John N. Oswalt (NICOT): The one element here that is not present in 11:6-9 is the snake [will eat]2055 dust for its bread. Some commentators (e.g., Westermann, Whybray) believe that it has been intentionally added because this passage is speaking about the new creation. That is, it is an allusion to Gen. 3. All the sources of weeping that have been detailed in vv. 20-25 are ultimately the result of the snake’s interference in Eden. There God announced that the snake would crawl in the dust forever, and that although he would bite the heel of Eve’s child, that child would crush the snake’s head (Gen. 3:15). Here the snake is finally condemned not only to crawl in the dust but to eat only dust forevermore. When that happens, the curse will be truly broken, and as the Lord says, there will be none to hurt or destroy in all his holy mountain. May God grant it.
Jewish Study Bible (JPS): The wolf and the lamb shall graze together, And the lion shall eat straw like the ox, And the serpent's food shall be earth. In all My sacred mount Nothing evil or vile shall be done-said the LORD
Keil-Delitzsch: We have frequently observed within chapters 40-66 (last of all at Isaiah 65:12, cf., Isaiah 66:4), how the prophet repeats entire passages from the earlier portion of his prophecies almost word for word. Here he repeats Isaiah 11:6-9 with a compendious abridgment. Isaiah 65:25
refers to the animals just as it does there. But whilst this custom of
self-repetition favours the unity of authorship, כּאחד for יחדּו equals
unâ, which only occurs elsewhere in Ezra and Ecclesiastes (answering
to the Chaldee כּחדה), might be adduced as evidence of the opposite. The
only thing that is new in the picture as here reproduced, is what is
said of the serpent. This will no longer watch for human life, but will
content itself with the food assigned it in Genesis 3:14.
It still continues to wriggle in the dust, but without doing injury to
man. The words affirm nothing more than this, although Stier's method of
exposition gets more out, or rather puts more in. The assertion of
those who regard the prophet speaking here as one later than Isaiah,
viz., that Isaiah 65:25
is only attached quite loosely to what precedes, is unjust and untrue.
The description of the new age closes here, as in chapter 11, with the
peace of the world of nature, which stands throughout chapters 40-66 in
the closest reciprocal relation to man, just as it did in chapters 1-39.
NET Bible: A wolf and a lamb will graze together;[a] a lion, like an ox, will eat straw,[b] and a snake’s food will be dirt.[c] They will no longer injure or destroy on my entire royal mountain,”[d] says the Lord.
Note c in NET Bible: Isaiah 65:25 sn Some see an allusion to Gen 3:14 (note “you will eat dirt”). The point would be that even in this new era the snake (often taken as a symbol of Satan) remains under God’s curse. However, it is unlikely that such an allusion exists. Even if there is an echo of Gen 3:14, the primary allusion is to 11:8, where snakes are pictured as no longer dangerous. They will no longer attack other living creatures, but will be content to crawl along the ground. (The statement “you will eat dirt” in Gen 3:14 means “you will crawl on the ground.” In the same way the statement “dirt will be its food” in Isa 65:25 means “it will crawl on the ground.”)
John Goldingay (Understanding the Bible Commentary Series): Verse 25 identifies this vision with that in 11:6–9. It also adds the somber line based on Genesis 3:14, but dust will be the serpent’s food. This surprising comment implies that, for all the vision of new creation, the factors that led to the original human act of uncreation have not been re- moved. It seems odd that there was present in God’s good creation a creature who encouraged humanity to do other than God said. In parallel, it seems odd that this creature should also be present in the renewed Jerusalem. Perhaps the implication is that such life is no more designed to be challenge-free than life in Eden was. But here, more clearly than in Genesis 3:14–15, the description concludes with a promise that the serpent’s action will not spoil things (v. 25b). When we set the passage in a broader biblical context, that reference to the serpent also draws our attention to the fact that long, full, ordinary earthly life is designed to be continued as, or succeeded by, or transformed into, eternal life.
48 comments:
Isaiah 5:8
Isaiah 32:15 - food forest?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NKIgqa49rMc
https://www.dailymotion.com/video/x4c8tev
https://www.dailymotion.com/video/x12mg6v - see from about 38 mins.
Very interesting, one day (perhaps later this year) I'd love to start learning to read Hebrew so I can get more into the Hebrew bible.
I know John Oswalt from his defence of the idea that the Hebrew Bible, specifically Genesis 1, teaches creation ex-nihilo, somethich which I have read debated, and I hope is true :).
https://www.captivatinghistory.com/apep-great-snake-of-chaos-egyptian-mythology/
“swallowing” is of interest here.
https://www.sefaria.org/Rashi_on_Leviticus.17.15?lang=bi
Rashi on swallowing
Duncan, I'm not sure what you think, but I find lots of error on the link above. I don't say this to be overly critical and I'm not against reading Egyptian literature, history or religion/mythology. However, the Egyptian deities were nothing in comparison to YHWH: animal gods and deities of nature, including the sun god. But the author says the physical universe, from today's standpoint, is just the combination of nature's physical laws and their continuity. Yeah, from a naturalistic viewpoint, that's correct, but how do we know that naturalism is right? Finally, certain thinkers have claimed that humankind progressed from magic/mythology to religion, then to science. I don't buy this scenario, but just throw it into the mix.
Roman: That is a worthy goal: I was once gung ho about Hebrew, then eventually decided to focus on Greek and Latin. I'm content to dabble in Hebrew-Aramaic and I'd like to learn Syriac and Ugaritic. However, I applaud your efforts to learn Hebrew.
Gerhard von Rad likewise insists that Genesis teaches creatio ex nihilo: whether he's correct or not, I read some of his commentary recently and noticed some perceptive insights he had. And the man (or his translator) expresses himself beautifully.
The point I was looking at can be found elsewhere, of a snake that "swallows" the sun, and in genesis a snake that "swallows" the dirt. Terminology and concept.
" Once creation was begun, Apophis was angered because of the introduction of duality and order. Prior to creation, everything was a unified whole, but after, there were opposites such as water and land, light and dark, male and female. Apophis became the enemy of the sun god because the sun was the first sign of the created world and symbolized divine order, light, life, and if he could >>swallow the sun god<<, he could return the world to a unity of darkness."
https://www.ancient.eu/Apophis/
Thanks for clarifying. However, one point of difference might be that the snake in Genesis has the dust for its food. So does it really swallow the dust or is some other meaning being communicated? I also look at those Egyptian myths in an aetiological light: they're meant to explain the origins of things and reasons why something is the case. So they might be paralle in a sense, but the meanings and significances might differ greatly.
What I'm also trying to say is that the Genesis utterance could be idiomatic such that the serpent does not really eat dust or swallow it.
Its not "dust" though, is it?
Apophis never actually swallows the sun.
Note the image https://www.ancient.eu/image/4941/apophis-defeated/ - is that a tree behind?
Tomb at Deir el-Medinareigned.
Inherkhau reigned 1279 BC – 1213 BC.
If the serpent swallows the dirt then it fits with Genesis 3:22,23.
https://biblehub.com/text/genesis/4-3.htm
It puts a whole other slant on Cane and Abel.
https://www.ancient-hebrew.org/names/Cain-and-Abel.htm#:~:text=Cain%20is%20a%20possessor%2C%20one,Abel%20is%20empty%20of%20substance.
I was speaking about Gen. 3:14 when referring to the "dust." You know the Hebrew is aphar, which could be dust or something else. See https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/003463733102800403?journalCode=raeb
We know there is a difference between dust and dirt, but either way, dust is a perfectly legitimate rendering for Gen. 3:14.
You're right that Apophis is different: the statement concerning Apophis is more of a counterfactual utterance (i.e., if he could, then he would).
Research Gen. 3:14 and you might see why certain scholars think the serpent does not swallow dust or dirt in a literal sense. It's more of an idiom, according to some works, for vanquishment.
What connection are you seeing between Gen. 3:14 and 3:22-23. I see the ground mentioned in 3:22-23, but that's referring to Adam and, by extension, Eve.
Wish I had time to pick apart Mr. Benner's information; I'm sorry, but he continues to perpetuate linguistic error, plain and simple. One conception but two births for Eve? Okay.
His etymology of Hebrew names is also very sketchy.
https://brill.com/view/journals/jsj/2/2/article-p167_7.xml
https://books.google.com/books?id=FPdTDwAAQBAJ&pg=PA51&dq=apep+and+genesis&hl=en&newbks=1&newbks_redir=0&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwiy44TboZDvAhUqhOAKHaL-C3EQ6AEwBXoECAcQAg#v=onepage&q=apep%20and%20genesis&f=false
Have you read all of the paper on job 19?
No I have not: I merely cited it, in order to show what dust can mean. I know that the author proposes the Hebrew term can mean dust, but it might not have that meaning in the relevant contexts.
It I no way proves to me that it can mean dust.
There's not much doubt that what can mean dust. Whether it does have that meaning is another question. Like other things, the issue is disputed.
It is ambiguous translations that have given it the meaning - dust.
IMO many places it is referring to dung & dry animal dung.
We do have a much later word here:-
https://biblehub.com/text/ezekiel/4-15.htm
It is only used once so I would not hang to much on it.
I think I already said that ancient plaster walls were not made of dirt, but a mixture, mostly of dung, some soil and some straw.
This video shows an Indian method with less dung.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9WmJHrPoo84
Also the top coat is mostly dung.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eM2XhPCEuQU
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AOLDIfIAPK4
Are we talking about the same word? Aphar clearly has the potential meaning of dust, even if someone wants to dispute that meaning. Are you saying that Adam was possibly made from dung or dry animal dung? It's also a little hard to sprinkle dried dung. Yet the Bible uses aphar in that way. See the relevant lexica to see what I'm saying. Time eludes me now.
At the moment I do not have the tame to account for all cases but a good example is https://biblehub.com/text/genesis/26-15.htm
Filling a well with earth is a minor problem in this territory, they were digging out wells all the time, but if it was filled with dung, now that's another matter altogether.
Another https://biblehub.com/text/genesis/28-14.htm
People tend to forget in a modern world how dung was distributed everywhere over productive ground.
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/303778795_Population_size_estimates_and_distribution_of_the_African_elephant_using_the_dung_surveys_method_in_Rubondo_Island_National_Park_Tanzania
It would not only indicate numeracy but also productivity.
One really needs to get away from seeing it as just something unclean. There were good reasons not to handle the domestic animal waste in the dabar, but not all the time.
I might have overlooked the point, but what philological basis is there for aphar = dung? See https://www.bibletools.org/index.cfm/fuseaction/Lexicon.show/ID/H6083/%60aphar.htm
http://classic.net.bible.org/dictionary.php?word=Dust
See https://biblehub.com/text/1_samuel/2-8.htm
The wordplay and possible translations of the two terms. The is something missing here and in many other places.
When something could be numbered it was "dust" but when it could not it was https://www.openbible.info/topics/sand.
Dust is not sand, but the land had both.
https://biblehub.com/text/isaiah/25-10.htm
It amazes me how these bible sites mis the point and culture of the texts.
Trampling straw in to a dung pile - see last video above.
Aphar is a dry dusty material but it is not inert like sand.
See Numbers 5 and the adultery test. What kind of dust would the floor of the tabernacle be?
The relationship between dust and ashes:- https://www.persee.fr/doc/paleo_0153-9345_1984_num_10_2_941
https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/129587028.pdf
https://exarc.net/issue-2019-1/ea/question-fuel-cooking-ancient-egypt-and-sudan
I think most (all?) Bible students know thatn dung was used as fuel in acient times: the question is whether aphar was understood to mean "dung." I've not seen evidence for that claim yet :-)
Who knows? Maybe some lexicon or source does back the idea.
https://biblehub.com/text/genesis/3-19.htm
This is clearly not "dust".
Since when do humans return to dust? Unless cremated.
I will stick with a common sense approach. Like our discussion about tallow and salt. Sometimes the obvious is too obvious to be recognised. Yes everyone knows about dung fuel. How many times do you see it mentioned in the Bible for something so common?
https://youtu.be/9twFI210maw
I earlier said, as I've stated before here, that aphar may/may not denote "dust," but it might. E.A. Speiser prefers "clods" for Genesis 2:7, writing:
"The traditional 'dust' is hard to part with, yet it is inappropriate. Heb. 'apar stands for 'lumps of earth, soil, dirt' as well as the resulting particles of 'dust.' For the former, cf., for example, xxvi 15; note also vs. 19, where the animals are said to have been formed 'out of the soil.' On the other hand, 'dust' is preferable in iii 19."
[End Quote]
Have you ever read the WT explanation for how humans return to the dust? In any event, I believe there is more than one way that we return to the dust at death: our constitution is dust (or whatever you want to call it) and we decompose regardless of cremation or not. See Ps. 103:13-14.
I don't oppose common sense, but evidence is also important, linguistic, lexicographical, and philological evidence.
Genesis 2:7 (LXX): καὶ ἔπλασεν ὁ θεὸς τὸν ἄνθρωπον χοῦν ἀπὸ τῆς γῆς καὶ ἐνεφύσησεν εἰς τὸ πρόσωπον αὐτοῦ πνοὴν ζωῆς καὶ ἐγένετο ὁ ἄνθρωπος εἰς ψυχὴν ζῶσαν
1 Corinthians 15:49 (SBLGNT): καὶ καθὼς ἐφορέσαμεν τὴν εἰκόνα τοῦ χοϊκοῦ, [a]φορέσομεν καὶ τὴν εἰκόνα τοῦ ἐπουρανίου.
Is it saying that God made clay statues?
Why would χοῦς imply clay statues? Statues also don't have rush or neshamah.
I did not explain, clay statues that when breathed into become real.
It fits with "lumps of earth" as this specific soil type is usually clay.
https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/%CF%87%CE%BF%E1%BF%A6%CF%82
Another kind of poetic figurative language that would fit the period, although not how I see it at the moment.
Isaiah 64:8. Also see Robert Alter's comments on Genesis 2:7 in his Hebrew Bible translation.
https://biblehub.com/text/isaiah/64-8.htm
https://biblehub.com/hebrew/hachomer_2563.htm
https://biblehub.com/text/isaiah/10-6.htm
I think alter made a mistake in the translation of 2:7. The initial Vav he has translated as "then". The water in 2:6 is part of the process - so obviously "dust" cannot fit here.
Thanks, I will look at Alter's translation again, but I seem to remember him commenting on the form part of 2:7. The making of Adam is compared to a potter's work.
Many translators use "then" in Genesis 2:7. Why not use it?
Because modern verse divisions are an invention & the subsequent two waws are translated "and". It creates an artificial time division.
How about translating all three as "then" and see how it looks?
The older translations favor "and" in Gen. 2:7, whereas newer versions prefer "then." See also JPS below and concult how NIV handles waw:
New International Version
Then the LORD God formed a man from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living being.
New Living Translation
Then the LORD God formed the man from the dust of the ground. He breathed the breath of life into the man’s nostrils, and the man became a living person.
English Standard Version
then the LORD God formed the man of dust from the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living creature.
Berean Study Bible
Then the LORD God formed man from the dust of the ground and breathed the breath of life into his nostrils, and the man became a living being.
New American Standard Bible
Then the LORD God formed the man of dust from the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and the man became a living person.
HCSB also uses "then."
NET Bible
The LORD God formed the man from the soil of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living being.
See www.etsjets.org › JETS_53-4_801-870_BookReviews
Interesting work: https://books.google.com/books?id=q94eEAAAQBAJ&pg=PA77&lpg=PA77&dq=genesis+2:7+imperfect+consecutive&source=bl&ots=W0yjaz3qag&sig=ACfU3U2IHgmhyF-qs00wqdIz3_cViU_Zww&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjm__yutZjvAhVB2FkKHSpHCoE4WhDoATAHegQIBBAD#v=onepage&q=genesis%202%3A7%20imperfect%20consecutive&f=false
Waw/vav narrativus.
pg 77 - "gen 2:6 is distinct from the preceding verse" - very true. The problem in works like this, its not what it says, its what they do not say. I see nothing that divides 2:6 from 2:7. I never underestimate the use of water.
https://biblehub.com/hebrew/mamtir_4305.htm
https://biblehub.com/text/genesis/7-11.htm
I don't know of a definitive way to divide 2:6 from 2:7: maybe some technical work or scholar could tell us how. I know that Greek uses certain markers like DE or GAR to indicate one is reading a new section, but even this practice does not seal the deal when it comes to dividing paragraphs/sections in the Bible.
Yeah, water could have been involved in Genesis 2:6-7, but one example you give for rain is likely metaphorical, that is, manna raining down from heaven.
Maybe you recall this article: https://www.asa3.org/ASA/resources/WTJ/WTJ58Kline.html
See also https://www.jstor.org/stable/3265876?casa_token=TM2h9mM30y8AAAAA%3An9sBQwNHHiKVPEtSXy6XdLG4vcDdybK86V3FtqUHabpaBEopLQIkdyXyWbnyK-qyOfIlaUbZm1piU47edsTnJkIyN5rISfzp123VrGX98H0N60HrVfI&seq=2#metadata_info_tab_contents
Note https://biblehub.com/text/exodus/16-13.htm & https://biblehub.com/text/numbers/11-9.htm
IMO the rain brought about the manna rather than being the manna.
Post a Comment