Biblical Hebrew Forum

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

Hi Peter,

== 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.

Yes, and I maintain this position with considerable comfort. I have 
respectable scholars backing it.

== 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.

But you have yet to establish that these were "very ancient arguments" via 
metaphor. You've simply been arguing via assertion; that because metaphor 
exists elsewhere in the OT, then this must be the case for every single 
example of anthropomorphism. I'm sorry but this is simply a nonchalant way 
of explaining things. By this logic, the entire Bible should be read 
allegorically. Why? Well there are allegories in it.

Metaphor is an acceptable way to appraoch anthropomorphisms which appear in 
poetic texts like Isaiah or the Psalms. But there is hardly anything poetic 
about Genesis 1:26 or the Sinai experience.

== 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.

The more you try to push this with could-have would-have should-have 
scenarios, the more you add into the text something that isn't there. Sorry, 
but front and back are not determined through movement unless we're dealing 
with an object that cannot move backwards withough turning. Further, the 
"Glory of God" has been witnessed according to the Bible(Ex 24:17; Num 
14:22; Deut 5:24 ). So what was it that would actually KILL someone if not a 
literal face?

== 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!

I'll look forward to your list of scholarly commentary supporting your 
hypothesis. In the meantime the plain reading of the text makes perfect 
sense.

==  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.

Yes. This was actually something I picked up from conservatives; those who 
insisted the doctrine of ex nihilo was true in the OT. Their explanation as 
to why it is not explicated in the texts is that the ancients didn't know 
how to express the concept of "out of nothing." So we're supposed to assume 
it was there because the NT presumably teaches it.

== 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.

I wish I could. I'm in Brazil at the moment. Would you mind telling me what 
example he provided? I'm thinking it might be the same one Clines and 
Westermann mentioned, but they were in agreement that it was too ambiguous 
to make that conclusion. Then again, my memory could be failing me.

==  Thank you for these snipped snippets. They are indeed helpful.

You're very welcome.

== 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.

Indeed it is. The majority of scholars, I believe, support my argument that 
this was in fact the popular belief in Ancient Israel; though they would 
probably also agree that it eventually became the antithesis to the would-be 
official religion.

== 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.

What I see you and Karl doing is picking examples that are clearly metaphors 
and placing them centerstage. This is fine, so long as we don't presume 
these examples establish the rule for all existing anthropomorphisms. Too 
many of them simply cannot be explained this way, and this is precisely why 
the LXX translators decided to save themselves the touble of having to 
explain them by simply deleting them.

== But it is impossible to tell from one individual example whether the 
author was using these terms literally or metaphorically.

True, but if we assume Moses was a consistent author in Genesis, Exodus and 
Numbers, and that he was a product of his ANE environment, it makes this 
much easier to determine. Also, we know the first temple had a throne room 
whereby Yahweh was believed to make his presence. Why make a giant chair for 
something that doesn't naturally sit?

As Mark Smith notes, anthropomorphisms were the norm for ANE deities, but 
more importantly these were not understood metaphorically. It seems that if 
metaphor is always the case in the OT, then it would have been qualified as 
such each and every time. Certainly Moses could have done a better job at 
emphasizing Yahweh's uniquness as an incorporeal and formless deity. I mean 
calling him a "Man of War", building a giant chair for him,saying he created 
us in hism image, referring to his "face" and "backparts," and even more to 
the point, his "form", really seems to decimate the argument that Moses 
understood Yahweh in a metaphysical sense opposite to his contemporary ANE 
neighbors. Yahweh, it appears, was unique in his power over the other gods 
(which Moses believed to have existed), it doesn't seem to be an issue of 
existence vs. nonexistence, or corporeality vs. incorporeality.

== We know that the terms were used metaphorically elsewhere, as well as 
literally.

Sure, for example, "face" is used to refer to the "face" of the earth, the 
"face" of the deep, and "face" was often understood as being in front of 
something. But when we see the text refer to Moses speaking to God "fac to 
face," it is hard to assume this as metaphor without applying the same to 
Moses. If this means God doesn't necessarily have a face, then it must mean 
Moses didn't have a face either. Further, the text says they spoke to the 
Lord face to face and they saw Him "eye to eye"(Numbers 14:14). Was this an 
idomatic expression similar to modern English? Meaning, that it simply means 
they were in agreement?

Jeremiah 32:4; 34:3 might shed some light on this: "Zedekiah king of Judah 
will not escape out of the hand of the Chaldeans, but he will surely be 
given into the hand of the king of Babylon, and he will speak with him face 
to face and see him eye to eye...you will see the king of Babylon eye to 
eye, and he will speak with you face to face."

The meaning behind each phrase is evident. “Face to face” is in the context 
of a verbal conversation while “eye to eye” is in the context of a visual 
encounter. Face can refer to inanimate objects such as water or earth, but 
the phrase “eye to eye” only applies to things which have eyes. From this 
perspective, it logically follows that the Lord has eyes and most likely, a 
face as well.

== 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.

I don't think this holds up becase teh changes went both ways (metaphor to 
literal and literal to metaphor). Scholars are in agreement that these 
changes were theologically motivated.

For example, Gen 3:8-10 in the KJV reads that Adam and Eve heard, “the voice 
[qol] of the LORD God walking in the garden.” Clearly a voice cannot walk, 
but this is cleared up with a critical examination of the Hebrew qol, which 
is more properly translated as “sound.” The change makes all the difference 
in the world. This correction is made in the Revised Standard Version for a 
reason: “And they heard the sound of the LORD God walking in the Garden.” An 
audible sound of someone or something walking implies actual walking - 
without metaphorical allusion - however this is not established from the 
traditional reading of the Old Testament. Here some more examples...

Dt 32:10 “His eye”                               Dt 1:45, Num 11:1 “in the 
ears of Jehovah”

LXX: “of an eye.”                                 LXX: “before the lord.”

Ex 15:8 “blast of nostrils”                      Dt 33:10 “they put incense 
before thy nose.”

LXX: “through the wind of my wrath.”    LXX “shall lay incense in thine 
anger.”

Num 12:8 “mouth to mouth”                Ex 24:10 “they saw the God of 
Israel”

LXX: “mouth to mouth apparently”        LXX: “they saw the place”


They are celebrating their independance day here in Brazil. I'm off to the 
parades for a couple days it seems. Have a great day.