Freethought & Rationalism Archive

John Kesler · 07-01-2006, 09:40 AM

The NRSV of Isaiah 43:10 reads as follows, with my emphasis and Yahweh substituted for "the LORD":

Quote:

10 You are my witnesses, says Yahweh, and my servant whom I have chosen, so that you may know and believe me and understand that I am he. BEFORE ME no god was formed, nor shall there be any AFTER ME.

This passage seems to say that there was a time before the existence of Yahweh, with the implication that at some point Yahweh was "formed." I say this because "before me" is used antithetically with "after me," so it appears that "before" is a marker of time rather than meaning "in the presence of." Also, doesn't the phrase "after me" imply that Yahweh will not always exist? If not, what does Yahweh mean when he refers to a time "after" him?

Anat · 07-01-2006, 10:35 AM

The author of the passage did not understand concepts such as time coming into existence with the universe.

John Kesler · 07-01-2006, 10:50 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Anat

The author of the passage did not understand concepts such as time coming into existence with the universe.

I guess that I don't see the relevance of this, since "Isaiah" refers to "time" as it relates to Yahweh's existence.

Anat · 07-01-2006, 11:04 AM

If one does not understand the possibility of non-existence of time there is no difference between Yahweh's always existing and Yahweh coming into being at some point. What the author is trying to say is that Yahweh was the first god and will be the last.

John Kesler · 07-01-2006, 12:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Anat

If one does not understand the possibility of non-existence of time there is no difference between Yahweh's always existing and Yahweh coming into being at some point. What the author is trying to say is that Yahweh was the first god and will be the last.

My point is that the text leaves open the possibility that Yahweh had a "beginning"--a "time" when he didn't exist. The Babylonian myth Enuma Elish states that the gods didn't always exist, and it's possible that "Isaiah" believed that the watery chaos of Genesis 1 existed before Yahweh.

Quote:

Enuma Elish:
When there was no heaven, no earth, no height, no depth, no name, when Apsu was alone, the sweet water, the first begetter; and Tiamat the bitter water, and that return to the womb, her Mummu, when there were no gods-

When sweet and bitter mingled together, no reed was plaited, no rushes muddied the water, the gods were nameless, nature less, futureless, then from Apsu and Tiamat in the waters gods were created...

Anat · 07-01-2006, 06:45 PM

Well, supposedly the same author (Deutero-Isaiah) in 45:7 has Yahweh creating darkness which was part of the components of the primeval cosmos of genesis 1. I think Deutero-Isaiah was moving towards a more abstract concept of deity, one that does not need pre-existing materials to create the cosmos.

Loomis · 07-02-2006, 11:57 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by John Kesler

My point is that the text leaves open the possibility that Yahweh had a "beginning"--a "time" when he didn't exist. The Babylonian myth Enuma Elish states that the gods didn't always exist, and it's possible that "Isaiah" believed that the watery chaos of Genesis 1 existed before Yahweh.

Are you aware that there are several authors of “Isaiah?”

Proto Isaiah/ Deutero Isaiah/ Trito Isaiah?

It looks to me like Deutero Isaiah was a staunch monotheist. He is the poster child for modern monotheism. I think this is a reference to Enuma Elish, but not in the way you think: He is saying that Enuma Elish is bullshit. He is saying that Yahweh does not belong to that group of mythical gods.

Loomis · 07-02-2006, 12:43 PM

Deutero Isaiah assumes his readers are familiar with Enuma Elish.

Quote:

Isaiah 40:21~22

Do you not know?
Do you not hear?
Has it not been told to you since the very beginning?
Have you not understood from the time the earth’s foundations were made?
He is the one who sits on the circle of the earth;
its inhabitants are like grasshoppers.
He is the one who stretches out the sky like a thin curtain,
and spreads it out like a pitched tent.

The motif of “stretching out the sky” can be compared to what Marduk did when he killed Tiamat. He split her in two and used one half as a cover for heaven.

Again - I don’t think the author is asking us to believe that Yahweh is Marduk (although there are other places in the OT where they are the same). He is asking the reader to look back at the older story (Enuma Elish). He is telling us that Marduck is bullshit, but that Yahweh is a real instance of such a god.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

07-01-2006, 10:35 AM	#2
Anat Veteran Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: home Posts: 3,715	The author of the passage did not understand concepts such as time coming into existence with the universe.

07-01-2006, 11:04 AM	#4
Anat Veteran Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: home Posts: 3,715	If one does not understand the possibility of non-existence of time there is no difference between Yahweh's always existing and Yahweh coming into being at some point. What the author is trying to say is that Yahweh was the first god and will be the last.

07-01-2006, 06:45 PM	#6
Anat Veteran Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: home Posts: 3,715	Well, supposedly the same author (Deutero-Isaiah) in 45:7 has Yahweh creating darkness which was part of the components of the primeval cosmos of genesis 1. I think Deutero-Isaiah was moving towards a more abstract concept of deity, one that does not need pre-existing materials to create the cosmos.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.