Israelites were polytheistic

[Shermana]

Say, ‘As for me, my Lord has guided me unto a straight path — a right religion, the religion of Abraham, the upright. And he was not of those who join gods with God.’

This Quran verse does not at all show that he was not a Henotheist, it only shows that he was not a direct Polytheist. Joining other gods with God as if they're equal (cough Trinity cough) was what's being referred to. The Bible clearly says that angels are called "gods", hands down. So what Abraham didn't do was attribute any of these inferior lesser "gods" (though still powerful beings) with the same Power and Authority (and rank) as El Elyion, "The most high (of the gods)". The word "Most high god" is often confused to have the "You are most welcome" connotation of "most". It means "Highest".

Henotheistic Polytheism essentially is Monotheism.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Henotheistic Polytheism essentially is Monotheism.

Nonsense.

 

[outhouse]

That's why when you read some poster pontificating about how 'it happened in 622 bce,' there's little to do but laugh at such foolishnes and allocate the source a place of honor on one's ignore list.

I have never stated it happened in 622 BC

but the switch to monotheism's foundation was laid with a strict Yahwist king


the term Yahwist states it all, but your bias gets the best of you.

 

[outhouse]

You know, it's interesting: for all my having studied the text and the scholarship, I often forget that the simplest points can be the most persuasive.

Looking at text that definitely comes from Babylonian and early Second Temple times, such as Ezra and Nechemiah, it is actually striking how different the language, the style, the idiom, and the structure are from texts posited to be potentially much earlier, such as Genesis and Exodus. And it's not as easy to dismiss as writing it off to the differences between D-school authors and J/E authors, even with the evening out from redaction. Any part of Genesis or Exodus sounds more like Deuteronomy or Judges/Samuel than it does Ezra/Nechemiah or Esther or Proverbs or Lamentations.

The differences in usage, style, and construction are perhaps not as stark as the differences between Chaucer and Tennyson in English literature, but then, Hebrew has evolved in a far more restrained and nuanced fashion than has English. But the differences here are at least as notable, I would say, as the difference between Shakespeare and Alexander Pope. And that is a very different language: one could not mistake the one for the other.

That convinces me anew that early Torah layers simply must predate the Babylonian Exile: they just don't read like later texts, in any fashion.

But I also have to concur about questioning the shift to monotheism. Such major theological shifts in an entire people don't take place overnight, and don't take place in a vacuum. Given that it seems quite clear that Jews were monotheistic by the early to mid-Second Temple Period at the very latest, how would that have come to pass had there not been a substantial movement toward monotheism for some considerable time previous?

.

excellent post, your always on target with a decent rebuttle.



while I will argue the fragmentation of the early books is a undertsatement. I think modern scholarships have a pretty good grasp on dating the layers. And I dont argue it.

No, it simply stands to reason that there was a progressively more widespread movement from henotheism to monolatry to monotheism that took place during the First Temple Period, finishing in the Babylonian Exile

Im certain parts of the population this would be true, allthough I dont think you have any evidence at all this would fly for the population as a whole.



again. we need some kind of refference to Yahwist taking over, and we dont see that until the Yahwist king after 622 and biblical text states at that time they were still worshipping other deities. This was right before the exile and war was imminent, devotion to Yahweh Sabaoth would have grown under the new Yahwist king.

As well with the fall of the temple we know this had a great effect with judaism as a whole.


There is nothing that states Yahwist who placed other deities lower then him, and that El had vanished as a father deity which is found all through E

 

[outhouse]

heres a article by Thom Stark

Polytheism and Human Sacrifice in Early Israelite Religion ~ ExChristian.Net

Who is the Yahweh of the Israelites?

Well as scholars like Frank Cross, Chris Rollston, Mark Smith and others have demonstrated and have known for some time, the earliest texts in the Hebrew Bible give a strong indication that the early conception of Yahweh was that he was an ancient Near Eastern tribal deity. As I argue in my book, following Rollston, the Song of Moses in Deut 32 indicates that Yahweh was believed to have been one of the children of the Canaanite deity El Elyon (God Most High). The song describes how the nations were originally formed, and what it says is that the peoples of the earth were divided up according to the number of El Elyon’s children (the junior members of the divine pantheon). Yahweh, Israel’s patron deity, was one of Elyon’s children.

The best evidence suggests that Yahweh did not begin as the “only true God” of later Jewish monotheism; he did not begin as the creator of the world. Yahweh began as a young, up-and-coming tribal deity whose prowess among other gods mirrored Israel’s aspirations vis-a-vis surrounding tribes and nations.

Tell us more about this evolution from tribal deity to monotheism.

Well as Chris Rollston argues, there are various stages in Israel’s progression from polytheism to monotheism. Yahweh begins as a junior member of the divine pantheon. This is the view during the tribal confederation period of Israel’s history. After Israel became a monarchy, Yahweh gets a promotion to head of the pantheon, taking his father Elyon’s place. (This parallels similar ideas in Babylonian literature, in which Marduk’s ascendancy to king of the gods mirrors the rise of the Babylonian empire.)

Over time, Yahweh and Elyon are conflated, they sort of merge into one god. At this stage Yahweh starts to be seen as creator-god. But in this period, Israel still believes in other gods; it’s just that they’re not supposed to worship other gods because they owed their allegiance to Yahweh, their patron deity. Of course, Yahweh was believed to have had a wife, Asherah, and it is clear that Israelites worshiped her as Yahweh’s consort.

This seems to have been acceptable orthodoxy until the seventh century BCE or so. At that point, prophets like Jeremiah began to polemicize other gods, calling into doubt their very existence. This idea that Yahweh alone is God is solidified during the Babylonian exile in the sixth century, for a complex set of reasons. This is when official Israelite religion finally became monotheistic.

 

[tumbleweed41]

Henotheistic Polytheism essentially is Monotheism.

 

[outhouse]

how does Stark above differenciate form Armstrong???

 

[tumbleweed41]

Honestly.

I think the biggest problem here is a seemingly willing failure to see that monolatry and henotheism ARE polytheistic.

• Finding a quote from someone who talks about polytheism up until monotheism DOES NOT negate the progression WITHIN polytheism of monolatry and henotheism.
• Finding carvings of a god identified with Yahweh and his asherah DOES NOT negate the progression WITHIN polytheism of monolatry and henotheism.
• Debating the origin of Yahweh DOES NOT negate the progression WITHIN polytheism of monolatry and henotheism.
• The specifics of the Documentary Hypothesis DO NOT negate the progression WITHIN polytheism of monolatry and henotheism.

And finaly, arguing about the "population as a whole" is meaningless. This is a discussion about the evolution of Yahweh worship, not a census of of the entire Cannanite region to eventually be known as Israel.

 

[Shermana]

Why the face palm? The issue is basically a matter of Semantics. If there's one greater god who rules all of the lesser gods and has power over them, they're basically in two categories of the word "god". What is "Monotheism" then? If the other "gods" can't do anything without the "Great gods" power, how is not?

The Bible itself, which says that angels are "gods" flat out denies the modern Semantic of "Monotheism". The point is that if there is one Supreme god, the concept is basically the same. The other "gods" aren't really on the same level. They're beings which man is "made a little lower than". If there are two categories of what a "god" is (the Supreme god who reigns vs the inferior gods), then with Henotheism, you are still saying there is no other "greater god" than the one god, all the other "gods" aren't really the same class of "god" in this case. The word "god" (el) itself means "Power" or "overtaking force". But if a "power" or "overtaking force" has a power greater than it, is it truly a "True power"? I believe this was what Isaiah was getting at.

In fact, we can see that with the use of the word "El" as in "The power of your hand", that may be a case against the idea that "El" was an adopted Canaanite deity, since it's a vocabulary term in itself that has connotations other than beings.

If Monotheists accept the idea of Angels, then they must accept that the angels are referred to as "gods". So the issue is what exactly "Monotheism" entail that Henotheism doesn't?

 

[jasonwill2]

Why the face palm? The issue is basically a matter of Semantics. If there's one greater god who rules all of the lesser gods and has power over them, they're basically in two categories of the word "god". What is "Monotheism" then? If the other "gods" can't do anything without the "Great gods" power, how is not?

The Bible itself, which says that angels are "gods" flat out denies the modern Semantic of "Monotheism". The point is that if there is one Supreme god, the concept is basically the same. The other "gods" aren't really on the same level. They're beings which man is "made a little lower than". If there are two categories of what a "god" is (the Supreme god who reigns vs the inferior gods), then with Henotheism, you are still saying there is no other "greater god" than the one god, all the other "gods" aren't really the same class of "god" in this case. The word "god" (el) itself means "Power" or "overtaking force". But if a "power" or "overtaking force" has a power greater than it, is it truly a "True power"? I believe this was what Isaiah was getting at.

In fact, we can see that with the use of the word "El" as in "The power of your hand", that may be a case against the idea that "El" was an adopted Canaanite deity, since it's a vocabulary term in itself that has connotations other than beings.

If Monotheists accept the idea of Angels, then they must accept that the angels are referred to as "gods". So the issue is what exactly "Monotheism" entail that Henotheism doesn't?

I'm not expert... but that is still not monotheism. if Henotheism is Monotheism why do they have different definitions?

 

[Shermana]

I'm not expert... but that is still not monotheism. if Henotheism is Monotheism why do they have different definitions?

They really shouldn't, that's kind of what I'm getting at. I think this distinction is based on total misunderstanding of basic terms. Otherwise, it should be known once and for all that the Hebrew Bible is NOT by any means "Monotheistic" whatsoever and that this concept of "Abrahamic Monotheism" is one of the biggest misnomers in history. I'm not even getting into the Christian Trinity here, but I've also noticed that a lot of Trinity arguments depend on this distorted understanding of the meaning of the word "god." I can't help but wonder if this whole "Monotheism" thing is a Trinitarian attempt to not look like the Polytheists they are and the Rabbinicists as well kind of just tagged along to the idea, similar to how the JPS just took the KJV and ran with it, I think they both lost the idea and went with a term that the Bible does not endorse at all.

By this definition of "Monotheism" in which there are no other beings called "gods" regardless of their rank, power, and position, it's utterly delusional to think that the scripture is monotheistic when it in fact refers to angels as "gods". It even says that we Israelites are "gods". So thus, if the whole argument is just about the word "god" only applying to God himself, it's Henotheistic in the sense that men as well are called gods as well as angelic beings. The only way for "monotheism" to possibly fit the Bible in the most remote way is to have the understanding that El Elyion and the Angelic Elohim are two different classes of "gods" in which the lesser "gods" aren't really "true gods" (i.e. powers that aren't TRUE powers, overwhelming forces that can get overwhelmed), which is the point of my spiel.

So thus, it becomes an issue of what 'god' actually means. Are Israelites gods? Quite so, Psalm 82:6 is plain, so is John 10:34 which quotes it. Does this mean El Elyon is the only El? Again, "Most high god" means "Highest of the gods". So it's utterly impossible to see the Bible with this vague term "Monotheism" if it means to apply that there are no beings whatsover called "gods" other than El Elyion. It may just the remnance of what may be a hysteria to not seem Polytheist.

Are you aware of the issue regarding the Septuagint translation of Deuteronomy 32:8?

Also note that there are apparently differing definitions of "Henotheism" as well. Some define it as belief in a god who rules the Hierarchy (i.e. what I'm saying Monotheism basically is, the TRUE god who rules the "not as true gods"), some just define it as belief in one god among many (Which I believe is a later definition, and the original meaning was the former).

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

The Bible itself, which says that angels are "gods" flat out denies the modern Semantic of "Monotheism".

That's an interesting point. Could you please offer the Torah reference(s)?

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

So thus, it becomes an issue of what 'god' actually means. Are Israelites gods? Quite so, Psalm 82:6 is plain, so is John 10:34 which quotes it.

John is completely irrelevant to this discussion.

If you think Psalm 82:6 is calling the Israelites gods, you are in dire need of remediation. I'd suggest Alter, but you might also greatly benefit from Segal. In either even, using such a poem as argument is ludicrous.

Does this mean El Elyon is the only El? Again, "Most high god" means "Highest of the gods".

No, it means God most High or ascendant God.

Are you aware of the issue regarding the Septuagint translation of Deuteronomy 32:8?

Yes, for many years. If you're interested, the Excursus 31 of the Deuteronomy: The Traditional Hebrew Text with the New JPS Translation (The JPS Torah Commentary Series), titled "Text and Theology in Deuteronomy 32.8 and 43" is quite good.

Also note that there are apparently differing definitions of "Henotheism" as well.

Could you offer a reference to the variants?

 

[paarsurrey]

Why the face palm? The issue is basically a matter of Semantics. If there's one greater god who rules all of the lesser gods and has power over them, they're basically in two categories of the word "god". What is "Monotheism" then? If the other "gods" can't do anything without the "Great gods" power, how is not?

The Bible itself, which says that angels are "gods" flat out denies the modern Semantic of "Monotheism". The point is that if there is one Supreme god, the concept is basically the same. The other "gods" aren't really on the same level. They're beings which man is "made a little lower than". If there are two categories of what a "god" is (the Supreme god who reigns vs the inferior gods), then with Henotheism, you are still saying there is no other "greater god" than the one god, all the other "gods" aren't really the same class of "god" in this case. The word "god" (el) itself means "Power" or "overtaking force". But if a "power" or "overtaking force" has a power greater than it, is it truly a "True power"? I believe this was what Isaiah was getting at.

In fact, we can see that with the use of the word "El" as in "The power of your hand", that may be a case against the idea that "El" was an adopted Canaanite deity, since it's a vocabulary term in itself that has connotations other than beings.

If Monotheists accept the idea of Angels, then they must accept that the angels are referred to as "gods". So the issue is what exactly "Monotheism" entail that Henotheism doesn't?

My religion believes in angels but not as deity but as servants of the Creator God:

[16:50] And whatever is in the heavens and whatever creature is in the earth submits humbly to Allah, and the angels too, and they do not behave proudly.
[16:51] They fear their Lord above them, and do what they are commanded.

The Holy Quran Arabic text with Translation in English text and Search Engine - Al Islam Online

 

[tumbleweed41]

If Monotheists accept the idea of Angels, then they must accept that the angels are referred to as "gods". So the issue is what exactly "Monotheism" entail that Henotheism doesn't?

Your argument is that monotheism, as practiced by many religions, is actually polytheistic. Not that the polytheistic practices of monolatry and henotheism are actually monotheistic.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

... as we watch the thread descend into semanticide in the service of the No True Scotsman fallacy.

 

[tumbleweed41]

... as we watch the thread descend into semanticide in the service of the No True Scotsman fallacy.

Didn't we address this earlier?

First some definitions for clarification.

Polytheism- a belief in multiple deities.
Henotheism- a form of polytheism with a specialized worship of one deity, but one may recognize and pay homage to other deities.
Monolotry- a form of polytheism with the strict worship of a singular deity, but acknowledging the existence of other deities,
Monotheism- a belief in one God, or the oneness of God. Denial of the existence of any other deities.

The problem, of course, is that 'diety' is a somewhat fluid term. So, for example, does trinitarianism constitute a rejection of monotheism? What about belief in Satan/Iblis?

Trinitarianism, at least for many Christians, posits a "oneness" of God, albeit in three identities. I am not aware of any similar beliefs in the history of Judaism.

And as far as I understand, the duality of Christianity concerning God/Satan does not exist in the monotheism of Judaism.

Correct?

The question is whether or not Satan is a diety -- or, if you'd prefer, whether a demigod is nevertheless a god.

Was Satan considered a deity, or demigod? My understanding was that Satan was/is a servant/angel of Yahweh.

I would think for the purposes of this discussion, angels, or supernatural beings subservient to God could be considered as not being deities in the strictest sense.

 

[Shermana]

Your argument is that monotheism, as practiced by many religions, is actually polytheistic. Not that the polytheistic practices of monolatry and henotheism are actually monotheistic.

Yes, and as I've gone over here and other threads, the meanings of "Henotheism" and "polytheism" aren't even concrete (belief in teh existence of many gods versus Belief IN (worship of) many gods, i.e. Trinity), and then there's the meaning of the word "god". We Israelites are called "gods" so how does that fit in with the face-value meaning of "Monotheism"?

Is Polytheism the belief in the EXISTENCE of other beings called gods or "Belief in" as in "Worship of and dedication and commitment to and subjection to"? These are VASTLY different terms, and make such a critical difference. By the meaning of "believe in" as in "acknolwedge existence of", the Bible is 100% Polytheistic, nothing less. Going by the "Worship of" definition, it's 100% NOT Polytheistic. See what a huge difference this "Semantic" makes? If Semantics make all the difference in legal literature, it makes all the difference in other literature too.

Like I said, the Semantics are important, and there are differing interpretations of different things. The Bible is not "Monotheistic" by any stretch of the imagination whatsoever going by the face-value definition of the word.

I also believe the ORIGINAL meaning of "Henotheism" was "Belief in one god ABOVE ALL OTHERS" whereas it has in some writings taken on a vastly different meaning which is essentially the same as Monolatry, which is "Belief in one god AMONG many others"

The word "Believe in" is also a Semantic issue when it comes to debating individual Christian doctrines.

Writing off these critical issues as "Mere Semantics" is basically writing off the debate whatsoever. The ambiguity of the meaning of the terms must be taken into account to come to an objective understanding. I believe that going by the earliest uses of the word Henotheism, it is basically "Monotheistic" because it's only one god who's in charge of all things. The later meanings of it is synonomous with Monolatry which is not the same at all.

 

[tumbleweed41]

We had agreed upon definitions on the first page of this thread.
Because semantics are important.

 

[Shermana]

My religion believes in angels but not as deity but as servants of the Creator God:

[16:50] And whatever is in the heavens and whatever creature is in the earth submits humbly to Allah, and the angels too, and they do not behave proudly.
[16:51] They fear their Lord above them, and do what they are commanded.

The Holy Quran Arabic text with Translation in English text and Search Engine - Al Islam Online

I understand that, but you simply have a different understanding of the word "Deity" itself. What exactly is a "Deity"? Does it mean "All powerful being who has no greater"? Then that's much different than the Israelite term "El", which is simply "power that is greater than others" or "Overtaking power". Again, this is why the Most high is called "god of the gods", which otherwise means "Overtaking power of the overtaking powers", which implies that the other "Overtaking powers" can be overtaken, but the "god of the gods" cannot be overtaken.

Thus we have two categories of the word "Deity". Lesser and greater. There's only one Greater deity. All the others are lesser. Thus, my statement is that Henotheistic Polytheism is essentially Monotheism, the issue is, as I've gone over, historical distortion of the meanings of the terms in question. Semantics are just as important here as they would be in any biblical debate.