesis that [this] is an indication of multiple sources. ...
All in all, these critical theories create more difficulties than they
purport to solve."
Listen to Henri Blocher in Révélation des
Origines: Le Début de la Genése (French). "The critics, when they
judge the internal phenomena [of the Bible], project into it their customs
as modern Western readers and neglect all we know today of the writing
customs of Biblical times. The taste for repetition, the structure of
a global statement, repeated with development, the replacement of a word by
its synonyms, especially the change of a divine name in a text (i.e., the
names of Osiris on the stele of Ikhernofret), are well attested
characteristics of ancient Middle Eastern texts. ... The Biblical text, as
it is, agrees with the literary canons of its time."
Listen to W. F. Albright in Archaeology and the
Religion of Israel. "The Mosaic tradition is so consistent ... so
congruent with our independent knowledge of the religious development of the
Near east in the late second millennium B.C. that only hypercritical
pseudo-rationalism can reject its essential historicity."
Listen to Dr. Yohanan Aharoni, in Canaanite
Israel during the Period of Israeli Occupation. "Recent
archaeological discoveries have decisively changed the entire approach of
Bible critics. They now appreciate the Torah as a historical document
of the highest caliber. ... No authors or editors could have put
together or invented these stories hundreds of years after they happened."
Finally, a team of Israeli and German Bible critics
(reported in the Zeitschrift für die Alttestamentaliche Wissenschaft)
conducted a computer analysis of the style and language of the Bible.
Although no author is rigidly consistent in the usage of word forms and
stylistic expression, a reasonable percentage of similarly can be expected.
For instance, the internal percentage of similarly of Kant's words is 22,
and no one questions that the works were all produced by Kant. The
internal percentage of similarity of Goethe's works is just 8, and still no
one questions his authorship of all of them. The researchers
discovered that the internal percentage of similarity between the J and E
documents is 82! There is, therefore, no question that they are the
product of one author.
So you see, Ammi, I've taken your advice and
checked out some of those "volumes" of yours. I could bring you
numerous additional sources if you wish, but I think this is enough.
The preponderance of evidence supports the unity of the Torah's authorship,
which places it way back in antiquity and actually proves its authenticity.
How could such a fiction have been foisted on people who were practically
contemporaries of the evens described? Could you pass off a bogus
issues of Time magazine whose cover story reported that an atom bomb
had leveled Washington during World War II and whose publisher's message
reported that copes of that issue had been distributed hot off the presses
to every household, school, and library in America?
The disdainful disregard of Jewish sources so
prevalent in Bible criticism is also evident in secular interpretations of
Jewish history. There is a fast day called Asarah b'Tevet, which
memorializes the Babylonian siege of Jerusalem about two and a half
millennia ago. I don't know if Reform still honors this memorial, but
I am sure you have heard of it. In the special Selichot for the fast
day, we recall another tragic event that took place a few centuries later on
the eight of the month of Tevet. In about 250 B.C.E., King Ptolemy of
Egypt summoned seventy Jewish elders to Alexandria and ordered them to
translate the Torah into Greek for his library; the result, know as the
Septuagint, was considered a national tragedy. This event is also
recorded as an awful tragedy in Megillat Taanit, composed during Mishnaic
times, not more than a century or two after the fact. Modern secular
historians, however, maintain that mostly Greek-speaking Jewish people of
Alexandria inspired the translation because they wanted to show their Greek
neighbors that they also had a book of wisdom. This explanation, which
completely ignores Jewish sources, can only be based on speculation, yet it
has entered the history books as established fact.
Why the Sages considered the Septuagint a national
tragedy is a subject for a separate discussion. But I want to know
which side you take on this question, Ammi. Do you walk in lockstep
with the orthodox secular establishment, as do just about all the secular
Jewish historians, or do you give credence to the explanation given by our
ancestors when national memory of the event was still fresh?
It does not surprise me that the secular Bible
critics and historians have no regard for the Jewish national memory, but I
am disappointed that you are not sensitive to it.
...The first reference to the Jews
outside the Bible is from the Merneptah Stele of 1235 B.C.E. There,
King Merneptah of Egypt boasted that "Israel is laid waste."... - pg.
Jewish people, have always been very focused on genealogy. A large
part of the Bible is devoted to names and relationships. Read the
First Book of Chronicles! The Talmud (Baba Batra 91a) identifies
Abraham's mother as Amathalia the daughter of Karnebo. There is no
mention of this name in the Bible, and yet the Jewish transferal process
preserved it orally for fifteen hundred years! Bible critics laughed
this name off as pure invention, and they proved their case by the absence
of a name such as Karnebo in any Babylonian records. Well, lo and
behold, archaeologist have since discovered new Babylonian records in Ebla
that mention the name Karnebo as a royal family name. You say you
would be "fascinated by archaeological proof of Abraham's existence."
How about archaeological support of Abraham's grandfather's existence?...
- pg. 119
King David's Palace Found
Archaeology and the Exodus - Part 1
Archaeology and the Bible - Part 2
Bible Criticism and Its Counterarguments
Did God Speak at Mt. Sinai?
Accuracy of The Torah Text
The Unbroken Chain of Torah Transmission
Cohanim / DNA Connection
Living Up To The Truth -
Philosophical Approach by
R. Dr. Dovid Gottlieb
A Rational Approach to the Divine Origin of the Torah
(Listen) (download) (Low Bandwidth)
(Listen) (download) (High Bandwidth)
Rational Approach to the Divinity of the Oral Tradition
(Listen) (download) (Low Bandwidth)
(Listen) (download) (High Bandwidth)
by Lawrence Kelemen
Historical Verification of the Torah - Standards & Prophecy (1 of 4)
Historical Verification of the Torah - Sinai & Miracles (2 of 4)
Historical Verification of the Torah - Revelation (3 of 4)
Historical Verification of the Torah - Higher Quality of Life (4 of 4)
Rabbi Dr. Dovid Gottlieb
Bible criticism - The Jewish view
SimpleToRemember.com - Judaism Online