Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

b-hebrew - [b-hebrew] priest code?

b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Biblical Hebrew Forum

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: fred burlingame <tensorpath AT gmail.com>
  • To: B-Hebrew <b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org>
  • Subject: [b-hebrew] priest code?
  • Date: Thu, 18 Nov 2010 10:54:46 -0600

Hello all:

Examination of the biblical hebrew ("BH") language's pieces and parts
useful, but perhaps the language's indivisibility requires an holistic
approach to proper understanding.

And so we have:

ויעלו עד נחל אשכול ויראו את הארץ ויניאו את לב בני ישראל לבלתי בא אל הארץ אשר
נתן להם יהוה

numbers 32:9;

and

לא נשוב אל בתינו עד התנחל בני ישראל איש נחלתו

numbers 32:18

The three letter word נחל encodes two widely different meanings in these
verses. The message of "stream valley" emerges in the first verse. And the
meaning of "inherit" or "possess" appears communicated by the second.

The masoretic text authors devoted great care and attention to each of its
words. Witness the plethora of dagesh, cantillation markings, niqqud, etc.
This circumstance weighs heavy against a conclusion of arbitrariness in
assigning different meanings to the same word.

So, whilst "stream valley" and "inheritance" enjoy zero connexity
in english, an intimate relationship arguably arises between those two
meanings in BH. Repeat this scenario countless times, and the whole of the
language becomes much greater than the sum of its parts (words, etc.).

BH has certainly changed and re-incarnated as a language for comic books,
war, social interaction, etc., etc. And such other uses for and changes to
the language may have existed in 1010 b.c. But in its original format as the
masoretic text, can this language be understood other than by viewing it as
a whole?

If the entire BH language served as some sort of priest code, can language
message be divorced from its pieces and parts, and language comprehension
remain?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Priestly_Code

Appearance of the little word נחל argues not.

And lest I run afoul of the proscription on theological content here, I am
not advocating any particular theology or lack thereof. I am simply
questioning whether the BH language can be understood, at all, and apart
from the masoretic text message, whatever the message might be.


regards,

fred burlingame




Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page