Thursday, March 08, 2007

More notes on the Hebrew Bible

I. The Initial Conquest
Moses dies without entering Canaan. But his lieutenant Joshua leads the people across the Jordan River.
Although the Book of Joshua records a number of military triumphs, a good deal of the country remained under Canaanite control. In particular, the city that eventually became known as Jerusalem was under the control of the Jebusites.
II. Canaanite religion
I. Canaanite religion included the worship of baals, and was an orgiastic fertility cult. This religion was considered to be exceptionally vile by the biblical tradition. However, when the Canaanites taught the Hebrews how to farm, part of the instruction included teaching them how to worship baals.
III. Period of Judges
Actually these were military leaders who protected the people from outside threats.
Included Deborah, Samson, Gideon, and Jephthah
A period of frequent falling away from worship of Yahweh into heathen practices.
IV. Period of the United Kingdom
We are not talking about the British Empire, on which the sun never sets
Rather it begins when Samuel, with apparently some reluctance, sets up a king over Israel. There were only three kings in the United Kingdom period: Saul, David, and Solomon
V. Saul
Was selected by the prophet Samuel to be king.
Is told by Samuel to kill all the Amalekites and burn all their stuff
Takes the king prisoner and takes some booty-then offers a sacrifice.
If this were an ordinary polytheistic God this would probably be sufficient to placate the god
But Samuel condemns Saul and says “To obey is better than sacrifice. Here monotheism seems at least implicit, in the sense that polytheistic gods need our sacrifices. God needs nothing and is primarily concerned with obedience (though he commands people to sacrifice to him).
Of course the command to kill all the Amalekites raises questions about why a good God would order such a thing. (Atheist Keith Parsons is going to say some things about this in his debate with William Lane Craig).
VI. David
Accomplished military leader who built up the kingdom
Conquered the city of Jebus, and renamed it Jerusalem
Was a musician, hence many Psalms are attributed to him
Committed adultery with Bath-sheba. He was a polygamist, so unlike Bill Clinton, it was adultery not because he was married, but because she was.
VII. The Prophet Nathan
When David commits adultery with Bathsheba and arranges the murder of her husband Uriah, the prophet Nathan challenges David and tells him a parable, showing him that he had sinned.
In most countries of that time kings, (like Pharaoh in Egypt) were worshipped as gods and were entitled to all the women they wanted.
What is surprising here is that the king actually listens to the prophet and repents. One would have expected that “telling off” a Middle-eastern king would have only resulted in a neck operation being arranged for the foolhardy prophet. The God of Israel is perceived as possessing a right, power, and authority to command that is un-heard of in the religion of the time.
VIII. Solomon
Last king of the United Kingdom
Known for his wisdom—Proverbs and Ecclesiastes are traditionally attributed to him
Engaged in a lot of public works projects, including the building of the temple in Jerusalem.

3 comments:

Mike Darus said...

When I read this period in an historical context, I prefer to focus on the sociological and political changes. There was an eb and flow of tribal organization. The historical memory in the book of Joshua was of a time of a united group of people entering Canaan and then dispersing into tribal groups. These groups were regularly temporarily united in response to a specific threat. The judges were temporary military leaders who rallied the people in time of need. There was no standing army. There seems to be a nostalgia for the freedom of this time. Even though the rise of a king brings some benefits economically and militarily, the position invites abuse.

I find more sense in the Saul/Amelekite and David/Bathsheba events in the context of the king being subject to the rule of law represented by the prophet. Both of these conflicts became a test of power between the king and the prophet. They made the king subject to the spiritual leader. Human kings continually failed to rise to the challenge.

James said...

Takes the king prisoner and takes some booty-then offers a sacrifice.
If this were an ordinary polytheistic God this would probably be sufficient to placate the god
But Samuel condemns Saul and says “To obey is better than sacrifice. Here monotheism seems at least implicit, in the sense that polytheistic gods need our sacrifices. God needs nothing and is primarily concerned with obedience (though he commands people to sacrifice to him).


I don't understand how you get from "Sacrifice is not as good as obedience" to "Therefore this is a monotheistic religion"?

Just a pointer to somewhere else where this is explained would be appreciated..

Victor Reppert said...

James: Good question. The idea is this. Polytheistic gods need the sacrifices humans make for them; they are the "food" which enables them to function. They can't be too hung up on morality, because after all if a god is too bossy the worshipper can go worship some other god. So on a pagan conception Saul was managing it just right: if you don't want to do what the god says but want to stay in good with the god, offer a really good sacrifice and it will keep your rear end covered. If the god says to obey is better than sacrifice, then the message is that the god doesn't need our sacrifices and our ritual observance. So this, I contend, is a move in the direction of monotheism.