Biblical Hebrew Forum

[furuli AT online.no]

dear Michael,

See my comments below.


> R. Furuli wrote to P. Kirk:
>
> >  The context is not needed at
> >  all in connection with the
> >  *lexical meaning* of a  Hebrew
> >  word, because this meaning
> >  is found in the Hebrew mind.
> >  But for the purpose of reference,
> >  of modification, specification,
> >  stress etc the context is needed,
> >  but in this connection we should
> >  not speak of lexical semantics
> >  (lexical meaning).
>
> Quick question: how can the "Hebrew mind" be the
> source of biblical word meaning, even with its
> uniform(?!?!) "presupposition pool," since every
> individual "Hebrew mind" learned its own language and
> a good portion of its "presupposition[s]" while
> hanging out with ABBA V'IMMA?  Or whoever.  Right?

What do you think when  you read the English word "meaning"?
Instantly your mind focuses on the concept. You "know" the word
because you have used it from childhood. When you read the word, your
mind does not automatically come up with a clear-cut definition, the
concept is somewhat fuzzy, but for all members of b-hebrew the word
triggers about the same notion. It is quite funny that none of those
participating in this thread has defined or specified "meaning" when
they have used the word (except myself  who has modified it with
"lexical").  So you and others have used a word signaling a fuzzy
concept, assuming that the other list-memebers would understand the
concept. This is an excellent example that you implicitly accept my
saying that native speakers with the same presupposition pool would
have about the same understanding (knowledge) of "meaning2 or of
NEPE$. Little is certain when we discuss history and language, but
for one working with Psykho-lingiúistics this is elementary
knowledge.  Please look at David Crystal "a Dictionary of LInguistics
and Phonetics", and you will see how the concept "meaning" need to be
specified in a discussion.


> Again, very inductive.
>
> >  The disadvantage is that
> >  many modern persons already
> >  has, because of religious
> >  dogma, a concept of "soul"
> >  which is very far from the
> >  original NEPE$.
>
> I keep reading the above in different words, from
> various posters, and I still issue the challenge to
> prove it.  Who can prove that this concept of
> NEFESH=soul found in the Intertestamental Writings,
> the Mishna, and the New Testament was simply adopted
> from the Greeks?  Counter to "the Hebrew mind."
> Wouldn't it be better for us to admit that this is
> merely a working assumption?  Not a fact.

I have just finished translating the Ethiopic Enoch into Norwegian,
and as a translator you know that in this kind of work I had to pay
attention to the subtleties of both Ge'ez and Norwegian. The result
is that I see clearer than ever the big difference between the
Intertestamental literature and the Tanakh and the NT (there is not
even a strong case for Jude quoting Enoch). The descriptions of the
Netherworld and  human nature is fanciful and completely different
from the Bible. I dispute that you find an immaterial soul (YUCH) in
the NT, but the teaching of the soul in the NT is exactly the same as
in the Tanakh, Nobody would deny a strong Greek influence on Hebrew
thoughts, views and customs from 300 B.C.E. onward; just think of
Philo.  History cannot be proven, and the way of a Greek thought
entered into the Hebrew minds cannot be proven.  What is
clear,hewever, is that no passage in the Bible clearly indicate an
immaterial soul, but the Greek had this idea. Persian influence can
be seen as well.

> Isn't it just as possible that the kernel of an
> immaterial NEFESH was already in the TNKH and then
> later fleshed out using Greek terminology and
> concepts?  Who has offered a better interpretation of:
>
> VA-Y'HI B'TZET NAFSHAH... (Gen. 35:18).
>
> And:
>
> TASHAV NEFESH-HA-YELED... (2Kgs. 17:21, 22).
>
> Aren't we here approaching this idea of an immaterial
> NEFESH, distinct from the body, related to life, which
> leaves at death, etc?


Some years ago I looked up all the about 700 instances of NEPE$  in
the Tanakh, in order to get an inductive idea of its use. I concluded
that the core of the concept is "a living creature with the right to
live". In different contexts different sides of the concept is made
visible, in some instances when NEPE$ is used, what is made visible
is "life".  I would suggest that in the two passages above "the life
as acreature" is what is made visible. BTW Would you say that Jesus
with his Hebrew presupposition pool suggests that "peace" is an
immaterial entity when he in Matthew 10:13 that "peace will return
upon you"?  We should learn the Hebrew idiom rather than reading
English or Greek views into the text.

> SHUV SHO'EL,
> -- Michael Millier





Best regards

Rolf Furuli

__________________________________