MHF

[ Apologies for the re-post. I posted this under "Secular Lifestyle" but I'd like to get some feedback from readers of the forum "Biblical Criticism & History" ]

I've been thinking a lot about why the OT is so violent (I know the NT is nasty too but I want to focus on the OT).

Here's one explanation I came up with to explain the abundance of OT violence. Experts, please let me know if this is basically OK or not, or if this has already been discussed before on this board. The explanation comes from the general observation that religion is primarily driven by fear.

During OT times, people believed that there existed multiple gods. People believed that each tribe/nation had it's own god.

(For instance: the commandments in the OT do not say that other gods don't exist, it just says that you shouldn't serve other gods. There are also other indications in the OT that there are indeed other gods, indirect indications like "let US create man in OUR image" in Genesis and more direct indications elsewhere in the OT. It is very late in biblical history (NT I guess?) that they had the audacity to claim that there's only one god).

In any case, when other tribes/nations are a threat to your safety, we want to do a bit more than just making sure none of us serves a god from another tribe. We also want to tell the other nations that our god is both more powerful, and more aggressive, than their gods. That way they'll think twice about invading us (don't think too logically about this, think about this from the perspective of the religious folks). To really hammer home the message "don't attack us" we'll not only emphasize how powerful our god is, but also how violent he gets when he gets angry.

A side effect of this is of course that scriptures end up not only scaring our enemy but it scares us as well. But fear generally works in religions advantage, so even if this fear has a negative impact on believers, it does strengthen religions power. So if you apply natural selection on religions, it's not really surprising that these violent ones are the survivors, instead of the more benign ones.

Think also a bit about when ancient people are bragging about their kings, what then do they say? Well, then they talk about how many enemy's were killed by their wonderful king. Again, the underlying message is, don't attack us. So power is equated with violence. If power=violence is true for kings, then the stone age people will apply the same equation to gods. The idea of a king being powerful without being violent, that's something that we don't see until more modern times (our moral values have grown superior to those from the bible).

PS. The point of this post is not to try to defend the OT atrocities themselves, they are indefensible to any decent person. The point of this post to try to understand why someone would *write* such things.

Crowley

I would say that your explanation is reasonable.

You also need to remember that these stories are written/created/retold by priests. It is in the priests' best interest that their congregation/people believe only in their version of their god. To dissuade their flock from worshipping a different god or set of gods the priest would often craft stories where those that disobeyed god(s) were punished. These punishments were often violent (flood, Soddam, etc.). But this is using the same basic tool you propose: Fear. Fear is the great manipulator, used by religion for thousands of years.

Toto

In The Bible Unearthed (or via: amazon.co.uk), the authors provide archeological evidence that the Exodus and the slaughter of the Canaanites never happened. Their explanation is that kings at that time established their legitimacy by taking over land by force and slaughtering their opponents, so the authors of the Bible had to make up a myth along those lines. Which leaves the question unanswered, why did legitimacy depend on slaughtering opponents?

-Jay-

You've gotta narratively get rid of anyone who would contest your story, maybe?

The people living in the supposedly conquered areas wouldn't have any history of the conquest. A way around that is to claim that anyone who'd remember the conquest had been obliterated, and any subsequent population came later.

regards,

NinJay

Lunawalk

If the exodus is not true, what would be the motivation of the Jews to make up the story of them being slaves.

adren@line

Naa.

They were simply a barbaric and primitive people who lacked any serious intellectual capacity. The culture of the day valued violence and intolerance over opposing virtues.

I dont really buy the polytheist slant since practically every other nation was polytheistic as well, yet many of them werent nearly as violent.

Minimalist

You need to remember WHO is making up the story. Priests. Specifically the Yahweh cult which dominated the city of Jerusalem in the 7th century but which seemed to have less of a grip on the countryside (see William Dever: Did God Have A Wife.)

The message of Exodus is crystal clear. "Do everything we tell you...er, everything that God tells you.... and even slaves can overcome the mightiest of earthly kings."

Of course, it turned out not to be true. King Josiah, who seemed to be the intended beneficiary of the Exodus tale and the ensuing Conquest narrative, was summoned to a meeting with Pharaoh Necho who had him killed.

davidbach

All of the above, and, IMHO, more.

The period of the OT is one of transition. There were strong, ordered agrarian societies, notably Egypt and Sumeria/Babylon and later Greece and finally Rome, but in the Canaanite area law and order was still tenuous. Imagine something along the lines of the gangster period on the streeets of Chicago, or the wild west. Life was violent and unpredictable.

The OT is a complex work, containing a lot of themes from poetry to history to primitive science and law, and much mythology and political exaggeration. Hence the "flood" and the "exodus", both probably based on real events, but embroidered for effect. Without any ill-will, we can imagine storytellers around campfires re-telling tales of old with the audience enthralled by the ever-greater monsters and armies, with ever-bloodier heroic deeds.

Sociologically, the OT is probably fairly accurate. The great empires exacted tribute, the towns were somewhat defended, the villages were often ravaged and the outlying farms were in constant danger. Probably the best defence in the outlying areas was poverty such that there was little or nothing to steal. Such areas were not worth defending or conquering. I have not counted, but I would guess that 120 out of 150 psalms pray for deliverance from "enemies" of one sort or another, the remainder seek peace and comfort in a good environment. Though heavily weighed toward the rich and powerful, the psalms do give us an idea of the social concerns of the period. Remember that at least some, and probably many psalms are of non-"Israelite" origin.

Another factor is that what is preserved in the books is what the ruling classes could write down. The priests were not like Falwell or even Ratzinger, more like witch-doctors in relation to chiefs. They were a constant threat to the ruling family, and were not above conducting a flourishing business with the virgins of the temple, not to mention exacting sacrifices and running extortion rackets. So there was violence from within as well as without. The reports of violence from within were certainly tainted by the victor writing the history, and no doubt changed later as the power ebbed and flowed. And the erstwhile villains were painted blacker and the heroes whiter with every redaction.

So, to sum up, there was no need to invent fear and danger - it was endemic. No doubt it was used as a tool, but as much a tool for alliances and protection as for control and extortion. Before we can understand the religious elements of the OT (or the NT for that matter), we need to understand the sociology.

David.

Lunawalk

The culture back than was more brutal than our culture. The question is why people today say they base their morals on that book.

Lunawalk

Thanks for the explanation. I guess I was wondering why advertisize ignoble origins.I check out that book