Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

b-hebrew - Re: [b-hebrew] Divine Embodiment - Peter Kirk

b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Biblical Hebrew Forum

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: "Kevin Graham" <kevlds AT hotmail.com>
  • To: peterkirk AT qaya.org
  • Cc: b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
  • Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] Divine Embodiment - Peter Kirk
  • Date: Wed, 07 Sep 2005 16:19:32 +0000


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.






Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page