Evangelion

Proof required for "El Shaddai = 'God of the Mountain'", please.

El definitely means "God" (though it can also mean "strength", "mighty", or "power", among others) but the Hebrew word for "mountain" is har (har) - and har is definitely not a component of El Shaddai.

Compare the two:

• "God of the Mountain" would look something like this: el har
  
• But El Shaddai is written this way: el shaddai

So I guess I'm curious to know how you're deriving "God of the Mountain" from el shaddai

Tristan Scott

My bad, I guess I was translating Shaddai as "Most high", a term found in other parts of scripture to mean high place or mountain, as in "shadow of the Most High" found in Psalms. However on further and closer examination I see I am incorrect and the translation almighty or all powerful is better.

Well, yes it does in that I feel that the books contained in the Pentateuch are derivitives of earlier myths, such as 'When on High" mentioned above and others where there were gods designated for everything. The early audience for these books believed in a multitude of gods and it seems that the authors are making it clear that this god is the most powerful of all like the Sumerian and Babylonian El and Ea.

CJD

Hello, Tristian Scott.

You wrote:

Well, yes it does in that I feel that the books contained in the Pentateuch are derivatives of earlier myths, such as 'When on High" mentioned above and others where there were gods designated for everything. The early audience for these books believed in a multitude of gods and it seems that the authors are making it clear that this god is the most powerful of all like the Sumerian and Babylonian El and Ea.

This by-and-large does not go beyond the textual evidence, Tristan. I, in fact, agree with you here—save one minor quibble: "the books . . . are derivatives"? Now, true, there is no textual warrant for all that, nor do I think there is much historical warrant for that, either. I can affirm all that you say except for the derivative bit, because I think said books are connected with ancient Near Eastern myths only in that they serve as a clear polemic against those myths. Does this somehow undermine the Judeo-Christian message?

Regards,

CJD

Tristan Scott

What about the flood myth? Are you saying the Noah story was written to refute the earlier flood myths? I think they were saying to the locals, "yes there was a great flood, yes it was caused by God and all that, but this is how it really happened." Then they took the same myth that the locals believed and plugged in their own characters, with a few embellishments.

CJD

What about the flood myth? Are you saying the Noah story was written to refute the earlier flood myths?

Yes. An authoritative refutation.


I think they were saying to the locals, "yes there was a great flood, yes it was caused by God and all that, but this is how it really happened."

Well, maybe they were saying, "this is how it happened from our perspective. Compare this with, say, the account of the Exodus. It's described as if it were a world-shattering event, no? Well, it was, from an Israelite perspective. The same thing goes for the other literature of that period. Two armies go to war. Both write their histories as if they lost little and gained much. Happens all the time, even up to this very day--consider the unust war with Iraqi.

In the end, it seems our biggest contention with each other is over the issue of textual authority, an argument I wish to avoid around here for reasons I've posted elsewhere (in general religious discussions).

Regards,

CJD

Haran

Cool, I didn't know you could just type [ font = hebrew ] xxx [ /font ] to get the hebrew. Did you look at your Hebrew, though? It's backward and "har" does not have an aleph in it - rh.

Font's backward again and the "e" does not produce the aleph - the "a" did. Did you proof read your post?

I believe, if the font works, it should look like this instead: rhh la

Note that to say "God of the mountain", you would have to put the article on the mountain. In other words, "El haHar".

This is not right either. Did you think the sh would be recognized as the letter "shin" and that the vowel dots would be added to the letters by putting in english vowel equivalents?

"El Shaddai" would look more like this: ydv la

"Shaddai" seems to be a word of obscure origins. It is translated as "almighty" in many modern versions, although it is only transliterated into an English equivalent in some.

According to the Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament:
The first possibility mentioned by the TWOT was the hebrew verb "shadad" "to destroy" which, with its ending and combined with El, would form something like "God, my destroyer" or "God is my destroyer".

Before others jump on the "bias" of the translators who used "almighty", the other possibilities seem to be relatively recent conclusions. Also, according to the TWOT, the translations were influenced by decisions made for "El Shaddai" in the Greek Septuagint (LXX) - pantokrator = "all-powerful" - and the Latin Vulgate - omnipotens = you know this word... Rabbinic analysis suggested "self-sufficient".

Plainly, we just don't know, so you are free to make an educated guess. Did the ancients know better the language they were translating or do we know it better today?

Doctor X

For some reason my Netscape sent me to "old pages"--looked like no one posted all day. . . .

Evangelion:

Book of Jubilees is a later tradition that preserves the reinterpretation that is not actually justified in the wording of the text.

CJC:

Thank you very much.

I have been plowing through a painful book on iconography. If anything, it seems evidence exists for many gods. If I remember F. Cross's book correctly [Canaanite Myth and the Hebrew Epic.--Ed.] "YHWH" seems to have been a verb as part of a longer "god title"--"El Who Has Really Impressive Cajones and Smiteth the Somethingorotherakites"--more seriously, something like a "God who makes the Mountain." I am "at the office" and will have to check the book later. Anyways, YHWH seems to have broken off at some point. El becomes a more "universal" or "ephemeral" power greater and less of a "person" than your basic "hairy thunderer." Other gods such as Baal become interchangable with YHWH and El in some cases.

This is a very severe summarization, so take it with a pound of NaCl.

I had "thought" that the iconography would show depictions of YHWH--or aspects/representations thereof--El, Baal, et cetera and . . . to some extent they do. However, it does not always preserve the transitions. For example--and this may bring my blathering back to the topic--I had assumed that Asherah was once a consort--goddess--to YHWH. Well . . . the iconography suggests more of a "personification" or "encapsulation" of an attribute of a now "greater" deity. Asherah . . . sometimes "the asherah" . . . appears as a tree in iconography. Thus far there are no pictures of "YHWH and Asherah in Vegas!"

[ZzzzZZZZZzzzzZZZZzzz--Ed.]

Anyways, my point [You have one?--Ed.] is that somehow gods have "attributes" and "locality." So, it seems the texts preserve these facets. Were the attributes once all separate gods or part of a whole that broke off? Hell if I know. It seems to me that both happened. At some point, YHWH becomes a "principle" god identified with venerable "El". I chide Evangelion for citing a late text regarding the "sons of the gods;" however, later mythmaking and interpretation will try to make these into "lesser gods" or attributes of them.

From the iconography it seems that people were comfortable with a bit of polytheism. What I found interesting is that a seal with, say, a Baal depiction would be owned by a person which a YHWHistic name.

So . . . [ZZZzzzZZZZZzzzZZZ--Ed.] the text may have "started" or reflected an earlier polytheistic point--one group worshiped an "El" another more "gods," et cetera, and those who redacted them and used them reinterpreted them. In a way, modern adherents do that now.

Marduck:

Darn . . . outside of the "office" I have a reference to passages where YHWH defeats a chaos monster much like your reference to the creation myth. I think it quite clear that the Genesis creation myths depend on myths like the one you cited. In yet another reference not here--Claus Westerman--discusses how the opening the Genesis should have "cut" rather than "create" as in "cutting the heavens from the earth" which preserves a much older tradition. Indeed, very little "creating" occurs--more of a reordering.

Shadday:

Seems this may have been answered. I recall a "mountain" definition. It seems that shaddayim--"almighty ones/mountains"--may have became minor deities. In the painful reference I mention, there is a section on an inscription at Tell Deir Alla, dated at the end of the ninth century, which records the "writing of Balaam, the son of Beor, who sees the gods." The reference states:

Sound familiar?

The reference concludes:

Enough of my blathering. . . .

--J.D.

Reference:

Keel O, Uehlinger C. Gods, Goddesses, and Images of God in Ancient Israel. Trapp T. trans. Fortress Press, 1998.

Peter Kirby

Haran, don't doubt the wisdom of my methods! This doesn't work for all machines--and it doesn't work for mine--because not everyone has installed a font called "Hebrew." What I see is the transliteration in Roman characters. But using the HTML sequences (with this) will work on more machines.

best,
Peter Kirby

Haran

Ha! I don't. I just thought it might be easier than going through my bookmarks to get to the converters... But if it doesn't work for most, then I'd better use your converter...

Mountain is:
הר

God of the Mountain would be:
אל ההר

El Shaddai would be:
אל שדי

Doctor X

This is to complete the reference I made earlier.

Peter:

Using your converter, the Hebrew in the reference becometh a bunch of boxes:

ארכ

Anyway to fix that?

Name of YHWH:

I rather like F. M. Cross’ introduction to the section:

He notes that the form is primitive and exists in an independent form in extrabiblical materials that predate the Exile. Cross argues that YHWH arose from a verb element of longer titles:

He then argues:

which he then defines as, "to cause to be," "to create." Finally, he suggests:

Reference:

Cross FM. Canaanite Myth and Hebrew Epic: Essays in the History of the Religion of Israel. Harvard University Press, 1973.

Cut versus Create:

Reference:

Westermann C. Genesis: An Introduction. Fortress Press, 1992.

--J.D.