Scan barcode
Reviews
The Book of Exodus: The Making and Meaning of Bob Marley and the Wailers' Album of the Century by
nickjagged's review against another edition
2.0
Feels like dipping my toe into critical Bible scholarship and coming up with an extremely talkative and insistent author clamped on. As much as I'm turned off by the tone, I really enjoyed a few of the insights he brought up, particularly the ones relating to poetic significance. The segments on physical anthropology, on the other hand, were dull as (sorry!) dirt. A mixed bag, but I'm glad I picked it up.
jbmorgan86's review against another edition
2.0
I appreciate when biblical scholars attempt to give academia a popular-level treatment. The scholar may recount basic arguments from the world of academia (which is refreshing to me), lengthy arguments are boiled down to their essential points, and the author lets his/her personality shine through. Therefore, I was delighted when I saw this book by Richard Elliott Friedman at Barnes & Noble. Since I am teaching a Sunday school class on Exodus, I decided to pick up a copy.
The book is entitled "Exodus," but really only about a third of it is about the exodus. Friedman does believe that the exodus is historical, but he does not believe it happened the way the Bible describes it. His basic argument is that it was not all of the children of Israel who fled Egypt, but only the tribe of Levi. The Levites (who worshipped Yahweh) had to settle into the land of Canaan with the other tribes of Israel (who worshipped El or Elohim). The Conquest did not happen. Eventually Levi fully integrated into Israel and their story became the story of all Israel.
The second third of the book is about literacy in Israel. Interestingly, he argues that literacy was widespread in Israel and quotes Christopher Rollston in this section. Dr. Rollston was my seminary professor and he actually argues the opposite, that literacy was not widespread in ancient Israel!
The last third of the book is about the rise of monotheism. Not much of this is new information. Scholars such as Frank Moore Cross, Mark S. Smith, Christopher Rollston, and others have been arguing for the evolution of monotheism in Israel for decades.
While I found Friedman's Levite theory interesting, I do not find it convincing. Friedman makes some bizarre leaps of logic. For example, he cites three examples of the Tribe of Levi's history of violence. THEREFORE, that explains why the Levites claimed a city in each tribal allotment of territory. Three times God talks in the first person plural, but this all stops at the Tower of Babel. THEREFORE, this is where all of the other gods of the pantheon died. This kind of logic runs throughout the book.
The book is entitled "Exodus," but really only about a third of it is about the exodus. Friedman does believe that the exodus is historical, but he does not believe it happened the way the Bible describes it. His basic argument is that it was not all of the children of Israel who fled Egypt, but only the tribe of Levi. The Levites (who worshipped Yahweh) had to settle into the land of Canaan with the other tribes of Israel (who worshipped El or Elohim). The Conquest did not happen. Eventually Levi fully integrated into Israel and their story became the story of all Israel.
The second third of the book is about literacy in Israel. Interestingly, he argues that literacy was widespread in Israel and quotes Christopher Rollston in this section. Dr. Rollston was my seminary professor and he actually argues the opposite, that literacy was not widespread in ancient Israel!
The last third of the book is about the rise of monotheism. Not much of this is new information. Scholars such as Frank Moore Cross, Mark S. Smith, Christopher Rollston, and others have been arguing for the evolution of monotheism in Israel for decades.
While I found Friedman's Levite theory interesting, I do not find it convincing. Friedman makes some bizarre leaps of logic. For example, he cites three examples of the Tribe of Levi's history of violence. THEREFORE, that explains why the Levites claimed a city in each tribal allotment of territory. Three times God talks in the first person plural, but this all stops at the Tower of Babel. THEREFORE, this is where all of the other gods of the pantheon died. This kind of logic runs throughout the book.
socraticgadfly's review against another edition
2.0
I grokked this book at a library when it first came out. I soon enough saw enough of the thesis to know that I wasn't convinced. Still not convinced, not from the book, Friedman's blog or others.
First, the fact that Levites have Egyptian names means nothing. So did Moses, as Friedman claims, and Moses never existed. And, I think Friedman also rejects claims of Moses' historicity, based on rejecting a "traditional" Exodus claim. If he believes Moses is not historical, then why believe these Levites are historical just because of Egyptian names?
Second, I've never before heard the E strand of the Torah called "Levite."
Third, while I lean toward some version of the documentary hypothesis, I know that fragmentary hypothesis modifications and tendrils are part of the history of the writing of sections of the Torah.
Fourth, as Friedman knows, the relations between Levites and priesthood, and the nature of the priesthood and its putative origins, are more complex than he puts forth. It's more than simple opposition between self-identified followers of Moses and self-identified followers of Aaron — who is also, of course, not a historical person.
And, I must have missed this when I read Friedman's "Who Wrote the Books of the Bible?" No, P didn't write in the time of Hezekiah. That's simply incorrect. So is his reasoning why. If there was no historic Moses and no historic exodus, there is no bronze serpent created by Moses and venerated by Moses-followers for Hezekiah to have destroyed in the name of Aaronic followers.
This would be like Dominicans claiming the Shroud of Turin was created by St. Dominic and the current pope destroying it to uplift Franciscans.
Fifth, Egypt-type ideas are borrowed in biblical books outside the Torah. Isaiah 9 so beloved of Christians is lifted from Egyptian coronation language, for example.
The book is thought-provoking enough, and Friedman knows his chops enough, that I don't think I would cut this below three stars. But, the best of biblical scholars write clunkers at times.
First, the fact that Levites have Egyptian names means nothing. So did Moses, as Friedman claims, and Moses never existed. And, I think Friedman also rejects claims of Moses' historicity, based on rejecting a "traditional" Exodus claim. If he believes Moses is not historical, then why believe these Levites are historical just because of Egyptian names?
Second, I've never before heard the E strand of the Torah called "Levite."
Third, while I lean toward some version of the documentary hypothesis, I know that fragmentary hypothesis modifications and tendrils are part of the history of the writing of sections of the Torah.
Fourth, as Friedman knows, the relations between Levites and priesthood, and the nature of the priesthood and its putative origins, are more complex than he puts forth. It's more than simple opposition between self-identified followers of Moses and self-identified followers of Aaron — who is also, of course, not a historical person.
And, I must have missed this when I read Friedman's "Who Wrote the Books of the Bible?" No, P didn't write in the time of Hezekiah. That's simply incorrect. So is his reasoning why. If there was no historic Moses and no historic exodus, there is no bronze serpent created by Moses and venerated by Moses-followers for Hezekiah to have destroyed in the name of Aaronic followers.
This would be like Dominicans claiming the Shroud of Turin was created by St. Dominic and the current pope destroying it to uplift Franciscans.
Fifth, Egypt-type ideas are borrowed in biblical books outside the Torah. Isaiah 9 so beloved of Christians is lifted from Egyptian coronation language, for example.
The book is thought-provoking enough, and Friedman knows his chops enough, that I don't think I would cut this below three stars. But, the best of biblical scholars write clunkers at times.
More...