Robert said

Steefen said
For more than a decade, Yahweh, to me has been nothing more than a local god.
Yahweh did not seem to be equivalent to the Heavenly Father of Jesus.
I can see Yahweh allowing the wicked tenants to kill his Son.
El was the top of the Canaanite pantheon.
We had a discussion here about Yahweh usurping El.
So, if Yahweh was not known as far north in Syria as Ugarit, that just proves my point that Yaweh was a LOCAL god not worthy of being a global god, let alone god of the afterlife or god of the universe.
A local god cannot globally flood all humans--to refer to another discussion we had.

I follow your reasoning here, Steefen. You may be confusing the historical and regional origins of early belief in Yahweh with the evolution of later theological beliefs about the exalted nature of Yahweh. Can you please take a look at my Post #132 and let me know if you would like me to remove all of the critical comments and discussion of your posting behavior in this thread so that it may focus on your consideration of Neal's ideas on the Hellenistic origins of Yahweh?
  

Yes, please.

Thank you.

Steefen said
For more than a decade, Yahweh, to me has been nothing more than a local god.
Yahweh did not seem to be equivalent to the Heavenly Father of Jesus.
I can see Yahweh allowing the wicked tenants to kill his Son.
El was the top of the Canaanite pantheon.
We had a discussion here about Yahweh usurping El.
So, if Yahweh was not known as far north in Syria as Ugarit, that just proves my point that Yaweh was a LOCAL god not worthy of being a global god, let alone god of the afterlife or god of the universe.
A local god cannot globally flood all humans--to refer to another discussion we had.

I follow your reasoning here, Steefen. You may be confusing the historical and regional origins of early belief in Yahweh with the evolution of later theological beliefs about the exalted nature of Yahweh. Can you please take a look at my Post #132 and let me know if you would like me to remove all of the critical comments and discussion of your posting behavior in this thread so that it may focus on your consideration of Neal's ideas on the Hellenistic origins of Yahweh?

El was the top of the Canaanite pantheon.
We had a discussion here about Yahweh usurping El.

So, if Yahweh was not known as far north in Syria as Ugarit, that just proves my point that Yaweh was a LOCAL god not worthy of being a global god, let alone god of the afterlife or god of the universe.

A local god cannot globally flood all humans--to refer to another discussion we had.

Robert said 
... while I will readily concede there are parts of Augustine's work that are certainly worthwhile ...

For example, I was just reminded that it was Augustine who said, “Si comprendis, non est Deus.” The Latin is twofold intended for Stephen.

Helen Young said
... It's my understanding that Yahweh means 'I am', 'I exist', 'I am real'. It's an interesting way of God expressing Emself.

Close. Following the folk etymology in bible it would mean "he/it is" or "he/it will be." Keep in mind folk etymologies are, pretty much by definition, historically inaccurate and linguistically spurious, 'though some academics have still defended this derivation or something similar: "he causes to be/happen," "he/it blows (it)," "causes to fall"). The last two could possibly be related to an earlier view of Yahweh as a storm god, 'though this possibly proto-Arabic derivation would differ substantially from the Hebrew folk etymology in Genesis 3. I won't go into other possible etymologies since I don't remember most of them.

I don't think I'll go with the idea, however. Greece had a lot of gods and goddesses. I honestly tend to think that it probably originated elsewhere.

The idea of one God and one overarching presence probably originated way back in time, before written history and before most of the things we see as human culture or civilization. Possibly as far back as the Stone Age and early humanity.

Calling this Presence/God Yahweh, it seems probably came later.

It's my understanding that Yahweh means 'I am', 'I exist', 'I am real'. It's an interesting way of God expressing Emself.

BJH1960 said

I think I read Robert Alter make the observation of how little actual theology there is in the Hebrew Bible. It’s stories. This is why philosophical analysists and theologians have so much trouble with it.  Stories bypass that marvelous computer in our forebrains and go directly to the glands.  Stories operate through the medium of the imagination and provide, not knowledge, but experience!   

Which is why it's so wonderful.  Stories tell us so much.

A Native American friend of ours is a local semi-professional story-teller. He volunteered his services at my son's two-year birthday party many years ago to the delight of all. It is an amazing experience to be enthralled by the artistic endeavor of a story-teller in creating a sometimes magical but nonetheless very real world of the imagination. What surprised me most is that it is not only his imagination at play, nor that of any individual audience member, but the spontaneous reactions of any and all of the audience members, especially but not only the kids present, and even the completely irrelevant 'interruptions' of birds, a breeze, a plane flying overhead, etc, can are woven into the performance of the story in the hands of a clever and creative story-teller.

If a story is not spontaneously and unexpectedly engaging a reader's or hearer's or viewer's imagination, it is not succeeding as a story, or more likely the recipient is not appreciating the artistry, creativity, and even spontaneity of the story. Yes, even a dry, dusty, and decrepit text from millennia ago still contain and communicate spontaneity to those who are perceptive. Although oftentimes pooh-poohed in academia, ancient haggadic midrash can sometimes better illuminate the depth of meaning contained in a text than the best historico-critical exegesis found even in some celebrated critical commentaries. Perhaps true exegetical artistry is found in combining all available methods. 

I think I read Robert Alter make the observation of how little actual theology there is in the Hebrew Bible. It’s stories. This is why philosophical analysists and theologians have so much trouble with it.  Stories bypass that marvelous computer in our forebrains and go directly to the glands.  Stories operate through the medium of the imagination and provide, not knowledge, but experience!   

Which is why it's so wonderful.  Stories tell us so much.

Which immediately makes me wonder if Mark (or whoever) consciously constructed this trial episode precisely to make this point.   Perhaps we are forever fated to underestimate the genius of this unknown writer.  

In this chapter, Fiery Wisdom – the Deuteronomic tradition, Geller walks the reader through Deuteronomy 4 as he painstakingly deconstructs the text. His aim is to show us how that although no work of theory, or a representation of Hellenic processes of logical reasoning, the Hebrew bible is not an intellectual vacuum. “Its processes are more synthetic that analytic more intuitive than syllogistic, but” he says, “hovering over the seeming chaos of religious themes and images are the forms, however inchoate, of true ideas.”

In one of his books on mythology, Joseph Campbell tells the story of a Hindu scholar, first visiting the US in the late 1940s, who came to him quite perplexed.  He told Campbell that when he traveled to a new place he liked to learn about their religion.  So he got himself a Bible and read it.  But he was confused.  He couldn't find any religion in it!  Campbell points out that if you don't regard the history of the Hebrew people as an expression of a religious sentiment then you're not going to find much for you in the Bible.  If you look at it from a Hindu point of view, well, see the Upanishads, or the Bhagavad Gita.  The closest to that you get is in the Psalms but even there, the constant complaints and desire for God to smash the writer's enemies and to give him victory over them is the exact opposite of what a Hindu would regard as a religious sentiment.

I think I read Robert Alter make the observation of how little actual theology there is in the Hebrew Bible. It's stories. This is why philosophical analysists and theologians have so much trouble with it.  Stories bypass that marvelous computer in our forebrains and go directly to the glands.  Stories operate through the medium of the imagination and provide, not knowledge, but experience!   

Much to think over.

Already looking forward to you next post.

In this chapter, Fiery Wisdom - the Deuteronomic tradition, Geller walks the reader through Deuteronomy 4 as he painstakingly deconstructs the text. His aim is to show us how that although no work of theory, or a representation of Hellenic processes of logical reasoning, the Hebrew bible is not an intellectual vacuum. “Its processes are more synthetic that analytic more intuitive than syllogistic, but” he says, “hovering over the seeming chaos of religious themes and images are the forms, however inchoate, of true ideas.”

He asks, how is one to uncover the forms, those ideas and arguments; while translating them into an intellectual idiom that we moderns find comfortable - without distorting them with circular reasoning. The aim of his exegesis is to come to understand the relationship between form and meaning. His arrow will strike "less than a logos or theory about God, than a lexis, a reading of Him and His ways as the biblical thinkers conceived of them."

Many of themes in 4 are typical of Deuteronomic theology but the chapter presents 2 main religious topics that seem to be innovations of its author, and offers the exegete an opportunity to study how it expresses the standard themes but also how it supplements and modifies them.

Scholars agree on the historical situation of the text as around 550 BC(E); a century later than the core of the book, to which, along with 1-3, it forms a preface. Because of the assurity of the dating, we can establish the historical circumstances and religious needs underlying the text and so whatever ideational structure we construct has firmer support. Geller also finds the chapter a “splendid example of Hebrew rhetoric” and this is appealing to him for his purpose because it will afford ample evidence of the interplay of form and meaning, of idea and expression.

On a personal note, and I mentioned before, this is all new to me, as I am sorting out the various approaches to literary criticism mentioned earlier in the introduction. To follow along with his exegesis, I have tried to familiarize myself with such knowns as Barthes, Levi-Straus, Saussure, and others.

To return to Geller, he observes that “Deuteronomic religion rests on the most abstract association of themes: oneness, the word, and the primacy of mind . . . expressed primarily through image and emotion rather than of conscious thought.” The view of the book is that apparently at Horeb (Mt. Sinai), the people as a whole heard only the Ten Words. The rest of the revelation was communicated by God to Moses alone, who, after 40 years of wandering and the people are poised to enter into the Promised Land gives them the revelation in a series of speeches. “Deuteronomy 4 forms a preface to those speeches dating, as noted, about a century after them, in which a Deuteronomic religious thinker attempts to present his understanding of the typical themes of his movement, but also his own particular supplementation and modification of them.”

Next post, I hope to begin sharing some of the details of Geller's exegesis!

"Your typical response when another poster asks you a direct question?"
Answer the question, or ask a clarifying question.

How would you characterize your typical posting pattern? Your typical response when another poster asks you a direct question? 

"You can search for"

** you do not have permission to see this link **
David seems to think he is a sort of modern Socrates, asking hard questions while professing his own ignorance.
But Socrates actually engaged meaningfully with his interlocutors.
David is closer to the kid down the street who just repeatedly demands, “says who?” while bits of partially masticated crayon fall out of his mouth.

** you do not have permission to see this link **
Porphyry said:
'David is closer to the kid down the street who just repeatedly demands, “says who?” while bits of partially masticated crayon fall out of his mouth.'
What an apt description!