Dear Ted,
You are right when you say that metaphorical and mythical elements do occur in narratives, and by and large I agree with your words below. There is one exception, though, that THWM most likely is a derivative of Tiamat. I do not have the book at hand, but I remember that Claus Westermann in his "Genesis A Commentary" (1982) in detail shows that Hebrew and Akkadian Phonetics and orthography makes it impossible that there is a relationship between the two words. When I, in a previous post mentioned that I have a list of 23 parallels between Atrahasis/Gilgamesh and Genesis, all of these, except one, related to the flood in the days of Noah and not to the creation account in Genesis 1 and 2. I do not know your background, but it is my experience that most people who who think there are parallels between the Babylonian creation accounts and Genesis 1 and 2, have not made a detailed study themselves. But they build on other persons whose assumption is that any ancient cosmological account is mythical. I therefore invite the listmembers who are interested to make a careful comparison between Enuma Elish and Genesis 1 and 2, and then inform us which real parallels they have found. Best regards, Rolf Furuli Stavern Norway Tirsdag 4. September 2012 23:46 CEST skrev [email protected]: Hi, All: Much of what Rolf writes makes sense. I would just like to add that there are often mythic or metaphoric elements in literal texts. Just as we can say that so and so exerted a Herculian effort without drawing anything from ancient mythology beyond "extraordinary effort", there can be elements of ANE myth in biblical texts embedded in a single word or phrase without mythologizing the entire text. For example, "tehom" is most likely derivative of Tiamat, that does not make Genesis 1 a theogeny, e.g. a description of the origin of the pantheon as is the Enuma Elish. Similarly single words often have metaphorical meanings. In English we can say that a speaker was "spellbinding" without meaning that he literally cast magical spells or saying anything about the genre of the text. Similarly, if we recognize raqia as a metalogical term for metallic surface beaten smooth, that isolated word can say something metaphorically about the blue apparent visible ceiling above the earth without indicating that the sky is metallic. Clouds can be also called a "flood" without indicating the presence of a liquid ocean. There are some delightful examples of thunderclouds being called "tehom" (primoridal waters) in the prophets, unfortunately, being on vacation, I cannot find the verses in question at the moment. Rolf is right in saying that Gen 1 is a literal text in that it intends to enumerate the steps of Creation. My point is that a literal text can have elements of both mythic and metaphorical language. :-) Peace, Ted In a message dated 9/4/2012 2:11:35 A.M. Central Daylight Time, [email protected] writes: From: Rolf To: Ishnian ; [email protected] Sent: Tuesday, September 04, 2012 1:53 AM Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] sky Ishinan, Can you please send this to the list? Dear George, Ted should describe his own method. But I would like to convey some thoughts regarding the issue, because it is important. When Moses asked to se God, the answer was that he could not se God and live. The description of God in the Tanach is that he is invisible and resides in the heavens above the earth. In Ezekiel 1, the prophet claims that he got visions from God. We need not discuss whether this claim is true or not, but we can learn much from the setting of the chapter. Human beings cannot understand invisible heavenly things. But in order to get a faint understanding of heavenly things, objects with three dimensions that we can understand, are used. Ezekiel describes the throne of God, depicted as a wagon, and that which is around thre throne. Nothing of this is meant to be understood litarally; the angels do not have wings, and the throne of God is not solid with weels. Is the language metaphorical? I would not say so, becaus there is no one-to-one smilarity with each thing of three dimensions an a heavenly thing. It is the whole setting that is impostant and not each detail, so we may characterize the presentation as a simile. This means that we cannot on the basis of Ezekiel learn how God`s throne literally is The opposite of Ezekiel´s language is found in the creation account in Genesis 1 and 2, where I will argue that we find a literal account. The same is the case with the speeches of Moses in Deuteronomy 1-6. The problem for any expositor is to know when a setting is symbolic, where we have metaphorical language, and where we have literal accounts. We cannot solve the problem by looking for poetry versus prose. Because many texts whose setting is poetic, are literal descriptions, or we find literal descriptions there. One example is Job 26:7 where THW (Empty space, NIV) and BLY-MH (nothingn NIV). There is no metaphorical "nothing," so these expressions must be literal descriptions. In Psalm 29, the majesty of YHWH is described. It is related to "mighty waters; cedars; Libanon, the desert of Kadesh." It is likely that the reference of "the flood" is the one described in the days of Noah. But we cannot be certain. The reference of "mighty waters" may be a reference to the mentioned flood, or to something else. There is nothing mythological in the text, and there is absolutely no reference to some supposed waters above a solid firmament. In no way do I want to be sarcastic or impolite, but arguemnts of parallels between the waters in Genesis 1 and other texts in the Tanakh, or texts in the writerings of other Semitic languages, reminds me of the valid and invalid and invalid syllogisms that we discussed in my introductory course in the Philosophe of Science at the University: (1) All lions belongs to the family Felidae Cheta is a lion _____________ Cheta belongs to the family Felidae (valid) (2) All lions are yellow Cheta is yellow _________ Cheta is a lion (invalid) It seems to me that the following syllogism is used in many arguments regarding the biblical cosmology: (3) All cosmological texts in the Tanakh are mythical. Genesis 1 and or Psalm 29 are cosmological _______________ Genesis 1 and Psalm 29 are mythical The syllogism is valid, but it is only true it the premise is true, and that premise should be demonstrated, and not only assumed. I also see the the principle of syllogism 2) at work. The point here is that because more animals that lions are yellow, Cheta needs not be a lion. The same is true with Psalm 29 and other texts which connects water with God. Because water can refer to many other things than the "waters above" that are mentioned in Genesis 1:7, we cannot know that any water mentioned in connection with God is the same as the "water above," if that is not explicitly stated. As for Baal, he was a weather god, so it is no wonder that he is called "the rider of the clouds," I have translated a great part of the Ugaritic Baal texts, as well as the Ethiopic Enoch into Norwegian—something that requires careful study. There are absolutely no parallels between Baal and YHWH, not even the description you are quoting. The book of Enoch is wholly mythological, and its language has no bearing at all upon the language in the Tanakh about YHWH. I would also make some comments on Genesis 6:11. If we do not accept the premise of syllogism 3), but approach the text from a neutral point of view, we may ask: Is this text mythical? Linguistically speaking the answer is No. The setting is that God lifted water (its aggregate condition, solid, liguid or gas, is not stated). In the days of Noah this water fell down on the earth. To convey the thought that this happened suddenly, at a particular time, the "bursting of the springs" of the waters, and the opening of the "windows of the heavens" are mentioned. The language is illustrative, and by using metaphors from everyday life, the idea that great amounts of water suddenly came down is vividly expressed. Such imagery is a normal way of Hebrew expression, as we see in many places in the Tanakh. In no way do these expressions show that there were solid heavens (nor RQY() with windows. But some would say; "The language is mythological, becau se there were no waters above the atmosphere in the past." This is not a linguistic argument, and its conclusion is not necessary, because we do not know what was above the earth in ancient times and what its atmosphere was like. We can just think of the rings of Saturn, and the atmospheres of Venus and Jupiter to illustrate that the atmosphere of the earth today need not be similar to its atmosphere in ancient tiomes. My conclusion, therefore, is that mythological language must be demonstrated and not assumed. Best regards, Rolf Furuli Stavern Norway Mandag 3. September 2012 05:07 CEST skrev George Athas : Hi Ted! I'm a little confused: where do you see the mention of clouds in Ps 29? Or are you positing the interchangeability of 'clouds' with 'flood' on the basis of Ps 29 being similar to hymns to Baal, who is called Rider of the clouds? If you could clarify that, I could perhaps interact a little better. Yahweh is indeed called the Rider of the clouds elsewhere (eg. Isa 19.1). But this is usually his mode of transport, rather than his dwelling place or throne. Ps 29 simply sees Yahweh as enthroned on/at/by a celestial sea, and this is the same body of water than inundates the earth in the flood narrative of Genesis. It's not clouds. I understand how you're seeing metaphor and reality working in the Job text. My main question, though, is what leads you to put the division between metaphor and reality where you do. That is, why is the earth hanging in an ether reality while the pillars of the sky are not. I'm after clarification of your method here so that I can understand why you reach your conclusions. Cheers! GEORGE ATHAS Dean of Research, Moore Theological College (moore.edu.au) Sydney, Australia _______________________________________________ b-hebrew mailing list [email protected] http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew
