Raqia : debate on 3 Baruch 3:5-8

Intro to Raqia debate with Drew Gasaway · Midrash part of Debate with Drew · Raqia : debate on 3 Baruch 3:5-8 · Raqia debate : Josephus (and Philo) · Raqia debate : Hezekiel 1:22 · Raqia debate : Psalm 148 · Raqia debate : Genesis Day 4

Below was part

of original status:

Drew Gasaway

In this account of the tower of babel from the Jewish Apocrypha in 3 Baruch 3:5-8 it describes there being a metal skydome they were trying to penetrate. It says, "5 the angel: I pray thee, Lord, say to me who are these. And he said, These are they who gave counsel to build the tower, for they whom thou seest drove forth multitudes of both men and women, to make bricks; among whom, a woman making bricks was not allowed to be released in the hour of child-birth, but brought forth while she was making bricks, and carried her child in her apron, and 6 continued to make bricks. And the Lord appeared to them and confused their speech, when they 7 had built the tower to the height of four hundred and sixty-three cubits. And they took a gimlet, and sought to pierce the heaven, saying, Let us see (whether) the heaven is made of clay, or of 8 brass, or of iron. When God saw this He did not permit them, but smote them with blindness and confusion of speech, and rendered them as thou seest."

Hans-Georg Lundahl

"In this account of the tower of babel from the Jewish Apocrypha in 3 Baruch 3:5-8"

Arguably, unlike canonic book of Baruch, fan fiction.

But even if not, Nimrod's men trying to pierce a thing as if it were a solid could be due to a mirage and need not mean the thing was solid in itself.

Comment by Biblical Spotlight

came before Drew posted below as a separate thread.

Drew Gasaway

Hans-Georg Lundahl on 3 Baruch 3:5-8 something doesn't have to be canonical to gain an understanding if canon was required we couldn't read a single word of either testament in Greek or Hebrew.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

There is a difference of gaining understanding of a word meaning and gaining understanding of a precise concept.

Sure, take any literature you can find from the period (!) to see whether for instance "presbyteros" ever has meanings other than "older man" (btw, excluing traditional reading of NT and going only to "literature to gain understanding" would be the wrong method, but you would still have diplomats being called so).

But you do not determine the precise scope of a context by going to non-canonic literature and then discard the literal and factual truth of either Bible or tradition from what "understanding" you gain this.

It's like when some guys knowing in detail how the Athenian Ekklesia worked in Pericles' time think this disproves the Catholic idea of the NT Ekklesia being very hierarchic. Hint : Athenians were not alone in having an Ekklesia, Spartans and Romans also had such (called Coetus in Rome), and the time of Pericles was long over before NT.

Similar with raqia.

It can have one precise scope of meaning in Baruch 3 and another one (like Baruch 3 - actual solid) elsewhere.

"But even if not, Nimrod's men trying to pierce a thing as if it were a solid could be due to a mirage and need not mean the thing was solid in itself."

You did not respond to this, as if it didn't matter that Baruch 3 ALSO is not any kind of guarantee that OT Hebrews universally considered the firmament as an actual solid, when even its author cannot be proven to do so.

Drew Gasaway

Hans-Georg Lundahl some of our understanding of Greek comes from stories about sky god shooting lightning bolts and another god hold up the earth on his shoulders so it doesn't fall which is flat or round depending on when and who wrote the version. Using fact-based literature as ruler is faulty we don't even do that with contemporary history the Trojan Wars comes from mythology, the history of ancient Egypt is all mythology as well as Sumer and ancient China. We get history from Egypt from the same stories where the Pharho was raised just beneath the sky fault by the god Ra and taken from the north Nile to the south Nile. Then he makes the crops from seed to harvest in a day and commands the sun to go down. The ledgers have some pretty crazy stuff as well!

Hans-Georg Lundahl

"some of our understanding of Greek comes from stories about sky god shooting lightning bolts"

Doesn't mean we need to consider Ptolemy as believing the exact concept of Zeus being placed on Ida and raised by goats whenever he speaks of a planet smaller than Sun, but larger than "Kronos".

My precise point of difference between determining basic word meaning and exact meaning of a concept from a source other than the text you study. Word meanings? Fair play.

Exact concept? You would need a providential parallel for that. Like the prayer of Velleius Paterculus being written exact same year that Christ said Sermon on the Mont with Mt 6:7. (16th year of Tiberius). And there you also have Christ actually pointing to an external source of understanding, namely in "as the heathens do". Velleius Paterculus being one.

"the Trojan Wars comes from mythology,"

Would you care to tell me why you call mythology something other than "fact based" in the case of Trojan Mythology?

"We get history from Egypt from the same stories where the Pharho was raised just beneath the sky fault by the god Ra and taken from the north Nile to the south Nile."

Was it one within the King Lists? Is the oldest attestation of that story from after Elijah?

"Then he makes the crops from seed to harvest in a day and commands the sun to go down."

Was the earliest attestation after Joshua's long day?

I would consider these stories as mainly fact based. That fact based and not fictional stories include errors and lies (from vanity, like "counting to oneself") is really not unique for this case.