[Neither of us had thought of the exchange as public until near the conclusion of it. I publish it here with Professor Segal's permission.]

An earlier posting here featured a passage from that book. (See “Memory: A Fascinating Passage about the Role of Memory in Some Biblical Stories,” at www.nonesoblind.org/blog/?p=2287.) In that instance, I used the passage because it touched in evocative ways on a topic (memory) of interest to me. Except in a comment I wrote on that thread, I did not involve myself in –nor did I relate the passage to– Segal’s overall purpose in his book.

Subsequently, he and I engaged in an email exchange dealing more integrally with his book.

With his encouragement, I offered several major points in praise of JOSEPH’S BONES, as well as several points on which the book left me unpersuaded.

One of the accomplishments of JOSEPH’S BONES that I praised is Segal’s persuasive interpretation of two episodes –God’s driving Adam and Eve’s out of the Garden of Eden, and God’s sowing a confusion of tongues among the people building the Tower of Babel– as being NOT about any human wrong-doing but rather about God’s wanting to prevent his human creatures from achieving the powers of gods.

The most important achievement of Segal’s book is his arguing plausibly a remarkable thesis: namely, he believes that the first six books of the Jewish scripture –the Torah plus the book of Joshua– express less a celebration and worship and praise of God than a complaint and a critique of Him.

Segal is not saying that this is explicit, but he uncovers indirect but substantial evidence of this subtext. Considered as a single work, he shows, the narrative implicitly suggests that its author is conveying the need for God to change His ways: to become more just and compassionate, less punitive and given to wrath; to be more forgiving; and to be less indulgent of his impulses and more willing subordinate Himself to moral principles.

(The subtitle of JOSEPH’S BONES is “Understanding the Struggle Between God and Mankind in the Bible.”)

I highly recommend the book to those who are interested in such things. At the very least, this book –like Jack Miles’ GOD: A BIOGRAPHY, and James Kugel’s HOW TO READ THE BIBLE, and Joseph Telushkin’s BIBLICAL LITERACY– demonstrates what an extremely rich set of texts the Bible gives us. And since these texts have been so powerfully formative to the civilization around us, such richness certainly deserves to be studied, whether these texts are central to one’s own belief system or not.

After praising such aspects of Segal’s book, I indicated three points on which the book had left me unpersuaded. These three points became the basis of the exchange between us.

I will present the first exchange here, below. The subsequent exchange will be presented in a later posting.

(Segal’s distinguished and varied background is described at www.publicpolicy.umd.edu/facstaff/faculty/segal.html and on the curriculum vitae to which that site is linked.)

*************

I wrote to Segal:

1) You make a connection between Abraham’s bargaining with God over the destruction of Sodom and the subsequent command from God that Abraham sacrifice Isaac. As I understood it, you argued a) God was angry with Abraham for his intercession in the Sodom bit [i.e. Abraham bargained with God to get him to agree not to destroy the whole city if a certain number of innocent people could be found in the city], and b) that God’s anger gained expression in the command to sacrifice Isaac. I don’t recall your adducing any evidence on either of those points, and so it seemed like an iffy inferential leap.

2) You say on several occasions that God knew that he needed help with his destructive impulses, or more specifically that he WANTED Moses to stand between Him and the Israelites in order to protect them from what He might do to them in His rage; I don’t recall your providing any evidence that God was aware of such a need, or wanted Moses to play such a role. You’re certainly strong in showing that Moses did indeed play such a role.

3) About the first Scouts incident. [This is when the Israelites, having departed from slavery in Egypt, get to the Jordan River, across which is the Promised Land, Canaan. A group of scouts is sent to do reconnaisance in Canaan, and all but two of them come back very fearful about their prospects of defeating the people already in possession of the land. Despite the protestations of the other two scouts that God will be with them, so that they should not worry, the Israelites are fearful and do not want to press the attack that God wants them to make. It is this incident that enrages God enough to make the decision to compel the Israelites to go back into the desert and wander for forty more years until the adults have died out, and only then to allow their children to enter into the Promised Land.]

You interpret this incident, a couple of times I believe, as showing that the Israelites were not concerned about whether God COULD protect them but only about whether he would choose to do so, would be with them. You say that what the Good Scouts (Joshua and the other fellow, is it Caleb?) say demonstrates this, because they say that God will be with them. But I couldn’t really follow why you were so sure that the Israelites would be worried only about the “commitment” of God, and not about his power. You say that he’d already demonstrated great power before them, but it seems that they’ve already shown lots of places where such demonstrations didn’t take: when they’re trapped at the Red Sea, do they express the hope that the God that brought those amazing plagues will save them now, or do they just assume that their goose is cooked. Seems like the latter to me; it seems like the Israelites don’t hold on all that well to the meaning of what they’ve seen, i.e. that there’s a potential player in the game who can completely change the correlation of forces. So again, an inferential leap that didn’t persuade.

Segal responded:

Here are my thoughts with respect to the three places where you found my interpretation unconvincing:

1) Link between Sodom story and binding of Isaac: The binding of Isaac story cries out to be explained. We are told that God put Abraham to a test, but what was he testing and why? In commanding Abraham to slay his son, God places Abraham in a situation in which he is caught between obedience to God and the demands of morality (as well as natural instinct to protect those we love). When Abraham raises the knife God is satisfied that Abraham places obedience to God above all else. The question that emerges is why is it necessary to test Abraham in this way? Indeed God made his initial covenant with Abraham without any such test, after Abraham followed the no doubt difficult commandment to leave his home and proceed to Canaan. So what if anything has Abraham done since the beginning of the story that might call into question his complete obedience to God?

The only answer that I can see is that Abraham has challenged God’s freedom to act in any way he pleases. He has said, Shall not the judge of all the earth be just? He has objected to the punishment of the innocent. In so doing he has endorsed a very fundamental principle, that even though God created all things, he is subject to moral contraints. It is not morally permissible for him to treat human beings as his property that he can, without challenge, dispose of as he wishes. In doing this he has created in God’s mind this question about Abraham: Does he view obedience to the dictates of morality as more fundamental than obedience to the commands of God?

I see this as a coherent explanation, within the story, of why Abraham is put to the test. My claim for it is that it is more convincing than any other explanation.In fact I can’t see any other explanation.

Do you have any other explanation that you find more convincing?

2. God’s awareness of his need to have someone help him control his impulses and his choice of Moses for that purpose.

In the Flood story God is portrayed as regretful with respect to all of the destruction he has caused. After he has calmed down in response to the sacrificial smells, he promises to never again destroy all of mankind, and he places the rainbow in the sky to remind himself of that. Such is the action of someone who is aware that his destructive impulses can get away from himself.

With respect to Moses, we see that he plays a protective role for the Israelites. The question is whether God choose him for this. Several considerations suggest that this is so: 1) God always tells Moses in advance that he is about to engage in specific destruction of the Israelites, thus giving Moses the opportunity to talk him out of it. 2) God does allow Moses to talk him out of much of what he planned. 3) God is very determined that Moses be the one to lead the Israelites, but why, what do we find in Moses that is so exceptional? If it was only going to Pharaoh and displaying signs, many could do that. Similarly Moses is not a great success in getting the Israelites to do what he tells them. Quite possibly others would be as successful or more with the Israelites. Moses truly remarkable realm and remarkable success is in dealing with God himself. Very few, perhaps no one in the Bible would have both been so courageous and effective, and finally 4) Moses name, “from the water” links him to rainbows, he serves as God’s rainbow vis a vis the Israelites — as to the physical rainbow, we never hear of that as actually functioning. Given all this, is it more likely that God deliberately chose Moses for this role, or is it lucky coincidence?

3) Scouts episode: On whether they doubt God’s power – My main point is that they doubt his commitment, and that they have good reason to. It may be that their fears are over-determined, that they also doubt his power. But if so, then in that regard they are being irrational.

Again, the second exchange will be published separately in the days to come.