Board index ‹ God

[Spiderman]

> Sure enough, but that doesn't tell us anything about whether this sanctuary was approved or disapproved

well, i'm not sure why people focus on the official approval aspect. it doesn't particularly negate the fact that even heretical sects help indicate the cultural background to the religion. and, in any case, we have a pretty clear biblical narrative of how the disapproval came about, during the reigns of hezekiah and josiah. those stories, hezekiah's in particular, specifically indicate that asherah was previously approved as part of the official state religion.

> The altar at Arad was taken down—dismantled, but not broken—in the time of Hezekiah.

that i wasn't aware of. i've only ever seen them standing.

> And that's my point: Let's not draw much conclusion from any of this. To conclude, as some quickly do, that Israelite monotheism evolved from its neighbors, or that Israel was really monolatrous or henotheistic is simply manufacturing an outcome that the data doesn't automatically support.

no, i think we can draw some conclusions, and i think the data generally supports a polytheistic origin to monotheism.

> > i don't think anyone is seriously debating the (somewhat) monotheistic revolution in judah around the time of hezekiah
> Agreed. Indubitably a revival. But that doesn't indicate its genesis.

we don't have any reason to think it was earlier. we have no monotheistic texts before this point, and the archaeology is pretty thoroughly filled with depictions and names of other gods. indeed, even hezekiah's revolution went right on using the symbols of the older polytheistic myths. his royal seal features a winged sun, and if you think the LMLK seals are part of his campaign against assyria, they feature winged scarabs -- both symbols of the contemporary youthful/solar baal in other regions. so he's going around stamping out baal worship, but still using baal iconography.

> Correct. The nation had fallen far, and apostasy was the order of the day. This tells us nothing about Israel's historic monotheism, monolatry, or henotheism.

we don't have a meaningful group to call "israel" before this period, though. and all of the people we might point to, well, they were polytheists. some of these sites have layers going back before our oldest reference to "israel", full of inscriptions to baal and asherah.

> The difference was that in the other cultures, the other members of the divine council were also divine, with one god on top. In Israel, the other members of the divine council were not divine. YHWH stood alone.

they are literally called gods, and sons of gods. this strikes me as a distinction made from later monotheistic thought being injected into the text.

> See, you can't say "synthesized" with any knowledge or evidence. In Israelite theology, they were always singular (Gn. 2 and onwards).

in nearly all israelite and judean mythology we're aware of, yes. there are hints, in the passages already referenced, that they were initially distinct. also, the fact that the E sources records the name "yahweh" being unknown and the god solely called "el" until a certain point seems to reflect the history of them being distinct, and merged. this is the predominant academic consensus on the matter, btw, considering that we know el from other sources that do not call him "yahweh".

> Yes it is, but Dt. 4.19 (same author) clearly shows YHWH as the subject of the allotment, not the recipient.

what people seem to miss is that deut 32:8-9 is an older inclusion, and not by the same author. the author is saying, "ask your fathers" and reporting a traditional statement, which he then expands on (see the later part of the chapter with the "not-god", explicitly denying the existence of other gods). this is sort of the same thing as the way jesus taught, "you have heard it said, you shall not kill, but i say to you, whoever is angry..." etc. jesus isn't saying "you shall not kill". he's quoting an older text, and expanding on it. the deuteronomist says:

Ask your father, he will inform you,
Your elders, they will tell you:

when the most high, etc. the deuteronomist is a monotheist. "your father" and "your elders" were not.

also, i'm a little confused about the "gn. 2 and onwards." gen 1 is perhaps the most monotheistic text in the torah, specifically rejecting the roles of other gods in the act of creation and revising earlier myths to make divine opponents (like liwyatan) into subordinate creations. it goes so far as to not name the sun lest you confuse it with the god shamash. it does use a peculiar plural once, but i'm not convinced that's evidence of anything besides a literary convention for when god talks to himself.

> We also know from numerous texts (dozens) that YHWH and Elyon are considered the same Person.

most of the bible, yes, regards el elyon and yahweh as identical. but this doesn't indicate that it was always so. as i mentioned, this and psalm 82 indicate that they were initially distinct.

> Why would we not perceive some metaphor in here?

the question is, why is one "inheritance" literal, and the other not?

> The whole concept of handing out nations as an inheritance (in 70 chunks), is it literal or figurative? Are there really 70 sements?

the chapter doesn't mention "70". we get "70" from the fact that a) there are approximately 70 nations listed in the table of nations, when they were split up, and b) el and asherah are described as having 70 sons in ugarit. we find a match between the two numbers, and this text states there was a match between the two numbers, but not what the number is.

> Because YHWH is always treated as unique,

except for this passage, which seems to treat him as one of 70 sons of god.

> and it cannot be conclusively established that ancient Israel was monolatrist.

given that we have plenty of evidence of other gods in israel and no evidence of a practice that excluded other gods, it doesn't look like israel was monolatrist, no. it looks like they were polytheistic. the evidence of monolatrism is from judah, which had a campaign that destroyed the cultic sites of other gods.

somehow i think you meant that statement the entire other way around though.

> "Israel" and Judah" were commonly treated as synonymous in the biblical text. Besides, Dt. 32.9 has "Jacob." I'm not sure what your point is.

they are, but this is an ideological position. mixing them up when discussing archaeology and history shows a bias towards the biblical narratives that attempt to unify the two separate kingdoms. even deut 32:9 is trying to show a shared cultural heritage, that yahweh should be the sole god of all israelites and not just judah. in reality, we have no reason to think israel (the northern kingdom) was ever monotheistic-yahwist in an significant capacity. the archaeology doesn't demonstrate, and even the bible condemns every last king of israel as being a polytheist, even the ones that adopted yahweh. so, israel were probably polytheists. the monotheistic revolution happened in judah, basically around the time israel stopped existing.

[jimwalton]

> well, i'm not sure why people focus on the official approval aspect.

Generally because Yahwism was a centralized practice focusing on one place: the covenant. The ark was a symbol of the covenant, the law was an expression of the covenant, and the Temple was mediatorial locale of the covenant. Therefore, on the basis of that, as well as that Yahwism was monotheistic, it was considered to be the truth, which is always narrow. People weren't free to think as they wanted and do what they pleased. They were supposed to conform their thoughts and lives to what was true.

It's like this: There is more theological conformity in an Amish community than in a Unitarian Universalist Church.

> even heretical sects help indicate the cultural background to the religion

Sometimes they indicate the cultural background, but sometimes they just reveal how fickle and syncretistic human nature is, with no particular comment on the religion itself.

> we have a pretty clear biblical narrative of how the disapproval came about, during the reigns of hezekiah and josiah. those stories, hezekiah's in particular, specifically indicate that asherah was previously approved as part of the official state religion.

This is ignoring, however, that Judah (unlike Israel) had numerous attempts through the monarchical period to keep the nation on the straight-and-narrow.

• Solomon: disastrous for the nation as far as Yahwism is concerned. He introduced all sorts of syncretism.
• Rehoboam: we know hardly anything.
• Abijah: sinful, problematic. 3 years of godlessness.
• Asa: A good and godly king. A time of revival. Expelled shrine prostitutes, fought against the whole "Asherah" idea (1 Ki. 15.13), but didn't remove high places.
• Jehoshaphat: A time of revival, but not removal. Honored the Lord, but didn't tear down the high places.
• Jehoram: Another disaster. Two steps forward for the nation, now one step back.
• Ahaziah: Another disaster.
• Athaliah: Good grief, another mess.
• Joash (Jehoash): A good king. Revival! Repaired temple, but didn't remove high places.
• Amaziah: Tried to keep the good thing going; was a Yahwist. But didn't remove high places. Only moderately successful
• Azariah (Uzziah): Tried to keep the good thing going; was Yahwist. But didn't remove the high places, either.
• Jotham: Same thing again. Good guy, godly guy. Yahwist. But didn't purge high places
• Ahaz: An absolute disaster.
• Hezekiah: Revival and renewal. Actually succeeded in breaking down the high places.
• Manasseh: A wicked king. Restored high places (2 Ki. 21.3).
• Amon: Another bad egg.
• Josiah: Revival and renewal. Rebuilt the temple. The Book of the Law found. Tore down high places, again.
• Jehoahaz: Disaster.
• Jehoiakim: Disaster.
• Jehoiachin: Disaster.
• Zedekiah: Disaster. God is done. Nation is uprooted.

We simply cannot attribute to Hezekiah the beginning of monotheistic Yahwism.

> hezekiah's in particular, specifically indicate that asherah was previously approved as part of the official state religion.

This is difficult to conclude with certainty. King Asa was against Asherah (1 Ki. 15.13). The subsequent text mentions numerous times how kings didn't tear down the high places, and indication that asherah was NOT approved:

• 1 Ki. 22.43: godly, however, did not tear down...
• Ahaziah (2 Ki. 8.27): Evil and was like Ahab (1 Ki. 16.33) by recognizing Asherah. Not approved.
• etc. (I won't keep listing them all)

> that i wasn't aware of. i've only ever seen them standing.

I would send you the picture from the Israel museum in Jerusalem, but there's no way to attach pix.

> i think the data generally supports a polytheistic origin to monotheism.

I think it doesn't. The data shows some similarities but not derivation.

> we don't have any reason to think it was earlier.

We do, as I've mentioned in the list I put earlier in the post.

> we have no monotheistic texts before this point

Deuteronomy may be before this. Deuteronomy's date is much debated. We certainly can't take a clear stance as if it's been resolved.

> we don't have a meaningful group to call "israel" before this period, though.

This is unsettled, also. We have Israel in the Exodus. Extrabiblically, "Israel" is attested in the Merneptah Stela (c. 1230-1208 BC). Manfred Gorg claims to have found a reference to Israel from about 1400 BC. (His reading is disputed).

> and all of the people we might point to, well, they were polytheists.

This is undetermined. You can't just throw out this stuff as if it's a done deal.

> the E sources

I don't subscribe to the Wellhausen theory. I felt it was questionable to begin with, but much of it has been adequately refuted. It's like a falling house of cards, though I know it's still de rigueur in academic circles. The various dates and strategies of J, E, D, & P are somewhat speculative, and I just don't buy into it.

> what people seem to miss is that deut 32:8-9 is an older inclusion, and not by the same author.

I think that just academic speculation.

> but this doesn't indicate that it was always so

Yes, this is also as I have been saying. So much of this stuff is intriguing but ultimately (academically) inconclusive. We have to exercise more care than most do about jumping to conclusions where the data is tentative.

> the question is, why is one "inheritance" literal, and the other not?

I don't necessarily think either of the inheritances are literal. I don't perceive that the nations somehow earned or deserved an inheritance from the Most High, or that they were his "family" in a heritable position. In Genesis 10 we read the Table of Nations. Nations each seem to have their territory, but we know that people groups migrate (Native Americans across the Bering Strait, Abraham from Ur to Canaan, etc.). Inheritance could easily be metaphorical for the theology of a sovereign God watching over humanity. Then in v. 9 we see that Israel is the special possession of YHWH, who is also Elyon. He doesn't inherit Israel from anyone else. This is all figurative language.

> the chapter doesn't mention "70".

You're right, it doesn't. We infer it, as you mentioned.

> except for this passage, which seems to treat him as one of 70 sons of god.

Except that this passage is speaking of none other than YHWH. He is not listed as one of others, let alone one of many.

> "Israel and Judah" : they are, but this is an ideological position.

I meant in the Bible they are used synonymously, particularly in the prophetic writings after the Assyrian conquest. "Israel" was now gone, and the population of the northern 10 tribes are lost to history. In the prophetic writings, then, "Judah" becomes synonymous with Israel, which is used as the moniker for the people of God. You can see the transition from Ezra/Nehemiah to the prophetic writings (such as Isa. 48.1 et al.).

> even deut 32:9 is trying to show a shared cultural heritage, that yahweh should be the sole god of all israelites and not just judah. in reality, we have no reason to think israel (the northern kingdom) was ever monotheistic-yahwist in an significant capacity. the archaeology doesn't demonstrate, and even the bible condemns every last king of israel as being a polytheist, even the ones that adopted yahweh. so, israel were probably polytheists. the monotheistic revolution happened in judah, basically around the time israel stopped existing.

See, I disagree with so much of this as speculative and deriving conclusions where there is only uncertainty. We don't know the date of Dt. 32.9. I think the text bears out that YHWH should *always* have been the sole God of the Israelites. I think we have reason to perceive Moses (and therefore the Torah) as promoting monotheism. During the days of the Judges the nation wandered detrimentally and syncretistically into all sorts of religious compromise. I see David as monotheistic, and Solomon as tragically compromised. The kings of the northern 10 tribes were always a mess religiously (and strongly condemned by the prophets and the biblical writers for it); and the kings of the southern tribes went back and forth from Yahwistic monotheists to compromising polytheists, the latter of which the biblical writers censure.

[jimwalton]

> Generally because Yahwism was a centralized practice focusing on one place: the covenant. The ark was a symbol of the covenant, the law was an expression of the covenant, and the Temple was mediatorial locale of the covenant. Therefore, on the basis of that, as well as that Yahwism was monotheistic, it was considered to be the truth, which is always narrow. People weren't free to think as they wanted and do what they pleased. They were supposed to conform their thoughts and lives to what was true.

i dunno, this seems like you're injecting later ideological bias, given that we know that asherah and nechushtan were in the temple, with the ark of the covenant.

> This is ignoring, however, that Judah (unlike Israel) had numerous attempts through the monarchical period to keep the nation on the straight-and-narrow.

it's not, though; as your list shows, these are the exception. why shouldn't we treat the exception as the exception, instead of the norm?

> We simply cannot attribute to Hezekiah the beginning of monotheistic Yahwism.

i'm not saying he invented the idea. i'm saying that he's somewhere on path towards monotheistic yahwism. as i point out, he's still using the imagery associated with other cults. FWIW, a good comparison might be constantine, who imposed a monotheistic christianity on the roman empire, while also using the symbols associated with mithraism. it may also indicate that this wasn't really his idea.

> This is difficult to conclude with certainty. King Asa was against Asherah (1 Ki. 15.13). The subsequent text mentions numerous times how kings didn't tear down the high places, and indication that asherah was NOT approved:

not approved by the deuteronomic historian, writing during or after the reign of josiah. stating that the kings allowed the high places is literally condemning them because they approved of these other cults. you're looking at it through the lens of the later author, and not looking at what he's actually saying.

> I would send you the picture from the Israel museum in Jerusalem, but there's no way to attach pix.

imgur it. i've only seen them like this: https://youtu.be/H8pL0nh3_Qk?t=174 (and sometimes with the second stone in place too)

>> i think the data generally supports a polytheistic origin to monotheism.
> I think it doesn't. The data shows some similarities but not derivation.

well, then you're at odds with the leading scholars of this subject.

>> we don't have any reason to think it was earlier.
> We do, as I've mentioned in the list I put earlier in the post.

i mean, earlier earlier. scholars in general acknowledge that iron age ii is a transition period where monotheism sort of ramps and comes into conflict with older traditions, with the end of iron age ii having more or less full blown monotheism as the only religion for either the judean kingdom (just before exile) or the jewish people (following exile). we don't have any reason to suspect, say, late bronze age monotheism at all.

> Deuteronomy may be before this. Deuteronomy's date is much debated. We certainly can't take a clear stance as if it's been resolved.

deuteronomy's date is pretty clear: it's the text that hilkiah "found" during josiah's renovations. there isn't any good reason to think it's older besides a religious commitment to the truth of the mythical exodus narrative.

> This is unsettled, also. We have Israel in the Exodus. Extrabiblically, "Israel" is attested in the Merneptah Stela (c. 1230-1208 BC).

that is right at the beginning of iron age i, and the end of the bronze age, yes. some of the sites we're talking about demonstrating polytheism, like tel lachish, go back quite a bit further.

> Manfred Gorg claims to have found a reference to Israel from about 1400 BC. (His reading is disputed).

that's... extremely speculative.

>>and all of the people we might point to, well, they were polytheists.
> This is undetermined. You can't just throw out this stuff as if it's a done deal.

it's not undetermined. the local populations all made inscriptions to and images of other gods.

> I don't subscribe to the Wellhausen theory. I felt it was questionable to begin with, but much of it has been adequately refuted. It's like a falling house of cards, though I know it's still de rigueur in academic circles.

i'm starting to question your perspective of "approved". if this has been adequately refuted, why is it "still de rigueur in academic circles"? who do you think determines the consensus on academic questions like this?

> > what people seem to miss is that deut 32:8-9 is an older inclusion, and not by the same author.
> I think that just academic speculation.

i believe i made a solid argument for it.

> Yes, this is also as I have been saying. So much of this stuff is intriguing but ultimately (academically) inconclusive. We have to exercise more care than most do about jumping to conclusions where the data is tentative.

do we exercise this same care when talking about the ugarites, or the phoenicians? or do we just call their religion polytheistic, because nobody's around that's ideologically descended from their cults to get their feelings hurt? if the beliefs are functionally identical, why should we tip-toe around calling a spade a spade? multiple gods were worshiped in israel and judah, so israel and judah were polytheistic, full stop. it doesn't matter that later monotheists disapproved of it -- they were still polytheists to be disapproved of.

> I don't necessarily think either of the inheritances are literal. I don't perceive that the nations somehow earned or deserved an inheritance from the Most High, or that they were his "family" in a heritable position.

no, the sons of god are getting the inheritance, which is the nations.

> In Genesis 10 we read the Table of Nations. Nations each seem to have their territory, but we know that people groups migrate (Native Americans across the Bering Strait, Abraham from Ur to Canaan, etc.). Inheritance could easily be metaphorical for the theology of a sovereign God watching over humanity. Then in v. 9 we see that Israel is the special possession of YHWH, who is also Elyon. He doesn't inherit Israel from anyone else. This is all figurative language.

my apologies for being blunt, but this is a rather incoherent reading of the text.

> Except that this passage is speaking of none other than YHWH. He is not listed as one of others, let alone one of many.

that he is among those getting an inheritance does make him one of many, yes.

> I meant in the Bible they are used synonymously, particularly in the prophetic writings after the Assyrian conquest. "Israel" was now gone, and the population of the northern 10 tribes are lost to history. In the prophetic writings, then, "Judah" becomes synonymous with Israel, which is used as the moniker for the people of God.

right, this is an ideological position.

> I think the text bears out that YHWH should always have been the sole God of the Israelites.

i agree! that is definitely the point the author is trying to get across -- one god for each nation, and israel (that is, the unity of israel and judah) gets yahweh. this, in a sense, makes yahweh like other gods, and is legitimizing the existence of those other gods. you have to separate a little the "one god for israel" point, and look at what he's actually using to back that argument up: the other nations get their own, separate, also valid gods.

> I think we have reason to perceive Moses (and therefore the Torah) as promoting monotheism.

i don't think we have a reason to perceive that moses existed. the entire geopolitical context in the exodus narrative is wildly incorrect; canaan belonged to egypt at the time (as that mernepteh stele and the other putative "israel" inscription show). the exodus may have been inspired by some kind of historical event, be it the bronze age collapse and egypt's withdrawal from canaan, or even a smaller and more gradual migration, but one thing is pretty certain. it didn't happen like the book says it did.

[jimwalton]

> i dunno, this seems like you're injecting later ideological bias, given that we know that asherah and nechushtan were in the temple, with the ark of the covenant.

Uh, you're gonna haft-a prove this.

> it's not, though; as your list shows, these are the exception.

Which are the exceptions: the kings who try to maintain the monotheism of the covenant, or the kings who try to syncretize it? I guess it depends on one's presuppositions, or the weight of evidence (which is difficult to pin down).

> a good comparison might be constantine, who imposed a monotheistic christianity on the roman empire

An interesting comparison, and probably very much to the point. Constantine never tried to impose monotheistic Christianity on the Empire. All Constantine did (312) was make it so that Christianity was not persecuted: it was now legal. Christianity didn't become the official religion of the Empire until 395, NOT under Constantine.

> not approved by the deuteronomic historian, writing during or after the reign of josiah

This is unknown. I know it's one scholarly position, but it's historically speculative and unconfirmed, even if it may be a majority opinion. I happen to disagree with it,

> we don't have any reason to suspect, say, late bronze age monotheism at all.

It may depend on the date of Deuteronomy

> deuteronomy's date is pretty clear: it's the text that hilkiah "found" during josiah's renovations. there isn't any good reason to think it's older besides a religious commitment to the truth of the mythical exodus narrative.

Found or wrote? i think there are several reasons to date Deuteronomy earlier:

• The unity of the book takes the structure of ANE vassal treaty from the mid-2nd millennium BC. Very difficult to simulate with such accuracy a millennium later. As such it can no longer be considered to be the end product of innumerable redactions or written in the Josianic age.
• The Pentateuch recounts a single story (the story of the covenant and its people as represented in the land. Deuteronomy is an integrated part of that narrative.
• Large blocks of Deuteronomy link with Gn., Ex., Lev., and Num thematically: "faith."
• Dt. is closely related to be Book of the Covenant (Ex. 2.22-23.19), known to have been pre-1000 BC—older than the monarchy.
• Deuteronomy also links to the other 4 in a single messianic theme (Gn. 49; Num. 24; Dt. 32).
• Internal evidence: Dt. 31.9, 24
• The prophets Hosea, Amos, and Micah speak in a way reminiscent of Dt., suggesting it was in existence.
• The entire Law (Torah, Pentateuch, depending on your tradition) seems to have been purposefully arranged in a sort of chiastic form with the Golden Calf at the center.
• The laws of Dt. refer to a simpler state of society that only existed centuries earlier. It better fits into the history and cultic practice of the Mosaic age.
• The book itself ascribes most of its content to Moses
• The Jews and Samaritans of the 5th c. BC, as confirmed by the Samaritan pentateuch, ascribe it to Moses.

If it were written during the days of Josiah, it was written by a literary, historical, and cultural genius with supernatural instincts. It's more likely that it was written during the era of Moses.

I know there are arguments to the contrary, but we can't just conclude, "Well, we KNOW that Deuteronomy was written during the later Judahite monarchy."

> i don't think we have a reason to perceive that moses existed. the entire geopolitical context in the exodus narrative is wildly incorrect; canaan belonged to egypt at the time

We both know that the "Moses" and "Exodus" conversations are huge. I know there's no extrabiblical mention of Moses except in a highly speculative and debatable reading by Douglas Petrovich (in proto-consonantal script (Sinai 360, 361, and 377). The discussion about the Exodus, however, is very different. I believe there are many evidences leading us to regard the Exodus account as historical, but that's a very large conversation that doesn't fit into this one about polytheism.

[Spiderman]

> i dunno, this seems like you're injecting later ideological bias, given that we know that asherah and nechushtan were in the temple, with the ark of the covenant.
> Uh, you're gonna haft-a prove this.

hezekiah removed them, meaning they were there before:

In the third year of King Hoshea son of Elah of Israel, Hezekiah son of King Ahaz of Judah became king. He was twenty-five years old when he became king, and he reigned in Jerusalem twenty-nine years; his mother’s name was Abi daughter of Zechariah. He did what was pleasing to the Lord, just as his father David had done. He abolished the shrines and smashed the pillars and cut down the sacred post. He also broke into pieces the bronze serpent that Moses had made, for until that time the Israelites had been offering sacrifices to it; it was called Nehushtan. (2 Kings 18)

asherah and nechushtan are part of the state sanctioned cult until hezekiah.

> The unity of the book takes the structure of ANE vassal treaty from the mid-2nd millennium BC. Very difficult to simulate with such accuracy a millennium later.

it is way, way longer than vassal treaties. though i don't have a vassal treaty handy, you can read another famous hittite treaty here: https://web.archive.org/web/20190331115555/http://www.reshafim.org.il/ad/egypt/ramses-hattusili-treaty.htm the form is basically identical.

the "vassal treaty" argument is taking a very, very general thing -- a rough outline of how treaties are made with six points -- and trying to form an argument based on a supposed very specific match. it's not a solid argument for dating deuteronomy to the bronze age; it just means there was a shared cultural influence.

> The Pentateuch recounts a single story (the story of the covenant and its people as represented in the land. Deuteronomy is an integrated part of that narrative.

deuteronomy is not in fact an integrated part. it's very name means "the law, again." it repeats things we've already heard.

> Large blocks of Deuteronomy link with Gn., Ex., Lev., and Num thematically: "faith."

eisegetically, sure.

> Dt. is closely related to be Book of the Covenant (Ex. 2.22-23.19), known to have been pre-1000 BC—older than the monarchy.

no text is known to be older than the monarchy. it's hypothesized that the song of the sea might be.

> Deuteronomy also links to the other 4 in a single messianic theme (Gn. 49; Num. 24; Dt. 32).

i mean, yeah, it literally names a guy "moses".

> The prophets Hosea, Amos, and Micah speak in a way reminiscent of Dt., suggesting it was in existence.

tenuous, but i'd have to see the argument.

> The entire Law (Torah, Pentateuch, depending on your tradition) seems to have been purposefully arranged in a sort of chiastic form with the Golden Calf at the center.

chiastic structure arguments are often overblow, and it's not like we don't think the entire volume was edited together.

> The laws of Dt. refer to a simpler state of society that only existed centuries earlier. It better fits into the history and cultic practice of the Mosaic age.

negative, it is the only book that refers to a monarchy and centralized worship.

> The Jews and Samaritans of the 5th c. BC, as confirmed by the Samaritan pentateuch, ascribe it to Moses.

samaritans, of course, split from the jews sometime following the babylonian exile. they have the entire judean contents of the torah, not only the israelite portions. so that can't be used to date the text.

> If it were written during the days of Josiah, it was written by a literary, historical, and cultural genius with supernatural instincts.

muslims claim that of their text, too. i don't find the argument the least bit compelling. the literary style and language itself dates to quite late, given textual comparisons to the deuteronomic histories (there's a reason they're called that!) and to jeremiah, such that jeremiah has even been proposed as the author. by tradition, he is the author of kings, which leans heavily on deuteronomy.

> I believe there are many evidences leading us to regard the Exodus account as historical, but that's a very large conversation that doesn't fit into this one about polytheism.

it does, sort of, because it's a narrative element motivated the bias about initial monotheism. if instead israelites grew out of the local population as finkelstein (and most archaeologists today) think, that points to the polytheistic background pretty clearly.

it also matters because the golden calf in exodus is clearly meant as a condemnation of the israelite ones at bethel and dan, and indeed we find many other such polemics of iron age polytheism. for instance, J's creation myth features a tree (asherah) and a serpent named "bronze" (nechushtan).

[jimwalton]

> hezekiah removed them, meaning they were there before: 2 Ki. 18.

There is no mention in 2 Ki. 18 that the Asherah poles were in the Temple. Contrary to this idea, 2 Chr. 29.15-16 mentions the cleansing of the Temple (with no mention of the Asherah or the Nehushtan), and 2 Chr. 31.1 mentions the destruction of the Asherah poles throughout Judah, with no mention of the Temple. For instance, at Lachish, archaeologists found a stone toilet deposited in the gate shrine, placed there to desecrate it. We have no idea what was defiling the Jerusalem Temple (2 Chr. 29.5), but we cannot simply assumed Asherah, since 2 Chr. 29 & 31 lead us in a different direction.

As far as Nehushtan, the fact that the Israelites were burning incense to it (2 Ki. 18.4) could indicate it was in the Temple, but not necessarily so. The Temple was not the only location incense was burned. The Bronze Snake was not one of the items in the Ark of the Covenant. Ultimately, we have no clue where it was erected.

> asherah and nechushtan are part of the state sanctioned cult until hezekiah.

They may have been state sanctioned, but we know they were YHWH sanctioned. The king before Hezekiah (Ahaz) may have sanctioned them, but the kings before him (Joash, Amaziah, Uzziah, and Jotham) possibly not. It's close to impossible to tell, and certainly not something we can take a firm stance on, as you have.

> [Deuteronomy] is way, way longer than vassal treaties.

Of course, but it is written in that form.

> the "vassal treaty" argument is taking a very, very general thing ... shared cultural influence.

Possibly, but possibly also written quite early. My point is, there is reasonable evidence that Deut. may have been written far earlier than the days of Josiah. We can't use the date of Duet. as 600 and claim that as evidence. Your whole case lies in the dating of Deuteronomy, which cannot be used as evidence. It's too uncertain.

> deuteronomy is not in fact an integrated part. it's very name means "the law, again." it repeats things we've already heard.

Exactly. It is an elaboration on the Law. And you assert this guarantees it as a Josianic revival document? It does not. The jury is still out.

> no text is known to be older than the monarchy. it's hypothesized that the song of the sea might be.

Genesis 14 is considered to be of very ancient source. So also Ex. 15 (as you mentioned). Brevard Childs, in his commentary on Exodus (pp. 452, 454-456), says, "During the era of form criticism, this text was originally assigned to J, while others attempted to assign it to E. Since then, a growing consensus has emerged that the Book of the Covenant is an older collection of laws that are independent of and preceding the usual critical sources. The 'Book' shows many signs of redactional activity. Still, a case can be made for seeing an integral connection between the Book of the Covenant and the Mosaic office of the covenant mediator. The laws are permeated with covenant theology and God’s revelation. All of these indicate a historical setting for this section prior to the rise of the monarchy. It is evident that some of the material stems from a very early period that may reach back into the wilderness period. Many of the prohibitions are unconnected with a settled agricultural life, though the festival calendar et al. clearly point to the period after the conquest. The differences between these laws and the parallel Babylonian laws are often considerable. The stamp of Hebrew national law is everywhere."

So I would disagree with you that Deuteronomy can with certainty be dated after the monarchy. Just because we have no manuscript artifacts from before the monarchy doesn't guarantee us that Deuteronomy (or any of the Torah/Pentateuch) was not from that era.

My only contention through ALL of this (my list of reasons to possibly date Deuteronomy before Josiah) is to show that the dating of Deuteronomy is uncertain enough that it cannot stand as evidence of what you are claiming. The case is not strong enough to make the case you are making.

> the literary style and language itself dates to quite late

It was common for later editors to update texts to their linguistic context. This says nothing about its source material and original writing.

> by tradition, he is the author of kings,

I don't find this argument the least bit compelling. Authorship guesses for the historical books are all over the map. Who the authors are is unknown and most likely unknowable.

> it does, sort of, because it's a narrative element motivated the bias about initial monotheism. if instead israelites grew out of the local population as finkelstein (and most archaeologists today) think, that points to the polytheistic background pretty clearly.

Not so clearly as you think. There is huge debate about Israelite origins. Finkelstein gives convincing evidence that a new population group appeared in the central hill country of Canaan in Iron Age 1. The origin of that population is the subject of raging debate, but since most scholars discount the veracity of the Exodus account, they claim it was a local people group. The differences, however, in the housing and pottery style, as well as the linguistic distinctions, speak against such theories. The Bible claims they were of Aramean descent. The Merneptah Stele refers to "Israel" as a people (though not necessarily a country or a nation). Again, my claim: It's not as "pretty clearly" as you claim. Yours is one theory, but not a settled matter and certainly not "pretty clearly."

> it also matters because the golden calf in exodus is clearly meant as a condemnation of the israelite ones at bethel and dan,

Oh my, another unproved theory. This doesn't carry your case. You're using "clearly" again where it's not so clear. I say the exodus is real, and it was really in the 2nd millennium, there was really a guy named Moses, and he's likely the author and tradent for the Torah/Pentateuch. That these writings were written by others centuries later as metaphors/theologies/condemnations of local current behavior—I know is theorized by some, but they are deeply and fiercely debated and nowhere close to "clearly meant." I know you're convinced of your position, as I am convinced of mine, but to continually consider your case as the "clear" one denies the ongoing debate and all the contrary evidence to your position.

[Spiderman]

> There is no mention in 2 Ki. 18 that the Asherah poles were in the Temple.

okay, so, i think you're right. there's nothing in the text specifically linking them to the temple.

> Ultimately, we have no clue where it was erected.

however, i don't think we have no clue. scholarly criticism has pointed to the eden narrative as featuring temple imagery, and it includes a serpent named "nachash" (like "nechushtan") and a tree of "knowledge" with sexual consequences associated with it, the tree being a common image associated with asherah.

further, the only judean temple we've excavated (tel arad) seems to be a "house of yahweh" that also features a second altar. we see other associations between yahweh and asherah as taanach, and kuntilet arjud. it seems pretty reasonable to think these were features of the jerusalem temple too.

> They may have been state sanctioned, but we know they were YHWH sanctioned.

i suspect you missed a word there. we don't know? we know they were not? in any case, we just don't have any convincing evidence of what yahweh is, what he sanctioned, etc. historically, we treat him like we treat the god of any other civilization. it's clear that later monotheistic yahwists did not sanction these other gods/cultic objects, but it seems like the earlier ones did. that's about all we can really say.

> My point is, there is reasonable evidence that Deut. may have been written far earlier than the days of Josiah. We can't use the date of Duet. as 600 and claim that as evidence. Your whole case lies in the dating of Deuteronomy, which cannot be used as evidence. It's too uncertain.

what we're pretty certain about is that the text was unknown prior to then. i don't really consider the treaty thing to be reasonable evidence, though.

>> deuteronomy is not in fact an integrated part. it's very name means "the law, again." it repeats things we've already heard.
> Exactly. It is an elaboration on the Law. And you assert this guarantees it as a Josianic revival document?

well, it addresses the "integral part" argument. i don't think it guarantees a specific time period, but i think it clearly shows it was written after the other parts. i'm aware there's some disagreement on that matter, though.

> So I would disagree with you that Deuteronomy can with certainty be dated after the monarchy. Just because we have no manuscript artifacts from before the monarchy doesn't guarantee us that Deuteronomy (or any of the Torah/Pentateuch) was not from that era.

i think this is underselling form criticism, though. we can compare writing style, and it compares to texts that date very late, as opposed to texts thought to be older.

It was common for later editors to update texts to their linguistic context.

by re-writing the entire thing in a more modern style? while keeping the vague outline of an ancient arrangement?

> > by tradition, he is the author of kings,
> I don't find this argument the least bit compelling. Authorship guesses for the historical books are all over the map. Who the authors are is unknown and most likely unknowable.

nor do i, btw, but the point is that the linguistic style is similar enough that people make the comparison. clearly deuteronomy is part of the deuteronomic tradition that includes kings and jeremiah.

> Not so clearly as you think. There is huge debate about Israelite origins. Finkelstein gives convincing evidence that a new population group appeared in the central hill country of Canaan in Iron Age 1. The origin of that population is the subject of raging debate, but since most scholars discount the veracity of the Exodus account, they claim it was a local people group. The differences, however, in the housing and pottery style, as well as the linguistic distinctions, speak against such theories.

negative; israelites build bog-standard levantine four roomed houses, and leave material culture practically identical to their neighbors, including inscriptions in closely related languages. this is the evidence that finkelstein gives. contrast to, say, the philistines who begin their stay in the area making mycenaean style material culture and leaving inscriptions in an indo-european language, before gradually adopting western levantine culture, religion, and semitic vocabulary.

> The Bible claims they were of Aramean descent.

maybe. it's unclear where abram's "ur" was. the traditional definition is uruk in babylonia (territory ruled by the chaldeans/neo-babylonians when these texts were written). i understand there's some reasonable arguments for other places, notably because abram apparently goes south from ur into the promised land.

FWIW, relevant to the conversation, the other gods worshiped alongside yahweh at elephantine seem to be aramean syncretism.

> Oh my, another unproved theory. This doesn't carry your case. You're using "clearly" again where it's not so clear.

the language is identical. here's some light reading: https://isthatinthebible.wordpress.com/2016/04/10/behold-your-gods-o-israel-the-golden-calves-of-aaron-and-jeroboam/

> I say the exodus is real, and it was really in the 2nd millennium, there was really a guy named Moses, and he's likely the author and tradent for the Torah/Pentateuch.

i say that's pretty unlikely given that egypt looked like this between 1550 BCE and sometime after 1208 BCE: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/03/Egypt_NK_edit.svg

> That these writings were written by others centuries later as metaphors/theologies/condemnations of local current behavior—I know is theorized by some, but they are deeply and fiercely debated and nowhere close to "clearly meant."

well, we have evidence of these later practices. we have evidence against the earlier narratives. the identifications are clear -- these later idols are described in the same terms and called by nearly identical names.

[jimwalton]

> scholarly criticism has pointed to the eden narrative as featuring temple imagery, and it includes a serpent named "nachash" (like "nechushtan") and a tree of "knowledge" with sexual consequences associated with it, the tree being a common image associated with asherah.

Sort of yes, mostly no. Yes, YES Genesis 1 is a temple text, and it does include a nachash in Gn. 3, presumably as an invader. The decor of the Solomonic Temple also was also modeled after the Garden. But the nachash had no place in the Temple because it was a chaos creature. It was also cursed (Gn. 3.14). No serpent was part of its decor, and the nachash had no place in the Temple—as far as we know, even in the times of compromise.

Secondly, and possibly even more important, the tree of "knowledge" had absolutely no sexual consequences associated with it, and so no connection with the Asherah. In the ancient world, God was often associated with the concept of wisdom, and "the knowledge of good and evil" is a idiomatic way that they expressed that concept of wisdom. For instance, in the Gilgamesh Epic, the primitive Enkidu becomes wise (possessing reason) not by eating the fruit of a tree but instead by engaging in sexual intercourse with the prostitute Samhat, who was sent to entice and capture him. The tree in the biblical story, however, has no sexual association and therefore is to be associated with the wisdom that is found in God (Job 28.28; Prov. 1.7). With the tree, God was inviting them to acquire wisdom (godliness) in the proper way at the appropriate time by obedience to him. "Good and evil" is a legal idiom meaning "to formulate and articulate a judicial decision (Gn. 24.50; 31.24, 29; Dt. 1.39; 1 Ki. 3.9; 22.18). This, not the sexuality of Gilgamesh, is the biblical concept. The idea is that they would seek God's ways instead of their own. The tree corresponds to their ability to decide. What was being forbidden to the humans was the power to decide for themselves what was in their best interests and what was not.

> further, the only judean temple we've excavated (tel arad) seems to be a "house of yahweh" that also features a second altar. we see other associations between yahweh and asherah as taanach, and kuntilet arjud. it seems pretty reasonable to think these were features of the jerusalem temple too.

I don't think it's reasonable. The Jerusalem Temple was always unique. The Arad temple was seen as renegade, and it was disassembled and "destroyed." I've already agreed that there associations made between YHWH and Asherah, but they were not sanctioned by YHWH.

> i suspect you missed a word there. we don't know? we know they were not?

Right. Thanks for the catch. Sometimes auto-correct ends up saying the opposite. Grr. I was saying that "They may have been state sanctioned, but we know they were not YHWH sanctioned."

> we just don't have any convincing evidence of what yahweh is, what he sanctioned

It depends on the dating of the text (which is unknown) and whether one views the text as authoritative (I do.) In other words, I'm convinced we have 1000 pages (the Tanakh/the Old Testament) revealing YHWH to us and telling us what He sanctioned.

> what we're pretty certain about is that the text (Deuteronomy) was unknown prior to then

Possibly correct, but the point doesn't take us far. Since it is mostly an elaboration on the Book of the Law, "quotes" and references are not always clear. Also, the OT itself ascribes the bulk of Deut. to Moses (1.1, 5; 31.24; Josh. 1.7-8; 23.6; 1 Ki. 2.3; 8.53; Mal. 4.4.) But since we don't know when or by whom the historical books were written, that doesn't help us much, either. And Malachi was written in about 435-400 BC, so that doesn't help either.

> it compares to texts that date very late, as opposed to texts thought to be older.

Yes, I know there are sections of Deut. that come from another author than the main author. Other parts, as I mentioned, seem to betray an earlier writing. There is no particular reason, however, to question that the speeches in Deuteronomy are those of Moses, or that Moses is at the very least the primary tradent and source of the material. But I know that you don't believe in Moses, so this point won't go far with you.

> israelites build bog-standard levantine four roomed houses

The 4-roomed structures of the Israelites were unique enough to be able to mark them out as a separate people group.

> leave material culture practically identical to their neighbors,

I disagree. The pottery style of the Israelites is unique, as well as their burial habits, lack of porcine ingestion, and worship practices. There is a lack of imported goods, in contrast to the Canaanites, and their sites were largely unfortified, with a general lack of public buildings. It's a pretty distinct cultural identity.

> it's unclear where abram's "ur" was.

True. It is marked only as "of the Chaldees," which isn't helpful enough. Textual evidence from Mesopotamia provides some evidence of a small town called Ur in its northern region, not far from Haran. This identification would also explain why Abraham's family is described as having its homeland in "Paddan Aram" or "Aram Naharaim" (Gn. 24.10; 28.2, descriptions of northern Mesopotamia between the Tigris and Euphrates). But it still places the Israelites' descent as being from the Aramean people group.

> the language is identical.

It seems that most of the similarity is in the sentence, "Behold your gods, O Israel, who brought you up out of the land of Egypt!" That's it? That's "the language is identical" that makes your case? That doesn't carry enough weight to say what you're trying to make it say.

There is no doubting that Israel was part of the cultural river of the ancient Near East. There is no questioning that they shared elements of a common language. The doubt comes in when one asserts that similarity = derivation, and I think that's where the case doesn't hold enough water to swim in.

> i say that's pretty unlikely given that egypt looked like this between 1550 BCE and sometime after 1208 BCE

Yes, the map has some accuracy, but misses the important nuances. The Egyptians had a strong presence up through Canaan during part of that era. Lachish, Megiddo, and Beth-Shean all have some indication of at least partial Egyptian occupation, including taxation. But also through that era, the "invasion" of the Sea Peoples weakened Egypt's grip. In certain periods Egyptian sovereignty was only minimal, if at all. The Hittites were also waning in power, and Canaan itself at the time was little more than small kings and local princes, each trying to survive and also testing their strength. Military skirmishes were numerous. Joshua 12 alone mentions 31 kings in the region. (Source: Riccioti, The History of Israel, and other sources [that I stupidly didn't mark in my notes, duh.])

James Hoffmeier (Egyptologist) notes that Egypt had prevented the city-states from developing strong defenses in order to prevent rebellion, and their lack of strong defensive forces made them vulnerable to Israelite attack. The situation was ripe for Joshua's conquest.

Hoffmeier also reports that the book of Judges doesn't mention the Egyptians despite the fact that historians tell us the Egyptians were involved in military activity there in that era. (Judges mentions mostly Philistines and other people groups.) Nor does Judges report any Egyptian military response to Israel's military movements. He argues that the Egyptians may have invaded Canaan to counter Israel’s successes (something not mentioned in the Bible).

> well, we have evidence of these later practices

Yep.

> we have evidence against the earlier narratives

Some, but there is also evidence in support of the earlier narratives. The jury is still out. It's inconclusive, not clear.

> these later idols are described in the same terms and called by nearly identical names.

Yes, Israel shared a cultural river with the other cultures of the ANE, no doubt about it. But we simply cannot know that they derived their practices from them.

[Spiderman]

> But the nachash had no place in the Temple because it was a chaos creature.

it is not the chaos serpent of gen 1, psalm 74, and job, though. heiser sees a lot of similarity between the serpent and serafim, though i should not the actual bronze serpents we have unearthed do not have wings.

> Secondly, and possibly even more important, the tree of "knowledge" had absolutely no sexual consequences associated with it, and so no connection with the Asherah.

the woman is cursed with childbirth and desire for her husband, so i don't know how you can say that. these are obviously related to sex. further, the next chapter begins,

וְהָאָדָם, יָדַע אֶת-חַוָּה אִשְׁתּוֹ; וַתַּהַר, וַתֵּלֶד אֶת-קַיִן, וַתֹּאמֶר, קָנִיתִי אִישׁ אֶת-יְהוָה

then the man knew chawah his woman, and she conceived and bore "gain", saying "i have gained a man with yahweh."

she took knowledge from yahweh, and she used knowledge, and gained a son.

> In the ancient world, God was often associated with the concept of wisdom, and "the knowledge of good and evil" is a idiomatic way that they expressed that concept of wisdom. For instance, in the Gilgamesh Epic, the primitive Enkidu becomes wise (possessing reason) not by eating the fruit of a tree but instead by engaging in sexual intercourse with the prostitute Samhat, who was sent to entice and capture him.

that seems like a sexual association to me.

> The tree in the biblical story, however, has no sexual association and therefore is to be associated with the wisdom that is found in God (Job 28.28; Prov. 1.7).

even hundreds of years later in the hellenistic period, the divine reasoning logos is thought to have been a creative power. philo calls this logos "second god". who would the second god have been in the iron age? note that stealing this tree makes chawah "the mother of all", a position occupied by guess-who in the ugaritic pantheon.

> With the tree, God was inviting them to acquire wisdom (godliness) in the proper way at the appropriate time by obedience to him.
there is no indication in the text that it was reserved for future use. i'm aware of midrashim that talk about that in later tradition though.
> "Good and evil" is a legal idiom meaning "to formulate and articulate a judicial decision

well, some of those uses are a little different. but this story is clearly an allegory. we shouldn't expect it to necessarily match all the literal uses.

> I don't think it's reasonable. The Jerusalem Temple was always unique.

based on what? there aren't exactly a lot of excavations there.

> The Arad temple was seen as renegade, and it was disassembled and "destroyed."

was it destroyed by hezekiah? i apologize, it's been a little while and i haven't had time to get back to this post, so i forget where exactly we left off. i recall hearing something about the altars and standing stones being buried. do you know about that? i know they weren't desecrated like the ones at lachish.

> I've already agreed that there associations made between YHWH and Asherah, but they were not sanctioned by YHWH.

historically we can't really treat yahweh as an actual actor in this story. we only have evidence of what people did, and that evidence points to yahweh being widely associated with asherah, even in the official religion, until pretty late. ultimately, "yahweh didn't approve" is a statement of your beliefs and not really something you can defend with historical evidence.

> It depends on the dating of the text (which is unknown) and whether one views the text as authoritative (I do.) In other words, I'm convinced we have 1000 pages (the Tanakh/the Old Testament) revealing YHWH to us and telling us what He sanctioned.

from a literary critical standpoint, i don't buy it. it's rather a lot to compress into this post, of course, but this is simply not an academic way to treat the text. and of course, the text also depicts yahweh sanctioning the construction of nechushtan, and keruvim, and at one point seemingly commands a sacrifice to another god, azazel. so, you not only have to reject the scholarly, critical view of the text, you have apply some kind of apologetic for why the text also says some things that go against your position.

> Possibly correct, but the point doesn't take us far. Since it is mostly an elaboration on the Book of the Law, "quotes" and references are not always clear. Also, the OT itself ascribes the bulk of Deut. to Moses (1.1, 5; 31.24; Josh. 1.7-8; 23.6; 1 Ki. 2.3; 8.53; Mal. 4.4.) But since we don't know when or by whom the historical books were written, that doesn't help us much, either. And Malachi was written in about 435-400 BC, so that doesn't help either.

yes, by then the tradition was solidified. as i mentioned above, jeremiah is a probable author for both the historical books and deuteronomy.

> Yes, I know there are sections of Deut. that come from another author than the main author. Other parts, as I mentioned, seem to betray an earlier writing.

well, no, the bulk of it compares to books like, uh, kings and jeremiah. there are obviously older inclusions, though -- we think deut 32:8-9 is pretty old.

> There is no particular reason, however, to question that the speeches in Deuteronomy are those of Moses, or that Moses is at the very least the primary tradent and source of the material. But I know that you don't believe in Moses, so this point won't go far with you.

i don't believe in moses because the whole historical context of the exodus is a fiction. i think that's a fairly compelling argument for rejecting him as the author of any of it. like, sure, samwell tarly wrote "a song of ice and fire" or whatever, but since this isn't westeros, and the actual dispute between the yorks and the lancasters was pretty radically different than the war of the four kings, and there's no giant ice-wall keeping zombies out... i think we can say that samwell tarly is probably a fictional character and someone else wrote "a game of thrones".

egypt owned all of canaan between about 1550 BCE and 1100 BCE. there's a pretty ridiculous amount of evidence for this, from records of the military campaigns in the area, to egyptian outposts, to the el amarna letters between the pharaohs and canaanite kings. this is a pretty big gaff to make, and a rather ridiculous oversight for someone supposedly living in that time

> The 4-roomed structures of the Israelites were unique enough to be able to mark them out as a separate people group.

they are not; they were built by every other canaanite culture too, even abroad.

> I disagree. The pottery style of the Israelites is unique, as well as their burial habits ... and worship practices.

all of this actually explicitly not unique, and there is a large degree of continuity between israelite and canaanite/phoenician cultures, because,

> There is a lack of imported goods, in contrast to the Canaanites,

they imported a lot of goods from the canaanites/phoenicians.

> lack of porcine ingestion

this is a distinguishing factor, but it is by no means unique to israelite culture. canaanite cultures tended to eat pig more regularly, but not all canaanite cutures did. a famous example is that we find no pig bones in hyksos settlements in egypts -- one reason people commonly misidentify them as israelites.

> and their sites were largely unfortified, with a general lack of public buildings.

this, frankly, is just incorrect. the best argument i've heard in support of a unified (davidic/solomonic) kingdom is a unified architectural style around the 10th century in public fortifications across both kingdoms of israel and judah.

> It seems that most of the similarity is in the sentence, "Behold your gods, O Israel, who brought you up out of the land of Egypt!"

the sons of aaron and jeroboam also have the same names.

> That's it? That's "the language is identical" that makes your case?

read the article!

> The doubt comes in when one asserts that similarity = derivation

it's part of the narrative that seems written about a later time, like the temple language in gen 2/3.

> Yes, the map has some accuracy, but misses the important nuances. The Egyptians had a strong presence up through Canaan during part of that era. Lachish, Megiddo, and Beth-Shean all have some indication of at least partial Egyptian occupation, including taxation. But also through that era, the "invasion" of the Sea Peoples weakened Egypt's grip. In certain periods Egyptian sovereignty was only minimal, if at all.

yes, it weakened somewhat gradually after 1208 BCE, until around 1100 BCE, as the bronze age collapsed.

> The Hittites were also waning in power,

in 1250-ish BCE, ramesses ii fought them to a stalemate about qadesh, some 100 miles north of jerusalem.

> James Hoffmeier (Egyptologist) notes that Egypt had prevented the city-states from developing strong defenses in order to prevent rebellion, and their lack of strong defensive forces made them vulnerable to Israelite attack. The situation was ripe for Joshua's conquest.

i mean, except for the egyptian army that was there going around putting down rebellions.

> Hoffmeier also reports that the book of Judges doesn't mention the Egyptians despite the fact that historians tell us the Egyptians were involved in military activity there in that era. (Judges mentions mostly Philistines and other people groups.) Nor does Judges report any Egyptian military response to Israel's military movements. He argues that the Egyptians may have invaded Canaan to counter Israel’s successes (something not mentioned in the Bible).

no, they were there first. they took over the area around 1550, as the expelled and exterminated the hyksos. the theban kings just continued campaigns in the area after the hyksos were done.

[jimwalton]

> it is not the chaos serpent of gen 1, psalm 74, and job, though.

I agree.

> heiser sees a lot of similarity between the serpent and serafim

There are possibly some similarities, yes. The *nachash* is an upright, shiny creature, and the seraphim (which we know very little about; I believe their only Scriptural reference is in Isa. 6). The source of the word is "to burn," and thus we assume a fiery appearance. It's true that the serpents in the wilderness plaguing the Israelites are also designated as seraphs, but the seraphim of Isa. 6 are supernatural composite creatures, distinguishing them from the wilderness serpents. The seraphs of Isa. 6 may be flying serpents, for all we know. Our knowledge is too limited. Seraphim decorating Egyptian art and literature (even in some Israelite art) are common as symbols of royalty and authority. Six-winged creatures, however, are not so widely attested.

> the woman is cursed with childbirth and desire for her husband, so i don't know how you can say that. these are obviously related to sex. further, the next chapter begins,

The woman is not cursed. Only the serpent and the ground are cursed, not the woman or the man. Woman always had childbirth, and human childbirth would always be painful. Gn. 3.16 mentions only an "increase" in pain, and the term used (עִצְּבוֹנֵךְ) points to more mental or psychological anguish than any physical difference. The change in their covenantal relationship will increase her anxiety.

> she took knowledge from yahweh, and she used knowledge, and gained a son.

This is a mistake. There is no notion she now had different knowledge or used that knowledge to gain a sin. All she says is, "With the Lord I have brought forth a man." YHWH was recognized as responsible for granting her offspring.

> but this story is clearly an allegory. we shouldn't expect it to necessarily match all the literal uses.

Another strong disagreement here. I take Genesis 1-2 along the lines of Dr. John Walton: an account of God ordering the cosmos to function in a certain way (as His temple). It is not about material manufacture or an allegory.

> "The Jerusalem Temple was always unique." based on what?

The role that the Temple played in the covenant, and how it was distinguished from neighboring temples. Neighboring temples were graced by idols; Solomon's was idol-free. YHWH didn't dwell in the Temple, or even in the Ark of the Covenant, but instead dwelt among His people. Even Jerusalem, through the ages, occupied a very different place in Israelite mentality than Shechem, Bethel, or Dan. Once those cities were destroyed, so was the temple mentality that accompanied them. But Jerusalem, even after its destruction, occupied a central place in Israelite theology—as did the Temple. The Torah itself had no role apart from the Temple.

> "The Arad Temple" was it destroyed by hezekiah?

In a sense, yes, and in a sense, no. The altars along with the standing stones were knocked down and covered with soil. I don't know the further extent of the "destruction," but I don't think the temple itself at Arad was leveled. Elsewhere in the land the sacred stones were smashed and the Asherah poles cut down.

> historically we can't really treat yahweh as an actual actor in this story

All we have to go by is the "theological historiography" of the OT. There YHWH is clearly portrayed as an actual actor in this historical story. There YHWH abides no competitors and grants no equals. While at times some people associated Him with Asherah, and obviously the cult of Asherah was widespread throughout Israel, the prophets are firm that this is apostasy and YHWH does not approve.

> from a literary critical standpoint, i don't buy it

From an academic, critical standpoint I do buy it, and so we're probably at an impasse on this one.

> the text also depicts yahweh sanctioning the construction of nechushtan, and keruvim

Yes, for their particular and immediate purposes, but not for what the people eventually did with them (some kind of worship). The Numbers 21 reference to the serpent has no allusion to the heathen practice of snakes having healing properties. And though serpents were worshipped, there is no command to worship in Num. 21. The emphasis in Num. 21.8 is not magical healing (common in Ugarit) or worship, but YHWH's divine power.

> and at one point seemingly commands a sacrifice to another god, azazel

I'm not aware of ANY text even seemingly commanding a sacrfice to Azazel. He appears in Lev. 16, where both goats are sacrificed, one as a burnt offering and one as a scapegoat. Both goats are presented before the Lord first (16.7), meaning that they were not being offered to two separated deities, YHWH and Azazel. The scapegoat is not sacrificed to Azazel, but instead is released to Azazel—the wilderness, thought to be the abode of demons (A Hellenistic thought but not an ancient Hebrew one). The ritual in Leviticus does not transfer a demon or deity *into* the goat; there is no recognition of Azazel as divine. 'Aza'zel is the place where the goat is sent.

> "Deuteronomy" yes, by then the tradition was solidified

But this still tells us nothing. Possibly the tradition was solidified because it was truly Mosaic. Who's to know? My only point is that the authorship and dating of Deuteronomy is too tentative for you to make the arguments you are making and draw the conclusions you are drawing.

> i don't believe in moses because the whole historical context of the exodus is a fiction.

Again, this is unproved. I think there is strong evidence supporting the historical context of the exodus, but that's a VERY lengthy discussion. You simply cannot build a case on an issue so hotly debated. I believe there are several justifiable reasons why we find no evidence of the wandering Israelites, why Israelites are not mentioned by name in Egyptian records, and why no large exodus appears in artifacts.

It seems we could go back and forth on this stuff with very extensive evidences and references, but to no avail. I see some unsettled issues where you see definitiveness. We are pulling up our separate documentary and artifactual evidences to support our various positions, but still disagreeing. Part of this, of course, is the fun of interaction and debate. The records are far from as complete as we would like them to be. Artifactual and documentary evidence will only take us so far, anyway. Understanding ancient cultures and events only through the remaining jig-saw pieces is only a small slice of reality. We do the best we can, and it's all we have to work with, but I can tell it's not going to bring you and I to a place of agreed conclusion. Can you imagine someone 3000 years from now examining, say, 3% of assorted remaining documentation from our era (political chaos, economic volatility, cultural upheaval, technological advancement), and trying to write (in a different language and a different worldview), what it was like in America in the 1st part of the 21st century?? That's what we're doing with the ancient Near East, but in some cases with less than 1/2 of 1%.

It has been a pleasure having this dialogue with you, but at this point I wonder about the value of continuation. We are seeing in skew lines to each other.