Biblical Literary criticism: valid?

[GoodAttention]

Pretty much. Paganism basically see various powers in the world, and those powers that greatly affect humanity are worshiped, seeking to placate them so that the humans don't get squished by them. Monotheism is a whole different idea, a Creator God who exists outside the space/time universe.

I'm not sure why you think this. When it says God walked in the garden in the cool of the evening, that is certainly personification.

It says Enoch walked, not God walked.

I'm not sure why you think that anything God created is somehow another god. I don't find that in Genesis at all. The fact that the sun and moon mark time for humans is really not at all making them gods.

“Let there be lights in the vault of the sky to separate the day from the night, and let them serve as signs to mark sacred times, and days and years” these are the constellations and planets, Vedic gods are personified former and Babylonian gods later.

“and let them be lights in the vault of the sky to give light on the earth.” This is sun and moon.

Depends on what you mean by son of God.

The nephilim in Genesis are not gods.

Their fathers are Sons of God. Gilgamesh is the perfect example of a nephilim.

Genesis 6 is the instance I'm speaking of. The second place "sons of God" is used is in Job, where it refers to angels. It does not mean angels are literal sons of God. It is a metaphor meant to show that their relationship to God is very close, like a father to a son.

Also one subordinate to the other.

The only time the Tanakh uses the phrase son of God (singular) is Daniel 3:25 where it remarks that the fourth being in the fiery furnace, an angel, is LIKE a son of God, not that it actually is.

Nebuchadnezzar wouldn’t know.

It is only when you encounter the Christian scriptures that there is indication that a "son of God" is somehow literal.

Yes, but they don’t honour the son being subordinate to the father.

 

[GoodAttention]

Monotheism is a whole different idea, a Creator God who exists outside the space/time universe.

Evidence for this in the scriptures?

 

[Tomef]

Is biblical literary criticism reliant on flimsy assumptions?
Does biblical criticism in general start its investigation with a decided conclusion beforehand I.e. the belief that God of the Bible isn’t real?

The assumptions of literary criticism are that the bible is a book, and people wrote it. Afaik everyone agrees on that. Christians believe it to be a divinely inspired book, but for literary criticism that question is irrelevant. Like for example the use of acrostic poetry in the OT, literary criticism looks at the form of the poem, how that reflects the intent of the writer (to affirm or teach something etc.), how it compares with other writings from the time, and other questions of that sort. Whether or not the text is actually true, as in did Moses actually glow or whatever, is irrelevant to that approach.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

It says Enoch walked, not God walked.

Genesis 3:8
And they heard the voice of the Lord God, walking in the garden in the cool of the day. And Adam and his wife hid themselves from the presence of the Lord God amongst the trees of the garden.

“Let there be lights in the vault of the sky to separate the day from the night, and let them serve as signs to mark sacred times, and days and years” these are the constellations and planets, Vedic gods are personified former and Babylonian gods later.

“and let them be lights in the vault of the sky to give light on the earth.” This is sun and moon.

Again, nothing about the sun or moon and how they are used to measure time means that they are gods, or sons of god.

I'm not sure why you are bringing up the Babylonians and Hindus. Their religions are not even related to Judaism. They can believe whatever they want. It is irrelevant to my religion.

Their fathers are Sons of God. Gilgamesh is the perfect example of a nephilim.

HaB'nei Elohim are not gods in any way, shape, size or form. They are not even angels. They are ordinary men who were of enormous moral stature and who had great power. The story is also not historical.

Nebuchadnezzar wouldn’t know.

I don't think we know one way or the other what Nebuchadnezzar thought. But for the sake of argument, let's assume you are correct. It's irrelevant. His perceptions do not alter reality.

Yes, but they don’t honour the son being subordinate to the father.

That is a point you are really better of debating with a fellow Christian, since as a Jew I do not accept the "Father, Son, and Holy Ghost."

I'm not really sure why, but the website does not appear to list you as a member. You might want to look into that.

 

[GoodAttention]

Genesis 3:8
And they heard the voice of the Lord God, walking in the garden in the cool of the day. And Adam and his wife hid themselves from the presence of the Lord God amongst the trees of the garden.


Again, nothing about the sun or moon and how they are used to measure time means that they are gods, or sons of god.

I believed you posed the question that true monotheism needs to deny other Gods exist.

I attempted to meet you in the middle and say, if other gods are claimed by non-Jews, then the Jewish scriptures acknowledge them already as creations of God. Would this acknowledgement help you with the monotheism vs monoltry question

I'm not sure why you are bringing up the Babylonians and Hindus. Their religions are not even related to Judaism. They can believe whatever they want. It is irrelevant to my religion.

The relevence is we live on the same planet, so if you want to deny anothers/other Gods to achieve monotheism then how will you do it?

I'm not really sure why, but the website does not appear to list you as a member. You might want to look into that.

? My words must be magical then.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

? My words must be magical then.

They are. I very much do enjoy chatting with you.

I believed you posed the question that true monotheism needs to deny other Gods exist.

I attempted to meet you in the middle and say, if other gods are claimed by non-Jews, then the Jewish scriptures acknowledge them already as creations of God. Would this acknowledgement help you with the monotheism vs monoltry question

I'm not trying to be dense here I suspect that we are having some kind of misunderstanding. Thanks in advance for your patience with me. I'm simply not seeing the dots connected. I also apologize in advance that this post is so long.

The question was whether Ancient Israel was monotheistic. The answer to that lies only in what the Israelites believed, not what any other group believed. The same is true in reverse; if we were asking if Hindus were polytheistic, we would look at Hindu beliefs and not the beliefs of Ancient Israelites.

I tend to view the opening chapters of Genesis as edited during Babylon, or even after, to support a monotheistic position. The fact that the sun and moon are presented as creation rather than Creator, is something we would expect find in monotheism, not monolatry.

The relevence is we live on the same planet, so if you want to deny anothers/other Gods to achieve monotheism then how will you do it?

By making remarks either indirectly, such your illustration of Genesis 1 where the sun and moon are denoted as creation, not as gods, or directly by saying these other gods are not real.

For example, the entire passage about Elijah having the offering duel with the priests of Baal teaches that Baal is not real (as evidence by his lack of response) while YHWH is real (as shown by his power to send fire upon the soaked alter).

Isaiah 45:5
I am the LORD, and there is no other; apart from me there is no god.

Psalm 115:4-8
"Their idols are silver and gold,
the work of human hands.
They have mouths, but do not speak;
eyes, but do not see.
They have ears, but do not hear;
noses, but do not smell.
They have hands, but do not feel;
feet, but do not walk;
and they do not make a sound in their throat.
Those who make them become like them;
so do all who trust in them."

There are many similar passages.

When you add archeological evidence into the mix, we find that the Israelites did indeed begin with polytheism and moved into monolatry. True monotheism didn't really exist until Babylon.

The norm was, if you were conquered by another city or empire, you would believe it was because their god was stronger than yours, so you would begin worshiping their god. But when the Jew went into captivity, something completely new happened, and no one can even explain why. Instead of saying, "Their god must be stronger," they began to say, "YHWH is not just the God of Israel, but of all the world, including Babylon." That sort of statement completely negates any previous polytheism.

Psalm 24:1
"The earth is the LORD’s, and the fullness thereof; the world, and they that dwell therein."

Psalm 47:2
"For the LORD Most High is to be feared, a great King over all the earth."

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

HaB'nei Elohim are not gods in any way, shape, size or form. They are not even angels. They are ordinary men who were of enormous moral stature and who had great power.

Your certainty is unwarranted; it is a preferred interpretation of בְנֵי־הָאֱלֹהִים that reflects selection bias more than anything else.

So, for example, it is not the rendering offered by the JPS, or R.E. Friedman, or Robert Alter,. See, also. Job 1:6 and Job 2:1 as noted in the Wikipedia entry (worthwhile reading).

(BTW, it is not HaB'nei Elohim but, rather, b'nei ha'eloim [בְנֵי־הָֽאֱלֹהִים֙].)

 

[IndigoChild5559]

Your certainty is unwarranted; it is a preferred interpretation of בְנֵי־הָאֱלֹהִים that reflects selection bias more than anything else.

I'm well aware that there is more than one interpretation in Judaism. However, yes, as you say I am quite certain of THIS particular interpretation, taught to me by one of my Orthodox rabbis. For me, it fits much better into my world view where I do not ascribe things to the supernatural that can be explained as perfectly natural. However, in the case of this Rabbi, he absolutely had a supernatural view of a great many things, yet also accepted this interpretation.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Your certainty is unwarranted; it is a preferred interpretation of בְנֵי־הָאֱלֹהִים that reflects selection bias more than anything else.

I'm well aware that there is more than one interpretation in Judaism. However, yes, as you say I am quite certain of THIS particular interpretation, taught to me by one of my Orthodox rabbis. For me, it fits much better into my world view where I do not ascribe things to the supernatural that can be explained as perfectly natural. However, in the case of this Rabbi, he absolutely had a supernatural view of a great many things, yet also accepted this interpretation.

So you picked an atypical rendering taught to you by one of your Orthodox rabbis because it fits better into your world view, and then proceed to promote it as fact. That is not only a textbook example of selection bias, it's also a rather sad example of chutzpah and a contempt for scholarship.

 

[GoodAttention]

They are. I very much do enjoy chatting with you.

Likewise.

I'm not trying to be dense here I suspect that we are having some kind of misunderstanding. Thanks in advance for your patience with me. I'm simply not seeing the dots connected. I also apologize in advance that this post is so long.

The question was whether Ancient Israel was monotheistic.

I would politefully disagree and say this is not the correct question. I believe Abraham's God is only the God of Israel because the Israelites are the "closest" to monotheistic beliefs. Only God is absolute, therefore any belief "in" or "towards" Him can only be "relatively speaking".

The answer to that lies only in what the Israelites believed, not what any other group believed. The same is true in reverse; if we were asking if Hindus were polytheistic, we would look at Hindu beliefs and not the beliefs of Ancient Israelites.

For example, you and I could be in a car crash, we will agree that is fact. However we can disagree on who was to blame (it was you btw), the circumstances that led to it etc etc. Why is it important that it only Hindus or Israelites be driving cars on a "one lane" road to God? Does it matter who invented the car? So what? I was riding a horse before then? Oh yeh, well I was riding a dinosaur before you!

The reality is there was a clash in theological beliefs, both the Hebrew scriptures and Hindu beliefs attest to this.

I tend to view the opening chapters of Genesis as edited during Babylon, or even after, to support a monotheistic position. The fact that the sun and moon are presented as creation rather than Creator, is something we would expect find in monotheism, not monolatry.

By making remarks either indirectly, such your illustration of Genesis 1 where the sun and moon are denoted as creation, not as gods, or directly by saying these other gods are not real.

For example, the entire passage about Elijah having the offering duel with the priests of Baal teaches that Baal is not real (as evidence by his lack of response) while YHWH is real (as shown by his power to send fire upon the soaked alter).

Just my side note/interpretation here. It's not that Baal isn't real, it is because he is dead. Baal is a cognate of Ab'al, brother and victim to Kain.

Isaiah 45:5
I am the LORD, and there is no other; apart from me there is no god.

Psalm 115:4-8
"Their idols are silver and gold,
the work of human hands.
They have mouths, but do not speak;
eyes, but do not see.
They have ears, but do not hear;
noses, but do not smell.
They have hands, but do not feel;
feet, but do not walk;
and they do not make a sound in their throat.
Those who make them become like them;
so do all who trust in them."

I thank you for this! If I can hijack only for a moment...

@Ehav4Ever @dybmh
This isn't proof that Terah was a idol maker. Let me ask, would you expect Terah, the father of Abraham, father of all Jews, to have made his wealth from real estate or idols?

He wasn't an idol maker, he just owned the shop the guy was making idols out of!

There are many similar passages.

When you add archeological evidence into the mix, we find that the Israelites did indeed begin with polytheism and moved into monolatry. True monotheism didn't really exist until Babylon.

The norm was, if you were conquered by another city or empire, you would believe it was because their god was stronger than yours, so you would begin worshiping their god. But when the Jew went into captivity, something completely new happened, and no one can even explain why. Instead of saying, "Their god must be stronger," they began to say, "YHWH is not just the God of Israel, but of all the world, including Babylon." That sort of statement completely negates any previous polytheism.

Psalm 24:1
"The earth is the LORD’s, and the fullness thereof; the world, and they that dwell therein."

Psalm 47:2
"For the LORD Most High is to be feared, a great King over all the earth."

You raise the most important question every Jewish person should ask themselves..

"Am I smarter than King Cyrus?"

A King who, as you ascertain yourself, went against ALL known historical norms, and financed to build a temple to a God that wasn't his own.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

I would politefully disagree and say this is not the correct question. I believe Abraham's God is only the God of Israel

You are welcome to have any beliefs you wish. But in Judaism, God is not just the God of Israel. He is the God of all the world.

because the Israelites are the "closest" to monotheistic beliefs.

I'm not understanding why you think the above is a reason for YHWH to be only the God of Israel.

Only God is absolute, therefore any belief "in" or "towards" Him can only be "relatively speaking".

I have no idea what you are trying to say.

For example, you and I could be in a car crash, we will agree that is fact. However we can disagree on who was to blame (it was you btw), the circumstances that led to it etc etc. Why is it important that it only Hindus or Israelites be driving cars on a "one lane" road to God? Does it matter who invented the car? So what? I was riding a horse before then? Oh yeh, well I was riding a dinosaur before you!

Not following.

Just my side note/interpretation here. It's not that Baal isn't real, it is because he is dead.

Ba'al literally means lord. It refers to a number of deities in the near east, the Canaanite storm god being the one we are most familiar with. You have given an incomplete version of the Canaanite myth. Yes, Mot kills Baal, but if you finish the story, Baal comes back to life and defeats Mot.

Baal is a cognate of Ab'al, brother and victim to Kain.

I would disagree. They are not cognates. Phoenician is a dialect of Canaanite. It is quite obvious that they are different words. As I said, Ba'al means lord. Ab'el means "father god" or "father of god."

By Kain, are you referring to Cain in Genesis? It appears you are writing the name Abel as Ab'al. That is completely strange. Jews normally write the name of Abel as "Hevel" (הֶבֶל) in Hebrew. Whatever Ab'al you are referring to is NOT the Abel in the Genesis story.

I thank you for this! If I can hijack only for a moment...

@Ehav4Ever @dybmh
This isn't proof that Terah was a idol maker. Let me ask, would you expect Terah, the father of Abraham, father of all Jews, to have made his wealth from real estate or idols?

The idea that Terah was an idol maker actually comes from Jewish tradition, not the Bible.

There are a number of places, but perhaps the best known is Babylonian Talmud, Tractate Sanhedrin 99b, which has the midrash of Abraham destroying all the idols except one, and putting a club in the hands of that one. When Terah returns and inquires, Abram says "He did it" pointing to the idol. Terah says that ridiculous, idols can't do that. To which Abram replies, Then why do you worship them.

He wasn't an idol maker, he just owned the shop the guy was making idols out of!

In Genesis Rabba 38:13, Terah is depicted as a maker of idols. The text describes him as a craftsman who made and sold idols.

You raise the most important question every Jewish person should ask themselves..

"Am I smarter than King Cyrus?"

Why should I ask that question? It is completely irrelevant what our respective IQs are.

A King who, as you ascertain yourself, went against ALL known historical norms, and financed to build a temple to a God that wasn't his own.

There have been other instances of Kings supporting religions that they don't personally hold to.

Constantine was a pagan for almost all of his entire life. Yet he passed the edict of Milan, ending the persecution of Christians. He allocated funds for the construction of churches, including the Church of the Holy Sepulchre in Jerusalem and the original St. Peter's Basilica in Rome.

Ptolemy II was a Hellenistic ruler who supported and patronized various religious and cultural practices in his realm. Although he was a follower of Greek religion, he funded and supported the Jewish community, including the translation of the Hebrew Bible into Greek (the Septuagint). That's significant support for Judaism.

King Shihuang of China was a proponent of Legalism. Nevertheless, even though he not a practitioner of Buddhism, he supported the construction of Buddhist temples and the spread of Buddhism.

King Ashoka of India was a Hindu who later converted to Buddhism. Yet during his reign, he made significant contributions to Jain temples and supported Jain monks.

You gotta love AI. It makes finding these sort of things so much easier.

 

[GoodAttention]

You are welcome to have any beliefs you wish. But in Judaism, God is not just the God of Israel. He is the God of all the world.

I'm not understanding why you think the above is a reason for YHWH to be only the God of Israel.

I have no idea what you are trying to say.

Not following.

Ba'al literally means lord. It refers to a number of deities in the near east, the Canaanite storm god being the one we are most familiar with. You have given an incomplete version of the Canaanite myth. Yes, Mot kills Baal, but if you finish the story, Baal comes back to life and defeats Mot.

I would disagree. They are not cognates. Phoenician is a dialect of Canaanite. It is quite obvious that they are different words. As I said, Ba'al means lord. Ab'el means "father god" or "father of god."

By Kain, are you referring to Cain in Genesis? It appears you are writing the name Abel as Ab'al. That is completely strange. Jews normally write the name of Abel as "Hevel" (הֶבֶל) in Hebrew. Whatever Ab'al you are referring to is NOT the Abel in the Genesis story.

The idea that Terah was an idol maker actually comes from Jewish tradition, not the Bible.

There are a number of places, but perhaps the best known is Babylonian Talmud, Tractate Sanhedrin 99b, which has the midrash of Abraham destroying all the idols except one, and putting a club in the hands of that one. When Terah returns and inquires, Abram says "He did it" pointing to the idol. Terah says that ridiculous, idols can't do that. To which Abram replies, Then why do you worship them.

In Genesis Rabba 38:13, Terah is depicted as a maker of idols. The text describes him as a craftsman who made and sold idols.

Why should I ask that question? It is completely irrelevant what our respective IQs are.

There have been other instances of Kings supporting religions that they don't personally hold to.

Constantine was a pagan for almost all of his entire life. Yet he passed the edict of Milan, ending the persecution of Christians. He allocated funds for the construction of churches, including the Church of the Holy Sepulchre in Jerusalem and the original St. Peter's Basilica in Rome.

Ptolemy II was a Hellenistic ruler who supported and patronized various religious and cultural practices in his realm. Although he was a follower of Greek religion, he funded and supported the Jewish community, including the translation of the Hebrew Bible into Greek (the Septuagint). That's significant support for Judaism.

King Shihuang of China was a proponent of Legalism. Nevertheless, even though he not a practitioner of Buddhism, he supported the construction of Buddhist temples and the spread of Buddhism.

King Ashoka of India was a Hindu who later converted to Buddhism. Yet during his reign, he made significant contributions to Jain temples and supported Jain monks.

You gotta love AI. It makes finding these sort of things so much easier.

Okay! I am getting an understanding of what is the foundational question.

Were the Ancient Israelites monotheists?

Another question is, did the Samaritans exist and were they monotheists?

 

[Ehav4Ever]

@Ehav4Ever @dybmh
This isn't proof that Terah was a idol maker. Let me ask, would you expect Terah, the father of Abraham, father of all Jews, to have made his wealth from real estate or idols?
He wasn't an idol maker, he just owned the shop the guy was making idols out of!

In order not to derail this thread. I will start a seperate thread to answer this question.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Were the Ancient Israelites monotheists?

Are Italians Catholic? Some are and some not so much.
The early Israelites were predominately monolatrous at best.

Another question is, did the Samaritans exist and were they monotheists?

Much depends on your definition of Samaritan but, given any reasonable definition, (a) they existed, and (b) were likewise monolatrous at best.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

Okay! I am getting an understanding of what is the foundational question.

Were the Ancient Israelites monotheists?

How ancient is ancient? Israelite monotheism didn't come into existence until the Babylonian exile, which was in the 6th century BCE. Before that, the Israelites were at best monolatrous.

Another question is, did the Samaritans exist and were they monotheists?

Samaritanism has been monotheistic for much of its history. However, in its early days it was polytheistic or monolatrous. Samaritans were influenced by the monotheism of the Jews who returned from Babylon.

 

[GoodAttention]

Are Italians Catholic? Some are and some not so much.
The early Israelites were predominately monolatrous at best.



Much depends on your definition of Samaritan but, given any reasonable definition, (a) they existed, and (b) were likewise monolatrous at best.

I wasn't the one posing the question, I was merely repeating it for *dramatic effecttttttt*

But thanks for your input.

 

[GoodAttention]

How ancient is ancient? Israelite monotheism didn't come into existence until the Babylonian exile, which was in the 6th century BCE. Before that, the Israelites were at best monolatrous.

Samaritanism has been monotheistic for much of its history. However, in its early days it was polytheistic or monolatrous. Samaritans were influenced by the monotheism of the Jews who returned from Babylon.

Great thanks for the answer.

To move from monoltrous to monotheism, you need to

(a) deny other gods exists as gods and/or
(b) shows other gods/beliefs systems are incorrect

How does a monoltrous person become a monotheist?

 

[Ehav4Ever]

Were the Ancient Israelites monotheists?

Another question is, did the Samaritans exist and were they monotheists?

Just FYI. I have a thread I started a while back in the Orthodox Judaism DIR, which I update from time to time. It addresses both of these issues using sources from Jewish texts in Hebrew, Samaritan texts in Hebrew, and also archeology.

Hashem as the single Source of creation (Ancient Yisraeli / Yehudi Concept)

In this thread I will be addressing the issue of whether or not the ancestors of modern day Torath Mosheh and Orthodox Jews at some point changed from following the fundamentals of the Torah as expressed in the Talmud and by the Rishonim. The Torah fundamental I will be addressing is the nature...

www.religiousforums.com

The following two, also in the Orthodox Judaism DIR will help.

The Problem with the use of the word Judaism to describe something prior to ~1300 CE

In this thread I will be discussing the problems with English articles, texts, etc. that discuss or attempt to describe any form of Ivri, Yisraeli (Israeli) or Yehudi (Jewish) practice using the word Judaism to do so. Using terminology found in ancient documents will be necessary for what I will...

www.religiousforums.com

The Written Torah - How It Came About and Who Wrote It

In this thread I will discuss the historical / traditional claim made by Torah based Jews / Orthodox Jews, Samaritans, and even Karaites that the written text of the Torah was dictated by the Creator of all things to Mosheh ben-Amram and that the current Torah texts of ancient Torah based...

www.religiousforums.com

 

[IndigoChild5559]

Great thanks for the answer.

To move from monoltrous to monotheism, you need to

(a) deny other gods exists as gods and/or
(b) shows other gods/beliefs systems are incorrect

How does a monoltrous person become a monotheist?

Like I said, no one really understands how the Jews made that jump from "YHWH is the God of Israel" to "YHWH is the God of all the world."

Part of monotheism is a reorientation of a what a god even is. In paganism, god really means power. The gods were those things in the natural world that had a lot of power over humans: storms, rivers, rulers. In monotheism, the idea is that God is outside of nature, the creator, not the creation. But it can be argued that this shift in view was the result of monotheism, rather than the cause.

 

[LeftyLen]

When I was a staunch young earther Bible literalist, I viewed literary criticism of the Bible as nothing but a bunch of unfounded assumptions. Now I’m looking at it from a different light. I have some books written by biblical scholars, the Anchor Bible Series is a great collection of the Bible with scholarly commentary.
There is this theory called the Documentary Hypothesis which organizes the first five books of the Bible into various hypothetical authors. I used to think that it was rather flimsy, (as a layman, I’m no scholar).
Just, with the Documentary hypothesis, they suppose that an author cannot use more than one name for God. They say one author says Elohim, while another author says Yahweh. Would it have been impossible for Moses to use both those names? I know when I was a Christian, I used more than one name.
With Isaiah, scholars say there is three authors. They say this because of different writing styles. As a Christian, I countered this in my head by saying that Isaiah wrote the book over the course of his life. So, it made sense that there was variation of literary style.
I was looking at biblical scholarship with a closed mind, already set that the Bible was the literal word of God. Now I’m ready to reevaluate biblical criticism with an open mind. I’m reading A History of God by Karen Armstrong for starters.
Are there any scholars on this site? I ask scholars and layman alike though the following questions, as I am a layman myself.
Is biblical literary criticism reliant on flimsy assumptions?
Does biblical criticism in general start its investigation with a decided conclusion beforehand I.e. the belief that God of the Bible isn’t real?
Is viewing the literary style of a book a valid way of determining various authors?

The Documentary hypothesis still valid?