Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

b-hebrew - [b-hebrew] skies in plural?

b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Biblical Hebrew Forum

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: "Nir cohen - Prof. Mat." <nir AT ccet.ufrn.br>
  • To: b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
  • Subject: [b-hebrew] skies in plural?
  • Date: Fri, 7 Sep 2012 15:14:21 -0200

rolf, ishnian (george),

below i make four comments on your recent remarks.

Motto:

(following ted’s remark): the beginning of enuma elish.

When the SKY ABOVE was not NAMED,
And the EARTH BENEATH did not yet bear a name,
And the primeval Apsû, who begat them,
And chaos, TIAMAT, the mother of them both,
(compare with adam and eve!)

Their WATERS were MINGLED together,
And no field was formed, no marsh was to be seen;
(compare gen 1:9, 2:5)

When of the gods none had been CALLED INTO BEING
(compare with adam's naming of objects)

Common themes With gen 1: SKY, EARTH, CHAOS, TEHOM=TIAMAT,
NOTHING=EFES=APSU=TOHU, WATER, SEPARATION OF WATER, NAMING.
do we really need the experts' views to see the parallels?
--------------------

to rolf,

We all agree that the ancients viewed the skies as an empty expanse
scattered with wind and clouds, with some lights high above, And
gave them numerous "explaining" metaphors and mythological/metaphysical/pseudo
physical descriptions. Gen 1 fits in with these descriptions.

With this understanding, you state that $MYM and RQY( and skies And
atmosphere and expanse and firmament are all one and the same. Which is
clearly the case today. Thus, under synchronic (late) interpretation,
you are correct.

However, historically it can be argued that this linguistic
Identification RQY(=$MYM is entirely based on gen 1 (and/or similar
mythological NWS texts) and was alinguistic innovation at the time.
Even ishnian’s (i believe) Arabic analogue to RQY( may be claimed to
have derived from gen 1, historically.

>> Out of ccuriousness, I would like to ask you which ancient writings you
can refer to were we find the idea of a solid vault above the earth with
water above this vault.

let me add a small remark to martin shield’s interesting response (based
on material new to me):

the word RQY( was understood at the time in this sense. However, I agree
with ted, jerry and george that this was intended as a metaphore and
was not necessarily interpreted as conferring any material property
to the object described (skies). Archimedes, much later, might say here
that god used a huge pulley to put up the skies in their place, and
then we might ponder where the bible might put the pulley’s support.

>> De: "Ishinan" <ishinan AT comcast.net>
Data: Tue, 4 Sep 2012 16:21:17 -0500
>> rolf: Then bsack to Genesis 1. In v. 8 we learn that God" called the RQY(
"heavens," as you also say. The word $MYM are used with different references
in Genesis. But this verse shows that there is no distinction between RQY( and
$SYM, and the words are interchangeable....

-----------------------------

to George (and maybe also rolf),

I see gen 1 as a describing a “model” of creation, as perceived at
the time. Recall that a model is a “simplified version” of the real situation,
and I take it the ancients, ignorant as they were, understood it in this sense
and saw the sky basically as we see it: an open space. It appears that you go
one step further and see gen 1 as the REAL SITUATION
as viewed at the time. I find it difficult to accept. People did see the birds
take off from the trees and houses and fly in the open air.

>> George attas: I think you may have misunderstood me. The רקיע in Genesis 1
is given the name שׁמים (sky). We today, however, do not identify the 'sky' as
a רקיע over our heads. We conceive of the sky as open air. Thus, there is a
discrepancy between our concept of sky and the concept in Gen 1...

------------------------------
To ishnian,

The idea of the text was separation of waters (see also enuma elish above),
not a geometric statement. But yes, as George comments, imagination often
precedes reality. See e.g. ezekiel’s visions of flying objects, noah's ark,
alijah's trip to heavens, jacob's ladder etc.

By the way, the hemisphere by itself is very ancient, and it appears in
pottery and metalwork. I suspect the image analogy used by the author of
gen 1 was indeed taken from metal art and not civil engineering. Though martin
shields has a very pertinent point I was not aware of.

>>zigurat of babylon:

As is common in the middle east, things go out of proportion. Thus the
biblical tower of babel, going all the way to the sky, is so different
from the original. again, this artifact in the story was not meant to
describe correctly the tower of babel: it was meant as a model for the
migrations which created linguistic diversity.

>> GEORGE wrote: So in other words, the dome could not possibly have existed
conceptually before Roman engineers actually built one? By that reasoning,
the Tower of Babel must date to the 20th century when sky-scrapers were
invented.

>> ISHINAN: Come on George, haven't you ever heard about the Yemenite
skyscrapers which
date from time immemorial in Arabia Felix?
>> If not, please, I invite you to take a tour below :-)
http://www.google.com/search?q=skyscrapers+of+yemen&hl=en&prmd=imvns&tbm=isch&tbo=u&source=univ&sa=X&ei=N8hGUPKhK
Enjoy ! Ishinan Ishbashi

>>>martin: Take a look at Horowitz's Babylonian Cosmic Geography. It includes
numerous such texts, many of which depict a "firmament" made of stone (usually
blue in colour, or else transparent with something blue above it). Similar
ideas are evident in ancient Egyptian depictions of the cosmos. If anything,
the evidence seems to point to the solid barrier above the atmosphere as being
the default understanding of the cosmos in the ancient world.
Martin Shields,

----------------------------

to ted, rolf,

many canaanite mythological figures bore cosmological names. i recall
here YM, $M$ and ENOK (related with Babylonian ENKI =sky-earth).
i see TY)MT in the same light.

within ancient Hebrew (I think Isaac and karl will both agree),
THWM/HMM/TM/TMHWN/THH/THW/$WMM/Y$YMWN/
(maybe even YTWM=orphan) are all related, and describe a state of
emptiness/stupefaction/bewilderness in front of a vast and hostile
space. I therefore suspect that both Hebrew THWM and Canaanite
TY)MT come from a solid NWS common basis.

>>> ted: Both tehom and Tiamat represent primordial waters that are split into
oceans and vapors. That similarity, in and of itself shows some that the two
creation traditions are at least distantly related. However EE is theogenic
(story of the creation of the gods) while Gen 1 is cosmogenic (story of the
creation of the physical world).

Nir cohen






Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page