Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: El Shaddai
|
Gramps49
Shipmate
# 16378
|
Posted
Hope this is not a dead horse. If it is, I am sure the administrators will move it.
I came across an article that postulates the transliteration of Shaddai means "breasts." El Shaddai means the God of Breasts. The writer points out that when the term is used in the Hebrew Bible, it is always in the context referring to fertility.
Here is the article
Posts: 2193 | From: Pullman WA | Registered: Apr 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Honest Ron Bacardi
Shipmate
# 38
|
Posted
I think there's a bit more to it than that article implies, Gramps49, but fortunately most of it seems to have been distilled into the Wikipedia article on the subject. Which I guess is saying "yes, possibly, but there's more to it than that".
-------------------- Anglo-Cthulhic
Posts: 4857 | From: the corridors of Pah! | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
 Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
If this is so it adds to the feminine imagery of God that the Bible is so sadly sparse in. The idea of God feeding us as a mother feeds her babes from her breasts is quite understandable.
-------------------- This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ricardus
Shipmate
# 8757
|
Posted
Isn't El fairly masculine, though? So it would be an androgynous image if anything.
-------------------- Then the dog ran before, and coming as if he had brought the news, shewed his joy by his fawning and wagging his tail. -- Tobit 11:9 (Douai-Rheims)
Posts: 7247 | From: Liverpool, UK | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
 Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote: Originally posted by Ricardus: Isn't El fairly masculine, though? So it would be an androgynous image if anything.
The overall effect of all the images of God may be androgynous. This particular image is feminine. You're mistaking the part for the whole.
-------------------- This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ricardus
Shipmate
# 8757
|
Posted
What I mean is that El Shaddai is a compound, isn't it? And with compounds the focus is on the whole, not the parts. I didn't think Shaddai ever occurred on its own as a name for God but I may be mistaken.
-------------------- Then the dog ran before, and coming as if he had brought the news, shewed his joy by his fawning and wagging his tail. -- Tobit 11:9 (Douai-Rheims)
Posts: 7247 | From: Liverpool, UK | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
 Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote: Originally posted by Ricardus: What I mean is that El Shaddai is a compound, isn't it? And with compounds the focus is on the whole, not the parts. I didn't think Shaddai ever occurred on its own as a name for God but I may be mistaken.
True, but El is a name, and as such stands for itself (and thus its denotation, The Big G) far more than it does for any particular masculine image. It's "just a name" -- it isn't an image the way "nurser" or "Father" or "smiter" or "redeemer" is an image/metaphor/role. In English we might say "God the nurser" or some such, and it's a feminine image even though we normally think of God as masculine.
Actually I think it's a bit of a circular argument to say that "El Shaddai" must be masculine (in whole or in part) because the other imagery in the OT of God is masculine; the whole question is whether this image is feminine.
I think if "Shaddai" can reliably be confirmed to mean "breasts" we should just accept that "El Shaddai" is a feminine image. Just as Christ used a feminine image when he said he wished he could gather all of Jerusalem under his wings like a hen. That isn't an androgynous image just because it is being said by a man. The image itself is feminine.
-------------------- This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ricardus
Shipmate
# 8757
|
Posted
I see what you mean but it seems to me that God of Breasts is androgynous in a way that Goddess of Breasts isn't.
Or, if one takes El to be a personal name rather than a generic noun (I understand the Hebrew can be taken either way), it would be analogous to Zeus of Breasts, which is androgynous in a way that Aphrodite of Breasts wouldn't be.
-------------------- Then the dog ran before, and coming as if he had brought the news, shewed his joy by his fawning and wagging his tail. -- Tobit 11:9 (Douai-Rheims)
Posts: 7247 | From: Liverpool, UK | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
hosting/
Just to keep you all on your toes, and since this discussion is about a biblical Hebrew term, we've decided that we should get these breasts off our chests here in Purgatory and send the thread not to DH, but to Kerygmania.
/hosting
-------------------- Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy
Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Honest Ron Bacardi
Shipmate
# 38
|
Posted
Ricardus - quote: I see what you mean but it seems to me that God of Breasts is androgynous in a way that Goddess of Breasts isn't.
Aren't you confusing grammatic gender with personal gender? Or maybe sex?
-------------------- Anglo-Cthulhic
Posts: 4857 | From: the corridors of Pah! | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Pine Marten
Shipmate
# 11068
|
Posted
The website Hebrew for Christians translates it as 'The All-Sufficient God' noting that Shad means 'breast' in Hebrew.
-------------------- Keep love in your heart. A life without it is like a sunless garden when the flowers are dead. - Oscar Wilde
Posts: 1731 | From: Isle of Albion | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Nigel M
Shipmate
# 11256
|
Posted
Rather dodgy argument, methinks. The supporting points can be turned as follows:-
[Quote 1] “If you look in the Brown-Driver-Briggs Hebrew lexicon (BDB), you will find the verb שדה shadah which means “to pour out.” The next word is שד which means “breast.” Then you will find a few derivatives of the verb, one meaning “mother,” and a couple of other words whose meanings are unclear. Then, all of the sudden, you find שדי shaddai and the lexicon says “almighty.” What? Where did that come from?”
[1A] BDB follows Gesenius' Hebrew-Chaldee Lexicon to the Old Testament (itself built on his earlier Thesaurus) in arranging its entries according to stems. This was the accepted method of classifying semitic language words for many a year. The editor of BDB, Francis Brown, accepted that this approach opened the work up to an objection that by placing any particular word under a given stem begged questions of etymology that might in fact be unsettled. Brown decided to mitigate this objection as best he could by placing notes of warning in the text where such instances arose. We have just such a note in the entry for shaddai, which appears under the main entry shdh because that is where it fits logically, according to the method chosen. Brown, however, adds the note “etym. dub.” to alert the reader to the fact that the word's actual background was uncertain. Just because shaddai appears as a sub-set of shdh does not, of itself, mean that it has an etymological link to 'breasts' or 'to pour out'.
[Quote 2] “That El Shaddai means “The God of Breasts” or “The Breasted God” is supported by...its usage in the Hebrew Bible. Virtually every use of El Shaddai occurs in a fertility context.”
[2A] There are 46 occurrences of the term El Shaddai in the Hebrew bible. The article quotes 7 in support of the claim that the context is one of fertility. One could go one better (8) to oppose with other contexts:
Ex. 6:3 - “God spoke to Moses and said to him, “I am the Lord. I appeared to Abraham, to Isaac, and to Jacob as God Almighty, but by my name ‘the Lord’ I was not known to them.” Here the surrounding context is one of liberation from slavery in Egypt by God's outstretched arm, etc.
Num. 24:16 - “The oracle of the one who hears the words of God, and who knows the knowledge of the Most High, who sees a vision from the Almighty.” One of Balaam's oracles, where future judgment is envisioned (crushed skulls, sort of thing).
Isa. 13:6 - “Wail, for the Lord’s day of judgment is near; it comes with all the destructive power of the almighty judge.” Nuff said, really. Destruction follows.
Ezek. 10:5 - “The sound of the wings of the cherubim could be heard from the outer court, like the sound of the sovereign God when he speaks.” Smoke, fire, God's presence, wheels within wheels...
Ps. 68:14 (68:15 in MT, 67:15 in LXX) - “When the sovereign judge scatters kings, let it snow on Zalmon!” God ruling from the mountain top, scattering enemies and restoring his people.
Ps. 91:1 (90:1 in LXX) - “As for you, the one who lives in the shelter of the sovereign One, and resides in the protective shadow of the mighty king.” God the powerful protector, stamping on enemies.
Job 5:17 - “Therefore, blessed is the man whom God corrects, so do not despise the discipline of the Almighty.” God the powerful protector and vindicator again.
Job 11:7 - “Can you discover the essence of God? Can you find out the perfection of the Almighty?” God's supreme knowledge.
If this was a game then it would have been won 8-7. Of course contextual analysis is not won on scores, but at the least it should show that merely quoting a limited set of texts does not in itself support the argument that El Shaddai means “The God of Breasts”. It could just as easily be argued that El Shaddai means “The God of Power and Might”. The article's author attempts to circumnavigate this problem by suggesting that we may be dealing with two Hebrew roots here; one for 'breasts' in breast contexts and one for 'violence' in violent contexts. This rather undermines her point about shaddai appearing 'etymologically' in BDB within the verb for “to pour out”. No evidence has come to light as yet for two entirely separate roots for shaddai as it appears in connection with God's name.
What other objections are there to seeing the breast connection?
The author seems to suggest that a context of fertility provides sufficient proof. One of the texts quoted in the article is from Gen. 49:25 (“because of the God of your father, who will help you, because of the Sovereign, who will bless you with blessings from the sky above, blessings from the deep that lies below, and blessings of the breasts and womb”). There could be deliberate word play here between 'breasts' (shadaim) and 'sovereign' (shaddai), which would be a clue for translators to replace 'sovereign' with 'breast'.
Against this is the objection that this is a linguistic fallacy, because the same argument would then have to be made for the likes of Joel 1:15 (“How awful that day will be! For the day of the Lord is near; it will come as destruction from the Divine Destroyer”), where there is a word play between 'divine' (shaddai) and 'destruction' (shod).
I could go on, but all in all I can't see the argument as being made out. I suspect wishful thinking plays too great a part in the article. It's a shame because the desire is understandable (countering perceived patriarchal dominance), but I think the guns are pointed in the wrong direction. The answer lies not in linguistic divots, but in going deeper to see how context must include authorial intention from within the horizon of expression (the wider worldview).
Posts: 2826 | From: London, UK | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Adam.
 Like as the
# 4991
|
Posted
I have to admit that I'd never really questioned that Shaddai must be derived from sh-d-d (destroy). I'd never really thought about it, to be honest, that had just seemed the obvious etymology to me. Well, it's always good to go back and question our un-thought-through hunches. Could it come from 'breasts'? Maybe. It could also come from sh-d-h completely independently of shad (breast), meaning God of pouring out (rain, blessings, etc.). I also don't know Akkadian, so I'd never thought about a possible proto-Semitic root that otherwise disappeared from Hebrew but survived there (the mountains idea).
In general, HALOT is very reliable (more so than BDB, which is out-dated on several questions), so if I had to pick a camp, I'll generally side with HALOT (especially when my lack of knowledge of Akkadian makes it impossible for me to really come to a conclusion for myself). But, I don't really see any pressing need for me to come to a conclusion. I can just say that we don't know.
Is it possible we have feminine imagery here for God? Sure. Possible. I do object to the author calling it a feminine name for God. It's clearly still a masculine name, which takes masculine verbs and adjective whenever it comes up.
-------------------- Ave Crux, Spes Unica! Preaching blog
Posts: 8164 | From: Notre Dame, IN | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jengie jon
 Semper Reformanda
# 273
|
Posted
[Random Connection]
Breasts and destroy sounds rather Kleinian to me.
[/Random Connection]
I think what this says is something about the way the feminine is often seen as having nurturing, safe qualities. The breast is therefore seen as sustaining image. Melanie Klein's take sticks because it has a slight shock to it. The bad breast that does not satisfy and gives rise to horrible feelings about destruction is uncomfortable to me. I wonder how much this is cultural and if it is whether other cultures do it differently.
Jengie [ 25. May 2014, 20:29: Message edited by: Jengie Jon ]
-------------------- "To violate a persons ability to distinguish fact from fantasy is the epistemological equivalent of rape." Noretta Koertge
Back to my blog
Posts: 20894 | From: city of steel, butterflies and rainbows | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Ricardus
Shipmate
# 8757
|
Posted
quote: Originally posted by Honest Ron Bacardi: Ricardus - quote: I see what you mean but it seems to me that God of Breasts is androgynous in a way that Goddess of Breasts isn't.
Aren't you confusing grammatic gender with personal gender? Or maybe sex?
I thought el was literally as well as grammatically masculine? El the deity is unambiguously male in all the available Canaanite sources that are listed on Wikipedia (<<<indication of Ricardus' level of scholarship), and presumably whoever decided to incorporate El into the Hebrew Scriptures was aware of that.
-------------------- Then the dog ran before, and coming as if he had brought the news, shewed his joy by his fawning and wagging his tail. -- Tobit 11:9 (Douai-Rheims)
Posts: 7247 | From: Liverpool, UK | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Nigel M
Shipmate
# 11256
|
Posted
I think you're right, Ricardus, that the version of a supreme god known as El to the inhabitants of the ancient near east was perceived to be a male figure (and not just labelled as such grammatically). There were other gods perceived in female form, e.g., Asherah, and these could be allied to male gods as consorts, but El sat at the top of the divine assembly. The Hebrew writers do not seem to have departed from this image. It is about perception, I guess; Hebrew writers – just as with everyone else in the ancient near east – would have understood this supreme god in male terms.
Interestingly, though, they did do something that was different: they claimed that their god – YHWH – was one and the same as the supreme god El. YHWH was with Israel dynamically, but was also still the head of the divine assembly, seated on his judgment seat and in overall control. That meant that YHWH was supreme to the gods of the other nations. It was to this god that the Hebrew writers could ascribe in a metaphorical fashion some female type activities. For example: quote: Isa. 42:13-14 YHWH emerges like a hero, like a warrior he inspires himself for battle; he shouts, yes, he yells, he shows his enemies his power. “I have been inactive for a long time; I kept quiet and held back. Like a woman in labour I groan; I pant, I gasp!”
Interesting mix of metaphors here. YHWH is like a dervish warrior, but 'he' is also like a woman giving birth. Another example: quote: Isa. 66:13 “As a mother consoles a child, so I will console you, and you will be consoled over Jerusalem.”
YHWH speaking again.
Of course there is a difference between metaphorical association of that kind and an association by virtue of nature. It is one thing to say that God is a warrior (or mother) and another to say God can be like a warrior (or mother). One difficulty I have with the linked article in the OP is that although it pays lip service to the concept of metaphorical language, it appears to slip far too easily between the two. The etymological argument is not made out.
This God, El, was imagined as a male throughout the ancient near east (the images are male), yet could – by dint of metaphorical association – be understood to act in female ways. Perhaps not surprising given the presentation of El in Gen. 1 as the El who created 'man' (adam) as both male and female.
Posts: 2826 | From: London, UK | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
 Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote: Originally posted by Nigel M: Of course there is a difference between metaphorical association of that kind and an association by virtue of nature. It is one thing to say that God is a warrior (or mother) and another to say God can be like a warrior (or mother).
I think you're placing far too much importance on the difference between metaphor and simile. "God is a warrior" is just as much a non-literal figure as "God is like a warrior." God is not a warrior. A warrior is a man (in those days always male), a human being who takes a weapon in his hands and kills people with it. God is not a human being, and does not take weapons in his hands to kill people with. God is not a warrior. Saying he is is a metaphor. Indeed virtually anything, by which I mean any noun (other than obvious things like "deity"), we say God is is a metaphor.
-------------------- This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Nigel M
Shipmate
# 11256
|
Posted
There's not really a role for simile any more these days - if one argues (the article's author asserted) that all language for God is metaphorical. There is a difference though, between attributing characteristic action to God and attributing something to God's characteristic nature. Both could be said to be metaphorical, but they actually assert two different things.
The terminology of association in the OT with respect to God (El version) is rich. The pattern is quite regular: Divine Name (El in this case) + nominal, as in El Echad (one god), El Hanne'eman (faithful god), El Emet (true god), El Elyon (most high god), El Gibbor (warrior god), etc. These do say – however we cut the metaphor – that God is something. Characteristically he behaves as One, Faithful, True, Most High, Warrior, etc. I understand the issue over applying human language to God (did my stint on the medieval debates over that), but when one says that God is One, or Faithful, or True, or whatever, one is saying something about God that is different to saying “God is breasted.” The OP article wishes to assert God is a God of fertility, but wants to get there by a prior assertion: that God is a God of Breasts. The author wants El Shaddai to stand as a name in a way that does not match the regular use of Divine Name (El in this case) + nominal everywhere else in the OT. I think the difficulty (apart from the wishful thinking aspect!) is caused by the fact that the English language does not cope well with translating Hebrew idiom. It wants to apply genitives.
An example: El Olam. Is that Divine Name + adjective of quality to give “The God of eternity”? Or should we translate it as “The Eternal God”? Does 'eternity' belong to God, or is he eternity? If we take it in its usual sense – that God is a God who has eternity as one of his characteristics, then how does that work out with El Shaddai? How – in the face of all the evidence from the imagery from the ancient near east – does it work to say that God is a God of Breasts in the sense that God is a God who has breasts as one of his characteristics? The only reason it would want to work is to take the supplemental step referred to earlier: to go on to say that because God is a God of Breasts then that means he is in charge of fertility. But this is not how the Hebrews used the terminology of association. They didn't qualify God with a nominative in order to get somewhere else; they qualified God and stopped there.
If we were consistent with the biblical usage and wanted El Shaddai to mean “God of Breasts” then we would have to say that this means something like, “God is a fertile God” in the sense that he is tremendously libidinous with tremendous male genitalia to match.
Posts: 2826 | From: London, UK | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Honest Ron Bacardi
Shipmate
# 38
|
Posted
Nigel M wrote: quote: I think you're right, Ricardus, that the version of a supreme god known as El to the inhabitants of the ancient near east was perceived to be a male figure (and not just labelled as such grammatically). There were other gods perceived in female form, e.g., Asherah, and these could be allied to male gods as consorts, but El sat at the top of the divine assembly.
Oh, I fully agree that El was (metaphorically) masculine as well as gramatically. But the point was in response to Ricardus's comment concerning Canaanite usage, and my understanding was that el served two uses. The one just outlined, who was the top of the pantheon (and was later to be identified as the God of the OT), and el in the generic sense. In which latter case which el we are talking about would need to be indicated. Could be a male or a female god, hence my comment.
Of course, if we already know the el is the Hebrew God, then I fully agree with you. Nevertheless, the point is still relevant, I think, in these earlier texts where consideration of earlier origins may be relevant.
-------------------- Anglo-Cthulhic
Posts: 4857 | From: the corridors of Pah! | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Nigel M
Shipmate
# 11256
|
Posted
Are there examples in Canaanite religious life of an association to El of feminine characteristics? I think the Canaanite pantheon include a (female) consort for El, Athirat, who may or may not have been identified with Asherah. This would imply that El was considered to be male in characteristics and activity; Athirat took care of the fertility area.
The generic use of 'el' to refer to deities in general could be found in the OT. Isaiah makes use of the term in this sense, it seems, when he quotes God as saying “...there was no other god (el) among you...I am God (El)” (Isa. 43:12). Then there's his classic piece of rhetoric against idols in chapter 44 - “Who is idiotic enough to form el by smelting an idol – it's useless! ...”
Flicking through these instances, though, there doesn't seem to be any sense in which the assorted and generic other 'gods' are being absorbed into the El that is imagined in the Hebrew bible. El seems to stand over against any other el. I struggle to see where the biblical writers would be saying that icons of Athirat (or Asherah, etc.) were unnecessary because Israel's El already had her characteristics and activities. There may be examples – I haven't dug into every passage – but nothing comes to mind.
Posts: 2826 | From: London, UK | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
|