Editor's Note: After republishing the original exchanges between Robert Turkel and me on the 1 Kings/Hosea inconsistency concerning Jehu's massacre at Jezreel in which I mentioned that Turkel had "reworked" his part of the debate to omit all statements that had either backfired on him or embarrassed him, such as his flat out claim that he would not waste any more time replying to me because I wasn't worth his time and effort and his confusion of transliterate with translate, and others, a reader sent me a copy of Turkel's original article Till We Meet Again, subtitled Jostling Through the Jehu Jam-Up, which he had found in the internet archives. So that readers can see that Turkel did edit out of his original anything embarrassing to him, I am posting his original version here on my website, and I will reedit my three-part compilation to insert direct links to those omitted or edited parts. The article is as he posted it except for some highlight in red print of comments that he omitted in his "reworked" version. I have also made some minor changes in html coding to make the article conform to the style posted on this website.]
In counteraction to our AJINOD Chapter 1, this author has received a series of replies and reactions from the author of the Jury Chapter 1, Farrell Till, regarding AJINOD Chapter 1. The objective of this treatise, and a shorter one that accompanies it, is to reply to these reactions. The reactions from Till were received via e-mail as cc's from his own "errancy" discussion list, and are not (to my knowledge) publicly posted anywhere in association with the Secular Web.
Let it first be said that Till's reply is no surprise. This seasoned skeptic, as predictable as the sunset, is widely known to be of such self-aggrandizing nature that he could by no means allow any criticism of himself or his work to remain unanswered. To affront Till by even implying that he MIGHT somehow be erroneous on some point is tantamount to desecrating the Arc D'Triomphe [sic] or the pyramids of Egypt with spray paint. It was therefore only a matter of time before the sleeping god awoke from slumber; and well indeed has he made his displeasure known.
Replying to Till, however, presents something of a conundrum. On the one hand, to reply would be to insinuate that his work is somehow worthy of reply, which we have implied previously is not the case; we are thus hesitant to dignify his material with a response. On the other hand, to ignore him is to allow for him the presumption of "victory" and to have accusations levelled that we reply not, because we can not [sic], because Till is right. Neither of these options is satisfactory, so we therefore pursue that which shall benefit our readership most: We will write a rebuttal as part of our Rogue's Gallery, with the point of proving that there is really no depth to Farrell Till's scholarship, and thus no warrant to offer his work further attentions. As is typically the case, Till considers it sufficient argument to offer his own "plain reading" of a given text, using a minimum of sources (consisting in the main of various translations of the Bible) and standing mostly upon his own authority as only Farrell Till, Shouter-Down of the Unwashed. We see no reason to dignify Till's machinations by devoting further significant time and server space to refuting him. It is no sport to continue the attack upon an enemy too impenetrable to realize that he has been beaten. It will be enough to here show in one instance the insufficiency of his work, so that our readers may know that Till offers no threat whatsoever to the facts of the Christian faith - and that he may be safely ignored in future works from his keyboard as one who has little or no comprehension of the ground he treads.
|
2 Kings 10:29-31 However, (Jehu) did not turn away from the sins of Jeroboam son of Nebat, which he had caused Israel to commit--the worship of the golden calves at Bethel and Dan. The LORD said to Jehu, "Because you have done well in accomplishing what is right in my eyes and have done to the house of Ahab all I had in mind to do, your descendants will sit on the throne of Israel to the fourth generation." Yet Jehu was not careful to keep the law of the LORD, the God of Israel, with all his heart. He did not turn away from the sins of Jeroboam, which he had caused Israel to commit.
And now the original context of our remark:
From 2 Kings, verses 10:1-17 are those that report the Jezreel massacre. Verses 10:18-29, which Till reports not a peep about, tell the story of how Jehu trapped and killed a number of priests of Baal. THEN comes verses 30-3, where God gives Jehu the promise.
To Miller's list, I will add Jehu's massacre of the Baal worshippers...I will now examine these 9 points to show that they do nothing to alter the obvious inconsistency in the two views of Jehu's massacre at Jezreel.
However, let it be pointed out that it was not argued in AJINOD Ch. 1 that the Baal-bash should become a ninth point in Miller's list. The argument we wished to bring across is that within the literary context of 2 Kings, verses 10:29-31, the "done well" comment applies to the actions taken by Jehu regarding the Baal-bash, whereas the "in accordance" refers only to what was done to the house of Ahab - with no direct comment on what was done extracurricularly. Although he eventually posits that it does refer to the deeds done to the house of Ahab, Mullen [Mull.DynJehu, 198-9] notes that "the stylized nature of the phrase makes it difficult to define 'what is right' in specific terms..." We suggest, then, along with Provan [Prov.12K, 216], that another interpretive option is available.
Verses 30-1 operate as a fully independent literary unit in context; they act as a summary of what has gone on before. The "done well" response has nothing to do with Jehu's political actions whatsoever. The literary form of the passage, as well as the literary separation of the actions relative to the house of Ahab, indicates that the "done well" praise is in reference ONLY to Jehu's Baal-bashing coterie, for this is a significant event in the preceding material that had nothing to do with the house of Ahab. Our point, then, was that in failing to mention this extensively-recounted incident, Till left the impression that the "done well" phrase followed IMMEDIATELY behind the accountings of Jehu's political executions. But this is not the case, and the literary form here makes all the difference. Jehu is not praised for having "done well" because of his actions related to the house of Ahab. He is praised for having "done well" in regards to the Baal-bash.
At this point, another objection by Till may be seen to kick in, to wit:
Obviously, the writer was upset with Jehu's failure to stamp out the worship of false gods completely. How reasonable is it, then, to believe that this writer in a context in which he expressed disapproval of some of Jehu's actions would not have mentioned at all an offense so grievous that Yahweh would someday destroy the house of Jehu for it?
By the same logic, we may ask why Hosea, if he was indeed displeased with Jehu's actions, was not more clear and detailed about it himself! (See below.) Even so, the answer is found in the style of the Kings' writer. Our writer is of a dry and disconnected nature - he reports atrocities and beneficences with equally flat sentiment. "The writer of 2 Kings was not concerned to pass judgments of a political or sociological nature on the events he is describing." [Hobb.2K, 119] It is not his nature to comment, except for the monotonous, summary repetition of whether a king did good or evil in the eyes of the Lord which was applied to all of the kings evaluated, and he generally lets the data speak for itself without need for further explanation. That being so, we should not expect any such explicit condemnatory comments as Till suggests. For the Kings writer, readers are intelligent enough to understand (especially living as they did in the same religious and socio-political world) that Jehu's piling of his enemies' heads in front of the city was an unwarranted tactic of terror; they did not need it spelled out for them (as some skeptics seem inclined to insist!) that Jehu went beyond God's orders in certain of his actions; they did not deem it necessary at the conclusion of events to recap by saying, "Jehu was told to do A, B and C; but he did A, B, C, D and E, which was more than he was supposed to do, and that was wrong." No, they did not need such superfluous Howard Cosell commentary; no more than we need a narrator of World War II films featuring visions of Auschwitz reminding us that what we are seeing, by the way, is bad. Certain skeptics, I have noted, tend to assume that all readers, especially those of Biblical times, are stupid, and are required to have their obligatory reactions spelled out for them on cue cards, or like some manner of ancient laugh track advising them that what they are seeing is funny. They may be right in many cases. However, very few are or were so dense as to not clearly understand the crystalline message of the Kings writer.
With that, we now turn to the specifics of Till's case for disharmony.
|
The first aspect of our analysis attacks the issue from the rear, so to speak. Our subject verse is Hosea 1:4:
Then the LORD said to Hosea, "Call him Jezreel, because I will soon punish the house of Jehu for the massacre at Jezreel, and I will put an end to the kingdom of Israel.
A word is in order, first, about a potential argument which we will not pursue for lack of necessity and lack of direct evidence. It has been assumed by all sides and by many commentators that Hosea here is specifically referring to the events of 2 Kings 10. But the fact is that there is NOTHING in the verse above that requires this connection at all. It has merely been assumed that since 2 Kings is the only other place in the OT that describes suitable events located at Jezreel, that this must be, necessarily, what Hosea is referring to. However, the fact is that there is nothing in Hosea that connects this reference to the specific actions of Jehu in 2 Kings. Allegedly condemned here is the "house of Jehu" - but this "house" consisted of several kings and their respective housemates (see below), all but one of which had sufficient time to commit some objectionable (but otherwise unrecorded) atrocity or series of atrocities in Jezreel. In the end, there is no certainty that Hosea is indeed referring to the events recorded in 2 Kings 10, which may make the entire discussion pointless.
That said, we will nevertheless assume, for the sake of argument, that Hosea did indeed have in mind the events recorded in 2 Kings, where, it is our position to state that Jehu overstepped the orders of the Lord.
Our argument in this regard ran as follows:
Many commentators of all stripes have suggested, based on structure and parallelism, that Hosea 1:4 is better read to express the idea that the bloodshed of Jezreel will be visited on the house of Jehu - which is to say, the verse should read, not "punished for the blood of Jezreel," but "punished by" - the reference is to the mode of punishment, rather than the cause of it.
Till's reply to this has been most peculiar. He insists that our "language is ambiguous" and offers several rhetorical questions of the effect, "What does he mean by...?" etc. "Who knows?" he concludes, what I mean.
Who knows? Everyone except Farrell Till, evidently, who is thus far the only one to complain. Apparently Till feels that he can convince his readers that a given reading is vague if he says so; this may work well for the persuasion of his adoring fold, but those of us who still maintain our own entitlement of independent thinking need not be swayed so easily. Even so, for the sake of those in thrall to Till's persuasion, let us restate our position in terms that might more easily be comprehended by Mr. Till. The argument involves two aspects - a) concerning the word translated "punish/avenge," and b) the word translated "massacre."
The first argument a) is that Hosea's words indicate that the house of Jehu will be punished, not BECAUSE of the blood of Jezreel, but IN THE SAME WAY as occurred at Jezreel - which is to say, as Jehu at Jezreel destroyed his enemies, so shall now the house of Jehu be destroyed.
Let's look again at this verse. The NIV reads, "I will soon punish the house of Jehu for the massacre at Jezreel..." The KJV reads, "I will avenge the blood of Jezreel upon the house of Jehu..." The key here is the Hebrew term which emerges in our translations as punish/avenge. The Hebrew word in question is paqad. Let us look at the definition from Strong's Concordance:
6485. paqad, paw-kad'; a prim. root; to visit (with friendly or hostile intent); by anal. to oversee, muster, charge, care for, miss, deposit, etc.:--appoint, X at all, avenge, bestow, (appoint to have the, give a) charge, commit, count, deliver to keep, be empty, enjoin, go see, hurt, do judgment, lack, lay up look, make X by any means, miss, number, officer, (make) overseer have (the) oversight, punish, reckon, (call to) remember (-brance), set (over), sum, X surely, visit, want.
Note well the applicable meanings: We see avenge and punish; but also bestow, remember, set (over), visit. If this verse is read, "I will visit the blood of Jezreel upon the house of Jehu..." or "apply the bloodshed of Jezreel" hen [sic] we have something entirely different than what Till has argued, and which matches what we have stated previously: The matter is one of punishment by type and method, and has nothing to do with retribution for the actions of Jehu. It is saying no more than, "I will bring upon the house of Jehu the same type of judgment that they brought about at Jezreel" - i.e. extermination of the totality of the house.
The question, of course, is whether we are justified in deferring to the bestow/visit interpretation upon this word, in preference to the avenge/punish interpretation. In answer to one of my arguments about this verse Till made the observation that:
Whenever Biblicists are cornered on an issue, they love to start talking about the "Semitic mind" and nuances in the original language.
...and from there, Till proceeded to list some 20 English translations of the Bible, 2 of which offer the "visit" interpretation, but the rest of which use the punish/avenge interpretation. This, so he feels, earns him a victory lap.
Let it be said that here we have a classic example of the sort of superficial scholarship that is common to Mr. Till's presentations. One suspects that Till's reaction to arguments related to Semitisms and the original language are a hint that he is aware that to take such a turn would put him out of his capabilities and place the argument beyond his reach. Given Till's apparent zeal for listing and copying translations in English (and even one in French), one is constrained to ask why he did not bother to consult a single source relative to the Hebrew, which is (we hope) certainly within his wherewithal.
Any OT schoolboy, however, knows that simply listing translations is insufficient scholarship. Further, let it be pointed out (again!) that we are not engaging any sort of special pleading here: It is no less legitimate to appeal to the "Semitic mindset" and the nuances of Hebrew when considering the OT than it is to appeal to the "medieval mind" and the nuances of Elizabethan English when considering the works of Shakespeare! Even the most basic anthropological work (such as Matthews and Benjamin's Social World of Ancient Israel) makes it quite clear that there is a world of difference between our way of thinking and that of members of Eastern Mediterranean society - and that these differences must be taken into account when considering the Old and New Testaments. Once again, Till fails on the same point as always, reading the text of the Bible through his jaundiced, 20th-century Western eyes and wondering why the text does not conform to his own chauvinistic expectations.
More will be said on the general matter of mindset in our second essay. For now, a word about these sources we will be using. We point out that our solution from Hosea is reckoned by "commentators of all stripes." Till here throws a few useful polemics in the ring:
1) He asks how it is that this nuance I have pointed out managed to "escape the hundreds of linguistic scholars who were involved" in the translations he quotes. We will give some reasons for this shortly; for now, let only this be said: Aside from the fact that this argument presumes a host of motives and directions upon teams of scholars about whom neither we nor Till knows a single thing, it should be recognized that commentaries as a rule provide much more in-depth information than mere translations, and are the products of a generally higher rank of scholarship and of much more in-depth study and analysis than the translations are. If it comes down to a battle royale between the two, commentaries should assuredly be given preference. (Naturally, depth does not equal accuracy; but we should certainly be prepared to offer better arguments in reply to such detail-work than we would to lesser-detailed work. As it is, noting our next entry, "better arguments" from Till seems quite unlikely.)
2) Till also suggests that my commentators are "actually believers in biblical inspiration" who "are looking for a way to plug a big hole in the traditional claim that the Bible is a work of perfect harmony." Such charges are the province of those who have not the wherewithal to search for their own answers: While accusations of conspiracy are polemically viable (viz. the works of Robert Price), and manage to provide an answer without the drudgery of actual research, they deserve very little attention, other than to point out that this is exactly the sort of tactic I noted was typical of Till in AJINOD Chapter 1: When arguments fail, polemic will substitute.
That said, let it be clarified (as if it were really needed by anyone other than Till) that my "commentators" run the spectrum from conservative to moderate to liberal. All three groups, when seeking resolutions to apparent problems, are really doing no more than any responsible historian (outside of the radical and presumptuous critical school) is doing, which is seeking first to resolve a given difficulty before assuming some error on the part of the source material. They also have different solutions: Some of the liberal bent suggest a type of progressive revelation, in which God has set higher standards of action in Hosea's time than were set in Jehu's time, in response to the human need for growth. [see AndFree.Hos, 178; Crai.12P, 12; for reply, see Irv.ThrJez, 499]. Others remain content with seeing contradiction (but seldom offer any detailed work on the subject - see Wolf.Hos, 17-18; May.Hos, 28; Jone.12K, 273). Irvine [Irv.ThrJez, 503] suggests that our 2 Kings passage (10:30-1) is a piece of imperial propaganda that was being refuted by Hosea, which would raise the question of interpolation in 2 Kings or its sources. Of course, regarding those of "all stripes" who do seek to resolve the issue - if Till wishes to assert some harmonic conspiracy at work, that is his prerogative. It is certainly much easier for him than taking the time to absorb the requisite knowledge and make his own, qualified assessment of the matter, and slightly easier than engaging in the drudgework of seeking an answer in properly and better-informed sources. We of a more serious bent may feel free to ignore such paranoid shenanigans and seek rather for a resolution of the issue.
To begin, now, with the answer for the a) visit/punish problem. Here we will give the floor to McComiskey's detailed exegesis [MCom.MP, 20n; see also MCom.PrIron and Garr.HosJoe, 57], which argues that the word paqad here "establishes a relationship expressing supreme irony." Places where Hebrew characters appear in the text are represented with material in ():
(Paqad) is difficult to define. It frequently describes an action that precedes the bestowal of blessing (Gen. 21:1, 50:24-5, Exod. 3:16) or the execution of judgment (Ex. 32:34, 1 Sam. 15:2, Is. 23:7) on the part of God. Since the word may precede an act of blessing, it cannot denote the sole idea of punishment. It is best to understand it as attending to or giving heed to a person, object or situation before responding. This concept of mental apprehension is apparent in the frequent association of the word with (remember, see, e.g., Jer. 14:10). There are many other nuances, but in contexts of judgment it describes an action in which God attends to the wrong he observes by intervening with appropriate action. When (paqad) is collocated with (upon) as well as a direct object and an indirect object (as it is here) in statements of judgment, the direct object is viewed as attending the indirect object. That is, the direct object is brought into the experience of the indirect object.
McComiskey cites as an example Jeremiah 15:3, where paqad is used:
"I will send (paqad) four kinds of destroyers against them," declares the LORD, "the sword to kill and the dogs to drag away and the birds of the air and the beasts of the earth to devour and destroy."
He then writes:
The collocation (visit upon) cannot denote punishment for in this context. The nation will not be punished for these destroyers, but by them. The direct object (the four destroyers) is to come into the experience of the indirect object (the nation as the object of the preposition upon). This sense of the idiom is exists in every context where (visited upon) has two objects. On the other hand, the translation "punish for" does not apply in every context. We must not assign that sense to the collocation uncritically.
A few citations will bring home the point that this word paqad is a difficult translation to determine - which explains why (in answer to Till) so many translations (as well as less in-depth commentaries) continue to use it. Speiser once remarked of paqad that, "there is probably no other Hebrew verb that has caused translators as much trouble" - and it will take only a few citations to see why:
Gen. 21:1 - Now the LORD was gracious to Sarah as he had said, and the LORD did for Sarah what he had promised.
Note: This verse has a blessing visited upon Sarah. Paqad is not literally translated and emerges through the word "did".
Gen. 40:4 - The captain of the guard assigned (paqad) them to Joseph, and he attended them. After they had been in custody for some time...
Ex. 3:16 - "Go, assemble the elders of Israel and say to them, 'The LORD, the God of your fathers--the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob-- appeared to me and said: I have watched (paqad) over you and have seen what has been done to you in Egypt.' "
Ex. 32:34 - "Now go, lead the people to the place I spoke of, and my angel will go before you. However, when the time comes for me to punish, I will punish (paqad) them for their sin."
Num. 1:3-21 - In these verses, paqad is used several times in relation to the numbering of the Hebrews. The KJV and NIV offer no English word as a parallel.
1 Ki. 11:28 - Now Jeroboam was a man of standing, and when Solomon saw how well the young man did his work, he put him in charge of the whole labor force of the house of Joseph.
Note: Paqad here is used to refer to Jeroboam being "put in charge" of the labor force.
1 Ki. 14:27 - So King Rehoboam made bronze shields to replace them and assigned (paqad) these to the commanders of the guard on duty at the entrance to the royal palace.
1 Ki. 20:26 - The next spring Ben-Hadad mustered (paqad) the Arameans and went up to Aphek to fight against Israel.
2 Ki. 3:6 - So at that time King Joram set out from Samaria and mobilized (paqad) all Israel.
2 Ki. 12:11 - When the amount had been determined, they gave the money to the men appointed (paqad) to supervise the work on the temple. With it they paid those who worked on the temple of the LORD--the carpenters and builders...
So, the obvious difficulty with this word helps explain why translators continue to use "punish" in Hosea 1:4. It is also explained by a couple of other factors:
* Most importantly - and a good reason why the majority of Till's translations don't carry this interpretation! - is that the detailed linguistic work on the matter has only been done in the last 5-7 years or so. The majority of Till's translations were performed and/or published earlier than this research was done.
* The specific collocation here, we might add, appears NOWHERE ELSE in the OT! [Irv.ThrJez, 497] Unique words or word combinations are nearly always problematic.
* An undoubtedly influential factor is that the Greek translation of the OT uses "punish/avenge" here. Of course, from the point of view of the later writers of the LXX, Jehu's house has already had their "visit" and it has turned out to be a "punishment"! Their selection has rather the taste of hindsight!
* Hosea uses paqad six additional times (2:13, 4:9, 4:14, 8:13, 9:9, 12:2) in his book. In most cases, it clearly indicates the "punish" mode, but obviously this should not mean that it is used that way throughout his book. (Note that the KJV translators rendered paqad as "visit" in some cases.)
* Andersen and Freedman acknowledge the viability of the "visit" translation and accept the same explanation of the issue as we have, as noted below. However, they stick with "punish" and reject a "visit" translation because "its vacuity misses the juridical connotations of the idiom." In other words, they use "punish" because of problems with the vacuity of OUR language - not because of the Hebrew!
* "Punish" is also selected in part because of the supposed connotation of the word for "massacre" (see below).
And now to argument b), involving the word "massacre." The Hebrew here is dam, and the interpretation of it in our view yields a similar result to the matter of a) above. Let's give the floor this time to commentator Douglas Stuart [Stu.HosJon, 23n; see also MCom.MP, 21-2]. Places where Hebrew symbols appear in the text are indicated with an ():
It should be noted that the present oracle does not per se condemn Jehu's coup at Jezreel, called for by Elisha. (Dam yizre'el) could mean "bloodguilt of Jezreel" in the sense of a great, decisive slaughter. The former connotation, "bloodguilt," is found is found [sic] for (dam) in Lev. 20:9, Duet. [sic] 19:10, 2 Sam. 21:1, etc. But the connotation "killing" or "bloodshed" is also well-attested as in (dam) "bloodshed-of-battle" (1 Kgs. 2:5) or (dam) "unnecessary bloodshed" (1 Kgs. 2:31), etc. Recognition of the use of (dam) in the context, so often associated with requital of justice in the Old Testament, should not lead to the conclusion that Hosea is condemning Jehu for fulfilling God's command. Instead, Yahweh now announces that he will turn the tables on the house of Jehu because of the real issue, i.e., what has happened in the meantime. In the same way that Jehu in 842 had annihilated a dynasty feared for its long history of oppression and apostasy, so Yahweh himself will now put an end to the Jehu dynasty because it, in turn, has grown hopelessly corrupt. (emphasis in original)
So, tying these two arguments together with a little string:
1) Had Hosea wished to indicate the avenge/punish interpretation, then he picked an unusual word for it. The present form "does not clearly inform the collocation with the sense of retributive justice." [MCom.PrIron, 94] A much stronger and precise word to use would be naqam, which means only "punish" as Strong's indicates:
5358. naqam, naw-kam'; a prim. root; to grudge, i.e. avenge or punish:--avenge (-r, self), punish, revenge (self), X surely, take vengeance.
This word is found in the following verses, where it clearly indicates punishment or vengeance:
Gen. 4:15 - But the LORD said to him, "Not so ; if anyone kills Cain, he will suffer vengeance (naqam) seven times over." Then the LORD put a mark on Cain so that no one who found him would kill him.
2 Ki. 9:7 - You are to destroy the house of Ahab your master, and I will avenge (naqam) the blood of my servants the prophets and the blood of all the Lord's servants shed by Jezebel.
Is. 34:8 - 8 For the LORD has a day of vengeance (naqam), a year of retribution, to uphold Zion's cause.
Another word that would have been better was yacar. It is used elsewhere by Hosea (7:12, 15; 10:10). It means:
3256. yacar, yaw-sar'; a prim. root; to chastise, lit. (with blows) or fig. (with words); hence to instruct:--bind, chasten, chastise, correct, instruct, punish, reform, reprove, sore, teach.
And is used in Gen. 15:14:
But I will punish (yacar) the nation they serve as slaves, and afterward they will come out with great possessions.
That Hosea chose another word for his "condemnation" besides one of the two above should be a signal to us. However, there is more:
2) Let us consider the argument that Hosea is here displeased with what Jehu did to the house of Ahab. An unasked question is, "Why should he have been?" Hosea is no less condemning of the sins of the sort committed by the house of Ahab than the Kings writer is, and "nowhere else in the book (of Hosea) are the murders at Jezreel cited as the cause of Israel's demise." [MCom.MP, 20 ]. Instead, it is all the usual sins that are the problem! Andersen and Freedman [AndFree.Hos, 179; see also Acht.MP1, 16-7] bring this point home nicely:
There is no reason to suppose that Hosea's view of Israel's history in relation to its God was significantly different from that of the biblical historians (the Kings writers - ed.) or the prophets who preceded or were contemporary with him. In the rest of his book we find numerous points of contact and agreement, although emphases and tendencies vary from the norms. In this case as well, we may suppose his full agreement with the thundering condemnation of Ahab and his house, and the necessity for the violent overthrow of that infamous regime. While, therefore he, along with other prophets and historians, could approve Jehu's action in overthrowing the house of Ahab, that in itself does not require automatic approval of Jehu and his dynasty in other matters. Thus the historian condemns Jehu and his house in the stereotyped fashion after granting the inexorable divine oracle and promise. The house of Jehu has turned out to be no different from the house of Omri; it will come to the same bloody end for the same reasons.
In this aspect, Andersen and Freedman see in Hosea's words a similarity to the situation that Israel had when entering Canaan: They entered on a promise, but when they took up the evil ways of the Canaanites, the promise was turned back upon them. Thus, regarding Jehu's actions, they write that Hosea...
...viewed the behavior of Jehu in a dual light; in the very act of carrying out the divine judgment against the house of Ahab, he overstepped the bounds of his mandate and showed that arrogance and self-righteousness which was the undoing of the preceding dynasty. Already the seeds of destruction were sown in the terrible slaughter initiated by Jehu.
This excess, Andersen and Freedman find (as we do) in the destruction of members of the house of Judah (see below; see also Hous.12K, 293). They therefore conclude:
We should not suppose that in the thought of the prophet(s) it was Jehu's sin which doomed his great-great-grandson...
Accordingly we reject the modern interpretation of Hos. 1:4 which maintains that the prophet here repudiates Jehu's extermination of Ahab's line and sees this as a crime for which his descendent must pay. On the contrary, the main target of Hosea's criticism of the royal house of his day is precisely the sin of the Omrides...Hosea is saying that what God did to Ahab and his brood by means of Jehu is exactly what he will now do to Jeroboam (II) and his family, and for similar reasons. (emphasis in original)
The above exegesis travels a slightly different road, but arrives at the same conclusion that we have. Andersen and Freedman see the logical sense of the fact that, if Hosea condemns the same sins as those committed by the house of Ahab, how could he here be disapproving of Jehu's destruction of their house? We would also add, to complete the circle: Without any reasonable supposition as to why Hosea would take this tack against Jehu and his house in the matter of the house of Ahab, where is the logic or compulsion to read paqad in its avenge/punish sense?
And so, we, coupled with a mass of detailed scholarship, conclude that there is [sic] no grounds to read into Hosea any sort of condemnation of Jehu's actions. This by itself is sufficient to overturn Till's case for disharmony with 2 Kings, but because there is much yet to do, and because of the relative newness of this linguistic work (which we anticipate Till shall use [along with his usual machinations] as reason to discard it), we shall delve further into the matter and attack from the 2 Kings perspective.
|For the purpose of the remainder of this essay we shall continue under the assumption that Hosea did indeed offer condemnation of some sort in the avenge/punish sense. We will find that even then, Till's exegetical construct is a highly substandard one. We will analyze, in the following order (according to their length), Till's responses to the remaining three items from Miller:
2. The killing of Ahaziah
7. The killing to 42 princes of Judah
6. The killing of Ahab's supporters, who were not his descendants
|In a supplemental reply, Till advanced the following argument. Noting that the parallel account of Ahaziah's death in 2 Chron. 22:6-9 indicates that Ahaziah walked in the ways of the house of Ahab, and that his death was "ordained by God," Till writes:
So if Yahweh was so miffed as the house of Ahab that he would have commissioned Jehu to go and kill every male, both BOND AND FREE, in the house of Ahab, he surely wouldn't have minded if Jehu threw in Ahaziah for good measure and killed him too.
...If Ahaziah's downfall was ordained by God, then it wasn't very nice of God to cut off the house of Jehu's century later for Jehu's massacre of Ahaziah.
At this point the sophisticated reader is certainly astonished that a man of Till's seasoned years would advance such a juvenile "argument". [sic] Such fractured logic may appeal to those with less mature mindsets (who perhaps used similar "logic" when caught by their guardians while commissioning some forbidden, "out of bounds" act), but it holds no water in the real world of authority and obedience.
Ahaziah, though a grandson of Jezebel and a potential avenger of his brother-in-law Joram, was not of the house of Ahab; he was of his own house in Judah, in line with the social rules of the time regarding households. (Of course, had he somehow been part of the house of Ahab, then Jehu would have been obliged by his commission to get rid of Ahaziah's slaves, servants, etc. - see below - but there's no sign of THAT kind of action in the text, which is significant since it would have required an invasion of Judah to pull off!) Therefore, in killing Ahaziah, Jehu went beyond what God ordered - period. That it fit in with what God ordained is irrelevant, and proof of nothing more than that:
(a) As might be expected, the will of an omnipotent deity is done regardless of what irritating actions of rebellion we puny rogues might take!
(b) The fact that according to the Israelite mindset, God is the source of primary causality. Death, even if by accident or disease, was ultimately by the decree of Yahweh, and an unexplained or untimely death (like Ahaziah's) was always thought of as a sentence. Hence the Chronicles writer simply reflects the common Israelite belief of his day and in no way reflects upon the matter of Jehu's obedience or lack thereof.
Moreover, this can be said: Advancing such "logic" as Till's, one (even a state-appointed executioner) could justify entering into a maximum-security prison and killing every inmate on death row, then shrugging it off with the maxim, "It was what the state had ordained anyway. I'm sure they wouldn't mind." Such logic, again, is reserved to those of immature mindset, and offers nothing in the way of an actual answer to the fact that in killing Ahaziah, Jehu exceeded his commission. It was by all means a course of political wisdom, but it plainly was done in violation of Jehu's orders. (And of course, we argue that the condemnation was not JUST for the killing of Ahaziah - Till argues here with the presumption that the remainder of the arguments are already refuted!)
|In answer to Miller's item #7, Till advanced the following argument:
We should keep in mind that Hosea said that Yahweh would soon avenge THE BLOOD OF JEZREEL upon the house of Jehu. In other words, Yahweh's vengeance would come down on the house of Jehu because of "the blood of Jezreel." However, some of the atrocities in Miller's list above include massacres the (sic) were done outside of Jezreel...these 42 princes were not killed at Jezreel, which was located north of Samaria.
And so, Till tells us, because this massacre was not at Jezreel, then this event cannot be considered part of the "blood of Jezreel." But is this truly the case?
Significantly, Till does not quote the text of 12-14 itself, which offers us some answers:
Jehu then set out and went toward Samaria. At Beth Eked of the Shepherds, he met some relatives of Ahaziah king of Judah and asked, "Who are you?" They said, "We are relatives of Ahaziah, and we have come down to greet the families of the king and of the queen mother." "Take them alive!" he ordered. So they took them alive and slaughtered them by the well of Beth Eked--forty-two men. He left no survivor.
This massacre of 42 princes, then, took place at a very specific location: Beth Eked. The usual designated site of Beth Eked is Beit Qad, about 4 miles from the city of Jezreel, close enough to Jezreel and probably literally dependent upon the larger city for its survival (within the bounds of a tribal military/protection covenant alliance), so that Hosea could easily include it within the parameters of his supposed Jezreel condemnation. Yes, the skeptic quibbles; but it is still NOT Jezreel the city. Four miles could be seen as a long way. Why should we include it in these parameters?
I submit that such argumentation is a desperate type of quibble of the "close only counts in horseshoes" variety, but for those of a more nitpicking bent, here is an answer: Beth Eked is part of a larger geographic entity called Jezreel. "Jezreel" is a name not only for a specific city, but also a valley and a rather large region - one that extends from the Jordan Valley to Mount Carmel. This was an extensive territory - and Beth Eked was within the designated Jezreel Valley and in the heart of the wider Jezreel region. It is significant in this context that Hosea would mention that Israel will be defeated in the Valley of Jezreel, which would indicate (assuming, for the sake of argument, Till's interpretation of Hosea 1:4) that the city alone was not considered the single focal point of judgment.
Furthermore, Hosea had his own motive for selecting Jezreel as the focal point: Jezreel means "God sows" - and thus the point emerges from Hosea that what he describes are a result of what God sows. (In line with the above notion of paqad as "visit," the sowing could be good or bad - depending on how the house of Jehu behaves in response to the oracle.) Hosea naming his child "Jezreel" was much the same as naming a child today "Vietnam" or "Watergate" [Crai.12P, 11] - neither of which by any means requires pinpointing of/restriction to an exact geographic location for all of the events concerned! Indeed, since "Beth Eked" means "house of shearing" [sheep!], there wasn't much punch in arranging something involving THAT particular name! Added punch in selecting "Jezreel" is the fact that in the Hebrew, a punning reference is made with "Israel" that further emphasizes the point that it is Israel that will be the subject of the "sowing." [Morr.PPH, 79] In light of this, we might well expect Hosea to restrict his comments to the central and seminal geographic entity with which Jehu's actions were associated - even in regards to what he did elsewhere and later on in the same general effort.
However we look at it, then, the massacre of the 42 princes thus remains within the geographical parameters of disobedience for Jehu and of the supposed condemnation from Hosea, and thus offers no solace for Till's argument. (Moreover, to use Till's logic, is it really credible that Hosea would condemn the house of Jehu for the massacre in the city of Jezreel proper, yet have nothing to say regarding an incident in such close proximity, or of events in Samaria, where another great slaughter by Jehu took place?)
|By far the most significant argument by Till is that related to item 6, recounting Jehu's obliteration of the house of Ahab's "great/chief men, close friends, and priests." It is also the place where Till makes his most incredible blunder - and thereby proves the folly of merely comparing English translations in one's studies.
The question at hand is: Are these three parties - chief men, close friends, priests - to be considered part of the "house of Ahab"? Let us first look at how Till seeks to begin addressing the matter:
What these inerrantist quibblers have apparently never noticed is that verse 9 states that the "house of Ahab" was to be abolished in the way that the house of Jeroboam, the son of Nebat, and the house of Baasha, the son of Abijah, were destroyed. I will give details of that later, but first, let's notice two things: (1) What this "son of the prophets" said upon anointing Jehu was the same as Elijah's pronouncement of doom upon the house of Ahab. (2) The word "house" as used in expressions like "the house of Ahab" or "the house of Jehu" carried a broader denotation than just the descendants of the head of the house. It also included those who were servants or associates of the head of the clan.
Till follows with examples of places where someone other than a blood relation was a member of a "house": Sarah as part of Pharaoh's house, Abraham's 318 servants in his house, etc. He concludes:
If inerrantists would read what a good Bible dictionary or encyclopedia says about the meaning of "house" as it was used in the situations mentioned above, they would not have made the mistake of assuming that Jehu had been ordered to kill only those who were male descendants of Ahab.
Let's notice a few things here:
1) First of all, I find it hilarious that Till, who has previously objected to the citation of the "Semitic mindset" and nuances in the original language, here, when it serves his own purposes, willfully adopts a viewpoint derived from such mindset/nuances! This broad use of "house," though known in a way in some of our Western monarchies (i.e., "the house of Windsor"), nevertheless reflects a uniquely ancient practice. Why is Till here so willing to adapt explanations to the sociological and linguistic facts, but not elsewhere when it might be injurious to his case?
2) As for the rhetoric re: consulting a "good Bible dictionary," etc. - there would be no need. I am well aware of this usage of "house" (Hebrew: bayith) - and that is why I am also aware that Till's argument here is a sham. Only a reckless neophyte would make such an abominable error as Till has in this instance.
What of the definition of "house"? It does indeed have a broader meaning: It may refer to an actual building, of course, but about a quarter of the OT usages imply something different or more abstract. "Building a house" means the same thing as "raising a family." "House" is even used to refer to a spider's web (Job 8:15). While there is indeed a broader meaning available, Till, regrettably, does not tell us what "Bible dictionary or encyclopedia" he gets his source material from. However, having consulted no less than a dozen such sources, and a variety of others - ranging in persuasion from the liberal Interpreter's Dictionary of the Bible to the conservative Nelson's Illustrated Bible Dictionary - I find, yes, references to servants being part of a "house," along with slaves (as household property), foreign guests (in line with Eastern rules of hospitality), concubines (as Sarah would have been considered in Pharaoh's house), adopted orphans, and sojourners. What I do not find is this peculiar word that Till uses, "associates". [sic] Associates? What are these? Is this a specific socio-economic class from the Ancient Near East? For someone who denigrates others for "vagueness" Till has certainly chosen a weasel-word that practically screams "vague" in our ears!
That said, Till embarks upon a skein of blatherskeit destined to prove his point that a "house" consisted of more than just blood relatives. He cites examples of slaves, of which there is no question in fact, but of which there is also no relevance for the Jehu case. We are not arguing that Jehu was condemned for killing slaves; we are arguing here that his condemnation was in part the result of his killing of the house of Ahab's "great men, close friends, and priests." Till tries to slip in this trio under the rubric of the "house" along with the slaves, but no dice: The direct questions need to be asked. What of these parties? Were they part of the "house" of Ahab?
The fact that the Kings writer separates this group from the "house of Ahab" grouping should indicate to us that the men/friends/priests group was not considered to be part of the house of Ahab - and is in fact the closest thing to a "condemnation" of excess that we can expect from the Kings writer in his dry, analytical style. Nevertheless, let us pursue the matter further. Till says nothing at all about the great men or priests; and it is just as well, for there is no indication that these were part of Ahab's house, or part of any king's house. Let's consider some relevant data:
* Of particular notice - and something Till fails to notice, even though he uses the material as evidence (see below) - is the story of Zimri eliminating the house of Baasha in 1 Kings 16. Note that Zimri was one of Baasha's "officials" and that he killed Baasha's "whole family" (NIV - the word is the Hebrew bayith, as noted, equalling "house"). Obviously, though he served Baasha's house in an official capacity (he had charge of half of King Elah's chariots), Zimri was NOT part of Baasha's "house" - or else his rule would have been considered a continuation of Baasha's house! The evidence here indicates that a king's house did NOT include those who were not blood-related but were serving in an official capacity, such as Zimri.
* Similarly, Omri, the man who overthrew Zimri 7 days after he took charge, is listed as the "captain of the host." (1 Kin. 16:16) Obviously Omri was not part of the house of Baasha either, since Zimri was already have supposed to taken care of them. (That is, unless we'd like to suppose that Zimri appointed Omri, sent him some 30-50 miles away to Gibbethon...and he gained the confidence of the host enough to lead them back to Tizrah against Zimri...all within that 7-day span! Needless to say, it is far more likely that Omri was already captain of the host under Baasha - and that this therefore indicates that officials of the king were NOT considered part of his bayith.)
* Similarly, note within the text of our concern in 2 Kings, that in verses 1-2, Jehu writes a letter to "the officials of Jezreel" (or some manuscripts read, "the city" - more likely, since Jehu is IN Jezreel already! - Jone.12K, 2/465) and to "the elders and to the guardians of Ahab's children." He tells them, "As soon as your master's sons are with you and have chariots and horses, a fortified city and weapons, choose the best and most worthy of your master's sons and set him on his father's throne. Then fight for your master's house." Note here: The king is referred to as the "master" ('adown) of these elders and guardians that Jehu writes to. A reply comes from "the palace administrator, the city governor, the elders and the guardians" deferring to Jehu's power. They acknowledge themselves as Jehu's "servants" and that they will do his will.
Now note in verse 9 that Jehu tells the people of the city of the killing of the 70 sons, "It was I who conspired against my master ('adown) and killed him, but who killed all these?" Jehu refers to Israel's now-dead king as having been his "master" using exactly the same Hebrew word as used to describe the elders, guardians, etc. in their relation to the king. As with Zimri above, this demonstrates the existence of a class of people who served the king yet were not of his "house" - otherwise, we are left with the same sort of situation in which Jehu himself, having had the king as his "master" in his role as a commander in the Israeli [sic] army, was himself a member of the very "house" he was commissioned to destroy! Clearly, though these people served the king of Israel, they were NOT considered to be of the "house" of the king.
* Let us turn now to the account in 2 Kings, and the groups under scrutiny. "Great men" refers to the nobles of the kingdom [Jone.12K, 2/467]. We have seen above that such people were not considered to be members of the royal household; the OT and anthropological data offers no evidence for such a position. The move was politically astute, since any one of these men could have done as Jehu himself did and risen up against him, but it was still outside the bounds of his commission.
* Priests, of course, were of the "house of the Lord" (cf. Jer. 29:26, Zec. 7:3), of their own familial households (cf. Aaron), and were state officials. Thus there are places in the OT where it is indicated that a king has appointed a priest or given orders to one, but there is no indication whatsoever that this degree of loyalty or duty indicated membership in the bayith of the king. The only possible exception to this rule is found in Judges 17-18, where Micah hired his own Levite who tended the family shrine. This Levite had his own house (Judg. 18:15) and MAY have been considered part of Micah's own house - but note that this priest was HIRED by Micah, and that this story is told as part of a book that collects stories exemplifying its theme: The people of Israel in that time each did as they saw fit! Clearly Micah's actions are intended to be seen as a deviation from the norm - and in any event, the Levite, if he was a member of Micah's house, likely would have been so as a sojourner rather than as a priest.
Then what of Jehu's obliteration of the priests in 2 Kings? Jehu's acts against the priests had political motives, since a priest could effect a coup (cf. 2 Kings 11:4-20) by citing improper worship practices. This has specific application here: A king or a usurper needed priestly support for their own political ends. Although it was obvious trickery on Jehu's part and probably not a sincere sacrifice, the priests that had served under the previous kings of Israel could have cited Jehu's apparent sacrifice to Baal as an improper practice and used it as an excuse to depose him! In killing off these priests, Jehu was simply using the means of political murder to head off any trouble from that direction.
So what have we learned? Neither of these two parties comes under the roof of the "house of Ahab" nor of any royal household, literally or figuratively. In killing these people, Jehu clearly exceeded the demands of his commission and destroyed those outside the house of Ahab.
* That leaves only the matter of "close friends." Here alone does Till take up the gauntlet: "In the case of Yahweh's destruction of the house of Baasha, there can be no doubt at all that those who were not male descendants of Baasha were included in the destruction of Baasha's house," Till writes. For relevant proof, he cites 1 Kings 16:11 -
As soon as he began to reign and was seated on the throne, he killed off Baasha's whole family. He did not spare a single male, whether relative or friend.
Of this, he writes:
Verse 11 is clear enough. Zimri killed "all the house of Baasha," and in doing so he didn't leave alive "a single male of his kindred or HIS FRIENDS."
Thus does Till find that Jehu destroyed the house of Ahab with the same thoroughness as the house of Baasha was destroyed. The match is perfect - or is it? In fact, what we have here is Till's most enormous blunder of all, and startling proof that one cannot simply consult the stark English translations for answers. Aside from totally ignoring the matters of the great men and priests, Till commits an error that would have been avoided had he done so much as consult a Hebrew concordance. It turns out that both Zimri and Jehu were similar in that they were acting politically - but the fact is that they were getting rid of two different kinds of people.
Let's get behind the English and expose the error in Till's data. In 1 Kings 16:11, what is killed are ga'al (next of kin/kindred) and reya. This latter word translates out to brother, companion, lover, neighbor, etc. as shown in the Strong's exposition:
7453. rea', ray'-ah; or reya', ray'-ah; from H7462; an associate (more or less close):--brother, companion, fellow, friend, husband, lover, neighbour, X (an-) other.
Note the level of affiliation expressed: These are people of rather close relationship. The word is used elsewhere in this sense; here are some citations of places where it appears:
Gen. 38:12, 20 - When Judah had recovered from his grief, he went up to Timnah, to the men who were shearing his sheep, and his friend (reya) Hirah the Adullamite went with him...Meanwhile Judah sent the young goat by his friend (reya) the Adullamite in order to get his pledge back from the woman, but he did not find her.
Note here: This is a person whom Judah trusts with his property and his personal affairs!
Ex. 22:7 - "If a man gives his neighbor (reya) silver or goods for safekeeping and they are stolen from the neighbor's house, the thief, if he is caught, must pay back double."
Note: Are you going to give silver or goods to someone you are not close friends with?
Deut. 13:6 - If your very own brother, or your son or daughter, or the wife you love, or your closest friend (reya) secretly entices you, saying, "Let us go and worship other gods," gods that neither you nor your fathers have known...
Note: Here this kind of person is classified with family members as someone so close that they might have a certain power to persuade you.
2 Ki. 7:3 - Now there were four men with leprosy at the entrance of the city gate. They said to each other, "Why stay here until we die?"
Note: The word is not transliterated [sic] here, but is used to refer to the four lepers outside the gates of the city - men with a common bond.
Prov. 3:28 - Do not say to your neighbor (reya), "Come back later; I'll give it tomorrow"-- when you now have it with you.
Note: Here the word specifies someone who lends things to you. In the next verse after the above it refers to someone who lives near you.
Prov. 14:20 - The poor are shunned even by their neighbors (reya), but the rich have many friends.
Note: Here there is a distinct difference made between reya (neighbors) and 'ahab (friends). The latter is an even stronger word indicating affection.
Prov. 17:17-8 - A friend (reya) loves at all times, and a brother is born for adversity. A man lacking in judgment strikes hands in pledge and puts up security for his neighbor (reya).
Note: Here is a very precise description of what a reya was all about - and a description of how far foolish people take this relationship because of trusting overmuch! (By the way - the word "loves" above is that Hebrew 'ahab!)
Conclusion: Clearly some close associational link is implied by this word, and in many cases we see relationships that fit in under the parameters of the broad definition of "house" in the OT context.
What, then, of the "friends" of Ahab's house in 2 Kings, who were killed by Jehu? These were not reya at all, but yada - an entirely different Hebrew word, with an entirely different connotation! Let's look at the exposition from Strong's:
3045. yada', yaw-dah'; a prim. root; to know (prop. to ascertain by seeing); used in a great variety of senses, fig., lit., euphem. and infer. (including observation, care, recognition, and causat. instruction, designation, punishment, etc.) [as follow]:--acknowledge, acquaintance (-ted with), advise, answer, appoint, assuredly, be aware, [un-] awares, can [-not], certainly, for a certainty, comprehend, consider, X could they, cunning, declare, be diligent, (can, cause to) discern, discover, endued with, familiar friend, famous, feel, can have, be [ig-] norant, instruct, kinsfolk, kinsman, (cause to, let, make) know, (come to give, have, take) knowledge, have [knowledge], (be, make, make to be, make self) known, + be learned, + lie by man, mark, perceive, privy to, X prognosticator, regard, have respect, skilful, shew, can (man of) skill, be sure, of a surety, teach, (can) tell, understand, have [understanding], X will be, wist, wit, wot.
Who are these people? Since yada occurs some 932 times (!) in the OT, and is usually transliterated [sic] as the word "know," rather than cite verses here we will call upon the explication of Coogan [Coog.2K, 114], who cites an example of an Akkadian concept of "friend of the king" - a person who paid a tax for this designated status and was able to pass it on to his children, much as in modern times someone who donates to a political campaign may be designated as a "friend" of the politician. (As in modern "friends" of Bill Clinton!) While yada is not precisely in line with this idea, and has a wide number of other nuances (including "kinsman/folk" - not the likely meaning in the Jehu matter, since these people are clustered with non-family, and the Kings writer, as we have seen, uses the more specific word for "kinsman/folk," ga'al, elsewhere), it is obvious that the Baasha account and the Jehu account refer to two entirely different types of people, thus making Till's argument re: "friends" in 2 Kings irrelevant. Not that he even needed to know definitions: The fact that two entirely different Hebrew words are used is more than sufficient to demolish his pretenses. In any event, the matter is clear: Till has failed to do his homework, and has fallen upon the same blunders (and far worse) than those he alleges were committed by Miller and myself [sic].
|Till closes one section of his diatribe with the remark that he expected my reply to him to pose "perhaps still another solution to this problem." As we have seen, the solutions previously offered remain standing, unbattered by Till's dilettante exegesis. There is no need for new explanations.
We close with a recounting of a reflection passed on to me, one that purportedly originated with one of Till's many admirers, but is now deliciously ironic:
This is the first time Holding directly responded to Farrell Till. I think Holding has put his foot in a wrong mouth this time. :-) Farrell Till never ignores any response to him. I have seen Till debate on the mailing lists many, many times. He responds so quickly that the opponent thinks, as Till says, "lightening (sic) had struck him." When it comes to the debating skill (sic), none (either skeptic or theist) equals Farrell Till...
"Holding" is on his way down the hill. Trust me, I know what I am talking about.
A few comments here:
First, this writer is in error: I have previously responded directly to Till in AJINOD Chapter 5, regarding his article on Mara Bar-Serapion (which included Till's ludicrous suggestion that Mara was referring not to Jesus, but to the Essene "Teacher of Righteousness"). As yet, that has not been responded to, but I do not doubt that it soon will be, since I have deigned to bring it once again to attention.
Second, and more consequential, this: Till is lauded here for his "debating skill" and prompt rejoinder intervals. I do not suspect his deftness in this domain. The arena of informal debate by all means favors those with the most thunderous and the swiftest riposte, notwithstanding the circumstance and/or measure of their erudition. However, it has become quite plain that Till's "lightening" reflexes are of no service to him when it comes to the minutia of a particular issue. Till manifestly has neither the forbearance nor the restraint to check his work thoroughly. Arguments are shot from the hip, and thrown down like beef on a BBQ grill; accusations of collusion and conspiracy are bandied about with the frequency of an Erich von Daniken monograph. This kind of dialogue may serve to instill awe in the skeptical masses, but the strategy becomes rather diluted when challenged by diligence and brute fact.
We therefore recapitulate our remonstrance at the conclusion of AJINOD Chapter 1: If Farrell Till aspires to be taken seriously beyond his clique of sycophants, than he must do far better than simply resting upon his authoritative laurels as Tamer of the Unwashed, and do more than simply rely upon his "plain reading" of the texts. Will he do so? It is doubtful. Till has had several decades of practiced skepticism to sharpen his performance or to obtain further training, but has shown no inkling to do more than blow smoke and flash mirrors to the applause of his admirers. Any entrance into true scholarship would likely as not result in profound embarrassment; furthermore, being the publisher of his own newsletter, king of his own hill, the biggest fish in his own pond, likely provides far too comfortable a niche for Till to risk any mobilization. We will no doubt continue to hear the accusations of conspiracy, the rampant chauvinism, and the bellowing of the gored oxen. A veteran skeptic set in his ways is hard-pressed to learn new tricks, and we see little or no hope for this particular skeptic to widen his horizons any further - and it is for that reason that we here announce the appointment of Farrell Till, in place of Larry Taylor, as the least-credible of the Jury Is In consortium of authors.
| | Sources |
