What is Reed's Thesis about Moses?

-

(Note: I’m just explicating what I think Reed’s argument is, not sharing my own views)
How does Ismael Reed treat Moses in the Chapter 52s in Mumbo Jumbo? There are a lot of contrasting religious and historical theories about Moses: if he was literally a real person, and if not, what the figure of “Moses” in the Old Testament represents. In traditional Jewish history, Moses is an Israelite who “washes up” in Egypt and leads an Exodus of the Jewish people (with some help from God’s 10 Plagues), freeing the Jewish peoples from their enslavement. Modern historical theory agrees that Moses (if he is literally a real person) was Egyptian, not an Israelite as Jewish tradition decrees. Furthermore, there is a mainstream historical theory that Moses is not a real person (as I have alluded to) but instead is a figurative representation of a real historical figure. I argue that Reed endorses this view.
Specifically, I think Reed endorses the view that Moses represents Akhenaten, an Egyptian Pharaoh. The idea that Moses represents Akhenaten is not remotely foreign, as it is endorsed by some historical experts. This may seem extremely ironic, as in Jewish Tradition Moses is freeing the Jewish people from the wrath of a Pharaoh, but there are many similarities. Akhenaten is known for trying to bring monotheism to Egypt (where the lone deity was represented by the “sun”--called Aten) and created a cult known as “Atenism.” Akhenaten tries to stop any worship of idols other than Aten, which was extremely unpopular and led to Akhenaten being sent into exile and the total failure of Akhenaten’s implementation of the cult of Atenism. If in mainstream historical discourse Akhenaten is the founder of Atenism, then in Reed’s riff on the story of Exodus Moses is the founder of Atonism.
Finally, I want to share my feelings about why Reed endorses this view. Maybe Reed is legitimately trying to poke holes is Judeo-Christian tradition and argue to the reader that the Abrahamic god is stolen from Voodoo and the Exodus is not real et cetera. I really don’t think this is the case here. This doesn’t really fit with the rest of the book. His argument isn’t that Atonist religion is fake, per se, but rather that the control Atonism tries to exert on non-Atonists is extremely racist and fundamentally wrong. I certainly don’t think Reed thinks too highly of Christian Evangelists, and I doubt any of you would disagree with that. I think that Reed is intentionally trying to marginalize Judeo-Christian tradition as an example of what Abrahamic religions have done to “pagan” religions over the past 1000s of years. Reed wants some 1 to get mad that Moses, 1 of the most important prophets in the Jewish religion is not only portrayed with Isis (whom Jews would discredit as an illegitimate “idol”), but also absolutely desperate to have sex with her. This is intentionally impolite to Jewish tradition, and all Reed really wants some 1 to say is “How could you do this??? This is the most sacred prophet in the Jewish religion! How dare you treat our religion with this utter disrespect.” To which Reed would say, “Oh… so you realize how it feels when some 1 completely lacks respect for your spiritual beliefs now?” When Reed discusses a triumph by Jes Grew over Atonism, he does not mean this as doom for Judeo-Christian religion and culture, but rather a harmonic coexistence where Christianity and Voodoo can exist on equal levels.

Comments

  1. Elizabeth TFebruary 26, 2020 at 7:30 PM

    Yeah, so the “Moses” storyline of Mumbo Jumbo is definitely the part I had the most trouble swallowing, and this is an interesting analysis of why exactly Reed would include this “retelling” of Abrahamic tradition in his book. I agree that I don’t see Jes Grew as standing directly opposed to monotheism, because at other points in the novel, Reed speaks approvingly of Abdul (a black Muslim) or Nathan Brown (a follower of the Black Christ). He isn’t necessarily thrilled by these people or their beliefs, but he (Papa Labas or Reed, take your pick) does seem to respect them. I feel like that fits in with your theory, that Reed is less anti-monotheism, and more anti-monotheistic-metanarrative, which is the Knights-Templar, Crusades, and conquering side of Christianity that many other religions and cultures were met with.
    Or … maybe that’s just me, trying to fit this book into my own personal meta-narrative, which does not approve of Moses having sex with Isis. Maybe it’s just my own prejudices trying to water down Reed’s argument.

    ReplyDelete
  2. KeshavFebruary 29, 2020 at 8:38 PM

    Personally, I think Reed is not trying to be offensive. Reed simply seems to be supporting the postmodern idea that there are multiple "true" narratives. Jes Grew's ideology just happens to be in conflict with Atonism (and monotheism in general by extension). From this, I like your point about how Jes Grew's existence does not conflict with Christianity, as it is accepting of multiple perspectives. Reed is trying to navigate the views of non-Abrahamic perspectives that have been belittled by Atonism throughout history. As you mentioned, there is also this element of Reed wanting to show "Atonist" readers (basically readers of an Abrahamic faith) what it is like to have their religion looked down upon. Overall, I really liked how you explicated Reed's arguments.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Anya Kaplan-HartnettMarch 11, 2020 at 1:51 PM

    I must admit that when I first read LaBas' history of Egypt and Moses, I felt that Reed was somehow disrespecting a narrative that's important to so many people. But after digging into this story, I agree that Reed isn't being disrespectful so much as subversive. He's challenging the notion of narrative superiority while demolishing Western religion's disdain for not only polytheism but all non-Western culture. Why is the Moses story as recorded in the Torah or Bible any more important than LaBas' story of Jes Grew?

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Recreation and Reincarnation in Ragtime

-
An interesting theme in Ragtime is the paradigm of recreation and reincarnation that Doctorow creates throughout the novel. The idea of literal reincarnation is first brought up by J.P Morgan as he discusses the topic with Henry Ford. Both men endorse the idea of literal rebirth, and Henry Ford even notes that he feels he is a genius because he has just lived more times than other humans. Although most readers in contemporary times regard this idea as preposterous, reincarnation takes a more figurative meaning throughout the book as many characters experience a rebirth and reform themselves, including Harry Houdini and Tateh. Harry Houdini was born as a poor Hungarian Jewish Immigrant named Erik Weisz. He had a flat face shaped like an upside-down triangle, with a noticeably crooked nose. He could never gain any sort of acceptance, success, or fame as a Jew. So, he decided to reinvent himself as Harry Houdini, naming himself after a famous Frenchman named Houdin. He left behind e...
Read more

How to minimize guilt, pandemic edition.

-
Through The Plague we see characters employ a dazzling array of internal and external narrative techniques as an excuse for their inability to take “the plague” seriously and lead to the mass death of innocent people. At the center of these techniques are Paneloux’s sermons, centered upon the fact that the effects of the plague are inevitable, and nothing can or really should be done to try to mitigate its effects. Disregard the religious nature of his argument, and consider its empirical effects on people. People kind of like this argument, for secular reasons, because they feel less guilty about their failures to prevent the spread of the epidemic themselves. There’s a reason why people eat this crap up, and it isn’t necessarily because people share the exact religious views of Paneloux, but because they love how he assuages their guilt. And in my opinion, it’s this exact mindset that drives the plague to become as devastating as it got. When Paneloux describes the suffering that the...
Read more

What is the Ms. Dalloway going to be about? Is Ms. Dalloway happy?

-
  I think a pretty core question to the beginning of Ms. Dalloway is whether Clarissa Dalloway herself is happy. And not only happy but also content; does she have a lot of regret in her life? A lot of people, including myself, I’ve listened to discussing the beginning of Ms. Dalloway in class seem to endorse the idea that Ms. Dalloway is happy, or at least overall content. I see Ms. Dalloway as a strong female character, confident in herself. And Woolf shares this confidence in Ms. Dalloway. She chooses to have the story focus on Ms. Dalloway despite the fact that her husband, Richard is an M.P. Most traditional English Literature stories would not only focus on the men in general but would be even more likely to focus on men who have an “important” role in the British government. So Woolf is clearly trying to make a point by making Richard and M.P. and then declining to focus on him whatsoever.  But is Ms. Dalloway truly content? To answer this question, I think we have ...
Read more