Quote:
Originally Posted by purehuman
I never could get an answer as to why the bible refers to woman as "daughters of man", and the men as "sons of god"...still don't know.
|
It was a way of referring to things by noting it's "type", with the term "son of" or "daughter of" just being a way of invoking relationships and demonstrating limitations and aspects of the thing being named. It does not necessarily imply a direct lineage, except in certain instances. A rough way of explaining it's basic usage is below:
A "son of God/gods" is basically "a god". (Sometimes it means "the King" or "the People of God")
A "son of man/Mankind is basically a "mortal" or "human".
A "daughter of man/Mankind is a "female mortal" - it's more specific than "son of man".
A "son of beasts" is an animal, etc.
The term is also used in other aspects like the "sons of shame" to denote "worthless men" or "wicked men", essentially - but that is a simplification.
You can skip the rest of this, as it's fairly long - the above was the quick-and-easy explanation. The rest is just details and interesting tidbits.
A son of God/gods
The reason for the uncertainty ("God" or "gods") is because of the word used:
elohim, it's normal grammatical usage being "gods". Israelite writers, at some point, used it as a substitute to refer to Yahweh or the High God of their religion - depending on how you look at it. Its strange grammatical usage is dicussed by Daniel McKellan here:
//www.city-data.com/forum/23559592-post1.html - in which he devoted an entire thread to the issue. I highly reccomend a reading of it, as it really is a strange issue.
Because of this confusion, it is not always certain whether a biblical writer meant "God" or "gods" when they used the term
elohim, and the context must help us determine it's intended usage.
In speaking of these "sons of God", Psalm 89:6-7 provides a helpful example of poetic parallelism (where a term is synonomous in the next line but with a different term). In the following
NJPS translation (as above in the
SB's Genesis) - to avoid certain implications that a literal translation and understanding would yield - uses "divine beings" for "gods", with the literal Hebrew being "sons of God/gods". This is done to accomodate later ideas of angels, proposed by later writers who were uncomfortable with earlier ideas of the West Semitic concept of the Divine Council, presided over by El (appropriated by Yahweh in some texts).
Your wonders, O LORD, are praised by the heavens [another term that frequently denoted "gods"],
Your faithfulness, too, in the assembly of holy beings ["Holy Ones": an Ugaritic term for "gods", also used by Israelite poets].
For who in the skies can equal the LORD,
can compare with the LORD among the divine beings, [gods],
a God greatly dreaded in the council of holy beings [gods],
held in awe by all around Him?
The
NJPS follows many standard pratices of translating
YHWH as "the LORD". In addition to changing that, a better translation would yield something akin to this (I've bolded parallelisms):
Your wonders, O Yahweh, are praised by the heavens,
Your faithulness, too, in the assembly of Holy Ones.
For who in the skies can equal Yahweh,
can compare with Yahweh among the gods,
a god greatly dreaded in the Council of the Holy Ones,
held in awe by all around him?
In the Book of Job, Eliphaz's first speech gives us another clue to the identity of the "Holy Ones" - he is decrying the idea of appealing to gods other than God (perhaps a reference to the Mesopotmanian concept of a "personal god" who advocated for one in the heavens before the high gods):
"Call now, will any answer you?
To which of the Holy Ones will you turn?
(Job 5:1, AB)
But I digress. The term "sons of God/gods" in the Hebrew Bible basically means "gods". There are more specific examples of when this phrase is applied in different meanings and contexts, but that is completely different and dependent on the time period in which it is written. The
ABD gives some of these other meanings. For example, in the Hebrew Bible it can mean "god", "the King", or "the People of God"; in Jewish writings, it can mean "the Messiah", "a Righteous Individual", "a Charismatic inidividual", an "exalted Angel"; in the New Testament it can mean "Jesus Christ", "the Heavenly Messiah", "Sons of God on Earth" deriving from the transfiguration's "installation" of certain individuals, "the Preexistent Son of God from Heaven", etc.
Sons of "man" and daughters of "man"
The famous New Testament title "the Son of Man", as applied to Jesus Christ, has it's roots in the Hebrew Bible. It should not be capitalized, technically, in the Hebrew Bible - as it refers to humans, or mortals. It's okay to capitalize it in the New Testament, as it has achieved status as title - not as mere appellative.
The Hebrew word
adam can mean several things: a human, humanity or a single male human. Much of this is determined by, once again, the context and whether the definite article "the" is present. There's a difference between referring to
adam and
ha-adam ("ha" means "the" when prefixed to a word). So when the term "son of adam" is used, it usually refers to a human, regardless of sex. This aspect is also part of how language works - in most languages, when a group of humans or animals of both sexes are referred to, masculine markers are used to mark them. Case-endings usually always use masculine markers for groups. The term "daughters of man" is more sexually explicit (no pun intended) in that it narrows it down to human female mortals. So a "daughter of man/mankind/humanity" is the Hebrew idiom used. That is why most translators, knowing that modern readers are usually not aware of such idioms, just translate "mortal" or "woman" in such cases. I, personally, prefer the much more poetic idiom.
Especially see Ezekiel, who is referred to as "son of man" 93 times. It is likely that this is meant to contrast his "mortal" status with that of God's, OR it could mean that Ezekiel has attained a special status: "THE mortal supreme" as the mouth of God. Daniel and I Enoch will take the term and start applying it in a much more exalted status, until the New Testament writers see it as a title: Son of Man. It has an interesting history, that's for sure.
Anyways, if you made it this far - I hope that helps.
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.
The video gives it away, one would think (along with the fact that I quoted the actual text ha ha)!
Which was obvious. Why is he so reactionary? It is like there is a block on his comprehension and critical thinking skills - he has done this recently on other threads. I seriously hope he is not physically having problems - HONESTLY. On the other hand he is probably not even trying to - and that would be even more problematic simply because it says something about him as a person and the value he puts on others and their inputs - even if we disagree. I have at least made myself familiar with his posts and the interpretation he puts forth - it is called being open and respectful - despite the quick jabs we may throw here and there. I do hope everything is alright with you Eusebius.
)!