Most Hebrew dictionaries or commentaries I've checked don't say why panim ("face" or "faces") is dual (some call it plural, but dual is more specific). Here's something I found in one book:
"This particular word always occurs in the plural, perhaps indicative of the fact that the face is a combination of a number of features. As we shall see below, the face identifies the person and reflects the attitude and sentiments of the person. As such, panim can be a substitute for the self or the feelings of the self."
(Quoted from Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament, page 727)
Besides Genesis 1:2, other examples of panim are Genesis 2:6; Exodus 33:11, 19-20; Deut. 5:4 and Psalm 139:7.
Here is also the NET Bible translation note for Exodus 33:23:
tn The plural “my backs” is according to Gesenius an extension plural (compare “face,” a dual in Hebrew). The word denotes a locality in general, but that is composed of numerous parts (see GKC 397 §124.b). W. C. Kaiser says that since God is a spirit, the meaning of this word could just as easily be rendered “after effects” of his presence (“Exodus,” EBC 2:484). As S. R. Driver says, though, while this may indicate just the “afterglow” that he leaves behind him, it was enough to suggest what the full brilliancy of his presence must be (Exodus, 363; see also Job 26:14).
213 comments:
«Oldest ‹Older 201 – 213 of 213https://biblehub.com/text/psalms/148-4.htm
I had already referenced this and thought it was obvious.
What are you waters ABOVE/OVER the heaven heights the heavens?
Do you not see a significance?
What is the basis for your disagreement?
https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=vRHvCAAAQBAJ&pg=PA533&lpg=PA533&dq=enuma+elish+no+zodiac+sign&source=bl&ots=kPqfdplDNj&sig=ACfU3U1Epj4VROWjf58pk9saUdIV7arhRQ&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjPjfHsnInnAhWtSBUIHTeYBd8Q6AEwAHoECAYQAQ#v=onepage&q=enuma%20elish%20no%20zodiac%20sign&f=false
My disagreement concerned whether "zodiac" should be used in a translation of the Enuma Elish. I don't think its proper use can be ruled out. It's a minor point IMO, but the other thing that concerned me, is why any of this discussion about Tablet 5 matters. How does it relate to the Hebrew Bible, which was the original focus? I'm not saying it has no relevance, but what do you think the relevant point from Enuma Elish, tablet 5, is?
I also posted a reply to your question about Psalm 148:4. We're not sure what the waters are, but most likely, this verse refers to the waters above the expanse. See above.
See http://www.historyworld.net/wrldhis/PlainTextHistories.asp?historyid=ac32
But there is more.
"ruled out" but what ruled it in the first place. Modern English has a specific meaning for the term zodiac. Constellations of stars is not the zodiac. It is how they are equated in sequence and symbol.
I could list other ancient cultures that looked at the stars but I do not know of anyone who uses the term zodiac for them.
The point is that psalms uses a term you referenced - the heavens heights the heavens which is claimed to be the highest heavens.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australian_Aboriginal_astronomy
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tiamat
The waters.
The link I posted does use "zodiac" for the Babylonian system. I found other documents that do the same although these sources don't conflate the Babylonian system with the Greek one.
I don't know enough about Sumerian to draw a parallel between Psalm 148:4 and Enuma Elish. The psalm uses a superlative. I'm not sure the language in Enuma is the same. Thanks for clarifying. This conversation started about one thing, but then went in a different direction
Those earliest Sumerian tablets fall into a category more akin to astronomy than astrology. Using the term carries modern English connotations. I understand the Greek term but this is all about English translation. IMO using zodiac is inappropriate but I am not going to keep labouring the point.
From the wikipedia article (TBC):-
"It is thought that the proper name ti'amat, which is the construct or vocative form, was dropped in secondary translations of the original texts because some Akkadian copyists of Enûma Elish substituted the ordinary word tāmtu ("sea") for Tiamat, the two names having become essentially the same due to association"
This is my point about line 11 compared with psalms. "heights" (associated with stars) inside (under) tiamat (waters).
This has no bearing on Genesis 1. Can you see what I am driving at?
There seems to be other influences at play for the psalm. My point is that usages in the torah may not be the same as the tanakh & this is applicable to these plurals.
I see your point now and I agree that the Sumerian passage does not have a bearing on Genesis. But that has been my position about the Babylonian tale in general.
The Torah is part of the Tanakh, but I get your point. Thanks Duncan
As a side point for Panim and El see https://biblehub.com/text/exodus/24-10.htm
Post a Comment