Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] Divine Embodiment - Peter Kirk
Date: Wed, 07 Sep 2005 16:19:32 +0000
Hi Peter,
== Well, you are the one who started this by claiming that God really has
body parts etc - or at least that the biblical authors believed that he had.
Yes, and I maintain this position with considerable comfort. I have
respectable scholars backing it.
== So that puts the burden of proof back on you. And part of that burden of
proof includes answering the very ancient arguments that such language is
metaphorical.
But you have yet to establish that these were "very ancient arguments" via
metaphor. You've simply been arguing via assertion; that because metaphor
exists elsewhere in the OT, then this must be the case for every single
example of anthropomorphism. I'm sorry but this is simply a nonchalant way
of explaining things. By this logic, the entire Bible should be read
allegorically. Why? Well there are allegories in it.
Metaphor is an acceptable way to appraoch anthropomorphisms which appear in
poetic texts like Isaiah or the Psalms. But there is hardly anything poetic
about Genesis 1:26 or the Sinai experience.
== If an object is moving, it has a back which can be followed literally.
And if it can be followed metaphorically, it has a metaphorical back.
The more you try to push this with could-have would-have should-have
scenarios, the more you add into the text something that isn't there. Sorry,
but front and back are not determined through movement unless we're dealing
with an object that cannot move backwards withough turning. Further, the
"Glory of God" has been witnessed according to the Bible(Ex 24:17; Num
14:22; Deut 5:24 ). So what was it that would actually KILL someone if not a
literal face?
== Indeed in many languages the word for "follow" is literally something
like "go at the back of". In fact something like that is true of Hebrew;
although RDP can mean "follow" (Jdg 3:28), phrases like HLK )AXAR are
commonly used, in both literal (e.g. Ruth 2:9) and metaphorical (e.g. Gen
41:30, Ex 23:2, Deut 13:3,5 (English vv.2,4)) senses. Years don't have backs
either (Gen 41:30), but they do have an )AXAR which can be followed. So do
gods, and God, but surely you don't consider Deut 13:4 to mean that God has
a literal back!
I'll look forward to your list of scholarly commentary supporting your
hypothesis. In the meantime the plain reading of the text makes perfect
sense.
== The point of the more or less explicit racism in some older books is
that Middle Eastern Semites (probably implicitly including Egyptians) were
incapable of certain things which European, possibly Aryan Greeks were able
to do. No one would dare to write anything like that now, but they, even
you, still quote as authorities people who did say things like that. But I
accept that this isn't your argument.
Yes. This was actually something I picked up from conservatives; those who
insisted the doctrine of ex nihilo was true in the OT. Their explanation as
to why it is not explicated in the texts is that the ancients didn't know
how to express the concept of "out of nothing." So we're supposed to assume
it was there because the NT presumably teaches it.
== He does, I just didn't bother to quote that part. Actually he quotes one
counter-example in which all Egyptians are so described. Read the whole
article.
I wish I could. I'm in Brazil at the moment. Would you mind telling me what
example he provided? I'm thinking it might be the same one Clines and
Westermann mentioned, but they were in agreement that it was too ambiguous
to make that conclusion. Then again, my memory could be failing me.
== Thank you for these snipped snippets. They are indeed helpful.
You're very welcome.
== I am happy with "God is recurrently spoken of in the Old Testament as if
he were a human being", and that he chooses to reveal himself in some kind
of human form. The question is I suppose how far this was believed to be the
reality of God.
Indeed it is. The majority of scholars, I believe, support my argument that
this was in fact the popular belief in Ancient Israel; though they would
probably also agree that it eventually became the antithesis to the would-be
official religion.
== As I pointed out before, it hardly can have been by the Chronicler and
Zechariah who wrote of God's eyes running. But perhaps the earlier writers
had a rather different view.
What I see you and Karl doing is picking examples that are clearly metaphors
and placing them centerstage. This is fine, so long as we don't presume
these examples establish the rule for all existing anthropomorphisms. Too
many of them simply cannot be explained this way, and this is precisely why
the LXX translators decided to save themselves the touble of having to
explain them by simply deleting them.
== But it is impossible to tell from one individual example whether the
author was using these terms literally or metaphorically.
True, but if we assume Moses was a consistent author in Genesis, Exodus and
Numbers, and that he was a product of his ANE environment, it makes this
much easier to determine. Also, we know the first temple had a throne room
whereby Yahweh was believed to make his presence. Why make a giant chair for
something that doesn't naturally sit?
As Mark Smith notes, anthropomorphisms were the norm for ANE deities, but
more importantly these were not understood metaphorically. It seems that if
metaphor is always the case in the OT, then it would have been qualified as
such each and every time. Certainly Moses could have done a better job at
emphasizing Yahweh's uniquness as an incorporeal and formless deity. I mean
calling him a "Man of War", building a giant chair for him,saying he created
us in hism image, referring to his "face" and "backparts," and even more to
the point, his "form", really seems to decimate the argument that Moses
understood Yahweh in a metaphysical sense opposite to his contemporary ANE
neighbors. Yahweh, it appears, was unique in his power over the other gods
(which Moses believed to have existed), it doesn't seem to be an issue of
existence vs. nonexistence, or corporeality vs. incorporeality.
== We know that the terms were used metaphorically elsewhere, as well as
literally.
Sure, for example, "face" is used to refer to the "face" of the earth, the
"face" of the deep, and "face" was often understood as being in front of
something. But when we see the text refer to Moses speaking to God "fac to
face," it is hard to assume this as metaphor without applying the same to
Moses. If this means God doesn't necessarily have a face, then it must mean
Moses didn't have a face either. Further, the text says they spoke to the
Lord face to face and they saw Him "eye to eye"(Numbers 14:14). Was this an
idomatic expression similar to modern English? Meaning, that it simply means
they were in agreement?
Jeremiah 32:4; 34:3 might shed some light on this: "Zedekiah king of Judah
will not escape out of the hand of the Chaldeans, but he will surely be
given into the hand of the king of Babylon, and he will speak with him face
to face and see him eye to eye...you will see the king of Babylon eye to
eye, and he will speak with you face to face."
The meaning behind each phrase is evident. Face to face is in the context
of a verbal conversation while eye to eye is in the context of a visual
encounter. Face can refer to inanimate objects such as water or earth, but
the phrase eye to eye only applies to things which have eyes. From this
perspective, it logically follows that the Lord has eyes and most likely, a
face as well.
== Well, an alternative is that the LXX translators, like many modern
scholars, were so literal-minded that they didn't recognise metaphors
(metaphorically) staring them in the face.
I don't think this holds up becase teh changes went both ways (metaphor to
literal and literal to metaphor). Scholars are in agreement that these
changes were theologically motivated.
For example, Gen 3:8-10 in the KJV reads that Adam and Eve heard, the voice
[qol] of the LORD God walking in the garden. Clearly a voice cannot walk,
but this is cleared up with a critical examination of the Hebrew qol, which
is more properly translated as sound. The change makes all the difference
in the world. This correction is made in the Revised Standard Version for a
reason: And they heard the sound of the LORD God walking in the Garden. An
audible sound of someone or something walking implies actual walking -
without metaphorical allusion - however this is not established from the
traditional reading of the Old Testament. Here some more examples...
Dt 32:10 His eye Dt 1:45, Num 11:1 in the
ears of Jehovah
LXX: of an eye. LXX: before the lord.
Ex 15:8 blast of nostrils Dt 33:10 they put incense
before thy nose.
LXX: through the wind of my wrath. LXX shall lay incense in thine
anger.
Num 12:8 mouth to mouth Ex 24:10 they saw the God of
Israel
LXX: mouth to mouth apparently LXX: they saw the place
They are celebrating their independance day here in Brazil. I'm off to the
parades for a couple days it seems. Have a great day.
Re: [b-hebrew] Divine Embodiment - Peter Kirk,
Kevin Graham, 09/07/2005