Biblical Hebrew Forum

[Peter Kirk <peterkirk AT qaya.org>]

On 17/02/2004 14:39, Karl Randolph wrote:

> Thanks, Peter:
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Peter Kirk <peterkirk AT qaya.org>
>
>  
>
> > On 12/02/2004 15:36, Karl Randolph wrote:
> >
> >    
> >
> > > ...
> > >
> > > Is this the way ancient Hebrews thought? Or are we imposing our modern way of 
> > > thinking on the ancient Hebrews?
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >      
> > We can't know exactly how the ancient Hebrews thought. But we can study 
> > how various present-day peoples think, including those who have had 
> > little exposure to western culture, and some whose general worldview is 
> > probably quite similar to that of the ancient Hebrews. Some people do 
> > study such things in depth, for example Ron Moe of SIL who is working on 
> > lexicography of Bantu languages (see some more about this at 
> > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/lexicographylist/). It is reasonable to 
> > suppose (at least on the assumption that there has been no fundamental 
> > and worlwide change in human nature over the last 3000 years or so) that 
> > how the ancient Hebrews thought, on most semantic issues (leaving aside 
> > for the moment anything specifically religious), is in general terms 
> > within the range of ways which different contemporary peoples think.
> >    
>
> That?s just the problem: did the ancient Hebrews think according to the 
> catagories used by present primitive peoples, or did they use different 
> thought patterns? Is not one of the reasons that primitive peoples are 
> primitive is their thought patterns? Were the ancient Hebrew primitive in the 
> same way? I don?t think so.
>  

I did NOT suggest that "the ancient Hebrews think according to the 
catagories used by present primitive peoples" - lest anyone think that I 
was suggesting that they were primitive. They were not, except by some 
crude technological measurements. My point was that different peoples 
alive today (whether primitive or "advanced") use very different thought 
patterns but within certain ranges, and it is probably that ancient 
Hebrew thought patterns were within the same ranges.

> One problem to making a definitive statement concerning ancient Hebrew 
> thought is the destruction of Hebrew records when the temple burned under 
> Titus. At least under Nebuchadnezzar, the picture is that the burning of the 
> temple was done according to a preplanned action, so it was emptied of its 
> treasures before being torched. Not so under Titus. Under Titus, the temple 
> burned while the fighting was still raging around it, and most of its 
> treasures and written records burned up with it. The main document that we 
> have left is Tanakh, and it indicates that ancient Hebrews did not follow the 
> thought patterns used by modern ?primitive? (and not so primitive) peoples.
>  

Many Jewish documents other than the Tanakh survived that catastrophe: 
the whole range of deuterocanonical books and "intertestamental" 
literature, the entire Qumran collection, much of the New Testament, etc 
etc. Indeed the Tanakh shows that ancient Hebrew thought patterns were 
distinctive, but also that there are few aspects of it which are unique 
to it.

> Which ?primitive? people does not use Aristotelean thought methodology? Just 
> because he has different categories does not mean that he used a different 
> thought process to arrive at his categories, does it?
>  

Good question. I think you are wrong, and I am certainly told so by 
linguists working with less developed and less westernised people 
groups. But I don't think I can prove it.

> > > 2) Where a lexeme has more than one meaning, there is usually a discernible 
> > > connection, for example, Birne in German means both light bulb and pear, the 
> > > connection being that the early light bulbs had a pear like shape.
> > >
> > >
> > >      
> > You are in danger here of the etymological fallacy because you are 
> > losing sight of language change. Suppose that 100 years in the future 
> > light bulbs are no longer even vaguely pear-shaped, and for some reason 
> > I cannot fathom the German word Birne is no longer used for the fruit, 
> > but only for light bulbs. Only specialists would understand the link 
> > between the word Birne and its original meaning as a fruit.
> >    
>
> Are there any examples of a lexeme losing its original meaning and taking on 
> another in Biblical Hebrew? I can?t think of any.
>  

How hard have you tried to think? It's a bit difficult to prove if you 
accept only evidence within the Tanakh and not reconstructions of 
original meanings. One possible example is SARIYS, which clearly means 
"eunuch" in Esther, but in Genesis is used of married Egyptian 
officials, in a country where I don't think there were eunuchs.

> That?s why I said ?usually?. There are a few lexemes in Biblical Hebrew where 
> I question whether or not there is a etymological connection between it and 
> another lexeme, but I don?t know. Therefore, a question mark.
>
> Is not our view of language shifts tempered by our modern experience? ... 
> Therefore, when I look at Tanakh, most of which was written between the 
> Exodus and Galut Babel (a period of roughly 800 years) when the people lived 
> largely in linguistic and cultural isolation, is it wrong to expect little to 
> no linguistic change during that period?
>  

I suspect you exaggerate the isolation, but I agree that linguistic 
change during this period may have been slow.

> > ... as folk etymologies they do tell us quite a lot about 
> > how the Hebrews thought about words.
> >    
>
> In this we ought to be careful. The stated reason for a name may not be what 
> the name actually means. ...

Indeed. But the stated reason tells us what someone at some ancient time 
thought that the word means, which tells us quite a lot about ancient 
thought patterns.

> ...
>  
>
> > > 3) Where a lexeme has a narrow and specific meaning, it often is either 
> > > partially or wholly a subset of another lexeme. Therefore, one way to learn a 
> > > lexeme is to compare it to its synonyms.
> > >
> > >
> > >      
> > I would agree that comparison with synonyms is useful, especially when 
> > used in poetic parallelism. But I would be careful about this subset 
> > principle, which is by no means universal.
> >    
>
> Few of the lexemes that I mention are used in parallelisms in Hebrew poetry. 
> Most of the synonyms that I compare are from those where I noticed a 
> similarity of meaning. There are many times that I spent hours contrasting 
> the usages of one synonym with another, often where neither was used in 
> poetry.
>  

Here some examples would be interesting.

> ...
>
> It is precisely Aristotelean categories that I recognize as being 
> pre-scientific.
>
> While my major back in college was languages, I studied an inordinant number 
> of science courses: calculus, organic chemistry, genetics among several other 
> upper level undergraduate science courses. What I noticed is that the 
> scientific method, at least that connected with biology (excepting 
> evolution), chemestry and other ?hard? sciences, was based on function more 
> than form, action than state. For example, while the ancients developed 
> algebra and geometre, tools sufficient to measure a static universe, the 
> Calculus was developed to encompass action within a mathematical formula. 
> It?s not a coincidence that modern science had its birth in northern Europe 
> after the Reformation: it was Luther who introduced a thought method that 
> looked at an active, not static universe, to be analysed through function, 
> not form (making Luther the grandfather of modern science). Supposedly, that 
> thought method was based on a rejection of Aristotelean categories and a 
> utilization of thought patte
> rns drawn from Tanakh.
>
> Similarly, when I analyse a Hebrew lexeme, my first thought is: what action 
> is implicit in this lexeme, what is its function? (Yes, in more than one way 
> I am a student of the Reformation.)
>
> So which is the correct way to understand Biblical Hebrew? Through 
> Aristotelean categories based on form, or Reformation understanding based on 
> function?
>  

Interesting thoughts here, and you may have a point as long as you don't 
press the distinction too far.

> ...
>
> Is it possible to write a dictionary without using one?s own categories? If 
> not, which are the best to use?
>  

In principle, yes, in a situation where one can discern the categories 
used by the speakers of the language. This is possible (though not easy) 
for modern languages, and this is what Ron Moe who I mentioned before is 
trying to do. The problem with biblical Hebrew is of course knowing the 
ancient Hebrews' categories. But we can reconstruct some of them from 
the texts and the structure of the language, from ancient accounts and 
archaeological evidence, and from comparison with other peoples around 
them at their own time and in modern times - all the time being careful 
to eliminate factors which may have made a difference.

As one example, we might get good ideas by looking at the thought 
categories used today by Bedouin tribes in northern Arabia, who are 
highly conservative and came from a similar background and environment 
to the Hebrews, albeit 4000 years ago. But in making such comparisons we 
have to look for and eliminate traits which can be traced to Islam 
(although much of Islam comes out of this cultural background rather 
than being imposed on it as something alien), or to the penetration of 
Greek and other western patterns into even the most remote areas.

--
Peter Kirk
peter AT qaya.org (personal)
peterkirk AT qaya.org (work)
http://www.qaya.org/