Biblical Hebrew Forum

[Rolf Furuli <furuli AT online.no>]

Title: Re: Isaiah 40:22 - Circle of the earth

Dear Jack,

First I would like to say that I respect your great knowledge of Semitic languages that you have manifested in numerous postings through the years. We agree in much and we disagree in much, but as fellew scholars we do so in a cordial way.

> JK:
> look
> > >in all directions and all of the land is covered by a
> dome..a vault..a
> > >Raqiya that is a solid, hammered out structure and above
> which are waters
> > >that "leak out" as rain and under which are hung
> the lights of the stars,
> > >moon, sun, etc.  The concept of the heavens shemayim is
> all of
> > >creation...not a cozy cloud in the sky relete with
> harps.  God sits above
> > >all this and looks down at us as if we were
> grasshoppers.  This was not a
> > >geo-political referent.
> > >
> >
> >
> > Dear Jack,
> >
> >
> RF: A picture of your solid, hammered out structure is found on p. 5
> in
> > The New American Bible. But sorry
> to say, this is an example of how
> > mythological ideas based on the historical-critical paradigm
> are
> > forced upon the readers of the Bible. You cannot substantiate
> this
> > picture by help of the Hebrew text, but if you look at all
> the
> > passages relavant to to RFQIA(, you will find the opposite of a
> solid
> > structure. To insist on the idea of "a
> hammered-out-structure" as a
> > central idea in the word is tantamount to making the
> "etymological
> > fallacy".
>
> JK: By "etymological fallacy" you mean to say, the word
> doesn't mean what it
> means?

No. In the 19th century literal Bible translations were made on the belief that each word had an original (etymological) meaning, and somehow this meaning was present i all uses of the word: So each Hebrew word could be rendered by one English word. (Even literal translations did this only with a limited number of words.) This view is fallacious because the meaning of a word may change through time, so the question from the point of view of lexical semantics, is the synchronic meaning of a word. This meaning is found in the minds of native speakers as a common concept, and on the basis of such a concept signaled by a word, it can be meaningful to choose one English word for each Hebrew word whenever possible - as concordant versions do.

Applied to RQ(, I agree that a central sense of the concept is to "to beat", "to stamp", and this is applied to solid matter. A writer uses the context, not to generate new meaning, but to help the readers see the part of the concept that he wants to make visible. Such a concept is often quite wide with fuzzy edges, and its central meaning is not allways stressed. So the question is whether the verb allways refers to something solid that is hammered out or stamped. I have not checked all its uses and do not know the answer.

However, there is another area that may be more fallacious (as far as the original meaning of beating out something solid is concerned), and that is the meaning of the noun. Must RFQIA( also include the original meaning of the root/verb?

Let me illustrate the problem with a parallel example. Inside the mythological view that is believed to be found in the Bible regarding heaven and earth, the earth rests on pillars in a cosmic sea. One passage quoted to substantiate that is Psalm 104:5

Psa. 104:5 (NIV) He set the earth on its foundations; it can never be moved.

So the earth has "foundations" or "pillars" (MFKWN). A central meaning of the concept signaled by the verb KWN is to establish something solid, or make it firm. The idea of "foundation", "pillar" accords with this meaning. But can we on this basis draw the conclusion that Psalm 104:5 indicates that the writer believed the earth rested on solid pillars? The figurative expressions of the preceding verses hardly suggests such an interpretation, and then we have Psalm 89:15

Psa. 89:14  (NIV)Righteousness and justice are the foundation of your throne; love and faithfulness go before you.

In this passage we see that abstracts can be said to be the MFKWN of something. thus the etymological meaning of the root cannot be appealed to. To do that, one would succumb to the etymological fallacy. The same is true with RFQIA(. In order to show that it means a solid hammered out firmament, we cannot appeal to the etymology of the root or the diachronic use of the cognate verb, not even the synchronic use of the verb, but it must be shown that the noun itself carries this idea.

But don't we see this solid firmament in Genesis 1:6,20? No, the birds do not fly beneath the expanse, as several Norwegian and Danish translations say (thus introducing mythology into the text), but the fly across or on the expanse.

Gen. 1:6 (NIV) And God said,  "Let there be an expanse between the waters to separate water from water."

Gen. 1:20 (NIV) And God said,  "Let the water teem with living creatures, and let birds fly above the earth across the expanse of the sky."

What about Job 37:18?

Job 37:18  (NIV) can you join him in spreading out the skies, hard as a mirror of cast bronze?

Job chapter 37 has much figurative language such as the chamber of the tempest (verse 9), so we cannot say that the skies literally were made of solid material. Note also, please, that "skies" is $CQ which signals a concept whose central sense is fine dust or cloud. In the previous chapter this word is applied to the clouds in a way that is compatible with our understanding of why it rains.

Job 36:27  "He draws up the drops of water, which distill as rain to the streams;
Job 36:28 the clouds pour down their moisture and abundant showers fall on mankind. 

Note also the possible result of God's judgement, namely, that the sky ($CQ) and earth will be hard as metal - no rain and no growth - so they could hardly be such beforehand.

Deut. 28:23 The sky over your head will be bronze, the ground beneath you iron.

As to Ezekiel chapter 1, we must keep in mind that this is a vision where things in three dimensions, that we can understand, are used to illustrate spiritual matters. The symbols cannot be taken literally. The RAQI( mentioned is not said to be solid, and it need not be more than the atmosphere, as the word refers to in Genesis chapter 1.

> Ex 39:3 And they did beat <rq(> the gold into thin plates, and
> cut [it into]
> wires, to work [it] in the blue, and in the purple, and in the
> scarlet, and
> in the fine linen, [with] cunning work.
>
> Num 16:39 And Eleazar the priest took the brasen censers, wherewith
> they
> that were burnt had offered; and they were made broad <rq(>
> [plates for] a
> covering of the altar:
>
> Job 37:18 Hast thou with him spread out <rq(> the sky, [which
> is] strong,
> [and] as a molten looking glass?
>
> Is 40:19 The workman melteth a graven image, and the goldsmith
> spreadeth
> <rq(> it over with gold, and casteth silver chains.
>
> Jer 10:9 Silver spread <rq(> into plates is brought from
> Tarshish, and gold
> from Uphaz, the work of the workman, and of the hands of the founder:
> blue
> and purple [is] their clothing: they [are] all the work of cunning
> [men].
> Ez 6:11  Thus saith the Lord GOD; Smite with thine hand, and
> stamp <rq(>
> with thy foot and say, Alas for all the evil abominations of the
> house of
> Israel! for they shall fall by the sword, by the famine, and by
> the
> pestilence.
>
> The vision of the throne of God described in the Ezekiel 1 included
> the
> reference to a firmament. This was a rigid structure. It was a
> platform,
> composed of a SOLID crystalline substance, which supported the throne
> of
> God. It was supported by four living creatures. This firmament or
> platform
> was described :
>
> "And the likeness of the firmament
> upon the heads of the living creature
> [was] as the colour of the terrible
> crystal, stretched forth over their
> heads above. And under the firmament
> [were] their wings straight, the one
> toward the other: every one had two, which covered on this side, and
> every
> one had two, which covered on that side, their bodies. And when they
> went, I
> heard the noise of their wings, like the noise of great waters, as
> the voice
> of the Almighty, the voice of speech, as the noise of an host: when
> they
> stood, they let down their wings And there was a voice from the
> firmament
> that [was] over their heads, when they stood, [and] had let down
> their
> wingsAnd above the firmament that [was] over their heads [was] the
> likeness
> of a throne, as the appearance of a sapphire stone: and upon the
> likeness of
> the throne [was] the likeness as the appearance of a man above upon
> it."
>
> In short, the "firmament" is a solid, beaten or stamped out
> plate that
> stretches over the "eretz" and keeps those water above it
> from washing away
> your new RV.
>
> I see no "etymological fallacy" but sure am willing to
> listen..er...read.
> Jack

Regards

Rolf

Rolf Furuli

University of Oslo