Posts by Mebaqqer2

89

Jesus Vs Horus

by Christ Alone in

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=apmy1f9_d3m&feature=related.

Mebaqqer2

BTW, if you are curious what I am drinking (and I am sure you could care less), it is this:

http://www.shmaltzbrewing.com/HEBREW/genesis_messiah.html

Mebaqqer

89

Jesus Vs Horus

by Christ Alone in

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=apmy1f9_d3m&feature=related.

I am currently drinking right now and stumbled (figuratively, not literally) into this thread and was reminded of some reading notes I wrote for one of my classes for religious studies. I don't know if it will contribute anything of worth to the discussion, but I guess that will be in the eye of the reader. Remember, these are just reading notes so they will be kind of dry with no actual point to make...

http://www.sendspace.com/file/xi53oj

Mebaqqer

Whether I will revisit this thread to contribute something more substatial (if I am able) I do not know... BTW it is supposed to be "raising the dead," not "rising the dead."

2

The Words of Junzo Akashi

by Mebaqqer2 in

three years ago, in a 2008 post ( http://www.jehovahs-witness.net/watchtower/bible/162584/1/partial-translation-of-possible-sans-page ), i gave a partial translation of "the words of junzo akashi" which appear on a page created by possible-san ( http://godpresencewithin.web.fc2.com/pages/jw/akashijunzo.html ).. recently, possible-san asked "would you give me the permission which publishes your translation regarding 'junzo akashi' on my website?

" ( http://www.jehovahs-witness.net/watchtower/bible/221521/1/the-queer-translation-by-the-japan-branch ).

in answer to possible-san, no.

Mebaqqer2

Three years ago, in a 2008 post ( http://www.jehovahs-witness.net/watchtower/bible/162584/1/partial-translation-of-possible-sans-page ), I gave a partial translation of "The Words of Junzo Akashi" which appear on a page created by possible-san ( http://godpresencewithin.web.fc2.com/pages/jw/akashijunzo.html ).

Recently, possible-san asked "Would you give me the permission which publishes your translation regarding 'Junzo Akashi' on my website?" ( http://www.jehovahs-witness.net/watchtower/bible/221521/1/The-queer-translation-by-the-Japan-branch ). In answer to possible-san, NO. I will not give you permission to publish my translation from 2008 on your website because I have made improvements on that translation and have also translated more of that page which you can publish on your site . I have made the following two PDFs for you to use on your site:

"Words of AJ.pdf" http://www.sendspace.com/file/eoek28

"Words of AJ-2.pdf" http://www.sendspace.com/file/g6zs7q

The first of these (Words of AJ.pdf) preserves the excessive use of emphasis seen on your page (bold, red, and highlighted, really?). The second (Words of AJ-2.pdf) leaves out all that emphasis and simply gives the translation.

To those who may wish to read what I translated, note that Akashi writes in a form of Japanese which was in regular use until the end of World War II which even many Japanese young people can't read today due to language reforms made after the war as well as simply their lack of interest in advanced Japanese language studies. This means that while I have tried to be accurate, certain subtle nuances may have been lost in my translation. For this reason both versions have the original Japanese text included so that one may make a comparison. What I have done should be enough, however, to see Akashi's position. Finally, any of the problems found in this translation will likely be fixed another three years from now.

-Mebaqqer

80

Is there one Bible Prophecy.....

by Phizzy in

in the form of a prediction, that can be proven to truly be a prediction,i.e written before the event, and it came true ?.

it would be good not to have time wasters on this thread in the form of the common ones that are brought up to demonstrate the bible's prophetic prowess, like cyrus being named , these have been debunked already.. but does there seem to be a genuine prophecy in there somewhere ?.

Mebaqqer2

Well if you ask Larsinger58 I am sure there are many prophecies concerning him that have yet to be debunked in his mind.

-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

Oh man,

I just saw the link referenced by still thinking and see that Leolaia already covers most of the stuff I said concerning the connection between Canaanite religion and Israelite religion (She even recommends the same book I did!). I swear I had not read Leolaia's post before I posted and it appears that we are just on a similar wavelength. I guess I will have to check the archives and try harder to come up with something original .

Reading the post on that thread from Leolaia, I note she mentions Heiser's research and writes "I disagree however with his conclusion which appears to mitigate the polytheistic import of the text and which attempts to harmonize its theology with other much later OT passages. The problem is that the OT was written over a period of several centuries and the different texts referring to Yahweh and El reflect different theological stages between polytheism and post-exilic monotheism." For those who don't know, Heiser's research presents Israelite religion as monolatrous where Yahweh is stated to be "incomparable" to all other gods and this view is presented to hold for pretty much all of the period covered by Biblical writers and even well into the Second-Temple period.

For Leolaia, if you see this post, I also appreciate Heiser's research, which of course follows upon that of Mark Smith, John Day, Lowell Handy as well as others, yet I too saw some problems. Whereas your comment focused on his glossing over indications of polytheism in the Jewish Scriptures, my main concern focused on his downplaying of monotheism in Deutro-Isaiah. To quote myself, in a footnote that was obscenely long for a paper I wrote for school (I make many of my side arguments in footnotes), I state the following after referencing the texts from Deuteronomy mentioned in my post in this thread (which were cited in my paper as well):

The passages cited here from Deuteronomy are dated by Richard Elliott Friedman between the time of Josiah (late 7th cent. BCE) to the time of the Exile (early 6th cent. BCE) (see Friedman, Who Wrote the Bible? (New York: HarperCollins, 1989) 146, 254-55, 260). Many scholars see monotheism expressed in certain passages such as "Yahweh is God (ha-'Elohîm); there is no other besides him" (Deu 4:35), "Yahweh is God (ha-'Elohîm) ... there is no other" (Deu 4:39); "I, even I, am he, and there is no 'elohîm beside me" (Deu 32:39) through a comparison with Deutero-Isaiah (late 6th cent. BCE). Such passages are thought to be redactions which date from the Persian period (6th-4th cent. BCE) (see for example Juha Pakkala, "The Monotheism of the Deuteronomic History" Scandinavian Journal of the Old Testament 21, no. 2 (2007) 159-178). Mark S. Smith argues more subtly in stating that the monotheistic statements in the Deuteronomistic History should be seen as "Yahwistic monolatry expressed in its rhetoric of monotheism," but that Deutero-Isaiah goes beyond this to the point where "the existence of other gods is denied" so that "Yahweh is not just the god of Israel (both as land and people) but of all lands and nations" (Smith (2001) 154, 171). Michael S. Heiser's dissertation inverts this logic in light of the larger monolatristic context to argue that such statements in the Deuteronomic History as well as those in Deutero-Isaiah only speak of Yahweh's incomparability and uniqueness so that each "very likely speaks only to the continuity of the monolatrous pre-exilic worldview that embraced a divine council" (see Heiser (2004) 90-122). Heiser's criticism of the consensus view which argues that texts were interpolated into the Deuteronomistic History to support monotheism all while leaving explicit mentions of other deities surely shows that the consensus must be reconsidered more carefully on this point. Similarly, his citations of similar phraseology at Isa 47:8, 10 and Zep 2:15 with reference to the claimed incomparable status of Babylon and Assyria to show that the statements from the Deuteronomic History need not be taken as evidence for the denial of other deities are also well taken. However, Heiser's attempts to overcome the consensus view for Deutero-Isaiah's monotheism are ultimately not persuasive for even he is forced to acknowledge the "shadowy activity of the divine council in Deutero-Isaiah" due to the lack of its explicit utilization in this section of Isaiah (Heiser (2004) 106). Heiser's criticism, while dealing with such phrases in Deutero-Isaiah, appears to not to have fully wrestled with the overall force and degree with which Deutero-Isaiah utilizes previous monolatrous statements as well as newer terminology to articulate its view of Yahweh which does indeed appear to give evidence for incipient monotheism (Heiser (2004) 98-113; cf. Isa 43:10; 45:5, 6, 14, 18, 21, 22; 46:9). What is clear from all of this is that one should not simply view Israelite religion as expressing monolatrism in the pre-Exilic period and monotheism in the post-Exilic period. In fact, one should consider that both monolatristic and monotheistic trends continued on into the Second-Temple period.

There is another part of Heiser's research that I have found to be somewhat problematic, but was the original reason why I was drawn to read his writings in the first place: the "messenger (mal'ak) of Yahweh" serving as the hypostatic manifestation of Yahweh himself. I would very much like Heiser's thesis to hold as it would go a long ways to explaining the appearance of a singular angelic being, under various names, that uniquely acts as the divine mediator in seveal Second-Temple texts to the point that they are mistaken for Yahweh himself and provides the basis for the later "two power" heresies discussed by Alan Segal. As you no doubt know, Heiser's thesis is that with Yahweh's usurption of El's position that Baal's position is also taken over by Yahweh in the form of the singular figure of the messenger of Yahweh who is but a hypostatis for Yahweh himself. Heiser of course draws on the appearances of the "messenger of Yahweh" in the Jewish Scriptures where this figure is conflated with Yahweh himself (admittedly it is ambiguous as to whether one should see a singular figure in these appearances or various figures under the same designation, but Heiser takes the former view). However, Heiser also attempts to ground this hypostatic representation of deity in the texts from Ugarit. He focuses on a section of the Baal Cycle (KTU 2.1) where the sea god Yam, who has been told that he will be defeated by magical weapons, sends unnamed messengers to El and his children on the divine assembly to demand that they turn over Baal. Upon seeing the messengers, the gods of the divine assembly become afraid and prostrate themselves to the messengers which act causes Baal to rebuke them. At this point the messengers deliver the message of Yam exactly as they had been instructed to which El responds to the messengers "Baal is your servant, O Yam! ... The son of Dagan your prisoner." Baal then attempts to attack the messengers whereupon he is restrained by Anat and Asherah. Heiser focuses not only the fact that the messengers reinterate Yam's words exactly, but on the frightful reaction and homage paid by the second tier divinities to these messengers from a lower tier. Heiser maintains that the reason for this reaction, as well as Baal's attempt to attack them, is that the individualized character of the messengers has been wholly subsumed by Yam so that their presence indicates the very presence of Yam himself. In this way, these messengers of Yam are said to serve as hypostastic manifestations of Yam.

While there is clearly continuity between how the figure(s?) of the "messenger of Yahweh" is/are presented in the Jewish Scriptures and the messengers in the Baal Cycle, I wonder if the claim of hypostatic manifestation is not somewhat overstated. My reason for this is that immediately following what I recounted from the Baal Cycle above, Asherah states, in an admittedly fragmented text, that "A messenger ... a messenger between [his] shoulders is the word of his lord" (KTU 2.1.41-42). Although fragmented, the text appears to show Asherah reasoning with Baal as to why his anger at the messengers is misplaced. Asherah's argument appears to be that messengers only transmit the words of those whom they serve so are not to be attacked for the message they convey. To me this would appear to contradict Heiser's thesis that the messengers serve as hypostatic manifestations and that they actually maintain a minimal degree of individuality, though admittedly the total evidence regarding messengers from Ugarit shows them to be wholly subserviant to the will of those whom they serve without exercising any personal autonomy or demonstrating any volition of their own. This is where I presently stand with regards to Heiser on this part of his research. Leolaia, I would like to hear your thoughts if you see this post either here or by message since this thread is getting old.

-Mebaqqer

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