Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

b-hebrew - Re: [b-hebrew] Offend/dealt corruptly - chet bet lamed (nehemiah 1:7)

b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Biblical Hebrew Forum

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: "Harold R. Holmyard III" <hholmyard AT ont.com>
  • To: b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
  • Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] Offend/dealt corruptly - chet bet lamed (nehemiah 1:7)
  • Date: Fri, 25 Jun 2004 11:08:38 -0500

Dear George,

You wrote to Karl:

Enough of discussing abstractly the meaning of XBL; let's have a concrete
instance. What do you do with

Mic 2.10

QW.M W.L:KW. K.iY Lo)_ZoT HaM.:NW.TfH B.a(a:BW.R +fM:)fH T.:TaB."L
W:XeBeL NiM:RfC

HH: You may have missed this following post to me because it was under a different thread, but Karl told us what he would do with Micah 2:10. I gave him a whole set of verses translated by NIV with the meaning of "deal corruptly" and "destroy" for XBL. I included the Aramaic cognate verses in the OT. I asked Karl what he would do with the verses, and this is what he said:

Secondly, some examples you listed below are in Aramaic. I know enough Aramaic to read the Aramaic portions of Tanakh, and no more. Just because Aramaic has a particular meaning for a lexeme, does not mean that Hebrew had the same meaning: a good example being $KX &#1513;&#1499;&#1495; in Hebrew meant to forget, while in Aramaic it meant there is (found) or very similar to Y$ &#1497;&#1513; in Hebrew. Therefore, why should we expect that the Aramaic XBL &#1495;&#1504;&#1500; has the same meaning as the Hebrew lexeme? As a cognate language, we’re not surprised if it has the same meaning, but again, we’re not surprised if it doesn’t.

I don’t consider the NIV as an authority. As translators, their mission is not to be on the cutting edge of scholarship, but to follow what others have said before them. Furthermore, it is a semi-paraphrase.

XBL &#1495;&#1504;&#1500; in its various forms and derivitives is used around 100 times in Tanakh in Hebrew. The vast majority of the times it is no question that it refers some way to tying up or derivitive meanings of being connected with, such as the territory tied to or connected with a city, the knotting up of muscles as in cramps or labor pangs, restrictions on people by requirements of repaying debts, and so forth. Fewer than 10% of uses is there question where people use the Aramaic meaning in Hebrew, and some of those read smoothly with the tied to or connected with meaning. Where we disagree is if tradition is correct to say that the Aramaic meaning is also a legitimate Hebrew meaning, which I question.

Isaiah 13:5 one of the meanings I recognized for XBL &#1495;&#1504;&#1500; is to pack up to carry away, in order to despoil the land.

Maybe I’m reading some of my own experiences into the text, but as a person who is not financially well off, I see how the rich are restricting my options as in Isaiah 32:7 (restrict is one of the derivitive meanings that I recognize from to knot up).

Isaiah 54:16 in reference to verse 17, again I see ruination to those who make restrictions.

In Micah 2:12 those who act corruptly end up tying themselves into knots.

Job 17:1 My spirit is restricted, my days are set up as graves for me. ( Z(K &#1494;&#1506;&#1498; is a hapax legomai, are we sure we have the right meaning for it? I’m not sure of its definition. )

Job 34:31 God is not the one who says I lift up but I am not restricted, which I read to say that God finishes what he starts.

Ecclesiastes 5:5 (6) don’t make promises before God that you may not be able to keep, or those that will restrict your options, the work you can do.

Nehemiah 1:7 We are surely connected to you, but we have not followed your commands.

Yours,
Harold Holmyard






Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page