Over the years, I've noticed that relatively few places in the Bible describe someone's physical appearance in either a positive or negative way. For instance, we have no inkling of what Adam and Eve or Jesus looked like. What about Cain, Noah or Abel? I believe there is a reason why the Bible does not dwell on the personal appearance of many people. See 1 Samuel 16:7; Proverbs 11:22; 31:30; 1 Peter 3:3-4. But what are examples where the Bible does comment on someone's looks? I have included a few symbolic references below but most names are those of individual Bible characters.
Secondly, I was looking for places where the Bible either describes people as being beautiful, handsome, ugly or close to either description (i.e., as beautiful or ugly).
1. Joseph (Genesis 39:4, 6)
2. Moses (Exodus 2:2, 10; Acts 7:20; Hebrews 11:23)
3. Eglon (Judges 3:17)
4. King Saul (1 Samuel 9:2)
5. David (1 Samuel 16:12, 18; 17:42)
6. Bathsheba (2 Samuel 11:2)
7. Tamar (2 Samuel 13:1) Cf. 2 Samuel 14:27 for another Tamar.
8. Absalom (2 Samuel 14:25-26)
9. Abigail (1 Samuel 25:3)
10. The Shulamite Maiden (Song of Solomon 1:5-6; 4:1)
11. Rachel and Leah (Genesis 29:17)
12. Esther (Esther 2:7)
13. Sarai/Sarah (Genesis 12:10-16)
14. Daniel and the Three Hebrews (Daniel 1:3-4, 8, 15)
15. The Suffering Servant of YHWH (Isaiah 52:14)-likely figurative
16. Job's Daughters (Job 42:15)
17. The King of Tyre (Ezekiel 28:12)
18. Eliab (1 Samuel 16:6, 7)
19. Abijah (2 Samuel 3:4; 1 Kings 1: 5, 6)
20. Abishag (1 Kings 1:3-4)
21. Rebekah (Genesis 24:16; 26:7-11)
22. Vashti (Esther 1:10-12)
23. Jerusalem Personified (Ezekiel 16:12-15)-a figurative usage
24. Jehovah God (Psalm 96:6; Zechariah 9:17)
25. The Messianic King (Isaiah 33:17)
26. Eli (1 Samuel 4:18)
Compare Genesis 6:2; Deuteronomy 21:11-13; 2 Samuel 23:21; 1 Chronicles 11:23; Psalm 45:2; Song of Solomon 1:16; 5:10; Amos 8:13; Ezekiel 16:11ff.
See https://letterpile.com/religion/Bible-Quiz-on-Good-Looking-Women-in-the-Old-Testament
https://claudemariottini.com/2012/03/02/the-beautiful-people-of-the-bible/
Friday, March 18, 2022
Places in the Bible Where a Person's Appearance Is Described (1 Samuel 16:7)
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
33 comments:
https://biblehub.com/hebrew/tov_2896.htm
Are the references to Moses regarding his appearance?
https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=wyuFDwAAQBAJ&pg=PA150&lpg=PA150&dq=isaiah+53:2+lxx+%22he+had+no+form%22&source=bl&ots=pu1A78jBZt&sig=ACfU3U1gjcbgi9SxvGW3Ka_bwbWSi6RzNQ&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwiG36qfkNj2AhWQYMAKHbvMAFYQ6AF6BAgpEAM#v=onepage&q=isaiah%2053%3A2%20lxx%20%22he%20had%20no%20form%22&f=false
https://www.academia.edu/19966640/Paper_Methods_of_Translating_Plant_Metaphors_in_LXX_Isaiah_
Thanks for the links.
I wouldn't die on a hill for understanding Exodus 2:2 as a reference to Moses' beauty, but see this post: https://antiquitopia.blogspot.com/2012/02/beauty-of-moses.html
In light of the available evidence, it's possible that Exodus 2:2 means Moses was a good-looking child. Other interpretations are possible, but the LXX and the GNT appear to construe the text this way.
Looks like exodus 2:2 is being smoothed out in the lxx. The difference between she (his mother) and they (his mother and Pharaoh's daughter). Would a mother think her baby was ugly or is it saying something else? I still think Hebrew is far more about function than form.
I'm willing to read the text another way, but we do have a tradition that reads this text like the translators of the LXX.Both Luke-Acts and Hebrews seem to comment on Moses' appearance and Josephus is explicit that Moses was beautiful.
From BDB for towb. One definition is:
pleasant, agreeable to the senses:
a. to the sight, fair, of daughters of men Genesis 6:2 (J); of a son Exodus 2:2 (E), 1 Samuel 9:2; 1 Kings 20:3, young men (but read herds ᵐ5 Th We Klo Dr Bu) 1 Samuel 8:16; מראיהם their appearance Daniel 1:15, טֹבַת מראה Genesis 24:16; Genesis 26:7 (both J), 2 Samuel 11:2; Esther 1:11; Esther 2:3,7; טוב ראי 1 Samuel 16:12; טוב תאר 1 Kings 1:6; טובַת חן Nahum 3:4; טוֺבוֺת מראה Esther 2:2; טוֺבֵי מראה Daniel 1:4; טוב לעינים Ecclesiastes 11:7; טובה בעיניו fair in his eyes Esther 8:5; of mantle Joshua 7:21 (J); goodly houses Isaiah 5:9; Deuteronomy 8:12; cities Deuteronomy 6:10; situation of city 2 Kings 2:19.
https://jewishstudies.rutgers.edu/docman/rendsburg/788-biblical-hebrew-facts-about-world-languages-1
This claims that the English word good comes from towb.
I suppose good aesthetics means beautiful. Although to be functionally good would not be a subjective beauty.
One has to wonder about Gen 6:2. Aesthetic beauty or the ability to reproduce? If these "sons of God" are angels couldn't they become women as well as men? Many question marks here.
1) We often speak of someone being "good looking" in English or of something being that way. Beauty can be subjective (in the eyes of the beholder) or objective (beautiful regardless of the beholder's perspective).
2) Objective beauty is certainly more than functional. Some of the greatest aesthetic objects in the world are considered beautiful because of their form, not simply or primarily because of their function.
3) The women mentioned in Genesis 6 were likely pleasing to the eye because of their external form, not just their function. Furthermore, in the Song of Solomon, I don't believe the lovers praise each other's looks because of any functional beauty.
4) Give me one example in canonical literature where an angel materializes into a man: every angelophany/theophany I know about involves angels taking on male features.
For point 4 they may have produced unusual children but they had children non the less. How could they NOT be the species of men at that point?
You already know my opinion that some instances that are claimed to be spirit creatures could just as easily be actual men. Messenger in function.
I don't think you see the difference in Hebrew usage over time as I do, that's why I wold not compare song of of Solomon.
Gabriel, the name meaning - man of god.
We don't fully understand materialization, to say the least, but there are accounts of angels eating and drinking too. I remember your view of some accounts. However, while the same word is used for spirit and human messengers, I find the suggestion that spirits were not the subject matter in many of the Bible accounts to be implausible.
My post was concerned with statements pertaining to external appearances. I understand that Hebrew changed over time, but why should that mean I can't list Song of Solomon as an example? Lexicon don't follow that practice.
Dr Claude also invokes Song of Solomon in his post about beautiful people.
Gabriel was consistently portrayed as a spirit in Jewish writings
https://bibleinterp.arizona.edu/articles/2009/12/eve278002
I agree that song of Solomon is talking about appearance, but that is making my point.
As the article you link suggest, everything changes when we get to Daniel regarding the portrayal of angels. Like it or not they become more Persian in nature and they do not have to be equivalent to Persian to be much more like them. So the kind of comparison and discounting in the article is irrelevant IMO.
I know most of the Jewish tradition on angels, post exile.
There is a major and important difference between “strong man of God” and “God is my warrior".
This is what Isaiah meant when he said (Isaiah 40,26) לכולם בשם יקרא, “Who calls them each by name. ”We find names of angels spelled out in Daniel 9,21 והאיש גבריאל, as well as chapter 10,12 in Daniel כי אם מיכאל שרכם. Seeing that the angel had changed his name, Yaakov wanted to know the angel’s name in order to find out what this angel’s primary task was.
https://www.sefaria.org/Radak_on_Genesis.32.30.1?ven=Eliyahu_Munk,_HaChut_Hameshulash&vhe=Presburg_:_A._Schmid,_1842&lang=bi
THIS is Jewish tradition! Seeing angels in everything and everywhere even when it clearly speaks about stars. I only gets worse over time.
I still think the Persian thing is overdone, but the points I was making don't hinge on one's view of these matters. First, Gabriel was consistently portrayed as an angel, not just in connection with Persia. Secoond, strong man of God doesn't mean he has the ontology of a man. Third, I don't base my understanding of the text around later rabbinic tradition. I respect and study Maimonides, Rashi, etc., but some of the views are clearly not what the writers intended per the context.
https://www.sefaria.org/Genesis.37.15?ven=The_Rashi_chumash_by_Rabbi_Shraga_Silverstein&vhe=Miqra_according_to_the_Masorah&lang=bi&with=all&lang2=en
https://www.sefaria.org/Daniel.9.21?ven=Tanakh:_The_Holy_Scriptures,_published_by_JPS&vhe=Miqra_according_to_the_Masorah&lang=bi&with=all&lang2=en
"THE MAN GABRIEL" - does the fact that he was seen in a vision change the clear text here?
CF Rev 9:11.
This does NOT say "Demon" etc.
The act of calling Gabriel a man is a phenomenological description, which doesn't necessarily tell us anything about "his" ontology. Angels often appeared as humans; that is what materialization is all about--seeming to have a physical body, etc.
Daniel 9:16 says in part: "And behold, one in the likeness of the children of man touched my lips" (ESV).
Daniel 8:16-17 (NET): "So he approached the place where I was standing. As he came, I felt terrified and fell flat on the ground. Then he said to me, 'Understand, son of man, that the vision pertains to the time of the end.'"
Sounds like a theophany or angelophany to me. Gabriel is said to be an angel, who assumes human form, per the Jewish tradition.
Looking at Daniel - https://biblehub.com/text/daniel/9-21.htm Note how translations corrupt this text by inserting "ANOTHER vision".
Also, what evidence is there for https://biblehub.com/hebrew/muaf_3286.htm meaning flight??? Note the major variations in translation which are usually a good indicator of an unknown word. LXX has "beginning flying" https://www.studylight.org/interlinear-study-bible/greek/daniel/9-21.html
So is there real evidence that this is ANOTHER vision??? or is the man a reality.
https://biblehub.com/text/daniel/10-8.htm (9:16?) is in vision. Daniel 8 is also vision.
There is a marked difference between some one like a man, or son of man and the man.
In this case and many others you are going to need something more substantial to claim "materialization", IMO that is a construct.
It might not be correct to translate Daniel 9:21, "another vision," but "vision" is likely the correct reading. Did you notice that the same being is described as a son of man, but also one who appears as a son of man. This is all visionary as well. But another thing you cannot overlook is the entrenched Jewish tradition that understood Gabriel to be a spirit being who took human form. And I'm not resting materialization on whether an account is visionary or not: many instances of apparent materialization are not couched in visionary contexts like Genesis 18.
A conjectural Hebrew verb is necessary to produce “in swift flight.” 19 (2) Some angels (i.e., cherubs and seraphs), it is true, are portrayed in Scripture as having wings and flying (cf. Exod 25: 20; Isa 6: 2; Ezek 1: 6, 11, 19, 24), but Goldingay observes that Scripture does not indicate that ordinary angels have wings but appear rather in human form. 20 The text states specifically that Gabriel appeared in the form of a “man,” and men do not have wings. 21 (3) Although the idea of Gabriel flying swiftly to bring an urgent message to Daniel would suit the context, Daniel's utter exhaustion after a prolonged period of fasting and prayer (cf. 9: 3) fits the situation even better (cf. 10: 2, 8).
Miller, Stephen B. Daniel: An Exegetical and Theological Exposition of Holy Scripture: 18 (The New American Commentary) (Kindle Locations 4805-4815). B&H Publishing Group. Kindle Edition.
Here are some of Carol Newsom's comments on Daniel 9:21 and the part about flight (Daniel, page 285):
The og renders this phrase as “being carried swiftly,” Th as “flying.” Most ancient and medieval interpreters understand the phrase in reference to flight. While muʿāp can be interpreted as a Hophal of ʿwp (“caused to fly”), the following word yĕʿāp would
represent an otherwise unattested nominal by-form of ʿwp. The root yʿp ordinarily signifies weariness, and Ibn ezra interpreted the phrase as signifying that Gabriel was “weary from his long flight” (see Montgomery 372). Some commentators (e.g., Charles 235; Keil 335; Goldingay 228) take both words as forms of yʿp, describing Daniel as
“tired and weary,” a reference to his condition in 8:27. It is also possible that muʿāp/yĕʿāp is simply a double reading (so J. Collins 345).
"weary from his long flight" is just not plausible and medieval interpreters add no weight to the argument for flight either.
It's "Chinese whispers or telephone".
Isaiah 40:31 - clearly not angels.
1) I don't think either commentator I quoted favors the "weary from his long flight" reading"; they're just reviewing how others have read the text. Also, see the ftn. for Daniel 9:21 in NET.
2) I agree that Isaiah 40:31 has nothing to do with angels. I've never believed that it did :-)
From Andre Lacocque:
V. 21 “By a swift flight”: LXX paraphrases: τάχει φερόμενος; Θ: πετόμενος; Vulg.: cito volans. The Pesh. glosses: “flew in flying, and flew above, and came from the sky, and came up near to me.” Saadia, Rashi, Jephet, etc.: the two words have an identical root: “flew in flying.” Ibn Ezra was the first to give to the root the sense of “to be troubled”: he was “troubled by his long flight.” —נגע אלי: see 8:7; Mic 1:9; Jer 51:9; “to come close to.” Θ: “to touch,” see 8:18; 10:16. —כעת: as soon as, see 1 Sam 9:13, and not, as in Θ, “about the hour (of the evening sacrifice)”; cf. Acts 9:3, influenced by Θ.
Net - tn The Hebrew expression בִּיעָף מֻעָף (mu’af bi’af) is very difficult. The issue is whether the verb derives from עוּף (’uf, “to fly”) or from יָעַף (ya’af, “to be weary”). Many ancient versions and modern commentators take the first of these possibilities and understand the reference to be to the swift flight of the angel Gabriel in his coming to Daniel. The words more likely refer to the extreme weariness, not of the angel, but of Daniel. Cf. 7:28; 8:27; 10:8-9, 16-17; also NASB.
This is the point. Take it either way but not both and certainly do not hang much upon it.
Thanks, but I have read the NET Bible comments before, and if you see above, some of the commentators I quoted made the same point. As you know, scholars like to quote multiple perspectives, but that doesn't mean they accept any of the possibilities set forth in their commentaries.
Most Bible versions I checked do not apply the words to the angel. Notice how NWT 2013 renders Daniel 9:21.
https://biblehub.com/text/zechariah/5-9.htm is this just a vision or do we have an example of female angels?
The woman sent back to Babylon in the basket/pot would be a good fit for the goddess of agriculture and war.
https://www.jstor.org/stable/528869
Concerning whether it's a vision, see https://www.proquest.com/openview/f071c5403d32ea9f3728f192e63f9c9c/1?pq-origsite=gscholar&cbl=42210
I think scholars say that Zechariah had a series of at least eight visions, according to the book of Zechariah.
Regarding angels being male, see https://www.jstor.org/stable/10.15699/jbl.1402.2021.9
Angels are usually male in the Bible: if the women in Zechariah 5 were angels, that would be different from the other accounts. But I think Jehovah is genderless anyway and so are the angels.
And yet they were able to father children, but not be mother's?
Post a Comment