Hi Karl, The problem you have here, Karl, is that you are choosing to ignore evidence that doesn't fit with the way you want the text to read.
Yes, I read your description of your lexicographic method, and unfortunately, it is seriously deficient. You simply aren't taking all the data into account. Isa 34:11 and Jer 4:23 are not simply, as you say, "taking only a subset of its uses, then making a determination, a determination that contradicts other uses," rather, it is taking the ONLY other places in the Hebrew Bible where the terms tohu and bohu occur together, and indeed the ONLY other places where bohu even occurs at all. It is simply not good lexicographical method to ignore these important factors with regard to the usage of these terms in other contexts. And, indeed, the contexts in Isa 34 and Jer 4 are contexts of devastation. The NRSV, for example, in Isa 34:11 translates as "the line of confusion [tohu] . . . the plummet of chaos [bohu]". And most translations do something similar. NIV: chaos and desolation. NET: ruin and destruction. I am not saying they are necessarily correct, but I am saying that the scholars who worked on these translations followed credible lexicographical methods. The same goes for Jer 4, which is a picture of complete devastation -- creation uncreated. You say, "The only way you can make Genesis 1 and other Biblical texts to read similarly to the other ANE cosmologies is to apply the rules of “medieval cosmology”, which is why I bring it up. This does violence to Hebrew way of reading the text." How many ways do I have to say it? I am not in the slightest interested in medieval cosmology. My only interest is in ANE cosmology, which, by my calcuations, precedes medieval cosmology by at least 1500 years. I have absolutely no idea what you hope to gain by throwing this "medieval" charge around. I'm not looking at medieval texts; I'm looking at ANE comparative literature. With regard to Ecc 1:5, you say, "The text does not say “it hurries back”, that is your eisegesis." Okay Karl, notice the following: NIV: "hurries back to where it rises" NRSV: "hurries to the place where it rises" ESV: "hastens to the place where it rises" NASB: "hastening to its place it rises there again" NET: "hurries away to a place from which it rises again" KJV: "hasteth to his place where he arose" NJB: "to is place it speeds and there it rises" NLT: "hurries around to rise again" Now, I am not arguing that these very standard translations are necessarily correct. But I will argue that the translators who worked on these translations followed good lexicographical practice, consulted standard critical lexicons (such as HALOT). And frankly, it is very irresponsible on your part to just wildly and blindly throw out the "eisegesis" charge. And as far as your rendering, "and unto his place hunted down for rising," have you been able to convince any translation committees to go with that? You're just not dealing fairly with the data. Finally, you ask, "So modern, post-Copernican historians who recount that an event occurred at “sunrise” or “sunset” are teaching a geocentric understanding. Is that what you are saying?" As I've already said, for post-copernicans to talk about sunrise and sunset is metaphorical. But for pre-copernicans to use the same language is not metaphorical. The author of Genesis and the author or Ecclesiates believed that the sun went around the earth. The sun literally rose and set. Blessings Jerry Shepherd Taylor Seminary Edmonton, Alberta Jerry Shepherd [email protected] _______________________________________________ b-hebrew mailing list [email protected] http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew
