Hostname: page-component-84b7d79bbc-tsvsl Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-08-03T05:32:49.059Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Magic and Dialectic

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 July 2024

Heinrich W. Guggenheimer
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

In the Biblical story of the creation we read (Gen. II): “The Lord in the exercise of His power created from the soil all the wild animals of the field and all the birds (and other animals) that fly in the sky. He brought to the Man to see what name he would give it. Whatever the Man called a living soul, that would be his name. The man gave names to all the domestic animals and to the birds of the sky and to all the wild animals of the field; but there was not found a helpmate appropriate to Man.” An early medieval commentary (Midras Beresit Raba, quoted from ed. Levin-Epstein, Jerusalem, 5712 = 1951/2) reports the following explanation (xvii, 4): “The students asked Rabi Yohanan ben Zarai: It is written (Gen. 1, 24), ‘And God said, let the earth bring forth living souls according to their species…’ What, then, is the meaning of the verse, ‘The Lord created from the soil…?’ He said to them: The first verse (1, 24) relates to the creation, whereas the second mention (II, 19) refers to the power of the humans over the animal kingdom. This can be seen from the verse (Deut. xx, 19): ‘If you will use your power against a city…’.” (This means that the word wayser should not be derived from the root ysr, to create, but from the root swr, to behave in an inimical fashion. The best translation of the verse would then be: “The Lord in the exercise of His power forced from the soil all the animals of the field… and brought them under the power of the Man under condition that he would name them.” It is to be noted that the word “he created” appears previously in II, 7 as applied to the creation of Man. There it is spelled wyysr, seemingly to exclude a derivation from swr. This is similar to the massoretic treatment of wyr’, he saw, and wyyr’, he feared. The first root is r'h, the second yr’. Naturally, biblical scholarship cannot take notice of these remarks since it must believe in a theory of sources.) The attitude underlying this commentary is that the knowledge of the right name gives power over the bearer of that name. This attitude is a well-known principle of magic in all its forms. It can be found in folk-tales like that of Rumpelstilzchen. J. G. Frazer, in The Golden Bough (quoted from 2nd ed., vol. 1, London, 1900) has made a classical study of this kind of magic. He writes of the Egyptians (p. 446): “For it was believed that he who possessed the true name possessed the very being of god or man, and could force even a deity to obey him as a slave obeys his master.” For the same reason, we are told (p. 447): “The city of Rome itself had a secret name which it was unlawful to divulge.”

Type
Research Article
Information
Diogenes , Volume 15 , Issue 60 , December 1967 , pp. 80 - 86
Copyright
Copyright © 1967 Fédération Internationale des Sociétés de Philosophie / International Federation of Philosophical Societies (FISP)

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 Some remarks may be in order for this translation. E. A. Speisers translation (The Anchor Bible, Genesis, 2nd ed. New York 1964) reads: "19So God Yahweh formed out of the soil various wild beasts and birds of the sky and brought them to the man to see what he called them; whatever the man would call a living creature, that was to be its name. 20The man gave names to all cattle, all birds of the sky, and all wild beasts; yet none proved to be the aide that would be fit for man." This translation is probably the best representative of Bible scholarship and criticism; my translation is based on traditional principles.

v. 19 It has become the trademark of a "scholarly" approach to vocalize the name YHWH as a kind of hif'il. This is a 19th century invention without found ation. Since the name has magic implications, its formation obviously cannot be deducted by reasoning. I prefer to stick to the traditional translation "the Lord." The usual translation of the word elohim is God. However, the Talmud points out that both elohim and yhwh are attributes rather than names of God and that elohim refers to the action of the laws of nature as expression of God's power, whereas yhwh refers to the action of grace outside the limit of the law. Therefore, I prefer here to consider elohim an adjective to yhwh and to translate: The Lord in the exercise of His power.

It may be remarked that the indicator of the accusative et is missing before the mention of the wild animals but is present for the birds. According to Rabbi Aqiba, the meaning of et cannot be divorced from the conjunctive it and, therefore, it hints to an addition to what is said explicitly in the text. I have tried to express this meaning in the parenthesis. Here it may be pointed out that in the next verse the birds are named but, in contrast to the animals, not all of them. This seems to indicate that Man did not achieve mastery over the insects. (Speiser puts in an "all" for the birds on the basis of some of the less literal versions of the Bible; this is a very fashionable "scholarly" device.)

In the next part of the sentence it is not quite clear what was brought to Man. The Torgum Yerushalmi (a late Byzantine Aramaic version) translates: "The Lord powerful created all the wild animals, and all the birds of the sky he brought to Man…"

Regarding the last part of v. 19, Speiser remarks that the phrase does riddance to Hebrew grammar; this may well be an indication or its magic meaning.

v. 20 We have remarked earlier the opposite treatment of the birds in verses 19 and 20. These literary finesses are completely lost on biblical scholars. For a striking example, a nice rhetorical figure is achieved in Gen. XLVII, 12-13, by the double use of the word lehem. Only a completely deaf person can break the figure up by giving verse 12 to source P and verse 13 to J. Similar examples can be multiplied ad lib.

The word kenegdo can mean not only appropriate, but also opposite. A possible translation is "He did not find for the Man a help, to oppose him." This gives rise to a Talmudical aphorism: If the man deserves it, his wife will be a help. If not, she will be his enemy in his own house.

2 See H. Guggenheimer, Logical Problems in Jewish Tradition, in Con frontations with Judaism, Ph. Longworth ed., London 1966, p. 171-196.

3 See e. g., Yalqut Sim'oni, Job, Nos. 923-927 and the traditional interpretation of Proverbs, VIII, 22-31.

4 A. Aebi, Kants Begründung der deutschen Philosophie, Basel, 1947. For an entertaining attempt to give meaning to Leninist dialectic, see G. Klaus, Ein führung in die formale Logik, Berlin, 1959 (in particular III, 4; IV, 5).