Re: To Garamond: Genesis Commentary

Thanks for combining this into a single thread (which I'm promptly going
to split apart again -- sorry). Thank you for your close reading of the
Dodd paper and for your other comments. I'm working on a full reply, but
wanted to address the comments specific to Genesis immediately. Also
putting them at the top of their own thread makes it easier for John and
whomever else might be interested to chime in.

[Zoe said]
What do higher critics say "deep" means, please?

[Garamond said]
Obviously, none of the above invalidates divine inspiration. However, I
do think it presents a few issues for a literal reading. If the
original translators into English had rendered Tehom as Neptune (and
that's an awful translation for several reasons, but bear with me), then
I think you'd have no trouble in concluding the passage was not to be
taken literally. However, I think the translators tried to capture what
was closer to the poetry of the text -- and I think "deep" is a
wonderful choice -- with the understanding that it would *not* be taken
literally.

<snip>
Your thoughts?

[Zoe said]
I think there are at least two ways to approach the many accounts found
worldwide with regard to creation and/or the flood, not to mention the
pervasive use of the word "Sabbath" in cultures worldwide. One way is to
suggest that they all (Hebrews included) copied each other's legends.
Another way would be to suggest that there was an original true event
which got corrupted as time passed. And the fact that certain accounts
are so widespread would lend credence to the idea that something
worldwide had indeed occurred.

If the second option is chosen, how does one recognize which is the
original true account, of which the many variations are but a reflection
of the true? For me, it is by weighing any indicators of authenticity
that surround a particular account. The Bible has, imo, these
indicators of authenticity.

Back to you....

I was trying (and failed) to ask a much narrower question: Should this
one particular word (Tehom/Tiamat) be given a literal interpretation?

As I understand it (and corrections are always welcome), there's no
support for thinking the author of this passage thought that Tiamat was a
real god. On the other hand, I assume there was a perfectly good word in
Hebrew for "oceans" that could have been used, if indeed that was the
literal state of the world at creation.

If the above is correct (and it might not be), then the only
interpretation remaining is a metaphorical one: the conditions at
creation were *like* those that are brought to mind by this Babylonian
word.

So let's look at what we've done: We've moved from an English
translation to the historical study needed to determine the original word
(as best we can tell), we've done further study to determine how that
word was used both in the Hebraic and surrounding cultures, and thus
we're closer to understanding the intent of the author of the text. This
is hard, inexact work. It's much easier to stay with one translation and
state certain parts are not open to anything other than a literal
interpretation. But the effort can be worth it, and I think it is here.

If you'd like to put forward a contrasting view supporting a literal
reading, I'd be happy to hear it.

Garamond

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: To Garamond: Genesis Commentary
    ... do think it presents a few issues for a literal reading. ... Another way would be to suggest that there was an original true event ... one particular word be given a literal interpretation? ... translation to the historical study needed to determine the original word ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: To Garamond: Genesis Commentary
    ... I do think it presents a few issues for a literal reading. ... "Tehom" is a cognate of the Babylonian Tiamat, ... Maybe it is, but if it is, then we'd need the nonliteral interpretation ... But my point is the translation you're reading is not faithful to the ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Bibles in Church: RSV, NRSV or Good News Bible?
    ... >> I prefer either the Contemporary English Version or God's Word ... >> translation for my own reading/study. ... > Well, for my own reading, principle is NIV but I usually have KJV by me. ... the NEB the best bits are the typography with no verse numbers and single ...
    (uk.religion.christian)
  • Re: To Garamond: Genesis Commentary
    ... Ocean of Nuance wrote: ... I do think it presents a few issues for a literal reading. ... one particular word be given a literal interpretation? ... translation to the historical study needed to determine the original ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: To Garamond: Genesis Commentary
    ... John Wilkins wrote: ... I do think it presents a few issues for a literal reading. ... one particular word be given a literal interpretation? ... translation to the historical study needed to determine the original ...
    (talk.origins)