The King Tut Syndrome
The January 2008 issue of BAR carried an article by Richard Elliott Friedman about James
Kugel’s recent book, How to Read the Bible: A Guide to Scripture Then and Now. Kugel
identifies himself as an Orthodox Jew, but he also subscribes unequivocally to the Documentary
Hypothesis and the Wellhausen school of biblical criticism. In the book, he tries to reconcile his
critical views with his purported Orthodox faith, and as Friedman points out correctly, he is not
successful. In his response to Friedman in the March issue, Kugel does not clarify how he
reconciles his self-identification as Orthodox with the views presented in his book. The two
points of view are, in fact, irreconcilable by definition. Orthodox Judaism, or rather Classical
Judaism, as I prefer to call it, is predicated on the idea of divine authorship of the Bible. That is
the red line that divides Classical Judaism from the modern streams, and by crossing that line,
Kugel effectively removes himself from it.
In the article, Friedman gloats that at long last the Orthodox wall has been breached. “In the
past,” he writes, “Orthodox Jews have steadfastly rejected modern scholarship, but what are
they to do now? They cannot say that Kugel is a secular scholar or that he is antireligious or
anti-Orthodox. They cannot say that his book is by someone less learned than they, because
Kugel is the most learned Orthodox scholar of the Bible on the earth.” I find this offensive. Kugel
may perhaps be categorized as a scholar of the nineteenth century German Protestant school
of biblical criticism who considers himself a practicing Orthodox Jew, but he is certainly not an
Orthodox scholar by any means, let alone the most learned one on the face of the earth.
Apparently, Friedman is not content to pursue his chosen path of investigation without
taunting the many thousands of Orthodox scholars, including me, who believe that he and all his
colleagues are wasting their time. In an article for Moment Magazine (August, 2003), he writes,
“Orthodoxy needs no defense. It is a matter of faith, and one may choose to adhere to that faith
even if one is familiar with the data of science, archaeology and contemporary biblical
scholarship that call that faith into question in the minds of others . . . Personally, I think they
would be better off taking a position of unquestioning faith. I do not think they will be able to
respond to the mass of evidence.” How patronizing and offensive.
Actually, Friedman is of little interest to me. I am more disturbed by the possible public
perception that James Kugel is Orthodox and that it is somehow acceptable for Orthodox Jews
to read the Bible as he does. I feel a responsibility, therefore, to demonstrate that the traditional
understanding of the Bible is perfectly valid and far superior to the new recipes.
It is not my purpose here to challenge the entire Hypothesis, something that can be done
effectively, but not in a few brief pages. The ideas of biblical criticism have been so solidly
injected into academia and the popular culture that people accept them as axiomatic. The
general public has been conditioned to believe that rejecting these ideas is like believing in a flat
earth. But most people have never seen the butchery of the text up close. I just want to
enlighten them by taking a close look at one or two famous problematic passages in the Bible
and contrasting the critical explanations with a traditional rabbinic approach to the search for the
plain meaning of the text.
The following passage is from the Joseph story that appears in the last part of the Book of
Genesis. Jacob shows favoritism to his young son Joseph, the child of his beloved wife Rachel
who has tragically died on the return journey to Canaan. Joseph’s brothers are jealous, and they
conspire to do away with him. They toss him in a pit with the intent of putting him to death. (The
bold type is used to identify the text the critics claim to be part of an alleged J document, while the regular
type is used for the text they consider part of an alleged E document.)
[GENESIS CH. 37] 25 And they sat down to eat bread, and they raised their eyes and they
saw, and here was a caravan of Ishmaelites coming from Gilead, and their camels were
carrying spices, balsam and myrrh, going to bring them down to Egypt. 26 And Judah
said to his brothers, “What profit is there if we kill our brother and cover his blood? 27
Come and let us sell him to the Ishmaelites, and let our hand not be on him, because he
is our brother, our flesh. And his brothers listened. 28 And Midianite people, merchants,
passed, and they pulled and lifted Joseph from the pit. And they sold Joseph to the
Ishmaelites for twenty weights of silver. And they brought Joseph to Egypt … 36 And the
Medanites sold him to Egypt to Potiphar, an official of pharaoh, chief of the
guards. [CH. 38]
1 And it was at that time that Judah went down from his brothers and
turned to an Adullamite man, and his name was Hirah. … [CH. 39] 1 And Joseph had been
brought down to Egypt. And an Egyptian man, Potiphar, an official of Pharaoh, chief of
the guards, bought him from the hand of the Ishmaelites who had brought him down
there.
At first glance, there is obviously much confusion in the text. Let us assume that the
Medanites and the Midianites are one and the same, but who purchased Joseph and from
whom? And who sold him to the Egyptians? The text starts out with a decision to sell Joseph to
the Ishmaelites. Midianites suddenly appear, but they still sell him to the Ishmaelites. And then
the Midianites sell him to the Egyptians. But when did the Midianites take possession of him?
And as we read further, we see that the Egyptians had indeed bought him from the Ishmaelites.
So who sold Joseph to the Egyptians? Was it the Midianites or the Ishmaelites?
The critics attempt to resolve these problems by dividing the text between J and E
documents. They claim that a hypothetical Redactor (RJE) spliced in a few lines from E into a J
document to give the impression that Midianites arrived on the scene and pulled Joseph from
the pit. Then “they,” meaning the Midianites, sold him to the Ishmaelites, who then sold him to
the Egyptians, as stated in v. 39:1. But that still leaves unresolved the contradiction with v.
37:36, which states that the Midianites sold him to the Egyptians.
It is, of course, difficult to understand why the hypothetical Redactor would introduce two E
verses which create such havoc in the passage and leave an unresolved contradiction.
Now let us approach the same passage from the perspective of traditional rabbinic
scholarship. Rabbi Chaim ibn Attar, author of the Ohr Hachaim commentary on the Pentateuch,
comments that wealthy people do not necessarily have business acumen. The Ishmaelites were
indeed rich in expensive spices, but they were not shrewd negotiators and dealmakers. The
Midianites served as their brokers and bankers. The Hamaor edition of the Pentateuch cites an
unpublished manuscript of Rashi, the eminent medieval commentator, that supports this view.
“The Ishmaelites and Midianites in this passage are one and the same,” he writes. “There were
some Midianites living in the land of the Ishmaelites.” It stands to reason, therefore, that when a
major shipment of spices was being transported to Egypt, a few Midianites would accompany
the caravan to strike the deal.
When the brothers called out to the Ishmaelites that they wanted to do business, the logical
next step would be for the Midianite brokers – who are pointedly described as merchants while
the Ishmaelites are not – to come forward. After the deal was negotiated with the Midianites, the
brothers sold him to the Ishmaelites, who were coming up with the purchase price. When the
caravan reached Egypt, the Midianites “sold him to Egypt,” meaning that they were once again
the ones that struck the deal. Later, however, we are told that the Egyptians bought Joseph
“from the hands of the Ishmaelites,” meaning that the acquisition was from the possession of the
Ishmaelites, as indeed it was.
In this light, all the confusion is resolved very neatly and logically. Only one question
remains: why was it important for the Bible to tell us in the first place [v. 37:38] that the
Midianites executed the sale to the Egyptians and in the second place [v. 39:1] that the
purchase was from the possession of the Ishmaelites? Why invite confusion?
Patterns of Repetition
The following passage in the Book of Exodus resolves this problem. (The letter Y,
corresponding to the German J, represents the Tetragrammaton, one of the names of God.)
[EXODUS CH. 6] 10 And Y said to Moses, saying, 11 “Come, speak to Pharaoh, king of
Egypt, that he should let the people of Israel go from his land. 12 and moses spoke in
front of y, saying, “here, the people of israel didn’t listen to me, and how will pharaoh listen to me
when i have obstructed lips?” 13 And Y spoke to Moses and to Aaron and commanded them
regarding the people of Israel and regarding Pharaoh, king of Egypt, to bring out the people of
Israel from the land of Egypt. 14 These are the heads of their fathers’ houses: The sons of
Reuben, Israel’s firstborn, Hanoch and Pallu … 20 And Amram took Jochebed, his aunt,
as a wife, and she gave birth to Aaron and Moses for him … 28 And it was in the day that Y
spoke to Moses in the land of Egypt, 29 and Y said to Moses, saying, “I am Y. Speak to Pharaoh,
king of Egypt, everything that I speak to you.” 30 And Moses said in front of Y, “Here, I
have obstructed lips, and how will Pharaoh listen to me?”
The last few verses in the passage are obviously a repetition of the first few verses. The
critical analysts, therefore, divide the text into different documents. (The bold italic type is used to
identify the alleged P document. The small caps are used to identify the editorial insertions of a
hypothetical R redactor, distinct from the hypothetical RJE redactor who specializes in manipulating J and
E texts. The regular italic type is used to identify yet another unnamed source document or perhaps a
selection from the hypothetical Book of Records.)
The rabbinic sources, Rashi in particular, explain the repetition quite reasonably as the
necessity to backtrack a little when picking up an interrupted narrative in order to give the reader
proper orientation. (The need to interrupt the narrative with a genealogy at this particular point
calls for a separate discussion.) There are, however, differences between the original and the
repeated verses. The original verses contain an a forteriori argument, one of ten in the
Pentateuch, in which Moses protests that if the Israelites did not listen to him why would
Pharaoh? In the repetition, Moses protests that he cannot expect Pharaoh to listen to him if his
lips are obstructed. There is no mention of the a forteriori argument. In the repetition, God
prefaces His command to Moses by saying, “I am God.” In the original verses, this statement
does not appear. Why is this so?
Apparently, the author of the Bible placed a high value on each and every verse. Every
verse in the Bible is meant to serve some legal, factual, literary or stylistic purpose. There are
not supposed to be superfluous verses in the Bible. But when the Bible finds it necessary to
backtrack and repeat verses simply to pick up the thread of an interrupted narrative, the verse
would be intrinsically superfluous. Therefore, the Bible makes a point of introducing separate
bits of information in the original and repeated verses so that each verse on its own would have
some singular intrinsic value. Therefore, the first verses provide an a forteriori argument, while
the repeated verses provide the prefatory statement, “I am God.” These two elements could
certainly have been combined. Nonetheless, since repetition is necessary to pick up the
interrupted thread of the narrative, one piece of information appears in the original and another
piece in the repetition.
We see this pattern again in the Book of Genesis when Jacob is forced to flee after he takes
Esau’s blessing.
[GENESIS CH. 28] 5 And Isaac sent Jacob, and he went to Paddan Aram … 6 And Esau
saw that Isaac had blessed Jacob and sent him to Paddan Aram to take a wife for
himself from there when he blessed him, and he had commanded him, saying, “Do
not take a wife from the daughter of Canaan,” … 8 And Esau saw that the
daughters of Canaan were bad in the eyes of his father Isaac. 9 And Esau went to
Ishmael and took Mahalath, daughter of Ishmael, son of Abraham, sister of
Nebaioth, in addition to his wives, as a wife for him. 10 And Jacob left Beersheba and
went to Haran. 11 And he happened upon a place …
There is an apparent contradiction in the verses. First, we are told that Jacob left home and
went to Paddan Aram, and later we are told that he went to Haran. The critical analysts resolve
this problem, as they resolve just about all problems in the text, by assigning the first verses to
one document and the later verses to another document.
If we take the rabbinic approach, however, the problem is easily resolved. Here again we
have verses repeated in order to backtrack and pick up the thread of an interrupted narrative,
which moved away from Jacob to follow Esau’s new choice of a wife. Therefore, in order that no
verse be intrinsically superfluous, the first verse tells us that he went to Paddan Aram, the name
of the province in which Laban resided, and the repeated verse informs us that he went to the
town of Haran.
Having established this pattern, we can understand why the original description of the sale
of Joseph to Egypt tells us that the Midianites executed the transaction and the repeated verse
tells us that the Egyptians purchased Joseph from the possession of the Ishmaelites. The
repeated verse could not be allowed to be intrinsically superfluous.
Ancient Hebrew Idioms
Let me point out just one more piece of gratuitous text butchery that appears later in the
Joseph story after Joseph has risen to the office of viceroy of Egypt. The brothers travel to
Egypt from Canaan to procure grain during a terrible famine, Joseph entraps them, and finally,
there is a confrontation at which Joseph reveals his identity to them.
[GENESIS CH. 43] 15 And the men took this gift and took double the silver in their hand and
Benjamin and got up and went down to Egypt and stood before Joseph. … 26 And
Joseph came to the house, and they brought the gift for him that was in their hand to the
house, and they bowed to him to the ground. 27 And he asked if they were well, and he
said, “Is your old father whom you mentioned well? Is he still alive (od avichem chai)?” 28
And they said, “Your servant, our father, is well. He is still alive.” … [CH. 45]
1 And Joseph
was not able to restrain himself in front of everyone who was standing by him … 2 And
he wept out loud, and Egypt heard, and Pharaoh’s house heard. 3 And Joseph said to
his brothers, “I’m Joseph. Is my father still alive (od avi chai)?”
When the brothers first come to Egypt, Joseph asks them if their father is still alive, and they
confirm that he is. Why then does he ask the question again when he reveals his identity to his
brothers? Out comes the scalpel again. Different documents! The repeat of the question is
assigned to the E document. But this is simply poor scholarship triggered by the fixation on
surgery, as a careful reading of the following passage from the Book of Exodus demonstrates.
[EXODUS CH. 4]
18 And Moses went. And he went back to Jether, his father-in-law, and
said to him, “Let me go so I may go back to my brothers who are in Egypt and see
if they are still living (ha’odam chaim).” And Jethro said to Moses, “Go in peace.”
What does Moses mean when he tells his father-in-law that he wants to go down to Egypt to
see if his brothers are “still living”? Does he really think the hundreds of thousands of Jews in
Egyptian bondage might all have died? Of course not. The expression “are they still living” is
clearly an ancient Hebrew idiom for “how are they doing.” Perhaps it conveys more than an
inquiry into physical health but also an inquiry about the spirit and the state of mind.
This easily explains Joseph’s repeated question. The first time he asked the question the
brothers saw him as a stranger. Therefore, their answer was perfunctory. Yes, he is still alive,
meaning, yes, he’s doing fine. But the second time Joseph asks the question immediately after
he reveals his identity. Therefore, as their brother and Jacob’s son, he is entitled to a more
substantive answer to his inquiry about his father’s mental well-being.
Letter by Letter
As I mentioned earlier, I could not possibly expect to demolish the Documentary Hypothesis
in the course of a short article, or even a long one. I just want to bring people up close to some
of the ravages the critics have wrought on the ancient text and the faulty reasoning that drives
them. The very idea is outlandishly amazing. Never in the history of the world has a book been
spliced together from multiple documents by the kind of elaborate surgery that the critics
perform on the Bible text. Most amazing of all is that after all the analysis and the identification
of different documents and subdocuments and subsubdocuments, after all the deletions and
emendations and claims of scribal errors, numerous anomalies and difficulties remain.
When all is said and done, the critics are faced with one glaring question: How is it possible
that these mythical redactors who allegedly managed to pull off one of the most colossal hoaxes
in the history of the world were not careful enough to avoid the red flags that drew the attention
of the critics? If the first creation story is followed by a second creation story that contradicts the
first, why didn’t the redactors fix it? If in one place Esau’s wives are identified by one set of
names and elsewhere by another set of names, why didn’t the redactors fix it?
After all, these people were admittedly very brilliant. They supposedly put together a
masterpiece of deception that gave rise to the religions that dominate the world to this day. Why
weren’t they more careful with the editing and proofreading? An Egyptian funeral papyrus from
about 1400 b.c.e., quoted in Jaroslav Cerny’s Paper and Books in Ancient Egypt, bears the
following certification, “This document is completed from beginning to end, having been copied,
revised, compared and verified sign by sign.” If a simple funeral document was prepared with
such care, surely we could expect the same for a masterpiece of sacred literature on which a
team of redactors must have toiled for years and even decades. Is it conceivable that they
patched together the Bible without copying, revising and comparing it letter by letter?
How can the critics acknowledge that these hypothetical redactors were so talented and
brilliant and at the same time admit that they were also unpardonably clumsy, negligent and just
plain obtuse?
Archaeologists and Grave Robbers
I believe that the answer lies in a basic ethical question regarding the field of archaeology:
What is the difference between an archaeologist and a grave robber? Both of them violate the
graves of dead people for their own purposes. What sets the two apart? Why would an
archaeologist, who considers himself a moral, ethical, law-abiding citizen, open a grave without
the permission of the family? Why was it morally acceptable to open the tomb of King Tut – a
king, no less – and remove his funerary treasures for display in the British Museum? Why is it
morally acceptable to show his mummified face to hundreds of tourists daily when he would
surely protest violently if only he could? Where is respect for the dead? Where is respect for
their rights? Why should we be allowed to disturb them in their eternal rest?
Some might say that it is acceptable because such a long time has passed. Thousands of
years. So when does the statute of limitations for grave robbery run out? Are the dead allowed
one hundred years of undisturbed peace? One thousand years? At which point do the dead
become fair game?
Others may argue that the violation of King Tut’s tomb was not motivated by greed. Rather, it
was done in the interests of science and history. It was to enrich our society’s understanding of
the ancient world. But that is also a spurious argument. How many lives were saved by opening
King Tut’s tomb? Did we come closer to a cure for cancer? Is academic curiosity about ancient
times a valid excuse for violating the sanctity of the grave? What if archaeologists decided to
open the tombs of Clarence Darrow and William Jennings Bryan for the purpose of discovering
the funerary customs of prominent lawyers in early twentieth century America? Would that also
be morally acceptable? Obviously not. So why doesn’t King Tut deserve the same respect and
consideration?
It is because archaeologists relate to King Tut not as a person but as an ancient artifact. The
passage of time has dehumanized the ancients in the modern mind. Certainly, the people of the
pre-Classical world – at least some of them – were brilliant and talented and creative, but they
were not Us. They were an earlier version of Us, an earlier stage in the evolution of homo
civilizatus. They were our ancestors, our antecedents, but they were not Us, and they do not
deserve the respect we extend to full-fledged fellow human beings.
If they are not Us, then we can acknowledge their talent and brilliance in putting together a
masterpiece such as the Bible, and we can still cluck our tongues at their bumbling clumsiness.
You really couldn’t expect much more from the unfinished prototypes of the model that would
one day become Us. Still, you have to praise them for what they accomplished in spite of their
primitive shortcomings.
The adherents of Classical Judaism, however, do not view our ancestors as being inferior to
Us. Neither we nor any religious Christians or Muslims would ever consider excavating the
Tomb of the Patriarchs in Hebron, no matter how much curiosity we have about what we would
find there. We respect our ancient ancestors and we respect the text of the Bible, and we are
confident that the rabbinic method can provide reasonable answers to most of the questions
that can be raised about the text. And if we cannot find the answer, it is better to say “I don’t
know for the time being” than to butcher the text and, in the process, to butcher logic as well.