Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

b-hebrew - Re:1Samuel 1.9again.

b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Biblical Hebrew Forum

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: ian goldsmith <iangoldsmith1969 AT yahoo.co.uk>
  • To: b-hebrew AT franklin.oit.unc.edu
  • Subject: Re:1Samuel 1.9again.
  • Date: Fri, 19 Oct 2001 17:17:49 +0100 (BST)


Trevor.

I wrote:

>Sorry I can't find any previous use of 'heykal'
before
>the one in discussion - 1Samuel 1:9, but does that
>matter? I can neither find a Heb, Aram, Eth, Akk,
>Sumarian, Syr, Assy, or Swahili word where 'heykal'
>means pavilion, but that wasn't the point either.
>George and I were only trying to give an answer to
the
>question posed by James, ie:
>"Why in 1 Sam 1:19 is there a reference to the Lord's
>"temple" (heykal) when the temple has not been built
>yet?"

Your responded:

"I understand what you were trying to do. My point is
that I wouldn't expect this word to be used with
reference to a tent."

I wouldn't expect my house to be a castle, but the
expression still stands, 'my home is my castle'.

cont. "I realise its royal connotations, but that
still
doesn't remove the overwhelming evidence that it
was used with regard to fixed structures."

Later, at least in the OT, yes, I agree heykal is used
for fixed structures.
The tabernacle isn't your standard tent though. I
would be hard pushed using todays adjectives to
describe it as a tent. A quick glance at the
description in Exodus of the tabernacle would quickly
dispel any notion that this was an ordinary tent.

I continued:
>George was quite right to state that "whether a
temple
>or pavilion is in mind is irrelevant." He and I were
>both trying to explain (I believe) that this passage
>is referring, when using 'heykal', to the residence
of
>the King, ie. God, the king of the universe.

"Then would you also say that the shift in use from
bet to hekal over time (as hekal becomes more common
in later Bib. Heb.) reflects a shift in thinking
about God's royal role?"

Not really. It may reflect the preference of the
author for the term. If you want later use of
beyt/house. Jesus in the New Testament refers to his
father's house, house of God not den of thieves etc
when refering to the temple.
It is a house but also a place of worship ie. a
temple.

Cont:
>"Are you suggesting that this Sumerian loanword (got
>any proof?) was not associated with fixed buildings
in
>any language until sometime in the first millennium,"

"None of the dictionaries attempt to derive it from a
Semitic root (contrary to normal practice in, for
example, BDB). In Akkadian, it's written E(2).GAL,
which are common Sumerian signs for "house" and "big."
It would be quite a coincidence if the word were not
originally Sumerian."

Driver and Briggs are both Wellhausians, so I wouldn't
expect them to want to find a semitic root, that
doesn't mean that there isn't one, just that we don't
know of one. Perhaps they're right, point is we don't
know.

I cont:
>I may refer to my house as; my home, my house, my
>dwelling, the terrace property of Mr. Goldsmith, my
>habitation etc, etc.

"Perhaps, but if your house is a tent, and you call it
a fortress, someone might question whether you've used
the correct term. The passage doesn't strike me as
going out of its way to make a point through
figurative language."

Me neither, but if my house look like the tabernacle
in the OT of Moses, I could label it a temple without
getting too many side ways glances from the
neighbours.
Well I might get sideways glances, but not for
labelling it a temple, it was huge!

You cont.
>Perhaps you feel that this passage refers to some
>other building other than the tabernacle tent.

I don't know what it refers to. I'm just trying not
to stretch the terms if we don't have to.

Who says you have to stretch anything. Just because
it's the first use of the word in this context doesn't
mean they meant something else. Would the writer have
clarified by adding something like,"sat on a seat near
the post of the temple, the one near the tabernacle",
if the tabernacle wasn't what was meant.

>The fact that in this verse it is also called a
>temple/palace may mess up some pre-conceived ideas,
>but surely it doesn't mean that the writer could not
>have been using another adjective for the home of
God.

"What about the preconceived idea that there was not a
temple at Shiloh?"

Good point, but I still stand by my convictions.

Have a good weekend Trevor.
Yours.
Ian.



____________________________________________________________
Nokia Game is on again.
Go to http://uk.yahoo.com/nokiagame/ and join the new
all media adventure before November 3rd.



  • Re:1Samuel 1.9again., ian goldsmith, 10/19/2001

Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page