[Dialogue] 4/25 spong bibile part 5

KroegerD at aol.com KroegerD at aol.com
Thu Apr 24 05:27:33 EDT 2008


 
April 23, 2008 
The Origins of the Bible, Part  V
The Elohist Document  

Most people do not seem to realize that events in what we call the secular  
world of history shaped so much of the writing of the biblical story. When I 
get  to the formation of the gospels in this series, it will become obvious that 
the  Jewish war with Rome that began in 66 CE in Galilee and ended in 73 CE 
in Masada  shaped the content of all four gospels in a dramatic way. In 70 CE, 
in the midst  of that war, the city of Rome fell and the Jewish nation for all 
practical  purposes disappeared from the maps of the world until it was 
restored in 1948  under the plan that had been set out in the Balfour Declaration 
of 1917. To read  the gospels with no sense of the historical context in which 
they were written  leads to dramatically ill-informed understandings. Not only 
did the cataclysmic  effects of this war shape the apocalyptic “end of the 
world” chapters in Mark,  Matthew and Luke, but I would argue that the story of 
Jesus’ transfiguration  makes no sense unless the reader is aware that the 
Temple in Jerusalem has  already been destroyed. This is one of the ways that we 
are able to date the  gospels so accurately.  
Likewise, in Jewish history a wrenching and datable split in the nation of  
the Jews was responsible for the development of the second strain of written  
material that would someday constitute the Torah. This split was basically  
between the Joseph tribes in the north that came to be called the Northern  
Kingdom of Israel and the powerful southern tribe of Judah, from whom the north  
chose to separate itself around the year 920 B.C.E.  
This Jewish division, however, had its roots in a far more ancient time. Some 
 scholars even suggest that the escaping slave people from Egypt, about whom 
the  book of Exodus writes so lavishly, were not all of the Jewish people, but 
 perhaps only those who would later be called the Joseph tribes. Certainly 
Joseph  is the central figure, according to the biblical narrative, in the 
settlement of  the Jews in Egypt. At the time of their escape the narrative tells 
us that life  in Egypt had degenerated for the Jews because a Pharaoh arose in 
Egypt “who knew  not Joseph.” Joseph, according to the Hebrew memory that 
stretched back some 400  years according to the book of Exodus, had risen to 
power in Egypt, achieving a  position in the land second only to that of the 
Pharaoh. The Torah said that  Joseph had done this through his prescience and 
foresight that enabled him to  build up the food supply in time of plenty and then 
to administer it in time of  famine. This allowed the Egyptian nation to 
survive hard times. When the Jews  made their exit from Egypt, the book of Exodus 
informs us the Jews took with  them the bones of Joseph so he could be buried 
in the soil of his former home.  Joseph was a figure clearly identified with 
the Jewish slave people who came out  of Egypt.  
More Semitic people than just the fleeing slaves, however, were included in  
the Jewish nation and clearly made up the conquering army that overran the  
Canaanites. In defense of this historical reconstruction of the conquest of  
Canaan under Joshua, these same scholars see evidence in the Torah itself, that  
during the wilderness years the escaping slaves came together with other 
nomadic  Semites in an oasis named Kadesh to form a common cause. Their common 
ethnic  kinship was recognized, as was their common heritage. Eventually they 
formed a  political alliance and began to think of themselves as a single united 
people,  but organized in a loose confederation. Even their folklore made it 
clear that  while they recognized their kinship, there was always a distinct 
difference  between the two groups. This split was accounted for in the biblical 
story by  suggesting that their father Jacob has actually had two wives. Leah, 
the first  one, was the mother of Judah, whose descendants formed the tribe 
that settled  the South. Rachel, the second wife, was the mother of Joseph, 
whose descendants  settled the North. There were of course other tribes, indeed 
twelve it was said,  but they tended to be satellites of the two major tribes. 
The Northern Kingdom  was later called the “Ten Tribes,” while the tiny tribe 
of Benjamin tended to be  associated with Judah as the remaining two. They 
were more an alliance than a  unified people. The biblical book of Judges 
described this phase of Jewish  history. Survival in that day, however, required 
them to become a strong and  unified nation. The way to reach that goal was to 
have a king.  
The first king of the unified nation was Saul, who was a member of the tribe  
of Benjamin. Saul was not, however, able to bring about the needed unity or 
to  pass the throne on to his son. The second king was Saul’s military captain, 
 David, a member of the dominant tribe of Judah. About Judah’s power the 
Joseph  tribes of the North were already apprehensive. David, with both military 
and  political skill, unified the country and reigned for 40 years, passing on 
the  throne to his son Solomon who, in turn, reigned for another 40 years. It 
was  during the reign of Solomon that the first strand of the Bible identified 
today  as the “Yahwist Document” was created to tell the story of the 
history of the  Jewish people. As we noted in a former column in this series the “
Yahwist  Document” had a clear political agenda. It extolled the royal house of 
David,  the capital city of Jerusalem and the Temple in Jerusalem from which 
the  religious life of the nation was organized. The theme of this writer was 
that  each of these centers of power was an expression of the will of God. To 
rebel  against the king, the high priest or the city of Jerusalem was to rebel 
against  God.  
Tensions, however, between these two ancient Jewish groups grew during the  
reign of Solomon as the people of the North felt that they were over taxed to  
provide the wealth of the people of Jerusalem. When Solomon died around the 
year  920 BCE the throne passed in an orderly fashion to his oldest son, 
Reheboam. The  people of the North, however, were not ready to pledge their 
allegiance to  Reheboam without some changes and so, led by one of their military 
generals  named Jereboam, a delegation came to Jerusalem to negotiate their 
grievances  with the new king. Those negotiations were not successful and when they  
collapsed the new, and perhaps rash, young King Reheboam decided that he must  
put this rebellion down with brute force. The people of the North, led by  
Jereboam, then organized for resistance and in the ensuing civil war won their  
independence. There were now two Jewish states: The Northern Kingdom that 
would  build its capital in Samaria and the Southern Kingdom with its capital in  
Jerusalem.  
The only written narrative that either group possessed at this time was the  
Yahwist document that was so pro the institutions of the South that it would  
hardly do for the rebellious tribes of the North. That version implied that 
the  Northern Jews had violated God’s chosen House of David, God’s dwelling 
place in  the holy city of Jerusalem and God’s chosen high priest. It condemned 
all that  they stood for and it did so in the name of God, so the Jews of the 
North began  to feel a need to create a new version of the sacred history of 
the Jewish  people. Once again a court historian was appointed, but now by the 
king of the  Northern Kingdom, to write this story. The result was a second 
version of Jewish  sacred history.  
There were many differences between the two documents. This writer called God 
 by an earlier Canaanite name El or Elohim, so his work became known as the  “
Elohist Document.” For the Elohist writer Joseph, not David, was the hero. We 
 see that idea develop in the story about Joseph being the favorite son of 
Jacob,  his father. That is also why Joseph was said to have received the coat 
of many  colors. Rachel, Joseph’s mother, was portrayed by this writer as Jacob’
s  favorite wife, while Leah, Rachel’s older sister and the mother of Judah, 
was  pictured as having “eyes like a cow” and was actually thrust on Jacob by 
their  scheming father, Laban. This “E” document also portrayed Judah as the 
evil  brother who sold Joseph into slavery. He de-emphasized Jerusalem, 
relativized  the Temple and reopened and re-sanctified the ancient shrines in the 
north.  Finally the divine right of kings was dismissed by this writer, who 
claimed that  the king was not chosen by God to rule the people, but was elected 
by the people  and was, therefore, subject to the will of the people. If the 
king violated his  trust, the people were competent to remove him. This was the 
claim that  solidified the rightness of their rebellion against King 
Reheboam. While these  differences were sharp, many of the stories in the two 
histories were  nonetheless quite similar. By around 850 BCE the Elohist narrative 
appears to  have been substantially complete. Now there were two Jewish nations, 
two kings,  two worship centers and two sacred stories that were read in 
worship and each  was called “The Word of God.” The two Jewish nations fought each 
other in  numerous indecisive wars and formed competing alliances with 
foreign powers,  frequently on opposite sides. When Assyria became the major Middle 
Eastern  power, the Northern Kingdom joined Syria in armed resistance, while 
the Kingdom  of Judah formed an alliance with Assyria and accepted vassal 
status.  
In 721 BCE the Assyrians conquered the Northern Kingdom and exiled most of  
its people to lands under their control. Then they imported peoples to  
repopulate the land that had been the Northern Kingdom. In time these foreigners  
intermarried with the remaining Jews and their descendants became known as the  
half-breed Samaritans. After this defeat, however, some unknown person managed  
to escape to the South and brought with him or her a copy of the Elohist  
document. Over the years in Jerusalem the two sacred stories were merged. The  
dominant Yahwist version was given priority, but the Elohist story and the point 
 of view of the lost Northern kingdom succeeded in being intertwined with it. 
By  the turn of the century, certainly before 690 BCE, the sacred story of 
the Jews  had become the Yahwist-Elohist version. The scriptures of the Jews 
were growing.  There would be more changes and transitions to come, but this was 
stage two in  the development of the Torah. Stage three will be discussed when 
this series  continues.  
John Shelby Spong  
Question and Answer
With John  Shelby Spong 
Dr. O. F. (Bo) Roddey from Charlotte, North Carolina, writes:  
Enclosed is an article from a few weeks ago about evangelical Ben  
Witherington's visit to Charlotte, North Carolina. He has "taken your name in  vain" — 
has this ever happened to you before? He was quoted in the Charlotte  Observer 
as saying the following: "Bishop Spong is out of his depth. He is  not a 
biblical scholar; he's not even a scholar. He's what I call a pundit. When  I do 
debates with Bishop Spong, he really won't debate. He's kind of like a dog  who 
barks backing up. He's noisy, but when you challenge him, there's no  
substance to his argument."  
Thanks for your letter and the enclosure from the Charlotte Observer.  I'm 
delighted that my name comes up in my home town from time to time.  
I found the quote from one Ben Witherington to be quite amusing. In the first 
 place, I have never met this gentleman nor have I read anything that he has  
written. My assumption is that his work is not read outside of evangelical  
circles. In the second place, I have never debated with this gentleman. So he  
appears to live in a fantasyland of his own imagination. He is self-described 
on  his website as "a leading evangelical scholar." An "evangelical" is by  
definition a propagandist not a scholar. A propagandist is one who possesses  
conclusions that he or she seeks to defend. A scholar is one who searches for  
truth without the boundaries of preconceptions. He might well be learned about  
his evangelical authority claims, but scholarship is something possessed only 
by  those who are engaged in a search for truth and who are willing to follow 
their  discoveries no matter where they lead.  
When I looked Mr. Witherington up I discovered that he attended a  
fundamentalist seminary, that he teaches in a fundamentalist seminary and that  his 
books are published by evangelical publishing houses. His resume lists a  PhD. 
from the University of Durham. That is an impressive institution. I have  been 
there on a number of occasions. I am, however, suspicious of the meaning of  
that degree. It may be quite substantial, but I am aware of the way English  
Universities work. Frequently they have evangelical colleges attached to them  and 
though the degree says the University of Durham, it actually comes from one  
more evangelical school, so I will withhold judgment until I learn the facts.  
Evangelicals seem to have tremendous needs to claim academic credibility so 
they  tend to collect degrees that look good on paper but have little 
substance. It is  certainly not difficult to be proficient in the defense of your 
evangelical  subject matter, but as I suggested effective propaganda does not add 
up to  impressive scholarship. Seeking truth is not possible if you begin with 
the  conviction that truth is already possessed in the "word of God" or in the 
 papacy.  
The fact is, Bo, that no one can properly define himself or herself as a  
scholar. That is for someone else to determine. I suspect that very few of us  
are original scholars or thinkers. Most of us are popularizers of other people's 
 work. It is, thus, also quite impossible to defend oneself against the kind 
of  things this man has said about me in the press, nor am I eager to do so. 
All one  can do is to provide the data for what, to some at least, might look 
like  adequate scholarly credentials and let others make whatever judgments 
they wish.  So for the benefit of anyone who cares, here are my academic 
achievements:  
I am a Phi Beta Kappa graduate of the University of North Carolina, which has 
 also presented to me an honorary Doctor of Humane Letters degree so that my  
university has affirmed my scholarly path. I have published with a major  
commercial publisher (Harper Collins) 21 books, which have been translated into  
14 languages and have sold well over a million copies. Six institutions of  
higher learning in the United States have conferred honorary doctorates on me.  
Cambridge University in the United Kingdom elected me to be the 
Quatercentenary  Scholar of that University and a Fellow at Emmanuel College, where I 
studied,  lectured and wrote in 1991. Harvard University in Cambridge, 
Massachusetts,  appointed me to the position of being the William Belden Noble Lecturer in 
2000  and those lectures were published, as was required by that lectureship, 
by  Harper Collins under the title A New Christianity for a New World. I have  
also taught as an adjunct faculty member at the Harvard Divinity School. On 
two  occasions I have been a visiting scholar at Oxford University (Magdalen 
College  and Christchurch College) and have also lectured there. I have been the 
invited,  week long religion lecturer in the Hall of Philosophy at the 
Chautauqua  Institute in New York at least six times, with attendance topping 1000 
people a  day. I have been on the faculty of the Graduate Theological Union in 
Berkeley,  California, five times. I have taught at the University of the 
Pacific and at  the Theological School of Drew University. I have been invited to 
give lectures  in English at over 100 institutions of higher learning in the 
English speaking  countries of the United States, Canada, England, Australia, 
New Zealand and  South Africa. I have also lectured though translators at the 
University of Ghent  in Belgium, the University of Helsinki in Finland, Upsala 
University in Sweden  and at other universities in Thailand, Norway and 
Indonesia. Does that make me a  scholar? No, I would never make that claim, but it 
also does not give Mr.  Witherington, who appears to think highly of his own 
abilities, a basis for his  amusing diatribe. Perhaps he knows about me, but in 
fact he knows me no better  than I know him.  
I do not do debates with evangelicals because we live in two different worlds 
 and do not agree even on the shape of reality. I have done that kind of 
thing in  the past, but never with Mr. Witherington. I stopped because I could no 
longer  find any value in that and I do not like to waste time. Evangelicals 
tend to  want to debate things that in my mind are settled. I do not debate 
with members  of the flat earth society, with "creation scientists" or with 
homophobic people  either, and for the same reason.  
I have on several occasions found great dishonesty among evangelicals. Mr.  
Witherington's claims about what happened when he was "debating with me" appear 
 to be of the same genre. Evangelicals frequently appear to me to have a 
tenuous  relationship with both truth and honesty. I did a debate with the leading 
 English evangelical, John Stott, some years ago in Vancouver, British 
Columbia.  We agreed that the debate could be published by an evangelical school, 
Regency  College at the University of British Columbia. When the publication 
came out I  discovered that John Stott had edited his part of the debate sometime 
after the  debate, but prior to its publication to cover his obvious 
weaknesses. When I  confronted him with that fact he justified this dishonest behavior 
by saying  said that I had brought up some new ideas in my closing statement 
to which he  did not have a chance to respond. That was a strange argument 
because we had  both been told to prepare a closing statement. John Stott had 
made no such  preparation and so he meandered all over the place in his closing 
statement and  looked rather foolish. It was all recorded for anyone to hear, 
but he decided to  rewrite his closing statement before publication in 
violation of the agreed on  rules for the debate.  
On another occasion I had a debate with Central Florida's evangelical  
Episcopal bishop, John Howe, at the Virginia Theological Seminary on the subject  of 
homosexuality. The same thing happened there. It was as if there were an  
evangelical play book. John Howe had tried to make jokes during the debate about  
some of my book titles. Not only did most people not know what he was talking 
 about, but his comments came across as petty and revealed considerable 
ignorance  on his part about both homosexuality and the Bible. We had agreed that 
the  debate could be recorded and distributed, but when I received a copy of 
the  recording I discovered that his part of the debate had been edited so that 
all  of his less than edifying comments had been removed. The recording had 
been done  by his former church, which is today trying to separate itself from 
the  Episcopal Church. Once again I confronted him with his dishonesty and the  
distribution of the recording was halted, or at least that is what I was 
told.  It has been my experience that evangelicals are willing to do dishonest 
things  if it serves their agenda. I find that behavior more to be pitied than to 
be  condemned, but in any case it is not revelatory of character.  
I'm delighted that Ben Witherington thinks he knows me well enough to have  
such firm opinions. I think it is interesting to have someone say in public  
print what he has said that he does when he has debates with me, since I have no 
 knowledge of ever debating with him anywhere, nor would I be interested in 
doing  so.  
Thanks for keeping me up to date with the Charlotte press.  
– John Shelby Spong

P.S. Bo, my readers need to know  that I have known you since we were in high 
school together and that you have  been an outstanding physician and are 
today a budding lay theologian. –  JSS 



**************Need a new ride? Check out the largest site for U.S. used car 
listings at AOL Autos.      
(http://autos.aol.com/used?NCID=aolcmp00300000002851)
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://wedgeblade.net/pipermail/dialogue_wedgeblade.net/attachments/20080424/e5b703ce/attachment-0001.html 


More information about the Dialogue mailing list