Biblical Hebrew Forum

[K Randolph <kwrandolph AT gmail.com>]

George:

On Thu, Aug 23, 2012 at 3:15 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.
>

Please don’t misrepresent what I wrote.

The Bible is not a science textbook, rather one that spoke in human terms,
in the same way as modern, scientifically trained people still talk about
“sunrise” and “sunset” and similar figures of speech. Just as those figures
of speech in modern mouths do not code for a cosmological understanding,
so, except for medievalists, we cannot take Biblical figures of speech as
giving cosmological understanding.

>
> Also, everything seems to indicate that, in terms of cosmology, the
> Israelites were actually not all that different from those around them.


Upon what basis do you make this claim, other than the frequent apostasy
condemned by all the prophets starting with Joshua around 1400 BC and
following? Actually, it started with Moses. You certainly don’t get that
from Tanakh.


> 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,


Are you sure that’s the same word as in Job 22:14 as an alternate spelling?
Or are we dealing with a different meaning?


> as does Prov 8.27.


תהום THWM doesn’t always refer to water, in fact, it’s used sometimes in
the absence of water. So Proverbs could mean the establishment of a circle
or sphere on the face of … nothing. Making the earth suspended on nothing
(Job 26:7).


> 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.
>

While the LXX translators time wise were closer to the Hebrew original,
from what I have read (I’m not a LXX expert) they varied in the quality of
their work, there is some indication that the MMS they used were not all of
high quality and that not all of them knew Hebrew that well. Yes, in
perusing some passages in the LXX, I have found mistranslations.

Even today, even the greatest scholars of Biblical Hebrew language have but
a defective understanding of the language. I’m willing in my dictionary to
admit where our understanding of word meanings is uncertain, to unknown. To
expect that people who lived centuries after Biblical Hebrew ceased to be
natively spoken, whose first language was Greek, would have a better
understanding of Biblical Hebrew than we do today is unrealistic.

חוג KhWG refers to a circle, but the use from the same root referring to a
lathe, the making of 3D circles, indicates that you can’t rule out “sphere”
as an ancient understood meaning of the term.

>
> The appeal to future possible linguistic discoveries is an argument of no
> substance whatsoever.


Again, don’t misrepresent what I wrote. What we have at present is
uncertain, and unless there are future discoveries that clear it up,
uncertain is the way it will have to remain.

The only thing that is certain is that the so-called “Biblical cosmology”
based on medieval methodology, is wrong. The way that ancient Hebrews used
Biblical Hebrew show that it is wrong.


> You cannot appeal to non-existent evidence in order to override the
> evidence that does exist.


The “evidence” you have provided doesn’t say what you want it to say.


> We do not need to find future possible linguistic discoveries. We can
> simply read the biblical texts and see what they say.


Even you don’t agree 100% with the above statement. Proper exegesis of a
text must take into account how the writers used the language. The example
of the medieval cosmology is a perfect example of reading a text using a
different thought methodology than used by the writers of the texts, and
ending up with gobbly-goop.


> 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.
>

Suspending judgment where the evidence is not certain, is better than
making a judgment based on faulty premises.

>
>
> GEORGE ATHAS
> Dean of Research,
> Moore Theological College (moore.edu.au)
> Sydney, Australia
>
> Karl W. Randolph.