More theological issues

[Ogma]

A little later, its image is that of a chubby, rose-cheeked tot with two dainty, downy wings.

I think that these are actually called putti?

 

[Venusian Broon]

Somewhat OT (sorry OP!) but I've seen the seraphim referred to (but without a source mentioned) as "fiery serpents", which seems odd, given the Biblical association of serpents and dragons with evil. It is, however, relevant to my WIP, so I'm wondering if you can shed any light on this, since you clearly know quite a bit?

I'll try my best HB - we're straying into dangerous territory with regards to the thread and all this religion stuff, but as it is definitely for your WiP I think this is very allowable:

Ok, I'm getting this from a number of sources...

Singular is seraph - from the Hebrew verb saraph: "to burn"

Seraphim were known to the ancient Israelites as heavenly beings that surrounded God's throne, continually chanting his praises, in Hebrew, of course. The prophet Isaiah (6:2 & 6) tells us that seraphim each sport three pairs of wings, suggesting this was an upgrade on a cherub, who only had a mere two pairs. (But a cherubim had four faces, or sometimes only two; perhaps they were given that as a trade off?) I don't know what serpent has wings, but then...

...the seraphim, like the Cherubim, originated from Near Eastern mythology and from the various chimera that were believed to do heavily involved in divine stuff. In the Old Testament, seraphim are often referred to as 'burning ones'. Several prophets who glimpsed seraphim claimed they were 'flaming spirits' and Saint Basil saw them as vaporous fireballs (apparently like ball lightning according to my sources, but as I've never seen these either...)

It is speculated that the Israelites derived this 'angel' from the Egyptian god Serapis, who inhabited the lower realm, or burning circle, and whose cult spread to Greece and Rome.

The idea that they are somehow connected to serpents, is definitely much more of Jewish thing. Numbers 21:6 and Deuteronomy 8:15 use seraphim in the Torah, but in the King James Bible the Lord sends fiery serpents to bite and kill people and fiery (strong poisonous bite?) serpents in the desert for Deuteronomy. The book of Enoch - a Jewish text - very interesting but non-canonical - describes seraphim as dragon/serpent like as well.

It seems to me that Christian writers just ignored the serpent side of the seraphim and concentrated much more on the fire and light side of things when they were collating all the new material of Christianity. It's a great metaphor for lots of things: Fire after all goes upwards all the time (to God); its heat rouses and purifies; and is bright and enlightening. Possibly the rational Greek side of things rubbed off when editing at this stage.

Perhaps (and this is purely my speculation) the role of the serpent in the Adam and Eve story perhaps became much more important, and as the creature was equated more and more with Satan, it just did not make sense to the early Christians to have angels that looked like serpents, as you point out. (But then again Satan was a fallen angel and if he was the serpent in the garden of Eden, having seraphim as serpents makes some sort of sense to me...perhaps then they decided to selectively just not mention the family resemblance???)

You have to remember that they also re-defined the job descriptions of these beings from previous Jewish traditions - they become much less active on the planet and instead tended to just pass messages to and from god - angels the word comes from the Greek for messenger I believe. But these Christians entities still do more-or-less the same jobs as before, Seraphim are still continuously singing closest to God, Cherubim supporting God's throne and chariot. Archangels (of which we have the named angels) pass truly important messages from god to men, 'basic' angels do the grunt work of carrying off a prayer or petition, or passing lesser messages back down again. I should note in passing there is no official hard-line Catholic position on angel hierarchies BTW.

Relating to Seraphim, Thomas Aquinas concluded that really all that mattered was nearness to God. Those closest to the Lord were smartest (hence our Seraphim if you believe old Pseudo-Dionysius), those hovering above us (the basic angels) waiting for prayer were just as perplexed, limited and gifted with free will as us - but with no lust or gender.


Regarding Putti - yes I agree when these fat kids first appeared they were not religious or connected to Cherubs. However they sort of got caught up and confused with angels in the Baroque period I believe. And it stuck, given that name has a dual meaning now.

 

[psychotick]

Hi,

Seraphim are only mentioned once in the bible - in Isaiah.

Isaiah 6:2-4 Above him were seraphs, each with six wings: With two wings they covered their faces, with two they covered their feet, and with two they were flying. And they were calling to one another: ‘Holy, holy, holy is the Lord Almighty; the whole earth is full of his glory.’ At the sound of their voices the doorposts and thresholds shook and the temple was filled with smoke.

Cherubim are mentioned a couple of times, starting in Genesis.

Genesis 3:24 “After He drove the man out, He placed on the east side of the Garden of Eden cherubim and a flaming sword flashing back and forth to guard the way to the tree of life.”
Ezekiel 1:10 — and each had four wings. In their appearance, the cherubim “had the likeness of a man”
Ezekial 10 Each had four faces—that of a man, a lion, an ox, and an eagle
Ezekiel 1:5 These cherubim used two of their wings for flying and the other two for covering their bodies

Ezekiel 1:6 Under their wings the cherubim appeared to have the form, or likeness, of a man's hand.

One thing is cetain - they don't much resemble flying winged babies with bows! Those are as Ogma said, putti, and they come from Renaissance, Baroque and Rococo art.


Cheers, Greg.

 

[HareBrain]

Thanks VB for that thorough response. I might have known the Book of Enoch would come up somewhere! I really should get round to reading it.

 

[paranoid marvin]

If there is a God, and he has angels, then he will be able to make them look however he wants. In all likelihood if one were to visit a priest then so as not to needlessly alarm him or confuse him or make him think it was something else it would take a form that he was comfortable with; so have wings and/or halos.

As for who outranks who, I don't think this would be called into question. Angels effectively prove the existence of God, and a messaqe from an angel is as close to God's command that anyone is likely to get; so if a priest truly believes it is an angel he will do as commanded. And although there is a hierarchy in angels this wouldn't be called into question, as any 'rank' of angel would be seen as a divine command.

 

[Brian G Turner]

Somewhat OT (sorry OP!) but I've seen the seraphim referred to (but without a source mentioned) as "fiery serpents", which seems odd, given the Biblical association of serpents and dragons with evil.

The symbolism of fiery serpents is a profound and ancient one. I remember researching something of this a while ago:

Across the Mediterranean there are hints in mythology of a previous matriarchal culture. Any symbol involving snakes usually relates to this: the snake as the teacher, provider of wisdom.

Of course, when patriarchy supplanted matriarchy, any symbol of the "old" matriarchal order was demonised. The snake is no exception.

We're familiar with this from the garden of Eden story - the snake offers Eve knowledge, but is condemned because this knowledge will make people gods in their own right. This same story also exists in ancient Egyptian mythology.

Then of course there's the Delphic Oracle, and the story of how Apollo slew Python there and set up his own following in stead. Again, the symbols of matriarchy as supplanted.

Here's the interesting thing: serpents in mythology (ancient Med) stand between our world and the underworld. They are the guardians between life and death. Serpents can be snakes, dragons, or any form in between.

Even in the Old Testament, winged serpents appear as guardians. Moses creates a bronze staff with one. Interestingly, in our English translations, the words "serpent" and "Seraph" are sometimes used interchangeably. Seraphs, of course, being regarded as one of the highest orders of angels.

So even in OT, not only are serpents supplanted - they become patriarched as angels.

Back to Delphi: Python, who Apollo slew, was an earth goddess in the form of a serpent. But at Delphi Python was not the only serpent present - there were also two serpent guardians, intertwined: one of the spirit of man, the other of a the spirit of woman. These were the guardians of life and death to the world of the earth mother.

You can see them together in the Caduceus, an incredibly ancient symbol that dates back to ancient Mesopotamia and was taken up by the ancient Greeks: here the serpents are not simply guardians, but also messengers of the earth.

And the names of these guardians? The male form was called Typhon, the female form, Delphyne.

Quick pointer on VB's good post above - I'm not sure Serapsis figures into this, because IIRC correctly, it was an invented God - a hybrid of Greek and Egyptian mythology - used after the conquest of Egypt by Alexander the Great.

 

[HareBrain]

I'm familiar with that kind of thinking, Brian, and actually have made extensive use of it in my WIP, with the twin serpents symbolising the basis of all existence. I notice, though, that none of that mentioned fiery serpents, as such?

 

[Mirannan]

If there is a God, and he has angels, then he will be able to make them look however he wants. In all likelihood if one were to visit a priest then so as not to needlessly alarm him or confuse him or make him think it was something else it would take a form that he was comfortable with; so have wings and/or halos.

As for who outranks who, I don't think this would be called into question. Angels effectively prove the existence of God, and a messaqe from an angel is as close to God's command that anyone is likely to get; so if a priest truly believes it is an angel he will do as commanded. And although there is a hierarchy in angels this wouldn't be called into question, as any 'rank' of angel would be seen as a divine command.

I'm inclined to agree. This still leaves the question of supernaturals from other mythoi altogether, of which there are many types. Am I correct to say that the Catholic convention is that such beings are all demons? (Examples: valkyries, devas, yazata, kami) All these prove the supernatural, at least to the person meeting them. IMHO, natch.

 

[paranoid marvin]

If a being appeared that completely contradicted their faith then there may be some opposition, some denial of the being as a false prophet or demon/devil.

 

[Brian G Turner]

none of that mentioned fiery serpents

It's not mentioned implicitly in those notes, but I think they are simply a variation on the theme of the serpent as a teacher and guardian. IMO the "fiery" aspect simply denotes holy agency - cf, OT references to God appearing as a "pillar of fire" or "burning bush".

Fire worship was a powerful force in the ancient world - fire as a gift from the gods. The Romans preserved something of it in the Vestal Virgins (interesting how the matriarchal aspect was retained) and I bet if I dug a little, I'd soon find them presiding over some form of important snake ceremony for women.

 

[Venusian Broon]

Just to muddy the waters a bit more, there is also the influence of Zoroastrianism on the Abrahamic religions - it's likely that the Jews were heavily influenced by Zoroastrianism while in exile in Babylon. And Zoroastrianism viewed fire (as well as water) as an agent of ritual purity. (The Jews probably missed the development of the fire cult proper it has to be said.)

Not sure if that involved female snake ceremonies way back, but I think Zoroastrianism is clear that the serpent is a creation of the evil spirit. So probably not.

In fact on the topic above in question, a lot of the developments in angelology in Christian, Jewish and Gnostic works between 200 BCE and 200 AD were heavily influenced by Zoroastrian cosmology.