In Exodus 24:7, the Torah reveals that when Moses conveyed God’s commands to the Israelites, the people responded, “All that the Lord said, we will do and hear.” Does this make sense? Shouldn’t they have listened first?

 

Some people today claim that this sentence is nonsense, what the Scots call blatherskite. They say, “Everybody who knows basic Hebrew knows that the Hebrew word in this sentence is based on the word shema, which means ‘hear.’ And it is absurd, foolish blather, to think that people would obey commands before they hear them!“ The Torah, they shout, should have reversed the words and written, “we will hear and do.”

This is an example of people with little learning. Shema indeed means “hear,” but it also means “obey.” For example, when the Torah states, “Shema Israel, the Lord is our God, the Lord is one,” it is not saying “listen,” but rather “obey.” It is like a mother telling her children, “Listen to me.” She is not instructing her children to pay attention or adjust their hearing aids; she is insisting that they obey her.

The critics are people who make decisions based on insufficient knowledge, and they mock the Torah with their ignorance when it says the Israelites agreed to obey God’s laws without knowing what they were agreeing to.

This led me to think that many modern biblical critics who employ German biblical criticism may be speaking from a superficial understanding of the biblical language and writing style. They may also be conscious or unconscious antisemites who close their eyes and minds to think that there is a problem where they are seeing none.

Many modern Bible critics prefer to remove miracles and supernatural events from the text and then resolve apparent errors they see in it. Most scholars date its beginning during the German Enlightenment, from around 1650 to 1800. Some scholars see its roots earlier, during the Reformation, when Protestants were attempting to rid their lives and minds of Roman Catholic authority and ideas. In both instances, it is an attack on what the attackers dislike.

Critics employ several approaches that have been developed over time to critique the Bible, including four key methods: identifying textual errors, researching original non-biblical sources, analyzing the form and structure of the text, and applying literary criticism to discern the author’s intention behind the writing. These methods tackled the text – some say cold-bloodedly – with the intent to revolutionize how people understood the Bible and mock its lessons.

For example, the “Documentary Hypothesis” originated when Jean Astruc (1684–1766) claimed he could identify the sources of the Bible by examining its use of divine names. His approach was later expanded by Julius Wellhausen (1844-1918), who identified four primary sources (J, E, D, and P) that he believed were combined to form the Pentateuch, also known as the Five Books of Moses. He based his theory in part on the consistent use of the names Elohim and Y-h-v-h in what he considered four writings by four different authors or groups.

If we examine the first example that led Astruc and Wellhausen to their conclusion, we will see that they made the same error as those who made a mistake about shema.

The first chapter of Genesis states that Elohim (E) created “man (humans) in His image, in the image of Elohim He created him, He created them male and female.” The second chapter reports that Y-h-v-h Elohim (J) created man first and later removed a woman from his side.

Astruc and Wellhausen see two different episodes in the two chapters. In the first chapter, we encounter a being called Elohim, who created both a male and a female. The second chapter is radically different. It presents another being named Y-h-v-h Elohim, who created man first and only later created a woman.

The two claimed that we have two distinct stories from two different sources, which the critics later referred to as E and J, each providing a different version of the creation of humans.

Ancient Jews saw no problem. For example, the Bible commentator Rashi explains in his commentary to Genesis 1:27, “The plain meaning of the passage is that here {the Torah} informs you that both {male and female} were created on the sixth {day}, and it does not explain to you how they were created, which is revealed in another chapter {chapter two}.”

Rashi does not explain the difference between “Elohim” and “Y-h-v-h Elohim,” which is easily understood. The word “El,” which is singular, means “powerful.” It is a term used by both ancient and modern Jews to refer to God, as God is understood to be powerful. The plural “Elohim” means “very powerful,” which Jews also use for their understanding of God. When Elohim appears in the Torah, it frequently refers to God, who is very powerful. However, there are instances where it refers to powerful humans, such as judges or knowledgeable people, as in Genesis 6:2.[1]

Y-H-V-H is also not a name, but rather another description of God.[2] It implies that God is a being that exists in the past, present, and future.

Chapter one states that a male and a female were created. Chapter two describes how it was done. It is like the following story. Chapter one informs us, “Father drove to the store on Sunday,” and describes the drive. Chapter two elaborates. “While in the store, father, Michael Fields, purchased the bread that mother, Elana, requested he bring home.” In this example, the word “father” is akin to “Elohim,” and “father, Michael Fields” is similar to “Y-h-v-h Elohim.”

Another example of this biblical writing style is the tale of the Flood. Initially, the Torah states that Noah brought two animals of each kind into his ark, and later reveals that he brought more than two of certain animals, which he sacrificed to God after the Flood.

This writing style is not unique to the Bible. It is in other historical literature and remains relevant today. Superb and fascinating crime thrillers of Freida McFadden, Ragnar Jonasson, and Stephen King do this.  I do so as well. I wrote about the misunderstanding of shema in previous essays. Today, I elaborated on it in my discussion about Bible critics.

As with the misunderstanding of shema, the critics, perhaps feeling the need to criticize the Torah, misunderstood the biblical writing style of making a general statement at first and then elaborating on it later.

 

[1] This is the interpretation of Abraham ibn Ezra.

[2] Contrary to what many think, all of the words applied to God are not names, like Joe or Aaron, but descriptions of the deity.