Scholars often wonder why Genesis 1:16 refers to the greater and lesser lights without calling them "sun" and "moon." One suggestion has been that the Genesis account wants to emphasize the sun and moon are not gods (deities) but rather creations of YHWH Elohim (Gen 1:1). Maybe Genesis is militating against then-contemporary mythology: so the narrative goes.
Whatever the reason for Moses' choice of words besides divine inspiration, we know that he could have written "sun" and "moon" since the Hebrew word שֶׁ֫מֶשׁ (shemesh) does appear elsewhere in Genesis (Genesis 15:12, 17; 19:23). Hence, the language, "greater" and "lesser" lights seems intentional:
The author’s polemical concerns continue in these verses as indicated, first of all, by his choice of terminology. He uses the unusual expression the greater luminary instead of the normal word for sun—šemeš—of which he undoubtedly was aware. In the same way he opts for the lesser luminary instead of the familiar yārēaḥ, “moon.” The reason for this choice of terms may be due to the fact that these words—which are very similar in other Semitic languages—are the names of divinities.206 Thus this text is a deliberate attempt to reject out of hand any apotheosizing of the luminaries, by ignoring the concrete terms and using a word that speaks of their function.
Hamilton, Victor P. The Book of Genesis, Chapters 1-17 (New International Commentary on the Old Testament) (Kindle Locations 2404-2409). Eerdmans Publishing Co - A. Kindle Edition.
77 comments:
Is it possible this is another of those references to angels, who are called and compared with all sorts in scripture?
Might be Jobs inspiration for 38:7
read the poetry - https://biblehub.com/text/genesis/1-16.htm
"Written in the original Hebrew language according to a rigid, poetic structure, the chapter unfolds in a series of patterns and revelations."
https://www.bibleref.com/Genesis/1/Genesis-1-16.html
Duncan, thanks but I have read the poetry of Genesis 1 over and over again. I love it. However, it always generates puzzles.
Unknown: Maybe, but on a fundamental level of reading the text, I believe the main focus is the heavenly bodies of another kind. On another level there might be an allusion to angel. I'm only offering a suggestion-not dogma.
Dr. Constable's Notes:
"This, the fourth day, is the only day on which no divine word subsequent to the fulfillment is added. On days 1-3 this divine word names the created objects (Genesis 1:5; Genesis 1:8; Genesis 1:10); on days 5-6 the creatures are blessed (Genesis 1:22; Genesis 1:28). The omission may be just elegant stylistic variation, or it may be a deliberate attempt to avoid naming ’sun’ and ’moon’ with their connotations of deity." [Note: Wenham, p. 23.]
Actually your commentary citation highlights my point perfectly
I understand your not being dogmatic, however is it a coincidence that tetullian thought angels were created on day 4?
Tho imo he is wrong
But from this post I think you are focusing on the words but not the sound of the words.
Sun and moon would not work in this unit. It would require restructuring many other terms.
If this was an aversion to using the terms it certainly did not last - Jeremiah 31:35.
Anonymous could you tell me where you encountered Tertullian's view about the 4th day? Thanks.
Duncan, yes I'm focusing on the words and word choice but I'm not sure that analyzing the linguistic sounds would tell me why sun and moon are omitted in this account. I don't think the structure dictates that sun and moon not be used: IMO, the omission is not due to metri causa, and I have noot run across that explanation yet from scholars.
Maybe the aversion is fitting for the context.
It's poetry and if you read it in the Hebrew, enough of it, you get to know how they like to use the same sounds over and over.
Just found this -
"Gordon J. Wenham notes in The Word Biblical Commentary Vol. 1: Genesis 1-15 on page 46
...[Genesis 1:1–2:3] stands apart from the narratives that follow in style and content and makes it an overture to the whole work.
On page 50 he continues:
Extrabiblical creation stories from the ancient Near East are usually poetic, but Gen 1 is not typical Hebrew poetry. Indeed, some writers endeavoring to underline that Gen 1 is pure priestly theology insist that it is not poetry at all. There is no "hymnic element in the language" (von Rad, 47). On the other hand, Gen 1 is not normal Hebrew prose either; its syntax is distinctively different from narrative prose. Cassuto (1:11 [1961]), Loretz (1975) and Kselman (1978) have all pointed to poetic bicola or tricola in Gen 1, while admitting that most of the material is prose. It is possible that these poetic fragments go back to an earlier form of the creation account, though, as Cassuto observes, "it is simpler to suppose … the special importance of the subject led to an exaltation of style approaching the level of poetry" (1:11).
Gen 1 is unique in the Old Testament. It invites comparison with the psalms that praise God‘s work in creation (e.g., 8, 136, 148) or with passages such as Prov 8:22–31 or Job 38 that reflect on the mystery of God‘s creativity. It is indeed a great hymn, setting out majestically the omnipotence of the creator, but it surpasses these other passages in the scope and comprehensiveness of vision. In that it is elevated prose, not pure poetry, it seems unlikely that it was used as a song of praise as the psalms were. Rather, in its present form it is a careful literary composition introducing the succeeding narratives."
Looking through Jewish commentators, I don't see any who see it a deity issue of any kind.
I am going to post this video that spells it out regardless about it being poetry.
https://youtu.be/hZ8_-AWFWMc?si=OlKUUhcxBOZX0Uri
I don't want to go down multiple roads now, but I have to comment on the video. I think it's folly to deny that the Bible portrays YHWH as the Most High and "only/only true" God. Others are either gods only insofar as they're false deities or images of the true God. Not only the Hebrew Bible, but the NT could not be clearer that God is the one deity.
Here: https://www.catholiccrossreference.online/fathers/
Search: Job 38:7
Then find: “fourth day” With browser search
Duncan, here is what Nahum Sarna writes about Gen. 1:16 in his Genesis commentary from the JPS series: "Here the general term 'luminaries' is more precisely defined. Significantly, no particular role is assigned to the stars, which are not further discussed. This silence constitutes a tacit repudiation of astrology. Jeremiah 10:2 reads: 'Thus said the LORD: / Do not learn to go the way of the nations, / And do not be dismayed by portents in the sky; / Let the nations be dismayed by them!'”
Also in the Jewish Study Bible: "The sun and moon are created only on the fourth day and are not named, but referred to only as the greater light and the lesser light. This may be an implicit polemic against the worship of astral bodies (see 2 Kings 23.5). 21: A similar point can be made about the creation of the great sea monsters on the fifth day."
Appreciate it, Anonymous.
Didn't I already post Jeremiah 31:35?
So that commentator clearly has it wrong.
I think there is a major problem to what you said and the video stands unless you can demonstrate otherwise. When I look at a comment like Romans 3:29, it does not spell out monotheism, does it? Doesn't Paul talk about Jews, gentiles and Greeks? And staples my be write about gentiles meaning Israel.
Duncan Sarna is focusing on Genesis only, not Jeremiah, and he says Genesis does not get more precise because the writer is repudiating astrology. He's pinpointing the creation account and nothing else.
Neither Dan or You can erase the verses about there being one true God. On the other hand, I'm not denying there are other "gods."
https://biblehub.com/text/2_chronicles/15-3.htm
https://biblehub.com/text/2_chronicles/15-2.htm
On YHWH being the true God, see also Deut. 4:35, 39.
YHWH is the true God because he is the only one to be worshipped ( different to obeisensence ) and is the only one who created ( possessed/ made) all things via his agent He is also the only one who does as he pleases and fulfills his will 100% of the time and can successfully prophesy
At least that’s my understanding reading the church fathers as well as the bible
I agree with everything you said and would just add that YHWH is our only object of prayer: we should pray to no one else but God and he has all perfections. No other being does.
OT says nothing about "worship" but rather "serve".
Elohim created.
https://biblehub.com/text/genesis/23-6.htm
https://biblehub.com/text/genesis/30-8.htm
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G6X8ay5eqzg
https://www.oxfordbibliographies.com/display/document/obo-9780195393361/obo-9780195393361-0173.xml#:~:text=%E2%80%9CWorship%E2%80%9D%20is%20a%20slight%20misnomer%20in%20Old,Testament%2C%20but%20not%20in%20a%20linear%20progression.
https://books.google.com/books?id=8FMhUqOBbfcC&printsec=frontcover&dq=word+for+worship+in+old+testament+or+hebrew?&hl=en&newbks=1&newbks_redir=0&source=gb_mobile_search&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjVk46XrsKEAxWWkokEHeCVCrYQ6AF6BAgLEAM#v=onepage&q=word%20for%20worship%20in%20old%20testament%20or%20hebrew%3F&f=false
In thus case, Elohim I'd YHWH/Jehovah. Nehemiah 9:6, Genesis 14:22, etc.
Elohim is YHWH
https://www.hebrew4christians.com/Names_of_G-d/Elohim/elohim.html#loaded
"Then God said, 'I will make man in my image, after my likeness'" (Genesis 1:26, E.A Speiser's translation).
John Sailhamer (The Pentateuch As Narrative)
The Creator is identified in 1:1 as God, that is, Elohim. Although God is not further identified here (cf., e.g., Ge 15:7; Ex 20:2), the author appears confident that his readers will identify this God with the God of the fathers and the God of the covenant at Sinai. In other words, the proper context for understanding 1:1 is the whole of the book of Genesis and the Pentateuch. Already in Genesis 2:4b God (Elohim) is identified with the Lord (YHWH), the God who called Abraham (Ge 12:1) and delivered Israel from Egypt (Ex 3:15). The God of Genesis 1:1, then, is far from a faceless deity. From the perspective of the Pentateuch as a whole he is the God who has called the fathers into his good land, redeemed his people from Egypt, and led them again to the borders of the land, a land which he provided and now calls on them to enter and possess.
He is the “Redeemer-Shepherd” of Jacob’s blessing in 48:15. The purpose of 1:1 is not to identify this God in a general way but to identify him as the Creator of the universe.
It is not difficult to detect a polemic against idolatry behind the words of this verse. By identifying God as the Creator, the author introduces a crucial distinction between the God of the fathers and the gods of the nations, gods that the biblical authors considered mere idols. God alone created the heavens and the earth. The sense of 1:1 is similar to the message in the book of Jeremiah that Israel was to carry to all the nations: “Tell them this,” Jeremiah said, “‘These gods, who did not make the heavens and the earth, will perish from the earth and from under the heavens’“ (Jer 10:11). Psalm 96:5 shows that later biblical writers
appreciated the full impact of Genesis 1:1 as well: “For all the gods of the nations are idols, but the LORD [YHWH] made the heavens.”
Cambridge Bible for Gen. 30:8:
mighty wrestlings] Heb. wrestlings of God. The “wrestlings of God” may mean either “mighty wrestlings,” “of God” being added as an intensive or superlative (cf. Genesis 23:6, “a mighty prince”); or “wrestlings,” i.e. “strugglings in prayer for God’s blessing” of children. The original meaning has probably been lost.
wrestled] Lit. “twisted myself.” The participle niphtâl means “crooked” (Proverbs 8:8).
EF: See Ellicott.
Regarding worship in the OT, see the paper, "Worship in the Book of Daniel" by
Jiri Moskala.
Daniel does not speak for the old testament and it is an add on at the end of the Tanakh. Daniel speaks for Daniel and the evidence speaks for itself https://youtu.be/O1WTQxWEFs0?si=z3pVO_cwvrCCikQ-
Gen 30:8 https://youtu.be/5UNucreyj3g?si=YVKkRCFDlAyb2TmO
We had a discussion about Daniel earlier and I'm not revisiting it now, but I disagree with your assessment of Daniel. Conversely, Tov speaks highly of the book as do many other scholars. There is no good evidence that supports those claims.
I spend too much of my life refuting nonsense, but it must be done. Granted, there were times when some Israelites or their aancestors were polytheistic, it's true, but that was not the norm once Israel came out of Egypt, at least, not according to the prophets.
Judaism is a monotheistic religion; when Israel practiced polytheism how they'd workk out for them? Remember the the Assyrians with the northern kingdom, and the Babylonian Exile? How about 70 CE?
DS Community was not polytheistic.
D.S. Russell ("The Method and Message of Jewish Apocalyptic"):
"There is ample evidence to show that [the OT] conception of monotheism was held in conjunction with a belief in a spiritual world peopled with supernatural and superhuman beings who, in some ways, shared the nature, though not the being, of God" (page 235).
https://fosterheologicalreflections.blogspot.com/2010/08/more-scholarly-information-on-ancient.html
https://www.biblicalarchaeology.org/daily/biblical-topics/bible-interpretation/when-did-monotheism-emerge-in-ancient-israel/
https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/abs/bodies-of-god-and-the-world-of-ancient-israel/appendix-monotheism-and-polytheism-in-ancient-israel/24C4A8A6646B25789E5DB46D865C8608
https://www.amazon.com/Ancient-Jewish-Monotheism-Christian-Jesus-Devotion/dp/1481307622
On Daniel:
http://www.scielo.org.za/pdf/ote/v23n1/10.pdf
https://www.atsjats.org/the-book-of-daniel.pdf
https://www.academia.edu/36366776/_18_1_Textual_History_of_Daniel_Pages_517_527_in_The_Hebrew_Bible_Writings_Edited_by_Admin_Lange_and_Emanuel_Tov_Vol_1C_of_Textual_History_of_the_Bible_Edited_by_Admin_Lange_Leiden_Brill_2017
I priorities material evidence of propagandist texts.
https://digitalcommons.andrews.edu/jats/about.html
Yeh, real convincing ;)
https://www.youtube.com/live/3jt77ykrnT0?si=U5xMLxl6s5NqntPQ&t=2427
https://scholar.archive.org/work/2louvxi23bgfnca3ncko5lnaee/access/wayback/https://watermark.silverchair.com/flab017.pdf?token=AQECAHi208BE49Ooan9kkhW_Ercy7Dm3ZL_9Cf3qfKAc485ysgAAAtcwggLTBgkqhkiG9w0BBwagggLEMIICwAIBADCCArkGCSqGSIb3DQEHATAeBglghkgBZQMEAS4wEQQMhDcRfhQ_JqMHnfjWAgEQgIICisOaZjgFUp89Fn6iczzDcWHaMC_I0DjX_ZoZLXwUBs1X1F7ar9uRjJZ28qGwk8R941aQz96yoPFpYAjPWq1SUofubE9fmuj-LZLdmtVcB-zgELuqA9U0KcbO9NbSW_e1c11TKulqxSoB-OYqeF00QfHIumgdHLS95dodSk4V7o7Uhqvtku8c_4ss_DYUxA_IXpgv6-CDbAH0roAIYzxe13KKNTut0qcmIhH4z57pw0rzuOk33p5PGQfGLmSFNRv7OPk47LidpRrHlZn-lceQxZTYrRYzkhhtfh4cckBjUtOdLbPXIh_ToqJewoOghUHNGZ-TPWzdG3QFYKEzjFUYFy1pCVMn5c_NC4gZJ1nSvYjhR-ZxJd7r0fI-oUChPHM1lyEe1WEGU8F0Tv3BFTNtANRfrxGPa9oOd9FgGP-iXPT5ujvwFfygvkZ2O8MkTiaisMk4IO_Wv1AvB89kS67M_4NxcpDFeIAwWeznssM8o52Xdrov5IKrDo0HKfxNQTViMYv38ldajp_OTy7GdAtY8hdguYluVJ4sXyGxpjTpxCGBeZjy5XmAvcM3imCFYBn3LQc1ZDGwgbq26JGL2wIQl3gfN6iEGEkpc6Ak7mIx7xYNC_owuDv3IEGMoswnjcR7PfgBQc7xhrb-8NS6uAHgAT3428QNB19Mq99TxYnN8zRb4xdxdSlOjTH3XAVa0q3IH5pixq-9IjIesBHZ1zVhRBOXMlitPx-v3nEpBcXWljBMKoUPSmPOZvO4BSjLEYVU3q7-mLxvcc7n4aIlOJk1dtGWNn_8exUo7bCyA2ImUQjurpgIzoIuUTiJUSGnd7u9zsJrbfUju-sV3KiiBxCQUQM1sRrh5tpI8v0D
REDRAFTING THE ARCHITECTUREOF DANIEL TRADITIONS IN THE HEBREW SCRIPTURES AND DEAD SEA SCROLLS
ANDREW B. PERRIN Athabasca University
https://www.youtube.com/live/8kHnVSaM4go?si=zFEagLIVgI4nFfr9&t=5870
https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=2%20Esdras%2012&version=NRSVUE
10 He said to me, “This is the interpretation of this vision that you have seen: 11 The eagle that you saw coming up from the sea is the fourth kingdom that appeared in a vision to your brother Daniel. 12 >>>But it was not explained to him as I now explain to you or have explained it<<<. 13 The days are coming when a kingdom shall rise on earth, and it shall be more terrifying than all the kingdoms that have been before it. 14 And twelve kings shall reign in it, one after another. 15 But the second that is to reign shall hold sway for a longer time than any other one of the twelve. 16 This is the interpretation of the twelve wings that you saw.
https://bibleinterp.arizona.edu/articles/MSmith_BiblicalMonotheism
https://youtu.be/dwnDTTzp2RQ?si=07r5nCgrhdhBj506
https://biblicalstudies.org.uk/article_daniel.html
https://www.tyndalebulletin.org/article/29367-monotheism-and-the-language-of-divine-plurality-in-the-hebrew-bible-and-the-dead-sea-scrolls.pdf
https://biblicalstudies.org.uk/article_daniel.html - really????
You do know that kipp Davies is a DSS specialist, right???
If you are going to post videos from apologists, first check that they are honest ones.
Eg.
https://youtu.be/_Sd1PBLn41w?si=27wICkZWFzLIk8QG
This video from the same S J Thomson, who claims that Bowen does not have the authority to speak on Egyptology, but she manages to state nothing about the scholar who is their with him on his side of the argument, Bryson who is a trained Egyptologist and expert, to whom Bowen refers at the beginning of his response.
She says nothing on this and then just wheels out Faulk, a very dislikable charcter.
As demonstrated here regarding Bryson
https://youtu.be/qQzTx1RzG9o?si=BkLhSjLwZxl7J5OJ
This us not about personalities, Duncan, but accuracy of statements. Whether Falk is likeable is beside the point. I'm not crazy about Kipp and although he's supposed to be a specialist, he's made many elementary mistakes and he's biased toward the Hebrew Bible. For the record, I will not carry water for Dan or Kipp. They can fight their own battles and use their YT/TT venues to promote their antibiblical ideologies. I will not work to damage the faith of my Witness brethren.
https://www.jstor.org/stable/1561199
Paul Rainbow and Moonotheism
compare https://ora.ox.ac.uk/objects/uuid:bd303c77-567a-48d5-9d2f-cb31b441c14c
Another correction to misrepresentation of the OT and child sacrifices:
https://etheses.whiterose.ac.uk/21729/1/The%20Sacrifice%20of%20the%20Firstbron%20in%20the%20Hebrew%20Bible.pdf
Are you kidding, I dislike Falk and co. because they are liars and that is blatantly evident.
https://larryhurtado.wordpress.com/2014/01/22/forthcoming-article-ancient-jewish-monotheism/
But that is not that ancient, is it?
https://amateurexegete.files.wordpress.com/2023/01/hansen-on-falk.docx?force_download=true
https://youtu.be/fGCQ58M_PG0?si=ZNlL_DuArOaddJLr
It's a matter of debate how old Jewish monotheism is, but either way, it's certainly ancient. One author I know who was also a specialist argued that monotheism possibly came before polytheism. That is what the Bible teaches, but the point is harder to establish using the tools of history.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=381o2Gl5Ehc
https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/themelios/review/genesis-history-fiction-or-neither-three-views-bibles-earliest-chapters/
https://library.biblicalarchaeology.org/article/the-documentary-hypothesis-in-trouble/
I don't have a problem with BA has to say-
To obviate any possible misunderstanding ...
As for the video, see the first comment posted by the creator -
I realized after I didn’t articulate the last section properly. I agree the authors of genesis did draw on early sources to compose genesis (Not a documentary hypothesis version), which is why the base-60 number system is only utilized in the early chapters of genesis. But I suspect an early form of genesis was put together around 1000 BC, which is why it is internally consistent, and they did so by drawing on lost Akkadian sources. The section on internal consistency combined with other biblical references would suggest it was put together earlier than the exile. However when it was being put together they drew from old Akkadian sources and traditions.
How he estimates 1000bce is a mystery to me.
I have told you more than once that polytheistic traditions around the world allude to all the gods coming from one god or aspects of one god, including sumerian and vedic and possibly pre hittite. But that in no way proves the semitic tradition being the correct one.
I have nothing to say regarding the apologetics.
I was way ahead of you on that video but I wasn't going to bother posting, but since you found it - https://youtu.be/H3acvRLiMLU?si=maiVA2VFo8n-RPtG
As Tertullian, Lactantius and other early fathers said, if God exists, then he is one. Polytheism makes no sense to me or most westerners--even Islam got this belief right (the 1st pillar) and the Greeks long gave up polytheism.
I'm not trying to focus on apologetics, but I can take apologists more than I can tolerate bible sceptics.
Greek religion like Roman and many others is more a reflection of governmental structures of rulership where deity was a metaphor. And that's why greek and Romans still included the creation of new gods through apotheosis, and this had a long tradition before it in the fertile crescent and Egypt.
The Anu was unreachable and unknowable but kings were both.
I don't believe that one can reduce Greco-Roman religion to politics and metaphoric expression. Stories about the gods were taken with metaphysical seriousness in Plato, Aristotle and Epicurus, et al.
Post a Comment