Blue Cord

This month’s Review of Biblical Literature contains a review of Calum Carmichael’s book Illuminating Leviticus: A Study of Its Laws and Institutions in the Light of Biblical Narratives. I had not heard of this book, but the blurb in the RBL (presumably taken from the publisher’s description) states:

The origin of law in the Hebrew Bible has long been the subject of scholarly debate. Until recently, the historico-critical methodologies [sic] of the academy have yielded unsatisfactory conclusions concerning the source of these laws which are woven through biblical narratives. In this original and provocative study, Calum Carmichael — a leading scholar of biblical law and rhetoric — suggests that Hebrew law was inspired by the study of the narratives in Genesis through 2 Kings. Discussing particular laws found in the book of Leviticus — addressing issues such as the Day of Atonement, consumption of meat that still has blood, the Jubilee year, sexual and bodily contamination, and the treatment of slaves — Carmichael links each to a narrative. He contends that biblical laws did not emerge from social imperatives in ancient Israel, but instead from the careful, retrospective study of the nation’s history and identity.

While I would not say that historical-critical methods (not “methodologies”!) have yielded unsatisfactory results, I am always open to a new theory. But just on the basis of this blurb, the theory sounds highly implausible. I didn’t have time to read Reinhard Achenbach’s entire review (which is in German), but the concluding paragraph is rather scathing. He states in one place that “in the entire book, there is not one philological or literary-historical proof to convince one of the position put forth.” Not exactly high praise.

Although I am usually glad to see a new book on Leviticus come out, I think I will have to pass on this one.

A new book out by Alan Bond and Mark Hempsell entitled A Sumerian Observation of the Köfels’ Impact Event claims that an Assyrian tablet from around 700 BCE is a copy of a Sumerian tablet that recorded a sighting of the impact of a asteroid [sic, not “meteor”] that hit in the Alps on June 29, 3123 BCE. The story has been reported in several news outlets, including a piece at Fox News.

In and of itself, the claim is not surprising. Mesopotamian astronomers kept excellent records and very detailed notes on astronomical events. The Ammisaduqa Venus tablets, for instance, contain notes on the appearance of Venus in the morning and evening skies in the Old Babylonian Period (around the 17th century BCE). These observations are precise enough to be correlated with calculations of planetary positions during that time, which makes them one of the lynch pins in chronology for that period.¹

I find three problems with Bond and Hempsell’s claims. One is that they try to connect this asteroid with the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah and a number of other cataclysmic events recorded in ancient documents. According to the Fox News story:

[Hempsell] said the size and route of the asteroid meant that it was likely to have crashed into the Austrian Alps at Köfels. As it traveled close to the ground it would have left a trail of destruction from supersonic shock waves and then slammed into the Earth with a cataclysmic impact.

Debris consisting of up to two-thirds of the asteroid would have been hurled back along its route and a flash reaching temperatures of 400 Centigrade (752 Fahrenheit) would have been created, killing anyone in its path.

Even if we assume for the moment that Sodom and Gomorrah were real cities that actually were destroyed at some point (a rather large assumption), a number of details from the Sodom and Gomorrah story don’t match with the Köfels event. First, this event happened in 3123 BCE, whereas the Sodom and Gomorrah story in the Bible is placed somewhere in the early 2nd millennium BCE. Second, the path of destruction would have taken out a lot more than just five cities around the Dead Sea. If the conditions were as Hempsell described them, then the path of destruction would have run across the Karak Plateau in Moab, over the Jordan valley, and up across the Central Hill Country of Palestine. This is a much larger area than was covered in the Sodom and Gomorrah story.

The second issue stems from the claim that the planisphere is a copy of a text from 3123 BCE. Sumerian writing is in its earliest stage in 3100 BCE. I find it hard to believe that we have such a detailed text from this time period. We don’t start getting numerous text in Sumerian until later centuries, and true astronomical observations don’t really begin until the 2nd millennium BCE. It is not beyond the realm of possibility that this text records the Köfels impact, but it seems highly unlikely to me.²

Third, the tablet notes that the Sumerian astronomer says the object looked like “a white stone bowl approaching.” If the asteroid’s path took it on a low trajectory over the Dead Sea area on its way toward the Alps, an observer in Sumeria would not have seen it “approaching.” Instead, it would have moved low across the southwestern horizon and would not have appeared to approach. The description of object as a bowl also does not match the trail of smoke and debris that would have been left by an 1 km wide asteroid.

Obviously I cannot give a complete critique of their work until I read the book, but I find their theories to be highly suspect. Both Bond and Hempsell are scientists, not Assyriologists, and their lack of training in the ANE shows through. I suspect they would have similar critiques of my work if I ever chose to publish a book on physics, which is why I don’t publish academic books outside my field. Although their theories may be given credibility by those who are eager to latch on to any evidence that suggests the Bible is historically accurate, I doubt they will be accepted by most scholars.

Hat tip: Claude Mariottini.

1. Because of my interest in astronomy, I did some work with these tablets when I was a grad student at Johns Hopkins. [back]
2. Someone who is a specialist in Sumerian could speak to this better than I could. [back]

I received word this morning that my proposal for a paper at this year’s SBL meeting has been accepted for the Pentateuch section. The paper is on the demotion of the Levites in PT and HS. It builds on some of the work that Steve Cook has done on interbiblical exegesis between the Torah and Ezekiel. I wrote about half this paper in the summer of 2006. Unfortunately, I got busy with other things and never got around to finishing it. It will be interesting to dive back into the topic at some point this summer.

The connection between the story of the golden calf episode in Exodus 32 and the setting up of the golden calves by Jeroboam in 1 Kings 12:25-33 is well-known. One of the stories is dependent on the other, although the direction of dependence is still debated. The problem has been discussed in a number of places, but I wanted to draw out some implications of these stories for the history of the priesthood in ancient Israel.

There are three elements of the Exodus 32 story that bear on the priesthood. One is the anti-Aaron story that forms a main element of the story. It is unclear whether there was an original form of this story that did not include Aaron,¹ but in the story as it is currently found he is an inseparable part of the narrative. The second element of the story that bears on the priesthood is the pro-Levite story in Exodus 32:25-29. This story is an etiology for the service of the Levites as priests.² Noth judged this story to be a secondary addition to the original J narrative.³

It seems likely that these two elements came together at a time when there were two priestly factions vying for control. Obviously, that does not narrow the time frame that much. Opposition between the Aaronides and the Levites seems to have begun at least as early in the monarchy, Eli may also have been an Aaronide. The Aaronides, who were probably a sub-set of the Levites, rose to a position of prominence in Jerusalem and soon became the only priests who were allowed to serve in the Jerusalem temple.⁴ The rest of the Levites were left serving in other cities. This would mean that all the priests in the northern kingdom of Israel were Levities, at least originally.

We are told in 1 Kings 12:31 that Jeroboam appointed non-Levitical priests to serve at his shrines in Dan and Bethel. This pulls in the third element of the Exodus 32 story that bears on the history of the priesthood: the critique of the golden calf.  If we are looking for pro-Levite / anti-Aaronide authors who would have reason to critique golden calves, then the Levites in the north are the obvious choice. From their point of view, the story scores points against multiple adversaries: it critiques the religious practices of Jeroboam while painting the Aaronides in a negative light.

This means this story in its present form must have originated between 930-722 BCE. Some of the traditions are probably older, and this phase of the development of Exodus 32 may have been oral instead of textual. But to me these three elements indicate that the story in Exodus 32 is of northern origin and is based at least in part on the reforms of Jeroboam. It provides a brief but tantalizing glimpse into the development of the priesthood in the 9th-8th centuries BCE.

1. Aaron is barely mentioned in the parallel account in Deuteronomy 9:8-21. He shows up only in v.20 and his sin is unclear. [back]
2. Why Durham says that this story does not justify the Levites ordination as priests is unclear. John I. Durham, Exodus, Word Biblical Commentary 3 (Dallas: Word, 2002), 432. [back]
3. Martin Noth, Exodus, trans. J.S. Bowden, Westminster Old Testament Library (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1962), 245. [back]
4. Zadok and Abiathar were both Aaronides, although Abiathar and his descendants were banished from Jerusalem for supporting Adonijah against Solomon in 1 Kings 2:26-27. [back]

As part of my writing for International Biblical Studies Writing Month (held over for a second month due to popular demand), I am writing an exegetical essay on Isaiah 65:17-25 for the Feasting on the Word lectionary series. I came across an interesting aspect of the passage that I thought I would discuss.

It is widely recognized that Isaiah 65:25 alludes to Isaiah 11:6-9. Isaiah 65:25a states:

The wolf and the lamb will graze together; the lion will eat straw like the ox; and the serpent will have dust for its food.¹

It occurs to me that this is a rather odd statement. The first two phrases quoted above envision a return to the conditions of the Garden of Eden. The imagery is right at home in this passage, which envisions God creating a new heavens and a new earth (Isaiah 65:17). It also matches the heavenly vision of Isaiah 11:6-9.

But what is going on with the serpent? In Isaiah 11:8, the child will play with the asp and the adder without being hurt. This would make us think that the serpent eating dust is in contrast to its previous predilection. But Genesis 3:14 (which was probably known to Third Isaiah) states that eating dust is the serpent’s punishment. This would suggest that while the other animals are returning to the peaceful existence of the Garden of Eden, the serpent still bears its punishment. This doesn’t match with the thrust of the verse or with the material to which it alludes in Isaiah 11:6-9.

Blenkinsopp offers the following suggestion:

[The author] was apparently convinced that, having been cursed from the very beginning, snakes are the one exception to this ideal scene of harmony in the animal world. The snake is therefore excluded from this transformation of the natural world, this return to the first creation, in which humans and animals are to live in harmony and none will kill for food.²

This explanation leaves me less than satisfied. After all, nothing states that the serpent is not going to live in harmony. It won’t be killing for food, since it will eat dust. And the main animosity in Genesis 3 is between the serpent and humans, not between serpents and other animals.

But I still don’t have a satisfactory explanation for what is going on with the serpent. Does Isaiah 65:25 see this as a positive or negative for the serpent? Is the serpent going to eat dust instead of attacking humans? Or is the serpents fate contrasted with the fate of the other animals through a reiteration of the curse in Genesis 3:14? What is going on?

Anyone have any ideas?

1. My translation. [back]
2. Joseph Blenkinsopp, Isaiah 55-66, Anchor Bible 19B (New York: Doubleday, 2003), 290. [back]