Garnet

Last night, I opened a chat room on AOL about the existence of God. (I know...masochistic behavior, but I was bored.) During the session an argument erupted between two athiests about whether or not the appearance of God in the old testament to people like Moses, Abraham and Adam was a contradiction to the new testament that says no one has seen God.

One person stated that it is not a contradiction and that the Hebrew words translated into "appear" in English do not really mean that God manifested in a visible way. Rather that it was more of an appearance within the persons mind. She got rather snarky and stated that the interpreting the word "appear" as a physical appearance rather than spiritual was "crass".

Hmmmmm...what think ye scholars?

Kosh

Does anyone know the Hewbrew words for "Bad Mushroom Trip"?

Garnet

Well, hmmmm. No serious replies...although I did enjoy the comment about bad mushroom trip.

Are there no replies because the OP is badly worded or the concept has already been beat to death or because it's just too ridiculous? (Ridiculous is what I thought when I heard it.)

Just one more shot...I'd really like to see some replies from folks in here.

rationalOne

from Exodus 33:So I guess you could argue that it's not a contradiction since Moses only saw part of god.
Who knew god had a back anyway?

PhilosopherJay

The stories of the Jewish Gods are probably based on stories about kings as they tend to reflect the king-courtier/servant relationship. One can assume that when a God makes an appearance in a story, it comes from an older tale in which a king makes an appearance. Therefore, they were probably meant as strictly natural bodily appearances. Only later, post 500 B.C.E.,when the physicist-philosophers started commentating on the stories did the Gods lose their mortal appearance.

This is the general rule, but there were probably many stories in which dead kings reappeared as ghosts, generally to give advice to a loving child at a moment of crisis or take revenge on enemies. The appearance of king-Gods in these stories would have a supernatural or dreamlike qualites (e.g. flying down from the clouds).

Thus, depending on the original tale, the appearance of the Gods in old Hebrew tales may be natural or supernatural (dreamlike).

Warmly,

Jay Raskin

Rick Sumner

I would delight in seeing a whit of evidence for this "general rule," or perhaps a scholarly citation in favor of it. Perhaps several, actually, so I can see just how "general" this rule is.

I'd suggest you could stun the entire field of near eastern archaeology with this "general rule." You've just eliminated several genres of myth by nothing but fiat. That something happens occasionally does not make it a "general rule," and if you'd care to have a go on the Exodus (for example) being anything other than an outright fiction, feel free to start a new thread.

Regards,
Rick Sumner

PhilosopherJay

Hi Rick,


Powell, barry B., Classical Myth, Prentice Hall, 2001, pg. 7.

This being a casual thread, I thought that a few casual remarks on the subject would suffice. I'm afraid I really do not have time to do a dissertation.

Off the top of my head, I would suggest Kenneth Burke's "Rhetoric of Religion, "M.M. Bakhtin's "The Dialogic Imagination," Levi Strauss' "The Savage Mind," and "The Cooked and the Raw," or Roland Barthes, "Image Music,Text," as texts which suggest and support this concept of literary transformation.

You may be interested to read my deconstruction and reconstruction of the original Abraham Tale, in which the character of God certainly does appear as a king. You can find it at http://deconpat.philosophyhelps.com

My observation is simply a modified form of Euhemerus' observations 2300 years ago that the Gods of Greek mythology were originally kings.

I do not suggest that many or any particular events in the bible are based on real events or any particular character was real in any meaningful sense. One has to study each particular story to see how it evolved and how it was formed to know what it is referencing and how it is using those references.

If you watch television dramas or sit-coms, you will note that most of the time there are self-references to characters and genre references, but occasionally there are references to actual "News" events, although they are always presented in a radically transformed and often disguised manner to fit the genre expectations. I suggest that the entertaining literature of the Bible followed similar rules.


Warmly,

Jay Raskin

Rick Sumner

Greek Gods are not Jewish Gods. Greek Gods formed in a much different way, in a much different social context, among much different people. Surely you don'y expect me to take any comparison between the two on so critical a point as the motive of origin with anything more than a grain of salt? Your source doesn't seem to make this connection to Judaism, you provide no evidence that this connection should be expanded to include Judaism, you don't just touch blue and make it true. What I asked for was evidence, remember?

If different stories formed for markedly different reasons (which I emphatically think they did, and you seem to think they did), then your "general rule" doesn't exist. It's a "general rule" because you happen to like the term, not because it meets a description of "general rule" usually employed.

Topical allusions in the Bible are most prominent, I'd suggest, in the Deuteronistic history. Except they're only topical subvertly. And thus don't meet your "general rule" by even the greatest stretch of the imagination.

The Pentateuch is Israel as it should have been, not Israel as it was. It's purest fantasy to think that you can extract historical elements from the vast, vast majority of it. Arguably all of it.

Perhaps you should start by naming the kings in question, I'd be particularly interested in what you'd do with the Exodus. And not just picking names out of hats, argument, not assertion.

Regards,
Rick Sumner

PhilosopherJay

I found this on my ANE Digest today:Warmly,

Jay Raskin

Amlodhi

Hello Garnet,

I make no claim to be a "scholar", but I will try to provide some insight into the usage of the verb in question. Unfortunately however, the answer is not the simple "either/or" that you are wanting.

The Hebrew term that is most often used to describe YHWH's "appearing" is from the root ר×?×” (ra'ah), which carries the connotation of "seeing". This verb is used, however, (IIRC) in excess of 1500 times in the OT and in a wide variety of applications, i.e. literally/figuratively, in both transitive and intransitive forms (with/without the direct object), and sometimes in the "nif'al" construction which can indicate the reflexive.

As such, this verb is used in simple appearance verses:

It is used to indicate that someone "saw God" (in some sense) at a physical location:

It is used to indicate that someone "saw God" in a vision:

It is used to indicate that someone "saw" the immanence of God through the agency of an angel:

And it is used in odd verses like that mentioned by rationalOne:

In addition, Genesis chapter 18 should also be considered; where YHWH (it would seem) not only appeared to Abraham in the form of a man, but also rested, ate and drank. (And yes, I am aware of the apologetics concerning this; but I can count.)


Further apologetics usually vary depending on the nature of the given verse; some I have heard are:

1. God appeared to Abram (etal) in some manner other than the physical.

2. Moses (etal) saw some emanation of God, rather than actually seeing God himself.

3. With apparent physical manifestations, it is sometimes claimed that it was a pre-existent incarnation of Christ that was seen.

4. Words like "Peniel" (face of God), hand, backside, etc. are being used in a figurative sense.


Thus, the usage of this verb (ra'ah) is complex and diverse. And, as such, its intended connotation must be discerned on a verse by verse basis, rather than assigning any "across the board" definition.

On a personal level, I see no reason why this verb could not be used to indicate that someone actually saw God in some physical sense. Any apparent contradictions might easily be attributed to divergent traditions; or (for those with the need), to a difference between a physical manifestation of God vs. God in his essential form.

I hope this will help you in some way. The relevant factors involved are simpy too numerous and involved to provide a verse by verse analysis of the usage of this verb within the confines of a forum post. If you would like to select individual verses (one by one) for examination, I ( and I am sure, many others here) would be glad to discuss the issue further with you.

Amlodhi