Biblical Hebrew Forum

[fred burlingame <tensorpath AT gmail.com>]

The conclusion flows naturally from the facts ...

Let's examine some facts relevant ...

a. does the average consumer of the language english have the slightest clue
as to what this law means?

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode08/usc_sec_08_00001631----000-.html

b. does even the average trained purveyor of this law understand this
english language?

c. obviously, the answer to both "a" and "b" = negative.

d. and likewise, for the similar deuteronomic legal code in 882 b.c., all as
illustrated today by david's excellent explanation of the civil law
then. ezra was not needed to "translate" in 442 b.c.; but to "explain" as
david explained today; or so nehemiah 8:8 states.

Permit me to propose a strictly hypothetical scenario below by way of
further illustration.

1. at 10:00 a.m., saturday, january 10, 882, b.c., one paul zellmer,
levitical priest in hebron ... stands before the assembled congregation and
recites the following words by way of introduction. "I'm now going to read
to you from ספר דברים . This book contains a detailed set of rules for your
individual behavior. When i finish reading from the text, i will proceed to
explain to you the religious significance of what i just read. In other
words, I wil explain to you the rules that govern your behavior from sunset
on friday to sunset on saturday. An entirely different set of rules applies
to your behavior the other six days of the week. our secular government body
called the knesset enacts those other rules."

2. Permit me to suggest your continuing employment status as levitical
priest 882 b.c., would have swiftly become at risk with a speech as in "1."
Why? Because no such separate or distinct concept or phenomenon as
"religious significance" existed in 882 b.c. There were only individual
obligations of action and inaction. The dual and dueling legal codes that
exist today: deuteronomic code on saturdays; and knesset code on wednesdays
did not so exist then.

3. Every saturday and sunday in 1982 a.d., millions of people congregate
to hear the deuteronomic code read. Does the person(s) doing the reading
ever stand up ...; read the text; and sit down? ... no ...; Does the
person(s) doing the reading; stand up; read the text; explain what the text
"really means;" and then sit down? affirmative. And this notwithstanding the
presence of printed copies of deuteronomy almost everywhere; unlike 882
b.c., with the absence of written books most everywhere.

4. In conclusion, returning to paragraph "a" above, does the consumer of the
language understand the legal code as written? no. Can the consumer of the
language be given understanding of the code at his level of language
ability? yes. Who does it? the priest then; the judge/lawyer today (but
often too late to avoid punishment). deuteronomy 11:18-20.

5. If language comprehension exists as you propose, then & now, the priests
then and lawyers today would need unemployment benefits.

regards,

fred burlingame

On Wed, Jan 5, 2011 at 12:31 PM, Paul Zellmer <pzellmer AT sc.rr.com> wrote:

> Fred,
>
> How do you come to that conclusion?  Every language that I have studied has
> words that are close synonyms whose meanings are nuanced to some degree.
> And those nuances, while not necessarily immediately recognized by
> non-native speakers, are well recognized by the "average" native speaker.
> There are times that an "average" native speaker might not be able to
> describe the nuances to a non-native speaker, but he still recognizes that
> there is a slight difference in semantic domain.  I see no difference in
> the
> Hebrew language that would preclude this innate recognition by the
> "average"
> native speaker during the time that Hebrew enjoyed the status of lingua
> franca for the twelve tribes.
>
> Nehemiah 8:8 describes a population that did not have Hebrew as their
> everyday language.
>
> Deuteronomy 31:9-13 says nothing about the people not understanding the
> language, just that they needed to be reminded of the message and their
> responsibility to obey the commands.
>
> All this being said, a question still remains: even if you were correct
> (which studies have indicated that you are not) in your continued
> proposition that the Tanach was not for "consumption" by the average Hebrew
> person, what impact does that have on our study of the linguistic aspects
> of
> the texts (as opposed to the applications or theological significances of
> the texts)?
>
> Paul Zellmer
>
>
>