There's a difference between how a faith community responds to scripture, and how a scholar might. The faith community will see this as part of a tradition that has come down to them, with all the of the beliefs and doctrines about it already set. The bible itself is a product of tradition of the faith community, as different communities chose to canonized different books, IE the difference between the Catholic and Protestant canon of scripture. Tradition/community is > than the bible. This is the traditional understanding of the church, until Martin Luther. Because we receive the bible as part of a tradition, and not separate from it, it's not terribly useful in terms of faith and doctrine how and where these texts were originally formed. It's can be reduced to a frivolous exercise because the church has always believed it's not just the sending of scripture that matters, it's also the receiving of it, how we are to understand it, put it to use, etc. A scholar has a different interest, and that is to understand the basis and original context for various parts of the bible to understand how these texts came about in historical terms. For instance, why is God embodied in certain stories of scripture, and not in others? What cultural factors might explain the differences, the changes in language, metaphor, etc? So I don't think the church necessarily needs to take up that role, when it's main goal is to provide pastoral care.
The fact that Jacob tricked Esau out of his birthright and tricked Isaac into giving him the blessing reminds me a lot of Greek mythology and how heroes often resorted to trickery to get their way.
@@christopherjohnson2422doesn’t his name refer to that? “Heel-grasper?” I know he was grasping Esau’s heel at birth but isn’t it also that he snatches people’s feet out from under them?
I really like this conversation. Someone felt confused and had questions, and Dan gave high quality answers. Usually the person Dan is replying to appears to be angry or deceptive or both. Not this time. More like this, please.
Yes, I thought the same thing. But the creator was asking questions and pointing out the absurdities of the story, unlike apologists who attempt - and fail - to insist that the stories actually happened, because, Bible. 😂
Seconded, don't get me wrong, fighting the apologists who are usually Christian nationalists is incredibly important but the ones like this are fantastic for just helping people understand.
Loved the “now, this is gonna be uncomfortable for some folks” line. This type of empathetic recognition softens the landing for those newer to critical approaches to the Bible. I’d recommend using lines like this more often in your videos.
I mean, this is true with any kind of literature. You don't have access to the mind of the author, so you have to interpret the meaning of the words and what message it's trying to convey. No matter how seemingly straightforward a line is, everyone who reads it is going to have a slightly different headspace, and so might draw a different meaning from the same text. In extreme cases, there have been authors who explicitly explained what their intent was behind a certain piece of literature, but readers literally disagree with the guy who wrote it and insist it means something else. For example, the people who see the Lord of the Rings as an analogy for the first World War that Tolkien fought in, or as a denouncement of the industrial revolution, and so forth.
@@markcostello5120 I prefer to engage intelligently with important works of literature from the ancient world rather than dismiss it out of hand as "a bad idea"
Etiologies! Glad I learned a new word today for this concept! I’ve been realizing more and more that a lot of stories in the Bible are kind of answers to people who must’ve been asking questions like “why is this place called that?” “where did this group of people come from?” “how did we get here?” “why are we rivals with this nation?” etc. etc. and so these stories were created to answer such questions. Nice to know there’s a word for this!
There are so many beautiful stories of this kind in many cultures, mainly explaining how and why the sun, the moon, certain rivers, animals, plants that were important to the culture came to exist. It's a fascinating topic!
You'll find a lot of bigotries and biases once you recognize this. Like, Lot's daughters sleeping with him? They go on to form the Amalakites. Effectively saying that the Amalakites are sons of incestuous wh*res. The Bible is pretty salty sometimes. It's funny, in a petty way.
This is so mentally refreshing. Having discussions about the Bible from a critical standpoint fills me with excitement about learning. Being blk and talking about these subjects has been a heartbreaking experience. The way ppl spread misinformation about their bias and harmful interpretation has been challenging for me to even be open. Thank you, Mr. McClellan. Everyone as well
@@travis1240 My (clumsy) point is that we read the Bible without understanding the reason for the stories. It never occurred to me that this story was intended as an origin narrative for the people of Israel. Dan's explanation reminded me of that quote from Worf.
The question the creator asks are the ones I got a whipp'n for asking as a child. I was told the word of God was mysterious and I couldn't understand those inspired words until the Holy Spirit conveyed the meaning to me. Hi Dan!
Anyone else want to see this lady on the Data Over Dogma podcast where she just asks honest questions like this and gets honest answers? Seems like there could be a really good conversation resulting from that.
I love the Bible and I love this discussion! Thank you for continuing to educate us. I know it’s upsetting to many people and their faith but personally I love learning more about the history and getting closer to the original meaning and context. It all starts to make so much more sense! 🙌 OP did a great job in posing questions here too!
I don't quite agree , maybe a little respect and humility on her part would lead to understanding . She also used the F word so brazenly at the beginning .
Yeah, I don't think she was so much asking questions as making declarations 𝘤𝘰𝘶𝘤𝘩𝘦𝘥 as questions. That happens when someone doesn't believe and is not really interested in understanding what's behind the stories.
I came across the same odd story growing up as a Christian and was also told it was an angel. Years later, I get curious and read through the Hebrew. I eventually came to thinking this story as almost a coming of age story. Jacob proves he is capable on his own terms. He had matured and had wrestled with the challenges of maturing and growing into a capable adult. Thus being able to be G-d’s friend, and not just another person who needs him constantly. (Completely a symbolic analysis - not a hard interpretation or anything of the sort.)
Thanks for this video which explains in very clear terms why we set ourselves up for trouble when we view the Bible, or its parts, through twenty-first-century eyes. We also set ourselves up for trouble when we ascribe to the Almighty characteristics such as omniscience or omnipotence. After years of trying to understand and, more importantly, trying to explain so many passages that involve these assumptions, I've given up and find myself unwilling to ascribe ANY characteristics to the Presence. Even the name "God" has too many presumptions plastered on to it for my purposes. Sounds like I'm on a slow train to apophatism.
Well done, gently explaining to this young one answers/plausible meaning to her legitimate queries. Her queries are valid. My knowledge is limited, so I thank you as well. Be well
To me, it makes more sense to read the Bible as a collection of literary works that show how the writers and compilers interpreted life and how they blend their ideas of the divine into their interpretations.
Answering these questions will help many who also cannot make sense of it. It made more sense to me when I thought of it as a 'Bronze Age' story about the creation of a nation.
The video's host said that Hosea 12:5 says that Jacob wrestled "to" an angel, which should be "against", but if you look at Jeremiah 1:19 and 15:20, they say that Jeremiah will fight "to" the people and they will not prevail to him. They have different verbs, but they use "to" as "against."
She definitely makes a good argument, if this is the thing your basing your faith on and looking for a moral message that could be useful to a modern reader and fits naturally into the narrative context of modern Christianity. Meanwhile, Dan provides a good insight into the historical context of how it likely got into the Bible and what it most likely meant to it's original target readers. I'm not sure how much that changes the original point she was struggling with or how anyone would stand a good chance of deciphering that without either heavily researching it, being a theologist/historian or having one explain it to you.
One of the most important things I've learned from Dan is that my arguments with the Bible are mostly just arguments with modern Biblical dogma and that it's okay to look past the dogma and really scrutinize the source material.
I thoroughly enjoy you going through and explaining this kind of stuff this is so good. I love it so much. I might No longer identify as Christian but I do thoroughly. Enjoy theology like this. I am pagan. I am a daughter Freya and I am working on becoming a God's woman.
Read this story for the first time some months ago. I was amused at how BAM!, Jacob and God start wrestling without any lead-in. I was wondering if some nuances in the description had been lost in translation, or if it was intentionally humourous and the original audience would've gotten as much of a chuckle out of it as I did.
I learned two things today. First, like Esau, I would do almost anything for a pot of good Texas Chili and have also said "Give me some of that red stuff". Second, Jacob was the first to go Super Saiyan, transform into Israel and could've taken on a tag team of God AND the angel Ditka. 😂
Very interesting discussion. And I love that the young lady seeks to inquire and to challenge rather than blindly believe whatever she may have been told to believe.
This story and the things you mentioned reminds me about how many Germanic tribes in Europe had origin stories tracing the tribes lineage to some god (whether or not this was to mimic Romes cool origin story)
Is it just me that wrestles with God all the time 😢 . I often find myself searching for answers over issues of life and on a few occasions it felt like God relented to accept my argument and opinion . Other times He silences me with a soft gentle word .
Hello Dan, thanks for your wonderful work! To add: Israel’s popular etymology translates indeed as “let El fight” (approximately). From what i have gathered and understood from elsewhere, this translation is built on a wordplay from the root ś-r-h: to beat, to fight, verb in the third person of the yiqtol imperfect conjugation in the form of the jussive mood (an injunctive therefore, or expressing a wish). But this root is apparently poorly attested in ancient Hebrew. This meaning is probably an intentional theological construction made by the writer of the verses of Genesis (32:22-29) to justify/explain the change of name of Jacob to Israel following a fight with God. Whether this change of name had to be introduced in relation with the "appropriation" of Israel/Samaria by Juda after 722 BCE, following its annexation in the Assyrian Empire and the substantial exodus of Samaritan people to Juda, remains an open question. The name Israel could in reality be built on other much better attested roots (ś-h-r-h, or y-š-r or even ś-r-'r) meaning respectively that El protects, that El is just, that El reigns /imposes itself. This would affect the interpretation of the theological consequences of the name Israel but would not fit the "purpose" of this writer. For more context it could also be interesting to consider the historical shift in what the word Israel denoted: starting with a people, then a territory, then a nation and finally the belonging (in the sense of membership, affiliation) constitutive of an identity. If I am not wrong, the first biblical mention of Israel as a nation and not as a territory, apart from Genesis 34:7 which is apparently widely considered an anachronism or a late gloss, is in Genesis 49:7. The earliest extra-biblical mention of Israel, on the stele of Merenptah (1200 BCE), does not apparently designate a region or a locality but a population living on the heights of Judea. As you say Dan, this section is full of etiologies!
What a wonderful discussion. Loved listening to this. The questions were wonderful, and the answers were very clear and careful. Thank you so very much to both of you for this illuminating presentation. I do have one question. The word ideology is not clear. Is it ideology or etiology? Thank you for the illuminating discussions.
I've seen like four different version of the story that I remember or saw online, one is an old man who might be a prophet, a generic angel, the/a devil, and God irl, also some versions saying that it was a dream/vision.
5:09 I like to think that this could’ve been God’s way of possibly testing the perseverance of Jacob. Jacob wrestled with God and preserved, just as the nation of Israel constantly wrestled with God and (more or less) persevered, (Israel disobeys God but in the end reunites with Him.) It probably has no textual or historical support, but it’s just something I like to think about.
It’s true about negotiating with the text. Especially Evangelical seminaries or Bible schools do this - even those where you approach the text inductively. It’s because they hold the preconceptions of biblical inerrancy and the omniscient, omnipresent, omnipotent nature of God. Thus, one devotes a good bit of energy explaining how and why there “seem to be these contradictions.” For my experience, this passage is explained as a Theophany/Christophany, the idea that God (or his supernatural representative) appeared in human form and interjected key lessons and concepts into humankind’s understanding of his character and plan of redemption. For example, that Jacob overcomes wouldn’t take away from God’s omnipotence. That he sees his face doesn’t take away from the idea that God’s holiness is so pure, no mortal can look on it and live. Instead, this instance is either an angel or an Old Testament era visitation from Jesus. As such, be it Jesus or an angel, the explanation is that they’d limit power and glory in the human form and that would shield other mortals from the deadly aspects of seeing God face to face. Side note: I think it’s cute how Moses was given horns when the old European cathedrals were built because the Hebrew word for “glory” was the same as horn(s). So when Moses came off the mountain after being with God, the Bible reads that his face still shown with glory, which could be interpreted as “horns.” They got it right for the Septuagint, but St. Jerome rendered it back to horns in his vulgate translation. LOL. Always cracks me up when some American tourist asks, “Wait. Why the heck is Satan on the Cathedral?” 😂
Anyone else find it *interesting* that the stranger MUST be gone by daybreak? I wonder if Jacob got a good look at his teeth! Neither she nor Dan mentions that the guy seeks to escape by striking Jacob's thigh, which is probably a euphemism for punching him in the balls...So, God cheats, and STILL can't win! I like to imagine this actually wasn't any sort of supernatural being, but a time-traveler who was just sight-seeing the era, when this wild guy just rolls up on him, starts demanding "blessings" and gets him in a headlock when he politely tries to excuse himself! Only when escaping this nutter and getting back to the present does he realize that he accidentally wrote himself into the Bible...
I think it might have had to do with their powers/domains. Esau and Jacob represented the Sun and Moon moon Elijah and Elisha. Elijah and Esau are described as being hairy or having a lot of hair on them. And are associated with fire or have tempers. Jacob and Elisha are described as being smooth or bald men and are described as being associated with trickery, intelligence, night, death, and/or phases of time. Jacob's powers were most active at night. Its possible that this is when YHWH was transitioning from being a god of the day to a god of the night. Its like he's mostly active at night and wanted to test his strength against Jacob, but lost and so had to cheat to win.
Another great video. I was having a conversation with a Christian friend about this very topic last night. Why did God show himself in the Old testament but not in the New testament?? My Christian friends told me that we couldn't answer that. God.. mysterious ways... I shared this video with him. He says he wants to debate Dan. No, he has no formal education in theology, Bible studies or anything. 😫
@@ChixieMary I'm assuming that your Christian friend who seems to disagree with Dan would see Jesus as being God. I'm not arguing this myself, I'm just saying Christians generally wouldn't believe that God doesn't show Himself in the NT
I've always felt that if we want a complete understanding of the Old Testament/Hebrew Bible, we should consult the wisdom and learning of our Jewish brothers and sisters. One viewpoint regarding Jacob's wrestling with an angel (or God or whomever) was that this being wrestled with Jacob to stop him from running away from his fears. The victory (stalemate) gave Jacob courage and his renaming was a mark of his becoming a kind of new man. This struggle may very well have been an internal one with Jacob wrestling with his competing notions of self-will (and independence) and his need to be subservient to G-d's will. The further meaning might very well be an explanatory note as to what the Jewish people would face and experience.
I don't remember where I heard that this story was originally a fight against Shalem, the god of Dusk, and that's why he has to leave before dawn, because his brother Shahar (lit: Dawn) is gonna appear very soon. I don't know if this idea has some academic support.
I think there are a few additional subtle tropes and word-plays in Hebrew that influence the Jacob-story cycle writer placing the wrestling story at the Jabbok. Firstly, Jabbok means ‘Pouring out’ (as the river rapidly falls from a great height in the distance) and Jacob is going to be temporarily emptied of all his wealth when he is all alone on one side of the river having sent all he has ahead of him. He started his growth in wealth when he poured out water for Rachel’s sheep. ‘Jacob’ means literally ‘Grabber’ and wrestling involves grabbing your opponent. Jacob started wrestling in the womb and at birth with he grabbed his twin’s heel, as if a wrestling move. Secondly, in Hebrew Jacob and Jabbok are spelt with the same three consonants, but a different order: YKB and YBK. Just as Jacob reversed his disadvantage by swapping birth inheritance, swapping names and the hairiness of his arms, swapping the proportion of the livestock that were speckled and so his portion, and having the sisters Rachel and Leah swapped on him, so God (implies the writer) can easily reverse Jacob’s fortunes at the place where his name letters are jumbled.
On a much deeper level this story is an allegory for the ancient mystery tradition everything from the "pillow of stone" (see philosophers stone, mithras born from a stone, Excalibur in the stone etc etc) and the ladder to Heaven is an allegory for the mysteries
I checked the critique of Malakh with chatGPT. This is what it gave me. "The claim that the word malakh (“angel”) was added to Hosea 12:4 to harmonise it with Genesis 32 is a minority view among scholars. Here’s why: 1. Textual Evidence: There is no significant manuscript evidence suggesting that malakh was a later addition. The Masoretic Text, the authoritative version of the Hebrew Bible, consistently includes malakh in Hosea 12:4. The Dead Sea Scrolls and other ancient witnesses don’t indicate a variant lacking the term. 2. Harmonisation Hypothesis: Some critics propose that Hosea 12 reflects a theological development that identified Jacob’s opponent as an angel rather than God directly, possibly to reconcile with later Jewish theology, which often distinguished God’s messengers from God Himself. This view is more interpretive than based on hard textual evidence. 3. Interpretation Over Addition: Most scholars see Hosea 12 as interpreting the Genesis account rather than editing it. In Genesis 32, the figure wrestling with Jacob is ambiguous-sometimes identified as a man, an angel, or God. Hosea’s reference to an angel reflects a particular theological angle, not necessarily a textual alteration. 4. Minority Critique: The view that malakh was added stems from broader debates about the development of angelology in ancient Israelite religion. Critics in this camp argue that Hosea’s text sought to downplay direct encounters with God, emphasising intermediaries like angels. However, this critique isn’t widely accepted because the text’s linguistic and thematic coherence suggests the term malakh was part of Hosea’s original composition. In short, the idea that malakh was added is speculative and lacks strong textual backing. Most evidence points to Hosea 12 reflecting an interpretive tradition rather than a late editorial adjustment."
In Genesis, there are several places where someone sees an Angel Of The LORD and they say that they saw the LORD. For instance, when Sarai is told that she shall give birth when she is presumed too old.
For some reason, this subject turns up a lot in classic art. Examples include Delacroix (1861), Gauguin (1888), and Maurice Denis (1893). Rembrandt also painted the scene in 1659. Gauguin’s is far and away the most adventurous, the most avant-garde, the most complex treatment of the subject-all for reasons that would take too long to explain in a TH-cam comment.
At this time, there are 320 comments, if someone else asked this question and I have missed it, I apologize. But I have 2 questions: In English, "I fight with X" can mean both "against" and "along side with". Plus you have said "Israel" means "fights with G-D" as in against. Is there a separate Hebrew for fighting against and fighting along side? And if Israel mean "fight against G-D", does that mean the Country of Israel was misnamed? Possibly even suggesting that as a name, "Israel" means "Fights against G-D and defeats G-D?" Please advise.
1. They would be worded differently, I believe fighting "against" is worded as fighting "to". 2. It would not be a misnomer since you see pretty often in the Bible that the Jews would struggle with adhering to faith and following God's instruction. THis story seems to sort of be symbolic to this 3. Israel the modern country has nothing to do with any of this. When Dan mentions the "nation" of Israel, he is referring to the people nation (i.e. the Jews/Israelites) not the modern nation state
Mention of Jacob is found in at least two books. (Are there more? I don't know. I'm too lazy to look it up!) In Genesis we find both 'he' and 'God,' though it's kind of complicated. Many (most?) traditions see this 'God' as being an angel. Also, some interpret the 'face of God' as being angels. In Hosea it is, I think, angel mentioned. The problem, if one can call it that, is that these texts were possibly redacted during the Second Temple Period.
@@monteirolobato6830 i don’t think that the face of God is referring to angels o think that’s modern Cristian interpretation I wouldn’t make sense that in exodus 33:18-22 when Moses wanted to see God that he responds with no one can see my Angel and live if we would say that face here means angel I know a few Jews who believes that this could apply to a literary face of God but without humanlikeness or any ability of imagination since God is above
In Genesis 32:25, Did God commits a foul on Jacob!? "When the man saw that he could not overpower him, he touched the socket of Jacob's hip so that his hip was wrenched as he wrestled with the man."
There is much more. Jacob was injured by the angel so he would be humbled before esau. The master of the universe needed to create a power imbalance when he met esau. This was the master's way of influencing the future engagement to promote reconciliation.
As baffling as this story is, I've always loved that Israel means "the one who wrestles with God." I come from a liberal Christian tradition, where we indeed wrestle with the Bible and Christian tradition, so this name is very meaningful to me. It's contrary to the fundamentalist "God said it, I believe it, that ends it" perspective. You call it "negotiation," I call it "interpretation," but it amounts to the same thing. And really both of them mean wrestling or fighting with the text/tradition/story - in short, wrestling with God. And it's in wrestling with God that we receive a blessing.
"The notion of God as omniscient as we understand that concept did not exist in this time period..." Fuckin, thank you! I recently made a vid about the God of the Omnis not being the God in the bible. That god doesn't even read as though it could be.
Could "Strives With God" also be translated as "Strives WITH God's Help (Alongside God)" instead of "Strives AGAINST God"? Also, while I get the idea for changing Jacob to Israel, why does God change Abram to Abraham, a barely notably difference?
Changing Abraham's and Sarah's name might have just had to do with regional differences with pronouncing their names and when these different societies were coming together to put all their legends into something somewhat cohesive, thats the story they decided to go with.
I'm no Hebrew scholar, but I have seen this discussed before and it's confusing. ' Israel' can mean many things, to included, from the Second Temple Period, 'a man seeing God.' Israel can also mean 'persevering' or 'prevail.' Maybe even 'reigns (with?).
Just finished reading the apologists' comments. That's some mighty fine negotiatin' going on here! Lol BTW, does anyone know the name of this creator's channel? I love her take on the Bible. It's refreshing to hear common sense applied to texts that are thousands of years old - long before logic was widely practiced, as science was developed - 😮, yet still held by many as historical truths and a factual explanation for the creation of the universe.
This is quite a late response but your comment is just sort of... disrespectful? to ancient peoples. It is not like they existed without logic and contradictions arose because religion was not unified but rather a shared blend of traditions. The creator Dan responded to was not really "applying common sense" to the Bible but rather treating the Bible as something it's not--a supposedly inspired, univocal, literal text. Even some of the earliest Christian church fathers did not believe in the Bible as being a literal or scientific text. That's not what it is, that is not its purpose, and when you treat it like it's something that it's not, you shouldn't be surprised when it doesn't hold up to that expectation
@@imaadhaq540 It wasn't meant to be disrespectful to anyone. If you'd like to know what I actually meant, you could've just asked me to... explain? I meant that in ancient times, logic wasn't formalized anywhere near the extent that it is now. But I thought that would've been understood.
@Noneya5555 what even is formal logic? Do you just mean science? Any sort of naturalistic science is pretty irrelevant to a story that is about a distinctly supernatural event so I fail to see the relevance of that
@@imaadhaq540 No, I don't mean a naturalistic science. Since it's obvious that you have a problem with my post, it makes no sense for me to keep replying, as you will keep finding a problem with whatever I reply. So I will not be replying to what I assume will be your inevitable response. And to ensure that I'm not notified of that reply, I'm muting you. So you can consider yourself having won this debate. Peace be with you, sincerely.
those who think of it as inspired are going to think of it as univocal? i know it is inspired and also know it isn’t univocal. that is why there are multiple authors, different perspectives on the same God. he didn’t do this to confuse us but to give depth to his character.
That's not what univocality means, if it did then absolutely nobody would interpret it from that lens because half of the books are named after different authors. Univocality is the idea that the Bible is telling one, consistent narrative that cannot contradict itself and that anything said in one text can be used to interpret something said in another, rather than it being a collection of different experiences of different authors that do have the freedom to contradict. The idea of divine inspiration was made to justify the idea of univocality, if you think about it it wouldn't make sense otherwise; the whole point of divine inspiration is to explain that due to divine intervention the Bible was made to tell a singular, cohesive truth.
This girl has the same question as me, the man did not told jacob his name because we cannot know God real NAME , God has secrets that human cannot know of, the same with mozes, mozes asked God the name of God, God answered I AM that I AM, I AM is a calling name of God. God appears in different forms, this is because we cannot see God face.
*Laban, Elohim, Edom* The wrestling scene is sandwiched between struggles with Laban and Esau. Jacob/Israel compares seeing Esau’s face with seeing the face of Elohim in Genesis 33:10.
Oof. If ever there came a moment in my life where I was confident enough to publicly declare some understanding of the Bible, I'd think twice, knowing that Dan would eventually come along to refute any premise and demonstrate just how far off the mark I was. So, I'm going to stay in my lane and not say a thing about anything about anything other than menu items at my favorite restaurants. I got that shit down pat!
The more untangling of the biblical text I feel like I'm learning but then again getting more frustrated by the cryptic nature of the Bible. It seems it doesn't really say what it says in many instances, long held beliefs are put usunder because of 'negotiating with the text' and outright manipulation with the text over the centuries leaving us with a book that can't be trusted. But it does beg the question why the early followers like Peter be martyred for their faith if they weren't absolutely sure about Christ as Lord and Savior or maybe accounts such as his execution not trustworthy either.
Didn't Jacob injure his hip during the bout? And didn't they wrestle all night (if that is what you want to call it)? Maybe that's just the story Jacob told everyone... that he hurt his hip "wrestling" a guy all night, and the guy was very strong, evidently.
So if “Israel” means “fights with god” then why does it have Jacob win? Jacob could still fight with god, lose, AND still be called “fights with god”. That way, god does not get clobbered by a mere human and the name still sticks.
For all you Dan haters out there, I'd like to point out that his last comment about seeing the face of God hurts Mormons as much as it does Christians. It's a good example of Dan sticking with the data rather than letting dogma dominate his ideas even when it's from his own church. They pick and choose what they'll accept and ignore in this case, just like everyone else.
It could still be univocal when you consider that Lord Jehovah was like a superhero, having a secret identity as El Shaddai, a mild mannered god who covered his loins with a cloth mantle and blended in with the other gods, the Bene Elohim, but appeared as Jehovah in a minotaur mask to hide his identity but otherwise naked so everyone could see his mighty phallus and know he was the granddaddy of all gods. He had the horns removed from his minotaur mask so he could assault people easier, giving them less to grab onto (maybe learning this when he attacked Jacob). In this way he also attacked Moses, and was going to kill him, holding a knife to his throat while Zipporah circumcised their son. That's why no one could see his face because his secret identity would be discovered. When Moses found him without his mask he ran away covering his face because Moses saw his member and thought: "I know that member. It's Lord Jehovah himself!" So if he saw his face he would be like: "what the...El Shaddai?! OMG! El Shaddai IS Lord Jehovah!" But this wasn't yet allowed.
I feel like this story is an argument against biblical innerancy and literallism. The Hebrew bible is full of examples of patriarchs and prophets arguing and negotiating with God, and you can read the whole thing as the authors wrestling with God in an attempt to understand their identity and their history.
The whole idea of divine inspiration was to justify the dogma of univocality--to explain that even though there were multiple authors who wrote millennia apart, that they all would end up writing a singular, cohesive truth
"Jacob fights with God, and seems to win." If you are familiar with the Rabbinic literature, you know how funny - and true - that is! There is a story in the Talmud (I am very loosely paraphrasing) where Rabbi Eliezer is arguing with some others who all side against him. Rabbi Eliezer is convinced he is right and asks God for a sign to prove it. After several signs, finally God himself steps in and sides with our friend. The others' response is basically "so what!" They cite a verse from Deuteronomy saying that the Torah is no longer in heaven and so, apparently, not even Divine voices have any authority over it. God walks away, laughing to himself about how his children have defeated him.
The biggest problem with her, is that it seems she really wants a literal, explicitly stated meaning to it, taking the story as if she was watching Game of Thrones or something. That's not how it works.
The man (God)ask of Jacob name because God wants to see if Jacob is gonna lie, jacob is tricky but this time couldn't lie , then he told the man (God) his name. The man can called angel of God allso.
Dan i think you confusing me here because i thought these they saw as God where Only Devine images that identified as God ..?? as if you cant put that out that they were because i see you trying to mean some people Saw and fight With God... what happened to divine images because i don't think in any way God can appear to any one or anything
I don't think Dan goes far enough in explaining these writings. Jacob, for instance, need not be a real person. In fact, I don't think there is any 'real' evidence that he existed. These are stories/myths/accounts/et cetera that have a meaning beyond (or beside) the literal. One can tie them to other cultures creation myths, et cetera but I look on this as academic playtime. Scholars have one purpose and theologians have another. They often work together as is only natural. In my faith tradition, we believe that what is 'true' in the Scriptures is all that we find in it that aids us, leads us, to salvation. If there are contradictions in place names, time periods, persons, etc. it does not matter.
“Give me some of that red stuuuff”. That was hilarious.
I wish people realized that addressing discrepancies like this is WAY more helpful than just throwing dogmas at you. Dogma only serves to crush.
There's a difference between how a faith community responds to scripture, and how a scholar might. The faith community will see this as part of a tradition that has come down to them, with all the of the beliefs and doctrines about it already set. The bible itself is a product of tradition of the faith community, as different communities chose to canonized different books, IE the difference between the Catholic and Protestant canon of scripture. Tradition/community is > than the bible. This is the traditional understanding of the church, until Martin Luther. Because we receive the bible as part of a tradition, and not separate from it, it's not terribly useful in terms of faith and doctrine how and where these texts were originally formed. It's can be reduced to a frivolous exercise because the church has always believed it's not just the sending of scripture that matters, it's also the receiving of it, how we are to understand it, put it to use, etc. A scholar has a different interest, and that is to understand the basis and original context for various parts of the bible to understand how these texts came about in historical terms. For instance, why is God embodied in certain stories of scripture, and not in others? What cultural factors might explain the differences, the changes in language, metaphor, etc? So I don't think the church necessarily needs to take up that role, when it's main goal is to provide pastoral care.
The fact that Jacob tricked Esau out of his birthright and tricked Isaac into giving him the blessing reminds me a lot of Greek mythology and how heroes often resorted to trickery to get their way.
I just read the Pentateuch over again, read, not studied, and it is a lot like Greek Mythology, or the Gilgamesh epic.
His mother is to blame for sure and God who accepted it.
Folks with a Jungian bent refer to the archetype of the Trickster, and Jacob seems to fit that category.
I got prose edda vibes from it. Jacob, Esau, god... they're just middle eastern Loki, Thor, and Odin.
@@christopherjohnson2422doesn’t his name refer to that? “Heel-grasper?” I know he was grasping Esau’s heel at birth but isn’t it also that he snatches people’s feet out from under them?
I really like this conversation. Someone felt confused and had questions, and Dan gave high quality answers.
Usually the person Dan is replying to appears to be angry or deceptive or both. Not this time.
More like this, please.
Yes, I thought the same thing. But the creator was asking questions and pointing out the absurdities of the story, unlike apologists who attempt - and fail - to insist that the stories actually happened, because, Bible. 😂
Seconded, don't get me wrong, fighting the apologists who are usually Christian nationalists is incredibly important but the ones like this are fantastic for just helping people understand.
Loved the “now, this is gonna be uncomfortable for some folks” line. This type of empathetic recognition softens the landing for those newer to critical approaches to the Bible. I’d recommend using lines like this more often in your videos.
"We absolutely must negotiate with the text in order to understand it." WOW!
Or we could put in the dustpan with other bad ideas..
As Holy Mother Church, we just had our scribes rewrite the parts we wanted changed.
I mean, this is true with any kind of literature. You don't have access to the mind of the author, so you have to interpret the meaning of the words and what message it's trying to convey. No matter how seemingly straightforward a line is, everyone who reads it is going to have a slightly different headspace, and so might draw a different meaning from the same text.
In extreme cases, there have been authors who explicitly explained what their intent was behind a certain piece of literature, but readers literally disagree with the guy who wrote it and insist it means something else.
For example, the people who see the Lord of the Rings as an analogy for the first World War that Tolkien fought in, or as a denouncement of the industrial revolution, and so forth.
@@markcostello5120 I prefer to engage intelligently with important works of literature from the ancient world rather than dismiss it out of hand as "a bad idea"
@@thomashartwell4335 by all means do. just don't expect it to mean shit all to anyone else.
"Gimmie some of that red stuff!!" 😭🤣🤣🤣 1:19 I had to rewind that back a few times
Etiologies! Glad I learned a new word today for this concept! I’ve been realizing more and more that a lot of stories in the Bible are kind of answers to people who must’ve been asking questions like “why is this place called that?” “where did this group of people come from?” “how did we get here?” “why are we rivals with this nation?” etc. etc. and so these stories were created to answer such questions. Nice to know there’s a word for this!
There are so many beautiful stories of this kind in many cultures, mainly explaining how and why the sun, the moon, certain rivers, animals, plants that were important to the culture came to exist. It's a fascinating topic!
You'll find a lot of bigotries and biases once you recognize this.
Like, Lot's daughters sleeping with him? They go on to form the Amalakites.
Effectively saying that the Amalakites are sons of incestuous wh*res.
The Bible is pretty salty sometimes. It's funny, in a petty way.
This is so mentally refreshing. Having discussions about the Bible from a critical standpoint fills me with excitement about learning. Being blk and talking about these subjects has been a heartbreaking experience. The way ppl spread misinformation about their bias and harmful interpretation has been challenging for me to even be open. Thank you, Mr. McClellan. Everyone as well
Here here
🖖🏾🤘🏾✊🏾
"These are our stories. They tell us who we are.". Worf, explaining Klingon lore to his son Alexander.
Worf had a point. However when I read these stories I think they really belong to someone else. My ancestors' stories were about Thor and Odin.
@@travis1240 My (clumsy) point is that we read the Bible without understanding the reason for the stories. It never occurred to me that this story was intended as an origin narrative for the people of Israel. Dan's explanation reminded me of that quote from Worf.
Ha, I just started rewatching TNG recently.
I believe Worf’s stories over the Bible stories every day of the week.
Again, it is about telling a story to give things like meaning and purpose. It isnt about which makes more sense to you. @@anthonymonge7815
The question the creator asks are the ones I got a whipp'n for asking as a child. I was told the word of God was mysterious and I couldn't understand those inspired words until the Holy Spirit conveyed the meaning to me. Hi Dan!
Hand waving mystical hokey-pokey is the second most irritating aspect of modern Christianity. It can literally be reduced to, "because God".
"It's impossible to understand" is a classic answer given by someone that doesn't understand...
Anyone else want to see this lady on the Data Over Dogma podcast where she just asks honest questions like this and gets honest answers? Seems like there could be a really good conversation resulting from that.
I agree ❤
@mklelan this is a great idea!
He watched Mma the night before, got overexcited and wanted to test his wrestling abilities
Now I can't unsee Jacob Stone Cold Stunning God...
@@HandofOmega he made him tap 😂
"Yahweh!"
"Yes, El?"
"GET THE TABLE!!"
So basically Jacob laid the smackdown on Yahweh. 😭😭😭😭😭🤦 Poor Yahweh
gnashing of teeth
I love the Bible and I love this discussion! Thank you for continuing to educate us. I know it’s upsetting to many people and their faith but personally I love learning more about the history and getting closer to the original meaning and context. It all starts to make so much more sense! 🙌 OP did a great job in posing questions here too!
Interesting video
Well explained and I admire the young woman for asking the questions
I don't quite agree , maybe a little respect and humility on her part would lead to understanding . She also used the F word so brazenly at the beginning .
@@Gerrardboss-v2g😂😂😂
Yeah, I don't think she was so much asking questions as making declarations 𝘤𝘰𝘶𝘤𝘩𝘦𝘥 as questions. That happens when someone doesn't believe and is not really interested in understanding what's behind the stories.
@@PeterLGଈ Let me guess. She needs a holy ghost to help her defy logic and facts to believe like you do?
@@exillens I'm an atheist ... 🙄
I came across the same odd story growing up as a Christian and was also told it was an angel. Years later, I get curious and read through the Hebrew. I eventually came to thinking this story as almost a coming of age story. Jacob proves he is capable on his own terms. He had matured and had wrestled with the challenges of maturing and growing into a capable adult. Thus being able to be G-d’s friend, and not just another person who needs him constantly. (Completely a symbolic analysis - not a hard interpretation or anything of the sort.)
Thanks for this video which explains in very clear terms why we set ourselves up for trouble when we view the Bible, or its parts, through twenty-first-century eyes. We also set ourselves up for trouble when we ascribe to the Almighty characteristics such as omniscience or omnipotence. After years of trying to understand and, more importantly, trying to explain so many passages that involve these assumptions, I've given up and find myself unwilling to ascribe ANY characteristics to the Presence. Even the name "God" has too many presumptions plastered on to it for my purposes. Sounds like I'm on a slow train to apophatism.
❤ I just love this lady
Well done, gently explaining to this young one answers/plausible meaning to her legitimate queries.
Her queries are valid.
My knowledge is limited, so I thank you as well.
Be well
To me, it makes more sense to read the Bible as a collection of literary works that show how the writers and compilers interpreted life and how they blend their ideas of the divine into their interpretations.
Answering these questions will help many who also cannot make sense of it. It made more sense to me when I thought of it as a 'Bronze Age' story about the creation of a nation.
Jacob should hve got the title of an undisputed World Wrestling heavyweight Champion
Woooooo!
I wonder if that creator would be interested in a collaboration video where you talk through this stuff. She’s asking great questions.
1:20 When I see chips and salsa at the potluck.
The video's host said that Hosea 12:5 says that Jacob wrestled "to" an angel, which should be "against", but if you look at Jeremiah 1:19 and 15:20, they say that Jeremiah will fight "to" the people and they will not prevail to him. They have different verbs, but they use "to" as "against."
She definitely makes a good argument, if this is the thing your basing your faith on and looking for a moral message that could be useful to a modern reader and fits naturally into the narrative context of modern Christianity. Meanwhile, Dan provides a good insight into the historical context of how it likely got into the Bible and what it most likely meant to it's original target readers. I'm not sure how much that changes the original point she was struggling with or how anyone would stand a good chance of deciphering that without either heavily researching it, being a theologist/historian or having one explain it to you.
One of the most important things I've learned from Dan is that my arguments with the Bible are mostly just arguments with modern Biblical dogma and that it's okay to look past the dogma and really scrutinize the source material.
Never in my life have I subscribed to someone so fast
I thoroughly enjoy you going through and explaining this kind of stuff this is so good. I love it so much. I might No longer identify as Christian but I do thoroughly. Enjoy theology like this. I am pagan. I am a daughter Freya and I am working on becoming a God's woman.
Read this story for the first time some months ago. I was amused at how BAM!, Jacob and God start wrestling without any lead-in. I was wondering if some nuances in the description had been lost in translation, or if it was intentionally humourous and the original audience would've gotten as much of a chuckle out of it as I did.
This is greatness of the text. It got you thinking!
I learned two things today. First, like Esau, I would do almost anything for a pot of good Texas Chili and have also said "Give me some of that red stuff".
Second, Jacob was the first to go Super Saiyan, transform into Israel and could've taken on a tag team of God AND the angel Ditka. 😂
Dan can we get a book list of the most mindblowing books on religion you have read ?
Awesome explanation, please do more videos like this
Very interesting discussion. And I love that the young lady seeks to inquire and to challenge rather than blindly believe whatever she may have been told to believe.
This story and the things you mentioned reminds me about how many Germanic tribes in Europe had origin stories tracing the tribes lineage to some god (whether or not this was to mimic Romes cool origin story)
Sometimes I wonder if I would have remained a Christian if I was told early on the bible was not inerrant.
I need to hire you for family reunions! Fabulously done.
Is it just me that wrestles with God all the time 😢 . I often find myself searching for answers over issues of life and on a few occasions it felt like God relented to accept my argument and opinion . Other times He silences me with a soft gentle word .
As Israel the man struggled with God, as Israel the nation struggled with God, you too struggle with God
Hello Dan, thanks for your wonderful work!
To add: Israel’s popular etymology translates indeed as “let El fight” (approximately). From what i have gathered and understood from elsewhere, this translation is built on a wordplay from the root ś-r-h: to beat, to fight, verb in the third person of the yiqtol imperfect conjugation in the form of the jussive mood (an injunctive therefore, or expressing a wish).
But this root is apparently poorly attested in ancient Hebrew. This meaning is probably an intentional theological construction made by the writer of the verses of Genesis (32:22-29) to justify/explain the change of name of Jacob to Israel following a fight with God. Whether this change of name had to be introduced in relation with the "appropriation" of Israel/Samaria by Juda after 722 BCE, following its annexation in the Assyrian Empire and the substantial exodus of Samaritan people to Juda, remains an open question.
The name Israel could in reality be built on other much better attested roots (ś-h-r-h, or y-š-r or even ś-r-'r) meaning respectively that El protects, that El is just, that El reigns /imposes itself. This would affect the interpretation of the theological consequences of the name Israel but would not fit the "purpose" of this writer.
For more context it could also be interesting to consider the historical shift in what the word Israel denoted: starting with a people, then a territory, then a nation and finally the belonging (in the sense of membership, affiliation) constitutive of an identity.
If I am not wrong, the first biblical mention of Israel as a nation and not as a territory, apart from Genesis 34:7 which is apparently widely considered an anachronism or a late gloss, is in Genesis 49:7. The earliest extra-biblical mention of Israel, on the stele of Merenptah (1200 BCE), does not apparently designate a region or a locality but a population living on the heights of Judea.
As you say Dan, this section is full of etiologies!
What a wonderful discussion. Loved listening to this. The questions were wonderful, and the answers were very clear and careful. Thank you so very much to both of you for this illuminating presentation. I do have one question. The word ideology is not clear. Is it ideology or etiology? Thank you for the illuminating discussions.
Etiology.
@@monteirolobato6830 thank You.
Of course etiologies can lead to ideologies! Haha!@@lauraarzola
These videos are always fascinating. Always very cool 🤙
I've seen like four different version of the story that I remember or saw online, one is an old man who might be a prophet, a generic angel, the/a devil, and God irl, also some versions saying that it was a dream/vision.
I love this passage!
If youre gonna follow God, you will need to do some wrestling.
As an atheist, even I can agree.
simply amazing explanation~~well explained
Red lentil soup can be birthright level yummy.
Heresy! It was red chili 😛
@@SantoAtheos - It was minestrone, blasphemer!
I cant wait for them to come out with X'men '97, that takes place right after the old television series ended...its going to be awesome!
5:09
I like to think that this could’ve been God’s way of possibly testing the perseverance of Jacob. Jacob wrestled with God and preserved, just as the nation of Israel constantly wrestled with God and (more or less) persevered, (Israel disobeys God but in the end reunites with Him.) It probably has no textual or historical support, but it’s just something I like to think about.
It’s true about negotiating with the text. Especially Evangelical seminaries or Bible schools do this - even those where you approach the text inductively. It’s because they hold the preconceptions of biblical inerrancy and the omniscient, omnipresent, omnipotent nature of God. Thus, one devotes a good bit of energy explaining how and why there “seem to be these contradictions.”
For my experience, this passage is explained as a Theophany/Christophany, the idea that God (or his supernatural representative) appeared in human form and interjected key lessons and concepts into humankind’s understanding of his character and plan of redemption.
For example, that Jacob overcomes wouldn’t take away from God’s omnipotence. That he sees his face doesn’t take away from the idea that God’s holiness is so pure, no mortal can look on it and live. Instead, this instance is either an angel or an Old Testament era visitation from Jesus. As such, be it Jesus or an angel, the explanation is that they’d limit power and glory in the human form and that would shield other mortals from the deadly aspects of seeing God face to face.
Side note: I think it’s cute how Moses was given horns when the old European cathedrals were built because the Hebrew word for “glory” was the same as horn(s). So when Moses came off the mountain after being with God, the Bible reads that his face still shown with glory, which could be interpreted as “horns.” They got it right for the Septuagint, but St. Jerome rendered it back to horns in his vulgate translation. LOL.
Always cracks me up when some American tourist asks, “Wait. Why the heck is Satan on the Cathedral?” 😂
King Arthur saw the face of God and survived in Monty Python and the Holy Grail.
Anyone else find it *interesting* that the stranger MUST be gone by daybreak? I wonder if Jacob got a good look at his teeth! Neither she nor Dan mentions that the guy seeks to escape by striking Jacob's thigh, which is probably a euphemism for punching him in the balls...So, God cheats, and STILL can't win! I like to imagine this actually wasn't any sort of supernatural being, but a time-traveler who was just sight-seeing the era, when this wild guy just rolls up on him, starts demanding "blessings" and gets him in a headlock when he politely tries to excuse himself! Only when escaping this nutter and getting back to the present does he realize that he accidentally wrote himself into the Bible...
He must be gone because angels must recite a song of praise to God.
I think it might have had to do with their powers/domains.
Esau and Jacob represented the Sun and Moon moon Elijah and Elisha.
Elijah and Esau are described as being hairy or having a lot of hair on them. And are associated with fire or have tempers.
Jacob and Elisha are described as being smooth or bald men and are described as being associated with trickery, intelligence, night, death, and/or phases of time.
Jacob's powers were most active at night.
Its possible that this is when YHWH was transitioning from being a god of the day to a god of the night.
Its like he's mostly active at night and wanted to test his strength against Jacob, but lost and so had to cheat to win.
One interpretation is that the being did not HAVE to go, but that his (His) work was done.
Another great video. I was having a conversation with a Christian friend about this very topic last night.
Why did God show himself in the Old testament but not in the New testament??
My Christian friends told me that we couldn't answer that.
God.. mysterious ways...
I shared this video with him.
He says he wants to debate Dan.
No, he has no formal education in theology, Bible studies or anything.
😫
Christian’s don’t look at Jews religion, call Christianity at a historical view. They look at the Jews religion theologically.
I mean according to Christians God does show Himself a LOT in the New Testament, being Jesus and all
@@imaadhaq540 yeah...no. The whole "Jesus is God" thing... Not a thing until a century later, only for some Christians and definitely NOT biblical.
@@ChixieMary I'm assuming that your Christian friend who seems to disagree with Dan would see Jesus as being God. I'm not arguing this myself, I'm just saying Christians generally wouldn't believe that God doesn't show Himself in the NT
@@imaadhaq540 that depends entirely on the individual Christian you ask. It's not as if they agree on this or much else.
The obvious conclusion is it was a handicap elimination match and Isreal defeated BOTH the angel AND God sequentially.
In a cage, falls count anywhere? You just know that Satan was the ref!
@@HandofOmega "I didn't see that chair shot i was looking the other way"
I've always felt that if we want a complete understanding of the Old Testament/Hebrew Bible, we should consult the wisdom and learning of our Jewish brothers and sisters. One viewpoint regarding Jacob's wrestling with an angel (or God or whomever) was that this being wrestled with Jacob to stop him from running away from his fears. The victory (stalemate) gave Jacob courage and his renaming was a mark of his becoming a kind of new man. This struggle may very well have been an internal one with Jacob wrestling with his competing notions of self-will (and independence) and his need to be subservient to G-d's will. The further meaning might very well be an explanatory note as to what the Jewish people would face and experience.
I don't remember where I heard that this story was originally a fight against Shalem, the god of Dusk, and that's why he has to leave before dawn, because his brother Shahar (lit: Dawn) is gonna appear very soon. I don't know if this idea has some academic support.
I think there are a few additional subtle tropes and word-plays in Hebrew that influence the Jacob-story cycle writer placing the wrestling story at the Jabbok. Firstly, Jabbok means ‘Pouring out’ (as the river rapidly falls from a great height in the distance) and Jacob is going to be temporarily emptied of all his wealth when he is all alone on one side of the river having sent all he has ahead of him. He started his growth in wealth when he poured out water for Rachel’s sheep. ‘Jacob’ means literally ‘Grabber’ and wrestling involves grabbing your opponent. Jacob started wrestling in the womb and at birth with he grabbed his twin’s heel, as if a wrestling move. Secondly, in Hebrew Jacob and Jabbok are spelt with the same three consonants, but a different order: YKB and YBK. Just as Jacob reversed his disadvantage by swapping birth inheritance, swapping names and the hairiness of his arms, swapping the proportion of the livestock that were speckled and so his portion, and having the sisters Rachel and Leah swapped on him, so God (implies the writer) can easily reverse Jacob’s fortunes at the place where his name letters are jumbled.
Big fan. Any thoughts you could share on “Piso Christ”?
❤️
On a much deeper level this story is an allegory for the ancient mystery tradition everything from the "pillow of stone" (see philosophers stone, mithras born from a stone, Excalibur in the stone etc etc) and the ladder to Heaven is an allegory for the mysteries
The Uncanny X-men shirt!!! My fav!! ⚡️⚡️⚡️🌩️🌩️🌩️🌩️☀️☀️☀️
I checked the critique of Malakh with chatGPT. This is what it gave me.
"The claim that the word malakh (“angel”) was added to Hosea 12:4 to harmonise it with Genesis 32 is a minority view among scholars. Here’s why:
1. Textual Evidence: There is no significant manuscript evidence suggesting that malakh was a later addition. The Masoretic Text, the authoritative version of the Hebrew Bible, consistently includes malakh in Hosea 12:4. The Dead Sea Scrolls and other ancient witnesses don’t indicate a variant lacking the term.
2. Harmonisation Hypothesis: Some critics propose that Hosea 12 reflects a theological development that identified Jacob’s opponent as an angel rather than God directly, possibly to reconcile with later Jewish theology, which often distinguished God’s messengers from God Himself. This view is more interpretive than based on hard textual evidence.
3. Interpretation Over Addition: Most scholars see Hosea 12 as interpreting the Genesis account rather than editing it. In Genesis 32, the figure wrestling with Jacob is ambiguous-sometimes identified as a man, an angel, or God. Hosea’s reference to an angel reflects a particular theological angle, not necessarily a textual alteration.
4. Minority Critique: The view that malakh was added stems from broader debates about the development of angelology in ancient Israelite religion. Critics in this camp argue that Hosea’s text sought to downplay direct encounters with God, emphasising intermediaries like angels. However, this critique isn’t widely accepted because the text’s linguistic and thematic coherence suggests the term malakh was part of Hosea’s original composition.
In short, the idea that malakh was added is speculative and lacks strong textual backing. Most evidence points to Hosea 12 reflecting an interpretive tradition rather than a late editorial adjustment."
In Genesis, there are several places where someone sees an Angel Of The LORD and they say that they saw the LORD. For instance, when Sarai is told that she shall give birth when she is presumed too old.
For some reason, this subject turns up a lot in classic art. Examples include Delacroix (1861), Gauguin (1888), and Maurice Denis (1893). Rembrandt also painted the scene in 1659. Gauguin’s is far and away the most adventurous, the most avant-garde, the most complex treatment of the subject-all for reasons that would take too long to explain in a TH-cam comment.
Chagall's painting is especially interesting.
At this time, there are 320 comments, if someone else asked this question and I have missed it, I apologize. But I have 2 questions: In English, "I fight with X" can mean both "against" and "along side with". Plus you have said "Israel" means "fights with G-D" as in against. Is there a separate Hebrew for fighting against and fighting along side? And if Israel mean "fight against G-D", does that mean the Country of Israel was misnamed? Possibly even suggesting that as a name, "Israel" means "Fights against G-D and defeats G-D?" Please advise.
1. They would be worded differently, I believe fighting "against" is worded as fighting "to".
2. It would not be a misnomer since you see pretty often in the Bible that the Jews would struggle with adhering to faith and following God's instruction. THis story seems to sort of be symbolic to this
3. Israel the modern country has nothing to do with any of this. When Dan mentions the "nation" of Israel, he is referring to the people nation (i.e. the Jews/Israelites) not the modern nation state
I heard also that Jacob was wrestling with an angel of God because the term Elohim can be used for angels of God or representives
Mention of Jacob is found in at least two books. (Are there more? I don't know. I'm too lazy to look it up!) In Genesis we find both 'he' and 'God,' though it's kind of complicated. Many (most?) traditions see this 'God' as being an angel. Also, some interpret the 'face of God' as being angels. In Hosea it is, I think, angel mentioned. The problem, if one can call it that, is that these texts were possibly redacted during the Second Temple Period.
@@monteirolobato6830 i don’t think that the face of God is referring to angels o think that’s modern Cristian interpretation I wouldn’t make sense that in exodus 33:18-22 when Moses wanted to see God that he responds with no one can see my Angel and live if we would say that face here means angel I know a few Jews who believes that this could apply to a literary face of God but without humanlikeness or any ability of imagination since God is above
In Genesis 32:25, Did God commits a foul on Jacob!? "When the man saw that he could not overpower him, he touched the socket of Jacob's hip so that his hip was wrenched as he wrestled with the man."
The outrage and anger in her voice 😂
There is much more. Jacob was injured by the angel so he would be humbled before esau. The master of the universe needed to create a power imbalance when he met esau. This was the master's way of influencing the future engagement to promote reconciliation.
As baffling as this story is, I've always loved that Israel means "the one who wrestles with God." I come from a liberal Christian tradition, where we indeed wrestle with the Bible and Christian tradition, so this name is very meaningful to me. It's contrary to the fundamentalist "God said it, I believe it, that ends it" perspective. You call it "negotiation," I call it "interpretation," but it amounts to the same thing. And really both of them mean wrestling or fighting with the text/tradition/story - in short, wrestling with God. And it's in wrestling with God that we receive a blessing.
I'm gonna make a Skyrim character, an argonian named Fights-with-God
Thank you.
"The notion of God as omniscient as we understand that concept did not exist in this time period..."
Fuckin, thank you! I recently made a vid about the God of the Omnis not being the God in the bible. That god doesn't even read as though it could be.
Could "Strives With God" also be translated as "Strives WITH God's Help (Alongside God)" instead of "Strives AGAINST God"? Also, while I get the idea for changing Jacob to Israel, why does God change Abram to Abraham, a barely notably difference?
Changing Abraham's and Sarah's name might have just had to do with regional differences with pronouncing their names and when these different societies were coming together to put all their legends into something somewhat cohesive, thats the story they decided to go with.
I'm no Hebrew scholar, but I have seen this discussed before and it's confusing. ' Israel' can mean many things, to included, from the Second Temple Period, 'a man seeing God.' Israel can also mean 'persevering' or 'prevail.' Maybe even 'reigns (with?).
Or ‘Fights for El ‘
Just finished reading the apologists' comments. That's some mighty fine negotiatin' going on here! Lol
BTW, does anyone know the name of this creator's channel? I love her take on the Bible. It's refreshing to hear common sense applied to texts that are thousands of years old - long before logic was widely practiced, as science was developed - 😮, yet still held by many as historical truths and a factual explanation for the creation of the universe.
This is quite a late response but your comment is just sort of... disrespectful? to ancient peoples. It is not like they existed without logic and contradictions arose because religion was not unified but rather a shared blend of traditions. The creator Dan responded to was not really "applying common sense" to the Bible but rather treating the Bible as something it's not--a supposedly inspired, univocal, literal text. Even some of the earliest Christian church fathers did not believe in the Bible as being a literal or scientific text. That's not what it is, that is not its purpose, and when you treat it like it's something that it's not, you shouldn't be surprised when it doesn't hold up to that expectation
@@imaadhaq540 It wasn't meant to be disrespectful to anyone. If you'd like to know what I actually meant, you could've just asked me to... explain?
I meant that in ancient times, logic wasn't formalized anywhere near the extent that it is now. But I thought that would've been understood.
@Noneya5555 what even is formal logic? Do you just mean science? Any sort of naturalistic science is pretty irrelevant to a story that is about a distinctly supernatural event so I fail to see the relevance of that
@@imaadhaq540 No, I don't mean a naturalistic science. Since it's obvious that you have a problem with my post, it makes no sense for me to keep replying, as you will keep finding a problem with whatever I reply. So I will not be replying to what I assume will be your inevitable response.
And to ensure that I'm not notified of that reply, I'm muting you. So you can consider yourself having won this debate. Peace be with you, sincerely.
I just see it as being like the Greek gods, you can't see Adonai's "godly form", but he can take on human form when he wants to interact with us
those who think of it as inspired are going to think of it as univocal? i know it is inspired and also know it isn’t univocal. that is why there are multiple authors, different perspectives on the same God. he didn’t do this to confuse us but to give depth to his character.
That's not what univocality means, if it did then absolutely nobody would interpret it from that lens because half of the books are named after different authors. Univocality is the idea that the Bible is telling one, consistent narrative that cannot contradict itself and that anything said in one text can be used to interpret something said in another, rather than it being a collection of different experiences of different authors that do have the freedom to contradict. The idea of divine inspiration was made to justify the idea of univocality, if you think about it it wouldn't make sense otherwise; the whole point of divine inspiration is to explain that due to divine intervention the Bible was made to tell a singular, cohesive truth.
If a person wants to see the original video where the lady asked the questions how do you look it up
Her 'address' is in her video image.
@@monteirolobato6830 All I see is Maklelan, which is his channel. Was she asking questions on his channel or on her own channel?
Oh, I'm sorry. I thought this was the gal's page. I'm an old man and don't know how these things work. Apologies.@@kennethgreifer5123
If scholars can't even agree on what the original Hebrew text says then how are we supposed to believe anything in the Bible
Chemosh would not have lost to Jakob.
Chemosh would have simply eaten the smaller Jakob.
What one would expect from a superior god
This girl has the same question as me, the man did not told jacob his name because we cannot know God real NAME , God has secrets that human cannot know of, the same with mozes, mozes asked God the name of God, God answered I AM that I AM, I AM is a calling name of God. God appears in different forms, this is because we cannot see God face.
Shawty had to get the context on who Jacob was
*Laban, Elohim, Edom*
The wrestling scene is sandwiched between struggles with Laban and Esau.
Jacob/Israel compares seeing Esau’s face with seeing the face of Elohim in Genesis 33:10.
Oof. If ever there came a moment in my life where I was confident enough to publicly declare some understanding of the Bible, I'd think twice, knowing that Dan would eventually come along to refute any premise and demonstrate just how far off the mark I was. So, I'm going to stay in my lane and not say a thing about anything about anything other than menu items at my favorite restaurants. I got that shit down pat!
The more untangling of the biblical text I feel like I'm learning but then again getting more frustrated by the cryptic nature of the Bible. It seems it doesn't really say what it says in many instances, long held beliefs are put usunder because of 'negotiating with the text' and outright manipulation with the text over the centuries leaving us with a book that can't be trusted. But it does beg the question why the early followers like Peter be martyred for their faith if they weren't absolutely sure about Christ as Lord and Savior or maybe accounts such as his execution not trustworthy either.
The girl makes total sense.
Who is the creator...the lady that is
😂 good one. Wish I knew.
The real question is - why does God wrestle with Jacob?
Whats this guys youtube account?
Didn't Jacob injure his hip during the bout? And didn't they wrestle all night (if that is what you want to call it)? Maybe that's just the story Jacob told everyone... that he hurt his hip "wrestling" a guy all night, and the guy was very strong, evidently.
I believe it's more of a metaphor
Was it classic Greek nude wrestling, or did God wear a singlet?
So if “Israel” means “fights with god” then why does it have Jacob win? Jacob could still fight with god, lose, AND still be called “fights with god”. That way, god does not get clobbered by a mere human and the name still sticks.
The story of Jacob wrestling with an angel is taken from the myth of night wrestling with dawn (Aurora/Eos). Night is always the lame one.
For all you Dan haters out there, I'd like to point out that his last comment about seeing the face of God hurts Mormons as much as it does Christians. It's a good example of Dan sticking with the data rather than letting dogma dominate his ideas even when it's from his own church. They pick and choose what they'll accept and ignore in this case, just like everyone else.
It could still be univocal when you consider that Lord Jehovah was like a superhero, having a secret identity as El Shaddai, a mild mannered god who covered his loins with a cloth mantle and blended in with the other gods, the Bene Elohim, but appeared as Jehovah in a minotaur mask to hide his identity but otherwise naked so everyone could see his mighty phallus and know he was the granddaddy of all gods. He had the horns removed from his minotaur mask so he could assault people easier, giving them less to grab onto (maybe learning this when he attacked Jacob). In this way he also attacked Moses, and was going to kill him, holding a knife to his throat while Zipporah circumcised their son. That's why no one could see his face because his secret identity would be discovered. When Moses found him without his mask he ran away covering his face because Moses saw his member and thought: "I know that member. It's Lord Jehovah himself!" So if he saw his face he would be like: "what the...El Shaddai?! OMG! El Shaddai IS Lord Jehovah!" But this wasn't yet allowed.
wtf
I feel like this story is an argument against biblical innerancy and literallism. The Hebrew bible is full of examples of patriarchs and prophets arguing and negotiating with God, and you can read the whole thing as the authors wrestling with God in an attempt to understand their identity and their history.
I would argue that it is possible to think the stories are inspired but not univocal.
But we may have different definitions of "inspired."
The whole idea of divine inspiration was to justify the dogma of univocality--to explain that even though there were multiple authors who wrote millennia apart, that they all would end up writing a singular, cohesive truth
"Jacob fights with God, and seems to win."
If you are familiar with the Rabbinic literature, you know how funny - and true - that is!
There is a story in the Talmud (I am very loosely paraphrasing) where Rabbi Eliezer is arguing with some others who all side against him. Rabbi Eliezer is convinced he is right and asks God for a sign to prove it. After several signs, finally God himself steps in and sides with our friend.
The others' response is basically "so what!" They cite a verse from Deuteronomy saying that the Torah is no longer in heaven and so, apparently, not even Divine voices have any authority over it.
God walks away, laughing to himself about how his children have defeated him.
The biggest problem with her, is that it seems she really wants a literal, explicitly stated meaning to it, taking the story as if she was watching Game of Thrones or something. That's not how it works.
The man (God)ask of Jacob name because God wants to see if Jacob is gonna lie, jacob is tricky but this time couldn't lie , then he told the man (God) his name. The man can called angel of God allso.
Dan i think you confusing me here because i thought these they saw as God where Only Devine images that identified as God ..?? as if you cant put that out that they were because i see you trying to mean some people Saw and fight With God... what happened to divine images because i don't think in any way God can appear to any one or anything
I don't think Dan goes far enough in explaining these writings. Jacob, for instance, need not be a real person. In fact, I don't think there is any 'real' evidence that he existed. These are stories/myths/accounts/et cetera that have a meaning beyond (or beside) the literal. One can tie them to other cultures creation myths, et cetera but I look on this as academic playtime. Scholars have one purpose and theologians have another. They often work together as is only natural.
In my faith tradition, we believe that what is 'true' in the Scriptures is all that we find in it that aids us, leads us, to salvation. If there are contradictions in place names, time periods, persons, etc. it does not matter.
Works for Greek myths too.