Plain View #90 - July 15, 2008 - part 2

Braces

Church Basement Roadshow

Danny's Story

Hops

Will & Maly

Tumblr

subscribe
to this podcast!

Plain View #90 - July 15, 2008 - part 1

Jenny Shout out

Beer & Ice cream

Summer - sleeping in

Bachelorette - so fun

Burn Notice

Wall-E

Big

Vacation

Tumblr

subscribe
to this podcast!

When I walked away from Christianity one year ago, I didn't have all the answers. I continued to read and think and to remain open to evidence that I hadn't seen yet. I first looked at the New Testament and I tried to understand how it came to be and what it is if it's not the word of God. Recently, I've turned my attention to the Old Testament. I'm still not certain of any of this, but I think it's a plausible explanation for how the Old Testament was written and how the Jewish religion began.

I'm reading the Bible Unearthed by Neil Asher Silberman and Israel Finkelstein and they say that many parts of the first half of the Old Testament appear to have been written in the seventh century BCE. They base this on geography, writing style, archaeological finds and themes. I won't present his evidence here, but I think the book makes a convincing case. I would like to look at a few passages from the Bible itself and see if they fit in with this theory.

Let's begin in the seventh century BCE. The kingdom of Israel in the north has been conquered by a Assyria a few hundred years before. The king in Judah in the south is named Josiah. His small kingdom is beset by enemies on all sides. He's trying to bring together Judah and the parts of Israel that are not under tight Assyrian control. He is urgently trying to form a national identity for his people so that he can protect them and himself from his enemies (including Egypt, Moab, Ammon and Assyria). The religious climate at the beginning of Josiah's reign is thoroughly polytheistic. A cult of Yahweh exists, but only as one of many gods that the Judahites worshiped.

Most students of the Bible would agree with everything in that last paragraph. They would add that Judah had not always been polytheistic and there was a time when they worshiped only Yahweh and kept his festivals. But in reality, there's no good evidence for that. It is possible, and I think likely, that Judah had always been polytheistic. With that in mind, read 2 Chronicles 34. Ignore for the moment the fact that Josiah is destroying these religious practices, and try to read this as a description of the religion in Judah in the seventh century.

Judahites worshiped Asherah (wife of El), Baal, Molech (including human sacrifices), Ashtoreth and Chemosh. They also had mediums, spiritists and household gods. There were altars to these gods and Yahweh scattered around the region. What if this is not describing a temporary falling away, as the Bible claims, but as the normal state of things in Judah up to this point? What if Judah had always practiced polytheism just like the surrounding nations? If that was the case, then what happens next takes on a whole new meaning.

In 2 Kings 22 and in 2 Chronicles 34, a story is related of a priest renovating the Temple in Jerusalem and finding a book. The priest's name is Hilkiah, and he delivers the book to Josiah. Hilkiah and the King's men pay a visit to a prophetess named Huldah. Huldah confirms that the book is the ancient book of the Law of Yahweh and she delivers a prophecy in which Yahweh threatens to destroy Judah if they don't follow this book and cease the worship of all other gods.

The Bible contains two accounts of this story and they are very similar except for the order of events. In 2 Kings 22-23, the book is found first and the reformation is a result of that. In 2 Chronicles 34-35, Josiah begins the reformation toward monotheism and then he conveniently "finds" a lost book describing this religion. Then he produces an ominous prophecy to help convince the people to adopt the new national religion.

The order of events seems to make a big difference. I think that Josiah began the transition to monotheism for political reasons. By elevating Yahweh from the head of a pantheon to the one and only true God, he was able to consolidate religious power in his capital, Jerusalem, which was the one true location where Yahweh could be worshiped according to the new book. The book that his priests found, compiled or composed described a religion which tolerated no rival. If this book, as I suspect, also included at least parts of Genesis and Joshua, then it provided a historical reason for Judah and the remnant of Israel to unite and to fight their enemies with confidence and total devotion. It's not hard to see how "finding" a book like this would be a big help to Josiah.

With this theory in mind, I have revisited several familiar stories from the Old Testament and many of the stories fit in very well with the aims of King Josiah. For example, Ammon and Moab, two nations that Judah had often battled, are given an embarrassing origin myth in Genesis. After Abraham's nephew Lot narrowly escapes the destruction of Sodom, his daughters get him drunk enough to sleep with them. The sons born from these incestuous unions are the founders of the Ammonites and Moabites. Even if Genesis was a counterfeit used to consolidate power, you can't say that its authors didn't have a sense of humor.

But for Josiah's kingdom, the most relevant origin myth was the story of Jacob and his sons. In order to convince the various tribes around him but they were all really one nation with one God and one history, Josiah's book includes a story of a man with 12 sons. Each son has the same name as one of the tribes. And wouldn't you know, when that man dies in the story he tells his sons that Judah's descendants will rule over them. Josiah is from the tribe of Judah.

In the story of Joseph being sold into slavery by his brothers, three of the brothers are portrayed positively. They are Joseph, Benjamin and Reuben. Look at this map showing the territories of the tribes and see if you can guess why Josiah might have wanted to make these three brothers the heroes. (Joseph was the father of two tribes named after his sons Ephraim and Manasseh.)

The tribes that descended from the heroes of the story are all clumped together on the map in the territories that Josiah would need to acquire first. Once again, the story seems to serve the political needs of King Josiah.

The story of the Exodus would have been useful to Josiah. Egypt was one of the most dangerous enemies of 7th century Judah. A scattered people needed to be convinced that they could defeat this empire. The story of the Exodus is an effort to do just that. It also provided a good backstory for the Yahwist festival known as Passover, which Josiah reinstituted.

The book even included a prophecy that predicted that a great and holy king will be born in Judah named . . . wait for it . . . Josiah! (1 Kings 13:2)

If the accounts in 2 Kings and 2 Chronicles are correct, then Josiah went to great lengths to execute his plan. He rounded up the leaders of the newly banned cults, slaughtered them, then desecrated their altars. His clever stories and prophesies apparently didn't convince everyone, so some murder and terrorism let the people know that they should go along with this new religion or else.

Unfortunately for Josiah, his plan didn't work the way he expected. He was killed in a battle against Egypt and his religious reforms were quickly reversed. A few decades after his death, Josiah's version of Yahweh worship took on new meaning when Judah was conquered by Assyria then Babylonia. The Jewish religious leaders who were exiled or returning from exile may have rediscovered the book that Josiah's priests compiled. In their time the need for national identity was just as great, and they may have preserved and expanded the work of Josiah.

I'm not saying I'm certain that this is how it happened. This could just be a fanciful attempt to make the Bible fit into my worldview. But, as science and archaeology continue to point out inaccuracies in the Bible, explanations like this one become much more plausible.

With that disclaimer, I'll venture a little further into crackpot theory territory. Scholars usually think that the book of the law in the story was actually Deuteronomy. Other scholars, including Finkelstein, think that Deuteronomy - 2 Kings is all in the same style. My suspicion is that Josiah went to the temple of Yahweh, the top deity in the pantheon, and consulted with a priest, probably Hilkiah, about making the cult of Yahweh the only game in town. I doubt that one man could produce Genesis - 2 Kings, so Hilkiah probably worked with other priests to adapt existing stories and legends (see the documentary hypothesis) and craft new ones to serve the needs of the cult and the king. If Hilkiah was a literary genius, then it may have run in his family. The prophet Jeremiah, himself the author of two books of the Bible, had a father named Hilkiah and was supposed to have been alive during the reign of Josiah (Jeremiah 1:1, Jeremiah 35:25). Josiah, Hilkiah, Jeremiah, the other priests of Yahweh and the prophetess Huldah may have all worked together in a patriotic effort to bring their nation together and help it survive. Their work wasn't all original, but their retelling of the legends served to form a national identity that endured for centuries and provided a backdrop for several spin-off religions.

Jenny and I went to see Brideshead Revisited this past weekend. I'll always remember that she used to watch the tv miniseries when it was played repeatedly on Bravo. I joined her when Bravo played Twin Peaks constantly, but never got around to watching the series, which is, from what I've heard, quite good. I had no clue what the movie was about going into it. As it turns out, the movie is a sort of love triangle with three main characters, but there are many other influential ideas and characters that turn it in to more of a love hexagon or octagon--you know what I mean.

The story follows Charles Ryder, an aspiring artist of humble beginnings, who meets a rich school mate named Sebastien and spends the summer with him at Brideshead Castle. In the movie (from what I understand, it's not so clear in the book), Sebastian is openly gay. The two spend a lot of time having fun on the estate, and soon enough Sebastien's sister Julia joins them. While Sebastien is subtly trying to make his moves on Charles--who appears not to be interested but doesn't discourage Sebastien's hopes--Charles is falling for Julia. Julia and Sebastien's mother, a devout Catholic, is also at Brideshead, and her indoctrination of her children to the faith puts a damper on things for Charles. The children seem to rebel, but still feel the pull of faith, which affects all of the relationships that develop throughout the movie. Brideshead itself is a part of the love triangle, the way it mesmerizes Charles, causing him to experience a romanticized life while he's there, and looming as a shadow in the back of his mind when he's away.

The movie looks and sounds great. I thought the score fit in well with the story and brought in the period piece emotions that one might expect from a movie like this. The costumes are luxurious and detailed, and definitely stand out. One can feel the atmosphere of Brideshead that made such an impression on Charles. In fact, the whole way the movie is staged and scripted really helped me experience the events happening from his point of view, which I greatly appreciated. All of the actors seem to fit in well with their roles, especially Emma Thompson as Lady Marchmain, Sebastian and Julia's mother.

As I mentioned earlier, during a pivotal scene of the movie, our audience heard a lot of noises going on outside the theater. Apparently it was fireworks, but it certainly didn't sound like them, and it didn't sound like noises coming from the movie next door. It honestly sounded like gunfire. The first time we heard it, my sister and I looked at each other and said, "Fireworks?" and then rejected it when we heard the second noise. We looked around and noticed that everyone else was looking around too and all of us appeared to be concerned. Jenny and I were hardly watching the movie because we were watching the hallway out of the corner of our eye to see if someone would come barging in. We were holding our purses, ready to run. Eventually the noises, which only lasted for about five minutes, disappeared.

So, with that disruption, I feel like I missed out on the end of this movie. I lost focus and know that I missed a key conversation that led to the movie's ultimate conclusion. It's a shame, because I thought the themes about religion were interesting. For most of the movie, all of the characters except for Lady Marchmain seem resistant to religion's hold on their lives, but most of them seem to embrace it as their lives bring them to a point where they are ready to let it be a part of who they are. And, as the movie comes to a close, we even see a bit of hope in Charles, who can't bring himself to fully ignore the faith that was such a big part of the people at Brideshead.

Now that I've seen it, I'm definitely interested in the miniseries and the actual novel. They will both be on my long to-do list. Since haven't looked into either as of yet, I thought this movie was very good, although I admit that it sometimes lacked a certain spark. In the end, I think I liked it a lot, and find that I keep thinking back about it--pondering the story, its characters and their motivations, and the overall themes. Glad I caught it!

I love working here because, when I say, "Hey, we should have Office Olympics like they did in The Office!" , everybody gets excited and gets down to planning. Opening ceremonies will be at 8:08 am on 8/8/8. I'm so excited.