Hellenic Polytheism

[Witchy Bee]

I think it's quite beautiful. And I think it's wonderful that there is a very rich selection of myths and information out there: How do you view this? Do you think it's beneficial that people know a lot about the Gods already or do you think it's a bad thing since most people just assume it's all in the past and no one worships those deities anymore?

I also have a question for Glorthac, if I may. Why do you think there has to be one greatest God exactly? Monotheism confuses me because I suppose I just find more comfort in the fact that the Gods are not perfect, after all the most perfect and balanced thing I can think of would be nature. So instead of striving to be perfect we should just try and live our lives as full and prosperous as the universe allows, and strive to be good people. Perhaps you can explain it to me so that I might understand a bit better?

 

[humblemuslim]

Hi! Id like to ask members of this forum about their opinions or questions about Hellenic Polytheism (Greek Polytheism)

Thanks,
Deukal

Welcome

Can you explain how much of what we see in popular cinema is actually true regarding Greek Polytheism?

I've already seen some specials that have shown me, as an example, the Disney version of Hercules is not even close to the mythology tale, which is not surprising. But it leaves me with uncertainty regarding what is truly believed and what is not.

Since you are a self proclaimed believer, I was hoping for a brief introduction of your beliefs concerning major aspects, a list of sources for your beliefs (Scriptures?), and a specific question as to whether it is believed the gods are actually living on Mount Olympus or not.

 

[humblemuslim]

Well, the same in the sense of devotion and worship.

And just because a deity is less in power doesnt mean they are encompassing or not worthy of worship.

This is an interesting viewpoint.

You are claiming the power of the deity is independent of the reason to worship a being.

This raises an important question. Would you select a weaker deity if you knew the stronger deity would be displeased with your actions?

More so, what is to stop the stronger deity from destroying the weaker? Morals? Inability?

 

[Wicked Willow]

And interesting aspect of ancient Greek polytheism (along with many other polytheistic faiths, past and present) is its high tolerance for paradox and divergent/conflicting versions of the myths.
There was no One True version that must be believed in order to be considered a genuine follower of, say, Zeus. Just look at classical Greek drama, which was performed in the context of a religious festival honouring Dionysus: different authors portrayed vastly different versions of the same source material. Take Medea, for example: in one version, she accidentally slays her children; in another version, the citizens of Korinth murder the little ones as an act of revenge; and in Euripides's version, Medea deliberately kills them to further avenge herself on her cheating husband.
Now, people who've been socialized around exclusivist religions that put an enormous emphasis on keeping a pure, unadulterated canon, would start looking for the "real" version. But the ancients apparently realized that myths didn't work that way - that it wasn't so much about what *really* happened, but about the underlying message; the lessons that could be learned; the metaphors that pointed to something vastly bigger than just the nuts and bolts of an instructive tale.

In short, they grasped the nature of myth, and perceived it accordingly.

 

[sidhe]

And interesting aspect of ancient Greek polytheism (along with many other polytheistic faiths, past and present) is its high tolerance for paradox and divergent/conflicting versions of the myths.
There was no One True version that must be believed in order to be considered a genuine follower of, say, Zeus. Just look at classical Greek drama, which was performed in the context of a religious festival honouring Dionysus: different authors portrayed vastly different versions of the same source material. Take Medea, for example: in one version, she accidentally slays her children; in another version, the citizens of Korinth murder the little ones as an act of revenge; and in Euripides's version, Medea deliberately kills them to further avenge herself on her cheating husband.
Now, people who've been socialized around exclusivist religions that put an enormous emphasis on keeping a pure, unadulterated canon, would start looking for the "real" version. But the ancients apparently realized that myths didn't work that way - that it wasn't so much about what *really* happened, but about the underlying message; the lessons that could be learned; the metaphors that pointed to something vastly bigger than just the nuts and bolts of an instructive tale.

In short, they grasped the nature of myth, and perceived it accordingly.

^This. And this is why, sometimes, you can make your own myths.

 

[Wicked Willow]

^This. And this is why, sometimes, you can make your own myths.

We do so, anyway, whether we are aware of it or not. Chances are that two people receiving the same significant story or event will draw slightly different meanings from it, even if the divergence may be minuscule. "Making sense" is a very personal process, and as myths are nothing but "sense-making-stories", each of us has a very personal sub-set of the same.

 

[Sarcalogos Deus]

Only in the Christian interpretation. In the Torah, it's pretty clear that G-d means "other powerful supernatural entities of other peoples." G-d was just the god of the Hebrews and extremely powerful.

I know I'm late coming, but i would like you to substantiate this claim as something other than personal interpretation.

 

[sidhe]

I know I'm late coming, but i would like you to substantiate this claim as something other than personal interpretation.

Well, let's see...let's look at Exodus 20:2-3, shall we?

In Hebrew.

Yeah - I'm pagan, and I read Hebrew. Welcome to qabala.

2. "I am the LORD your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of slavery. אנכי יהוה אלהיך אשר הוצאתיך מארץ מצרים מבית עבדים׃ .2
3. "You shall have no other gods before Me. לא יהיה־לך אלהים אחרים
על־פני ׃

That second line...the word אלהים is the one used for "gods." Elohim, or ALHIM if you want some transliterated Hebrew. Now, if we go back to Genesis 1:1...

1. In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. בראשית ברא אלהים את השמים ואת הארץ׃

You see it again - אלהים. "Elohim" is the only word in that sentence that relates to divinity. So, if in Exodus G-d is referring to placing non-divine goods as deities, why does He use the same word used to describe Himself in Genesis? Furthermore, "Elohim" is a strange word. "AL" is a masculine word meaning "G-d," the suffix "-H" makes it feminine, and the suffix "-IM" is masculine plural. So, ALHIM more closely says "gender-neutral deity(ies)," "gods and goddesses," or "hermaphroditic deity(ies)."

Later in Genesis we get specificity...Genesis 2:4 -

4. This is the account of the heavens and the earth when they were created, in the day that the LORD God made earth and heaven. אלה תולדות השמים והארץ בהבראם ביום עשות יהוה אלהים ארץ ושמים׃

So now we're not talking about אלהים anymore, but יהוה אלהים, or IHVH ALHIM. IHVH isn't really a definable word, but more of a name, so rather than all the ALHIM being involved, a specific hermaphroditic deity (or perhaps a group of mixed-gender deities?) referred to as IHVH is working in creation.

Thus, without stressing myself right now over it, if you look at the words used in Hebrew, the Torah acknowledges the existence of other deities, and even gives them partial credit for the creation of the world in one of the creation accounts in Genesis.

 

[Sarcalogos Deus]

Well, let's see...let's look at Exodus 20:2-3, shall we?

In Hebrew.

Yeah - I'm pagan, and I read Hebrew. Welcome to qabala.

2. "I am the LORD your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of slavery. אנכי יהוה אלהיך אשר הוצאתיך מארץ מצרים מבית עבדים׃ .2
3. "You shall have no other gods before Me. לא יהיה־לך אלהים אחרים
על־פני ׃

That second line...the word אלהים is the one used for "gods." Elohim, or ALHIM if you want some transliterated Hebrew. Now, if we go back to Genesis 1:1...

1. In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. בראשית ברא אלהים את השמים ואת הארץ׃

You see it again - אלהים. "Elohim" is the only word in that sentence that relates to divinity. So, if in Exodus G-d is referring to placing non-divine goods as deities, why does He use the same word used to describe Himself in Genesis? Furthermore, "Elohim" is a strange word. "AL" is a masculine word meaning "G-d," the suffix "-H" makes it feminine, and the suffix "-IM" is masculine plural. So, ALHIM more closely says "gender-neutral deity(ies)," "gods and goddesses," or "hermaphroditic deity(ies)."

Later in Genesis we get specificity...Genesis 2:4 -

4. This is the account of the heavens and the earth when they were created, in the day that the LORD God made earth and heaven. אלה תולדות השמים והארץ בהבראם ביום עשות יהוה אלהים ארץ ושמים׃

So now we're not talking about אלהים anymore, but יהוה אלהים, or IHVH ALHIM. IHVH isn't really a definable word, but more of a name, so rather than all the ALHIM being involved, a specific hermaphroditic deity (or perhaps a group of mixed-gender deities?) referred to as IHVH is working in creation.

Thus, without stressing myself right now over it, if you look at the words used in Hebrew, the Torah acknowledges the existence of other deities, and even gives them partial credit for the creation of the world in one of the creation accounts in Genesis.

So basically your saying that thousands of years of Christian and Jewish theological thought has been based on the false concept that there is no God other than God. In fact your interpretation seems less likely since the Lord repeatedly proves that these other "gods" have no power and are false creations of men, the Priests of Baal confronting Elijah is a good example (1 Kings 18:21-40). Christians and Jews can also just say that the other "powerful spiritual beings" men took as gods and worshiped were demons and not other gods. Honestly i think your opinion came from reading into the text what you wanted to be there.

 

[sidhe]

So basically your saying that thousands of years of Christian and Jewish theological thought has been based on the false concept that there is no God other than God. In fact your interpretation seems less likely since the Lord repeatedly proves that these other "gods" have no power and are false creations of men, the Priests of Baal confronting Elijah is a good example (1 Kings 18:21-40). Christians and Jews can also just say that the other "powerful spiritual beings" men took as gods and worshiped were demons and not other gods.

Actually, if I'm correct, Judaism doesn't deny the existence of other gods...just that they are not the God of Israel.

And you can say whatever you want. However, I think that this discussion did not go how you thought it would. Now, when I look at 1 Kings 18:21-40, I see one group of people who don't know what they're doing when it comes to working ceremonial magick, and one guy who does (create the symbols, set aside the space, purify the area, and beseech poetically the intercession of the spirits). It's a matter of professionalism - a magician has dignity, though there is a time for ecstatic celebration, making offerings to your G-d/dess is not such a time.

Also, BAyL actually translates as "Lord." If I'm correct - again, I'm not guaranteeing that I am - it's more a lesson in "good worship of the Lord" against "bad worship of the Lord," not two separate entities. The difference in name is to show who is doing it RIGHT (calling on G-d by name), and who is doing it WRONG (using an informal title with no power). It's not like the appearance of AShRH ALHIM in some places, which is a quite different variety of deity...

After all, we're talking about titles here...like this in 1 Kings 18:36 - יהוה אלהי אברהם. IHVH ELHI ABRHM - Yahweh God of Abraham. Again, using the name, not a title. IHVH gets translated as LORD because the Hebrews considered it unutterable, not because it means LORD. You address someone respectfully, by their name and title, and they'll be more likely to help you out. Manners extend through multiple levels of existence.

 

[Sarcalogos Deus]

Actually, if I'm correct, Judaism doesn't deny the existence of other gods...just that they are not the God of Israel.

Actually if I remember right modern Judaism does deny the existence of other Gods and I would bet my soul that any Jew from throughout history would deny the existence of other Gods.

And you can say whatever you want. However, I think that this discussion did not go how you thought it would. Now, when I look at 1 Kings 18:21-40, I see one group of people who don't know what they're doing when it comes to working ceremonial magick, and one guy who does (create the symbols, set aside the space, purify the area, and beseech poetically the intercession of the spirits). It's a matter of professionalism - a magician has dignity, though there is a time for ecstatic celebration, making offerings to your G-d/dess is not such a time.

I didn't have a plan how the conversation would go, i like to make things up as i go along. As for the magic i doubt Elijah thought he was performing magic when he was making a offering to the Lord.

Also, BAyL actually translates as "Lord." If I'm correct - again, I'm not guaranteeing that I am - it's more a lesson in "good worship of the Lord" against "bad worship of the Lord," not two separate entities. The difference in name is to show who is doing it RIGHT (calling on G-d by name), and who is doing it WRONG (using an informal title with no power). It's not like the appearance of AShRH ALHIM in some places, which is a quite different variety of deity...

Baal was also a pagan deity worshiped in and around Israel at that time and since earlier in the scripture i quoted it says: "21 And Elijah came near to all the people, and said, "How long will you go limping with two different opinions? If the LORD is God, follow him; but if Baal, then follow him." 1 Kings 18:21 and "22 Then Elijah said to the people, "I, even I only, am left a prophet of the LORD; but Baal's prophets are four hundred and fifty men." 1 Kings 18:22. This to me implies that we are not dealing with right and wrong worship, but two different people worshiping two different gods and Elijah comes to show them that Baal is in fact false.

After all, we're talking about titles here...like this in 1 Kings 18:36 - יהוה אלהי אברהם. IHVH ELHI ABRHM - Yahweh God of Abraham. Again, using the name, not a title. IHVH gets translated as LORD because the Hebrews considered it unutterable, not because it means LORD. You address someone respectfully, by their name and title, and they'll be more likely to help you out. Manners extend through multiple levels of existence.

Yeah i know Yahweh is always translated as Lord. Doesn't Hebrew have only one word for the word god (Elohim). I know Elohim is plural, but if it was the only word available for the word God in Hebrew can you really read the existence of multiple gods into it's use?

You see it again - אלהים. "Elohim" is the only word in that sentence that relates to divinity. So, if in Exodus G-d is referring to placing non-divine goods as deities, why does He use the same word used to describe Himself in Genesis? Furthermore, "Elohim" is a strange word. "AL" is a masculine word meaning "G-d," the suffix "-H" makes it feminine, and the suffix "-IM" is masculine plural. So, ALHIM more closely says "gender-neutral deity(ies)," "gods and goddesses," or "hermaphroditic deity(ies)."

Also i read earlier about how you said "Elohim" means "gods and goddesses" from the way it is constructed. The answer to why the Israelites, Moses in this case, used it is because God has no gender you said yourself that it indicates a "gender-neutral deity", hence a deity without a gender. Now since i have established that the "gender-neutral" part of the word is not in conflict i will a address the plural part of the word. The simple answer is God was hinting at the Trinity just like he was in Genesis 1:26. So God in the word Elohim is, however discreetly, hinting at His Triune nature.

Anyway that is why the word "Elohim" and your argument is in no way hindering to a Christian that knows at least a small deal about the Trinity. Your argument relied entirely on the word "Elohim" meaning "gods and goddesses" or "hermaphroditic deity(ies)" and i have shown that it was used to describe God's nature and not "hermaphroditic deity(ies)". I know you will say this is "Christian interpretation", but you are arguing this point with a Christian on a Christian forum, so our theology can be applied to the OT. Funnily enough, I responded to all that Hebrew thrown in my face without knowing a lick of Hebrew myself.

I am sincerely looking forward to your next post.

 

[morningstar2651]

Hi! Id like to ask members of this forum about their opinions or questions about Hellenic Polytheism (Greek Polytheism)

Thanks,
Deukal

Hellenic polytheism has a pretty strong influence on my beliefs.

Yes, why do you think the gods are Gods? I mean, I call my God God because He is the greatest, but you yourself admit the gods aren't the greatest, because there are multiple gods, and there can only be 1 greatest.

Your definition of God is "The Greatest"? That's a terrible definition. He's the greatest what? I assume you don't believe him to be the greatest lawn ornament or handtowel. If he's the greatest god, then you acknowledge the existence of other gods and are therefore a polytheist (or at least a henotheist).

But wouldn't the universe in which the 12 Olympians indwell be the God over them? After all, it has all their power, since they are a part of it, and it has more power, since they aren't all of it.

Close. The whole is greater than the sum of its parts.

Mind if I reask my question, because this is my main problem with polytheism, and I think you didn't get my point.

You see, I understand how your saying they all have a certain "piece". But aren't they inferior to the universe in which they indwell? After all, because they are a part of the universe, the universe contains their certain "piece", and other pieces from different spectrums.

Therefore, the universe has all 12 Olympians certain "pieces" and more, and therefore, each 12 Olympians isn't the greatest, they're only equal to the universe in regards to their certain "pieces", and inferior to the universe in regars to "pieces" they don't have.

Therefore, they're no god at anything at all, the universe is the God at all their pieces, and even more so.

So, I must ask, isn't this true?

I'll tie this back to your original statement that god is "the greatest". God is the greatest what? Is he the most beautiful? Is he the greatest warrior? Is he the greatest craftsman? Is he the greatest hunter? Could he be all of these at the same time? Or maybe none at all?

 

[Wicked Willow]

There's a special sub-discipline of religious studies exclusively devoted to studying the roots of Judaism within the larger context of the Proto-Semitic religion.

I don't claim to possess more than a cursory knowledge of that specific field, but I do think that no serious scholar denies that Judaism evolved from the larger cultural context of the Proto-Semitic tribes: from polytheism to henotheism to monotheism.
The earliest "OT"-texts are decidedly henotheistic, just as sidhe has pointed out.

 

[Sarcalogos Deus]

There's a special sub-discipline of religious studies exclusively devoted to studying the roots of Judaism within the larger context of the Proto-Semitic religion.

I don't claim to possess more than a cursory knowledge of that specific field, but I do think that no serious scholar denies that Judaism evolved from the larger cultural context of the Proto-Semitic tribes: from polytheism to henotheism to monotheism.
The earliest "OT"-texts are decidedly henotheistic, just as sidhe has pointed out.

The only proof he offered of that was the use of the word "Elohim", which i have shown could have had, and probably did, a strictly monotheistic meaning. There is actually a side of your argument which holds that polytheism devolved from monotheism and not the other way around. Now i will state i don't deny that Judaism could have evolved from the cultural context of the Proto-Semitic tribes i just don't think it evolved in the manner you state. To me it went more like: polytheism to God chose the Jews to be Monotheist.

As for "The earliest "OT"-texts are decidedly henotheistic" I can guarantee you that if you ask any credible scholar on the OT they will agree that the OT caries a strictly Monotheistic tone. In fact ask any common man anywhere to read the OT and they will no doubt come to the same conclusion as the scholars.

I don't care if you believe in multiple gods or not, that's your deal, but i do care when you try to pervert texts sacred to two great monotheistic religions to mean something they don't

 

[Wicked Willow]

The only proof he offered of that was the use of the word "Elohim", which i have shown could have had, and probably did, a strictly monotheistic meaning.

I'm not talking about sidhe, though. I'm talking about the whole discipline of religious studies.

There is actually a side of your argument which holds that polytheism devolved from monotheism and not the other way around.

That is not a hypothesis held in any academic context. In the light of what we do know about cultural anthropology and the history of religion, such a stance would qualify as wishful thinking on the part of monotheistic laymen at best.

Now i will state i don't deny that Judaism could have evolved from the cultural context of the Proto-Semitic tribes i just don't think it evolved in the manner you state. To me it went more like: polytheism to God chose the Jews to be Monotheist.

Naturally, this is the way Abrahamaic believers will establish their self-conception. It just doesn't hold much water in the face of scholarly research.

As for "The earliest "OT"-texts are decidedly henotheistic" I can guarantee you that if you ask any credible scholar on the OT they will agree that the OT caries a strictly Monotheistic tone. In fact ask any common man anywhere to read the OT and they will no doubt come to the same conclusion as the scholars.

What constitutes a "credible scholar" for you? I know of no serious scholar who'd deny or ignore the roots of the biblical texts. That's the domain of evangelical apologists and theologians who have a vested interest in sustaining their own faith at the price of giving up any attempt at unbiased research.
The texts in their present form were compiled (and edited) by people who were already monotheist, but some of them still bear the stamp of an earlier tradition, retaining some polytheistic/henotheistic qualities that didn't land on the cutting table.

I don't care if you believe in multiple gods or not, that's your deal, but i do care when you try to pervert texts sacred to two great monotheistic religions to mean something they don't

See, and that's where we differ: I treat these "sacred" texts the same as any other - if they're special, then their specialness will be untouched by meticulous textual analysis and research.

 

[Sarcalogos Deus]

I'm not talking about sidhe, though. I'm talking about the whole discipline of religious studies.

I know and there are opinions in that field of study to support both our views.

That is not a hypothesis held in any academic context. In the light of what we do know about cultural anthropology and the history of religion, such a stance would qualify as wishful thinking on the part of monotheistic laymen at best.

It is however possible and from a Biblical world view it is supported.

Naturally, this is the way Abrahamaic believers will establish their self-conception. It just doesn't hold much water in the face of scholarly research.

Considering scholars can't actively measure and research God, and considering how they weren't actually there, it is as valid a theory as any other. In fact the key lies in the word Abrahamic. Abraham was the first man chosen by God to teach the Jews that there is only one God from that point forward most of the Jews were monotheist. There is no law saying a religion has to evolve, it is just as likely that it could of went straight from polytheism to monotheism with no in betweens.

What constitutes a "credible scholar" for you? I know of no serious scholar who'd deny or ignore the roots of the biblical texts. That's the domain of evangelical apologists and theologians who have a vested interest in sustaining their own faith at the price of giving up any attempt at unbiased research.

I know of no scholar who would deny the cultural roots of Biblical texts either. Some of the earlier Biblical books were written in a culture of polytheism. That ,however, does not mean the texts have to exhibit polytheist qualities. Honestly think what you want, but no manuscript exists that exhibits these "henotheistic qualities". the Bible as we have it today is the same as when it's books were written there was no editing to cut out "henotheistic qualities". It's just as likely that the "henotheistic qualities" weren't there in the first place. Thousands of years of Jewish and Christian textual study support my view of the texts as do most modern scholars.

The texts in their present form were compiled (and edited) by people who were already monotheist, but some of them still bear the stamp of an earlier tradition, retaining some polytheistic/henotheistic qualities that didn't land on the cutting table.

I would have to ask you to provide proof of this as well. I know of no scholars (apart from Muslim scholars) that hold that the Bible has been extensively changed and edited.

See, and that's where we differ: I treat these "sacred" texts the same as any other - if they're special, then their specialness will be untouched by meticulous textual analysis and research.

So far the only evidence i've been presented to support that the Bible acknowledges the existence of other "powerful spiritual beings" is the use of the word Elohim which i have already addressed. The "powerful spiritual beings" could just as likely be demons and not gods.

 

[Wicked Willow]

So far the only evidence i've been presented to support that the Bible acknowledges the existence of other "powerful spiritual beings" is the use of the word Elohim which i have already addressed. The "powerful spiritual beings" could just as likely be demons and not gods.

Whom does YHVH address when he says ""See, the man has become like one of us, knowing good and evil"?
I know the Christian rationalization that would see this as suggestive of the Trinity, but remember the historical context: we're talking about people who were utterly unfamiliar with that particular Christian concept.

The wording of the first commandment is also quite telling: "you shall have no other gods before me."
NOT "you shall have no other gods instead of me".
NOT "you shall have no other gods."
NOT "there are no other gods".

More henotheism:

Exodus 12:12.
On that same night I will pass through Egypt and strike down every firstborn—both men and animals—and I will bring judgment on all the gods of Egypt. I am the LORD.

Deuteronomy 6:14-15.
Do not follow other gods, any of the gods of the peoples who are all around you, because the LORD your God, who is present with you, is a jealous God.

Joshua 24:2, 14-15.
Long ago your ancestors -- Terah and his sons Abraham and Nahor -- lived beyond the Euphrates and served other gods. [...] Now therefore revere the LORD, and serve him in sincerity and in faithfulness; put away the gods that your ancestors served beyond the River and in Egypt, and serve the LORD. Now if you are unwilling to serve the LORD, choose this day whom you will serve, whether the gods your ancestors served in the region beyond the River or the gods of the Amorites in whose land you are living; but as for me and my household, we will serve the LORD.

Judges 9:9.
The olive tree answered them, "Shall I stop producing my rich oil by which both gods and mortals are honored?"

2 Samuel 7:23.
And who is like your people Israel—the one nation on earth that God went out to redeem as a people for himself, and to make a name for himself, and to perform great and awesome wonders by driving out nations and their gods from before your people, whom you redeemed from Egypt?

2 Chronicles 2:5.
The temple I am going to build will be great, because our God is greater than all other gods.

Psalm 86:8
There is none like you among the gods, O Lord, nor are there any works like yours.

Psalm 138:1
I give you thanks, O Lord, with my whole heart; before the gods I sing your praise.

Micah 4:5
All the nations may walk in the name of their gods; we will walk in the name of the LORD our God for ever and ever.

However, one of the most telling verses is this onesalm 82:1
God has taken his place in the divine council; in the midst of the gods he holds judgment.

 

[Wicked Willow]

I know of no scholars (apart from Muslim scholars) that hold that the Bible has been extensively changed and edited.

Before I stop further derailing the thread, I'll kindly point to the documentary hypothesis and its "heirs". That one, of course, is just talking about the Torah, not the whole of the Tanakh - but I guess you get the drift.

 

[sidhe]

Before I stop further derailing the thread, I'll kindly point to the documentary hypothesis and its "heirs". That one, of course, is just talking about the Torah, not the whole of the Tanakh - but I guess you get the drift.

WW, you have a unique skill, I think, at articulating my thoughts better than I can.

I'm on my iPod right now, waiting on pizza with my daughter, so I can't respond in detail, but here are some of the words for deity in Hebrew I can think of offhand...

El
eloh
Elohim
shaddai
jah
adonai

I'm fairly certain that at one point during either Exodus or Judges, BAyL (Baal) is used as a term for the Israelite deity, but I can't check that right now...

And our pizza is ready . I'll address things further later.

 

[Sarcalogos Deus]

Whom does YHVH address when he says ""See, the man has become like one of us, knowing good and evil"?
I know the Christian rationalization that would see this as suggestive of the Trinity, but remember the historical context: we're talking about people who were utterly unfamiliar with that particular Christian concept.

"Us" is indicating the Trinity not other Gods, in fact that verse and a few others in the first chapters of Genesis are used to support Trinitarian doctrine of them, Genesis 1:26 is the most supportive.

The wording of the first commandment is also quite telling: "you shall have no other gods before me."
NOT "you shall have no other gods instead of me".
NOT "you shall have no other gods."
NOT "there are no other gods".

You don't get what the point of the first commandment was do you? It was not to state that there were no other gods, that was already well established among the Israelites when Moses penned the first commandment. The point of it was to tell us that we will not put anything above (or before) God in importance. For example if i put myself before god does not my ego become my god? You are once again taking the verse out of it's historical context and reading into it what you want to be there.

Exodus 12:12.
On that same night I will pass through Egypt and strike down every firstborn—both men and animals—and I will bring judgment on all the gods of Egypt. I am the LORD.

The Lord showed he was more powerful than the false gods of Egypt. I don't see the contradiction here, and i doubt most scholars would either.

Deuteronomy 6:14-15.
Do not follow other gods, any of the gods of the peoples who are all around you, because the LORD your God, who is present with you, is a jealous God.

John Calvin explains this verse well in his commentary:

14. Ye shall not go after. In this passage Moses commands the people not to turn away from the simple service of God, although examples of superstition may present themselves to their sight on every side. For this was a very destructive temptation, that none could be anywhere found who subscribed to the doctrine of the Law, although the respective nations had some religion, or at any rate the name of it existing among them. Since, therefore, these various forms of worship were so many temptations to forsake the right way, it was needful to provide against the danger betimes, and so to establish the authority of the One God, that the Jews might have courage to despise the common belief of all the Gentiles. A threat is added, that vengeance would not be far off if they should fall away into these superstitions, since God is a jealous God, and dwelling among them. As to the former epithet, I am about to say more under the Second Commandment. Meanwhile, let my readers observe that God is called jealous, because He permits no rivalry which may detract from His glory, nor does He suffer the service which is due to Him alone to be transferred elsewhere. When He reminds the people that he dwells among them, it is partly to inspire terror by reason of His presence, and partly to reprove indirectly their ingratitude, if they should forsake Him, and seek for themselves gods who are afar of.

Joshua 24:2, 14-15.
Long ago your ancestors -- Terah and his sons Abraham and Nahor -- lived beyond the Euphrates and served other gods. [...] Now therefore revere the LORD, and serve him in sincerity and in faithfulness; put away the gods that your ancestors served beyond the River and in Egypt, and serve the LORD. Now if you are unwilling to serve the LORD, choose this day whom you will serve, whether the gods your ancestors served in the region beyond the River or the gods of the Amorites in whose land you are living; but as for me and my household, we will serve the LORD.

Just because it says "gods of the Amorites" does not mean it recognizes them as true. In fact the audience the book was meant for would have obviously know that the "gods of Amorites" were false.

Judges 9:9.
The olive tree answered them, "Shall I stop producing my rich oil by which both gods and mortals are honored?"

First off i would like to point out that the paragraph this verse is in is a parable and everything can not be taken literally, and you would really have to go out and misinterpret this for it to confirm the meaning of other gods. Regardless, Pagan peoples thought that offering oil to gods would honor them and the author stated this no more and no less. He obviously did not confirm their existence

2 Samuel 7:23.
And who is like your people Israel—the one nation on earth that God went out to redeem as a people for himself, and to make a name for himself, and to perform great and awesome wonders by driving out nations and their gods from before your people, whom you redeemed from Egypt?

Once again just because it uses the word "gods" does not somehow magically mean it confirms their existence.

2 Chronicles 2:5.
The temple I am going to build will be great, because our God is greater than all other gods.

Like before you are reading too much into the usage of the word "gods". Any Jew that read this would automatically tell you that by saying "our God is greater than all other gods." they are saying that the Lord is greater than the other false gods that people have created.

Psalm 86:8
There is none like you among the gods, O Lord, nor are there any works like yours.

Read farther in this Psalm and you will see:

8 There is none like thee among the gods, O Lord, nor are there any works like thine.
9 All the nations thou hast made shall come and bow down before thee, O Lord, and shall glorify thy name.
10 For thou art great and doest wondrous things, thou alone art God.


David pretty explicitly indicates here that there is no God other than God. the word "gods" in the Bible does not usually carry the meaning of literal "gods". This is especially the case in the Psalms since they are poetry.

Psalm 138:1
I give you thanks, O Lord, with my whole heart; before the gods I sing your praise.

Like i said earlier the word "gods" almost never means literal "gods", especially in the Psalms. The word used in Hebrew that is translated "gods" can also mean "rulers". So the Psalm could very well read.

I give you thanks, O Lord, with my whole heart; before the kings I sing your praise.

Micah 4:5
All the nations may walk in the name of their gods; we will walk in the name of the LORD our God for ever and ever.

Once again you are reading too much into these verses the writers of the OT were fond of poetic effect. I will say it again just because it uses the word "gods" does not automatically mean that the Israelites believed other gods existed

Read all of these verses in context (especially the Psalms since they are poetry) and the meaning becomes clear, and that meaning is not henotheism.

Additionally i would like to point these passages:

10 "You are my witnesses," says the LORD, "and my servant whom I have chosen, 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. 11 I, I am the LORD, and besides me there is no savior. 12 I declared and saved and proclaimed, when there was no strange god among you; and you are my witnesses," says the LORD. 13 "I am God, and also henceforth I am He; there is none who can deliver from my hand; I work and who can hinder it?" Isaiah 43:10-13

We see here that before the Lord no God was formed we also see that no God was formed after him, therefore there is only one God.

Also see these verses in Isaiah:
Thus saith the LORD the King of Israel, and His redeemer the LORD of hosts; "I am the first, and I am the last; and beside Me there is no God."-Isaiah 44:6

"Fear ye not, neither be afraid: have not I told thee from that time, and have declared it? ye are even My witnesses. Is there a God beside Me? yea, there is no God; I know not any."-Isaiah 44:8

However, one of the most telling verses is this onesalm 82:1
God has taken his place in the divine council; in the midst of the gods he holds judgment.

If you read farther you will see this

1 <A Psalm of Asaph.> God has taken his place in the divine council; in the midst of the gods he holds judgment:
2 "How long will you judge unjustly and show partiality to the wicked? Selah
3 Give justice to the weak and the fatherless; maintain the right of the afflicted and the destitute.
4 Rescue the weak and the needy; deliver them from the hand of the wicked."
5 They have neither knowledge nor understanding, they walk about in darkness; all the foundations of the earth are shaken.
6 I say, "You are gods, sons of the Most High, all of you;
7 nevertheless, you shall die like men, and fall like any prince."
8 Arise, O God, judge the earth; for to thee belong all the nations!

In the context of this Psalm "gods" is used as a synonym for "sons of the Most High" which in turn means righteous men. So the line can read like this if it's meaning is interpreted. Furthermore the divine council is the council of Angels that surrounds God

God has taken his place in the divine council; in the midst of the righteous he holds judgment.

Before I stop further derailing the thread, I'll kindly point to the documentary hypothesis and its "heirs". That one, of course, is just talking about the Torah, not the whole of the Tanakh - but I guess you get the drift.

I read through it and it does not appear very convincing, It even says most modern scholars have abandoned it as a explanation. The fact that it is still a hypothesis after all this time makes it even more unconvincing to me, because if there is enough proof to make it a theory surely it would have been found by now. After all a hypothesis is a proposed explanation for an observable phenomenon.


I would like to ask this though. If the Lord was but one of many gods, why did the other gods not stop the Lord when he took over their lands? Why did they not ally themselves against the Lord and stop him when he began to spread across Europe? Surely a whole host of gods and goddesses could have stopped the Lord when he had but one lowly people to serve him. The gods of Egypt were much more numerous than the Lord and they had many more worshipers, but they still could not stop the Lord when he visited the plagues upon Egypt, why? Why i ask you, why could these other gods not stop the Lord?