Polytheism, Monolatry, Monotheism in the Tanakh

[wraggy]

A few links to articles on the development of Monotheism in Tanakh.

The conception of the God of Israel presented in the Hebrew Bible seems to have developed out of two older polytheistic deities, El and Yahweh, who were worshipped in the Levant in the 2nd millennium BC.

The developed monotheism of later Judaism seems to have grown out of an earlier system of "monolatry", in which the God of Israel was worshipped exclusively but the existence of other deities was not denied. This monolatry in turn developed out of the original polytheism of the peoples of the Levant.

The decisive developments in the advent of monotheism appear to have been the rise of the Deuteronomic movement (7th and 6th centuries BC) and the Babylonian Exile (587-538 BC). Polytheistic ideas still remained current to some extent thereafter, however.

religiousstudiesblog.blogspot.com.au/2011/03/polytheism-in-bible.html
religiousstudiesblog.blogspot.com.au/2010/12/el-yahweh-and-development-of-monotheism.html

www.thedivinecouncil.com/MonotheismProblem.pdf

My apologies if these articles have been posted before as they have been around for while. I had to post something as the silence in this place has been deafening of late.

[peteri]

Jul 9, 2014 7:48:05 GMT wraggy said:

A few links to articles on the development of Monotheism in Tanakh.

The conception of the God of Israel presented in the Hebrew Bible seems to have developed out of two older polytheistic deities, El and Yahweh, who were worshipped in the Levant in the 2nd millennium BC.

The developed monotheism of later Judaism seems to have grown out of an earlier system of "monolatry", in which the God of Israel was worshipped exclusively but the existence of other deities was not denied. This monolatry in turn developed out of the original polytheism of the peoples of the Levant.

The decisive developments in the advent of monotheism appear to have been the rise of the Deuteronomic movement (7th and 6th centuries BC) and the Babylonian Exile (587-538 BC). Polytheistic ideas still remained current to some extent thereafter, however.

religiousstudiesblog.blogspot.com.au/2011/03/polytheism-in-bible.html

This list is presented as if it were a collection of polytheistic survivals which somehow escaped excision by monotheist writers and editors, in the same way that some theophoric names in the Former Prophets indicate that there was once a time when YHWH worshippers used to use the word "Baal" for YHWH. (Baal is a perfectly innocent word meaning "master" when applied to human beings, but it is forbidden to call God that following Hosea 2:16.)

The one that seems closest is the one in Deuteronomy "he fixed the boundaries of the peoples according to the number of the gods" (32:8). It seems to have been amended somewhat implausibly to "according to the number of the Israelites" by later hands, so it clearly gave someone a bit of trouble.

But most of these verses are not things that monotheists have tried to sweep under the carpet. "For the LORD is a great God and a great king above all gods" (Psalm 95:3) is said very often at my local Anglican church, and the book of Daniel (generally regarded as the last book of the Hebrew Bible by mainstream critics) contains a reference to God as "God of gods" (Daniel 11:36).


Monolatry as concept distinct from Monotheism is common currency in religious studies, but it does not seem to be well thought out. Monotheists do not generally deny the existence of other gods. The early Christians sometimes got into serious trouble for refusing to perform an act of worship directed towards Caesar, but there is no reason to suppose that any of them went around claiming that Caesar didn't really exist.

Paul seems to view the Greek and Roman polytheistic pantheon as the "weak and beggarly elements" to which the readers of the letter to the Galatians were formerly enslaved. (Galatians 4:8-9) This suggests that the gods exist in some sense, but are without power except over those who are enslaved to them.

I take Paul's "no idol in the world really exists" (1 Corinthians 8:4) to mean that idols and what they represent are entirely without power, and is not a blanket denial of the existence of idols.

religiousstudiesblog.blogspot.com.au/2010/12/el-yahweh-and-development-of-monotheism.html

It seems reasonable that belief in El, the supreme Canaanite deity, is ancestral to the belief in the Most High. But "el" in the Bible is just a word meaning "god" and is used both for God and for other gods.

Our author tells us that the origin of YHWH is not entirely clear, but somehow manages to assert that YHWH has an origin as some lesser god in a polytheistic system. This makes no sense, if you don't know where or how the Name originated, then you have no business claiming that it wasn't referring to the Most High from the beginning.

It used to be common for people to claim that the name YHWH came from Yam, the Canaanite god of the sea. But this just seems to have been a desperate attempt to find a origin other than the traditional one by people who somehow thought that any Canaanite god beginning with "Y" would do. It seems not to make much sense linguistically: you can't get from YM or even YW to YH.

The old traditional and Biblical view that YHWH is a play on the verb to be, is an idea that linguists do seem to take seriously. It is unusual for a false folk etymology to make linguistic sense, so that counts somewhat in its favour. If the Name does have that origin, it can't very well have been applied at the beginning to anything less than the Creator.

While there is plenty of evidence that the many among the Hebrew peoples of Israel and Judah who invoked the name YHWH also worshipped other gods and goddesses, what seems most interesting to me is that the reverse sort of syncretism didn't happen. Many of the nations which had contact with the Hebrews were great borrowers of other people's gods. But the neighbours don't seem to have borrowed YHWH and put him in their pantheons.


www.thedivinecouncil.com/MonotheismProblem.pdf

This one is quite the opposite argument. It seems to me a great improvement on the first two. I think I mostly agree with it.

Peter.