quote:
Originally posted by brennakimi
. . . towards the earlier books and some other selected texts, Judaism seems a more naturalistic (i hesitate to say pagan) religion with a whole pantheon (God of gods) but one special God who should be worshipped alone.
Hello brennakimi,
I agree with you and there are several examples (even post-redaction) that tend to indicate a progression from animistic/polytheistic > territorial/henotheistic > montheistic.
A couple of (what I think are) interesting examples of territorialism/henotheism are:
II Kings 3:27 describes the kings of Israel, Judah and Edom going up against the king of Moab. Earlier, in verse 19, God commanded them to "smite every choice city, etc. etc.".
The king of Moab, being apprised of their approach, went on the offensive and attacked them in their encampment outside of the borders of Moab. The kings of Israel, Judah and Edom, rose up in turn and proceeded to pursue the Moabites back over the border and into the land of Moab proper.
Verses 26 & 27 say that "when the king of Moab saw that the battle was too sore for him . . . (27) . . . he took his eldest son. . and offered him (to the god Chemosh) for a burnt offering on the wall."
Verse 27 continues: ". . . and there was great wrath against Israel, and they departed from him and returned to their own land."
Now, the KJV translates the term
קצף (qetseph) as "indignance" rather than as "wrath". This seems to me to be an attempt to make it appear as though the Israelites were simply "disgusted" by this human sacrifice and, in effect, took their toys and went home.
But this appears to me to be a bit of spin doctoring. First off, a check of the lexicon definitions and the usage in other parts of the OT reveal that whether translated as "indignance" or "wrath", this term is consistently used in the sense of "burning anger" with an implied (and sometimes overt) threat of retribution.
Second, the verse clearly states that this "wrath" is directed against Israel.
And third, it makes no sense that Israel (& Judah, etal) would pack up and go home at this point. If they had the Moabite king on the ropes, and if they understood that this was an ineffectual sacrifice to a non-existent god, their "disgust" would have more likely compelled them to finish the job.
Instead, this seems to reflect a genuine belief in a territorial/henotheistic pantheon. The Israelites (etal) were now in Moabite territory, the Moabite king made a powerful sacrifice to Chemosh (god of that territory), as a result, there was "wrath" directed toward Israel (or so they thought) which compelled them to leave off from a battle which they had all but won and return to the safety of " their own territory ".
This story can make little sense except in the context of a genuine belief in territorial deities.
Another example is found a couple of chapters later (II Kings chapter 5) in the story of Naaman. According to the story, Naaman (of Syria) has leprosy and is told by his wife (a captive out of Israel) that the prophet (Elisha) in Israel could intercede for his recovery.
Naaman seeks out Elisha in Israel and (after following Elisha's instructions) is cured of his leprosy. Verse 15, then, has Naaman return to Elisha and exclaim, ". . . now I know that there is no God in all the earth but
in Israel." .
Naaman goes on to say that he wants to worship YHWH in his own country. Thus, in verse 17, he says, ". . . Shall there not then, I pray thee, be given to thy servant two mule's burden of earth?"
Now why would Naaman want two mule's burden of Israel's dirt?
Because in the territorialist mindset of the time, YHWH wasn't the god of Syria. Thus, in order for Naaman to worship YHWH outside of YHWH's territory, he would need to take some of YHWH's territory back home with him.
Amlodhi
™ Version 4.2
