Sporadic theological and historical musings by Edgar Foster (Ph.D. in Theology and Religious Studies and one of Jehovah's Witnesses).
Thursday, May 20, 2021
Excerpt from Kingdom Through Covenant: Remarks About Bara (Screenshot)
Gentry, Peter John, and Stephen J. Wellum. Kingdom Through Covenant: A Biblical-Theological Understanding of the Covenants. Wheaton, Ill: Crossway, 2012.
Roman: I've enjoyed some of Walton's lectures on YT, but I disagree with him about the functional meaning of Genesis terms. Some of his research is valuable though.
Duncan: you know that context determines the answer to your question. We've discussed semantic domains/range of meaning before. I see no difference in this case.
See Deuteronomy 18:4; Proverbs 3:9. Also, check out https://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/first-fruits
I've seen similar features with arche and prototokos in Greek: is the son or king "firstborn" temporally or in terms of prominence, or both? How can we tell?
Moreover, what does the context/cotext of Gen. 10:10 suggest? Is it likely that "peak" would be what's at play in this verse?
G.J. Wenham (Word Biblical Commentary) seems to agree with you, Duncan. He translates Gen. 10:10: "The prime of his kingdom was Babylon, Erech, Akkad, and Calneh in the country of Shinar."
His comment on the verse is: “The prime,”(רֵאשִׁ֤ית), has both chronological and qualitative significance. The word refers to the beginning of time in 1:1, and it is regularly used in the law of firstfruits (e.g., Lev 2:12; Deut 26:2). And because something is first, it is expected to be the best: Gen 49:3, Deut 21:17. If “Babylon” ( בָּבֶ֔ל, Akk bâb-ili, “gate of the god”) was not the earliest foundation of Mesopotamia (it goes back at least to the third millennium), by the first millennium it was certainly the most prestigious.
Bruce Waltke: The Hebrew may be read as “first centers” and/or “chief centers,” to show their political prominence as well as their chronological priority.
Can't you see the eisegesis in the commentary on 1:1? We translate it beginning because it means beginning of time. On what basis? How can we know that is what it means?
Keep in mind - https://biblehub.com/hebrew/battechillah_8462.htm
I am not claiming that "beginning" is wrong but I do not know that it is correct either. Same goes for heaven and earth Vs sky and land.
We've discussed bara many times and I think the lexical/philological evidence points toward the word denoting "beginning" in Genesis 1:1. I hardly see anyone questioning "beginning" as the possible denotation, even if the exact nature of "the beginning" is questioned.
Secondly, you know that techillah is not used in Gen. 1:1 and when it's used, context must be taken into consideration.
Thirdly, I don't read Wenham like you do: he is not arguing that we translate the Hebrew as "beginning" in 1:1 because that's what it means. Keep in mind that I was quoting his remarks on Gen. 10:10, which agreed with your pov; he wasn't directly addressing Gen. 1:1. And he merely stated that "beginning" refers to the beginning of time in Gen. 1:1, but that is not the same as making a circular/eisegetical claim. To be fair, why not read his comments about Gen. 1:1 before making such an assessment?
Finally, "heaven" in Hebrew includes "sky," so I've often wondered why should we make an issue of heaven versus sky: birds fly in the sky, but they equally fly "in heaven" or "mid-heaven" as Revelation says. A similar ambiguity exists in English: heaven denotes more than one thing, but I think the ambiguity is deeper in Hebrew and possibly Greek. The same thing could be said for "earth," but in Gen. 1:1, "earth" seems preferable to land although I'm aware of objections to this view.
Something else that might be helpful: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0309089217734746?icid=int.sj-abstract.similar-articles.1
Also see Deuteronomy 11:12 in Orthodox Jewish Bible:
An eretz which Hashem Eloheicha careth for; the eyes of Hashem Eloheicha are always upon it, from the reshit hashanah (beginning of the year) even unto the acharit shanah (end of the year).
There are theological and scale implications for "heaven" as opposed to sky. Can we say the god dwells in the sky. The fact that some translations say that birds fly in the heavens does not make it correct. They fly in the sky.
Bare in mind what we have just discussed about stars and the different perceptions of Hebrews and Greeks. Isn't that imposing Greek on Hebrew?
I realize the following can be disputed, but . . .
The construction weha’ares hayetha thohu wabhohu proves (see on this below) that v. 2 begins a new subject. It follows, therefore, that the first verse is an independent sentence that constitutes a formal introduction to the entire section, and expresses at the outset, with majestic brevity, the main thought of the section: that in the beginning, that is, at the commencement of time, in the remotest past that the human mind can conceive, God created the heavens and the earth. How He created them will be related in detail further on. Following the principle that one should ‘first state the general proposition and then specify the particulars’, the Bible will now pass in review before us all the component parts of the universe, one by one, and tell us, concerning each one, that it was created by the word of God.
Cassuto, Umberto. A Commentary on the Book of Genesis: from Adam to Noah (Umberto Cassuto Biblical Commentaries) (Kindle Locations 606-613). Magnes Press / Varda Books. Kindle Edition.
It has no ambiguity in its meaning "beginning" & context only confirms it. So why wasn't it the term of choice at Gen 1:1? Everyone else on the planet can claim that bereshit means beginning, but nothing I would classify as proof has appeared yet, to back up the claim. Anything the lxx can tell us is of its time and culture, in fact the only other text that meets this understanding of the period is the rig Veda, which does speak of a temporal beginning.
It is far more honest to just say "we do not know." Or start looking at all the texts.
To clarify, I'm not saying that no distinction at all exists between "heaven" and "sky," but my point is that the variant renderings often make no difference since Hebrew apparently does not make a hard and fast distinction between "heaven" and "sky." Even in English, there is nothing wrong with saying that birds fly in the heavens:
From Merriam-Wesbter:
Definition of heaven
1 : the expanse of space that seems to be over the earth like a dome : firmament —usually used in plural the brightest star in the heavens 2a often capitalized : the dwelling place of the Deity and the blessed dead hopes to go to Heaven when she dies b : a spiritual state of everlasting communion with God 3 capitalized : god sense 1 Heaven help us. 4 : a place or condition of utmost happiness : something that is very pleasant or enjoyable: Our week at the spa was sheer heaven. 5 Christian Science: a state of thought in which sin is absent and the harmony of divine Mind (see mind entry 1 sense 8) is manifest
Can one not say "There are stars in the sky" or "There are stars in the heavens." My comments about heaven and sky pertain strictly to Hebrew: I don't think I'm making an imposition in this case.
You ask a good question about the use of terms, and a Hebrew expert could probably tell you more, but there is usually a good reason why on word is employed rather than another.
As for bereshit, what type of evidence would be needed to prove that it denotes "the beginning"? Granted, our knowledge of pretty much all things is approximate and subject to change. However, the denotation "beginning" in this case is about as solid as it gets. Most scholars only debate which beginning, not whether it has that denotation.
Don't you think that lexicographers and philologists have looked at the texts and continue to peruse them? I'm not saying that we should be gullible, but how many Jews have advocated "the beginning" as a meaning for bereshit? Likely quite a few.
"One does not have to read far in the Bible to encounter word play; indeed the opening words of the Bible present an example: bere)sit bara? 'in the beginning of creating' (Gen 1:1). The author has constructed the story so that it begins with the same three letters b-r-) that form the root of the verb 'create' so crucial to the story. 3 In a sense, this example from the opening words of the Bible sets the tenor for the Bible as a whole, for the biblical authors consistently opted for word play, especially the alliterative type, whenever the opportunity arose. When a choice of synonyms was available, the writers typically chose the word that produced the greater alliterative effect. This can be seen especially in the case of rare words, even hapax legomena."
I'm going from the gut here, but I don't believe Psalm 150:1 locates YHWH in the sanctuary (per se) or in the raqia, but see https://www.researchgate.net/publication/262700907_%27Praise_beyond_Words%27_Psalm_150_as_grand_finale_of_the_crescendo_in_the_Psalter.
"The psalm begins and ends with the consistent call to praise in Psalms 146–150: Hallelujah! The opening verse continues with the summons to praise El (God) in both the sanctuary and the great 'firmament,' or sky. Praise is both for cultic settings and for all of creation; it is to be universal. The remainder of this text emphasizes the cultic setting."
I read the Hebrew versity with caution because that whole argument about order/syntax appears to be off-kilter, but I agree with him concerning the beginning and creation.
Psalm 150:1 is speaking of the raqia, which some scholars connect with the sky/heavens. As Merriam-Webster shows, heaven sometimes signifies the sky. As Psalm 19 mentions, the heavens declare God's glory. That verse is not referring to God's residence, and we could easily substitute skies for heavens in that example.
Psalm 19:1 - As I have said before, and in this case the format of the Hebrew is normal. Not saying the same thing twice but instead saying two thing that are related. First we have the sky and then that which is beyond it.
I get what you're saying about Psalm 19:1, but for me, it's an example of how the same term may be employed more than one way. As the article at encyclopedia.com articulates:
"In the Old Testament the word heaven is used both with cosmological significance as part of the physical universe and with religious significance as the dwelling place of God, particularly as the source of His salutary blessings."
New Living Translation: And soon the sky was black with clouds. A heavy wind brought a terrific rainstorm, and Ahab left quickly for Jezreel.
English Standard Version: And in a little while the heavens grew black with clouds and wind, and there was a great rain. And Ahab rode and went to Jezreel.
JPS Tanakh 1917: And it came to pass in a little while, that the heaven grew black with clouds and wind, and there was a great rain. And Ahab rode, and went to Jezreel.
I have no major problem with your comment regarding the order of utterances: we've actually discussed it before :)
Again, on Deut. 4:19, no argument. BDB contains a discussion of the qualifier too.
Yes, when looking at Isa. 13:10, one of the first things that hit me was metaphor/figurative usage. For the reason you suggest and because of context. See Isa. 13:9. This verse is also an example of common apocalyptic imagery in the Hebrew thought world: we encounter the language iterum et iterum.
One more thing: see http://etheses.dur.ac.uk/12443/1/Chambers_Dissertation_Corrected.pdf?DDD32+ for a thorough analysis of Genesis 1:1.
Like Greek or Latin, Hebrew has syntactical rules that we'd expect, but those are generalities that usually, but don't always obtain.
There are many reasons why the chambers dissertation is not thorough. His references to the verse in Hosea do not go far enough regarding the beginning here. If someone was looking to ape genesis then why use the other term. And why would you even reference it in the first place as it is so late in the corpus.
I know he is referencing other people's arguments, but it is just padding.
ANE has very little to do with the genesis account when you look at it in detail. I have to keep coming back to the rig Veda. Why is it left out? Geographically it is not that far away. We do have some evidence of Babylonian tablets that also contain Sanskrit. Unless someone is going to claim that sections of it plagerise the genesis account, which is something I have never come across, then this is a gaping hole in the scholarship.
I'm not trying to defend the entire dissertation by Chambers, but as someone who has written a dissertation and M.Th. thesis, I can empathize with him and I know one cannot put everything into a dissertation. You must have a focus and deal with certain details or it becomes too unwieldy: dissertation usually have limits. At Glasgow, it used to be a maximum of 100,000 words for doctoral theses.
My comments about his dissertation being thorough related to Gen. 1:1 and his interaction with the notable article by R. Holmstedt.
I'm not going to try and justify Chambers' discussion of Hosea, but it looks like he brings it up (at one place) because it's supposed to be a parallel example of Gen. 1:1. You mention the lateness of Hosea, but for most philologists and lexicographers, that has little bearing on the use of a text for the sake of comparison when one is trying to settle syntactical or grammatical questions. Your objection is really a methodological one in certain ways.
Concerning the Rig Veda, granted, the reluctance to use the text is probably not about geography. But what evidence/basis do we have for Jews being that familiar with Sanskrit or with the Hindu writings? Why should we even connect the Rig Veda with Genesis? I've yet to see a solid basis for taking this approach. To be honest, I don't find the Rig Veda to be that helpful in elucidating Genesis.
The Pulpit Commentary (Genesis 1:2) does draw a connection between myths/stories from other cultures and Genesis. It includes the Rig Veda although the connection seems tenuous IMO. You can see the remarks on biblehub
Also see http://faculty.gordon.edu/hu/bi/ted_hildebrandt/otesources/01-genesis/text/articles-books/Seely-Firmament-WTJ.htm
If a paper is going to make comparisons then surely a text that at least says "in the beginning" must be compared.
I have discussed this with Jeff Benner & a number of other who specialise in a range of early Semitic languages & there does seem to be a significant connection between the two text types.
For a nation whose lives revolve around the Torah the lateness of a text is very significant. Cf GJohn 1:1.
If they do not take this into account then they have a serious methodological issue. Hosea is not just about the sentence structure but the fact that is also about a beginning - but it does not use the same term.
Of course the other thing that needs dealing with is the old and extremely poor translations of the Rig Veda. Who know what other connections we may find when we can actually comprehend it without all the historical guess work.
You've got me confused: I was talking about the Rig Veda, not Enuma Elish :)
I referenced the Pulpit Commentary, which connects Gen. 1:2 with numerous stories from the ANE and it includes the Rig Veda, but that was my point. There are some OT scholars who mention/quote/invoke the Rig Veda and see a connection between it and Genesis. Any mention of Enuma Elish by an article I linked to, was only incidental. Hope that alleviates any confusion.
I was under the impression that the Seely paper also mentioned the Rig Veda: maybe I was wrong. As for Enuma Elish, numerous scholars have associated that work with Genesis ad nauseam. But I don't view things that way.
Regarding lateness of texts, I can see if you want to argue that shalom (for instance) changes meaning over time from the 10th century BCE to the 1st century CE, but I see no problem with comparing how Hebrew writers use shalom, bara or whatever term is under consideration.
I would have to go back and review Chambers' work, but I took him to be making syntactical comparisons with Hosea and Genesis (whether the construct in Gen. 1:1 is absolute or construct). Normally when the issue is lexical or semantic, he does choose texts that have the same words or synonyms.
Another problem with invoking/using the Rig Veda is having a grasp or command of Sanskrit. I have not taken a poll, but I wonder how many westerners are truly Sanskrit scholars. As you said, the cost for scholarly works is another impediment.
Sorry about that, I am trying to get my thoughts down quickly on some occasions.
The two text types I was referring to are proto Semitic & Sanskrit.
Not Sumerian - that I don't know.
My question about Enuma Elis was rhetorical, and in response to the chambers paper.
Yes, the seely paper does mention the rig.
My first point of focus would be from book 10, psalm 129. Its parallelism to Genesis 1 seems striking. Unfortunately the translation commentary has not got to this yet. In the old translation it has phrases like - "primal germ of the mind" but also "the gods are later than this worlds creation".
I need to know whether these are invention or translation.
You need someone versed in Sanskrit to answer your concerns above, but I know the translation you quote jibes with other things I've read from students of the Vedas/Upanishads.
I have seen some samples from this new translation and disappointingly they still use "chariot" instead of 'cart". Even though the text say it is pulled by bulls. And another by dear. Still trying to justify a late dating I presume?
Unfortunately students may still be reading the texts through the curtain of earlier lexicons. I think that being really well red in the language allows someone to look past those works and start to see what is actually being said, in context.
51 comments:
Interesting, John Walton is someone I've come across before on Genesis.
https://biblehub.com/hebrew/reshit_7225.htm
So does רֵאשִׁ֗ית for "first fruits" literally mean the first fruit produces in a given season?
Roman: I've enjoyed some of Walton's lectures on YT, but I disagree with him about the functional meaning of Genesis terms. Some of his research is valuable though.
Duncan: you know that context determines the answer to your question. We've discussed semantic domains/range of meaning before. I see no difference in this case.
See Deuteronomy 18:4; Proverbs 3:9. Also, check out https://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/first-fruits
So what do you think "first fruits" means?
Note how context affects the use of the term: https://biblehub.com/bdb/7225.htm
https://archive.gci.org/articles/harvest-seasons-of-ancient-israel/
So a question to ask is, "first fruits" when or which particular produce?
I know that in some instances "beginning" is the only translation that fits but for many Hebrew words I think they do carry a base meaning.
One could say that first = best, but one could also say that best = first.
For Genesis 10:10 it is quite possible that it is saying - at the PEAK of his kingdom.
For Deuteronomy 11:12 I would be suspicious of the entire way it is translated especially regarding אַחֲרִ֥ית .
https://biblehub.com/hebrew/acharit_319.htm
I am not sure they are being used as bookends.
I've seen similar features with arche and prototokos in Greek: is the son or king "firstborn" temporally or in terms of prominence, or both? How can we tell?
Moreover, what does the context/cotext of Gen. 10:10 suggest? Is it likely that "peak" would be what's at play in this verse?
Gen. 10:10 LXX: καὶ ἐγένετο ἀρχὴ τῆς βασιλείας αὐτοῦ Βαβυλὼν καὶ Ορεχ καὶ Αρχαδ καὶ Χαλαννη ἐν τῇ γῇ Σεννααρ
Genesis 10:10 Onkelos: And the head (beginning) of his kingdom was Bavel, and Erek, and Akad, and Kalneh in the land of Bavel.
Admittedly, I have not done serious legwork for Deut. 11:12, but I have to wonder why the terms are not used as bookends there.
G.J. Wenham (Word Biblical Commentary) seems to agree with you, Duncan. He translates Gen. 10:10: "The prime of his kingdom was Babylon, Erech, Akkad, and Calneh in the country of Shinar."
His comment on the verse is: “The prime,”(רֵאשִׁ֤ית), has both chronological and qualitative significance. The word refers to the beginning of time in 1:1, and it is regularly used in the law of firstfruits (e.g., Lev 2:12; Deut 26:2). And because something is first, it is expected to be the best: Gen 49:3, Deut 21:17. If “Babylon” ( בָּבֶ֔ל, Akk bâb-ili, “gate of the god”) was not the earliest foundation of Mesopotamia (it goes back at least to the third millennium), by the first millennium it was certainly the most prestigious.
Bruce Waltke: The Hebrew may be read as “first centers” and/or “chief centers,” to show their political prominence as well as their chronological priority.
But see his view of Gen. 1:1.
So there is double support for your suggestion.
Can't you see the eisegesis in the commentary on 1:1? We translate it beginning because it means beginning of time. On what basis? How can we know that is what it means?
Keep in mind - https://biblehub.com/hebrew/battechillah_8462.htm
I am not claiming that "beginning" is wrong but I do not know that it is correct either. Same goes for heaven and earth Vs sky and land.
We've discussed bara many times and I think the lexical/philological evidence points toward the word denoting "beginning" in Genesis 1:1. I hardly see anyone questioning "beginning" as the possible denotation, even if the exact nature of "the beginning" is questioned.
Secondly, you know that techillah is not used in Gen. 1:1 and when it's used, context must be taken into consideration.
Thirdly, I don't read Wenham like you do: he is not arguing that we translate the Hebrew as "beginning" in 1:1 because that's what it means. Keep in mind that I was quoting his remarks on Gen. 10:10, which agreed with your pov; he wasn't directly addressing Gen. 1:1. And he merely stated that "beginning" refers to the beginning of time in Gen. 1:1, but that is not the same as making a circular/eisegetical claim. To be fair, why not read his comments about Gen. 1:1 before making such an assessment?
Finally, "heaven" in Hebrew includes "sky," so I've often wondered why should we make an issue of heaven versus sky: birds fly in the sky, but they equally fly "in heaven" or "mid-heaven" as Revelation says. A similar ambiguity exists in English: heaven denotes more than one thing, but I think the ambiguity is deeper in Hebrew and possibly Greek. The same thing could be said for "earth," but in Gen. 1:1, "earth" seems preferable to land although I'm aware of objections to this view.
For the denotation of "beginning" in Genesis 1:1, see http://digitalcommons.andrews.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=3126&context=auss
See also https://www.jstor.org/stable/43720023?seq=1
https://fosterheologicalreflections.blogspot.com/search?q=arbez
Something else that might be helpful: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0309089217734746?icid=int.sj-abstract.similar-articles.1
Also see Deuteronomy 11:12 in Orthodox Jewish Bible:
An eretz which Hashem Eloheicha careth for; the eyes of Hashem Eloheicha are always upon it, from the reshit hashanah (beginning of the year) even unto the acharit shanah (end of the year).
There are theological and scale implications for "heaven" as opposed to sky. Can we say the god dwells in the sky. The fact that some translations say that birds fly in the heavens does not make it correct. They fly in the sky.
Bare in mind what we have just discussed about stars and the different perceptions of Hebrews and Greeks. Isn't that imposing Greek on Hebrew?
I realize the following can be disputed, but . . .
The construction weha’ares hayetha thohu wabhohu proves (see on this below) that v. 2 begins a new subject. It follows, therefore, that the first verse is an independent sentence that constitutes a formal introduction to the entire section, and expresses at the outset, with majestic brevity, the main thought of the section: that in the beginning, that is, at the commencement of time, in the remotest past that the human mind can conceive, God created the heavens and the earth. How He created them will be related in detail further on. Following the principle that one should ‘first state the general proposition and then specify the particulars’, the Bible will now pass in review before us all the component parts of the universe, one by one, and tell us, concerning each one, that it was created by the word of God.
Cassuto, Umberto. A Commentary on the Book of Genesis: from Adam to Noah (Umberto Cassuto Biblical Commentaries) (Kindle Locations 606-613). Magnes Press / Varda Books. Kindle Edition.
https://biblehub.com/hebrew/8462.htm
It has no ambiguity in its meaning "beginning" & context only confirms it. So why wasn't it the term of choice at Gen 1:1? Everyone else on the planet can claim that bereshit means beginning, but nothing I would classify as proof has appeared yet, to back up the claim. Anything the lxx can tell us is of its time and culture, in fact the only other text that meets this understanding of the period is the rig Veda, which does speak of a temporal beginning.
It is far more honest to just say "we do not know." Or start looking at all the texts.
https://winebrenner.edu/2019/06/12/is-genesis-11-a-summary-of-gen-12-31-a-heading-or-an-initial-act-of-creation-part-two/?amp
To clarify, I'm not saying that no distinction at all exists between "heaven" and "sky," but my point is that the variant renderings often make no difference since Hebrew apparently does not make a hard and fast distinction between "heaven" and "sky." Even in English, there is nothing wrong with saying that birds fly in the heavens:
From Merriam-Wesbter:
Definition of heaven
1 : the expanse of space that seems to be over the earth like a dome : firmament —usually used in plural the brightest star in the heavens
2a often capitalized : the dwelling place of the Deity and the blessed dead hopes to go to Heaven when she dies
b : a spiritual state of everlasting communion with God
3 capitalized : god sense 1 Heaven help us.
4 : a place or condition of utmost happiness : something that is very pleasant or enjoyable: Our week at the spa was sheer heaven.
5 Christian Science: a state of thought in which sin is absent and the harmony of divine Mind (see mind entry 1 sense 8) is manifest
Can one not say "There are stars in the sky" or "There are stars in the heavens." My comments about heaven and sky pertain strictly to Hebrew: I don't think I'm making an imposition in this case.
Defining shamayim: http://classic.net.bible.org/strong.php?id=08064
בִּרְקִ֥יעַַ - see psalms 150:1 https://biblehub.com/text/psalms/150-1.htm
You ask a good question about the use of terms, and a Hebrew expert could probably tell you more, but there is usually a good reason why on word is employed rather than another.
As for bereshit, what type of evidence would be needed to prove that it denotes "the beginning"? Granted, our knowledge of pretty much all things is approximate and subject to change. However, the denotation "beginning" in this case is about as solid as it gets. Most scholars only debate which beginning, not whether it has that denotation.
Don't you think that lexicographers and philologists have looked at the texts and continue to peruse them? I'm not saying that we should be gullible, but how many Jews have advocated "the beginning" as a meaning for bereshit? Likely quite a few.
G.A. Rendsburg on word play in the Bible:
"One does not have to read far in the Bible to encounter word play;
indeed the opening words of the Bible present an example: bere)sit
bara? 'in the beginning of creating' (Gen 1:1). The author has constructed the story so that it begins with the same three letters b-r-) that form the root of the verb 'create' so crucial to the story. 3 In a sense, this example from the opening words of the Bible sets the tenor for the Bible as a whole, for the biblical authors consistently opted for word play, especially the alliterative type, whenever the opportunity arose. When a choice of synonyms was available, the writers typically chose the word that produced the greater alliterative effect. This can be seen especially in the case of rare words, even hapax legomena."
I also don't know if you've checked out David Clines Classical Hebrew Dictionary to see what he writes about bereshit.
I'm going from the gut here, but I don't believe Psalm 150:1 locates YHWH in the sanctuary (per se) or in the raqia, but see https://www.researchgate.net/publication/262700907_%27Praise_beyond_Words%27_Psalm_150_as_grand_finale_of_the_crescendo_in_the_Psalter.
https://www.freebiblecommentary.org/old_testament_studies/VOL09BOT/VOL09BOT_150.html
New Cambridge Bible Dictionary on Psalms:
"The psalm begins and ends with the consistent call to praise in Psalms 146–150: Hallelujah! The opening verse continues with the summons to praise El (God) in both the sanctuary and the great 'firmament,' or sky. Praise is both for cultic settings and for all of creation; it is to be universal. The remainder of this text emphasizes the cultic setting."
I think my point is that psalms 150:1 is not talking about "sky".
https://biblehub.com/hebrew/ushemei_8064.htm
And neither is this.
I find it no coincidence that when I google "birds of the heavens", it is bible verses in translation that are the primary hits.
https://biblehub.com/text/matthew/6-26.htm
Later terms are also correct.
"birds in the sky" gives a quite different result.
https://www.academia.edu/46667290/Genesis_1_A_Critique
https://www.hebrewversity.com/god-order-creation-deeper-hebrew-meaning-first-verse-bible/
Getting on the right track but his closing paragraph is poor.
I read the Hebrew versity with caution because that whole argument about order/syntax appears to be off-kilter, but I agree with him concerning the beginning and creation.
Psalm 150:1 is speaking of the raqia, which some scholars connect with the sky/heavens. As Merriam-Webster shows, heaven sometimes signifies the sky. As Psalm 19 mentions, the heavens declare God's glory. That verse is not referring to God's residence, and we could easily substitute skies for heavens in that example.
Psalm 19:1 - As I have said before, and in this case the format of the Hebrew is normal. Not saying the same thing twice but instead saying two thing that are related. First we have the sky and then that which is beyond it.
Have you read https://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/1200001949
They can probably explain things much better than I can.
Compare https://www.encyclopedia.com/religion/encyclopedias-almanacs-transcripts-and-maps/heaven-bible
I get what you're saying about Psalm 19:1, but for me, it's an example of how the same term may be employed more than one way. As the article at encyclopedia.com articulates:
"In the Old Testament the word heaven is used both with cosmological significance as part of the physical universe and with religious significance as the dwelling place of God, particularly as the source of His salutary blessings."
Another source: https://brill.com/view/book/9789047421849/Bej.9789004162051.i-399_009.xml
https://jbqnew.jewishbible.org/assets/Uploads/403/jbq_403_mayim.pdf
As a point of comparison, 1 Kings 18:45:
New Living Translation:
And soon the sky was black with clouds. A heavy wind brought a terrific rainstorm, and Ahab left quickly for Jezreel.
English Standard Version:
And in a little while the heavens grew black with clouds and wind, and there was a great rain. And Ahab rode and went to Jezreel.
JPS Tanakh 1917:
And it came to pass in a little while, that the heaven grew black with clouds and wind, and there was a great rain. And Ahab rode, and went to Jezreel.
My statement about the way terms are structured is in no way radical. I could cite a huge range of proven examples.
I see no difficulty here, lets take the first example given, Deut 4:19. Focus on כָּל־ as the qualifier.
https://biblehub.com/hebrew/kol_3605.htm
Note it is used as every as well as all.
Turning a superlative plural into a actual plural.
As for Isaiah 13:10 - what does וּכְסִ֣ילֵיהֶ֔ם mean precisely?
https://scholarsgateway.com/parse/%D7%95%D6%BC%D7%9B%D6%B0%D7%A1%D6%B4%D7%99%D7%9C%D6%B5%D7%99%D7%94%D6%B6%D7%9D
Any clues here?
I have no major problem with your comment regarding the order of utterances: we've actually discussed it before :)
Again, on Deut. 4:19, no argument. BDB contains a discussion of the qualifier too.
Yes, when looking at Isa. 13:10, one of the first things that hit me was metaphor/figurative usage. For the reason you suggest and because of context. See Isa. 13:9. This verse is also an example of common apocalyptic imagery in the Hebrew thought world: we encounter the language iterum et iterum.
One more thing: see http://etheses.dur.ac.uk/12443/1/Chambers_Dissertation_Corrected.pdf?DDD32+ for a thorough analysis of Genesis 1:1.
Like Greek or Latin, Hebrew has syntactical rules that we'd expect, but those are generalities that usually, but don't always obtain.
There are many reasons why the chambers dissertation is not thorough. His references to the verse in Hosea do not go far enough regarding the beginning here. If someone was looking to ape genesis then why use the other term. And why would you even reference it in the first place as it is so late in the corpus.
I know he is referencing other people's arguments, but it is just padding.
ANE has very little to do with the genesis account when you look at it in detail. I have to keep coming back to the rig Veda. Why is it left out? Geographically it is not that far away. We do have some evidence of Babylonian tablets that also contain Sanskrit. Unless someone is going to claim that sections of it plagerise the genesis account, which is something I have never come across, then this is a gaping hole in the scholarship.
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/06/070619100108.htm
I'm not trying to defend the entire dissertation by Chambers, but as someone who has written a dissertation and M.Th. thesis, I can empathize with him and I know one cannot put everything into a dissertation. You must have a focus and deal with certain details or it becomes too unwieldy: dissertation usually have limits. At Glasgow, it used to be a maximum of 100,000 words for doctoral theses.
My comments about his dissertation being thorough related to Gen. 1:1 and his interaction with the notable article by R. Holmstedt.
I'm not going to try and justify Chambers' discussion of Hosea, but it looks like he brings it up (at one place) because it's supposed to be a parallel example of Gen. 1:1. You mention the lateness of Hosea, but for most philologists and lexicographers, that has little bearing on the use of a text for the sake of comparison when one is trying to settle syntactical or grammatical questions. Your objection is really a methodological one in certain ways.
Concerning the Rig Veda, granted, the reluctance to use the text is probably not about geography. But what evidence/basis do we have for Jews being that familiar with Sanskrit or with the Hindu writings? Why should we even connect the Rig Veda with Genesis? I've yet to see a solid basis for taking this approach. To be honest, I don't find the Rig Veda to be that helpful in elucidating Genesis.
The Pulpit Commentary (Genesis 1:2) does draw a connection between myths/stories from other cultures and Genesis. It includes the Rig Veda although the connection seems tenuous IMO. You can see the remarks on biblehub
Also see http://faculty.gordon.edu/hu/bi/ted_hildebrandt/otesources/01-genesis/text/articles-books/Seely-Firmament-WTJ.htm
I don't understand your argument hear.
What does Enuma Elis have to do with Genesis?
If a paper is going to make comparisons then surely a text that at least says "in the beginning" must be compared.
I have discussed this with Jeff Benner & a number of other who specialise in a range of early Semitic languages & there does seem to be a significant connection between the two text types.
For a nation whose lives revolve around the Torah the lateness of a text is very significant. Cf GJohn 1:1.
If they do not take this into account then they have a serious methodological issue.
Hosea is not just about the sentence structure but the fact that is also about a beginning - but it does not use the same term.
Of course the other thing that needs dealing with is the old and extremely poor translations of the Rig Veda. Who know what other connections we may find when we can actually comprehend it without all the historical guess work.
https://global.oup.com/academic/product/the-rigveda-9780199370184?cc=gb&lang=en&
Sounds great, but at a silly price.
http://rigvedacommentary.alc.ucla.edu/
You've got me confused: I was talking about the Rig Veda, not Enuma Elish :)
I referenced the Pulpit Commentary, which connects Gen. 1:2 with numerous stories from the ANE and it includes the Rig Veda, but that was my point. There are some OT scholars who mention/quote/invoke the Rig Veda and see a connection between it and Genesis. Any mention of Enuma Elish by an article I linked to, was only incidental. Hope that alleviates any confusion.
I was under the impression that the Seely paper also mentioned the Rig Veda: maybe I was wrong. As for Enuma Elish, numerous scholars have associated that work with Genesis ad nauseam. But I don't view things that way.
Regarding lateness of texts, I can see if you want to argue that shalom (for instance) changes meaning over time from the 10th century BCE to the 1st century CE, but I see no problem with comparing how Hebrew writers use shalom, bara or whatever term is under consideration.
I would have to go back and review Chambers' work, but I took him to be making syntactical comparisons with Hosea and Genesis (whether the construct in Gen. 1:1 is absolute or construct). Normally when the issue is lexical or semantic, he does choose texts that have the same words or synonyms.
Another problem with invoking/using the Rig Veda is having a grasp or command of Sanskrit. I have not taken a poll, but I wonder how many westerners are truly Sanskrit scholars. As you said, the cost for scholarly works is another impediment.
Sorry about that, I am trying to get my thoughts down quickly on some occasions.
The two text types I was referring to are proto Semitic & Sanskrit.
Not Sumerian - that I don't know.
My question about Enuma Elis was rhetorical, and in response to the chambers paper.
Yes, the seely paper does mention the rig.
My first point of focus would be from book 10, psalm 129. Its parallelism to Genesis 1 seems striking. Unfortunately the translation commentary has not got to this yet. In the old translation it has phrases like - "primal germ of the mind" but also "the gods are later than this worlds creation".
I need to know whether these are invention or translation.
Thanks for clarifying.
You need someone versed in Sanskrit to answer your concerns above, but I know the translation you quote jibes with other things I've read from students of the Vedas/Upanishads.
I have seen some samples from this new translation and disappointingly they still use "chariot" instead of 'cart". Even though the text say it is pulled by bulls. And another by dear. Still trying to justify a late dating I presume?
Unfortunately students may still be reading the texts through the curtain of earlier lexicons. I think that being really well red in the language allows someone to look past those works and start to see what is actually being said, in context.
That's the problem: finding enough competent readers/speakers or translators of Sanskrit.
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-28755509
Post a Comment