Trash Talking in the Tanakh

Goliath vs  Larry Bird

Larry Bird is one of my favorite basketball players of all time.  Despite being labeled as slow, unathletic and unable to jump, he led his team to victory after victory.  But he is well known for his trash talking.  For those of you unfamiliar with the term, it refers verbally getting into your opponents head by a barrage of non stop threats or predictions of how you're going to beat him.  Larry would famously tell the player who was guarding him- "I'm going into the corner and I'm going to shoot a three pointer and there's nothing you can do about it".  This cerainly takes the surprise out of the play, but he would generally get the shot off and score.  

There are two examples of trash talkers in Tanakh.  One is Ravshakeh the Assyrian general who put Jerusalem under siege during the reign of Hezekiah.  (2Kings 17 and 18)  He stood outside the wall of the city addressing both the common folk and the Hezekiah's officers.  In a nutshell he told everyone that they need to surrender to Assyria.  He tells them of other kingdoms that he has defeated including the northern kingdom of Israel some twenty years earlier.  In a moment of irony he tells them not to depend on God to save them because Hezekiah has removed all the bamot - the high places where people would sacrifice near their homes- because this is an insult to God.  He didn't realize that bamot were a vestige of illegal worship.  He lists the other peoples who depended on their gods and now are prisoners of the Assyrians.  Hezekiah's men on the wall tear their clothing in mourning as does the king himself.  Hezekiah prays to God.  He asks the advise of Isaiah the prophet.  Isaiah tells him God has heard his prayer and Sancheirev (Sennacherib) will not enter Jerusalem.  A plague strikes the Assyrians and they retreat back where they came from.  Sancheirev is later assassinated by members of his family.   So for all his trash talk Ravshakeh goes down to defeat.  

The other trash talker in Tanakh is Goliath the Phillistine. 1Samuel 17.  On the field of battle he curses David and says he will feed his body to the birds of the air  and the beasts of the field. Not as long winded as Ravshakeh but reminiscent of Larry Bird in that Goliath makes fun of David saying -Am I a dog that you come at me with sticks.  Larry would often taunt the player guarding  him- you can't guard me,  get someone who can play defense.  In the end Goliath is defeated by a single stone shot to his head.

Finally an interesting comparison between Goliath and Larry.  In our Masoretic text Goliath is 6 cubits and a span- about nine and a half feet tall.  The Septuagint and the Dead Sea scrolls  Samuel both give his height as 4 cubits and a span- about 6 foot and six inches.  Most likely the Masoretic exaggerated the height to increase the dramatic effect of David vs Goliath.  The height of 9 feet is unheard of and may exceed the limits of human physiology.  So Goliath at 6 ft 6 inches and Larry Bird at 6 foot 9 inches, both classic trash talkers.  It makes for an interesting matchup.

 Dark Matters

I temporarily depart from the usual topic in Tanach to consider something I have encountered in a recent course in cosmology.  There is something called dark matter and dark energy which is accepted by most physicists and astronomers.  Dark matter cannot be seen or measured.  Nobody has ever seen it.  Nobody has ever measured it.  There are various reasons given why we can't measure or interact with dark matter.  All the reasons are guesses and the reality is that nobody knows.  The same applies to dark energy.  Although it is  invisible but the  influence of dark matter and dark energy on our universe is huge.  It is generally accepted that more than 90% of the matter of the universe is dark matter and similarly most of the energy of the universe is dark energy.  Why are scientists so sure that dark matter exists.  You can't see it or measure it.  The reason is quite complex and most of it is beyond my understanding, but it stems from the  fact that if you calculate the gravitational forces in the galaxies of the observable universe, there is not enough there to account for the observed orbital behavior and the rate of expansion of the universe which is observed by modern astronomical instruments such as the Hubble telescope and the Webb telescope.

So in essence scientists are able to accept the existence of something they can't see, feel or measure because of the effect it has on our world.  This paradigm of thought should sound familiar to those who are people of faith.  The faith community looks at the world and sees the hand of God in its day to day existence.  We can't see Him or measure Him.  But we know He is there. The ultimate question is are the events around me just random or is there invisible force driving the course of our lives.  For many people of science it is easy to accept dark matter but much harder to accept the creator of the universe although the path of reasoning is similar if not identical.

The odd couple

Shmuel and Shaul 

     The story of Samuel's (Shmuel) birth appears in 1Samuel chapter 1.  In brief, his mother Hanna was barren and went to the tabernacle at Shiloh to pray for a child.  When she gives birth at the end of chapter 1, there is an explanation of the name she gives the child.  Now, most child naming in the Tanach involves an explanation of the name which sounds like the name- a pun - if you will.  There are many examples in the book of Bereshit.  At the end of chapter 1 in the book of Samuel there are at least 5 puns.  However the puns all relate to the name Saul ( Shaul in Hebrew).  So what's going on?

              In the book of Judges there are a series of stories about ad hoc military leaders who arise to       provide salvation for their tribe when the need arises.  Each tribe probably had an oral tradition  which was passed down.  These traditions were probably incorporated into the book of Judges and  other places in Tanach.  It is possible that the story of Samuels birth incorporates the story of Saul, a   hero of the tribe of Benjamin and later the first king of Israel.

              The question is why did the author of Samuel use the story of Saul.  One possible reason is that it was familiar to him and probably to others and oral traditions are prone to spread.  He may have used it as a convenience.  The birth of Samson in the book of Judges has similar overtones in that both Samuel and Samson were nazirites (one who does not cut his hair or drink wine)  from birth, this giving them an aura of holy warrior.  This might have been part of the tradition related to Saul.  But there is another possibility.  Did the author of Samuel use Saul's  "annunciation"  story to say that this was not only the birth of Samuel, but the beginning of   kingship  in Israel.  This is an idea given by Robert Polzin.  After all, one of the themes of the book of Judges is that the loose confederation of tribes during that period never functioned as a fused political entity.  Each tribe or tribes fought its own wars eventually resulting in civil war against the tribe of Benjamin.  This seems a way of showing that Israel needs a king rather than the loose tribal federation.

If this is correct, then the use of the Saul related puns in the Samuel story, besides being a brilliant literary device, is a harbinger of the coming monarchy in Israel.

   

 

 Matrilineal Descent and Ezra 9-10

    Until a few decades ago it was universally accepted in the Jewish world that the children of a Jewish mother were considered Jewish regardless of the religion of the father.  It was only starting in the 1950s that the Reform movement began to accept as Jews , children who had one Jewish parent.  Nevertheless the origins of matrilineal descent are somewhat obscure.  (Much of what I detail here is found in some essays and book chapters written by Prof. Shaye Cohen)

    The sources for understanding the origins of matrilineal descent are the Tanach, the Mishnah and the Gemara.  Looking through the entirety of Tanach one is hard put to find any evidence of matrilineal descent and for that matter conversion to Judaism.  There are a myriad of examples of Israelite men marrying gentile women.  Through marriage the women became part of the Israelite community.  Nowhere is a process for converting mentioned.  The first source suggesting conversion is in the book of Judith, an apocryphal book of the 1st or 2nd century BCE.

    Possibly, the only source in Tanach which may could be construed as indicating evidence for matrilineal descent during biblical times is in the last two chapters of the book of Ezra.  This episode relates that Ezra was informed that the people of the land, some of whom had come with the first "Aliyah" with Zerubavel had married foreign women.  This bothered Ezra greatly.  It would seem that for Ezra, conversion was not  a solution to the problem.  There is also an emphasis on the Cohanim and Leviim who have married foreign women.  The women they married include: Canaanites, the Hittites, the Perizzites, the Jebusites, the Ammonites, the Moabites, the Egyptians, and the Amorites.  Are we to believe that in post exilic times there were still Jebusites , Hittites and Perizzites?  It would appear that the author of Ezra is attempting to show that a Torah law was transgressed  by these marriages and hence the urgency to correct the problem.  But regarding the question of matrilineal descent, one Shecheniah says to Ezra that the women should be expelled with their children.  Ezra does not specifically endorse the expulsion of the children- only the mothers.  Does Shecheniah want to expel the children because their mothers were gentile and hence they were also gentile?  The whole episode lacks a certain consistency.

    It seems to me that we are not dealing here with strict halachik themes.  Rather the returning Babylonian exiles had undergone the punishment of exile and in a sense were "purified".  The magnitude of the intermarriage was so great in Ezra's eyes that it superseded any legal remedies such as conversion.  This might be similar to the episode in Leviticus 10 where Moshe is upset that the chattat sacrifice was not eaten.  Milgrom feels that because the death of Nadav and Avihu in the sanctuary precincts was such a serious breech of purity that the usual rules regarding a High Priest and mourning did not apply.  It was an ad hoc decision by Aaron , much as the decision of Ezra was an ad hoc decision.

 

What's in a name?

 

The answer to Shakespeare's famous question as answered in Romeo and Juliet seems to be : not much. But Judaism seems to place great value on names. For instance, the names of the holidays reflect may reflect values that are placed on them after the Biblical period.

The 2 holidays of Passover which are called “Pesach” (the evening of the 14^th of Nisan) and “Matzot” ( the seven day festval starting on the fifteenth) . Only in Devarim is the entire holiday called Pesach. But the name added in Rabbinic literature is Zman Cheruteinu- the time of our freedom. This new shade of significance emphasizes the historical aspect of God taking us out of Egypt rather than any possible agricultural roots of the holiday.

Shavuot is called the holiday of Katzir, Bikkurim or Shavuot- Harvest, First fruits or Weeks, respectively. These names reflect the agricultural aspect of the holiday ( Shavuot-Weeks indicates the seven weeks between the barley harvest and the wheat harvest ) . But just as well known is the name Zman matan Torateinu – the time of giving of the Torah. The Torah does not explicitly associate Shavuot with the giving of the Torah. The first such written source is in the book of Jubilees in the 2^nd century BCE. Certainly at this time and probably for some time before, the association of Shavuot and the giving of the Torah was accepted by everyone. The additional name of the holiday reflects this universally accepted theme.

Rosh HaShanah is in our day the New Year, even though it begins the seventh month of the year. In the Torah it is called zichron teruah – a memorial of blowing the horn or yom teruah - a day of blowing the horn. The holiday heralded the coming of Sukkot. The idea of Yom teruah becoming the New Year festival and day of judgment for the world probably dates to the years before the book of Jubilees, as there is a suggestion there of the day as a day of judgment. The calendar used by the Dead Sea sect and others such as the writers of Jubilees and Enoch had 4 “memorial days” . One each on the first day of the first, fourth,seventh and tenth month. It is not a coincidence that Rosh HaShanah retains that name.

Sukkot goes by two names in the Torah-Chag -Ha Asif (Harvest) and Sukkot. A verse in VaYikra states that God made the Israelites to dwell in Sukkot (huts). Asif shows the agricultural aspect. The name added by the Rabbis is Zman simchateinu- the time of our joy. The joy derives from the fact that only at this time, as opposed to Pesach and Shavuot, did the farmer have a few weeks off from farming duties. The holiday marked the end of the agricultural year. He could then, really celebrate. This made Sukkot the holiday par excellence.

The name Chanukah probably didn't stick until the 2^nd century of the common era. In the second book of Maccabees the original name of the holiday is “ the holiday of Sukkot in Kislev” . There are a few reasons for this which are beyond the scope of this article. The first century CE historian Josephus is unaware of the name Chanukah. He calls the holiday “Lights”. The 2^nd century beraitah in tractate Shabbat which asks Mai Chanukah ? ( What is Chanukah?) may not be asking a rhetorical question. The reason for the change of name to Chanukah may be because the Rabbis wanted to emphasize the restoration and dedication ( chanukat) of the Temple rather than the military victories of the Maccabees. Why the original name of the holiday was “lights” is unclear.

The name of the holiday of Purim was originally “The day of Mordechai”. Why the name changed to Purim and why the Megillah is named after Esther is also unclear. I could have been called the scroll of Mordechai or even the scroll of Ahasuerus, like the Chanukah scroll of Antiochus.

Names changes have other significance. When the Egyptians tried to exert power over Israel around 600 BCE, the Pharoah changed the name of Elyakim to Yehoyakim as a measure of his power over a potential vassal.

Taking on a new name had significance. A king upon coronation would take a throne name. In Judaism to this day, a sick person is sometimes given an extra name like Chaim, which means life, in order to help his recovery.

Stranger yet are the stories in Tanach of heavenly beings not giving up their name. Yaakov wrestles with the angel and then asks his name. The angel refuses to divulge it. Similarly Manoach, father of Samson, asks the visiting angel his name who also refuses to give it. The reason is probably that there was a belief that the knowledge of a secret name would give one power over it's owner. Consider also the name “game” that God plays with Moses in Exodus 3. Somewhat reminiscent also is the Rumpelstiltskin story.

Finally, God changes the names of the Patriarchs, Avraham, Sara and Yaakov. The reason is probably to be found in what has already been mentioned above.

In sum the answer to Shakespeare's question is that renaming something can give it a new look and new purpose.

                      Jeremiah and the Reform of Josiah

     Some things are conspicuous by their absence.   In Tanach for example there is the conspicuous silence by  Elijah on the golden calf icons at Bethel and Dan which were placed by  Jereboam.   One would expect Elijah who was such a zealot against idolatry to have said something about the golden calves.  Yet he is totally silent.  Similarly silent is the prophet  Jeremiah as to the reform of  Josiah . 

     In the eighteenth year of Josiah's reign a “book of the law” was found during renovations to the Temple.  The book of Melachim (Kings) tells the story of how this inspired King Josiah to “clean house” religiously.   He removed the Asherah from the Temple. He removed all the elements of foreign worship that had infected Judaism during the reign of previous kings.  He closed all the peripheral open air sanctuaries and centralized all worship to the Temple in Jerusalem.  Due to the collapsing Assyrian empire he was able to go into what was formerly the Northern kingdom, which had been an Assyrian province, and remove the priests of the peripheral sanctuaries and destroy the cult site at Bethel which had the golden calf. 

     All the things that Josiah corrected were in the book of the law which most scholars say is the book of Dvarim (Deuteronomy).  It appears that the book and its teaching had been sequestered at some point so that the knowledge of its content was lost to the majority.  Upon reading the book Josiah was shocked at how the nation had lost its understanding of G-d's teaching.   Josiah's reform was probably one of the most significant religious events since the giving of the Torah.  And yet Jeremiah, the greatest prophet of his time, is silent about it.  The question is why. 
   
  To answer the question we have to consider the timeline.  Jeremiah  begins his career in the thirteenth year of the reign of Josiah.  The book of the law was found in the eighteenth year of his reign.  There are scholars that question this chronology and in any event the bulk of his active ministry is later after the death of Josiah.  But if the chronology is correct, Jeremiah would be a relative newcomer to the community of prophets in Jerusalem.  In fact he mat have been still living in Anathoth.  This might explain why Josiah goes to the prophetess Hulda and not to Yirmiyahu to validate the book of the law.   Another reason is that it not the nature of prophets to give out "gold stars" for good behavior.  They rarely compliment the nation for good behavior.  They are primarily critical of bad behavior. So Jeremiah may have been silent about it even if he approved.
     There may be another aspect to this which is somewhat speculative.  Yirmiyahu comes from the village of Anathoth which is a few miles from Jerusalem in the territory of Benjamin.  There is in the book of Jeremiah 11: 19-23 a difficult passage describing how men of Anathoth wanted to kill Jeremiah.  These verses are somewhat intrusive as they do  not follow smoothly from the preceding verses.  The question is why did the people of his own town want to kill Jeremiah?  The town of Anathoth was town specifically for cohanim (priests).  Is it possible that these cohanim were officiants at the local sanctuaries- the bamot.  The cohen Eviatar who was one of two cohanim for King David.  He was exiled by King Solomon because he supported Adoniyahu, and not Solomon in the succession story.  He was also a descendant of the priest Eli from the Tabernacle at Shiloh.  The line of Eli was told by G-d that they would not continue because of their sins.  This line of priests likely made up a part of the priests at the local sanctuaries.  With the Josianic reform they were out of their jobs.  Thus it may be that Jeremiah supported the reform of Yoshiyahu and thereby incurred the wrath of his neighbors in Anathoth. So possibly his approval of the religious reform was left out of his writings for this reason.   So although there no textual evidence for this theory, the circumstantial evidence is intriguing.

Rating King Solomon

Most of the kings of Judah and of Israel are rated in the book of Melachim (Kings 1 and 2). The kings of Israel, the northern kingdom are rated on whether they promoted idolatry and particularly whether they followed in the sins of Yeravam ( Jereboam). This refers to retaining the golden calves which he had instituted at Bethel and at Dan. The Judean kings are rated on how well they walked in the footsteps of their ancestor David. Their rating goes down if they allow elements of idolatry to pervade their kingdom. But the author of Kings is also particularly concerned with eliminating the bamot- the local sanctuaries that existed at the time of the first Beit Ha Mikdash (the Temple in Jerusalem). These bamot were considered illegitimate as worship could only be done, according to the Torah, at the temple in Jerusalem.

Two kings -Chizkiahu (Hezekiah) and Yoshiahu (Josiah) get particularly good reviews in Kings because they made strong efforts to eliminate the peripheral sanctuaries.

King Solomon is gets mixed reviews in the book of Kings. He is noted as the builder of the Temple and of other sites in Jerusalem. However he carries some heavy theological baggage. He had 700 wives and 300 concubines. He had thousands of horses. He had great riches. In some cultures this would all be considered positive. In the Torah however the king is forbidden all these things. But the worst is that he built sanctuaries for his foreign wives so that they could worship the foreign gods of their native homelands and he ultimately turned to the idol worship of the surrounding nations. So the final mark for king Solomon is a failing grade as given by the author of the book of Kings.

On the other hand in the book of Divrei Ha Yamim (Chronicles) Solomon (and his father David) have all the bad things in their record expunged. Chronicles does not not mention Davids affair with Bathsheba, or his giving over the descendants of Saul to the Gibeonites. The book does not mention the many wives or the idolatry of Solomon . So why this diversity of opinion between the two biblical books?

The answer seems to be dependent on the audience that each book is addressing. The book of Kings came to final form in the last dark days of the kingdom of Judah and into the exile. This book explains why the kingdom of David split into two and why things went so wrong for Judah. The kingdom is destroyed and the people exiled because of the sin of idolatry especially on the part of the monarchs who were either complacent or actively participated in foreign worship for various reasons political and social. So it serves the purpose of the book to put in full view the transgressions of the kings and his subjects.

The book of Chronicles, on the other hand, is addressing the community which returned from Babylonia. Chronicles came to final form around 400 BCE, more than a hundred years after the return of the exiles with Zerubavel. The community is struggling to gain its footing in the land which is new for most of the returnees. For the returnees, who were all from Judah, the restoration of the Davidic dynasty and its religious institutions is a hope which still lives. So it serves no purpose for the Chronicler to air the past transgressions of the Davidic monarchs.

Hence the difference in the two books view of Solomon is based on the needs of their respective readers.