When did Elohim "we;gods" become Elohim "God"?

[exile]

A previous post "Does Lord = Yahweh and God = Elohim" got me to thinking when did Elohim "we; gods" become Elohim "God"? I thought about a bit and it had to have happened long before the New Testament was written. By the Christian era the belief that there is only one God had definitely set in. There really is no consistent monotheism in the Old Testament until Deutero-Isaiah after the Jews had met the Mazdayasnian "Mazda worshipping" Persians. And Elohim appears in the intertestimentary material does it not. So I'm thinking it must have been after the Jews met the Persians that they just started translating Elohim as "God" instead of "we;gods," and then they started back-projecting this translation and that's why the Jews believe in one God today. How else could it have happened?

 

[Thomas]

It is always possible that people come to a position under their own power — not every idea is dependent upon receiving the idea from someone else.

Certainly Hebraic monotheism as it emerges surpasses, in my mind, the fundamental dualism of the Persian tradition. You would have to investigate the relation between good and evil and God and man, I would have thought, before you can say which owes what to whom.

God bless,

Thomas

 

[Nick the Pilot]

Exile,

I believe it happened well before the Jews received the Old Testament. (I also believe the Jews received the manuscript from an older civilization, who in turn had received it from an even older civilization, the Persians being one of the civilizations in this line of civilizations, just as you mention). Specifically, I think it happened just before the Persians received the manuscript from the civilization that passed it down to the Persians. (The Persians later passed it down to the Jews.)

I also believe the Elohim are plural, just like Genesis says 'they' are. The people who tried to edit all references to multiple gods out of the manuscript mistakenly left the "Let us make man" line in the manuscript intact and in its original form. (I have often wondered how they could have made such a 'glaring error.')

 

[exile]

It is always possible that people come to a position under their own power — not every idea is dependent upon receiving the idea from someone else.

Certainly Hebraic monotheism as it emerges surpasses, in my mind, the fundamental dualism of the Persian tradition. You would have to investigate the relation between good and evil and God and man, I would have thought, before you can say which owes what to whom.

God bless,

Thomas

So when did Hebraic monotheism take shape then?

 

[Dream]

How else could it have happened?

Thousands of different ways. That is the whole problem with trying to come up with a single definite answer.

 

[exile]

Thousands of different ways. That is the whole problem with trying to come up with a single definite answer.

In that case, when do we know for sure that the Jews were worshiping only one God? Was it after the New Testament was written, perhaps?

 

[Thomas]

Hi Exile —

So when did Hebraic monotheism take shape then?

Interesting question. You'd probably have to ask someone like Bananabrain for an informed comment on that.

I'd say it took shape over the history of Israel. I read Scripture as that journey, from ignorance, through insight, inspiration and illumination, to the knowledge of God.

So I think the text is dynamic, in the spiritual sense, rather than historic or forensic. Is there an "ah-ha!" moment when Israel realised it was monotheist, with all that that implies? I doubt it. Is there a moment when I realised I love my partner? Plenty, but do those moments define the relationship? No.

I think it more organic.

I think a seed was planted in Abram, and Scripture is the testimony of its reception and its growth. Something in me responds to "El-Shaddai" as a Divine Name, but I understand God as something far more than the name implies in its common and exoteric reading ... so where would you place me on the scale of gods / polytheism / monotheism ... ?

I know I, and I'm sure you, have had 'ah-ha' moments reading Scripture. I also know that my 'ah-ha', as divinely inspired as it might be, is not the last word on the matter ...

... the journey goes on. "And Jesus saith to him: The foxes have holes, and the birds of the air nests: but the son of man hath not where to lay his head" (Matthew 8:20, Luke 9:58)

That's the way of it, keep moving ... it is a way, after all.

God bless,

Thomas

 

[radarmark]

exile... not even close on the "after the New Testament" post. If you read the inter-testamonial writings (Job, Daniel, Maccabees) it is pretty clear that Jewish Monotheism exists well befor the NT. How far back gets to a matter that academicians (and rabbis) have been argueing for several centuries now.

 

[exile]

exile... not even close on the "after the New Testament" post. If you read the inter-testamonial writings (Job, Daniel, Maccabees) it is pretty clear that Jewish Monotheism exists well befor the NT. How far back gets to a matter that academicians (and rabbis) have been argueing for several centuries now.

That's true. So definitely by the time of the inter-testamonial writings.

 

[exile]

That's true. So definitely by the time of the inter-testamonial writings.

So if the intertestamonial writings were written using the Paleo-Hebrew writing system a pesimistic date for the Hebraic belief in one God began around 135 CE. But that the earliest evidence of monotheism is in the intertestamonial writings means that the Hebraic monotheism doesn't really stem from the Torah, but writings that they don't even adhere too, doesn't it? And if the Jews don't adhere to the intetertestimentary material then that presents a paradox doesn't it?

 

[radarmark]

No, again, you have it all wrong. The "absolute proof" exists in era of 250-150 BCE (when documents are dated). That is when Job and most of the other intre-testimonials were written. But then you forget Prophets... that goes back to Era of Exile (depends on what expert you want to believe). So the "probable prrof" takes us back to before 500 BCE (no documents dated to then).

135 CE is just plain wrong, as is your assertion that Paleo-Hebraic writing, and that Jews do not "adhere to" Scripture. Job and the Prophets are Jewish Canon. Where in the world do you get such odd beliefs from?

 

[exile]

No, again, you have it all wrong. The "absolute proof" exists in era of 250-150 BCE (when documents are dated). That is when Job and most of the other intre-testimonials were written. But then you forget Prophets... that goes back to Era of Exile (depends on what expert you want to believe). So the "probable prrof" takes us back to before 500 BCE (no documents dated to then).

135 CE is just plain wrong, as is your assertion that Paleo-Hebraic writing, and that Jews do not "adhere to" Scripture. Job and the Prophets are Jewish Canon. Where in the world do you get such odd beliefs from?

My logic behind the 135 CE dating is that the oldest material in the Hebrew Bible is written using the Paleo-Hebraic script and that the latest the script was used before it died was 135 CE. I'm not sure how you've deduced 250-150 BCE or 500 BCE for the Hebrew Bible. If you're using the Dead Sea Scrolls I can understand an early date at 300 BCE for the Hebrew Bible, but I have no idea where you're getting 500 BCE. A lot of material in the Hebrew Bible was back-projected and there's no paleo-linguistic method or chemical process to confirm that material was written before 300 BCE. If Job, and Prophets is among the oldest material in the Hebrew Bible it would have been recorded in the Paleo-Hebrew writing script, if not it would still have been attested among the Dead Sea Scrolls (unless those books weren't included), and if they were indeed included among the Dead Sea Scrolls 300 BCE that would still place them during the intertestimentary period.