Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

b-hebrew - Re: [b-hebrew] Use of cognate languages in the interpretation of Biblical Hebrew

b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Biblical Hebrew Forum

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: Isaac Fried <if AT math.bu.edu>
  • To: Rolf Furuli <furuli AT online.no>
  • Cc: b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
  • Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] Use of cognate languages in the interpretation of Biblical Hebrew
  • Date: Wed, 22 Oct 2008 22:02:36 -0400

Rolf,

Hebrew etymology is crystal clear if (1) you carefully define it, (2) consider it systematic, and (3) look at it comprehensively. The root RP, as appearing in the fuller forms (RP, R(P, RP), RPH inherently means 'disperse, loose' and by implication 'slacken, die out, relax, relent, soften, weaken, relieve', for good or for worse. RAPEH is 'frail, weak', but L-RAPE) is to lessen or weaken the pain of illness. It is similar in sense to RAWAX (related to RUAX, 'wind') as in 1 Samuel 16:23: "Whenever the spirit from God seized Saul, David would take the harp and play, and Saul would be relieved (W-RAWAX) and feel better, for the evil spirit would leave him. I think the REPA)IM of Isaiah 14:9 are just the dead relaxing in their grave.
The related root RW or RWH means 'soft as by being moist' --- the opposite of CM). The related root RB means 'aggregate, cluster' as well, and by implication 'of great quantity or size'.

Isaac Fried, Boston University

On Oct 22, 2008, at 10:21 AM, Rolf Furuli wrote:

Dear Matthew,

The use of cognate languages in the study of Classical Hebrew is a
fine supplement, but we need to be cautious, as Yigal has pointed
out. You ask about "the reasoning and rationale," and I will present
a few points.

LEXICAL MEANING

It is important to realize that the lexical meaning of Hebrew words
are not found in Hebrew-English lexicons, but in the minds of living
people - those whose native language was classical Hebrew. But these
people are now dead! In the lexicons we only find glosses - the most
common English words that are used to translate Hebrew words. Lexical
meaning exists in the mind in the form of concepts. These may be
rather broad, and they have a relatively clear core, but are fuzzy at
the edges. When a native speaker heard a word spoken or saw it in a
written text, the particular concept in his or her mind signaled by
the word was activated, and the context would show the person which
part of the concept that was made visible and which part was made
invisible. For example, modern English Bibles use about 30 English
words/phrases to render the Hebrew word NP$; native speakers of
Hebrew used one single word, and they would in most cases instantly
know the part of the concept that was focused upon.

In Medieval times when the study of Classical Hebrew got momentum in
Europe, the approach to lexical semantics was inductive. This means
that scholars by looking at the contexts in which a particular word
occurred (and to a certain extent to cognate languages), tried to
find its core meaning and secondary meanings. On the basis of this,
and on the basis of the English (or German or Spanish) translations
of the word, lexicons and word books were made. We should add that
theological viewpoints also crept into the lexicons. Therefore, when
we use lexicons and work with lexical semantics we should keep all
the uncertainties in mind.


THE USE OF COGNATE LANGUAGES

It is obvious that the study of similar words in cognate languages
are much more problematic than the study of Hebrew words in their
contexts. But when a Hebrew word occurs once or twice, it is natural
to look at the cognate languages. But we should always keep in mind
the distance in time and space between the cognate languages and
Hebrew, as Yigal mentioned. Look at the core meanings of the
following root:

Hebrew: )MAR = say
Aramaic: )MAR = say
Ethiopic: )ammara = show (it can also have the sense "tell")
Akkadian: amaru = to see

The root is common in each of the languages, but the senses and
nuances are different, and if we for example found the root in a text
whose place among the Semitic languages was uncertain, which sense or
nuance should we choose?

At present my students and I read the Ba(alam text from Deir (Alla in
class. It has some Aramaic and some Hebrew/Cananite characteristics,
and in this document we find the word )MR. Because of the
Northwest-Semitic characteristics of the language, we take the word
in the sense "say," that also fits the context. This text is an
excellent example of the problems and uncertainties when cognate
meanings are sought. Several scholars have translated and discussed
this text, and in many instances their translations of particular
lines are completely different. The reason may be that they read one
letter in a word differently, and more often, the use different
cognate words from Ugaritic, Hebrew, Mishnaic Hebrew, Aramaic,
Phoenician, Syriac, and Arabic. The same roots may have different
nuances and senses in these languages, and the translations depend on
which sense in which cognate language is chosen.
(See J. Hackett (1980) "The Balaam Text From Deir 'Alla".)

We should also keep in mind the different religious viewpoints of the
writers of the ancient texts, as well as the religious viewpoints of
the modern authors dealing with the ancient texts.

For example, the substantive NP$ in the Hebrew Bible refers to living
creatures and to their life, but never to a spiritual part of man, a
departed spirit. In Akkadian, napi$tu has the same reference (the
Hebrew Bible has no word for "departed spirit," not even )+ym, but in
Akkadian it is expressed by the word e+emmu, which also can refer to
a sorcerer.) In Ethiopic we have the word NAFS, and this word has
another meaning than Hebrew NP$ and Akkadian napi$tu - it refers to
the spirit of the dead, as it can in modern Hebrew and in Arabic.

The examples above illustrates different religious viewpoints among
the writers of ancient texts, which would color the cognates and
mislead those seeking cognate meanings. Let us now look at examples
of how the religious views of modern authors may cloud the picture.
It is believed that in the Hebrew Bible there is one single word in
the Histhapal conjugation, namely XWH (to fall down; worship).
Earlier it was believed that the root was $XH in the Hithpael
conjugation. The new meaning is based on Ugaritic evidence, and I
think it is correct - but it can of course be wrong. There is another
example of Ugaritic evidence used to find the sense of a Hebrew word
that is questionable, namely the word RP). This Hebrew word is used
with reference to giants, and in lexicons it is also used several
times with reference to "departed spirits ". This is also seen in
Bible translations, such as Is 26:14 NIV (In 26:19 NIV translates the
same word with "her dead," probably because it would be strange to
say that "departed spirits" should "stand up"). The people of Ugarit
believed in an underworld with living beings, and RP) is in several
instances in Ugaritic connected with the dead. However, king Keret
is said to be one of the RP)YM, so the word can refer to living
beings on the earth as well. Moreover, the whole person could descend
to the Netherworld, and no text says that RP)YM are departed spirits.
Nonetheless, without a clear definition of the RP)YM in Ugaritic,
several scholars have guessed that they were departed spirits or
"shadows," and because these scholars held the view that the writers
of the Hebrew Bible believed in a Netherworld similar to the Ugaritic
one, they have applied this guess to the Hebrew cognate word. One
problematic side of this is that the guess that Hebrew RP) means
"departed spirits" is presented as a fact in lexicons and Bible
translations! So the readers are misled!

If we take a philological approach to the issue, the question is
whether the root from which the word is taken is RP) = "heal" or
RPH = "be weak". If it is the latter root, the Hebrew word can mean
"the weak ones". In Is 26:14 MTYM and RP)YM are equated. Then it is
said that RP)YN are destroyed ($MD) and
have perished ()MD), and that corroborates the thought that they have
lost their power (they are weak). So instead of interpreting the word
RP) as departed spirits living in an Underworld, it can be
interpreted as the very opposite - the RP) are in the grave, and they
do not have any life because they are deprived of their power.

I have written at length in order to show that just as etymology is
tricky business, so is it to use cognate languages to throw light on
Hebrew words. It can be done, and in some instances, as with the
Ba(alaam text, it may be the only tool that we have in connection
with many words. But we should keep in mind that the conclusions are
only tentative, and most of what scholars have written about cognates
are nothing but educated guesses. I use to tell my students: Do not
trust in authorities, even if they are famous. Do not trust the
grammars and do not trust the lexicons! But take these works as a
point of departure; be skeptical, do your own thinking and draw your
own conclusions!


Best regards,

Rolf Furuli
University of Oslo



Does anybody know of a good starting point for understanding the
reasoning and rationale behind the use of cognate languages in the
interpretation of Biblical Hebrew? It seems to be a generally
agreed upon principle that there is value in it, but I'd like to
know the origin of the practice and upon what assumptions it rests.
Any help is appreciated.

Thanks!

Matthew Dent



_______________________________________________
b-hebrew mailing list
b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew

_______________________________________________
b-hebrew mailing list
b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew





Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page