Why maklelan can't win a debate with me

[_Roger]

I find some difficulty reading verse 6, 7 in terms other than a vivid ironic reversal of the literal meaning of the preceeding. Was that a later addition or was the whole a set up using older religious traditions?

You raise some interesting questions that are well beyond my humble knowledge - or I should say lack thereof. I suppose if you don't take the Old Testament as a unity then you could argue that some authors accepted many "gods" while others did not. I think it's much more difficult to suggest that any Old Testament author viewed any other "gods" - whether false or not - as ever being on the same level as Yahweh or even comparable to him, which, I believe is what LDS theology implies. Regardless, it still looks to me like this particular author - if he's even actually acknowledging the existence of other "deities" and I'm not convinced of that - is condemning those deities and proclaiming the superiority of Yahweh. It seems much more reasonable - to me at least - that he's employing sarcasm.

[_Bret Ripley]

I think it's much more difficult to suggest that any Old Testament author viewed any other "gods" - whether false or not - as ever being on the same level as Yahweh or even comparable to him

See also, Henotheism, particularly the section 'Canaanite religion and early Judaism'.

[_Roger]

maklelan:

Thanks for your response.

showing the Bible drew from a broader literary matrix, rather than having invented everything ex nihilo. Look at Isa 27:1:

Which is to say that the Bible speaks from within the context(s) in which it was produced.

That's the wrong antecedent for v. 5, but the gods that are reprimanded in Psalm 82 are certainly the gods of the nations. It would be inaccurate to claim they are all false gods, given the fact that Deut 32:8-9 claim that God himself established those gods over their respective nations. This tradition is also reflected in Deut 4:19 and Deut 29:26.

Wow. Now this is where it really gets interesting. I want to really try to understand what you're suggesting here. So you seem to be saying that Yahweh himself "established" other legitimate "Gods" or "gods(?)" over other nations but kept Isreal for himself. The notes in my Oxford Study edition New English Bible say: "The sons of God are minor figures in the divine council (Gen. 1.26n) to whom the Most High has assigned governorship of the nations, retaining Isreal for himself."

I will grant that seems to support your case - at least on its face. On the other hand, "governorship" also seems to support Talmage's notion of "judges" and "most high" certainly suggests an authority unequaled.

So I guess it comes down to what the heck is meant by the term "divine council."

No doubt you're well aware of the term "Nephilim" as used in Gen. 6:4. Again, referencing my New English Bible, (to my surprise) the verse actually says: "In those days when the sons of the gods had intercourse with the daughters of men and got children by them, the Nephilim were on the earth." I have to admit to some shock at this translation, coming, as it does, from a Catholic Bible. (I'm Protestant, by the way). Again, referencing the notes: "The birth of the Nephilim is an ancient fragment, a folk explanation for a race of giants. It is used here to illustrate man's growing wickedness, to explain the decreasing lifespan, and to set the stage for the deluge. Sons of the gods: a term of Canaanite origin for members of the pantheon ("assembly of the gods"). Later these were viewed as fallen angels. (Jude 6-7)."

So.... certainly a lot to digest. It does seem likely, then, that the writer of Genesis was drawing on a more ancient context as he was composing Genesis. Nevertheless, to my knowledge Judaism has never viewed any of these other "deities" as anything other than false gods. Hence - I suppose - the notion that these are in fact fallen angels. The way the text is actually written however (assuming Oxford's translation is correct) is certainly troubling in its implication.

Monotheism is a modern concept. I've discussed this in numerous places, but see here, here, here, and here, in addition to my thesis referenced above.

So Isaiah was not a monotheist?

It's not a proof text so much as another brick in the contextual wall. There are many other places where the same ideologies can be found. There's really no need to reconcile with Isaiah. The author's appealing there to rhetoric, like you would if you said the Broncos and the Seahawks are the only real football teams there are, or if you said the Raiders are less than nothing, and not even a real team.

Actually that would simply be stating facts. ; ) (Although I have to admit to severe and sustained depression after Manning's dismal performance).

He says nations fighting against Israel are nothing and next to nothing, just like he characterizes other gods. That doesn't mean the other nations don't really exist.

I think it's pretty difficult to make the case that Isaiah's Yahweh acknowledged the existence of other Gods.

I discuss Deutero-Isaiah in several of the links above, but see also here and the references I cite there, as well as the more recent Saul Olyan, "Is Isaiah 40-55 Really Monotheistic?" Journal of Ancient Near Eastern Religions 12 (2012): 190-201.

I'm sure your work and the others you cite are excellent. I mean no disrespect but my time is extremely limited. Could you briefly summarize why you seem to be suggesting that Isaiah is not monotheistic?

All the best,

Roger

[_Roger]

See also, Henotheism, particularly the section 'Canaanite religion and early Judaism'.

Wow. That is fascinating and does shed some light on this discussion. Thanks.

[_Mittens]

Henotheism is the belief in and worship of one God without at the same time denying that others can with equal truth worship different gods. It is a falsely taught in the sectarian world that Abraham , for instance, was a henotheist, that is, that he worshipped the Almighty, but that at the same time he considered that other nations could worship their own gods with equall beneficial results. This apostate view is erroneously considered to be one step advanced from polytheism and one step behind the final type of monotheism that was in process of evolving. “ page 351-352 Mormon Doctrine

[_maklelan]

You raise some interesting questions that are well beyond my humble knowledge - or I should say lack thereof. I suppose if you don't take the Old Testament as a unity then you could argue that some authors accepted many "gods" while others did not. I think it's much more difficult to suggest that any Old Testament author viewed any other "gods" - whether false or not - as ever being on the same level as Yahweh or even comparable to him, which, I believe is what LDS theology implies.

It's definitely rare, but there is an instance where an author of a biblical text reluctantly acknowledges another deity's superiority to YHWH. In 2 Kgs 3:27, the king of Moab offers his firstborn son as a burnt offering upon his city wall in an effort to fend off troops of an Israelite/Judahite/Edomite coalition that was about to breach the city. The text immediately says that a "great fury" (קֶצֶף־גָּדֹול) came upon Israel, driving them off. The text is not explicit regarding source of this "great fury," but it doesn't have to be. The term is used to refer to divine wrath, and in this instance, the only acceptable interpretation is that the king's human sacrifice worked to appeal to the Moabite deity (Chemosh) to drive off the Israelites. Since YHWH had promised victory to the coalition, he would have been thought to have been fighting on their side. For the forces to be driven off means the Moabite deity had to have overcome YHWH. The writer is reluctant to acknowledge YHWH's defeat, and so he fudges the prophecy a little bit to suggest that in "smiting" the walls of the city, the coalition fulfilled the prophecy, but the city was not taken and the Moabites were not delivered into Israelite hands. Chemosh defeated YHWH. For more on divine warfare, see here.

Regardless, it still looks to me like this particular author - if he's even actually acknowledging the existence of other "deities" and I'm not convinced of that - is condemning those deities and proclaiming the superiority of Yahweh. It seems much more reasonable - to me at least - that he's employing sarcasm.

Not so much sarcasm as the rhetoric of incomparability. This was where a devotee proclaimed the incomparability of other deities to the target deity. This was a very common rhetorical motif in the ancient Near East, and even in places like Egypt we have authors writing that deity so-and-so was so much better than all the other gods that they were basically nothing. We even have numerous claims that deity so-and-so created all things, including the other deities, and so is so much higher and better than them. Then the same authors turn around and say the same thing to deity so-and-so #2.

[_maklelan]

maklelan:

Thanks for your response.

Of course.

Which is to say that the Bible speaks from within the context(s) in which it was produced.

From and to.

Wow. Now this is where it really gets interesting. I want to really try to understand what you're suggesting here. So you seem to be saying that Yahweh himself "established" other legitimate "Gods" or "gods(?)" over other nations but kept Isreal for himself.

Well, according to Deut 32:8-9, YHWH is not actually the one doing the allotting. El Elyon is doing the allotting, and YHWH is one of the sons of God receiving an allotment. The notion that YHWH kept Israel for himself is a much later interpretation imposed upon the text.

The notes in my Oxford Study edition New English Bible say: "The sons of God are minor figures in the divine council (Gen. 1.26n) to whom the Most High has assigned governorship of the nations, retaining Isreal for himself."

That gets part of the way there.

I will grant that seems to support your case - at least on its face. On the other hand, "governorship" also seems to support Talmage's notion of "judges" and "most high" certainly suggests an authority unequaled.

Elohim cannot refer to judges. The excerpt from my second thesis outlines what the word does and does not mean.

So I guess it comes down to what the heck is meant by the term "divine council."

No doubt you're well aware of the term "Nephilim" as used in Gen. 6:4. Again, referencing my New English Bible, (to my surprise) the verse actually says: "In those days when the sons of the gods had intercourse with the daughters of men and got children by them, the Nephilim were on the earth." I have to admit to some shock at this translation, coming, as it does, from a Catholic Bible. (I'm Protestant, by the way).

Yeah, sometimes they render what the text actually says. Sometimes they don't.

Again, referencing the notes: "The birth of the Nephilim is an ancient fragment, a folk explanation for a race of giants. It is used here to illustrate man's growing wickedness, to explain the decreasing lifespan, and to set the stage for the deluge. Sons of the gods: a term of Canaanite origin for members of the pantheon ("assembly of the gods"). Later these were viewed as fallen angels. (Jude 6-7)."

That fallen angels interpretation developed around the turn of the era within certain strains of Judaism. This paper explains a good deal of the context, and I explain some more in this other SBL paper. Also, Gen 6:2-4 does not reference the birth of the Nephilim, it just says they were in the land at the time. This is a common misinterpretation of this verse.

So.... certainly a lot to digest. It does seem likely, then, that the writer of Genesis was drawing on a more ancient context as he was composing Genesis.

Gen 6:2-4 is likely a misplaced fragment of an older tradition. It makes little sense in its current context.

Nevertheless, to my knowledge Judaism has never viewed any of these other "deities" as anything other than false gods.

Ancient Israel viewed them as the legitimate rulers of the other nations. Around the time of the exile, when Yahwists were living in other countries, they had to come up with a way for Yahwism to be relevant outside of Israel's borders, so the notion was born that YHWH ruled over all the nations. Psalm 82 is one of the texts that effected that paradigm shift. Note that when Saul is chasing David and he must leave Israel, he describes his being chased out as being forced to worship other gods. Ps 137:4 asks how the faithful are to sing the songs of YHWH in a strange land. These all indicate the early idea that YHWH's purview was originally limited to the land of Israel, as would be the case if that was the property allotted to him by El Elyon.

Hence - I suppose - the notion that these are in fact fallen angels. The way the text is actually written however (assuming Oxford's translation is correct) is certainly troubling in its implication.

The translation is correct. It's quite unambiguous.

So Isaiah was not a monotheist?

He was not what we today would call a monotheist.

Actually that would simply be stating facts. ; ) (Although I have to admit to severe and sustained depression after Manning's dismal performance).

Don't get me started. I was in Boulder for both Super Bowl wins, and I was an active participant in the revelry.

I think it's pretty difficult to make the case that Isaiah's Yahweh acknowledged the existence of other Gods.

Mark Smith's God in Translation is a great book that discusses the early acknowledgement of other deities in great detail.

I'm sure your work and the others you cite are excellent. I mean no disrespect but my time is extremely limited. Could you briefly summarize why you seem to be suggesting that Isaiah is not monotheistic?

In short, the text still appeals to divine council rhetoric and literary motifs, and the putative rejection of the existence of the other gods must be interpreted in light of the fact that the author also seems to reject the existence of other nations, people who make idols, and people who fight against Israel. The "I am and there is no other" rhetoric must also be interpreted in context. The author has the personified Babylon say exactly that about herself, but we cannot interpret it to mean Babylon thinks she's the only city that exists. Rather, what it means is that she is the only city that matters to her constituents. It's a relational exclusivity, not an ontological one. Similarly, the Shema, which says YHWH is one, is matched by the Song of Songs, which has the author say that his beloved "is one." The sense is not that either are the only one in existence, but just the only one in the eyes of the beholder. Again, it is a relational exclusivity. YHWH is the only one that matters to Israel, not the only one that exists.

[_Roger]

mak:

Well, according to Deut 32:8-9, YHWH is not actually the one doing the allotting. El Elyon is doing the allotting, and YHWH is one of the sons of God receiving an allotment. The notion that YHWH kept Israel for himself is a much later interpretation imposed upon the text.

So if I'm understanding you, you're saying that "Most High" in verse 8 is someone different from "LORD" in verse 9? You're saying Most High = El Elyon and LORD = YHWH? And that El Elyon is superior to YHWH?

The translation is correct. It's quite unambiguous.

Well maybe so but it's troubling for me, nonetheless. Let me ask you this... do you think that at least by the time of Christ, the Jews had solidified the idea that there is only one God, period?

He was not what we today would call a monotheist.

I have a difficult time believing that given the "none other" statements.

Don't get me started. I was in Boulder for both Super Bowl wins, and I was an active participant in the revelry.

Grew up in Longmont. Elway fan through and through.

The "I am and there is no other" rhetoric must also be interpreted in context. The author has the personified Babylon say exactly that about herself, but we cannot interpret it to mean Babylon thinks she's the only city that exists. Rather, what it means is that she is the only city that matters to her constituents. It's a relational exclusivity, not an ontological one.

This is where you lose me because the text, on its face, as you noted elsewhere, seems pretty unambiguous. In fact God seems to be taunting the reader to show him any other God. "Is there any god beside me, or any creator, even one I do not know?" (8) Then later he answers his own question with: "Thus says the LORD your ransomer, who fashioned you from birth: I am the LORD who made all things, by myself I stretched out the skies, alone I hammered out the floor of the earth." (24) 43:10 says: "My witnesses says the LORD, are you, my servants, you whom I have chosen to know me and put your faith in me and understand that I am He. Before me there was no god fashioned nor ever shall be after me." 45:6 declares: "I am the LORD, there is no other."

Sounds pretty monotheistic to me.

All the best.

[_maklelan]

mak:

So if I'm understanding you, you're saying that "Most High" in verse 8 is someone different from "LORD" in verse 9? You're saying Most High = El Elyon and LORD = YHWH? And that El Elyon is superior to YHWH?

Exactly. In the earliest strata of the Hebrew Bible, YHWH is conceptualized as a storm-deity, while El/Elyon is conceptualized as a patriarchal deity. YHWH was considered one of the sons of El/God.

Well maybe so but it's troubling for me, nonetheless.

Understood. Wasn't trying to make light of that, and I apologize if that's how it was taken.

Let me ask you this... do you think that at least by the time of Christ, the Jews had solidified the idea that there is only one God, period?

Not really. You still have other deities, they're just so far down the list they don't really matter. Even in rabbinic literature you have references to other gods. In reality, any religion that acknowledges the existence of angels, demons, Satan, seraphim, etc., acknowledges the existence of other gods (these were all in the "god" category). Modern theologians will say that these were created and contingent beings that were ontologically distinct from God, who existed separate from all other reality, but this reflects an ontological dualism that simply did not exist within the Judeo-Christian worldview until the second and third centuries CE when the Christological debates were heating up.

I have a difficult time believing that given the "none other" statements.

I referenced the same type of statement placed in the mouth of the personified Babylon in Isa 47:8. The rhetorical point of these statements is not ontological exclusivity, but relational exclusivity. "There is none other as far as you're concerned."

Grew up in Longmont. Elway fan through and through.

Graduated from Niwot. First time I saw my dad cry was when they beat the Packers in the Super Bowl.

This is where you lose me because the text, on its face, as you noted elsewhere, seems pretty unambiguous. In fact God seems to be taunting the reader to show him any other God. "Is there any god beside me, or any creator, even one I do not know?" (8) Then later he answers his own question with: "Thus says the LORD your ransomer, who fashioned you from birth: I am the LORD who made all things, by myself I stretched out the skies, alone I hammered out the floor of the earth." (24) 43:10 says: "My witnesses says the LORD, are you, my servants, you whom I have chosen to know me and put your faith in me and understand that I am He. Before me there was no god fashioned nor ever shall be after me." 45:6 declares: "I am the LORD, there is no other."

Sounds pretty monotheistic to me.

It is very emphatic rhetoric, but it is still rhetoric, and the same rhetoric is used elsewhere in contexts that make its rhetorical function more explicit, as I shared above. The author is obviously trying to drive home his point with great force that they need to ignore the other gods, but a close look at the text and the rhetorical and literary context doesn't support the notion that the author believed no other gods existed. Additionally, all of Judaism immediately goes back to monolatry in all the other literature after Deutero-Isaiah. Even the Dead Sea Scrolls are full of references to other gods.

[_Roger]

mak:

Exactly. In the earliest strata of the Hebrew Bible, YHWH is conceptualized as a storm-deity, while El/Elyon is conceptualized as a patriarchal deity. YHWH was considered one of the sons of El/God.

The same YHWH of Isaiah was "considered one of the sons of El/God"?? Candidly, I'm not up on this (obviously!), but this sounds controversial. It obviously supports LDS doctrine (you are LDS, correct?) so I would expect you to have no problem with it, but are you saying that non-LDS Biblical scholars agree with you on this?

Understood. Wasn't trying to make light of that, and I apologize if that's how it was taken.

Not at all. It's my problem if scripture doesn't support my preconceived ideas. It may well be that my conservative protestant upbringing has colored what the Bible actually states. I just found it surprising that what I understand to be a Catholic Bible would use the phrase "the sons of the gods" in reference to what the author is claiming to have been real entities (as opposed to false gods) who then pro-created with humans to produce giants. In the other Bibles I've seen, the phrase has always been "the sons of God" which is then interpreted to be angels. If "the sons of the gods" is a more accurate rendition it throws a monkey wrench in what I've always believed about that verse which I'm not quite sure how to rectify. So I was surprised to find it in the NEB. Hence, I perceive it as troublesome. Not your fault.

Not really. You still have other deities, they're just so far down the list they don't really matter. Even in rabbinic literature you have references to other gods. In reality, any religion that acknowledges the existence of angels, demons, Satan, seraphim, etc., acknowledges the existence of other gods (these were all in the "god" category).

Which sheds new meaning on the phrase "Most High." But that would be the point, wouldn't it? If you want to argue that angels are closer to deities than to humanity you would probably not get much argument out of orthodox Christians, but it doesn't necessarily follow that angels are Gods. Certainly not comparable to the "Most High."

Modern theologians will say that these were created and contingent beings that were ontologically distinct from God, who existed separate from all other reality, but this reflects an ontological dualism that simply did not exist within the Judeo-Christian worldview until the second and third centuries CE when the Christological debates were heating up.

What evidence is there that angels are not created and contingent beings?

I referenced the same type of statement placed in the mouth of the personified Babylon in Isa 47:8. The rhetorical point of these statements is not ontological exclusivity, but relational exclusivity. "There is none other as far as you're concerned."

With all due respect, I really think that is a stretch. Yes, it's obvious that Babylon is not the only city in the world and yet boasts "I am, and who but I?" but the author is clearly condemning the boast as false while asserting that the claims of YHWH are true. I see no evidence that Isaiah's YHWH has "as far as you're concerned" in the back of his mind when he makes his unequivocal claims to exclusivity and then fails to qualify them.

Graduated from Niwot. First time I saw my dad cry was when they beat the Packers in the Super Bowl.

Oh yes! A glorious moment indeed! I still have it on VHS somewhere! : ) Niwot, huh?! I graduated from Erie in 82. What year did you graduate?

It is very emphatic rhetoric, but it is still rhetoric, and the same rhetoric is used elsewhere in contexts that make its rhetorical function more explicit, as I shared above. The author is obviously trying to drive home his point with great force that they need to ignore the other gods, but a close look at the text and the rhetorical and literary context doesn't support the notion that the author believed no other gods existed.

Again, with all due respect, I may just have to disagree with you on this. I see no textual evidence that supports your assertion. The text seems to pretty well state that YHWH believes he's the only game in town. I do concede, however, that the Genesis verses are troubling in that regard and I'm not sure what that implies.

Additionally, all of Judaism immediately goes back to monolatry in all the other literature after Deutero-Isaiah. Even the Dead Sea Scrolls are full of references to other gods.

It seems to me that references to other gods is not at all problematic. What is problematic is a reference to other legitimate gods which seems to be what we have in Genesis unless "the gods" there are angels.

All the best.