Biblical Hebrew Forum

["Kevin Graham" <kevlds AT hotmail.com>]

Hi Peter,

Before the rhetoric gets too heavy, let me go ahead and thank you for your 
critical feedback. I like to test my arguments by letting the experts take 
swings at it.

==  Yes, George, you are correct. All language can be metaphorical, and it 
is hard if not impossible to prove that a particular instance is not.

But you're the one claiming metaphor, therefore you're the one with the 
burden of proof. You can't expect everyone to just take it for granted that 
it is metaphor on your say-so, and use their inability to prove it isn't as 
evidence that it is. This is logically fallacious argumentum. One might as 
well accuse his neighbor of beating his dead wife, and then expect him to 
disprove the charge.

== I am not sure that Kevin could in principle prove his assertion.

I'm simply refusing to be taken with ad hoc explanations that would make no 
sense to the authors of the text. Especially given that there appears to be 
no reason, aside from theological, to assume metaphor must be the backdrop 
for every anthropomorphic verse. Again, can you explain the metaphorical 
meaning behind these so-called metaphors? Even if it refers to simply 
"back," How can a non-three-dimensional object have a front or back?

== That makes his argument baseless speculation. On the other hand, it may 
be that he can find ways to back up his assertion, so I want to give him the 
opportunity to do that.

Thank you. :)

== But he certainly needs to give better arguments than "the Ancient mind 
did not think so abstractly... they were incapable of it".

Oh, come off it Peter(grin). You know my argument is not based on that! This 
was only a minor point which I never would have mentioned if I knew you'd 
read so much into it that wasn't there. Racism? Good grief. The Ancient 
culture represented one race. That's news to me.

==  Well, for a different interpretation of the ANE evidence, I looked at 
the article "Form, Image" by Raymond C. Van Leeuwen

This is an old view that has been refuted by Westermann, though it remains 
popular among conservatives. If one wants to dabble into the ANE for help, 
they must deal with all of the ANE evidence, not just the parts that they 
can use to support their argument. Westermann deals with the prehistory 
traditions, most of which refer to the creation of mankind after the literal 
image of a deity.

==  The nonphyisical resemblance of image and object represented should be 
kept in mind. ANE modes of representation are highly metaphoric and 
symbolic. Thus, the same Egyptian god can appear as a human figure, in the 
form of a hieroglyph, or as an animal, and queen Hatsepsut can be the image 
of a male deity (cf. Clines, 72-73). Thus, the image of the god is not a 
matter of physical resemblance, but of power and prerogative, often 
connected with expressions like "under the feet" (Lichtheim, AEL 2:36-37; 
cf. Ps 8:6b).

Leeuwen doesn't explain the fact that in the Egyptian royalty motif, only 
the King or one of his priests were ever described as being in "the image of 
God." Further, the fact is the King adorned himself with regalia in an 
attempt to make himself look like a physical representation of the deity. 
For what purpose? Because he was the image of God of course. Likewise, so 
did the priests. Now is this just a coincidence, and we're supposed to 
assume physical likeness had nothing to do with Egyptian concept of the 
image of god? Westermann doesn't buy it, and neither do I. Neither does von 
Rad. Further, this explanation assumed Moses was applying the phrase "image 
of God" according to the Egyptian usage. Why? The Egyptian usage confines it 
to a select few, while Moses applies it to humanity as a whole. There are 
significant differences that make it unlikely that Moses was at all 
interested in keeping with a theological congruence with Egyptian usage.

==  And Clines can hardly be rejected as a fringe scholar - the specific 
article referred to is "The Image of God in Man", TynBul 19, 1968, 53-103.

I agree.  Do you realize that Clines' method, while agreeing with the 
typical and popular theological conclusion, conflicts with the blase 
treatment of anthropos via "metaphor"? Here are some snippets from Clines:

"Anthropomorphic language is not some element in the biblical texts for 
which excuses have to be made, or a network of metaphors that must be 
reduced to plain language, but part of the biblical apprehension of God. It 
is to be evaluated, not negatively as accommodation to human language or 
divine condescension to human understanding, but positively, as a vital 
element of our knowledge of God."(David J.A. Clines On the Way to the 
Postmodern: Old Testament Essays 1967-1998, Volume 2 (JSOTSup, 292; 
Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1998), pp. 498-507)

The greatest thing about Clines is that he comes right out and admits:

"If one begins from the philological evidence, the image is defined in 
physical terms. If we begin from the incorporeality of God, the image cannot 
include the human body. If we begin with the Hebrew conception of human 
nature as a unity, we cannot separate, in such a fundamental sentence about 
humanity, the spiritual part of humanity from the physical."

Thus, he begins, not with the philological evidence (scholarship), but 
rather the incorporeality of God (theology). Even though he draws a 
conclusion, he is not adamant about it being the most probable case. He 
often refers to the plausibility of my view. Listen to some of his other 
remarks:

"There is no denying that God is recurrently spoken of in the Old Testament 
as if he were a human being: parts of the human body, such as hands, eyes, 
ears, are attributed to him, as also physical actions such as laughing, 
smelling, whistling; he is also spoken of as feeling the emotions of hatred, 
anger, joy, regret. Such anthropomorphisms cannot easily be dismissed as 
merely metaphors,since everywhere else in the ancient Near East these terms 
were understood to be literally true of the gods...it might be possible that 
Yahweh could have a form, though it remained hidden from the eyes of humans. 
Ezek. 1.26 would suggest this: 'Seated above the likeness of a throne was a 
likeness as it were of a human form'. G. von Rad comments on this statement: 
'The light-phenomenon of the "glory of God" clearly displays human 
contours.'..We may conclude that, even in the more metaphorical uses of µlx 
and its cognate O(s,.)almu, the idea of physical shape and form is present. 
No example remotely matches the meaning µlx would have in Gen. 1.26 if it 
referred there to God's spiritual qualities or character, according to the 
pattern of which humanity has been made. It is possible that we should have 
here a vivid metaphor unparalleled elsewhere, but the linguistic evidence 
would suggest that it is most unlikely that µlx means anything here but a 
form, figure, object, whether three- or two-dimensional."

I greatly admire Clines. I've corresponded with him in the past.

== I suggest you read the Clines article referred to above.

I suspect I've probably read more Clines material than anyone here. I'm a 
fan, even though I don't agree with all his conclusions.

==  I would suggest that almost every language in the world, including 
Hebrew and English, uses the same word e.g. "back" both for the literal rear 
part of a person or object and in metaphorical senses referring to such 
concepts as coming after or following a person or object. Similarly God's 
hand is a regular, almost frozen and dead metaphor for God's power.

I'll take that as a no?  That you cannot demonstrate, but merely imply, that 
the Hebrew in this instance was used elsewhere to refer to something that 
didn't really have a "behind"? Moses said God had backparts. He also 
mentions his Hand. Mark Smith, who is a leading expert in ANE material, 
suggests this verse implies that God's hand is gigantic, in conformity with 
the ancient view that Yahweh had a gigantic form. You still haven't dealt 
with the fact that the Bible refers to Yahweh's "form" twice, in unambiguous 
terms. It also describes the throne room for Yahweh. The dimensions of the 
throne itself (as detailed in scripture) suggests a being of gigantic size 
would be using it.

Further, the fact that the LXX suffered major anti-anthropomorphic 
redactions is an indication that the Jews of Alexandria didn't think the 
apologetic you're offering now, would fly. And for good reason too. The 
anthropomorphisms said something very concrete about God, and the redactors 
decided to do away with them instead of trying to explain them away. 
According to David Clines, “Anthropomorphisms have long been an 
embarrassment to Jews and Christians alike. Already in the second century 
bce, the Septuagint translators removed many of the anthropomorphisms of the 
Hebrew Bible.” Bruce Metzger makes a similar observation, reporting that, 
“Anthropomorphisms are toned down,” and that such modifications were “too 
frequent and remarkable to be ascribed merely to chance.” The examples are 
so plentiful that Fritsch decided to write an entire book about them called 
“The Anti-Anthropomorphisms of the Greek Pentateuch.” Seems like much ado 
about nothing, if what yous ay is true, and these anthropomorphisms were 
merely metaphors.