Israelite Religionfrom

Levites to Prophets and Messianic Kings

Karl W. Luckert
Preface
Egyptian Light and Hebrew Fire: Theological and Philosophical Roots of Christendom in Evolutionary
Perspective was a book published in 1991 by the State University of New York Press. It has since gone out of print.
ll the while! in"uiries about its availability are on the increase. Inas#uch as no scholar likes to see his #ost
significant piece of work die a pre#ature or unnecessary death! I have begun to revise its five portions to be
displayed as separate $booklets$ %or $pages$& on the Internet. I have no illusions that this fresh e'posure will in so#e
#iraculous #anner #ake the content #uch easier to read. (ut as it was! the original book had a serious flaw that
hereby can be re#edied. )he 1991 edition roa#s enthusiastically across no less than five acade#ic disciplines. Not
all the readers have appreciated this scope and co#ple'ity*and a#ong potential reviewers only a courageous few
have accepted the challenge. Inas#uch as the Internet presents itself as a perfect #ediu# for virtual illusions I shall
pretend here! for a while! that the book+s five sections are separate booklets that can stand by the#selves. So! for the
ti#e being #y 1991 publication has beco#e again a #anuscript in progress. )his #eans! what you read here today
#ay not be e'actly what you will find here to#orrow.
)his booklet sketches the rivulet of ,ebrew religio-political thought and fervor as for#erly it flowed through a
stretch of historical ti#e. It is written fro# the point of view of so#eone who! guided still by positive affections!
continues to labor to better understand his .hristian heritage. It now appears that the .hristian religion was /conceived0
by the seed of kingdo# of heaven enthusias# that issued fro# 1udais# during the first century ..2. It was engendered
when that enthusias# for a new world order was kindled first by 1ohn the (apti3er and then enhanced by 1esus of
Na3areth. It beca#e anchored in the general flow of world history by the #essianic teachings! by the living and dying!
of the latter.
)he notion of 4od+s heavenly kingdo# evolved fro# a longstanding ,ebrew skepticis# toward all for#s of
grand do#estication. 5or definitions see the earlier booklet in this series! titled hat is Religion! In ,ebrew tradition
that distrust can be traced! by way of e'a#ining ancient prophetic 6udg#ents on i#perialistic a#bitions. )hat sa#e
anti#onarchic senti#ent! together with the very instability of atte#pted ,ebrew #onarchies! #ay be traced all the way
back to pre-#onarchic priests like Sa#uel and thence to the 2'odus epic told by 7evitic priests. )he kingdo# of
heaven idea proclai#ed by 1esus! of a kingdo# that is not really of this world where other types of kingdo#s do
abound! belongs to a very long se"uence of historical events. nd this strea# of events originated with ,ebrews who in
one fashion or other knew the#selves to be enslaved by 2gyptian i#perialis#.
)he ontology that underlies 4reek philosophy is another such 2gypt-inspired rivulet. It poured fro# 2gypt half a
#illenniu# after the for#ative ,ebrew reaction scored in history. It will be discussed separately in (ooklet 5our.
8ost historians who labor within the larger 1udeo-.hristian tradition generally write about this sub6ect #atter
defensively! in s#aller-than-life install#ents. If and when historical overviews are atte#pted at all! #any scholars are
prepared to acco##odate the e'pectations of audiences within the larger 1udeo-.hristian strea#. ,istorical data in this
field therefore often are presented and interpreted at the level of the lowest co##on deno#inator. ll the while!
general historians of religions! who labor to understand all religions in the world together! in accordance with the sa#e
rules of fairness! rarely dare step into the #inefield of 1udeo-.hristian specialties.
2ven the atte#pt of writing for a #ore li#ited audience of historians of religions can be perilous. 8ost historians
of religions the#selves are fugitives fro# the 1udeo-.hristian strea#! even as they still work alongside its banks and in
its institutions. So#e a#ong the# have escaped their parental traditions and #oved away a little farther than others.
)heir historical evaluations of biblical te'ts tend to be either overly defensive or overly aggressive! depending on their
personal distances. 9f course! such defensiveness is never ad#itted publicly*and perhaps it should not have been
#entioned here.
: : :
P;gina 1 de <= ,ebrew 5ire*fro#
1=>?@><?1A fileB>>>.B>Users>Usuario>ppCata>7ocal>)e#p>7ow>5DY(EF9G.ht#
This historical sketch of Hebrew Fire represents a personal inventory throughout. During the years of my youth I
was taught to read and believe Bible stories literally and, wherever that was impossible, devotionally. In unday school
I learned about the universal divine law mostly from E"odus !"#during the years of $orld $ar II. The ethics
pertaining to war and genocide I tried to understand, devoutly, from #oshua %, $euteronomy % and !", and % &amuel &'.
(either I, nor my elders understood the absurdity we beheld in our hands, as we were unaware of the holocaust that
elsewhere in our homeland actually applied these Bible lessons. I first heard about the Holocaust at age eleven, after the
war. I noticed the fact of anti)emitism after I had come to *merica when, also, I e+perienced some anti),erman)
backlash. I became aware of the pu--le of emitic anti)emitism several years after that.
I served in *merica.s armed forces, and in church I sang along, patriotically, intoning the Battle Hymn of the
/epublic. I honestly saw glimpses of 0the glory of the coming of the 1ord2#and thereby felt e+hilarated. *t the same
time, 3uietly and increasingly so, I began to worry about some of those divine mandates that the Bible seemed to
furnish, in great abundance, to a wide assortment of religious egotists#reflecting, of course, a bad habit of which I
myself was not entirely free.
$ith such sacred scriptures in our hands, how can 4ews and 5hristians ever hope to get along. 6ur monotheistic
faiths supported by idoli-ed holy books, alongside 7uslims who brandish their own, we have all become walking
contradictions#and ticking time bombs as well. $ith speciali-ed divine covenants we have lent our fighting hands to a
,od whom our ancestors have pretended to understand. 7onotheistic and atheistic reactionaries together, fully
endowed with inspired truths and the most advanced weaponry, are able to 8ustify on behalf of the world.s salvation any
amount of destruction. Together these monotheists and atheists have become our planet.s most dangerous creatures.
uch are the 3uestions and worries that led me to the worldwide study of the history of religions. These also are
the 3uestions that tempted me, at the outset, to omit this portion pertaining to the Hebrew heritage from my discussion.
It is conceivable that my words will generate more strife. But then, for the sake of ,od.s love for humankind, and for
human rationality and decency toward one another, our sacred books that we have learned to brandish as weapons need
some dulling. The truth shall make us free, perhaps. *n honest historical study might contribute a few fresh glimpses to
the much)needed global historical perspective. $hat other honest academic point of view is there left for me, other than
the one that permits an open perspective on the entire history of religions9 Is there something else out there for
someone whose native language is identical with the language that facilitated the Holocaust:
(or is such a study irrelevant in an age when democracy has become a universal beacon of hope. $ith the
confidence that initially belonged to brothers of 5hrist the on of ,od, with that same confidence seculari-ed ever so
gradually, our $estern fathers of democratic revolutions have stood up to kings and emperors as their mortal e3uals.
*nd thus they wrote their 7agna 5harta, their Declarations of Independence, their 7anifestoes. *nd so they continued
to re)write their methodologies for doing history of religions.
The Monotheism of Moses
The ancient nation of Israel commemorated its e+odus from ;gypt as the moment of its birth#and that e+odus
was inspired by and accomplished with visions of fire. First there was the fire of ,od.s holy presence that 7oses saw
when he faced a bush aflame in the desert. Then, concerning Israel.s e+odus from ;gypt itself, we are told that
The 1ord went before them by day in a pillar of cloud to lead them along the way, and by night in a pillar of fire
to give them light. <E"odus &=>!&?
The backdrop for @ahweh.s covenant with Israel, and Israel.s reception of divine law as it was mediated through
7oses, was similarly draped by divine fire>
*nd 7ount inai was wrapped in smoke, because the 1ord descended upon it in fireA and the smoke of it went up
like the smoke of a kiln, and the whole mountain 3uaked greatly. <E"odus &B>&C?
Before they were written on sheepskin, biblical accounts about the man 7oses were filtered through several
centuries of oral tradition. They were trickled through creative minds of many generations of storytellers. The present
shape of these stories may not have been finali-ed until seven or eight centuries after the supposed event. 1ike premium
wines, so stories often get better with age and, needless to say, the ,od of Israel made plenty of time available for
Torah stories to ferment and improve.
DEgina ! de !' Hebrew Fire#from
&'F"GF!"&H file>FFF5>FIsersFIsuarioF*ppDataF1ocalFTempF1owFFJ@BC=6K.htm
*ll the while, it is not the purpose of this book either to establish or to refute te+tual roots. 6ur goals are broader
and far more humble and important. Dresenting a few e+amples that might help illuminate ;gyptian aggravations or
influences on 1evitic, Israelite, and 4udaic religion will be a sufficient task for this booklet.
Here and there in this study political history will have to be blended with literary history, to the chagrin of purist
historians. The condition of our sources does not permit a clean line of demarcation. But even though large portions of
the landscape may remain shrouded in morning fog by this approach, it is hoped that the general nature and direction of
the Hebrew ideological rivulet, which flowed from ;gypt through Dalestine into the 7editerranean realm, will emerge
from this historical sketch clearly enough to be worth our while.
Moses an Egyptian Hebrew
*part from partial Hebrew scriptures we have no evidence that 7oses, the leader of Israel.s L;+odus,L ever lived.
* self)serving cult document is not the best possible source for historical proof. It is necessary, therefore, to slide
sideways from general history and substitute some history of Hebrew literature. The time of composition of literary
works, in a roundabout manner, is still a historical datum that may be considered for understanding the people who
wrote and used them.
The ;+odus epic, as recorded in the book of E"odus, begins with a brief reference to a time when the 0people of
Israel2 were not yet slaves in ;gypt. Derhaps another hand has added the story of how a 1evite baby boy was e+posed
in a reed basket, somewhere along the (ile. He was found and adopted by the pharaoh.s daughter, who raised the child
in her royal surroundings and, presumably, gave him his ;gyptian name, 7oses.
Inasmuch as a similar e+posure of a baby in a reed basket has been ascribed to the first 7esopotamian
imperialist, argon of *kkad, the literal historical weight of this 7oses story will have to be ad8usted downward. $as
this story recited to establish the credentials of 7oses as a great hero of argon.s stature9 *nd then, why would later
Israelite scribes have wanted to gloss over the ;gyptianness of this man before accepting him as a their savior hero9 In
any case, the story tells about the birth and the early months of 7oses. life in ;gypt. It leaves a large lacuna concerning
the remainder of his life in that great land. This much is clear, the story e+plicitly tries to link the man.s birth to his later
life as a leader who was destined to govern a runaway group of Hebrew slaves.
$e are told that at a mature age 7oses observed, one day, how a Hebrew man was being beaten by an ;gyptian
supervisor. 7oses sided with the underdog and killed the ;gyptian tormentor. In fear of punishment he then fled to
7idian, an oasis in the inai desert to the east. * priest named 4ethro took the ;gyptian fugitive into his home and gave
him one of his daughters in marriage. In time she bore 7oses two sons.
6ne day, so the narrative continues, while watching the animals of his father-in-law, 7oses saw an apparition>
an 0angel of fire2 burning from the middle of a bush. 7iraculously, the fire did not consume its branches. ;ver since
his flight from ;gypt the man 7oses must have wondered about his obligations toward the Hebrews who still
languished and suffered back in ;gyptian labor camps. His thoughts apparently were fuelled by the nagging memory of
his personal violent and 0criminal2 interference. To 8ustify this deed, it seems, he was predestined eventually to act on
this matter. He was challenged to upgrade his status from being a fugitive from ;gyptian law to that of a minority
representative in political e+ile.
But be that as it may, from the burning bush 7oses heard the voice of ,od. *nd that voice of ,od announced the
divine decision that the Hebrew slaves were to be delivered from the bondage of ;gyptian grand domestication. Then
and there ,od commissioned 7oses to approach the elders of these sub8ugated Hebrews in ;gypt with his saving
proposition>
@ou and the elders of Israel shall go to the king of ;gypt and say to him, 0The 1ord, the ,od of the Hebrews, has
met with usA and now, we pray you, let us go a three days 8ourney into the wilderness, that we may sacrifice to
the 1ord our ,od.2 <E"odus =>&C?
The reason for which ,od enlisted here the services of a leader who was familiar with proceedings at the
;gyptian royal court is rather transparent. The strategy of 7oses was to hoodwink the pharaoh with a ruse of citing
religious obligations. 7oses and the elders of the Hebrew slaves were to re3uest a furlough, on the prete+t of having to
perform religious rites to their ,od who even by ;gyptian reckoning dwelt in the inai desert. The motif of a pilgrim)
age prete+t is mentioned again, later in the story, after 7oses was actually granted permission for a portion of the
people to leave. But 7oses re8ected a partial e+odus and insisted that all Hebrew slaves are re3uired by their ,od to go
on this holy pilgrimage together.
DEgina = de !' Hebrew Fire#from
&'F"GF!"&H file>FFF5>FIsersFIsuarioF*ppDataF1ocalFTempF1owFFJ@BC=6K.htm
In Hebrew opinion the stated objective of performing religious services in the Sinai desert was amply fulfilled
later on, as their Exodus story unfolds. The peoples service to their !od, who dwells outside Egypt, was intended to
last for all time. "ith the hindsight of tradition it had to be that way, or else #oses could be accused of having paraded
before the pharaoh while telling a lie.
$pparently #oses held some initial hope for a diplomatic settlement, to the effect that a measure of religious
freedom could be negotiated with an Egyptian pharaoh. $nd truly, if ever on earth there was a man who could negotiate
religious privileges for oppressed slaves in Egypt, it would have been someone li%e #oses who %new the ways of
Egyptian government. Such a spo%esman for minority rights would have had to be familiar with Egyptian theology, as
well as with political theory, and %now that both of these were the same thing. He would have had to be ac&uainted
with the ways of Egyptian as well as of Hebrew religion. $nd he would have had to be someone who %new how to
exploit the differences between these two.
Yahweh as Amun
$fter we are told by the primary narrator how the Hebrew !od has introduced himself as '(ahweh) *E"odus
+,-./0, another hand informs those who might still be unfamiliar with the !ods manner of referring to himself by
means of the word symbol 'HH (E"odus +,12340. "e are told that the designation 'ahweh was ascribed to the !od
of the Hebrews precisely at the crucial point in 5evitic history, in preparation for the Exodus. The &uestion that a
thoughtful Israelite might have wished to as% concerning this word symbol is conveniently put in the mouth of #oses,
who as%s !od directly,
If I come to the people of Israel and say to them, 'the !od of your fathers has sent me to you,) and they as% me,
6"hat is his name76 "hat shall I say to them7 !od said to #oses, 'I $m "ho I $m.) $nd he said, 'Say to the
people of Israel, 8I $# has sent me to you.) *E"odus +,3+2390
:evout readers in later ;udaism have avoided reading the letter configuration 'HH because to them it signified
the unspea%able name of !od. It seems as though, somehow, the followers of #oses remembered part of the original
lesson of Egyptian theology, that the name of !od is not to be pronounced, on penalty of death. $ccording to what else
their leader #oses must have %nown about such holy matters, however, his people need not have worried excessively
about this particular theological technicality.
<eally= In second boo%let of this series we have already shown how, in the context of Egyptian $mun
theology>which the Egyptian aristocrat #oses must have studied thoroughly>it was impossible to pronounce the real
name of the supreme !od. ?ot even the lesser gods, those manifestations of angelic ran% who surrounded the hidden
essence of $mun, %new their !ods real name.
The chances of ordinary human%ind ever getting to %now and to be able to pronounce the real name of the
Hebrew !od were e&ually remote. The word symbol 'HH, or ) *+ H, ) *+, is not really a name. If anything, it
added up to !od gently telling off #oses>letting him %now that the Holy ?ame is not for him to %now.
The Exodus story tells about #oses as a leader of Hebrews who was born of Hebrew parents@ yet, he lived the
early decades of his life as an Egyptian aristocrat in royal surroundings. If the second half of the preceding summary
sentence is accepted as a possibility, and I see no reason why it cannot be, it follows that this man #oses also must
have been well versed in traditional Egyptian political theory. Throughout Egyptian history the disciplines of political
theory and theology belonged together. #oses, the aristocrat, therefore must have %nown contemporary $mun theology
very well.
Startled by a spectacular fire and an anonymous divine call, #oses demanded assurance that he would be able to
finish the job that, long ago, he had begun with an act of violence. Even though he as%ed his &uestion on behalf of the
Hebrew elders who lived in Egypt, he obviously needed additional divine assurance for himself. He needed this
assurance to shore up his own confidence.
Aur Egyptian.educated potential leader, who still had to be convinced of the feasibility of his assigned *and
chosen0 tas%, found himself caught up in an interesting dilemma. Bould he who obviously %new $mun theology very
well convince himself to actually obey the call of a !od of Hebrew wanderers7 $nd, if he could obey, could his faith
actually have withstood the challenges and disappointments of the daring Exodus stratagem he envisioned7
Curthermore, could he have accomplished all these things, trustingly, if this Hebrew !od who commissioned him
actually had told him his name7 In Egypt it was the hidden.ness of the $ll.!ods nature, and of his holy name, that
rendered $mun the greatest imaginable power in the cosmos. Bould #oses have faced $mun and the Egyptian pharaoh
DEgina 9 de F4 Hebrew Cire>from
34GHIGFH39 file,GGGB,GJsersGJsuarioG$pp:ataG5ocalGTempG5owGCK(L/+AM.htm
on behalf of any other God who was defined less great than Amun? Or, in the Egyptian fashion of doing theologyon
behalf of any God who with his magnitude could not account for all that was known about Amun? Probably not.
!"
#ut then, ) am is not a name, as *mun in Egypt was not a name either. $o percei%e some theological unity
between two unnameable or undefinable configurations of reality is not o%erly difficult. #oth ha%e their %ery hidden&
ness and mystery in common. $he Egyptian root of *mun is imn- which denotes hidden&ness and in%isibility. 'uring
the (ew )ingdom the god Amun also was referred to as *+e who abides in all things, -$er in allen $ingen bleibt..
/"
+ow great is the distance from this theology to that which concerns itself with an 0 A1, or with an 0 A1 2+A$ 0 A1,
or with an 0 2033 #E 2+A$ 0 2033 #E, or with a +E 4A56E6 $O #E?
+ans #onnet re7ects the idea that a close parallelism may e8ist in the case of these two theologies. 9or instance,
concerning the Egyptologist 6ethe he remarked that the latter *dares to suspect that :ahweh was shaped after the model
of Amun, -#onnet pp. ;!f.. Ob%iously, #onnet<s 7udgment is based on a %ery spirituali=ed interpretation of :ahweh
that appears informed more by +ellenic philosophical dualism than the 1oses religion itself. 0s pure spiritual
transcendence really the most important aspect of 1osaic monotheism? 0s a God who disguises his presence in a
burning bush, in a cloud, or in a pillar of fire really *transcendent, in the +ellenic sense of transcendental Platonic
*ideas,? $his writer has concluded otherwise.
Although an influence of 0ndo&European dualism on :ahweh theology during the period of the >udges and the
early monarchy is being ruled out here, one ne%ertheless must assume a strong basis of 6emitic&4anaanite religiosity
for all those +ebrews who dwelled in Palestine. As we shall ha%e occasion to delineate shortly, most of the 0sraelite
tribes may ne%er ha%e been in Egyptthough, in that case all of them ha%e become in%ol%ed with the Egyptian&
Philistine frontier. $he actual e8posure of the 3e%ites to Egyptian culture and religion, of course, would ha%e depended
on the length of their so7ourn there. 0t seems in any case useful to consider in some detail the impact that Egyptian
Amun theology, %ia 1oses and his fellow 3e%ites, could ha%e had on the larger 0sraelite confederation. After all, an
E8odus e%ent and a $orah tradition attributed to 1oses, in the course of a few centuries, became the central features of
0sraelite unity. $he Egyptian&+ebrew connection is e8plored here to call attention to a neglected dimension of in?uiry.
@ @ @
And yes, there also were significant differences between :ahweh theology and Amun theology from the outset.
After all, the respecti%e cults of these supreme deities engaged in mythological wrangling o%er the outcome of the
E8odus episode. Each sponsored a different unit of people. Amun theology emphasi=ed more the freshness of di%ine
breath and li%ing water, in continuity with 6hu<s +eliopolitan function and with the fertile blessings of the (ile. $his
was a function that :ahweh may ha%e assumed only later in 0sraelite history. 0t was in the Eli7ah cycle of stories, %
.ings !A, that the +ebrew :ahweh of the desert finally established himself as the bona fide gi%er of rain for agriculture.
:ahweh theology, at least the 3e%itic strain that traced its origins to the 6inai area, emphasi=ed much more the
fire of God<s sternness and wrath. #y comparison, this degree of se%erity was accounted for in Egypt by the lowest
Enneadean hypostasis of 6eth. 0n realistic perception of greater-than-human configurations of reality, what else could
one ha%e e8pected? A people who dwell all their li%es in the lush and fertile (ile %alley, naturally, will e8perience more
of the All&God<s 6hu aspect. And a people who roam in the desert and daily struggle to sur%i%e its fierce heatsuch as
was the life&style of the 1idianites who harbored 1osesnaturally will e8perience more of the fiery 6eth aspect.
2hoe%er 1oses was, he surely was aware of this difference, he is said to ha%e li%ed at both places long enough to learn
about such things.
A new and far more significant difference between :ahweh and Amun theology emerges only subse?uently, in
the story pertaining to the E8odus struggle itself, especially on the 0sraelite side. 'HH became the scribal designation
of the God of gods at a time when that deity made a special effort to liberate a chosen group of +ebrew sla%es from
bondage in Egypt. 9or the history and e%olution of religion, this means that a new kind of *God of gods, awareness
thereby was introduced into the world to stay. $his new God of gods theology stood in direct conflict with the %ery
imperial grand domesticators who originally had defined and traditionally had been ruling in the name of the God of
gods.
$he God who re%ealed himself to 1oses, by his %ery act of re%elation, showed himself to be greater than his
imperialistic apparitions that preceded him. +e no longer endorsed a human deified )ing of kings in return for his keep
or for the maintenance of his state cult. +e was a God who forbade sacred images that, back in Egypt, were
prominently used in the state cult. +e forbade these images, apparently, because in the hands of priestly grand domesti&
cators such were used as le%ers for political control. 0n contrast to the Egyptian and 4anaanite deities who blessed
artists and sculptor&priests, apparently, the God of 1oses entrusted the management of his cult to a class of scribes. 6o
it appears, 7udged by the written legacy these scribes produced.
PBgina C de /C +ebrew 9irefrom
!CDEFD/E!G fileHDDD4HD5sersD5suarioDApp'ataD3ocalD$empD3owD9):#A;OI.htm
The God of Moses was Lord of the entire world and, at the same time, also savior of a people who previously had
fallen victim to ambitious grand domesticators. During the millennia that followed, this God, together with the
reactionary universal salvation movements his cult inspired, toppled many a grand domesticator and pretender to divine
authority. He disallowed and reformed many an over-domestication system or civili!ation."
Yahweh as Amun-Seth
#efore leaving the monotheism of Moses to itself, to watch how its gospel of slave liberation has infected
$alestine and lands beyond, it still may be helpful to say a few things about the %gyptian &eth" element as it pertains
to the 'ahweh-(mun theology of Moses.
)n its Heliopolitan orthodo* setting the divine %nnead, which includes &eth, represents a series of hypostases that
emanate from a single source, (tum. During the +ew ,ingdom the (mun theology that Moses had learned was still the
full heir of the orthodo* manner of thin-ing about theogony, as a process of generation and emanation. Therefore, the
theological mind of Moses can be e*pected to have been aware not only of the essential attributes of the hidden
godhead of the +ew ,ingdom, (mun, but also of the God.s desert heat emanation/the portion of &eth. (s a desert
god, &eth was -nown among %gyptians also as the god of foreigners, of thunder, lightning, and earth0ua-es. &eth in his
cosmic dimension, on a monthly cycle, also was deemed responsible for in1uring the poor eye of Horus, the moon.
)t has been told that Moses spo-e to the pharaoh in the name of the God of the Hebrews 2Exodus 3456. To an
%gyptian pharaoh that meant in the name of &eth. 7f course, the Hebrew narrator happily proceeded to e*aggerate the
status of Moses another step, at the e*pense of a supposedly superstitious pharaoh. #ut then, this is understandable. The
story was told to amuse Hebrews, not %gyptians4
8the Lord said to Moses, 9&ee, ) ma-e you as God to the $haraoh: and (aron your brother shall be your
prophet.9 2Exodus ;4<6
)t is uncertain how much historical weight can be given to the ten plagues that, with the e*ception of the last, can
be e*plained in terms of ordinary natural or environmental imbalances. (ll nine, it must be ac-nowledged, also proved
ineffective for softening the pharaoh.s hardened heart."
The initial ruse of having to ma-e a three-day 1ourney into the &inai desert, to fulfill religious obligations under
the threat of divine punishment, may have been only a cover for a more subtle ruse. =hat halfway intelligent pharaoh
would not have been able to see through the first one> (nd yes, the story tells how the pharaoh hardened his heart, as
could reasonably be e*pected of him.
$erhaps the real goal or ruse, from the outset, was to nag and intimidate the pharaoh, and wear him down to a
point where he no longer would pay attention. ?epeated rumors, to the effect that these people were about to leave,
could so have been neutrali!ed by the persistent formal diplomatic re0uests of Moses. ?epeated unsubstantiated rumors
could have created an impression to the effect that Moses and these slaves would never try to leave without the
pharaoh.s official consent. &uch a subtle strategy could have given the escapees much needed lead time before the ruler
would seriously have ta-en note. 7f course, these are mere speculations based on the style of subterfuge by which
political problems are being resolved in +ear %astern lands still today.
#ut then, the tenth and special plague attracts our attention as the pivotal point in the %*odus story plot. (ll of
%gypt.s firstborn sons, we are told, have been slain by an e*ecutioner angel of 'ahweh. )t is high time to rethin- this
Hebrew story plot from the hypothetical point of view of a twofold Hebrew-%gyptian mind, such as had been the mind
of Moses. The God who -illed the firstborn sons of the %gyptians would have been &eth to them, the very god of desert
dwellers. @urthermore, on the %gyptian side, the color of appearance of &eth, and of all his evil deeds, was red.
A5B
7n
the Hebrew side, Mosaic tradition has accented the role of their God with all -inds of red fire" -ratophanies.
%gyptians always have e*perienced unease in the presence of &eth. Their perception of this lowest %nneadean
hypostasis, in %gyptian tradition, clearly has constituted the wea-est point in the politico-religious structure within
which an %gyptian pharaoh was obliged to operate. %ven if critical historiography refuses to accept the tenth %*odus
plague as a historical event and even if the rite of $assover is to be understood only as an historici!ed ancient
communal herder sacrifice, both of these motifs together nevertheless may contain a historical -ernel of fact. They hint
at an actual diplomatic leverage that Moses reasonably could have applied to the %gyptian royal court.
Traditionally, whenever in %gypt a pharaoh died the god &eth was -nown to have -illed him, reduced him or
transformed him into the condition of an 7siris corpse. @rom the Hebrew perspective, of course, 'ahweh upstaged the
$Cgina D de E3 Hebrew @ire/from
<3FGDFEG<H file4FFFI4FJsersFJsuarioF(ppDataFLocalFTempFLowF@,'#K57L.htm
Egyptian perception of Seth. Instead of waiting to kill an old Egyptian pharaoh, he killed his firstborn son. This means
he killed the very person who, on his ceremonial rebirth as Horus during the next enthronement rite, was meant to
become the ruling pharaoh.
Egyptian mythology knows the ruling pharaoh as Horus and the avenger of siris. The young king supposedly
was the one who was to have mutilated Seth during a battle that then ensued.
!"#
$ccording to Egyptian tradition,
however, that victory of Horus over Seth was never a decisive one. Seth was mutilated, and while they struggled the
avenger Horus lost his eye. %oth divinities had to be healed by Thoth. This meant that after their struggle Seth was
again in a position to strike another blow against the next Horus-king of Egypt, whenever he chose to do so. $nd
everyone knew that ruling pharaohs when they suffered death were dispatched by Seth, to be thereby transformed into
siris. In this manner the god Seth repeatedly defeated a ruling Egyptian Horus. He transformed him back into the
mode of his brother siris.
To the extent that &oses spoke authoritatively to the pharaoh, in the name of a 'od who behaved as $mun and
Seth combined(or as the Hebrew narrator would mockingly have it, to the extent that &oses himself impersonated
that kind of a 'od(he indeed did have a plausible case as to why the Hebrew people should be let go. )eople who
belonged to this dangerous 'od of the desert, in Egypt, could not be held captive indefinitely with impunity. &oreover,
it also was reasonable to think that the people of Seth should want to appease this dangerous 'od in the desert places
where, according to Egyptian perception, he actually lived.
It is *uite possible therefore that a diplomatically astute &oses indeed assured the pharaoh that an appeased
+ahweh,$mun,Seth would refrain from plaguing Egypt. The presence of a narrative with ten plagues, which now
dominates the larger Exodus epic, suggests that at one point some threats of plagues indeed could have been made.
The clinching plot of the Exodus, which subse*uently could have given credence to a series of diplomatic plague
threats against Egypt, was +ahweh-Seth-s killing of the Egyptian Horus,to,be. that is, the ruling pharaoh-s firstborn
son. /or good measure it is said as well that the Hebrew 'od has killed all the firstborn sons in all Egyptian houses not
marked with Sethian 0red0 blood.
The initial diplomatic bait that &oses might have offered to the pharaoh is now coming into better focus. In
exchange for letting the Hebrew slaves serve their 'od in his distant desert, the land of Egypt would be spared the
typical calamities that a foreigner-s god, like Seth, would be able to inflict. )ositively stated, &oses had offered Egypt a
conditional blessing.
%ut diplomatic positivism of the 0deal0 offered by &oses was overshadowed, in the narrative, when subse*uent
Hebrew storytellers got carried away celebrating their escape. /or good measure they celebrated all the punishments
their mighty 'od could possibly have brought down upon those hated Egyptians.
The death of the pharaoh-s firstborn son may be pondered in terms of historical realism still a little further. If
&oses actually had approached the Egyptian pharaoh so as to appear to him as a spokesman of a 'od like $mun-Seth,
and if we consider how at some point during these negotiations &oses must have become desperate, then a conditional
curse laid by him on the Egyptian crown prince could have been a logical next step. The story has it that the king-s
firstborn son actually died and that, in a subse*uent state of grief, the disparaged pharaoh finally ordered the Israelites
to get out.
1as this story merely the product of Hebrew wishful thinking2 1as it all generated by priestly 3evites to anchor
an ancient herder ritual in the bedrock of )alestine historical relevance, to commemorate liberation2 )ossibly, yes. %ut
then, if such thinking was possible by Hebrew minds at all(and the existence of the story testifies to the fact that it
was(then it also is conceivable that a desperate &oses could have unloaded on the pharaoh-s son some conditional
4curse5 or 4cause5 of death. 1ith his Sethian mission, an impatient &oses easily could have cursed the entire sacred
Egyptian tradition of royal succession. $ strong $mun-Sethian curse laid on the crown prince, possibly even
pronounced within hearing range of the lad, conceivably could have contributed to bringing a sensitive young royal heir
to his deathbed.
The Hebrew storyteller seems to have remembered that &oses acted like a 'od6 Inasmuch as the curse was
conditional, only the pharaoh himself could have removed it by liberating his Hebrew slaves. Thus, in consideration of
Egyptian religious beliefs current at the time, and in light of experiences that had accrued for &oses, the basic steps of
the Exodus appear to have been undertaken in accordance with a well,reasoned strategy.
In all likelihood +ahweh-s commissioning of &oses, at the site of the burning bush, was no more than the turning
point from theory to practice. 1hile he lived at &idian, &oses had many years to ponder Egyptian weaknesses and
)7gina 8 de 9: Hebrew /ire(from
;:<=><9=;" file?<<<@?<Asers<Asuario<$ppBata<3ocal<Temp<3ow</C+%DEF.htm
Hebrew points of leverage. He probably still knew personally some key Egyptians at the court, and he knew their
religio-psychological strengths and weaknesses. He would have been able to exploit these.
Still another question may be asked concerning the Hebrew Exodus, about what exactly might have happened on
the Egyptian side. as a divine curse really sufficient to scare and to kill the crown prince! as it enough to create
confusion, by which "oses and his people could escape! #r, were other death-dealing measures resorted to in the
process, perhaps with some inside help at the court! $ould "oses have lent a helping hand in the %assover plot by
sending a human angel of death into the pharaoh&s house! 'ut then again, bodily inflictions may not have been
necessary. $urses were taken seriously enough in those days. $ould the original Exodus plot indeed have been that
simple!
"aybe(and maybe not. )he exact historical sequence of events eludes those of us who live over three millennia
later. *evertheless, the religio-political affinity that exists between the Egyptian-educated aristocrat "oses and the man
who in Hebrew literature we have come to know as the lawgiver of +ahweh still can be surmised in broad outlines.
ith help from the history of religions it may be possible to excavate some fresh hypotheses, perhaps with improved
historical clarity, beyond what hitherto has been imagined.
God and his Created World
Even though the Exodus religion historically and foremostly represents a reaction against Egyptian civili,ation
and its program of over-domestication, its theological tenets nevertheless come into better view when they are seen as
having emerged from that same civili,ation. )he form and content of all -antitheses. in this world are determined by
-theses. to which they respond. /arely do religious reforms change everything as thoroughly as, in each instance, the
inheritors of those reforms would have liked to believe. 0or learning more about ancient 1srael&s theological tenets we
must turn to its cosmogony.
2ccording to both Hebrew creation stories in Genesis, taken together, 3od created the world by divine word or
command, and then gave life to 2dam from his own breath. *o essential element in either of these story plots could be
classified exclusively as Hebrew or Semitic. )he ancient Egyptians had expanded their divine seminal emission
metaphor many centuries earlier, perhaps in a first round while educating inexperienced children or semi-experienced
4uveniles. 2lready the oldest stratum of Egyptian texts had explained the generative emanational process as 2tum&s
-spitting.. 1t referred to the godhead as blowing forth his breath, or his Shu. $onsiderably later, but still some centuries
before a Hebrew pen gave us Genesis 5, "emphite theologians interpreted that same creative emission, or spitting, in
terms of spitting forth words or giving creative commands(thus in terms of logos theology.
678
2 word of caution, already given in $hapter 7 of this book, must be repeated here. 0rom the late point in time
from which we now must view these matters, this logos modification may seem like an immense improvement. 'ut
examined in a larger historical perspective, it seems as though this improvement or refinement could as well have been
very superficial. 2lready in "emphite theology that same -refinement. added up to a badly balanced theological
statement and, therefore, to a mixed societal blessing. Had the "emphite theology been adopted unilaterally, it would
have given to Egyptian kings undue power without sufficient checks and balances. 9ings were the ones who issued
most of the so-called divine and creative commands that inferior Egyptians had to obey.
0or the sake of human rights it therefore was necessary in Egypt to also retain, alongside, the older and more
universalistic Heliopolitan 2tum mythology, including the phallus and the hand metaphors. Every male and female,
high and low, was able to participate to some degree in that dimension of divine creative emanation. 2 measure of
elementary divine status, basic equal rights for all people, could thus be derived much more easily from the older
stratum of Heliopolitan 2tum mythology. )his also means that basic human rights could be hoped for more easily on
the basis of the old Heliopolitan theogony than on the :advanced: logos theory of "emphis.
#n the other hand, Hebrew scribes, after their liberation from exile in 'abylonia, recorded their account of
creation in surprising harmony with the Egyptian "emphite mythos of -creation by logos. ;approximately 7<< '.$.E.=.
)hey included a full sequence of divine creative commands, but they did so without having to worry about political
checks and balances. )he >udaic scribe could afford to do so, because at that time he and his people no longer had a
deified king to establish or a mortal Son of 3od to keep in check. #n that account he and his readers could afford to
celebrate the notion of creation of the world by genuine divine command.
%?gina @ de A7 Hebrew 0ire(from
57B<CBA<5D fileEBBB$EBFsersBFsuarioB2ppGataBHocalB)empBHowB09+'@I#J.htm
All the while, the second Hebrew creation story, the creation of Adam by clay and divine breath, belongs to a
much older literary stratum of Egyptian and Hebrew thought. Creation by divine breath is an old notion that certainly
antedates the ancient Egyptian idea of creation by Shu. Inasmuch as breath is an essential life function for all higher
forms of life, this notion of divine breath could have originated almost anywhere on the globe.
Most of our schoolboos, today, overemphasi!e the dependency of ancient Israelite religion on Semitic
Mesopotamia. "e are told that Abraham and his ancestors roamed there, and that the Mesopotamian and the Hebrew
flood stories are structurally similar. #ut these schoolboos generally were written from a post$E%odus bias, that is,
from an anti$Egyptian perspective in the shape of which much of the &orah has been cast.
#efore this fresh historical assessment evoes unnecessary concerns, I might hurry to add that in light of slavery
in Egypt, which preceded E%odus and &orah, this anti$Egyptian sentiment may well have been 'ustified. It probably
was 'ustified as much as, earlier, the Egyptian anti$Semitic resentment against Hysos invaders was 'ustified. Indeed,
all these tribalistic and nationalistic sentiments, at one time or other, may have been proper. #ut should historians of
today still permit themselves to be blindfolded by hatreds three millennia old(
Is the polytheistic theological comedy in the Mesopotamian flood story, in the )ilgamesh Epic, really as
significant for elucidating its Hebrew counterpart, as it is generally made out to be( Is it very important to now how
capricious gods drowned Mesopotamians when we now that the All$)od of Egypt inundated the Egyptians every year
as well( *lood stories among flood plain civili!ations, and in this world of manifest limestone strata and fossils, are
numerous and widely spread. And, religiously speaing, most of them are of very little conse+uence.
Are not creation stories infinitely more important for understanding ,ear Eastern domesticator cultures and
religions( After all, creation stories are what legitimi!ed the ownership of land, of animals and seeds. &hey represent
-primary. scriptures for orderly sedentary living, and they furnish -title. to all inds of possessions that, first, have
been created by an acnowledged divine Creator and that, second, have been given in trust to humanind.
In sharp contrast with the Egyptian -breath. and logos cosmogony, the Mesopotamian tradition informs us how
the creator god Mardu did his creating in grotes+ue opposition to logos. He drew his sword and cut the goddess
&iamat into two halves. Her upper half became Heaven and her lower half became Earth. Mardu/s words of creation
that accompany this deed add up to a negative curse. Even the wind he sent represented a negative force against &iamat.
Mardu brandished forces of death, rather than the positive life essence of Shu. &hereafter human beings were created
from the blood of a criminal deity, 0ingu, to serve the gods.
All this adds up to a Mesopotamian cosmogony of the Hesiodic hunter$herder$warrior variety. &his warrior
theology will be discussed in greater detail later, in the fifth boolet. Creation by weapon, by sword or nife, is a very
ancient theme in theological burles+ue. It is a theme cultivated far and wide among the maladapted progeny of male
scavengers and hunters. Some groups of that progeny remained part$time hunters1 some became headhunters and
cannibals1 whereas others became herders and aristocratic pioneers of civili!ations2their evolutionary mal$adaptation
notwithstanding. And never mind Hesiod who puts into the hand of Cronos a sicle to blacmail farmers.
345
His tale
was recited, nonetheless, by bards who entertained the )ree e+uivalent to our soldiers2in rowdy veterans clubs.
-Creation by weapon. was the mythological basis for people who scorned the Egyptian -generation by phallus.
cosmogony. And, from the point in history where we now stand, it loos as though those horse$war$and$glory poets, of
the Hesiodic variety, have told their epic tales of castration intentionally to moc the un$heroic and cowardly priests of
the Egyptian variety1 namely, those priests who were more disposed toward cultivating -farmer. minds. Hesiod/s
castration story was clearly intended to be a 'oe on civili!ed generative creation theology. A sic 'oe, yes, but +uite
-good. as far as the +uality of a warrior 'oe can be ascertained by an audience composed of would$be or nostalgic war
heroes.
It must be acnowledged of course that some violence does appear at the lowest Enneadean emanation in
Helipolitan theology as well. Seth has illed the 6siris$to$be, and the ne%t Horus avenged his father 6siris. &hat much
violence was admitted by Egyptian priests for a number of reasons7 89: to maintain pharaonic dynasties, 8;: to assert the
divine ruler/s power over life and death, and 8<: to e%plain the ing/s own dying as divine transformation into 6siris and
returning homeward in the direction of union with the godhead.
"hile the theme of -creation by weapon. is being mentioned in relation to Mesopotamian mythology, one ought
to point to a similar blemish in the Hebrew canon. In the second creation story in Genesis an embarrassing fragment
from a weapon$or$nife version of an origin story has survived. =aw materials obtained by )od for the creation of Eve,
in the form of one of Adam/s ribs, implies some sort of surgical cutting from the first man/s body.
3>5
&his bit of
?@gina A de ;B Hebrew *ire2from
9BCD4C;D9E file7CCCC7CFsersCFsuarioCAppGataCHocalC&empCHowC*0I#J<6K.htm
Mesopotamian nife mythology has in the history of Hebrew theology been more of an embarrassment than a blessing,
it seems.
3J5
Against Grand Domestication
Civili!ation, if seen in the long$range conte%t of human evolution and from the perspective of the history of
religions, represents a state of cultural achievement wherein the art of domestication has been overdone. *rom the
perspective of the history of religions2as opposed to history of cultures and civili!ations2a civili!ation therefore may
be regarded as a ind of grand domestication or over$domestication scheme 8see definitions in #oolet 6ne of this
series:.
)rand domestication is a human effort, put forth by ambitious fol who thereby progress beyond the mere
domestication of plants and animals to also control fellow humans, groups of people, and their gods. Militarism,
slavery, e%ploitation, castration, cannibalism and headhunting, and human sacrifice are e%amples of e%cesses and
crowning activities that have resulted from purportedly glorious or -grand. domestication schemes. 6n that account,
imperialistic grand domesticators who have become oppressive are more ade+uately referred to in this discussion as
over-domesticators.
#y contrast, movements of universal
salvation are popular reactions to systems of grand domestication that have become abusive2they are normal human
reactions against over$domestication. &hese reactionary movements are universalistic in the sense that their adherents
pledge allegiance to more generous types of superior reality configurations. In the ancient ,ear East this meant
allegiance to a deity that was inder and greater than an emperor/s -)od of gods. who was worshiped to legitimi!e the
emperor/s violence.
Seen within an e%panded historical hori!on, it was no accident that several movements of universal
salvation2including Ludaism, Christianity, and Islam2were born between the very fangs of the two oldest
civili!ations in the ,ear East, between Mesopotamia and Egypt. 6f course, our e%panded historical hori!on must allow
for the fact that by the time these universalisms were born, Egypt had been dwarfed by =ome and Mesopotamia by
?ersia. ,evertheless, this changing of the guards among grand domestication systems only drives home the point that,
long after the aggressive body of a culture or civili!ation has been slain and left to decay, its feared ghosts and religious
countermeasures may linger some centuries longer. As a case in point the Second Isaiah, eight centuries after the
E%odus, still evoed the scarecrow of Egypt to persuade his people to leave #abylon. #y the same toen, the Hebrew
Gavidic messiah ideal, and its hope, lingered on a millennium beyond Gavid, and into modern days.
Fniversalistic reform leaders naturally learned most of their theological methods and logical structures from the
grand domestication systems against which they reacted. 6n that account they reacted against imperial monotheism,
invariably, by way of transcending the establishment theology with belief in a )od who could embrace more of reality
than imperial orthodo%ies habitually accounted for. As a rule, a grand domestication system under a )od of gods could
be challenged only with another and greater ind of M)od of gods.M
Concerning the culture and religion of ancient Israel it may be said that into its cradle were given the hopes and
the frustrations of both ancient ,ear Eastern civili!ations. *rom Mesopotamia the Israelites inherited a passion for the
herders/ individuality and freedom, whereas from Egypt came its dream of imperial stability and a better$than$human
divine ingship. #ut as it was, in real life all ,ear Eastern city states were administered by ordinary mortal grand
domesticators1 and these, in turn, depended for their safety and survival not only on the grace of their own )od, but also
on the weanesses of other people/s gods. Although greater individual and political freedom was implied by
Mesopotamian polytheism2where relationships with various competing gods could be cultivated and balanced to
advantage2none of these gods on that account could be respected with unrelenting seriousness.
*rom among the Hebrew patriarchs Abraham had been in closest contact with Mesopotamia, and from thence his
independent herder mind was enabled to listen to )od afresh in matters concerning human sacrifice. &radition has it
that he used to roam as a successful domesticator over a wide territory, and that he insisted very much on his nomadic
independence. His later domain has been the vicinity of Hebron. #y contrast, Isaac stood in closer contact with the
Egyptian frontier in the region presently nown as )a!a.
?@gina 9D de ;B Hebrew *ire2from
9BCD4C;D9E file7CCCC7CFsersCFsuarioCAppGataCHocalC&empCHowC*0I#J<6K.htm
The domain of the patriarch Jacob at the dawn of Israelite history was centered on Bethel; even though much of
his life's story has been linked more with Egypt itself. Tradition has it that he and his family took refuge from famine in
Egypt. son of Jacob! named Joseph! is said to have risen there to the rank of a viceroy in the service of some
Egyptian pharaoh. "enturies later the aristocrat who was destined to give Israel a more universalistic monotheism was
reared in Egypt and trained there in imperial religion and political theory. s has sufficiently been shown in Booklet
Two! political theory at the level of the royal house was monotheistic theology.
The stories that narrate the lives of Israelite patriarchs describe conditions that e#isted a half to a full millennium
before the Israelite monarchy was founded. Therefore! in reading these ancient stories! one must take into
consideration! with an eye turned to history! the apparent motivations of teachers and scribes who may have recorded
them$perhaps as early as the tenth century B.".E. %ome of these scribes undoubtedly were obligated to priestly
traditions or were on royal payrolls.
&or instance! the brief encounter between braham and 'elchi(edek! narrated in Genesis )*! seems to have
answered better than anything else a need on the part of +ing ,avid to -ustify his ruling of Israelite tribes from the
Jebusite or "anaanite city he had taken over. The story also could have been used to -ustify! on behalf of ,avid and
%olomon! the installation of the native "anaanite priestly family! the .adokite! to henceforth administer the cult of
Israel's /ahweh or El 01ord 2od3 in that city.
456
7ther episodes in patriarchal story cycles! which pertain to 2od's
covenants with patriarchs and kings! serve similar goals of nation8building.
The Abolition of Human Sacrifice
7ne braham story! in particular! holds great significance for understanding the meaning of the 9ebrew
patriarchal contribution in what was to become the religion of ancient Israel 0Genesis ::3. %torytellers remembered
their chief patriarch for having accomplished a radical turnabout in ;ear Eastern religious practice. braham
considered for a while! then wavered! and by the grace of his 2od abolished the practice of human sacrifice. 9e had
meant to sacrifice his firstborn son! but as an alternative he took a ram that his 2od had provided especially for that
occasion. 9e gave it as a substitute payment to the 2od who had reminded him of this more ancient method of sacrific8
ing animals.
But! of course! the scriptural record is a little more ambiguous than that. In all likelihood it was the original scribe
who already made it a point! and subse<uent Jewish and "hristian commentators vied with him and among themselves!
to rationali(e braham's initial willingness to sacrifice the life of his son. llegedly the 2od of braham wanted to
=test the faith> of his devotee! which means his willingness and his readiness for mindless obedience.
4)?6
In the
absence of sufficient historical perspective! still! the ,anish philosopher +ierkegaard has magnified this so-called faith
of braham into a full8fledged non8rational @leap of faith.@
4))6
It is difficult to see how! in historical perspective! any interpretation of the braham story could be farther from
the mark than that offered by +ierkegaard. braham's decision was no leap of faith. 9e walked every mile of the way
rationally and ethically aware! step after step. 7ver8domesticators everywhere and at all times have understood!
rationally well! why they sacrificed humankind. Their motives had to be -ustified! religiously and with a posture of
humble obedience! of course. It is a well8known fact that obeying orders! religiously! always has been an alibi of over8
domesticators who! for the sake of personal -ustification! pose intermittently as servants of greater-than8human reality.
In the conte#t of an inter8religious dialogue one also ought to keep in mind that! according to Islam! the son who
was about to be sacrificed was Ishmael! not Isaac. But! inasmuch as our present discussion focuses on the historical
record of human sacrifice as an aspect of general grand domestication! the fact that braham avoided sacrificing either
of these sons and the fact that he did not become another grand domesticator appears far more important than any other
benefits that might have accrued for the estate of either survivor.
The good news here is that both second8generation patriarchs$the one favored by Judaism and the one of
Islam$have survived the supposed =faith> of braham. The world is a better place for the fact that this old supposed
=faith> of braham was abolished more emphatically! still! by later universalistic prophets and reformers. In this
manner! the peoples who practice religion in the historical shadow of braham are thereby challenged to live$and to
let live.
nyone who stays a while in the vicinity of a potential grand domesticator! soon enough! will see him showing
his hand and disclose what is really on his mind. ll along a potential grand domesticator will have listened more
carefully to such divine revelations that happen to improve his personal destiny and promise fulfillment of his desires.
grand domesticator! even one like braham who is only tempted to become one! sooner or later will demand his
ABgina )) de :C 9ebrew &ire$from
)CD?ED:?)* fileFDDD"FDGsersDGsuarioDpp,ataD1ocalDTempD1owD&+/BHI7J.htm
reward from the God whom he serves so very faithfully. The sacrifice of one's own love toward family and kinand
one's own precious rationality to bootgoes against the drift of life manifest in processes of nature or purposes of
divine creation. Presumably life has been created, or has evolved, to be enjoyed and lived in the first place Therefore
both of these types of sacrifice, of rationality as well as of kindred, do call for a special reward from !lmighty God
himself. !t the very least they procure some e"traordinary status of righteousness and justification. !nd behold,
!braham heard the rewarding voice of God even swear an oath#
$% will indeed bless you, and % will multiply your descendants as the stars of heaven and as the sand which is on
the seashore. !s your descendants shall possess the gate of their enemies, and by your descendants shall all the
nations of the earth bless themselves$ &Genesis ''#()*(+,
-('.
%ndeed, multiplication and paternalistic blessings, as heard by !braham or composed by a later %sraelite scribe on
a grand domesticator's payroll, are only the wrappings of this divine promise. Possessing the gate of competitive
enemies, however, that is the pearl grand domesticatorsand even good folk like !braham who are tempted to become
grand domesticatorstreasure very much.
/es, there is a temptation hidden in this story after all. 0ut it is the temptation of over*domestication that ancient
%sraelite scribes in the comfort of later monarchic environs, si" and more centuries after !braham, were no longer able
to discern.
0ut how has this story received its traditional 1faith testing2 motive3 !ny reflective schoolteacher will have had
numerous occasions, in the course of work, to discover the answer to this simple 4uestion. 5irst of all, it is unlikely that
%sraelite scribes, who recorded their favorite 1faith2 answer for posterity, actually wanted their pupils seriously to
consider the recurrence of an obediently e"ecuted human sacrificeliving as they did, under their kind of God. 0ut
then, with regard to actual practice in surrounding cultures, 1disobedience2 is what the reform of !braham's religion
seems to have been all about.
%f confronted with a difficult theological 4uestion, as to why God would have demanded such obedience of
!braham, 6ebrew teachers could not very well have suggested that their story's supreme patriarch may have
misunderstood God or, worse yet, that God himself is arbitrary. %f these scribes really had wanted to dwell on the
horrible notion of human sacrifice, or if in their sheltered scribal world they still knew much about how it was done
formerly, they at least would have concocted some impressive proto-7evitic description of such a rite.
!s it was, however, old %sraelite teachers simply took the shortest and easiest path to finish off that lesson. !nd
they did so as a people that knew herself specially chosen by God and redeemed from grand domestication. They
sidestepped the problem of God's right to arbitrariness, because this was too difficult to grasp by the average faithful.
%nstead, these teachers steered their discussion to schoolroom*level ethics8 that is, to the grand domestication portion of
theology that could be applied directly to student behavior in a lowly classroom.
9very teacher to a degree is caught up in the e"ercise of grand domestication. !nd if an available story happens
to teach discipline along with its subject matter, and if it thereby promises to make teaching easier, not many teachers
can resist its endorsement and its blessings provided in the form of sweet authority. !s all people in a king's entourage
had to do, and as most scribes did, so too later generations of students were e"pected to practice blind obedience.
Therefore, the basic plot of the story remains that !braham became a different kind of sacrificer, one who did not
sacrifice his son. !ll those who propagated this story about !braham knew, with all their rational faculties intact, why
they wanted to remember precisely the faith of this patriarch and, at the same time, disregard the similar and much
stronger faiths of all those who as grand domesticators in the ancient world, in fact, have sacrificed their offspring.
%n its historical conte"t the !braham story carries the full rational weight of a new universalistic theology. The
saving message that made this story worth remembering and that made it worth retelling, especially among firstborn
sons, was that !braham did not sacrifice his son, that by his God's own generous waiver a ram was substituted. The
implied futuristic theology points therefore to a new God of gods. %t points to a new revelation of the God of godsto
the effect that his appetite no longer includes a grand domesticator's hunger for power over human life and flesh.
-(:.
;hether the appetite of the real God actually ever included such craving for human flesh, beyond the possibility of
human misunderstanding, is an entirely different faith 4uestion. !nd that 4uestion belongs outside the realm of this
historical discourse.
!mong the civili<ations that thrived during !braham's time it was still deemed possible that such an appetite for
human flesh and blood was a genuine divine attribute.
-(=.
0ut, be that as it may, in the concrete sense of preferring
P>gina (' de '? 6ebrew 5irefrom
(?@AB@'A(= file#@@@C#@Dsers@Dsuario@!ppEata@7ocal@Temp@7ow@5F/0+:GH.htm
ordinary domesticator food the God of Abraham, in conformity with plain domesticator needs, at once was more
archaic and more humane. He was less of a grand domesticator and therefore also less civilized.
From the perspective of a civilized ruler or a high priest at the time, the theological reform of Abraham meant a
step bacward. Abraham had recoiled from progressive grand domestication sacrifices and retreated to the simpler
primitive animal sacrifices of herder fol. !etreat behavior is the primary characteristic of religious move"
ment#retreat behavior in space as well as in time.
$f course, a complete turning away from comple% civilization and from over"domesticator religion, and a return
to simple domestication, was impossible even for Abraham. &o human conscience and no religious repentance from
aggressive behavior, not even penitent somersaults and spiritual 'conversions,' will ever completely turn bac the cloc
of history and a people(s cultural progress. Hands continue to grasp, teeth continue to bite and chew, and human minds
continue to analyze. )ime rushes irreversibly along a forward progressive path.
*ith the help of e%citing distractions, such as the Gree +uses were nown to provide or religious rites could
bestow, the fruits of aggression and progress at times could be de"emphasized and checed for a while. And in some
societies such fine arts pass then as being cultured or civilized. ,ut gruesome e%cesses cannot be removed from the
actual flow of time. An over"domesticator(s practice of sacrificing human victims has become a historical datum, for
priestly e%ecutioners as well as for prophetic protestants and reformers. +oreover, the reputation of a God on whose
tables hapless human victims were once served, by virtue of this God(s acceptance of the same to the e%tent that
acceptance has been attested to by scribes, is fi%ed ontologically in the minds of later devotees. As a God who has once
shown such an appetite, of course, he can be accepted or resisted. ,ut the historical fact of his cult, as such, can never
be erased completely from the slate of time.
-./0
1onse2uently, those who retreated with Abraham into a simpler cultic mode of behavior, and who have begun to
offer again old"fashioned domesticators( animal sacrifices, discovered that their sacrificial animals no longer could be
given in accordance with pure and old domesticator logic. ,efore grand domestication was practiced, firstborn
sacrificial animals were given as share sacrifices in payment for domestic herds. )his was done to legitimize human
ownership of herds under a God who previously had owned them#or who had created and subse2uently allotted them
to humanind.
)he first offerings or share offerings#of portions of felled animals that hunters gave to their divine tutelaries
to shift the weight of their own guilt unto them#were amplified by domesticators into ceremonial butchering feasts.
3omesticators sacrificed whole firstborn animals to pay for subse2uent litters, or even for larger herds. And after that
these ordinary animal sacrifices of domesticators were magnified still further, by grand domesticators, to pay still
mightier divine sponsors with the more valuable currency of human victims#to 4ustify ownership of human herds.
)his is why in grand domesticator surroundings the stubborn insistence to present animal victims of less value, by
someone lie Abraham, has necessarily ac2uired new meaning.
5n the shadow of Abraham(s temptation and in light of his new faith, sacrificial animals, inevitably, have become
substitutional' offerings. Animal victims had to be given, henceforth, as substitutes to redeem prospective human
victims whom grand domesticator religion had doomed to premature mystic absorption or digestion within a divinity.
$n account of this new substitutional dimension it therefore is not warranted anymore to classify Abraham(s
religiosity, nor the three faiths of 6udaism, 1hristianity, and 5slam that descended from it, as nostalgic returns to
primitivistic domesticator religion. !ather, it is the case that the spirit of universal salvationism, having gotten
2uagmired in grand domesticator fascinations and ambitions, was forced to retreat temporarily to older ritualized
primitivisms of animal slaughters and sacrifices. )here it had to start anew to regain its momentum for reform.
And of course, all this retreat behavior happened by necessity. Greater-than-human configurations of reality
have a way of dampening human ambitions all the time. !easonable religious responses always are retreat behavior of
the balancing ind.
Israel's Return to Grand Domestication
7inguistic research and recent archaeological discoveries have taught us to approach the history of 6oshua(s
con2uest of 8alestine with some serious reservations. )he language in Deuteronomy and Joshua comes from a few
89gina .: de ;/ Hebrew Fire#from
./<=><;=.? file@<<<1@<Asers<Asuario<App3ata<7ocal<)emp<7ow<FBC,D:$E.htm
centuries later and the supposed pattern of con2uest does not match the destruction dates of cities in the region.
-.>0
+oreover, the motives in the 6oshua epic correspond much better to the grand domestication scheme of a certain ing
6osiah F>;; ,.1.G.H who attempted a religio"political reform. 6osiah dreamt of a restored and reunited 5srael, and it
appears that, to advance his ambitions, he and his priestly collaborators embellished 6oshua(s con2uest of 8alestine
that, at the time, lay already si% centuries in the past. 3uring the time of 6oshua, supposedly, all the 5sraelite tribes
invaded 8alestine as a united front and too the land that, perhaps again supposedly, their creator"God had given them.
5t now appears that most of the people who belonged to the ancient tribes of 5srael were already in the land when
7evitic wanderer priests went there to propagate their G%odus tradition. )he tribal territories already were claimed, and
this might be the reason why the tribe of 7evi had no territory allotted to it. 8riests ordinarily do not refuse ownership
of land, if they can help it. As it was, their 7evitic cult of Cahweh was centered on a portable tabernacle tent, and
within that tent was ept a chest in which a few sacred mementos from their 'escape' from Ggypt were ept. ,ut more
important for the 5sraelite confederation of tribes became the 7evitic annual commemoration of the G%odus e%perience
itself.
)hree centuries or longer 7evitic tribesmen, as priestly mediators between God and humanind, had been
cultivating their tradition of escape from Ggyptian rule#under a God of gods who preferred Hebrew slaves over
citizens of the mighty Ggyptian empire. )hey roamed as Hapiru when they settled at their first place of refuge, at the
+idian oasis, on the Iinai peninsula. From there they moved into the hill country of 8alestine to interact with 5sraelite
tribes. Hapiru was the Ggyptian and +esopotamian designation of foreigners and nomads, rebels, and outlawsJ it
referred to people who lived or moved about between these two large systems of grand domestication and who,
generally, managed to slip away from the control of both. )he label Hapiru appears to have given rise, later, to the
positive self"designation Hebrew. $n their part, some Hebrews in 8alestine Fthat is, in the 8hilistine countryH referred
to themselves as the tribes of Yisrahel#a name that seems to have meant fighters, strugglers, or partisans of Gl Fof their
7ord GodH.
-.K0
)hese tribes later were united into a ingdom as the people of 5srael, under 3avid Fca. .=== ,.1.G.H and
his son Iolomon.
)he 7evites created and told the narratives of 5srael(s national epic. )hey became what might be described as the
first priestly cheerleaders in the confederation of 5sraelite rebel tribes. )heir G%odus epic and their annual 8assover
celebration, which remained anchored in memories associated with Iinai as their Holy 7and, have become the foci of
their Cahweh religion. $ther tribes subscribed to their story and their rituals and, in time, they all learned to
commemorate together a 4oint miraculous escape from Ggypt as the always united tribes of 5srael. *hat has been their
common e%perience for this 4oint ceremonial commemorationL
Ap to the time of Bing 3avid, the 5sraelite tribes fought separately for survival along the Ggyptian frontier,
sometimes with and sometimes against the 8hilistine city"states in the Gaza area. And sometimes they fought among
themselves Fsee Judges .;H. $nly gradually by means of their annual first offerings rite, which they adopted from the
culture stratum of simple herders and which they historicized in opposition to Ggyptian grand domestication, were these
rebel tribes ideologically and religiously cemented together into a single nation#at least for the duration of a couple
generations under 3avid and Iolomon.
-.D0
)he historical boos in the ,ible, Judges, Samuel, and Kings, in con4unction with recent archaeology in the Gaza
area, have given us fresh clues for the early history of 5srael. 3uring 5srael(s formative years, the 8hilistine ings in that
region ruled city"states that had adopted a general pattern of Ggyptian culture. 1oncerning the 5sraelites, the biblical
source tells of a first leader, Iaul, who was grudgingly anointed by the priest Iamuel for the purpose of leading 5srael(s
defense against the 8hilistine ings. His ingship was intended only for the duration of an emergency. )he general anti"
monarchism on the part of Cahweh(s priests reflected what all along had been the way of life among tribal herdsmen
who led semi"nomadic lives#a tradition of fierce independence.
Iaul(s 8hilistine opponents were well"organized city"states along the northern Ggyptian cultural frontier,
organized under a well"established aristocracy. 3uring most of 5srael(s formative centuries these city"states failed to
heed the weaened Ggyptian pharaohs. &evertheless, for the 5sraelite tribes to stand up against the organized might of
8hilistine city"ings re2uired a more stable military policy than Bing Iaul could deliver on the short leash that Iamuel,
the priest, was willing to authorize in the name of the antimonarchic Cahweh.
Iaul, as a part"time ing, succumbed to pressures from Iamuel. His dynasty crumbled under the might of the
8hilistine ings. His rival and successor, 3avid, 4oined the 8hilistine opposition for a while, though, in the eyes of the
latter he probably was untrustworthy as an ally. Bing 3avid(s private army consisted of Hapiru rebels and refugees,
many of whom had come directly from those same grand"domesticated city"states, and established Hapiru tribal bands
89gina .? de ;/ Hebrew Fire#from
./<=><;=.? file@<<<1@<Asers<Asuario<App3ata<7ocal<)emp<7ow<FBC,D:$E.htm
in the hill country of Palestine. When back in that hill country David at last succeeded in organizing the rival Yisrahel
tribes, and when he began deploying their military potential, the Philistine city-kingdoms fell before him.
n stark variance with the con!uest narratives included in Joshua "#"" one finds, in Judges "$%&#'', a list of
seventeen (anaanite cities that the sraelites had been unable to take over. )ccording to 2 Samuel * David finally
defeated and subdued the remaining Philistine cities. +ut even the amount of credit given to ,ing David appears to
have been an overstatement in light of 1 Kings -$".. /here one learns that it had been the pharaoh of 0gypt who
defeated the (anaanite city of 1ezer and gave it as a dowry to his daughter, ,ing 2olomon3s wife. 2olomon3s monarchy
was an 0gyptian-style grand domestication scheme.
During the formative years of the sraelite monarchy the 4evitic cult of Yahweh had become a rallying symbol
for the young nation. During srael3s formative centuries of rebellion against the 0gyptian-Philiistine frontier this
revolutionary cult made it possible to orchestrate a semblance of intertribal cooperation.
+ut what could have been the common e5perience among the sraelite tribes that made the 6oint commemoration
of Passover and 05odus a meaningful unifying symbol7 n light of the freshly established historical conte5t, a
reconstruction now can be attempted in a rather straightforward manner. )ll the tribes held memories in common$
about suffering under grand domesticators and resentment toward their Philistine-0gyptian overlords and enemies.
/hey achieved a measure of unity on the basis of their Passover-05odus cult, which symbolized an underdog3s reaction
to the presence of 0gyptian grand domestication as their common enemy.
Whether someone actually escaped during an 8e5odus9 from the :ile Delta in the company of 4evitic leaders,
such as ;oses and )aron, or whether someone escaped Philistine-0gyptian city states to 6oin some sraelite rebel tribe
in the hills, or whether one participated in the end only in David3s victory over these city states, one in any of these
situations was liberated from 0gyptian bondage in general. /he plot of the 05odus epic, that is, Yahweh3s victory over
0gyptian taskmasters, has described and given meaning to all subse!uent e5periences of liberation from over-
domestication.
<"-=
t must be kept in mind that ritualized play acting is a powerful means to routinize human thought and collective
behavior, especially among minds caught up religiously in celebrating victory. Homines sapientes >men who think? is a
misnomer for creatures who, in actual fact, are homines ludentes >men who play?. )nd for the coordination of the latter,
the staging of civic-religious pageants is of paramount importance. @ituals are more vibrantly alive and effective than
all the literary historical footnotes of scribes combined.
(ompare, for e5ample, the e5perience of a typical immigrant to )merica. 2ooner or later he or she gets drawn
into celebrating a version of )merican /hanksgivingAor as a minimum to watch /hanksgiving pageants on television.
4ike the Bewish Passover, so also this national holiday is celebrated in e5change for divine blessings, for security, and
for title to land. Cur )merican epic about pilgrims who arrived on the ;ayflower is remembered annually and
nationwide with many interdenominational thanksgiving services. /he covenant with ;anifest Destiny thereby is
sealed during a festive communal meal that includes sacrificial turkey as the native )merican sacrificial 8lamb.9
/his latter-day e!uivalent to the Bewish Passover is what has redeemed the wanderings of many timid immigrants
who came to )merica. t translated their wanderings into divinely blessed pilgrimages. @ites and celebrations,
everywhere, are the real means by which national epics become effective in people3s lives. ) wanderer who found
himself in the company of 4evites roaming Palestine, three millennia earlier, could subscribe to srael3s national epic of
the 05odus as easily.
2amuel, the priest of Yahweh, resisted monarchy as long as he could. +ut in the end the first two sraelite kings,
2aul and David, as they competed among themselves, both 6ustified their return to grand domesticator ways with claims
of having been anointed king by that same antimonarchic priest >1 Samuel "D and ".?. /hen David con!uered Bebus
>Berusalem? with his private troops and made it his royal city. Ee also fetched the sacred 8ark of the covenant9 that used
to be in 2amuel3s shrine at 2hiloh, and he brought it home to Bebus >2 Samuel F and .?. /his sacred chest, which was a
token of 4evitic Yahwism, was placed there under a new tent within the city walls. Gsing this chest as the relic and
legitimate title to the 05odus tradition, the shrewd David then installed the man Hadok as a second high priest to
administer the Eebrew cult of Yahweh >2 Samuel *$"& and "F$%I?. +y the time 2olomon became king, Hadok was left
as the only high priest. Eis 4evitic predecessor was banished from the land >1 Kings " and %?.
<%D=
Gnderstandably, the politically and militarily successful David also wanted to build a lasting temple of stone and
thereby advance his dream of social fortification and grand domestication an e5tra step. +ut the rebel ethos of the
sraelite tribes, by the 6ustification of which David had won and organized his kingdom, would not permit him to go
that far. /he prophet :athan at one point gave ,ing David permission to build his temple, but !uickly he reconsidered
and came forth with 1od3s revised order to desist >2 Samuel &?. /he 1od of the recently liberated Eebrews would not
PJgina "F de %F Eebrew KireAfrom
"FLD.L%D"I file$LLL($LGsersLGsuarioL)ppDataL4ocalL/empL4owLK,Y+*'CM.htm
suffer incarceration in a massive stone structure built by a grand domesticatorat least not yet. He and his appointed
priests had to make do for a while longer with a tabernacle tent.
Another one of David's grand domestication schemes concerned the organization of military might. He conducted
a census of valiant men throughout !srael" that is" a registration for military conscription #2 Samuel $%&. !t is said that
David himself was the one who first felt guilty about having ordered this census. 'ahweh's verdict" along with the
rationalization of an epidemic at hand" was enunciated by David's own court diviner.
(eligiously inspired roadblocks of this sort were constantly put in the path of !srael's king by antimonarchic men
of )od who" first ceremonially and later prophetically" continued to live under the spell of their rebel *+odus tradition.
,bstacles of this sort clearly defined the perimeters beyond which the divinely sanctioned Yisrahel rebel ethos would
not permit the king's grand domestication ambitions to progress.
Under Solomon
!t remained for -olomon" who rose to the throne with the prophet .athan's helpful plotting" to build a temple of
stone and to bring the 'ahweh cult under full royal control #1 Kings /&. !n his magnificent court temple" the presence of
)od was meticulously maintained by priests who were on the royal payroll. 0he structure of the temple itself was built
after a 1hoenician2*gyptian model3 it accommodated a holy of holies enclosure inside" the same arrangement as
generally could be found in *gyptian Amun temples.
4$56
0he trouble with all this magnificent temple religiosity was the fact that a )od" who accepted the maintenance of
his cult from the hand of a king" himself came to depend on the generosity of that king. As a result" the divine2human
relationship of dependence was reversed. 0his was the typical outcome whenever the religious behavior of common
folk fell under the control of a grand domesticator. 0ribes of humankind as a rule became over2domesticated together
with their tribal gods.
During the reign of -olomon the !sraelite kingdom rivaled in superficial splendor the glories of *gypt and
7esopotamia" and for a while his state even surpassed theirs. His royal scribes collected wisdom literature and recorded
it in their king's name" boasting wisdom all the while on behalf of their king. -olomon's wisdom is said to have been
greater than the wisdom of all the sages of *gypt #1 Kings 8" 59&. 0he fact that his scribes resorted to such boasting in
competition with *gypt testifies indirectly to the Hebrew religio2cultural indebtedness to that civilization. Along with
all that" the !sraelite king in fact was married to a daughter of the *gyptian pharaoh #1 Kings :;5&.
<ut !srael's political and religious awareness was sustained" all the while" by its *+odus memory and its religious
fervor of partisanshipthus by their combined early 7esopotamian and subse=uent Hapiru herder tradition. 0he
Davidic dynasty was not supported by a time-tested and balanced grand domestication organization. -chools of loyal
scribes and officials" guilds of artisans" and other groups of citizens on which both 7esopotamian and *gyptian
civilizations relied during their centuries of stability and good fortuneall these traditions were in their infancy even
during the ape+ of -olomon's reign. 0he king seems to have had only his military safely organized. And for a grand
domestication system to endure humanely" such a onesided e+ploitational law and order emphasis is never sufficient.
>hen -olomon died" in ?$$ <.@.*." the northern tribes of !srael broke away from Audah. 0hey refused to serve
-olomon's son" (ehoboam" who stoutly promised to continue the police state tactics of his ambitious father. 0he
northern tribes refused to provide forced labor any longer or pay the king's e+cessive ta+es. 0hey seceded to form their
own !sraelite kingdom under Aeroboam ! #1 Kings 5$&. 0he two kingdoms" !srael and Audah" e+isted alongside each
other until -argon !!" of Assyria" defeated -amaria in B$5 <.@.*.
Aosiah's ruthless con=uest of the northern !sraelite realm" and the reform #/$$ <.@.*& during which he slew all
northern priests at their sanctuaries" was duly legitimized with the celebration of a 1assover commemoration. A detailed
account of this event is narrated in 2 Kings $:. Cnder .ebuchadnezzar's sweep" which enforced the <abylonian policy
of integrating the .ear *ast" Aosiah's dynasty disappeared soon afterward. 0he southern monarchy of Audah held on a
little longer" into the si+th century" when most of its population was deported to <abylonia" in 8?B and 8DB.
(emnants of the southern kingdom" of <enEamin and Audah" eventually returned from e+ile in <abylon. Another
group" which had moved in the direction of *gypt accompanied by Aeremiah" left no written records. <ut traces of their
descendants have been found near the first cataract of the .ile. 0hroughout their dispersion" the e+iles in <abylonia
celebrated the freedom from over2domestication that their ancestors had achieved by way of escaping the power of
*gypt.
1Fgina 5/ de $8 Hebrew Girefrom
58H9/H$95% file;HHH@;HCsersHCsuarioHAppDataHIocalH0empHIowHGJ'<D:,K.htm
When in 539 Babylonia fell to Cyrus the Great, Palestine came under Persian hegemony as well. With
permission from Cyrus, and from later Persian emperors, small remnants of udaic e!iles from Babylonia returned to
erusalem with a charter to reestablish the semblance of a udaic state.
"le!ander the Great #33$%3&3 B.C.'.( displaced the Persian o)erlords. *e and his successors +ustified their rule
as cultural coloni,ers. -n rebellion against their Gree. o)erlords the small udaic state for a while became independent
under the /accabees, in 0$1. But after ha)ing become radicali,ed through re)olution against the Gree.s, these
*asmonaean priest-.ings themsel)es 2uic.ly lapsed into methods of tyranny and o)er3domestication.
Beginning at $3 B.C.'. the period of 4oman domination was punctuated repeatedly by brush fires of udaic
rebellion. 5heir hope of another independent udaic state was smashed to embers by 4oman might, during the first
century C.'., and the dispersion that followed lasted almost two millennia.
6nly during the twentieth century, after persecution and holocaust, ha)e ews of the amnian tradition returned in
large numbers to Palestine. "lthough "merica and the Western world, under the influence of Christendom, watch these
new ewish pioneers by and large supporti)ely, their present effort at running a modern democratic state, a new -srael,
is percei)ed by most of their 7ear 'astern neighbors again as a return to grand domestication or o)er3domestication.
Universalistic Monotheism and Messianism
"n early trace of uni)ersal sal)ationism that sur)i)ed from the -sraelite past already was noted in the story about
"braham. 5his patriarch may be credited with ha)ing resisted the 8temptation of ci)ili,ation,9 that is, of sacrificing a
human )ictim:thus implicitly also with ha)ing re+ected an ancient theology of grand domestication.
Hapiru or *ebrew reactionary uni)ersalism has become politically significant when, centuries later, under
/oses:or with the composition of '!odus stories:the status of the 'gyptian 8God of gods9 was directly challenged
and undercut. ;uring that challenge the God of the *ebrew sla)es re)ealed himself, to those freed sla)es at least, as the
world<s mightiest and )ictorious God of gods. 5hus the typical 7ear 'astern 8God of gods9 theology, which here and
there has legitimi,ed an imperial grand domesticator 8=ing of .ings,9 was replaced by radical *ebrew liberation
theology.
7e)ertheless, the theology of /oses cannot yet be classified as complete 8uni)ersalism.9 5he /osaic reform was
only the beginning of an important mo)ement in that direction. 5he limitations to the uni)ersalism of /oses were, as
such limitations always are, conditioned by historical circumstances. -n their struggle for liberation and sur)i)al, the
*ebrew sla)es ac2uired fresh ways and means for defending themsel)es. 5hey needed arms, training, and courage, as
well as di)ine protection when these things pro)ed insufficient. "ll the while, the God who in his mercy liberated them
from sla)ery continued to support them during the aftermath. -t therefore goes without saying that the mundane
e!istential concerns of a fledgling nation, in the end, turned the theological uni)ersalism of /oses bac. onto a return
path of defensi)e e!clusi)eness. By hindsight it seems as though such defensi)e retrenchment scarcely could ha)e been
a)oided.
-t is a fact in the history of cultures and religions that any God who has been called upon to ser)e as a war deity,
to lead a people as their 8>ord of hosts,9 of necessity has ceased to function as uni)ersal >ord of the world. 5o insist
that a >ord of war in his partiality is ne)ertheless a uni)ersal God, in the past, has led to fanatic warfare. -t has led to the
e!termination of the enemy side in order to pro)e the truth of one<s own arrogant theological fi!ation. Campaigns
which are organi,ed to establish the uni)ersality of a war deity can lead either to calamity for the belie)ers or to
imperialistic )ictory. 5hus they lead to calamity on at least one side of the confrontation. -n either case the uni)ersal3
istic outloo. is eclipsed. 5his predicament constitutes the downside of monotheistic religion where)er such is being
culti)ated by ad)anced humanoid predator minds.
Under David and Solomon
5wo or three centuries after /oses, the *ebrew 8>ord of hosts9 cult ripened into its ne!t phase. 8?ahweh
@abaoth9 as foremost deity of war was in)o.ed to sponsor a new grand domestication system. ;uring the reigns of
;a)id and @olomon such a system came into bloom and reached its ,enith 2uic.ly. While li)ing under these two .ings,
the heirs of the -sraelite rebel tradition gloried for a while in their united monarchy, as in something that was di)inely
PAgina 0B de &5 *ebrew Cire:from
05DE$D&E0F fileGDDDCGDHsersDHsuarioD"pp;ataD>ocalD5empD>owDC=?B136I.htm
established. But then, the abrupt division of the kingdom into northern and southern portions severely dampened that
euphoria.
The Mosaic tradition remained an internal contradiction within both kingdoms. With an anti-overdomestication
religious cult at their centers, both kingdoms also remained riddles and aggravations unto themselves. In reading the
biblical sources, one should keep in mind that only the perspective of the southerners has survived in writing. Thus, at
best, our understanding of ancient Israelite history is one-sided at its worst, and most probably, the cultic depravity of
the northerners has been e!aggerated.
To illustrate their confrontationalism, we need only point to their most conspicuous bone of contention"the
#anaanite cult of the bovine. Mythologically and symbolically considered, the famous calf sculpture that the first
$evitic high priest, %aron, has set up for worship &Exodus '(), and the ones *eroboam is said to have set up at
sanctuaries in Bethel and at +an &1 Kings ,(-(.), have served similar #anaanite nuances as the twelve calves that
supported the bron/e basin documented for the *erusalem temple &1 Kings 0-('1(2 and 2 Chronicles 3-(14). %ll the
complaints about the apostasy of northerners, on the part of southern kings and their prophetic supporters, must be
evaluated in light of the fact that, ordinarily in this world, a loss of hegemony breeds resentment and bad blood.
Modern rationalists often dismiss ancient conflicts about cultic behavior as proceeding essentially from irrational
thinking, and they include in this 5udgment all religious behavior to boot. But such evaluations usually fail to see the
6rational7 or political significance of unified religious behavior. In our introductory chapter we defined religion in
general as retreat behavior. Thus, politically and socially, the predictability of religious behavior implies that
whosoever bows to, or retreats from, the same greater-than-human configuration of reality as one8s own, together with
others, such a person can be relied on in emergencies or battles. In post-theistic and secular political ideologies,
swearing an oath to a national emblem or a flag, serves a similar function.
Back in the early literature of the Israelite monarchy, one finds the kind of flattery that was customary at grand
domesticator courts elsewhere- May the king have a long life9 May his dynasty last forever9 %nd in a complete relapse
into the :gyptian style of grand domestication, the /ealous prophets of ;ahweh themselves participated in that
idolatrous trend. The prophet <athan, who personally had been scheming to have =olomon installed as +avid8s
successor, is said to have gone so far as to attribute divine sonship to his chosen prince. >is words resound as if spoken
by ?od himself-
6I will be his father, and he shall be my son@ I will not take my steadfast love from him@ and your house and
kingdom shall be made sure forever before me your throne shall be established forever.7 &2 Samuel 0-,31,2)
The priestly poet who composed the second Asalm has recited this same message even more daringly"as
unabashed grand domesticators8 breaking and dashing, poetically sublimated of course. This poet, too, has
impersonated the voice of ?od-
6I have set my king on Bion, my holy hill.7 I will tell of the decree of the $ord- >e said to me, 6;ou are my son,
today have I begotten you. %sk of me, and I will make the nations your heritage, and the ends of the earth your
possession. ;ou shall break them with a rod of iron, and dash them in pieces like a potter8s vessel.7 &Psalms (-2
1C)
Born ever so gradually of court flattery and carried on the wings of poetry, a gradual transformation could be
observed in Israelite grand domestication etiDuette and liturgy. The internal politico-religious contradiction began to
stir, stretch, and sDuirm out from its narrow confines.
% reader of the psalm 5ust Duoted, invariably, will be impressed by how a poetic metaphor, an e!aggeration, is
able to bla/e a trail beyond itself and beyond present political realities"6aesthetically,7 if you like. Eor contemplating
the possibilities of this process of artistic e!aggeration, by way of considering still another step in the aesthetic
sublimation of this psalm, one need only re-e!perience it under the wonderful musical umbrella that ?eorge Eriedrich
>Fndel constructed for it in his inspired oratorio The Messiah. There the terrible smashing and the dashing sounds
rather wonderful.
Isaiah and Micah
In the poetic prophesies of Isaiah &eighth century B.#.:.) court flattery was elevated unambiguously above the
raw desire for dynasty and throne. =o, for instance, Isaiah C-(10 still echoes many polite phrases of <ear :astern court
etiDuette. =ome scholars have suggested that this particular 6messianic passage7 originally may have been recited while
celebrating the accession of Ging >e/ekiah to the throne of *udah-
AHgina ,. de (4 >ebrew Eire"from
,4IJ2I(J,3 file-III#-IKsersIKsuarioI%pp+ataI$ocalITempI$owIEG;B.'LM.htm
For unto us a child is born, to us a son is given; and the government will be upon his shoulder, and his name will
be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, rince of eace!" #f the increase of his
government and of peace there will be no end, upon the throne of $avid, and over his %ingdom&! 'he (eal of
the )ord of hosts will do this! *Isaiah +,-./0
Even after ma%ing allowances for a generous amount of flattery, this passage in its e1tant form no longer fits very
well the coronation of an ordinary human %ing! 'hese words of poetry soar high, so as to leave any %ind of human
2e(e%iah far behind in the dust of this world! 3s a result of having transcended their mortal sub4ect matter, these words
actually have ceased to be mere dishonest court flattery! Carried on wings of superlatives and metaphors, such
magnificent words were in homo sapiens minds miraculously transformed! 5esounding as direct echoes from the
mouth of God, in the eternal presence of which they were recited, these words suddenly had to be rationali(ed as honest
and serious 6prophesy67or else ris% the human mind getting caught 4esting dishonestly in the presence of the holy
God!
8saiah has abandoned the hope of e1pecting very much from a mortal contemporary %ing! rophetically he
therefore proceeded to describe an ideal %ing instead, one whose arrival realistically could be hoped for only in the
future! )oo%ing away from the present %ing who sat on the throne of 9udah, the prophet has even permitted his train of
thoughts to start afresh with a newly born baby boy who, in a manner of spea%ing, is at the moment still out of this
world!"
8f we accept the suggestion of some scholars, that this te1t represents enthronement liturgy from the days of :ing
2e(e%iah, then it is possible that the passage ;uoted could have been written after disappointment had set in over the
%ing<s defeat under =ennacherib of 3ssyria! 8n any case, the prophet no longer had an ordinary human %ing in mind, one
that would disappoint again! 2e anticipated a %ing who was no less than Mighty God" himself! 'hus, beginning with
8saiah, pro.monarchic prophets gradually developed their political enthusiasm toward a new %ind of antimonarchic
trans.monarchism!
Micah was a younger contemporary of 8saiah, he too pro4ected the focal point of his hope forward into the future!
>ut he also loo%ed bac% into the past to the potentiality of a royal childhood! With a fresh start he humbly and
ambitiously began to re.envision $avidic history from scratch, beginning at >ethlehem, in the town which had been the
birth place of the boy-child that became :ing $avid!
>ut you, # >ethlehem Eph<rathah, who are little to be among the clans of 9udah, from you shall come forth for me
one who is to be ruler in 8srael! *Micah ?,@0
Hananiah and Jeremiah
'he 8sraelite e1periment with grand domestication began disintegrating after the death of =olomon! 8t came to an
end early during the si1th century >!C!E! when :ing Aede%iah of 9udah put in his lot with an Egyptian coalition against
>abylonia<s rising :ing Bebuchadne((ar! 2ere, at this important turning point in the history of 9udah, one finds two
prophets spea%ing opposing revelations on behalf of their God!
2ananiah prophesied in support of 4oining the Egyptian coalition, 'hus says the )ord of hosts, the God of 8srael,
8 have bro%en the yo%e of the %ing of >abylon" *Jeremiah @C,@0! 'he prophet 9eremiah, who regarded revolt against
>abylon to be folly, replied first with ridicule and some time later with a serious counter.prophesy, 'hus says the )ord
of hosts, the God of 8srael, 8 have put upon the nec% of all these nations an iron yo%e of servitude to Bebuchadne((ar,
%ing of >abylon!" 'o strengthen his statement further, 9eremiah accused 2ananiah of telling a lie and put a curse of
death on him!
=uch had been, beyond the realm of court flattery, the style of royal advisement in those days! Dnfortunately,
:ing Aede%iah heeded the wrong divine promise, or the wrong curse! Bebuchadne((ar destroyed 9erusalem and its
temple, wasted the land, and deported most 9udeans to >abylonia! 'here they were given some fifty years to get
weaned away from their dream vestiges of the $avidic monarchy!
When 9eremiah<s attempt at influencing his %ing<s foreign policy failed, he declared old religious covenants
abnegated, including the one that was believed to have e1isted between God and the dynasty of $avid! 3nd while
contemplating 8srael<s present situation he hurried bac% in time to also declare void the covenant that Moses had
mediated between God and 8srael! 9eremiah saw the old covenants to be replaced by the dawning of a new era of
personali(ed salvation7salvation on a universalistic scope! 2is new covenant insisted on a complete change of human
nature7a new creation, indeed!
Egina F+ de @? 2ebrew Fire7from
F?GH-G@HFI file,GGGC,GDsersGDsuarioG3pp$ataG)ocalG'empG)owGF:J>CK#L!htm
>ehold, the days are coming, says the )ord, when 8 will ma%e a new covenant with the house of 8srael and the
house of 9udah, not li%e the covenant which 8 made with their fathers when 8 too% them by the hand to bring
them out of the land of Egypt, my covenant which they bro%e& >ut& 8 will put my law within them, and 8 will
write it upon their hearts; and 8 will be their God, and they shall be my people! 3nd no longer shall each man
teach his neighbor and his brother, saying, :now the )ord," for they shall all %now me, from the least of them
to the greatest, says the )ord; for 8 will forgive their ini;uity, and 8 will remember their sin no more! *Jeremiah
KF,KFMKK0
N@@O
The Second Isaiah
'he end of captivity for the 9ews in >abylonia came with poetic fanfare! 3n admirer of the eighth century >!C!E!
prophet 8saiah, an anonymous poet now %nown only as =econd 8saiah, tagged an appendi1 to the old scroll7Isaiah IH
M?-! 'he fact that he got away with this deed suggests that he was a scribe rather high up in the rabbinic hierarchy! 2is
long poem e1ploded with fervor about the wonderful saving event that had 4ust occurred and that he himself had been
able to decode!
'he person who wrote =econd 8saiah can be introduced as a poet, that much is ;uite obvious from his style of
writing! >ut he also must be regarded as a prophet! oetry spo%en in the presence of God, impersonating at times the
voice of God or of his angels, is poetry that might better be named prophecy!
'he prophesy of =econd 8saiah opens with a song, a song of comfort, which was recited as though it was chanted
by the council of heaven itself! 8t was addressed to the 9udaic survivors of the nearly fifty years of e1ile, si1ty years for
victims of an earlier deportation! 'he concrete proof for this freshly announced divine comfort is given at several spots
throughout the poem, God has sent his messiah *his anointed one0 to con;uer >abylon and set his chosen people free!
3nd never mind if that messiah of Jahweh happened to be a ersian con;ueror that really did not seem to %now much
about the God of the 9udeansP
'hus says the )ord, your 5edeemer, who formed you from the womb, 68 am the )ord, who made all things6 &
who says of Cyrus, 62e is my shepherd, and he shall fulfill all my purpose6; saying of 9erusalem, 6=he shall be built,6
and of the temple, 6Jour foundation shall be laid!6 'hus says the )ord to his anointed, to Cyrus, whose right hand 8
have grasped to subdue nations before him and ungird the loins of %ings, to open doors before him! *8saiah II, @I.I?,F0
'he phrase hose righ! hand I ha"e grasped in Second Isaiah corresponds to a similar phrase on the Cyrus
Cylinder, a cuneiform record inscribed by >abylonian priests of Mardu%!
N@KO
8t shows the priests of the >abylonian
high god e;ually enthused, welcoming this ersian imperialist as their savior! 8ndeed, it seems as though Cyrus had
saved the >abylonian cult of Mardu% as well! 8ndeed, he had saved all cults in the land from the hands of a >abylonian
revisionist %ing, Babonidus! 'his invading ersian imperialist, in addition, has been given credit for having liberated
numerous divine statues, belonging to various city cults in the greater Mesopotamian realm, also for rebuilding their
regional sanctuaries!
3ll this does not necessarily mean that our poet from 9udea got his phrase directly from the priests of Mardu%;
rather, it means that both priestly sources probably obtained similar messages from Cyrus< own generous edicts! 3ll the
while, it is obvious that ersian propaganda in >abylonia was informed and advised by the priests of Mardu% who,
unabashedly, collaborated with Cyrus in the government of the city.state! 'hey probably had collaborated already
during Cyrus<s ta%eover of the city!
=ome portions in Second Isaiah, for e1ample chapters II and I-, contain e1plicit ridicule of Mesopotamian
polytheism! 'his hostile 9ewish posture, superficially, has %ept many scholars from considering the poet<s actual
indebtedness to >abylonian religion! 2owever, a historian who wishes to attain a realistic perspective must assume that
a reasonable 9ewish poet, of necessity, would have done some serious reflecting on >abylonian Mardu% religion during
his fifty years of forced e1posure to it! 3 9udaic rabbi could not have helped but see, and wonder, what the >abylonian
3%itu rites *the Bew Jear rites0 were all about! 'hese 3%itu rites were as central to >abylonian religion and statecraft
as assover had all along been for 8sraelite and =amaritan traditions! Many 3%itu rites were performed in public and
therefore could be observed easily!
'he disappearance and the return of the >abylonian god Mardu% were an integral part in these ceremonial
proceedings! Moreover, the behavior of the >abylonian chief deity was closely lin%ed with the fortunes of the %ing who
%new himself to be commissioned by the God! 'hroughout Mesopotamian history, the %ing played a %ey role in this
divine.human drama of suffering and redemption! 'he %ing was dethroned and deprived of his insignia! 2e was
humiliated to the point where the high priest of Mardu% would pull him by the ears, stri%e his chee%s, and e1tract a
confession to the effect that he had not sinned against the )ord of the countries, had not been negligent in serving the
Egina @H de @? 2ebrew Fire7from
F?GH-G@HFI file,GGGC,GDsersGDsuarioG3pp$ataG)ocalG'empG)owGF:J>CK#L!htm
God, and had not destroyed Babylon.
[24]
Later the face of the king was struck once more, to draw tears from his royal
eyes as a good omen for water and fresh growth on the land. All this had to be duly enacted in order to renew the land
and the year, thus sace and time, for another round of !esootamian balance and roserity.
"onathan #. $mith has commented on the negati%e confession of this Babylonian rite as an
incongruity&allegedly for the urose of stimulating discussion and gaining an entry into this archaic te't. (e
reasoned that, if anyone, it was foreigners who would ha%e destroyed Babylon when gi%en a chance. )isbelie%ingly he
asks, *+hat nati%e king of Babylonia e%er contemlated or was guilty of destroying or o%erthrowing Babylon,
smashing its walls or neglecting,destroying -sagila./
[20]
1he 2abonidus 3hronicle and the 3yrus 3ylinder suggest otherwise.
[24]
5riests of !arduk and collaborators
with 3yrus ha%e accused the last king of the Babylonian dynasty of ha%ing attemted 6ust that. 7n an emire where the
central seat of ower fre8uently was mo%ed from one con%enient caital city to another, the clause not destroyed
Babylon and Esagila seems to ha%e included the meaning of *neglect/ or *abandonment./
7n light of a wider religio9historical ersecti%e, the riestly in8uest during a Babylonian Akitu rite therefore need
not be written off as a *situational incongruity./ Any high riest of !arduk, who felt resonsible for the God:s cult and
for the balancing of Babylonian culture and emire, not only would ha%e regarded both rituali;ed slaings of the king
as roer but also reasonable and %ery necessary. 7ndeed, often in the ast cities and states ha%e been corruted and
ruined from within by follies committed by their own leaders. (uman go%ernment always reresents a two9edged
sword< one that cuts inward as well as outward.
=ne may see in the Babylonian Akitu tradition an archaic system of *checks and balances/ that the riestly cult
has been able to imose uon the king:s secular ambitions, as a means of delimiting a God:s generous legitimi;ation of
royal ambitions. +e all know that royal owers e%erywhere ha%e tended to become absolute when left unchecked.
!illennia were re8uired to fine tune this blessed *incongruity/ and, 6udging from such religio-olitical
arrangements elsewhere in human history and society, all these balancing measures robably ne%er really worked or
endured as well as e'ected. -%ery generation of humanists and masters of ceremonies has had to labor and to scheme
anew, as homines ludentes, to harmoni;e and safeguard their culture:s *cult %ersus state/ balance. -%ery generation
anew has had to in%oke greater-than-human reality configurations to safeguard sanctions that re%ented leaders from
turning ri%ileges into absolute rights. 1hey had to in%ent rituals that ket bene%olent dictators from taking the lead in
too many acti%ities.
3iti;ens of "udea, in 0>4 B.3.-., went into e'ile with the )euteronomic knowledge that their God rewards good
beha%ior and unishes bad beha%ior. 1hey had been taught how to interret di%ine unishments as e%idence of guilt and
sin. 1hroughout their e'ile in Babylonia they were haunted by the %ery same 8uestion "ob asked of God< +hat is my
sin. 1hey wondered whether collecti%ely they were guilty of something other than those eoles were who were not
e'iled. And so, at the end of their so6ourn in Babylonia, their $econd 7saiah answered these 8uestions by insisting that
suffering, although at some oint it may ha%e been God:s unishment, ne%ertheless has been a relude and necessity to
redemtion.
1he oetry of Isaiah 0? celebrates the notion of di%inely sanctioned and redemti%e suffering. 1he 8uestions that
the oet has raised are all tyically "udaic, and they ha%e been generated by the $econd 7saiah:s own e'erience of
deortation and e'ile. (is answers, howe%er, dared to draw hea%ily from the %ery core of Babylonian religion itself.
)uring the cultic rites of that religion the God !arduk disaeared temorarily from the land of the li%ing.
[2@]
1he debate still continues about whether in Babylonia the God !arduk actually was thought of as a *dying and
rising god,/ as such deities ha%e been categori;ed by $ir "ames Ara;er.
[2>]
7ndeed, reconstructions of the full Akitu
se8uence rely on bringing together !esootamian documents of se%eral culture strata. But in addition, 7 susect, the
debate thus far has relied far too hea%ily on a difference between latter9day 3hristian and "ewish %iews. According to
the 3hristian tradition, dying and rising taken together are reasonable di%ine attributes, whereas historians of "ewish
ro%enance tend to regard such notions as being unnecessary in a conte't of resectable $emitic religion.
But be that as it may, e%en if !arduk:s temorary disaearance during the 2ew Bear:s rite is not called death,
the king:s suffering before his national deity by itself demands some kind of theological9imerial arallelism or
6ustification for the riest:s asserti%e actions. 1he simlest moti%e of why a high riest should ha%e struck the king
aears to ha%e been the imosition of !arduk:s authority o%er that king. Beyond that, for a king to be struck during his
5Cgina 2D de 20 (ebrew Aire&from
D0,E4,2ED4 file<,,,3<,Fsers,Fsuario,A)ata,Local,1em,Low,AGBB>?=H.htm
annual reinstatement rite could best be justified, and can still now be best explained, by referencing such practices
directly to the very nature and habits of the sponsoring deity.
But again, be that as it may, we must not allow ourselves to be distracted by the emotive meanings that death or
resurrection carry here or there among scholarly traditions. What in the realm of the gods, or at the level of a God of
gods, could dying possibly mean? Certainly, it meant not death in the finite human sense.
nd together with these considerations, the existence of the text of Second Isaiah !" is itself a #udaic$Babylonian
datum that needs to be rec%oned with. nd such historical data definitely do transcend their Christian as well as their
#ewish significance.
&hus, the 'uestion whether (ardu% should be classified as a )dying and rising* deity really is beside the point.
&he central meaning of the %itu drama was that divine roles and royal roles were synchroni+ed and harmoni+ed. &hen
for the duration of a safe rituali+ed interval of renewal the ris% was ta%en for this arrangement to be interrupted,
interrupted only to be reassembled again more solidly. God and %ing together have )suffered* and have put forth an
effort, as it were, for the redemption and the renewal of Babylon. fter (ardu% had reemerged, the %ing of Babylon
once again could be enthroned.
,n full accord with Babylonian soteriology the )-ervant ,srael* in Second Isaiah suffered and was )cut off from
the land of the living.* &he poet considered him dead and proceeded, accordingly, to dwell on what could still be
salvaged from this sad situation. &hus, with an application of Babylonian soteriology and logic, the poetry of -econd
,saiah progressed from death to reemergence and new life. &he poet %nows that his gospel may indeed sound incredible
to fellow #udaic ears.
Who has believed what we have heard? nd to whom has the arm of the /ord been revealed? 0or he grew up
before him li%e a young plant, and li%e a root out of dry ground1 he had no form or comeliness that we should
loo% at him, and no beauty that we should desire him. 2e was despised and rejected by men1 a man of sorrows
and grief....-urely he has borne our griefs and carried our sorrows1 yet we esteemed him stric%en, smitten by
God, and afflicted. But he was wounded for our transgressions, he was bruised for our ini'uities1 upon him was
the chastisement that made us whole, and with his stripes we are healed. 3Isaiah !".45!6
,t is obvious that -econd ,saiah actually believed that to him the purposes of God have been revealed. 2e
proceeded to tell exactly how God has stepped into #udean history once again. 2e has led his chosen 7ersian messiah,
Cyrus, by his own hand. 8n the basis of the )Babylonian Chronicles* students of history can reasonably infer that
Cyrus participated in the Babylonian cult festival. that during the %itu rites he thus was humiliated, that he suffered
and subse'uently was re$enthroned.
9:;<
s far as the motives of Cyrus himself were concerned, no doubt, he suffered
all these indignities pragmatically, to legitimi+e his rule over Babylonia.
But then, the -econd ,saiah communicated the will of his God not as it pertained to 7ersian interests in
Babylonia, but as it affected him as one of God=s specially chosen people. 2is immediate goal was to persuade his
fellow deportees to return home. 2e either did not see, or he chose to overloo%, the pragmatism that motivated Cyrus in
his ritualistic participation, his divine suffering.
s far as -econd ,saiah was concerned, this 7ersian messiah of God invaded Babylonia for the primary purpose
of liberating God=s special people. s poet he himself experienced this saving event as if it were new light and a first
insight sent by God. &hen, while he was already at it, he proceeded to decode God=s riddle that had been put to #udaism
by way of their >euteronomic theory of suffering.
&he identity of the suffering -ervant in Second Isaiah is dual and triple. 8ne may identify in this text two -ervant
figures. first ?-ervant ,srael? signifies the people of #udea going into exile. &his -ervant died by the very fact of
having been exiled. But then, after the exilic )burial* of this -ervant, alongside )the wic%ed and the rich* of Babylonia,
there followed the rebirth of a liberated and freshly prospering -ervant ,srael. &his second -ervant was redeemed by the
sufferings of the first, of that same designation. &he first -ervant died at the very moment when freedom was lost to
@ebuchadne++ar, and the second was born when freedom was decreed by Cyrus.
&hus, the role of Cyrus vis$A$vis ,srael corresponded, in Babylonian terms, to the role of @ebu when he liberated
(ardu% from the confines of his netherworld mountain. ll the while, however, from the point of view of ,srael=s
sovereign God, the prophet saw neither (ardu% nor Cyrus emerging from netherworld and captivity1 instead, he saw
the new ,srael. 0rom the point of view of ,srael=s God, the larger scenario loo%ed li%e this.
7Bgina :: de :! 2ebrew 0ireCfrom
4!DEFD:E4G file.DDDC.DHsersDHsuarioDpp>ataD/ocalD&empD/owD0IJBK"8L.htm
For a brief moment I forsook you, but with great compassion I will gather you. In overflowing wrath for a
moment I hid my face from you, but with everlasting love I will have compassion on you, says the Lord, your
Redeemer. (Isaiah 5!"#$%
&he incorporation of a 'ersian messiah introduced into the theology of Second Isaiah a third (ervant figure,
)yrus, his mission closely fused with the fortunes of the second. &his figure was introduced on the strength of *udaic
messianism and +abylonian theology, together with the implicit gospel of redemptive suffering. Its introduction into
the scriptures of *udaism had far,reaching conse-uences for the distant future.
&he (econd Isaiah called for a reenactment of the ./odus, but the immediate result could be counted only in
small numbers of people who were willing to return to their *udean homeland. +eyond these meager results *udaism
produced later, under .0ra and 1ehemiah, much the opposite of what this universalistic (econd Isaiah had hoped for.
For its survival the new *udea retreated to narrow and defensive provincialism.
&he universalistic motives e/pressed by biblical writers of the poste/ilic period, such as are reflected in books
like Ruth and Jonah, reveal the posture afforded only by a liberal minority. +ut the fact that these books, too, were
collected and recopied is sufficient proof that some scribes and teachers persisted in laboring for a more universalistic
outlook.
It must be said that the universalism of (econd Isaiah itself, with all its international openness and awareness, still
contained some nationalistic blemishes. 2ere and there the poet,prophet appears to be still unduly patroni0ing toward
other nations. It seems so at least in these passages!
For you will spread abroad to the right and to the left, and your descendants will possess the nations and will
people the desolate cities (5!3%. +ehold, you shall call nations that you know not, and nations that knew you not
shall run to you, because of the Lord your 4od, and of the 2oly 5ne of Israel, for he has glorified you. (55!5%
(tanding, as it were, suddenly under the protection of )yrus, a strong messiah of 6ahweh who was made to
startle nations, miraculously appearing as if from nowhere, the prophet7s occasional relapses into nationalistic vainglory
do seem understandable. )oncerning Israel7s special status in relation to fellow humankind he still dreamed the dream
of *oseph (compare Genesis 3"% and he postulated favoritism on the part of his 4od. &hus, by way of such defensive
and nationalistic overstatements the wonderful book of (econd Isaiah has to the *udaic tradition not only helped
contribute a distorted view of other nations but also reinforced a latent martyr comple/. From *udaism that same
tendency to sanctimonious martyrdom was passed on to )hristianity and hence to some if its secular offshoots.
8 8 8
)laims to supraegalitarian chosenness, or to divinely sanctioned superiority, among peoples destined to live
together in a world also blessed with democratic ideals and awareness of a 4olden Rule, in the end always aggravate
and invite retributive leveling or persecution. &he )hristian e/ploitation of Second Isaiah, of preempting the sufferings
of the (ervant to signify specifically the sufferings of )hrist9claiming the promised salvation for followers of )hrist
alone9has aggravated deadly competition between two :almost; universalistic religious faiths. It has heightened both
the irritability and vulnerability of )hristian and *ewish egos alike. It has isolated *udaism to persist in its diaspora of
sanctified uni-ueness, while, at the same time, it has saddled vast stretches of )hristendom with an idolatrous scriptural
fi/ation on that same divinely ordained uni-ueness. < deadly combination, indeed= >emocratically considered, the
)hristian scriptural idol of an ethnic :apple of 4od7s eye,; piously garnered from Zechariah ?!$, necessarily invites
vultures from near and far to peck at that eye.
<nd so, during the holocaust under 4erman 1ational (ocialism, in post,@ersaillesian anger, two
nationalisms9one seeing itself as having been :elected by 4od; and the other, more recently informed about having
been :selected by 1ature;9in moments of worldwide economic desperation, saw the younger grab the throat of the
older. <ll humanoid cultures thrive on robbing from among the possessions of the gods.
*udaism and )hristianity, two ancient universalisms that are more provincial than either side likes to think of
itself, persisting in half ignorance about their own histories and full ignorance about each other7s, will predispose
themselves repeatedly to new opportunities for conflict. Islam meanwhile has entered that same field, and it participates
in that same scuffle with similar 0eal.
8 8 8
(till, a historian must try to remain fair. +y si/th century +.)... *ewish standards, the universalism of (econd
Isaiah was remarkable and radical. (alvation had come to his people through a 4od-anointed 'ersian grand
domesticator. <nd that gospel of salvation, in its +abylonian historical setting, came nicely wrapped in +abylonian
'Agina ?3 de ?5 2ebrew Fire9from
B5CDEC?DB file!CCC)!CFsersCFsuarioC<pp>ataCLocalC&empCLowCFG6+$35H.htm
logic and soteriology. One wonders what could have happened had this Judaic poet acknowledged the worldly presence
of Persia as such, or had he spoken a clear word of appreciation to Cyrus's relatives. Soe facts of life and
relationships !est acknowledged here on earth" they need not !e eclipsed, necessarily, !y the personal privileges and
relationships that individuals achieve with their gods. #ut such historical realis apparently was not yet eant to !e.
$nstead, soething else has transpired. %he very introduction and presence of such a !ook as Second Isaiah into
the thought strea of Judais was destined, after a period of incu!ation, eventually to !reak forth with a new and a
different kind of religious rhyth, with a different religious style. & renewed awareness of redeptive divine'huan
suffering has ushered in a new era in the history of Judais. &nd, for the rest of the world, it changed #.C.(. to C.(.
#ack to )uckert'!i!liography
*+,
%his line of reasoning, of -ahweh theology confronting the (gyptian !ackground of. &un theology, is relevant even in the e.tree case of denying the historicity of /oses and his
e.odus fro (gypt. $f the (.odus tradition took shape in Palestine in confrontation with Philistine'Canaanite traditions along the (gyptian cultural frontier, then the pressures of the (gyptian
iperialistic theology were present 0ust the sae.
*1,
Sethe, par. 1+23145, in 6ans #onnet, Reallexikon der gyptischen Religionsgeschichte 7#erlin, +891:, pp. 4+34;.
*4,
See &dolf (ran, Die Religion der gypter, pp. 42348.
*;,
See ibid., p. 2;.
*9,
%he Sha!aka Stone of a!out <55 #.C.(. alleges to !e a copy of an earlier te.t. #ut, even if its date of copying is postulated, it still precedes the 6e!rew source, which generally is
dated at 995 #.C.(. or later.
*=,
See the e.tensive presentation of this ythology later, in #ooklet >ive.
*2,
%he Suerian words for living and ri! are hoonyous" they are !oth spelled ti. %hus the #a!ylonian goddess ?inhursag was referred to as
@oddess was nicknaed he Rib !ady. $n Genesis 1A1+311 (ve is that Bi! )ady, and in Genesis 4A15 she is /other of the )iving. See Con C. #en0ain, %he &da and (ve Story, 7+885:,
and the S. ?. Draer translation of (nki and ?inhursagA & Paradise /yth in Jaes P. Pritchard, ed., "ncient #ear Eastern exts 7Princeton, ?,J., +8=8:, pp. 423;+.
*<,
See, for instance, the ra!!inic tale that intentionally akes light of this story plot !y way of e.plaining why woen ust wear perfueA (ve's !asic su!stance was a ri!, an
organic su!stance that spoils easily whereas clay, the su!stance of which &da was ade, keeps indefinitely. See )ouis @inE!erg, !egends o$ the Je%s
*8,
$t pro!a!ly is an oversiplification to reconstruct the ancient history of $srael's religion in ters of only two priestly houses, )evites and Fadokites. & ore thorough reconstruction
would have to consider also )i!nites, 6e!ronites, /ahlites, /osesites, Dorahites, and possi!ly even the &aronites as separate priestly lineages. See J. /a.well /iller and John 6. 6ayes,
&istory o$ "ncient Israel and Judah 7Philadelphia, +8<=:, pp. ++1f. &ong relevant passages concerning )evites and Fadokites ay !e entioned in
'ings 1A49.
*+5,
>or the original oraliEed story itself, see Genesis 11. %he ?ew %estaent epistle to the &ebre%s shows the Christian continuation on that sae thee.
*++,
SGren Dierkegaard has argued that &!raha was willing to sacrifice $saac for @od's sake, !ecause @od reHuired this proof of faith. 6e rationaliEed this faith posture of &!raha as
the teleological suspension of the ethical, see >ear and %re!lingA & Cialectical )yric !y Johannes de Silentio 7+<;4:, trans. Ialter )owrie, in Bo!ert #retall, ed.,
7Princeton, ?.J., +8;=:, pp. ++=3+4;.
*+1,
Copare here also Jaco!'s self'interest and !argaining, in Genesis 1<A15'11, as a prelude to his su!seHuent prosperity.
*+4,
%he theological !reakthrough reflected in the &!raha story does not ean that huan sacrifice in particular, or over'doestication religion in general, were eliinated as a practice
in $srael, or for that atter in Judah. >or flagrant e.ceptions, see Judges ++A4+ff, 1 'ings +=A4, and Jeremiah 2A4+.
*+;,
Consider, for e.aple, the sacrifice of a young an, e.cavated in +828 seven kiloeters south of the great palace of Dnossos. %he proceedings of the sacrificial rite were interrupted
!y an earthHuake and !y su!seHuent fire, soe 4,255 years ago. See -annis Sakellarakis and (fi Sapouna-Sakellarakis, in #ational Geographic (aga)ine
*+9,
Consider for instance the JBanso %heoryJ in the history of Christian theology. $t still iplies a ore archaic and cruel deity than sees to !e iplied !y a @od who is the
JfatherJ of Jesus Christ.
*+=,
See J. /a.well /iller and John 6. 6ayes, " &istory o$ "ncient Israel and Judah 7Philadelphia, +8<=:, pp. =5f and 2+f, concerning thirteenth century #.C.(. city destructions.
ConHuest cities like &rad, 6esh!on, Jericho, &i, and @i!eon yielded no archaeological evidence of )ate #ronEe &ge occupation, uch less of destruction.
*+2,
%he author gratefully acknowledges this pro!a!le etyology as a suggestion of Cavid Iucher.
*+<,
6istoriciEed in the sense that the (.odus was ade the central guiding thee of the cult, as an acknowledged historical event. %he Passover rite, as cele!rated !y 6e!rew'
Canaanite refugees fro Philistine city'states, also ay !e understood as a ritual of roantic herder nostalgia. -israhel re!els and refugees retreated to sipler living in the hill country and,
aking virtue of necessity, iitated and idealiEed the pastoral life'styles of ancient patriarchs.
PKgina 1; de 19 6e!rew >ireLfro
+9M5=M15+; fileAMMMCAMNsersMNsuarioM&ppCataM)ocalM%epM)owM>D-#<4OO.ht
*+8,
&lthough arguents over e.act otives, eans, and ways of $srael's -awistic revolution still have not !een copletely settled and the historical synthesis still is incoplete, a
general consensus appears to have evolved concerning (gypt's over'lordship over the Philistines. >or the !eginning of this de!ate. see ?oran D. @ottwald,
?.-., +828:, pp. ;+5ff. $t should !e kept in ind that, still during the reign of Soloon, it was within the power of the (gyptian pharaoh to take and give the city of @eEer as a dowry.
*15,
Fadok was apparently a an of the local Je!usite, that is, Canaanite, faily of priests who traced their ancestry !ack to /elchiEedek. & later source,
rationaliEes Fadok into having !een a )evite. See also Genesis +;A+<315 and footnote 8, a!ove.
*1+,
Coentaries ordinarily cite the affinity of Soloon's teple with Phoenician prototypes. #ut siilar floor plans were custoary also in (gyptian teples of &un, the
conteporary nae for (gypt's One @od. See, for instance, the /iddle Dingdo core of the %eple of &un'Ba, at Darnak. )ionel Casson, "ncient Egypt
*11,
See also Jeremiah 41A4<3;5 and E)ekiel ++A+8. & siilar new relationship !etween @od and people was anticipated in &osea 1A15.
*14,
See Jaes #. Pritchard, ed., "ncient #ear Eastern exts Relating to the *ld estament, 4d ed. 7Princeton, ?.J., +8=8:, pp. 4+9f.
*1;,
6enri >rankfort, 'ingship and the Gods 7Chicago, +8;<:, pp. 4+4ff.
*19,
Jonathan F. Sith. & Pearl of @reat Price and a Cargo of -asA & Study in Situational $ncongruity, &istory o$ Religions, +=A+ 7+82=:A +3++.
*1=,
Pritchard, "ncient #ear Eastern exts Relating to the *ld estament, pp. 459ff, 4+9ff.
*12,
See >rankfort, 'ingship and the Gods, pp. 41+ff.
*1<,
See, for instance, Sith, & Pearl of @reat Price and a Cargo of -as.
*18,
%he evidence is soewhat indirect and conte.tual. Npon taking over #a!ylon, Cyrus slaughtered sacrificial sheep, offered incense, and constantly prayed to the gods, prostrated on
his face 7Perse &ccount of ?a!onidus:. %he priests of /arduk further wrote concerning their god, that he scanned and looked through all the countries, searching for a righteous ruler willing
to lead hi 7i.e., /arduk, in the annual procession:. See the Cyrus Cylinder. #oth docuents are pu!lished in Pritchard, "ncient #ear Eastern exts, pp. 4+134+=.
PKgina 19 de 19 6e!rew >ireLfro
+9M5=M15+; fileAMMMCAMNsersMNsuarioM&ppCataM)ocalM%epM)owM>D-#<4OO.ht