Actually, there is is a strain of henotheistic thought in those of the Writings that were allegedly composed (not necessarily received their final redaction) at the time of the kingdoms; see II Kings 1:2-4, II Kings 3:27, and II Kings 5:17-19 for examples. We can reconcile this with current Judaic thought by noting that non-Jews are not considered to be obliged to follow the mitzvot, and that the Noachide laws (which they are considered to be obliged to follow), whilst they forbid idol worship, do not completely forbid alternative religious practices on the part of non-Jews. We can also note that the Writings (Ketuvim), whilst considered inspired, do not have the same authority as the Torah, and Halakhot cannot be deduced from them (although they can be cited to show how Halakhot were practiced); thus, the fact that Ketuvim record henotheistic practices, or even that the authors and/or redactors were henotheists, does not imply that Judaism must therefore endorse henotheism.
I suppose it all depends on how one defines a god. Last time I looked it up, the definition was something like “an immortal being posessing supernatural powers”, which description would seem to apply to an angel. This does not necessarily mean, of course, that such a being is worthy of worship, or that anyone did worship such beings anyway.
Then how did Pharoah’s magicians and priests make their own miracles? For example, Moses’ staff became a serpent, then the priests made their own rod-serpents, then Moses’ rod-serpent swallowed up the ones the priests conjured up. Then Moses’ serpent became a rod again.
Now, the transformations of Moses’ rod into a serpent and back was actually done by God and not Moses. The text makes that clear. (If only the entire Bible was so clear…)
So how did the priest/magicians duplicate the feat? Who made THEIR rods transform? (And if the priests were just illusionists like David Copperfield, it really ruins the drama of the story, doesn’t it? Besides, it’s clear from the text that we are meant to think that the priests’ serpents were every bit as real as Moses’, just not as strong.)
They were real. From a strict reading of the Bible, there are various forms of magic/sorcery that are out there. There are bans on magic, necromancy, etc. The bible didn’t prohibit slight of hand tricks.
In addition, you have examples of people performing magic. Pharroh’s advisors with their rods is one. The witch at Ein Dor who calls up the ghost of Samuel for Saul is another.
Well, Kyberneticist, not knowing Psalm 82 off the top of my head, I had to do a little research.
Presented here is a Jewish interpretation of this Psalm. I will translate relevent words as necessary.
The opening verse says “God stands in the Divine assembly (adas e-l in the midst of E-lohim shall He judge.”
At first blush, it would seem to indicate a pantheism. However, the following must be noted:
The word E-lohim could refer to God. It could also refer to anyone mighty or powerful (see Genesis 6:2), angels (Judges 13:22, where the text makes it plainly clear that an angel is referred to) or even judges and courts (Exodus 21:6).
Likewise, Adas E-l could be an assemblege of angels, powerful people or judges.
In this Psalm, God is telling judges to do justice for the widowed, poor and the orphan, a common theme in the Bible. Later in the Psalm, God tells them that they are/can be angelic, but in the end, they will die (so you better do what’s right – editorializing mine).
In verse 6 he says, Ye are gods and children of El (the Caananite high god). Yes, that could be read as saying you are judges, as well as created by god, but doesn’t that seem more forced?
In verse 7 it says BUT DESPITE THIS (being gods and children of god) you will die like men, and fall like princes of men.
Seems fairly clear.
Also, what’s your take on the ancient hebrew writings on YaHWeH and his Asherah that I gave a link too (you’ll have to scroll back a bit)?
Remember, we’re not arguing that current Judaism is monotheistic, just that, like the cultures it sprang from, was polytheistic at first. We’re claiming standard theological evolution as opposed to special creationism.
I believe that link also points out that many of the psalms were adapted from the hymns of other cultures. If it wasn’t that link, I can look for it again.
Yes, verse 6 is telling judges that they have extraoridnary power, like God. Yet, despite this, they must be fair because, in the end, they too shall die.’
**
I’ll have to look at the link you provided (I haven’t had the chance to). In any event, from just a plain reading of the Bible, it is clear that some Jews did stray from monotheism from time to time. The pottery shard you mentioned could just as easily be from one of those people.
Well, at least we’re agreed that current Judaism is montheistic.
I never argued that the Jews were always perfect and always beleived in only god. A simple reading of the bible will prove that. However, those people were acting outside the realm of Judaism, not within it.
In any event, we even agree, to an extent, that Judaism sprang from polytheism. After all, Abraham, the first monotheist, came from polytheists.
So, not to hijack my own thread back or anything, but as far as my OP went, are we in agreement that Hell and Satan are a Christian (ie New Testament) invention? And the fall of Satan was mentioned in passing in the actual text of the Bible, but it wasn’t elaborated upon and it might just have been a metaphor. And Milton is the one that started all this one-third of the angels business. Is that right? Thanks to all who helped answer my question.
Maybe the answer is that the Christian Hell and the Christian Satan are Christian inventions. The idea of a place of eternal punishment, whether only for the really evil or for everyone who doesn’t believe a certain way, and the idea of a supernatural being to rule over it, whether a “fallen angel” or just someone who drew the short straw, are much older than Christianity.
Satan, as an angel or being who rebelled against God, was thrown out of Heaven and now seeks to thwart His will, is a Christian concept.
Hell is a differnet story. Judaism has always held of an afterlife and a place where sinners were punished. However, unlike in Christianity, one does not go there for a single misdeed (such as not believing in Jesus) nor does one go there forever.
In my Religious Studies class we learned about Zoroastrianism, that wonderful Persian religion that the Jews were exposed to during the Exile. They were the ones who had all these great ideas about Hell and eternal damnation and whatnot. The descriptions that are in their holy book ar absolutely terrifying. I want to say that it’s called the Vedas, but I don’t feel like pulling out my old notes and looking.
Zoroastrianism influenced Judaism tremendously; it’s safe to say that it would not be the religion that it is today without that influence. Again, I can mention stuff like Dualism and angels, the specific examples of influences are in my notes and I’m too cold to go look for them. Just look it up yourselves or read their holy books. It’s at the library. (God forbid! Real BOOKS!)
Just make sure you look at ancient Zoroastrianism not the corrupted mess that’s being practiced today by all of 100,000 people in India.
No, not altogether. Late pre-Talmudic Judaism was showing developments in that direction before Christ.
I don’t know about that “just … a metaphor” part. But in a very real sense, you must understand that Satan isn’t a terribly important part of real Xtianity. The plain text of the NT certainly indicates that there is a Satan, and I dare say most Christians, if they had to choose one way or the other, would say that he’s real. (Moreover, if one believes in Possession, that certainly indicates that he’s alive and working today.) But in the long run, he’s history. He’s a bug that’s going to get stepped on when God decides it’s time. Even less than that.
Milton might have been the first to say “one-third”, but he certainly didn’t invent the story of the Fall of Lucifer, which was established long before him. (In fact, Milton’s beliefs regarding angels are distinctly heterodox – even idiosyncratic; you should never rely on him as a source.)
No, they’re Hindu. You’re probably thinking of the Avesta.
Just how much Zoroaster influenced Judaism depends partly on just what Zoroaster taught. It is still debated, both within and without Zoroastrianism, whether he was a monotheist (in which case he wasn’t all that different from Judaism in the first place) or a true dualist (i.e., one who believes in an equal-and-opposite God and Devil).
(Zoroastrians, please don’t flame me for the above. You’ve got a quarrel among you; I will not pick one side or the other.)
However, different translations render this verse differently. For example:
In fact, the RSV renders an earlier verse this way:
If you read the entire chapter carefully, you can see it does not refer to Satan at all, but to the King of Babylon. Verses 1-3 are instructions and comfort from God saying they will not be subject to this king’s rule forever and when it is over, they may taunt him. The rest of this chapter details the taunt. (It’s a LONG taunt!)
Y’see, this king was known by a nickname, rendered variously as Day Star, son of Dawn, or even light-bringer, depending on the language used. (In Hebrew, it’s Heylel.) When the Latin Vulgate was composed, the Latin word lucifer, which can have any of those meanings, was used. Somehow, probably because of careless reading, people thought the verses were referring to Satan and thought the word lucifer was his name. “Lucifer” also happens to be the Romans’ name for the planet Venus when it appeared as the Morning Star.
BTW: Some believe the king in question is none other than Nebuchadnezzar.
A great online Bible (where I got the above quotes) is http://bible.crosswalk.com/ It has 20 different translations from which to choose, including the Latin Vulgate and a Hebrew Names version.
Oh, and the fact that the Mormon books refer to Satan as “Lucifer” throughout raises great doubt about its autnehticity. Why would Moses refer to Satan by a Latin name?
I can’t help but notice many of the godlike beings in early Jewish lore had names ending in “El.”
“El” is also, as every reader of DC Comics knows, the surname of the Kryptonian family Superman belonged to. Superman’s Kryptonian name is Kal-El, his father’s is Jor-El, etc.
(Yes, I know someone will point out that originally the spelling was “L.” Same phoneme, though, so leave it alone.)
Jerry Siegel and Joe Shuster, creators of Superman, were Jewish. Is it likely they drew on their cultural heritage when assigning names to their race of people with godlike powers? Has anyone written on this before?
I can’t help but notice many of the godlike beings in early Jewish lore had names ending in “El.”
“El” is also, as every reader of DC Comics knows, the surname of the Kryptonian family Superman belonged to. Superman’s Kryptonian name is Kal-El, his father’s is Jor-El, etc.
(Yes, I know someone will point out that originally the spelling was “L.” Same phoneme, though, so leave it alone.)
Jerry Siegel and Joe Shuster, creators of Superman, were Jewish. Is it likely they drew on their cultural heritage when assigning names to their race of people with godlike powers? Has anyone written on this before?
Jab1 is correct that Isaiah 14:12 didn’t originally refer to Satan or any supernatural figure, but Milton had more than that to go on when he said “one-third” of the angels fell with Satan:
I believe the re-definition of Isaiah 14:12 happened early in the history of the Christian church, and no doubt influenced such translations as that of the King James Version.
Re Isaiah 14:12- Per Isaac Asimovs Guide to the Bible “By New Testament times, the Jews had developed, in full detail, the legend that Satan had been the leader of the ‘fallen angels’. These were the angels who rebelled aginst God by refusing to bow down before Adam…By the time this legand had developed the Jews had come under Greek influence…”*. Note that he agrees that the verse here, in Isaiah, likely does not refer to Satan.
And also, from Don’t Know Much About the Bible, by Kenneth Davis, re Satan in Job: “the Satan of Job… is more of a figure… of a prosecuting attorney, than the figure of pure evil as …now commonly concieved. … Only in later Jewish and Christian writings did Satan become the chief of a group of fallen angels”.
