Biblical Hebrew Forum

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

Hi Peter,

== True, but in the case of a spherical object the back part is the part 
which you can see as it is moving away.

> From a metaphysical standpoint, you're still begging the question; what 
makes it discernable as the "back part"? You keep reasserting the same thing 
without justifying the logic. There is simply no logic in assuming that 
something is showing its "backpart" simply because 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.

I'm not arguing whether God actually turned his back to him. Of course he 
did. This is what the text says. I'm arguing that reference to a "backside" 
would make no sense if God were some spiritual entity of light. Again, the 
sun blinds us no matter what angle we look at it. What was so different and 
so "dangerous" about God's face that disallowed mankind from seeing it? None 
of this makes sense, unless of course, God was in anthropomorphic form. The 
text says Moses took God's face down the mountain with him, and we know 
Moses' face was radiant because of this encounter.

== 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.

Oh, so now the Bible is simply wrong and the four thousand year tradition is 
just myth. Seriously, I think you're too hung up on the metaphor/figurative 
excuse. In your paradigm, is there "anything" in the Bible that we can take 
literally?

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

Right. But I'm not arguing that face or back is never used figuratively. I'm 
saying that it isn't always figurative, and you have not demonstrated this 
to be the case in this instance. According to the theological confines 
you've placed around the text, if God truly were an anthropomorphic being, 
there is simply no way you would allow the Bible to express it. For every 
attempt it made would be rendered a metaphor according to your paradigm. 
Drink that in for a moment.

== 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.

Again I say, this does not demonstrate metaphor in this instance unless 
"face" is always a metaphor. Should we assume that all references to "faces" 
in the Bible are simply metahporical? Maybe humans, according to Moses, 
didn't really have literal faces either. Where do we draw the line? Why the 
line between God and man? You have not established a rule that can be 
categorized as anything but theologically driven.

== The "Ancient Jewish tradition" you refer to seems to be based on a 
Hellenistic literalist reading of the Hebrew.

It isn't. Moses was hardly a hellenist. Judaism encountered Greek philosphy 
rather late. These traditions I refer to are quite early.

== 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.

I have demonstrated this via the arguments by the experts in this field. I 
only provided a few examples from which a plethora exist. I've backed my 
view up with scholarly consensus - the bane of your presentation, 
apparently.

For Pete's sake, even Evangelical and Jewish authorities admit the 
anthropomorphisms were intentionally toned down in the LXX. If they can suck 
it up, take the hit and concede the point, this should speak volumes about 
the strength of the argument. For you to keep dodging the point smacks of 
apologetic manuevering. I suppose you're not familiar with Metzger? These 
alterations cannot be mere coincidence he says. Is Metzger some chump who is 
too stupid to have considered what you insist is so "clear" and "obvious"?

== By the kinds of arguments you have been using, if a house does not have a 
face, nor does God.

No, you're making illicit leaps as to what I'm actually arguing. My argument 
doesn't place confines around what a text might be saying, while yours does. 
I can accept metaphor if you can demonstrate metaphor. Thus far you've 
failed to provide a metaphorical meaning for the various examples given.

== Your argument is that a particular biblical case cannot be metaphorical 
because this expression cannot have a metaphorical sense.

That is not my argument. I simply follow the basic rules of hermeneutics. 
This is, after all, what we're dealing with. You're not going to be able to 
retranslate everything you don't like by using variant, yet plausible 
Hebrew, and call that "proper interpretation." This still doesn't justify 
your dependence on the metaphor. Gerhard Hasel notes that, “The basic 
principle of biblical interpretation is to take words always in their 
literal sense unless there is an unmistakable contextual indication to the 
contrary.” Gerhard F. Hasel, “Principles of Biblical Interpretation,” Gordon 
M. Hyde, editor, A Symposium on Biblical Hermeneutics (Washington D.C.: 
Biblical Research Institute, 1974), p.176. “The literal-figurative principle 
also warns against the methodology of the Bultmann school. This method of 
interpretation robs the Bible of its original meaning and substitutes 
philosophical abstractions. The minister who follows this course is 
replacing God's revelation with human theories.” Ibid. Norval F. Pease, p. 
259. Clines asks, “If anthropomorphisms referring to the 'bodily parts' of 
God can be understood as metaphors for his activity, for what is the speech 
or love of God a metaphor?” If you want to establish rules that make sense, 
you must follow through with them and apply the same logic throughout; not 
just stop at a point where a theological purpose is served.

A verse is to be taken literally if it makes perfect sense, and these verses 
would have made perfect sense to an ANE audience that understood deities to 
be anthropomorphic. That was the norm in the ANE. Ugarit deities were not 
described anthropomorphically in a "figurative" sense. They were described 
as being locked in hand-to-hand combat, eating, sleeping, procreating as 
humans would, etc. Likewise, Ex 24:11 indicates that Yahweh ate and drank 
with the 70 elders. Reading an ANE text through modern lenses forces the 
assumption that metaphor must be at work, because unlike the God of Ancient 
Israel, the modern-day Judeo-Christian God does not eat, drink, have "form" 
or "parts and passions" etc. You're approaching it backwards, assuming 
metaphor and figurative language in anything that disagrees with your 
understanding of God. You take this for granted and then you tell me to 
prove you're wrong. I don't need to because your own method, incredulous in 
the realm of scholarship, does it for me. It is simply a lazy way to explain 
the text, and comes across as something only a minister and his choir could 
appreciate.

== I am proving that it cannot have a metaphorical sense.

I think you meant to say that it "can."

== 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.

You're missing the point, again. Of course the phrase "heart to heart" 
doesn't refer directly to a heart. That isn't my argument. I'm saying the 
phrase is meant to be used, only in reference to things which have literal 
hearts. So to say it has "nothing to do" with literal hearts is overstating 
your case. For example, you would never say you're going to have a "heart to 
heart" with a chair or a tree. Though you might say you're going to have a 
"heart to heart" with your Mom or sister. Likewise, you would never say 
you're going to see "eye to eye" with a tree or chair. I've asked you to 
provide just one instance in Hebrew where the "eye to eye" phrase involves 
things which don't have eyes. If you could do this it would strengthen your 
case tremendously. Until you do, it is just a begged question. And again, it 
seems that if God truly has eyes, there is no language available that would 
be able to express this to the point where you'd accept it. You'd simply 
relegate every anthropomorphic term to the metaphor bin.

Further, just becuse someone misapplies a metaphor (i.e. heart to heart with 
a robot) doesn't make it the exception that proves the rule.

== 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.

I'm not "insisting" anything. The fact is you haven't adequately reconciled 
these verses. And no, you haven't demonstrated a difference between 
metaphorical verses and the so-called "clearly understood cases." The 
underlying rule here seems to be whatever is applied to God is metaphor, 
anything else to humans is literal. Why? Because God is spirit and humans as 
we know are literal anthropomorphic beings. These assertions cannot escape 
the theological presuppositions that mold them.

== 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.

No this is not true. You should probably take your own advice and try harder 
to avoid straw man arguments. I never once said these words have only one 
meaning.

== Dominion is explicitly described in the same verse, although not 
explicitly as the meaning and purpose. The link of meaning and purpose is a 
very obvious implication

Yes. Because mankind is created in God's image he is capable of having 
dominion. Pretty "obvious" to most scholars.

== even if the so-called scholars have refused to take it because it does 
not fit with their theological reconstruction.

Yea, like Claus Westermann the Lutheran, Mark Smith the Catholic, Margaret 
Barker the Methodist, Kenneth Mathews the Baptist, Moshe Weinfeld the Jew, 
Meredith Kline the Evangelical, etc. You caught them with their pants down 
Peter. It is truly in their theological interest to argue that God is an 
anthropomorphic being, right? Get real. The fact that this conclusion 
directly conflicts with their theology, yet they are willing to concede the 
point about Gen 1:26, speaks volumes about the weakness of your argument. 
Their conclusion is not made because of their theology, but in spite of it! 
Your argument is an old one. It holds a special place for conservative 
scholars (i.e. theologians) because that is pretty much the last line of 
hope they have. Yet is has been refuted by scholars in various venues. I 
already noted Westermann and von Rad, but you might also try flipping 
through Miller's, “In the Image and Likeness of God,” Journal of Biblical 
Literature, 1972, p. 296 in particular.

== No.

Yes.

== God pronounces that they will have dominion (1:26) before he actually 
creates them (1:27).

Right, before he creates them, but that is beside the point. The fact is He 
says they will be made in His image before anything is said about the 
consequence of the image. Thus, dominion came as a result or consequence of 
the image. Even the Evangelicals, Kenneth Mathews and Gordon Wenham concede 
this "clear" and "obvious" point!

== There is no separation here between the two actions.

Separation is not the issue. It is a matter of what came first.

"God said, Let Us make mankind in Our image, after Our likeness, AND let 
them have complete authority over the fish of the sea, the birds of the air, 
the beasts, and over all of the earth, and over everything that creeps upon 
the earth. So God created man in His own image, in the image and likeness of 
God He created him; male and female He created them "

The blessing of dominion was clearly a secondary, consequential comment to 
the most important point of all: man's creation in God's image.

== The dominion explanation is supported by the plain meaning of the Hebrew 
text. I cannot believe that anyone reading 1:26-28 without theological 
presuppositions would not see that dominion was at least one of the purposes 
of humanity being created in the image of God.

*Straw man alert.*

Nobody is saying it wasn't "part" of the image (i.e. consequence of it). 
What I'm saying is that the meaning of image cannot be divorced from the 
"clear" and "obvious" Hebrew understanding of tselem. Humbert said the 
physical meaning was all it meant. Gunkel, von Rad Westermann, Barker and 
company admit that it was at least PART of it. Karl prefers the "shadow" 
rendering, which is absurd, and clearly a theological preference. I can't 
think of one single Hebrew authority who prefers this rendering.

== Psalm 8 also refers to humanity's dominion and implies that this was the 
purpose of their creation, also Psalm 115:16.

Exactly! Which only reinfoces my point since the "image of God" is nowhere 
mentioned in the Psalm, where one would expect to find it if the meaning was 
as simple as dominion = image. But since the dominion was a consequence of 
the image, and the image was not a consequence of the dominion, the Psalm 
need make no mention of it.

Further, angels, humans and God are the only three beings described as 
having the divine image. So we must figure out what all three had in common. 
What is the common denominator here?Did Angels have dominion? No, they were 
servants in their realm. So in what way were they in the image? The only 
explanation is the anthropomorphic, literal understanding. Adam, God and the 
heavenly host were all three described in anthropomorphic form.

Even Clines has to figure out another way around this problem; precisely 
because the "dominion is what it MEANS" argument is so weak, he has to 
retranslate the text. So Clines proposes this: Gen 1:26 says not that man 
was created IN the image OF God. Rather, it says man was created AS and 
image FOR God. If man is created merely AS an image FOR God, then God 
wouldn't need to have a preexistent image from which man was formed. Thus, 
the theological pothole is filled. This argument is plausible but highly 
unlikely, as even Gordon Wenham admits. Wenham and Miller both do a 
wonderful job refuting this, and even Clines realizes its weakness.

== "were understood" by who?

By the ANE culture of which Moses was a part. Divine throne-chairs were 
well-known in that period. The parallels between the ark's construction and 
known throne-chairs in the Ancient Near East are overt. A chest like an ark 
would often serve as a footstool for the king, and the seat (which had two 
Sphinxs -with wings! - one on each armrest) was places above it.

Illustration available here: 
http://home.earthlink.net/~tonybadillo/ark/pt1lionchairs.jpg

The construction of the arm rests were part of the throne. Likewise, the 
kapporet (seat?) is a separate piece from the ark itself - its dimensions 
are given separately in Exodus 25:17­. A good illustration of what this may 
have looked like can be found here:

http://home.earthlink.net/~tonybadillo/ark/pt1arkthrone.jpg

== Note that the rendering "mercy seat" is highly interpretational. The 
Hebrew word KAPPORET does not mean "seat", but more probably "lid" which is 
what it was, and its relevance to "mercy" is uncertain.

Fair enough, but it seems to me that the "lid" was actually just a "cover." 
Or to be clearer, something that simply sat on top of it (seat/throne?). The 
Bible seems to indicate that the "seat" was something placed on top of the 
ark. Not as a "lid" necessarily, but as a separate object that served a 
specific purpose. Given its descriptive parallels with Egyptian 
throne-chairs, it seems most likely the case that the ark served as a 
footstool for God's throne. Given this background information, we shouldn't 
be surprised to find verses implying that this was precisely the purpose of 
the ark.(I Chronicles 28:2; Ps 132:7) Further, the wings spread out could 
have served as a backrest.
A good illustration of what this might have looked like can be found here:

http://home.earthlink.net/~tonybadillo/ark/pt1chairs.jpg

== Where does "between" come from? Or "enthroned" for that matter? The 
Hebrew is YO$EB HAKKERUBIM, which probably means "sitting ON the cherubim", 
or maybe "dwelling with the cherubim".

Fair enough. But the tradition of a throne in the temple can hardly be 
denied, no matter what "size" it may have been. Jeremiah sees,"A glorious 
high throne(kicce) from the beginning is the place of our sanctuary."(17:12) 
Isaiah mentions it (6:1;16:5), Ezekiel sees it,(Ez 1:26;10:1;43:7) and other 
references include 1 Sam 2:8, 2 Ch 18:18, Ps 9:7;11:4;45:6;47:8, Lam 5:19, 
Zech 16:13. The concept of Yahweh sitting on a throne is mentioned in 
perhaps too many verses to name. The Deuterocanon and Pseudepigrapha mention 
it moreso than the Tanakh.

I suspect that the various translations adopt the "seat" rendering because 
of an appeal to this tradition. Also, the "mercy" factor seems to have been 
influenced by Isa 16:5("And in mercy shall the throne be established"), as 
well as the NT references to God's throne (Hebrews/Revelation). In any 
event, it is silly to refer to God "sitting" on a throne unless he is an 
anthropomorphic being.

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

No, I've read profusely on these matters, and I find the scholarly consensus 
quite compelling. Your unfamiliarity with the relevant scholarship is 
something you and Karl both must remedy on your own. I am not prepared to do 
it for you, nor am I certain that this is the proper forum to make the 
attempt.

== Well, I notice that you keep quoting him (Mark Smith). I have never heard 
of him.

Which means what, exactly? Sorry, but this says more about your credibility 
than it does his. Frankly I'm shocked that you and Karl both seem oblivious 
to some of the stuff I present, as well as the authorities I've mentioned. 
Limited familiarity with the likes of Humbert or Smith may be forgivable, 
but to say you've "never heard of them"!?!?

Maybe I overestimated this forum.

== And I don't accept him as an authority.

That's OK. Most people who are serious about learning of the ANE and its 
influence on Ancient Israel, consider him highly qualified. On the Ugaritic 
material he is a leading authority. But I'm not here to convince you you're 
wrong. I lay out what scholarship has demonstrated and you and Karl can 
familiarize yourself with it on your own if you like. Or don't. I can (and 
do) have theological squabbles on the appropriate message forums, but I 
signed up here for other reasons.

I failed the initial task of getting to know my audience first. I was 
expecting more OT scholars than "Reverends," or else I never would have 
jumped on the ThD subject so quickly. Anyway, live and learn...