Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • Bruce Vawter - Yahweh - Lord of The Heavens and The Earth - 1986

    Uploaded by

    Lulo Gpe
    49 views7 pages
    Yahweh - Lord of the Heavens and the Earth

    Original Title

    Bruce Vawter - Yahweh - Lord of the Heavens and the Earth - 1986

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    Yahweh - Lord of the Heavens and the Earth

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    49 views7 pages

    Bruce Vawter - Yahweh - Lord of The Heavens and The Earth - 1986

    Uploaded by

    Lulo Gpe
    Yahweh - Lord of the Heavens and the Earth

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    of 7
    Yahweh: Lord of the Heavens and the Earth BRUCE VAWTER, C.M. De Paul University Chicago, IL 60614 SOME TIME AGO I PUBLISHED AN ARTICLE on Prov 8:22,' sustaining the thesis that there are at least two rather irreconcilable concepts of “wisdom” present in the canonical OT. On the one hand wisdom is viewed, in Pro- verbs 1-9, for example, as the rationale of the universe and the principle of God’s creation, a rationale that is within man’s grasp, by means of which he can understand the world in which he lives and thereby govern himsclf rationally. I did not put a name to this concept of wisdom, but now I do: it is simply “philosophy.” That is to say, on this accounting, human reason and observation—by definition deprived of any other enlightenment than that derived from its own nature—can penetrate the why and wherefore of human existence because it too (wisdom, the realization of the human intellect's potential) is also God's creation, built into man ‘The other, or at least another, concept of wisdom found in the OT turns up in Job 28 and in the work of Ecclesiastes, amongst other sources. Here wisdom is not a prize that is within man’s grasp but one that forever cludes his grasp or, if he does seize upon it, it proves to be illusory. In other words, such texts are really “anti-wisdom,” insisting that the mind of man is not capable of encompassing the meaning of life, whether because of native incapacity (Job) or simply because of the expected ordinary damnabilities of human existence (Ecclesiastes). Neither of these works is irreligious. Both 1 “Prov 8:22: Wisdom and Creation,” JBL.99 (1980) 205-16. 461 462 THE CATHOLIC BIBLICAL QUARTERLY | 48, 1986 end on highly pietistic notes. They simply do not believe that human wisdom— and of course it is with human wisdom that we are contending—is an ade- quate guide for human destiny in a world now deprived of what was once regarded as the one indispensable guide: the revealed r6rd, whether of proph- ecy or of priesthood. A recent article by a German colleague, Bernhard Lang? may help us to understand why such contrary views of the figure of wisdom have been incorporated into the canon of the OT. This phenomenon is inseparable from the development of the OT itself as record of the transition of Israelite religion from polytheism to monolatry to monotheism, in the process of which frequently antic gods and goddesses like Lady Wisdom had to be assimilated and “atheisized,” converted into terms compatible with mono- theistic Yahwism, often with ambiguous results even as the polytheistic sources had been ambiguous. Lady Wisdom became, in one construct, a handmaid of the Lord, a collaborator in his creation of man and his world, and—as the Lord’s acquired possession to do with what he willed—was bestowed upon man either in the act of creation or at least became readily available to him, so that he might be sure of his way in the world. “With you, © Lord, is wisdom, who knows your works, who was present when you made the world and who understands what is pleasing in your sight, what is right according to your commandments. Send her forth . . . that she may be with me . . . that I may learn what is pleasing to you" (Wis 9:9-10). But in at least one other construct Wisdom has become no such accessi- ble thing. "Where is Wisdom to be found?. . . Man dots not know the way to her... . Only God knows where she is” (Job 28:12,13,23). In both of these constructs Wisdom is an acquired “possession” of God and, probably. in both constructs she has been a collaborator in the building of the universe; but in the latter one she is known to God alone and the secrets of this world of man must forever remain a riddle to him. (1 am leaving Qoheleth out of consideration here, for his view seems to differ from both of the previous ones. He apparently believes that Wisdom is accessible to man but, having been gained, she proves to be a “bitch goddess” who merely teases and so compounds man’s frustrations. So Qoh 1:16-17) So far there was nothing in my article to provoke much comment, and there has been little. The thesis I sustained had already been maintained by quite respectable scholars whom I acknowledged in the writing of it, even though it had been rejected by some others. What I am a bit surprised at, however, is that even on the part of those who did me the courtesy of citing 2 “Yahwe allein! Ursprung und Gestalt des biblischen Monotheismus," Conciium (Ger- rman edition) 21/1 (1983) 30-35. YAHWEH: LORD 463 me favorably, no one seemed prepared to take up the secondary considera- tion that I proposed: namely, that in Prov 8:22 the verb qah is wrongfully translated “created” by RSV, NEB, TEV, and similar English versions of the Bible, and the mistake is only magnified by the “begot” of NAB. I proposed, and still propose, that in this text qnh means what it means elsewhere in the eleven or so other instances of its use in Proverbs, “got,” “acquired,” “took possession of.” I further proposed, and still propose, that it means noth- ing more or less than this in the other instances in the Hebrew Bible (Gen 14:19,22; Exod 15:16; Deut 32:6, etc.) where the translation “created” frequently appears in biblical commentaries and versions. And finally, 1 proposed and still propose that there is no evidence that the common Semitic Vanh|y/w ever demands a translation which associates its root meaning with that of “creation” or “procreation.” Ido not intend to rehearse the arguments that I have already urged, both from an examination of the biblical passages in context and from the uses of qh and its derivatives in the cognate languages, to sustain my Position. | have not been confronted, as far as | am aware, with any counter- arguments that call for reply. What I do intend is to make a positive asser- tion at this point of what I conceive to be the meaning of the verb /participle/ noun gna when it is brought into conjunction with the role or function of deity, which is too readily assumed to be that of “creator.” While I do not necessarily agree in every respect with the position of 1. Rappaport, who holds that there is no connection whatsoever between the biblical and the Mesopotamian stories about “creation,” I do concur with him in his feeling that there is a considerable difference between the two and that the difference is substantial. The “creation” that Enuma Elish is talking about, if it is talking about creation at all, is not the creation that is the subject of Genesis 1-3, which in turn is what Bible translators and readers mean when they use the word “creation,” It ought not be lightly assumed that this biblical concept—ultimately the fruit of a long theological develop- ment—was present among other peoples of alien backgrounds and traditions, who shared with the Israelites little more than some common geography, and that only partially. Certainly it should not be assumed on the basis of the meaning of a word that has been conjectured without supportive context. This being said, let us consider the formula gingh Samayim warares of Gen 14: 19,22, which is conventionally translated “creator of the heavens and the earth.” My position is that the title means no such thing—that is, that it makes no special point of “creation,” that it simply acknowledges the lord- ship of a supreme deity whose dominance extends to both the heavenly and 3 The Enuma Elish Hoax.” Dor le Dor 13 (1984) 29-34. 464 THE CATHOLIC BIBLICAL QUARTERLY | 48, 1986 the earthly spheres. As I pointed out in my earlier article, it was precisely as “Jord of the heavens and earth” that the Qumran Genesis Apocryphon turned the Hebrew phrase into Aramaic sometime in the intertestamental period.* 1 find it passing strange that there are those who have theorized an ancient Canaanite theology of creation out of this formula, along with a Canaanite origin of gni = “create,” when out of the considerable literature of Ugarit, which now these many years has revealed to us at first hand what ancient Canaanite mythology was really like, all speculation aside, no crea~ tion story has emerged—not even in the Enuma Elish sense of creation, Conjecture may be allowed to fill up the holes, if they are holes, in this considerable literature, but it should supplement rather than supply for what we have in our literary sources. Similarly with the title qny1 ifm which is found in one text/cycle of the Ugaritic mythology applied to Asherah and which has been persistently rendered by some scholars “creatress of the gods"—implying a concept anda motif which, to my knowledge, have no parallels elsewhere in Semitic mythology. In a recent articles J. W. Betlyon, following the late W. F. Albright, has associated this title with the one given to El in this same text, bny bnwt, which he vocalizes béniyu binawati and translates “creator of creatures.” Now “creator of creatures” is conceivably what this expression means. I might suggest a more plausible if more prosaic interpretation, however, in view of its context in a cycle dedicated to the theme of “building a palace for Baal.” It is Asherah who uses this title, one with which El is not particularly pleased, since it seems to him that he is being asked to involve himself in matters of brick and mortar that are beneath the gods. Bry brwt, it seems to me, need mean nothing more or less than “builder of things built,”““builder of buildings.” As for Asherah as ganiyaru “elfma: once she is relieved of the need to have a creatress title corresponding to that of her consort—and in these passages she is less El's consort than a pilgrim to his faraway abode—“mistress of the gods” = “mistress of heaven” = “queen of heaven” would seem to be an accurate assessment of what is meant, cor- responding with the Egyptian title nbr pt for the goddess Mut, whose pres- ence M. Gérg has discerned in the OT,* and with the title for Asherah with which we are familiar from the Book of Jeremiah, We really should not have to contend with a theory that she is called “Asherah of the Sea” on the basis 4 1 also pointed out the parallel incidence in the Karatepe Portal Inscription where gn “yg is best rendered “El the lord of the earth,” corresponding to the ttle given to Enlil from Hammurabi’ time, be-el Sam w irsiti. Cf. R. T. O'Callaghan, “An Approach to Some Religious Problems of Karatepe,” AnOr 18 (1950) 384-65. 5 “The Cult of “Alcrab/Blat at Sidon," JNES 44 (1985) 53-56 © “Der Spiegeldienst der Frauen (Ex 38,8),” BN 23 (1984) 9-13. YAHWEH: LORD 465 of a putative myth in which she once vanquished Sea, thus having acquired the title (which even on this accounting is not really explained) “creatress of the gods.” Such a hypothesis may be brilliant speculation, but it has little other than its brilliance to commend it. P.D. Miller, Jr., has conveniently listed for us? the known occurrences of the formula °? qnh *rs or its supposed equivalents, on the assumption that these refer to God as the creator of the earth. They are: (1) ilkunirsa, a Hittite divine name occurring in a myth borrowed from Canaan prior to 1200 .c.; (2) 21 gn rs in an 8th-century list of gods on the Karatepe portal inscription we have mentioned above; (3) { Jqn-rs in an inscribed fragment uncovered by N. Avigad in his 1971 excavations in the Jewish Quarter of Jerusalem, dating from the 8th or 7th century (4) lqwnr‘ in a Ist-century 4.D. Aramaic inscription from Palmyra, to be read with G. Levi della Vida as I gn); (8) “lgnr® on four tesserae from Palmyra; (6) bSmun gnh dy r? in an inscription from Hatra; and (7) *1 gn rs in a Neo-Punic inscription from Leptis Magna of the 2d century A.D. Miller considers the qn element in every case to imply creation, of course, as does Y. Avishur in his comparison of word-pairs in ancient Semitic literature.® It is interesting to note, however, that in his study of the use of Western Semitic vocables in Akkadian texts from Canaan and Syria, D. Sivan has recorded no instance of gny in any sense other than “buy,” “get,” “acquire.” 1 suggested in my previous article that at least some of the prejudice in favor of reading the Hebrew qrh as “created” or “creator,” respectively, depending on the vocalization, was simply that this idea comes naturally to the mind when “the heavens and the earth” are found to be the object of the verbal concept with deity as the subject. But is not this a preoccupation of later theology, only by anachronism ascribed to the biblical authors? When, for example, N. C. Habel wants to trace the formula of “Yahweh, maker of heaven and earth” in the late Psalms 115, 134, 121, 124, 146 as a title “which remains intact as a living formula within blessings contexts similar to that of its El context in Gen 14:19,” then why the substitution of ‘sh gnh in the 7B], the Creator of Earth," BASOR 239 (1980) 43-46, 8 F Israel ("Classificazione tipologica delle iscrizioni ebraiche antiche,” Riv 32[1984] '85-100) also notes Avigad’s find and takes it for granted that it tetiies to an “El creator.” 9 Swylistic Studies of Word. Pairs in Biblical and Ancient Semitic Literatures (AOAT 210; Kevelaer: Butzon & Bercker) Neukirchen-Viuyn: Neukirchener V., 1984) 399, '© Grammatical Analysis and Glossary of the Northwest Semitic Vocables in Akkadian Texts of the 1Sth-13th C. B.C. from Canaan and Syria (AQAT 214; Kevelaer: Butzon & Bercker/ Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener V., 1984). On p, 238 he also discusses the v/kriy in the sense “call by name,” “betitle.” 466 THE CATHOLIC BIBLICAL QUARTERLY | 48, 1986 formula? Because, says Habel,"' of the “probable procreative innuendos in the Canaanite and early Israelite use” of the verb gnh. But who, except by circular argument, is able to prove that there were such “probable procrea- tive innuendos” to this verb? Is it not more reasonable, on the evidence that is before us, to conclude that formulas such as “maker of heaven and earth,” “who created you,” and the like, are derivative from such authors as Second Isaiah and the Priestly author rather than dependent on Gen 14:19? ‘One cannot avoid being intrigued by the bilingual Akkadian / Aramaic inscription discovered at Tell Fekheriyeh in 1979—a text from the 9th cen- tury B.C,, from the ancient Sikan on the upper Euphrates." It employs the formula gugal Samé u ersgeti/gwgl Smyn wrq. One might wonder, had gugal/gwel been a hapax legomenon and not readily recognizable as a term for a “regulator of the canals,” to what cosmic proportions this title might have aspired, to the subsequent confusion of biblical theology. To fulfil my previously announced intention of being more positive than negative in this assessment of the qnh formula, I would like to cite a couple of sources that | think are quite pertinent to our discussion. First is an article by G. Biton, discussing the meaning of the Hebrew mik."* The verb means “rule,” certainly, but also “own,” “to be possessed of,” etc. In Arabica malik:is an owner, a lord, Biton brings this discussion, properly I think, into connection with Esth 5:3, Neh 9:35, and also Gen 14:19,22, along with the name Elkanah and concepts such as migneh. One who is conceived as having. acquired or taken possession of a thing or an entity (which is what I conceive to be the normal meaning of gnh) is by definition its lord and master. The traditional English terms for the feminine of this are lady and mistress, as applicable, for example, to Asherah, The other source I would invoke is that of the Ebla evidence, on the basis of the few texts that have been reliably published. '* There are, it seems to me, any number of divine appellatives occurring in these documents that parallel our titles remarkably in which the emphasis seems to be on lordship rather exclusively, without any “creational” overtone. Some examples are be, which would be simply the equal of “Baal”, but there is also he dingir

    You might also like