{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.03017031630170316, 'fraction_numerical': 0.00827250608272506, 'mean_word_length': 4.648351648351649, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Book Review: What Do We Know of Moses?

FOR HIS book Beegle envisions an audience comprised of both laymen and technical scholars. "The chasm between scholars and laymen (both in and out of the church) is widening. This book is an attempt to bridge the gap" (p. 12). The purposes for his work, however, develop an emphasis on the layman. He seeks "(1) to encourage an interest in biblical study in those open-minded persons who have not had a meaningful experience with scripture, and (2) to instruct all those who have the desire but lack the knowledge to interpret the Bible effectively' (p. 11). The book must be judged, therefore, not in terms of its contribution to a scholarly discussion, but in terms of its effectiveness in mediating gains already won in that discussion to people who have not yet heard the news. In order to accomplish his purposes Beegle focuses research on the life of Moses. The format of his work does not appear as biography, however. He is aware of contemporary methodology, as well as major issues in the discussion about Moses narratives, and these items he attempts to communicate in the context of detailed examination of biblical texts. As a consequence the format more closely resembles a commentary on Exodus-Deuteronomy; indeed, on occasion he provides extended commentary on texts that have little or nothing to do with the life of Moses (cf. his treatment of Num. 22-24, pp. 320-26). The book opens with a survey of methodologies available for unpacking texts like the Moses narratives. Particular commendation falls on the presentation of classical source criticism. After reviewing objections to a wooden application of source analysis, and noting increasing reluctance among contemporary scholars to sort out J and E, Beegle concludes that the mixture provoking traditional separations between J and E probably "took place during the long period of oral transmission and that when the so-called J source was put in written form this mixture was already present," (pp. 23t). This position sounds like a program-