You're mistaken.

https://youtube.com/shorts/Pfl28t9emMk

>>18505205
Deuteronomy? No.
The Dead Sea Scrolls and select Greek texts show that Deuteronomy 32:8 clearly exhibits polytheism with Yahweh being head of one locality: Israel

>>18505986
No, I mean Deutero-Isaiah, chapters 40-55 of the Book of Isaiah, which were written separate from Proto-Isaiah (1-39) and Trito-Isaiah (56-66).

>>18505994
Oh

>>18505205
intertestamental literature contains a lot of bullshit about angels and archangels and super mega angels and all the metatron stuff. in light of this, christianity is not a radical anomaly, as is usually claimed of its relationship to judaism

>>18506042
Yes. The New Testament also speaks of other gods too.

>>18505205
Exodus 20:11 seems to make it quite clear: "For in six days Yahweh made the sky and the earth and the sea and all that is in them". If God made everything in the sky and the sea and the land what exactly is left for some other deity to even be the god *of*?

>>18506262
You need to read critical texts. Throughout the Pentateuch there is disagreement on whether the original text said Yahweh or Elohim. Because editors were unable to remove all references to polytheism, it's pretty clear there were revisions that inserted Yahweh where he was originally not present.

>>18505994
some hints exist - Peshitta and 1QIsa_a - that Proto-Isaiah existed as 1-33.
34-35 might be later, and I'm sure you know 36-9 is just ripped off 2 Kings.

>>18506305
Your reply basically amounts to "well the text as we have it is monotheistic, but I presuppose there was a polytheistic version of the text". So you're not even ultimately talking about the Bible but about a nonexistent different book.

>Throughout the Pentateuch there is disagreement on whether the original text said Yahweh or Elohim.
Denying that is says Yahweh doesn't even make sense. What about theophoric names such as Joshua or Jochebed? "Yahweh" is embedded in names like these.

>it's pretty clear there were revisions that inserted Yahweh where he was originally not present
Based on what?

>>18506391
>Your reply basically amounts to "well the text as we have it is monotheistic, but I presuppose there was a polytheistic version of the text".
No it doesn't. Take whatever meds are necessary for good reading comprehension or interpreting posts in good faith.

>>18506391
>theophoric names
Why are you bringing up something irrelevant?
Do you even understand what a critical text is? Please make sure you do because the basic issue being discussed is some manuscripts say "Yahweh" whereas others say "Elohim" in certain places. Therefore it is necessary to reconstruct the original text using whatever evidence and reasoning is available in order to understand the original authors' intent.

>>18506418
Isn't Yahweh Elohim though also can you give some examples of manuscripts with consquential variant verse readings

File: Yahweh Elohim vs Elohim.png (380 KB, 1036x1560)

380 KB PNG

>>18506450
>consquential variant verse readings
Genesis 2:4 seems pretty consequential.

The MT witnesses "Yahweh Elohim".
The LXX witnesses "Elohim" (= ὁ θεός)

>>18505205
You're gonna burn in hell. :)

>>18505205
The Old Testament religion and Greek Paganism are basically the same religion. One great God above all that has a divine council of Elohim.

>>18506418
You seemed to be denying that Yahweh was actually worshipped by the Hebrews but was instead something later inserted into their texts. Is this not your point?

> the basic issue being discussed is some manuscripts say "Yahweh" whereas others say "Elohim" in certain places
And what manuscript doesn't have Yahweh in Exodus 20:11?

The best you could even come up with for the other anon in >>18506466 was a different book, a translation into a different language altogether, and even there the original verse had both with one being dropped in the Greek translation, not a manuscript with one vs. the other.

>>18505205
There is a hierarchy, with some souls being greater than some other (Arch-angels for example), but at the top is God, then the his Son and the Holy Spirit both beneath him. God = King, Spirit = The Collective of the Nation, Son = The Physical Body of the Nation, created in the image of God. We are the Son, the Spirit is our Collective Will as a Nation. Angels are some mystical beings that serve God in the Kingdom of Heaven and watch over us as Guardians. Christianity creates this image of ideal Hierarchy and Civilization.

>>18506466
What about the Vulgate (Jerome used a pre-Masoretic Hebrew Text), Peshitta (it was sourced from an independent Greek tradition), Samaritan Pentateuch, and DSS?
I do think textual criticism of the OT is a neglected subject and there is no complete CT of the Old Testament (the BHS is a diplomatic text that conforms to the Leningrad Codex)

>>18505205
This is what intellectual dishonesty looks like

>>18506642
>You seemed to be denying that Yahweh was actually worshipped by the Hebrews
No

>>18506662
>What about the Vulgate (Jerome used a pre-Masoretic Hebrew Text), Peshitta (it was sourced from an independent Greek tradition), Samaritan Pentateuch, and DSS?
Yes, those are all valid sources to check. The majority of variant readings are captured by a combination of the Masoretic, the Greek texts, the DSS, and the Samaritan Pentateuch. If what you say about the Vulgate is true then it may also be useful for the topic being discussed but IIRC when I checked it for various purposes I rarely saw interesting variant text.

>>18506662
Peshitta was adapted from a targumic therefore preMasoretic tradition too.
The Syriac rendition of the LXX would be Paul of Tella's version, which is not the Peshitta although maybe some Melkite traditions in Syriac accept this. Or early Maronites.

>>18506820
...Then there's little basis for doubting that their sacred texts talk about Yahweh frequently.

Your point then seems to be that they worshipped both Yahweh and what they saw as a different divinity, El, or different divinities elohim.

But that doesn't work see we see singular deities spoken of this same way elsewhere. The Nabonidus Cylinder from Ur for example says of the moon god Sin that he is "the gods of the gods" (source: https://www.livius.org/sources/content/nabonidus-cylinder-from-ur/) calling him "ilani" (source: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/378403495_Name_YHWH_and_Allah_in_the_context_of_Conflict), of course cognate with the Hebrew word elohim.

So it doesn't need to be supposed to refer to multiple deities, it can refer to one and we see this done with both Sin and Yahweh.

"El" and its cognates just mean "god/spiritual power" in Semitic languages. It isn't even clear that there was a deity in the ancient near east specifically named El instead of that just always functioning as a title that, if not further qualified, means "high god".

So it's almost exactly like calling modern Jews worshippers of Krishna because ISKCON calls Krishna "God". It's simply a title, and different deities are said to hold that title.

>>18507050
>...Then there's little basis for doubting that their sacred texts talk about Yahweh frequently.
Why are you saying this? I did not say that Yahweh was mentioned frequently or infrequently.

>Your point then seems to be that they worshipped both Yahweh and what they saw as a different divinity, El, or different divinities elohim.
My point is that "The Most High" and Yahweh are different entities. It is the scholarly consensus that the original reading of Deut 32:8 says "sons of elohim". This is a clear instance of polytheism that was later censored. It reveals that Yahweh was a local patron deity of Israel and a son of "The Most High". In this light, the variant readings in Genesis make sense: Yahweh was not originally characterized as the creator deity—the one who created the heavens and the earth. Yahweh's domain was Israel, not the universe.

There is clear precedent and motivation. Deut 32:8 is an obvious case of revision. The motivation for editing Gen 2:4 to say Yahweh is the same as Deut 32:8: to hide the previous acknowledgement of a pantheon. No motivation can be found for the reverse.

>>18507077
>My point is that "The Most High" and Yahweh are different entities
This claim is nebulous to the point of meaninglessness. Clearly the text we actually have, and all copies of it, say that they are. So you really mean "I presuppose there was once a document that endorsed polytheism", because it isn't in any copy that we have.

>It is the scholarly consensus that the original reading of Deut 32:8 says "sons of elohim". This is a clear instance of polytheism that was later censored
That's not polytheism. The sons of Elohim are referred to in Genesis 6 as what made Nephilim and in the beginning of Job as what come to stand before Yahweh, one of whom is Satan, in regular Bibles. Yahweh then says they were shouting for joy as he made everything in chapter 38.

These are just angels.

And look how extremely late this censorship (if indeed that is what it was) must have taken place. The Dead Sea Scrolls and LXX have "sons of Elohim". This wouldn't have been some ancient change, it would be in the Rabbinic period, after even the time of Second Temple Judaism. It would be completely causally disconnected from whatever ancient editing you're positing, a completely different group of people in completely different circumstances in a completely different time.

>No motivation can be found for the reverse.
This assumes there was motivation, instead of it just being a slip by a careless scribe who was too used to writing bene yisrael and was on autopilot when he put it after bene there.

>>18507130
>This claim is nebulous to the point of meaninglessness.
Are you having trouble comprehending polytheism? Maybe you aren't intelligent enough to have this conversation.

>Clearly the text we actually have, and all copies of it, say that they are.
Clearly the copies of the text we have are in disagreement.

>So you really mean "I presuppose there was once a document that endorsed polytheism", because it isn't in any copy that we have.
No, nothing has been presupposed. The evidence of original polytheism has been uncovered by scholars of the Bible and Ugaritic texts. The original interpretation of Deut 32:8 is clear: it discusses Yahweh as a lesser deity compared to "The Most High".

If you are religious, you're better off staying in the synagogue/church if you don't want to hear the truth.

>>18507168
>Are you having trouble comprehending polytheism?
Actually yes. It is a fuzzy term. Catholics and many Hindus profess to be monotheists despite invoking multiple spiritual powers. You've said that even the New Testament isn't monotheistic despite it clearly not ever having invoked whatever you're alleging the Old Testament once invoked.

So yes, I am having trouble comprehending what you mean.

>Clearly the copies of the text we have are in disagreement.
Can you elaborate?

>The evidence of original polytheism has been uncovered by scholars of the Bible and Ugaritic texts
Would you care to present some of this evidence? So far all you've been able to do is appeal to something done in the Rabbinic era that as a matter of absolute chronological impossibility cannot be related to what you are proposing.

>The original interpretation of Deut 32:8 is clear: it discusses Yahweh as a lesser deity compared to "The Most High".
And you have a manuscript that says that?

No. You're merely saying "if this said something different it would be saying something different". As written Yahweh says in verse 39 "I am the only Elohim, there are no others."

>>18507510
>Are you having trouble comprehending polytheism?
>Actually yes.
I'm not going to treat this in depth. Yahweh is a son of the gods. That's it.

>You've said that even the New Testament isn't monotheistic
I haven't talked about the New Testament

>Clearly the copies of the text we have are in disagreement.
>Can you elaborate?
You should understand what a textual variant is at this point in the conversation. One manuscript tradition says one thing for a particular verse while another tradition says something else.

>Would you care to present some of this evidence?
No, go read about it on your own if you're curious. Here is some literature:
Cooke, G. (1964). The sons of (the) God(s). Zeitschrift für die Alttestamentliche Wissenschaft, 76(1), 22–47.

Mullen, E. T., Jr. (1980). The Divine Council in Canaanite and Early Hebrew Literature. Scholars Press.

Gmirkin, R. E. (2022). Plato’s Timaeus and the biblical creation accounts: Cosmic monotheism and terrestrial polytheism in the primordial history. Routledge.

>The original interpretation of Deut 32:8 is clear: it discusses Yahweh as a lesser deity compared to "The Most High".
>And you have a manuscript that says that?
Yes, Deut 32:8-9 shows that Yahweh is a son of the elohim. That is what the original text indicates in real manuscripts.

>As written Yahweh says in verse 39 "I am the only Elohim, there are no others."
That's not what the text says. It's a devious mistranslation of a Hebrew preposition.
ESV:
>there is no god beside me
They know that an English speaker will assume it means
>there is no god other than me
The Hebrew preposition actually says
>[there is] no god alongside me
Meaning Yahweh claims no god is comparable. A mere boast.

>>18507613
>Yahweh is a son of the gods.
The Torah is definitively against this, Deuteronomy is definitively against this, and even the one single chapter you can bring forward to try and defend this idea is against this. How exactly is he a son of the gods when verse 39 says there are no others? Unless you propose some sort of Chronos situation where he killed his father or something it doesn't make any sense.

>I haven't talked about the New Testament
Are you the OP? The OP does so.

>One manuscript tradition says one thing for a particular verse while another tradition says something else
What verse are you referring to?

>No, go read about it
In other words, you're completely incapable of defending this idea on your own, it's collapsing at the slightest bit of informed resistance, and you have to resort to a gish gallop of demanding a response to three full works on a board with a 2000 character limit. This says more about the weakness of your position than I ever could.

>Deut 32:8-9 shows that Yahweh is a son of the elohim
That makes absolutely no sense when verse 39 says there are no others and verses 3 and 4 say Yahweh is el and elohim.

>That is what the original text indicates in real manuscripts.
You're repeating this point instead of addressing what I have already said about it. Your proposal here is utterly devoid of chronological sense.

>[there is] no god alongside me
Well...yes? This is quite literally what "beside" means. It is saying in the literal sense that there is no god besides Yahweh.

>Meaning Yahweh claims no god is comparable
Your own words here seem to be conceding the point. If this is so then Yahweh is the most high god. Whatever other spiritual powers there are are beneath him, none are at his level, none can challenge him, "out of My hand there is no deliverer".

>>18507656
Your only gimmick is to flat out deny evidence that is straightforward to interpret and to misunderstand simple claims. If you aren't a troll, you are far too autistic to learn anything.
If there's any sincerity behind your words, it's not my duty to hold your hand and I do not care to debate the mentally disabled or religious. I only entered the thread to introduce you to a topic. If you aren't interested, we're done talking.

>>18507719
>Your only gimmick is to flat out deny evidence that is straightforward to interpret
What you really mean here is "this is a deeply held belief of mine". But look at the evidence you've actually presented so far. It amounts to one verse that a textual variant sprang up long, long after your proposed editing and...that's it. That is your sole piece of evidence here, and it must be completely causally disconnected from your main thesis on simple chronological terms alone.

This idea, even though it's one you hold deeply, is not standing up to scrutiny by informed opposition.

>to introduce you to a topic
That's exactly it. You would only be capable of attempting to defend this idea against someone uninformed on it who is hearing about it for the first time. Against informed opposition familiar with the subject, your efforts simply crumple like soft paper.

It's akin to someone who thinks they have expert boxing technique because they can win if they sucker punch a novice. When they step into the ring with an experienced opponent who knows what they're doing, suddenly the moves fail them. Moves that work only against unprepared novices are not good moves at all.