Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!rutgers!aramis.rutgers.edu!athos.rutgers.edu!christian From: chl@m1.computer-science.manchester.ac.uk (Charles Lindsey) Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian Subject: 1 Kings 13 Message-ID: Date: 29 Nov 89 04:21:05 GMT Sender: hedrick@athos.rutgers.edu Organization: Dept. Of Comp Sci, Univ. of Manchester, UK. Lines: 76 Approved: christian@aramis.rutgers.edu As the original poster of the Foo/Bar question, I was content to sit back and let others have their say. Perhaps now is the time for me to re-enter the discussion, and try to formulate my own opinion on the matter. Firstly, there was one omission from my original version of the story (I was typing it a work, and my bible was at home). It was specifically because the Lord told him to that Bar denounced Foo. Gary Samuelson makes this particular point clear: >Bar lied to Foo to persuade Foo to return to Bar's home. That was Bar's >doing, not God's. Then, Bar prophesied concerning what would happen to Foo on >his way home. That was God's doing, not Bar's. I would imagine that Bar >would have kept that particular prophecy to himself, if he could have. I think I can accept that as an explanation. Nevertheless, I still have the feeling that (here as elsewhere in the OT) some essential detail is missing from the story. Kings was written some 350 years after this particular event. Whoever wrote it (Bob Desinger suggests it was Jeremiah) certainly made use of existing texts (the "Annals of the Kings of Israel" are mentioned frequently), and doubtless of an oral tradition also. Nevertheless, there must have been many conflicts in his sources, and I am quite happy to accept that he may have got many details wrong (remember also that his purpose was to show how Israel had got into its mess, rather than to write conventional history). This was my reason for introducing the possibility that the story had got "garbled" (you will see that I do not take 2 Timothy 3:16 as literally as some contributors do). Sometimes, this "garbling" is plain for all to see. 'gatech!ncsatl!smith_c' quotes the story from 2 Samuel where David is told by God to take a census, and is then punished for doing so. But if you look in 1 Chronicles you will find almost the identical text as in Samuel, except that here it is Satan who tempts David to do it. Clearly, one of these texts in an "edited" version of the other, but which way around? There are several scenarios that might fit the Foo/Bar story. A very small "ungarbling" of the text could have confirmed any of them (but the text we have doesn't, of course). Here is one possibility. Foo goes home with Bar to eat, as already described. FOO "Tell me more about this angel you saw." BAR "Well ... actually there was no angel." FOO "Then I have disobeyed the command of the Lord." BAR (possibly prompted by the Lord) "Yes, indeed you have. I have to say that you will be punished." FOO "This is a fine mess you've gotten me into." Our moderator suggests another scenario, in which it is God who is setting up a Test for Foo. This I find it exceedingly hard to accept, for it would imply that God, through a lying Bar or a lying Angel, was practising a deliberate deception on Foo. I cannot believe that God would do that. Are we not told somewhere (my bible is at home, remember) that God will not allow us to be tempted more than we can bear? All contributors (except Bob Desinger) agree that both Foo and Bar were true prophets, whilst making the valuable point that even prophets can sin. Certainly, this view does come across strongly in the text of Kings. And the point that all supposed revelations from God should be carefuly tested is well taken. Finally, Gary raised the contradictions in the story of Balaam. Oddly, I have no problems here. God first tell Balaam not to go to Moab. But Balaam is clearly keen to do so (he sees the prospect of a big fat fee). So God says "All right, you may go if you really must, but only on condition that you say exactly what I tell you when you get there". The episode with the Angel and the Donkey is just God putting the "frighteners" on Balaam to make sure that he behaves himself in Moab (which he, with some reluctance as regards loss of his fee, just about manages to do). See Numbers 20, or thereabouts. Charles Lindsey.