JoeWallack

JW:
"Here's the original post:
"References to "Gods" in Exodus
Reading Exodus I found several references to "Gods" and I'm curious as to why this terminology is used when Christianity is obviously a monotheistic religion.
Examples (out of the New International Version):
Exodus 15:11 Who among the gods is like you, O Lord?
Exodus 18:11 Now I know that the Lord is greater than all other gods
And there is several more instances where the wording seems to imply the existance of more than one god. Can somebody please clarify or explain the meaning of this plural terminology?
gentho"

Here's the title of the thread:
"References to "Gods" in Exodus"

My understanding of all this is that the thread starter was confused as to why Exodus, which he assumed teaches monotheism, has polytheistic implications. My explanation to him would be that as a whole, the authors of Exodus and the entire Jewish Bible were clearly monotheistic. All of the detailed narrative only describes one active God, there is no interaction between gods, no other "god" appears to have any real power and the Jewish Bible has explicit statements that there is only one God. When "gods" is used I accept that at a minimum it is an implication of polytheism, but when taken with my previous observations in this paragraph I conclude that "gods" is likely used as a term for idols. Clearly Exodus and the Jewish Bible as a whole are describing people who were polytheist at times but I don't think Exodus and the Jewish Bible are teaching polytheism.

In this thread I see plans within plans. I see two great Houses, House Atretheist and House HarKJVian, I see things being put on top of other things (for the seventeenth straight year), (puff - hit), I see Timmy and Johnny and Mary, I see German soldiers marching through France played by chorus boys in very tight pants and I see Skeptics trying to move a thread that started out simply asking whether Exodus was monotheistic or polytheistic based on Exodus to a thread somewhere between concluding that the Jewish Bible has elements of polytheism based on the Jewish Bible to concluding that the Jewish Bible is polytheistic based not on the Jewish Bible.

JD, my question to you (and the other Skeptics here) is:

Do you think the Jewish Bible teaches monotheism?

I ask you directly here because while I don't see any concise answer from anyone here I see lots of implications that the answer is "no" and that's what I have a problem with.



JW:
Maybe it's because I'm not being serious or maybe it's because some people require more than five minutes to read a post, think about it, compose a response and then send it.



Joseph

"SOPHISTRY, n.
The controversial method of an opponent, distinguished from one's own by superior insincerity and fooling. This method is that of the later Sophists, a Grecian sect of philosophers who began by teaching wisdom, prudence, science, art and, in brief, whatever men ought to know, but lost themselves in a maze of quibbles and a fog of words."

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Errors...yguid=68161660

http://members.aol.com/_ht_a/abdulreis/myhomepage/

Stephen T-B

I’ve read, but can’t remember where, suggestions that at around the time it is supposed Christ lived, there were a number of messianic religious leaders in Israel who espoused revolutionary and rapidly evolving ideas about the Jewish God. They attracted their own followers, and presumably there was a general exchange of ideas.
If this were indeed the case, I would think that in this period we get the emergence of the NT-type God which is so very very different from the OT God.
Gone are all the tribal rules and rituals (requirements for blood sacrifices and burnt offerings etc), and in the place of a ferocious, tyrannical, cruel and capricious war leader there appears something much milder and more “modern,� requiring its adherents to love their enemies rather than to slaughter them, and to turn the other cheek rather than to demand an “eye for an eye� and a “tooth for a tooth.�
The result of combining the OT God and the NT God is a schizoid religion, but far from being a handicap, it has enjoyed the enormous benefit of encompassing the needs of worshippers who, temperamentally, desire a fierce and vengeful god, and those who require one that reflects their own humane and gentle impulses.
I don’t say this accounts on its own for the success of Christianity, but I think it is at least implicated in that success.

Doctor X

JW:

You would be incorrect. What it clear, particularly from the J/E material is it is not monotheistic. It is, however henotheistic. Better stated, there are "gods" but YOUR god is better. The later P and D material recognize this and refine it.

A couple of things. The source narratives are not limited to "one book"--they are longer works. Next, as Spin asks, who caused the Pharoh's magician's staffs to change? The point is there are other gods but OUR'S is better/stronger. This is in keeping with other religions. Futhermore, the texts explicity recognize this.

You are correct in that it is not teaching people to be polytheistic. It is teaching people that their god is better. Hold that point for a moment.

Take a moment to look at some of the patently ridiculous moments in the narratives. YHWH squished the Egyptians. "Where are we going now, Israel? Disney World?"

"No! Let us make a fake god to worship!"

"Yeah, what has he done for us recently?"

Throughout the people "murmur." Consider the realism. Would YOU fuck with a god who has destroyed, effectively, a major nation?

It is a contrived story to explain the polytheism of the people, among other things.

Hence in "later" texts of the Deuteronomistic Historian, you have the "good kings" destroy the Asherim. "Bad kings" allow worship of YHWH at "high places," or worship of other gods. Now back to the point, there is the case of King Mesha sacrificing his son to his god which results in the Israelites getting squished. Religion was very locative--My God My Land--Your God Your Land. When I take your land, I take your gods--and this happens in the OT.

There is absolutely no effort to "convert." Does Pharoah ever consider worshipping YHWH? Of course not, the Egyptians are not his people.

I am not sure your intent with the next paragraph. I am simply trying to understand the texts. Extra-biblical material is ESSENTIAL to understand what the authors are trying to do. Since it has been demonstrated that the Exodus and Conquest never actually happened, why did they create it? Was it a earlier tradition? Was it an attempt to have a great past? Et cetera.

No. The answer depends on "where" in the text. "Jewish Bible" is an artificial construct. P did not expect to be there with J/E and D expected to REPLACE P. "It" is teaching, eventually, a worship of one god for the people. YOUR god is greater than others.

Part of the "he did not walk in the way of YHWH" of the DtH--and the much later rewrite of the Chronicler--is to explain the failure. If your country gets conquered, Temple squished, and all of that . . . what happened to your god? Comparisons to actual history demonstrates that various explanations are given which include:

1. You worshipped the wrong god.
2. Our gods defeated your god.
3. Your god was really our god.
4. Your god is really subordinant to our god.

The DtH gives the explanation that the people/kings were at fault. The Bablyonians actually become cast as agents of YHWH rather than of their gods.

The text is certainly not teaching--"Hey, go worship Asherah!"

It is not a simple answer. Hence the above. A "no" does not, and should not, imply that the various writers want people to worship other gods.

Understand when posters quote a lot of material, particularly textual material, and you dismiss it with terms such as "skeptical" it is hard to take your rebuttal seriously. I do not care who gives the evidence, "theist," "atheist," "Seventh Day Buddhist." What matters is the evidence. The textual evidence for henotheism is very clear. What it means and what the authors are trying to do is what makes it all so interesting.

Back to what this means for, say, Christianity. It is very significant that the writers not only acknowledge other gods, not only accept limitations on El/YHWH--about that Chemosh, about that iron chariot--they never argue for conversion or argue true monotheism--"there is only one god." Hence the infamous: "You shall not have other gods before my face." [Friedman's translation.--Ed.] According to Friedman's latest work, the Exod 20:2-17 is from a source different from the major sources J,E,P and D. There is, of course, a D decaloge. There is also something similar to a decalog in E.

I will note that in his Who Wrote the Bible? he lists Exod 20:1-17 as part of the P material, but he explains it as P elaborating older material. So does scholarship progress!

Anyways the point of that digression is you do not have a "there are no other gods but ME! Schmuck!" It is that you will not worship them or you at least will not worship them over him.

I am more of a Cynic than a Sophist.

--J.D.

Rymmie1981

I just remembered a passage in Isaiah that buttresses the whole polytheistic view.

Isa. 6:1 In the year that king Uzziah died I saw also the Lord sitting upon a throne, high and lifted up, and his train filled the temple.


Note that his train fills the temple. Obviously, the ancient Israelites did not have locomotives and were not aware of locomotives since locomotives would not exist for several thousand years after this book was written. Accordingly, the train of the Lord did not go "Choo-choo!" through the temple.

A train, as it was known to the people in the Middle East of that time was a cloak or headress that flowed to the ground and followed the war chief wherever he was. On the train, the war chief would take something from his defeated foes and attach it on the back. As a war chief killed more enemies, he would need a larger and larger train. Therefore, YHWH's train being so big as to fill the temple shows that he was the conquering warrior-god of the Israelites.

But, what did YHWH conquer? Would he have taken something from the kings of the nations that Israel conquered? I think not. The king of Israel would a piece of the other king's clothes or maybe hair, sometimes foreskins, even. Then, what was on the train of YHWH? It would be tokens of his victories over other gods. His train filling the temple sybmolizes his head-honchoness, his big-dog-on-the-blockness. YHWH is the king of kings, lord of lords, god above all other gods because he beat everyone else down and took something from them to fill his train.

um, I should put some references here now. So, have fun.

Strong's

Damn...can't find where I read about how the chiefs used the train to show their conquests. Well, I will post with link or reference when I find it. Freaking brain gives out just when I think it's doing good. *sigh*

DrJim

Rymmie1981;

I'd be interested to learn of any references you find to an ANE trophy-("relic-robe"? "head-poncho"? "tally-toga"/ "coup-cape"???).

On the other hand, I think you might be better off interpreting the term "Shuwl" in Isa 6:1 more in the context of the immediate scenery, the "macrocosmic" temple/throne room of Yahweh. In this sense, the biblical passages in Exodus 28 and 29 are immediately relevant (Exod 28:33, 34; 39:24, 25, 26), since they descrive the priestly vestments of Aaron: he is the representative of people to God and, in some respects, of God to the people. There are bells and pomegranets on it, but not scalps. Aaron is to where it while officiating in the sanctuary "that he might not die" (Exod 28:35).

The other uses of shuwl in the HB all have to do with punishing sin by exposing personal skin: lifting up skirts to disgrace the guilty (i.e., cities metaphorized as women). See Jer. 13:22; Jer 13:26: Lam 1:9.

I suspect it is restricting the imagery of Isaiah too much to think that the primary connotations of the shuwl are trophies of the defeat of other dieties in Isaiah even if the rest of the chapter goes on to predict the destdcution of cities et. al. Since the shuwl fills the temple in 6:1 and God's glory "fills" the earth in v. 3 (same verb employed), the robe is probably used more as a symbol of that glory manifest on earth rather than victories over enemies specifically. As far as I can tell, other dieties dont seem to figure in Isa 6 at all.

JRL

Rymmie1981

I can't find the reference I was looking for concerning the train. Therefore, barring my finding of the reference, I will retract my former assertation.

Amlodhi

Of course the bible argues for Yahwistic monotheism. It does so precisely because the finalized form was redacted by monotheistic Yahwists. As a parallel, I think you will find that the book of Mormon tends to support Mormon doctrine as well.

However, with the tools at our disposal (which include those extra-biblical sources), it is possible to detect the occasional chink in the redactional armor.

For instance, II Kings 3:27 describes the kings of Israel, Judah and Edom going up against the king of Moab. Earlier, in verse 19, God commanded them to "smite every choice city, etc. etc.".

The king of Moab, being apprised of their approach, went on the offensive and attacked them in their encampment outside of the borders of Moab. The kings of Israel, Judah and Edom, rose up in turn and proceeded to pursue the Moabites back over the border and into the land of Moab proper.

Verses 26 & 27 say that "when the king of Moab saw that the battle was too sore for him . . . (27) . . . he took his eldest son. . and offered him (to the god Chemosh) for a burnt offering on the wall."

Verse 27 continues: ". . . and there was great wrath against Israel, and they departed from him and returned to their own land."

Now, the KJV translates the term קצף (qetseph) as "indignance" rather than as "wrath". This seems to me to be an attempt to make it appear as though the Israelites were simply "disgusted" by this human sacrifice and, in effect, took their toys and went home.

But this sleight of hand doesn't hold up under scrutiny. First off, a check of the lexicon definitions and the usage in other parts of the OT reveal that whether translated as "indignance" or "wrath", this term is consistently used in the sense of "burning anger" with an implied (and sometimes overt) threat of retribution.

Second, the verse clearly states that this "wrath" is directed against Israel.

And third, it makes no sense that Israel (& Judah, etal) would pack up and go home at this point. If they had the Moabite king on the ropes, and if they understood that this was an ineffectual sacrifice to a non-existent god, their "disgust" would have more likely compelled them to finish the job.

Instead, this seems to reflect a genuine belief in a henotheistic pantheon. The Israelites (etal) were now in Moabite territory, the Moabite king made a powerful sacrifice to Chemosh (god of that territory), as a result, there was "wrath" directed toward Israel (etal) which compelled them to leave off from a battle which they had (to this point) all but won and return to the safety of " their own territory ".

This story can make little sense except in the context of a genuine belief in henotheism.

Another example is found a couple of chapters later (II Kings chapter 5) in the story of Naaman. According to the story, Naaman (of Syria) has leprosy and is told by his wife (a captive out of Israel) that the prophet (Elisha) in Israel could intercede for his recovery.

Naaman seeks out Elisha in Israel and (after following Elisha's instructions) is cured of his leprosy. Verse 15, then, has Naaman return to Elisha and exclaim, ". . . now I know that there is no God in all the earth but in Israel." Which with no surprise is, in the finalized text, a clear plug for monotheistic Yahwism.

However, Naaman goes on to say that he wants to worship YHWH in his own country. Thus, in verse 17, he says, ". . . Shall there not then, I pray thee, be given to thy servant two mule's burden of earth?"

Now why would Naaman want two mule's burden of Israel's dirt? Because in the henotheistic mindset of the time, YHWH wasn't the god of Syria. Thus, in order for Naaman to worship YHWH outside of YHWH's territory, he would need to take some of YHWH's territory back home with him.

Interestingly, Elisha doesn't at this point reply to the effect that this won't be necessary because YHWH is God over the whole earth. Rather he says simply, "Go in peace", as if he fully understands Naaman's request.

The study of Israel and Judah's historical theological development from extra-biblical sources, coupled with various glimpses through the final redaction of the OT by monotheistic Yahwists, provides a fairly compelling case that early Hebrews harbored a genuine belief in the existence of actual gods other than YHWH.

In addition, there are indications that henotheism was an intermediate step in the ongoing development which ultimately led to the monotheistic concept, i.e. polytheism > henotheism > monotheism.

So, indeed, the final redacted form of the OT touts monotheistic Yahwism just as the book of Mormon touts J. Smith's encounter with Moroni. However, an examination of the historical background using all the tools available to us tells a different story.

Namaste'

Amlodhi

spin

Nevertheless, that's exactly what they did do. Just look at all those references to "under every green tree". She was represented by the tree, he by the pillar under it.


spin

Doctor X

Amlodhi:

Indeed. Here is what Levenson says about the Mesha, king of Moab:

Spin:

Oh indeed! As one mentor put it, whatever the texts or prophets condemn was practiced wildly in reality!

--J.D.

spin

Incidentally, it was still ok for the writer of Joshua to tell that Joshua set up a pillar "under the oak in the sanctuary of the Lord" (Josh 24:26), so we are still dealing with Asherah when this story was penned -- or the significance of the tree and pillar were lost by that stage.


spin