Posts by Mebaqqer2

202

I don't believe the Bible is Inspired of god - Why do you / don't you?

by cantleave in

many of you may know that i was brought up a witness and stayed in until the age of 42, even reaching the dizzy heights of being a congregation elder.

i was unusual in that, even as a witness i studied to degree level, on a part time basis, sponsored by my employer.

my first was in chemistry and my masters is in business administration.

Mebaqqer2

I don't believe the Bible for the same reasons I don't believe the Qur'an, Book of Mormon, Kojiki, Lotus Sutra, etc. Someone (cofty) already stated the point, but I will say it as well. Christians, like most religious believers, start with an idea that their belief is somehow sui generis so that any usual method of investigating its claims of truth is held to be inapplicable, unacceptable, or insufficient to Christianity. Look, for example, at perhaps the foremost Christian apologist William Lane Craig. He spends alot of time debating and writing books on how reason supports the truths of Christianity. However, in his book "Reasonable Faith," he lets the actual situation slip:

"May I suggest that, fundamentally, the way we know Christianity to be true is by the self-authenticating witness of God's Holy Spirit? Now what do I mean by that? I mean that the experience of the Holy Spirit is veridical and unmistakable (though not necessarily irresistible or indubitable) for him who has it; that such a person does not need supplementary arguments or evidence in order to know and to know with confidence that he is in fact experiencing the Spirit of God; that such experience does not function in this case as a premise in any argument from religious experience to God, but rather is the immediate experiencing of God himself" -William Lane Craig, "Reasonable Faith: Christian Truth and Apologetics," rev. ed. (Wheaton: Crossway Books, 1994), 31, 32.

Thus for Craig the truth of Christianity is not established by any of the arguments he makes, but rather on some religious experience which he claims is "self-authenticating." One should already see the problem with this criterion for establishing truth since not being indubitable (thus dubitable, i.e. subject to doubt) necessarily means it cannot be "veridical and unmistakeable." Craig's self-authenticating religious experience stands in the same tradition as Rudolf Otto who likewise sought to ground the truth claims of Christianity in a claimed superior religious experience that ultimately falls outside any of the usual methods of empirical inquiry. In this way, Christians simply use reasonable sounding arguments to supplement their experience so as to given their religion a superfical air of reasonableness. In point of fact, however, Christians do not take reason to be the arbitor in examining the claims of their religion. Thus we are led back to Augustine's fides quaerens intellectum (faith seeking understanding) where reason only serves as the tool for so called revealed truths which are "known" through faith. This is all quite clear from Craig who himself states that "Should a conflict arise between the witness of the Holy Spirit to the fundamental truth of the Christian faith and beliefs based on argument and evidence, then it is the former which must take precedence over the latter, not vice versa" (Craig 36).

One should see another problem with the use of this criterion to establish truth in the fact that religions outside of Christianity likewise have "veridical and unmistakeable" religious experiences which Christians ironically will not accept as establishing the truth of the claims those religions make. Instead, the Christian takes those experiences as due to the influence of demons or psychological self deception. Thus the religious experiences of others are dismissed outright in preference to their own experience which actually should be taken as no more credible than any other. Thus essentially, Christianity is true because it says it is true.

This claimed unique status for Christianity naturally flows into all aspects of Christian apologetics making them disingeuous and unconvincing. To take the example of "proof from prophecy," Christians maintain that the Jewish Scriptures prophecy in great detail about Jesus numerous times giving convicing proof that Jesus is in fact the Messiah of God. Thus Matthew 2:15 shows that Jesus' move back from Egypt "fulfilled" the statement found in Hosea 11:1 where God declares "out of Egypt I called my son." Of course turning to Hosea 11 itself one does not find any prophecy concerning the Messiah, but rather a poetic passage recounting Israel's early history of God's callings them out from Egypt and their subsequent turning aside from God to worship Baal. The Christian will quickly respond that the passage has "dual meaning" or "prefigures" Jesus and so is in fact to be taken as a prophecy about Jesus. Thus the argument is ultimately that the passage is a prophecy because Christianity says it is a prophecy and it was fulfilled in Jesus because Christianity says it was. Of course the reasonable person sees in this instance that Christians have simply stacked the deck by fabricating a prophecy out of the words of Hosea in order to create proof for a preconceived claim of Jesus' Messiahship so that the said "prophecy" is completely unconvincing. The Christian of course will be content in sitting in their "self-authenticated" truth which is supplemented by self-proclaimed proof all while looking down on or pitying those not accepting Christian claims as hard-hearted and obstinate or ignorant at the very best.

The irony is that when it comes to other religious traditions' deployment of similar proofs, Christians suddenly become critical and subject those claims to reasonable inquiry. Take for example the Mormon claim that the book of Mormon is prophecied in Ezekiel 37:16, 17. Christians here will point out the overall context which makes it clear that Ezekiel is speaking of a reunification of the kingdoms of Judah and Israel so that the Mormon claim that this is a "prophecy" concerning the Book of Mormon simply can't be sustained. Mormons, however, already accept that Ezekiel is talking about the reunification of Judah and Israel but that this reunification is only viable due to the restoration of both sets of Scriptures, the Bible and the Book of Mormon, so that they claim Ezekiel has a deeper significance here. Is the Mormon appeal to some deeper significance for Ezekiel's words taken seriously by Christians? Absolutely not. The Christian here makes the reasonable conclusion that clear contextual indications are what should guide the understanding of the text and that Mormons are simply appealing to some claimed deeper meaning so as to manufacture proof to support their beliefs. One should remember too that the truthfulness of the Book of Mormon is also said by Mormons to be guaranteed by a witness of the Holy Spirit, i.e. burning of the bosom, that they no doubt also take as "veridical and unmistakeable" but which Christians reject out of hand. Incidently, the Mormons for their part will simply decide that the witness of the Holy Spirit to the veracity of the Book of Mormon takes precedence over any of the counter arguments Christians might throw at them due to the same reliance on their religious experience that Craig makes clear for his own views. In this way, both sides end up talking at each other with each not listening to the other seriously for ironically the very same reason. Examples of such double standards as these show clearly how Christian apologetics are simply a charade which attempt to cloth the claims of Christianity, actually accepted on the basis of a religious experience, with an air of reason by arming itself with "proofs" that are expected to convince others which are actually formulated on bases that even the Christian apologists would not accept unless it serves to support their own position.

This brings us back to why I do not believe the Bible to be the inspired, inerrant word of God. Well the answer is quite simple. Unlike the Christian who finds a subjective religious experience supplemented by forms of argument which would not be taken seriously from others to attest to the truth of Christian claims, I simply apply the same standards to all religious claims and texts equally. Thus I examine the Bible using the same critical methodology I would to any other text of antiquity. That is not to disclude the possibly that the Bible could in theory be demonstrated to be the inspired, inerrant word of God, but that I have yet to see any evidence of this that could not be explained in a more reasonable way or could not be claimed for some other text. Christian claims of the Bible's uniqueness are only based on preconceived ideas that it is unique. In a sense, the Bible is indeed unique, but only in the sense that any text is unique. Of course Christians are arguing that the Bible is unque par excellence as is the Christian religion. It is certainly true that Christianity is unique in its claims, but this this does not translate into its being true. Buddhism is also unique in its claims which likewise does not make it true. Similarly the Bible is unique, but this does not translate into its being true any more than the uniqueness of the Lotus Sutra does. Arguments in support of the Bible's claimed uniquely unique status, such as prophecies, non-contradition, scientific knowledge, etc., all ultimately rest on assuming the Bible to be sui generis from the start and using a double standard of witholding it from the normal procedure of subjecting it to objective, rational inquiry. Thus, my not beliving in the Bible as the inspired, inerrant word of God is not because I am hard-headed, obstinate, or ignorant any more than the Christian is hard-headed, obstinate, or ignorant for dismissing Mormon claims for the Book of Mormon. Rather, I simply employ the same methodology that a Christian would to all texts equality and don't "play favorites" in the pursuit of truth.

-Mebaqqer

43

Israelities so easily influenced by foreign Gods, Why.

by jam in

god delivered the israelities to the promise land.. he shield them from egypt army, fed them in the.

wilderness, open the sea and aided them in.

defeating their enemies.. joshua:24;16 "far be it from us that we should.

Mebaqqer2

"all human beings without exception opt more easily and naturally for [self-reliance]" Well actually no. Humans are social creatures who form hierarchial societies. This means that they have a pronounced propensity for deferring to authority figures. The extent to which regular human beings will blindly follow authority is repeatedly shown throughout history and psychology has demonstrated that normal, every day people are able to transcend the bounds of their own "morality" under the influence of authority (think Milgram experiment). When you speak of "relying on God" that too is deferring to authority. But there are many "Gods" on the field so why defer to one over the other? And here is the quandary, for either your knowledge of what God is comes from some source that has had men as supposed conduits (priests, prophets, etc.) or you have an "experience" that confirms a particular view of God (indwelling of the spirit, burning bossom, possession, etc.). The former is to rely on "man-made" constructs which you seem to abhor. However, your acceptance of the Bible as the inspired word of God, implied in your mention of the trees, is relying on other authorites to form your views. You might say, "well I have experienced/now experience things that confirm those truths." Well, that is actually a form of self-reliance because your "experience" has no way to be externally validated as true relative to anyone else's experiences other than the criteria you have already accepted. So, for my part, I will use my mind to examine ideas (a kind of self-reliance), but always check them against the collective knowledge of the world we live in (admittedly, authority, but authority whose basis can be independently researched and verified) to see if my ideas are just crazy ramblings or have some real basis in reality.

-Mebaqqer

43

Israelities so easily influenced by foreign Gods, Why.

by jam in

god delivered the israelities to the promise land.. he shield them from egypt army, fed them in the.

wilderness, open the sea and aided them in.

defeating their enemies.. joshua:24;16 "far be it from us that we should.

Mebaqqer2

Band, I wasn't planning on leaving. I just can't respond in great detail to every post. The problem is that I know when I do not fully explain something, then it leaves my post open to criticisms which will then take even more time to address. That's the only reason I have to be so wordy and spend so much time on a post.

Leolaia, I too would have mentioned the DN Ilkunirsha, but I thought the connection would not have been obvious to many which would have required me to explain even further so that others could clearly see the connection (the article reference, if any wished to check it, would have given them this information). On an original distinction between DN El and DN Elyon, this appears to me to be contested, that is, Philo of Byblos' distinction has alternative explanations as do the supporting evidence, and I have not examined the issue enough to argue one way or the other (for a summary of the debate, see Dictionary of Deities and Demons in the Bible, 2nd ed. (Brill, 1999) s.v. Elyon). However, your statement that Elyon "was likely an epithet that could have been attached to whatever god was the highest in the pantheon" seem reasonable to me since the texts from Ugarit ascribe the epithet Elyon to Baal. One can well imagine people arguing "My God is the highest" "No my God is the highest" in a theological game of king of the mountain. The other stuff you mentioned certainly deserve further consideration. Since my focus is the Second-Temple period, I have only really considered the biblical material and related Canaanite material from the earlier periods to get a general outline of the issues since the Canaanite divine council serves as the backdrop for the Jewish Scriptures' imagining of Yahweh which in turn gets further reworked in the Second-Temple period and thus requires some understanding. When I am able to find the time I will return to the deeper connections you mentioned which will no doubt be very enlightening.

Witness, I think you made a good move and I hope you enjoy the read.

-Mebaqqer

43

Israelities so easily influenced by foreign Gods, Why.

by jam in

god delivered the israelities to the promise land.. he shield them from egypt army, fed them in the.

wilderness, open the sea and aided them in.

defeating their enemies.. joshua:24;16 "far be it from us that we should.

Mebaqqer2

Leolaia, jam, Resistance, thank you for your kind words. Band, don't make me write any more. I have already spent my day responding to your two posts so that I have done any of my own research.

-Mebaqqer

43

Israelities so easily influenced by foreign Gods, Why.

by jam in

god delivered the israelities to the promise land.. he shield them from egypt army, fed them in the.

wilderness, open the sea and aided them in.

defeating their enemies.. joshua:24;16 "far be it from us that we should.

Mebaqqer2

Band

My background, in short, is that I graduated with a degree in Religious Studies and have had numerous discussions with members from a variety of religious traditions, including Jehovah's Witnesses. Only a lack of funding prevents me from furthering my education. In my studies I have come to see religion as a product of human culture rather than something which comes from on high. Thus I am currently an agnostic who remains unconvinced of the claims of "Truth" that the many religions have made. However, even as an agnostic, I think that there are many "truths" that the various expressions of religion throughout the world embody which are relevant to human life. In my studies I am particularly interested in Second-Temple Judaism and earliest Christianity as a product of the Second-Temple Period.

My answer to your question may not be satisfying, but I will give it anyways since you asked. You asked about Yahweh worshippers before Abraham and mentioned Melchizedek. Starting with Melchizedek, the text does not say he was a "priest of Yahweh" as you assert. Actually, the text calls him a "priest of El Elyon," i.e. a priest of the God El (cf. Gen 14:18). The text also says that Melchizedek blesses Abraham by El Elyon as well as El Elyon himself (Gen 14:19, 20). What is interesting here is that the Hebrew text gives the title of El as El Elyon qoneh shamayim wa-'arets (El Elyon, creator of heaven and earth). This is nearly the same as the title El qone 'arts (El creator of the earth) seen at Ugarit and a Hebrew ostracon from the 8th-7th century BCE which has [El] qn 'rts ([El] creator of the earth) (cf. Patrick D. Miller, "El, The Creator of Earth," Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 239 (1980): 43-46; other examples of this title are mentioned as well) Thus the text only shows Melchizedek to be a priest of El. Now it is true that in Abraham's reply the Masoretic Text has him say "Yahweh, El Elyon, creator of the heavens and the earth (yhwh El Elyon qoneh shamayim wa-'arets; Gen 14:22). It is clear, however, from the Bible's presentation of Melchizedek's use of the title, which lacks the mention of Yahweh, as well as the use of this title outside of the Bible for El in several sources that the name Yahweh has been interpolated into this title where it did not originally appear. Additional evidence for this may be seen in the Septuagint which reads ton theon ton hupsiton (God the Highest) which presupposes an original reading of simply El Elyon (BHS shows that the omission is also found in the Samaritan Pentateuch as well as presupposed in the "Genesis Apocryphon" (1QGenAp). However, von Gall's edition of the Samaritan Pentateuch, admittedly out of date, contradicts BHS in reading Elohim El Elyon).

As for the worship of Yahweh before Abraham, I said previously, support for the Exodus and the invasion of Canaan is not to be found in archaeological data. The same may be said for the Patriarchal narratives. Archaeological and Biblical congruity only begins around the time of Solomon (10th century BCE) and even this is much disputed territory, though I personally concede the historicity of Solomon and likely David as well, but not in all the glory the Bible ascribes to them. Thus asking me about "Yahweh worship before Abraham" is to assume the truth of the Biblical record on Abraham's existence which I cannot affirm. My position is spelled out rather clearly in my post where I note that evidence for Yahweh worship in Israel only begins in the mid-9th century and gradually comes to dominate Israelite religion from that time. The time of any historical Abraham would be centuries before this. Further I had stated that the origins of Yahweh worship itself is an issue which I need more study so that I cannot say how it was introduced into Israel nor who worshipped Yahweh before them, though a people in the northwestern Arabian peninsula are good candidates. So to answer your question: 1) I do not see that there was worship of Yahweh by the people of Israel before the 9th century BCE 2) Abraham is likely a literary/oral invention so that I cannot speak of worshippers of Yahweh before him.

Finally, you asked, "What point do you think that a god became a God?" Presumably what you are asking is when did Yahweh, one god who exists with other gods also existing beside him, become understood as the only deity which truly exists. Well this is asking at what date did monotheistic Yahwism supplant polytheistic or monolatrous forms of Yahwism. This is a difficult question, which is why I referred you to those books, but the rise of monotheism proper is best expressed in Deutero-Isaiah (40-55) which scholars date to the second half of the 6th century BCE and which emphatically denies the existance of any deities besides Yahweh. This monotheistic view of Yahweh appears to have been brought back with the exiles from Babylon to Israel. However, one should remember that not all Jews were taken into exile and so even at this time there were Jews who held to polytheistic/monolatrous forms of Yahwism. Thus in the 5th century BCE the Jews at Elephantine worshipped Yahu (Yahweh) along with Anat (who, as Baal's consort, essentially replaces Asherah's position in other Canaanite traditions with their prominence of Baal). This takes us into the Persian period which is the abyss of Second-Temple studies as there are few sources for this period and much room for discussion. When things pick up again in the Hellenistic period, late 4th century BCE onward, monotheism was pretty much the standard form of Yahwism.

Even in this context, however, one may find remnants of the older religion. Thus the "sons of El" who each ruled over a nation, which I mentioned earlier, are reimagined as a kind of "angel," yet their ruling over nations is still an accepted part of the religion, though in various ways. Thus Ben Sira echos the passage in Deuteronomy saying, "He appointed a ruler for every nation, but Israel is the Lord's own portion" (Sir 17:17). Jubilees speaks of how God placed the other nations under the authority of spirits to deceive them, but God himself rules over Israel (Jub 15:31, 32). Such a view is also what clearly stands behind the mention of the princes Persia and Greece in Daniel who fight against the divine being who appears to Daniel and is assisted by Michael who is said to stand over for the nation of Israel (Dan 10:13, 20, 21; 12:1). The War Scroll from Qumran speaks of God sending Michael "to exalt the dominion of Michael above all the gods (Heb. 'elim), and the dominion of Israel over all flesh" (1QM 17.5-8). This theme is even found in Rabbinic literature as well, where, for example, Pirke de-Rabbi Eliezer (8th century C.E.) speaks of the seventy angels who cast lots to decide rulership over the seventy nations (Pirke de-Rabbi Eliezer 24). This evidence, pulled from such diverse Jewish groups, attests to the widespread distribution of this idea as well as its antiquity which must have predated the rise of these diverse groups during the Second-Temple period and after.

So returning to the question, it would seem that monotheism as the view of Yahweh became normative sometime between the 5th-4th century BCE.

-Mebaqqer

43

Israelities so easily influenced by foreign Gods, Why.

by jam in

god delivered the israelities to the promise land.. he shield them from egypt army, fed them in the.

wilderness, open the sea and aided them in.

defeating their enemies.. joshua:24;16 "far be it from us that we should.

Mebaqqer2

One thing I forgot to mention in re-reading my post is that while the Biblical writers attack Baal veneration and the use of Asherah quite a bit, there is no attack made in the entire Bible against the Canaanite high god El himself. For me this shows a self evident assumption on the part of the Biblical writers that Yahweh is El so that criticism of Canaanite belief in El simply could not be made as this was shared by them, and other Israelites, as well. It was only their claim that Yahweh was El that distinguished them. Note the self evident way the equation is made in 2 Samuel 22:32: "Who is El besides Yahweh?"

-Mebaqqer

43

Israelities so easily influenced by foreign Gods, Why.

by jam in

god delivered the israelities to the promise land.. he shield them from egypt army, fed them in the.

wilderness, open the sea and aided them in.

defeating their enemies.. joshua:24;16 "far be it from us that we should.

Mebaqqer2

If you are interested, then I would recommend Mark S. Smith's The Early History of God: Yahweh and the Other Deities in Ancient Israel, 2nd ed. (2002) and, more pertinent to the question of monotheism, Smith's The Origins of Biblical Monotheism: Israel's Polytheistic Background and the Ugaritic Texts (2000). Both of these cover much of what I said in better detail than I can here.

-Mebaqqer

43

Israelities so easily influenced by foreign Gods, Why.

by jam in

god delivered the israelities to the promise land.. he shield them from egypt army, fed them in the.

wilderness, open the sea and aided them in.

defeating their enemies.. joshua:24;16 "far be it from us that we should.

Mebaqqer2

In answering this question you have to understand something about the origins of the Israelite people. Archaeologist working in the Levant are fairly confident that Biblical descriptions of the Exodus and the large scale conquest under Joshua as a whole are literary inventions and that Israel emerged as a distinct people at the end of the Late Bronze Age largely from the already present, indigenous Canaanite population with some input from nomadic peoples (for good discussions on what archaeologists in the field know and why, see American archaeologist William Dever's Who Were the Early Israelites and Where Did They Come From? (2003) as well as Israeli archaeologists Israel Finkelstein and Amihai Mazar's The Quest for the Historical Israel: Debating Archaeology and the History of Early Israel (2007)). This was a time when Egyptian hegemony of the area waned which allowed for the gradual formation of independent nation states such as Moab, Edom, Phoenicia, etc. as well as Israel. Thus, at the end of the 13th century the first undisputed reference to the "people," not nation, is found in the Mernephtah Stele (the difference between an urbanized state and a people is given in the hieroglyphs). Once this is understood, Israelite religion as a whole is to be studied as a subset of the larger Canaanite religion.

As can be gleaned from material from Ugarit (c. 1400 BCE) as well as other archaeological finds, Canaanite religion was characterized by the belief in the high god El and his consort Asherah who are presented as deities of theogonic times. El is repeatedly pictured as the wise old patriarchal father who along with his consort created the world. The material from Ugarit also ascribes to El the designation "Bull El" so that the Bull served as a symbol for him. Included in the world which El created are the so called "sons of El" (Ug. bani 'Ili-mi) who are cosmogonic deities that largely embody forces and phenomena of the natural world. The material from Ugarit also specifies that there are 70 "sons of El" and that most important of these is the storm God Baal whose battles with the other sons for control of the divine council under El is recounted in the so called "Baal Cycle." There are other features of note, particularly the divine messengers (i.e. malakim), but what has been said should be enough to get a good grasp of the basics of Canaanite religion.

Turning to Israelite religion, one should first observe that the very name "IsraEL" already assumes the importance of the God El in the Israelite tradition as do the names El Shadday, El Elyon, El Olam seen throughout Genesis. Secondly, descriptions of God in the Bible likewise cast him as the patriarchal father who stands at the head of a divine council comprised of the "sons of El" (Heb. bene 'elim) (cf. Psa 29:1, 89:7[6]) elsewhere also called the "sons of Elohim" (Heb. bene 'elohim) (cf. Gen 6:4, etc.). Even Biblical episodes which show supposedly "apostate" practices, such as the admittedly literary episode of Aaron and the golden calf as well as the likely historical setting up of golden calves at Bethel and Dan by Rehoboam (1Ki 12:28, 29), also point to ways of venerating El, though this particular form was evidently not acceptable to these Biblical writers. One should note, however, that Bull imagery is used even by the writer of Numbers (cf. Num 24:8). What we see then is that the same depiction of El from Canaanite religion is accepted throughout Israelite religion, both "Biblical" and non-biblical.

Returning to the "sons of El," the Biblical writers conceive of these as lower divinities and not, as later Jewish and Christian thinkers do, as "angels." Deuteronomy 32:8, 9 describes how Elyon (i.e. El, cf. Gen 14:18, 19, 20, etc.) divided up the nations "after the number of the sons of El" (for the original reading "El" over the reading "Israel" in the Masoretic Text, see Sidnie White Crawford, et. al. "Sample Editions of the Oxford Hebrew Bible: Deuteronomy 32:1-9, 1 Kings 11:1-8, and Jeremiah 27:1-10 (34 G)" Vetus Testamentum 58 (2008): 353-57; cf. Septuagint)). When it is remembered that the material from Ugarit gives the number of the "sons of El" as 70, it is no wonder that one finds the same number of nations given in the so called "table of nations" (cf. Gen 10-11). The passage from Deuteronomy is interesting since it speaks of Yahweh, who I will get to in a bit, as having Israel as his "allotment" (Heb. HLQ). The use of this word throughout Deuteronomy is equally interesting. Thus one reads at Deuteronomy 4:18, 19:

"And beware lest you lift up your eyes to heaven, and when you see the sun and the moon and the stars, all the host of heaven, you be drawn away and worship them and serve them, things which Yahweh your God has allotted (Heb. HLQ) to all the peoples under the whole heaven. But Yahweh has taken you, and brought you forth out of the iron furnace, out of Egypt, to be a people of his own possession, as at this day."

This passage continues the same idea so that while Yahweh's "allotment" is Israel, the other nations worship "sons of El" who are represented in this passage by celestial phenomena. Again, Deuteronomy 29:21-28 speaks of a future generation of Israelites whose land would be destroyed by Yahweh because they "went and served other gods (Heb. elohim) and worshiped them, gods (Heb. elohim) whom they had not known and whom he had not allotted (Heb. HLQ) to them" (Deu 29:26). Here is the final piece of the puzzle where the biblical writer acknowledges that these "sons of El" who El allotted to the other nations to worship are in fact deities that the people of Israel should not worship as they are Yahweh's "allotment." Thus the writer of Deuteronomy assumes what was seen in Canaanite religion where the "sons of El" are lower deities of the divine council under the high god El. Deuteronomy is not the only writer to make this assumption. Thus the author of Psalm 89 speaks of the "sons of El" as part of the "council of the holy ones" who are inferior to Yahweh, the author of Psalm 82 presents God as presiding over the "council of El" and passing judgment on the "sons of Elyon" for failing to act justly so that God himself takes control of all the nations, the author of Job presents the "son of Elohim" appearing before Yahweh in what is also clearly a council setting. Though the Biblical writers are against their worship, they also show that other did in fact do so which makes sense considering their Canaanite background (2Ki 17:16; 21:3, 23:4, etc.).

It was mentioned earlier that the most important of the "sons of El" in Canaanite religion was Baal. In keeping with the Biblical writers' position which does not express any deep interest in the "sons of El" due to their singular focus on El or Yahweh (cf. Exo 23:13), the person of Baal is only mentioned in contexts which speak of the so called "apostate" worship of Israelites. Even so, the Biblical writers utilize Canaanite traditions about Baal for their own depictions of Yahweh. For example, the Baal Cycle from Ugarit relates how Mot, the god of death, threatens Baal by saying that he will defeat him as "when [Baal] struck down Litan (ltn), the fleeing serpent (btn brh), annihilated the twisting serpent (btn 'qltn), the powerful one with seven heads" (KTU 1.5:I.1-3). This same story is utilized by Isaiah who similarly speaks of a time when Yahweh "will punish Leviathan (lwytn) the fleeing serpent (nhs brh), Leviathan the twisting serpent (nhs 'qltn)" (Isaiah 27:1).This story is also utilized at Psalm 74:14 where the psalmist, unlike Isaiah who places it in the future, speaks of Yahweh as having "crushed the heads (note the plural) of Leviathan" sometime in the past. Further, in the same way that Baal is given the epithet of "the Rider of Clouds" at Ugarit, the Bible depicts Yahweh as riding a cloud chariot through the heavens (Deu 33:26; Psa 68:34 [33], 104:3; Isa 19:1). While much more could be said on this, what we see in the Biblical writers is an attack on Baal worship on the one hand while on the other their ascription of Baal's character, exploits, and imagery to the figure of Yahweh. The backdrop for all this is what is imagined in 1 Kings 18 where an older, Canaanite form of Israelite worship which elevated Baal was being practiced by the people in general and a newer Yahweh cult seeks to make converts to it so that it must compete with it. This explains why the Biblical writers seek to identify Yahweh with both Canaanite El and Baal so as to make him more attractive for worship (cf. Exo 6:2, 3). The Biblical writers, however, have flipped this around to make their Yahweh cult as the original form of Israelite worship and the "apostates" worship as due to foreign influence. This of course is the same kind of historical revision that many throughout the centuries have done when supplanting a previous way of doing things. Thus your question should not be "why were the Israelites so easily influenced by foreign Gods?" but rather "why did the worship of Yahweh emerge among the people of Israel and try to assert itself upon the indigenous way of worship?"

This question is much harder to answer because unlike El, Ashurah, Baal, etc. the deity of Yahweh is unknown among the Canaanites nor is there any indisputable find which locates his origins elsewhere. One clue is offered by the Biblical writers who point to Yahweh's originating from the northwestern Arabian peninsula as is indicated by his association with Sinai (Deu 33:2), Seir (Jud 5:4, 5), Edom (Psa 68:7, 8), Paran (Hab 3:3), and Teman (Hab 3:3). if so, then it would seem that Yahweh worship is in fact the "foreign" element. I cannot say more on the origins of Yahweh worship because, to be frank, I have not researched all the views on this thoroughly enough to form an opinion.

What I do know is that veneration of Yahweh must have been part of the state cult by the middle of the 9th century BCE as may be seen from the reference to Yahweh in the Mesha Stele. Undisputed onomastic evidence, i.e. evidence from personal names, likewise begins from the 9th century BCE. These dates are earlier than the reigns of Hezekiah (late 8th century BCE) and Josiah (mid-late 7th century BCE) who are hailed as the big Yahwist reformers. However, at the end of the 9th century the Bible states that Jehu destroyed the temple of Baal yet interesting left the golden calves setup by Rehoboam at Bethel and Dan (2Ki 10:23-30). This makes sense since it is to be remembered that the Bull was originally associated with El who was later equated with Yahweh. Later Biblical writers of course see this as an unacceptable form to worship Yahweh due to their aniconism which was obviously not shared by those in an earlier period. In the 8th century Hezekiah went even further and removed the Asherah, that is, the pillars which symbolized El's consort Asherah (2Ki 18:4). Here archaeology shows what was actually occurring was not Israelites gone "apostate" for Canaanite deities which Hezekiah was attacking, but rather Israelites who were holding to remnants of older Canaanite worship which had now equated Yahweh with El. Thus two ostrica from Kuntillet 'Ajrud as well as a third from Khirbet el-Qom all dating to the 8th century BCE speak of "Yahweh of Samaria and his Asherah," "Yahweh of Teman and his Asherah," and "Yahweh [and] ... his Asherah" thus showing a clear association between Asherah and Yahweh which is made on the basis that the Canaanite El of the old Canaanite religion had now been identified with Yahweh. What Hezekiah was attacking then was a form of Yahweh worship which he considered to be improper. Others did not share his view, however, since the Asherah went up again after his reign only to be torn down yet again by Josiah. The Bible's description of this is interesting since it shows conclusively that they were features of the Temple itself: "[Josiah] brought out the Asherah from the house of Yahweh, outside Jerusalem, to the brook Kidron, and burned it at the brook Kidron" (2 Kings 23:6). This also supports what was said above that the use of the Asherah were part of Yahweh worship and not some "foreign" God.

More could be discussed on this, but I will leave it here since I have spent to much time typing this up already. Basically, what is seen from an examination of both the Jewish Scriptures and the archaeological data is the origins of the Israelite people from an indigenous Canaanite population whose religion was Canaanite as well, but at some point between the 13th century and the mid-9th century BCE incorporated the deity Yahweh into their religious tradition to become its own distinctive tradition. This incorporation brought about a modification of the old Canaanite religious tradition which was carried out by people in diverse ways. The common people seemed to be happy with merely equating Yahweh with El and continuing on as usual. Others saw that Yahweh should be greater emphasized and so brought about more radical modifications to the old religion which many were not happy to follow. It is due to this that Yahweh worship as it later came to be took a long time to take hold and the winners of the debate, i.e. the Biblical writers, represented that struggle as one of religious truth, from their standpoint anyways, struggling against a wayward, obstinate population. The real situation, however, was as the people replied to Jeremiah even in the late 7th-early 6th century BCE: "But we will do everything that we have vowed, burn incense to the queen of heaven and pour out libations to her, as we did, both we and our fathers, our kings and our princes, in the cities of Judah and in the streets of Jerusalem" (Jer 44:17; here the "queen of heaven" is probably a later development of the Asherah tradition). Thus the people were not "easily influenced" by foreign gods but rather worshipped Yahweh as they had for hundreds of years against the "extremist" forms of Yahweh worship pushed at various times by a few kings and people who claimed to be prophets.

-Mebaqqer

83

Examples of Bias/Discrepancies in the New World Translation

by Londo111 in

to be fair, translating the bible is a huge undertaking, and in doing so, there are bound to be mistakes, or even limits to a committee's knowledge.

obviously, we cannot read the hearts of the four translators of the new world translation committee to know when they consciously or subconsciously altered renderings in to support doctrinal bias.

but more and more, i do come across things that feel askew to me.

Mebaqqer2

I think that a clear example of bias is to be found in this passage:

For the Scripture says to Pharaoh: "For this very cause I have let you remain, that in connection with you I may show my power, and that my name may be declared in all the earth." -Romans 9:17 NWT

The Greek text here reads εξηγειρα σε and is to be translated as "I have raised you up" with God as the subject and Pharaoh as the object. The passage thus means that God "raised up" Pharaoh, either in the sense of bringing him into existence or in placing him in power (cf. BDAG s.v. εξεγειρω 4 & 5), for the express purpose of destroying him so that the whole world will know the power of God. However, the view of God in this verse, as well as this chapter as a whole, which emphasizes man's utter lack of power before God's omnipotence, runs counter to Jehovah's Witnesses as well as other Christian's conceptions of free will so that it must be minimized and interpreted in keeping with those views. Jehovah's Witnesses for their part have chosen to impose on to the text their particular interpretation rather than try to interpret the words as they appear. They then attempt to justify this interpolation with the following footnote:

"I have let you remain," J17,18,22; ?AB, "I have raised you up"; Ex 9:16 in LXX, which Paul here quotes, "you have been preserved."

Their citation of three manuscripts here (?AB), which is actually the same reading of εξηγειρα σε as their base text of Westcott-Hort, shows that they clearly know what the Greek text actually says and how it is to be translated, but instead of following that Greek text they have cited 3 J-References to "confirm" their translation and claimed that Paul is quoting the Septuagint which reads "you have been preserved." In point of fact, however, Paul's citation of Exodus 9:16 here departs from the Septuagint's translation at several points, most importantly in not following its reading of διετηρηθης ("you have been preserved") but instead writing εξηγειρα σε ("I have raised you up"). The J-References for their part simply import over the Hebrew text from Exodus 9:16 thus reading he'emadtika (hiphil perfect, lit. "I made you stand") and not "I have let you remain" as their footnote maintains. However, even if the J-References had read "I have let you remain," these translations from 19th and 20th century would not constitute any evidence that Paul's own wording is to be overridden here. One should note that Paul's word choice here in fact brings his citation of Exodus 9:16 into greater conformity to the Hebrew text than the passive translation of the Septuagint and this may in fact have been the reason why his citation does not follow the Septuagint here. One should also note that Paul's word choice is serviceable to his argument made through the context as a whole where Jacob was chosen over Esau "though they were not yet born and had done nothing either good or bad" (Rom 9:11), election "depend[s] not upon man's will or exertion, but upon God's mercy" (Rom 9:14), and men are "what is molded" by God the "molder" and thus have no right to ask him "why have you made me thus" (Rom 9:20). Thus the ultimate reason why the New World Translation is translated the way it is here is simply to avoid the unsavory conclusion that this passage teaches that it was God who made Pharaoh the way he was.

-Mebaqqer

25

Response to the Watchtower's Coptic John 1:1 claim in academic journal

by slimboyfat in

a couple of years ago the watchtower published an article claiming the coptic version of john 1:1 supported their translation of john 1:1.. http://www.jehovahs-witness.net/watchtower/beliefs/165941/1/coptic-john-1-1-makes-it-into-the-watchtower.

a few months ago this article was published in the journal of theological studies apparently in response to the watchtower's claims.. http://jts.oxfordjournals.org/content/62/2/494.abstract.

the authors are from the dallas theological seminary, which seems to have something of a tradition when it comes to countering watchtower claims on john 1:1.. they argue unsurprisingly that the coptic of john 1:1 can be read in an orthodox way.

Mebaqqer2

rmnnoute wrote "it may be noted that Jehovah's Witnesses have no problem with seeing John 1:1c as ‘qualitative,' so long as the normal, regular, dictionary definition of that term is adhered to."

Humm, well let's see. According to Miriam-Webster's Online, ‘qualitative' means "of, relating to, or involving quality or kind" (s.v. qualitative). Thus, the term itself actually revolves around the meaning ‘quality.' What, then, is the meaning of ‘quality'? Among the first definitions Miriam-Webster's Online give are "peculiar and essential character: nature" (s.v. quality 1.a.), "an inherent feature: property" (s.v. quality 1.b.). It is, in fact, through this primary definition of ‘quality' that the term ‘qualitative' is being used by the above article to describe the use of the indefinite article with NOYTE as well as the pre-verbal anarthrous predicate noun θεος in John 1:1c to indicate that the Word is endowed with the essential nature and properties which singularly belong to God. Thus unlike your characterization, this article as well as others are not "twist[ing] their ‘qualitative' reading into a definite one," but rather assess the meaning of John 1:1c according to the primary meaning of the words ‘quality' and ‘qualitative.' The fact that such a description of the grammar of John 1:1c in Greek and Coptic ultimately proves to be highly congruent with the later statement of the Nicene Creed that Jesus is "of one essence (homoousia) with the Father" and thus the Trinitarian view of the relationship between the Father and Son is actually secondary.

The problem for the debate, and thus the reason these articles lend themselves to misrepresentation by Jehovah's Witnesses, is that Jehovah's Witnesses do not think of the terms ‘quality' and ‘qualitative' according to these primary definitions, but rather according to secondary possible meanings. Thus returning to Miriam-Webster's Online, this dictionary also gives the definitions "degree of excellence: grade" (s.v. quality 2.a.), "social status: rank" (s.v. quality 3.a.), and "a distinguishing attribute: characteristic" (s.v. quality 4.a.). While each of these secondary definitions can be included within the primary definitions given above so that the Son's endowment with the essential nature of God also gives him the characteristics and rank of God, it is these secondary definitions which are taken as primary to Jehovah's Witnesses so that they interpret articles which ascribe a ‘qualitative' meaning to John 1:1c as denoting that the Word simply has the characteristics and rank of ‘a god' but does not share the nature of ‘the God' (ο θεος). That is to say, whereas the writers of these articles understand ‘qualitative' as relating the Word to the singular reality of God at an ontological level, Jehovah's Witnesses reinterpret their intended meaning of ‘qualitative' through the lens of their own representational Christology so that John 1:1c is understood to mean that the Word is ontologically distinct from God and simply "reflects" the characteristics of God.

At the very least then, Jehovah's Witnesses should honestly call attention to their distinctive use of this terminology while articles such as this should clarify their own meaning so that they do not run the risk of misrepresentation. This is just one of many areas of this debate where each side needs to fully clarify their position for the sake of the discussion.

Mebaqqer