King Arthur

Now that, I like!

I agree. I saw some of his stuff when I used to lurk, though I haven't seen him post in a while.

Paul5204

RyanS2:

Sorry if I went off on my own tangent [the parts about divorce, etc.]. I was simply trying to make the point that just because a particular belief has been held for a long time does not necessarily make it correct. Nor does the identity of those holding that belief.

Anyway, since I retrieved my copy of the JPS Torah Commentary on Genesis from a friend on my way home after posting yesterday, let me supply some of the text from the notes accompanying the translation.

First, Genesis 18, starting with verse 1: And appeared to him [Abe] YHWH by the terebinths of Mamre...

Note 1 at p. 128 provides:

"1. The LORD appeared to him This is the only example of this formula being used without some verbal declaration immediately following. Here, it seems to be a general statement followed by a detailed description of theophany or divine self-revelation, mediated in this instance through angelic messengers."

First point, as I related, since this is the only instance without the verbal declaration immediately following, ought we not be a little suspicious? And I hate to play the literalist here, but if the text says that YHWH appeared ... and then says that looking up, ole Abe saw three men ... ought we not give at least some consideration to the notion that this "divine self-revelation" is YHWH appearing as three men?
And might we also compare this event with the prior and first purported angelic appearance, i.e., that certain instance wherein "an angel of YHWH" finds Hagar by that certain spring of water in the wilderness, that spring on the road to Shur. The first instance does not report that YHWH appeared. It starts with: Then Sarai treated her harshly, and she [Hagar] ran away from her. An angel of YHWH found her by a spring of water in the wilderness, the spring on the road to Shur, and said, Hagar, slave of Sarai, where have you come from, and where are you going? And she said,....

So, again, no report that YHWH appeared. But yet, at the end of the whole affair, the Genesis text reports:

"And she [Hagar] called YHWH who spoke to her, you are 'el-roi, by which she meant, Have I not gone on seeing [living] after seeing the one who sees me!"

Extraordinarily, the JPS note here [note 13 at p. 121] reports: "Have I not... The difficulties in the Hebrew text are formidable, but the statement combines the "seeing" on the part of both Hagar and God IN BOTH SENSES OF THE WORD." [The CAPS is my embellishment]

Is the JPS claiming that Hagar "physically" saw God, i.e., saw God in the flesh? Presumably, if Hagar believed in an omniscient God [in whatever shape, form, variety, etc., as it were], she understood that God sees the so-called "hidden things" of humans. So I understand why the JPS reports that the "seeing" is in both senses, i.e., since God ALWAYS sees the hidden things, no surprise that he should be aware of her circumstance now, and thus no reason for this startled exclamation about just who saw who and what, and why she might be lucky to still be alive [one might also compare this "seeing" with that later report (paraphrasing) of "you [Moshe] shall see my back, but my face shall not be seen...man shall not see me and live..."]

But if Hagar saw God in a "physical" sense, why not here at Genesis 18? Especially given that the text expressly declares...and appeared to him, YHWH, by the terebinths of Mamre...

Next note, note 3 at p. 129 [commenting on verse 3]:

"3. The English translation obscures some difficulties in the Hebrew text. The verbs in verse 3 are in the singular, indicating that only one of the three strangers is spoken to, whereas those in verses 4-5 are in the plural. Genesis Rabba 48:9, Rashi, and Ramban explain that Abraham addresses himself to the leader but that his invitation applies to all three. Another problem is the opening vocative, which is in the plural, 'adonai, with a final long vowel [qamets], the use of which is otherwise reserved for God. Rabbinic opinion in Shevu'ot 35b is divided as to whether 'adonai is in this instance secular or sacred. Rashi and Ibn Ezra understand it to mean "My lords"; Maimonides renders it "My Lord." Since it is clear that the patriarch at this point is unaware of the true identify of the strangers, the present vocalization serves an indication to the reader that the three "men" are no ordinary wayfarers."

Staring with that last sentence, just how/why is it so "clear that the patriarch at this point is unaware of the true identity of the strangers?" Picture the scene: ole Abe, sitting at the entrance of his tent [i.e., in the shade] in the heat of the day [bringing to mind that old saying: only mad dogs and Englishmen go out in the noon-day sun], he gets up, then runs, and then prostates himself before these men.

Then he utters that certain plural form of 'adon otherwise exclusively reserved for God. And there ought to be no debate among the rabbis about whether the 'adonai here is indeed sacred. First, if everywhere else it refers to God, why not here as well? Second, and more to the point, as noted by the JPS, the verbs in verse 3 are in the singular. So this plural 'adonai, is also the singular "person" whom Abe wants to stay...
"My LORD, if it is good in your eyes, do not YOU pass away from upon your servant..." The YOU that Abe does not want to pass away from upon him, is a singular YOU, and not a plural. If Abe was addressing, My lords, plural, then the "do not YOU PASS AWAY" should also be in the plural, but it is not.

Ole Abe new exactly who he was addressing, or more correctly, just who came to visit. Hence his getting up, and running at the hotest time of the day towards these men, and then prostrating himself before them, and then uttering that certain plural form of 'adon otherwise reserved exclusively for God, ie., adonai, and then knowing that his plural God is indeed ONE, immediately switching back to the singular.

Now, as to the last part of that last sentence, ie., "the present vocalization ['adonai] serves as indication to the reader that the three "men" are no ordinary wayfarers," does not the text itself give us indication prior to the vocalization? "And appeared to him YHWH..." YHWH appeared. Why on earth would we then need to have an indication that these men are no ordinary wayfarers? Especially given that the text reports immediately following "the YHWH appeared," that ole Abe looked up and saw three men?

Now, if Genesis Rabba 48:9, Rashi, and Ramban are correct, and ole Abe is addressing himself to the leader [with as yet no description/indicator in the text as to just which of the three this leader might be], then please tell me why the response back is, "And THEY said..."

Let me put the matter this way, while it might be nice for me to begin my address with a direct address to the President of the US of A, and then include his coterie in my invitation, just who do you, I, and everyone reading this expect to respond to my invitation? All of them, ie. the President and his coterie ["THEY"]? Or just the President, on her/his and their behalf ["THE ONE"]? The protocal in our culture, and I have no reason to posit a differing culture in this respect, is that the President would answer on behalf of himself and his companions. But here we have, And THEY said... Someone directly addressed himself to the LIVING GOD, THE ETERNAL, but THEY said in reply.

Now, the plural of verses 4 and 5. Necessitated by the circumstances, since ole Abe's singular plural God is appearing as THREE "men" and thus has six feet to be bathed. Similary, three "men" will need to recline under that tree. Likewise, it is three "men" who will be eating that bread and that later described son of the herd, tender and good. So we need the plural here.

In short, my view is that verse 3 is ole Abe recognizing the singular plural nature of his God, and verses 4 and 5 is simply ole Abe recognizing that his God is locally manifesting [as it were] as three men, what he, you and I normally think of as a plural.

Please do not think that in any spirit of anti-Semitism that I am bashing the JPS. The New American Bible [American Roman Catholic] also reports in its commentary that ole Abe is, at this point, unaware of the identity of the three men. So one does not have to be Jewish to miss the point. As a matter of fact, given that my Roman Catholic friends are presumably Trinitarians, their error is the greater.

We can also look at Genesis 19. At v. 2:

"he [Lot] said: Please, my lords, turn aside to your servant's house..."

Lot here uses a plural form of 'adon, but not the one reserved exclusively for God. Correspondingly, and unlike Gen. 18:3, the immediately following verbs are in the plural.

But then, at v. 18 [using the JPS translation]:

"But Lot said TO THEM: Oh no, my Lord!" You have been so gracious to your servant..."

The JPS commmentary here [note 18 at p. 137] provides:

"18. my lord Hebrew 'adonai is here treated by many commentators as nonsacred. Others understand it as a direct plea to God."

The Masoretes, who inserted the vowel points in the Hebrew consonantal text surely thought that Lot was speaking to God, since the relevant vowel point here is indeed that final long vowel otherwise known as qamets. Just as was the case at Gen. 18:3.

But the Masoretes did not mark the first instance at v. 2 with final long vowel, i.e., a nonsacred use.

Why the difference? First consider that Lot is ostensibly speaking to the same persons, i.e., the two "men"/"messengers", on both occasions. Unless, of course, one understands, as noted by the JPS, that the last instance was a "direct appeal to God", even though the text reports "But Lot said TO THEM." Second, and more convincingly, note that in the interim period between these two uses, these two men struck some rather sinful souls with blindness. Can we posit that during this interim period, that Lot took the being struck with blindness for what it was, i.e, and act of God? And then accordingly changed his manner of address on the later occasion?

Last point re this story, v.24:

"YHWH rained upon Sodom and Gomorrah sulfurous fire from YHWH out of heaven."

Why the double use [as it were] of YHWH? It sounds rather awkward. According to the JPS [note 24 at p. 138]:

"24. the LORD ... the LORD The repetition, like the phrase out of heaven [which is not repeated, so how is it "like"], dramatizes the conviction that what occurred was not a meaningless accident of nature but a purposeful event, the expression of God's direct intervention in human affairs in order to redress the balance of justice."

I see, we need the repetition of YHWH to dramatize the conviction that this was the direct intervention of God. Apparently, the following verse was simply not good enough [v.25]:

"He annilihated..."

But if we posit that those two men/messengers who went down to Sodom were YHWH in the flesh, just as was that other man/messenger, who stayed with Abe and then departed [to where, heaven?], then we might understand the first reference as being to those two men/messengers, who did state that THEY would destroy Sodom [Gen. 19:3: For WE are about to destroy this place...], and the second reference to that other man/messenger who departed [went back, as it were] to heaven.

Now, on to the Let us make man in our image. If that refers to God and the angelic host, then we have a problem, at least it seems so to me. It says, Let US make ... with the make being as important as the us. Are the angelic host doing any making? Even if not since the image here, is OUR image, i.e., God's and their's, how do we reconcile this God-angelic host interpretation with that other report that God made man in HIS image, and not that of the angelic host. Is the angelic host likewise in God's image? I doubt that the JPS or any other Jew thinks so. But if the US includes such a host, I hope that they are in His image, since, again, the text reports: Let us make man in OUR image.

It is not just the us, it is also the OUR. And the story otherwise reports that we are made in only one "person's" image, God's.

I have to get going, and I promise to respond to your reply as soon as I can, but let me leave you with the other commentary that relates to my initial post. First, the commentary on the use of "70". From the last paragraph of page 69 of the JPS Torah Commentary on Genesis:

"Israel and the Nations. This brings us back to the number seventy, which is not only emblematic of the totality of the human race but may also function to intensify the general prefiguring thrust of the table. The number seventy resonates with the composition of the offspring of Jacob who went down to Egypt. The special significance this assumes is demonstrated not only by its emphasis in Genesis 46:27 but also by its reiteration twice more [so one more 3], in Exodus 1:5 and Deuteronomy 10:22. IT IS AS THOUGH THE TOTALITY OF THE NATIONS AND THE TOTALITY OF THE ISRAELITES WHO MIGRATE TO EGYPT ARE INTERTWINED."

If that is so, as I related, the question now becomes: why the intertwining?

As that other Paul reports, at Romans 11:32:

"For God SHUT UP all in disobedience, that to all He may show mercy."

And at Galatians 3:22:

"But the Scripture LOCKED UP all under sin, that the promise by faith of Jesus Christ might be given to the ones believing."

The LOCKED UP is the Greek sunekleisen, and the SHUT UP is the Greek sunekleise. Both come from the Greek sugkleio, meaning, to SHUT TOGETHER, figuratively, to EMBRACE in a common subjection.
And as Strong's reports, sugkleio is from sun [with/together/union] and kleio [to close/shut up]. And so no one misses the point, kleis means "a key, as shutting a lock." So this locked up/shut up under sin, is with a key.

I can only hope that you have heard that Echo & the Bunnymen song, Flaming Red, aka our sin[s]. So, Egypt, that iron furnance, that house of bondage, i.e, our sin, and our captivity in it.

Next commentary, note 27, p. 67:

"27. The blessing for Japheth likewise contains a word play, this one explicit, but the rendering, "enlarge" for Hebrew yaft, although traditional, is uncertain. The stem p-t-h means "to be open," and nowhere else does it have the sense of enlargment of territorial boundaries. The phrase may simply be figurative of posterity. The meaning of the second clause is also problematical. The subject of the verb is Japheth, but elsewhere the idiom means "to dispclace," which is hardly appropriate to the present context....A subtle point is the use here of the general term, 'elohim, "God," with Japheth, in contrast to the sacred name YHWH, which is exclusive to Shem and later to Israel, his descendants."

The key here is indeed the exclusivity. Not a good thing. At least according to Noah. Enlarge? No, to open. Open what? His heart/mind, so that he may conceive of his 'elohim according to that particular Jewish conception of Deity, and come to know Him as YHWH. So let him displace Shem so that there is no more exclusivity. Why should Noah desire such a thing? BOTH these sons did the right thing. Noah only prays that the one gets what the other has. Apparently, that requires some "displacement."

Anyway, I will respond to your post in the next day or so. I appreciate your bearing with me. I cannot, however, promise, like that One, that might burden is light, but I will do my best. Until then, take care.