Biblical Hebrew Forum

["Bryan Rocine" <brocine AT earthlink.net>]

Dear B-Haverim,

I like James Barr's (The Semantics of Biblical Language)
criticism of
theologians' use of psuedo-linguistic evidence, as if Hebrew
was not a real language, as if it was linguistically
consecrated to the Lord and His theologians rather than
being also the language of mundane Palestine.  Of course,
his pointing out the limits of the value of etymology for
lexicography and especially for theology, is absolutely
warranted.

On the other hand, my non-expert opinion is that he
over-sells his admonitions a bit.  For instance, he mentions
four H words for man-- 'ish, 'adam, geber, 'enosh--and
criticizes the theologian who alledges that these four
words, taken together, represent the "Hebrew" conception of
humanity.  Fair enough.  But he suggests, if I understand
correctly, the four words are merely synonomous and should
be thought of as equivalent, all meaning simply "man" to the
ancient Hebrew.  He denies that the Hebrew would have been
in any way burdened by etymologically connecting, for
example, 'adam to 'adamah and 'edom or geber to the idea of
strength or greatness.  I disagree that the four words are
merely equivalents or that the writers of the Tanakh were
not, in general, keenly occupied with their lexical options
or with root meanings and etymological connections as per
'adam to 'adamah, etc.  The elevated literary register/style
of the Tanakh, I guess, is not the register/style of the
ancient street and market.  At least, suppose that the style
may be elevated, literarily keen.  As part of their
register/style, the writers of the Tanakh utilize an
elevated, literary consciousness of etymology that deserves
to be savored.  Writers savor words; readers should.

What do you think?

Shalom,
Bryan


B. M. Rocine
Associate Pastor
Living Word Church
6101 Court St. Rd.
Syracuse, NY 13206

(office) 315.437.6744
(home) 315.479.8267