Friday, January 21, 2011

Religion vs History (You shall have no other gods before Me)

So at the end of today's class I asked about the meaning of 'no other gods' in this verse. I thought it meant "gods" as in something that you worship that either isn't real or shouldn't be given priority above God i.e. the gods of other religions or money. What I think Dr. Levine said this was religious thinking and that if you think from a historical perspective 'no other gods' could mean that other gods actually exist. What I want to know is what makes one a religious answer and what makes the other historical. I'm asking on the blog instead of sending an email so we can make more use of it like she intended. For those of you who don't know the verse is in Exodus 20.
Posted by at

2 comments:

  1. MMLJanuary 23, 2011 at 1:45 PM

    We are all prisoners of our language. Not just you or I but the author(s?) of the biblical text. History can't pronounce on whether God or gods are "real."...we can only talk about whether the words on the page assume the reality of other gods or one God.
    Maybe the author of the "other gods" in the verse assumed the reality of other gods; maybe he didn't. BUt the text certainly is clearer about denying the very existence of "other gods" in say Deuteronomy 4.35-39. A religious approach would seek to 'harmonize" the different verses to present a uniform monotheistic world view. A historical approach would look for 'difference' between the conceptions and try to explain it by change over time, different sources etc. Do you see the difference between the two ways of reading more clearly now, Troy?

    ReplyDelete
  2. MMLJanuary 23, 2011 at 5:04 PM

    Maybe you would want to report on James Kugel, How to Read the Bible: A guide to scripture then and now. NY 2007,pgs. 1-47, especially section on "the four assumptions" pages 14-17, which actually goes to the heart of your question.
    Also look up the word monolatry..

    ReplyDelete

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)