Biblical Hebrew Forum

["Loren Crow" <lorencrow AT earthling.net>]

Hi Brian,

I don't read him as arguing that the ancients would NOT make these
etymological connections.  What I think he's arguing, rather, is that
there's no reason to suppose that they necessarily DID make the connections.
There's perhaps only a shade of difference between the two of these, but
it's an important one from the standpoint of lexicography.  Similarly, the
supposition that there are "shades of difference" in meaning between the
various words in the semantic field of "human being" depends on an
assumption that there are no regional dialects or developments over time in
Hebrew.  In other words, it depends on a "systemic" rather than a
developmental model of biblical Hebrew, one in which there is essentially
only one speaker (usually God) whose language is thoroughly consistent and
meaningfully systematic.  Barr is quite a stickler for proper defense of
one's position, and he finds these assumptions debatable at best.  Hope this
helps.

All the best,
Loren

Loren D. Crow, Ph.D.
Department of Religion
Wiley College
711 Wiley Avenue
Marshall, Texas 75670

VOX: (903) 927-3219
FAX: (903) 927-3336
lorencrow AT earthling.net <mailto:lorencrow AT earthling.net>
http://www.texramp.net/~lorencrow <http://www.texramp.net/~lorencrow>

The unexamined life is not worth living.

                        - Socrates



> -----Original Message-----
> From: Bryan Rocine [mailto:brocine AT earthlink.net]
> Sent: Wednesday, July 07, 1999 8:05 AM
> To: Biblical Hebrew
> Subject: Barr on semantics
>
>
> 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
>
>
>
>
> ---
> You are currently subscribed to b-hebrew as: lorencrow AT earthling.net
> To unsubscribe, forward this message to
> $subst('Email.Unsub')
> To subscribe, send an email to join-b-hebrew AT franklin.oit.unc.edu.
>