Biblical Hebrew Forum

[Jerry Shepherd <jshepherd53 AT gmail.com>]

Hi Karl,

The problem you have here, Karl, is that you are choosing to ignore
evidence that doesn't fit with the way you want the text to read.

Yes, I read your description of your lexicographic method, and
unfortunately, it is seriously deficient.  You simply aren't taking all the
data into account.  Isa 34:11 and Jer 4:23 are not simply, as you
say,  "taking only a subset of its uses, then making a determination, a
determination that contradicts other uses," rather, it is taking the ONLY
other places in the Hebrew Bible where the terms tohu and bohu occur
together, and indeed the ONLY other places where bohu even occurs at all.
It is simply not good lexicographical method to ignore these important
factors with regard to the usage of these terms in other contexts.  And,
indeed, the contexts in Isa 34 and Jer 4 are contexts of devastation.  The
NRSV, for example, in Isa 34:11 translates as "the line of confusion [tohu]
. . . the plummet of chaos [bohu]".  And most translations do something
similar.  NIV:  chaos and desolation.  NET:  ruin and destruction.  I am
not saying they are necessarily correct, but I am saying that the scholars
who worked on these translations followed credible lexicographical
methods.  The same goes for Jer 4, which is a picture of complete
devastation -- creation uncreated.

You say, "The only way you can make Genesis 1 and other Biblical texts to
read similarly to the other ANE cosmologies is to apply the rules of
“medieval cosmology”, which is why I bring it up. This does violence to
Hebrew way of reading the text."

How many ways do I have to say it?  I am not in the slightest interested in
medieval cosmology.  My only interest is in ANE cosmology, which, by my
calcuations, precedes medieval cosmology by at least 1500 years.  I have
absolutely no idea what you hope to gain by throwing this "medieval" charge
around.  I'm not looking at medieval texts; I'm looking at ANE comparative
literature.

With regard to Ecc 1:5, you say, "The text does not say “it hurries back”,
that is your eisegesis."

Okay Karl, notice the following:

NIV: "hurries back to where it rises"
NRSV: "hurries to the place where it rises"
ESV: "hastens to the place where it rises"
NASB: "hastening to its place it rises there again"
NET: "hurries away to a place from which it rises again"
KJV: "hasteth to his place where he arose"
NJB: "to is place it speeds and there it rises"
NLT: "hurries around to rise again"


Now, I am not arguing that these very standard translations are necessarily
correct.  But I will argue that the translators who worked on these
translations followed good lexicographical practice, consulted standard
critical lexicons (such as HALOT).  And frankly, it is very irresponsible
on your part to just wildly and blindly throw out the "eisegesis" charge.
And as far as your rendering, "and unto his place hunted down for rising,"
have you been able to convince any translation committees to go with that?
You're just not dealing fairly with the data.

Finally, you ask, "So modern, post-Copernican historians who recount that
an event occurred at “sunrise” or “sunset” are teaching a geocentric
understanding. Is that what you are saying?"

As I've already said, for post-copernicans to talk about sunrise and sunset
is metaphorical.  But for pre-copernicans to use the same language is not
metaphorical.  The author of Genesis and the author or Ecclesiates believed
that the sun went around the earth.  The sun literally rose and set.

Blessings

Jerry Shepherd
Taylor Seminary
Edmonton, Alberta

Jerry Shepherd
jshepherd53 AT gmail.com