Be careful what you wish for.
Elsewhere, I've been asked about my affinity for liberal Christianity.
I'm not sure I'm comfortable discussing these issues with the above poster. But I'm always up for a discussion with Adrift, and if anyone else would like to join in, they're welcome.
Feel free to consider this an AMA thread for the former taoist, former lao tzu, and current Juvenal.
Pretty sure I wasn't so much being cryptic, as terse.
Mark Smith's theology is entirely irrelevant to me.
And, as I've said before, I don't believe you can justify framing the debate as "liberal" vs. "conservative." Archaeology and linguistics are no more suitable to me for theological debate than cosmology or biology. While all of these discomfit a vocal segment of Christianity, their discomforts are not pursued via scholarly interactions.
On the contrary, not only are the conservative positions bereft of interaction with these issues, they are best known for an unpardonable anti-academic ferver, exemplified by expulsions of even their most prominent scholars when they stray from orthodoxy.
With respect to Smith, I am referencing The Early History of God: Yahweh and the Other Deities in Ancient Israel and The Origins of Biblical Monotheism: Israel's Polytheistic Background and the Ugaritic Texts.
Conservatives may find his linguistic analysis of the Ba'al cycle problematic to their theology, but that is, as they say, their problem, not mine.
Smith's analysis, for instance, shows "elohim" is a cognate 'lm, the divine council of 'l, the principal deity of c. 16th century Ugarit, with 'l a cognate of the El attested theophorically in early Israelite place names like Beth-el; the prophets Samu-el, El-ijah, and El-isha; and Isra-el itself.
An independent linguistic origin for these names would form a meaningful counter. I'm not familiar with any such alternative, and am having trouble seeing how the underlying theology of such a counter would be relevant.
Archaeological evidence shows no evidence that Israelite monotheism existed prior to the Babylonian captivity. The discovery of a pre-Babylonian temple in Israel that did not incorporate multiple deities would similarly form a meaningful counter, and again, I am not familiar with any such temple, nor, again, what role conservative theology might add to any objective analysis.
Which has no meaningful counter-theory. Indeed, the only opposition I'm familiar with is Mosaic authorship, which makes no pretense of interaction with the textual issues addressed by the original documentary hypothesis and its later amendments.
This is also not problematical, even after restricting the god to Yahweh, with multiple archaeological attestations from Edom to Samaria, and also likely referenced in Jeremiah as the "Queen of Heaven."
I'm fairly sure that's not disputed by conservatives, depending on what one means by "originally." It's certainly undisputed that polytheism was the most common religious practice during Israel's pre-Babylonian history.
That's new to me, and surely not common, as far as I'm aware. In fact, the aborted sacrifice of Isaac reads best to me as a polemic against the practice. Its practice in Israel is certainly not promoted by Smith, or any other author I've read, which is admittedly a smaller list than yours.
After the late bronze age collapse of the Mediterranean empires in the 13th century, the few Canaanite survivors were all lower class. And it should be noted that west Canaan was previously part of Egypt. They didn't have to leave Egypt if Egypt left them.
That's a misrepresentation. No one says Yahweh rose through the ranks. Like the Ba'als, he found a people willing to promote him above the rest, which was apparently the thing to do. In the process, they adopted his epithets, and priestly offices, and cultic practices, inter alia, a practice so amenable to pantheons, it was later adopted by both the Greeks and Romans.
There is limited but very suggestive support for this theory.
There is a Yhw attested among the Shasu in Midian. Abram and Sarai were renamed to include an added "h" by Yhwh. There is evidence of a special animosity toward the Midianites. Fraternal fights are always the most vicious.
Smith has found evidence for many of those views. I make the distinction as it is also the distinction between faith and scholarship. Further evidence, and further thought, have modified his views as is apparent in his prefaces to later editions, something which may also be possible for one's faith, but with an associated risk that has no analogue.
As I've said, you're much better read than I am, in this field anyway, as is showmeproof. This is just barely a hobby for me.
I know Finkelstein, Dever, Friedman and Walton from this list, and would add Peter Enns as a more approachable author for those who'd rather avoid Smith's morass of footnotes and endnotes.
I'd also point out that while Walton could fairly be said to lean toward the more conservative side, he's similarly been regularly rebuked by them for not being conservative enough.
Elsewhere, I've been asked about my affinity for liberal Christianity.
Originally posted by Juvenal
I'd be interested in knowing more about this -- perhaps another thread?
Feel free to consider this an AMA thread for the former taoist, former lao tzu, and current Juvenal.
Originally posted by Adrift
... but Mark Smith is an Old Testament scholar who is part of the mainstream liberal view on the Old Testament.
And, as I've said before, I don't believe you can justify framing the debate as "liberal" vs. "conservative." Archaeology and linguistics are no more suitable to me for theological debate than cosmology or biology. While all of these discomfit a vocal segment of Christianity, their discomforts are not pursued via scholarly interactions.
On the contrary, not only are the conservative positions bereft of interaction with these issues, they are best known for an unpardonable anti-academic ferver, exemplified by expulsions of even their most prominent scholars when they stray from orthodoxy.
With respect to Smith, I am referencing The Early History of God: Yahweh and the Other Deities in Ancient Israel and The Origins of Biblical Monotheism: Israel's Polytheistic Background and the Ugaritic Texts.
Conservatives may find his linguistic analysis of the Ba'al cycle problematic to their theology, but that is, as they say, their problem, not mine.
Smith's analysis, for instance, shows "elohim" is a cognate 'lm, the divine council of 'l, the principal deity of c. 16th century Ugarit, with 'l a cognate of the El attested theophorically in early Israelite place names like Beth-el; the prophets Samu-el, El-ijah, and El-isha; and Isra-el itself.
An independent linguistic origin for these names would form a meaningful counter. I'm not familiar with any such alternative, and am having trouble seeing how the underlying theology of such a counter would be relevant.
Archaeological evidence shows no evidence that Israelite monotheism existed prior to the Babylonian captivity. The discovery of a pre-Babylonian temple in Israel that did not incorporate multiple deities would similarly form a meaningful counter, and again, I am not familiar with any such temple, nor, again, what role conservative theology might add to any objective analysis.
Stuff like the Documentary Hypothesis ...
... the multiple Genesis and Noah narratives ...
... God having a wife (Asherah) ...
... the Israelites were originally polytheistic ...
... the Israelites were originally commanded by Yahweh to commit child sacrifice ...
... the Israelites never entered/left Egypt and are actually a lower class of Canaanites who went off and did their own thing ...
Yahweh was a lower god in Elohim's pantheon who rose through the ranks to displace him ...
Yahweh was a god borrowed from Midian, etc.
There is a Yhw attested among the Shasu in Midian. Abram and Sarai were renamed to include an added "h" by Yhwh. There is evidence of a special animosity toward the Midianites. Fraternal fights are always the most vicious.
If I recall, Smith is a practicing Catholic, but still holds many of the views above.
You might remember that showmeproof was thoroughly familiar with his work and other liberal Old Testament scholars who hold similar views like Francesca Stavrakopoulou, Israel Finkelstein, William Dever, Richard Elliott Friedman, and Jon Day. Leaning towards the conservative side you'd have scholars like Michael Heiser, John Walton, John Sailhamer, John Goldingay, Tremper Longman III, Richard Hess, David Garland, etc.
I know Finkelstein, Dever, Friedman and Walton from this list, and would add Peter Enns as a more approachable author for those who'd rather avoid Smith's morass of footnotes and endnotes.
I'd also point out that while Walton could fairly be said to lean toward the more conservative side, he's similarly been regularly rebuked by them for not being conservative enough.
Comment