spin

:notworthy: How to win friends and influence people. :notworthy:

You're on a roll.

Nice try, but no prize. We've seen the obvious relationship of צבאות with the LXX Σαβαωθ.

And your Origen/Celsus source is happy to provide epithets from Hebrew phrases either transliterated or translated. And it clearly relates Σαβαωθ to Jews. All you are offering is some fuzzy conjecture about seven through Samaritan. That allows you to be so presumptuous as to say, "Here is ANOTHER example of New Testament scholars ignorance of Jewish traditions leads to unlikely etymologies." It is rather ironic, don't you think?

It may start to become reasonable when you eliminate the obvious candidate. I still doubt it, given the fact I pointed out that the Gnostics made no connection between Sabaoth and seven when given an opportunity. There is nothing to suggest the connection.

Now that we've left the Sebuaeans by the way, along with the Origen/Celsus discussion of Jewish (no reason to believe Samaritan) epithets, what have you got left to offer?

Try this: "And he is called 'God of the forces, Sabaoth'" -- "forces" being a good translation of צבאות -- in Nag Ham. Libr., Robinson ed., p.116, from "The Hypostasis of the Archons". The association is made for you by a gnostic writer.



I'll leave you to your colorful remarks. :wave:


spin

stephan huller

Well I standby the characterization of this debate as a childish exercise. I (a) described you as intelligent and informed in previous posts and (b) repeatedly acknowledged your discovery of the LXX transliteration and modified my original position accordingly. I think this shows some level of maturity (i.e. not to turn this into an absurd game where people have to 'prove' something beyond a reasonable doubt). The 'childish' and 'dense' references derive from the fact that as an intelligent, informed participant you should have at least acknowledged that שבעות was possible. That would have shown a level of maturity not exhibited in the discussion on your part.

I have acknowledged tsabaot as a possible source for Sabaoth on multiple occasions. I just feel שבעות has more going for it.

I am not used to - nor do I want to turn these threads I start into intellectual cage matches where each side has to claim to be absolutely correct (I am starting to wonder if your some ex-girlfriend but then I remember I never dated anyone beside my wife who had a reading level beyond the third grade, you are obviously highly intelligent and informed).

Nevertheless your emotional maturity level is another issue entirely.

Every time I qualified my argument by saying 'this may be ' or 'this could be' you jump all over me.

There are two possibilities here. You have a right to stand by the obvious etymology. I never attacked you for holding that position. But a mature person would have acknowledged that they were wrong about 'the impossibility' of שבעות being pronounced 'Sabaoth.'

I guess I asked for too much

stephan huller

Then again maybe you are one of my ex-girlfriends. I was so distracted AGAIN by all the personal stuff that I didn't read your statement initially that:

Well, Dynasty, Charlesia or whatever your real name is (lol) if you go UP a little further - like five characters back (I know the Google search doesn't reveal it because Sabaoth is only referred to as 'he' but) we read ...

This is the same document you cite, my friend to prove your point. Yeah I can see ... no reference to the seven and eight. No possible connection to שבעות being the original name and then that name being associated with 'the Lord of Forces.' No possible connection when the same association is present in other gnostic documents. No, no, no.

You're right the LXX decides everything

judge

Welcome to the forums.
Most people (like me :devil1 here post anonymously, meaning that they will say and do things they wouldn't do, if they weren't able to remain anonymous.
Just accept it friend, don't fight it.
On the one hand there have been a point or two that has probably helped your research. Ignore the rest.

spin

Have I commented about your name? Why comment about mine? You can see that I have been here for many years, so it is unlikely that you know me. Please try to focus.

Throwing insults, making false accusations, mocking names... you're going well.

Perhaps it might be surprising, but some people actually have books.

I do love it. An overt association of Σαβαωθ with forces ("the god of forces, Sabaoth"), and, instead of going with its implications, you look away because there it talks about Sabaoth because he was given the home of Yaldabaoth, ie the seventh heaven (and was, as you know, to be taught about the eighth heaven). Very dogged. Still hanging on to the severed limb of your conjecture, while the real culprit walks.

The Gnostic writer of the Hypostasis of the Archons, we see, knew the significance of Σαβαωθ and it wasn't שבעות. There is no apparent connection of substance of Sabaoth with seven. I would expect the writers to play with such a connection a little, but nothing -- wait on, there's this line about being given charge of the seventh heaven.


spin

stephan huller

I happened to have went through RECENT posts of yours at this site where you use fuck in your responses so I don't feel so bad about a little joking around at your expense. I still think you're an intelligent, knowledgeable person (man? woman?) who has a lot of wonderful things to offer. You just have a tendency to be so focused on attacking people rather than considering the big picture that you:

a) make sweeping generalizations from the Massora not realizing that that such Jewish pronunciations never applied to groups like the Samaritans.
b) tried to develop arguments from the Sebuaeans without even researching the origins of the name
c) made an uninformed argument about Sabaoth having nothing to do with the number seven and then cited from a text which made that association EXPLICIT.

And what do you say in response to the last slip up:

I saw the way you treated other people at this site when they slipped up. You treated them like they were sub-human. I just find this amusing because all you are doing is just repeating what you said before I pointed out the reference to 'seven heavens' BEFORE the reference to 'Lord of Forces.'

This is incredible. Being given charge of the seventh heaven and being taught about the eight ... doesn't PROVE that you were TOTALLY WRONG when you said this bit of stupidity in your last posting "I pointed out that the Gnostics made no connection between Sabaoth and seven when given an opportunity."

Like I said back in March you were attacking ApostateAbe and a number of other posters with vulgar language and behavior unbecoming a scholar merely because they DIDN'T UNDERSTAND YOUR POINT. Here you are making gross errors - blanket statements using a source WHICH PROVES YOU ARE ONE HUNDRED PERCENT WRONG and you still pretend you're right.

This is amazing.

You can't fault someone if they don't understand something. Whatever your dispute with other participants in this site was they can't be faulted if they lack the mental capacity to see the error of their ways. But you aren't stupid you just mendacious. WHICH IS FAR WORSE.

I admitted that your discovery of LXX transliteration was important but not decisive. You on the other pretend like evidence which contradicts your position doesn't even exist EVEN WHEN YOU DRAW THE READER TO THE SOURCE TO MAKE YOUR POINT!!!!!!!

Your fraud my friend. You use your intelligence and knowledge to belittle people who aren't as smart as you. That's bullying. I won't do treat you the same way as you treated other people at this site because I believe that it is important that we show kindness to those who aren't our equals (lol).

And with regards to your bizarre argument that a reference to 'seven heavens' somehow has nothing to do with a mystical interest in the number seven(!!!), I will spend a few minutes providing some resources:

"Several examples of Jewish and Christian apocalyptic literature provide reflection on the "seven heavens," the number may have been linked to the seven planets ..."

"The idea of seven heavens, beyond which is an eighth, perfect heaven (the abode of God), was not uncommon in antiquity ..."

http://books.google.com/books?id=R7o...ens%22&f=false

"According to Philo, who is probably dependent on older tradition, the seven lamps of the menorah are said to symbolize the seven planets and the seven heavens. This idea recurs in Irenaeus, who in Epid. 9, before presenting his nterpretation of the two Seraphim (or Cherubim) in Epid. 10, has a small tract on the seven heavens. According to him,the seven heavens correspond to the seven charismata of the Spirit that were to rest on the Messiah (Isa 11.2):

For after this pattern Moses received the seven- branched candlestick always burning in the sanctuary; since it was on the pattern of the heavens that he received the liturgy, as the Word says to him: Thou shalt do according to all the pattern of what thou hast seen on the mount [cf. Ex. 25:9,40; Num. 8:4]"

http://books.google.com/books?id=Ump...(or%22&f=false

It is also worth noting that most works which reference the concept of the seven and the seventh heaven like 2 Enoch make CRYPTIC references to these matters:

"This rather cryptic book is also an apocalypse, revealing the workings of heaven, hell, and the end of the world. The book is one of the first to expound on the seven heavens and to give a detailed description of the pleasures of Paradise"

Your defense for your oversight is ridiculous:

Really? Why. Because that's what they would do in a Marvel comic book or a Jerry Bruckheimer movie? Maybe you're thinking of the 'Seventh Seal.' All the evidence from ancient books (found at Google or elsewhere) reveals mostly cryptic references to the subject of the divine Seven. THERE WAS ALWAYS A DELIBERATE OBSCURITY ACCOMPANYING THESE REFERENCES BECAUSE THESE WERE SACRED TOPICS, THINGS THAT WERE RESERVED FOR THE MYSTERIES OR 'CLOSED DISCUSSIONS.'

According to you then, we should simply go to the LXX and see that tsabaoth is transliterated as 'sabaoth' AND THAT ENDS THE DISCUSSION of the gnostic term because as you say "there is no apparent connection of substance of Sabaoth with seven (in the Hypostasis of the Archons). I would expect the writers to play with such a connection a little."

Oy veh! What am I going to do with you? You want the original authors of the gnostic literature to be modern scholars, so if the association isn't explicitly spelled out it is disqualified.

According to you the only way the IMPLICIT ASSOCIATION between the Sabaoth and the number seven could be accepted is if it appeared like this:

Now when his offspring Sabaoth saw the force of that angel, he repented and condemned his father and his mother, matter. He loathed her, but he sang songs of praise up to Sophia and her daughter Zoe. And Sophia and Zoe caught him up and gave him charge of the seventh heaven, below the veil between above and below. Sabaoth, of course as you know, is a term which comes from the Hebrew שבעות which itself derives from Deuteronomy 16.10. The Jewish pronunciation of this term is shav'uot but among the Samaritan the people we gnostics come from the letter bet is hard is pronounced sabaoth which more closely reflects the original Hebrew.

And he is called 'God of the forces, Sabaoth', since he is up above the forces of chaos, for Sophia established him (of course a latter association of his name צבאות with שבעות see Theon of Alexandria's treatise Misunderstandings in Ancient Hebrew currently in George of Laodicea's library) owing to the similar sounding Hebrew name Now when these (events) had come to pass, he made himself a huge four-faced chariot of cherubim, and infinitely many angels to act as ministers, and also harps and lyres. And Sophia took her daughter Zoe and had her sit upon his right to teach him about the things that exist in the eighth. The eighth again representing the eight heaven ....

Ancient books weren't written this way. It is only bad, lazy scholarship which functions like this which is why very little of the mystical writings associated with the gnostics is properly understood.

The author of the Hypostasis of the Archons undoubtedly didn't INVENT the term Sabaoth he inherited from a tradition. Owing to the decision of Greek translators to (a) translate שבעות as something to do with numbers, weeks and (b) transliterate צבאות as Σαβαωθ later writers like the author of the Hypostasis of the Archons were more inclined to make that association (i.e. owing to their lack of familiarity with Hebrew and certain forms of Aramaic connected with the earliest gnostic literature.

The gloss that Sabaoth is related to the forces he stood over ONLY COMES AFTER Sabaoth is referenced with the number seven. Note: צבאות is the plural. If he (sing.) was originally identified as the ONE cosmic force (sing.) above all others his name would have been צבא (Saba). Jew or Samaritan living in antiquity would not have called him 'Sabaoth' based on this ridiculous argument.

Before you scoff at the idea that Gnostic titles are traceable back to Samaritan Aramaic please read Fossum's explanation (The Name of God and the Angel of the Lord, p. 303) of Simon Magus's title 'the Great Power' back to these sources.

Please, please, please expand your knowledge base. The Church Fathers make explicit the origin of gnosticism from Samaritanism. Why should the title Sabaoth be any different? The Samaritans did not use the title 'Adonai Tsabaoth' or 'YHWH Sabaoth' because these come from texts and traditions they didn't recognize.

spin

You have been complaining about my posts in this thread. My point is that one tends to overlook their own posting standards.

My complaint with you is that you are too fixated with your conclusions and not interested enough in how you get there.

You show no knowledge about complexities of Samaritan phonology.

Umm, taking you at your word is not a wise action right?... as I used your OP, which you quickly disavowed by shooting at your source (Epiphanius).

Exaggeration isn't a particularly solid form of argument. There is no explicit relationship between seven and the figure of Sabaoth. The seventh heaven existed before Sabaoth. It is normally considered the home of the Hebrew god, but our Gnostic writer undercut the significance by talking about teaching Sabaoth about the eighth.

Please don't assume a slip up where there is none. Your assumptions about the pre-existent seventh heaven and Sabaoth has the tenuousness of Bush's evidence for WMDs.

I can see your dearth of argument. You have problems understanding that your etymological conjecture has been falsified by the Gnostic writer showing a direct connection between Sabaoth and its original significance.

I've provided you with a plain mechanism for how Sabaoth could have become the name of the principal deity, which involves merely using the epithet of god, as was clearly done in antiquity. You find in the LXX κυριος σαβαωθ, θεος σαβαωθ, and ελοαι σαβαωθ (ie transliterations, not translations), so the use of the epithet Sabaoth which would appear to be nominal in Greek in place of the name reflects what we have seen with other epithets.

That old error-monger Epiphanius also gives κυριος σαβαωθ and αδοναι σαβαωθ in his discussion of where the name came from (latter part of 26.10).

Perhaps you haven't grasped the situation here. You are trying to argue for the case that Sabaoth is ultimately derived from the Hebrew shabu'ot. You have stumbled upon the fact that Sabaoth was given charge of the seventh heaven (if you can make any direct connection with shabu'ot, I'll be impressed). And to show you how important that really is, he was going to be taught about the eighth heaven, ie the importance is wholly undercut. No linguistic connection is being made between Sabaoth and seven here at all. You do really work hard at making a sow's ear look like a silk purse.

Now I have never claimed that the Gnostics didn't make connections between Sabaoth and the number seven. (I said in my second post in this thread: "One could of course try for a connection through appearances (as seen in the case of Peter and πετρα), which seems to have been a common exegetical method.") It's just that it doesn't apparently have anything to do with etymology which is what you are trying to make it.

What's amazing is how far you are prepared to change the subject.

You are trying hard to get moderatorial censorship, aren't you? I don't really understand why you are so far off the deep end here. If you can't stick to your evidence, then you are lost. Try to get back to it please.

You have a problem contextualizing.



Why do you misrepresent what I have said? Why don't you understand that the etymology of the Gnostic writer of the Hypostasis of the Archons, when he calls Sabaoth "the god of forces" is in itself sufficient to show where the name Sabaoth comes from (in as far as we can see his thought in the appositional placement). We don't have any great attempt of Gnostic writers playing up any seven significance -- and the melodrama over seventh heaven is totally unfounded, given that the seventh heaven originally belonged to Yaldabaoth and the seventh heaven in gnostic circles was not the ultimate as the writer was quick to point out with teaching of Sabaoth about the eighth. OK, so you finally got a vestige of something that gave your conjecture a little credibility, but it is at the cost of finding that the writer knows where Sabaoth comes from and that is "god of forces".

First take a sedative and then ask the question again...

...without such flights of fancy.

Your claims about Samaritan pronunciation here are ultimately based on Paul Kahle's views (Paul Kahle, Opera Minora (Leiden, 1956), pp. 180-5), views which E.Y. Kutscher showed were unfounded in "Contemporary Studies in North-Western Semitic" (Journal of Semitic Studies, 1965 10(1):21-51, esp. 28-31).

Of course it has nothing to do with the LXX θεος σαβαωθ.

You are certainly continuing on your winning way of nasty rhetoric without much content.

We agree.

This is partly concession and partly mind-reading. You are working from your conclusion to say what the writers thought.

Perhaps you might explain why the Jews who engraved the Magen Dawid amulets used it anyway? (See Jewish Encyclopaedia.)

Only problem is that it seems they did, unless you think the Magen Dawid was gnostic.

I have never committed myself here. I have merely argued that you have no basis for your claim about the etymology of Sabaoth, which clearly reflects a direct lineage back to יהוה צבעות.

Please, please, please, try for a more entertaining banter.

How much of this is propaganda, when the christians claim religious descent by substitution from the Jews? The Samaritans are wayward Jews according to the fathers, so the Gnostics were derived from them.

Etymology tends to be an issue of linguistics.

I don't understand your thought here. Are you saying that the Samaritans didn't recognize Deuteronomy 16:10 et al.?


spin

stephan huller

Email today from Dr. Ruairidh Boid Honorary Research Associate Centre for Religion and Theology, School of History, Monash University author of Principles of Samaritan Halachah Studies in Judaism in Late Antiquity, Leiden:

I am sure this won't satisfy you but there are only a handful of experts on the Samaritans. Why not consult with one of them? This is a speculative argument where no one can be a hundred percent certain they are correct. I have the support of Boid for my theoretical arguments. There are countless people out there who will be all too willing to accept צבאות as the origin of the concept.

I consider this a draw. After dealing with other people in this forum I actually have come to enjoy debating you the most out of everyone here. You have language skills, knowledge of the literature and - after going through your exchanges with some of the people here have actually started to understand your frustration.

One person here told me in an exchange that they don't feel that knowledge of ancient languages is important, another person wondered why I take the subject so seriously because 'its all a lie.' Well when I have a choice to debate someone like you I guess I will have to prefer your hostility to other people's ignorance.

I am sure you will continue the vitriol but I am growing tired of arguing with people at this site over stupid things. I am not at all interested to continue an acrimonious argument with you.

spin

Let's say I pulled in some expert to give an opinion to you, would that satisfy you? The business is evidence, not opinion.

You work the evidence as best you can.

I don't know Boid from Cloyd. (Any Rocky & Bullwinkle fans still alive?)

And when I cited E.Y. Kutscher on Samaritan pronunciation, I went to one of the best and best known (though not recent) scholars in the field of North-Western Semitic linguistics and philology. I pointed to his evidence. Before you can use the support from Boid, you need to understand what that support is exactly, otherwise it is of no use to you.

And there is good reason.

Answer me this: when are the first surviving Samaritan texts dated? And when is the first pointed texts dated? I'll save you part of the bother and answer the first: the 12th century.

Scholarship is not a game.

I'm sorry, you have come to this misapprehension. You've received no hostility from me, nor vitriol. Bluntness and irony are a matter of style. I don't know you from Adam, so why should you think you "merit" hostility or vitriol? I may enjoy my rhetoric when I post substantive or critical views, but it's nothing more. I've talked to you because you seem to have read widely and done a fair amount of work with this material. I have merely tried to deal with one thing here (and you may know by now that I don't push views because of their popularity).

The evidence to support צבאות is very strong. These facts we know:

1. Σαβαωθ is plainly used in the LXX for צבאות, so the phonetic connection with the Hebrew is evident;
2. The Greek representation matches well with the surviving pronunciation indications in the MT (later 8th c.);
3. The Greek transliteration Σαβαωθ will obscure the word from its original meaning ("[of] hosts") in ordinary use, making any reliance on the original meaning moot; and
4. Our Gnostic writer of the Hypostasis shows he knows the significance of the word, when he links it with "forces."

Your difficulty in seeing how צבאות could be used as a name of god doesn't appear to me to take into account the fact that the word is transliterated into Greek several times, giving the effect of it having the aura of mystic significance used in relation to god. (Just think how easily Venus, the planet as the morning star, can be transformed into the name of the arch-antagonist of the christians, Lucifer.)

You've attempted to complain about the use of the MT as a phonological control (a secondary part of the evidence), yet are willing to use material that is much later again. Reconstruction of ancient Samaritan Hebrew is a hairy business, often more reflective of the analyst than any noticeable amount of fact (as apparently was the case with Kahle according to Kutscher).

I have difficulty taking your championing the fact that Sabaoth was given charge of the seventh heaven in place of Yaldabaoth as anything more than tenuous at best in your effort to drum up support for שבעות as the correct etymological source for Σαβαωθ. I should also add that the choice of the plural seems only to be because it looks more like Σαβαωθ than the singular form and of course "seventh (heaven)" is worse because it is ordinal and even more dissimilar.

You really don't have any substantive argument against צבאות and what you offer in its place doesn't have anything going for it as etymology. I think you would do better concentrating on other things and letting this one go quietly.


spin