David and His Theologian: Literary, Social, and Theological Investigations of the Early Monarchy

---

Presence, Power and Promise: Firth and Paul D. Wegner Reviewed by J. The World of Achaemenid Persia: You must be logged in to post a comment. Journal for the Evangelical Study of the Old Testament. Barstad Reviewed by J. Seitz Reviewed by K. Park David and His Theologian: Rogland Dictionary of the Old Testament: An Exegetical Commentary by Victor P.

Hamilton Reviewed by D. Stuart Festive Meals in Ancient Israel: Hamilton Key Questions about Biblical Interpretation: German Laws in Early Rabbinic Collections: Baek Psalms as Torah: To further emphasize the scattered nature of the tribes and the apparent total lack of unity, the Book of Judges concludes with accounts of a destructive civil war. The tribe of Benjamin was nearly annihilated because they chose to fight rather than recognize the authority of the other tribes over them.

All of this serves to highlight the fact that Judges agrees with the minority voice in Joshua that the Israelite settlement in the land was much more complicated than the smooth operation that the first chapters of Joshua portrays. This again raises serious historical questions about Israel's entry into the land and the nature of the conquest. But it also raises questions about the nature of the material in Joshua and Judges, and how we should hear that material as Scripture.

Joshua presents the entry into the land as a rapid conquest in which the Israelites eliminated all opposition and possessed all of the land as they obeyed God and followed his leadership. They were led by a single leader appointed by God and achieved success because God fought for them and was with them. The impression given is that Israel was a tightly unified people working together as one, unified in their worship of God and in their goal of settling the land and eliminating the Canaanites from the land. Yet within Joshua there is a minority voice, another memory that acknowledges the entry into the land was anything but smooth, and that Israel was not a unified people.

It consistently acknowledges that there was a great deal of land left unconquered, and that the process of entry into the land could be seen more in terms of settlement rather than conquest. Judges presents the Israelites as a minority, precariously holding onto small enclaves of land within a much larger and stronger Canaanite majority.

Following the minority voice of Joshua, it acknowledges that many of the territories or cities reported as subdued under Joshua by all Israel were not taken until much later or by actions of individuals or alliances of tribes. The impression is given that Israel was a very loosely confederated collection of individual tribes who sometimes came together for a common cause.

They were plagued by disunity both socially and religiously, lacked any stable leadership, and often fought among themselves. This raises the primary historical questions of the two books. Was Israel's entry into the land by conquest or by settlement? Did Israel enter the land suddenly as a strongly unified conquering people?

Or did they migrate into the area over a period of time gradually spreading over the land as they were able to gain enough strength to challenge the Canaanite city-states? Or was it some combination of conquest and settlement, in which they fought some initial battles on the fringes of Canaanite territory to establish a foothold in the land, and then gradually infiltrated into Canaanite territory over a period of centuries? Or was there even a more complicated history in which they allied themselves with some Canaanite city-states and fought others, at the same time that they joined up with remnants of ancestral tribes who had remained in the central highlands around Shechem since the time of Abraham?

Or was the whole entry into the land nothing more than a peaceful migration of people who were forced into fighting battles as the people of the land resisted being crowded by newcomers, and the conquest stories are only tribal legend? And these questions then lead to literary questions about the relationship between the Books of Joshua and Judges.

The traditional view has been that the books are sequential, with Joshua telling the story of the initial successful settlement in the land under the leadership of Joshua, while Judges tells of a later time after the death of Joshua when God was punishing the people for disobedience. Yet, is it possible, in light of the minority voice in Joshua, that the books are not as sequential as traditionally thought? Is it possible that the differences in the books may not even be as much historical as they are theological?

That is, much like the different versions of the Gospels, do the two books simply present a different emphasis of essentially the same period in Israel's history? To this question we will return. Of course, historians and biblical scholars have offered various theories to address these questions. For various reasons, as noted at the beginning of this study, the historical questions have tended to dominate study of this material. As a result, many of the theories are to answer the historical questions raised by the books, since this has tended to be the area of most concern even to those who want to use the Bible as Scripture.

While there are many variations and refinements of the historical approach, most of them can be summarized under four major categories. This view favors the majority voice of Joshua as being the historical core of the traditions. It also assumes the biblical books are primarily a historical record of Israel's entry into the land preserved within the community simply because they were historical records.

A well-known proponent of this perspective is Yezekiel Kaufmann. This perspective basically accepts the traditional way of viewing the books. It assumes that the accounts are basically historically reliable as they stand in the Bible with the character of Joshua as the focal point.

He led the Israelites in a near total conquest of the land in a series of lightning strikes against the Canaanites, successful because God led them into the battles and fought for them. Judges portrays a much later time when the Israelites had abandoned the worship of God, and therefore were suffering under God's condemnation.

All of the failures of the people can be traced to their disobedience. The entire account is of military battles being fought; there was no peaceful occupation of the land at any time. What appear to be discrepancies in the accounts could be explained if we had more information. Lacking that, we simply have to accept the majority voice of Joshua as the most reliable and suspend judgment on anything that does not fit with the idea of a literal and absolute conquest of the land as portrayed in Joshua unless or until we have more information.

This perspective tries to balance Joshua and Judges as historical sources, but actually favors the evidence of archaeological data and historical reconstruction built from them as more reliable sources of historical evidence than the biblical texts. Wright, and John Bright are well-know proponents of this perspective, although they would differ in details. This view sees the traditions of a conquest of the land as a valid historical memory of Israel, but one that has been greatly modified by tradition and the retelling of the story within the community over the centuries. While the basic details of the biblical traditions need to be taken seriously as preserving that historical memory, they cannot be taken literally or at face value without some corroborating evidence that would lend support to them.

Where archaeology cannot directly support the biblical traditions, they should not be taken as reliable history, although they may still preserve valid historical memory. We simply have no way to know in cases where there is no supporting evidence. Some scholars at this point would feel much more free to speculate about the actual history, while others would insist that we should follow the biblical text in the absence of contrary evidence.

So this view tends to lean heavily on archaeology to support the basic history, assuming that the biblical story line has been heavily schematized and simplified in the biblical accounts. This view would see Joshua as a leader in early Israel, but one that become a hero figure in later generations. As a result, the traditions expanded his role and attributed some of the actions of later figures, for example some of the conquests of David, to him to validate his position as God's leader of the people.

This view leans toward Judges, as well as the minority voice of Joshua, as a more reliable source of early Israel's history. The majority voice of Joshua is rejected as being too idealized and too heavily influenced by theological and tribal agenda to be of much value. The methods employed are far more historical, trying to reconstruct history from ancient documents, artifacts, and preserved traditions in order to build a historical stage on which to set the biblical material.

As a result, there is heavy dependence on comparative religion, as well as logical interpretation and reconstruction of history, a technique common in the late 19th and early 20th centuries. Albrecht Alt and Martin Noth are the most well known advocates of this approach. Israel's movement into the land is seen as a relatively peaceful migration of tribes who gradually settled among the city-states of Palestine. After an extended period of consolidation in the 11th and 10th centuries, the settlement climaxed in a period of expansion under the leadership of David in the 9th and early 8th centuries.

The Israelites who first entered the land joined remnants of family units who had not joined the migration to Egypt with Jacob and had remained through the centuries in the central highlands around Shechem. They fought isolated battles as they expanded their territory and encroached into Canaanite controlled areas. But there were no "all Israel" wars, which was a romanticized nationalistic ideal projected back into this period from a much later time, reflected in the book of Joshua.

Joshua himself was only a local Ephraimite leader who gradually became associated with the "all Israel" ideal. There was no "people" until the tribal confederation portrayed in Joshua This covenant ceremony became the focal point for the rise of the unified people that would become the nation of Israel. This perspective rejects both Joshua and Judges as reliable historical accounts, and rather depends on modern social theory to address the historical issues. The methods employed are a specific type of social theory that sees progression and development in society as the result of class struggle between the "haves" and the "have nots.

Basic Introduction to the Bible

Proponents of this perspective are George Medenhall and Norman Gottwald. In this view, the idea of "tribe" should be understood as a social unit, not a family unit. The relationships that appear as family relationships in the traditions are actually ways to describe social relationships and interactions.

Featured Verse Topics

The conflict present in the accounts between Israelites and Canaanites should be understood as an internal class struggle between peasant villagers Israelites and wealthy city dwellers Canaanites , a struggle between the "haves" and the "have nots. The association of all the later Israelites with the early events of the exodus, Sinai, and entry into the land is a projection back into history of the story of the group that emerged as a dominant "tribe" in the area. They simply adopted the story of the small group of escaped slaves that first entered the land and made it a national heritage.

These different perspectives on the historical issues of the books each attempt to construct a plausible historical scenario of the material in Joshua and Judges. As can be seen from this brief survey, there are arguments on all sides of the issue, some depending more on the biblical texts in various ways while others depend more on evidence external to the text, reconstruction, and speculation. But the diversity of the opinions, none of which provides adequate explanation to all aspects of the biblical text, suggests that in asking historical questions we may be asking questions that the text itself cannot answer, or perhaps was never intended to answer.

This has led biblical scholars to turn to other methods for addressing the apparent historical discrepancies in the books. These perspectives use a literary approach in examining the text, asking questions of how the tradition developed, how the books were composed, what the relationship might be between the books and to other biblical traditions in terms of story line, what is actually intended to be communicated, history and methods of composition, and possible sources. Of course, some of these methods are just as speculative as historical reconstruction.

But many have found that examining the texts in terms of literary dynamic and intent has produced a better understanding of the texts than trying to answer the historical questions. As we might expect, there are a variety of perspectives in a literary approach. However, all begin with a basic assumption: That simply means that the study of the biblical material may use historical aspects of the text if possible, but that the primary focus is the text themselves and the story they communicate. We should note that, in similar ways to historical investigation, some of the literary methods do not have a direct or theological intent.

That is, the immediate goal of literary analysis is not to reach theological statements, but to understand the books as literature produced by a certain community in history. That may well yield theological results, since the community is a faith community and these are religious texts. But the immediate goal of these approaches is to learn more about the text as a literary work. Here also we should distinguish different uses of the term "literary", since it is used in three major ways.

First, in its broad meaning, "literary" simply means a focus on the text, as opposed to the history of which the text tells or in which it was produced.

In this sense, literary methods include any technique of investigation that is primarily concerned with a document or piece of writing as literature. Second, a much more technical meaning of the term emerged in the 19th century in which literary analysis was directly connected to historical research. It referred to the study of various strands of tradition or sources, whether oral or written, that were used to compose a document. The study of these sources was a prolegomena, as Julius Wellhausen put it, to historical investigation, trying to establish reliable sources for the study of history.

The first two perspectives surveyed below are generally of this type.

Third, today literary criticism is still a technical term but used much more broadly to refer to the study of the inner workings of a document, things like plot development, rhetorical dynamic, features such as irony and satire, word play, structure, the use of certain patterns or forms, all the features that go into making a piece of literature.

The last two perspectives below work from this broader definition. This "new literary criticism" is far less connected with historical issues, although most do not neglect it completely. However, in some of the more radical developments in literary criticism, such as structuralism, there is no need to place a piece of literature into a historical context. It is assumed that the "meaning" of literature by its very nature is self-contained within the piece of literature. We cannot take time here to trace the development of source analysis, although a couple of observations are necessary.

As mentioned above, source analysis arose as an adjunct to historical investigation in trying to establish the reliability of documents as historical resources. In its early phases, literary analysis was concerned with establishing the oldest strand that went into the composition of a literary work. Historians assumed that the earliest strand would be the most historically reliable.

However, as the emphasis began to shift more to the text itself rather than to the history it could illuminate, the concern shifted to sources as clues to the compositional technique of the literature, and therefore as clues to the nature of the work itself. Sources in the Pentateuch. The general conclusion was that the Pentateuch was a composite work that grew out of the life of the community of Faith over several centuries rather than beings composed at one time by Moses himself. Later study allowed a larger role for the older Mosaic traditions, but did not change the perspective that the book in its final form was the product of a long development with a variety of strands of tradition.

Much like the different views of the four Gospels, the Pentateuch was formed from different strands of traditions that circulated in Israel representing different perspectives on Israel's history see The Synoptic Problem. As scholars applied the methods of source analysis and viewed the Pentateuch in terms of various strands of tradition or sources, the question arose about the extent of those sources.

That is, could sources be seen in other places in the Old Testament beyond the Pentateuch? This issue revolved around the relationship of the Book of Deuteronomy to the writings both before and after it. While Deuteronomy had been traditionally included as the last book of the Pentateuch, it is also obvious that it relates very closely to the book of Joshua that follows it since the story line of entry into the land from the Pentateuch continues in Joshua.

And, as we have seen, Joshua has close connections with Judges, while Judges in turn sets the stage for the rise of the monarchy recounted in Samuel and Kings. This relationship of the books of Joshua through Kings had long been recognized in Jewish tradition where they are known together as The Former Prophets the Latter Prophets are the prophetic books of Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, and the Book of the Twelve so-called Minor Prophets. The new question was how to understand the literary relationship of Deuteronomy as part of the Pentateuch to the material in the Former prophets, and especially in Joshua.

The first approach to this issue simply extended the results of study of the Pentateuch to the Former Prophets. Scholars had identified several specific strands of tradition in the Pentateuch and so they concluded that the connection of Deuteronomy with Joshua and the books that followed could be explained by tracing the same strands of tradition into the Former Prophets, at least through the early chapters of Joshua. In this view, even though Deuteronomy was recognized to be a separate strand of tradition from much of the rest of the Pentateuch labeled the D tradition or source , it was seen as part of an unfolding story that continued through Joshua.

Joshua was the fulfillment of the promises of possessing the land made throughout the Pentateuch and especially in Deuteronomy. While Joshua shared the same perspective as the narratives in the Pentateuch, Judges was seen as a different kind of writing, taking the story in a different direction both in terms of literary structure and in terms of content and theological themes.

As a result, the strands of tradition together were grouped as Gen-Exod-Lev-Num-Deut-Josh, with Jud-Sam-Kings forming a later set of traditions that told Israel's history in a different way this follows the Hebrew canon in which Ruth and Chronicles are not seen as part of this history; see Canons of the Hebrew Bible. In effect, this lengthened the Pentateuch "five books" to a Hexateuch "six books".

The term Hexateuch was simply a way to refer to the idea that Joshua should be seen with the books of the Pentateuch and separate from Judges through Kings. While the idea of a Hexateuch could explain the relationship of Deuteronomy with Joshua, problems with this proposal quickly emerged. The sources that could be seen rather easily in the Pentateuch, and upon which the while idea rested, could not be easily traced in Joshua if at all. Also, while the relationship of Deuteronomy and Joshua was clear, how that relationship should be seen in terms of the other four books of the Pentateuch remained uncertain since Joshua had little connection with those four books.

Likewise, there was no adequate explanation, if all six books were to be seen as comprising a common set of traditions, why Deuteronomy should have influenced Joshua so heavily, but not have influenced the books preceding it more. Also, the idea of a Hexateuch separated Joshua from the rest of the Former Prophets, something unlikely considering the close connections between the minority voice in Joshua and Judges that we have already seen.

The whole issue of the literary relationship of the Pentateuch and the Former Prophets went a different direction with the work of Martin Noth. While his ideas are detailed and have been extended and revised by others, his basic proposal was that the book of Deuteronomy along with the Former Prophets should be seen as an independent work reaching its final form during the Israelite exile to Babylon.

The entire work, Deuteronomy along with Joshua, Judges, Samuel, and Kings, incorporated many older traditions and perhaps even earlier versions of Deuteronomy itself. In its final exilic development it interpreted Israel's history from that later perspective c. Deuteronomy was the introduction to this entire historical work that was called the Deuteronomic History.

This accounted for the close connection of Deuteronomy with Joshua and the books that followed. This in effect reduced the Pentateuch to a Tetrateuch "four books". Historically, the implications of this perspective is much more far-reaching than the Hexateuch proposal. While the Hexateuch was not used to argue a literal historical record for the material of either Joshua or Judges, it did allow a more traditional approach to the historical issues. Generally, the traditions of both the Hexateuch and the remaining Former Prophets were thought to be very old traditions.

With Joshua connected with Deuteronomy, the sequential unfolding of settlement in the land, with later apostasy in the period of the Judges, was more likely. However, with the Tetrateuch approach, the entire account of settlement in the land was seen as a very late development in Israel's history, at least in the form it appears in the books now.

While various scholars took the historical questions more seriously than others in working with this approach, to many this suggested that these later traditions were not as reliable as historical records since they were actually written years after the events in a radically different historical context. Later studies were more ready to allow greater validity to oral tradition in the ancient world, as well as allowing very old strands of tradition to be incorporated into the final work.

Still, the effect of this approach was to push the historical issues into the background in favor of seeing the Deuteronomic History as more of a social or theological interpretation of history rather than simply the recording of historical data. Noth's proposal has been widely accepted since it allows us to explain many of the features of the biblical text for which historical or source approaches could not. Some have not accepted his perspective for fear of what it might do to certain theories about the nature and authority of Scripture.

Yet, in many ways it provides a perspective from which to take the biblical traditions seriously apart from the magnitude of historical problems that emerge in Joshua and Judges. Still, many have challenged his proposal on other grounds than just certain view of Scripture. From slightly different perspectives both Brevard Childs and James Sanders raised questions that went beyond dealing with traditions and sources from which the books were composed. The new questions they raised sought to understand how the books related to each other in terms of functioning together as part of the canon of Scripture for a community or communities of Faith.

The fact remains that in spite of all the previous proposals, the actual canon of Scripture has been a Pentateuch followed by the account of Israel's settlement in the land. This concern with canon takes that order seriously, yet without returning to a position that allows the historical questions to override the biblical text itself. It was not the biblical text that forced the various divisions, but the assumptions in asking historical questions and using historical methods that led to trying to sort the material out along historical lines.

This does not suggest that the historical methods did not produce helpful results, only that finally they do not deal adequately with the biblical text as Scripture for the Church. The perspective of a canonical whole asserts that how the community of Faith arranged the biblical material, whether by redactors or authors, whether from oral tradition or documents, whether ancient or newer traditions, is the governing factor in how we should see the material.

The primary question is not, "what were the sources from which this document was composed? This has significant implications for how we see the relationship between Joshua and Judges, as well as the relationship of those books to the larger canon.

The expedition became the first to reach Lake Malawi and they explored it in a four-oared gig. In , they returned to the coast to await the arrival of a steam boat specially designed to sail on Lake Malawi. Mary Livingstone arrived along with the boat. She died on 27 April from malaria and Livingstone continued his explorations. Attempts to navigate the Ruvuma River failed because of the continual fouling of the paddle wheels from the bodies thrown in the river by slave traders, and Livingstone's assistants gradually died or left him.

It was at this point that he uttered his most famous quotation, "I am prepared to go anywhere, provided it be forward. The Zambezi Expedition was castigated as a failure in many newspapers of the time, and Livingstone experienced great difficulty in raising funds to further explore Africa. Nevertheless, John Kirk, Charles Meller, and Richard Thornton, the scientists appointed to work under Livingstone, did contribute large collections of botanical, ecological, geological, and ethnographic material to scientific Institutions in the United Kingdom.

In January , Livingstone returned to Africa, this time to Zanzibar , and from there he set out to seek the source of the Nile. Livingstone believed that the source was farther south and assembled a team to find it consisting of freed slaves, Comoros Islanders, twelve Sepoys , and two servants from his previous expedition, Chuma and Susi. Livingstone set out from the mouth of the Ruvuma river, but his assistants gradually began deserting him.

The Comoros Islanders had returned to Zanzibar and falsely informed authorities that Livingstone had died. He reached Lake Malawi on 6 August, by which time most of his supplies had been stolen, including all his medicines. Livingstone then travelled through swamps in the direction of Lake Tanganyika, with his health declining. He sent a message to Zanzibar requesting that supplies be sent to Ujiji and he then headed west, forced by ill health to travel with slave traders. He arrived at Lake Mweru on 8 November and continued on, travelling south to become the first European to see Lake Bangweulu.

Upon finding the Lualaba River , Livingstone theorised that it could have been the high part of the Nile River ; but realised that it in fact flowed into the River Congo at Upper Congo Lake. The year began with Livingstone finding himself extremely ill while in the jungle. He was saved by Arab traders who gave him medicines and carried him to an Arab outpost. He was coming down with cholera and had tropical ulcers on his feet, so he was again forced to rely on slave traders to get him as far as Bambara—where he was caught by the wet season.

With no supplies, Livingstone had to eat his meals in a roped-off enclosure for the entertainment of the locals in return for food. On 15 July , [20] he witnessed around Africans being massacred by slavers while visiting Nyangwe on the banks of the Lualaba River. Livingstone was wrong about the Nile, but he identified numerous geographical features for Western science, such as Lake Ngami , Lake Malawi , and Lake Bangweulu , in addition to Victoria Falls mentioned above.

He filled in details of Lake Tanganyika , Lake Mweru , and the course of many rivers, especially the upper Zambezi, and his observations enabled large regions to be mapped which previously had been blank.

() « Journal for the Evangelical Study of the Old Testament

Even so, the farthest north he reached was the north end of Lake Tanganyika — still south of the Equator — and he did not penetrate the rainforest of the River Congo any further downstream than Ntangwe near Misisi. Livingstone was awarded the gold medal of the Royal Geographical Society of London and was made a Fellow of the society, with which he had a strong association for the rest of his life.

Livingstone completely lost contact with the outside world for six years and was ill for most of the last four years of his life. Only one of his 44 letter dispatches made it to Zanzibar. One surviving letter to Horace Waller was made available to the public in by its owner Peter Beard.

Doubtful if I live to see you again He found Livingstone in the town of Ujiji on the shores of Lake Tanganyika on 10 November , [25] greeting him with the now famous words "Dr Livingstone, I presume? The words are famous because of their perceived humour, Livingstone being the only other white person for hundreds of miles.

Stanley's book suggests that it was really because of embarrassment because he did not dare to embrace him. Despite Stanley's urgings, Livingstone was determined not to leave Africa until his mission was complete. His illness made him confused and he had judgement difficulties at the end of his life.

Publications of K. C. Hanson

He explored the Lualaba and, failing to find connections to the Nile, returned to Lake Bangweulu and its swamps to explore possible rivers flowing out northwards. Livingstone is known as "Africa's greatest missionary," yet he is recorded as having converted only one African: Sechele was born in His father died when Sechele was 10, and two of his uncles divided the tribe, which forced Sechele to leave his home for nine years.

When Sechele returned, he took over one of his uncle's tribes; at that point, he met David Livingstone. He could never permanently convert the tribesmen to Christianity, however. Among other reasons, Sechele, by then the leader of the African tribe, did not like the way that Livingstone could not demand rain of his God like his rainmakers, who said that they could. After long hesitation from Livingstone, he baptised Sechele and had the church completely embrace him.

Sechele was now a part of the church, but he continued to act according to his African culture, which went against Livingstone's teachings. Sechele was no different from any other man of his tribe in believing in polygamy. He had five wives, and when Livingstone told him to get rid of four of them, it shook the foundations of the Kwena tribe. After he finally divorced the women, Livingstone baptised them all and everything went well.

However, one year later one of his ex-wives became pregnant and Sechele was the father. Sechele begged Livingstone to not give up on him because his faith was still strong, but Livingstone left the country and went north to continue his Christianizing attempts. Livingstone immediately interested Sechele, and especially his ability to read. Being a quick learner, Sechele learned the alphabet in two days and soon called English a second language. After teaching his wives the skill, he wrote the Bible in his native tongue. After Livingstone left the Kwena tribe, Sechele remained faithful to Christianity and led missionaries to surrounding tribes as well as converting nearly his entire Kwena people.

In the estimation of Neil Parsons of the University of Botswana, Sechele "did more to propagate Christianity in 19th-century southern Africa than virtually any single European missionary". Although Sechele was a self-proclaimed Christian, many European missionaries disagreed. The Kwena tribe leader kept rainmaking a part of his life as well as polygamy.

David Livingstone died in at the age of 60 in Chief Chitambo's village at Ilala, southeast of Lake Bangweulu , in present-day Zambia , from malaria and internal bleeding due to dysentery. His loyal attendants Chuma and Susi removed his heart and buried it under a tree near the spot where he died, which has been identified variously as a Mvula tree or a Baobab tree. In London, his body lay in repose at No.

And if my disclosures regarding the terrible Ujijian slavery should lead to the suppression of the East Coast slave trade, I shall regard that as a greater matter by far than the discovery of all the Nile sources together. Livingstone wrote of the slave trade in the African Great Lakes region, which he visited in the mid-nineteenth century:. We passed a slave woman shot or stabbed through the body and lying on the path. Livingstone's letters, books, and journals [19] did stir up public support for the abolition of slavery; [1] however, he became dependent for assistance on the very slave-traders whom he wished to put out of business.

He was a poor leader of his peers, and he ended up on his last expedition as an individualist explorer with servants and porters but no expert support around him. At the same time, he did not use the brutal methods of maverick explorers such as Stanley to keep his retinue of porters in line and his supplies secure. For these reasons, he accepted help and hospitality from onwards from Mohamad Bogharib and Mohamad bin Saleh also known as "Mpamari" , traders who kept and traded in slaves , as he recounts in his journals.

They, in turn, benefited from Livingstone's influence with local people, which facilitated Mpamari's release from bondage to Mwata Kazembe. Livingstone was furious to discover that some of the replacement porters sent at his request from Ujiji were slaves. By the late s Livingstone's reputation in Europe had suffered owing to the failure of the missions he set up, and of the Zambezi Expedition; and his ideas about the source of the Nile were not supported.

• EXEX: La mujer del bigote (Spanish Edition)
• Against their will
• Intense Restraint
• Führung in Krisensituationen. Theoretische Ansatzpunkte und Implikationen für die Praxis (German Edition)
• Women’s Suffrage Memorabilia: An Illustrated Historical Study
• Phèdre (French Edition)
• Cognitive Enhancement: An Interdisciplinary Perspective: 1 (Trends in Augmentation of Human Performance)