Biblical Hebrew Forum

[Yitzhak Sapir <yitzhaksapir AT gmail.com>]

On Mon, Mar 2, 2009 at 9:00 PM, George Athas wrote on behalf of Carla
Sulzach at McGill University:
>
> I am trying to determine to what extent the English 'holy' and 'sacred' 
> cover the Hebrew Q.D.SH.
> Does the semantic range of the root Q.D.SH also include the meaning of 
> 'inviolability'? Checking out
> the Oxford Dictionary of English Etymology it appears that this may be the 
> case for the terms 'holy'
> and 'sacred' that are interchangeably used as translation. Further, if this 
> is not captured under Q.D.SH,
> is there another (biblical) Hebrew term that would cover the notion of 
> inviolability?

Etymology is not meaning, and when I look at the words online at:
http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=holy
http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=sacred
I see that 'holy' comes from a word related to health, and may mean 
"complete."
'Sacred' comes from a meaning "dedicated".  In such a sense, qd$
appears closer to sacred since it is
used in the meaning "to set aside."
Even though 'holy' might COME from a word meaning 'complete', 'whole'
and so may also have had the
meaning 'unbreakable' or 'not broken' in the past, that does not mean
it means so today.  The holy can
be desecrated, and the 'completeness' sense is no longer transparent
to English speakers.  Any sense
of 'cannot be violated' or 'secure from destruction' is mitigated by
the fact that the holy can be violated
and can be desecrated.  It should not.  But it can.

Naturally 'qd$' conveys the 'should not' senses.
If one wants the 'cannot' sense of inviolable, I think we should look
at oath terminology.  Most of the
oath terminology can be connected with such senses, and also with
various terms associated with
the holy.

bryt - oath, everlasting promise; bryh - patient's diet; brwt - food
given to sick (note that 'krt' 'cut' means
to seal the treaty, not desecrate it)
)mnh - treaty; )mn - truth, steadfast
$b(h - oath; $b( - seven, complete
)lh - oath/curse; )l - power, strength; )l - god
kn - truth; mcwn, mcwnh - temple, temple furniture

HALOT suggests against the connection of $b(h and $b(.  I don't know
how up to date HALOT is here
in suggesting the connection is misplaced.
Also, it does not have )lh and )l above.  This is my own suggestion,
seeing the very )lh as
denominative of )l 'power'.  I would try to see whether any
scholarship supports this view.

Yitzhak Sapir