We may very well be heading to different conclusions, but that's not a disaster by any means. I was just reading in the Zohar this morning with this issue in mind, in the Haqdamat Sefer-ha-Zohar (Introduction in the actual Zohar, not Daniel Matt's introduction, The Pritzker ed., Vol.1) In the section of the Introduction - it is 105 pages!, there are several different ways of translating the Hebrew of Genesis 1. Then in the next section the Parashat Be-Reshit they continue giving further definitions, ideas, and translations, not having exhausted it yet! Then in Vol. X of Matt's Pritzker ed., in the Midrash Ha-Ne'Lam they yet continue to keep translating the Hebrew/Aramiac meanings and explications even further! In other words, even in the Hebrew, there is not just a single unified understanding, it depends on how one reads the language and where it ties in in other areas of the Hebrew Bible. While the book you recommend does, (thank goodness!) get to the Hebrew, this is a very good first step, not a final answer and analysis. To the Jewish rabbi's there is no final authoritative analysis (at least in the Zohar, Orthodox Jews would perhaps disagree with this, which is why, perhaps, they don't give much credence to the Zohar - even the Jews are not united in their understanding of meaning.dastardly stem wrote: ↑Sun Nov 06, 2022 3:19 pmGood to hear. I feared we were coming upon some irreconcilable disagreement. I’ll be back later because something’s mentioned reminded me of something I need to look back up.Philo Sofee wrote: ↑Sun Nov 06, 2022 2:49 pmWonderful stuff Dastardly! Yes her book is incredible, and it makes my point. People, even anciently took things literal, as is one option. As a finite view this obviously makes sense, but since we limited humans cannot grasp the whole, we choose that which would make the most sense to us, whatever reflects us and our understanding we will pursue. But it is, I will say again, but one point of view, regardless of whichever book it is elaborated in. Just because ancient Jews literalized their understanding does not stop us from seeing it in other ways which in their own literalness the ancient peoples missed (or deliberately obscured? Carl Ruck comes to mind here as does Brian Muraresku). One is not forced into the literal views of the ancients, when in point of fact, they often literalized in order to hide their more spiritual believed points. Just like Jesus did with his parables, there are always more than one mere meaning to truth. Truth has many facets when it comes to theology. I didn't invent it that way, it's just how it is.
Zeus is every bit as anthropomorphized as Yahweh is, but that literalness does not take away at all in any manner other meanings of less literalness concerning Zeus as Carl Ruck has also, so powerfully demonstrated in his scholarship in several books (5 I have read so far).
Thanks for the book suggestion, it is definitely on my list of to gets now. I'm looking forward to reading it.
This cannot be over exaggerated. And they are the very ones who say there is not at all just one actual meaning to the scripture.
I am thrilled with your idea to get this book, which I am going to, because I have been brewing about making some videos on the Zohar, and it sounds to me like this book would be the perfect introduction to a new look into the Hebrew scriptures. They are infinite in meaning as far as that goes... there is always more, which is one very gosh darn good reason to never get bored with scripture. If you are, then perhaps it is the person, not the scripture where the problem lies...
