Jump to content
Seriously No Politics ×

Council Of The Gods Vs "i Am" In Ancient Hebrew Throught


Recommended Posts

This is one for the scholars here, and I am asking because I genuinely don't know the answer.

 

It seems to me there is a conflict in the Hebrew scriptures between on one hand seeing God as Jehovah- the "Great I AM"- the self-existent one beyond whom there is no other, and the idea of the Council of the Gods.

 

I know that monotheism seems to have evolved over time, but this idea of "I Am", the name of Jehovah as we hear it in the story of Moses, conflicts with seeing God as we might see him after reading about on one hand the Council of Gods, and the King Follette Discourse, where God is presented as one of a string of other similar beings.

 

So did the Hebrews see God more as the Great I Am, or as Joseph saw him in the King Follette Discourse?  Or did one idea evolve into another?  When did these changes happen, and what were the reasons for them?

 

I am sure this has been discussed before, if I have just missed the boat and everyone knows the answer but me, just a few references would be great to put me on the right path to do my own research.

Link to comment

Augh!  No clue how I slipped on that small "i" in the title- mods if that can be changed please do so.

Link to comment

This is one for the scholars here, and I am asking because I genuinely don't know the answer.

 

It seems to me there is a conflict in the Hebrew scriptures between on one hand seeing God as Jehovah- the "Great I AM"- the self-existent one beyond whom there is no other, and the idea of the Council of the Gods.

 

I know that monotheism seems to have evolved over time, but this idea of "I Am", the name of Jehovah as we hear it in the story of Moses, conflicts with seeing God as we might see him after reading about on one hand the Council of Gods, and the King Follette Discourse, where God is presented as one of a string of other similar beings.

 

So did the Hebrews see God more as the Great I Am, or as Joseph saw him in the King Follette Discourse?  Or did one idea evolve into another?  When did these changes happen, and what were the reasons for them?

 

I am sure this has been discussed before, if I have just missed the boat and everyone knows the answer but me, just a few references would be great to put me on the right path to do my own research.

No scholar here, but when i think of myself in terms of "I am my family" (since that means everything to me) and of our being exalted as families, I think both ideas can be held simultaneously.

Link to comment

No scholar here, but when i think of myself in terms of "I am my family" (since that means everything to me) and of our being exalted as families, I think both ideas can be held simultaneously.

I definitely like that.  We are to be one in purpose as the Godhead is, and we are all eternal.  Social "trinitarianism" including all the Church of the Firstborn.  Makes a lot of sense.

Link to comment

The late William F. Albright analyzed the use of the 1st person qal-causative-indicative verbal form of Hebrew-Aramic hwy  "to become, come into existence," as ’ehye (= Exodus 3:14 LXX & NT Greek egō eimi in John 8:58, where “I am” in the KJV is discussed in a footnote in the LDS Bible:

 

“The term I AM used here in the Greek is identical with the Septuagint usage in Ex. 3:14 which identifies Jehovah. (Cp. Also John 4:26.)”[1]]

 

The actual meaning of ’ehye is thus “I-Cause-to-Come-Into-Existence; It-Is-I-who-Create” (Exodus 3:14), i.e., a divine epithet rather than name.  Jesus’ use of that very term, undoubtedly in Hebrew, was considered blasphemy by Jews there in the temple precincts in John 8:58-59.  Jews preferred then as now to substitute ‘adonay “(My)-Lord” in place of YHWH/Jehovah, which is the qal-causative-indicative Hebrew form Yāhwē (jussive Yāhû), which means “He-(Who)-Causes-to-Come-Into-Existence; It-Is-He-Who-Creates” (Exodus 6:3).[2]

 

[1] LDS 1979 KJV Holy Bible, 1342 n. 58b.

 

[2] W. F. Albright, Yahweh and the Gods of Canaan: A Historical Analysis of Two Contrasting Faiths (London, 1968), 147-149, nn. 44-52; Albright, From the Stone Age to Christianity (1957), 15-16.

Link to comment

 

The late William F. Albright analyzed the use of the 1st person qal-causative-indicative verbal form of Hebrew-Aramic hwy  "to become, come into existence," as ’ehye (= Exodus 3:14 LXX & NT Greek egō eimi in John 8:58, where “I am” in the KJV is discussed in a footnote in the LDS Bible:

 

“The term I AM used here in the Greek is identical with the Septuagint usage in Ex. 3:14 which identifies Jehovah. (Cp. Also John 4:26.)”[1]]

 

The actual meaning of ’ehye is thus “I-Cause-to-Come-Into-Existence; It-Is-I-who-Create” (Exodus 3:14), i.e., a divine epithet rather than name.  Jesus’ use of that very term, undoubtedly in Hebrew, was considered blasphemy by Jews there in the temple precincts in John 8:58-59.  Jews preferred then as now to substitute ‘adonay “(My)-Lord” in place of YHWH/Jehovah, which is the qal-causative-indicative Hebrew form Yāhwē (jussive Yāhû), which means “He-(Who)-Causes-to-Come-Into-Existence; It-Is-He-Who-Creates” (Exodus 6:3).[2]

 

[1] LDS 1979 KJV Holy Bible, 1342 n. 58b.

 

[2] W. F. Albright, Yahweh and the Gods of Canaan: A Historical Analysis of Two Contrasting Faiths (London, 1968), 147-149, nn. 44-52; Albright, From the Stone Age to Christianity (1957), 15-16.

 

Great stuff- Thanks!

 

Especially interesting is that usage if it implies "Becoming" or could be understood as "I am he who becomes".

 

Do you think that is a viable way of seeing it?

Link to comment

Great stuff- Thanks!

 

Especially interesting is that usage if it implies "Becoming" or could be understood as "I am he who becomes".

 

Do you think that is a viable way of seeing it?

Since it is not a stative or perfect verb, but rather active indicative imperfect, "becoming" is most appropriate.

Glad you asked that question, because I had never thought about it before in the important theological context of "being" versus "becoming."

Thanks, Mark,

and Happy New Year!!

Link to comment

I'm disinclined to accept Albright's (and Cross') theories about the etymology of YHWH, and I don't know many contemporary scholars who would disagree with me. Their reconstruction of the epithet and assumption of cultic origins are difficult to substantiate and don't, in my opinion, align with the earliest evidence for the provenance and function of the name (see here, for instance). The monotheistic interpretation of "I Am" is also quite a late development. I don't think it poses any particular threat to the divine council ideology, particularly in light of the survival of that ideology through the Second Temple Period. 

Link to comment

Great stuff- Thanks!

 

Especially interesting is that usage if it implies "Becoming" or could be understood as "I am he who becomes".

 

Do you think that is a viable way of seeing it?

According to this translation of Ex 3:14,

http://www.scripture4all.org/OnlineInterlinear/OTpdf/exo3.pdf

 

and·he-is-saying Elohim to Moses I-shall-become who I-am-becoming and·he-is-saying thus you-shall-say to·sons-of Israel I-shall-become he-sent·me to·you(p)

Which I prefer greatly to "I am".

Edited to add,

It is also interesting to note the "TO-BE BECOMING" found in John 8:58 here,

http://www.scripture4all.org/OnlineInterlinear/NTpdf/joh8.pdf

Edited by Vance
Link to comment

Great stuff- Thanks!

 

Especially interesting is that usage if it implies "Becoming" or could be understood as "I am he who becomes".

 

Do you think that is a viable way of seeing it?

 

Yes it is.  I'm currently rereading Old Testament Theology by Gerhard Von Rad, and he essentially says the same thing as Robert noted.  While we shorten it to "I AM" or "I Exist", it has a variety of possible meanings, including "Becomes" or "One who Creates".

 

We also need to remember that the Bible was written by a variety of people, each with a different understanding of what God is all about. Whether we talk of J,E,P,D,R or one of the prophets, we are talking about people who had just as many opinions on theology as we do today.

 

Even the ancient monotheism of the Jews is not what we think of monotheism today.  They believed there were many gods, but only worshipped Yahweh. 

 

And there are a variety of "Creation of Israel" stories within the Bible structure. Only J and P include an actual Creation story, while E begins with the Abrahamic covenant, and D focuses on the Mosaic covenant, with Abraham and Moses being the beginning of the new Creation of Israel.  I'll actually be blogging on this some over the next few weeks, but Gerhard Von Rad makes some interesting statements regarding how it all intertwines, correlates, etc.

Link to comment

Since it is not a stative or perfect verb, but rather active indicative imperfect, "becoming" is most appropriate.

Glad you asked that question, because I had never thought about it before in the important theological context of "being" versus "becoming."

Thanks, Mark,

and Happy New Year!!

Well as you probably know that is key to where I want to go with it.  ;)

Link to comment

I'm disinclined to accept Albright's (and Cross') theories about the etymology of YHWH, and I don't know many contemporary scholars who would disagree with me. Their reconstruction of the epithet and assumption of cultic origins are difficult to substantiate and don't, in my opinion, align with the earliest evidence for the provenance and function of the name (see here, for instance). The monotheistic interpretation of "I Am" is also quite a late development. I don't think it poses any particular threat to the divine council ideology, particularly in light of the survival of that ideology through the Second Temple Period. 

Fascinating Mak- thanks for weighing in on this- I was hoping you would show up!

Link to comment

According to this translation of Ex 3:14,

http://www.scripture4all.org/OnlineInterlinear/OTpdf/exo3.pdf

 

Which I prefer greatly to "I am".

Edited to add,

It is also interesting to note the "TO-BE BECOMING" found in John 8:58 here,

http://www.scripture4all.org/OnlineInterlinear/NTpdf/joh8.pdf

Fascinating lead- but I could not access the links- you probably have access to the site through a password I think.

 

But that translation sounds great!

Link to comment

Yes it is.  I'm currently rereading Old Testament Theology by Gerhard Von Rad, and he essentially says the same thing as Robert noted.  While we shorten it to "I AM" or "I Exist", it has a variety of possible meanings, including "Becomes" or "One who Creates".

 

We also need to remember that the Bible was written by a variety of people, each with a different understanding of what God is all about. Whether we talk of J,E,P,D,R or one of the prophets, we are talking about people who had just as many opinions on theology as we do today.

 

Even the ancient monotheism of the Jews is not what we think of monotheism today.  They believed there were many gods, but only worshipped Yahweh. 

 

And there are a variety of "Creation of Israel" stories within the Bible structure. Only J and P include an actual Creation story, while E begins with the Abrahamic covenant, and D focuses on the Mosaic covenant, with Abraham and Moses being the beginning of the new Creation of Israel.  I'll actually be blogging on this some over the next few weeks, but Gerhard Von Rad makes some interesting statements regarding how it all intertwines, correlates, etc.

Yet another confirmation!  Thanks so much!

Link to comment

Thanks for that link!  Right on point!

 

I notice that they use the English present progressive in most of that passage- I assume that is paralleled in the Hebrew?

Link to comment

I'm disinclined to accept Albright's (and Cross') theories about the etymology of YHWH, and I don't know many contemporary scholars who would disagree with me. Their reconstruction of the epithet and assumption of cultic origins are difficult to substantiate and don't, in my opinion, align with the earliest evidence for the provenance and function of the name (see here, for instance). The monotheistic interpretation of "I Am" is also quite a late development. I don't think it poses any particular threat to the divine council ideology, particularly in light of the survival of that ideology through the Second Temple Period. 

I would be curious to hear your opinion of the translations offered, like this one:

and·he-is-saying Elohim to Moses I-shall-become who I-am-becoming and·he-is-saying thus you-shall-say to·sons-of Israel I-shall-become he-sent·me to·you

 

 

I don't know why you couldn't access it. It doesn't require a password. Try this.

http://www.scripture4all.org/

Got it now, thanks

Edited by mfbukowski
Link to comment

I would be curious to hear your opinion of the translations offered, like this one:

 

To be honest, I don't think there's a way to reconstruct the original semantic meaning of the name. There are no propositions that do not have serious issues with them, and the notions of "being" and "becoming" are all quite late arrivers to the Israelite/Jewish scene (Exodus 3 is a late folk-etymology), which leads me to believe they had little to do with the earlier understanding of the name. This imperfective reading also doesn't seem to me to fit the context or the theological atmosphere of the time. If such a reading opens up new ways to understand the scriptures, more power to the reader, but from an academic point of view, I don't subscribe to it. 

Link to comment

To be honest, I don't think there's a way to reconstruct the original semantic meaning of the name. There are no propositions that do not have serious issues with them, and the notions of "being" and "becoming" are all quite late arrivers to the Israelite/Jewish scene (Exodus 3 is a late folk-etymology), which leads me to believe they had little to do with the earlier understanding of the name. This imperfective reading also doesn't seem to me to fit the context or the theological atmosphere of the time. If such a reading opens up new ways to understand the scriptures, more power to the reader, but from an academic point of view, I don't subscribe to it. 

Good.  I appreciate that and I think we all have to be aware of presentism.  Now that you mention it of course neither reading, both based on Greek thought, could be  authentic.  

 

Yet it seems that the present possible understandings which we might want to create are at least not precluded by the translation.

Link to comment

To be honest, I don't think there's a way to reconstruct the original semantic meaning of the name. There are no propositions that do not have serious issues with them, and the notions of "being" and "becoming" are all quite late arrivers to the Israelite/Jewish scene (Exodus 3 is a late folk-etymology), which leads me to believe they had little to do with the earlier understanding of the name. This imperfective reading also doesn't seem to me to fit the context or the theological atmosphere of the time. If such a reading opens up new ways to understand the scriptures, more power to the reader, but from an academic point of view, I don't subscribe to it. 

I appreciate your hesitance in accepting such abstract notions, although in nearby Egypt they were already distinguishing between nḥḥ "dynamic eternity" and dt "static eternity."1  Something which I think could well inform Mormon theology.

Moreover, another reason why I favor the Albright & Cross etymology of YHWH, is because it is very similar to use of the ancient Egyptian verb ḫpr “become, come into existence; occur, happen, come to pass,” in its 3rd masculine singular causative form sḫpr.f, which is commonly used in personal names.  Both these Hebrew & Egyptian verbs also appear in the consecutive narrative use “it came to pass, it happened.” 

 
 
 

     1 James P. Allen, “The Celestial Realm,” in D. Silverman, ed., Ancient Egypt, 131; J. Cooper first pointed this out to me during his Middle Egyptian class at the Claremont Colleges in 1968-1969.

Link to comment

Thank you for asking. Are you familiar with Zecharia Sitchin? I am interested in Jehovah's relationship to Enki, Enlil and Marduk of Mesopotamia. As in "Luke,'I Am' your father." Is Jehovah and Yaweh the same entity?

Link to comment

..because that council of gods included ninmah, beloved of anu. A sister and mediator between enki n enlil, ancient astronaut kings. It seems she helped enki genetically engineer humanity, according to sumerian cylinder seals. Enki was the first prince to pioneer to earth. He eventually stole fire from the gods and gave it to adamu/adapa ..he fathered noah and others. Do you know anyone here at MDD interested in mesopotamia? The sumerian records sound a lot like the book of mormon to me. Enki's story reflects Lehi's. 

Link to comment
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...