Bokovoy on deification of kings - for Kevin and Fort

Post by **_bcspace** » Fri Apr 27, 2007 4:00 am

But he hasn't responded here, of course. After saying that there wasn't any point in discussing things with us because we're insufficiently educated on the subject and can't understand his arguments, I note that he still regards our arguments as sufficiently dangerous to warrant airtime on his blog (where he can post them safely without his viewers seeing our responses).

I'm always interested in getting these kinds of people together to see how all the evidence plays out. Of course I'm also still waiting for Fortigurn to come up with a single example of an antiMormon not guilty of lazy research or even to document a single case where I might have engaged in such......

Post by **_CaliforniaKid** » Fri Apr 27, 2007 7:24 am

Hi David,

Your most recent example doesn't seem to me to make the case for divinized kings. It establishes that kings are a nobler class of persons, but that's a far cry from divinity. Perhaps the strongest indication of divinity there is that Nusku "stands at his service." I am reminded of India's Brahmins, who are thought of as superior beings, looked on as "other-worldly," and thought to be "knowers of God." Certainly they are superior to others in terms of their importance to religion and society, but they certainly are not gods. What do you think? Could your Neo-Assyrian creation account simply be affirming the king's superiority over his subjects? Is it necessarily divinizing him?

-CK

Post by **_Enuma Elish** » Fri Apr 27, 2007 12:15 pm

Hello CK,

Your most recent example doesn't seem to me to make the case for divinized kings. It establishes that kings are a nobler class of persons, but that's a far cry from divinity. Perhaps the strongest indication of divinity there is that Nusku "stands at his service." I am reminded of India's Brahmins, who are thought of as superior beings, looked on as "other-worldly," and thought to be "knowers of God." Certainly they are superior to others in terms of their importance to religion and society, but they certainly are not gods. What do you think? Could your Neo-Assyrian creation account simply be affirming the king's superiority over his subjects? Is it necessarily divinizing him?

You are correct. The text does not refer to the king as a divinized being. Unlike the Mesopotamian kings of the Ur III period, the Neo-Assyrian monarchs were not presented as gods. In fact, as my blog entry on the subject suggests, later Mesopotamian traditions appear to reject such a view.

I pointed to this interesting text to simply illustrate that even within the Neo-Assyrian texts, the king appears as a being that is quite separate from humanity. I don't believe that ancient Near Eastern people had the same notion of "species" that the modern term denotes, so I hesitate to use the word, but still, it really is almost as the king is something other than human.

I appreciate the question; I admit that the addition of the text to my postings was unclear.

Best,

--David

Post by **_EnemyAce** » Sun Apr 29, 2007 5:59 am

Enuma Elish wrote:I pointed to this interesting text to simply illustrate that even within the Neo-Assyrian texts, the king appears as a being that is quite separate from humanity. I don't believe that ancient Near Eastern people had the same notion of "species" that the modern term denotes, so I hesitate to use the word, but still, it really is almost as the king is something other than human.

I appreciate the question; I admit that the addition of the text to my postings was unclear.

Best,

--David

I am a bit confused. I was reading the king's list and it uses the word divine in referring to the kings:

The divine Lugal-banda, the shepherd, ruled for 1200 years.
The divine Dumuzi, the fisherman, whose city was Ku'ara, ruled for 100.
Gilgameš, whose father was an invisible being, the lord of Kulaba, ruled for 126 years.
Ur-Nungal, son of the divine Gilgameš, ruled for 30 years.

Additionally, was Utnapishtim, a priest-king, offered divinity as well?
Does the term "divine" have a different meaning?

Post by **_Enuma Elish** » Sun Apr 29, 2007 1:00 pm

Hello Ace,

As you know, I’m a Biblicist, not an Assyriologist. Hence, I suspect that you, no doubt, know more than I do about many of these issues.

However, as I understand it, Thorkild Jacobsen demonstrated that all the extant versions of the Sumerian Kinglist derive from a single original version written at the time of Utu-hegal, the king of Uruk, the liberator of the city of Sumer from the Gutians.

So the god kings mentioned throughout the list reflect the views of deification witnessed in the Neo-Sumerian or Ur III dynasty.

Best,

--David

Post by **_EnemyAce** » Mon Apr 30, 2007 5:13 am

CaliforniaKid wrote:Hi David,

Your most recent example doesn't seem to me to make the case for divinized kings. It establishes that kings are a nobler class of persons, but that's a far cry from divinity. Perhaps the strongest indication of divinity there is that Nusku "stands at his service." I am reminded of India's Brahmins, who are thought of as superior beings, looked on as "other-worldly," and thought to be "knowers of God." Certainly they are superior to others in terms of their importance to religion and society, but they certainly are not gods. What do you think? Could your Neo-Assyrian creation account simply be affirming the king's superiority over his subjects? Is it necessarily divinizing him?

-CK

With some trepidation I put my foot into the jaws of ignorance, but I have to agree with David. In some of the readings I have done divine kingship was bestowed on mere mortals through marriage to Inana. In Philip Jones' Embracing Inana: Legitimation and Mediation in the Ancient Mesopotamian Sacred Marriage Hymn Iddin-Dagan A. he makes the comment that

"The sacred marriage ceremony from ancient Mesopotamia is one of the most dramatic ways of conceptualizing the relationship between king and gods known from the ancient world. According to a number of literary texts, kings from the late third and early second millennia (1)--and perhaps even earlier--consummated a ritual union with Inana, the goddess of love and war. Given the literary nature of our evidence, this ceremony may have been only an intellectual construct, rather than an event in real life. (2) Irrespective of this, however, it remains a major source, not only for early Mesopotamian religious thought in general, but for ideas of kingship in particular.
The specific implications of the ceremony for the king, however, have not been central to scholarly debate on the meaning of the sacred marriage. Traditionally, Assyriologists disagreed over whether the ceremony involved the bestowing of fertility on the homeland, (3) or of power on the king. (4) In more recent years, while attention continues to be paid to these issues, they are more often subsumed under considerations of liminality, sexuality, and gender. (5)
Within the context of these studies, kingship has tended to be treated in two ways. In functional terms, the ceremony is seen as legitimizing the king. Either he himself is the recipient of divine favor, (6) or he is the means whereby his subjects enjoy such benefits. (7) In cosmological terms, the marriage is seen as marking the king as the figure who mediates between the human and divine worlds. (8)

Admittedly this doesn't necessarily make the king divine, but it would be hard to imagine a mere mortal consorting with a goddess. Secondly, there seems, at least in IMHO, a connection between the passages in "Song of Solomon" and the more ancient Mesopotamian text. Reading Song of Solomon and Iddin-Dagan seems very familiar.
Also, in The Origins of Biblical Monotheism: Israel's Polytheistic Background and the Ugaritic Texts
Book by Mark S. Smith; Oxford University Press, 2003, it relates a bit more of this sacred connection.

Many scholars have take Psalm 45:7 as evidence for the royal theology of the king as “divine” ('ělōhîm): kis'ǎkā'ělōhîm 'ôlām wā‘ed, “your throne, O divine one, (is) forever and ever. ” 88 The versions generally render the syntax in this manner. 89 Such ambiguity may be as old as the text, and the interpretation of 'ělōhîm as God perhaps contributed to the survival of such an otherwise bald biblical reference to the king's divinity.

Prof. Smith goes on to enumerate the critical aspects of this theory.

Criticism of this view has been voiced. The lack of clear parallels to the king as 'ělōhîm has represented a major impediment according to J. A. Emerton and P. Mosca. The “muted reflex” 92 of the notion in Zechariah 12:8 may reflect, however, the background of a “high” royal theology, which applied 'ělōhîm to the monarch. 93 The description of the king as 'ělōhim in Ezekiel 28:14 may represent a polemic against this notion of the monarchy. 94 H. J. Kraus also compares 2 Samuel 14:17, 20, where David's ability to judge makes him kěmal'ak hā'ělōhîm, “like the angel of God. ” 95 C. F. Whitley offers a further argument for the king as 'ělōhîm by noting points of contact between Psalms 89 and 45:7–8:

Ps89…provides an instructive comparison with Ps 45, 7–8. Thus in Ps 89, 10.21 Yahweh has chosen David from amongst the people throne…. Such comparisons indicate that the Elohim of Ps 45, 7 and the Davidic figure of Ps 89 are not only similar but identifiable.
J. R. Porter bases his own argument for the king as 'ělōhîm on a comparison of 2 Samuel 14 and Genesis 3:
[A]t 2 Sam. xiv. 17, David is called the Angel of God because he is able lišmōa' haṭṭôb wěhārā': this recalls Gen. iii. 22 lāda'at ṭôb wārā', and it was precisely this knowledge which placed Adam among the 'ělōhîm. Thus it is hardly correct that an address to the king as God finds no close parallel elsewhere in the Old Testament. 97
Emerton objects to this view, noting that the notion of the knowledge of good and evil appears in nonroyal contexts such as Deuteronomy 1:39 and 2 Samuel 19:36 and that comparison of David with an angel does not indicate identity with a divine being. 98 However, other elements reflecting royal influence may be discerned in Genesis 2–3, and the nonroyal examples of this type of knowledge may have derived from royal usage. Moreover, the lack of references to the monarch as 'ělōhîm may not constitute a definitive criterion, especially if such “high” royal theology were considered inappropriate in later periods.
Furthermore, the use of 'ělōhîm for the monarch may represent not an ontological claim but a description intended to heighten the power of the king by rhetorically raising him to divine status. K. W. Whitelam speaks to this point: “Widely expressed attempts to explain away such explicit language as due to textual corruption, ellipsism or grammatical niceties have not proved wholly convincing. It needs to be asked to what extent the audience or audiences of royal rituals would have drawn such careful distinctions in the use of language. ” 99 In conclusion, interpreting 'ělōhîm for the king in Psalm 45:7 is certainly debatable but plausible on the bases of the versional support; the basic intelligiblity of the syntax; the sense of the idea within ancient Israel, perhaps as a reflex of its West Semitic/Israelite heritage; and its support among many modern commentators. However, the lack of scholarly consensus on this interpretation precludes it as an independent witness to the notion of the king as 'ělōhîm, but it comports with information otherwise known of royal theology and seems to constitute one of the several mythic ideas applied to the king.

Post by **_CaliforniaKid** » Mon Apr 30, 2007 6:16 am

Hi EnemyAce,

I hope your reference to the jaws of ignorance wasn't referring to me. I am indeed ignorant, but my ignorance is all bark and no bite, I assure you. No danger of losing your foot if you put it here. ;-)

I find it interesting that you appear to be going farther than DB, in that you are arguing for divine kingship in royal Israelite theology (whereas David appears to have restricted his commentary to Ugarit and Mesopotamia). I recently posted a comment on DB's blog wherein I inquired about his views on a point Margaret Barker made in her essay "What Did King Josiah Reform," but he doesn't appear to have approved the comment. She basically argues that at King Solomon's coronation, he set himself up in the holy of holies of the temple and the people worshipped him. I don't buy the holy of holies bit (there was no temple at that time and the Tabernacle was at Nob), but the Bible does seem to indicate in one verse that Solomon was worshipped. I wonder if you have read that essay and if you have any thoughts on it.

-CK

Post by **_Enuma Elish** » Mon Apr 30, 2007 11:41 am

Hello CK,

CaliforniaKid wrote:Hi EnemyAce,

I hope your reference to the jaws of ignorance wasn't referring to me. I am indeed ignorant, but my ignorance is all bark and no bite, I assure you. No danger of losing your foot if you put it here. ;-)

I find it interesting that you appear to be going farther than DB, in that you are arguing for divine kingship in royal Israelite theology (whereas David appears to have restricted his commentary to Ugarit and Mesopotamia). I recently posted a comment on DB's blog wherein I inquired about his views on a point Margaret Barker made in her essay "What Did King Josiah Reform," but he doesn't appear to have approved the comment. She basically argues that at King Solomon's coronation, he set himself up in the holy of holies of the temple and the people worshipped him. I don't buy the holy of holies bit (there was no temple at that time and the Tabernacle was at Nob), but the Bible does seem to indicate in one verse that Solomon was worshipped. I wonder if you have read that essay and if you have any thoughts on it.

-CK

Your comments have not appeared on my blog and I would really like to read your question. You may need to hit publish in order for the comment to appear, but I really can't say how the comment feature works.

Regards,

--David

Post by **_CaliforniaKid** » Mon Apr 30, 2007 5:35 pm

hmm...

I posted two comments, actually, but neither has appeared. It told me you would have to approve them before they showed up. I don't know what happened, but maybe they're lost in cyberspace somewhere. Anyway, my blog comment wasn't really any more elaborate than the question I posed above to EnemyAce. Here is the bit from Barker's essay to which I was referring:

Once we know that the sons of God were an important part of the first temple religion, other Old Testament texts begin to appear in their original setting. The holy of holies was the place of the angels, and so the rituals of the holy of holies must have been associated with the world of the angels. [30] According the Books of Chronicles, there was in the holy of holies a golden throne in the form of a chariot of cherubim (1 Chron.28.18). It was concealed behind the veil of the temple (2 Chronicles 3.14). The account in 1 Kings, influenced by the Deuteronomists, mentions neither the chariot throne nor the veil, so these must have been important items in the older religion. You will recall that the cherubim had been in the first temple but not the second, and were to be restored in the time of the Messiah (Num Rab XV.10). The Book of Chronicles also reveals that when Solomon was made king, he sat on this chariot throne, described as the throne of the Lord, and when he was enthroned, the people worshipped him (1 Chronicles 29.20-23). ‘The people worshipped the Lord, the king’ is the literal translation of 1 Chronicles 29.20. The king ‘was’ the Lord. [31] He was enthroned in the holy of holies, and he was the Lord. One of his titles, according to Isaiah, was Immanuel, God with us’. A human being had entered the holy of holies and become an angel. Isaiah records the song of the angels in the holy of holies as the new angel is born as a son of God ‘Unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given, and the government shall be upon his shoulder, and his name shall be called Wonderful Counsellor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace’ (Isaiah 9.6). [32]

http://kevingraham.org/reform.htm

Now, this argument is in my opinion highly irresponsible. Barker engages in a huge amount of extrapolation, for which she provides positively zero rationale, and she presents it all as unquestioned fact. Really all we have are two brief and highly ambiguous passages:

He [David] also gave him [Solomon] the plan for the chariot, that is, the cherubim of gold that spread their wings and shelter the ark of the covenant of the LORD. - 1 Chronicles 28:28b

Then David said to the whole assembly, "Praise the LORD your God." So they all praised the LORD, the God of their fathers; they bowed low and fell prostrate before [Hunter Biden. worshipped] the LORD and the king. The next day they made sacrifices to the LORD and presented burnt offerings to him: a thousand bulls, a thousand rams and a thousand male lambs, together with their drink offerings, and other sacrifices in abundance for all Israel. They ate and drank with great joy in the presence of the LORD that day. Then they acknowledged Solomon son of David as king a second time, anointing him before the LORD to be ruler and Zadok to be priest. So Solomon sat on the throne of the LORD as king in place of his father David. He prospered and all Israel obeyed him. - 1 Chronicles 29:20-23

How Barker leaps from these two passages to the paragraph I quoted from her essay I quoted above I haven't the slightest. This is one of the reasons I find her writing problematic; one has to check every single footnote in order to ascertain exactly how much of what she says is fabrication/presupposition and how much is genuinely factual. It reminds me a lot of Nibley. Nevertheless, Barker does point out some interesting features, which I've bolded. Having "the throne of the LORD" Solomon sat on be a "chariot" that's still in the concept phase is obviously problematic. In my opinion, the phrase "throne of YHWH" is intended to identify YHWH as the true owner of the nation of Israel and its monarchy. The construction "throne of the LORD" appears in only two other passages:

As long as Moses held up his hands, the Israelites were winning, but whenever he lowered his hands, the Amalekites were winning... Moses built an altar and called it The LORD is my Banner. He said, "For hands were lifted up to the throne of the LORD. The LORD will be at war against the Amalekites from generation to generation." - Exodus 17:15-16

In those days, when your numbers have increased greatly in the land," declares the LORD, "men will no longer say, 'The ark of the covenant of the LORD.' It will never enter their minds or be remembered; it will not be missed, nor will another one be made. At that time they will call Jerusalem The Throne of the LORD, and all nations will gather in Jerusalem to honor the name of the LORD. No longer will they follow the stubbornness of their evil hearts. - Jeremiah 3:16-17

"Throne of the LORD" here does not appear to be a technical usage.

I am not sure why the two cherubim whose wings cover the ark are referred to as "the chariot." I don't think, though, that we can leap to the conclusion Barker leaps to about exactly what this chariot was. I am interested in any thoughts you have on that.

As for Solomon being worshipped, well, the immediate context has the worship directed to the Lord and honor directed to Solomon; I think the implication that Solomon was worshipped may just be a case of sloppy sentence construction, but I do acknowledge that if we take it at face value then that does appear to be what happened.

-CK

Post by **_Enuma Elish** » Mon Apr 30, 2007 6:49 pm

CK,

I posted two comments, actually, but neither has appeared. It told me you would have to approve them before they showed up. I don't know what happened, but maybe they're lost in cyberspace somewhere.

Well I would really like to figure out what the glitch is because not only am I interested in your comments/questions, but given the high quality of your work, I would probably post whatever you have to offer. I’m going to add Ace’s post to the comment section.

I can’t comment on Barker’s scholarship. I’ve only read her brief article in the Worlds of Joseph Smith collection. Of course Barker isn’t the only scholar to suggest that the worship of Solomon in 1 Chronicles 28:5; 29:23 points to his deification. Wyatt does as well.

In connection with his analysis of the Athtar myth from ancient Ugarit, Wyatt suggests that a king’s enthronement “serves as a means of conferring divinity on the king at the time of his elevation (Exactly this same thing is afoot in Solomon’s elevation to ‘Yahweh’s throne’ in 1 Chron. 28:5, 29:23). [The King] too is made into a god by the royal ascent, and in the initial ascent which begins a reign, the unction itself has an important role in the process of transformation, as well as words of institution” (858-59).

Though I have a hard time accepting the argument that the Chronicler would have intentionally wanted to present Solomon as a god, both the biblical and Near Eastern evidence certainly presents the deification of Israelite kings even at this late date as a strong possibility.