/christian/ - Christian Discussion and Fellowship

>>730641

>YHWH was a polytheistic deity

You mean as in God was a pantheon and not a single being/trinity? Because that's what the jews believe.

*yawn*

>>730641

It's pretty silly, considering that YHWH itself comes from the verb "to be" (hawah, הוה). It's an abstract designation, dynamic, and not tied to any particular or earthly aspects like typical gods ("warrior gods", "sun gods", "fertility gods", etc). It's a God who claims the notion of Being itself.

The extended form is in Moses' encounter at the burning bush: "I AM THAT I AM" (or in the LXX: I AM THE BEING). אֶהְיֶה אֲשֶׁר Ehyeh Asher Ehyeh. This is a singular. Not "We are that are" or "We are the beings". It was always understood as singular/monotheistic.

The Apostles knew it well too and extended the concept with phrases like "He who was, is, and is to come".

I wonder why scholars have to poke at this and look for something else.. when they don't do it other abstract concepts (like the Chinese Tao.. or Hindu Brahman.. which are similar in cosmological scope.. rather than being limited to "god of fire", "god of wheat", etc).

It's true though that Elohim has both singular and plural meanings (it's just a generic word for "god"), but how it's used depends on the culture/region using it. When Israelites claimed to serve one god, what is so hard to simply take them at their word? And when the Bible says that some Israelites shifted towards polytheism, it makes it clear when they do. It never tried to hide the faults when it happens.

And if "El" really is polytheistic, I dare some of them to tell a Muslim that. Allah in Arabic is based off of it (and what Arabic speaking Christians use as well). Their heads would roll in no time if they spouted this nonsense.

>>730641

I’ve never read that specific book, but I have read Harold Bloom’s Book of J which is on a similar concept. This really seems to be an issue of assuming the Bible was written long after the events it portrays. This is similar to scholars dating the book of Daniel later because it describes prophecies that came true, therefore “it must have been written after those events happened.”

Basically, the claim is there is evidence that the Israelites worshipped a multitude of gods besides Jehovah/Yahweh/YHWH. This is true, they did, the Bible describes them starting as monotheists who later fell away and worshipped other gods (2 Kings 17:33 for example); and then scholars insist actually the polytheism is older and more authentic and monotheism came later. It’s basically saying the Bible cannot be right so any alternative explanation is accepted. The Bible portrays monotheists becoming polytheists, therefore the truth must be that polytheists became monotheists. There’s no hard evidence for it beyond speculation. Abandon J and Q, read the full Bible instead.

>>730694

The whole premise stems from incorrect dating.. starting with Champollion and Egyptology (which was still partially tied to biblical archeology of his time). One mistake knocked everything out of whack - where Champollion incorrectly identified the pharaoh "Shishaq" on the Merneptah Stele as the pharaoh Shoshenq I. From there, it shifted the traditional dating of biblical chronology several hundred years and the when/where/why Israelites resided in Canaan. This literally means that when they look at dig sites, they're not even identifying the right era of Jews who resided there. Or in some cases, that they were Jews at all.

And modern scholarship hasn't changed in 200 years (even when there are worthwhile objections), because academic and popular material about either the biblical or Egyptian world is practically a "big business" that's relied on these dates as it's bread and butter.

Lastly, something even worse happened in recent decades: Egyptology is now tied to Arabic/Muslim propaganda. There's been active suppression of reexamining Israelite history in that land (at least until recently. The Arab Spring shook some things up and they have a new minister of antiquities). But I wouldn't bet on anything significant changing anytime soon.