Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

b-hebrew - re: Re: Divided Monarchy $ the Shape of Authority of Israelite Tradition

b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Biblical Hebrew Forum

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: Lloyd Barre <barre AT c-zone.net>
  • To: "B-Hebrew" <b-hebrew AT franklin.oit.unc.edu>
  • Cc:
  • Subject: re: Re: Divided Monarchy $ the Shape of Authority of Israelite Tradition
  • Date: 01 Feb 99 22:38:48 -0800




> **--------- Original Message follows...

>Dear Lloyd,

Thanks for your answer but I know all that.

Ok. I do not know what you know, or what you may know and disagree with.
Anyway...

I need something deeper and
less facile.

Ok. Maybe the discussion can come up with something.

What were the social / religious splits in the nation that
required this kind of integrating ideology?

You mean Deuteromism ideology I take it. At the risk of stating the obvious,
the establishment of religious syncretism and the acceptance of many
sanctuaries that reaches back to the origins of the premonarchic tribal
confederacy and made official by Solomon is with Deuteronomism being rejected
officially for the first time with the possible exception of the Levitical
purists or whatever group stood behind the Decalogue. In the context of the
Assyrian crises, kings like Manasseh and Amon had no reason to reject
syncretistic Yahwism as this was the norm. The exclusvistic worship of
Yahweh in a centralized sanctuary is was a relatively late innovation and at
best a minority viewpoint. The DtrH, which portray it as establishment by
Moses from of old is a fabrication, and the picture of Israelite history as
periodic eras of apostasy is a complete distortion and the judgements made
against the allegedly "apostasy" of all the northern kings and many of the
southern kings is only!
made by anachronistically projected Dueteronomic ideals onto the past.
Obviously, worship of Yahweh alone at the central sanctuary in Jerusalem is a
creation of one group in Judah who came into power with possibly Hezekiah but
more likely only with Josiah. I doubt very much that there were very many at
all who would have criticized Solomon's religio-political practices aimed at
consolidating international relationships as a moral or religious issue at
all. Perhaps only marginal conservative groups like the bene nabi'im, some
Levites, perhaps the Nazarites who like the later Rechabites were rigoursly
conservative Yahwists. Even if such dissident groups existed in Israel,
mostly in the prophetic tradition, their opinions were ignored, that is until
this minority opinion came into power with Deuteronomism, the descendents of
whose viewpoints dominate the materials preserved in the Hebrew Bible.
Actually, as I think of it, I would have to see a similar type of ideology
aime!
d at centralization around Yahwism in the Yahwist's Epic which I date to the
Davidic reign. But his ideological bent is more to justify Davidic
imperialism as expressed in the promises to Abraham which David is seen as
the one who will bring about their realization in which the patriarchs
descendants will be a source of blessing (material prosperity) to the other
nations. The same ideology that defines national identity and a historical
destiny in terms of international hegemony stands behind the self-invented
notion of Israel as a "chosen people," conveniently proclaimed by their own
god. In the final analysis, this self-definitions is simply an expression of
nationalism and patriotism. Within Israel, Deuteronomism is simply an
expression of ideology of but one political party. In kind, one could easily
compare it to one the several position found within Christianity, Judaism to
whatever religious tradition one may wish to consider. All of this too may
seem shallow and !
facile as well, but I think you would admit this type of perspective is not
widely neither known or acknowledged. It is not a deep perception.
Actually, it is based on common sense. Why is there religious diversity?
Because there is. Why do ideologies arise, because one group is perpetuated
its interests. Why is a god's words invoked? Because in a religious culture
this is the most powerful way to win allegiance to a particular
religio-political position. What better way to convince the Judean of the
policies of Josiah's rule than to put the legislation into the mouth of
Yahweh which he had long ago spoken to none other than Moses. What better
way to insure compliance that to contain a law that calls for the execution
of a rebellious teenager? What better way to squelched alternative religious
authorities than to ban the high places and centralize all worship
exclusively in Jerusalem? What better way to demand undivided political
loyalty that to demand the exclusive!
worship of Yahweh? What better way to insure military loyalty that to
present Joshua (Josiah) as the ideal military commander? Too bad he was
killed in battle. I wonder how Deuteronomism explained that.


How does this relate to the
influx and assimilation of refugees from the north after the Assyrian
takeover in 722 bce.?

One important result was the introduction the Elohist's Epic (E) written in
the north into the south, thereby explaining D's dependence upon E, seen most
clearly in the Decalogue (Ex 20=Deut 5). No doubt many northern traditions
came south with the refugees.

Why is an Ephraimite tradition adopted as the
national myth?

I am unclear as to what tradition your are referring to here.

Does Judah have a national myth?

Perhaps the Yahwist's Epic (J) belongs to what you are asking about here.
Or perhaps the ideology of the eternal dynasty of David.

Is it the Davidic
succession stories and the developing tradition of the deity's promise
to the Davidic dynasty.

This was certainly an important part of Judean tradition as is clear from the
use of royal psalms in cult, some of which are specifically related to the
Davidic dynasty (eg. Ps 89:3-4). Davidic royal ideology was perpetuated in
the Jerusalem cult.

Does the Dt Htr point to the beginning of the
use of "all Israel" to designate a supra-organization encompassing
Israel and Judah?

I don't think so. It is present in J who like E probably constructed his
Epic from a common source (G) that served as the common basis for both
versions which took the form of a precise summary of Israel's historical
experiences such as we find in Josh 24. I suspect this particular type of
all Israel self-understanding goes back to the premonarchic tribal
confederacy.

If I recall, the emphasis in Joshua (and Judges) is
in the geographic area of Israel. How does this relate to the idea of a
United /divided monarchy?

The precise definition of tribal allotments may well express the interest of
the Priestly Writer and is not unlike the concern of Ez 48. It seems to me
tribal definitions have also been related to Solomon's concern with setting
up tax districts.

The need to create a "historical" and
"religious" mythos of unity points to deep cleavages in the social
fabric.

I am not sure I would go that far. It seems to me that such unifying
concepts were aimed at overcoming the natural presence of cultural diversity
of various levels.

If we understand Dt and much of the individual Dt Htr units
as part of a northern tradition, can we say that the north was the
intellectual capital of the two countries and that the north
intellectually conquered the south.

As stated above, I would see Dt as a southern adaption of northern traditions
that came south following the destruction of the Northern Kingdom.

Your recapitulation of northern history was informative but it doesn't
answer the question: Why was it Judah and not Israel that unified the
tribes? Your answer suggests that the unifying country should have been
Israel. Is this a case where the leadership of David proved the
deciding factor?

Actually, it was Saul who did all the work, especially seen in how he
threatened Israel into unity against Nahash the Ammonite. Even so, before
that event, a tribal confederacy that include all the tribes of Israel was
already in place probably since the defeat of Jabin. Even though the
northern tribes vis-a-vis Judah had separate histories and distinctive
cultural identities, the old northern designation of Israel had been adopted
to describe the confederacy, not only because of age but also because the
northern tribes were once in themselves known as Israel, a designation that
Judah adopted when they became a member of it. Neither Saul nor David could
overturn the tradition designation even if they for some reason wished to.
Judah only became a national designation (The Kingdom of Judah) when the
northern tribes or Israel seceded.

Yes, there were military issues and social issues but what about the
economic conditions---something which would not be obviously stated in
the biblical text? What economic conditions are prerequisites for state
formation. If I recall, the 10th cent. was a period of an expanding
economy and re-urbanization of the Medit. area, a period of expanding
agriculture (into marginal areas) and consolidation into (somewhat)
larger production units as well as a partial change from purely
subsistence farming to some farming devoted to export crops and, thus,
trade. What I am suggesting is that urbanization and surplus for export
are also factors in state formation and that one political unit ruling a
large area (as opposed to smaller local and tribal rule) is more
efficient. The primacy of Judah may have been an aberration. The
economically more viable unit was the north.

Solomon's greedy exploitation of the north was no doubt fueled by the fact
that the north was economically richer than the south, which would have
certainly fed the fires of revolt that broke out during Rehoboam's rule. It
also would explain Jeroboam's call to Israel to simply have nothing to do
with the house of David. His attitude seems to have been, "Who needs them
anyway?"

BTW, I've been getting messages with very long horizontal scrolls. Why
is this? They are difficult to read. How can this be prevented?

Sorry, but I have no idea.

Lloyd Barre

irene riegner


---
You are currently subscribed to b-hebrew as: barre AT c-zone.net
To unsubscribe, forward this message to $subst('Email.Unsub')
To subscribe, send an email to join-b-hebrew AT franklin.oit.unc.edu.


.
> ** Original Subject: Re: Divided Monarchy $ the Shape of Authority of
> Israelite Tradition
> ** Original Sender: Irene Riegner <iriegner AT concentric.net>
> ** Original Date: Mon, 01 Feb 1999 21:28:41 -0500
> **---------

>

Lloyd M. Barre, Ph.D.

barre AT c-zone.net
http://www.angelfire.com/ca2/AncientIsrael

"Do I dare
Disturb the universe?"

T.S. Eliot from, "The Love Song of J. Alfred Prufrock." (1917)





Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page