What came first: the chicken (the history) or the egg (religious reasoning)?
While reading these past two chapters (City of David and City of Judah), a line struck me and reminded me of reasoning that seems to be applicable to many biblical/religious stories -
"The prophet Micah, a disciple of Isaiah, foretold that Jerusalem would soon be reduced to a heap of rubble and Zion would become a plowed field. But Isaiah still insisted that all was not lost: Yahweh, the fortress of Zion, would protect his city. Reliance upon diplomacy and military preparations had indeed proved futile, but Yahweh's presence would repel the enemy. And, against all odds, Isaiah's predictions were dramatically fulfilled. We are not sure what happened. The Chronicler simply says that Yahweh sent his "angel" to destroy the Assyrian army and Sennacherib was forced to return home. The most reasonable explanation was that the Assyrians were decimated by plague, but nobody in Jerusalem wanted to hear prosaic facts. They naturally saw this deliverance as a miracle. Yahweh had indeed proved to be a mighty warrior who brought salvation to his people, as the cult had always proclaimed" (Armstrong, 70).
There are many stories in religious texts, like the Bible, that describe stories that give you the feeling that there is something off - that things are exaggerated, or that they might not have happened exactly how it was written. Like the story above describes, the army was most likely killed by a plague, not an 'angel'- but to citizens at the time, maybe it was possible that they believed the angel delivered the plague. Overall, it may not even matter what the actual truth is. To those within Jerusalem, Yahweh had delivered them from impending doom and could not, or would not, be told otherwise (especially Isaiah, who almost allowed his entire city to be decimated...whoops?).
It leads us to question what came first - the historical story or biblical reasoning? Did the plague wipe out the Assyrians, leading the Chronicler to have to whip up a story as to why? Or did the citizens believe an angel would come down and/or the hand of God would intervene and the Assyrians just happened to get the plague? Does it even matter in the end?
It seems to me that these stories tend to be event first, reasoning after. If the Assyrians had overtaken the city, the Chronicler certainly would not have asserted at that time that God saves Jerusalem from anything - another story would have been created in order to justify the destruction of self-determination and life. Many times, historical stories take on a religious meaning and tone after they have happened. Your enemy accidentally falls on his sword? The hand of God is behind you. All your livestock, servants, and children die in a plague? It was just God testing you.
I would not like to cast judgment on those who give religious meaning to events and/or believe these stories in the context of their religious nature; it is simply interesting to see how history is shifted in order for writers to weave in religious context and justification in certain instances, especially if these instances have occurred in the far past and can be debated with relatively little consequences in the modern day. It would be interesting to study other religious texts that contain historical stories but have been written by authors who inject religious meaning into them.
"The prophet Micah, a disciple of Isaiah, foretold that Jerusalem would soon be reduced to a heap of rubble and Zion would become a plowed field. But Isaiah still insisted that all was not lost: Yahweh, the fortress of Zion, would protect his city. Reliance upon diplomacy and military preparations had indeed proved futile, but Yahweh's presence would repel the enemy. And, against all odds, Isaiah's predictions were dramatically fulfilled. We are not sure what happened. The Chronicler simply says that Yahweh sent his "angel" to destroy the Assyrian army and Sennacherib was forced to return home. The most reasonable explanation was that the Assyrians were decimated by plague, but nobody in Jerusalem wanted to hear prosaic facts. They naturally saw this deliverance as a miracle. Yahweh had indeed proved to be a mighty warrior who brought salvation to his people, as the cult had always proclaimed" (Armstrong, 70).
Image found here
There are many stories in religious texts, like the Bible, that describe stories that give you the feeling that there is something off - that things are exaggerated, or that they might not have happened exactly how it was written. Like the story above describes, the army was most likely killed by a plague, not an 'angel'- but to citizens at the time, maybe it was possible that they believed the angel delivered the plague. Overall, it may not even matter what the actual truth is. To those within Jerusalem, Yahweh had delivered them from impending doom and could not, or would not, be told otherwise (especially Isaiah, who almost allowed his entire city to be decimated...whoops?).
It leads us to question what came first - the historical story or biblical reasoning? Did the plague wipe out the Assyrians, leading the Chronicler to have to whip up a story as to why? Or did the citizens believe an angel would come down and/or the hand of God would intervene and the Assyrians just happened to get the plague? Does it even matter in the end?
It seems to me that these stories tend to be event first, reasoning after. If the Assyrians had overtaken the city, the Chronicler certainly would not have asserted at that time that God saves Jerusalem from anything - another story would have been created in order to justify the destruction of self-determination and life. Many times, historical stories take on a religious meaning and tone after they have happened. Your enemy accidentally falls on his sword? The hand of God is behind you. All your livestock, servants, and children die in a plague? It was just God testing you.
I would not like to cast judgment on those who give religious meaning to events and/or believe these stories in the context of their religious nature; it is simply interesting to see how history is shifted in order for writers to weave in religious context and justification in certain instances, especially if these instances have occurred in the far past and can be debated with relatively little consequences in the modern day. It would be interesting to study other religious texts that contain historical stories but have been written by authors who inject religious meaning into them.
Comments
Post a Comment