Do you have the university and year for this dissertation? I’d like to look it up, but the only publication I can find by this gentleman is an Institute of Islamic Thought book on Ramadan.
University of Wales. I didn’t see any dates. Here’s his web page, you’ll see it at the bottom of the page. http://hilal-discourse.net/articles.aspx
I disagree with this assertion. The final form of the Hebrew Bible took shape between the late Second Temple Period and the Rabbinic Period. During that time period the deities of surrounding cultures were far more transcendent, ontologically. The Septuagint actually tries to manipulate the text toward a less anthropomorphic view of deity in many places specifically to bring it more in line with contemporary ideas about deity.
His analysis and discussion makes sense to me. I think you’re actually reiterating at least some of what he is saying.
The text inherited by the scribes of that time period had a much different shape and the portions that can be reconstructed from the pre-exilic period do not mitigate anthropomorphism at all in its promulgation of a universalized deity.
I’m not going to argue the details of the Bible because I’m not knowledgeable or that interested. If you read his comments though, he stated that anthropomorphism is contained throughout.
This is inaccurate. To begin with, “progressive” is a value judgment which has no place in academic evaluations of the Hebrew Bible.
I’m not convinced that it is inaccurate. The guy got his PH.D., afterall. You seem to be ignoring the obvious fact of development over time and deflecting out of context an observation that must surely have some place in academic evaluations of the Hebrew Bible because that is precisely what his dissertaion is.
National, universal, and ethical monotheism, as well as henotheism, are rather dated terms in the contemporary academic discussions of monotheism. Monolatry is much more appropriate than henotheism. The two words are viewed a synonyms in the academy today. This dissertation is either out of date or is only marginally associated with contemporary monotheism scholarship.
You seem to be quick with the criticisms. He uses the term and discusses monolatry. Out of date? I’m sure the guy is not ancient.
The idea of a “progressive element” is the main fallacy to which I referred. The biblical authors not only had distinct ideas from each other, diachronically and synchronically, but their rhetoric ebbed and flowed according to their needs, not exclusively to their theology. This is why Psalm 82, an exilic composition, appeals to very early pre-exilic ideas about Yahweh and Elyon, and why the Bible could be moved away from anthropomorphism (in Alexandria) and then moved right back (by the Rabbis). The evolutionary model is one that holds to linear development that becomes increasingly sophisticated and philosophically self-aware. This is not how the Bible developed.
I don’t perceive the suggestion that anyone is charting a straight line, however, time is linear and changes can be subtle. Perhaps you should read his dissertation. I don’t think he’s taking the strict linear ‘evolutionary’ approach to which you continue to refer. I don’t see how anyone can deny a progressive element over time.
This is that fallacious progression to which I made reference. Scholars today don’t map the development of monotheism so linearly or monolithically.
But there is a development of monotheism to which you are concurring with the stress on degree.
The story is not quite so simple or convenient, and Kaplan did most of his work in the 60’s. If we take evolution to just mean “change,” then yes, it’s evolution, but the sense Andrew and Kaplan use is one of linear progression toward a more intellectual, moral, and sophisticated theology. This is a presentistic value judgment, but it also ignores the ebb and flow of Jewish monotheism and the impetuses for its change.
I think change to a more intellectual, moral and sophisticated theology is quite evident, even to a lay person. On the one hand you criticize a position, then on the other, your explanation seems to concur with it. Shah’s paper discusses the ebb and flow of Jewish monotheism and the impetuses for its change.
If it rests exclusively on the assumption of the evolutionary model I described above, as Andrew’s statement was, it is built on a fallacious foundation.
I’m not familiar with a bona fide evolutionary model.
There’s much more to it than that, though.
True, but this much I can say with confidence. It doesn’t seem to me that a proper analysis of the Bible would or should rest exclusively on any one assumption regarding any model or hypothesis proposed as an explanation.
