Standing Stones: A Blessing and a Curse

Posted by Bronwen Manning on December 21, 2008 under Historical Geography, History | Be the First to Comment

The Multifaceted functions of Standing stones

Standing stones (massebot plural. masseba singular. coming from the root nsb to ‘set up’) were used in a variety of cultic and non-cultic functions in the Ancient Near East. They were used to witness legal matters or covenants such as Joshua when renewing the Lord’s covenant with the people- he took a large stone and set it up saying “this stone shall be a witness against us; for it hath heard all the words of the Lord which he spoke to us: it shall be therefore a witness against you, lest ye deny your God” (Joshua 24:26-27). Standing stones also functioned as memorials, a practice that continues today. We erect stone monuments to our brave men who died in the wars, we memorialize the place of a tragic accident where life was lost. In an effort not to be forgotten, Absalom the son of David erected a monument to himself knowing he had no son to carry on his name and memory into the future 2 Sam 18:18. Other standing stones that were placed in public areas were those that commemorated an important victory over the enemy- Israel’s Moabite aneighbor had a victory stone that recalls the military achievements of King Mesha over King Omri of Israel. The Standing stone was in general, an attention-grabber, much like our modern-day billboards and advertisements.

The Religious Stone

They had one further function that was very strong throughout the world- and that was a religious stone. In the early days of Israel, Syria and Phoenicia these kingdoms shared a tradition of using “plain” stones in their sanctuaries and holy places. A standing stone could represent a person in perpetual worship, it could also, instead of a statue, represent the divine presence. The use of standing stones to actualize the presence of the God of Israel was very useful to the early Israelites because it focused the worshippers attention while simultaneously avoided any representation of the divine in any particular form. This tradition of Israel, the dislike to represent their God in the form of a man or, half-man half-beast, became stronger and more programmatic over time. This anionic tradition (against the use of icons) became a distinctive element in Israel’s religious character, and separated them out from other religions that used standing stones as icons of gods, and not symbolic of the indescribable God of Israel.

The Potential for Problems

Because of the potential for misuse and misunderstanding the religious community of Israel decided to give up the use of standing stones altogether. To this end the stones that had served only symbolically and were plain un-inscribed stones, were prohibited and treated as though they were images. Leviticus 26 declares, You shall not make idols for yourselves, or set up for yourselves carved images or standing stones, or place figured stones in your land to worship upon, for I the Lord am your God. This was not because the stones themselves went against the tradition of representing God in iconic forms, but rather because the potential for misuse existed.

The Town of Bethsaida

An example of this potential danger is seen in a town in the Galilee that once was the center of a small Aramaeankingdom called Geshur. When it was later annexed into the kingdom of Israel it still contained a mixed pedigree of peoples and religions as seen in the public plaza. In the plaza two religious stones were found, one a plain standing stone and the other a stone with the icon of a bull-headed figure with a dagger; probably the Moon god! Here side by side we see the different types and approaches to the use of religious standing stones. The Israelites decided that in order not to be confused with the other nations, and to avoid potential confusion by Israelite worshippers, they stopped using standing stones altogether. This effort retained their integrity as the nation who refused to reduce the indescribable God into an image made by man.

Good King–Bad King Tactics in the Bible

Posted by Bronwen Manning on December 3, 2008 under Biblical Hebrew, History | Be the First to Comment

Biblically speaking the Judean King Hezekiah (along with his grandson Josiah) are the most written about Kings in biblical scholarship and referred to as the “Good King(s)” of Judah. The reason for their infamy is the bible’s account of their great religious works that spurred on the belief of one God. Sandwiched between these pillars of the religious righteous stands a man often forgotten and most definitely black-listed by the biblical writers. This man was Manasseh the “bad king”.

I wish to display in a table the difference between Manasseh and his father and allow you the reader to make your own assumptions as to whom the title “Bad King” truly belongs.

The graph demonstrates that though King Manasseh ruled over the landscape sculpted by his father- a land devastated by military campaigns; burdened with heavy taxes; displaced populations; and no major sources of food- he restored much of what was lost through hard work! This work consisted of opening up agriculture in the Negev areas to replace what was lost in the Shephelah, resettling his population in the Judean hills and opening more trade with the East trade networks.

Turning our attention now to the biblical comments of Manasseh as a bad king (2 Kings 21) we see that these are reports of Manasseh from the perspective of religion alone. He reversed the activities of his father and championed the traditional worship of the common people that involved a great mix of “Canaanite” traditions. It is this reason that he carries, perhaps undeservedly, the characterization of a “Bad King”. I think that if I had been living in Lachish during the reign of Hezekiah and Manasseh- I would have cursed the former and blessed the latter. For he truly was “the Repairer of the Breach, the Restorer of ways to dwell in” (Isaiah 58:12).