semiopen

Recently, I read Brettler's opinion that Isaiah was also false in that he preached the inviolability of Jerusalem, which was refuted by actual events 100 years or so later. Fortunately or uinfortunately, his writing was so cool his books remained part of scripture.

The quote above reminds me of the poster who a few months ago claimed the North meant Russia (along with the evaporation of the Euphrates). Since then, I've done some reading that suggests that this is even more ridiculous than it initially appeared.

It seems important to have an ability to evaluate and incorporate new information over time, without being too inflexible and/or having set ideological opinions.

John Kesler

Brettler is excellent; he is also a contributor to The Jewish Study Bible, a resource that I highly recommend. Below is something that I posted on another list:

The author(s) of the books of Kings claimed that the kingdom of Judah would never be captured because Yahweh had determined that Judah would always exist for David's sake (see 2 Samuel 7:13-16). This understanding, that the literal kingdom of Judah would survive and be protected by Yahweh --despite the wickedness of its kings--is mentioned several times:


However, as always happens, kingdoms come and go, and eventually in 586/587 BCE Judah was captured and taken into captivity. But what about Yahweh's promise that he would always have a "lamp" before him? Rather than admitting that "Yahweh's" promise was errant, the author of Kings had to come up with some explanation as to why Judah fell despite promises to the contrary. He found a scapegoat in King Manasseh and penned this rationalization:


Aside from the fact that this is some obvious after-the-fact rationalization for Judah's demise, which makes Yahweh's promise untrue, there are even more problems. For one thing, the Babylonian captivity didn't start when Manasseh was king, and intervening between the reigns of Manasseh and the kings at the time of Babylon's aggression was the righteous King Josiah, who reigned for 31 years (2 Kings 22:1)!

Look at what is said of Josiah in 2 Kings 23:21-27.

Another problem is that the author(s) of Kings apparently didn't get the memo that Manasseh had repented:

Jeremiah was a prophet who started receiving "the word of Yahweh" in the thirteenth year of Josiah's 31-year reign (Jeremiah 1:2). Here is what Yahweh declared through Jeremiah 18:

This passage clearly teaches that Judah's fate was not sealed at the time of Manasseh, and Yahweh promised to change his mind if his people turned from evil, in contradiction to what the author(s) of Kings state.

Yet another problem is that the Chronicler, who claimed that Manasseh repented, gives an entirely different reason for Judah's capture:

So we see that the Bible's authors, like today's preachers and "psychics," had no pipeline to the divine. They could make educated guesses and rationalizations for failed predictions--just like their modern-day counterparts. Authors had different theological agendas, which resulted in additional contradictions, and in the end, the Bible betrays its very human, fallible origin.

semiopen

Thanks John, very interesting.

Re Brettler, I remember IAJ being very critical of him, "second rate scholar" may have been what he said. At the time, I only knew Brettler from "How to Read the Jewish Bible" and thought maybe there is a grain of truth in the crticism. Later I noticed that he wrote the majority of the introductions in the "Jewish Study Bible" which suggests that he is more conservative and respected than I originally thought, making IAJ's comment even more ludicrous than it at first seemed.

Another related and remarkable IAJ argument was that the destruction of Jerusalem was actually a gift to the Jewish people from God.

I've recently been reading Stephanie Dalley's book "Esther's Revenge at Susa: From Sennacherib to Ahasuerus."

There is an interesting discussion of the theological implications of Assyria's destruction of Babylon in 689 BCE vs the destruction in 648 BCE. It turns out that Assyria was punished by Marduk (and/or whoever) for 689, but the 648 event was sort of ok. All this of course, is for more or less the same reasons we read in the bible for the adventures of Judah and Israel.

It is amazing that someone knowledgeable in the overall history of this region could possibly argue for a divine cause and effect relationship for any of this.

On a related note, ultra conservatives of all stripes seem to have abandoned this forum - at least for the Old Testatment. I wonder if it's because they are unable to defend their positions effectively or something else.

bacht

I only mentioned Jeremiah because he seems to be the latest witness for the ark. Personally I suspect much of the mythology arose in the late 8th C when Hezekiah reformed temple worship at Isaiah's direction. I guess it's not impossible that some tribal artifact was kept in Jerusalem, but the connection with Moses is sketchy. Maybe the original contents were replaced by Hezekiah or Josiah.

wavy_wonder1

Deuteronomy explicitly sanctions the profane slaughtering of meat outside of the central sanctuary. (xii.15)


Finis,
ELB

Roger Pearse

"Why did Moses break the tablets" and weep?

Was it because the box they came in said "crush tablets and take with water"?

semiopen

Not sure what Finis means here, maybe something like regards?

I mentioned these passages and personally the "Clean and unclean" reference baffles me.

Also, the date the passage was written is certainly late, maybe even post exilic.

The existence of the high places and neccesity to travel to Jerusalem is clear in the Kings 12:28 that I already quoted.

I've included 12:29 which notes each calf was in a different place.

Thanks for pointing out the reference in Deuteronomy, and I apologize if I misinterpreted your post be a feeble attempt at refutation of the practice of ritual slaughter.

Eldarion Lathria

I quote Stu Cohn, his former employer. "Moe was a klutz, always tripping over things and dropping things. He had to drink his tea from a plastic mug, because he was always dropping the china ones. He used to trip over his own feet and stumble for no reason."

Eldarion Lathria

Iskander

Splice the mainbrace.

wavy_wonder1

It means 'end', as in, the end of my post. Just a little something I picked up from David Hume.

Care to elaborate?

I don't understand what your point is here.


Finis,
ELB