Loomis

In other words, the problem you are describing is based on the premise that GJohn thought that Yahweh was the Most High god. But there is evidence to suggest that not all believers believed this way.

spin

No attempt to parry it. It doesn't represent any Hebrew that comes from the HB. Show me one example of HB with three consecutive verbs being based on hyh along with how many examples where there are three forms of the verb to be in English and fewer verbs in Hebrew.

I have pointed out that the use of hyh does not easily coincide with Indo-European usage (as seen in English, but also true of the Greek) of the verb "to be". This cashes out to many fewer examples of hyh related forms in Hebrew than "to be" in English or the various verbs in Greek (eg ginomai. You then commit the logical fallacy of assuming that "many" means "all", when I said, "And there are very many other examples of a verbless clause where you would expect the verb "to be" in English.". There is no sense that I am excluding the fact that there are clauses which contain a verb equivalent to "to be".

In this post I wrote, regarding the Hebrew translation of Jn 1:1,

In Hebrew the second clause would probably be verbless.

Do you note that there is no complaint about all three uses of hyh in the verse? You have misrepresented my position and continued to do so throughout your persistent postings.

My interest is whether the text that was translated into Hebrew that you supplied represented normal Hebrew usage and it certainly doesn't. You may fuck around trying to twist whatever advantage out of my presentation of the problem, but you didn't write it originally, and I may not have conveyed the meaning well enough for you to interpret it in the way I intended, due to your predispositions, but I know what I intended, so do not try to tell me what I intended when I'm clearly in a better position to know. When you talk about my honesty as you have, it is reprehensible on your part, as you are coming from a position of ignorance to make attacks on my honesty. Jesus, Shesh, you have a nerve.


spin

Sheshbazzar

Am I right to assume that "HB" is intended to be read as "Hebrew Bible"?
What then am I to understand of your use of "HB" in this sentence? were you just using poor English grammar???
It is difficult to interpret what your meaning is in this sentence, it is evident in looking back through this thread that somewhere along the line you got 'hung up' on the terms "is with" (#42 & 47) and "to be", neither of which I had written anything about.
Sorry spin, but I have quite a bit of difficulty in interpreting what you are writing, and can only analyse it from what it appears to be saying, you may know what you intended but sometimes your prose makes it difficult to interpret it in the manner you had intended.
From my perspective it most certainly appeared that you were selectively quoting, if you were not, then I give my sincere apologies.
If I at all understand what you wrote above, your objection is not to the employment of the hyh verb, in translating John 1:1 into Hebrew, but to the fact that the verse employs it three consecutive times, and that there are no examples to be found within The TaNaKa of it being employed this frequently or in this fashion, therefore..." it does not seem to reflect Hebrew".
Is this in fact a correct analysis of your reasons for saying it doesn't reflect normal Hebrew usage?

ichabod crane

The idea you suggest is intriguing. Deuteronomy 32:7-9 is very interesting, and could indicate such an idea. That certainly would tie in with Psalm 82, another passage which could support it (see my comments on the Psalm 82 thread). However, these passages seem to be the exception to the rule in the OT, so if that is what they mean, it is a relic from earlier times that was later eliminated for theological reasons (indeed, for that very reason, the MT may have eliminated the phrase "Sons of 'El", and generally mangled the passage). Elsewhere in the Old Testament, the phrase "Most High" (`Elyon) is commonly used to refer to Yahweh himself, so the distinction wasn't maintained, if it was intended in Deut 32:7-9.

That 'Elohim is used in relation to Yahweh is shown, for instance, in Exodus 3:15, which reads (I'm translating directly from the Hebrew as literally as possible, and just put 'Elohim whether it is absolute ('Elohim) or construct ('Elohey):

And 'Elohim again said to Moses, "Thus you will say to the Sons of Israel; Yahweh the 'Elohim of your Fathers, the 'Elohim of Abraham, the 'Elohim of Isaac, and the 'Elohim of Jacob, sent me to you; this is my name into the ages, and this is my memorial from generation to generation".

That seems to pretty emphatically identify 'Elohim and Yahweh. 'El is also used interchangeably with 'Elohim, for instance in Exodus 20:5, where we find the phrase "Yahweh your 'Elohim is a jealous 'El". So whether 'El and Yahweh were ever considered distinct entities, they had come to be identified by this time. Of course, it is possible that the words 'Elohim and 'El are being used in the generic sense of "god" in these instances; but the overall impression I get is that passages such as Deut 32:7-9 and Psalm 82 seem to be a hangover from earlier, more free-and-easy days, before monotheism had taken over and when the other gods were still remembered. But you're certainly challenging my thinking on this. One of the main problems is that the name Yahweh doesn't occur in the Ugaritic texts, which confuses the issue. We might be left always with speculation on these points (unless someone digs up a new text).

As for the Gospel of John, when Jesus says, "Before Abraham was, ego eimi", there is little doubt that he is alluding to Exodus 3:14 in the LXX. So that seems to rule out an 'El/Yahweh distinction, since this is one of many passages that strongly identifies Yahweh and 'El/'Elohim. I suspect that the writer of the Gospel of John believed in a more "monotheistic" version of the divine council, which subordinated the other deities to Yahweh. It seems that you're attibuting to John an idea that had died out many centuries earlier. How do you account for passages like Thomas's statement to Jesus "my Lord and my God"? Doesn't this blur your 'El/Yahweh distinction? Also, what about all the passages that refer to "God" and implicitly identify him with OT Yahweh, e.g. John 8:40-42, 54, etc? 9:29 says that "God" spoke to Moses - but wasn't it emphatically Yahweh who spoke to Moses in the OT? I just don't think the distinction you make can be consistently maintained in reading the text.

Given, as spin has pointed out, the Philonic background, I still think it seems most likely that the author thought that there was one supreme deity known as both 'El and Yahweh, and that Jesus was his emanated Word, of one essence with him but also lesser than him.

cass256

Thomas could easily have been making an exclaimation of surprise, like we do today. "Oh my god! It is really you!" Or some today would more likely say, "Holy SHIT!, it's realy you!" It says nothing about his belief, or even that if he believed Jesus was God that that made it so. If the story is even true.

Also, in Exodus where YHWH says to Moses( who supposedly knew nothing about this god) It appears to be possible that Yahweh was saying that Abraham knew EL, and not Yahweh. It is obvious scribes and translators have left us with a mess. But of course, YHWH warned of the pen of the scribes aSo what is false, or interpreted wrong, by the time Isaiah and Jeremiah were speaking?

cass256

Spin, can you tell me what causes the definition in Exodus 3 to be translated as I AM, using what would be strongs 1961, and shown in BDB as various explanations relating to E P and J, to the exclusion of the possibility of 1962? Were they not spelled the same? could they be interchanged, or is there a specific rule of language that prevents 1962 from being used as the second hayah, or the first, or both? The same way Shadday from strongs 7706 from the root shadad? I need better glasses, for BDB, but it suggests to deal violently, devastate, despoil, ruin. Is there any reason to not look at hayah as ruin being a possibility? don't mean to drag you in a direction you may not want to go. 8}

Loomis

Yes I agree. I am not suggesting this idea was widespread. But one cannot ignore a passage in the bible that portrays Yahweh as subordinate to another god.

I think the biggest objection to this reading is psychological and not textural. It is based on the fallacy that Yahweh was a real god, and that there can only be one “correct� way of looking at him.
Check out Genesis 14:17-22 (the Melchizedek episode). It’s got both “Elyon�s in the same scene.

Was Melchizedek a Yahwist?

I think not. He was a priest of the Canaanite El-worshippers.

That scene seems to be telling the story of how the title of “Elyon� was passed from El to Yahweh.

Also, it looks to me like in the other cases of where Yahweh is identified as Elyon, that the verse may have originally been attributed to El, and that a Yahwist just walked over the name of the god.

Loomis

Why is it confusing? Why is it a problem? It’s just another piece of evidence.

What if Yahweh was never at Ugarit?

Assume he wasn’t.

What if Yahweh was originally a warrior desert god from another religion?

What if a bunch Yahweh worshippers moved in next door to a bunch of El worshippers?

What if over time their religions got combined like peanut butter and chocolate?

How could we test this theory?

What are some of the thing we should expect to see?

I think that if Yahwists merged with El-worshippers then we should expect to see Yahweh portrayed in conflicting ways.

Maybe the El worshippers would assimilate Yahweh as one of El’s seventy sons.

Maybe the Yahweh worshippers would assimilate El Elyon as just another name for Yahweh.

Well … duh … well … duh …

Isn’t that what we’ve got here?

Loomis

Yes. Yes. Yes. The author is going out of his way to marry the god El with the god Yahweh under the moniker of Elohim. A change is taking place before our very eyes. Gosh, why would this be necessary?

Read it at face value. Exodus 3:15 attests to very thing it is trying to deny: El and Yahweh were not the same god. Back up one verse and G_d himself explains what is going on:
G_d said he was becoming a combination of El and Yahweh.




Also … the idea that Yahweh is (an) elohim is not without other problems:
Think about it. It’s problematic because in this verse Yahweh is the creator of the elohim. But now imagine that this verse was originally attributed to El, and that the ‘elohim’ (plural) are synonymous with the sons of Elyon (per Psalm 82).

Loomis

That is definitely the popular opinion. But are you ready to argue that “monotheism had taken over� by the time the birth of Christianity rolled around?
I guess that is one of my challenges: That is what I need to know: How do we know that “monotheism� every took over?

More specifically, how do we know that the concept of Yahweh as a son of El was forgotten before GJohh, Philo, or whoever, got a hold of it?