Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: [XTalk] Re: the "Hebrew speaking mind"?

Expand Messages
  • Jeffrey B. Gibson
    ... Two observations. Concordances are not the best source of coming to an understanding of the semantic range of a word. You would be better served in
    Message 1 of 15 , May 4 1:45 PM
    • 0 Attachment
      George Brooks wrote:

      > Liz,
      >
      > Strong's definition for the Hebrew term involves
      > 109 separate uses of the word.
      >
      >
      > 08111 Shom@rown {sho-mer-one'}
      >
      > from the act part of 08104; TWOT - 2414d; n pr loc
      >
      > AV - Samaria 109; 109
      > Samaria = "watch mountain"
      > 1) the region of northern Palestine associated with the
      > northern kingdom of the 10 tribes of Israel which split
      > from the kingdom after the death of Solomon during the
      > reign of his son Rehoboam and were ruled by Jeroboam.

      Two observations. Concordances are not the best source of coming to an
      understanding of the semantic range of a word. You would be better
      served in mounting your argument if you expanded your research into
      Lexicons.

      Second, Strongs does not designate when the particular meaning that it
      sets out was current. So at best, all you can conclude from what is set
      out there is that your terms had the geographical meaning Strongs says
      it had at the time of the writing of 1 Kings, etc.. To conclude without
      further ado that this would have been what the terms designated in the
      first century is to beg the question.

      So again, we have to ask for what your **evidence** is that
      demonstrates that when used in the 1st century CE, the terms were used
      with the meaning they had a 7th-6th century BCE. Absent this, your
      claims look like special pleading.

      Yours,

      Jeffrey
      --
      Jeffrey B. Gibson, D.Phil. (Oxon.)
      7423 N. Sheridan Road #2A
      Chicago, Illinois 60626
      e-mail jgibson000@...



      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
    • George Brooks
      Jeff, If you are trying to show, in a round about way, that I cannot read or understand Hebrew, then I will save you the time. I cannot read Hebrew. But I
      Message 2 of 15 , May 4 2:05 PM
      • 0 Attachment
        Jeff,

        If you are trying to show, in a round about way,
        that I cannot read or understand Hebrew, then
        I will save you the time. I cannot read Hebrew.
        But I believe I am correct in saying that it is
        not required that I can in order to post an
        inquiry about a Hebrew term.

        What I would ask is if you find fault with
        Strong, then I would be interested to hear
        exactly why you think Strong is wrong.

        As an English-only student of bible history, I
        cannot pursue this line of questioning to your
        satisfcation. So I will not try. However,
        I am ready and able to learn from YOUR conclusions
        about what is wrong with the Strong treatment of
        these terms (the Hebrew and/or the Aramaic).

        George
        5:01 Eastern
      • Liz Fried
        ... Not having a Strong s I feel kind of helpless. It doesn t appear that Strong provides evidence for his conclusions. Some comments: 1 Kings 12 and 13 speak
        Message 3 of 15 , May 4 2:17 PM
        • 0 Attachment
          > -----Original Message-----
          > From: Jeffrey B. Gibson [mailto:jgibson000@...]
          > Sent: Friday, May 04, 2001 4:46 PM
          > To: crosstalk2@yahoogroups.com
          > Subject: Re: [XTalk] Re: the "Hebrew speaking mind"?
          >
          >
          > George Brooks wrote:
          >
          > > Liz,
          > >
          > > Strong's definition for the Hebrew term involves
          > > 109 separate uses of the word.
          > >
          > >
          > > 08111 Shom@rown {sho-mer-one'}
          > >
          > > from the act part of 08104; TWOT - 2414d; n pr loc
          > >
          > > AV - Samaria 109; 109
          > > Samaria = "watch mountain"
          > > 1) the region of northern Palestine associated with the
          > > northern kingdom of the 10 tribes of Israel which split
          > > from the kingdom after the death of Solomon during the
          > > reign of his son Rehoboam and were ruled by Jeroboam.
          >
          > Two observations. Concordances are not the best source of coming to an
          > understanding of the semantic range of a word. You would be better
          > served in mounting your argument if you expanded your research into
          > Lexicons.
          >
          > Second, Strongs does not designate when the particular meaning that it
          > sets out was current. So at best, all you can conclude from what is set
          > out there is that your terms had the geographical meaning Strongs says
          > it had at the time of the writing of 1 Kings, etc.. To conclude without
          > further ado that this would have been what the terms designated in the
          > first century is to beg the question.
          >
          > So again, we have to ask for what your **evidence** is that
          > demonstrates that when used in the 1st century CE, the terms were used
          > with the meaning they had a 7th-6th century BCE. Absent this, your
          > claims look like special pleading.

          Not having a Strong's I feel kind of helpless.
          It doesn't appear that Strong provides evidence for his conclusions.
          Some comments:
          1 Kings 12 and 13 speak of "all Israel" except for
          the prophecy concerning Josiah which refers to Samaria,
          (13:32). I think that was purposeful to describe the fact that
          Josiah reclaimed for Judah the cities of Samaria up to
          Megido, but not any cities farther north.
          I think 1 Kings 20 refers to the royal city of Samaria.
          1 Kings 21:1 Jezreel appears to be different from Samaria.
          1 Kings 22, Samaria is the city.
          In 2 Kings 17:24ff I believe it refers to the Assyrian province of
          Samaria; in 2 Kings 17:1-16 the term refers to the city.
          So, anyway, there are 110 uses of the term in the HB.
          I'd like to know where it refers to the entire Northern Kingdom.
          I don't think it does, but I'd like to make sure.
          Thanks,
          Liz
          >
          >
        • Liz Fried
          Dear George, It is not that you need to know Hebrew (tho why not learn it?). Nor is it that Strong is wrong. The problem is that citing Strong is no different
          Message 4 of 15 , May 4 2:28 PM
          • 0 Attachment
            Dear George,
            It is not that you need to know Hebrew (tho why not learn it?).
            Nor is it that Strong is wrong. The problem is that citing
            Strong is no different from citing Jeffrey or me, or anyone.
            Such citations are irrelevant. The only thing that is relevant is a citation
            from
            an ancient text. When Jeffrey asks you for evidence, he means
            what verses in the bible, what in Josephus, what in
            the NT, point to the meaning you assert.
            Best,
            Liz

            > -----Original Message-----
            > From: George Brooks [mailto:george.x.brooks@...]
            > Sent: Friday, May 04, 2001 5:05 PM
            > To: crosstalk2@yahoogroups.com
            > Subject: [XTalk] I do not read Hebrew
            >
            >
            > Jeff,
            >
            > If you are trying to show, in a round about way,
            > that I cannot read or understand Hebrew, then
            > I will save you the time. I cannot read Hebrew.
            > But I believe I am correct in saying that it is
            > not required that I can in order to post an
            > inquiry about a Hebrew term.
            >
            > What I would ask is if you find fault with
            > Strong, then I would be interested to hear
            > exactly why you think Strong is wrong.
            >
            > As an English-only student of bible history, I
            > cannot pursue this line of questioning to your
            > satisfcation. So I will not try. However,
            > I am ready and able to learn from YOUR conclusions
            > about what is wrong with the Strong treatment of
            > these terms (the Hebrew and/or the Aramaic).
            >
            > George
            > 5:01 Eastern
            >
            >
            >
            >
            > The XTalk Home Page is http://www.xtalk.org
            >
            > To subscribe to Xtalk, send an e-mail to: crosstalk2-subscribe@egroups.com
            >
            > To unsubscribe, send an e-mail to: crosstalk2-unsubscribe@egroups.com
            >
            > List managers may be contacted directly at: crosstalk2-owners@egroups.com
            >
            >
            >
            > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
            >
          • Jeffrey B. Gibson
            ... No it does not. Look at where the instance of the Aramaic use of the term appears. When was the document in which it appears written? Can we assume,
            Message 5 of 15 , May 4 2:39 PM
            • 0 Attachment
              George Brooks wrote:

              > Jeffrey:
              >
              > You have asked LOTS of questions, and I want
              > to expand on some of them. But for now, let
              > me stick to some basic answers:
              >
              > ...what leads you to believe not only that Hebrew was something
              > spoken generally in Palestine in the 1st century,but that at
              > this time there was such a thing as a Hebrew speaking **mind**.
              >
              > MY REPLY:
              >
              > I am completely open to news about whether or not
              > Hebrew was or wasn't "generally" understood by the
              > religious Jews of Palestine. However, I do want to point
              > out that Strong's dictionary not only lists the Hebrew
              > word (#8111 Shomerone), but also the Aramaic word (#8115
              > Shomrayin) for this region called Samaria. And they
              > both are presented with the same optional usage: "The
              > region of northern Palestine associated with the northern
              > kingdom of the 10 tribes of Israel..."
              >
              > Naturally, if this usage is used at least once in the
              > Old Testament, it poses a potential hazard to the findings
              > of Liz Fried who wants to use the term to mean ONLY
              > the land north of Jericho and south of Megiddo.

              No it does not. Look at where the instance of the Aramaic use of the
              term appears. When was the document in which it appears written? Can we
              assume, without further evidence, that it was indeed the case, that the
              meaning the term possessed several centuries before the turn of the era
              was the meaning with which it was used in the first century CE? Plainly
              put, No. To state this again -- the only thing Strongs can do is to give
              you the meaning of the word in the document in which it appears and at
              the time of the document was written. What you must do to make your case
              is not just to surmise that word was used in the same way, some carry
              over of the earlier sense would have to occur in later usage, through
              appeal to considerations of such things as same general place, same
              general people, same language. (Have a go at the KJV of 2 Thess 2:7
              with the assumption that since this is English and I speak English so
              the meaning of "let" that was current in 1611 must be current now, and
              see how wrong you'd be). You must show evidence from sources
              contemporary with the NT to demonstrate that the older meaning was still
              current.

              I say this not to provoke you, but to let you know what your going to
              have to do to have a convincing case.

              Yours,

              Jeffrey.


              --
              Jeffrey B. Gibson, D.Phil. (Oxon.)
              7423 N. Sheridan Road #2A
              Chicago, Illinois 60626
              e-mail jgibson000@...



              [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
            • Jeffrey B. Gibson
              ... No, I am not saying this at all. I m saying that if you want to determine what the semantic range of a particular word was particular time, Strongs is not
              Message 6 of 15 , May 4 3:29 PM
              • 0 Attachment
                George Brooks wrote:

                > Jeff,
                >
                > If you are trying to show, in a round about way,
                > that I cannot read or understand Hebrew, then
                > I will save you the time. I cannot read Hebrew.

                No, I am not saying this at all. I'm saying that if you want to
                determine what the semantic range of a particular word was particular
                time, Strongs is not the tool to use. It does not take into account
                anything outside of Biblical literature, so it can hardly be definitive.
                And unless you pay attention to when the document was written from which
                a particular definition in Strongs is culled, you will easily fall into
                what James Barr showed was the fallacious habit of thinking that any
                given instance of a biblical word will always carry all of what Strongs
                outlines as parts of the word's semantic range **according to the
                English translation that it is using as it's base. What you want to be
                working with, given your language skills, are dictionaries like the
                NIDNTT. And believe it or not, the TDOT is not beyond your reach.

                > But I believe I am correct in saying that it is
                > not required that I can in order to post an
                > inquiry about a Hebrew term.
                >

                Yes, you are correct. But if memory serves, you were making an
                assertion, not posing a question.

                >
                > What I would ask is if you find fault with
                > Strong, then I would be interested to hear
                > exactly why you think Strong is wrong.
                >

                I did above. And I emphasize that you are assuming that Strongs is a
                lexicon rather than a listing, and often too brief to be of any use, of
                the way a particular translation translates a word at a given place.
                This is hardly, therefore, the tool you want to employ for the sort of
                work your messages indicate you want to do.

                > As an English-only student of bible history, I
                > cannot pursue this line of questioning to your
                > satisfcation. So I will not try.

                This assumes that I, rather than the canons of good argumentation
                whatever the field of inquiry, need to be satisfied. It is a false
                assumption and a red herring. The questions I ask of you are nothing
                special to me -- as you see from Liz Fried's posts. So my satisfaction
                has nothing to do with the matters at hand. Besides this, much if not
                all of what is necessary to determine whether or not there is evidence
                to support your case is available in translation. So -- whether you mean
                it or not -- saying you won't try comes off as an admittance that you
                have no case.

                However,

                > I am ready and able to learn from YOUR conclusions
                > about what is wrong with the Strong treatment of
                > these terms (the Hebrew and/or the Aramaic).
                >

                What's wrong is that they are more of an indication of the the way
                translators of a particular translation of the Bible translated
                particular instances of Greek, Hebrew, and Aramaic words (and are
                therefore only as good for determining the meaning of the word as the
                translation of that word in the translation is), rather than a true
                lexical entry and discussion of the meaning of that word. Moreover, it
                does not indicate, as it should, that the meaning that a word has in one
                or several contexts cannot automatically be assumed to carry over into
                the meaning of that same word in a different context. Furthermore, given
                the age of the version of Strongs that you are using, it hardly takes
                into account the wealth of evidence regarding the semantic range of
                biblical words that the DSS and the papyri have brought to light let
                alone, and it often gives the impression that the meanings with which a
                biblical word is used are firmly established when they are not. From
                Strongs you would hardly have any sense of how unestablihed the meaning
                of, say, EPIOUSIOS is or what a debate ranges over DIKAIOUSUNH.

                Yours,

                Jeffrey

                --
                Jeffrey B. Gibson, D.Phil. (Oxon.)
                7423 N. Sheridan Road #2A
                Chicago, Illinois 60626
                e-mail jgibson000@...



                [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
              • George Brooks
                Liz, If you have access to the web, the URL s I suggested will give you lots of references for various words, and commentaries (multiple ones!) for each of the
                Message 7 of 15 , May 4 4:07 PM
                • 0 Attachment
                  Liz,

                  If you have access to the web, the URL's I suggested
                  will give you lots of references for various words,
                  and commentaries (multiple ones!) for each of the
                  109 verses. You will actually have MORE resources
                  than the hard-copy version!!!

                  I didn't write Strong's (the hard copy or the
                  web-based version). I'm sure the developer of
                  the site thought to himself "people are just going
                  to have to figure out for themselves".

                  The fact there are two definitions suggests that
                  each definition appears at least once. And since
                  the "broader" definition appears first, it seems
                  implied that it is the more frequent of the two - -
                  thus appearing approximately 55 times to 54 for
                  the other definition.

                  But if you can successfully contradict the Strong's
                  work then you certainly know more about all this
                  than I do. I don't really understand why Jeffrey
                  singles ME out to complain about Strong's definition.
                  He should pick someone who can discuss these matters
                  on the same level that he operates on.

                  George

                  7:07 Eastern
                • Jeffrey B. Gibson
                  ... So far as I can see, I haven t complained about anything, let alone that the particular renedering that Strongs gives to the terms in question (which, by
                  Message 8 of 15 , May 4 6:02 PM
                  • 0 Attachment
                    George Brooks wrote:

                    > I don't really understand why Jeffrey
                    > singles ME out to complain about Strong's definition.
                    >

                    So far as I can see, I haven't complained about anything, let alone that
                    the particular renedering that Strongs gives to the terms in question
                    (which, by the way, is **not** a definition as such but a note of the
                    meaning that particular translators gave to a particular word in a
                    particular context. So in the interests of accuracy, you might wish to
                    stop referring to their listings as definitions). I **have** raised the
                    question about the legitimacy of the assumption that the meaning that a
                    given word has in a document from a particular period carries over into
                    the meaning with which a word was used centuries later.

                    And I have not singled you out, let alone held you responsible for what
                    Strong has to say.

                    If there's anything that is incomprehensible here it is why you feel
                    that I have done so. Now I hasten to add that any answer you might give
                    to this question is not on topic. So if you feel you must reply. please
                    do so off List to me at my personal address.

                    Yours,

                    Jeffrey

                    --
                    Jeffrey B. Gibson, D.Phil. (Oxon.)
                    7423 N. Sheridan Road #2A
                    Chicago, Illinois 60626
                    e-mail jgibson000@...



                    [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                  • Liz Fried
                    I went to the URL listed below, but I guess I m missing something. How is it different from any concordance? I use Evan-Shoshan, for example. Liz
                    Message 9 of 15 , May 4 7:50 PM
                    • 0 Attachment
                      I went to the URL listed below, but I guess I'm missing something.
                      How is it different from any concordance? I use Evan-Shoshan, for example.
                      Liz

                      > -----Original Message-----
                      > From: George Brooks [mailto:george.x.brooks@...]
                      > Sent: Friday, May 04, 2001 4:16 PM
                      > To: crosstalk2@yahoogroups.com
                      > Subject: [XTalk] Re: the "Hebrew speaking mind"?
                      >
                      >
                      > Liz,
                      >
                      > Strong's definition for the Hebrew term involves
                      > 109 separate uses of the word.
                      >
                      >
                      > 08111 Shom@rown {sho-mer-one'}
                      >
                      > from the act part of 08104; TWOT - 2414d; n pr loc
                      >
                      > AV - Samaria 109; 109
                      > Samaria = "watch mountain"
                      > 1) the region of northern Palestine associated with the
                      > northern kingdom of the 10 tribes of Israel which split
                      > from the kingdom after the death of Solomon during the
                      > reign of his son Rehoboam and were ruled by Jeroboam.
                      > 2) the capital city of the northern kingdom of Israel
                      > located 30 miles (50 km) north of Jerusalem and 6
                      > miles (10 km) northwest of Shechem.
                      >
                      >
                      > EACH instance of this word can be seen (in King James English
                      > and in Hebrew) by using this URL:
                      >
                      > http://www.blueletterbible.org/tmp_dir/strongs/989024743.html
                      >
                      >
                      > There are only two uses of the Aramic term:
                      >
                      > http://www.blueletterbible.org/tmp_dir/strongs/989025178.html
                      >
                      > 08115 Shomrayin (Aramaic) {shom-rah'-yin}
                      >
                      > corresponding to 08111;; n pr loc
                      > AV - Samaria 2; 2
                      > Samaria = "watch mountain"
                      > 1) the region of northern Palestine associated with
                      > the northern kingdom of the 10 tribes of Israel
                      > which split from the kingdom after the death of
                      > Solomon during the reign of his son Rehoboam
                      > and were ruled by Jeroboam
                      > 2) the capital city of the northern kingdom of Israel
                      > located 30 miles (50 km) north of Jerusalem and 6
                      > miles (10 km) northwest of Shechem
                      >
                      >
                      > These two instances are both in Ezra:
                      >
                      >
                      > Ezr 4:10 And the rest [07606] of the nations [0524] whom
                      > [01768] the great [07229] and noble [03358] Asnappar
                      > [0620] brought over [01541] (8684), and set [03488]
                      > (8684) [01994] in the cities [07149] of Samaria [08115],
                      > and the rest [07606] [that are] on this side [05675] the
                      > river [05103], and at such a time [03706].
                      >
                      > Ezr 4:17 [Then] sent [07972] (8754) the king [04430] an
                      > answer [06600] unto [05922] Rehum [07348] the
                      > chancellor [01169] [02942], and [to] Shimshai [08124]
                      > the scribe [05613], and [to] the rest [07606] of their
                      > companions [03675] that dwell [03488] (8750) in Samaria
                      > [08115], and [unto] the rest [07606] beyond [05675] the
                      > river [05103], Peace [08001], and at such a time 03706].
                      >
                      >
                      > I will leave it to you to evaluate the relevance of the
                      > two different options in the pursuit of your research.
                      >
                      > Sincerely,
                      >
                      >
                      > George
                      > 4:13 PM Eastern
                      >
                      >
                      >
                      >
                      > The XTalk Home Page is http://www.xtalk.org
                      >
                      > To subscribe to Xtalk, send an e-mail to: crosstalk2-subscribe@egroups.com
                      >
                      > To unsubscribe, send an e-mail to: crosstalk2-unsubscribe@egroups.com
                      >
                      > List managers may be contacted directly at: crosstalk2-owners@egroups.com
                      >
                      >
                      >
                      > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
                      >
                    • Robert M. Schacht
                      ... George, What you are failing to see, despite repeated attempts to explain, is that Strong is the wrong tool for the job. Thus, it is not a matter of Strong
                      Message 10 of 15 , May 5 12:13 PM
                      • 0 Attachment
                        At 02:05 PM 05/04/01, George Brooks wrote:
                        >Jeff,
                        >
                        >...What I would ask is if you find fault with
                        >Strong, then I would be interested to hear
                        >exactly why you think Strong is wrong....

                        George,
                        What you are failing to see, despite repeated attempts to explain, is that
                        Strong is the wrong tool for the job.
                        Thus, it is not a matter of Strong being wrong, but that you are trying to
                        use Strong for a purpose that it was not intended to serve.
                        You can try to use a screwdriver to pound in a nail, but it is not the
                        right tool for the job, and there are better tools available.

                        Bob


                        [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.