Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Some posters have shared some thoughts about this word here and elsewhere, and I thought I would post some observations about it. Basically, my intent here is to show that the word and its usage is not unique within, or to, Biblical Hebrew. Its most unique feature is that it is a generic noun that became lexicalized as an appellative.
While we speculate regarding the etymological root of the word elohim, nobody knows for sure where the word comes from, and there's really little reason to be concerned about that. There are two reasons for this: (1) the sense of the primitive root doesn't at all seem preserved in the usage of the word, and (2) that root likely resides in another language. The root of the word is just not a big concern. The reason this is an important point to make is that attempts to assign meaning to specific occurrences of the word based on etymological roots are misguided and fallacious (specifically, the etymological fallacy). There is no indication anywhere that "mighty ones," or anything similar, is ever an appropriate translation equivalent for the word (Exod 21:6, 22:8, 9 will be discussed below). Such interpretations derive exclusively and entirely from theological discomfort with the normal sense of the word. That's not a legitimate approach to lexicography or philology. The meaning of the word is determined by usage, and the usage is consistent everywhere the word turns up: it means "deity, "deities," and "divine." The use of definite articles and possessive pronouns in reference to the God of Israel shows the word is not a proper name. While "God" is virtually universal in translation, it is misleading in many instances. We might use the word "mom" as an analogue. "That's my mom!" (generic noun) is different from "Hey, Mom!" (appellative). Both are distinct from "Becky!" (proper name).
Now, one of the biggest issues with the word is the plural morphology in constructions with singular referents, verbs, and adjectives. The "plural of majesty" is a common understanding of this phenomenon, but there's actually no evidence for such a usage. That interpretation is also based on dogma rather than on linguistic evidence. It places the God of Israel in a unique station to say that he's so majestic that his title has to be pluralized. The same word is used in the plural to refer pejoratively to individual foreign deities, though. For instance, 1 Kgs 11:33 states, "but they have forsaken me and have worshipped Ashtaroth, the deity of the Sidonians, Chemosh, the deity of the Moabites, and Milcom, the deity of the Ammonites . . ." This is not a "plural of majesty." We find the same use of the plural word for "god" in other Semitic languages used to refer to singular referents. The most common form is ilanu, which is used in various Canaanite languages. One reason we know it's not a plural of "majesty" is that the same use of the plural with singular referents occurs in those Canaanite texts with words like "slave." The "plural of humility" has been suggested, but to assign contrasting value judgments to the exact same linguistic phenomenon is just ludicrous.
Note, too, that the female deity of the Sidonians is referenced with the masculine plural elohim. The reason is that the word does not profile for gender. It is a concretized abstraction, so it doesn't need to. Literally, it is "deity," in the sense of an instantiation of "divinity." We find a number of abstract plurals in the Hebrew (adon > adonim, "lordship"; ab > abot, "fatherhood"), but the difference is that here we're dealing with a concretized abstraction. There are some examples of those as well. One of the most clear is Deut 22:15, where the abstract plural "virginity" is concretized in reference to "evidence of virginity," or "tokens of virginity." The process with elohim, then, was el ("deity") > elohim ("divinity") > elohim ("deity"). This may seem like an unnecessary loop, but the interchangeability of el and elohim in numerous places in the Hebrew Bible shows their rough synonymity, and parallel development and usage is found in other Canaanite languages. That the purely abstract sense is maintained in some places is evidenced by the use of elohim in the adjectival genitive (e.g., Gen 1:2, ruah elohim, "divine wind"). All this likely predates the development of Hebrew, though. We find this phenomenon originating along the northern coast of Canaan and spreading southward in inward over the centuries. Hebrew likely developed with these senses in place.
So what of Exod 21:6, and 22:8–9? To be straightforward, they simply do not refer to "judges" or human authorities of any kind. Exodus 21 and 22 contain casuistic laws that were basically judgments prescribed for the judges. The laws presuppose that the involved parties are already before the judges. Look at Exod 21:22. There is no specific penalty prescribed, so the determination is left up to the judges. Notice the judges are not called elohim. The word פללים is used for "judges," from the root פלל, to pronounce judgment or act as arbitrator or intercessor. There is no statement that anyone must go before them. The presupposition is that the parties are already before the judges. These rules are the judgments they the judges required to pass. Look at Exod 21:14 (RSV):
Quote:
But if a man willfully attacks another to kill him treacherously, you shall take him from my altar, that he may die.
The "you" in the verse is the judge. Each verse presupposes the parties are before the judges.
Next, look at the nature of the cases that are to be brought before the elohim. In Exod 22:8 the question is what to do when a neighbor borrows an item and it goes missing. In the cases where the thief is found, the judgment (to be passed by the judges, mind you) is double restitution. In the case where the thief is not found, the borrower is to be brought before the elohim, and they will determine if the neighbor is being honest about the theft. In v. 9 the question regards two people who claim ownership of an item. They are to be brought to the elohim, who are not charged with determining any judgment, or passing it, it seems, but simply with determining who is lying. In both questions, the elohim are assumed to have the ability to discern the truth. The law of Moses is predicated on that assumption. There is no provision in case the elohim cannot determine who is telling the truth. In the ancient Near East these were considered particularly problematic legal situations, since there were no witnesses and each party asserts ownership.
There are three sections of text in the Hebrew Bible that provide some context for these difficult cases. The first actually precedes Exodus 21 and 22. When Moses' father-in-law established Israel's system of judges (Exodus 18), the judges were responsible for the common cases, but all the "great cases" were to be brought before Moses (Exod 18:22). The cases described in Exod 22:8–9 are just such cases. The prophet of God was responsible for the difficult cases. The next is Num 5:11–31, often called the trial of the adulterous woman. If a woman is thought to commit adultery, but there are no witnesses and she doesn't confess it, an ordeal is described where she is brought before Yhwh in the temple to swear an oath. A priest also swears an oath and gives the woman a drink containing dust from the temple floor and the ink scraped off a text where a curse was written. If the woman did not commit adultery, the drink will bless her. If she did, however, she will be cursed. In short, God is being charged with determining if the woman is telling the truth. The last story is that of Solomon's judgment, in 1 Kgs 3:16–28. There two prostitutes claiming to be the mother of a child come before Solomon in order to determine ownership. He had just asked for, and been blessed with, a special degree of discernment that would make him more discerning than any before or any after him (1 Kgs 3:11–12). Through trickery, he determines who was lying and who was telling the truth. His fame is spread far and wide because the wisdom of God, specifically to judge between people who were both claiming ownership of the same item, was given to him. Notice no mention is made of taking the two women before any judges. It is likely that they had been to the judges, but the judges could not decide, because there were no witnesses. They were then sent on. In these three instances, either God or an extraordinary individual who has a very special relationship with God is said to determine difficult cases, and in two instances explicitly cases where it needs to be determined if someone is lying. The Covenant Code simply gives the default position: take them before God. Taking the individuals before judges is never mentioned because it's presupposed by the material.
While there are some clear examples of humans being referred to as elohim (Exod 7:1; Ps 45:8 [ET 45:7]), these are ascriptive, which is between literal and metaphorical. Another example of ascription is to call someone who stands in front of another person to protect them a "shield." They do not metaphysically become what we commonly think of as a "shield" (i.e., metal, with a handle, etc.), but they very literally act as a shield to shield the person. It is not metaphorical, but it's not literal in the most salient sense of the word. Kings were commonly thought to be functionally situated between humanity and divinity in the ancient Near East, and that's exactly the case with Moses and David in the texts described above. Judges, on the other hand, are not ever viewed in the ancient Near East as stepping into that role.
Excellent post, Daniel! Very informative. I think many people struggle with this term and reach all sorts of strange conclusions. I certainly know I have!
I agree whole-heartedly that attempts to explain the word as "plural-of-majesty" fail, and are based on dogma rather than on data. From what I understand, the "plural-of-majesty" was not even a form attested to in the ANE.
Would you consider some instances of the "messenger of YHWH" as a manifestation of YHWH himself, albeit through the guise of "messenger"? I'm thinking of the various passages in which YHWH speaks to a mortal via his "messenger", and the mortal then makes the declaration that they "have seen God", etc. I don't dismiss the idea automatically on the usual idea that "no man may see God and live", for that is typically used to dispell any ideas of anthropomorphism in the Bible - even though there are clear anthropomorphisms in the earlier texts. (It appears that the anthropomorphism of God underwent changes until he became entirely transcendent - one of the later defining characteristics of the God of the Bible.) Against this "no many may see God and live" idea, is the passage in Judges in which the idea seems to be known - but rejected:
Yahweh's envoy ("messenger") did not reappear to Manoah and his wife. Then Manoah acknowledged that he was Yahweh's envoy. And Manoah said to his wife, "We are going to die! We have actually seen God!"
But his wife said to him, "If Yahweh had desired to kill us, he would not have accepted a burnt offering and grain offering from our hands, or shown us all these things, or just now announced to us such a thing as this."
(Judges 13:21-23, AB)
Manoah's wife reported that "a man of God came to me! His appearance was just like that of God's envoy - very awesome!" (v. 6) It's not clear whether she was aware that he was a divine being (like many scholars have asserted in showing the dichotomy between the quick-thinking of Manoah's wife and the dull-wittedness of Manoah in recognizing the divine nature of the messenger) or not. Brettler, in The Book of Judges, makes an interesting proposal that this story possibly relates to or reflects a similar situation as that in Genesis 6, when "the divine beings saw how beautiful the human women were, so they took themselves wives, whomever they chose" (6:2, SB). He writes that
some group [of writers or tradents] which we can no longer identify was interested in such unions, and believed that such unions took place sporadically. While for them YHWH's messengers were "very awe-inspiring" (Judg 13:6), they were also phsyiologically very human, and took an active interest in beautiful women. This folk-belief stands behind the first section of the Samson story.
(pp. 47-48, Old Testament Readings Series, New York: Routledge, 2002)
So Brettler suggests that Samson's father was the "messenger of Yahweh" and that his strength (at least in some instances) can be explained by this. One can immediately think of "the heroes who were of former ages, the men of name" (Genesis 6:4) as a reference again to "strong men" and their divine origin. Interesting as that theory is, it still doesn't answer whether the "messenger" was a separate, lower-tier being - or a manifestation of Yahweh himself.
Another appearance of the Messenger is also in Judges, and we have another individual who is not immediately convinced - Gideon.
Yahweh's envoy came and sat down beneath the oak at Ophrah, which belonged to Joash the Abiezrite, while his son Gideon was beating out wheat in the wine press, to whisk it away because of the Midianites. Yahweh's envoy appeared to him and said to him, "Yahweh is with you, aristocrat!"
(Judges 6:11-12)
Gideon is doubtful that "Yahweh is with" anyone at that point in the story, given the state of affairs, and proceeds to lodge a few complaints. This next section is what interests me. Perhaps it's a slip of the pen, perhaps it's intentional, but the result is that
Yahweh turned to him and said, "Go in the strength of this one, and you will rescue Israel from Midian's hand! Have I not sent you?"
(Judges 6:14)
With the anthropomorphisms and this verse, a direct association of Yahweh with the "messenger" of Yahweh is made, and the narrative seems to say that it is Yahweh who is there, interacting with Gideon. Like others in the Biblical text, he is seemingly unaware of who he is dealing with at first. Gideon expresses the same fearful idea that humans cannot see God (as Manoah, and others had done), when
...Yahweh's envoy walked away from his eyes.
Gideon realized then that he was Yahweh's envoy.
Gideon said, "Oh no! Lord Yahweh! I have seen Yahweh's envoy face to face!"
But Yahweh said to him, "You are safe. Do not panice. You will not die."
(Judges 6:21-23)
Not only does Gideon repeat the idea that "no man may see God and live", but he makes it into "no man may see God's Messegner and live". This appears to be an identification of the Messenger with Yahweh directly, I think, and again builds up the idea from v. 14 - unless one could posit that the "messenger" form is some sort of manifestation that spares humans death, but this ignores the other passages in which Yahweh directly speaks and ineracts with humans. (In line with your investigation of the term elohim, the last instance of "Yahweh" in v. 23 has "elohim" in 4Q Judges-a; just as an extra tidbit). If we take other passages (Genesis 3, etc.) as a guide (perhaps not a safe venture, for different authors would have had different ideas of a mortal's ability to interact with God), it suggests a few possible ways of viewing the question. At any rate - the two stories in Judges appear to be closely related, at least in this idea. I think this close relationship of the stories reveals a different author in Judges 2, where the Messenger appears to the people - but that conclusion of different authorship is nothing new.
Any thoughts?
Jumping from the Book of Judges to your references to judges - your comments on those passages are very excellent! I think you've hit the nail on the head in saying that such instances could only be decided by a divine witness. Most translations offer "before God" or simply "God", and a few do have "judges", and it's possibly this latter understanding that accounts for how Everett Fox, in his translation, handles it by translating thus:
When a man gives silver or goods to his fellow for safekeeping,
and it is stolen from the man's house;
if the stealer is caught, he is to pay twofold;
if the stealer is not caught, the owner of the house is to come-near God's-oracle,
(to inquire) if he did not stretch out his hand against his neighbor's property.
Regarding every matter of transgression,
regarding oxen, regarding-donkeys, regarding-sheep, regarding-garments, regarding any kind of loss about which one can say:
That is it! -
before God's-oracle is the matter of the two of them to come;
whomever God's-oracle declares guilty, is to pay twofold to his neighbor.
(Exodus 22:6-8, SB)
It's not exactly an exact translation, but it offers an interesting approach. I think Fox is usually a good translator (using the approach he has chosen, emulating Buber and Rozenweig's German translational principles), but I wonder if he has missed the mark a bit here - allowing the translations that suggest human involvement ("judges") to influence his choice in making a human-hybrid concept ("God's-oracle"). In the end, it's not clear what it could refer to - and he leaves the concept open to include the possibility of a a "super-judge" (or "extraordinary individual", as you put it). Personally, especially based on the repeating pattern of "before-x" in Exodus 21:6, I prefer the "before God" translation and your summation that you nicely provided above. The idea that only God can decide such matters seems to be strongly stated. The trial of the "bitter waters" is a perfect example of how certain peoples used such methods to decide matters using divine judgement. As usual, the context must help determine how to interpret the term elohim, as well illustrated in your post.
That age-old problem of translation is an important factor in many people's reading and understanding of the Bible, and especially of how one views God. "elohim", I suppose, is not a simple term (like translating a Personal Name) that can be consistently rendered the same way, every time (though I think I've seen some "far-out" websites that consistently refer to God as Elohim - but this results in some strange problems, especially since these websites are usually religious in a strange manner). This always makes me wonder how El should be handled in translation, as well. As a term used in different ways, it's similar in scope. I do prefer translating "El" when it definitely (as far as one can determine such a thing) appears to be part of a title, but this is also open to question, I suppose. "El Shaddai" is one of those terms that makes one wonder how much of the word's meaning (Shaddai, for example: "mountains", "breasts", etc.) was understood in the term by the readers or listeners. Did they actively have the meanings in mind, or did they just use the Personal Name - IF that is what is was meant to be. I'm probably not explaining myself well - but I think you know what I'm talking about: the problem of determining titles, epithets and names and how people understood them.
Excellent post, Daniel! Very informative. I think many people struggle with this term and reach all sorts of strange conclusions. I certainly know I have!
I agree whole-heartedly that attempts to explain the word as "plural-of-majesty" fail, and are based on dogma rather than on data. From what I understand, the "plural-of-majesty" was not even a form attested to in the ANE.
You're correct, it's not something that's attested. It's usually described as related to the abstract plural, but more special.
Quote:
Originally Posted by whoppers
Would you consider some instances of the "messenger of YHWH" as a manifestation of YHWH himself, albeit through the guise of "messenger"?
My position is that the earliest occurrences of מלאך*יהוה are interpolations intended to obscure the presence of God himself. I discuss this in more detail on my blog here.
Quote:
Originally Posted by whoppers
I'm thinking of the various passages in which YHWH speaks to a mortal via his "messenger", and the mortal then makes the declaration that they "have seen God", etc. I don't dismiss the idea automatically on the usual idea that "no man may see God and live", for that is typically used to dispell any ideas of anthropomorphism in the Bible - even though there are clear anthropomorphisms in the earlier texts. (It appears that the anthropomorphism of God underwent changes until he became entirely transcendent - one of the later defining characteristics of the God of the Bible.)
Against this "no many may see God and live" idea, is the passage in Judges in which the idea seems to be known - but rejected:
Yahweh's envoy ("messenger") did not reappear to Manoah and his wife. Then Manoah acknowledged that he was Yahweh's envoy. And Manoah said to his wife, "We are going to die! We have actually seen God!"
But his wife said to him, "If Yahweh had desired to kill us, he would not have accepted a burnt offering and grain offering from our hands, or shown us all these things, or just now announced to us such a thing as this."
(Judges 13:21-23, AB)
Manoah's wife reported that "a man of God came to me! His appearance was just like that of God's envoy - very awesome!" (v. 6) It's not clear whether she was aware that he was a divine being (like many scholars have asserted in showing the dichotomy between the quick-thinking of Manoah's wife and the dull-wittedness of Manoah in recognizing the divine nature of the messenger) or not. Brettler, in The Book of Judges, makes an interesting proposal that this story possibly relates to or reflects a similar situation as that in Genesis 6, when "the divine beings saw how beautiful the human women were, so they took themselves wives, whomever they chose" (6:2, SB). He writes that
some group [of writers or tradents] which we can no longer identify was interested in such unions, and believed that such unions took place sporadically. While for them YHWH's messengers were "very awe-inspiring" (Judg 13:6), they were also phsyiologically very human, and took an active interest in beautiful women. This folk-belief stands behind the first section of the Samson story.
(pp. 47-48, Old Testament Readings Series, New York: Routledge, 2002)
So Brettler suggests that Samson's father was the "messenger of Yahweh" and that his strength (at least in some instances) can be explained by this. One can immediately think of "the heroes who were of former ages, the men of name" (Genesis 6:4) as a reference again to "strong men" and their divine origin. Interesting as that theory is, it still doesn't answer whether the "messenger" was a separate, lower-tier being - or a manifestation of Yahweh himself.
I think Brettler goes a litte beyond the evidence there, but a friend of mine just defended his dissertation at Brandeis and he wrote on Yhwh as a sexual deity.
Quote:
Originally Posted by whoppers
Another appearance of the Messenger is also in Judges, and we have another individual who is not immediately convinced - Gideon.
Yahweh's envoy came and sat down beneath the oak at Ophrah, which belonged to Joash the Abiezrite, while his son Gideon was beating out wheat in the wine press, to whisk it away because of the Midianites. Yahweh's envoy appeared to him and said to him, "Yahweh is with you, aristocrat!"
(Judges 6:11-12)
Gideon is doubtful that "Yahweh is with" anyone at that point in the story, given the state of affairs, and proceeds to lodge a few complaints. This next section is what interests me. Perhaps it's a slip of the pen, perhaps it's intentional, but the result is that
Yahweh turned to him and said, "Go in the strength of this one, and you will rescue Israel from Midian's hand! Have I not sent you?"
(Judges 6:14)
With the anthropomorphisms and this verse, a direct association of Yahweh with the "messenger" of Yahweh is made, and the narrative seems to say that it is Yahweh who is there, interacting with Gideon. Like others in the Biblical text, he is seemingly unaware of who he is dealing with at first. Gideon expresses the same fearful idea that humans cannot see God (as Manoah, and others had done), when
...Yahweh's envoy walked away from his eyes.
Gideon realized then that he was Yahweh's envoy.
Gideon said, "Oh no! Lord Yahweh! I have seen Yahweh's envoy face to face!"
But Yahweh said to him, "You are safe. Do not panice. You will not die."
(Judges 6:21-23)
Not only does Gideon repeat the idea that "no man may see God and live", but he makes it into "no man may see God's Messegner and live". This appears to be an identification of the Messenger with Yahweh directly, I think, and again builds up the idea from v. 14 - unless one could posit that the "messenger" form is some sort of manifestation that spares humans death, but this ignores the other passages in which Yahweh directly speaks and ineracts with humans. (In line with your investigation of the term elohim, the last instance of "Yahweh" in v. 23 has "elohim" in 4Q Judges-a; just as an extra tidbit). If we take other passages (Genesis 3, etc.) as a guide (perhaps not a safe venture, for different authors would have had different ideas of a mortal's ability to interact with God), it suggests a few possible ways of viewing the question. At any rate - the two stories in Judges appear to be closely related, at least in this idea. I think this close relationship of the stories reveals a different author in Judges 2, where the Messenger appears to the people - but that conclusion of different authorship is nothing new.
Any thoughts?
There is no place in the Hebrew Bible where seeing God's messenger is described as dangerous; it's only God himself. These texts originally referred to God's own appearance to humans, but later authors sought to mitigate his physical interaction with humanity and so interpolated the messenger in the text. You find numerous example in the Septuagint, in the Targums, and even in the Samaritan Pentateuch of the word "messenger" interpolated beyond what MT has in order to make it seem as if an angel interacted with humans rather than God himself.
Quote:
Originally Posted by whoppers
Jumping from the Book of Judges to your references to judges - your comments on those passages are very excellent! I think you've hit the nail on the head in saying that such instances could only be decided by a divine witness. Most translations offer "before God" or simply "God", and a few do have "judges", and it's possibly this latter understanding that accounts for how Everett Fox, in his translation, handles it by translating thus:
When a man gives silver or goods to his fellow for safekeeping,
and it is stolen from the man's house;
if the stealer is caught, he is to pay twofold;
if the stealer is not caught, the owner of the house is to come-near God's-oracle,
(to inquire) if he did not stretch out his hand against his neighbor's property.
Regarding every matter of transgression,
regarding oxen, regarding-donkeys, regarding-sheep, regarding-garments, regarding any kind of loss about which one can say:
That is it! -
before God's-oracle is the matter of the two of them to come;
whomever God's-oracle declares guilty, is to pay twofold to his neighbor.
(Exodus 22:6-8, SB)
It's not exactly an exact translation, but it offers an interesting approach. I think Fox is usually a good translator (using the approach he has chosen, emulating Buber and Rozenweig's German translational principles), but I wonder if he has missed the mark a bit here - allowing the translations that suggest human involvement ("judges") to influence his choice in making a human-hybrid concept ("God's-oracle").
I think that's pretty clear. In Exod 22:8 the plural verb complicates the simple translation "God," but as David Wright has argued, the verb may be plural just to phonologically reflect the morphology of elohim (which may also be the case with 1 Sam 28:13). In other words, it may just be to make it rhyme. It's either "God" or "gods."
Quote:
Originally Posted by whoppers
In the end, it's not clear what it could refer to - and he leaves the concept open to include the possibility of a a "super-judge" (or "extraordinary individual", as you put it). Personally, especially based on the repeating pattern of "before-x" in Exodus 21:6, I prefer the "before God" translation and your summation that you nicely provided above. The idea that only God can decide such matters seems to be strongly stated. The trial of the "bitter waters" is a perfect example of how certain peoples used such methods to decide matters using divine judgement. As usual, the context must help determine how to interpret the term elohim, as well illustrated in your post.
That age-old problem of translation is an important factor in many people's reading and understanding of the Bible, and especially of how one views God. "elohim", I suppose, is not a simple term (like translating a Personal Name) that can be consistently rendered the same way, every time (though I think I've seen some "far-out" websites that consistently refer to God as Elohim - but this results in some strange problems, especially since these websites are usually religious in a strange manner). This always makes me wonder how El should be handled in translation, as well. As a term used in different ways, it's similar in scope. I do prefer translating "El" when it definitely (as far as one can determine such a thing) appears to be part of a title, but this is also open to question, I suppose. "El Shaddai" is one of those terms that makes one wonder how much of the word's meaning (Shaddai, for example: "mountains", "breasts", etc.) was understood in the term by the readers or listeners. Did they actively have the meanings in mind, or did they just use the Personal Name - IF that is what is was meant to be. I'm probably not explaining myself well - but I think you know what I'm talking about: the problem of determining titles, epithets and names and how people understood them.
how can you understand what the terms “Judges” and “Angels” mean in the OT when you are disregarding the meaning of the particular terms in the myths of the peoples worldwide?
Quote:
Originally Posted by whoppers
…it still doesn't answer whether the "messenger" was a separate, lower-tier being - or a manifestation of Yahweh himself.
ỉn \ nn \ nTr(w) \ sar \ mdw \ tpw \ tA indeed \ these \ gods \ cause to ascend \ the words \ of those upon \ earth (The Book of Am Duat, 2nd Division)
I am the essence of a god, the son of a god, the messenger of a god.(Utt. 471 §920)
But messengers are not just gods, they are above gods:
In the Ugaritic “Poems about Baal and Anath,” Prince Yamm sent messengers and Judge Nahar envoys to the assembly of gods asking them to surrender Baal:
Now, the gods were seating to e[at], The holy ones for to dine, Baal attending upon El. As soon as the gods espy them, Espy the messengers of Yamm, The envoys of Judge Nahar, The gods do drop their heads Down upon their knees And on their thrones of princeship Them doth Baal rebuke: “Why, O gods, have ye dropt Your head[s] down upon your knees And on your thrones of princeship; I see the gods are cowed With terror of the messengers of Yamm, Of the envoys of Judge Nahar. Lift up, O gods, your heads From upon your knees.(1,III AB B,23)
Later in the narrative the messengers, who showed no respect whatsoever toward the gods (At El’s feet they do not fall down.), they had their demands met:
[Quoth] Bull, his farther, El: “Thy slave is Baal, O Yamm, Thy slave is Baal [for eve]r, Dagon’s Son is thy captive; (1,III AB B,36)
On hearing these words, Baal, got angry and grabbed a cudgel and a bludgeon to strike the messengers but Astoreth seized both his hands and told him:
“How [canst thou strike the messengers of Yamm The en]voys of Judge Nahar? A messenger . . . [ . . . . . . ] a messenger [bears]; Upon his shoulder the words of his lord.(1,III AB B,42)
But let us not forget common peoples’ myths: A legend of the Yoruba people of Africa states:
Once, long ago, all people lived in one town, called Ife, and they all spoke one simple language, Yoruba, In those days everyone was equal in all respects. Their skin was the same color, they were all good at the same things, they were all equally strong, equally beautiful, and equally healthy. Everyone had enough of what they needed, but no one had too much. If anyone needed something, they had only to inform God’s messenger, and he would tell God, who would provide them with what they needed.
There was only one problem. People were bored. They wanted a change. So they started complaining to God’s messenger, asking for different things. Some wanted a bigger house. Some wanted different color skin. Some wanted to speak differently. So it went on. In the beginning the messenger would faithfully carry all their demands to God and God would listen patiently. But after a while God became irritated. He told the messenger what to tell them. The messenger went back to the people.
‘God says you are to be content with what he has given you. He has deliberately arranged things in this way so that you will not have anything to quarrel with each other about.’ But the people were not happy. ‘Tell God he must give us what we ask, or we will revolt against him. We will have nothing more to do with him. We will organize our affairs the way we want them, without his help.’
The god eventually gave in and so we have today many skin colors, many different languages and injustice.
As it is evident, the people never saw and never heard the God. What the people knew of the god it was what the messenger told them of him.
The messenger was the master of the God!
The Messengers have always been the masters of the gods (as today the modern messengers, the priests, are).
Now, what did the messengers actually did? They told the people that the gods ascended to the skies and thus the heavenly gods were born!!
When the time comes that the academic community decides eventually to tell the layman about the Judgment of the living described in the Egyptian texts, they will also tell him that the gods were fashioned by the angels!
Unless, of course, the academic community is not aware of these facts.
how can you understand what the terms “Judges” and “Angels” mean in the OT when you are disregarding the meaning of the particular terms in the myths of the peoples worldwide?
ỉn \ nn \ nTr(w) \ sar \ mdw \ tpw \ tA indeed \ these \ gods \ cause to ascend \ the words \ of those upon \ earth (The Book of Am Duat, 2nd Division)
I am the essence of a god, the son of a god, the messenger of a god.(Utt. 471 §920)
But messengers are not just gods, they are above gods:
In the Ugaritic “Poems about Baal and Anath,” Prince Yamm sent messengers and Judge Nahar envoys to the assembly of gods asking them to surrender Baal:
Now, the gods were seating to e[at], The holy ones for to dine, Baal attending upon El. As soon as the gods espy them, Espy the messengers of Yamm, The envoys of Judge Nahar, The gods do drop their heads Down upon their knees And on their thrones of princeship Them doth Baal rebuke: “Why, O gods, have ye dropt Your head[s] down upon your knees And on your thrones of princeship; I see the gods are cowed With terror of the messengers of Yamm, Of the envoys of Judge Nahar. Lift up, O gods, your heads From upon your knees.(1,III AB B,23)
Later in the narrative the messengers, who showed no respect whatsoever toward the gods (At El’s feet they do not fall down.), they had their demands met:
[Quoth] Bull, his farther, El: “Thy slave is Baal, O Yamm, Thy slave is Baal [for eve]r, Dagon’s Son is thy captive; (1,III AB B,36)
On hearing these words, Baal, got angry and grabbed a cudgel and a bludgeon to strike the messengers but Astoreth seized both his hands and told him:
“How [canst thou strike the messengers of Yamm The en]voys of Judge Nahar? A messenger . . . [ . . . . . . ] a messenger [bears]; Upon his shoulder the words of his lord.(1,III AB B,42)
Quote:
Originally Posted by dtango
As it is evident, the people never saw and never heard the God. What the people knew of the god it was what the messenger told them of him.
The messenger was the master of the God!
The Messengers have always been the masters of the gods (as today the modern messengers, the priests, are).
Now, what did the messengers actually did? They told the people that the gods ascended to the skies and thus the heavenly gods were born!!
When the time comes that the academic community decides eventually to tell the layman about the Judgment of the living described in the Egyptian texts, they will also tell him that the gods were fashioned by the angels!
Unless, of course, the academic community is not aware of these facts.
First off - just because ONE people's myth identifies a messenger as a divine son in one particular example, doesn't make it normative in that particular culture's mind - not to mention among the rest of the world.
Secondly, I think the Baal myth is a bad example to make your point.
The particular part of the main Baal Myth is a special instance of messengers of a god acting out of place, and probably reflecting on the power of Yamm. It's an exception to the general rule in which messengers act in the way they are supposed to.
El's relationship to the gods
Before that, though, I would point out that the messengers of Yamm are not the only ones who disregard El's status. Througout most of the Ugaritic myths, El is the head of the pantheon but he does not exercise his power absolutely. (In fact, the story you quoted is part of the conflict among El's "sons" to see who will rule.) In CAT 1.3 V, Anat is intent on getting Baal a house like the other gods (to help concretize his kingship over the gods), and if you remember her temperament from my other thread - the following shouldn't be too surprising. She speaks to Baal of how she will deal with El concerning the matter of Baal's house:
"[...I will] drag him to the ground lilke a lamb;
[I will ma]ke his gray hair [run] with blood,
The gray hair of his beard [with gore],
Unless he gives Baal a house like the gods',
[And a cou]rt like that Athirat's children."
(Cat 1.3 V, Lines 1-4, Translation M.S. Smith, The Ugaritic Baal Cycle -Vol. II, Brill)
She travels to El's abode, and enters the "tent of the King, the Father of Years", and
She shouted angrily as [she en]tered the mountain,
She repeated it [to] the Lord of [the children of E]l.
Her voice Bull [E]l, her Father, he[ard];
H[e] an[sw]ered from the seven r[oo]ms,
[From the] eigh[t openings of the en]closures.
"The Divine Lamp, Shapsh, [is re]d;
The heavens are weak in the ha[nds of Divine Mo]t."
And Adolescent Ana[t] answers:
"[In the construction of your house, O El,
In the construction of your hou[se] do [not re]joice,
Do not rejoice in the he[ight of your pa]lace.
Or else I will seize it with my right hand,
...by my mighty, long arm.
I will sm[ash...] your head;
I will make your beard run [with blood],
The gray hair of your beard with gore."
(Lines 8-25)
So, El capitulates and allows a house to be built for Baal. The important thing here is that we cannot put too much emphasis on the messengers of Yamm and their treatement of El. El is a generally laid-back Father God, it seems, and is frequently fine with not acting like a typical god at the top of a pantheon. We don't have angry Zeus here, punishing his children for various offenses. The very fact that El is content with letting other gods vie for the kingship is interesting. So I don't think we can automatically assume that it is because the messengers of Yamm were "above" the gods in power, that caused El and the Council to fear them. Anat is also able to cow El into submission.
Examples of normative messenger formulae
If one thinks the messengers are so powerful that they cow the gods, then one would expect the same from other instances of messengers - but we do not have that. In Cat 1.1 IV, El's messengers head to Kothar:
[Then they head out]
[For great and wide Memphis]
[- Kaphtor], the thr[one where he sits.]
[Memphis, the land of his heritage-
From a thousand acres, ten thou[sand hectares.]
[At the feet of Kothar] they bow down and fall.
They [prostrate themselves and honor him.]
And they speak to Ko[thar wa-Hasis,]
[Recite to the Skilled Arti]san:
(Lines 1-6)
In typical messenger fashion, they usually repeat - word for word - the message which we have already heard previously given to them. There is also bowing and prostrating. Another example is in El's message to Anat a bit later:
"[Then you shall head out]
[To INBB]. (Anat's mountain)
[Across a thousand courts, ten thousands houses (?),]
[At the feet of Anat bow down and fall.]
[Prostrate yourselves and honor her.]
(CAT 1.1 V)
Message Formula
We find this typical polite messenger formula throughout. Messages usually follow a very stylized, typical formula - and one that was not limited to just Ugarit (compare the El Armana correspondence) - and can be seen from the many letters we have. A typical letter will have several possible openings, depending on the status of the person being addressed in relationship to the status of the sender. An example:
Address to Superior Party
To the Queen, my lady, speak.
Message of [sender], your servant.
Declaration of Deference
To the feet of my lady
seven times and seven times
at a distance I fall down.
Situation (Contents of Letter/Message)
The Declaration of Deference consists of an Obeisance Formula, and may also wish "peace" to the recipient, and wish "blessings from the gods".
We find this formula reflected in the passages from the Baal Cycle, for example, but in narrative sense. Notice that the messengers prostrate themselves and bow. Unlike the letters, however, this formula comes first. It is then followed by the Address. So the formula becomes:
Obeisance Address Situation
...[Recite to the Skilled Art]san:
["Decree of Bull El, your Father,]
Word of the Beneficient One, [your begetter:]
(CAT 1.1 IV 4-6)
and,
[At the fe]et of Anat [they bow down and fall.]
[They prostr]ate themselves and honor her.
[And they raise their voices and de]clare:
"Message [of Bull El, your Father,]
[Word of the Bene]ficient One, your Begetter:
(CAT 1.1 V, 15-18)
Abnormal Message Formula
So we have a typical formula. Now we can look at the messengers of Yamm and see why they are not typical, and should not be used as an example of a normative status of messengers being above the gods.
Then Yamm's messengers arrive,
The legation of Judge River.
At El's feet they [do not] bow down,
They do not prostrate themselves before the Assembled Council.
Standing, they speak a speech,
[Reci]te their instructions.
A flame, two flames they appear,
Their [ton]gue a sharp sword.
They tell Bull El, his Father:
"Word of Yamm, your Lord,
Your [Master], Judge River:
(CAT 1.2 II, 30-34)
Now, it should be obvious after a consideration of the examples previously given that the messengers of Yamm do not fit the typical formula or act accordingly. This much we should know by now, at least. However, notice some details in the text.
They do not prostrate themselves, or bow - either before El or the Divine Council
They deliver their "message" standing up.
The language used for the "message" is not typical - it is more of a speech, a pronouncement.
The speech is marked by animosity, and their words "bite" like a sword.
They "tell Bull El, HIS father" - with "him" referring to Yamm.
They declare Yamm "Lord" and "Master" over the Assembly.
Now, the important thing here is that the messengers are messengers. The language used shows that they represent Yamm (especially the line "They tell Bull El, his [Yamm's] Father") and his words and wishes, and not themselves. But is the fear of the gods (save for Baal) a fear of Yamm and his power, or of the messengers he has chosen?
Monstrous Messengers
The messengers that Yamm sends probably represent the monstrous gods that are typically part of Yamm's retinue. Examples can be found in Enuma Elish, when the gods are faced with Tiamat's monstrous messengers:
Tiamat assembled her creatures,
Drew up for battle against the gods her brood.
(Tablet II, 1-2, COS)
The Igigi-gods and Anunna-gods were all assembled,
With lips closed tight, they sat in silence.
Would no god go out [at his] command?
Against Tiamat would non go as [he] ordered?
(Tablet II, 121-124)
Marduk eventually fights Tiamat and her monstrous retinue and is victorious. But the important point here is that Marduk is chosen because all the other gods are frightened of Tiamat and her combined forces. They are not fighting other, normal gods - they are fighting monsters. Mark S. Smith, in The Origins of Biblical Monotheism: Israel's Polytheistic Background and the Ugaritic Texts, points out the difference when he lists deities as either Benevolent Deities or Destructive Deities. He writes that "Benevolent deities are often rendered anthropomorphically, whereas destructive divinities appear as monstrous in character" (p. 32, Oxford, 2001). This is certainly the case in the Enuma Elish of Bablyon, the Ugaritic corpus concerning Yamm's allies, and even in Biblical texts in which Yahweh, the Divine Warrior, goes to battle:
Yes, O God, my king from of old,
Maker of deliverance throughout the world,
You are the one who smashed Sea with your Might,
Cracked the heads of the Tannin in the waters;
You are the one who crushed the heads of Leviathan,
Left him as food {in the wilderness?}
You are the one who broke open springs and streams,
You are the one who dried up the Mighty Rivers.
To you belongs the day, Yours too the night,
You are the one who established the Light of the Sun.
You are the one who fixed all the boundaries of the world,
Summer and winter - it was You who fashioned them.
(Psalm 74:12-17, from Smith, above)
Poetic images of Yahweh's battle with the Sea (Yamm in Ugaritic) are present in the Bible to give a good picture of a competing creation myth to Genesis 1, or Genesis 2-3. Even Genesis 1 contains what may be a veiled allusion to the battle, though the author is actively trying to demythologize the battle by claiming that God did not need to conquer the Sea to create:
At the beginning of God's creating of the heavens and the earth,
when the earth was wild and waste,
darkness over the face of Ocean [Sea],
rushing-spirit of God hovering over the face of the waters -
God said: Let there be light! And there was light.
(Genesis 1:1-3, SB)
Sea is already subdued in this account, and all God does to commence Creation is speak and create Light. If there has been a conflict, the author wants it to be known that God has already taken care of it.
The Ugaritic story of Baal and Yamm is not presented as a Creation myth, however. Even so, we still have the monstrous retinue of Yamm which various gods battle with, as an example of why the gods might have been frightened. Was Yamm a monstrous deity himself? It's difficult to say - Baal does have a hard time of it with him, but eventually defeats him. I present the possible parallels - not to show some sort of mono-myth - but to help illuminate the Baal story by seeing how certain people viewed the Sea in myth. In the end - I think it's not accurate to say that the Baal story demonstrates messengers who are "above" the gods in some fashion, but that it is an exceptional instance of monstrous messengers combined with the awful power of Yamm. Baal - like Marduk - is the only one who is willing to stand up to Yamm. This does not make the messengers into the same types of messengers as discussed in the posts above, nor does it make them into "super"gods that people dealt with exclusively.
how can you understand what the terms “Judges” and “Angels” mean in the OT when you are disregarding the meaning of the particular terms in the myths of the peoples worldwide?
ỉn \ nn \ nTr(w) \ sar \ mdw \ tpw \ tA[/i] indeed \ these \ gods \ cause to ascend \ the words \ of those upon \ earth (The Book of Am Duat, 2nd Division)
I am the essence of a god, the son of a god, the messenger of a god.(Utt. 471 §920)
This is a taxonomic hierarchy that is unique to this particular period and region. In Syria-Palestine there is a three- or four-tiered pantheon, with the messenger deities at the very bottom. The "sons of Ilu/El" are the second tier. The third tier is constituted by craftsmen and other skilled deities. This is established in numerous publications. For instance:
But messengers are not just gods, they are above gods:
Not in any Syro-Palestinian ideology.
Quote:
Originally Posted by dtango
In the Ugaritic “Poems about Baal and Anath,” Prince Yamm sent messengers and Judge Nahar envoys to the assembly of gods asking them to surrender Baal:[/font]
Now, the gods were seating to e[at], The holy ones for to dine, Baal attending upon El. As soon as the gods espy them, Espy the messengers of Yamm, The envoys of Judge Nahar, The gods do drop their heads Down upon their knees And on their thrones of princeship Them doth Baal rebuke: “Why, O gods, have ye dropt Your head[s] down upon your knees And on your thrones of princeship; I see the gods are cowed With terror of the messengers of Yamm, Of the envoys of Judge Nahar. Lift up, O gods, your heads From upon your knees.(1,III AB B,23)
Later in the narrative the messengers, who showed no respect whatsoever toward the gods (At El’s feet they do not fall down.), they had their demands met:
They are acting as the representative of the deity. Can't you see in the section you quoted above that when the messenger delivers his message, it is treated as is Baal himself were delivering it? ("Them does Baal rebuke"). The messengers are actually called "tablets" in some places in the Ugaritic texts. They were nothing more than the medium. It was the message that was authoritative, and it was so because of the sender, not the medium.
Quote:
Originally Posted by dtango
Bull, his farther, El:[/font][/i] “Thy slave is Baal, O Yamm, Thy slave is Baal [for eve]r, Dagon’s Son is thy captive; (1,III AB B,36)
On hearing these words, Baal, got angry and grabbed a cudgel and a bludgeon to strike the messengers but Astoreth seized both his hands and told him:
“How [canst thou strike the messengers of Yamm The en]voys of Judge Nahar? A messenger . . . [ . . . . . . ] a messenger [bears]; Upon his shoulder the words of his lord.(1,III AB B,42)
The messenger is just a medium. To punish the medium only for doing its job was frowned upon. That holds in numerous cultures throughout the ancient Near East. I suggest you take a look at Samuel Meier, The Messenger in the Ancient Semitic World.
Quote:
Originally Posted by dtango
But let us not forget common peoples’ myths:[/font]
Quote:
Originally Posted by dtango
A legend of the Yoruba people of Africa states:
Once, long ago, all people lived in one town, called Ife, and they all spoke one simple language, Yoruba, In those days everyone was equal in all respects. Their skin was the same color, they were all good at the same things, they were all equally strong, equally beautiful, and equally healthy. Everyone had enough of what they needed, but no one had too much. If anyone needed something, they had only to inform God’s messenger, and he would tell God, who would provide them with what they needed.
There was only one problem. People were bored. They wanted a change. So they started complaining to God’s messenger, asking for different things. Some wanted a bigger house. Some wanted different color skin. Some wanted to speak differently. So it went on. In the beginning the messenger would faithfully carry all their demands to God and God would listen patiently. But after a while God became irritated. He told the messenger what to tell them. The messenger went back to the people.
‘God says you are to be content with what he has given you. He has deliberately arranged things in this way so that you will not have anything to quarrel with each other about.’ But the people were not happy. ‘Tell God he must give us what we ask, or we will revolt against him. We will have nothing more to do with him. We will organize our affairs the way we want them, without his help.’
The god eventually gave in and so we have today many skin colors, many different languages and injustice.
As it is evident, the people never saw and never heard the God. What the people knew of the god it was what the messenger told them of him.
The messenger was the master of the God!
No, it was the people that influenced the deity. The messenger was just the conduit. You can't seriously think that the messenger is the "master" here, can you?
Quote:
Originally Posted by dtango
The Messengers have always been the masters of the gods (as today the modern messengers, the priests, are).
Quote:
Originally Posted by dtango
Now, what did the messengers actually did? They told the people that the gods ascended to the skies and thus the heavenly gods were born!!
When the time comes that the academic community decides eventually to tell the layman about the Judgment of the living described in the Egyptian texts, they will also tell him that the gods were fashioned by the angels!
[color=black][font=Verdana]Unless, of course, the academic community is not aware of these facts.
This is just absolutely ludicrous misrepresentation and misunderstanding on your part.
Now, what did the messengers actually did? They told the people that the gods ascended to the skies and thus the heavenly gods were born!!
When the time comes that the academic community decides eventually to tell the layman about the Judgment of the living described in the Egyptian texts, they will also tell him that the gods were fashioned by the angels!
Unless, of course, the academic community is not aware of these facts.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Daniel O. McClellan
This is just absolutely ludicrous misrepresentation and misunderstanding on your part.
I think he goes far beyond that - he actually believes it happened, and that an actual judgement of the living will occur by Egyptian deities. Or angels...
I think he sees Egyptologists sitting around in some sort of "old-boy" club, drinking heavily with shaky hands because they are afraid that someone will reveal their supposed willful obfuscating of the truth that would lead all mankind to enlightenment heh heh! Dang that turtle!
First off - just because ONE people's myth identifies a messenger as a divine son in one particular example, doesn't make it normative in that particular culture's mind - not to mention among the rest of the world.
It still proves that the idea was not unthinkable, and that is not the unique
example. Spell 312 of the Coffin Texts relates a conversation between Osiris, the gods, Horus, the double Lion, and a messenger who presents himself as follows:
Indeed I am one who dwells in the sunshine, I am an akh(spirit) who came into being and was created out of the body of the god, I am one of those gods or akhs(spirits) who dwell in the sunshine, whom Atum created from his flesh. … I am one of those serpents which the Sole Lord made, before Isis came into being that she might give birth to Horus.(Spell 312 §75)
The ‘serpent’ who inseminated Isis is Osiris.
Plato, Symposium 202e
What, I said, is his power? (of the daemon) To interpret and convey to the gods the human things and to the humans the things of the gods; of the former the prayers and sacrifices and of the latter the orders and recompense…. ….Because the god does not meddle with the man, but through him is realized the contact and the conversation between the gods and the men; when they are awake and when they sleep…. ….These, therefore, the daemons, are many and of every kind, one of them is Eros.
Daemon = god = angel
But Let us take a walk around the world to see if there is some god without his messenger/s:
The Malozi people of Zambia say that Nyambe, who was first in the world, lived on earth with his wife, Nasilele, and he made the rivers, plains, animals, and the first people, Kamunu and his wife. When the god got tired of the demands of Kamunu took his messenger and the antelope and went away from Kamunu to live on an island.
For the Ashanti, Ananse, the creator of the sun, moon, stars, day and night; often intercedes between gods and mortals and he helped mortals by giving them the first grain. He also set himself up as the first king of the human beings.
The god Nyikang, of the Shilluck, is the god of ancestors, the god of agriculture and the god of rain. He is also the intermediary between humans and gods.
The deity Baiame, of the Australian aborigines, could be addressed only by the ‘wise men’ and only via his messenger.
According to Homer, apart from Hermes, the goddess Iris is a messenger too:
Angel Iris, swift as the wind, went to the Trojans, send by the shield-bearing Zeus, to announce the sad news.(Iliad, 2,786)
Prompted (Zeus) the gold-winged Iris to go as a messenger: “Get off the ground swift Iris to get this message to Hector” (Iliad, 11,185)
Even Athena was called ‘angel’: “Then Angel Athena(Αθήνη άγγελος) very fast, during night-time, came to us as a messenger”(Iliad 11,714)
An early myth emerges in fragments from the first and tenth books of hymns in the Rig Veda. In the myth the phallus of heaven reached out to the young girl, his daughter Earth. As the act of union was committed, some seed spilt onto the Earth and the Angirases, the mediators between gods and humans, were born.
From the Rig Veda we learn that Agni was the messenger of the gods; he interceded with the gods on behalf of mankind and conducted the bright Celestials to sacrifice.
Varuna, who is a Shepherd and Judge, has countless messengers at his disposal. From the Rig Veda:
His messengers descend, Countless from his abode – for ever traversing This world and scanning with a thousand eyes its inmates. Whatever exists within this earth, and all within the sky, Yea, all that is beyond, King Varuna perceives. . . .
(Rigveda iv,16)
Most of the messengers of the Mesopotamian gods are known by their names.
In the Norse mythology, the messenger of the gods is Hermod, one of the sons of Odin. Gna is the messenger of the goddess Frigga, wife of Odin.
For the natives of the Caroline Islands, the god of fire, singing and dancing, Olofad is the messenger of Lugeilan, the god of knowledge.
The god Tiki, from the Marquesas and Society Islands, is the god of virility and the messenger of the gods.
The natives of the Samoa Islands say that the creator Tangaroa created several Tangaroas; among them was Tangaroa the messenger. This messenger-Tangaroa created many islands in behalf of Tangaroa the creator.
In this case we have a messenger-creator, or rather an angel-creator.
Messengers are found in the Japanese tradition too. From the Kojiki:
My elder brother, Ukasi, ran after the messenger of the son of the Celestial kami
The great Mexican god Quetzalcoatl besides his other many titles is also called messenger of the gods.
In the Persian tradition, Sraosh is the divine messenger and mediator between gods and humans.
To own a messenger means that one is a god:
The sacred doors are opened to me, the doors of Kenzet are thrown open for me, my messenger appears.(Spell 173,53)
A part of the “Cannibal Hymn,” as translated by Miriam Lichtheim, reads:
Unas is he who eats men, feeds on gods, Master of messengers who sends instructions:(Utt. 273-4 §400)
In the “Horus and Seth” legend, Osiris appears to be arguing with the gods of the Ennead and is exchanging letters with them. In reply to a letter he received he writes a letter back saying:
Now you pay attention to this matter! The land in which I am is full of savage-looking messengers who fear no god or goddess. If I send them out, they will bring me the heart of every evildoer, and they will be here with me.
The extent to which the people actually believed that the messengers could communicate with the gods, is shown by Herodotus. In his 4th book where in paragraph 94 he is referring to the Ghetes, whom he considers to be the most brave and law-abiding tribe of the Thracians:
This is how they explain their belief in their immortality. Whoever of them departs from this life goes to live with Salmoxes, a deity called by others Gheveleize. Every five years they select by lot one man from among them and they send him, with their requests, as a messenger to Salmoxes.
The mission begins as follows, some of them line up in tight lines holding three spears, while others catch the man by his hands and feet and throw him in the air so that he falls on the spearheads of the erect spears. If the man dies, they consider it an omen of favorable disposition on the part of Salmoxes; if he survives, they accuse him of wickedness and select another messenger. The instructions are naturally given to him while he is still alive.
The Yezidis, a Kurdish tribe, say that the divinity was the creator of the universe but not its keeper. The world is being taken care of by the seven angels.
The mysterious identity of the messengers is understood only in connection with the fall of the regime of the gods. When their fall became imminent, they left for safer locations leaving behind representatives to serve as messengers. Perhaps, in some cases, they were transformed into representatives of themselves
I prefer, of course, to think that the immaterial gods are the mere product of a joke: someone was continuously bothering those archaic Greek messengers because he had been on the summit of Olympus a couple of times and there was nobody to be found there.
“Where are they? Where are the gods? You have got to tell me!”
“They climbed a ladder to the skies to get rid of you”!!
“Elohim” they were called as judges;
“Elohim” as gods (living on earth);
“Elohim” as messengers;
“Elohim” as God (gods living in the skies).
It still proves that the idea was not unthinkable, and that is not the unique
example.
Have you considered the difference between how a religion is portrayed in popular and elite circles, and how different people view their religious beliefs? Religion was not always like it is today - separated from the State. In ancient time, it played an important role in state affairs.
A good example might be the Hebrew Bible - we have a text that eventually ends up very monotheistic, very Yahweh-Alone - probably an effective tool of the Judahite monarchy. But the text itself attests to the existence of a "popular" religion that included the worship of other deities. Even in Northern Israel, the idea of Yahweh-Alone might not have been the ideal goal (just see how badly they fare at the pens of the Southern writers, and even some of the more Yahweh-Alone writers/prophets of the North). It's a complicated issue that scholars are still trying to unravel from the text. One of the biggest problems is that one must try to see past the writer's ideologies and political beliefs, for these managed to inform much of the Hebrew Bible and how it has been received.
My point is that even within one society, or cultural group, there can be conflicting ideas. Even if we could pinpoint just one working idea to focus on, we would have to try to determine why that idea was being used. While I agree with you, a little bit, that humans might have archetypal ideas (I say that very tentatively, and with much reservation) - I also think that one cannot explain everything in such a way. Was it Freud, himself, who said that "sometimes a cigar is just a cigar"? I'm not against trying to find human commonalities, but one must be very careful not to overstate one's case and reach conclusions that are more wishful, than factual.
In line with the Freud thing, if you're not easily offended, check this out: Dead Philosophers in Heaven - Sigfucius the new Brangelina? But WAIT!!
I warn anyone reading this, though! Do NOT click this link, and then complain about it's contents please. It's offensive. HIGHLY offensive to good, old-fashioned, Apple-Pie morals. FOR Pete's sake - don't do it!
(do it..) It's hilarious.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
