Biblical Hebrew Forum

[David P Donnelly <davedonnelly1 AT juno.com>]

Kelton Graham asks:

>>>
@Dave:

So what is there take on the ketive/qere element in the pronouciation of
Jehovah?

--
Kelton Graham 
>>>

Kelton,

KJVO Christians believe that permanent Qere is an unproven assumption,
as far as Y:HOVFH is concerned.

It is very difficult to convince a KJVO Christian that Y:EHOVIH is a
proven example of permanent Qere.

Many KJVO Christians refuse to acknowledge that Y:EHOVIH is actually 
preserved about 305 times in the Ben Chayyim Hebrew text, unless someone 
could provide photos from an original edition of the Ben Chayyim Hebrew
text. 

Dave Donnelly
>From kevlds AT hotmail.com  Tue Sep  6 09:52:22 2005
Return-Path: <kevlds AT hotmail.com>
X-Original-To: b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
Delivered-To: b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
Received: from hotmail.com (bay101-f20.bay101.hotmail.com [64.4.56.30])
        by lists.ibiblio.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 606D44C008
        for <b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org>; Tue,  6 Sep 2005 09:52:22 -0400 
(EDT)
Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC;
        Tue, 6 Sep 2005 06:52:20 -0700
Message-ID: <BAY101-F205E8CA929112D47C20A3ECCA70 AT phx.gbl>
Received: from 64.4.56.200 by by101fd.bay101.hotmail.msn.com with HTTP;
        Tue, 06 Sep 2005 13:52:20 GMT
X-Originating-IP: [64.4.56.200]
X-Originating-Email: [kevlds AT hotmail.com]
X-Sender: kevlds AT hotmail.com
In-Reply-To: <431D8998.8020000 AT qaya.org>
From: "Kevin Graham" <kevlds AT hotmail.com>
To: peterkirk AT qaya.org
Date: Tue, 06 Sep 2005 13:52:20 +0000
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 06 Sep 2005 13:52:20.0443 (UTC)
        FILETIME=[33675AB0:01C5B2EA]
Cc: b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] Divine body parts, was:  Doctorates (PhD or ThD?)
X-BeenThere: b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.6
Precedence: list
List-Id: Hebrew Bible List <b-hebrew.lists.ibiblio.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew>,
        <mailto:b-hebrew-request AT lists.ibiblio.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://lists.ibiblio.org/sympa/arc/b-hebrew>
List-Post: <mailto:b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org>
List-Help: <mailto:sympa AT lists.ibiblio.org?subject=HELP>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew>,
        <mailto:b-hebrew-request AT lists.ibiblio.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 06 Sep 2005 13:52:22 -0000


>Well, the ancient theological tradition is that the "image of God" was not 
>physical but moral and spiritual.

But this is not true. The ANE evidence demonstrates that the "image of God" 
conveyed no message of man's "morality." You´re referring to a much later 
innovated explanation that dominated Christian apologia. The problem with 
this is that Genesis was written in an ANE cultural context, not  later 
hellenization/Christian period, from whence this explanation originated.

>It is hard to be sure how ancient that understanding is. It could well be 
>as old as the text,

Not likely. Most commentators will readily admit that in all likelihood, the 
Ancient mind did not think so abstractly. Some argue that they were 
incapable of it. All the ANE evidence leans towards a literal reading. Can 
you name one single piece of ANE evidence that would support the "morality" 
interpretation?

>especially if that text is rather late as many hold. I accept that an 
>alternative is that an ancient more anthropomorphic sense was reinterpreted 
>by later biblical authors.

Yes I agree. It was reinterpreted to be read abstractly. These are 
anachronistic interpretations that had no meaning in Ancient Judaism.

>Well, Moses could not see God's face because he doesn't have a visible face 
>- a lesson which God was trying to teach Moses with this incident.

This is interpretation which begs the question. Some scholars see the danger 
motif in seeing God's face as evidence that this means God actually does 
have a face. This makes alot of sense actually.

== What was it that Moses actually saw? The text refers
>to God's 'AXORIYM, a word which can refer to the rear parts of an object or 
>a person, but is more commonly rather metaphorical, so the translation 
>might be more like "from behind".

Can you demonstrate how the Hebrew in this instance was used elsewhere to 
refer to something that didn't really have a "behind"? If God is an 
invisible, incorporeal mass of spirit - as so many theologians insist -then 
how could Moses presume to refer to a front of back? Or God's hand which 
blocked his view? Tselem refers to a three-dimensional image, does it not? 
Everytime it is used in the Bible (with the possible exception of Ps 73) it 
refers to a physical object.

>This sounds like a metaphorical description of the pillar of cloud and 
>fire, God's shekinah glory, which Moses and the Israelites are to follow.

Not a compelling argument. This implies Moses' experience was no more unique 
- aside from verbal communication with Yahweh -than the Israelites who were 
looking up from underneath the cloud. Yet, his experience transformed him 
physically. In order to assume metaphor, one must explain the metaphorical 
meaning. Without such, it cannot be metaphor.

>I don't think it requires to be taken literally.

In an ANE context it does.