Biblical Hebrew Forum

[George Athas <George.Athas AT moore.edu.au>]

Rolf Furuli is still having some trouble sending and receiving posts. I send 
this through on his behalf:

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



=========

Dear listmembers,

I would like to express some thoughts regarding the supposed solidity of the 
RQ(, and I will return to the etymological fallacy and related issues, that 
is, to lexical semantics.

It was not the RQ( that lifted the waters, but it was God, and is portrayed 
as a part his acts in creation. I see no reason why the lifting of the waters 
should imply that the RQ( was solid. The ancients knew that clouds existed 
above their heads, and that rain came down. The fact that waters existed 
above did not lead to the conclusion that something solid held the clouds in 
space.

I would like to discuss the prepositions used in connection with RQ(. In 
Genesis 1:7 we find prepositions that clearly have the meaning "below" and 
"above."  In 1:15, 16, 17 we find the preposition B, which can have the local 
meaning "in." (We find this meaning in several Bible translations.). I 1:20 
we (L-PNY, and how shal we understand this?  In Genesis 1:2 and 6:1, (L-PNY 
evidently has the meaning "upon"; in 1:29 we find the meaning "upon" or "on 
the face of." So where did the birds fly? Below a solid firmament. No, the 
preposition TXT is not used, as it is in Ezekiel 1:23, where we have a 
symbolic representation of God's throne. The NIV and JPS renders the 
expression in Genesis 1:20 as "across the expanse," and in my view, this is a 
good choice. Which prepositions are used is in no way conclusive. But the 
natural conclusion simply is that RQ( is the atmosphere; the luminaries are 
viewed as lights "in" the atmosphere, and the birds fly "across" the 
atmosphere.

A basic linguistic conclusion is that we must have a diachronic view of 
lexical semantics. Word meaning and the referenses of a word changes through 
time. Therefore, it is a fallacy to use the oldest meaning of a word to 
understand its reference in a particular context. This means that 
etymological arguments are weak indeed. It is also a fallacy to use similar 
roots in cognate languages the establish the meaning or reference of a Hebrew 
word in a particular contexts. A good example is the root )MR. In Hebrew the 
meaning is  "say," in Akkadian AMARU has the meaning "see," and in Ethiopic 
AMMARA has the mening "show; indicate; tell." The diachronic change in word 
meaning is much greater when we compare cognate languages than when we look 
at Hebrew texts with different ages. It is also a fallacy to use 
Pseudepigraphic writings or writings from different nations to find the 
meaning or reference of a Hebrew word, used in a particular context. The 
views of the authors of such writings need not be the same as the views of 
the writers of Genesis.

So, I return to Barrs dictum: The meaning and reference of a word can only be 
found in the synchronic uses of it, that is, how the word is used in a 
particular short time.



Best regards,


Rolf Furuli
Stavern
Norway