Isaiah 43:10

[maklelan]

Dan,

You wrote:

I'm having difficulty taking this argument seriously. I am aware of at least three live interpretive options with regard to 2 Kings 3:27, but yours is not one of them. The text does not say what you claim in two respects: it does not say that the Israelite forces were routed, nor does it say that the Moabite deity (Chemosh) overcame the Israelite forces. It is rather incredible to claim that the book of Kings means that at this point Chemosh got the better of Yahweh. For a recent, brief article that discusses the text and provides citations to other recent studies, see Scott Morschauser, "A 'Diagnostic' Note on the 'Great Wrath upon Israel' in 2 Kings 3:27," JBL 129 (2010): 299-302.

The two most recent publications that espouse the same reading as me are Thom Stark, The Human Faces of God, 79-80, 91-92; and Mark S. Smith, God in Translation, 116-18. See also Kittel, Die Bucher die Konige, 196; Shanda, Die Bucher die Konige, 2.26; Walsh, The Moabite Stone, 63-65; Burney, Notes on the Hebrew Text of the Book of Kings, 272; Montgomery, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Books of Kings, 363-64.

Your article seems remarkably unwilling to recognize the source of the controversy surrounding this verse, namely that conservative scholars don't want to believe that the authors of the biblical text would have recognized the potency of foreign deities. Your author points out that divine anger is the predominant meaning, but then tries to suggest a nuanced meaning, namely that it can be used to represent "conditions that were frighteningly tangible, especially when the lexeme is employed in martial contexts." The article refers to a plague that broke out during a Babylonian siege in Jer 21:5, trying to relate the military context to 2 Kings 3, but quickly glosses over the fact that the term is used in reference to "Yhwh's displeasure being manifested." In other words, it's another instance of "divine wrath."

The author goes on to try to argue that "great wrath" in 2 Kgs 3:27 refers to a sickness that spread over the army. This is a poor bit of eisegesis that is very clearly meant only to avoid the notion that it was the Moabite deity's wrath that overcame the Israelite and Edomite forces. This is quite explicit in another manifestation of this conclusion that the author cites (from Witherington, The Second Book of Kings):

“Either the horror produced by Mesha’s sacrifice led to the siege being raised, or some pestilence fell on the besieging armies.”

It could only be one of these two for Witherington (and neither is sound exegesis). The most simple conclusion, that the Moabite deity overcame the Israelite and Edomite forces, is a priori precluded. The fact that the presence of the divine wrath is mentioned immediately following the description of the king's sacrifice of his son is ignored. Your article ends with a rather silly footnote that tries to reconcile the argument with the fact that v. 19 has Yahweh promising victory over the Moabite forces. Note the bold portions:

Notwithstanding the various reading strategies employed in deciding whether the campaign

fulfilled Elisha’s prophecy (2 Kgs 3:19) (see Jesse C. Long, Jr., “Elisha’s Deceptive Prophecy

in 2 Kings 3: A Response to Raymond Westbrook,” JBL 126 [2007]: 168–71; Gass, “Topographical

Considerations,” 78–81; Westbrook, “Elisha’s True Prophecy,” 530–32), the fact that the

Israelites were able to drive back the Moabites and engage them in a costly siege could have been

construed as a military victory, since minimal claims were often read in a “maximal” manner. See

Baruch Halpern, David’s Secret Demons: Messiah, Murderer, Traitor, King (Bible in Its World;

Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2001), 107–32. Moreover, given the juridical implications of Mesha’s

withholding of tribute (clearly violating a formal agreement), the devastation visited on Moab—

ecocide resulting in starvation, as well as the loss of the king’s firstborn—evokes the kind of disasters

associated with treaty curses (see n. 6 above). In this regard, one wonders if the strange

wording of v. 27—“there was great wrath upon Israel” ויהי קצף גדול על ישראל—might not be

rendered, “there was great wrath on account of/because of Israel.” That is, the Moabites had been

afflicted with economic dislocation, dynastic disruption, and finally sickness within their besieged

city, because of (על) their breach of faith with their neighbor. A major epidemic would not only

have proved that they had been “in the wrong,” but was a minatory sign to Israel that the Moabites

had been punished appropriately and so the military enterprise could—and should—now be disbanded.

This is incredibly poor scholarship, and I'm quite shocked to see it in JBL. The simple fact is that the wrath that overcame the Israelite forces was intended to be understood as a divine wrath. There's simply no reason whatsoever to believe the wrath was Yahweh's. Given the proximity to the child sacrifice offered by the Moabite king, the wrath can only be understood to be that of the object of the sacrifice, namely Chemosh. My reading is the only methodologically sound one.

[Rob Bowman]

Dan,

I cited Morschauser's article not as an endorsement but as a recent peer-reviewed academic journal article that would lead to a wealth of recent discussion. I am not interested in defending Morschauser's theory. My point is that recent academic literature is unsettled on the exegesis and interpretation of 2 Kings 3:27 and several options exist that do not require your conclusion that Chemosh proved stronger than Yahweh on that occasion. That you would claim, "My reading is the only methodologically sound one," and harshly criticize JBL for even publishing the article seems rather brash.

At least one of the older studies you cited, Montgomery, does not seem to support your conclusion. According to Montgomery, "The Israelites lost all heart in sight of the gruesome act" (364). Kittel and Shanda find it necessary to resort to the speculative suggestion that the text originally said "the wrath of Chemosh." Stark's book is a polemical work that you would dismiss as propaganda were it arguing for the other side. Mark Smith, of course, is a widely recognized recent scholar, and he does go so far as to say that the text "implicitly recognizes divine power apart from the Israelite national god" (118), but even Smith does not suggest that the text implies that Chemosh was stronger than Yahweh. I don't have access to Walsh, but according to Smith he took the view that the "wrath" was that of the Moabites themselves, not of Chemosh (Smith 117 n. 98).

Philip D. Stern--who argues that the account in 2 Kings 3 is inferior historically to the Moabites' own account--comments on 2 Kings 3:27 that "it would have been totally out of character for those involved in the Deuteronomistic editing of Kgs to have left Kemosh with the last word in the Israelite account of the Moabite revolt" ("Of Kings and Moabites: History and Theology in 2 Kings 3 and the Mesha Inscription," HUCA 64 [1993]: 13). I agree, and regard this observation as a decisive objection to your view.

Edited June 25, 2011 by Rob Bowman

[maklelan]

Dan,

I cited Morschauser's article not as an endorsement but as a recent peer-reviewed academic journal article that would lead to a wealth of recent discussion. I am not interested in defending Morschauser's theory. My point is that recent academic literature is unsettled on the exegesis and interpretation of 2 Kings 3:27 and several options exist that do not require your conclusion that Chemosh proved stronger than Yahweh on that occasion. That you would claim, "My reading is the only methodologically sound one," and harshly criticize JBL for even publishing the article seems rather brash.

Until another reading can be suggested that is methodologically sound, I will stand by my comments.

At least one of the older studies you cited, Montgomery, does not seem to support your conclusion. According to Montgomery, "The Israelites lost all heart in sight of the gruesome act" (364).

I'll have to revisit the source when I have the opportunity.

Kittel and Shanda find it necessary to resort to the speculative suggestion that the text originally said "the wrath of Chemosh."

And that speculative reconstruction is secondary to the conclusion that Chemosh is responsible for putting the Israelites and their allies to flight, which is the relevant portion of that text.

Stark's book is a polemical work that you would dismiss as propaganda were it arguing for the other side.

I disagree, and that doesn't address his argument.

Mark Smith, of course, is a widely recognized recent scholar, and he does go so far as to say that the text "implicitly recognizes divine power apart from the Israelite national god" (118), but even Smith does not suggest that the text implies that Chemosh was stronger than Yahweh.

He does state that some have opined that Yahweh allowed the deity to compel the Moabite army to victory, but that the text makes no such thing clear, and doesn't seem to find any difficulty worthy of comment with the situation. I hardly need Mark Smith to make the statement explicit in order to conclude that such is the implication of the event in the author's mind, although Smith has two other comments in that volume I find relevant (pp. 96-97 and 119, respectively):

A fair reading of the very difficult evidence would suggest that Yahweh was a god secondarily imported into the highlands of Israel from the south (Edom/Paran/Teiman/Seir in Deuteronomy 33:2, Judges 5:4, Psalms 68:8, 18, and Habakkuk 3:3, 7) and that he was identified secondarily at some point with the indigenous Canaanite and early Israelite god El.

What these biblical passages represent is a form of translatability, specifically a component in a monarchic period worldview that sees the various chief gods of the nations who stand more or less on par with one another.

The latter statement occurs in a summary section immediately following the discussion of 2 Kings 3.

I don't have access to Walsh, but according to Smith he took the view that the "wrath" was that of the Moabites themselves, not of Chemosh (Smith 117 n. 98).

Yeah, I don't remember why I put down that reference.

Philip D. Stern--who argues that the account in 2 Kings 3 is inferior historically to the Moabites' own account--comments on 2 Kings 3:27 that "it would have been totally out of character for those involved in the Deuteronomistic editing of Kgs to have left Kemosh with the last word in the Israelite account of the Moabite revolt" ("Of Kings and Moabites: History and Theology in 2 Kings 3 and the Mesha Inscription," HUCA 64 [1993]: 13). I agree, and regard this observation as a decisive objection to your view.

See Smith's note 104 on p. 118:

For this reason, it seem unlikely that the passage was composed by a deuteronomistic redactor, as claimed by Fritz, 1 & Kings, 245, following Ernst Würthwein. Indeed, the passage is remarkably non-deuteronomistic in both language and worldview. Moshe Weingeld notes the explicit difference between 2 Kings 3:19 and Deuteronomy 20:19–20, with respect to the treatment of trees. See Weinfeld, Deuteronomy and the Deuteronomistic School (Oxford: Oxford University, 1972; repr., Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1992) 239. Weinfeld (p. 16) also notes how the prophetic word about the violent death of the king in this passage (verses 16-19) contrasts with the deuteronomic word that portends the fate of the royal house.

It seems just about the entire chapter slipped through the Deuteronomistic redactors' fingers.

Stern cites Kaufmann as concluding that "alien gods do not express emotion in the Bible." I entirely reject Kaufmann's perspective on the gods of the nations, though, and so does the majority of modern scholarship. He argued that Israel's theology was entirely revolutionary and entirely independent of any influence from pagan cultures. He also stated that archaeological evidence was of little value, and that the biblical text itself was accurate enough to reconstruct all of Israelite religion. His views have little currency anymore within scholarship (primarily only in conservative Jewish circles). I address them at length in my current masters thesis, if you're interested in a more in-depth look.

Stern next tries to account for Yahweh's promise of victory by claiming that it was no promise at all:

Hence Elisha's pronouncement of 2 Kgs 3:18 has the unique wording, "this is but an easy thing in the eyes of the Lord, that he should put Moab in your hand." This stresses YHWH's saving power, without actually guaranteeing to employ it for the king in the campaign. Israel's failure to subdue Mesha did not shake the firm belief that YHWH controlled events and could have reversed Moabite success if He had willed it. In other words, Elisha did not predict success or failure. He merely affirmed YHWH's power to give victory.

I disagree with this translation, though, as do all the translations I can find. "That he should put Moab in your hand," if a resumption of "this" from the first clause, would normally take the particle כי, but the text uses the simple waw with the perfect: ונתן את־מואב בידכם "And he has given Moab into your hand." It is often referred to as the "prophetic perfect." There's no reason to take it as a resumption of "this." The antecedent of זאת are most likely the events of the previous verse.

Stern later states, "It was no more likely that Kemosh's wrath should be cited in an Israelite text than YHWH should be revered in the ML." I disagree. These are two approaches to the same problem. When your side loses, you can say the other god beat us, or you can say our own god was angry with us and let us lose. The latter is what the Moabite stone does, and it is what Israel would do when it went into exile. The former is what 2 Kgs 3:27 does, and it is what the Philistines are made to do in 1 Sam 5:7. The fact that it's more humiliating is no reason to presuppose it's not what the author is doing. Stern refuses to accept that a religious author might find an explanation for the defeat of their armed forces in the strength of the opposition's god. I see no reason to presuppose that, especially when no other logical solutions present themselves.

Stern concludes that the wrath of Yahweh came over the Israelites because Jerhoram misunderstood Elishah's "teasing speech," and advanced too far into Moabite territory, which had been promised to the sons of Lot. Yahweh responded by becoming angry with the Israelite army. The sacrifice of the king's son was a "compensation" for the dedication of Israelite cities to Chemosh in the Moabite stone. It is supposed to hearken back to Deut 2:9, where the sons of Lot are supposed to receive "an inheritance." The king's son is perceived to be the "inheritor" of the Moabite kingdom. I can hardly imagine a more strained reading of this chapter. I disagree entirely with Stern's reading as well as his passing reference to the Deuteronomistic redactor. As Smith points out, others have noted that several aspects of the chapter conflict with the ideology normally promoted by that redaction. I don't think we have to impose a Deuteronomistic lens on the text just because v. 27 does the same.

Also, I wasn't aware you accepted the notion of the Deuteronomistic history.

[maklelan]

I would like to share a few blog posts I recently ran across that address this very text (all from Thom Stark). The first two are responses to Richard Hess' criticisms of Stark's reading of 2 Kgs 3:27 and are found here and here. The third is an enormous review article that Stark wrote in response to Paul Copan's book, Is God a Moral Monster? (pp. 70-75 address our text, and Copan treats the passage on pp. 96-97 of his book).

UPDATE: Another post has been put up on the pericope.

Edited June 25, 2011 by maklelan

[maklelan]

It's been almost a week since the last post here. I take it the position has been yielded.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

It's been almost a week since the last post here. I take it the position has been yielded.

I don't think so. Rob had to have shoulder surgery (say that 5 times fast) this last week and has been out. I would love for Rob to concede a point though.

[maklelan]

I don't think so. Rob had to have shoulder surgery (say that 5 times fast) this last week and has been out. I would love for Rob to concede a point though.

Ah, well, that's a good excuse. Hope his pitching career isn't hurt by this.

[Rob Bowman]

Dan,

I'm still recovering from my shoulder surgery, in which it was discovered that there was more damage than the MRI had revealed. Typing is a chore and I'm not up to extended or protracted online discussions.

While there is some scholarly support for some aspects of your claims regarding 2 Kings 3:27, my previous post showed that it was far weaker than you had claimed, as your response at various points conceded. More significantly, you have yet to produce even one exegete who agrees with your claim that in that passage Chemosh is portrayed as stronger than Yahweh. That is a key issue and in my opinion your claim lacks basis in the text on any plausible exegesis as well as academic exegetical support. What some scholars do find in the passage is evidence of Israelite belief that gods such as Chemosh existed and had some sort of influence in human events. Even this conclusion is contested not only by evangelical scholars but also by other scholars who don't seem to have a conservative theological axe to grind.

From my vantage point, a serious weakness of your position is that it entails the following conclusion:

It seems just about the entire chapter slipped through the Deuteronomistic redactors' fingers.

Methodologically, I am always highly suspicious of "bumbling redactor" explanations. You wrote:

As Smith points out, others have noted that several aspects of the chapter conflict with the ideology normally promoted by that redaction. I don't think we have to impose a Deuteronomistic lens on the text just because v. 27 does the same.

Also, I wasn't aware you accepted the notion of the Deuteronomistic history.

If the book generally reflects a particular theological or ideological position, isolated statements in the book that are cryptic but might be taken to express a contrary position should be interpreted in light of the whole. The wording of the verse is undeniably cryptic -- the subject of the wrath is not identified (the passage never even mentions Chemosh) and the reason for the wrath is not made explicit -- and is susceptible of various interpretations. Consequently, to cite this text as if it clearly affirmed an idea out of sync with the tenor of the book as a whole is hermeneutically unjustifiable.

The books of Samuel and Kings are anonymous and do not offer any overt statement concerning its author(s), editor(s), or date. I have no problem referring to the work as "Deuteronomistic," a term which many evangelical biblical scholars are quite comfortable using. This doesn't mean we agree with such ideas as that the book of Deuteronomy itself originated in the seventh century BC. In any case, my point was that construing 2 Kings 3:27 to mean that Chemosh was victorious over Israel (let alone Yahweh!) is inconsistent with the perspective of Kings as a whole.

[maklelan]

Dan,

I'm still recovering from my shoulder surgery, in which it was discovered that there was more damage than the MRI had revealed. Typing is a chore and I'm not up to extended or protracted online discussions.

Understood. I'm sorry to hear about your shoulder. Recovering from surgery is never fun, especially if it's as complicated as is the shoulder. Take all the time you want.

While there is some scholarly support for some aspects of your claims regarding 2 Kings 3:27, my previous post showed that it was far weaker than you had claimed, as your response at various points conceded.

There are portions of the whole pericope that require some nuance, but I don't believe I conceded that my reading was "far weaker" than I had claimed. I have consistently pointed out that it is the only reading that is logical.

More significantly, you have yet to produce even one exegete who agrees with your claim that in that passage Chemosh is portrayed as stronger than Yahweh.

I don't need to appeal to others to make the argument for me. I can make it well enough for myself, although Thom Stark has pointed out on his blog that the pericope indicates Chemosh's power was greater than Yahweh's in this instance:

There is no reason to be surprised that Israelites in this period believed in other gods and believed that their power was real. Moreover, in this episode they are in the territory of Kemosh, outside of Yahweh’s domain. I tend to choose the most probable readings, regardless of what that means for any theological or doctrinal commitments I might hold. And reading the “great wrath” as the wrath of Kemosh is by far the strongest reading. If it weren’t for Jewish and Christian disinclination to believe that scripture would acknowledge not only the existence of other gods but also that these other gods could potentially hold their own against Yahweh, no one would dispute that this is what the text is saying.

That is a key issue and in my opinion your claim lacks basis in the text on any plausible exegesis as well as academic exegetical support.

The appeal to academic exegetical support is a fallacy, and as I have pointed out, the vast majority of the people who comment on this verse are believers who don't want it to say what it obviously says and so try to conjure up creative ways to make it say something else. Stark's comment above accounts well enough for the paucity of scholars who agree with my reading. I have made the case for my reading well enough, and I don't think that pointing out that very few scholars agree is sufficient enough a response to undermine it.

What some scholars do find in the passage is evidence of Israelite belief that gods such as Chemosh existed and had some sort of influence in human events. Even this conclusion is contested not only by evangelical scholars but also by other scholars who don't seem to have a conservative theological axe to grind.

Which scholars who do not have a bias against reading this text as acknowledging the existence and power of the Moabite deity object to that reading?

From my vantage point, a serious weakness of your position is that it entails the following conclusion:

Methodologically, I am always highly suspicious of "bumbling redactor" explanations.

You'd have to first make the case that a Deuteronomistic redactor laid eyes on this text before you could appeal to the possibility of his overlooking it as a critical problem with my reading of it. Is that a case you're willing and able to make? I am becoming increasingly skeptical regarding JEDP, and find that a simple P/non-P model overcomes a lot of issues with it.

You wrote:

If the book generally reflects a particular theological or ideological position, isolated statements in the book that are cryptic but might be taken to express a contrary position should be interpreted in light of the whole.

I disagree. The whole is made up of the parts. If some parts don't fit your whole, then the problem is not with the parts, it's with the way the whole has been constructed. I don't presuppose the unity of any chapter or book of the Bible, and I've never been shown any evidence whatsoever that indicates I need to.

The wording of the verse is undeniably cryptic -- the subject of the wrath is not identified (the passage never even mentions Chemosh) and the reason for the wrath is not made explicit

I disagree. It was obviously catalyzed by the sacrifice offered on the city wall. The only question is to whom the sacrifice was offered. It is well enough known that Mesha's patron deity was Chemosh. That would have been the only logical deity to whom he would have sacrificed his heir. Line 19 of the Mesha Stele even states that Chemosh drove off the Israelites when they were fighting against Mesha.

-- and is susceptible of various interpretations.

The interpretations are varied only because there's no logical reading if the most likely one is a priori precluded.

Consequently, to cite this text as if it clearly affirmed an idea out of sync with the tenor of the book as a whole is hermeneutically unjustifiable.

only if you prioritize the notion of univocality, which I do not. In fact, I vehemently disagree with the notion and have never seen a logical defense of it.

The books of Samuel and Kings are anonymous and do not offer any overt statement concerning its author(s), editor(s), or date. I have no problem referring to the work as "Deuteronomistic," a term which many evangelical biblical scholars are quite comfortable using. This doesn't mean we agree with such ideas as that the book of Deuteronomy itself originated in the seventh century BC. In any case, my point was that construing 2 Kings 3:27 to mean that Chemosh was victorious over Israel (let alone Yahweh!) is inconsistent with the perspective of Kings as a whole.

On more than one occasion I have pointed out (here, for instance) that even within one chapter of Kings you have multiple unquestionably conflicting accounts of the event and outcome of Sennacherib's invasion of Jerusalem. This alone shows that the unity of any section of the text of Kings is not merited enough a presupposition to be imposed as an interpretive restriction upon any exegesis.

[Rob Bowman]

Dan,

I was not arguing for an exegetical conclusion based on scholarly authority but arguing for assigning the burden of proof to your view based on the apparent lack of scholarly support for it. What I said I had shown was "weaker" was not your reading but your appeal to scholarly precedent for your reading. You implicitly conceded as much by admitting that some of the scholars you cited did not agree with your view.

In your quotation from Stark, he does not claim that the text means that Chemosh was stronger than Yahweh but that Chemosh was able to "hold his own against Yahweh." Thus, so far at least, you have not quoted one scholar who agrees with the claim that the text means that Chemosh was stronger than Yahweh.

We will have to agree to disagree about the clarity of 2 Kings 3:27 regarding the subject of the wrath.

We have butted heads before over our different approaches to hermeneutics and I don't think we will come to an agreement. I can understand a non-evangelical refusing to allow an assumption of "univocality" across the entire canon of the Bible, but I maintain that the proper approach hermeneutically is to assume unless proven otherwise that a particular book, such as 2 Kings, expresses a unified or consistent viewpoint.

[maklelan]

Dan,

I was not arguing for an exegetical conclusion based on scholarly authority but arguing for assigning the burden of proof to your view based on the apparent lack of scholarly support for it.

And I believe I've shown quite well that my reading is the only methodologically sound one. Appealing now to a lack of scholarly support seems odd.

What I said I had shown was "weaker" was not your reading but your appeal to scholarly precedent for your reading. You implicitly conceded as much by admitting that some of the scholars you cited did not agree with your view.

Yes, there were fewer scholars who supported my reading than I originally cited. That was a pretty silly misunderstanding on my part. Sorry about that.

In your quotation from Stark, he does not claim that the text means that Chemosh was stronger than Yahweh but that Chemosh was able to "hold his own against Yahweh." Thus, so far at least, you have not quoted one scholar who agrees with the claim that the text means that Chemosh was stronger than Yahweh.

I think you're taking advantage of the lack of specificity in these texts. THese scholars absolutely do read the text that way. I emailed Thom Stark to ask if he wouldn't mind clarifying his position and he was kind enough not only to clarify his own position, but to provide some other references of his own:

That 2 Kings 3:27 is a rare biblical concession to the reality of the power of other deities is a position held by many scholars. In my opinion, the human sacrifice to Chemosh provides an adequate justification, in the mind of the writer of the episode, for Israel's (=Yahweh's) defeat. The passage clearly shows that the biblical author assumed the efficacy of human sacrifice, at least its efficacy to other gods, and thus the human sacrifice functions in the narrative as a "trump card." Yahweh would have won were it not for the sacrifice of Mesha's son, a petition for aid that Chemosh answered.

Hans-Peter Müller reads this passage as conceding that Chemosh was mighty in spite of Yahweh's promise. "Mesha, in a critical situation of battle, offered his son on the wall of his city, the consequence of which was that the wrath of Chemosh began to destroy Israel instantly; nowhere else is the mighty activity of a foreign god conceded in such an unrestrained manner." ("Chemosh," Dictionary of Deities and Demons in the Bible, 189.)

Mark S. Smith concurs: "The passage attributes to the Moabite side a victory generated through a religious act on the part of the Moabites themselves. In short, the passage implicitly recognizes divine power apart from the Israelite national god. Given the Bible's rejection of other gods, this passage with its implicit act of cross-cultural recognition would appear to stand out. However, if such a passage is contextualized in its Iron Age setting when such a view of national gods was more common, the passage seems less remarkable." (Smith, God in Translation, 118.)

Susan Niditch concurs also, writing that the juxtaposition in 2 Kings 3:20-27 of Yahweh's miracles in the battle and Chemosh's response to Mesha's sacrifice implies "that the power of human sacrifice offered in war may counter the power of God-sent, prophetically predicted miracles." (Niditch, War in the Hebrew Bible, 145.)

Jon D. Levenson joins their ranks, arguing that the implications of the wrath of Chemosh is "more serious" than the question of Israel's own proximity to West Semitic human sacrifice ideologies. He writes that "the implication is clear: Mesha's sacrifice worked. By immolating his first-born son and heir apparent, the king of Moab was able to turn the tide of battle and force the Israelites to retreat. Rationalistic commentators conjure up a panic in the camp of the Israelites as the latter learn of this horrid act. But the term qesep indicates a force external to the people involved. More likely, therefore, is the supposition that the author saw Mesha's sacrifice of his first-born son as having a profound effect upon the deity to whom it was offered, in this case presumably the Moabite national deity Chemosh. . . . The theology of warfare in the biblical world indicates that at least indirectly, the deity must be seen as lying behind the event. For it was he rather than any earthly figure who determined the outcome of battle, so that when Mesha's sortie failed, he knew that he was not standing in the deity's favor. Given the extremity of the situation, only an extreme act of devotion could turn the tide, and none surpasses a royal father's immolation of 'his first-born son, who was to succeed him as king' (2 Kgs 3:27). The failure of the sortie of v 26 was, in Mesha's eyes, the deity's way of telling him that he was at last exercising his claim on the first-born. The sudden Israelite retreat in v 27 is proof that Mesha's theological interpretation of the situation was not in error." (Levenson, The Death and Resurrection of the Beloved Son, 15, 17).

This position is also held by Christopher A. Rollston, as articulated in his recently published commentary on the book of Kings. He also taught as much in his Introduction to the Hebrew Bible courses.

These are just a few of the numerous scholars who have articulated this position in print. Of course, the number of those who hold this view and have not published on the matter is no doubt far greater. The scholarly consensus is that prior to the Babylonian exile, Israel and Judea did not entertain a dualistic cosmology (Yahweh versus "other gods" = good versus evil), but rather a monistic cosmology, which they shared with their neighbors. In the monistic cosmology, each god is legitimately appointed over his or her own nation, and this is the proper order of things. There are tiers in the pantheon, and each member has an allotted role and function. This is the cosmology reflected very clearly in Deut 32:8-9. That Yahweh boasted to be greater than the other gods is just part of the standard theology; all the national deities did that. Within this paradigm, trying to argue that Yahweh is established over the other gods would be like trying to argue for the superiority of one sports team over another. These boasts reflect either imperial aspirations on the part of the various nations, or else imperial realities, as with Assyria, Babylon, Persia, etc. (Israel's own imperial aspirations--e.g., Zech 14--were never in fact realized.) At any rate, the central point here is that each deity has his or her (in the West Semitic world, generally "his") own domain. Within that domain, the deity's power was in its proper place. Outside of that domain, it was diminished. Within this worldview, it is hardly surprising to see that Chemosh defeated Yahweh, since Chemosh had the home-court advantage.

That Israel and Judea operated under a monistic cosmology during the period in question is common knowledge among critical scholars and represents the firm consensus, excepting some (though certainly not all) Evangelical scholars who have an investment in pushing Israel's monotheism back as far as possible into Israel's early history. Thus, the challenge to find a "single scholar" who would be willing to recognize that 2 Kings 3:27 indicates that Chemosh beat Yahweh is not much of a challenge. That would be the natural reading of the text to a plenitude of scholars working in the guild, which is also why so many commentators take this reading for granted.

We will have to agree to disagree about the clarity of 2 Kings 3:27 regarding the subject of the wrath.

I have yet to see you actually espouse a particular reading regarding the wrath. You've pointed to two publications that offer their own reading, but I've explained why those publications aren't using good methodologies. The only direct response I've seen to either of my critiques is that I'm being brash by harshly criticizing one of the articles. To say "agree to disagree" after not providing your own interpretation is basically saying you have nothing to offer in the way of an argument.

We have butted heads before over our different approaches to hermeneutics and I don't think we will come to an agreement. I can understand a non-evangelical refusing to allow an assumption of "univocality" across the entire canon of the Bible, but I maintain that the proper approach hermeneutically is to assume unless proven otherwise that a particular book, such as 2 Kings, expresses a unified or consistent viewpoint.

I am perfectly happy with that assumption, but when the evidence begins to point to disunity, I let the evidence dictate the conclusion. You do not seem to. When you impose unity as a hermeneutic restriction in order to preclude a reading that suggests disunity, you're begging the question. You're not letting the evidence prove disunity. Additionally, I have already proven the disunity of 2 Kings, as I pointed out in my previous post.

[Rob Bowman]

Dan,

Let me remind you what your original claim was about 2 Kings 3:27. You had written:

In 2 Kings 3 Yahweh's promise to deliver the Moabite army into the hands of Israelite forces is frustrated by the Moabite deity to whom the king offered his son as sacrifice. Immediately following the sacrifice a divine wrath came over the Israelites and they were routed. Here the Moabite deity showed himself to be more powerful than Yahweh. That makes multiple deities that are in some way above Yahweh.

My contention has been that 2 Kings 3:27 simply does not affirm or imply what you claim. Let us grant your exegesis of the Hebrew text for the sake of argument. You understand the text to mean that Chemosh's wrath came against Israel in a way that caused them to retreat. This simply does not show that the text means or assumes or implies that Chemosh was a deity "in some way above Yahweh." This inference goes beyond the text, even assuming your exegesis of the text is correct.

You wrote:

I think you're taking advantage of the lack of specificity in these texts.

Well, yes. The text does not specifically say what you claim. It does not mention Chemosh, does not refer to the Moabite deity at all, and does not say that the Moabite deity was responsible for Israel's retreat. It also does not even specify how Israel was impelled to retreat. Therefore, to use this obscure, non-specific text to support your claim is unjustified. If a text doesn't specify what you claim, then it doesn't specify what you claim!

You wrote:

I have yet to see you actually espouse a particular reading regarding the wrath. You've pointed to two publications that offer their own reading, but I've explained why those publications aren't using good methodologies. The only direct response I've seen to either of my critiques is that I'm being brash by harshly criticizing one of the articles. To say "agree to disagree" after not providing your own interpretation is basically saying you have nothing to offer in the way of an argument.

No, I have argued that even if we accept your exegesis of the text your conclusion goes beyond the evidence. But I do think there are other explanations consistent with the general perspective of Kings for what the text says happened. The passage earlier in 2 Kings 3 informs us that Elisha had no respect for Israel (the northern kingdom) and was reluctant to offer any support or encouragement to the campaign against Moab. In the OT, Yahweh often uses one nation to chastise or punish another nation, then brings judgment on the first nation that had been his instrument of judgment. This might be what is happening in 2 Kings 3. The three kings' armies bring judgment on Moab, but Yahweh was also angry with Israel and so in some way unspecified in the text used Mesha's sacrifice of his son to cause Israel's retreat. This explanation seems to fit the wording of "great wrath came upon Israel," language that elsewhere refers to the wrath of Yahweh, even when (as here) Yahweh is not specified as the subject of the wrath (e.g., Num. 1:53; 18:5; Joshua 9:20; 22:20 [cf. 18]; 1 Chron. 27:24; 2 Chron. 32:25 [cf. v. 26]). I haven't spent as much time on this passage as I'd like, but in my opinion this reading of the text is more likely than yours, because this reading fits both the wording (as just shown) and the context.

[maklelan]

Dan,

Let me remind you what your original claim was about 2 Kings 3:27. You had written:

My contention has been that 2 Kings 3:27 simply does not affirm or imply what you claim. Let us grant your exegesis of the Hebrew text for the sake of argument. You understand the text to mean that Chemosh's wrath came against Israel in a way that caused them to retreat. This simply does not show that the text means or assumes or implies that Chemosh was a deity "in some way above Yahweh." This inference goes beyond the text, even assuming your exegesis of the text is correct.

I disagree, and I believe I've explained this already. Israel's forces were supposed to have unmitigated dominion over Moab. Yahweh promised it. It was Yahweh winning their battles for them. This is how warfare was thought to take place back then. In v. 27 Mesha sacrifices his son and immediately a divine wrath comes against the forces Yahweh is helping. The forces retreat. The implication is quite clear that Yahweh's promise, which was close to fulfillment, was frustrated because the Moabite patron deity, Chemosh, overpowered the Israelites forces (who were under Yahweh's protection). Yahweh could not overcome Chemosh's wrath on behalf of the Israelite troops. There's no other logical way to read it.

You wrote:

Well, yes. The text does not specifically say what you claim.

There would have been no need or desire to explicitly state it.

It does not mention Chemosh, does not refer to the Moabite deity at all, and does not say that the Moabite deity was responsible for Israel's retreat.

No other reading is reasonable given the language used and the context. The sacrifice was unquestionably directed to Chemosh, and the wrath was unquestionably that of a deity that was not Yahweh.

It also does not even specify how Israel was impelled to retreat.

A wrath overcame them and they retreated. Compare this retreat to that of Sennacherib from Jerusalem in 2 Kgs 19:35–36. The verb used of his retreat is identical to that of 2 Kgs 3:27.

Therefore, to use this obscure, non-specific text to support your claim is unjustified. If a text doesn't specify what you claim, then it doesn't specify what you claim!

The text doesn't have to be absolutely explicit for its meaning to be clear. There's simply no other logical reading of this verse.

You wrote:

No, I have argued that even if we accept your exegesis of the text your conclusion goes beyond the evidence. But I do think there are other explanations consistent with the general perspective of Kings for what the text says happened. The passage earlier in 2 Kings 3 informs us that Elisha had no respect for Israel (the northern kingdom) and was reluctant to offer any support or encouragement to the campaign against Moab.

It does not say that. It simply says that he would not help the campaign if it were not for the presence of the king of Judah. That's a contrafactual condition. Since the king of Judah was there, he helped the campaign. There's no indication his or Yahweh's aid would be mitigated or qualified in any way, shape, or form. In fact, the prophesy guaranteed unconditional success.

In the OT, Yahweh often uses one nation to chastise or punish another nation, then brings judgment on the first nation that had been his instrument of judgment. This might be what is happening in 2 Kings 3. The three kings' armies bring judgment on Moab, but Yahweh was also angry with Israel and so in some way unspecified in the text used Mesha's sacrifice of his son to cause Israel's retreat.

The text nowhere says or implies that Yahweh was angry with Israel. It says Jehoram did evil in the sight of Yahweh, but it never at all implies any response on Yahweh's part except for support of the campaign. In v. 13 the Israelite king's claim that Yahweh formed the coalition is not challenged by Elisha. In fact, it's what seems to have compelled him to give the prophecy.

This explanation seems to fit the wording of "great wrath came upon Israel," language that elsewhere refers to the wrath of Yahweh, even when (as here) Yahweh is not specified as the subject of the wrath (e.g., Num. 1:53; 18:5; Joshua 9:20; 22:20 [cf. 18]; 1 Chron. 27:24; 2 Chron. 32:25 [cf. v. 26]).

But now you're reading stuff into the text that is not only not in the text, but is flatly precluded by the text. The prophecy was nowhere qualified, and nowhere is Yahweh said to be angry with the coalition. You also cannot explain why Yahweh's wrath is suddenly kindled in response to Mesha's sacrifice of his son.

I haven't spent as much time on this passage as I'd like, but in my opinion this reading of the text is more likely than yours, because this reading fits both the wording (as just shown) and the context.

I don't believe it fits the wording or the context. It makes mention of Mesha's sacrifice utterly superfluous, it raises the question of the relationship between that sacrifice and the outbreak of the wrath, and it requires we impose upon the chapter an assumption regarding Yahweh's opinion about this campaign that flatly contradicts what the text says. The only reason it makes sense is because it avoids the only logical reading, namely that Chemosh drove off the Israelite forces. To say that my reading is unlikely because it's not totally explicit and then to say your reading is more likely even though it is not only less explicit, but it conflicts with the text, is, in my opinion, rather silly.

Also, I'm wondering if you have a response to Thom's comments.

[Rob Bowman]

Dan,

I pointed out, among other things, that 2 Kings 3:27 does not specify that the wrath that came on Israel was that of the Moabite god Chemosh. In defense of your interpretation of 2 Kings 3:27, you wrote:

The implication is quite clear.... There would have been no need or desire to explicitly state it.... The text doesn't have to be absolutely explicit for its meaning to be clear.

However, with regard to my suggestion that the wrath might have been Yahweh's, you wrote:

The text nowhere says or implies that Yahweh was angry with Israel.

I find your reasoning inconsistent. If it is legitimate for you to propose an interpretation that goes beyond what is explicitly stated, it is legitimate for me to do the same thing. The text nowhere says or implies that Chemosh was angry with Israel; in fact, the text never mentions Chemosh at all!

You wrote:

You also cannot explain why Yahweh's wrath is suddenly kindled in response to Mesha's sacrifice of his son.... It makes mention of Mesha's sacrifice utterly superfluous....

This is your strongest point, but the reality is that all interpretations of the passage have difficulties. Your interpretation requires you to conclude that the Deuteronomic redactors fell asleep when they came to 2 Kings 3. Let me suggest an even-handed way of stating the situation. Your interpretation seems more successful in dealing with the text's cryptic reference to wrath on Israel in the immediate context of the rest of the verse, whereas my interpretation seems more successful in dealing with the text's cryptic reference to wrath on Israel in the larger context of the Book of Kings as a whole. For now, I think I'll have to leave it at that.

You wrote:

To say that my reading is unlikely because it's not totally explicit and then to say your reading is more likely even though it is not only less explicit, but it conflicts with the text, is, in my opinion, rather silly.

Well, that's not what I said. I said your reading is unlikely because it doesn't fit the larger context of the Book of Kings.

You wrote:

Also, I'm wondering if you have a response to Thom's comments.

Not really. I agree that some scholars say things about the passage that lend some support to your conclusion, but the fact remains that very few reach that same conclusion (that in this passage Chemosh is presented as being more powerful and of higher status than Yahweh).

I'm sorry, but I probably will have little or nothing more to say on this issue for the time being. We've hashed it through pretty well and for me to take it much further would require spending a good number of hours in further research. I don't have the time for that level of commitment to this issue.

[maklelan]

Dan,

I pointed out, among other things, that 2 Kings 3:27 does not specify that the wrath that came on Israel was that of the Moabite god Chemosh. In defense of your interpretation of 2 Kings 3:27, you wrote:

However, with regard to my suggestion that the wrath might have been Yahweh's, you wrote:

I find your reasoning inconsistent. If it is legitimate for you to propose an interpretation that goes beyond what is explicitly stated, it is legitimate for me to do the same thing.

But I was quite clear that there is a large difference between our two approaches. My reading is implied by the text and is the only reading that fits what the text actually says. Your reading is not implied by the text and conflicts with what the text actually says. I see nothing at all inconsistent about preferring the former over the latter.

The text nowhere says or implies that Chemosh was angry with Israel; in fact, the text never mentions Chemosh at all!

I've already explained that the wrath can only be divine, it makes no sense as Yahweh's wrath in the context of the event, and the only divinity interested in Mesha's sacrifice was Chemosh. The text absolutely does imply it. I've explained how and why several times, and a response that amounts in essence to "Nu-uh" doesn't really engage what I've said.

You wrote:

This is your strongest point, but the reality is that all interpretations of the passage have difficulties. Your interpretation requires you to conclude that the Deuteronomic redactors fell asleep when they came to 2 Kings 3.

And I've already pointed to two other indications in this very chapter that such is the case, if we accept a Deuteronomistic redactor ever saw this text (which I have already stated is not necessarily a sound conclusion). I've already stated these things and you have not responded to them.

Let me suggest an even-handed way of stating the situation. Your interpretation seems more successful in dealing with the text's cryptic reference to wrath on Israel in the immediate context of the rest of the verse, whereas my interpretation seems more successful in dealing with the text's cryptic reference to wrath on Israel in the larger context of the Book of Kings as a whole. For now, I think I'll have to leave it at that.

That's one way to look at it, but as I have already shown and highlighted, the Book of Kings is demonstrably fragmentary. You have never responded to that. Additionally, your reading may prioritize the unity of the wider context, but it sacrifices the immediate context, as you have to import outside notions into the text--which directly conflict with it--in order to maintain that unity. I don't think that's a sound approach.

You wrote:

Well, that's not what I said. I said your reading is unlikely because it doesn't fit the larger context of the Book of Kings.

And I have pointed out multiple times that the notion that unity with the larger context is a hermeneutic restriction that must (or even can!) be placed on our exegesis of this single pericope is not only a fallacy, but is flatly precluded by the example of the fragmentary nature of Sennacherib's invasion. You have never responded to these points.

You wrote:

Not really. I agree that some scholars say things about the passage that lend some support to your conclusion, but the fact remains that very few reach that same conclusion (that in this passage Chemosh is presented as being more powerful and of higher status than Yahweh).

And that fact has no bearing whatsoever on the sound exegesis of this text.

I'm sorry, but I probably will have little or nothing more to say on this issue for the time being. We've hashed it through pretty well and for me to take it much further would require spending a good number of hours in further research. I don't have the time for that level of commitment to this issue.

Very well. I will leave the discussion pointing out that you appear to have intentionally avoided commenting on, or even acknowledging, several aspects of my argument that critically undermine your main points.

[Rob Bowman]

Dan,

You concluded:

I will leave the discussion pointing out that you appear to have intentionally avoided commenting on, or even acknowledging, several aspects of my argument that critically undermine your main points.

I don't appreciate this comment, which appears to impugn my integrity. Let me spell out the situation for you. I am a husband and father of four children. The three children still at home are all special needs. I am the only family member who has a job, who drives, or who can handle the bills. Everyone in my household has severe, chronic health issues except for me (so far). And as you know, I just had shoulder surgery. I'm awfully tired. I've gone back and forth with you several times on this one rather obscure verse. I have acknowledged that I have not done all of the research I feel would be necessary to go much further in this discussion. I have even acknowledged a strong point in your argument while offering my own viewpoint. Yet you felt it necessary to suggest that I am intentionally avoiding even acknowledging some aspects of your argument. So, to be frank, I take offense at your remark.

I could try to pick up the points you complain I haven't engaged, but your arrogance (e.g., constantly claiming that yours is the only logically possible, methodologically responsible exegesis even though many scholars disagree) and this recent offensive insinuation have drained me of any motivation to continue this or any other discussion with you.

[seriously honestly]

I though they only hated me.

No, I think it's a couple of harsher individuals that have monopolized the board and with whom others no longer wish to deal with that have made it appear that they don't like you and certain other LDS members.

[maklelan]

Dan,

You concluded:

I don't appreciate this comment, which appears to impugn my integrity. Let me spell out the situation for you. I am a husband and father of four children. The three children still at home are all special needs. I am the only family member who has a job, who drives, or who can handle the bills. Everyone in my household has severe, chronic health issues except for me (so far). And as you know, I just had shoulder surgery. I'm awfully tired. I've gone back and forth with you several times on this one rather obscure verse. I have acknowledged that I have not done all of the research I feel would be necessary to go much further in this discussion. I have even acknowledged a strong point in your argument while offering my own viewpoint. Yet you felt it necessary to suggest that I am intentionally avoiding even acknowledging some aspects of your argument. So, to be frank, I take offense at your remark.

I apologize for causing offense. It was not my intention. I was not aware of your situation, and I am not at all trying to impose upon your private life. I did, however, notice that you seemed to gloss over what I consider to be the most important aspects of my argument. I would prefer that you take more time so that you can fully engage what I have to say. If that's asking for too much time, and I understand perfectly if it is, then I think it would be better if you refrain from only partially engaging the debate.

I could try to pick up the points you complain I haven't engaged, but your arrogance (e.g., constantly claiming that yours is the only logically possible, methodologically responsible exegesis even though many scholars disagree) and this recent offensive insinuation have drained me of any motivation to continue this or any other discussion with you.

I'm sorry you feel that way. I appreciate that you've taken the time to dialogue with me, and I don't mean in any way at all to offend you or marginalize your commitment to your personal life. Certainly you realize, though, that it is frustrating when someone overlooks what you consider to be crucial portions of your argument and then makes assertions regarding putative shortcomings in your argument that have been fully addressed in those glossed over portions. I don't think it's inappropriate to point that out.