Posts
When I read chapter one, when Adonijah assumed he was getting the throne, this popped into my head.
I had surgery to repair a hernia last friday. All is well but the Vicodin is making it near impossible to read more then two sentences without completely zoning out.
What was I saying?
Anyway, Let's start on Kings so we don't get any further behind. It stars Solomon, a very wise man who liked to chop up babies.
The things that really stood out for me all came in chapter 3.
ReplyDeleteThe first is that the writer(s) point out that Solomon shows his love for the Lord by following the practices of his father David, *except* that he offered sacrifices and burned incense on the high places, and that the people were still sacrificing at the high places because the temple was not yet built. More about the importance of where to worship, but I don't really know enough to expound on that.
The other was the famous story of Solomon's demonstration of his newly received wisdom by threatening to have a baby chopped in half. I remember it clearly from Sunday School when I was very young, but every time the story appeared, it was said to be about two women, not specifically two prostitutes. Apparently either the lesson book, or the teacher (or both) felt a need to sanitize the so-called holy scripture for our young ears. That speaks volumes.
The folks over at Christianity Explored have launched a new site and I thought a few here might be interested: http://www.christianityexplored.org/
ReplyDeleteThe prohibition against "high places" is a preoccupation of the deuteronomistic editors, who wanted to centralize power in Jerusalem. In reality, hill-shrines and temples dotted the landscape from the 10th century BCE onward.
ReplyDeleteNotice the narrative flips between idolizing Solomon as a great wise (wise=rich?) ruler, versus him being a scumbag with so many foreign wives he had to build foreign shrines to their foreign gods.
Pay close attention to all the religious practices that are condemned, because those were actually the standard mode of religious expression for most Israelites. The editors of the Bible were an elite nationalistic sect that wanted to centralize power in Jerusalem; they never represented the religion of the people.
Pay close attention to all the religious practices that are condemned, because those were actually the standard mode of religious expression for most Israelites.
ReplyDeleteWhich religious practices are you referring to?
The editors of the Bible were an elite nationalistic sect that wanted to centralize power in Jerusalem; they never represented the religion of the people.
How did you come to this conclusion?
@Dmitri
ReplyDeleteI seem to remember only the sanitized version of the story from my childhood as well.
I also can't help but notice that there are a lot of harlots/prostitutes in the bible. No mention of any efforts to stomp out this 'immoral' practice. God seems to have plenty of opinions on who to smite in this book, but when hookers appear before the King of Israel - he's mum.
@David
ReplyDeleteAre you sure you're reading the same Bible as the rest of us?
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDelete@Brian
ReplyDeleteYea ... I think I am. Did I miss Solomon's admonishment of the harlots for their wanton ways?
Which religious practices are you referring to?
ReplyDeleteWorshipping at hill shrines (the high places, "bamot"), temples outside jerusalem founded after 925BCE, worshipping Asherah and/or her image in the form of a tree/pole (often located at bamot), worshipping Ba'al (at least in the north), the use of household idols, offering benches, household shrines.
There are other archaeologically common religious artifacts, such as small incense burners, which get no mention in the Bible. Much of it is downplayed or distorted.
In Kings 15:13 there is a mysterious reference to a מפלצתה, connected to the worship of Asherah. All other references to this have been scrubbed by the editors, and the word's meaning is thus unknown. Whatever it is can be "cut down".
Did I miss Solomon's admonishment of the harlots for their wanton ways?
Did you miss Solomon's 300 concubines?
@David
ReplyDeleteLook at Lev. 19:29, Deut. 23:18. And when you see passages like Deut. 31:16, Judg. 2:7, 2 Chron. 21:13, Hos. 4:12 and it says "playing the harlot" or "go a whoring" is there a positive or negative context?
@Abbie
ReplyDeleteYour claim is that deuteronomistic editors wanted to centralize power but you haven't given reasons for this view. That Canaanite hill shrines were present, nor that Israelites apostatized many times, are controversial in the least. 1 Kin. 3:2 has a context that Israel was supposed to destroy all the hilltop shrines and build their own centers of worship but you make it as if there is an extra biblical conspiracy afoot. Am I missing something?
Assertions you've made that I'm curious how you came to these conclusions:
*the "editors of the Bible" had their own agenda and never represented the religion of the people.
*There were other references similar to 1 Kin. 15:13 but were removed by editors.
*the Bible distorts or downplays Israel's apostasy.
@Abbie
ReplyDeleteHa! Good point!
@Brian
Those are clearly depicted negatively. (tho several of those verses are referring to idolatry) My point is when actual harlots show up on the scene - as in chapter 3 verse 16 and on - the fact that the women are harlots isn't really the point. Solomon doesn't exclaim: "OMG! Prostitutes! Smite them!!" He just handles the maternity question and sends them on their way. It strikes me that prostitution was just part of the culture. (World's oldest profession and all!)
@David
ReplyDeleteNegatively? Yeah, I'd say that is a fair assessment. So it isn't that there is "no mention of any efforts to stomp out this immoral practice" after all.
As I read your post again, even though your first two sentences seem to be about Scripture in general maybe your point was about this one instance with Solomon.
What evidence is there (even in the Bible) that monotheism was pervasive and endemic in Israel? If this were so, why does every other generation seems to fall back into traditional Canaanite polytheism? The narrative I''m reading has people in power (e.g. Moses, Samuel, Elijah) cramming monotheism down the throats of the people (sometimes literally, as when Moses made them eat their polytheistic icons) using the power of the state to stamp out Canannite religious practices. Years later, post-Constantian Roman emperors pull a similar power play on the pagan polytheists of Europe.
ReplyDeleteThat Canaanite hill shrines were present, nor that Israelites apostatized many times, are controversial in the least.
ReplyDeleteNo, because you're repeating the Deuteronomist's propaganda, which sought to explain *why* the so-called "apostasy" went on. It doesn't match the archaelogical data, and it assumes a lot of religious claims from the Torah are accurate.
Not believing the Israelites really talked to God, I find theories that rest on their exceptionalism wanting.
The Israelites that emerged in the hill-country circa 12th century BCE were pretty indistinguishable from Canaanites and other semitic tribes (such as Edomites, Moabites), and received considerable cultural influence from Phonecia (i.e. the Sidonians, who will build the Temple, which was a pretty standard 10th century edifice.)
They did not mysteriously "backslide" every generation and build hill shrines to the wrong god. They built hill-shrines, and temples, and did all sorts of stuff- to various gods including Yahweh- continually, up until (and after?) the Hezekian/Josiac reforms were carried out. That was what people did back then.
*There were other references similar to 1 Kin. 15:13 but were removed by editors.
Simple:
-There exists enigmatic references to distasteful (to the authors) cult objects and activities. They are so enigmatic as to be purposefully obfuscating.
-The Bible doesn't comprise every work of ancient Hebrew; A larger body of texts surely existed, which provided more details about standard cult practices. (We have several extra-biblical inscriptions to "Yahweh and his asherah", for instance.)
-The deuteronomical editors had every reason to strip out or avoid detailed references to what they considered apostasy.
-There is direct proof of this: names ending -baal are changed to -bosheth ("Shame"). This happens with two of Sauls sons and even when Jerubaal's story from Judges is recalled in 2nd Samuel. (He becomes Jeruboseth! Gun, meet smoking.)
-So... they probably did lots of stuff like that we're unaware of, not having original sources.
@Bruce - It stars Solomon, a very wise man who liked to chop up babies.
ReplyDeleteAbsolutely one of the best lines this project has yet produced. Kudos!
@Abbie - I won't point out each example of your begging the question, but let's look at some of your a priori assumptions:
1) "No, because you're repeating the Deuteronomist's propaganda, which sought to explain *why* the so-called 'apostasy' went on.... it assumes a lot of religious claims from the Torah are accurate."
Can you point out any real evidence that gives you reason not to assume the Torah is accurate? In other words, can you offer any argument other than, "The text is propaganda because the text is propaganda"?
Can you point to real, concrete, this-would-actually-stand-up-in-court evidence that there was some sort of redactor who changed the text? Believe me, I'm well acquainted with the literary theory behind this particular argument, but it is by no means the best or clearest explanation of the text and its structure.
2) "They did not mysteriously 'backslide' every generation and build hill shrines to the wrong god.... There exists enigmatic references to distasteful (to the authors) cult objects and activities. They are so enigmatic as to be purposefully obfuscating."
For the record, I also find practices like cult orgies and child sacrifice distasteful. Sorry if that discounts me from reasoned discussion among those who disagree.
Back to the point - are you arguing that the text mentions idolatry? If so, I'm glad to know that we're reading the same Bible.
Seriously though, there's nothing enigmatic or obfuscating about the references to Israel's idolatry (at least, not for the original audience, which was familiar with ancient Near Eastern religion). If you're arguing that the people willingly turned to other gods and adopted foreign religious practices on a massive scale... then you agree with what the text is saying. To respond in one word or less, "Duh."
3) "The Bible doesn't comprise every work of ancient Hebrew..."
How is this relevant? For example, you could have pointed out other common objections to the historicity of the text in your comment. Does the fact that you didn't mention them mean that you were trying to cover up those ideas that might corrupt our innocent minds? Or does it just mean that you didn't find them pertinent or especially useful to the topic at hand?
4 )"The deuteronomical editors had every reason to strip out or avoid detailed references to what they considered apostasy."
And yet they didn't (e.g., 2 Kings 16:3, 17:17, 21:6, 23:10). If these hypothetical editors were charged with removing all references to Israel's apostasy, the most cursory glance at the historical books of the Bible show that they were perhaps the crappiest editors of the ancient world!
Instead, could it be that the pervasive apostasy was an integral part of the author's story? If his goal was to avoid referencing idolatry, he was an idiot. But what if referencing the people's idolatry was the point?
5) There is direct proof of this: names ending -baal are changed to -bosheth ('Shame')".
ReplyDeleteFor a shorter response: http://xkcd.com/552/
Is redaction the only explanation? Couldn't this also be evidence that the contemporary Israelites who remained faithful to Yahweh found mentioning the pagan idols distasteful and, therefore, coined an ironic nickname? Could it be that these men were called by both names? Could it be that their contemporaries (or later generations) commonly used the -bosheth version of their names more than the -baal version, and thus these were the names that would actually be recognized by the original audience? Perhaps the -baal versions were used elsewhere (in separate works by separate authors, it should be noted) to emphasize the shameful idolatry that existed in the land - in other words, that the author of Judges had a certain motivation that was not shared by the authors of Kings and Chronicles (or vice-versa)? Or could it just be that they used different sources that used different names for the same person?
In short, this is anything but direct proof. There are several other options that offer satisfying (if not logically preferable) explanations.
6) "-So... they probably did lots of stuff like that we're unaware of, not having original sources."
"Probably"? Based on what evidence?
"Not having original sources"? Where's the evidence that these don't accurately reflect the original sources?
In short, there are many, many other explanations that are at least plausible. Better, they don't require an a priori dismissal of any and all evidence that doesn't support the assumed conclusion.
Can you point to real, concrete, this-would-actually-stand-up-in-court evidence that there was some sort of redactor who changed the text?
ReplyDeleteErm, besides -baal names being altered to -boseth names?
I can't and won't argue the entire case for the existence of the Deuteronomical histories. It's existence is taken for granted by *every* scholarly source I've read. It's simple: there is a thread of single-minded rhetoric sprinkled throughout otherwise widely disparate texts in the books Deuteronomy through Kings. The assumption is that these books were compiled from various sources (Chronicles, which uses Kings as a source, is proof enough that biblical authors worked from sources) and salted with an editorial gloss that organized and explained the history of Israel from Moses to Josiah.
I won't go into more detail, because if you don't agree that the Bible is an anthology of texts, we won't make any headway. As I said, if all the Bible read as smoothly as the Court History of David, we wouldn't be having this conversation. But to most readers, the problems in the text are obvious. The hypothetical editing process explains them succinctly.
For the record, I also find practices like cult orgies and child sacrifice distasteful.
The Israelites commit child sacrifice: look at Jephthah killing his daughter over a vow made to Yahweh.
Most of what the other evil nations did was pretty much exactly what the Israelites did, except they had a different God. Which made it evil!
And yet they didn't (e.g., 2 Kings 16:3, 17:17, 21:6, 23:10). If these hypothetical editors were charged with removing all references to Israel's apostasy, the most cursory glance at the historical books of the Bible show that they were perhaps the crappiest editors of the ancient world!
I never said they stripped all references- I included examples of what they left in. They only left in enough to get the point across. They had to mention the evil things to tell the people not to do the evil things, but didn't go into detail, except when it was a good smear.
JESUS HAS RISEN!!!
ReplyDeleteHappy Easter!!! He has Risen!!! Shout it from the rooftops!!! Jesus has Risen!
Matthew 28
Mark 16
Luke 24
John 20
Aughhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh! Zombie!!! AIM FOR THE HEAD. AIM. FOR. THE. HEAD.
ReplyDeleteNo zombies at my house! come on over. WE are celebrating the joy of the goddess Eastre (or how ever you spell it) with eggs and bunnies and a nice holiday with 2 extra sleep in days.
ReplyDeleteHappy Easter, Tom.
ReplyDelete@Abbie - best laugh I've had all day!
ReplyDelete@Abbie,
ReplyDeleteI guess if zombies were as recognized back then as they are today they probably would have thought the same thing. It was not only Jesus that came up out of the grave.
(Matthew 27:52-53)
So any "atheists" out there try to conquer death, hell and the grave? Granted i need witnesses, i won't take your word for it. If you don't think hell exists, then try death and the grave. I will take two out of three. :-D
Acts 1:3
I am really happy to read all the comments. You guys are doing well.
@Abbie,
ReplyDeleteI know you mention about the single place of worship. One thing that came to my mind is that history is going to repeat itself.
Revelation John 21:22-27
Just this time no temple. God Almighty and the Lamb are the temple of it.
that is supposed to be Revelation of John 21:22-27 not Revelation John.
ReplyDelete:-D i should have previewed this before i posted it. :-)
@Bruce - a belated "Get well soon!
ReplyDelete@Abbie,
ReplyDeleteSorry for the long silence!
I still don't find the -baal/-bosheth name thing to be convincing. As I pointed out, there are other explanations that are at least as (if not more) plausible, credible explanations other than yours. To insist that it's the superior explanation begs the question. It would not stand up in court.
I'm not arguing that the biblical authors didn't use sources. In fact, they even cite them regularly (e.g., 2 Samuel 1:18; 1 Kings 14:19; 16:14). A brief glance at Kings shows a reference to some source or another every few chapters on average. Also, no one is arguing that the compiler(s)/editor(s) didn't have an agenda in their work. That's quite apparent by what they do and don't choose to include in the text. However, to assume that this in itself makes them unreliable or otherwise less than trustworthy is silly. First, it's very anachronistic to assume a modern standard of historiography on any culture that predates ours by thousands of years. That the author(s) of Kings and Chronicles cite any sources whatsoever is absolutely incredible when one is familiar with other documents from the period. Denigrating the documents because their authors' standards of writing history are different than ours is unfair, and to assume a defect in them as a result is unfounded. They're not written like court histories (as we conceive of them today) because those weren't conceived of until thousands of years after their writing.
Second, that the authors had a metanarrative or overall purpose in writing does not mean they purposely edited out pertinent information. I don't fault my old high school history textbook for not telling me in detail about the life of every peasant or shop owner from medieval England. Why not? Because the authors' intention was to give me one cohesive, united story of the major themes of world history. And I certainly don't assume the existence of some Shadow Council of History Textbook Redactors just because I don't know what John Johnson had for breakfast on June 23, 1412! Likewise, Kings (and especially Chronicles) are religious histories of a failed theocracy. The clear intention is to look back and see what went wrong. That they didn't include some things we would consider relevant doesn't matter; I think they very clearly have a thesis and support it with ample evidence. It's unfair even by today's standards to assume that Stephen Hawking's newest book will contain an expansive discourse on every single star in our galaxy; unless that's his goal, it would actually be very bad writing to do so. Why do you hold the biblical authors to standards that we wouldn't expect today?
Lastly, there seems to be some kind of miscommunication considering the Israelites and their pagan practices. No one is arguing that they didn't perform them. No one - especially the Bible! - is arguing that the other nations influenced them. No one is arguing that the Israelites' actions weren't evil. In fact, it seems like the Israelites get punished quite severely throughout their history, precisely because it was objectively evil for them to do what the other nations were doing. Are you saying that the Bible presents the Israelites as somehow innocent of guilt because they worshiped Yahweh? When I look at the biblical account, it seems to me that the opposite is true: instead of being innocent, they are even more guilty and worthy of judgment, which they receive quite frequently. None of the Israelites who performed them are presented as good and right in their decisions. Just because the authors didn't conclude every description of pagan worship with, "Oh, and for the record, this was very, very bad!" is not proof that it was considered legitimate for the people of Israel.
I still don't find the -baal/-bosheth name thing to be convincing. As I pointed out, there are other explanations that are at least as (if not more) plausible, credible explanations other than yours.
ReplyDeleteWhat's an alternate explanation?
Why do you hold the biblical authors to standards that we wouldn't expect today?
Because of the whole "inspired by God" thing.
No one is arguing that the Israelites' actions weren't evil.
Uh... I am. Well, they were evil, but not because they worshipped the "wrong gods".
In fact, it seems like the Israelites get punished quite severely throughout their history, precisely because it was objectively evil for them to do what the other nations were doing.
But... it's *not* objectively evil to do what other nations were doing. That's a theological assumption of the editors, one that most readers buy into, but which is patently absurd to a nontheist. Oh no, they sacrificed animals on a hillside instead of in a temple. Big whoop.
Are you saying that the Bible presents the Israelites as somehow innocent of guilt because they worshiped Yahweh?
No... as the stories are written, the Israelites commit travesty after travesty. (I mean killing/raping people, actual REAL evil.) None of this bothers the editors.
Just because the authors didn't conclude every description of pagan worship with, "Oh, and for the record, this was very, very bad!" is not proof that it was considered legitimate for the people of Israel.
But... they do that! Every King is judged, not on the horrible evil they do on fellow men, but on whether they kept the hillshrines. Israel was destroyed, according to the editors, because they worshipped the golden calves.
There is no moral spine to the Deuteronomical history, it's a theological treatise. Fun stuff, but morally repugnant.
@Abbie,
ReplyDeleteThere is no moral spine to the Deuteronomical history,
So you decide what is morally good or bad? I get a chuckle every time i hear someone say that. So answer me this. There is a gun fight going on, one guy uses a woman to shield himself from his enemy. Who is morally right the guy for using the woman as a shield, or the enemy of the guy for shooting the woman to also kill the guy?
I think the guy using the woman as a shield had no moral spine, yet seeing he didn't make it out of the gun fight he has no need of one now. :-)
The only thing i view as repugnant is the idea that you think you or any other man sets the moral standard. I'm sure yours have changed, i know mine have over time. :-D Gods have always been the same. Just like the other commandments He has given, we sometimes just don't like them or want to understand them.
@Edward,
ReplyDeleteYou state "Gods have always been the same."
Did Jesus command genocide? The killing of men, women, children and animals. As far as I remember, he advocated brotherly love, living together in peace, "do unto others...", turn the other cheek, etc.
Was it morally OK for the Israelites to carry out God's orders?
How were the Nazis different from the Israelites in invading lands and killing/enslaving the inhabitants? Why were the Nazis evil (they were) but the Israelites noble? Hitler and early America used the ideas of cultural superiority and manifest destiny to justify their horrible actions.
Discuss...
Curse you @Bruce!
ReplyDeleteCurse your Logic!
How can I make circular arguments, bare assertions, special pleadings and all manner of equivocations, red herrings and non-sequiturs while under the icy, unemotional, baleful stare of your reason?
Curses!
:-D