Re: concordance & genesis (edited)

Greetings, Peter,

On Mon, 15 Dec 2003 06:47:35 +0100 Peter Ruest <pruest@pop.mysunrise.ch>
writes:
>
> Hi, David,
>
> > "D. F. Siemens, Jr." wrote:
> > ...
> > 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.
>
> Well, such a distinction between myth and mythos might clarify
> matters.
> It would be helpful if you (or George) could provide a definition
> of
> "mythos" consistent with biblical theology and seen to reasonably
> apply
> to certain biblical texts (and which ones?).
>
George has given a number of definitions. However, in usage, specifying
sense 1, class A, subclass iv, is not likely to occur except in highly
technical contexts, which are not noted for ready communication. Further,
such specificity will not necessarily end the ambiguity of natural
language. I recall one of my professors complain that he had committed to
comment on a paper by a recognized scholar, and didn't know what he could
say, for the scholar used one term in four different ways on a single
page. Apart from extremely strict analysis, we usually do very well in
getting through the inherent ambiguities. For example, I have not
encountered a French author who feels that he has to specify whether
_conscience_ means 'conscience' or 'consciousness,' but a translator must
distinguish the usage.

> > ...
> > > 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.
>
> If you combine a single word out of an interpretation with other
> bits
> from contradictory interpretations of the same text, you of course
> get
> nonsense. I still think the interpretation which Armin Held and I
> gave
> in our 1999 PSCF paper and our letter in the Sept.2000 PSCF is
> internally consistent if taken in context, and also consistent with
> the
> biblical context (although Paul Seely would probably dispute every
> single word of it).
>
I read your paper. I feel it looked for any basis that could be found to
support a predetermined view, including stuff that is _not_ in the text.
Such tendentiousness is not impressive. Some 4 or 5 decades ago, I'd have
gone along with you. Now I have come to respect the precise declarations
of the text.

> > 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.
>
> How about the root raqa^ (from which raqia^ is derived) used in
> Isaiah
> 42:5 for the land as well as the layer of vegetation covering it?
> Here,
> there cannot be any pounding or hammering, but "spreading out"
> fits.
> Similarly raq: (1) thin, slight, (2) a little, only; raqiq: flat
> bread.
>
All your saying is what I acknowledge above, the change in root meaning.
It is certain that Isaiah's usage is fairly late. Genesis, despite
critical arguments, was either set down earlier or has been incorporated
from a much earlier source. What you say does not change the problem
unless a position has already been decided upon.

> > 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.
>
> Here, you are mixing in a (semi)scientific definition of "lower"
> atmosphere. Instead, one should rather consider what the ancients
> would
> have seen in this context: the mass of air they experienced as wind
> etc.
> and the expanse they saw reaching up to the clouds. There is no
> conflict
> between such a definition of "expanse" and the clouds being above
> it.
>
This is special pleading.

> > 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?
>
> The lights, here ma'or, represent the (bundles of) light rays, the
> light
> _sent out_, _received_ and _seen_. This very nicely fits into the
> atmosphere. On the other hand, the _source_ of light would be called
> ner
> or menorah. The light sources (stars incl. the sun) were created
> and
> developed "in the beginning", not on day 4, because they belong to
> the
> global entity called "the heavens and the earth", what we would call
> the
> universe. "Sun, moon and stars" were not "stuck onto the firmament",
> but
> the "light rays" were "given into the atmosphere" by "clearing the
> sky",
> so that animals (like insects and birds) mentioned on day 5, as well
> as
> later land animals and humans mentioned on day 6, could use them
> for
> navigation, orientation etc., as the text specifies.
>
More special pleading. Indeed, both BDB and TWOT indicate to me that you
have made up a meaning for _ma'or_. Adding to the problem, your
interpretation requires that the earliest living things are fruiting
terrestrial plants. Either paleontologists are incredibly confused or you
are presenting nonsense.

> > 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.
>
> With the natural "anthropomorphic" definition of raqia^ given
> above,
> birds can very easily be seen to fly "on" the air of the atmosphere.
> It
> is obvious to any observer that some fly higher, some lower, even
> sometimes below one's one standpoint on a mountain, but all are
> supported by the air. They fly "above" (^al) the earth and "on"
> (^al)
> the air of the atmosphere - or "above" that part of it which
> supports
> them when flying.
>
> Peter
>
This leaves out a term, _panim_, face. If birds fly _on_ the face of the
atmosphere, then there should be a surface, like swans floating on the
surface of a pond. But the word is plural, so all the levels at which
fowl fly must be covered. ;-) Does this save your interpretation? No
interpreter I find so interprets the terminology. They all seem to think
that the implication is that birds fly below the firmament, in front of
it. Again, you have an ad hoc interpretation to salvage an impossible
view.

Note that I have not added events to the statements of Genesis 1. I have
not claimed that the root term determines the meaning of the derived
term. I have simply taken the express language to indicate that there is
water above the firmament and that birds fly in front of it. I find that
the celestial bodies are described as located below the waters and above
the birds. All this fits ancient cosmology, which is the way it would
originally have to have been read, but is incompatible with a scientific
description of the universe. I cannot add, subtract, twist, warp, revise
and deny to make things fit.
Dave
Received on Mon Dec 15 16:13:03 2003