[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