Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

b-hebrew - [b-hebrew] skies in plural? (Rolf's response 1)

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: [b-hebrew] skies in plural? (Rolf's response 1)
  • Date: Sun, 9 Sep 2012 08:57:35 -0500



Dear Geroge,

I am very surprised on your insistence tjat 'this is what the text says.' and
that 'this is an exegetical fact." In our interpretation of nouns and
prepositions, it is a rare situation where we categorically can say: 'This is
the only meaning.' So, when you repeat this sweeping claim, I see the need
to repeat the main points in this discussion.

1) The noun RQY( occurs 11 times in the Tanakh, three times in Genesis, four
times in Ezekiel, and one time each in Psalm 19:2; 150:1 and Daniel 12:3. In
Psalm 19:1 RQY( is parallel with $NYM; in Psalm 150:1 it is parallel with
God's sanctuary; and in Daniel 12:1 it is parallel with the stars. Ezekiel
1 and 10 are visions where literal things of three dimensions are used in a
symbolic way to describe heavenly things. Above the living cretures is the
RQY( and above the RQY( is the throne of God. Whether RQY( is solid or
non-solid in the Psalms and Daniel we cannot know with certainty. But the
parallels suggest a non-solid state.

2. The verb RQ( can refer to something non-solid, namely to dust and clouds
(Job 37:18), and $MYM can be viewed as non-solid (Deuteronomy 28:23, 24).
This means that the root RQ( CAN refer to something that is non-solid.

3) You translate (L-PNY as "across," and that is a good translation, but not
the only alternative translation. In Genesis 1:2 you insist that (L-PNY
indicate a surface, "across the surface of the waters." But here you are
wrong! I guess that you never tell your students that a particular Hebrew
preposition has only one meaning. It is true that most Bible translations use
the word "surface," but NAB says "darkness covered the abyss" and "a mighty
wind swep over the waters." NJB says "over the deep" and "over the waters."
The spatial description is that darkness either was above THWM or covered it,
and RUX was above the waters.

4) The spatial description in Ezekiel is as follows: 1:22 says that RQY( was
ABOVE ((L) the heads of the living creatures, and 1:23 says that "UNDER (TXT)
the RQY( their wings were spread out. If we compare this spatial description
of these texts with Genesis 1:20, we see that the birds fly "above" ((L) the
earth and "across" ((L-PNY) the RQY(. The birds do not fly UNDER (TXT) the
RQY(. The comparison with the use of prepositions in Genesis 1:2 and Ezekiel
1:22 and 23 indicate that the RQY( either is below the birds, or that the
birds fly through the RQY(. There is nothing in Genesis 1 which indicates
that the birds fly UNDER the RQY(.

5) The view that the birds fly through the RQY( is supported by 1:8 where it
is said that the name of the RQY( is $MYM, and by 1:20, 28 where we find the
expression "the birds of heaven." We find the same expression in 1 Kings
16:24, Jer 4:25, Ezekiel 29:5, and numerous other places. The natural
interpretation of "the birds of heaven" is "the birds that fly above us."
There is nothing mythical here.

My challenge to you is: Please prove on the basis of lexical semantics that
RAQY( had a surface that could be touched! It is not enough to claim that
"This is what the text says."



Best regards,


Rolf Furuli
Stavern
Norway



Søndag 9. September 2012 10:31 CEST skrev George Athas
<George.Athas AT moore.edu.au>:


None of this gets around the basic exegetical fact: In Gen 1, the birds fly
across the surface of the רקיע, just like the spirit/wind hovers across the
surface of the waters. If it has a surface, it is perceived as something that
could be touched. That's what the text says.

Whether the ancients understood this as a metaphor is another issue, but
one which inevitably sees us importing extra-textual considerations, into the
equation. In other words, the argument that the רקיע is not actually
something that could be touched is invariably a foray into tangential
considerations that take us away from what the writer of Gen 1 actually wrote.


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






Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page