El Shaddai

[WAB]

Well, I seem not to be able to find where the thread is where some ladies are concerned about the Bible being anti-feminine, so will post this short study here, and if you happen to know where that concern appears, please let me know, and I will transfer this (or post it again). thanks...

There have been many people who criticize the Bible for it’s use of the masculine gender in so many places with words such as: men, man, man’s, manservant, etc., etc.

Without going into an area where I have no linguistic training, it may still be said that such usage depends greatly upon the Hebrew and Aramaic grammar.

So… anyone can research the linguistic origin of Hebrew, Aramaic, or Greek words, and the following is just such as to the Name of God El Shaddai,and will show that He is not anti-feminine.

This important name of God, El Shaddai is an Anglicization of the Hebrew for “Almighty God” as it appears for instance in the first verse of Genesis chapter 17.… “…I am the Almighty God;”

The first part of this name is El, and means: “Strong One” then the qualifying word comes from the Hebrew “shad” which means: the breast. This word is used for women’s breasts in Genesis 49:25; Job 3:12; Psalms 22:9; Isaiah 28:9; Ezekiel 16:7, and others.

So shaddai may be defined as “the breasted”, and God is named such because He is our “Nourisher” or “Strength-giver”.

When we derive our spiritual nourishment, comfort, and satisfaction from Him, there is a very close corollary to what a baby receives at his/her mother’s breast.

Shalom…. WAB

 

[justified]

Not at all, WAB.

El is the Canaanite god; it does mean mighty one; the plural form, Elohim, means either "gods" or is an intensive of "el." Obviously when used with a singular verb you are referring to "almighty one" -- Yahweh.

Shaddai refers to a mountain, and in the old easter-semitic tradition, means "mighty one of the mountains"

 

[WAB]

Not at all, WAB.

El is the Canaanite god; it does mean mighty one; the plural form, Elohim, means either "gods" or is an intensive of "el." Obviously when used with a singular verb you are referring to "almighty one" -- Yahweh.

Shaddai refers to a mountain, and in the old easter-semitic tradition, means "mighty one of the mountains"

For you to say that El is "the Canaanite god;" would lead folks to think that was the only meaning. I think you probably know better, but here is some info. that obviously you will not share.

The name El is indeed a generic Semitic name, and is used by other cultures to refer to their gods. However...it appears over 200 times in the O.T. sometimes in compounds such as:

El Elohe Yisrael which means: God, the God of Israel, and is found in Ge. 33:20; Exodus 5:1; Psalm 68:8; & Psalm 106:48.

El Elyon which means: The Most High God, and is found in: Gen.14:17-22; Psalm 78:35; Daniel 4:34, and even in the N.T. in Acts 16:17.

As you pointed out the name Elohim is common, and is used in Gen.1:1-3; Deut. 10:17; Psalm 68, and in the N.T. at Mark 13:19, plus many other places in the O.T. Edit... I should have pointed out that although the name is absolutely used for the Creator God in Gen. 1...it is used in Scripture for pagan gods as Laban did in Gen. 31:30.

El Olam means: The Eternal God; The Everlasting God, and appears in: Gen.21:33; Psalm 90:1,2; Isaiah 40:28, and in the N.T. at Romans 1:20.

El Roi means: The God Who Sees Me, and is found in: Gen.16:11-14 and Psalm 139:7-12.

Immanu-El means: God with us... "I AM" and is found in: Isaiah 7:14; Is. 8:8-10, and in the N.T. at Matthew 1:23.

At the very least, your reply was mis-leading.

 

[justified]

For you to say that El is "the Canaanite god;" would lead folks to think that was the only meaning. I think you probably know better, but here is some info. that obviously you will not share.

I'm quite aware of these things. I could have shared Deuteronomy 32 (Dead Sea scrolls) and Psalm 83; 85; 88 (I can't remember which one!).

I don't withold any information. I simply respond to posts. You don't know Hebrew, Akkadian, or any other Semitic language. And you have not posted a single source. I don't see why you feel as though you can talk about this...

 

[WAB]

I'm quite aware of these things. I could have shared Deuteronomy 32 (Dead Sea scrolls) and Psalm 83; 85; 88 (I can't remember which one!).

I don't withold any information. I simply respond to posts. You don't know Hebrew, Akkadian, or any other Semitic language. And you have not posted a single source. I don't see why you feel as though you can talk about this...

You are correct in the assumption that I am not fluent in Hebrew or Akkadian (are you?) but believe it or not, I do understand English.

So when I study the Word of God (in English) and read commentaries/translations of Hebrew by people like Henry G. Weston, D.D., LL.D. (President of Crozer Theological Seminary); James M. Gray, D.D. President (at the time) Moody Bible Institute; W.J. Erdman, D.D.; A.T. Pierson, D.D.; W.G.Moorhead, D.D. (Preasident of Xenia Theo. Seminary); Elmore Harris, D.D. (President of Toronto Bible Institute); A.C. Gabelein, D.D.; and W.L. Pettingill, D. D.... all of whom were consulting editors who agreed on the translations presented re the names of God, then your comment really does not hold much water.

 

[justified]

You are correct in the assumption that I am not fluent in Hebrew or Akkadian (are you?)

yes.

I'll answer the rest later.

 

[WAB]

yes.

I'll answer the rest later.

Looking forward to it.

 

[justified]

So sorry I hadn't had time before. I was on the run.

I have done significant study in both Hebrew and Akkadian, and have also studied Greek. My field is Ancient Near Eastern history, and I'm somewhat familiar with a wide range of texts from early periods of writing down through about the 4th century A.D.

So when I study the Word of God (in English) and read commentaries/translations of Hebrew by people like Henry G. Weston, D.D., LL.D. (President of Crozer Theological Seminary); James M. Gray, D.D. President (at the time) Moody Bible Institute; W.J. Erdman, D.D.; A.T. Pierson, D.D.; W.G.Moorhead, D.D. (Preasident of Xenia Theo. Seminary); Elmore Harris, D.D. (President of Toronto Bible Institute); A.C. Gabelein, D.D.; and W.L. Pettingill, D. D.... all of whom were consulting editors who agreed on the translations presented re the names of God, then your comment really does not hold much water.

So, let's look at what we're talking about here:

then the qualifying word comes from the Hebrew “shad” which means: the breast. This word is used for women’s breasts in Genesis 49:25; Job 3:12; Psalms 22:9; Isaiah 28:9; Ezekiel 16:7, and others.

So shaddai may be defined as “the breasted”, and God is named such because He is our “Nourisher” or “Strength-giver”.

Let's start with that alone. Specifically the verses:

Genesis 49:25; Job 3:12; Psalms 22:9; Isaiah 28:9; Ezekiel 16:7

Genesis 49.25 you said has the word for a woman's breasts, which you say is the same root as the word used in "God Almighty."

Yet, because you don't know anything about these languages, you don't realise what you're doing. Nearly all Semitic roots have three consonants. The word life, for example, is nephesh in Hebrew. The three consonants are n-ph-sh. In Akkadian it is napishtum. Again, you chop off the case ending (tum) and you have n-p-sh.

So what are the roots here? שדי is pretty obvious because it has all its consonants there: SH-DD-Y (doubling is a normal part of Hebrew grammar). On the other hand, your word for breasts pops up in Gen. 49.25 as SH-D-Y-M (transliterated with vowels: shadayim). On the face of it, this word does have all the same consonants. But what you didn't know is that yim is actually a dual-ending. For example, the water water is mayim because there are two (above and below); the word "sky" is shamayim because there are two: above and highest. Examples abound. Breasts area dual because a woman has two of them, obviously. Chopping off the "yim" ending leaves the root at SH-D, obviously not the same shaddayi. In actuality, the root of "breasts" is SH-W-D, but the middle consonant (waw) is weak and often falls out. If one of your commentators said what you posted in the first post, you might as well toss the book out. If you wish, consult the best Hebrew Lexicon: Brown Driver Briggs.

I don't know what exactly those commentators you mentioned say. Most of them are not very well known in modern OT studies. If you look up SH-D-Y in the lexicon, the entry goes like things: etymology dubious. Driver eventually launches into a discussion on the similarities between Akkadian (ie Assyrian) words, specifically shadu, which means mountain. In this word, the radicals are SH-D-?. With this font I can't show it, but the 'u' in shadu is ultra-heavy (circumflex length) which indicates a lost consonant. In Akkadian, Y is a weak consonant and falls off the end of words and lengths the end. Therefore, in all probability (especially when one compares usage) the earliest and etymological derivation of shaddai is "mountain, mountain one."

As I mentioned before, there is a long history of identifying gods with mountains in Mesopotamia.

 

[WAB]

So sorry I hadn't had time before. I was on the run.

I have done significant study in both Hebrew and Akkadian, and have also studied Greek. My field is Ancient Near Eastern history, and I'm somewhat familiar with a wide range of texts from early periods of writing down through about the 4th century A.D.


So, let's look at what we're talking about here:


Let's start with that alone. Specifically the verses:


Genesis 49.25 you said has the word for a woman's breasts, which you say is the same root as the word used in "God Almighty."

Yet, because you don't know anything about these languages, you don't realise what you're doing. Nearly all Semitic roots have three consonants. The word life, for example, is nephesh in Hebrew. The three consonants are n-ph-sh. In Akkadian it is napishtum. Again, you chop off the case ending (tum) and you have n-p-sh.

So what are the roots here? שדי is pretty obvious because it has all its consonants there: SH-DD-Y (doubling is a normal part of Hebrew grammar). On the other hand, your word for breasts pops up in Gen. 49.25 as SH-D-Y-M (transliterated with vowels: shadayim). On the face of it, this word does have all the same consonants. But what you didn't know is that yim is actually a dual-ending. For example, the water water is mayim because there are two (above and below); the word "sky" is shamayim because there are two: above and highest. Examples abound. Breasts area dual because a woman has two of them, obviously. Chopping off the "yim" ending leaves the root at SH-D, obviously not the same shaddayi. In actuality, the root of "breasts" is SH-W-D, but the middle consonant (waw) is weak and often falls out. If one of your commentators said what you posted in the first post, you might as well toss the book out. If you wish, consult the best Hebrew Lexicon: Brown Driver Briggs.

I don't know what exactly those commentators you mentioned say. Most of them are not very well known in modern OT studies. If you look up SH-D-Y in the lexicon, the entry goes like things: etymology dubious. Driver eventually launches into a discussion on the similarities between Akkadian (ie Assyrian) words, specifically shadu, which means mountain. In this word, the radicals are SH-D-?. With this font I can't show it, but the 'u' in shadu is ultra-heavy (circumflex length) which indicates a lost consonant. In Akkadian, Y is a weak consonant and falls off the end of words and lengths the end. Therefore, in all probability (especially when one compares usage) the earliest and etymological derivation of shaddai is "mountain, mountain one."

As I mentioned before, there is a long history of identifying gods with mountains in Mesopotamia.

Please do not take offense, but in the area under study,the O.T. is written in Hebrew not Akkadian, or some other Assyrian tongue.

And, as pointed out, scholars with earned doctorates in the subject matter have verified the references given. Don't know what else to say, other than that so far, because of the detour, no one has responded as to the original intent of the post, which was to encourage whoever might think that God is anti-feminine to see that He is not!

 

[justified]

Please do not take offense, but in the area under study,the O.T. is written in Hebrew not Akkadian, or some other Assyrian tongue.

Right, but as I have mentioned, a good amount of Hebrew comes FROM akkadian.

And, as pointed out, scholars with earned doctorates in the subject matter have verified the references given.

I have given references as well, and could adduce a whole range of scholars if I thought it would do any good.

What I'd really appreciate from you are real references: titles and page numbers. This would both prove you've actually done research and allow me to do what I do -- do scholarly debate.

 

[WAB]

Right, but as I have mentioned, a good amount of Hebrew comes FROM akkadian.


I have given references as well, and could adduce a whole range of scholars if I thought it would do any good.

What I'd really appreciate from you are real references: titles and page numbers. This would both prove you've actually done research and allow me to do what I do -- do scholarly debate.

As already mentioned, the purpose of the original post was not to invite debate, but to provide encouragement. However this has gone so far since the original hijack, that I will get back after checking with Oxford University Press as to the possibility of copyright infringement.

 

[WAB]

As already mentioned, the purpose of the original post was not to invite debate, but to provide encouragement. However this has gone so far since the original hijack, that I will get back after checking with Oxford University Press as to the possibility of copyright infringement.

After talking with Oxford's CA rep., have to call N.Y. tomorrow... will get back.

 

[justified]

What are you talking about? So long as you cite your source, it's not infringement. Unless if the source has not yet been published and you stole it. But the problems here are that you HAVEN'T cited your sources. Just do so.

 

[justified]

And, as pointed out, scholars with earned doctorates in the subject matter have verified the references given.

The other problem is, false-information doesn't help anyone.

 

[WAB]

The other problem is, false-information doesn't help anyone.

That is precisely why I am following through on this. Your false inferences/information is confusing at best.

And, no, the resource is not unpublished; quite the contrary, the last publishing date that I have found so far was in 1945.

 

[justified]

Citing it as a source is not a problem.

 

[WAB]

The following is a word for word copy of footnote re Genesis 17:1 as found in The Scofield Reference Bible last copyright 1945. This has been delayed because I have contacted three offices of the Oxford University Press as to whether permission was needed.

“1 “Almighty God” (Heb. El Shaddai.)
(1) The etymological signification of Almighty God (El Shaddai) is both interesting and touching. God (El) signifies the “Strong One” (Gen. 1:1, note). The qualifying word Shaddai is formed from the Hebrew word “shad,” the breast, invariably used in Scripture for a woman’s breast; e.g. Gen.49:25; Job 3:12; Psa. 22:9; Song 1:13; 4:5; 7:3,7,8,10; Isa. 28:9; Ezk. 16:7. Shaddai therefore means primarily “the breasted.” God is “Shaddai” because he is the Nourisher, the Strength-giver, and so, in a secondary sense, the Satisfier, who pours Himself into believing lives. As a fretful, unsatisfied babe is not only strengthened and nourished from the mother’s breast, but also is quieted, rested, satisfied, so El Shaddai is that name of God which sets Him forth as the Strength-giver and Satisfier of His people. It is on every account to be regretted that “Shaddai” was translated “Almighty.” The primary name El or Elohim sufficiently signifies almightiness. “All-sufficient” would far better express both the Hebrew meaning and the characteristic use of the name in Scripture.” (from the Scofield Reference Bible, (1945) commenting on Genesis 17:1).

The Editors mentioned in the first post are likely all dead now, (that is, as far as the flesh goes), but their work goes on.

Again, it is sad that this post was hijacked in order to elevate human pride.

BUT... The LORD is COMING! And pride will vanish.

Shalom.... WAB

 

[justified]

(from the Scofield Reference Bible, (1945)

This was what I was waiting for? Man, this has nothing to do with human pride. I post on this forum for two reasons: correcting false information and practice. But I can get practice a lot of other places, so basically it's correcting false information.

Scofield was wrong:
Brown-Driver-Briggs A Hebrew and English Lexicon
Theological Dictionary of the Old Testament (8 volumes now?)
Theological word book of the Old Testamament (3 vols)
Also, An Concise English-Akkadian Dictionary.

I don't know any books specifically on this paricular name. However, give me a couple of days and I'll see what I can come up with in terms of Northwest Semitic etymology works.

In short, Scofield was wrong on just about everything else. I don't see why we should agree with him on this.

 

[WAB]

This was what I was waiting for? Man, this has nothing to do with human pride. I post on this forum for two reasons: correcting false information and practice. But I can get practice a lot of other places, so basically it's correcting false information.

Scofield was wrong:
Brown-Driver-Briggs A Hebrew and English Lexicon
Theological Dictionary of the Old Testament (8 volumes now?)
Theological word book of the Old Testamament (3 vols)
Also, An Concise English-Akkadian Dictionary.

I don't know any books specifically on this paricular name. However, give me a couple of days and I'll see what I can come up with in terms of Northwest Semitic etymology works.

In short, Scofield was wrong on just about everything else. I don't see why we should agree with him on this.

Well, as stated earlier, I don't adhere to all that the Scofield Reference Bible puts forth, but so far, have found sufficient evidence to support the eight consulting editors that support the El Shaddai notes, three of whom were Presidents of Seminaries. (One pres. of Moody Bible Inst. when it was really conservative).

Of course you can come up with contradictory opinions from recent "experts" who are liberal and often agnostic.

Also have a study of all the Names of God put forth by a group that forbids copying, that has exactly the same take on El Shaddai.

 

[justified]

Well, as stated earlier, I don't adhere to all that the Scofield Reference Bible puts forth, but so far, have found sufficient evidence to support the eight consulting editors that support the El Shaddai notes, three of whom were Presidents of Seminaries. (One pres. of Moody Bible Inst. when it was really conservative).

You have found others, outside of the editors of Scofield, who believe this? Who?

Of course you can come up with contradictory opinions from recent "experts" who are liberal and often agnostic.

BDB was originally published in 1906. It is also based on Gesenius' lexicon, which was published in 1833.