Re: concordance & genesis (edited)

Peter,
I copy just two sections of your lengthy post. First (from page 3 of 8,
as I printed it out):

Could there be a semantical problem here? How do theologians define
myth? In Bultmann's sense of "demythologizing" the Bible? If a
demythologization is necessary, then obviously the "myth" had no
business being in the text, because, in Bultmann's opinion, it
"contradicts what we know to be true", like fairy tales. I don't agree
with Bultmann's designating biblical miracles as "myths", but I thought
his definition of myth would be about the same as a myth "in the modern
sense of the word". But it seems that your definition of "myth" is
different. And the designation "legend" reminds me of extrabiblical
childhood stories of Jesus and others, as well as apocryphal stories,
which we know have been invented. I don't see any presumption on my part
in thinking God would not use such human inventions as "literary forms",
at least not without making it perfectly clear that the story never
actually happened.

DS. There is a complication with "myth." In common parlance it implies
falsity, which is how Bultmann uses it. Someplace I ran across the
technical sense, as "a sacred story to be believed," with the suggestion
that "mythos" be used for this in place of "myth." It was further noted
that the Christian mythos, the birth, life, death, resurrection and
ascension of the Lord Jesus Christ, is also true, whereas other mythoi
were historically false. The apocryphal tales you mention would have been
mythoi to Gnostics, for example, but not to strict orthodoxy.

Second section (from page 4):
> GM: Finally, the question is not just about literary forms but
about the writers' use of the state of the art knowledge of the world of
their time. The writer of Gen.1 wasn't just writing a story in which the
sky was a dome - he thought it really was a dome. <

From what I have said before, it should be clear that I think this is a
false assumption. And even if, for discussion's sake, the writer thought
it was a dome, the fact is that God prevented him from saying this. The
text does _not_ claim it is a dome, as "expanse" is a perfectly
reasonable translation of the Hebrew "raqia^".

DS: I see a grave problem here. You get by with "expanse" only by
neglecting the usage in the several places where it occurs in Genesis 1,
let alone elsewhere. Since the root ties to "beaten out," the presumption
is that _raquia^_ involves something that can be pounded into shape. This
cannot be done with gas or liquid, though the former seems totally out of
place in the ancient view. Some solids are too brittle, so something like
a ductile metal is implicit. Of course, one can argue that figurative
language can change root meanings. So this is not proof.

But note vv. 6f. There are waters under and above the firmament. This
precludes _raquia^_ being space, though one may stretch matters to allow
it as atmosphere. But there seems no way to make the upper waters into
clouds, for clouds are _in_ the lower atmosphere. Moving to vv. 14f, 17,
the lights are _in_ (_be_) the firmament. Brown, Driver, Briggs
specifically notes the idiom of "in the mountain," (p. 88a), where we
have to say "on." The rational understanding of this is that the sun,
moon and stars are stuck onto the firmament, above which there is water.
What must be the nature of the firmament if celestial bodies are applied
to it? Now consider v. 20. Birds fly above (_^al_) the earth and "across"
(_^al_) the firmament ("across" is the translation in John Joseph Owens,
_Analytical Key to the Old Testament_ (Baker), 1:4). BDB, p. 819a, gives
"between the firmament and the earth." With water above it, stars stuck
on it, and birds flying below it, your "expanse" cannot be anything we
believe in. I'm sorry, but I have to conclude that your interpretation of
_raquia^_ in nonsensical.
Dave
Received on Sat, 13 Dec 2003 14:20:07 -0700