|
The etymology of etymology
The Mythbusters; unless you are one of those sterile souls who has no interest in ideas, you either love them or hate them. Those who cherish long-held beliefs as sacrosanct hate them, while lovers of truth applaud them wholeheartedly. After probing a popular, sometimes almost sacred belief with all their investigative resources they offer their verdict - confirmed or busted. A recent episode probed the widespread notion that a stiff tot of alcohol can save the life of someone suffering from lethal hypothermia. They found that this "remedy" could prove fatal to persons on the brink of freezing to death by redirecting the flow of warming blood away from the vital internal organs to the skin. How paradoxical; we know so much about so many things and yet we still cling to many errors. Indeed, as the widespread acceptance of the myth that life sprung from inert chemical soup illustrates so clearly, we are perfectly capable of swallowing patent nonsense.
Let's consider a popular modern myth. A reader responded to our recent blog, "Evolution's quiet revolution" with this comment:
My problem with Moses' creation account is primarily the fact that he understands the sky to be solid structure [Gen. 1:6-17]. This, of course, is patently false.
Another reader wrote some time ago in response to the blog Moses, earth science and astronomy that,
The problem with so much of this debate is it seems to neglect the witness of scripture and substitutes attempts to bind my conscience and others. The Hebrew word raqia variously translated sky, firmament indicates a polished metal dome over the earth. All I can say. is what Martin Luther said 500 years ago. It is a shame when Christians do not know their own books.
The notion that Moses believed and Genesis one teaches a primitive, totally unscientific model of the earth and universe provides an excellent example of our capacity to do the very thing we accuse the ancients of - believing myths. Virtually all unbelievers and a large contingent of more liberal believers contend that the Bible in general, and Genesis one in particular, betray belief in a fanciful cosmology in which,
. the central earth is a great mountain, hollow underneath, surrounded and supported by a vast ocean - the deep and under it is the abode of the dead. Above the earth is the solid vault of heaven - the firmament - resting on the waters of the deep and dividing the upper waters from the lower; across the firmament move the sun and moon and the heavenly host of stars (Cosmology, Encyclopedia Britannica, 1970 edition).
Concerning the firmament, Genesis one says,
Then God said, "Let there be a firmament (raqia') in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters." Thus God made the firmament, and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament; and it was so. And God called the firmament Heaven (vss. 6-8).
Now do you feel compelled to visualize the firmament as a solid vault? I sure don't read it that way. Perhaps no voice in recent times has argued more passionately for seeing mythological nonsense in these verses than Paul Seely, who says,
Historical evidence shows that virtually everyone in the ancient world believed in a solid firmament. Accordingly it is highly probable that the historical meaning of
|
raqia' in Genesis 1 is a solid firmament.1
Seely goes to great lengths to prove his contention, with varying degrees of success with each point he addresses. As with many others of like mind, he believes that the etymology of raqia' supports his contention, pointing out that its root word, the verbal cognate raqa', "is used of hammering metal into thin plates (Exodus. 39:3) and hence suggests that a raqia' was "something hammered out". But as Don Carson points out in his book "Exegetical Fallacies", the study of cognates, root words and etymological origins, is of limited value in establishing the meaning of any word. (Its greatest value lies in suggesting possible meaning, but of little value in absolutely establishing it.) Quite possibly the modern word "slipper" arose from the observation that one can "slip on" a slipper with comparative ease, but knowing that doesn't shed any light on what a slipper is or does. The root words of "butterfly" or "pineapple" provide not the slightest hint of what those words actually refer to. Who would ever guess what the word "etymology" means if all they knew was that it comes from welding together two Greek words - etymos, meaning "true, real" and logos, meaning "discourse, word"!? Unfortunately, biblical conservatives fall into exactly the same trap by trying to argue that the root word suggests the raqia' is "an expanse".
Seely puts most of his eggs in one basket, arguing that Moses lived in a scientifically "naive" age, a world awash with silly cosmological myths. How, he contends, can anyone imagine that Moses would have risen above such blather? We have "no evidence from biblical times that suggests the Hebrews were ever more scientifically sophisticated than their neighbors". If space were not an issue, this author would happily tear that statement to pieces. (See my book "Jacob's Multi-colored dream Goats".) Seely simply cannot imagine that God spoke to Moses and told him things that others may not have known, and that is that. Furthermore, the ancients were not nearly as ignorant about the world around them as is commonly believed. As Bert Thompson puts it, the notion that "this concept of how the universe was built was common to all ancient peoples and was simply taken for granted by the Hebrews, who undoubtedly adopted it from the Middle Eastern cultural environment, is a mere assertion that is without any foundation in fact".2
This author cannot believe that the ancients composed their myths as factual explanations of origins any more than that early Christians conjured up Santa Claus and chocolate-egg-laying rabbits as factual elaborations of Jesus' birth and resurrection. We don't believe Santa squeezes down chimneys; why would we insist that the ancient Egyptians truly believed that the firmament's two supports lay on mountains to the east and west of the Nile River? I mean, how obviously absurd an idea can you get? However, even if someone could prove that the Egyptians did just that, and that the Babylonians truly believed Marduk split Tiamat in two like a shellfish, "and from one half made and covered the heavens", that does not prove that Moses was in any way influenced by such cosmological nonsense.
Moses quotes God saying, "Let birds fly above the earth across the face of the firmament of the heavens" (1:20). Birds fly "across" the firmament. However you may understand those words, they do not jibe with the notion that the firmament is solid.
If ever you are caught in a severe blizzard and are on the point of expiring, don't touch the brandy delivered by a St Bernard dog. If someone tries to tell you that Moses believed a solid dome stretched overhead, don't believe it.
|
