Biblical Hebrew Forum

["Ishnian" <ishinan AT comcast.net>]

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