For what purpose, if any, is the Tanakh replete with contradictions? The following is an attempt to unravel the arguments.

Three glaringly obvious contradictions are: those in the realms of homosexuality; of disability and of the treatment of animals.

David, though the online JPS Tanakh 1917 version is silent on the matter of sexual relations, is said in the same Tanakh, to have had close relations with Jonathan, the son of Saul.

Unlike the denizens of Sodom and Gomorrah who were not forgiven for their attempted sexual assault on Lot’s visitors, David was first admonished, then – to all intents and purposes quickly – forgiven for this “infraction”, as it turned out to be.

David, moreover, once he was anointed king over the whole of Israel, showed kindness to Jonathan’s son, Mephiboshet and his other descendants.

Are we to conclude that, where homosexuality is concerned, the case before us is more nuanced than that assumed by anyone reading no further than the five books of Moses? Are we to understand that, for example, love between same sex humans, if it is stronger than love between man and woman, is acceptable?

David, driven by lust, saw off Batsheba’s husband, Uriah the Hittite, in order to make her his wife. David was eventually forgiven for this transgression of a commandment, leaving some of us to conclude that homosexuality was not worse, not better than taking one’s neighbor’s wife, though the former was not so bad that it earned a place amongst the 10 commandments.

A reading of I and II Samuel, will confirm that David was a good man and he was a good king; but one wonders what retribution others have faced for such infractions – others who were not, like David, anointed as kings.

Where, we ask, are the lines drawn for those who have sinned: are we to understand that David’s two sins fell short of making him abhorrent? Was David let off because the need of Israel and Judah for a relatively good leader was more pressing than the need for redemption?

Similarly, questions present themselves when we consider the case of Mephiboshet and the treatment of animals.

Mephiboshet was crippled when he was young, but David, knowing – or not knowing – God’s adjuring to look askance at those humans and animals who were imperfect, showed great kindness towards him.

The third example of contradictory injunctions was God’s commandment not to cook meat in the milk of the animal being prepared, which to all intents and purposes seemed to override the law that humans were to reign over the animal kingdom. This dietary prohibition, after all, a recognition of the need to respect animals.

Are all possible contradictions necessary in order that God Himself; His judgment and Kingliness are not questioned? According to the author of I Samuel, God very reluctantly agreed that Saul be anointed king.

Or can it be said that it is possible to both say, The God of the Tanach may exist and yet that this God may not exist? – ie to make the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob the subject of an antimony?

Who is the writer to ask such a question?

If God had a hand in it, then the answer may go either way.

Again, who is the writer to say?

© The Times of Israel (Blogs)