Biblical Hebrew Forum

[fred burlingame <tensorpath AT gmail.com>]

Hello George:

Thanks for your message.

Please allow me to respond to your and John's comments in the following
manner.

I offer the following analytical sequence. Putting aside the substance of
it, and focusing on the procedure, perhaps you can advise where "the
academic discussion of biblical hebrew language and literature" ends.
1. The word אישה  appears in the first quotation of my initial post.
*cf*., Numbers
30:13.

2. אישה contains 4 letters.

3. Three of the letters frequently function as vowels: א , י , ה
4. אישה divides into two parts; a noun איש and a pronoun ה .

5. The noun איש appears to originate from the three letter consonantal verb
 אנש . This conclusion finds support  in the foundation of biblical hebrew
("BH") as a verbal language. And hebrew verbs normally take the form of
three consonant letters or two consonants and one vowel.

6. אנש frequently translates as "to be sick."

7. איש translates as "man," though a corollary meaning based on the parent
verb may include "mortality."

8. The ה suffixed to איש signifies the pronoun "her" in a possessive form.

9. אישה accordingly translates as "man of her."

10.  BH apparently lacks a dedicated word for "husband."

11. אישה accordingly translates in this context as "her husband."

12. A question arises however,  whether the 2010 a.d. english word "husband"
enjoys any commonality with the 1010 b.c., BH word אישה . Certainly, most
wives today consider not their individual relationships (to the extent they
have one) with their divine creator, as subject of any regulation or
mediation by their husbands. Numbers 30:13 directly recites
however, the rule of the third party husband over the wife, and in respect
of her sacred relationship with the divinity.

13. A corollary question arises also. Did the male/female relationship (in
the time and context of BH language), imply an 1010 b.c. owner/chattel
relationship or a 2010 a.d., husband/wife relationship of equals? The
language of Numbers 30:13 and its surrounding verses suggest the former
conclusion.

14. Judges 4:4 appears to contradict Numbers 30:13. The wife/woman ( אשת )
in Judges 4:4 rules the man.

15. Language must make sense in order to comprehend it. For example, but
without limitation, language that says "the man goes up and goes down the
hill simultaneously," represents language generally incomprehensible to the
reasonable person.

16. Contradictions in language such as Numbers 30:13 and Judges 4:4 must
hence, become harmonized or reconciled, if understanding to arrive.

17. Classical western thought (the greek tradition applied by most english
language speakers) says that the contradiction in language cannot stand in
the path of reason. Either the man or the woman rules the other, but not
both simultaneously. So, the language of one verse or another must change
and yield to the other.

18. Classical eastern thought (the semitic tradition) however, allows and
embraces the existence of apparent contradictions; aka man rules woman and
vice versa, simultaneously.

19. The advent of 20th century science known as quantum mechanics (QM),
furnishes support for the classical eastern thought paradigm (as opposed to
the western tradition). QM has shown that the light bulb can indeed be
simultaneously off ... and on ... at the same time. (Or man and woman
becoming lord of the other simultaneously)

20. Hence, the most controversial contradiction of all, "God creates good
and evil;" (Isaiah 45:7) requires no western harmonization. Classical
eastern thought, now validated by QM, allows the contradiction to co-exist;
whereas classical western thought does not allow such conflict in the
language.

Turning to the questions of your posts; it only remains for you to advise
the boundaries of this forum in the context of the paragraph sequence above.
Does the boundary arrive paragraph 11 above? Or does it permit discussion of
paragraphs 12-20 above?

I look forward to hearing from you.

regards,

fred burlingame


On Fri, Oct 22, 2010 at 5:53 AM, George Athas 
<George.Athas AT moore.edu.au>wrote:

> Fred,
>
> I’m really not sure what this post was about. Just please bear in mind that
> we are about academic discussion of Biblical Hebrew language and literature.
> How people might use or not use the Bible for other purposes is not the
> concern of this forum.
>
>
>
> GEORGE ATHAS
> Co-Moderator, B-Hebrew
> (Sydney, Australia)
>
> _______________________________________________
> b-hebrew mailing list
> b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew
>