Concepts of Scripture in Yehezkel Kaufmann 231be examined, at least in scholarship, by means of the general principles
and analytical tools of empirical investigation. Kaufmann had no qualms
about discussing the history of the formation and transmission of bibli-
cal literature.
Kaufmann was, however, an independent critical thinker, and he recon-
sidered practically all the major theses in modern biblical criticism. In par-
ticular, he objected to the then-regnant theory of the German Protestant
biblicist Julius Wellhausen (1844 – 1918) — the notion of the Bible as a legacy
of a minority phenomenon in ancient Israel, refl ecting a gradual evolution
of monotheism from polytheism, or a primitive natural religion, during the
biblical period.6 Instead, Kaufmann considered the Bible to be a collective
product of ancient Israel, refl ecting monotheism as a popular phenomenon
from the beginning of the biblical period and as a religion fundamentally
diff erent from any other in antiquity.
Today, it is important for students of biblical studies to read Kaufmann’s
Toledot from two perspectives. First, it is a classic that has shaped contem-
porary Jewish biblical scholarship. Kaufmann’s infl uence is manifest in
the writings of distinguished Jewish biblicists of the succeeding genera-
tions such as Moshe Greenberg (1928 – 2010), Menahem Haran (1924 – ),
Jacob Milgrom (1923 – 2010), Yochanan Muff s (1932 – 2009), Nahum Sarna
(1923 – 2005), and Moshe Weinfeld (1925 – 2009).7 Second, his work still has
relevance for today’s biblical and religious studies — especially for phenom-
enological analyses of biblical monotheism. Th ough at times repetitive and
polemical, Toledot is distinguished by critical thinking, detailed textual
analysis, and vast and multifaceted erudition. As such, it helps us to refl ect
on how to think about the Bible as a cultural artifact.
In 1929, Kaufmann, while still preparing the manuscript of Toledot,
wrote, “It would seem that research into the Bible is considered at pres-
ent as trefah [baneful for Jews] but, perhaps as a result of my work, bibli-
cal studies may generally come to be considered kasher [acceptable].”8 Th is
statement is equivocal in its use of the terms trefah and kasher (theological
or cultural?) as well as the readership it refers to (religious Jews in particu-
lar or the broad Jewish readership, including the secular, in general?). Be
that as it may, Kaufmann does not seem to have conceived of the empirical
notion of the Bible as detrimental to Jewish identity. Th is chapter seeks to
elucidate this conception of the Bible.