Most Hebrew dictionaries or commentaries I've checked don't say why panim ("face" or "faces") is dual (some call it plural, but dual is more specific). Here's something I found in one book:
"This particular word always occurs in the plural, perhaps indicative of the fact that the face is a combination of a number of features. As we shall see below, the face identifies the person and reflects the attitude and sentiments of the person. As such, panim can be a substitute for the self or the feelings of the self."
(Quoted from Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament, page 727)
Besides Genesis 1:2, other examples of panim are Genesis 2:6; Exodus 33:11, 19-20; Deut. 5:4 and Psalm 139:7.
Here is also the NET Bible translation note for Exodus 33:23:
tn The plural “my backs” is according to Gesenius an extension plural (compare “face,” a dual in Hebrew). The word denotes a locality in general, but that is composed of numerous parts (see GKC 397 §124.b). W. C. Kaiser says that since God is a spirit, the meaning of this word could just as easily be rendered “after effects” of his presence (“Exodus,” EBC 2:484). As S. R. Driver says, though, while this may indicate just the “afterglow” that he leaves behind him, it was enough to suggest what the full brilliancy of his presence must be (Exodus, 363; see also Job 26:14).
213 comments:
1 – 200 of 213 Newer› Newest»https://www.stateofformation.org/2015/05/but-not-in-number-one-and-many-in-hebrew-grammar/
Another opinion, but still just an opinion.
For "my backs" compare Exodus 19:4.
Duncan, I appreciate different perspectives, but it seems that this fellow's view is wide of the mark. First, I don't think Kabbalah yields much exegetical fruit. Besides, it's far too late to give us insight respecting then Hebrew scriptures.
Additionally, the guy is reaching when it comes to Elohim: the plural is a matter of grammar--nothing mystical about it. Tons of evidence supports this conclusion. Furthermore, a face is one thing, but its properties/facets are many. It's not more than one thing.
Here's something I came across long ago and summed thing up thus:
Hauser expands on this argument. He does not think that the use of the Elohim in Genesis 1:26 proves that Genesis teaches God's triunity. One reason that Hauser concludes this has to do with the Hebrew word Elohim. Granted, Elohim is morphologically plural as are "us" and "our." But these words, while they might seem to indicate plurality, definitely do not suggest triunity. It must also be kept in mind that in Hebrew it is common for the plural noun to cause the accompanying verb to be plural (Cf. Genesis 20:13, 35:7). E.A Speiser therefore renders Genesis 1:26 as follows: "The God said, 'I will make man in my image, after my likeness.'"
Also from the Catholic Encyclopedia:
Elohim is the common name for God. It is a plural form, but "The usage of the language gives no support to the supposition that we have in the plural form Elohim, applied to the God of Israel, the remains of an early polytheism, or at least a combination with the higher spiritual beings" (Kautzsch). Grammarians call it a plural of majesty or rank, or of abstraction, or of magnitude (Gesenius, Grammatik, 27th ed., nn. 124 g, 132 h). The Ethiopic plural amlak has become a proper name of God. Hoffmann has pointed out an analogous plural elim in the Phoenician inscriptions (Ueber einige phon. Inschr., 1889, p. 17 sqq.), and Barton has shown that in the tablets from El-Amarna the plural form ilani replaces the singular more than forty times (Proceedings of the American Oriental Society, 21-23 April, 1892, pp. cxcvi-cxcix).
Let's not forget how Islam (a strongly monotheistic religion) uses the plural for Allah.
https://biblehub.com/text/genesis/32-30.htm
Plural for God and for man.
Can we say the same for EL?
Islam is a matter of tradition rather than linguistics. As you say, it's too late.
The only triune thing about this is a tradition in Semitic languages of saying things three times for emphasis but if you go further back to Akkadian and Sumerian it is spelled out quite clearly. En.en.en.(en.) - note that sometimes that it is four times rather than three.
Faces
https://pier.macmillan.yale.edu/sites/default/files/files/Echoes%2520of%2520Egypt/The%2520Many%2520Faces%2520of%2520Egyptian%2520Gods.pdf
I think you know this, but elohim is plural while El is singular. Islam may be later. However, Arabic is pertinent when studying Hebrew. Allah is cognate with El/Eloah and Arabic uses plural for the singular god, Allah.
Isaiah 6:3 has "holy" three times, the so-called Trisagion, but to derive trinity from that is a stretch. My point is that many of these things are just grammatical, not mystical.
I did not state that Arabic is too late. Allah was the form used from Islam's inception so I do not see why it would be questioned against strict monotheism. It's in the Koran.
Does panim have a singular form that is used also? That's my point.
Note also:-https://forum.wordreference.com/threads/pnim-vs-panim.1316105/
A bit of a mystery as to why both are plural.
I would have to qualify your statement. They became grammatical but we cannot be sure how they started out.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anu
You said Islam is too late, but my point was about Arabic (not Islam) although I mentioned Islam. The main point was how Arabic uses the plural despite being strictly monotheistic. I'm not saying anyone questions Islam's monotheism, but rather, they draw invalid inferences from Hebrew plurals.
I'm not aware of a singular form for panim, but I could be wrong. When has Hebrew not been grammatical 😐
See https://www.islam101.com/tauheed/AllahWE.htm
https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Gesenius%27_Hebrew_Grammar/2._Sketch_of_the_History_of_the_Hebrew_Language
Isn't Arabic pre Islam? How can you say that Arabic is monotheistic, isn't it a language?
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Arabic_alphabet
The Wikipedia on Anu states that an(en) became El (en ki becomes el ki etc.) in cannanite,so Hebrew grammar is not the issue.
Not sure why you posted gesinius on this as he is very out of date.
https://youtu.be/XBUt7twJ1uY
I still think that the "us" in Gen 1:26 is referring to the breath in the nostrils and the ground (humus).
In god's image, from dirt.
https://yalebooks.co.uk/display.asp?k=9780300234886
https://en.m.wiktionary.org/wiki/%F0%92%80%AD
Arabic is pre-Islam. But what I'm saying is that Arabic, which is used by many Muslims is employed in a monotheistic context, but it speaks of God with the use of plural terms. I provided a website link that discusses the point.
Greenish is still widely used by Hebrew students and scholars.
You're not denying that To and Allah are cognates, right?
You're not denying that El and Allah are cognates, are you?
Many Jews have said Genesis 1:26 is speaking about angels, yet the verse can be understood different ways, but why should we understand is to be breath and the ground? God made them male and female, not just the man.
But God made female from something from male. Not sure about a rib though.
Why should I have to deny what is not established?
https://judaism.stackexchange.com/questions/56660/difference-between-el-and-eloah
Independent development can have independant meaning.
So is Allah cognate with either or both?
Would you say that En & Al are cognate with El?
https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=uUAsWZbNydwC&pg=PA206&lpg=PA206&dq=Maimonides+thinks+that+God+took+counsel+with+the+earth&source=bl&ots=mmRHDweYcS&sig=ACfU3U3Y2EtPjaV9uaI65gJYfmBosmh2Jg&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjgmde9n-XmAhUSrHEKHVIHAhAQ6AEwDXoECAgQAQ#v=onepage&q=Maimonides%20thinks%20that%20God%20took%20counsel%20with%20the%20earth&f=false
So according to Jewish tradition yehovah consults with angels and demons.
But mamonides thinks that yehovah consulted the ground at Gen 1:26. Now,why would a Jew think that?
"Nachmanides (Ramban) in his Commentary to the Torah (Genesis ad. loc.) understands the plural of "Let us make", "our image", and "our likeness" as referring to both G-d and the Earth. G-d had the Earth form the human body while He formed the human soul to insert into the body. This soul, the "ruach", is the likeness and image of G-d."
https://www.sefaria.org/Genesis.1.26?with=Radak&lang=bi&aliyot=0
https://www.jashow.org/articles/who-are-the-us-in-genesis-126/
This Trinitarian does not see Gen 1:26 as Trinitarian or angelic.
Yes, God made the female from the male, but Gen. 1:26-27 states, "Let us," then he made "them" (not him). So how could the "us" be humus and breath since he used those to make Adam--not "them"
And I don't discount the rib since that's what Genesis proclaims. What textual reason do we have for doubting that God used a rib?
Here's the rundown on El and its cognates: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/%D7%90%D7%9C
I think it's pretty well established that El and Allah are cognates: Allah is derived from Al + ilah (literally meaning "the God"). Just like the relationship between Shalom and Salam.
To answer your question, see also https://www.cs.mcgill.ca/~rwest/wikispeedia/wpcd/wp/a/Allah.htm
I hope you can see how Ramban, who is a later writer, is totally off-base in his interpretation of Gen. 1:26. All kinds of ideas are being read into the text by him--including the notion of a soul.
There are four major interpretations of Gen. 1:26, then subsets opf those views. However, Jehovah's Witnesses try to take the Hebrew Bible and Christian-Greek Scriptures into consideration when trying to understand what Gen. 1:26 means. There will always be many interpretations in this system of things, but some are clearly wrong.
Regarding the last link you posted, I've never denied that Genesis 1:26 could be a plural of majesty or maybe even a plural of deliberation (Gesenius). Those are possibilities but they're not my current position.
For a survey of numerous views of Gen. 1:26 and other verses, compare http://www.scielo.org.za/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S2305-445X2018000100018
Note the comments made here about Gesenius: https://www.google.com/books/edition/A_Guide_to_Biblical_Research/KMVPd2P5YQAC?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=is+gesenius+grammar+outdated%3F&pg=PA49&printsec=frontcover
You cannot link male and female in the way you are trying as in-between it states that God created him (singular).
https://biblehub.com/text/genesis/1-27.htm
Also male and female does not carry the aleph tav prefix.
Be careful of attributing our meaning of "soul". Also not that's why I also posted radak.
Also, where exactly do we have a direct reference to angelic involvment in the creation of man?
https://www.aish.com/atr/Eve-Creation-Rib-or-Side.html?mobile=yes
John E. Hartley:
With whom did God enter into counsel? There are many proposals: (a) God took counsel with wisdom (Prov. 8:22–31). But this text does not mention wisdom. (b) “We” is a polite manner of self-expression. But this custom is not attested among the Hebrews (GKC §124gN). (c) “We” is the plural of majesty (Gen. 11:7; Isa. 6:8). But such usage is not attested for a pronoun in Hb. (Joüon §114eN). (d) “We” was used as an ancient literary device for a person’s speaking to himself. But this device is not commonly used in Scripture. (e) The plural reflects the multiplicity within God himself, coinciding with the plural form of ’elohim in Hb. However, this name of God is used throughout the account as a singular. (f) This “we” reflects the Trinity. The church fathers (e.g., Barn. and Justin Martyr) held this view. While the plural pronoun does acquire fuller meaning in light of the coming of Christ, it did not convey to ancient Israel any idea of God’s being triune. The following two proposals find the most support in Scripture: (g) God took counsel with his Spirit (so D. Clines, “The Image of God in Man,” TynBul 19 [1968], p. 68; cf. v. 2). This theory has the advantage of finding the conversation partner in the text. (h) “We” refers to the heavenly council over whom God rules (1 Kgs. 22:19–22; Job 1:6–12; 2:1–7; Ps. 82; it was common for deity to hold councils in Near Eastern myths). Before creating humans, this position argues, God entered into deliberations with this council since their role and destiny would be affected by human behavior. God’s words after the first couple ate of the forbidden fruit support this position: they have “become like one of us, knowing good and evil” (3:22)
1 Kgs. 22:19–22 ?!?! Really?
"it was common for deity to hold councils in Near Eastern myths", yes it was, well before the Torah was penned.
So again I am asking if En is synonymous to El?
I'm not trying to be adversarial, but I really don't understand how Gen. 1:26 only applies to the male, but not to the female. Okay, God said, let us make "man" (adam) in our image. Please tell me who the referent of adam in 1:26 is, if not the male and the female? Also, why does the prefix matter in this case? How does that negate God creating both male and female in his image?
Sorry, but I also don't see where Radak defines the word "soul." What do you think Ramban means by soul? For the angelic interpretation, see above. Also reference 1 Kings 22 where Jehovah meets with his "council" as we also find in Job.
I'm not saying the angelic interpretation is correct, but it's been the most common Jewish interpretation throughout history.
I did not say that radak defines soul I posted him a second opinion on 1:26.
Cambridge Bible on 1:26:
man] Heb. âdâm. This, the first mention of “man” in Holy Scripture, is spoken by God. It denotes “mankind” generally. Note the plural “they” in the next sentence. On “Adam” as a personal name, see note on Genesis 2:7.
1:26 adds: "let them have dominion," etc.
For Ramban and the soul, see https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3678934/
https://www.myjewishlearning.com/article/nahmanides-ramban/
So according to Ramban the soul has five parts? - https://mummy.fandom.com/wiki/Canopic_Jars
https://youtu.be/qy02bgZBAas
Gen 3-
By the sweat of your face
You will eat bread,
>>>Till you return to the ground,
Because from it you were taken<<<;
>>>For you are dust,
And to dust you shall return.”<<<
20 Now the man called his wife’s name [h]Eve, because she was the mother of all the living. 21 The Lord God made garments of skin for Adam and his wife, and clothed them.
22 Then the Lord God said, “Behold, the man has become like >>>one of Us<<<, knowing good and evil; and now, he might stretch out his hand, and take also from the tree of life, and eat, and live forever”— 23 >>>therefore the Lord God sent him out from the garden of Eden, to cultivate the ground from which he was taken.<<<
I've got to run for now, so just a few comments:
I didn't say you or Radak defined soul, but I was asking how Ramban's idea of soul differs from the immaterialist view. I did not see a definition in Radak.
Yes, Hartley and others have referred to 1 Kings 22 to illustrate the concept of a divine council.
My earlier comments pertain to cognates, not synonyms. :)
But, to try and answer your question, what evidence do we have that an an (anu) is cognate with El? Where does Wikipedia make this claim? I also posted the Wiktionary page for El to show which cognates it has. Did you see that page?
Please show linguistic evidence that anu and El are cognates. I'm not saying it's false, but I have see no evidence for the idea.
"Known as "An" in ancient Sumer, Anu dates back to at least 3,000 B.C.E. in the archaeological record, making him one of the oldest of the gods. Like his Canaanite counterpart El, he was once known as the Great Bull."
That is exactly what the pictographic Semitic text portrays.
It not just Jeff benner saying it - https://www.amazon.co.uk/Ox-Short-History-Alphabet/dp/B000S35T5A
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enlil
"Enlil,[a] later known as Elil"
http://oracc.museum.upenn.edu/amgg/listofdeities/an/
"There are no certain anthropomorphic representations of An/Anu. His symbol is a horned crown, sometimes shown resting on a throne (see below). His animal is the bull."
Also note the wording of Gen 6:1
https://biblehub.com/text/genesis/6-1.htm
What you've posted so far does not prove that An is cognate with El. Even if the two deities were counterparts in different cultures, that would not demonstrate that they're cognate words. Cognate means that a word has the same linguistic derivation as another word. For ecample, later in Greek/Latin and vater in German.
There are anthropomorphic depictions of YHWH and his symbol is not a horned crown, nor is his animal the bull.
I notice that Genesis 6:1 mentions the face of the earth. So does Numbers 12:1.
More later on El.
Genesis 3:20 and 6:1 use ha-adam, but 1:26 does not. Genesis 1:27 does use ha-adam, but then says he made them make and female.
Rahman also believes in an animal soul and a rational soul. Furthermore, he's a kabbalist.
Victor Hamilton on Genesis 1:27:
the verse affirms that God created in his image a male ʾāḏām and a female ʾāḏām. Both share the image of God. Sexuality is not an accident of nature, nor is it simply a biological phenomenon. Instead it is a gift of God. While sexual identity and sexual function are foreign to God’s person, they are nevertheless a part of his will for his image bearers.²⁰ The placement of this phrase—male and female he created them—allows it to function as a bridge between the first part of v. 27 and the verses that immediately follow. As such, the phrase identifies who exactly bears the image of the divine. It also prepares the way for the blessing of fertility that follows. Here the emphasis is on the male and female as procreators, rather than their role of companions.²¹ God gives two assignments to the male and the female: procreation and dominion. Like the animals over whom they rule (v. 22), at the moment of their creation God gives them the power to reproduce themselves.
Did not Rashi likewise appeal to 1 Kings 22:19 to substantiate the divine council understanding of Gen. 1:26? He might be wrong, but Rashi was no exegetical slouch.
See https://www.sefaria.org/Rashi_on_Genesis.1.26.1?lang=bi
Let's get one thing cleared up before proceeding. A devine council in the earlier cultures did not equate to angels but rather elements. It is easy to equate Anu using an-ki (land) and an-lil (wind) to animate man.
Nowhere in Gen 1:6 or 1 kings 1:26 do we have reference to angels (messengers). The hierarchy you are portraying is a construct.
Also no-one knows how any words from this period were pronounced but An(Sumerian) is also pronounced En(Akkadian) and then we have the cannanite El which is actually used as El-ki and El-lil. So tell me why one would NOT think they are cognates?
All of the pronunciation are guesses from three different languages. And since most early scholarship into these cultures was Christian I do not find it a stretch to think that independant pronunciations were chosen on purpose.
"There are anthropomorphic depictions of YHWH and his symbol is not a horned crown, nor is his animal the bull."
I am interested to know how old these depictions are and what they entail?
When yehovah's anger flairs what is this describing?
Isn't yehovah called the god of the heavens? How is Anu described?
The early divine councils were also composed of gods, divine beings. Even the elements could be personified. For examples of divine assemblies composed of divine beings, see Heiser's dissertation, specifically, pages 38-40 and the studies done by Mark Smith.
Perhaps you mean Genesis 1:26 above and I don't know why one would expect to find angels mentioned in 1 Kings 1:26, but while Genesis 1:26 does not mention angels, neither does it mention humus or breath either. I personally don't favor the angelic view, but it has been popular in Jewish circles. Finally, I have not even alluded to a hierarchy or used that term for the angels.
I wonder where An/En ever means "god." The actual cognates for El have that meaning.
There's much we don't know about the forms of the name Enlil. For instance:
"There has been much debate concerning the writing, etymology, and hence meaning of Enlil's name. These elements are important to discuss because they also relate to an analysis of this deity's functions. The writing and reading of this deity's name is not certain (see below), and even if we do read den-líl, the translation of 'líl' is contentious."
http://oracc.museum.upenn.edu/amgg/listofdeities/enlil/index.html
I've posted the cognates for El. Unless more evidence is forthcoming, I will assume that An/En is not cognate with El.
Anthropomorphic depictions of YHWH are found throughout the Pentateuch including the motifs that started this thread. Assuming that both Jehovah and Anu are described in similar ways, that still would not prove the names El and Anu are cognate. And parallels don't establish identity of gods either.
God's back (backs), hands and his arm all constitute anthropomorphisms.
Further reading:
https://www.jstor.org/stable/527959?seq=1#metadata_info_tab_contents
A more recent paper here examines the issues: https://www.academia.edu/1090199/Concerning_the_Etymology_of_Enlil_the_An_Anum_Approach
This is why I was asking what time frames your anthropomorphisms are related to.
There is no reason to think that el meant "god" - it's not even concrete.
https://www.ancient-hebrew.org/ancient-alphabet/aleph.htm
En lil as the primary god of the Sumerians is news to me. Isn't nin lil his female counterpart?
I do not use the Gilgamesh epic as a guide to these names and how they were used. There are better sources.
Gen 1:6 it clarified at 2:7 so I think I am on the right track with humus and wind.
I also welcome you comments for genesis 3 where "US" is used only in the context of the ground again?
According to the "epic of etana" laying before anu in heaven the sceptre, tiara, royal headdress & shepherds staff.
See Benner above.
En lil was the tutelary deity of nippur.
As Anu was king of heaven, enlil was king of earth. En lil did become prominent but to ease dispute he was later called Anu's son.
En lil the evil god (IMO) as he devised the mattock and plough for man's "benefit".
I still think that Heiser has a clear agenda in his work.
For en lil we have el lil in the Sumerian also duranki.
In the Akkadian "epic of atrahasis" the roles are altered. The three great ones divide the universe. Anu taking the heavens, enki the ocean & enlil the earth.
First, I want to clarify that while Ramban accepts the notion of a soul, Rambam clearly believes in a five-part soul. I mistakenly posted about Maimonides instead of Nachmanides in one reply.
There are plenty of anthropomorphisms throughout the Tanakh, but I initially thought of Pentateuchal examples.
In Jeff Benner's opinion, El is not concrete, I guess. But I disagree.
I've already posted on El and here's another article: https://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/el
Another article on Enlil as a Sumerian deity: https://www.britannica.com/topic/Enlil
Ninlil: https://www.britannica.com/topic/Ninlil
I'm relying on the scholarship of those who study ancient Mesopotamia--I'm not a scholar of these matters, but I try to discern who's got the better arguments.
I still believe you're overlooking the fact that Gen. 1:26-27 is not just relating Adam's creation but also that of Eve. Hence, the elements are not viable candidates IMO. Along with the fact that a plural understanding of elohim might not even be at play in Gen. 1:26.
I don't see Gen. 3 as using "us" only in connection with the ground and 1:26 does not use it that way either. Just because the ground is mentioned in Gen. 3:20ff does not mean that it has anything to do with the plural. Compare Gen. 11:7; Isa. 6:8.
Ancient History Encyclopedia:
"Enlil was the heavenly corporation's CEO, or chief executive officer."
See also https://www.jstor.org/stable/3589967
which uses the language, "chief god of Sumer" for Enlil
https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=tfkJCAAAQBAJ&pg=PA43&lpg=PA43&dq=enlil+foremost+deity&source=bl&ots=KM97_lrpf7&sig=ACfU3U0o8tOt5j_70gg9hf1eKr5Uorq7RQ&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjV4o34oOjmAhX2TxUIHf-IAmo4ChDoATAAegQICBAB#v=onepage&q=enlil%20foremost%20deity&f=false
To understand it one has to look at the source texts.
https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=FI6PzjEm_UUC&pg=PA114&lpg=PA114&dq=,anu+%22chief+god+of+Sumer%22&source=bl&ots=ZLPbKsQJG8&sig=ACfU3U3FnFizeb6XskRpr8RVH8c3EcjmAQ&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjnzbe-pOjmAhWhTBUIHdR3DtoQ6AEwCXoECAEQAQ#v=onepage&q=%2Canu%20%22chief%20god%20of%20Sumer%22&f=false
https://www.academia.edu/821244/Genesis_1-11_and_Its_Mesopotamian_Problem
For Isaiah 6:8 see 6:3
https://biblehub.com/hebrew/haaretz_776.htm
For genesis 11:7 see 11:1 & 11:9.
https://biblehub.com/hebrew/haaretz_776.htm
One thing we also need to keep in mind about Enlil and these Mesopotamian gods/goddesses is that the devotees' understanding of them changed over time--were dynamic rather than static. For the most part, what I've read concerning Anu/Enlil is that the names do not mean "god" or deity. Some try to make the definition fit, but have not succeeded yet.
I've read Hendel's papers before and quickly scanned the one which you linked. I'm not really sure what I'm supposed to learn from it, since many of the points could apply to the current discussion. However, I do not accept his appropriation suggestion.
Not to be cheeky, but I'm very familiar with Isa. 6:3 :)
It says "earth," not particularly the ground. "Us" in Isa. 6:8 could refer to the seraphs because they're the ones making the exclamation and attending God's throne. In Gen. 3:24, the cherubs are also mentioned.
See https://biblehub.com/interlinear/genesis/3-19.htm
It's not the same word in Isa. 6:3.
Isa. 6:11 does employ the term, but there it does not mean "ground."
https://biblehub.com/hebrew/chol_3605.htm
Note the difference in translation between Gen 11:8 and 13:9.
The whole what?
As I think you know, eretz (erets) is not the word that we find in Genesis 2:7 or Isaiah 6:11 or Gen. 3:20, etc. But the English translation of erets will depend on context as it does with the "ground" or "land." Compare Psalm 37:29 in KJV and compare the Hebrew term.
Should have said Gen. 3:19ff.
Also see https://biblehub.com/hebrew/127.htm
Concerning pluralis majestatis, see https://hebrewsyntax.org/hebrew_resources/Beckman%20JC%202013%20(Pluralis%20Majestatis%20BH)%20EHLL.pdf
I will be approving posts tomorrow, but they might not appear until later in the day. I'll be a little occupied.
From the brill publication you posted:-
"There are no undisputed examples of a pronoun
or a verb displaying the pluralis majestatis;
plural self-reference by a deity, e.g., - }š š !g†˜4”1 ™
K1/x —+’ 8™C’ na‹«Æ ±
<
å§<
åm bë-ßalmènù ‘let us make
humankind in our image’ (Gen. 1.26), has occa-
sionally been explained as pluralis majestatis,
but comparative Semitic and contextual factors
favor other explanations (for further discussion,
see GKC 398; Hasel 1975:58–66; Westermann
1981:144–145)."
Just want to point out that Hebrew poetry does not say exactly the same thing twice. It uses two similar or related points.
As for the two descriptors that I am refering, see Genesis 2:6
https://biblehub.com/text/genesis/2-6.htm
Two different things - if so what is the difference?
https://biblehub.com/text/genesis/13-15.htm
https://hermeneutics.stackexchange.com/questions/14100/what-is-the-difference-between-eretz-and-adamah-in-gen-26
See the post with the two usage graphs:-
"Given that these are synonyms yet different words, many translators use two separate words to prevent redundancy and to show this distinction. Even so, it could easily be translated,
... and a stream/mist would go up from the earth/ground and water the whole face/surface of the earth/ground...."
"But the best explanation is wordplay. In Genesis 2:7, the word for man/mankind is אָדָם (adam), and the connection between אָדָם and אֲדָמָה (adamah) is likely plain even for someone who doesn't read Hebrew. The sense is that 'man' (אָדָם) is formed by God from the soil/dust (אֲדָמָה), human life thus being described as a combination of a body formed from soil from the ground and breath given by Yahweh God (יְהוָ֨ה אֱלֹהִ֜ים), becoming a נֶפֶשׁ (nephesh), a living being.
So we see that in this creation account (beginning in 2:4), Yahweh God (יְהוָ֨ה אֱלֹהִ֜ים) made the earth (אֶרֶץ) and the heavens. However, a stream of some sort would rise from the earth (אֶרֶץ) and water the entire surface of the ground (אֲדָמָה, adamah). And then Yahweh God (יְהוָ֨ה אֱלֹהִ֜ים) formed 'man' (אָדָם, adam) from the soil/dust of the ground (אֲדָמָה, adamah).4 This wordplay seems most likely."
https://www.bbc.co.uk/bitesize/guides/zps82hv/revision/3
Forest soil:-
https://www.gardenmyths.com/what-is-humus/
1) the reason I posted Beckman's piece was not to justify the plural of majesty, but to who the range of interpretations for Genesis 1:26.
2) some view the words in genesis 2:6 as intentionally contrastive.
See the NET Bible note on genesis 2:6
When ecology is applied to 2:6 it is quite strait foreward, as are many things.
What note in particular are you referring?
The text in Hebrew, does it say "springs" of water from the ground or just that water comes up from the ground?
https://biblehub.com/hebrew/mimaaynei_4599.htm
Did you look at the data?
Genesis 5:2 is also involved here.
Why apply ecology to Gen. 2:6? I'm not saying we can't use ddifferent tools to understand biblical texts, but we have to be careful about imposing later concerns on these ancient texts.
Note 19 in NET for Gen. 2:6 states:
tn The Hebrew word אֲדָמָה (’adamah) actually means “ground; fertile soil.”
sn Here is an indication of fertility. The water would well up from the earth (אֶרֶץ, ’erets) and water all the surface of the fertile soil (אֲדָמָה). It is from that soil that the man (אָדָם, ’adam) was made (Gen 2:7).
Here's note 16 from NET: tn The conjunction vav (ו) introduces a third disjunctive clause. The Hebrew word אֵד (’ed) was traditionally translated “mist” because of its use in Job 36:27. However, an Akkadian cognate edu in Babylonian texts refers to subterranean springs or waterways. Such a spring would fit the description in this context, since this water “goes up” and waters the ground.
I read the biblehub links you posted and the hermeneutics link. Not sure which data you have in mind.
Regarding Genesis 5:2, Cambridge Bible says: Adam] The proper name, Adam, not ha-adam = “the man” or “mankind.”
Expositor's Bible Commentary for Genesis:
Similarly, when the narrative states that the Lord God had not yet “sent rain on the earth” one senses an allusion to the flood narratives, at which time the Lord declares, “I will send rain on the earth” The reference to “no man to work the ground” v.5) points to the time when the man and the woman were cast from the garden “to work the ground” 3:23). Thus, as a prelude to the account of humankind’s creation (v.7), we are told of the land that has been prepared for him: “streams came up from the earth and watered the whole surface of the ground” (v.6). In the very selectivity of the description of that land, however, one can already see a time when humankind will be cast out of the garden to become an alien and a stranger on a foreign land. The very words describing the garden will find their echo in a future exile.
[END QUOTE]
Even if one does not buy the exile narrative espoused here, you can see that the commentary is making a distinction between earth and ground.
https://biblehub.com/text/genesis/5-2.htm
What "day" were they created in? Hadn't man been around for a while before woman?
How big was the garden?
https://forestsnews.cifor.org/10316/make-it-rain-planting-forests-to-help-drought-stricken-regions?fnl=en
We do not have the term "rain Forrest" for nothing.
If you think that ecology is a modern concern you are very much mistaken. On of the major drives of permaculture it to uncover and utilizes ancient knowledge of the land. The name might be new but the concepts are not.
https://biblehub.com/text/genesis/6-7.htm
Didn't this include all? Not just man.
https://regenerative.com/repair-flood-damaged-soil/
One requires living soil to capture the water in the first place, before it can rise again. This is why the degraded land of Israel is full of torrent valleys. Water and soil are regularly lost as the heavy winter rains are not captured but run over the surface of the landscape. This usually starts with agriculture and uncontrolled grazing.
I am going to need some solid evidence for edu:-
http://www.assyrianlanguages.org/akkadian/search.php
Search edu in Akkadian.
https://biblehub.com/hebrew/108.htm
https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=XY6uCgAAQBAJ&pg=PA11&lpg=PA11&dq=Akkadian+cognate+edu+in+Babylonian+texts+refers+to+subterranean+springs+or+waterways&source=bl&ots=zYaoLOjokn&sig=ACfU3U3dPDnzcE_KmSUiT9-n1ZWhzFxyiQ&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwj2o7vU6ezmAhXLYcAKHbgGAAUQ6AEwAHoECAMQAQ#v=onepage&q=Akkadian%20cognate%20edu%20in%20Babylonian%20texts%20refers%20to%20subterranean%20springs%20or%20waterways&f=false
Chinese whispers with no reference.
Not convinced about the definite article rule.
See 1 Kings 18:39.
Also it is my understanding that words re used in close proximity do not have to carry the definite article every time.
Also I think that
https://biblehub.com/john/19-5.htm
It is significant and may be telling us that Jesus is the second Adam (with the definite article).
For example look at the LXX where Joshuah is named 172 times but 18 times it has the article (dative).
See Barr - comparative philology Pg 422ff.
Without further evidence I will stick with "mist".
Compare John 19:5 with genesis 3:22.
See j.k.brown - creations renewal Pg 281.
" In view of the number of allusions to Gen 1-2 in John 19-20 and specifically the Adam Christology that emerges in 20:15 when Mary identifies Jesus as the gardener, it is likely that "behold the man" alludes to that fist man, Adam, in the first creation story..."
She also provides bibliographical references to others who share her view.
There is no way I can address every post here, but I will try to make a few replies. My original concern was the plural form for panim and we've now drifted beyond that original focus. Still, I'll entertain some points.
I'm not dogmatic about how to translate Gen. 2:6. Mist might be okay, but I'm not sure it's the only possibility. And I don't take Barr to be saying we must translate with "mist." Either way, it's not a major point for me.
Adam and Eve were created on the sme day--the sixth day. We don't know how long Adam existed before God made Eve. The Bible does not tell us. It could have been a long time, but it was still the same day.
Victor Hamilton has an extensive discussion about "mist" in Genesis 2:6:
Though rain does not yet pour from the heavens, an ʾēḏ does rise from the ground to water the earth’s surface. The translation of this word is uncertain, as a glance at the versions will show. Is it a mist, a river, a flood, a cloud, or something else? Both LXX (pēgḗ) and Vulg. (fons) interpreted it as “spring.” Unfortunately the word appears only once more in the OT, Job 36:27, “he [God] draws the waterdrops that distill rain from the flood [ʾē ḏô].”⁸ Etymologically Heb. ʾēḏ has been connected with Akk. id, “river,” which is a loanword from Sum. ID.⁹ Thus the phenomenon alluded to in 2:6 would be a subterranean freshwater stream. C. H. Gordon has correctly observed that the translation of ʾēḏ in 2:6 as “river” is unlikely in that rivers descend rather than rise.¹⁰ Wider support has been given to the possible connection between Heb. ʾēḏ and Akk. edû, “flood, waves, swell,” which is a loanword from Sum. E.A. Speiser notes particularly that cuneiform texts use edû and other aquatic terms with verbs such as melu, “to flow, to flood,” and bu-tuq-tum, “to break through” to water the fields (šaqu ša eqli), all suggesting the irruption of subterranean waters. Historical support for the idea of an underground river that overflows its bank and seeps to the surface may be found in the tradition preserved by Strabo that the Euphrates, or some branch of it, flowed underground and subse- quently surfaced to form lagoons beside either the Persian Gulf or the Mediterranean Sea.
He says more, but maybe this will suffice for now.
Akkadian website definition for edu:
See http://www.assyrianlanguages.org/akkadian/dosearch.php?searchkey=6154&language=id
Hebrew definite article: https://www.bibleodyssey.org/en/people/related-articles/adam-adamah
On ecology as a modern construct, see https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/9781118373057.ch18
Wikipedia makes a similar comment.
On assyrianlanguages.org the page you linked does not appear on a general search which is why it is suffixed by a one (presumably a duplicate root). If you click on "search history" it states that "This article has not been validated" & gives no documentary evidence. I am still in need of source of evidence?
So is eve made from the ground and have wind blown into her too? How can you have it both ways. Is she made from the side (half) later? I dispute that ha Adam has to mean mankind in this instance it can also mean "the man" and as I have pointed out it is Hebrew poetry similar to Gen 19:24. These appear at critical moments. They tell us extra detail but does not mean that it is saying the same thing twice.
https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=WW31E9Zt5-wC&pg=PA511-IA2&lpg=PA511-IA2&dq=victor+hamilton+genesis+2:6&source=bl&ots=nzqehtc3y5&sig=ACfU3U0aAA0jjDe8AZ3UR_1zt7N0TkIaRA&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjk0bjOqO3mAhXOQEEAHbHWApMQ6AEwA3oECAMQAQ#v=onepage&q=Loanword%20from%20sum&f=false
Footnote 9 is Albright from 1939. Common now 😀
For the Akkadian edu, see also https://books.google.com/books?id=rt6mDwAAQBAJ&pg=PA223&lpg=PA223&dq=akkadian+edu+genesis+2:6&source=bl&ots=HI4RmyWWz8&sig=ACfU3U0oPofeZFGKdCulBNIjSywOCOAaBA&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwi8sLHBre3mAhXlRd8KHXnIByoQ6AEwAXoECAsQAQ#v=onepage&q=akkadian%20edu%20genesis%202%3A6&f=false
Not dependent on Albright. :)
We have plenty of examples for how ha-Adam is used, which can help us make an exegetical decision one way or the other. There is also the grammar of Hebrew definite articles to consider.
Bruce Waltke likewise construes Gen. 2:6 as "stream" rather than mist in his Genesis commentary. The link above explains why although I'm with Hamilton: the meaning is uncertain.
https://www.asa3.org/ASA/resources/WTJ/WTJ58Kline.html#note9
Quote regarding Genesis 2:6:
The meaning of the Hebrew word is uncertain. It probably denotes subterranean waters which rise to the surface and thence as gushing springs or flooding rivers inundate the land. The watering of the Garden of Eden by a river in the immediate sequel (v. 10) may be intended as a specific localized instance of the phenomena (v. 6). Note the similar advance in the case of man, viewed in verse 5b as the artificial irrigator, from the general statement of verse 7 to the specific assignment in the Garden (vs. 8, 15). The word appears elsewhere in the Old Testament only in Job 36:27. That passage is also difficult; but there seems to denote the underground ore, as it were, from which the raindrops are extracted and refined, i.e., by the process of evaporation in the cycle of cloud formation and precipitation. (For the translation of the preposition as "from" see C. H. Gordon, Ugaritic Manual (Rome 1955), p. 75). The Hebrew is probably to be derived from the Akkadian edû, a Sumerian loanword which denotes overflowing waters. (Cf. E. Speiser, Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research, 140 (1955), pp. 9-11). Other views are that it comes from Akkadian id, "river", also a Sumerian loanword (used in the Mari texts as the name of the river god) or from Îda, the name of a high mountain in central Crete (a tentative suggestion of C. H. Gordon in "Homer and Bible", Hebrew Union College Annual XXVI (1955), pp. 62, 63).
http://dcwww.camd.dtu.dk/~askhl/files/teknhist/44.1dalley.pdf
This probably accounts for the change in understanding of Akkadian edu but this also has much bearing on when one thinks bereshit as we have it today was authored.
As the land degraded irrigation became more difficult and so water was brought up from below, destroying fertility by salineation. To the point where the curse on Babylon was sure to be inforced.
As for ecology in the ANE, material evidence is just as important as literary, if not more so.
The evidence is that up until recently our understanding/application was just as failed as the ANE religious interpretation.
https://youtu.be/8slFPXkfOFw
See at about 17 mins regarding water irrigation ditches. I will try to track down the early Jewish documents that describe the same kind of thing. Read them a couple of years ago but did not note them.
The brill chapter you posted is worth reading in the light of the interview I have just posted.
I might post a little tomorrow about Genesis 2:6, but two important things to me are philology (the philological method) and history in addition to theology.
While I'm not trying to nitpick the use of "ecology" for ancient contexts/texts, I just see ecology as a modern field like anthropology and cosmology.
https://www.jstor.org/stable/1355964?seq=1#metadata_info_tab_contents
Who is speiser referencing?
https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=eOQjVxVM6goC&pg=PA107&lpg=PA107&dq=vocabulary+vat+10270&source=bl&ots=aaaidingzB&sig=ACfU3U3lys_xpL7gxN9aCxbTNBdi9UBDlA&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwityezq0e7mAhVJXRUIHdtNAyUQ6AEwAHoECAgQAQ#v=onepage&q=vocabulary%20vat%2010270&f=false
https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=qevX11bQRi8C&pg=PA97&lpg=PA97&dq=vocabulary+vat+10270&source=bl&ots=fjwvhNPfBI&sig=ACfU3U0UZnRnBaJMyYvDa2GYQu6wcjEtnw&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwityezq0e7mAhVJXRUIHdtNAyUQ6AEwCXoECAkQAQ#v=onepage&q=vocabulary%20vat%2010270&f=false
This seams to be the most comprehensive treatment. At least I can look up the witnesses now.
http://faculty.gordon.edu/hu/bi/ted_hildebrandt/OTeSources/01-Genesis/Text/Articles-Books/Collins_Gen2Discourse_WTJ.pdf
"We note further that the semantic range of Hebrew 'eres in verse 5: is it
"earth," "land," or "region"? It is fairly common to take 'eres as "earth"
(cf. RSV, NASB, NIV text), and to find in this a description of the condition
of the whole earth.25 But the word quite often means simply "land" (cf. NIV margin), either as dry land (its sense in 1:10-31) or as a specific region
(its sense in 2:11-13), where God made man prior to moving him into the
Garden of Eden.26"
"26 Cf. Kiel, Sefer Biresit, 46 (Hebrew page numbers), for a good discussion of the options and an argument for "region.""
https://www.ancient.eu/Judean_Technology/
Here is Speiser's article just in case: https://archive.org/details/Speiser19241963SelectedWritings/page/n589
I've got Tsumura's work too: he is pretty thorough.
https://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/abs/10.1086/370444?journalCode=amerjsemilanglit
Just wanted to say that I appreciate the time and effort that you expend in replying to my posts and do not doubt your dedication to philology.
My problem is that in the past I have come across so much of comparative studies between ANE languages that is pure junk when one gets to the bottom of it. So I try to get back to source as much as I can.
Even then I would not call it high quality evidence. Like the Tehom and Tiamat debate, even if one comes from the other it dos not strongly indicate a meaning. So in our instance we can already see that the Sumerian and Akkadian usages vary & IF it turns out to be a loan word from one or the other it still does not give the specific BH meaning. All we really have is context.
https://www.academia.edu/1066830/The_Earth_and_the_Waters_in_Genesis_1_and_2_A_Linguistic_Analysis_Journal_for_the_Study_of_theOld_Testament_Supplement_Series_83_._Sheffield_Sheffield_Academic_Press_1989
I think this is complete
Duncan, thanks, and I appreciate you raising questions that keep me probing the Tanakh and GNT for further illumination. The question about "mist" versus "stream" and so forth is a good one. Hope you find something helpful in your studies. I will post things as time and circumstances permit.
Thought you might find this interesting:-
http://scottwpalmer.com/worldtech/files/2015/08/Waterscrew-Reply.pdf
The "TO THE EDITOR" section at the end is most interesting.
I went to the British museum exhibition and have a copy of the catalog.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8lS_ar5UpiU
Not claiming it was exactly the same but environmental conditions tend to dictate the development of technologies.
When one thinks about the function of a screw is is a poor mimic of that trees do.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NhNEB_mWvBw
Not really interested in the hanging gardens. A technology as efficient as this would have been used all over but the salt it pulled up in the water wouldn't have taken too long to take its toll.
http://www.plantstress.com/articles/salinity_i/salinity_i.htm
Dry land agriculture. In the UK, generally we have enough rain to wash it through but when rain is very limited throughout the year the build up over time is significant because of evaporation (see salt pans).
I did not explain my point about transpiration in trees very well. See https://e360.yale.edu/features/how-deforestation-affecting-global-water-cycles-climate-change
Coming back to the plural problem we do have particular verses that are problematic for Elohim. For example:-
Job 1:6 "sons of the gods"
Robert with remarks on Genesis 1:27:
27. In the middle clause of this verse, “him,” as in the Hebrew, is grammatically but not anatomically masculine. Feminist critics have raised the question as to whether here and in the second account of human origins, in chapter 2, ’adam is to be imagined as sexually undifferentiated until the fashioning of woman, though that proposal leads to certain dizzying paradoxes in following the story.
2:5-6 (Alter's translation partially):
the LORD God had not caused rain to fall on the earth and there was no human to till the soil, and wetness would well from the earth to water all the surface of the soil
Elohim doesn't present a difficulty for me in Job 1:6 because we reaqd it contextually just like we do Genesis 1:1. Almost universally, we find the translation, "God created," not "gods created."
Since YHWH is the one holding a meeting with the "sons," it's hard to imagine them being "sons of gods"
David Clines' Commentary on Job:
From a gathering on earth (vv 4–5), the scene moves to a more momentous gathering. It is an assembly of the heavenly council, God being pictured as a king surrounded by his courtiers, other heavenly beings neither human nor divine in the full sense, but ―sons of God,‖ their being derivative from his, and their rank superhuman. The concept of the royal council in which the king would be surrounded by his courtiers, receiving reports from them, taking counsel with them, and giving directives to them, is familiar especially from Egypt (cf. A. Erman, Life in Ancient Egypt [tr. H. M. Tirard; London: Macmillan, 1894] 69–72, 142–44) and may be assumed equally for Israel.
What if one translates yhvh elohim as yehovah of god's.
I've found that most critical scholars have a problem with the language, YHWH Elohim, especially in view of source criticism. But the rendering "yehovah/Jehovah of god's/gods" might raise questions for me because of the genitive construct in English and because of the possessive form, "god's," but you likely mean "gods." Either way, elohim doesn't have to be possessive and I wonder why use the genitive "of."
Here's one perspective: https://www.nas.org/blogs/dicta/ask_a_scholar_what_does_yhwh_elohim_mean
I will look at that tomorrow. The job instance is another matter though and what someone can or cannot imagine is not my concern. I am referring to the grammar. In Gen 1:1 it is quite clear that elohim is singular but not so here in Job.
To be clear, my concens are grammatical and contextual, not simply baed on what I can imagine. That is not what I meant.
Grammatically, it could be translated "sons of gods" as I admitted. However, the context argues contra that understanding. Job 1:6 is fairly clear to me.
I can't imagine it means "sons of gods" there because of the context.
Some facvtors to consider:
1) the occurrence of ha-elohim in 1:6
2) These "sons" present themselves before YHWH
I'm wondering why the sons of foreign gods would present themselves before YHWH and how they would do it. There is no God but God as the Shahadah says: all others are imitations/images or fakes. Compare Deut 6:4; Isa. 45:5; 1 Cor. 8:4-6.
I'm also thinking of Paul Rainbow's thesis concerning monotheism.
https://books.google.com/books?id=9frXAQAAQBAJ&pg=PA73&lpg=PA73&dq=bene+elohim+job+1:6&source=bl&ots=0NdWgoSpcC&sig=ACfU3U0t4u003g11Y8FfBFDk28EsyvMjSg&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwiX27LQsvLmAhWyiOAKHUqaCRU4FBDoATAAegQIBxAC#v=onepage&q=bene%20elohim%20job%201%3A6&f=false
Why do you say "sons of gods" when it says "sons of the gods"?
As you said prior. It is not a name with definite article - or is it?
"imagine" is in reference to one of the quotes you posted.
https://ariseletusbegoing.files.wordpress.com/2015/11/genesis-thesis-george-david-byers.pdf
See footnote 29.
Job 1:6 does contain the definite article in Hebrew: ha-elohim. Okay, so you said, "sons of the gods," instead of "sons of gods," but it's still hard to understand what that would mean in Job 1:6. Are you saying that "sons of the gods" appeared before YHWH, then ha-Satan came in?
With the issue of imagination--I also used the word earlier--while imagination can't solve or dismiss the issue, context and grammar can do it. I'm just trying to understand how polytheism would be appropriate in Job 1:6 or in Job 2. Or just what are you saying?
If I'm reading the correct footnote, it does not support "sons of the gods" but rather "YHWH of gods," which is a different expression than the one in Job.
"What if one translates yhvh elohim as yehovah of god's." ?
So is "ha satan" a name?
My point is that earlier on my arguments for genesis were discounted due to grammar.
Does grammar dictate or not? That why I am picking potentially theologically problematic verses to try and make a point.
Also, I am still of the opinion that each text must speak for itself first.
Ha Satan is not always a name. I think most of my objections have been based on grammar or context. I object to yehovah of gods based on the genitive formulation of the phrase. Context also comes into play.
Does context trump grammar?
You see that this is exactly what sent Mr Benner down his path. Trying to read the MT through the eyes of the LXX or some other text but calling it the hebrew (as in language) Bible. I do not know which version is correct but the making clear as to which version and which version of grammar (if at all) we are using.
https://www.jstor.org/stable/pdf/3268940.pdf
Jeff Benner posed me this conundrum a very long time ago:-
https://biblehub.com/text/genesis/6-9.htm
If you insert "true God" - this in NOT a translation of the Hebrew.
All I could reply was that Noah walked with the elohim (he was trying to trick me out).
Walking with or one of?
https://biblehub.com/text/genesis/17-1.htm
Note the singular El he "walks" before.
One is going to have to work withing the language of bereshit (or the Torah) to find a solution.
I am a confirmed monotheist but I am not sure this early language is.
This is why I keep coming back to the veiled language regarding the Sumerian Anu and why the Tanakh uses terms that we translate as "god of the heavens" and "god most high" (location not status) among others.
https://www.jstor.org/stable/1515994
The section of this article regarding "god" (witch of endor) is interesting.
https://journals.lib.unb.ca/index.php/flor/article/download/19251/20877/0
Search "ukkin" - the same term applied to the council of An.
https://repository.sbts.edu/bitstream/handle/10392/4868/McDonald_sbts_0207D_10232.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y
Some interesting points throughout. Page 57ff of interest.
A cursory search on Google yields this definition for "grammar":
"the whole system and structure of a language or of languages in general, usually taken as consisting of syntax and morphology (including inflections) and sometimes also phonology and semantics."
Syntax is word order/word architecture. Does this not indicate that context is associated with grammar? What about semantics? The science of meaning. How could we possibly know what a word means (usually) without reading the word in context?
I didn't say this earlier, but when I said "context," I mean literary context (also known as the cotext). One source defines cotext as "The words surrounding a particular word or passage within a text that provide context and help to determine meaning."
True, context may refer to the social/cultural context or to the intellectual context. However, I'm talking about cotext in this current discussion. It does not militate against but works conjointly with grammar to produce meaning.
However, a broader context may help us to understand texts. Most Bible readers I know don't believe the devil is a literal dragon or serpent although scripture describes him as such.
For Gen. 6:9, one could just say that Noah walked with God although I don't necessarily fault "the true God" rendering. Translation is not wooden and the best translations are those which don't try to render words in a one-to-one correspondence with the original language.
Sorry, but I don't find major problems with the Tanakh's use of elohim. El/Elohim are just grammatical accidents (morphological formations) that may point to the same deity in some cases. Semitic languages sometimes use the plural in this way. And it's not like we have a shortage of books/articles that explain this phenomenon.
Furthermore, are we sure the Sumerian/Akkadian terms perfectly mirror the Hebrew-Aramaic language for YHWH? Even if that's the case, similarity does not establish personal identity between two persons (gods), A and B. That's the mistake Trinitarians make with ontologically equating Jesus and his Father.
http://www.hebrew-streams.org/works/monotheism/context-elohim-C.html
Use the search term "true god" and notice what the website says about translating ha-elohim.
The website says "the true God" is a literal translation of ha-elohim when it applies to YHWH.
If you do not read Hebrew then I suggest you get a copy of the jps Hebrew-english tanakh 1985. This will give a taster of all that we do not know regarding cotext in the purely Hebrew text.
https://www.amazon.co.uk/Hebrew-English-TANAKH-Student-Publication-Society/dp/0827606974
All you have just posted sounds great in theory but in practice it does not work in a significant number of places. This is a dead language with words having only one or two witnesses. One cannot ignore parallels with surrounding cultures. El in names for example is far from unique. Sumerian, akkadian, cannanite and ebalite (just to name a few) do the same with there terms.
See genesis 6:2 regarding sons of the true God & daughters of true men or mankind.
Now the translations don't say that about the daughters do they.
Sons of the true God (bene ha'elohim) Vs daughter of mankind (benoth ha'adam) ? Doesn't add up.
Please explain this local cotext?
I have been talking about bereshit and the tanakh. When these sites reference kings they are in another era of language. These sites try to force the tanakh in to an homogenised construct. As you know with our discussions regarding NT texts - each one has its own voice.
When discussing this with Benner originally he told me that his work is on the Torah and could not comment on the meaning in later books. Over time I learned why he had said that.
It's not that I don't read Hebrew, but my Greek/Latin is stronger. I'm familiar with the JPS work.
Frankly, Duncan, I'm not ignoring parallels with other culture. I'm just urging caution when it comes to drawing parallels between similar (not identical) utterances. There are actually some differences in how other languages use El: they don't exactly always use EL (similar words) the same as Hebrew. One should not read Elohim (or other words) in the Bible though, divorced from context and other parts of the Tanakh. I disagree with Benner.
Did you read the site I posted which said "the true God" is a literal translation of ha-elohim? Even if they're incorrect, I agree with the spirit of their remarks. Translation is more than a wooden rendering of the source language. Don't take my word for it: read what translators have to say themselves. Besides, as many translations do, ha-elohim can just be rendered "Noah walked with God." We don't have to add "the true God" to make the same point. Noah did not walk with "the gods" either.
You're harping on sons of the true God, but what's wrong with sons of God? Besides, there is not a strict parallel between sons of the true God and daughters of men. For ancient Israel, YHWH was unique, incomparable and sui generis. You can't successfully read the Tanakh without taking culture and theology into account with cotext.
Each Bible book/text has its own voice; but try reading a book in the solitary way Benner appears to suggest and you'll get nowhere fast IMO. If you want to discuss translation and context, we can go there :)
It's different from the focus of this thread.
Why would one need to amplify a meaning with the definite article if it can only mean god? Why is it missing from the most significant places, like the opening of bereshit?
This is the Hebrew definite article. It's not the same as greek. To translate without indicating it at all times is bad practice.
So many things wrong with this:
1) In the ANE (particualrly Sumer & Akad) we have a plethora of concurrent period tablets (relatively speaking) - they do not all agree and they are not one narrative. Much of the Seminary driven comparison papers amalgamate and simplify & love to focus on the outlandish - particularly the Gilgamesh epic.
2) There are divides in period usage. This can be demonstrated and there are many papers that do so (think we have been their before).
3) Each style of usage has it OWN meaning.
https://hermeneutics.stackexchange.com/questions/22443/the-god-of-bethel
"The Secularization (and Yahwist Rebranding) of the House of El" - makes some points to ponder including his remarks on translation.
Much of translation is built on pre-understanding but if you want to open a thread on this, that's ok with me.
https://research.britishmuseum.org/research/research_projects/all_current_projects/ashurbanipal_library_phase_1.aspx
https://www.cam.ac.uk/research/news/a-stray-sumerian-tablet-unravelling-the-story-behind-cambridge-university-librarys-oldest-written
“In the early years of the 20th century, the antiquity market in the west was flooded, disastrously, with thousands of cuneiform tablets which had been ripped out of their original context from sites where illicit robbers were working. These tablets were then distributed across the world from Moscow, to London to Chicago."
https://biblehub.com/text/deuteronomy/10-17.htm
Where is the emphasis here?
1) I never said ha-elohim can only mean "god." See Exodus 21:6.
2) Are you asking why NWT does not translate Genesis 1:1 "In the beginning, the true God created the heavens and the earth"?
3) I'm aware that the Hebrew article is not the same as Greek, but the Greek article is often misunderstood too. But I disagree that one must always include the definite article when translating the Hebrew text. That is not how translation works. Furthermore, not everyone agree with how translation should be done. Should we translate functionally or dynamically or paraphrastically?
4) I'm not denying divides in period usage for Hebrew or Greek or for other Semitic languages. I'm aware of this stuff. But it still doesn't prove that we can't approximately discern the meaning of elohim by comparing texts across period divides.
5) Yes, translation is largely built on presuppositions. But through all the fog, God can still communicate truth. That's why I'm not a skeptic.
6) Not sure what the question is for Deut 10:17
Earlier, I should have said formal rather than functional, which is to be contrasted with dynamic equivalence in translating.
To illustrate what I'm saying about translating, the first pillar of Islam is known as the Shahadah. It's usually rendered, "There is no God but Allah" or There is no God but God" although Allah "literally" means "the God." But in English, instead of saying "the God," we normally just say "God." It's the same with Greek and ho theos: we normally render it "God" and not "the God." It's an English thing.
I follow a translator on academic.edu whose name is Ernst Wendland. Please see his works to learn more about translating Hebrew.
For your point 2 that is not what I am asking. I am asking why the original text does not have the definite article over other less significant statements that do.
How does one say that the usage with and without the article are the same?
My point on deut 10:17 is that the definite article comes after eloha not before. It applies to the elohim.
And it's funny how it always gets translated here in a way that English hides it's import.
See Appendices 1F and 1G here: https://wol.jw.org/en/wol/pc/r1/lp-e/1200022557/6/0
Do you recall what I said about the poetic structures in this thread?
New video from Finkel that is informative. Sumerian an Akkadian. Demonstrates the complexities.
Regarding the Hebrew plural noted from 1G - Gen 5:3, Gen 5:24 & Gen 6:9.
For point 2), I asked what you meant in order to get clarification, precisely because I was not sure about the meaning of your sentence. First, who says the usage of El/Elohim with or without the article are the same? That is not my position. Thus the confusion over why you mention it.
I could venture a guess as to why Gen. 1:1 has Elohim (not ha-Elohim), but I don't see that as an impediment to understanding ha-Elohim as the true God in other contexts. Or one could simply translate ha-Elohim as "God" when it applies to YHWH.
Did you see the Jw.org page I linked to above?
I see your point for Deut. 10:17 and would need to do more research, but at first blush, I disagree with the reading you propose.
Cambridge Bible: God of gods, and Lord of lords] Heb. idiom for the highest God and Lord (cp. Deuteronomy 10:14, heaven of heavens).
NET Bible: For the Lord your God is God of gods and Lord of lords, the great, mighty, and awesome God
Yes, I remember what you said about poetic structures. I've posted here before about the same issue.
The plural with the definite article likewise appears in Gen 5:22. See the NWT 2013 ftn. for this passage.
And elohim (without the article) occurs 2x in Gen. 5:1.
https://biblehub.com/text/deuteronomy/10-14.htm
https://youtu.be/PfYYraMgiBA
Finkel
https://biblehub.com/hebrew/ushemei_8064.htm
The Heaven's highest the heaven's.
Thanks, Duncan. I believe Cambridge Bible is saying that is what the expression in Deut 10:14 idiomatically means, not literally what it means.
I still think Deut 10:17 applies to Jehovah as the God of gods.
Peter Craigie's Commentary on Deut 10:17:
The basis for this proper attitude toward God is stated in another hymnlike passage in v. 17. The description of God given here begins by emphasizing God’s transcendent greatness and ends by indicating the character of God in relation to man. God of Gods and Lord of Lords—the Hebrew employs a superlative construction⁶ so that the sense is: “the supreme God and the absolute Lord.” God is God in the fullest and most complete sense and is absolute Lord or Sovereign.⁷ But this dimension of the nature of God is beyond the comprehension of man—he can only worship God in awe. The transcendent and almighty God, however, also revealed himself to man: the great, mighty, and fearful God. The language employed here to describe God directly implies the God of the Exodus,⁸ the one who had participated in human events specifically on behalf of his chosen people.
Footnote 6 above reads: See GKC § 133 i (see also n. 2, p. 431).
Here's also footnote 2: The verse [Deut 10:14] has a poetic character which might suggest that it would be artificial to make too firm a distinction between the meaning of the parts. Thus heaven // heaven-of-heavens are further parallel to earth // all-that-is-in-it. The phrase heaven of heavens may have a superlative sense, “the highest of heavens,” perhaps even the “totality of heaven.” See also the comments of M. Dahood, Psalms, III. Anchor Bible XVII A (1970), p. 142. The character of both v. 14 and v. 17 indicates that the words may have been quoted from some ancient hymn of praise.
Craigie references Gesenius sec. 133 in his comemntary. See https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Gesenius%27_Hebrew_Grammar/133._The_Comparison_of_Adjectives._(Periphrastic_Expression_of_the_Comparative_and_Superlative)
Finkel's arguments need to be addressed on their own terms, but I listen to him with caution because his atheistic ideas sometimes come across in his presentations.
Only really posted Finkel to demonstrate the differences between Sumerian and Akkadian and the time it takes to master Sumerian. The reason that I am very skeptical about some who claim to be able to read it adequately.
We have to be challenged though. Sometimes we end up looking at things in a different way. It can be an antidote to pre understandings but not an agreement with atheism. They may pose arguments we have never encountered before.
Just found this which needs vetting as he mis-spelled "Welsh rarebit", as many do. Interesting ideas though, especially regarding lots wife.
https://www.ancient-hebrew.org/language/the-origins-of-idioms.htm
See psalms 148:4
Speaking of Hebrew poetic structures, what about 1 Kings 8:1?
"Then Solomon assembled the elders of Israel, and all the heads of the tribes, the chief of the fathers of the children of Israel, unto king Solomon in Jerusalem, that they might bring up the ark of the covenant of the Lord out of the city of David, which is Zion." (KJV)
I don't mind a challenge, and if anyone has ever read Bart Ehrman, they've been exposed to his agnosticism. I'm not saying we can't read such writers, but that we have to be aware of their presuppositions and possible endgame. Christians think about their spiritual health too.
For more on Hebrew idioms, see https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=14&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=2ahUKEwjDwdKS1_rmAhUhTd8KHbhsAOE4ChAWMAN6BAgEEAE&url=https%3A%2F%2Fscholar.sun.ac.za%2Fbitstream%2Fhandle%2F10019.1%2F85679%2Fvandenheever_idioms_2013.pdf%3Fsequence%3D2&usg=AOvVaw2rSDwdA30Njn7lBkN25oO-
Comments pertaining to Psalm 148:4-
https://books.google.com/books?id=jKuMV3Le3nIC&pg=PA199&lpg=PA199&dq=psalm+148:4+literary&source=bl&ots=PF25V2GzyP&sig=ACfU3U3xecUDS12FJ6JbpyRV1KWJVvEHtw&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwj3-dj-2_rmAhVOTd8KHRUlCcY4FBDoATADegQICRAB#v=onepage&q=psalm%20148%3A4%20literary&f=false
Unfortunately Google strikes again.
I cannot see the page for psalms 148:4.
Tried JSTOR also but still no good.
I think our territories are quite different. I spend most of my time witnessing to those who claim to be atheist. Can't even remember that last time the trinity came up. When it did come up it was just in terms of "if you don't believe in the trinity then you don't believe in Jesus" . Never got any further than that in terms of discussion or the householder trying to make a defence for that position.
The UK and southern US are completely different. We mostly encounter protestants but we have atheists too. Just not many atheists or agnostics
Here's the work I was trying to share with you. It's in the public domain here and so openly available to all.
https://www.jstor.org/stable/527612?seq=1#metadata_info_tab_contents
https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Psalm+148%3A4&version=NASB
Looking at the verse in totality. If the phrase = the totality of the heavens then what is above it?
See tablet 5 of enuma elish
He placed the heights (of heaven) in her (Tia-mat's) belly,
What's your source for tablet 5 of enuma elish? I checked it out, but may have overlooked this part. The text is broken up in parts, and many lines of the work are lost.
This work also juxtaposes Enuma Elish with parts of Tanakh: https://books.google.com/books?id=MOq3THvgP0cC&pg=PA36&lpg=PA36&dq=tablet+5+enuma+elish+old+testament&source=bl&ots=ytkZ9WTG7X&sig=ACfU3U26Kxr-dDXqXjUe18KqqGBtibH6vw&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjNmqPPwf_mAhVGU98KHRGKAbs4HhDoATAHegQIChAB#v=onepage&q=tablet%205%20enuma%20elish%20old%20testament&f=false
For Psalm 148:4, see http://www.usccb.org/bible/psalms/148
There are different possibilities, but some apply the words to the waters above the expanse. Of course, the Bible uses heavens in different ways as many works point out.
https://www.ancient.eu/article/225/enuma-elish---the-babylonian-epic-of-creation---fu/
Line 11.
As I said before, I think much of the Sumerian is personification of elements.
Regarding Enuma Elish, thanks. It would be good to read a critical edition or consult the original since L.W. King's translation reads for the same line: "In the midst thereof he fixed the zenith"
If the Sumerian literature tends to personify elements, I think the Hebrew Bible differs in this respect.
https://faculty.gordon.edu/hu/bi/ted_hildebrandt/otesources/01-genesis/text/articles-books/seely-firmament-wtj.pdf
See footnote 36 and associated paragraph.
https://books.google.co.uk/books?hl=en&lr=&id=21xxZ_gUy_wC&oi=fnd&pg=PR15&dq=gilgamesh+george+2003&ots=_PyFFx5Bbx&sig=VrZBi8Abx4Fnez1gsF36qkY4xuU#v=onepage&q=403&f=false
See pg 403. We may be looking at different lines from different tablets, as it states that IV & V tablet divisions vary between witnesses.
I think the edition that may be needed is by Aage Westenholz.
https://www.litcharts.com/lit/enuma-elish/tablet-5
https://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/sumer_anunnaki/esp_sumer_annunaki01ee.htm
A variation of translation that includes "belly".
Also "high".
I would be suspicious of the age pre-suppositions at the time of the translation you posted, especially using the term "zodiac".
Duncan, the translation I posted was published in 1902, I believe, and many have spoken highly of it. I notice that other works also use "zodiac" when translating/commenting on the Enuma Elish. But I've since found another translation. Maybe I can post that one. In the meantime, here's the 1902 rendering I'm talking about:
https://www.sacred-texts.com/ane/stc/stc08.htm
Lets put it this way, we do have https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enuma_Anu_Enlil collection of tablets that may date as far back as Hammurabi but these are not a "zodiac". Additionally the discovery of these tablets commenced circa 1927.
Babylonian evidence of what we would call a "Zodiac" if from around the 4th century BCE (the earliest evidence of a zodiac as recognized today is Egyptian, but still in the first century BCE). So at the estimated dating of Enuma Elish it seems unfounded & now incorrect.
The translation I posted has a point of note at the beginning:-
1 He fashioned heavenly stations for the great gods,
2 And set up constellations, the patterns of the stars.
3 He appointed the year, marked off divisions,
4 >>And set up three stars each for the twelve months.<<
The 1902 translation "4. For the twelve months he fixed three stars."
I do not believe that these are what we would now call stars at all - especially with the fixed number of three. (our conversation regarding morning stars).
http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-jNO2Dw847do/UI5_vLIJZDI/AAAAAAAADhI/WBlHRnUyGvA/s640/Anunnaki.jpg
See three symbols above seated character.
To translate as "zodiac" in 1902 would have been baseless. (our conversation regarding Hislop & lack of evidence for assertions).
Interpretation of archaeology in that early period was somewhat back to front.
See this video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x_eGZjZEYvM
The introduction to the channel that it is on https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OcC4ZlrmXas
The producers are - https://www.digitalhammurabi.com/
"In her liver he established the heights"
I do not see the differences from my initial posting of any significance , along with lines 1-5.
They have also produced:- https://www.amazon.com/Learn-Read-Ancient-Sumerian-Introduction/dp/1734358602/
Although I am much more skeptical of the piratical uses of this.
http://maajournal.com/Issues/2018/Vol18-4/12_Steele%252018(4).pdf
More in depth data on the development of the zodiac.
I found a later translation of Enuma Elish that also uses the term, zodiac. It's by Alexander Heidel.
http://maajournal.com/Issues2018d.php
See:- THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE BABYLONIAN ZODIAC: SOME PRELIMINARY OBSERVATIONS (pp.97-105)
John Steele
DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.1472282
So how can that translation be a translation as opposed to an interpretation that is in error?
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/00033790701245711?scroll=top&needAccess=true&journalCode=tasc20
"These eighteen constellations are evidently situated along the ecliptic and are cited in the Neo-Assyrian letters and reports as indicators of the position of the Moon or a planet.27 The first constellation in the list, called ‘the stars’ and representing the Pleiades, is found in early intercalation rules. In the Old Babylonian ideal calendar, the vernal equinox is placed in the middle of month XII, and the Sun rises within the
Pleiades in the middle of the first month of the year. A text known as the ‘TE tablet’, BM 77824, which has been suggested to date to the fifth century BC, associates fifteen constellations with the months of the year: two constellations for Months II, III, and XII, one for each of the remainder.28 Here, the list begins with the ‘Hired Man’ (Aries) in Month I.
The zodiac consisting of twelve signs named after constellations is first attested in the fifth century BC. A zodiacal sign is as abstract division of a path through the sky, bounded by imaginary borders, and named after one of the constellations through which the Sun passes during a year. Whereas a celestial object can be ‘within’ (ina), ‘in front of’ (ina IGI), or ‘behind’ (a´r) a constellation, it can only ever be ‘within’ (ina) a zodiacal sign as there are no gaps between neighbouring signs. In some later texts, the Moon or a planet may be said to be ‘in the beginning of’ (ina SAG) or ‘in the end of’ (ina TIL) a zodiacal sign. These qualifications are used to indicate that the Moon or planet is in the front or rear part (about 58) of
the sign, respectively.29" pg 300,301
https://research.britishmuseum.org/research/collection_online/collection_object_details.aspx?objectId=800758&partId=1
"Babylonian Translation Constellation month of name
1 Nisanu Hired man Aries
2 Ajaru Stars Pleiades
2 Ajaru Bull of heaven Taurus
3 Simanu True shepherd of Anu Orion
3 Simanu Great twins Gemini
4 Du’uzu Crab Cancer
5 Abu Lion Leo
6 Ululu Barley-stalk Virgo
7 Tashritu Balance Libra
8 Arahsamna Scorpion Scorpio
9 Kislimu Pabilsag (god) Sagittarius
10 Tebetu Goat-fish Capricorn
11 Shabatu Giant Aquarius
12 Adaru Field Pegasus
12 Adaru Tails Pisces"
In my catalog from the Babylonian exhibition Finkel gives more detailed listing of names and meanings some are clearly different configurations with different meanings.
I have more up to date information on this tablet - about 50% of the constellations listed do not coincide with the names that we understand as a zodiac today and as the paper above states, not one symbol for each month.
Clearly a system in early development.
https://www.academia.edu/15173145/On_the_Rules_for_the_Royal_Game_of_Ur
"the zodiac sequence
It is uncertain whether the sequence of twelve zodiacal signs in
BM should be taken to represent a genuine tradition of the
zodiac itself. Despite the date of the tablet, 177/176 bc, the
tradition is not that of the astronomical schools of Babylon
adopted c. 450 bc, and exemplified in Neugebauer 1955, where
the signs zib.ME represent Pisces; the scribe here still uses the
group AŠ.GÁN for Pegasus, as found in BM 77824, the so-called
‘TE-tablet’ (Stephenson andWalker 1985: 15, 17). MÚL.MÚL is
either Pleiades or Taurus, depending on how strictly the Late
Babylonian zodiac tradition is followed. Note also that the
cycle commences with Pegasus rather than Aries."
I believe that the Alexander Heidel translation is from 1931. I think things have moved on somewhat since then.
https://www.scribd.com/document/71787946/The-Babylonian-Gilgamesh-Epic-Introduction-Critical-Editi
I do not have access, but I think that pg 466ff has useful information.
Don't have much time right now, but I think Heidel's translation was published in the early 1940s. But I've seen other documents use similar language about the zodiac in Enuma Elish.
I will also check out the other document on scribd.
I have spent enough time on that point anyway. IMO the data and the conclusion is clear.
https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/zodiac
By this definition and the time frame of its development any translation that uses the term is clearly in error.
The point I am interested in is line 11, the "heights" being within Tiamat.
The terms used in tablet I lines 4 & 5 need to be compared also.
"mummu tiamat" ff
See translation in video here (Yale courses) - https://classicalastrologer.me/2017/01/31/enuma-elish-creation-of-ancient-babylon/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MUL.APIN
The beginnings & this is nowhere near old enough, unless some new evidence is found.
We'll have to disagree about the use of zodiac, but I wonder why the heights language from Enuma is significant and what relevance this line has to the hebrew bible.
Post a Comment