HarperCollins Study Bible

by Harold W. Attridge

  As practiced over the last few hundred years, biblical criticism has resulted in some very radical conclusions about the books of the Bible. It has suggested not only that some books are inconsistent with other books, but that some are even inconsistent within themselves—in some cases to such an extent that it is hard to believe they were originally single works. “Source criticism” has refined this discovery and argued that we can, in some cases, reconstruct the raw materials from which certain books (especially the Pentateuch and the Gospels) were composed. Other types of criticism have studied the way in which different sources have been woven together to make the finished books we now have, an approach generally called “redaction criticism.” Critical scholars have also reconstructed the history of ancient Israel and of the early church using the biblical text and other ancient evidence and have sometimes produced a story strongly different from the one the Bible itself tells. Nowhere, perhaps, does this affect believers more than in the case of the figure of Jesus: the “quest of the historical Jesus” has had many phases since the nineteenth century and has resulted in pictures of Jesus very different from what emerges from an uncritical reading of the Gospels. For example, most critical scholars refuse to harmonize the account in the Synoptic Gospels (Matthew, Mark, and Luke) with that of John, regarding them as two strikingly variant versions of the story of Jesus.

  But critical study is not defined by its results, whether radical or conservative. What characterizes it is its approach: an open, rational approach that treats the biblical texts like any other books from the ancient world. Many believers feel that this rational approach is at odds with a recognition of the Bible as special; yet it is hard to see how someone who habitually reads books in such a critical way can simply switch off this approach when the Bible is the book being read, and in practice biblical criticism is probably here to stay, whether one likes it or not. Can any thing be said to reconcile the two approaches and reduce the area of conflict?

  A Compromise?

  AT THE THEORETICAL LEVEL it is hard to see how there can be any compromise between critical and canonical readings. They have diametrically opposed starting points: one begins with the church’s perception of the Bible as holy scripture; the other treats the Bible like any other book. Yet at a practical level people who practice these two approaches can in fact talk to each other. Some critical scholars come to very conservative conclusions that are not far from those reached by canonical readers even though they start from different places. Conversely, people who read the Bible with a sense of its special character and inspiration still have to ask about where and when its books were written unless they treat it in a completely two-dimensional way. All readers, whatever their attitude, need to know the situation Paul faced in Corinth, when the prophets lived and in what sort of society they prophesied, and how the Pentateuch came to be put together. There is thus quite a lot of common ground between the two approaches described rather starkly above.

  The majority of critics do not deny the assumption that the Bible is important and profound; most of them would not bother to study it if they thought it trivial or insignificant. They maintain, however, that certain texts can, on examination, turn out to be less important than others. For such critics this is an empirical question rather than one that can be settled before reading begins. For a critic, only texts that might in principle turn out to be trivial can in fact prove to be important, for otherwise importance is being attributed rather than discovered. More critical readers are always worried that more canonical readers bring meaning to the text rather than finding it there and thus constrain the text to bear meanings that may not really be in it. Yet when confronted with this contrast, most people who read the text as holy scripture would also say that they are on a quest to understand it: they are not deliberately trying to make it mean what they already believe on other grounds.

  Thus in practice there is a large area in which Bible readers of all sorts can agree on what they find when they read scripture. Many of both persuasions find there a message both important in itself and relevant in ever new situations and believe that they are in touch with truth. Users of either camp should find in this study Bible material to help them.

  Israelite Religion

  RONALD HENDEL

  THE PEOPLE OF ANCIENT ISRAEL lived in a world of ancient and powerful civilizations, each of which had elaborate religious systems. Israelite religion emerged in an ancient Near Eastern matrix and changed and evolved over many centuries. This essay will address some of the major themes in Israelite religion from its hazy origins in the beginning of the Iron Age (ca. 1200 BCE) through the crystallization of the Bible as a sacred text during the Second Temple period (ca. 530 BCE–70 CE).

  God and the Gods

  BY A REMARKABLE ACT of theological reduction, the complex divine hierarchy of prior polytheistic religion was transformed into the authority of a sole high god in classical Israelite religion. YHWH (the name of Israel’s deity, probably pronounced “Yahweh,” translated “the LORD” in the NRSV) was not, however, the only god in Israelite religion. Like a king in his court, Yahweh was served by lesser deities, variously called “the sons of God,” “the host of heaven,” and similar titles. This “host” sometimes fought battles of holy war (see the battle of Jericho, where Joshua meets the divine “commander of the army of the LORD,” Josh 5.13–15) and were also represented as stars (“the stars fought from heaven,” Judg 5.20; also Job 38.7). These lesser deities attend Yahweh in heaven, as in the prophet Micaiah’s vision: “I saw the LORD sitting on his throne, with all the host of heaven standing beside him” (1 Kings 22.19). Another category of divine beings consists of messenger gods or angels. The angels carry Yahweh’s messages to earth, as illustrated by Jacob’s dream vision in which “the angels of God were ascending and descending” on the celestial staircase that links heaven and earth (Gen 28.12). In late biblical books, the sons of God and the angels merge into a single category and proliferate; in Daniel’s vision of the heavenly court, “a thousand thousands served him” (Dan 7.10).

  The tripartite hierarchy of the divine world—Yahweh, the sons of God or heavenly host, and the angels—derives from the earlier structure of Canaanite religion. According to the texts from Ugarit (ca. 1200 BCE) and other Canaanite sources, the high god of the Canaanite pantheon was El (whose name means “God”), and his wife, the mother of the gods, was Asherah. The other gods of the pantheon are collectively called “the children of El” and are subordinate to El’s authority, although some are prominent deities. A third category consists of servants and messenger gods. Israelite religion, however, differs from this earlier structure in significant ways. On the level of high god, El seems to have merged with Yahweh, who absorbs El’s name and has many of his attributes. Asherah in Israelite religion becomes the name of a sacred pole or tree in local Yahwistic shrines, although there are hints in some texts that she was worshiped as a goddess in some times and places. The second tier of deities, “the children of El” (bn ’il), is equivalent in name to “the sons of God” (bene ha’elohim), but in Israelite religion this group has been demoted to a class of relatively powerless beings (but see Gen 6.1–4; Deut 32.8). Yahweh replaces or absorbs the functions of the major gods of the pantheon; hence like El he is the beneficent patriarch and judge; like Baal he is the Divine Warrior; and like Asherah and her daughters he dispenses the “blessings of the breasts and of the womb” (Gen 49.25). In these respects, Israelite religion is a transformation of its ancient West Semitic forebears.

  Early biblical texts seem to acknowledge that gods of other nations exist (see Deut 32.8). The nations each have their own god, but Yahweh is Israel’s god. This seems to be the earliest sense of the first commandment, “You shall have no other gods before me” (Ex 20.3). Yahweh is Israel’s high god, who delivered his people from slavery and oppression, and he is entitled to Israel’s exclusive worship and loyalty. Other national gods exist, but Yahweh is Israel’s god and is the greatest god. Th
is type of worship is sometimes called monolotry (the worship of one god without denying the existence of others) or henotheism (belief in one god without denying the existence of others). A more thoroughgoing monotheism, which denies the existence of other gods, is a product of the prophetic and Deuteronomistic critique that developed during the eighth through the sixth centuries BCE.

  Humans and God

  IN THE PRIESTLY CREATION ACCOUNT of Gen 1, God creates humans “in the image of God,” a phrase that conveys an exalted status for humans akin to that of the king in other Near Eastern cultures. As God’s earthly image, humans are collectively to rule the earth and all of its creatures (Gen 1.26–28). Humans—male and female—are godlike mediators between God and the world. To be created in “the image of God” also implies a spiritual, moral, or intellectual component that transcends ordinary creaturely existence. Humans are more than animals but less than gods and are the pinnacle of creation (see also Ps 8.4–9).

  A less exalted status is given to humans in the Yahwistic (denoted J) creation myth in the garden of Eden (Gen 2.4–3.24). There the first human is created as a laborer in the Garden “to till it and keep it” (Gen 2.15). This status is similar to that in older Mesopotamian creation myths, in which humans are created to be the laborers of the gods. In the course of the garden of Eden story, the humans become “like God, knowing good and evil” (Gen 3.5, 22), gaining a godlike aspect comparable to the lofty status of humans in Gen 1. In this story the desire to be godlike leads to higher knowledge and self-awareness, but also leads to pain, suffering, hard labor, and consciousness of death, i.e., the ordinary fare of human existence. Unlike the original situation in paradise, the human world is limited by pain and mortality, but it is also enriched by a god like “knowledge of good and evil.” This divine quality includes moral discernment and sexual maturity (“they knew that they were naked,” Gen 3.7; “the man knew his wife,” Gen 4.1). Human existence contrasts with the perfection of paradise or divine existence, yet humans have some degree of divinity or likeness to divinity.

  Humans, however, also have a propensity toward evil. This flaw gives rise to various problems and solutions. In Gen 6, God responds to the collective problem of human evil by sending the flood. In both the Yahwistic and Priestly versions of the flood story (edited together in Gen 6–9), God saves the sole righteous man and begins a new era of human existence. This new era, according to the Priestly version, is distinguished by the first laws and covenant (Gen 9.1–17), establishing clear limits to human violence, particularly the slaughter of animals and murder. The Noachian covenant and its laws, which apply to all earthly creatures, are a first step toward the great promulgation of laws and covenant to Israel at Mount Sinai. In the Yahwistic version of the flood human evil is not decisively controlled; rather, Yahweh resigns himself to the persistence of human evil, promising that despite their corrupt nature he will never again destroy humans (Gen 8.21). In the Yahwistic narrative the problem of evil is relieved by Yahweh’s compassion for humans and later by his election of Abraham, who will teach justice and righteousness to his children and through whom all the earth’s peoples will be blessed (Gen 12.1–3; 18.19).

  The human propensity for evil creates the need for religion, which, through stories, rites, and laws, teaches morality, regulates behavior, and restores a beneficial relationship with God and the cosmos. People—including Israelites and foreigners—can choose to disobey the religious norms, in which case God will send destruction (e.g., Sodom and Gomorrah, Gen 19). But there remains a mutuality of interest in the continuance of human existence: God desires justice and morality, and from Israel he also desires worship; in return he grants his blessing. God and humans are linked in a relationship of mutual benefit regulated by a divinely sanctioned cosmic order. In situations in which this cosmic order has been disrupted or destroyed, God’s relationship with Israel, or with humans generally, becomes a critical problem, as in the story of the flood and Jeremiah’s prediction of destruction at the hands of Babylon (Jer 21.8-10).

  Varieties of Religion

  THE WORSHIP OF GOD took different forms in various social contexts in ancient Israel. The most notable distinction is between family religion and state religion. In the domestic domain of family religion, portrayed most directly in the patriarchal narratives, Yahweh is “the god of the father” who provides blessings of offspring, abundance, healing, and protection for members of a household or lineage. The worship of “the god of the father” and the reverence for the lineage ancestors were complementary features of family religion. Problems of infertility (e.g., Sarah, Rebekah, Rachel), marriage (e.g., Isaac, Jacob), inheritance (e.g., Ishmael and Isaac, Jacob and Esau), family strife (e.g., Jacob and Laban, Joseph and his brothers), and famine (e.g., Abraham, Isaac, Jacob) are occasions when family religion becomes prominent in these stories and in Israelite domestic life.

  The worship of gods other than Yahweh is occasionally attested in domestic contexts in the biblical text, such as the family worship of the Queen of Heaven (probably a local form of Ishtar or Astarte; Jer 7.17–18; 44.15–25); women planting ritual gardens and mourning for Adonis, Tammuz, or Baal (Isa 17.10–11; Ezek 8.14; Zech 12.11); and the offering of incense to the host of heaven on rooftops (Jer 19.13; Zeph 1.5). The latter, at least, is the worship of Yahweh’s heavenly entourage. It is possible that family religion also included a ritual of passing children through fire as a rite of initiation or redemption, perhaps called a molech (or mulk) offering or an offering to the god Molech (e.g., Deut 18.10; 2 Kings 23.10). This may have been a symbolic attenuation of an older rite of child sacrifice. Many of the practices of family religion were deplored by various biblical writers (e.g., Deut 18.9–11), and they were officially prohibited by King Josiah (2 Kings 23).

  State religion, which descended from the pre-state tribal religion, was rooted in the public structures of political authority. In the early period, tribal and pan-tribal identity was activated most directly during pilgrimage festivals and military crises. For example, the Song of Deborah (Judg 5) describes the call of the tribes to war (not all of them come) and depicts Yahweh as the mighty Divine Warrior and savior of the tribal confederation. The Song of the Sea (Ex 15), perhaps originally recited at tribal festivals, describes Yahweh as the mighty warrior and national savior in his triumph over Pharaoh’s army at the exodus and his delivery of his people to the promised land. Jerusalem became the royal capital and the center of the state religion for the Southern Kingdom, Judah, and Dan and Bethel were the official state shrines for the Northern Kingdom, Israel. State religion regulated the system of sacrifices offered at the central shrines, which supported the guild of official priests. The king was the patron of the state religion, which in turn provided the charter for his sacral authority. The king maintained the temple (or, in the Northern Kingdom, the official shrines), appointed the chief priests, and at times presided over the sacrificial ceremonies (e.g., 1 Kings 8.62–66). The Jerusalem temple and the dynasty of Davidic kings were symbolically linked, as illustrated by the proximity and names of the two institutions: the temple was the “house of Yahweh” (bet yhwh), which stood next to the somewhat larger palace of the royal dynasty, the “house of David” (bet david). The centralization of worship at the temple, promulgated by kings Hezekiah and Josiah, concentrated the sacrificial tribute in Jerusalem and exalted and extended the authority of the royal house.

  It is useful to distinguish a third type or level of religious worship, local religion, which mediated between family and state religion. Regional shrines served local families and lineages, functioning as a unifying feature in Israelite society. There is evidence that Yahweh was worshiped in various local manifestations: he was invoked in blessings as “Yahweh of Samaria” and “Yahweh of Teman” in eighth-century inscriptions from Kuntillet ‘Ajrud, and Absalom speaks of going to Hebron to pay his vow to Yahweh (2 Sam 15.7). These local manifestations of Yahweh were no doubt conceived of as the same god, but worshiped with local variation
s and accents. The local shrines—and the local priests who earned their living by the sacrifices offered there—were anathematized by the prophets and Deuteronomy. In some respects state religion was a version of local religion writ large, because Yahweh in Zion is a local manifestation of Yahweh who becomes the authorized state god, a jealous god inimical to the local cults.

  The Prophetic Critique

  THE RELIGIOUS CRITIQUES of the classical prophets (eighth through the sixth centuries BCE) effected significant shifts in the structures of belief and practice in Israelite religion. Many aspects of traditional religious practice, such as sacrifice, worship at local sacred sites, and the use of various types of religious iconography, came under attack. Veneration of other divine beings, including Yahweh’s entourage, the heavenly host, was defined as sacrilege. Political institutions such as kingship and the ruling elite came under attack. The classical prophets regarded Israelite society—particularly the ruling classes—as ethically corrupt, and the major religious institutions and traditions were part of the problem. Hence these institutions were defined as empty and abhorred by Yahweh.