Ani Maamin: Biblical Criticism, Historical Truth, and the Thirteen Principles of Faith

by Joshua A. Berman

For two centuries the academic study of the Bible has confronted the believing Jew with the most challenging of Are the accounts of the Tanakh historically accurate? Was there an Exodus? Why does the Torah provide multiple versions of its law and its stories? What are the warrants for believing the Torah is a divine text? Can a Jew seeking intellectual honesty maintain fidelity to the Thirteen Principles of Faith? The credentials Rabbi Dr. Joshua Berman brings to address these issues are unparalleled. An internationally acclaimed speaker, writer and educator, Rabbi Berman is also a professor of Tanakh at Bar-Ilan University and the author of two books published by Oxford University Press on the five books of the Torah. This landmark work is the first full-length treatment of these charged issues by an Orthodox thinker, offering the believing Jew an academically and traditionally based approach of spiritual and intellectual integrity.

Genres: Judaism, Jewish, History, Philosophy, Faith, Ancient History, Biblical Studies

334 pages, Hardcover

Published February 20, 2020

About the author

B.A. - Religion, Princeton University, 1987

PhD - Bible, Bar-Ilan University, 2002

Reviews

[Akiva Weisinger · Rating 5 out of 5]

It took me an embarrassingly long time to get around to reading this, but this book is the real deal. This ain't the apologetics you remember from yeshiva. His points are well researched, plausible, make good critiques of current assumptions in Biblical Criticism, and are accompanied by some pretty sneakily radical ideas about the nature of halakha and ikkar emunah, radicalism which is breath of fresh air in the current environment. This is a game changer and ought to be the starting point for Orthodox Jews interested in finding answers on this subject

[Reuven Klein · Rating 5 out of 5]

Reviewed by Rabbi Reuven Chaim Klein
In many ways, this book is an anthology of various essays and articles that Joshua Berman published in other places (plus lectures he gave for Torah in Motion) that he has brought together to present the layman with his take on how to understand the Bible. It is a less scholarly version of Berman’s earlier work Inconsistency in the Torah (Oxford University Press, 2017), which was previously reviewed by Simcha Rosenberg in JBQ, 46:2. Like Cassuto before him, Berman takes aim at Bible Critics for not applying their own rigorous standards of criticism to the theories which they heartily embrace. In doing so, his book offers a learned dismissal of the in-vogue methods of source criticism typified by Wellhausen’s Documentary Hypothesis. He instead reads the books of the Bible and other ancient texts as is, and thus proposes a fundamentally different way of understanding the Bible.
Berman’s book is actually comprised of two separate parts with little to no interaction between them. In the first part, he lays out his theory for understanding the Bible within its Ancient Near Eastern context. This part of the book advocates for a bold new approach towards looking at the Bible. Although this part of the book is more hermeneutical and scholarly, it is still presented in a way that it is readable to the layman without getting too technical.
The second part of this book discusses Maimonides' 13 Principles of Faith, especially focusing on his eighth principle which has often been understood to mean that the entire text of the Torah was given to Moses. In this part of the book, Berman traces the history of the acceptance of those principles within the Jewish community, and ultimately attempts to reduce the value of the 13 Principles of Faith to their apologetic effectiveness.
Berman opens his discussion on how the Bible must be read by citing Maimonides' Guide for the Perplexed which views many of the Torah's commandments, especially those related to ritual sacrifice, as helping wean the Jews from the practices of pagan idolaters. Maimonides cites from what he understood were ancient pagan (Sabian) texts to paint a picture of what sort of rituals those pagans engaged in, and explains that the Torah intends to help the Jews turn away from those particular practices.
For Berman, the takeaway from Maimonides' discussion is that if one wants to truly understand the Torah's intent, one must understand it in its Ancient Near Eastern context, which means that one must be familiar with similar works written in the same time and place as the Torah to better appreciate what the Torah means to do. Berman duly notes that even those classical commentators who strongly disagree with Maimonides' view on sacrifices (like Nahmanides and others) do not criticize him for his reliance on what was assumed to be ancient pagan texts. This shows that they too acknowledge the value in understanding the Torah in its Ancient Near Eastern context.
While Maimonides' endorsement of this approach is limited to using those sources to help clarify one's understanding of the pagan cults that surrounded the early Israelites, Berman cites Gersonides as extending this approach to even understanding a literary feature of the Torah: Gersonides notes that when recording the details of the instructions for constructing the Tabernacle and its implementation, the Torah heavily engages in seemingly-needless repetition. Gersonides accounts for this repetition by suggesting that it reflected a literary style that was in fashion in ancient times. What Berman draws from this is that Gersonides was sensitive to the fact that the Bible must be read as a product of its own time and place, and that we cannot impose our own contemporary literary conventions on the Bible. While we might find repetition messy or tedious, Berman notes that in ancient texts it was indeed a common literary device like Gersonides suspected.
Before proceeding with his endeavor, Berman cautions the reader with a caveat: He notes that reading the Bible in its Ancient Near Eastern context is not the only reading possible. It is, rather, one of multiple dimensions by which the Bible may be read. In making this point clear, Berman invokes the rabbinic concept of Shivim Panim la-Torah, that there are seventy ways to interpret any aspect of the Torah. Thus, his particular reading is just another one of those multiple possible reading, and should not displace or replace any of the other traditional ways to read the Bible.
Berman lays out his approach by first discussing the narrative sections of the Bible, asking whether they are actually historical or were even meant to reflect a historical reality. He warns the reader that we cannot impose our modern definitions of “truth/fact” and “falsehood/fiction” on an Ancient Near Eastern text in whose milieu such concepts did not yet exist. (It would be interesting to consider whether Berman’s assumptions are belied by Jan Assmann’s concept of the Mosaic Distinction, according to which it is the Bible itself which introduces those concepts to religious/cultic discourse.)
Instead of viewing the issue of the Bible’s historicity as a black-and-white, yes-or-no question, Berman urges the reader to see this question in shades of grey. Essentially, Berman argues that the stories in the Bible are comprised of a core nucleus that reflect an actual historical reality, but upon which rhetorical embellishments were overlaid. He brands this ancient genre “exhortative,” for its basic facts might be rooted in reality, but the purpose of the text is really to convey certain lessons based on the historical events that it relates and exhort its readership to undertaking or not undertaking certain actions.
In supporting this contention, Berman adduces several instances in which details of certain Biblical narratives (like direct quotes in dialogue or exact numbers of people in a group) were not meant to be understood as reflecting the historical reality of the stories they tell. Instead, those details are types of symbolic metaphors and allegories which appear in the text for their exhortative value in bolstering the overarching lesson of the story. If the purpose of the text was to relay historical information, then those details might be considered false and inaccurate. But since the purpose of the text is actually exhortative, these details are still valuable. Essentially, Berman understands that in the ancient world relaying what we would call “homiletics” or even “propaganda” was considered excusable if it furthered the general cause of the exhortation.
Taking this idea a step further, Berman explains away narrative inconsistencies between the first four books of the Pentateuch and the Book of Deuteronomy by arguing that they were said in different contexts. In a brilliant analysis of Deuteronomy, Berman finds similarities between that book and texts of vassal-client treaties in the Ancient Near East. At the Plains of Moab, when the Jews were on the cusp of entering the Land of Israel, they needed to “renew their vows” with God (so to speak) and reaffirm their commitment to the Sinaitic Covenant. The Book of Deuteronomy served to spell out the exact terms of that agreement.
Berman’s expertise in ancient epigraphy allows him to realize that these sorts of ancient treaty texts typically had a historical preamble which narrated the history of the relationship between the parties signing the deal,and that subsequent treaties between the same parties never consistently told the exact same story to introduce the terms of their agreement. Important details in those historical narratives would commonly fluctuate depending on the exact context of that particular treaty. These texts could also be branded exhortative in nature, as their purpose was to affirm or reaffirm commitments, while the historical elements were merely used as background, framing the context of the agreement.
In the same way, argues Berman, the historical narrative about the Jews’ exodus from Egypt, their receiving the Torah at Mount Sinai, and their subsequent failings were reframed in Deuteronomy with a specific exhortative context in mind, and thus understandably might differ from the details found in the earlier books of the Bible. In some ways, Berman has Moses, who he acknowledges wrote Deuteronomy, contra prevailing notions in academia, play God’s “hype man,” as he puts a different spin on historical facts for the purpose of upholding the covenant.
Berman then turns to the problem of legal inconsistencies in the Torah. He tries to resolve this issue by attempting to dispel the reader of the notion that the Torah’s laws are meant to be a code of statutory law to be applied as written. Instead, he urges the reader to view the Torah as a sort of common law corpus that presents a set of Divine values and principles, many of which were in opposition to Ancient Near East society (for example, the Bible’s destratification of society and its relatively egalitarian agenda) that allows future judges to make ad hoc legal decisions in each situation based on those values.
In a lecture entitled “Aspiring to Kedusha” that addresses the calls to introduce Biblical Criticism into Yeshiva University’s curriculum, the late Rabbi Aaron Soloveichik (1917–2001) explicitly rejected the notion that the Torah’s laws ought to be characterized as common law. He understands the fluid nature of common law to be on par with the fluidity of paganism which tends to be customized to its adherents’ whims. Instead, Rabbi Soloveichik understands Halakha to reflect a sort of highly-nuanced statutory law which calls for different rules in slightly different situations. Berman does not consider this possibility but instead presents statutory law as totally inflexible, which leads him to read the Bible as in a different light.
In the second part of his book, Berman ostensibly removes his “professor” hat and puts on his “rabbi” hat to discuss Maimonides’ 13 Principles of Faith. Nonetheless, certain academic assumptions pervade this section of his book, such that it is not merely a rabbinic dissertation but a critical analysis. It is almost like a separate book and has to be treated separately. In fact, the two halves of the book never reference each other.
The upshot of this section is that the whole concept of Principles of Faith in Judaism were only formulated in response to certain outside stimuli. In particular, he argues that Maimonides’ eighth principle about the entire Torah’s Mosaic origins was originally intended to counter Islamic claims that the Jews falsified the Torah. Berman shows how in Jewish communities where this libel was not in play, many prominent rabbinic commentators continued to assume that certain parts of the Pentateuch were post-Mosaic. This part of the book really deserves its own separate review. Instead of reviewing all his arguments in that section, I will suffice with quibbling over two small errors that appear therein:
On page 196, Berman writes that Rabbenu Hananel "wrote a brief commentary on the Torah, most of which was lost until the twentieth century." In fact, Rabbenu Hananel's commentary on the Torah remains effectively lost. Rabbi Charles Ber Chavel (1906–1982) compiled quotes cited in the name of Rabbenu Hananel from various sources, and published them in Mossad HaRav Kook's Perush Rabbenu Hananel al ha-Torah. It is this work which appears in the Torat Haim edition of the Pentateuch, not Rabbenu Hananel's actual commentary.
In a footnote on page 223, Berman refers to the commentary of Maharik to Hilkhot Terumot 11:1, and identifies Maharik as the 15th century Italian sage, Rabbi Joseph Colon ben Solomon Trabotto. While Trabotto did actually pen a commentary to some sections of Maimonides' laws (published by Eliyahu Dov Pines in 1971), he did not write on the laws of Terumot. Berman apparently meant to refer to the oft-cited commentary known as "Mahari Corcos," written by Rabbi Joseph Corcos (d. after 1575), who was born in Spain and, after the expulsion, moved to Egypt and then Jerusalem.
As the work of an ordained Orthodox rabbi and leading Biblical scholar, Joshua Berman's book is an attempt to seal the great fissure between traditional Judaism and academic Biblical scholarship. Does Berman's work actually bridge the gap between the two fields that James L. Kugel (another Orthodox Jew who is a prominent Bible scholar) has written "are and must always remain completely irreconcilable"? That question we leave to the reader.

[Ben Rothke · Rating 5 out of 5]

There is an old and well-known Yiddish aphorism - fuhn a kshya shtarbt men nisht - loosely translated as "no one ever died from a question." Of course, it is not absolute, but we now find that people often have spiritual deaths from specific theological questions that remain both unanswered, inadequately answered, and perhaps the worst, disdainfully dismissed.

Often these questions are in areas such as Torah and science, evolution, age of the universe, the veracity of certain stories and events in the Torah, and more. In Ani Maamin: Biblical Criticism, Historical Truth, and the Thirteen Principles of Faith, Rabbi Dr. Joshua Berman, professor of Bible at Bar-Ilan University, has written a remarkable work where he takes on three profound topics.

As the title implies, Berman takes on three heavyweight topics. These topics are terrifying to many due to both their sensitive and complex nature, in addition to easily being misconstrued. These fears originate from the fact that these topics are often seen as having traces of heresy, to which they are Kryptonite-like topics for a Jewish soul.

In his push to engage more people to be involved in kiruv, Rabbi Noach Weinberg would use the analogy of a person walking by a lake and seeing a person drowning. If the passerby does not know how to swim, then it is a tragic life lost. However, if the person walks by that lake every day and sees people constantly drowning, it is incumbent upon them to learn how to swim.

In the book, Berman masterfully deals with theological topics that many are drowning in, and in the book, sends the reader a life-preserver, both for themselves and those around them who may struggle with these unanswered questions.

The term Bible criticism is enough to make a traditional reader apoplectic. However, these issues must be addressed. And Berman's tour de force provides the readers with clear, non-apologetic answers to these questions.

Berman opens the book with an audacious yet fundamental point: that to fully understand the Torah and its way of conveying ideas and messages, we must seek to understand the Torah in its ancient Near Eastern context. It is undoubtedly an anachronism to think that the Jews that left Egypt thought in the same way that we do today.

By understanding the Torah in this context, Berman answers many of the questions raised by Bible critics. This includes the literary use of numbers in a way that is not intuitive to use today, repetition of stories, the use of common law versus statutory law, and more. Berman concludes the chapter by noting that the Torah displays an intimate familiarity with the realization of late second-millennium Egypt.

Other topics Berman discusses include the Exodus and its lack of historical proof, the flood story and its parallels in other cultures, source criticism (that the Torah derives from numerous sources, and the attempt to determine who wrote which parts), legal inconstancies and more.

Berman is an astute scholar, and his deep understanding of traditional sources, combined with his academic experience, creates a most engaging work. The average reader, including myself, is unequipped to deal with these questions. When academics raise valid questions that seem to undermine large swaths of Jewish history, philosophy, and thought, the stakes are quite high.

Berman not only brilliantly answers these questions, but he also takes those involved with source criticism (also known as higher criticism) to task. This approach attempts to identify the pre-existing sources from which they think the Torah is supposedly composed from. This approach attempts to use approaches and techniques that, that when placed against a near-Eastern context, fall apart.

The last part of the book deals with the Rambam's thirteen principles of the Jewish faith. While the first rabbinic figure to lay down a list of Judaism's fundamental beliefs was Rabbi Saadia Gaon in the 10th-century, it was the Rambam about 200 years later whose principles became the most well-known. The question is: how is it that something as central as fundamentals beliefs had never been produced until then?

We take the Rambam's thirteen principles of Jewish faith as an axiom. However, Berman observes that it took almost 700 years for the thirteen principles to achieve their level of dogma. It was not until 1888 that the thirteen principles were first invoked within a halachic ruling —that being by the Chofetz Chaim in Ahavas Chesed.

Perhaps the most striking thing in the book is the principle which notes that the entire Torah now found in our hands was the exact same one given to Moshe. Yet Berman writes that as early as the Baalei HaTosafos in the 12th-century, the sages realized that an error had fallen into the transmission of the texts of the Tanach, including the Torah. In fact, Rabbi Akiva Eiger lists dozens of discrepancies between the Masoretic text and the reading of various verses according to various Midrashim.

Logically, these observations are nothing short of damning. But when our sages were confronted with this, well before the Bible critics brought them to light, they responded with calm and confidence.

And that is precisely Berman's gift – he shows that there is nothing to be frightened of. One needs to understand these questions, even if they seem at first glance to undermine the core principles of Judaism, find the answers, and reply with that level of calmness and confidence.

There are endless questions and uncertainties the academic study of the Bible over the last century has introduced. Some of these questions are sophomoric, yet many of them are quite profound and legitimate. While these questions cannot be dismissed, there were very few addresses where one could go for answers. To which Berman comes to the rescue.

Berman is a gifted writer who answers these complex questions in a most accessible manner. In Ani Maamin, Berman has written a remarkable work that provides these answers. Even for those that are utterly disinterested in the academic questions, the brilliant and novel insights he provides add numerous layers of understanding that can only enhance one's appreciation for the Torah.

[Aurlyn · Rating 5 out of 5]

Full disclosure, I skimmed the last 1/3 of the book because I think the last section is more helpful for people practicing the Jewish faith. But I found the first 2/3 of the book riveting. Berman brought up seeming discrepancies within the OT that I’ve never examined or even honestly been aware of. But Berman’s point is that many of these discrepancies are actually explained by understanding the cultural context and the meaning of exhortation vs how we think of “historically accurate” texts today.

When we see numbers listed we want to take them literally. Jehoshaphat’s troops are listed as being 1,160,000 in 2 Chronicles? They must THAT big. But what about the fact that everything we know about Israel at that time is in conflict with one king having over a million and a half troops? But when you realize that this figure is EXACTLY double the size of his father Asa’s armies, and EXACTLY “equivalent to the sum of all the armies of the three kings of Judah who preceded him” you begin to realize the numbers are communicating something other than literal troop counts. They’re telling us “as a reward for his righteousness, Jehoshaphat commanded not only the largest army but, rhetorically speaking, an army so large that it doubled the size of his fathers armies and equaled the total of all those who preceded him.”


In another example, Berman goes through the story or Rahab in the book of Joshua and points out some pretty substantial evidence that parts of her narrative aren’t necessarily factual in terms of how we think of facts today. He notes, “The book of Joshua could have presented a “historically accurate” version of the story. But the story would have been greatly impoverished. It would have told us exactly what happened and the manner in which things were precisely said. It would have failed to give us the primary message: Rahab was a righteous woman, not only an opportunist, and thus fully worthy of being spared the fate of the other Canaanites. It is precisely the artifice of her monologue, the embroidery layered upon the base facts of the story, that gives us the truest presentation of the events: Rahab was worthy of being saved.”

[Naama · Rating 4 out of 5]

I had high hopes for this book, both because of the reviews I had read and because of its author. I came with some very interesting insights but also a little disappointed.

The book started out promising. The first part was devoted to positing some thought-provoking criticism of some of the basic premises of classic biblical criticism. R’ Berman provided modern, research-based alternatives to some of the basic ideas of 19th century thinkers as to the reasons for doublets, seeming numerical inaccuracies as well as inconsistencies. He used comparative literature, sources from the ancient world, and other modern techniques to bolster his argument that there are logical alternatives to the conclusions of classic biblical critics (OTOH, is talking about biblical criticism based on Wellhausen is a bit like talking about evolutions based on Darwin?).
Some of R’Berman’s stronger points were , IMHO: (a) drawing conclusions about what a cohesive text should look like based on our 19-21st century expectations doesn’t work – there is no reason for an ancient text to look/sound/read like anything written today; (b) there is no reason to think that this ancient text had been redacted and edited in a manner not done to any other ancient text from this time period.
R’ Berman also spent a long of time explaining how ancient texts were full of embellishments/symbolism and that we should expect no less from the Torah, as a ~13th Century BCE text. This was an interesting point but a bit of a tangent: I think the most pressing questions presented by biblical criticism aren’t about historical accuracy. Rather, they are about authorship.

The second half the book was devoted to showing that Maimonides’ 13 principles were never quite as clear, airtight and authoritative as they may seem. Not only are there possibly contradictory approaches to these principles within Maimonides’ various works, but it seems like there was a certain amount of fluidity given to their interpretation through the ages, nor were Jews who generally lived a committed lifestyle ever pushed away from the community based on a just a pointed divergent belief. These are all interesting points, but what I felt was lacking in the second half of the book was the kind of analysis that was done in the first part of the book. In the first half of the book there seemed to be much more of an openness to the legitimacy of currently available historical sources as a way of understanding the Torah. While the second half of the book did try to put the proponents and opponents of the 13 principles in their historical context (i.e. who was/wasn’t threatened by biblical criticism and how this affected their approach to principle 8 of the 13), what seemed glaringly missing from the analysis in the second part was putting Maimonides and the other scholars described in their scientific context. I really wonder how Maimonides would have penned the 13 principles if he were around today. Given his seemingly strong scientific proclivities, I doubt he would have shut out outside sources and evidence-based analysis in thinking about the 13 principles. I found the analysis in the second part of the book lacking in that the world of biblical criticism isn’t entirely based on just alternative readings but also on evidence-based approaches (i.e. the very approaches R’Berman takes in the first part of the book). I think the second part of the book should have addressed this point in talking about the limits of the Maimonidean approach. Imagine trying to parse out Maimonides’ view on the solar system without addressing the fact that he had lacked the scientific tools and knowledge to understand that the sun doesn’t revolve around the earth! The second part of the book just seemed to lack the intellectual honesty and openness that was so refreshingly evident in the first part of the book.

I just finished reading the book yesterday and I should probably let it settle for a bit. It was quite packed and perhaps I will have even more of an appreciation for it in time. I have no doubt that I learned a lot from R’Berman: his book was both informative and enlightening. However, the book does not provide The Answers. Far from it. It is just the beginning of a long, much needed dialogue within the Modern Orthodox community on the role of moderns scholarship and scientific techniques in understanding our sacred texts. While modern archeology could use a dose humility – whatever knowledge we have is like a handful of puzzle pieces in a 2,000 piece puzzle - if we rely in on the scientific method in every other facet of our lives, it important to be consistent and recognize its legitimacy and utility in understanding sacred texts. I think that this openness to modern analysis does emerge from the first half of R’Berman’s book - and it is stronger than any specific point he tries to make. I wish he would have opened the second half of the book to this idea as well.

[Israel Drazin · Rating 5 out of 5]

An excellent revelation of the style of the Torah

Rabbi Dr. Joshua A. Berman is a brilliant scholar, writer, and speaker. In his new book “Ani Maamin,” words that mean “I believe,” he answers questions that bothered Bible readers – Jews, Christians, and Muslims - for centuries, and answers them in an interesting, readable, eye opening, and engaging way. Why was the Bible written? How do we explain the biblical writing style? How do we reply to Bible critics? And much more. The author is a professor of Bible at Bar-Ilan University in Israel. While his ideas are innovative, this Orthodox rabbi’s views are accepted by educated observant Jews. For example, the “Journal of Orthodox Jewish Thought” published the first 27-page chapter of this book “The ‘Truth’ vs. Historical Accuracy of Tanakh” in its Winter 2010 issue.
The book is divided into two parts. The first part shows with many interesting examples that one can only comprehend the Bible, which was composed for ancient Israelites, by understanding the thinking and practices of the ancient Israelites and the people of other culture they encountered.
The common misconception is that the Five Books of Moses, the Pentateuch, was composed in divine language in a style that was appropriate when the Torah was written and today. This, of course, is impossible. How then was the Torah written?
Rabbi Berman states that since it is unachievable in a single book to address all issues, he will examine those that concern most people. He will present the academic arguments in ways that laymen can follow and offer solutions that they can easily grasp. He will make it clear that lay people, rabbis, and secular scholars need to realize that “for too long [they] ignored the ways and the degree to which the Torah is a literary creation of the ancient world.” The only way to fully reach the meaning of the Torah is to know how and why people wrote documents in the ancient Near East world.
For example, he says and demonstrates “that the way in which the legal texts were read and interpreted in the time of the Tanakh [Bible] is quite different from the way in which we read and interpret halakhic texts today….When we attain a greater understanding of the cultic practices of the ancient world, we can more fully appreciate how the Almighty accommodated Israel’s spiritual mindset” at the time the Torah was composed. The great sage Maimonides (1138-1204) pointed this out when he discussed the laws of sacrifices which were only appropriate for the ancients. So too did Gersonides (1288-1344) and many other prominent Jewish sages.
Another example is how history was treated in ancient times. We assume that “history” existed since the beginning of time. But the term “history” does not appear in the Bible and the ancient approach to it even in Greece and Rome is far different than our modern approach. “Only by grasping that difference can we understand how the Tanakh relates to us the events of the past.” He explains that “some aspects of the biblical accounts are not fully factual, but rather rhetorical.” He gives many examples where what is stated as apparent history is designed to teach ideas not facts about events. One of the discussions is about the exodus from Egypt. Another is census figures which are symbolisms.
He discusses many subjects that critics raise to belittle the Torah such as why the Torah repeats the episode of the construction of the Tabernacle twice, how do we explain narrative inconsistencies as the difference between two animals entering Noah’s ark and seven, why does the book of Deuteronomy differ in many ways from the prior four books even in the two versions of the Ten Commandments, how do we deal with the biblical version of the flood since other cultures gave similar yet in many ways unlike versions of the flood before the Torah was revealed, the differences between Torah and ancient political thought and, most significantly, did God reveal the Torah to Moses and, if God did so, did God also reveal the contents of the book of Deuteronomy.
The second half of this wise book focuses on Jewish beliefs. Maimonides wrote that there are thirteen principles of Judaism. But did he compose this list to aid the common people but did not himself believe all thirteen? What does each of the thirteen mean? Scholars and rabbis differ on this subject. There are scholars and rabbis on both sides ever since Maimonides published the list.
He discusses where and when did the idea of “fundamental principles originate, why were they developed, does the term “fundamental principles” suggest that there are other principles and, if so, what are they, what are the implications of a denial of one or more of the thirteen principles, what principles are mentioned in the Talmud, what does the Torah say, what was the debate between Sadducees and Pharisees regarding such issues as life after death and reward and punishment, what principles did Saadia Gaon (882-942) develop before Maimonides, was Saadia the first to list principles, why did he do so, did other ancient cultures have principles, did Christians develop principles before Jews did so, what kind of lists did other rabbis develop after Maimonides, and are the belief in the principles central to meriting the world to come as advocated by Rabbenu Hananel (965-1055)?
These are some of the many issues raised and answered by Rabbi Dr. Joshua Berman. Many are basic questions whose answers will help or detract from one’s acceptance of Judaism, or, more likely, modify the current ideas of most readers and give them a better understanding of the Torah, principles, and Judaism.

[Jackie · Rating 5 out of 5]

I don't actually think this is a five-star book. I give it five stars anyway, because this book is good enough at what it purports to be that it deserves the categorization as an "important" book, as others have called it, one that belongs on bookshelves in many places and that many people would be benefitted by reading.

Rabbi Dr. Joshua Berman sets out to write a book that is ideologically acceptable to an Orthodox lay readership and that takes on the questions of Torah and modern bible criticism without compromising on scholarly seriousness. His writing is excellent; his research and perspective is quite original; and his academic scholarly credentials are strong.

Berman's most original chapters incorporate finds from the Ancient Near Eastern context of the Torah to demonstrate that aspects of the Torah's narratives and laws had specific motifs and meaning within their specific context in ways that would not have been known to people in Babylonian or Persian times, or whatever times purported later redactors would have lived. Berman includes one chapter along these lines about the Exodus story (whose storytelling features seem to work off and one-up many details about Rameses's defeat of the Hittites in a way that only a contemporary of the Exodus would possibly have known), one about the entire function and structure of the Book of Deuteronomy (which clearly seems to be written in the style of King-vassal treaties, again a form that would have been well known in the Canaanite period but not in the Second Temple era), and one about the Flood narrative (which has much narrative parallel to the Epic of Gilgamesh's flood narrative, and also has a very intricate chiastic structure, both of which fall apart if one were to try to split the narrative into two separate stories).

These points are truly fascinating and do suggest, about these stories, that the Torah is as old as it claims to be, and that its stories developed in integral form, not as edited bits pasted together 700 years later.

There are aspects of this book that some might say don't meet the mark, both in terms of its loyalty to religious tradition and in terms of its scholarship.

In terms of the book's religious content, Berman is pretty full-throated in his support for the Bible as accurate and even divine. However, much of the interpretive approach that he relies on to defend the Bible's accuracy requires him to completely ignore the interpretations of the Torah Shebeal Peh. In these interpretations, and in the second half of the book in which he deals with the 13 Principles of Faith and the rabbinic traditions of allowing wiggle room around Principle #8 that all of the Bible is directly from G-d, some Orthodox Jews may become uncomfortable with Berman's conclusions.

And in terms of Berman's scholarship, Berman himself concedes at the end of the book that some may find his approaches "smack of rabbinic apologetics." There will certainly be some readers who find this, and who are dissatisfied that Berman is willing to take on the historicity of the Exodus while shying away from questions of the historicity of stories in Genesis, or that Berman contends with the doublets in the Flood narrative but doesn't attempt to reconcile other narrative doublets. In a few places, he suggests that if there are some problems with the Documentary Hypothesis, then the entire approach must be discarded, and his dismissiveness might read as apologetics to some readers.

The book's potential detractors from the left and from the right might mean that this book doesn't appear on as many high school library shelves as it should, or in as many university syllabi as it should.

But it really does belong in both places. I suspect that the intended audience of the book--Orthodox Jews who try to repress niggling issues of the Documentary Hypothesis and historical claims against the Torah--is a much, much larger demographic than anyone would care to admit. I recommend that people in that demographic read this book. And while this book won't make everyone happy, it will reassure many, many readers who would not be served well by the alternatives to this book (are there any alternatives anyway?).

[Shira · Rating 4 out of 5]

I was always taught that Judaism doesn't require much of you faith-wise, in contrast to Christianity. Then I encountered Maimonides' Thirteen Principles of Faith and was always a curious how they interacted with the baseline of "Judaism is action, not belief." So I have been meaning to read up about these, and this book delivered.

Early on in the book it makes clear its "aim to understand how the Torah appropriates and adapts foreign concepts and institutions and uses them in the service of bringing Israel to a higher theological understanding." So, "actual culture," historical contextualizing. As it's an Orthodox frame of reference it makes sense that it was able to do so without being snooty or condescending; it assumes that most of its audience has some belief in G-d (contrast Neil Gillman's The Death of Death, which seems quite geared towards Jewish atheists).

Fascinating to me that the words for "belief" did not exist at the time of the Torah.

It also had some interesting background involving Islam, quite relevant as I explore the Arab-Israeli conflict more deeply. I was not aware of Ibn Hazm's "The Book of Opinions on Religions, Sects and Heresies" and a particularly horrific antisemitic quote (see p. 198).

My favorite part of the book, and most relevant to this moment, was chapter 11 about The Thirteen Principles as "Boundary Marker." I love this terminology, which I am going to start using in my newfound criticisms of Zionism. Quote from the book:

"When a community is faced with a threat, the threat itself fosters a sense of mutuality and a feeling of unity among the people of the community by supplying a focus for group feeling...this same sense of bonding is engendered and fostered when a community faces secession by members who engage in what the community considers deviant acts. The deviant actions function in the same way as [] floods or fires do; they foster a sense of mutuality and group feeling among those who are committed to rejecting the deviant activity. The deviance makes the normative community members more alert to the interests they share in common and draws attention to the values that constitute the 'collective conscience' of the community."

Yeah.

And its conclusion is quite lovely:

"The fact that Jews have observed talmudic law in uninterrupted fashion over all that time and into our own in spite of every upheaval imaginable is nothing short of miraculous, and a sign of the divine imprint on it."


Flags:

References:
* Rasag, Emunot ve Deot Psalm 18:2
* R. David Freedman, "The Father of Modern Biblical Scholarship," Journal of the Ancient Near Eastern Society 19 (1989)
* Isadore Twersky, A Maimonides Reader (1972)
* Emile Durkheim, The Division of Labor in Society (1960)
* Adam Ferziger, Exclusion and Hierarchy: Orthodoxy, Nonobservance, and the Emergence of Modern Jewish Identity (2005).

[Daniel Goldman · Rating 5 out of 5]

Let me start with my bottom line, if you are not an expert on the claims of biblical criticism and are looking for a way to feel more confident about the rabbinic precept Torah M’Shamayim (Torah from Heaven), then I highly recommend Rabbi Professor Joshua Berman’s new book Ani Maamin (literally “I believe”).
It is no coincidence that Rabbi Berman (full disclosure, he is a neighbor and friend) dedicates this book to his gemara Rebbe through high school at Ramaz, in New York City. In his own words “challenging topics were never avoided and complexity was embraced.” Berman is not providing an easy prescription for how to solve the complicated matters of the divinity or the divine revelation of our Torah or of what is required of us to believe in order to be faithful Jews. Instead, he is offering academically rigorous alternatives to the many (young and old) that have questions and dilemmas or sense tension between belief on the one hand and academic study and scientific certainty on the other. If you will, he creates a healthy middle ground between what is, essentially a false choice: that you must either accept a specific academic narrative of the Torah’s origins, in which case you are a heretic, or you must accept a specific, fundamentalist account of the Torah’s origins, in which case you are a Jew of good standing.
For more see: https://blogs.timesofisrael.com/what-...

[Steve Gross · Rating 5 out of 5]

If the Documentary Hypothesis keeps you up at night, this is the book for you. As the title indicates, there are two parts to the book: a refutation of the DH and a reconciliation with Maimonides's 13 Principles. The latter is not as interesting as the former. The prose is clear albeit a touch academic and overlong in the second half, but overall a book that will reset your worldview. Highly recommended.

[Defaeco · Rating 1 out of 5]

Returned to to the library after the first chapter. That's seriously all that he has to say about Ancient Near East influences?
It reads like a Yeshiva apologetics guide while ignoring actual Biblical scholarship.

[Ben Vos · Rating 5 out of 5]

The first "important" new religious book that I've read for years! I don't read many, but still.

[Zelig · Rating 4 out of 5]

Very fascinating and thought provoking. An attempt to reconcile Orthodox Jewish beliefs with the modern findings in the realm of archaeology and textual critical theory.

[Julie Waldman · Rating 5 out of 5]

Fascinating!

[Avi · Rating 5 out of 5]

A superb introduction to biblical criticism in which Rabbi Dr Berman introduces the layman to some of the most pressing challenges facing a traditional reading of the Tanakh. Some of the many topics he touches on are source criticism, historical accuracy of biblical stories in the absence of evidence, and apparent inconsistencies in the narrative - mainly between Deu. and the other four books. It is impressive how he addresses each challenge in every chapter using his ancient Near Eastern expertise and it is through a historical ancient Near Eastern perspective that he manages to deconstruct the questions to the point that after some historical analysis many of the problems unravel themselves and no longer pose a difficulty.

The premise of his argument is that modern day readers - as well as bible critics - are heavily influenced by modern constructs and assumptions. It is our anachronistic way of understanding history, law, fact, fiction and authorship that is at the heart of these epic misunderstandings.

Bizarrely, Part II has very little to do with Part I. Equally interesting but perhaps slightly more technical and textual, Berman is fascinated with the development of the Rambam's famous catechism and proceeds to explore its supposed primordial basis and raison d'être. In his view, the primacy the 13 Principles enjoy today is a relatively modern phenomena and is not the ultimate theological boundary marker it is believed to be. Although this line of thinking is not new and his line of argument gets a bit long winded, the discussion is absorbing enough to get you through the last section. Putting aside the merits and demerits of his theory, it does feel like the book is comprised of two entirely different works woven together by a single thread - a common thesis of historical contextualisation.

While his overall 'Ancient Near Eastern' argument is compelling and manages to address some challenges, it does feel some of the questions are still stronger than his answers, and in fact, I even found some of the solutions reached through classical rabbinic harmonisation more convincing. The author places a premium on clarity and precision which at times comes across as repetitive but this is totally understandable given the sensitive nature of the topic at hand and the audience he intends to educate.
Nonetheless, it is an outstanding book and unique resource - I will no doubt revisit in the near future - that provides the reader with a new and different perspective that serves to highlight the depth and multidimensionality of the Torah. The fundamental idea in Part I is that the pshat must be understood in historical terms in order appreciate how timeless the Torah truly is. Part II just comes to inform you that you might not be as restricted as you think by the 13 Principles. Strongly recommend!

[James Dickey · Rating 5 out of 5]

I would recommend this to Christians and Jews alike. He engages modern scholarship at an accessible level and is eruditely skeptical of many assumptions of more "mainstream" scholarship, offering alternative ways of looking at things while remaining within a rigorous framework for addressing the issues at hand. I think I hear echoes of Umberto Cassuto in this book.