Biblical Hebrew Forum

[Peter Kirk <peterkirk AT qaya.org>]

On 08/09/2005 13:56, Kevin Graham wrote:

> ...
>
> == A perfectly spherical moving object still has a back, which is the 
> part of it which happens to be at the back
>
> But how do you presume to speak of a "back" if it is not discernable?
>
> == well, I'm sure what you mean but I can't describe it without using 
> words like "back" because that is the standard way that language 
> describes such things.
>
> Again, it makes no sense for Moses to refer to the backparts of an 
> object unless he can visualyl discern which parts represent his 
> backparts and which side represents the "face." You say God has 
> backparts, but you cannot explain how they would be discerned except 
> through a retreating movement. This does not logically follow at all 
> because God, even if He is some glob of spherical light, could be 
> facing us while moving backwards. ...


True, but in the case of a spherical object the back part is the part 
which you can see as it is moving away. It is clear that the point in 
Exodus 33:22-23 is that Moses will see something only after God has 
passed, and (assuming normal motion rather than reversing) the part he 
sees is almost by definition the back part.

...

> == Why should a literal face kill anyone? This is clearly some kind of 
> metaphor or extended meaning, because literally seeing a face cannot 
> be fatal.
>
> Surely you're not serious. By this logic, why would the ark of the 
> covenant kill anyone? Arks don't kill people. So was it not REALLY an 
> ark?


I am serious. The point is that God kills people who disobey his 
commandments etc. If it anywhere actually says that God's face kills 
someone, that is clearly figurative language.

> == This is not hypothesis, this is established fact!
>
> That backparts are metaphor? If this is true, then you should have no 
> problem reconciling the logical dilemma presented above. Your car 
> analogy only made my point, I think.


No, that:

> 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 ...

which is my argument which you referred to as "hypothesis".

> == If you disagree, please explain to me how you interpret the verses 
> above. Try this plain reading of the text: "And he shall slaughter the 
> young bull to the face of YHWH" (Leviticus 1:5) etc etc. Is the face 
> of YHWH inside the tabernacle?
>
> According to Ancient Jewish tradition, Yahweh's entire human form was 
> present in the Holy of Holies. This included his face.
>
> == If so, why isn't the offerer killed?
>
> Because he didn't look at his face. I fail to see where you're going 
> with this. Surely you're not saying a person cannot be present before 
> God's face without actually looking at His face. This is precisely how 
> Moses' experience is described.


Where I am going is that LIPNEY does not mean "to the face of", because 
the word PANIM has a metaphorical sense which is extremely widespread in 
Hebrew. The "Ancient Jewish tradition" you refer to seems to be based on 
a Hellenistic literalist reading of the Hebrew.

> == The example Van Leeuwen quoted is from the 10th dynasty 
> "Instruction Addressed to King Merikare", quoted from Lichtheim, AEL 
> 1:106. Here is an extract: "Well tended is mankind - god's cattle... 
> They are his images, who came from his body..."
>
> Thanks for that. Yes, this is the same reference cited by Westermann 
> and Clines. Since Van Leeuwen was using Clines, I hope he at least 
> mentioned the fact that Clines said this: "It would be tempting to 
> regard it as an example of 'democratization' in the circles of 
> wisdom-teaching, were it not for the fact that this text comes from a 
> time several centuries earlier than the regular use of 'image of God' 
> for the king. There is not likely to be any direct relationship 
> between this isolated reference to humankind as the image of God and 
> the biblical text."


I don't think Van Leeuwen quotes this from Clines, but neither does he 
consider this to be democratisation. In fact the evidence suggests the 
opposite, that an originally democratic notion was later personalised to 
refer to Pharaoh alone - at least in monumental inscriptions (the 
majority of the texts surviving from ancient Egypt), but there is no 
reason why the more democratic version might not have survived for 
centuries in popular thought and influenced the Israelites.

> == Well, when is their "eventually"? I would accept that this was 
> popular belief - indeed it still is now, for people think of God as an 
> old man sitting on a cloud. But I still see a sign of that old racism 
> in the conclusion that it was not the original official religion, a 
> suggestion that somehow such things could not be understood in earlier 
> times.
>
> Well, for the sake of avoiding racism, allow me to clarify my 
> argument: such things were not understood in earlier times. Whether 
> they "could be so understood" is a meaningless sidebar.


But there is no evidence that such things were not understood. There is 
simply insufficient evidence either way. That left room for the racist 
theories. But a completely opposite reconstruction is also possible.

> == Well, I haven't seen any which cannot be explained this way, 
> although of course many are somewhat ambiguous. Walking eyes, fatal 
> faces etc: this is the stuff of metaphor, or of extended non-literal 
> senses of words.
>
> But if this were the obvious explanation for the majority, they never 
> would have bothered deleting them; especially given the sacred nature 
> of written scripture. Changing it was to be a last resort.


But you have failed to demonstrate that they were deleted, rather than 
translated with Greek idioms with the same meaning which were not 
derived from body parts.

> ...
> == Who says it was a giant chair?
>
> The Bible.


Where?

> ...
>
> You should probably take it up with Mark Smith. He's a leading expert 
> in this area.


Well, I notice that you keep quoting him. I have never heard of him. And 
I don't accept him as an authority.

> Meanwhile, you still haven't justified metaphor for the use of "form." 
> As in, “I shall be satisfied, when I awake, with beholding thy form.”( 
> Psalms 17:15), and “He beholds the form of the Lord.” (Numbers 12:8)
>
> == This is nonsense. The expression "face to face" is used in English 
> with non-literal senses, such as "Face to face with chronic disease"
>
> Am I supposed to be disagreeing with this? Last time I checked, we're 
> talking about biblical Hebrew. Showing me what it sometimes means in 
> English says virtually nothing about what it "could" mean in Hebrew, 
> let alone what it "most likely" means.


Well, the Hebrew idiom is rather rare and attested only in relation to 
God, but that may be because of the specialised subject matter of the 
Bible. I note that it could be used where one of the parties is "the 
house of Israel" rather than an individual, Ezekiel 20:35. By the kinds 
of arguments you have been using, if a house does not have a face, nor 
does God.

> == And very likely its Hebrew equivalent could be.
>
> And why is it "likely"?
>
> == Would you argue from this expression that chronic disease has a 
> face, or that if it does not it implies that the person who comes face 
> to face with it doesn't have a face either?
>
> See, you're doing it again (grin). You say you're not arguing that an 
> example of metaphor proves all examples are metaphorical, but in your 
> arguments you proceed in this fashion. One might as well insist two 
> people having a "heart to heart" talk, don't have hearts.


Your argument is that a particular biblical case cannot be metaphorical 
because this expression cannot have a metaphorical sense. I am proving 
that it cannot have a metaphorical sense.

As for "heart to heart" talk, of course this English expression has 
nothing to do with literal hearts. I can imagine a science fiction 
writer writing of someone having a "heart to heart" with a robot, but 
without meaning that the robot had a literal heart. Similarly if a 
preacher said he had a "heart to heart" with God, I wouldn't assume that 
he was claiming that God had a literal heart. This is clearly a 
metaphorical extension of the meaning of the word "heart". I think you 
need to go away and read up about metaphors before pronouncing on them.

> == "Eye", `ayin, can also refer to inanimate objects. Even if we leave 
> aside the meaning "spring", the earth has one (Exodus 10:5), manna and 
> bdellium have them (Numbers 7:7), a fire has one (Ezekiel 1:4), wine 
> has one (Proverbs 23:31). More to the immediate point, `ayin commonly 
> means "opinion" or "knowledge", and has many other non-literal uses. 
> `ayin be`ayin is not a very common phrase, but in Isaiah 52:8 it is 
> probably metaphorical rather than suggesting that the watchmen will 
> themselves see YHWH.
>
> The word "eye" isn't the issue. The phrase "eye to eye" however, is 
> the issue. Just because "eye" means certain things in various contexts 
> doesn't say anything about the phrase "eye to eye." Can you show me 
> where this phrase is used with inanimate objects which do not have 
> eyes? You seem to be playing a game of mix and match. This is like 
> saying, "keep your eye on the ball" doesn't refer to human eyes 
> because "eye" is also used in other expressions such as "eye of the 
> storm," wich clearly refers different.


It is bad linguistics to refer to rare expressions like "face to face" 
and "eye to eye" and insist that every use of them is in the same sense 
as the very few clearly understood cases. Words and phrases have various 
senses, and the Hebrew Bible is not a large and varied enough corpus to 
find all of these senses. You are falling here into the same fallacy as 
Karl, that words and phrases have only one meaning.

> I'm out of time. I didn't see anything left in your post that I really 
> disagree with so I'll stop here.


So it seems you agree that your LXX references fail to prove your point.

--
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: 267.10.19/92 - Release Date: 07/09/2005