• In total there are 10 users online :: 0 registered, 0 hidden and 10 guests (based on users active over the past 60 minutes)
    Most users ever online was 789 on Tue Mar 19, 2024 5:08 am

Ch. 5 - Polytheism, the Religion of Ancient Israel

#88: Sept. - Oct. 2010 (Non-Fiction)
User avatar
Chris OConnor

1A - OWNER
BookTalk.org Hall of Fame
Posts: 17019
Joined: Sun May 05, 2002 2:43 pm
21
Location: Florida
Has thanked: 3511 times
Been thanked: 1309 times
Gender:
Contact:
United States of America

Ch. 5 - Polytheism, the Religion of Ancient Israel

Unread post

Ch. 5 - Polytheism, the Religion of Ancient Israel
User avatar
stahrwe

1I - PLATINUM CONTIBUTOR
pets endangered by possible book avalanche
Posts: 4898
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:26 am
14
Location: Florida
Has thanked: 166 times
Been thanked: 315 times

Re: Ch. 5 - Polytheism, the Religion of Ancient Israel

Unread post

It continues to amaze me that a key to decode the Bible is sought by people who refuse to read other than the most superficial explanations into what the Bible says. A possible explanation for the presence of God in the Garden is that humans had not yet fallen. When God asked where they were because the had hidden themselves after disobeying perhaps it was to facilitate Adam and Eve seeking forgiveness rather than them having done a good job of secreting themselves. I suggest interest parties read Genesis Chapter 3 and see if it doesn't become obvious that God is pleading with them to confess.

Wright brags that he was in Sunday School but he doesn't seem to have learned much.

So far about 50% fluff, 40% unsubstantiated speculation 5% garbage and 5% fact.

I thought it quite humorous that Wright seems to disagree with Kaufman on page 100. Though not a fan of Kaufman myself, Wright has not demonstrated the chops to take him on, and he should have by page 100.
n=Infinity
Sum n = -1/12
n=1

where n are natural numbers.
User avatar
DWill

1H - GOLD CONTRIBUTOR
BookTalk.org Hall of Fame
Posts: 6966
Joined: Thu Jan 31, 2008 8:05 am
16
Location: Luray, Virginia
Has thanked: 2262 times
Been thanked: 2470 times

Re: Ch. 5 - Polytheism, the Religion of Ancient Israel

Unread post

You're zooming ahead of us here. Are you maybe reading too fast to consider what Wright says, because you already know that you disagree with it? You will understand, though, that a problem that Wright may have (according to you) in interpreting the Bible is probably not a problem of fact, at least to him. It is just a difference in interpretation of a story. I'm not saying he doesn't or won't make true factual errors, but you haven't indicated yet what this 95% of non-facts is.
User avatar
stahrwe

1I - PLATINUM CONTIBUTOR
pets endangered by possible book avalanche
Posts: 4898
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:26 am
14
Location: Florida
Has thanked: 166 times
Been thanked: 315 times

Re: Ch. 5 - Polytheism, the Religion of Ancient Israel

Unread post

DWill wrote:You're zooming ahead of us here. Are you maybe reading too fast to consider what Wright says, because you already know that you disagree with it? You will understand, though, that a problem that Wright may have (according to you) in interpreting the Bible is probably not a problem of fact, at least to him. It is just a difference in interpretation of a story. I'm not saying he doesn't or won't make true factual errors, but you haven't indicated yet what this 95% of non-facts is.
No, I didn't zoom ahead. I trudged through the entire first section, which as far as I could see had little to do wht 'god' and much to do with religion. I also refrained from comment on most of the errors Wright had in that section.

Bear with me regarding the 95%.
n=Infinity
Sum n = -1/12
n=1

where n are natural numbers.
User avatar
DWill

1H - GOLD CONTRIBUTOR
BookTalk.org Hall of Fame
Posts: 6966
Joined: Thu Jan 31, 2008 8:05 am
16
Location: Luray, Virginia
Has thanked: 2262 times
Been thanked: 2470 times

Re: Ch. 5 - Polytheism, the Religion of Ancient Israel

Unread post

stahrwe wrote:
DWill wrote:You're zooming ahead of us here. Are you maybe reading too fast to consider what Wright says, because you already know that you disagree with it? You will understand, though, that a problem that Wright may have (according to you) in interpreting the Bible is probably not a problem of fact, at least to him. It is just a difference in interpretation of a story. I'm not saying he doesn't or won't make true factual errors, but you haven't indicated yet what this 95% of non-facts is.
No, I didn't zoom ahead. I trudged through the entire first section, which as far as I could see had little to do wht 'god' and much to do with religion. I also refrained from comment on most of the errors Wright had in that section.

Bear with me regarding the 95%.
These errors, are they errors of reasoning or argumentation? Please let us know about them, as the discussion is tending to flag.
User avatar
stahrwe

1I - PLATINUM CONTIBUTOR
pets endangered by possible book avalanche
Posts: 4898
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:26 am
14
Location: Florida
Has thanked: 166 times
Been thanked: 315 times

Re: Ch. 5 - Polytheism, the Religion of Ancient Israel

Unread post

DWill wrote:
stahrwe wrote:
DWill wrote:You're zooming ahead of us here. Are you maybe reading too fast to consider what Wright says, because you already know that you disagree with it? You will understand, though, that a problem that Wright may have (according to you) in interpreting the Bible is probably not a problem of fact, at least to him. It is just a difference in interpretation of a story. I'm not saying he doesn't or won't make true factual errors, but you haven't indicated yet what this 95% of non-facts is.
No, I didn't zoom ahead. I trudged through the entire first section, which as far as I could see had little to do wht 'god' and much to do with religion. I also refrained from comment on most of the errors Wright had in that section.

Bear with me regarding the 95%.
These errors, are they errors of reasoning or argumentation? Please let us know about them, as the discussion is tending to flag.
So, you want me to stir things up a bit?

Ok.

First, a small issue. In this chapter Wright refers to Yhwh as Israel's God. Hebrew has no distinction between upper and lower case letters. The general practice is that when YHWH is written it is written in all capital English letters.

Wright has a deplorable habit of claiming that a theory is out of favor but then going on to describe the theory see page 113.

I love what he says on page 116;
"The Bible actually contains shards of evidence of such a time but they're hard to find, because over the ages the Bible's editors and translators haven't exactly taken pains to highlight them. Quite the contrary consider this innocent sounding verse ...
Deuteronomy 32:8 When the Most High divided to the nations their inheritance, when he separated the sons of Adam, he set the bounds of the people according to the number of the children of Israel.

9 For the LORD's portion is his people; Jacob is the lot of his inheritance.
"This verse, though a bit obscure, seems to say that God - called the "Most High" in one place and "LORD" in another - somehow divided the world's people into groups and then took an especially proprietary interest in one group, Jacob's. But this interpretation rests on the assumption that "Most High" and "the LORD" do both refer to Yahew, Do they?"
This is one of those cricket chirping moments when I ask myself why am I reading this guy's book? If he is that ignorant of one of the fundamental propositions of the Bible that he thinks God's calling of Israel is obscure. I am not sure there is much point in continuing. and it isn't just that. It seems to be a big revelation Wright gives us that Israel started as a polytheistic culture. To this I submit:
Genesis 11:28 And Haran died before his father Terah in the land of his nativity, in Ur of the Chaldees.
Remember Ur, Wright mentions it back in Section I. They were polytheists. Abraham's family were polytheists. Abraham was most like a polytheist, before God called him. His grandson, Jacob returns to the homeland to find a wife. Ends up marrying Leah and Rachel, the daughters of kinsmen. After 20 years or so, Jacob has a falling out with Laban and leaves with his by now large family. As an act of pique Rachel steals her fathers idols leading to the following
Jacob Flees from Laban
Genesis 31
17 Then Jacob rose up, and set his sons and his wives upon camels;

18 and he carried away all his cattle, and all his goods which he had gotten, the cattle of his getting, which he had gotten in Pa'dan–a'ram, for to go to Isaac his father in the land of Canaan.

19 And Laban went to shear his sheep: and Rachel had stolen the images that were her father's.

20 And Jacob stole away unawares to Laban the Syrian, in that he told him not that he fled.

21 So he fled with all that he had; and he rose up, and passed over the river, and set his face toward the mount Gil'e-ad.

22 ¶ And it was told Laban on the third day, that Jacob was fled.

23 And he took his brethren with him, and pursued after him seven days' journey; and they overtook him in the mount Gil'e-ad.

24 And God came to Laban the Syrian in a dream by night, and said unto him, Take heed that thou speak not to Jacob either good or bad.

25 ¶ Then Laban overtook Jacob. Now Jacob had pitched his tent in the mount: and Laban with his brethren pitched in the mount of Gil'e-ad.

26 And Laban said to Jacob, What hast thou done, that thou hast stolen away unawares to me, and carried away my daughters, as captives taken with the sword?

27 Wherefore didst thou flee away secretly, and steal away from me; and didst not tell me, that I might have sent thee away with mirth, and with songs, with tabret, and with harp?

28 And hast not suffered me to kiss my sons and my daughters? thou hast now done foolishly in so doing.

29 It is in the power of my hand to do you hurt: but the God of your father spake unto me yesternight, saying, Take thou heed that thou speak not to Jacob either good or bad.

30 And now, though thou wouldest needs be gone, because thou sore longedst after thy father's house, yet wherefore hast thou stolen my gods?
So far, it seems to Wright that it is a big revelation that the patriarch of the Jews was a polytheist. It wouldn't have been so big a revelation if he had read Genesis.

Now, regarding the name of God and supposed changes, here is what Scofield has to say:
Elohim or Yahweh?
Why does Genesis 1 refer to God exclusively by the Hebrew title Elohim, "God," while the second chapter of Genesis, beginning in the second half of Genesis 2:4, speaks exclusively of Yahweh Elohim, that is, "the LORD God"? So striking is this divergence of the divine names that it has been common in critical circles of biblical scholarship to conclude that the writer, or, as those in the critical school prefer, the redactor (a sort of copyeditor) used basically two different sources for the two creation accounts found in the two chapters.

The person who paved the way for this theory of dual sources was Jean Astruc (1684-1766), the personal physician to Louis XV and a professor on the medical faculty of the University of Paris. While he still held to the Mosaic authorship of all of the Pentateuch, his volume on the book of Genesis published in 1753 offered the major clue that the names Elohim and Yahweh were the telltale traces that Moses used two sources to compose this material - material that obviously recorded events occurring before his time.

This explanation as to how Moses had access to material far beyond his own lifetime and the reason for the use of the dual names, however, was too facile; it failed to note that the variation in the employment of these two divine names in the book of Genesis was subject to certain rules that could be described rather precisely. First of all, the name Yahweh, "LORD," (notice the English translation convention of rendering this name in large and small capital letters, as opposed to "Lord," which renders another word meaning something like "master") is a proper noun used exclusively of the God of Israel. Elohim, on the other hand, is a generic term for "God" or "gods" that only subsequently became a proper name.

Yahweh is used wherever the Bible stresses God's personal relationship with his people and the ethical aspect of his nature. Elohim, on the other hand, refers to God as the Creator of the whole universe of people and things, and especially of the material world: he was the ruler of nature, the source of all life. This variation of divine names can be seen most dramatically in texts like Psalm 19. In this psalm Elohim is used in the first part, which describes God's work in creation and his relationship to the material world. But in the middle of the psalm the psalmist switches to the topic of the law of the LORD and the relationship the LORD has with those who know him; there the name Yahweh appears.

A further complication occurs because Exodus 6:3 notes that God says, "I appeared to Abraham, to Isaac and to Jacob as God Almighty, but by my name the LORD I did not make myself known to them." The resolution to this apparent contradiction to some 150 uses of the name Yahweh during the patriarchal period is to be found in a technical point of Hebrew grammar, known as beth essentiae, in the phrase "by my name." This phrase meant that while Abraham, Isaac and Jacob heard and used the name Yahweh, it was only in Moses' day that the realization of the character, nature and essence of what that name meant became clear. "By the name" is better translated "in the character [or nature] of Yahweh [was I not known]."

Thus the name Yahwoh is used when the Bible wishes to present the personal character of God and his direct relationship with those human beings who have a special association with him. Contrariwise, Elohim occurs when the Scriptures are referring to God as a transcendent Being who is the author of the material world, yet One who stands above it. Elohim conveys the more philosophically oriented concept that connects deity with the existence of the world and humanity. But for those who seek the more direct, personal and ethically oriented view of God, the term Yahweh was more appropriate.

Accordingly, Genesis 1 correctly used the name Elohim, for God's role as Creator of the whole universe and of all living things and all mortals is what the chapter teaches. The subject narrows immediately in Genesis 2-3, however; there it describes God's very intimate and personal relationship with the first human pair, Adam and Eve. God is depicted as walking and talking with Adam in the Garden of Eden. Therefore Yahweh is appropriately joined to Elohim to indicate that the Elohim of all creation is now the Yahweh who is intimately concerned to maintain a personal relationship with those who will walk and talk with him.

http://www.answering-islam.org/BibleCom/yahweh.html
What is bothersome is that the information about the names is readily available and Wright could have found them if he had looked. He is free to disagree but if he does, he should at least include the information and his reasons.
n=Infinity
Sum n = -1/12
n=1

where n are natural numbers.
User avatar
DWill

1H - GOLD CONTRIBUTOR
BookTalk.org Hall of Fame
Posts: 6966
Joined: Thu Jan 31, 2008 8:05 am
16
Location: Luray, Virginia
Has thanked: 2262 times
Been thanked: 2470 times

Re: Ch. 5 - Polytheism, the Religion of Ancient Israel

Unread post

stahrwe wrote: So, you want me to stir things up a bit?
But of course!
First, a small issue. In this chapter Wright refers to Yhwh as Israel's God. Hebrew has no distinction between upper and lower case letters. The general practice is that when YHWH is written it is written in all capital English letters.
As you say, small stuff.
Wright has a deplorable habit of claiming that a theory is out of favor but then going on to describe the theory see page 113.
His words are, "Wellhausens's scheme doesn't enjoy the near universal esteem it had in the mid-twentieth century, but there's no denying that the Bible features different vocabularies for Israel's god." I can't agree that this qualification is deplorable.
This is one of those cricket chirping moments when I ask myself why am I reading this guy's book? If he is that ignorant of one of the fundamental propositions of the Bible that he thinks God's calling of Israel is obscure. I am not sure there is much point in continuing. and it isn't just that. It seems to be a big revelation Wright gives us that Israel started as a polytheistic culture.
I agree that the wording could be called " a bit obscure," with the apparent difference between " the Most High" and the LORD. You seem to imply that he's in some way criticizing the call itself, but that's not his purpose.

On the polytheistic beginnings of the Israelites, what Wright wants to highlight is of course evolution from polytheism to monotheism. This will be a gradual, not a sudden, transition. He wants to show us how early Bible references retain some of the polytheism that illustrate that the picture was mixed for a while, with Yahweh the head of a pantheon before gradually becoming the one God. I don't think he intends as a bombshell that polytheism is mentioned in the Bible. He does think it's underappreciated that later editors of the Bible did not brush away the embedded polytheism is the story of the rise of Yahweh.
Now, regarding the name of God and supposed changes, here is what Scofield has to say:
Elohim or Yahweh?
Why does Genesis 1 refer to God exclusively by the Hebrew title Elohim, "God," while the second chapter of Genesis, beginning in the second half of Genesis 2:4, speaks exclusively of Yahweh Elohim, that is, "the LORD God"? So striking is this divergence of the divine names that it has been common in critical circles of biblical scholarship to conclude that the writer, or, as those in the critical school prefer, the redactor (a sort of copyeditor) used basically two different sources for the two creation accounts found in the two chapters.

The person who paved the way for this theory of dual sources was Jean Astruc (1684-1766), the personal physician to Louis XV and a professor on the medical faculty of the University of Paris. While he still held to the Mosaic authorship of all of the Pentateuch, his volume on the book of Genesis published in 1753 offered the major clue that the names Elohim and Yahweh were the telltale traces that Moses used two sources to compose this material - material that obviously recorded events occurring before his time.

This explanation as to how Moses had access to material far beyond his own lifetime and the reason for the use of the dual names, however, was too facile; it failed to note that the variation in the employment of these two divine names in the book of Genesis was subject to certain rules that could be described rather precisely. First of all, the name Yahweh, "LORD," (notice the English translation convention of rendering this name in large and small capital letters, as opposed to "Lord," which renders another word meaning something like "master") is a proper noun used exclusively of the God of Israel. Elohim, on the other hand, is a generic term for "God" or "gods" that only subsequently became a proper name.

Yahweh is used wherever the Bible stresses God's personal relationship with his people and the ethical aspect of his nature. Elohim, on the other hand, refers to God as the Creator of the whole universe of people and things, and especially of the material world: he was the ruler of nature, the source of all life. This variation of divine names can be seen most dramatically in texts like Psalm 19. In this psalm Elohim is used in the first part, which describes God's work in creation and his relationship to the material world. But in the middle of the psalm the psalmist switches to the topic of the law of the LORD and the relationship the LORD has with those who know him; there the name Yahweh appears.

A further complication occurs because Exodus 6:3 notes that God says, "I appeared to Abraham, to Isaac and to Jacob as God Almighty, but by my name the LORD I did not make myself known to them." The resolution to this apparent contradiction to some 150 uses of the name Yahweh during the patriarchal period is to be found in a technical point of Hebrew grammar, known as beth essentiae, in the phrase "by my name." This phrase meant that while Abraham, Isaac and Jacob heard and used the name Yahweh, it was only in Moses' day that the realization of the character, nature and essence of what that name meant became clear. "By the name" is better translated "in the character [or nature] of Yahweh [was I not known]."

Thus the name Yahwoh is used when the Bible wishes to present the personal character of God and his direct relationship with those human beings who have a special association with him. Contrariwise, Elohim occurs when the Scriptures are referring to God as a transcendent Being who is the author of the material world, yet One who stands above it. Elohim conveys the more philosophically oriented concept that connects deity with the existence of the world and humanity. But for those who seek the more direct, personal and ethically oriented view of God, the term Yahweh was more appropriate.

Accordingly, Genesis 1 correctly used the name Elohim, for God's role as Creator of the whole universe and of all living things and all mortals is what the chapter teaches. The subject narrows immediately in Genesis 2-3, however; there it describes God's very intimate and personal relationship with the first human pair, Adam and Eve. God is depicted as walking and talking with Adam in the Garden of Eden. Therefore Yahweh is appropriately joined to Elohim to indicate that the Elohim of all creation is now the Yahweh who is intimately concerned to maintain a personal relationship with those who will walk and talk with him.

http://www.answering-islam.org/BibleCom/yahweh.html
What is bothersome is that the information about the names is readily available and Wright could have found them if he had looked. He is free to disagree but if he does, he should at least include the information and his reasons.
What is bothersome a little to me, I hope you don't mind my saying, is that you make us work too hard! It would have helped greatly if before throwing down this long passage you had summarized just what Wright does with the name of God. Then we might have had some guidance regarding the contrast you intend us to see. But better yet, just give us a snippet of quotation. I seem to recall some standard taught to us in school about the length of quotations in research papers....
User avatar
stahrwe

1I - PLATINUM CONTIBUTOR
pets endangered by possible book avalanche
Posts: 4898
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:26 am
14
Location: Florida
Has thanked: 166 times
Been thanked: 315 times

Re: Ch. 5 - Polytheism, the Religion of Ancient Israel

Unread post

DWill wrote:
stahrwe wrote: So, you want me to stir things up a bit?
But of course!
First, a small issue. In this chapter Wright refers to Yhwh as Israel's God. Hebrew has no distinction between upper and lower case letters. The general practice is that when YHWH is written it is written in all capital English letters.
As you say, small stuff.
Wright has a deplorable habit of claiming that a theory is out of favor but then going on to describe the theory see page 113.
His words are, "Wellhausens's scheme doesn't enjoy the near universal esteem it had in the mid-twentieth century, but there's no denying that the Bible features different vocabularies for Israel's god." I can't agree that this qualification is deplorable.
This is one of those cricket chirping moments when I ask myself why am I reading this guy's book? If he is that ignorant of one of the fundamental propositions of the Bible that he thinks God's calling of Israel is obscure. I am not sure there is much point in continuing. and it isn't just that. It seems to be a big revelation Wright gives us that Israel started as a polytheistic culture.
I agree that the wording could be called " a bit obscure," with the apparent difference between " the Most High" and the LORD. You seem to imply that he's in some way criticizing the call itself, but that's not his purpose.

On the polytheistic beginnings of the Israelites, what Wright wants to highlight is of course evolution from polytheism to monotheism. This will be a gradual, not a sudden, transition. He wants to show us how early Bible references retain some of the polytheism that illustrate that the picture was mixed for a while, with Yahweh the head of a pantheon before gradually becoming the one God. I don't think he intends as a bombshell that polytheism is mentioned in the Bible. He does think it's underappreciated that later editors of the Bible did not brush away the embedded polytheism is the story of the rise of Yahweh.
Now, regarding the name of God and supposed changes, here is what Scofield has to say:
Elohim or Yahweh?
Why does Genesis 1 refer to God exclusively by the Hebrew title Elohim, "God," while the second chapter of Genesis, beginning in the second half of Genesis 2:4, speaks exclusively of Yahweh Elohim, that is, "the LORD God"? So striking is this divergence of the divine names that it has been common in critical circles of biblical scholarship to conclude that the writer, or, as those in the critical school prefer, the redactor (a sort of copyeditor) used basically two different sources for the two creation accounts found in the two chapters.

The person who paved the way for this theory of dual sources was Jean Astruc (1684-1766), the personal physician to Louis XV and a professor on the medical faculty of the University of Paris. While he still held to the Mosaic authorship of all of the Pentateuch, his volume on the book of Genesis published in 1753 offered the major clue that the names Elohim and Yahweh were the telltale traces that Moses used two sources to compose this material - material that obviously recorded events occurring before his time.

This explanation as to how Moses had access to material far beyond his own lifetime and the reason for the use of the dual names, however, was too facile; it failed to note that the variation in the employment of these two divine names in the book of Genesis was subject to certain rules that could be described rather precisely. First of all, the name Yahweh, "LORD," (notice the English translation convention of rendering this name in large and small capital letters, as opposed to "Lord," which renders another word meaning something like "master") is a proper noun used exclusively of the God of Israel. Elohim, on the other hand, is a generic term for "God" or "gods" that only subsequently became a proper name.

Yahweh is used wherever the Bible stresses God's personal relationship with his people and the ethical aspect of his nature. Elohim, on the other hand, refers to God as the Creator of the whole universe of people and things, and especially of the material world: he was the ruler of nature, the source of all life. This variation of divine names can be seen most dramatically in texts like Psalm 19. In this psalm Elohim is used in the first part, which describes God's work in creation and his relationship to the material world. But in the middle of the psalm the psalmist switches to the topic of the law of the LORD and the relationship the LORD has with those who know him; there the name Yahweh appears.

A further complication occurs because Exodus 6:3 notes that God says, "I appeared to Abraham, to Isaac and to Jacob as God Almighty, but by my name the LORD I did not make myself known to them." The resolution to this apparent contradiction to some 150 uses of the name Yahweh during the patriarchal period is to be found in a technical point of Hebrew grammar, known as beth essentiae, in the phrase "by my name." This phrase meant that while Abraham, Isaac and Jacob heard and used the name Yahweh, it was only in Moses' day that the realization of the character, nature and essence of what that name meant became clear. "By the name" is better translated "in the character [or nature] of Yahweh [was I not known]."

Thus the name Yahwoh is used when the Bible wishes to present the personal character of God and his direct relationship with those human beings who have a special association with him. Contrariwise, Elohim occurs when the Scriptures are referring to God as a transcendent Being who is the author of the material world, yet One who stands above it. Elohim conveys the more philosophically oriented concept that connects deity with the existence of the world and humanity. But for those who seek the more direct, personal and ethically oriented view of God, the term Yahweh was more appropriate.

Accordingly, Genesis 1 correctly used the name Elohim, for God's role as Creator of the whole universe and of all living things and all mortals is what the chapter teaches. The subject narrows immediately in Genesis 2-3, however; there it describes God's very intimate and personal relationship with the first human pair, Adam and Eve. God is depicted as walking and talking with Adam in the Garden of Eden. Therefore Yahweh is appropriately joined to Elohim to indicate that the Elohim of all creation is now the Yahweh who is intimately concerned to maintain a personal relationship with those who will walk and talk with him.

http://www.answering-islam.org/BibleCom/yahweh.html
What is bothersome is that the information about the names is readily available and Wright could have found them if he had looked. He is free to disagree but if he does, he should at least include the information and his reasons.
What is bothersome a little to me, I hope you don't mind my saying, is that you make us work too hard! It would have helped greatly if before throwing down this long passage you had summarized just what Wright does with the name of God. Then we might have had some guidance regarding the contrast you intend us to see. But better yet, just give us a snippet of quotation. I seem to recall some standard taught to us in school about the length of quotations in research papers....
I don't object to the criticism and I understand. My problem is two fold. One, I have found in myself in the past the unfortunate ability to read something and immediately lock in on an inpterpretation. Later, someone else explains their different intreptation and I understand where they are coming from. I am still correct mind you but if I summarize, I fear I risk depriving people of the material I started. I much prefer the base material but I will try to include a summary. Also, remember that I frequently find myself in the minority position with a serious credibility issue so I need to bulster my position.

As for Abraham's call, it isn't an obscure issue but gets to the heart of the title of the book. I would propose that there was no more evolution of Abraham to monotheism than there was for Saul the Christianity. It just happened. God called Abraham and asked if he was willing to abandon his previous life and gods and follow Him. He agreed. Now there was a process of learning about God but it wasn't the same process as one would expect in an evolutionary proceeding.
n=Infinity
Sum n = -1/12
n=1

where n are natural numbers.
User avatar
DWill

1H - GOLD CONTRIBUTOR
BookTalk.org Hall of Fame
Posts: 6966
Joined: Thu Jan 31, 2008 8:05 am
16
Location: Luray, Virginia
Has thanked: 2262 times
Been thanked: 2470 times

Re: Ch. 5 - Polytheism, the Religion of Ancient Israel

Unread post

stahrwe wrote: As for Abraham's call, it isn't an obscure issue but gets to the heart of the title of the book. I would propose that there was no more evolution of Abraham to monotheism than there was for Saul the Christianity. It just happened. God called Abraham and asked if he was willing to abandon his previous life and gods and follow Him. He agreed. Now there was a process of learning about God but it wasn't the same process as one would expect in an evolutionary proceeding.
Let me finish reviewing this chapter. I don't recall Wright making any particular point about Abraham's own turn to monotheism being gradual. It makes sense that he would not want to, because he's claiming a much wider time scale than that of a single life (however long, I guess), and he also might not have a strong sense that Abraham was historical. But you've hit the nail right on the head as to how he differs from the view the Bible offers on the surface: the change to monotheism didn't just happen but was a shift occurring over a long time.
User avatar
stahrwe

1I - PLATINUM CONTIBUTOR
pets endangered by possible book avalanche
Posts: 4898
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:26 am
14
Location: Florida
Has thanked: 166 times
Been thanked: 315 times

Re: Ch. 5 - Polytheism, the Religion of Ancient Israel

Unread post

DWill wrote:
stahrwe wrote: As for Abraham's call, it isn't an obscure issue but gets to the heart of the title of the book. I would propose that there was no more evolution of Abraham to monotheism than there was for Saul the Christianity. It just happened. God called Abraham and asked if he was willing to abandon his previous life and gods and follow Him. He agreed. Now there was a process of learning about God but it wasn't the same process as one would expect in an evolutionary proceeding.
Let me finish reviewing this chapter. I don't recall Wright making any particular point about Abraham's own turn to monotheism being gradual. It makes sense that he would not want to, because he's claiming a much wider time scale than that of a single life (however long, I guess), and he also might not have a strong sense that Abraham was historical. But you've hit the nail right on the head as to how he differs from the view the Bible offers on the surface: the change to monotheism didn't just happen but was a shift occurring over a long time.
My point is that so far, Wright has not mentioned Abraham's call. If he fails to then he has ignored a major story in the Bible about the origin of montheism.

I would like to revisit my comment about Yhwh being a small criticism. I was content to lead it as such until Wright himself makes the point about capitalization and uses it to promote his theory. It is problematic that his book fails to use the proper 'case' for letters when he then turns around and uses 'case' as support of his position.

Wright also has a tendency to introduce a controversial topic with a disclaimer that this is a theory which enjoys little support but should be considered; then, the next time it comes up as, "As we have previously seen," as if it is an established fact.
n=Infinity
Sum n = -1/12
n=1

where n are natural numbers.
Post Reply

Return to “The Evolution of God - by Robert Wright”