 |
|
|
|
 Modern Jews are precisely the community King David envisioned, says scholar Joel Baden.
October 12th, 2013
09:05 AM ET
How King David predicted modern JudaismOpinion by Joel Baden, special to CNN (CNN) - Most American Jews consider Judaism to be mainly a matter of culture and ancestry, according to a recent poll. An even higher percentage describe themselves as emotionally attached to Israel. For this we have one person to thank: King David. The Israel we know today is a nation that David created virtually out of thin air. Before David, there were two territories, Israel to the north, and Judah to the south. By sheer force of personality—and, to be fair, substantial military strength—David combined these two lands under a single crown (his). Not only had this never happened before; no one had ever thought of it before. Although the Bible makes it sound as if everyone loved David, and were desperate to follow him, this wasn’t really the case. David took power by force. The people of Israel and Judah became part of David’s kingdom because he conquered them—they had no choice in the matter. Their only option was to abandon the land that they had held for centuries. And in a tight real estate market—every family believed that they had eternal rights to their property—moving was pretty much out of the question. We tend to think of Israel in biblical terms: the land promised to Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, the land of the 12 tribes. These concepts were created in the wake of David’s reign. Everywhere that the Bible speaks of Judah and Israel together—the stories of the patriarchs, the Exodus, the conquest—we encounter the ramifications of David’s actions. The borders of the modern state of Israel today are, roughly, David’s borders, or at least those attributed to him by the biblical authors. (For the record: the West Bank was part of David’s kingdom; the Gaza Strip was not.) And at the center of Israel, both ancient and modern, is the holy city of Jerusalem. This, too, is David’s doing. Before David, Jerusalem was a long-standing independent city-state, belonging to a long-lost people called the Jebusites. MORE ON CNN: Why everyone fights over Jerusalem Recognizing that its central location would be perfect for the capital of his newly united state—the ancient equivalent of Washington—David conquered it and wiped out its former inhabitants. Because David is credited with founding the Temple in Jerusalem—although Solomon built the actual structure, David chose the site, set up an altar, and laid the conceptual groundwork—it’s natural enough to assume that there was some religious motivation at work. But, in fact, David’s aim in inaugurating a site of worship in his capital was more economical than spiritual. Temples were sites of commerce—Jesus knew this—and having a culturally significant relic, in the form of the Ark of the Covenant, was sure to draw the people in. Every lamb sacrificed in Jerusalem meant profit for the sanctuary, and for the king who controlled it. Every pilgrim meant a night’s stay in a local bed and breakfast (all fully taxable, of course). David used belief as a lure to draw in the masses. But he didn’t care much what his people believed. The creation of the unified kingdom of Israel wasn’t based on shared religion. The inhabitants of the north had very different practices from those in the south. And none of them was following Jewish law—the laws hadn’t been written yet, and wouldn’t be for centuries. What united the people of David’s kingdom was, quite simply, that they lived there. It was a political state, not a religious one. Israel then, like today, was primarily a political entity, and only secondarily a religious one. Those who considered themselves attached to Israel believed and practiced a whole range of things, or not; just like those who are attached to Israel today. A Pew poll released earlier this month demonstrates the continuing pull of David’s Israel. Millions of American Jews financially support the modern state of Israel, either through donations or through tourism. MORE ON CNN: Study: American Jews losing their religion We feel the pull of the land, the sanctity of the ancient streets of Jerusalem. We fly El Al, we stay at the hotels, we eat at the restaurants, we pay to enter various sites. That is: We’re still doing just what David wanted us to do. We are precisely the Jews who David envisioned—believing whatever we want, just so long as we spend our money in Israel. Joel S. Baden is the author of “The Historical David: The Real Life of an Invented Hero,” and an associate professor of Old Testament at Yale Divinity School. The views expressed in this column belong to Baden.
Next entry »A journey of faith in five tattoos
« Previous entryRand Paul: Obama won't stop war on Christianity
|
  About this blog
The CNN Belief Blog covers the faith angles of the day's biggest stories, from breaking news to politics to entertainment, fostering a global conversation about the role of religion and belief in readers' lives. It's edited by CNN's Daniel Burke with contributions from Eric Marrapodi and CNN's worldwide news gathering team.  |
|
|
|
"Recognizing that its central location would be perfect for the capital of his newly united state—the ancient equivalent of Washington—David conquered it and wiped out its former inhabitants."
That has strong similarities to how Christians treated our native Americans.
Only partly correct.
The original destruction of the population was indirect – by diseases brought over from the Christians. Infecting them was not always deliberate (it did happen, though). Most of the deaths caused were totally unknown to the Europeans. Something in the neighborhood of 15 million died in the south east... but only after the initial exploration by the Spanish, which spread the diseases.
So David predicted that the Zionists State would be reborn because of illegal immigration? And now has the USA in its pocket?
The US was born of illegal immigration (from the Indian's perspective) so what's your point?
Aside from the subjective arguments of this article, one of the greatest lessons by the story of King David in the Old Testament is that God imputes "righteousness" unto people on the basis of Faith in Him and not the works of the flesh. King David had a life mixed with "Love of God" and some of the greatest sins in Biblical history. Yet, God chose him and imputed righteousness unto him because of his great Faith in Him. Nothing pleases God like Faith.
Hebrews 11:4-7
"4 By faith Abel offered to God a better sacrifice than Cain, through which he obtained the testimony that he was righteous, God testifying about his gifts, and through faith, though he is dead, he still speaks. 5 By faith Enoch was taken up so that he would not see death; and he was not found because God took him up; for he obtained the witness that before his being taken up he was pleasing to God. 6 And without faith it is impossible to please Him, for he who comes to God must believe that He is and that He is a rewarder of those who seek Him. 7 By faith Noah, being warned by God about things not yet seen, in reverence prepared an ark for the salvation of his household, by which he condemned the world, and became an heir of the righteousness which is according to faith."
Scripture Is From:
New American Standard Bible (NASB)
Copyright © 1960, 1962, 1963, 1968, 1971, 1972, 1973, 1975, 1977, 1995 by The Lockman Foundation
http://www.biblegateway.com/
talk about the righteousness of works of the flesh. creating adam was some pretty good and righteous flesh working. But if you really want to see righteousness in action, check out the fleshpot known as Eve. That's about as righteous as it gets, except lately for Miley Cyrus, who's pretty righteous herself. Besides, what's wrong with works of the flesh. Come on, my yiddishkeit gumba, you know what i'm talking about. you don't walk to shul with one hand in your pocket jingling change, you know. Down, Moische, down. there you go. knowing that moischele will go down but, in time, will rise again is the kind of faith I'm talking about After all, it combines works of the flesh with a faith that even a menschlik like you would approve.
Clueless is the only word that come to mind.
I would really like it if men like Professor Baden would be if he commented on his own post. I would really respect that. Own your opinion and please defend it Professor Baden.
The only danger lies in name calling. I wish people would stop calling people names on this site.
who are you calling a name caller?
You, you bid dumb jerk! 😉
"David used belief as a lure to draw in the masses. But he didn’t care much what his people believed. The creation of the unified kingdom of Israel wasn’t based on shared religion"
It's unbelievable that so called "experts" can write articles containing dozens of assertions, without any citations, zero studies, and absolutely no evidence. Where's the facts? Where's the journalistic integrity? There's nothing here but the authors opinions. Just because you say something on CNN doesn't make it true.
Rather like this post of yours?
The responsibility of one who claims to be a scholar is to provide evidences, proofs and a logical and convincing trail that all the evidences points to. The good prof does none of this. In fact, the professor writes much but has to make it up (that is why it is an opinion piece and not a scholarly article) due to a complete lack of evidence for his narrative. If he had anything, he would have at least referenced it.
Has this man ever read the Psalms? To think David's motivations weren't spiritual is absolutely ridiculous. "ONE THING I HAVE DESIRED, that will I seek. That I may dwell in the house of the Lord all the days of my life, to behold the beauty of the Lord, and to inquire in His temple." -King David
was that before David slaughtered women and children or maybe it was after he murdered a Captain of his so he could bed that Captain's wife?/justaskin
"the laws hadn’t been written yet, and wouldn’t be for centuries."
Most Bible scholars say that Exodus and Leviticus were written before the time of David. Clearly Moses received instructions on how to construct the Tabernacle and how worship was to be conducted, which occurred long before the time of David. Other moral laws and commandments to the Jews had been in place for centuries. That's what the Torah contained.
And since the archeological evidence demonstrates the "Priestly Code" was present well before the time of David, the good prof seems to be unaware of well-known and easily-accessed history. His ignorance of it demonstrates he is not a source that can be trusted to provide accurate information.
Care to provide historical evidence of your claim?
It never ceases to amaze me when some supposed expert writes an article on religion. Anyone who has even superficially read the Bible would know that this person does not know what he is talking about. It seems to me he had a conclusion he wanted to present know matter what the Bible actually says.
Actually, it seemed obvious to me too. The tragedy would be for the readers that have not read the bible – they'll easily be swayed by this writers "in fact" assertions. But! we are living in an age where good is now being called bad and bad is now being called good. Then again, we are reading CNN so its not a surprise. Its almost as bad as the Huffington Post.
Well said, Shiv. One has to marvel at CNN allowing such bizarre, baseless opinion pieces to appear in an article on their site. Someone obviously has an agenda, and knows that countless people will swallow pathetic drivel like this and assume it's truth because, after all, it was on CNN.com. It's an embarrassment to their organization, and a testimony to what lengths people will go to try and make something they so desperately need to believe isn't true, go away. But... it will never, ever go away.
I would really like it if men like Professor Baden would be if he commented on his own post. I would really respect that. Own your opinion and please defend it Professor Baden.
The significance of Israel to American jews is overstated. "Millions" give money to Izzy? Hardly.
Dubya was more aggressively pro-Izzy than Bubba, but the GOP never gets more than a quarter of the jewish vote.
Jews view suburban and rural whites, the backbone of the GOP, as backward and anti-modern, and so most view the GOP negatively. Even though said whites, when infected with Christard fundamentalism, unabashedly worship this tribe that despises them so.
Yes, it is funny how U.S. Christards have this fetish about Israel. Makes me want to hurl anytime I'm around one who starts sobbing about their "return" to Israel. It's akin to 5th generation Americans attending an Irish festival and pretending they have a connection.
yet I'm sure you're one who supports the label of African American for blacks.
I just want to know:
1. How many stable did Solomon have? and
2. Who's on first.
?
I so agree with you on every point you made. This man knows nothing about Bible.
Another issue is the following quote: The inhabitants of the north had very different practices from those in the south. And none of them was following Jewish law—the laws hadn't been written yet, and wouldn't be for centuries.
The Torah (five books of Moses) were already written down. Yes they hadn't gone through the final redaction that we have today, but to say the laws of Moses were not written down until hundreds of years after? Give me a break!
Here is one of my biggest beefs with the liberal university establishment: They hold the bible to a different standard than they do any other ancient text.
What I mean is that they teach that what ever oldest copy that we have today must be when the original was written.
The oldest copies we have today come from the time of Josiah, who lived around 600 BC (400 years after David) when many copies were produced on mass and sent out over the whole land to every town so every town had a copy of the Torah. It only makes sense that we have some saved fragments from this first mass production of the scripture.
Yes, maybe the final redaction happened at this time, but that hardly proves that it was written at this time. Tradition holds that much of it was written my Moses. This is a good logical conclusion because Moses would have been one of the few literate people of his day.
It also makes sense that there were not more than a few copies floating around at that time because most people were not literate and the cost of copying was very very expensive. To back up this claim we have fragments of the Old Testament Law from the 8th century BC.
My problem lies with the double standard held in dating ancient historical texts. Homer's Odyssey original story is dated to around 1200BC yet the oldest fragment we have of the text is only from 3rd century BC. Yet nobody claims that it was only written around the 4th century BC.
Yet men like Joel Baden will say that about the Bible even though we have much more proof of ancient writing than we have for the Odyssey!
The oldest fragments that we have come from the 8th Century BC. The oldest full copy comes from around 250 BC and it is in Greek. The oldest full Hebrew Copy is from 150 BC. The oldest full copy of the Odyssey is from the 10th Century AD!
Shoot, this was inserted in the wrong place.
MennoKnight,
And who preserved these old writings? The Church did. If the Greek religion had prevailed and had been as powerful, perhaps the ancient texts of Homer would have been preserved too.
Ancient Egyptian pyramid inscriptions date back to around 3100 B.C.E. Obviously their gods knew how to make a lasting impression - they must be the real ones, right?
I fully agree with you. The three great monotheists have historically been the preserver of culture during the dark ages.
Well I am off to a book burning ceremony. Catch you all later! 😉
I agree this this news writer has to get his Torah straight, and the chronological writings. Why didn't he do better research; afraid of how the Hound of Heaven would get him?
True, Menno, the Torah itself says that it was written by Moses. But there a few problems with that idea. One, the Torah has an account of Moses' death. As my baby brother would have said, "Howdee do dat?" Two, internal evidence in the text itself prove that all parts of it date to a much later time than 1250 BCE. Look up Graf-Wellhausen to see the different sources of the Torah. Third, what evidence on earth do you have that 'Moses was one of the few literate people of his time'?
One of the greatest lessons by the story of King David in the Old testament is that God imputes "righteousness" to people on the basis of Faith in Him and not the works of the flesh. King David had a life mixed with "Love of God" and some of the greatest sins in Biblical history. Yet, God choose him and imputed righteousness into him because of his great faith in Him. Nothing pleases God like Faith.
Hebrews 11:4-7
"4 By faith Abel offered to God a better sacrifice than Cain, through which he obtained the testimony that he was righteous, God testifying about his gifts, and through faith, though he is dead, he still speaks. 5 By faith Enoch was taken up so that he would not see death; and he was not found because God took him up; for he obtained the witness that before his being taken up he was pleasing to God. 6 And without faith it is impossible to please Him, for he who comes to God must believe that He is and that He is a rewarder of those who seek Him. 7 By faith Noah, being warned by God about things not yet seen, in reverence prepared an ark for the salvation of his household, by which he condemned the world, and became an heir of the righteousness which is according to faith."
Scripture Is From:
New American Standard Bible (NASB)
Copyright © 1960, 1962, 1963, 1968, 1971, 1972, 1973, 1975, 1977, 1995 by The Lockman Foundation
http://www.biblegateway.com/
"Old Testament"
"..chose.."
Professors suffer from this myopia that tells them that the subject in which they major is the lens through which they must interpret the world. This Professor needs new glasses so he can get the bigger picture.
Israel was not divided into two kingdoms (Israel and Judah) until after Solomon's reign if I remember right.
you do, this guy does not have a clue and the law was given to the nation at Sinai and they rejected it and were rejected when they killed the messiah their God sent to them. can anyone tell why the 12 tribes in Revelation are different from the original 12 tribes?
You peaked my curiosity so I googled it:) the tribe of Dan was left out and Mansseh's (the son of Joseph) was added. some speculate Dan was not added because they set up idols and priests to lead in worship of those idols in their territory, they attacked they attacked a peaceful unsuspecting people....in short they were just a bad bunch.....considering the misdeeds of the israelites at various times it does seem odd that one tribe is singled out....but maybe they were just worse than the others.
*piqued, not peaked
Thanks:) i
They were divided by this: those who followed Saul and those who followed David
just in case anyone comes back here this is what I found; Revelation 7:4-8 divides the 144,000 members of spiritual Israel into 12 ‘tribes’ of 12,000 each. The list differs slightly from the lists of Jacob’s sons (including Levi) who were the tribal heads of natural Israel. (Ge 49:28) The following may be the reason for the difference:
Jacob’s firstborn son Reuben lost his right as firstborn by his misconduct. (Ge 49:3, 4; 1Ch 5:1, 2) Joseph (the firstborn son of Jacob through his second, but favorite, wife Rachel) gained the privileges of firstborn son, including the right to have two parts, or portions, in Israel. (Ge 48:21, 22) In the Revelation list “Joseph” evidently stands for Ephraim. And Manasseh represents Joseph’s second portion in spiritual Israel. The tribe of Levi is listed; to make room for Levi without increasing the number of tribes, no tribe of Dan is included in Revelation 7:4-8, but apparently not because of any unsuitability on Dan’s part. The inclusion of Levi would also serve to show that there is no special priestly tribe in spiritual Israel, the entire spiritual nation being “a royal priesthood.”—1Pe 2:9.
sorry I did not get back sooner and was pleasantly surprised by the response, thanks, j
This story is a PR from hell...Ithe temple was not even built during the time of King David.. Yahoo seems to makes up stories in a back room.
Wasn't the Temple called Solomon's Temple? I hope CNN and the author will check the facts and either correct any errors, or produce significant evidence to refute what was previously common knowledge amongst theologians and archeologists.
From the article:
"Because David is credited with founding the Temple in Jerusalem—although Solomon built the actual structure, "
Reading comprehension is your friend
the article doesnt say david built it knobhead, it says that he founded it and solomon built it
“We are fond of talking about 'liberty'; but the way we end up actually talking of it is an attempt to avoid discussing what is 'good.' We are fond of talking about 'progress'; that is a dodge to avoid discussing what is good. We are fond of talking about 'education'; that is a dodge to avoid discussing what is good.
The modern man says, 'Let us leave all these arbitrary standards and embrace unadulterated liberty.' This is, logically rendered, 'Let us not decide what is good, but let it be considered good not to decide it.'
He says, 'Away with your old moral standard; I am for progress.' This, logically stated, means, 'Let us not settle what is good; but let us settle whether we are getting more of it.'
He says, 'Neither in religion nor morality, my friend, lie the hopes of the race, but in education.' This, clearly expressed, means, 'We cannot decide what is good, but let us give it to our children.”
― G.K. Chesterton, Heretics
Wrong! after king David Iseal broke up into two groups, with Israel to the north and Judah to the south
Yes, thats what I learned as well at a college level. Saul was the first King of the Israelites where the territories of the 12 tribes of israel were merged into one kingdom (not sure if all of them were successfully combined), then came David, and the last great King of Israel was Solomon.
After Solomon weren't the Israelites conquered by Alexander the Great, and through subsequent kings of Greece or Assyria, isn't that where the ancient kingdom of Israel fractured into "Israel" and "Judea"? (where Judea is mostly the present day West Bank).
I request CNN to cite their sources if what I learned was incorrect.
Thanks
I think Alexanders conquest came much later....there were babylonian and assyrian conquests during the times of Israels kings i believe.
Funny how religions always seem to dramatically rewrite history as great and inspirational stories..
I expect our great grandchildren will read about how the Tea Party Religious sect became so popular, the American People proclaimed their kind, wise and good leaders as the first Kings of the United States.
"Funny how religions always seem to dramatically rewrite history as great and inspirational stories.."
I suspect you haven't read the Old Testament or the story of King David. The Jewish people messed up over and over and so did David, by sleeping with his Generals wife while he was at war and then caused his death by putting him in the front line of battle to cover it up.
I ask you, if a book is written for the purpose of being inspirational, why all of this negativity? It is no ordinary book – and it is not about the Jews. It is about God reaching out to an broken and imperfect world.
Because your both wrong. The books of the OT were written over a very large amount of time and for very different reasons specific to the time they were written. They had no one single purpose and weren't compiled into a single tome until much, much later (about the same time the Bible was being written). Reading it as if it is a cohesive narrative is a faith based assumption.
It's all made up!!...Hello?
............
The Judeo-Christian-Islamic ...
........ http://www.GODisIMAGINARY.com ..........
... and thank goodness because he emanates from the ...
....... http://www.EVILbible.com
.............