Beth Phillips

Dear Cass,

You are very welcome!

Your question would probably be better served in a separate thread in order to get other people's opinions, but since I did bring it up here, I will attempt an answer! In order to answer your question, however, I am going to split it into two different parts, because you are asking about two different aspects of the religion. There is a lot to be said about both, and innumerable volumes have been written that address each topic--and too, this is just my take on the issues, so it is not the only one. But, here goes...

First, 'the mystical' is very different from 'The Law' in terms of traditional understandings of Judaism; the first would be the 'esoteric' and the other would be the 'exoteric'. The 'mystical' is either highly 'subjective', and/or 'hidden and secret', known only to and shared within a very small group. The 'Law', as a shared practice and applicable to all, is ritualistically 'objective' and would apply to everyone who claims allegiance to the religion. In other words, all adherents are responsible to the exoteric, but only a few many be interested in or drawn to the esoteric. The same distinction would also apply within Christianity and Islam and any 'mystical' aspects attributed to them.

There was certainly a widely held belief in antiquity regarding the efficacy of 'names' in general. Many people actually had two or more names that they were known by, depending upon the relationship, with at least one of those names being a 'secret name' or 'real name' known only by a relative few. In these cases, if one person knew the 'secret/real' name of another, it was believed by some, that that person had 'power over' the named individual. This belief in the efficacy of a name is still prevalent in religion, for it is in 'Jesus' Name' or the name of 'Allah' that people most oftentimes pray.

So, the warning of even acknowledging other gods, by name or otherwise, is more of a superstition and/or exoteric admonition, or a cult prescription, to be shared by all, albeit that it perhaps came with the threat of an adverse subjective experience. I do not think that this particular warning was directly connected to any 'mystical' aspect of the cult, but rather, formed more of a cultic pledge of distinction.

Now second, the terms 'mysticism' and 'mystical' are very loaded terms--especially in today's world. Many academics shy away from this aspect of religious experience, preferring instead to concentrate on the 'objective' rather than the 'subjective'. Depending upon the academic/religious influence, this is oftentimes due to the sheer fact that trying to study everyone's individual experiences is not very practical, but also because there seems to be a tacit understanding in some circles that an unmediated experience of the divine is not even possible. Why? Primarily because if an individual experience of the divine is possible, then why would the religion be necessary at all? As it stands within religion in general, it is the religion itself that is necessary to connect the individual with the divine realm.

This academic and religious side-stepping of the issue of 'mysticism' and 'the mystical' does not stop people from having them, nor does it make centuries of mystical traditions inconsequential. While 'mystical' experiences are highly subjective, and individual, there are some general tendencies that seem to be universal, as are some of the methods for obtaining such experiences.

Mystical experiences can range from extraordinary dreams and other sleep-time experiences to altered states of waking consciousness such as ecstatic experiences, or even epiphanic episodes of mental clarity or sudden experiences of emotional well being. Most traditional practices (regardless of the particular religion) include certain breathing techniques, dietary requirements, as well as physical relaxation practices through meditation. These elements combined cause certain temporary physiological changes in the brain and body that give rise to the more commonly shared of the experiences.

When certain religious texts are involved, this is just an extraneous element, for it would be the physiological elements that would be essential to the experiences, not the particular textual reading. Now, that said, the actual experiences that the mystic might have may certainly include elements related to the textual readings or to the religion itself, but this would only be an add-in from the imaginitive faculty of the individual and extraneous to the physiological process itself. In other words, a Christian practitioner may see 'Jesus' and a Sufi (Muslim) may see 'Mohammed', so with this knowledge comes the realization that the text may be a deciding factor in 'what is seen' but the shared physiological state is what makes the 'seeing possible'.

So, 'Biblical Mysticism' is only one of the types of 'mystical traditions' that can be found within the combination of both the western and eastern worlds. Most of these traditions do include 'religion' as its' foundation, but not always. I haven't read of anyone here who claims to be an atheist that has had what would be considered a 'mystical experience', but that does not mean that non-religious people don't have them, and I do not see why this could not be the case. In fact, I know a man who had a classic out-of-body-experience while listening to a recording of Dr. Suess's Green Eggs and Ham read over and over again! So, it is the physiological condition that accounts for the experience, not the imaginative input provided by the religion.

So, as you can see, when I said that I did not want to focus too much on the mystical, especially Merkabah Mysticism, it is because it has its own detailed imaginative uniqueness and experience that is really extraneous to the study; 'the esoteric' aspect of this research is concerned only with the 'hidden meanings' within the texts and the people that wrote them and the traditions that preserved them. In essence, any mention made in this study regarding 'mysticism' or 'mystical' is intended as an exploration into the potential of the tradition as a medium through which this literary style could have been transmitted and preserved, and not necessarily about the possible 'subjective mystical experiences' involved.

Well, so much for pith! But this is still only a very brief address to both of the issues in your question. I also hope I have helped make the distinction between the two! If you want to redirect your question, please feel free to do so.

Beth

cass256

Beth, thanks. I was really only interested in your opinion, specifically. I've had enough of the people on this forum who consider themselves Scholars, and equal to Shakespeare. I know your focus is more on the word play in the text, but I like your style of writing, and thinking, and since you mentioned the mystical I thought I'd ask your opinion.

I asked because I have seen christians who believe if you have the name of an entity/demon/spirit/angel, and you speak it out loud, you have control over them. I wasn't sure if this was also a type of belief picked up by Judah during their captivity, that may have found it's way into the writings of the Torah; That mentioning the name of another "god" gives you some sort of connection to them. At any rate, I'll save further speculation for now.

I thank you for your response. Again, I like the way you write, and hope you have much success in your exploration of word play. I read your site and may stop back with a question or two. I do not have a lot of experience with the different languages, so I have to work a bit to find the words for myself in the dictionary, or lexicons, I have access to to, in order to see if I can find any further meaning or seperations. I'm still on the Strong's numbers level of finding words. i can make it through the Hebrew letters to find a word in other sources. I have a basic knowledge of the letters and order. The Greek, however, is totally greek to me. I have no experience in their lettering system whatsoever, or dealing with the letter symbols. So, i will be starting slowly there.

I found particular interest in your mention of the Septuagint and Hebrew bible time period question. I had never before considered which came first. We "non scholars" start with the idea that it was the Hebrew, "of course". Now I find that there is not a lot of physical evidence in the form of original texts.

So... It was refreshing to find some new ideas I had not considered. Thanks for letting me take you a little of your main topic. I appreciate your taking the time for that reply.

Cass

cass256

Beth, I couldn't pull up your site tonight. I am not sure if the problem is on my end or yours, but i wanted to see if you had done anything on the tree and fruit and serpent in the garden of Eden. I read a post you had given on Logos, or the "word" on another thread and it made me think that it was "reason" that may have made men to be like gods. It brought to mind how YHWH seemed to have wanted the humans to be like animals. Sit; stay; don't eat the fruit; stay off the furniture..etc... and then the serpent gave Eve the knowledge. At any rate, I never got that far. I ended up looking up the first words I saw, and and they were the words for the rivers surrounding the garden. It is interesting. If you just look at the roots of the words for the first river and also the land it encompassed, and the name of the second river, you can basically fortell what would happen to the people in the garden, before you even read the garden story. They would be dispersed.. and have pain.. when they labored to bring forth.. (children, or food). I really do wish I had the language skills to take this a lot further.
I don't know if you had already addressed the Garden. I had read your Adam and Zoe, and quite a few others.

Please let me know if your site is functioning properly so I can try to figure out if it is a problem on my end. I could really enjoy playing around in different areas of text of the Bible. It could possibly help strengthen or weaken cases made there..
Thanks!

cass

Beth Phillips

Dear Cass,

I am glad that you are pleased.

This may actually be one of the obstacles to be overcome for this research within the greater academic world. Biblical scholars are usually trained in either Hebrew, for a Hebrew Bible/Old Testament concentration, or in Koine Greek, for a New Testament concentration. Likewise, Classical Studies programs primarily focus on Classical Greek and Latin first, and only occasionally study ANE texts and the Semitic languages involved.

So, unless a scholar has multiple degrees, or just learns on their own through electives or through independent study, an interdisciplinary/linguistic approach to the bible is not that common. Moreover, the Greek that is used in the LXX, and actually, LXX studies in general, has not been very popular because of the traditional acceptance of primacy for the Hebrew Bible as antecedent to the New Testament. So, most scholars are either fully trained in either Semitic or Greek, but not both, and this may be a ‘turn-off’ for some, since learning foreign languages are often not the highlight of academic study!

One of the best things about this literary style, however, is that no one has to be more than a beginner in either language. In fact, for all intents and purposes, the writers totally disregarded all rules of grammar with these wordplays; working straight from the root(s), they added and subtracted certain letters that created other words with which they made the wordplays. To move back and forth between the Greek and Semitic, all that is needed is an English transliteration key for each language (placed side by side until memorized) and then each word becomes like a dual-lingual code word that can then be deciphered in English.

With ‘GrecoSemitic’ there was a very creative movement back and forth between the languages, on the part of the writers, that I sometimes imagine that they must have had great fun working through all of their puns! Also, if it was as I suspect and their primary resource was a ‘multi-lingual list of names and meanings’, then these onomasticons were an antique version of our interlinear lexicons.

Using Strong’s is also a great tool because it has every word in both canons of scripture in both Semitic and Greek, for the HB and the NT respectively, but written of course, in English. I use mine primarily when I am ‘on the hunt’ for wordplays, and then of course I go to the individual lexicons, as well as the LXX, Greek NT, and the Hebrew Bible. But I have found quite a few just ‘following the bouncing ball’ in Strong’s. When you become somewhat familiar with each vocabulary they are much easier to spot, but everything worthwhile takes a little practice! Besides, I think it’s a lot fun (in a weird, geeky sort o’way!!)



There is also another great tool that is very inexpensive for what you get (I think I paid $20US for it) and that is:

Jones’ Dictionary of Old Testament Proper Names. Grand Rapids: Kregel, Inc., 1997.

Originally compiled in 1856 by the Reverand Alfred Jones, this work has recently been republished and keyed to Strong’s for modern day use. While not exhaustive for multiple lexical meanings, within this impressive multi-language proper name dictionary, Jones offers both the Hebrew and Greek spelling of each name, providing the primary Hebrew root(s) of each, whether it is based upon a single root or a combination of roots. From these, he includes his own translation choices of over 3,600 OT proper names, with a phonetic key for pronunciation, the occasional commentary entry, and for many names he also includes the Latin, Arabic and/or Hieroglyphic (if applicable.) This book is truly remarkable (especially having been compiled in 1865!) and has helped me tremendously as a quick way to find out the exact spelling of a proper name, as well as to compare proper names with a similar spelling.



For the NT…well, we are kinda’ on our own for now, but it is a ‘do-able’ if you like solving puzzles—which I do!—and don’t mind investing the time to solve them.

Quote:

I found particular interest in your mention of the Septuagint and Hebrew bible time period question. I had never before considered which came first. We "non scholars" start with the idea that it was the Hebrew, "of course". Now I find that there is not a lot of physical evidence in the form of original texts.

Yes, this is a very intriguing implication of this research. As a rule, unusual word choices, word construction and other linguistic oddities have been explained as being ‘borrrowed words’, ‘transmission defects’, or as a result of either natural linguistic growth/morphology, or even, just crude usage of the language involved. Until now, there really was no other explanation. Now, however, we have a new possibility—many of these oddities may have actually been on purpose as a natural result of the writers creating the bi-lingual wordplays! If the texts (both canons) were all originally Hellenistic texts—with Semitic wordplays/meanings and other Semitic nuances—then the traditional philological explanation for these words will need to be re-evaluated to see if the oddities were actually due to the intentional wordplays or not.


And, of course, there are the implications involved with a LXX primacy over a Semitic version, in terms of the traditional understanding of the history of these religions—and all the claims made by each of them.

Quote:

So... It was refreshing to find some new ideas I had not considered.

Well, its definitely a ‘new idea’ to say the least, and will challenge quite a few major assumptions about the ancient world, ancient religion, and ancient linguistics, as well as cause certain ripple effects into our current day world. These things cannot be helped though, for the research is what it is, and shows what was what, and we will just all have to learn to deal with it. It is because of all the things that I have mentioned here that I am calling for Interdisciplinary Studies of this material.

Quote:

Thanks for letting me take you a little of your main topic.

Not a problem at all Cass; I am glad you asked. It will help clarify the use of my chosen terms, which is always helpful for readers, but I also like to explore and address corresponding ideas, for it is a very good way to both teach and learn. If you have anymore questions, I will be glad to help in anyway that I can. If you want, you can even PM me for a peripheral or even non-related question. If I don’t know how to answer, I will always say so, but I may still have some ideas where you can look for the answer yourself. That’s always the best way to learn anyway. To quote a bit of scripture: Seek and ye shall find; knock and it shall be answered! Good advice even today!

Take care,
Beth

Chili

I have my own explanation on this allegory and would like to see if we can compliment each other. I know that word play is usefull for confirmation but not so much in the discovery of the original intent of the writer.

Beth Phillips

YES. YES. YES!! That is exactly the way to do it!!! I oftentimes say that "I follow the bouncing ball" from one name and meaning to the next!! Good Job Cass!! As far as I know it should be working fine. I tried and all was well from here. I agree. And besides, I think it is great fun! There is also a certain 'rush' when you get going! I would love to teach it in a classroom environment and see what my students could come up with by just jumping right in like you did!

Keep at it!! and have fun!

Beth

Beth Phillips

Original intent. That is a sort of a hot button word for me Chili! The only thing that I can say for sure that was 'original intent' is what I am able to isolate and support within the texts themselves. These have to have been originally intended because they actually form the very foundation and structure of the pertinent sentence and/or storyline.

Proper names and their meanings are great tools to use in either the creation of, or, in the expounding of, scriptural allegory. Allegories are open by nature to interpretation, but a good deal of scripture was actually written either as allegory, or as a result of certain allegorical interpretations. So much so, that it could be said that what we consider 'scripture' is actually, in great part, one particular allegorical interpretation of a long list of proper names.

In my MA thesis I suggested that the ambiguous nature of "oral tradition" could possibly be explained through a memorization of the proper names. If one knew the meanings of the names, then all they had to do was remember the names in a certain order, and viola! the storyline just unfolds! What a wonderful storytelling tool.

Like Cass just found with the four rivers, we have the proper names and lexical meanings (potentially in both Semitic and Greek) to choose from, where in this case the writer was actually giving hints/setting the storyline up as to what was about to occur. I have also found it in reverse: where the writer chose a particular proper name through which to expound upon something that had already happened in the story.

It's really trippy to think about it, but in expounding our own allegorical interpretations of scriptural stories, we may actually be allegorically interpreting an ancient allegorical interpretation of a certain group of proper names--and not even know it unless we check it out. And now we know how.

So, I think the proper names are a big clue Chili, and very important to scripture as a whole. And the more this literary style is studied the more eurekas will be found!

If you two are interested in Eden and the Rivers, Philo of Alexandria (a first century scholar that interpreted the LXX allegorically vis-a-vis Greek Philosophy) wrote a very interesting one. From http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/vi...d=281&letter=P : There is, of course, a lot more to the exposition, so if you can find a copy of Philo it may be worth a look up.

Also, Philo is the closest Jewish scholar we have written record of that would have been contemporary to the writers of the New Testament. So, I take his methodology as being very close, if not exact to, the way scripture was read and commented upon at the time. Because Philo and the New Testament writers both used proper name wordplay in their writings, then it is a very safe bet that they were writing out of the same literary tradition.

Beth

Chili

Hello Beth, the four rivers are not just hints but they are about putting a plan in place for the redemption of man who was sure to fall in the narrative of the story. The fall was foreshadowed when evening followed on the first day but no longer on the seventh day where we are born into eternal life that here gains assent by Lord God in Gen.2. From here it is the Lord God who forms man with a divided mind which is indicated by the two trees that are present in the Garden (TOIL and TOK).

This would be why the river divides to depict our life as we journey along these rivers.

But I must go now, more later.

Beth Phillips

Well, Chili, I don't know about all of that, for I do not personally engage in theological or interpretive speculations.

While I do have a deep vested interest in these texts, it is the dual-lingual methodology and writing style that I am concerned with, not the myriad of possible allegorical interpretations; I leave all of that to the theologians and believers of the different religions involved. My mention of Philo's interpretation was intended to be descriptive of the methodolgy, not prescriptive of interpretation.

Since you are apparently interested in this aspect of scripture, maybe you would like to start a different thread to hash that out with other actual believers?

Have a nice day
Beth

cass256

I am not sure why I couldn't get the website to come up yesterday, but was able to get into it in the morning.

I agree a class in this would be fun and interesting. i would love to see what those who have the language skills could come up with. Just that little taste, not expecting what I found, really did give me a bit of a jolt.

I will pick up a copy of the book of names you mentioned. I have not read Philo himself, just read about him. I will have to venture in that direction as well. I am always open for looking into things that interest me as far as possible. Thanks Beth. I really think this will be fun and I will probably end up following some trail or another.

Thanks again for bringing so much to my attention. You would make a great teacher.

cass