Let me attempt to paint a picture to provide some perspective.
Chapter three of Genesis provides a narrative summarizing the shift from a forging society to an agricultural society. Historically archaeologists and anthropologists tell us this initial shift took place somewhere between 10,500 BC - 3,000 BC, accelerating between 3,000 BC - 400 AD (with some hiccups along the way) and continued with a few more hiccups up to the present day.
To put it another way, Chapter 3 of Genesis covers roughly 5,000 years of history, whereas chapters 4, 5 and 6 cover another 2,000 years of history, from 4,000 BC to Abraham in roughly 2,000 BC. As a story teller, what would be the best format to use? The Writers of Genesis used what I would call a "once upon a time" motif, similar to the format used by Rousseau, Hobbes and other story tellers wanting to discuss origins. Or, as I have mentioned before, they rely on the concept of "mythic time." We have to remember that myth serves to both preserve the memory of real events while simultaneously disguising it. It is also a useful tool for presenting large amounts of information in densely packed containers - that is, myth serves as a sort of shorthand. How does one preserve 7,000 years of history and share its most important lessons with those that need to learn from it?
The writers of Genesis, being Israelites, were not only familiar with the history of Mesopotamia, but also of Egypt, having descended from Abraham of Ur, and descendants of people who spent 400 years in Egypt. Their whole historical memory was colored not only by these two major events, but also having spent the remainder of their history in the land between both of the first major historical city-states. Thus, they have a firsthand perspective of living inside and being subject to major city-states as well as living outside them. They would also be exposed to the myths and stories of how the first city-states came to be formed. As in any origin story, there are two sides: the official version as told from the winners (i.e. the elites or aristocracy) and that as told by the underdogs, those that serve the elite or escaped their clutches. What is interesting is most of the Bible appears to be written from the perspective of the underdogs.
We are going to begin our analysis with Genesis 6 and the identity of "The Sons of God". Who are these "Sons of God"? The majority of modern day commentaries claim they are "fallen angels" who have come down to earth to mate with women. Another line of interpretation identifies them with the "godly" line of Seth, and the "daughters of men" being the godly line of Cain. These interpretations are so common I do not wish to spend time discussing the pros or cons of these positions.
As I said, I take the historicity of the Bible very seriously. Therefore, I insist that these Biblical references should have some basis in historical fact. Is there some historical basis for believing that the term "Sons of God" refers to something different than that posed above? In fact, I think there is. In both Mesopotamia and Egypt (as well as other areas of the Ancient Near East (ANE), kings and noble warries used divine titles ("son of god", "begotten by god", "god and king") to refer to themselves and their ascension to the throne (cp Psalm 2). These men saw themselves as distinct or separate from the common people ("Sons of god" vs the common man - similar to the way ancient peoples saw themselves as distinct and separate from "others", i.e. Jews and Gentiles, Greeks and Barbarians, Romans and Barbarians, etc). Thus, the "daughters of men" would refer to the rulers taking "whomever they choose" to fill their royal harems, for forced marriages and the seizure of commoners daughter's as concubines as Samual warned the Israelites in I Samuel 8. This is also illustrated in the life of the patriarchs when Pharoah takes Sarah from Abraham and Abimelech takes Rebekah from Isaac and in the large Harems of David and Soloman.
What about the "giants" and "mighty men of old"? Anthropologists have coined the phrase "Big Man" to refer to a type of achieved leadership where individuals gain influence not through inheritance or formal office but through personal skills, persuasion, and wealth redistribution. It describe leaders who build reputations and followings by organizing collective activities, orchestrating exchange events (such as wealth distributions), and mobilizing support through personal networks. Their power is personal and situational, that is it is dependent on sustaining alliances rather than on institutional roles. It can also refer to those men whose power is derived from military prowess. I posit that the terms "giants" and "mighty men of old" refer to such types of leadership. This type of leadership is a precursor to that of a king. I believe it to be significant that the term for King in Mesopotamia is LUGAL, that is "Big Man".
How is the Big Man concept a precursor to that of kingship? Big Man systems are associated with swidden gardening (slash & burn), root or tree crops and small scall husbandry (goats, pigs). It is not associated with intensive agriculture. These systems have three crucial features. First, surplus is possible but not probable, second, surplus is unstable and labor-intensive, and, third, surplus cannot easily be centralized or stored long-term. The result is wealth can be circulated but not hoarded. These conditions make it close to impossible for the creation of a City-State, but it does create conditions leading up to it. These type of societies have no permanently fixed offices or hereditary control because land is often held through kin groups, production is dispersed among households and there is no permanent tax or tribute mechanism. This makes it difficult for leadership to be inherited or formalized.
The agricultural revolution, however, changed the dynamic. It provided the opportunity for those people who formally functioned as Big Men to shift the power dynamic. Chiefs and Kings were able to rule where agriculture could provide a predictable, transportable, less perishable, taxable produce. Where grains were grown in fixed fields, were easily detectable (not underground), matured at the same time (making them easy to track), were hardy enough to be stored for long periods of time, and were small enough to transport long distances and to use as a form of currency made them ideal for City-State formation. The Ag Revolution saw the rise of hereditary elites, centralized distribution and thus a centralized bureaucracy, formalized political offices, and the rise of the military state. Whereas the original Big Man society was largely relational and not coercive, the subsequent city-state formed around the concept of the Divine King become more and more coercive. This coercive nature of kingship is the rationale behind Samuel's warning in I Samuel 8 when the Israelites were demanding a king.
But even the "Big Man" role can be coercive. This is no more evident than in the episode of David and Nabal in I Samuel 25. As the story goes, David, without Nabal's knowledge or consent, provided "protection" for Nabal's shepherds and other help. Eventually, in exchange for his running a protection racket, David felt he could "ask" Nabal for food for his troops. When Nabal balked, pointing out that he had neither asked for nor wanted David's protection, David's first response was to take his troops and demand it at the point of a sword. Violence was only averted after Abigail intervened. It is this type of violence that is hinted at in Genesia 6. Notice that at the end of the story, Nabal winds up dead (natural causes or hidden violence?) and David takes Abigail as his wife. It was acts and stories like these that elevated David's stature in the eyes of the common people and led to their demand for him to be King. This eventually led to the point where, at Solomon's death, the people were crying for relief from state corvee and taxation. Rehoboam's answer was to tell them they had it easy, which led to the split of the two Kingdoms and the subsequent violence. Thus the whole history of the rise of the Israeli Kingdom under Saul, David and Solomon acts as a commentary on the transition of the "Mighty Men" to "Giants" to Sons of God" to the City States in Genesis 10.
No comments:
Post a Comment