What do you think?
Rate this book
Joseph's Bones: Understanding the Struggle Between God and Mankind in the Bible
A bold and radical reinterpretation of the Old Testament. "Brilliant...Nothing quite like it has appeared in years." (Jack Miles, author of A Biography )
Imagine if someone who had never heard of Judaism or Christianity read the Old Testament. How could the relationship between God and humanity possibly be understood? In Joseph's Bones, Segal approaches the Bible from this fresh perspective-one framed by the story of the Israelites' fidelity to Joseph-and finds something an account of the human condition that reads like an existential novel about the struggle of mankind against the unpredictable and often unwarranted wrath of God. This is a rarity in Biblical interpretation- brilliant and rigorously argued, "a work of stunning originality."
Imagine if someone who had never heard of Judaism or Christianity read the Old Testament. How could the relationship between God and humanity possibly be understood? In Joseph's Bones, Segal approaches the Bible from this fresh perspective-one framed by the story of the Israelites' fidelity to Joseph-and finds something an account of the human condition that reads like an existential novel about the struggle of mankind against the unpredictable and often unwarranted wrath of God. This is a rarity in Biblical interpretation- brilliant and rigorously argued, "a work of stunning originality."
320 pages, Hardcover
First published January 1, 2007
4 people are currently reading
35 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 4 of 4 reviews
July 1, 2018
This spring (2018) I read Richard Elliott Friedman's The Exodus, which was very good, and at the same time started another book (Crucible of Faith, by Philip Jenkins) that seemed similar but wasn't, as well as this book, Joseph's Bones. This one I'd gotten years ago from Daedalus on the grounds that it sounded interesting, and it had been sitting around ever since, so I decided to take a look. It differed from The Exodus in problematic ways, but I decided to give it a whirl. Actually I decided to read both of the problem books so I could say something about them, and this one I did complete, although skimming toward the end--possible because I could see where the author was going--but have had to reread the ending after all before I could review.
Here's a guy who brags that he's not a bible scholar and not a historian but claims those are assets since what he wants is to look through fresh eyes, as he was given permission by Buber:
What he's taking his close look at is a translation.
--from The New Yorker magazine, Will McPhail, January 9, 2017
Expertise sometimes could make a difference.
For Segal the bible is an existential novel with its own internal logic. What he claims to be doing is literary analysis. At one point, he does say:
That, I think, is his rationale for doing theology--although he's not a theologian any more than he's a bible scholar or a historian. For what he's done is write a book about God as an anthropomorphized figure with an anger-management problem, or, better, God as unpredictable and out of control. (And in Segal's telling, he is a he.) The author goes on at length about God's explosive and/or unpredictable behavior, with reminders of his own supposed aim in writing the book few and far between. Boundaries that would support that one is reading literary analysis and not theology are lost or nonexistent; the author loses himself in the story. As far as I'm concerned, he can do theology. Just come clean. His claim of literary analysis functions as a defense against criticism of the book for what it is.
The author likes some of the characters much better than God. He thinks it's they who are really being loving and supportive, while God, on the other hand, is often displeased with his people and runs them down. Thus it's Joseph who loves them and whom the people remember. It's Abraham and Moses who teach morality, while God is out of control and needs reminders such as a rainbow to behave. On this telling, morality cannot be inculcated into God, although not from want of trying. Morality comes from people. Joseph has it naturally. (Which morality isn't discussed; morality for Segal is a recognizable thing that we universally accept.) Abraham and Moses stand up to God to obtain limitations to God's vindictiveness, that is, to get the best possible deal, here meaning the least loss of life. God's a dictator, a totalitarian; he kills Moses; dispenses consequences to the group rather than to individuals. Despite God, the Hexateuch (Torah + Joshua) tells the people who they are and how to relate to God. Moses tells them how to deal with God after he's gone. In the 17-page "Afterword," Jesus finally does change God's mind so that he's not punitive any longer and dispenses reward and punishment on an individual rather than on a group level--although, the author acknowledges, he doesn't do away with death as promised.
Some of Segal's further conclusions: God is committed to fashioning people into warring groups so he can be the Israelites' God. God's core project, thus, is not to support the Israelites' worldly goals of liberation, conquest, and return to Canaan, but to bind the people to him through the terror of war and have them know him in a certain way. Humanity is God's "other," in contrast to whom he can be God. The purpose of holiness is to mollify God and help him control his rage.
Segal's plot points highlight what fits his story and shadow what doesn't. For example the Holiness Code of Leviticus 19, containing some of my favorite passages, is reduced to being a "hodgepodge," since to the author's twenty-first century eyes the trivial and the significant are mixed in together.
Segal's "fresh look" also is through "WEIRD" eyes: Western, educated (and from) industrial, rich, and democratic (countries).
Reality contends with narrative--an issue throughout, as Segal, attempting to trap the narrative into conforming to his interpretation by means of literalism, becomes stuck in his own trap. He mistakes the narrative for the situation on the ground (the map for the territory) and gets stuck in it.
For example, the anthropomorphism: because the biblical narrative describes God anthropomorphically, so does Segal. But what if Reality does not treat people nicely on a regular basis? What if Reality does not consistently give people their just deserts? What if Reality rewards them on a group and not an individual basis? What if God is All There Is, in motion, a creative edge slicing through history? What if God is "an earthquake" (as I heard Abraham Joshua Heschel quoted as saying)? Then maybe we can understand why in the bible God is sometimes pictured harshly.
Philosophers and theologians, and would-be theologians in particular, tend to confuse the story they prefer--the desired outcome--with the way things are. Once having cut the ties between narrative and situation (whatever it is, or was), then Segal is freed to criticize to his heart's content, to spin and spin, with no proof of the pudding, ever--narrative plausibility not being proof.
Another way he's trapped within the literal story is by "bracketing out" ideas about who wrote it. Actually, at the end, he does pay some attention, but compared to my lodestar, Friedman's The Exodus, he's woefully inadequate. He falls headlong into the "most scholars" pitfall, while, as Friedman wrote, truth is supported by evidence and not by majority vote. Moreover, the knowledge he has is out of date, given that the documentary hypothesis is no longer the end-all and be-all it once was. Even as Segal mentions J, E, P, and D, he seems to have little feeling for them. Although he refers sparsely to "the storyteller," or "the narrator," and eventually to a supposed final redactor, for most of the book, he makes no such references, talking about God and his motivation and about the aims of Joseph or Moses. And as long as he has no feel for the needs and aspirations of the various biblical groupings, and no sense of their polemics against each other and how the winners have written the history, then he's condemned to repeating those polemics, and to adding his own layer.
But considering where I found his book (remaindered), he's not likely to be the victor writing the history.
Whew! (Wipes sweat from brow.) Now I don't think I'll proceed to finish the other problematic book that I mentioned at the beginning of this review. Too many such books are draining.
Here's a guy who brags that he's not a bible scholar and not a historian but claims those are assets since what he wants is to look through fresh eyes, as he was given permission by Buber:
Martin Buber offers a method for experiencing the full power of the Bible. Buber maintains that the Bible affects us most powerfully when we read it in a particular way: as "something entirely unfamiliar." To do this we must bracket out what religion teaches us about the Bible. And further we must bracket out what history teaches about the Biblical text and the people who brought it forth. Perhaps, then, at least in this context, it is appropriate that I am neither a Biblical scholar nor an historian. By training I am a philosopher, schooled to read closely. (pp. ix-x)
What he's taking his close look at is a translation.
--from The New Yorker magazine, Will McPhail, January 9, 2017
Expertise sometimes could make a difference.
For Segal the bible is an existential novel with its own internal logic. What he claims to be doing is literary analysis. At one point, he does say:
...it should be clear that my concern remains that of offering a literary interpretation of the text--in particular of understanding God's core motivation within the story. (p. 111)
That, I think, is his rationale for doing theology--although he's not a theologian any more than he's a bible scholar or a historian. For what he's done is write a book about God as an anthropomorphized figure with an anger-management problem, or, better, God as unpredictable and out of control. (And in Segal's telling, he is a he.) The author goes on at length about God's explosive and/or unpredictable behavior, with reminders of his own supposed aim in writing the book few and far between. Boundaries that would support that one is reading literary analysis and not theology are lost or nonexistent; the author loses himself in the story. As far as I'm concerned, he can do theology. Just come clean. His claim of literary analysis functions as a defense against criticism of the book for what it is.
The author likes some of the characters much better than God. He thinks it's they who are really being loving and supportive, while God, on the other hand, is often displeased with his people and runs them down. Thus it's Joseph who loves them and whom the people remember. It's Abraham and Moses who teach morality, while God is out of control and needs reminders such as a rainbow to behave. On this telling, morality cannot be inculcated into God, although not from want of trying. Morality comes from people. Joseph has it naturally. (Which morality isn't discussed; morality for Segal is a recognizable thing that we universally accept.) Abraham and Moses stand up to God to obtain limitations to God's vindictiveness, that is, to get the best possible deal, here meaning the least loss of life. God's a dictator, a totalitarian; he kills Moses; dispenses consequences to the group rather than to individuals. Despite God, the Hexateuch (Torah + Joshua) tells the people who they are and how to relate to God. Moses tells them how to deal with God after he's gone. In the 17-page "Afterword," Jesus finally does change God's mind so that he's not punitive any longer and dispenses reward and punishment on an individual rather than on a group level--although, the author acknowledges, he doesn't do away with death as promised.
Some of Segal's further conclusions: God is committed to fashioning people into warring groups so he can be the Israelites' God. God's core project, thus, is not to support the Israelites' worldly goals of liberation, conquest, and return to Canaan, but to bind the people to him through the terror of war and have them know him in a certain way. Humanity is God's "other," in contrast to whom he can be God. The purpose of holiness is to mollify God and help him control his rage.
Segal's plot points highlight what fits his story and shadow what doesn't. For example the Holiness Code of Leviticus 19, containing some of my favorite passages, is reduced to being a "hodgepodge," since to the author's twenty-first century eyes the trivial and the significant are mixed in together.
Segal's "fresh look" also is through "WEIRD" eyes: Western, educated (and from) industrial, rich, and democratic (countries).
Reality contends with narrative--an issue throughout, as Segal, attempting to trap the narrative into conforming to his interpretation by means of literalism, becomes stuck in his own trap. He mistakes the narrative for the situation on the ground (the map for the territory) and gets stuck in it.
For example, the anthropomorphism: because the biblical narrative describes God anthropomorphically, so does Segal. But what if Reality does not treat people nicely on a regular basis? What if Reality does not consistently give people their just deserts? What if Reality rewards them on a group and not an individual basis? What if God is All There Is, in motion, a creative edge slicing through history? What if God is "an earthquake" (as I heard Abraham Joshua Heschel quoted as saying)? Then maybe we can understand why in the bible God is sometimes pictured harshly.
Philosophers and theologians, and would-be theologians in particular, tend to confuse the story they prefer--the desired outcome--with the way things are. Once having cut the ties between narrative and situation (whatever it is, or was), then Segal is freed to criticize to his heart's content, to spin and spin, with no proof of the pudding, ever--narrative plausibility not being proof.
Another way he's trapped within the literal story is by "bracketing out" ideas about who wrote it. Actually, at the end, he does pay some attention, but compared to my lodestar, Friedman's The Exodus, he's woefully inadequate. He falls headlong into the "most scholars" pitfall, while, as Friedman wrote, truth is supported by evidence and not by majority vote. Moreover, the knowledge he has is out of date, given that the documentary hypothesis is no longer the end-all and be-all it once was. Even as Segal mentions J, E, P, and D, he seems to have little feeling for them. Although he refers sparsely to "the storyteller," or "the narrator," and eventually to a supposed final redactor, for most of the book, he makes no such references, talking about God and his motivation and about the aims of Joseph or Moses. And as long as he has no feel for the needs and aspirations of the various biblical groupings, and no sense of their polemics against each other and how the winners have written the history, then he's condemned to repeating those polemics, and to adding his own layer.
But considering where I found his book (remaindered), he's not likely to be the victor writing the history.
Whew! (Wipes sweat from brow.) Now I don't think I'll proceed to finish the other problematic book that I mentioned at the beginning of this review. Too many such books are draining.
December 15, 2011
This is an exciting book to read. You don't know exactly where the author will take you but you know it will be interesting, thought-provoking and offer a different explanation of the Bible than you have ever read. This book is written as a consistent serious thought and not for flashi or glitter. An excellent read. It is written from the Jewish position, but aware of the Jesus of Christians. Very readable and understandabale.
J. Robert Ewbank author "John Wesley, Natural Man, and the 'Isms'"
J. Robert Ewbank author "John Wesley, Natural Man, and the 'Isms'"
February 23, 2016
SUMMARY: An interpretation of the first six books of the Bible that views the story it tells as a novel about the struggle between humanity and God, God being one of the characters, one who is changed and transformed by his experiences with other characters in the novel. COMMENTS: a very different perspective – and a very different God - than the one with which most of us are familiar; rather disconcerting at times
January 5, 2014
I found this an interesting challenge to my traditional Christian Bible study understanding of God and the story of Moses and Joseph. Segal's writing made me really think and examine those philosophies.
Displaying 1 - 4 of 4 reviews