Biblical Hebrew Forum

[Polycarp66 AT aol.com]

In a message dated 1/14/2004 5:15:09 PM Eastern Standard Time, 
kwrandolph AT email.com writes:

> This BDB list is exactly the sort of lexicography to which I object. This 
> is not giving the meaning of the word, rather it is a list of possible 
> translations. In other words, entries like this show that BDB is a 
> translator’s 
> dictionary, not a dictionary for a student who wants to learn to think in 
> Biblical Hebrew.
> 
> Every time I studied a foreign language, I studied it with the goal of 
> thinking in that language. I have the same goal while reading Tanakh in 
> B-Hebrew.
> 
> For example, does the B-prefix mean “with”? I can’t think of one time 
> except in the very narrow context where “with” is used as a sign of 
> instrumentality. As a sign of instrumentality, “with” is occasionally the 
> short, easy way 
> to give an English translation than to give a more awkward but accurate 
> meaning of the Hebrew: but here we are talking English style and not Hebrew 
> meaning.
> 
____

There are two points here which interest me.  I will mention one and deal 
more with the other.  I can't imagine why anyone would ever attempt to claim 
that 
they "think" in an ancient language.  I think it patently false since there 
is really no way to carry on a meaningful conversation in the language.  
Modern 
Hebrew isn't Biblical Hebrew.

In regard to lexicography the current trend seems to be toward a fuller 
explication of the word than is evidenced by the use of a gloss.  Certainly 
BDB is 
a "translator's dictionary", why shouldn't it be?  Evidently it is thought 
that nothing less than an article such as is found in TWNT (German) or TDNT 
(English) is in mind.  Quite frankly, I don't agree.  That approach has it's 
value, 
but I would hesitate to refer to such a work if I were attempting to read any 
extensive passage.  BDB and other classical lexica give a range of possible 
uses with examples and allow the user to determine what he thinks best fits 
where he is reading.  To have to read an article in TDNT for any word I 
wanted to 
check while reading a passage from Paul or the Gospels would severely impact 
on the amount of text one would be able to cover.  In getting a feel for the 
language (probably what is meant by the phrase "think in the language") large 
quantities of text must be consumed.  It is only thus that one can come to an 
appreaciation of the differences in nuance presented by the use of the same 
words by different authors in different contexts.  The rule of truly learning 
a 
language is "Read, READ, then READ SOME MORE."

I lied.  I want to mention a third point.  You said "I can’t think of one 
time except in the very narrow context where “with” is used as a sign of 
instrumentality."  What would you make of  Gen 30.16 cited by BDB in this 
sense?

WaY.fBo) Ya(:aKoB MiN_Ha%.fDeH B.f(eReB WaT."C") L")fH LiQ:Rf)ToW WaT.o)MeR 
)"LaY T.fBoW) *** C.iY %fCoR %:CaRT.iYKf B.:DW.Df)"Y B.:NiY ***

or

Gen 34.20

W.Pe+eR X:aMoWR *** T.iF:D.eH B.%eR ***

I could continue, but will refrain, but these certainly seem instrumental to 
me.

gfsomsel