Master's Thesis Online

[maklelan]

My previous thread on my Oxford master's thesis is closed, so I'm starting a new one to let y'all know I've put my thesis online. Comments, questions, critiques, chistes, and chismes are all welcome.

[elguanteloko]

My previous thread on my Oxford master's thesis is closed, so I'm starting a new one to let y'all know I've put my thesis online. Comments, questions, critiques, chistes, and chismes are all welcome.

can't open it, mak.

[urroner]

can't open it, mak.

I did.

[Libs]

It opened okay for me.

But, I could barely understand the title, so I probably won't read much of it.

Looks very impressive, though.

[maklelan]

can't open it, mak.

Somebody had this problem with the link from my blog. It opens fine for me. It's a PDF that opens in a new page. I don't know if that means anything. I'm really not that tech-savvy.

[Tribunal]

Awesome! Another Thanksgiving present. I work Saturday and Sunday so I'll have plenty of time to read your thesis.

Thank you maklelan for giving me something to do.

[urroner]

Awesome! Another Thanksgiving present. I work Saturday and Sunday so I'll have plenty of time to read your thesis.

Thank you maklelan for giving me something to do.

Don't forget to bring your unabridged Oxford dictionary.

[elguanteloko]

Somebody had this problem with the link from my blog. It opens fine for me. It's a PDF that opens in a new page. I don't know if that means anything. I'm really not that tech-savvy.

Ah! I just opened it. Had to update my Adobe Reader.

maklelan, could you please tell us the gist of your thesis so us laymen can have a sort of guide when reading your paper?

[Tribunal]

Don't forget to bring your unabridged Oxford dictionary.

No doubt! Believe me I'll need it.

[Tribunal]

Ah! I just opened it. Had to update my Adobe Reader.

maklelan, could you please tell us the gist of your thesis so us laymen can have a sort of guide when reading your paper?

GOD LIVES!!!

[urroner]

No doubt! Believe me I'll need it.

Apparently, Mr. Mak is really into hippomonstrosesquipedalian.

[Mike Reed]

Thanks Mak!

[maklelan]

Ah! I just opened it. Had to update my Adobe Reader.

maklelan, could you please tell us the gist of your thesis so us laymen can have a sort of guide when reading your paper?

There are a few gists. Basically, the translator of Exodus into Greek probably didn't much care if the text said people saw God. That didn't bother him, but if the text said God physically appeared to a human, that was problematic. The text he was translating from, however, was different from the Hebrew we have, and it was changed by someone who did take issue with the notion that God was visible. Then I go on to explain how angels developed in early Israelite religion and how they were inserted into texts to reconcile older texts with newer theologies.

[noel00]

God is described in anthropomorphic language; everyone knows this; that doesn't mean he is or was a man. This confuses description with ontology. God is also described as light and a rock; he isn't light (a material thing) or a piece of stone.

Mike

On Sat, Nov 27, 2010 at 8:19 AM, Good day from Australia

Just wanted your thoughts on this guy's thesis on the anthromorphic view of God

http://dl.dropbox.com/u/6259597/Master%27s%20Thesis.pdf

I am not LDS. I was early in my youth. Now I am 66, doing a Bth (for fun lol)

This item appears on the Mormon site Mormonapologetics.

Just your thoughts ?

Thanks

[Joseph Antley]

Thanks Dan. Hope your presentations went well this last weekend.

[urroner]

God is described in anthropomorphic language; everyone knows this; that doesn't mean he is or was a man. This confuses description with ontology. God is also described as light and a rock; he isn't light (a material thing) or a piece of stone.

And your point is?

[maklelan]

God is described in anthropomorphic language; everyone knows this; that doesn't mean he is or was a man. This confuses description with ontology. God is also described as light and a rock; he isn't light (a material thing) or a piece of stone.

Mike

On Sat, Nov 27, 2010 at 8:19 AM, Good day from Australia

Just wanted your thoughts on this guy's thesis on the anthromorphic view of God

http://dl.dropbox.com/u/6259597/Master%27s%20Thesis.pdf

I am not LDS. I was early in my youth. Now I am 66, doing a Bth (for fun lol)

This item appears on the Mormon site Mormonapologetics.

Just your thoughts ?

Thanks

First, this person obviously didn't read my thesis. His comments have nothing to do with it. Second, how does he believe ontology is understood if not by description? The answer is obviously traditional dogmas, but if pressed to actually defend those dogmas from the Bible (whence they putatively come), he will have to appeal to descriptions. Third, the Hebrew Bible really doesn't really deal with ontology. You have to wait until the Hellenistic Period for that level of abstract thought. Fourth, the fact that metaphorical language is used to describe God does not mean that all language used to describe God is metaphorical. It's incredibly specious to insist otherwise, and it undermines any attempt to learn about God's nature from the scriptures (which, I imagine, is something this person believes is possible).

[Tribunal]

Apparently, Mr. Mak is really into hippomonstrosesquipedalian.

Sesquipedalian was my spelling bee quesion in the third grade. I won!

[urroner]

Sesquipedalian was my spelling bee quesion in the third grade. I won!

Yeah, I had the same problem also, I didn't graduate third grade until I was 15.

[David T]

Great work, Mak! Wish I could've made it to SBL. Last minute changes made plans otherwise, well, not possible.

That said, it is my understanding was that the development of the pantheon looked something like this early on.

Where perhaps the Sons of El represented the different nations, and the heavenly counterpart of their Kings, and the Messengers were envoys between the Sons/Kings.

Following which, the follow eventually happened in Israel/Judah, not necessarily in order:

• Yhwh was elevated to 'crown prince', so to say, higher in rank than the other Sons, (the King of Kings)
• Messenger started standing in for Yhwh to visit mortals (one of the key thrusts of your paper)
• The other Sons become wicked rivals to Yhwh
• Yhwh became conflated with El
• The other Sons became Angels created by Yhwh/El, conflated with the Messengers

Order aside, are those elements you agree with, Mak? And if the order is off, how would you correct it? Thanks!

[maklelan]

Great work, Mak! Wish I could've made it to SBL. Last minute changes made plans otherwise, well, not possible.

That said, it is my understanding was that the development of the pantheon looked something like this early on.

Where perhaps the Sons of El represented the different nations, and the heavenly counterpart of their Kings, and the Messengers were envoys between the Sons/Kings.

Following which, the follow eventually happened in Israel/Judah, not necessarily in order:

• Yhwh was elevated to 'crown prince', so to say, higher in rank than the other Sons, (the King of Kings)
• Messenger started standing in for Yhwh to visit mortals (one of the key thrusts of your paper)
• The other Sons become wicked rivals to Yhwh
• Yhwh became conflated with El
• The other Sons became Angels created by Yhwh/El, conflated with the Messengers

Order aside, are those elements you agree with, Mak? And if the order is off, how would you correct it? Thanks!

I think your bullet points are more or less on target. I don't know if I'd speak of Yhwh's "elevation." He was probably brought into the Israelite pantheon as the primary "son of El," and he was no doubt the head deity wherever he came from. I would say the textual and historical development of the "messenger of Yhwh" do not line up perfectly. In other words, the historical development of the notion of the ???? ???? was late, but editors interpolated it into earlier texts to align them with their ideology, thereby making the notion look older than it really is. I also think the "sons of El" were not vilified until well after Yhwh and El's conflation. I'm working on a paper right now on Psalm 82 that discusses the distinction between Yhwh and El as a literary vestige more than a contemporary ideology. I don't think the author really viewed them as distinct, as elsewhere in the Psalms of Asaph Elyon and Yhwh are identified with each other, and the psalm is likely exilic (centuries after the conflation). Lastly, I wouldn't call the other sons of El rivals to Yhwh. It seems unlikely to me that the Israelites would have entertained the notion that there was a rivalry. I would probably characterize them as incompetent underlings. It's not until the Second Temple Period that we see the kind of dualism I think you're pointing to, and early on this is confined to the angelic taxonomy, which isolates Yhwh/El from it.

Regarding order, I would move the conflation of Yhwh and El second. I would leave the rest as is, with the qualification I described above about the wicked rivals.

[Tribunal]

Great thesis. Had to read it twice with the BYU-Utah game going on in the background. You did a good job being objective but after all that research what's your opinion?

[maklelan]

Great thesis. Had to read it twice with the BYU-Utah game going on in the background. You did a good job being objective but after all that research what's your opinion?

The earliest Israelites clearly believed in an anthropomorphic deity. As that deity was rhetorically beefed up in attempts to literarily marginalize the gods of the nations (Israel had to do something to feel important), he was elevated about mortal concerns and attributes. He became a universal deity that was present in heaven and on earth, and so early texts which discussed his visits to humanity had to be rearranged. The word "angel" was added in a bunch of place to hide God's presence. This also greatly reduced the occurrence of theophanies where God was seen, which was read by later readers as an indication of some kind of hiddenness on his part. Once we get into the Hellenistic period that ideology is only reinforced, although there were clearly Jews that were less bothered by a visible deity (as opposed to one that was standing next to you) than others, like the translator of LXX Exodus. Once we get into the rabbinic period, and Hellenism has been more fully integrated into Judaism, an invisible deity becomes the norm.

[Tribunal]

The earliest Israelites clearly believed in an anthropomorphic deity. As that deity was rhetorically beefed up in attempts to literarily marginalize the gods of the nations (Israel had to do something to feel important), he was elevated about mortal concerns and attributes. He became a universal deity that was present in heaven and on earth, and so early texts which discussed his visits to humanity had to be rearranged. The word "angel" was added in a bunch of place to hide God's presence. This also greatly reduced the occurrence of theophanies where God was seen, which was read by later readers as an indication of some kind of hiddenness on his part. Once we get into the Hellenistic period that ideology is only reinforced, although there were clearly Jews that were less bothered by a visible deity (as opposed to one that was standing next to you) than others, like the translator of LXX Exodus. Once we get into the rabbinic period, and Hellenism has been more fully integrated into Judaism, an invisible deity becomes the norm.

So there is no doubt that anthropomorphism was believed by the early Israelites? Do you know when that changed? I didn't find that particular information in your thesis. And from your research you believe Israel changed their belief-system from a local diety to a universal one?

Am I correct in saying that what did changed, or evolve (?), was the relationship between diety and the Israelites? And you believe that relationship changed because of the cultures surrounding the Israelites? And not from within Israel?

Why do you believe Helenistic translations of Scripture played such a roll in the interpretation of anthropomorphism with the Israelites? Wouldn't the rabbinical orders throughout Israel's history be able to maintain the interpretation of their Scripture?