I don't understand this

by embeth2525 64 Replies latest watchtower bible

embeth2525

I have learned so much from all these posts. This is fascinating. WOW. Thanks Beth
peacefulpete

I'm not a linguist by any stretch but that makes no sense. Human languages are evolving systems of communication. Relationships can be traced thru linguistic connections. Some very simplistic languages do bestow extremely limited means of transmitting complex thought.

I am afraid you're wrong. Could you give me one example of a simplistic human language which is used as a native language (apart from pidgins and some creols which are not naturally acquired in the sense native languages are)? That no "primitive" human languages have ever been observed is one of linguistic universals taught in the first class of any course in linguistics.

This usually is not required in the simple environment and lack of education of the language's users.

You see, language is highly repetitive in its form. You can use one literal meaning to make a dozen metaphors. This doesn't make the grammar of a language a single bit complex. To the contrary, many languages (like English) have lost a lot of their original morphology as they have gained more metaphorical meanings.

Earliest written language was little more than simple symbols representing concepts like, man, fire, gods, etc.

This doesn't tell us anything about human language. The fact that a person cannot write or that a person uses symbols has nothing to do with the ability to use a highly complex language.

Ceturies later the symbols became a concept in itself, representing a sound that could be used to form an endless variety of spoken words.

Again the history of writing has very little to do with the biological origins of language. If anything, it tells us that over the last couple of thousands of years the grammars of recorded languages have become much less complex than they used to. This doesn't mean that the languages we speak today are inferior of bastardized, but it doesn't mean they're more complex either.

Animal language, with syntax and notion of narrative exists in at least some of the higher species.
Now, that's interesting. I'd love to know the references, so if you have any, please let me know.

Cheers,

Pole
Thanks Pole. You are correct that no modern language can be said to be "primative". I did not however say that. I said that languages evolve fromn less simple to complex thru need to effficiently express complex thought. Perhaps the wording could have been better. Simple meaning fewer words and less ease of conveying abstract concepts. You mentioned how pidgins and creoles have reduced the language to this simpler form, this is the result, in part, of the lack of demands upon the people to express themselves thru language. Once humans evolved the brain functions that enabled abstract thought and symbolism, langauge existed. The basic machinery is the same for all humans and has been for a million years or so. The point I was attempting to make was that languages are not equally ancient nor developed. My comment about syntax in animal communication (ape and parrot studies) was based upon recent reading of articles and Pinker's books. It is controvertial and if it can hold will overturn the objections of the past 30 years.
Narkissos

Sabrina,
One problem I have with NRSV is its gender neutral stance.

English is not my mother-tongue, but I understand the noun "god" as masculine (vs. goddess). You can rightly criticise the NRSV for inclusive language (e.g. when it translates adelphoi by "brothers and sisters"), but this is not the issue here, is it?
But having said that when translating Deut.32:8 am I understanding correctly that they gave preference to the Qumran manuscripts over the LXX? The Oxford Bible Commentary (NRSV) says concerning 32:8, "Whereas the LXX reads 'according to the number of the angels of God'...." So apparently the NRSV discarded both the LXX and M's readings for the Qumran's? I sound blind don't I? lol
Even without the Qumran manuscripts, the LXX reading implied some underlying Hebrew text different from the MT (bene Israel) and meaning "gods" (whether it was 'elohim, 'elim, bene 'el, bene 'elohim or bene 'elim could not be told), for it is a regular LXX pattern to "translate" such Hebrew expressions by aggeloi or aggeloi theou. The Qumran mss only came as a confirmation of this suspicion.
Also, if in the Hebrew "son of" means "belonging to the kind of" and that litereally "sons of God means "gods" then Job 1:6 could also be translated as "gods" instead of "sons of God" and the same for Job 2:1 and Job 38:7? (just a side note here the NRSV in each of those scriptures uses the phrase "heavenly beings" but then footnotes it as "sons of God" in Hebrew. Their gender probem is annoying sometimes)
Basically, yes. The only question is what the general frame of interpretation (polytheistic, henotheistic or monotheistic) of Job is. I would opt for henotheistic, because Yhwh doesn't appear as one of the gods (as in Deuteronomy etc.) but as the chairman of the assembly (which was El in the previous setting), the other members (including the "satan") being subject to him. To me the translation "heavenly beings" which suits any interpretation frame is excellent.
Thanks for the link to the divine council material unfortunately, though I tried several times, it would not load properly nor print out.
It's a PDF and may take some time to load (you need to install Acrobat Reader if you haven't it yet, it's free). Otherwise just google "sons of god Deuteronomy" and you'll find a lot of information (it's a very often discussed subject).
On the more general issue of polytheism in Israel, I would recommend Mark Smith and Margaret Barker which are both serious and accessible.
upside/down

funkyderek- define "primitive", I disagree that without exception all ancient cultures were more "primitive" than ours. High tech gadgets and mobility do not make us less "primitive" (the way I'm defining the word).I feel modern man is a very primitive creature, in the fact that we've digressed morally as we've advanced technologically. Take a modern man give him some seeds and a few chickens and maybe a couple of cows and see if he can make a go of it. When stripped of our gadgets we are (most of us) quite helpless in this world. Our "intellect" is of less value without our modern society. And yet "intellect" is what got us here.
The ancient Greeks had great thinkers, that we STUDY in our universities to this day. The QUALITY of life though "primitive" to some observers can be quite high and even surpass our "modern" stress filled, polluted, mentally ill, disease and vice ridden society. Creature comforts do not a "civilized" society make!
The pyramids and the culture/religions/economics that made them are still a spectacle (one example). Were they primitive?
u/d
Greenpalmtreestillmine

Narkissos,
Thank you for the information.
Sabrina
lurk

hello embeth
all citys have satailte tv and god new that man would be able to tune in to heaven and he would have no privacy at all so he split them up to protect himslef from reality TV lovers.
lurk
funkyderek

upside/down:
funkyderek- define "primitive",

Less advanced; specifically, in terms of culture and technology. (There are, of course, many other definitions)
I disagree that without exception all ancient cultures were more "primitive" than ours. High tech gadgets and mobility do not make us less "primitive" (the way I'm defining the word).
How are you defining the word then?
I feel modern man is a very primitive creature, in the fact that we've digressed morally as we've advanced technologically.
In what ways, specifically? Which cultures do you consider morally superior to our own? I can't think of any ancient cultures that had full racial and sexual equality. What plus points did they have to make up for these obvious moral failings? Or do you not consider such things moral failings?
Take a modern man give him some seeds and a few chickens and maybe a couple of cows and see if he can make a go of it. When stripped of our gadgets we are (most of us) quite helpless in this world.
Take an ancient man and give him a car, see how he gets on. In fact, take an African bushman and put him in the Brazilian rainforest, see how well he does. We spend a considerable portion of our lives just learning how to live in our environment. Obviously, if we are thrown into an unfamiliar environment we will have difficulties.
Our "intellect" is of less value without our modern society. And yet "intellect" is what got us here.
I don't quite understand this. As you rightly point out, our intellect is what got us here. It is our intellect that allows us to live longer, healthier lives. Intellect has always been valuable. When was it not valuable and why have you put it in scare quotes?
The ancient Greeks had great thinkers, that we STUDY in our universities to this day. The QUALITY of life though "primitive" to some observers can be quite high and even surpass our "modern" stress filled, polluted, mentally ill, disease and vice ridden society.
You really think the quality of life in ancient Greece was better than today? However you measure it, things are better now. Human rights are universal, slavery is illegal. Life expectancy is double or triple what it was in ancient times. We have access to more information than we know what to do with. Almost everybody who wants to has the time and wherewithal to STUDY the great thinkers of ancient Greece or any other subject that takes their fancy. Do you really think the society we live in is more "disease and vice ridden" than ancient Greece? Perhaps you should research this subject just a little.
Creature comforts do not a "civilized" society make!
What exactly does? Increased life expectancy? Political and intellectual freedom? Great art? Scientific breakthroughs? Education? What definitions are you using?
The pyramids and the culture/religions/economics that made them are still a spectacle (one example). Were they primitive?
Yes, compared to the Eiffel Tower, Sydney Opera House, Mount Rushmore, the Channel Tunnel etc. The pyramids are more primitive both from an engineering standpoint and a moral one.
LittleToe

Derek:
Methinks you undermined your argument by adding the Chunnel in there
lurk

Yes, compared to the Eiffel Tower, Sydney Opera House, Mount Rushmore, the Channel Tunnel etc. The pyramids are more primitive both from an engineering standpoint and a moral one.

LOL..no words needed
lurk
Leolaia

Greentreestillmine....Here is some info that I hope would be useful. The first thing to recognize is the process through which monotheism arose; it is a three-stage process: (1) polytheism, in which multiple gods are worshipped, (2) henotheism, in which multiple gods are believed to exist but only one god is supposed to be worshipped, and (3) monotheism, in which only one god is held to exist. The OT presents this as a process of increasing divine revelation. The original Canaanite view is that El was the creator of the world and was the father of seventy gods through his wife Asherah (represented in art as the Tree of Life), the source of life in the world. The seventy sons of El formed the "divine council" on a cosmic mountain (something like Mount Olympus) where El lived. El resided in a tent in a divine garden at the source of the great rivers and at the meeting place of the two Deeps, the Deep in heaven and the Deep underneath the ground. Although El was the somewhat aged father-god, the active ruler of the earth was the rain god Baal who was adopted as a son of El following El's defeat of the previous ruler, the dragon Yamm (the Sea), whom he killed and split in half. The Canaanite kings viewed themselves as ruling as co-regents with Baal and believed that the battles fought on earth were reflections of divine battles in heaven between the gods.
This mythological background is very pertinent to much of the OT, as exactly the same concepts abound. The early patriarchs are presented in the Priestly and Elohist parts of Genesis as worshippers of El, Yahweh is described in some of the oldest parts of the OT as a rain god (cf. Psalm 29, Hosea, Habbakuk), and even referred to as Baal by the Israelites (Hosea 2:16), Yahweh is described like Baal as a Cloud Rider with the clouds as his chariot, the divine council is described in very similar language, the garden of Eden is described as on the "holy mountain of God" (Ezekiel 28:12-14), the throne is placed on the "mount of assembly" in the recesses of Zaphon (Isaiah 14:13; Baal's throne was on Mount Zaphon and El's abode was on the "mountain of assembly"), and Yahweh is described as waging battles with the dragons Yamm (the Sea), Leviathan (= Lotan in Canaanite myth), and Rahab. Isaiah 27:1's description of Leviathan, in fact, is practically verbatim with that in the older Canaanite myth. There are some good books on the Canaanite origins of Israelite religion; see especially the Early History of God by Mark Smith, and Yahweh and the Gods and Goddesses of Canaan by John Day.
What happened in Israel is that Baal (which really is a title meaning "lord") was first used as a title of Yahweh, and Yahweh was originally distinguished from El and had a relationship with him like that of El and Baal -- as father and son. Then Yahweh became identified with El (cf. especially Exodus, in which Yahweh was revealed to be the god worshipped by Abraham), such as that we later find statements that mix motifs of Baal and El together (cf. Psalm 18). Thus, Yahweh became the sole god ruling in the divine council, with all the other gods subordinate to him, and for some Israelites, Asherah became Yahweh's wife (rather than El's wife). Then Asherah herself became assimilated to Yahweh, as his "face" or "presence," and there is some evidence that the later Jewish concept of the "Holy Spirit," as well as the feminine Wisdom and the Qabbalah concept of the feminine Shekinah all depend in some way on this development (which also occurred in Punic religion). Meanwhile, as this henotheism became monotheism and worship was restricted exclusively to Yahweh, all the other gods in Yahweh's council became regarded as "angels," as divine messengers and intercessors with man -- who interact with people, and were even to be prayed to as intercessors, but were not to be worshipped and glorified. This is how angels were regarded in early Judaism at the time Christianity arose (cf. especially Tobit and 1 Enoch, where angels are intercessors).
The older concept of the divine council is amply attested in the Psalms and other writings:
"Pay tribute to Yahweh, you sons of El (bny-'lym), tribute to Yahweh of glory and power, tribute to Yahweh of the glory of his name, worship Yahweh in his sacred court. The voice of Yahweh over the waters! Yahweh over the multitudinous waters! ... In his palace everything cries, 'Glory!' Yahweh sat enthroned over the Flood, Yahweh sits enthroned as a king forever." (Psalm 29:1-3, 9-10)
"God (=Yahweh) ... stands in the assembly of El [Heb. 'dw 'l], among the gods ['lwhm] he dispenses justice...You are gods ('lym), all of you are sons of Elyon (bny-'lywn)" (Psalm 82:1, 6).
"Yahweh, the council of holy ones (qhl qdsym) in heaven applaud the marvel of your faithfulness. Who in the skies can compare with Yahweh? Which of the sons of El (bn 'l) can rival him?" (Psalm 89:5-6)
"I am El ('l) in the dwelling of the gods ('lhym); I dwell in the midst of the seas (ymym) ... on the holy mountain of the gods (hr qds 'lhym)" (Ezekiel 28:2, 14).
"I will climb up to the heavens; and higher than the stars of El (kwkby-'l) I will set my throne. I will sit on the Mount of Assembly (hr-mw'd) in the recesses of Zaphon (yrkty zpn). I will climb to the top of thunderclouds, I will rival Elyon ('lywn)." (Isaiah 14:13-14)
"All the morning stars (kwkby) were singing with joy and the sons of God (bny-'lhym) were chanting praise" (Job 38:7).
Note that in Psalm 29 the sons of El pay tribute to Yahweh, Psalm 82, God (=Yahweh) is standing inside El's assembly, and in Psalm 89, none of the sons of El can rival him. The members of the divine council are described in different ways, as "gods," as "the council of holy ones," as the "assembly of El," as the "stars of El," as the "morning stars," as the "sons of El," as the "sons of Elyon," and as the "sons of God". The language is rather similar to that in Canaanite writings. We read in the Baal Cycle:
"The boys depart, they do not sit still. Immediately they head to Mount Lalu, to the Assembled Council (phr m'd). Meanwhile the gods ('lm) sit down to feast, the holy ones (qds) dine, Baal waits on El" (KTU 1.2 I 19-21).
The word m'd in this quote is the same word that occurs in Isaiah 14:13-14 and in the 'whl mw'd "Tent of Meeting" of Exodus 33:7-11 and Numbers 11:16-29. The divine council is also called "the sons of El" and "the gathering of the gods" ('dt 'lm) in KTU 1.15 II 7, 11, "the assembly of the stars" in KTU 1.10 I 3-5, whereas in KTU 1.15 III 17-19 we read that "the gods proceed to their tents, the assembly of El (drw-'l) to their dwellings", and later, "Asherah went home to the court of El. She came before the divine council, and spoke of her plan to the gods, her children." Later Phoenician expressions for the divine council include "the assembly of the holy gods of Byblos" (mphrt 'l gbl qdsm) and "all the circle of the divine sons," and Philo of Byblos (PE, 1.10.20), in his description of Phoenician mythology, described the Eloim (= 'lhym, "gods" in Hebrew) as the "allies of Elous" (= El). So in short, the language that the OT uses to describe the divine council is very close to that in Canaanite and Phoenician texts.
Deuteronomy 32:8-9 is a key text in understanding Yahweh's role in the divine assembly and his relationship with Israel. It is a text though with strong henotheistic overtones:
"When Elyon apportioned the nations, when he separated the sons of men, he established the boundaries of the peoples according to the number of the sons of God (bny 'lhym). Yahweh's portion was his people, Jacob was his allotted inheritance" (Deuteronomy 32:8-9).
This is the original wording of the text, as attested in the oldest textual witnesses: the Greek Septuagint (LXX), which renders "sons of God" as "angels" (as it does throughout the OT), and the Dead Sea Scroll version of Deuteronomy, which has the original "sons of God" (4QDeut j 32:8-9). The Septuagint was translated circa 200 BC and the Hebrew text of the Dead Sea Scrolls is also from before 100 BC. The wording "sons of God" also has the support of Symmachus, the Old Latin translation, and the Syro-Hexaplaric manuscript, Cambridge Or. 929. The concept of this passage is clearly that Yahweh was one of the sons of God, who was given the nation of Israel as his inheritance when Elyon apportioned the nations and established the boundaries between them. Elyon is clearly a title of El, as can be seen in the name El-Elyon in Genesis 14 and the phrase "sons of Elyon" in Psalm 82:6 which is equivalent to "sons of El" in Psalm 89.
Here we find that the members of the divine assembly are also the gods of the nations. This latter concept is also attested well in Daniel 10:13, 20, 21, 12:1, which refers to the angel Michael as the "prince" of the Jewish people, in conflict with the "prince of Greece" and the "prince of Persia". Sirach 17:17 is also dependent on the concept and wording in Deuteronomy: "For every nation he appointed a ruler, but Israel is the Lord's portion". So El-Elyon is described as apportioning out the nations to his sons, one nation per son, and Yahweh received Israel as his portion. But what were the number of the sons of God? It would be the same as the number of nations, and according to Genesis 10, there were seventy nations. This is a striking parallel to Canaanite myth, which numbered seventy sons of El and Asherah (cf. KTU 1.4 VI 46, "seventy sons of Asherah," KTU 15 IV 6-8, "the seventy lords," etc.). That there was a tradition surrounding Deuteronomy 32:8-9 that numbered seventy "sons of God" is clear from the Targum of Pseudo-Jonathan which said when God "divided alphabets and tongues to the sons of men, he cast lots with seventy angels, the princes of the nations, and established the borders of the peoples". This number is even indicated in the textual tradition of Deuteronomy. The Masoretic text, the Hebrew text on which most English translations of the OT are based, replaces "sons of God" with "sons of Israel" -- apparently to remove the hint of polytheism or henotheism from the text (as certainly Yahweh could not have been a son of Israel!). The resultant text however doesn't make much sense. But it does reflect the number seventy all the same, since according to Genesis 46:27 the "sons of Israel" when they went to Egypt "totalled seventy". The implicit number may have thus suggested a substitute.
The role of Yahweh in establishing the borders of the nation of Israel (in relation to the other "sons of God" representing the other nations) is well attested in the OT. The conflict between the gods Yahweh and Chemosh was realized in the earthly conflict between the Israelites and the Moabites, who fought over territory. The old henotheistic notion of the different gods establishing the borders between the nations can be found in Judges 11:23-24 where Jephthah says:
"Now since Yahweh, the god of Israel, has driven the Amorites out before his people Israel, what right have you to take it over? Will you not take what your god Chemosh gives you? Likewise, whatever Yahweh our God has given us, we will possess." (Judges 11:23-24)
Thus when Moab is defeated in war, the Israelites say that "Chemosh goes into exile" (Jeremiah 48:7), while the Moabites viewed their own political fortunes as dictated by their god Chemosh as well: "Omri was the king of Israel, and he oppressed Moab for many days, for Chemosh was angry with his own land.... And Chemosh said to me, 'Go take Nebo from Israel!' And I went in the night and fought against it from break of dawn until noon, and I took it, and I killed its whole population ... and from there I took the vessels of Yahweh and hauled them before the face of Chemosh" (King Mesha Stele, COS 2.23, lines 5-6, 14-18).
Moreover, when Israel "serves gods that were no part of their heritage" (Deuteronomy 29:24-27), Yahweh becomes jealous that "they have forsaken me and worshipped Ashtoreth the goddess of the Sidonians, Chemosh the god of the Moabites, and Molech the god of the Ammonites" (1 Kings 11:33), instead of following the god allotted to their nation. That is also why Ezekiel, Jeremiah and the other prophets explain Israel's destruction by the Assyrians and Judah's destruction by the Babylonians as the result of their religious "apostasy" -- by turning to the gods of other nations, Yahweh abandoned his political support and left them defenseless to the forces of the Assyrians and Babylonians (cf. Jeremiah 16:13, 25:6).
I've left out a lot of stuff and only summarized other things, but this gives the general picture.

I don't understand this

Share this