What do you think?
The Anchor Yale Bible Reference Library
Revelation and Authority: Sinai in Jewish Scripture and Tradition
Winner of the 2016 Goldstein-Goren Award for the best book in Jewish Thought
At once a study of biblical theology and modern Jewish thought, this volume describes a “participatory theory of revelation” as it addresses the ways biblical authors and contemporary theologians alike understand the process of revelation and hence the authority of the law. Benjamin Sommer maintains that the Pentateuch’s authors intend not only to convey God’s will but to express Israel’s interpretation of and response to that divine will. Thus Sommer’s close readings of biblical texts bolster liberal theologies of modern Judaism, especially those of Abraham Joshua Heschel and Franz Rosenzweig. This bold view of revelation puts a premium on human agency and attests to the grandeur of a God who accomplishes a providential task through the free will of the human subjects under divine authority. Yet, even though the Pentateuch’s authors hold diverse views of revelation, all of them regard the binding authority of the law as sacrosanct. Sommer’s book demonstrates why a law-observant religious Jew can be open to discoveries about the Bible that seem nontraditional or even antireligious.
At once a study of biblical theology and modern Jewish thought, this volume describes a “participatory theory of revelation” as it addresses the ways biblical authors and contemporary theologians alike understand the process of revelation and hence the authority of the law. Benjamin Sommer maintains that the Pentateuch’s authors intend not only to convey God’s will but to express Israel’s interpretation of and response to that divine will. Thus Sommer’s close readings of biblical texts bolster liberal theologies of modern Judaism, especially those of Abraham Joshua Heschel and Franz Rosenzweig. This bold view of revelation puts a premium on human agency and attests to the grandeur of a God who accomplishes a providential task through the free will of the human subjects under divine authority. Yet, even though the Pentateuch’s authors hold diverse views of revelation, all of them regard the binding authority of the law as sacrosanct. Sommer’s book demonstrates why a law-observant religious Jew can be open to discoveries about the Bible that seem nontraditional or even antireligious.
440 pages, Hardcover
First published June 30, 2015
About the author
Benjamin D. Sommer
10 books12 followersBenjamin D. Sommer is professor of Bible at the Jewish Theological Seminary. He lives in Teaneck, NJ.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 5 of 5 reviews
May 31, 2026
"Revelation and Authority" is at once an academic and a religiously Jewish book that argues for a participatory theory of revelation based on the Torah/Pentateuch itself, especially in light of biblical criticism. While sometimes quite lengthy and verbose, the concepts explored make this book worth the read. Sommer shows how Jewish scripture and tradition extends itself from the revelation at Sinai, a revelation which is itself described in ambiguous and contending terms that make up the Torah.
For example, according to Exodus 19-20, the people heard "qol," a word that can be translated as either "voice" or as "thunder" - making the nature of the revelation at Sinai ambiguous. If the Israelites heard a voice, they likely heard God providing specific information; if they heard a thunder, the revelation would not have been communicated in words, but instead Moses translates/puts words to the revelation. Drawing on the documentary hypothesis, Sommer further shows how the J/E/D/P sources provide contradictory interpretations of the revelation and lawgiving at Sinai: for E, lawgiving happened at two specific times; for P, lawgiving took place over many years and in multiple locations. For P and J, lawgiving happens through Moses; for D, the whole nation heard the Ten Commandments.
Sommer discusses the "maximalist" and "minimalist" theories of revelation, the transcription model vs. the translation/participatory theology model, drawing on both rabbinic and modern Jewish thinkers to show that the minimalist tradition is not as rare as one might think. He discusses the relationship of the Oral Torah and Written Torah in depth, arguing for a breakdown in the distinction: if the Pentateuch was not revealed stenographically, then what we have in the Written Torah is itself Oral Torah as it is a combination of the human and the divine; or rather, of the human engaging with, interpretating, elaborating, and extending the revelation at Sinai.
As demonstrated by the Pentateuch reading itself (e.g., D reading earlier sources) and the Hebrew Bible reading the Pentateuch (e.g., Ezra-Nehemiah both explaining and adding to Leviticus), scripture is itself tradition - and post-Hebrew Bible Jewish thought is merely a continuation and extension of that tradition. "Instead of an earthly talmudic law based on a heavenly Pentateuch, the participatory theory yields an earthly talmudic law based on an earthly Pentateuch that is in turn based on a heavenly, albeit nonverbal command" (p. 187). This fits well with Deuteronomy 5:2-3, which extends the covenant to every generation.
A few quotes from the book that expounds on the idea and its consequences:
"Removing the boundary between Written and Oral Torah opens up the conversation that is Jewish thought so that we can hear biblical and postbiblical interlocutors engaging one another" (p. 212).
"This does not mean that a religious Jew must accept everything the Bible says as true, but it does mean that everything it says must be considered and demands a response" (p. 218).
"Openness to multiple viewpoints that are left as they are without harmonization is characteristic of rabbinic culture, but it dates back at least to the time of the Pentateuch's compilation" (p. 224; e.g., when the redactor chose to combine multiple contradictory sources into one).
"Having taken everything of value from the older work while leaving out those parts they viewed as problematic or objectionable, the authors of Chronicles almost certainly intended the new work to supplant its sources. Deuteronomy and Chronicles were oriented toward unity in the basic sense that their authors wanted audiences to have single works presenting the law of Moses and the history of the monarchy respectively. But the attempts of D and the Chronicler did not succeed, since the Pentateuch ended up including both D and Exodus 21-23, while the Bible as a whole found room not only for Chronicles but also for Samuel and Kings. Thus, the final version of the canon presents us with multiplicity" (p. 227).
"Jews have always located practical religious authority in Oral Torah, without losing sleep over the fact that it is a mixture of divine and human elements. Imperfections within the realm of Oral Torah are universally acknowledged, even though debates about their extent occur. Classifying the Bible as Oral Torah allows us to acknowledge its ethical flaws, to counterbalance them with material from within the tradition, and thus to neutralize the flaws" (p. 237).
Finally, I enjoyed Sommer's concluding remarks, as he argues against the criticism that the participatory theory of revelation makes the boundaries of authentic Jewish thought infinitely elastic: "What unites the maximalist and minimalist schools of interpretation... is greater than what divides them," namely the worship of one God and a binding covenantal law (p. 246). He does admit that the differences between interpretations are consequential. The downside of the maximalist position is confidence and even arrogance that one know exactly what God wants, often leading to arrogance and intolerance towards others. The downside of minimalism is uncertainty that could lead to nonobservance. We ought to take the middle path:
"The malleability of the law is appropriate, because we realize that our forebears' acts of translation were fallible. This principle, however, is a double-edged sword. Insofar as we, too, innovate, we, too, may err. Just as our ancestors and forebears in ancient Israel must have misunderstood God's will when they authored the law requiring us to kill Amelakite babies in Exodus 17 and Deuteronomy 25, so, too, is it possible that we are sometimes mistaken as we attempt to apply God's command to our time... We have the right to change the tradition that is joint property we share with God and with our forebears, but only if we do so in fear and trembling. The awesome responsibility of interpreting and applying God's command cannot be an exercise in shaping the tradition in our own image, in making it hew to our predilections. Thus, the minimalist tradition can provide a foundation for halakhic change, but the humility so essential to the minimalist approach also tempers the pace and depth of change" (p. 248).
"If revelation is a dialogue, then I need to recall that in a dialogue, mine is not the only voice. Participating in any dialogue requires at times that one stop talking so that one can listen - how much the more so in a dialogue in which we are mere vassals [to God]! Part of our job in the Sinaitic dialogue is to be silent in God's presence in order to be open to God's voice. Further, we need to attend to the voices of the vassals who came before us. As we stand at Sinai, we remain in the presence of earlier members of Catholic Israel, whose voices in this dialogue continue to carry weight. The community o0f which we are part includes preceding generations, to whom we are responsible. For this reason, it is appropriate to allow older texts to moderate the pace of change" (p. 249).
For example, according to Exodus 19-20, the people heard "qol," a word that can be translated as either "voice" or as "thunder" - making the nature of the revelation at Sinai ambiguous. If the Israelites heard a voice, they likely heard God providing specific information; if they heard a thunder, the revelation would not have been communicated in words, but instead Moses translates/puts words to the revelation. Drawing on the documentary hypothesis, Sommer further shows how the J/E/D/P sources provide contradictory interpretations of the revelation and lawgiving at Sinai: for E, lawgiving happened at two specific times; for P, lawgiving took place over many years and in multiple locations. For P and J, lawgiving happens through Moses; for D, the whole nation heard the Ten Commandments.
Sommer discusses the "maximalist" and "minimalist" theories of revelation, the transcription model vs. the translation/participatory theology model, drawing on both rabbinic and modern Jewish thinkers to show that the minimalist tradition is not as rare as one might think. He discusses the relationship of the Oral Torah and Written Torah in depth, arguing for a breakdown in the distinction: if the Pentateuch was not revealed stenographically, then what we have in the Written Torah is itself Oral Torah as it is a combination of the human and the divine; or rather, of the human engaging with, interpretating, elaborating, and extending the revelation at Sinai.
As demonstrated by the Pentateuch reading itself (e.g., D reading earlier sources) and the Hebrew Bible reading the Pentateuch (e.g., Ezra-Nehemiah both explaining and adding to Leviticus), scripture is itself tradition - and post-Hebrew Bible Jewish thought is merely a continuation and extension of that tradition. "Instead of an earthly talmudic law based on a heavenly Pentateuch, the participatory theory yields an earthly talmudic law based on an earthly Pentateuch that is in turn based on a heavenly, albeit nonverbal command" (p. 187). This fits well with Deuteronomy 5:2-3, which extends the covenant to every generation.
A few quotes from the book that expounds on the idea and its consequences:
"Removing the boundary between Written and Oral Torah opens up the conversation that is Jewish thought so that we can hear biblical and postbiblical interlocutors engaging one another" (p. 212).
"This does not mean that a religious Jew must accept everything the Bible says as true, but it does mean that everything it says must be considered and demands a response" (p. 218).
"Openness to multiple viewpoints that are left as they are without harmonization is characteristic of rabbinic culture, but it dates back at least to the time of the Pentateuch's compilation" (p. 224; e.g., when the redactor chose to combine multiple contradictory sources into one).
"Having taken everything of value from the older work while leaving out those parts they viewed as problematic or objectionable, the authors of Chronicles almost certainly intended the new work to supplant its sources. Deuteronomy and Chronicles were oriented toward unity in the basic sense that their authors wanted audiences to have single works presenting the law of Moses and the history of the monarchy respectively. But the attempts of D and the Chronicler did not succeed, since the Pentateuch ended up including both D and Exodus 21-23, while the Bible as a whole found room not only for Chronicles but also for Samuel and Kings. Thus, the final version of the canon presents us with multiplicity" (p. 227).
"Jews have always located practical religious authority in Oral Torah, without losing sleep over the fact that it is a mixture of divine and human elements. Imperfections within the realm of Oral Torah are universally acknowledged, even though debates about their extent occur. Classifying the Bible as Oral Torah allows us to acknowledge its ethical flaws, to counterbalance them with material from within the tradition, and thus to neutralize the flaws" (p. 237).
Finally, I enjoyed Sommer's concluding remarks, as he argues against the criticism that the participatory theory of revelation makes the boundaries of authentic Jewish thought infinitely elastic: "What unites the maximalist and minimalist schools of interpretation... is greater than what divides them," namely the worship of one God and a binding covenantal law (p. 246). He does admit that the differences between interpretations are consequential. The downside of the maximalist position is confidence and even arrogance that one know exactly what God wants, often leading to arrogance and intolerance towards others. The downside of minimalism is uncertainty that could lead to nonobservance. We ought to take the middle path:
"The malleability of the law is appropriate, because we realize that our forebears' acts of translation were fallible. This principle, however, is a double-edged sword. Insofar as we, too, innovate, we, too, may err. Just as our ancestors and forebears in ancient Israel must have misunderstood God's will when they authored the law requiring us to kill Amelakite babies in Exodus 17 and Deuteronomy 25, so, too, is it possible that we are sometimes mistaken as we attempt to apply God's command to our time... We have the right to change the tradition that is joint property we share with God and with our forebears, but only if we do so in fear and trembling. The awesome responsibility of interpreting and applying God's command cannot be an exercise in shaping the tradition in our own image, in making it hew to our predilections. Thus, the minimalist tradition can provide a foundation for halakhic change, but the humility so essential to the minimalist approach also tempers the pace and depth of change" (p. 248).
"If revelation is a dialogue, then I need to recall that in a dialogue, mine is not the only voice. Participating in any dialogue requires at times that one stop talking so that one can listen - how much the more so in a dialogue in which we are mere vassals [to God]! Part of our job in the Sinaitic dialogue is to be silent in God's presence in order to be open to God's voice. Further, we need to attend to the voices of the vassals who came before us. As we stand at Sinai, we remain in the presence of earlier members of Catholic Israel, whose voices in this dialogue continue to carry weight. The community o0f which we are part includes preceding generations, to whom we are responsible. For this reason, it is appropriate to allow older texts to moderate the pace of change" (p. 249).
January 10, 2016
Benjamin Sommer presents an eye opening recounting of the different versions of how Israel receive the Ten Commandments and the rest of the Torah at Mt.Sinai by examining the different versions both within Exodus as well as in Deuteronomy. He points out how the different authors, viz., E, P, J, etc dealt with whether the issue of whether revelation was received directly by Israel from God or whether it was stenographicaly recorded by Moses and then presented to Israel. This had great import as to whether humans interpreted God's law and the implications as to the continued reinterpretations as seen in the Talmud. Much discussion as to the primacy of the Oral Tradition over the Written Tradition. ( Moses only wrote down the Torah 40 years after Sinai.) an excellent example of the analysis of who wrote the Torah by using the example of Sinai.
September 29, 2019
Fascinating read, with some fairly challenging conclusions about the distinctiveness of the Tanakh vs. later trads.
October 14, 2023
Amazing book! The book is written from a historical/critical viewpoint, but the author is a religious Jew who loves the material. There is a large chapter on the multiple sources of the pentateuch. Prof Sommer adopts a "neodocumentarian" approach to JEDP. The second half of the books looks at what scripture reveals about God, from the view of Jewish philosophers like Rosensweig and Heschel. Can't recommend this highly enough for Christian readers interested in biblical study.
March 29, 2024
C'est un de mes livres préférés !!!
Il s'agit d'une lecture fascinante sur le concept de révélation dans le judaïsme, dans lequel l'auteur arrive à concilier un point de vue critique et historique avec sa spiritualité, en se servant de la critique biblique mais également de penseurs tels que Heschel et Rosenzweig.
Il s'agit d'une lecture fascinante sur le concept de révélation dans le judaïsme, dans lequel l'auteur arrive à concilier un point de vue critique et historique avec sa spiritualité, en se servant de la critique biblique mais également de penseurs tels que Heschel et Rosenzweig.
Displaying 1 - 5 of 5 reviews