A critique of Bible Critics – A Deutronomic Deception

 

Dr. David Glatt-Gilad from the Department of Bible, Archaeology, and the Ancient Near East at Ben-Gurion University, writes on https://www.thetorah.com/article/deuteronomy-the-first-torah

 a claim based on the Deuteronomic theory of Bible criticism.  His claim, is a bit contorted, but he states that modern scholars believe that Deuteronomy is the actual “Torah”  mentioned in Scripture, as opposed to the first 4 books of the Pentateuch.

 

He claims, both in response to a theory of Rabbi Malbim, and as a general theory that:

 

“Malbim, like Ramban before him, insists that the laws in Deuteronomy were all made known by God to Moses at Sinai, but were only made public by Moses shortly before his death— in other words these laws were part of the larger Torah, even if the term torah in Deuteronomy refers only to a portion of the Torah. For modern critical scholars, this is an unacceptable proposition, amongst other reasons, since Deuteronomy diverges from laws found elsewhere in the Pentateuch. (Compare, for example, Deut 12:20–24 and Lev 17:1–4 on the permissibility of consuming meat outside of a sacrificial context.) It is untenable that the Deuteronomic laws were given in conjunction with the very laws that they contradict.”

 

 

 

He presents 2 sets of laws, and claims that the Laws in Deuteronomy contradict those in Leviticus.   Upon studying these two renditions of laws related to sacrifice and slaughter of animals, it becomes apparent that firstly,  Glatt-Gilad has misread or misunderstood the verses he quotes, and  secondly, that his limited citation of 4 verses in Lev and 4 in Deut do not give the whole picture of the Biblical legislation. Hence, the basis upon which he derives his conclusion is not sufficient to derive any conclusion.

 

If we look at what the texts actually say, and the expanded chapters,  they tell a different story, and do not present any contradiction whatsoever.

 

 

Lev 17:

 

3 What man soever there be of the house of Israel, that killeth an ox, or lamb, or goat, in the camp, or that killeth it without the camp,

 

4 and hath not brought it unto the door of the tent of meeting, to present it as an offering unto the LORD before the tabernacle of the LORD, blood shall be imputed unto that man; he hath shed blood; and that man shall be cut off from among his people.

 

5 To the end that the children of Israel may bring their sacrifices, which they sacrifice in the open field, even that they may bring them unto the LORD, unto the door of the tent of meeting, unto the priest, and sacrifice them for sacrifices of peace-offerings unto the LORD.

 

 

 

 

The above is in regards to sacrifices in the Camp in the Wilderness.   However, Glatt-Gilad is saying “Compare, for example, Deut 12:20–24 and Lev 17:1–4 on the permissibility of consuming meat outside of a sacrificial context”.  Suggesting that Lev 17 forbids all meat  outside of a sacrificial context.  But, look at  the following:

 

13 And whatsoever man there be of the children of Israel, or of the strangers that sojourn among them, that taketh in hunting any beast or fowl that may be eaten, he shall pour out the blood thereof, and cover it with dust.

 

There is already an explicit permission to hunt animals, whether beast or fowl,  given in Lev 17.

 

 

 

In Deut 12, we need to see the expanse of the chapter before drawing any conclusions about possible contradictions.

 

Whilst Glatt-Gilad  only picks four verses, he ignores the setting of the chapter itself, which makes the opening statement:

 

1 These are the statutes and the ordinances, which ye shall observe to do in the land which the LORD, the God of thy fathers, hath given thee to possess it, all the days that ye live upon the earth.

 

The laws are now pertaining to the Land of Israel, and no longer the desert encampment in the Wilderness of Sinai. This is explicitly stated, and differentiated in Deuteronomy – so there is no contradiction:

 

8 Ye shall not do after all that we do here this day, every man whatsoever is right in his own eyes;

9 for ye are not as yet come to the rest and to the inheritance, which the LORD your God giveth thee.

10 But when ye go over the Jordan, and dwell in the land which the LORD your God causeth you to inherit, and He giveth you rest from all your enemies round about, so that ye dwell in safety;

 

 

15 Notwithstanding thou mayest kill and eat flesh within all thy gates, after all the desire of thy soul, according to the blessing of the LORD thy God which He hath given thee; the unclean and the clean may eat thereof, as of the gazelle, and as of the hart.

 

 

The verse he does refer to, again brings a new condition, and it is not contradicting Leviticus.

 

21 If the place which the LORD thy God shall choose to put His name there be too far from thee, then thou shalt kill of thy herd and of thy flock, which the LORD hath given thee, as I have commanded thee, and thou shalt eat within thy gates, after all the desire of thy soul.

 

 

In the desert camp,  the Altar and the Tent were accessible to all, because they were all in the camp together.   In the Land of Israel,  the tribes split up across the land, and hence may not all have easy access to the Altar.  Hence Devarim is speaking of a new situation in Israel. Hence there is no contradiction whatsoever.

 

It is possible that the Rabbinical interpretation may add some different distinctions, but that is not pertinent to my argument.

 

Glatt-Gilad, despite his suggestive name, has given a rather unkosher, and dishonest rendering of what is written in the Torah.

A critique of Bible Critics – Wellhausen

 

A critique of Bible Critics – Wellhausen

 

 

Prof. John Barton, writing on  https://www.thetorah.com/article/biblical-criticism-a-common-sense-approach-to-the-bible  

presents the claims of the German Bible critic Julius Wellhausen:

 

“But Wellhausen did a simple and obvious thing, which had enormous implications. He examined the historical books of the Bible, and the books of the pre-exilic prophets (Amos, Hosea, First Isaiah, and so on), for evidence that the priestly system was in force in the early days of Israel, and he found none. On the contrary, it is only in post-exilic texts (Ezra-Nehemiah, Chronicles, Daniel) that we find clear allusions to it.”

 

Wellhausen was trying to prove that there were sections of the Torah which were retroactively written in by Priests in the 2^nd Temple era. He arrives at this conclusion by having searched through the TNK,  as mentioned above by Barton.

 

However, a simple search of an early book, eg 1 Samuel  finds the existence of Kohanim:

 

לה  וַהֲקִימֹתִי לִי כֹּהֵן נֶאֱמָן, כַּאֲשֶׁר בִּלְבָבִי וּבְנַפְשִׁי יַעֲשֶׂה; וּבָנִיתִי לוֹ בַּיִת נֶאֱמָן, וְהִתְהַלֵּךְ לִפְנֵי-מְשִׁיחִי כָּל-הַיָּמִים.	35 And I will raise Me up a faithful priest, that shall do according to that which is in My heart and in My mind; and I will build him a sure house; and he shall walk before Mine anointed for ever.
לו  וְהָיָה, כָּל-הַנּוֹתָר בְּבֵיתְךָ, יָבוֹא לְהִשְׁתַּחֲוֺת לוֹ, לַאֲגוֹרַת כֶּסֶף וְכִכַּר-לָחֶם; וְאָמַר, סְפָחֵנִי נָא אֶל-אַחַת הַכְּהֻנּוֹת--לֶאֱכֹל פַּת-לָחֶם.  {פ}	36 And it shall come to pass, that every one that is left in thy house shall come and bow down to him for a piece of silver and a loaf of bread, and shall say: Put me, I pray thee, into one of the priests' offices, that I may eat a morsel of bread.' {P}

 

 

This shatters the assumption, and hypothesis of Wellhausen, as he has neglected to carry out a careful survey of the TNK, contrary to his claims.

 

Barton, with great arrogance, continues to spout Wellhausen’s disproven claims:

 

 

 

 

“So Wellhausen found himself in agreement with Karl Heinrich Graf (1815–1869) that “the law was later than the prophets” (lex post prophetas). P was not the foundation document of ancient Israel, but of Judaism after the exile. Not only did it not go back to Moses, it did not go back much before Ezra: it was a work of the sixth or fifth century B.C.E. at the earliest.

Ancient Israel, characterized by the prophets, and the legalistic Priestly religion of the Second Temple period, were two distinct things, and Judaism, which developed from the latter, could not claim to have truly ancient roots. It had been invented, we might almost say, by postexilic thinkers.”

 

 

The alleged “invention”, in fact, is  Wellhausen’s theory, which is contradicted by his own methodology, if applied honestly to the texts he claims to have read.