Is Yahweh any Different from the "other gods (Elohim)" in the Old Testament?
According to 1 Kings 11: 1-8 Solomon is cited as turning to “other gods”. Moreover, in 1 Kings 9: 6&9 Solomon is told that the future Kings of Israel will turn to “other gods”.
If Yahweh is theologically the “only true God “(contra the concern of the first of the “Ten Commandments”), and Yahweh did all the mighty deeds as remembered in the annual feast followed by the Israelites; then just why is it that this one true and “historically active Gods” is so quickly shelved by so many major Israelite Kings including Solomon himself? Was there really anything there?
It appears that God (Yahweh) was no different than the other gods (elohim) and was created different in the final redacted accounts of God (EL / YAHWEH) as simply a combination of Israelite’s polytheistic past.
It has long been know in the field of scholarship on the Hebrew Bible that the many divine names ascribed by evangelical Christians to Israel’s God are specific names of local deities (such as El-Shaddai). Again, notice the concern of the First Commandment about the use the Hebrew phase “other gods (ELOHIM)”, plus the fact that Yahweh is also called “EL” and the use of term throughout the Hebrew Bible ascribed to not only the god of Israel, but all the other gods. (For an excellent discussion see both: John Day, Yahweh and the Gods and Goddesses of Canaan and Frank Moore Cross, Canaanite Myth and Hebrew Epic: Essays in the History of the Religion of Israel).
If Yahweh is theologically the “only true God “(contra the concern of the first of the “Ten Commandments”), and Yahweh did all the mighty deeds as remembered in the annual feast followed by the Israelites; then just why is it that this one true and “historically active Gods” is so quickly shelved by so many major Israelite Kings including Solomon himself? Was there really anything there?
It appears that God (Yahweh) was no different than the other gods (elohim) and was created different in the final redacted accounts of God (EL / YAHWEH) as simply a combination of Israelite’s polytheistic past.
It has long been know in the field of scholarship on the Hebrew Bible that the many divine names ascribed by evangelical Christians to Israel’s God are specific names of local deities (such as El-Shaddai). Again, notice the concern of the First Commandment about the use the Hebrew phase “other gods (ELOHIM)”, plus the fact that Yahweh is also called “EL” and the use of term throughout the Hebrew Bible ascribed to not only the god of Israel, but all the other gods. (For an excellent discussion see both: John Day, Yahweh and the Gods and Goddesses of Canaan and Frank Moore Cross, Canaanite Myth and Hebrew Epic: Essays in the History of the Religion of Israel).
32 comments:
Good post.
Perhaps we can see a parallel between Judaism and Christianity in this regard.
* at the outset of Judaism, "gods" was supernatural national champions, and every nation called on them as other nations did. Yehovah became their one god, and this became the cardinal virtue of Judaism - fidelity to their one god;
* at the outset of Christianity, Jesus was a supernatural national champion, but in the 4th century CE, he was elevated to the one true God, and that has become the cardinal virtue of Christianity;
Bill Ross
http://bibleshockers.blogspot.com
Great insight! Thanks
"It appears that God (Yahweh) was no different than the other gods (elohim)..." Based on what?
Based on Northwest Semitic texts; mainly from Ugarit.
Jason, have you dealt with the tests in KTU that is The Cuneiform Alphabetic Texts from Ugarit, Ras Ibn Hani and other Places? If not, may I recomend "Die keilalphabetischen Texte aus Ugarit" by M. Dietrich; 2ed, 1976.
Or a good place to begin are the 2 textbooks at the bottom of my Post.
Harry, can you please summarize?
Thanks,
Bill Ross
http://bibleshockers.blogspot.com
Though not short, here is some background information.
The ancient Near Eastern Semitic name for God is ‘l (El) in the cuneiform logogram Akkadian texts such as in the story of creation (Enuma Elis), in the Babylonian story of the flood (Atrahsis) of which all are stories drawn from oral legends with parts reused as the basic core of the stories in the book of Genesis (One might note here the oral traditions of the epic poet Homer in telling the Iliad and Odyssey).
Genesis opens with “In the beginning gods (Elohem or the ending “‘m” is the masculine plural for El or god) created the heavens and the earth.” This concept is drawn form an earlier text such as the Babylonian version where in the Enuma Elis or “From on High” the gods (again plural) name the heavens and earth. Both the Hebrew and Akkadian text cite more than one god involved in creation. Current scholarship on the Hebrew Bible sees the common Semitic name “El” as the older name for the God of Israel (notice the ending of Isra-El).
Instead of one god, as found in late Israelite monotheism, El, when used with an adjective in Hebrew is now understood to be a local shrine deity whose other epithets are used for different gods of the Patriarchs which are tied to specific sanctuaries or altars: El Elyon (Genesis 14:18ff), El Sadday (Genesis 17:1, 28:3) and so on.
In my thesis and along with other modern scholars of Israel, the reason the Kings and people of Israel kept turning to “other gods” is that these local gods were worshiped as the Elohim / gods of individual Hebrew clans or extended families who had gained a very high level of devotion over centuries and that Yahweh himself was once a local deity whose personal name was understood much like the Canaanite gods in the Ugaritic texts, but since Yahweh is not given as a plural in the Hebrew text like El, it established a good bases to build Israelite monotheism on.
Here is an interesting note. Christians who could read Hebrew knew that the plural form of god was used in Genesis 1:1 and elsewhere, but interpreted this plural form as proof that the “Trinity” was there at creation and thus a basic return to the correct concept of polytheism again as under stood by the ancient Hebrews.
"The ancient Near Eastern Semitic name for God is ‘l (El)..."
Hence, the Bible has semitic names like Isra-El, Dani-El, and Superman's father, Jor-El, and Arabs (also Semitic) have names like Al-Qaeda, Al-Jazeera. And in the US, we have Al-Jolson and I live in Al-Abama.
Interestingly, Islam considers Al to be none other than El.
And, in your view, there are several specific Els mentioned in the Hebrew texts, such as "Almighty god" and "the highest of the gods" which, since you don't have to qualify something that is unique in order to identify it, indicates that we are talking about specific Els ("gods"), yes?
I think that you are probably correct on that. I might think of another more obvious example, and that is that God is described as "the god of Abraham" and "our god."
Ex 23:24 Thou shalt not bow down to ***their gods***, nor serve them, nor do after their works: but thou shalt utterly overthrow them, and quite break down their images.
And even more obvious is the reference to "god among gods":
Ps 82:1 A Psalm of Asaph. God standeth in the congregation of the mighty; he judgeth among the gods.
It is quite clear that the nations had "god olympics" where each nation sent their best gods into battle, and the strongest would deliver victory to the nation that had that god (or those gods) for their champion(s).
So I thoroughly agree. I discuss this in my book.
Monotheism has different expressions:
* the move from "our gods are better than their gods" to "our one god is better than their gods." That is, one god for that nation.
* the move from "our god is the only god."
* there is only one god. Happy is that nation who's god is that one god."
* Paul's affirmation that "as far as we are concerned, there is but one god - 'the father':
1Co 8:6a But to us there is but one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we in him...
* Onward to, the absurdity of the Trinity:
I. There is but one only,[1] living, and true God,[2] who is infinite in being and perfection,[3] a most pure spirit,[4] invisible,[5] without body, parts,[6] or passions;[7] immutable,[8] immense,[9] eternal,[10] incomprehensible,[11] almighty,[12] most wise,[13] most holy,[14] most free,[15] most absolute;[16] working all things according to the counsel of His own immutable and most righteous will,[17] for His own glory;[18] most loving,[19] gracious, merciful, long-suffering, abundant in goodness and truth, forgiving iniquity, transgression, and sin;[20] the rewarder of them that diligently seek Him;[21] and withal, most just, and terrible in His judgments,[22] hating all sin,[23] and who will by no means clear the guilty.[24]
II. God has all life,[25] glory,[26] goodness,[27] blessedness,[28] in and of Himself; and is alone in and unto Himself all-sufficient, not standing in need of any creatures which He has made,[29] nor deriving any glory from them,[30] but only manifesting His own glory in, by, unto, and upon them. He is the alone fountain of all being, of whom, through whom, and to whom are all things;[31] and has most sovereign dominion over them, to do by them, for them, or upon them whatsoever Himself pleases.[32] In His sight all things are open and manifest,[33] His knowledge is infinite, infallible, and independent upon the creature,[34] so as nothing is to Him contingent, or uncertain.[35] He is most holy in all His counsels, in all His works, and in all His commands.[36] To Him is due from angels and men, and every other creature, whatsoever worship, service, or obedience He is pleased to require of them.[37]
III. In the unity of the Godhead there be three Persons of one substance, power, and eternity: God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Ghost.[38] The Father is of none, neither begotten nor proceeding; the Son is eternally begotten of the Father; [39] the Holy Ghost eternally proceeding from the Father and the Son. [40]
* the "liberal's" monotheism, which says, "every god is really finally the one god" - not recognizing that a god is, by definition, the champion of a particular people;
The "El" (or "Al") concept is both a false and bad idea. There are not gods, "No, not one!"
Bill Ross
http://bibleshockers.blogspot.com
(O heavenly typos...)
Bill, I'm not sure what you meant to accomplish with the fake etymologies (including Al-Abama and the Kryptonians), but I thought I'd point out for any who aren't up on historical linguistics that the similarity between the Hebrew El and El/'l/'illah of other Semitic languages isn't just a coincidence. Its the result of having descended from a earlier Afro-Asiatic language, which linguists can partially reconstruct using fairly well attested methods, which are the inspiration for the division of anthropology that studies cultural innovation and spread. Roughly, we have a good suspicion that Hebrew gods and the other Canaanite gods were once one and the same because the evidence points to the two groups sharing an origin as a single culture and linguistic community.
(Also, the "al" in Al Quaeda, Al Jazeera, and even Allah is a definite article and not related to the deity names. Its actually the "lah" in Allah that's descended from the same Proto-Semitic word.)
Thanks for clearing up the prefix/suffix confusion on my part.
Hey, do you want to hear something funny?
A Muslim teacher named "Wahhabi" was kind of like the Calvin of Islam. He pressed for reform and started the "Unitarian" sect of Islam. "Unitarian" referring to there being only one divinity, so it is wrong to ascribe any significance to shrines or make men to be more than men. Just one Allah. Sound good?
But the good Mr. Wahhabi is said to pass a note with those who die in jihad (holy war) that gets them immediately into the sky-house!:
http://www.thewahhabimyth.com/
So, the teacher of the singularity of the divine power has the mysterious power to of passes to the sky-house of Allah!
This is the kind of bizarre thinking that makes you want to roll your eyes.
Bill Ross
http://debunkingislam.blogspot.com
Sorry Harry, I must have missed "Die keilalphabetischen Texte aus Ugarit". I don't think I'll be tracking this one down any time soon though. If I can't pronounce the title, I'm not interested. :)
Indeed, it is a bit useless to refer enquirers to texts in a foreign language!
Bill Ross
http://bibleshockers.blogspot.com
Woundedego stated:
“Indeed, it is a bit useless to refer enquirers to texts in a foreign language!”
My whole thesis is drawn from work of scholars on the text from Ugarit since 1929 in French, German and English. I do have the German text in my library along the concordance that goes with it.
The fact that Ugaritic and Hebrew are both ancient Northwest Semitic languages from Canaan links the El of Ugarit with the El in the Hebrew Bible.
Again, for the English only crowd, I recommend the two books at the end of my Post.
El in the Ugaritic texts has evolved as the father of the young god Ba’al just has he been influenced by the Greco-Roman religions to father the Christian semi-god Jesus.
El is probably also the father of Yaweh.
Harry, I've very much appreciated your contributions here. Many thanks.
Might I suggest that you consider doing a Youtube. I haven't done one yet, but I'm really blown away at how useful this medium can be, and your subject matter might benefit from some visuals.
I know that reading Biblical Archaeology was a real eye opener to me. The Israel of archaeology is clearly full of images (as the Bible also references) and gods other than Yehovah.
Again,
Thanks.
Bill Ross
http://bibleshockers.blogspot.com
This, the Ugaritic argument is I think of it, is perhaps the least know most damning argument against Christianity IMO.
I'm at a loss to know how this post debunks Christianity. El or Elohim, Hebrew or Ugarit, it doesn't matter. The Israelites were told not to worship other gods.
Thanks for the comments and Youtube is a good point, but it is blocked by the IT people here at work.
I think I got off my point with the ancient texts, but I still don’t understand how the true god of Israel can - and was - so easily eclipsed by the other gods of the surrounding nations. The later Biblical authors see Israel’s El / Yahweh as a true leader; that is one giving law codes and working “mighty signs and wonders”. But he earlier kings and Israelites don’t see anything special in their national god… the one revealed by Moses.
I noticed these other gods are not called “false gods”, but are equally as valid in the sense that Yahweh is a jealous god who is like a husband that has to fight off “other El’s (gods)” since they seem to offer as much (if not more) than Yahweh himself. Another point of interest is that when Jacob and Rachel left her father’s tent Rachel takes Laban’s “teraphim” or household god’s is very interesting (Genesis 31:22 – 35).
The fact that the Ark of the Covenant was a portable God-in-a-Box which can be stolen by the Philistines (1 Samuel 4) confirms that Yahweh was a very localized god or just one of many “true gods” among the tribes of the land of Canaan…a point that seems to have been never forgotten by either Solomon or Israel’s latter kings.
Jason said...
I'm at a loss to know how this post debunks Christianity. El or Elohim, Hebrew or Ugarit, it doesn't matter. The Israelites were told not to worship other gods.
Simple - because it shows, irrefutably, that El/Yaweh began as not one but two separate pagan gods prior to the rise of Israelite monotheism. This, in essence, makes the 1st commandment not a matter "true god vs false gods" but rather simply a matter of arbitrary cult (and thus political) favoritism. It invalidates the very core of JudeoChristian monotheism.
Simple - because it shows, irrefutably, that El/Yaweh began as not one but two separate pagan gods prior to the rise of Israelite monotheism.
That all depends on when you think the rise of Israelite monotheism occurred.
This, in essence, makes the 1st commandment not a matter "true god vs false gods" but rather simply a matter of arbitrary cult (and thus political) favoritism.
'Cult favoritism' was established with Abram, long before the first commandment was given.
It invalidates the very core of JudeoChristian monotheism.
And yet JudeoChristian monotheism has remained perfectly intact for thousands of years...
>>>...And yet JudeoChristian monotheism has remained perfectly intact for thousands of years...
Jason, you don't see any variation between the manlike deity who lived in the sky (and gets reports from his sons and them comes down to investigate further) and the omnisicient "Father, Son and Holy Ghost" cosmic mind of modern Christianity? None at all? "...perfectly intact..."?
Bill Ross
http://bibleshockers.blogspot.com
Jason, you don't see any variation between the manlike deity who lived in the sky (and gets reports from his sons and them comes down to investigate further) and the omnisicient "Father, Son and Holy Ghost" cosmic mind of modern Christianity? None at all? "...perfectly intact..."?
I see a difference, but not one that 'invalidates' JudeoChristian monotheism. Jews and Christians alike still worship one God. Sure Trinitarians have muddied the waters somewhat but they still claim their God is one :)
>>>I see a difference,
You should have stopped right there.
>>>but not one that 'invalidates' JudeoChristian monotheism.
Islam has more in common with Hebrew monotheism than Trinitarianism has.
>>>Jews and Christians alike still worship one God.
But for Catholics-Protestants, that one god include a father and his son - and a ghost. But I see you are a very forgiving man. You are quite willing to overlook small details. The inspector has reached his verdict: "Everything is intact, as it should be."
>>>Sure Trinitarians have muddied the waters somewhat but they still claim their God is one :)
Not much gets past your penetrating powers of analysis Jason. I just hope you neve serve on a jury.
Bill Ross
http://bibleshockers.blogspot.com
Jason said...
That all depends on when you think the rise of Israelite monotheism occurred.
I'm a tad rusty on the dates but IIRC Israelite monotheism is first verifiable around 1300 BC, and the Ugaritic texts are older (by 100-300 years again IIRC). There are obvious traces of a polytheistic past left left in the biblical text as well, as mentioned.
'Cult favoritism' was established with Abram, long before the first commandment was given.
You are presuming that there was an Abram, and that the story of the religion's birth is true. This cannot be proven, and archaeological evidence would seem to tend to disprove it.
And yet JudeoChristian monotheism has remained perfectly intact for thousands of years...
So? Any lie can last a long, long time if the truth is obscured enough and if those who would disprove it are dead....
Wounded Ego said..
But for Catholics-Protestants, that one god include a father and his son - and a ghost.
No offense WE, but I can see how that could be one god (although Jesus as "fully god fully human" doesn't work with the view I'm talking about).
>>>...but I can see how that could be one god (although Jesus as "fully god fully human" doesn't work with the view I'm talking about).
I'm not sure what your view might be but I point out in my book that it is much easier to swallow a nebulous "3=1" scenario if you are dealing with "spirits" since that philosophical construct lies outside all reality. ("Spirit" is not a Biblical concept). So in "the spiricual realm," where anything goes, you can ignore set theory, mathematics, concepts of what "one" means, etc. and just play games all day.
But when you realize that Yehovah is a man and Jesus is a man and that they sit together on a chair it is pretty tricky to see them as one god.
But as to progression within the Biblical framework (rather than Trinitarian/"spirit" frameword), monotheism is indeed a more consistent feature in the extant text.
Bill said: Islam has more in common with Hebrew monotheism than Trinitarianism has. But for Catholics-Protestants, that one god include a father and his son - and a ghost.
This is all very nice but I don't see what it has to do with the topic. Jews and Christians alike still worship one God.
>>>This is all very nice but I don't see what it has to do with the topic. Jews and Christians alike still worship one God.
Neither Jews, Islamists nor biblical Christians (Ie: "Paul") would consider that a true statement. They all recognize Yehovah but consider the Trinity as polytheism.
Bill
PS, according to the Massoretic vowel pointing, the divine name is 3 syllables, not 2: "Ye-ho-vah." There is a stop after the first letter.
Neither Jews, Islamists nor biblical Christians (Ie: "Paul") would consider that a true statement. They all recognize Yehovah but consider the Trinity as polytheism.
You’re arguing off-topic semantics. Christians still worship one God, Jews worship one God, Islam worships one God. Arguing the Trinity is the worship of three distinct gods is virtually impossible to prove because of the convoluted language used to describe the concept.
WoundedEgo said...
I'm not sure what your view might be but I point out in my book that it is much easier to swallow a nebulous "3=1" scenario if you are dealing with "spirits" since that philosophical construct lies outside all reality.
It's more of an idle theory then my view, but in any case that is precisely what I'm talking about. YHVH being the only actually spirit entity of the three, while Jesus (on Earth) would have been more like an avatar in Hinduism (but that removes the human part as I mentioned) and the Holy Spirit just being a fancy name for said god using it's power. Now, of course this doesn't hold together from a biblical viewpoint, but neither does the trinity idea so who cares? ;)
Note again, this is merely an idle musing.
("Spirit" is not a Biblical concept).
I beg to differ (Ephesians 6).
My contention is that the word translated as "spirit" is actually breath. Eph 6 clearly refers to breath, since breath "inspires" speech - it gives utterance - and is the sword that come from the mouth of the man on the white horse:
Eph 6:
17 And take...the sword of the Spirit [breath], which is the word of God:
18 Praying always with all prayer and supplication in [by the instrument of] the Spirit [breath], and watching thereunto with all perseverance and supplication for all saints;
Not that this ultimately matters to most of the people on this blog...
Earlier in Ephesians, Paul specifically links the breath of the world to the AIR:
Eph 2:2 Wherein in time past ye walked according to the course of this world, according to the prince of the power of the air [of] the spirit [breath] that now worketh in the children of disobedience:
In the Bible's ancient anatomy, men received the breath of God which gave him life, self awareness and utterance. They thought of the air as an intelligent vapor:
1Co 2:11 For what man knoweth the things of a man, save the spirit [breath] of man which is in him? even so the things of God knoweth no man, but the Spirit [breath] of God.
Re 1:16 And he had in his right hand seven stars: and out of his mouth went a sharp twoedged sword: and his countenance was as the sun shineth in his strength.
Re 2:16 Repent; or else I will come unto thee quickly, and will fight against them with the sword of my mouth.
Re 19:15 And out of his mouth goeth a sharp sword, that with it he should smite the nations: and he shall rule them with a rod of iron: and he treadeth the winepress of the fierceness and wrath of Almighty God.
Re 19:21 And the remnant were slain with the sword of him that sat upon the horse, which sword proceeded out of his mouth: and all the fowls were filled with their flesh.
Ge 2:7 And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.
Joh 20:22 And when he had said this, he breathed on them, and saith unto them, Receive ye the Holy Ghost [breath]:
"Ghost" is Saxon for "breath" and "spiritus" is latin for "breath." The Greeks had no word for "spirit" - nor did English - until they coined it from the latin word for breath.
http://bibleshockers.blogspot.com
Ah, I see what you mean now. My bad - seems I was reading with modern eyes again. Thank you for the explanation.
Harry-
I was actually looking for a copy of Die Keilalphabetischen Texte aus Ugarit and your blog came up in the search. I was interested in the topic so I read through it. I thought I'd provide a word of correction regarding a few points you make. In one of your comments you state the "Semitic name for God is ‘l (El) in the cuneiform logogram Akkadian texts such as in the story of creation (Enuma Elis)." This isn't perfectly accurate. While they use a related word as a generic noun for "god," there is no El in the Mesopotamian pantheon. There were dozens of gods worshipped by the Mesopotamians, but El is a uniquely West Semitic deity.
You then say, "Genesis opens with 'In the beginning gods (Elohem or the ending '‘m' is the masculine plural for El or god) created the heavens and the earth.'” While the morphology is distinctly plural, the adjectives and verbs show the vast majority of the time the noun is to be understood as a singular. This is not a biblical innovation, either. The plural of 'ilu ('ilanu) is used throughout Northwest Semitic literature in reference to singular individuals well before it was ever used in the Bible. The Amarna Letters use it to refer to a singular deity as well as to the Pharaoh (over a hundred times, in fact). You can also find it being used that way at Mari, in Ugaritic, Tanaach, and Qatna. It was originally an abstract plural meaning divinity. As it was applied so frequently to Israel's deity it became a concretized noun, although it maintained generic taxonomical qualities as well. Thus it is variously used to mean "divinity," to refer directly to El, and even as an adjective ("divine"). It need not be interpreted as a plural in Genesis 1, although the reference in Gen 2:22 betrays vestigial divine council imagery.
Then you state, "since Yahweh is not given as a plural in the Hebrew text like El, it established a good bases to build Israelite monotheism on." This has nothing whatsoever to do with Israelite monotheism. El is a singular deity and a generic noun in all Northwest Semitic literature. Yahwism was institutionalized by the monarchy in the tenth century. El and Yahweh were conflated, and Yahweh appropriated the imagery of Ba'al and other deities, but none of them were represented in the plural in any Semitic texts. Monotheism is nowhere found in the Hebrew Bible. Isaiah's rhetoric in no way means other gods don't exist. He says the same about cities. What he's saying is that other gods don't compare with Yahweh. Real philosophical monotheism was developed by the Greeks in the fifth century, and it wasn't arrogated by Judeo-Christians until the second and third centuries CE. It never had anything to do with the plural or singular nature of any names of deities. It was the outgrowth of Yahweh's developing universalism, which was a rhetorical response to the loss of Israelite autonomy. The Israelites could feel ok about losing their freedom if they believed their god was ruler of the whole universe and could ultimately save them.
In another comment you state, "El in the Ugaritic texts has evolved as the father of the young god Ba’al just has he been influenced by the Greco-Roman religions to father the Christian semi-god Jesus." To begin with, El did not evolve into Ba'al's father. He is Ba'al's father in the oldest texts we have. Jesus, in addition, originally had nothing to do with Graeco-Roman anything. It was an outgrowth of Jewish messianism. Graeco-Roman influence entered the picture in the third and fourth centuries CE.
Post a Comment