Biblical Hebrew Forum

[K Randolph <kwrandolph AT gmail.com>]

George:

On Wed, Aug 17, 2011 at 5:24 PM, George Athas 
<George.Athas AT moore.edu.au>wrote:

> Karl, I thought you'd point those references out. I think you'll find the
> phrase קנה שׁמים וארץ is a description of a chief deity, not necessarily of
> a universal god.


Take this in the context of Genesis, starting with the first verse, that is
definitely a universal God who created the universe. Even in Exodus 20:11
the same theme is repeated, which is still earlier than Ugarit and Hatti.
Within the context of Tanakh, its meaning is clear.


> These kinds of titles are still used in polytheistic contexts. For example,
> the Egyptians called their chief deity, Amun/Re, 'creator and maker of all
> things that exist' and the one who made heaven and earth.


Was this a meme native to Egypt or was it copied from their Hebrew slaves,
who, from the archaeological data, were kicked out of Egypt during the 13th
dynasty?


> In Karatepe (Sam'al), El is referred to as creator of the earth, and yet
> listed alongside other gods in the same sentence.


This is from a millennium later!


> So, the phrase you point out is in no way indicative of a universal god.
> It's usually just indicative of chief god's curriculum vitae, as it were.
> The way you are taking it is probably more indicative of a very late
> interpretation of the text. If you're positing a late Persian or Hellenistic
> milieu for this narrative, I think I could live with your suggestion.
> However, I suspect you're not arguing that. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I
> think you're arguing for an early date for this text. If that's the case,
> the way you are reading the text would be extraordinarily exceptional for
> its time.
>

What you need to show is that at the time of Abraham, that the practices you
mentioned from a thousand years later already were practiced in Canaan, and
in particular in Salem. But unless you can point to documents that I as of
yet have not heard of, you have no documentation to back up your claims. You
are making a leap of faith. The context of Genesis and Exodus indicates that
belief in YHWH and a universal God who created the heavens and earth never
completely died out, and that they were one and the same God. Therefore the
assumption cannot be made that Melchizedek had never heard of YHWH before.

What you are trying to do is to take an identity out of its context, then
put it into a different context, then say that based on this second context,
that it changes its meaning also in its original context. I don’t buy that.
I don’t think that is good scholarship.

>
>
> GEORGE ATHAS
> Director of Postgraduate Studies,
> Moore Theological College (moore.edu.au)
> Sydney, Australia
>
> Karl W. Randolph.

>
>
> From: K Randolph <kwrandolph AT gmail.com<mailto:kwrandolph AT gmail.com>>
>
> Because he is described not as a deity for a particular place, but as the
> deity that got possession of “heavens and earth”, i.e. the whole universe.
> That phrase is used twice in this passage.
>
> Karl W. Randolph.
>