I am surprised that the responders, with the exception of Robert, complain about the way in which jakejones expressed his idea without addressing the substance of the idea itself.  George Carlin is no doubt spinning in his grave. Robert’s response shows it is possible to engage the idea civilly.

In her book and appearances discussing it Dr. Stavrakopoulou is being deliberately (imho) provocative to make her point that in earlier times gods, including YHWH, were understood to have bodies, from feet to head and everything in between, and that these bodies functioned like human bodies.  Ba`al was recognized as a legitimate god in those days, although in the OT tradition YHWH was much more powerful.  Ezekiel is mocking Ba`al and his failure to respond to his followers in very human terms.

The idea of God as a transcendent immaterial deity does not develop until much later.  Many people believe that this development is tied to exposure to Hellenistic, particularly Platonic, ideas.  Since Judea was on a major trade route it could easily have been exposed to and influenced by these ideas even before the time of Alexander’s conquest. Also, Alexandria had a major diaspora Jewish community at the same time the Library of Alexandria was flourishing. The contacts were there even if we cannot make 1 to 1 connections between the two communities and their ideas.  The concept is influence, not wholesale adoption.

Finally, none of this has any bearing on the daily life and physical needs of a fully human Jesus in the first century CE, even if he was, at the same time, fully divine.  (sermon over)

The original post accurately quotes Dr. Stavrakopoulou, and then asks an innocent question:  whether “wander” can be fairly translated as a euphemism for going to the toilet.  It seems like a fair question.  I don’t know ancient Hebrew so I can’t answer.  Maybe one of our Hebrew scholars would be willing to answer.

I really don’t see where anyone needs to be protected from an accurate quote of a published scholar, or a question that arises from the quote.  Normally I would agree with Stephen that posters should read the book.  I hesitate to second the advice in this case because I have read the book and can assure you it lays some acts at God’s feet that are a lot more reprehensible than using the s*** word.  Don’t read it unless you really don’t mind being offended.

Robert said

jakejones said

No idea why people got offended.

Personally, I think a key issue is whether or not one uses explicit language or a euphemism. Explicit language can offend, inflame, and antagonize, whereas a euphemism can deliver the same idea in a less offensive or even humorous manner.

Francesca Stavrakopoulou talks first about Ezekiel’s preferred term for idols (גלולים), which is rather explicit, but she tells us what 1 Kings 18,27 “basically” says so she may understand this word (שיג) in question as something of a euphemism.

Perhaps Stephen or TTHorne56 can tell us if Stavrakopoulou clarifies this issue in her book with respect to the use of שיג in 1 Kings 18,27?

  

You are absolutely correct that the story of Ezekiel mocking Baal is part of a longer discussion, both in the book and the video, on defecation and excrement “themes” in the Bible.  In her book the overall discussion runs from pp. 221-231 in a section entitled “Divine Dirt.”  The story in Ezekiel is found on page 225 (and she uses a euphemism in her translation of the passage in question).  The note to this particular part of the discussion states, “[h]ere my translation draws on Gary A. Rensberg, ‘The Mocking of Baal in 1 Kings 18:27’ in Catholic Biblical Quarterly 50(3), 1988, pp. 414-417.”  I suppose that still leaves open the question of whether this is a “fair” translation.

If i had started this thread I would have used euphemisms for the reasons you laid out.  In my posts in this thread I have not used any explicit language.  That’s just my personal style.  I disagree, however, that the use of explicit language v. euphemisms is the key issue.  The real issue is whether THIS use of explicit language violates Forum rules, specifically Rule 2 on the use of profane language.  If it does, the moderator should take appropriate action.  If it doesn’t the pearl clutchers can move on to other threads. 

Not all members of this blog are Americans, and in other cultures the use of explicit language of the kind used here is perfectly acceptable.  The concept that the language used in the forum needs to be restricted, in the absence of a rule violation, in order to protect the sensibilities of the most easily offended among us really bothers me.