2.5*? I spent most of this book thinking it would be a 3, but I was way too fed up with it by the end. I think this book was such a great idea. Why NOT try to write a biography of Moses? I just think Kirsch went about it completely wrong. He privileges the Biblical narrative first and foremost, so much so that when he does bring in actual arachaeology, it feels out of place and also kind of like, "Why didn't you mention this sooner?" And also, "If you're going to use these archaeological facts to make a point NOW, why can't you see that you can also use archaeology to explain a lot of the stuff you questioned/ridiculed about the Biblical narrative??" And that really is the other major problem. Not only does he not bring in archaeology as much as he should have, but Kirsch's tone is so disdainful. At first I thought he was just trying to make a book about the Bible more appealing to a lay (meaning non-academic as well as non-religious) audience, but after the first 100 pages, it was just grating. Does he really think his snide comments are actually earning him the final word in centuries of Biblical commentary? And the worst parts were when he would say something that was literally just his opinion as though it were a fact, like when he was explaining that the cherubim on the Ark of the Covenant were not cute little babies, but "grotesque" creatures with the heads of men, the bodies of lions, and wings. Like I'm sorry, has he never seen ancient Near Eastern art before?? Has he ever bothered to wonder what the ancient peoples of Mesopotamia & the Levant were trying to communicate with this kind of statue? These kinds of creatures were meant to represent power and majesty and kingship, and just because he finds them grotesque now doesn't mean they ARE. That's a HIM problem. And I know it's a small thing to get worked up about, but by that point in the book, I was so done with his ridiculing & general disdain for his own subject matter that I just kind of lost it. Why even write this book if you're going to be so judgmental? And I don't even mean judgmental to religious people, because that honestly barely factored into this book, but judgmental to the ancient writers and interpreters of the Bible. If you're going to read every single source in bad faith, if you're going to come at this assuming that every Biblical writers' intentions must be self-serving or ill-willed, or at the best misguided or confused, literally what the fuck are you doing? There is so much BIAS in this book. This is not how you do history at all. This is even how you do "being a decent human being." Decent human beings don't make so many VALUE judgments about things, especially other people's cultures. Okay, I'm definitely going off the rails now, but this book just made me so mad. As a work of history, it made me mad. As a work of Bible commentary, it made me mad. I am so fucking glad to be done with this book.