Sporadic theological and historical musings by Edgar Foster (Ph.D. in Theology and Religious Studies and one of Jehovah's Witnesses).
בְּנֵי האלהים applied to supernatural beings Genesis 6:2,4; Job 1:6; Job 2:1; בְּנֵי אלהים Job 38:7; בְּנֵי אֵלִים Psalm 29:1 (on which compare Che's note) Psalm 89:7
It is interesting that the LXX does not interpret Gen 6:2.http://dssenglishbible.com/deuteronomy%2032.htmDeut 32:8.Childern of Israel & children of god my be synonymous.Deu 32:8 οτε διεμεριζεν ο υψιστος εθνη ως διεσπειρεν υιους Αδαμ εστησεν ορια εθνων κατα αριθμον αγγελων θεουvs MT.
Psa 29:1 ψαλμος τω Δαυιδ εξοδιου σκηνης ενεγκατε τω κυριω υιοι θεου ενεγκατε τω κυριω υιους κριων ενεγκατε τω κυριω δοξαν και τιμην"bring to the lord offspring of rams!" ?http://dssenglishbible.com/psalms%2029.htmComparing the available versions of 29:2 is also interesting.
Genesis 6:2: ἰδόντες δὲ οἱ υἱοὶ τοῦ Θεοῦ τὰς θυγατέρας τῶν ἀνθρώπων ὅτι καλαί εἰσιν, ἔλαβον ἑαυτοῖς γυναῖκας ἀπὸ πασῶν, ὧν ἐξελέξαντο.Genesis 6:4: οἱ δὲ γίγαντες ἦσαν ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς ἐν ταῖς ἡμέραις ἐκείναις· καὶ μετ᾿ ἐκεῖνο, ὡς ἂν εἰσεπορεύοντο οἱ υἱοὶ τοῦ Θεοῦ πρὸς τὰς θυγατέρας τῶν ἀνθρώπων, καὶ ἐγεννῶσαν ἑαυτοῖς· ἐκεῖνοι ἦσαν οἱ γίγαντες οἱ ἀπ᾿ αἰῶνος, οἱ ἄνθρωποι οἱ ὀνομαστοί. So in both verses, LXX just translates (as you said, it does not interpret) the Hebrew. However, we know there is a long tradition in Judaism of understanding the sons of God as angels. For instance, 1 Enoch explicitly articulates this understanding of the text. The Onkelos Targum uses the expression "sons of the mighty" in 6:2, 4.See https://www.academia.edu/1503230/Fallen_Angels_and_Genesis_6_1-4_2000_DSDOn Deut 32:8, we have discussed that verse before. Lots of issues with that passage, some of which are addressed in the NET Bible and by M. Heiser.
LXX was not all translated at once by one group. Torah being the earliest, Psalms etc coming some time later - Nearer the dating of first Enoch. One cannot use first Enoch in the way that is being attempted.
One point that is often missed is that "god El’s divine assembly" (see NET) could still stand for human judges and could still relate to the leaders of the tribes of Israel in this instance and they could also be called messengers. It seems to have a long history that appears to shift during the Roman period. http://www.casa-kvsa.org.za/2002/AC45-03-Gosling.pdf
On Deut 32:8, see https://www.era.lib.ed.ac.uk/bitstream/handle/1842/2232/Deut-Hebrews(ALLEN).pdf?sequence=2Particularly, note page 117 onward.
I am sympathetic to the judges understanding of Psalm 82 and the Exodus elohim passages, but Heiser tries to vigorously rebut the idea in his paper about Psalm 82. I'm not necessarily agreeing with him, but Heiser seems aware of the opposing arguments.Most of us know that LXX translation was progressive. Even so, I am not only appealing to 1 Enoch to prove who the sons of God are. The lexicon invoke Job and Psalms. 1 Enoch just illustrates how some ancient Jews interpreted Genesis 6. Stuckenbruck gives other examples.
Here is a dissertation dealing with Gen 6:1-4. I am not sure what the author concludes, but it looks informative. http://theoluniv.ub.rug.nl/32/7/2013Doedens%20Dissertation.pdf
We know the Jewish tradition that each nation had an angel assigned to it - Michael being the one assigned to Israel. But when did this emerge.I will read the dissertation but for now please see:-https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gh1i0E3ZcVUfrom 4:22 and keep in mind Matthew 24:37-39.
Psa 97:7 αισχυνθητωσαν παντες οι προσκυνουντες τοις γλυπτοις οι εγκαυχωμενοι εν τοις ειδωλοις αυτων προσκυνησατε αυτω παντες αγγελοι αυτουWhat kind of cross comparison is this? Who does obeisance to the carvings?
Job 38:7 first needs to be compared with 1 Chronicles 16:33 before any judgment can be made.
Duncan,From the Jewish Virtual Library: "Finally, the idea that each nation has an angelic patron, whose actions and destinies are bound up with those of his nation, is encountered for the first time [in Daniel]. Mention is made of the patrons of Persia and Greece (10:13, 20); and Michael is the champion of Israel (12:1; on this concept cf. Isa. 24:2)."See http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/angels-and-angelology-2I do not buy into the whole notion of guardian angels, but some read Deut 32:8ff as evidence for angels assigned to have dominion over individual nations.One can take the YT video in many ways. I watched it, and I really don't want to discuss American politics/sociology, but Mt 24:37-39 applies globally: it is not limited to America.I am not sure that I understand your question about Ps 97:7. What is so unusual about the comparison since it is just a reiteration/reminder to obey the 1st and 2nd commandments? Compare Ps 78:58: http://studybible.info/interlinear/Psalms%2078:58and Isaiah 42:17: http://studybible.info/interlinear/isaiah%2042:17Notice that in Ps 97:7, the carvings are also described as τοις ειδωλοις αυτωνSo who would do obeisance to the carvings? Israel would and did.
How does 1 Chron 16:33 help us decide who/what the sons of God/morning stars are? Okay, trees figuratively sing before Jehovah and morning stars figuratively sing before him. But the contexts are different although both are poetic verses. In the Bible, trees clap their hands--in poetic writing--but so do humans. They are different contexts. In other words, I don't see how 1 Chron 16:33 weighs against interpreting Job 38:7 as a reference to the angels.
IMO stars and trees are pretty much the same thing. Are there any other OT scriptures that indicate what stars mean because tree can mean strength. Compare different translations of Psalms 29.9.http://www.ancient-hebrew.org/emagazine/047.doc see also here - very interesting.My reference to the YT video still stands as the scriptures says that the giants were in the earth in those days. Not that everyone were giants and there are groups of these in all the nations. Just happens to be more in the US. In the scientific and calorific sense the analogy is sound and the Hebrew is functional. Not necessarily referring to the appearance. Since reference to Saul states he was a head taller.For job 38:7 the first part is not litteral so the second part is ??LXX puts a whole other spin on this verse and not forgetting LXX V12.As for the Daniel account we already from archeology and inscriptions have a definition for "prince" in this period - a ruler from a nation rather than a satrap who is sent out to a nation who is uncooperative in paying tribute.
Cant see how Isa. 24:2 shares a concept?
Bear in mind the background of the professor in the YT video:-https://www.kaust.edu.sa/en/study/faculty/tadeusz-patzekThe particular segment to which I was referring can only be interpreted one way.
Psalms 97:7 LXX:-Psa 97:7 αισχυνθητωσαν παντες οι προσκυνουντες τοις γλυπτοις οι εγκαυχωμενοι εν τοις ειδωλοις αυτων προσκυνησατε αυτω παντες αγγελοι αυτου"προσκυνησατε αυτω παντες αγγελοι αυτου"?
For stars, see Numbers 24:17; Isa. 14:12; Dan. 12:3. There is also star imagery in the Pseudepigrapha.The giants in Noah's day were Nephilim (fellers/bullies) and the account indicates that Genesis is speaking about physical giants, not symbolic ones. Other references to giants in the Bible also suggest the writers are dealing with men whose bodily proportions are extraordinary. Furthermore, Mt 24:37-39 deals with the antediluvian world and its similarity to the Parousia, but I don't see its relevance to giants, Nephilim or the USA in particular. As for the video itself, the purpose of the presentation was fairly transparent. However, my comments pertained to the video and Mt 24:37-39. There, I do not see a direct connection with giants and America.In poetic verse, why would we think that one line couldn't be literal because the other is figurative or vice versa? The device is so common that one could adduce many examples to illustrate the point.And terms like prince have transferred or extended meanings. For instance, Jehovah is called a "prince" in the book of Daniel. So is Michael--the one who stands up for Daniel's people in the time of great distress. Concerning Isa 24:2, the writer could have mistakenly included that reference. I am not sure what point he thinks the verse makes.Could you be more explicit about your question regarding Ps 97:7? Of course, you probably know that Heb 1:6 quotes/alludes to the text.
Isaiah 14:12 in context with Isa. 14:4.For Princes see Est 6:9,8:9 & 9:3.Does the meaning degrade so dramatically over such a short period?Are you referring to "prince of princes" for Jehovah or adonay?Regardless of the supposed connection to Hebrews (I will have to re-check as I previously have seen a reference to another possible verse to which this may be alluding). I would have thought that the complete text of PS 97:7 is self evident.Note Psalms 97:9 οτι συ κυριος ο υψιστος επι πασαν την γην σφοδρα υπερυψωθης υπερ παντας >>τους θεους<<NOT INTERPRETEDIsn't verse seven effectively saying that Idols (gods) should or will, prostrate before Jehovah?
So how are stars singing like angels - remembering that in unison is a later addition/ interpretation?
Duncan,You asked: "Are there any other OT scriptures that indicate what stars mean because tree can mean strength."So I cited Isaiah 14:12 among others, and I agree that 14:12 should be read within the context of 14:4. Concerning princes, I don't think the problem is definitional. But terms can have extended/transferred meanings or apply to different subjects. See Dan. 8:11, 25 for instances of Jehovah being identified as a prince. Compare Daniel 9:25; Isaiah 32:1, 2.Later, the NT clearly intimates there are spiritual princes (Eph 6:11-12) or cosmocrats.I would not say the meaning for prince degrades, but that its meaning may have changed or its meaning depends on context. Yes, I am talking about Jehovah being called the prince of princes (Great Prince) in Daniel. See the references in BDB as well.I believe Ps 97:7 refers to angels. Was there another point you were trying to make?Ps 97:7: αἰσχυνθήτωσαν πάντες οἱ προσκυνοῦντες τοῖς γλυπτοῖς οἱ ἐγκαυχώμενοι ἐν τοῖς εἰδώλοις αὐτῶν προσκυνήσατε αὐτῷ πάντες οἱ ἄγγελοι αὐτοῦHeb 1:6: ὅταν δὲ πάλιν εἰσαγάγῃ τὸν πρωτότοκον εἰς τὴν οἰκουμένην, λέγει Καὶ προσκυνησάτωσαν αὐτῷ πάντες ἄγγελοι θεοῦ.Deut 32:43: εὐφράνθητε οὐρανοί ἅμα αὐτῷ καὶ προσκυνησάτωσαν αὐτῷ πάντες υἱοὶ θεοῦ εὐφράνθητε ἔθνη μετὰ τοῦ λαοῦ αὐτοῦ καὶ ἐνισχυσάτωσαν αὐτῷ πάντες ἄγγελοι θεοῦ ὅτι τὸ αἷμα τῶν υἱῶν αὐτοῦ ἐκδικᾶται καὶ ἐκδικήσει καὶ ἀνταποδώσει δίκην τοῖς ἐχθροῖς καὶ τοῖς μισοῦσιν ἀνταποδώσει καὶ ἐκκαθαριεῖ κύριος τὴν γῆν τοῦ λαοῦ αὐτοῦDavid Allen deals with these issues in his dissertation on Hebrews.With all due respect, I don't understand Ps 97:7 to be an exhortation for all idols to bow before Jehovah. Rather, the declaration is to let all idolaters be ashamed, but angels should conversely do obeisance to Jehovah.
In unison is not a later addition to the Hebrew text, right? Job and the Psalms are poetic/song texts. We must construe the works with their poetic content in mind. A river "roars" and so do lions. I would suggest that the first type is an extension of the latter. Stars do not literally sing in union; nor do rivers literally roar.
Bullinger: "stars sang. Figure of speech Prosopopoeia. App-6. See App-12."
John Mckenzie on sons of God, etc: https://www.jstor.org/stable/43719713?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents
I will look through these but I am quite surprised that you would reference Bullinger. Some of his appendix conclusions are far fetched to say the least.Any comment on Psalms 97:7 LXX. And something more than "context" would be required as it would be fairly easy to replace God with fallen angels here too.
There are a some puzzling points for Daniel 8:25:-LXX Dan 8:25 και ο ζυγος του κλοιου κατευθυνει δολος εν χειρι αυτου και εν καρδια αυτου μεγαλυνθησεται και δολω διαφθερει πολλους και επι απωλεια πολλων στησεται και ως ωα χειρι συντριψειNo witness in the DSS although the opening of verse 1 of 4Q112 is interesting having "a word was revealed".The designation of "prince of princes" is inferior to the designation "king of kings" within Babylonian culture language and inscriptions. - Could "prince of princes" be referring to someone like Daniel in his elevated position as prince over princes? (not forgetting the Hebraic principles of agency).Eze_26:7 & Dan 2:37 in LXX both still use "βασιλευς βασιλεων" & "βασιλευ βασιλευς βασιλεων"
"A river "roars" and so do lions. I would suggest that the first type is an extension of the latter. Stars do not literally sing in union; nor do rivers literally roar." - poor analogy.Rivers did roar - not so much today. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blue_Nile_Falls - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EBTDIertZ28but I get your point.Isa_44:23 MT & LXX. But note that none of these are creatures.
Bullinger is a mixed bag, but some of his explanations are okay. I particularly referenced what he says about the literary device in Job 38:7, which is probably correct. The rhetorical device is either being used there or not: Bullinger was known for his knowledge of rhetoric.My only comment about Ps 97:7 is that it seems clear that idols are not being commanded to bow before God: the words are addressed to the idolaters themselves. See the Cambridge Bible remarks on Ps 97:7 LXX and the Hebrew text. The writer of Heb 1:6 apparently also probably understood the elohim in that verse to be angels."The quotation in Hebrews 1:6 may be taken from this passage [Ps 97:7] or from the LXX expansion of Deuteronomy 32:43" (Cambridge Bible).I have been reading articles on DSS Daniel here of late and the evidence for Daniel's place in DSS is quite substantial. I might post some of those bibliographical details this week. I think Ezra 7:12 could also be linked with Ezek 26:7 & Dan 2:37.It is hard to understand how Dan 8:25 could apply to Daniel, even granting the Shaliach principle. I am sure you'd agree that we must have some good reason to think the verse could have that sense. BDB unequivocally (I believe) applies Dan 8:25 to God--it is a little more reticent about 8:11, but perceives the scripture as a probable mention of God.I don't want to take the whole issue about rivers too seriously, but would beg to differ. Rivers still roar: the expression is common in the English vernacular and it is a metaphor still used. Mountains and trees don't literally sing and the wind doesn't howl like percipient beings do.You say that "none of these are creatures," by which I assume you mean rivers and stars? Well, I think your meaning is transparent enough, but technically, rivers and stars are creatures in a sense.
1 : the loud sound of a wild animal (such as a lion)2 : a loud, low sound that continues for a long timethe roar of the airplane enginesthe roar of the river/crowdroars of laughter/approvalhttp://www.learnersdictionary.com/definition/roar
You are on the wrong side of my argument - stars sing?
A brief defense of Bullinger's knowledge of rhetorical devices. See https://defendthebook.wordpress.com/tag/e-w-bullinger/https://books.google.com/books?id=FYlJAwAAQBAJ&pg=PA140&lpg=PA140&dq=bullinger+rhetorical+devices&source=bl&ots=O5VwYBRdBv&sig=i1AdIdcTxWgIp7SyqUo3Ygxb30M&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwi--bzVsbvVAhWDyyYKHelrC544ChDoAQg8MAM#v=onepage&q=bullinger%20rhetorical%20devices&f=falsehttps://www.goodreads.com/book/show/1456991.Figures_of_Speech_Used_in_the_Bible
Moses Stuart (A Commentary on the Book of Daniel) writes about Dan 8:11:"The Prince of the host is doubtless God himself, as the sequel clearly shows"He encourages his readers to compare Dan 7:20, 21, 25. Other scriptures mentioned are Dan 8:25; 11:28, 30, 36.
This is vexing as Horn denotes kingship. As per King of kings & as Daniel 11:36 says - god of gods.
I never said that literal stars sing, but my point was that stars singing is no more perplexing than trees clapping their hands or rivers roaring or wind howling--none of which should be taken literally. We are dealing with poetic devices when we read that stars sing. That was the main point I was trying too get across. :)But you said that rivers do not roar so much today like they used to do. However, I will let you have the last word on this digression.
Rashi likewise applies Daniel 8:11, 25 to God as the context indicates.
My point on Daniel goes back to our previous discussion of Exodus 34.
The inscription from the Ishtar gate (babylon) reads:-"Nebuchadnezzar, King of Babylon, the faithful prince appointed by the will of Marduk, the highest of princely princes, beloved of Nabu, of prudent counsel, who has learned to embrace wisdom, who fathomed their divine being and reveres their majesty, the untiring governor, who always takes to heart the care of the cult of Esagila and Ezida and is constantly concerned with the well-being of Babylon and Borsippa, the wise, the humble, the caretaker of Esagila and Ezida, the firstborn son of Nabopolassar, the King of Babylon.Both gate entrances of Imgur-Ellil and Nemetti-Ellil following the filling of the street from Babylon had become increasingly lower.Therefore, I pulled down these gates and laid their foundations at the water table with asphalt and bricks and had them made of bricks with blue stone on which wonderful bulls and dragons were depicted.I covered their roofs by laying majestic cedars length-wise over them. I hung doors of cedar adorned with bronze at all the gate openings.I placed wild bulls and ferocious dragons in the gateways and thus adorned them with luxurious splendor so that people might gaze on them in wonderI let the temple of Esiskursiskur (the highest festival house of Marduk, the Lord of the Gods a place of joy and celebration for the major and minor gods) be built firm like a mountain in the precinct of Babylon of asphalt and fired bricks."
Here is a paper I came across dealing with Dan. 8:11-12. Have only skimmed, but not read yet: http://digitalcommons.andrews.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1394&context=jatsI was thinking also that human titles like "prince" can have extended senses like kurios (lord) or basileus (king). Humans are called lords or kings, yet Jehovah and Christ clearly are identified in similar ways. Dan. 2:47 identifies Jehovah as "Lord of kings" (ESV) while Rev. 17:14 refers to Jesus as "Lord of lords and King of kings"Compare 1 Tim. 6:15.Or see how the GNT uses δυνάστης in Luke 1:52; Acts 8:27, and the aforesaid verse from 1 Timothy. God is called "king," but so are men; God is addressed as Lord, but men are too.1 Tim 6:
Your examples do not account for prince.
"lord of kings"https://earth-history.com/Babylon/astrology.htm
"lord of kings"http://www.gatewaystobabylon.com/religion/akitu.htm
Don't know how much clearer I can be that yes, human satraps/princes existed in ancient Persia (etc), but that does not rule out God or angels being called "prince/princes." Nimrod is the first person referred to as a king in scripture, but that does not invalidate God being the King of eternity. I really do not understand the point.I have previously given plenty of information on princes, including an article I posted today about Dan. 8:11-12. And I have posted others that deal with Dan. 8:25. King, lord and prince are analogous titles of men that extend to God and angels too. If you deny that God/angels can be princes, I wonder how you accept God being a king, who sits on a throne. Or Christ being called king or Lord.A Babylonian king clearly identifies Jehovah as "Lord of kings" in Dan. 2:47. It is not surprising that he would draw from common Babylonian vocabulary.
Here is another article on the princes in Daniel. https://biblicalstudies.org.uk/pdf/bsac/daniel10.pdf
As my two examples demonstrate Lord of kings is used in Babylon for a king AND for Marduk. We have external comparison - where is there an example for "prince of princes" or prince?
I suppose another question is, are we looking at a Hebrew work or a Babylonian work? The upbringing of Daniel.
Dare we also forget that Messiah is designated Prince in Dan. 9:25?
IMO, it makes sense to look for external comparisons for Dan. 2:47 because the saying was uttered by a Babylonian king, just like Persian rulers write letters or make utterances in other Bible books. However, it seems we have to look elsewhere for examples to substantiate the use of prince, and in fact, that is what journal articles about the words for prince usually do. Prince is clearly employed for men in the Hebrew Bible, but apparently used for God in Dan. 8:11; 25. Heiser seems to dispute the notion, but both sides needs to be considered. See https://books.google.com/books?id=dMidce6H4WYC&pg=PA214&lpg=PA214&dq=daniel+8:25+Sar+sarim&source=bl&ots=DFMlAbsidD&sig=K89l29P9kuA9zBq2qIO9SUdt3sg&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwje5-ucks7VAhWBVCYKHZZBCBY4ChDoAQhQMAk#v=onepage&q=daniel%208%3A25%20Sar%20sarim&f=false
As you know, Daniel is written in Hebrew-Aramaic. And while Daniel was reared in Babylon, I would ask for evidence that the work is Babylonian and posit that Daniel and his companions (three Hebrews and others) were countercultural. The Jews (generally speaking) were saddened by the Babylonian experience and likely fought to maintain their distinctive Jewishness, including their language and customs.
I have spent quite a bit of time this weekend looking for comparisons for Prince of princes and so far have only come across an inscription for amun hotep 3rd.https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=qml9AgAAQBAJ&pg=PA157&lpg=PA157&dq=amun+hotep+3+"prince+of+princes"&source=bl&ots=KcVAqTaORG&sig=ZDgtFPfpK-eQqcMHVr0sCQx5N98&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiC1I2EkdXVAhXCblAKHePGDksQ6AEIJTAA#v=onepage&q=amun%20hotep%203%20%22prince%20of%20princes%22&f=false
Daniel and his friends were young and educated in the Babylonian way. What about the discovery of the book of the law on the return & the recognition of how far they had veared from it?
Which particular book do you have in mind? In any event, my comments strictly pertained to Daniel or his intimate companions. While they might have been trained in Babylonian customs and language, the narrative in Daniel indicates that the three Hebrews refused to break the Decalogue and Daniel was a man of integrity, who prayed regularly and pleased God's heart. One psalmist also recorded the lamentations of Israel in Babylon--Ps 137.
prince of princes on pg 13.http://www.metmuseum.org/pubs/bulletins/1/pdf/3255036.pdf.bannered.pdfWe have a few Egyptian examples.
I appreciate the research into the expression: the examples seem pretty good to me. My search for examples has not ended, but they appear to be sparse regarding Daniel's language at 8:25. Also establishing a linguistic connection is even more difficult.
Here is a massive dissertation that is quite technical on Dan. 8:9-14ff. See http://digitalcommons.andrews.edu/dissertations/132/Over 700 pages long.
Thanks, this seems fairly comprehensive. See pg 172. I see his perspective but I still see agency.
Note the evidence in footnote 3 is later and probably colored by first Enoch.I still wonder what it means that the Sadducees did not believe in Angels?
Pg 181 onward.
Firstly, to avoid redundancy, I just do not understand why it is so difficult to say that writers can use similar terms for God and humans as well as spirit beings and humans. Context will usually make clear how the word is being used. For example, prince or king: why couldn't God and man be labeled as such, depending on context. Just like kurios. Sarah called Abraham kurios/adonai and men worship God as kurios/adonai. Disputably, angels (spirits) too are kurioi. I know we've talked about the fact that we have secular examples for expressions like we find in Dan 2:47, but we also have examples where man and God/humans and spirits are identified by the relevant terms above. Ruch can often be ambiguous, but context usually will clarify what ruach means. I'm not so much frustrated as genuinely confused since the problem appears easily solvable. :)As for the Sadducees, see https://bible.org/seriespage/3-sadducees
Lord used for man and God. This is true but it appears that the masorete still needed a way to differentiate between the two usages.http://adonimessiah.blogspot.co.uk/2006/08/what-is-in-vowel-point-difference.htmlNot endorsing all of the bloggers conclusion only the masorete textual evidence and the possibility of two words instead of one.
The possibilities are laid out here:-https://claudemariottini.com/2012/08/20/adonai/
Today is a meeting day, and I have other responsibilities. For now, just want to observe that the Masoretes introduced the vowel points during the middle ages. So, for the sake of my argument, I don't think that point is relevant. When ancient speakers used adonai/kurios, they made no distinction with the term(s) itself (same term for both parties), nor did they indicate a difference via morphology. An analogue would be the use of Lord for a human and God (and Christ) today. King would be another example.Secondly, the blogger discusses one verse, which was not adjusted because of God and men bearing the same title: Ps 110:1 revolves around the LORD and David Lord. Besides, in that psalm, we obviously have the Tetra in the first instance, then adon in the second. However, compare Genesis 18:12; 42:10; 44:18; 47:18; Ezra 10:3.
I am not going to repeat what Mariotti is saying, but like that he includes Gen 45:8 as another example of what I am saying. Same word used for God and man in numerous cases. Vowel pointings came later, but morphologically, we have the same word that refers to God and man as "Lord." In Greek, kurios refers to the Father, the Son of God, and to humans and likely to angels. I think what Mariotti writes bears out this point.
Compare gibbor, used of men, Christ and God. Genesis 10:8-9; Deut 10:17; 1 Sam 17:51; Ps 24:8; Is 9:5-6; 10:21.
In _Lexical Semantics of the GNT (1992)_, Louw-Nidaexplain the linguistic basis for the approach theytake in their two-volume Greek lexicon based onsemantic domains. Reading through this work, one finds this interestingobservation by Eugene A. Nida and Johannes Louw:"By using the Greek term QEOS, the New Testamentwriters were not making their deity a candidate forthe Graeco-Roman pantheon, nor were they merely usinga title of respect when they spoke of Jesus as KURIOS.In fact, hundreds of believers died because theycalled Jesus KURIOS, a title which Roman edicts hadreserved for the emperor" (Page 10).A term used of a divine being and a human, but with different significances. See 1 Cor 12:3.
Not that I completely agree with L-N. I am just pointing out how the same terms are used for divine beings and humans.
It's very interesting how LXx understands Gen 10:8 in relation to other occurrences.
As for _Lexical Semantics of the GNT (1992)_,That quotes changes subject in mid flow and I think the images is sent you from vindolanda argue against the reasoning regarding ho qeos.
The lexical semantics quote is part of a larger discussion in the book, but how does it change the flow? Can you remind me how the images you sent me undermine what is written above? I think that part is fairly uncontroversial.
I mean the part about theos
http://www.nbcnews.com/id/9950210/ns/technology_and_science-science/t/archaeologists-unveil-ancient-church-israel/#.WZaU2JDTVpUAs for the alter it was actually Latin - stating just deo.
Also I think something fundamental is being my missed about the use of the term kurios, in that its fundamental use is closely linked to tho old term Baal in as much as relating to a land owner and food provider.Cesar was known for feeding bread to the masses in Rome & would claim the title for him self in the politics of the day.Was Jesus ever called kurios by his disciples prior to him feeding the masses?
Thanks for the clarification about the altar. I did not think the QEOS/theos statement was controversial.See http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus:text:1999.04.0057:entry=ku/riosfor a historical treatment of kurios. We have gone through the diachronic/etymology debate, so you know where I stand there. Baal and kurios could be linked diachronically, but I am not sure that is even the case. By the time we reach the first century CE, I believe kurios has acquired other meanings and it is not necessarily tied to being a food provider. IMO, neither is the Latin, dominus, primarily associated with the food provider idea either. As for the title Caesar, it did not even exist in the capacity of an imperial term until 68/69 CE. My understanding is that Julius Caesar was posthumously deified although his family name is the basis for the imperial title, Caesar. So Julius did not actually claim the title since it wasn't used that way in his time. Octavian (Julius' great-nephew and adoptive son) is considered the first Roman emperor. After Octavian, there were many Caesars.When you mention Caesar feeding people, I assume you mean the famed "panem et circenses." In any event, for numerous reasons including some outlined here, I do not see kurios limited/restricted to a land owner or food provider in the first century CE. According to the Gospel narratives, I believe Jesus was called Lord before he did any feeding, and we know he did not own land or property by his own admission.
I will allow any followup comments in this thread, but in my judgment, we are straying from the original question. I will probably begin a different blog entry about kurios.
**Already long ago**, from when we sold our vote to no man, the People have abdicated our duties; for the People who once upon a time handed out military command, high civil office, legions — everything, now restrains itself and anxiously hopes for just two things: bread and circuses
Gen 41:31 lxx
Gen 50:10 lxx
My final remarks on this thread:If my eyes are not deceiving me, baal appears in the Hebrew Isaiah 16:8, but kurios is not in the LXX Isaiah.Did you read about the person, who invented the terminology "bread and circuses"? I think he was born circa 55 CE and died ca. 127 CE. So it is difficult to see how the practice affected the Christian use of kurios.Gen 41:31? I am not sure about the reason for citing Gen 50:10 LXX either. Thought we were discussing kurios now. :)
http://dssenglishbible.com/isaiah%2016.htmAs for isaiah 16:8 we know that Jews developed an aversion to the term Baal and tried to write it out. So the LXX rendering is no suprise.
http://www.pbs.org/empires/romans/empire/plebians.htmlNote Augustus is somewhat earlier.
Concerning Isa 16:8: my point is that the verse probably had no effect on the Christian use of kurios. Octavian's (Augustus) dates are from 63 BCE-14 CE. I still do not see how the practice of bread and circuses had any impact either, on how Christians employed kurios, but I have said my peace.I took a course in Roman history as part of the classics curriculum. It was one of my least favorite classes at the time, although I'm now glad that I took it. We had to learn about the various Roman emperors and know the praenomen, nomen, and cognomen of many prominent Romans. Augustus was evidently a major player in Roman history, but I don't think there is a connection between him and kurios. But I could be mistaken.
Of course the Roman side of things does not necessarily affect the Hebrew and there are other possibilities for why others called Jesus - Lord. One being tied up with those calling him "son of David" too. To them he may have been a property owner - the whole of Israel. "The lord said to my lord" mat 22:41-46. John 18:1-5.
Post a Comment