Biblical Hebrew Forum

[fred burlingame <tensorpath AT gmail.com>]

I am saying that language comprehension does not come in a fixed container
or packet, but rather exists on a continuum. Some people have first grade
language skill; some people have high school language skill; and some people
enjoy graduate school language skill.

The deuteronomic legal code ("Code") can be consumed at different levels of
language skill, with corresponding greater or lesser degrees of
comprehension.

And I am saying, as I said before, that most consumers of the Code, then and
now, enjoy not the level of language skill that david possesses; or that is
possessed by the Code. Hence, the job of priest/lawyer includes boosting the
consumer level of comprehension for particular laws.
I also am given to understand that the levitical priests were constituted as
a dedicated profession, to be supported by the state "tax" revenue.

That the above relates the purposes of this forum is self evident.

regards,

fred burlingame
On Wed, Jan 5, 2011 at 5:24 PM, Paul Zellmer <pzellmer AT sc.rr.com> wrote:

> Dave was much more polite than I was about to be when I read your response,
> Fred.  And, Fred, were you a native speaker of Hebrew, you would not have
> needed David Kolinsky's explanation.  You needed it because you are *not* a
> native Hebrew speaker.
>
> In addition, you might wish to read all of Deuteronomy.  There is a lot
> more
> there than those laws which cover the Sabbath, and the priests were
> commanded to remind the people of the entire body of law.  The division
> between religious and secular does not exist in the Pentateuch.  It crept
> into our culture through the Greek philosophers.  As for whether or not the
> people would have understood what was read without an additional discourse,
> are you implying that our English translations are incomprehensible to the
> average American church attendee?  If they are incomprehensible, then our
> translators have done a very poor job.  If they are indeed able to be
> understood, perhaps there are a lot of ministers whose jobs should be done
> away with for the very reasons that you pose concerning the priests.  Oh,
> but it would be more serious for the ministers today, as the priesthood was
> not professional.  They were to have other means of support.
>
> Furthermore, since you said that you drew your conclusion from David
> Kolinsky's explanation, then you need to somehow base your response to
> David's explanation, not some unrelated link.  And if you answered my
> question of what does it matter anyway to the linguistic study of the text
> of the Tanach, I did not see it.
>
> Paul Zellmer
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: b-hebrew-bounces AT lists.ibiblio.org
> [mailto:b-hebrew-bounces AT lists.ibiblio.org] On Behalf Of dwashbur AT nyx.net
> Sent: Wednesday, January 05, 2011 5:30 PM
> To: B-Hebrew
> Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] guess work
>
>
>
>  On 5 Jan 2011 at 14:02, fred burlingame wrote:
>
> > 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.
>
> Sorry, but you are comparing apples to rabbits again.  The law in the
> Cornell link is not
> written in English; it's written in Legalese, an artificial dialect created
> by lawyers to confound
> the rest of us while making themselves sound impressive.  Nothing in the
> Deuteronomic
> code, or any of the rest of the Law for that matter, is even remotely
> comparable.  So your
> conclusion flows naturally from...nothing.
>
> Dave Washburn
>
> http://www.nyx.net/~dwashbur
> _______________________________________________
> 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
>