It was only once I understood this that I was able to make sense of The Iliad - once you realise that for Homer there is no difference between "the archer hit his target" and "Apollo guided the archer's arrow to its target".
I’m no expert on the Greek myths either so I’m not sure I can answer - I was just struck by the parallel. I know that the relationship between _language_ and myth has been debated for a long time - were ancestral humans forced by the structure of language itself to describe natural forces in an anthropomorphic way? And is that the origin of myth and gods? Or was it the other way around - that they interpreted the natural world in terms of active agency, and language evolved to reflect that?
Unfortunately I'm not as familiar with the Greek epics as I should be, so I don't know if the same definitions work there. It sounds like you're saying that there is an equivalence made between the actions of the gods and worldly events, but I'm saying more specifically that nature is more than the actions of the gods. In ancient near eastern thought, nature is a personal force and natural events are nature reacting in a humanlike way, and this is identical with the gods themselves. The world is not mechanical but rather experiential, and this gives rise to the notion of the gods to begin with. Would you say the same for the Greeks myths and epics?
ויחר אף י"י בישראל – שלח בם מגפה. May be what Chazal mean when they say something like "wherever we find divine anger we find negative consequences" (can't locate right now). Also, apparently דבר in Hebrew refers to both the word and the action which I think is similar to what you're saying.
Oh, sorry, I just realized you meant word and action, and not word/action and plague. Of course they are the same root and etymology, and that's an interesting connection. I have to think about it.
Awesome post. I think that often we superimpose what we mean by “God” etc on to texts and people that meant entirely different things then we do today. I think this is the case even a lot closer to modern times than the biblical authors.
For example this quote from Cieza De Leon describing the Spanish conquest of Peru
“The Lord chose Pizarro to carry out his will, but if he had not come, another would have. For it was already decreed that these lands would be brought to the true faith.”
Adjust for cultural context this could well be saying the obviously true statement that “there was no way that the technologically inferior society and culture of the Incas would have survived its inevitable encounter with European explorers”
I think it also explains why you find things like Rav Yehuda Haleivi writing Gay poetry and other things that don’t square with people using the terms we use today in the same way.
As well as why practically everyone had no issue jumping on Sabbatean/Lurianic theologies that basically allegorized everything and eventually led to straight up antinomianism. Even if someone as great as the Arizal arose today he’d be written off immediately for suggesting the things he did. Our beliefs have become way more rigid in that way than they were.
Anachronistic definitions is the number 1 obstruction to understanding history, but each proper definition takes a lot work to establish, even without being able to relate to it.
It was only once I understood this that I was able to make sense of The Iliad - once you realise that for Homer there is no difference between "the archer hit his target" and "Apollo guided the archer's arrow to its target".
I’m no expert on the Greek myths either so I’m not sure I can answer - I was just struck by the parallel. I know that the relationship between _language_ and myth has been debated for a long time - were ancestral humans forced by the structure of language itself to describe natural forces in an anthropomorphic way? And is that the origin of myth and gods? Or was it the other way around - that they interpreted the natural world in terms of active agency, and language evolved to reflect that?
Fascinating questions
Unfortunately I'm not as familiar with the Greek epics as I should be, so I don't know if the same definitions work there. It sounds like you're saying that there is an equivalence made between the actions of the gods and worldly events, but I'm saying more specifically that nature is more than the actions of the gods. In ancient near eastern thought, nature is a personal force and natural events are nature reacting in a humanlike way, and this is identical with the gods themselves. The world is not mechanical but rather experiential, and this gives rise to the notion of the gods to begin with. Would you say the same for the Greeks myths and epics?
Bro, you're a freaking beast churning these quality essays out every day
Thanks!
Good stuff. See Rashi רש"י במדבר כ"ה:ג'
ויחר אף י"י בישראל – שלח בם מגפה. May be what Chazal mean when they say something like "wherever we find divine anger we find negative consequences" (can't locate right now). Also, apparently דבר in Hebrew refers to both the word and the action which I think is similar to what you're saying.
Good point about chazal, although they might have just intended the textual aspect of this post and not necessarily the ontological implications.
Regarding דבר I'm not convinced they are related, as it contains strong etymological and semantic differences in spite of their phonological overlap.
Oh, sorry, I just realized you meant word and action, and not word/action and plague. Of course they are the same root and etymology, and that's an interesting connection. I have to think about it.
Lol with דֶּבֶר and דָּבָר. Was tryna figure out what you were sayin
Awesome post. I think that often we superimpose what we mean by “God” etc on to texts and people that meant entirely different things then we do today. I think this is the case even a lot closer to modern times than the biblical authors.
For example this quote from Cieza De Leon describing the Spanish conquest of Peru
“The Lord chose Pizarro to carry out his will, but if he had not come, another would have. For it was already decreed that these lands would be brought to the true faith.”
Adjust for cultural context this could well be saying the obviously true statement that “there was no way that the technologically inferior society and culture of the Incas would have survived its inevitable encounter with European explorers”
I think it also explains why you find things like Rav Yehuda Haleivi writing Gay poetry and other things that don’t square with people using the terms we use today in the same way.
As well as why practically everyone had no issue jumping on Sabbatean/Lurianic theologies that basically allegorized everything and eventually led to straight up antinomianism. Even if someone as great as the Arizal arose today he’d be written off immediately for suggesting the things he did. Our beliefs have become way more rigid in that way than they were.
Anachronistic definitions is the number 1 obstruction to understanding history, but each proper definition takes a lot work to establish, even without being able to relate to it.