Subscribe to the BASNY Newsletter

David

The Bible Among Ruins: Sodom, Israelite History and the Hebrew Bible

October 8, 2025
by Peter Feinman
Cosmic destruction of Sodom

The Bible Among Ruins:

Sodom, Israelite History and the Hebrew Bible

ASOR

November 20, 2025

Peter Feinman

feinmanp@ihare.org

 

What is the soul of the Western tradition? Argument. Socrates goes around Athens investigating the claims of the supposedly wise and finds that the people who claim to know things don’t. The Lord threatens to destroy Sodom for its alleged wickedness, but Abraham reproaches and bargains with Him — that for the sake of 10 righteous people He must not destroy the city.

In both traditions, Athens’s and Jerusalem’s, the lone dissenting voice is often the heroic one (“Our Vanishing Culture of Argument,” Bret Stephens, op-ed New York Times Sept. 16, 2025, print).

We here an example of the popular view of the Story of Sodom and Gomorrah. Of course, the very names “Sodom” and “Gomorrah” also are well known in American culture. Even “pillar of salt” is familiar. From Abraham’s dialog with God to the cosmic destruction of a city, this one short story has left an indelible mark in the American culture. These are examples of how names and events can become part of the cultural legacy to people who never even read the Bible.

“The Bible among ruins” is a phrase used by Dan Pioske in three connected books to examine the impact of physical ruins in the landscape in which Israel lived on its history and in writing Hebrew Bible. He focuses on ruins west of the Jordan River. One ruin which he does not include in his study is Sodom, its location still a matter of debate. It is generally located east of the Jordan River either at the south end of the Dead Sea or the north. This paper will address the possible impact of the ruins of Sodom regardless of its location on the writing of the Hebrew Bible and Israelite history even though no Israelites lived among those ruins and Israel did not exist when Sodom was destroyed.

As Pioske observes, biblical writers lived in a world that already was ancient. The lands familiar to them were full with the ruins from people who had lived up to two thousand years earlier. References to these ruins abound in the Hebrew Bible, attesting to widespread familiarity with the material remains by those who wrote the biblical texts. Never, however, do we find a single passage that expresses an interest in digging among these ruins to learn about those who lived there before. That does not mean stories were not told about the ruins the Israelite people encountered or heard about.

In this book, Pioske offers a study of ruination in the Hebrew Bible. Drawing on scholarship in biblical studies, archaeology, contemporary historical theory, and philosophy, he demonstrates how the ancient experience of ruins differed radically from that of the modern era. For biblical writers, ruins were connected to temporalities of memory, presence, and anticipation. Pioske’s book recreates the encounters with ruins as it was experienced during antiquity and shows how modern archaeological research has transformed how we read the Bible.

I propose to modify Pioske’s approach to divide ruins into two categories – the cosmic and the human. The human-caused ruins are the focus of Pioske’s study. They include such well-known sites as Shiloh which is included and Mount Nebo which is not. The ruin of former where the ark of Yahweh was located is attributed to the Philistines based on the biblical account. The latter where an altar to Yahweh was located at the burial site of Moses is attributed to Mesha based on the stele which bears his name. Two of the leading cosmic-caused ruins are Sodom and Jericho. This paper concerns the cultural legacy of the ruins of Sodom, location not known

The challenge is not to find Sodom. Instead is to understand how biblical writers used the physically real places including ruins to craft stories relevant to the times in which he and his audience lived. We are a story-telling species and the stories we tell have to be credible to the listeners. As Pioske points out with numerous examples from the Early Bronze Age, Middle Bronze Age, and Iron Age, there were physical places the ancient Israelites could see in the course of their daily lives crying out for explanations as to how that ruin came into existence. Pioske is more concerned with ruins from the time and place of Israel itself like Shiloh. However that does not mean the cultural landscape of Israel is restricted to the political landscape. The political landscape changed over time with conquests by Assyria, Babylonia, and Persia. Even before such conquests, in the Bronze Age, Israelites and Canaanites were aware of a world beyond the Jordan. Canaanites knew there was or had been a vibrant world east of the Jordan.

            Ruins need to be brought to life if a story is to be told. Otherwise an archaeology field report would be sufficient. Stories involve people. That means it is virtually impossible to prove the truth of the ruins stories of the Hebrew Bible. A second complication is that the stories were not composed to be physically literally true. They were not business contracts.

Even non-biblical stories may be politically derived. See Baal and the Politics of Poetry by Aaron Tugendhaft (London; New York: Routledge, Taylor & Francis Group, 2018). Biblical writing is political in nature, especially the stories. See Literature as Politics, Politics as Literature: Essays on the ancient Near East in honor of Peter Machinist edited by David S. Vanderhooft and Abraham Winitzer, (Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 2013).  They were not written as history, literature, or theology but about current events regardless of the time in which they were set. The stories, especially the ones we continue to tell today, are about the political world of the author.

To understand a story, one must put it in its political context. Therefore attempts to prove biblical stories physically literally true are as misguided as the efforts to prove them false also are. At the SBL conference last year, Tamara Cohn Eskenazi delivered the presidential address entitled “The Bible in Politics and Politics in the Bible,” subsequently published in JBL 144:1.

In the published version, she cited The Beginning of Politics: Power in the Biblical Book of Samuel by Moshe Halbertal and Stephen Holmes (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2017), In God’s Shadow: Politics in the Hebrew Bible by Michael Walzer (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2012) and an online course by Jacob L. Wright “The Bible’s Prehistory, Purpose, and Political Future,” (Coursera, first offered in 2014) among others. The point is well-taken. The stories of the Hebrew Bible should be understood in their political context. That means understanding the historical context. The question is not where is physical Sodom but where is cultural Sodom. With Sodom we have the opportunity to examine how a biblical writer crafted a story based on known place names to deliver political messages at the time of the writing.

            The quest to prove the truth of biblical stories has led to misguided efforts based on the presumption that the stories are meant to taken as physically literally true. The ongoing search for the ark on Mount Ararat is one leading example. The Mount Ebal Inscription discovered in 2019 is a more recent example. A third example included a presentation here at ASOR involving Sodom.

The specific ruin in question from the presentation is Tall el-Hammam. It was proposed that a meteor exploded at low altitude with the force of a ten megaton atomic bomb at an altitude of about one kilometer over the northeast corner of the Dead Sea. It obliterated all civilization in the 25-kilometer-wide circular plain that constitutes the “Middle Ghor.” A thriving city from Chalcolithic times to the Middle Bronze dominated the region as perhaps the largest city in the southern Levant. And then it was no more, conspicuously absent from the Middle Bronze Age Egyptian records of execration texts, Late Bronze Age conquest lists, and diplomatic correspondence. The researchers presented preliminary findings on the subject at the annual ASOR meeting in 2018.

Unlike most if not all other presentations at the ASOR conference, this one garnered media coverage. It did so because of words not mentioned in the presentation: Sodom and Gomorrah. As you might expect, the press coverage tended to focus on whether or not science had proved the biblical story true.

A fuller explanation appeared in Scientific Reports in September 2021: “A Tunguska sized airburst destroyed Tall el-Haman a Middle Bronze city in the Jordan Valley near the Dead Sea”. The parallels to the 1908 Siberian event was critical to the alleged Tall el-Hamman event. Over the next few years there were multiple revisions to the original article. Since that time the methodology, facts, and analyses of the presenters have been challenged over that comparison and the impact of the air burst. As a result the original article has been retracted by editors of Scientific Reports in April 2025, after the original version of this paper was written. So while the Siberian-parallel airburst hypothesis seems to have died, the issue of a suddenly ruined city remains.

It appears that goal of the presenters was to prove the Hebrew Bible physically literally true;

Then the LORD rained on Sodom and Gomorrah brimstone and fire from the LORD out of heaven; Genesis 19:24.

Gomorrah does not even appear in the heart of the story itself. To me that suggests that Gomorrah was an addition to the original story.  In other words, the story of Sodom in Gen. 18 and 19 can be considered a literary tell with multiple authors. To understand the story, each stratum needs to be understood within its own political context.

Archaeology is of limited value in the reconstruction of the stories. After all suppose one did find irrefutable evidence that Tell el-Hamman or some other city was Sodom, so what? That would not prove the identity of any of the biblical characters, the alleged dialogs, or any of the specific events. Ur existed but that does make the biblical stories of Ur physically literally true. Haran existed but that does not make the biblical stories of Haran physically literally true either. Closer to Israelite home, the same can be said for Hazor and Shiloh.

I propose here to present the original Sodom story before the supplemental strata were added. I am guided by the politics template previously discussed. The location of historical Sodom is secondary to the political message by the creator of the story set in a ruined city. There is a three-part process involved here.

  1. Oral Memory (shared) – This means people remember a place or event without any story being associated with it. People remember Pompeii/volcano and Titanic/iceberg without remembering any story. Once a story is set there, the audience would understand immediately what the end result is going to be. I shudder to think that people watching the movie Titanic needed spoiler alert warnings because they didn’t know what was going to happen. My reading of the story of Sodom is that the writer and the audience were familiar with the name “Sodom” and that there was a pre-Israelite story or memory associated with it: a flourishing city that was suddenly and dramatically destroyed.
  2. Oral Story (created) – At a specific time and place, someone decides to tell a story derived from the shared oral memory of a place. I propose the original story of Sodom is about events in the present of its creation set in the past. All nameless people in the telling would have been known to the audience. The proposed root story-line of from the beginning of Genesis 19 then would be something like this.
  3. There are two unnamed messengers of Yahweh – the audience would have known who in the present they were.
  4. Lot as king, sitting at the gate of the city, offers hospitality – the audience would have known who in the present he is.

From there it is all downhill for Lot.

  1. Lot is a weak king.
  2. Lot cannot control his men (the military).
  3. Lot cannot protect his people (the women).
  4. The two human messengers warn Lot that his city will be destroyed.
  5. The two human messengers offer Lot and his family safety.

The original story ends there.

One was not expected to play a guessing game trying to identify the people involved. The audience knows who Lot represents and knows that Lot is loser in this story of power politics.

Is it possible to identify the historical context in which the story of Sodom was first communicated? It is not warrior poetry (Poetic Heroes: Literary Commemorations of Warriors and Warrior Culture in the Early Biblical World, Mark Smith, Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 2014). It is not a savior judge story. It is not part of an extended narrative. There is no temple in the story. There is no Jerusalem in the story. The story functions in a context where there is one weak king of Israel and two messengers of Yahweh about to end his reign while offering to save him. I suggest the timeframe for the story is II Sam. 3-4, when David and Ishbaal clashed for the throne of Israel. It was the time of Joab, the warrior David could control, and Abner, the warrior Ishbaal could not control. It also was a time of messages being sent back and forth between the two camps. The story of Sodom suggests that David offered Ishbaal an olive branch before his untimely death.

This interpretation has multiple implications:

  1. the battle for the throne of Israel in II Sam 3-4 with multiple names and intrigues may indeed be a fairly reliable account what actually transpired. Histories of early Israel and the monarchy need to be pushed back to before the time of David and Solomon to the time of Saul and these eye witness accounts.
  2. what would become biblical writing existed in the time of the early monarchy starting in the time of Saul and certainly in the time immediately after his death
  3. stories may not be about the time in which they are situated. The story of Sodom should not be dated to the Patriarchal Age or the Middle Bronze Age in which it was set but to the time of David and Ishbaal when it was created.
  4. The original story of Sodom was pre-J and pre-Abram making it one of the earliest narrative prose stories. It occurred during the transition from warrior poetry and prose narratives about David’s rise to power. It is a primary source document from the 10th century BCE. There are multiple such stories from this transition period but Sodom is the only ruin story among them.
  5. Biblical writers could write physically literal (II Sam. 3-4) and symbolically or allegorically.

There any additional stories about Ishbaal expressed through the figure of Lot but they are outside the scope of this paper.

  1. Stories could be amended or supplemented. Gomorrah was not part of the original story. Lot’s wife was not part of the original story. Lot’s daughters were not part of the original story. Those writings occurred in other political contexts outside the scope of this presentation.

Abraham does not appear in the original story of the destruction of Sodom either. The genre has changed here. The story of Sodom may be considered a textual tel which can be excavated.

Sodom – legacy of a great Middle Bronze Age urban destruction

Story of Sodom – David and Ishbaal

Dialog between Abraham and God – performance by David and Abiathar as part of a larger royal ritual performed in Jerusalem

Supernatural Story of Sodom – Gomorrah, blindness, destruction, pillar of salt

Lot’s Daughters

Whereas the original story was a message between David and Ishbaal, the famed dialog was part of a royal performance performed at the capital. The story is not a primitive anthropomorphic relic from the primordial Israelite religion past. Quite the contrary, a real live flesh and blood human being was performing in the role of Yahweh.

He knew he was not Yahweh.

The audience knew he was not Yahweh.

But the audience believed the person spoke on behalf of Yahweh.

That means most likely the human performer was a priest, a priest of Yahweh.

In my opinion, the most logical candidate is Abiathar.

His performance provides a different spin to the dialog. Keeping in mind that the stories are political, the performance by an anti-Saulide priest of Yahweh prior to the story of the destruction of Ishbaal’s capital, makes the dialog about the lack of anyone righteous in the city extremely derogatory against Saulides. In fact, it represents a complete condemnation of the line. One should keep in mind the following exchange from 2 Samuel 16:5. 2:

5 When King David came to Bahurim, there came out a man of the family of the house of Saul, whose name was Shimei, the son of Gera; and as he came he cursed continually. 6 And he threw stones at David, and at all the servants of King David; and all the people and all the mighty men were on his right hand and on his left. 7 And Shimei said as he cursed, “Begone, begone, you man of blood, you worthless fellow! 8 The LORD has avenged upon you all the blood of the house of Saul, in whose place you have reigned; and the LORD has given the kingdom into the hand of your son Absalom. See, your ruin is on you; for you are a man of blood.”

This is a different kind of ruin. Power politics at the dawn of the Israelite monarchy was a blood sport. David was very proficient at it and we have the stories.

The House of David TV Series: A Biblical Political Op-ed Piece

March 4, 2025
by Peter Feinman

Move over Gilgamesh and Enkidu. Stand aside Hector and Achilles. The biblical O.K. Corral is back. The ultimate showdown at high noon has returned to the small screen. The “House of David” has premiered on Amazon Prime Video. It is part of the original faith-based programming that made “The Chosen” about the life of Jesus Christ one of the most successful crowdfunded television projects of all time.

“The sheer size of the audience is enormous” said Jon Erwin of Wonder Project who pitched “House of David” to Amazon and co-directed several of the first season’s eight episodes. The team behind “The Chosen” estimate more than 280 million unique viewers, a third of whom say they are not religious.

The series opens with a big scene: the battle between David and Goliath. In this version, Goliath pierces David with a spear only to have the bleeding young shepherd reach for a rock, a non-biblical incident.

For this show, pastors, historians, biblical, and rabbinical scholars were consulted for accuracy. Script writers were needed to put words into the mouths of adored figures. Snappy dialog is needed. New scenes to connect the dots are needed. Pseudo-Shakespeare is to be avoided. Some viewers of “The Chosen” may consider the changes blasphemous.

“The Streaming Rush to Turn Scripture into Scripts,” Annie Aguiar, The New York Times, March 2, 2025.

“’House of David’ Sets Giant Goliath against Bible Action Star Slinger,” Bryan Alexander, USA Today, March 3, 2025, posted in The Journal News

GOLIATH

The figure of Goliath is played by Martyn Ford. The “Mortal Kombat” star and MMA fighter stands 6-foot 8-inches tall. Not to worry. The heavily muscled actor has been digitally enhanced to be the requisite height of nine-feet nine-inches. A voice coach helped him down-play his British accent while in post-production his voice echoes with terrifying sound into a worthy bellow that intimated and terrified the entire army of Israel for forty days.

So what are the questions to be raised?

2 Samuel 21:19 And there was again war with the Philistines at Gob; and Elhanan the son of Jaareoregim, the Bethlehemite, slew Goliath the Gittite, the shaft of whose spear was like a weaver’s beam.

As it turns out there is another biblical version of the death of Goliath. Here it is one of David’s warriors who does the deed and slays Goliath. Many people have twisted themselves in knots trying to reconcile these two versions of the death of Goliath.

Fortunately, there is a straightforward answer that may upset those who take the Hebrew Bible as physically literally true. In the biblical story itself, the Philistine is rarely referred to by the name “Goliath,” in fact, only twice (RSV). Otherwise he is simply designated as the/this Philistine throughout the 58-verse story. Even in the actual showdown, David does not refer to him by name. The resolution to this apparent dilemma is that in the original version, the Philistine warrior was unnamed. The name “Goliath” was later inserted into the story but the historical Goliath was not David’s foe. The historical Goliath had been dispatched by one of David’s own warriors.

There are two key points to recognize here:

1. the original author knew that David had not killed Goliath but so what? He was not writing a biography or history of David, he was writing a story.

2. the original author knew that no Philistine was nearly 10-feet tall. The author chose to make the Philistine warrior that height.

In other words, the author has created a monster. He has transposed a mythical figure from a story of cosmos and chaos and situated him in an historical setting. The Philistine is nameless because this is a story where the hero slays the dreaded foe. In this case the Philistine giant represents all the Philistine warriors who have threatened the Israelites. He is no more real than Uncle Sam or the Russian bear. The audience knows the monster has to be slain, that the Philistine threat has to be eliminated. They are looking for the hero to do so.

THE RIGHT STUFF TO GO INTO THE ARENA

Normally, one would expect the king to go forth into battle to vanquish the enemy. It would be no surprise if the king was the one who ventured forth. But the king is old here and past his prime. He needs someone else to go forth. For me this is a clue that the original story was told after Saul had died in battle against the Philistines. The account in I Sam. 31 seems quite realistic in its depiction of the Battle of Gilboa where the Israelite king is stripped of his armor and decapitated.

The next choice to face the Philistine warrior would be Jonathan, the son of Saul. Jonathan was a warrior of some repute who had his own victories against the Philistines at Geba (I Sam 13) and Michmash (I Sam 14) again in stories that seem realistic. Jonathan too dies in the battle at Gilboa against the Philistines. When David hears the news he laments their deaths, a lament that is to be written down and taught.

 2 Samuel 1:17 And David lamented with this lamentation over Saul and Jonathan his son, 18 and he said it should be taught to the people of Judah; behold, it is written in the Book of Jashar. He said:

19 “Thy glory, O Israel, is slain upon thy high places! How are the mighty fallen!

20 Tell it not in Gath, publish it not in the streets of Ashkelon; lest the daughters of the Philistines rejoice, lest the daughters of the uncircumcised exult.

21 “Ye mountains of Gilboa, let there be no dew or rain upon you, nor upsurging of the deep! For there the shield of the mighty was defiled, the shield of Saul, not anointed with oil.

22 “From the blood of the slain, from the fat of the mighty, the bow of Jonathan turned not back, and the sword of Saul returned not empty.

23 “Saul and Jonathan, beloved and lovely! In life and in death they were not divided; they were swifter than eagles, they were stronger than lions.

24 “Ye daughters of Israel, weep over Saul, who clothed you daintily in scarlet, who put ornaments of gold upon your apparel.

25 “How are the mighty fallen in the midst of the battle! “Jonathan lies slain upon thy high places.

26 I am distressed for you, my brother Jonathan; very pleasant have you been to me; your love to me was wonderful, passing the love of women.

27 “How are the mighty fallen, and the weapons of war perished!”

Jonathan was a hero in his own right. Yet he does not appear in the story of David and the Philistine warrior. For me this is a clue that the original story was told after Jonathan had died in battle against the Philistines.

Finally, there is a third son of Saul who deserves to be mentioned, Ishbaal (various spellings). He has no stories to tell of battles he has won. He does not appear in the story of David and the Philistine warrior. His appearances in II Sam. 2-4 describing his conflict with David. He is a weak king who fears Abner, his military leader. Ishbaal is murdered in his sleep and is decapitated. I don’t know how many of these decapitations will be shown in the TV series. In any event, there is war between Ishbaal, king of Israel, and David, king of Judah Hebron.

I suggest the story of David and the Philistine warrior should be situated in exactly this time when Israel including the aforementioned Abner has to choose between David, a military warrior and hero, and Ishbaal, a weak ruler. The author of this story of David and the Philistine warrior presents the case that David is the better choice. He is not writing history or composing a biography. He is not writing literature or theology although he is skilled in those areas. He is telling a story of David and the Philistine monster representing the Philistines who have terrorized all Israel that David is the superior choice to be king of Israel. He even has David use a sling, a weapon of Saul and the tribe of Benjamin, to deliver the message

1 Samuel 17:45 Then David said to the Philistine, “You come to me with a sword and with a spear and with a javelin; but I come to you in the name of the LORD of hosts, the God of the armies of Israel, whom you have defied. 46 This day the LORD will deliver you into my hand, and I will strike you down, and cut off your head; and I will give the dead bodies of the host of the Philistines this day to the birds of the air and to the wild beasts of the earth; that all the earth may know that there is a God in Israel, 47 and that all this assembly may know that the LORD saves not with sword and spear; for the battle is the LORDS and he will give you into our hand.”

This is great writing from someone 3000 years ago from someone who had front row seats to the conflict between Ishbaal and David and who wrote one of the earliest political op-ed pieces in history.

King David Did Not Have Immunity: “Thou art the man!”

April 30, 2024
by Peter Feinman
https://www.alamy.com/stock-photo/david-nathan-bible.html?blackwhite=1&sortBy=relevant

The story of David and Nathan is one of the most dramatic in the Hebrew Bible. Even as one reads the words, one can see the figures in one’s mind. There is no mention of Nathan extending his arm in the direction of David, yet we see it. There is no mention of Nathan pointing a finger at David, yet we see it. There is no mention of David’s physical reaction to the words and gestures of Nathan, yet we see it. Only when Nathan is telling his parable, does the storyteller mention an emotion, the anger of David. The story teller leaves it to our imagination to visualize David’s appearance after Nathan’s exclamation.

This story exemplifies the oral nature of biblical storytelling. It cries out for a physical performance. Undoubtedly, that was how most Israelites originally experienced the story – not read silently alone but as a public display. The op-ed pieces of yesteryear were performed in ancient Israel.

One key ingredient in the story is frequently overlooked. It is not the historicity of the story but its believability. There is no sense in the story that it lacks validity. The story is not one of science fiction, fantasy, or even dreams. It is a presented as a real world event that the audience easily could believe as true. There is no surprise in the display of truth to power. There is no sense that it defies all credulity that someone could call the king to task. There is no astonishment about the actions of Nathan. The only uncertainty is in the reaction of the accused.

That credibility extends beyond the prophet denouncing the action of the king to his face. Just as Nathan’s declaration garners no surprise, neither does David’s reaction. The king’s repentance is presented in just as routine a manner as Nathan’s charge. As far as the audience is concerned, it is expected that a prophet would call a king to task. It is equally expected that the king would respond positively when he heard the words of the prophet and repent his wrongdoings.

In ancient Israel, the word of someone sent by the Lord trumped the power of the king. Part of the uniqueness of ancient Israel was the belief that an individual, or at least a prophet, could confront the king. Can you imagine someone standing before Sargon the Great and bellowing “Thou art the man!”? How about before Hammurabi? Sargon II? How about before Pharaoh? With Pharaoh, it actually is easier to imagine. There is a major story from the ancient Near East precisely involving a person sent by the Lord to exclaim “Thou art the man!” The person is Moses, the prophet of prophets in the biblical tradition.

The origin story of Israel in history and celebrated to this very day involves an individual confronting a person in power. Time and time again, the Israelite tradition told the story the prophet challenging the power of the king in the name of the Lord. Such occurrences were not isolated incidents but part of an ongoing pattern:

Samuel against Saul
Nathan against David
Ahijah against Rehoboam and Jeroboam
Elijah against Omri and Jezebel.

The independence of the prophet reaches a point where a king can even make of fun of it while not ignoring it:

1 Kings 22:8 And the king of Israel said to Jehoshaphat, “There is yet one man by whom we may inquire of the LORD, Micaiah the son of Imlah; but I hate him, for he never prophesies good concerning me, but evil.”

So how is that Israel was so different? Was it something in the water? Did the landscape or ecology render Israel different? Did Canaanite kings act the same way only we do not have their stories? The obvious answer is “no.” The difference is a cultural one that needs to be understood within Israel’s history. Can you imagine Russia or China televising to the world a direct challenge to a nominee of the political leader of those countries? The idea is absurd. On the other hand, the United States was born in a declaration levied against a king who was compared to a Pharaoh. Truth to power is in the American DNA.

What about ancient Israel? What is it in the history and culture of ancient Israel whereby a prophet could challenge a king and a king was expected to adhere to the word of God expressed through this non-royal person?

And as with the story of Nathan and David, the idea itself of Moses challenging Pharaoh is presented as a believable part of the story. It is not a miracle that he stood before Pharaoh. It is presented to the audience as something which could occur. But how in the real world could anyone do that? There is nothing in the Egyptian cultural construct that suggests such a challenge was possible. The Egyptian tradition despised the hot head, it did not make a hero of one who waxed hot with anger before king. When Sinuhe returned to Egypt from the land of Canaan is was to be reunited with Pharaoh so he could die and be buried as an Egyptian. That was the Egyptian ideal. Israel’s version was quite different. It was legitimate to challenge the authority of the king who had abused his power.

Moses, too, could be held accountable. He did have immunity. Instead he wandered in the wilderness until he died. He only glimpsed the Promised Land (remember the final scene with Charlton Heston).

So too, Israel had to wander in the wilderness. The people of the covenant were not above the law either.

Israel and the United States share a tradition where no one is above the law. Not Moses, not the King, not the people, not the President, not no one. At least until now.

 

 

 

“Exodus, Conquest, and the Alchemy of Memory” by Ron Hendel

October 25, 2022
by Peter Feinman

The contribution “Exodus, Conquest, and the Alchemy of Memory” by Ron Hendel to the new book Biblical and Ancient Near Eastern Studies in Honor of P. Kyle McCarter obviously is about the Exodus. Ron and I were contributors to the recent book of Five Views the Exodus (Jamzen, 2021). Much of what he and I wrote there also is in his contribution here and in my book The Exodus: An Egyptian Experience.

The format of that book was unusual. Each contributor submitted at 10,000-word article. Then each of the other four contributors wrote a 2,000-word response to each of the other four contributions. Finally, the original author wrote a 1500 word rejoinder. So each contribution consisted of a 10,000 article, four 2,000-word comments, and a 1,500 word response for 19,500 words in total. I think the attempt was for teachers to have a single book with multiple views with authors in conversation with each other. Naturally, no one changed anyone else’s mind.

Here, Hendel opens with a critique of William Foxwell Albright’s biblical methodology (107-110). The criticisms are of Albright’s conflation of literary realism of his reconstituted Bible with historical referentiality. One should note that Albright is better known for his analysis on the historicity of the Patriarchs and the Conquest than he is for the Exodus.

Hendel then shifts to the concept of cultural memory (110-113), a favorite of his for several years which he has written about in multiple studies as he acknowledges. He refers to how a people chose to remember something in terms of present relevance. The term “memnohistory” is critical here. Cultural memories are always being contested, negotiated, and revised. Instead of seeking what actually happened, the effort is to understand how the past is remembered. The work of Jan Assmann is cited here.

I note in passing the current brouhaha in the field of American history over the column in the summer newsletter by the president of the American Historical Association on the topic of “presentism.”

Hendel states:

I will argue that biblical traditions of exodus and conquest emerged in the context of the crystallization of Israel as a polity in the wake of the collapse of the Egyptian Empire. In historical terms, Israel was a successor state to Egyptian colonial rule (112).

Apparently a transformation of people from the abject condition of slavery to a new political-theological identity as the people of Yahweh did occur. The challenge, then, is to disentangle the folklore and history within the reconfigured memories of Egyptian bondage and deliverance.

Hendel engages specific biblical verses and traditions to illustrate the poetics of memory (113-117). These include:

1. The hardening of the heart (Ex.10:1-2) – “Yahweh’s deep motive for the dramatic sequence of heart, is to produce the material for a great story of deliverance from Egypt, which will become a cultural memory for all the generations of Israel” (114). True, but what is missing is how the memory of the mythic confrontation between Yahweh the Destroyer and Sekhmet, the goddess of plagues from the historical Exodus became part of the legacy through which J could craft this new tradition about the knowledge of Yahweh and Israel as the people of Yahweh (see the earlier blog on “Yahweh, the Destroyer” and the Exodus by Heath Dewrell).

2. What Rahab Knew (Josh. 2:9-11) – Hendel observes that the language of Rahab draws on the Song of the Sea (Ex.15). “The Canaanites’ collective response to the exodus and the intertextual quality of Rahab’s speech are striking features of poetic memory” (115). He recognizes that Rahab rightly perceives the conquest about to unfold in the Book of Joshua replicates what already has transpired in the exodus with the Jordan River replacing the Exodus Sea: “It is a collective memory whose fearsome power effects its own renewal and re-representation in the events of the conquest” (117).

Hendel stops his analysis there. Who is the person who made these connections? Who is the person who made this new collective memory? Who is the person who linked the going forth from Egypt with the conquest of the land of Canaan? Since Hendel rejects a Moses-led Exodus against the will of Ramses, it is no surprise that he does not venture to speculate on the identity of who (meaning what king) renegotiated the memory of the Exodus and presented himself as fulfilling at Zion what Moses had envisioned at Sinai. How many choices are there?

Instead, Hendel turns to examining the meaning of the house of bondage (117-125). He is trying to thread the needle between the secular reality of a memory of the Exodus with the archaeological reality that no such event occurred. His solution is there was no Exodus from Egypt because the local Canaanites who would become Israelites already were in the land. Hence the movement going forth is not the key but the bondage is.

In this case, the answer is simple. The Egyptians ruled the land of Canaan throughout the Late Bronze Age. That rule “is the menohistorical background for the biblical depiction of the Egyptian house of bondage” (119). Hendel describes Egyptian imperialism based on Egyptian values where all Canaanites were abject slaves of Pharaoh. He provides examples from the Egyptian archaeological record attesting this perception by the people ruled in Canaan. He shows that the Canaanites endured forced labor on behalf of Pharaohs both in Egypt and in the land of Canaan.

Here is where Dan Fleming’s contribution to the McCarter book and Hendel’s work well together. Hendel has shown why the family of Jacob in the land of Canaan identified by Fleming naturally would ally with the people Israel of the Exodus from Egypt. At various times various scholars have proposed that there was a teeny-tiny exodus from Egypt and somehow those people managed to establish themselves in a leadership position in an expanded Israel including people in the land of Canaan who had not gone forth. Hendel has shown that the Canaanites who were slaves in Egypt (Manasseh) were connected to the slaves in Canaan in the family of Jacob. They probably were kin. But this avenue is not pursued by Hendel since he rejects the idea of a Moses-led Exodus against the will of Ramses.

Skipping head, Hendel declares the exodus and conquest stories were one of the ways that ancient Israel constituted its ethnic boundaries and fashioned itself as the people of Yahweh. The Israelites were the people who remembered the exodus as the narrative par excellence of their formation as a people and a polity. In the new cultural memory of the exodus-conquest, the Israelites entered the land together already a cohesive polity. He allows that some of this entity may even have been former slaves returning home as the Egyptian Empire collapsed. And then by “the magic of social alchemy” this mixed multitude of peoples, all of them, became slaves in Egypt who went forth in the Exodus (where did Moses come from?), wandered in the wilderness and participated in the conquest.

How did all this happen? My preference is to look for human agency. Pieces of a puzzle do not miraculously come together. There are people who unite or who attempt to unite disparate peoples. Narmer, Alexander the Great, the Founding Fathers. Such efforts are not always successful. Moses in the Exodus begins the story, David first at Hebron and then at Zion continues it. The Israel of Moses expanded in the land of Canaan. It now included the family of Jacob with its memory of slavery under Egyptian imperialism going to Hebron to join Israel. It now included the anti-Egyptian Shasu Calebites already at Hebron as part of the kingdom of Judah. It would soon include the Canaanite cities David conquered. The Jericho Hendel mentions story symbolized Yahweh’s rule over Canaan now the Kingdom of Israel through the collapse of walled cities and his walking the ark of Yahweh around the city of Jerusalem in a procession. Hendel is right to point out the occurrence of a revised memory of the Exodus. The next step is to realize that David is the first one who revised the memory when he was faced with the challenge of ruling as king over a multitude of people as the first person born in the land of Canaan to rule the land of Canaan.

Zelensky versus Putin: The May 9 Showdown

May 9, 2022
by Peter Feinman
David Slaying Goliath by Peter Paul Rubens (The Norton Simon Foundation )

Storytellers love stories of the stark clear-cut one-on-one showdown between the forces of light and the forces of darkness. The story we hear most now is the one between David and Goliath. While Putin and Zelensky will not meet physically in such a confrontation, they did meet cosmically on May 9, 2022 in the celebration of the victory of evil decades ago. The words and images also were weapons in the current war which convulses the land and wreaks havoc throughout the world. The current confrontation provides insight into the story that was told millennia ago and which is still relevant today.

1 Samuel 17:1 Now the Russians gathered their armies for battle; 3 And the Russians stood on the mountain on one side of the border, and the Ukrainians stood on the mountain on the other side of the border, with a border between them.  

MOSCOW, RUSSIA – MAY 09: Russian President Vladimir Putin is seen on the screen as he delivers a speech during 77th anniversary of the Victory Day in Red Square in Moscow, Russia on May 09, 2022. (Photo by Sefa Karacan/Anadolu Agency via Getty Images)

4 And there came out from the camp of the Russians a champion named Putin, of Moscow, whose height was six cubits and a span and who rode horses bare-chested. 5 He had a helmet of bronze on his head, and he was armed with a coat of mail, and the weight of the coat was five thousand shekels of bronze. 6 And he had greaves of bronze upon his legs, and a javelin of bronze slung between his shoulders. 7 And the shaft of his spear was like a weaver’s beam, and his spear’s head weighed six hundred shekels of iron; and his shield-bearer went before him. 8 He stood and shouted to the ranks of the Ukrainians, “Why have you come out to draw up for battle? Am I not a Russian, and are you not servants of me? Choose a man for yourselves, and let him come down to me. 9 If he is able to fight with me and kill me, then we will be your servants; but if I prevail against him and kill him, then you shall be our servants and serve us.” 10 And the Russian, “I defy the ranks of the Ukrainians this day; give me a man, that we may fight together.”

 

21 And the Ukrainians and the Russians drew up for battle, army against army. 23 As David talked with his brothers, behold, the champion, the Russian of Moscow, Putin by name, came up out of the ranks of the Philistines, and spoke the same words as before. And David heard him. 32 And Zelensky said, “Let no man’s heart fail because of Putin; I will go and fight with this Russian.”

 

33 And Trump said to Zelesnsky, “You are not able to go against this Russian to fight with him; for you are but a loser, and Putin has been a man of war from his youth and he is a savvy genius.” 37 And Zelensky said, “Yahweh who delivered the Ukrainians me from the paw of the Nazis and from the paw of the Communists, will deliver me from the hand of this Russian.” 38 Then Biden clothed Zelesnky with his armor; he put a helmet of bronze on his head, and clothed him with a coat of mail.

 

Ukrainian service member holds a Javelin missile system at a position on the front line in the north Kyiv region. Credit: Reuters Photo

40 Then David took his staff in his hand, and chose five Javelin smooth stones from the brook, and put them in his shepherd’s bag or wallet; his sling was in his hand, and he drew near to the Russian. 41 And the Russian came on and drew near to Zelensky with his shield-bearer in front of him. 42 And when Putin looked, and saw Zelensky, he disdained him; for he was weak and small.

43 And Putin said to Zelensky, “Am I a dog that you come to me with sticks?” And Putin cursed Zelensky his gods. 44 Putin said to Zelensky, “Come to me, and I will give your flesh to the birds of the air and to the beasts of the field.” 45 Then Zelensky said to Putin, “You come to me with a sword and with a spear and with a convoy of tanks; but I come to you in the name of freedom, Yahweh, the God whom you have defied. 46 This day Yahweh will deliver you into my hand, and I will strike you down, and cut off your head and your generals; and I will give the dead bodies of the host of the Russians this day to the birds of the air and to the wild beasts of the earth; that all the earth may know that there is a God in the Ukraine, 47 and that all this assembly may know that Yahweh saves not with sword and spear; for the battle is Yahweh’s and he will give you into our hand.” 48 When Putin arose and came and drew near to meet Zelensky, Zelensky ran quickly toward the battle line to meet the Russian. 49 And Zelesnky put his hand in his bag and took out his drones, his Javelins, his Stingers, and slung them, and struck Putin on his forehead; the stone sank into his forehead, and he fell on his face to the ground.

 

50 So Zelensky prevailed over Putin with a sling and with a stone, and struck the Russian, and killed him. 51 Then Zelensky ran and stood over the Russian army, and took his sword and drew it out of its sheath, and destroyed it, and cut off generals. When the Russian people finally saw that their army was defeated was dead, they rioted.

It is surprising how little the wording needed to be changed to tell this 21st-century version of the story.

Right now Putin does not know what to do.

The Ukrainian people did not welcome him.
He failed to take the capital.
His is failing to take the east.
His pride-and-joy ship sank.
He is depleting the Russian military so much that soon Poland and the Baltic States will be able to invade Russia instead of fearing an invasion by Russia.
He has strengthened NATO.
He has awakened the “arsenal of democracy” just as Japan did at Pearl Harbor.
His future is one of more and more pounding as the American arsenal becomes the Ukrainian arsenal.
At some point, even his generals will be able to read the handwriting on the wall.
He has no idea how to get out of the hole he has dug for himself so he just keeps digging.

It’s time for Joe Biden to send a special emissary to Moscow to find out what it will take to end this madness. It is time to send the Russian asset, the only American Putin trusts because he can dominate him. It is time to send Donald Trump to the Kremlin.

 

Will the Ukrainian Rope-a-Dope Work?

March 16, 2022
by Peter Feinman
Muhammad Ali and George Foreman during fight action in Zaire, Africa, Oct. 29, 1974. (ASSOCIATED PRESS)

We are a storytelling species. Since a picture is worth a thousand words and a meme can move political mountains, people have been trying out various words to depict the current invasion by Russia of the Ukraine.

DAVID and GOLIATH – By far the most frequent symbol used to describe the war has been the traditional biblical one of David and Goliath. This one routinely is used in a variety of encounters with one particular trait. It refers to a confrontation between two entities where one is very large and the other is very small. Typical examples have included start-up companies doing battle with Microsoft, Apple, and Google. Its use in legal and/or political battles is standard operating procedure.

In a David and Goliath struggle, which one would you rather be? Naturally, the answer should be David. After all, he wins. He wins rather decisively.

1 Samuel 17:48 When the Philistine arose and came and drew near to meet David, David ran quickly toward the battle line to meet the Philistine. 49 And David put his hand in his bag and took out a stone, and slung it, and struck the Philistine on his forehead; the stone sank into his forehead, and he fell on his face to the ground. 50 So David prevailed over the Philistine with a sling and with a stone, and struck the Philistine, and killed him; there was no sword in the hand of David. 51 Then David ran and stood over the Philistine, and took his sword and drew it out of its sheath, and killed him, and cut off his head with it. When the Philistines saw that their champion was dead, they fled.

As victories go, there is little room for doubt as to who emerged victorious.

One should note that David’s triumph was not that of one involving two sport’s teams. There is no returning to the battlefield for round two. In the battle against the unnamed Philistine warrior [for those interested in biblical exegesis], David’s victory means never again will the Philistine warrior threaten David or anyone else again. The significance of this result often is overlooked.

In a David and Goliath fight, not only do you want to be David, the final outcome really is a final outcome. In the current situation, this means that not only does the Ukraine successfully defend itself against Russia but that never again can Putin threaten its neighbor or any other neighbor. In human terms, this means Zelensky remains in power and Putin is removed from power. Whether Putin ends up dead like the Philistine warrior or simply imprisoned is secondary. The point is in a true David and Goliath confrontation, it is a fight to death where the larger one, meaning Putin, loses. Putin probably knows this which is why he will never stop on his own and will have to be stopped by others.

LEONIDAS AND XERXES

A similar scenario with a different ending appears in the Leonidas-Xerxes confrontation. On March 1, 2022, I asked, “Suppose Zelensky ends up being Leonidas and not David? (The State of the Putin Union: The Dr. Strangelove Scenario). My reference was to the famous story of Three Hundred Spartans versus Persia at Thermopylae. The story has been made into a couple of movies. Its counterparts in American cultural mythology have been Davy Crockett at the Alamo and George Custer at Little Bighorn. In Jewish tradition, it is Rome at Masada which has became a foundation story for the new Israeli nation in the 20th century. These battles share in common the concept of valiant heroic death by the few in face of a much more numerous enemy. It does make for great storytelling in its own right.

So here we have these two contrasting big versus small war stories. In one, the little guy wins and the big guy is vanquished. In the other, the reverse occurs, but the dead little guy still remains the hero for the courageous fight against insurmountable odds. On March 3, Zelensky provided his own take:

I don’t want Ukraine’s history to be a legend about 300 Spartans. I want peace.

Jewish Zelensky apparently prefers David to these other options.

SPARTACUS

Marina Ovsyannikova out of nowhere has become a worldwide phenomenon. She appeared unannounced and uninvited on the Russian counterpart to the American Foxhub cable network. As everyone including Putin now know, she stood behind an oblivious news announcer with a handmade sign. Her message was a direct repudiation of Putin’s war and Putin himself. Given that such public declarations are illegal and punishable by up to 15 years in prison, her action truly was brave.

Regardless of what ultimately happens to her, one suggestion is that she speaks for many others in Russia, perhaps millions who do not have the opportunity to be as brave as she was. In fact one American commentator compared her to the “I’m Spartacus” moment from Hollywood Spartacus, not historical Spartacus. Perhaps now others will stand with her. It is too early to tell if that analysis proves to be correct. It does highlight how we seek historical symbols to understand events in the present.

ROPE-A-DOPE

The term “rope-a-dope” originated due to a boxing strategy employed by Muhammad Ali in his Rumble in the Jungle fight in Kinshasa, Zaire, on October 29, 1974, against George Foreman, the heavyweight champion. In this boxing match, the more massive Foreman was the “Goliath” against the less powerful-looking challenger Ali better known for his dancing and poetry skills than sheer raw TKO power. In presidential terms, it looked like the earlier showdown between the experienced Nikita Khrushchev and the young inexperienced John Fitzgerald Kennedy or the later Mikhail Gorbachev versus the enfeebled Ronald Reagan.

The technique Ali employed has had more legs than David’s slingshot victory. It demands a practitioner to withstand a pounding by the more powerful combatant until at last, the hulking puncher tires himself and is himself beaten. The final result may seem shocking. How could the obviously-more-powerful figure collapses in exhaustion?

The parallel with the current war in the Ukraine is limited. Yes, Russia is the larger one. Yes, it is pounding the Ukraine while the latter is unable to attack Russia itself. The world watches in awe and horror as Russia pounds away at the smaller country. The difference is that Foreman played by the rules while Putin does not. Foreman did not hit below the belt; Putin targets civilians. He targets the very exemplars of a civilized world. He targets electricity, water, food, hospitals, and everything that enables people to function as a 21st-century country. So heroic as the Ukraine is in taking the pounding, there are legitimate concerns about how long Ukraine can withstand such a pounding. Muhammad Ali would not have last long if Foreman cheats the way Putin does now.

I have no comforting words with which to conclude this post. The story is still unfolding. We don’t know what the outcome will be. We really don’t know what is going on in Putin’s mind beyond that is evil and uncaring. We don’t know what the Russian people really want or can do about it. We don’t know how the soldiers on the field of battle feel about the “training maneuvers” actually be invaders against their Slavic brothers and sisters. At some point we will and my preference is that the David and Goliath relationship prevails.

Sometimes David wins (Sports Illustrated)

 

Child Sacrifice: The Bible and Covid

September 15, 2021
by Peter Feinman
Child sacrifice in Canaan to stave off defeat by Egypt

Child sacrifice is in the news. Not in those words, of course. Rather it is the willingness of various governors and parents to risk the lives of children rather than to vaccinate them. Sometimes, people hide behind the Bible as a way of claiming a religious objection. Such protestations are intended to cover-up the real reason or reasons whatever they may be. Still, it is worth examining some biblical stories to see how the issue of child sacrifice was handled in ancient times.

ABRAHAM AND ISAAC

One of the most famous stories involving child sacrifice occurs in the story of Abraham and Isaac (Gen. 22). This story of the binding of the son or Akedah is read yearly as part of the Rosh Hashanah holiday meaning last week. It is a powerful and emotionally gut-wrenching story. It lives on in storytelling and art and packs a punch. In my opinion, the story originally was performed before a live audience so whoever played the role of Abraham may be considered one of the great ancient actors. It is a role to die for.

In the story, God commands Abraham to sacrifice his only son in a burnt offering. The purpose here is not to provide an exegesis of the story. Instead, I simply note its existence in the canonical text. Spoiler alert: just in the nick of time a ram is discovered entangled in the thicket and is sacrificed instead. Scholars debate whether or not in the original story the son was sacrificed, how old he was at that time, and if the change involved legitimating temple sacrifice in Jerusalem since the event occurred at the future location of the ram sacrifice. My perspective is that the original audience witnessing the story was meant to be revolted by the prospect of the child sacrifice.

DAVID AND ABSALOM

The situation is a little clearer in the story of David and Absalom. According to the text (II Sam. 18:5), David instructs his commanders to go gently with his son and not to kill him. A few verses later, Absalom like the ram in the Abraham story, becomes entangled as well. This time it is his long hair in a tree. Shortly afterwards Joab dispatches Absalom with nary a thought about the command he had been given from David.  When messengers bring David the news, the king famously responds as one would have expected Abraham to have done if he had gone through with the child sacrifice: and as he went, he said, “O my son Absalom, my son, my son Absalom! Would I had died instead of you, O Absalom, my son, my son!” (II Sam. 18:33)

How is this a sacrifice as opposed to an execution of an opponent who rebelled against his king? Joab, of course, is person who arranged for Uriah, husband of Bathsheba, to be on the frontlines so he could be killed. He knew what David really wanted then and he fulfilled his role. The same happened here. This is not to say that David did not have great remorse over the way events unfolded. However, as with Abraham, David was willing to have his son die for a greater cause. In this case obedience to God meant preservation of the kingdom of Yahweh with his son David as king.

SOLOMON AND THE BABY

In this also famous story, Solomon displays his wisdom in threatening to cleave a baby in two and then not having too (I Kings 3). The situation arises due to the death of a child and two women claiming to be the mother of a living child coincidentally born at the same time. Solomon devises this test of splitting the living baby in half and having each claimant receive a half. The ruse leads to the real mother expressing her willingness to sacrifice her child, that is, give the child up to the false mother, for the sake of keeping the child alive. The fact that the story occurs just before the kingdom itself splits into two with each side claiming to be the true kingdom of God is another factor. By contrast today, anti-vaxx mothers are quite willing to play Russian roulette with both their own child and the children of others.

MESHA AND SON

The final example to be included in this blog involves a child sacrifice by a non-Israelite. In this situation, Jehoram, and son of Ahab, the king of Israel is waging a war against Moab (II Kings 3). At first the battle is going well for the Israelite king. He is on the brink of victory against Moab. Suddenly, in desperation, Mesha, the king of Moab, resorts to the ultimate counter move:

Then he took his eldest son who was to reign in his stead, and offered him for a burnt offering upon the wall. And there came great wrath upon Israel; and they withdrew from him and returned to their own land (II Kings 3:27).

The presumption is that he sacrificed his adult son much as Abraham was willing to do. According to the biblical text, the child sacrifice is successful. As a direct result of this action a divine wrath is visited upon the Israelite forces leading to their withdrawal from the land of Moab. The net result is that Israel lost and the Moabite rebellion succeeded.

Historically, there is one problem with this story. By chance, the Moabite version of the war with Israel has been discovered. According to the Mesha Stele, Moab did prevail in this war of rebellion after having been a vassal of the Israelite king Omri, the father of Ahab and grandfather of Jehoram. There is, however, no mention of a child sacrifice. Instead there is mention of Mesha having destroyed the sanctuary to Yahweh at Nebo. These references catch the eye of the biblical scholar since it is a Nebo where Moses was buried. To have a Moabite mention by name Yahweh, Israel, and Nebo is significant.

Since both versions attest the victory of Mesha over Israel, the scholarly consensus is that Mesha really did win. The defeated Israelite king needed an excuse to explain his loss. His explanation was the big lie: victory was stolen from him by this alleged act of child sacrifice by the enemy king. Otherwise, Israel would have won.

The presumption is that such an excuse for a defeat with resonate with the Israelite population. There would be no point to concocting such an explanation if the Israelite people would not have believed it. In this case, the biblical writer seems to have drawing on a Canaanite tradition. In the image shown above, the people of Ashkelon are facing defeat by Merneptah, the Pharaoh who claimed in this sequence to have destroyed the seed of Israel. They are shown dangling a child over the wall of the city. The consensus is that the act was the same as what Mesha supposedly would do centuries later: when the battle is not going well, the leader sacrifices his son to stave off defeat. The effort against Egypt was unsuccessful and the larger-than-life Pharaoh in effect mocks this gesture.

This raises the question of why the biblical writer thought the claim that Mesha sacrificed his son would work. After all, Mesha’s alleged sacrifice would be to Chemosh the Moabite god and not to Yahweh, the Israelite god. Does this mean that Chemosh is greater than Yahweh? Why should Jehoram expect that the claim that victory was stolen from him by Mesha drawing on a Canaanite tradition would be acceptable to an Israelite audience?

As it turns out, according to the biblical text Jehoram’s protestations failed as well. The prophet Elisha condemns him and his house. He commissions Jehu to lead a coup against the king. Jehu slays both the king and his mother Jezebel fulfilling prophecy.

“This is the word of Yahweh, which he spoke by his servant Elijah the Tishbite, `In the territory of Jezreel the dogs shall eat the flesh of Jezebel; and the corpse of Jezebel shall be as dung upon the face of the field in the territory of Jezreel, so that no one can say, This is Jezebel'” (II Kings 9:36-37).

The big lie about having victory stolen from the incumbent king due to a child sacrifice by his opponent did not end well for the loser and those associated with him.

What are the lessons to be learned from this partial review of biblical stories involving child sacrifice?

1. There is no biblical justification for not being vaccinated. Hiding behind the Bible is cowardly and dishonest.

2. Know your audience when promoting child sacrifice – why do you think gambling with the lives of children is a winning political move? The voice of the people in California like the voice of the prophet Elisha has been heard. People want the pandemic to end. Are Trumpicans listening?

3. Know your audience when explaining away defeat through the big lie – how many times can you tell the big lie before losing all credibility even to your own followers? After every election defeat? Even when by millions of votes?

What will the fate be for the candidate(s) of the big lie who are willing to sacrifice the children of voters?

He said, “Throw her [Jezebel] down.” So they threw her down; and some of her blood spattered on the wall and on the horses, and they trampled on her (II Kings 9:33).

The Gospel According to Rick Perry and the Rule of Law

December 5, 2019
by Peter Feinman
America Was Born with Articles of Impeachment (Photo Credit: istockphoto)

The Society of Biblical Literature (SBL) and the American Schools of Oriental Research (ASOR) held their annual conferences in San Diego the week before Thanksgiving. The Protestant Evangelical Institute of Biblical Research and the American Academy of Religion also met then. Nothing the approximately 10,000 in attendance said or did made the news.

The religious event which made the news was the Gospel according to Rick Perry as revealed through Fox News host Ed Henry to the world.

God’s used imperfect people all through history. King David wasn’t perfect, Saul wasn’t perfect, Solomon wasn’t perfect….And I actually gave the president a little one-pager on those Old Testament kings, about a month ago. And I shared it with him, I said, “Mr. President, I know there are people that say, y’know, ‘You said you were the chosen one.’” And, I said: “You were.” I said, “If you’re a believing Christian, you understand God’s plan for the people who rule and judge over us on this planet and our government.”

These words echo those of other Trumpicans:

Trump campaign manager Brad Parscale: “only God could deliver such a savior to our nation.”
Former White House press secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders: [God] “wanted Trump to become president.”
Secretary of State Mike Pompeo responding to interviewer Chris Mitchell’s query “Could it be that President Trump right now has been sort of raised for such a time as this, just like Queen Esther, to help save the Jewish people from an Iranian menace?” said: “As a Christian, I certainly believe that’s possible.”

So the Gospel according to Perry is not out of line with the core beliefs of his fellow worshipers.

By coincidence, my own paper during these conferences was “Political Texts of Terror in the Book of Judges.” The paper is about Saul and David and I mention Solomon once. Since Thanksgiving I have been asked by the editor of online The Bible and Interpretation to write an essay of 2,000-3,500 words on my paper for the general public.

With that background in mind, let’s turn to the kings mentioned by Perry.

SAUL

As I am sure Perry knows, Saul was the first person in Israel to be designated a “messiah” or anointed one.

Saul was a warrior; he was not a bonespur boy. He did not pick on women or children or people smaller than him. True he died in battle against the Philistines, but the point here was that fought in the real world against foes who could fight back.

Saul’s Deep State was the Levites represented by the prophet Samuel. He was there to present the law. While not exactly the Constitution, it did provide one key item: only the Levites, priests of Moses, could call Israel to war. Saul did not have the right to initiate a military confrontation without the blessing of Samuel. Scholars debate the historical relationship between the king and the prophet in ancient Israel. One should recognize, as surely Rick Perry does, that in ancient Israel there was a battle of over whether the king was constrained by the law or not. According to the pro-Samuel writers, Saul was bound by the law; according to the pro-Saul writers, Saul did nothing wrong when he acted on his own in the absence of Samuel. Who knew they had Fox and MSNBC in ancient times.

DAVID

David, too, was a warrior in the real world unlike Bonespur Boy. Unlike Saul, David remained successful at it throughout his life although he did have some close calls.

David also could write. He actually was a far greater writer than he is given credit for. He certainly was a far superior writer to the juvenile tweets and 3rd grade letter to Erdogan of Perry’s Lord and Savior, the Chosen One, Blessed Be His Name.

David had to deal with his own famous confrontation with the law. The incident in question is the Bathsheba one. During the incident, the prophet Nathan, from a different priesthood/political-faction than Samuel, said after telling a parable:

THOU ART THE MAN! (II Sam. 12:7 or Two Samuel if you are the chosen one).

Consider now what David did not say in response.

David did not say: “Fake News.”
David did not call Nathan a disloyal traitor.
David did not call Nathan human scum and an enemy of the people.
David did no disparage Nathan as “Little Nathan.”
David did not call Nathan a maniac and deranged human being.
David did not claim Nathan grew up with a complex for lots of reasons that are obvious.
David did denigrate Nathan as a very sick man who lies.

Note: Is it coincidence that Little Donne Waney himself fits his description of Schiff except for the size?

Quite the contrary, David replied that he had sinned before the Lord.

Hard to imagine Perry’s Lord and Savior, the Chosen One, Blessed Be His Name responding as David did.

SOLOMON

Solomon, of course, was not a warrior and is remembered as a builder of the temple among other things. Perhaps the most famous story about him occurs when two women claim to be the mother of the same child. Solomon famously adjudicates the dilemma with the following wisdom:

Kings 3:23 Then the king said, “The one says, `This is my son that is alive, and your son is dead’; and the other says, `No; but your son is dead, and my son is the living one.'” 24 And the king said, “Bring me a sword.” So a sword was brought before the king. 25 And the king said, “Divide the living child in two, and give half to the one, and half to the other.”

It’s not exactly Charlottesville with good people on both sides but it is close enough. The difference is that in the biblical story, Solomon’s pronouncement is a ruse to expose the fraudulent claim while in Charlottesville, the assertion was meant to be taken on face value.

It would be interesting to hear Rick Perry expound on his theological musings. What are the imperfections of Saul, David, and Solomon that he refers to? What did the three kings do in the face of these imperfections? What has Perry’s Chosen One done? I do not have the power to ask Rick Perry to comment. Perhaps someone reading this blog can inquire of him for me.

So which biblical figure is most like our current President? Back on March 19, 2018, I wrote
Is Donald Trump Our Rehoboam? – A Bible Penis Story. If you are interested in my opinion, check out that blog.

In the meantime, it is important to note the ancient Israelite tradition of truth to power even involving the king. There certainly was nothing like that in ancient Egypt. The only person who called Pharaoh to task was Moses and he had to leave Egypt after he did so. But that spirit came to define Israel.

There was nothing like that in ancient Mesopotamia either. There the prophets knew their place and to tell the king what he wanted to hear. Ancient Israel followed the Mesopotamian tradition up to a point. But in the end, Israel was different. Before going into battle even the king needed permission as Saul had not done.

1 Kings 22:5 And Jehoshaphat [the king of Judah] said to the king of Israel, “Inquire first for the word of the LORD.” 6 Then the king of Israel gathered the prophets together, about four hundred men, and said to them, “Shall I go to battle against Ramothgilead, or shall I forbear?” And they said, “Go up; for the Lord will give it into the hand of the king.” 7 But Jehoshaphat said, “Is there not here another prophet of the LORD of whom we may inquire?” 8 And the king of Israel said to Jehoshaphat, “There is yet one man by whom we may inquire of the LORD, Micaiah the son of Imlah; but I hate him, for he never prophesies good concerning me, but evil.” And Jehoshaphat said, “Let not the king say so.” 9 Then the king of Israel summoned an officer and said, “Bring quickly Micaiah the son of Imlah.”

In ancient Israel, they knew to trust not the yesmen who told the king what he wanted to hear but the one who did not. You need to have some adults in the White House!

That spirit of Moses lived on the creation of the United States. The Declaration of Independence was an impeachment of King George III. It is a legal document that indicted the king on multiple counts of an abuse of power. It was written by people who were disloyal traitors to the king and who compounded their disobedience by voting with their guns to remove King George III from power over them. Now we are engaged in battle to determine if the rule of law or a would-be King George will prevail. Where are Moses and David when you need them?

Covenant to Lady Liberty: An Idea and Political Identity

August 21, 2019
by Peter Feinman
Moses and the Covenant (https://www.imdb.com)

There is more to Moses than Charlton Heston. Ignore the theology. Ignore the special effects. Ignore Cecil B. DeMille. Instead focus on the political. Focus on the fact that when Israel emerged in history it did not have a king, it did not have a temple, it did not have a capital city. It was not a nomadic people. Yet somehow people still were able to identify themselves as Israel. What the people did have that no one else had was a covenant. While not exactly a Constitution, it did serve to define the people. Whereas our defining document begins with WE THE PEOPLE, Israel’s began with “Yahweh thy God took thee out of the land of Egypt (Ex. 20:2).

Pharaoh Merneptah (1212-1202 BCE), the son and successor to Ramses II, claimed to have destroyed the seed of Israel. When the Merneptah Stele was discovered in 1896 with these words, it caused quite a stir as you might imagine.

Merneptah Stele, Cairo Museum (Wikipedia)

Merneptah used an indentifier with the word “Israel” to indicate that Israel was a not a settled people as were the people of the Canaanites cities that Egypt had ruled for centuries. But they were not nomads in the land of Canaan either. So what were they?

Archaeologists have discovered hundreds of small unwalled settlements in the land of Canaan that date to this time. They are considered to be Israelite because realistically speaking who else could they be? Merneptah knew there was a people Israel there and they knew they were not a city-based people. So how did they maintain their identity?

The answer is the covenant renewal ceremony. They were united by an idea. Israel was not a people based on geography. It was not a people based on race. It was not a people based on ethnicity. It was a people based on an idea expressed in the covenant and later physically expressed in the Ark of the Covenant. Periodically, the people met (or at least the elders did) to renew that sense of identity. At first Israel did so at Mount Ebal as instructed by Moses (Deut. 11:29, 27:4, 13) and done by Joshua (Josh, 8:30-35). Archaeologists have discovered the altar used in the ceremonies but the consequences of admitting it are too much to accept.

The Altar at Mount Ebal (Biblical Archaeology Society)

After Mount Ebal, the covenant renewal ceremony relocated to Shiloh. Shiloh also served as a place for men to bring the unmarried women in their family to find mates (Judg. 21:19-23) much like the camp meetings in the early 1800s in the United States. The ark remained at Shiloh until it was captured by the Philistines.

Shiloh and the Capture of the Ark of the Covenant (Biblical Archaeology Society)

When David became king of all Israel, he continued this tradition of defining the people based on an idea. He brought the ark to Jerusalem, his new capital. Jerusalem, unlike with the founding of Washington, DC, had been enemy territory for centuries. Based on the archaeological record, Jerusalem had been a good vassal of Egypt during the more than three centuries of Egyptian rule in the land of Canaan.

Diplomatic Correspondence between Vassal Jerusalem and Egypt (Amarna Letters)

It is reasonable to conclude that Jerusalem like other vassal cities would have joined with Pharaoh Merneptah against the newcomer Israel. And according to the biblical account, Jerusalem organized a coalition against Israel (Josh. 10:1-5). In the biblical accounts of this time period, Jerusalem definitely is not part of Israel (Judg. 1:7-8, 21; 19:11-12).

Yet David makes the enemy city his capital. He installs the ark there (II Samuel 6). He buys land there from most likely the Jebusite king of the city and the Temple of Solomon would be built there (II Sam. 24:16-25; I Chr. 24:15-30; II Chr. 3:1). He does not massacre the Jebusite inhabitants of the city. Instead he welcomes them into his kingdom, his government, his family. Consider the words of Rahab the Canaanite, the female figure used to symbolize the Canaanite people who are now under the rule of David, King of Israel.

Joshua 2:10 For we have heard how Yahweh dried up the water of the Red Sea before you when you came out of Egypt, and what you did to the two kings of the Amorites that were beyond the Jordan, to Sihon and Og, whom you utterly destroyed.

Note that the Canaanites have heard what Yahweh has done. By contrast, the Israelites had seen what Yahweh had done.

Exodus 14:13 And Moses said to the people, “Fear not, stand firm, and see the salvation of Yahwweh, which he will work for you today; for the Egyptians whom you see today, you shall never see again.

In this contrast between those who saw and those who heard, one may recognize the difference between the Sons and Daughters of the American Revolution and the naturalized Americans who have no biological link to the Patriot cause. It is precisely this distinction and inclusion that Lincoln will replicate at Gettysburg (see below).

Before Lincoln did do that, four score and seven years earlier, the Founding Fathers had to first create the United States of America based on an idea. To understand what they accomplished it is necessary to put aside our racial classification system. Based on the standards of the time, they were trying to create “WE THE PEOPLE” out of a disparate amalgamation of peoples. There were English of various types, Scotch Irish, Irish Catholic, Dutch, Palatine Germans, Sephardic Jews, and French Huguenots among other peoples. There was no precedent for combining such a diversity into a non-imperial republic. Certainly no political entity was organized on such a basis in Euope. The idea of constituting themselves as a people was farfetched to say the least. They knew it was an experiment. They knew it might not work. They probably would be shocked by the idea of a pending 250th anniversary for such a political entity.

Lincoln at Gettysburg continued this definition of the political entity based on an idea. When he said “Four score and seven years ago, our fathers,” he knew that not everyone in his audience was a son or daughter of the American Revolution. But just as David included in the political kingdom of Israel people who had not been part of the people of Israel that Merneptah had claimed to have destroyed two centuries earlier, so Lincoln linked all the Americans of his present to the events 76 years earlier. If you stood for the Union now, you were one with those who had created the Union then.

This idea took a giant leap forward for humanity with Captain Kirk on the Starship Enterprise. His hero was Lincoln so I presume Lincoln was a hero to Gene Roddenberry as well. Earth like the 13 states was part of a Federation. Beings of different races were joined together in a single entity. The precise details of how the Federation of Planets operated are not the issue here. What is the issue is the concept of beings becoming one without abandoning their individuality as with the Borg or in Mainland China. In this regard, Federation with its Prime Directive and other defining principles is another step on a journey that began millennia earlier when a mixed multitude entered into a covenant. They are united not by geography, not by race, not by ethnicity, but by an idea.

It’s all one story. Moses in the wilderness with the covenant, David at Zion with the Ark of the Covenant, the Founding Fathers with the Constitution, Lincoln with the Gettysburg Address,  Kirk on the Enterprise are all part of a single story. As the Ark of the Covenant once was the physical expression of the covenant idea that defined Israel, so the Statue of Liberty is the physical expression of the idea that defines the United States. Both for the people who come here and those in Hong Kong, Russia, and elsewhere, the Statue of Liberty is the global symbol for people who want to be free. So which Charlton Heston ending will America choose? The Charlton Heston of The Ten Commandments who ends the movie with the words of the Liberty Bell to proclaim liberty throughout the land (Lev. 25:10) or the Charlton Heston of Planet of Apes overwhelmed by the sight of the Statue of Liberty buried in the sands?

Planet of the Apes (YouTube)

Rule of Law: George Washington, Nimrod, and Today

April 25, 2019
by Peter Feinman

On April 10, 2019, Politico posted an article entitled “Trump’s ‘truly bizarre’ visit to Mt. Vernon.” The article recounted a visit on April 23, 2018, by the French and American Presidents to Mount Vernon, home of George Washington, the first President of the United States.

According to Mount Vernon president and CEO Doug Bradburn, the tour guide for the Presidents, the Macrons were far more knowledgeable about the history of the property than the American President. France, of course, contributed to America’s victory with Marquis de Lafayette and Count Rochambeau, the first but not the last time foreign intervention helped elect an American President.

By contrast, our President is renowned for being incapable of reading of book and being historically ignorant (unless he saw a movie). It was easy for the trained guide to rapidly discern that the American President was completely bored. Drawing on his experience with 7th graders who similarly had no interest in the Father of the Country, Bradburn attempted to engage the person before him. As reported by Politico, a former history professor with a PhD, Bradburn “was desperately trying to get [Trump] interested in” Washington’s house. So he draw on his bag of tricks and informed the uninformed President that Washington had been a real-estate developer.

That approach did the trick. Now the guide had the President’s attention. Not only was Washington a real-estate developer, but for his times, he was one of the richest people in the United States. In today’s terms, he could be compared to Gates, Buffet, and Bezos and not to a comparative pauper like the fake billionaire President. (No, Bradburn did not say that! At least not the last part.)  Again according to Politico, “That is what Trump was really the most excited about” said a source.

At that point, our narcissistic President responded to the news in the way that defines him as a person

[H]e couldn’t understand why America’s first president didn’t name his historic Virginia compound or any of the other property he acquired after himself. “If he was smart, he would’ve put his name on it,” Trump said, according to three sources briefed on the exchange. “You’ve got to put your name on stuff or no one remembers you.”

In other words, unless you make your name great, you are not great and will be forgotten.

The concept of making your name great is familiar to biblical students referring to another book he has not read.

Genesis 12:1 Now Yahweh said to Abram, “Go from your country and your kindred and your father’s house to the land that I will show you. 2 And I will make of you a great nation, and I will bless you, and make your name great, so that you will be a blessing.

In the biblical tradition, a person does not make his name great, the Lord does.

It should be noted that in ancient times the people who made their name great were kings. Lost in translation is the recognition that the way one made one’s name great in ancient times was by the king building something. To the deep regret of biblical archaeologists, ancient Israel did not partake of this royal tradition of kings building things with their name on it.

By contrast, Ramses II, the traditional Pharaoh of the Exodus of Passover fame, did make his name great. He built extensively. And when he had not built it, he still carved his name into it. It would be a little like our having the Trumpire State Building or Mount Vertrump. And he did achieve lasting fame. By having approximately 100 children, a condom was named after him so his name is remembered all the time.

Mesopotamian kings followed a generally similarly path. Kings build stairways to heaven (ziggurats) at the cosmic center (the capital) where they ruled the universe from sea to shining sea (the Upper Sea or Mediterranean to the Lower Sea or Persian/Arab Gulf; there maps are oriented at a 90 degree rotation from ours). The baked bricks used in these constructions bore the name of the king.

Nimrod is the first king mentioned in the Hebrew Bible. He is the first king mentioned before Abraham encounters various kings. To understand what he is doing there one must put aside what the name means colloquially today and in rabbinic tradition and focus on the biblical text itself. In the original version of the story:

Genesis 10:8 Cush became the father of Nimrod; he was the first on earth to be a mighty man. 9 He was a mighty hunter before Yahweh; therefore it is said, “Like Nimrod a mighty hunter before Yahweh.” 10 The beginning of his kingdom was Babel, Erech, and Accad, and Calneh [Calah] in the land of Shinar.

These verses are descriptive, not accusatory. Nimrod is to be praised for his achievements not condemned. Indeed, he is a figure to be emulated given his success as mighty man or warrior before the Lord. He was the ruler of the Mesopotamian universe.

As biblical archaeologists and Assyriologists eventually learned, Nimrod was not an individual but an exemplar. He was not Sumerian Gilgamesh of Uruk (Erech) as had been originally thought. He was not Akkadian Sargon the Great of Accad, he was not Amorite Hammurabi of Babylon, and he was not Assyrian Tukulti-Ninurta of Calah. Instead he was all of them; he represented that Mesopotamian life. Now with Abraham leaving Ur and settling near Hebron (David’s first royal capital), the torch had been passed to a new location. The Israelite king in Jerusalem was advised to rule like a Mesopotamian king at the new cosmic center. He was to make his name great as Solomon did in building the temple.

So at least claimed one political party in ancient Israel. However, there was another political party, the Levites or Mushites who claimed the law came first. They objected to the claim that Yahweh had sanctioned the royal way of life in Mesopotamia as the Nimrod author had written. Yahweh had first appeared at Sinai to Moses and the law was revealed there. They mocked the Mesopotamian way of life by writing the Tower of Babel story. Look at those mighty stairways to heaven! They all were built for naught. All those mighty and grandiose empires crumbled into dust, lost to history until recovered by archaeologists. It was the law which endured and ruled even when kings and temples were no more.

Exodus 18:17 Moses’ father-in-law said to him…19”Listen now to my voice; I will give you counsel, and God be with you! You shall represent the people before God, and bring their cases to God; 20 and you shall teach them the statutes and the decisions, and make them know the way in which they must walk and what they must do. 21 Moreover choose able men from all the people, such as fear God, men who are trustworthy and who hate a bribe; and place such men over the people as rulers of thousands, of hundreds, of fifties, and of tens. 22 And let them judge the people at all times; every great matter they shall bring to you, but any small matter they shall decide themselves; so it will be easier for you, and they will bear the burden with you. 23 If you do this, and God so commands you, then you will be able to endure, and all this people also will go to their place in peace.”

Jethro and Nimrod offer two different models of political organization: the rule of law and the king who makes his name great. Two political parties in ancient Israel offered two different versions of how society should be organized: one based on the rule by a king and one based on the rule of law.

For the first centuries of Israel’s existence, it had had no king. Therefore no one was in a position to abuse power. Only when Israel had a king could someone be a law unto himself. We will never know if ancient Egypt or Mesopotamia debated the powers of a king when he first ascended to the throne in Egypt and descended to the throne in Mesopotamia. But we do know the debates ancient Israel had on the powers of the king. It decided there should be checks and balances on the power of the king. No one was above the law. Even David could be called to task: “Thou art the man.” And when he was confronted he repented.

Bonespur Boy is no David. He is no George Washington either who also is remembered for having left the presidency voluntarily. And even though he is no mighty man and is not before the Lord, he still is a Nimrod.

 

For more on the stories of Nimrod and the Tower of Babel see my book Jerusalem Throne Games: The Battle of Bible Stories after the Death of David.