Revisionist Tripe

To compensate for this unfair slight against the virtue of tolerance, Kirsch rewrites as fiction seven major OT stories -some less controversially than others -and that takes up half the book; for the rest, he depends on some of that revisionist feminist scholarship (the sort of people who think that Beethoven's symphonies are expressions of sexual frustration) to "let the reader see what is actually written" in stories that have been covered up for centuries by the priestly censors with the blue noses. [10] Along the way Kirsch chauvinistically assumes a host of 20th century values upon ancient peoples (though strangely, not always -- unlike C. Dennis McKinsey, he realizes the necessity of Deut. 22:8-9 in its social context, and even refers to it as something that "can be seen as an entirely positive and even progressive measure"!) and tells us what he thinks are horror stories but are actually useless revelations that deserve a sustained, "Well, DUUU-UUHHH!" and little else. (Example: Did you know that the Israelites did not adhere to their own laws? Really. I thought they were perfect.)

Most of what Kirsch offers may sound objectionable but is not a big deal in the long run, and may even be agreeable to some readers. Lot is no hero, but a "tragic buffoon" (actually, I agree on that for the most part); Ishmael was not "mocking" Isaac, but molesting him. (Possibly - the linguistic data offers possible but not even close to conclusive support, and Kirsch's main argument for this is not the data itself [which he admits does not, according to the best scholarship, favor his position] but that it makes Sarah look more humane and decent for throwing Ish and Hagar out of the house! Then again, this sure puts paid to the idea that Ish was being portrayed as a baby, doesn't it?) On the other hand, we have the oddball suggestions as well: Shechem and Dinah may have actually been secret lovers, prehistoric paragons of political correctness whose ultimate motive was to relax intertribal rivalries. Israel living with the Canaanites is an example of "a place where men and women of different tribes and different faiths live side by side" (paging Jesse Jackson!). None of this sort of thing is supported by responsible, non-revisionist scholarship, which Kirsch sometimes refers to but simply dismisses when it does not suit his purposes of producing the most "high-spirited" and "candid" version of events possible, versions that are his own creation as a whole and make the rather simply-told stories recounted in the Bible sound more like a steamy romance novel. (For example, Kirsch goes into great detail about the sexual liaison between Judah and Tamar -- details which may indeed be in the background of the story as it actually happened, but aren't in the text. More particularly, scholarship on all sides recognizes that the stories of Judah and Tamar on one hand, and Joseph and Potiphar's wife on the other, are purposely juxtaposed to show Joseph as a positive contrast to Judah. Kirsch dismisses this as a "facile explanation" because Joseph leads his people into the place where they will be enslaved and nearly destroyed, whereas Judah will bring forth the "kings of ancient Israel and ultimately the Messiah." What this has to do with the individual, personal acts of Joseph and Judah, I cannot fathom, but I note that I have never heard any Jew curse Joseph for his role in the troubles in Egypt, and the story of Judah merely proves in the Biblical context that God can make lemonade out of our lemons in spite of ourselves. Kirsch's logical skills could use some greasing.)

Most annoying of all of our samples, however, is this one, and it is typical of the type of poor scholarship Kirsch engages. Citing Exodus 33:18-23, where God tells Moses that he will cover him with His hand as his "glory" (kabod) passes. Kirsch writes that kabod not only means "glory" but also "liver" - and this, he says, is a euphemism for the genitals. Hence, what God was hiding was not his glory, but - well, you get the idea! It's too bad that Kirsch let his sexual excitement get the best of his intellect: Such an interpretation of kabod hardly squares with the rest of the passage which refers to God's face as what cannot be seen...unless Kirsch is so inclined as to suggest variable divine anatomy. And what Kirsch then makes of other passages in Exodus that refer to God's kabod, like Exodus 16:7 ("..and in the morning you shall see the glory of the LORD, because he has heard your complaining against the LORD.") we can only guess. (Kirsch also makes some questionable arguments about the story of Jephthah's daughter, which we will include in a essay on that subject.)

In closing, we may observe that Kirsch is simply a misguided soul who has fallen for the misconception (also perpetrated by that most ignorant of 19th-century skeptics, Robert Ingersoll) that the "Word of God" shouldn't have nasty things in it and ought to make us all feel good about ourselves, as though it were some bottle of miracle tonic we could drink from to make us healthy, wealthy and wise. Personally, I would be more suspicious if everyone in the Bible were portrayed as Prince Charming and Cinderella rather than with the warts of the wicked witch. Any book that did not tell the truth could not be the Word of God at all, and that's the concept that Kirsch and those of like-mind need to comprehend before hauling off and caterwauling about the blood and guts. Kirsch's politically-correct revisionism is no more justified than the alleged "suppression" of the "hot spots" in the Bible he so decries.