Biblical Hebrew Forum

[kgraham0938 AT comcast.net]

Hey Peter, can you show some examples of  composite shewa's that are qamets 
and patahs not under qutturals when  you have time.

--
Kelton Graham 
KGRAHAM0938 AT comcast.net

-------------- Original message -------------- 

> On 06/09/2005 13:35, Yigal Levin wrote: 
> 
> >>----- Original Message ----- 
> >>From: 
> >> 
> >> 
> >>>Kelton Graham asked: 
> >>> 
> >>> 
> >>>Hey is there a rule that only gutterals can have composite shewa? 
> >>> 
> >>> 
> >>>Then check the second occurrence of YHWH in Judges 16:28, 
> >>>and you will find that there is a composite shewa [e.g. Hatef-Segol] 
> >>>under the yod, 
> >>>which is not a guttural letter. 
> >>> 
> >>>Apparently rules were meant to be broken. 
> >>> 
> >>>Dave Donnelly 
> >>> 
> >>> 
> >>> 
> > 
> > This is because this particular instance of YHWH, like most others that 
> > follow the word Adonai, is meant to be vocalized "Elohim" (traditionally 
> > translated "Lord God"). The hataph-segol under the yod represents the 
> > hataph-segol under the aleph in elohim, which is guttural. 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> But in that case why are only three examples of YHWH to be pronounced 
> Elohim pointed in this way? 
> 
> 
> > Yes, rules are meant to be broken. This is simply not a good example. 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> For what it's worth, in the Westminster Leningrad Codex text I found: 
> 
> 9 cases of hataf segol (4 excluding Aramaic) 
> 166 cases of hataf patah (160 excluding Aramaic) 
> 235 cases of hataf qamats (177 excluding Aramaic) 
> 
> following non-guttural consonants in the Hebrew Bible. But I understand 
> that different Hebrew texts differ significantly on this. 
> 
> Of the 9 cases of hataf segol, three are the divine name (Gen 15:2,8, 
> Jdg 16:28), five are in Aramaic, and only one, $E/$.:EZFPA73T/:NIY in 
> Song of Songs 1:6, is an actual Hebrew word. 
> 
> So, it seems that, at least in the Leningrad text, Dave's rule is fairly 
> commonly broken by hataf patah and hataf qamats, but not by hataf segol. 
> 
> -- 
> Peter Kirk 
> peter AT qaya.org (personal) 
> peterkirk AT qaya.org (work) 
> http://www.qaya.org/ 
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> No virus found in this outgoing message. 
> Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. 
> Version: 7.0.344 / Virus Database: 267.10.18/90 - Release Date: 05/09/2005 
> 
> _______________________________________________ 
> b-hebrew mailing list 
> b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org 
> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew 
>From peterkirk AT qaya.org  Tue Sep  6 13:33:23 2005
Return-Path: <peterkirk AT qaya.org>
X-Original-To: b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
Delivered-To: b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
Received: from pan.hu-pan.com (unknown [67.15.6.3])
        by lists.ibiblio.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6209C4C008
        for <b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org>; Tue,  6 Sep 2005 13:33:21 -0400 
(EDT)
Received: from 213-162-124-237.peterk253.adsl.metronet.co.uk
        ([213.162.124.237] helo=[10.0.0.1])
        by pan.hu-pan.com with esmtpa (Exim 4.52)
        id 1EChJu-00008m-Dg; Tue, 06 Sep 2005 18:33:20 +0100
Received: from 127.0.0.1 (AVG SMTP 7.0.344 [267.10.18]);
        Tue, 06 Sep 2005 18:33:22 +0100
Message-ID: <431DD2E1.80509 AT qaya.org>
Date: Tue, 06 Sep 2005 18:33:21 +0100
From: Peter Kirk <peterkirk AT qaya.org>
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 1.0.6 (Windows/20050716)
X-Accept-Language: en-us, en
To: Kevin Graham <kevlds AT hotmail.com>
References: <BAY101-F18DE7CBCB47A392CDD666CCCA70 AT phx.gbl>
In-Reply-To: <BAY101-F18DE7CBCB47A392CDD666CCCA70 AT phx.gbl>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed
X-AntiAbuse: This header was added to track abuse,
        please include it with any abuse report
X-AntiAbuse: Primary Hostname - pan.hu-pan.com
X-AntiAbuse: Original Domain - lists.ibiblio.org
X-AntiAbuse: Originator/Caller UID/GID - [0 0] / [47 12]
X-AntiAbuse: Sender Address Domain - qaya.org
X-Source: 
X-Source-Args: 
X-Source-Dir: 
Cc: b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] Divine Embodiment - Peter Kirk
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 17:33:24 -0000

On 06/09/2005 17:49, Kevin Graham wrote:

>
>
> 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.


Well, you are the one who started this by claiming that God really has 
body parts etc - or at least that the biblical authors believed that he 
had. So that puts the burden of proof back on you. And part of that 
burden of proof includes answering the very ancient arguments that such 
language is metaphorical.

>
> == 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?


If an object is moving, it has a back which can be followed literally. 
And if it can be followed metaphorically, it has a metaphorical back. 
Indeed in many languages the word for "follow" is literally something 
like "go at the back of". In fact something like that is true of Hebrew; 
although RDP can mean "follow" (Jdg 3:28), phrases like HLK )AXAR are 
commonly used, in both literal (e.g. Ruth 2:9) and metaphorical (e.g. 
Gen 41:30, Ex 23:2, Deut 13:3,5 (English vv.2,4)) senses. Years don't 
have backs either (Gen 41:30), but they do have an )AXAR which can be 
followed. So do gods, and God, but surely you don't consider Deut 13:4 
to mean that God has a literal back!

>
> ...
> == 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.


The point of the more or less explicit racism in some older books is 
that Middle Eastern Semites (probably implicitly including Egyptians) 
were incapable of certain things which European, possibly Aryan Greeks 
were able to do. No one would dare to write anything like that now, but 
they, even you, still quote as authorities people who did say things 
like that.

But I accept that this isn't your argument.

>
> == 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." ...


He does, I just didn't bother to quote that part. Actually he quotes one 
counter-example in which all Egyptians are so described. Read the whole 
article.

> ...
>
> == 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: ...


Thank you for these snipped snippets. They are indeed helpful. I am 
happy with "God is recurrently spoken of in the Old Testament as if he 
were a human being", and that he chooses to reveal himself in some kind 
of human form. The question is I suppose how far this was believed to be 
the reality of God. As I pointed out before, it hardly can have been by 
the Chronicler and Zechariah who wrote of God's eyes running. But 
perhaps the earlier writers had a rather different view.

...

>
> == 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. ...


But it is impossible to tell from one individual example whether the 
author was using these terms literally or metaphorically. We know that 
the terms were used metaphorically elsewhere, as well as literally.

...

>
> 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.
>
Well, an alternative is that the LXX translators, like many modern 
scholars, were so literal-minded that they didn't recognise metaphors 
(metaphorically) staring them in the face.

-- 
Peter Kirk
peter AT qaya.org (personal)
peterkirk AT qaya.org (work)
http://www.qaya.org/



-- 
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
Version: 7.0.344 / Virus Database: 267.10.18/90 - Release Date: 05/09/2005