|
|
| | WEST OF GOD: AN OPEN CRITIQUE PART 6
THE WHAT AND WHY OF ISRAEL'S GOD
While there is an open debate as to which elements of the Biblical
narrative of the history of Israel are historical fact and which if any
are historical fiction, it is possible to construct a plausible
historical scenario consistent with the Biblical narrative in which the
invention of the particular patron deity of the Israelites would become
likely.
It has already been established through historical precedent that
pre-scientific age peoples in general prefer the apparent elegance of
the explanatory power of anthropomorphic forces in the form of
metaphysical intelligent agency to other possible explanations in
spheres of foreign knowledge [20]. It is also established that, whether
the Israelites originated from Mesopotamia or Egypt, or spent some time
in both places, they were preceded by and grew among theistic cultures
which often employed gods as explanatory-justificatory devices to
validate the structures of society (i.e. kings were ordained by or
fathered by gods, or became gods themselves). At a critical point in
the development of a burgeoning population of a significantly distinct
culture, it becomes necessary to develop further that independence, but
also to develop unity within that culture, with the aid of physical
separation and the development of a new identity as a self-governed
society. The growing tribes of Israel, after having developed
connections with either Egypt or nations of Palestine for some years,
on account of such vicissitudes of fate like droughts which encourage
collaboration, may have perceived an opportune time to sever
connections, escape non-advantageous subservience to larger societies,
and seize a land and national identity of their own. But the
Israelites, without the advantage of having conceived of natural
inalienable rights, or laws of nature and man, or a rational theory of
ethics, predictably chose a patron deity, and perhaps a formative
event, to pull the common people together into a cohesive new nation. A
developing nation in such circumstances would have no great difficulty
in finding a trustworthy god who would take charge and be the absolute
source of validation for ethics and national direction, because men
could always "discover" one if they could not decide on a favorite
ancestral deity. The upper echelons in the Israelite community appear
to have chosen an ancestral deity, the God of Abraham, Isaac, and
Jacob, to lead them to a new national identity. And a developing nation
in such circumstances would have no great difficulty in finding
formative events. The Israelites appear to have often engaged in
warfare to establish and maintain their territory, and nothing brings a
nation together like war for the sake of survival and identity.
While in some instances it is openly admitted that the Israelites stole
conventions from surrounding nations, such as with human kings and
their harems; and in some instances these admissions go without saying,
such as with prophets and seers; and in other instances an admission
would be potentially embarrassing, such as with the structure of the
desert Tabernacle following the pattern of a standard Egyptian temple;
and still in other instances an admission is particularly damaging,
such as when the Israelites were forced to accept the institution of
slavery because their law legalized it; it is yet never admitted that
the patron deity, which was made known through these other conventions,
was itself quite conspicuously designed for such a time and place as
when the ancient Israelites desired such a standard solution to
entering the world of nations. Yet on what grounds can this special
pleading be made, that Yahweh was the sole exception to the universal
rule that deities are man-made on demand when people are in a strategic
cognitive need of them, and in spite of the predictable aforementioned
evidences that this deity was indeed a product of its time? A typical
defense consists of positively framing what was supposedly unique about
the Israelite scripture and culture, as if to imply that, to the extent
that Israel was anomalous in a good way, it must have been
supernaturally discontinuous with its times. Everything from Israel's
monotheism, to its lack of religious iconography, to its use of written
law, to particular prohibitions and proscriptions in that law, and to
its emphasis on physical cleanliness in its rituals have all been fair
game in supporting the supposed supremacy of Israelite culture, from
which one is supposed to further infer a supernatural source. But it is
worth noting that this last inference is never warranted, firstly
because, to the extent that history allows an adequate glimpse into the
ancient cultures of Mesopotamia and the surrounding regions, it does
not so easily allow for the theory of an anomalous Israel [The Egyptian
pharaoh Ankhenaten circa 1300 BCE instituted monotheism on a national
scale, and Hammurabi made use of written law.]; secondly, because even
if some aspect of Israelite culture remains anomalous in terms of a
naturalistic theory of a strictly direct cultural descent of ideas,
that aspect is not anomalous in context of a humanity naturally capable
of generating like ideas; and thirdly, because the relative supremacy
of Israelite culture to other cultures of the time was too shallow and
base to be seriously attributed to the advice of an omniscient or
omnibenevolent being [While emphasizing cleanliness to a degree, God's
law recklessly failed to mention germ theory and the importance of the
sterile procedure, even for the safety of the number of children
undergoing the surgical procedure of circumcision. In tandem, even
modern theists are aware of the sub-par ethics of God's law, and will
openly admit of the moral repugnance of the ownership of persons as
permanent and inheritable property, much more the singling-out of
people of other ethnic groups to fulfill the demeaning role (Leviticus
25).]
An alternative approach to establishing the validity of the special
pleading for the factual existence of the Israelite deity is to argue
from instances of corroboration from archaeological evidence that,
since the contents of the scriptures are not entirely inaccurate, one
is free to infer that any kind of content that has not or cannot be
disproven has some favorable probability of being true. If a writer
knew his factual geography and the logistics of ancient warfare, he
probably knew his factual theology as well, and to deny this connection
is to risk being lambasted for revealing his own irrational
anti-supernaturalistic bias. Yet it is not difficult to recognize the
imprudent excess of credit-giving here, as the Christians themselves
may be quick to revoke their confidence in ancient historians whenever
the supernatural elements reflect the beliefs of Pagan cultures.
| | | Posted 12/4/2007 6:52 PM - 4 comments
- recommend
  - recs0
- give stars
- votes0
- email
 - sent0
|
|
