Orontes
Master of the Horse
Dunemeister,
Thanks for the link on Wright. I'll see if I can get my hands on the two books you cite.
Question: what do you (or perhaps Wright) mean by traditional Jewish monotheism? I have used strict monotheism as the basic referent in our discussion. I've done so to clarify a position that recognizes God as one, singular, exclusive etc. This is the view typical to Jewish thought as it exists now (and would correspond with Muslim understanding). Is this what you mean? Of course, such a view is contra any addition to that Divine one and would thus preclude any claims Jesus was also Divine.
The notion of "lesser gods" is telling. The "lesser" notion applies a valuation that isn't found in the grammar. Even so, were one to simply cede the idea, it doesn't really do anything for the base issue of plurality. A simple illustration from the Hebraist Michael Heiser regarding Psalms 82:1
"God stands in the divine council; in the midst of the gods he passes judgment."
"The first אֱלֹהִים is clearly referring to a singular entity (God) due to subject-verb agreement and
other contextual clues. The second אֱלֹהִים is obviously plural due to the preposition ,בְּקֶרב
since God cannot be said to be standing in the midst of a (singular) god or Himself."
The above is a simple illustration of a divine plurality. Moreover, Elohim itself is plural. It is distinct from the singular El or Eloah etc. Therefore something more than one is entailed in the meaning, that more than one undercuts any strict monotheism.
As to plurality as a device to convey royal dignity: I spoke to this in my first post in the thread. "(T)o apply the pluralis majestatis to Hebrew texts would be anachronistic. No such phrasing existed in Antiquity or within Hebrew parlance." The whole notion of pluralis majestatis is derived from aristocratic landed association which has feudal and manorial roots. It is not a concept found in Antiquity.
I can't agree with your stance on textual criticism or any larger point that may reject historical analysis of texts. While I do think there is value in seeing a compilation of text(s) as a whole i.e. the Tanakh as it speaks to the tradition that has kept it one way over another. Even so, within the text(s) there is clear indication of redaction and thus change. The direction of the change is clear given currently held views juxtaposed against other elements of the text. Dating the changes can be seen by comparing with other works/texts that have parallel views from the archeological record. It seems the only reason to reject a critical approach is to preserve a theological stance. This is the dogmatism I referred to earlier.
Thanks for the link on Wright. I'll see if I can get my hands on the two books you cite.
Question: what do you (or perhaps Wright) mean by traditional Jewish monotheism? I have used strict monotheism as the basic referent in our discussion. I've done so to clarify a position that recognizes God as one, singular, exclusive etc. This is the view typical to Jewish thought as it exists now (and would correspond with Muslim understanding). Is this what you mean? Of course, such a view is contra any addition to that Divine one and would thus preclude any claims Jesus was also Divine.
The notion of "lesser gods" is telling. The "lesser" notion applies a valuation that isn't found in the grammar. Even so, were one to simply cede the idea, it doesn't really do anything for the base issue of plurality. A simple illustration from the Hebraist Michael Heiser regarding Psalms 82:1
אֱלֹהִים נִצָּב בַּעֲדַת־אֵל בְּקֶרב אֱלֹהִים יִשְׁפֹּט׃
"God stands in the divine council; in the midst of the gods he passes judgment."
"The first אֱלֹהִים is clearly referring to a singular entity (God) due to subject-verb agreement and
other contextual clues. The second אֱלֹהִים is obviously plural due to the preposition ,בְּקֶרב
since God cannot be said to be standing in the midst of a (singular) god or Himself."
The above is a simple illustration of a divine plurality. Moreover, Elohim itself is plural. It is distinct from the singular El or Eloah etc. Therefore something more than one is entailed in the meaning, that more than one undercuts any strict monotheism.
As to plurality as a device to convey royal dignity: I spoke to this in my first post in the thread. "(T)o apply the pluralis majestatis to Hebrew texts would be anachronistic. No such phrasing existed in Antiquity or within Hebrew parlance." The whole notion of pluralis majestatis is derived from aristocratic landed association which has feudal and manorial roots. It is not a concept found in Antiquity.
I can't agree with your stance on textual criticism or any larger point that may reject historical analysis of texts. While I do think there is value in seeing a compilation of text(s) as a whole i.e. the Tanakh as it speaks to the tradition that has kept it one way over another. Even so, within the text(s) there is clear indication of redaction and thus change. The direction of the change is clear given currently held views juxtaposed against other elements of the text. Dating the changes can be seen by comparing with other works/texts that have parallel views from the archeological record. It seems the only reason to reject a critical approach is to preserve a theological stance. This is the dogmatism I referred to earlier.