The Gettysburg Hypothesis: What If Bible Critics had a Crack At the Text?

Four score and seven years ago our fathers brought forth on this continent, a new nation, conceived in Liberty, and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal.

Even the most casual reader cannot help but be struck by the unorthodox numbering system that the writer employs here.  One suspects that it was an anachronistic flourish added at a significantly later period and meant to emotionally connect the listener to the well-known folk origins of the nation - to a time in which this "primitive" system of counting was widespread. 

Most scholars now agree that the notion that "all men are created equal" is a relatively recent innovation and shows signs of editing in our text.  There is a well-intended desire to want to push back notions of equality to earlier and earlier epochs in the nation's history to assuage feelings of guilt at the true, rather unequal nature of the nation's founding.  The people who are apocryphally supposed to have penned this idea could not possibly have held such views in their day and a cursory survey of all of the extant literature of the time shows no trace of such egalitarian sentiments.  Are we to suppose that they were developed in a vacuum?  History conclusively shows that such concepts can only be developed over long periods of time and that the development can be clearly traced.  We may never know the true "proposition" that the writer references but it is of little consequence as the redactor's heavy hand has sealed the sentiment for posterity.

Now we are engaged in a great civil war, testing whether that nation, or any nation so conceived and so dedicated, can long endure. We are met on a great battle-field of that war. We have come to dedicate a portion of that field, as a final resting place for those who here gave their lives that that nation might live. It is altogether fitting and proper that we should do this.

The author never actually experienced the war but only heard oral accounts of it of course.  This is clear as stylistically, the piece is cobbled together from earlier and later periods as mentioned above. Many cultures have nostalgically claimed minor skirmishes as "great" wars whereby the war legends of multiple generations are rolled onto the back of these relatively inconsequential conflicts and recounted generationally - mostly for their moral instruction and entertainment value.

The author is depicted as being literally on a battle-field fraught with existential danger (not ideal conditions for composition one would think).  Here the text surprisingly shifts and the battlefield becomes a martyrs memorial. This shows evidence of competing traditions - one written at the height of pitched battle and the other long after its denouement.  Wishing to preserve both of these traditions, the editor references them both here.

But, in a larger sense, we can not dedicate -- we can not consecrate -- we can not hallow -- this ground. The brave men, living and dead, who struggled here, have consecrated it, far above our poor power to add or detract. The world will little note, nor long remember what we say here, but it can never forget what they did here.

Here the phantasmagorical notions of the people comes into play with the revelation that the battles of the "great wars" were fought both by the living and the dead - ostensibly raised from the netherworld to fight alongside their brethren of flesh and bone.  Such notions were common currency in many theologically rooted cultures.

We conclude our analysis by noting a unique instance of prophetic flourish.  The author predicts that the world will not even bother to note the actions of the people on the battlefield nor even the content of the document that the redactor has dedicated himself to.  Clearly, the author was not too accomplished of a prophet as here we are, years hence, pouring over the enduring literary achievement of this remarkable group of people.

Better Than Ezra

In another post one of our readers made the following assertion:

"One of the major problems with the Kuzari proof is that there are two bottlenecks in traditional Jewish history where the Torah was re-introduced, one during the reign of Yoshiyahu Hamelech (King Josiah) and one during the time of Ezra.

Both times, the Torah was "re-revealed". So the continuous narrative that the Kuzari proof depends on does not exist, according to Tanach itself.

Even if you assert that what was found in Yoshiyahu's time was just Devarim, and the people knew the rest of the Torah, that claim is harder to make in the time of Ezra, These were returnees to the land who had clearly been living without a Torah for some time, or the returnees who came back with Ezra. So the revelation story was new to them, yet they believed it, just assuming that the chain had been broken. According to your reasoning, they should have said "wait! my parents and grandparents didn't tell me that!" Instead, they just assumed that in the upheaval of exile, the tradition had been lost."

The return to Israel of some 42,000 Jews from the Babylonian Exile is regarded by Bible critics as a watershed moment in Jewish history when the Torah (since presumed forgotten in the 70 year exile) was reintroduced to the people.  Critics like James Kugel make quite a lot of hay with this assumption - in his case constructing an entire alternate universe of Judaism.

Taking a peek around the book of Ezra I found a few items that would seem to be a bee in the bonnet of our reader's hypothesis that the "tradition had been lost."

1. In Ezra 3:4 it says the the returnees from Babylon kept the "Feast of Tabernacles" (Sukkot).  Sukkot is a complex holiday with a lot of different parts and a lot of mitzvot (commandments) that cannot be kept without extensive knowledge of Jewish law and tradition.  If it was lost they would be unable to keep it.
2. In Ezra 3:6 the people make offerings on the "first day of the 7th month" (Rosh HaShana).  Thus they knew both about the holiday and the laws and traditions associated with making offerings.
3. In 3:7 they begin to build the Second Temple in Jerusalem indicating that they knew about the historical significance of the city as well as the many complex laws of the construction of the Temple and its vessels.
4. In 3:13 some of the older people (who remembered the First Temple) began to weep - noting that the Second Temple paled in comparison to the First and indicating to us that there were people there who were alive from before the point that the tradition was supposedly broken.

In short, the tradition, while it may have been compromised during the exile, was not lost and the notion that the Sinaitic Revelation was forgotten among the populace or somehow reintroduced by Ezra or others just doesn't hold water.

Academic Bible Critics Don't Have the Goods

Rabbi Moshe Feinstein (1895-1986) was considered one of the greatest Talmudic minds of his generation and the de facto leader of Orthodox Jewry in North America.  He was renowned for his compassionate and giving nature as much as his razor-sharp intellect and and such was consulted by Jews the world over for his rulings on the most complex and challenging issues.  Among other moral conundrums he researched (within the context of Jewish Law) and rendered opinions on were: artificial insemination, brain-death, separation of Siamese Twins, factory raised veal and many others.

Word of his skill in this arena spread beyond the confines of his Lower East Side Yeshiva and eventually reached the ears of NY Governor Hugh Carey - who reached out to him via snail mail in 1981.  The Governor (a Catholic and a lawyer) was embroiled in a public debate as to whether or not New York State should impose the death penalty and sought the Rabbi's council on this delicate and hotly debated question.  Rabbi Feinstein responded with a friendly, respectful and thorough overview of the Jewish take on the topic which can be read in its entirety in the excellent book Uncommon Sense by Rabbi D.B. Ganz - one that posits that ancient Jewish wisdom (The Talmud) contains solutions to many of today's political and social challenges.

While it seems remarkable to me that the non-Jewish leader of one of the largest states in the union would be consulting an old immigrant Rabbi in Lower Manhattan, what struck me as more noteworthy was that he didn't think to consult with a professor of Bible Studies at one of New York's many academic institutions.  Was there no scholar at NYU or Columbia who, based on their critical reading of classical Jewish scripture, could advise the good Governor on all that he was interested in and more?  Color me skeptical.

Biblical scholars, by and large, do not "get" what the Torah is or how it works or if they do, don't particularly care what thousands of years of Rabbinic scholarship has to say on the topic.  From old school Wellhausen and Graf type criticism to the newer (and in some ways stranger) critiques of  Friedman and Kugel the common denominator is a rejection of what the Classical Jewish legal tradition and our received wisdom has to say on behalf of itself in favor of a clinical "scientific" reading of the text.  This is essentially like gutting a live cat to admire its fur - leaving the (now confused) reader with a neutered, superficial and infantilized "reading" of the (now strange and mostly useless) text.  It also renders the text and tradition incapable of being mined for its wisdom - a wisdom that could be quite valuable for contemporary times.

I invite all interested parties to learn both thoroughly and judge for yourselves.

"Ain't nothing like the real thing..."

Marvin Gaye

What Was Maimonides Doing in the Guide for the Perplexed?

First of all let it be clear that I am aware that in the modern world it is the most unpopular thing to suggest any form of restriction or reticence towards our approach to questions of understanding the nature of God, Torah, and our universe. I afford every human being the right to their own opinion and offer nothing but respectful discourse and discussion. I have also learned the Guide for the Perplexed and espouse its usefulness. 

That being said, I see a popular trend emerging in some parts of  the Jewish world today which are deeply concerning. Maimonides and select other great Jewish scholars in our past are being used or invoked as role models for "open inquiry", "rationalist approaches", and even the wholesale "modernization of Judaism". Those who invoke the Maimonides and the Guide for the Perplexed as just such a permission, should remind themselves of the fact that at least some amount of empirical query into the deeper nature of our universe is clearly forbidden by the Torah itself as well as the tradition. 

The Talmud in Chagiga talks about the prohibition of exploring "mah lifnim umah leachor" (what is beyond us).  The Talmud in Sanhedrin prohibits reading "sefarim chitzonim" (foreign works).  The medieval sages there translate this to mean learning the works of Aristotle and his friends. The Talmud in Berachos forbids teaching "Chochmas Yevanis" (Greek Wisdom).

Maimonides himself in "Hilchos Avodas kochavim" chapter 2 halacha 3 (Laws Concerning Idolatry) says that the prohibition of "Lo Sassuru" (the Torah prohibition against following the desires of ones heart and eyes) prohibits a person from exploring through open inquiry any topic that may take a person away or cause them to doubt or question any fundamental precept of our faith. 

This is so deeply rooted in Jewish law that even the medieval sages themselves felt it necessary to bring Maimonides and others like him to task for having gone "against" these prohibitions. 

The main justification that others offered for Maimonides is that it was a time of crisis for the Jewish people who were being pulled into the seductive ideas of the day.  He was someone who had completely mastered all areas of Torah and could handle approaching philosophy without considerable danger. Furthermore, the Rivash then tacks on at the end of his responsa about Maimonides that "and even still he was led astray in certain things" and "therefore we should make a "kal vechomer" (a fortiori logical inference) about ourselves in this matter". 

Others (see igros kodesh for the Lubavitcher rebbe) have clearly pointed out that there are blatant contradictions between what Maimonides wrote and codified as Jewish law in his Mishneh Torah and what he wrote in the guide for the perplexed. There are numerous examples of these contradictions and they are startling in their import. This inconsistency has forced many great scholars to suggest that the guide for the perplexed was deliberately "stretching" the possible understandings of the Torah to their outward limits in order to appeal to those Jews who had lost their way. That's hardly something that can be pointed to as a text calling for modernization. If anything the modern minded person should feel a little cheapened by the notion behind the Guide for the Perplexed since at least one way of looking at it was that it was somewhat in-genuine in its motivation.  

So whereas many scholars who followed Maimonides accept the underlying legitimacy of such an undertaking as the Guide for the Perplexed, that still comes with terms and conditions, red flags, and cautionary notes for the rest of us. One also can not simply slough off these critiques of the later scholars by saying "how could they know what Maimonides intended? This is true because Maimonides himself codified as law in Mishneh Torah the prohibition of doing precisely what he then did in the Guide. He also clearly leaves serious internal contradictions between what he wrote in Mishneh Torah and the Guide and it is quite clear that he did not mean to retract what he wrote in Mishneh Torah. In as much as this is the case it is implicit in Maimonides own methods that one or both of the above suggestions were true. This is not simply later scholars trying to dismiss the value of the Guide with claims of hearsay.

When one takes a step back for just a moment and tries to look objectively at the Maimonides' intention in writing the Guide for the Perplexed it is pretty clear that we can't simply utilize it as a basis for the types of open inquiries, rationalist thinking, and all the more so the systematic modernization of Judaism we currently see trending today. Let us not forget that the Maimonides himself codified in the Mishneh Torah many laws that are very unpopular and cause many people with more modern orientation to squirm. He certainly never backtracked from any of those positions by writing the Guide for the Perplexed. It would hardly be a strong sign of integrity to then turn around and invoke the Guide for as the source for our modern approach to Torah. 

(A Whole Bunch Of) Answers to Commonly Noted Biblical Discrepancies

Were plants or humans created first?

A. Plants (Gen. 1:12, 27)

B. Humans (Gen. 2:5-7)

Talmud – Plants created first on day three but didn't emerge from the ground until day six when humanity was created.

Ramban/Abarbanel – First plants created on day 3 and brought out fully from the ground by an act of God’s will but as of yet did not begin to regenerate through growth in their natural way until day 6 when the rain started.

Ibn Ezra – The grasses started growing already in the normal way from day 3 but the “siach” which he says is fruit trees, only started to fully emerge and grow the way they do now on day 6

**Note according to all opinions plants were CREATED first, and the later verse is coming to teach some detail or qualification in the order of full emergence into the way they are today.

When was the divine name Yahweh first revealed?

A. Before Noah (Gen. 4:1,26)

B. It was revealed to Moses at the Burning Bush (Ex. 15:2-3)

Exodus 6:2 indicates clearly that The “shem havayah” (Tetragrammaton) was revealed to Moses but NOT to the Patriarchs. However, one should not think that this excludes Adam. Clearly in Genesis 2:16 and 3:9 “Hashem Elokim” speaks to Adam. See Nefesh Hachaim Shar 1 Ch 15 who says that the level of Divine perception of Adam was equal to that of Moses. In another verse the Torah testifies that there was no one who had prophecy at the level of Moses (thus indicating that nevertheless in prophecy Moses surpassed Adam). The distinction between Adam and Moses was therefore subtle and slight. Both of them were above the Patriarchs.

Around how long did people live to in Noah's time?

A. 750 years (Gen. 5:25-32)

B. 120 years (Gen. 6:3) 

They were still living until about 750 but then at that time there was a decree that it should start to be 120 (ish)

How long did Noah's flood last?

A. 40 days and 40 nights (Gen. 7:17)

B. 375 days (Gen. 7:24, 8:14)

Genesis 7:11 the flood began when Noah was 600 yrs old on the 17^th day of the 2^nd month. There is discussion about the exact chronology of how long each stage was and how to read it into the verses. In Genesis 8:14 when Noah was 601 yrs old on the 27^th day of the 2^nd month the flood was then totally over and the earth was totally dry. Thus the correct answer is B though “the heavy rains and burst from the depths” was forty days and forty nights.

Were different languages spoken before the Tower of Babel?

A. Yes (Gen. 10:20)

B. No (Gen 11:1)

1) Torah Temima and Daas Zekeinim say that everyone knew and spoke Hebrew. In addition everyone had started to develop their own regional languages.

2) There are other sources that seem to indicate that in Genesis 10:20 the Torah was speaking  about the future split of languages. See Malbim

3) A third idea is that "lashon" indicates a form of dialect “tongue” as opposed to “safah” which according to scholars seems to be a more general term to define a national language.

Is it all right to marry your half-sister?

A. Yes (Gen. 20:11-12)

B. No (Lev. 18:9, 20:17)

The law is different for a non-Jew (and those living before the giving of the Torah) and for an Jew (after the giving of the Torah).

Is it all right to marry two women who are sisters?

A. Yes (Gen. 29:26-28)

B. No (Lev. 18:18)

There is an extensive discussion about how to view the Patriarchs since they had already taken on Jewish law (though voluntarily). Jacob seems to have been punished for marrying two sisters. Others say it was ok outside Israel but when he came into the land Rachel died etc.

To whom was Joseph sold into slavery to by his brothers?

A. Some Ishmaelites (Gen. 37:27-28)

B. Some Midianite merchants (Gen. 37:28, 36)

The Talmud says it was both.  He was sold more than once before getting to Egypt.

Has anyone seen God face to face and lived?

A. Jacob; Also: Moses, Nadab, Abihu, and 70 elders (Gen. 32:31; Ex. 24:9-11)

B. No (Ex. 33:20)

C……

The verse regarding Jacob says he saw "elohim" face to face clearly a reference to an angel (which we see many times referred to as elohim).  By Moses, the Elders, Nadav and Avihu it doesn't say face to face. Therefore, as the verse in Exodus 33:20 testifies, the answer is quite clearly no. A person can not see YHVH face to face and live – not even Moses.

If a man sleeps with his daughter-in-law, should they both be killed for it?

A. No (Gen. 38:24-26)

B. Yes (Lev. 20:12)

Before the giving of the Torah and for non-Jews answer is yes. After the giving of the Torah for Jews answer is no.

Did Jacob know about Joseph's sons before he blessed them?

A. Yes (Gen. 48:5)

B. No (Gen. 48:8)

Quite clearly he knew about Joseph’s two sons before he blessed them as is written in 48:5. However, when he went to bless them he was old and could no longer see clearly (see 48:10). He thus saw there were two people in front of him but couldn't make out who was who. He thus asked Joseph "who are these" in 48:8.

After Moses broke the first set of Ten Commandments, were the commandments written on the second set the same as the ones written on the broken set?

A. Yes, they were the same (Ex. 34:1, Deu. 10:1)

B. No, the second set had ceremonial laws (Ex. 34:10-28)

There is no indication that these ceremonial laws were on the tablets though they were part of the “covenant”.

Did God give commands about burnt offerings and sacrifices during the flight from Egypt?

A. Yes (Ex. 20:24; Lev. 1:1-7:38; Jer. 33:17-18 [Hebrew Bible only])

B. No (Isa. 43:22-24; Jer. 7:21-23 [Hebrew and Greek Septuagint]; Amos 5:25-27)

Metzudos says context of verse in Isaiah 43 is talking about days of Achaz and not the Departure from Egypt. As regards the verse in Jeremiah, the Metzudos says it means that bringing sacrifices was not part of the basic foundation of the covenant but rather "kabalas ol malchus shamayim" (receiving the yolk of Heaven) was. However, bringing sacrifices was mentioned “as having the weight of any other individual mitzvah”.

Who were allowed to be priests?

A. Descendants of Aaron, with normal Levites acting as assistants (Num. 3:6-10, 16:8-10, 18:1-7)

B. Levites (Deu. 18:13)

C. Non-Levites like Samuel the Ephramite (1 Sam. 7:10)

Only sons of Aaron. Levites do have an accompanying part in the service though. Samuel only says that he “brought a sacrifice” not that he was a priest.

When was the priesthood granted to the descendants of Aaron?

A. After Moses presented the second set of Ten Commandments (Lev. 8:30)

B. After Phineas killed the Israelite who married a Midianite (Num. 25:10-13)

Leviticus 8:30. Phineas was not a priest based on the rules of Leviticus 8:30 but was uniquely grandfathered in after the incident of Cozbi and Zimri..

Was it against the law to marry your sister in David's time?

A. Yes (Lev. 18:11)

B. No (2 Sam. 13:13)

Marrying a sister is forbidden. Amnon and Tamar is a deeply misunderstood story. See the Talmud in Sanhedrin 21a. Tamar was born of Maachah before she converted. Thus Tamar was herself a convert. Amnon was born to Maachah after she had already convertedand thus he was a Jew. The prophet is refering to Amnon as her “brother” in a manner of speaking because that was the “perception” and even the expectation of how it should have been treated (though Amnon couldn't control himself). The event was a scandal in any event so there isn't really any difficulty from Leviticus.

Where were sacrifices to be held?

A. In one centralized place of worship (Deu. 12:4-7)

B. Anywhere (1 Sam. 7:10-11)

There was a time when "bamos" (personal alters) were forbidden and time of "heter bamos" when they were permitted.

Who seduced the Israelites into worshipping the Ba'al of Peor?

A. The Moabites (Num. 25:1-2)

B. The Midianites (Num 25:16-18; Num. 31:15-17)

It was the elders of Midian who gave the council to the Moabites to use their daughters in this way.

Did God give any of the Ammonites' land to any of the tribes of Israel?

A. No, it was meant for Lot's descendants (Deu. 2:19)

B. Yes, half of it went to the Gadites (Josh. 13:24-25)

This land was acquired through the rule of “Ammon Umoav tiharu b”Sichon” that is to say that King Sichon took these lands from Ammon and Moav first and thus there was no contradiction to the promise of those lands going to the descendants of Lot since the Jews got them from Sichon.

Will sons be punished for the sins of their fathers?

A. No (Deu. 24:16; 2 Kings 14:6; Ez. 18:14-20)

B. Yes (Lev. 26:39-42; Josh. 7:24-25; Isa. 14:21)

Only if they themselves continue to do the same misdeeds as their fathers.

Who conquered Debir?

A. Joshua (Josh. 10:38)

B. Othniel (Josh. 15:17)

Joshua conquered Devir as per 10:38.  Othniel conquered Kiriyas Sefer. Now, on the surface it seems strange because the verse says that Devir used to be called Kiriyas Sefer. However, the Talmud says that this verse is teaching that Othniel "conquered" the forgotten 3000 laws from Moses's time which were nicknamed Kiriyas Sefer.

Did Joshua conquer Jerusalem?

A. Yes (Josh. 12:10)

B. No (Josh. 15:63)

Joshua conquered it. However, due to the oath God made to Avimelech whose descendants held a tower in Jerusalem they couldn't conquer it in its entirety until the days of David. See Radak on Joshua 15:63.

Did Joshua conquer Gezer?

A. Yes (Josh. 12:12)

B. No (Josh. 16:10)

He conquered the territory and the inhabitants became “indentured workers” for the Jews, but they didn't eradicate them completely from the area (as with a few other places where they fell short of the expectations to rid the land of them).

Did King Saul know David before he fought Goliath?

A. Yes (1 Sam. 16:19)

B. No (1 Sam. 17:57-58)

Ralbag and Radak say clearly Saul knew him. The later verse is coming to teach that there was something new and deeper that Saul was now discovering in David that he had not known before.

Who killed Goliath?

A. David (1 Sam. 17:51)

B. Elhanan (2 Sam. 21:19)

David killed him. The later verse calls David by the name “Elchanan” and other nicknames - all for the sake of homiletical teachings about the event of the killing Goliath.

Did God want any Moabites entering his assembly?

A. No, even down the the 10th generation (Deu. 23:2-3)

B. David was descended from the Moabites and his sons became priests (Ruth 4:9-10,21-22; 2 Sam. 8:18)

The verse says that a Moavi (male) is forbidden and not Moavis (female). Ruth was a Moavis and thus permitted. It was only the males to tenth generation that were forbidden.

How many children did Saul's daughter Michal have?

A. None (2 Sam. 6:23)

B. Five (2 Sam. 21:8)

See the Talmud in Sanhedrin 19b.  Michal raised the 5 orphaned children of Merav. This teaches us that someone who raises the child of another is as if they bore them. Also, it isn't clear that Michal had no children of her own. She may have ahd but they died as punishment for her chastising David for dancing in front of the Ark. Or she didn’t have children before but one was born at her death.

Who told David to take a census of Israel and Judah?

A. God (2 Sam. 24:1)

B. Satan (1 Chron. 21:1)

See Radak on Samuel. He says that the Jews of the day had hidden sins and God wanted to punish them. He thus subtly placed the idea in the heart of David to count them in order that through an “unnecessary” counting the wrath of God could be aroused (as we know what happens when you unnecessarily count Jews). Thus in Chronicles it is called the Satan that gave the idea to David since it's the Satan who is God's messenger to meet out the punishment for transgression.

How many years of famine did David have to choose from?

A. 7 (2 Sam. 24:13)

B. 3 (1 Chron. 21:12)

Metzudos brings that there had already been 3 years and it would continue anyway until the next harvest. David’s choice was therefore 3  more years of famine (for a total of 7) or the 3 that had already passed plus punishment by sword (for 3 months) or blight (for three days)

Did King Saul ask God for help before he consulted a medium?

A. Yes (1 Sam. 27:5-7)

B. No (1 Chron. 10:13-14)

See Radak in Chronicles. Actually Saul asked God first but didn't repent properly and quickly turned to the necromancer thus equating that form of inquiry with inquiry of God. Thus the prophet equates it as if he didn't turn to God first.

How long did King Omri rule Israel?

A. 12 years (1 Kings 16:23)

B. 7 years, between King Asa's 31st and 38th year (1 Kings 16:29)

See Rashi there who explains that for the first five years of his rule he shared the power with Tivni so his rule was incomplete. He did however have 7 years of complete rulership.

Did King Asa of Judah remove the 'high places' of worship?

A. No (1 Kings 15:14)

B. Yes (2 Chron. 14:3)

The verse in Kings is talking about the alters that had once been built for the sake of heaven at the earlier time of when private alters were permitted).

Did King Jehoshaphat of Judah remove the 'high places'?

A. No (1 Kings 22:43)

B. Yes (2 Chron. 17:6)

Yes.  See the commentaries on Chronicles.

Did God ordain the massacre at Jezreel?

A. Yes (2 Kings 9:6-10; 2 Kings 10:30)

B. No (Hosea 1:4)

God ordained the massacre as per Kings. The verse in Hoshea is saying that now God plans to pay the reward for those who listened to him and carried out the massacre of Jezreel. See Metzudos.

How was King Ahaziah of Judah killed?

A. He was wounded on his chariot and died in Megiddo (2 Kings 9:27)

B. He was captured near Joram and put to death by Jehu (2 Chron. 22:9)

See Radak. The Talmud says that Yehu’s band shot arrows one of which hit Achaz and killed him on his chariot. The Radak adds that based on the verse in Chronicles this happened near Joram while being pursued by Jehu who was planning to capture him and put him to death. Actually it seems that the arrow that killed him was a “lucky shot” in that it was long range and the shooter didn't have it “aimed at him in the classic sense.”

How many years did King Jehoiakim of Judah reign?

A. 11 years (2 Kings 23:36)

B. 3 years (Daniel 1:1-2)

The verse in Daniel means during the third year of his rebellion which was the eleventh year of his rule.

How old was Jehoiachin when he became king of Judah?

A. 18 (2 Kings 24:8)

B. 8 (2 Chron. 36:9)

Jehoiachin was put into a position of second to the throne when he was 8 since there were people who favored someone else to succeed the throne. He actually became king 10 years later.

Who ruled Babylon after King Nebuchenezzar?

A. Evil-Marduk (2 Kings 25:27)

B. Belshazzar (Daniel 5:2)

See the Talmud in Megilla 11b.  Evil Merudah first then Belshatzar. Historians are in agreement on this point as well. The verse in Daniel is worded in a strange way.

Should you rejoice at the death of your enemy?

A. Yes (Psalms 58:10)

B. No (Proverbs 24:17)

The verse in Psalms is saying that the joy is in seeing the justice of God and the fulfillment of the promise that justice will be done in His world eventually. However, to actually rejoice in the misfortune of the wicked themselves as people is somegthing to avoid.

Where did King Antiochus Epiphanes of Syria die?

A. Somewhere between the Mediterranean Sea and Mt. Zion after a successful [but undocumented] campaign against Egypt (Daniel 11:42-45)

B. In Persia after hearing his armies had been put to flight in Judah (1 Maccabees 6:5,16)

Daniel is authoritative over Maccabees. 

Why You Don't Understand the Bible

"A little light pushes away a lot of darkness." --The Talmud

Two thousand two hundred years ago, Ptolemy, King of Egypt, forced 70 rabbis (at knife point) to translate the text of the Torah into Greek, creating a document that would come to be known as the Septuagint. This work would eventually comprise the "Old" section of the Bible with which we are all familiar. While he succeeded in the extraction of a highly diluted version of the most sacred text of the Jews, he did not manage to procure the methodology that is required to make any sense of it, thus dooming countless translations and many generations to an inherently erroneous, faulty and dermal level of comprehension.

Karl Heinrich Graf and Julius Wellhausen are the two main architects of Biblical "source" criticism, best known for what would later be termed the Documentary Hypothesis: the idea that the text of the Torah is a redacted patchwork of ancient myths and folklore penned by numerous authors. Peering in from the outside, they crafted the hypothesis on five main pillars, one of which suggested that duplicative and repetitious words and passages were evidence of multiple authorship. This is a reasonable supposition if one is unfamiliar with, or uninterested in, the Torah's rules of exegesis (the collection of critical disciplines used to understand and interpret religious texts).

In fact, later Bible scholars such as Robert Alter and R. N. Whybray held that the text was more a unified whole than not. Alter in particular expressed remorse that these earlier critics did not take the classical Jewish approach more seriously. Why? Because to the Talmudic scholar, the Torah's repetitions, multiple Divine names, textual divergences and variations of language and style contain a wealth of information. To treat them as mere editorial mishaps is nothing less than tragic. It stands to reason that the Jewish sages of antiquity and the subsequent elucidators, with their assumption of Divine authorship (and thus a unified text), deep familiarity with the material and hundreds of years of crowd-sourced scholarship under their belts, were in the best position to interpret and comprehend these documents.

The text of the Torah is coded in multiple ways. Those with a trained eye intuitively sense in these passages an invitation to delve deeper. An extra or missing word or variant spelling, for example, act both as a marker and specialized tool to reveal information. For instance, through their numerical values, a variant spelling for the only round object that is mentioned twice in the Book of Kings is used to derive Pi. There are tens of thousands of these units of information. Each one is sourced in the Five Books of Moses or the later writings and the process of extracting them is known as the Oral Law. There are 13 rules that govern this exegesis and without them (and the classical commentaries) the book is exceedingly opaque.

Additionally, without the oral tradition to explain them, what are we to make of commandments such as "slaughter the animal in the way that I have shown you" with no hint as to how that is to be done? What does it mean to "guard the Sabbath and keep it holy?" There are penalties for not doing it right but no description as to how to do it. How exactly are parents supposed to be "honored," and in a practical sense what constitutes "loving one's fellow as oneself?" The oral tradition that crystallized into the Talmud, the Midrashim and the Kabbalah is the only tool available to successfully decode the massive amount of legal, ethical and spiritual information that is embedded in the text.

This is to say nothing of the critical subtleties that are, literally, lost in translation. Deciphering these works in English (which were themselves translated from Latin, which were translated from Greek) is like doing surgery with mittens. For instance, most people believe that the opening words of the Bible are "In the Beginning." Anyone with basic familiarity with the Hebrew language will instantly recognize that it is not the case. Rather, it reads, "In the beginning of..." and though a noun would be expected, none is given, rendering the actual translation as "In the beginning of He created." Add to this the fact that the fourth and sixth words have no translation and a third person past tense verb modifying a plural noun and we have a grammatical nightmare. Apparently that redactor wasn't skilled enough even to get the first line right and hadn't yet mastered kindergarten Hebrew. Or, just maybe, it is brilliantly structured to teach scores of ideas with a maximum conservation of space. Indeed, three entire volumes of the Zohar are required to fully expound this first word.

Many philosophies and religious systems have built themselves on top of the Torah's foundation. Though we never consented to have our tradition used in these ways, obviously, once Ptolemy posted it "online," there was nothing that could be done and the world was free to manipulate and (mis)interpret the words as they saw fit. Nonetheless, there is something irksome about being told what your own book means. Wellhausen and friends did not seem to regard our stewardship of and ardent dedication to our own spiritual tradition to be particularly worthy of consideration. Incredibly, the fact that the books of the prophets are written in our language and were in our possession hundreds or thousands of years before others came into contact with them does not give pause to those who claim that they know what the verses mean better than we do.

As a case in point, I often hear about the "vindictive" nature of the "Old" Testament and the (misunderstood) doctrine of an "eye for an eye" is often cited as a classic example. A simple question can be posed to illustrate the fallacy of the notion that the Torah suggests actually putting someone's eye out as a punishment. What would a Jewish court do if an eyeless man ran around poking people's eyes out? Wouldn't his impairment exempt him from retribution?Obviously, this is not (and has never been) what the text wishes to teach us. Rather, it is telling us that the perpetrator deserves to have his eye put out, but he won't. He will make an appropriate monetary payment to the victim.

This is a very broad topic and one that does not condense easily into a blog post. Therefore, allow me to close with an invitation: To anyone who is open to re-examining their assumptions and interested in gaining a more solidified understanding of the the complexities and beauty involved, please consider reading "The Documentary Hypothesis" by Umberto Cassuto and any of the work of Rabbi Dr. Joshua Berman.