Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

b-hebrew - Re: [b-hebrew] Divine Embodiment - Peter Kirk

b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Biblical Hebrew Forum

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: "Kevin Graham" <kevlds AT hotmail.com>
  • To: kwrandolph AT email.com
  • Cc: b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
  • Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] Divine Embodiment - Peter Kirk
  • Date: Thu, 08 Sep 2005 11:35:18 +0000

Hi Karl,

== First of all, there are those who claim that your reading that posits physical attributes to the deity is reading the text through the eyes of Hellenistic philosophy, not Hebraic thought.

Who? What is their argument? Hengel disagrees. Smith disagrees. To attribute the Ancient view of literal anthropomorphism on hellenism, light years before Judaism experienced any influence frem hellenized socities, is quite an argument to make.

== And don't forget that even as the LXX translated Tanakh to Greek, they too were influenced by Hellenism, even if only not to mention some of the anthropomorphisms to avoid arguing with Hellenists.

But this simply undermines your statement above. If hellenism is truly pro-anthropomorphism, then you'd expect the LXX to contain more anthropomorphisms, not fewer. Your comment might hold water if we first presume the Alexandrian Jews were rebelling against this Hellenistic influence, as opposed to giving in to it. The account of Aristobulus, however, only reinforces my case.

== It was openly stated that what is usually called "Biblical cosmology" really is medieval cosmology which was formed by looking at Biblical passages through Hellenistic eyes.

But my argument is not dependant on the Shiur Quomah. While influence of hellenism might explain some of the cosmic anthropomorphisms in Rabbinic materia, it has virtually nothing to do with the texts in question.

== Your attribution of physical attributes to God follows the Hellenistic pattern.

To which hellenistic "pattern" do you refer? According to Wand,

"It is easy to see what influence this school of thought [Neoplatonism] must have had upon Christian leaders. It was from this that they learnt what was involved in a metaphysical sense by calling God a Spirit. They were also helped to free themselves from their primitive eschatology and to get rid of their crude anthropomorphism which made even Tertullian [A.D. 160-220] believe that God had a material body."(J.W.C. Wand, A History of the Early Church to A.D. 500, (London: Routledge, 1937, reprint 1994), p. 140)

According to the Jewish Encyclopedia, "The God of Philo, owing to the influence of Platonism, is not only essentially different from man and the world—an idea which also coincides with the teaching of the Pharisees of this period—but He is entirely devoid of attributes. Philo opposes not only the literal understanding of the anthropomorphic and anthropopathic passages in the Bible, but also the doctrine of God as an active worker, inasmuch as activity can not be predicated of a Being devoid of attributes."

Third centery Church Father Origen attributed the concept of incorpreality to the Greek philosophers, and in fact fell back on them, not scripture, in making his case for the Christian concept of God.

"We shall enquire, however, whether the thing which Greek philosophers call asomaton, or 'incorporeal,' is found in Holy Scripture under another name. For it is also to be a subject of investigation how God himself is to be understood - whether as corporeal, and formed according to some shape, or of a different nature from bodies - a point which is not clearly indicated in our teaching." (Origen, De Principiis, Preface 9, in ANF 4:241. see also, Robert P. Casey, “Clement of Alexandria and the Beginnings of Christian Platonism,” Harvard Theological Review 18 (1925): 39-101, p 82, referring to contra Celsum 7.27, and Commentary on John 13.22. “Origen's development of Clement (of Alexandria's) thought is characteristically thorough and systematic. He acknowledges that the doctrine of God's immateriality is, at least formally, new, and asserts that the word asomatos ('no body') has been unknown alike to biblical writers and to Christian theologians before his time.”)

So to the point, you'll have to do better than merely assert "the Hellenistic pattern" requires an anthropomorphic understanding of God. This is simply not true.

== Tanakh emphasized function over form.

Unlikely, but if so, the form remained. It wasn't replaced.

== Thus when Genesis 1:26-7 mentions that man was made "in the image of God", Hellenists look for physical attributes,

Which is belied by all the evidence (unless you're relying strictly on story of Mt. Olympus) as I indicated above. The Platonic tendency was to striop God of any anthropomorphic attribute. I recommend, David Paulsen, Harvard Theological Review “Early Christian Belief in a Corporeal Deity: Origen and Augustine as Reluctant Witnesses,” Vol. 83 ,1990.

== while ancient Hebrews looked for functional actions,

What do you mean they looked for "functional actions"?

== how man acts like God while fulfilling his role as God's representative as a created being in charge of the created universe.

It is true that as the image of God, man serves as God's representative, having dominion over the earth. But scholars are generally in agreement over the fact that dominion is merely a consequence of the image, not its defining element.






Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page