God, Volcanos and Circumstantial Evidence

This originally ran in HuffPo and is a compendium for this week's Torah portion - Yitro.  Enjoy!

The jurors in Sidney Lumet's classic 1957 film 12 Angry Men were presented with what they thought was an open and shut case. A young Hispanic man with a weak alibi was seen fleeing the murder location and the murder weapon (a knife he claimed to have lost) was found at the scene of the crime. Eleven of the twelve jurors immediately voted guilty in the capital case while Juror Number 8 alone (Henry Fonda) dissented. The remainder of the film portrays the gradual unraveling of the case and ultimate vindication of the defendant. Things are not always what they seem.

This metaphor leaped to mind as I made my way through another classic -- Yehezkel Kaufmann's The Religion of Israel. Kaufmann was Ukrainian born, Yeshiva educated and became a professor of Bible at the Hebrew University in Jerusalem in 1949. Unlike many of his colleagues and peers, professor Kaufmann believed that there was very little or no pagan influence or roots in the religion of the Jews. In summation of his view he wrote that "Israelite religion was an original creation of the people of Israel. It was absolutely different from anything the pagan world knew; its monotheistic world view has no antecedents in paganism."

What then to make of the many seemingly obvious references to pagan ideas in the text of the Torah? God says "let us make man in our image." Who is He talking to given that He's supposedly the sole Creator? What does it mean that Adam and Eve "heard the sound of God walking in the Garden?" How about references to "the hand of God," "the breath of God" or the description of God as a "man of war?"

Then there is the revelation at Sinai with its dramatic depiction of fire, smoke and the shuddering of the mountain. Doesn't this seem just all too similar to pagan descriptions of a volcanic god? Isn't it clear that this story was adapted from some earlier pagan myth that the Jews preserved and incorporated into their holy book? Isn't this strong evidence that the God of the Jews is really just an upgraded version of one of the many gods who were thought to rule over natural forces?

Actually no, not at all.

Professor Kaufmann was an expert in the (substantial) differences between the pagan and Israelite world-views. In category after category he shows their dissimilarity -- from divination to the notion of morality to demonology and the use of magic -- the religion of Israel had a very different way of approaching these matters. As he wrote:

The mark of monotheism is not the concept of a god who is a creator, eternal, benign or even all-powerful; these notions are found everywhere in the pagan world. It is, rather, the idea of a god who is the source of all being, not subject to a cosmic order and not emergent from a pre-existent realm; a god free of the limitations of magic and mythology.

So back to our volcano. What we see in the account of the Book of Exodus is the reference to fire, smoke, earthquake and thunder, but as Kaufmann writes:

This is hardly sufficient to make YHVH a volcanic deity. Volcanic gods are conceived of as dwelling within the mountain; their element is the subterranean fire that sets the mountain quaking. Thunder and lightning are 'over the mountain'; it smokes 'because YHVH descended upon it in fire.' When YHVH speaks it is 'from heaven.' There is little merit to the view that the presence of storm features in YHVH's theophanies points to his being originally a storm god.

Perhaps this original, uniquely monotheistic, understanding of Divinity is best expressed through Elijah's experience in the Book of Kings whereby the prophet experiences God as "a great, powerful wind, smashing mountains and breaking rocks." This would sound an awful lot like the storm god again were it not for the fact that the next lines are "God is not in the wind! After the wind came an earthquake. God is not in the earthquake. After the earthquake came a fire. God is not in the fire. After the fire came still, thin sound." That sound was God.

Oftentimes, the smoke and lights obscure the truth rather than reveal it. Sometimes evidence seems so obvious and so compelling that we think it just must be so. How could it be that all of these variables line up so perfectly -- storm, fire and earthquake or knife, witnesses and poor alibi? Case closed. But like Juror Number 8, it's critically important to slow down, ask questions, imagine alternative scenarios and follow the truth wherever it leads. And the truth can only be perceived in the "thin small voice," the one that only comes on the heels of the fireworks.

We are all guilty of this to some degree. We leap to conclusions about what others have said or done without having all of the facts. We imagine we understanding the complexities of science, geopolitics or economics by reading a few popular articles or books and we judge theology largely based on some similarly dermal information we've picked up or been taught. Getting to a topic's true inner meaning (if possible at all) takes time, patience, breadth and depth of knowledge and an abiding willingness to question the "obvious."

God is not in the wind -- or in the volcano.

Science Says the Sea Split For Moses

I'm always surprised and, admittedly, somewhat pleased to read articles such as the one I saw in today's WSJ which is entitled "How Did Moses Part the Red Sea?"  Given the general hostility of the scientific community to religious matters and the derision with which they are often met, it's almost a tad jarring to see one of them taking the time to provide an explanation (albeit one wholly rooted in materialism) to one of the events which the theological world considers to be (almost) fully miraculous.

The author, Bruce Parker, is the former chief scientist of NOAA's National Ocean Service and is a visiting professor at the Stevens Institute of Technology.  In other words, he is apparently an expert on the way that the ocean behaves.  He explains that the phenomenon of the Red Sea waters greatly receding for long enough for pedestrians to traverse it and then to collapse back to their normal state with enough force to destroy whoever is unfortunate enough to find themselves caught there, is all quite normal.  In fact, he points out that a similar event was observed by no less a figure than Napoleon whereby he and his men were "almost drowned in 1798 at the northern end of the Suez... ."

Professor Parker surmises that since Moses lived "in the nearby wilderness" he would have been familiar with the phenomenon and have seen various caravans traveling across the expanse when it was feasible.  Yes, he admits that the timing would have to have been impeccable but gives Moses credit enough to be fully capable in this regard.  Fine, but even assuming Moses's highly keen sense of observation and timing consider just how many fortuitous events and timings would have to have preceded the arrival of the Children of Israel (and of Egypt) at just that moment.

Remember that the Egyptians were beaten and had actually encouraged the Jews to leave only to have a sudden change of heart later.  Would Moses really have been able to bank on that reaction? And how did the Egyptians arrive at their defeat to begin with?  Recall the year long series of natural (and supernatural) events that befell them.  Could Moses have known how long they would take and plan the great sea trick around that?  Doesn't seem too likely.  It's true that the Torah seems to go out of its way to minimize the supernatural aspect of this event by ascribing it to a strong eastern wind that blew the whole night before, but in the final analysis, the timing is just too great a coincidence to overcome.

Finally, I always wonder at (but enjoy) when secular-minded people take the time to explain away various miraculous occurrences that our tradition records - the flood, the plagues, the Ark of the Covenant, et al.  Inasmuch as they could be inclined to just chalk them up to the standard mythology of some Bronze Age nomads, as some do, the fact that they meticulously search for natural explanations obviously means that they give them a lot more credence than a lot of other myths.  I've yet to see the scientific analysis of the speed at which Thor's hammer traveled or the horse-power of the species of peacock that pulled Hera's chariot.  As such, I take Professor Parker's exploration as a complement - even if it only tells part of the story.  In any event, he's correct in asserting that "it has to qualify as the most dramatic an consequential tide prediction in history."


 

Did Judaism Really Just Lose a Whole Script?

I have to admit that I have been bothered by the prospect that the Jewish People had at one time written their Torahs in one "font" only to have it be lost and then reintroduced by Ezra hundreds of years later.  If they couldn't be trusted to keep their alphabet straight, how could we believe that the "Mesora" (the chain of transmission of law) has been accurately conveyed?

Well, as of last night I thought that I had got myself a pretty good answer to it and then I came across a much better one.  So instead of recreating the wheel, I'll just cut and paste an excellent analysis from '02 that I found on the Aish Das website:

The Script of the Torah

The Gemara in Sanhedrin 21b-22a tells us what at first seems very surprising. However, after a careful reading and placing the events in an historical context they do not seem surprising at all.

Mar Zutra and some say Mar Ukva said: Originally the Torah was given to Israel in Ktav Ivri (paleo-Hebrew characters) and in the holy lanugage. It was given again to them in Ezra's time in Ktav Ashurit (Assyrian characters) and in Aramaic. Israel selected for themselves Ktav Ashurit and the Hebrew language... It was taught: Rebbe said: Torah was originally given to Israel in Ktav Ashurit. When they sinned it was changed to Roetz (Ktav Ivri). When they repented, Ktav Ashurit was reintroduced... R' Shimon ben Elazar said in the name of R' Eliezer ben Parta, who said in the name of R' Elazar Hamodai: This writing was never changed...

We see three opinions regarding the script of the Torah. According to Mar Zutra, the Torah was given to Israel in Ktav Ivri and in Hebrew but Ezra changed it to Ktav Ashurit and Aramaic. The people, however, only accepted Ktav Ashurit and Hebrew. According to Rebbe, the Torah was given in Ktav Ashurit but was changed to Ktav Ivri due to the people's sins. According to R' Elazar Hamodai, the script of the Torah never changed.

This passage raises a number of questions. How could Ezra change the script of the Torah? How could he change the Torah's language from Hebrew to Aramaic? Furthermore, if he found the authority to do so, how could the people determine an outcome against his decision? According to Rebbe, why would the script of the Torah change based on whether Israel sinned or repented?
R' Reuven Margoliyot (Margoliyot Hayam, Sanhedrin ad loc,; Hamikra Vehamesora, ch. 9) answers all of these questions with the following historical reflection. It is known that some ancient cultures had one script for sacred purposes and one for everyday use. For example, the Indians only used Sanskrit for religious purposes and not for the mundane. The talmudic sages mentioned in the above passage were debating the extent of this practice of having a script for only holy purposes in Israel. However, according to everyone this was the practice, similar to the talmudic dictum, "Something that is used for the sacred may not be used for the profane" (Avodah Zara 52a).

According to Mar Zutra, the first tablets of the ten commandments were written in Ktav Ashurit (see Responsa Radbaz 3:442) but once Israel sinned with the Golden Calf they were deemed unworthy. They could not be trusted to use Ktav Ashurit for purely sacred matters. Therefore, the second tablets and the Torah scrolls written for general use were in Ktav Ivri. This can, perhaps, be seen from the fact that in Megillah 2b Rav Chisda says that the mem and samech in the tablets were miraculously hanging in the air. This can only happen in Ktav Ashurit and not in Ktav Ivri. However, in the Gemara in Sanhedrin quoted above, Rav Chisda seems to agree with Mar Zutra that the Torah was originally given to Israel in Ktav Ivri. Therefore, it seem that Rav Chisda would have to say that the tablets were in Ktav Ashurit and the Torah in Ktav Ivri. Or, as the Radbaz suggested, everything was originally in Ktav Ashurit but after the sin of the Golden Calf the second tablets and the Torah were in Ktav Ivri. But not all of the Torahs were in Ktav Ivri.

That the original tablets were given in Ktav Ashurit but not the second tablets can be seen hinted in a number of sources. For example, the Gemara in Pesachim 87b says "the tablets broke and the letters floated in the air". Exactly what it means that the letters floated in the air is unclear. However, on that same page the Gemara says, "Three things returned to their origin... the script of the tablets". That sounds like Ktav Ashurit being replaced with Ktav Ivri. Similarly, the Mechilta on Exodus 17:8 says that after the tablets were broken "the heavenly writing returned to its place". We perhaps also see evidence of the disappearance of Ktav Ashurit much later in history. The Tanchuma on Vayeshev 2 says, "What did they do [in response to the Samaritans]? Ezra, Zerubavel, and Yehoshua gathered the community to the sanctuary... and excommunicated the Samaritans with the sacred name of G-d, with the script that was written on the tablets, with the decree of the heavenly court,..." The use of the "script that was written on the tablets" is important for two reasons. First, it seems that this script was unique. Furthermore, we know from the Gemara in Sanhedrin and from other historical sources that the Samaritans used Ktav Ivri. The contrast between the Samaritans and the "script that was written on the tablets" implies that this script was not Ktav Ivri. We thus see that there is ample material supporting the Radbaz's claim that the first tablets were in Ktav Ashurit.

Recall that Mar Zutra said that the Torah was given to Israel in Ktav Ivri. The Ritva deduced from this that the special Torah of Moshe that was kept in the ark and later in the Temple was in Ktav Ashurit. Only Torahs for the people were in Ktav Ivri. The ability to read Ktav Ashurit was maintained by priests and scribes, which is why King Yoshiyahu needed a priest to read to him from Moshe's Torah when it was found in the Temple (2 Kings 22:8-11; Abarbanel). The king had never before seen Ktav Ashurit and his reaction to seeing it fo the first time, and in the Torah scroll that Moshe himself had written, demonstrates the deep religious emotion it evoked. We perhaps find hints of this in Isaiah 8:1 where the prophet is commanded, "Take a large tablet and write on it in common characters". This is must have been referring to Ktav Ivri that was used by the common people (see Rashi). Ktav Ivri had gained such prominence that the existence of ending letters (ךףץןם) was forgotten by the masses and had to be restored (Megillah 2b-3a).

However, Ktav Ashurit was still studied by the priests and scribes, of which Ezra was both. When he saw that Ktav Ashurit was so forgotten that, when it was written on the wall of King Belshatzar of Babylonia, only Daniel could read it (Daniel 5) he realized that it must be reintroduced to the people. Yet, he still had the dilemma that people would then be writing Hebrew in the holy Ktav Ashurit for improper purposes. His solution was to translate the Torah into Aramaic and introduce the Aramaic Torah in Ktav Ashurit into common usage. That way people would become familiar with Ktav Ashurit without using it in their daily Hebrew writing. This is what is meant in Nehemiah 8:8, "So they read from the book, from the law of God, with interpretation." It was interpreted by translation into Aramaic (Megillah 3a). (This translation was later recreated by Onkelos). However, the people had lived their whole lives with a Hebrew Torah and were not ready to change the language of their holiest of books. Therefore, they decided to retain a Hebrew Torah in Ktav Ashurit but conduct their daily business in Aramaic. This would produce the results that Ezra desired because Ktav Ashurit in Hebrew would not be a part of the daily routine.

Rebbe agreed with this historical reconstruction but attributed the original transition from Ktav Ashurit to Ktav Ivri to the idolatrous era of the First Temple rather than the episode of the Golden Calf. According to Rebbe, it is even more plausible that the scholars always retained knowledge of Ktav Ashurit. It was only the masses who were busy with their daily lives and/or idolatrous ways who forgot Ktav Ashurit when the Torahs were changed to Ktav Ivri.

R' Elazar Hamodai does not necessarily disagree that people forgot Ktav Ashurit. He only argued that the Torahs were never changed from one script into another. However, he agreed that people had forgotten Ktav Ashurit, the script used only for sacred purposes, and that Ezra had to re-educate the masses in the holy script (see Teshuvot HaRambam, ed. Blau no. 268).

As a final note, the Gemara in Sanhedrin 22a offers two opinions why the script is called Ktav Ashurit. One is that the Jews brought it back to Israel with them from Babylonia/Assyria (Ashur). The other is that it is a beautiful script (me'usheret). Since the literal translation of Ktav Ashurit is "Assyrian script", we must ask why the Gemara even asks such a basic question. It is called Ktav Ashurit because the Assyrians used it. Furthermore, the view that it is called Ktav Ashurit because the script is beautiful strains credibility. We already know that it is called Ktav Ashurit because it is an Assyrian script, as the words simply mean.

We have seen that many questions can be raised about the validity of our Torahs. However, Judaism, like any other serious thought system, is complex. While by necessity we were taught simplicites in our childhood, we need to sieze all available opportunities to broaden our perspectives and deepen our faiths. Rather than using questions as reasons to reject traditional Judaism, we must use them as opportunities for intellectual and religious growth.


 

The Torah: A Radical Equality Manifesto

According to Dr. Rabbi Joshua Berman one need look no further than the Five Books of Moses to see the origins of many of our modern notions of equality.  He describes these ideas, ones that are wholly unlike what existed in the ancient world, as revolutionary - and they are.

Here are several examples that you can read about at length in his book Created Equal: How the Bible Broke with Ancient Political Thought:

Universal Private Ownership of Land

In ancient times land was held by the king or the priest.  The idea that an average citizen would also be a land owner would have struck most people as extremely odd.  As Rabbi Berman notes "land was owned by the king and by the temples, while the common folk worked as serfs or as slaves. But in the Torah, God – who officially owns the land – gives it over to the Israelites. Every common Israelite is a land owner (Leviticus 25), which means that every Israelite has a source of income – history's first example of universal private ownership of land by the citizens."

Debt Relief

The forgiving of debts in the ancient world was a political tool used by kings to triangulate against the rich - at once weakening them and increasing the king's popularity with the masses - which had the added benefit of keeping him safer.  Rabbi Berman notes that "debt cancellation of this sort is actually the original Greek meaning of our modern day English words amnesty and philanthropy. The Greek historian Plutarch writes that when the Spartan ruler Agis sought to impose debt relief, the measure was considered by his detractors as nothing more than a Robin-Hood scheme: "By offering to the poor the property of the rich, and by distribution of land and remission of debts, he [bought] a large bodyguard for himself, not many citizens for Sparta."  Contrasting that with the Torah's system he says "in the Torah, debt-cancellation is enacted automatically every seven years. No longer the political tool of a new monarch, debt relief in the Bible becomes the legislated right of the common citizen (Deuteronomy 15)."

History's First Redistributive Tax for a Social Purpose

In the ancient world taxes were levied for the purpose of supporting the political and priestly classes. The poor were, by and large, left to struggle on their own.  There was no concept of government assistance and certainly no attempt by the government to coerce the rich into supporting the poor.  In sharp contradistinction the Torah required an agricultural tithing system that mandated that successful farmers gift a portion of their crops to the needy (Deuteronomy 14).

Political Office

Rabbi Berman notes that "only with the American Founding Fathers do we eventually find a new notion of political office, in which a political office exists without reference to class, and which any citizen is eligible to hold."  Again, long ago, it was considered right and proper that the prosperous and "high born" were fit to rule.  The idea that a commoner could make decisions and rule over the wealthy would have been seen as an absurdity.  Nonetheless, "this revolutionary notion of political office has only one precursor: the Torah. Any citizen can be chosen to be a judge (Deuteronomy 16). In fact, the Torah doesn't speak about the process of choosing judges, other than that the people (the collective "you") must choose them from among themselves. That is even more significant when one considers that the monarch was beneath the law. The "elders" and "judges" we meet throughout the Bible—and later in the Mishnah—formed a veritable parliament for the people, of the people. In practice, many came from common homes and supported themselves with menial labor and crafts."

The Monarchy 

Amazingly, the Jewish people had no king or centralized government for longer than the United States has existed.  The Torah actually grants the authority to the people to decide if they want an king or not (and ends up criticizing them for choosing to have one).  Furthermore, the king need not be bred of noble stock and like David, can come from rather simple backgrounds.  Again, Rabbi Berman shows that "the Torah specifies that the people will have a king over them, only if they initiate the idea (Deuteronomy 17:14; cf. 1 Samuel 8). Until David was chosen as king, any citizen could have been chosen (Deuteronomy 17). Even afterwards, the hereditary rights were predicated upon the king finding favor in the eyes of God and the eyes of the people. This is the halachah (law) today as well: the future Davidic king will be deemed legitimate only if he is able to rally the people around him (Maimonides, Laws of Kings 11:4-5)."

Literacy

There is debate as to exactly who first became literate in the ancient world...and when, but all agree it was in the vicinity of Israel/Canaan sometime around when we became a nation and began following the Torah.  Either way, the usage of an alphabet, as opposed to hieroglyphs or impressions on clay tablets, universalized writing and took it out of the hands of professional scribes.  Rabbi Berman writes that the Torah "is the first text in the ancient world to suggest that it be copied and disseminated to the masses (Exodus 24 and Deuteronomy 31). The Torah was unafraid of the Israelites achieving literacy, because it sought to create an ennobled and empowered citizenry."

The Value of Women

Ancient literature takes a fairly negative and short-sighted view of women.  One well-known quote from the Greek poet Palladas suggests that "Marriage brings a man only two happy days. The day he takes his bride to bed and the day he lays her in her grave." (Morton M. Hunt, The Natural History of Love, Alfred Knopf, 1959).  Very much unlike this pervasive attitude the Torah clearly cares for and values women.  Rabbi Berman concludes that "perhaps nowhere did the Torah revolutionize the standing of the common person, as it did with regard to the standing of women. In the narrative literature of the ancient Near East, we find that women fill only two roles: they either satisfy mens' desires, or they tempt them. It is in the Torah that we first encounter women like Sarah, Rebecca, Miriam and Yocheved who are noted for their industriousness, insight, courage, and spiritual acuity. For the first time in the history of western literature women are people too."

The Torah is not just another ancient document.  In many ways it was a radical departure from all known social and political thought of its day.  Its effects continue to reverberate in our culture today and much of what we think of as right and good comes directly (or indirectly) from the revolutionary ideas that it introduced to the world.

Is the Bible Literature?

A freelance designer named Adam Lewis Greene is getting a lot of attention for the publication of a new Bible that is meant to maximize readability - both in terms of its layout (which is free of all of the chapter and verse numbers, notes, etc) and its translation.  It's called Bibliotheca and you can check it out here.

Greene funded this project through Kickstarter and was surprised by the enthusiastic response - exceeding his number almost overnight.  When asked to explain the popularity of the project he mused that "readers are ready to enjoy the Bible as the great literary anthology that it is, rather than as a text book.  The idea for the Bible as story is moving and spreading rapidly."

I'm not sure why he seems to present the idea that the stories in the Bible are exciting and moving as novel. As far as I know, it's been called "the greatest story ever told" for quite some time.  He does mention biblical scholars such as Robert Alter as inspiration for this idea and I do agree that Alter has done a lot to help people appreciate the literary aspect of the Hebrew Bible but it the Bible actually a work of literature?

For starters, no one really knows what literature is.  In an essay called "What is Literature" Simon and Delyse Ryan explain that "the quest to discover a definition of 'literature' is a road that is much traveled though the point of arrival, if ever reached, is seldom satisfactory."  For instance, what are we to make of the many genealogical passages or the various censuses that are taken?  What of the extensive building instructions for the Tabernacle and its vessels or the many details regarding the laws of Kashrut or the proper performance of holiday ritual?  From the second half of the Book of Exodus on there is precious little story-telling going on.  True, Walden, despite its long lists of crops and supplies, is considered a work of literature as is Moby Dick with its arduous and lengthy exposition on the processing of whale blubber.  But just why are those stories included in Genesis and Exodus (and a few others scattered through the other books)?

There's a principle in Jewish thought called "derech eretz kodmin l'Torah" which translates as "proper behavior proceeds the Torah."  This means that before we can fully engage with the Law (the word Torah actually comes from the word "instructions") we need to learn to live in an ethical way - implying that the whole edifice of the Jewish way of life is predicated on first learning what it means to be a mensch and then getting the details of how to properly fulfill the opportunities presented by the ritual.  The purpose of the stories, therefore, is not to entertain or to chronicle the history of a people, but rather to teach that people how to conduct themselves.  The same is true for all of the works of the prophets of whom it is said that they "came only to rebuke" (the people).

So whereas I applaud Mr. Greene for a beautifully designed series and some clever thinking in terms of his content, I would humbly beg to differ regarding his characterization of the Torah as literature.  It's much more complex than that.

Can Anything Be Proven?

I was taken to task recently for presenting what I have to say in too much of an authoritative tone.  It was suggested that I not attempt to offer my thoughts on various theological questions as "proofs" inasmuch as they may not be provable and that suggesting otherwise could compromise my credibility (assuming I have any to begin with) on these topics.  In hunting around for people who really do have the proper credentials to address this question I came across this video from another of my favorite theological philosophers William Lane Craig.  Here's what he had to say about the need/concept of proof:




I think his point is well taken.  There is no need to demonstrate an argument with mathematical precision for it to be valid and powerful.  In truth, the more you even push mathematical truths the more difficult it becomes to actually prove them.  From what I understand, though it seems pretty obvious, there isn't any actual proof for the premise that 1+1=2 inasmuch as it's based on axioms which are definitionally unprovable.  Pushing things even further, it's also not possible to prove that what we perceive with our brains is reliable and accurate - effectively calling into question (from an absolute proof perspective) all that we understand and believe - literally.

Therefore, inasmuch as we need to live and function in this world, we need to decide to be ok with our lack of proof.  When we cross the street, it's considered a reasonable precaution to look left, right and left again. No one attempts to produce a formal, mathematical demonstration before taking on the risks of the crossing. We also need not concern ourselves with wonder over whether or not the people who we believe to be our parents truly are or if the sun will rise tomorrow morning.  All that's needed is a coherent argument in its favor.

My general approach to God and Torah is the same - it's not a matter of scientific proof.  A better analogy would be that of a jury hearing the evidence from a civil trial.  No one in the jury was there.  They're doing their best, based on the cognitive skills they have and the evidence that's presented to reach the correct conclusion.  Post deliberation, a decision must be made.  I believe the the preponderance of evidence rests with the position of the classical theist - others do not.  Neither of us has (ultimate) proof but each of us must act based on the conclusions we draw and those actions have significant ramifications for us - both as individuals and societally.

"Just because an idea is true doesn't mean it can be proved.  And just because an idea can be proved doesn't mean it's true."

- Jonah Lehrer

(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.