Out of Bounds?
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 that 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?
Till:
This is that I'm not going to spend a lot of time on, and the reason
why may
surprise Turkel. I consider his response to this part of my article to
be a reasonable
possibility. The context of the story of Jehu will show that Jezreel
was used to refer to
the city. Before Jehu received his "mandate," Joram (king of Israel)
was wounded in a
battle with the Syrians at Ramoth-gilead, so he "returned to Jezreel to
recover from the
wounds" (2
Kings 8:29). King Ahaziah (of Judah) who was fighting in an
alliance with Joram, then "went down to Jezreel to visit Joram" (v:29).
I doubt that the writer intended for us to understand that Joram and
Ahaziah just went somewhere into the valley of Jezreel. This is
confirmed by
9:16,
which tells us that
after being anointed by the "son of the prophets," Jehu "mounted his
chariot and drove to
Jezreel, for Joram was lying ill there." The verse just before this
reminds readers that
"King Joram had gone back to Jezreel to recover from the wounds." Both
of these statements
suggest that the city of Jezreel and not the valley was where Joram was
recovering and
where Jehu went in his chariot.
The next verse states that a "watchman was standing on the tower in Jezreel and spied the company of Jehu as he came." Since it's unlikely that the tower this watchman was on was out in the valley somewhere, this is sufficient to assume that the action was taking place within the city. As the story continues, the context clearly infers that the city of Jezreel and not the valley was being referred to. The heads of the sons of Jehoram, for example, were "sent to Jezreel" (10:7) and put into two heaps "at the entrance of the gate" (10:8), so it is unlikely that this was a reference to a gate elsewhere in the valley and not in the city of Jezreel. Furthermore, there are biblical texts that clearly specified the "valley of Jezreel" when that region and not just the city was intended (Josh. 17:16; Judges 6:33), so the evidence certainly favors interpreting Jezreel in reference to Jehu's actions in the royal massacre to be the city proper. The word Jezreel appears 36 times in the Old Testament, and 17 of those references are in the accounts of the massacre carried out at Jezreel by Jehu. Nevertheless, as I stated above, Turkel's insistence that Jezreel could have been a term intended to include the region around the city is a reasonable possibility, so I won't engage in quibbling on this issue, because I don't have to. As I have shown, the evidence is sufficient to show that the killing of Ahaziah, a kinsman and a biblically recognized member of the "house of Ahab," would not have exceeded Jehu's "mandate."
Turkel:
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.
Till:
My comments above cover Turkel's statement immediately above, and I
separated it from the
section before this just to make two points: (1) Turkel is a fine one
to accuse me of
quibbling, because he has shown himself to be an expert in it. All of
his talk about
Hebrew "nuances" has been quibbling of the crassest kind. (2) The story
of Jehu mentions
Jezreel over and over, and as I showed above, the contexts in which the
name appears makes
it rather obvious that the city proper was being referred to. Turkel
has claimed that it
could have referred to the valley or region, and I have acknowledged
that this is a
possibility. However, it does seem strange that after having used
Jezreel so many times
in the story in reference to the region and not just to the city (as
Turkel is claiming), as
soon as the action of the story obviously shifted to localities that
were outside the city
of Jezreel, the writer stopped using Jezreel in this regional sense and
used other place
names like Beth Eked. Why would he have done that if he had been using
"Jezreel" to refer
to a general region rather than to a specific city?
Turkel:
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.)
Till:
Yes, I have repeatedly pointed this out, and I have clearly
demonstrated that the context
in which paqad was used was sufficient to show where its
meaning was "good or bad."
All of the evidence that I have cited, which Turkel, of course,
considers "superficial"
because it relied heavily on how dozens of translations rendered Hosea
1:4, has clearly
shown that the prophet used paqad to convey the idea of
vengeance or retribution.
Turkel:
Hosea [sic] 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!
Till:
Let's just suppose that a modern prophet--and there are always prophets
who think they know
God's will--should name a child Vietnam or Watergate and then give this
as his reason for
so doing: "For yet a little while, God will visit on the American
people the blood of Vietnam
[or the iniquity of Watergate]." Would there be much doubt that this
modern prophet
disapproved of Vietnam or Watergate? The disapproval is the point of
inconsistency, and
Turkel can't seem to understand this as he quibbles his way along. The
writer of
2 Kings
10:30 obviously
approved of Jehu's actions in what he did to the house of Ahab, but the
prophet Hosea
disapproved of it. So whether the "blood of Jezreel" referred to just
the city or to a
broader area is besides the point. Turkel cannot claim perfect harmony
and consistency in
the Bible if it says in one place that Jehu did to the house of Ahab
"according to all that
was in [Yahweh's] heart" but says in another place that what Jehu did
at Jezreel was such
that Yahweh was going to avenge the blood of Jezreel on the house of
Jehu and bring the
kingdom of Israel to an end.
Turkel:
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.
Till:
Well, yes, we have noticed many times that Turkel "might well expect"
many things, but he
always seems to be a bit short on evidence to support his
"expectations." After all that
he has said, the fact still remains that the prophet Hosea said that
Yahweh would visit on
the house of Jehu the blood of Jezreel, and the meaning of that should
be as obvious as
the texts I cited earlier where Yahweh said that he would "visit" upon
people the sins and
the iniquities they or their "fathers" had committed.
Turkel:
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?)
Till:
However we look at it? I have conceded to Turkel the possibility that
Jezreel could have
been inclusive enough to include the surrounding area, so there is no
need for me to comment
on this further. After all, I see no disgrace in conceding a point to a
debating opponent.
As for whether the massacre of the 42 princes exceeded what Jehu had
been ordered to do,
there are other reasons sufficient to include them in what Turkel
refers to as Jehu's
"mandate." These "princes" were called "brethren" in
2 Kings
10:13; in
2
Chronicles 22:8, they
were called "princes" and "sons of the brethren of Ahaziah." Since the
Bible record states
that all of Ahaziah's brothers had been killed in a raid by the
Arabians
(2
Chron. 21:16-17), the
writer probably didn't mean that these were literal brothers of
Ahaziah, so the expression
"sons of the brethren of Ahaziah" could have meant nephews or some
other kinsmen. So this
brings us back to a point that I made earlier. Ahaziah was a grandson
of Ahab, and so,
unless Jehoram of Judah had had other wives besides Athaliah (Ahab's
daughter), Ahaziah's
"brothers" would have been Ahab's "kinsmen" too, and so would their
sons. At any rate, as I
continue my replies, I will show that the "umbrella" mandate that was
given to Jehu was broad
enough to cover anyone who was in any way associated with
kinsmen of Ahab. These 42
"princes" were found "ministering" to Ahaziah
(2
Chron. 22:8), so that
certainly would have made them associates or servants or friends, and
as we will see, any
such association with the member of a "house" was sufficient cause for
extermination when
Yahweh went on a rampage and ordered the extermination of that house.
Till (introductory comment to what was part 20 in
the alt.bible.errancy exchanges):
Turkel has argued throughout his article that (1) "commentators of all
stripes" are in
agreement with his position in the matter of what the prophet Hosea
meant in 1:4, and (2)
my reliance on what various translations say in Hosea 1:4 is
"superficial scholarship" that
does not carry nearly the weight as his references to Bible
commentaries, because (he
claims) the scholarship that goes into the writing of a commentary is
far superior to that
of Bible translators. I have shown in my previous responses that this
is an untenable
position, and on the alt.bible.errancy list, I was joined by Henry
Neufeld (in an
unsolicited posting) in exposing the falsity of this claim. Neufeld's
posting was
redirected to the Errancy list and sent to Turkel also. Those reading
my responses to
Turkel who missed seeing Neufeld's posting may contact me if they would
like to have a copy
of it. Meanwhile, readers are asked to keep in mind, as I continue,
that Turkel's comments
about his "commentators of all stripes" and superior references have
been shown to be
untenable.
[Addendum July 2005: I inserted Neufeld's comments earlier, in the section where Turkel had made the claim that the scholarship of commentaries was superior to that of Bible translators.]
Turkel:
"Who's in the House?" 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.
Till:
Comments like this one are the reason why I appended the introductory
comment above. Turkel
has really presented nothing in this debate except constant ad
hominem harangues and
appeals to "authorities" in agreement with him, whom he arbitrarily
calls superior scholars.
It is as if Turkel seems to think that if he attacks me personally and
says that his
scholarship is superior to mine often enough, someone may believe him.
There is, however, no
substitute for logical argumentation, and we have seen very little of
this from Turkel.
His belittlement of my comparison of English translations is farcical,
because he has no
linguistic skills or credentials in Hebrew, so he too has to rely on
English translations.
[Addendum July 2005: The fact that the scholarship that produced the previously cited thirty-six translations, which I quoted in this section of Part One, all agreed that Hosea 1:4 was pronouncing impending punishment on the house of Jehu "for the blood of Jezreel" easily trumps the recent "nuances" that a handful of biblical inerrantists claim that they have found in this verse. The translators merely sought to express in English the equivalent meaning of the Hebrew text; Turkel's "commentators of all stripes," who turned out to be primarily two Bible fundamentalists, were looking for a way to explain a long-recognized discrepancy. So just who has made the "incredible blunder"? Can there be any bigger blunder than believing that writers living in prescientific, superstitious times, who believed in a god named Yahweh and incinerated animals in homage to him, just as the people around them believed in gods named Dagon, Chemosh, Baal, Bel, etc., and incinerated animals to them, were completely inerrant in what they wrote?]
Turkel:
The question at hand is: Are these three parties - chief men, close friends, priests - to be considered part of the "house of Ahab"?
Ti;;:
As I respond to Turkel's quibble on this point, everyone should bear in
mind that Yahweh had
told Jehu to "smite the house of Ahab" and that the "whole
house of Ahab" was to
"perish" (2 Kings
9:7-8). The passage went on to present Yahweh as saying, "I will
cut off from Ahab every male both bond and free, and I
will make the house of Ahab like the house of Jeroboam the son
of Nebat, and like the house of Baasha the son of Ahijah"
(vs:8-9).
In other words, the
orders were very inclusive and were an almost exact repetition
of the original
pronouncement of doom that the prophet Elijah had presented in person
to Ahab
(1
Kings 21:21-23). In
Elijah's statement, Yahweh had even said that he would "utterly sweep
away and cut off every
male both bond and free from Ahab"
(v:21).
So as I continue to
rebut Turkel's quibble, everyone should keep in mind the thoroughness
and completeness of
the instructions that Jehu had allegedly received from Yahweh.
Turkel has quibbled that Ahaziah of Judah could not have been considered a part of the house of Ahab, but in prior postings, I have shown the following: (1) Jehu was told to make the house of Ahab like the house of Baasha, and when Zemri destroyed the house of Baasha, he "smote all the house of Baasha" and "left him not a single male, neither of his kinfolks nor of his friends." (2) Ahaziah was the son of Athaliah, a daughter of Ahab (2 Chron. 22:2), and so Ahaziah was certainly a "kinsman" of Ahab. (3) Biblical writers attributed Ahaziah's "evil in the sight of Yahweh" to the fact that he was "of the house of Ahab" (2 Kings 8:27) and that he was "counseled to do wickedly" by his mother and others of the house of Ahab (2 Chron. 22:3-4). In view of all of these biblical claims, it is completely unreasonable to think that any biblical writer thought that Jehu had exceeded his "mandate" by killing Ahaziah and that Yahweh was so angry that this had been done that he brought both the house of Jehu and the kingdom of Israel to an end. Certainly, Yahweh took his good sweet time deciding to destroy the house of Jehu for the excesses of its founder, because almost a hundred years intervened between Jehu's massacre at Jezreel and the assassination of Zechariah, the last descendant of Jehu to reign in Israel. So if we can reasonably conclude anything in this matter, it would surely be that the extensiveness of the "umbrella" commandment that Jehu received from Yahweh to make the house of Ahab like the houses of Jeroboam and Baasha would certainly have exonerated Jehu from any divine blame for having killed a grandson of Ahab, who walked in Ahab's ways under the counsel and directions of his mother and other advisors from the house of Ahab. Turkel's position on this point is a desperate quibble that needs no further refutation.
[Addendum July 2005: I read all of Turkel's so-called "replies" to my rebuttals, but I saw no attempt to reply to my rebuttal point in the paragraph above. I even searched through his "replies" by using key expressions like "good sweet time," "counseled to do wickedly," "exonerated Jehu," "kinfolks," and "assassination of Zechariah," but nothing turned up. As I have repeatedly pointed out, Turkel always selectively quotes his opponents when he "replies" to them. If, however, he cannot explain to us why a grandson of Ahab would not have been considered a member of the "house of Ahab," then his "argument" that Jehu exceeded his "mandate" will suffer irreparable damage.]
As I continue responding to this part of Turkel's article, I will show that his attempt to distinguish (through "nuances" in Hebrew) between the "friends" of Baasha (whom Zemi killed) and the "friends" of Joram of Israel (Ahab's son), whom Jehu killed at Jezreel, is also another desperate quibble intended to make the Bible not say what it obviously does say.
Turkel [quoting Till]:
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?
Till:
Turkel seems to think that he knows all about my works on the subject
of biblical errancy,
enough so that he repeatedly talks about my "superficial scholarship,"
but those who have
really followed my writing on this subject know that a very common type
of rebuttal that I
use against the inerrantist who pretends to know that the Bible doesn't
really mean what it
obviously says is to examine how writers used key words and expressions
in passages where
inerrantists attempt to deny the face-value meaning of language. So
when I examined how
"house" was used in the Old Testament, I was doing nothing that I
haven't done many times
before. What I oppose is the biblicist who attempts to explain away an
obvious discrepancy
by arbitrarily asserting that to the "Hebrew or Semitic mind," such and
such language would
have implied or suggested a meaning that will save the day for the
inerrantist. When this
is done, the biblicist rarely presents any substantial evidence to
support his claim; he
simply asserts that it is true. This is essentially what Turkel has
done in the matter of
what paqad meant to the "Semitic mind." He presented brief,
fragmented quotations
from authors of commentaries who were struggling just as desperately as
he is to resolve a
serious inconsistency in the Bible, but neither he nor his sources have
presented any real
evidence that the passages in question did contain "nuances" that prove
that all major
translations of Hosea 1:4 erred in the way that they rendered the
passage. On the other
hand, I did present textual evidence from the Old Testament to show
that the expression
"house of" was used to denote not just an immediate family but a much
broader group that
would have included the immediate family, descendants of the "house's"
namesake, friends,
and relatives, and in doing this, I didn't rely on what certain authors
may have thought
about this. I used the Bible itself to show that the expression "house
of" had this broad,
extensive meaning. Turkel, on the other hand, quotes articles and books
written by writers
urgently wanting to defend the traditional view of the Bible when there
is no information
in the Bible to support his case. I cited Bible dictionaries and
encyclopedias, because
they say the same thing about "house of" as my quotations from biblical
passages showed.
In other words, Bible dictionaries and encyclopedias confirm what my
analyses showed about
how the word house [bayith] was used in the Bible, and that is
quite different from
what Turkel is trying to do. He is quoting "scholars" who have
allegedly discovered within
the past 5-7 years that the Bible dictionaries and encyclopedias are
all wrong about the
meaning of PQD in Hosea 1:4. That isn't just a difference; it
is a huge difference.
Turkel:
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.
Till:
"Reckless neophyte"? Hmmm, I wonder why Turkel called me that if he is
"well aware" of how
"house" was used in Hebrew? As for whether my "argument here is a
sham," why don't we just
wait to see if Turkel is able to make that charge stick? We have
already seen him accuse me
of "superficial scholarship" only to have himself exposed as the one
whose scholarship is
shallow. If he is "well aware" of how bayith was used in Hebrew
with reference
to "the house of David" or "the house of Ahab" or "the house of
whoever," then he has to
know that what I said above is true, so how did anything that I said
about the usage of
"house of" make my argument "a sham"? Turkel doesn't seem to understand
that nothing is
true just because he asserts it.
Turkel:
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.
Till:
Gee, why should I name any specific Bible dictionary or encyclopedia in
this matter when just
about any that one may consult in this matter will agree that "house
of" in the Old Testament
conveyed not just an immediate family but a much broader group of
relatives, servants, and
associates? Also, if Turkel agrees that the expression "does indeed
have a broader meaning,"
why is he making such an issue of this? I can only assume that he has
done so only as
another opportunity to launch an ad hominem attack that might
possibly influence some
of his "adoring flock" to believe he is right in saying that my works
on biblical inerrancy
aren't worth commenting on. He says this and then turns around and
devotes over 80K of web
space to responding to something that he doesn't think is worthy of
comment. I'll let the
readers reach their own conclusions about what this tells us about what
Turkel really
believes in this matter.
[Addendum July 2005: I should have taken the time here to give Turkel what he asked for. If he wants to know what Bible dictionaries define bayith extensively enough to include grandsons, bond servants, and others who are not genetically related to the founder of the "house," I am going to recommend to him two conservative sources, even though he himself admits below that I am right in saying that a "house" could extend beyond relatives. Here is how Eerdmans Bible Dictionary defined the term.
The extended family or father's house, the basic social unit of ancient Israel (so RSV, JB; KJV "house"; NIV "family"). A patrilocal residential unit, it was headed by the eldest male of the lineage and might comprise as many as five generations of the family. In addition to the family head and his spouse, it included unmarried children, sons, and their wives and children. Moreover, it encompassed dependent persons such as adopted sons (cf. Gen. 15:2), servants or enlisted personnel (14:14), and resident aliens (1987, p. 506).
If Eerdmans isn't conservative enough for him, Turkel can take a look at New Bible Dictionary, published by Inter-Varsity Press, which says that house "can designate both persons (including slaves) and property" (p. 497), but since Turkel admits below that he checked "no less than a dozen such sources" and found that I am right, there is no need to pursue this any further. I guess he will have to look for something else to quibble about.]
Turkel:
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.
Till:
So if Turkel consulted "no less than a dozen such sources and a variety
of others" and found
that they all confirmed that "house of" denoted this broader sense,
exactly what is his beef
in this matter? Why spend so much time complaining about something I
have said that he
himself finds all major references works in agreement with. I would
suspect that if we had
a listing of all of the sources he checked in this matter, we would
find represented in
them "commentators of all stripes," and isn't that supposed to
determine accuracy and
truth?
Turkel:
What I do not find is this peculiar word that Till uses, "associates".
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!
[Addendum July 2005: I am going to alert everyone here to look for Turkel's attempt below to put a special spin on the Hebrew word rea’ to try to show that the "friends" who were killed during the massacre of Baasha's house were not the same kind of "friends" of Jehoram whom Jehu massacred at Jezreel. He will cite Strong's definition of this word, which is the following.
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.
I emphasized "an associate" to call attention to it. When we come to the place where Turkel tried to argue that Jehoram's "friends" were not the same kind of friends as Baasha's, I will insert another notice to look for what is coming up. Everyone will see there that suddenly Turkel is able to see associates included in Jehu's massacre. This guy cranks his hackwork out so fast that he can't even remember from one paragraph to another what he has said.]
Till:
Ah, so Turkel finally comes to the point and ends his tirade in this
matter with another
quibble. I used the word "associate" in explaining the inclusiveness
that the expression
"house of" connoted in the Old Testament, and he apparently can't find
this term in the
Bible. Possibly, it didn't occur to him that I am writing in English,
and in so doing, I
will quite often use words that can't be found in translations of the
Hebrew text, but that
doesn't mean that the ideas or concepts they denote are not taught in
the Old Testament.
Turkel can't find "nuance" or "Semitic mind" or "collocation" or
"linguistic details" or
any of dozens of other expressions that he has used throughout his
article in reference to
what he obviously thinks is taught in the Old Testament, but I'm sure
he thinks that his
usage of those expressions was justified on the grounds that the
concepts that they convey
are found in the Bible, yet he finds fault with me for having used the
word "associate" in
reference to those who would have been included in the Hebrew concept
of "house." If there
is any doubt left in the minds of inerrantists following this
discussion that Turkel has
done very little in his article but try to quibble his way through a
response, his comments
on this point should remove that doubt.
If Turkel would consult a basic dictionary--and I hardly need to specify one by name--he will find that "associate" can convey the sense of "companion" or "comrade" or "colleague" or "friend." Well, heck, he may complain at this point because I am saying that "associate" can mean "friend," which is going to recur as a key word as my rebuttal continues, so perhaps I should tell him specifically what dictionary to consult to find that "friend" is used in the definition of "associate," so if he will consult Webster's New Universal Unabridged Dictionary, he will see that it defines "associate" as "a friend; a partner; a colleague; a fellow-worker." Hence, if "friends" were killed in the destruction of the house of Baasha, as we have already noted, then it would be appropriate to say that associates of Baasha were killed in the massacre. If not, why not?
At any rate, as I respond to Turkel's quibble about the different words that were used to denote Baasha's and Joram's "friends" who were killed in the respective massacres, we will see that, given the meaning of the word "associate" in English, it was entirely appropriate for me to use the word "associate" in discussing the inclusiveness of the word "house" in Hebrew. I will show that the killing of any who were "associated" with the house of Ahab in official or friendly senses were fair game for a man who was carrying out an allegedly divine command to destroy every male both bond and free in a "house."
Turkel:
That said, Till embarks upon a skein of blatherskeit destined to prove
his point that a
"house" consisted of more than just blood relatives.
Till:
If Turkel wishes to see blatherskite, he should review his
lengthy quibbles about my
failure to cite sources when I gave a definition of house that
he afterwards admitted
he agrees with, his constant ad hominem attacks, and his
incessant references to
"scholars" who say this or that but never give any textual reasons to
support "this and
that." Someone sent a posting to alt.bible.errancy that said he was
stripping Turkel's
"arguments" of all self-praise, ad hominem attacks on me, and
appeals to authority
and was posting below what was left. Below, there was nothing but blank
space, and that
pretty well sums up what we have seen from Turkel. Nothing but
self-praise, ad hominem
attacks and insults, and incessant citations of writers and books in
agreement with his
position--that has been the extent of Turkel's attempts to explain away
the inconsistencies
in the biblical references to Jehu's massacre at Jezreel, but we have
seen very little
attempt at logical argumentation.
Anyway, why is he still raging about my claim that "house of" in the Bible meant more than just the person's blood relatives, because he said that he was aware that it did mean this.
Talk about blatherskeit!
Turkel:
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:
Here is another example of Turkel's quibbling, and when an opponent
resorts to this kind of
quibbling, you can tell that he is hurting. I never implied or meant to
imply that Jehu
killed slaves of Joram of Israel. I was simply defining the word house
as it was
used in the Old Testament to show that the word was used to include not
just an immediate
family but the extended family, including servants and slaves, and
associates, but Turkel
wastes our time with a quibble like this (actually a straw man) as if
it was relevant to
anything I have said relative to the house of Ahab.
Turkel:
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?
Till:
Why wouldn't they have been? If "kinsmen" and "friends" were a part of
the house of Baasha
(1
Kings 16:11), and if the
destruction of Jeroboam's house was so extensive that nothing was left
to Jeroboam "that
breathed" (1 Kings
15:29), and if all that was done to the house of Jeroboam was
"according to the saying of Yahweh which
he spoke by his servant Ahijah"
(1
Kings 15:29), and if Jehu
was to make the house of Ahab like unto the houses of Jeroboam and
Baasha, then why would
the killing of Joram's "great men, close friends, and priests" have
exceeded Jehu's mandate?
Is Turkel unaware that priests were a part of the king's inner circle
or entourage of
advisors? He seems to be, because we will later see him arguing that
priests were members
of the "house of the Lord." When we reach that point in his article, I
will say more about
this, but for now I will suggest that Turkel review the reign of David
as recorded in
2 Samuel and notice the king-advisor relationship that existed between
David and Abiathar.
After the rebellion led by his son Absalom was over, David instructed
Abiathar and Zadok
(another priest) to deliver a reprimand to the elders of Israel for not
acting quickly to
have him restored to his house in Jerusalem from which he had had to
flee temporarily
(2
Sam. 19:11-15).
Second
Chronicles 18:14-17
listed those who had positions of importance in David's court.
14 So David reigned over all Israel; and he administered justice and equity to all his people. 15 Joab son of Zeruiah was over the army; Jehoshaphat son of Ahilud was recorder; 16 Zadok son of Ahitub and Ahimelech son of Abiathar were priests; Shavsha was secretary; 17 Benaiah son of Jehoiada was over the Cherethites and the Pelethites; and David's sons were the chief officials in the service of the king.
The parallel account in 2 Samuel 20:23-25 listed Zadok and Abiathar as the priests, and with good reason. Abiathar was the son of Ahimelech, not the other way around, and by this time in David's reign, Saul had killed Ahimelech for aiding David in his flight from Saul (1 Sam. 21:1-6; 22:11-19), but this is just another biblical inconsistency that I will let Turkel try to work out if he wishes. Perhaps he can find some "nuance" in Hebrew that will show us that a text that says that Ahimelech was the son of Abiathar didn't really mean that Ahimelech was the son of Abiathar but that Abiathar was the son of Ahimelech. At any rate, the text above shows that the Israelite kings had priests in their inner circle of advisors, and Zadok and Abiathar or Ahimelech (take your pick) filled this position during the reign of David. Upon David's death, one of Solomon's first acts after murdering his half-brother Adonijah (who had tried to claim the throne) was to "thrust out Abiathar from being priest to Yahweh" (1 Kings 2:27), because Abiathar had supported in the power struggle (1 Kings 1:7). Solomon put Zadok into the "room of Abiathar" (1 Kings 2:35), so the kings of Israel took their priests very seriously and chose those who could be trusted to be loyal to them as their advisors. Does Turkel think for one moment that in those barbaric times one who was seizing control of a government by force would not have exterminated those who had been close advisors and ministers of the king? After all, Jehu's massacre at Jezreel was nothing but a usurpation of the throne that was done under the guise of having been ordered by the national god, but Turkel is stuck with how the Bible tells the story, and the massacre was first told as something that was entirely pleasing to Yahweh but then later was presented in another light by Hosea.
One more comment is necessary here. If Turkel were just a bit more familiar with the Bible, he would understand that usually when coups such as Jehu's took place, no one who was in a position to pose any threat to the usurper was spared. When Jehoram of Judah (Ahaziah's father) became king upon the death of his father Jehoshaphat, he had six brothers whom "he killed with the sword," as well as "divers also of the princes of Israel" (2 Chronicles 21:4). In other words, Jehoram eliminated all possible competition. The Bible claims that even after the massacre of Ahaziah and his entourage, a power play took place in Jerusalem. His infamous mother Athaliah (Ahab's daughter), seeing that her son was dead, "killed all the royal seed of Judah" (2 Kings 11:1; 2 Chron. 22:10), took control, and "reigned over the land." The power of the priesthood was demonstrated in this story, because Jehoshabeath, the sister of Ahaziah, took her nephew Joash, and hid him and his nurse in her bedchamber. Later, with the assistance of the priests, Joash was hidden "in the house of God six years" (2 Chron. 22:12). Then in the 7th year, Jehoiada (the high priest) organized a rebellion in the royal guard that overthrew Athaliah and put Joash on the throne. Athaliah was in the palace (1 Chron. 22:15).
I could relate other examples of coups that were carried out with the assassination of not just the king but also his complete entourage. Any rebel worth his salt at that time would have understood that priests loyal to an overthrown monarch would not be desirable persons to have around, but I will be saying more about this when I come to Turkel's quibble on this point. As the situation now stands, Turkel has certainly not shown that Jehu "overstepped his bounds" by killing friends, officials, and priests who were in Joram's inner circle, and especially not if Jehu had received a "mandate" to utterly sweep away the whole house of Ahab and to kill every male both bond and free.
Turkel:
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 -
Till:
Well, let's just see how this line of argumentation holds up. We
noticed above that when
Solomon succeeded David as king, he ordered the death of his
half-brother Adonijah and
removed Abiathar as the king's priest. Before David died, he had
allegedly reminded Solomon
that the faithful general Joab had killed Abner and Amasa, and so
Solomon was told not to
let Joab's "hoary head go down to Sheol in peace"
(1 Kings
2:6). Verses
28-33
tell of Solomon's
execution of David's orders.
28 Then tidings came to Joab: for Joab had turned after Adonijah, though he turned not after Absalom. And Joab fled unto the tabernacle of Yahweh, and caught hold on the horns of the altar. 29 And it was told king Solomon that Joab was fled unto the tabernacle of Yahweh; and, behold, he is by the altar. Then Solomon sent Benaiah the son of Jehoiada, saying, Go, fall upon him. 30 And Benaiah came to the tabernacle of Yahweh, and said unto him, Thus saith the king, Come forth. And he said, Nay; but I will die here. And Benaiah brought the king word again, saying, Thus said Joab, and thus he answered me. 31 And the king said unto him, Do as he hath said, and fall upon him, and bury him; that thou mayest take away the innocent blood, which Joab shed, from me, and from the house of my father. 32 And Yahweh shall return his blood upon his own head, who fell upon two men more righteous and better than he, and slew them with the sword, my father David not knowing thereof, to wit, Abner the son of Ner, captain of the host of Israel, and Amasa the son of Jether, captain of the host of Judah. 33 Their blood shall therefore return upon the head of Joab, and upon the head of his seed for ever: but upon David, and upon his seed, and upon his house, and upon his throne, shall there be peace for ever from Yahweh. 34 So Benaiah the son of Jehoiada went up, and fell upon him, and slew him: and he was buried in his own house in the wilderness.
Notice that Solomon allegedly said in verse 31 that killing Joab would take away the innocent blood he had shed from "me and from the house of my father." Now according to Turkel's logic, the separation of "me" and "the house of my father" would mean that Solomon was not a part of David's house, but that would be a ridiculous twist to put on the passage, because 2 Samuel 7:12-17 and 1 Chronicles 22:6-12 show that Solomon was not only a part of David's house but that he was the specific "seed" through whom the throne and house of David were to be established forever. Furthermore, verse 33 above has Solomon saying that the killing of Joab would return upon his head and his seed the blood that Joab had shed but there would be peace forever upon "David, and upon his seed, and upon his house." According to Turkel's logic, the separation of David's seed from his house would mean that David's seed was not considered a part of his house, but that too would be a ridiculous interpretation. What we have in these verses is a clear example of repetitive emphasis, and there is no reason to think that the same was not true in 2 Kings 10:11, where it was said that Jehu struck all that remained of the house of Ahab, all his great men, his familiar friends, and his priests until he [Jehu] left him [Ahab] none remaining. The separate listing of the groups serves to emphasize the extent of the destruction of the house of Ahab. It was so thorough that Jehu had left "him none remaining." The writer said that Jehu struck A, B, and C, until he had left Ahab "none remaining." In other words, it was necessary to strike A [all of Joram's great men] and B [Joram's familiar friends] and C [Joram's priests] in order to leave Ahab "none remaining." If not, why not?
Turkel claims to be so knowledgeable in "the Semitic mind," but in this matter, he is showing a colossal ignorance of ancient Near Eastern customs.
Turkel:
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.
Till:
So Turkel has come full circle to quibble again that the reason why
there is no clear
condemnation of Jehu's excess was because it just wasn't the writer's
style to do so. Here
Turkel calls it a "dry, analytical style." Well, pardon me, but I would
think that an
"analytical style" would be one that would go into details, but that
obviously isn't what
Turkel, the master linguist meant. He earlier referred to it as a "dry
and monotonous"
style that wasn't interested in passing judgments: "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 [sic] without need for further explanation." That was
quoted in
this
section of
Part One of my response to Turkel, and readers may review it to see
that I completely
demolished this claim by showing that the writer of 2 Kings was very
specific and impassioned
in his denunciation of Manasseh's wickedness (and others) and equally
specific in praising
Josiah for his righeous reforms. A review of this section of the
article will show that I
listed several specific offenses of Manasseh, so Turkel can't get by on
this issue by claiming that
the writer of 2 Kings was so dry and impassioned that he just didn't
bother to list specific
wrongs that kings committed. The writer didn't condemn Jehu, because,
as
10:31
shows, the writer
thought that Jehu had done to the house of Ahab according to all
that was in Yahweh's
heart. All is all, so if Jehu did all that was in
Yahweh's heart pertaining to
the house of Ahab, he could hardly have improved on that. If Yahweh had
wanted only
Jehoram and his immediate family to be killed, that would have been
something that was in
Yahweh's heart, so, in that case, if Jehu had killed more than
Jehoram's immediate
family, then Jehu did not do all that was in Yahweh's heart. If
not, why not?
[Addendum July 2005: I have emphasized several times that the so-called mandate that Jehu received ordered him to kill every male both bond and free in the house of Ahab (2 Kings 9:8), which was the same denunciation that Elijah had pronounced on Ahab in person (1 Kings 21:21), but blood relatives of Ahab would surely not have been bond servants; therefore, in ordering Jehu to kill every male, including even bond servants, in the house of Ahab, the "dry and disconnected" Kings writer had to have meant that this so-called mandate extended beyond just family members and relatives. Furthermore, since the "mandate" said that Jehu was to make the house of Ahab like the house of Baasha, whose massacre had included "friends" (1 Kings 16:11), there is no reason at all to think that Jehu's inclusion of Joram's "great men, familiar friends, and priests" in the massacre had exceeded the mandate and especially not since 2 Kings 10:30 clearly said that Jehu had done to the house of Ahab according to all that was in Yahweh's heart. I have read Turkel's so-called replies and even searched through them with the key word bond, but I have found no attempt that he made to explain why bonded servants were included in the "mandate" if Yahweh had intended for Jehu to kill only Ahab's blood relatives. This is typical of Turkel's selective debating. What he cannot answer, he will just skip.]
Turkel:
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.
Till:
As I have shown above, those within an inner circle of advisors were
indeed considered part
of a king's house. Accordingly, when Zemri abolished the house of
Baasha, he included in his
massacre all of the king's kinsmen and friends, and when coups
were executed, the
usurpers were often inclusive enough to kill anyone who had been
associated with the deposed
king. How could Jehu have made the house of Ahab like the house
of Baasha, as his
so-called mandate stipulated (2
Kings 9:9 unless he had... well, unless he had made the house of
Ahab like the house of
Baasha? In destroying the house of Baasha, Zemri had killed his family,
his kinfolks, and his
friends (1
Kings 16:11. Turkel
is trying to launch a quibble that just won't float.
Turkel:
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 Zemri eliminating the house of Baasha in 1 Kings 16. Note that Zemri 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 Zemri.
Till:
A reasonable person, which Turkel certainly isn't, would recognize that
in the books of
Samuel and Kings we are reading "history" as interpreted by a
superstitious writer who
thought that his national god had had a hand in everything that
happened in political struggles,
and so when kings rose to power, he saw this as the will of Yahweh, and
when kings fell, he
thought this was due to Yahweh's displeasure with them, usually for
having "done that which
was evil in the sight of Yahweh." Thus assassinations and coups
d'etat like those
we have already noted were always interpreted as events that happened
under the direction of
Yahweh. The possibility that such events happened as just the normal
course of political
power struggles was probably incomprehensible to the mind of such a
writer, but only a
gullible person living in our enlightened times could so interpret
history. Just a bit of
common sense will show that ancient superstition was behind the
interpretation of these power
struggles. The writer(s) of Kings repeatedly noted that such and such a
king would do evil
in the sight of Yahweh, yet some of these kings enjoyed lengthy reigns.
Jeroboam, for
example, did such evil in the sight of Yahweh that, so the "historian"
said, Yahweh vowed to
cut off from Jeroboam ever male both bond and free in his house and to
utterly sweep away
his house (1 Kings
14:10), yet Jeroboam reigned for 42 years and "slept with his
fathers"
(1
Kings 14:20). It wasn't
until Nadab his son had succeeded him that Baasha executed Yahweh's
promise to utterly
destroy the house of Jeroboam
(15:27-30).
The same was true of Baasha. After destroying the house of Jeroboam, he
became the king, but he too did that which was evil in Yahweh's sight
(1
Kings 15:33), so, lo and
behold, Yahweh announced that he would make the house of Baasha like
the house of Jeroboam
(16:1-3),
but Baasha reigned
for 24 years and slept with his fathers
(15:33).
Nothing is said in
the biblical account to suggest that Baasha suffered any kind of
violent death in retribution
for the evil he did. It wasn't until Baasha's son Elah had succeeded
him that Yahweh's
punishment was presumably executed on the house of Baasha, but it was
Elah who bore the
brunt of it, not Baasha. The writer alleged that Elah had also done
that which was evil in
Yahweh's sight (16:13),
but
he got to reign for just two years before Yahweh's wrath fell upon him,
whereas Baasha
reigned for 24 years, doing that which was evil in Yahweh's sight.
I could cite other examples (including even Ahab), but these are sufficient to show the silliness of thinking that some omniscient, omnipotent deity was pulling the strings on all of these events. For one thing, why would Yahweh have chosen Baasha to "exalt out of the dust" and to "make a prince over Israel" if Yahweh knew that Baasha was immediately going to turn into just another bad egg who would do that which was evil in his sight. It just doesn't speak well for Yahweh's alleged omniscience, but that's what we are asked to believe. Jeroboam was so evil in Yahweh's sight that Yahweh selected Baasha to destroy Jeroboam's house but didn't have him do it until Jeroboam had lived a long life and Nadab was reigning as the successor king, and then Baasha immediately turned so evil that Yahweh had to pronounce a curse of destruction on his house too, which wasn't executed until Baasha had reigned for 24 years, died an apparently natural death, and his son Elah was reigning.
What is a more likely explanation for what happened here? It is far more reasonable to think that Jeroboam was recognized as a bad king, but as history has shown time and time again, being a bad ruler doesn't necessarily bring any kind of cosmic retribution down upon the guilty monarch. Thus, it was probably recognized that Jeroboam did some things that were displeasing to his subjects, especially to the Yahwistic worshipers, but he nevertheless lived a full and complete life. Then after Nadab became king and reigned for just two years, Baasha pulled a bloody coup and seized control of the kingdom before Nadab had had time to solidify his hold on the kingdom. In the mind of the "biblical historian," such an event had to have an explanation, and so the writer reasoned that this event had to be punishment on the house of Jeroboam for the sins that Nadab's father had committed. In the matter of Baasha's house and its destruction, the writer put the same slant on it. Like Baasha, Zimri led a coup against Elah (Baasha's son) within two years of Elah's succession to the throne, so in all probability he too had decided to usurp the throne before Elah could cement his control over the kingdom. To the "biblical historian," however, there had to be another explanation: Yahweh was behind it all, executing judgment against the "houses" of predecessor kings who had done evil in Yahweh's sight.
If, however, we concede for the sake of argument that all this business of executing vengeance on the houses of Jeroboam and Baasha was actually willed and directed by an omniscient, omnipotent deity called Yahweh, it would nevertheless be true that Yahweh would have needed an instrument to execute his will in such matters (since this always seemed to be the way that Yahweh destroyed "houses" in those days), so if Yahweh selected Zimri to execute his judgment against the house of Baasha, we would hardly expect him to have Zimri fall on his sword and commit suicide so that it could be said that the house of Baasha in its entirety had fallen. As it was, however, Zimri had control of the government for only seven days when Omri, the captain of the host, led an expedition against Zimri in Tirzah, and Zimri burned the castle down around him to keep himself from falling into the hands of Omri (16:15-18), so we could say that if Zimri, as a servant of Elah (v:9), should have been considered a member of his house (according to my definition), that wouldn't really matter, because he too was killed in the coup that destroyed the house of Baasha. Hence, even Zemi, the captain of Baasha's chariots, was included in the destruction of the house of Baasha.
[Addendum July 2005: I also used various key words and expressions from the paragraphs above to see if I had missed Turkel's reply to this rebuttal. I could find nothing that he said in response to it. "Smorgasbord" debating is his stock-in-trade.]
Turkel:
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.")
Till:
If there is any accuracy in this tale--and where the Bible is concerned
that's always a
question mark--I would be inclined to agree that Omri was the captain
of the host when Elah
was king and probably even when Baasha was king. However, we should
note that Zimri was
described as a "servant" of Elah
(v:9),
who was apparently in
charge of half of Elah's chariots. I can't find any reference to Omri
that described him as
a "servant" of Elah. As the "captain of the host," he was undoubtedly a
field commander, and
that would explain why he was "encamped against Gibbethon," which would
mean that he was
away from Tirzah, the capital, at the time of the coup and hadn't yet
had time to become one
of Zemri's insiders. As a matter of fact, Baasha (Elah's father) had
led his coup against
Nadab (Jeroboam's successor son), while "Nadab and all Israel were
laying siege against
Gibbethon," so evidently some effort was put into trying to capture
this Philistine city.
If Omri was still involved in this endeavor, which
16:15-16
suggests, then he would have been away from Tirzah during Zemri's coup
and certainly would not have had time
to be associated with him well enough to have been considered a member
of his house. The
same would be true of Elah, whom Zemri assassinated. Elah had reigned
for only two years,
so he probably had had no time to make changes in his father's chain of
command. So if Omri
had been involved in a siege of Gibbethon during Elah's short reign,
that would have kept
him from becoming a part of Elah's inner circle. Turkel is trying to
press this point to
force my broader definition of "house" to include just anyone who was
serving in the king's
army, and I have certainly not indicated any such belief. If Turkel
can't see the difference
in considering all of a king's "great men, familiar friends, and
priests" as a part of his
house and considering men like Zemri and Omri members of the house of
Baasha, he has some
serious comprehension problems. At any rate, Omri did that which was
evil in the sight of
Yahweh (1
Kings 16:25), but
he died an apparently natural death after a reign of 11 years, and Ahab
his son reigned in
his stead. Needless to say, Ahab also did that which was evil in the
sight of Yahweh, but
like his father Omri, he got away scot free, and Yahweh brought down
upon Ahab's son Joram
all of the evil done by Ahab and Omri. It was just Yahweh's way.
A final comment on this point is in order. Turkel seems to have lost sight of what he is arguing. He has argued that Jehu went beyond his "mandate" and killed those who weren't really a part of Ahab's house, but he can't prove this by arguing that if a "house" included every single servant and soldier in the king's service, then Baasha, Zemri, and Omri didn't go far enough in exterminating the houses of Jeroboam and Baasha because they should have killed themselves too. Such a quibble needs no further comment.
[Addendum July 2005: I should have done this in 1998, but I am going to put to rest Turkel's quibble that a person's "house" could not be extended to include servants and friends. The following texts should show to any reasonable person that the word carried this extended meaning in biblical times.
Genesis 14:14 And when Abram heard that his brother was taken captive, he armed his trained servants, born in his own house, three hundred and eighteen, and pursued them unto Dan.
Genesis 15:3 And Abram said, Behold, to me thou hast given no seed: and, lo, one born in my house is mine heir.
Genesis 17:12 And he that is eight days old shall be circumcised among you, every man child in your generations, he that is born in the house, or bought with money of any stranger, which is not of thy seed.
I could fill a page with scriptures that included servants as part of the house of whomever they served, but a couple of more examples should suffice.
2 Samuel 3:1 Now there was long war between the house of Saul and the house of David: but David waxed stronger and stronger, and the house of Saul waxed weaker and weaker.
At this time, Saul and his sons were dead (1 Sam. 31:1-3), so the "house of Saul" must have been inclusive of more than just Saul's immediate family. In the first place, how could "the house of Saul" have waged a war without fighting men and commanders of those men?
2 Samuel 3:6 And it came to pass, while there was war between the house of Saul and the house of David, that Abner made himself strong in the house of Saul.
Who was Abner? He was the commander of Saul's army.
1 Samuel 14:50 And the name of Saul's wife was Ahinoam, the daughter of Ahimaaz: and the name of the captain of his host was Abner, the son of Ner, Saul's uncle.
So a person's "house" was extensive enough to include cousins, but Abner's military rank and service no doubt accounted for his inclusion in the "house of Saul" more so than his fairly distant relationship to Saul. If relationships were the only factors that determined what house one was a member of, Abner would have been a member of the house of Ner.
The most conclusive example, however, is one that has been referred to several times already.
2 Kings 10:11 So Jehu slew all that remained of the house of Ahab in Jezreel, and all his great men, and his kinfolks, and his priests, until he left him none remaining.
This verse clearly identified Jehoram's "great men," his kinsfolk, and his priests as part of Jehoram's house. Not until Jehu had killed all of Joram's "great men" and "kinfolks" and "priests" did the "dry and disconnected" Kings writer consider that "all that remained of the house of Ahab in Jezreel" had been killed, so I will just let Turkel argue with his inspired "word of God."]
Turkel:
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.
Till:
First of all, I have to wonder if Turkel would argue that what Jehu
said was "inspired truth."
That seems to be the thrust of his argument, because he strains to make
a point out of
Jehu's use of the same word adown as the "inspired writer" used
in narrating this part of
his story, but an important hermeneutic principle recognizes that only
what an inspired
writer said was inspired truth but that what a character in the
inspired writer's narrative
may have said wasn't necessarily truth. In other words, this
hermeneutic principle states
that the inspired writer's account of what a character said is a
truthful representation of
what the character said but that what was said may not itself have been
truth. So if it is
going to be Turkel's position that what Jehu said to the leaders in
referring to Joram as
his "master" was "inspired truth," then why wouldn't he have to argue
that everything that
Jehu said in this speech was also "inspired truth"? Let's have a look
at the entire speech.
2 Kings 10:9 Then in the morning when he [Jehu] went out, he stood and said to all the people, "You are innocent. It was I who conspired against my master and killed him; but who struck down all these? 10 Know then that there shall fall to the earth nothing of the word of Yahweh, which Yahweh spoke concerning the house of Ahab; for Yahweh has done what he said through his servant Elijah." 11 So Jehu killed all who were left of the house of Ahab in Jezreel, all his leaders, close friends, and priests, until he left him no survivor.
In other words, Jehu was claiming that he was doing only that which Yahweh had said through Elijah would be done. Accordingly, the "historian" went on to say, Jehu killed all who were left the house of Ahab in Jezreel... until he left him [Ahab] no survivor. No survivor of what? The statement hardly makes sense unless it is understood to mean no survivor in what could rightly be considered the house of Ahab whom Yahweh had said through Elijah would be utterly swept away. Furthermore, the most likely meaning of "all his leaders, close friends, and priests," which the writer inserted between "house of Ahab" and "until he left him no survivor" was that it was an emphatic repetition intended to communicate what Jehu and the "historian" considered to be the full extent of the "house of Ahab." Hence, if Turkel is going to consider Jehu's words as "inspired truth" when he referred to Joram as his "master," he will have to consider the rest of the statement inspired truth too. That statement from Jehu was that nothing of the word of Yahweh, which Yahweh had spoken through Elijah concerning the house of Ahab, would fall to the earth. All of it would be done! Accordingly, Jehu killed all who were left at that point in the house of Jehu, and that included all his great men, close friends, and priests. If not, why not?
What is really amusing is to see Turkel, who spent so much space trying to show us that paqad was an almost incomprehensible word in Hebrew, now trying to put a very narrow meaning on the word adown, which in addition to meaning "master" also carried the sense of lord or sovereign, and it was frequently used in the Old Testament in reference to kings and those in positions of political importance. When so used in the KJV, the word lord was the translators' choice to convey its meaning, but the context would clearly show that it was used in the same sense that an English speaker would use "my lord" when referring to royalty. In 2 Chronicles 2:14, Huram, the king of Tyre, sent to Solomon a skilled worker to assist in the building of the temple, and Huram described him as a skillful man like "the skillful men of my lord [adown] David, your father." Certainly, Huram (a sovereign king) didn't intend to convey the idea that David was his master who had owned him. In 1 Chronicles 21:3, Joab addressed David as "my lord [adown] the king." In 2 Samuel 19:18-19, Shimei twice addressed David as "my lord the king." There are too many such examples in the Old Testament to notice even a fraction of them, but these are sufficient to show the colossal inconsistency of Turkel to present an argument like this after his lengthy attempt to show that paqad was a word so difficult to define that we can't really be sure what Hosea 1:4 meant. If the word adown could have meant "lord" in the sense of a sovereign, and if that word would fit into the context of Jehu's speech to the leaders of Jezreel, then Turkel's quibble has gone down the drain. The fact is that "lord" was actually used in 2 Kings 10 in some translations.
Hendrickson's Interlinear also used "lord" [adown] in both the word-for-word and the marginal translations. Segond's French translation used the word seigneur, which means "lord."
Turkel must now admit that all of his quibbling about the meaning of paqad was invalid or else acknowledge that his "argument" based on the use of 'adown in 2 Kings 10 proves nothing.
[Addendum July 2005: Turkel did try to reply to this in "Jehu: Black Hat or White Hat? and it was one of his typical say-nothing "replies." Those who want to wade through the entire section can use prong as a key word in the search window, but I am quoting the part below in order to show how Turkel will deliberately distort an opponent's rebuttal arguments and then try to keep the distortion from his readers by not linking them to the full context of whatever he is claiming to answer.
But Skeptic X has a second prong ready for the word 'adown. He says that he finds it "really amusing" that I "spent so much space trying to show us that paqad was an almost incomprehensible word in Hebrew," and I was "now trying to put a very narrow meaning on the word ''adown,' which in addition to meaning 'master' also carried the sense of lord or sovereign, and it was frequently used in the OT in reference to kings and those in positions of political importance." Yes, it was, and that is the sense in which Jehu uses it: To refer to a king, the one Jehu just killed, and we say that quite precisely. Skeptic X somehow manages to get the idea that I am applying the word in the sense of the "master" of a slave, but where he gets this is anyone's guess - perhaps there was a little something in that Big Mac he ate the night before. But in terms of the rest of this objection, Skeptic X here sets up the straw man of excess: I was not showing that paqad was "almost incomprehensible" but that it required more than just a bit-of-bait thinking of the sort Skeptic X regularly engages. Moreover, the comparison is not apt, for there is a difference in our comparisons: The use of paqad across several books, applied to a variety of situations, versus for 'adown a comparison internal to the books of Kings (indeed, internal to a single episode in Kings) and used to apply to a specific and small set of people - Jehu and the elders. Skeptic X once again wastes a great deal of energy addressing a point that simply does not exist.
No, I didn't "manage" to get the idea that Turkel was applying the word ‘adown in the sense of the master of a slave, and misconceptions that he thinks I have of his position on this word couldn't have come from a Big Mac, because I rarely eat meat and never red meat. [This is just one more of many things that Turkel doesn't know about me.] If he hadn't selectively truncated the quotation from my paragraph above, his readers would have seen that my intention was not to say that he was using the word ‘adown in the sense of the master of a slave. Anyone who strikes the "page up" button on his/her computer three times, will see that I was saying only that ‘adown wasn't necessarily being used in 2 Kings 10:9 to mean royalty or nobility, and if Turkel had bothered to show his readers the rest of the paragraph (from my article that he did not link his readers to), they would have seen that I went on to cite several examples where this same word was used in contexts where it implied only a term of polite address. I won't rehash those examples here, because they can be seen again by just scrolling up a few paragraphs.
Turkel said that he was making a comparison of ‘adown as it had been used "internal[ly] to the books of Kings" and used in application to a "specific and small set of people," but that is no way to determine a writer's probable meaning of a word if it is a word with a wide range of meanings. A broader comparison would yield more likely results, so if Turkel really wanted to see how this word was used internally in Kings, he would have looked a little further and found such examples as these.
There is no reason at all to think that Jehu was using [‘adown] to mean anything beyond a polite address when he referred to the elders of Jezreel as "masters" [‘adown]. As usual, Turkel is reading into the text what he wants it to say.]
Turkel:
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].
Till:
Well, if Jones said this, it must be true, but we notice, as usual,
that all Turkel has done
is to cite an authority without even including in the quotations the
reason that the
authority gave for concluding this. I suspect that Turkel didn't quote
Jones's reasons for
saying this, because the statement is actually a secondhand reference
that Turkel derived
from some book he read. I think it likely that Turkel doesn't even have
the full context of
Jones's statement, which incidentally was published by Eerdmans in
Grand Rapids, MI, and we
all know what a bastion of unbiased scholarship is found in books that
come out of Grand
Rapids.
[Addendum July 2005: Turkel did comment on this paragraph in Part 2 of "Jehu: Black Hat or White Hat."
After the expected complaint about my use of a citation, and a charge that the source is biased (Memo to [X?]: Jones is a moderate/liberal, and you're thinking of that other company in Grand Rapids!)
Although Eerdmans Publishing Company is more moderate than Baker House, it is certainly no bastion of liberalism. On its Young Readers' website Eerdmans has a header to assure readers that "(i)n all our books, we seek to nurture children's faith in God and help them understand and explore the wonder, joy, and challenges of life." I scrolled through its listing of books in religion and found categories in Bibles, Bible Studies, Biblical Studies, Christian Belief, Christian Living, Church & Ministry, Devotional & Inspirational, Jesus Studies, and Jewish Studies, but a scroll through the books available in these categories will show that everything relates to Christianity and occasionally to Judaism. I found nothing about Islam or Hinduism or Mormonism, and the one book that I found on the subject of science and religion, Galileo, Darwin, and Hawking: The Interplay of Science, Reason, and Religion by Phil Dowe, explored views of science that are "antagonistic" to the Bible, another that considered the two unrelated, and then at the end a third one that sees science and religion as "complementary," which Dowe concluded was "the most historically and philosophically compelling." What a surprise! I was sure that he was going to conclude that science and religion are diametrically opposed.
A search of the website for Gwilym Jones's book on 1 and 2 Kings received no hits, but it doesn't really matter. Jones published this book in 1984, so whatever he may have said in it would have been before the startling research 5-7 years ago that discovered hitherto unknown "nuances" in Hosea 1:4.
Skeptic X offers the indication that, in spite of all of his conspiracy yammer, he is inclined to think "nobles" would be included in this subset - "but that the expression would not have been limited to nobles." All right then - so who else is included? Skeptic X alludes to the elders of Jezreel in chapter 10 who took care of Joram's sons, and that's very nice, but these were city officials (not national ones), so that the applicability of this example is rather questionable, and Skeptic X has no cause to suppose that the Kings writer thereby considers "great men" to be more inclusive that [sic] just "nobles", [sic] although even then I see no way that including "elders" on the national scene would help him.
Well, I didn't include the elders; the biblical text did when it said that Jehu sent to Samaria letters "to the rulers, even the elders," and told them to either fight or else deliver the heads of Joram's sons in a basket (2 Kings 10:1-6). The word translated elders twice in this passage was zaqen, which meant "old, ancient, elder." By putting it in apposition with "leaders" in verse 1, the writer was indicating that the leaders were elders and the elders were leaders, and if Turkel doesn't know that elders were the rulers of towns and cities in biblical times, he should stop touting himself as an expert in ancient Neareastern and Semitic cultures. There are too many biblical examples illustrating this for me even to bother quoting any of them.
Beyond that, Skeptic X offers no further suggestion for defining "great men" but instead hearkens back to his explanation regarding usurpers, which in no way proved that these people were part of the king's "house". [sic]
Turkel himself pointed out that the word for "great men" was gadowl in Hebrew, and this is the same word that was used twice in Esther 9:4 in reference to Mordecai's being "great" or a "great one" in the king's house.
Esther 9:4 For Mordecai was great [gadowl] in the king's house, and his fame went out throughout all the provinces: for this man Mordecai waxed greater and greater [gadowl].
Mordecai was a "great one" in the king's house, so if this great man was considered to be part of a king's house, Turkel needs to explain why the "great men" whom Jehu killed in 2 Kings 10:9, in a context that describes how Jehu killed "all that remained of the house of Ahab," could not have also been considered part of a king's house. Turkel seems to be arguing that they were "princes" and therefore not a part of the king's house, but Micah 7:3 clearly distinguished between princes and great men.
Micah 7:2 The good man is perished out of the earth: and there is none upright among men: they all lie in wait for blood; they hunt every man his brother with a net. 3 That they may do evil with both hands earnestly, the prince asketh, and the judge asketh for a reward; and the great man, he uttereth his mischievous desire: so they wrap it up.
Micah, who raged against corruption in his time, said that the prince, like the judge, asked for rewards or bribes, whereas "the great [gadowl] man" uttered his mischievous desire; hence, Micah distinguished between princes and great men. That the "great men" in 2 Kings 10:9 were probably not the same as the "rulers" in verse 1 is really irrelevant, however, because I have shown that the biblical story of Jehu clearly "mandated" him to kill every male both bond and free in the house of Baasha and make it like the houses of Jeroboam and Baasha, and the destruction of the houses of Jeroboam and Baasha included not leaving to Jeroboam "any that breathed" (1 Kings 15:29) and killing in Baasha'a house "all of the males, to leave him "not a single male," either of his kinfolks or of his friends (1 Kings 16:11), and this destruction of every male was to include both bond and free males (1 Kings 14:10; 1 Kings 21:21; 2 Kings 9:8). Furthermore, by identifying the "great men," the "familiar friends," and the "priests" whom Jehu killed as his [Ahab's] great men and his familiar friends and his priests, the writer was showing that he considered all of these to be part of Ahab's house. Turkel has conspiculously avoided commenting on these aspects of Jehu's execution of his so-called mandate.]
I would be inclined to think that "nobles" would have been included in the "great men" but that the expression would not have been limited to nobles. We have already noted that the 42 men whom Jehu killed for ministering to Ahaziah after he was wounded were called "princes" (2 Chron. 22:8) and that when Ahaziah's father Jehoram succeeded to the throne of Judah, he killed all of his brothers and "divers princes" with the sword. These "princes" were undoubtedly nobles, so I would consider this an exclusive term and "great men" a broader one that could have included nobles but others too. Turkel likes to look for nuances in Hebrew, so perhaps he should consider that the word for "great" in this passage was gadol, which could also convey the sense of older or elder. Turkel referred to the letters that Jehu sent to the leaders of Jezreel whom he ordered to kill the sons of Joram, but 10:1 refers to them as "the rulers of Jezreel, even the elders." We could hardly think that these were all nobles, yet the "biblical historian" referred to these rulers (elders) as "the great men of the city" who had "brought up" Joram's sons. In all probability, then, the writer meant for "great men" to be more inclusive than just "nobles." Let's assume, however, that the term did mean only nobles. So what? We have already noted that usurpers had a habit of killing everyone, even "princes," who might stand in their way of seizing control of the country. Why would Jehu's massacre have been any different, and would the "historian" have viewed it any differently from the way he had interpreted the massacres of the houses of Jeroboam and Baasha, which he considered ordained by Yahweh and which had included wholesale massacres of everyone who had had any affiliations of importance with the kings being wiped out? If Jehu had been told to make the house of Ahab like unto the houses of Jeroboam and Baasha, then how could he have exceeded his "mandate" by killing some "great men" or "nobles"? The destruction of the houses of Jeroboam and Baasha had included the same.
Turkel:
We have seen above that such people were not considered to be members
of the royal household;
the OT and anthropological data offers [sic] no evidence for
such a position.
Till:
Let Turkel explain to us just why Jehu's speech to the rulers (elders)
of the city of Jezreel
could not be considered "data" that offer evidence that the associates
of a king (great men,
close friends, and priests) were not considered fair game when a
usurper had received a
divine "mandate" to utterly sweep away the king's house and let nothing
of his survive. I've
been over this so often that there is no need to rehash it here. I'll
just quote Jehu's
words again.
2 Kings 10:10 Know then that there shall fall to the earth nothing of the word of Yahweh, which Yahweh spoke concerning the house of Ahab; for Yahweh has done what he said through his servant Elijah." 11 So Jehu killed all who were left of the house of Ahab in Jezreel, all his leaders, close friends, and priests, until he left him no survivor.
The word so at the beginning of verse 11 ties the statement it introduces back to verse 10. Since Jehu swore that nothing of the word of Yahweh spoken through Elijah concerning the house of Ahab would fall to the earth and then immediately killed all who were left of the house of Ahab in Jezreel, including all his leaders, close friends, and priests, and left Ahab no survivor, that is clear evidence that Jehu considered the leaders, close friends, and priests to be among those whom Yahweh had commanded him to utterly sweep away. If I go over this often enough, even Turkel might actually see the obvious meaning of the statement.
Well, let me retract that statement. Turkel will never see the obvious meaning of the statement, because the obvious meaning of the statement is in direct conflict with an arbitrary assertion that Turkel must cling to in order to save his precious inerrancy doctrine.
[Addendum July 2005: Turkel tried to reply to this in the same section of his black/white hat article linked to above.
Skeptic X's meaning is obvious, but his burden on the word "so" here is pretty darned heavy, not to mention that it is countered by the repetitive use of "and" that we have shown exists in this verse and serves to separate the latter groups from the house of Ahab and from each other.
Turkel, who talks ad nauseam about Hebrew idioms and nuances, shows a remarkable ignorance of what he claims to be such an expert in. Anyone with enough knowledge of Hebrew to recognize the conjunction and, which was just the letter waw prefixed to whatever it was connecting, will see that it was used extensively in Hebrew, far more than we use its counterpart and in English. Some of the "ands" were left out in some English translations, because their overusage became awkward when representing in English what the Hebrew text had said. This conjunction was also used at times for emphatic reasons and also to join together statements that repeated the same idea, which was a familiar stylistic usage in Hebrew. In English, we use appositives to achieve the same effect. Just a few examples of where the waw conjunction was so used should convince reasonable people that Turkel has no point here.
Leviticus 1:2 Speak unto the children of Israel, and say unto them, If any man of you bring an offering unto Yahweh, ye shall bring your offering of the cattle, even of the herd, and of the flock.
Although even was italicized in the KJV, there was an equivalent word in the Hebrew text, and that was the conjunction waw prefixed to "of the herd." Literally, then, this text was saying, "Ye shall bring your offering of the cattle and of the herd." The waw conjunction was often used in this sense, and the KJV translated it even, as in the example below.
Leviticus 14:9 But it shall be on the seventh day, that he [the cleansed leper] shall shave all his hair off his head and his beard and his eyebrows, even all his hair he shall shave off: and he shall wash his clothes, also he shall wash his flesh in water, and he shall be clean.
According to Turkel "all his hair" mentioned after the word even [waw conjunction] would be separate or different from the "hair off his head and his beard and his eyebows," but the obvious intention of the waw conjunction here was to emphasize that all meant all, and so the leper was to be sure that he shaved off all the hair on his body.
There are too many examples of this usage to quote even a fraction of them, but one more will show that the Kings writer also used this same style of emphasis. In the power struggle that took place while David was on his deathbed, Bathsheba wanted his assurance that their son Solomon would inherit the throne. After she approached David about this, he gave her the assurance she wanted.
1 Kings 1:29 And the king sware, and said, As Yahweh liveth, that hath redeemed my soul out of all distress, 30 Even as I sware unto thee by Yahweh God of Israel, saying, Assuredly Solomon thy son shall reign after me, and he shall sit upon my throne in my stead; even so will I certainly do this day.
If Solomon reigned after David, then he would sit on David's throne; hence, the two expressions "reign after me" and "sit upon my throne" meant the same thing. Joining them with the waw conjunction was just an emphatic device that was used often in Hebrew. When we look at 2 Kings 9:10, we see that the same emphatic device was used to emphasize how extensive Jehu had been in destroying the house of Jehu.
So Jehu slew all that remained of the house of Ahab in Jezreel, and all his great men, and his kinsfolk, and his priests, until he left him none remaining.
The part of this verse introduced with the waw conjunction, translated and here, was treated in several translations as an appositive to "house of Jezreel," which would mean that the great men, the familiar friends, and the priests were the same as "all that remained of the house of Ahab."
These translations have all omitted the first and, which was a prefixed waw conjunction in Hebrew, in recognition that the probable meaning of this verse is that "all the great men," "the familiar friends," and "the priests," were all those who had remained in the house of Ahab in Jezreel after the initial massacre. Hence, these groups were really in apposition to "all those who remained of the house of Ahab at Jezreel." They were the same, i. e., survivors of the house of Ahab up until this point. In killing them, Jehu had left no survivors of the house of Ahab in Jezreel. I have checked three French translations available to me, and all three of them translate this verse in the same way.
I realize that many readers don't know French, but to see that these translations considered "the great men, the familiar friends, and the priests" to be in apposition to "all those who remained of the house of Ahab in Jezreel," all they need to do is look at the word Jizreel or Yizreel, in the Jerusalem version, and notice that the French conjuncion et [and] does not appear after Jezreel. Its omission means that the translators saw the waw conjunction in the Hebrew text as an example of where it was being used emphatically, as in the examples I quoted above. A sensible analysis of the story of Jehu through 11:10 will support this translation. Jehu killed Joram, who had ridden out in a chariot to meet Jehu (9:21-26), he then killed Ahaziah, the king of Judah, who was Ahab's grandson (9:27-29), and then he killed Ahab's wife Jezebel (9:30-37). In chapter 10, Jehu ordered the beheading of Ahab's 70 sons (10:1-8), which for some strange reason Turkel seems to think was an act that exceeded Jehu's mandate, although he has never been able to explain how Jehu could have made Ahab's house like the houses of Jeroboam and Baasha if he had left 70 direct descendants of Ahab alive. Anyway, at this point in the story, Jehu had killed Ahab's son Joram of Israel, Ahaziah, Ahab's grandson who was reigning as king over Judah, Ahab's wife Jezebeel, and 70 of Ahab's sons. One would think, then, that the devastation of the house of Ahab was now complete, but look at what Jehu said the morning after the beheading of the 70 sons.
2 Kings 10:9 Then in the morning when he [Jehu] went out, he stood and said to all the people, "You are innocent. It was I who conspired against my master and killed him; but who struck down all these? 10 Know then that there shall fall to the earth nothing of the word of Yahweh, which Yahweh spoke concerning the house of Ahab; for Yahweh has done what he said through his servant Elijah." 11 So Jehu killed all who were left of the house of Ahab in Jezreel, all his leaders, close friends, and priests, until he left him no survivor.
This passage is saying that even though Ahab's son Joram, his grandson Ahaziah, his wife Jezebel, and 70 other sons had been killed, there still remained some in the house of Ahab, so Jehu killed all those who remained of the house of Ahab in Jezreel, but in listing the remaining members of the house of Ahab whom Jehu killed, the writer named no sons or wives or grandsons, because these had already been killed. He listed only Ahab's great men, familiar friends, and priests, so clearly the Kings writer was identifying these groups as members of the house of Ahab who had remained after his initial massacre described in the preceding verses. This is the only sensible interpretation of the verse, and it is more than just a little strange that Turkel, who talks so much about his knowledge of ancient Neareastern cultures and Semitic idioms and nuances, will look the other way when the idioms and nuances don't support whatever spin he is trying to put onto a text. As I have noted before, Turkel likes to talk about "bottom lines," so I will give him a bottom line to think about. He claims that all the house of Jehu had been killed before the great men, familiar friends, and priests of Ahab had been killed, but the inspired, inerrant "word of God" says that some of the house of Ahab were left or remained after Ahab's son, grandson, wife, and 70 sons had been killed, that Jehu killed those who remained, and that those who remained were Ahab's great men, familiar friends, and priests. That is a bottom line that Turkel would like to ignore, but I won't let him.
When all of this is added to the facts that the Kings writer nowhere said that Jehu had done wrong in killing any of those who had been massacred at Jezreel but did say that Jehu had "done to the house of Ahab according to all that was in [Yahweh's] heart," there is no other conclusion to reach except that this writer put his stamp of approval on Jehu's action at Jezreel and condemned nothing except Jehu's subsequent failure to stamp out "the sins of Jeroboam," i. e., the worship of the golden calves. There is no textual support at all for Turkel's claim that Jehu had exceeded his "mandate."]
Turkel:
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.
Till:
Then are we to assume that Yahweh, who omnisciently knows all things,
would have given Jehu
a "mandate" to utterly sweep away the house of Ahab but would have
limited it only to those
who were direct descendants of Ahab, a limitation that would have left
alive men who could
have risen up against Jehu and returned the kingdom to what it was
under the rulership of
the house of Ahab? If so, Yahweh could have used a refresher course in
military strategy.
Besides that, I have clearly shown above that making the house of Ahab like the houses of Jeroboam and Baasha (2 Kings 9:9) could not have been done unless Jehua had killed also Jehoram's kinsfolk and friends (1 Kings 16:11).
Turkel:
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.
Till:
Turkel admits that priests were "state officials," but despite evidence
to the contrary, he
denies that they were considered a part of a king's house or "friends."
Before Turkel would
give on this quibble, one would have to find a place where the Bible
says, "Priests were
members of a king's house." Off hand, I don't know where the Bible
directly says that wives
were members of the king's house, but surely no one would deny that
they were. I have already
been over this, but I guess I will have to run it by Turkel again. The
following passages
certainly show that priests were considered an important part of a
king's inner circle of
advisors.
2 Samuel 20:23 Now Joab was in command of all the army of Israel; Benaiah son of Jehoiada was in command of the Cherethites and the Pelethites; 24 Adoram was in charge of the forced labor; Jehoshaphat son of Ahilud was the recorder; 25 Sheva was secretary; Zadok and Abiathar were priests; 26 and Ira the Jairite was also David's priest.
Whether the word in verse 26 should be nagyid (ruler or minister) or kohen (priest) is a matter of textual dispute. The NRSV (quoted above) accepts priest as the correct reading, as do the RSV, NASV, NAB, REB, Hend