Biblical Hebrew Forum

[Yigal Levin <Yigal-Levin AT utc.edu>]

At 01:56 PM 7/3/2003 -0400, B. M. Rocine wrote:
>If we can explain the text within the constraints of a Deuteronomistic
>ideolgy, we should. It is not difficult, after all, to imagine the narrator
>having a consistent perspective because of this little verse, is it?
>
>Much simpler than the Freudian interpretation is the "political" explanation
>that I offered in my last post.  Again: Israel was simply unwilling to force
>tribute from a king for whom paying tribute was so odious as to precipitate
>the sacrifice his son and the heir to the throne.  Israel remains noble
>rather than paganly money-grubbing.  The Deuteronomist narrator remains
>mentally and emotionally whole.  ;-)
>
>
Bryan,

Where in the DH do you find an ideal by which conquest and extraction of
tribute is "paganly money-grubbing" or in any other way negative? Look at
David's exploits in 2 Sam.! His treatment of the Moabites, Ammonites an
Edomites would hardly earn him a Nobel Peace Prize. Throughout the DH,
"good" kings are conquerors, and "bad" kings like Ahab, who were also
powerful, are downplayed. To the Deuteronomist, being "good" means being
loyal to Yahweh, nothing more. Which is why I insist that the only reason
for Israel's defeat here would be that they ticked Him off. However, I
admit that the text does not say so, hence the question.

Yigal



Dr. Yigal Levin
Dept. of Philosophy and Religion
University of Tennessee at Chattanooga
615 McCallie Avenue
Chattanooga TN 37403-2598
U.S.A.