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
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
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.
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.
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/15-2.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.
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.
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
https://youtu.be/dwnDTTzp2RQ?si=07r5nCgrhdhBj506
https://biblicalstudies.org.uk/article_daniel.html
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
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/
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.
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