Biblical Hebrew Forum

[Peter Kirk <peter AT qaya.org>]

On 19/11/2005 09:04, Karl Randolph wrote:

> ...
>
> > .....        The 
> > Israelites were not thinking in modern cosmological terms.
> >    
>
> What do *you* *know* about ancient cosmology?
>
> Your apparent attitude towards the ancients sounds like 
> the 19th century European chauvinism that was behind 
> the development of DH. What do you know about ancient 
> cosmology? I wouldn't be surprised that your concept 
> mirrors that of Medieval cosmology, which was a strange 
> mishmash of Greek philosophical method smashed into 
> Hebrew and Christian terminology by scholastics who 
> were more wedded to Greek philosophy than Tanakh.
>  

No, Karl, my concept does not mirror mediaeval cosomology. Nor does it 
mirror modern cosmology with a tinge of Christian thought as yours seems to.

> But when we take the Hebrew Tanakh and the Greek New 
> Testament for themselves, ...

Let me say immediately that the cosmology of the New Testament is 
entirely irrelevant to the meaning of the biblical Hebrew word `olam 
which we are discussing. Also, as this list is for discussion of 
biblical Hebrew and the Hebrew Bible, this cosmology is off topic and I 
will not discuss it here. The cosmology of the Hebrew Bible, as far as I 
can tell, is rather different, considerably less explicit, although not 
contradictroy.

> ...
>
> > ....        They 
> > were thinking of a universe which began with a creation, and which 
> > was probably expected to end in some kind of final destruction. 
> >    
>
> Hey, that sounds exactly what I believe.
>  

Well, since you agree with me, surely also your "apparent attitude 
towards the ancients sounds like the 19th century European chauvinism 
that was behind the development of DH. What do you know about ancient 
cosmology?"

>  
>
> > `Olam with past reference referred to things which were thought to 
> > date back to the creation or at least to the period immediately 
> > following it.
> >    
>
> Wrong.
>  

Right. At least I will continue to believe that this is right until 
someone provides some evidence to the contrary, instead of persistent 
contradiction.

>  
>
> > .....        `Olam with future references referred to things which 
> > are expected to continue until that final destruction, or which 
> > were at least in practice equivalent to that.
> >    
>
> Again wrong.
>  

This is starting to remind me of  the Monty Python argument sketch, see 
http://www.mindspring.com/%7Emfpatton/sketch.htm, except that it has 
lasted a lot longer than five minutes.

> Or rather, not necessarily to both. The use is more nuanced 
> than that.
>  

I would be interested in your description of these nuances and how you 
justify them from the Hebrew text (and not from importing New Testament 
perspectives).

...

> > > As for the New Testament use of "eon", it too is used for a 
> > > limited but unknown length of time (e.g. Matthew 28:20) as well 
> > > as eternity, just like (WLM.
> > >      
> > So , Karl, do you consider that, according to this verse, there 
> > will be a future time when Jesus is not with his people?
> >    
>
> Another straw man argument.
>  

No, Karl. My point is that in the NT AIWN, at least in this sense, has 
more or less the same "eternity" meaning as Hebrew `olam. And you seem 
to agree that the meanings are the same, and then give me an example 
where we surely agree that the meaning is eternity! But then we should 
keep away from NT discussions.

--
Peter Kirk
peter AT qaya.org (personal)
peterkirk AT qaya.org (work)
http://www.qaya.org/