So Christ had a body before he had a body? You should be able to see the problem with that. In any case, this answer solves nothing and was really just the Early Church Fathers’ way of making sense of things that already made perfect sense to Jews. And we are NEVER given a detailed description of the appearances of ALL angelic begins; we are only ever privy to the appearances of a handful, and in many cases, angelic beings appear human-like (Genesis 19:1; Daniel 7:13, 8:15-17, 9:21, 10:4-7, Mark 16:5, Luke 24:4, Acts 12:15). There is nothing in Scripture to support your notion that the angels just “temporarily metamorphosed” into human form; in fact, we have ample evidence that the Israelites, and especially the Jews of Jesus’ time, believed that many angels were human-like in appearance. A huge portion of my graduate research has been on this particular topic; I’ve read dozens of primary (Second Temple Jewish texts) and secondary (scholarly dissertations, monographs, and articles) on this subject.
[/quote]
I do not see the argument for Christ having a body here. Pre-incarnate would be indicative of meaning ‘prior to taking human form’. I don’t think having body before having a body was being argued here at all. Christ does not need a body to exist. And there is no indication of God ‘taking form’ prior to or during the statement.
[quote]
The Jews and ancient Israelites alike believed that God had no body, no appearance, NADA, whereas angels did have such an appearance. God alone is truly Spirit in the sense that he has no form at all. Consequently, Old Testament theophanies were explained as appearances by “the Angel of the Lord” or “the Glory of the Lord”, an angelic being who functions as God’s representative, being identified with God though simultaneously being distinct from him. For a clear example, see Zechariah 3:1-2, which literally reads, "And he (an angel) showed me Joshua, the high priest, standing before the Angel of Yahweh and the Accuser standing at his right side accusing him. [/i] But Yahweh said, “Yahweh rebuke you, Satan! May Yahweh who has chosen Jerusalem rebuke you!” [/i] Here, in verse 1, we have two figures discussing the legitimacy of Joshua to be high priest. Does Yahweh’s voice suddenly echo from the heavens in verse 2? Well, that can’t be, because the voice speaks of Yahweh as if he is someone other than the speaker; more, he asks for Yahweh to rebuke Satan himself! Moreover, if that was Yahweh’s voice from heaven, why is the angel of the Lord mentioned at all? It makes perfect sense, however, once you recognize that the relationship between the Angel of the Lord and the God he represents is so strong that what the Angel of the Lord says, God himself says.
I don’t see where it says God made any kind appearance?
Then it would further beg the question was the counsel made in God’s image as well? They would have to to resolve the tension. But no counsel, indeed nothing else is indicated other than God and His creation. Referring to himself in the plural is the only thing that can be gleaned from the text itself.
The Israelite’s were not aware of his trinitarian nature at the time. Further, if God is omnipotent, his form is not limited by anything. Nevertheless form is not indicated, nor is the presence of anything other than God and his creation in the process.
So Christ had a body before he had a body? You should be able to see the problem with that. In any case, this answer solves nothing and was really just the Early Church Fathers’ way of making sense of things that already made perfect sense to Jews. And we are NEVER given a detailed description of the appearances of ALL angelic begins; we are only ever privy to the appearances of a handful, and in many cases, angelic beings appear human-like (Genesis 19:1; Daniel 7:13, 8:15-17, 9:21, 10:4-7, Mark 16:5, Luke 24:4, Acts 12:15). There is nothing in Scripture to support your notion that the angels just “temporarily metamorphosed” into human form; in fact, we have ample evidence that the Israelites, and especially the Jews of Jesus’ time, believed that many angels were human-like in appearance. A huge portion of my graduate research has been on this particular topic; I’ve read dozens of primary (Second Temple Jewish texts) and secondary (scholarly dissertations, monographs, and articles) on this subject.
The Jews and ancient Israelites alike believed that God had no body, no appearance, NADA, whereas angels did have such an appearance. God alone is truly Spirit in the sense that he has no form at all. Consequently, Old Testament theophanies were explained as appearances by “the Angel of the Lord” or “the Glory of the Lord”, an angelic being who functions as God’s representative, being identified with God though simultaneously being distinct from him. For a clear example, see Zechariah 3:1-2, which literally reads, "And he (an angel) showed me Joshua, the high priest, standing before the Angel of Yahweh and the Accuser standing at his right side accusing him. [/i] But Yahweh said, “Yahweh rebuke you, Satan! May Yahweh who has chosen Jerusalem rebuke you!” [/i] Here, in verse 1, we have two figures discussing the legitimacy of Joshua to be high priest. Does Yahweh’s voice suddenly echo from the heavens in verse 2? Well, that can’t be, because the voice speaks of Yahweh as if he is someone other than the speaker; more, he asks for Yahweh to rebuke Satan himself! Moreover, if that was Yahweh’s voice from heaven, why is the angel of the Lord mentioned at all? It makes perfect sense, however, once you recognize that the relationship between the Angel of the Lord and the God he represents is so strong that what the Angel of the Lord says, God himself says.
Good one, KK!
The Trinity as a concept is not native here, it is imposed upon the text from without.
[/quote]
[quote]I don’t think that really matters. Much of our understand of Biblical texts are imposed from without. That doesn’t mean that the Trinity was not invoked.
[/quote]
[/quote]
Ah but it does matter. Christian exegetical reading is fine with me, but does the text demand that there be a Trinity? No it does not: if the Trinity is necessary for Christian belief, that should stand without disputation. But why must it be inserted here, in this text…so that it may acquire the necessary legitimacy?
I agree with you, pat. The text does not explain itself on this business of angels, divine councils, etc…it was an assumed existence in the narrative. (Rashi does back-flips in explaining that angels must have been created on the Second Day. Its a nice story, but really…who needs this?)
[quote]
[quote]
As much as you, KK, are a Rashi-skeptic, I will restrain myself to this commentary on the issue, and hope that it offends no one:
“Let us make man: Even though they [the angels] did not assist Him in His creation, and there is an opportunity for the heretics to rebel (to misconstrue the plural as a basis for their heresies), Scripture did not hesitate to teach proper conduct and the trait of humility, that a great person should consult with and receive permission from a smaller one. Had it been written: Ã???Ã???Ã???Ã???Ã??Ã?¢??I shall make man,Ã???Ã???Ã???Ã???Ã??Ã?¢?? we would not have learned that He was speaking with His tribunal, but to Himself. And the refutation to the heretics is written alongside it [i. e., in the following verse:]Ã???Ã???Ã???Ã???Ã??Ã?¢??And God created ,Ã???Ã???Ã???Ã???Ã??Ã?¢?? and it does not say,Ã???Ã???Ã???Ã???Ã??Ã?¢??and they created - [from Gen. Rabbah 8:9]”
(Note: God alone, and not a committee, creates.)
I will not comment here on the distinction between the word for “image” and that for “form.”
But I would like to quote a remarkable observation from Sforno on v 27:
"In the image of God. The term Elohim used in a comparable sense can be applied to every intlelligent force separated from matter which is perfect and…everlasting. Therefore, this term is used regarding God, the Blessed One, and His angels. It is also applied to judges reflecting their power of reason which is suitable for them…Nonetheless, before man contemplates and thinks deeply, lacking the perfection and completeness prepared for him, he cannot be called Elohim, but can only be called ‘the image of Elohim.’…Now since man can choose to attain this perfection…if he restrains himself from this perfection, his intellectual powers will remain only potential…resulting in desolation and destruction. "Man is in his splendor but does not understand; he is like the beasts that perish.’ (Ps 49:21)
“All this, God, the Blessed One, taught us in these two words, saying ‘in the image of Elohim.’”[/quote]
I would argue this observation is imposed from without as well. Nothing between 1:1 and 1:26 gives any indications of counsels, judges or angels. [/quote]
Yes, agreed. It is exegetical. It is not a direct interpretation, and Sforno did not intend it as such. He was the anti-Aristotelian in these matters. I cite it for 2 purposes: a) it is a remarkable thought b) it ribs KK once more with the centuries-old tradition that one interpretation for elohim is “judges” or “dignitiaries” (in the proper context.)
So Christ had a body before he had a body? You should be able to see the problem with that. In any case, this answer solves nothing and was really just the Early Church Fathers’ way of making sense of things that already made perfect sense to Jews. And we are NEVER given a detailed description of the appearances of ALL angelic begins; we are only ever privy to the appearances of a handful, and in many cases, angelic beings appear human-like (Genesis 19:1; Daniel 7:13, 8:15-17, 9:21, 10:4-7, Mark 16:5, Luke 24:4, Acts 12:15). There is nothing in Scripture to support your notion that the angels just “temporarily metamorphosed” into human form; in fact, we have ample evidence that the Israelites, and especially the Jews of Jesus’ time, believed that many angels were human-like in appearance. A huge portion of my graduate research has been on this particular topic; I’ve read dozens of primary (Second Temple Jewish texts) and secondary (scholarly dissertations, monographs, and articles) on this subject.
The Jews and ancient Israelites alike believed that God had no body, no appearance, NADA, whereas angels did have such an appearance. God alone is truly Spirit in the sense that he has no form at all. Consequently, Old Testament theophanies were explained as appearances by “the Angel of the Lord” or “the Glory of the Lord”, an angelic being who functions as God’s representative, being identified with God though simultaneously being distinct from him. For a clear example, see Zechariah 3:1-2, which literally reads, "And he (an angel) showed me Joshua, the high priest, standing before the Angel of Yahweh and the Accuser standing at his right side accusing him. [/i] But Yahweh said, “Yahweh rebuke you, Satan! May Yahweh who has chosen Jerusalem rebuke you!” [/i] Here, in verse 1, we have two figures discussing the legitimacy of Joshua to be high priest. Does Yahweh’s voice suddenly echo from the heavens in verse 2? Well, that can’t be, because the voice speaks of Yahweh as if he is someone other than the speaker; more, he asks for Yahweh to rebuke Satan himself! Moreover, if that was Yahweh’s voice from heaven, why is the angel of the Lord mentioned at all? It makes perfect sense, however, once you recognize that the relationship between the Angel of the Lord and the God he represents is so strong that what the Angel of the Lord says, God himself says.
Good one, KK!
The Trinity as a concept is not native here, it is imposed upon the text from without.
[/quote]
[quote]I don’t think that really matters. Much of our understand of Biblical texts are imposed from without. That doesn’t mean that the Trinity was not invoked.
[/quote]
[/quote]
Ah but it does matter. Christian exegetical reading is fine with me, but does the text demand that there be a Trinity? No it does not: if the Trinity is necessary for Christian belief, that should stand without disputation. But why must it be inserted here, in this text…so that it may acquire the necessary legitimacy?
[/quote]
No the text does not demand there be a Trinity. It does require knowledge of Trinity to make this inference. What I said doesn’t matter is that the imposition of understanding come from with out.
The text does make a plural self reference in the Lord’s words. Referring to one self in the plural, and knowing now of the existence of the Trinity, seems to me to be the most sensible solution to the tension. Particularly, since also it is referred to again in Chapter 18, a little more explicitly. Note the words ‘a little more’, not saying it’s slam dunk explicit.
Further he is speaking of creating something in ‘His own image’ something we cannot know about the Heavenly Counsel or angels with regard to also being created in God’s image… Unless of course you want to broaden the scope of the argument and say that all of creation was created in God’s image. It’s a plausible argument, actually.
What part of the Bible stands without dispute? It’s the nature of the text were even the placement of a comma can be a source of centuries of dispute. It’s a great book.
Nobody, but it’s great discussion.
[quote]
[quote]
[quote]
As much as you, KK, are a Rashi-skeptic, I will restrain myself to this commentary on the issue, and hope that it offends no one:
“Let us make man: Even though they [the angels] did not assist Him in His creation, and there is an opportunity for the heretics to rebel (to misconstrue the plural as a basis for their heresies), Scripture did not hesitate to teach proper conduct and the trait of humility, that a great person should consult with and receive permission from a smaller one. Had it been written: Ã???Ã???Ã???Ã???Ã???Ã???Ã??Ã?¢??I shall make man,Ã???Ã???Ã???Ã???Ã???Ã???Ã??Ã?¢?? we would not have learned that He was speaking with His tribunal, but to Himself. And the refutation to the heretics is written alongside it [i. e., in the following verse:]Ã???Ã???Ã???Ã???Ã???Ã???Ã??Ã?¢??And God created ,Ã???Ã???Ã???Ã???Ã???Ã???Ã??Ã?¢?? and it does not say,Ã???Ã???Ã???Ã???Ã???Ã???Ã??Ã?¢??and they created - [from Gen. Rabbah 8:9]”
(Note: God alone, and not a committee, creates.)
I will not comment here on the distinction between the word for “image” and that for “form.”
But I would like to quote a remarkable observation from Sforno on v 27:
"In the image of God. The term Elohim used in a comparable sense can be applied to every intlelligent force separated from matter which is perfect and…everlasting. Therefore, this term is used regarding God, the Blessed One, and His angels. It is also applied to judges reflecting their power of reason which is suitable for them…Nonetheless, before man contemplates and thinks deeply, lacking the perfection and completeness prepared for him, he cannot be called Elohim, but can only be called ‘the image of Elohim.’…Now since man can choose to attain this perfection…if he restrains himself from this perfection, his intellectual powers will remain only potential…resulting in desolation and destruction. "Man is in his splendor but does not understand; he is like the beasts that perish.’ (Ps 49:21)
“All this, God, the Blessed One, taught us in these two words, saying ‘in the image of Elohim.’”[/quote]
I would argue this observation is imposed from without as well. Nothing between 1:1 and 1:26 gives any indications of counsels, judges or angels. [/quote]
Yes, agreed. It is exegetical. It is not a direct interpretation, and Sforno did not intend it as such. He was the anti-Aristotelian in these matters. I cite it for 2 purposes: a) it is a remarkable thought b) it ribs KK once more with the centuries-old tradition that one interpretation for elohim is “judges” or “dignitiaries” (in the proper context.)[/quote]
I would argue this observation is imposed from without as well. Nothing between 1:1 and 1:26 gives any indications of counsels, judges or angels. [/quote]
Indeed.
The “angels” interpretation is one that must be hunted down and speculated on quite heavily; it must almost exclusively rely on Isaiah 14 and Ezekiel 28 and very few if any other OT texts.
While one may decide to run with it I think it’s as more of a ploy to hide from the doctrine of the Trinity than an attempt at “proper,” objective interpretation.
[/quote]
Objective interpretation is lacking. There always seems an angle to make the text to suite one’s purposes. I think we are all guilty of that to some degree. You have to at least try to be honest about what you see. I also think you can over think this stuff. I think initial impressions are always the most honest.
When reading this passage, knowing the Trinity, I assumed it right away.
I am glad you brought this up, it’s actually good discussion.
I think when you cross it against Gen Chapter 18 Trinity makes the most sense. What’s your thoughts on God’s presence in Chapter 18? I don’t think you have to jump to Isaiah, Ezekiel, or even Revelation to discern 1:26.
[quote]DrSkeptix wrote:
So try Ex 22:8
“For any sinful word, for a bull, for a donkey, for a lamb, for a garment, for any lost article, concerning which he will say that this is it, the plea[s] of both parties shall come to the judges, [and] whoever the judges declare guilty shall pay twofold to his neighbor.”
Elohim occurs twice here, once with the definite article and once without. Both in the plural, and both understood to mean “judges” or “dignitaries.”
[/quote]
I thought this might be the sort of text you were referring to. This example doesn’t actually prove your point at all, Doc - it is too highly debatable. First of all, though the pointing suggests a 3rd common plural subject, the letters of the yarshi’un do not. Indeed, without the paragogic nun, one would assume this was a Hiphil imperfect 3rd SINGULAR rather than plural. Indeed, the Septuagint (the original Greek translation of the pentateuch), which follows its source text closely, takes the verb as a singular. Consequently, many scholars maintain that the MT here is corrupt and should be emended. THe JPS translation actually follows this line of reasoning, as does the ESV and the 2011 NIV. More importantly, however, this same notion of “appearing before God” for judgment occurs earlier in Exodus (Ex. 18:15, 18:19 (note the same el-ha-elohim (to God) construction as in 22:7 in the same judicial context), as well as in other ancient Near Eastern texts. In such contexts, “coming to God” to resolve a dispute meant going to the judges or prophetic figures (i.e., Moses) and letting God decide the case (as, for example, in Ex. 22:10, where the outcome of an oath uttered before/ by Yahweh determines an individual’s guilt).
In this context, therefore, elohim does not DENOTE judges; it merely CONNOTES them, and ONLY in this context. Consequently, you cannot use this single example as proof that “judges” is within the semantic range of the word elohim, and there is thus no basis for including “judges” as a potential meaning of the word in Genesis 6. It is only in judicial contexts like this where elohim CONNOTES “judges,” but even in such contexts, it still means God (i.e., in Israelite religion, God is the ultimate arbiter of all disputes).[/quote]
Now THAT is a cosiderable stretch or I am more clever than I thought.
Look at the context of the verse, Ex 22:." 6. If a man gives his neighbor money or articles for safekeeping, and it is stolen from the man’s house, if the thief is found, he shall pay twofold. 7. If the thief is not found, the homeowner shall approach the judges, [to swear] that he has not laid his hand upon his neighbor’s property."
Do you really think, in this context, The Law is written to propel a homeowner (appointed custodian to another’s property) to appear before God, or before earthly judges? So follows verse 8, and so on. How many Israelites could appear directly before God? THe High Priest, on rare occasion, maybe.
No, the word here, in context, is judges. Elohim can mean judges in the right context. It can mean God in the right context.
[/quote]
Lol Doc, I would really encourage you to reread my statements above, because you completely skipped over my point. And this is a historical-cultural point I am making. Interpretation of texts written thousands of years ago in a cultural context completely different from our own requires not just linguistic work, but also historical, if we are going to understand the text. Sometimes certain idioms only make sense in certain cultural situations.
NOW, in an ancient Near Eastern context, where all wisdom is ultimately attributed to God/ the gods (this is true across the board), judges function as mediators of the divine wisdom. When they made rulings, they were supposed to consult the deity. Consequently, to bring a dispute before God in ancient Near Eastern context IMPLIES going before the judges, but the people still would have believed they were going to GOD with their problem, that GOD would be the one to resolve it. Consequently, Elohim does NOT necessarily DENOTE “judges;” it simply CONNOTES judges in this very specific context.
There is another point that you are missing which I will get to under the next section of your quote, so please see that before you respond.
There are four things I think you are overlooking in the above comment.
Targum Onkelos is not “a little younger” than the Septuagint proper (the translation of the Pentateuch, the relevant portion for our discussion); try 3 centuries. And we have the same problem with the Targums that we do with the Mishnaic literature - while some of it may date to the early first century or a little earlier, there are so many signs of rabbinic revisionism that we cannot tell what practices or interpretations the rabbis are pretending date back centuries and which ones actually do. We have the exact same problem with Targum Onkelos - texts preserved by the rabbis served rabbinic ends and supported rabbinic interpretations, so trying to piece together what was really ancient and what the rabbis claimed was ancient is difficult.
Targum Onkelos is not “as close to the source texts” as the Septuagint. Thanks to the Dead Sea Scrolls and some other findings, we know of at least four different Hebrew text-types (manuscript traditions) popular at the time of Jesus. It has been confirmed that the Septuagint follows a different text type than the Masoretic text and follows this manuscript tradition very, very closely. The MT was chosen by the rabbis of the late first-early second century A.D. as the standard text for preservation in part for polemical reasons - it had certain features conducive to their revisionist approach to Jewish history.
Targum Onkelos is a TARGUM, a paraphrase rather than a literal translation. Targums add all kinds of things to the text, and because they are hyper-interpretive documents, they do not LEAVE DIFFICULT TERMS ALONE. In other words, taking a passage like Exodus 22:8 for example, it is no surprise that the Targum provides the common rabbinic interpretation of elohim in this passage - it is meant to explain the situation the text is referring to. But as I already said, just because elohim in this context CONNOTES “judges” that we can assume that elohim DENOTES “judges.” It doesn’t mean that we can insert “judges” elsewhere as a potential meaning for elohim.
And no, the Targum is NOT more “in tune to the vocabulary than the Septuagint.” You really don’t know very much about the Septuagint, Doc. The fact is that the translation of the Pentateuch is VERY literal; Onkelos is anything BUT literal, because it is a Targum.
Consequently, the possibility still remains that the Masoretic text-type (which Targum Onkelos is based on) is corrupt in Exodus 22:8, and the Septuagint represents a different and more accurate text-type in which this mistake (elohim plus a plural verb) does not occur.
[quote] Kingkai wrote:
So Christ had a body before he had a body? You should be able to see the problem with that. In any case, this answer solves nothing and was really just the Early Church Fathers’ way of making sense of things that already made perfect sense to Jews. And we are NEVER given a detailed description of the appearances of ALL angelic begins; we are only ever privy to the appearances of a handful, and in many cases, angelic beings appear human-like (Genesis 19:1; Daniel 7:13, 8:15-17, 9:21, 10:4-7, Mark 16:5, Luke 24:4, Acts 12:15). There is nothing in Scripture to support your notion that the angels just “temporarily metamorphosed” into human form; in fact, we have ample evidence that the Israelites, and especially the Jews of Jesus’ time, believed that many angels were human-like in appearance. A huge portion of my graduate research has been on this particular topic; I’ve read dozens of primary (Second Temple Jewish texts) and secondary (scholarly dissertations, monographs, and articles) on this subject.
[/quote]
I do not see the argument for Christ having a body here. Pre-incarnate would be indicative of meaning ‘prior to taking human form’. I don’t think having body before having a body was being argued here at all. Christ does not need a body to exist. And there is no indication of God ‘taking form’ prior to or during the statement.
[/quote]
Here’s what I meant by that comment, Pat - John 1:18 (“no one has ever seen God. It is God the only Son, who is close to the Father’s heart, who has made him known”) reflects the traditional belief shared by the Israelites (biblical time period) and the Jewish people (Second Temple period) alike and reflected in their Scriptures that God has never been seen by anyone, because, they believed, God does not have a form. Until Jesus was incarnated, God had no form. Consequently, since God had no form before the incarnation, what is Jesus doing with a form in the OT if he is God? Yes, Jesus existed prior to the incarnation, but if someone actually saw Jesus prior to that incarnation, then John AND the rest of the OT is wrong.
Too may Christians are so eager to see Jesus in the OT that they don’t pay any attention to the problem of continuity - BOTH TESTAMENTS HAVE TO BE TRUE.
Yes, you are right, Pat - “referring to himself in the plural is the only thing that can be gleaned from the text itself.” The point that you ignored is my detailed explication of the Israelite belief in an angelic being who bears the divine name and image, a being who we find in some Second Temple texts as serving God in the process of creation. This being may be in view here, as I have said before.
[quote]
The Israelite’s were not aware of his trinitarian nature at the time. Further, if God is omnipotent, his form is not limited by anything. Nevertheless form is not indicated, nor is the presence of anything other than God and his creation in the process.[/quote]
This is uninformed speculation. Yeah, I would think God’s omnipotence means he can do whatever he wants to, but the people who wrote the Scriptures affirmed that God had no form and no one ever saw him. So what you and I THINK God could theoretically do or what the limits on the divine ontology are is irrelevant.
And yes, the Israelites WERE unaware of his trinitarian nature, which brings us back to the issue we were discussing days ago. You say “context matters;” you say that the intent of the original authors matters; you just want to believe that God could mean a little more too. Here’s my point, stated as simply as I can…
Did the human author of Genesis know about the Trinity? You and I both answer NO.
So then the human author had a non-Trinitarian meaning in mind when he wrote, “God said, “Let US make man”” ? The answer HAS to be YES.
Therefore, an explanation HAS to exist for the use of the plural “us” in reference to God that is NOT Trinitarian? Logically, YES.
Then if such an answer exists/ed, why do we need the Trinitarian explanation at all?
[quote]DrSkeptix wrote:
Elohim hs the form of a plural but when it is used for a name of God it takes always the singular verb and constructions. Where the word takes the plural verb and constructions, it is understood to be the plural of eloah–important men, nobles, judges, magistrates, that sort of thing. And to KingKai, a very good grammarian himself, the definite article “ha” does indeed make a difference; the definite article is not used before the name of GOd, but it is used when speaking of a group of particular “nobles.” (i.e., ha=elohim never means The God; it means “the nobles.”)
[/quote]
[/quote]
You do notice that most–not all–the examples you cite use theat article when God assumes the objective case?
SO, I guess the interpretation is truly in the realm of context. Elohim means GOd when and where it makes sense; it means lords when and where it makes sense that way, too. (You will note that I was careful to say ha-elohim never means “The God.”)
[quote]
Oh I know we have broad areas of agreement. Thanks for the discussion.[/quote]
In light of the above, let us discuss the use of the words “us” and “our” in Gen 1:26.
Ready.
Set.
Go.[/quote]
Simple enough - a divine address before the heavenly council. It should also be noted that there is ample evidence in the Hebrew bible for the notion of an angelic representative of God who appeared in theophanies with a human-like form (thus accounting for much of the anthropomorphic language attributed to the invisible, spiritual God) and may thus be the referent for “our likeness/image.” [/quote]
Many would argue that the OT theophanies are in fact the pre-incarnate Christ and not created angelic beings. The angels in heaven are described with different physical attributes than man. If indeed these heavenly messengers did take on human form they did it in a metamorphosing manner and seemingly temporarily.
I would have to disagree with angels being the second party in the “us” of 1:26. As I said, angels are created beings and have no creative power. God and God alone creates. The verse indicates more than a heavenly council; it indicates “co-creating.” The making of man “by committee” in vs 26 - 27 is active not merely contemplative.[/quote]
And to further add to that, Scripture only says that humans were created in God’s image. Doesn’t say angels were, so they can’t be part of “us” and “our”
I would argue this observation is imposed from without as well. Nothing between 1:1 and 1:26 gives any indications of counsels, judges or angels. [/quote]
Indeed.
The “angels” interpretation is one that must be hunted down and speculated on quite heavily; it must almost exclusively rely on Isaiah 14 and Ezekiel 28 and very few if any other OT texts.
While one may decide to run with it I think it’s as more of a ploy to hide from the doctrine of the Trinity than an attempt at “proper,” objective interpretation.
[/quote]
Did you even read my post, push? I listed two other examples of a divine council that you simply ignored (2 Chronicles 18:18-22, Psalm 82).
And a ploy to hide from the doctrine of the Trinity? I’m a Protestant, Push. You don’t think I’d be delighted to see that doctrine in the OT? I’m just honest - I’ll actually admit that (gasp) the Scriptures weren’t written first and foremost for ME to understand!
I’ll make to you the exact same point I made to Pat…
Did the author of Genesis know of God’s trinitarian nature? Based on the evidence elsewhere in the OT and the fact that this notion took almost another hundred years AFTER Jesus’ death to get fleshed out, I would say NO.
So the human author had a non-Trinitarian meaning in mind when he wrote "God said, “Let US make man” "? Obviously, yes.
Therefore, a non-Trinitarian meaning exists/ed for the use of the plural in reference to God in this passage? THERE HAS TO BE.
Given all of the above, why do I still need the Trinitarian explanation at all?
This is hermeneutics 101. Either the human author knew what he was doing in composing the text and had reasons for the choices he made, including the way he presents the divine pronouncement before creating humankind, or he was a passive recipient of revelation he didn’t understand and he functioned like a pencil in the divine hand. If the latter is the case, then we have interpretive anarchy, because ANYTHING can be posited about the divine intent, as God will not likely show up to correct us. If, however, the human author DID have a reason for what he wrote, and at that point in salvation-history God’s triune nature was unknown, then any positing of additional divine intent beyond the human author’s is unnecessary speculation. The separation of human intention (which, based on contextual, historical, and psychological factors, is inferable from the text) and divine intention (which were are NOT privy to) is completely unnecessary as an explanation when we can discern the human intention.
I think when you cross it against Gen Chapter 18 Trinity makes the most sense. What’s your thoughts on God’s presence in Chapter 18? I don’t think you have to jump to Isaiah, Ezekiel, or even Revelation to discern 1:26. [/quote]
Pat, you are better than this. I know how smart you are, and I really am surprised that the presence of three figures in Genesis 18 makes you automatically jump to the Trinity. You are missing something significant here. This passage begins with the statement “Yahweh appeared to him (Abraham) by the terebinths of Mamre…” (Gen. 18:1). Again, for the ancient Israelites, this was an angelic being representing Yahweh, but the key point here is that, according to the text, there is a theophany - Yahweh appears. He does not speak from heaven; he APPEARS in a form to Abraham. In context, at least one of these THREE (note the number) “men” has to be Yahweh. Are all the men called Yahweh? Nope, actually ONE of them is singled out as the voice of Yahweh - it is the one who says to Sarah “I will return to you next year, and your wife Sarah shall have a son!” (18:11, 13-15). Note that, in 18:22, the “men” are said to go down to Sodom, but Yahweh remains with Abraham (the syntax here, “standing before Yahweh,” denotes that the theophany is continuing, that a form is still visible). After bargaining with Abraham, Yahweh is said to “leave,” indicating the end of the theophany.
So at this point in the narrative, Pat, we would think there are three beings who appear to Abraham, one of whom represents Yahweh and who stays back to talk to Abraham while the other two go down to Sodom. You, on the other hand, think the three beings together represent Yahweh’s triune nature. Well then, will we see three beings called Yahweh going down to Sodom, or two?
Gen. 19:1 - The two angels arrived in Sodom in the evening…" So not only do we NOT find three people representing Yahweh down in Sodom; the two we do find, who the text already said “went on from there to Sodom” (18:22) are called Angels. So if they are angels, how can they be the other two members of the trinity? They aren’t called Yahweh AT ALL.
Thus, the best explanation for the supposed appearance of the Trinity in Genesis 18 is that ONE of the individuals represents Yahweh, while the other two are simply angels accompanying him. Again, no Trinitarian explanation necessary to make sense of this passage; actually, aside from the number three (lol), a Trinitarian reading completely IGNORES the context and details of this passage.
[quote]DrSkeptix wrote:
So try Ex 22:8
“For any sinful word, for a bull, for a donkey, for a lamb, for a garment, for any lost article, concerning which he will say that this is it, the plea[s] of both parties shall come to the judges, [and] whoever the judges declare guilty shall pay twofold to his neighbor.”
Elohim occurs twice here, once with the definite article and once without. Both in the plural, and both understood to mean “judges” or “dignitaries.”
[/quote]
I thought this might be the sort of text you were referring to. This example doesn’t actually prove your point at all, Doc - it is too highly debatable. First of all, though the pointing suggests a 3rd common plural subject, the letters of the yarshi’un do not. Indeed, without the paragogic nun, one would assume this was a Hiphil imperfect 3rd SINGULAR rather than plural. Indeed, the Septuagint (the original Greek translation of the pentateuch), which follows its source text closely, takes the verb as a singular. Consequently, many scholars maintain that the MT here is corrupt and should be emended. THe JPS translation actually follows this line of reasoning, as does the ESV and the 2011 NIV. More importantly, however, this same notion of “appearing before God” for judgment occurs earlier in Exodus (Ex. 18:15, 18:19 (note the same el-ha-elohim (to God) construction as in 22:7 in the same judicial context), as well as in other ancient Near Eastern texts. In such contexts, “coming to God” to resolve a dispute meant going to the judges or prophetic figures (i.e., Moses) and letting God decide the case (as, for example, in Ex. 22:10, where the outcome of an oath uttered before/ by Yahweh determines an individual’s guilt).
In this context, therefore, elohim does not DENOTE judges; it merely CONNOTES them, and ONLY in this context. Consequently, you cannot use this single example as proof that “judges” is within the semantic range of the word elohim, and there is thus no basis for including “judges” as a potential meaning of the word in Genesis 6. It is only in judicial contexts like this where elohim CONNOTES “judges,” but even in such contexts, it still means God (i.e., in Israelite religion, God is the ultimate arbiter of all disputes).[/quote]
Now THAT is a cosiderable stretch or I am more clever than I thought.
Look at the context of the verse, Ex 22:." 6. If a man gives his neighbor money or articles for safekeeping, and it is stolen from the man’s house, if the thief is found, he shall pay twofold. 7. If the thief is not found, the homeowner shall approach the judges, [to swear] that he has not laid his hand upon his neighbor’s property."
Do you really think, in this context, The Law is written to propel a homeowner (appointed custodian to another’s property) to appear before God, or before earthly judges? So follows verse 8, and so on. How many Israelites could appear directly before God? THe High Priest, on rare occasion, maybe.
No, the word here, in context, is judges. Elohim can mean judges in the right context. It can mean God in the right context.
[/quote]
Lol Doc, I would really encourage you to reread my statements above, because you completely skipped over my point. And this is a historical-cultural point I am making. Interpretation of texts written thousands of years ago in a cultural context completely different from our own requires not just linguistic work, but also historical, if we are going to understand the text. Sometimes certain idioms only make sense in certain cultural situations.
NOW, in an ancient Near Eastern context, where all wisdom is ultimately attributed to God/ the gods (this is true across the board), judges function as mediators of the divine wisdom. When they made rulings, they were supposed to consult the deity. Consequently, to bring a dispute before God in ancient Near Eastern context IMPLIES going before the judges, but the people still would have believed they were going to GOD with their problem, that GOD would be the one to resolve it. Consequently, Elohim does NOT necessarily DENOTE “judges;” it simply CONNOTES judges in this very specific context.
There is another point that you are missing which I will get to under the next section of your quote, so please see that before you respond.
There are four things I think you are overlooking in the above comment.
Targum Onkelos is not “a little younger” than the Septuagint proper (the translation of the Pentateuch, the relevant portion for our discussion); try 3 centuries. And we have the same problem with the Targums that we do with the Mishnaic literature - while some of it may date to the early first century or a little earlier, there are so many signs of rabbinic revisionism that we cannot tell what practices or interpretations the rabbis are pretending date back centuries and which ones actually do. We have the exact same problem with Targum Onkelos - texts preserved by the rabbis served rabbinic ends and supported rabbinic interpretations, so trying to piece together what was really ancient and what the rabbis claimed was ancient is difficult.
Targum Onkelos is not “as close to the source texts” as the Septuagint. Thanks to the Dead Sea Scrolls and some other findings, we know of at least four different Hebrew text-types (manuscript traditions) popular at the time of Jesus. It has been confirmed that the Septuagint follows a different text type than the Masoretic text and follows this manuscript tradition very, very closely. The MT was chosen by the rabbis of the late first-early second century A.D. as the standard text for preservation in part for polemical reasons - it had certain features conducive to their revisionist approach to Jewish history.
Targum Onkelos is a TARGUM, a paraphrase rather than a literal translation. Targums add all kinds of things to the text, and because they are hyper-interpretive documents, they do not LEAVE DIFFICULT TERMS ALONE. In other words, taking a passage like Exodus 22:8 for example, it is no surprise that the Targum provides the common rabbinic interpretation of elohim in this passage - it is meant to explain the situation the text is referring to. But as I already said, just because elohim in this context CONNOTES “judges” that we can assume that elohim DENOTES “judges.” It doesn’t mean that we can insert “judges” elsewhere as a potential meaning for elohim.
And no, the Targum is NOT more “in tune to the vocabulary than the Septuagint.” You really don’t know very much about the Septuagint, Doc. The fact is that the translation of the Pentateuch is VERY literal; Onkelos is anything BUT literal, because it is a Targum.
Consequently, the possibility still remains that the Masoretic text-type (which Targum Onkelos is based on) is corrupt in Exodus 22:8, and the Septuagint represents a different and more accurate text-type in which this mistake (elohim plus a plural verb) does not occur. [/quote]
You are correct in much of this.
I cite Onkelos precisely because it is an explanation of difficult terms–as understood in the late Second Temple and post-temple periods–and not a literal word for word translation. (In this instance it used the words for judges and courts).
But in all fairness to you, KK, Richard Elliot Freedman, in this same verse, translated Elohim as God, without further commentary. And a large chunk of the Babylonian Talmud tractate Baba Metzia (I think it is folio 33) actually deals with these verses. The Mishna quotes the verses in Exodus, but the drift of the Gemara (in Mishna Aramaic), the law is that the custodian of lost objects appears before God–in some way–and takes an oath. It does not explicitly state that the custodian comes before judges or to court (but of course, that oath would have to have been in a court and not in a destroyed Temple hundreds of miles away.)
So, I yield to you on many specifics; I can be flexible, too. I only ask that one consider context–as well as strict grammar–as well as traditions, for the meaning of many certain words.
–
But one word more on the Masoretic Text: everyone likes to take a swipe at it, that it must be corrupt because unnamed “rabbis” had an interest in doing so. This thought is more than vaguely prejudicial, and I am skeptical of it. Where there are obvious transcriptional errors–spelling, elisions, haplographs, etc–the Sept. is very helpful. But why attribute to “rabbis” intentional introduction of “errors” into the text?
I would be interested in examples were you have found the MT to differ from Dead Sea for "polemic"reasons, and then to show, too, were the Sept. differs from Dead Sea texts. (A harder task, comparing across two languages.) When I used the tongue-in-cheek “younger” to describe Onkelos, I knew the temporal distance; but in terms of the distance from the common text, Onkelos is only a little younger than Sept., and a little older than MT. Anyone who reads both the Hebrew and the Aramaic, side by side, will understand why I wrote that the Onkelos’ vocabulary is more in tune with the inferred original text than was the Alexandrian Greek of the Septuagint.
[quote]DrSkeptix wrote:
You are correct in much of this.
I cite Onkelos precisely because it is an explanation of difficult terms–as understood in the late Second Temple and post-temple periods–and not a literal word for word translation. (In this instance it used the words for judges and courts).
But in all fairness to you, KK, Richard Elliot Freedman, in this same verse, translated Elohim as God, without further commentary. And a large chunk of the Babylonian Talmud tractate Baba Metzia (I think it is folio 33) actually deals with these verses. The Mishna quotes the verses in Exodus, but the drift of the Gemara (in Mishna Aramaic), the law is that the custodian of lost objects appears before God–in some way–and takes an oath. It does not explicitly state that the custodian comes before judges or to court (but of course, that oath would have to have been in a court and not in a destroyed Temple hundreds of miles away.)
So, I yield to you on many specifics; I can be flexible, too. I only ask that one consider context–as well as strict grammar–as well as traditions, for the meaning of many certain words.
[/quote]
No disagreement here, Doc - context is EVERYTHING. And for the record, I REALLY appreciate the fact that instead of simply denying my claims, you provide evidence for your claims and actually interact with my points. I try to pay the same respect to others on here and too often don’t get anything similar in return.
I’m not trying to accuse the rabbis of the introduction of intentional errors into the text. My point was more that, recognizing that there were a couple different textual traditions circulating among the Jews at that time (note, for example, the MUCH shorter version of Jeremiah, a textual tradition that we find represented by the Septuagint and among the Dead Sea Scrolls), we know the Rabbis of the late first-early second century A.D. chose one that we know has some errors in it (as you rightly pointed out, elision, haplography, etc.) for various theological reasons, not simply because it was the BEST Hebrew text.
[quote]
I would be interested in examples were you have found the MT to differ from Dead Sea for "polemic"reasons, and then to show, too, were the Sept. differs from Dead Sea texts. (A harder task, comparing across two languages.) When I used the tongue-in-cheek “younger” to describe Onkelos, I knew the temporal distance; but in terms of the distance from the common text, Onkelos is only a little younger than Sept., and a little older than MT. Anyone who reads both the Hebrew and the Aramaic, side by side, will understand why I wrote that the Onkelos’ vocabulary is more in tune with the inferred original text than was the Alexandrian Greek of the Septuagint.[/quote]
Well, as I tried to explain before, we find several different text-types represented at the Dead Sea - some resemble the MT, some of text the Septuagint was based off of, some the Samaritan Pentateuch, and some even resemble a combination of the other 3. There are some good examples; I’ll try to go into more detail later.
Did the human author of Genesis know about the Trinity? You and I both answer NO.
[/quote]
There is a plausible argument out there that God Himself is the author AND secretary of the first few chapters of Genesis.[/quote]
Plausible usually means “convincing” or “probable.” There is no such argument for the notion that God wrote the first few chapters of Genesis. Why? Because there is NO (ZERO) style change between the first few chapters of Genesis and the latter. There is thus ZERO linguistic evidence supporting that assumption. How about literary evidence? Does Genesis reflect the kind of disjointedness that would suggest the first few chapters were written by someone other than the human author of the later chapters? NOPE - actually, there are certain literary features found throughout Genesis that serve to unify the whole document, like (for example) the repeated refrain ele toledot (“these are the generations”) found at the beginning of Genesis’ major sections (2:4, 6:9, 10:1, 11:10, 11:27, 25:19, 36:1, 37:2). How about a free-floating copy of “the first few chapters of Genesis?” NOPE. How about a single Scriptural verse that says, “God wrote down the creation account?” NOPE.
EVIDENCE renders an argument convincing or probable. Since we have none of the kind of evidence necessary (As I demonstrated above), what kind of argument is left? My guess - a purely theoretical argument based on the common sense realization that no one was there to see these events. Thus God must have written them down for preservation. Yet that is not a necessary conclusion either - it may be that God revealed the events to humans early on in history PRIOR to the composition of Genesis, and these events were passed down for centuries ORALLY (very common in the ancient Near East), taking a certain literary shape before finally being written down as Scripture. There are all kinds of speculations that could be possible, but to call them PLAUSIBLE without evidence to support them is simply false.
[quote]pushharder wrote:
Also, I DO believe that the Bible is a complete book…
[/quote]
With all due respect, I seek for truth, so I couldn’t care less what you believe if there is no evidence to support it.
What Scriptures say that God wrote the first few chapters of Genesis? What Scriptures say that God is a trinity? You cannot get to the Trinity - a co-equal, co-eternal unity of three nevertheless distinct persons - without going BEYOND the canon to the early church. So if I don’t have later Scripture interpreting Genesis 1:26 as a reference to the Trinity, and the Scriptures do not lay out the doctrine of the Trinity as stated above and as is necessary for reading that doctrine INTO Genesis 1:26, WHY should I do it? The MOST you could claim is that it CAN be done; you have failed to prove that the Trinity IS necessarily the background we must read in God’s “us” statement. Thus, you’re whole charge of “trying to avoid the Trinity” is nonsense.
Did the human author of Genesis know about the Trinity? You and I both answer NO.
[/quote]
There is a plausible argument out there that God Himself is the author AND secretary of the first few chapters of Genesis.[/quote]
Plausible usually means “convincing” or “probable.” There is no such argument for the notion that God wrote the first few chapters of Genesis. Why? Because there is NO (ZERO) style change between the first few chapters of Genesis and the latter. There is thus ZERO linguistic evidence supporting that assumption. How about literary evidence? Does Genesis reflect the kind of disjointedness that would suggest the first few chapters were written by someone other than the human author of the later chapters? NOPE - actually, there are certain literary features found throughout Genesis that serve to unify the whole document, like (for example) the repeated refrain ele toledot (“these are the generations”) found at the beginning of Genesis’ major sections (2:4, 6:9, 10:1, 11:10, 11:27, 25:19, 36:1, 37:2). How about a free-floating copy of “the first few chapters of Genesis?” NOPE. How about a single Scriptural verse that says, “God wrote down the creation account?” NOPE.
EVIDENCE renders an argument convincing or probable. Since we have none of the kind of evidence necessary (As I demonstrated above), what kind of argument is left? My guess - a purely theoretical argument based on the common sense realization that no one was there to see these events. Thus God must have written them down for preservation. Yet that is not a necessary conclusion either - it may be that God revealed the events to humans early on in history PRIOR to the composition of Genesis, and these events were passed down for centuries ORALLY (very common in the ancient Near East), taking a certain literary shape before finally being written down as Scripture. There are all kinds of speculations that could be possible, but to call them PLAUSIBLE without evidence to support them is simply false.
So what’s the argument?[/quote]
In a nutshell:
The answer to push–J & E wrote Genesis–will be disputed. And I will leave Harold Bloom out of the discussion entirely.
Did the human author of Genesis know about the Trinity? You and I both answer NO.
[/quote]
There is a plausible argument out there that God Himself is the author AND secretary of the first few chapters of Genesis.[/quote]
Plausible usually means “convincing” or “probable.” There is no such argument for the notion that God wrote the first few chapters of Genesis. Why? Because there is NO (ZERO) style change between the first few chapters of Genesis and the latter. There is thus ZERO linguistic evidence supporting that assumption. How about literary evidence? Does Genesis reflect the kind of disjointedness that would suggest the first few chapters were written by someone other than the human author of the later chapters? NOPE - actually, there are certain literary features found throughout Genesis that serve to unify the whole document, like (for example) the repeated refrain ele toledot (“these are the generations”) found at the beginning of Genesis’ major sections (2:4, 6:9, 10:1, 11:10, 11:27, 25:19, 36:1, 37:2). How about a free-floating copy of “the first few chapters of Genesis?” NOPE. How about a single Scriptural verse that says, “God wrote down the creation account?” NOPE.
EVIDENCE renders an argument convincing or probable. Since we have none of the kind of evidence necessary (As I demonstrated above), what kind of argument is left? My guess - a purely theoretical argument based on the common sense realization that no one was there to see these events. Thus God must have written them down for preservation. Yet that is not a necessary conclusion either - it may be that God revealed the events to humans early on in history PRIOR to the composition of Genesis, and these events were passed down for centuries ORALLY (very common in the ancient Near East), taking a certain literary shape before finally being written down as Scripture. There are all kinds of speculations that could be possible, but to call them PLAUSIBLE without evidence to support them is simply false.
So what’s the argument?[/quote]
In a nutshell:
The answer to push–J & E wrote Genesis–will be disputed.
[/quote]
I’ll be among those disputing it. The documentary hypothesis has almost as many holes in it as push’s “God wrote Genesis 1-?”
[quote]
And I will leave Harold Bloom out of the discussion entirely.[/quote]
