Biblical Hebrew Forum

[Banyai AT t-online.de (Michael Banyai)]

Dear Uri,

I understand your view of the Bible as Rahmengeschichte, but am still at 
odds, how such a general view should work in many cases, when one should 
rather turn against the text than go with the text. 

I preferr therefore a more relaxed view of the bible which could be here 
"Rahmengeschichte", there even a most accurate account, and in other place 
the exact opposite of what happened. This of course makes a decision 
dependent in each case from many variables, but one should bear in mind, that 
the bible was not written for us but for its contemporaries, and therefore we 
in many cases lacks the other view (or side of the medal)- the one it combats.

We can for example but suppose, that a derisive little story of how the 
Teraphim arrived under a camel´s saddle smuggled by Rachel, was in the mouth 
of a Teraphim-adorant a real epiphany. 

We can but suppose that the northern kingdom still recognising the aliance 
with Jahweh at Sinai making them still brothers with the Judeans and still 
recognising Jahweh as their main god (as we can see at Kuntilet Adjrud - 
Jahweh of Samaria on 9-th century pottery on the assumed peak of Baalism) had 
its own version of the events at Sinai. This version would have certainly 
didn´t speak of an interdiction of the golden calf, but quite on the 
contrary. Apparently did the the northern kingdom very well ballance between 
Jahwism and permission of "idolatry" without feeling to break the essential 
lawgiving event at Sinai.

My rationing concentrates on the remark that the Jahweh oracle concerning the 
"punishment" of the Israelites because of the golden calf, looks better in a 
primary use, because of textual and ideatic coincidences, as an oracle 
favorable to the creation of the golden calf than we have it now (probably in 
secondary use). This (the oracles) is the material which was used by both 
sides in their argumentation. It is the basis of any theological dispute.

I don´t read neither a general interdiction of jewels for the Israelites, nor 
is this an act of mourning, which we could document with biblical habits. As 
such, as a mourning gesture this is an invention of Peter Kirk, basing more 
on assumptions or common sense, which however is a no lead. It either is or 
not is a known gesture of mourning by the Hebrews. And should one go with 
Peter, than why does this same gesture in the story of Dinah? Is it not 
rather a signature of the Judahite redactor re-using his own previous 
recepture?

As such is here, in this point, the Bible better than a "Rahmengeschichte", 
it is a living book in dialog with its contemporaries. 

Best regards,

Bányai Michael