Biblical Hebrew Forum

[Lloyd Barre <barre AT c-zone.net>]

> **--------- 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)