Is God (θεός) Himself an Atheist?

Lets first get a working definition. atheist: noun, One who denies the existence of God.
(Since this definition is based on the Western concept of monotheism, we might expand it to include the Hindu religion or one who denies the existence of any gods.)

What is clear from the growth of the theological tradition in the Biblical text is that the early God of the Hebrews was one of many Semitic gods found in the pantheon usually located atop a high mountain peaks such as the Biblical Sinai or Horeb and it is within this polytheistic society that the first Commandment of Exodus 20 was written.

[An Excursion: The Evolution of “God” in the LXX: A Note on Genesis 1:1

In the early epic cycles in the Hebrew Bible, not only in J and E in in Genesis and Exodus, but as redacted in the Tribal League epics in the Deuteronomistic History of the Tetratuch, the concept of the deity of the Hebrews / Israelites moves from a local god who is but one member of a pantheon of gods which create the world (הארץ) for his people which he rules over to a latter universal single monotheistic deity of the LXX drawn from the Classical Greek concept of θεός.

Genesis 1: 1



This plural form of god is emended in the Old Greek and carried in to the LXX as:
εν αρχη εποιησεν ο θεος τον ουρανον και την γην

(Note: אלהים the plural masculine of אל or singular for god (see: Marvin Pope excellent comments in his classical study: El in the Ugaritic Text, EJ Brill 1955; pp. 1 - 21 and for a more up to date study see: John Day, Yahweh and the Gods and Goddesses of Canaan (Sheffield Academic Press, 2000)

Genesis 1: 1 clearly states that the world of the Hebrews was formed by a polytheistic assembly of gods just as one would expect in the Semitic cuneiform text of the ancient Near East such as the Enuma Elish.

How in the hell does אלהיםwith יהוהequal κύριος ὁ θεός? I would emphatically state that during Israel’s evolution from polytheism to monotheism has totally eclipsed the Semitic etymology here in favor of the non-Semitic Greek. ]

Since Yahweh demands the Hebrews / Israelites put him first over all the other gods (Please note: Nowhere does Yahweh say these other gods don’t exist, but rather that only he alone wants to be their god-king). Thus, it is plainly obvious that Yahweh himself believes in other gods just a these other gods also believed in him or (to put it another way; Yahweh is not an atheist). Thus, under Josiah’s reforms, all other Beth El’s or other Houses of Gods must be destroyed thus cutting off their food and leaving only Israel’s leading god’s (Yahweh) temple in Jerusalem alone honored with sacrifices.

In conclusion, when we come to the LXX and the New Testament (which is based on the LXX) we do not find Yahweh as simply another god fearing other deities of the Israelites anymore (or even the name Yahweh itself), but an alone and the only real Theos who himself no longer believes in any other living deities, but considers all other forms of competing gods simply worthless and dead idols (See the atheistic theologies to wards other gods in the Acts of the Apostles and St. Paul’s theology). Put another way, the Theos of the New Testament is now fully an atheist when it comes to belief in any god or gods!

Here a some closing questions to consider:

A. When did Yahweh lose his faith / belief in other Gods?

B. Why does the atheistic Theos (θεός) feel that the religious belief of the Semitic Yahweh was wrong?

C. Does the atheistic Greek Theos even deny the ancient Semitic, but religious
(faithfully believing) Yahweh himself?

D. Can the Biblical text reconcile the atheistic Theos with Yahweh’s faith in other gods? (Can the LXX and its later sibling (the New Testament) ever be really reconciled with the MT text? As I have already pointed out, to say that אלהים יהוה equals κύριος ὁ θεός is simply etymologically apologetic crap!)

11 comments:

Anonymous said...

Indeed! All attempts by Christians to claim this refers to the Trinity are simply reading the text anachronistically.

Eternal Critic said...

If that's referring to the Trinity, doesn't that mean Jesus should never be worshipped at all, by God's word?

It is irreconcilable to Christian theology.

Harry H. McCall said...

I would conclude that the single Semitic god Yahweh of the polytheistic ancient Near East would see the Greek Christian Trinitarian God as a three headed monstrosity.

Anonymous said...

The verse that always through a wrench into the monotheist view is Genesis 1:26:

Then God said, "Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness; and let them rule over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the sky and over the cattle and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth."

Thank the Lords for creating our world.

Harry H. McCall said...

Even if Christianity only sees the Bible as simply a tool to base their modern sectarian theology on and, even if we atheist see the Bible as ancient theological myth, the Bible needs to be studied in its cultural contexts of which there are many which, inurn, make up the many theologies of God and his emerging personalities.

God and culture have grown hand in hand and only a simplistic read of the text based on current apologetic needs is what creates its textual abuse.

While I was writing this post, two Jehovah Witnesses stopped by and they assured me that all the other churches were false and controlled by Satan to deceive God’s children.

They left me a Wachtower CD ROM and a 31 page booklet entitled The DIVINE NAME That Will Endure Forever.

When I told them I was a former Christian, I was assured that I had been deceived by Satan too and they wanted to know if I was open to being given the truth?

I am now studying the Watch Tower. Did you know God tells us that blood transfusions are really “eating blood” and that it’s a sin?!

(Lets see now; back in 1999 my daughter went into Renal Failure at 14 and had to be given blood.

So, to avoid the sin of “eating blood” it would have been best for her to die and to “soul sleep” in the grave until Jesus came back to resurrect her … God have mercy on me a sinner!)

akakiwibear said...

Harry, a good post and it is a pity that atheists and theist alike do not universally recognise what you see as obvious God and culture have grown hand in hand and only a simplistic read of the text based on current apologetic needs is what creates its textual abuse.

I wonder how many posts on this blog only have credence if your point is ignored – not many I would wager.

Since you clearly understand why the literalistic interpretation is invalid, why do you see it as a reason to abandon Christianity – as I see it many of your posts feed off the irrationality of the literalistic, yet do little to bridge that gap between debunking that and your conclusion that there is no God.

OK, so our understanding of God grew over time and within our social context – so what – it could not have been otherwise!

Sala kahle - peace

eheffa said...

Akakiwebear said:
"OK, so our understanding of God grew over time and within our social context – so what – it could not have been otherwise!"

Except this 'God' is supposed to have transcended human culture & is supposed to be the same yesterday, today & forever. His inability to communicate directly to people except through his 'chosen' prophets has mysteriously crippled his ability to communicate truths that are not culturally bound or reflective of anything beyond the contemporaneous understandings of the prophets themselves.

This is exactly what one would expect from a fabricated or delusional religious belief system rather than some sort of revelation from an all-knowing all-powerful super-creator of the universe.

There is no good evidence for a god who predates or transcends human culture.

-evan

Harry H. McCall said...

akakiwibear:

Thanks for the reply.

You must remember that I went to Bob Jones University. Many of my neighbors are BJU graduates who do not hastate blasting literalistic Biblical dogmas on our local radio, TV and in the news papers.

Plus, the last church I was a member of and a substitute Sunday school teacher was in the conservative Southern Baptist Convention. There was no need to bring your Bible. All you needed was the Baptist Sunday School Quarterly.

The first time I got into trouble
(1984) was when I brought in Pritchard’s Ancient Near Eastern Text Relating to the Old Testament.

The Sunday school department called a special evening meeting and requested me to attend. I was told in no uncertain terms that “the Baptist Quarterly was written by VERY qualified men and did not need to be supplemented in anyway.” I stopped attending church and only attend the Mormon Ward.

Some time latter, I was asked to come back and even teach again as a sub. Years latter, I taught again and gave the class and introduction to different theological approaches to the Bible resulting with the heard of the Sunday school dept. telling me they would call off the class should there be no one but myself to teach.

At that point I quit the Baptist church for good and now detest the narrow, limited and literalistic way both BJU and the Southern Baptist use the Bible.

I also left the Mormon Ward (after attending for 20 years as a non-member) over the issue of Joseph Smith.

The Mormon Mission Elders go out in the neighborhoods telling and teaching that Joseph Smith is a true prophet that restored the true Church.

However, when I brought in a copy of the 1830 original Book of Mormon, I was told not to show it to any members and that it was no longer approved for use(Even though the missionaries teach the Book of Mormon is without error).

[All LDS Mormon members must up their Books of Mormon when a new text is issued at which time the older Books of Mormon are no long to be used.]

I’m tired of Christian sects lying to their members to hid the facts. Some of my post do contain ironies on the conservative literal interpretation of the Bible. That's how I vent at times and I do get Christian literalist firing back. That is usually gas on the fire.

Sometimes the literalistic view of the Bible is easy to attack and, again, a number of my posts are targeted to the Bible believing literalist such as the BJU and Southern Baptist types.

But, in the end, there are more programmed brain dead literalistic Christians out there then I care to fight.

akakiwibear said...

Harry, thanks for you full comment - yes there are too many but keep trying!

Oh evan so There is no good evidence for a god who predates or transcends human culture. but who did you expect to keep the records then?
Sala Kahle -peace

strangebrew said...

"Oh evan so 'There is no good evidence for a god who predates or transcends human culture. but who did you expect to keep the records then?"

And those supposed records of course are accurate?...and in no way reflect the prejudice and cultural imperatives of either the authors or the interpretation those 'records' receive subsequently?

And if those records are in any way coloured by the culture...why does that not call into question the veracity of the Bible...which is a compendium of many different records from many different cultures over many different periods?

Is that maybe a reason for the old testament to be ditched in favour of the new testament?
To many internally contradictory teachings..?

Anonymous said...
This comment has been removed by the author.