Rob said: "But that he was not a priest of the Canaanite religion is just a denial of the nature of the times and places."It's not that simple, Rob. I've been digging into this because of your (unsubstantiated) claims.
I found a scholarly article (a liberal one, not evangelical) and it pointed out (with citations) that Ugarit had a self-conscious identity distinguished from Canaan. If that is true, it is completely unwarranted to assume Salem, at the time of Abram, shared the practices of Ugarit.
Further, the peoples scholars refer to as "Canaanites" is more of a convention than anything. In fact, there was a diversity of religious practices based on geography. When combined with the fact Ugarit had a unique identity from Canaan, it becomes that much more obvious that your claims are unfounded and can't be taken for granted. Harumpfings to the contrary won't make it so.
Complicating your claims is the fact that Salem seemed to have a unique identity, or at the very least had some measure of independence. One of its kings seemed to be allied (or sought an alliance) with Egypt within a couple hundred years of Abram. Does that mean anything? It might...it might not. It at least leaves open the idea that Salem, at the time of Abram, may not have been under influence of Canaan...or, it may have been under influence of Canaan, but remained fairly independent...even desiring to break fee during the time of Abram.
That is not unique, btw. There were varying levels of control where Canaan had power.
All of this to say, you want to take for granted something that is hotly debated. Those that see El Elyon from Gen 14 as a Canaanite god are typically those who view religion through an evolutionary frame of mind...so for them, "of course it's El Elyon of Canaan. The Hebrews were Canaanites who adopted, then altered Canaanite religion". They don't question their assumptions because that isn't "scholarly". El and Elyon appear in the Ugarit texts (and elsewhere), so it must be that Melchizedek was a priest following Canaanite rituals and Yahwehism is just an evolutionary change in practices...that's what they suppose, because, "Darn it! Evolution is true!"
Another complication you probably aren't aware of: Different sources online will say El Elyon was a Canaanite god...these are the sites that come up with a simple google search that regurgitate the same info without citation. But was "El Elyon" an individual god in Canaan?
I went to scholarly sources available on google books, I read conflicting things. One, as an example, agreed that "El Elyon" in Gen 14 was a Canaanite god...however, the source said the name was a combination of two different gods. The question of the day: Why assume El Elyon was a Canaanite god?
For Ugarit (and possibly Canaan), El and Elyon were different.
These names, El, and Elyon, are titles. One is generic, the other isn't. The combination of El Elyon exists almost exclusively in the Bible. So again: why assume a title almost exclusive to the Bible "must" be reference to the Canaanite's/Ugarite's false religion? If the Ugarit texts present uniformity of religious practices, then Melchizedek is evidence of a divergence. He worshiped one God, not El and Elyon...but El Elyon.
Rob, it’s dangerous to interpret Scripture through a lens exterior to Scripture. Melchizedek was a priest of God, Most High. This same God who Abram said in v22 was “Yahweh”. It’s not complicated. This is what Scripture says. Scholars say conflicting things, and when you evaluate the evidence, it really doesn’t shed any light on Genesis 14.
Rob said: “Interestingly, there were no priests in the chosen line until Moses.”True. Yet believing husbands and fathers acted as priests offering sacrifices. Job did, even making sacrifices for his children. Abram offered sacrifices. Noah offered sacrifices. Cain and Abel did as well…and there was an expectation of what should be offered, which is why Cain killed Abel, as we all know. Likewise, Melchizedek, this priest of Yahweh, served as a king and a priest…in all this he acted as a father, not as a Canaanite cult leader. This actually shows a certain uniformity between Melchizedek and the practice of the patriarchs.
One question I would like to see answered is this: Was it typical among tribal leaders in Canaan to be kings and priests at the time of Abram?
It doesn't seem to be the case.
That not only distinguished Melchizedek in a way which prefigures Christ, but also distinguishes him from the Canaanites...again...evidence of disunity. Melchizedek may have been the last vestige of faith in Salem before it was overrun by Canaanite practices.
Rob said: “What it demonstrates is that what I am saying is line with orthodoxy, it is quite thinkable.”Again: This doesn’t shed light on the meaning of Genesis 14. At most, it just says that your interpretation is in agreement with another idea, not that the idea is actually provided in the text. What you’ve also done is provided a circular argument. You wanted to cite Melchizedek as an example of a pagan worshiping God ignorantly…worshiping Canaanite gods as if they were Yahweh. Having not been able to demonstrate the claim, retreating to what some Church fathers say in general doesn’t support your case. Why? You were supposed to be showing that idol worship can be authentic worship of Yahweh…but retreating to the fathers on this and then projecting it onto Gen 14 simply assumes the very thing you’re supposed to be proving. It’s circular, and it offers no insight on the chapter at hand.
Rob said: “It certainly highlights that what I am suggesting is not purely novel as you have critisized.”
You need to be specific here, Rob. You may not be trying to be slippery, but that is the end result. Here’s what I mean:
- I have never said that your belief in general re: pagans was a novelty.
- I have said your interpretation of Gen 14 is a novelty.
To bolster the first, you appealed to Melchizedek. While I don’t rest on the fathers, it does say something when someone deviates from a historical understanding. Doesn’t mean the new is wrong, but the claim needs to be examined. I’ve examined it. At the biblical level, Genesis 14 doesn’t offer reason to think El Elyon was a Canaanite god. In fact, Abram says El Elyon is Yahweh. That’s the information we have, and that should be enough.
At the scholarly level (you and I are not scholars on the subject of Ugarit or Canaan), it is hotly debated. In fact, evidence regarding Canaanite practices shows diversity…and regarding Salem, during the time of Abram, it appears it was relatively independent. There’s no scholarly reason to think El Elyon would be anyone other than Yahweh. If he were, it would apparently be a break from the Ugarit texts which have “El” as one god, and “Elyon” as another. So on the one hand, you appeal to the uniformity of Canaanite religious practice (which is already dubious), but on the other, you have to rely on diversity since these were two separate gods being meshed into one. On what grounds do you do this?
The solution is simple, Rob. We don’t know much about Melchizedek. What we do know is what Scripture says: He was a priest of God Most High, the same God of Abram: Yahweh.
Rob said: "I don't mean to insult, and yeah, there is a degree of dismissiveness here."Well, your judgment at this point is questionable. You've offered no careful arguments, and I'm pretty much sure you've done no further research beyond google hits on Ugarit, Melchizedek, and El Elyon.
I happen to think it is very relevant that Paul was grieved by the sight of idols. As Paul confirms in Romans 1, idol worship is evidence men are being turned over to their wickedness and futile minds. This is consant with Paul's sermon at Athens where he says the Athenian philosophers were ignorant. Luke's comment on the Athenians' character offers further light. It comports with the fact idol worship is not reaching toward God, it is actually the birth pangs of judgment where men are turned over to futile thinking.
Feel free to give up on Melchizedek. I think that would be the manly thing to do.
13 comments:
source it Craig.
Where's your bibliography, Rob? The onus is always on me...show me your sources.
So far, you've specifically cited a website that makes reference to the encyclopedia Judaica. Dr. Jim Myers, co-founder of the "Biblical Heritage Center" received his PhD in Biblical linguistics from a school boasting that its primary resource for their theological students is Logos Scholar's software (http://www.logos.edu/software.htm)...makes you wonder what they had access to when Dr. Myers got his PhD!
My take re: Melchizedek in Gen 14 doesn't actually rest on my research. Yours does. How 'bout it? Pony up
seriously craig? I showed my source which references another source. There's nothing scandalous in that. And the claim I made you have proven, that Elyon is a Canaanite God. (i'm not making a claim of victory here, you made some additional claims which require scrutiny.)
You've scrutinized my source and I'm just asking for yours so that I might scrutinize it for myself. There is nothing wrong with this request.
I don't understand the hesitency at all nor the snottiness with it.
There are three reasons I withheld my sources:
1) My take on Melchizedek is not tied to my sources. My arguments for Melchizedek do NOT rest on anything outside of the Word...YOUR CLAIMS DO. You cited a singular BOGUS source.
I fact-checked your claims and it became apparent through a scholarly article I found via Denver Seminary (a liberal seminary), which referenced some other sources facilitated facilitated a search of google books to find out that your claim requires a massive amount of research, verification, argument, and evidence...and the evidence doesn't exist to link Ugarit's practices to Salem.
2) This blog post was originally a comment...not an intended blog post with citations. I left out the citations for pragmatic reasons...digging them back up will require me to do MORE work...which leads me to number 3.
3) I'd like to see you do some work for a change. To describe your exchanges as being lazy is a severe understatement. You've been insulting with your words and your laziness in this discussion is also insulting. A singular link is what you provided! It cited an encyclopedia! Their list of recommended reading at the Biblical Heritage Center includes another lazy author, Bart Ehrman, and the co-founder of the site got his PhD from a graduate school that uses Logos bible software as a primary resource AND...they don't bother listing the professors they have on staff. Students looking to learn want to know who is teaching. Schools that want to attract quality students list their profs along with their CV's...not that school, though! That place is the equivalent of a Christianized diploma mill.
So please, pardon me if I'm testy about this. You may be able to get away with your laziness with others, but not here.
Work? Nah. not necessary. I don't respond well to this sort of attempt at discipline, so sorry if you are in a spanky mood. And its fallacious to suggest that my arguments fail on the work or lack of work alone. If my claim is easy to support, than that’s that.
Still what this leaves me with is that my claim, that Elyon is a common God as broadly sourced in the Encyclopedia Judaica is better supported than your claims, which you refuse to source because I've been naughty and this is how you're punishing me. Of course, again, that original claim is only vindicated in what you wrote.
Since I know you, I know you aren't making this up. That's not to say that i trust your interpretation. Clearly we have differences in how to go about that, but I'll take your word for it for now.
So you note that because of the alleged independence of ugarit, that we can't read any insight into what the religion of Salem might've been. The thing is, I acknowledge that there would be differences in religion. The Canaanites were generally offensive to God, where Melchizedek found favor. Nevertheless, he still served El Most High who is referenced in other literature.
But I think you are reading way too much into that independent identity. Signifcant degrees of cultural and political identity does not equate with full religious independence or a lack of religious influence. Greece stands as a counterexample, where the pantheon of the God’s of different independent city states where part of the same mythology. And in fact, the whole east Mediterranean area exhibited the religious soup of mingling pantheons where myths were mixed and gods and goddesses had counterparts consciously representing gods from other pantehons. In light of that, 50 miles is a short distance (much shorter than the distance between Salem and Ur).
As for the novelty issue, you repeated exactly what I conceded, you just don’t see it as significant that the general recognition of the saved pagan philosophers of the Church fathers is significant. Yes, I know that we don’t know that similar thoughts were suggested of Melchizedech specifically. And as far as we know, it remains that that is just an argument from our ignorance. FYI, the earliest person I found to hold Melchizedech as a holy pagan is Jonathan Edwards (smart guy... I still don’t know that he used the term, not quite early enough for my purposes).
But I will concede that I don’t know that Melchizedek did not have a preserved pre Jewish faith of Noah. Still, you have development there beyond anything we know that was guided by God in the specific. Melchizedech was a priest. I’m sure you weren’t suggesting that fathers as priests explains this as it is a stretch to suggest that Melchizedech was a father to all of Salem is a bit of a stretch. And to refer this priestly connection with sacrifice again strengthens Jethro as an example of a pagan one who’s priesthood was respected.
So for the sake of argument, I will grant that Melchizedek had held this pre-judaism. In virtue of what was it that Melchizedech found favor? Was it that he preserved the stories before? Was it that he was in a succession of priests? I’m going to defer to my protestant Christian understanding of Paul and say that Melchizedek found favor with God because he had responded in faith. Succession does not save and neither does the preservation of traditions, though doing so was the content of his faith (and not the same content we have. But what this succession preservation of traditions would have done is preserve God’s identity for whom Melchizedek would have faith. But is that necessary for someone to be able to identify God? Romans tells us not, that general revelation serves to identify God as creator to everyone and hence, anyone can find God.
Rob,
that was a naughty-naughty spank.
Saying you're lazy isn't fallacious, it's just a fact. You sourced a non-source that refers to an encyclopedia. Sorry, no one really sources encyclopedias...not after junior high, at least.
I also said I wasn't going to re-dig up my sources. I hadn't planned on making a blog with citations...I have been reading off-and-on for the last couple of weeks, I hadn't expected you to keep pushing the Melchizedek nonsense. I took a look at my browsing history, and it was getting difficult to find everything given I searched A LOT of different sources. Digging them up again is a pain, which is why I emailed an actual scholar to lend some insight.
Laziness isn't fallacious, but the end results were: Ignorant conjecture, mere assertion, circular logic, and that's just off the top of my head.
Saying you're lazy isn't fallacious, it's just a fact.
of fallacious relevence.
Sorry, no one really sources encyclopedias...not after junior high, at least.
No one sources a general encyclopedia for class papers. Its too easy. Specialized ones are products of scholarship and fair game. They don't publish specialized multi-thousand dollar encyclopedia for grade school libraries. They are references and they are legitimate.
The weakness of my source isn't that its an encyclopedia, it was that it was second hand. Perhaps Jim Meyers used Elyon for El. And then again, this may indeed be a scholarly opinion. But at any rate, replace what i said about Elyon with El, rinse, wash repeat. But I'm not depending on that. I conceded your point.
I also said I wasn't going to re-dig up my sources.
Don't worry. I explicitely let it slip. Next time don't be so lazy.
Laziness isn't fallacious, but the end results were:
I defended the claim that Elyon was a common Canaanite diety. that was not a fallacious end result. It may be wrong. But fallacious and false are two different things. When you ponied up a real source, he disagreed with my second hand source. I accept that. But it was not fallacious.
I took a risk, and it didn't turn out well. I accept that. And i can adapt. It happens in critical honest thought.
Ignorant conjecture,
No more ignorant than your insistence that Melchizedek was not pagan. But still, I'm not going to depend on that. And it is actually you who depend on it going your way since your view cannot tolerate someone like Melchizedek being a holy pagan, but I merely at the worst lose an example, and at best, (and have) adjusted what I take from the example.
circular logic,
I didn't cover that. No, I didn't use circular logic. What you called circular logic is anything but that. If I had said, something (strange) like "Melchizedek was a holy pagan, and therefore the early church fathers believed that there were holy pagans, thus Melchizedek was a holy pagan," that would be circular. No, my point was that the way I took the Genesis passage was in line with the way the church fathers thought about other pagans, thus the general belief is not novel. No, that's not circular in the slightest.
Now Craig, I have advanced the discussion. You've complained that I "argued about arguing" but that is all that you have done in your last post. And its not like that's scandelous. How one argues is indeed important. But you seemed to think it was.
When you ponied up a real source, he disagreed with my second hand source.
Actually, I didn't do that in discussion cause I hadn't even read your most recent blog topic. My last post directly on topic conceded your point for another reason. No, I took your word for it (which is granting a lesser source, you, technically speaking since you refused to name your source and my source didn't).
Rob said: "But at any rate, replace what i said about Elyon with El, rinse, wash repeat."
Not really. "El" was also a generic term for God...it appears throughout the OT. You've conceded the point, I think, so I won't belabor this: It should be clear your point doesn't stand when you replace "Elyon" with "El". You still haven't provided the evidence necessary to link Melchizedek to Canaanite worship.
Rob said: "that was not a fallacious end result"
Try reading more carefully...I feel silly making such a silly point, but I wasn't saying the face you were wrong was logically fallacious, rather, that you ended up making fallacious arguments.
Rob said: "No more ignorant than your insistence that Melchizedek was not pagan."
Except the part of Genesis 14 that says El Elyon is Yahweh. I ignorantly conjecture that is what Melchizedek was...a priest of Yahweh.
Rob said: "And it is actually you who depend on it going your way since your view cannot tolerate someone like Melchizedek being a holy pagan"
I'm not concerned about finding an interpretation that "tolerates" contrary views. If the Word says one thing, and not another, obedience requires "intolerance".
Rob said: "No, I didn't use circular logic."
This isn't important, but you did. You were supposed to be arguing for your position, retreated to non-disclosed church fathers, then projected it back onto Genesis 14. While I have no doubts some of the Church fathers believed that some pagans were “ignorant” believers, the ones I read did not take Genesis 14 to be such a case. So your interpretation of Genesis 14 is novel. You didn’t argue for your position, but assumed it then projected it on Gen 14 as if that somehow lent credibility to your interpretation…it didn’t.
Rob said: “No, I took your word for it (which is granting a lesser source, you, technically speaking since you refused to name your source and my source didn't).”
“Technically”, I guess I’ve refused to name my sources to myself…darn that browsing history. Given you didn’t do much more than a google search, then start spouting off nonsense, I doubt you would have done much reading of those sources except to dig up sources that say something contrary.
Rob said: “Now Craig, I have advanced the discussion.”
Well, now that you’ve conceded Melchizedek, we’re really just where we began. If you’d like to look into commentaries re: Paul at Athens, then make some informed arguments, I’d be willing to hear those. If it’s going to be “more of the same”, then I’m not interested. I will not spend time I really don’t have when it’s clear to me that a man is willing to contort the Word every which-way, employ sloppy arguments, use fallacious arguments, then harangue about arguing when it’s clear he’s just being argumentative…there is a way to argue about arguing, then there’s being argumentative. When a man is being argumentative, it’s like trying to get a grip on a slippery fish. For all his argumentative “reasoning”, he’s really not interested in being reasonable.
Craig, I didn't make a concession soon enough and I know how obnoxious that can be. I took a surliness from the fb discussion to your blog and I figured that Craig's a blunt guy so I'll be blunt with him. It didn't work out. I apologize.
But what was discussed, it remains that we don't see eye to eye, and I could return to points and defend comments and we could develop this as I have failed to demonstrate what is obvious to me and I don't see that you have shown me a real alternative, but the discussion has become toxic and it has long worn out its fruitfulness. I take most of the responsibility for that but I'm not humble enough to take it all. I don't expect you to agree nor am I waiting for that.
I hope this won't be our last discussion or even debate. Good day.
Rob: "I hope this won't be our last discussion or even debate. Good day."
I don't plan on it being our last discussion. When you and I disagree, it's almost always a diametrical opposition...there's really no in-between.
Let me say some things in parting from this discussion, not as a pot-shot, or to stick my leg out to trip you. I wonder if one reason our discussions prove fruitless is the way you go off on bunny trails...like almost immediately (think C.S. Lewis reference, Melchizedek, and Jethro). I happen to think you may distract yourself from the issues, and that may be why you don't see the weight of my arguments. That's just speculation on my part, of course.
Sticking to a passage, arguing through the passage using the passage's clues will be more likely to result in heat that produces light. Scripture interpreting Scripture. Had you stuck with Paul at Mars Hill, you may have seen greater opportunity to make your case. I think Acts 17:30 would be a more likely starting ground for arguing inclusivism...but that never came up.
I have a ready response, but that would have produced a more focused discussion.
Again, not meant as a parting pot-shot. When men are more focused on a particular passage, there's less opportunity for error and pride. And I obviously include myself, here. I know I should have just walked away from the discussion, but I became proud and wanted to "show you". Petty? Sure...I can be be petty.
I'm not currently interested in further discussion, but I wouldn't mind at all seeing what you have to say on acts 17:30. It was on the agenda.
Don't worry, I'm not interested, either.
Post a Comment