Biblical Hebrew Forum

[Ian Hutchesson <mc2499 AT mclink.it>]

John Ronning wrote:

>> Who actually translates 'ed as "cloud" here?
>>
>> The translations I've consulted work on the mist/vapour idea from which the
>> rain is distilled and the clouds which come in the following verse release
>> the rain.
>>
>
>Futato adopted Dahood's translation of Job 36: 27, and noted that the
>NIV footnote gives an alternative "distills from the mist as rain" in
>which case the "mist" is a cloud.  I know people don't like to be
>dahoodwinked, 

!

>but I think it's fair to say Dahood was often right.  He
>based his analysis on Eblaite, which I'm not competent to evaluate, but
>I would pick Eblaite over Sumerian/Akkadian to illuminate the meaning of
>'ed.  

Dear John,

Any Eblaite connection is so extremely tenuous, seeing as the only real
traces are from the third millenium! It must be seen as wishful at best.

>More important is the context, and I think Futato has a point that
>"v6 is begging to be interpreted as a reference to rain" since the
>reason there is no wild desert vegetation is there had been no rain.

There is another well known source of water in the area, and that is spring
water: Jericho for example was fertile because of spring water. Ein Feshkha
(!) just south of Qumran had its own natural water source (unlike Qumran).
Moisture coming from the ground is much more in keeping with a spring,
where such vegetation would grow, if the area was not cultivated.

>> I think it is an observable event to see clouds rise from the ends of the
>> earth: clouds come over the horizon (the ends of the earth). It is a
>> different matter to seem them rise out of the earth, which is not what one
>> could consider a normally observable event. So, I don't think you've
>> answered the serious objection you raised.
>>
>
>Futato does not directly address the point you raise, which I agree
>makes his interpretation a bit problematic.  I think the reason is that
>he sees 1 Kgs 18:44 ("a cloud as small as a man's hand is rising from
>the sea") as an adequate parallel (the viewer was literally looking out
>over the sea from Mt. Carmel).  It's true that one could read "west" for
>"sea" so that it would be like "the ends of the earth," and one could
>argue that "from the earth" does not convey the same idea as "from the
>sea" (which presumes the viewer himself is not in the sea) or "from the
>ends of the earth" (which presumes a distance between the viewer and the
>cloud not indicated in Gen 2:6).  I suppose whether one agrees with
>Futato would depend on whether the argument for 'ed as "cloud," 

The problem with such an translation is that there is no sure example in
the OT/HB.

>and the
>argument from contex, are more persuasive than the slight difference in
>idom between clouds rising (or being raised) "from the earth" or "from
>the ends of the earth."  I find his reasoning persuasive, and perhaps
>someone could suggest a better explanation for this difference in idiom.

When I first read the passage I thought it referred to a fountain, and as I
said, this is quite an ordinarily observable phenomenon in the land.

>> I would think that the sources of rain in the OT/HB are quite clear. Rain
>> comes from heaven as in 1Kgs8:35 (=2Chr6:26), "When heaven is shut up and
>> there is no rain...". The windows of heaven were opened when the flood
began.
>>
>
>Yes, but more specifically rain comes from the clouds, and clouds are
>"brought up" or "rise" described with the same verb as in Gen 2:6.

As water rises from the ground as a spring. (But then I think I've pushed
this point enough by now!)

>> .  .  .
>
>>
>> The only real indicator to justify this reading, I'd guess, is the mention
>> of no rain in 2:5. But then, it doesn't seem central to the story of God
>> needing the moisture before he could form man from the dust of the ground.
>> Nor is it considered important to say anything else about rain, relying
>> more on the notion of rivers.
>
>Futato's point is, why mention rain if it's irrelevant to the story? 

Unless one presumes a uniformity of writing, it's not too strange to see
rough edges in texts.

>Why mention the desert vegetation if the only concern is for the
>cultivated crops and the Garden of Eden?

It was only in the irrigated areas that there were cultivated crops: the
water was used and the land was worked, otherwise the areas not far from
the rivers were barren.

>> It seems to me that 2:4b-5 is simply as most scholars see it these days, as
>> an introduction to a second creation account proceeding from a dry world.
>> When God started this creation, the earth had no plants nor herbs -- but
>> earth, there was, just as there was the deep in the first creation account.
>> Yes, one wet, one dry. We should also note the difference in approach to
>> God in the two differing accounts: in the first it is usually enough for
>> God to say and it happened; in the second we have a God with his sleaves
>> rolled up, getting his hands dirty with the dust from the ground, planting
>> a garden, taking the man and putting him in the garden.
>
>You can call them different or complementary.  

Yes, they are both.

>In the Gospels sometimes
>we read that Jesus heals people with the spoken word, sometimes we read
>that he "gets his hands dirty."
>
>>
>> The preconceptions of these two creation accounts are quite different:
>> whereas the first is a cosmic creation that takes place due to the word of
>> God out of a watery chaos (reminiscent of the dangers of the Mesopotamian
>> floods), the second is a terrestrial creation that takes place with the
>> physical involvement of God acting in a dry world (more suggestive of a
>> Palestinian context).
>
>I would say that Genesis 1 is universal and cosmic (not Mesopotamian) in

Mesopotamian, because it was there that water was dangerous -- unlike for
example the riverine life on the Nile --, floods destroyed life in
Mesopotamia, and then there is the Marduk struggle with Tiamat underlying
the first few verses, with Marduk sending the wind over the deep which
destroyed her, then he split her in half placing part below the earth and
part above the sky. I didn't think "Mesopotamian" was unreasonable in the
circumstances.

>its approach, Genesis 2 is more local - "in the east" as a location for
>the Garden of Eden presumes a western setting, as you say.  Genesis 2 is
>not a cosmology, so it can't be "another", and its place in the canon
>indicates it is to be read as a partial expansion on some of the
>creation events mentioned in Genesis 1.

This is partly your interpretation of the situation. WOuld you say that the
other evidence for creation is to be read as partial expansion of some of
the creation events mentioned in Genesis 1?

>> Given the lesser scope for the creation, the more physical (and less
>> theological) nature of God's creation and the Palestinian type context, I'd
>> guess that the second creation account is quite a bit older than the first.
>> If this is the case, it would seem unlikely that there was any original
>> intent of a "resumption and expansion" by 2:4b ff of parts of chapter one.
>
>I have written in previous posts of how Genesis 2-4 depend on Genesis 1
>for their interpretation, 

I specifically disagree with this theory. I see no dependence whatsoever. I
do note a tendency to place traditions that deal basically with the same
thing together without any necessary consideration of dependence. There
are, for example, differing versions of the flood traditions placed
together. There are different traditions of the slaying of Goliath and the
death of Saul. Dealing with the same thing doesn't guarantee dependence.

>and how Genesis 1 is specifically re-enacted
>in the history of Israel, so I won't repeat myself here.  I think the
>echo of the Genesis 1 creation language in the Cain-Abel story is quite
>striking.
>
>> Your post, John, has been quite thought-provoking.
>>
>
>In a good way, hopefully (I was just synopsizing Futato).
>
>A brief note on another matter, Ian, if I recall correctly you said in a
>previous post that the biblical writers were operating under the
>assumption that the Philistines were always in Canaan.  I think that the
>following references would indicate that to the biblical writers it was
>"common knowledge" that the Philistines came from Crete (Caphtor).

I see no reason to assume uniformity of position of writers of OT/HB
materials. That a tradition has come down to some of them relating
Philistines to Caphtor is not particularly strange. It does not however
change the indication that the Philistines were in Palestine at the time of
Abraham, at the time of Isaac and at the time of Joshua, which would
suggest that the Philistines were clearly in Palestine before the Hebrews
arrived. So, to clarify, when I say 

>that the biblical writers were operating under the
>assumption that the Philistines were always in Canaan

the Philistines were there from before the Hebrews arrived.

Yet, don't be misled about Caphtorim which is one of the sons of Egypt, son
of Ham in the table of nations. The Caphtor tradition was preserved, but
what its place in the world was doesn't match the table of nations.

>Deut 2:23 "As for the Avvim, who lived in villages as far [south] as
>Gaza, the Caphtorim who came from Caphtor, destroyed them and lived in
>their place."  Jer 47:4 "For the Lord is going to destroy the
>Philistines, / The remnant of the coastland (or islands) of Caphtor." 
>Amos 9:7 "Have I not brought up Israel from the land of Egypt, And the
>Philistines from Caphtor and the Arameans from Kir?"

                          --oOo--

I've probably exhausted anything I might be able to say in the area of the
creation accounts at the moment!

Yours,


Ian