![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
sophiaserpentiaOne of the most eye-opening books i have ever read is Who Wrote the Bible? by Richard Elliott Friedman. Even though i have long since lost my enthusiasm for biblical exegesis, the insights i gained from that book stick with me and still deeply inform my thought.
The most stunning thing about that book, i think, is its clear demonstration of just how much the writing of scripture reflects the political agenda of the person or people who wrote it. It's one of those things that seems natural and honest when you think about it: it can't help but be the case. Everything i write reflects my various views and agendas. The same is true for all of you, and everyone else out there. So why should ancient people have been any different?
The answer often given to that question is that the ancient people were writing under the influence of spirit, but think about that. Does spirit take over your body and mind and give you word-for-word dictation? Did the ancients have a better connection to spirit than we do today? Unless you're prepared to claim this (and in doing so you'd have to answer a lot of questions about the obvious redaction and editing of scripture), then you must concede that scripture is at least in part the product of the human mind. And as such, it can only reflect the views of the person who wrote it.
Many people have heard of the Graf-Wellhausen Documentary Hypothesis, but Friedman went beyond this to demonstrate, quite convincingly, what the various original documents tell us about the agendas of the people who wrote them. As an example, i posted an extended excerpt here. He paints a picture of conflicts between different factions in the priesthood and royalty, and conflicts between the center of power in Jerusalem and the countryside, culminating in a divided nation with different religious practices.
Generations later, these factional divisions were meaningless in the face of the conquest and scourging of Israel and the forced reunification of Israelite refugees with the people of Judah. Their scriptures were blended together into a single document to mark their reunification - the end result being a script which reads like a mosaic. Further redactions were made several hundred years later in the wake of the return from exile in Babylon.
A couple of weeks ago, i proposed this general hypothesis of meaning: "Images and text will lose their meaning over time, in part because meaning is anathema to the power paradigm." The fusing of the previously antagonistic scriptures of Israel and Judah into a single unifying text is only possible because much of the original meaning had been lost.
At least two or three generations passed between the original writing of J and E. Other theorists place the interval at 200 years. Either way, this is enough time for a lot of the political meaning of the texts to be washed over.
The collection of words that make up scripture though still bear meaning, even though much of it seems cryptic. People of later generations, examining these texts (which have also tended to be appropriated by people in power, but that will come in part two of this post), attempt to recreate the power these words had over their ancestors. It is these attempts which result in the vagaries of religious doctrine.
The most stunning thing about that book, i think, is its clear demonstration of just how much the writing of scripture reflects the political agenda of the person or people who wrote it. It's one of those things that seems natural and honest when you think about it: it can't help but be the case. Everything i write reflects my various views and agendas. The same is true for all of you, and everyone else out there. So why should ancient people have been any different?
The answer often given to that question is that the ancient people were writing under the influence of spirit, but think about that. Does spirit take over your body and mind and give you word-for-word dictation? Did the ancients have a better connection to spirit than we do today? Unless you're prepared to claim this (and in doing so you'd have to answer a lot of questions about the obvious redaction and editing of scripture), then you must concede that scripture is at least in part the product of the human mind. And as such, it can only reflect the views of the person who wrote it.
Many people have heard of the Graf-Wellhausen Documentary Hypothesis, but Friedman went beyond this to demonstrate, quite convincingly, what the various original documents tell us about the agendas of the people who wrote them. As an example, i posted an extended excerpt here. He paints a picture of conflicts between different factions in the priesthood and royalty, and conflicts between the center of power in Jerusalem and the countryside, culminating in a divided nation with different religious practices.
Generations later, these factional divisions were meaningless in the face of the conquest and scourging of Israel and the forced reunification of Israelite refugees with the people of Judah. Their scriptures were blended together into a single document to mark their reunification - the end result being a script which reads like a mosaic. Further redactions were made several hundred years later in the wake of the return from exile in Babylon.
A couple of weeks ago, i proposed this general hypothesis of meaning: "Images and text will lose their meaning over time, in part because meaning is anathema to the power paradigm." The fusing of the previously antagonistic scriptures of Israel and Judah into a single unifying text is only possible because much of the original meaning had been lost.
At least two or three generations passed between the original writing of J and E. Other theorists place the interval at 200 years. Either way, this is enough time for a lot of the political meaning of the texts to be washed over.
The collection of words that make up scripture though still bear meaning, even though much of it seems cryptic. People of later generations, examining these texts (which have also tended to be appropriated by people in power, but that will come in part two of this post), attempt to recreate the power these words had over their ancestors. It is these attempts which result in the vagaries of religious doctrine.
