Dharma

again, the Jews have diverse schools, some conforming to a strict and literal interpretation, others not.

I have never claimed that this has been practiced by anyone else other than Mr. Winkler as mentioned in his book, it is Mr. Winkler's research that has found this ritual of Yahweh. He is quite a prolific writer (and I suppose practitioner) on Jewish mysticism, and so far, Jewish priests have not yelled "foul"... :huh:

Dharma

it depends, if Ur Kasdim, which is traditionally interpreted as "Ur of the Chaldeans" did not occur until around 800 bce, correct my date if I'm wrong, however Ur under a tribe of the Chaldeans did not exist at the time scholars propose Abraham existed.

In other words, if scholars claim that Abraham was a man who was born in Ur of the Chaldeans (800bce), talks to Hittites for his grave (1600bce) and say Abraham existed around 2000 bce...it is these scholars who are treating the Bible as a history book who would have to defend their interpretation...

Now if I claim that Abraham was some diety born from fire, than I don't have to defend anything....I could make the story as silly as I feel like it...

In other words, your claims are historically silly. YOU DEFEND THE HISTORICAL CLAIM, since your historical Abraham seems to not hold water, I don't have to...

Dharma

aha! Spin, I believe was saying it does not mean "made". Remember even the Elohim needed a day of rest...again the intended meaning can only be glimpsed if your ENTIRE interpretation is correct.

andrewcriddle

The Spiritual Value of the Sefer Yetzirah is not really the point.

The issue is that it is (even it its earliest form) almost certainly from long after the Hebrew Bible was written and hence has little to tell us about the original meaning of the Hebrew Scriptures.

This does not prevent it from being genuinely spiritually valuable but that is quite another matter.

(If this thread is really about polytheism in Judaism whether or not going back to Biblical times then the Sefer Yetzirah might be more relevant, but IIUC we are discussing the Hebrew Scriptures rather than certain fringe tendencies in Kabbalism.)

Andrew Criddle

Lugubert

The Bible is IMO polytheistic (or at least monolatric). There are so many cases where other gods are mentioned. The Bible says in some cases that they are less powerful than YHWH, but doesn't deny their existence. They may be the gods of foreign wives, legally imported or just kidnapped, or such as those that are summoned in Isa. 45:20 ff., where the narrator pretends that they can't respond to the claims of YHWH. They aren't, however, allowed to voice any counterclaims...

And what would the use be of "no other gods before me", if there were no other gods?

And what does "A jealous God" imply? An omnimax God should have no worries about lesser beings, so (s)he evidently is jealous of other gods, at least as powerful.

Anat

Quite a few scholars think Abraham was a fictional character, most of the stories about whom originate not earlier than the 7th century, or even later. I don't see anyone in this thread claimin a historical Abraham. What people are claiming is that those who told the biblical stories about Abraham viewed him as a human, not a deity.

Anat

On the Yahweh question - though there are appearances of Yah alone i do not recall weh (or would it be Weh) appearing on its own. So what is the basis for proposing such a hypothetical deity, rather than have Yah as a short form of Yahweh?

Sheshbazzar

Are we right to understand then, that this single individuals "practice" and "ritual" is the entire basis of your premise that 'Yah' and 'weh' were two distinct "deities conjoined" ?
Where has Mr Winkler's research "found this ritual of Yahweh"?
In other words does this practice have any record of existing apart from, or before Mr. Winkler's personally engaging in it?

spin

You are not reading at your best. Go back and read what I actually said.

Andrew is not using a Hebrew lexicon.

If you can borrow the Brown-Driver-Briggs Lexicon, look on page 795, 1st col. point #7. In fact, before starting threads like this, it would be useful if you learnt a little bit about Hebrew, so that you wouldn't post about what you know nothing of.


spin

spin

Ur of course existed for a few millennia prior to this. When it came under the control of the Chaldeans, whom the Hebrews called Ka$dim (BDB explain: $ before a dental became an L in later Akkadian, so Ka$du -> Kaldu), see Jer 37:10.

The text may have been written post-800 BCE, but Ur was around before then. This line of logic will only lead you away from logic.

While we're at it. The Hittites never were that far south.

Let's face it, we have the elements of a text written so far after the times that the writer knows nothing about any of the historical trappings of his story. Right?

Agreed.

What is this slop about being "born from fire"? Why not take the simplest approach instead of fantasticating and conclude that the text is confused?

And )WR may mean "light" in Hebrew, but ($ means "fire".

Well, you are inventing tripe about Abraham being a deity.

Who's defending historical claims? Chris is merely stating the obvious correct information. Ur of the Kasdim is a city, a city that existed long before the Kasdim got control of it, even before the Kasdim existed. The fact that the text mentions Ur of the Kasdim in an apparently much earlier context argues nothing more than lack of knowledge by the writer. It's like the text mentioning the Philistines who didn't arrive in Palestine until several hundred years later than the time reputed for Abraham, Gen 21:32,4. These are simple anachronisms. Anachronisms usually tell you that a writer doesn't know the history.