Biblical Hebrew Forum

[Jesse Griffin <jag3773 AT gmail.com>]

George,

On Thu, Aug 23, 2012 at 4:15 AM, George Athas 
<George.Athas AT moore.edu.au>wrote:

> This reasoning just doesn't cut it, I'm afraid. Essentially the argument
> is: "It's possible, therefore we should assume it is true." I should also
> probably add "…despite evidence for a contrary and more plausible
> explanation." This is very poor reasoning that produces a conclusion
> without any real warrant.
>

This is a mis-characterization of my reasoning, I definitely think it is
possible, but I've not *assumed* it is true.  Remember that I've already
agreed to a "circle" translation for חוג, but of course, that doesn't rule
out a spherical cosmology (spheres do look like circles from a distance).

Also, everything seems to indicate that, in terms of cosmology, the
> Israelites were actually not all that different from those around them.
> Sure, they differed in other respects, but not in this one. Job 26.10 very
> clearly sees the חוג as something that can be traced on the surface of
> water, as does Prov 8.27. This is not a sphere. And there are pillars (Job
> 26.11) that rest on this earthly circle and hold up the sky which, if it is
> above the circle of the earth, is also presumably a circle, a la Job 22.14.
> There is no sphere here. And if anything, the LXX translators who were
> probably more familiar with the Ptolemaic ideas of cosmology, would have
> been more likely to translate חוג as 'sphere' or 'ball', but they don't.
> They go for the term gyros, which indicates a ring or circle.
>

I think Karl has answered this by noting that other nations around Israel
had a much more spherical cosmology than that of the middle-ages.  Also,
the language of "pillars" could very easily be metaphoric.


> The appeal to future possible linguistic discoveries is an argument of no
> substance whatsoever. You cannot appeal to non-existent evidence in order
> to override the evidence that does exist. We do not need to find future
> possible linguistic discoveries. We can simply read the biblical texts and
> see what they say. Suspending judgement on evidence which points pretty
> clearly to a conclusion we may not like is simply not good scholarship.
> It's predetermining a conclusion and then trying to find evidence that can
> support it. It's 'cart before the horse' methodology.
>

And here's the rub, I have the same criticism of your viewpoint here.
 Since you're already positive that the middle-ages flat earth cosmology
extends into the ancient world, you automatically read the biblical
language in such terms.  Please note that the translation of חוג is a
separate issue than the Israelite cosmology.  Just because the author
describes something as a circle does not mean that it cannot be a sphere.

Since this is a language forum, I'm sure we will not solve the issue of an
Israelite cosmology.  Further, I think agreeing on definitions is hardly
conclusive in either direction.

Thanks,
Jesse