G3J GABIONS I ESCULLERES

I begin the dissertation's theological turn by appealing to an observation made by the Catholic philosopher G.K. Chesterton concerning the metaphysical meaning of natural phenomena, in-

28. See also Gen 49:15; Judg 4:11, 9:3, 16:30. For discussion of the temporal operation of light in BH, see Ruark 2017:48-52.

cluding, most conspicuously for the current context, the celestial motion of the sun in relation to the earth.

In [the fairy-tale The Time Machine by H.G. Wells] the hero saw trees shoot up like green rockets, and vegetation spread visibly like a green conflagration, or the sun shoot across the sky from east to west with the swiftness of a meteor. Yet in his sense these things were quite as natural when they went swiftly; and in our sense they are quite as su- pernatural when they go slowly. The ultimate question is why they go at all; and anybody who really understands the question will know that it always has been and always will be a religious question; or at any rate a philosophical or metaphysical question....The old epic poets at least knew how to tell a story, possibly a tall story but never a twisted story, never a story tortured out of its own shape to fit theories and philosophies invented centuries after- wards. (Chesterton 1925:25, 28, emphasis added).

In his book The Everlasting Man, from which the above quote is taken, Chesterton structures his entire argument around the assertion that the "ultimate question" of the reason for exis- tence itself is universally prescient for all humans regardless of time, culture, or degree of sci- entific or technological advancement. I propose that the theological meaning of light in the OT begins with the simple question, Why does the sun shine? As Chesterton affirms, this question is universal to all human beings and cannot be answered by scientific observation or experimentation; rather, it must be answered by austere contemplation of the natural universe. This metaphysical truism can be readily shown with a humorous example from the American music group They Might Be Giants, which recorded a rather silly song (as are most of their songs) with that very question as its title: "Why Does the Sun Shine?" The repeated refrain provides the suggested answer:

The sun is a mass of incandescent gas A gigantic nuclear furnace

Where hydrogen is built into helium At a temperature of millions of degrees. Yo ho! It's hot, the sun is not

A place that we could live

But here on earth there'd be no life Without the light it gives.

We need its light, we need its heat We need its energy

Without the sun, without a doubt There'd be no you and me.

The sun is a mass of incandescent gas A gigantic nuclear furnace

Where hydrogen is built into helium At a temperature of millions of degrees.29

While it is now known that many of the facts presented here are not precisely accurate, this brief tour of modern astronomy illustrates the kind of "scientific" mode of thought that per- meates modern Western culture, even scholastic consideration of ancient texts. By way of only one example, Aster (2012:6-7) explains the symbolism of the sun using a very similar rationale, that is, that ancient peoples used the radiance of the sun as a positive symbol be- cause of the sun's life-giving properties (see quotation in section 1.4; also Ware 2012:159). However, this line of thought does not pertain at all to the philosophical reason why the sun shines, only to the physical mechanics of how the sun shines.30 _{Chesterton reminds the mod-}

ern scientist that the question of why the sun shines is fundamentally a metaphysical enquiry and not a physical one.

Biblical literature does not (nor was it ever intended to) inform the reader concerning the physical mechanics of the universe. Instead, the OT has much to say regarding the reason

why the universe exists, including––from its very opening sentences––the reason why the sun

shines, why the sun rises and sets every day, and the metaphysical meaning of light in the physical universe. Why does the sun shine? In short, the OT answers: Because YHWH says so.

The ontological nature of both the question and the answer is metaphysical from the very be- ginning, as Chesterton claims. The task of this dissertation is not to debate or prove the veri- ty (or not) of the metaphysical claims of the OT; I am only seeking to identify and defend what specific metaphysical––and especially theological––claims are made by the OT in re- gard to the physical substance of light as conceptualized by the ancient Israelites. I contend

29. The song Why Does the Sun Shine? was written by Hy Zaret & Lou Singer and originally recorded by Tom Glazier on the album Space Songs (1959), copyright by Helene Blue Musique Ltd. The refrain is a direct quotation from a book by Herbert S. Zim and Robert H. Baker entitled Stars (Zim & Baker 1975:16).

30. Even the late great quantum physicist Stephen Hawking acknowledges this distinction in his classic work A Brief History of Time, although the line between the two appears blurry: "However, if we do discover a complete theory, it should in time be understandable in broad principle by everyone, not just a few scientists. Then we shall all, philosophers, scientists, and just ordinary people, be able to take part in the discussion of the question of why it is that we and the universe exist. If we find the answer to that, it would be the ultimate triumph of human reason––for then we would know the mind of God" (Hawking 1998:185).

that the OT presents the deity YHWH as an active agent in the physical operation of the sun in

two distinct but inseparable ways: as the originating cause of the sun and its light, and the

sustaining cause of the sun's cyclical (as observed from the earth) operation in the universe.31 2.1.3a. YHWH is the originating cause. At the risk of stating what is certainly obvi- ous to even the most casual of readers, the OT presents the deity YHWH as the ultimate first

cause and Creator of the entire cosmos, including all three abodes of Heaven, Earth, and She- ol.32 _{Concerning the specific operation of the sun and other celestial bodies, the OT is no less}

equivocal on the matter: YHWH created the sun, moon, and stars by speaking them into exis-

tence.33 _{In the conceptual world of the OT, the sun, moon and stars are certainly physical ob-}

jects; and with equal certainty, they are not metaphysical beings or persons, either divine or angelic or otherwise. The OT takes a definitive stand against the Israelites worshipping or making sacrifices to the sun, moon or stars (Deut 4:19, 17:3; 2 Ki 23:5,11; Jer 8:1-3); but these same commands are given in regard to YHWH, and many examples are recorded in the

OT literature. Not only this, but the OT continually invites and commands the Israelites to pray and sing hymns to YHWH their God; in fact, on a number of occasions the OT text invites

the sun, moon, and stars as well as heavenly beings (i.e., angels) to join the Israelites in prais- ing YHWH!

Psalm 148 is particularly instructive regarding the conceptual relationships between the celestial entities and YHWH. As with the creation narrative in Genesis 1, the psalm is un-

equivocal that the sun, moon and stars were created by the spoken word of YHWH. The sun,

moon and stars are listed separately than the angels or heavenly armies, who are described as "living in the heights above." While it is possible that the psalmist here conceptualizes the sun, moon and stars as "angels" that live in the heights above, there is very little OT textual evidence to support such a reading. In the OT, beings described as "angels" always appear as persons, with the exception of the specific "angel of YHWH" who appears in a variety of forms

but never as the sun, moon or stars. One could also make an argument that the psalmist con-

31. See John Calvin, Commentary on Psalm 36 (CC 8:307-311).

32. Gen 1:1, 2:1,4; 1 Sam 2:8; Jer 10:12, 51:15; Psa 24:2-3, 33:8-9, 89:11, 90:2, 93:1-2, 115:15, 121:2, 124:8, 134:3, 146:6; Prov 8:26.

ceptualizes the sun, moon and stars as personal in some way because of the psalmist's injunc- tion that they praise YHWH, which would seem to be a personal and not an impersonal action.

However, the psalmist proceeds to offer the same injunction to animals (reptiles and birds), to impersonal living things (fruit-trees and forests), even to inanimate objects such as clouds and snow, mountains and hills.

Glen Taylor (1993:114-118) argues that the deity YHWH is conceptualized as the sun in

the description of Joshua's battle against the Amorite alliance at Gibeon (Josh 10:1-15). He argues this on the basis of the grammatical juxtaposition of the prepositional phrase ה ָוהי ַל (to YHWH) as the indirect object of the Piel verb ר ֵבּ ִדּ (to speak) combined with the vocative per-

sonal address ןוֹע ְב ִג ְבּ שׁ ֶמ ֶשׁ ("Shemesh in Gibeon," identified with YHWH in Taylor's view).

This view represents a severe discontinuity with the rest of the OT, where the sun is always considered a created object and certainly not a deity. Walton (1994:181-190) argues strongly that the concept of the sun and moon "standing" (Heb. ד ַמ ָע) refers not to motionlessness but to the phenomenon of the sun and the moon being visible in the sky together, which could plausibly be the sense of the verb ד ַמ ָע when describing the moon and the sun in Josh 10:13.34

The vocative in Joshua's speech could be referring to the sun simply as an object; this is pre-

34. For some days following a full moon, the moon rises after sunset, appears nearly full, and is still visible in the west when the sun rises eastward in the morning. From the perspective of a person standing where the battle is described to have taken place––i.e., between the village of Gibeon and the Beth-horon mountain pass––the rising sun would have appeared over Gibeon and the setting moon would have appeared over the valley of Aijalon (see also note #115 below). The text describes Joshua and the Israelite army having marched all night from Gilgal to reach Gibeon (Josh 10:9). Although the text does not specifically state the time of day of Joshua's speech, the temporal markers of the narrative allow that Joshua uttered his words in the morning after the all-night march, prior to engaging the Amorite alliance in battle that day. See Gray 1967:110; Morton 1970:340-341; Soggin 1972:126; Woudstra 1981:175; Boling 1982:283-288; Hoppe 1982: 67-68; Hess 1996:196; Nelson 1997:141-142; Howard 1998:246; Walton 2006:262; Hess 2009:47; Coote 2015:86. Many commentators prefer to follow the long tradition of interpreting this text as describing the sun and moon actually stopping in the sky: Augustine of Hippo, Confessions, XI.23.30 [NPNF I 1:171], City of God, XXI.8 [NPNF I 2:459]; John Calvin, Commentary on Joshua [CC

7:153-155]; Blaikie 1893:227-231; Woudstra 1981:174-176; Butler 1983:116; Rösel 2011:169-172. However, the ancient Israelites had full experiential knowledge of the temporal regularity of the operation of the sun and moon; it is far more likely that the supernatural act of YHWH in view here (Josh 10:14) refers to the opportunistic hailstorm and

cisely the situation described by the LXX, which in v.12 renders an aorist imperative in the 3rd person (Grk. Στήτω) where the MT contains the Qal Imperative םוֹדּ (from ם ַמ ָדּ, "to be silent"). The prepositional phrase ןוֹע ְב ִג ְבּ ("in Gibeon") need not be part of the vocative; in fact, the use of the parallel locative phrase ןוֹ ֽל ָיּ ַא ק ֶמ ֥ ֵע ְבּ ("in the valley of Aijalon") in the fol- lowing strophe would seem to indicate that the phrase ןוֹע ְב ִג ְבּ is also locative (Woudstra 1981:175), although either option is grammatically acceptable.

Even if the vocative were read correctly as "Shemesh-in-Gibeon," the textual evi- dence is still insufficiently compelling to conclude that the vocative definitively refers to YHWH (Boling 1982:283). As Taylor admits, it is conceivable that Joshua's speech is intended

as a rebuke of a Gibeonite sun-god spoken in prayer to YHWH (Taylor 1993:115-116), thereby

prompting the reader to consider that YHWH, not the local Gibeonite deity, should be credited

with the rescue of the Gibeonite people.35 _{Specifically determining the best exegetical inter-}

pretation of Josh 10:12-14 lies beyond the scope of this study; I've included this brief discus- sion here only to demonstrate that Joshua 10 does not in any way demand an interpretation of YHWH as a sun-god.36 In fact, the language used in Habakkuk 3 to describe a storm theo-

phany is very similar (see section 2.2.3a. below); this text could be describing a storm theo- phany as well, or simply a hailstorm.37

Throughout the OT, the ontological distinction between YHWH and the sun is consis-

tently and rigorously maintained. This does not mean that YHWH was never conceptualized as

the sun in ancient Israelite culture. On the contrary, given that the OT is so strident in its dif- ferentiation between YHWH and the sun, it seems highly likely that some ancient Israelites did,

35. See Mulder 1965:60; Gray 1967:110-111; Woudstra 1981:174; Hamlin 1983:95; Butler 1983:116-117; Creach 2003:91; Hess 2009:47-48; Coote 2015:86-87. Some commentators prefer the view that the vocative is the speech of YHWH and not of Joshua (Howard

1998:248-249).

36. For more lengthy discussion concerning the interpretation of Josh 10:12-14, see Hoppe 1982:65-68; Hess 1996:194-199; Howard 1998:238-251; McConville & Williams

2010:161-170.

37. See Scott 1952:19-20; Morton 1970:341-342; Soggin 1972:123; Boling 1982:283-288; Hamlin 1983:87-89; Walton 1994:181-190; Hess 1996:196-199; Nelson 1997:141-145; Howard 1998:249; Creach 2003:90-93; McConville & Williams 2010:52-53; also Holladay, 1968; Noth, 1971; Miller & Tucker, 1974.

in fact, conceptualize YHWH as a sun-god. But the forced argument that YHWH is sometimes

conceptualized as a sun-god in the OT lacks substantive exegetical evidence. In the OT, YHWH is always conceptualized as the originating cause of the sun, never the sun itself.