Ancient Hebrew Polytheism?

Page 2 of 3 [ 33 posts ] Go to page Previous 1, 2, 3 Next

Previous topic | Next topic

The_Face_of_Boo
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 16 Jun 2010
Age: 42
Gender: Non-binary
Posts: 33,045
Location: Beirut, Lebanon.

02 May 2011, 4:49 pm

JakobVirgil wrote:

Philologos wrote:

It is fairly clear that the Hebrews were in constant contact with polytheism, and tat there was a constAnt tension. Besides frequent work to root out hill shrines and such, there was the Jewish colony in Egypt [operating for many purposes an Achaemenid Aramnaic very close to the Aramaic sections of the OT] which not only illegally had their own temple but also, if I remember right, brought in a few of the local deities.

Several passages particularly in the psalms echo neatly word for word [original liturgical poetry is hard, and good liturgical poetry easier to adapt that eradicate] texts in Ugaritic, a northern Canaanite lingo of a polytheistic somewhat earlier culture.

Clearly when THE God is in dialogue with the gods, we do not have to assume polytheism, awareness of Hebraism as SPECIAL will handle it.

For the linguist [forget theology], the issue is that possibly honorific plurality is

a. reserved for divine entities [not the king, not my father]

b. extended to officially false divine entities [Baalim, Ashtaroth]

c. not licensed for ALL divine entities [Rimmon, Moloch]

d. problematically used in the unique and possibly not originally Hebraic Book of Job with Behemoth - literally "critters"].

It is possible to devise several reasonable scenarios which will fit the data. Won't bother, you can figure them so good as me. It is probably NOT possible to determine a clearly best-fit scenario - and if we did history and Comparative Linguyistics say the best fit could still be way off the truth.

don't forget Adam.

What about him?

cdfox7
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 31 Mar 2011
Age: 45
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,700

02 May 2011, 5:09 pm

TeaEarlGreyHot wrote:

Cool. I'm aware of this. Each branch that uses the OT has a different explanation for it. I was raised Mormon, and thus taught one simple phrase... "As man is now, God once was. As God is now, man may become."

Logically, this means there are many gods out there and many more to come. Provided, of course, enough make it to the highest level of heaven.

Yep Lorenzo Snow did say that. I was born in the church & my second time of being less active!

cdfox7
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 31 Mar 2011
Age: 45
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,700

02 May 2011, 5:13 pm

The_Face_of_Boo wrote:

JakobVirgil wrote:

Philologos wrote:

don't forget Adam.

What about him?

JV is refereeing to the Adam-God doctrine.

DevilInPgh
Pileated woodpecker

Joined: 23 Aug 2005
Age: 40
Gender: Male
Posts: 186
Location: Washington, DC

02 May 2011, 6:13 pm

Master_Pedant wrote:

There are so many passages in the Torah were God seems to refer to itself in the plural form. Some say this was merely honorific, but it seems a case can be made that the Ancient Hebrews started out Polytheist and gradually developed into monotheists. It certainly complicates any Bible reading exercise.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M7RF_GoeOTg[/youtube]

Well, a few things:

1. The honorific "we" is true, unless you want to believe that "redactors" went through every single instance of the plural verb tense applying to Elokim in the Torah.
2. The very first verse belies your problem: "Bereishit bara elokim", with "bara" as the third-person male singular, not plural, form of the verb "to create".
3. That ancient Israelites worshipped other gods is not a secret. See how the Judges and Prophets chastised the Israelites for worshipping the Baals and Asherahs. Rampant idol worship was the reason the First Temple was destroyed.

DevilInPgh
Pileated woodpecker

Joined: 23 Aug 2005
Age: 40
Gender: Male
Posts: 186
Location: Washington, DC

02 May 2011, 6:23 pm

Master_Pedant wrote:

MCalavera wrote:

It doesn't seem that way to me. The whole point of the Scriptures is to stress the uniqueness of Yahweh as the one and only true God.

Whether the majority of the ancient Hebrews themselves were polytheists or not, that's a different story.

"The Scriptures" are a composite work and some break rather markedly with this theme. Psalms 82, for instance, seems markedly Henotheistic (there are many gods, but what really powerful God that is supreme over them all).

Quote:

Psalm 82

1. God standeth in the congregation of the mighty; he judgeth among the gods.

2. How long will ye judge unjustly, and accept the persons of the wicked? Selah.

3. Defend the poor and fatherless: do justice to the afflicted and needy.

4. Deliver the poor and needy: rid them out of the hand of the wicked.

5. They know not, neither will they understand; they walk on in darkness: all the foundations of the earth are out of course.

6. I have said, Ye are gods; and all of you are children of the most High.

7. But ye shall die like men, and fall like one of the princes.

8. Arise, O God, judge the earth: for thou shalt inherit all nations.

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?se ... ersion=KJV

The Artscroll interpretation of this Psalm is as a warning to corrupt judges, who, in a sense, may sometimes see themselves as G-d rather than G-d Himself and thus take balance out of justice. I'm honestly not sure how else it could be interpreted.

Philologos
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 21 Jan 2010
Age: 81
Gender: Male
Posts: 6,987

02 May 2011, 7:18 pm

Adam-God - okay, one had heard of that though not known to me by that name.

I don't see how it makes any difference the analysis of the linguistic situation.

cdfox7
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 31 Mar 2011
Age: 45
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,700

02 May 2011, 7:52 pm

Philologos wrote:

Adam-God - okay, one had heard of that though not known to me by that name.

I don't see how it makes any difference the analysis of the linguistic situation.

You missing the point the Adam-God doctrine refers to Adam being a god.
https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/ ... d_doctrine

Also for the context assume that both Michael & the Ancient of Days refer to Adam.

MCalavera
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 15 Dec 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,442

02 May 2011, 7:59 pm

DevilInPgh wrote:

Exactly my point.

The interpretation that this Psalm is referring to actual gods seems sudden and very out of place especially given that the other Psalms aim to target men who defy God, labeling them as wicked and corrupted and haters of justice. No mention of any actual god in any of them (just fake gods and idols like Baal and Molech).

But if someone has never read the whole of the Psalms, then I can see why it can be quite easy to fall for a misguided interpretation of this specific Psalm.

JakobVirgil
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 15 Feb 2011
Age: 50
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,744
Location: yes

02 May 2011, 8:03 pm

cdfox7 wrote:

Philologos wrote:

Adam-God - okay, one had heard of that though not known to me by that name.

I don't see how it makes any difference the analysis of the linguistic situation.

hehe - I was just saying that adam ends with -m
but sure.

_________________
?We must not look at goblin men,
We must not buy their fruits:
Who knows upon what soil they fed
Their hungry thirsty roots??

http://jakobvirgil.blogspot.com/

Philologos
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 21 Jan 2010
Age: 81
Gender: Male
Posts: 6,987

02 May 2011, 11:23 pm

cdfox7 wrote:

Philologos wrote:

Adam-God - okay, one had heard of that though not known to me by that name.

I don't see how it makes any difference the analysis of the linguistic situation.

Ay de mi, I got that already, please to believing me. What I do not get - I say AGAIN - is HOW it relates to the use of the plural markers to refer to assumed singulars on OT Hebrew in [if there are other examples I do not have them in my head] 'elohim ba`lim 'ashtaroth // behemoth but not other divine entity like beings or respected humans, which is so far I have seen a quite unique linguistic happening, MUCH more normal being parents and royalty and sometimes other rspected humans get plurasl shape for singular referents.

Philologos
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 21 Jan 2010
Age: 81
Gender: Male
Posts: 6,987

02 May 2011, 11:30 pm

JakobVirgil wrote:

cdfox7 wrote:

Philologos wrote:

Adam-God - okay, one had heard of that though not known to me by that name.

I don't see how it makes any difference the analysis of the linguistic situation.

hehe - I was just saying that adam ends with -m
but sure.

Hokey fine, I wondered if you might be going light that way.

One does wonder about leviathan - close in presentation to behemoth, and the -aan is not only an indefinite fem plural in Aramaic but could also be tied to a dual in a nunatijng rather than mimating language as Arabic / Ethiopian Semitic / Sourth Arabian / Aramaic, OR is around in some of the fancy Arabic plural markings. But for leviathan there is no signular basr konwn to me as there is for behemoth and the superhuman entities.

Philologos
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 21 Jan 2010
Age: 81
Gender: Male
Posts: 6,987

02 May 2011, 11:37 pm

AND in any case, the -m is incidental; the plural marker is a -w-, masculine oblique adjusted to -y - see Arabic / Ugaritic / Akkadian case marking - such that masculine *-w-u-M / -w-i-M > uuM / iiM where -M is a terminator not used in the construct or with suffixes, feminine *-w-at- > -aat, giving Hebrew -im / -oth, Mod Arabic -iin / -aat. Compare the clearly cognate plural markings in Egyptian.

Whereas [not to belabor the point] in Adam the mim is clearly part of the base morpheme.

cdfox7
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 31 Mar 2011
Age: 45
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,700

03 May 2011, 12:17 am

Philologos wrote:

cdfox7 wrote:

Philologos wrote:

Adam-God - okay, one had heard of that though not known to me by that name.

I don't see how it makes any difference the analysis of the linguistic situation.

Imo looking at the issue linguistical is a lot like looking down one's own a***hole, its a waste of time!

Philologos
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 21 Jan 2010
Age: 81
Gender: Male
Posts: 6,987

03 May 2011, 12:45 am

Well thankee kindly - I guess your special interest is proctology?

Linguistics - including diachronic linguistics, my personal specialite - is a waste of time. So is my brother's paleontology, my friend Dick's econ, my sister's math, my father's classics, my other brother's electronic engineering, da Vinci's daubs, Number 1 Son's music, Einstein's physics, AND probably whatever your [unknown to me at present] interest / skill / profession / vocation / avocation may be.

Looked at from one point of view, each of them is an important contribution to the mosaic that is civilization and humanity. Looked at from another point of view, each of them is just twiddling our opposable and twiddleable thumbs wasting time while waiting to die futilely in a doomed universe.

Whatever. I - and some other people - find diachronic linguistics fascinating and not - though I shall not argue it here - at all useless.

I COULD say that regarding the Adam-God doctrine is a waste of time. I choose not so to say - though I do not personally feel inclined to spend my time on it.

You don't have to read my linguistic babblings, you know.

MarketAndChurch
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 3 Apr 2011
Age: 37
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,022
Location: The Peoples Republic Of Portland

03 May 2011, 3:43 pm

DevilInPgh wrote:

Master_Pedant wrote:

Well, a few things:

2. The very first verse belies your problem: "Bereishit bara elokim", with "bara" as the third-person male singular, not plural, form of the verb "to create".

Exactly! The verb is how you know what the noun is. In the beginning, Bara is singular. Just like the word fish: the fish swim or the fish swims, you know on the basis of the basis of swim or swims whether fish is plural or singular. The fish swims means it's one fish, the fish swim means that it is more then one. The verb tells you want the noun is.

DevilInPgh wrote:

3. That ancient Israelites worshipped other gods is not a secret. See how the Judges and Prophets chastised the Israelites for worshipping the Baals and Asherahs. Rampant idol worship was the reason the First Temple was destroyed.

Agreed! Jews believing in other Gods is nothing new. Are there jews throughout the history of Jewish life who have believed in other gods? Of course there are - the prophets rail against them constantly. The battle to keep monotheism pure in Jewish life was an on-going one.

_________________
It is not up to you to finish the task, nor are you free to desist from trying.

MarketAndChurch
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 3 Apr 2011
Age: 37
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,022
Location: The Peoples Republic Of Portland

03 May 2011, 4:14 pm

ThatRedHairedGrrl wrote:

Yes, it's highly likely that there was a slow development from polytheism, through monolatrism (belief that while there are other gods, only one of them is worthy of worship), to true monotheism. Even long after the Jews had taken the Shema as their basic declaration of faith, there were hints at a primordial multiplicity of gods, a Council of Souls, and the presence of Wisdom, the Shekhinah and the Torah itself as coeval figures with God - there are various references to them in the Talmudic writings that suggest that even if power was 'officially' vested in one place, it wasn't always seen as having been that way.

I'm currently reading a book called 'Tree of Souls' by Howard Schwartz - it's a compendium of Jewish mythology, all the different stories told in their different versions, with references to the original texts. It's fascinating. For me, one of the key points of Judaism is that at least over the years, Jewish scholars have discussed among themselves various possible explanations for the discrepancies in their scriptures, whereas Christians, when faced with contradictions in the Old Testament (and between the Old and the New) tend to either ignore them or say they just need to be accepted by faith. Whatever the theological merits of the two methods, at least the Jewish method has come up with some interesting stories.

Well its healthy not to confuse Jews with Judaism. Judaism has always posited one God from Genesis 1:1 on forward. Even when it says Elohim in plural, a monotheist acknowledges that there are other Gods... that people worship - not that those Gods are true or real. These references to other Gods are brought up, and shut down or mocked by the Torah. One reads the Torah with an understanding that one of its largest missions is to discredit polytheism. (I will make the case if I get time after work)

Even when it brings up Genesis 6, they do it because it meant something to the Jews and the people of surrounding areas at the time when they existed - as she noted, they were well aware of the cultural zeitgeist of the peoples around them. The egyptians believed in demi gods, and so did many of the people that came into contact with the Jews.

This was probably a way to get rid of demi-gods by including them, and getting rid of it. The bible does this with their inclusion, and a swift end: "They came to not" or in other words: There are only people, and there is only God, but no demi-gods. The bible does the same when its 10 plaques are against Egyptian Gods, or by cursing the serpent who "tricked" eve (animal worship, particularly serpent was normative in ancient times.) They include symbols or name other Gods directly, and then mock or destroy them in the Torah.

_________________
It is not up to you to finish the task, nor are you free to desist from trying.

Page 2 of 3 [ 33 posts ] Go to page Previous 1, 2, 3 Next

Jump to:

Ancient Hebrew Polytheism? Post Reply New Topic

Ancient Hebrew Polytheism?