Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Religion and Spirituality
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 05-10-2012, 02:30 PM
 
Location: Athens, Greece
526 posts, read 688,863 times
Reputation: 63

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by whoppers View Post
The middle Poetic section, however, has a Job far from patient - in fact, he's extremely impatient, and quasi-blasphemous! From various factors (linguistic, theological, philosophical, the divine name, etc) in the Poetic section, most see the Poetic section as composed by a different person than the framework story. The question is: Which came first? The original folk tale? The philosophical Poetic section?

I am a bit confused as to which part you regard as original folk tale and which as theological conception.
The Sumerian version consists of just the Job motif which is a pure theological idea aiming in forestalling resentment against the gods and to ward off potential disillusionment with the divine order as Kramer writes.
Surely you have noticed the following:

“Sumerian Lamentation to a Man’s God” verse 102

Never has a sinless child been born to its mother.

Job 25:4

τίς ν ποκαθαρίσαι αυτν γεννητς γυναικός
Or how can he be clean that is born of a woman?

Aeschylus “Suppliants”, verses 569-570

λαβούσα δ’ έρμα Δίον αψευδεί λόγω
γείνατο παιδ΄αμεμφή
after taking the semen of Zeus, as they truly say,
she (Io) gave birth to a child without sin

We are dealing here with the original sin which is not a theological concept (the semen of Zeus was producing sons of god, as Enki’s semen was doing).

The people knew that the gods were neither benevolent nor omniscient. All the humans they created were faulty (born by human mother; not a divine one). Their teachers therefore and “sages” who taught them differently had to device some excuse, namely, the Job motif. The framework story then is of theological origin and only the part with the quasi-blasphemous Job can be considered to derive from the legend narrating the rebellion against the gods.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 05-10-2012, 03:29 PM
 
3,483 posts, read 4,022,450 times
Reputation: 756
Quote:
Originally Posted by dtango View Post
I am a bit confused as to which part you regard as original folk tale and which as theological conception.


I thought you were famliar with the Book or had access to it. I'll be more specific, even though the following could be gleaned from my post if the previous sentence had been a good assumption.
The Prose Framework story in Job is:
  • Chapters 1-2 (Prologue)
  • Chapter 42:7-17 (Epilogue)
and the Poetic Dialogue Section is:
  • Chapters 3-42:6 (or Everything in between!)
Quote:
Originally Posted by dtango View Post
The framework story then is of theological origin and only the part with the quasi-blasphemous Job can be considered to derive from the legend narrating the rebellion against the gods.
I think every single person who has studied the Book would disagree with you on your conclusion, unfortunately. The Book is not as simple as it may appear. Perhaps a little time spent with the Book is in order? As for the things you pointed out - yes, I have noticed them, but I disagree that they necessarily point to "original sin", and we are getting far afield from the topic, I'm afraid.


What might be more fruitful is investigating the bene elohim of Job's framework story and their relation to the same in Genesis 6.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-10-2012, 03:36 PM
 
3,483 posts, read 4,022,450 times
Reputation: 756
Quote:
Originally Posted by Eusebius View Post
I am not sure why the later Masoretic text would change "El" to "Israel".
Unless the scribe, who was copying the older text to the newer one saw "el" and there could have been a space between "sons" and "el" enough that "Isra" could fit in? Or his eye accidentally saw something. I wonder if this is corrected in the margin?
Eusebius, I am curious. Why do you keep insisting it says el in the Deuteronomy quotation? It says elohim, as previously pointed out (//www.city-data.com/forum/24236149-post45.html and several other places). They would have been changing bene elohim to bene yisrael.

Your proposal of a scribal addition (as interesting as the proposal is), making bene Yisrael, would not work because of that, unfortunately.

Last edited by whoppers; 05-10-2012 at 03:47 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-10-2012, 04:15 PM
 
17,966 posts, read 15,871,222 times
Reputation: 1009
Quote:
Originally Posted by whoppers View Post
Eusebius, I am curious. Why do you keep insisting it says el in the Deuteronomy quotation? It says elohim, as previously pointed out (//www.city-data.com/forum/24236149-post45.html and several other places). They would have been changing bene elohim to bene yisrael.

Your proposal of a scribal addition (as interesting as the proposal is), making bene Yisrael, would not work because of that, unfortunately.
Because it is
Deu 32:8 When the Supreme gave the nations allotments, when He parted
the sons of Adam, He stationed the boundaries of the peoples according to
the number of the sons of El.


The footnote for the above verse is: 32:8 7-Q El: Hb Israel.

It means the LXX and Qumran has "El" and the Hebrew text has "Israel."
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-10-2012, 06:15 PM
2K5Gx2km
 
n/a posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by InsaneInDaMembrane View Post
'The Sons of God!' Mere mortals, literal sons or angels?
Of course it is divine being not humans.

DSS is the underlying text for the LXX. The Hebrew is either bene elohim or bene elim. Both can be translated sons of gods.

Two readings for LXX exist - 1) messengers of God and 2) sons of God.

The two DSS readings are - 1) 4QDtq has bene el and 2) 4QDtj has bene elohim.

The former (4QDtq) clearly has spaces for additional letters following the el.

It is clear that MT – sons of Israel – is an attempt to downplay these facts.

The idea that the omission of ‘Isra’ before el does not work. The real question is how would ohim get added to el in DSS the underlying readings in LXX. So what is more plausible 1) a scribe accidentally left off Isra and a later scribe intentionally added ohim (in order to correct theology) or 2) scribes deliberately omitted elohim (to protect God from the obvious polytheistic nature of the text.

This does not even consider Deut.32:43.

In 43a the DSS and LXX are different – and what do you think is missing – you guessed it - references to diving beings/sons of God.

So of course they are not humans.

Last edited by 2K5Gx2km; 05-10-2012 at 07:42 PM.. Reason: Spelling
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-10-2012, 06:58 PM
 
17,966 posts, read 15,871,222 times
Reputation: 1009
Was Adam a divine being?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-10-2012, 07:49 PM
 
3,483 posts, read 4,022,450 times
Reputation: 756
Quote:
Originally Posted by Eusebius View Post
Because it is
Deu 32:8 When the Supreme gave the nations allotments, when He parted
the sons of Adam, He stationed the boundaries of the peoples according to
the number of the sons of El.


The footnote for the above verse is: 32:8 7-Q El: Hb Israel.

It means the LXX and Qumran has "El" and the Hebrew text has "Israel."
"Because it is"? To the contrary - "Because it is" not.

In the Dead Sea Scrolls fragment 4Q37 (4QDeut-j), vs. 8 clearly has bene elohim. elohim - NOT el. Your translation (if it is claiming to use the Dead Sea Scrolls for textual variants and readings) is faulty on that verse. There is no iffs, ands or buts about it. Those are the facts on the ground.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Shiloh1 View Post
DSS is the underlying text for the LXX.
Not necessarily - we don't know how many vorlagen were available to the translators of the LXX to use.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Shiloh1 View Post
The two DSS readings are - 1) 4QDtq has bene el and 2) 4QDtj has bene elohim.
I'm referring to Deuteronomy 32:8, as I think Eusebius was as well.
Unfortunately, 4Q44 (4QDeut-q) does not include v. 8. The fragment only includes Deuteronomy 32:9-10; 37-41; and 41-43. So technically (and I'm not sure if you were implying that 4QDeut-q had the reading bene el in v. 8 or in another passage, but I received the impression that you were referring to v. 8) we are still stuck with the conclusion that Deuteronomy 32:8, according to 4QDeut-j has bene elohim.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-10-2012, 08:27 PM
 
17,966 posts, read 15,871,222 times
Reputation: 1009
Quote:
Originally Posted by whoppers View Post
"Because it is"? To the contrary - "Because it is" not.

In the Dead Sea Scrolls fragment 4Q37 (4QDeut-j), vs. 8 clearly has bene elohim. elohim - NOT el. Your translation (if it is claiming to use the Dead Sea Scrolls for textual variants and readings) is faulty on that verse. There is no iffs, ands or buts about it. Those are the facts on the ground.

.
I stand by what I wrote.

"One portion of the OT text for the emendation of which an appeal
to divergent evidence in the LXX has been made with great frequency
is the song in Deut.32. not too long ago the present writer took occa-
sion to discuss some of its problems, and almost immediately after
reaching Jerusalem to work on the materials from cave 4 at khirbet
Qumran, he had the pleasure of finding among them the ending of
Deut.32, here to be described, which shows features in common with
the LXX not previously found in any Hebrew Manuscript.

"To follow the order of the poem itself, however, mention should first
be made of another Qumran fragment, containing in a large, firm and
practiced hand on brownish leather, presumable from the lower right
hand corner of a column text, the following:
bhnhy[l]
bny 'l

"Deut.32:8 is unquestionably the source, and not stichometrically written
copy, but either in a copy written as prose, or in a paraphrase. The
result is our first evicence in an ancient Hebrew manuscript for the
reading of lmispar bene El, regularly inferred from the LXX form of this
verse, and surely original.
JSTOR: Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research, No. 136 (Dec., 1954), pp. 12-15
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-10-2012, 08:49 PM
2K5Gx2km
 
n/a posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by whoppers View Post
I'm referring to Deuteronomy 32:8, as I think Eusebius was as well.
Unfortunately, 4Q44 (4QDeut-q) does not include v. 8. The fragment only includes Deuteronomy 32:9-10; 37-41; and 41-43. So technically (and I'm not sure if you were implying that 4QDeut-q had the reading bene el in v. 8 or in another passage, but I received the impression that you were referring to v. 8) we are still stuck with the conclusion that Deuteronomy 32:8, according to 4QDeut-j has bene elohim.
You're correct 4QDtq is 32:43 not 32:8. Both have sons of God (elohim/el). But if I am not mistaken 32:43 has spaces after the el so it most likely had elohim/elim. As such it seems MT was doing a little theological manipulation. As far as DSS undelying LXX - fair enough.

Does that clear things up?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-10-2012, 09:17 PM
 
Location: Oxford, England
1,266 posts, read 1,236,195 times
Reputation: 117
Quote:
Originally Posted by Eusebius View Post
Notice, the footnote of 32:8 in my quote above does not have for the "7" where "7" stands for "70" or "LXX": "sons of God" but rather just "El."
The Septuagint does not have "El," it has ουιοι θεου ("sons of God") in the earliest manuscripts and αγγελων θεου ("angels of God") in the later manuscripts. θεου could be אלהים ,אלוה, or אל.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Eusebius View Post
And "El" is Hebrew for "God." So both the LXX and Qumran have "El" rather than "Israel." The Hebrew mss. has "Israel."
Actually Qumran has בני*אלוהים (here). Also, 4QDeut-j is in Hebrew, so it's kinda silly to refer to "the Hebrew mss." as a different collection.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Eusebius View Post
"Angelwn" in the LXX has nothing to do with what the footnote states.
Footnotes in study Bibles are not infrequently a waste of time.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
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.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Religion and Spirituality

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top