On Seraphim

[lhynard]

A while ago, I asked the question, "Just what exactly is a cherub?" I received a mostly satisfactory answer from kaph that confirms what I have since researched on my own. A cherub seems to have been basically a winged sphinx -- a winged bull or lion with a man's face -- in ancient near-eastern mythology. They were known to more that just the ancient

Comments

[mossy_sloth]

Interesting theories. Unfortunately I don't have much of a scholarly view to add to what you have said, though I would be interested in finding out the references to "feet" being euphemisms for genitals, as my current study has to do with body imagery int he Hebrew texts. Do you happen to have the references to hand? I would be very grateful.

[mathiasroesel]

well yes, Saul, *covering his feet*, i. e. urinating, in the cave, or Ruth, sleeping at Boaz' feet, come to mind. You'll have known these, thuogh, I suppose.

[mossy_sloth]

You know I have actually translated the whole of the book of Ruth and somehow it never came up that that was the case. Now I feel stupid!

[mathiasroesel]

I'm sorry, didn't mean to embarrass. Just popped out of my memory. Ruth 3:4.7.8. BTW, Isaiah 7:20 is another place to mention.

[mathiasroesel]

Cherubim are mentioned

[lhynard]

Ezekiel mentions cherubim in 9:3; 10:1.4.7.9.14-16.18-19; 11:22; 28:14.16; 41:18.20. In other words, the four winged creatures of the opening vision are not called cherubim.
No, actually, he specifically says something to the effect of, "These cherubim were the same as the 4 living creatures I saw earlier."

In Nu, if the word is in apposition, it strengthens the argument.That said, one might conclude that the apposition in Num 21:6 signifies that those snakes set free by the Lord actually were angels.
could be...

Interesting, I've never heard the "camel" idea, though I once saw some guy try to explain the "serpent" as an ape!

[mathiasroesel]

Those khayot (creatures) are mentioned Ez. 1:5.13.15.19; 3:13. In none of the verses is a cherub or cherubim mentioned. Khayot and cherubim are not the same in Ezekiel

[lhynard]

After giving an extremely similar description to the creatures in chapt 1 (by the Kebar River), he says in Ezekiel 10:15:Then the cherubim rose upward. These were the living creatures I had seen by the Kebar River.
It is blatantly clear that the creatures and the cherubim are one and the same within the text.

[rbevgeny]

Just a thought. Christian tradition also says that the Satan before his fall was one of the highest angels, perhaps one of the cherubs. So if a "good" cherub is a snake with fire, then a fallen cherub coud be a snake with no fire (the cherub's fire could be the fire of divine love). So the snake in Gen 3 is an ex-cherub who lost hif fire because he fell.

[lhynard]

Yes, I considered something similar to this as well. If one includes information from Revelation, it speaks of 4 living creatures of four types (ox-faced, lion-faced, man-faced, eagle-faced) with six wings who sing "Holy, holy, holy." Here we have elements of Ezekiel's cherubim (4, same face types) and Isaiah's seraphim (6 wings, singing "holy, holy, holy"). This, to me, hints that cherubim and seraphim are the same thing.

Now Revelation also describes Satan as both a snake (the "serpent of old") and a dragon. Furthermore, if we accept the passage in Ezekiel 28 as referring to Satan (...Something I'm not entirely convinced of, but just play along.), he is there called a cherub in Eden. So we have Satan = old serpent = dragon = seraph = cherub in Eden. It all checks out.

[mathiasroesel]

The four living creatures (ζωα) in Revelation are literally taken from Ezekiel, chapter 1 and 3. Not to mingle with cherubim, though, as abovementioned.

Ez. 28:12 clearly says that the qinah which the prophet is to sing, is about the prince of Tyre. Nothing to do with Satan.

[lhynard]

As I said, I'm not convinced that it does refer to Satan. However, that is the view of many and has been for a very long time. I am fully aware that it is written about the king of Tyre. However, many believe that prophecies can have dual fulfillments. If that is the case, my point makes sense. If it is not believed, of course my whole point must be thrown out.

Even so, I have read at least a few secular scholars who have suggested the serpent in the garden was meant to be a seraphim. It is not just an idea an ametauer like myself came up with.

[kaph]

Hmm, cool! I had heard a seraph was a winged snake, with something to do with fire, but all those references are amazing!

[mathiasroesel]

If you look up concordances, you will find seraphim are mentioned in Isaiah 6 and Numbers 21.

Nowhere else.

In Isaiah, seraphim are winged, can sing and speak, and carry things.

In Numbers 21, seraphim is an apposition for "snakes".

At first glance, seraphim appears to be derived from the root s-r-f, to burn. Lhynard has pointed out, though, that there may be other possibilties of derivation (Akkadian sharabu, Egyptian Uraei).

You may, of course, throw it all into a pot and stir so as to have a perfect blend.

[kaph]

Wrong word; I meant "all those possibilities."

Are you the biblical_hebrew police? You make me nervous to make a mistake or put a foot out of line . . .

;)

[mathiasroesel]

Sorry, didn't mean to make you nervous, at least not this way >;^) And, no, I'm not the police.

I'm just interested in these issues. To me, the word Biblical (community for Biblical Hebrew) means that we are dealing with texts and their respective interpretation, here.

I'm in hope you can tolerate discussions with text-freaks like me who sometimes will object against what IMHO is not an appropiate approach toward the text. I mean, any discussion has pros and cons, no?