Re: Hyers' Dinosaur Religion (was: HYAR'S...; Hyers' Article -Cods Wallop)

Ted Davis wrote:

 "...Idolatry was widely practiced among the Hebrews for much
of the monarchial period, during which Genesis was written down in its
present form. The biblical clues are the tip of the iceberg, since they
represent Temple Judaism with its (correct) denial of idolatry."

Are you talking about biblical clues in the history books (Kings & Chronicles)? If so, I tend to agree. But some of the prophets expose more of the whole iceberg. The most severe language in the Bible attributed to God addresses flagrant idolatry among the citizens of both Israel and Judah. Hosea, Jeremiah and Ezekiel, among others, have many heated and sweeping diatribes against idolatry. Ezekiel is especially biting (e.g., chapters 8, 14, 16, 20, 23,...). His chapters 16 and 23 are IMO the most forceful and biting reprimands of anyone in the entire Bible.

Ted: "God was often seen as having a female consort, a type
of fertility goddess, both of whom were worshipped."

It's understandable that God (YHWH) would be worshiped _alongside_ or _in addition to_ foreign deities. The prophets often refer to this sort of thing. But for YHWH to have a female consort from among them sounds strange. There's nothing in the Bible that I interpret to allude to such a thing. I'd like to know how strong the evidence is that YHWH was the one who had the consort rather than, say, Baal, Chemosh, Molech, etc.--gods that we know the people worshiped and that we know had female consorts. This might be hard to pin down just from a bunch of unearthed idols. Without written documentation from the monarchical period I'd be skeptical. Experts have been wrong before.

Don

  ----- Original Message -----
  From: Ted Davis<mailto:TDavis@messiah.edu>
  To: dfwinterstein@msn.com<mailto:dfwinterstein@msn.com> ; pruest@mysunrise.ch<mailto:pruest@mysunrise.ch>
  Cc: asa@calvin.edu<mailto:asa@calvin.edu> ; dickfischer@earthlink.net<mailto:dickfischer@earthlink.net>
  Sent: Wednesday, February 25, 2004 5:41 AM
  Subject: Re: Hyers' Dinosaur Religion (was: HYAR'S...; Hyers' Article -Cods Wallop)

>>> pruest@pop.mysunrise.ch<mailto:pruest@pop.mysunrise.ch> 02/25/04 12:50AM >>>writes:

  Evidently, I have again written some shorthand, rather than precisely
  describe what I mean. I agree with both of you, Ted and Don, that idolatry
  was the fundamental sin of Israel between their captivities in Egypt and
  in
  Babylon. I certainly didn't intend to play that down.

  However, there is much less of this to be found from Abraham to Joseph,
  although Abraham came from a Mesopotamia with its idolatrous cultures and
  lived among idolaters in Canaan, and Joseph lived in Egypt with its
  idolatry. Now, if we try to go even further back than Abraham, there is
  not
  very much idolatry to be seen in the few texts we have before Genesis 12.
  At
  least the biblical texts we have do not tell us much about the Israelites
  and their forefathers being much seduced by idolatry before Aaron's golden
  calf.

  Ted responds:
  Glad to see we agree about the importance of monotheism to the Hebrews.
  Your comments on the early biblical period are very interesting, let me
  gloss them with some recent archeaological information (coming from Bill
  Dever, perhaps the leading American scholar of the relevant cultural
  period). In fact, idolatry was widely practiced among the Hebrews for much
  of the monarchial period, during which Genesis was written down in its
  present form. The biblical clues are the tip of the iceberg, since they
  represent Temple Judaism with its (correct) denial of idolatry. In the
  countryside, however, God was often seen as having a female consort, a type
  of fertility goddess, both of whom were worshipped. Household idols of the
  consort are turning up in excavations all over the place. So, it would make
  sense that idolatry was very much in people's minds when Genesis was put
  into its present form.

  Peter writes:

  If we look at God creating humans in his image as the beginning of
  humanity,
  the most natural impression is that first there was monotheism, and
  polytheism represented a later degeneration. Now, Genesis 1 squarely
  belongs
  into this first period of monotheism, no matter when the story, previously
  transmitted orally, was finally written down, and no matter when this
  first
  period of monotheism petered out into a later period having a predominance
  of polytheism. This is why I doubt that polytheism is a major concern of
  the
  creation story (although, as I hinted at, God, who certainly foresaw the
  degeneration, may already have included some provision for those later
  times). I prefer to see the earliest divine revelations to humans as
  positively directing their thinking (1) to himself as their Creator, and
  (2)
  to all else that surrounded them as his creation. If this would stick,
  there
  would be no need of making much ado about the "nothings".

  Ted responds:
  Very interesting. This was Isaac Newton's view--that there was a
  primitive, true religion of monotheism, related to heliocentrism (something
  pretty close to the Neoplatonic view that the sun and its light represent
  the divine presence in the world), and that in the days of Noah idolators
  arose and they lost their correct cosmological understanding together with
  their monotheism. Of course, monotheism for Newton was exactly that,
  monotheism in the very Jewish sense; God exists but only as the Father, not
  as the Son and Holy Spirit.

  No way do I attribute this view to you, Peter, it moves in a very different
  direction. But I'm seeing this part of the Bible perhaps now more clearly
  as leading Newton to think this.

  ted
Received on Fri Feb 27 06:24:48 2004