Photo Credit:

Another voice has entered the online discussion about Bible Criticism and orthodox Judaism. Professor Jacob L. Wright is an orthodox Jew who has studied, taught, and written extensively on Bible Criticism.

He made waves Pesach time when he published a provocative article on the Huffington Post where he talked about “The Myth of Moses.” In his article he explained that his view of the Bible is that it is a composite work with each layer added for a specific reason. In the Moses story, there was a need to justify the existence of an Egyptian prince named Moses who saved the Israelites and establish him as a bona fide Israelite. So the Bible tells the story of a boy who was cast off by his mother into the Nile. This story has very obscure references as the names of the major players in the story are not mentioned. Later, the story was viewed as salacious so new details were added as a prologue to the story.


If it weren’t the Bible and I weren’t orthodox, this would be a great theory to explain anomalies in the text. But it is the Bible and I am orthodox so it hardly sits well with me when the Bible is explained away as myth.

Professor Wright was interview by Professor Alan Brill on his Kavvanah website. The interview is worth your time and consideration if you don’t mind reading what is widely considered to be absolute kefira.

The first important thing in the interview is the introduction where Brill outlines the current status of Biblical Criticism. It’s required reading so I copy it in full here:

As background, the problems of the Bible go back to the tenth and eleventh century Islamic critiques of the Bible by Ibn Hazm and others. Second, modern figures such as Spinoza and Jean Astruc sought to understand the Bible as a human book using the same tools that we use to understand Greek and Roman books. And in the 19th century, Wellhausen popularized a theory that the Pentateuch had four authors. But the important part of his theory was that the ritual and priestly material was a priestly Pharisaic digression from the original pure faith of the prophets necessitating Christianity for a restoration. Hence, Solomon Schechter called it higher anti-Semitism, David Zvi Hoffman showed that Leviticus is not in contradiction to the rest of the story, Kaufman showed that the prophets assumed the priestly material, and Cassuto showed based on Sumerian and Akkadian sources that the divisions fail.

Well, Wellhausen was writing a century ago, with the aforementioned defenses all formulated in a post WWI climate. For at least forty years the field was already given to authors such as Gunkel who assumes the Bible is legend, the way Gilgamesh is legend. And Martin Noth who assumed most of the narrative was formulated originally as oral traditions- read here. Questions of redaction were not tied to Wellhausen, or even literary documents, but to oral traditions.

What do historians currently think about the context of the Bible? They assume that it was written between 720 BCE and 587 BCE, between the destruction of the Northern Kingdom and the destruction of Jerusalem, with some editing until the end of Ezra’s life circa 440 BCE. (Minimalists make it more recent and Evangelicals defend the chronological dates.) They work from parallels to Assyrian texts, the nature of script, linguistics, and reconstructed context of author. Little of this has anything to do with literary doublets. If you want to reject historical criticism, then start learning ancient linguistics and texts contemporary to the Bible. No harmonization of passages changes this dating nor does anything from Cassutto or Hoffman affect it. (However, Prof. Josh Berman is seeking to shift the discussion from Assyrians to the Hittites in 1300 BCE, an effort that may be accepted by the Orthodox but does not promise to have much of an impact on the experts. But it is better than refuting Kugel, who is not a historian of ancient Israel or source critic so the critique does not help.)

This past May there was a major conference at Hebrew University on“Convergence and Divergence in Pentateuchal Theory;” if you are interested in these topics, then that was the place to be. The conference opened up with a clear statement that there are three approaches: a Documentary approach (not based on Wellhausen but on Noth and others) where there are separate documents; a Supplementary approach,where a single document get more and more complex; and a Fragmentary approach, where we cannot separate out authors or layers anymore.



  1. Bible criticism has as much authenticity as hollywood movie critics. Once in a rare while they get lucky, but more times than not you wonder if they saw the same movie you saw, or were critiquing a synopsis published before the film reached the cutting floor. Or we could liken them to those minutely examining the bark on a given tree and fail to observe the continuity of the surrounding forest. Meanwhile the sweat of their labors has begun to dry and they begin swatting away as if a bee was in their shorts. Once they have recovered from this initial experience, they feel it necessary to defend the bee theory against all comers so tgey don't lose face.

  2. This article is creepy. Why is this supposedly Orthodox Rabbi so enthusiastic about getting Orthodox Jews to embrace secular bible criticism which undermines the authority of the Torah?

  3. This article is simply wrong, and I am very surprised that the Jewish Press would print it. Rejection of the Divine Authorship of the Torah does indeed corrupt Torah observance. It only takes one look at the movements that have rejected this fundamental principle of Judaism, like Reform, Conservative, and Reconstructionist, to see that this true. Their Torah observance is incredibly lax compared to Orthodox Jews. Once you reject the Torah’s commandments as being G-d given, the decline in observance is inevitable

  4. Technically you can be shomer mitzvos while rejecting the divinity of the Torah, but Jewish history has shown that such movements inevitably fall apart. Many of the Torah's commandments are challenging and time-consuming. Would someone really go through the pain of davening three times a day, fasting for 25 hours on Yom Kippur and Tisha B'av, staying in Shul for almost the entire day, keeping all the stringent rules of Shabbos and Kashrus, and all the other commandments of the Torah, if they didn't feel there was a divine mandate requiring them to do so?

Loading Facebook Comments ...