This is a good start. However, one of the most crucial texts used contemporarily in decode Genesis’ polemic against the pagan world is the Ugaritic Ba’al cycle. Also worth looking at the relevant Peraqim of both Tehillim and Nevi’im that allude to a more “overtly mythological” view of creation
It is just so valuable to see this laid out so clearly and concisely.
I remain ignorantly intrigued by the Hebrew Scriptures and how they inspired the Christian ones:
…how Christians “de” or “re” arranged those texts they received, and
how they/we were inspired/crazed by the paradoxical notion of a creator who is mysteriously purely good …
while dangling various notions of “salvation” achievable (perhaps) through adherence to the terms of multifaceted and evolving “covenants”
and capable of insanely rageful chastisement (that spare not the “innocent”) when we (as we almost always do) betray our obligations.
There’s also the diverting (in both senses of “amusing” and “distracting”) indications of multiple authorships which the Noah story (with its plethora of contradictory details) seems to provide strong evidence for. But of course, the contradictions do not just seduce us to invent elaborate abstractions to reconcile them at higher levels, they can also be seen as generative paradoxes demanding that we dig and think deeper about truth and falseness, literal truth and figurative truth, mind, culture, spirit, and Bullwinkle’s Alma Mater, Wattsamatta U. (A sentence like that last fucker reminds me that the best writing is carefully laced with a delicate admixture of balderdash, bunkum, blasphemy, and smut — and the Bible is never lacking in any of those….)
It's actually fascinating to study how the early Christians utilized Jewish scriptures and traditions and molded it to form a new universal religion. I highly recommend for anyone who wants to understand the themes of the gospels or the church fathers to look into some of the major themes of the Hebrew bible and the ways Jews understood it in the pretalmudic era.
References to other deities as real beings are a regular occurrence in Exodus and Numbers?
Isn't the simple understanding of "El" (Parashat Lech Lecha, and Haazinu) a reference to another God?
In the second paragraph of the "Shema" God specifically says not to worship other Gods?
2) Why is Polytheism fundamentally different than Monotheism. The many Gods of Polytheism can also have originated before the universe and be completely unlimited?
3) Although the Bible does stress a covenant with the Jewish people, but the covenant itself is also just for human benefit. God repeatedly stresses that if the Jews keep their part of the deal they will be rewarded with material blessings.
Where in the Bible do we see the concept of worshiping God for its own sake?
All amazing questions, and they are each deserving of a full book. However, I will try to say a bit just to address each point.
1) El was a Caananite deity, but in the bible he is identified together with Yahweh as the same god. There are some references to other gods, especially in the earlier strata of the bible, but later strata move away from it, and the overarching theme of the bible is to serve only yahweh.
Whether or not the bible recognizes the existence of other gods is beyond the scope of this post, but one thing is clear. Even if yes, yahweh is not merely a god amongst all the other gods, he is of a fundementally different nature. He is supreme, but because he is the only creator, the only ultimate power, and by defintion the other gods cannot overpower him. There are dozens of verses that make this clear.
Aside from the uniqueness of yahweh, we see this clearly play out in the bible's stories and theology. God is not a player in a realm of gods in the same way polytheistic gods are, he does not fight with them, we worship him alone, and his worship precludes other gods (unlike polytheistic religions), we only turn to him for blessing, prophecy, salvation, etc.
2) Polytheism is the belief that each natural force is identified with a deity. Therefore they are fundementally part of nature. This is the impetus for polytheistic belief. The impetus for monotheistic belief is for a creator and controller god, and natural forces are gods (or at least the supreme god) themselves. (This might make clear why monotheism can possibly coexist with polytheism, and in some form does in every abrahamic religion, as it is addressing two different aspects of reality, the creator, and the world.) Therefore this god is not subject to nature, is alone (because a creator only needs to be one, at least in abrahamic religions, although there are religions like zoroastrianism).
3) The covenant is one of loyalty, devotion, and even love. This is repeatedly emphasized throughout the hebrew bible, and punishment and reward are functions of the covenant to uphold it, not the goal itself.
For a very specific source see the second half of Deut. 4, although there are many others. (Also human life has value by virtue of being in the image of god as evidenced in genesis 9, and this idea provides the framework for a relationship which plays out through history.)
The Bible may be what you would call “monolatrous” (meaning the worship of one God but also believing other gods to be real). The use of Elohim to denote political figures I think is a reflection of the ancient view that the head of state was a god or that a god was the head of state depending on your framing
Although it gets a little more complicating when the Torahs actual theology or laws are influenced by surrounding cultures and it's not just the stories
Never argued either way in that post. I don't deny that I do not see the Torah as having magical powers, but I also think that part of MOs reducing Torah to a nice selfhelp book is contributing to their high otd rate. I wonder if it's possible to see the Torah from Hashem and take it fully seriously without having to assume the Chareidi view.
What would be the basis for seeing the Torah as being from a divine source?
Is there anything in it that couldn't have been written by men at the time, with their knowledge at the time? Is there anything spectacular about the book itself, other than the claim that it's spectacular?
OTD can be a function of many things, but one simple one is that the claims made are no longer accepted. As Modern Orthodoxy permits greater access to its membership to current understanding and information, perhaps it just follows that there will be a greater OTD rate than among those who only ever read the talmud.
This is a good start. However, one of the most crucial texts used contemporarily in decode Genesis’ polemic against the pagan world is the Ugaritic Ba’al cycle. Also worth looking at the relevant Peraqim of both Tehillim and Nevi’im that allude to a more “overtly mythological” view of creation
Thank you!
It is just so valuable to see this laid out so clearly and concisely.
I remain ignorantly intrigued by the Hebrew Scriptures and how they inspired the Christian ones:
…how Christians “de” or “re” arranged those texts they received, and
how they/we were inspired/crazed by the paradoxical notion of a creator who is mysteriously purely good …
while dangling various notions of “salvation” achievable (perhaps) through adherence to the terms of multifaceted and evolving “covenants”
and capable of insanely rageful chastisement (that spare not the “innocent”) when we (as we almost always do) betray our obligations.
There’s also the diverting (in both senses of “amusing” and “distracting”) indications of multiple authorships which the Noah story (with its plethora of contradictory details) seems to provide strong evidence for. But of course, the contradictions do not just seduce us to invent elaborate abstractions to reconcile them at higher levels, they can also be seen as generative paradoxes demanding that we dig and think deeper about truth and falseness, literal truth and figurative truth, mind, culture, spirit, and Bullwinkle’s Alma Mater, Wattsamatta U. (A sentence like that last fucker reminds me that the best writing is carefully laced with a delicate admixture of balderdash, bunkum, blasphemy, and smut — and the Bible is never lacking in any of those….)
Thank you!
It's actually fascinating to study how the early Christians utilized Jewish scriptures and traditions and molded it to form a new universal religion. I highly recommend for anyone who wants to understand the themes of the gospels or the church fathers to look into some of the major themes of the Hebrew bible and the ways Jews understood it in the pretalmudic era.
1) Is the bible really monotheistic?
References to other deities as real beings are a regular occurrence in Exodus and Numbers?
Isn't the simple understanding of "El" (Parashat Lech Lecha, and Haazinu) a reference to another God?
In the second paragraph of the "Shema" God specifically says not to worship other Gods?
2) Why is Polytheism fundamentally different than Monotheism. The many Gods of Polytheism can also have originated before the universe and be completely unlimited?
3) Although the Bible does stress a covenant with the Jewish people, but the covenant itself is also just for human benefit. God repeatedly stresses that if the Jews keep their part of the deal they will be rewarded with material blessings.
Where in the Bible do we see the concept of worshiping God for its own sake?
All amazing questions, and they are each deserving of a full book. However, I will try to say a bit just to address each point.
1) El was a Caananite deity, but in the bible he is identified together with Yahweh as the same god. There are some references to other gods, especially in the earlier strata of the bible, but later strata move away from it, and the overarching theme of the bible is to serve only yahweh.
Whether or not the bible recognizes the existence of other gods is beyond the scope of this post, but one thing is clear. Even if yes, yahweh is not merely a god amongst all the other gods, he is of a fundementally different nature. He is supreme, but because he is the only creator, the only ultimate power, and by defintion the other gods cannot overpower him. There are dozens of verses that make this clear.
Aside from the uniqueness of yahweh, we see this clearly play out in the bible's stories and theology. God is not a player in a realm of gods in the same way polytheistic gods are, he does not fight with them, we worship him alone, and his worship precludes other gods (unlike polytheistic religions), we only turn to him for blessing, prophecy, salvation, etc.
2) Polytheism is the belief that each natural force is identified with a deity. Therefore they are fundementally part of nature. This is the impetus for polytheistic belief. The impetus for monotheistic belief is for a creator and controller god, and natural forces are gods (or at least the supreme god) themselves. (This might make clear why monotheism can possibly coexist with polytheism, and in some form does in every abrahamic religion, as it is addressing two different aspects of reality, the creator, and the world.) Therefore this god is not subject to nature, is alone (because a creator only needs to be one, at least in abrahamic religions, although there are religions like zoroastrianism).
3) The covenant is one of loyalty, devotion, and even love. This is repeatedly emphasized throughout the hebrew bible, and punishment and reward are functions of the covenant to uphold it, not the goal itself.
For a very specific source see the second half of Deut. 4, although there are many others. (Also human life has value by virtue of being in the image of god as evidenced in genesis 9, and this idea provides the framework for a relationship which plays out through history.)
The Bible may be what you would call “monolatrous” (meaning the worship of one God but also believing other gods to be real). The use of Elohim to denote political figures I think is a reflection of the ancient view that the head of state was a god or that a god was the head of state depending on your framing
Btw, imo this is a rock solid argument for Modern Orthodoxy because if even the Torah used contemporaneous culture we could too
Although it gets a little more complicating when the Torahs actual theology or laws are influenced by surrounding cultures and it's not just the stories
I thought it's anyways a rock solid argument for Modern Orthodoxy because of this? https://daastorah.substack.com/p/is-the-torah-divine-298 😉
Never argued either way in that post. I don't deny that I do not see the Torah as having magical powers, but I also think that part of MOs reducing Torah to a nice selfhelp book is contributing to their high otd rate. I wonder if it's possible to see the Torah from Hashem and take it fully seriously without having to assume the Chareidi view.
What would be the basis for seeing the Torah as being from a divine source?
Is there anything in it that couldn't have been written by men at the time, with their knowledge at the time? Is there anything spectacular about the book itself, other than the claim that it's spectacular?
OTD can be a function of many things, but one simple one is that the claims made are no longer accepted. As Modern Orthodoxy permits greater access to its membership to current understanding and information, perhaps it just follows that there will be a greater OTD rate than among those who only ever read the talmud.