Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

b-hebrew - Re: [b-hebrew] lexicography, was physical attributes

b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Biblical Hebrew Forum

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: "Karl Randolph" <kwrandolph AT email.com>
  • To: b-hebrew <b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org>
  • Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] lexicography, was physical attributes
  • Date: Wed, 07 Sep 2005 19:33:28 -0500

Christopher:

First of all, "traditional" lexicography
needs to justify its claim that there are
two roots. There is no evidence from within
Biblical Hebrew itself that there were two
roots.

Secondly, the Hebrew word CLM does not need
to have the same meaning as any English word
as "shadow" may actually be a derived or
secondary meaning of the actual root, and
the root meaning is not found in English.
English seems not to have the same concept
at all. For want of a better word in English
I have used "shadow" but indicate its
broader meaning in Biblical Hebrew than
found in English.

This question also brings up the question of
semantic domains: when we bring up a
question of meaning, whose semantic domains
are we talking about? For example, in
Cantonese, lo6 sü2, and apparently also (QBR
in Biblical Hebrew, have a semantic domain
that encompasses both rats and mice, while
in English, as well as other Germanic
languages, they are separate. Similarly, CLM
in Biblical Hebrew encompasses shapes that
are similar or representative to another
object, an imperfect copy as it were (made
of gold in 1 Samuel 6) of which "shadow" is
just one variety of CLM.

Then we must also consider idiomatic use.
E.g. Numbers 35:52 "you will make the
shadows of their statues (used as idols)
lost" which would include not only getting
rid of the idols themselves (by melting
down, burying, etc. so that they cast no
shadows), but also any small representation
thereof that would be carried as an amulet
or put in a little shrine in a house.

This is not quite the same as CL which has
more the connotation of being under the
shadow of, or in the shade of, rather than
the shape of that shadow.

So as I said before, strictly from a
linguistic viewpoint, we cannot make a claim
that CLM )LHYM indicates that God had a
physical body.

Karl W. Randolph.

----- Original Message -----
From: "Heard, Christopher" <Christopher.Heard AT pepperdine.edu>
>
> On Sep 6, 2005, at 3:01 PM, Karl Randolph wrote:
> > As for the use of the word CLM to indicate
> > corporality of the ancient concept of God,
> > there is reason to doubt: for one, the basic
> > meaning of CLM is "shadow", i.e. something that
> > represents but does not match the object that
> > casts the shadow. Even what it is made of can
> > be completely different. When it refers to the
> > "shadow" of an object, that "shadow" will never
> > be mistaken for the real McCoy, e.g. the gold
> > rats and buboes of the Philistines in 1 Samuel,
> > it was clear that these were not the buboes and
> > rats, rather just representations thereof.
> > Therefore, to say that man is made in the CLM
> > of God does not automatically assume that God
> > has physical corporality, strictly from a
> > linguistic analysis.
>
> Karl,
>
> While I tend to agree with you rather more than with Kevin on the
> issues of "the Hebrews and abstract vs. concrete thought" that have
> been going on this thread (please forgive the poor attempt at a "tag
> line"), I think you also are hanging more on CLM than the word can
> hold up. Traditional lexicography recognizes two roots spelled CLM,
> CLM I "image" and CLM II "shadow, shadowy thing." If this arguable
> distinction is followed, CLM II is solidly attested for biblical
> Hebrew only in two verses from the Psalms. If you are going to try to
> make "shadow"--attested only twice--the "_basic meaning_," and then
> try to interpret the more commonly attested sense in light of that so-
> called "basic meaning," then you really must _justify_ your claim
> that "shadow" is the "basic meaning" of CLM, and that this "basic
> meaning" then carries the semantic-conceptual freight that you
> attribute to it (above) into other senses. If you want to be
> persuasive, you can't just _posit_ this, but must _demonstrate_ it.
>
> --
> R. Christopher Heard
> Assistant Professor of Religion
> Seaver Fellow in Religion
> Pepperdine University
> Malibu, California 90263-4352
> Professional Web Page: http://faculty.pepperdine.edu/cheard
> Internet Resource Index: http://www.iTanakh.org
> Personal Web Page: http://www.heardworld.com

--
___________________________________________________________
Sign-up for Ads Free at Mail.com
http://promo.mail.com/adsfreejump.htm





Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page