Rating: 
Summary: Fascinating and Thought Provoking
Review: A wonderful book - even for those unfamiliar with many bible stories. Does a great job of tracing many of our beliefs and laws of today back to the Book of Genesis. Thought provoking - would be a fantastic book for bible or book discussion groups. It is also a great book to read and discuss as a family.
Rating:
Summary: Sounds of Silence
Review: Back in the 1960's, the Beatles wrote and produced a song whose title is uniquely fitting for this book by Dershowitz, the "Sounds of Silence." I saw the book in the bookstore recently and being familiar with Constitutional Law theory for which Dershowitz is most noted among the legal community, I was interested to see how he treated the topics of the Ten Commandments and the dilemma of the Madonna vs the Prostitute in religious dogma as it affects our laws now. What I found was a most enthusiastic treatment of consequence where Dershowitz has outdone himself in addressing some of our most difficult moral problems rooted in our Biblical heritage to which we seem to cling with near steadfast loyalty.
I actually think this book outperforms the work of Dershowitz in Constitutional Law since he is clearly enthralled by the topics, and his combination of legal and religious knowledge offer remarkably logical analysis in why we think as we do, and whether it is appropriate to think as we do. He has used his logical and linguistic skills very effectively to illuminate subjects that need a rational approach. If anything, he may not go far enough in relation to his analysis of the double standard that so affects the female in our culture as it relates to the economics of power and social freedom, but which also affects males due to their loss of equivalent resources from combining their talents in a life alliance. The aggregation of resources does not necessarily produce the benefits it should due to the low wages and glass ceilings their women cannot penetrate. It appears to be a very valuable read and a thoughtful, unique analysis of our human condition. I think he should do more since revelations like his can help to break "the sounds of silence" that such injustices rely upon to maintain the status quo.
Rating: 
Summary: An "Interesting Commentary"
Review: Dershowitz argues that Genesis shows God evolving from an arbitrary being, dictating ad-hoc rules to a mature being bound by the rule of law. Dershowitz's "evolving-God" argument underlies his theme that Genesis is a metaphor showing how legal systems generally evolve from arbitrary rules to the mature rule of law. (pp. 14, 203-215.)
I question the validity of Dershowitz's argument that Genesis depicts God as evolving from an arbitrary dictator to a "constitutional monarch, binding himself to rules" (p. 210.)
The seeds for deconstructing Dershowitz's evolving-God argument are found in the story which he refers to as his guiding principal in writing his book. Two great rabbis, both experts on Maimonides, die and go to heaven, where they continue to argue about an inconsistency between one Maimonidean text and another. Maimonides himself resolves the conflict by pointing out a simple transcription error in one of the texts-that is, the Rabbis are arguing about a text Maimonides did not actually write. The rabbis hear this simple solution to their argument and dismiss Maimonides altogether, stating that their debate involving an error-ridden text is much more interesting than contemplating the meaning of an accurate text. (pp. 15-16.)
In this story, the privileged concept is debate for debate's sake. So it for Dershowitz, who repeatedly states he is not looking for answers but "interesting commentary" (16, 33.) Debate for debate's sake.
The concept Dershowitz suppresses is the question of Textual Accuracy. That is, does the text Dershowitz quotes accurately recount the revelations from God which the recipients originally put to paper? "For purposes of this book, it does not matter whether Genesis was dictated to Moses by God or compiled by an editor from multiple sources." (p. 14.)
But of course it matters. For example, Dershowitz wallows in juvenile joy about stumping a teacher with questions of Cain's wife. (There is no reference in Genesis to any female children being born of Adam and Eve, so where did Cain's wife come from?) Nahum M. Sarna argues that the passage regarding Cain's wife "cannot be other than a fragment of what was once a well-known and fuller story, now etched in the barest outline." (JPS Torah Commentary, Genesis, p. 45.) Is it so difficult to think that Adam and Eve bore girls, one of whom grew into a woman and married Cain? Just because Dershowitz's version of Genesis does not mention the birth of girls does not mean they were not born. To state otherwise-as Dershowitz does (p. 5)-is to be as fundamentalist as any fundamentalist he criticizes. "My version of Genesis says it (or does not say it). I believe it. Case closed." (p. 8.)
Questions of Textual Accuracy make all the difference for purposes of Dershowitz's book and for biblical scholarship generally. If Dershowitz's Genesis text is inaccurate, then all we are left with is a man who takes an error-ridden, fictional text, makes clever comments about it, adds clever titles, and tries to pass the whole thing off as serious midrash. It is exactly like the two rabbis who continue their silly debate even after the truth is revealed to them.
Several times, Dershowitz approaches the issue of Textual Accuracy, only to dance around it. For example, consider what he says about whether justice is found in this world or the next (ellipsis omitted): "It is untrue to the text of Genesis to read into punishment threatened here and now an implicit postponement to a world to come. It is also a far less interesting answer. It is far more interesting to search for enduring interpretations based on what was believed at the time, not centuries later." (p. 33.) This statement is packed with problems.
First, Dershowitz argues that we must take the text in the context of the beliefs of those who wrote it. But to take the text in context is precisely to ask crucial questions as to who in fact wrote the text, when it was written, what they wrote, and whether what we have reflects what they wrote and what they believed! But remember, Dershowitz says these questions are exactly what is not important for his book. (p. 14.) Well, are they or not?
Ultimately, questions of context (authorship and accuracy) are precisely the ones Dershowitz must suppress, because they may in fact prove that his reading of Genesis is the one that is untrue, that his own centuries-later interpretation of the context is actually not what the authors of Genesis believed at all.
Dershowitz's insistence that his book is not part of the debate regarding Textual Accuracy, but rather "how we are to understand the stories" will not do, for how are we possibly to understand these "sacred stories" (p. 8) if the stories are incomplete and inaccurate?
This book convinces me that for Dershowitz God is nothing more than a metaphor, and therefore questions of Textual Accuracy really are irrelevant. Dershowitz is interested only in using the metaphor of God and a particular text to engage in an interesting intellectual game. Dershowitz really is like the two rabbis debating the faulty Maimonidean text. The truth is irrelevant. All that matters is the debate, gaining power in the community, and making some money.
For me though, questions of God's existence and nature are not a game-not a commodity to be bartered. For me, the Bible is a record of a living God's revelations to specific individuals. To me, as to Sarna and other commentators, it is clear that the full record of these revelations has been lost and what we do have has been terribly tampered with. Questions regarding Textual Accuracy are indispensable to determining who God is. Thus I struggle with the texts and contexts, and my struggles reveal a mountain of hard evidence that, contrary to Dershowitz's view, the living God is more than some "student in the university of the universe."
Rating:
Summary: An "Interesting Commentary"
Review: Dershowitz argues that Genesis shows God evolving from an arbitrary being, dictating ad-hoc rules to a mature being bound by the rule of law. Dershowitz's "evolving-God" argument underlies his theme that Genesis is a metaphor showing how legal systems generally evolve from arbitrary rules to the mature rule of law. (pp. 14, 203-215.)
I question the validity of Dershowitz's argument that Genesis depicts God as evolving from an arbitrary dictator to a "constitutional monarch, binding himself to rules" (p. 210.)
The seeds for deconstructing Dershowitz's evolving-God argument are found in the story which he refers to as his guiding principal in writing his book. Two great rabbis, both experts on Maimonides, die and go to heaven, where they continue to argue about an inconsistency between one Maimonidean text and another. Maimonides himself resolves the conflict by pointing out a simple transcription error in one of the texts-that is, the Rabbis are arguing about a text Maimonides did not actually write. The rabbis hear this simple solution to their argument and dismiss Maimonides altogether, stating that their debate involving an error-ridden text is much more interesting than contemplating the meaning of an accurate text. (pp. 15-16.)
In this story, the privileged concept is debate for debate's sake. So it for Dershowitz, who repeatedly states he is not looking for answers but "interesting commentary" (16, 33.) Debate for debate's sake.
The concept Dershowitz suppresses is the question of Textual Accuracy. That is, does the text Dershowitz quotes accurately recount the revelations from God which the recipients originally put to paper? "For purposes of this book, it does not matter whether Genesis was dictated to Moses by God or compiled by an editor from multiple sources." (p. 14.)
But of course it matters. For example, Dershowitz wallows in juvenile joy about stumping a teacher with questions of Cain's wife. (There is no reference in Genesis to any female children being born of Adam and Eve, so where did Cain's wife come from?) Nahum M. Sarna argues that the passage regarding Cain's wife "cannot be other than a fragment of what was once a well-known and fuller story, now etched in the barest outline." (JPS Torah Commentary, Genesis, p. 45.) Is it so difficult to think that Adam and Eve bore girls, one of whom grew into a woman and married Cain? Just because Dershowitz's version of Genesis does not mention the birth of girls does not mean they were not born. To state otherwise-as Dershowitz does (p. 5)-is to be as fundamentalist as any fundamentalist he criticizes. "My version of Genesis says it (or does not say it). I believe it. Case closed." (p. 8.)
Questions of Textual Accuracy make all the difference for purposes of Dershowitz's book and for biblical scholarship generally. If Dershowitz's Genesis text is inaccurate, then all we are left with is a man who takes an error-ridden, fictional text, makes clever comments about it, adds clever titles, and tries to pass the whole thing off as serious midrash. It is exactly like the two rabbis who continue their silly debate even after the truth is revealed to them.
Several times, Dershowitz approaches the issue of Textual Accuracy, only to dance around it. For example, consider what he says about whether justice is found in this world or the next (ellipsis omitted): "It is untrue to the text of Genesis to read into punishment threatened here and now an implicit postponement to a world to come. It is also a far less interesting answer. It is far more interesting to search for enduring interpretations based on what was believed at the time, not centuries later." (p. 33.) This statement is packed with problems.
First, Dershowitz argues that we must take the text in the context of the beliefs of those who wrote it. But to take the text in context is precisely to ask crucial questions as to who in fact wrote the text, when it was written, what they wrote, and whether what we have reflects what they wrote and what they believed! But remember, Dershowitz says these questions are exactly what is not important for his book. (p. 14.) Well, are they or not?
Ultimately, questions of context (authorship and accuracy) are precisely the ones Dershowitz must suppress, because they may in fact prove that his reading of Genesis is the one that is untrue, that his own centuries-later interpretation of the context is actually not what the authors of Genesis believed at all.
Dershowitz's insistence that his book is not part of the debate regarding Textual Accuracy, but rather "how we are to understand the stories" will not do, for how are we possibly to understand these "sacred stories" (p. 8) if the stories are incomplete and inaccurate?
This book convinces me that for Dershowitz God is nothing more than a metaphor, and therefore questions of Textual Accuracy really are irrelevant. Dershowitz is interested only in using the metaphor of God and a particular text to engage in an interesting intellectual game. Dershowitz really is like the two rabbis debating the faulty Maimonidean text. The truth is irrelevant. All that matters is the debate, gaining power in the community, and making some money.
For me though, questions of God's existence and nature are not a game-not a commodity to be bartered. For me, the Bible is a record of a living God's revelations to specific individuals. To me, as to Sarna and other commentators, it is clear that the full record of these revelations has been lost and what we do have has been terribly tampered with. Questions regarding Textual Accuracy are indispensable to determining who God is. Thus I struggle with the texts and contexts, and my struggles reveal a mountain of hard evidence that, contrary to Dershowitz's view, the living God is more than some "student in the university of the universe."
Rating: 
Summary: An "Interesting Commentary"
Review: Dershowitz argues that Genesis shows God evolving from an arbitrary being, dictating ad-hoc rules to a mature being bound by the rule of law. Dershowitz's "evolving-God" argument underlies his theme that Genesis is a metaphor showing how legal systems generally evolve from arbitrary rules to the mature rule of law. (pp. 14, 203-215.)
I question the validity of Dershowitz's argument that Genesis depicts God as evolving from an arbitrary dictator to a "constitutional monarch, binding himself to rules" (p. 210.)
The seeds for deconstructing Dershowitz's evolving-God argument are found in the story which he refers to as his guiding principal in writing his book. Two great rabbis, both experts on Maimonides, die and go to heaven, where they continue to argue about an inconsistency between one Maimonidean text and another. Maimonides himself resolves the conflict by pointing out a simple transcription error in one of the texts-that is, the Rabbis are arguing about a text Maimonides did not actually write. The rabbis hear this simple solution to their argument and dismiss Maimonides altogether, stating that their debate involving an error-ridden text is much more interesting than contemplating the meaning of an accurate text. (pp. 15-16.)
In this story, the privileged concept is debate for debate's sake. So it is for Dershowitz, who repeatedly states he is not looking for answers but "interesting commentary" (16, 33.) Debate for debate's sake.
The concept Dershowitz suppresses is the question of Textual Accuracy. That is, does the text Dershowitz quotes accurately recount the revelations from God which the recipients originally put to paper? "For purposes of this book, it does not matter whether Genesis was dictated to Moses by God or compiled by an editor from multiple sources." (p. 14.)
But of course it matters. For example, Dershowitz wallows in juvenile joy about stumping a teacher with questions of Cain's wife. (There is no reference in Genesis to any female children being born of Adam and Eve, so where did Cain's wife come from?) Nahum M. Sarna argues that the passage regarding Cain's wife "cannot be other than a fragment of what was once a well-known and fuller story, now etched in the barest outline." (JPS Torah Commentary, Genesis, p. 45.) Is it so difficult to think that Adam and Eve bore girls, one of whom grew into a woman and married Cain? Just because Dershowitz's version of Genesis does not mention the birth of girls does not mean they were not born. To state otherwise-as Dershowitz does (p. 5)-is to be as fundamentalist as any fundamentalist he criticizes. "My version of Genesis says it (or does not say it). I believe it. Case closed." (p. 8.)
Questions of Textual Accuracy make all the difference for purposes of Dershowitz's book and for biblical scholarship generally. If Dershowitz's Genesis text is inaccurate, then all we are left with is a man who takes an error-ridden, fictional text, makes clever comments about it, adds clever titles, and tries to pass the whole thing off as serious midrash. It is exactly like the two rabbis who continue their silly debate even after the truth is revealed to them.
Several times, Dershowitz approaches the issue of Textual Accuracy, only to dance around it. For example, consider what he says about whether justice is found in this world or the next (ellipsis omitted): "It is untrue to the text of Genesis to read into punishment threatened here and now an implicit postponement to a world to come. It is also a far less interesting answer. It is far more interesting to search for enduring interpretations based on what was believed at the time, not centuries later." (p. 33.) This statement is packed with problems.
First, Dershowitz argues that we must take the text in the context of the beliefs of those who wrote it. But to take the text in context is precisely to ask crucial questions as to who in fact wrote the text, when it was written, what they wrote, and whether what we have reflects what they wrote and what they believed! But remember, Dershowitz says these questions are exactly what is not important for his book. (p. 14.) Well, are they or not?
Ultimately, questions of context (authorship and accuracy) are precisely the ones Dershowitz must suppress, because they may in fact prove that his reading of Genesis is the one that is untrue, that his own centuries-later interpretation of the context is actually not what the authors of Genesis believed at all.
Dershowitz's insistence that his book is not part of the debate regarding Textual Accuracy, but rather "how we are to understand the stories" will not do, for how are we possibly to understand these "sacred stories" (p. 8) if the stories are incomplete and inaccurate?
The deeper I consider this book, the more convinced I am that for Dershowitz God is nothing more than a metaphor, and therefore questions of Textual Accuracy really are irrelevant. Dershowitz seems to be interested only in using the metaphor of God and a particular text to engage in an interesting intellectual game. Dershowitz really is like the two rabbis debating the faulty Maimonidean text. The truth is irrelevant. All that matters is the debate, gaining power in the community, and selling a few books.
For me though, questions of God's existence and nature are not a game. For me, the Bible is a record of a living God's revelations to specific individuals. To me, as to Sarna and other commentators, it is clear that the full record of these revelations has been lost and what we do have has been terribly tampered with. Questions regarding Textual Accuracy are indispensable to determining who God is. Thus I struggle with the texts and contexts, and my struggles reveal a mountain of hard evidence that, contrary to Dershowitz's view, the living God is more than some "student in the university of the universe."
Rating:
Summary: Disappointingly simple
Review: Dershowitz is a great legal mind, but he doesn't appear to be much of a biblical scholar. While the analysis in this book is fine as far as it goes, each of Dershowitz's examples is fairly straightforward (e.g. Cain kills his brother and is punished only with exile), and any reader could find similar ones on their own. His discussion of each example is superficial, rarely going beyond a simplistic discussion of why it is unfair that Cain gets off lightly, or why God sends the flood and kills virtually the entire world. He rarely offers any useful insight into how these stories are more or less than they appear or how they have affected our views of justice.
Rating:
Summary: A learning God?
Review: Does God struggle along with his creation to establish laws that are fair and just? Is God actually learning from his creation? These are just two questions that are explored in this fascinating book. This book is a great primer for those interested in the history of Western culture and Judaism.
Rating:
Summary: Engaging and Entertaining...
Review: For those with an open mind and a thirst for new Biblical insights, this book is a delight. It is just what you might expect from a brilliant legal mind, and more. Alan Dershowitz shares his research and analysis in an engaging and entertaining style on a subject for which he obviously has a tremendous passion.
Maimonides, Soren Kierkegaard, Abraham Ibn Ezra, Franz Kafka, Blaise Pascal, Everett Fox, and Bob Dylan are just a small handful of the voices invited to the party. The genius of this work is that while it presents so many different viewpoints (without necessarily adopting one "correct" interpretation over another), Dershowitz is still able to clearly show the reader that within the complex and confusing assortment of narratives that is Genesis, there exists a straightforward path toward the Law. This path, while full of injustice along the way, does not merely show us the need for the Law; it shows a developing legal system in process.
No matter how familiar you may think you are with the book of Genesis, you will be able to experience the narratives afresh. Dershowitz holds up the book of Genesis like a crystal in sunlight, its beauty seen in the reflections of light, observed at a number of different angles.
