Biblical Hebrew Forum

[Dan Wagner <Dan.Wagner AT datastream.net>]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Ian Hutchesson [mailto:mc2499 AT mclink.it]
> Sent: Friday, January 12, 2001 02:19
> To: Biblical Hebrew
> Subject: Re: Firmament (Hebrew worldview)
> 
> 
> >> I think Bill has it right. rqy` comes from the verb rq`,
> >> meaning " beat, stamp, beat out, spread" (BDB), all 
> tactile actions. rqy`
> >> linguistically is the result of an implied physical action.
> >
> >This is, of course, linguistically possible, but by no means 
> certain. We
> all
> >know of plenty of noun/verb "roots" in common that are have 
> no remaining
> >semantic correspondence.
> 
> You should say this sort of thing after you've looked at the 
> usage of the
> term, not before.

Good advice, but your information source as to whether i'd looked at the
usage is not reliable. I had. (Perhaps another examination on your own part
would be wise--see below.)

> 
> Consider the merkabah material in Ezekiel 1. V26 has the 
> throne of God on
> the top of the firmament. Nice physical notion for a sky, is it not?

No, in fact the text says nothing of the kind. It says the throne was
"above," not "upon," the firmament. The throne's relationship is expressed
by _MA(AL_ with L-preposition on the object _RAQIA(_ meaning simply higher
elevation (cf. Isa. 6:2; 14:13; Jer. 52:32; Dan. 12:6-7), and with the
implication that it was not even touching or resting on it. In any case,
Ezekiel's point is theological, not cosmological: God's throne is surpreme
over all.

Also, the use of _RAQIA(_ here may be quite different from that in Genesis.
Whatever is going on here none of us can know in detail, and that (the
literal phenomenon in his vision) is certainly not the point. But in any
case, if something "physical" (as you say) is implied for the sky, it is
also a sky that can be "stretched out" _NTH_ like a tent (v. 23), not solid
(if you want to press the imagery).

> >> The Job reference, 37:18, says that God "spread out [rq`] the
> >> skies, hard as a molten  mirror." This "spread out" 
> obviously entails
> >> beating it out.
> >
> >Sorry, it's not obvious to me.
> 
> The verb I thought actually entails the spreading out by 
> beating if the
> object is metallic. That's where the simile comes in.

The metaphor concerns the action of God in making the heavens, the simile
compares the stability of the finished product with the firmness of a cast
metal mirror.

Also, the verb _RQ(_ is used not only of making the heavens, but also of the
earth (Isa. 44:24). Do you think that the Hebrews thought the earth was made
of metal too? Genesis says God created by speaking only (except for man), so
the variety of images used to describe it are just that, images, and no
more. Such descriptive analogies to the Hebrew's life experience tell us
nothing about their cosmology (except that God made it--with ease, with
design, with beauty).

> 
> >It's only one of many very diverse metaphors used in BH
> 
> Hmmm, a metaphor built on a simile?

Both are in the text. But my real point (the one you are still missing) is
that it's one of many analogies, whatever their technical classification may
be. 

> 
> >and by no means establishes the worldview of ancient "physical
> >science" (see below for a couple more).
> >
> >> The
> >> skies here are perceived as physically solid. Windows opened
> >> in the heavens
> >> (eg Gen 7:11) letting the waters above, which the firmanent
> >> held up, Gen 1:7
> >> (again the physical notion -- so I can't see Genesis helping your
> >> interpretation, Dan), come upon the earth.
> >
> >Genesis does help. Yes, rain comes from "the windows of 
> heaven" (Gen. 7:11;
> >8:2), but so does barley and other blessings (2Kg. 7:2, 19; 
> Mal. 3:10)!
> >Doesn't that qualify as a metaphor? :)
> 
> I don't think you have done justice to your citations. Mal. 
> 3:10 implies
> rain. And 2Kgs 7:2 is a phrase of the "not in a month of 
> Sundays" category.

Well, i disagree. The expression only occurs in 3 contexts, Gen. 7-8, 2Kg.
7, and Mal. 3. Of these, 1 is in judgment and 2 are in blessing, but all 3
of them imply nothing about cosmology--only that something from the "windows
of heaven" is something from the "hand of God" (if you will allow another
imagery without concluding that i view God as corporeal).

> 
> >> In 1 Enoch the sun and moon
> >> entered the sky through doors.
> >>
> >
> >Enoch is much later, whether you accept it so or not, and thus has no
> >bearing on the subject.
> 
> How on earth do you know??

Good point. I suppose that i don't really know--it's theoretically possible
that Enoch was written the 2nd millennium BC just like Genesis was (and i've
good authority (but not from "on earth") combined with good evidence for the
date of Genesis). But i think that evidence wouldn't allow--and there is
certainly no solid authority--to establish Enoch's date as that early, is
there?

> 
> >But regardless, it also is most likely metaphorical
> >language, just like Psalm 19:5-7 (4-6). Yes, the sun here 
> has a tent to
> live
> >in and races across the sky, but the language here is 
> explicitly figurative
> >as indicated by the similes describing the sun "like a 
> bridegroom" and
> "like
> >a strong man."
> 
> You should happily be able to separate the similes from the 
> main text, but
> you seem to confuse the main discourse from the figurative 
> dressing as you
> seem to prefer to read things that don't fit a modern world 
> view as being
> metaphorical.

I would most certainly prefer to read anything that doesn't fit a scientific
worldview as metaphorical based on my presuppositions (see below) if in fact
i needed to. But i don't need to since the analogies are intended by the
text itself and say nothing about the ancient worldview. You have not
demonstrated otherwise.

> 
> >As the modern scientist is permitted to speak of the sunrise 
> or sunset, so
> >the Hebrew language speaks of the sun "exiting [the horizon]" in the
> morning
> >(Gen. 19:23) or "entering" in the evening (Gen. 28:11).
> 
> Modern scientists are not particularly relevant to ancient 
> thought. To deal
> with ancient thought you need to work with other examples of it.

Correct, but modern language has analogy with ancient language. That was the
only point i made here. We use phenomenological language just as they did,
but it says nothing about one's understanding of cosmology.

> 
> >The idea that the OT
> >presents a solid firmament is inconsistent with descriptions 
> of the sky
> >being rolled up as a scroll (Isa. 34:4; cf. 40:22) or 
> compared to cloth
> >(Psm. 102:26).
> 
> You ignore the notion of substance in both examples. The 
> difference is that
> the rolling up of the sky is at the will of God.

Obviously there is a notion of substance (which i do not ignore; i note that
it is diverse). Of course there is "substance" to the sky and space, from a
scientific standpoint, called gas. But it's pretty difficult to come up with
a non-substantive analogy when talking about such things. How do you expect
them to describe these? Again, it says nothing about their understanding of
cosmology. 

However, you should note that Isa. 34:4 uses the verb "rot/decay/fester" in
parallel with the others here. So did they think the sky was made out of
flesh or fruit or something?? Again, my metaphorical view stands. There is
plenty of evidence, but you seem to prefer not to see it.

> 
> >So it is inconsistent to press some metaphors as intended
> >literally and then throw out the others at our own whim. 
> (Especially when
> >you select to press only those which disagree with science. 
> One can only
> ask
> >"why?")
> >
> >Job said that God "hangs the earth upon nothing" (26:7). 
> That's a pretty
> >impressive concept--nothing we relate to on earth is like 
> that--unless Job
> >had some source of information outside of the limits of his 
> observation and
> >acumen.
> 
> There are a number of diverse notions about cosmology in the 
> OT/HB. Let's
> stick to the one at hand?

I don't agree that there are diverse notions, so why should i omit those
that don't work well with your presuppositions? All of them work nicely with
mine, and i don't have to try to hide my presuppositions. [Jesus taught that
an argument made from (OT) Scriptures cannot be refuted (John 10:34-36).
Thus, if He was right, there can be no errors in the text. Since i'm a
Christian, i have no choice but to accept all of Christ's
doctrine--something which i've very happy to do.]

Furthermore, if you are correct in your oft-repeated thesis that to
understand the Hebrew text correctly, one must understand the date,
background, etc. for those documents (and i fully agree), then it is also
necessary to a proper understanding of the text to know if those texts are
human products and fallible, or if they are rather the products of divine
revelation and thus infallible. This would get into the off-list area, but
i'll just ask you to consider the possibility that the best scholar might be
the one who has precisely the same presuppositions about the text as the
Biblical writers themselves *clearly* had--namely, that the origin of their
message is from God and thus it is infallible.

Dan Wagner