Israel and Humanity - The Mosaic monotheism and criticism
CHAPTER FIVE
ANCIENT MOSAIC OF MONOTHEISM
THE GOD OF GODS
1.
The Mosaic monotheism and criticism.
We do not fully acquit our task, if we neglect to consider carefully the objections that we are made regarding the antiquity of the Mosaic monotheism. Even assuming that among the texts that opposes us there are some who really contradict those on which we firmly believe that we can build, we did not think it nothing to undermine our argument.
When two doctrines are mutually exclusive one another in the same religious society, it is always the most perfect should be taken into account. It is indeed unacceptable that in mind when it reached this area at a certain height and then fell to very low and crawl painfully. In any case, its highest elevation, which gives the measure of his strength and that alone should be considered, if we want an impartial in such matters, other events being viewed as contradictory as symptoms of impotence of the mass to maintain its faith in the higher regions. Burnouf has expressed a similar idea in terms we can not do better than reproduce: "He is, he says, thinking dominating all the facts when humanity found itself in possession [1] a true principle, there is no example she has left to perish. " In addition, the monotheistic creeds can only be explained as a strong indicator of spiritual development, while the remnants of polytheism are sufficient justification under the special conditions of time, civilization and language. It would be unfair finally indiscriminately confused religion with superstition. In our own time, it may be noted in all classes of superstitions, from which it would be unfair to judge the state of religion in general, let alone when it comes to the struggle between monotheism and polytheism, which had to be necessarily long and difficult.
It argues, contrary to our claims that the ancient Jews were polytheists and the Jewish religion was then that the worship of one god locally and nationally. This double charge, is believed to be based on evidence furnished by the Bible itself, tends to ruin the concept of a universal God that we regard as characteristic of the religion of Israel.
But first what is meant by the polytheism of the ancient Jews? Nobody denies that they have been repeatedly idolaters; history leaves no doubt in this regard. The question is whether, despite those failures transient, they have always been in possession of my religion teach the pure monotheism, if the doctrines of that religion are contained in the Pentateuch, and assuming they are there, there has always been in Israel a portion of the people remained faithful to them. The latter part of the question is important and it probably would not be difficult, as others have done to resolve it positively. Renan says somewhere that the greatness of the Jewish people is to constantly have contained an admirable minority. However this problem can at best stay out of our current research. What matters most is the existence of an ancient and permanent monotheistic religion, because that is the religion itself that is and not its followers. This existence once demonstrated, even though the official would count monotheism a very small number of believers, the universal character of Judaism remain unassailable. If it were proved that the same monotheistic faith has been more or less of total eclipses, it would further emphasize the contrast between the state of popular beliefs and sublimity [2] of that principle which looked even less present than the future.
Those who deny the existence of primitive monotheism in Israel argue that even for a while polytheism dominated exclusively and it slowly disappeared, as designs were elaborated higher than those without it, however, have never exceeded the level of a relative monolatry, very different from the monotheism that we support. They claim to support this thesis in the first four books of the Pentateuch itself, where Avaya be included, not only recognized as God by the Hebrews, but only as a deity superior to others, such as Zeus or Indra.
It is clear to all that this is a crucial question which depends largely on the religious future of humanity. If the objection was based rationalist, he is no longer possible to appeal to the authority of revelation Hebrew with her would collapse at the same time Christianity and Islam that attach both the old trunk Israel and mankind would be doomed to start over and join perhaps forever, like Sisyphus, the crushing weight of his aspirations without ever being able to reach the desired peak. But it seems that our opponents do not take sufficient account of all direct evidence of monotheism as we indiscriminately drawn from every book of the Pentateuch; more extrinsic evidence of Mosaic monotheism does not make us miss.
Strabo, Tacitus and others mentioned by Josephus, agree to recognize in the ancient Jewish monotheism as absolute. Strabo even pushed this notion of unity to the ends of pantheism and we must admit that it had to base his opinion either on the direct study of the Mosaic books, either on the idea that long since the Gentiles were the religion of Israel. Among the more modern authors we cite Spinoza and Salvador are one and the other to be attributed to Moses the doctrine of absolute identity of pantheistic monism. Speaking of Jews he described as beyond the metaphysical speculations of India and Chaldea, Mr. Maury said, "these pastors that God had found a simple and universal nature teaches us. The Mosaic endowed the world with the idea of divine unity, unity with a rigor and an absolute only to be found in any other religion of antiquity. Only he taught [3] that God created purely by thought, be supreme and eternal, which has not changed, and that will not end, and aeternum neque illud summum mutabile interiturum neque, as Tacitus commenting Renan, these words of Exodus: the LORD shall reign forever "[4]. Many critics attribute to be Semites in general, like Renan, or to Jews in particular, as Munk, intuition and original primitive monotheism. Therefore is it not natural to look for traces in the oldest religious documents and award forms polytheistic, which occur in these writings to an action, while external circumstances?
Say again, before turning to the detailed examination of the most important objections of the critics that modern rationalists we provide arguments in favor of Mosaic monotheism by the excess of their negations. They claim that the Pentateuch contains only one embryo angelology, which would establish them elsewhere cons antiquity and authenticity of the books of Moses, therefore prior to the time of contact Assyrian, Babylonian and Persian who introduced, we are told, in Judaism the doctrine of angels. But more is absent or rudimentary state of angelology suppose at this time a peaceful reign of pure and absolute monotheism that would not have any room for the idea of supernatural beings fulfilling the role of lesser gods, while the opposite is polytheism to highly endorses this approach. The contradiction is especially striking when the critical challenges in early Judaism the idea of Satan, the evil angel, for it is undeniable that the distinction between the good principle and the principle of evil, the god of good and evil god, is an early form that is naturally polytheism. Unlike the strict monotheism, tends to eliminate or overshadow any idea of power that could rival the one God and we said Isaiah grows so far the spirit of Mosaic monotheism, in his words to the address of Persian dualism, it has the holy boldness to call God the author of evil.
So some critical rationalists we provide evidence for our thesis. Let's see what are their main objections. [5]
