The Bible

MadArchitect · Posted: Sun Aug 14, 2005 12:45 pm Post subject: A few more issues in Job

I thought I'd point out a few more issues that struck me in reading Job, just in case there's any fire left in that discussion.

The social relationships interest me a great deal, and as I mentioned before, it seems to be one of the book's implicit themes that justice and morality begin on the social level. Two instances leap to mind.

The first is that of the friends. They show up to help Job mourn, and it's only after they've sat with him in relative silence for a while that he actually opens his mouth and begins his complaint. Prior to that, Job's line is "Shall we receive the good at the hand of God, and not receive the bad?" -- but after a few days in communion with his friends, it suddenly occurs to him to rail against his circumstances. I can't decide whether I think that's a rather artificial transition or a brilliant piece of psychological insight -- I suspect it's the latter. Something about the very fact of having shared his grief prompt Job to explore it, to really work over his suffering and the seeming injustice of it all, most of all, to speak out. His friends' sympathy seems to have subtly changed some internal balance.

The second instance is in the epilogue. God makes the forgiveness of Eliphaz, Bildad and Zophar contingent on Job's prayers, and Job's wealth is restored in part by the contributions made by his friends and neighbors. It's probably worthwhile to ask where are these people were before -- Job's been sitting in ashes for nearly a week. But either way, it looks as though Job's restoration is effected in large part by the goodwill of humans. If God plays a part in this, it's likely on that of allowing that generosity to unfold. In answer to Job's question as to what sin could possibly mean to God (7.20), the answer may well be that it's only meaningful to God in so much as it's pertinent to human suffering.

I also wanted to point out a resonance that I felt in reading certain portions of Job. Particularly in reading Eliphaz's defense of the old view of punishment and reward, and his assertion of the truth of that view against the evidence of Job's experience, reminded me of the tension between Pangloss' doctrine and Candide's experience in Voltaire's "Candide".

MadArchitect · Posted: Sun Aug 14, 2005 1:09 pm Post subject: The Book of Joshua

We're only a few days into reading "Joshua", but I thought I'd go ahead and jot down a few of the thoughts that bounced around in my head while reading it.

I have to note, of course, how startling it can be to read the depictions of violence that crop up in these historical books. We'll have plenty of time to discuss that, but it must be said at the outset that it's a jolt to read in a ostensibly moral work so many acts that seem to us entirely divorced from morality. Joshua abounds with wholesale slaughter and strung-up corpses. But I might also suggest that our reading will profit a great deal if we spend some time looking at the exceptions to the totality of Israelite violence (eg. Rahab and the Gideonites) in an attempt to situate them in relation to the violence of warfare.

In sorting all of this out, it's important to realize that "Joshua" is part of a revisionist's history. Many scholars have even suggested that the occupation of Canaan by the Twelve Tribes was much slower, and the result of a more peaceful migration rather than an all out conquest. So the question that immediately arises is, what is the intention behind rewriting the history such as it appears in "Joshua".

My initial impression was that a theological layer had been imposed over the historical documents in order to justify the violence that was undeniable in the popular history of the time. In other words, that the author of "Joshua" wrote God (Yahweh) into the history in order to justify the violence by making it the command of a supernatural authority. The revision was thus made in order to maintain the righteousness of the nation by claiming God's direct order as an exception to the laws. But I don't think that suggestion holds up once you start to put weight on it, particularly if we're faced with evidence that suggests that the historical episodes recounted are not entirely authentic themselves.

Having given up on that theory, I turned to Lori L. Rowlett's "Joshua and the Rhetoric of Violence". Her theory is that the revision was made in order to popularize the consolidation of power in a later period. Her book devotes a considerable number of pages to pointing out the likely influence of Assyrian war epics and palace friezes on the language of Joshua; her conclusion is that the Israelite authors were making use of techniques picked up during their exile in Assyria in order to propogandize the idea of theocracy, refashion the national identity by playing on tribal loyalties, and coerce the people into accepting a single monarchal rule.

I think there's a lot of merit in Rowlett's theory, but also a great deal of room for reintrepretation. We might devote part of our discussion to situating "Joshua" in some of its possible context in order to better understand the role it plays.

There is, I think, at least one important idea that we can take away from Rowlett, and it should be broadly applicable to our reading of the whole Bible. That is, that the documents which make up the Bible were largely written to address issues that were contemporary with the authors, and not necessarily specific to the times written about. To that end, "Joshua" may say more about late Israel than it does about the conquest of Canaan, which is ostensibly its subject matter. Even the picture of God that is presented in "Joshua" may be the result of anachronism.

Another point that we'll do well to consider is that the books of the Bible often apply theology for political ends. These books were not always initially intended to serve as canonical religious documents, though we're also well served by bearing in mind that the divide between secular and religious was not always arranged as it is now. That's tricky territory, but hopefully we'll put some real thought into navigating it.

While we're doing so, we can also put some thought into sussing out the ways in which politics can effect religion. Obviously, if we accept that "Joshua" was written to promote a laregly political end, we can also note how this end has served to militarize the Judaic view of God. In considering these effects, we may also be led to consider what elements in religion make such politicization possible.

I offer all of these thoughts up as a possible starting point, but feel free to voice your own reactions and post your own opinions or questions about the work. I'm eager to see how dirty we can get our hands.

MadArchitect · Posted: Thu Aug 18, 2005 2:27 pm Post subject: Re: The Book of Joshua

Is anyone still reading? Are we moving too fast? Is all the background information I'm tossing out a bit overwhelming? Give me some encouragement here -- I'm putting a lot of time in this so that you guys can stay involved without having to do all this research yourselves, and I'd like to have some indication that it's all worth the effort.

MadArchitect · Posted: Fri Aug 19, 2005 2:42 pm Post subject: The Book of Judges

Starting today -- Friday, August 19th -- we'll be starting the second book in our reading of the Deuteronomic history, The Book of Judges. For the moment, we'll plan to finish our reading, though not our discussion, of this section one week from today. However, since discussion had been rather sparse lately, we may extend our reading by a week in order to give everyone time to catch up. Let me know what everyone would like, and we'll plan accordingly. In the meantime, here's some introductory material that may help with your reading of "Judges".

The Book of Judges covers the span of history between the initial invasion of Canaan by the Israelites and the establishment of the Israelite monarchy -- between 1260 and 1020 BCE, according to tradition. The book consists of a number of traditional Israelite folk tales, most of them from the northern part of the region; only Othniel is representative of the lower half, or Judah. These stories are related, in genre and style, to the heroic legends of Teutonic legend, the Arthurian and Roland cycles, Gilgamesh and so on. Nearly every culture has its store of heroic legends -- those of early Israel have been fitted by later redactors into the framework of the Deuteronomic history, and thus we have their presentation here as a sequence of social and military leaders continuing in the charismatic tradition of Joshua. As such, we may read the stories of "Judges" both as independent narratives, or as part of a more or less cohesive book, or as part of the larger whole presented by the Deuteronomic history.

I should also note that The Books of Joshua and Judges, taken together, present the earliest stage of theological development represented in the Bible, a happy coincidence pointed out be John L. McKenzie in his "The World of the Judges". While discussing those books, we may consider the events and trains of thought that will eventually lead us back to the more complex presentation of God and religion found in The Book of Job, a development we may be able to trace through our reading of the books to follow.

What follows is our usual list of terms which occur in our present reading but with which you may not be terribly familiar.

Baal is both a common and proper name, sometimes denoting a person of power but more often used in reference to Canaanite gods. The foremost of the baals was a god of fertility and storms known simply as Baal, but the name was used in reference to a number of gods in the Canaan region, hence the plurality of the term in "Judges". The evidence of "Joshua" and "Judges" suggests that Baal worship was the foremost contender against the Yahwehism of the Israelites.

Astarte may be more familiar to those with an interest in Middle Eastern mythology as Ishtar or the Queen of Heaven. She was a goddess of both love and war, worshiped by the Phoenicians, the Canaanites, the Egyptians and the Babylonians.

Asherah was a Canaanite goddess, the wife or consort of the chief of the Canaanite gods, and mother of Baal and the other "younger" gods. Worship of Asherah included sarcred prosititution and probably oracular visions.

Chemosh was the name of the national god of the Moabites; he may have also been worshiped by the Ammonites. The Moabite Stone, a written record discovered at Dibon in 1868, shows a number of similarities between the worship of Chemosh and Yahweh as warrior-gods; however, there is some indication that Chemosh worship may have involved human sacrafice.

Ephod were articles of clothing, likely a breastplate or a linen waistcloth, worn by Israelite priests. The ephod may have been the traditional place for holding the urim and thummim (see below).

Nazirites, derived from the Hebrew word for "consecrated," were adherents to a Yahwistic religious group. The term implied vows of separation and abstinence from alcoholic drink, contact with the dead, and cutting one's hair. It has been suggested that the Nazarite movement was established in an effort to resist Canaanization of Yahweh worship.

Dagon and Beelzebul are the only two Philistine gods whose names we know. Little is known about Dagon, though his name may suggest that he was a vegetation god ("dagan"=grain). He was likely adopted by the Philistines as they settled in Canaan, and may have been associated with Baal.

Teraphim were household gods meant to represent the family or clan, usually represented by busts, masks or statuary.

Casting lots is a common practice in ancient cultures and religions, used to settle questions of importance, typically by invoking divine will. In Israelite cultic law, the casting of lots was seen as ordinate practice, and not a form of magic or witchcraft, which would have been condemned. A particularly sophisticated elaboration of the practice may be seen in the Chinese "I-Ching".

Urim and thummim were likely two stones used by Israelite priests to determine the will of Yahweh in rituals similar to that of casting lots.

Enjoy The Book of Judges, and if you're participating in this reading, whether or not you plan on chiming in on the discussion, please let me know.

marti1900 · Posted: Sat Aug 20, 2005 7:35 am Post subject: Still Following the Discussion

Just letting you know I am now in New Jersey after the trip from hell...4 hour delay in Houston, circling the Philly airport for an hour, final touchdown at 1 AM instead of 8 PM. AGGG

Anyway, I have been following this thread and am really interested in all of the posts. It is not likely I will be able to do any reading of the source material so probably won't be contributing, but please know that I AM reading this thread and will continue to do so.

Marti

MadArchitect

While I certainly appreciate that you're reading the thread, Marti, I'm not sure whether or not I'll continue using up BookTalk's bandwidth for this thread if it doesn't start generating some conversation. I'll likely continue my projected plan for reading the Bible one way or the other, but whether or not I make it public will depend in large part on how it's received. I'd like to keep it here, but without some sort of discussion or at least continual feedback, it's apt to turn into a vanity thread.

I do have some concern about how easy or difficult it is to contribute with all of the books lumped together in one thread. Chris, when you get back from Greece will you drop me an email so we can discuss options for this thread?

Mr. Pessimistic · Posted: Tue May 16, 2006 8:28 am Post subject: Re: haitus

Just put it in the religion and philosophy section. That is what it is after all.

Mr. P.

The one thing of which I am positive is that there is much of which to be negative - Mr. P.

Once you perceive the irrevocable truth, you can no longer justify the irrational denial. - Mr. P.

The pain in hell has two sides. The kind you can touch with your hand; the kind you can feel in your heart...Scorsese's "Mean Streets"

I came to kick ass and chew Bubble Gum...and I am all out of Bubble Gum - They Live, Roddy Piper

Chris OConnor · Posted: Tue May 16, 2006 8:36 am Post subject: Re: haitus

I'm going to agree with Nick on this one. Let's discuss the Bible in the Religion forum and consider it fiction or nonfiction literature.

MadArchitect · Posted: Tue May 16, 2006 1:41 pm Post subject: Re: haitus

This is probably an idea that will meet with some hostility (or apathy), but how about a seperate forum for religious texts?

If not, keeping it in the religion forum is probably the best compromise. Parts of the Bible are definitely fiction, parts are definitely non-fiction (in the same sense that Herodotus or Livy would be considered non-fiction), and some parts blur the line between.

Mr. Pessimistic · Posted: Tue May 16, 2006 3:03 pm Post subject: Re: haitus

I vote no on the religious text forum.

Mr. P.

The one thing of which I am positive is that there is much of which to be negative - Mr. P.

Once you perceive the irrevocable truth, you can no longer justify the irrational denial. - Mr. P.

The pain in hell has two sides. The kind you can touch with your hand; the kind you can feel in your heart...Scorsese's "Mean Streets"

I came to kick ass and chew Bubble Gum...and I am all out of Bubble Gum - They Live, Roddy Piper

Graydon Wilson

I found this particular discussion initially because I was simply looking to see what's new (the most recently entered post) and then because the thread intrigued me. I would like to join in this discussion and hope it starts over.

But the question then arises: Where to put it?

The difficulty with structure is that it demands things to be affirmatively classified. It works sometimes, other times not. This is a good example of not.

Ultimately, the Bible is a philosophical or religious treatise. It's not like some new book being put out by a publisher, or even one published ages ago. I think it belongs here.

If there is disagreement, I would like to know the basis for it.

Chris OConnor

Graydon, well said. We'll keep it here and skip the idea of creating a religious text forum. While our theist members are welcome and appreciated, due to their freethinker status and obvious intellect, it is easy to envision what would happen if we laid out such a welcome mat to the general population of religious people.

Edited by: Chris OConnor at: 5/16/06 6:07 pm

MadArchitect

I figured that a separate forum for sacred texts probably wouldn't fly here, but it seems to me the best solution. I don't think it matters much, though, as I think it's unlikely that this thread will ever really take off on BookTalk. It's a shame, too, because I think this crowd would actually stand a better chance than most at avoiding the sort of dogmatism that ruins a genuine critical attempt to understand a group of texts like that of the Bible.

Graydon Wilson: Ultimately, the Bible is a philosophical or religious treatise.

It isn't, really. There are sections that function as philosophical or religious treatises, but the whole book is much more heterogenous than that. There are even sections of secular fiction. It's often manipulated to serve as a integrated, unified religious treatise, and one of the functions of a good reading and discussion of the Bible would be to consider how that's done and how the text itself resists or encourages it.

Dissident Heart · Posted: Tue May 23, 2006 11:57 am Post subject: Bible

Graydon Wilson: Ultimately, the Bible is a philosophical or religious treatise.

I agree with Mad that it is more accurately a collection of multiple texts with a wide variety of purposes and functions: with a complex history of oral development, textual translation and revision, canonical decision making, exegetical debate, and traditional interpretations.

I think for those who take it as authoritative scripture (and there is wide diversity in this community) it is a living, vibrant and radically contemporary message: demanding the attention and participation of the reader. It is a transformative experience when engaging scripture: the narratives interrupt and intervene within the reader's life. Values are defined, morals put into place, expectations clarifiied, hopes articulated, and a vision for who and what one should be is revealed.

It is a lifelong endeavor. Constant interaction with the textual prayers, psalms, prophetic demands, familial tragedies, political struggles, ecstatic glorifications, messianic promises, eschatological visions...all of this changes the reader.


	FORUMS	ABOUT	BOOKS	VIDEOS	ADVERTISE	LINKS	BLOGS	DONATE	CHAT	CONTACT