Rating: Summary: Junk Review: This book is total junk. The JEPD theory has no textual evidence, and yet he passes it off as fact. This is just another liberal book out there to try and refute Biblical authorship. If he bothered to go out there and examine the actual, ORIGINAL text (in Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek) he would know that there are no proofs for JEPD. It is all theory.Heck, I could say that Santa Claus wrote the Bible, and have as much proof as this guy. Save your $.
Rating: Summary: Brought me back "up to speed" and then some on the Bible. Review: First, note that Friedman's "Bible" is the Christian "Old Testament." For equally good books about the New Testament, look up the works of Hyam Maccoby and Burton L. Mack. Second, "Who Wrote the Bible?" took me back to my undergraduate classes in the Old Testament, refreshing my memory regarding such issues as the Documentary Hypothesis, but going beyond with the latest scholarship (a lot has happened in the last twenty plus years!) I can't say enough good things about this book.
Rating: Summary: More than just "Who wrote the bible" Review: This book is a must-read for all bible scholars including: jews, christians (denominational or not), or anyone else interested in the hebrew bible. The hebrew bible finally makes sense after reading this book! I no longer see paradoxes, mysteries, and confusions in the bible, but understand why certian contradictory statements exist in the bible. This is because this book examines not only who wrote the hebrew bible, but in what religio-socio-political climate it was written. At the end of the book, the reader understands much more than "who wrote the bible," but actually understands HOW and WHY the bible was written. I would recommend this book to anybody who is interested in the bible.
Rating: Summary: Enlightening! Review: Just like I wanted it. I'm buying the rest of his books to see what he has to say.
Rating: Summary: WHO RE-WROTE THE OLD TESTAMENT? Review: Richard E. Friedman gives a straighforward and up-to-date explanation of the Documentary Hypothesis, which is one explanation of how some of the Old Testament was written. (The New Testament is not touched.) He covers Israel's history between 1200-400BC, which is a reasonable span, with heavy - if not exclusive - emphasis on the politics that drove the circumstances, if not the writing. He writes very well, and aims at the interested layman as much as the bible scholar. To his credit he shoots large holes in the old Wellhausen version of the Doc Hype and comes up with some good archaeological tie-ins along the way, such as the personal seal of Baruch, who was Jeremiah's scribe. He also notes the modern linguistic analysis of the ancient Hebrew language used in the various books to determine relative antiquity of the texts and order of writing. He is very good at summarising the history and getting to the crux of an issue, and puts a suspense-building 'detective' element into it without being superficial. The weaknesses are that he simple ignores the very able scholars who oppose the DH altogether or in part (eg, Umberto Cassuto, C.H. Gordon, Robert Alter, and all evangelicals at large), and also ignores the essential circularity of the logic of the theory. We start with the text as we see it. As there is no pre-existing external reason to suppose a propagandist documentary war between the successive bible writers and editors, or documentary evidence for it, there is great danger in any 'reading between the lines' approach as all we have is the finished text. Speculation follows inclination. Also, the absolute determining role of the final redactor-editors (who clearly did exist) is understated and glossed over, after all, an editor has final say by definition. The total lack of physical documents to back up his reconstructed history of the J/E/P versions of the text appears not to trouble him, or to have occurred to him as far as I can see. He notes that the texts are 'literary works', but does not deal with their literary aspects, or attempt any compare-and-contrast exercises with well known ancient Egyptian and Babylonian literature, and only concentrates on technical issues. By way of comparison, it was widely held around 1900 that the ancient Greek poet Homer (author of the Iliad and Odyssey) was: not one, but several people, who added to the myth as they went; and/or that Homer himself was a myth and never existed; and/or that Homer was not Homer but someone else - but who that was no-one could know now. Somehow the so-called scientific modern scholar must know everything so much better than the ancients who lived at the time of the events, and might have given Homer's name to Homer's works simply because they knew the man himself. This is what CS Lewis called 'chronological snobbery'. By the 1950's the Homeric Doc Hype was in full retreat - as top Homer scholars such as the German Schadewaldt, Lewis himself, and others have noted. Today the copy-cut-and-paste Homer is regarded as an historical phase in his studies. But it seems likely to me that the party-political inertia of the OT scholar is so much greater than that of the Greek scholar that it will be some decades yet before the Old Testament DH goes the same way. All in all: recommended for its good aspects, but read between his lines too.
Rating: Summary: Incredibly Enlightening Review: This book is not for everyone: if you're a fundamentalist who doesn't believe in applying critical analysis to the Bible, you won't enjoy it. It also helps to have some familiarity with the Scriptures, and it focuses exclusively on the Old Testament. But it is truly amazing. It is very enlightening to understand the conflicting forces that forged the Hebrew Bible, understand the disagreements and the compromises between the Priests of Shiloh and the sons of Aaron, and to understand their differing conceptions of God. It is indispensible to those who's faith is maleable. This book introduces the scholar to the Documentary Hypothesis and the author's contribution to it, and brings to the reader a deeper understanding of what God's revelation to man may have been than a limited fundamentalist work could. I couldn't put the book down until it was finished: It was as enjoyable as his lectures.
Rating: Summary: The Calling of God Review: . If you're going to take the bible seriously and truly attempt to understand what it is you feel you need to believe then please read this book. "Who Wrote the Bible" is not a purely academic work exposing the anatomy of biblical text nor is it a work of theology. It is, however, one of the only true efforts I've found in any field to understand what the bible truly is. Likewise, my comments are not about the book but rather it's contribution to my view of the subject of the bible. As such, I have a plea to make to all believers. Don't join the throngs of Christians and Jews being ushered through the ages into the halls of the great and terrible temple of "bibliolatry". Instead, take responsibility for the activity of the spirit of life within you and begin to understand the role that humanity plays in the story of God. Men and women throughout the ages, just like us, have answered a call to a higher life - the life of God that clearly chooses to live chiefly within mankind. It is these men and women that are responsible for writing the bible... then as well as in our day. Theologians did not write the bible. Neither was it written for theologians. The bible was also not written for the individual to contend with and be condemned by. The bible was written by regular people who's primary motivation was to bring a people, a nation, back to a pure knowlege of God. Those simple minded, down to earth people that had to deal with every day life just as we do deserve to be known. Some were farmers while others were politicians. Some were men and some were women. We'll probably never know who most of them were but it's obvious that they saw us, their readers, as more than just a sea of humanity that needs to avoid the peril of "hell". Their virtual anonymity, timeless comradery and mystical coordination proves that their selfless cause was clearly global and eternal. If only in light of their combined superhuman achievment it is clear that their's is the voice of God. On the other hand, the only thing that organized religion has produced over the last 3000 years is confusion and deceit while trying to peddle the efforts of its leaders as service to God and his people (usually in exchange for money, it seems). Well, then, this is a call to God's people: No matter which race or rank you find yourself in today, know the bible and God like no other theologian can teach you. Know them in a way that only comes from beholding the very womb in which they were and always are being formed. Take time to listen to the thoughts of those that have searched for thousands of years for something truly believable that doesn't require you to shut down your God-given brain in order to fill your God-given void for eternity. Do this for yourself and share this invitation with those you care about.
Rating: Summary: Snooze Review: ...The book is his life's work, so it is obviously biased towards his beliefs. The beginning and end of the book are quite provacative, whereas the rest of the book provides less than exciting evidence to support the Documentary Hypothesis. Having a deep understanding of the ideas mentioned in the book require extensive knowledge of the Bible, so not all of the evidence may be clear or understandable. There are hints of humors and lame jokes in the book ...His conclusion, however, brings up an extremely important point: Although the Bible is evidently a interweaving of scriptures from various authors over a long period of time, something greater comes out of this creation that essentially brings character to God and the relationship between humans and God. However, the book overall simply provides evidence for the hypothesis, which I found to be too detailed, hard to follow completely, and sleep-inducing.
Rating: Summary: Snooze Review: I have Professor Friedman for my Humanities class here at UCSD. Not surprisingly, he made us all buy this book and read it throughly, followed by drowsy lectures off it. And also, many of the questions on previous finals ask us to regurgitate his theory. The book is his life's work, so it is obviously biased towards his beliefs. The beginning and end of the book are quite provacative, whereas the rest of the book provides less than exciting evidence to support the Documentary Hypothesis. Having a deep understanding of the ideas mentioned in the book require extensive knowledge of the Bible, so not all of the evidence may be clear or understandable. There are hints of humors and lame jokes in the book which mirror his boring lectures. His conclusion, however, brings up an extremely important point: Although the Bible is evidently a interweaving of scriptures from various authors over a long period of time, something greater comes out of this creation that essentially brings character to God and the relationship between humans and God. However, the book overall simply provides evidence for the hypothesis, which I found to be too detailed, hard to follow completely, and sleep-inducing.
Rating: Summary: Ha, ha, that's a good one! Review: This book presents biased evidence to ignorant readers who are then persuaded that this great revelation has been withheld from them. Friedmann writes in such a warm friendly style as he slowly weaves his wonderful web of how we got our Bible. The thing is, it's plain ridiculous--and I don't say this for religious reasons, either. Try getting a more rational, scholarly book, like Kaiser's, "The Old Testament Documents: Are they reliable?" for more balanced views. (The "Documentary Hypothesis" was kaput a long time ago.)
|