The issue as to who wrote the Torah is one of the most contentious issues in the study of the Bible.

The premise of this book is that the Torah is a divine composition dictated by God to Moses at Mount Sinai and recorded by Moses. As the Torah states when the Israelites arrived at Mount Sinai:

 

And Moses wrote all the words of YHWH, and rose early in the morning, and built an altar at the foot of the mountain, and twelve pillars, according to the twelve tribes of Israel (Exodus 24:4). 

The Book of Deuteronomy also writes:

​

And so it was, when Moses finished writing the words of this Torah onto a book until their conclusion, that Moses commanded the Levites, the bearers of the Ark of the Covenant of YHWH, saying: “Take this book of the Torah, and place it at the side of the Ark of the Covenant of YHWH, your God, and it shall be there for you as a witness" (Deuteronomy 31:24-26).

​

It is unclear from the above passage from Exodus how much of the Torah Moses wrote down at Mount Sinai, since the bulk of the Torah had not yet been transmitted. However, the second quotation from the Book of Deuteronomy could well refer to the entire Torah.1

​

An alternative viewpoint is that the Torah is a human composition. Higher biblical criticism considers the entire Torah to have been composed by different authors who wrote over different historic periods.

The format of the early part of the Torah could, in theory, provide some support to this notion. There are two versions of many of the early stories in Genesis, with many significant differences between them. There are two different creation accounts. Also, two flood stories intertwined with each other to form a single account. Abraham and Sarah are told twice they will bear a son in their old age, and God makes two covenants with Abraham. Moses was also told by God in relation to the forefathers that that His name YHWH “did not become known to them” (Exodus 6:3), whereas this name is mentioned multiple times. These features, plus different emphases in the Torah text, convinced Christian scholars that the Torah was written by multiple authors.

​

The notion that the Pentateuch was made up from smaller, earlier documents was already mentioned in the mid-eighteenth century on the basis of apparent duplications, repetitions and contradictions. However, the writing of Julius Wellhausen in the late 19th century was central to the development of higher biblical criticism. In his influential book "Prolegomena to the History of Ancient Israel" (1878), he brought together earlier scholarship and proposed that the Torah was composed from four main sources — a J or Yahwist source, an E or Elohist source, P or Priestly source, and D or Deuteronomist source.2 These sources were later woven together by editors or a single redactor to form the Pentateuch we recognize today. This theory was widely accepted to the point that it became the established paradigm in academic biblical scholarship.

​

Noteworthy is that higher biblical criticism was initially a Christian project. The New Testament gospels were written by four authors, and contains contradictions. However, Christians do not view the New Testament as being the direct word of God. Thus, higher criticism of the Jewish Bible served to equalize these two works in terms of the status of the biblical text.

​

The four sources proposed by Wellhausen

​

In the system of Wellhausen, each of the sources constituted a full and independent account of the history of Israel and even more importantly in the development of the religion of ancient Israel.3 According to Wellhausen, each document had its own theology, politics, language and style. 3

 

The J or Yahwist source was the earliest of the four sources and was written by scribes in the court of the southern Kingdom of Judea in the early monarchal period, in about 950 BCE. It is characterized by vivid, anthropomorphic descriptions of God. The name of God YHWH is used from the very beginning of the Torah. Hence, the second creation account is considered a J source.

​

The E or Elohist source arose later in the Northern Kingdom of Israel, and is dated by most scholars to the eighth century BCE. It was probably woven together with the J source after the fall of the Northern Kingdom in 722 BCE, possibly by scribes from the southern Kingdom of Judeah. This fusion of E and J sources has been termed by some scholars the JE narrative. The E source emphasizes divine majesty, and focuses on prophecies, dreams, angels, and divine promises. It considered the name of God YHWH to have been first revealed to Moses, and therefore employed the designation Elohim prior to this time. Thus, Genesis chapters 20 to 22, where Abraham interacts with God using mainly the name Elohim, are considered an E source. Sections that feature Moses' encounters with God at the burning bush and the revelation of the divine name YHWH in Exodus chapter 3 are also frequently considered Elohist passages.

​

The D or Deuteronomist source comprises the main part of the Book of Deuteronomy, and emphasizes religious reform and law codes. It is thought to have been composed by scribes in Judea during the reign of King Josiah in the late seventh century or early sixth century BCE. A copy of this book was discovered in the Temple at that time.

​

The P or Priestly source is thought to have been written by Temple priests in about the sixth century BCE during the Babylonian Exile (587–539 BCE), although some scholars suggest it was completed and compiled in the post-exilic period after 539 BCE early on in the Second Temple period when the exiled Jewish community returned to Judah under Persian rule. It focuses on ritual, genealogy and priestly matters, and reflects a concern for order and ceremony. The P source also refrains from using the name YHWH until the time of Moses. The P source is evident in the creation account of Genesis 1, which presents a structured and orderly depiction of God's creation over six days. This account also emphasizes the transcendent and majestic nature of God. The Noah account is a blend of J and P sources. The P source is prominent in the detailed instructions for construction of the Tabernacle (Exodus 25-31) and the description of its rituals and furnishings (Exodus 35-40). These passages focus on the importance of proper worship and the role of the priests. The entire book of Leviticus is heavily influenced by the Priestly source with its detailed laws and regulations concerning sacrifices, rituals, purity, and the responsibilities of the priests, as are sections of Numbers, particularly those dealing with census data, genealogies, and rituals related to the priesthood (such as the consecration of the Levites and laws governing the priesthood). Scholars have identified elements of the P source throughout the Torah where there are detailed legal or ritualistic instructions, covenants, lists of genealogies, and narratives that emphasize the importance of proper worship and adherence to religious laws.

​

The documentary hypothesis assumes that redaction of the Pentateuch likely occurred during or shortly after the Babylonian Exile (586–539 BCE), and may have continued over an extended period. A need was felt at that time for consolidation of the traditions and sources of Israelite history and law so as to provide a coherent religious narrative and legal foundation for the Israelites. Earlier dates for the redaction have also been suggested.

​

It should be mentioned that scholars over the last century have raised questions about the viability of the documentary hypothesis, and a modified version of this hypothesis is now offered by some scholars that looks only at problem areas rather than the totality of the Torah text.4

 

 

Initial critiques of the redaction and composition of the different Torah sources

 

I regard biblical criticism as a highly imaginative hypothesis that has engaged in a total misreading of biblical format, and reflects poor knowledge of how the Jewish tradition evolved.

​

The documentary hypothesis assumes that when the redactor completed his final composition, the entire nation readily accepted it. This is a highly unlikely scenario. A creative writer could perhaps have composed a new version of the Torah, but that the entire Jewish people would readily accept it is highly improbable. Moses needed a sound-and-light show on Mount Sinai and the appearance of God Himself within smoke and accompanied by thunder and lightning and the drawn-out sound of the shofar to convince the people of the authenticity of God’s revelation.

​

Should the Northern Kingdom have possessed a separate manuscript for any part of the Torah, there is no reason why the Judean Kingdom would have considered it worthy of being combined with their own version. From the time of the separation of the Ten Tribes and their worship of golden calves at Beit El and Dan, the religious level of the Northern Kingdom was at a lower level than that of the southern kingdom of Judah and Benjamin. It is difficult to imagine the Southern Kingdom considering any manuscript being worthy of being combined with their own.

​

It is also difficult to accept that there would be different compositions for the early parts of Genesis, say for the creation and Noah stories. Both these stories are allegories. Why would both kingdoms have invented similar type allegories, and what justification would there have been for considering each of these allegories to have equal weight? Yet the equality of sources is a fundamental aspect of the documentary hypothesis; otherwise, there would have been no reason to combine them.

​

Tellingly, there is no mention in any early Jewish source, such as the Bible, Mishnah or the Babylonian or Jerusalem Talmud, of different circulating versions of the Torah. It is not as if the Talmud does not discuss the authorship of various biblical books. It does.5 But no mention is made of the Torah having different authors, other than for its last few sentences which could not have been written by Moses as he had already died.

​

It is also inconceivable that a redactor would have worked on such a major project during or sometime after the return from the Babylonian exile without there being mention, or even a hint, in the Mishna or Talmud. There is mention in the Talmud of Ezra changing the Torah from an Ivrit to Ashuric script early in the return to Judea, so that the people could more readily understand it, but this would have been a minor league change compared to joining manuscript sources together to create a totally new Torah.6

Moreover, according to the Torah itself, revision of the Torah is prohibited. The following is the primary biblical verse cited in halakhic sources forbidding textual alteration.

​

You shall not add to the word that I command you, nor take away from it, that you may keep the commandments of YHWH your God which I command you (Deuteronomy 4:2).7

 

Even if this verse was to be interpreted differently, any textual revision of the Torah would have had to go through The Men of the Great Assembly (Anshei HaKnesset Hagdola). This was a group of 120 sages who led the Jewish people at the very end of the biblical period and the beginning of the Rabbinic period, roughly from the late 6th century BCE to the early 3rd century BCE. They were responsible for reestablishing Jewish religious life in Judea after the exile. It is generally agreed that they finalized and canonized the Hebrew Bible (the Tanach) as we have it. It is unimaginable that they would have dealt with variant texts and there would be no record of this in Jewish sources.

 

 

Torah tradition in the early biblical period

 

It is clear from the Bible that a book of the Torah was familiar to the Israelites in the period of the Judges and early monarchy. The beginning of the book of Joshua quotes a speech by Joshua that explicitly makes this point:

​

O that you will strengthen yourself and persevere very much in order to observe, to do, according to all of the Torah that Moses my servant has commanded you. Do not deviate from him to the right or to the left that you may succeed wherever you may go. This book of the Torah is not to leave your mouth (Joshua 1:7-8).

 

Also, on Mount Ebal:

 

Then Joshua built an altar to YHWH the God of Israel on Mount Eval as Moses, the servant of YHWH commanded the Children of Israel, as it is written in the book of the Torah of Moses (Joshua 8:31).

 

And

 

“He [Joshua] inscribed there on the stones a copy of the Torah of Moses, which he wrote before the Children of Israel” (ibid 8:32). Afterwards “he read all the words of the Torah, the blessings and the curses, according to all that is written in the book of the Torah (ibid 8:34). 

 

There are other examples — 2 Kings 14:6 and also 2 Chronicles 25:4 refer to a law written in “the book of the Torah of Moses,” and which cite Deut. 24:16 regarding children not being put to death for their parents.

 

Ezra is described as “a scribe skilled in the Torah of Moses (Ezra 7:6). In Nehemiah 8, Ezra reads from “the Book of the Torah of Moses” in a public Torah reading. In Nehemiah 13:1 “The Book of Moses was read in the ears of the people…” and this section quotes Deuteronomy 23:4–5 regarding an Ammonite and Moabite not entering forever the congregation of Israel.  Daniel 9:11 and 13 refer to curses written “in the Torah of Moses the servant of God,” corresponding to Leviticus 26 and Deuteronomy 28. Malachi 3:22, the last of the prophets, states: “Remember the Torah of Moses My servant, which I commanded him at Horeb…”
 

In addition, aspects of the Torah were practiced during this period, strongly implying the existence of a transmitted tradition.

​

A few examples.

 

The prophet Samuel was keen on eradicating the tribe of Amalek as proscribed in Exodus 17:2-16 and Deuteronomy 25:17-19. He also knew that this was more than a vengeance attack, and that everything that belonged to Amalek needed to be destroyed as an offering to God:

 

And Samuel said to Saul: “. . . So said the Lord of Hosts: ‘I remember that which Amalek did to Israel, what he did to him on the way, when he came up out of Egypt. Now go and you shall smite Amalek, and you shall utterly destroy all that is his, and you shall not have pity on him; and you shall slay both man and woman, infant and suckling, ox and sheep, camel and ass’” (1 Samuel 15:1-3). 

 

It is apparent from excavations at Shilo in Samaria that the courtyard of the Tabernacle had the same dimensions as that in the desert. The courtyard of the Tabernacle is described in Exodus 27:18 as measuring 100 cubits long by 50 cubits wide, with the Tabernacle being inside this. On the northern plateau of the tel at Shilo was found a large rectangular, flat, rock-cut area measuring 50 meters × 27 meters (roughly 100 × 50 cubits, assuming a cubit equals 0.5 meters), corresponding strikingly to the dimensions of the Tabernacle courtyard.8

 

It is evident from 2 Samuel 24:1–10, and the parallel account in 1 Chronicles 21:1–8, that King David’s general Joab knew that it was forbidden to take a direct census of the Israel nation and he protested when David ordered him to do so:

​

And Joab said to the king: “May the Lord your God add to the people a hundredfold, as many as they are, while the eyes of my lord the king still see it; but why does my lord the king desire this thing?”

​

In 1 Chronicles 21:6, Joab refuses to count the tribes of Levi and Benjamin, apparently recognizing their special status and attempting to minimize the risk involved. Indeed, this census resulted in a plague that killed 70,000 Israelites (2 Samuel 24:15).

 

The Torah does not forbid a census outright, but sets a strict condition on how it must be done, using a donation of a half-shekel per person without direct counting:

​

YHWH spoke to Moses saying: “When you will take a census of the Children of Israel to count them, each one must give to YHWH an atonement for his soul at the time he is counted. Then no plague will come upon them when counting them. This is what they shall give — everyone who passes among the counted — half of the shekel. . . (Exodus 30:12-13).
 

A final example. 

 

Ruth gleans fallen stalks (leket) during the harvest from Boaz’s field. Leket is described in the Book of Leviticus:

​

“…neither shall you gather the gleanings (leket) of your harvest” (Leviticus 19:9)

 

and also:

 

When you reap the harvest of your land, you shall not reap to the edge of your field or gather the gleanings of your harvest; you shall leave them for the poor and the stranger (Leviticus 23:22).9

 

Critique of the documentary hypothesis based on the names of God and the Torah’s literary structure

God’s names serve as a key marker for distinguishing Torah sources in the Documentary Hypothesis. The Yahwist (J) source consistently uses the divine name YHWH from the beginning of the Torah, and portrays God in personal and anthropomorphic terms. The Elohist (E) source uses Elohim until the divine name is revealed, and depicts God as transcendent and communicating through dreams or intermediaries. The Priestly (P) source also uses Elohim prior to God’s second recruitment speech in Exodus 6:2–3, although from that point on the name YHWH is revealed to Moses, reflecting a structured theology of progressive revelation. Thus, alternations between YHWH and Elohim are not random, but provide a central clue to identifying each source’s distinctive theology and narrative style.  

  

The names of God received very little attention from the classical Jewish commentators, and its elucidation from a traditional, Jewish perspective was opened up by Eduardo Cassuto in the modern period. Cassuto worked initially in the rabbinate in Florence, but subsequently left his position as the Chief Rabbi of Florence to become Professor of Hebrew and Literature at the University of Florence, followed by a chair of Hebrew Language at the University of Rome. After fleeing Europe from the Nazis, he accepted a chair of Biblical Studies at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem in Mandatory Palestine. This department was strongly vested in biblical criticism. Cassuto disagreed with this approach and became a leading critic of the documentary hypothesis. 

​

The ideas of Eduardo Cassuto provide a third alternative regarding the authorship of the Torah. He held that the Torah was the product of a single author who used ancient documents in his possession, but never stated that this was God.10 Cassuto had spent so much of his academic life demonstrating the similarity of the Bible to other ancient Near Eastern texts in the form of parallelism, symmetry, chiastic structures, etc., that it would have been a huge jump for him to say that God also wrote in this manner. He also worked in academic settings and these were not considered the venues to discuss theological issues. A consequence of this was that his works were largely ignored by religious Jews. And because of his opposition to the then widely accepted documentary hypothesis, they were also often ignored by the academic world. Thus, especially outside of Israel, his writings are not well-known.

 

A point I make in this book, and one made by Cassuto, is that p’shat, the literal explanation of the text (as distinct from drash, or midrashic interpretation), should not be how we understand the text from the perspective of the 21st century, but how individuals at the time the Bible was written would have interpreted the text. In other words, God used the literary and social conventions of that time in dictating His book to Moses. This is why I value so much the works of Cassuto and feel they need wider dissemination, even though I am unable to accept his conclusion that the Torah was not the work of God.

​

On the basis of the Torah’s linguistic aspects, Cassuto proposed that the Torah was the work of a single author. It was now necessary for him to explain why the Torah used different names of God throughout the Torah.11 His explanations form the basis of this book and are summarized in the next chapter “More about the names of God.” In brief, based on his work, it is proposed that the names of God reflect the nature of the relationship between God and the biblical characters and Israelite nation. YHWH is an immanent God who desires close relationships, while Elohim is a transcendent God, Who is more distant is His relationships.

​

An example in the Torah that illustrate this is in relation to sacrifices. Sacrifices are a means of drawing close to God, and are invariably offered to YHWH. Thus, Noah builds an altar to YHWH (Genesis 8:20), even though it was Elohim who instructed him to leave the ark several sentences earlier (ibid 8:15). There is a single exception to this in the Torah:

​

Jethro, the father-in-law of Moses, took an olah-offering and peace-offering for Elohim, and Aaron and all the elders of Israel came to eat bread with the father-in-law of Moses before Elohim (Exodus 18:12). 

 

The entire passage Exodus 18:1–27 recording Jethro’s visit is widely recognized in the documentary hypothesis as a non-Priestly narrative, that is primarily E (Elohist), with some editorial touches from the J (Yahwist) source or the redactor (R). Other scholars consider the original E story to have ended at v. 12, and the subsequent judicial advice scene (vv. 13–27) to have been added later by the redactor, possibly using J or Deuteronomic material to connect the episode with later Sinai legislation.

​

However, there is a much simpler way of looking at this passage. Following the general rule discussed, this sacrifice should have been offered to YHWH. However, as a priest of Midian, Jethro’s approach to God was of a universal, transcendent God, which is characteristic of Elohim. This is why Jethro greeted Moses by saying: “Now I know that YHWH is greater than all the deities, for with the thing that they planned, [He came] upon them” (Exodus 18:10).12 What he should have said is that YHWH is the only deity. Jethro’s concept of his own deity was so foreign to his son-in-law Moses, a prophet of YHWH, that he did not attend this first recorded ecumenical event in human history. This is why Moses’ name is not mentioned as being among the guests at the sacrificial meal —" only Aaron and all the elders of Israel.”13

 

The documentary hypothesis also falls short based on the literary aspects of the Torah.

 

Each of the early stories in the Torah has movement; in other words, they are always heading somewhere. As will soon be explained, the first creation story is about God’s institution of the Sabbath and it constitutes an introduction to the topic of the Sabbath. The documentary hypothesis suggests that this is a P source. One might anticipate, therefore, that further elaboration about the Sabbath would continue to be written by the P source. However, the laws of the Sabbath are mentioned subsequently several times in the Torah and are considered a mixture of E and P sources. The Ten Commandments, which is an E source, even contains words found in the creation account – “YHWH blessed the seventh day and sanctified it.” Moreover, in this instance, it is YHWH who blessed the Sabbath day, and not Elohim.

​

​

 

 

 

 

However, it is more logical to say that although the Ten Commandments are introduced by Elohim, everything else in the Torah about the Sabbath following the first creation story, including the Ten Commandments themselves, relate to YHWH. This is because YHWH has become the national God of the Jewish people and the Sabbath a sign of His covenant.

 

According to the Documentary Hypothesis, the body of the Noah story is primarily a P source, although it has J verses mixed within it. Each of these two sources can be prized apart and each is more or less the same story, although with notable gaps (which are filled in by the other source). As discussed in the chapter on “The Noah story and the names of God,” there is a chiastic structure within this story made up of J and P sources:

 

And it came to pass after seven days, that the waters of the flood were upon the earth. (Genesis 7:10, P source). . . .  And the rain was upon the earth forty days and forty nights” (Genesis 7:17, J source). . . .  And the waters prevailed upon the earth a hundred and fifty days (Genesis 7:24, P source).

 

When the flood subsides, everything goes in reverse, including its timing in terms of days and using the same mixture of J and P sources:

 

And the waters then receded from upon the earth, receding continuously; and the waters diminished after the end of the hundred and fifty days the waters were abated (Genesis 8:3, P source). . . . And it came to pass at the end of forty days, that Noah opened the window of the ark which he had made (Genesis 8:6, J source). . . . And he stayed yet other seven days; and again he sent forth the dove out of the ark (Genesis 8:10, J source). . . . And he stayed yet other seven days; and sent forth the dove; which did not return back to him anymore (Genesis 8:12, J source).

 

More than this, as discussed in the chapter “The Noah story and the names of God,” the entire Noah story constitutes one big chiasmus, with a complete mixture of so-called J and P sources.

This would have been quite a challenge for any redactor to construct. More likely is that the story was composed by God exactly as we find it today.

​

Could a skillful redactor have joined his sources together to make these types of chiasmi?  It is certainly possible. However, it is more logical to say that the Noah story was composed exactly as we find it today because God displays two of His relational aspects in this story.

​

Another example. God made two covenants with Abraham. The Covenant Between the Pieces is considered a combination of an E and J source and uses the name of God YHWH, while the Covenant of Circumcision is a P source and uses the names of God El Shaddai and Elohim. However, in a recruitment speech made by YHWH to Moses in Exodus 6:2-8 wording from both covenants is found together in this speech. This has logic since the role of Moses is to bring about the fulfillment of both covenants made by the aspects of God YHWH and Elohim. Yet this speech is regarded in the Documentary Hypothesis as one of the clearest examples in the Torah of a Priestly (P) passage, and plays a crucial role in explicitly distinguishing Priestly theology from Yahwist (J) and Elohist (E) sources.

 

 

Was the Torah God-given?

​

But If the Torah is not a human composition derived from multiple sources, who wrote it?

The documentary hypothesis has been accepted by many biblical scholars, including Jewish ones, but is an anathema to orthodox Jews since it removes divine authority from the Bible and replaces it with, at the most, divine inspiration. God is no longer the source of the ethical imperatives of the Torah. Rather, ethics is something cultural and human-derived.

​

Clearly, proving that the Torah was God-written is impossible, and is a matter of faith. Nevertheless, it is possible to frame the question in a different way, and ask — is it possible that God wrote the Torah? If it was highly unlikely that He wrote it, then this would be an unreasonable belief. However, if there is nothing that contradicts it happening, there is no challenge to faith. This is far being from a proof, but will be sufficient for many believers.

 

This is why one essay in my book focuses on the likelihood of there being an historical Exodus from Egypt, and this is discussed in my essay “The Egyptian Exodus – fact or fiction?” Also, if the only script available to Moses was hieroglyphics, then it is unlikely that he could have written a book and certainly not one that would be transmitted through the generations. This is why my essay “With what script did God write the Ten Commandments?” advances the notion that the Israelites at that time were familiar with the phonetic proto-Sinaitic script and that it was the Israelites who transmitted this script to Canaan. This script was easy to read and enabled the creation of a literate Israelite society.

 

The fearful display at the time of the giving of the Torah was designed to impress the people and authenticate Moses as God’s spokesman. This tradition, that the entire people witnessed a revelation of God and that Moses was His spokesman, was handed down from generation to generation. This is the reason that some of the rituals of Judaism are specifically related to the Exodus.14 Made-up manuscripts describing made-up events could never have succeeded in being transmitted in this way.

 

There is another indirect approach one can use in assessing the divine nature of the Torah. The Torah itself indicates how to check on the authenticity of a prophet on the basis of the accuracy of his prophecies:

 

But the prophet who presumes to speak a word in My name which I have not commanded him to speak, or who speaks in the name of other gods — that prophet shall die. And if you say in your heart, ‘How shall we know the word which the Lord has not spoken?’ When a prophet speaks in the name of the Lord, if the thing does not come about or come true, that is the word the Lord has not spoken; the prophet has spoken it presumptuously (Deuteronomy 18:20–22).

 

It follows that the authenticity of the Torah can also be judged on the basis of its predictions, since the Torah is a prophetic book:

 

In the Covenant of Circumcision, God promises that His covenant will be “everlasting” and the area of the land of Canaan an “everlasting possession” (Genesis 17:7-8). Against all odds this has happened. In the Tochacha (Covenant Warnings) in the Book of Leviticus, the Torah promises that God will remember His covenant with the Patriarchs and return the people to the land after exile:

 

Then I will remember My covenant with Jacob… and I will remember the land…  I will not reject them… to annihilate them… for I am the Lord their God (Vayikra 26:42–45).
 

Similarly, in Deuteronomy:

 

The Lord your God will return your captivity and will gather you from all the nations. . . (Devarim 30:3).15
 

A return after the Babylon exile began in 538 BCE, when Cyrus the Great issued a decree allowing the Jewish exiles to return to Jerusalem and rebuild the temple. In our time, we are in the unique position of being able to judge the Torah’s predictions in real time, since we are now witnessing a third redemption.

 

As has been frequently pointed out, the Jewish people are the only nation in history that has returned to its ancestral land on two occasions and reestablished a culture almost identical to how it was over 3,500 years ago. It is almost as if the land has been waiting for the Jewish people to return, in that no other nation has been able to bring out the fertility of the land as the Jewish people are now doing.16

 

Noteworthy about the current redemption of the Jewish people and reinforcing its divine nature, is that many of the steps in the formation of the State of Israel could not have been predicted to have been successful. In fact, one might well have predicted that the odds were against success. None of these steps can be said to have been miraculous, in that they can all be explained in a rational way, but looking at all the steps in sequence one can say that the formation of the State of Israel can truly be regarded as miraculous.

 

Some illustrative examples:

 

The Jews who came to Palestine during the First Aliya beginning in 1881 faced an extremely difficult future. In fact, half of the 60,000 immigrants gave up. They were not welcomed by the Ottomans who made their lives difficult, they had no agricultural experience, and they had inadequate financial resources. They came to Israel based on messianic hope rather than the reality of how difficult the situation would be. They were saved by Baron Edmond de Rothschild who agreed to finance their efforts, not so much as a charitable cause but as a business venture. Those who remained succeeded in developing the foundations of agriculture in Israel. Edmond de Rothschild had the financial resources to provide this assistance because of the financial empire envisaged by his grandfather Meir Rothschild. 

 

Based on the lobbying of Chaim Weitzman and Sir Herbert Samuel, the Balfour Declaration of 1917 was issued to the Zionist leader Lionel Walter Rothschild, with the British government promising to establish a Jewish homeland in Palestine. At the San Remo Conference in April 1920, the principal Allied powers assigned the Mandate for Palestine to Great Britain, and the League of Nations formally approved the terms of this Mandate on July 24, 1922, and it came into effect on September 29, 1923. The crucial action of the League of Nations was including the Balfour Declaration within the preamble and articles of the Mandate document. This transformed the British policy statement into a binding international legal obligation to work toward "the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people".

 

In fact, the British would soon regret that they had made such a promise, and they attempted to backtrack by restricting Jewish immigration when the Arabs in Palestine made it abundantly clear that they objected to a Jewish homeland. Nevertheless, the British mandate succeeded in beginning the development of the country, and the British put down the Arab revolt of 1936, from which the Arabs in Palestine never fully recovered. The Jews needed the support of a superpower to establish a state after the First World War, although it was far from obvious that the British would stick out their necks to make such a promise.

 

The fate of the Middle East hung in the balance between October and November 1942 during the Second World War and the Battle of El Alamein. A German victory by Field Marshall Erwin Rommel’s Afrika Korps would have meant the end of hopes for a Jewish state and the destruction of much of the remnant of the Jewish people in Palestine by the Nazis. The SS was already patiently waiting in Greece. Yet, the outcome of this battle could have been very different if Germany had postponed its invasion of Russia and had provided Rommel with sufficient men, ammunition and fuel to win this battle.

 

In sum, the value of the Pentateuch is because it is God-written and can therefore function as the basis of ethics for all humanity. The documentary hypothesis was an attempt to turn the Torah into a human effort and thereby leave civilization without a God-given ethics. Many academics believed in this venture. People of faith did not.

 

 

References:

 

1. According to Rashi, based on the Mechilta DeRabbi Shimon bar Yochai, the source in Exodus refers to the text of the Torah from the beginning of Genesis until the giving of the Torah and the commandments given at Marah. The second quote from Deuteronomy refers to the entire Torah. Other references in the Torah to Moses’ writing a book are Exodus 17:14, Numbers 33:2, and Deuteronomy 31:9. The commentator Chizkuni wrote on Exodus 34:32: “The Torah was given [to Moses] in individual scrolls [on Mount Sinai]— for whenever Moses would hear a commandment from God, he would record it in a separate scroll — then [forty years later] when it was time for him to die — he organized the Sefer Torah and set its “parshiot” based on fitting juxtapositions, as our Rabbis have expounded.”

2. Wellhausen, Julius. “Prolegomena to the History of Israel: With a Reprint of the Article “Israel” from the Encyclopaedia Britannica.” Translated by J. Sutherland Black and Allan Menzies; Preface by W. Robertson Smith. Edinburgh: A. & C. Black, 1885.

3. Introduction by Joshua A. Berman in The Documentary Hypothesis and the Composition of the Pentateuch by Umberto Cassuto, Shalem Press, Jerusalem and New York, 2006.

4. What Happened to the Documentary Hypothesis? in Biblical Archeology Review, p67, Fall 2024, volume 50, number 3.

5. The following is a summary of the Talmudic discussion in Bava Batra 14b–15a: Moses wrote his own book (the Torah), the section about Balaam, and the book of Job. Joshua wrote his own book and the last eight verses of the Torah (describing what took place after Moses’ death). Samuel wrote his own book and the books of Judges and Ruth. David wrote the Book of Psalms in collaboration with ten elders (Adam, Melchizedek, Abraham, Moses, Heiman, Yedusun, Assaf, and the three sons of Korah). Jeremiah wrote his own book, Kings, and Lamentations. Hezekiah and his assistants (Rashi — members of his generation who outlived him) wrote Isaiah, Proverbs, Song of Songs, and Ecclesiastes. The Men of the Great Assembly wrote (or edited) Ezekiel, the Twelve Minor Prophets, Daniel, and Esther. Ezra wrote his own book, and together with Nehemiah wrote Chronicles.

6. TB Sanhedrin 21b states: "Originally, the Torah was given to Israel in Ivrit script and in the sacred language. It was given to them again in the days of Ezra in Ashurit script and the Aramaic language; they selected for Israel the Ashurit script and the sacred language, and left the Ivrit script and the Aramaic language for the common people."

7. TB Sanhedrin 99a–100a explains that someone who deliberately alters the text of the Torah is included among those who “have no share in the World to Come.”

   The Talmud discusses those who change the meaning or wording of Scripture and treats it as a grave violation. Maimonides in Hilchot Sefer Torah 1:2 explains that the Torah we have today is the same Torah given to Moses at Sinai, letter for letter. In Hilchot Sefer Torah 10:1–2 he states that a Torah scroll missing even one letter or that has even one incorrect letter is invalid. This applies equally to scribes—writing, altering, or correcting in a non-halachic manner is forbidden.

8. It needs be mentioned that no walls or post-holes were found at this site in Shilo, which would have shown more definitively that a tent or structure stood here. Thus, while the dimensions match, the archaeological evidence is not fully conclusive.

9. Midrash Ruth Rabba 4:9 and TB Peah 6:1 points out that Boaz went beyond Torah law, in that he allowed Ruth to glean among the sheaves. Gleaning is only allowed after the reapers pass and only from dropped stalks. He also instructed his workers “Pull out for her from the bundles and leave them for her,” which also exceeds the Torah law. Ruth, a Moabite convert, received full access to the social safety laws given in the Torah for “the stranger, the orphan, and the widow” (e.g., Deut. 24:19).

10. In Umberto Cassuto, The Divine Names in The Documentary Hypothesis and the Composition of the Pentateuch by Umberto Cassuto, Shalem Press, Jerusalem and New York, 2006 he wrote in Lecture 1: “It is not our intention here to inquire into the theological question of the origin of the Torah, but only into its literary composition,” and more pointedly in Lecture 7 “The Pentateuch is a work of ancient Hebrew literature, the product of the spiritual and national life of Israel.”

11. The Divine Names in The Documentary Hypothesis and the Composition of the Pentateuch by Umberto Cassuto, Shalem Press, Jerusalem and New York, 2006.

12. Based on Jethro’s comment “Now I know that YHWH is greater than all gods. . .” (Exodus 18:11), there is a Talmudic opinion that Jethro converted to Judaism (see TB Zevachim 116a). However, if this were the case, his offering should have been to YHWH and not Elohim.

13. To explain the absence of Moses’ name in this party, Rashi to Exodus 18:12 suggests that Moses was the waiter for the meals.

14.  In his commentary to Exodus 13:16, Nachmanides lays out his thesis that the Exodus is the foundation of Jewish faith, that many commands exist to remind the Jewish people of the miracles of the Exodus. The purpose of mitzvot such as tefillin, mezuzah, Shabbat, holidays, sacrifices etc. is to keep the memory of the Exodus alive. He explains that the Exodus proved the existence of both a Creator and divine providence, and these mitzvot are therefore “signs” that reinforce the memory of these great miracles and the truth of these postulates.  

15. Another source in Deuteronomy is: “And you will seek the Lord your God from there, and you will find Him. . . For the Lord your God is a merciful God; He will not abandon you. . .” (Deuteronomy 4:25–31). The return to Israel in this instance is accompanied by repentance.

16. “I will make the land desolate, and your enemies who live upon it will be astonished [at its desolation]” (Leviticus 26:32). Rashi points out, based on Toras Kohanim, perek 6:5, that “This is a good measure for Israel: that the enemies will not find contentment in Israel’s land for it will be desolate of its inhabitants.” It is also in the nature of this promise that the land will refuse to flourish until Israel returns.