Richard Elliot Friedman had an important impact on me with Who Wrote the Bible?
When I first read John's post, I wondered if this was "Reform Theology." My Rabbi, after all, knows exactly when the Song of the Sea was written.
I've touched on Reform Theology before; my impression, as a layman, is that there is little academic interest in this subject - maybe because non-reform Jews tend to view Reform Rabbis as shmucky. Shmucky the Clown -
http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.p ... +the+Clown
A Derogatory name for a person or persons who, though at times may be amusing, are really just a useless flap of skin that nobody really wants to deal with and is generally good for nothing.
My experience with Reform Theology was onboard a cruise ship during Hanukkah where the Rabbi mentioned that Maccabees II was Pharisaic. This view has no academic merit, so far as I know, but rather than tell the obvious lie about the miracle oil, he takes a highly dubious biblical studies position. Of course, Reform Jews want Christians to think that they are totally normal, and you can't really tell people that you are celebrating and exchanging gifts to commemorate the killing of Jews by Jews so that they can pretend that this is just a Jewish Christmas.. seriously, why not just celebrate Xmas like the Japanese?
Anyway, I was thinking of doing some research on Reform Theology, but maybe it's just too depressing.
An issue with John's post was that a source wasn't given. It's probably this -
The Exodus Is Not Fiction
An interview with Richard Elliott Friedman
-
http://www.reformjudaism.org/exodus-not ... 1DDSf.dpuf
This isn't as ridiculous as Outhouse suggests, more like highly unlikely. It certainly comes close to impossible.
It is based on a rather strict interpretation of the documentary hypothesis.
Three of the four texts—E, P, and D—are traced to authors who were Levite priests, and these three are the only ones telling the story of Moses, Pharaoh, and the plagues. The fourth main source, called J, the one that shows no signs of having been written by a Levite priest, makes no mention of the plagues. It just jumps from Moses’ saying “Let my people go” to the story of the event at the sea.
I don't understand this, unless Dr Friedman is a Yahwist Plague denier -
Yahwist and Priestly Versions of the Plagues: 7 vs. 10 -
http://www.clt.astate.edu/wnarey/Religi ... lagues.htm
Is there any other evidence that the Levites left Egypt at the time of the Exodus?
Yes, and it comes from one of the earliest writings in the Bible, the Song of Deborah, composed in Israel in the 12th or 11th century B.C.E. After the Canaanites suffer a major defeat, Deborah summons the victorious tribes of Israel. In uniting the tribes, which constitutes the founding event of Israel’s history as a nation in its land, 10 of the tribes are summoned—but noticeably absent is Levi. Their absence is perfectly consistent with all of the other facts we have observed. The Levites weren’t there in Israel yet; they were in Egypt. Think of this: The two oldest texts in the Bible are the Song of Deborah and the Song of Miriam. The Song of Deborah, in Israel, doesn’t mention Levi. The Song of Miriam, in Egypt, doesn’t mention Israel!
It is not easy to assign dates before the 8th century BCE. However, I did see a favorable review of a guy who assigned a date of 1150 BCE to Song of the Sea.
Brian D. Russell, The Song of the Sea: The Date of Composition and Influence of Exodus 15:1-21 (Studies in Biblical Literature 101; New York: Peter Lang, 2007). Pp. xii + 215. Cloth US$68.95. ISBN 978-0-8204-8809-7.
http://www.jhsonline.org/reviews/review ... iew316.htm
This monograph is a revision of Russell's doctoral thesis conducted at Union Theological Seminary under S. Dean McBride, Jr. By considering a wide range of possibilities and methods, Russell argues that Exod 15:1-21, which he designates as the Song of the Sea, is a unified early (1150 BCE) poem.
Not being an expert, I think there is an academic consensus that the Song of the Sea and Song of Deborah were known before the bible was written, but what that means for actual dates is not clear. I would have thought that 1150 BCE is way too early to assign any biblical stuff, and this is a shaky table for Dr. Friedman's assertions to rest on. Anat addresses this subject and the importance of the 8th century above. It is also not clear that the setting of the song of the sea is Egypt.
There is no archaeological evidence against the historicity of an exodus if it was a smaller group who left Egypt. Indeed, significantly, the first biblical mention of the Exodus, the Song of Miriam, which is the oldest text in the Bible, never mentions how many people were involved in the Exodus, and it never speaks of the whole nation of Israel. It just refers to a people, an am, leaving Egypt.
It wasn’t until a much later source of the Exodus—the so-called priestly source, some 400 years later—that the number 603,550 males was added to the story.
Placing the Priestly source only 400 years after the Exodus is getting to be anachronistic in this day and age.
I think the best we can say about this idea is that it is vaguely possible.
Once you get past the fact that the Torah wasn't written by Moses, why would you want to latch onto beliefs that aren't much more likely than the one that was rejected?
One of the weird things about Reform (and I guess other forms of Judaism also) is that they seem to actually think that there are some kind of life lessons the bible teaches us... Dr Friedman addresses that partly -
My rabbi used to tell me as a child that even if we could prove that biblical events were not true, the Bible still contained great lessons.
Over time, though, I’ve come to the opposite conclusion. History matters.
Actually, I think the opposite conclusion is that it doesn't contain great lessons. Why not simply follow the commandment for
Torah_study, that doesn't mention silly beliefs being a requirement.