The data documented above are widely distributed, consistent, and sufficiently attested to allow meaningful generalisations. The clearest syntactic parallel to our verse is 2 Samuel 7:13, which is a promise to David of an offspring (zera‘, v. 12): hû’ yibenh-bayit lišěmî (‘he will build a house for my name’). From these data it becomes clear that, on the syntactical level, the singular pronoun hû’ in Genesis 3:15 is quite consistent with the pattern where a single individual is in view. In fact, since the subject pronouns are not normally necessary for the meaning, we might wonder if the singular hû’ in Genesis 3:15 is used precisely in order to make it plain that an individual is being promised, who will win a victory over the snake at cost to himself. The evidence of the Greek translators makes it beyond question that the translator of Genesis 3:15 meant to convey that an individual was promised; this study indicates that his interpretation is consistent with Hebrew syntax elsewhere in the Bible.
It should be admitted, however, that at this point we have used the data at the syntactical level, which is a fairly low level of integration. The move up to the exegetical level, to answer the question whether this is what one finds in Genesis 3:15, will depend on one’s view of other factors, such as how one’s overall perception of the context should interact with the particulars; whether the interpretation should be based on the final form of the text or on reconstructed sources; what range of ideological messages one is willing to ascribe to the work; and so on. To treat adequately any of these questions is outside the scope of this modest syntactical note.
If, however, one grants for the sake of discussion that it is a valid approach to make a 'bottom-up' reading of the final form of this text, which has a relationship to the larger picture of Genesis, then it would be fair to read this as God's threat to the snake, of an individual who will engage the snake in combat and win.
Please see Jack Collins, "A SYNTACTICAL NOTE (GENESIS 3:15): IS THE WOMAN’S SEED SINGULAR OR PLURAL?," Tyndale Bulletin 48.1 (1997) 139-148.
58 comments:
Edgar,
Thanks again for the links.
You might find this thread interesting, even if inconclusive.
http://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail/b-hebrew/2004-December/021709.html
This quote useful when dealing with a concrete language.
“Our sacred literature does not use obscure language, but describes most things in words clearly indicating their meaning. Therefore it is necessary at all times to delve into the literal meaning of words to achieve complete understanding of what is actually meant.”
― Samson Raphael Hirsch
So did the Hebrews know about seed & egg or just about the seed?
Edgar,
Just one point of note in the introductory part of the bulletin that I feel is making a general assumption -"done through humanity in general." Where zera in many places indicates a specific line of descent. And where the line had to be moved. Gen 4:25. demonstrating that it is not humanity in general.
Thank you for referenging and providing a link for the B-Hebrew thread. I used to enjoy reading the contributions on that list.
At the very least, we can say that the ancient Hebrews did not fully understand human anatomy and reproduction. I don't believe their views are completely outlined in the Tanakh. But from what we know of knowledge about these matters from other writers, it's doubtful that they had a comprehensive knowledge of the feminine egg. Of course, they likely understood the basics.
Secondly, if I understand you correctly about the Collins question, I would say he needs to be understood contextually. When he writes "done through humanity in general," he is referring to the serpent's head being crushed. That is to say, the woman's "seed" understood collectively would bruise/crush the woman's head. Furthermore, he's not necessarily making that assumption, but merely relating what others have said about the matter. That is how I take his remarks.
As I stated in the blog entry, I believe that the seed of Gen 3:15 is principally one person, but others also constitute Abraham's seed (offspring/progeny).
While one might not accept some or all of Matthew Poole's assessment of Gen 4:25, here is what he writes about this verse:
"Note that the word
seed is used of one single person here, and Genesis 21:13, Genesis 38:8; which confirms the apostle's argument, Galatians 3:16."
See his commentary.
Edgar,
Just a side point on this one.
"O effulgent Lord,
May the person who enslaves us
Be crushed under feet
Whether he is near or far;
Mayest Thou be with us
For our progress and prosperity.
- Rig Veda 1/79/11"
Now this is all down to the quality of the translation which I am still trying to verify.
Evidences are emerging of a brahmin & vedic influence in Rome even before the 1st cent. CE. (another form of eastern thinking - Sanskrit being related to Hebrew).
I am not claiming that Paul is quoting this. All I am saying is that there may be evidence of this type of phrasing. Compare LXX 2 Sa 22:39.
Also the foot on the neck imagery found at many sites in Egypt.
Duncan,
Interesting quote from the Rig Veda. Of course, social and literary context will also play a role in how we understand those words. However, from what we know at present, as you indicate, the Vedic gods/goddesses seem to mirror the ancient Roman and Greek deities. Compare Dyaus Pitr (for example) with the Grecian Zeus Pater or the Roman Jupiter (Pater). So there appears to be no doubt that Vedic theology/mythology somehow influenced Greco-Roman mythology. But while the apostle's phrasing might remind us of this Vedic text, I'm more inclined to root Paul's vocabulary and wording in the Jewish texts of antiquity.
Edgar,
I think that we are both inclined this way, but this does seem to be an eastern idiom, but I am referring to something a little more direct.
"The British scholar of Buddhism, Edward Conze, suggests that it had. He points out that "Buddhists were in contact with the Thomas Christians (that is, Christians who knew and used such writings as the Gospel of Thomas) in South India." Trade routes between the Greco-Roman world and the Far East were opening up at the time when gnosticism flourished (A.D. 80-200); for generations, Buddhist missionaries had been proselytizing in Alexandria. We note, too, that Hippolytus, who was a Greek speaking Christian in Rome (c. 225), knows of the Indian Brahmins--and includes their tradition among the sources of heresy:
There is . . . among the Indians a heresy of those who philosophize among the Brahmins, who live a self-sufficient life, abstaining from (eating) living creatures and all cooked food . . . They say that God is light, not like the light one sees, nor like the sun nor fire, but to them God is discourse, not that which finds expression in articulate sounds, but that of knowledge (gnosis) through which the secret mysteries of nature are perceived by the wise."
Pagels 1979
All I am pointing out is that I do not see how we can make a direct correlation between "strike" & "crush" to claim that one is directly alluding to the other. Keeping in mind that these trade routes were open in the third century BCE.
We also have to look at the possibilities withing Paul's background as to idioms acquired.
http://www.biblicaltheology.com/Research/WallaceQ01.html
He grew up on one of the main trade routes and being educated enough to be an apostle to the nations means that his education most have spread across a broad spectrum of languages and cultures. So to use an idiom of being crushed under foot does not seem out of place or particularly unusual.
As an aside - "God is discourse" (VAK). I do not see how we can ignore the link in concept to logos (reason/word) & this is why I see a large divide between Vak & Memra.
Edgar,
The trade link:-
http://www.mcu.es/museos/docs/MC/ActasNumis/Some_Roma_Republican.pdf
Duncan,
you raise some interesting possibilities. But addressing some of these points:
1) I'm not sure how much credence I can put in the suggestion that ancient Buddhists were proselytizing in Alexandria, Egypt. More evidence would have to be forthcoming in order for this claim to be probative.
2) We know that Gnosticism was roundly condemned by the early church apologists (e.g., Irenaeus, Hippolytus). They never accepted the notion of mystical knowledge qua gnosis as propogated by the Gnostics, and the church eventually rejected this movement as heresy although it lasted untiul the middle ages.
3) J. B. Rotherham interpreted Genesis 3:15--at least the first part--through the prism of Rom 16:20. See the footnote in his Emphasized Bible. Other have taken a similar approach.
In recent scholarship, Robert Alter (see his translation of Genesis) notes that Gen 3:15 apparently contains two homonyms: the first word possibly means "to trample," but the second homonynm evidently refers to the "hissing sound of the snake just before it bites" (Alter). See the NWT revision of Gen 3:15.
Alter does not provide extended lexical evidence to show the evidence from Hebrew documents for either possible meaning these homonyms putatively have--but a Hebrew lexicon would likely bear out his remarks.
4) I just think that when we're examining potential sources, it's perhaps best to check the most proximate sources first. Paul had rabbinic training, and he was reared in the Greco-Roman milieu. I realize that other sources are possible which could have affected Pauline expression. However, eastern thought doesn't seem that likely to me; again, I would stress providing strong evidence that eastern streams of thought or expression influenced Paul.
Best regards,
Edgar
For the use of SHUPH in Gen 3:15, compare Job 9:17; Ps 139:11. These verses might shed light on Genesis.
Edgar,
As to point 1, I am not claiming that anyone was directly proselytizing. I believe that cross cultural interaction through the trade routes has been underestimated (research has been too reductionist). When comparing individual works by H W F Saggs, Glenn E. Markoe, J.M. Cook, O.R. Gurney, Nora Chadwick, David W Phillipson & many more on the periphery of the texts refer to trade and manufacturing abroad & resource accumulation from abroad. The book I referenced regarding environmental problems in Greece & Rome also demonstrates the scope of trade & travel. I find it staggering that it goes largely ignored.
Babylon was a primary hub of the Greek empire & it's trade routes into India.
Certain imagery in Hebrew and Sanskrit have marked similarities also.
Take for example:-
(2 Samuel 22:11) He rode on a cherub and came flying. He was visible on the wings of a spirit.
Compare this imagery with:-
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Garuda
I make no claims as to which direction the imagery flows from but I believe that one comes from the other.
Many believe that the etymology of gryffin is that it comes from keruvim.
Imagery gets interpreted into each culture as it is assimilated. ie. the difference between green & Hebrew demons.
Even in recent times how the term unicorn in the KJV gets reinterpreted into a mythical creature rather than in London English meaning a single horned beast (one horned rhino?).
For point 2, this again is all about level of degree as to what is the difference between wisdom literature & Gnostic text.
Interestingly watching a debate between Bart Ehrman vs Craig Evans. The final QA segment they both argue apart from when the gospel of John is discussed as to whether this is a historical document & they BOTH call it a form of wisdom literature & they are not just referring to the introduction.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZakwU4m9IJg
From 1:30.
The introduction to - "The Nag Hammadi Scriptures: The Revised and Updated Translation of Sacred Gnostic Texts Complete in One Volume."
Elaine Pagels explains how many of the text's found in this collection by definition cannot be called Gnostic.
"Mystical knowledge" & unattainable wisdom starts with Hellenism. It has nothing to do with ancient Hebrew concrete thinking. Abstract thought tends to get in the way of concrete action.
I do not have it to hand at the moment but it is worth looking at "who's who in the age of Jesus" by Vermes as regards to John the apostle, John the elder & the evidence for and against Irenaeus claims of authorship & origin.
As to item 3 I have no real comment other than to say that I always try to work chronologically forward through the text & not backward letting the OT interpret the NT more than the reverse. A heel and being under foot have no direct connection for me.
What I find interesting in the LXX of 3:15 is that even though we do not agree with the term as used, the same term is used for both instances.
Job can be swallowed by his storm.
As for Psalms 139:11 I assume this comes from καταπατησει.
(YLT) And I say, `Surely darkness bruiseth me, Then night is light to me.
I do not see any specific reason for either translation over:-
Surely darkness stikes me (or swallows me) coming from the same rout denoting concrete qualities of a serpent/viper.
There is no evidence that the route relates to crushing serpents.
Interestingly :-
(YLT) Ex 7:12 - and they cast down each his rod, and they become monsters (taniyns), and the rod of Aaron swalloweth their rods;
A different type of "swallow" from a different route for a different type of animal.
Item 4 - " I would stress providing strong evidence that eastern streams of thought or expression influenced Paul. "
I agree at the moment it is tenuous but I think these relationships have been largely ignored in the scholarship to date but Hebrew is eastern thought & does have some relationship to Sanskrit. Greek thought is built on eastern thought. When Alexander conquered Babylon, Babylon conquered him. He did not want to destroy the culture but saw it as superior two his own.
Edgar,
Lastly:-
He succeeded in fixing the true values of nearly all the letters in the Persian alphabet, in translating the texts, and in proving that the language of them was not Zend, but stood to both Zend and Sanskrit in the relation of a sister".[7]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cuneiform
In this exhibition I was fortunately able to see for my self two tablets from third cent Babylon (aprox) containing both cuneiform & Sanskrit.
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Forgotten-Empire-World-Ancient-Persia/dp/0520247310
If you would like BM references I can look them up for you later?
That's about as far as I can go with my limited resources.
Edgar,
Something else just came to mind.
We know that Paul's family were Roman citizens. For a foreigner Jew what was the most probable option for being made a Roman? Probably wealth? probably wealth through trade?
Could it be that even before Pharisaical training that he was already an accomplished businessman?
All possibilities but no real proof.
http://jewishencyclopedia.com/articles/12816-rome
"During the last decades of the second century B.C., after the war between the Hasmonean brothers on one side and Cæsar and Pompey on the other, the Jewish community in Rome grew very rapidly. The Jews who were taken to Rome as prisoners were either ransomed by their coreligionists or set free by their Roman masters, who found their peculiar custom obnoxious. They settled as traders on the right bank of the Tiber, and thus originated the Jewish quarter in Rome."
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OcZ8yf2gXmo
Duncan,
thanks for the additional details and research. I watched some of the videos or saved some to watch later.
On the comparison/parallel issue, I would just urge caution again. There are many possible reasons why some things appear to be similar; but along with similarities come huge metaphysical, theological or worldview differences. We also have to account for metaphorical use of terms like cherubs having wings. Of course, I know you've acknowledged that such talk about the cherubs is imagistic.
You might also like the article by James Hamilton which addresses some questions on the seed and crushing. Sorry if you've already perused the article: http://jimhamilton.files.wordpress.com/2008/04/hamilton_sbjt_10-2.pdf
Thanks Edgar,
One of the problems is that when you refer to different world views, there are very different world views within the vedic tradition itself. Many Hindus are proud to claim that the rig veda is the oldest religious text in existence but in reality they never actually quote it. Most quotes used come from the Upanishads. When I read through this collection of psalms spanning upto a millennium I can see (what appears in translation) ones that appear to be well withing the Hebraic world view. I can even see comparisons between verses in Genesis & some of these texts that appear to be counterpoints idealistically & maybe even audibly, since I suspect that both were transmitted orally as singing.
"1.10.121 Mantra 121 – Ka (Author: Hiranyagarbha Prajapatya)
1. What God shall we worship with our oblations? The One who existed in the beginning and who is the prime cause of the elements; the One who upholds the Earth and the Sky; the One who is the Lord of all living beings. 2 What God shall we worship with our oblations? The One who is the bestower of life and vigor; the One whose commandments the cosmic forces carry out; the One who bestows immortality or death. 3 What God shall we worship with our oblations? The One who, by his power and greatness, rules eternally over men and animals, all of whom assume life for a fleeting moment. 4 His, through his might, are these snow-covered mountains, and men call sea and Rasa his possession: His arms are these, his are these heavenly regions. What God shall we adore with our oblation? 5 What God shall we worship with our oblations? The One who made the solid Earth and the vast sky; The One who runs the solar system and makes water go up to become rain clouds. 6 To him, supported by his help, two armies embattled look while trembling in their spirit, When over them the risen Sun is shining. What God shall we adore with our oblation? 7 What time the mighty waters came, containing the universal germ, producing Agni, Thence sprang the Gods' one spirit into being. What God shall we adore with our oblation? 8 He in his might surveyed the floods containing productive force and generating Worship. ***He is the God of gods, and none beside him.*** What God shall we adore with our oblation? 9 Neer may he harm us who is earth's Begetter, nor he whose laws are sure, the heavens' Creator, He who brought forth the great and lucid waters. What God shall we adore with our oblation? 10 O Lord of All (‘Prajapati’)! None except you pervades everything and every being. May our wishes, for which we have come to pray you, be granted. May we become happy and prosperous."
"1.10.129 Mantra 129 – Creation (Author: Prajapati Paramesthin)
1 In the beginning, there was neither existence nor non-existence. There was neither air nor space. There was no water, deep and fathomless. There was nothing to envelope or protect. 2 There was neither death nor immortality. There was neither night nor day. Only God breathed windless by his own power. Apart from God, there was nothing whatsoever.
3 Darkness prevailed everywhere before the creation of the universe. Yet there subsisted one glorious Being, all intelligence, who created the universe by contemplation of what he wanted to do.
4 Thereafter rose Desire in the beginning, Desire, the primal seed and germ of Spirit (action).
Sages who searched with their heart's thought discovered the existent's kinship in the non-existent.
5 Transversely was their severing line extended: what was above it then, and what below it?
There were begetters, there were mighty forces, free action here and energy up yonder 6 We men do not really know. Who can therefore tell, how this universe was created and when? Even the angels may have come into existence after the universe was created. No one can tell. 7 Some people ask, “Did the elemental matter, from which this universe was built, always exist or was it also created by God?” The One who built and who controls the universe alone knows. If He does not know, then who knows?" - Again at the mercy of the translator.
The anthropomorphism's in the imagery of guruda & the vak stem from the upanishads & not the rig veda.
Two Items I mentioned that I just wanted to fill in the details & make a correction.
The catalog I referenced should have been:-
http://www.amazon.com/Babylon-Reality-I-L-Finkel/dp/0714111708/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1417685072&sr=8-1&keywords=babylon+myth+and+reality
pg90 titled as "Some odd characters" particularly BM 47361.
Also Pg88 Fig.69. Aramaic graffiti on Babylonian brick.
also
ISBN-10: 0141017031
pg.146
" Irenaeus, bishop of Lyons, asserted around 180 CE, and Eusebius repeated, that John had settled in Ephesus and lived there to a great age. No earlier tradition supports this statement. In fact it is implicitly contradicted by Ignatius, bishop of Antioch, who, in a letter written to the Ephesians c.110 CE, describes them as the people of *Paul without alluding to John's presence in their midst just a few years earlier.
As for John's authorship of the Fourth Gospel, the evidence is rather tenuous. Papias is silent on the subject and the earliest witness is
Irenaeus, who reported that John had composed his Gospel in Ephesus. The Gospel itself does not disclose the identity of its author. A passage in the last chapter, which is patently a later gloss, implies that the disciple whom Jesus loved' wrote these things' (Jn 21:24).
The Glossator also knew that the writer of the Gospel had already died (Jn 21:23). Whereas John is portrayed as active in the apostolic community from the start of the ministry of Jesus, no one is referred to as the beloved disciple before the Last Supper. So there is no specific reason to identify the two: the beloved disciple could be any one of the apostles apart from Peter and *Judas. On the other hand, the only friend who is explicitly said to have been loved by Jesus is Lazarus, but he was not an apostle, nor does any tradition designate him as an evangelist."
pg 152.
" JOHN THE ELDER
John the Elder or the Presbyter was a disciple of Jesus according to Papias, bishop of Hierapolis in Asia Minor, who lived between c. 60 and 130 CE. Papias, quoted by the Church historian Eusebius of Caesarea, distinguishes this John the Elder from *John the Apostle. While both Johns lived in the Roman province of Asia and were buried in Ephesus, Papias had direct contact only with the disciples of the apostle, whereas he actually listened to the preaching of the Elder. The existence of John the Elder is of importance in the debate concerning the authorship of the Fourth Gospel and the Johannine literature. In particular, one should bear in mind that the writer of the second and third letters traditionally attributed to John simply identifies himself as the Elder', with no personal name mentioned in the title of either epistle.
Sources: 2 and 3 John. Eusebius, Eccl. Hist. 3:39·
There is also some more on this in ISBN-10: 0141037997.
These types of articles usually start with statements that threaten an all or nothing approach:-
"If we refuse to pattern our exegesis after that of the apostles, we are in practice denying the authoritative character of their scriptural interpretation—and to do so is to strike at the very heart of the Christian faith."
Which apostles (see previous quotes on John) & how far chronologically removed from Jesus? Do we contextualize for example the writings of Paul as an ex pharisee & his previous definition of Torah?
“brood of vipers” - is this out of context with the period and places?
see:-
http://www.pbs.org/wnet/nature/india/html/behind.html
In the first part of this documentary it shows those who hunt cobra broods - dig them up from holes in the ground. Maybe a dozen newly hatched snakes along with the mother & he mentions how as soon as they are born there venom is just as lethal as the parent. This is imagery that anyone in the near east would be familiar with.
The study then leaps from Matthew to John?
"The serpent was told he would eat dust (Gen 3:14)," - Genesis 2:7 has a closer proximity to this text?
I am claiming nothing, just showing that other possibilities must be taken into account.
It's all about occams broom.
Duncan,
I teach a religion class that includes Hinduism and also have a course on human nature. So I agree that there are many different worldviews and beliefs, philosophies, within Hinduism. But Christianity and Hinduism ultimately represent two very different worldviews and theologies.
To complete my earlier thought, there's a substantial difference between the Hindu creation account and what we find in Genesis. Or the Word of John 1:1 is unique although the LOGOS concept posited by John undoubtedly draws upon Jewish precedents from scripture and maybe Philo of Alexandria. But there's a wide metaphysical/theological gulf (along with their respective Weltanschauungen) between Hinduism and Judaism or Christianity.
Duncan,
textual-critical issues are fascinating, and I appreciate your attention to detail. My simple point about Gnosticism, however, is that the GNT either implicitly or overtly militates against its various tenets. The German attempt to draw substantive parallels between Gnosticism and the GNT content have been successfully rebutted IMO.
John 1:14 is a strong rejoinder against Gnostic thought, and so is 1 John 1:1-2. Irenaeus and Hippolytus did not have many positive statements to make about Gnosticism; nor did Clement of Alexandria and the list goes on.
However one frames the issue, like Pagels or like W. H. C. Frend in the "Rise of Christianity," it's hard to dispute the fact that the early apologists and polemicists of the church avidly fought against the Gnostic movement until it suffered a crushing defeat in the eyes of orthodoxy.
Edgar,
We are not talking about the present but rather the past.
As I said rig veda is somewhat different from later vedas & upanishads.
I am in no way promoting Hinduism. I am pointing out that near Easten and Asian phraseology and idiom display common factor across the board in the period that we are discussing.
The rig veda is certainly not Hinduism.
Do you agree with this statement:-
"One can think of a worldview as comprising a number of basic beliefs which are philosophically equivalent to the axioms of the worldview considered as a logical theory. These basic beliefs cannot, by definition, be proven (in the logical sense) within the worldview precisely because they are axioms, and are typically argued from rather than argued for. However their coherence can be explored philosophically and logically." ?
Duncan,
my comments were meant to reference the past although they can have present application as well. But your point is taken concerning your ultimate aim here.
I could be wrong, but as I understand Hinduism, the Rig Veda stems from the Hindu tradition--so far as we can speak about a Hindu tradition. Michael Molloy describes the Vedas (including the Rig Veda) as "the earliest sacred books of Hinduism" (Experiencing the World's Religions, page 79).What makes you believe the Rig Veda is not is "certainly not Hinduism."
I do agree that there are basic beliefs which comprise a worldview (Weltanschauung), beliefs which can be explored from a theoretical vantage-point. Some thinkers refer to these basic beliefs as control beliefs or axioms from which numerous theorems may be derived.
Sindhu is a location not a race or fixed philosophy. As I said before the rig ( in part) is the oldest text on the planet as supported by archeological and geographical data. It spans centuries of time. It is not a coherent set but rather a collection of psalms. The titles given are a later gloss. Amongst those text there are some as quoted above that point to some persons belief in monotheism when you understand how terms translated "gods" were used for things other than deity.
They also agree with Sumerian texts who speak of the Anu the deity from which all "gods" originate. In cuneiform and Akkadian denoted by en.en.en.(en.) All stemming from the original Hebrew pictographic alephbet. EL, the bulls horns and the staff - mighty in power and authority. Not always relating to deity. Elohim equivalent to the cuneiform above. The plural form denotes mightiest & this is only applied to deity.
So is an axiom equivalent to a preunderstanding, an assumption?
"axiom is a premise so evident as to be accepted as true without controversy." - so not perceived as theoretical?
New:-
http://www.scribd.com/mobile/doc/140798041?width=981
Age estimate:-
http://www.ifih.org/RigVedaIsPreHarappan.htm
Duncan,
Granted, Hinduism is not a race or a fixed philosophy: it is not a monolith. However, there are certain philosophies, theologies or a worldview that can be identified loosely as "Hindu." Ghandi, Shankara, and those who produced the Aranyakas could be labeled Hindu. None of such labeling, however, means that I'm saying Hindu is a fixed school of thought or that it's monolithic.
Hinduism (loosely speaking) affirms one reality which is a divine reality. But this philosophy/religion tends to be pantheistic or panentheistic rather than monotheistic. Everything I'm saying is tentative, but many sources back this understanding of Hinduism.
I don't have many substantive disagreements with you about the etymology/historical background for El/Elohim.
To address your last question, I am using "axiom" in this context to denote an epistemolgoical starting point. As logician Paul Herrick writes, most axiomatic systems define "axiom" as self-evident or "necessarily true," but axioms may be understood as basic propositions from which theorems are derived. Hence, they are pretheoretical.
Duncan,
I'll have to consult the links you provided when time permits. Concerning the Rig Veda dating--Molloy (if memory serves me correctly) dates the Vedic Age from 2000-500 BCE. Others give a later date (ca. 1750 BCE). Either way, I'm not sure if the Rig Veda is the oldest text on the planet. A range somewhere within the so-called Vedic Age is the likeliest date for the Rig Veda.
Edgar,
Satalite geological dating done more recently pushes the dating of the description of locations not nessacarily all the written to a minimum of 2200 bce. I am referring specifically to the texts of the rig.
Edgar,
"It may also be useful to recall, against the identification of the evangelist with the apostle john, that papias, bishop of hierapolis (c.AD 60-130), mentions John the elder among his teachers, whom he explicitly distinguishes from john, son of Zebedee....." Vermes Christian beginnings pg 118.
I will let you read what follows this when you get chance.
Duncan,
from what I've read, there's room for disagreement here, but a recent textbook which I received to review for classes dates the Rig Veda to ca. 1200 BCE. Yet I concede that other dates have been placed on the Rig Veda and the Vedic Age tout court.
I'll be glad to read Vermes--love his works--but I'm genuinely not sure how the authorship of John changes its putatively anti-Gnostic contents. Whoever wrote the Fourth Gospel or the 1 Epistle of John likely would not have favored or tried to emulate Gnostic tendencies or ways. The statement found in the Johannine Corpus consistently militate against the claim of gnosis = salvation.
Well I think it depends on whether the evidence points to a harrapan origin or not & from what has been uncovered to date I think not. These are pastoralists but yes there is room for disagreement at the moment.
I will just extend my quotation on Vermes a little.
"Such a person of Greek culture, whether a Jew bought up in a Hellenised setting or a native Greek convert to judaism, is more likely to be the author of the fourth gospel - imbued with Greek ideas and mysticism - than the Galilean fisherman John, characterized by the high priests caiaphas and Annas as an 'illiterate (agrammatos) and common (idiotes) man (Acts 4:13)." Cont.
" Whoever the fourth evagelist was, he was active in, and most likely came from, ephasus or its neighbourhood. The non Jewish character of his audience may be deduced from the need to translate into greek the commonest of Jewish religious terms like rabbi as 'teacher' or messiah as 'Christ'. Its non-jewish orientation gives the gospel an entirely distinct colouring."
As he points out in his interpretation it is "non-jewish" and this is where a vedic/greek VAC could be seen (which is not gnosis) , but there is another way to interpret the text if one believes in a purely hebraic origin:-
http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=hNr50riW6uM
From a Hebraic perspective knowledge is not the answer but rather applying gods teaching (memra - torah)- wisdom. Not to be confused with the pharisaical interpretation of Torah.
So to me logos(Greek) and memra(Hebrew) are not one.
Edgar,
Isn,t there a danger where intuitions are the guide for judging axiom?
Don't real axioms begin with true observation?
Duncan,
for me, the concept of Memra from the Targumim is less than clear. I had a friend who did some good work on Memra and John 1:1. He's since passed away but I recall him demonstrating the ambiguities tied to this concept.
Secondly, the standard account (logically or philosophically) is that axioms are starting points which cannot begin with observation or experience. Kurt Godel's incompleteness theorem was supposed to have demonstrated (among other things) that we know some things to be true, even if we cannot demonstrate their veracity. Cornel West, Anthony Appiah (etc) all plausibly argue that we all have epistemological starting points. All ways of thinking about the world (reality) are value-laden.
It's a larger point about who wrote the Fourth Gospel. My narrower point is that no matter who composed the book, the writer did not have Gnostic proclivities. As a matter of fact, the converse has proved to be true.
www.clarkriley.com/JIES3834web/12Thomson(422-430).pdf
Not even the silghtly later gospel of Thomas is fully gnostic. Fully gnostic text are come a few decades later. Its the trajectory of the text that is of prime concern. A Greek logos or a hebrew memra. Philo is of alexandria. How quickly did books travel in this period? As far as the tagumim goes they are written in a period of factional Hebrew beliefs so from which faction do they originate?
I do not think textual comparisons can give an answer of any certainty.
Just for clarity, I do not beleive that I claimed that John is gnostic. If I gave that impression in some way then apologies.
I was purely pointing to Hindu influences in these regions and that a "crushed under foot" idiom has the distinct possibility of being in circulation amongst Jewish Roman trader families, likely having dealing all the way to India in the black pepper trade especially. I believe this has merit for them becoming Roman citizens, especially since pepper was worth considerably more than gold by weight, a very desirable commodity at the time. As per today wealth does seem to gain position.
Duncan,
much depends on when Gnosticism is dated. At the very least, there appears to have been an incipient form of Gnostic thought that existed in the 1st century. While I would not say the Gospel of Thomas is fully Gnostic, it evidently is thoroughly Gnostic.
I don't want to put worss in your mouth concerning the writer of the Fourth Gospel. No worries--my comments were primarily intended to show my stand on the matter and to elicit clarification which you provided. Thanks.
As for the Jewish Roman trader families who may have dealt all the way to India, I can't say. My intution is to weigh this notion with a degree of skepticism, but I leave open such possibilities. The most likely source of this idiom (IMO) is Genesis 3:15 and subsequent passages found in the Tanakh. Most scholars view the saying as an allusion to Genesis or think of it as a midrashic commentary on 3:15.
Edgar,
Google- 2007_1-4_Complete.pdf
See:- pdf-The Journal of INDO-EUROPEAN STUDIES
Pg129.
A Panorama of Indo-European Linguistics since the Middle of the Twentieth Century: Advances and Immobilism.
Note twin dates of 2000 & 1000bce.
Its relationship to agricultural culture which the rig does not describe according to Kazanas. He describes it as nomadic pastoral.
See page 147 On Proto-Indo-European
Regarding pure roots in groups, same base structure as ancient Hebrew.monosyllabic root-words.
So it initially comes down to the development of a critical edition of its text before any real work can be done.
The debate continued:-
http://www.omilosmeleton.gr/pdf/en/indology/AC_on_RV_&_K_Thomson.pdf
Pg 9.
"Moreover, there is no evidence whatsoever to suggest that the RV was
composed c1200-1000 BCE - none other than fanciful theory and mechanical
repetition. All the tremendous arsenal used once upon a time to support the Invasion scenario has now been reduced to horses and chariots: chariots for war and races did not exist before 2000 and horses appear in Saptasindhu only after c1500 – according to Prof. Witzel who has become the main spokesman for this
theory.
The meagre evidence for domesticated horse at the Harappan sites often
adduced in discussions, is a red herring. There is no significant increase of horse-remains after the period 1500 BCE. If there was an entry of Indoeuropeans bringing horses and chariots at c 1500 BCE, there should be masses of such
remains. There is no such evidence until the centuries of the Common Era."
http://www.omilosmeleton.gr/pdf/en/indology/Open_Letter_to_Prof_M_Witzel.pdf
Strong words.
Edgar,
An interesting translation from modern Hindi:-
https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=kNrYnv68sIAC&pg=PA210&lpg=PA210&dq=crushed+under+feet+hindu&source=bl&ots=9C4Oe88Bfn&sig=bC7Hj_N1GtoasLG9VQoVd7wTwGQ&hl=en&sa=X&ei=czmIVJ3qNYq1UauAgZgI&ved=0CDwQ6AEwBQ#v=snippet&q=crushed%20under%20foot&f=false
I wonder if this is the concrete definition?
To add:-
Joshua 10:24.
Daniel 8:13 YLT
`And I hear a certain holy one speaking, and a certain holy one saith to the wonderful numberer who is speaking: Till when is the vision of the continual sacrifice , and of the transgression, an astonishment, to make both sanctuary and host a treading down?
JPS - trampled under foot.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jbN2jlAV4OU
Duncan,
for some reason, I could not access the google books (uk) link. I started the video in my office, but will have to finish it later.
On Dan 8:13, the Cambridge Bible says "(to be) trampled under foot] lit. (to be) a trampling (or treading down)"
It asks us to compare Isa 10:6. See the RV margin.
NET Bible: "Then I heard a holy one speaking. Another holy one said to the one who was speaking, 'To what period of time does the vision pertain – this vision concerning the daily sacrifice and the destructive act of rebellion and the giving over of both the sanctuary and army to be trampled?'"
"How long will the vision of the constant feature and of the transgression causing desolation continue, to make both the holy place and the army things to trample on?" (NWT Rev.)
Edgar,
The book is:-
http://www.amazon.com/Hindi-English-Dictionary-Sura-College-Competition/dp/8172542283/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1418291929&sr=1-1&keywords=9788172542283
The search phrase is "crushed under foot".
I wonder if there is any relationship between συμπάσχω (LXX - to suffer together) & the Hindi term?
Edgar,
Just found this interesting article
http://www.jstor.org/discover/10.2307/3264870?uid=3738032&uid=2&uid=4&sid=21104854948111
Edgar,
See
http://www.hebrewhistory.info/factpapers/fp042-1_traders.htm
Jewish Intercontinental Traders
Appreciate the links, Duncan. I'm on briefly tonight since we just returned from an assembly day. I'll look at the information more throroughly at a later time.
Post a Comment