In recent posts (here and here) I have been sharing my thoughts on Thom Stark's book The Human Faces of God: What Scripture Reveals when it gets God Wrong (and Why Inerrancy Tries to Hide It). It is a challenging - thought provoking book, and I want to put down a couple more general thoughts on the concept of inerrancy before moving on to more specific arguments from the book.
I come from an Arminian side of the free-will / predestination debate. I believe that God has given us a measure of freedom – to choose to do this or to do that. I believe that God created us this way as a reflection of his own image and because of his love for us, and I believe that this free-will entails a measure of risk for God because we are free to reject and abuse that love.
The concept of an inerrant bible that comes to us – dropped from the sky, as it were – free from mistakes and errors is not compatible with a belief in free-will. If, as proponents of inerrancy claim, the various authors of the divinely inspired Old and New Testament were prevented by God from the possibility of error or mistake in every aspect of their writing – then they did not have that free-will with which we were created.
The concept of an inerrant bible that comes to us – dropped from the sky, as it were – free from mistakes and errors is not compatible with a belief in free-will. If, as proponents of inerrancy claim, the various authors of the divinely inspired Old and New Testament were prevented by God from the possibility of error or mistake in every aspect of their writing – then they did not have that free-will with which we were created.
As an illustration – Adam was inspired by God – that is, God breathed into him – but he still made mistakes – or at least one glaring mistake. Divine inspiration doesn’t mean the absence of mistake or error. It can’t if we believe that we have a measure of free-will.
Tom Stark makes this same argument, “The doctrine of inerrancy rejects out of hand the possibility that the human authors of scripture were permitted to exercise their God-given free will in the writing of what would eventually become scripture…” (page 63 – emphasis his)
Tom Stark makes this same argument, “The doctrine of inerrancy rejects out of hand the possibility that the human authors of scripture were permitted to exercise their God-given free will in the writing of what would eventually become scripture…” (page 63 – emphasis his)
To be fair and balanced, he then goes on to show how the concept of inerrancy is also incompatible with a Calvinist’s focus on the sovereignty of God. Ha! I love that.
Stark doesn’t mention it, but I wonder how those who argue for the inerrancy of Scripture could ever argue against the infallibility of the Pope. They both use the same weak argument. ‘Surely, God wouldn’t allow the Pope / the scripture author to say something that isn’t true…’
Anyway – moving on…
Chapters four and five of Thom Starks’ The Human Faces of God examine the ways in which the ways in which ancient Israel
I found myself agreeing with Stark in the first three chapters; affirming what he affirmed and rejecting what he rejected. But here in these two chapters, I’m not quite ready to follow him.
We have been taught (many of us) since those flannel-graph stories of Sunday school that there is only one God – that there has ever only been one God and that there will ever only be one God. And that any references within the bible to other Gods were to “false” gods, that these were non-existent, imaginary deities. But that’s not really the attitude assumed by the biblical authors. For them the other gods were real - though not deserving of worship. For example, consider the words of Miriam (Moses’ sister) in the book of Exodus:
Who is like you, O Yahweh among the gods?
Who is like you, majestic in holiness,
awesome in grandeur, doing marvelous things? (Exodus 15:11)
Who is like you, majestic in holiness,
awesome in grandeur, doing marvelous things? (Exodus 15:11)
Or Moses’ words in the Song of Moses:
See now, that I (Yahweh) am he,
and beside me there is no other god. (Deuteronomy 32:39)
and beside me there is no other god. (Deuteronomy 32:39)
This isn’t a denial of the existence of other gods but a claim to superiority over all other gods.
The Israelites of the Old Testament were not then, as we have often been taught, Monotheists. Monotheism is the belief that there is only one God in existence. It would be more accurate to say that they were Monolatrists; that they believed in the existence of numerous other gods, but worshipped only one.
But Stark doesn’t mention this understanding. He doesn’t mention Monolatrism at all. He casually dismisses Henotheism as indistinguishable from Polytheism. (page 76 - Go ahead, look it up. I had to as well.) But he never distinguishes Monolatrism from Polytheism. Instead Stark concludes that “the worldview of the Israelites prior to the Babylonian exile – just like that of Israel
His first argument comes from that same Song of Moses in Deuteronomy 32, where it says:
When Elyon divided the nations
when he separated the sons of Adam,
he established the borders of the nations
according to the number of [the gods / the sons of God].
Yahweh’s portion was his people,
Jacob his allotted inheritance. (Deuteronomy 32: 8 – 9)
when he separated the sons of Adam,
he established the borders of the nations
according to the number of [the gods / the sons of God].
Yahweh’s portion was his people,
Jacob his allotted inheritance. (Deuteronomy 32: 8 – 9)
Part of the difficulty in interpreting this passage is that there are several different variations among our early sources. The earliest Greek version – the LXX or Septuagint says, “according to the number of God’s angels.” The Masoretic Text ( the MT - which was, until the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls, our earliest Hebrew version – but still wasn’t really very early….) says “according to the number of the sons of Israel
Getting to the earliest (and presumably more correct) version of the text is difficult. Whatever Hebrew version lies behind the Septuagint has been lost. In comparing the differences between the LXX and the MT scholars used to believe that the translators had “bungled” their translation from the Hebrew, but it is more commonly believed today that the LXX represents an accurate translation of its (lost) Hebrew source, and that the differences between the LXX and the MT are not necessarily errors or changes but may in fact be evidence of a differing source.
We may never know what the earliest (and presumably more accurate) version of this verse said. Nevertheless, even if we accept the 4QDeutq with its “sons of the gods” version as the earliest (and more correct) translation, this doesn’t necessitate the belief that the early Israelites were, as a whole, polytheists like their neighbors.
Stark also argues that the Israelites practiced human sacrifice to Yahweh as an acceptable – and even divinely mandated – part of their religious practice, and that in this, too, the Israelites were just like their polytheistic neighbors. I don’t disagree that the Israelites did practice human sacrifice, or that they sometimes did so in the name of Yahweh, but I don’t believe that this was ever a legitimate part of the worship.
Stark appeals to Exodus 22:29, “You will give me the first-born of your children,” which an unqualified command – and to 34:19 -20 “All that first issues from the womb belongs to me: every male, every first-born of flock or heard. But the first-born donkey you will redeem with an animal from the flock; if you do not redeem it, you must break its neck. All the first born of your sons you will redeem, and no one will appear before me empty handed.”
The import of these verses, he claims, is that Yahweh demanded that his Israelite followers sacrifice their first born sons to him, but that he was willing to accept a lesser sacrifice in their place. And if we were to look at those two verses in isolation, then I suppose that is the conclusion that we would have to reach.
But there is an earlier passage in Exodus that Stark didn’t examine (or, if he did examine it he didn’t discuss it in his book). Exodus 13: 11 – 16 provides the basis for both the previous passages – and gives the underlying reason behind them – and it is not Yahweh’s desire for human sacrifice.
Stark appeals to Exodus 22:29, “You will give me the first-born of your children,” which an unqualified command – and to 34:19 -20 “All that first issues from the womb belongs to me: every male, every first-born of flock or heard. But the first-born donkey you will redeem with an animal from the flock; if you do not redeem it, you must break its neck. All the first born of your sons you will redeem, and no one will appear before me empty handed.”
The import of these verses, he claims, is that Yahweh demanded that his Israelite followers sacrifice their first born sons to him, but that he was willing to accept a lesser sacrifice in their place. And if we were to look at those two verses in isolation, then I suppose that is the conclusion that we would have to reach.
But there is an earlier passage in Exodus that Stark didn’t examine (or, if he did examine it he didn’t discuss it in his book). Exodus 13: 11 – 16 provides the basis for both the previous passages – and gives the underlying reason behind them – and it is not Yahweh’s desire for human sacrifice.
"Now when the LORD brings you to the land of the Canaanite, as He swore to you and to your fathers, and gives it to you, you shall devote to the LORD the first offspring of every womb, and the first offspring of every beast that you own; the males belong to the LORD.
"But every first offspring of a donkey you shall redeem with a lamb, but if you do not redeem it, then you shall break its neck; and every firstborn of man among your sons you shall redeem.
"And it shall be when your son asks you in time to come, saying, 'What is this?' then you shall say to him, 'With a powerful hand the LORD brought us out of Egypt
"So it shall serve as a sign on your hand and as phylacteries on your forehead, for with a powerful hand the LORD brought us out of Egypt
Animals were to be sacrificed, yes. And Yahweh demanded the offering of the first born – but not as human sacrifices. They were to be redeemed as continual reminder of the Passover event. To slaughter them in sacrifice would be to forget the meaning of that event.
The motivation for the redemption of the [human] sacrifice was not a “utilitarian” desire to keep practical and valuable resources within the community (page 89) but indeed a “moral” value reflecting – if not Yahweh’s values –then at least Exodus’ author’s understanding of Yahweh’s values. He valued the first-born sons of Israel
I don’t know textual-criticism well enough to know if Exodus 13 is considered to be a later addition to the text. It could be argued (I suppose) that this interpretation is not the original idea, but a latter addendum, but Stark never addresses these verses.
His appeal to the stories of Abraham and Jephthah are not easily resolved. Both stories are ambiguously open in their interpretation. The authors of these two narratives have told their stories in such a way that readers through the years have argued back and forth as to whether or not the human sacrifice in these stories is a good or an evil thing. I don’t think they do Stark any real good.
Stark also appealed to the prophets – usually presented as strident voices against human sacrifice – to demonstrate that human sacrifice was a normal and legitimate practice in the Israelite religion.
“With what shall I enter Yahweh’s presence
and bow down before God All-high?
Shall I enter with burnt offerings,
with calves one year old?
Will he be pleased with rams by the thousand,
with ten thousand streams of oil?
Shall I offer my eldest son for my wrong-doing,
the child of my own body for my sin?
and bow down before God All-high?
Shall I enter with burnt offerings,
with calves one year old?
Will he be pleased with rams by the thousand,
with ten thousand streams of oil?
Shall I offer my eldest son for my wrong-doing,
the child of my own body for my sin?
You have already been told what is right
and what Yahweh wants of you.
Only this, to do what is right, to love loyalty,
and to walk humbly with your God.” (Micah 6: 6 – 8)
and what Yahweh wants of you.
Only this, to do what is right, to love loyalty,
and to walk humbly with your God.” (Micah 6: 6 – 8)
Stark reasons that Micah’s rhetoric depends upon the “assumption that the sacrifice of one’s child is noble. If that assumption is not shared by his audience, his rhetoric would fall flat. The text does not condemn child sacrifice, or else it must necessarily also represent a condemnation of the sacrifice of calves, and rams, and of the offering of oil.” (page 95).
I think maybe he’s missed the point slightly. Micah is, as Stark realizes (page 95) trying to show thatIsrael
I think maybe he’s missed the point slightly. Micah is, as Stark realizes (page 95) trying to show that
I believe the prophet Jeremiah when he gives voice to God saying “They have built shrines to Baal, to put their children to the fire as burnt offerings to Baal – which I never commanded, never decreed, and which never came to my mind…” (Jeremiah 19:5)
Stark suggests that the early Israelites were polytheists who practiced human sacrifices, that this was sometimes done in the name of Yahweh, and that the prophet Jeremiah sought to shift those practices away from Yahweh to other pagan gods like Baal.
Baal was originally a generic term for “lord” and was applied to many near-eastern gods, including occasionally to Yahweh. What we have in Jeremiah is the people taking practices from pagan gods and performing them under the name of Yahweh – who objects and says “this is not what I wanted.”
Stark assumes that the direction of change from polytheism to monotheism was in one direction only, but what seems more likely to me is that there was an ebb and flow between the monolatrism of Israel and the polytheism of their neighbors until it finally settled into the monotheism we see after the Babylonian exile. Sometimes they held their one God separate from their neighbors’ gods and sometimes they mixed the two. During the time of Jeremiah the Israelite’s had accreted some of the pagan practices of their neighbor and mixed them with their own practice and the prophet (if not Yahweh) objected.
Baal was originally a generic term for “lord” and was applied to many near-eastern gods, including occasionally to Yahweh. What we have in Jeremiah is the people taking practices from pagan gods and performing them under the name of Yahweh – who objects and says “this is not what I wanted.”
Stark assumes that the direction of change from polytheism to monotheism was in one direction only, but what seems more likely to me is that there was an ebb and flow between the monolatrism of Israel and the polytheism of their neighbors until it finally settled into the monotheism we see after the Babylonian exile. Sometimes they held their one God separate from their neighbors’ gods and sometimes they mixed the two. During the time of Jeremiah the Israelite’s had accreted some of the pagan practices of their neighbor and mixed them with their own practice and the prophet (if not Yahweh) objected.
I seem to be going on at great length to argue with an author that I generally agree with.
Maybe I’m wrong. Could be.
Maybe I’m wrong. Could be.
But I wasn’t convinced by his arguments in these two chapters.
Hey, Jeff. Thanks for the extensive engagement. These are very useful criticisms. Allow me to offer a response.
ReplyDeleteStark doesn’t mention this understanding. He doesn’t mention Monolatrism at all. He casually dismisses Henotheism as indistinguishable from Polytheism. (page 76 - Go ahead, look it up. I had to as well.) But he never distinguishes Monolatrism from Polytheism. Instead Stark concludes that “the worldview of the Israelites prior to the Babylonian exile – just like that of Israel’s Canaanite and ancient Near Eastern neighbors – was thoroughly polytheistic.” (page 70) And I’m not convinced that he’s correct. Maybe he is – but I’m not convinced.
I do mention monolatrism when I when mention henotheism, as you noted. But henotheism and polytheism aren’t necessarily two different things—they sometimes are, as with Roman polytheism, or Hindu polytheism. But in the ANE, monolatry was the more common form of polytheism. Polytheism and polylatry (if that’s the proper term) aren’t necessarily the same thing. Many ANE groups believed in many gods, saw the role of many of them as positive, while reserving worship for only one—their patron deity—and denying the appropriateness of the worship of rival deities. So, a high god, for instance, could have a positive role, without being the object of the cultic worship which was reserved for their patron or matron deity. This was the case with early Israelite theology.
Part of the difficulty in interpreting this passage is that there are several different variations among our early sources. The earliest Greek version – the LXX or Septuagint says, “according to the number of God’s angels.” The Masoretic Text ( the MT - which was, until the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls, our earliest Hebrew version – but still wasn’t really very early….) says “according to the number of the sons of Israel.” And discovered in the Dead Sea Scrolls was a copy of Deuteronomy (referred to as 4QDeutq) which translated this verse as “according to the sons of the gods.”
Getting to the earliest (and presumably more correct) version of the text is difficult. Whatever Hebrew version lies behind the Septuagint has been lost. In comparing the differences between the LXX and the MT scholars used to believe that the translators had “bungled” their translation from the Hebrew, but it is more commonly believed today that the LXX represents an accurate translation of its (lost) Hebrew source, and that the differences between the LXX and the MT are not necessarily errors or changes but may in fact be evidence of a differing source.
We may never know what the earliest (and presumably more accurate) version of this verse said.
I wouldn’t say this is correct. Textual critics have identified 4QDeutq as the Hebrew vorlage to the LXX’s “angels,” as I clearly pointed out in the book. The earliest manuscript by far is 4QDeutq, that’s not in dispute. As I discussed, the LXX was written after Israel’s turn to monotheism, and in that period the “other gods” of the earlier Hebrew texts were demoted to “angels,” which explains why the LXX translates “beney ha elohim” as “angeloi theou.”
Nevertheless, even if we accept the 4QDeutq with its “sons of the gods” version as the earliest (and more correct) translation, this doesn’t necessitate the belief that the early Israelites were, as a whole, polytheists like their neighbors.
Let’s be clear on what I’m identifying as “polytheism.” Again, in this context it is the belief in many gods, even allowing for positive roles for some, while reserving cultic worship for a particular patron deity. The fact is, this is the case with most nations in the ANE; Israel fits right in.
(cont'd)
ReplyDeleteStark also argues that the Israelites practiced human sacrifice to Yahweh as an acceptable – and even divinely mandated – part of their religious practice.
Not exactly. I don’t mean to be pedantic here, just to be clear. My argument that certain texts possibly mandate or approve of human sacrifice to Yahweh does not mean that Yahweh (God) really mandated human sacrifice. That may be obvious but it’s an important distinction to make.
I don’t know textual-criticism well enough to know if Exodus 13 is considered to be a later addition to the text. It could be argued (I suppose) that this interpretation is not the original idea, but a latter addendum, but Stark never addresses these verses.
You’re right that I should have discussed source criticism here. My decision not to was probably a mistake, but was rooted in a desire not to throw JEDP too hard at my intended conservative audience. Yes, these are identified by scholars as two different sources. Exodus 13 is identified as Deuteronomistic, which of course is a source that fully condemned human sacrifice. Exodus 22, on the other hand, while incorporated into the Priestly source, is considered to be more ancient material, hence the unequivocal demand for the firstborn.
Two further things are worth noting here, both of which I discussed in the book. First, even if they were to be redeemed, Yahweh still asserts his demand for the firstborn sons, which can only be explained by reference to the controlling logic of human sacrifice.
Second, even if this is not what the original source behind Exodus 22 intended, the fact is that, as we learn from Ezekiel 20, at least some Israelites were interpreting Exodus 22 in this fashion (as a demand for child sacrifice), and, what’s more significant, Ezekiel himself concedes this reading of the law, but gives it a different spin, saying, “Yes, Yahweh did command you to sacrifice your firstborn sons, but it was a bad command given as punishment for your disobedience.
Another thing I’ll say is that apologists (I’m not calling you an apologist) often say, “Yes, Israelites did all sorts of horrible things, but that doesn’t mean it was ever theologically legitimate.” But critical scholars don’t approach the texts and archaeological record that way. What they are looking for is evidence of the various Israelite religions (plural) throughout Israel’s history; obviously for many certain practices were “orthodox” that were not orthodox for others. Just because some writers condemn certain practices doesn’t mean Israel always should have known better, or that there was some longstanding “orthodoxy” that could only be observed or deviated from. Scholars recognize the ideological and propagandistic nature of these texts, and recognize that they were written predominantly by ruling elites, and that what those elites brand as “orthodoxy” is only just that: elitist orthodoxy. Now, in this case, we would agree with certain later elites whose voices came to dominate scripture, when they condemn human sacrifice. But just because we agree with them doesn’t mean we should anachronistically impose a non-existent orthodoxy back onto the whole of Israel’s long history of theological variety and development.
(cont'd)
ReplyDeleteHis appeal to the stories of Abraham and Jephthah are not easily resolved. Both stories are ambiguously open in their interpretation. The authors of these two narratives have told their stories in such a way that readers through the years have argued back and forth as to whether or not the human sacrifice in these stories is a good or an evil thing. I don’t think they do Stark any real good.
I discuss Jephthah at a bit more length in my review of Copan’s book (available on Religion at the Margins), but the fact that certain passages have always been controversial doesn’t mean that there isn’t a right answer (as I’m sure you know). In fact, these passages are controversial precisely because they seem to imply something very distasteful to us; the controversy stems from the content of the texts, not necessarily from any alleged ambiguity in them. The Binding of Isaac, whatever else it says, clearly says that willingness to perform child sacrifice is proof of piety. Those who claim the narrative condemns child sacrifice miss that important point.
Regarding Micah 6:
I think maybe he’s missed the point slightly. Micah is, as Stark realizes (page 95) trying to show that Israel’s sacrifices are intended to lead them to repentance and without repentance these sacrifices are pointless. Without a proper religion of the spirit, more sacrifices are empty and ridiculous Micah argues reductio ad absurdum from small sacrifices, to larger and larger sacrifices, to even the sacrifice of my own child… even this – seen as the most desperate epitome of sacrifice to a please deity – even this (even if it could be of value) wouldn’t be of any value! Micah isn’t putting any value in human sacrifice – he’s pointing out the utter ridiculousness of sacrifices without a true religion of the spirit.
I disagree with your reading. Micah did not see sacrifice as “utterly ridiculous,” nor is he offering a “reductio ad absurdum.” As I argued (along with many other Hebrew Bible scholars), Micah is listing sacrifices from least to greatest, showing that none of them have value if they are not accompanied by genuine justice. In other words, the sacrifices cannot be a substitute for repentance; but they are still for Micah (as a good Hebrew) an integral part of repentance. Sacrifices alone, without a turning away from injustice and toward justice, are of no merit. But Micah is hardly saying that if Israel would only be just, they could then dispense with the sacrifices. It’s the same logic as James: faith without works is dead; but that doesn’t mean that works can replace faith. Both are necessary; and that is Micah’s point.
Now, I believe my argument stands. If Micah (and his audience) believed that human sacrifice was abhorrent, then Micah’s crescendo would have fallen oddly flat: all the other sacrifices Micah lists are good ones; it follows that child sacrifice was (for Micah and his audience) the best of them. His point is that even the most noble, indeed the most sacrificial of sacrifices, is of no value if it does not lead to justice and/or faithfulness—which is what such sacrifices were always intended to do in the first place.
(cont'd)
ReplyDeleteRe: Baal sacrifice:
What we have in Jeremiah is the people taking practices from pagan gods and performing them under the name of Yahweh – who objects and says “this is not what I wanted.”
“Pagan” is of course an anachronistic term, and one that is particularly value-laden. It furthers not a bit to characterize this practice as an example of syncretism. All religion is syncretistic; Israelite and Judean religion was always syncretistic; there was never a time when it wasn’t. But the point is, Jeremiah was the first to say “this is not what Yahweh wanted.” Josiah and the Deuteronomist followed Jeremiah’s lead. Ezekiel likewise condemned the practice, but took the opposite strategy, as I discussed in the book. For Ezekiel, God did indeed order Israelites to sacrifice their children, but God did so in order to punish them, not because God really wanted them to sacrifice their children to appease him. These are late voices, and they have opposite strategies for reforming standard and longstanding Judean religion.
Stark assumes that the direction of change from polytheism to monotheism was in one direction only, but what seems more likely to me is that there was an ebb and flow between the monolatrism of Israel and the polytheism of their neighbors . . .
Again, their neighbors were mostly monolatrous too.
Sometimes they held their one God separate from their neighbors’ gods and sometimes they mixed the two.
Right. It depends on the deity though. Yahweh and El were eventually conflated. Yahweh and Baal were conflated from the earliest times, but this is because they weren’t necessarily seen by everyone as two different deities to begin with. But Yahweh was never equated with Chemosh, never with the Egyptian deities, and so on. The reality is that there was a great deal of overlap between Yahweh and various deities within Canaan, while there was always a great deal of difference between Yahweh and his rivals; of course, Yahweh’s rival deities also happened to be the patron deities of Israel’s non-Canaanite national enemies.
Moreover, those who separated Yahweh from other gods (especially the Canaanite ones) often did so polemically, not necessarily accurately. So the Deuteronomist renamed Saul’s sons and grandson, who had the word “baal” in their name. These were references to Yahweh as “lord,” but the Deuteronomist took that as an opportunity to impugn David’s rival by implying Saul was unfaithful to Yahweh. Although Yahweh worship in Israel was frequently undertaken by use of the term “baal,” Hosea was the first to really distort this reality in his polemic against the worship of foreign gods. He did this, as prophets did, to explain the cause of Israel’s misfortunes.
Again, I very much appreciate the engagement, and these are very important issues you’ve raised. I especially appreciate your pointing out where my argument wasn’t clear enough.
All the best,
Thom
Thanks Tom, for such a detailed response to my blog.
ReplyDeleteI think that it must be obvious that I am an untrained, non-specialist with a limited and uneven education in some of these matters, and I appreciate your expertise.
I have been reviewing and re-reading your material and looking into others as well. I am still willing to admit that I could be wrong. I recognize that my understanding has large gaps. So I am willing to concede the debate to you...
except in the case of that Micah passage. I'm still conviced that the prophet was venturing into realms of rhetorical hyperbole ... it's the "10,000 rivers of oil" that I can't see as a realistic and normal sacrifice...and if (as we both agree) he is arguing from small to larger and larger sacrifices, human sacrifce being even beyond 10,000 rivers of oil seems - at least to me - pretty rediculous.
Nevertheless - I do agree with your interpetation of Micah's message- that " even the most noble (I might debate "noble"), indeed the most sacrificial of sacrifices, is of no value if it does not lead to justice and/or faithfulness—which is what such sacrifices were always intended to do in the first place."
I thank you for writing the book, and for allowing me to respond to it, even with my limited understanding. I am looking forward to reading more of it this afternoon. And, perhaps, will post more of my thoughts here. I hope, maybe, you'll stop by again.
jeff