Biblical Hebrew Forum

[Peter Kirk <peterkirk AT qaya.org>]

On 13/09/2005 13:27, Kevin Graham wrote:

> 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.


Well, logical or not, it is indisputably true that in many languages the 
part of even a spherical object which is seen as it moves away is 
referred to as its back part. In many languages, including Hebrew, if I 
literally "go at the back" of something I am following it, irrespective 
of whether the object has a permanently distinct "back". In English we 
could say "go behind", and the word "behind" is clearly derived from an 
old word meaning "back". And just the same in Hebrew. For this is part 
of a metaphorical construction found in probably all languages whereby 
the "face" or "front" goes first and the "back" goes last. That is 
simply how language works.

> == 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 would not like to see God moving towards me any more than I would like 
to see the face or front of a moving rhinoceros! But when it comes down 
to it it is a complete mystery why it is dangerous to see God's "face" 
just as much on your anthropomorphic interpretation as on my more 
metaphorical one.

> == 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?


Absolutely there is! I take it very literally that priests brought 
offerings before YHWH in the tabernacle and temple. But not that they 
brought them literally "to the face of YHWH". I recognise that the 
Hebrew language, like all languages, is rich in metaphor and originally 
metaphorical extended meanings. I am not saying that the Bible is wrong. 
What is perhaps myth is not a four thousand year tradition, but a 
speculative reconstruction of a tradition which had already been 
abandoned more than two thousand years ago.

> == 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.


Look, if YHWH is a literal huge body with a face, he has to be 
somewhere. And he has to be visible. Where? Gagarin went into space and 
told the Soviet people which he couldn't see God, which might have 
bolstered the atheism of some whose concept of God was like yours, but 
not of anyone whose concept of God had been informed by over two 
millennia of theological thinking.

> == 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.


My rule is logically driven. It is well known that humans have faces. It 
is your theological construct that God has a face. But the word LIPNEY 
can be used equally of persons and things which have faces and those 
which do not.

> == 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.


How can this be? We have as far as I know no records of Jewish 
traditions which predate the Hellenistic era apart from the Bible 
itself. And your understanding of biblical traditions depends on your 
interpretation of the Bible, and so cannot be used to support that 
interpretation.

> == 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.


Well, I have shown that the examples you chose do not prove your point. 
If you can find better examples, please submit them. But perhaps these 
were the best examples in the literature because the point is in fact 
invalid and so no examples prove it.

> 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"?


I accept that the are some expressions in the Hebrew which were 
understood by the LXX translators as anthropomorphic and so replaced by 
expressions which could not be understood anthropomorphically. The 
question is, did the LXX translators correctly understand the original 
intentions of the authors of the Hebrew, or did they, coming from a 
totally different philosophical background from the authors, 
misunderstand metaphor and extended sense as anthropomorphism? To quote 
Vadim:

> Using LXX, a garbled translation, for interpreting minute details of the
> Hebrew text? Seems kind of odd to me. At the maximum, LXX evidences how a
> particular translator or a group wanted to understand or present to Greeks
> the text at the period.
>
>
> == 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.


What you mean is that I have failed to prove a metaphorically extended 
meaning. And you have failed to prove a literal meaning in the base 
sense of the word. It is incorrect methodology to presuppose that the 
meaning of a word in a particular case must be the base meaning if it 
cannot be proved to be an extended meaning. The different senses of a 
word are a priori equal.

If I read a text "Hillary Clinton will run for President", do I have to 
prove to myself that it cannot mean that she has taken up jogging on 
behalf of Mr Bush before understanding the clear meaning that she will 
be a candidate?

> == 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.” ...


This is nonsense because it goes against the regular use of language. 
Does Hasel really believe that Exodus 34:6 teaches that God has a long 
nose? Do you? See 
http://englishbibles.blogspot.com/2005/08/does-god-have-long-nose.html. 
And your quotes from Hasel make it very clear that he has a theological 
agenda, something which you haven't allowed me to have.

> ... 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. ...


No, I am not assuming this. You put forward a novel (at least in the 
last 2000 years) hypothesis that God has literal body parts. I ask you 
to prove it. But you are unable to prove that the language is not 
metaphorical, so you resort to asking me to prove that it is. But I am 
not trying to prove anything. I accept that a priori we cannot be 
certain what is metaphorical. But for your theory to hold water you need 
to prove that language is not metaphorical, which you cannot do.

> ...
>
> == 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. ...


And I am denying that, with my example that it is linguistically (if not 
technically, yet) possible to have a heart to heart with a robot. Or, 
for that matter, with God, who is not heartless but does not have a heart.

> ... 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. ...


And if you can give me one example where the "eye to eye" phrase is 
between two things both of which indubutably have literal eyes, that 
might strengthen your case. But you can't, because as you and I both 
know the phrase `ayin be`ayin is used only twice in the Hebrew Bible, 
and in both cases one party is human and the other is God.

> ...
>
> == 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.


No, but you did argue that because a word has a certain meaning in a 
small number of clear cases it must have the same meaning in a disputed 
case. That reasoning is fallacious if a word can have more than 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.


So you have conceded the point that the image of God is related to 
dominion rather than form?

> == 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.


Perhaps several of these scholars have been led astray by the fallacious 
arguments of certain people who are repured to be authorities but don't 
actually know what they are talking about. You aren't going to convince 
me by citing authorities, especially when I can find plenty of 
authorities to reject and ridicule your position.

> == No.
>
> Yes.


Grow up!

> == 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!


By "a result or consequence", do you imply something unintended by God? 
Well, the text rules out the anyway ridiculous idea that dominion was an 
accidental or unforeseen side-effect of the image. But presumably 
Mathews and Wenham would agree with me that dominion was at least a part 
of God's intention in creating humanity in his own image - not just a 
consequence but also a purpose.

> == 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.


A consequence, yes. Secondary, we don't know. While the text does not 
rule out it being secondary, it certainly suggests to me that dominion 
was a primary purpose of the 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.*


OK, so do you now mean that you agree with me that "dominion was at 
least one of the purposes of humanity being created in the image of 
God"? If so, you need to retract your "Yes" retort to my "No".

Anyway, this is not a straw man position if Humbert holds it, see below.

> 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.


I don't support Karl's "shadow" rendering, although this may be the 
etymology. Well, I disagree with Humbert and more or less agree with 
these other scholars.

> == 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.


*Straw man alert.* I never said that dominion = image, but that dominion 
is the primary purpose of the image.

> 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.


Where does it say that angels have the divine image? Anyway, there is no 
contradiction between being servants of God and having dominion over 
physical things. Humanity has both, why not angels too?

> 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.


Clearly this argument hasn't a leg to stand on. (Anthropomorphism alert!)

> == "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


This picture is an entirely speculative reconstruction based on a 
presupposition that the kapporet is a throne. I can show you alternative 
reconstructions which look nothing like a throne.

> == 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 to me that a better parallel would be with Egyptian decorated 
sarcophagus lids.

> ... 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


More speculation, but the third one here looks a bit more like it to me.

> == 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.


Or the language is metaphorical, "sitting on a throne" being a metaphor 
or metonymy for "reigning as king".

> == 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.


Maybe you overestimated the fame of your alleged authorities. But I 
accept that I have not studied these matters formally from the ANE 
viewpoint, but am coming at it from the Hebrew text and from theology.

> == 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...
I am neither ThD nor Reverend, but I have an MA in theology and 
hermeneutics.

I'd better send this now as I have already spent half the day on it on 
and off.


--
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: 267.10.23/99 - Release Date: 12/09/2005