Monday, June 25, 2018
The Meaning of SARX in Context
I would submit that the potential meaning of σὰρξ depends on the literary context in which it occurs. σὰρξ may refer to that soft substance which covers our bones and is permeated with blood, as one lexicographer notes. See 1 Corinthians 15:39; Revelation 17:16; 19:18, 21 for examples of this usage. Additionally, σὰρξ possibly refers to the "physical body" (1 Timothy 3:16); to "human beings" (John 1:14; 1 Peter 1:24); to "human nature, with emphasis upon the physical aspects" (i.e., physical nature) or it may denote "life" (Hebrews 5:7) according to Louw and Nida's Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament Based on Semantic Domains, 2:220. Ultimately, what "flesh" meant to ancient Greeks becomes realizable by means of context.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
143 comments:
But we are not talking about what flesh meant to ancient Greeks, but instead to Hebrews.
to "human beings" - he does not specifically say to A human.
The occurrence at John 1:14 is different. It can be understood as either the Logos became human or the Logos became a human.
In the case of NT verses, we can't separate Greek and Hebrew that way. Granted, words must be contextualized, but I have yet to see sarx refer to the congregation even once.
Either Louw-Nida or BDAG state that sarx in John 1:14 could be rendered a human being
Hebrews/children of Abraham wrote the Greek Septuagint. These ppl apparently had lost much of their handle on Hebrew.
The context of Numbers 16:22 is the congregation and the one man does not have to be the sentenced imposed on all.
“And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we beheld His Resurrection, the Resurrection as of the first born son of the Father, full of Grace and Truth.” (John 1:14)
We are not talking about the LXX as understood today, just because a Hebrew verse is translated into Greek does not mean that someone got out a copy of an LXX and copied it into his writing. Its not that simple, it never is.
Obviously I don't agree with everything but - he does keep talking about new creation.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mmzgQ13gAAc
I just made a compressed remark about the LXX, but I was talking about what necessitated the translation in the first place. One thing was that enough Jews in Alexandria needed the scriptures in something besides Hebrew.
And I'm aware that copies of scriptural texts were sparse in antiquity.
I agree that the congregation is being discussed, but does that limit the description of Jehovah in that verse to Israel?
Not to mention that nothing connects Numbers 16:22 with John 1:14
I agree that the congregation is being discussed, but does that limit the description of Jehovah in that verse to Israel? - contextually - yes.
Not saying this is determinative by any means, but I posted a few commentators in the other thread, who all applied Numbers 16:22 to all humans or they said it could possibly encompass a broader scope, but none that I've looked at so far limited the application to the Israelite congregation alone. Somebody probably does hold that view, but the tendency seems to be in the other direction.
Jewish Study Bible by Berlin, Brettler, et al.:
[Numbers] 20-22: Apparently God is ready to annihilate Israel. Moses and Aaron appeal to God as creator of humanity (v. 22a) and appeal to His sense of justice: Sin must be punished individually rather than communally (v. 22b; see Ezek. ch 18).
https://www.sefaria.org/Numbers.16.22?lang=bi&with=Rashi&lang2=en
https://biblehub.com/commentaries/numbers/16-22.htm
Another angle,
https://www.academia.edu/38144788/THE_FORGOTTEN_MEANING_OF_%CA%BF%C4%81p%C4%81r_IN_BIBLICAL_HEBREW
But treasure does not have to be just ore.
Tell me, where does GOD breath into the anachronistic Angels of Gen 1:26? He does breath on the ground and bring it to life at 1:11?
I will check out your link, but to my knowledge, no one is claiming that God breathed into angels per Gen. 1:26. It is a common Jewish interpretation that God was talking to angels but where does 1:26 say that he breathed life into anything?
The point is that God was saying "let us" and "our" to someone it seems. However, I think the ground is not a likely candidate. As for Gen. 1:11, I don't think that verse states that God breathed on the ground or talked to it. Not quite what it says. God speaks but I don't see an object of his utterance in 1:11.
It say that the land "bring forth" vegetation. תַּֽדְשֵׁ֤א it's a shame that we have very little to go on with what that means but we did not breath or speak the plants into existence on there own did he?
Feminine singular
And you would rather choose for an option that is not even mentioned in the account? Does that sound logical to you?
If we are going to bring in externalities then I would opt for El-shaddai at verse 11.
Nachmanides (Rabbi Moshe ben Nachman, 1195-1270) suggests. He says that God was referring to the earth from which man was actually formed. As we see in the next chapter (v. 7), "And the Lord God formed man of dust from the ground, and He breathed into his nostrils the soul of life, and man became a living soul."
Ibn Ezra (Rabbi Abraham ben Meir ibn Ezra (1089?-1164) opines that God wasn't referring to anybody, rather he was employing majestic plural, pluralis majestatis.
Read closely, the account does not say that God breathed on or into the ground/plants or spoke to them. Secondly, whomever God addressed in 1:26 already had his image and likeness. That could not have been the ground. And I have not even said what my view of 1:26 is, but it's not the ground idea. Yeah, a rabbi or few might have espoused this idea, but it's a minority position to say the least.
Read Westermann and Neil-Delitzsch, they both review different views of 1:26 as does Hasel. These conflicting ideas can't all be correct.
It does not have to say that god breathed. He spoke and the ground "brought forth" vegetation.
Doesn't 1:26 come AFTER the creation. Man is NOT created, he is MADE.
"Let the earth cause grass to sprout" is dodging the issues altogether.
Note in 20 that the water do NOT "bring forth" the swarm.
But again in 1:24 the ground "brings forth the animals".
Man was not created? See Genesis 1:27 among other texts. And God spoke in Gen. 1:3, but did he breathe on any object then?
The fact of the matter is that the text never states that he breathed on the ground. I can speak to a plant without breathing on it.
As servant mentioned earlier, when God spoke n Gen. 1:26, whomever he addressed already had his image and likeness. That does not apply to the ground.
Regarding swarming things and birds, let's not forget Genesis 1:21.
Genesis 5:1-2:
"This is the book of the generations of Adam. In the day when God created man, He made him in the likeness of God. He created them male and female, and He blessed them and named them Man in the day when they were created."
Source: https://bible.knowing-jesus.com/topics/Creation-Of-All-Mankind
Here's the way Nahum Sarna reads Genesis 1:11:
"Let the earth sprout This creative act constitutes an exception to the norm that God’s word directly effectuates the desired product. Here the earth is depicted as the mediating element, implying that God endows it with generative powers that He now activates by His utterance. The significance of this singularity is that the sources of power in what we call nature, which were personified and deified in the ancient world, are now emptied of sanctity. The productive forces of nature exist only by the will of one sovereign Creator and are not independent spiritual entities. There is no room in such a concept for the fertility cults that were features of ancient Near Eastern religions."
"God’s creative design is that both the plants and the trees will reproduce themselves by bearing seed 'each according to its kind' (AV, RSV). Here the concept of both the supernatural and the natural have their place.201 What exists exists because of the creative word of God. This spoken word is the ultimate background to all terrestrial phenomena. Yet this same word grants the means of self-perpetuation to various species and orders of creation. Here then is both point and process, with neither eclipsing the other."
Hamilton, Victor P. The Book of Genesis, Chapters 1-17 (New International Commentary on the Old Testament) (Kindle Locations 2377-2380). Eerdmans Publishing Co - A. Kindle Edition.
All you are doing is demonstrating the two different creation stories. I. The first, God MADE man. In the second God CREATED them/humans. I refuse to just smash them together.
"However, the Bible nowhere states that angels have the same “image” or “likeness” as God (see Genesis 1:26). That description is given to humanity alone."
So I am not the only one with a problem, unless it is just like the one commentator said, that he is not talking to anyone, or elohim is a council after all.
Two creation accounts within the span of two verses? There is a simpler explanation. There is overlap between bara and asah. Throughout the Hebrew bible, YHWH I s called our maker and crwator.
I believe angels do image God, but I never said he was addressing them anyway.
See the NET Bible for why the plural of self-deliberation view is problematic
Ok, you are arguing down a route of reinterpretation, just like the Jewish tradition of what keruvim are supposed to look like. The archeological evidence tells a very different story of what keruvim look like, they are in no way human looking. There imagery displays the desirable qualities recognised in animals.
γρύψ come from the term.
With all due respect, you're imputing things to me that I never said or implied. There is no mention of keruvim in my remarks and I don't hold to the angel interpretation of Gen. 1:26 (council view). I did make the side comment that I believe angels image God, but did I mean in how they look? No, but I think image of God refers to moral, intellectual, and inwardly spiritual qualities. I don't believe image of God means how God outwardly looks or appears to the perceiver, especially since "man" was made in God's image and likeness.
How keruvim look is a complicated subject: but they are not the only kinds of spirit beings. One also must distinguish between ontology and phenomenology here. There are times when God appears in male form, but that does not mean God is ontologically a male. In any event, keruvim could image God in terms of their inward qualities and the way they might have appeared to humans cannot be a determiner for their true ontology.
Just for further reaserch, Beekes and Klein dismiss an Indo-European origin and instead suggest Pre-Greek; possibly borrowed via Hittite or some other Anatolian medium from a Semitic word related to Akkadian 𒅗𒆕𒁍 (karūbu) and Hebrew כרוב (kerúv).
Cherubim bibliographies:
https://www.oxfordbibliographies.com/display/document/obo-9780195393361/obo-9780195393361-0260.xml
Especially check out Wood, Alice. Of Wings and Wheels: A Synthetic Study of the Biblical Cherubim. Beihefte zur Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 385. Berlin: de Gruyter, 2008.
The NET commentary is reading much into the text, all the way through. From a later period of interpretation. I just want to remind you what you said in our recent discussions of the LXX in the NT, misunderstandings & the BAAL verse in Judges.
The Catholic Encyclopedia has a good article dealing with cherubim. Here's one quote from that piece:
"Notwithstanding the present common opinion of advanced Protestant scholars, that cherubim are only symbolic representations of abstract ideas, the Catholic Church undoubtedly holds that there are actually existing spiritual beings corresponding to the name. That Old Testament writers used the word cherubim to designate angels, not merely to express ideas, can be best gathered from Genesis 3:24, where God sets cherubim at the entrance of Paradise."
If we are not talking about tow accounts in the Genesis then why on earth would it say (from NET):-
26 Then God said, “Let us make humankind in our image, after our likeness, so they may rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air, over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over all the creatures that move on the earth.”
27 God created humankind in his own image.
In the first account he made MAN (human) no humankind.
Keruvim are NOT angles, they are Keruvim. It imputes hierarchy where none is implied.
I'm not advocating the entirety of what NET states about Gen. 1:26, but I agree with them and other sources confirm that the plural of self-deliberation interpretation faces some difficulties because no examples seem to uphold it. NET is not the only source to point that out.
I'm not sure what you have in mind regarding the other discussion, but my concern was that I was being laden with a view that I don't hold. But what did I say earlier? Btw, I'm going to be away from the computer and phone for a while this afternoon. Will approve comments later.
"Hebrews/children of Abraham wrote the Greek Septuagint. These ppl apparently had lost much of their handle on Hebrew."
The other was not directly with you but - https://ferrelljenkins.blog/2010/03/09/the-temple-of-baal-berith-at-shechem/ was the point, regarding the use of Elohim.
Duncan, I don't believe you're reading Gen. 1:26-27 correctly, but I can't offer extended remarks right now. Two creation accounts is just unnecessary if you're talking about 1:26 and 1:27.
Did you notice that no creating or making occurs in 1:26, but does in 1:27? God proposes in 1:26 but implements his counsel (not council) in vs. 27.
Keruvim aren't angels? Lots of scholarly works would take issue with that position. More importantly, it does not hold up scripturally.
I do stand by my earlier comment about the children of Abe and Hebrew.
A lot to consider about Gen. 1:26-28:
https://cbmw.org/2020/06/10/humanity-as-the-divine-image-in-genesis-126-28/
The author points out: "The one and only supreme creator deity announces to the divine council in Genesis 1:26 the decision to make ’ādām."
I'm focusing on God announcing his decision in 1:26, not the part about the divine council.
From the Jewish Study Bible I have:
The plural construction (Let us . . . ) most likely reflects a setting in the divine council (cf. 1 Kings 22.19-22; Isa. ch 6; Job chs 1-2): God the King announces the proposed course of action to His cabinet of subordinate deities, though He alone retains the power of decision.
It's not a difficult ask, demonstrate an angelic hirarchy? Interesting to see what you can produce. I am not really interested in appeal to authority, just scripturally please.
You know the difference between adam and ha-adam?
https://www.gotquestions.org/hierarchy-of-angels.html
Baseless speculation.
And a messenger is by definition a messenger.
https://jbqnew.jewishbible.org/assets/Uploads/424/jbq_424_bardestroyingangel.pdf
You do understand that I don't hold the angelic council view for Gen 1:26, right? And how do you define hierarchy? First, I was trying to establish that 1:26 does not say God created anything.
Give me a little credit, my friend. 😁
We've discussed the ha-adam and Adam difference before. However, that distinction is not always clear.
A messenger in the bible can be human or spirit though. I've always been puzzled at your stance towards spirits. Maybe you could explain.
Personally, I don't like hierarchies much, but there is likely ranking among spirit beings in heaven.
I do not think that 1:26 is telling the same story as 1:27.
Look, you have no evidence for any ranking, there is very little to go on at all. Some, like seraphs may not even exist as they seem to only be an element of vision imagery. And one should not ignore the evidence - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seraph#/media/File:Syrian_-_Slab_with_Six-Winged_Goddess_-_Walters_2116.jpg 10th Cent.
https://www.jstor.org/stable/42614455
Personally I don't think that the Sadducee had any problem believing in spirits and they also had no problem believing in angels. Its that one equals the other may have been the problem. A messenger from God can be a man or a prophet. If they carry his message and do his work. I have no problem believing that Gen 18 is referring to 3 men - just as it actually says.
I guess we will not come to terms on Genesis 1:26-27. I'm content to move on.
When did I ever claim that spirits are ranked: my comment was that I don't particularly like hierarchies, but do I believe in spirit messengers, cherubs and seraphs? Yes I do. However, I said nothing about ranking.
Did Jesus agree with Sadducees or did Paul?
In the bible, spirit messengers often assume the form of men. Numerous theophanies or angelophanies occur. I think it's clear that OT holy ones, Jesus and early followers of Christ believed in angelic spirits. So did the DSS community
And I accept empirical evidence, but it has to be interpreted.
I have one question for you, Duncan. We read in Gen. 32:24-25 (ESV): "And Jacob was left alone. And a man wrestled with him until the breaking of the day. When the man saw that he did not prevail against Jacob, he touched his hip socket, and Jacob's hip was put out of joint as he wrestled with him."
Who was this "man" with whom Jacob wrestled? Was it really just a mortal? Or something more?
Compare Hebrews 2:8-9; 2 Peter 2:11.
So you are going to use the NT to contradict the OT? Isn't the OT text clear enough - "I have seen God face-to-face, yet my life was preserved".
Unless God does not mean what you seem to think it does, but rather means a judge.
"Save me, I pray you, from the hand of my brother Esau, for I am afraid of him that he may come and attack me, as well as the mothers and their children."
How old was Esau, how old were the children?
Do you think the name "two camps" is adequate for a place where God resides? Or is it the camp of judges and there messengers?
The LXX is not quite the same - 1And Jacob departed for his journey; and having looked up, he saw the host of God encamped; and the angels of God met him. 2And Jacob said, when he saw them, This is the Camp of God; and he called the name of that place, Encampments.
Still not a very impressive name, but no god here, just messengers.
I'm not contradicting anything. My question was, who was the "man" in Gen. 32:24-25? Are we to believe that Jacob wrestled all night with a mortal who later just touched his hip and it came out of joint? And as you brought out, he said that he saw God. All this from a mere man? Compare Hoses 12:5.
I cited Hebrews and 2 Peter to show how the bible uses the word angel. Jesus was not made a little lower than human messengers, was he? That makes no sense.
See Genesis 32:29-31 LXX
notice the use of the term God
Nothing wrong with God having a camp, but that's tangential respecting the point I was making
Compare Hoses 12:2-5.
Let's get this straight - "I cited Hebrews and 2 Peter to show how the bible uses the word angel".
Sorry it does not. What it actually does is tell me how someone over 1000 years later uses the word angel. Probably based on the the later influences that create the LXX renderings, and that is why I also quoted the LXX, to demonstrate how "angels" are made more prominent in those translation and that later culture.
Did Jacob wrestle "all night"?
Hebrews and 2 Peter are part of the Bible, so these examples do tell us how the Bible uses "angel." But I realize that "angel" may refer to a human or spirit "messenger." However, you seem to affirm one usage but deny the other, or possibly mitagate the other usage.
And you think none of the writers for the Hebrew scriptures ever used "angel" (malak) in this way? Sorry, but I heartily disagree with that perspective, if that is your view.
Talking about angels as spirit beings did not start with the LXX: that is just rewriting history. What about the malak YHWH in the Tanakh?
A good start to learn about angels and Israel might be Hurtado's paper about angels. Angels = spirit beings is consistent across Israelite history and on into the Christian ecclesia.
See Gen. 32:24-26 for Jacob wrestling.
https://www.artbible.info/art/large/600.html
"The two wrestle all night."
Is there an allusion to angels in Deuteronomy 33:2? Possibly so.
https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Deuteronomy%2033%3A2&version=NET
https://www.jstor.org/stable/43725824
Just read the text infront of you - did they wrestle all night?
This stuff is not even complicated.
>>Later during that night<<, he rose and took his two wives+ and his two female servants+ and his 11 young sons and crossed over the ford of Jabʹbok.+ 23 So he took them and brought them across the stream,* and he brought over everything else he had.
24 >>Finally Jacob was left by himself.<< Then a man began to wrestle with him until the dawn broke.
Duncan, I'm not afraid to admit I'm wrong about something: I commit numerous mistakes on a daily basis although, please don't ask my wife if that statement is true.
I think there might be more to the Hebrew text than meets the eye though. For example:
From Kenneth Mathews (Genesis 11:27-50:26, NA Commentary):
Reference to the night and day become more important in the telling of this final narrative unit. The divine-human wrestling match extends the whole “night” (v. 22[23]), ending at sunrise (v. 31[32]). It was the threat of “daybreak” (vv. 24[25],26[27]) that precipitated the man's desperate
action at freeing himself, whereupon he conceded a blessing on Jacob. By the
light of the advancing dawn, Jacob could recognize that the opponent in his
nocturnal battle was God. As with the site where he encountered the camp of angels (Mahanaim, v. 2[3]), he christens the holy place with the new name,
“Peniel,” meaning “the face of God [El]” , explaining that he had seen God
“face to face” ( , v. 30[31]).
Another source that says "all night": https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=&ved=2ahUKEwjgocOLwev8AhXwlGoFHRgXCmE4HhAWegQIBhAB&url=https%3A%2F%2Fresearchspace.auckland.ac.nz%2Fbitstream%2Fhandle%2F2292%2F58596%2FMeyer-2021-thesis.pdf%3Fsequence%3D2%26isAllowed%3Dy&usg=AOvVaw2VXejC7wrHwSpTR2eNbx-n
Both of those are just garbage, sorry but their it is. The match took the remainder of the night and the Hebrew is very straight forward. Just goes to show how much tradition can brain wash, to the extent that people cannot see what is straight in front of them or even just believe what the text actually states, when it use "men" or "man". I took me along time to realise that el, eloha, and elohim have such a wide range of meanings with regard to powers and authorities. Also excepting the fact that we do not get all the necessary details.
Just like evolutionist describing many theist arguments as "god of the gaps", I will not be guilty of filling the these accounts with unsessesary mysticism and putting tradition into the gaps.
To be judged, in the ancient sense and to have survived is the basic thrust of this text.
An article on Chabad says -
"The lonely man was Jacob and the nightlong battle he fought was with a "stranger" – his brother Esau’s archangel."
Chief messenger/executioner.
But again, there is nothing definite about this, because we do not have all the details & "nightlong" is totally incorrect to a plain reading of the text.
How long the match took was a digression from the main point I was making. As I said earlier, I can admit error.
But denying that the "man" was angelic or being portrayed as somehow more than mortal makes mincemeat of the account.
I know about el and elohim as well.
Ezekiel reports that he beheld a sight in which a figure resembled a human: that turned out to be YHWH.
As we talked about angels, I was reminded of 2 Kings 6:14-17. Guess those weren't angels either.
The difference is that Ezekiel is mostly taking about visions, not real people.
Was Elisha or Elijah an Angel then?
Extraordinary thing happened.
"horses and chariots of FIRE" are not men, and again we do not know exactly what was seen in VISION.
Elisha and Elijah were messengers, hence angels in that sense, but they were not spirit beings.
The king of Syria (i think) also sent horses and chariots with a great army. I.e., they were manned. Are we to assume that the horses and chariots of fire had no one to man them?
Spirit beings sometimes took human form as in the angel who appeared to Mary and in Daniel.
These arguments are pointless and make no sense.
Was it also spirit horses or were they also angels in animal form?
This just gets ridiculous.
I meant that Elijah and Elisha did amazing things too, but we have more detail, so no one surmises that they are angels.
This was a VISION. Do you think that fire and blindness were unrelated?
https://bibliaparalela.com/hebrew/vechayil_2428.htm
No "host" of angels though.
Well, they were actually statements and questions, not arguments, but oh well.
Spirit horses are not required or angels in animal form. I was talking about angels "manning" the horses and chariots. Remember, angels qua spirit beings sometimes took human form. Nothing I said requires spirit horses or angels assuming animal form. Didn't thinbk I had to spell that out.
It's ridiculous if you attribute stuff to me that I never said or implied.
Elijah and Elisha were angels in one sense: the Bible talks about human and spirit "angels" (messengers). Even secular scholars make this point. Yeah, most know neither man was a spirit being.
The account doesn't say it was a vision. It could have a been a theophany or angelophany. Fire had nothing to do with the guy's blindness, at least, not according to what Elisha said.
1) Not everything that happens in the Bible is spelled out in detail
2) The expression, "YHWH of hosts" is often understood to mean, in one sense, God's army of spirit beings in heaven. It might not spell it out, but the idea could be there. Revelation does clearly delineate an army of spirit beings who will wreak havoc on this system.
Let's also not forget the merkavah of Jewish tradition, which is YHWH and his hosts.
If you are going to use Jewish tradition - "According to the mystics, the wheels supporting the throne of God represent the orbits of the planets, and the entire solar system is properly the merkavah, or chariot of God."
"From the Rgveda, the ten sacred books of Sanskrit hymns, we find that the horse-chariot was believed to control the sun. Its association with celestial bodies and spectacles offers an explanation of cosmic movement. And from martial Indra’s chariot exploits, we learn how Vedic gods aided the invading Aryans in battles over fertile river valleys, again commemorated by elaborate funerary ritual involving horse sacrifice."
https://www.cambridgeblog.org/2009/03/the-horse-4/
https://www.sacred-texts.com/hin/rigveda/rv01164.htm
Yehovah of hosts - https://biblehub.com/text/deuteronomy/20-9.htm
Duncan:
1) Jewish tradition is more than mysticism, in fact, much more. I did not explain which facet of Jewish tradition I was referencing, but I'm writing terse comments for this box on the blog, not trying to compose a tome.
2) Merkavah is a biblical term, so I could just as well said that, but I believe that many parts of Jewish tradition help to elucidate what we find in Scripture.
See https://biblehub.com/hebrew/4818.htm
3) The Rig-veda is worth studying, no doubt, but it has nothing (nothing) to do with the merkavah tradition or Tanakh. Reading the Rig-veda won't enhance my understanding of the Tanakh.
I don't think Deuteronomy 20:9 uses the exact wording, "YHWH of hosts," but Zechariah 4:6 does.
Compare 1 Kings 22:19; 2 Chronicles 18:18. In the Christian-Greek scriptures, see Luke 2:13.
https://www.biblestudytools.com/lexicons/hebrew/nas/merkabah.html
Deuteronomy & Zechariah, which came first & who instituted an army structure in Israel? Do we have a Yehovah of hosts before then?
Joshua 6:21 - The host.
Just to be clear, I'm not saying the hosts in YHWH of hosts are necessarily angels or restricted to angels, but I'm just setting out the possibility for the title including angels as its compass.
Critical scholarship assigns a relatively late date to Deuteronomy, but I believe it was written prior to the exile. Zechariah is dated to the 6th century BCE.
I'm not sure specifically when the army structure in Israel was established nor who did it, in terms of the human source, but I'm not averse to the Israelite armies being included in the title's compass as well.
Joshua 6:21 - The army.
2 Kings 2:11 - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vimana
Btw, I'm using "compass" above this way (Oxford Dictionaries):
the range or scope of something.
"the event had political repercussions that are beyond the compass of this book"
I'm cool with the Israelite army being included as the hosts of YHWH, I simply don't think that exhausts the title's application or scope:
See also https://jewishencyclopedia.com/articles/7907-host-of-heaven
Psalm 103:20-21
Well, lets get to the root of how this is used through history. Yehovah has an organisational structure of Angels which therefor justifies an earthly organisational structure of men, but through sheer lack of evidence I would say that the reasoning is the other way around. Israel were by no means the first & I have enough evidence that the plethora of gods in many ancient cultures were originally kings (El) that were merged into the belief systems over time. I saw plenty of this in Egypt and was shown the inscription by a trained Egyptologists.
I still think that Micheal in Daniel is exactly what he claimed to be - a prince of Isreal, as opposed to a foreign satrap.
https://biblehub.com/text/daniel/10-13.htm - "one of the chief princes" - the language is simple.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bel_and_the_Dragon
https://www.worldhistory.org/image/732/dragon-of-the-ishtar-gate/
Revelation 12:7-9
I don't think that the language is coincidental.
If you use traditions then you have to be aware of how traditions develop.
2 Kings 19:35 - However, I do believe that this was a spirit angel. No reason not to.
"obeying the voice of his word" - Genesis 1:16.
There is a lot to parse in what you said, and I agree about the importance of tracking traditions, which I try to do. I've spent most of my adult life doing it, but traditions can be interpreted differently and they're notoriously difficult to sort out.
I have no doubt that euhemerism is true to some degree or other, but I refuse to concede that's how belief in Jehovah (YHWH) or his spirit messengers arose although I'm not saying that is the direction in which you're taking it. But could the idea of heavenly hosts have arisen from earthly hosts? I have no problem with that idea anymore than the notion of God as King arose from earthly rulers (likely). I've even argued that God as Father is rooted in the earthly experience of men being fathers. However, family ultimately comes from God (Eph. 3:14-15).
The "Jewish tradition" depicts Michael as a the Protector of Israel. Yes, he is a prince, but God is said to be one too in Daniel. Michael could be a prince of Israel and be a spirit. The depiction in Dan. 12:1 hardly sounds like an earthly ruler, but that is my humble suggestion.
Tracking the dragon concept would take more time than I have today.
Compare https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Euhemerism
The reasoning about an earthly organization is based on the angelic structure because it's believed, based on Scripture, that angels were created before humans and watched the material universe being created. As we've discussed previously, some among Jews and Christians believe that angels shared in creating the material world or parts of it. So the belief that angels preceded humans and the material world is not a belief restricted to Witnesses, but this explains why we're encouraged to look to the heavenly model as a way to structure the earthly organization. However, even if one took issue with the point at which God created angels, a similar argument could be made based on cosmic order. See Romans 1:20.
Granted, celestial bodies obey God's word. Agreed. But is that what Ps. 103:20-21 had in mind?
Psalm 148:1-3 (HCSB):
Hallelujah!
Praise the Lord from the heavens;
praise Him in the heights.
2
Praise Him, all His angels;
praise Him, all His hosts.
3
Praise Him, sun and moon;
praise Him, all you shining stars.
Ps. 91:11-12; Heb. 1:7, 14
Concerning princes in Daniel:
"Through his policy also he shall cause craft to prosper in his hand; and he shall magnify himself in his heart, and by peace shall destroy many: he shall also stand up against the Prince of princes; but he shall be broken without hand." (Dan. 8:25 KJV)
Don't you think that this runs against the grain:-
LXX Daniel 8:25 and the yoke of his chain shall prosper: there is craft in his hand; and he shall magnify himself in his heart, and by craft shall destroy many, and he shall stand up for the destruction of many, and shall crush them as eggs in his hand.
Especially since for all other occurrences in the Greek the term "Prince" remains intact?
Unfortunately the DSS has no witness.
See, the problem is that those other cited can be interpreted both ways. Either stars are angels or angels are stars.
https://brill.com/view/journals/arst/5/2/article-p239_4.xml?language=en
I've maintained previously that "stars" refer to angels, but I think that's hard to do with Ps. 103 or 148. Both seem to distinguish stars/celestial bodies from "angels," but I think Daniel is not so straightforward in its usage.
See Hasel, G. F. " The Book of Daniel. " AUSS 19 ( 1981 ): 37–49 , 211–25 . “ The Book of Daniel Confirmed by the Dead Sea Scrolls."
Michael Walsh has an interesting discussion about Dan. 8:25 on pages 74-76 of Angels Associated with Israel in the Dead Sea Scrolls.
Some understand the prince in Daniel 8:11 to be the God of Israel. See also Joshua 5:14. Additionally, the DSS apparently identify YHWH as a prince.
Found this point in the Pulpit Commentary. Most works I consulted don't explain why LXX differs from MT at Dan. 25:
He shall also stand up against the Prince of princes. The Greek versions, as above observed, have instead of this, ἐπὶ ἀπωλείας ἀνδρῶν στήσεται - a phrase that might be a rendering of לשחת רבבים. The Massoretic text here seems the preferable. Antiochus had certainly risen up against God, the "Prince of princes," or, as the Peshitta renders, "Ruler of rulers."
Its half the story for the Peshitta, how are the other occurrences of sar rendered?
I also found it interesting, how the commentaries seemed to just ignore the LXX, they are usually very good at referencing when it suits.
The 8 fragments of Daniel are translated here - http://dssenglishbible.com/daniel.htm
One of the two occurrences of Daniel 8:1 is very interesting:-
In the third year of the reign of king Belshazzar a word was revealed, a vision appeared to me, even to me, Daniel, after that which appeared to me at the first.
I think in the DSS in one instance, a quote of psalm 61:1 has Melchizedek instead of YHWH.
When someone says that something is "preferable", what does that mean, and for whom?
Thanks for that link, Duncan.
I haven't had time to consult the Peshitta for other instances of sar. I normally use an online copy of the Peshitta.
When the quote said MT is preferable, I think it's talking about in this one instance. My guess is that MT is preferable here after the relevant texts are consulted.
https://biblehub.com/hpbt/daniel/8.htm
Cool stuff here: http://lexicity.com/resources/syriac/texts/
My point regarding the Peshitta, what if all the other instances still say prince & the fact that the LXX is silent. It would not do anything to justify sar in that verse. Therefore the correspondence is still questionable.
I suspected that the Aramaic would be far more correct to period and it looks like I was correct -
And the Ruler of the Kingdom of Persia arose against me twenty and one days, and behold, Mikaeil, one of the Princes, first came to help me, and I remained there against the Ruler of Persia
Big differences between rulers, princes and satraps.
I get what you're saying about sar in Dan. 8:25, but I don't see a strong basis for questioning sar in that verse. There are many cases where the LXX departs from MT. Sometimes LXX has it right, but not always.
Yes, there were differences between rulers, etc. And regarding Daniel 10, I've seen scholars argue that humans, not spirit beings, are being discussed.
Well, its not may place to tell anyone what to believe but unless we have an early Hebrew witness to sar in that verse, I do see a strong reason to question sar being the specific word used in that verse.
Especially when it is compares with Daniel 2:37.
But internally, this is probably the best argument against pushing any special meaning into the term sar - https://biblehub.com/text/daniel/9-6.htm
Textually, I don't see a reason for questioning sar there: compare Dan. 8:11; 11:36. See my blog post for today where the Vulgate is brought into the discussion. Even with Isaiah 9:6, numerous practioners of Judaism have seen that verse as a reference to God; John Goldingay explains that view. But I'm not sure I want to see a special meaning assigned to sar in Daniel. I just think God could be the referent of sar in 8:11; 8:25.
Lots of sources here: https://www.cjconroy.net/bib/dan-text.htm
https://www.academia.edu/36366776/_18_1_Textual_History_of_Daniel_Pages_517_527_in_The_Hebrew_Bible_Writings_Edited_by_Admin_Lange_and_Emanuel_Tov_Vol_1C_of_Textual_History_of_the_Bible_Edited_by_Admin_Lange_Leiden_Brill_2017
If the verse is in reference to God, fine, but that still not prove that the term sar is original term.
With respect to the "hosts" of YHWH, see Quine, Cat. “The Host of Heaven and the Divine Army: A Reassessment.” Journal of Biblical Literature 138, no. 4 (2019): 741–55. https://doi.org/10.15699/jbl.1384.2019.3.
Duncan, the only reason I'm seeing for you questioning sar in Dan. 8:25, and it also appears in 8:11, is that it's not reflected in the LXX and there is no DSS witness to the reading. Those are not good reasons, IMO, to question the MT in this case. That is not usually how textual criticism is done. Maybe you have other reasons I'm not discerning.
I would also encourage you to read some of the stuff I've posted just today on the issue :-)
How early is the Peshitta?
The verse is reflected in the LXX.
What I meant is that "prince of princes" is not reflected/does not occur in the LXX
Peshitta was produced circa 5th cent. CE
That is, "prince of princes" does not occur in Dan. 8:25
Post a Comment