|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Apologetics Ministries | |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|
|
Is the OT Contradictory in Its Opinion of Jehu? [Part 2] I consider our answer on Hosea sufficient, and so has indeed Glenn Miller, who in his own article on this subject now offers a condensed variation of our solution. However, if for no other reason than to expose the incompetence of Skeptic X, I'd like now to address the matter from the side of 2 Kings. Summary of argument: Jehu, if he is condemned by Hosea, is condemned because of his excesses in going beyond the command of God by killing more people than he was supposed to. Our material shall follow to a greater degree an outline previously set forth by Glenn Miller in his own exposition on this subject. Miller offered a listing of eight actions taken by Jehu. Some of these were within the parameters of Jehu's commission; others were not. In those others, Jehu exceeded the command to destroy only the house of Ahab. Before continuing, however, a word of clarification. Skeptic X makes much over our allusion to his Jury Ch. 1 essay's lack of mention of the slaughter of the priests of Baal. Skeptic X took our reply to be an indication that the Baal-bashing-fest ought to be awarded #9 status on Miller's list, and then proceeded to fill a great deal of space replying to this idea. The effort was an indulgence: No such argument was advanced by this writer at all. What was our point in mentioning the Baal-bash, then? Let us first look at the verses under consideration: 2 Kings 10:29-31 However, (Jehu) did not turn away from the sins of Jeroboam son of Nebat, which he had caused Israel to commit--the worship of the golden calves at Bethel and Dan. The LORD said to Jehu, "Because you have done well in accomplishing what is right in my eyes and have done to the house of Ahab all I had in mind to do, your descendants will sit on the throne of Israel to the fourth generation." Yet Jehu was not careful to keep the law of the LORD, the God of Israel, with all his heart. He did not turn away from the sins of Jeroboam, which he had caused Israel to commit. And now the original context of our remark: From 2 Kings, verses 10:1-17 are those that report the Jezreel massacre. Verses 10:18-29, which Skeptic X reports not a peep about, tell the story of how Jehu trapped and killed a number of priests of Baal. THEN comes verses 30-3, where God gives Jehu the promise. To this, Skeptic X replies: To Miller's list, I will add Jehu's massacre of the Baal worshippers...I will now examine these 9 points to show that they do nothing to alter the obvious inconsistency in the two views of Jehu's massacre at Jezreel. However, let it be pointed out that it was not argued in AJINOD Ch. 1 that the Baal-bash should become a ninth point in Miller's list. The argument we wished to bring across is that within the literary context of 2 Kings, verses 10:29-31, the "done well" comment applies to the actions taken by Jehu regarding the Baal-bash, whereas the "in accordance" refers only to what was done to the house of Ahab - with no direct comment on what was done extracurricularly. Although he eventually posits that it does refer to the deeds done to the house of Ahab, Mullen [Mull.DynJehu, 198-9] notes that "the stylized nature of the phrase makes it difficult to define 'what is right' in specific terms..." We suggest, then, along with Provan [Prov.12K, 216], that another interpretive option is available. Verses 30-1 operate as a fully independent literary unit in context; they act as a summary of what has gone on before. The "done well" response has nothing to do with Jehu's political actions whatsoever. The literary form of the passage, as well as the literary separation of the actions relative to the house of Ahab, indicates that the "done well" praise is in reference ONLY to Jehu's Baal-bashing coterie, for this is a significant event in the preceding material that had nothing to do with the house of Ahab. Our point, then, was that in failing to mention this extensively-recounted incident, Skeptic X left the impression that the "done well" phrase followed IMMEDIATELY behind the accountings of Jehu's political executions. But this is not the case, and the literary form here makes all the difference. Jehu is not praised for having "done well" because of his actions related to the house of Ahab. He is praised for having "done well" in regards to the Baal-bash. At this point, another objection by Skeptic X may be seen to kick in, to wit: Obviously, the writer was upset with Jehu's failure to stamp out the worship of false gods completely. How reasonable is it, then, to believe that this writer in a context in which he expressed disapproval of some of Jehu's actions would not have mentioned at all an offense so grievous that Yahweh would someday destroy the house of Jehu for it? By the same logic, we may ask why Hosea, if he was indeed displeased with Jehu's actions, was not more clear and detailed about it himself! Even so, the answer is found in the style of the Kings' writer. Our writer is of a dry and disconnected nature - he reports atrocities and beneficences with equally flat sentiment. "The writer of 2 Kings was not concerned to pass judgments of a political or sociological nature on the events he is describing." [Hobb.2K, 119] It is not his nature to comment, except for the monotonous, summary repetition of whether a king did good or evil in the eyes of the Lord which was applied to all of the kings evaluated, and he generally lets the data speak for itself without need for further explanation. That being so, we should not expect any such explicit condemnatory comments as Skeptic X suggests. For the Kings writer, readers are intelligent enough to understand (especially living as they did in the same religious and socio-political world) that Jehu's piling of his enemies' heads in front of the city was an unwarranted tactic of terror; they did not need it spelled out for them (as some skeptics seem inclined to insist!) that Jehu went beyond God's orders in certain of his actions; they did not deem it necessary at the conclusion of events to recap by saying, "Jehu was told to do A, B and C; but he did A, B, C, D and E, which was more than he was supposed to do, and that was wrong." No, they did not need such superfluous Howard Cosell commentary; no more than we need a narrator of World War II films featuring visions of Auschwitz reminding us that what we are seeing, by the way, is bad. Certain skeptics, I have noted, tend to assume that all readers, especially those of Biblical times, are stupid, and are required to have their obligatory reactions spelled out for them on cue cards, or like some manner of ancient laugh track advising them that what they are seeing is funny. They may be right in many cases. However, very few are or were so dense as to not clearly understand the crystalline message of the Kings writer. And Jehovah said unto Jehu, Because thou hast done well in executing that which is right in mine eyes, [AND] hast done unto the house of Ahab according to all that was in my heart, thy sons of the fourth generation shall sit on the throne of Israel. Of this, Skeptic X writes: Let's notice that the conjunction "and," which connects what (Holding) argues were two separate actions, is not in the Hebrew text. Hence, if (Holding) wants to talk about the "literary form" of the passage, he should consider that the absence of the conjunction in this verse is a very strong indication that the second statement was intended as an appositive of the first. The probable sense of the passage would be accurately represented if it read like this: "And Jehovah said unto Jehu, 'Because thou hast done well in executing that which is right in mine eyes BY DOING unto the house of Ahab according to all that was in my heart, thy sons of the fourth generation shall sit on the throne of Israel." This is the case, because (Holding)'s "literry-form" (sic) quibble demands that the two clauses be separated by a coordination junction. Since there is no coordinate conjunction in the original, it is more probable that the writer intended for the last clause to be a restatement of the first in order to emphasize the extent of Yahweh's approval of what Jehu had done. What ho? The argument just flies by here: Where is Skeptic X's justification for saying what the "probable sense" of the passage is, according to the vagaries of the Hebrew? There is none! Skeptic X is simply calling up rules of ENGLISH usage and applying to the Hebrew! (And by the way - who should we trust someone here who can't even spell "literary" correctly? Despite the quotation marks, that appears nowhere in my text.) But let's just, for the sake of argument, allow that this passage works the way that Skeptic X says it does, for it might indeed be true in this case under the rules of parallelism in Hebrew. Skeptic X says of the verse, in a later and more detailed paragraph (where "literary" is spelled correctly this time): Let's notice that the conjunction "and," which connects what (Holding) argues were two separate actions, is not in the Hebrew text. Hence, if (Holding) wants to talk about the "literary form" of the passage, he should consider that the absence of the conjunction in this verse is a very strong indication that the second statement was intended as an appositive of the first. Appositives are linguistic equivalents of that which was said before them. If I should say, "John Smith, the superintendent of schools, is my brother-in-law," the expression "the superintendent of schools" would be in apposition to John Smith. In other words, John Smith is the superintendent of schools, and the superintendent of schools is John Smith. The two are the same. Appositives can at times be more complex than this simple example and can even take the form of separate clauses. If someone should ask a friend what she bought at the mall yesterday, the friend might say, "I didn't buy anything, didn't spend a dime." In such a scenario, who would think that the friend was relating two separate actions? Anyone with common sense would know that the last statement was in apposition to the first. The friend didn't buy anything; the friend didn't spend a dime. So then, it is argued: The literary form of this verse makes it far more likely that the two statements were intended as one and the same thing, and I'm surprised that someone who prides himself so much on his apologetic talents as (Holding) does would not be aware of how much parallelisms (a type of apposition) are a part of the Hebrew literary form. I am, of course, aware of such things - and that is why I am aware also that Skeptic X has shot himself in the foot with this argument. The argument, basically, is that "thou hast done well in executing that which is right in mine eyes" is an exact equal to, "hast done unto the house of Ahab according to all that was in my heart." But our argument is that Jehu did nasty things to people OUTSIDE the house of Ahab, and that THAT (if anything related to 2 Kings!) is the source of the condemnation in Hosea! In other words, even IF the second phrase is an appositive for the first, then it is right in line with our own arguments. What Jehu "done unto the house of Ahab" was just fine and dandy: It's what he did to folks OUTSIDE of Ahab's house - Ahaziah, the 42 princes, and the priests and political supporters, as well as the above-and-beyond piling of the heads for the sake of political terror - that we argue is the source of condemnation under the established parameters. In order for this argument by Skeptic X to work, he must show that these parties listed were part of the grouping established in the second phrase - can he do it? We'll see as we progress. If not, then it's time for Skeptic X to see a podiatrist! Now of course, following this, Skeptic X pulls his usual shebang of quoting English versions (two, this time) of the passage which accept the sense of the passage he favors - never mind the commentaries; they're all in on the conspiracy, I suppose? Yes they are: We see more and more in (Holding)'s "apologetic" works that his defense of the Bible depends on unlikely, strained interpretations of passages that are rather plain in their meaning, and in appeals to the authority of those like Mullen and Provan, who go out of their way to find some way to reconcile the Bible with their desire to believe that it is divine in its origin. Well, Mullen and Provan would be surprised to find themselves grouped with the folks who think the Bible is divine in origin - in fact, they are moderate-to-liberal scholars who are doing what any good historian does: Seeking resolution before asserting contradiction. Even so, did I not say of Skeptic X: "...accusations of collusion and conspiracy are bandied about with the frequency of an Erich von Daniken monograph"? We'll be sending Mullen and Provan their membership cards a little later today! (And needless to say, calling the interpretations names and nothing else is far from providing answers to them.) Oh, and did I not also hint that the chauvinism would continue...? Award yourself a cookie if you thought this comment might come up: Such apologetic efforts as these make the god of Christian apologists look as dumb as a dodo, because in defending their view of the Bible, they have to paint a picture of a god who was too linguistically ignorant to say exactly what he meant in language that could be universally understood. Well, well - and my answer, as given in the essay on Jer. 7:22, is the same. At any rate, from here, Skeptic X basically repeats the same "foot-shoot" argument above; we come to nothing fresh until he writes: ...we are asked to believe that Yahweh thought that Jehu's approval of the golden calves warranted condemnation twice within the space of three verses but that an excessive massacre that would result eventually in Yahweh's destruction of the house of Jehu wasn't worth even hinting at. There is a big problem, though, with Skeptic X's claim that "approval of the golden calves warranted condemnation twice within three verses..." Aside from the fact that "approval" is not actually indicated ("indifference" is the most we can read from the text), the calves are mentioned specifically in only ONE of those verses - verse 29! This is appropriate, for it caps the account of the Baal-bash, in which the Kings writer recounts the destruction of the priests of Baal, and specifically the destruction of the sacred stone of Baal and the dismantling of the temple of Baal for later use as a Port-a-Potty. However, lest the reader think that Jehu was a model idol-smasher because of this particular work against Baal's do-boys, the Kings writer at once tosses water on the idea by pointing out that, despite the Baal-bash, Jehu left in place the most significant idols of all: The golden calves. On the other hand, our second verse, 10:31, makes no mention of the golden calves at all - instead, it is a repeat of the Kings writer's summary condemnation of all of the idolatrous kings, saying only that Jehu was not careful to keep the law of the Lord and did not turn away from the "sins" of Jeroboam - which is inclusive of much more than simply the golden calves! In other words, verses 29 and 31 are not identical, but fraternal, twins: The former done as a clarification of how far Jehu's zeal really went (in this case, it went as far as political expediency permitted!), and the latter was just the status quo and summary repetition of the Kings writer, applied to every king of Israel who fouled up. Finally, with an understanding the intent of the Kings writer and his nature, his lack of explicit condemnation of Jehu's excess is not unbelievable at all. The writer of 2 Kings is of a dry and disconnected nature; he is quite methodical and even predictable in his presentation, as the consistent parallels among his descriptions of each king's reign demonstrate. The excessive massacre was an event which he simply recounted and allowed to speak for itself, as he did any other evil actions that stood outside his standard paradigm. (As we shall see shortly, Skeptic X tries to throw water on the argument that the Kings writer is of the nature I assert, but we shall find, as usual, that the bucket is filled not with water but with clown confetti.) Skeptic X writes in response to my observation that the Kings' writer "is of a dry and disconnected nature" and therefore was not concerned to pass judgments other than his monotonous, summary repetitions. He accuses me of "incredible ignorance of this book" and goes on to cite 2 Kings 21:1-2 --. Manasseh was twelve years old when he began to reign; he reigned fifty-five years in Jerusalem. His mother's name was Hephzibah. He did what was evil in the sight of Yahweh, following the abominable practices of the nations that Yahweh drove out before the people of Israel. And then he says: So did the writer of 2 Kings settle just for this "monotonous, summary repetition" of Manasseh's having done that which was evil in the sight of Yahweh? Hardly! He went on to give a pretty thorough catalog of Manasseh's sins. From there, Skeptic X quotes this listing from the following verses: For he rebuilt the high places that his father Hezekiah had destroyed; he erected altars for Baal, made a sacred pole, as King Ahab of Israel had done, worshiped all the host of heaven, and served them. He built altars in the house of Yahweh, of which Yahweh had said, "In Jerusalem I will put my name." He built altars for all the host of heaven in the two courts of the house of Yahweh. He made his son pass through fire; he practiced soothsaying and augury, and dealt with mediums and with wizards. He did much evil in the sight of Yahweh, provoking him to anger. The carved image of Asherah that he had made he set in the house of which Yahweh said to David and to his son Solomon, "In this house, and in Jerusalem, which I have chosen out of all the tribes of Israel, I will put my name forever; I will not cause the feet of Israel to wander any more out of the land that I gave to their ancestors, if only they will be careful to do according to all that I have commanded them, and according to all the law that my servant Moses commanded them." Skeptic X apparently feels here that this itemization somehow overcomes the objection that the Kings writer is of a dry, disconnected nature. This is rather a surprising assertion from someone who professes to know literature. A bare listing of anything is usually of a monotonous and summary nature, and even this list of Manasseh's sins above is a list without extended commentary, one that leaves it to the reader to realize, "Yep, this was pretty wicked stuff" rather than making any effort to point it out especially. In other words, this is right in line with the methods of the Kings writer, just as I have argued: It just so happens that Manasseh's grocery list was longer than that of most of the other kings. But as far as being dry and disconnected, it is exactly that. It is a listing that is allowed to speak for itself: No one had to be told over and again that consulting wizards and building pagan altars was bad news. Now Skeptic X goes on to quote this verse: But they did not listen; Manasseh misled them to do more evil than the nations had done that Yahweh destroyed before the people of Israel. And says: I would say that this last statement was much more than just "a monotonous, repetition" of whether Manasseh had done evil. It was a ringing indictment of his evil. Skeptic X would say this, of course, since his argument fails otherwise, but he is simply off the mark. This indictment is simple and to the point, like the rest of Kings. Compared to the mouthfuls of description found in other indictment-type texts of the period (for example, the prophetic works of Hosea!), this is tame, dull, and rather unexciting. But he goes on to quote these verses following: Yahweh said by his servants the prophets, "Because King Manasseh of Judah has committed these abominations, has done things more wicked than all that the Amorites did, who were before him, and has caused Judah also to sin with his idols; therefore thus says Yahweh, the God of Israel, I am bringing upon Jerusalem and Judah such evil that the ears of everyone who hears of it will tingle. I will stretch over Jerusalem the measuring line for Samaria, and the plummet for the house of Ahab; I will wipe Jerusalem as one wipes a dish, wiping it and turning it upside down. I will cast off the remnant of my heritage, and give them into the hand of their enemies; they shall become a prey and a spoil to all their enemies, because they have done what is evil in my sight and have provoked me to anger, since the day their ancestors came out of Egypt, even to this day." Skeptic X observes, "(Holding) could say, of course, that the foregoing passage was merely a repetition of what Yahweh had said about Manasseh through the prophets..." And he is right: This is a fully independent literary unit that finds it's source in the words of God, not the Kings writer, who apparently had to ring up a prophet of God to get this juicy tidbit - he certainly didn't produce it himself! So what can Skeptic X say in reply to this? That "the following statement (verse) clearly expresses the view of the writer himself" : Moreover Manasseh shed very much innocent blood, until he had filled Jerusalem from one end to another, besides the sin that he caused Judah to sin so that they did what was evil in the sight of Yahweh. Now the rest of the acts of Manasseh, all that he did, and the sin that he committed, are they not written in the Book of the Annals of the Kings of Judah? Manasseh slept with his ancestors, and was buried in the garden of his house, in the garden of Uzza. His son Amon succeeded him. Of which Skeptic X says: Saying that a king had shed "much innocent blood, until he had filled Jerusalem from one end to another" is certainly more than a "monotonous, summary repetition" of whether the king had done evil. This, I must say, is profound literary ignorance. The Kings writer, yes, does refer to bloodshed, but that he packs it away in a single half-sentence (a "summary") and then goes on to engage his usual summary reference to the nation's historical annals and the place of the king's burial seems to me to be a sign of a very, VERY straightforward, summary nature! It just so happens here that this was a special aspect of Manasseh's reign that was to be highlighted; had the other kings done the same, it would have been pointed out as well, but what we have here is nothing but a most basic description that fits right in with the monotonous and summarizing nature of the Kings writer. It would be rather comparable to saying, in a history of Cambodia: "Pol Pot shed a lot of innocent blood, until he had filled Cambodia from end to another" - and then saying nothing else about the subject! To reduce genocide to the level of a summary today would be regarded as, at the very least, insensitive; at worst it would be completely heartless. It was not quite that way in the time of the Kings writer, but the point remains the same: This is indeed a summary! From here, Skeptic X goes on to make the same sort of argument re lists of righteous deeds for King Josiah; he also points out two passing references to Manasseh later on in the book, and details of Ahaz's reign that are listed - supposedly proving that the Kings writer was not into summary and monotony and was not an "impassionate" writer, but rather one, we are to suppose, who poured his heart and soul into what he wrote. But Skeptic X again fails utterly to conceive of this literature in its social and literary context. If Skeptic X thinks that making bare lists without commentary is an indication of passion, then one must guess what throes of passion he endures when making out his grocery list, or when balancing his checkbook. We are fortunate that Skeptic X is not a policeman, for he would probably find filling out crime reports too exciting to be endured. Lest a point be missed, let me make something clear. Skeptic X writes: The list of Josiah's specific acts of righteousness continued on through 20 more verses, but these are sufficient to show that (Holding) is wrong in saying that it wasn't the style of the writer of 2 Kings to go into details about the right and wrong that kings did except to speak in "monotonous, summary repetitions" of whether the kings did good or evil. All anyone has to do is actually read this book to see that the writer was quite often very specific in recording the righteous and unrighteous acts of kings. Skeptic X gets a big fat F here for reading comprehension; let's look at what I actually said again: Our writer is of a dry and disconnected nature - he reports atrocities and beneficences with equally flat sentiment. "The writer of 2 Kings was not concerned to pass judgments of a political or sociological nature on the events he is describing." [Hobb.2K, 119] It is not his nature to comment, except for the monotonous, summary repetition of whether a king did good or evil in the eyes of the Lord which was applied to all of the kings evaluated, and he generally lets the data speak for itself without need for further explanation. That being so, we should not expect any such explicit condemnatory comments as Skeptic X suggests. The point being: Skeptic X wanted to know how reasonable it was to suppose that the Kings writer would not condemn explicitly something that God was displeased with (the extracurricular killings). I pointed out that the Kings writer, with the exception of the summary repetitions re "good or evil", is not the sort to do this - he almost exclusively lets the data speak for itself. The Israelites knew the rules: If someone committed adultery, and the Kings writer reported it, they knew it was a violation; they did not need notice of it being a violation taped backwards to their foreheads to see in the mirror every morning. And so it is, indeed, for every one of the cites that Skeptic X offers up as supposed proof of the Kings writers' passion. All right, so the Kings writer makes huge lists of what the kings did, right and wrong. So what? Where's the passion in that? He makes the lists, but he doesn't make explicit comments of condemnation or praise outside of his summaries; he just lets the data speak for itself. Let's take, for example, the big list of Manasseh's sins that Skeptic X evidently sees so much passion in: For he rebuilt the high places that his father Hezekiah had destroyed; he erected altars for Baal, made a sacred pole, as King Ahab of Israel had done, worshiped all the host of heaven, and served them. Lots of passion here, huh! Really hot stuff. Did the readers need to be TOLD that this was wicked? Did the Kings writer go on apply all sorts of nasty adjectives to Manasseh? No - there is no more explicit condemnation here than there is in the references to what Jehu did to the folks outside Ahab's house. This is a list that is allowed to speak for itself in the given social context, and it needed no editorial decoration. All we have here is a standard list, and a standard comparison to previous kings. He built altars in the house of Yahweh, of which Yahweh had said, "In Jerusalem I will put my name." He built altars for all the host of heaven in the two courts of the house of Yahweh. Whew, the windows are practically steaming! I may faint! This is probably the most patently offensive thing (from a Jewish perspective) that Manasseh did on the entire list, and yet our Kings writer pokes over it in just TWO sentences, folks! Frankly, if someone set up a pagan altar in your church, I think you'd be in flames about it and write more than just two sentences with NO inflammatory prose whatsoever when the time came to write an account of the matter! He made his son pass through fire; he practiced soothsaying and augury, and dealt with mediums and with wizards. It's bad stuff, really bad, but where are all the horrifying adjectives? The best we get is this next sentence: He did much evil in the sight of Yahweh, provoking him to anger. Wow! Manasseh did all of these horrible things, things which cut into the very heart of Judaism; and yet - this is it? A short echo of the usual, "he did evil in the eyes of the Lord" refrain? If Skeptic X finds any passion in this, he must lead a pretty dull life! Finally: The carved image of Asherah that he had made he set in the house of which Yahweh said to David and to his son Solomon, "In this house, and in Jerusalem, which I have chosen out of all the tribes of Israel, I will put my name forever; I will not cause the feet of Israel to wander any more out of the land that I gave to their ancestors, if only they will be careful to do according to all that I have commanded them, and according to all the law that my servant Moses commanded them." And that's the close of the list, a bit more detail on the above - and here the Kings writer even lets someone else speak for him rather than creating his own commentary! Passion? This guy, whoever he was, couldn't have taken the ice off of a soft drink in the Sahara. He's dull, he's repetitious, he's concise, he's monotonous, he's direct, he's impassionate - and that's because he was imitating the style of imperial annals, works so dull that they made good sleep aids (cf. Esth. 6:1 - I mean this literally!). Again, I don't know what Skeptic X does for excitement - perhaps he goes down to the A and P and counts the artichokes - but if he thinks that the Kings writer is anything but monotonous and generally unemotional in his presentation style, then all I can say is, one man's monotony is another man's passion - and those who are scholars of the period and know the literature don't find a heck of a lot of passion in the Kings writer, even if Skeptic X happens to find his work exciting personally! A couple of asides by Skeptic X merit some attention: This is the god whose cause (Holding) and Miller have taken up, and they expect us to believe that such a god as this would be so inconsistent that he would overlook Jehu's refusal to stamp out the worship of the golden calves but was so angered at Jehu's excesses in eradicating the house of Ahab that Yahweh later exterminated Jehu's lineage.... This, again, is hardly relevant to our situation, but let's be fair and address the one point: How could God condemn Jehu's line for this excess when He put judgment upon others for these lesser offenses? Well, to begin of course, we will argue that there is not any such condemnation offered at all; but further, if Skeptic X wants to suggest here that it ought to have been for the golden calves that a judgment should have been given - it's awful hard to tell exactly what point he wishes to make, it is so lost in irrelevancy - then it hardly helps Skeptic X's case here. The majority of the kings of Israel left those calves standing, along with a host of other pagan altars, and were not judged with death for that reason. One may suggest that Uzzah, Nahab, Jehu, etc. were all directly responsible for their offenses, and/or desecrated an actual holy object of God, and/or disobeyed directly an order of God; whereas, with the golden calves, the OT kings after Jeroboam were only marginally responsible (the continued presence of the pagan altars was a corporate sin of the people of Israel) and did not directly involve such objects. Second Kings 9:1-10 clearly states that Yahweh selected Jehu to be king of Israel and sent him to completely destroy the house of Ahab, so we have every reason to wonder why an omniscient, omnipotent deity would have selected for a mission like this someone who would himself form a dynasty that would grow "hopelessly corrupt" and require extermination just as Ahab's dynasty. To which I say: Who does Skeptic X think should have been chosen? Does he have a better candidate in mind? I'm afraid Mother Teresa wasn't available at this point. However, since this involves questions of free will, predestination, and related topics of complexity, we will bypass the matter for now. We may well take on this general argument (which Skeptic X uses elsewhere) at a later date, but we will not dignify the attempt at diversion with a full exposition. Skeptic X is simply engaging the usual skeptical tactic of trying to elicit response on an irrelevant issue in order to cause the respondent to waste time and get off track. | 2 Kings Praise? For the purpose of the remainder of this essay we shall continue under the assumption that Hosea did indeed offer condemnation of some sort in the avenge/punish sense. We will find that even then, Skeptic X's exegetical construct is a highly substandard one. We will analyze, in the following order (according to their length), Skeptic X's responses to the remaining three items from Miller: 2. The killing of Ahaziah 7. The killing to 42 princes of Judah 6. The killing of Ahab's supporters, who were not his descendants |Aha, Ahaziah! In a supplemental reply, Skeptic X advanced the following argument. Noting that the parallel account of Ahaziah's death in 2 Chron. 22:6-9 indicates that Ahaziah walked in the ways of the house of Ahab, and that his death was "ordained by God," Skeptic X writes: So if Yahweh was so miffed as the house of Ahab that he would have commissioned Jehu to go and kill every male, both BOND AND FREE, in the house of Ahab, he surely wouldn't have minded if Jehu threw in Ahaziah for good measure and killed him too. ...If Ahaziah's downfall was ordained by God, then it wasn't very nice of God to cut off the house of Jehu's century later for Jehu's massacre of Ahaziah. At this point the sophisticated reader is certainly astonished that a man of Skeptic X's seasoned years would advance such a juvenile "argument." Ahaziah, though a grandson of Jezebel and a potential avenger of his brother-in-law Joram, was not of the house of Ahab; he was of his own house in Judah, in line with the social rules of the time regarding households. (Of course, had he somehow been part of the house of Ahab, then Jehu would have been obliged by his commission to get rid of Ahaziah's slaves, servants, etc. - see below - but there's no sign of THAT kind of action in the text, which is significant since it would have required an invasion of Judah to pull off!) Therefore, in killing Ahaziah, Jehu went beyond what God ordered - period. That it fit in with what God ordained is irrelevant, and proof of nothing more than that:
Moreover, this can be said: Advancing such "logic" as Skeptic X's, one (even a state-appointed executioner) could justify entering into a maximum-security prison and killing every inmate on death row, then shrugging it off with the maxim, "It was what the state had ordained anyway. I'm sure they wouldn't mind." Such logic, again, is reserved to those of immature mindset, and offers nothing in the way of an actual answer to the fact that in killing Ahaziah, Jehu exceeded his commission. It was by all means a course of political wisdom, but it plainly was done in violation of Jehu's orders. (And of course, we argue that the condemnation was not JUST for the killing of Ahaziah - Skeptic X argues here with the presumption that the remainder of the arguments are already refuted!) Skeptic X remarks in reply that the Kings writer says nothing about this being an error by Jehu (because he didn't NEED to, no more than he needed to say "this was an error" of many other heinous deeds recorded therein! - again, the readers of these documents didn't need cue cards to tell them when something was out of order), and then says: ...Ahaziah of Judah was the grandson of Jezebel, and as such, he was a descendant of Ahab and would have been considered part of the house of Ahab. Skeptic X goes on to argue further on this line, but there is no need for us to go further. As we will show below, in terms of the social rules of this time regarding households, Ahaziah was NOT considered part of the house of Ahab. Yes, Ahaziah was the grandson of Jezebel; but he was the son of Athaliah, who married someone (Jehoram) in the house of Judah - and thus became PART of that house, and no longer was part of the house of Ahab. Just as in modern times our convention is that a woman who marries takes on the surname of her spouse, and in line with the command in Genesis to "cleave unto the husband" and leave the original family, so it is that a woman of that time became part of the house she married into. Likewise, to use a popular example, Princes Charles did not join the House of Spencer when he married Diana; she joined the House of Windsor. Regarding the Chronicles paralell, concerning the Israelite mindset, Skeptic X says: Well, I certainly agree with this statement. The "Israelite mindset" was such that the hand of Yahweh was seen in everything; however, if something happened purely by accident and an Israelite writer said that it was "of God" or "from God," would that not be an error? The answer is: No. Skeptic X fails to understand here the point regarding primary causality. This could evolve into a discussion regarding free will, predestination, etc. - it has parallels in modern discussions regarding God's soverignty - but let's make it simple by cutting to the quick. Skeptic X agrees that the "Israelite mindset" ("Semitic mindset" would be more accurate, but we won't quibble) saw the hand of Yahweh in all things. Fine. Now let's suppose that Jehu's commission had been as follows: Jehu got up and went into the house. Then the prophet poured the oil on Jehu's head and declared, "This is what the LORD, the God of Israel, says: 'I anoint you king over the Lord's people Israel. You are to destroy the house of Ahab your master, and I will avenge the blood of my servants the prophets and the blood of all the Lord's servants shed by Jezebel. The whole house of Ahab will perish. I will cut off from Ahab every last male in Israel--slave or free. I will make the house of Ahab like the house of Jeroboam son of Nebat and like the house of Baasha son of Ahijah. As for Jezebel, dogs will devour her on the plot of ground at Jezreel, and no one will bury her. But be sure that you do not touch anyone outside of the house of Ahab. Do not kill Ahaziah king of Judah or anyone connected to him.'" Then he opened the door and ran, because a lecture by Skeptic X was about to start. So - let's suppose that we have this clear statement, and things nevertheless go the same way - Jehu kills Ahaziah and all the rest, thus disobeying his commission in a quite clear way that not even Skeptic X can work around. Question: Would the Chronicles writer have still said that Ahaziah's death was "ordained by God"? Yes, of course - no Jew could think of any event happening that was not ordained by God, and Skeptic X is right about it being part of the mindset. In terms of primary causality, though, events required no specific act from God, and nothing was viewed as an "accident" in cosmic terms - merely as an event that fell within the proper scheme of things according to what was just and right. This had no bearing on whether or not any humans involved had anything to do with it, and whether they were properly involved, which is where the matter of Jehu stepping in and taking his part without orders comes into play. This expression sees Jehu as no more acting under specific divine direction than a disease, a flood, or a rock falling off of a cliff - but none of these were considered "accidents" outside of divine purview and supervision (that is, they were not "accidents" in a cosmic sense - they could still be regarded as "accidents" in a human sense), for they were under the rubric of primary causality. Thus it is incorrect for Skeptic X to indicate that 2 Chron. 22:7 would be in error, for he fails to understand the social and theological concept behind the remark. There were no "accidents" except in the sense that humans could not themselves control the cause - but there could be disobedience. That leads back to my first point, which is that the Semitic mind perceived that what God wanted would be done, regardless of whether He was obeyed or not. Skeptic X also asserts that my prison analogy is "imperfect" because: ...if an official account of my massacre of "every inmate on death row," say, an account written by the governor or a proclamation issued by the state legislature, should say, "Now the destruction of the prison inmates was 'of [from] the legislature' or 'of [from] the governor,' to say the very least, this statement would be an expression of approval of the massacre. If not, why not? Why not? Because the legislature/governor (the latter is most appropriate here) would ALSO have a regulation that gives THEM the power to decide when execution would take place - and the two would have to be taken together, just as Chronicles and Kings have to be taken together, especially if we agree (as few do not) that the writer of Chronicles used Kings as a source for his material. Yes, the analogy is not perfect, of course, because a governor is not in charge of primary causality for his state, much less the universe - no analogy would be perfect in this scenario! My core point, however, is unaffected. Jehu acted outside his commission, and in terms of the mindset under which this was written, there is neither error nor contradiction involved. Following this, Skeptic X returns to his point re Ahaziah as grandson of Ahab. He claims that the Kings writer considered Ahaziah to be part of the house of Ahab because of these words in 2 Kings 8:25-27 (and a parallel in 2 Chron. 22) -- In the twelfth year of King Joram son of Ahab of Israel, Ahaziah son of King Jehoram of Judah began to reign. Ahaziah was twenty-two years old when he began to reign; he reigned one year in Jerusalem. His mother's name was Athaliah, a granddaughter of King Omri of Israel. He also walked in the way of the house of Ahab, doing what was evil in the sight of Yahweh, as the house of Ahab had done, for he was son-in-law to the house of Ahab. And Skeptic X writes: We see in the last statement that Ahaziah's "evil" ways were attributed to the fact that he was a "son-in-law to the house of Ahab." Thus, this writer considered Ahaziah to be a part of the house of Ahab. Well, that's a social-data bonehead statement if I've ever seen one. This says nothing about Ahaziah being a member of the house of Ahab; it says that he was related by marriage to the house of Ahab, which is not the same thing, no more so than Charles being related by marriage to the house of Spencer made him part of the house of Spencer - the point being, that Ahaziah picked up on the evil ways by marriage, having been influenced by his marriage partner's family. (The actual word used here is chathan, meaning a relative by marriage, especially through the bride.) This does not identify Ahaziah as part of the house of Ahab, nor do the social constraints and definitions of the time permit such identification. Only birth brought a male into a given house; relation by marriage did not - though this did not mean one could not pick up bad habits from one's in-laws, and picking up those bad habits did not make one part of the social unit of the "house" either! After this, Skeptic X tries to strengthen his case by citing 1 Kings 16:10-11, noting again the parallel to the command to make the house of Ahab like the house of Baasha: Zimri came in and struck him [Elah, Baasha's son] down and killed him, in the twenty-seventh year of King Asa of Judah, and succeeded him. When he began to reign, as soon as he had seated himself on his throne, he killed all the house of Baasha; he did not leave him a single male of his KINDRED or his friends. Skeptic X believes that "kindred" here can equate with what Ahaziah was to the house of Ahab, but he is still groping around blindly without a proper social definition. The question to be settled is whether one of Ahaziah's distance and relationship is indeed considered to be "kindred" (ga'al - it refers, actually, to "next of kin" and those who would avenge Baasha's death, which would be the nearest relatives, and most likely any brothers or sons that he had - whether a grandson by a daughter's marriage [as with Ahaziah] would fit this category is indeed questionable!) in this case, and within the "house" in question. Skeptic X claims that Ahaziah "was a grandson of Ahab, which would certainly have been a kinsman," but this again ignores the rules of the day regarding what constituted a "house" within which "kinsmen" existed - and ignores also the possibility that, even if Skeptic X IS somehow correct in his definition, Baasha had no male "kindred" who existed outside of his "house"! In other words, in order to make this argument work, Skeptic X must show that Baasha had a male relative who was of equal relationship to Ahaziah and was killed in this coup by Zimri; but there is no data at all concerning the makeup of Baasha's "kindred" or family in this regard, so that this argument is a dead end for our skeptic. Skeptic X is using modern familial terms and categories to describe an entirely different social situation, and advancing arguments on the back of non-evidence. This is a remarkable piece of sophistry from one who earlier charged me with being ignorant of the term "house" as it was used in this period, but has yet to cite any definition from a named source that supports his version of things! |Out of Bounds? In answer to Miller's item #7, Skeptic X advanced the following argument: We should keep in mind that Hosea said that Yahweh would soon avenge THE BLOOD OF JEZREEL upon the house of Jehu. In other words, Yahweh's vengeance would come down on the house of Jehu because of "the blood of Jezreel." However, some of the atrocities in Miller's list above include massacres the (sic) were done outside of Jezreel...these 42 princes were not killed at Jezreel, which was located north of Samaria. And so, Skeptic X tells us, because this massacre was not at Jezreel, then this event cannot be considered part of the "blood of Jezreel." But is this truly the case? Significantly, Skeptic X does not quote the text of 12-14 itself, which offers us some answers: Jehu then set out and went toward Samaria. At Beth Eked of the Shepherds, he met some relatives of Ahaziah king of Judah and asked, "Who are you?" They said, "We are relatives of Ahaziah, and we have come down to greet the families of the king and of the queen mother." "Take them alive!" he ordered. So they took them alive and slaughtered them by the well of Beth Eked--forty-two men. He left no survivor. This massacre of 42 princes, then, took place at a very specific location: Beth Eked. The usual designated site of Beth Eked is Beit Qad, about 4 miles from the city of Jezreel, close enough to Jezreel and probably literally dependent upon the larger city for its survival (within the bounds of a tribal military/protection covenant alliance), so that Hosea could easily include it within the parameters of his supposed Jezreel condemnation. Yes, the skeptic quibbles; but it is still NOT Jezreel the city. Four miles could be seen as a long way. Why should we include it in these parameters? I submit that such argumentation is a desperate type of quibble of the "close only counts in horseshoes" variety; again, within the bounds of a covenant alliance, Beth Eked was undoubtedly (since it was the closest large city) politically part of the city of Jezreel. But for those of a more nitpicking bent, here is an answer: Beth Eked is part of a larger geographic entity called Jezreel. "Jezreel" is a name not only for a specific city, but also a valley and a rather large region - one that extends from the Jordan Valley to Mount Carmel. This was an extensive territory - and Beth Eked was within the designated Jezreel Valley and in the heart of the wider Jezreel region. It is significant in this context that Hosea would mention that Israel will be defeated in the Valley of Jezreel, which would indicate (assuming, for the sake of argument, Skeptic X's interpretation of Hosea 1:4) that the city alone was not considered the single focal point of judgment. Furthermore, Hosea had his own motive for selecting Jezreel as the focal point: Jezreel means "God sows" - and thus the point emerges from Hosea that what he describes are a result of what God sows. (In line with the above notion of paqad as "visit," the sowing could be good or bad - depending on how the house of Jehu behaves in response to the oracle.) Hosea naming his child "Jezreel" was much the same as naming a child today "Vietnam" or "Watergate" [Crai.12P, 11] - neither of which by any means requires pinpointing of/restriction to an exact geographic location for all of the events concerned! Indeed, since "Beth Eked" means "house of shearing" [sheep!], there wasn't much punch in arranging something involving THAT particular name! Added punch in selecting "Jezreel" is the fact that in the Hebrew, a punning reference is made with "Israel" that further emphasizes the point that it is Israel that will be the subject of the "sowing." [Morr.PPH, 79] In light of this, we might well expect Hosea to restrict his comments to the central and seminal geographic entity with which Jehu's actions were associated - even in regards to what he did elsewhere and later on in the same general effort. However we look at it, then, the massacre of the 42 princes thus remains within the geographical parameters of disobedience for Jehu and of the supposed condemnation from Hosea, and thus offers no solace for Skeptic X's argument. (Moreover, to use Skeptic X's logic, is it really credible that Hosea would condemn the house of Jehu for the massacre in the city of Jezreel proper, yet have nothing to say regarding an incident in such close proximity, or of events in Samaria, where another great slaughter by Jehu took place?) Interestingly, Skeptic X's response to the above did indeed surprise me a bit, as he anticipated it would - he says that what I write re Beth Eked's location, he considers to be "a reasonable possibility." Even so, Skeptic X does go on to a different argument against the 42-prince exclusion, and we progress to these at length. First I'd like to clear up a few social issues where Skeptic X appears to be unclear on the concept. After a repeat of a previous argument re Hosea, we get to where I wrote: Hosea naming his child "Jezreel" was much the same as naming a child today "Vietnam" or "Watergate" [Crai.12P, 11] - neither of which by any means requires pinpointing of/restriction to an exact geographic location for all of the events concerned! To which Skeptic X writes: Let's just suppose that a modern prophet--and there are always prophets who think they know God's will--should name a child Vietnam or Watergate and then give this as his reason for so doing: "For yet a little while, God will visit on the American people the blood of Vietnam [or the iniquity of Watergate]." Would there be much doubt that this modern prophet disapproved of Vietnam or Watergate? The disapproval is the point of inconsistency, and (Holding) can't seem to understand this as he quibbles his way along. Skeptic X misses my point here, and my point following regarding Beth Eked. What I am pointing out has NOTHING to do with approval or disapproval; the whole point is (assuming for the sake of argument that Hosea has indeed actually condemned the massacre at Jezreel) the reason for Hosea selecting "Jezreel" as the focus point in a way that does not exclude places outside the city proper. That's the point I make, but it isn't the point that Skeptic X addresses. (What he DOES address we have already covered, between our note of the need to distinguish method versus punishment, and Skeptic X's "Alamo Allegory" which we repaired previously.) Then, Skeptic X tries to bring the 42 princes under the rubric of the house of Ahab, thusly: These "princes" were called "brethren" in 2 Kings 10:13; in 2 Chronicles 22:8, they were called "princes" and "sons of the brethren of Ahaziah." Since the Bible record states that all of Ahaziah's brothers had been killed in a raid by the Arabians (2 Chron. 21:161-7), the writer probably didn't mean that these were literal brothers of Ahaziah, so the expression "sons of the brethren of Ahaziah" could have meant nephews or some other kinsmen... We'll stop for a moment to indicate our basic agreement with this data, although Skeptic X is wrong in attributing at least 167 verses to 2 Chron. 21. Really, if you can't even get the numbers right, why should we trust you...never mind. Continuing: Ahaziah was a grandson of Ahab, and so, unless Jehoram of Judah had had other wives besides Athaliah (Ahab's daughter), Ahaziah's brothers would have been Ahab's "kinsmen" too, and so would their sons. At any rate, as I continue my replies, I will show that the "umbrella" mandate that was given to Jehu was broad enough to cover ANYONE who was in any way associated with kinsmen of Ahab. These 42 "princes" were found "ministering" to Ahaziah (2 Chron. 22:8), so that certainly would have made them associates or servants or friends, and as we will see, any such association with the member of a "house" was sufficient cause for extermination when Yahweh went on a rampage and ordered the extermination of that house. So then - the argument basically is referencing the previous one about Ahaziah. Skeptic X says that he was of the house of Ahab; therefore, those that minister to him or are related to him were also of the house of Ahab. That's a fine logical progression - assuming that the initial premise, that Ahaziah was indeed considered part of the house of Ahab, was proven correct, which we have seen is not. So where does this leave Skeptic X? With an as-yet unproven core premise, with no support at all either in the text of the Bible or in the social data of the period. The ducks have yet to be in a row. |Who's in the House? By far the most significant argument by Skeptic X is that related to item 6, recounting Jehu's obliteration of the house of Ahab's "great/chief men, close friends, and priests." It is also the place where Skeptic X makes his most incredible blunder - and thereby proves the folly of merely comparing English translations in one's studies. The question at hand is: Are these three parties - chief men, close friends, priests - to be considered part of the "house of Ahab"? Let us first look at how Skeptic X seeks to begin addressing the matter: What these inerrantist quibblers have apparently never noticed is that verse 9 states that the "house of Ahab" was to be abolished in the way that the house of Jeroboam, the son of Nebat, and the house of Baasha, the son of Abijah, were destroyed. I will give details of that later, but first, let's notice two things: (1) What this "son of the prophets" said upon anointing Jehu was the same as Elijah's pronouncement of doom upon the house of Ahab. (2) The word "house" as used in expressions like "the house of Ahab" or "the house of Jehu" carried a broader denotation than just the descendants of the head of the house. It also included those who were servants or associates of the head of the clan. Skeptic X follows with examples of places where someone other than a blood relation was a member of a "house": Sarah as part of Pharaoh's house, Abraham's 318 servants in his house, etc. He concludes: If inerrantists would read what a good Bible dictionary or encyclopedia says about the meaning of "house" as it was used in the situations mentioned above, they would not have made the mistake of assuming that Jehu had been ordered to kill only those who were male descendants of Ahab. Let's notice a few things here:
What of the definition of "house"? It does indeed have a broader meaning: It may refer to an actual building, of course, but about a quarter of the OT usages imply something different or more abstract. "Building a house" means the same thing as "raising a family." "House" is even used to refer to a spider's web (Job 8:15). While there is indeed a broader meaning available, Skeptic X, regrettably, does not tell us what "Bible dictionary or encyclopedia" he gets his source material from. However, having consulted no less than a dozen such sources, and a variety of others - ranging in persuasion from the liberal Interpreter's Dictionary of the Bible to the conservative Nelson's Illustrated Bible Dictionary - I find, yes, references to servants being part of a "house," along with slaves (as household property), foreign guests (in line with Eastern rules of hospitality), concubines (as Sarah would have been considered in Pharaoh's house), adopted orphans, and sojourners. What I do not find is this peculiar word that Skeptic X uses, "associates." Associates? What are these? Is this a specific socio-economic class from the Ancient Near East? Skeptic X embarks upon a skein of blatherskeit destined to prove his point that a "house" consisted of more than just blood relatives. He cites examples of slaves, of which there is no question in fact, but of which there is also no relevance for the Jehu case. We are not arguing that Jehu was condemned for killing slaves; we are arguing here that his condemnation was in part the result of his killing of the house of Ahab's "great men, close friends, and priests." Skeptic X tries to slip in this trio under the rubric of the "house" along with the slaves, but no dice: The direct questions need to be asked. What of these parties? Were they part of the "house" of Ahab? In answer, Skeptic X first tried to explain away his use of the vague word "associates": I used the word "associate" in explaining the inclusiveness that the expression "house of" connoted in the OT, and he apparently can't find this term in the Bible. Possibly, it didn't occur to him that I am writing in English, and in so doing, I will quite often use words that can't be found in translations of the Hebrew text, but that doesn't mean that the ideas or concepts they denote are not taught in the OT. Oh, yes - we know that Skeptic X is writing in English, all right, and that is precisely the problem! But the English word "associate" is rather a broad term (as opposed to "slave" or "concubine", which reflect specific ANE social classes) and therefore not on the same level of specificity as the other "house members" Skeptic X listed. But the point is, CAN Skeptic X get more specific? After a few vague complaints, he first tries to pull another English shebang by referring to an English definition of "associate". OK, that's real nice; what's that got to do with the specific social classes and terms represented in the Hebrew? Not a thing. Skeptic X may think that he has justified his use of "associate", but we have shown that this does not suit the far more precise words related in the Hebrew, and he never does get around to offering us a specific definition of what exactly constitutes a "house" - he just finds ways to absorb those he needs as he goes along! Now at this point we may interject a comment made by a member of Skeptic X's Peanut Gallery whose name will be familiar to us: Steven Carr, he of Jury Chapter 11 infamy, and third-least-credible among that group in our estimation. Regarding my comment: This massacre of 42 princes, then, took place at a very specific location: Beth Eked. The usual designated site of Beth Eked is Beit Qad, about 4 miles from the city of Jezreel, close enough to Jezreel and probably literally dependent upon the larger city for its survival (within the bounds of a tribal military/protection covenant alliance), so that Hosea could easily include it within the parameters of his supposed Jezreel condemnation. Yes, the skeptic quibbles; but it is still NOT Jezreel the city. Four miles could be seen as a long way. Why should we include it in these parameters? On this, Carr commented: Curiously the anonymous author who calls himself James Patrick Holding claims that the present day city of Tyre is not the same as the old Biblical city of Tyre because it is a mile or so away, yet he also claims that Beth Eked is part of the city of Jezreel. This comment earned Carr a teaspoon of praise from his leader Cowboy Skeptic X, but of course, the case with Tyre is far more complicated than Carr lets on here, though we hardly expect that to be understood by someone who thinks that ancient people were so stupid as to be incapable of damming a river -- much less from someone who cannot distinguish anonymity from pseudonymity. It was not just the location of the new Tyre, but also its functional identity; furthermore, the analogy is inappropriate because of the chronological difference involved, and because of the added factor of the covenant alliance - a term which I would suggest Carr look up before he deigns to make further uninformed comments. Now the fact that the Kings writer separates the men/friends/priests group from the "house of Ahab" grouping should indicate to us that the men/friends/priests group was not considered to be part of the house of Ahab - and is in fact the closest thing to a "condemnation" of excess that we can expect from the Kings writer in his dry, analytical style. Nevertheless, let us pursue the matter further. On the priests, he says: Is (Holding) unaware that priests were a part of the king's inner circle or entourage of advisors? He seems to be, because we will later see him arguing that priests were members of the "house of the Lord." However, the "inner circle or entourage of advisors" and being of the "house of the Lord" did NOT equal being part of the "house" of the king. Skeptic X's example of David and Abiathar is irrelevant: Abiathar was NOT of the house of David, under any social definition. We do agree that "one who was seizing control of a government by force" would indeed "have exterminated those who had been close advisors and ministers of the king," and we say as much - but we do not agree that these advisors and ministers were part of the king's "house", and Skeptic X does not even prove this point - he merely assumes it for the sake of his argument. Following this, is this very interesting comment: If (Holding) were just a bit more familiar with the Bible, he would understand that usually when coups such as Jehu's took place, no one who was in a position to pose any threat to the usurper was spared. Yes, we know, and we agree - but what does this do to Skeptic X's argument above re there being no record of the destruction of the remainder of the house of Jehu following Zach's assassination...? And even so, how does this prove that any "great man" who could lead a coup was thereby part of the "house"? It doesn't. Skeptic X is yet again merely assuming what he needs to prove. Skeptic X also writes: ...when Solomon succeeded David as king, he ordered the death of his half-brother Adonijah and removed Abiathar as the king's priest. Before David died, he had allegedly reminded Solomon that the faithful general Joab had killed Abner and Amasa, and so Solomon was told not to let Joab's "hoary head go down to Sheol in peace" (2 Kings 2:6). Verses 28-33 tell of Solomon's execution of David's orders. And having set this background, Skeptic X quotes several verses from this chapter in Kings (and by the way, , it's in FIRST Kings, not Second Kings - really, if you can't get the details right, why should we trust you, blah blah blah), of which we need take notice only of these: 1 Kings 2:31, 33 And the king said unto him, Do as he hath said, and fall upon him, and bury him; that thou mayest take away the innocent blood, which Joab shed, from ME, and from THE HOUSE OF MY FATHER...Their blood shall therefore return upon the head of Joab, and upon the head of his seed for ever: but upon David, AND UPON HIS SEED, AND UPON HIS HOUSE, and upon his throne, shall there be peace for ever from the LORD. Of this, Skeptic X writes first: Notice that Solomon allegedly said in verse 31 that killing Joab would take away the innocent blood he had shed from "ME and from the house of my father." Now according to (Holding)'s logic, the separation of "me" and "the house of my father" would mean that Solomon was not a part of David's house, but that would be a ridiculous twist to put on the passage, because 2 Samuel 7:12-17 and 1 Chronicles 22:6-12 show that Solomon was not only a part of David's house but that he was the specific "seed" through whom the throne and house of David were to be established forever. And of the second verse: Furthermore, verse 33 above has Solomon saying that the killing of Joab would return upon his head and his seed the blood that Joab had shed but there would be peace forever upon "David, AND UPON HIS SEED, AND UPON HIS HOUSE." According to (Holding)'s logic, the separation of David's seed from his house would mean that David's seed was not considered a part of his house, but that too would be a ridiculous interpretation. What we have in these verses is a clear example of repetitive emphasis, and there is no reason to think that the same was not true in 2 Kings 10:11... Nice try here by Skeptic X, but he should have done better than simply select the first verses he came across that used the words "house" and "and" with another noun in combination - and he should also have taken a closer look at our subject verse in Hebrew. In 1 Kings, in both of these verses what we have is progressions in reference, not repetitive emphasis. In the first verse, it is a progression from one person ("me") to the larger group ("house"). In the second verse it is a regression from a larger group ("seed" - meaning all of Dave's descendants, present and future) to a smaller group ("house" - David's descendants [but not including those who leave the house by way of marriage] who are still alive in that day and time) to the smallest group of all, one person ("throne" - which Skeptic X wisely omits from his secondary analysis). No such progression or regression exists in the 2 Kings verse, which refers to groups of varying identity, and that means that Skeptic X's attempt to make a parallel fails. But in fact it gets worse for Skeptic X: Does anyone want to know why he does not play his usual "quote the English translations to prove your point" shebang? He won't tell his followers, and he will quote a single version of our verse later on in a slightly different argumentative context (from the NRSV?) that reads this verse in a way that he likes it to read: So Jehu killed all who were left of the house of Ahab in Jezreel, all his leaders, close friends, and priests, until he left him no survivor. This version makes it sound like those groups ought to be included in the house. But Skeptic X won't quote the NIV for us, you can bet: So Jehu killed everyone in Jezreel who remained of the house of Ahab, as well as all his chief men, his close friends and his priests, leaving him no survivor. Can't have that one up for comparison, can we! Nor the NEB or the REB, which say the same thing. Is there a conspiracy afoot? But wait! We have one more version to look at - the good 'ol KJV - So Jehu slew all that remained of the house of Ahab in Jezreel, and all his great men, and his kinsfolks, and his priests, until he left him none remaining. The placing of an "and" before each group is the way that is most faithful to the literal Hebrew, which does the same thing. That being the case, what we obviously have here is indeed literary separation: It is a listing of groups whose members are exclusive of each other. It isn't just the first "and" that Skeptic X has to deal with, but two more of them as well, and these make his arguments above even more irrelevant. Now let's consider some relevant data:
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
