Israel and Humanity - Comparisons between the biblical God of Israel and the pagan gods

 Share 

CHAPTER SEVEN

ANCIENT MOSAIC OF MONOTHEISM

GOD AND THE GODS

I.

Comparisons between the biblical God of Israel and the gods of paganism.

Not only the divine names, their plurals, their grammatical anomalies and their multiplicity that were alleged against the antiquity of the Mosaic monotheism. It was further alleged report evidence of polytheism in the passages from the Bible where God of Israel who are compared with the gods of the Gentiles, they seem to be regarded as his equals.

We will devote the first part of this chapter to examine the texts that we opposed. But first we must eliminate all those concerned where comparisons were made by the pagans, because it is clear that we can not make an argument. For example, when Laban said to Jacob: "May the God of Abraham and the God of Nahor, the God of their father, judge between us! " the God of Nahor is equated with that of Abraham, but admitting it is not the same God, so often named in the Bible, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, the God of Jacob, it is noteworthy that Laban is only so express not only Jacob does not adopt this language, but he is careful not to swear by him whom Isaac feared, so that this passage is rather a proof the existence, among the patriarchs, the Monotheism, with which also the fetishism has more than once without compromising ally radically.

We begin with one of the most frequently cited texts and has provided a pretext for more serious objections. Jephthah, judge of Israel, speaking to the King of Ammon's son, said: "What Chemosh thy god giveth thee to possess, do you not possessed of? And whatever the LORD our God, made in our possession before us, we do not have it! " Chemosh and the LORD shall he not here two gods are considered equal in power? Let us first say that in this passage, as in texts Mostof polytheists, pagans are for something, in that their speech was addressed, the caller is located at the point of view and in this special case Jephthah was obviously intended to remind the king of Ammon the pagan idea of national gods and persuade him to accept the fait accompli in respect that each god has done for his nation respective.Si the language of Biblical characters was always immaculately monotheistic sacred history should be regarded as the work of an age considerably later. As it is the contrary, it is naturally dyed the color of the time. We will also soon see that the faithful Israelites could speak more or less in the style of Jephthah, without betraying their faith unit because it contained a number of its essential doctrines, and not offend in any way the pure monotheism, belief in sarim , guardian angels servants of God over the destiny of nations.

But in the text at hand, the very language of Jephthah does not seem to imply that Chemosh was in his mind the equal of the God of Israel, for the rest of the message sent to King Amnon we read these words significant: "I did not offended, and you do not do well with me by the war. The Lord Judge, is now a judge between the children of Israel and the son of Ammon! "Judges . The Lord is taken for the one true judge, even when there is a dispute between Ammon and Israel, his empire and its jurisdiction extends also to one another and the nation. The end of message has a character so frankly monotheistic it is hardly possible to assign truth the opening words to another cause and the need to comply with language Gentiles.

Another no less critical enough to remove all doubts in this regard, if any could exist. We see Moses, speaking not to a pagan king, but the Israelites, assign this possession, which honors Jephthah Chemosh, the God of Israel and to no one but him. We read in effect from Deuteronomy: "You will approach the children of Ammon. Do not attack and does not commit you in a fight with them because I will not give you possess in the land of the children of Ammon's children of Lot, that I gave in ownership " . Some will object, perhaps as Deuteronomy is Moses' monotheistic beliefs that were alien to Jephthah and his historian and the contradiction between the two texts is the best proof of the recent composition of the Pentateuch. But it is hard to believe that Deuteronomy is not so old as the book of Judges and when it would be, How can we suppose that the writer has not changed this last book in its own way? The sentence of Deuteronomy is easily reconciled with the words of Jephthah, when interpreting these monotheistic point of view, doing one of these Chemosh El ohieme from which the Book of Moses himself tells us that God has divided the government of nations. But it is not a fair criticism to reject a solution that not only removes an apparent contradiction between two books, but also enables one to explain the other, and to attach it to a Another system that explains nothing and leaves the whole contradiction.

Modern critics who claim that Jewish doctrines themselves were changed when it came to the Gentiles to make a positive light, as is the case, we are told, for Philo and Josephus, should be first to permit, among the ancient Jews, the adoption of language polytheistic, when they addressed the pagans. That is not afraid to admit repeatedly Warburton who sees a concession to contemporary prejudices whenever the God of Israel appears regarded as a local deity and guardian.

This title of God of Israel, near the biblical passages which spoke of the God of Ammon, the god of Edom, etc.., has published some authors proof that the ancient Jews admitted the existence of several deities. Rather, we should see this as proof for the idea of a national God and only indirectly, by implication, that we could base an argument against Jewish monotheism. We will examine these texts and others like it, when it comes to answer the charge made in ancient Judaism had been a national religion, a charge alleged to be based on the Hebrew conception of Divinity. Suffice it now to study the passages that require a certain comparison between the God of Israel and the gods of paganism.

Moses said to Pharaoh, for example: "It will be, that thou mayest know that no one is like the LORD our God" Exodus and later: "That thou mayest know that there is none like me in all the earth" In cases like these, Heathens playing the role of interlocutors and listeners, we could, we repeat, the language to accommodate their ideas. But the passages that contain such comparisons made by the biblical characters themselves, without that the Gentiles will be for nothing, can not be disputed and should not surprise those who know the extreme extension of the concept of God was among the Hebrews and all that they specifically included under the name of El- ohieme . Such expressions appear as a legitimate consequence of the belief in the divine presence in the world, in other words, the immanence of God in creation, Shekina and, consequently, its protests all that could be seen under the name of El- ohieme , big and strong, beautiful, good and true.

Do not forget that as long as we admit the existence of sarim guardian angels, acting El ohieme , or deities of the nations , while subjecting them to the God Almighty, it was natural that their Comparat the true God, to proclaim that they were higher. Merely does this mean to recognize it just a dignity surpassing or did we say instead that he only had the absolutely divine, he was the only God worthy of the name, not by participation, but in essence and that all others were only ray detached from her light? We shall see that the latter is the only true, not only when it is, explicit without any idea of comparison with the pagan gods, but in these kinds of assimilation themselves which sometimes reveal for a very strong among those who spoke to mitigate what they have seemed shocking in the form.

So in this passage in Exodus that Moses just quoted, after having told Pharaoh: "No one is like Avaya , our God," he said again, as if to correct this language: "To let you know that the earth is the Lord" Exodus . In the song of Hannah we read: "No one is Holy as the Lord" and immediately afterwards: "There is no other God than you" . Similarly in the prayer of David after the visit of Nathan: "That you're so great, Lord God! because there is none like You! "And immediately the sacred writer, as if he corrected himself, adding:" and there is no other God than you! " Can one reasonably argue that if absolute monotheism at the end of the sentence is relative to the beginning?

These include another two texts from Deuteronomy: "Was there ever a people hear the voice of El ohieme speaking of the fire, as thou hast heard, and live? Was there ever a god tried to go take him a nation from the midst of a nation? ". But the writer is so far from trying to compare here the gods, all equally worthy of the name in his mind, he claims explicitly in the following verse to the one divine nature: "You have been given control of these things, so you know that Avaya is God (El- ohieme ), there is none else! ".

A few lines earlier in this chapter, we read: "What is indeed the great nation that has gods with her. as we have the LORD our God whenever we call upon him? " This is, without doubt, the gods themselves, the ideas of prayer and fulfillment do not see anything else. Is it that Moses recognizes the existence of other deities that Avaya ? Certainly this passage, like many other similar shows that the gods of the Gentiles were not imaginary beings for Moses, a pure nothingness, the contrary, he recognized their real existence, but it gives them so little true nature of divinity proclaims that the Lord alone is able to fulfill the prayers. What we know about the doctrines of Moses on the creation allows us to glimpse what he could understand in the name of god (El-ohieme), we mean the various celestial bodies, or rather the angels who run them and whose The Hebrew prophet does not dream of doing any real gods, because we told their genesis in the stars that we respect they are the spirits with whom the pagans were so often confused in their worship

Without doubt the danger of such comparisons is to suggest that it may exist in the mind of the writer a certain equality, if not dignity, at least in the nature of the God of Israel and the pagan gods, but apparent that these difficulties can be explained without the pure monotheism remains the least compromise, all we have said so far the nature and role of El-ohieme seems to have clearly demonstrated.