Biblical Hebrew Forum

["Lisbeth S. Fried" <lizfried AT umich.edu>]

Title: Re: Monotheism was: "admittedly syncretistic..

 

-----Original Message-----
From: Rolf Furuli [mailto:furuli AT online.no]
Sent: Fri, January 25, 2002 11:13 AM
To: Biblical Hebrew
Subject: Re: Monotheism was: "admittedly syncretistic..

 

The Babylonian gods are clearly the invention of men, having all the degraded characteristics of men ##., while my judgement is that the God in the Genesis account is  of a completely different nature. 
 

OK, I'll bite, What is the difference between the god(s) in Genesis and the gods in the Atrahasis account?

 

Some years ago we read the laws of Hammurapi in class and it bacame evident for the students how different these are from the laws in the Pentateuch, even though there are similarities as well. So it seems to me that there generally is a clear quality difference between the Hebrew documents of the Tanach and other documents of antiquity. 
 

OK What differences do you see here?

 

Since I'm getting ready to teach all these subjects in a few weeks, I'd like to know.

 

 

It seems to me that something like a dogmatic religion has been built up around modern critical scholarship. Noth's theory of a deuteronomistic history etc and many other speculative hypotheses have almost been elevated to data, while the truth is that hard facts regarding when the different books were written and who were the writers are completely lacking. For instance,in my linguistic analysis of the participles of the Tanach I found a use which was uniform throughout the book of Isaiah but almost non-existent in other books. I will not say that this proves that there was one author of the books, but the evidence for two or three authors is very weak indeed.  

 

P eople do now argue for one author of the book of Isaiah but they place him in the fifth century.

 

As to my position, I am very positive to the text of the Hebrew documents, because of all the single data I have found to be of a higher quality that that of contemporaneous documents. It is my impression that the concept of God in the Tanach is sublime and elevated, in stark contrast to that of other nations around. Your interpretations regarding the divine suzerain and polytheism are possible but hardly the only alternative. I see no conflict between Isaiah 41-- and Exodus 20 because the subject is addressed from different angles. Isaiah does not deny the existence of the $EDIM, but he points out to those who think that carved images have intrinsic life and power that this is a false view. And similarly, the writer of Exodus does not say that the carved images have life and power. In view of the sublime descriptions of the one Creator I take the implication of the writer of Exodus of other living gods to refer to the $EDIM.

 

I suggest that you have a view of the god of the HB that is colored by Christian and
Hellenistic conceptions. I suggest, respectfully, that you are falling into the trap

that many fall into, and you are not reading the text that is printed, but the text that is

in your head. I give a lecture called "What does God Look Like ? the view from the

Bible." It sure does wake people up to the text.

Best,

Liz Fried