Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

b-hebrew - Re: [b-hebrew] sky (Rolf's Response)

b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Biblical Hebrew Forum

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: "Ishnian" <ishinan AT comcast.net>
  • To: <b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org>
  • Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] sky (Rolf's Response)
  • Date: Wed, 5 Sep 2012 04:13:13 -0500



Dear Ted,

You are right when you say that metaphorical and mythical elements do occur
in narratives, and by and large I agree with your words below. There is one
exception, though, that THWM most likely is a derivative of Tiamat. I do not
have the book at hand, but I remember that Claus Westermann in his "Genesis A
Commentary" (1982) in detail shows that Hebrew and Akkadian Phonetics and
orthography makes it impossible that there is a relationship between the two
words.

When I, in a previous post mentioned that I have a list of 23 parallels
between Atrahasis/Gilgamesh and Genesis, all of these, except one, related to
the flood in the days of Noah and not to the creation account in Genesis 1
and 2. I do not know your background, but it is my experience that most
people who who think there are parallels between the Babylonian creation
accounts and Genesis 1 and 2, have not made a detailed study themselves. But
they build on other persons whose assumption is that any ancient cosmological
account is mythical. I therefore invite the listmembers who are interested
to make a careful comparison between Enuma Elish and Genesis 1 and 2, and
then inform us which real parallels they have found.


Best regards,


Rolf Furuli
Stavern
Norway


Tirsdag 4. September 2012 23:46 CEST skrev 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
:


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





Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page