![]() But in the Greek Bible the meaning of the word is affected by the meaning of the Hebrew word māšhāl Aramaic: m əethel) which it was used to translate and as a māšhāl has a number of uses, so in biblical Greek does the word ‘parable’. Aristotle, for example, defines the word as meaning ‘comparison’ or ‘analogy’. The word ‘parable’ is simply the English form of a quite common Greek word ( parabolē) which in ordinary Greek usage meant the putting of one thing alongside another by way of comparison or illustration. The basic sense of a parable is a side-by-side comparison of two things: Whereupon also he received him for a parable. The answer is found in the New Testament:Īccounting that God is able to raise up even from the dead. So this is a totally normal feature of the text, and doesn't need to be 'explained' by totally rewriting the narrative. ![]() In 2 Kings 4:8 Elisha goes to Shunem, and in v12 suddenly turns to his servant Gehazi, who is not stated to have travelled with him.For example in chapter 11 the narrative is focused on Moses, until suddenly in v10 it says Aaron did these things with him. In Exodus 7-11, there is a frequent switching off between "Moses" doing some things and "Moses and Aaron" doing others.This feels especially relevant as it is another Elohim passage, not YHWH. Jacob is named as the key figure, but others are travelling with him. A good example would be 32:1-2, where 'Jacob' goes on his way without any other named characters, but when he encounters angels he names the place, and then turns to his messengers in v3. In Genesis 31-32 Jacob is usually travelling with his wives and children, yet it only mentions the wives half the time, and almost never mentions the children.Examples of this can be found across the Pentateuch and throughout the Hebrew Bible: The simple reading would be that only Abraham is highlighted as he is the subject of the text, and the travelling of any other people with him would be inferred. Who otherwise was this text about, if not Isaac? Resolving the inconsistency I'd be interested to learn more about the reconstructed timeline Yoreh is proposing, but at face value it seems peculiar to claim that scribes were reverent enough to avoid changing text, but implant whole sections that change it entirely.Ĭlaiming that Isaac's character diminishes following the sacrifice and is merely recycled feels unfair - consider chapter 27, where in his old age Isaac is deceived by Jacob and then blesses him. However, this very example of Isaac doesn't feel like it would meaningfully honour the text - un-killing a central figure? A promised child that Abraham had been instructed to wait for? Very shortly after he was born? And do we lose all the subsequent text about him finding a bride and becoming part of Israel's lineage? And knowing how genealogy-focused Israel was, would they add to that? For example his 'pottery' analogy to the biblical text does emphasise the reverence that the ancients had for the text, and suggests that they gradually supplemented it to soften the tone. Yoreh's analysis that you cite is compelling, but does contain contradictions of its own.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |