Following up on Avi's posts, I feel like the follow-up speaker to Barack Obama. Thanks to you and your family. You have shown us that skeptics can live in peace and love with the faithful. Shelly and Avi, both of you guys see the forest for the trees.כִּי מֶה הָאָדָם, שֶׁיָּבוֹא אַחֲרֵי הַמֶּלֶךְ, אֵת אֲשֶׁר-כְּבָר, עָשׂוּהוּ
... for what can the man do that cometh after the king? even that which hath been already done. (Ecc. 2:12)
This week's Torah portion tells the story of the golden calf. Every third grader in day school knows it well... there's something about the episode that just grabs the imagination. But this isn't the last golden calf in the Bible. The golden cherubs that adorned the Ark of the Covenant likely refer to winged bulls with human heads. And when Jeroboam is setting up the Northern kingdom of Israel, he institutes two golden calves, one in Dan and another in Beth El, at the ends of the kingdom. These are meant to replace the Temple service. Over the centuries, these calves turn into full-frontal idolatry.Even as a day schooler, this bothered me. Why would Jeroboam specifically pick golden calves for worship of HaShem? Didn't he realize that the golden calf was, like, the biggest sin the Israelites ever committed? It just didn't make sense that he would institute another set of golden calves after the punishment the Israelites had received for it the last time, in Sinai. Would the new king really dare to use the same exact language Aaron used when promoting the Sinai golden calf? Seems like political suicide to me.
These days, I suspect the golden calf episode at Sinai never happened. My guess is it was written during the later days of the Northern kingdom, in a kind of historical-fiction cautionary tale. The prophets of those days saw how bad the calves in Dan and Beth El had become, and wrote down a metaphorical tale (or possibly a historical legend, by that time -- see Tigay on this) "forewarning" these dangers. This explains why Jeroboam never considers or mentions the Sinai Golden Calf -- that story had not been written yet. It might also help explain why the tale of the golden calf is awkwardly separated from the story of the Ten Commandments by eleven full chapters of the Hebrew Bible. The two narratives were not written together.
Of course, many other reasonable interpretations are possible, including ones consistent with a single author of the Pentateuch. We could argue about this topic all day. But the lesson of these golden calves is clear. Both Aaron and Jeroboam never meant to make an idol, but it all spun out of control very quickly. It's a slippery slope. We must be careful what we do in the name of our personal crusades, be they religious or skeptical in nature. We must strive to see the forest for the trees, and think first about who we might hurt. We must be patient and not let our fear cloud our better judgment. After all, the road to hell is paved with good intentions.
40 comments:
I get your final point but your speculations on the way have a fatal flaw: they are only speculations based on what you find probable.
Posted by The Candy Man at 1:20 PM
מְחַלְלֶיהָ, מוֹת יוּמָת
What pisses me off about that whole eigel hazahav story is that supposedly the women did not participate and all they got was lousy rosh chodesh which just means you have to do two loads of laundry the next day. When chava sins, oh man, the world is coming to an end, we all get kicked out of eden, death comes to the world and so on and so on. But all these women stand up against idolatry and... and what?
Excellent points.
I recently learned the story of Yeraavam ben navat, for the first time, and I was floored at the lame explanations. The Eigel is passed off today as the the worst event in our history that we are still seeking Kaparah for. So it makes no sense that someone can dream of setting up an Eigel to entice worshipers from Jerusalem. He'd be totally ignored or even stoned!
But the question is, what's going on? Is the story at Sinai fully fabricated?
But how would E then think his tale would take root if the names and stories are so alike.
My theory is that there is some historic basis for a Golden calf but the the sinai story and the Yeroovam story are based on the same single event.
"So it makes no sense that someone can dream of setting up an Eigel to entice worshipers from Jerusalem. He'd be totally ignored or even stoned!"
Baal the people had repeatedly been guilty of worse idol worship. Why should he have been ignored or stoned?
In any event look what he says,
I Kings Chapter 12:28. And the king took counsel, and made two calves of gold, and said to them, It is too much for you to go up to Jerusalem; behold your gods, O Israel, which brought you out of the land of Egypt.
We have here a reference to the Exodus way before it was supposedly made up for political consumption by the Kingdom of Judah.
RG,
"We have here a reference to the Exodus way before it was supposedly made up for political consumption by the Kingdom of Judah."
The same person who wrote 1 Kings also wrote 2 Kings and that goes up all the way to the Exile.
CM,
Also interesting is Aaron's sons who died being Nadav and Avihu from bringing "strange fire." Jeroboam's sons were Nadav and Abijah (cognate of Avihu). Abijah died in childhood and Nadav ben Jeroboam was killed after two years as King of Israel.
"Therefore, behold, I will bring evil upon the house of Jeroboam, and will cut off from Jeroboam him that pisseth against the wall, and him that is shut up and left in Israel, and will take away the remnant of the house of Jeroboam, as a man taketh away dung, till it be all gone." -Ahijah the Prophet, 1 Kings 14:10 (KJV)
Orthoprax said...
RG,
""We have here a reference to the Exodus way before it was supposedly made up for political consumption by the Kingdom of Judah."
The same person who wrote 1 Kings also wrote 2 Kings and that goes up all the way to the Exile."
Yeah but he's believing the story for the calf. The most easy scenario to believe is that what was attributed to Jeroboam as his reasoning was said by Jeroboam. That's not including yet prophets of the Northern Kingdom who yet spoke of the Exodus.
Abijah was also the name of the son of King Rechovoam the rival King he became king after King Rechovoam.
I Chronicles 2:28. And the sons of Onam were: Shammai, and Jada. And the sons of Shammai: Nadab, and Abishur.
As you can see one can make too much of recurrence of names to make correlation, causation.
RG,
"Yeah but he's believing the story for the calf."
What are you talking about? The author of Kings doesn't refer to the golden calf of the desert.
"As you can see one can make too much of recurrence of names to make correlation, causation."
Both Aaron and Jeroboam make golden calves, they both use the very same words saying that this is the god(s) that took you out of Egypt, they both establish a festival and they both have two sons with virtually the same names who all died young. This is not some minor correlation.
Avihu and Avijah are as similar as Hoshea is to Yehoshua. Abishur is actually a different name.
RG, check Kings 1, 12:28 as you indicated. There is no indication that it was an intent to lead the people astray. It was intended as competition for locale, not for religion. The proof? See v 30 "And this was for a sin". The sin was not idolatry but rather for leading them away from Jerusalem. Even the Metsudos David says his intent was not to lead them astray. So we rturn to the question, how would someone even dream of setting up an idol, a golden calf. It is so obvious that at that time, there was no great stigma of Ain Ketaigor Naaseh Senaigor.
"RG,
"Yeah but he's believing the story for the calf."
What are you talking about? The author of Kings doesn't refer to the golden calf of the desert."
By "he" I meant Baal HaBos.
"Both Aaron and Jeroboam make golden calves, they both use the very same words saying that this is the god(s) that took you out of Egypt, they both establish a festival and they both have two sons with virtually the same names who all died young. This is not some minor correlation."
Not quite the same. Aharon did not say these are your gods. Others did. Aharon also said there will be a Chag for YKVK. Aharon did not rebel but tried to appease.
"So we rturn to the question, how would someone even dream of setting up an idol, a golden calf. It is so obvious that at that time, there was no great stigma of Ain Ketaigor Naaseh Senaigor."
He was able to lead them astray because they were susceptible to real idol worship like the tribe of Dan which was guilty of it due to Yonatan ben Gershom ben Moshe Rabbeinu.
"Judges Chapter 18...
30. And the sons of Dan set up the engraved image; and Jonathan, the son of Gershom, the son of Manasseh, he and his sons were priests to the tribe of Dan until the day of the captivity of the land.
31. And they set up for themselves Micah’s engraved image, which he had made, all the time that the house of God was in Shiloh."
Here's another instance of the same root Ab and the name Nadab for being used for brothers.
I Chronicles 8:30. And his firstborn son Abdon, and Zur, and Kish, and Baal, and Nadab,
RG,
"Not quite the same. Aharon did not say these are your gods. Others did. Aharon also said there will be a Chag for YKVK. Aharon did not rebel but tried to appease."
I don't have any need to convince you here. The similarities stand there free to see. Do you believe Jeroboam copied Aaron? How do you make sense of the similarities in the accounts?
"Here's another instance of the same root Ab and the name Nadab for being used for brothers."
Not the point. The point is all these similarities - names included. And the point is not just "Ab," but the cognate of Abihu. The name Abijah means the same thing as Abihu. This wouldn't be meaningful if Jeroboam's son was named Abraham.
"I don't have any need to convince you here. The similarities stand there free to see. Do you believe Jeroboam copied Aaron? How do you make sense of the similarities in the accounts?"
I hadn't read on this or perhaps I did but forgot. In any event he made sure to have NonAharonites be priests. He also made sure to make reference to the Exodus. He was essentially recreating history for the side opposite that of Levi which had not participated in the idolatry at the time of the Golden Calf.
>He was able to lead them astray because they were susceptible to real idol worship like the tribe of Dan which was guilty of it due to Yonatan ben Gershom ben Moshe Rabbeinu.
RG, you still do not seem to be listening to what I wrote.
OP, so do think that the Sinai version was based on YBN? or were both incidents really two versions of a single incident?
"RG, you still do not seem to be listening to what I wrote."
Baal the golden calf was not identified by Jeroboam with G-d.
>Baal the golden calf was not identified by Jeroboam with G-d.
Please back that statement u. I backed up my statements.
I Kings 12:28 And the king took counsel, and made two calves of gold, and said to them, It is too much for you to go up to Jerusalem; behold your gods, O Israel, which brought you out of the land of Egypt.
BH
It might be a bit ambiguous as to what the sin is referring to. It COULD be talking about the fact they went to worship the idols, not JUST worshipping outside of Jerusalem
RG & HH, then explain the Metsudos Dovid.
why do I need to explain MD? Do I ask you why Rashi had his own take on "PIM?" Or why any other commenter sees something that is usually not very pshat oriented?
Also, I am not really disagreeing as to him leading them astray. My only comment was regarding your quote about the sin.
>>why do I need to explain MD?
Fair enough, but show me a commenatator that says YBN and/or all the Northerm tribes, were intent on Idolatry (at that point).
Like I said, I don't think that was their intent either. All I am saying is that the author may have also been referring to the fact that they went to the worship the idols as a sin as well. It could hardly be considered that at this time, idolatry was NOT a sin. The text says they went after the one. This is an odd term that I don't remember ever being used for Hashem.
>It could hardly be considered that at this time, idolatry was NOT a sin.
Right, but an RG would never admit to that.
>Right, but an RG would never admit to that.
OOOPPSS, I think you misunderstood. I believe at this time, Idolatry WAS a sin and is something the author clearly realized and perhaps even had in mind. Sorry :)
>OOOPPSS, I think you misunderstood. I believe at this time, Idolatry WAS a sin and is something the author clearly realized and perhaps even had in mind. Sorry :)
I see, I did misunderstand you. Actually, it's not clear that Jews were monotheistic at that time....
"Baal Habos said...
>OOOPPSS, I think you misunderstood. I believe at this time, Idolatry WAS a sin and is something the author clearly realized and perhaps even had in mind. Sorry :)
I see, I did misunderstand you. Actually, it's not clear that Jews were monotheistic at that time...."
Baal when the Tanach supports your views you go for it otherwise you call it unreliable. What are you going to tell me that the Temple in Jerusalem contained idols?
Baal give me good evidence and then talk about me not admitting something.
>What are you going to tell me that the Temple in Jerusalem contained idols?
I didn't say that. (but who's wife was that, who had Teraphim in the house? Dovid Hamelech?)
>Baal give me good evidence and then talk about me not admitting something.
There's no need, I'm sure you're as familiar as I with the views that maintain that the Jews at the time were, I forget what that's called, I think Monoltary?
Baal why should it be that the Temple should have contained no idolatry if it was considered acceptable?
">Baal give me good evidence and then talk about me not admitting something.
There's no need, I'm sure you're as familiar as I with the views that maintain that the Jews at the time were, I forget what that's called, I think Monoltary?"
Yes but Baal it's bunk. You still owe me proof.
"I didn't say that. (but who's wife was that, who had Teraphim in the house? Dovid Hamelech?)"
Baal she was sticking them in bed and covering them over so people would think it was David HaMelech. That's hardly reverent or proof she believed in idols. Where is Shmuel and idols? Where are the Kohanim with idols? Where is Moshe and idols?
RG,
"He was essentially recreating history for the side opposite that of Levi which had not participated in the idolatry at the time of the Golden Calf."
Ok, that's one explanation. I think it ignores all of the evidence brought to light by modern Biblical criticism but that's your prerogative.
Baal,
"OP, so do think that the Sinai version was based on YBN? or were both incidents really two versions of a single incident?"
Well, I do believe Jeroboam's golden calves were real history - more or less - since Hoshea the prophet, who was of the period, rails against it explicitly several times.
But the fact that Aaron's golden calf is not noted even once by any of the historical or prophetic books save the late book of Nehemiah and another mention in the even later Psalm 106 suggests to me that they were completely ignorant of it and that it was a late addition, likely based on the then rogue character of Jeroboam.
But the question is, what's going on? Is the story at Sinai fully fabricated?
But how would E then think his tale would take root if the names and stories are so alike.
BHB, you have raised very important points here. My gut feeling is that the Pentateuchal scribes did not just make stories up out of the whole cloth. Such revisionist history would have a hard time gaining popular acceptance, even back then. After all, the Israelites prided themselves on historical accuracy.
Plus, details don't match up between the stories. For instance, the blame placed on the priesthood (represented by Aaron) in the Sinai story doesn't fit Jeroboam, who was not a priest.
That being said, there's little doubt in my mind that events in the era of the monarchy had a big influence on stories that appear in the Pentateuch. So the million dollar question is, how did these stories about the Pentateuch era arise, were they fiction or history or a little of both? And what was the author's intent? This is a question that applies to all Biblical scholarship, and one I've never seen answered comprehensively.
My theory is that there is some historic basis for a Golden calf but the the sinai story and the Yeroovam story are based on the same single event.
This kind of idea sounds like a good starting point. Although I suspect the calves existed in the days of the early Israelite monarchy, and probably Jeroboam *was* the one who set them up! I just feel like Kings is pretty historically accurate, at least about major events like this that are non-miraculous in nature. So what do we do with the Sinai calf, then?
>I just feel like Kings is pretty historically accurate, at least about major events like this that are non-miraculous in nature. So what do we do with the Sinai calf, then?
Just curious, why is Kings considered historically acceptable? What if the kingdom split but there was no calfs, but only inserted by an author pretty biased towards Judah and trying to make Israel look bad.
All of you would really enjoy James Kugel's new book, "How to Read the Bible".
In this book he presents in a very thoughtful (and well documented) way, a comparison between the ancient/traditional interpreters' views, and those of modern biblical scholarship. The latter of course is based on the overwhelming amount of information we now have (independent of the Bible) about the ancient Near East, including its religions, cultures, languages and literature. There is of course, textual analysis as well.
It is likely that the Golden Calf story was a retrojection of events and written long after these events supposedly occured.
What one chooses to believe is a personal choice, but this often includes the choice to ignore (or be ignorant of) the evidence.
>RG,Baal why should it be that the Temple should have contained no idolatry if it was considered acceptable?
Because that Temple was dedicated (at that time) to serve Yahweh.
>Yes but Baal it's bunk. You still owe me proof.
Mein kindt, sorry there are no proofs. You need to work on your Emunah.
>Baal she was sticking them in bed and covering them over so people would think it was David HaMelech. That's hardly reverent or proof she believed in idols. Where is Shmuel and idols? Where are the Kohanim with idols? Where is Moshe and idols?
Right, but where did she get the idols from? Shprintzeh? Surreleh? The rebettzin? Oh, I know! The cleaning lady!
>Well, I do believe Jeroboam's golden calves were real history - more or less - since Hoshea the prophet, who was of the period, rails against it explicitly several times. But the fact that Aaron's golden calf is not noted even once by any of the historical or prophetic books save the late book of Nehemiah and another mention in the even later Psalm 106 suggests to me that they were completely ignorant of it and that it was a late addition, likely based on the then rogue character of Jeroboam.
That's very interesting. Makes sense. But as I originally asked, if the issue was noted then as being evil, how would E have expected that his tale be accepted as factual. Interestingly enough, that's a question, that every cheder yingle asks! How could Aharon have done that?!! How did he give in, when Chur was strong enough not to?!
> So the million dollar question is, how did these stories about the Pentateuch era arise, were they fiction or history or a little of both? And what was the author's intent? This is a question that applies to all Biblical scholarship, and one I've never seen answered comprehensively.
Teiku!
Baal,
"But as I originally asked, if the issue was noted then as being evil, how would E have expected that his tale be accepted as factual."
The way to analyze such questions is to ask why such a story would be promulgated in the first place, not whether it would be accepted. The people who wrote the Pentateuch were largely doing so not out of a sense of history. Imagine that the writers of the Pentateuch wrote it with a similar mindset as those who wrote midrashim.
Perhaps it was specifically made as a response to Jeroboam's actions by the Levites of the Northern Kingdom. Perhaps they too were no fan of the Aaronic-line of selective priesthood and of Jeroboam's expulsion of the Levites from holy work, so they did a double blow in the story which ended with the Levites looking good and explaining why they alone were worthy to do such work.
"Interestingly enough, that's a question, that every cheder yingle asks! How could Aharon have done that?!! How did he give in, when Chur was strong enough not to?!"
That Hur did not give in is actually midrash - and the midrash explains then why Aaron acted differently than Hur. The Israelites killed Hur for interfering and Aaron feared for his life!
"Baal Habos said...
>RG,Baal why should it be that the Temple should have contained no idolatry if it was considered acceptable?
Because that Temple was dedicated (at that time) to serve Yahweh."
Great so why not have idols of YKVK representing Him in the Temple?
">Yes but Baal it's bunk. You still owe me proof.
Mein kindt, sorry there are no proofs. You need to work on your Emunah."
Mein kindt this isn't an area of emunah. I don't have as much faith as you do.
">Baal she was sticking them in bed and covering them over so people would think it was David HaMelech. That's hardly reverent or proof she believed in idols. Where is Shmuel and idols? Where are the Kohanim with idols? Where is Moshe and idols?
Right, but where did she get the idols from? Shprintzeh? Surreleh? The rebettzin? Oh, I know! The cleaning lady!"
She would have had to have gotten from some foreign elements that certainly existed. They weren't a part of a Jewish Pantheon of g-ds. Where is the Jewish Mount Olympus? I thought of your answer Baal but it was too weak an answer. Even if it would have been from Jews but that doesn't make it a part of our faith. You can't take foreign gods as being a part of the Jewish religion. What you need to prove is a collection of Jewish gods.
What Jeroboam institutes two golden calves, one in Dan and another in Beth El, at the ends of the kingdom of Israel this was a direct challenge to the kingship of Judah. I must digress to explain that the cherubs set up in the second temple (or on the ark of the covenant for that matter) represent the throne of God. My post at http://shmuzings.blogspot.com/2008/02/cherubs.html describes how cherubs represent the divine presence and the seat of God. So Southern kingdom Judah's Cherub and throne of God is 20 Amot. Along comes Northern kingdom Jeroboam and says, "Oh, yeah. Look at the throne of our God, it stretches from one end of the kingdom to the other!"
Post a Comment