quote:

---

The Origins of Kingship


But aside from the tribal god's association with a particular place and particular patriarchs, what was he like? In other words, in what other ways would a tribe member describe his god? The answer is that in the ancient Near East people thought of their God primarily in anthropomorphic terms, just as we tend to do ourselves. Since we can only describe things using human termi¬nology, it is only natural that this terminology has an effect on the way we think about things as well. The effect can even be seen] when we are speaking about tangible realities, such as minerals, vegetation, or animals—in these cases we tend to underline the! differences, and thus what they are not, compared to us. The reason is that tangible realities can be described fairly directly inH terms immediately related to sense perceptions; their differences from us are immediately apparent. With intangibles, the opposite happens: we tend to speak of them more anthropomorphically;* i.e., in human terms. The reason lies in our need first to define positively, i.e., make them "real"—quasi-tangible—for us, before we can even begin to describe the differences between them and us. To name a few examples of the way we anthropomorphize comrnon actions, often without even realizing it ourselves, con¬sider statements such as: "I was touched by her thoughtfulness." "I could see the catastrophe coming." "I see what you mean." "I could smell the danger." "I changed my mind." "I overstepped my rights and overlooked his." "I turned the odds around." "The thought crossed my mind." "I reached out to them." "You light up my life." The intangible is described in terms of the tangible, and this process is as inevitable for us today as it was for our ancestors thousands of years ago.

The same principle applies to descriptions of the deity. We choose the closest possible tangible reality that reflects the essen¬tial qualities or features we ascribe to the deity. In other words, we name it according to the closest tangible reality that expresses the relation we perceive to exist between the deity and ourselves. In tribal societies, that closest relationship would be the one between the member of the tribe and its patriarch, whether forefather or actual tribe leader. The reason is simple and lies in what I said earlier concerning life being the basic characteristic of the notion of godhead. Life, in the tribal experience, is essentially linked to the person of the patriarch: it originates with the forefather and continues due to the realm of harmony and order guaranteed by the tribe leader who is thus perceived as its "father." In other words, the abstract notion of life itself is, in the mind of the tribe member, channeled through the tangible reality of the person of the patriarch perceived as "father." Having life is equivalent to being "fathered," i.e., having been brought into life from the realm of non-existence as well as nurtured daily so as not to succumb to the ever-threatening realm of death and non-existance. It is no wonder then that the abstract notion "life" was linkrd to the concrete designation 'ab (father), which is taken from the terminology of the smallest—and thus most immediately tangible – societal unit one experiences, the family. Indeed the patriarch was known as ‘ab, and so was the diety.

---

quote:

---

In other words, we name it according to the closest tangible reality that expresses the relation we perceive to exist between the deity and ourselves.

---

quote:

---

In other words, we name it according to the closest tangible reality that expresses the relation we perceive to exist between the deity and ourselves.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by jefscott

. . .

So, given that, what do you think the "closest tangible [or other] reality that expresses the relation we perceive to exist between the deity and ourselves," IS in regard to the verse that says, "It repented God that He had made man?"

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by jefscott

That sounds an awful lot like what I said a couple of days ago. Namely, that metaphorical language should provide a degree of CLARITY where a literal reading would result in a degree of absurdity.

---