Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

b-hebrew - Re: [b-hebrew] b-hebrew Digest, Vol 32, Issue 58

b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Biblical Hebrew Forum

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: "Assaf Voll" <assaf AT nir-ezion.co.il>
  • To: <b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org>
  • Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] b-hebrew Digest, Vol 32, Issue 58
  • Date: Tue, 30 Aug 2005 23:35:26 +0200

How can I cancel my mail address?

----- Original Message ----- From: <b-hebrew-request AT lists.ibiblio.org>
To: <b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org>
Sent: Tuesday, August 30, 2005 6:00 PM
Subject: b-hebrew Digest, Vol 32, Issue 58


Send b-hebrew mailing list submissions to
b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org

To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
b-hebrew-request AT lists.ibiblio.org

You can reach the person managing the list at
b-hebrew-owner AT lists.ibiblio.org

When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
than "Re: Contents of b-hebrew digest..."


Today's Topics:

1. Re: XSD (Karl Randolph)
2. Re: XSD (Bill Rea)
3. Re: XSD (Karl Randolph)
4. Re: XSD (Harold R. Holmyard III)
5. Re: XSD (really Uriah) (Rob Barrett)


----------------------------------------------------------------------

Message: 1
Date: Mon, 29 Aug 2005 15:41:55 -0500
From: "Karl Randolph" <kwrandolph AT email.com>
Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] XSD
To: b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
Message-ID: <20050829204155.374188401D AT ws1-5.us4.outblaze.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252"

Peter:

When did we have such a discussion as you claim below? I
don't recall it.

1) I do not claim that the rule is without exceptions.

2) (RB is listed in my notes as one of the exceptions.
This listing predates my involvement in this forum.

It is possible that they may have had the same origin, but
the data is too sparse either to prove or disprove such a
connection. What I object to is the claim that cognate
language data "prove" or "disprove" certain connections
within Biblical Hebrew, especially when the cognate
languages are much later than Biblical Hebrew, for
example, Arabic. The main use of cognate definitions is
for lexemes used so seldom, and in contexts where we can
only guess at meaning, but even there treat with
extreme caution.

And how do I reject lexicographic principles? The basic
method is to study each lexeme in its contexts to get an
idea as to its meaning. The main difference between me
and, let's say BDB, is that they looked at the formal
aspects of meaning while I look for the functional aspects.
Another difference that I see is that I compared and
contrast synonyms and antonyms, to get a tighter handle
on word meanings, whereas I don't see much evidence that
they did so.

Another difference is purely philosophical, as there is no
evidence either for or against the belief that Semitic
languages started out with all the phones now found in
southern Arabic and the various languages lost phones over
time, whereas I look at the historical record that
indicates languages both lost and gained phones over time.
Hence, some of the "evidence" from cognate languages for
different roots may instead be evidence that some
languages split phones, not that there were originally
different roots in Hebrew.

Karl W. Randolph.


----- Original Message -----
From: "Peter Kirk" <peterkirk AT qaya.org>


On 29/08/2005 06:32, Karl Randolph wrote:

> ...
>
> Occam?s razor says that the simplest answer is usually the
> correct one, not that lexemes have multiple meanings. As it is,
> the simplest answer is that each word, or lexeme, has one
> meaning, hence Occam?s razor would favor my working hypothesis.
>
> I have not advanced the theory before this recent discussion,
> merely used the results in previous discussions. It is
> interesting that when I reported the results in previous
> discussions, it was rare for anyone to question how I came to the
> results that I had. The questions were fewer than the fingers on
> one hand.
>
>

Karl, we have had extensive discussions on this list before in
which you have repeatedly insisted on your rejection of the basic
principles of modern lexicography, and among more specific points
your rejection of evidence from cognate languages which sometimes
proves that there are multiple Hebrew roots with the same form. (A
clear exmple of this proof is that there are two roots
ayin-resh-bet, one meaning "evening" or "west" as in Arabic maghreb
"the West, North Africa", and another meaning "nomad" as in Arabic
`arab "Arab" - whereas presumably your method would imply that
Hebrew `erev "evening" and `arav "nomad, Arab" have the same
origin.) You have certainly had far more than five exchanges on
this issue with me alone.

-- Peter Kirk
peter AT qaya.org (personal)
peterkirk AT qaya.org (work)
http://www.qaya.org/

--
___________________________________________________________
Sign-up for Ads Free at Mail.com
http://promo.mail.com/adsfreejump.htm



------------------------------

Message: 2
Date: Tue, 30 Aug 2005 09:18:06 +1200 (NZST)
From: Bill Rea <bsr15 AT cantsl.it.canterbury.ac.nz>
Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] XSD
To: b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
Message-ID:
<Pine.SOL.4.58.0508300846300.28356 AT cantsl.it.canterbury.ac.nz>
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII

Karl wrote:-

Occam's razor says that the simplest answer is usually the correct one,
not that lexemes have multiple meanings.

You are taking Occam's razor to the wrong part of my post. My
question was -- Why do people continue to reject your model?
Simplest explanation -- the evidence does not favour it.

Karl further wrote:-

I have not advanced the theory before this recent discussion, merely used
the results in previous discussions. It is interesting that when I
reported the results in previous discussions, it was rare for anyone to
question how I came to the results that I had. The questions were fewer
than the fingers on one hand.

I'll take your word that you had not explictly advanced your theory
previously. However, it was so obvious what you were doing I'm
surprized anyone had to ask.

Again, one of my favorite commands, "Look at the context." Uriah had just
spent time out in the field, [snip]

Recall David's words:-

Then David said to Uriah, "Go down to your house, and wash your feet."

Feet being RGLM.

Now let's look on just a few verses.

10. Now when they told David, saying, "Uriah did not go down to his
house," David said to Uriah, "Have you not come from a journey? Why did
you not go down to your house?"
11. Uriah said to David, "The ark and Israel and Judah are staying in
temporary shelters, and my lord Joab and the servants of my lord are
camping in the open field. Shall I then go to my house to eat and to drink
and to lie with my wife? By your life and the life of your soul, I will
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
not do this thing."

I see Harold Holmyard agrees with you. But if you're both right
why does Uriah explicitly mention lying with his wife if he did not
understand David's intention for him to do precisely that.

On a literary front we could say that the writer is using this to
heighten our awareness of David's problem. He turns the heat up on
David. But underlying any literary purpose there must be a context
within the society it was written for. If there was no pre-existing
connection in the minds of the readers between David's ``wash your
feet'' in v8 and Uriah's ``lie with my wife'' in v11 then I
think the dialogue takes on a contrived feel.

Bill Rea, IT Services, University of Canterbury \_
E-Mail bill.rea AT canterbury.ac.nz </ New
Phone 64-3-364-2331, Fax 64-3-364-2332 /) Zealand
Unix Systems Administrator (/'



------------------------------

Message: 3
Date: Mon, 29 Aug 2005 17:12:07 -0500
From: "Karl Randolph" <kwrandolph AT email.com>
Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] XSD
To: b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
Message-ID: <20050829221207.33E24101D9 AT ws1-3.us4.outblaze.com>
Content-Type: text/plain

Bill:

Again, look at the context. Not just the immediate context,
but the whole story.

Secondly, just because Uriah spelled out the totality of
what he expected should he return home, does not mean that
the words David used even implied that totality. Now we
know that David wanted that totality, but again the total
context would inhibit David from _saying_ it to avoid
suspician.

Occam's razor was designed to deal with evidence, not
human beliefs and customs. Your reaction is like the
common, majority belief, medieval claim that the world
is flat, even though writers since Ptolomy (if not
earlier) showed evidence that the world is roughly
spherical. Truth is not decided by popular vote, nor
even by scholarly consensus. I think you misused Occam's
razor. The simplest explanation of the evidence is that
words have one meaning within a language, with some
exceptions, no matter how it may be translated or what
other people believe.

Karl W. Randolph.

Karl W. Randolph.

----- Original Message -----
From: "Bill Rea" <bsr15 AT cantsl.it.canterbury.ac.nz>


Karl wrote:-

> Occam's razor says that the simplest answer is usually the correct one,
> not that lexemes have multiple meanings.

You are taking Occam's razor to the wrong part of my post. My
question was -- Why do people continue to reject your model?
Simplest explanation -- the evidence does not favour it.

Karl further wrote:-

> I have not advanced the theory before this recent discussion, merely > used
> the results in previous discussions. It is interesting that when I
> reported the results in previous discussions, it was rare for anyone to
> question how I came to the results that I had. The questions were > fewer
> than the fingers on one hand.

I'll take your word that you had not explictly advanced your theory
previously. However, it was so obvious what you were doing I'm
surprized anyone had to ask.

> Again, one of my favorite commands, "Look at the context." Uriah had > just
> spent time out in the field, [snip]

Recall David's words:-

Then David said to Uriah, "Go down to your house, and wash your feet."

Feet being RGLM.

Now let's look on just a few verses.

10. Now when they told David, saying, "Uriah did not go down to his
house," David said to Uriah, "Have you not come from a journey? Why did
you not go down to your house?"
11. Uriah said to David, "The ark and Israel and Judah are staying in
temporary shelters, and my lord Joab and the servants of my lord are
camping in the open field. Shall I then go to my house to eat and to drink
and to lie with my wife? By your life and the life of your soul, I will
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
not do this thing."

I see Harold Holmyard agrees with you. But if you're both right
why does Uriah explicitly mention lying with his wife if he did not
understand David's intention for him to do precisely that.

On a literary front we could say that the writer is using this to
heighten our awareness of David's problem. He turns the heat up on
David. But underlying any literary purpose there must be a context
within the society it was written for. If there was no pre-existing
connection in the minds of the readers between David's ``wash your
feet'' in v8 and Uriah's ``lie with my wife'' in v11 then I
think the dialogue takes on a contrived feel.

Bill Rea, IT Services, University of Canterbury \_
E-Mail bill.rea AT canterbury.ac.nz </ New
Phone 64-3-364-2331, Fax 64-3-364-2332 /) Zealand
Unix Systems Administrator (/'

--
___________________________________________________________
Sign-up for Ads Free at Mail.com
http://promo.mail.com/adsfreejump.htm



------------------------------

Message: 4
Date: Mon, 29 Aug 2005 17:32:46 -0500
From: "Harold R. Holmyard III" <hholmyard AT ont.com>
Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] XSD
To: b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
Message-ID: <a06020406bf393890187a@[205.242.61.51]>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" ; format="flowed"

Dear Bill,

Recall David's words:-

Then David said to Uriah, "Go down to your house, and wash your feet."

Feet being RGLM.

Now let's look on just a few verses.

10. Now when they told David, saying, "Uriah did not go down to his
house," David said to Uriah, "Have you not come from a journey? Why did
you not go down to your house?"
11. Uriah said to David, "The ark and Israel and Judah are staying in
temporary shelters, and my lord Joab and the servants of my lord are
camping in the open field. Shall I then go to my house to eat and to drink
and to lie with my wife? By your life and the life of your soul, I will
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
not do this thing."

I see Harold Holmyard agrees with you. But if you're both right
why does Uriah explicitly mention lying with his wife if he did not
understand David's intention for him to do precisely that.

HH: I agree with you, Bill, that it was David's
intention for him to do precisely that, lie with
his wife. But David could suggest the idea by
simply telling him to wash his feet. "Wash your
feet" can include such ideas as "make yourself at
home, take a break, and enjoy life at home for a
spell." This would obviously include being with
his wife.

HH: David assumed that if Uriah washed his feet, he would do it at home:

2Sam. 11:10 ? When David was told, "Uriah did
not go home," he asked him, "Haven't you just
come from a distance? Why didn't you go home?

HH: Washing his feet would be something to do
upon entering one's home to stay there. If Uriah
were to go back to the battlefront immediately,
he would not need to wash his feet but could just
proceed on his way. What Uriah did was:

2Sam. 11:8 Then David said to Uriah, "Go down to
your house and wash your feet." So Uriah left the
palace, and a gift from the king was sent after
him.
2Sam. 11:9 But Uriah slept at the entrance to the
palace with all his master's servants and did not
go down to his house.

HH: Perhaps he washed his feet anyway, but he did
not do what David expected him to do when he said
those words.

HH: Washing one's feet was a well known social
institution, still strong and current in NT
times. A widow to receive church support had to
be one who washed the saints' feet. She gave them
hospitality, welcoming them into her home and
serving their needs. But people generally washed
their own feet, and Uriah would normally go home
to do such a thing, welcoming himself into his
own home.

HH: Washing feet does not have to equate to
washing genitals. Feet do not serve as euphemism
for sex organs here. The dialogue between David
and Uriah can proceed by indirection. David gets
his idea across without having to say it. Feet
are still feet, but washing his feet at his home
would lead to the other activities that David
wanted, Uriah's having sex with his wife.

On a literary front we could say that the writer is using this to
heighten our awareness of David's problem. He turns the heat up on
David. But underlying any literary purpose there must be a context
within the society it was written for. If there was no pre-existing
connection in the minds of the readers between David's ``wash your
feet'' in v8 and Uriah's ``lie with my wife'' in v11 then I
think the dialogue takes on a contrived feel.

HH: I think the connection is the natural
expectation that "wash your feet" would be taken
to mean that one was to go home, freshen up, rest
there, and enjoy home and all its comforts for a
time (including one's wife there at home). But
that is just what Uriah considered improper.
Warriors abstained from sex to prepare for
battle. I believe that is the custom David refers
to in the words elsewhere:

1Sam. 21:5 And David answered the priest, and
said unto him, Of a truth women have been kept
from us about these three days, since I came out,
and the vessels of the young men are holy, and
the bread is in a manner common, yea, though it
were sanctified this day in the vessel.

HH: Sexual abstention was connected with holiness
for several reasons, and Uriah evidently felt
that being on a soldier's mission he should not
go home to have sex with his wife.

Yours,
Harold Holmyard



------------------------------

Message: 5
Date: Tue, 30 Aug 2005 13:11:41 +0100
From: Rob Barrett <rcbarrett AT gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] XSD (really Uriah)
To: bill.rea AT canterbury.ac.nz
Cc: b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
Message-ID: <43144CFD.7030800 AT gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed

Bill Rea wrote:

I see Harold Holmyard agrees with you. But if you're both right
why does Uriah explicitly mention lying with his wife if he did not
understand David's intention for him to do precisely that.

On a literary front we could say that the writer is using this to
heighten our awareness of David's problem. He turns the heat up on
David. But underlying any literary purpose there must be a context
within the society it was written for. If there was no pre-existing
connection in the minds of the readers between David's ``wash your
feet'' in v8 and Uriah's ``lie with my wife'' in v11 then I
think the dialogue takes on a contrived feel.


In Sternberg's "The Poetics of Biblical Narrative", he has a fascinating
discussion of the use of ambiguity in Hebrew narrative. He uses this
story as an example of extended ambiguity around the question of whether
Uriah knew what David was/had-been up to or not (see pp. 201-9. He
argues that the story works both ways.

If Uriah does not know, he is a simple idealist who is itching to get
back to the battlefield where he belongs -- it is the reader who must
generate the contrast between the simple, faithful Uriah and the ugly,
conniving David. This Uriah simply brings up sex as an example of what
he must not allow himself while Israel is in battle (unlike David, of
course).

If Uriah does know, he is a complex tactician who is trying to outwit
David. He knows what David has done and what he wants Uriah to do, but
he's not going to fall for it. He knows David wants him to lie with
Bathsheba, and he also knows that the king may have him killed at any
moment. But he refuses to let David's offense lie hidden, so he brings
up David's unspoken intention in an innocent-sounding way that points
the finger at David, as the reader watches.

While one may not agree with Sternberg that both meanings are
simultaneously intended by the narrator, both interpretations are fully
plausible and neither demands that "feet" be read as anything other than
"feet".

(I take no stand on the larger philological debate)

all the best,
Rob





------------------------------

_______________________________________________
b-hebrew mailing list
b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew

End of b-hebrew Digest, Vol 32, Issue 58
****************************************






Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page