-
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
- Status
== No evidence of Jewish Polytheism has ever been produced, in spite of the rants of David Hume in the 19th Century.
This all depends on how youd efine polytheism. If by polytheism you mean to say they worshipped many gods, then you woudl be correct. But if by polytheism you mean to say they worshipped ONE, but accepted teh existence of other gods, then you would be wrong. This is why Hurtado's work was so important. It drew a line in the sand and said "OK, let's define our terms before we proceed."
In the end, the overwhelming evidence shows that Ancient Judaism was polytheistic at worst, and henotheistic at best.
== Which discoveries in particular, and what sort of linkage to other sources do they have?
Are you kidding me? No serious student of the Hebrew Bible can progress far witha working knowldege of teh Ugaritic texts. The parallels between them and the Hebrew Bible are too obvious to ignore.
== You may of course realise that the discoveries at Quarum and other sites date from the early 1st Century AD, and are the writings of Esoteric Jewish sects such as the Essenes, who were not representative of contemporary Judiaism. Hardly what one would call an ancient Witness given the time frame that you are speaking of.
Irrelevant since I'm referring to the Hebrew Bible that was uncovered. As painful as this may be for you to accept, the Hebrew Bible uncovered is not the same as the MT. Deut 32:8 is just one example that comes to mind. The Hebrew indicates that Yahweh was a son of the Most High God El Elyon, and that Israel was His allotted inheritance. This reflects the ancient eblief that El had seventy divine sons who all had a people on earth to rule over. "children of Israel" replaced the original "sons of God" which in an OT context, always referred to divine beings. The elohim. The most respected scholarly sources of the OT admit that monotheism was a late development, typically during the reform of Josiah. It is common for scholars to make comments like, "scholarship has concluded..." I'm simply following their own insight.
[Edited by a moderator]
Email me if you want to discuss this further.
This all depends on how youd efine polytheism. If by polytheism you mean to say they worshipped many gods, then you woudl be correct. But if by polytheism you mean to say they worshipped ONE, but accepted teh existence of other gods, then you would be wrong. This is why Hurtado's work was so important. It drew a line in the sand and said "OK, let's define our terms before we proceed."
In the end, the overwhelming evidence shows that Ancient Judaism was polytheistic at worst, and henotheistic at best.
== Which discoveries in particular, and what sort of linkage to other sources do they have?
Are you kidding me? No serious student of the Hebrew Bible can progress far witha working knowldege of teh Ugaritic texts. The parallels between them and the Hebrew Bible are too obvious to ignore.
== You may of course realise that the discoveries at Quarum and other sites date from the early 1st Century AD, and are the writings of Esoteric Jewish sects such as the Essenes, who were not representative of contemporary Judiaism. Hardly what one would call an ancient Witness given the time frame that you are speaking of.
Irrelevant since I'm referring to the Hebrew Bible that was uncovered. As painful as this may be for you to accept, the Hebrew Bible uncovered is not the same as the MT. Deut 32:8 is just one example that comes to mind. The Hebrew indicates that Yahweh was a son of the Most High God El Elyon, and that Israel was His allotted inheritance. This reflects the ancient eblief that El had seventy divine sons who all had a people on earth to rule over. "children of Israel" replaced the original "sons of God" which in an OT context, always referred to divine beings. The elohim. The most respected scholarly sources of the OT admit that monotheism was a late development, typically during the reform of Josiah. It is common for scholars to make comments like, "scholarship has concluded..." I'm simply following their own insight.
[Edited by a moderator]
Email me if you want to discuss this further.
Upvote
0
In the Masoretic Text (MT), as it is translated in the KJV, the passage reads as follows:
However, it has long been known from the Septuagint, and more recently from the Dead Sea Scrolls, that the phrase "according to the number of the children of Israel" used to read "according to the number of the sons of God." In the RSV, which takes into account the confirming evidence from the Dead Sea Scrolls, the passage reads like this:
The Interpreters Bible tells us that,"The LXX reading adopted by the RSV almost certainly reflects the original Hebrew text."[10] The significance of this variation is that in ancient times the term "sons of God" frequently referred to members of a divine assembly of gods. The ancient Hebrews believed in a divine council of deities headed by the supreme father-god El (also called Elohim or El Elyon), and they often referred to the members of this council as "the sons of God." There is considerable disagreement among scholars over the council's composition, but there is no serious question that a belief in a divine assembly of heavenly deities was an important doctrine in ancient Hebrew theology.[11] By changing "the sons of God" to "the children of Israel," someone was deliberately trying to eliminate the reference to the "divine council": a concept that is vital to the LDS interpretation of Ps 82:6. Ignoring the existence of the divine council makes it easier to dodge monotheistic/polytheistic controversies.
The LXX and Dead Sea Scroll versions of Deuteronomy 32:8-9 clearly portray Yahweh as separate from El and as a member of the divine assembly subordinate to Him. As Lemche says, "the Greek version apparently ranges Yahweh among the sons of the Most High, that is, treats him as a member of the pantheon of gods who are subordinate to the supreme God, El Elyon.[12] Margaret Barker calls Yahweh the "Son of Elohim,"[13] for this same reason, and according to Harvard University's Paul Hanson, "This verse no doubt preserves early Israel's view of her place within the family of nations. The high god 'Elyon' originally apportioned the nations to the members of the divine assembly. . . . Israel was allotted to Yahweh."[14]
As the RSV puts it, Israel was Yahweh's "allotted inheritance," given to Him by His Father, El. Hebrew scholar Hershel Shanks, who is the founder and editor of the Biblical Archeology Review and the Bible Review, agrees when he says "sons of God" makes more sense, but that it "smacks of polytheism." He elaborates that: "Each of the world's peoples is allotted to a divine son -- Chemosh gets the moabites, Qos gets the Edomites, Milkom gets the Ammonites, Ba'al gets the canaanites, and so forth, while Yahweh (Jehovah) takes care of the Israelites, his chosen people."[15]
Kyle McCarter also points out that Yahweh may be a son of God, and that the division was, according to the text, done by the Most High God (Elyon) Himself. He also believes that, "The original can be taken to mean that Yahweh was one of the sons of God to whom Elyon parceled out peoples. The alteration suppressed this interpretation."[16] Shanks asks whether the "Hebrew text changed sometime between its composition and the earliest surviving texts from the tenth and eleventh centuries a.d., presumably to remove the embarrassing reference to 'sons of God?'"; or "is the pristine Hebrew text to be preferred over a Greek translation?"(Shanks, 151) Ronald S. Hendel answers the first question in the affirmative when he says:
Dr. George Adam Smith said that ancient Judaism, "which was not a monotheism, but a polytheism with an opportunity for monotheism at the heart of it, each tribe being attached to one god, as to their particular Lord and Father."[18] Those who subsequently tampered with the Hebrew text were probably Yahweh-only editors who wanted to erase the original distinction between El and Yahweh and to depict Yahweh as the one and only God. Clearly, as any Latter-day Saint should recognize, this matter poses a clear advantage for the LDS doctrine that Yahweh (Jesus Christ) and Elohim (Heavenly father) are different individuals. Before the Dead Sea Scrolls were discovered, such a position was difficult to substantiate since very few lay members of Christianity have familiarity with the LXX. The facts which vindicate the "sons of God" and the "divine council" doctrines, have further strengthened the LDS doctrine of human deification as it pertains to Ps 82:6 and John 10:34.[19]
Peter Hayman also discusses how Monotheism was not original Judaism, but rather a much later innovation: "In the academic world of twenty or thirty years ago it was conventional to hold that the story of Judaism was one of a gradual, but inexorable, evolution from a Canaanite/Israelite pagan and mythological environment into the pure light of an unsullied monotheism." Hayman tells us that "Judaism after the exile represents a startling new development in the history of religion, and that it is the Jewish monotheistic conception of God that makes this religion stand out from all others," and that "..it is hardly ever appropriate to use the term monotheism to describe the Jewish idea of God, that no progress beyond the simple formulas of the Book of Deuteronomy can be discerned in Judaism before the philosophers of the Middle Ages, and that Judaism never escapes from the legacy of the battles for supremacy between Yahweh, Ba'al and El from which it emerged." He goes so far as to say that Yahweh was not only separate from these other deities, but that He is "not different from them in kind."[20]
According to Evangelical scholar Larry Hurtado,
In other words, Jewish Monotheism was no different than what counter-cultists call Mormon Polytheism. According to the Encyclopedia Judaica, "biblical monotheism is [now] seen by modern biblical scholars as emerging gradually and in a continuous line from the polytheistic thought of paganism."[22] Indeed, as one scholar puts it, "Israels great achievement .was monotheism."[23]
Former professor of New Testament at the Divinity School of the University of Chicago, Adela Yarbro Collins, who is currently Buckingham Professor of New Testament Criticism and Interpretation, at Yale University, while critiquing Richard Baukham's book, says that, "The issue of monotheism for second temple Jews was one of loyalty rather than a metaphysical or philosophical issue, so divine hypostases and personifications (such as the Logos, Philo's "second god") are not simply identical with God, but are subordinate and generated entities God uses to interact with creation. They are acceptable because they are not identified with the pagan gods." She also comments on the significance, which Bauckham underestimates, of 4Q491 frag. 11, regarding the "divine throne." She states that , "[the]Qumran community entertained the idea of the enthronement, exaltation, and even divinization of a human being. Likewise, the enthroned Son of Man in the Similitudes of Enoch 'participates in God's unique sovereignty' rather than sharing in God's 'identity.' He, like Jesus, is worshiped as God's agent, not God per se."[24] Other scholars who would agree with the above analysis are Julio Trebolle Barrera, Eissfeldt, Bob Becking, Dr. L.M. Barré and Mark S. Smith. And none of them are LDS.[25]
notes:
[10] The Interpreters Bible (Abingdon 1980; 1st 1953) Volume II: 519
[11] Seaich, Eugene. Ancient Texts and Mormonism. Sandy, Utah: Mormon Miscellaneous,1983:9-23; He cites Eissfeldt; Mullen; Hayman; Morgenstern; Clifford; Ackerman; Ackroyd; Hanson, Paul. "War, Peace, and Justice in Early Israel." In Bible Review, Fall 1987 p 39 A special thanks to Michael T. Griffith, in providing added research for this section
[12] Lemche, Niels Peter. Ancient Israel. Sheffield, United Kingdom: A & C Black, 1988. p 226
[13] Barker, Margaret The Great Angel: A Study of Israel's Second God, p.14
[14] Hanson, Paul. "War, Peace, and Justice in Early Israel." in Bible Review, Fall 1987. p. 39
[15] Shanks, Hershel The Mystery and Meaning of the Dead Sea Scrolls, 151
[16] McCarter, Kyle P. Jr., Textual Criticism: Recovering the Text of the Hebrew Bible, (Fortress Press, Minneapolis, MN, 1986): 59
[17] Hendel, Ronald S. "When the Sons of God Cavorted With the Daughters of Men," in Herschel Shanks, Ed., Understanding the Dead Sea Scrolls, (Random House, NY, 1992): 170, 172
[18] Dr. George Adam Smith [1856 - 1942] "Modern Criticism and the Preaching of the Old Testament" p. 130
[19] Dr. Daniel C. Peterson has taken advantage of popular opinion in contemporary scholarship, and the valuable information found in other ancient writings such as the Ugaritic texts, in his fascinating essay, "Ye Are Gods": Psalm 82 and John 10 as Witnesses to the Divine Nature of Humankind."
[20] Hayman, Peter; Presidential address to the British Association for Jewish Studies, Edinburgh, 21 August 1990, published as Monotheism - A Misused Word in Jewish Studies?, Journal of Jewish Studies 42 .1991
[21] Hurtado, Larry. First-Century Jewish Monotheism, 365
[22] Encyclopedia Judaica, CD-ROM Edition, "Monotheism," Jerusalem: Keter Publishing House Ltd., 1997
[23] Irwin, W. "The Hebrews," H. Frankfort, ed. The Intellectual Adventure of Man. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1946, p. 224
[24] Adela Yarbro Collins' online response to Richard Baukham's The Throne of God and the Worship of Jesus http://www.yale.edu/opa/v29.n4/story6a.html
[25] http://www.bibleinterp.com/articles/MSmith_BiblicalMonotheism.htm ;
However, it has long been known from the Septuagint, and more recently from the Dead Sea Scrolls, that the phrase "according to the number of the children of Israel" used to read "according to the number of the sons of God." In the RSV, which takes into account the confirming evidence from the Dead Sea Scrolls, the passage reads like this:
The Interpreters Bible tells us that,"The LXX reading adopted by the RSV almost certainly reflects the original Hebrew text."[10] The significance of this variation is that in ancient times the term "sons of God" frequently referred to members of a divine assembly of gods. The ancient Hebrews believed in a divine council of deities headed by the supreme father-god El (also called Elohim or El Elyon), and they often referred to the members of this council as "the sons of God." There is considerable disagreement among scholars over the council's composition, but there is no serious question that a belief in a divine assembly of heavenly deities was an important doctrine in ancient Hebrew theology.[11] By changing "the sons of God" to "the children of Israel," someone was deliberately trying to eliminate the reference to the "divine council": a concept that is vital to the LDS interpretation of Ps 82:6. Ignoring the existence of the divine council makes it easier to dodge monotheistic/polytheistic controversies.
The LXX and Dead Sea Scroll versions of Deuteronomy 32:8-9 clearly portray Yahweh as separate from El and as a member of the divine assembly subordinate to Him. As Lemche says, "the Greek version apparently ranges Yahweh among the sons of the Most High, that is, treats him as a member of the pantheon of gods who are subordinate to the supreme God, El Elyon.[12] Margaret Barker calls Yahweh the "Son of Elohim,"[13] for this same reason, and according to Harvard University's Paul Hanson, "This verse no doubt preserves early Israel's view of her place within the family of nations. The high god 'Elyon' originally apportioned the nations to the members of the divine assembly. . . . Israel was allotted to Yahweh."[14]
As the RSV puts it, Israel was Yahweh's "allotted inheritance," given to Him by His Father, El. Hebrew scholar Hershel Shanks, who is the founder and editor of the Biblical Archeology Review and the Bible Review, agrees when he says "sons of God" makes more sense, but that it "smacks of polytheism." He elaborates that: "Each of the world's peoples is allotted to a divine son -- Chemosh gets the moabites, Qos gets the Edomites, Milkom gets the Ammonites, Ba'al gets the canaanites, and so forth, while Yahweh (Jehovah) takes care of the Israelites, his chosen people."[15]
Kyle McCarter also points out that Yahweh may be a son of God, and that the division was, according to the text, done by the Most High God (Elyon) Himself. He also believes that, "The original can be taken to mean that Yahweh was one of the sons of God to whom Elyon parceled out peoples. The alteration suppressed this interpretation."[16] Shanks asks whether the "Hebrew text changed sometime between its composition and the earliest surviving texts from the tenth and eleventh centuries a.d., presumably to remove the embarrassing reference to 'sons of God?'"; or "is the pristine Hebrew text to be preferred over a Greek translation?"(Shanks, 151) Ronald S. Hendel answers the first question in the affirmative when he says:
Dr. George Adam Smith said that ancient Judaism, "which was not a monotheism, but a polytheism with an opportunity for monotheism at the heart of it, each tribe being attached to one god, as to their particular Lord and Father."[18] Those who subsequently tampered with the Hebrew text were probably Yahweh-only editors who wanted to erase the original distinction between El and Yahweh and to depict Yahweh as the one and only God. Clearly, as any Latter-day Saint should recognize, this matter poses a clear advantage for the LDS doctrine that Yahweh (Jesus Christ) and Elohim (Heavenly father) are different individuals. Before the Dead Sea Scrolls were discovered, such a position was difficult to substantiate since very few lay members of Christianity have familiarity with the LXX. The facts which vindicate the "sons of God" and the "divine council" doctrines, have further strengthened the LDS doctrine of human deification as it pertains to Ps 82:6 and John 10:34.[19]
Peter Hayman also discusses how Monotheism was not original Judaism, but rather a much later innovation: "In the academic world of twenty or thirty years ago it was conventional to hold that the story of Judaism was one of a gradual, but inexorable, evolution from a Canaanite/Israelite pagan and mythological environment into the pure light of an unsullied monotheism." Hayman tells us that "Judaism after the exile represents a startling new development in the history of religion, and that it is the Jewish monotheistic conception of God that makes this religion stand out from all others," and that "..it is hardly ever appropriate to use the term monotheism to describe the Jewish idea of God, that no progress beyond the simple formulas of the Book of Deuteronomy can be discerned in Judaism before the philosophers of the Middle Ages, and that Judaism never escapes from the legacy of the battles for supremacy between Yahweh, Ba'al and El from which it emerged." He goes so far as to say that Yahweh was not only separate from these other deities, but that He is "not different from them in kind."[20]
According to Evangelical scholar Larry Hurtado,
In other words, Jewish Monotheism was no different than what counter-cultists call Mormon Polytheism. According to the Encyclopedia Judaica, "biblical monotheism is [now] seen by modern biblical scholars as emerging gradually and in a continuous line from the polytheistic thought of paganism."[22] Indeed, as one scholar puts it, "Israels great achievement .was monotheism."[23]
Former professor of New Testament at the Divinity School of the University of Chicago, Adela Yarbro Collins, who is currently Buckingham Professor of New Testament Criticism and Interpretation, at Yale University, while critiquing Richard Baukham's book, says that, "The issue of monotheism for second temple Jews was one of loyalty rather than a metaphysical or philosophical issue, so divine hypostases and personifications (such as the Logos, Philo's "second god") are not simply identical with God, but are subordinate and generated entities God uses to interact with creation. They are acceptable because they are not identified with the pagan gods." She also comments on the significance, which Bauckham underestimates, of 4Q491 frag. 11, regarding the "divine throne." She states that , "[the]Qumran community entertained the idea of the enthronement, exaltation, and even divinization of a human being. Likewise, the enthroned Son of Man in the Similitudes of Enoch 'participates in God's unique sovereignty' rather than sharing in God's 'identity.' He, like Jesus, is worshiped as God's agent, not God per se."[24] Other scholars who would agree with the above analysis are Julio Trebolle Barrera, Eissfeldt, Bob Becking, Dr. L.M. Barré and Mark S. Smith. And none of them are LDS.[25]
notes:
[10] The Interpreters Bible (Abingdon 1980; 1st 1953) Volume II: 519
[11] Seaich, Eugene. Ancient Texts and Mormonism. Sandy, Utah: Mormon Miscellaneous,1983:9-23; He cites Eissfeldt; Mullen; Hayman; Morgenstern; Clifford; Ackerman; Ackroyd; Hanson, Paul. "War, Peace, and Justice in Early Israel." In Bible Review, Fall 1987 p 39 A special thanks to Michael T. Griffith, in providing added research for this section
[12] Lemche, Niels Peter. Ancient Israel. Sheffield, United Kingdom: A & C Black, 1988. p 226
[13] Barker, Margaret The Great Angel: A Study of Israel's Second God, p.14
[14] Hanson, Paul. "War, Peace, and Justice in Early Israel." in Bible Review, Fall 1987. p. 39
[15] Shanks, Hershel The Mystery and Meaning of the Dead Sea Scrolls, 151
[16] McCarter, Kyle P. Jr., Textual Criticism: Recovering the Text of the Hebrew Bible, (Fortress Press, Minneapolis, MN, 1986): 59
[17] Hendel, Ronald S. "When the Sons of God Cavorted With the Daughters of Men," in Herschel Shanks, Ed., Understanding the Dead Sea Scrolls, (Random House, NY, 1992): 170, 172
[18] Dr. George Adam Smith [1856 - 1942] "Modern Criticism and the Preaching of the Old Testament" p. 130
[19] Dr. Daniel C. Peterson has taken advantage of popular opinion in contemporary scholarship, and the valuable information found in other ancient writings such as the Ugaritic texts, in his fascinating essay, "Ye Are Gods": Psalm 82 and John 10 as Witnesses to the Divine Nature of Humankind."
[20] Hayman, Peter; Presidential address to the British Association for Jewish Studies, Edinburgh, 21 August 1990, published as Monotheism - A Misused Word in Jewish Studies?, Journal of Jewish Studies 42 .1991
[21] Hurtado, Larry. First-Century Jewish Monotheism, 365
[22] Encyclopedia Judaica, CD-ROM Edition, "Monotheism," Jerusalem: Keter Publishing House Ltd., 1997
[23] Irwin, W. "The Hebrews," H. Frankfort, ed. The Intellectual Adventure of Man. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1946, p. 224
[24] Adela Yarbro Collins' online response to Richard Baukham's The Throne of God and the Worship of Jesus http://www.yale.edu/opa/v29.n4/story6a.html
[25] http://www.bibleinterp.com/articles/MSmith_BiblicalMonotheism.htm ;
Upvote
0
S
StuckRags
Guest
Wow. This thread has gotten so big and OT I don't have time right now to read it all but if this quote:
Is intended to show that there are three separate beings in the Trinity, then I would remind you that Jesus pointed out in many areas how the Jews/Pharisees were wrong about their understanding of God. I would hesitate to base my understanding of God on the Jews understanding without taking into account the words of Jesus. Remember, Jesus said the Father is in me and I in Him. The poster of this quote didn't once mention a teaching of Jesus on this issue.
Upvote
0
Uh, no. The Trinity as you refer to it, was light years ahead of their time - it was a later innovation by Christian philosphers of the third and fourth centuries. The OT Jews wouldn't have understood this even if it were explained to them. The issue is not what Jesus taught. The issue is whether the ancient Jews, including Moses were strict monotheists as orthodox Christians profess.
The evidence is against this. Strict monotheism was a later development, period.
The evidence is against this. Strict monotheism was a later development, period.
Upvote
0
happyinhisgrace
Blessed Trinity
I agree calgal because the trinune God is the one true God the Bible teaches of.calgal said:Grace:
Thanks for the chance to clarify. I meant the baptism by water. A believer's baptism is quite different and is quite personal. Baptism by water is a public show of faith and as such is considered a prerequisite to membership. The one caveat is that the water baptism MUST be trinitarian.
God Bless,
Grace
Upvote
0
CCWoody
Voted best Semper Reformada signature ~ 2007
- Mar 23, 2003
- 6,684
- 249
- 56
- Faith
- Calvinist
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Republican
Look, if this is what really happened here, then I will go to bat for the truth. Mormonism is certainly an abomination to the LORD and all of the unique doctrines of Mormonism are indeed a blasphemy.Kevin Graham said:== Post numbered #5, blasphemy.
Oh, here I cited scripture to prove that Jesus said not all sins would be forgiven. Christ said the sin against the Holy Ghost would not be forgiven. So the moderator calls this "blasphemy"!!!
But, if you have uttered a Biblical truth, then I will be happy to go to whomever personally for calling a true Biblical doctrine a "blasphemy." We shouldn't call the truth a blasphemy just because it has been uttered by a Mormon. Please note that I do not do this for the sake of a Mormon, who has managed to utter a truth, but for the sake of a professing brother who has made a terrible error that needs to be corrected. The saints are certainly not above error.
Now, for the sake of a Mormon, I'll be happy to discuss how the truth of God has been twisted into a doctrine which cannot save.
But, first things first. Show me the error which has been attributed to a saint.
Upvote
0
- Mar 18, 2003
- 47,577
- 27,116
- 76
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Non-Denom
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Republican
Upvote
0
TOmNossor said:
The Truth shall set you free.
That really sounds more like a desperate tactic to guilt Christians out of helping their brothers and sisters back into the flock.
Upvote
0
MagusAlbertus
custom user title
better than they know they have no basis than to cointinue on in self-rigtious defyance of the demands of humblness from God.
Upvote
0
- Status
Similar threads
