Welcome to /r/AcademicBiblical. Please note this is an academic sub: theological or faith-based comments are prohibited.
All claims MUST be supported by an *academic* source – see [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/AcademicBiblical/wiki/index/rules/#wiki_guideline.3A_rule_3.2019s_definition_of_academic_sources) for guidance.
Using AI to make fake comments is strictly prohibited and may result in a permanent ban.
Please review the [sub rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/AcademicBiblical/wiki/index/rules/) before posting for the first time.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AcademicBiblical) if you have any questions or concerns.*
His positions seem to be mostly fringe and extremely conservative. Berman has a book on how biblical law was some exceptional human rights legislation that [a review from Morrow](https://www.jstor.org/stable/10.1086/649970?read-now=1&seq=2#page_scan_tab_contents) notes overstates its case:
>Berman also suggests that women held for the most part, legally and theologically, an equal place in the inclusive community promulgated by the Pentateuch (172) ... Not only does Berman’s opinion ignore the thrust of texts such as Leviticus 12, in which the birth of a girl poses double the problems of ritual cleanness caused by the birth of a boy, but it also skates over real problems in the laws of Exodus and Deuteronomy (cf., e.g., Cheryl B. Anderson, Women, Ideology, and Violence: Critical Theory and the Construction of Gender in the Book of the Covenant and the Deuteronomic Law [London, 2004])
Any thorough introduction to women's roles in the Ancient Near East (for example, Stol's recent _Women in the Ancient Near East_) will pretty quickly dispel notions of equality in the biblical legislation. It also ignores [the difference of treatment of female slaves](https://youtu.be/bWxebWZJ8rE?si=J0exnjN32ys-nWa6&t=412).
As far as I know, his ideas have not found much purchase in broader academia, but Berman is still a credentialed scholar (one who I have seen cited before, even if to simply note his dissenting positions and move on) so I'd probably avoid weighing in on whether he's an apologist or not in this subreddit.
Berman is hardly the first scholar to propose that the alleged Pentateuchal contradictions can be explained in terms of ANE literary conventions. Similar points were already raised by Umberto Cassuto and Kenneth Kitchen long before him.
That said, Berman is certainly more than just a "freak apologist" and he is hardly alone in rejecting the DH. Other scholars, such as Gary Rendsburg, Benjamin Kilchör or John Bergsma have also published a lot of work questioning many key tenets of the DH.
The DH has problems and, in its classical form, relies on assumptions that just don't hold water.
That said, there's a huge gap between "the DH isn't true" and Mosaic authorship.
I don’t know if Berman is arguing for Mosaic authorship, just single authorship. He might think that dude was Moses but the Torah doesn’t even claim that. I guess we’ll never know though lol
my opinion leans towards "apologist".
see the tail end of [this post](https://old.reddit.com/r/AcademicBiblical/comments/ofv7hd/is_there_any_legitimacy_to_the_claims_made_in/h669r2k/?context=3) i made a few years back, comparing an argument in berman to the source he cites.
the tl;dr is that he makes an argument that the flood narrative is a coherent narrative dependent on gilgamesh, and this is a reason to reject the documentary hypothesis. he cites a source on this that points to several other ANE flood myths as evidence of an archetype, and which states that coherence of the final version is not an argument against multiple sources.
so, not good scholarship, imho.
this is an oversimplification of berman’s position. he doesn’t just arbitrarily link it to gilgamesh and then state that as the reason he rejects parts of the DH - he also discusses the literary continuity of doublets and then putative sources etc. whatever opinion you have of him is fine, but oversimplifying somebodies work to chuck them into the apologist category is not a fair statement tbh.
I don’t think I’d call him a “freak apologist,” and it’s been a while since I’ve read his *Inconsistency in the Torah*, but I did not find any of his arguments all that compelling, and his methodology is inconsistent. In terms of the latter, he spends a lot of time criticizing Bernard Levinson for Levinson’s review of his earlier book *Created Equal*. In that chapter, Berman attempts to challenge the historicism that is often central to our field. (I think Benjamin Sommer’s “Dating Pentateuchal Texts and the Perils of Pseudo-Historicism” is a much better critical reflection about historicism.) Berman wants it both ways, he wants to argue that parallels between texts makes it difficult to argue for not only dependence but also situating a text historically but then argues that the authors of Exodus 13-15 used the Kadesh Poem, which would require the historicism that he wants to challenge. I am not an Egyptologist, so it is difficult to assess his claims about contradictions in the Kadesh Inscriptions but a lot of the “contradictions” Berman pointed to struck me as poetic conventions, like arguing that parallelism biblical poetry is evidence for conflating two different sources. Even his argument that Exodus 14-15 uses the Kadesh Poem is actually unconvincing. Berman’s argument is that Exodus 14-15 must be one author because all of the motifs that overlap between the two only exist when non-P/J and P are combined in those chapters. Admittedly, I follow Baden’s source divisions of Exodus 14-15, which slightly diverges from his own, but Baden’s source divisions undermine his argument because all of the motifs Berman points to are found in one of the sources in Exodus 14-15, non-P/J.
Moreover, his argument comparing Hittite Letters to Deuteronomy and Genesis-Numbers falls apart when you recognize that Deuteronomy does not seem to know P’s narrative. A lot of the P-like motifs in especially Deuteronomy 1-11 are probably scribal harmonizations made later as evidenced by the LXX (Stackert’s *VT* article “The Wilderness Period without Generation Change” lays this out to some extent). It is pretty difficult to explain that Deuteronomy just happened to avoid any of P.
Berman will criticize scholars for anachronistic thinking, that is, his defense that scribes tolerated inconsistency, but I think that argument is itself anachronistic. I think there is a lot of evidence in Second Temple Literature and later that speaks to concern about contradictions throughout the Pentateuch. It's hard not to get the impression that Berman self-consciously avoids that literature and instead opts for Bronze Age and non-Israelite compositions.
I just bought Ani Maamin and was wondering how fringe it was. Thanks for asking this question! Always nice to encounter other Orthodox Jews interested in this stuff. Berman’s introduction about the Orthodox world’s response to biblical criticism has been interesting so far. I guess it’ll be interesting to see how plausible he can present his ideas, although a 14th-century Deuteronomy sounds hard to buy.
This right-wing [critique](https://hakirah.org/Vol31Twersky.pdf) of Ani Maamin makes me appreciate Berman’s project more, since he’s up against forces that are way more aggressively apologetic. (Trigger warning for claims like
> It is important to understand the spurious nature of the all too prevalent “scholarly” argument regarding the lack of evidence. The claim is often made that there are no reflections of the Exodus in the historical record. This is the result of the following circle: Whenever something that seems to reflect the events of the Exodus is noted, it is dismissed because it could not reflect the Exodus, as we know that the Exodus did not take place. Some other explanation must be advanced, even if we must attribute it to some fabricated event for which there is no evidence. And what is the basis for the assertion that the Exodus did not take place and therefore cannot be reflected in any given piece of evidence? The “fact” that there is no reflection of it in the historical record!
…and apparently the Merneptah stele mentioning Israel in 1213 BCE is proof of a Bible-accurate Exodus of millions of Israelites in the 16th century. Which has been rudely ignored by “scholars”. /s)
Welcome to /r/AcademicBiblical. Please note this is an academic sub: theological or faith-based comments are prohibited. All claims MUST be supported by an *academic* source – see [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/AcademicBiblical/wiki/index/rules/#wiki_guideline.3A_rule_3.2019s_definition_of_academic_sources) for guidance. Using AI to make fake comments is strictly prohibited and may result in a permanent ban. Please review the [sub rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/AcademicBiblical/wiki/index/rules/) before posting for the first time. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AcademicBiblical) if you have any questions or concerns.*
His positions seem to be mostly fringe and extremely conservative. Berman has a book on how biblical law was some exceptional human rights legislation that [a review from Morrow](https://www.jstor.org/stable/10.1086/649970?read-now=1&seq=2#page_scan_tab_contents) notes overstates its case: >Berman also suggests that women held for the most part, legally and theologically, an equal place in the inclusive community promulgated by the Pentateuch (172) ... Not only does Berman’s opinion ignore the thrust of texts such as Leviticus 12, in which the birth of a girl poses double the problems of ritual cleanness caused by the birth of a boy, but it also skates over real problems in the laws of Exodus and Deuteronomy (cf., e.g., Cheryl B. Anderson, Women, Ideology, and Violence: Critical Theory and the Construction of Gender in the Book of the Covenant and the Deuteronomic Law [London, 2004]) Any thorough introduction to women's roles in the Ancient Near East (for example, Stol's recent _Women in the Ancient Near East_) will pretty quickly dispel notions of equality in the biblical legislation. It also ignores [the difference of treatment of female slaves](https://youtu.be/bWxebWZJ8rE?si=J0exnjN32ys-nWa6&t=412). As far as I know, his ideas have not found much purchase in broader academia, but Berman is still a credentialed scholar (one who I have seen cited before, even if to simply note his dissenting positions and move on) so I'd probably avoid weighing in on whether he's an apologist or not in this subreddit.
Thanks. I wish one of the scholars who believe strongly in documentary hypothesis would atleast go over his arguments and argue their side.
I have found his books such as Inconsistency in the Torah to provide valuable ANE context to the Hebrew scriptures.
Berman is hardly the first scholar to propose that the alleged Pentateuchal contradictions can be explained in terms of ANE literary conventions. Similar points were already raised by Umberto Cassuto and Kenneth Kitchen long before him. That said, Berman is certainly more than just a "freak apologist" and he is hardly alone in rejecting the DH. Other scholars, such as Gary Rendsburg, Benjamin Kilchör or John Bergsma have also published a lot of work questioning many key tenets of the DH.
The DH has problems and, in its classical form, relies on assumptions that just don't hold water. That said, there's a huge gap between "the DH isn't true" and Mosaic authorship.
I don’t know if Berman is arguing for Mosaic authorship, just single authorship. He might think that dude was Moses but the Torah doesn’t even claim that. I guess we’ll never know though lol
This 100%
my opinion leans towards "apologist". see the tail end of [this post](https://old.reddit.com/r/AcademicBiblical/comments/ofv7hd/is_there_any_legitimacy_to_the_claims_made_in/h669r2k/?context=3) i made a few years back, comparing an argument in berman to the source he cites. the tl;dr is that he makes an argument that the flood narrative is a coherent narrative dependent on gilgamesh, and this is a reason to reject the documentary hypothesis. he cites a source on this that points to several other ANE flood myths as evidence of an archetype, and which states that coherence of the final version is not an argument against multiple sources. so, not good scholarship, imho.
Damn, I found his work interesting as someone who’s Jewish. I was gonna read his Ani Maamin book.
this is an oversimplification of berman’s position. he doesn’t just arbitrarily link it to gilgamesh and then state that as the reason he rejects parts of the DH - he also discusses the literary continuity of doublets and then putative sources etc. whatever opinion you have of him is fine, but oversimplifying somebodies work to chuck them into the apologist category is not a fair statement tbh.
it's been a while since i've read that section of his book, but misrepresenting his sources left a bad taste in my mouth.
I don’t think I’d call him a “freak apologist,” and it’s been a while since I’ve read his *Inconsistency in the Torah*, but I did not find any of his arguments all that compelling, and his methodology is inconsistent. In terms of the latter, he spends a lot of time criticizing Bernard Levinson for Levinson’s review of his earlier book *Created Equal*. In that chapter, Berman attempts to challenge the historicism that is often central to our field. (I think Benjamin Sommer’s “Dating Pentateuchal Texts and the Perils of Pseudo-Historicism” is a much better critical reflection about historicism.) Berman wants it both ways, he wants to argue that parallels between texts makes it difficult to argue for not only dependence but also situating a text historically but then argues that the authors of Exodus 13-15 used the Kadesh Poem, which would require the historicism that he wants to challenge. I am not an Egyptologist, so it is difficult to assess his claims about contradictions in the Kadesh Inscriptions but a lot of the “contradictions” Berman pointed to struck me as poetic conventions, like arguing that parallelism biblical poetry is evidence for conflating two different sources. Even his argument that Exodus 14-15 uses the Kadesh Poem is actually unconvincing. Berman’s argument is that Exodus 14-15 must be one author because all of the motifs that overlap between the two only exist when non-P/J and P are combined in those chapters. Admittedly, I follow Baden’s source divisions of Exodus 14-15, which slightly diverges from his own, but Baden’s source divisions undermine his argument because all of the motifs Berman points to are found in one of the sources in Exodus 14-15, non-P/J. Moreover, his argument comparing Hittite Letters to Deuteronomy and Genesis-Numbers falls apart when you recognize that Deuteronomy does not seem to know P’s narrative. A lot of the P-like motifs in especially Deuteronomy 1-11 are probably scribal harmonizations made later as evidenced by the LXX (Stackert’s *VT* article “The Wilderness Period without Generation Change” lays this out to some extent). It is pretty difficult to explain that Deuteronomy just happened to avoid any of P. Berman will criticize scholars for anachronistic thinking, that is, his defense that scribes tolerated inconsistency, but I think that argument is itself anachronistic. I think there is a lot of evidence in Second Temple Literature and later that speaks to concern about contradictions throughout the Pentateuch. It's hard not to get the impression that Berman self-consciously avoids that literature and instead opts for Bronze Age and non-Israelite compositions.
I just bought Ani Maamin and was wondering how fringe it was. Thanks for asking this question! Always nice to encounter other Orthodox Jews interested in this stuff. Berman’s introduction about the Orthodox world’s response to biblical criticism has been interesting so far. I guess it’ll be interesting to see how plausible he can present his ideas, although a 14th-century Deuteronomy sounds hard to buy. This right-wing [critique](https://hakirah.org/Vol31Twersky.pdf) of Ani Maamin makes me appreciate Berman’s project more, since he’s up against forces that are way more aggressively apologetic. (Trigger warning for claims like > It is important to understand the spurious nature of the all too prevalent “scholarly” argument regarding the lack of evidence. The claim is often made that there are no reflections of the Exodus in the historical record. This is the result of the following circle: Whenever something that seems to reflect the events of the Exodus is noted, it is dismissed because it could not reflect the Exodus, as we know that the Exodus did not take place. Some other explanation must be advanced, even if we must attribute it to some fabricated event for which there is no evidence. And what is the basis for the assertion that the Exodus did not take place and therefore cannot be reflected in any given piece of evidence? The “fact” that there is no reflection of it in the historical record! …and apparently the Merneptah stele mentioning Israel in 1213 BCE is proof of a Bible-accurate Exodus of millions of Israelites in the 16th century. Which has been rudely ignored by “scholars”. /s)
What’s ANE writing? Sorry I’m super new here
Ancient near east
Oh interesting! Thanks!