Talk:Shoulder angel

How far back does the angel-on-one-shoulder

How far back does the angel-on-one-shoulder, devil-on-the-other image go? Did it originate in a political cartoon or something? A TV show? 67.10.175.242 19:06, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Anybody remember 'Hermans Head'? That show was awesome.

Shoulder Angels derived from Freud

Unless someone can source the claim that shoulder angels are derived from Freud I'm going to remove that. Personally I think that it is much older than that. -Sensemaker

Faust

I was always under the impression that they were derived from Christian morality plays from medieval Europe - most notably Marlowe's Tragical History of Doctor Faustus.XSox 20:38, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

sides???

i always thought that the angel and devil always had a specific side? angel on the left devil on the right? or visa verse anyone know? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.63.24.178 (talk) 21:06, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

The devil is more often on the left, but I wouldn't say "always". —Tamfang (talk) 16:02, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Is that the person or the viewer's left/right. I would expect the angel to be on the viewer's left/person's right myself. Johnbod (talk) 16:34, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, in the context of shoulders it didn't occur to me to think of someone else's viewpoint. —Tamfang (talk) 20:10, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Origin

If the origin is quite specific, then how come cartoons commonly portray something contrary ?

This sounds to me like clutching at straws to find a link. Isn't it possible that the Islamic belief mentioned is just something similar ? I speculate; so does the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 218.123.113.87 (talk) 15:01, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

plot device or stock character or something else?

plot device doesn't seem to me to fit at all well; the shoulder angel/devil illuminates what is going on, while a plot device drives events. Could narrative device be the right term? —Tamfang (talk) 06:56, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

   Not a plot device, i think, bcz (as you say) that would provide logic for the direction of the action, but this is more a matter of describing the context of the action. And tho the shoulder personalities resemble characters (by being represented as individuals), they lack all other characteristics of individuals, who are capable of deciding and acting, not just exhorting. They are just one step removed from using a stock phrase: saying "he hesitated over the choice" is kind of like describing individual steps instead of mentioning walking. Or better, it contrasts with condensing the motion into "got tox": you usually have to either leave the indecision unmentioned or say enuf about it that you draw to it more attention than it's worth; i think there's kind of an uncanny valley between not mentioning the indecision and hitting the audience in the face with it (with the shoulder trope), and in that valley much of the audience would feel condescended to, bcz the author seems to have talked down to them. The angel and devil are like the red clown nose, which stands in for a realistically red or swollen nose that might reflect the actor's health rather than the character's: the clear difference from realism makes the point clearly and helps distract from "what would otherwise be a bald and unconvincing" description.
   And perhaps not a narrative device, either, since i expect a narrative to tell a story, not just paint a picture.
   Aren't shoulder guys a metaphoric shorthand for a state of mind, specifically moral indecision, and their "dialogue" really not a series of utterances or actions, but a metaphor (in some cases a quite clear and specific one) for the poles of the indecision? They are a convention for making concrete a state of mind that is hard to describe without hackneyed language. In fact, it's kind of a wink to the audience saying

You'll forgive me for retreading this familiar ground, bcz you too realize that the least hokey way of pointing to the "inner dialog" is to exaggerate the hokeyness that would be entailed by trying to embody a mental conflict realistically.

--Jerzy•t 06:48, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Film

   I 'spose i may just read the wrong comix (Doonesbury, Dilbert) (and i do recall it from the animation of my childhood), but for me the failure to mention its use in special effects in film is surprising. I doubt i've ever seen an example as effective as the pair (on John Belushi's shoulders?) in Animal House, concerning the disposition of the dead-drunk high-school girl who eventually is delivered in a shopping cart to the front of her home.
--Jerzy•t 16:27, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Freely-available image

AnonMoos (talk) 12:20, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

Considered but rejected. Illustrates the subject well but by an amateur apparently. Dogs are not exactly typical. Johnbod (talk) 14:13, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

I didn't say it was good, I said it was freely-available... AnonMoos (talk) 16:39, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

So what if it's by an amateur (who claims to be a professional cartoonist)? —Tamfang (talk) 00:38, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

duplicate sections

Why is there both a "modern representations" and an "in modern media" section one after the other, both mostly listing examples of this kind of thing in various works of fiction? There is no distinction between these two sections so it is only reasonable for them to be merged. Also, there exist many other example in all kinds of works besides those listed here.--108.86.121.161 (talk) 09:55, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

Advertisement in Cartoon

File:Dog's guardian angel retouch.png seemingly violates WP:WATERMARK. The signature itself is even supplemented by a text website link. Its removal should not be predicated on a replacement. — Godsy ^(TALK_CONT) 19:09, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

As discussed above, it's on Commons, so ok. The guy is amateur apparently. Johnbod (talk) 19:47, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

That an image can be hosted on commons ≠ it can or should be used in an article here. Amateurism or professionalism is irrelevant; I'm not claiming that it is copyrighted (I have not looked into that aspect). — Godsy ^(TALK_CONT) 20:59, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

What IS the origin?

As of now, we have

• Early Christianity: The Shepherd of Hermas (late first half of the second century)
• Christian folklore: how old for this specific concept?
• Judaism's classical period: Genesis Rabbah, written mainly 300-500

The main question is: did the Judaic concept precede the early Christian one, or vice versa? It is known that much of Judaism's classical exegetic lit. was put to paper long after the material as such came into being and was passed on orally.

The folkloristic dissemination probably came at least after the creation of The Shepherd of Hermas, but maybe I'm wrong. What do scholas say about it? Arminden (talk) 14:36, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

From what appears in the article, of the three, it seems that a pairing of a single good angel and a single bad angel is found only in "The Shepherd of Hermas". The general idea of guiding and protective spirits goes probably goes back many thousands of years... AnonMoos (talk) 18:14, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

That's obvious, but the topic is quite specific. So specific that it was only this article that made me aware that it has a name and history of its own :) Arminden (talk) 18:34, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

"The general idea of guiding and protective spirits goes probably goes back" The concept of the tutelary deity as the protector of the person is at least as old as Socrates' daimonion:

You have often heard me speak of an oracle or sign which comes to me … . This sign I have had ever since I was a child. The sign is a voice which comes to me and always forbids me to do something which I am going to do, but never commands me to do anything, and this is what stands in the way of my being a politician.

Dimadick (talk) 08:39, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

So nothing yet on origin of SHOULDER ANGELS. Yet another Wiki art. that starts backwards, w/o first defining its actual topic. Arminden (talk) 12:46, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

References

Genesis Rabbah mystery

"he urinated onto on his calves", ref: Anderson.

was replaced by an anonymous editor with

"water spilled onto on Jacob's [not Isaac's??!!] thighs",

however keeping the same ref, which is nonsensical, since Anderson is unlikely to have quoted both options unless he discussed the difference.

Anderson's text is not online, I cannot check it.

Genesis Rabbah is online, but only in Hebrew and apparently not the whole text, as this passage seems to be missing (Wayback was offline yesterday, they might have more). But it's an ancient tractate with lots of conventions & codes, so what do I know? It's not even obvious from the layout there where each section (10, 15) starts and ends.

Anyway, Google indicated Genesis Rabbah 65:10 and 65:15, not 65:19, as the ref had it.

Davidbena, hi, maybe you can help, or you know who could? Thank you. Arminden (talk) 13:02, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for bringing it up, I restored the caption. That picture doesn't do the article any good without it. I was the one who added it originally. I'm sure there's more than one place to read it online, I'll take a look.

Temerarius (talk) 01:05, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

I restored straight from my original addition; if there was a better version in the interim it wasn't included.

Temerarius (talk) 01:08, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

@Arminden Here's the page from Anderson. https://i.postimg.cc/MZ9RqjHW/image.png

Temerarius (talk) 01:12, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

The "soft-hearted" may want to use the footnoted second translation, but we should follow Anderson's choice of primary as well as the exegetical principal of "dificilior" and keep the urination version as more likely more correct.

Temerarius (talk) 01:16, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

Thank you Temerarius. Now for me to understand: since Isaac is the one who needs to be tricked, there is a temptation to read the passage as "Jacob urinated onto Isaac's calves", but it's more straightforward to read it as "Jacob became so anxious given the stakes of what he needed to perform, that he urinated onto his own calves". The first option would imply even more of a premeditated ploy leading to Isaac's heart softening toward his son, and the second implies Jacob being more innocent and just nervously following his mother's advice.

Maybe you can address that, also in the article. The ultra-concise midrashic style doesn't allow for what would be seen as superfluous words, but Wiki and illiterate people like me do need such help. Thank you. Arminden (talk) 08:14, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

I have a copy of Midrash Rabba (Genesis Rabba) and I'll check the reference for you when I find the time.Davidbena (talk) 17:32, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

@Arminden:, before I render a translation of the text in Midrash Rabba (Genesis Rabba 65:19), I will copy down the original Hebrew. The text reads in Hebrew as follows:

כיון שאמר יצחק ליעקב גשה נא ואמשך בני נשפכו מים על שוקיו והיה לבו רפה כשעוה, וזמן לו הקב"ה שני מלאכים אחד מימינו ואחד משמאלו והיו אוחזין אותו במרפקו כדי שלא יפל‎

The literal English translation is as follows: "When Isaac said to Jacob, (Gen. 27:21) 'Please, come near, that I may feel you, my son', water was spilt on his lower legs, and his heart became feeble as beeswax, at which [time] the Holy One, blessed be He, prepared for him two angels, one on his right side and the other on his left side, and they were holding on to him by his elbow so that he would not fall" (End Quote).

It seems to me that the Hebrew text makes use of a Hebrew idiom when it says "water was spilt on his lower legs", meaning, Jacob's lower legs (i.e. calves and shin bones) became shaky and began to tremble, on account of his deception. Idioms should never be translated verbatim, otherwise they cannot be fully understood. We have many of such idioms in Hebrew, for example: If one wanted to say "he became bankrupt," we say הוא פשט רגל‎ = literally, "he spread a leg." The Hebrew word for urine is מי רגליים‎ = literally, "water of the legs". These words are not used in the above text. Another well-known Hebrew idiom is ריש גלי‎, literally, "revealed head", which idiom is often used to describe the people of Israel who departed Egypt "openly, without concealing themselves."

I'm sorry that it has taken me so long to answer you, as we have just now entered upon our Sukkot holiday and I was quite busy preparing for this.Davidbena (talk) 10:14, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

Hi ​ David, and thank you very much for your detailed and erudite answer. Please don't worry, my sense of time is non-existant - and Wiki is never a priority anyway.

I am still puzzled. First, there must be lots of traditional comments on this passage. That would relieve you of the burden of creating your own, which I much appreciate, but which cannot be cited on Wiki. If this was a widely used idiom in the Hebrew of its time, the translation you propose must be quite standard and present in RS translations.

Second, I understand that you read it as Jacob "spilling water" onto his own legs. Stress incontinence is common human behaviour and perfectly plausible in this situation, and as a figure of speech it can simply indicate anxiety ("wetting one's pants"). Too bad Anderson sticks to the literal meaning w/o going into any kind of comment. High anxiety goes along with one's heart racing, which I wouldn't associate with a soft heart, but just with a stressed one. But each language has its own conventions.

I wish you a happy holiday! Arminden (talk) 13:13, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

As you have correctly surmised, there are indeed commentaries on this Midrash, and I possess several commentaries. I will, at the first available opportunity, peruse through them and get back with you. The copy that I used to translate this short excerpt was the only copy available in my synagogue, which is without commentary. My own volume at home is more extensive. The suggestion that it could also mean "wetting his pants" is also plausible. Let's see what the commentators say about this.Davidbena (talk) 13:34, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

Since the event I. starts with the blessing context and III. ends with the boon of the angels, surely II is an "annointment" that enacts this: and it can only go one way, father to son. The liquid has to come from Isaac; otherwise the scenario does not and cannot make any sense. I hope one of your commentors appreciates this angle. @Arminden you asked my take and I was hesitant to share it, but I just don't see any other way it can work out. Obviously my dead reckoning isn't fit for the page (so don't @ me about that!) without a midrashist who came up with the same idea. I know it's dificilor to say the least, but I'll just repeat that the logic involved provides this is the only possibility.

Temerarius (talk) 02:13, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

Thanks. So by now we have 2 contributors having 2 strongly opposing opinions. One seems to be along more traditional, "comfortable" lines, and one more analytical and distressing. Let's see if anyone can take this any further. In any case, it's about an exegetic text, not about the scriptural passage itself; the relevant cultural context in which to interpret the symbolism is of a much later date and I wonder if that helps.

I just read an article about yeshivot staying out of Bible studies and focusing only on the Talmud, the comment being that scripture is based on rural life and too remote from the yeshiva universe for it to even attempt to deal with the stark, morally and aesthetically puzzling aspects of biblical narrative. Here the exegetic text seems to be even more problematic than the one it tries to deal with. Arminden (talk) 05:27, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

@Arminden:, shalom. This Sabbath I had the opportunity to look at my edition of Midrash Rabba, with its three commentaries. Two of the commentators explain the meaning of the sentence "water was spilt on his lower legs," while the third commentator says nothing about it whatsoever. My edition of the Midrash Rabba is that of editors Zondel, Enoch; Berman, Issachar; Teitelbaum, Enoch Henich, eds. (1987). Sefer Midrash Rabah: 'im hene talata be'urim, ahuvim ve-berurim (in Hebrew). Vol. 1. New York: 'Anafim. p. 77b. OCLC 122841374.. The version of the Hebrew text is like the previous version cited by me, in my earlier comment, only that this edition makes use of plene scriptum. The names of the two commentaries which deal with your specific question are 1) Matanot Kehunah (מתנות כהונה‎) and 2) Etz Yosef (עץ יוסף‎). As I said, the third commentary, which is named Anaf Yosef (ענף יוסף‎), is irrelevant, as it does not deal at all with the meaning of the words in question.

1. The first commentary, Matanot Kehunah explains in Genesis Rabba section 65: "water was spilt, etc. meaning, he was startled, [and] blushed, as if cold water had been spilt on his lower legs, and he was shaken-up with the falling-apart of his loins" (End Quote). If you'd like for me to quote for you the original Hebrew, I can do this for you.
2. The second commentary, Etz Yosef, explains in the same place: "Water was spilt, etc. meaning, he was startled and shakened, as if there was water spilt on his lower legs. It is also the way of those who are afraid that their inner-bowels become loose. This aggadah [about Jacob] has already been explained above, in chapter 44, section 4. Look there [for a more comprehensive understanding of this matter]" (End Quote). Again, I can provide you with the original Hebrew text if you want it.Davidbena (talk) 17:31, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

Anybody think it might be good to add a literal word-by-word for that short section in the meanwhile?

Temerarius (talk) 21:06, 19 October 2024 (UTC)