SFI Bible Study - part 28

[SouthernFriedInfidel]

As always, I hope this can be a serious study of the Christian Bible, and I only ask that those who participate try to stay away from personal-level attacks. All pertinent comments are welcome, regardless of whether you are a believer or not.

This time, we finish up with the book of 2 Chronicles. Here, we see some interesting items for consideration in the war over translations of the word “elohim.”

2 Chr 35:20-24 – After all this, when Josiah had set the temple in order, King Neco of Egypt went up to fight at Carchemish on the Euphrates, and Josiah went out against him. But Neco sent envoys to him, saying, "What have I to do with you, king of Judah? I am not coming against you today, but against the house with which I am at war; and God has commanded me to hurry. Cease opposing God, who is with me, so that he will not destroy you." But Josiah would not turn away from him, but disguised himself in order to fight with him. He did not listen to the words of Neco from the mouth of God, but joined battle in the plain of Megiddo. The archers shot King Josiah; and the king said to his servants, "Take me away, for I am badly wounded." So his servants took him out of the chariot and carried him in his second chariot and brought him to Jerusalem. There he died, and was buried in the tombs of his ancestors. All Judah and Jerusalem mourned for Josiah.

An interesting history lesson is contained here. One of the most important forces in the history of the area called "the holy land" is the fact that it was "on the way" between major centers of larger, more powerful civilizations. As a meeting-place for several trade routes, it was strategically key, and armies often passed through or overran the area. It's little wonder that the inhabitants became xenophobic and managed to incorporate so many aspects of the religions of the nations that passed through over the centuries.

Here, the Egyptian king appears to have been "on the way" to some unnamed place, but Josiah attacks the trespassers. Neco claims to have God on his side (the writer even says Neco’s words were from God, if the translator is to be trusted), an odd thing for an Egyptian to do, considering their normal multi-theism. Looking at the original Hebrew text, it appears that the words translated as "God" is really the plural "gods" (Elohim, again) and is mistranslated.

Comments?

[A Person]

I don't think 'we' should read too much into the use of plurals. 'We' often use the 'Royal we' (Pluralis Majestatis) when 'we' really mean 'I' or 'you'.

Other than that I think Elohim sounds rather as if it comes from the Lord of the Rings.

"Gimli, we are saved - see - the Elohim ride to our rescue"

[SouthernFriedInfidel]

I don't think 'we' should read too much into the use of plurals. 'We' often use the 'Royal we' (Pluralis Majestatis) when 'we' really mean 'I' or 'you'.

Most folks only use the Royal "we" if they are in fact royal, or editors, or people with tapeworms.

But, as I understand it "El" is a singular Hebrew word for God. Which is related to the "last words of Chirst," when he supposedly quoted from Psalm 22: "Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani?"

"Elohim" (also found in Genesis 1) is the plural form of the word. Some Christian scholars try to explain its use in Genesis as being evidence of a more ancient support for the Trinity. Seem far more likely that the writers of the Genesis creation myths were multitheists, since those chapters were most likely written during or shortly after the Babylonian exile.

This word has commonly been translated by Bible translators as "God" singular, even in this passage where it makes no sense at all, coming from an Egyptian. As many folks here know, monotheism was tried only for a short period in Egypt, and it didn't catch on.

[A Person]

The reason I give the 'Royal we' example is that someone trying to analyze the proclamations of Queen Victoria might come to the conclusion that she suffered from dissociative identity disorder, whereas she was speaking using an uncommon but understood convention.

I know far too little about historical Hebrew usage to comment sensibly. This is one of those cases where I suspect a little knowledge is of no help.

[SouthernFriedInfidel]

The reason I give the 'Royal we' example is that someone trying to analyze the proclamations of Queen Victoria might come to the conclusion that she suffered from dissociative identity disorder, whereas she was speaking using an uncommon but understood convention.

I know far too little about historical Hebrew usage to comment sensibly. This is one of those cases where I suspect a little knowledge is of no help.

Well, when it comes to "common usage," that very well could be. Hebrew usage may have evolved between the time of the writing of Genesis and 2 Chronicles, from a multi-theist outlook to a monotheist outlook, meaning that they may have decided to re-interpret "elohim" into "God" at the time of the creation of the Septuigint. But there are many places in the Old Testament that gives us good reason to believe that at one time, Jews were not "monotheist."

I believe this awkward wording is one of them, because regardless of how the Jews viewed the word "elohim," it's a sure thing that no Egyptian king would talk in terms of the Hebrew singular God sending him on some war errand.