The Hebrew "kavod" undoubtedly signifies weightiness, authority, and importance. But is the idea of brightness totally absent from that Hebrew word and from the Greek "doxa"? What about Exod. 16:10 (LXX); 33:18, 22; Ezek. 1:28, 43:2 and other verses?
The idea of brightness is clear in these occurrences. Compare 2 Cor. 3:7-11, 18; 4:4-6; 2 Peter 1:17; also see LSJ regarding doxa.
BDAG and other lexicons indicate that doxa is applied to women based on the rabbinic predilection for describing women as the imago dei. Paul actually writes that woman is the doxa of man, not that she "has" doxa per se (1 Cor. 11:7). Then later, the Apostle writes: γυνὴ δὲ ἐὰν κομᾷ, δόξα αὐτῇ ἐστίν; ὅτι ἡ κόμη ἀντὶ περιβολαίου δέδοται αὐτῇ (11:15).
The overall point is that doxa can have the meaning "glory" among other significations, and this post is by no means intended to suggest that women lack glory. Nor am I contending that Paul held such a belief.
Saturday, August 24, 2024
Kavod and Doxa
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
51 comments:
I see no reason to press the meaning of light in the Hebrew of Exod. 16:10.
Cambridge Bible: the glory of Jehovah, &c.] A brilliant glow of fire (cf. on Exodus 13:21 f.), symbolizing Jehovah’s presence, gleamed through the cloud, resting (if the conjecture in the last note be accepted) upon the Tent of Meeting. The cloud shrouds the full brilliancy of the glory, which human eye could not behold. The ‘glory of Jehovah’ is often mentioned in P in the same sense: Exodus 24:16 f.; and in connexion with the Tent of Meeting, Exodus 29:43, Exodus 40:34-35 (cf. 1 Kings 8:11, Ezekiel 43:4-5); and especially Leviticus 9:6; Leviticus 9:23, Numbers 14:10; Numbers 16:19; Numbers 16:42; Numbers 20:6. Comp. in Ezekiel’s visions, Ezekiel 1:28; Ezekiel 3:12; Ezekiel 3:23; Ezekiel 8:4; Ezekiel 9:3; Ezekiel 10:4; Ezekiel 10:18-19; Ezekiel 11:22-23; Ezekiel 43:2; Ezekiel 43:4-5; Ezekiel 44:4; also Luke 2:9. Cf. DB. ii. 184–6, v. 639 f.
K-D: On thus coming out, "they turned towards the desert" (Exodus 16:10), i.e., their faces were directed towards the desert of Sin; "and, behold, the glory of Jehovah appeared in the cloud," i.e., in a flash of light bursting forth from the cloud, and revealing the majesty of God. This extraordinary sign of the glory of God appeared in the desert, partly to show the estrangement of the murmuring nation from its God, but still more to show to the people, that God could glorify Himself by bestowing gifts upon His people even in the barren wilderness.
Bible.org: "But God was not only incredibly gracious to these grumbling people, He also showed them His glory (Exod. 16:10). This was probably a light in the cloud, brighter than the usual light that shone from it. God’s glory was a revelation of His greatness and power. Whenever in the Bible people got a glimpse of God’s glory, the uniform response was fear."
Compare Exod 16:7.
Conjecture, nothing more.
It was more likely dark clouds full of rain. He rained down manna. Rain in the wilderness produces fungi that is edible.
https://www.reddit.com/r/mycology/comments/12l2ug6/this_mushroom_i_found_growing_in_the_desert_in/ cattle manure and rain would trigger more. A significant rainstorm could also bring down birds.
Sorry, but it's not mere conjecture. God's glory is consistently depicted as bright and overwhelming in Exodus. What you suggest does not explain the reaction that Israel had to the glory of God. Do some cross-referencing.
You underestimate the effect of rain in these places and it rarity. Rain would be far more impressive than a bright light. They have bright light all the time. You have already stated some of the meanings of Kavod, authority is one of them.
How could authority be seen in clouds?
S. R. Driver says, “A brilliant glow of fire…symbolizing Jehovah’s presence, gleamed through the cloud, resting…on the Tent of Meeting. The cloud shrouds the full brilliancy of the glory, which human eye could not behold” (Exodus, 147-48; see also Ezek 1:28; 3:12, 23; 8:4; 9:3, et al.). A Hebrew word often translated “behold” or “lo” introduces the surprising sight.
Also, I very much doubt that Exodus 24:17 is talking about light.
Aren't we looking at exodus, not Ezekiel. Different time and story.
Compare Mark 4:39 - authority.
So, kavod couldn't have the same meaning at different times and places? Lexicologists don't break up their studies of word meanings that way. Anyway, I find the brillance meaning of kavod appears in other verses of Exodus. As for Mark 439, it doesn't say Jesus' disciples saw doxa or any such phenomenon in the clouds.
Exodus 16:7 (NIV): "and in the morning you will see the glory of the Lord"
Whatever the glory of Jehovah was, it was something visible to them.
Exod 33:18-"I beseech thee, shew me thy glory."
This glory is associated with God's "face" and "back"
Exod 40:35-"And Moses was not able to enter into the tent of the congregation because the cloud abode thereon and the glory of the LORD filled the tabernacle"
I don't think rain filled the tabernacle.
1 Kings 8:11 is similar to the account in Exodus
That argumentation is just silly. The tent was filled with a cloud, not light and I was talking about the cloud being the sign, NOT rain. The authority is SEEN so the fact that doxa is not used is not really the issue - Psalms 107: 25 & 29.
Is.42:8 Jehovah will not give his light to another. Sound very Zoroaster to me but Jehovah will not give his authority is another matter altogether.
You wrote: It was more likely dark clouds full of rain. He rained down manna. Rain in the wilderness produces fungi that is edible.
You later talked about how impressive that rain would have been to them, but oh well.
I don't see how it's silly to conclude that Exodus indicastes the glory was like bright fire. Plenty of Jewish writers have come to the same conclusion and even Maimonides says the word has this meaning at times. Later Jewish writers explicitly said a brilliance was above the Ark of the Covenant, so consider it silly if you wish. The fact of the matter is that more than a cloud is being depicted per the language of the account.
Sorry, but unless you expand further, I find your authority suggestion to be silly. We normally don't see authority. For example, the authority of a parent or of the law. Authority is an abstract noun.
In Isaiah 42:8, the word does not mean light, but something like worth or honor. But no visual clues are there either. I never said it means brilliance or light each time it occurs. Therefore, you have heard any Zoroaster suggestions from me. If you would like to understand my position, please ask.
I don't think authority is the meaning in 42:8.
Exodus 24:17-18 ESV: The glory of the Lord dwelt on Mount Sinai, and the cloud covered it six days. And on the seventh day he called to Moses out of the midst of the cloud. 17 Now the appearance of the glory of the Lord was like a devouring fire on the top of the mountain in the sight of the people of Israel.
How coud the glory simply be the cloud if it was like a devouring fire?
Other people throughout history who have held to the Shekinah understanding of kavod: https://www.aeragon.com/itz/02-characteristics.html
Leviticus 9:23-24: And Moses and Aaron went into the tent of meeting, and when they came out they blessed the people, and the glory of the Lord appeared to all the people. 24 And fire came out from before the Lord and consumed the burnt offering and the pieces of fat on the altar, and when all the people saw it, they shouted and fell on their faces.
I have not contradicted myself, you do know what a cloud full of rain looks like? You see it BEFORE it actually rains. This conversation is getting way to pedantic for me.
https://images.newscientist.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/04/pxfh004186-3.jpg?width=1300
"They saw God, and ate and drank"
https://www.sefaria.org/Exodus.24.1?lang=en&aliyot=0
https://www.tripadvisor.co.uk/ShowUserReviews-g189166-d196096-r358274287-Pico_Ruivo-Madeira_Madeira_Islands.html#photos;aggregationId=101&albumid=101&filter=7&ff=179428034
Just a few closing remarks. Yeah, I've seen a cloud filled with rain once or twice in my 59 years of living. However, that explanation does not account for what's reported about the tabernacle's inception or what Leviticus 9 reports or Exodus 24 which both mention fire with the divine glory. And why would a cloud full of rain filled the inner sanctuary? Lastly, I am not a Zoroastrian and never said anything which should give that impression.
One last question: where is rain ever associated with God's glory such that one would know the cloud filled with rain =God's glory? On the other hand, the belief in Shekinah arose from these Bible accounts. I need to read some Cassuto.
I am demonstrating the MANY DIFFERENT events and conditions can bee seen as the authority of GOD. I am not attempting to homogenize it. People do so love Pigeonholing. Even lightning starting a fire is not light in the sense that Ezekiel uses it.
https://biblehub.com/text/genesis/31-1.htm
https://biblehub.com/text/psalms/29-3.htm
God has thunder with his lightning - but you think rain has nothing to do with this, at all?
1) What is the lexical basis for defining the glory of God in this way? Yes, glory of God means authority at times, but I've never seen it mean such in the contexts we're discussing. The glory of God in Exodus, Numbers, and Leviticus is visual and associated with the cloud and fire. I see no mention of rain in these accounts where the divine glory is concerned. A ckoud does not necessarily = rain. I think you know that. But I've never seen a cloud intermingled with a devouring fire in the way that Torah describes it.
Regarding your last question, I have no textual/lexical basis for introducing rain into the picture.
"According to the Biblical scholar, Jacob Milgrom, this fire was in the center of the cloud, and became visible in the dark or when God wanted to summon Moses to a special audience. The fire was known as God’s kavod, God’s glory. It appeared to only three of Israel’s leaders—to Moses, to Aaron, and to Samuel—conferring a high level of distinction on each of them."
https://www.aju.edu/ziegler-school-rabbinic-studies/our-torah/back-issues/cloud-day-fire-night
Some time ago I gave you a far more plausible interpretation of cloud-day-fire-night & I still stand by it. It ticks all the boxes. "his fire was in the center of the cloud, and became visible in the dark" - This fitted like a glove.
https://biblehub.com/hebrew/himtir_4305.htm - Does genesis use Kavod?
https://biblehub.com/hebrew/3519.htm
yes, but apparently not with reference to God's kavod
Genesis 45:13 ?
So you think this is talking about Joseph's Bling?
He's talking about his authority or elevation to power and all that went along with it, which could include his bling. But I don't think he's referencing YHWH's glory in this instance. He does mention "all MY glory in Egypt," not Jehovah's.
John Gill states that "glory" in Gen. 45:13 refers to "His wealth and riches, his grandeur and dignity, his power and authority"
At last! someone said the magic word. Got their in the end.
Another "magic word" or two, is context and referent. :-)
I never denied that kavod could denote authority, but I doubt that's what it means when applied to Jehovah in the verses we've been discussing.
Regardless of your view on this subject, you might like this article: http://essays.wisluthsem.org:8080/bitstream/handle/123456789/3666/PieperGlory.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y
context (cross textual) and referent (pre-assumption)
An if you are going to get cross textual then those description have as much correspondence to Baal the storm god as anything else.
"He was also called the Lord of Rain and Dew, the two forms of moisture that were indispensable for fertile soil in Canaan. In Ugaritic and Hebrew, Baal's epithet as the storm god was He Who Rides on the Clouds. In Phoenician he was called Baal Shamen, Lord of the Heavens."
One would then have to ask - why would a storm god matter to anyone?
To clarify, I was talkking about context in the sense of a passage's or word's literary context (i.e., surrounding verses of a text) and referent is the thing/person to which a term refers. I.e., "cat" refers to felines or to a particular cat like "fluffy." So, no need to cart in Baal and those kind of comparisons. Besides, Jehovah differs greatly from Baal and I don't know many people who even worship Baal these days. And people havve worshiped less than storm mgods before and still do. However, none of those things is pertinent to my statement.
How does the kavod YHWH relate to Baal anyway? Since when was Baal known as the Most High over all the earth in the sense mentioned at Psalm 83:18? When did Baal become the Creator of all things? According to 1 Kings 18, he couldn't even answer the prayers of his devotees.
You keep missing the point. I am not claiming that baal and Yehovah are one and the same. Just think on why they would find a god like that worthwhile in the first place as opposed to the Egyptians who put weight with a river god. The context in Exodus is cloud and lightning. But, older texts like chronicles etc. do bring baal into things, don't they. Yehova's "back" is also NOT a light. Jewish sources are just as biased about this whole idea of light.
Sorry Duncan, but I miss the point. My statements on kavod, context and referent were all seemingly misconstrued and Baal was brought in, when I had no such intention in mind. But, moving on.
Where did I say that you equated YHWH and Baal? That is not exactly what I wrote. I was talking about making comparisons between two deities. I think Baal had an appeal for the same reason that Dionysus appealed to some Greeks. Exodus also mentions fire like other accounts do. As for Jehovah's back, that is still connected with the divine glory.
That should be, I miss the point?
"What the story of Moses’ encounter on Mount Sinai adds is that the best any human can do in getting closer to YHWH is to learn the ways in which YHWH relates to the world. The ultimate reason for YHWH’s actions will remain hidden.[16] Metaphorically, this is seeing God’s back and not God’s face."
https://www.thetorah.com/article/did-yhwh-speak-to-moses-face-to-face
Post a Comment