Biblical Hebrew Forum

[Polycarp66 AT aol.com]

In a message dated 2/7/2003 11:28:02 PM Eastern Standard Time, 
markeddy AT adams.net writes:

> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Walter R. Mattfeld"
> Subject: [b-hebrew] Nephesh Mesopotamian myths
> >
> >IF, IF memory serves me rightly, I recall that in some Mesopotamian myths
> >the dead were described as alive in the Underworld possessing FEATHERED
> >BODIES, flying about, chirpping and twittering. Egyptian myths have the 
> Soul
> >or "BA," as a bird with a human head that leaves the body and flies about,
> >always returning to the body.
> >
> >So, we have in Mesopotamian and Egyptian myths, notions of the dead
> >possessing feathered bodies, capable of flight. As Israel did not come 
> into
> >being in "a vaccum" and as "some" scholars allow that Israelite beliefs
> >evolved from those of the nations who preceeded her and co-existed with 
> her,
> >I see nothing strange in the Hebrew notion of the dead as twittering as a
> >means of communication ( did not the Heavenly Spirit or Soul of God 
> descend
> >upon Christ in the form of a twittering Dove ?).
> 
> Nowhere does it say that the dove was twittering. Nowhere is the Spirit of 
> God ever called a soul. Where
> is any evidence that this teaching is a reflection of Egyptian myths?
> 
> Why do so many on this list seem to assume that the religion of Israel 
> imitated, metamorphized, borrowed,
> or otherwise was based upon the myths of other ancient societies? Israel's 
> sacred writings from beginning
> to end demonstrate that something quite different from that happened. The 
> gods of Canaan (and to some
> extent Egypt and Mesopotamia) were unknown to the people of Israel in the 
> patriarchal period through the
> settlement of Canaan (or at least not worshipped by them--with exceptions 
> which were severely punished,
> e.g. the golden calf incident).
> 
> In Deut. 13:6-10 Moses says, "6 If your brother, the son of your mother, or 
> your son or your daughter or
> the wife you embrace or your friend who is as your own soul entices you 
> secretly, saying, 'Let us go and
> serve other gods,' which neither you nor your fathers have known,  7 some 
> of the gods of the peoples who
> are around you, whether near you or far off from you, from the one end of 
> the earth to the other,  8 you
> shall not yield to him or listen to him, nor shall your eye pity him, nor 
> shall you spare him, nor shall
> you conceal him.  9 But you shall kill him. <snip>
> And why do I believe that Israel's sacred writings were original and 
> correct while other ancient Near
> Eastern writings were secondarily derived and in error? Jesus accepted the 
> Mosaic authoriship of the books
> attributed to him. Since we know that He demonstrated His authority with 
> "signs and wonders" culminating
> in His own resurrection, we can and ought to read the Old Testament in the 
> light of His teaching. (You
> always start from the best attested facts, and then work to that which is 
> harder to proove.) <snip>
Mark,

We try to not get too much into theology here.  The aim is to discuss rather 
what the text might be saying.  We do wander somewhat into theology, and when 
we do we have a wide range of opinions here.  You represent the very 
traditional protestant conservative view.  That's OK, you have a right to 
your opinion.  I may understand it better than some since I come from that 
background myself though I no longer hold that view.  I think we would all be 
better served if you saved your energy for putting this material into your 
sermons where your parishoners might be more in agreement with you and 
appreciate it more.

The problem is that if we simply take what is written and attempt as best we 
can to harmonize it, we still have many problems.  Then again, if we were to 
simply  to accept this because "the Bible tells me so", we wouldn't have much 
to talk about.  It's all been written already.  We hope to learn something 
new regarding these texts which we have not known before.  Most of all, we're 
here to discuss any problems or developments in the understanding of the 
language.

gfsomsel
>From markeddy AT adams.net  Sat Feb  8 01:01:52 2003
Return-Path: <markeddy AT adams.net>
Delivered-To: b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
Received: from adams.net (mail-fe1.adams.net [216.138.0.19])
        by happyhouse.metalab.unc.edu (Postfix) with SMTP id 6D19420123
        for <b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org>;
        Sat,  8 Feb 2003 01:01:50 -0500 (EST)
Received: (qmail 5404 invoked by uid 0); 8 Feb 2003 06:02:53 -0000
Received: from gldnas1-ppp-45.adams.net (HELO default) (216.138.27.45)
  by adams.net with SMTP; 8 Feb 2003 06:02:50 -0000
Message-ID: <00e401c2cf34$e56bee20$eb1c8ad8@default>
From: "Pastor Mark Eddy" <markeddy AT adams.net>
To: <b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org>
References: <1.5.4.32.20030207190109.00684eb4 AT highland.net>
Date: Fri, 7 Feb 2003 23:41:58 -0600
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
        charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1106
X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1106
Subject: [b-hebrew] God/gods, was re: [b-hebrew nefarious nefesh
X-BeenThere: b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1
Precedence: list
List-Id: A forum on the Hebrew Bible, its language and interpretation
 <b-hebrew.lists.ibiblio.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman-2.1/listinfo/b-hebrew>,
        <mailto:b-hebrew-request AT lists.ibiblio.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://lists.ibiblio.org/sympa/arc/b-hebrew>
List-Post: <mailto:b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org>
List-Help: <mailto:sympa AT lists.ibiblio.org?subject=HELP>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman-2.1/listinfo/b-hebrew>,
        <mailto:b-hebrew-request AT lists.ibiblio.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 08 Feb 2003 06:01:52 -0000


----- Original Message -----
From: "Jim West"
To: "Charles David Isbell"
> At 12:51 PM 2/7/03 -0600, you wrote:
> >Either way, it doesn't matter to the next point, which is that after 28.12
> >says she saw Samuel, Saul asks her what she sees, and her answer is "I have
> >seen elohim coming up from the earth" (28.13).  The old KJV may have been
> >the most honest of all in rendering elohim here as "gods."  Modern
> >translators dance around a bit, as a quick check will show anyone
> >interested.  But the Hebrew text has the plural form (olim as the verb of
> >elohim!
>
> see psalm 8-  you are little less than gods-- so that the notion of humans
> as nearly divine (and kings as divine) is not utterly foreign to the hebrew
> bible.  see also the numerous enthronement psalms where the *divine sonship*
> of the king and hence his divinity is clearly announced.  (ps 2 for 
> instance).

I know that some commentators claim that these Messianic psalms were written 
about contemporary kings. But
if you believe St. Peter's speeches in Acts, David wrote about the Messiah, 
not about Himself. I believe
Peter. Psalm 8 doesn't say that human beings in general are "little less than 
gods." I don't understand
why English translations don't see what Luther saw and wrote in the German 
Bible. Luther reads it to say
that God caused the "Son of Man" (the term Jesus picked up to apply to 
Himself) to be forsaken by God a
little while. Or more litteral to the Hebrew: "You deprived Him of God a 
little while" (the temporal use
of M'aT is quite common). When God forsook the Messiah (Psalm 22:1), the 
Messiah lacked God for a little
while. But in the resurrection God crowned Him (the Son of Man) with glory 
and honor. I know that not even
the LXX translated it this way. But it was translated before what these 
verses said actually happened to
the Messiah. Besides, the LXX really missed the boat by substituting "angels" 
for "God."

Maybe Romans deified their emperors and Egyptians thought that their Pharaohs 
might be manifestations of a
god. But Israel's insistance that there is only one God, Yahweh, ruled such 
"divine soneship" out for
their mortal kings. This seems to be another case where some people are 
interpreting the Scriptures in the
light of pagan religions instead of in the light of the Scriptures 
themselves. Samuel fought Israel's
attempt to get a king "like all the nations" (1 Sam. 8:5). Only God was to be 
their King. When God came to
earth as the Messiah, Immanuel, Jesus, then God was their King in human form, 
for the first and only time.

The Son in Ps 2:12 is the Anointed of verse 2, the Messiah, who turned out to 
be Jesus. This was forseen
by the Psalmist. I'll accept the early Church's explanation of this in Acts 
4:24-30 any day:
24 And when they heard it, they lifted their voices together to God and said, 
"Master, who made the heaven
and the earth and the sea and everything in them,  25 who through the mouth 
of our father David, your
servant, said by the Holy Spirit, "'Why did the nations rage, and the peoples 
plot in vain?  26 The kings
of the earth set themselves, and the rulers were gathered together, against 
the Lord and against his
Anointed'-  27 for truly in this city there were gathered together against 
your holy servant Jesus, whom
you anointed, both Herod and Pontius Pilate, along with the Gentiles and the 
peoples of Israel,  28 to do
whatever your hand and your plan had predestined to take place.  29 And now, 
Lord, look upon their threats
and grant to your servants to continue to speak your word with all boldness,  
30 while you stretch out
your hand to heal, and signs and wonders are performed through the name of 
your holy servant Jesus."

David wasn't callling himself the Anointed. God was speaking through Him 
about a predestined, future
Messiah, Jesus.

> that she sees a god- a divine samuel- is no shock- for the one who anoints
> is clearly superior to the one anointed.

Or, did she really think that she saw "God" coming up. (This is the most 
common meaning of Elohim in the
OT.) There are a number of theophanies in the Bible, in which God appears in 
a visible form, even in human
form, as in His visit to Abraham to announce Isaac's birth and Sodom's 
destruction. Saul is the one who
"knew that he was Samuel." As others have already written, Saul may have been 
mistaken. This is a really
hard passage to reconcile all the details with any view of the "reality" of 
what was happening. The woman
saw "God" (Elohim). Then, contrary to what some have written, in 1 Sam. 28:15 
it says that "Samuel spoke
to Saul." So it wasn't only the woman who was aware of the presence of 
someone whom she called God and
whom Saul and the narrator call Samuel. Saul know that the being she saw was 
not God, because He said "God
has turned away from me and answers me no more, either by prophets or by 
dreams."

> >Saul then asks about the form [singular] of her envisioned guest, and she
> >describes Samuel: "an old man cloaked in a coat [me(il] is coming up" [here
> >the singular (oleh in 28.13].
>
> she has to use some description doesnt she?
> >
> >[1] How an old man wearing a coat coming up out of the ground signifies a
> >spirit I have no idea. Samuel's mother made him a new coat [me(il] every
> >year, according to 2.19, and Saul had seized such a coat [me(il] and had
> >torn it upon learning of his rejection from kingship [kata 15.27].  So the
> >coat here is an identifying mark of Samuel, clearly linked to the wardrobe
> >common to his earthly life.
>
> exactly.  samuel.  not as a human being but as a spirit.

I don't see how either of you is "exactly" right about this. But it's getting 
too late at night for me to
analyze any more. Doesn't a human being have a spirit? If it was the spirit 
of Samuel who appeared, wasn't
that spirit human, or at least part of a human being? Since I've never seen a 
spirit apart from a body, I
don't know what one might look like. But I can't rule out the possibility 
that spirits can appear in human
form, without being a full-fledged human being. The Bible calls angels 
"spirits" (RUCHOTH Ps 104:4;
PNEUMATA Heb. 1:7) and yet they appeared as "men" a number of times (Gen. 
18:2 & 16 compared with 19:1;
Luke 24:4 compared with v. 23)

> >[2] Why the actions of such a woman would be taken as grounds for any 
> >modern
> >theological tenet I have no idea.
>
> she is an unwitting partner in a revelatory act.

Possibly. If God could speak to Balaam through a donkey, He could send back 
Samuel to speak to Saul after
being summoned by a medium. What makes this hard to comprehend is that other 
places in both Old and New
Testaments give the impression that the dead do not come back or speak to the 
living (e.g. 2 Sam. 12:23;
Isaiah 63:16; Luke 16:20ff; Hebrews 9:27). It's hard to make generalizations 
from unique events.

> >[3] What this has to do with nephesh I have no idea.
>
> it demonstrates that the notion presented by liz that the hebrew bible knows
> of no spiritual life after death is false.
>
> Jim West, ThD

Jim agrees with the whole thrust of the Bible. But this does have more to do 
with "spirit"ual life than
with nephesh life. We're talking about a semantic range, not about just the 
single word nephesh.

Gladly reading the Hebrew Scriptures in the light of Christ (they certainly 
would be darker without
knowing the end of the story),
Mark Eddy