It’s the end of the week and I have a little time to write my third post on Francesca Stavrakopoulou’s controversial book, God: An Anatomy. In these next few posts, I will be diving into the specific things she argues in her book. Truth be told, though, I have been a bit hesitant to get into the specifics of the book because something still was bothering me about the book that I couldn’t quite articulate yet. So, I’d like to begin this post by trying to do just that.
As I read Dr. S’s book, and even after I got through with it, I still couldn’t tell you precisely what the point of her book really was. And if that central point isn’t clarified, it makes it pretty hard to properly critique the book. The name of the book is God: An Anatomy, and it seems that Dr. S is arguing that the way in which Second Temple Jews and Christians for the past 2,000 years have conceived God (an immaterial, bodiless being who was beyond gender) wasn’t the way that the ancient Israelites conceived God (a material being with a real, masculine body). Indeed, her entire book focuses on various passages and verses in both the OT and NT that mention body parts in relation to God, of which she basically says, “See? Body parts! Ancient Israelites believed YHWH had a body, and therefore was conceived in the exact same way the other ANE cultures conceived of their gods.” And she then cites numerous stories from ANE mythology to prove her point.
Something about all that just seemed off to me. First of all, I don’t think anyone seriously thinks that the ancient Israelite understanding of God (YHWH) was exactly like that of Second Temple Judaism or Christianity. It is already obvious (or at least should be) that there was an “evolution” of sorts in the understanding of God. Heck, the OT itself pretty much testifies to that. It is quite obvious that in ancient Israel, YHWH was understood to be the God of Israel, while other nations had their other gods. And it is equally as obvious that the language by which YHWH is often described often mirrors the language used to describe the other ANE gods. Every biblical scholar already knows this, so why is Dr. S presenting this idea as if it is really anything new?
Because that’s not really the main argument of the book—or at least that isn’t where the real issue lies. The real issue lies in some underlying assumptions about the reliability of the Bible, the historicity of ancient Israel, and the role and function of myth.
As Dr. S states early on in the book, she believes the majority of what is in the OT—specifically everything from Abraham through Solomon—isn’t history at all, but rather belongs “to the realms of fable—and at worst, sheer fantasy” (13). She believes everything from Genesis up through I Kings 11 was basically made up by later Jewish scribes of the exilic and post-exilic periods. This view is known as a “minimalist” perspective, and it is a view that I find rather absurd.
That, though, is a whole other issue altogether. I point it out here, though, because I believe that is what drives her to her conclusions. Because she believes most of the traditionally held historical books in the OT are essentially later-written, propagandist fiction, when she sees passages that show YHWH being treated and perceived like other ANE gods along side passages that insist that YHWH is wholly unique, she doesn’t conclude that within ancient Israel there were some Israelites who viewed YHWH as wholly unique and other Israelites who viewed YHWH as just another ANE god. Instead, she concludes that all the “YHWH is like other ANE gods” perspective is the way ancient Israel really viewed YHWH, and the view that “YHWH was unique” was a later post-exilic invention.
Amazingly (at least to me), she can’t conceive that people living in the same culture and time might have differing views of God/the gods. Of course, that perspective is driven by her assumption that basically everything from Genesis-I Kings 11 is “fable” and “fantasy.” And that is why it is going to be hard to argue against her claims from passages in the OT that contradict her claims. The response will be a predictable, “What? You believe those books are in any way historical? What kind of Fundie are you?” If you bring up biblical scholars who disagree with such a minimalist perspective, they too will be disparaged and accused of being “sell outs to those Evangelicals,” or whatever. And when disparagement and name-calling are the first things to come out when such a view is questioned, that’s a good sign there’s something wrong.
In any case, I will always question anyone who gives what I feel is an oversimplistic explanation of Genesis-II Kings. No, those books aren’t trying to give “objective history,” but at the same time, to call them “fable” or “fantasy” is equally ludicrous. At root, they purport to be conveying real historical events and people. As Meir Sternberg wrote, the thing that made biblical literature so unique in the ancient world was that it was obsessed with history. The Jews were “…a people more obsessed with history than any other nation that has ever existed.” If I can put it this way, they were well-aware of the various ANE mythologies of their world, and even though we occasionally find the use of ANE mythological language and imagery within the OT, we would be utter fools to think that everything in Genesis-II Kings was just like ANE mythology. Anyone who knows how to read and has even the slightest modicum of literary competency will see the vast difference between what we find in the OT and what we find in other ANE mythology.
And yet, that is the impression I get in this book. It isn’t stated in such stark terms, but that clearly is the view that comes across.
Some Added Thoughts on “Myth”
On top of that, there’s also the issue of what precisely myth is. The famous scholar Joseph Campbell who was one of the foremost experts on ancient mythology stressed that mythology, by its very nature, does not attempt to give historical, literal information. Still, that does not mean it is a lie: “Mythology…is poetry, it is metaphorical. It has been well said that mythology is the penultimate truth–penultimate because the ultimate cannot be put into words.” What mythology does is attempt to express in words, via poetry and metaphor, what a given culture believes to be the ultimate truths of existence. It expresses a given culture’s worldview regarding God/the gods, human beings, and the purpose of the created order itself.
That is really important to realize, especially when it comes to understanding how the Bible (both the OT and NT) describes God. There is no question that the authors sometimes use the language of ANE myth in their descriptions of the God of the Bible—that was the literary genre used by the ancients to talk about God/the gods. The key difference, though, is when the authors of the Bible use the mythological language of the ANE, they aren’t writing myths. They are purporting to write about real historical people and events.
Whether or not you believe the history is reliable is beside the point. The fact is, they are claiming to write about history, and yet still occasionally use the language of ANE mythology in their description of the God of Israel. Why do they do that? Because, as Campbell suggests, and as both the Bible itself and Christian thinkers for 2,000 years have emphasized, the infinite God cannot be grasped by the finite human mind. Therefore, the biblical writers are claiming that God has interacted with real historical people, but when they tell of those interactions in history, they still have to use the imagery and poetry from the genre of ANE myth to describe God, knowing that such language is inevitably metaphorical in its description of God.
We can only grasp the “penultimate truth” of God that comes to use via the language of myth. Therefore, when we read mythological language, we shouldn’t make the mistake of thinking we are reading literal descriptions. For example, in Genesis 1, the word “yom” means “day.” In the context of Genesis 1, seven “days” mean seven days, not ages or thousands of years, but days. Still, since (as I’ve argued for years) Genesis 1-11 is properly understood to be in the literary genre of ANE myth, we shouldn’t interpret Genesis 1 as claiming God made the universe in six literal days within history. It is claiming that God made the universe, and that the orderly progression of “days” is telling us, in a poetic, metaphorical way that creation is good, orderly, and has purpose. Hence, the mythological language in Genesis 1 is true, but it is not making literal, historical claims.
The same principle applies the many biblical passages that use mythological language in their description of God. The intelligent reader should realize three things: (A) Yes, the language being used is obviously the same kind of language used in other ANE myths. (B) Therefore, the description of God’s feet, hands, etc., are obviously poetic, metaphorical descriptions of what is ultimately beyond our finite understanding—that means we don’t read these descriptions as literal descriptions of God’s literal anatomy. (C) Still, the unique thing we find in the Bible is that the biblical writers, unlike those who wrote the other ANE myths, firmly claimed that the God of Israel actually interacted with actual people within history. Unlike the other ANE gods, YHWH got involved in human history.
Now, Dr. S (and other minimalist scholars who are largely atheists) do not see things that way. Because they pretty much deny Genesis 12-I Kings 11 is historical in any way, and because they don’t believe God really exists, they obviously work from the starting assumption that what we find in the OT is just like what we find in other ANE myths (…even though it obviously isn’t). And therefore, their assumption and conclusion is the same: Ancient Israel was just like every other ANE culture, and it was not until after the destruction of Jerusalem and the Babylonian Exile that the later Jewish scribes tried to cover that fact up, and instead claim there was only one God.
Therefore, as I go through the book and discuss some of the biblical passages Dr. S highlights, I am going to be coming at many of those texts from a very different perspective. Not some “wooden-literalistic, fundie-Evangelical” perspective. But rather a perspective that acknowledges the complexity of cultures and history and the complex beauty of the literature that is used to tell about it.
Okay then, lets dip our toes into Chapter One: “Dissecting the Divine.” Despite my usual attempt to limit my posts to 2,000 words, this one will be closer to 4,000 words. I want to at least get into the first chapter in this post.
Chapter One: “Dissecting the Divine”
The first chapter of Stavrakopoulou’s book acts as its general introduction. Still, in it, Dr. S doesn’t really come right out and clearly say, “This is what I am going to be arguing in the book.” In fact, she never really does. Her writing style, although very good, is nevertheless very meandering, jumping from random biblical passage to random biblical passage, to ANE mythological passage, to some recent archeological find, to something else, then back to another random biblical passage. And what ties all these random things together is, simply put, a body part, although here in chapter 1, there are no specific body parts holding things together. Rather, in a meandering way, Dr. S sort of lays out the kind of thing she is going to be talking about throughout the book. What I will do for the rest of this post is highlight the more significant claims she makes and then offer a brief response.
(1) When God created “adam” in His image, that meant He gave the man, and the female version, “god-shaped bodies,” meaning they looked like God, and that is why they were superior to the other newly made creatures.
Right from the start, we have a misunderstanding of what Genesis 1:26-27 means when it says, “God made man (“adam”) in His image.” The word “image” is basically “idol language.” What is being stated is most definitely not that God made Adam and Eve with “god-shaped bodies.” Rather, it is setting the foundation as to why God did not want ancient Israel to worship the other ANE gods. Simply put, Genesis 1:26-27 is saying, “God created human beings with inherent dignity and worth to be His representatives within His creation. They are to display His justice and goodness as they rule over His creation as His vice-regents. Therefore, human beings shouldn’t worship man-made ‘images’ of so-called ‘gods,’ because human beings themselves are the ‘images’ of the true God.” Simply put, Genesis 1:26-27 isn’t about literal “god-shaped bodies.” It is a statement about the inherent worth and dignity of human beings.
(2) The worship of YHWH in ancient Israel was “far more diverse, and far less centralized, than the biblical story asserts” (14).
Anyone who has actually read the OT knows full well that the biblical story fully acknowledges that the worship of YHWH in ancient Israel was incredibly “diverse.” It isn’t denying that at all. Even at Mount Sinai, when Aaron makes the golden calf, he tells the Israelites in Exodus 32:4-5. “These are your elohim, O Israel!” and “Tomorrow will be a festival to YHWH!” And later, in I Kings 12:25-33, Jeroboam made two golden calves, set up places of worship in Dan and Bethel, and told the northern tribes they were to go to those places to worship YHWH.
Bottom line, the Bible fully acknowledges worship of YHWH in ancient Israel was “diverse.” The problem was that those “diverse” ways involved the worship of golden calves—and that went against what YHWH has revealed during the Exodus. It is abundantly clear that the Israelites coming out of Egypt were effectively pagans. Sure, they had knowledge of YHWH as the god whom the Patriarchs worshipped, but they obviously understood Him in the same way they understood other ANE deities—and that was the problem. That’s the message that the OT tries to hammer home, time and time again. It doesn’t deny that many ancient Israelites worshipped YHWH as just another ANE god—it openly admits it and condemns it as syncretism.
(3) Moses talked with YHWH face to face, Abraham walked with God, Jacob wrestled God, and both Isaiah and Ezekiel saw Him on His throne—that means God had a literal body.
As I said in earlier in this post, this is an example of how Dr. S misreads how the biblical writers tried to used mythological descriptions of YHWH within the history they were writing about. They were emphasizing that these historical people encountered YHWH in some way that ultimately words cannot fully capture. Therefore, they resort to the language of myth in their description of YHWH, while at the same time insisting that YHWH really did interact with real, historical people within real history. An intelligent and sensitive reader must hold these two things in tension, precisely because the OT writers are attempting to hold these two things in tension in their writing.
(4) The ban in the Ten Commandments against carving any image of YHWH “is a striking insertion, for it suggests that material images of God were once a normative feature of Israelite and Judahite religion—otherwise there would be no need for the ban” (17). Still, the biblical ban on divine images does not mean ancient Israel didn’t believe YHWH didn’t have a body. They just believed it was hidden from them.
Again, no one is denying the first part. This is obvious. Ancient Israelites were originally effectively pagan and YHWH was trying to hammer into their heads that their pagan notions about “the gods” was wrong. That’s the point. Of course, since Dr. S denies that anything in Genesis 12-II Kings 11 really is historical, she sees this as a much later, exilic or post-exilic cover-up of “what really was the case” in ancient Israel. By contrast, those who believe that Genesis 12-I Kings 11 is ultimately conveying historical events (albeit clearly presenting the history via literary means) see this as the actual God YHWH intervening in history to teach ancient Israel the truth about who He is. Still, nothing in the text suggests that YHWH had a literal body. I find such a claim to be special pleading.
(5) In Deuteronomy 32, there is a section that tells us that originally, YHWH was understood to be just a minor deity within a larger pantheon of gods, with the supreme God being named Elyon (the “Most High”). In Deuteronomy 32, Elyon divides human beings into separate nations and appoints a particular god as the special patron of each nation, with YHWH being given Israel. Hence, as Dr. S claims, “Yahweh appears as just one among El’s many divine children” (20).
The question regarding the interpretation of Deuteronomy 32 (specifically 32:1-9) could take up an entire post in and of itself. The interpretive issue is basically this: Is Elyon (the Most High) in 32:8 the same being as YHWH in 32:9? Dr. S (and many other minimalist scholars) says “No,” and they point to other instances in ANE mythology where there is a “high god” within a pantheon of “lesser gods” as evidence of this. They also point to the figure of Melchizedek in Genesis 14 as being a priest of Elyon, and the figure of Balaam in Numbers 24:16 as being the one who knows the knowledge of Elyon, to show this view even within the Bible itself. They essentially say, “Melchizedek wasn’t a priest of YHWH; he was a priest of Elyon. And Balaam had the knowledge of Elyon, not YHWH.” Case closed: Elyon is different from YHWH. Similarly, Deuteronomy 32:1-9 is betraying an earlier belief of polytheism, and an acknowledgement that YHWH was a lesser deity that was given Israel by the “high god” El.
The problem with those references to Genesis 14 and Numbers 24, of course, is that later in Genesis 14:22, Abraham refers to YHWH, the God Most High (El Elyon)—clearly equating the two names as being the same God. And elsewhere in the Balaam story of Numbers 22-24, YHWH is the one who communicates with Balaam, and Balaam says numerous times that he must consult YHWH. Therefore, within the context of Numbers 22-24, that one reference to Elyon in 24:16 comes right after Balaam tells Balak in 24:13 that he will not go beyond what YHWH tells him to say. Simply put, those two passages that make reference to Elyon make clear references to YHWH in the same breath and give the full indication that Elyon and YHWH are one and the same.
The same holds true for Deuteronomy 32:1-9. Even if you argue that there was an earlier ANE belief of a pantheon of “gods” (there obviously was), and even if you argue that the ancient Israelites were originally a part of that polytheistic ANE world (they obviously were), you simply cannot deny what the text itself is clearly saying. And it doesn’t say that Elyon and YHWH are two distinct entities. The writer says YHWH is “our Elohim” (32:3); that He is “the Rock” whose ways are just, and who is a “faithful El” (32:4); and that “His children” have dealt falsely with Him, even though He is their father and their creator who established them (32:5-6). In the context of Deuteronomy 32, these “children” are clearly the people of Israel.
Given that, when we come to 32:8-9, we are told that Elyon “divided the nations” according to the sons of Elohim, and that the portion of YHWH was His people, Jacob (Israel). Michael Heiser argues this is a reference to what happened after the description of the fallout of the Tower of Babel in Genesis 1-11, where, given humanity’s rejection of YHWH, He scatters them into different nations and appoints various divine beings (sons of Elohim) over those nations, who end up being worshipped by those nations as their national gods. The Hebrews, though, become the special people of YHWH Himself.
Therefore, given that the other biblical instances of Elyon have references to YHWH as well, and clearly equate the two names as referencing the same God, and given that we see the same dynamic here in Deuteronomy 32:1-9, I don’t see how the claim that Elyon and YHWH are two different gods holds up. The logic behind such a claim is obvious: (A) Genesis 12-I Kings 11 aren’t history; (B) within the OT there sometimes is ANE mythological language used when referencing God; (C) therefore these are simply but later works of propaganda by exilic/post-exilic scribes intended to cover-up ancient Israel’s true past. Therefore, if the texts claim YHWH was Elyon, we already know it’s not true…because Genesis 12-I Kings 12 aren’t history and there is no difference between ancient Israel and other ANE cultures.
(6) The later writers of the Bible engaged in “a spectacularly transparent attempt at spin-doctoring” by claiming that YHWH never supplanted “his mythic father” El, but rather YHWH was El all along—as Exodus 6:2-3 states, “I appeared to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob as El-Shaddai, but by my name YHWH, I did not make myself known to them.”
Piggybacking off the previous point, the thing is, even Dr. S seems to know that such a claim is rather thin. For after claiming that the minor deity YHWH eventually supplanted his father El as the head of the pantheon, she says, “but quite how this happened remains frustratingly unclear” (22). Translation? “That’s what I’m claiming, but I really don’t have any evidence for it. But I still will claim that Exodus 6:2-3 is spin-doctoring!” Not to sound too “fundie” for the minimalists, but maybe Exodus 6:2-3 is true. Maybe the true God YHWH really did intervene in the history of Israel, and maybe this was the new revelation given to Moses. And maybe that explains what the ancient Israelites continually acted so pagan—they really were ingrained into the pagan ANE culture, and this revelation by YHWH was a new thing.
(7) The biblical writers also simply couldn’t deny that the goddess Asherah was worshipped alongside YHWH in ancient Israel in the temples of Jerusalem and Samaria.
No one is denying this. The biblical writers acknowledged this and said it was wrong—that was the point. They acknowledged it was going on and condemned it as being in violation of the covenant that was established when YHWH revealed Himself to Israel during the Exodus.
(8) Ultimately, despite the attempts of later Jewish scribes and Christian theologians, YHWH, the God of ancient Israel, was understood have had a corporeal body.
Like I said at the beginning of this absurdly long post, such a view betrays a lack of understanding of mythological language and a biased toward wooden literalism. By the very definition of the genre, such language is understood as poetic and metaphorical. To be clear, the surprising thing is not that we find mythological language that describes God in the OT–that’s the genre the ancient world (even Israel) used to explain their beliefs about God. The surprising thing is that we find it in writing that is trying to convey actual history. And that is what makes all the difference. Yet that isn’t even considered in the book.
Whew!
Well, I broke my own rules and wrote a post that is double what I normally aim for. I could have been greedy for hits on my blog and divided this up into two posts—but what the heck? We finally got into the book. Next up, we’ll talk about God’s feet in Chapters 2-4 of Stavrakopoulou’s book.
“[Stavrakopoulou] believes everything from Genesis up through I Kings 11 was basically made up by later Jewish scribes of the exilic and post-exilic periods. This view is known as a ‘minimalist’ perspective, and it is a view that I find rather absurd.”
Um, no, Joel. What you are describing is pretty commonplace mainstream biblical scholarship that has been taking place for decades now. “Biblical minimalism” is more properly used to describe the writings of biblical scholars like Philip R. Davies, Keith Whitelam and the “Copenhagen School,” who argued that the entire pre-Persian “biblical” Israel was a complete, literary fiction.
It is astonishingly errors of ignorance about very basic biblical scholarly concepts like this that has me openly questioning the value of your credentials and insight when it comes to the Old Testament.
Ah, once again the arrogance and petty condescending attitude.
Let’s get this straight: Dr. S basically says she believes everything before I Kings 12 is “fable” and “fantasy.” That view is very similar to Davies and Whitelam. That’s the basic point. Her attitude toward OT history parallels that of those guys–namely from Abraham to Solomon isn’t historical at all.
Good lord. NO. IT. IS. NOT.
Again, what you are describing is modern MAINSTREAM scholarship from Weinfield, to Collins, to Coogan, to Dever, to Kugel, to Rollston, to Zevit, to Kratz, to Van Seters, to Schmidt and on and on. The vast majority of biblical scholars are historically dubious about virtually everything prior to the so-called “Divided Kingdoms,” because there is essentially no archaeological nor third-party epigraphic evidence for any of it. None.
Davies, Whitelam and the rest of the BIBLICAL MINIMALISTS rather deny ANY recoverable history from the entire biblical text. This includes ALL of the texts from Solomon all the way to the Persian period.
If you do not know this rather basic bit of modern biblical scholarship, then I am sorry, but it raises rather serious questions about your own qualifications and training in this field. How do you not know this?
Yes Kipper, because I don’t tease out every single minute academic detail and definition IN A BLOG POST aimed at non-academics means I’m not qualified. The fact is that Dr. S, obviously you, and many other scholars display a hyper-skepticism and, I would argue, and uncritical attitude towards the biblical text on a number of fronts that I’m not going to bother to delineate here. Whitelam and Davies are the extreme examples, but Dr. S, you, and others just differ in degree. So excuse me for offending your self-righteous sense of your own intelligence and importance.
And again, your knee-jerk condescension and arrogance is just amusingly breathtaking. Rational adults don’t act like you. Apparently, you’re not just a middle-aged man who is doing his best to look like a grunge teenager. You act like one too.
How are you not understanding this?
This is not a matter of details. If your interest is in educating non-academics, then you are doing them no favours by misusing an important term in your discussion, which then misleads your audience into thinking that “minimalism” is something that it is not.
And I am not talking about “many scholars.” The ideas that you scoff at represent the majority opinion of most working biblical scholars, including high numbers of Jewish and Christian academics. I think your audience would be much better served by you making an honest attempt to investigate the scholarship itself before dismissing it. And this should not even be difficult, since the prevailing “hyper” scepticism with regards to the historicity of the pre-Assyrian period in Israel is prominently featured in most university level introductory books to Old Testament studies.
I don’t know. If you find my insistence on challenging rather sizeable errors that you publish in a blog post, then I suspect you are not actually interested in learning. How unfortunate for your readers.
No, it seems that you simply get easily triggered when you come across someone who questions the majority opinion. I clearly don’t agree with that stance, and you blow a gasket and go on the attack.
JOEL: “No, it seems that you simply get easily triggered when you come across someone who questions the majority opinion. I clearly don’t agree with that stance, and you blow a gasket and go on the attack.”
Look, I don’t care whether or not you agree with biblical minimalism. Hell, I don’t hold to biblical minimalism. I don’t care that you reject the prevailing view of history and the formation of the Bible that is espoused by the vast majority of scholars. But, what you are doing here is not “question[ing] the majority opinion.” There are plenty of confessional scholars who legitimately engage in doing so, while still managing to also accurately navigate the field. But, not you. You are getting the parameters of the entire discussion wrong, and it is making you look like an idiot.
So, instead of listening to reason and learning from someone who knows the discipline; instead of saying, “Right, I incorrectly used this term and mistakenly applied it to the wrong group of scholars and potentially misled my readership in the process”; instead of then going and fixing the problem, you are going to respond by doubling down again, and continuing in your ill-advised cocksure insistence that you must be right because I am a condescending in pointing out the most rudimentary of elementary aspects of biblical studies that you—a PhD graduate—should have learned in Graduate School, if not earlier.
Again, how do you not know this stuff?
I’m curious what you mean by YHWH intervening in history of Israel. Didn’t other gods intervene, say don’t temple inscriptions dedicated to gods praise them the gods or god for giving them victory? And aren’t the offerings a plea for gods to intervene to maintain order in society? Don’t even Babylonians lament when Marduk abandoned them to destruction, which implies that he’s active in the life of the nation?
What I mean is that what we find in the OT is the claim that YHWH actually personally communicated with people. The prophets claimed to be inspired by YHWH to give their prophecies. In other ANE cultures you didn’t really have that dynamic. In other ANE cultures the kind of writing you had was either myths (about the gods in their mythical realm) or annals of the kings. They didn’t write “history” of normal, everyday people because according to their worldview (as supported by their myths) human beings were worthless peons who were at the mercy of the gods. In Israel, they wrote about real people in history because they believed human beings had dignity and worthy, being made in God’s image.
You can just compare the books from Genesis to II Kings to the myths of other ANE cultures. They simply are not the same kind of writing.
“By contrast, those who believe that Genesis 12-I Kings 11 is ultimately conveying historical events (albeit clearly presenting the history via literary means) see this as the actual God YHWH intervening in history to teach ancient Israel the truth about who He is. Still, nothing in the text suggests that YHWH had a literal body. I find such a claim to be special pleading.”
No, Joel. That is not “special pleading.”
THIS is “special pleading”:
“The intelligent reader should realize three things: (A) Yes, the language being used is obviously the same kind of language used in other ANE myths. (B) Therefore, the description of God’s feet, hands, etc., are obviously poetic, metaphorical descriptions of what is ultimately beyond our finite understanding—that means we don’t read these descriptions as literal descriptions of God’s literal anatomy. (C) Still, the unique thing we find in the Bible is that the biblical writers, unlike those who wrote the other ANE myths, firmly claimed that the God of Israel actually interacted with actual people within history. Unlike the other ANE gods, YHWH got involved in human history.”
By bracketing the same terminology and imagery within the Bible that is used throughout Ancient Near Eastern literature as not meaning the same thing as when used in the comparanda, you are effectively creating a special category of meaning for the Bible on the basis of nothing but your own feelings about the inherent value of these texts, apart from the others.
This is textbook special pleading.
Are you saying ANE mythological language ISN’T used in the OT?
Are you admitting you can’t recognize metaphor in a text (and thereby admitting to your own incompetence as a reader)?
Are you suggesting that the biblical writers WERE NOT claiming to be writing history?
Amazing…maybe your degree is the worthless one.
Wow. This has me questioning even your ability to read, but, okay…
1. No. I am not “saying ANE mythological language ISN’T used in the OT?” I have no idea how you could have construed such claim from my post about your inability to correctly identify “special pleading” above.
2. No. I am perfectly capable of recognising metaphor in the text, but unlike you, I do not employ a deductive shield to pick and choose texts for either a plain or metaphoric reading out of an entrenched fear that they will capsize my pre-existing faith commitments.
3. This is much more complicated, since there were virtually dozens, if not hundreds, of biblical writers, and most of them were certainly not “claiming to be writing history.” For the period that many of the biblical texts were in fact written, the designation “history” as a literary classification is fairly problematic for a variety of reasons, the least of which is that the writers of so-called “historical” texts (like in the Dtr., or Chronicles) were almost exclusively concerned with theology, ideology and political power, which they attempted to convey through reconstructions of the past.
How does the religious picture as it appears throughout the Hebrew Bible align with the archaeological record of the region and period, Joel?
“The interpretive issue is basically this: Is Elyon (the Most High) in 32:8 the same being as YHWH in 32:9? Dr. S (and many other minimalist scholars) says ‘No,’ and they point to other instances in ANE mythology where there is a ‘high god’ within a pantheon of ‘lesser gods’ as evidence of this.”
This is precisely the interpretation that is favoured by famous “minimalist scholar” Emanuel Tov, editor in chief of the Discoveries in the Judaean Desert series of publications of the Dead Sea Scrolls, and the greatest living text critic of our age.
So, you are saying that the WRITER OF DEUTERONOMY is claiming YHWH was a lesser god? It doesn’t occur to you that, even though the other ANE cultures claimed that sort of polytheistic scenario, that the WRITER OF DEUTERONOMY wasn’t endorsing that view, and was saying that YHWH was the high God who took Israel as His own people?
i.e. Re-working ANE myth to make his own claims.
No. I am saying that the writer of the Song of Moses recognized the original (but, probably not present) subordination of YHWH to the High God. The writer of Deuteronomy did not write the Song if Moses.
But I’m asking about what the writer of Deuteronomy was intending to convey in 32.
The Song of Moses in Exodus 15? Where does it suggest this?
You mean the Song of the Sea. That is Exodus 15. The Song of Moses is Deuteronomy 32, and it was not written by the author(s) of Deuteronomy.
Are you saying the entirety of Deuteronomy 32 was the early Song of Moses that was later inserted into the Deuteronomy we now have? Or are you saying that within Deuteronomy 32 there is an earlier Song of Moses that the author(s) of Deuteronomy re-worked and put into the book as a whole? And how have you been able to make that determination? And, to my earlier question, do you think the author(s) of Deuteronomy were trying to convey the belief that YHWH was a lesser god to Elyon?
JOEL: “Are you saying the entirety of Deuteronomy 32 was the early Song of Moses that was later inserted into the Deuteronomy we now have?”
Yes, this.
JOEL: “Or are you saying that within Deuteronomy 32 there is an earlier Song of Moses that the author(s) of Deuteronomy re-worked and put into the book as a whole?”
No, I am less convinced of this. Although I do think the current Song of Moses is probably also not the original. In fact, we possess ms. and textual evidence which clearly shows changes taking place within the Song over time.
JOEL: “And how have you been able to make that determination?”
By reading the text. Even before the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls—where there are two copies of JUST the Song of Moses independent of Deuteronomy, and reflecting the oldest textual tradition—scholars were already well aware of the rather obvious literary, structural and lexical differences between the Song and Deuteronomy. (Again, if you had ever taken even an intro-level course on the Pentateuch, you would have learned this. How do you—a PhD in biblical studies—not know this?). The discovery of actual copies at Qumran have quite neatly confirmed scholar’s much earlier observations and theories on this matter.
JOEL: “And, to my earlier question, do you think the author(s) of Deuteronomy were trying to convey the belief that YHWH was a lesser god to Elyon?”
No. The author of the Song was clearly conveying the view that YHWH was a deity in the pantheon of Elyon. But, at some point when the Song was incorporated into the larger text of Deuteronomy, changes like those to vv.8–9 became necessary in order to harmonize this text with other parts of the new whole—most particularly Deut 4 and 10:22. And these changes were not made only here. Deut 32:37–44 also contains a series of sticks which were altered to bring the song into alignment with the whole.
“Therefore, given that the other biblical instances of Elyon have references to YHWH as well, and clearly equate the two names as referencing the same God, and given that we see the same dynamic here in Deuteronomy 32:1-9, I don’t see how the claim that Elyon and YHWH are two different gods holds up.”
It holds up, and has become the standard reading of this passage precisely because alternatives like those of Heiser’s makes an abortive mess of the syntax and poetical structure of the passage. (For example, benefactors do not also receive נַחֲלָה.) And if you took the time to carefully read the whole text, you would see clearly that terms and expressions like אָבִיךָ קָּנֶךָ, מִשְׁפָּט אֵל, הַצּוּר, יְהוָה … לֵאלֹהֵינוּ in no way detracts from the clearly presented idea that עֶלְיוֹן is a distinct deity from יְהוָֹה.
I have actually written a fairly detailed little essay about just this passage myself, that you can find at The Amateur Exegete’s excellent blog.
In your essay, (section 3, re: the “sons of Israel”/”sons of God” difference in the MSS) you state:
“a revision of this text occured to reflect a monotheistic ideology”
First off, the truth of the matter is, is that you don’t know *why* the change was made. To say it was changed in response to Israel’s supposed shift from polytheism to monothesism is just conjecture.
Secondly, nowhere in your essay do you address the term “elohim,”—at term vital to understanding Israel’s beliefs. A proper understanding of this word (i.e. it being a “place of residency” term—as Heiser puts it—and not an ontological term) would reveal that Israel would have had no problem with the existence of other gods—either pre- or post-exile. The reason being, that there are actually a variety of entities “elohim” can refer to:
– Yahweh himself
– Yahweh’s council members
– The gods of other nations
– “shedim” or demons
– the disembodied human dead
Do the consensus scholars really think that the pre-exilic Biblical writers really saw the spirits of the human dead as being on par with Yahweh (or other members of his council)? Because that’s essentially their argument: they’re saying that the mere acknowledgement of other elohim in the earlier Biblical texts proves polytheism. But on the other hand, if ‘elohim’ doesn’t have anything to do with a set of attributes, then that word can’t be used as proof for polytheism. I don’t see how the consensus view holds up.
Failure to bring up the definition of ‘elohim’ is a fundamental flaw in your argument. Like if your entire argument is that Israel was once polytheistic, but then moved toward montheism, yet you don’t tackle the definition of what a “god” is, I don’t see it as a particularly convincing essay.
Also, if the “consensus scholarship” is correct and that is indeed *why* the text was changed, why then were not all of the texts changed? In other words, if the scribes were aware enough to realize that they needed to change the text, why then did they leave so many others (that spoke of the existence of other gods) unchanged? This needs to be addressed.
I think these are honest questions that should be accounted for.
LOL. No one in the field has found Heiser’s arguments about Deuteronomy 32 even remotely convincing.
Haha forget Heiser then, deal with the data. Does אלהים encompass a variety of beings? If the answer is yes, then the consensus view has a giant hole in their argument that needs to be addressed.
What you seem to be missing here is that the texts have been compiled and redacted so many times over centuries that by the time Jewish readers in the second century BCE are reading them, they are not processing them the same way as their ancestors, and the shift in meaning for huge numbers of these texts creates all sorts of theological problems for them. In other words, I am not convinced that אלהים was always this flexible. This is why we have literally hundreds of volumes of exegesis and exposition on the meaning of the biblical text that was produced by the late-Roman and medieval rabbis. We can see that they are grappling with this very idea—the ambiguity of אלהים—as it is an issue Jesus is depicted using to make a pithy point in the Gospels.
But, no. I am afraid that the flexibility of the term itself does nothing to challenge the prevailing thinking on this matter.
If that is the case, why then are there many post-exilic texts that still affirm the existence of other elohim (e.g. Job 1-2, Deutero-Isaiah, etc.)? Why are there over 200 instances of plural אלהים / אלים in the DSS? Did these scribes not get the memo?
In other words, how were these scribes smart enough to realize they needed to change certain texts to reflect their newly monotheistic thinking, yet at the same time leave so many of the texts speaking of divine plurality unchanged?
Can you provide clarity on this? Because it’s not adding up…
So, you have demonstrated in just this single instalment of your book review that 1) you do not understand the (rather elementary) term “biblical minimalism”; 2) you do not understand Ancient Near Eastern literature, and 3) are confused about ideas like “myth,” “history,” and “metaphor”; 4) you either do not understand or you fail to consider the complex picture of Syro-Palestinian archaeology from the Iron Age; 5) you do not understand Pentateuchal composition; 6) you somehow do not know the difference between the “Song of the Sea” and the “Song of Moses.”
Are you sure you should be the one to write this book review?
“Simply put, Genesis 1:26-27 is saying, “God created human beings with inherent dignity and worth to be His representatives within His creation. They are to display His justice and goodness as they rule over His creation as His vice-regents.”
Can you demonstrate this connection between “God’s image” and the virtues “inherent dignity and worth,” “representatives” [of] “justice and goodness” within the biblical text? Within any source or contemporary text from the period?
Wow, Kipp, someone certainly really is triggered.
1. You blow a gasket because I equate Dr. S’s work with the minimalists, and yet you’re defending a scholar who has put in writing that Isaiah 6 is about YHWH’s giant penis filling the temple. Bravo.
2. You clearly do NOT know how to read and interpret poetry, metaphor, and myth. And your position regarding the biblical texts that purport to be speaking of historical things is this: “If I can’t find corroboration in other ANE cultures and if I can’t find archeological evidence to verify it, I’m going to reject claims of history.” Your position is the exact position I find uncritical and stupid on so many levels. It tells me you don’t really even understand what the writers of Genesis-II Kings, for example, are really doing. They were NOT “almost exclusively concerned with theology, ideology and political power, which they attempted to convey through reconstructions of the past.” You could say they were certainly giving their prophetic theological interpretations of the past history of Israel, but they were still conveying history by means of story.
You, apparently, are too stupid to get that.
3. You said, “Song of Moses,” and in many English Bibles, Exodus 15 is subtitled as “Song of Moses.” I was asking for clarification as to what you meant–that sloppiness and inarticulate comment is on you. And the fact that you turn it around to attack me shows just how petty and petulant you are.
4. And I was pointing out that the writer of I Kings did not say the two cherubim were a throne. He goes into detail about Solomon’s throne, but he doesn’t say the two cherubim were a throne. It doesn’t say that. You are reading that into the text. OTHER ANE iconography has that for THEIR gods, but that is not stated in I Kings. Again, your assumption that ancient Israel was effectively no different from her neighbors is showing.
That is the problem with both you, Dr. S, and many other scholars. You have a rigid ideological stance of your own involving hyper-skepticism of the biblical texts and you proceed to read a whole lot of things into the text that aren’t there. And you damn sure are far too arrogant and self-righteous to see it, so you immediately attack anyone who questions your own sacred cows.
This Kipp Davis sounds like Carrier; a crackpot conspiracy theorist who goes into multiple tirades when proven wrong
The book is actually better than you claim, and does not wrongly frame all these issues, and I have an academic theological background. And, yes, Orthodox, like Catholic, claim to reject “fundamentalist” thought. Instead, you substitute the unreliability of “church tradition,” and in your case, here, top that with a dollop of the Jungianism (it is) of Campbell.
My review of “God: An Anatomy.” https://www.goodreads.com/review/show/4708547418
As for the textual development of the Former Prophets / Deuteronomic History, Joel, you’re pretty clueless. Things like the original story of Elhanan killing Goliath vs the later doublet of David killing Goliath suggest that these books were still being developed in Hellenistic times. So does the vast divergence of the LXX from the MT, a divergence often supported by the DSS, but it sometimes reflects its own third tradition.