I wrestle with trying to extricate myself from this 'book.' Biblical scholarship points out that these writings are not to be taken literally, that it is only loosely tethered in history. I want to scream. And laugh.
The point: why would anyone ever ever entertain the idea that this was actual history? I did. I still do! I can't get myself out of the feeling that all this stuff is somehow real. I mean, I never thought there was a real talking snake, at least not past the point of actually thinking, but when he mentions the Nation of Israel, the Tribe of Levi, the House of Joseph, it takes over my mind and I cannot keep it from becoming history.
Now we have scholars, grown, learned men and women, saying that the Exodus was not what the book portrays. Listen to this line:
It is reasonable to infer from the central place assigned to the Exodus in Jewish tradition that Israel did win liberation and a victory of some kind over Egypt and that its confidence in God surged in consequence. (p108)
What does he mean, 'Israel?' An inference back to an actual social group that called itself that then, or some imagined historical founding? Why the capital 'E' in Exodus? Is it a thing outside of these writings? History assigns a place to Egypt. Pharaoh was there. We know about 'Israel' from where? What does he mean, 'God?' Why isn't Pharaoh still a god; why don't we talk about him?
Listen to this:
The Israelites [in Egypt] are not a small, oppressed minority seeking release from bondage. One of the reasons Pharaoh refuses to let them go is that they are already more numerous than the original inhabitants of the land (5:5). The census of Numbers 2 finds 603,550 adult males, not counting adult males of the Tribe of Levi. Counting wives, children, and servents, the number could perhaps be seven times that large. In short, the Israelites are a majority whom Pharaoh, a god in his own right, of course, according to Egyptian beliefs, was attempting to dominate. But their departure from Egypt is not, despite its later use in liberation movements, a victory for justice. It is simply a victory, a demonstratioin of the power of the Lord to pursue fertility for his chosen people and wreck it for their enemy, a proof that "the Lord makes a distinction" when and as he chooses. (p103)
I am not a Biblical scholar, but I dare say I know more about the discourse on semitic history then most Americans, more then most Europeans? more then most the people in the world? Yet when I read these passages, I get confused about whether the author is talking about a story or about reality, and so am left with the necessity of believing in this stuff firmly pressed further into my being. And then:
No responsible historian believes that at the time of the Exodus the Israelites actually outnumbered the Egyptians or that a company of 4 or 5 million people made its way through the desert and into Canaan. Despite the lack of any historical record outside the Bible, most historians do not believe that the story of the Exodus is a total fabrication. … Cecil B. De Mille's The Ten Commandments, with its mighty throng crossing the sea, may be truer to the intended literary effect of the Book of Exodus than scholarship's reconstruction of a band of minor tribes slipping through the marsh. (p105).
'Band of minor tribes?' Yet, I fight to keep the notion of a small band of semitic refugees escaping the empire in my mind; what lasts, even through this treatment, is The Exodus, Israel and the Israelites, and God.
This may sound like whining; maybe it is. But damn, I can't help but think that if a group cold deflate this stuff, they could rid themselves of a lot of nutty and pernicious ideas. I know we're all supposed to be grateful for 'ethical monotheism' and all, but I'm not sure the baggage is worth it.
