From a historical-critical standpoint, it is not only possible but very likely that Yahweh was not the sole or even universally primary deity in “Moses’ time”—at least as that period is reconstructed by modern scholarship. The tension you’re pointing out is real, and scholars resolve it in fairly consistent ways.
Here is the clear, non-theological explanation.
---
1. The chronological problem is decisive
Most critical scholars agree on three points:
1. The Torah/Tanakh reached written form late
Core traditions: 8th–7th century BCE
Major redaction: 6th–5th century BCE (Exile & post-Exile)
2. Solomon (10th century BCE) had no “Bible”
No fixed Torah
No closed canon
No Decalogue in its final form
3. Archaeology shows widespread polytheism
Yahweh, El, Baal, Asherah all worshipped
Often together, not competitively
So if Moses is placed (traditionally) in the 13th century BCE, the written theology attributed to him did not yet exist.
---
2. Yahweh as “primary” ≠ Yahweh as “only”
This is the key distinction.
Early Israelite religion was likely:
Polytheistic in practice
Monolatrous in ideology (one god favored, others acknowledged)
Statements like:
> “You shall have no other gods before me”
do not deny other gods’ existence. They demand exclusive loyalty.
That makes sense in a world where:
Other gods were assumed to exist
Yahweh was Israel’s patron deity
---
3. Yahweh’s earliest role (pre-Torah)
Based on biblical poetry and archaeology, Yahweh likely began as:
A regional southern deity (Edom/Midian/Seir)
Associated with:
Storm
War
Theophany
Not originally a creator god
Early texts preserve this memory:
Judges 5
Deuteronomy 33
Habakkuk 3
These are older than the prose Torah and show Yahweh arriving rather than eternally ruling.
---
4. El was originally the high god
In the Late Bronze Age:
El / Elyon was the supreme deity
Yahweh was likely:
Identified with El later, or
Elevated into El’s position
This explains why:
Yahweh inherits El’s titles
El disappears as a separate figure
The Bible sometimes uses El and Yahweh interchangeably
This is theological merger, not original identity.
---
5. Moses as a retrojected figure
From a critical perspective:
Moses functions as a foundational authority
His figure legitimizes later law by placing it in deep antiquity
This is common in the ancient world:
Hammurabi
Minos
Lycurgus
The laws are older traditions edited and unified, then attributed to a single authoritative figure.
That does not mean:
Moses never existed
But it does mean:
He could not have possessed the Torah as we have it
---
6. Why later writers had to make Yahweh primary from the start
Post-exilic writers faced a problem:
If Yahweh only became supreme later, then:
Monotheism looks contingent
Covenant looks negotiable
The solution:
Rewrite history theologically
Present Yahweh as:
Always supreme
Always exclusive
Always Israel’s god
This is identity preservation, not deception.
---
7. Archaeology confirms the mismatch
Evidence from Israel itself shows:
“Yahweh and his Asherah” inscriptions
Household idols (teraphim)
High places (bamot) condemned by prophets
If Yahweh had been the sole god since Moses:
These practices would be inexplicable
Prophets would not sound so desperate
---
8. Direct answer to your question
> How is it possible that Yahweh could have been the primary deity in Moses’ time?
Historically:
He likely was not universally primary
He was one among several, possibly Israel’s patron god
Exclusive supremacy developed centuries later
Theologically (biblical narrative):
Yahweh is portrayed as eternally supreme
Moses is used as the anchor for that claim
These are two different explanatory systems, and they do not align.
---
9. Bottom line
From critical scholarship:
❌ A Mosaic-era exclusive Yahweh is anachronistic
✅ Early Israelite religion was pluralistic
✅ Yahweh’s supremacy is a later theological construction
✅ The Torah reflects retrospective systematization
✅ Monotheism is an evolution, not an origin
This does not make the Bible “fraudulent” — it makes it human, historical, and ideologically purposeful, like every other ancient sacred text.
If you want next, I can:
Trace how each commandment evolved
Show where the Decalogue contradicts itself
Or compare Israel’s process to Zoroastrianism or Atenism
No comments:
Post a Comment