Loomis

Numbers 23:19
El is not a man that he should lie, nor a son of man that he should repent for what he said.

Compare with …

Exodus 32:14
Then Yahweh repented over the evil that he had said he was going to do to his people.

This is old and boring. :snooze: I’m no longer satisfied knowing that Yahweh and El were two different gods with two different personalities.

I’m beginning to wonder if Numbers 23:19 isn’t some sort of polemic or direct reference to the spirit creature (Yahweh / son of man) who repents in Exodus 32:14.

Naphtali Jones

Despite of Sheshbazzar's assurances to the contrary, it seems pretty obvious that the Hebrews' concept of a monotheistic deity evolved out of a previous polytheistic belief system based on the Caananite pantheon.

Even the Ten Commandments rules that "you shall have no other gods before me". It seems to suggest that there are other Gods but they should be held lower than Yahweh.

Dean Anderson

The DH does consider the texts to be of late construction (although much of what they contain is from older legends and myths) but that wasn't what you were claiming. You were claiming that the DH says that the name "Yahweh" was added to the texts after they were written - it doesn't say that.

I've never heard that claimed before. Most proponents of the DH place the writing of the texts between the 10th and 7th centuries BCE.

In the real world, men aren't made from clay and women aren't fashioned from their ribs. Do you also want me to prove that Markuk didn't really slay Tiamat, while I am at it?

Fair enough - but I have never seen anyone make the claims that you were objecting to.

Fair enough. But I assume you will happily concede that that is merely your religious belief, and that while you are free to believe it, it has no bearing on what actual evidence (archaeological and textual) says about when the texts were written.

On the contrary, your premise is based on the fact that this is what the Torah says happened. It is the usual circular logic by which the text must be true because the text says it is, and we can trust what the text says because it must be true.

That logic is flawed anyway, but the evidence that what the text says simply never happened sticks a fatal dagger to the heart of your premise - since it demonstrates that the text cannot in fact be trusted.

Whilst some of the stories and myths contained in them may be from early periods, all the evidence points to the texts being a collection of separate documents that date from the 10th-7th centuries BCE and that were edited and spliced together into a single work no earlier than the Babylonian Exile - and that the "history" they contain is largely invented propaganda based on the political situation in that time period.

Dean Anderson

That's true - but you mustn't fall into the trap of assuming that every instance of "Elohim" is to be taken as a plural, and refers to gods rather than a titular God.

It is very common for people to point out the fact that "Elohim" is a plural, and therefore claim that all the places in the Torah where the word is used must be referring to multiple gods rather than a single god.

This is naive and wrong.

Similarly, it is also common for people to say that although "Elohim" is a plural, its use is like that of the "royal we" (for example Queen Victoria's famous "We are not amused" quote) and refers to someone who is important enough to speak about themselves in the plural. Therefore, any usage of the word Elohim must be referring to a singular god - the God of the Christians.

This is also naive and wrong. The Hebrew language does not have such a grammatical construction.

So how should the word be treated?

The word is grammatically a plural, and as such it demands plural verb forms. However, the same word is used as a singular.

The best way to think of this is like the English word "Scissors". We never talk about "a scissor". Even when referring to a single item, we still refer to it as "some scissors". We use plural verb forms too - for example we say "The scissors are over there" rather than "The scissors is over there".

It is not quite the same, since we can also refer to scissors as a pair of scissors, but hopefully the similarity is enough to make the analogy work.

So how do we know whether to translate "Elohim" as "gods" or "god"? The simple answer is that we don't. Again, this is similar to the English. If someone says "The car is over there", you know that they are only talking about one car. If they say "the cars are over there" then you know they are talking about more than one car. However, if someone says "The scissors are over there" you don't know if they are talking about one pair of scissors or many pairs.

We must use the context in which the word is used. If the verse(s) in question talk about "Elohim" and then say that "he" did or said something then it is safe to assume that it is talking about a single god. If the verse(s) talk about "Elohim" and then say that "they" did something then it is safe to assume that it is talking about multiple gods.

Of course, in the Torah, there are many places where neither assumption is safe...

Anyway, on to actual references...

Here is Psalm 82, in the ASV translation:

Now this passage already has polytheistic themes in it, with the talk of God "judging amongst the gods".

However, it is obvious from reading this that the translation of verse 1 is somewhat tortured - as if someone is trying to find a monotheistic interpretation of it.

As Loomis has pointed out already, if we look at the Hebrew, a direct translation would be...

'Elohim' stands in the council of 'El' and judges the 'Elohim'

Here, the first "Elohim" is fairly clearly supposed to be "God", and the second is fairly clearly supposed to be "gods". So a better translation would be:

"God stands in the council of El and judges the gods"

This is clearly polytheistic. Particularly if we look at verse 6 too.

This psalm actually shows Canaanite polytheistic belief and their pantheon. The archaeological records that we have from various other Canaanite tribes (of which the Hebrews were one) shows that they had a pantheon consisting of El, the chief god, and his children, which included Baal, Dagon, Chemosh, Asherah, Mot, Yahweh and others.

Interestingly, Ugarit inscriptions from the time show Asherah as being Yahweh's wife, as well as his sister.

The Hebrew tribe(s) had Yahweh as a patron, and this psalm appears to show Yahweh standing in his father's court judging his siblings. The "Most High" in verse 6 is "El-yon" or "El most high".

A similar view (where El is the chief god and Yahweh is one of his children) is shown in Deuteronomy 32:8-9

Again, the reference is to to "El-yon" translated here as simply "the Most High". This verse shows El portioning off the various tribes amongst his children, specifically giving Jacob's tribe to Yahweh.

This is the classic henotheistic situation, of course. Each tribe has its own patron god, and each god supports its tribe against the others.

Apart from these passages, which support the henotheistic views that we have from inscriptions left by the other Canaanite tribes, there are other clearly polytheistic statements in the OT, such as...

Which explicitly compare Yahweh with other gods and give no indication that the other gods are seen as false, only that Yahweh is the best god around.

Exodus 22:28 is usually translated as a singular...
However, here the word used is not even Elohim. It is Ha-Elohim - the gods. This must be taken as a plural, not a singular. The correct translation of this verse should be "Thou shalt not revile the gods..."

Additionally, there is the story of the Exodus. In this, Yahweh is explicitly described as smiting the Egyptian gods...

Now firstly this allegedly coming from Yahweh's own words - so it can't be explained away as simply that some of his followers believed in other gods that didn't really exist. Secondly, the apologetic that he was actually talking about smiting the statues or idols of Egypt flies in the face of the Hebrew, which uses the word "Elohim" to describe the Egyptian gods, not any of the Hebrew words for statues or idols.

It is clear that (at least to the writer of the passage) Yahweh is smiting other actual gods - the gods of Egypt (whom he has already bested in "miracle competitions" to prove that he is more powerful than them).

There is also the fascinating story in 2 Kings 3 where the Moabites (who worshipped Chemosh - another son of El) are being fought by the Israelites makes a sacrifice to Chemosh and Chemosh has a "great wrath" against the Israelites and drives them back - demonstrating the henotheistic belief that each god is powerful when on his home turf.

Of course, as you point out yourself, there is finally the classic first commandment...

...where Yahweh does not claim to be the only god, he merely says that he is the only god who should be worshipped. He does not say "Worship me because I am the only god". He says "Worship me because I am jealous".

Xrikcus

On the subject of the Polytheism in Psalm 82 I just want to mention an LDS interpretation of it. The summary in the text stating: "Thus saith the Lord: Ye are gods and children of the Most High.", so God is God, and we are "Gods" by the way the text is written. Supported by Genesis 3:5 "For God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, ... ye shall be as gods".

This strikes me as something of a typical LDS approach to twisting scripture, but could anyone give me something that I could more confidently use in that position? Why, for example, can Elohim certainly NOT be referring to humans?

Naphtali Jones

Wow! That was a brilliant post. :notworthy:

~Nap~

Loomis

More often than not - Pervy rawks!

Loomis

In the case of Psalm 82, look at verses 6~7.

I said, ‘You are gods;

all of you are sons of the Most High.’

Yet you will die like mortals;

you will fall like like one of the rulers.”


If the elohim were already mortals, then the phrase “you will die like mortals” would be absurd. And besides that, the “assembly of El” was populated by gods, not humans.

Btw, I agree – the LDS have done a fascinating job at assimilating this “new” info.

Loomis

Also read Psalm 8; verses 1, 4, and 5. This is noteworthy because the author says:

1) Yahweh created the elohim (and so it follows that Yahweh cannot be an elohim – at least as far as this author is concerned).

2) The ‘elohim’ cannot be ‘man’.

Also, I wonder if this Psalm began life as a Psalm to El, where the ‘elohim’ are synonymous with the ‘sons of El’ and the ‘son of man’ is Baal – in the roll as son of Dagon (or maybe the ‘son of man’ is Melchizedek).

Loomis

Well … we’ve heard this a million times – but I object. How can you prove that the author ever heard of the word ‘Yahweh’?

If the author were talking about Yahweh, then why wouldn’t he have said so?

Doesn’t Baal also fit this description?

Like I said in my earlier post – Psalm 82:1 is using ‘elohim’ in two different ways, and this demands an explanation.

Also, it looks like the Jews of the first century thought that this character was Melchizedek. This too - deserves and explanation. Why didn’t THEY think it was Yahweh?

I’m no expert, but I bet the first Elohim is a gloss. I bet it is replacing another god’s name.

Baal stands in the assembly of El;
in the midst of the gods he renders judgment.

Or maybe …

Melchizedek stands in the assembly of El;
in the midst of the gods he renders judgment.

See what I mean?

Give it some thought.