That perennial gadfly, Yeshayahu Leibowitz, complained about the "bibliolatry" of David Ben-Gurion and like-minded secular Zionists:
"Current attempts to identify Judaism with the Hebrew Bible, which is presented as proclaiming values, ideals, and a vision that "shine with their own light," are unrelated to the Halakhah and are independent of it. This kind of bibliolatry is Lutheran, not Jewish. Historically, Israel never lived or intended to live by Scripture, nor was it ever intended so to live religiously. Israel conducted its life in accordance with the Halakhah as propounded in the Oral Law. From the view-point of human values the above identification overrates the importance of the Bible. As instruments of moral education, Sophocles' Antigone or Kant's Grundlegung are possibly superior. As philosophy, the Bible's importance cannot compare to that of Plato or, again, Kant. Regarded as poetry, Sophocles or Shakespeare may surpass it. As history, Thucydides is certainly more interesting and profound. Only as the words of the living God is the Bible incommensurable with Sophocles and Shakespeare, Plato and Kant, Thucydides, or any other work of man. But what way have I of knowing that these twenty-four books are Holy Scripture other than through the Halakhah which canonized them?"
Возможно, стоит прочитать эссе Лейбовича целиком.
(источник - рецензия, сама по себе небезлюбопытная, на книгу How to Read the Bible: A Guide to Scripture, Then and Now, о которой написал LanguageHat и вызвал мое любопытство).