Showing posts with label Biblical Studies. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Biblical Studies. Show all posts
Saturday, October 6, 2012
Article Summary on Joshua 1-8 and Parallel Narratives in Other Ancient Near Eastern Texts
The purpose of this article is to present the similarities between the narrative of Joshua chapters one through eight with the Ugaritic text relating the story of King Keret and his journey to the city of Udum. The article cautiously proposes that there may in fact be a connection between the stories of the Exodus and the Conquest with the stories of King Keret. While most scholars are in agreement that the stories found in the Joshua narrative are made up of several different accounts that have been put together and edited by a redactor, the authors of this article seek to show that there is an element of continuity within these stories that may link it to the continuity found in the stories of King Keret. The authors acknowledge the discontinuities of the Joshua narrative, particularly in areas of chronology, but point out that it is the chronological ordering of the stories themselves that may point to the biblical text’s connection to the Ugaritic text.
The article starts out by showing that the beginning of the book of Joshua is a part of a larger history that is sometimes called the Primary History of the Israelites. This Primary History is made up of the books of Genesis through 2nd Kings. The authors state that nowhere in the rest of the Primary History is there seen such a connection to the rest of the history as there is seen in the first few chapters of Joshua. The first few chapters of Joshua point to and reference many other elements and stories portrayed in the rest of the history, especially in connection to the story of Moses and the Exodus. The authors point out the connection of the crossing of the Jordan River to the crossing of the Red Sea by the Israelites in the book of Exodus. The idea of the crossing of the Jordan is also seen in the stories of Elijah and Elisha. The crossing of the water is a significant event in all of these stories. The body of water is even portrayed as the same body of water, the Jordan River, in the stories of Joshua, Elijah, and Elisha.
Another connecting factor of the Joshua narrative with the Elijah narrative is the element of a three-day search. In Joshua 2, the spies are sent out to scout the land. When they leave Jericho they hide in the hills for three days as the king’s men search for them but eventually do not find them. This is similar to the Elijah story, where Elijah is taken up to heaven in a chariot of fire and the company of the prophets goes out to look for him and spends three days trying to find him out in the wilderness but is unsuccessful.
A similarity also exists between Joshua and Moses on a number of different levels. One obvious example would be the removal of one’s sandals in the presence of God. Both Joshua and Moses are commanded to remove their sandals. There is also a connection between Joshua’s curse upon the future rebuilder of Jericho and 1st Kings 16:34 as well as a connection between the description of the capture of the city of Ai in Joshua and the capture of Gibeah in Judges 20.
The authors point out that even though all of these similarities exist, scholars are still mostly of the belief that these were separate stories that were combined into a larger narrative. It has been the task of many scholars to attempt to piece together from where these various stories came from before being combined into the final narrative form of Joshua 1-8. The authors of this article point out that one of the difficulties in figuring out the background of these texts lies in the chronology presented within them and the overall storyline of the final narrative. They write, “Apart from the incident of the seven days when the Israelites circled Jericho for six days in silence and saw the fall of the city on the seventh day (Joshua 6), these [chronologies] appear fragmentary and also do not seem to fit easily into a single coherent chronological scheme” (254). These chronologies within the first few chapters of Joshua are even more confusing when compared to the rest of Joshua which mentions little of chronology.
The authors list the chronological issues present in Joshua 1-5. After discussing the chronological issues and similar issues seen in the account of Saul’s death, they discuss the departure of the spies in Joshua. The spies are sent out on the same day that Joshua has told the Israelites to prepare to cross the Jordan within three days. The spies arrive in Jericho that evening. That same evening the king’s men inquire of them at Rahab’s house. That same night, Rahab helps them escape and tells them to hide in the hills for three days, which they do. After this, the spies meet back up with Joshua on the other side of the Jordan, implying that the crossing of the Israelites had not yet taken place. It would appear then that on the day the spies returned the Israelites crossed the Jordan. The text records that the Israelites crossed over on the tenth day of the first month, and that later they celebrated the Passover on the fourteenth day. The authors point out that the Israelites celebrate the Passover on the fourteenth, which is the same day of the original Passover when they left Egypt.
They also show that periods of seven days exist in these stories. The Israelites march around Jericho for seven days, with six of those days in silence. The authors question why it was important to include this chronological structure when so much of the rest of Joshua fails to do so. The authors acknowledge the beliefs of different scholars who argue that Joshua contains the same source material as the Pentateuch and should thus be group with those other books, forming a Hexateuch, while others say that Joshua’s place belongs at the beginning of another narrative known as the Deuteronomic history, which derived separately from the Pentateuch. However, the authors are not too concerned with where exactly Joshua should be categorized and are more concerned with the categorization of the materials within Joshua. They write that the section of the narrative encompassing Joshua 1-8 is held together not only by its use of chronology, but also by its similarity to other ancient Ugaritic texts relaying the story of King Keret. At this point, the article comes to its main point of comparing the texts of Joshua 1-8 with the Ugaritic story of Keret, king of Hubur.
This story is recorded on three clay tablets in the Ugaritic language and is believed to have been written around the thirteenth century BC by a scribe named Illimilku. In this story, Keret is weeping on his bed because he has no hope after having lost his entire family. The god El appears to him in a dream asking him what is wrong and offering him prosperity. Keret refuses, saying he wants descendants. El wishes to give descendants to Keret and tells him to offer a sacrifice and sends him on a mission to go capture the city of Udum, the home of King Pabil. El tells Keret that he will march for seven days, and then besiege the city for another seven days. El also tells him that Pabil will offer him silver and gold, but that he must refuse these offers and instead ask for Pabil’s daughter, Hurriy. Keret follows El’s instructions, sacrificing to receive the strength of Baal and additionally stopping three days into his journey at the temple of Athirat, promising to offer Hurriy’s weight in silver and gold as an offering when he returns. He and his army travel another four days before reaching the city, they then march around the city in complete silence for six days until King Pabil cannot stand it anymore and calls out to Keret, offering him silver and gold. Keret refuses, asking for his daughter. Keret receives his bride and withdraws from the city. They have children together, but Keret does not fulfill his vow to Athirit, so he becomes ill. The rest of the country also falls under a drought and the crops do not grow. El comes to the aid of Keret and creates a healing goddess after none of the other gods want to help him. Keret is healed, but his oldest son thinks he is still about to die and goes ahead and announces he is going to take over as king. The story ends with Keret cursing his son.
There are obviously many similarities between the story of Keret and the story of Joshua. Both of them travel seven days before reaching the cities they are besieging. Both of them carry out cultic rituals on the third or the fourth day of this time period. Keret makes vows to Athirit and Joshua calls the people to sanctify themselves for the crossing of the Jordan as well as sets up memorial stones after the crossing. At the crossing of the Jordan, the covenant is renewed and the men are circumcised. This covenant is then immediately broken by Achan. The difference between Keret’s and Achan’s broken promise, however, is that Keret becomes ill and is healed, whereas Achan and his entire household and possessions are destroyed.
Both Joshua and Keret receive their battle instructions from a diety. In both stories, the armies surround or march around the city for six days in complete silence, and on the seventh day something happens. The armies of Joshua shout, and blow trumpets as the walls collapse; and the animals of the city in Keret’s story become very loud so that the king cannot sleep. Also, “two periods of seven days have brought the Israelites into the Promised Land, the land for their future; two periods of seven days have brought Keret the promised wife and thus the desired family in the future: a national as opposed to a dynastic perspective” (264).
Both stories have women who join the besiegers, Rahab with Joshua and Hurriy with Keret. Both women enter into marital relations with the invaders. However, the two women have opposing social statuses. One is a princess and the other is a harlot. They write, “If the author or authors of Joshua were familiar with the story of Keret or a derivative of it, they have in any case given it a naughty twist: the woman that came out of the besieged town changed from a princess into a harlot” (265). Also, one of the key differences between Joshua and Keret is that Keret is a king seeking his own good, but Joshua is a mediator between God and the people of God. In both stories, though, it is the deity who is truly the star of the show. One final similarity between the two stories is that both involve the withholding of gold and silver or devoted things from a deity and both of these broken vows result in punishment.
The authors are unsure about what to do with the similarities between these two stories. The evidence seems to strongly indicate that one or the other borrowed elements from each other’s stories, or else the two stories were based upon another story, perhaps of prose or of poetry or of an oral tradition. They agree that emulation is indeed a possibility, and point to the example of how the Romans copied the stories of the Greeks. Virgil’s works resembled Homer’s in obvious ways. They point out that emulation is actually a common thing in the Hebrew Bible, with later stories borrowing elements from earlier stories within the Bible as well as from other texts, such as Homer’s Odyssey having apparent connections with Tobit, Genesis, and Job; Ezekiel’s connection to the Akkadian Poem of Erra; the Histories of Herodotus throughout the Primary History and Daniel; and the Gilgamesh Epic and the Genesis stories of Creation and The Flood. The conclusion of the authors of this article is that it is very possible that Joshua 1-8 was influenced by the Ugaritic story of Keret, whether directly or indirectly. However, this was not the only outside source used. Joshua also parallels Moses in many ways, and there are numerous other examples of texts within and without the Bible borrowing from one another. Their conclusion is that there is no need to assume that Joshua 1-8 has a “complex editorial history,” due to its current “extremely well composed” form of a “literary-religious composition.”
__________________________________________________________
Article:
Braber, Marieke den, and J W. Wesselius. "The unity of Joshua 1-8, its relation to the story of King Keret, and the literary background to the exodus and conquest stories." SJOT 22, no. 2 (January 1, 2008): 253-274.
Thursday, August 16, 2012
Knowing Jesus through the Old Testament
In Christopher Wright’s book Knowing Jesus through the Old Testament
he presents the concept of Jesus as Messiah. The two main issues he addresses
are that of the Old Testament passages that refer to the Messiah and how the
New Testament writers saw Jesus in the Scriptures, as well as the issue of
Jesus’ own views on the role of the Messiah and how he fit in this role. The
idea of Jesus as Messiah or Christ is not uncommon among Christians, but Wright
shows how the concept of Jesus as Messiah actually has a much deeper meaning
than what we generally think of today. Wright shows that the Gospels are filled
with language indicating the nature of Jesus as that of Messiah. The Gospels
and the other writings of the New Testament constantly refer back to Old
Testament passages in their attempt to show that Jesus truly was the Messiah of
Israel. Matthew’s gospel begins with the genealogy of Jesus. While this at first
may seem like a boring passage simply showing that Jesus had a long human
ancestry, this text goes deeper than that. It is a summary of the people of
Israel and their history, saying that the history of Israel may be summed up
completely in Jesus himself (34).
This genealogy begins with the person of
Abraham and lists off fourteen generations until the time of King David,
followed by fourteen more generations to the period of the exile, and finally fourteen
more generations until we get to the birth of Jesus. Here, the genealogy ends.
It begins with Abraham because of the Abrahamic Covenant (3). In the book of
Genesis, God made a covenant with Abraham saying that he would have a son, and
that the descendants of this son would be great and numerous. God also promised
that through Abraham’s seed all nations would be blessed. This was the role of Israel
as Abraham’s descendants (4). They were to be a blessing and light to all the
nations of the world, showing them the way back to God. However, Israel failed
in its mission repeatedly. The second major stop in this history of Israel is
with King David. God made a covenant to David as well, promising him that he
would never fail to have an heir or a descendant of his sitting on the throne,
fulfilling the role of king (5). This promise remained true until Israel
reached the next major event, the exile to Babylon. Here, it looked as though
God’s promise had failed and that he had given up all hope for Israel and its
redemptive role in the world. However, the people of Judah returned from exile.
The genealogy lists another fourteen generations from this time until the time
of Jesus’ birth. The expectation at the time of the restoration of Judah is
that the King of Judah, the one of David’s line would be restored to the
throne. The history of Israel is then summed up with Jesus because Jesus is not
only the one who will restore the Davidic dynasty in himself as the eternal
king, but he will also fulfill the Abrahamic Covenant by becoming a blessing to
all nations of the earth as Abraham’s seed. The Davidic Covenant became linked
with the Abrahamic Covenant at some point after the time of David (5). This can
be seen in the language of Psalm 72 where the understanding has become that the
ruler who sits on David’s throne will fulfill a particular kind of role, one in
which all nations on earth would be blessed through him (6).
In Matthew’s gospel there is an emphasis
upon the fact that the fulfillment of Jesus as Messiah is not just something
that is only for the Jews, but for Gentiles as well. (5) This is seen in the list of women who are
briefly mentioned in Jesus’ genealogy. All of these were foreign women, most of
whom bore children by questionable means. Yet, these are the people Matthew
chose to include in his genealogy – Tamar, who bore twins by her father-in-law;
Ruth, a Moabitess supposedly descended from an incestuous relationship; Rahab,
a foreigner and a prostitute; Bath-Sheba, a foreigner who committed adultery
with King David (4-5). Matthew did this on purpose. He wanted to show that even
Jesus, the ultimate Jew, had Gentile blood in his veins, just as King David.
The Davidic King must represent all nations so that all will be blessed. Also,
Matthew gives very specific groups of fourteen in his genealogy, even leaving
certain generations out, and altogether ignoring the generations before the
time of Abraham (6). He did this because of the numerical significance with the
groups of numbers being divisible by seven, an important number, and with Jesus
being placed at the conclusion of all these sevens, showing that he is the
ultimate completion of Israel and Israel’s purpose (7).
Another one of Wright’s main points is
that of Jesus’ own perception of himself and his purpose. The writers of the
New Testament go out of their way to show that Jesus is indeed the Messiah or
the anointed one and that he is the true and final fulfillment of Israel,
summing up the Law and the Prophets, and that Jesus is Israel’s true Davidic king.
The Gospel writers use various passages from the Old Testament to show that the
Old Testament predicted his coming and what he would do. Modern exegetes may
find some of these uses of Old Testament passages by the Gospel writers to be
taken out of context. An example would be the passage in Isaiah 7 where King
Ahaz is told by the prophet that a “virgin” (LXX) with give birth to a son and
he will be called Emmanuel, God with us. Matthew uses this passage, along with
others, for his own purposes. This passage may not have been talking about
Jesus, but about the circumstances of King Ahaz’s time. However, what Matthew
did was not necessarily wrong. Yes, he takes these verses out of context and
applies them to his own story of Jesus’ birth, but in Matthew’s understanding
he was recognizing the similarities between what God had done in the past and
what he had done most recently in Jesus. Matthew believed that what took place
in the past had significance not only for the past, but for what had happened
in Jesus in his own time (58).
The gospel writers use much language to
describe Jesus as the fulfillment of the Davidic King of the Old Testament
promises. However, Jesus does not really
use this kind of language when he is referring to himself throughout the
gospels. Wright says that Jesus more thoroughly identifies himself with the Son
of Man as referenced in the book of the prophet Daniel, especially in chapter
7, as well as the Suffering Servant as portrayed in the book of Isaiah,
especially in chapter 53 (148-58). However, the Son of Man in Daniel does not
seem to very well portray the picture of Christ in the gospels even though
Jesus referred to himself as “son of man” (153). He identifies the most with
the Suffering Servant (154). In Jesus’ time, the passages in Daniel and Isaiah
and some elsewhere had come to be seen for the most part as referring to the
coming of the Messiah in Israel’s history. Jesus seemed to agree with this
conclusion and, seeing himself fulfilling these roles. However, Jesus’ view of
himself also differed considerably from others in that many believed that when
the Messiah would come, he would overthrow the Romans and Jesus did not intend
to do this (138). He identified much more with the Suffering Servant who would
carry the sins of his people upon himself. With this understanding, Jesus would
go to the cross and die, dashing the hopes of many of his followers who did not
understand the nature of the Suffering Servant and how to reconcile this
picture with that of the all-powerful Son of Man. While this may have dashed
the hopes of many, Jesus truly does fulfill the expectations of both the
Suffering Servant and the Son of Man in both his death and his resurrection.
At the time I was reading this book, I
was also reading Scot McKnight’s King
Jesus Gospel for Prof. Robertson’s evangelism class. These two books had
some very similar things to say about the role of Jesus as Messiah, so I kept
getting the two books mixed up. However, having looked back upon this book, I
believe that it is superior to McKnight’s book. McKnight got caught up on his
own pet peeves about the church and this served as the basis of his look at
Jesus as Messiah. Wright looks at Jesus as Messiah on a much more academic
level. Wright is also does a much more thorough job when looking at the history
of Israel He goes into the details of the texts, and this is something that I
appreciate. I think that often when people try to take a serious look at these
texts they wind up talking too much about what they personally have gotten out
of the texts. While this is certainly a valid thing to do, it becomes tiresome
after the third or fourth rant. Wright, however, does an excellent job in
presenting the facts and details of the passages he uses without getting caught
up too much in his own opinions. While his opinions are obviously present, he
gives fair treatment of various perspectives and possibilities without being
too quick to jump to conclusions.
Something I enjoyed about Wright’s book
was that he provided a fairly thorough look at the various scriptures of the
Old Testament that refer to the concept of the Messiah as well as looking at
the various kinds of covenants and their contexts within the Old Testament (77-101).
Wright’s book was a helpful resource for my paper on Psalm 72 because of his
conversation on these covenants. I was previously aware of the Davidic and
Abrahamic covenants coming into play with Psalm 72, but after looking at
surrounding psalms I saw how these two covenants are not the only ones to which
the psalmist refers back. The psalms speak of Mosaic and Noahic covenants as
well. I enjoyed examining Psalm 72 further, using Wright as a reference and
guide, to see if this particular psalm contained hints at other covenants
besides those of David and Abraham.
Another thing I appreciated with
Wright’s book was the issue of Jesus’ human identity in his recognition of his
role as Messiah. I find it fascinating to think about how Jesus first learned
that he was the Messiah. I think we often do not think about this because we
assume that because Jesus was God he of course knew it all along. Yet, I
appreciate learning more about how the Jews had come to view the Messiah during
Jesus’ lifetime and how they thought that the one who would be Messiah would
not necessarily know until God revealed it to them at some point in their life.
Wright made me wonder when Jesus might have realized this for himself as well
as getting me to think about many other thought-provoking issues and concepts.
Thursday, June 14, 2012
Why Death?
What place does death have in the world?
Why do we die?
Why do things break and fall apart and decay? Why is there destruction?
As Christians, we have been taught that because of sin, death entered into the world. And that because of the one sin of Adam and Eve, all humankind was cursed to sin and to suffer and to die. This is what we call the Fall of Man and Original Sin. Because of that original sin committed by our first parents in the Garden of Eden, all of humankind and all of creation is fallen. And this is why we experience pain and suffering and this is why we die.
We have also been taught that as humans, we have only existed on earth for a relatively short period of time. Scientific findings place the existence of Homo sapiens to go back for only about 200,000 years. During that time, humans increased in knowledge of themselves and of the world around them. At the same time, throughout those 200,000 years humans experienced death. Their bodies experienced sickness and decay and they died, just like every other plant and animal on the face of the earth.
So at what point do we say death entered into the human condition? Evidence would say that death existed long before humans were formed. Our pre-human ancestors lived and died much as we do now. And their ancestors did the same. The Neanderthal was a close cousin to Homo sapiens. Neanderthals were very much like humans. They wore clothing, they communicated verbally, they participated in art, and they had an awareness of the spiritual. These creatures were so human-like, and yet they were not fully human. Their genetic code was certainly different from Homo sapiens, and yet similar enough that both species seemed to experience life in much the same way. Neanderthals were certainly sentient beings, and yet they were not truly human.
What are we to do with this? Both humans and Neanderthals, as well as the several other more fully evolved species of primates I have not mentioned, experienced death. They mourned for their dead, they suffered from pain when they were injured, they experienced sickness and frustration. All of these things have been blamed on the fall of Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden, all of these things have been blamed on Homo sapiens, and yet, all of these things existed before Homo sapiens were created. Humans and Neanderthals and the other similar species all had a common ancestor – one also considered a primate. This primate also experienced death, yet this ancestor did not experience death in the same way. This creature was incapable of seeing the world in the same ways in which his human and Neanderthal descendants could. His brain was not designed to comprehend these greater intricacies of the created order. He could not ponder death and pain in the same way his descendants would. He was truly an animal without sentience. And while he may have been able to recognize to a certain extent the tragedy of death and the sorrow all creatures experience when a loved one dies, he did not experience these things in a fully cognizant way. His life depended upon instinct and upon his sensory capabilities. He experienced life through his senses, and while he did think, his thought could only go so far before his baser instincts kicked in. This was what he was created to be.
And yet this study of the evolution of the genetic code of primates fails to answer the question of where death came from. We believe that death entered the world through the sin of people, and yet death obviously existed at the time of this primate ancestor, before humans existed. We cannot say that this ancestor is the cause of the suffering we experience in the world, for he was not capable of the sin which we believe brought death into the world. As Wesleyans, we often say we believe that sin is only truly a sin if it is committed willingly and if the person who commits the sin is aware of what they are doing and that what they are doing is wrong. Surely, humans and Neanderthals and the like were capable of this kind of sin, and surely this primate ancestor was not. He was not capable of sin, because he was not aware of the ability to sin. So if we are to blame death on sin, we cannot blame it on him because he did not sin, and if we are to blame death on the specific sin of humans, we also run into trouble because death existed before humans, before creatures were capable of sinning.
And yet we cannot, as some have, just throw out centuries of church theology and millennia of progress in understanding how we relate to God and how our sin separates us from God and how death interacts with sin – not to mention the restorative work of Christ, which of all things oddly tends to be the most ridiculed by secularists. But at the same time, we cannot simply deny the evidence that science has given us, as others have, and say that evolution is a lie and the earth is only 6,000 years old while completely ignoring the overwhelming genetic and archaeological evidence against such claims.
As Wesleyans, we are not Fundamentalists. We believe that the Bible is the divinely inspired word of God, but we do not mistake the word of God for the Word of God, which is Christ. We believe in the truth of the Bible, but we believe more so in the truth that is revealed in Christ. We do not believe that God simply dictated the words of Scripture to the people who wrote them down. We believe that those who wrote the Bible used their own minds and skills and incorporated their own thoughts and ideas into its pages while at the same time being influenced and led in a certain direction by the Sprit of God. This gives us room to say that perhaps some of things we read in the Bible reflect not so much the way God saw the world, but rather the way humans interacted with God within their own limited historical and cultural settings. If one were to take the Creation accounts in Genesis, for example, on a completely literal level, then one would have to conclude that the sky is actually a great glass dome overlooking the earth, behind which can be seen a great mass of blue water. Science has disproved this theory long ago, but this does not mean that the story is just a bunch of falsehoods and should not be trusted. On the contrary, this story paints a picture of the all-powerful God who created the heavens and the earth by his own will and love, and it shows how his image is stamped over all of his creation, and how people out of all of the creation were chosen to interact with God in a special way. All of these timeless truths are portrayed in a poetic way in Genesis, a way that the people of the time could easily remember. In addition to this, these truths are forever engraved upon an ancient near eastern understanding of the world, which believed in such things as the sky dome. These elements of the story do not detract from its intended message, even though some get overly distracted by them, rather they show how God has revealed himself in all generations, even to ancient near eastern people who did not fully understand the way the world operated on a grand scale, just as God continues to reveal himself today to us who do not fully understand the way the world operates on a grand scale.
And yet after all this time, we still do not have an answer as to exactly why death exists and how exactly the sin of humans is related to death. We believe that sin causes death, but what do we exactly mean when we say that? Death can have many different forms after all. Do we mean to say that all forms of death are a result of human sin? Do we believe that death came into existence because of sin? Or do we believe that the end result of sin is death? Does death truly exist in and of itself? Or is death merely the absence of life and all that truly does exist? Perhaps what we mean when we say that sin leads to death is that when we sin we die spiritually. Our sin cuts us off from the life-giving Spirit of God. So in a very real sense, our souls are being led to death when we sin. So maybe when we say that sin leads to death, what we are really saying is that our soul is dying when we sin.
However, this leads some other problems. While it is very true that our souls are dying when we sin, there is more to death than just a spiritual death. Some may argue that the spirit and soul of a person is all that matters, so a spiritual salvation from death is all that is required, but that ignores that fact that as humans we have been created to exist in both a spiritual and a physical sense. We are both physical and spiritual beings, and this cannot be ignored. The Gnostics believed that people were created from sinful matter, and the only way we could be free from sin was to die and live on as an eternal soul, but such an understanding denies the inherent goodness of God’s creation. We believe that God created everything good, and that this is not limited to some concept about an eternal soul. God made the physical as well as the spiritual, and he made both good. If we truly believe that, then what do we say when we say that sin only leads to spiritual death and not physical death? When we say that, we say that physical death is not truly bad. If only spiritual death is the result of sin, then that would mean that physical death must have come to be a reality by some other means. But do we really want to say this? Everything within us screams that when we lose a loved one, or when we are forced to see a loved one suffer physical pain or when we experience physical pain and suffering ourselves, that this is not the way things should be. If the creation was truly created good and our sin only leads to spiritual pain and death, then what is the deal with all of the physical suffering and death that we see? Where did all of that come from? And why do we resist it with all of our being? Something deep inside us tells us that it is all terribly wrong. And yet physical death and decay are a part of nature. Without physical death, the creation would not exist as it does. The created order is full of cycles and one of these cycles is the death of all things. As the creation continues to recreate and to replenish itself, it continues to discard the old and that which is no longer needed in order to make space for new creation. Is that all that physical death is? Is it just a natural part of the way the universe exists? Everything dies and decays after all – from people, to animals, to plants, to planets, to stars, to galaxies. And yet everything continues on regardless of death. People create more people before they eventually die. Plants make more plants. Even stars have a reproductive cycle. It would appear that everything in the universe was made with the purpose of eventually recreating itself in one way or another. Is physical death then, the way that nature makes room for new creations? Does physical death eliminate that which is less complete in order to replace it with something more complete? And what does such a belief say about us when we die? Are we to believe that the reason we die is to make room for better people, a more complete creation than we are, to come after us? Again, this type of thinking can also lead us into many additional problems.
While the evidence may lead us to believe that the natural way of the universe tends towards “survival of the fittest,” and while we cannot rule out such a claim, we must also recognize that such an understanding is limited when it comes to understanding death. We may be led to believe that physical death on its own is a good thing because it has helped lead to the creation which we see today and has driven the creation towards perfection. But does a natural physical death truly lead to a better creation, or just a different creation than what previously existed? Does death really make anything better? Or does it simply eliminate what nature perceives as lesser? One could argue that death not only eliminates the lesser and the imperfect, but it also eliminates that which is good. If we truly believe that the physical world was created good then why would anything in it need to be destroyed? And what are we to believe about ourselves? If God truly loves us, then why would he create us to die? While it might be easier for some to believe that death naturally occurs in creation in general, it is more difficult to claim that sentient beings such as humans, beings which we believe God loves personally and on an individual level, have been created to die and be replaced by other humans. Maybe that is how creation was meant to exist up to the point some branches of the primate family tree became sentient beings, but what about after this? Why does God let people die?
Perhaps the answer lies at the point in which the creation became sentient – the point at which the ancestors of homo sapiens and like-minded creatures were first given sentience. One could argue that a creature that cannot experience death on a cognizant level cannot ever have a problem with death. While a non-sentient animal can still experience death and pain on a sensory level, it does not ever have to wrestle with the meaning of life and death. However, we, as sentient beings, do. And this continues to beg the question, why do people experience physical death? It also causes one to wonder how deep physical death stings us, and not us only, but the rest of creation as well. We believe pain and anguish to be a bad thing on a cognizant level, but we also experience pain and anguish on an emotional and sensory level and it causes great unpleasantness to the point at which we recognize through our cognitive abilities that pain is a bad thing – not just because have the ability process that fact with our minds, but because our sensory bodies naturally feel that way when they are injured. This is true not just for us, but for the rest of the animal world. It is not just humans who dread pain and destruction. Animals also dread it on a very deep, though less cognizant, level.
So what does that lead us to conclude? It would seem then that while physical death is a natural part of the physical creation, it is also for some reason natural for the creation to fight against death. Why then is there this contradiction? One could perhaps say that without this resistance to death, the creation would summarily succumb to death. Without the natural tendency of the creation to resist death, death would be all that would remain and there would be no creation. If then, it is so important that the creation resist death so as never to fully succumb to it, why is death necessary at all? If God is the creator of the creation, then why did he allow a creation that includes death?
Perhaps the reason why death exists in the physical world is because God had in mind to create humans – people made in his image who would have the ability to think for themselves, fully sentient beings. Perhaps God recognized from the beginning that once sentient beings were created, they would immediately have the ability to distinguish between two different ways of thinking and living, two different paths if you will. A sentient being would be capable of recognizing the difference between good and evil, and would also be capable of choosing which path to follow. A sentient being would have the ability to perceive with the mind what the rest of creation could only perceive through sensory input abilities. It would be able to perceive with the mind that which other animals only recognized by instinct. A sentient being would have the ability to go against instinct to the point of making decisions that would affect the rest of creation on a grand scale. A sentient being would be able to recognize death and destruction with its mind, and more than that, would be able to choose whether or not to reject death and destruction, or to embrace it. A sentient being would also have the ability to recognize others of its own kind and love them and be able to ponder his or her responsibility towards protecting them as well as his or her responsibility to the rest of the creation, the choice to treasure or to abuse. It would seem then that these first sentient beings right on down the present state of sentient beings in us as humans chose to try both paths. From that point on down to the present time, they have always wanted both the good and the bad. They have wanted everything. They wanted power over good and evil, and the power to decide what was good and what was evil. In other words, these first sentient beings, whose sentience has continued on in Homo sapiens for the past 200,000 years, have wanted to play the part of God. We have wanted to be masters over good and evil. People over the millennia have chosen to both treasure and to abuse each other as well as the rest of creation. As a result, the entire creation has become what we might refer to as “fallen,” to the point that even other animals fear humans and have the ability to be influenced by humans for better or for worse. It would seem that animals in today’s world have developed in such a way as to become permanently subject to humankind in many different ways. The mental abilities of many animals can even mimic those of the humans who interact with them. Animals in turn can experience shame or happiness or fear or hatred at the sight of a human, depending upon their interaction with humans.
What does this have to do with the presence of physical death in the creation? It would seem that God allows physical death in the creation in order to destroy that which is not good. It would seem that God recognized that when he created sentient beings that they would have the ability to choose between good and evil, and that they would choose both good and evil. This attempt to replace God by being masters over both good and evil is what led to what we would call spiritual death among people, in which the human soul is cut off from the life-giving Spirit of God, from which it came. Because people would experience spiritual death would seem to be the reason why physical death was also allowed to continue. God will not allow spiritual death to reign over people forever. This is why people experience physical death – so that their spiritual death will not remain in the creation. What about those who desired good more than the bad? We believe that God is gracious and that he does not want any person to be destroyed. What he wants to destroy is sin, and the reason for that is because sin destroys us, we who are his good creation. Sin must be destroyed in us before it is allowed to destroy us itself. Because of our desire to be master over both good and evil, we have become a self-destructive creation. Paul in the book of Romans writes that all of creation has been subjected to frustration because of us. Our sin has changed the course of natural history. Paul also writes that it is through Christ, who was God in the flesh, fully God and fully human, who committed no sin, that the creation may be restored. It is through Christ that we have the ability to become “children of God.” It is through Christ that our bondage and tendency towards sin is broken, and it is through his death and resurrection that we are set free from sin and death. We are not only set free from spiritual death and separation from God, which is what we call “hell,” but we are also set free from physical death. Christ physically rose from dead, and because of this we will also be physically raised from the dead. When Christ ascended into heaven forty days after his bodily resurrection, he was entering into God’s space. God’s space is separated from this space that we occupy on earth, but it is not far away. Through Christ, we have access to God’s space. Eventually, God’s space will be united with our space, and when this happened we will see that everything that was truly good about this world will never be destroyed. God’s good creation is eternal, both the physical and the spiritual creation. The reason physical death exists now is to provide for the ability to rid the created world of sin and everything that causes despair and separation from God. The final goal is essentially to remove hell from the creation and into its own space separate from God forever. All that was truly evil in creation, all that continually chose to reject God in the creation, and chose to reform itself into the image of hell (or the image of the absence of God) will be separated from everything that is good in creation. All that has become hell will be removed, and since it is the Spirit of God that sustains life, one could argue that in the absence of God’s Spirit, there would be no life, and in hell, all of creation that refused to submit to God’s redemption would cease to exist.
In the absence of sin and the desire to sin, we would then see a new creation, one where nothing good from the old creation was destroyed, where we would be reunited with loved ones who had previously died, and a place where death itself would be destroyed and there would no longer be any spiritual death for God would always be there, and there would no longer be any need for people to experience physical death, because sin would always be absent.
____________________________________________________________
Sources:
C.S. Lewis. The Problem of Pain. HarperCollins Pub., 1940.
NOVA. Becoming Human: Unearthing Our Earliest Ancestors. WGBH Boston, 2009.
St. Augustine. City of God, Book XIV.
Thursday, May 31, 2012
The Downward Spiral of Judges
The book of Judges is presented as a downward spiral. It begins with Othniel (3:7-12), Caleb’s nephew who married Caleb’s daughter. He is the model judge. The Israelites worshiped Baal and Asherah and were oppressed by Cushan-Rishathaim of Aram Naharaim (or literally, “one of double-wickedness from land of double-rivers”). Othniel rescues them and Yahweh is given credit for the victory (3:10).
Our next notable judge is Ehud (3:12-30). It is recorded that the Israelites continued in their disobedience. Left-handed Ehud of the tribe of Benjamin (which ironically means “son of my right hand”) kills Israel’s oppressor, the very fat King Eglon (whose name sounds like the word for “calf,” implying that he was like a fattened calf ready for slaughter). Ehud saves the Israelites by assassinating Eglon with his left hand by thrusting a “double-edged” or “double-mouthed” dagger into his belly, which is fitting for a king described tongue-in-cheek as having a “double-mouth” with which he gorged himself. Even his belly is described as “swallowing” up the dagger, immediately followed by “the dirt fell out,” or in other words “he pooped himself.” Ehud then escapes via the sewer system (i.e., he jumps down the king’s poop chute to escape) and leads Israel in victorious battle against the Moabites.
Next up, we have Deborah/Barak (4:1-5:31). King Jabin of Hazor and General Sisera oppress the Israelites because the Israelites have once again done evil. Note that Joshua had already defeated a “King Jabin.” Deborah was a prophetess and the “wife of Lappidoth,” meaning “woman of fire.” There is hesitation on the part of Barak to go into battle, yet both of the women in the story, Deborah and Jael, show more courage than the leading man. God throws Sisera’s army into a panic and after Sisera flees the battle and seeks refuge in the tent of Jael, Jael, whose name means “Yahweh is God,” drives a tent peg through Sisera’s “temple.” The word used hear as “temple” is in Hebrew “berragato,” which is related to “baraq,” so it is sort of in Barak’s face that a woman killed Sisera and not him.
Next is Gideon (6:1-8:35). Deborah was successful, but the cycle of disobedience starts again and Israel is impoverished by Midianite oppression. But God sends a prophet to them in Gideon. However, Gideon is very unsure of everything. He responds to God’s messenger with defiant questions, with pointing out the insignificance of his own roots, and with repeatedly requesting signs. God tests Gideon by reducing the size of his army, yet Gideon is only reassured of victory after listening to a Midianite conversation instead of listening to God. Gideon’s name means “cut down” which is fitting since he cuts down the idols of his father Joash, whose name ironically is Yahwistic. His father renames him “Jerub-Baal,” ironically refusing to acknowledge Yahweh by only saying that his son is “one who contends with Baal,” which is what Jarub-Baal means. Overtime, quality leadership in Israel becomes less and less. There is still idolatry in the land, and Gideon even makes a golden ephod that the people worship, which is similar in nature to the story of Aaron the priest in Exodus setting up the golden calf which the people worship. Gideon begins by cutting down idols, and ends by setting them up. The significance of the story of Gideon’s son Abimelech is addressed elsewhere.
Next on our list is Jephtah (10:6-12:7). Again, Israel was evil in the LORD’s sight and began to be oppressed, but they began to cry out and confess to him and they put away their gods. Yahweh’s response is “impatient” for he could bear their misery no longer. Enter Jephtah. After rejecting him, the people then try to bring him back so that he may lead them in victory over their enemies and save them. Jephtah is the son of a prostitute. He is referred to as the son of Gilead, which is a territory and not a person. In other words, nobody knew who his father was. The oppression present at this time was by the Philistines and the Ammonites. Jephtah promises a child-sacrifice to God in exchange for victory, and he ends up killing his own daughter, showing that Israel has mixed the sacred with the perverted.
Our next judge is Samson (13:1-16:31). At this point, the Philistines have become prominent in the narrative. Samson is a Nazarite from birth, but he is constantly breaking his covenant. He does so secretly by eating honey out of a dead lion’s carcass. He also gets drunk for seven days and marries a Philistine woman, saying “she is right in my eyes.” Samson is weak towards women and loses a bet/riddle/game with the Philistines because he gives in to the nagging of his wife. He leaves in a rage and the Philistines give his wife to another man. In revenge, Samson burns the Philistines’ crops, and they respond by burning his wife. The people of Judah hand Samson over to the Philistines because he is out of control, but Samson breaks the ropes that tie him and slaughters 1,000 men with a donkey’s jawbone. Later, he meets and falls in love with Delilah, whose name means “of the night.” Samson’s name, in contrast, means “sunshine.” The Philistines pay Delilah 1,100 pieces of silver to betray Samson. He is so stupid that he falls for her trick and is humiliated before Dagon, the god of the Philistines. However, Samson’s final act of suicidal terrorism brings about a partial deliverance to the people.
Later we see the Danite Migration take place (17:1-18:31). The character of Micah is introduced. Micah’s mother may have been Delilah. Micah returns 1,100 pieces of silver to her which had been stolen. She uses 200 of these 1,100 pieces of silver to build an idol in order to honor Yahweh. This is very twisted in nature and shows the backwardness of the time-period. Micah makes an ephod and appoints his own son as priest of his illegitimate shrine. He hires a Levite as a priest, but everything about the arrangement is illegitimate. Micah is of Dan, just as Samson was of Dan, and the text may be implying that Micah was Samson’s illegitimate son. The Danites move north and take Micah with them.
Later, a second Levite arrives on the scene in order to retrieve his wife who has fled from him to the house of her father in Bethlehem. On their way back, they spend the night in the town of Gibeah in the territory of Benjamin. The men of Gibeah come out to commit “sodomy” with the Levite, but instead the Levite offers them his wife/concubine and they brutally rape her all night. In the morning, the Levite sees her lying on the doorstep and cuts her body up into twelve pieces. He sends a piece to each of the twelve tribes. A civil war then erupts against Benjamin, and all but 600 men of Benjamin are killed. Judah leads the way in battle. The end of the book deals with the eleven tribes attempting to avoid the complete extinction of Benjamin by providing the remaining 600 men with wives. The book closes by echoing the words of Samson, by saying, “At that time, there was no king in Israel. Everyone did what was right in their own eyes.”
It would seem that in the book of Judges the tribe of Judah is the favored one. In chapter one, the model judge, Othniel, is from Judah. The victories ascribed to Moses, Joshua, and Caleb elsewhere in the Bible are given to Judah in the book of Judges. It would also seem that book of Judges is indicating that the North is bad. According to Judges, it was the northern tribes who failed to drive out the Canaanites in the land. Othniel is the good judge and hails from Judah, but other judges are from the North and are portrayed as being not as good. This helps to set up the Saul/David conflict that comes later in the Deuteronomistic History. As Judges progresses it begins to show the tribes besides Judah to be growing worse and worse, especially the tribe of Benjamin from where Saul later comes. More specifically, Saul comes from Gibeah of Benjamin, the location of the attempted sodomy, gang-rape and murder of the Levite’s wife/concubine, and the scene of the great civil war at the end of the book. The Deuteronomistic History intentionally portrays Saul negatively by showing his association with Benjamin among other things, while at the same time portraying David positively by showing his association with the more faithful tribe of Judah. The narrative is asking, “Which is the legitimate leadership? David of Judah? – Or Saul of Benjamin?”
Joshua Studies
The Conquest as a Religious Act
Joshua as a Second Moses
Joshua in Archaeology
Joshua in the Context of the Deuteronomistic History
Formation of the Pentateuch
Modern Source Criticism
Source criticism of today points to the documentary hypothesis. Within the Pentateuch, texts that refer to God as Yahweh are associated with the southern kingdom of Judah. Texts that refer to God as Elohim are associated with the northern kingdom of Israel. The Yahwistic texts are called “J” and are thought to have come together in the 10th – 9th centuries B.C. The Elohistic texts are called “E” and are thought to have come together in the 8th century B.C. Both J and E are assumed to be associated with and derived from the monarchy in the land at the time. D source is from the 7th century and is associated with the reign of Josiah. P source is associated with the priests of the 6th century.
Mosaic Authorship?
Characteristic Traits of the Pentateuchal Sources
Origins of D Source
Martin Noth and Frank Moore Cross on the composition of the Deuteronomistic History
Martin Noth believed that the individual designated “Dtr” was responsible for the work of Joshua through Kings. Dtr was both editor and author of the composition, and worked with the available sources to form the Deuteronomistic History as it appears today. He edited available material and served as a creative author at times. Dtr composed his work around and near the date 562 B.C. Noth believed Joshua through Kings represented a unified work. Evidence for this is seen in the special role of Deuteronomy in the text. He believed that Dtr composed Deuteronomy 1:1-4:43. The purpose of the work was to explain the reason of the destruction of Israel by the Assyrians in 721 B.C. The leaders and the people of the composition are evaluated on the basis of the Law Code found in Deuteronomy 12-26. Noth sees a unity in the work in Deuteronomistic language and style, in the strategic speeches (Josh. 1; 23; 1 Sam. 13; 1 Kgs. 8:14), and in the summarizing reflections (Josh. 12; Judg. 2:11; 2 Kgs. 17:7). He sees this in the chronology laid out (1 Kgs. 6:1) of the 480 years. Noth believed Dtr was associated with Josiah’s reign. Joshua and Josiah are compared to each other in a positive light. Dtr also makes Judah look good and shows that the Laws of Deuteronomy should be followed.
Frank Moore Cross believed there were two additions to the Deuteronomistic History which are called “Dtr1” and “Dtr2.” Dtr1 was pre-exilic and Dtr2 was exilic. Starting with Dtr1, there are two themes present in the text: The sin of Jeroboam, and God’s faithfulness towards David. The fall of the Northern Kingdom is blamed on Jeroboam’s sin (2 Kgs. 17:20-*3). In Dtr1, a prophet is seen denouncing the altar placed at Bethel (1 Kgs. 13:2-5). Dtr1 seems to anticipate the reform of Josiah. In the work, Davidic kings are portrayed as mostly good, especially Josiah. The work of Dtr1 is then seen as a message to the North to return to the worship of Yahweh at the Jerusalem sanctuary during the time of Josiah’s reign. It speaks also to Judah, saying the Kingdom’s restoration depends on the nation’s return to the Covenant with Yahweh as well as the whole-hearted return of the king to the ways of David.
Dtr2 is then seen as the exilic addition to the text, according to Cross. He believed that the redactor brought the work up to date during the Exile, and recorded the Fall of Jerusalem. Dtr2 reshapes history, blaming the Fall of Jerusalem on the wickedness of Manasseh (2 Kgs. 21:7-14). He shows that Josiah is repentant after the discovery of the Law (2 Kgs. 23:25b-27). Passages of the text are addressed to captives, emphasizing the fact that Yahweh will not forget the Covenant of their Fathers and promising return from their captivity and their restoration if they would repent, etc. (Deut. 4:27-31; 30:1-10; 1 Kgs. 8:25b, 46-53). Cross believed Dtr2 was completed around 500 B.C. and that it attempted to transform the history into a sermon to Judean exiles.
Tuesday, May 22, 2012
YHWH versus Ba'al
In his article "Yahweh versus Baal: a narrative-critical reading of the Gideon/Abimelech narrative" Vince Endris seeks to show foremost that the narrative within the book of Judges covering the stories of Gideon and his son Abimelech are really one narrative showing the power-struggle between Yahweh and Baal in which Yahweh eventually emerges victorious. Endris suggests that looking at these stories that are placed in the middle of Judges will provide better insight into the rest of the overall story of Judges, in which the Israelites struggle severely will fidelity, constantly returning the gods which Yahweh has consistently defeated. Eventually, Yahweh begins to become less active in the lives of his people as they continue to betray him. Endris seeks to apply a narrative critical approach to the book of Judges. I believe that Endris does an excellent job with his article in showing the conflict between Yahweh and Baal, as well in the way he shows the downward spiral in the book of Judges as a whole, especially after Israel rejects Yahweh in the midst of his victory over Baal in the story of Gideon. I believe the connections he makes between Gideon and Abimelech as one narrative are convincing as well. He has obviously done very serious and legitimate research on this subject, and he provides numerous scriptural and scholarly references to support his claims.
Endris writes that in the narrative Yahweh appears to be defeated but “returns to bring about Baal's ultimate demise” (174). Gideon serves as a human representative of Yahweh and Abimelech serves as a human representative of Baal. As the Gideon story progresses, Gideon becomes less and less faithful to Yahweh and appears to bring about Yahweh’s defeat. However, Yahweh show himself ultimately victorious as the story continues when Abimelech who is Baal’s representative is destroyed, thus defeating Baal. Endris comes up with three main points in for the progression of this narrative. These are that the Gideon/Abimelech story gives reason for why God deals so harshly with the Israelites, saying that he will no longer defend them because they have turned to Baal because Baal and Yahweh are at war with each other; also, this explains why in the second half of the book of Judges there is a significant decrease in the acts of God and an increase in the activities of humans; also, in the last few chapters of Judges is presented four separate times the idea that during the days of the judges there was no king in Israel. Kingship is portrayed in a positive light in the book of Judges. The narrative believes that once Yahweh is represented in the human office of king, only then will the chaos Israel has brought upon herself be done away with.
There are parallels between the Gideon/Abimelech narrative and the book of Judges as a whole. Both stories begin with a period of rest. When Gideon comes on the scene it has been forty years since Deborah defeated Sisera. This is similar to what is found in Numbers. There is a new generation on the scene when Gideon comes along. At the beginning of the Gideon story is seen the prophet who reminds Israel of all God did for them in Egypt and warns them to flee from idolatry, just as at the beginning of Judges.
The conflict between Baal and Yahweh emerges when Yahweh commands Gideon to tear down the altar which his father had built to Baal. Gideon does as he is instructed and his father renames him “Jerubbaal.” In this is seen the beginning of the conflict. Jerubbaal can mean “one who contends with Baal” or “Baal will contend” or “Let Baal contend against him.” Also, the Midianite and Amalekite armies are seen as representatives of Baal. They are Israel’s human oppressors, just as Baal is Israel’s divine oppressor. It would seem that Baal is directly connected to these armies because immediately after Gideon destroys Baal’s altar and the judgment of Baal is pronounced upon him these armies begin to invade. It is apparently understood that the enemies are Baal worshipers. Gideon’s side in the war is that of Yahweh. Gideon tests Yahweh’s power several times. Yahweh proves to him that he is master over the elements. He provides dew for Gideon when Gideon asks for it. Baal was thought to be in control of the weather but Yahweh proves himself to be in charge. Yahweh takes control of the dew, so the reader expects that ultimately Yahweh will be victorious over Baal.
When the battle begins, Yahweh, or Elohim, brings Gideon’s numbers down to a few. He tests Gideon just as Gideon tested him. Also, this shows that the victory is not that of Gideon, but of Yahweh himself. It is Yahweh who is fighting for Israel. After the defeat of the enemies, the end of the story seems to be in sight. The people ask Gideon to be their ruler and Gideon responds that he will not and that only Yahweh shall rule over them. However, Gideon continues speaking and asks the people for jewelry so that he can make an ephod for them. This is a surprising turn of events for the reader. Gideon places the ephod in Ophrah, which is significant because this is the same location in which Gideon built an altar to Yahweh at the beginning of the narrative. Israel then proceeds to prostitute herself before the ephod. The narrative records that the ephod became a snare for all Israel and Gideon’s household. Immediately after Yahweh’s defeat of their enemies Israel returns to worshiping other gods. This scene with the ephod is reminiscent of the story of Aaron in the desert who took gold from the people in order to provide them with golden calf to worship. It seems to be implied that Gideon has replaced the shrine he built for Yahweh with an object of worship for Baal. This is in contrast to the beginning of the story in which Gideon pulls down Baal’s altar and sets up a shrine for Yahweh. It would seem that through Gideon’s unfaithfulness Baal has defeated Yahweh. Gideon’s story ends with infidelity. The Israelites even rename Baal as “Baal of the Covenant,” replacing Yahweh completely.
The next section focuses mostly upon Abimelech, the son of Jerubbaal. At this point in the story Gideon is no longer referred to as Gideon but as Jerubbaal, indicating that Baal has indeed contended for himself. The word “baal” is used throughout the story of Abimelech to show which side Abimelech is on. Abimelech becomes “a brother of the baals of Shechem” and he is “paid with money from the house of Baal of the Covenant” (179). His association with Baal is seen in his rejection of his own family. He eventually kills all but one of the sons of Jerubbaal. He does so by killing them on a rock at Ophrah one by one. This indicates that he is making human sacrifices to Baal. After this, the baals of Shechem and the house of Milloh pronounce Abimelech king. Jurubbaal’s remaining son Jotham shows up and pronounces judgment upon Abimelech for his actions. The author says that “before running away, Jotham utters a curse on Abimelech and the baals of Shechem that they be destroyed by fire” (180). This foreshadows that Yahweh will soon defeat Baal. Jotham mentions Elohim in his curse, and it would seem that Elohim, or Yahweh, will soon make an appearance after his long silence since the time of Jerubbaal. The story says that God sent an evil spirit to confuse the baals of Shechem so that they would betray Abimelech.
At this point in the story, yet another house is introduced, the house of Gaal, who worship a completely different god. Gaal boasts against Abimelech and Abimelech seeks revenge by attacking him at night. This is reminiscent of Gideon’s night attack on the Baal idol at Ophrah. That scene set up the narrative, and the night attack of Abimelech begins to bring the narrative to a close. Abimelech destroys the house of Gaal and burns down the temple of “God of the Covenant,” which is no longer considered to be Yahweh at this point. Abimelech then goes to the tower at Thebez to inflict more destruction, but suddenly a woman throws a millstone over the wall at random and it lands on his head. He instructs a young man to kill him and he does. This is contrasted with the Gideon story, where Gideon instructs his son to kill one of the enemy but he does not do it for he just a boy and was afraid. The number one is significant in this story. Abimelech kills the sons of Jerubbaal on one stone and acts as the single representative of Baal. In the end it is a single woman, acting as the representative of Yahweh who kills him.
At the end of the story, Elohim is revealed to have defeated Baal, but the Israelites immediately begin to do evil again, and Yahweh lets their enemies defeat them. They cry out to him again, but this time his response to them is a rebuke.
The article goes on to discuss other elements of the narrative. Gideon is originally portrayed as a good character resembling Moses. The call of Gideon is similar to God’s appearance to Moses in Exodus 3. Both leaders encounter the messenger of God, raise questions and objections, are visited by Yahweh, and are given signs. Also, Moses’ father-in-law is a priest of Midian, and Gideon’s father has an altar to Baal indicating that he is also a pagan priest. However, Gideon’s character spirals down within the story until he winds up betraying Yahweh. Up until this point Gideon is the only judge to be specifically raised up by Yahweh himself. As the narrative progresses Gideon is seen to be working more so on his own as well becoming much more aggressive and assertive. He kills those who had killed his own brothers in retribution. This is in contrast with Abimelech who later kills all of his own brothers.
Abimelech is seen as an evil character. He kills his brothers on a single stone and at the end of the story he is killed by a single stone. The end of the narrative concludes with a chiasm. It says, “God returned/Abimelech’s evil/and all the men of Shechem’s evil/God caused to return” (188). The conclusion here is significant because it shows how it was God who acted against the wickedness of these people, and it was God who ultimately defeated Baal by acting against them. After the Gideon narrative Baal ceases to act anymore. Yahweh acts a few times, but because of Israel’s refusal to worship him alone as they turn to gods Yahweh has already defeated he does not act very often. Human activity, rather than divine, is emphasized in the rest of the book.
The decrease of the activity of Yahweh in the rest of the book makes it look as though Yahweh has lost control of his people. Since the time of Othniel, every time the Israelites were saved from their enemies the land had rest for many years after the deliverance. Gideon is the last judge to bring rest to the land. He is also the last judge portrayed as having Yahweh “with him.” Jephtah and Samson act mostly on their own, sometimes doing the will of God and sometimes not. The book of Judges even says that the spirit of the Lord had left Samson.
There are also similarities in the last half of Judges with Genesis. However, whereas God acts in Genesis, he does not intervene in Judges. Jephtah’s sacrifice of his daughter parallels Abraham’s sacrifice of Isaac, except that God stops Abraham from killing his son and he does nothing about Jephtah’s acts. Also, the story of the Levite and his concubine parallels the story of Sodom and Gomorrah. Both stories have men of the cities desiring to rape the male guests of one within the city. Both stories show the host offering the men his own virgin daughter or daughters to do with as they please. The difference is that in Genesis God strikes the Sodomites with blindness and destroys the city, and in Gibeah God does nothing to prevent the Levite’s concubine from being brutally raped all night and killed. Also, the overall story structure becomes more chaotic in the second half of Judges. Samson’s story is filled with a bunch of random things that he does, and the last few chapters do not give the reader the typical story of the judge saving the people, but rather several stories about seemingly random people doing horrible things.
The stories in the last half of Judges focus more on personal stories about individuals, such as Abimelech, Samson, and Micah. There is little activity by any god at all. The focus becomes on what seems right in the eyes of the individual rather than what is right in the eyes of God. This is seen when Samson wants to marry the Philistine woman because “she is right in my eyes,” as well as at the close of Judges when it is recorded that everyone did what was right in their own eyes and that at that time there was no king in Israel. Intertribal war also arises several times – Jephtah and the Ephraimites, Samson is handed over to the Philistines by his own people, the Danites attack Laish, and of course the war against Benjamin in which the entire tribe is almost made extinct.
The article concludes by pointing out how the narrative seems to indicate that once Yahweh’s reign is established through a human monarch, then the chaos will end and rest will return to the land. The Israelites have abandoned Yahweh even in the midst of his victory over their enemies and Baal. The reason that he does not come to their aid again by raising up a successful representative of himself is because Yahweh has in turn abandoned them. The reason there is no representative of Yahweh in Israel anymore is because Yahweh is not in Israel anymore.
Eating the Blood: Saul and the Witch of Endor
I have always wondered what the connection between witchcraft, rebellion, and eating blood had to do with one another in the Old Testament laws. My wife taught at a local Christian school last year and something the administration liked to do was to quote from the Torah laws to the kids. One verse they especially enjoyed using out of context in order to keep kids “in line” was “rebellion is as the sin of divination.” I have wondered about that verse a number of times, along with the verse that condemns divination immediately after having condemned the eating of blood. I have wondered how these commands might correlate with one another, and after reading Pamela Tamarkin Reis’s article “Eating the Blood: Saul and the Witch of Endor,” I believe I have come to see how all of these commands are connected to each other in the life of Saul in the way that he broke all of them. I believe I am beginning to understand better how the eating of blood is related to divination and how both of these things are related to rebellion.
This article begins by saying that theologians have long been confused about how to interpret and to look at the Witch of Endor in the narrative of Saul. Some early church fathers thought that her attitude and her hospitality should be emulated and that she was a better servant than was Saul. Some have even gone so far as to say she pre-figured Christ. She provides Saul with a meal which allows him to revive his strength and go to face his immanent death in battle. The author, however, states that she believes the witch’s acts to be not acts of hospitality but of self-preservation. While Saul becomes petrified with fear the witch recognizes her peril and acts in order to save herself. The meal which she provides for Saul should not be interpreted as a hospitable meal, but as a part of the séance itself. Reis says “it is a mantic sacrifice to the dead entailing the stringently proscribed eating of blood.” The witch realizes that she has helped Saul, but Saul is the one who has attempted to stamp out all divination in the land, putting mediums to death. However, Saul has nonetheless still come to her and has successfully been delivered an ominous message from the realm of the dead. At this, Saul realizes that he has lost all hope. The witch recognizes this and provides this sacrifice to the spirits so that they may somehow reverse the death sentence they have placed on Saul’s head. In doing this, the witch is attempting to save Saul’s life so that her own life may be saved. Saul is, after all, the one who had originally tried to stamp out all mediums from the land, and how she has delivered a message of death to him. It would seem that the appropriate response of Saul would be to kill this messenger.
The witch recognizes her peril and provides Saul with a sacrifice to the spirits, or to the “gods” as she calls them. She also recognizes that Saul is extremely hungry, since he appears to have fasted for a full day in preparation for this séance. Reis also points out that this sharing of the meal also indicates a sort of covenant or relationship between Saul and the witch being established. It indicates that they are making an agreement to help and not harm each other.
The set up for this story reminds the reader that Samuel has died and also that Saul had eradicated the diviners from the land. Also, it sets up the battle that is to come between the Philistines and the Israelites. Saul is filled with fear at the approach of the Philistines and he attempts to make contact with God, but God does not answer him “neither by dreams, nor by Urim, nor by prophets.” God had already rejected Saul and this had not changed. Instead of repentance, Saul wishes to use God to protect him. What Saul desires is the occult. Saul cannot find the answers he desires from God so he tells his servant to go seek out a witch. This is in reference to Leviticus 19:31 where God says, “'Do not seek out a witch', because Ί am the Lord'.”
The proximity of the witch to Saul’s camp is also discussed. Saul puts on a disguise and they travel to go meet with her. Some wonder if Saul wears a disguise because he is crossing into enemy territory, the place where mediums have been expelled. However, this does not make sense because what is driving Saul is his great fear of the Philistines. It would not follow that he would venture into their territory. What seems more likely is that mediums still existed within Israel’s boundaries and that Saul’s eradication of the spiritists had not been completely thorough. The reason he wears a disguise then seems to be that he does not want his own people or the witch to recognize him as the king. He gets rid of his royal robes so as to not draw attention to himself and what he is doing. The words used to describe Saul’s process of disguising himself are interesting. He “puts on” these clothes similar to how one “puts on” righteousness, majesty, or desolation elsewhere in scripture. Also, the word for “clothing” that is used here has the same root as the word “treachery,” so the text is hinting by word-play that Saul is putting on treachery.
This root-word is also used previously when Saul accuses his army of being treacherous when he discovers them eating upon the blood of the animals. There seems to be a difference between the command to not eat blood and the command to not eat upon or on the blood. This first command is related to the belief that the life of the creature is in the blood, so eating its blood is disrespectful of life itself. The second command has to do with participating in an evil sacrifice to other gods, an act of witchcraft where the blood of the animal is eaten. It can be argued then that when Saul finds his army eating upon the blood, the text may be implying that his army was participating in pagan sacrificial rituals. However, not everyone agrees with this interpretation. Some also say that the command to not eat upon the blood is not related to the command immediately following it to not practice divination. It is relates more to not eating the flesh of a live animal or not eating the flesh of the sacrifice before the blood has been offered up. However, many would still interpret the eating of the blood to be associated with acts of sorcery.
The witch hesitates to work for Saul because she knows that the king has fiercely tried to eliminate her kind and she fears he may turn her in. She does not seem to recognize that she is speaking to Saul himself. The irony is the witch reminds Saul of his own stance against what he is about to do. She also says Saul has “cut” off the sorcerers, another ironic use of words because later Saul and the witch seem to be “cutting” a covenant together. Saul also reassures the witch in the name of the Lord, which is ironic considering his actions are acts against the Lord.
There seems to be much confusion about the point at which the witch recognizes Saul for who he really is. It is at the point when she sees Samuel rising up out of the ground. Some say that she realized from the beginning that he was really Saul because of his request to see Samuel and was only pretending to not recognize him. The reasoning here is that only the king would request to see Saul right before a significant battle. Some also say that the witch recognized that it was truly Saul because Saul is the only person Samuel would have risen up to appear to. The fact that her conjuring actually worked caused her to realize that it was Saul who was with her. Also, some have interpreted that she recognized Samuel and thus Saul before Samuel had fully emerged because only spirits who were important rose from the ground head first. Other spirits apparently rose upside down. Others further say that the aura of the prophet’s presence cast away all deception taking place so that the witch immediately recognized Saul when Samuel appeared. The author states that Samuel had likely been summoned in vain by others, but that he only appeared for Saul because of his close relationship with Saul. Previously in the story of Saul, Samuel is seen rejoicing over Saul and mourning over Saul and praying on Saul’s behalf after he has been rejected by God to the point that God chastises Samuel for making a case for Saul after God has already rejected him. Samuel appears because of his love for Saul. Samuel’s last words to Saul are seen as a call to repentance and a condemning of the path Saul has chosen to take. Samuel utters the name of YHWH seven times in his message from the grave.
The text rarely uses the name of Saul once he dons his disguise as a way of showing how he is hiding his identity. He does not want people to know that he is the king. However, he does use his kingly authority once the witch recognizes him. He uses it when he tells her to not be afraid of him. It is also interesting that when the ghost appears she is not afraid of it but rather of Saul.
Saul’s requests of Samuel are very much centered upon himself. He tells Saul of his own fear and he wants to know what he should do against the Philistines. He is not concerned with his estranged relationship with God, except in the sense that he no longer is able to receive reliable military advice. Samuel’s response then is a reordering of Saul’s priorities to the way they ought to be. Samuel is calling Saul to repentance. Samuel also informs him that he and his sons will die the following day and that he is running out of time. He indicates that the Philistines will rout the Israelites. As long as Samuel had judged, the Philistines had been able to take away any territory from Israel so Saul hoped that Samuel would be able to continue this even after this death. However, Samuel does not provide this assurance for Saul at this point. Saul, though, is as unwilling to listen to Samuel as he was to God, and he does not do as Samuel commands him. He collapses to the ground at Samuel’s disappearance after relaying the divine judgment.
After this the witch begins to act in order to save herself. She approaches Saul perhaps in a sexual sort of way. The text says that she “comes to Saul” in the sense that she may have “come on to Saul” or approached him in a sexual manner. However, she seems to change her tactic when she realizes that Saul is overcome with fear. She then offers him the meal, seeing his weakness and hunger from his 24-hour fast. Also, the words which accompany the meal she offers Saul are a proposition. She refers to herself as Saul’s handmaid and tells him that she has placed her life in his hands. She offers him food, indicating that he may place his life in her hands. This makes more sense if the meal is part of the sacrifice to the spirits to appease them. Saul consents to this, making a covenant with her. He is agreeing to save her life from his punishment if she tries to save his life by interceding on his behalf to the spirits. Saul gives in to her pressing in typical Saul fashion, just as he had given in to the pressure placed on him by the people at other times, such as when he broke his oath in order to protect Jonathan and when he offered an improper sacrifice to save himself from the Philistines. Here he is again seen to be breaking his oath in order to protect someone deserving to die as well as offering up an improper sacrifice. He gives into pressure in the same ways he has before. Though Saul always fails to listen to the voice of God and of Samuel, he seems never to fail to listen to the voices of others.
The author also points out the position Saul takes upon the bed at this point. His position is a reminder of two other accounts involving some form of idolatry. The first relates to the idol or “teraphim” of Laban which Rachel steals and hides in her place of rest. She fails to rise. Also, this word is used when Michal protects David from Saul’s men, using a “teraphim” as a decoy by placing it in David’s bed. The text seems to be implying that Saul continues to participate in the worship of other gods. Further, when the witch kills the calf for the meal, the word used is not the word for butchering or slaughtering it, but rather the word for sacrificing it. The author also points out that a great deal of detail is given as the witch prepares the unleavened bread, a task which does not take an exceptionally long time, but that the preparation of the calf is not described in detail. This may mean that that calf was not in fact cooked properly and that it was intended to be eaten raw and with the blood still in it as a continued part of this séance. Here, Saul, the representative of Yahweh, is seen making a covenant with the enemies of Yahweh.
The offering of the witch on Saul’s behalf, however, does not work out, and the prophecy of Samuel from the grave does indeed come true. One would think that the message given to Saul would cause the reader to feel sorry for him, but it does not. Saul’s response causes the reader to view him with indignation, even more so than the witch herself. Saul is seen as a worse person than the witch. The ironic end to this is that as Saul watches his sons die and realizes that he is next, he becomes afraid of life itself. Up until this point, his survival was what appeared to be most important to him and was what drove him to go to the witch in the first place. Now, however, he despairs of life itself, and the very thing he desired most is not the thing that has become a horror to him. So he kills himself.
Saul’s response to his sin is also compared to David’s response to his sin. When Saul hears that he and his sons will die, his response is one of anguish and he participates in the occult in order to manipulate the divine judgment. He “sits up” to engage in pagan sacrifice and the eating of blood. On the other hand, when David is told that his son will die for his sin, he reacts with anguish and pleads with God himself to take away this punishment rather than participating in the occult. After his anguish, David also “sits up,” but he washes his face and worships God rather than making a covenant with a witch and eating blood as Saul did. This shows how the Davidic monarchy is better than Saul’s monarchy.
Friday, May 18, 2012
Bathsheba: A Feminist Approach
Introduction
Feminist Possibilities
While media has tended to portray Bathsheba on rather negative terms, Bathsheba may be viewed on many numbers of levels. Winkelman argues that Bathsheba should not be viewed as a seductive temptress and that her bath was purely innocent. He points out that traditionally Bathsheba’s washing has often been interpreted as a menstrual purification ritual. However, he states that washing was not required for a woman after her period during this time, and was only a part of later rabbinic tradition.[4] Quoting Tikva Frymer-Kensky, he says “that bathing and purification are two separate events, not necessarily pertaining to each other or even Bathsheba's menstrual cycle,”[5] and that “’…in the Bible—women do not seem to wash after menstruation', clarifying that time, not water, brings an end to menstruation.”[6] Her bath as menstrual cleansing has often been interpreted to show that she was not pregnant before David had sexual relations with her, but Winkelman argues that her washing was a different act of self-sanctifying that showed her identification with the Israelite deity.[7] He compares her washing with the washing of other women in the Bible, who bathed for the sake of bathing and not for menstrual purification. He compares Bathsheba with Pharaoh’s daughter and Ruth. Both of these women became the mothers, so to speak, of the great leaders of Israel, Moses and David after having washed themselves. In the same way, Bathsheba is shown to have washed herself prior to becoming the mother of one of the great leaders of Israel, Solomon.[8] All three of these women are non-Israelites, but are shown to be worthy of mothering the great leaders of Israel, in part through the way they wash themselves. He writes, “Bathsheba's ethnicity is addressed later, but note Bathsheba washes and becomes a mother of Israel, exactly like Pharaoh's daughter and Ruth.”[9] In this way, Bathsheba should not be viewed in a negative light, but ought to be seen as one who is prepared or sanctified and ready to be used by God as the mother of a great leader of Israel. [10]Her sanctification and identification with the Israelite deity is evident even in the midst of the sexual abuse suffered upon her by David.[11]
Bathsheba may be viewed on many numbers of levels. This is especially true when it comes to the literary theory of Feminism, which recognizes both the negative and the positive views of Bathsheba. Feminism seeks in a way to liberate the female from her bondage to male-dominated thought in literature, society, work, the home, and other places.[12] Literarily, Feminism may be applied to the Bathsheba narratives in the Bible, bringing about a number of different views and interpretations of both the character of the figure Bathsheba herself, as well critiques on the male characters in the narratives, such as David, as well as different analytical interpretation, critiques, and suggestions about the writer or writer of the narratives themselves.
Feminism may be approached in a number of different ways. One may apply feminist interpretation to the story of David and Bathsheba in order to portray Bathsheba as a helpless victim of David, pointing to this as an example of the oppression of women throughout history by men in order to say that women must at last be liberated from male domination. One may use Feminism to portray Bathsheba as a very clever woman who positioned herself in just the right place at the right time in order to gain political influence. One may seek to use Feminism in the hope of showing that while Bathsheba was a helpless victim, at first she overcame these difficulties and rose to become the most prominent woman in all of Israel, eventually causing her own son to be placed on the throne.
Analysis of the Text
Another question to ask oneself when engaging in a Feminist interpretation of the text is “Is the text narrated by a male or female?”[14] Traditionally, it would seem that the Deuteronomist is the male narrator for these accounts. However, it is difficult to say this with absolute certainty. Some would argue that this story is really the voice of a woman showing how women were mistreated. However, it makes more sense to say that the narrator is male because the society in which these stories were written was a male dominated society. Also, while the text involves women, the narrator never gives the reader insight into what is going on in the minds of the women characters. The narrator does give quite a bit of insight, though, into the minds of the male characters.
Another question to ask in this Feminist investigation of the text is “What types of roles do women haven in the text?”[15] Bathsheba herself is really the only woman within the initial narrative involving her. However, David’s other wives are also briefly mentioned by Nathan. The role of Bathsheba in this first story seems to be of a passive nature. Bathsheba is seen bathing by David who lusts over her and has her brought to his palace in order to sleep with him. After this encounter with the king she is sent home and soon realizes she is pregnant. She then speaks her only words in this story and sends a messenger to David saying, “I’m pregnant.” After this Bathsheba has no role in the story until after her husband is led to his death by David, and David takes her to be his wife after she mourns for her husband. She gives birth to David’s son, but Yahweh puts the child to death as a sort of punishment for David’s sin. She is then seen being comforted by David for the loss of her child. Eventually she gives birth to another son, Solomon, or Jedidiah. Bathsheba is not the focus of this story, but rather David. This story is about David’s sin and its consequences for David, and not about how Bathsheba herself was wronged and what this did to her.[16] She is not much of a character in this story, but only fulfills the role required of her in order to make the story worth reading.
In the story involving Bathsheba in 1 Kings 1, she is seen as a much more dynamic character. She is not a passive object, but a person with intellect who uses her wisdom to insure that her son’s right to the throne is maintained. In contrast to the first story in which David used his royal position to manipulate a helpless Bathsheba, Bathsheba uses her royal position to manipulate a helpless David. Another female character in this story is Abishag, a beautiful young woman who is used by David’s attendants in order to provide him with warmth. In a way, she is treated as an object by her male superiors. Adonijah even tries to use her to gain access to the throne. Adonijah also attempts to use Bathsheba in this attempt, but his plan backfires due to the cleverness of Bathsheba. Adonijah wishes to marry Abishag in order to be able to claim rights to the throne, but he must submit his request to Bathsheba. Bathsheba then uses this opportunity to provide Solomon with an excuse for getting rid of his rival half-brother. Robert Vasholz writes, “Bathsheba's request, then, on Adonijah's behalf,exposed him as still being a serious threat to Solomon and one that needed to be dealt with.” He continues, “Here was a very wise woman (and mother) whose acumen not only helped her son to secure his reign, but who also demonstrates wisdom as a virtue of God's kingdom.”[17] Some, however, would argue that it was really the intelligence of Nathan that secured Solomon’s inheritance of the throne and that Nathan was using Bathsheba in order to save his own life. However, it would seem that while Nathan suggests the plot to Bathsheba, there is evidence that she was fully capable of coming up with various elements of it on her own. No longer is she the passive and silent woman seen in 1 Samuel 11. She is a woman with an agenda, conspiring with Nathan get from David what they want, perhaps even “taking advantage of David’s feebleness to ‘plant’ a memory so that he will act in the manner that they wish.”[18] This interpretation is possible due to the fact that David is never before recorded as having said that Solomon would take over for him as king.
Another question which ties into the previous one is “Are the female characters the protagonists or secondary and minor characters?”[19] In 1 Samuel 11, Bathsheba is definitely a secondary or minor character. She is only there as an agent of plot, and not as a character herself. She barely speaks, and she has no significant role other than being used by David. Adele Berlin writes, “All this leads us to view Bathsheba as a complete non-person. She is not even a minor character, but simply part of the plot. This is why she is not considered guilty of adultery. She is not an equal party to the adultery, but only the means whereby it was achieved.”[20] He goes on to say that she should not even be considered as a type in the story, but merely an agent. He says, “The plot in 2 Sam. 11 calls for adultery, and adultery requires a married woman. Bathsheba fills that function. Nothing about her which does not pertain to that function is allowed to intrude into the story.”[21] In 1 Kings 1, however, Bathsheba would appear to be a main character, alongside Nathan, Solomon, and Adonijah. David takes on a lesser role at this point. Berlin writes, “Bathsheba's function as an agent in 2 Sam. 11-12 is in marked contrast to Bathsheba as a character in 1 Kings 1-2. Here she is a "real" person, a mother concerned with securing the throne for her son. She emerges in these episodes as one of the central characters, important in affairs of state as well as in family matters…”[22] However, Berlin does recognize that while Bathsheba is not an agent anymore, there is a woman portrayed in the same way in this story that Bathsheba was portrayed in 2 Samuel. This woman is Abishag, who does not speak, but is only used by the other characters as a means to get what they want.[23]
Another question to ask when applying a Feminist hermeneutic to the text is “Do any stereotypical characterizations of women appear?”[24] In 1 Samuel 11 it could be argued that the first sight of Bathsheba is a stereotypical one. It portrays her as a beautiful woman bathing and becoming the object of lust for David. One may argue that she fills the stereotypical role of female as sex object in her introduction. It could also be argued that both Bathsheba and Abishag fulfill the stereotypical roles of women to a certain extent in 1 Kings 1. Both of them seem to a part of what one might refer to as David’s royal herem, a stereotypical position for some women in ancient near eastern stories.[25] Bathsheba could be seen as the head of the royal herem as David’s favorite wife, a position sometimes referred to as “gebirah.”[26] Bathsheba is also very rarely referred to by name early on in the narrative. She is identified as “Uriah’s wife,” thus indicating that her social status is based upon her husband. She is not necessarily considered her own person apart from her husband. She belongs to him, and often when she is referred to in the story she is referred to only as his wife, or the daughter of Eliam. The New Interpreter’s Dictionary of the Bible indicates that “Bathsheba is among five women included in the Gospel of Matthew’s genealogy of Jesus, all of whom are listed by their own names, except for Bathsheba, who is identified as ‘the wife of Uriah’.”[27] This refers back to the way to which she is referred in 2 Samuel. It continues, “By using the language of 2 Sam 11:3, 26; 12:10 and 15, the genealogy indirectly recalls the story of David’s abuse of power and Bathsheba’s vulnerability.”[28]
Another question to ask oneself is “What are the attitudes toward women held by the male characters?”[29] In the first story, David’s attitude towards Bathsheba is evident. He sees her bathing, wants to have sex with her, and uses his power to get what he wants. After their sexual encounter, she is sent back to her home. He appears to be done with her. When he finds out she is pregnant he makes various attempts to cover up what he has done. He tries to get Uriah to have relations with his wife, but Uriah refuses, perhaps suspecting David’s scheme.[30] David’s servants do nothing to protect Bathsheba from David, except for mentioning to him that she is a married woman. Later, after David has caused Uriah’s death, he waits until Bathsheba’s period of mourning for her husband is over before taking her to be his wife. Later, when the child of their iniquity dies, David is seen tending to Bathsheba and comforting his grieving wife. This attitude seems to be an improvement over the lust originally seen in David. Psalm 51 is attributed to David after he had sinned with Bathsheba. Within this psalm is seen great remorse for what has taken place. The psalmist, speaking for David, writes, “Have mercy on me, O God…” and “Against you, and you only have I sinned.” This would seem to indicate that David sees his sin as something not committed against Bathsheba or Uriah or even Joab, but as only against God. Garland and Richmond say that “David still seemed not to understand the enormity of what he had done to others. What about Bathsheba? What about Uriah? But his sin against them was his sin against God, and God offers forgiveness to the repentant and humbled David.”[31] This appears to be a distorted view of his sin, as if he does not realize that his sin is not just between him and God, but one that affected the lives of other people as well, including Bathsheba. Another interpretation of these words attributed to David in this psalm would say that in saying that He has sinned against God alone, he is saying that the root of all sins against other people is sin against God. [32]One may also argue that in equating is sin against Bathsheba with sin against God he is elevating Bathsheba to the position of God, or at least identifying her with God. The 1 Samuel 11 story says that “What David had done greatly displeased the Lord.” God took David’s actions against Bathsheba as actions against himself. In this way, God is seen identifying with the woman of Bathsheba. God is seen suffering alongside a woman who was abused by a man. At the same time, however, God causes Bathsheba’s child to die, causing her even more suffering, although this causes David to also suffer greatly, since he “loved the child.”
In 1 Kings 1, the attitudes towards female characters by male characters may also be seen. Abishag is used as an object by which David is warmed. Adonijah views her as a way of gaining control of the kingdom, and it is unclear whether or not he actually loves her. Nathan’s opinion of the female characters is also unclear. He goes to Bathsheba in order to warn her of the danger she and Solomon are in, but it is unclear whether this is out of compassion or if he realized that his own life was also in danger. Bowen writes, “In this episode she is not the one to initiate the approach to David. She is coaxed (or manipulated?) by Nathan, who counsels that she must do this in order to save her own life.”[33]
David appears to be non-responsive to the beautiful Abishag warming him in his bed, but this seems to be because David is too old to be sexually aroused. David receives his wife Bathsheba, however, warmly, and confirms that Solomon will be king after him. Solomon appears to regard his mother with the utmost respect, showing her the proper royal courtesies upon her entry into his presence. However, Solomon also appears angry when she presents Adonijah’s request to him. It is unclear whether he thought his mother was stupid for making this request on Adonijah’s behalf, or whether his anger was towards Adonijah himself. Either way, he uses this new knowledge provided by Bathsheba to deal with his half-brother and rival. It may also be that Solomon was merely putting on a show of anger in response to this request and that he had been looking for an excuse to do away with Adonijah and recognized the cleverness of his mother in bringing Adonijah’s request to his attention. In this way, Solomon may have viewed his mother as an intelligent woman and a loyal mother.
Another question to ask oneself when applying Feminist criticism to the Biblical text is, “Is feminine imagery used? If so, what is the significance of such imagery?”[34] In the Bathsheba narratives, there does not seem to be much feminine imagery used. However, 2 Samuel 11 does go so far as to point out the great beauty of Bathsheba and how her great beauty is what attracts David to her. A person’s beauty is only sometimes referred to in the Bible to describe a character. Bathsheba is describes as beautiful, but David appears to be as well elsewhere. Saul was also describes as a good-looker, as well as David’s son Absalom, among others, such as Rachel who was compared her sister Leah, who “had weak eyes,” or was not beautiful. Beauty at times seems to convey that a character has admirable traits. However, while a beautiful character may have admirable traits, sometimes they may also have negative traits. Bathsheba’s beauty does not seem to indicate anything of her character, but only a physical feature taken in by David in his objectification of her. However, Michael Avioz writes that “Nonetheless, the description of Bathsheba’s beauty is part of the positive casting of her character. Here beauty is not used as temptation as described in Proverbs. This is in contradistinction to the claims of several researchers that Bathsheba seduced David.”[35] In 1 Kings 1 Abishag is also described as beautiful, but nothing is mentioned of her character. In comparison with David’s other wives, Bathsheba stands in contrast with Michal. Michal is often seen taking initiative and sometimes takes on roles that men traditionally take – she announces her love for David, she rescues David from his enemies, etc. She is not described as beautiful, but is seen to be somewhat masculine.[36] Bathsheba on the other hand is portrayed in a very feminine way, and for the biblical writer her femininity seems to be portrayed in her silence, her passivity, and her physical beauty.[36]
Conclusion
_____________________________________________________________________________
[1] E. Winkelman, et al. "The sanctified 'adulteress' and her circumstantial clause: Bathsheba's bath and self-consecration in 2 Samuel 11." Journal for the Study of the Old Testament 32, no. 3 (March 1, 2008): 339-352.
[2] Garland, David E., and Diana S Richmond Garland. "Bathsheba's story: surviving abuse and loss." Family and community ministries 21, no. 3 (December 1, 2008): 22-33.
[3] Even in children’s films which are careful to not portray excessive amounts of promiscuity, she is still often seen as an object. Veggietales’ King George and the Ducky, seeking to avoid adult subjects portrays David as an anthropomorphic cucumber and Bathsheba as a rubber duck, an object.
[4] Winkelman., Ibid.
[5] Ibid.
[6] Ibid.
[7] Ibid.
[8] Ibid.
[9] Ibid.
[10] Christian tradition even place Bathsheba, along with Ruth and other foreign women, in the genealogy of Jesus.
[11] Winkelman., Ibid.
[12] Charles E. Bressler, Literary Criticism: An Introduction to Theory and Practice (Upper Saddle
River, New Jersey: Pearson Prentice Hall).
[13] Bressler., Ibid.
[14] Ibid.
[15] Ibid.
[16] Berger, Yitzhak. "Ruth and the David-Bathsheba story: allusions and contrasts." Journal for the Study of the Old Testament 33, no. 4 (June 1, 2009): 433-452.
[17] Vasholz, Robert I. "The wisdom of Bathsheba in 1 Kings 2:13-25." Presbyterion 33, no. 1 (March 1, 2007): 49.
[18] (eds.) Adele Berlin and Marc Zvi Brettler. The Jewish Study Bible. (Oxford: Jewish Publication Society, TANAKH Translation): 672
[19] Bressler., Ibid.
[20] Berlin, Adele. "Characterization in biblical narrative: David's wives." Journal for the Study of the Old Testament no. 23 (July 1, 1982): 69-85.
[21] Ibid.
[22] Ibid.
[23] Ibid.
[24] Bressler., Ibid.
[25] Cushman, Beverly W. "The politics of the royal harem and the case of Bat-Sheba." Journal for the Study of the Old Testament 30, no. 3 (March 1, 2006): 327-343.
[26] Bowen, Nancy R. "The quest for the historical gĕbîrâ." Catholic Biblical Quarterly 63, no. 4 (October 1, 2001): 597-618.
[27] (gen. ed.) Katharine Doob Sakenfeld. The New Interpreter’s Dictionary of the Bible A-C, Volume 1 (Nashville, TN: Abingdon Press):2006.
[28] Ibid.
[29] Bressler., Ibid.
[30] Berger., Ibid.
[31] Garland and Richmond Garland., Ibid.
[32] (ed.) Michael E. Lawrence. The New Interpreter’s Bible, Volume IV. “The Book of Psalms: Introduction, Commentary, and Reflections” by J. Clinton McCann, Jr. (Abingdon Press: Nashville, TN): 1996.
[33] Bowen., Ibid.
[34] Bressler., Ibid.
[35] Avioz, Michael. "The motif of beauty in the books of Samuel and Kings." Vetus testamentum 59, no. 3 (January 1, 2009): 341-359.
[36] Ibid. (a) He also notes that Michal’s brother Jonathan also possesses some physical beauty and that although he is a warrior his sister is at times portrayed as even more masculine than he.
[37] Ibid.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)