Beginning Seow's Myth, Drama, and the Politics of David's Dance

I started C.L. Seow's Myth, Drama, and the Politics of David's Dance. In the Book of I Samuel, the Ark of the Covenant is in two major locations. First, it was at the sanctuary in Shiloh, which was run by Eli and his family. Second, it arrived at Qiryat-Ye'arim, after spending some time in the land of the Philistines. At Qiryat-Ye'arim, Abinadab and his family cared for the Ark. In II Samuel, David moves the Ark in a triumphant procession from Qiryat-Ye'arim to Jerusalem, a city that he had recently conquered.

I have three items:

1. According to Seow, Shiloh identified YHWH with El, whereas YHWH was more Baalite in Qiryat-Ye'arim. On page 77, Seow summarizes his argument that Shiloh identified YHWH as El as follows (and, in my quotation, I will spell El as "El", without Seow's markings on the name):

"At Shiloh, YHWH had come to be identified with El, the supreme deity of the Canaanite pantheon. Personal names like Elqanah, Yero[ch]am (Yera[ch]me'el), and Samuel provide some evidence of Elism at Shiloh in the eleventh century. The deity was also known by the epithet YHWH [Tzevaot], an epithet of the deity as the victorious divine warrior, creator, and king. Like El, YHWH appeared to people in dreams and spoke through intermediaries. He responded to the plight of the barren Hannah, granting fecundity as El did to Danel and Kirta. Like El, YHWH was depicted at once as an itinerant, tent-dwelling deity and a king enthroned in his palace. The image of YHWH as El is in accord with the biblical and archaeological indications that Shiloh functioned as a central sanctuary in that period. In any case, the association of YHWH with El, the Most High god of the Canaanite pantheon, is found already at Shiloh, as suggested by the name of the High Priest, Eli. That tradition was not bestowed on Israelite religion from a putative cult of El Elyon of the Jebusite sanctuary, as is often supposed."

In addition to these reasons, Seow offers another one on page 42: Psalm 78 discusses the northern sanctuary of Shiloh, and the deity associated with it is "repeatedly called El (vv 7, 8, 18, 19, 34, 41), Elyon (vv 17, 56), and El Elyon (vv 35, 36)."

On pages 77-78, Seow summarizes his argument that Qiryat-Ye'arim ascribed Baalite characteristics to YHWH:

"At Qiryat-Ye'arim, however, the Elistic model of YHWH seems to have given way to the model of the deity as the feisty warrior-god, Ba'l. The appropriation of the Ba'l myth...reflects the socio-political realities, for the dominant position of the deity at Shiloh had been betrayed by the ignominy of defeat. The ark was captured by the Philistines and the sanctuary at Shiloh was destroyed. The supremacy of the Israelite god was called into question. Hence the elaborate story of the adventures of the ark, which is based on the mythic pattern of the rise of Ba'l from defeat to victory. Like Ba'l, the ark suffered an initial set-back. The demise of the ark was marked by mourning, even as the defeat of Ba'l was marked by mourning. The absence of the ark prompted the lament 'Where is Glory?'...even as the absence of Ba'l led 'Anat to ask 'Where is Ba'l?'...But as Ba'l eventually triumphed over his enemies, so the presence of the ark in the temple established the dominion of YHWH over Dagon."

Seow's comparison of I Samuel 4-6 with Ugaritic literature about Baal is significant to his argument that Qiryat-Ye'arim attributed Baalite characteristics to YHWH. There are areas in which the two appear to coincide: there is mourning at the departure of the Ark and the death of Baal, and the Ark dismembers the statue of Dagon, as Baal's enemy, Mot, was dismembered. But Seow acknowledges that there are differences between the stories. Whereas Baal dies, YHWH does not, but many Israelites in the biblical story die on account of the sins of Eli's sons. In one case, Seow draws a parallel between I Samuel 4-6 with a story about Baal by noting that Dagon, like Baal, falls to the ground. But the problem here is that Baal is supposed to be similar to YHWH/the Ark, whereas Dagon is like Baal's chaotic adversaries.

Also significant to Seow's attachment of Qiryat-Ye'arim to Baal are the various names of Qiryat-Ye'arim in the Hebrew Bible: Qiryat-Baal (Joshua 15:60; 18:14), Baalah (Joshua 15:9), Mount Baalah (Joshua 15:11), and Baalah of Judah (II Samuel 6:2; cf. I Chronicles 13:6).

Seow's overall thesis in his chapter on "Myth" is this: When the Ark was at Shiloh, the sanctuary there viewed YHWH as similar to El, the high God. El sat supreme over the cherubim and made the land and the people fertile, and so did YHWH of Shiloh. But, when the Ark was moved to Qiryat-Ye'arim, there was a different political reality, for Israel was no longer as secure. After all, Israel had just been defeated by the Philistines, who destroyed the sanctuary at Shiloh! Those who ran the sanctuary at Qiryat-Ye'arim, therefore, identified YHWH more with Baal, who continually fought against chaos, which "constantly threatened to oust him" (page 76).

But was not El also a warrior, according to Seow? If so, why couldn't El continue to function as a model for the Israelite conception of YHWH, even when Israel was vulnerable? As Seow shows, El indeed was a warrior at some point, for, according to Sanchuniathon's "Phoenician History" as told by Philo Byblius, El (who is called "Kronos") along with other gods successfully fought Ouranos (heaven). But El's warrior days appear to have been a thing of the past when he was king. Baal, however, was continually waging war against the forces of chaos. Baal's story fit the situation of Israel when Qiryat-Ye'arim had the Ark: insecure in the midst of threats.

When David took the Ark to Jerusalem, however, that was presented in light of YHWH becoming king after defeating chaos, and the procession celebrating that event continued after the time of David as a way to legitimate David's kingly descendants. Seow states on page 78 that the time when the Ark dwelt in Qiryat-Ye'arim was not a happy time for the Israelites. The Israelites were embarrassed that the Ark was at such an obscure site, and biblical traditions present the Ark's sojourn in Qiryat-Ye'arim as a time when the Ark was forgotten (Psalm 132:6) and neglected (I Chronicles 13:3), and the Israelites "lamented after YHWH" (I Samuel 7:2). But David bringing the Ark to Jerusalem was a triumphant procession: God, through David, had triumphed over chaos. It was a time of celebration!

According to Seow, this event also allowed for a synthesis of the El and Baal traditions within the Israelite cult. That such a synthesis occurred at some point is evident in II Samuel 22:14/Psalm 18:14, which presents El Elyon thundering, even though Baal was the god who spoke through thunder. At this stage, YHWH was El and yet had Baalite characteristics.

2. Seow offers thoughts on the functions of certain biblical stories. I Samuel 4-6, for example, is about how the Ark of the Covenant got to Qiryat-Ye'arim. According to Seow, the story reflects the eleventh century, when the Ark actually was in Qiryat-Ye'arim, and had recently arrived there from Shiloh. The story of Uzzah in II Samuel 6, for Seow, was a propagandistic story about how the Ark passed from the house of Abinadab to David. Uzzah, of the house of Abinadab, must have shown when he touched the Ark that his house was unworthy to handle it!

3. Seow presents interesting tidbits of information. He shows that the Ark was similar to idols in other nations. On page 39, Seow refers to Diodorus Siculus' claim that the Carthaginians took an image of a deity with them into battle, and housed that image in a tent. Similarly, the Israelites throughout the Hebrew Bible take the Ark with them into battle. On page 70, Seow states that the Philistines in I Kings 5 were treating the captured Ark as captured images were treated in Mesopotamia. And, on page 104, Seow notes a scholar who compares David's procession of bringing the Ark to Jerusalem with Akkadian inscriptions on the return of divine images---which are marked by military personnel, music, rejoicing, and regular sacrifices "made to the deity at regular intervals."

On page 94, Seow comments on I Samuel 18:7, where the Israelites anger Saul by saying that Saul killed his thousands, and David his ten thousands. Seow states that, originally, this was a taunt of the Philistines, not Saul, for, in Canaanite poetry, "thousands" and "myriads" were not contrastive, but rather were a fixed pair. For Seow, the Israelites here were celebrating the victories against the Philistines by both Saul and David, not asserting that David was better than Saul.

Completing Cross' Canaanite Myth and Hebrew Epic

I finished Frank Moore Cross' Canaanite Myth and Hebrew Epic. I have four items:

1. In "Ideologies of the Kingship in the Era of the Empire", Cross talks about different covenants in the Hebrew Bible. On pages 261-263, Cross argues that the United Monarchy shaped the Yahwist's presentation of the patriarchal covenant. The monarchy was supported by a myth that related to creation and eternity---perhaps because the monarchy was an essential part of the order of the cosmos. (That's my assumption about what Cross is saying.) J portrays the patriarchal land promises in terms of the extent of the empire of David and Solomon, which was from the boundary of Egypt to the Euphrates. (Although Cross acknowledges that David and Solomon did not annex Philistia, Cross states that Achish of Gath may have been one of David's vassals, and Gath had hegemony over other Philistine cities.) Another area in which royal theology influenced J's depiction of the patriarchal covenant involves the universal implications of the covenant---that Israel's expansion and destiny was to be "a source of blessing for the nations", an idea that we encounter throughout Genesis. Cross states: "Here we see the universalism of mythic kingship, the reverberations, so to speak, of the universal victory of the divine warrior-king transforming the patriarchal covenant into the image of the divine decree with its eternal and universal significance." For Cross, royal theology absorbed the patriarchal covenant---presenting the United Monarchy as the means for the fulfillment of the land promise, and endowing the patriarchal covenant with universal implications, the idea perhaps being that the king would enable Israel to benefit the world. John Van Seters argues something similar, only he take the concept in a different direction: For Van Seters, royal concepts were applied to the nation of Israel in exile, as a way to give Israel meaning when she no longer had a monarchy.

On page 271, Cross refers to George Mendenhall, who argues that P does not believe that the Abrahamic covenant has obligations, and that circumcision is merely a sign. Cross responds: "However, both circumcision and the Sabbath, sign of the Sinai covenant, are at once signs and laws, which if broken bring separation from the covenant people. The Priestly strata are influenced by the mythic and antinomian tendencies of the royal Judaean theology, but law is a part of each of the Priestly covenants." This reminds me of two things: Brian Peckham's argument that Isaiah criticized the J epic because it emphasized worship, rather than ethics (antinomianism), and Israel Knohl's argument in Sanctuary of Silence that P lacked an ethical focus, as it viewed God as very transcendent in his relationship to humans.

2. In "The Priestly Work", Cross discusses P, which he appears to regard as a supplement to JE, rather than an independent document in itself. Cross does not think that P is adequate as a source by itself, and he maintains that details of J and E (such as the Fall, or the covenant rites of Sinai) are essential to P's story. Martin Noth was one who believed that P was an independent source---and that a redactor used P to organize the story. But there are times when Noth holds that P at one point had details that are no longer present in it. Noth appears to address the same sort of problem with P that Cross does---P's inadequacy by itself as an independent document, and its presumption of stories that are in J and E---but he deals with it differently from Cross.

On page 312, Cross makes an interesting point about P and the Feast of Weeks. Cross argues that P in Exodus 19:2 sets the events of Sinai during the third month, so that E's story of the covenant meal in Exodus 24:3-8 would fall on the Feast of Weeks, the sixth day of the third month. I was aware that Judaism associated the Feast of Weeks with the Sinai revelation, but I did not know that there was explicit Scriptural support for this. Exodus 19:2 may be close to constituting Scriptural support.

On page 313, in a footnote, Cross discusses the Decalogue. Cross affirms that P and E maintain that the revelation of the content of the Decalogue preceded the tablets, and E in Exodus 24:7 presents the reading of the Book of the Covenant as occurring prior to the tablets. J, however, has another tradition: Moses brings the tablets to the mountain, then the covenant is made on the basis of the Ten Commandments. Cross identifies the Decalogue in Exodus 34 as Yahwistic, but, because the first two commandments resemble the first two commands of the Decalogue in Exodus 20, Cross argues that the remaining eight commandments in Exodus 34 have been suppressed and replaced with a cultic calendar, "one which has a common origin with the cultic calendar in the Covenant Code, Exod. 23:14-19." So Cross holds that J's Decalogue was like the Decalogue of Exodus 20 (and was even earlier, for its first two commandments are simpler than they are in P's Exodus 20), but that the last eight commands were replaced with ritual rules.

3. On pages 337-339, in "The Apocalyptic Community at Qumran", Cross discusses the role of Joshua 6:26 in a Qumran list of Testimonia from Cave 4. Joshua 6:26 is where Joshua curses anyone who attempts to rebuild Jericho. I Kings 16:34 presents the fulfillment of this prophecy, but the Essenes reapplied it to their own time. Cross relates the Testimonium to events in the second half of the second century B.C.E., when Simon the Maccabee fought Antiochus VII and went to Jericho as he was "reviewing fortifications which he had build or which were in the process of reconstruction." There, Simon and two of his sons were murdered by Ptolemy, the administrator of Jericho, who was probably an Idumean seeking to establish Idumean power. But Simon's other son, John Hyrcanus, managed to escape death. For Cross, the Essenes were criticizing the Maccabees, which is not surprising, since the Essenes may have left Jerusalem to go to the desert on account of their disapproval of the Maccabees.

4. On page 345, in "A Note on the Study of Apocalyptic Origins", Cross concisely explains the difference between prophecy and apocalyptic: "The old songs of the wars of Yahweh were transformed into eschatological songs of imminent war in which Yahweh's universal rule would be established."

Good book!

Rest and Aimlessness

At church this morning, the pastor preached about Matthew 11:28-30, in which Jesus exhorts those with heavy burdens to come to him for rest and to take his easy yoke upon them, and they will find rest for their souls. The pastor opened his message with a story about the philosopher John Stuart Mill. In his autobiography, Mill talks about his childhood. His father, recognizing that Mill was gifted, tried to cram Mill's head with information. But, because Mill's father did not have a religious background, he did not teach his son about religion. Mill relates that he felt as if he had a lot of facts, but that his soul was starving. In his eyes, he had a well-equipped ship that was going nowhere.

The pastor also quoted baseball player Yogi Berra, who remarked that, if you don't know where you are going, you will not get there. The pastor talked about how Christ gives meaning to aimless lives. The pastor tried to tie this into repentance, probably because repentance was an essential element of Jesus' message, plus Jesus in Matthew 11:28-30 exhorts people to take on his yoke, which may relate to obeying Jesus. The pastor encouraged us to change the things that do not line up with God's will.

I identified with a lot of what I heard this morning. I can understand where Mill is coming from: Feeling as if he has a lot of information, but not enough nourishment for his soul. I have been reading and writing a lot about the historical-critical method of reading the Bible, and---although I believe that I have learned things that are true and interesting---I have not found lasting nourishment of the soul from that. But I don't think that reverting to conservative Christianity will nourish my soul, for I did not feel all that fulfilled as a conservative Christian. I could not find the inspiration from the Bible and Christian doctrines the way that other conservative Christians I knew did. Nowadays, I don't worry as much about being inspired on a continual basis, but I do feel that I receive nourishment: from meetings I attend, from church, from movies and television programs, from books, from life, etc. And I trust that God loves me, even when I don't feel inspired.

Yogi Berra's quote got me thinking. When I worked at my school's library, a co-worker told me that he didn't understand the pressure on young people to figure out what they want to do with their lives, for his library job was something that came to him. I could identify with what he was saying. I've often felt pressure to know exactly what I want to do with my life. And there is not an age-limit on confusion over this issue. I was once talking to a guidance counselor, and he said that he didn't know what he wanted to be when he grew up!

At the same time, I think it's important to have a plan, to be going somewhere. For part of my academic career, I had a hard time coming up with a plan. I just went from school to school, taking classes. I heard that getting an academic position was difficult. I didn't really fit in with my colleagues, wherever I went, so I did not think that I had a strong network that could help me. I wondered if I should even try to get an academic position, or if I should get a degree that I did not use for any vocation. I felt somewhat aimless.

But, now that I've passed my comprehensive examinations (I found out about this last week), I have more of a goal. I need to start developing a plan for my dissertation, but I also hope to start writing book reviews to get some publication experience. Then, I can develop my CV and hopefully get a job, perhaps an adjunct position. Knowing where I am trying to get, and developing strategies to get there, can give me some peace of mind.

As far as repentance goes, I've never really found Jesus' yoke to be light---at least if it is defined the way many Christians have defined it: to be an extrovert who fits into communities and reaches out to people in love and service, proclaiming the Gospel. I think it's good for me to grow from where I am and to become more extroverted---while preserving the strengths of my own introverted personality. But I've pretty much had it with performance-based religion: religion that is about me looking at my performance and evaluating how I am doing, then seeking to change as I pull myself up by my own boot-straps. Or perhaps my problem is more with how repentance is presented: if I'm given a better way to look at life, and manageable steps that I am able to take to become better, then I don't mind that. But when I'm told that God wants me to change right now so as to appease him, I tend to shy away from that. Such an approach hasn't produced good fruit in my life over the years.

I enjoyed this morning's service. I liked something else that the pastor said: that when he preaches, he's often preaching to himself!

Cross: Baalism, Priestly Rivalry, Tenting

I'm still reading Frank Moore Cross' Canaanite Myth and Hebrew Epic. I have three items for today:

1. In "Yahweh and Baal", Cross talks about Elijah's stand against Baal worship in the ninth century B.C.E. Israelite Yahwism had long absorbed elements of Baalism, as YHWH, like Baal, was associated with thunder and warfare (e.g., Sinai, Psalm 29, etc.). But, by the ninth century, "the religion of Yahweh began to give way to the popular cult of Ba'l", and "Mythical elements in the old language of the Yahwistic tradition were no longer harmless, but were used as conduits through which to introduce the full, sophisticated mythology of Canaanite Ba'l" (page 191). The danger, for Cross, was that Yahweh would become an ordinary member in the Canaanite pantheon. Cross does not explain what he means by this. Perhaps he is saying that the Israelites would consider both YHWH and Baal as members of the pantheon, rather than exalting YHWH alone. Or Cross may think that the Israelites were bringing YHWH down to the level of Baal, who was not the highest deity in the Canaanite pantheon, but was an underling to El. In this particular chapter, Cross points out that El ruled with Baal at his right hand, that Baal was an intercessor before El, and that Baal's place---Mount Zaphon---was not a place where final and authoritative decrees were made. El was higher than Baal in authority.

Cross presents a scenario in which YHWH shed Baalist characteristics and reaffirmed elements of El, which may have reflected an attempt to solidify YHWH's identification with El, the highest god. In I Kings 19, which Cross appears to date to the ninth century (page 166), Elijah is at Mount Horeb and beholds a thunderstorm and the shattering of rocks. But the text denies that YHWH was in the thunderstorm, and it affirms instead that YHWH was in a still, small voice. Here, YHWH is being divorced from the thunder---which was an aspect of Baalism that YHWH absorbed---and he is identified with words or judgment, which was the domain of El. Whereas Baal spoke through a storm, El arrived at decisions at the divine council, and he communicated his will to humanity through dreams or visitations. In I Kings 22, there is a focus on YHWH's role of decision-making in the divine council, and so there seems to be a move to highlight YHWH's similarity to El. For Cross, I Kings 19 is interacting with the Sinai tradition in Exodus 33-34, for Elijah resembles Moses in those chapters (i.e., Elijah hides in a rock, like Moses). But the message of I Kings 19 is that God no longer is present in storms, as he was at the Sinai revelation. Rather, he decides issues in a divine council and communicates his will through prophets.

2. In "The Priestly Houses of Early Israel", Cross talks about Julius Wellhausen's linear scenario regarding the priesthood, as well as rivalries among priests, which are reflected in biblical stories. Wellhausen posits three stages of Israelite priesthood. First, there was the early age, which lacked a fixed, hereditary priesthood. Second, during the time of the monarchy, the Levites emerged as the dominant priests in Jerusalem. Third, during the post-exilic period, the Levites were subordinate to the Aaronides.

Unlike Wellhausen, Cross believes that the Aaronides were a significant factor in Israel's monarchic period, for he thinks that David made the odd move of appointing two high priests---Zadok and the Shilohite priest Abiathar---in order to appease different priestly factions, namely, the Aaronides and the Mushites. Consequently, Cross maintains that Zadok was an Aaronide rather than a pagan priest from Canaanite Jerusalem (as some have argued). Similarly, Cross affirms that Jeroboam made the same sort of move when he recognized the sanctuaries at Bethel and Dan. Bethel was an Aaronide sanctuary, for Judges 20:26-28 places Phinehas the Aaronide in Bethel, plus the Golden Calf story in Exodus 32 appears to concern the Bethel sanctuary (according to Cross and others), and it associates Aaron with that cult. But Dan was a Mushite sanctuary because Judges 18:30 connects it with "Jonathan son of Gershom son of Moses."

That forms a bridge to the next issue in this chapter: the polemics among the priests. There is a tradition that Moses was the founder of the priestly order, for, in Exodus 33:7-11, "Moses and Joshua act as priests in the Tent of Meeting in violation of all the Priestly law" (page 197), plus Deuteronomy 33:8 appears to say that Moses should receive the Urim and the Thumim. But there are other traditions in which Aaron is upheld as the high priest. And the adherents of the traditions take jabs at each other. Cross believes that Moses was closely associated with the Midianites, for traditions to that effect persisted in the Hebrew Bible, notwithstanding times when the Midianites were stigmatized, showing that such traditions about Moses were old and well-established. Numbers 25 has a story that condemns Israelite intermarriage with the Midianites, depicts Moses as inept against Israelite apostasy, and presents the Aaronide Phinehas as the hero of the story. For Cross, this story is criticizing Moses and his closeness with the Midianites, even as it exalts the Aaronides. But Numbers 12 upholds the authority of Moses against criticisms by Midian and Aaron of his intermarriage with a Cushite, which Cross interprets as a Midianite. In this story, Moses is defended against detractors.

3. Cross discusses the Hebrew words sh-k-n (to "tent") and y-sh-b (to "dwell") on pages 245-246. I do not entirely understand this discussion, but I will do my best in writing about it. Cross is talking about II Samuel 7, in which David desires to build God a house in which God could dwell, but God does not want him to do so. YHWH says through Nathan that he does not want to dwell in a house, for he moved about in a tent. Sh-k-n in places is used to describe God's imminence in his tent shrine, and P uses that word to "designate the presence of the transcendent god in his sanctuary." Deuteronomy, however, uses sh-k-n for God's name in the sanctuary, not God himself---and Cross points out that the Jerusalem Amarna letters (from the Late Bronze Period) have the same sort of idiom.

Cross' argument appears to be that there was a distinction between sh-k-n and y-sh-b, but that there are other places where the two words are parallel and similar in meaning, and where y-sh-b relates to God sitting on his throne. Cross says that the two words were parallel in meaning during the time that the oracle in II Samuel 7:5ff. was composed.

I do not know where exactly Cross is going with this. But I am reminded of John Van Seters' argument that all of II Samuel 7 is Deuteronomistic, whereas many (including Cross) argue that only parts are. The Deuteronomist did not believe that God dwelt in a sanctuary, and, in II Samuel 7:5-6, God disagrees with David building him a house in which he could dwell, hearkening back to the days when he roamed about freely, in a tent.

Psalm 31

For my weekly quiet time this week, I will blog about Psalm 31 and its interpreters.

Jesus in Luke 23:46 quotes Psalm 31:5 on the cross: "Into your hands I commit my spirit." The fourth century Antiochian Christian exegete, Theodore of Mopsuestia, holds that this verse was not a direct prophecy about Jesus, but was still suitable for Jesus' passion. Indeed, even conservative Christian exegetes whom I read or heard maintain that the Psalm was originally about David's flight from King Saul. The Jewish exegete Rashi does so as well. Psalm 31: 13, 18 talks about slander against the Psalmist, and Rashi interprets those verses in light of I Samuel 24:9, which refers to people who were telling Saul that David was seeking to harm him. Psalm 31:32 affirms that God showed the Psalmist kindness in a strong city. Rashi interprets that city as Keilah, where David receives a temporary reprieve from Saul (I Samuel 23), whereas conservative scholars Keil-Delitzsch say that the city was Ziklag.

In this scenario, when the Psalmist commits his spirit to God in Psalm 31:5, he may not be asking God to resurrect him after his enemies kill him, as Jesus was. Rather, he is entrusting his life to God, in hope that God will preserve it. In Psalm 31:15-17, the Psalmist asks God for deliverance, and he requests that his enemies be put to shame and become silent in Sheol, a place of silence (Psalm 94:17; 115:17). Slander has hurt the Psalmist, and the Psalmist wants those who slander him to go to a place where their words can do no damage: Sheol, the realm of the dead. The Psalmist desires life for himself, but death for his enemies.

The Psalmist feels as if he is in a situation in which his enemies are trying to trap him in a net (and nets were used in the ancient Near East to capture prisoners-of-war). Rather than being in his position of stress, in which he feels cut off from God, the Psalmist wants God to place him in a broad place---a place that has lots of room.

The Psalmist vacillates between hope and despair. He trusts that God has heard his supplication, and that God will lead him and guide him for the sake of God's name. There are times in this Psalm when he even speaks of God's deliverance of him as a past event. But there are also times in this Psalm when he describes his suffering in detail and requests salvation from his troubles, as if they are still present to him. The Psalmist desires God's salvation and favor in this life, and that would encourage those who are faithful to God to maintain their hope. Even as he suffers, however, the Psalmist thinks that God hides those who trust in God in a secret place---safe from the pride of human beings and damaging tongues. The Psalmist believes that there is safety in his relationship with God. The Psalmist may also trust in God's sovereignty, for, in v 15, he affirms that his times are in God's hand.

Applying this Psalm to David's flight from Saul may run into a hurdle, however. In Psalm 31:10, the Psalmist says he is suffering on account of his iniquity. This is odd, for homileticists and interpreters have argued that the Psalms that concern David's flight from Saul do not talk about a sin on David's part, whereas the Psalms about David's flight from Absalom do mention the Psalmist's sin, for David realized that he was being punished for his sins regarding Bathsheba and Uriah. When David was fleeing from Saul, he could appeal to his own righteousness before God; when fleeing from Absalom, by contrast, he recognized his need for God's mercy---and he appealed to that in requesting deliverance. In the MT of Psalm 31:10, the Psalmist attributes his suffering to his iniquity, but the Septuagint renders the passage to mean that his strength has withered in his poverty. Christians who have viewed this Psalm as a prophecy about Jesus may prefer the Septuagint's reading, for they do not believe that Jesus suffered on account of his own sin. Jimmy Swaggart, however, goes with the MT and says that Jesus assumed our iniquity as his own---so it technically had become his iniquity.

Another significant issue may appear in Psalm 31:6, where the Psalmist says that he hates those who pay regard to vapors of emptiness, an expression that often refers to idols (Deuteronomy 32:21; I Kings 16:13; Jeremiah 8:19; 10:8; etc.). Why would David blast idolaters, when his main enemy was Saul, who (with all of his faults) was not an idolater? Perhaps David is saying that his goal is to defeat Israel's idolatrous foreign enemies---meaning that David is affirming that he is on the same page as God. But suppose the Psalm is about Jesus. Would Jesus hate idolaters, or any sinner, for that manner? Jesus died for idolaters!

Not surprisingly, biblical scholars have shied away from applying this Psalm to David, or to Jesus. Sigmund Mowinckel's approach to certain Psalms is often to relate them to Israel as a nation, which had oppressive foreign enemies that worshiped idols. Erhard Gerstenberger often prefers an exilic or post-exilic setting for Psalms, as Jews desire for God to deliver them from their idolatrous enemies. Earlier scholarship on the Psalms tended to read certain Psalms in light of the Hellenistic Period, when some pious Jews viewed Jews who were more open to Hellenism as idolaters.

I tend to believe that the Psalm is relevant to all sorts of situations, whatever its original Sitz im Leben may have been. Part of me, however, views this Psalm as rather naive, in its assumption that God always delivers the righteous from death in this life. God's apparent failure to do so may have been one reason that Psalms like Psalm 31 became applied to the afterlife---as that was upheld as the place where God would do justice, and where the righteous would finally have their broad place. St. Augustine even interprets the secret place of v 20 as the everlasting hidden place of the knowledge of God. Faithful people have trusted (or have tried to trust) that God is in control, notwithstanding death. And yet, Psalm 31 may be testimony to God's deliverance of people from death in this life, for why would such a Psalm exist if it had absolutely no grounding in reality?

Cross on the Merger, Jeroboam's Old-Time Religion, Myth, and History

I'm continuing my way through Frank Moore Cross' Canaanite Myth and Hebrew Epic. I have two items:

1. For my first item, I will talk about some things that Cross discusses on pages 72-75. Cross believes that, at an early date, ancient Israel identified YHWH with El. (On page 5, Cross, like Mark Smith, argues that Exodus 3 and 6 demonstrate that El and YHWH were initially distinct, until they were combined at some point, as deities were assimilated into other deities in the ancient Near East.) On what basis? First of all, El was popular in "the Semitic community in Sinai, the eastern delta of Egypt, and Seir", which are areas that have been associated with some version of the name YHWH, in either early poetry of the Hebrew Bible, or extra-biblical sources. Second, there had to be "some prior cultic unity" that bound together "people of Patriarchal stock and the disparate elements invading Canaan from the wilderness", for how else could there have occurred such a "rapid cultic unification of the diverse peoples who were bound into the twelve-tribe league around the shrine of the Ark of Yahweh" Tzebaot? Cross appears to believe that what drew these disparate peoples together was an identification of El with YHWH. Third, the earliest traditions of Israel present YHWH as one who is similar to El, for, like El, YHWH is judge in El's court (Psalm 82; 89:6-8), head of the Divine Council, and king (Exodus 15:18; Deuteronomy 33:15; Numbers 24:21). YHWH also has wisdom, age, and compassion, and is creator and father (Genesis 49:25; Deuteronomy 32:6). Fourth, the Tabernacle reflects "Canaanite models, and specifically the Tent of [El] and his cherubim throne."

Fifth, Jeroboam established a royal Yahwist chapel at a shrine of El, showing that Jeroboam identified the two with one another. Cross maintains that Jeroboam's shrine was Yahwistic, not in honor of another god. On what basis? First, Cross states that the Golden Calf story (which concerns the cult of Jeroboam) was originally in favor of Jeroboam's cult, for it presents the venerable Aaron making it, reciting a classic Yahwistic formula over it (this god brought Israel out of Egypt), proclaiming a feast to honor it, and referring to a miracle, namely, that the calf emerged from the fire. But this story was later edited to become a "polemic against the Bethel cultus and its Aaronid priesthood." Second, although I Kings 12:28 and Exodus 32:4 describe the god in the plural, Cross believes that the god was originally intended to be singular, for there is only one Golden Calf. Third, Jeroboam was vulnerable and did not want the Northern Israelites to leave him for the southern shrine, and so repudiating Yahweh (the god Israel was used to) in favor of a new god would not have served his interest. Rather, Jeroboam, in his own way, was promoting the old-time religion, as he picked a sanctuary that had a traditional connection with the patriarchs and used a bull iconography, which had "Aaronic connections." (Cross also states that David promoted the old-time religion, for, in constructing a Tent for worship---the Tabernacle described by P---David hearkened back to an earlier tent, as II Samuel 7:5ff. indicates, plus David honored the league sanctuary at Shiloh---in his "national shrine in Jerusalem"---and appointed a Mushite from Shiloh as a high priest.) Fourth, the Elijah-Elisha traditions, Amos, and I Kings 13-14 do not consider the Bethel cult to be idolatrous. Jeroboam's sin was "establishing a rival to the central sanctuary in Jerusalem", not idolatry. Cross' points are valid, in my opinion, but, at some point, the Calf was associated with idolatry, for Exodus 32:8 seems to suggest that the Israelites worshiped the Calf.

Cross states that Yahwism absorbed elements of patriarchal religion: "the tutelary deity or deities entered into an intimate relationship with a social group expressed in terms of kinship or covenant, established its justice, led its battles, guided its destiny." YHWH was "judge and war leader of the historical community", as was evident in his revelation of himself to the patriarch Moses, the Exodus, and the Conquest. Aspects of El that entered Israelite religion included God being the "high and eternal one", "creator of heaven and earth, [and] father of all."

2. Overall, Cross appears to accept the historicity of the Exodus and the Conquest. He disagrees with those who maintain that the Exodus and the Conquest were a historicization of the Canaanite myth of the god's battle against the chaotic sea, as well as Gerhard Von Rad, who disputes a historical Conquest and argues that Israel's wars were defensive, not offensive. Cross counters that holy war was practiced even by "pre-Yahwistic and non-Israelite peoples"---such as Moab, Edom, Ammon, Midian, and Qedar---so why not Israel (pages 88, 105)? Cross thinks that myth and history were blended in the cult, and that myth served to deepen the history. Cross also posits stages. At one point, myth predominated in the cult, as "primordial events of cosmogonic myth" were celebrated (page 143). Then, at the time of the tribal league, the focus was on Israel's history, which was combined with myth. With the monarchy came a shift back to myth---as the focus was on creation. But other things were emphasized as well: kingship, "the eternal decrees of God" and "the choosing of the house of David and Zion" (page 106). History was not totally tossed out the window, however, for there was still a ritual celebration of the Conquest. But that was transformed within the royal cult.

El the Patriarch

I started Frank Moore Cross' Canaanite Myth and Hebrew Epic. I'll start with a quote from pages 42-43 (but I'll spell El as "El", since I don't know how to put the marks over the name, as Cross does):

"We see El as the figure of the divine father. El cannot be described as a sky god like Anu, a storm god like Enlil or Zeus, a chthonic god like Nergal, or a grain god like Dagon. The one image of El that seems to tie all of his myths together is the patriarch. Unlike the great gods who represent the powers behind the phenomena of nature, El is in the first instance a social god. He is the primordial father of gods and men, sometimes stern, often compassionate, always wise in judgment.

"While he has taken on royal prerogatives and epithet, he stands closer to the patriarchal judge over the council of gods. He is at once father and ruler of the family of gods, functions brought together in the human sphere only in those societies which are organized in tribal leagues or in kingdoms where kinship survives as an organizing power in the society. He is a tent-dweller in many of his myths. His tent on the mount of assembly in the far north is the place of cosmic decisions. There are myths of monumental carousals where he appears to live in a palace, hekal, and live like a king. Such uneven layers of tradition in oral poetry should not occasion surprise."

I have two points, which this quote inspires:

1. Cross asserts that El was god of a tribal society or a society in which kinship was significant, for El is depicted as a patriarch. On page 12, Cross states that "an Amorite moving from northern Mesopotamia to Canaan would have no difficulty in identifying Amorite Il with Canaanite El..." For Cross, El became the god of the migrant Amorites, who probably emphasized kinship (and Cross associates the patriarchal migrations with the migration of Amorites from Mesopotamia to Canaan, a view that Thomas Thompson and John Van Seters have sought to refute). On page 48, Cross talks about the decline of the El cult in north Syria no later than the fourteenth century, as the cult of Ba'l-Haddu became increasingly popular. Cross affirms that "The cult of B'al, it seems, was more supportive of the institution of kingship and of an agricultural as opposed to a cattle-keeping economy." Again, El appears to be the god of pastoral nomads. But El could still survive in the religion of urban Syria---as a transcendent high god.

2. Cross talks about the diversity of traditions about El. For example, some traditions depict him as living in a tent, like a nomadic patriarch, while other traditions present him as a king living in a palace. There is also diversity on El's role as a warrior. In Ugaritic myths, Baal and Anat go out to battle while El remains at home seducing goddesses. In the narrative of Sakkunyaton, however, El is a mighty warrior---but his battle relates to theogony, "the story of the old gods, the natural pairs like Heaven and Earth, which stand behind the pantheon" (page 40).