Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

14196Re: [ANE-2] Re: Locusts on the menu

Expand Messages
  • Ian Onvlee
    Apr 2, 2012
      Hi Doug,

      you say:
      <<... our superior knowledge. This is great wisdom indeed, is it not?>>

      I'm not sure what mean here. Anybody in any age, especially those eating insects, knows that insects do not have four but six legs. It has nothing to do with our superior knowledge. The author in Lev. 11 is  forbidding his audience to eat certain insects with four legs on the one hand, and prescribing at the same time certain insects with four legs to eat on the other. Since no insect has four legs, this author does not know what he is talking about. It's as simple as that, and clear as crystal. There is no way you can get it out of the way with some apologetic explanation. Perhaps you can write the next Bible that corrects this?

      Regards,
      Ian Onvlee
      Den Haag, Netherlands



      ________________________________
      From: Douglas Petrovich <dp@...>
      To: ANE-2@yahoogroups.com
      Sent: Monday, April 2, 2012 4:46 PM
      Subject: [ANE-2] Re: Locusts on the menu


       
      Ian,

      Sorry, but I cannot buy your argument at all. I have to side with Peter on this one.

      To use your words, I really don’t think we can get away with demanding that the Hebrew author did not know what he was talking about. That is purely speculation. We have no way in the world of knowing for certain that the Hebrew author did not use this term of insects by analogy, due to a familiarity with an established idiom in his own tongue.

      There are as many idioms native to the ancient Hebrews as there are to us today, if not more. This is absolutely not beyond reason.

      And as for the use of “analogy” by biblical writers, please note that NT writers are notorious for this. For example, John (or proto-John, or whoever you want him to be) often used inflected endings on imperfect verbs that were proper only with aorist verbs. Early biblical critics took him to task for introducing grammatical errors into the text.

      However, who are we to say that this is an error in the text? Now we have to enter the debate about whether language is descriptive or prescriptive for it to be “correct”. What if that is exactly how the Hellenized Jews of his neighborhood/environs regularly spoke, using aorist endings for imperfect verbs in their daily speech? Is he then wrong not to follow the local custom?

      You are exactly right about one thing: English-speaking Westerners introduce “lots” of problems into ancient texts, wagging our fingers at the ancients in disgust, thanks to our superior knowledge. This is great wisdom indeed, is it not?

      Sincerely,

      Doug Petrovich
      Toronto, Canada

      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]




      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
    • Show all 8 messages in this topic