I don’t think I’ve ever gone back and read anything of his before about 2 years ago. He’s quite opinionated, and I don’t agree with him on his doubting that all these communities existed. I think that by the late 1st century when these works were circulating they were not simply being distributed to esoteric intellectuals to compare amongst each other. I’d like to see some evidence of that. I think that even early on when Christian groups met they weren’t just having communion, singing Kum ba yah and then going on their merry way. If there were books to be found it would make sense they were being read to these small congregations. Speaking of Mark in particular, for example, in 15:21 he talks about Simon of Cyrene, the father of Alexander and Rufus, who took up the cross to carry it for Jesus. Who the hell was Alexander and Rufus? Joel Marcus uses this as an example of how Mark was writing his Gospel for a particular audience and that they would have possibly recognized the names Simon, Alexander and Rufus. Why include the names of these otherwise anonymous people unless your audience knew who they were?
I have one last question that I think you guys might have some on. Have you guys heard of the Two Powers in Heaven doctrine? It was a book written by Alan f Segal and according to Dr. Micheal Heiser, he wrote on his website, TwoPowersinHeaven.com, the following,
“Twenty-five years ago, rabbinical scholar Alan Segal produced what is still the major work on the idea of two powers in heaven in Jewish thought. Segal argued that the two powers idea was not deemed heretical in Jewish theology until the second century C.E. He carefully traced the roots of the teaching back into the Second Temple era (ca. 200 B.C.E.). Segal was able to establish that the idea’s antecedents were in the Hebrew Bible, specifically passages like Dan 7:9ff., Exo 23:20-23, and Exo 15:3.”
I did a little research and I can’t find much on this topic other than Alan Segal’s book, which I can barely understand given its high scholarly content. My question is, did the ancient Jews really have a Binitarian view of Yahweh? When did Unitarianism come into play?
Never heard of it, but it sounds Gnostic. The complete title is Two Powers in Heaven: Early Rabbinic Reports about Christianity and Gnosticism and you see that “Gnosticism” is part of the title. Gnostic ideas existed before Jesus and they came from Judaism. This would be a good question for Dr. Ehrman although I’d simply ask if he could briefly explain it. Just ask in the comments of his latest blog. It doesn’t matter if it’s off topic, he’ll still answer. Pick your question carefully. He’s not going to answer more than one question (but you can ask follow up questions that he will probably answer if you just ask them one at a time) so however you word it I’d keep it very brief.
Juju_114 said
I have one last question that I think you guys might have some on. Have you guys heard of the Two Powers in Heaven doctrine? It was a book written by Alan f Segal and according to Dr. Micheal Heiser, he wrote on his website, TwoPowersinHeaven.com, the following,“Twenty-five years ago, rabbinical scholar Alan Segal produced what is still the major work on the idea of two powers in heaven in Jewish thought. Segal argued that the two powers idea was not deemed heretical in Jewish theology until the second century C.E. He carefully traced the roots of the teaching back into the Second Temple era (ca. 200 B.C.E.). Segal was able to establish that the idea’s antecedents were in the Hebrew Bible, specifically passages like Dan 7:9ff., Exo 23:20-23, and Exo 15:3.”
I did a little research and I can’t find much on this topic other than Alan Segal’s book, which I can barely understand given its high scholarly content. My question is, did the ancient Jews really have a Binitarian view of Yahweh? When did Unitarianism come into play?
Dr. Heiser’s writting on “The two powers in heaven” is very interesting.
Also his work on the “The Divine Council” is well worth reading.
Dr. Heiser is a self confessed believer in the “Trinity” so theology wise we are worlds apart. I have read some pdf files he has written on both subjects and they appear to be pretty honest pieces of work.
I will track them down when I get back home and on a pc, then add some links to them.
What evidence did he base his claim on? The whole idea that jews followed a sort of b
LewsTherin said
Dr. Heiser’s writting on “The two powers in heaven” is very interesting.
Also his work on the “The Divine Council” is well worth reading.
Dr. Heiser is a self confessed believer in the “Trinity” so theology wise we are worlds apart. I have read some pdf files he has written on both subjects and they appear to be pretty honest pieces of work.
I will track them down when I get back home and on a pc, then add some links to them.
What evidence does he and Dr. Segal base this claim on? The idea of a binitarian idea of god is new to me and very confusing. In your opinion, was there any good evidence to support this? When did the jews shift to monotheism?
You have read what Dr. Heiser says on TwoPowersinHeaven.com so not sure I can explain it any better (He Is a lot smarter than me).
The rough idea was that when the texts were found at the Canaanite city of Ugarit they helped understand some parts of the old testament better. I’ll try and lay out the basics of how the system worked in Mesopotamia/Near East.
You had the main god called El (El means God) who ruled heaven and earth through a divine regent called Baal (Baal mean lord). Baal was also the head of the divine council. El had a wife (and for the life of me I can not recall her name) and between them they have 70 sons who make up the lower levels of the of the divine council below Baal.
In this system every one had their own Baal/lord who became the head of the divine council, they did this by use of the combat myth. The combat myth takes place in the heavens before the creation of the earth and roughly goes like this: the gods are all doing whatever gods do when chaos breaks out (usually depicted as a dragon or sea monster) and steals the tablets of destiny (these contain every thing that has happened and is going to happen) from whoever is head of the council. None of the powerful gods step forward to defeat the chaos monster and retrieve the tablets of destiny.
A lesser known god steps forward ( insert name of desired divinity as a son of El ) defeats the chaos monster retrieves the tablets becomes head of the divine council and earns the right to create the world.
Dr. Heiser’s arguments are based around putting the “old Testament” into context through it’s Canaanite roots. Things like Deut. 32:8–9 and that the correct translation should be “sons of god” not “sons of Israel”
When Elyon divided the nations, when he separated the sons of Adam, he established the borders of the nations according to the number of the sons of the gods. Yahweh’s portion was his people, [Israel] his allotted inheritance.
Dr. Heiser also makes a very convincing case that when Yahweh got promoted he not only took the position as head of the council (Baals place) but the top job as well (In place of El). This is where the “Two Powers in Heaven” comes into play. Yahweh starts to be described using the imagery for Baal and El. In effect it’s a case of you don’t need to worship them two gods this one does the job of both. By this time El was not worshipped as much as the other gods like Baal, Yahweh and the rest because he didn’t interact directly with the world but only through a regent the head of the council. In effect Yahweh is a Borg and assimilated El and Baal. The the OT writers collapsed the pantheon The top two slots now become one with Yahweh taking on the role of the big boss in heaven and the vice regent on earth. The 70 sons of El were done away and replaced with angels (both served the same purpose, do what the boss tells you).
In the “Two Powers in Heaven” theory both powers are Yahweh just different natures or aspects of him. Dr. Heiser goes through lots of arguments to show how this was done … I can’t do them all because I am simply not cleaver enough.
Dr. Heiser shows things like how Baal was seen as a threat to Yahweh in the OT whilst not a single bad word is written about El. He goes through all the terms used to describe El and Baal been incorporated in to Yahweh.
Dr. Heiser goes into a lot more detail and puts foreword very compelling and well worked out arguments.
I am home now and on a pc so here are a couple of links to sites run by Dr. Heiser so you can read up what he has to say first hand:
** you do not have permission to see this link **
** you do not have permission to see this link **
For anyone not sure how the Combat Myth fits into to the OT, you need to look at verses like:
You rule over the surging sea; when its waves mount up, you still them. You crushed Rahab like one of the slain; with your strong arm you scattered your enemies.
It was you who split open the sea [Yam] by your power; you broke the heads of the monster in the waters. It was you who crushed the heads of Leviathan and gave it as food to the creatures of the desert.
These are left over parts of Yahweh defeating chaos in the form of sea monsters before the creation started.
Also the story of “David and Goliath” fits in perfectly to the combat myth, only instead of been used to show Yahweh’s right to the divine council (no longer needed) it shows David’s right to rule as King.
LewsTherin said
You have read what Dr. Heiser says on TwoPowersinHeaven.com so not sure I can explain it any better (He Is a lot smarter than me).The rough idea was that when the texts were found at the Canaanite city of Ugarit they helped understand some parts of the old testament better. I’ll try and lay out the basics of how the system worked in Mesopotamia/Near East.
You had the main god called El (El means God) who ruled heaven and earth through a divine regent called Baal (Baal mean lord). Baal was also the head of the divine council. El had a wife (and for the life of me I can not recall her name) and between them they have 70 sons who make up the lower levels of the of the divine council below Baal.
In this system every one had their own Baal/lord who became the head of the divine council, they did this by use of the combat myth. The combat myth takes place in the heavens before the creation of the earth and roughly goes like this: the gods are all doing whatever gods do when chaos breaks out (usually depicted as a dragon or sea monster) and steals the tablets of destiny (these contain every thing that has happened and is going to happen) from whoever is head of the council. None of the powerful gods step forward to defeat the chaos monster and retrieve the tablets of destiny.
A lesser known god steps forward ( insert name of desired divinity as a son of El ) defeats the chaos monster retrieves the tablets becomes head of the divine council and earns the right to create the world.
Dr. Heiser’s arguments are based around putting the “old Testament” into context through it’s Canaanite roots. Things like Deut. 32:8–9 and that the correct translation should be “sons of god” not “sons of Israel”
When Elyon divided the nations, when he separated the sons of Adam, he established the borders of the nations according to the number of the sons of the gods. Yahweh’s portion was his people, [Israel] his allotted inheritance.
Dr. Heiser also makes a very convincing case that when Yahweh got promoted he not only took the position as head of the council (Baals place) but the top job as well (In place of El). This is where the “Two Powers in Heaven” comes into play. Yahweh starts to be described using the imagery for Baal and El. In effect it’s a case of you don’t need to worship them two gods this one does the job of both. By this time El was not worshipped as much as the other gods like Baal, Yahweh and the rest because he didn’t interact directly with the world but only through a regent the head of the council. In effect Yahweh is a Borg and assimilated El and Baal. The the OT writers collapsed the pantheon The top two slots now become one with Yahweh taking on the role of the big boss in heaven and the vice regent on earth. The 70 sons of El were done away and replaced with angels (both served the same purpose, do what the boss tells you).
In the “Two Powers in Heaven” theory both powers are Yahweh just different natures or aspects of him. Dr. Heiser goes through lots of arguments to show how this was done … I can’t do them all because I am simply not cleaver enough.
Dr. Heiser shows things like how Baal was seen as a threat to Yahweh in the OT whilst not a single bad word is written about El. He goes through all the terms used to describe El and Baal been incorporated in to Yahweh.
I have started on the material and it very interested. Thank you. But my questions are really on the claim by Dr. Heiser and Dr. Segal that the ancient jews had a Binitarian view of god. I can’t seem to pinpoint off of what evidence do that make such a claim. I can’t find any reference to any eyewitness that makes such a claim. It seems like they are reading ancient literature and basing conclusion off of what they read. I’m not saying anything is wrong with that, it’s just nice to know what they base such evidence on. Can you help me on this? You seem to know a lot more on this then I do.
Juju_114 said
When reading Dr. Heiser’s dissertation, it seems that he is basing his arguments from biblical texts instead of non biblical writings. I can not find one instance where he uses non biblical accounts to make such claims.
He is basing his arguments on biblical texts in context to their Canaanite roots (The above lays out the basics for understanding how some of it worked).
** you do not have permission to see this link **
In my dissertation (UW-Madison, 2004) I argued that Segal’s instincts were correct. My own work bridges the gap between his book and the Hebrew Bible understood in its Canaanite religious context. I suggest that the “original model” for the two powers idea was the role of the vice-regent of the divine council. The paradigm of a high sovereign God (El) who rules heaven and earth through the agency of a second, appointed god (Baal) became part of Israelite religion, albeit with some modification. For the orthodox Israelite, Yahweh was both sovereign and vice regent—occupying both “slots” as it were at the head of the divine council. The binitarian portrayal of Yahweh in the Hebrew Bible was motivated by this belief. The ancient Israelite knew two Yahwehs—one invisible, a spirit, the other visible, often in human form. The two Yahwehs at times appear together in the text, at times being distinguished, at other times not.
It makes sense to me probably because before coming across Dr. Heiser’s writings I was very familiar with other Near East mythology.
Greg Matthews said
I think that by the late 1st century when these works were circulating they were not simply being distributed to esoteric intellectuals to compare amongst each other. I’d like to see some evidence of that. I think that even early on when Christian groups met they weren’t just having communion, singing Kum ba yah and then going on their merry way. If there were books to be found it would make sense they were being read to these small congregations.
Hey
Quite amusing! Humming kum ba yah right now!
Sorry I missed this. But none of that is the basis for a distinctly “life-world” (Markan, etc) community. As I understand form criticism, such communities would have produced the gospels. As to the Simon, Alexander, Rufus claim. Yea sure it makes sense that the names are important to Mark’s audience, but the defect here is assuming that because we don’t know who the hell they are, that early Christians (besides a markan community that is) wouldn’t know, but here we have what could be understood as Mark trying to sell his gospel to a given community as opposed to the Lebenswelt of formalism.
P.S
Doesn’t surprise me that Hurtado would object to formalism. I found the argument interesting.
Of course, even if there’s no Markan community in the gospel producing sense, the question is about whether Mark (et al) are composed as a way of addressing the concerns of a given community as opposed to being some historical record
LewsTherin said
He is basing his arguments on biblical texts in context to their Canaanite roots (The above lays out the basics for understanding how some of it worked).
** you do not have permission to see this link **
In my dissertation (UW-Madison, 2004) I argued that Segal’s instincts were correct. My own work bridges the gap between his book and the Hebrew Bible understood in its Canaanite religious context. I suggest that the “original model” for the two powers idea was the role of the vice-regent of the divine council. The paradigm of a high sovereign God (El) who rules heaven and earth through the agency of a second, appointed god (Baal) became part of Israelite religion, albeit with some modification. For the orthodox Israelite, Yahweh was both sovereign and vice regent—occupying both “slots” as it were at the head of the divine council. The binitarian portrayal of Yahweh in the Hebrew Bible was motivated by this belief. The ancient Israelite knew two Yahwehs—one invisible, a spirit, the other visible, often in human form. The two Yahwehs at times appear together in the text, at times being distinguished, at other times not.
It makes sense to me probably because before coming across Dr. Heiser’s writings I was very familiar with other Near East mythology.
I understand he is getting his getting his ideas from the hebrew text, but he also makes assertions on his website and I quote:
” There was no sense of a violation of monotheism since either figure was indeed Yahweh. There was no second distinct god running the affairs of the cosmos. During the Second Temple period, Jewish theologians and writers speculated on an identity for the second Yahweh. Guesses ranged from divinized humans from the stories of the Hebrew Bible to exalted angels. These speculations were not considered unorthodox.”
Also, I don’t know if you are familiar with Dr. Segal’s book Two Powers in Heaven, which claims that certain heretics followed this way of thinking. What i’m confused about is when they make claims that jews themselves were following this ideology, are they basing these conclusions from biblical texts of antiquity or are there eye witness account writing about this?
LewsTherin said
They are basing the conclusions on biblical texts … Also you need to remember that not all Jews thought the same. Think of it like Christianity different groups with different theologies. later writers are trying to pass it off as one joint belief for everyone.
Ah thank you. I figured that was the case but I wasn’t quite sure. I just have two more questions to clear up and I guess its very much similar to the previous one. In Dr. Segal’s book, Two powers in Heaven, he talks about rabbinic literature and extra-rabbinic evidence. However, I don’t know if these are non canonical writing or writings from rabbis. Do you have any knowledge of this? I’m sure there has to be eye witness accounts on this other than what the bible says. I just don’t see how Dr. Heiser can claim that a binitarian view was so wide spread without anyone writing about it. Also, on his website, he says that Dr. Segal “carefully traced the roots of the teaching back into the Second Temple era (ca. 200 B.C.E.)”. Do you know any knowledge on how he did that. Dr. Segal’s book is definitely not any easy read for me. Thank you so much for your time!
Usually when people talk about rabbinic literature they are referring to The Talmud and The Midrash … I have never read either in any depth to be honest so would not be able to comment from memory.
From what I do recall after the temple was destroyed, and rabbinic Judaism was trying to redefine Judaism without the temple and sacrifices ect, the Two Powers in heaven belief was made a heresy. I am sure this was in the 2nd century CE but would have to check that to be sure it was not later.
I Have not read Dr. Segal’s book, Two powers in Heaven It’s on my reading list (but then lot’s of books are on my reading list … and never get read). I do recall reading a summary where he mentioned that the gnostic salvation myth arose out of the two powers theory rather than 2 separate.
You have rekindled my interest in this now so I’m going to have to get his book and read it.
When I first came across the two powers theory I was more interested in the Sumerian / Akkadian mythology and came across it by pure chance, filed it in the back of my mind for later study.
Hmmm, interesting. Ok, I have properly internalized my questions that will answer my inquiries.
First, was a binitarian view of god widespread among the jewish community? Dr. Heiser portrays such view as if the jews held on to this a view since antiquity. To my understanding, Dr. Daniel Boyarin also writes a book on this and some others as well. Are they also basing these views on biblical text. Yes, I think you would enjoy Dr. Segal’s book!
Kazibwe Edris said
In the “Two Powers in Heaven” theory both powers are Yahweh just different natures or aspects of him.
you mean like there is a weaker visible version of him but still the same god?
In his own words :
The ancient Israelite knew two Yahwehs—one invisible, a spirit, the other visible, often in human form. The two Yahwehs at times appear together in the text, at times being distinguished, at other times not.
I saw it and it seems as though he is basing his arguments on the New Testament instead of eye witness accounts. Notice how he asserts his claim that the binitarian view of a Godhead is not new in Judaism. He doesn’t provide any outside evidence other than biblical texts wonder where he get such a claim from.
BDEhrman
FreedomBen
evgendob
Robert
1 Guest(s)