July 10, 2009

• nyclegodesi24 & "Why Does the Bible Show Weakness?"

  Intro: 

  The following is a comment archive lifted from lynnjynh9315's xanga.  He describes himself in his profile as a moderate Christian who writes "gutsy" posts.  Recently he wrote a gutsy post titled, "Daughter of Jephthah: a Biblical Slasher story?"  Another Christian, nyclegodesi24 made some odd comments that I thought I would respond to.  Arnobius_of_Sicca is briefly in the mix there, too.  Enjoy.

  ---

  lynnjynh9315 posted (excerpt): 

  I have always found it very odd that Christians condemn the depravity of slasher-films and uber-violent video games like God of War while simultaneously praising such equally violent films like "The Passion of the Christ". It is not that I disagree with them, I also find slasher-films to be deplorable at best, but I feel that this issue deserves a fair evaluation: if Christians are to abhor such depictions of violence and avoid such works... wouldn't this also be good cause to avoid the Bible itself for the very same reasons?

  ---

  nyclegodesi24 responded:
  
  I think they're appropriate to read. They, unlike slasher movies, are not written with the intent of arousing feelings of patriotism or appealing to our desire to kill people. My pastor actually spoke on Jephthah a couple months ago in bible study. I think it's important to note that nowhere in this story does God call upon Jephthah to create any such vow, nor even specifically speak to him to fulfill it. He acted purely of his own will.

  ---

  Arnobius_of_Sicca responded (excerpt):

  Just because one does not understand the point of the story does not mean there isn't one.

  One of the key points of Judges is the way it ends:  In Chapter 21:25, we see it say: "In those days there was no king in Israel; every man did what was right in his own eyes."

  We aren't seeing Israel living according to the Law of Moses, but rather living in violation of it.  Jephthah violated the Law: (Lev 18:21; 20:2–5; Deut 12:31; 18:10; Mic 6:7) forbidding Human sacrifice and is considered to be a pagan practice.

  
  

  ---

  I responded:

  @nyclegodesi24 - You don't think a lot of the OT is geared toward inspiring a strong sense of patriotism?  We're not supposed to cheer when Samson annihilates thousands of Philistines?  hmm...I think I may have gotten the wrong idea...

  @Lynnjynh9315 - I did a post on this a while ago.  Check it out if you want (link). 

  @Arnobius_of_Sicca - Um...So you are saying one of the most bloodiest books of the Bible is suspiciously framed as "without a King" eh?  That almost sounds like advertisement for later theocracies, eh?

  Ben

  
  

  ---

  nyclegodesi24 responded:

  @WAR_ON_ERROR - I think the OT's focus is different. OT writers definitely wrote with natural pride of Israel, but their coverage of events includes great numbers of slaughters in Israel, a lot of times they were run to the ground by their enemies. A writer seeking to pump up people to cheer for Israel wouldn't include stories about the ark of God being removed, about its bearers dying, about King David being shamed by a prophet. Even the psalms, which often include the king's boast of his kingdom, also includes his repentance of pride, saying that he knows nothing, that his goodness is nothing apart from that of God's. The focus of OT, I think, is not to rally support behind a people, but a merciful God. When they are triumphant in battle, it's entirely due to God's deliverance. More often than not, I think they've lost battles. That these writers detail all of that indicates to me that they're not trying to stir up any rightist vigor. A lot of their prophets, like Micah and Isaiah, repeatedly condemn Israel and its righteousness as "filthy rags." They even throw mud at the priests and the judges of Israel. I don't see evidence of patriotism here.

  
  

  ---

  I responded: 

  @nyclegodesi24 - A self-deprecating pride isn't hard to come by, especially when the stories all serve a religious ideological agenda.  This pattern is crystal clear:  Israel doesn't observe the religion, bad things happen.  Israel does...they find favor with God.  Good king, bad king, good king, bad king.  Good kings tear down the monuments to other gods.  Bad kings rebuild them.  Ad nauseum.  When the people seek favor with God, that serves the priesthood and those in political power.  In the story in Samuel they are "reluctantly" given a king.  The story serves to tell future generations *they asked for it* when they don't like being ruled over.  When everything is crazy in Judges because there is no king, that also serves the *same end* in just a different way. 

  What's the theme?  Don't be a disobedient people.  Observe the laws of Yahweh.  That theme is extremely heavy especially in Exodus, but it doesn't stop there at all.  They continuously play it both ways for the same goal.  The people in charge have every interest in serving up the bad stuff *in a particular context* that justifies counter-intuitive ends from the standpoint of a "they'd only record the good stuff" mentality.  Anyway, it's almost too easy to read the OT that way. I even noted that theme when I was still a Christian long before I read anything like "The Bible Unearthed" which pulls together a bunch of archeology to support the conclusion that king Josiah molded the Biblical history to his own agenda.  It really does seem to show when you look at it through those eyes. 

  That's the gist of my current perspective anyway.  I still have a lot to read on the topic. 

  Ben 

  
  

  ---

  nyclegodesi24 responded:

  @WAR_ON_ERROR - Right, but notice your original contention. The stories of the OT are not ethnocentric, they are theo-centric (I am inventing a word for my purposes). Of course its centered around Yahweh, just as Moby Dick is centered around a whale and The Narrative of the Life of Frederick Douglass is centered around Frederick Douglass. I don't see a selfish agenda in the records. It's centered repeatedly around Yahweh. From naturalistic assumptions, you might think they're being self-seeking in principle, but I don't have to see it that way from evidence.

  "Ad nauseum.  When the people seek favor with God, that serves the priesthood and those in political power.  In the story in Samuel they are "reluctantly" given a king."

  This seems off to me. They demanded a king from samuel. And you'll need to cite a scripture about serving those in political power. I'm really unsure what this is in reference to.

  
  

  ---

  I responded:

  @nyclegodesi24 -

  You:  "are not written with the intent of arousing feelings of patriotism"

  Me:  "You don't think a lot of the OT is geared toward inspiring a strong sense of patriotism?  We're not supposed to cheer when Samson annihilates thousands of Philistines?"

  You:  "OT writers definitely wrote with natural pride of Israel, but their coverage of events includes great numbers of slaughters in Israel, alot of times they were run to the ground by their enemies. A writer seeking to pump up people to cheer for Israel wouldn't include..."

  Me:  "A self-deprecating pride isn't hard to come by, especially when the stories all serve a religious ideological agenda..."

  You:  "Right, but notice your original contention. The stories of the OT are not ethnocentric, they are theo-centric (I am inventing a word for my purposes)."

  Obviously, they are both.  Theo-ethno-centric, if we are making up words (which is fine, btw). 

  "This seems off to me. They demanded a king from Samuel. And you'll need to cite a scripture about serving those in political power. I'm really unsure what this is in reference to."

  Right, they are reluctantly given a king that they demanded (1 Samuel 6:8-21).  They did not reluctantly ask for a king.  I'm not sure it is necessary to cite any more Scripture since it is self-evident that kings *are* people in political power.  In fact, they are the people with the most political power any human on earth tends to have. 

  We don't need to get into a big debate.  I'm sure I'll pull together a post taking a tour of this particular political theme in the OT, but that may be a while.  Right now I'm just introducing the perspective since you didn't seem to be familiar with it.  My main point was against assuming there's no *possible* reason why a national history would include the down side.  I think a suggestion to the contrary will do for now.  You should probably be aware of it since that "Bible Unearthed" book seems to be considered one of the best on the topic from a skeptical point of view.  You can do whatever you want with that information.

  Ben

  
  

  ---

  Arnobius_of_Sicca responded:

  @WAR_ON_ERROR - It was clearly written after the fact, and was speaking of some of the darkest days of Israel's history.  Judges is often pointed to by some who attack religion to try to show how bad religion is.  it misses the point, which is to say this was not portrayed as a good time in the history of Israel, but rather a time when again and again the people fell into idolatry and evil acts.  Time and time again, we see the disclaimer in the text: "In those days there was no king in Israel; every man did what was right in his own eyes."

  In other words, the deeds are recorded in shame, with bright moments of good men and women leading them from evil.

  I see you are trying to argue the Bible is promoting a national pride.  I don't see how this can be claimed by the text where 1 and 2 Kings testify that more kings were evil than good.  Indeed, after 2 Kings, the story of Israel is a story of a conquered people who are trying to live and get by.

  Are you sure you are not merely looking in the Bible for what confirms what you already believe?

  
  

  ---

  I responded:

  @Arnobius_of_Sicca - 

  "It was clearly written after the fact, and was speaking of some of the darkest days of Israel's history." 

  That's a strong portion of my point.

  "Judges is often pointed to by some who attack religion to try to show how bad religion is.  it misses the point"

  Speaking of missing the point, that wasn't my point. 

  "but rather a time when again and again the people fell into idolatry and evil acts.  Time and time again, we see the disclaimer in the text: 'In those days there was no king in Israel; every man did what was right in his own eyes.'"

  And notice my point is that these dark days are framed with "without a king" as though it is a political advertisement for a later king as I originally chided you with. 

  "In other words, the deeds are recorded in shame, with bright moments of good men and women leading them from evil."

  I agree.  That's the agenda.  To shame the readers who would be currently under a king in power to solicit their conformity with the current religious agenda.  This is the same device modern Christians willingly embrace (and what the NT teaches the OT stories were for), incidentally with the exception that no political entity is taking advantage of the situation.  But in naturalistic terms, the politico-mechanics of this seems to work out too conveniently for a later Jewish king/priesthood political entity (like Josiah). 

  "I see you are trying to argue the Bible is promoting a national pride.  I don't see how this can be claimed by the text where 1 and 2 Kings testify that more kings were evil than good."

  It's a story of a very specific national pride under the banner of a specific religious agenda aimed at denouncing certain behaviors and other religious ideologies.  The bad kings as I said are called bad most often because they do not honor Yahweh's religious rituals. 

  "Are you sure you are not merely looking in the Bible for what confirms what you already believe?"

  Are you sure you aren't projecting on me?  :p  When I last read all the way through Judges, I was a Christian looking at it through Christian eyes and I still couldn't help but notice some of these things (though I did nothing with the possibility at the time).  The inference to political meddling is much easier to come by in ordinary human affairs than the literal divine management of a special holy country a deity has taken an interest in across thousands of years.  You'll have to forgive my pattern recognition skills for functioning whether I have Christian ideology on the brain or not.   

  Ben

  
  

  ---

  nyclegodesi24 responded:

  @WAR_ON_ERROR - Right, perhaps this is not the best place to debate about this. The texts you suggested seems, if anything, only speak of a religious "agenda", not a political agenda. The people demanded a king, out of lack of faith and of denial of God's authority over them. I just don't see evidence here for a "Rah Rah Israel!" attitude. I don't think your response to my point about illustrating all of Israel's faults was sufficient. It doesn't make sense that they'd include them if the text was political propaganda. It makes better sense that the text was exclusively centered around God. There isn't evidence to suggest both. If we continue this, perhaps we can continue it on your page.

  
  

  ---

  I responded:

  @nyclegodesi24 - I was under the impression that the national and religious identity of the Jews were closely intertwined so what works for one works for the other.  Ancient Israel was a theocracy as far as I know, so I don't understand the nature of the confusion.  Beyond that, I don't have much more to say right now, although I will archive this over on me blog shortly if you have any further thoughts.

  Ben

  
  

  ---

  Outro:

  I am looking for mainstream apologetic responses to "The Bible Unearthed" if anyone is aware of them.  It may be a while before I do anything major with this. 

  Ben

  • 2:24 am
  • 16 Comments