For Higher Critics-Why does NT have a TRINITARIAN slant so foreign to OT

by jwfacts 25 Replies latest watchtower bible

• 

  Narkissos

  jwfacts

  Thank you... yeah I was in Prague for a few days, and didn't even look for Internet access there

  When you say the Jews were polytheistic, is that based on passages from the OT, or other historical Jewish works?

  It is clear from archaeology, comparative history of religion and literature, and a number of "slips" in the Bible texts themselves (in spite of their monotheistic redaction), that the religious conceptions of Israel and Judah prior to the Babylonian exile were not very different from their neighbours'. Yhwh was one of El's sons (cf. Deuteronomy 32:8f, where the variation between two monotheistic corrections in the pre-masoretic and the LXX fortunately preserves an original polytheistic synthesis, as has been discussed in http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/10/66342/1.ashx for instance). To Israel he was a tutelary god just as Chemosh was to Moab (Judges 11:24). Asherah, whose worship is attested in many OT texts, was most probably his consort goddess as Anat was Baal-Hadad's. He was associated to multiple place (sanctuary) names just as Baal (cf. the expressions "Yhwh of Teman and his Asherah" and "Yhwh of Shomron/Samaria and his Asherah" in the Kuntillet 'Ajrud inscriptions). And there is evidence for a number of other gods and goddesses. For example, Jeremiah 44:17ff shows how the henotheistic reform of Josiah only put a temporary stop to the worship of the "Queen of Heavens". Interesting books to read in this regard are Mark S. Smith's The Early History of God, John Day's Yahweh and the Gods and Goddesses of Canaan, Karel Van der Toorn et al.'s Dictionary of Deities and Demons in the Bible (DDD), Margaret Barker's The Great Angel -- A Study of Israel's Second God.

  MS,

  I think you are correct in assessing the exclusivism of Ezra (and Deuteronomy), but it was only one opinion among many. By inserting a Moabite woman into the line of David's ancestors, the book of Ruth clearly takes an opposite stance which is also reflected in many of Genesis' patriarchal stories (e.g. Tamar, or Joseph's marriage with an Egyptian priest's daughter).

  "The true God" (NWT) is definitely an overtranslation of ha-'elohim (most probably meaning "the Divine" = "God") but in most cases this expression clearly implies a monotheistic perspective.

  Ross,

  I'm not sure what the "gem" was but I'm glad you found it...

  Terry,

  It may surprise you, but I think you still buy too much into the OT "great narrative" which has the reader believe that monotheism was there right from the beginning and that foreign influences were necessary for the Israelites to look to "other gods". Actually the failure of Yhwh as a national god in a polytheistic perspective was what moved exilic Judaism, not to forsake him, but to raise him up to the level of the only (hence international) "God" -- ascribing him the destruction of Jerusalem by Nebuchadnezzar as a punishment, and the restoration under Cyrus as a grace. Historically monotheism emerges from the failure of polytheism, not the reverse. Messianism comes even later into the picture.
• 

  heathen

  I think the people that rewrote the bible tried to add things in order to support paganistic beliefs ,much like what the WTBTS does say. The old testament clearly says that jehovah is one and there is no mention of a trinity . In fact what I learned recently was that it wasn't the niacine creed that created the trinity but the Anastasian creed where they finally decided on a trinity . check for spelling on that tho ...LOL Deuteronomy 6:4
• 

  jwfacts

  Heathen, the Trinity belief is that Jehovah is but one God, and Deut 6:4 is used as a key support scripture. The Trinity evolved to reconcile how Jehovah can be one God if both Father and Son are referred to as God in the NT.

  Narkissos. Would you say the statement at Genesis "Let us make God in our image" is a polytheistic verse, or support of the Trinity as Christians say, or just an expression of regalness as claimed by the WTS?

  Likewise, is John 1:1 "The word was with God and [a] God (or Divine)" a slip back to a polytheistic view, support of the Trinity, or was it just put there to confuse JWs?
• 

  Terry

  NARKISSOS:

  It may surprise you, but I think you still buy too much into the OT "great narrative" which has the reader believe that monotheism was there right from the beginning and that foreign influences were necessary for the Israelites to look to "other gods". Actually the failure of Yhwh as a national god in a polytheistic perspective was what moved exilic Judaism, not to forsake him, but to raise him up to the level of the only (hence international) "God" -- ascribing him the destruction of Jerusalem by Nebuchadnezzar as a punishment, and the restoration under Cyrus as a grace. Historically monotheism emerges from the failure of polytheism, not the reverse. Messianism comes even later into the picture

  Oh, I agree. I probably don't make myself clear enough. I don't buy the monotheist bit at all. It was a "floating" theory at best.
• 

  Narkissos

  Would you say the statement at Genesis "Let us make God in our image" is a polytheistic verse, or support of the Trinity as Christians say, or just an expression of regalness as claimed by the WTS?

  I think it reflects a vestige of a second stage of the Israelite polytheism, where Yhwh had already moved from the position of one member of the assembly of the gods to the position of chairman of the assembly (a position formerly held by El). But the actual standpoint of the priestly author is still different, since he doesn't call the speaker Yhwh but 'elohim. To me the big question is, does he represent the 'elohim as the supreme god addressing other gods, or is he to be construed as encompassing the totality of "gods," or "godship"? Iow, it is an address to someone else or to one's (plural) self?

  One later resurgence of the polytheistic divine assembly within the monotheistic mindset is the idea of a heavenly court of angels instead of gods, but I doubt this would have been compatible with the priestly view which was wary about the development of angelology (cf. the 1st-century Sadducees). There are no angels in Genesis 1. Plus, the implication would be that man is made in the image of angels, not of God / the gods...

  The Trinitarian use of this text is definitely anachronistic, although it can be indirectly related to a reminiscence of polytheism as summed up into "God". And the "plural of majesty" is unattested in Biblical Hebrew.

  Likewise, is John 1:1 "The word was with God and [a] God (or Divine)" a slip back to a polytheistic view, support of the Trinity, or was it just put there to confuse JWs?

  I would suggest that this text originally made sense within an early Gnostic, inclusive notion of "God" which was repressed with the church's rejection of Gnosticism in the 2nd century and is henceforth foreign to the 3rd and 4th-century Trinitarian debate.
• 

  heathen

  Heathen, the Trinity belief is that Jehovah is but one God, and Deut 6:4 is used as a key support scripture. The Trinity evolved to reconcile how Jehovah can be one God if both Father and Son are referred to as God in the NT. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- That's interesting because I've never heard that before . I know the WTBTS says that in that scripture Jehovah was stating there was no trinity since the hebrews came out of egypt where trinitarian beliefs already existed .In fact that's where I found it under the scriptures that disprove the trinity in the back of the NWT .`I think the fact there is no mention of a trinity at all in the bible concerning God is proof that there isn't one . Time and again the apostles wrote about there being one God and one lord jesus christ. 1st cor.8:4-6