Loomis

Why?

GJohn said his story was going to be about a son of a god who became human. Like Pinocchio on divine steroids:
The author of Psalm 89:6 emphasizes that Yahweh was unique son of El.
The author of John 12:41 says that Isaiah says something about Christ’s glory.
But Isaiah was talking about Yahweh’s glory.

Everything I see points to the Jesus-is-Yahweh-and-he-is-El’s-son paradigm.

ichabod crane

But the issue about the story not being true is just the point. Goodness, I'm not claiming that all this stuff in John is true! It's just a story. But what you're failing to consider, is why this particular event was inserted into the story. Do you think that the author of John went, hey, this story's becoming a bit boring, I know, let's make Thomas swear in surprise at Jesus? That seems unlikely to me. I think the author of John inserted this in the story because he wanted us to see Thomas's confession as being a valid confession about Christ, as representing the viewpoint of the narrator. Hence, you can't get around it like this. In fact, your "expression of surprise" explanation would only work if the events described did actually happen and the narrator was just recording them impartially. But, most especially with "John", who carefully crafts his narrative for theological reasons, that just ain't so.

Yes, but isn't that most obviously read as saying that 'El is giving Moses a new name for himself (i.e. Yahweh). In other words, he is saying, "your Fathers knew me as 'El, but I'm telling you a name for me that they didn't know: Yahweh". This fits in with the whole thing about Moses asking God "who shall I say sent me?".

Maybe the text could be corrupted here, but I'd want to see your evidence. But more importantly, you say that YHWH warned of the pen of the scribes. What makes you think this is YHWH saying this? I would have thought it was some dude compiling some oral sayings and stories that were thought to be attributed to Jeremiah. Incidentally, if you want questions about texts, Jeremiah is an excellent example - the LXX is, I believe, a full 1/6 shorter than the MT.

"Jeremiah" is rebuking his people in his time. They were up to all sorts of stuff that didn't sit well with the legal codes of traditonal yore which they had inherited, allegedly, from Moses. No doubt they were writing some of this naughty stuff down. I think that's probably what he is concerned about here. But there's no indication about switching Yahweh to 'El or vice-versa being the problem from the text; that's mere speculation.

I think I can answer this one for you. Firstly, I just checked Holladay's "Concise Hebrew and Aramaic Lexicon of the OT", and it only lists the one, exceedingly common, verb, hayah. It doesn't have the meanings of deal violently, etc, which you list. So I don't know where Strong's is getting this from. Can you give us an example somewhere in the OT where the verb hayah occurs with this meaning? But anyway, you have to give a translation based on the verb conjugations. Exodus 3:14 reads "'eheyeh 'asher 'eheyeh". The verbs in both cases are of the same conjugation, Qal imperfect 1st common singular. So if the verb means to deal violently, it would have to be something like "I will deal violently with whatever I will deal violently", or something, which is strained and requires supplying the preposition "with", and doesn't seem to make a lot of sense. I think we can safely assume that it is either "I am what I am" or "I will be what I will be".

ichabod crane

I agree that we can't ignore those passages. BUT I also think we should avoid an equally bad error, which is the error that conservative Christians make, namely, assuming that the entire Old Testament maintains the same theological perspective. In other words, maybe one passage in the OT shows polytheism, but other passages show monotheism. The book was written by many authors over many hundreds of years. We should avoid the trap of assuming an overarching, unifying theology to the whole thing.

So, to reiterate, I'm not ignoring the 'El/Yahweh distinction passages. I'm just saying there are also 'El/Yahweh identity passages. The easiest explanation, it seems to me, is that this was monotheism evolving from polytheism, leaving some traces of the polytheism of the original community.

Herein lies the problem. You say Melchizedek was a Canaanite El-worshipper, not a Yahwist. But he wasn't anything at all. He is just a fictional character in a fictional story. You are assuming that the text is actually historically accurate, but it isn't. The question is not, "who were people worshipping in Canaan at the time?", but "who did the author who wrote the story think some of them might have been worshipping?". I think the author was someone who identified Yahweh, `Elyon and 'El up together, and hence didn't see the significance that you do in the text.

Maybe, but it's worth pointing out that in English transliteration `elyon and 'el might seem similar, but in Hebrew they're more different. The first letter in both cases is silent, and should be transliterated as an apostrophe (it is often not transliterated at all): but in the case of `elyon, the first silent letter is `ayin, transliterated as a left apostrophe; and in the case of 'el, it is 'alef, transliterated as a right apostrophe. So the point is that the spelling of the two words is quite different in Hebrew and only has one letter in common, lamed. So it's not so easy to go from one to the other.

We might then ask, what religion? Who were these people? What language did they speak? Where did they inhabit? Where is the evidence for this warrior god (artifacts, etc)?

All the evidence suggests that the Israelites were originally just Canaanites who worshipped 'El.

But I still don't understand why you think it reads as a change of god rather than just a change of name. Isn't the name the whole issue?

But this translation is not valid; it is either "I am what I am" or "I will be what I will be", or "I will become what I will become". The problem is that you have made the verbs passive, when they are active. If it were the Nif`al stem, your translation would be possible, but it isn't, it's the Qal. The problem is that your translation makes God to be the passive subject of a change, whereas the Hebrew makes clear, if we assume that a change is in view, that he is the agent of the change. On the other hand, if it simply means "I am", issues of agency don't arise.

But doesn't this just get back to the original point: that there is no overarching coherence to OT theology. I agree with you that Psalm 82 may well mean that Yahweh was a Son of 'El, that may well be what the author of that Psalm thought. But that doesn't mean that concept is found everywhere else. It just means that a Psalm endured, maybe because it had a catchy tune and they liked singing it or something, even though they later attempted to purge Israelite religion of all vestiges of polytheism. Much like some Fundamentalist Protestants, who despise Catholicism, nonetheless will unwittingly sing hymns such as "Silent Night" which were written by Catholic Priests.

I would have thought so, yes.

Because I can't find any evidence that late that supports it. But if you know of some, I'm happy to hear it!

Well, became "flesh", anyway. Also, what about the emphasis on the uniqueness of Jesus' sonship, e.g. the "only begotten" (monogenes) from the Father" (1:14, 18).

But you haven't addressed the many passages in John that seem to go against your theory, like those I referred to in this statement:

Unlike the OT, the Gospel of John is a unitary literary work trying to portray a particular theological perspective. So we need to satisfactorily account for all the data. That's where I think your theory falls apart.

Sheshbazzar

I am posting this to make a correction of my above statement, the posts in this thread which I had intended to refer to were posts #43 & 46 by spin, an error that happened when my original reply became lost before posting it, and I provided the post # from memory.
I will also take this opportunity to stress that the subject of this little internal debate is the use of the verb "ha'yah" in those verses where it is found in the Hebrew text, and rendered into English as the verb "WAS" only, the challenge for me to locate other phrases, ("is with" or "to be" or any others) that are not be found within the text, (and I am taking his word on this) are not relevant to the subject.

cass256

I'm sorry, then is John trying to say Jesus became god after he went to god, before he saw Thomas?.. and Thomas knew this how?

When he is telling Mary not to touch him in Chapter 20, he tells her not to touch him, but to go to the brothers and tell them he ascends to "my Father and your Father; and my God and your God." Am I to believe that Mary told everyone but Thomas that their God was the one Jesus was ascending to, as instructed?

No, i don't believe any of the stories are the originals, or necessarily true. I just don't follow that Thomas was expressing more than surprise, or that someone inserted "my God" there, since , according to John, Mary had just told them that Jesus was going to their God that week.

The problem comes when you go back and read genesis and try to decide if YHWH was lying to moses here, or if it was the scribes and interpreters who stuck YHWH's name all over genesis, and has YHWH saying "I am YHWH" to Abraham and jacob. Nothing is obvious in the Bible. The translators have "Lord" everywhere Yahweh's name is, so this little bit to Moses is easily ignored. Randomly looking i find we have him declaring his name YHWH or Yahweh to Abraham But, anyone can see that he was said to have used YHWH to those people that he told Moses didn't know that name.



I'm not sure what text you say "maybe" is corrupted. I'd say most of the text is.
"What makes you think this is YHWH saying this? "
I am just going along with the character in the story. Please, i have no idea who wrote this stuff and what they were smoking. I am just putting together the pieces as they were written. If it was a collected colaboration in Babylon, i'd think they may have had an idea of what was writtten, and how they are playing the story out. The latter stages have the character YHWH saying that scribes and translators were false. The writers could just be giving hints that they were messing with people, and it is full of falsehood. That is what was written in what we have in the OT from the Hebrew.

The evidence is in the text where there are jumps from EL to YHWH from the begining of Genesis. By the time they got to Isaiah and jeremiah, the writings, I would assume they knew where the texts were corrupt, but I guess that is assuming the writers had the earlier texts as we see them. I do not assume they were written by actual prophets.

I was actually using the Brown-Driver-Briggs Hebrew Lexicon as well, using the strongs numbers for reference. You can find the alternate HYH there, under the Strong's number I gave. it refers to his calamity or destruction in job 6: 2 or disaster as HVH. Not sure if it can be used as verb. It is related to HVH the last 3 letters of the NAME which is translated as disaster, ruin. The aramaic of 1942 a negative word. YHVH is the same as YHWH from what I understand...the most misunderstood name in the world. His signs and wonders were death and destruction in Egypt. Possibly another question for translators and scribes, but as you said i can only speculate if I did not wtire isaiah or Jeremiah. I have a bad habit there.


I have found you really can't safely assume anything with that book. Thanks for the thoughts.

ichabod crane

I don't think "John" is saying Jesus became God after he went to God. "John" doesn't think that Jesus is God, he thinks that he is an emanation of God. The two are not the same thing. I think he wants us to see in Thomas's response a recognition that there is something divine or God-ish about Jesus, not that he literally is God in completeness. As for how Thomas knew this, it's just a story. He's just making stuff up. A character in a story can know anything the author wants him to.

The problem is, you're forcing things into a dichotomy of "either Jesus is God, lock, stock and barrel, or he isn't God at all and is completely distinct from him". What I'm trying to say is that "John" has him somewhere in-between these two extremes.

Obviously, if this statement is true, and if Abraham and company were real people, then someone has come along and inserted Yahweh all over the place in Genesis.

But what if all these events are fictitious, and someone much later is writing all this? Said person knows God as both 'El and Yahweh. He knows that 'El is the older name, and Yahweh more recent, perhaps as a monotheistic emphasis that 'El was the creator emerged (Yahweh may be from the Hif`il participle of the verb hayah, meaning "the one who causes to be", i.e. "creator"). So he just goes and makes up a story as to why their God was originally called 'El and later called Yahweh. Maybe he uses already existing material, maybe it is several people over a period of time, whatever. The point is that the intermingling of the divine names is easily thereby accounted for.

That's why I read it in the Hebrew!

See explanation above.

I'd like to know what Ezekiel was smoking. But seriously, we're on the same boat here. I just have a different explanation as to the evolution of the whole thing, as follows:

(a) A bunch of Canaanites that worship 'El gradually develop in an aniconic direction and emphasize 'El's "jealousy" so much that they refuse to worship any of the other gods.

(b) They become exclusive and reject anyone who doesn't go along with their particular sect.

(c) As they emphasize 'El's uniqueness, he becomes known by the name Yahweh, meaning "creator".

(d) They begin to deny the reality of the other gods, and monotheism develops.

(e) During stages a-d, they develop an involved legal code.

(f) Eventually things start to be written down. They invent stories about their past, such as a sojourn in Egypt and so forth, to make themselves seem special.

(g) They are conquered and deported to Babylon, which they interpret as being due to their infidelity to their God. This results in an even fiercer monotheism.

(h) More stuff gets written down and more stuff editted.

But I'm saying that all this proves is that the God of the Israelites was called both 'El and Yahweh from whenever it was that these texts were written, at least in anything like their present form. Just like a newspaper article written today might alternate between "George Bush" and "President" in an article written about the one guy.

There's your answer. The word is havvah, which is a noun. So it can't be the word in Exodus.

Any statement about the meaning of Yahweh is speculation, but I like my speculation!

spin

The verb "to be" has such forms as "is", "was", "are" and "were". It's these which reflect an underlying form of hyh when it's there. As to "is with", it is merely the present form of "was with", as in "In the beginning was the word and the word was with god and the word was god." You know, that inconvenient set of clauses we were dealing with. I give up. This is such a trivial effort to lead you to the realisation that hyh is often not found in Hebrew cases where the verb "to be" is required in English and ginomai is required in Greek. I can't even refer to the verb "to be" without you going in tilt. For what? Because I had the nerve to intimate that the translation into Hebrew that you were using was slavishly literal regarding the verse and didn't reflect normal Hebrew practice of the time. OK, I can't expect you to have any linguistics up your sleave, but why the fuck are you meddling in something you are not prepared for?

The pluses are forms of hyh, the minuses are no hyh where in each case the English has "was":

Gen
2:5 + -
2:19 -
3:1 +
3:6 - -
3:10 -
3:20 +
4:2 + +
4:19 -
4:20 +
4:21 - +
4:22 -
5:24 -
5:32 +
6:5 - -
6:9 +

I'll leave you to it.


spin

cass256

I think my problem is trying to keep the mind of the characters straight between stories that do not flow, and then the mind of the writer being different from book to book. I need stories to make sense to me. We have Jesus going up to his God, making that strong statement for Mary to tell the brothers. I have to wonder why john didn't finish his story more like the others. Jesus could be touched, and didn't say anything to make you consider he had to return to his "god" before he met with his followers. The point just seemed to be one that did not fit for Jesus being called god when he was, by Thomas. I know it is a character, I just think someone who doesn't believe the other followers would have reacted differently, and the reaction not be one of thinking jesus was a type of God, but thinking it was a miracle that it actually WAS jesus, wounds and all. But that's just me.

My only other criticism is that Jesus wasn't healed. If he can't even get his own body healed, after not being able to be touched, and goiing up to his God; how are his followers to believe and preach, "by his stripes we are healed"? Jospeh of Aramathea didn't buy enough Aloe? If you're not totally human your body doesn't heal after you are miraculously ressurected??

John's ending just doesn't sit well with me, just as a story.



Yes, just sloppy as heck. The other point is that YHWH also answers to Baal. In Exodus when Baalam goes up to the high places of Baal, YHWH is the one who answers him. So the story makes you think also that this god answers to a lot of names. So when EL stands among the Elohim, he is alone and talking to himself.

Well, to me it breaks YHWH's commandments to change his name to Lord, a false name. That is another thing i do not understand. They can write it in Hebrew, but not use the English letters when they translate the OT?
I guess they would worry if to use V or W, but... if you can't decide you make up a false name, that means the same as Baal? Sorry to whoever i am offending. It is just one of those things that make you think.





i'm not sure still. I don't know the reality of history, but if there were 2 groups, Israel and Judah, in what used to be the area of canaan, I'd guess Israel followed El, and Judah followed YaH, and Judah wrote a bunch in babylon, trying to borrow from El writings to fill gaps, and yahweh beliefs, and that is why it got so mixed up. The El worshippers got scattered when they were displaced by the Assyrians, so whatever went after Genesis 1 no longer exists, except as bits.

But... I have an interlinear, with Masoretic text type set in 1866 by the British and foreign Bible Society.. and in this version, the word in job is spelled with a yod, not a vav. Is that a typo? or can vhavah be spelled vhayah? I would say it was my eyes, with the small type, but I am pretty sure it is Hayah.
not that i am arguing. It just seems to fit with Moses being told the name and a handful of sentences later is told his wonders would be shown in Egypt, and they weren't creative. and how did YHVH come from hayah?

I'll leave that rhetorical, so you are not banging your head. I am told i speculate way too much. it is an impossible habit. (Yawists wrote the dang dictionary)

I agree! My apology to those who are pulling their hair out.

Loomis

Are you saying this for my benefit?

I must be doing a shitty job of explaining myself, or you are not paying attention, because I agree with you 100% completely.

What did I ever type that led you to think otherwise?

Yes again. To reiterate, same here. It looks like we agree on most of this stuff. I'm glad we see eye to eye on this so that we don’t have to waste a lot of time on it!

Loomis

You might be right. Sincerely. This is the popular view. But what “original community� are you talking about?

The community who thought that Yahweh was ‘Elyon?

Or the community who thought that El was ‘Elyon?

It is fiction.

Remind me: Why does (any particular) author’s writings have to represent the religious thoughts of any actual “community� at all?

Are you familiar with this book by Lloyd Barre?
Barre argues that there are 17 discreet flavors of El / Yahweh worship in the OT.
Earlier you said you liked Heiser’s paper. Maybe you would like this too.