A Modern Audience and the Bible
Two people write good literature: the writer and the reader.
Jorge Borges
While comfortable with the moral teachings of religion, many modern congregants are uncomfortable with the dogma and ritual of organized religion[1]. This is especially evident in the way modern congregants view the Bible[2] and the stories in the Bible as well as the teachings and liturgy based on the Bible and its stories[3]. As such, many people dismiss the stories in the Bible because they understand them as being told as fantastic events which strains the credulity of a modern listener who has been exposed to modern society. Therefore, many, if not all, the stories in the Bible are often dismissed as pure myths which are viewed as having little or no relevance to a modern audience. While making the stories of the Bible about people and events which are idealized and associated with miracles and miraculous events may have stirred the hearts and minds of past generations, as told in the Bible many of these stories have lost some of their charm, and maybe even some significance, for those in a modern audience who have been exposed to all sorts of modern “miracles” (especially in the sciences) and through the medium of television and the Internet showing all sorts of events that are classified as “miraculous,” as well as people who have been viewed as heroes (e.g., first responders)[4].The modern audience could be viewed as being jaded to the concept of miracles and heroes due to modern methods of communication. Thus, when a modern audience reads or hears a Bible story about a “hero” or a “miracle,” that modern audience may dismiss the story or person since the stories and people of the Bible often pale in comparison to what that modern audience has come to understand as being a “hero” or a “miracle.” It is left to a clergyman to “interpret” a Bible story, often thematically rather than literally, for a modern audience. This interpretation often has religious overtones and is generally directed toward teaching the congregation how to live their lives[5]. Subjecting a modern audience to a multiple step process of reading then interpreting according to a teaching sought by the clergy is far less desirable and far less acceptable to a modern audience than making the stories immediately relevant to a modern reader or audience, without extra-textual religious teaching or a teaching of how to live one’s life[6]. The only religious-oriented “teaching” of the essays in this book is the themes of the Bible which are used to explain a story or answer a question being posed for the essay.
The Bible was written by several authors (see below) to achieve many purposes: such as answering the eternal questions of how did we arrive at this place and time in partnership with our god and with our beliefs, who are we, where did we come from, was there a beginning, is there a force in the universe that watches over us, what is our place in the universe, what is expected of us, how do we live with each other and with our beliefs and with the god who has been a partner to us? The stories are written from a myriad of perspectives to answer these questions: complete fiction; partial fiction; historical fact, historical fiction. The people in the stories are from a myriad of backgrounds: farmer; chieftain; king; beggar; prophet; sinner; paragon of virtue.
For example, Abram/Abraham, like most biblical personalities, especially the patriarchs, has no extra-biblical references (including cuneiform or hieroglyphic texts), and our knowledge of him is limited to what we find in the Bible. Thus, it appears likely that Abram/Abraham is a fictional character who was made up by the authors of the Bible to make their point(s).
While some of the Bible stories can be, and have been, authenticated by archeological evidence (especially the stories recounting events occurring after the monarchy, such as the events reported in the Books of Kings), it is likely that most Bible stories presented in the Pentateuch (or the Five Books of the Torah) recounting events prior to the monarchy are mixtures of fact, legend and/or fiction. As such, these stories were part of a long oral tradition and thus had undergone a process of collection, revision, editing, and vagaries of memory in which many of the stories were far removed from their original context and purpose. Furthermore, the thus-altered stories were further amended to fit the theme of the book now being written.
Still further, most, if not all, the stories that take place before Kings, were written as metaphors. That is, they were intended to teach what the author wanted by example and were not intended to be taken literally. Thus, many of the events and characters found in the early books of the Bible cannot be authenticated – because the authors had no intention of writing a history filled by facts, but they wanted to teach via metaphors. The Bible should be read accordingly.
Therefore, viewing the Bible and its stories through a single lens will cause the reader to miss many points and may cause much confusion and consternation – and possible rejection of the entire work. Rejection of the entire work because the reader misunderstands it or is confused is an error because the Bible, even though it was written long ago and far away and for a different audience, still has many lessons to teach us about the eternal questions that have plagued man from the beginning and are still relevant today.
In fact, the Bible could be viewed as instructional narrative which seeks to investigate and advance ideas concerning the general nature of things and to teach the audience what humans do and what they should do. The Bible can also be a discussion of and an instruction on political philosophy and what is required for nationalism. These concepts are often taught through examples and metaphors so they can be understood by the biblical audience. As such, the Bible is a compendium of stories that are intended to illustrate human nature and how humans react and how they should react to various situations. A single storyline may be used in several situations to make that point (see, for example, the storyline of treating strangers and women properly is shown in two stories far apart in the text: the story of Sodom and Gomorrah in Genesis 18-19 and the story of Gibeah in Judges 19-20, the stories of Jacob during the “theft” of the birthright, the substitution of Leah for Rachel and the charade of a bloody animal skin by Jacob’s sons and others). A single phrase (such as “hineni” or “he lifted up his eyes” in different situations) is used in different situations to make a point. A situation is often used multiple times to make a point about human nature and how humans do, and how they should, react (compare the episode of the Golden Calf in Exodus 32 to the episode of Gideon in Judges 9). A story may have mixed moral teachings (for example, Jacob’s “theft” of Esau’s birthright might be viewed as proper to save the covenant made between God and Abraham and Isaac, but wrong when viewed as a deception, Simeon and Levi’s actions of murdering the men of Shechem were wrong as murder, but right in saving the incipient Jewish nation from being assimilated into the population of Shechem.
Stories, characters, phrases, situations, times and other story elements are all manipulated, transposed, changed, contrasted and modified to make a point, and often must be compared to each other to understand that point. Therefore, a straight reading of the Bible as though it were a novel in chronological order with Aesop-like stories, each having a moral of its own, will lead to confusion and misinterpretation, especially if the stories are viewed as applying only to the audience of biblical times as opposed to applying to humans and human nature of all times, including our own.
Viewing the Bible as God in total control of all events, is wrong.
Modern readers also misread the Bible stories as showing the total omnipotence of God – to the exclusion of human freedom of choice. That is, many modern readers read the Bible stories as having God in complete control of all events: when God is present, all human behavior and choice is blotted out by God. God controls everything. This disturbs a modern reader who views their free will and freedom of choice as being sacrosanct.
This is a misreading of what the authors of the Bible intended. They never intended there to be a gap, or a mutual opposition, between divine and natural causation. As will be discussed in the essay “Partners,” these authors intended man and God to have separate responsibilities with neither encroaching on the duties and responsibilities of the other. As is discussed in that essay and the essay “God’s Ground Rules,” God laid down basic, and broad, guidelines which neither partner could violate, but then allowed man to operate freely within those guidelines. Man could exercise freedom of choice and free will within the broad guidelines, with the consequences associated with those actions occurring without any interference from God. In this way, man learned from his actions and progressed.
Thus, instead of reading the stories as showing how man should act but is free to act in any way he sees fit and then to learn from the consequences associated with his actions, some modern readers read the stories as God controlling all events according to His plans. The stories were not written with God casting His shadow over all events (as will be discussed in the essay ‘Esther,” the story of Esther clearly illustrates this concept).
Viewing the Bible strictly as a Book is wrong
The modern audience often views the Bible as a “book”. A “book” generally has one author, or one editor, one point of view, one style, one genre, one issue, and one message. The events and stories recounted in a book are generally consistent among themselves. Contrary to this, the Bible is really an anthology of books and was written not by one author or by one editor, but by numerous authors, editors and redactors over a period of perhaps one thousand years from about 1150 B.C.E. to about 164 B.C.E. with the great bulk of the writing occurring between about 1000 B.C.E. to about 400 B.C.E[1]. The Pentateuch, as we know it may even have been written, redacted and assembled (during and just after the Babylonian dispersion) to include not only the material of interest at that time, but to include material from the book, Deuteronomistic History, which predated the Pentateuch by many, perhaps hundreds, of years.
The Bible is generally attributed to several principal authors: J, E, D, P and a major redactor. These authors, which may have been schools rather than single men, wrote the Bible hundreds of years after the occurrence of many of the events related in the Bible. These men lived in times that may have been entirely different from the times of the Bible stories. As such, the stories may reflect the views, concerns, situations and environment in which the author lived and worked. Their views and concerns may have been projected back on the past in a hindsight manner, with the vision that they projected back was that of an Israel already unified and confirmed in their commitment to Yahweh whereby Yahweh was already assumed in stories that were written as though they took place far, far in the distant past such as at the beginning when, in fact, the Yahweh-only religion of the authors’ times may not have come to the people who were the predecessors of the authors’ audience until after the Exodus or the entry into Canaan or the time of the Judges (see the Yahweh section of the “Monotheism” essay). For example, the stories authored by the E (Elohist) author may reflect views of the North of 900-850 B.C.E. (and hence downplay monarchic institutions and emphasize the teachings of the Northern prophets; whereas, the stories authored by the J (Yahowist) author may reflect the views of the South of 960-930 B.C.E. and Solomon’s court and the recently created monarchy; the stories authored by the P (Priestly) author may be more legalistic and reflect the views of the South as of 550-450 B.C. E. and the later years of the Babylonian exile and the early years of the post-Exilic period. Even further, the stories of the E and J authors may be narrative in nature with the stories of the D and P authors emphasizing legislative matters. Furthermore, the authors, and redactors of the late and post-Exilic period were under pressures to unify a diverse population which had a wide range of religious, social, economic, and political views and thus may have reinterpret and reformulate traditions and stories so as to maintain the past (to satisfy those people who remained in Judah and had reestablished many of the tribal and clan traditions and may have subscribed to the Deuteronomistic History) as well as to look to the present (to accommodate the new arrivals from Babylon who had never lived in Judah and may not even have ever lived outside an urban environment and thus had traditions and beliefs associated with such conditions) and build for a future which included both those classes. A “book” as such is not subject to such restrictions and demands therefore, the Bible cannot be strictly viewed as a “book”.
Sometimes one story (such as Gen 37:14-36 – Joseph’s discovery of the whereabouts of his brothers) may reflect input from more than one of these authors (J and E) and hence may be internally inconsistent[2].
In fact, there are even different Bibles, for example, the Septuagint is a translation of the Hebrew Bible from Hebrew into Greek[3], the Masoretic Text is a Hebew and Aramaic text of the Tanakh for Rabbinic Judaism which was primarily copied, edited and distributed by a group of Jews known as the Masoretes between the 7th and 10th centuries BCE, there are even different manuscripts (the Aleppo Codex and the Leningrad Codex). There is even an oral Torah and a written Torah, with the Oral Torah reflecting Rabbinic Judaism (and inconsistencies exist between the two, which presents difficulties for many modern congregants). As such, the Bible may contain several styles, genres, points of view and many inconsistencies. The Bible also takes many stories commonly known to the audience of the Biblical times and modifies those stories to make a point or it takes a physical structure, such as the remains of a previously destroyed city, and builds a new story about that structure which is intended to make a point or teach a lesson that is actually far removed from the story which is actually associated with the physical structure. In some instances, the Biblical author may make up a story totally out of whole cloth to make his point. As such, there are some, if not several, inconsistencies[4]. Many modern readers dismiss the Bible because they feel the inconsistencies render the Bible meaningless, and often point to inconsistencies as the reason for rejecting the entire work. Often, the identified inconsistencies are only inconsistent if one only reads part of the whole or are taken out of context. Furthermore, the Bible stories are often obscure. The drafters may have deliberately made them obscure so they will be amenable to different interpretations whereby a teacher can make a point. Or the obfuscation was intended to make the audience think. Some stores are obscure and confusing because the story is only partially told due to destruction or loss of the original source. At any rate, the obscurity of many stories is off-putting to many modern readers.
Viewing the Bible strictly as a historical text is wrong
Some members of a modern audiences also make a mistake of viewing the Bible as a book that is trying to relate history. Viewed in this manner, the stories in the Bible are often dismissed because there is little, if any, archeological proof available to substantiate some of the stories, especially the older stories which occur before the time of Kings. While there is one trend in Biblical studies that accepts all Bible stories as absolute truth[11] and another trend which accepts none of the Bible stories[12], the truth probably lies somewhere in between because of the just-discussed procedure of using, manipulating or even inventing events or stories in a manner which advances a particular lesson. In fact, it was not until the Sadducees used the Biblical texts to argue against the rule of the Pharisees that the Bible even began to be viewed as more than a simple text. In fact, people of that time were mostly illiterate and thus did not attribute holiness to the Bible[13]. Those who try to view the Bible as a historical document become confused and dismissive when the Bible mixes times or juxtaposed two events which actually happened far apart in time. The Bible is not playing fast and loose with chronological events, it is moving them around to make a point. The authors may have used many ancient sources, such as oral and written narratives, poetry, archival documents, public inscriptions, archeology, geology, environmental evidence, myths, and science as it was known, to draft the stories to fit the narratives and overarching themes they were advocating and teaching.Thus, the Bible should not be viewed as a historical document, and doing so misreads it. It was not until the rabbinic period that such authority was attributed to the Bible. Thus, the Bible should not be held to either absolute historical accuracy nor total historical inaccuracy. The essays in this book will not advocate or adopt any particular view and will refer to the historical aspect of a story only if and when it advances the reasoning used in the essay.
Viewing the Bible strictly as a philosophical work is wrong
Still further, a modern audience will mistakenly view the Bible as a philosophical work. Since philosophy changes, philosophy pertinent to Biblical times may not be pertinent to a modern audience. As such, many modern readers dismiss the Bible.
Viewing the Bible strictly as an education in morality is wrong
Even further, some members of the modern audience view Bible stories as teaching a moral. The Bible stories need not be read as setting up models of humans to be copied by the reader. Sometimes, the story is intended to show what happens when a human, or even an entire nation, strays from the proper path, or even simply makes a mistake. Sometimes, a story is simply that: a story intended to entertain. By viewing all Bible stories as being intended to teach morality and proper behavior, many modern audience members are turned off, offended or even defensive thereby missing out on much richness of the Bible. Furthermore, for example, reading the Book of Deuteronomy focusing exclusively on the religious and theological aspect while downplaying or even ignoring the social and political forces exerted on the author is to ignore important forces associated with the text one is reading. Such erroneous reading often leads to rejecting the entire work. One cannot view the beliefs or character of the religious doctrine of the authors of Deuteronomy (or any other Book of the Pentateuch, but especially with regard to Deuteronomistic History) divorced from the way they saw those beliefs expressed in action, that is, in the provisions for a just and humane political, social, and economic order as viewed through a lens of prophecy and prophecy fulfillment, especially with regard to God keeping His promises and prophecies to the people and the consequences of the people’s failure to hold up their end of the covenant.
Viewing the Bible strictly as a religious text is wrong
In fact, viewing the Bible strictly as a religious text may also be wrong. Although the Bible clearly has religious teachings and leanings, it is far more than that. As discussed above, the Bible was written and redacted to show people, especially people of diverse backgrounds, such as urbanites from Babylon and non-urbanites who remained in Judah during the Babylonian disbursement period, how to live and progress in cooperation with each other. As such, many of the stories have political, social and even economic themes and morals. In fact, it might even be said that the Commandments associated with the basic Covenant between the people and their god were intended to regulate the political, economic and social relations among the people whereby they could live and work together in peace and harmony to build a new, and better, society and life for themselves. Stories, such as the story of Lot and Abram in Genesis 13 amicably parting ways after a negotiation regarding land might even be viewed as teaching how to amicably resolve disputes, also Abraham’s negotiation in Gen 23 with the Hittites regarding the burial cave at Machpelah shows negotiation among foreigners. The stories in the Bible also teach how the people are to handle questions such as land ownership and sale, debt repayment, political organization, the limits of power on the rulers, as well as social questions such as care of the poor, the disadvantaged and the aged. The Bible even has stories, especially in the Book of Judges, which could be read as teaching military tactics. Thus, viewing the Bible strictly as a religious text not only narrows its purpose, it also misses much of the richness and breadth of this work.
View the Bible through the lens of a modern audience
First and foremost with regard to viewing the Bible through the lens of a modern audience, it must be remembered that the Bible is not a Western book. It was written by, for, and about people from the Mediterranean world of Biblical times who did not think, live or communicate like Westerners of today’s world. This error can cause cross-cultural miscommunication and unwarranted assumptions that those in the Biblical audience think like we do. So, if we read stories of the Bible strictly through Western eyes, we may miss what was being said to the Biblical audience. This may cause confusion and consternation to a modern audience. This, in turn, may lead to such audience rejecting the Bible. This would be a mistake because the lessons in living of concern to the people of Biblical times are still relevant to the living of today.
Reviewing the stories in the Bible through a lens of a modern audience and in the proper context of a theocentric history which reviews how a people, and/or a person, arrived at a particular time and place in partnership with their god and how that audience should act to maintain that partnership, may bring these stories into a new, and sometimes exciting, light which has relevance to a modern audience. In some cases, the traditional views of a story will be changed, and sometimes totally overturned and rejected (the story of Adam and Eve being banished from the Garden of Eden as punishment for disobedience is one example of such rejection of traditional beliefs; the essay on the story of Ruth is another example, but there are many others as well). The role of women in the Bible will be reevaluated and rethought if the stories are read through the lens of a modern audience. This may be intriguing or upsetting, depending on the reader. At any rate, it is hoped that the essays in this collection will pique the interest of the modern audience and engender new thoughts, views and discussions of these questions as well as with the stories in the Hebrew Bible. Even if the reader disagrees with the conclusions and/or theses of any or all of these essays, it is hoped that new thoughts and views are raised in the audience.
The modern congregant may also have questioned religious concepts such as “evil,” “heaven,” “free will” and may even have wondered about “God” and, like her counterpart in the Biblical audience, wondered how she arrived at his particular time, place and position, but because she has been exposed to modern science and technology and probably has read widely and been exposed to the arts, she may not be satisfied with the answers provided by organized religion or the Bible. The essays in this collection view these, and other, concepts and Bible stories through the lens of a modern audience and attempt to provide a new way of looking at these concepts and stories which will be more satisfying to such a modern audience.
[1] While some believe that God gave Moses the entire Torah, this view is disputed by others, including Arnold Erlich in Mikra Ki-Pheshuto (The Bible According to Its Literal Meaning), commentary to Exodus (KATV, 1969) in which Erlich uses the observation that the tabernacle instructed by God in Exodus nor the Five Books themselves, are not clearly mentioned outside of the Five Books of Moses to prove that the books that contain Joshua, Judges, Samuel, Kings were composed at another time, thereby proving that the Torah was written and edited later and was not given as a whole to Moses by God.
[2] By analysis, scholars have attributed 87 of the 187 chapters of the Pentateuch to the P author, 65 to the JE author, and 34 to the D author. Thus, there may be a strong flavor/bias in the Bible toward the views of the P author which emphasized community with its unique religious culture and its emphasis on family, temple, and ritual as governed by the Priests.
[3] While this translation is accepted by many, most Jews deny its authority because there are several variances between the Hebrew and the Greek versions of the Bible. At least one of these variances is extremely important. That variance revolves around Isaiah 7:14. In that passage, Isiah states “Assuredly, my Lord will give you a sign of His own accord! Look, the young woman is with child and about to give birth to a son. Let her name him Immanuel. By the time he learns to reject the bad and choose the good, people will be feeing on curds and honey.” Here, Isaiah is referring to the quick return of the people being exiled to Babylonia after the destruction of the Temple to their homes: they will be back before this young woman’s son has reached maturity. However, in the passage, Isiah refers to the woman as almah which is a neutral word that simply means “young woman”. However, the Septuagint translates the word almah as parthtenos. Parthenos in Greek means young woman, but it can also mean virgin. This changes the overall meaning entirely to mean that the young woman will give a son by virgin birth. One can readily see why Jews reject this translation.
[4] A particularly difficult inconsistency lies between Leviticus 17:3-7 and Deuteronomy 12:15-27 concerning the consumption of meat. Leviticus Chapter 17 seems to require vegetarianism; whereas, Deuteronomy seems to allow the consumption of meat. Certainly another glaring inconsistency is the claim that the Torah was revealed to and written down by Moses, yet, how could that be when many incidents reported in the Bible occur after Moses’s death, including the reporting of his death (how can one report on one’s own death?).
[1] This is not a new phenomenon. As far back as the time of the Bel Shem Tov (Besht), people were dissatisfied with the rote rituals, especially if they could not follow them because they could not read. The founder of Hasidism, emphasized that God prefers the prayer of sincerity over the prayer performed according to a rote formula. Organized religion, on the other hand, attempts to make people of a group homogeneous.
[2] Unless otherwise stated, as used herein, “Bible” is “The Jewish Study Bible, JPS Tanakh” published by The Jewish Publication Society, Oxford Press, New York, 2004. All citations will be made from this reference.
[3] However, the teaching of the Bible still may be relevant to the modern mind, “I don’t know if you’ve noted any of those prophecies lately, but believe me, they certainly describe the times we’re going through” (Ronald Eagan to Tom Dine of the American-Israel Public Affairs Committee; The Jerusalem Post, October 28, 1983, reported in Introduction to the Old Testament by Anthony R. Ceresko, published by Orbis Books (New York, 1192), page 1. Many modern congregants view the Bible stories through the lens of their own lives, their social and political views color and taint their views of Bible stories, which may cause them to miss the point of stores written thousands of years ago. Views on slavery as well as one’s social, political, theological, educational, and economic position within society are a prime example of this.
[4] This is not a new problem. In fact, Maimonides wrote his Guide for the Perplexed to meet just this problem. The Guide is aimed at those who accept some parts of Judaism, but had been exposed to science and philosophy and felt that there was a contrast between Judaism and the surrounding culture and that they were required to choose one or the other. (see Guide for the Perplexed, introduction 5, 16-17). Maimonides attempted to bridge the gap between revelation and reason by turning revelation into the most elevated expression of reason. Revelation is not an alternative to reason as a source of knowledge about the world, but it is an achievement of reason itself. Maimonides attempted to bridge the problem caused by an apparent conflict between reason, science and religion by showing that the Bible should not be taken literally. Instead the stories of the Bible should be taken as being very obscure parables, metaphoric ways of speaking and thinking, which if properly understood will turn out to be entirely consistent with the truths of reason and science. This teaching seems to apply today for those who try to view the Bible stories as being literal and thus reject the Bible. This view that when the Bible and reality conflict, the Bible should be read allegorically was specifically rejected by Spinoza in his Theological-Political Treatise stating “according to Maimonides, the Bible’s true sense cannot be established from itself and should not be sought from the Bible itself”. The approach of Maimonides of considering everything in the Bible as true and “interpreting” inconsistencies as being allegories, leads to the interpretation being subject to the prejudices of the interpreter and hence open to doubt and rejection. Spinoza argues that using the Maimonides approach one can only know what the Bible is trying to say if you know, independently through reason, what it must be trying to say; otherwise one falls into the trap of taking it too literally. Spinoza therefore suggested that since God and nature are one, both can be understood using the laws of reason, secular analysis (such as history (such as who the authors were and when they lived and under what conditions they lived, etc; hence, Spinoza seems to reject the idea that the Bible was written by God or under God’s direct supervision, but was written by human beings), purpose, language, archeology, etc), and the laws by which nature is governed. As such, since God and nature are one, then the laws of nature can be considered as being God’s decrees and one need not have anyone “interpret” them for you, you can do that yourself using reasoning and scientific knowledge. Certainly one does not need a prophet for this process.
[5] Furthermore, many of the Bible stories are “interpreted” from a reading of the Bible by the clergyman presenting the teaching to the congregation. However, this reading is suspect because many of the words of the Bible are subject to many interpretations and are often obscure in themselves due to the lack of vowels, the tendency of certain letters to be used interchangeably, as well as the doubt that the original language has been faithfully preserved or even altered over the centuries.
[6] If one wishes to disconnect the teaching of the Torah from the interpretations of men, perhaps one should consider studying the Zohar: “Woe to the man who says that the Torah intended simply to relate stories and the words of commoners, for if this were the case, we ourselves at the present time could make a Torah from the words of commoners and do even better.” According to the Zohar, the Torah contains much more than its surface meanings. The narratives of the Torah are the “garments of the Torah,” and it is crucial not to mistake the mere coverings for the thing itself. The problem with the Zohar is “who wrote it?” Was it Rabbi Simeon ben Yochai and his son Eleazar in the second century under the influence of the Holy Spirit? Or was it Moses de Leòn, in the twelfth century possibly under the influence of the Holy Spirit (like Joseph Smith and The Book of Mormon)? At least with the Torah authorship, we can attribute it and thus can believe or not.
[7] While some believe that God gave Moses the entire Torah, this view is disputed by others, including Arnold Erlich in Mikra Ki-Pheshuto (The Bible According to Its Literal Meaning), commentary to Exodus (KATV, 1969) in which Erlich uses the observation that the tabernacle instructed by God in Exodus nor the Five Books themselves, are not clearly mentioned outside of the Five Books of Moses to prove that the books that contain Joshua, Judges, Samuel, Kings were composed at another time, thereby proving that the Torah was written and edited later and was not given as a whole to Moses by God.
[8] By analysis, scholars have attributed 87 of the 187 chapters of the Pentateuch to the P author, 65 to the JE author, and 34 to the D author. Thus, there may be a strong flavor/bias in the Bible toward the views of the P author which emphasized community with its unique religious culture and its emphasis on family, temple, and ritual as governed by the Priests.
[9] While this translation is accepted by many, most Jews deny its authority because there are several variances between the Hebrew and the Greek versions of the Bible. At least one of these variances is extremely important. That variance revolves around Isaiah 7:14. In that passage, Isiah states “Assuredly, my Lord will give you a sign of His own accord! Look, the young woman is with child and about to give birth to a son. Let her name him Immanuel. By the time he learns to reject the bad and choose the good, people will be feeing on curds and honey.” Here, Isaiah is referring to the quick return of the people being exiled to Babylonia after the destruction of the Temple to their homes: they will be back before this young woman’s son has reached maturity. However, in the passage, Isiah refers to the woman as almah which is a neutral word that simply means “young woman”. However, the Septuagint translates the word almah as parthtenos. Parthenos in Greek means young woman, but it can also mean virgin. This changes the overall meaning entirely to mean that the young woman will give a son by virgin birth. One can readily see why Jews reject this translation.
[10] A particularly difficult inconsistency lies between Leviticus 17:3-7 and Deuteronomy 12:15-27 concerning the consumption of meat. Leviticus Chapter 17 seems to require vegetarianism; whereas, Deuteronomy seems to allow the consumption of meat. Certainly another glaring inconsistency is the claim that the Torah was revealed to and written down by Moses, yet, how could that be when many incidents reported in the Bible occur after Moses’s death, including the reporting of his death (how can one report on one’s own death?).
[11] The maximalist camp holds that since so much of the historical writing in the Bible has been confirmed by archaeological sources, that even when there is no confirming information forthcoming from outside the Bible, we should consider the biblical material to be historically accurate.
[12] The minimalist camp holds that since so much of the historical writing in the Bible has not been confirmed by archaeological sources, especially with regard to specific detail, we can hold as historical only small amounts of information recorded in the Bible, and we must assume that the remainder of the material is unproven, perhaps even fictional.
[13] See, How The Bible Became Holy by Michael L. Satlow, Yale University Press (New Haven, 2014).