David The Cuck & Bathsheba The Slut

Reconstructing The Original Narrative Of David And Bathsheba

David and Bathsheba is once again trending on Twitter. Carmen Imes put it on my radar during this latest round. She had posted a thread regarding the matter, which led to Christianity Today asking her to write an article.

Much of the debate centers around whether Bathsheba seduced David or David raped Bathsheba. Since the Bible emphasizes placing the blame on David, Imes also places the blame on him but stops short of calling him a rapist. That’s an extremely simplified summary and I encourage you to check out the article, as she is sincere in her examination of the text.

Having said that though, Imes misses the original intention of the text. The text was created as propaganda: The Biblical author had taken an existing narrative about David and Bathsheba and spun it in a new direction, and believe it or not, that new direction makes David look good, or at least better than he did in the original narrative.

The original narrative can be reconstructed using a method I’ve developed called Reconstructive-Reading. I’ll attempt to lay out what actually happened between David, Bathsheba and Uriah.

David’s Son or Uriah’s Son?

Sometimes, Biblical authors had a hard time fitting parts of the original narrative into the new narrative, thereby creating a glitch. To start, we need to go to the end of the Biblical narrative of David and Bathsheba and notice one of the glitches in the text: When Bathsheba’s child was alive, David mourned and fasted, when her child died, he rose and ate. Of course the Biblical author does the best that he can to explain the odd behavior:

Then his servants said to him, “What is this thing that you have done? You fasted and wept for the child while he was alive; but when the child died, you got up and ate food.” And he said, “While the child was still alive, I fasted and wept; for I said, ‘Who knows, the Lord may be gracious to me, and the child may live.’ But now he has died; why should I fast? Can I bring him back again? I am going to him, but he will not return to me.”

2 Samuel 12:21-23

Biblical authors used many propaganda techniques, and the passage above uses one that I call “Begging the Answer”. Biblical authors would insert questions into the narrative, questions that the original narrative would have answered differently, but the Biblical narrative provided new answers to those questions. The servant’s question in the above passage is an example of this technique.

But some might say, “Hey, that’s just the kind of guy David was, there’s nothing strange about it at all. He knew the power of God”. But was he really that kind of guy? The glitch is made glitchier in the Absalom narrative, where David has the exact opposite behavior regarding that son who died:

Then it was reported to Joab, “Behold, the king is weeping and he mourns for Absalom.” So the victory that day was turned into mourning for all the people, because the people heard it said that day, “The king is in mourning over his son.”

2 Samuel 19:1-2

This raises the question: Why would David celebrate Bathsheba’s son dying in the original narrative? I propose it was because it was actually Uriah’s son. Let’s take a look at the narrative with this in mind.

Uriah’s Wife Or David’s Wife?

Another propaganda technique that Biblical authors used, I refer to as “The Redundant Lie”. This is a claim that the Biblical author unnecessarily repeats because he is trying to change the narrative. One of the most frequent claims in this narrative is that Bathsheba was Uriah’s wife. In her Christianity Today article, Imes also notices the frequency in the text:

He violates Uriah’s marriage covenant, which the narrator reminds us of by repeatedly calling her “the wife of Uriah.”

The narrator repeatedly does that because Bathsheba was not Uriah’s wife, but David’s wife the entire time in the original narrative.

With the Biblical author trying to change the parentage of Bathsheba’s son, he makes sure to let us know that Bathsheba was not pregnant with Uriah’s son before David had a chance to get her pregnant. Imes points out that Bathsheba’s bath is connected with parentage:

This was no ordinary bath, either. She was purifying herself ritually following menstruation (2 Sam. 11:4). This practice indicates that she was a pious keeper of Israelite purity law (and also that she was not already pregnant, which is important to the question of parentage).

I propose that parentage was being addressed because the Biblical author was trying to change it.

Why Didn’t Uriah Go To His House?

Now when they informed David, saying, “Uriah did not go down to his house,”

2 Samuel 11:10a

Ruh-roh! Sounds like there’s a fox in the hen house! Of course the Biblical author provides an explanation as to why Uriah did not go down to his house. It was well known that Uriah did not go to his house, so the Biblical author could not claim that he did, but he doesn’t want to place him in the palace either, because that’s when Uriah impregnates Bathsheba in the original narrative, so the author threads the needle and places Uriah at the gate.

Marry, F*ck, Kill

Then David’s anger burned greatly against the man, and he said to Nathan, “As the Lord lives, the man who has done this certainly deserves to die!

2 Samuel 12:5

If Uriah impregnated David’s wife in the original narrative, then we would expect David to be angry about it. But without Uriah impregnating Bathsheba, there’s no reason for David to be angry, so the Biblical author inserts the story about the stolen lamb, but, for the original reader, it wouldn’t have been clear who did the lamb stealing, so the author has to explicitly have Nathan say to David, “You are the man!”

You have struck and killed Uriah the Hittite with the sword

2 Samuel 12:9

If Uriah impregnated David’s wife in the original narrative, then we would also expect David to want to kill Uriah, and the quote above may indicate that David did it personally. The Biblical author provides a new reason for David to kill Uriah and places that death on the battlefield.

A Plausible Misunderstanding

The original reader would have been comparing the Biblical narrative to the narrative they had heard. With this in mind, the Biblical author provides plausible misunderstandings in order to provide the original reader with a reason to assimilate the new narrative: “Oh, you thought that Uriah slept with David’s wife, no that was Absalom later in the narrative”:

This is what the Lord says: ‘Behold, I am going to raise up evil against you from your own household; I will even take your wives before your eyes and give them to your companion, and he will sleep with your wives in broad daylight.

2 Samuel 12:11

“Companion” is a bit odd here. There’s a little more flexibility in the Hebrew but still, Absalom was David’s son (not really, but that’s another blog post) and not his buddy, like Uriah was.

This “Plausible Misunderstanding” is combined with “A Plausible Ignorance”: “Oh, you never heard that part of the narrative before? That’s because it was done in secret.”

“Indeed, you did it secretly, but I will do this thing before all Israel, and in open daylight.’”

2 Samuel 12:12

The Blame Game

Many seem to revel in calling David a rapist, others seem to project their own fears in being seduced by Bathsheba. We may never know what really happened, but with the above Reconstructive-Reading, I think we can say that David did not rape Bathsheba and Bathsheba did not seduce David. It looks like Uriah was the bad guy all along. But did Bathsheba seduce Uriah? We know even less about Bathsheba in the Reconstructive-Reading than we do in the Biblical narrative, but if Uriah had violated Bathsheba and she was not a willing participant, then there would be no need for the Biblical author to change the narrative. However, the narrative was changed because David got cuckolded and for an ancient king, that’s bad for your reputation, not to mention your ego.

Imes ends her article with this:

The ongoing debate about this story shows the importance of returning to a text again and again, attending to its details, and remaining open to the possibility that we have missed or misconstrued something.

Reading with others is essential to that process. We all miss things, because we’re all embedded in communities that have shaped what we notice and what we don’t. Sometimes our failure to realize this impairs our ability to see what’s right in front of us.

In this case, Bathsheba deserves another look.

It does indeed. Perhaps Christianity Today will ask me to write an article (Ha!)

The Book Of Job And How El Made Job From Clay

A Reconstructive-Reading Of The Book Of Job

I recently saw that @amateurexegete recommended listening to @The2Testaments (T2T), so I listened to their series on Job and decided to do a preliminary reconstructive-reading of the book in hopes of getting Ben to roll his eyes at me once again.

@RonyKozman and @WillKynes do an excellent job hosting experts and discussing the Book of Job and I’ll try to incorporate some of that discussion into my comments below.

In the Introduction to Job episode of T2T, they talk about the importance of identifying the genre(s) of a book and the impact it has on one’s understanding of it. I couldn’t agree more, and I believe that there are enough indications in the text to say that the genre of the Book of Job is propaganda. Identifying whether this propaganda masquerades as “wisdom literature” or another genre, has value but is secondary.

It was disappointing that T2T did not discuss source/redaction criticism more in their episodes. It was mentioned occasionally but for the most part they seem to treat the text as a cohesive whole. The confusing nature of the text is presented as a masterful way of getting the reader to deal with the difficult issues that the text deals with. However, I can assure you that this narrative dissonance was not intended by the author(s), and they would have made their talking points crystal clear, but since they were repurposing existing texts and oral traditions, narrative glitches were unavoidable. I’ll highlight some of the glitches as I go along.

One of the other disappointments with T2T is that there was no mention of the different deity names in the text: El, Shaddai and Yahweh. They are all referred to as “God” and it is a sign of how successful the propaganda has been. The different deity names are important for understanding Job as each layer in the text promotes a different deity.

It’s interesting that there may be remnants of other deities in the text as well. Jeff Leonard on T2T mentions this about Day and Night and it brings to mind Death and Decay, Sheol and Abbadon as well as Leviathan and Behemoth.

There seems to be at least 3 layers to the text: An oral tradition about Job and El, a pro-Shaddai layer and a pro-Yahweh layer. The dating of these layers range from very early (El tradition) to very late (post-exilic).

The Oral Tradition

So, let’s start with the 1st layer: The oral tradition about Job and El. To summarize: Job was created out of clay by El, became wicked, was killed by El, descended into Sheol and cursed El, repented of his wickedness and was resurrected by El. Since the text only contains elements of this tradition, we’ll need to reconstruct it using the text we have. Let’s take it piece by piece.

Job was created out of clay:

One of the things that the text is adamant about is that Job was born of a woman. When referring to Job, we find repeated words like “human”, “mother”, “born”, “conceived”, “of the womb”, “of a woman” and “baby”. This repetitiveness is usually a signal that the author is trying to change the narrative. If you’re not familiar with my work, I call this technique “The Redundant Lie”.

But if Job was not born of a woman, where did he come from? He was created by El with clay. In Job , we find “Your hands formed me and made every part of me, then you turned to destroy me. Please remember that you made me out of clay and that you will return me to the dust again”, “You will long for the person your hands have made”, “the work of your hands” and “Look at Behemoth, which I made along with you”. This is usually taken to mean that Job is a descendant of Adam, who was created from the ground, but that’s not what the text says and so it sits awkwardly in the text as a glitch in the narrative. Perhaps the broken pottery that Job uses to scratch himself was originally a reference to Job himself.

A later author tries to change the clay references to a metaphor by saying that we are all made by God, referring to Job as a descendant of Adam and having Elihu claim he was also made from a piece of clay. This is another propaganda technique of changing the literal to metaphor.

Job was wicked:

Another “Redundant Lie” in the text is that Job was innocent. This is probably the most frequent claim in the text and it is made in various ways. But I propose that this innocence of Job is a change in the narrative by a later author. This creates tension in the text as Job’s “friends” level accusations of wrongdoing against Job. This tension is resolved, if, in the oral tradition, Job was wicked. Suddenly, those sons of bitches picking on an innocent man become wise men correcting a fool.

El killed Job:

Although there are a few instances in the text that indicate that El killed e.g. “you turned to destroy me” . El may have killed him with poisonous arrows. “I’ve been wounded by a deadly arrow” and “For the arrows of the Almighty are in me; my spirit drinks their poison” It also seems that Job was young when he died since one of the other layers puts an emphasis on how old Job was. “those who are younger than I am” and “Then at a very old age, Job died” (this is added after his death in the oral tradition).

There is another glitch regarding Job’s children. Job says “I stink to my own children”, but his children were killed earlier in the narrative. This could indicate a remnant from the oral tradition.

Job descended into Sheol and cursed El:

Sheol is mentioned in the text 8 times and there is a lot of wording that seems to describe Sheol (night, darkness, shadow, covered with water, etc) and those who live there, throughout the text. I found one article that claims that Job’s friends should be translated as “Rephaim” or spirits of the dead.

Also, Scott Jones on T2T talks about how the translation of Job 28 doesn’t work very well in terms of mining. I agree and think that the text may be describing the underworld instead.

It is in Sheol that Job curses El. A later author repeatedly denies that Job curses God and switches the curse to the cursing of Job’s day of birth. This hits 2 birds with one stone as it shifts the curse away from El and it promotes the idea that Job was born of a woman (as discussed above).

Both @brentastrawn and Jeff Leonard talk on T2T about how the word for “curse” is actually the Hebrew word for “bless”. I considered that it may have originally been “blessed” in the oral tradition but it really doesn’t make any sense in the broader scope of things, so I have to agree with them that it is being used as a euphemism.

Job repented and was resurrected by El:

As we see in the text, Job repents (even though he was innocent according to later authors), but since Job was in Sheol, El then resurrects him. This resurrection prompts later authors to push back and put heavy emphasis (especially in Job 14) on the idea that once someone dies, there is no coming back until the heavens end: “so each person lies down and does not rise until the heavens cease to exist” and “If a person dies, will he go on living?”

This layer refers to not only El but other mythical elements from what seems to be an early tradition such as Rahab, Leviathan and Behemoth. As discussed on T2T, one of the many translation issues is that many of the words used in Job are the only instance in all of the Hebrew Bible. That may be because this layer contains older Hebrew words that had fallen out of favor by the time the majority of the Hebrew Bible was written.

Altogether, Job may originally have been a tale of foolish hubris that the original hearers would have laughed at. Later authors try to spin that aspect by providing new context for Job being a “laughing stock” and “And now they make fun of me with songs. I have become a joke to them.”

The Pro-Shaddai Layer

That concludes the 1st layer and now we move onto the pro-Shaddai layer. I’ve already discussed much of the pro-Shaddai layer by describing how the 1st layer has been changed, so I’ll just write briefly about the merging of the identities of El and Shaddai.

Using parallelisms is a propaganda technique to combine the identities of 2 separate things. I discussed this in detail regarding Israel and Jacob as well as Zion and Jerusalem in this blog post.

In the same way, I think this layer is attempting to combine a local deity (Shaddai) with El. There are numerous parallelisms describing the two gods in an effort to make them into one god. I think that Ēl Shaddāi, Ēl ‘Ôlām, and Ēl ‘Elyôn may all be attempts to combine El with local deities. In the same way, I think the Yahwist and others combine Yahweh and Elohim by assimilation of the Elohist traditions into the Yahwist narrative and by the use of the name Yahweh Elohim.

The Pro-Yahwist Layer

Finally we come to the Pro-Yahwist layer. At least parts of the prologue and epilogue seem to be later additions. It’s not just the narrative/poetic switch that sets it apart but the name “Yahweh” is only used in these sections with the exceptions being a couple of places in the poetry that attributes some of the dialogue to Yahweh and a reference to Yahweh making creatures, which seems oddly out of place.

Furthermore, right before Elihu speaks, it says “This is the end of Job’s words”. It’s not however, and Job speaks again after Yahweh’s response, which could be another indication this layer is a later addition. Elihu also repeatedly claims that what he says are “my words” and we are repeatedly reminded that the words are addressed to Job e.g.“Open your ears to this, Job.” which may indicate that at least some of Elihu’s words were originally Job’s.

It’s also interesting that Yahweh and Elohim could be read as two different characters in the prologue and epilogue. I’m not saying that they should be but that they could be. It reminded me of a similar issue in Deuteronomy 32:8–9

This layer also remedies (or attempts to remedy) the problem of bad things happening to a now innocent Job. This is done by shifting the conflict between Job and El to a bet between Yahweh and The Satan.

This layer achieves two common goals of post-exilic writers: Portray Yahweh as Creator of the cosmos and eliminate or assimilate other gods.

I hope you enjoyed this post! Let me know your thoughts and if I got anything wrong (or right!). If you liked this, be sure to check out my YouTube channel

Poetic Propaganda And The Zion That Wasn't There

The Bible makes frequent use of parallelisms. A synonymous parallelism is a poetic device in which the same idea is stated twice but in two different ways. An example would be “but they flattered him with their mouths; they lied to him with their tongues” (Psalms 78:36).

However, if much of the Bible is propaganda (which it is), then parallelisms take on a different meaning: The Biblical author wants the reader to think that the same idea is being stated twice, but it actually wasn’t.

For example, Biblical authors made an effort to combine the identities of Northern Israel and Southern Judah. One way of doing that was to create a narrative about how Jacob (the ancestor of Southern Judah) became known as Israel (the ancestor of Northern Israel). You can watch my video here to learn more. Another way of combining those identities was with parallelisms. There are numerous instances, here are just a few:

For it is a statute for Israel,

An ordinance of the God of Jacob.

(Psa 81:4)

Then He confirmed it to Jacob as a statute,

To Israel as an everlasting covenant,

(Psa 105:10)

Israel also came into Egypt;

So Jacob lived in the land of Ham.

(Psa 105:23)

The Biblical authors also do the same with Jerusalem and Zion, which would indicate that they were originally two separate locations. Again, there are also numerous instances both in narrative form and parallelisms:

Then Solomon assembled the elders of Israel and all the heads of the tribes, the leaders of the fathers' households of the sons of Israel, to King Solomon in Jerusalem, to bring up the ark of the covenant of the LORD from the city of David, that is, Zion.

(1Ki 8:1)

By Your favor do good to Zion;

Build the walls of Jerusalem.

(Psa 51:18)

“His rock will pass away because of panic,

And his officers will be terrified by the flag,”

Declares the LORD, whose fire is in Zion and whose furnace is in Jerusalem.

(Isa 31:9)

So, if Zion wasn’t in Jerusalem, then where was it? We get a clue in Psalm 48:3:

Beautiful in elevation, the joy of the whole earth,

Is Mount Zion in the far north,

The city of the great King.

It’s odd to say it’s in the far north, when Jerusalem is in Southern Judah. That’s because “north” should be translated “Zaphon”. Peter C. Craigie and Marvin E. Tate explain:

Mount Zion is equated directly with the ancient (mythological) Mount Zaphon; see further Roberts, JBL 92 (1973) 334 and Clifford, The Cosmic Mountain in Canaan and the Old Testament, 142–44. In the Ugaritic texts, the word Zaphon (ṣpn) is used of the mythological mountain dwelling of the god Baal, but it was also localized in particular geographical locations. Thus, Jebel al-Aqraʿ, the mountain some thirty miles north of Ras Shamra (ancient Ugarit), was identified as Mount Zaphon. And in one text, it is possible that the “hill” of Ugarit itself is called Zaphon (UT 107; see Robinson, art. cit., 118–23). But the mountain north of Ugarit was probably not the “original” Mount Zaphon. The original was a mythological reality, and among different peoples, at different times and places, it was given an earthly location in a particular geographical point. Thus the place name Baal-Zaphon (Exod 14:2) probably indicates the site of a Baal temple in Egypt, constructed by a Canaanite community resident there (cf. J. Gray, “Canaanite Mythology and Hebrew Tradition,” Transactions of the Glasgow University Oriental Society 14 [1953] 47–57). And there is evidence of the localization of the Zaphon tradition at other places in the Near East; see further F. E. Eakin, The Religion and Culture of Israel (Boston: Allyn and Bacon, 1971), 65–66. The significance of the psalmist’s statement (v 3) is to be found in the linking of this ancient mythological tradition with Mount Zion in Jerusalem and God’s temple there. The psalmist affirms, in effect, that the aspirations of all peoples for a place on earth where God’s presence could be experienced were fulfilled in Mount Zion, the true Zaphon.

Craigie, Peter C.; Tate, Marvin. Psalms 1-50, Volume 19 (Word Biblical Commentary) (p. 353). Zondervan Academic. Kindle Edition.

Regardless of whether Zion was a physical location or a mythical one, it seems that the Biblical authors were trying to combine the identities of Jerusalem and Zion to counter the influence of a competing religious cult.

What Bart Erhman Gets Wrong About Ruth, Sex and... Feet!

Recently, I saw that Dr. Erhman wrote a couple of blog posts about the Book of Ruth entitled “A Great Short Story in Scripture: The Book of Ruth” and “A Suggestive Story in the Book of Ruth” (you’ll need a subscription to view the full posts). Much of the posts center around the meaning of “feet”:

“Different cultures, using their different languages, use different euphemisms for sexual organs. In older English literature, for example, a man’s penis is sometimes referred to as his “member.” Hebrew had its own euphemism for genitals. They were called ‘feet.’”

That’s completely accurate, of course, and my contention with Dr. Erhman is not on this point but rather, whether that was the meaning that the Biblical author intended in the narrative. Here’s Dr. Erhman’s take on it:

“When Ruth comes up to Boaz while he is asleep in the dark on the threshing floor, and ‘uncovers his feet,’ she is not exposing his toes. She is making a sexual advance. And she is fully welcomed; they spend the night together and then she sneaks off before it becomes light so that no one will know.”

So is that what’s in the narrative? Ruth and Boaz played hide the salami in a field of barley? (cue Sting’s “Fields of Gold). Well, yes and no.

There are other sexual euphemisms like this in the Bible. We may even have another one in Ruth when Boaz pours his seed (barley) into Ruth’s cloak. Samson talks about “plowing with my heifer” and Sisera “lay between her feet” at the end of his encounter with Jael. Many scholars infer sex into those narratives as well, but I propose that inferring sex into those narratives, as well as the Ruth narrative, would horrify the Biblical authors and is the exact opposite conclusion they wanted you to draw. That is because I believe those narratives are propaganda and were written to try to change the narrative that existed at that time.

The encounter between Ruth and Boaz at night is a narrative glitch: The Biblical author was taking an element from the original narrative and trying to fit it into a new narrative, and it just doesn’t fit in very well. In other words, yes, Ruth and Boaz had sex in the original narrative but the Biblical author was trying to change the meaning of “uncovered his feet” by changing the context around it. The problem is, once you know that “feet” can refer to genitals, it sticks out like a boner in a Speedo, and the Biblical author was left trying to put lipstick on a promiscuous pig. Try changing the meaning of “taking her to pound town” or “stuffing the beaver” without completely rewriting the original context surrounding them. Yeah, not easy.

However, there is some evidence in the text that the Biblical author was doing his best. For instance, Boaz sits up when he realizes Ruth is next to him. The “sitting up” part is trying to imply that Ruth is laying at his literal feet and he has to sit up to see her. This seems to be the go to technique that Biblical authors use when trying to hide a sexual euphemism: change the metaphorical sense into the literal sense. But it doesn’t work very well in Ruth and the result just seems like some kind of bizarre foot fetish courting ritual, and those that know the meaning of “feet” as a euphemism can easily infer sex into the narrative.

But having sex with a man before getting married would not have been ideal in an ancient Israelite culture and Ruth’s reputation would have taken a hit. So it’s no surprise that the Biblical author tries to repair that reputation throughout the narrative.

Knowing that the narrative is propaganda impacts one’s understanding of it. Without that understanding Dr. Erhman concludes:

“But above all this is an entertaining story of an enterprising and committed woman who uses her intelligence and sexuality to bring about her deliverance from destitution and her elevation to a secure, respected, and prosperous life.”

However, Ruth doesn’t really use her intelligence, Naomi does, and the Biblical author makes it a point to tell us that Ruth was just doing what Naomi told her, in order to put distance between Ruth and her actions. The remaining factor (sexuality) makes Dr. Ehrman seem dangerously close to putting his feet in his mouth. Don’t get me wrong, if you want to use your sexuality to get ahead in life, that’s fine with me, but I don’t think that’s the message we should be taking away from Ruth, nor was it intended by the Biblical author.

Thousands of years after this propaganda was written and brilliant Biblical scholars like Dr. Erhman still can’t see it - except for the part about sneaking out to a field in the middle of the night to have sex with a drunk guy (but, no matter, that’s been turned into a virtuous act). If the Biblical author could see that his propaganda is still successful to this day, he’d be happier than a teenage boy in a barrel full of tits.

It’s time to stop taking so much of the Bible at face value. So much of it was literally written to deceive the reader. Once you realize that, you can start looking for the bits and pieces of truth strewn about in it.

I’ve reconstructed the original narrative of Ruth that the Biblical author was responding to: Ruth was a slave of Boaz, who had sex with him, and the resulting child was considered to be Naomi’s (think Rachel and Leah). In the video below I explain how I reconstructed it. I hope I’ve aroused your curiosity enough to watch it.

Watch on YouTube

Using Mirror-Reading to Cut Through the Fog of Source Criticism

If you don’t already know, I’ve been working on a mirror-reading series of the Book of Amos. One of the reasons it has been taking so long is that I’ve had to do my own source criticism. Normally, I rely on the work of Tzemah Yoreh over at biblecriticism.com, but in the case of Amos, his sources clashed with my mirror-reading and so, what was supposed to be a mirror-reading of the first 2 of his Amos sources, has turned into my own source criticism (and redaction criticism) and mirror-reading of the entire book. This was a challenge since I had never really done nor had the desire to do source criticism before. Furthermore, I don’t suggest learning source-criticism with Amos, as it has more redactions than I cared to deal with.

Although I found many books by people who had done source criticism, I couldn’t really find one that was a “how to” guide (if you know of one, drop a line in the comments), so I began the journey of developing my own source-criticism methodology and thought I would share what I’ve learned so far.

The Emulation Problem

I tried using some of the common ways of teasing out sources: Unique word usage is one way with “Yahweh” in the Yahwist and “Elohim” in the Elohist being the classic example. I also tried looking at style/tone/attitude as well as thematic differences. However, the problem with all of those is that they can be emulated by later redactors, and said redactors would have been motivated to do such emulation as it would have given their redactions more authenticity.

Even literary structures such as parallelisms and chiasmus can be emulated and built upon by later redactors. Tzemah Yoreh shows how the Yahwist preserved the Elohist chiastic structure and had built upon it with his own.

A Beacon Of Light...and its reflection

The bedrock of my source criticism has become mirror-reading (surprise!). If you don’t know already, mirror-reading reconstructs the situations that the original authors were responding to. This is beneficial because it’s not something that later redactors would have been interested in emulating since they would have been responding to their own situations.

Polemic Sources

The downside to mirror-reading is that the Biblical authors may have been responding to more than one situation or there may have been multiple aspects to the situation. Mirror-reading by itself can’t typically determine if the author was responding to multiple situations. But that’s okay, because, for the purposes of understanding the meaning of the text, it’s not necessary. And the meaning of the text is my primary focus. I’ve taken to calling these multiple situations as “polemic sources”.

Together with historical markers, I can cluster multiple polemic sources into broader historical categories. Below, you can see my polemic sources of Amos (as of now) grouped into their historical categories.

However, it’s important to understand that just because the Bible says that it took place during a historical marker, doesn’t mean that it actually did, this could be part of the authorial propaganda and mirror-reading is good at identifying such propaganda. For example, Amos claims to take place during King Uzziah’s reign but there are some mirror-reading indications that it actually took place during the reign of Uzziah’s father (Amaziah).

Narrative flow is another good way to identify sources, or, in the case of mirror-reading, situational flow (or propaganda flow). No matter how hard redactors might try to avoid it, narrative flow starts getting lost with more redactions. Too many cooks in the kitchen makes for choppy text...and Amos is choppy AF.

The evolution of language can also be beneficial for identifying sources. As time progresses, certain words go out of favor and others into favor. An example of this is Persian loan words in the post-exilic era. Redactions could emulate earlier language but it would inhibit the communication of redactors with their contemporary audience, so I think it to be unlikely. I’m no expert in Hebrew, so I have to rely on scholars for this type of thing and Amos doesn’t seem to have a lot happening in regards to this either. I will say though, that Amos does have a number of hapax legomena and difficult words to translate. These seem to be clustered in the earliest sources, so I suspect they are an issue because they had fallen out of favor before the bulk of the Hebrew Bible was written.

Obviously, you want to cross-vector as many of the above criteria as possible to support your source criticism.

Tip Offs

There were a number of clues that can tip one off that a text has more than one source.

Name Attribution

Phrases like “Thus saith Yahweh” appear to be rhetorical fluff, but they may serve another purpose. I’ve noticed at the beginning or end of a redaction, the redactor will add this phrase (or one similar). It’s like, they feel obligated to put in such a phrase to validate their redaction. Whatever the reason, it makes a great sign post for spotting redactions.

Repeating Conjunctions

Conjunctions are a normal part of language, but when they’re strung together into a super long daisy chain, it begins to seem unnatural and turns into that scene from “Dude Where’s My Car”.

This is because it was a method used by redactors to “tack on” new material to existing text and seeing multiple conjunctions in quick succession means there is a good chance that there are redactions about.

Messy, Lopsided or Bloated structures

I’ve noticed this mostly with chiastic structures. I talked earlier about how structures can be emulated, but the more redactions and insertions into the structure, the more warped it becomes. If you can find the redactions, you will often find a clean and beautiful chiasmus, once they are stripped away.

Ambiguity in Translation / Passages With Strained Meaning

In this scenario, a redactor is taking a text and is trying to spin it. He has to use the same words, because his audience is already familiar with the original text, so he has to try to create a new context around it and that was easier said than done sometimes. Those new contexts would then create ambiguity in translation or passages with strained meaning. In other words, translators are able to translate it but there is something odd about the text because it’s not the normal usage of the phrase or word.

In Amos, the use of Egypt and Ashdod in one place and Zion in another, seem a bit odd. This is because a redactor had taken earlier text and applied it to Northern Israel. Another example is masculine nouns with feminine verbs, or vise versa. There are a couple of places in Amos that do this and it appears again to be because a redactor was trying to spin an earlier text.

Source Inception

Occasionally I’ve noticed the use of a source within a redaction. It was a strategy to use early sources like songs and sayings that were unattributed and could be used to validate a redaction. An example in Amos takes place after the fall of Northern Israel and there was an influx of Northern refugees. Those refugees needed to be assimilated into the Yahwistic cult, which meant quelling some of the animosity between the north and south. A redactor uses a saying that was used as a mockery or celebration and turns it into a lamentation.

R = Redactor

S = Earlier Saying

Amos 5:1

R- Hear this word, Israel, this lament I take up concerning you:

S- “Fallen is Virgin Israel,

S- never to rise again,

S- deserted in her own land,

S- with no one to lift her up.”

There are also a number of Northern hymn fragments in Amos that a redactor makes Yahweh the center of.

Chronology of Sources and Redactions

How does one know which sources and redactions were added in what order and when? Again, historical markers are useful here, but many of the redactions in Amos build upon previous texts and thus require them as a prerequisite, thus giving one some idea of the chronology.

I hope you enjoyed my thoughts on source criticism and I look forward to sharing the details of my source criticism of Amos with you…someday.

The Death of Elisha - Northern Elijah & Elisha: A Mirror-Reading

image: Wikimedia commons (link).

This is a mirror-reading of The Death of Elisha Narrative. If you don’t know what mirror-reading is, please visit this page. The Death of Elisha Narrative is primarily concerned with whether Elijah died from his sickness or not and also why the king of Israel shot the arrow of deliverance.

If you’d like a less technical overview, please check out my podcast episode on this narrative. If you’re not familiar with Northern Elijah & Elisha, be sure to check out all of the podcast episodes in that series. I used Tzemah Yoreh's work as the basis for my Northern Elijah/Elisha Source. My mirror-reading map and commentary are listed below. In my commentary, I refer to the author of the Northern Elijah/Elisha source as “M”, after Tzemah’s labeling of the source as “Miracle Workers”.

Mirror-Reading Map

The map below shows how I derived the opposing narrative from the Biblical narrative. It relies primarily on mirrors/echos and cause/effect. For more information about mirrors/echoes, causal chains and my methodology, please visit this post.

Download hi-res image

Download pdf

Commentary

Please note that “M” refers to the author of the opposing narrative

Did Elisha Die Of His Sickness?

The opposing narrative has Elisha dying from his sickness, whereas M still involves Elisha (his bones), but it is the dead Moabite that’s revived instead. It seems odd that M wouldn’t want Elisha to recover from his sickness and raises the question as to how Elisha’s death benefited M’s agenda.

The Arrow Of Deliverance

In the opposing narrative, it is only the king of Israel involved in taking the bow and arrows, shooting it out the window and declaring it to be the arrow of deliverance from Syria. Since Elisha wasn’t part of the event, M had to insert Elisha into it and does this by having him give the kind of Israel instructions regarding the bow and arrows. Additionally, he promotes Yahweh as the God of Elisha and Israel by naming the arrow “the arrow of Yahweh’s deliverance”.

Elisha & Israel

M promotes that idea that Elisha was not a traitor by having the king of Israel cry over him and referring to him as “father” and as “the chariot of Israel, and the horsemen thereof”. Having Elisha prophecy a pro-Israel event would further solidify Elisha as a prophet for Israel.

The Benhadad Prophecy - Northern Elijah & Elisha: A Mirror-Reading

image: Wikimedia commons (link).

This is a mirror-reading of The Benhadad Prophecy Narrative. If you don’t know what mirror-reading is, please visit this page. The Benhadad Prophecy Narrative is primarily concerned with Elisha’s reputation, where he lived and his prophecy about King Benhadad.

If you’d like a less technical overview, please check out my podcast episode on this narrative. If you’re not familiar with Northern Elijah & Elisha, be sure to check out all of the podcast episodes in that series. I used Tzemah Yoreh's work as the basis for my Northern Elijah/Elisha Source. My mirror-reading map and commentary are listed below. In my commentary, I refer to the author of the Northern Elijah/Elisha source as “M”, after Tzemah’s labeling of the source as “Miracle Workers”.

Mirror-Reading Map

The map below shows how I derived the opposing narrative from the Biblical narrative. It relies primarily on mirrors/echos and cause/effect. For more information about mirrors/echoes, causal chains and my methodology, please visit this post.

Download hi-res image

Download pdf

Commentary

Please note that “M” refers to the author of the opposing narrative

Why Was Elisha In Damascus?

Both narratives place Elisha in Damascus. The question is, why was he there? Given what the opposing narrative says in this and other cycles, we can infer he was there because he betrayed Israel and served the Syrians. M counters this by saying that he traveled to Syria. Hazael goes to meet him and presents him with a gift that contains every good thing of Damascus. M suggests, why would would he give Elisha things of Damascus, if Elisha lived there?

Was Elisha’s Prophecy Wrong?

Both narratives have Elisha deliver a prophecy that claimed Benhadad would get well. However, M inserts Hazael so that Benhadad wouldn’t hear the entire prophecy. That way, M can add the qualifier that Benhadad would die. The opposing narrative asserts that Benhadad died from his disease, not from Hazael. It’s interesting that at least one scholar doesn’t see an assassination by Hazael

Gray (528, 532) acknowledges no assassination of Ben Hadad by Hazael in this action. The “coverlet” is regarded as a kind of mosquito net, which when dipped in water would act as a cooler for the person in bed. He sees here nothing more than the discovery of Ben Hadad’s death in the morning when the coverlet was removed. While the Assyrian records (ANET, 280) do not mention the mode of death, they do allow for a violent death.

Hobbs, T. R. (1998). 2 Kings (Vol. 13, p. 102). Dallas: Word, Incorporated.

Why Did Elisha Cry?

In the opposing narrative, Elisha weeps because Benhadad dies. M gives the reason that it was because Hazael would kill many Israelites. This hits two birds with one stone by fixing Elisha’s prophecy and showing his loyalty to Israel.

Was Elisha A Prophet of Yahweh?

M shows that Elisha was a prophet of Yahweh by having Benhada ask to have him inquire of Yahweh for him. Also, it is Yahweh who shows Elisha that Benhadad would die and that Hazael would reign.

Man of Elohim?

If Elisha served the king of Syria, then no Israelite would refer to him as a “man of Elohim”. Once again, M counters this by referring to Elisha as a “man of Elohim” throughout this cycle. See comment regarding “man of Elohim” in The Woman At Zarephath.

City of Dothan - Northern Elijah & Elisha: A Mirror-Reading

image: Wikimedia commons (link).

This is a mirror-reading of the The City of Dothan Narrative. If you don’t know what mirror-reading is, please visit this page. The City of Dothan Narrative is primarily concerned with Elisha’s reputation and what happened at Dothan and Samaria, as well as claims that Elisha was a spy for Syria.

If you’d like a less technical overview, please check out my podcast episode on this narrative. If you’re not familiar with Northern Elijah & Elisha, be sure to check out all of the podcast episodes in that series. I used Tzemah Yoreh's work as the basis for my Northern Elijah/Elisha Source. My mirror-reading map and commentary are listed below. In my commentary, I refer to the author of the Northern Elijah/Elisha source as “M”, after Tzemah’s labeling of the source as “Miracle Workers”.

Mirror-Reading Map

The map below shows how I derived the opposing narrative from the Biblical narrative. It relies primarily on mirrors/echos and cause/effect. For more information about mirrors/echoes, causal chains and my methodology, please visit this post.

Download hi-res image

Download pdf

Commentary

Please note that “M” refers to the author of the opposing narrative

Why Was The Israelite Army Not There?

The opposing narrative has the Syrians raiding Israel, who had no army or not a strong enough army to defend itself. M will spin this by saying that the reason the Israelite army was not there was because Elisha told them beforehand, enabling them to avoid conflict.

Israel’s lack of troops seems to have been an issue, which is countered later in this narrative with “horses and chariots of fire” and in a later narrative by calling Elisha “the chariot of Israel, and the horsemen thereof.”

Who Was Elisha’s King?

Both narratives have Syria warring against Israel. They differ on which side Elisha was on. For the opposing narrative, Elisha is for the Syrian king. He was a prophet in Syria, being so close to the Syrian king that he heard what he spoke in his bedchamber. M, on the other hand will maintain that Elisha was a prophet of Israel, and that he heard what was in the Syrian king’s bedchamber because of his prophetic abilities. He then shares that information with the king of Israel, who calls him “father”, indicating a friendly relationship. By having Elisha share information about Syria with the king of Israel, M inverses the accusation of the opposing narrative that Elisha betrayed Israel by sharing information about Israel with the Syrian king.

Who Was Spying?

In the opposing narrative, it is Elisha who is told to go spy on the Israelites. M will make it so it’s the Syrian king’s servants who go spy to find Elisha.

Dothan is a significant location for both narratives, and the opposing narrative uses it as the place where Elisha informs the Syrian king (through the king’s servant) that the Syrians are strong enough to attack Samaria by telling them, “Fear not: for they that be with us are more than they that be with them.” M will insert the horses and chariots of fire and make the Syrian king’s servant to be Elisha’s servant, to which Elisha will speak those same words, thus eliminating Elisha’s betrayal of Israel.

To Which City Did The Syrian Army Go?

With Elisha’s info in hand, the Syrians send horses, chariots and a great host to encompass the city. M introduces the Syrian army earlier and surrounds the city of Dothan. M also needed a way to get that army from Dothan to Samaria. M does this by having Elisha say that Dothan was not the city they’re looking for. This Jedi-like mind trick sits awkwardly in the narrative, but it accomplishes what M needed it to do.

Why Did The Syrian Army Eat And Drink?

Both narratives have the Syrians eat and drink. In the opposing narrative, it is because they defeated the Israelites. In M’s narrative, it is because Elisha tells the king of Syria to feed them. M also has to explain why the king of Israel would do such a thing instead of killing them and does this by having Elisha tell him, “ wouldest thou smite those whom thou hast taken captive with thy sword and with thy bow? set bread and water before them, that they may eat and drink, and go to their master.” M has Elisha say “their master” to infer the the Syrians king was not his master.

The Syrians Return To Syria

Both narratives have the Syrians return to their homeland. However, M has the king of Israel send them away (at Elisha’s suggestion), and adds that the Syrians came no more into the land of Israel.

Man of Elohim

If Elisha had betrayed Israel, then the Israelites certainly wouldn’t call him a man of Elohim, so M inserts the term throughout this cycle to counter that idea. See comment regarding “man of Elohim” in The Woman At Zarephath.

Naaman's Flesh - Northern Elijah & Elisha: A Mirror-Reading

image: Wikimedia commons (link).

This is a mirror-reading of the The Naaman Narrative. If you don’t know what mirror-reading is, please visit this page. The Naaman Narrative is primarily concerned with Elisha’s reputation and what was Naaman’s flesh.

If you’d like a less technical overview, please check out my podcast episode on this narrative. If you’re not familiar with Northern Elijah & Elisha, be sure to check out all of the podcast episodes in that series. I used Tzemah Yoreh's work as the basis for my Northern Elijah/Elisha Source. My mirror-reading map and commentary are listed below. In my commentary, I refer to the author of the Northern Elijah/Elisha source as “M”, after Tzemah’s labeling of the source as “Miracle Workers”.

Mirror-Reading Map

The map below shows how I derived the opposing narrative from the Biblical narrative. It relies primarily on mirrors/echos and cause/effect. For more information about mirrors/echoes, causal chains and my methodology, please visit this post.

Download hi-res image

Download pdf

Commentary

Please note that “M” refers to the author of the opposing narrative

Who Was Naaman?

The opposing narrative presents Naaman in a very good light. M will downplay this slightly by making him only a great man with his master and honourable only because Yahweh provided Naaman’s military victories. This also promotes the idea that Yahweh was a strong war god. The opposing narrative has Naaman as a captain of a host. M will add that he served under the Syrian king. This will have an impact on the meaning of the narrative below.

M will also make Naaman a leper. This change will alter the meaning of the opposing narrative in a major way. Naaman being a leper is emphasized more than any other point in the Biblical narrative, having the most frequency and variation. When talking about “flesh”, it is leprosy that M what’s the reader to think of.

Taken Captive

The opposing narrative and M will define Naaman’s “flesh” differently. The opposing narrative says that Naaman’s flesh is a reference to his daughter who had been taken captive by the Syrians. M modifies the “little girl” it a “little maid” who the Syrians had taken captive from Israel and who attends to his wife.

There Was A Letter

Both the opposing narrative and M agree that there was a letter sent to a king. The opposing narrative has the letter go from the Syrian king (who took Naaman’s daughter) to Naaman. M will alter it so that the letter is from the king of Syria to the king of Israel. The point that the letter came to the king of Israel is another point of emphasis for M, noting it a few times.

Both narratives tell how the king who received the letter tore his clothes. In the opposing narrative, this refers to Naaman, in the M narrative, it refers to the king of Israel

In the opposing narrative, the letter taunts Naaman, saying the Syrian king could “kill or keep alive” his daughter. Naaman responds to this my tearing his clothes and saying “see how he seeketh a quarrel against me?” M will have it be the king of Israel who tears his clothes and says “Am I God, to kill and to make alive, that this man doth send unto me to recover a man of his leprosy?“ and will also say “see how he seeketh a quarrel against me?”

In the opposing narrative departs with silver, gold and raiments, to offer ransom for his daughter. In M, Naaman departs to deliver the letter and brings the silver, gold and raiment to offer to be healed.

The Instructions

Naaman brings his horses and chariot in both narratives. In the opposing narrative, he goes to the king of Syria (who took his daughter captive). In M’s narrative, he goes to Elijah’s house.

In both narratives, a messenger is sent to Naaman. In the opposing narrative, the messenger is from the king of Syrian, in M’s narrative, the messenger is from Elisha.

M has Elisha tell Naaman to wash his skin seven times in the Jordan river. The opposing narrative has the king of Syria tell Naaman to dip himself seven times in a river of Damascus. Why the king of Syria wants Naaman to do this is unclear. It seems that the king of Syria is trying to get Naaman to submit to him and these instructions are designed to humiliate Naaman into that submission.

If Naaman complies with Elisha’s instructions, his “flesh shall come again to thee”, referring to Naaman’s daughter. With M, it means that his skin would be restored. M also adds “and thou shall be clean” to emphasize that the issue is with Naaman’s skin.

Naaman is angry in both narratives. In the opposing narrative, it is because he thought the king of Syrian would come out and shake his fist at him - meaning, he expected the king of Syria to come out and fight, or at least, display hostility.

Changing Naaman’s Mind

Both narratives have Naaman turns away in rage. They will both change Naaman’s mind while using the word “father”. In the opposing narrative, it is Naaman’s daughter who changes his mind. In M’s narrative, it is Naaman’s servant who does.

In the opposing narrative, Naaman dips himself seven times in a river of Damascus. In M’s account he dips himself seven times in the Jordan River.

Returning Of Naaman’s Flesh

The opposing narrative then has Naaman return to the king of Syria to retrieve his daughter. M will heal Naaman’s flesh first and then will have him return to Elisha.

Both narratives say that “his flesh came again” although with different meanings. In M’s narrative, his skin becomes “like” the flesh of a little child. M uses “like” here similar to the way he did in the Ahab & Obadiah narrative and uses it to spin a literal meaning into an analogous meaning. In the opposing narrative, it is literally the flesh of a little child - his daughter. “Little” here is the same word to describe the maid who was taken into captivity.

In the opposing narrative, the Syrian king tells Naaman to go in peace, but M has Elisha tell him to go in peace after M explains why Naaman didn’t give Elisha a “blessing”.

Prophet Of Which Land?

With the opposing narrative taking place in Syria, with a Syrian prophet, M needs to shift things over to Israel. The little maid that was taken captive from Israel is the catalyst to get Naaman over to Israel. Elisha is described as “a prophet in Israel” and “the prophet that is in Samaria”.

The term “man of Elohim” is used several times to describe Elisha. I write about how this is a term of respect in The Woman At Zarephath narrative, but it doesn’t seem like M needs to counter any despicable actions of Elisha in this narrative. However, when combined with Naaman’s claim that “there is no Elohim in all the earth, but in Israel”, the term “man of Elohim” becomes a reference to an Israelite prophet as well as tying into the next issue.

Elisha’s Elohim

M has Naaman state that Yahweh is Elisha’s Elohim. Elisha also states that he stands before Yahweh. Also, once again, M counters the idea that Yahweh was not alive. See comments regarding this in The Brook Cherith.

Ahab & Obadiah - Northern Elijah & Elisha: A Mirror-Reading

image: Wikimedia commons (link).

This is a mirror-reading of the The Ahab & Obadiah Narrative. If you don’t know what mirror-reading is, please visit this page. The Ahab & Obadiah Narrative is primarily concerned with Elijah’s reputation in regards to his relationship with Ahab, what happened at Mt. Carmel and who was Elijah’s Elohim.

If you’d like a less technical overview, please check out my podcast episode on this narrative. If you’re not familiar with Northern Elijah & Elisha, be sure to check out all of the podcast episodes in that series. I used Tzemah Yoreh's work as the basis for my Northern Elijah/Elisha Source. My mirror-reading map and commentary are listed below. In my commentary, I refer to the author of the Northern Elijah/Elisha source as “M”, after Tzemah’s labeling of the source as “Miracle Workers”.

Mirror-Reading Map

The map below shows how I derived the opposing narrative from the Biblical narrative. It relies primarily on mirrors/echos and cause/effect. For more information about mirrors/echoes, causal chains and my methodology, please visit this post.

Download hi-res image

Download pdf

Commentary

Please note that “M” refers to the author of the opposing narrative

Was Elijah A Fugitive?

The opposing narrative claims that Elijah was a fugitive, and this cycle deals primarily with Ahab’s pursuit of Elijah. The opposing narrative claimed that Ahab searched all of the nations and kingdom’s for Elijah. M will admit this, but his account takes a different light since the reason for Ahab’s search is Elijah’s pronouncement of a famine (See The Brook Cherith). Ahab wants to find Elijah so that it will rain again. M counters the idea of Elijah as a fugitive by presenting him as unafraid of Ahab. It was Elijah’s initiative to go see Ahab, and he declares to Obadiah, “I will surely shew myself unto him to day”.

Why Did Obadiah Tell Ahab About Elijah?

The opposing narrative has Obadiah selling out Elijah to Ahab. M counters this by telling how much respect Obadiah had for Elijah. Obadiah calls him “lord” and refers to himself as Elijah’s servant. When he meets him, he falls on his face in submission.

Both M and the opposing narrative agree that Obadiah told Ahab that Elijah was in Obadiah’s territory. However, M makes this Elijah’s initiative by having him tell Obadiah to go tell Ahab that he is there.

Why Did Obadiah Tell Ahab About Elijah?

M and the opposing narrative have different views on the type of relationship between Obadiah and Ahab. The opposing narrative asserts that Obadiah was the governor of an adjacent territory. The word “governor” here could refer to being “over” something, whether a city or a house. M spins it to the latter and puts Obadiah under the authority of Ahab. The division of territory between them is explained by having them split up in their search for water during the famine.

At first glance, the opposing narrative would seem to indicate that Obadiah was a governor over a city or territory within Israel since the location in question appears to be within Israel. However, M emphasizes Ahab’s authority over Obadiah thereby indicating that the opposing narrative said that Ahab did not have authority over Obadiah, suggesting that Obadiah was ruler over a city or territory that was not part of Israel, but within what was later to be Israel’s territory. This may indicate that the opposing narrative was composed early, in a time before the Israelites came to dominate that part of the land.

Did Ahab Kill Obadiah?

Both narratives agree that Ahab went to meet Elijah, but they differ on whether Ahab was able to find him. The opposing narrative says that Ahab could not find Elijah and then killed Obadiah in response. M will counter this by wrapping those aspects in the concerns of Obadiah. He says, “And now thou sayest, Go, tell thy lord, Behold, Elijah is here. And it shall come to pass, as soon as I am gone from thee, that the Spirit of the LORD shall carry thee whither I know not; and so when I come and tell Ahab, and he cannot find thee, he shall slay me:” and “What have I sinned, that thou wouldest deliver thy servant into the hand of Ahab, to slay me?” Elijah responds by assuring him that he will be there to meet Ahab.

The opposing narrative has Ahab celebrate his victory over Obadiah by eating and drinking. M will make the eating and drinking part of Elijah’s command to Ahab.

What Happened At Mt. Carmel?

In the opposing narrative, Elijah escapes before Ahab finds him in Obadiah’s territory. He makes his way to Mt. Carmel, which is on the border of Israel and Phoenicia. This would makes sense in the opposing narrative, since Elijah is a fugitive, and Mt. Carmel was a place of refuge:

“...although the description in the Book of Amos, of the location being a refuge, is dated by textual scholars to be earlier than the accounts of Elisha in the Book of Kings, and according to Strabo it had continued to be a place of refuge until at least the first century.”

Wikipedia

M has Elijah go to the top of Mt. Carmel, which makes for an awkward command when Elijah tells his servant to “go up” when they are already at the top. In the opposing narrative, the servant may not have been Elijah’s and returns after seeing no rain. This marks a failed prophecy for Elijah and M inserts the 7 times so that he can make it a successful prophecy.

The Storm & The Sea

This section may not have been part of the Elijah opposing narrative, but regardless, I propose that it is dealing with a storm god and a sea god. Not only does it involve a storm and a sea in the narrative but also a mountain. A mountain and a sea was a location for a storm god and sea god to battle:

Marduk covered this sea with land until it became a mountain

Despite his association with the storm, Ninurta’s enemy was not the sea but the mountain.

Sarlo, Daniel. The Storm God Versus The Sea (p. 11)

In the opposing narrative, there is a hand arising out of the sea. M will associate the hand to be “like” a man’s hand in describing the storm cloud. M here is trying to shift the cause of the storm away from the pagan gods in the opposing narrative and give credit to Yahweh and his prophet Elijah. The text doesn’t seem to indicate which storm god was in the opposing narrative, but given the geographical location, it was likely Baal. Interestingly enough, a later addition to this part of the Biblical narrative will describe a “battle” between Elijah and the prophets of Baal.

Furthermore, a chariot is associated with storm gods. Storm god features such as this will later become associated with Yahweh:

Like Baal, Yahweh is a warrior who descends from his mountain-home riding a chariot of clouds. His voice is thunder and his weapon is lightning; the earth quakes and the skies release rain at his command. In primeval times he asserted his authority by defeating the sea, becoming the ruler of the skies.

Sarlo, Daniel. The Storm God Versus The Sea (p. 1)

M moves the connection away from the chariot of the storm god and over to the chariot of Ahab, but instead of bring the storm to Jezreel, Ahab outruns it.

Elijah’s Elohim

Once again, M emphasizes that Yahweh was the Elohim of Elijah. Obadiah refers to Yahweh as Elijah’s Elohim and was concerned that the Spirit of Yahweh would carry him away. Additionally, Elijah himself says that he “stands before” Yahweh.

לפני “before” is a characteristic phrase in these stories. In conjunction with the verb עמד “stand” it is a sign of reverence, even worship. It forms part of an oath (5:16) and designates an attitude of respect (4:12, 15).

Hobbs, T. R. (1998). 2 Kings (Vol. 13, p. 63). Dallas: Word, Incorporated.

The opposing narrative said that Yahweh was not the Elohim of Elijah, and one reason was because He was not alive. See comments regarding this in The Brook Cherith. M responds by stating twice that Yahweh “liveth”.

The Woman At Zarephath - Northern Elijah & Elisha: A Mirror-Reading

image: Wikimedia commons (link).

This is a mirror-reading of the The Woman at Zarephath Narrative. If you don’t know what mirror-reading is, please visit this page. The Woman at Zarephath Narrative is primarily concerned with Elijah’s reputation, who was the widow, what happened to her son and which Elohim Elijah served.

If you’d like a less technical overview, please check out my podcast episode on this narrative. If you’re not familiar with Northern Elijah & Elisha, be sure to check out all of the podcast episodes in that series. I used Tzemah Yoreh's work as the basis for my Northern Elijah/Elisha Source. My mirror-reading map and commentary are listed below. In my commentary, I refer to the author of the Northern Elijah/Elisha source as “M”, after Tzemah’s labeling of the source as “Miracle Workers”.

Mirror-Reading Map

The map below shows how I derived the opposing narrative from the Biblical narrative. It relies primarily on mirrors/echos and cause/effect. For more information about mirrors/echoes, causal chains and my methodology, please visit this post.

Download hi-res image

Download pdf

Commentary

Please note that “M” refers to the author of the opposing narrative

Was The Woman At Zarephath Elijah’s Wife?

Once again, M has to deal with another narrative where Elijah is outside of Israel. The city of Zarephath was a Phoenician city just north of the Israelite border. The opposing narrative asserted this was because Elijah was a fugitive (see Ahab and Obadiah for more details), but M will simply present him as a sojourner.

The opposing narrative asserts that the woman at Zarephath was Elijah’s wife. M will counter this by making the woman a widow and injecting several reasons into the text as to why she wasn’t his wife. Most have to do with their living situation: Elijah lived separately (in the loft) and he had his own bed. The woman is also put into a position of authority within the household by calling her “mistress” of the house.

Furthermore, the woman asks “What have I to do with thee, O thou man of God?”. The opposing narrative would answer this by saying she was Elijah’s wife, but given the context given to us by M, the question is more likely to be answered “She has nothing to do with him”.

Was The Woman At Zarephath Unfaithful To Elijah?

M also has to counter the idea that, if the woman and Elijah were married, she cheated on him. I propose that the phrase “collecting sticks” was a sexual euphemism and doing it at the city gate suggested prostitution. Tamar is in a similar location (entrance to Enaim Gen. 38:14) when acting as a prostitute for Judah. It would seem that the city gate would be a poor place to find sticks or any type of wood, so M inserts that she is only gathering “two” sticks to make a meal.

Furthermore, the woman asks “...art thou come unto me to call my sin to remembrance..?” The “sin” would be defined as her infidelity by the opposing narrative, but M leaves it vague in his narrative, as there is no sin mentioned and his reader might answer, “What sin? There was no sin?”

The woman who is a prostitute and a wife of a prophet may sound familiar as it is also the case in Hosea. However, the author of Hosea handles it differently by make Gomer analogous to Israel.

The assertion by the opposing narrative that Elijah’s wife was a prostitute and later, that Elijah ate her son, does seem a little over the top and may indicate that the opposing narrative itself was propaganda and was responding to an even earlier narrative. But that is a mirror-reading of a mirror-reading, and it’s difficult to say with any certainty.

Who Ate The Cake?

The event in the opposing narrative that sets up the reason for the son to be eaten, is Elijah’s wife and her son eating the last of the food. In this case, it’s a “cake”. His wife and her son ate it to live. M will spin this by showing that Elijah is not concerned with it being the last of the food. Notice, the “fear not” that Elijah speaks to her, in order to downplay the event as the potential reason for the eating of the son. Notice also that M spins the reason for eating the cake, changing it from sustenance to keep her and her son alive, to despair with the expectation that they would die after eating it, not from Elijah killing her son, but from starvation.

Did The Food Run Out?

The making of the cake was done at the request of Elijah, countering the idea that the woman had done it on her own initiative. M has the barrel of meal and cruse of oil keep producing, feeding the woman, her son and her house for many days, whereas, in the opposing narrative, they run out. The lack of food and the failure of the woman to share the cake with him, leads Elijah to seek another food source. With the woman’s infidelity and the son’s paternity in question, Elijah feels justified in eating her son, perhaps even with a sense of revenge.

It seems that M would have us believe the cause of the lack of food was from the lack of rain declared in the previous cycle. This may not have been the case in the opposing narrative. Another possible reason would be a siege. Most if not all references in the Bible that refer to eating children have to do with a siege. It’s interesting that a later addition to the Elisha story involves a famine and a siege with two women eating a child.

The Death Of The Son

In the opposing narrative, Elijah takes the son away from the woman and kills him in preparation to eat him. According to M, the woman asks, “O thou man of God? art thou come unto me to call my sin to remembrance, and to slay my son?” The opposing narrative would have answered, “Yes, he did slay her son”, but by inserting sickness as the cause of death, M’s answer is a definite “No”, as Elijah will go on to revive the boy.

Additionally, M will note that the boy died after they ate, so as to indicate that Elijah could not have used hunger as a reason to kill the boy.

Did Elijah Eat The Son?

Elijah’s method of reviving the boy is somewhat enigmatic, stretching himself over the boy 3 times. Various explanations have been offered for this, including magic ritual and as a medical diagnostic tool. However, when looking at the opposing narrative, “stretch” could take on a new meaning. The Hebrew word is used elsewhere in the Bible to refer to the measuring of food. Measuring three times, would suggest three portions of food. Whether the “three times” was part of the opposing narrative or M adds it to put distance away from the idea of food (why would Elijah measure out 3 portions?) is not clear. Elijah crying out to Yahweh leads us to the next issue.

Elijah’s Elohim

M let’s us know that Yahweh was Elijah’s Elohim by having the woman say that Yahweh was his Elohim, and when Elijah prays for the boy, he cries out to Yahweh. The text does not seem to indicate what the opposing narrative said who Elijah’s Elohim was, only that one of the reasons that Yahweh was not Elijah’s Elohim was because Yahweh was not alive. See comments regarding this in The Brook Cherith.

Man Of Elohim

The term “Man of Elohim” or “Man of God” is often used in regards to prophets but not exclusively. It seems to have been a term of respect and speaks to their character more than anything. This fits with the Elijah and Elisha narratives as M is trying to combat some negative views of the two prophets. The term is used only in this cycle for Elijah, and this cycle is countering the opposing narrative that would put his character in the most negative light. The frequency of the term jumps when we get to Elisha, as the opposing narratives that surround his character put in him in a negative light more often.

The Brook Cherith - Northern Elijah & Elisha: A Mirror-Reading

image: Wikimedia commons (link).

This is a mirror-reading of the The Brook Cherith Narrative. If you don’t know what mirror-reading is, please visit this page. The Brook Cherith Narrative is primarily concerned with Elijah’s reputation, his place of residence, what happened at the Brook Cherith, which Elohim he served, and if Yahweh was the Elohim of Israel.

If you’d like a less technical overview, please check out my podcast episode on this narrative. If you’re not familiar with Northern Elijah & Elisha, be sure to check out all of the podcast episodes in that series. I used Tzemah Yoreh's work as the basis for my Northern Elijah/Elisha Source. My mirror-reading map and commentary are listed below. In my commentary, I refer to the author of the Northern Elijah/Elisha source as “M”, after Tzemah’s labeling of the source as “Miracle Workers”.

Mirror-Reading Map

The map below shows how I derived the opposing narrative from the Biblical narrative. It relies primarily on mirrors/echos and cause/effect. For more information about mirrors/echoes, causal chains and my methodology, please visit this post.

Download hi-res image

Download pdf

Commentary

Please note that “M” refers to the author of the opposing narrative

Elijah’s Residence

Since the opposing narrative has Elijah as a fugitive that Ahab was trying to track down (see Ahab and Obadiah for more details), M has to deal with Elijah being an Israelite who wasn’t in Israel. This is done is a few ways. FIrst, Elijah is listed as a Tishbite.

In eight passages, including 21:17, he is identified as “the Tishbite,” but since it is very doubtful that there was a place Tishbe in Gilead, as many commentators have claimed, it is perhaps best to follow the suggestion (see S. Cohen in IDB IV, 653–54) that the “i” should be revocalized as an “o”, giving us the meaning “settler.”

DeVries, S. J. (2003). 1 Kings (2nd ed, Vol. 12, p. 216). Dallas: Word, Inc.

I disagree with “settler’ and side with the KJV in the 9 instances it lists the word as a “sojourner”. This fits the strategy that M would have used to make an excuse for why Elijah, an Israelite, wasn’t in Israel: He was traveling.

“Of the inhabitants of Gilead” is an interesting phrase. Often times, a character introduction will include a phrase such as “of the tribe of”, but once again M is responding to the opposing narrative’s placing of Elijah outside of Israel. By using “inhabitants”, M attempts to establish Elijah’s residence within the territory of Israel.

By having Elijah speak with Ahab out of his own initiative, M attempts to counter to opposing narrative’s idea that Ahab was pursuing Elijah as a fugitive,

The main location for this narrative is the Brook Cherith. The word “Cherith” simply means “seperation” or “cutting” presumably as in how water cuts through the land. If it was small and unknown enough, M can simply relocate the brook to be within the boundaries of israel by adding “of Jordan”. Since the rest of the Elijah narrative takes place near the Israelite/Phoenician border, one might speculate that the opposing narrative located the Brook Cherith in that area as well.

According to the opposing narrative, it seems Elijah went to the brook because he was a fugitive. M doesn’t make it clear why Elijah goes there. It’s interesting that a later addition to the story, will have Elijah go to the brook as a fugitive, this time from Jezebel.

How Cherith Dried Up

Although it’s not clear to me why, M is concerned with countering the opposing narrative in regards to how and when the brook dried up. Let’s look at the “how” first:

The famine initiated by Elijah seems to be an invention of M. The original reader doesn’t seem to be aware of such a famine, causing M to mention it twice. The famine is then used as the reason for the brook drying. Additionally, the famine could possibly be an alternative reason for why Ahab is looking for Elijah. It’s not clear why Elijah is a fugitive in the opposing narrative. The famine is in contrast to the opposing narrative, which views the dry brook as part of it’s regular seasonal drying. The “brook” here is actually a wadi, and as such, would have experienced regular dry spells.

Additionally, the famine theme throughout the Elijah cycles may be part of a strategy by M to promote Yahweh as a fertility god by having one of His prophets control the rain. Furthermore, it’s possible that the original readers were experiencing a famine at the time of composition.

When Cherith Dried Up

As to when the brook dried up, M stresses the point that it dried at least a day after Elijah was there. This is indicated in two ways. This first is that M explicitly says that the brook dried up “after a day”. The second is by telling that the ravens brought Elijah bread and flesh in the morning and in the evening = 1 day. After the ravens brought him food, he was still able to drink from the brook, indicating that it was not yet dry.

The original reader was likely familiar with “the ravens”. The use of the definite article instead of “some ravens” or simply “ravens” indicate that the ravens were part of the opposing narrative. However, I’m unable to reconstruct how they were a part of it. We could speculate that this cycle was the last cycle of the opposing narrative, and that Elijah had died (from thirst, because the brook was dry) and the ravens ate his flesh.

Given that the opposing narrative has the brook drying up because of the dry season, we can assume that it dried up during that season. However, the emphasis of when it dried, seems to be in relation to Elijah, and I am unable to ascertain from the text how the opposing narrative had dried up in relation to him.

Which Elohim Did Elijah Serve?

M has Elijah tell Ahab that he stands before the Elohim of Israel, thereby countering the opposing claim that he did not serve the Elohim of Israel. If Elijah wasn’t serving the Elohim of Israel, then what Elohim was he serving? The text doesn’t give us much to answer this question.

Was Yahweh the Elohim of Israel?

M tells us explicitly that Yahweh is the Elohim of Israel, but the opposing narrative may have disagreed, and one reason is because Yahweh was not alive. We don’t seem to have any indication as to why that was, but some possibilities are that Yahweh wasn’t born/didn’t exist, or that he was killed by another god. Regardless, M makes it a point to say that Yahweh was alive.

Additionally, Elijah’s (and Elisha’s) name may have been beneficial to M’s narrative since they are combinations of Elohim and Yahweh:

Elijah’s name seems to be symbolic of his special mission, which is to confess that Yahweh (Jah) is his God (Eli).

DeVries, S. J. (2003). 1 Kings (2nd ed, Vol. 12, p. 216). Dallas: Word, Inc.

Yahwist Notes: Gen 12:1-9 Abraham’s Migration to Canaan

The following are rough notes as I read through the Yahwist. I’m using Tzemah Yoreh’s source attribution for the Yahwist. You can view all of my notes of the Yahwist series here. Some ideas presented here may seem ridiculous, but no idea is too stupid during this phase. I’m not that concerned with grammar or spelling either. My thoughts and ideas will likely alter significantly by the time I produce a full mirror-reading of the Yahwist, but this gives you an idea of “how the sausage is made”. Feel free to share comments and/or links you think I might find helpful.

Opposing Narrative: Abraham did not leave his country, kindred or father’s house

Yahweh did not show Abraham the land?

Israel was not a great nation (because northern tribes only, not southern tribes?)

Abraham’s name was not great?

Yahweh did not bless Abraham?

Yahweh did not tell him to go to Canaan?

Lot did not go with Abraham?

Alternative explanation for altar at Oak of Moreh?

Altar’s were alternative explanations for boundary markers?

Yahweh did not appear to Abraham?

Alternative explanation for altar between Bethel and Ai?

Yahwist has to migrate Abraham to the Negev to show that the southern tribes were part of Israel?

From around the web:

Some help from @Elishabenabuya

Yahwist Notes: Gen 11 Tower of Babel

The following are rough notes as I read through the Yahwist. I’m using Tzemah Yoreh’s source attribution for the Yahwist. You can view all of my notes of the Yahwist series here. Some ideas presented here may seem ridiculous, but no idea is too stupid during this phase. I’m not that concerned with grammar or spelling either. My thoughts and ideas will likely alter significantly by the time I produce a full mirror-reading of the Yahwist, but this gives you an idea of “how the sausage is made”. Feel free to share comments and/or links you think I might find helpful.

Opposing narrative: The whole earth was not one language?

Why was it important that they migrated from the east?

Bricks mentioned because it enable mortals to make the tower?

Why are they concerned about being scattered abroad?

Mortals built the city and tower...not gods?

“Us” used like in Genesis 2-3 in regards to Yahweh and the gods - Yahwist had to because Opposing narrative used plural gods?

Genesis definition for Babel does not fit and it an alternative explanation for the name.

It was Yahweh that confused the language...not another god?

It was Yahweh that scattered them...not another god?

City and tower were built, not just the tower

From around the web:

• The Tower of Babel: Did It Exist, and What Does the Story Mean?

• The Tower of Babel and the Origin of World Cultures - Theodore Hiebert

• Whatever Happened in the Valley of Shinar? A Response to Theodore Hiebert

• Shattering the Image of God: A Response to Theodore Hiebert's Interpretation of the Story of the Tower of Babel

• The Mesopotamian Background of the Tower of Babel Account and Its Implications

• Tower and city of Babel 2 stories?

• Various ancient sources about towers built

• Gateway to the Heavens: The Assyrian Account to the Tower of Babel
  

Yahwist Notes: Gen 9 Naked Noah & Canaan's Curse

The following are rough notes as I read through the Yahwist. I’m using Tzemah Yoreh’s source attribution for the Yahwist. You can view all of my notes of the Yahwist series here. Some ideas presented here may seem ridiculous, but no idea is too stupid during this phase. I’m not that concerned with grammar or spelling either. My thoughts and ideas will likely alter significantly by the time I produce a full mirror-reading of the Yahwist, but this gives you an idea of “how the sausage is made”. Feel free to share comments and/or links you think I might find helpful.

Shem, Ham, Japheth and Canaan were not sons of Noah? They did not come out of the ark?

Noah was not a man of the soil, was not the first to plant a vineyard?

“Lay uncovered” in this text stresses it was just nakedness

Only two brothers outside?

Is putting garment on shoulders a euphemism for authority?

“Their father” was not their father?

They did not see their father’s nakedness means they did?

“Youngest son” means not his youngest son did it to him?

“to him” means he did it to someone else?

Lowest of slaves means he was not lowest of slaves (slave of slaves)?

“His brothers” means they were not his brothers?

Yahweh was not the God of Shem?

Canaan was not Shem’s slave?

Lots of ambiguity around seeing nakedness of father

Putting cloak over Noah because he was dead?

Noah was not originally part of the flood story?

From around the web:

• Noah existed as a character that was independent of his association with the flood

• Ham cursed Canaan

• Was Noah Castrated?

• Nice overview of different views

• Canaanites, Amorites, and Hittites in History and the Bible

• Adding Ham into the Story

• Tzemah Yoreh on the Supplementary Hypothesis and the curse on Canaan

• Hieser's maternal incest explanation makes more sense if it was the original narrative that the Yahwist was trying to spin imo

• El parallel, naked in ancient context, case for sodomy or castration

• Noah's Curse: Punishment and Paradox

• Only in a later version of the story the curse was passed on to Canaan, due to "political" considerations, regarding the Israelite-Canaanite struggle over the land of Israel.

• the especial importance of ‘nakedness’ within the prehistory and to the fact that cursing is closely associated with it. Second, the issue of incest condemned in Leviticus 18 and 20 combines the scene of Noah’s nakedness with the story of Lot and his daughters to create a mythological support for its prohibitions on incestuous relationships.

• maternal-incest theory

• Noah’s nakedness and the curse of Canaan - A case of incest?

Yahwist Notes: Gen 5-8 Noah & The Flood

The following are rough notes as I read through the Yahwist. I’m using Tzemah Yoreh’s source attribution for the Yahwist. You can view all of my notes of the Yahwist series here. Some ideas presented here may seem ridiculous, but no idea is too stupid during this phase. I’m not that concerned with grammar or spelling either. My thoughts and ideas will likely alter significantly by the time I produce a full mirror-reading of the Yahwist, but this gives you an idea of “how the sausage is made”. Feel free to share comments and/or links you think I might find helpful.

Lamech one of Sumerian kings?

Lamech father son, mirrored would make Noah a girl

Noah name meaning and name explanation don’t match

Gen 2 alternative explanation for Noah’s name?

Emphasis on Yahweh destroying humankind (and animals) 2x

Emphasis on Yahweh making humankind 2x

Why an ark and not a boat like other Mesopotamian flood accounts?

J seems to be stressing that no other than Noah and family survived the flood - Abel too

Emphasis on soil, ground, earth

Flood under whole heave = no distant survivors

Shift family line before flood, now they are part of another family

Why raven and dove? Raven does not return, has to use dove to confirm?

Emphasis on Noah being the one who made the ark

Emphasis on birds not returning anymore

Why an olive leaf?

Yahweh doesn’t realize that humans are continuously evil, as if they could have paused from being evil?

Yahwist concerned to show that Yahweh was justified in flood

Humankind was alternative reason for ground being cursed?

From around the web:

• People dissolved in Genesis - Also people turned to clay in Gilgamesh

• Genesis compare with ancient flood accounts

• Layers of the Flood Accounts

• More flood account comparison

• The Motif of Releasing Birds in ANE Flood Stories

• Why Does the Sodom Story Parallel the Flood Traditions?

• The Rainbow in Ancient Context (although not Yahwist)

• Noah was originally mythic figure symbolic of solstice, bringing "rest" by bringing end of harvest season. Article surprisingly doesn't mention Gen 8:22 promise of seasons

• Noah's name should have been Menahem to match the "comfort" explanation

• Noah and Grace pun

• Why did Noah send out a Raven

• The Atrahasis Epic: The Great Flood & the Meaning of Suffering

Yahwist Notes: Gen 4 Cain & Abel

The following are rough notes as I read through the Yahwist. I’m using Tzemah Yoreh’s source attribution for the Yahwist. You can view all of my notes of the Yahwist series here. Some ideas presented here may seem ridiculous, but no idea is too stupid during this phase. I’m not that concerned with grammar or spelling either. My thoughts and ideas will likely alter significantly by the time I produce a full mirror-reading of the Yahwist, but this gives you an idea of “how the sausage is made”. Feel free to share comments and/or links you think I might find helpful.

This is the first of brotherly rivalries for the Yahwist: Cain and Abel, Isaac and Ishmael and Jacob and Esau.

Eve had produced a man (Adam) by herself? J spins this to sex with Adam and producing Cain with help of Yahweh?

Cain’s birth alternative explanation for the meaning of Cain’s name? kan (qayin, "spear" or "smith," resembling in sound the root qanah, "get," "acquire,"

Abel is referred to as Cain’s brother 7x, indicating that he was not Cain’s brother in the opposing narrative.

broader theme- soil tillers, Adam, Cain and Noah vs Nomadic?

Yahweh did not have regard for Cain’s because the ground had been previously cursed?

J stresses the reason for why Cain was very angry and countenance fallen indicating that the opposing narrative gave a different reason

Originally Cain said “Whoever kills Cain will suffer a sevenfold vengeance”. J’s spins this so that Yahweh says it about Cain. Just like Lamech said it himself

“Sin lurking at door” originally referred to demon?

Abze was Sumerian god of water. Ab El was Hebrew equivalent?

Cain suggesting going out to field would suggest premeditated murder

Ground originally opened its mouth to swallow Abel like Korah, but J spins this to Abel’s blood, not Abel himself.

Lots of ambiguity with the phrase “My punishment is greater than I can bear” in the Hebrew. Could suggest that it was used one way in opposing narrative but J is using it in a different way.

Cain’s being driven away from the face of Yahweh is J’s explanation as to why there was no account of Cain worshiping Yahweh?

Cain’s punishment of wandering was J’s alternative explanation for the name origin of the Land of Nod?

Yahweh’s protection is J’s alternative explanation for Cain’s mark?

Cain’s family line is parallel to Sumerian king list?

I’m very interested to learn more about how Sumerian creation myth relates to J’s account.

Why is J concerned with family line of Noah?

Irad was first Sumerian city? Why does J list it?

Names with El: Mehujael, Methushael, Abel

Names with Yahweh: Adah, Zillah

Names with Baal: Jabal, Jubal, Tubal-cain

Jabel parallel to Abel - livestock, Tubal-cain parallel to Cain - smith?

J stressing that Adah and Zillah were Lamech’s wives indicates that they were not.

What’s up with J’s preoccupation with “soil”?

J’s stressing that Enoch was Cain’s son indicates that he was not.

Lamech’s son’s originally divine as they brought music and metallurgy?

From around the web:

• Nomadic vs Agricultural

• Cain “created” or “acquired”?

• Genesis, Creation, and Ancient Interpreters: Why Did Cain Murder his Brother?

• Cain offering not accepted because ground cursed? Cain and Abel twins? Textual issues with “sin”, “crouching” and “lift up”

• The Origins of Yahweh and the Revived Kenite Hypothesis

• The Evolution of Civilization: The Biblical Story 

• Eight possible meanings of Cain’s response and what this tells us about his character as presented in the Torah

• Remus and Romulus vs. Cain and Abel

• Cain, being afraid of Eve’s intention to sacrifice him to God, murdered Abel out of fear for his life

• Gen 4 presents the ground as an agent responsive first and foremost to God's will, thus resisting and frustrating human disobedience and violence.

• Slip in gender with “sin” and “coucheth”

• the Yahwist juxtaposes the hospitality of Abraham and of Lot with the violent barbarism of the men of Sodom.

• Why is Abel’s blood plural?

• New rendering of what Cain said “Cain spoke against Abel, his brother.”

• Ab in Abzu means water, does it mean water in Abel - God of Water?

• The mark of Cain as the vengeance saying itself, meant to refer to Cain’s descendants, not just Cain.

• A Sumerian Source of the Fourth and Fifth Chapters of Genesis

Yahwist Notes: Gen 2-3 Garden of Eden

The following are rough notes as I read through the Yahwist. I’m using Tzemah Yoreh’s source attribution for the Yahwist. You can view all of my notes of the Yahwist series here. Some ideas presented here may seem ridiculous, but no idea is too stupid during this phase. I’m not that concerned with grammar or spelling either. My thoughts and ideas will likely alter significantly by the time I produce a full mirror-reading of the Yahwist, but this gives you an idea of “how the sausage is made”. Feel free to share comments and/or links you think I might find helpful.

The “Lord God” is used extensively throughout this section, presumably to combine the identities of both Yahweh and Elohim. Only Elohim is used is a few instances. Why? Is this because those instances had already been attributed to Elohim and J doesn’t feel like he can alter previous text? Is Yahweh spinning a pre-existing narrative about Elohim’s creation story?

“Made heaven and earth” There seems to be an emphasis on Yahweh’s ability to provide fertility. But also an emphasis on his “earthiness”. Was Yahweh only seen as a heavenly God? Or a strictly “earthy” God?

“The Lord God had not caused it to rain upon the earth”. Is this an alternative explanation for lack of vegetation on the ground?

There is an emphasis that man was formed from the dust of the ground. Was J responding to a different type of formation of man?

Placement of the garden seems to be more near Babylon that Israel. Does this indicate a exilic or post-exilic account? Tower of Babel is also along the same lines. What’s with the obsession with Babylon when it is supposedly a Israelite account?

“Gold of the land was good” Never heard of gold that wasn’t good. What is the significance of this?

It’s interesting that the “Tree of LIfe” pops up in other ancient literature but Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil does not. Could be this is an assertion by J into the original narrative. The serpent was viewed and giver of wisdom. J may be trying to shift origin of wisdom away from serpent and to the Tree of Knowledge. Eve “saw that it was good” even before eating, providing an explanation for the serpent to providing insight but the “real” good and evil was in the tree.

Perhaps Heiser is right…..and wrong. Perhaps the original narrative did have a divine being but J spins it to make it a more earthly serpent.

“Not good to be alone” another instance of Yahweh recognize good/not good.

Why the emphasis of Adam over the animals?

Why counter the idea that an animal was found to be Adam’s helper?

Lots of ambiguity in the text. This is usually indicative of the Biblical author taking pre-existing narrative and trying to spin it in a different direction.

“One Flesh” is about breaking family ties between the wife and her family. Keener sees this too. But why is it an issue when J writes?

Ambiguous language with the serpent. Is “crafty” good or bad? Perhaps good in the original narrative but J makes it bad. Spinning the ambiguity.

Perhaps the original narrative said the serpentine being gave wisdom to the woman and the woman gave wisdom to the man. The tree undercuts this and wisdom is given by eating the fruit, J shows that the man and women receive wisdom at the same time - both of their eyes were open simultaneously. Nakedness is used as a tool to show this.

Hiding - J seems to be providing an alternative explanation as to why they hid, emphasizing the it was because they heard the “Sound” of God walking

“Who told you that you were naked?” Perhaps in the original narrative the serpent told them they were naked. God’s question seems out of place here and could be a spin by J.

The curses seem to have to do with fertility: Toil and the land, pain and pregnancy, serpent eating dust has tones of famine. This sets up for Noah to reverse the famine curse. There may be a tie in with Cain too as he becomes cursed from the ground.

Enmity between offspring - this has to be at least a parallel to Israel and some other offspring. Will look for clues and I work through J.

I don’t think J’s narrative is meant to be allegory although there may be parallels. His work is propaganda and was meant to be taken as literal even if it was fiction.

“You have listened to the voice of your wife” could be a theme with J. I recall Abraham getting into trouble for listening to Sarah. But why an issue during J’s time?

Eve’s name is ambiguous meaning. Could have been related to serpent in original narrative. J spins it to mean mother of all living.

Garments of skin or garment for skin. Ambiguous. Perhaps original narrative had garments made of another material.

Cherubim. Lots of parallel’s to Temple, which is a major thing for J

From around the web:

• The Temple of Eden

• The Genesis Sanctuary

• Parallels Between Enkidu and Adam In the Epic of Gilgamesh and the Garden of Eden

• Eden as Temple and Template (Part II)

• Adam is Israel

• Review: Adam as Israel by Seth D. Postell

• God Abandons the Garden of Eden and Dwells with the Cherubim

• God is a God of Order AND Chaos

• Why the Villain of Eden was a Serpent (Video)

• THE KING OF TYRE IN EZEKIEL XXVlll

• Garden of the gods (Sumerian paradise)

• Adam and Eve "Facts"

• The Story of Adam

• Adam and His Life

• The Serpent in the Garden of Eden and its Background HT @amateurexegete

• Is the river Gihon in Ethiopia OR the outskirts of Jerusalem?

• Adam from Adamah: Yahweh Molds an Earthling!

• The Serpent and Eve Nonsense: Where The Idea Comes From and Does Not Come From

• Is ‘adam “Adam”?

• Hercules constellation crushing head of serpent with heel

• The Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil and the Tree of Life in the Garden of Eden (The Ancient Near Eastern Motifs behind)

• Persian Garden of Eden

• Aduma - Assyrian King

• More Aduma

• Eve's Curse Revisited: An Increase of "Sorrowful Conceptions"

Bernard Lamborelle vs Mirror-Reading

image: Wikimedia commons (link).

Update 10-14-18: Bernard has written a response. Be sure to check out “Facing Cognitive Dissonance"!

This is a compare and contrast between two different approaches regarding Abraham and Yahweh.  This is the 3rd compare and contrast post that I’ve done.  Be sure to check out my compare and contrast posts of John Piper (Romans 8:28) and allegorical interpretation (Genesis 1).

I first discovered Bernard on The Non-Sequitur Show and respect his novel interpretation, a rarity in a field dominated by tradition. I find him to be cordial, open-minded and graceful in his interactions with others. Ultimately, though, I disagree with his position. Bernard has invited others to critique his work, so I am taking him up on that invitation. However, my focus won’t be on disproving his theory (although I’ll make a few points about that), but rather comparing and contrasting it to my own theory derived from mirror-reading, which I feel offers a better explanation of the Biblical text in question.  

This post won’t be a thorough presentation of his views, so if you want to know the details of his argument be sure to check out his website, or buy his book. I will only be quoting or briefly summarizing his positions just enough to contrast with my own. Having said that though, if Bernard feels I’ve misrepresented him here or would like to clarify something, I will certainly add it to this post.

This post will also be limited in scope.  Bernard’s analysis covers Genesis 12-25, but mine will only include the Elohist’s Genesis 20-22, the Yahwist’s Genesis 13,18-19 and the Bridger's Genesis 14.

There are a few things that Bernard and I agree on however, and I will mention those things before I get into our differences.

Niche Market

We both are proposing novel ideas about the Bible, and there isn’t exactly a large market for that sort of thing.  As Bernard explains:

“It took me a while to grasp and then accept the harsh reality that those who should have cared weren’t ready, and that those who were ready didn’t care. Indeed, those who believe Abraham made a Covenant with the divine aren’t interested in seeing their beliefs challenged, and those who view this story as a myth don’t have much interest in learning more about it.

Lamborelle, Bernard. The Covenant: On the Origin of the Abrahamic Faith, by Means of Deification (p. 10). Kindle Edition.”

Original Intent

We both seek to discover what was the original intent of the Biblical text. Bernard asks:

How can we steer towards the original intent rather than stray away from it?

Lamborelle, Bernard. The Covenant: On the Origin of the Abrahamic Faith, by Means of Deification (p. 51). Kindle Edition.

Our methods lead us to different conclusions, but we both share the same desire for original authorial intent.

Abraham Existed

Bernard argues that Abraham actually existed in history. I also believe that he existed in history (or, at least, the original readers thought he existed in history).  Bernard believes this because historical and archaeological evidence allows for him to exist in the time-frame described in the Bible.  I believe he existed because mirror-reading shows that the Biblical author assumed the original reader believed that there were descendants of Abraham (see Elohist: Abraham Cycle).

Now onto our differences:

Dissociative Exegesis vs Mirror-Reading

Bernard’s approach to the text is what he calls “dissociative exegesis”.

To help put things into perspective, it would now be useful to adopt the paradigm of an earthly covenant and revisit the Abrahamic narrative through the eyes of the inhabitants of Sodom. This is achieved by performing what I refer to as a dissociative exegesis, an exercise of textual analysis that invites you to assess the story of Abraham in the Bible while: 1) Identifying and dissociating the humanistic Yahweh from the immaterial Elohim. 2) Picturing Yahweh as a powerful Mesopotamian overlord (i.e., Baal Berith) in league with the four Eastern Kings.

Lamborelle, Bernard. The Covenant: On the Origin of the Abrahamic Faith, by Means of Deification (p. 67). Kindle Edition.

I, on the other hand, use a technique called “mirror-reading”.  Mirror-reading is the process of mirroring the text in order to recreate the opposing narrative that the Biblical author was responding to.  So, for example, if the Biblical writer says to do “x”, then the opposing narrative may have been saying not to do “x”.  Of course, not all of the text should be mirrored, and I use causal connections to help determine my mirror-reading.  If you’d like to learn more details, please check out my about page. It should be noted that most of the mirror-reading in this post is only a cursory mirror-reading.  If you'd like to see mirror-readings with my methodology fully applied, check out those listed as such on this page.

Secular History or Political Propaganda?

Bernard believes that the text in question was secular history that was later theologized by later Biblical authors.  Yahweh was a powerful human (Hammurabi is his leading candidate) who eventually became deified by later writers of the Bible.

I believe the text was political propaganda that was later theologized by readers of the Bible. That propaganda is still there in the text, but later readers, unfamiliar with the original political concerns, would force theological meaning into the text.  Fortunately, mirror-reading can help us reconstruct what those original political concerns were.  I’ve discerned many of those concerns in the Elohist Source and the Northern Book of Judges.

Dr. Steven DiMattei writes:

In the majority of cases, scribes wrote for a scribal guild or a monarch. As patrons of their kings, one of the responsibilities of the court scribe was to write political propaganda—that is literature that advertised, endorsed, and legitimated the king’s policies and even his ascension to the throne if need be.

http://contradictionsinthebible.com/the-yahwist-2/

This explains why Biblical authors include such terrible moral examples in their text.  It is because they are not concerned with morality. The political agenda was primary.  If Abraham has to lie, Samson has to sleep with prostitutes and genocide has to be committed against the Amorites, that was fine, as long as it supported the political agenda of the Biblical author. This also means the writers weren’t concerned about what actually happened in history and so, undercuts Bernard’s secular history view of the text.

2 Gods or 1 God + 1 Man?

Bernard believes Yahweh was a man, and that later scribes made him into God and used the term “Elohim”.  This is a problem for Bernard because he needs the text to say “Yahweh” and not “Elohim” in certain places.  This leads him to attack the Documentary Hypothesis (JEDP Theory) first developed by Wellhausen.

Wellhausen’s theory centers around Genesis being written by different authors (sources) and spliced together to produce the finished product.  As such, Elohim was God of northern Israel in the Elohist Source, and Yahweh was the God of Southern Israel in the Yahwist Source. When the sources were mixed together, the God’s identities became combined.  Bernard argues that the Documentary Hypothesis is now seriously contested because it has been proven incomplete and flawed.

Exploring a different hypothesis is therefore in line with the current post-Documentary trend, which, as seen earlier, suggests that the unification of the two terms does not result from the assembly of separate sources, as presupposed by Wellhausen, but is instead the result of a slow cultural evolution. The gradual amalgamation of the terms Yahweh and Elohim would eventually take place in the minds of the Hebrews as they sought to merge two powerful figures into a single entity.

Lamborelle, Bernard. The Covenant: On the Origin of the Abrahamic Faith, by Means of Deification (p. 50). Kindle Edition.

This “gradual amalgamation” of the terms “Yahweh” and “Elohim” allows Bernard to switch out Elohim for Yahweh wherever it suits his needs based on later scribal error or bias.

I disagree and believe the Documentary Hypothesis has evolved since Wellhausen and seems to be alive and well today. To assign all Elohim references to the Elohist source and all Yahweh references to the Yahwist source is an oversimplification and a misrepresentation of the current Documentary Hypothesis. Although I agree that the classical Documentary Hypothesis should be rejected, I believe the Supplementary Hypothesis is the correct approach, specifically as developed by Tzemah Yoreh at biblecriticism.com. This hypothesis says that there were separate sources, but instead of being spliced together, each author built upon the previous author.  This allows the Yahwist and other sources to use the name Elohim when they see fit. When we add political propaganda to the mix, we see that the Biblical authors were taking the already accepted text of the previous author and spinning it with their own additions to support their political agenda.

In the case of the names Elohim and Yahweh, this is also the case.  The Elohist is the earliest of the sources and thus, is not concerned at all with Yahweh.  The Yahwist however, is building on the text of the Elohist and spinning it to his political propaganda: Combining the identities of Northern Israel and Southern Judea. This strategy is first seen in the Northern Book of Judges (developed independently of the Elohist text), when it’s author (N) uses parallel descriptions, one with Elohim and one with Yahweh, in an effort to equate the two names as one, in order to produce a unified national identity. As a side note, “Elohim” may have just been a generic name for “God”.  The Elohist source seems to be concerned with making sure the Israelites worshiped the “Elohim” of the land of Canaan and not the “Elohim” of some other land.

So, although I agree we should avoid an Elohim/Yahweh false dichotomy of sources, I believe the Supplementary Hypothesis and mirror-reading provide the best explanation of the Biblical text.  When I’ve mirror-read the sources as attributed by Tzemah, each source has shown that they address the political concerns that were prevalent at the time that they were written.

Babylonian King or Edomite God?

Bernard argues that Yahweh was originally king Hammurabi. So that would make his origins from Babylon.  But that’s not what the Biblical writers seem to be responding to.  A number of Biblical passages seem to indicate that the origins of Yahweh was from Edom.

The absence of the name ‘Yahweh’ in West Semitic epigraphy (except for the Mesha Stela) agrees well with the biblical evidence on Yahweh’s origins. A number of poetic - and presumably archaic - texts have preserved the memory of a topographical link between Yahweh and the mountain area south of Eom. In these theophany texts Yahweh is said to come from Seir, from ‘the field(s) of Edom’ (Judges 5:4;note the correction in Psalm 68:8[7]). According to the Blessing of Moses Yahweh comes from Sinai, ‘dawns from Seir’, and ‘shines forth’ from Mount Paran (Deuteronomy 33:2). Elsewhere he is said to come from Teman and Mount Paran (Habakkuk 3:3). The reference to ‘Yahweh of Teman’ in one of the Kuntillet Ajrud inscriptions is an extra-biblical confirmation of the topographical connection. All of these place - Seir, Mt Paran, Teman, and Sinai - are in or near Edom.

Karel van der Toorn, Family Religion in Babylonia, Syria & Israel pg 282

Toorn lumps Sinai in with Edom, but I disagree since Elohim from Sinai was already established in the Moses Cycle of the Elohist source, but that it had more to do with accusations that Moses was a Midianite than it did with the God of Israel having Midianite origins.  In the Deborah/Barak/Jael Cycle, N attempts to equate Yahweh with the Elohist’s God of Sinai.  It’s important to note that N was not saying that Yahweh was from Edom, only that he was responding to accusations that He was. Which raises the question, if Yahweh was from Babylon, why are Biblical authors responding to accusations that Yahweh was from Edom? If Yahweh was a man, he was a man from Edom.

Son of Hammurabi or Son of Abimelech (Genesis 20-22)?

Bernard argues that Isaac was the son of Yahweh, who was a man (most likely Hammurabi).  This is because Hammurabi had made a covenant with Abraham, and an heir was needed to continue it. Abraham could not produce a child with Sarah (because she was his half-sister), and Ishmael was not acceptable because of his Egyptian bloodline. So Hammurabi steps in and impregnates Sarah himself.

I see a couple of issues with that argument.  One, the text says Sarah could not conceive because she was past menopause.  It wouldn’t of mattered what man tried to impregnate her, she was out of eggs. Second, this would be a highly unusual strategy to solidify an alliance. The typical way to do so would have been for Hammurabi to offer one of his daughters for Abraham to take as another wife. In an honor/shame culture, having another man impregnate his wife would have been devastating to Abraham’s honor and a great humiliation.  Furthermore, any future potential allies would have been reluctant to enter into any kind of agreement with Hammurabi upon hearing of how he solved the issue with Abraham. Finally, this would have been against Hammurabi’s very own law code as Bernard points out in his book when talking about Abimelech:

Incidentally, Hammurabi’s code of law prohibits a man from sleeping with another man’s wife, a crime one would think would be especially reprehensible if committed with the wife of his representative: § 129. If a man's wife be surprised (in flagrante delicto) with another man, both shall be tied and thrown into the water, but the husband may pardon his wife and the king his slaves.

Lamborelle, Bernard. The Covenant: On the Origin of the Abrahamic Faith, by Means of Deification (p. 290). Kindle Edition.

Regardless, I think mirror-reading provides a better explanation for the text. For this section, I’ll only be mirror-reading the Elohist Source in order to understand its original purpose.  You can view the source material I used here.

The opposing narrative said that Isaac was the son of Abimelech because he had been with Sarah, and Sarah couldn’t have been Abraham’s wife because she was his sister. And although Abraham had taken custody of Isaac later in life, he had sacrificed Isaac.  So Abraham’s inheritance should not go to anyone claiming to be Isaac’s descendants but instead should go to Abraham’s other son(s).

If that is true, then we would expect the Elohist to counter those ideas in his narrative. He does this in a few different ways:

Isaac was Abraham’s son

Isaac is repeatedly referred to as Abraham’s son throughout the narrative.  Also, Abraham and Isaac repeatedly refer to each other as father and son in dialogue. The Elohist repeatedly mentions that Sarah is Abraham’s wife and provides an alternative explanation as to why it was thought Sarah was his sister:  Abraham only said that because he was afraid.  Sarah is repeatedly described as bearing Isaac to Abraham.

Abraham only had one son

Elohim declares that Isaac is Abraham’s only son. Hagar’s son is one possible candidate for being Abraham’s son but is disregarded by the Elohist and cut out from Abraham’s inheritance.   Referring to Hagar as a “slave woman” further de-legitimizes Hagar’s son as a potential heir.

Although speculative, the two young men, who accompanied Abraham and Isaac en-route to the sacrifice of Isaac, could have also been argued to be Abraham’s sons. This could also be the reason why they are anonymous, since naming them would have given their descendants an excuse to claim Abraham's inheritance.

Make the sacrifice of Isaac ambiguous

Isaac carrying the wood and the knife himself would bolster the idea that there were no witnesses to what transpired, since the two young men would not be needed to carry the items. This is the Elohist’s way of questioning the two young men’s testimony.  They never actually saw Isaac being sacrificed.

The Elohist writing Isaac back to life is not the only time a Biblical writer implements this strategy.  The Elohist will do it again with Joseph to integrate Ephraim and Manasseh into the Israelite family, and the Yahwist will do it with Lot to cut out any common ancestors with the Israelites. .  

For a detailed overview on Isaac and the opposing narrative that the Elohist was responding to, be sure to check out my podcast episode and blog post.

Land Covenant with Hammurabi or Land Dispute with the Moabites and Ammonites? (Genesis 13,18-19)

Bernard argues that Sodom and the other cities were destroyed because they rebelled against the man, Yahweh (again, Hammurabi).  The supernatural destruction is really about a military conquest.  

Again, I think mirror-reading provides a better explanation. For this section, I’ll only be mirror-reading the Yahwist in order to understand its original purpose. You can view the source material I used here.

The Elohist source does not include the tribes of Southern Israel as part of the Abrahamic tradition.  In an attempt to unify the southern and northern tribes of the Israel, the Yahwist attempts to write the southern tribes into the tradition. The story of Sodom is part of that strategy.  

The narrative that was opposing the Yahwist was saying that the southern tribes and land were part of the Moabite and Ammonite tribes.  That was because they shared a common ancestor that was a descendant of Lot, who lived in Sodom and had died during its destruction.

If that is true, then we would expect the Yahwist to counter those ideas in his narrative. He does this in a few different ways:

Remove Common Ancestors of Southern Israel, the Moabites and the Ammonites

The Yahwist does this by cutting out any common ancestors that may have descended from Lot. This is done by limiting Lot’s children.  The Yahwist only gives him two daughters.  The angels/messengers highlight this:

• "Then the men said to Lot, “Have you anyone else here? Sons-in-law, sons, daughters, or anyone you have in the city--bring them out of the place."

Even if Lot had other children, his two daughters were the only ones to survive the destruction of Sodom.

Second, the Yahwist needed to prevent Lot from having anymore children. He does this by turning his wife into a pillar of salt, and then making Lot a hermit who lives in a cave with no or very little outside contact.

Third, the Yahwist needed to make Lot survive the destruction of Sodom.  You can see a few instances where the Yahwist is countering the idea that Lot had died:

• "they brought him out and left him outside the city."

• “Flee for your life; do not look back or stop anywhere in the Plain; flee to the hills, or else you will be consumed.”

• "you have shown me great kindness in saving my life;"

• "for fear the disaster will overtake me and I die."

• "and my life will be saved!”

The Yahwist makes it so that Lot is in Sodom but escapes with his life.  But the Yahwist’s critics would ask, “If Lot had survived Sodom, why is there no record of him after it’s destruction”?  Again, the hermit/living in a cave aspect serves another purpose here by also explaining why no one heard of Lot after the destruction of Sodom.

Fourth, Lot’s daughters needed to be made virgins so that no common ancestors could come from them.

• "Look, I have two daughters who have not known a man;"

In addition to explicitly stating they are virgins, the fact that Lot is able to offer his daughters shows that they are not married and still the “property” of Lot.

However, the Yahwist also had to deal with the common held belief that Lot had son-in-laws. He does this by making them not yet married to his daughters and then killing them in Sodom’s destruction:

• "So Lot went out and said to his sons-in-law, who were to marry his daughters, “Up, get out of this place; But he seemed to his sons-in-law to be jesting."

Now with Lot and his daughters secluded in a cave, the Yahwist is free to cut out any common ancestors with the Israelites, and make Lot the direct father of the Moabites and Ammonites by telling of their incestuous relationship.  (This same type of strategy will be used by a later source when he makes Sarah Abraham’s half-sister, thereby cutting out those who would have been part of her maternal family.)

However, the Yahwist wants to keep a cordial relationship with the Moabites and Ammonites and will still keep a family tie between them and Israel by making Abraham and Lot brothers. Later sources will further the relational distance by making Lot the nephew of Abraham.

In addition, the Yahwist will make both Abraham and Lot servants of Yahweh in order to further the bond and promote Yahweh as Israel’s God.

Separating Abraham and Lot

With Abraham and Lot as direct relatives, the Yahwist needs to separate them so that there is no confusion about who the land and people in Southern Israel belong to.

First, since the Abrahamic tradition originates in the north, the Yahwist needs to get Abraham into the South.  He does this first by migrating Abraham from the north to Egypt and back again, then by moving him to Hebron.  Notice that the Yahwist points out that Lot is with Abraham:

• "and Lot with him,"

• "Now Lot, who went with Abram,"

After getting Lot and Abraham together in the south, the Yahwist makes a clear but cordial break between the two. This is done by Abraham giving Lot the choice of land.  Lot takes the plain of the Jordan and Abraham takes Canaan.

• "thus they separated from each other."

Critics of the Yahwist would ask, “Why would Lot choose the plain of the Jordan when Canaan was the better land?”.  This is countered by saying that, before the destruction of Sodom, “the plain of the Jordan was well watered everywhere like the garden of the LORD, like the land of Egypt”.

After their separation, Yahweh then gives his promise of the land of Canaan.  Notice:

• "The LORD said to Abram, after Lot had separated from him,"

Then the promise:

• "Raise your eyes now, and look from the place where you are, northwards and southwards and eastwards and westwards; for all the land that you see I will give to you and to your offspring forever."

• "Rise up, walk through the length and the breadth of the land, for I will give it to you."

Furthermore, the Yahwist will shift Sodom from being Lot’s central location to a border location between Abraham and Lot.  He does this by making Lot an alien in Sodom and saying Lot’s tent had only gone as far as the city:

• "This fellow came here as an alien"

• "Lot settled among the cities of the Plain and moved his tent as far as Sodom."

The Yahwist responds to critics who might have claimed that the descendants of Abraham weren’t that many and couldn’t possibly include the southern tribes, by saying that Yahweh would bless Abraham with many descendants:

• "seeing that Abraham shall become a great and mighty nation, and all the nations of the earth shall be blessed in him?"

• "I will make your offspring like the dust of the earth; so that if one can count the dust of the earth, your offspring also can be counted."

Where was Abraham?

The opposing narrative was saying that the destruction of Sodom was not caused by Yahweh.  Unfortunately, the text doesn’t appear to give us any hints as to who the opposing narrative said did destroy Sodom, although we may have an answer in Gen. 14 as I will discuss in the next section. Regardless, if Abraham and Lot were brothers, why didn’t Abraham help Lot during the destruction of Sodom?  The Yahwist responds to this criticism by shifting the cause of Sodom’s destruction to Yahweh.  

• "and the LORD has sent us to destroy it.”

• "for the LORD is about to destroy the city.”

• "Then the LORD rained on Sodom and Gomorrah sulfur and fire"

• "from the LORD out of heaven;"

Abraham cannot interfere because his God is the one doing the destruction.  However, the Yahwist does have Abraham petition Yahweh for leniency. This serves two purposes: one, it shows Abraham did something to try to help Lot.  Two, it helps the Yahwist counter the idea that Yahweh is an unrighteous and unmerciful God. There are a number of instances where the Yahwist attempts to show Yahweh as righteous, merciful and to justify His acts of violence.

• "by doing righteousness and justice;"

• "Then Abraham came near and said, “Will you indeed sweep away the righteous with the wicked?"

• "Now the people of Sodom were wicked, great sinners against the LORD."

• "Then the LORD said, “How great is the outcry against Sodom and Gomorrah and how very grave their sin!

• "But before they lay down, the men of the city, the men of Sodom, both young and old, all the people to the last man, surrounded the house; and they called to Lot, “Where are the men who came to you tonight? Bring them out to us, so that we may know them.” Lot went out of the door to the men, shut the door after him, and said, “I beg you, my brothers, do not act so wickedly."

• "13 For we are about to destroy this place, because the outcry against its people has become great before the LORD"

• "the LORD being merciful to him"

Furthermore, this issue seems to be a concern throughout the Yahwist Source:

The Flood:

• "The LORD saw that the wickedness of humankind was great in the earth, and that every inclination of the thoughts of their hearts was only evil continually."

• "Then the LORD said to Noah, “Go into the ark, you and all your household, for I have seen that you alone are righteous before me in this generation."

Abimelech:

• "Now Abimelech had not approached her; so he said, "Lord, will you destroy an innocent people?"

The Israelites:

• "Why should the Egyptians say, 'It was with evil intent that he brought them out to kill them in the mountains, and to consume them from the face of the earth'? Turn from your fierce wrath; change your mind and do not bring disaster on your people."

• See also Numbers 14:15-18

Shifting the time of Isaac’s birth

The Yahwist shifts the time of Isaac’s birth until after the destruction of Sodom, presumably to ensure no ancestral connections between Isaac and Lot’s daughters. In order to do this, he has to show that Sarah was still alive, and that she could have a child in her old age.

• [Abraham] and his wife [went up from Egypt]

The Yahwist anticipates his critics asking, “If Sarah was alive, why didn’t anyone see her?”.  The Yahwist counters this by saying that she was in the tent.

• "Abraham hastened into the tent to Sarah,"

• “Where is your wife Sarah?” And he said, “There, in the tent.”

• "Sarah was listening at the tent entrance behind him"

Where was Abraham….Again? (Genesis 14)

Bernard argues that in Genesis 14, Abraham fights and defeats the four Eastern Kings, one of them being the man, Yahweh (who is ultimately Hammurabi).  When Abraham raises his hand in v.22, Bernard takes it to mean raising his hand against Yahweh and not raising it as part of an oath.

Tzemah Yoreh takes Genesis 14 to be a source later than the Yahwist, one he refers to as “The Bridger”.  You can view the source material I used here. Genesis 14 seems to be dealing with a seperate Sodom tradition, one where kings of the east destroy Sodom and not Yahweh.  Regardless of who destroyed Sodom, the Biblical writer needs to write Abraham into the account. I’ve already discussed how the Yahwist writes Abraham into his account.  Now I will show how the Bridger writes Abraham into his account in Genesis 14.

The Bridger needs to prove that Abraham was part of the original Sodom story even though the original Sodom story didn’t include Abraham.  This is similar to when “N” needed to show that Ehud assassinated King Eglon, even though there was no evidence of it.

The Bridger will do this by tacking Abraham onto the end of the Sodom story.  Abraham will defeat the kings of the east after the Battle of Siddim. Again, Lot is made to be alive by being taken prisoner.  In this account, Abraham does do something to help Lot, and he is rescued. The Bridger also shifts the battle from Sodom to the Valley of Siddim. The odd detail of some falling into tar pits may be the spinning by the Bridger of the conquered Sodomites being thrown into the tar pits by the victors.

The Bridger also anticipates his critics asking, “If Abraham defeated the kings of the east, why do we not hear of Abraham taking the spoils of the battle?”.  The Bridger responds by having Abraham returning everything to the king of Sodom and refusing any of the spoil except for his allies.  

• I would not take a thread or a sandal-thong or anything that is yours, so that you might not say, “I have made Abram rich.”

If Abraham had “lifted his hand” against Yahweh, the words that follow it, make less sense. “ That I will not take from a thread even to a shoelatchet, and that I will not take anything that is thine…” - those words are part of an oath and make more sense if Abraham was raising his hand in that regard.

Melchizedek (Genesis 14:18-20)

Since such a small amount of text deals with Melchizedek, it is difficult to mirror-read. I can only make a few broad points.

Bernard’s theory has Melchizedek giving the tithe to Abraham.  Although that interpretation may be possible, it would be unusual.  People usually gave tithes to priests, and priests would give a blessing. To turn the tithe around would be going against the grain. Furthermore, Abraham says that he wouldn’t accept anything from the King of Sodom, so it wouldn’t make sense for Abraham to receive a tithe from all, if “all” included the King of Sodom.

Remember, the Biblical writer is not concerned about what actually happened in history but how his writing would affect his readers.  So we must ask, what does this have to with the descendants of Abraham and the descendants of Melchizedek?  This is difficult to answer since we’re not sure who the descendants of Melchizedek were.  However, it does seem to promote the idea that it was okay for the descendants of Abraham to give tithes to the descendants of Melchizedek.  There are some interesting connections with the Zadokite priesthood that could be at play here.  I won’t go into detail about that in this post, but simply point you to the wikipedia page as a starting point for those who might want to look into that possibility.

Additionally, the strategy being employed by using the name Yahweh here is to equate it with El Elyon. This is the same strategy used throughout the Northern Book of Judges to equate Yahweh with Elohim.

Saul - Northern Judges: A Mirror-Reading with the Mira Scriptura Methodology

image: Wikimedia commons (link). 

The Saul Cycle is primarily concerned with promoting the descendants of Jonathan over all of Israel, forming a strong Israelite military force, and showing that Yahweh was Israel’s God. If you’d like a less technical overview, please check out my podcast episode on the Saul Cycle.  If you’re not familiar with the Northern Book of Judges and it’s cycles, be sure to check out all of the podcast episodes in that series. I used Tzemah Yoreh's work as the basis for my Northern Book of Judges Source.

Argumentation

Please note that the argumentation below is that of the opposing narrative that the Northern Book of Judges author (N) was addressing and is opposed to the N narrative itself.

Color Code:
Black: These statements are mirrors or echoes
Blue: These statements are an inferred cause/effect of a mirror/echo or connects two mirrors/echoes
Green: These statement have no corresponding mirrors or echoes but have supporting (e.g. alternates, denials) statements that imply them.
Orange: Words within a statement that could be variations of the opposing narrative

Italics are causal connectors (e.g. “because”)
[Brackets] are replacements for pronouns or changing tense for better flow.

For more information about mirrors, echoes, supporting categories and my methodology, please visit this post.

Aspect #1 Opposing Narrative

1. The descendants of Jonathan should not be king over all of Israel

2. because Jonathan was not the son of Saul

3. because Saul was a different person

4. because Kish did not have a son named Saul

5. because Saul was not a tall and handsome man

6. because Saul was not a Benjaminite

7. because Kish did not have a son named Saul

8. because Saul was not from the land of Benjamin

9. because Saul killed Jonathan

10. because Saul was in Michmash and the hill country of Bethel, and Jonathan was in Gibeah of Benjamin;

11. because a Benjaminite should not be king over all Israel

12. because Samuel never anointed Saul to be king

13. because Saul did not eat with Samuel and the guests

14. because there were no witnesses

15. because the boy with Saul did not witness Samuel's anointing of Saul

16. because Saul did not tell his uncle that he had been anointed king

17. because Samuel was a seer, not a prophet

18. because Saul was not king over all of Israel

19. because Saul did not fight against all of Israel's enemies

20. because Shall Saul reign over us?

21. because on [Saul was] all Israel's desire [not] fixed

22. because he took a yoke of oxen, and cut them in pieces and sent them throughout all the territory of Israel. by messengers, saying, "Whoever does not come out after Saul... , so shall it be done to his oxen!"

23. because Is Saul also among the prophets?"

24. because Saul had a small army

25. because [Jonathan did not] accomplish... great victory in Israel

26. because Jonathan did not kill the Philistines at the garrison

27. because [The] armor-bearer...killed them

Aspect #1 N Response With Commentary

1. The descendants of Jonathan were trying to establish a kingship over all of Israel.   There was no history to support this though, so N took Saul and spliced him into Jonathan’s family history, and then promoted Saul as someone who was king over all of Israel.  This is in stark contrast to the history we typically think of, because we are more familiar with the Yahwist account which added in a Davidic agenda.

2. N repeatedly refers to Saul and Jonathan in terms of father and son.

3. The opposing narrative said that Saul was a different person than the son of Kish.  N responds to this by telling of how Saul’s heart was changed and when he prophesied he was like a different person.

4. Jonathan was from the line of Kish, so N splices Saul in as the son of Kish.

5. The actual son of Kish and Saul were physically different looking.  N adds a physical description to support that they are the same person.

6. Given that Ephraim was the tribe that had dominated over the other tribes, it’s likely that Saul was actually an Ephraimite.  One scholar speculates that Saul was of Edomite ethnicity:

Though Saul’s home town is not mentioned here, his usual house was in Gibeah (1 Sam. 10:26; also see on 10:10). However he was buried in his family tomb (“in the grave of Kish his father”) in Zela, which is near Gibeon; see on 2 Sam. 21:14. Therefore Toorn guesses that Saul’s family could have been from the vicinity of Gibeon, since “people are generally buried on the land of their ancestors.” Based on this hypothesis he speculates that Saul was related to the Gibeonites, who belonged to “an ethnic strain represented also among the early Edomites”

Tsumura, D. (2007). The First Book of Samuel (p. 263). Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co.

N needs to change Saul’s tribe of origin because Jonathan was from the tribe of Benjamin.

7. The same as #4, N splices Saul into the line of Kish in order to make him a Benjaminite.

8. Since Saul may have been an Ephraimite, N provides an alternative explanation of how he came from that land by telling of how the search for the donkeys took him through the hills of Ephraim. N may have been trying to associate Gibeah (in Benjamin) with Saul by calling it the Gibeah of Saul.

9. Saul and Jonathan may have been enemies given there different locations (see item #10), and that Saul had said he would kill Jonathan.  N provides an alternative explanation by telling how Jonathan ate the honey, and so Saul was honor bound to kill Jonathan, but the people of Israel save him by recounting his military victory and ransoming him.

10. N provides an alternative explanation for the different locations of Saul and Jonathan by saying they had divided their military forces.

11. Since the tribe of Benjamin had no history of having power over the tribes of Israel (unlike Ephraim), N has Saul admit that Benjamin has no claim to rule over Israel, “the least of the tribes of Israel, and my family is the humblest of all the families of the tribe of Benjamin”, but Samuel anoints him regardless.

12. It’s questionable that Saul ever met with Samuel.  There seems to be some basis that Saul or the son of Kish met with someone, it may not have been Samuel.

13. The opposing narrative said that Saul or the son of Kish never ate with Samuel.  N responds by saying that they did, and that the food provided to him had been set aside earlier.

14. Since Samuel’s anointing of Saul took place in secret, there were no witnesses to corroborate that it actually happened.  N has Samuel provide 3 signs as validation of the anointing.

15.  The boy the was with Saul or the son of Kish never saw the anointing because he had been sent ahead.

16.  The son of Kish’s uncle never knew about the anointing because he was never told about it.

17. Saul or the son of Kish may have met with a prophet, but Samuel was a seer (or vice versa).  N responds by equating the two terms.

18. N repeatedly refers to “all of Israel” or “Israel” when referring to Saul’s leadership.  In the Samuel Cycle, N stresses that Samuel had led all of Israel, so being anointed by Samuel, increases Saul’s status over all of Israel.

19. N repeatedly talks about how Saul fought enemies on all sides of Israel, which N is using to solidify Saul’s (and the line of Jonathan’s) rule over all of Israel.

20. N echoes the objections of some of those in Israel but explains that things had changed after Saul’s military victory.  How did this phrase endure if Saul was king over all Israel.  N explains that is was because  Saul said, "No one shall be put to death this day, for today the LORD has brought deliverance to Israel."  

21. N has Samuel declare that all Israel desired Saul to lead them.

22. Saul had threatened violence against those who did not accept his kingship.  N provides an alternative explanation by providing a noble cause for the threat to be made: to save those in the transjordan, who may have been among the most reluctant to accept a kingship from Saul (and the line of Jonathan).

23.  It appears that Israel had been a loose confederation of tribes that had been led by a series of prophets and/or priests (typically from Ephraim) like Moses, Deborah and Samuel. For Saul to lead all of Israel, the opposing narrative may have been stipulating that Saul should be a prophet.  N provides an alternative explanation for the saying by telling of how Saul prophesied.

24. Why did Saul have such a small army if he ruled over all of Israel?  N explains that it was because he sent most home.

25. N attributes the victory over the Philistines to Jonathan.

26. The opposing narrative was saying that Jonathan was not the one to kill the Philistines at the garrison.

27.  The opposing narrative was saying that it was the armor-bearer that had killed the Philistines.  N provides an alternative explanation by saying that it was Jonathan that had struck them down, and the armor-bearer finished them off behind him.

Aspect #2 Opposing Narrative

1. Yahweh is not the Elohim of Israel

Aspect #2 N Response With Commentary

1. As with the other cycles of N, Yahweh is injected into the history of Israel.  The Spirit of Yahweh possesses Saul, and Yahweh is credited with defeating Israel’s enemies.

Aspect #3 Opposing Narrative

1. The Israelites are not strong at war

Aspect #3 N Response With Commentary

1. Saul, Jonathan and the Israelites are victorious in their battles against all of Israel’s enemies. N highlights battles against the Ammonites and the Philistines.  Yahweh is also presented as a strong God of war, helping the Israelites defeat their enemies.   

Biblical References

The spreadsheet embedded below is a list of verses used to compose the argumentation above.  For further information about how these statements were categorized, please visit this post.