Biblical Hebrew Forum

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

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Ian Hutchesson [mailto:mc2499 AT mclink.it]
> Sent: Saturday, January 13, 2001 23:35
> 
> >> 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.
> 
> But looking at how mm`l was used (non-adverbially):
> 
> Gn 22:9, He laid him on the altar on top of (mm`l) the wood

I am aware of this usage, but the context is not nearly as parallel as the
visionary contexts i'm giving. Also, you should note that BDB actually uses
this as an example of the "higher elevation" idea, though i'll admit it's a
rather poor example for this syntactical construction as the context could
go either way. But the examples i give are more clear and more parallel to
Ezk. 1.

> 
> Ex 20:4 talks of not making idols in the form of creatures in 
> heaven, on
> (mm`l) the earth, in the water...

This is not even an example of _MA(AL_ with L-preposition on its object. All
of my examples were; i'm well aware that _MA(AL_ can have a variety of
meanings alone or in other syntactical patterns, but in Ezek. is with LAMED
preposition on the object.

> (Similar to Deut 4:39 & 
> 5:8, Josh 2:11,
> 1Kgs 8:23)

Again, NONE of these have L-prep on the object! In fact, the syntactical
constructions are very different (often with WAW and _(AL_ preposition
preceding the object) and explicitly indicate "upon" as in resting on the
surface of something. This is *not* the construction in Ezekiel, and your
use of data is distinctly unimpressive.

> 
> 1Kgs 7:3 talks of rafters on (mm`l) pillars
> 

Again, "pillars" is preceded by _(AL_, not by LAMED. The use of _MA(AL_ is
indicated by the various prepositions which come between it and the object.

> In none of these cases can mm`l mean the preposition "above". 
> It is this
> word which is found in Ezek 1:26, so I still have to conclude that the
> throne was clearly *on* the rqy`.

Ian, you must not just look at vocabulary in isolation. We must observe the
entire syntactical construction including prepositions, which is what i
stated in my original post, but you are ignoring. Your conclusion is based
on faulty examination of the evidence. 

> 
> 
> >Also, the use of _RAQIA(_ here may be quite different from 
> that in Genesis.
> 
> What makes you think that?

Because one is the context of the physical universe in Genesis, and Ezekiel
is a vision which may or may not reflect the same kind of a scene. We
normally don't these apocalyptic visions in the same way as what is
obviously intended as literal in Genesis. Like i said, Ezekiel's point is
theological, and it's an apocalyptic vision. The Genesis narrative has the
literal presentation you desire to find.

> 
> >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.
> 
> What evidence is there that there is any metaphor in the particular
> sentence? (I see none.)

It is obviously a metaphor if it is considered in light of Gen. 1 where it
is said that God created only by speaking, not by exerting physical energy
to personally construct the various parts of the universe. The only
exception is the making of man. If you ignore Genesis and divide up the
Bible into lots of conflicting, unrelated perspectives, then of course it's
at least possible (but not necessary) to take Job's poetry as literally
here.

> 
> >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?
> 
> I said "The verb I thought actually entails the spreading out 
> by beating *if
> the object is metallic*."

Precisely! And when the object is *not* metallic, as in the case of the
earth here (and the heavens/sky; they are in parallelism), then it indicates
*imagery,* not literal beating out of metal or anything else.

> 
> >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.
> 
> This is assumption, nothing more, tied to modern necessities 
> of making sense
> of a text which was written by people whose world views and 
> approaches are
> so different from yours.

It may be *your* assumptions that allow you to not believe what the text of
Genesis says about the nature of creation from a "literal" standpoint, but
you must admit that it does in fact say that, whether you believe it or not.

> 
> >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.
> 
> I have no problem with there being metaphors in the OT/HB. I 
> have problems
> with people seeing metaphors when there is no evidence for them.

I do too, which is why i give you the evidence.

> 
> >> >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).
> 
> I don't think we are going to get beyond this.

Probably true. 

I should add here that the opening of the windows of heaven is always a
special, way-out-of-the-ordinary, *super*natural event (like a flood in Gen.
7, or like a besieged city being full of food in 2Kg. 7 [for which rain
would not help, but the way!]), not the norm. God did not have to open the
windows of heaven every time to make it rain (like Baal does). I Kings 17-18
says nothing about windows when God sent rain, just that clouds came, a
storm, etc. (cf. Eccl. 11:3). Job 28:26-27 implies that He has established a
set manner in which rain and lightning should work. Job 36:27-29 actually
explains how this (rain) works better than any of us could ever do apart
from scientific study (cf. Job 38:28-30). (How did Job know that, Ian?)
Again, the "windows of heaven" is imagery--not for rain--but for a
supernatural event, either good or bad, of anything from God. 

> I see no 
> reason not to read
> the text for what it says and you see no reason to read the 
> text for what it
> says.

Nice rhetoric!

> 
> >> >> 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).
> 
> I don't believe you. When did the "Canaanite" dialects 
> including Hebrew
> separate from Phoenician? If Hebrew did not exist in the 
> second millenium
> then you'll have to at least consider that the text was 
> translated from
> something else, or, more likely, written later. This latter 
> explains the
> anachronisms in Genesis.

There is plenty say in response to this as you ought to know, but i'm
expending too much time already. I am not convinced of even a single
anachronism in Genesis (most argue from former silence which has now been
overturned by archeology), but i'm willing to admit the possibility of
revision and updating of the text over time just as various old translations
are continually updated even today.

> 
> >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.
> 
> Well, given that a priori approach of yours of turning every 
> example of
> ancient cosmology which does not fit your conceptions of 
> modern cosmology
> into "metaphor", I can understand how you can turn the sun 
> coming out of its
> tent (radiantly, as a bridegroom...) into a metaphor and can 
> assume, because
> the text uses analogies to render the main progression of thought more
> vivid, that the rest of the text must be figurative as well.
> 
> >> >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.
> 
> How does one discern this "phenomenological" language from 
> "normal" language
> used for cosmological descriptions?

It can be difficult, but my preference is to consider the whole of divine
revelation in the OT and distinguish literal accounts as intended by the
author (e.g. Gen) from other types of language such as in poetry. You seem
to want to take all as literal and attribute errors indiscriminately at your
own whim. Considering literary genre, author's intent, and the entire corpus
of revelation as consistent seems much wiser and more consistent with the
data to me.

> 
> >> >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.
> 
> Is this a gratuitous statement?
> 
> >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?
> 
> This assumes analogy.

The text indicates analogy.

> 
> >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.
> 
> The subject of the verb is not the sky, but the host of 
> heaven (a plural
> entity known to have been worshipped by sections of the 
> Hebrew culture).

Correct, but it's in parallelism to "heavens" in the verse, and my point is
that if these images in the sky according to the ANE solid dome view were
part of the heavens, then their "rotting" does not work for the literalistic
view you want to see. It's imagery here, just like the imagery when he says
the heavens will be rolled back "as" (_K_ prep) a scroll in the same verse.
Both are images; a metaphor followed by a simile in synonymous Hebrew
parallelism. You are debating against an unambiguous text, not me! Isaiah
continues that those hosts will fall down as the leaf falls from the vine or
fruit from the fig tree. 

> 
> >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,
> 
> When you turn all cosmological statements into metaphors,

I have not yet "turned" anything in the text, Ian. You are the one turning
the text to see what you want to see. Rhetoric without demonstration does
not impress me.

> it 
> doesn't matter
> if those "metaphors" are not consistent, but then you don't 
> therefore know
> anything about the cosmology.
> 
> I guess we can get no further in this discussion.

I can agree with that!

> I tend to see Hebrew
> cosmology in the context of the various ane cultures, who, I 
> guess according
> to you, either must all be being metaphorical or are irrelevant to the
> Hebrews.

I'm aware of those surrounding cosmologies, and marvel to think that in
spite of them all, the Hebrew Bible "mysteriously" avoids them. I can't say
what the cosmology of the Hebrews always was, but i can say that the
Biblical text does not contain those other ideas. There are many examples of
unambiguous statements of the solid dome idea, among others, such as
climbing up it, coming to the end with no room between it and the sea so
that you have to swim to continue, etc. No such ideas are in the Biblical
text however.

I find it curious too that you in particular would import the ANE cosmology
into the Hebrew text, while at the same time you maintain that all concepts
of resurrection, afterlife, immortality are foreign to the Hebrew Bible
until post-Persian or Greek times. The entire ANE was preoccupied with such
concepts since long before Biblical times, and the idea that Hebrews alone
had no conception of it is absurd. Of course the Hebrew text does, in fact,
explicitly and implicitly speak of all of these concepts in many places from
Gen. 3:22 onward. If you want to debate that issue too, i'd be quite happy
to do so, except something tells me it's not time well-spent.

Also, you still have not come to grips with my original argument from the
blessing/cursing texts (Lev. 26:19 is simile; Deut. 28:23 is metaphor). The
making of earth/heavens like brass/iron is the imagery of a sky that does
not rain and land that does not grow crops. If you want to take them
literally, then the sky is not *yet* metal because that would only come by
the divine curse, and it would mean that the land also must become metallic
in the curse. Both ideas are absurd and substantiate clearly that the
Biblical text does not present a metallic dome for the firmament.

Ian, whether you like it or not, you need to admit that you have
presuppositions when you come to the text. Everyone does. I admit mine
openly while you try, ineffectively, to exploit them as if they are the only
reason why i hold to my interpretation--which in fact i am demonstrating
from the text itself. Why try to hide yours?

Dan Wagner


> 
> 
> Ian
> 
> >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.