manwithdream

I am Jewish, and I am interested in the controversial quotes Judaism and Christianity argue about. I think both sides are wrong about most of them, and I have my own translations and explanations. Every so often, I try to fix my "book" of alternative translations, and I ask people if they can understand my ideas and what they think of them. I am not exactly a great writer, but I have many new and unusual ideas about these quotes.

The book is about more than just those quotes, though. I changed the focus of the book from the Jewish-Christian debate to just confusing quotes of the Hebrew Bible.

If you want to look at my work and give me your opinion, you can see it at http://www.messianicmistakes.com/

Kenneth Greifer

Maklelan

Thanks for sharing your thoughts. I have a few comments. I'll list the verse your text discusses and then add my comments:

- Dan 7:13: The biggest issue I see here is that coming on or with clouds of heaven is a rather stock literary convention from the time period and long before. Baal was actually known in the Ugaritic texts as the Rider of the Clouds, and Yhwh is described the same way in Ps 68:5. A "people of clouds of heaven," however, is unknown, as far as I know. The other apocalyptic imagery in Daniel is actually not that bizarre, you just have to comb through the dozens of apocalyptic texts from the Greco-Roman period.

- Deut 4:7: You might take the time to count up the number of times other gods are explicitly acknowledged in the Hebrew Bible. You'll find they far outweigh the number of times the existence of other gods is rejected. Additionally, if you take a good hard look at the rhetoric used in those verses that do seem to deny their existence, you'll see they really do no such thing. They are just denying their relevance. The same rhetoric is used to refer to the other nations, to people who make idols, to those who fight against Israel, and to Babylon specifically. These texts are not saying those groups really don't exist, they're just saying they're meaningless and impotent. I have an introduction to the issue here.

- Deut 6:4: I would point out that יהוה*אלהינו appears numerous times in Deuteronomy, and not once is it a predicate phrase. It's always an appositive phrase ("the Lord, our God"). The closest analogous use of the word אחד comes from Song of Songs 6:9, where the author's "dove" is described as one (אחת*היא). The idea is that she is the only one for him. This is clarified in the following statement that she is "the only one of her mother." Deut 6:4 is stating that Yhwh is the only one for Israel. It's not denying the existence of other gods, but highlighting the exclusive relationship Israel is to have with Yhwh. The best analysis here is Nathan MacDonald, Deuteronomy and the Meaning of Monotheism.

- Exod 6:3: We have different sources being combined in the early chapters of Exodus. The author of chapter 6 has patriarchal narratives in front of him that don't use the name Yhwh (Gen 1:1–2:4a; 5; 6:9–22; 7:11, 13–15; 8:15–19; 9:1–17; 11:10–26; 17; 26:34–35; 27:46–28:9). In order to link Yhwh with the deity mentioned in those texts, he has to assert that Moses is getting a fuller revelation of God's nature.

- Exod 22:6–8: The word אלהים never refers to human judges. The text here presupposes that the people are already standing before the judges (who are mentioned in 21:22 as פללים). The instructions, after all, are to the judges. The plural is simply an orthographic harmonization with the plural ending of אלהים. On this your best source is David Wright, Inventing God's Law.

The rest of your text manifests a lot of more lay and apologetic concerns with the text. I would invest some time in reading academic discussions of these issues, as the answers are quite simple if one is willing to lay aside orthodoxy and univocality as a restrictive interpretive framework.

manwithdream

Maklelan,

About Deut. 6:4, if it says "Listen, Israel, the L-rd our G-d,..." and not "the L-rd is our G-d...", how do you translate the full quote? I understand it is never used like this in any other quote, but does that mean it can't be used that way ever?

About Dan 7:13, I think the people could be made up of clouds of heaven the same way the other beasts in the visions were made up of weird things. Do you think it makes sense to translate it as "one like a son of man is coming" when it really says "...like a son of man, he is coming..."? It never says who "he" is.

I understand that a lot of the book looks like apologetics, but I think that even religiously controversial ideas should be discussed and not just brushed aside because it has to do with apologetics. Those quotes have to be analyzed too. Just because the explanation might lean toward one religion or another should not make those subjects off limits for discussion.

Kenneth Greifer

manwithdream

Maklelan,

I think Deuteronomy might say that G-d created the other gods (demons) and divided them among the nations. Deut. 4:19 says not to serve the things He allotted to the nations. Deut. 29:25 says not to serve the gods not allotted to them. Deut. 32:17 mentions them serving demons which could be what G-d considered the gods He made. Deut. 32:8-9 could say that G-d divided the sons of men to fit the number of the sons of Israel or El (a god) who had 70 sons (from what I read in your article which I didn't finish yet). It would make sense that he made gods for the nations to serve, one for each nation, but Israel was His.

You could say that those gods existed, but He thought they were unimportant, but it sounds to me like He is saying that He gave the nations to those gods or those gods to the nations. Maybe each god was a demon of some sort that G-d made. Am I misunderstanding these quotes in some way?

Kenneth Greifer

Sheshbazzar

YHWH is a 'shaddi'. "Other Elohim", (Eli'leem) of the Nations are all 'shad'deem.
Shad'deem being the plural form of a shad or shaddi.
Thus the shad'eem are no more 'demons' than YHWH, or YHWH is likewise a 'demon'.
The perjorative sense displayed in translations is not an integral element or understanding of the original terms usages.
Israel had its El 'YHWH', and other nations were accepted to each have had their 'El's (Elohim) by their repective names, which could be figurative and invisable national 'mascot' 'God's' similar to YHWH, or be embodied in whatever ruler or rulers those nations accepted as being the living embodiments of their 'god's' (Elo'heem)

Latter theological development in Israel elevated Israel's Elohim 'YHWH' to a position of superiority over all of these other nations Elohim, essentially attempting through a co-opting of the language, and Israeli nationalisim, to disnfranchise all the other nations and their priesthoods from that common heritage of these ancient terms for deity.

It is often forgotten that the religion of Judaisim was not the originator of these ancient terms and titles, and that they had existed and been employed by other peoples, nations, and their religions long before the first 'Hebrew' or 'Jew' ever walked the earth.
The usages of the Torah, or other Jewish writings do not, and cannot be used to authoratively dictate what or to whom these terms might apply.

manwithdream

Sheshbazzar,

If I understand you correctly, you think the Hebrews or Israelites or whatever they were called, took the religious beliefs that existed and changed them to say that their G-d was over the other gods. I don't think it is possible to prove what really happened thousands of years ago. I just think that the Hebrew Bible was written by people who really believed what they said, and what they wrote in the Hebrew Bible was consistent with their beliefs. I don't think the HEbrew Bible shows changes in their beliefs over time because I don't think their beliefs changed over time. That is my opinion, and I don't claim to be able to prove it.

I think the HEbrew Bible says that G-d allotted the gods to the nations and only Israel was for G-d.

Maklelan

The best way to read it is to understand יהוה*אלהינו as a casus pendens (or left dislocation). Thus: "Yhwh our God––Yhwh is one."

It doesn't say "he is coming." The הוה is the copula of the clause, not a pronoun. אתה is a participle. אתה*הוה means "is coming." It's a periphrastic clause. The subject is null. It is literally "with clouds of heaven, like a son of man is coming."

I'm not brushing anything aside just because it has to do with apologetics. I could comb through each and every section of the text and point out numerous logical and factual problems, but that would take quite a bit of time, and I don't need to do that to see that the text doesn't really show awareness of the finer linguistic and contextual considerations. It's just deciding what conclusion it doesn't like and then trying to come up with an alternative.

I'm not saying they're off limits for discussion, I'm just saving myself some time. If you'd like to identify a few specific examples you feel particularly strongly about, feel free.

Maklelan

You're conflating two different roots. The epithet אל*שדי (literally, "God of the Mountains") has nothing to do with the term שדים from Deut 32:17, etc (literally, "demons"). The following discuss the former, but deal in some depth with the latter as well:

Frank Moore Cross, Canaanite Myth and Hebrew Epic: Essays in the History of the Religion of Israel (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1973), 52–60.

E. L. Abel, “The Nature of the Patriarchal God ‘El Shadday,’” Numen 20.1 (1973): 48–59.

David Biale,” The God with Breasts: El Shaddai in the Bible,” History of Religions 21.3 (1982): 240–56.

A. Caquot, “Une contribution ougaritique a la prehistoire du titre divin Shadday,” in Congress Volume Paris, 1992 (J. A. Emerton, ed.; Leiden: Brill, 1995), 1–12.

M. Weippert, “שַׁדַּי Šadday (Divine Name),” in Theological Lexicon of the Old Testament (Ernst Jenni and Claus Westermann, eds.; Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson, 1997), 3.1304–10.

Harriet Lutzky, “Shadday as a Goddess Epithet,” Vetus Testamentum 48:1 (1998): 15–36.

“Shadday שׁדי,” in Dictionary of Deities and Demons in the Bible. Second Edition, Extensively Revised (Karel van der Toorn, Bob Becking, and Pieter W. van der Horst, eds.; Leiden: Brill, 1999], 749–53.

Joann Hackett, The Balaam Texts from Deir ‘Alla (Chico, Calif.: Scholars Press, 1984), 85–89.

John Day, Yahweh and the Gods and Goddesses of Canaan (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 2000), 32–34.

Mark S. Smith, The Early History of God: Yahweh and Other Deities in Ancient Israel. Second Edition (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 2002), 34, 58–59.

Francesca Stavrakopoulou, King Manasseh and Child Sacrifice: Biblical Distortions of Historical Realities (Berlin: Walter De Gruyter, 2004), 270–82

Yes, it actually is. The rhetorical value of Deut 32:17 is deflated otherwise, and the term is only ever used pejoratively.

This is more metaphysical speculation than etymology or lexicography.

manwithdream

Maklelan,

You obviously know Hebrew grammar at a PhD level, and I can't argue with you because I have to look up each grammatical term in the dictionary, so I will just ask you simply. Are you saying that grammatically it can't say "I saw in visions of night, and behold, a people of clouds of heaven. Like a son of man, it is coming..."? Or are you saying that it does not make sense to you this way?

You said originally that there are no quotes like "a people of clouds of heaven" only quotes that say travelling on clouds of heaven. Does every vision have to happen more than once to be possible? Did something else have to appear made from clouds for it to be possible for a people to be made up of clouds in a vision?

The same thing with Deut.6:4. You said it never says "the L-rd is our G-d", but only "the L-rd our G-d". This might be the only time the words are used this way, does that mean everything has to happen at least twice to be possible. Is it grammatically impossible or just so rare that you don't think it is right? Are you saying you have to see something happen repeatedly to know it is allowed?

Kenneth Greifer

Maklelan

I would say the syntax precludes your reading more than the grammar, but both seriously undermine it. For a remarkably similar text from around the same time period, check out 4Q246 (which actually does talk about a "people").

It's much more likely that imagery is being drawn from another source when it matches that earlier source, especially in this case where other things are clearly drawn from those earlier sources (like "Ancient of Days," etc.).

It may well be the only time the words are ever used that way, but how could you show for certain that's the way they're used? Also, what value would there be in an utterly unique usage of a phrase, without identification, in the midst of another much more common usage?

You have to be able to make an argument for a certain reading. The mere possibility that it could be an utterly unique usage does not outweigh the contextual evidence provided by multiple occurrences of another usage in the same text. The latter argument will always overpower the notion that a reading should be accepted because it's not impossible.