Biblical Literature--analysis & critique, interpretations & explanations

[Mars Man]

While there are at least two threads presently active which deal with or touch on the data base of the Judeo-Christian belief-systems--otherwise generally known as The Bible in English--neither of them really have such a theme format so as to allow detailed discussion on that subject.

For that reason, I am opening this thread as a 'relative' thread to run parallel to those, and upon which to post the detail which supports and backs statements made on those--and any other threads that may come up in the future which this one could have bearing on.

This thread is for a more refined presentation than most, and I would greatly appreciate care not to post without a degree of willingness to offer supporting data, documentation, and argument for presentations. If a person wishes to post what they believe about some of the texts, documents and works that will be presented here, please feel free to do so, in good linguistic style, and with adequate efforts to provide the evidences needed to validate the claims made.

I will not tolerate 'flamming-like' posts, short, single line, sarcastic retorts seemingly designed to be cynical, and off-topic discussion① on this thread. (see note) I will define biblical literature as that which relates to the documents of the belief-systems as they developed, as well as literature and documents relative to the eras in which these documents arose. That means that we will be looking at canonical and non-canonical works, as well as others.

I will likely bring up some points which have already been covered on the other threads as a means to make it easier to see my presentation and arguments, in some cases, and thus more visually grasp a whole understanding being presented. I am approaching all works in the first instance as though they are natural works by humans without supernatural superintendence, and through studying and analyzing them, am working towards an understanding on the degree of that possibility.

I encourage all interested to join in, to pay attention to reading and posting, and otherwise enjoy the thread as a learning process for all--including myself. And with that, the first post:


① I will allow a very minimum of off-topicness on a per member basis, as well as the occasional 'comic relief' comment on a per member basis.

 

[Mars Man]

On the thread entitled (Branched topic) Need for pseudo-religion/religion causes more crime than lack of? on page 2, posts numbers 49 and 50, I had started an explanation of the original language terms to which the English term 'hell' later had been attached--especially by the King James Version of 1611. Please follow the above included-in-the-title link to that. I will continue that here, picking up from post #50.

The Greek word geenna (or gehenna, but the former transliteration is more accurate) is the rendering of the Hebrew geh'hinom which means Valley of Henom. It was a physical location just outside the ancient city of Jerusalem where there had been a garbage dump. The dump signified the repulsive condemnation by the Hebrews of what had been used once as a location to sacrifice children to Molach (or Moloch). That was ended by King Josiah. 窶｡@

It is also known as Topeth, and is the general location where where the Assyrian king Sennacherib lost an army of 185,000 troops. (1 Ki 18:13-19:35; Isa 36:1-36) Rabbi David Kimhi (late twelve century-early thirteenth) comment on Pslams 27:13 gives, in part, the following:

Gehinnom: . . . And it is a place in the land of adjoining Jerusalem and it is a loathsome place, and they throw there unclean things and carcasses. Also there was a continual fire there to burn the unclean things and the bones of the carcasses. Hence, the judgment of the wicked ones is called parabolically Gehinnom.​

窶｡A


In the Greek writings of the first century, we can find the word in a number of places as mentioned on post #50 of that other thread. Here I will present some detail.

At Matthew 5:29, for example, we will find the word where it is being said that it is better to lose (or have destroyed) one body part rather than having the whole body destroyed in geenna.窶｡B Here the Emphatic Diaglott has 'Gehenna' as does The New World Translation. The American Standard has 'hell' in the text with a footnote giving 'Gehenna,' as does the New Revised Standard Version, but the KJV, Today's English Version (Good News Bible--hereafter TEV) and New American Standard (hereafter NAS) give us just 'hell.'

We can easily see the imagery given by those of that day, as the Jewish proverbial cliches gave it, by looking over Mk 9:45-47; Lk 12:4,5; James 3:6, and so on. The parallel group usage of Proverbs 15:11, showing 'sheol' as the place of destruction (wa-abhad'dohn--based on abhadh used for people, animals, and things) fits exactly with the first century Christian use.

'Hades' is straight from the Greek, and is the deep below, as well as the name of the god in charge of that area. It is used a number of times in the canonical texts (as well as others) and I'll look at one here; viz. Luke 16:23.

Here the KJ gives us 'hell' while all the other versions and translations mentioned about have 'hades' in the text. The KJ assigns the word 'hell' to all occurances as well as those of 'tartus (the deepest dark abyss where gods (Greek mythology) and angels which have sinned and await judment are imprisoned. (2 Pe 2:4)

The understanding that comes out through these works and the usage throughout the Hebrew and Christian works, is that the concept of hell as developed especially after Augustine, and through works such as Paradise Lost, the King James Version, etc. is not that of the first century Christians. Other than even the tendency that can be felt from some textual points at various places in the canonical works to accept earlier Babylonian or Platonic themes, death of an animal is equal to the destruction of that animal in total. (for that reason the idea of resurrection came into vogue (see Daniel)

The usual, historical concept of hell that most of Christianity, Islam, and to a much lesser extent Judaism is a non-reality.




窶｡@ Also see Neh 11:30; Josh 15:8; 18:16; 2 Chron 28:3; 2 Kings 23:10; Jer 7:32;

窶｡Aﾂ A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament by H. Thayer, p1068; New World Translation by Watchtower Society of New York, Appendix p1575; Emphatic Diaglott translated by B. Wilson, Appendix p891; Hebrew and English Lexicon of the Old Testament by Brown, Briggs and Driver, pp144,145;

窶｡B Destroy is the verb. See Mk 1:24; Lk 17:27, 29; Jn 6:12b; 10:10 (used in opposition to life); 11:50; 1 Pe 1:7; Jude 5; James 1:11 (flowers); 4:12( opposing being saved); etc.

 

[Mars Man]

While there are so many things which are waiting in line to be presented in this field, it is always hard to determine which one, or from what catagory, to start from.

As before, however, and as I had been embedding to show on the ' What do you think about the Bible?' thread, I always find it a priority to focus on an overly held dogma that the biblical literary works which have been formed into a canon, are due to supernatural superintendence, or are related to such a supernatural source.

I will put all points relative to the study of that matter under the heading of DS (Divine Source) in the outline form, for easy referencing and double check. I will signify any points that may come up along the way by other markers--so as to make it clear what the catagory of discussion is. The position I am supporting is summed up in the following:

The documents which make up the total of religious writings within the areas of Judaism and Christianity up to the formal declaration of such into any specific canon, do not present themselves, nor evidence being the result of supernatural superintendence. In other words, those documents are not materially from any non-human source, nor have been influenced by such, in any material degree.​

In my next post, I will re-present some of the posts from that other thread which deal with the god-model given by the Hebrew works. (by Hebrew, I am referring to the language in which the works were written, basically {considering the LXX})

 

[Mars Man]

DS I.

A.
One factor that is often left out by many, is that in the first order, the Hebrew writings of a religious nature prescribe a god-model as well as describe a god-model. What can be seen in the aggregate of the combined canonical documents is as follows (this is in part, a repeat of that older thread):

1. The Masoretic text describes YHWH as a god which demands exclusive devotion. The term also gives rise to the concept or emotion of jealously. YHWH may be patient a little at times, but cannot retain anger very long against those followers of his who stray from worshipping him. (I use masculine here because the Hebrew does--YHWH is without mistake male)​

Ex 20:5; 32:7-10, 30-35; 34:14-18; Num 25:11-13; Deu 3:23-26 (connect with 32:48-51) 5:9; 6:15; 13:1-18; 18:20b; Josh 24:19; Judges 2:2, 3, 11, 12, 17; 3:7, 8; (plus many more in this document) 2 Sam 6:7; Pslm 106:28-31, 35-43; Isa 51:17-20; Jer 29:16-19a; Eze 13:3; Mic 5:15; Na 1:2; Zec 13:3; etc.​

2. YHWH is the only ever true god--forever.
​

Deu 4:35; 6:4; 1 Sam 2:2; Pslm 40:25-28; 41:21-24; 42:5-8; 43:1, 3, 12, 13; 44:6-8; 45:5-7, 18, 21, 22; Hos 13:4; 14:1​

2.a.It would be in line to point out here, that YHWH is not presented as denying that humans have and worship other gods, but that those gods are non-realities, figments of the imagination.​

Ex 18:11; 20:23; 22:20; 23:32; 33:14, 15; Judges 2:11, 12, 13, 17; 6:10; Isa 37:38; etc. etc. etc.​

Next I will go into some more emotional aspects of the personality of YHWH, beyond that seen here--anger and possessiveness (jealously)

 

[Mars Man]

DS I A

3.Of the emotional states ascribed to YHWH, the foremost directly stated and indirectly shown one is that of anger.

The two most often occuring Hebrew words are ''aph' and 'ka-as.' The general idea is 'grow hot with anger.' Here are some of the places where we can see examples of the usage of either one of the words--'aph being more common:​

Gen 4:5 (Cain); 18:30 (YHWH); 27:45(Esau); 30:2(Jacob); Ex 4:14 (YHWH); 15:7b; 22:24; 32:10, 12; Num 11:1b; 11:10b; 32:10 (see event regarding spies sent out--Num 13:1~14:38) Deut 7:4; 11:17 (due to worshipping other gods); 29:20, 23c (Sodom and Gomorrah, Admeh and Zeboiim); 31:17 (other gods); 32:22; Jos 7:1b; 1 Sam 17:28 (Eliab) 20:30 (Saul); 2 Sam 12:5 (David); etc., etc. . .​

This can also be seen in circumstantial evidence within the texts too. I'll present some of those next.

 

[Mars Man]

DS I A

3.a. Examples of circumstantial evidence:

1 Sam 4:1~7:1 The incident of the ark of YHWH being captured by the Philistines (to whom the plague of [likely] hemorrhoids came) and [possibly]窶｡@ 5,070 Israeli men being killed for seeing it after it was returned.

2 Sam 12:7~18a YHWH's killing of David's son born from Bathsheba (who had been spied on while taking a bath...so bath she was...hee,hee,hee).

2 Sam 24:1~25 YHWH's killing of some number of Israelites due to David's being incited to take a 'head count.'​

窶｡@ This is due to textual variances in the number of witnesses.

 

[Mars Man]

DS I A

4. Another emotion that is described/prescribed to YHWH, then, is that of hate. This will be obvious when we consider the emotion of jealousy, and that of heated anger, because such are coupled (especially the latter) with the emotion of dislike--hate.

Gen 4:5(Cain's sacrifice); Ex 20:4,5 (hatred of those who hate YHWH); Deut 12:31; 16:22 (sacred pillars to another god); Pslm 45:7 (cf. Pslm 5:4); Prov 6:16 (wickedness, lying, and taking innocent blood, etc.); Jer 44:4 (worshipping other gods).​

5. Another element, then, would be the opposite of hate--liking something, being happy about it or pleased with it. There are of course examples of that too:

Gen 4:4 (Able's sacrifice); 8:21 (proper sacrifices) [also see--Lev 1:9, 13, etc. etc.; Eze 20:41]; Ex 34:6b (abundant in loving kindness); Deut 10:15 (the forefathers of Israel); Jer 31:3b (Israel) [also see Deu 7:7,8]; Mal 1:2 (Israel) {also see Prov 12:22; Pslm 11:7; Jer 9:24; etc.}​

 

[Mars Man]

On the thread Do we need a religion to believe in God, Pachipro has put for the following concerns, in his #124, on page 5:

But I ask, are we really made in God's image as is written? If so then God must be more a human with human traits and human flaws, and 'original sin' than an all omnipotent being as we are taught. Why would "God" make his children with flaws? Doesn't make any sense to me as I was always taught that God does not make any junk nor does he make any mistakes.

And why would "God" forsake and give up on his children 6,000 years ago when there were no nuclear weapons and the massive killings and destruction we have today in 'His' name? Why did 'He' disappear and not show himself today as he did to people who had no technology and the means of total world wide annihilation as we have today? Could it be that mankind has a higher technology than "God"?

I would believe 'He' would want to protect his creations from the 'fallen angels' and not let them suffer as we have throughout the past 6 millenia. It's still a little too difficult for me to grasp. ​

In that the concerns are material and important, and are not quite in line with the more evident intention of discussion put forward by the OP, and also because I'd wish to respond, comment, and argue for a conclusion, I have moved his post content here; to do so.

A few things can first be squarely put forth with certainty. That we are talking about YHWH, is one; that YHWH is prescribed/described in human terms by the authors of the texts we have looked at so far in this thread, is another. Very much like the gods and goddesses of the Greeks, for one (since fewer animal imagery had been used as compared, say, to Egyptian god-models), the early Israelite model was presented in a human respect.

At this point in the presentation, we should only take that much; coming back to it later.

Regarding the idea of Genesis' creation story, I will follow up on this as soon as time allows--hopefully by Monday. (Until then, and a bit later on, please be patient, Pachipro san. Thank you.)

 

[Malamis]

I'm quite frankly impressed.

Since you obviously have more time and resources available to devote to this, i'd be interested to see if you find any support for the idea that Genesis chapters 1 & 2 hold three separate & sequential accounts as opposed to being one reiterated narrative.

 

[Mars Man]

Thank you for joining in here, Malamis san; and I do appreciate the appreciation.

For the moment (and I'll make a point to lay out some other details a bit later on it) it is very clear that we have at least two lines of story in Genesis chapters one and two, and there could be a third, or more, but that could easily be seen as being a weaker understanding.

As I said, I should be back with more by Monday.

 

[Mars Man]

At Genesis 1:26, we find the Hebrew word tselem followed by dimooth. The LXX renders those as eikona and homoiosin respectively.

In verse 27 of the first chapter of Genesis, we find the former Hebrew term used twice. At Exodus 20:4, the famous passage on the proper worship of YHWH, we find a form of tselem as well, when YHWH was said to have spoken about not making images to worship. This is found in a number of places throughout the Hebrew documents, but a few of notice might be:

Psalms 73:20, when being used toward wicked boasters; Psalms 106:19, when speaking of the molten calf image incident at Horeb; and Isaiah 40:20, when talking about a carved image.​

Both the Hebrew and the Greek come from a base meaning, more directly, a shade or phantom, and then by usage and extension, a semblance, representative figure (esp. idol).

In this particular case, it would not be so methodologically proper to compare later Greek usage as is found in the Christian writings, because it would not tend to match what would best be have to screened out from the Hebrew usage in itself. For notice only, therefore, and not as a point in my argument, I point out that at Romans 1:23, for example, we find eikon for the 'image' of a human, bird, four-footed creature, or creeping things. Romans 8:29 uses the word for the 'image' of 'his son' (referring to Yeshua). Then, we also find it at 1 Corinthians 11:7, for the man's being YHWH's image (and here it is exactly a male, as opposed to a female that is being said to be YHWH's image). Also note how it is used at 1 Cor. 15:49, in the context that immediately flows from verse 15.

Then at Genesis 5:1, 3, we again find our Hebrew terms, but with the Greek different on one count. Verse one is about Adam's being made in YHWH's image (third person jussive) and verse three about Adam's son Seth being born in Adam's image and likeness--dimooth and tsalim respectively (vs. 3).

This will bring us to the point where we will next have to consider the possible intent of the rhetoric used, because at Gen. 1:26 we find plural of majesty (first person plural) in a cohortave, which can only otherwise be found in the works at Gen 11:7 (cf. vs. 4). 11:7 being seen as a possible 'bookend' of sorts on a chapter in primeval human history, with the tower of Babel being the model and function of the ancient Near Eastern victory stele. To the original (ancient) audience, the strong direction of that plural of majesty would surely have brought the Genesis story of man's creation to mind, signifying YHWH's stele and image in man being broken (to be later seen in Israel's formation/creation).

What stands out, is that we would be putting too much later Christian theological thought into it, to see the passages at Gen 1:26, 27 as speaking in some 'spiritual' manner--in the sense of mankind's having been in YHWH's image mentally or 'spiritually.'. It is more in line with the concreteness of Earlier Jewish religious thought, and the later, Second Temple additive hands, to see an effort to put it in terms of symbolic imagery. Here, that would quite possibly be in the sense of the symbol of YHWH's dominion and reign.


A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament by H. Thayer

An Intermediate Greek-English Lexicon by Liddell & Scott

Hebrew and English Lexicon of the Old Testament by Brown, Briggs and Driver

Notes on the Greek Text of Genesis--Septuagint and Cognate Studies by J.W. Wevers

BHS (Biblia Hebraica Suttgartensia)

LXX (Septuaginta by Alfred Rahlfs)

KJV

NWT

NRSV

Wescott & Hort recension

Nestle & Aland's 27th Ed. recension