Show description

Altmann 2012, a recent study of the Levites/Levitical priests that touches on current trends, specifically in regard to the difference between North American and Continental approaches. 56 Some see an originally positive cult etiology imparting Aaronic authority to the calf iconography at Bethel behind the account (cf. Cross 1973: 73–74; Albertz 1994: 145; Toews 1993: 134–35; Cogan 2001: 358) that may have been reworked after Jeroboam as part of an inner-Israelite priestly struggle in the North between Mushites from Shiloh and Aaronids from Bethel (so Cross 1973: 196–99; cf.

5). , Day 2000: 40; cf. Koenen 2003, and references there, especially pp. 95–132; cf. the nuanced treatment of the calves as (intended) markers of divine presence in Berlejung 2009, recast by the Dtrs to suggest divine absence, though the very fact that the image installation pattern does not comport with ancient Near Eastern patterns (her pp. , that the images were not intended as divine representations (abstract or otherwise), but simply as cultic furniture upon which the invisible god dwelt.

60 Some, noting that Aaronids were likely in place at Northern Bethel as well as at Southern Jerusalem, suggest an internal Northern conflict; see n. 56, above. 6 5:11–19 the body of Mot is taken (tiẖud // lqḥ), burnt (šrp), ground (ṭḥn), and scattered (drʿ). In both cases, the sequence defies logic and instead serves as a descriptive metaphor for total destruction; see Fensham 1966; Loewenstamm 1967; 1975. , too, 2 Kgs 23:4, 6, 15. , Toews 1993: 129, n. 45), acknowledge the parallel but disregard it as evidence for antiquity, noting that a later text may incorporate earlier motifs.