El Elyon ... the One True God, or just another Canaanite myth?

Late Bronze Age, Ugarit, Statue of El

The general idea behind Hebraic thought is simply that there is a creator God who exists outside of all creation, who, in fact, created all that exists. This creator God also created mankind, giving them a choice to love or not to love. The first man chose to live life under his own rules, rejecting the law of God, and because of this rejection life became harsh and the creator God took back, in some aspect, the forces that kept the world from hurting mankind—there were no thorns, cultivation was easier, natural disasters didn’t occur, and so forth. So, the first man and the first woman would face a reality outside of God’s full grace.

The first five books of the Bible give us the basis for understanding life in ancient Israel. They were written around 1400BC, and they were NOT written as historical documents, though they are thoroughly historical. Actually, “history” as we know it (the genre of writing) really didn’t begin until much more recent times, and even today it can be argued that no one writes history for history’s sake. Everything that is written is done so for a purpose other than simply retelling the story—it would be impossible to retell every single event; instead, what we find are specifically chosen events that lead the reader to understand the lesson that the author intends to convey. That is also what we find in the first five books of the Bible. Here, Moses, is intending the Israelites—the first few generations of those who came out of Egypt—to understand who the one-true, creator God really is. These are examples of religious propaganda, though you shouldn’t think of this as a bad thing. The Israelites had become quite polytheistic while in Egypt, and Moses needed to straighten them out … to show them who they are, where they came from, and why they are so important.

So, as we read the creation account, we *can* in fact understand scientific principles from this, but only secondarily to the more important truth—that God created all things, not some range of deities that the Israelites may have heard of. It’s interesting that Moses refused to use the word “sun” or “moon” in the creation account, instead calling them greater or lesser lights. This has puzzled people, but when you realize that Yarikh was the Moon god and Shemesh was the Sun god, then it’s a little easier to understand. The creator God didn’t create Yarikh (moon) or Shemesh (sun) the deities … He created those material things in the sky. And what about all the stars? Moses, in one little statement, wipes away all the deities that could be related to the stars by saying something akin to “oh yeah, and he created the stars too.” This idea is what we would call a polemic against the gods of the Israelites’ neighbors. Again, the Old Testament was designed to teach the Israelites the truth of who God is and how God is greater than everything.

This polemical nature isn’t restricted to the books of Moses. We find this all throughout the Old Testament. King’s was written as a way of showing the Israelites why kingship should never have happened. Judges was written to show the spiraling nature of a drop down into paganism (like a toilet flushing); some theologians even question whether or not Samson was a good guy or just a bad guy that God used. Even some of the psalms seem to be a polemic at times.

Take for example Psalm 82, which reads:

82:1 A psalm of Asaph.
God stands in the assembly of El;
in the midst of the gods he renders judgment.
82:2 He says, “How long will you make unjust legal decisions
and show favoritism to the wicked? (Selah)
82:3 Defend the cause of the poor and the fatherless!
Vindicate the oppressed and suffering!
82:4 Rescue the poor and needy!
Deliver them from the power of the wicked!
82:5 They neither know nor understand.
They stumble around in the dark,
while all the foundations of the earth crumble.
82:6 I thought, ‘You are gods;
all of you are sons of the Most High.’
82:7 Yet you will die like mortals;
you will fall like all the other rulers.”
82:8 Rise up, O God, and execute judgment on the earth!
For you own all the nations.

Here we have the God of Israel standing in the assembly of El (the chief god of Canaan) and his children (the lower deities). A lot of people really push this issue, saying that the early Israelites were in fact polytheistic and not monotheistic until later times (specifically the time of the Exile and thereafter). Another evidence for this is Deuteronomy 32:8-9, which reads: “When the Most High [Elyon] gave the nations their inheritance, when he divided up humankind, he set the boundaries of the peoples, according to the number of the heavenly assembly. For [Yahweh]’s allotment is his people, Jacob is his special possession.” Here, again, we have a reference to Elyon, presumably the Canaanite chief god El, but I think something else is going on here. I don’t think this is a reference to the chief god, El, in this Deuteronomy passage. I think it is definitely a reference to El in the Psalms passage, but not here, and the reason is the context—one of the early books of Israel’s history. Take a peek over at Genesis 14 with me. Beginning in verse 17, we read:

After Abram returned from defeating Kedorlaomer and the kings who were with him, the king of Sodom went out to meet Abram in the Valley of Shaveh (known as the King’s Valley). 14:18 Melchizedek king of Salem brought out bread and wine. (Now he was the priest of the [El Elyon].) 14:19 He blessed Abram, saying, "Blessed be Abram by [El Elyon], Creator of heaven and earth. 14:20 Worthy of praise is [El Elyon], who delivered your enemies into your hand." Abram gave Melchizedek a tenth of everything. 

14:21 Then the king of Sodom said to Abram, "Give me the people and take the possessions for yourself.' 14:22 But Abram replied to the king of Sodom, 'I raise my hand to [Yahweh], [El Elyon], Creator of heaven and earth, and vow […]"

Clearly here, El Elyon is equated with Yahweh, the covenant God of Israel, and if you remember, at this point in the history of Canaan, Ba’alism had not yet been established. Worship throughout Canaan was centered on El worship, that is until around 1825 BC when we clearly see a shift in the names of kings from El-centered names to Baal-centered names, but at that point Israel is in Egypt.

Why the difference? I think what we are seeing here is that El Elyon, the God Most High, very early on was associated with the one, true God, Yahweh, though in a very syncretized form—including a wife, child deities, etc.—but still God and workable for the Lord’s purpose with Abraham. This doesn’t mean that Abraham was worshipping Asherah or any of the other deities, but it means that those in the land didn’t understand pure Yahwism from the proper perspective, and that was what Abraham’s job actually was … to be the father of the nation who would teach the world how to properly worship God. By the time of Psalm 82, though, El was understood as just another one of the Canaanite gods by the local population, and any adherence to Canaanite worship needed to be stopped.

So what’s going on in Psalm 82? This is where the polemics get interesting. As you read the psalm, “God stands in the assembly of El; in the midst of the gods he renders judgment,” it sounds as if the writer of the psalm (Asaph) actually believes this, but does it really? Does it show that Asaph believes this or that the audience to whom he is writing believes this? I think the latter is the case here. The psalm continues with judgment of the gods, showing that they really can’t do what needs to be done, and therefore aren’t really gods at all. Listen,

82:2 He says, “How long will you make unjust legal decisions
and show favoritism to the wicked? (Selah)

Yeah, the gods are actually wicked. What should they be doing, if they were actually gods?

82:3 Defend the cause of the poor and the fatherless!
Vindicate the oppressed and suffering!
82:4 Rescue the poor and needy!
Deliver them from the power of the wicked!

All of this is what the gods are NOT doing. Then Yahweh turns to Israel and talks about the gods:

82:5 They neither know nor understand.
They stumble around in the dark,
while all the foundations of the earth crumble.

The biblical writer is here breaking down the trust that Israel has of the false gods. Yahweh continues talking to the false gods:

82:6 I thought, ‘You are gods;
all of you are sons of the Most High.’
82:7 Yet you will die like mortals;
you will fall like all the other rulers.”

By now, Asaph has destroyed the gods—they aren’t really deities … they’re just mortals. Finally, now that the gods have been dealt with, the very last verse puts things back into perspective—it shows what’s really going on. Listen:

82:8 Rise up, O God, and execute judgment on the earth!
For you own all the nations.

You see, the very nature of this text is anti-El’s assembly … anti-gods. And I think that is the biblical norm. Throughout the texts of Scripture, what is being taught is always that Yahweh (the covenant God of Israel) is the one, true, creator God, and that He alone rules supreme. Unfortunately, the Israelites didn’t always accept that, and just like what happened with El in those early days of history, a folk-religion was born and the people started adding to and taking away from true worship of God. The scriptures are here to set things straight.

Jesus is a liar, and the Bible is wrong?

Jesus is a liar, and the Bible is wrong

That is what you might have read when scanning through the book The Myth of Nazareth (http://goo.gl/spVFl8) by Salm and Zindler. [I do not support you buying this, but I linked to it so that you could see what it is.]

I was asked about this "Nazareth myth" this morning, and being an Old Testament guy I wasn't sure of the answer. Apparently, according to some, Nazareth didn't exist in the time of Christ. If Nazareth didn't exist, well ... then Jesus is a liar and the Bible is wrong ... period. But, fortunately for us, that isn't the end of the story. The problem with this thinking is that it is an argument from silence. Do you know how many times people have tried to argue against the Bible from silence only for evidence to be found later? Quite a few ... 

Again, not really knowing the answer, I turned to an online database and began to study out some peer reviewed articles on the matter. The first one I read demolished the entire book with one little statement: "No. 6 is the slightly everted rim and cup-shaped neck of a storage jar dating to the mid-first century BCE to mid-first century CE."1 ... So ... what happened to that "no evidence" idea? 

I stumbled upon another article, which was actually a response to an article that Salm wrote. The opening line was, um, humorous: "Occasionally a layperson with little or no background in a field decides to evaluate a technical report."2 I know, I know ... not very funny, but this is how I feel when people come to me about giants, aliens, and Noah's ark after reading some technical paper somewhere. These authors go on to say that they must answer the criticism put forth by Salm, and these non-laypersons do just that. In fact, what they point out in their article is pretty much that Salm was mistaken (I would add that he was probably looking for something that didn't exist). 

These authors work through the criticisms, debunking each one. One point that should be noted is (as I first mentioned) the existence of early Roman pottery at the site, which indicates an early Roman presence at the site - the time of Jesus. Sure, the great majority of the pottery was late Roman, but that is only because the site grew over time (including the addition of a large priestly family in the second century AD). The fact that the site grew says little to the fact that there was an earlier site, except that the earlier site was smaller. Actually ... that is quite important. Remember, nothing good comes from Nazareth - that tiny little village over there? (At this point I should note that I grew up in New Miami, OH ... and I was quite proud of our TWO stop lights. Unfortunately for me, nothing good has ever come out of New Miami either.) The smaller the village, the less we are going to find - thus, we find very little at Nazareth. 

Without going into too much detail, let me jump to the end of the article I read: "Salm’s personal evaluation of the pottery, which he rehearses from his book The Nazareth Myth, reveals his lack of expertise in the area as well as his lack of serious research in the sources. By ignoring or dismissing solid ceramic, numismatic and literary evidence for Nazareth’s existence during the Late Hellenistic and Early Roman period, it would appear that the analysis which René Salm includes in his review, and his recent book must, in itself, be relegated to the realm of ‘myth’. By upholding the idea of a myth, Salm has created a myth himself."3 ... wow ... those are strong words.

As it turns out, Nazareth did in fact exist at the time of Christ. While it has taken some time to find the evidence for the site, many of us simply had faith that the evidence would one day turn up - as it did - and the lack of evidence in times past didn't really bother us as it did Salm. So what will he do with his book now? Will he retract it? I doubt it, but at least those of you who might run into the book can have some evidence to the contrary. 
_______________
YEHUDAH RAPUANO, "The Nazareth Village Farm Project Pottery (1997–2002): Amendment," Bulletin of the Anglo-Israel Archaeological Society 2008 Volume 26, p. 124.

STEPHEN J. PFANN AND YEHUDAH RAPUANO, "On the Nazareth Village Farm Report: A Reply to Salm," Bulletin of the Anglo-Israel Archaeological Society 2008 Volume 26, p. 105.

ibid., p. 108

Archaeological excavation of an ancient house in Nazareth - from http://www.bible-archaeology.info/nazareth.htm

Assimilation. Resistance is Futile.

Astarte figurine; Iron Age II; Israel (http://baidun.com/israelite-astarte-holding-a-drum-or-bread/)

All of us are in some way a product of assimilation. Throughout history, as in today's world, humans naturally adapt to their environment, transferring ideas between neighbors, and since just about everyone has a neighbor eventually those ideas make their way up or down or across the globe. 

A couple of weeks ago I was playing the most annoying game I have ever played (I tried to go back and look for it, but it has already been kicked off the ArmorGames list of new games). In the game, it is your duty to advance your culture to the point ... well ... to the point that you win the game. There are several ways to do this. You can build your culture from the ground up, trade with other cultures, or assimilate with other cultures. Of course, it is impossible not to trade or assimilate for when nomads come by and they either have what you need or are more advanced than you are (and you are fighting the clock to win the game!) you find yourself doing whatever you can to advance to the next level! (And ultimately lose the game each time you play because it is impossible to advance as quickly as is required!!! ... but I digress.)

This week I have been reading about the origins of Aphrodite (check out my G+ picture albums (http://goo.gl/EmRwRK) for an Aphrodite idol/stone from Paphos, Cyprus - one of the earliest). There is question as to whether Aphrodite is of Greek origin, Phoenician origin, or maybe even Mesopotamian origin, but the answer is probably none of the above. It is almost impossible to ever trace an idea back to its origin as any idea goes through a process of adaptation through time and space where thoughts are added from this culture or that one, and then another group takes some out and adds additional thoughts. 

The image you see is an image of Astarte (Iron Age II; from Israel) holding what appears to be either a drum or possibly bread. An earlier form of Astarte is what many believe to be a parent idea of the origins of Aphrodite. The problem is that some of the ideas don't match up (e.g., Astarte is known as a huntress, but Aphrodite is not). Now, of interest is the fact that Aphrodite doesn't really appear as a Greek goddess until the Iron Age, but the Phoenicians didn't really begin to settle in areas where they would come into contact with the Greeks until the same period of time - and assimilation takes time.

Did the ideas transfer? Yes, they did, but they did so slowly, mixed with another culture. It was the prehistorical culture of Cyprus that helped to give way to what we now know as Aphrodite. As the story goes, Aphrodite rose up out of the water for the first time on Cyprus' shores (near the big black rock known as Aphrodite that you will see in my G+ picture album: http://goo.gl/EmRwRK), but she was alive and well in an earlier form before this event.

Without getting too deep, in Cypriot figurines we find aboriginal figurines, but we also find these aboriginal figurines mixed with Aegean and even Near Eastern (Astarte) concepts. We are not sure if Aphrodite ever had an aboriginal Greek form, but the old tails of Aphrodite being born on Cyprus most likely hold water. Someone brought a pot of local delicacies, and then said, "Hey, you Greek people, why don't you throw some of your favorite spices in here," and then turning to the Near Easterners said, "and you, Canaanites, why don't you throw some in here, too." ... After a while, we have Aphrodite. ... Of course, the story doesn't end there, as the Romans came and mixed her with their aboriginal goddess to create a new one ... and on and on and on.

Question for you. What happened to our holidays? Today is the evening before All Saints Day, a day that quite a long time ago believers held vigil for the saints who have already gone before us. Somehow, somewhere, we are handing out candy and scaring each other. How? That's debated (read a couple of good articles on the non-pagan origins of Halloween this past week). Why? Because that is what cultures do ... we change, we adapt, and we assimilate. ... Resistance is futile. 

You'll Shoot an Eye Out!

Anthony Tyler lost his eye in an accident. Please help him by donating toward his surgery: http://www.indiegogo.com/projects/take-his-aaaaye-patch/x/885353

Okay, we have all seen the movie, and we all laugh when little Ralphie _thought_ that he really shot his eye out. Personally, having watched the movie as a kid and then ran out into the woods to play with my BBGun, I have also always been a bit worried about losing an eye (thanks a lot Hollywood for putting the fear into me!). What would it be like to lose an eye? What about both?

Zedekiah was the last king of Judah, and he had both of his eyes put out by the Babylonians. I can't imagine how this must have been. Read this: "And they slew the sons of Zedekiah before his eyes, and put out the eyes of Zedekiah, and bound him in fetters, and carried him to Babylon" (2 Kgs 25:7).

Recently a very close friend "shot his eye out." Well, he didn't really shoot it out, he was actually doing everything correctly, but as he was approaching the firing line at a shooting range (in the process of putting his eye protection on), a casing from another person's gun flew back and hit his eyelid - causing the retina to detach. He is now facing a $15,000 surgery that his insurance won't pay for. He is attempting to raise only $5,000, but I have confidence in the G+ community that we can get him all the way to $15,000 ... this is what we do; we network and work together. (So please donate and share the link. I donated $40 this morning, and I am an extremely poor PhD student with a family of 7 who has Chronic Fatigue Syndrome from the war ... you have no excuse, lol!) Okay, at a minimum, donate $20 and get a free online backup account for one year. http://www.indiegogo.com/projects/take-his-aaaaye-patch/x/885353

Back to Zedekiah, what brought on the eye gauging event? He revolted and allied himself with Egypt. According to the Babylonian Chronicles (Chronicle 5), "The seventh year: In the month Kislev the king of Akkad mustered his army and marched to Hattu. He encamped against the city of Judah and on the second day of the month Adar he captured the city (and) seized (its) king. A king of his own choice he appointed in the city (and) taking the vast tribute he brought it into Babylon." So, the question is raised ... why on earth would anyone revolt against this powerful empire?!?!?!?

We really need to put this into perspective. There were three (possibly four) deportations by the Babylonians: 605BC, 598BC, and 586BC (the possible fourth was a smaller deportation not mentioned in the scriptures and occurring after the destruction of the temple). This places about seven years between the first two and twelve years between the last two. ... That's a long time between the second and third deportations ... plenty of time for Zedekiah to start feeling strong.

Yeah, but why rebel? Why not just pay the tribute? That's a silly question to ask a bunch of Americans! They rebelled because they wanted to! But we also need to understand a little about the Babylonians.

The Babylonians were different than the Assyrians (the previous great threat). The Assyrians were mean, and the Babylonians were mean. The Assyrians were powerful, and the Babylonians were powerful. The Assyrians ran a well oiled governmental, administrative machine ... but the Babylonians were just, well, pirates. (Look I'm bringing the eye patch back into it! Oh yeah!)

What do I mean? When the Babylonians conquered the Assyrians, they just took over the Assyrians' administrative system, but they didn't really run it ... they didn't want to. To the Babylonians, there is only one great place on Earth - Babylon. This is the oldest and therefore greatest place on the planet (Nebi-K actually stamped some bricks in an archaic script just to make the buildings look older!), and the Babylonians wanted nothing more than to seize wealth and bring it back to Babylon (they weren't interested in what happened elsewhere - so long as the money kept flowing in).

So here are the Judahites sitting scared in Judah. "Don't mess with us or we'll be back!" the Babylonians say, but then ... nothing but crickets. The Babylonians were smart enough to set up a puppet king, but beyond that, they were eating, drinking, and making merry back home. After the first victory, eventually the Judahites rebelled, and they were squashed. Now, Jeremiah keeps saying their coming back, but where are they? Welllllll, I don't see them on the horizon. What if we link ourselves with Egypt? That'll help, right?

Of course we know the story. The Babylonians eventually did come back and swept the land clean, destroying the temple in the process. I can hear Zedekiah's mother right now, "Zedi! Don't you rebel; you'll shoot an eye out!' ... He should have listened.

_Hey, all, please help out my good friend and fellow brother in Christ. I believe in the power of prayer, and I am praying that you all will reach deep into your pockets and help this very worthy cause - a brother in need. You don't have to give much if you don't have it, and you can give via PayPal for security. Check out the perks (I ordered a T-Shirt). I highly recommend the online backup service for $20. That is unlimited data and an unlimited number of computers ... very awesome deal._ http://www.indiegogo.com/projects/take-his-aaaaye-patch/x/885353

What Shall We Do with a Drunken Sailor? Early in the Morning.

Mendable amphora found at Kourion, Cyprus; Photo by Justin Singleton (2013)

I know what you're thinking about that title. You're thinking, "WHA?!?!"

See the picture? Isn't it pretty? This is an amphora that I found floating in my square this past summer. I saw floating because it wasn't resting on the floor of the room; instead, it was just in the dirt somewhere between the floor and topsoil. This means that someone must have simply thrown this beauty out at some point (we never found the whole thing, so maybe it was busted).

Amphora were used to transport and store all kinds of different products, both dry and liquid, but they were used mostly for wine. (Ah, now the title might make sense?) ... Okay, hold that thought.

Now I want to pick you up and transfer you over to a buddy of mine named Danel. Danel lived in the ancient times, and he was quite upset because he didn't have a son. We find his story in the ancient Canaanite story of Aqhat or Belonging to Aquat. As we read, we find that Danel performed a ritual called incubation (talking with the gods through dreams), and on the seventh day he finally got word from them.

What did Danel want? He wanted a son, an heir. This is actually where the story ends for my purposes, but just to give you some closure, Aquat is born, given a special bow by the craftsman of the gods, Anat sees it and wants it but Aquat won't give it, so Anat kills him. ... Fun stuff, eh?

Here is what I found simply fascinating. When the desire to have a son is described, here are the words used:

"Let him have a son in his house,
    an heir inside his palace,
to set up a stela for his divine ancestor,
    a votive marker for his clan in the sanctuary;
to send his incense up from the earth,
    the song of his burial place from the dust;
to shut the jaws of his abusers,
    to drive off his oppressors;
to hold his hand when he is drunk,
    to support him when he is full of wine;
to eat his grain-offering in the temple of Baal,
    his portion in the temple of El;
to patch his roof when it gets muddy,
    to wash his clothes when they get dirty."

These same lines are referenced about three or four times in the story, showing the emphasis that is here. Some of these lines may not make sense to my readers here, but the overall idea is that a son's duty is to take care of his aging father.

A few years back, my two oldest sons (then about 7 and 9) were arguing terribly. As I tried to figure out what was going on, I found out that they were arguing about whose house I would live in when I am old. Alex (the oldest) said that since he was the oldest then I have to live with him, but Isaac didn't want to give up his chance to take care of me. (Mama might have been mentioned, but I don't remember, lol.) I ended the fight by saying that perhaps Mama and I could travel back and forth between all the kids houses so that everyone could take care of us.

If you have't guessed it, we have tried to secure within them the idea that children of responsibilities for their parents, and that we can't forget our parents when they are old and fragile. Here in the story above, Aqhat is supposed to help Danel through many difficulties, but also to remember him when he is gone (and moved on to be one of the deified ancestors). What I found fascinating, though, was the reference to drinking. A son is not only supposed to care for his aging father, but he is supposed to care for his imbecilic father as well, to the point of both helping him walk when he is drunk and shutting the mouths (with his fist?) of those who talk bad about him.

We seem to forget that we, as children, have responsibilities like this. Yes, I know that these are not biblical truths here (they are cultural), but there is some truth hidden within. As a matter of fact, I think it is this cultural norm that was violated in the story of Noah and Ham.

If you remember, Noah was dead drunk; Noah went to his tent, was overheated from the wine, and so he stripped naked. Ham "saw his father’s nakedness" and told his brothers. There is a lot of debate about what that means. Did he have sex with Noah (unlikely)? Did he have sex with Noah's wife/his mother (also unlikely)? Or did he just view Noah's nakedness (most likely)? Whatever happened, he then turns and tells his brothers all about it. "Hey, bros, did you see dad? He is passed out drunk in his tent" (slapping his thigh and laughing). Later, Noah learned what Ham had done (maybe his others sons told him?), and he cursed Ham's descendant because of it. [Side note: we don't often understand how serious a crime it is to view the nakedness of another because in our society nakedness is the norm. See my study on nakedness.]

What did he do wrong? Well, think about what he SHOULD have done. It is a child's duty to care for his father when he is old, sick, or drunk. Ham didn't do this. Instead, Ham blabbed about it, making his father out to be a mockery.

If you really think about it, how much do our children know about us? (Scary thought, eh?) Granted, we need to be working with our children so that they understand the things we do, and we need to avoid doing things that would make us look bad in their eyes, but we also need to instill upon them the sense of loyalty to their family. If I get the flu and mess my pants, I don't need my sons running down the street and telling everyone. Could you imagine the next time I stood up to teach or preach? "Hey look, there's that guy that messed himself. I bet that was difficult to clean up!" ... No, my son's should help me through, clean me up, and keep my honor intact.

Okay, so NOW the title makes sense! Eh? Eh?

Goliath! You beastly devil!

Grave of a Bedouin slave; Photo by Justin Singleton (2009)

What do you know about David and Goliath? I'm sure you remember the story. I remember the story! Actually, I remember that when I was a wee lad of maybe 8 years old, there was a really big kid who threatened me. What did I do? I quoted David. "You come to me with a spear and a shield, but I come to you in the name of the Lord!" ... If I remember correctly, I didn't get beat up, so it must have worked, lol.

There is actually a lot of controversy surrounding David, especially since there are so many pictures being circulated around social media - pictures of giants in graves, etc. (I have attached a picture of one of the graves I dug - no he isn't a giant.)

Let me first point out that all of those images you see of giants in graves from around the world are fake. I'm sorry if I have just destroyed a pet of yours, but they are all very much fake. We have never, to my knowledge, found a giant skeleton. Just to point out one more thing, the giants in those images are far greater than Goliath anyway ... many of the images floating around show "giants" of around 20-30 feet!

So, was Goliath not real then? I didn't say that. Goliath was real, but I would argue that some of what we might believe about Goliath is just our fantasy.

For example, the first thing you need to get out of your head is the idea that Goliath was a "giant." Okay, yes, he was a giant, but that isn't the point. A better way to think of it wasn't that he was a giant but that he was gigantic! Goliath wasn't a monster, he was a really big boy! How big was he? That depends. Note first that the average height of a man at this time was somewhere around 5 1/2 feet (my height - rather short). Saul  stood, according to 1 Sam 9:2, "head and shoulders above all the people" (so, maybe 6 feet?). David, according to some, was probably about 5'3", but I don't have a problem placing him at the 5'6" average. That said, he wasn't a little scrawny kid. David was killing fierce animals, his oldest brother was a fierce warrior, so he had it in his genes.

Okay, so how tall was Goliath? Don't kill me! Probably about 6 1/2 - 7 feet. Yes, I know you are used to reading 9'9" ("six cubits and a span"), but there is some good manuscript evidence to support the reading "four cubits and a span" (some Greek witnesses, Josephus, and a manuscript of 1 Samuel from Qumran).

Now, let me back track a bit. Even though I think Goliath was only about seven feet tall, I could be wrong. I have no problem placing him at 9 feet ... it doesn't hurt the story either way. Also, there is textual evidence from Egypt (the Egyptian letter on Papyrus Anastasi 1 states, "The(?) narrow defile is infested(?) with Shosu concealed beneath the bushes; some of them are of four cubits or of five cubits, from head(??) to foot(?)").

Why doesn't it hurt the story? Because his height isn't the only thing mentioned. Remember, this Goliath was a Philistine warrior. Whether he was actually a Philistine or not is somewhat debated, but at the very least he was fighting with the Philistines. His helmet was a Philistine bronze helmet, his scaled body armor sounds very much like the well-known Egyptian armor weighing over 125 pounds (I wore body armor in Iraq weighing around 80-90 lbs - and I could barely move). Actually, this kind of armor is described in the Nuzi texts as having anywhere from 700-1,000 bronze scales of different sizes. Goliath's greaves were probably Mycenaean, made of molded bronze and surrounding the entire calf. He also had  scimitar (NIV: javelin), which was a curved sword used by Egyptians and Canaanites. His shield was not the type of shield we see the Philistines using two centuries earlier, but this was probably simply adopted over time. Finally, his spear was special because it had an iron tip. Everything he had was bronze, except his spear. (Iron was hard to come by, and pretty much only the Philistines had it at this time.)

This description of Goliath's weapons and armor probably just makes the modern reader think, Yup, he's a warrior, but to the ancient reader, it would have done more than that. You see, in these times, there were quite a few "champion" combats. Individual battles are know from Egypt on the Beni Hassan tomb painting (I wrote about that not too long ago) and in the Egyptian tale of Sinuhe. We find it depicted on a Canaanite vase from around this time. We also know that the Mycenaeans fought in this style (think of the Iliad, Hector against Ajax, Paris against Menelaus). There is a relief found at Tell Halaf that shows two combatants thrusting swords into each other.

What happens in these champion combats is that when one warrior wins, he typically takes a trophy from the loser (armor, sword, whatever). So, think about this with me. Here was have a gigantic man who is probably a Canaanite wearing a Philistine helmet and greaves, but carrying Egyptian armor and sword. ... This sin't just a warrior ... this is a hero! This guy has fought these types of individual "champion" combats before, and he has won! This is not David meets a giant, this is David meets Royce Gracie mixed with Bruce Lee mixed with André the Giant. ... But, God is victorious through David.

The Israelites Worshipped Other Gods??? Really?

Small figurine head of goddess; picture by Justin Singleton (2009)

It probably isn't much of a surprise to you or me, but the archaeological record shows an Israel that wasn't exactly up to par when it came to worship. Not too surprisingly, there are quite a few "less conservative" scholars who try to make this into a big deal.

In his book, _Who Were the Early Israelites and Where Did They Come From?_ (http://goo.gl/AgMMmH), Bill Dever describes an Israel that didn't leave Egypt in an Exodus but who were just normal Canaanites who wanted a change. A part of his evidence for this was the very wide acceptance of Canaanite worship practices. In fact, here in this book and in another one (_Did God Have a Wife?_ [http://goo.gl/yV47MC]), Dever talks quite a bit about the archaeological evidences containing phrases such as "Yahweh and his Asherah." Now, just in case you didn't know, Asherah was the wife of the god El (the chief god of the Canaanite pantheon, but she eventually became the wife of Ba'al (also mentioned in the Bible).

So what gives? Why is there so much evidence of Canaanite worship in the archaeological record? Does this point to a different truth other than what the Bible teaches us? Were the Israelites just Canaanites in disguise?

Let me answer that last question first. Yes. ... Okay, the Israelites weren't actually Canaanites, but when we read the Bible we learn that the children of God left their God, Yahweh, and began to follow after "foreign" gods ... those of the land of Canaan. as a matter of fact, the larger than life reality presented to us in the Scriptures is the idea that Israel is doing just about everything wrong! They rejected God as their king wanted an earthly king; many rejected Jerusalem as their worship center, so they built others; they rejected Yahweh as their deity, so they started worshiping others.

The little figurine head you see in the picture is one that we dug up at Tall Jalul (Jordan) back in 2009. The area where we were digging belonged to the northern kingdom of Israel at the time, and as would be expected, we find a nice little goddess. The persona of the goddess is unknown, but there she is! She was worshipped by the people.

In the end, the liberals who claim that the Bible is wrong because the archaeological evidence points toward Canaanite worship more so than Yahweh worship are really just verifying what the Bible tells us. If anything, they are helping our cause! Remember, if there is one lesson you are to take away from the books of Kings in the Old Testament, it is this: Israel never needed kings to guide them (they just led them astray); instead, they needed the leadership of the one true God - Yahweh.