Biblical Hebrew Forum

[TedBro AT aol.com]

Hi, All:
 
Much of what Rolf writes makes sense. 
 
I would just like to add that there are often mythic or metaphoric elements 
 in literal texts. Just as we can say that so and so exerted a Herculian 
effort  without drawing anything from ancient mythology beyond "extraordinary 
effort",  there can be elements of ANE myth in biblical texts embedded in a 
single word or  phrase without mythologizing the entire text. For example, 
"tehom" is most  likely derivative of Tiamat, that does not make Genesis 1 a 
theogeny, e.g. a  description of the origin of the pantheon as is the Enuma 
Elish.
 
Similarly single words often have metaphorical meanings. In English we  can 
say that a speaker was "spellbinding" without meaning that he literally 
cast  magical spells or saying anything about the genre of the text.
 
Similarly, if we recognize raqia as a metalogical term for metallic surface 
 beaten smooth, that isolated word can say something metaphorically about 
the  blue apparent visible ceiling above the earth without indicating that 
the  sky is metallic. Clouds can be also called a "flood" without indicating 
the  presence of a liquid ocean. There are some delightful examples of 
thunderclouds  being called "tehom" (primoridal waters) in the prophets, 
unfortunately, being  on vacation, I cannot find the verses in question at 
the 
moment. 
 
Rolf is right in saying that Gen 1 is a literal text in that it intends to  
enumerate the steps of Creation. My point is that a literal text can  have 
elements of both mythic and metaphorical language. :-)
 
Peace,
Ted
 
 
In a message dated 9/4/2012 2:11:35 A.M. Central Daylight Time,  
ishinan AT comcast.net writes:

From:  Rolf 
To: Ishnian ; b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org 
Sent: Tuesday, September  04, 2012 1:53 AM
Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] sky


Ishinan,

Can  you please send this to the list?



Dear George,

Ted  should describe his own method. But I would like to convey some 
thoughts  regarding the issue, because it is  important.

When Moses asked to  se God, the answer was that he could not se God and 
live. The description of  God in the Tanach is that he is invisible and 
resides in the heavens above the  earth. In Ezekiel 1, the prophet claims 
that he 
got visions from God. We need  not discuss whether this claim is true or 
not, but we can learn much from the  setting of the chapter. Human beings 
cannot understand invisible heavenly  things. But in order to get a faint 
understanding  of heavenly things,  objects with three dimensions that we can 
understand, are used.  Ezekiel  describes the throne of God, depicted as a 
wagon, 
and that which is around  thre throne. Nothing of this is meant to be 
understood litarally; the angels  do not have wings, and the throne of God is 
not 
solid with weels. Is the  language metaphorical? I would not say so, becaus 
there is no one-to-one  smilarity with each thing of three dimensions an a 
heavenly thing. It is the  whole setting that is impostant and not each 
detail, so we may characterize  the presentation as a simile. This means that 
we 
cannot on the basis of  Ezekiel learn how God`s throne literally is

The opposite of Ezekiel´s  language is found in the creation account in 
Genesis 1 and 2, where I will  argue that we find a literal account. The same 
is the case with the speeches  of Moses in Deuteronomy 1-6. The problem for 
any expositor is to know when a  setting is symbolic, where we have 
metaphorical language, and where we have  literal accounts. We cannot solve 
the 
problem by looking for poetry versus  prose. Because many texts whose setting 
is 
poetic, are literal descriptions,  or we find literal descriptions there. 
One example is Job 26:7 where THW  (Empty space, NIV) and BLY-MH (nothingn 
NIV). There is no metaphorical  "nothing," so these expressions must be 
literal 
descriptions.

In Psalm  29, the majesty of YHWH is described. It is related to "mighty 
waters; cedars;  Libanon, the desert of Kadesh." It is likely that the 
reference of "the flood"  is the one described in the days of Noah. But we 
cannot 
be certain. The  reference of "mighty waters" may be a reference to the 
mentioned flood, or to  something else. There is nothing mythological in the 
text, and there is  absolutely no reference to some supposed waters above a 
solid  firmament.

In no way do I want to be sarcastic or impolite, but  arguemnts of 
parallels between the waters in Genesis 1 and other texts in the  Tanakh,  or 
texts 
in the writerings of other Semitic languages, reminds  me of the valid and 
invalid  and invalid syllogisms that we discussed in  my introductory course 
in the Philosophe of Science at the  University:

(1)
All lions belongs to the family Felidae
Cheta is  a lion
_____________
Cheta belongs to the family Felidae   (valid)

(2)
All lions are yellow
Cheta is  yellow
_________
Cheta is a lion  (invalid)


It seems to  me that the following syllogism is used in many arguments 
regarding the  biblical cosmology:

(3)
All cosmological texts in the Tanakh are  mythical.
Genesis 1  and or Psalm 29 are cosmological  

_______________
Genesis 1 and Psalm 29 are mythical

The  syllogism is valid, but it is only true it the  premise is true, and 
that  premise should be demonstrated, and not only assumed.

I also see the  the principle of syllogism 2) at work. The point here is 
that because more  animals that lions are yellow, Cheta needs not be a lion. 
The same is true  with Psalm 29 and other texts which connects water with 
God. Because water can  refer to many other things than the "waters above" 
that 
are mentioned in  Genesis 1:7, we cannot know that any water mentioned in 
connection with God is  the same as the "water above," if that is not 
explicitly stated. As for Baal,  he was a weather god, so it is no wonder 
that he 
is called "the rider of the  clouds," I have translated a great part of the 
Ugaritic Baal texts, as well as  the Ethiopic Enoch into Norwegian—something 
that requires careful study. There  are absolutely no parallels between Baal 
and YHWH, not even the description  you are quoting. The book of Enoch is 
wholly mythological, and its language  has no bearing at all upon the 
language in the Tanakh about YHWH.

I  would also make some comments on Genesis 6:11. If we do not accept the 
premise  of syllogism 3), but approach the text from a neutral point of view, 
we may  ask: Is this text mythical? Linguistically speaking the answer is 
No. The  setting is that God lifted water (its aggregate condition, solid, 
liguid or  gas, is not stated). In the days of Noah this water fell down on 
the earth. To  convey the thought that this happened suddenly, at a 
particular 
time, the  "bursting of the springs" of the waters, and the opening of the 
"windows of  the heavens"  are mentioned.  The language is illustrative, and 
by  using metaphors from everyday life, the idea that great amounts of 
water  suddenly came down is vividly expressed. Such imagery is a normal way 
of  
Hebrew expression, as we see in many places in the Tanakh. In no way do 
these  expressions show that there were solid heavens (nor RQY() with 
windows. 
But  some would say; "The language is mythological, becau se there were no 
waters  above the atmosphere in the past." This is not a linguistic argument, 
and its  conclusion is not necessary, because we do not know what was above 
the earth  in ancient times and what its atmosphere was like. We can just 
think of the  rings of Saturn, and the atmospheres of Venus and Jupiter to 
illustrate that  the atmosphere of the earth today need not be similar to its 
atmosphere in  ancient tiomes.

My conclusion, therefore, is that mythological language  must be 
demonstrated and not assumed.


Best regards,


Rolf  Furuli
Stavern
Norway






Mandag 3. September  2012 05:07 CEST skrev George Athas  
<George.Athas AT moore.edu.au>:


Hi Ted!

I'm  a little confused: where do you see the mention of clouds in Ps 29? Or 
are you  positing the interchangeability of 'clouds' with 'flood' on the 
basis of Ps 29  being similar to hymns to Baal, who is called Rider of the 
clouds? If you  could clarify that, I could perhaps interact a little better.

Yahweh is indeed called the Rider of the clouds elsewhere (eg. Isa 19.1). 
But  this is usually his mode of transport, rather than his dwelling place or 
 throne. Ps 29 simply sees Yahweh as enthroned on/at/by a celestial sea, 
and  this is the same body of water than inundates the earth in the flood 
narrative  of Genesis. It's not clouds.

I understand how you're seeing  metaphor and reality working in the Job 
text. My main question, though, is  what leads you to put the division 
between 
metaphor and reality where you do.  That is, why is the earth hanging in an 
ether reality while the pillars of the  sky are not. I'm after clarification 
of your method here so that I can  understand why you reach your 
conclusions.

Cheers!

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


_______________________________________________
b-hebrew mailing  list
b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew



_______________________________________________
b-hebrew  mailing  list
b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew