Days of Our Years: A Lexical Semantic Study of the Life Cycle in Biblical Israel (Library Hebrew Bible Old Testament Studies)

ii LIBRARY OF HEBREW BIBLE/OLD TESTAMENT STUDIES 464 Formerly Journal for the Study of the Old Testament Supplement S...

Author: Milton Eng

265 downloads 854 Views 666KB Size Report

This content was uploaded by our users and we assume good faith they have the permission to share this book. If you own the copyright to this book and it is wrongfully on our website, we offer a simple DMCA procedure to remove your content from our site. Start by pressing the button below!
Report copyright / DMCA form

DOWNLOAD PDF

ii

LIBRARY OF HEBREW BIBLE/OLD TESTAMENT STUDIES

464 Formerly Journal for the Study of the Old Testament Supplement Series

Editors Claudia V. Camp, Texas Christian University Andrew Mein, Westcott House, Cambridge Founding Editors David J. A. Clines, Philip R. Davies and David M. Gunn

Editorial Board Richard J. Coggins, Alan Cooper, John Goldingay, Robert P. Gordon, Norman K. Gottwald, Gina Hens-Piazza, John Jarick, Andrew D. H. Mayes, Carol Meyers, Patrick D. Miller, Yvonne Sherwood

iv

v

THE DAYS OF OUR YEARS A Lexical Semantic Study of the Life Cycle in Biblical Israel Milton Eng

vi

Copyright © 2011 by Milton Eng Published by T & T Clark International A Continuum imprint 80 Maiden Lane, New York, NY 10038 The Tower Building, 11 York Road, London SE1 7NX www.continuumbooks.com Visit the T & T Clark blog at www.tandtclarkblog.com All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, including photocopying, recording, or otherwise, without the written permission of the publisher, T & T Clark International.

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Eng, Milton. The days of our years : a lexical semantic study of the life cycle in biblical Israel / Milton Eng. p. cm. — (The Library of Hebrew Bible/Old Testament Studies ; #464) “The present study is a significant revision and updating of my 1998 dissertation at Drew University”— Acknowledgments. Includes bibliographical references and index. ISBN-13: 978-0-567-02503-6 (hardcover : alk. paper) ISBN-10: 0-567-02503-9 (hardcover : alk. paper) 1. Hebrew language—Lexicography. 2. Bible. O.T.—Language, style. 3. Life cycle, Human—Terminology. I. Title. PJ4823.E54 2011 492.4’014—dc22 2010016604 ISBN: 978-0-56706-1-942

Typeset by Pindar NZ, Auckland, New Zealand

vii

hnF#$f My(ib;#$i Mhebf w%nyt'wOn#$;-ym'y: .â•¯.â•¯. hnF#$f MynIwOm#$; trow%bg:b@i M)iw: The days of our years are threescore years and ten; and if by reason of strength they be fourscore years .â•¯.â•¯. –— Ps. 90.10a, KJV

viii

ix

CONTENTS To Victoria and Jonathan: May the days of our years continue to be filled with joy and laughter! Myy,Ixal;

Abbreviations x Illustrations xiii Acknowledgments xiv Introduction xvi

1. THE QUEST FOR THE M EANING OF WORDS 1 The Greek Debate on the Nature of Meaning Early Lexicography The Medieval Jewish Grammarians and Lexicographers The Development of the Comparative Method The Comparative-Historical Method The Modern Linguistic Period The State of Biblical Lexicography Today Hebrew Lexicography Goes Digital The Contributions of Modern Linguistics The Shift Away from Etymology The Problem of Grundbedeutung The Distinction between Sign, Sense, and Reference The Shift Away from the Focus on Words Only The Shift Away from Glosses Better Classifications of Meanings Semantic Domain Study The Limitations of Modern Linguistics The Limited Corpus of the Hebrew Bible Biblical Hebrew as a Dead Language The Problem of Hapax Legomena The Problem of the Hebrew Bible and Its Composition The Practical Limitations of Semantic Study Etymology and Comparative-Historical Study Still Needed The Approach of This Study

1 2 3 9 11 12 18 21 22 22 22 23 24 25 25 26 26 26 27 27 27 28 29 30

2. THE LIFE C YCLE IN ANCIENT I SRAEL 33 Realia 33 Life Expectancy in the Ancient Near East 35 The Life Cycle in the Ancient Near East 44 The Life Cycle in Ancient Greece 50 The Life Cycle in Ancient Israel 52

x

Contents

Contents

3. SEMANTIC S TUDY OF HEBREW T ERMS FOR THE YOUNG 58 The Terminology of the Young 58 Semantic Study of r(n 59 History of Research 59 Occurrences in the Hebrew Bible 63 r(n as “servant” 64 r(n as “boy, lad, youth” 71 Semotactic Observations on r(n 78 Conclusion 80 Semantic Study of dly 84 Semantic Study of P+ 89 4. SEMANTIC S TUDY OF HEBREW T ERMS FOR THE MATURE 95 The Terminology of the Mature 95 Semantic Study of #$y) 97 Semantic Study of Md) 102 Semantic Study of rbg 108 5. SEMANTIC S TUDY OF HEBREW T ERMS FOR THE AGED 114 The Terminology of the Aged 114 Semantic Study of Nqz 114 Semantic Study of Expressions Using Mymy 118 Semantic Study of hby#& 120 The Life Cycle of the Aged 122

CONCLUSION 124 Lessons in Lexical Semantics Lessons in Lexicography Lessons on the Life Cycle

124 124 126

Appendix 128 Glossary 148 Chapter Bibliographies 152 Subject Bibliography 157 General 157 Dictionaries, Lexicons, Theological Wordbooks, and Lexical Tools 157 Linguistics, Lexical Semantics, and Lexicography 158 Works Related to the Life Cycle and Studies of Individual Terms 161 Semantic Domain Studies 163 Index of Biblical and Extrabiblical References Subject Index

165 170

Author Index Index of Greek Words Index of Hebrew Words

xi 173 175 176

xii

Abbreviations HAL

ABBREVIATIONS ABD AfO AusBR BA BAGD

BASOR BDAG

BDB BH BHS BJRL CAD CBQ Cotterell and Turner DBHE DCH DH DSS EJ ET Gesenius

GKC GTJ

Anchor Bible Dictionary Archiv für Orientforschung Australian Biblical Review Biblical Archaeologist Bauer, W., W. Arndt, F. W. Gingrich, and F. W. Danker, AÂ€ Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature. 2nd ed. (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1979) Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research Bauer, W., F. W. Danker, W. Arndt, and F. W. Gingrich, A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature. 3rd ed. (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2000) Brown, F., S. R. Driver, and C. A. Briggs, Hebrew and English Lexicon of the Old Testament (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1907) Biblical Hebrew Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia. Edited by K. Elliger and W.Â€Rudolph. Stuttgart, 1983 Bulletin of the John Rylands Library Assyrian Dictionary of the University of Chicago Catholic Biblical Quarterly

HALOT

HUCA IEJ JANES JARCE JBL JCS JNES JNSL JQR JSS KBL L&N

Meyer and Donner

NIDOTTE Cotterell, Peter, and Max Turner, Linguistics and Biblical Interpretation (Downers Grove: InterVarsity, 1989) Schökel, Luis Alonso. Diccionario Bíblico Hebreo-Español. 2nd ed. (Madrid: Editorial Trotta, 1999) Clines, David J. A., ed., Dictionary of Classical Hebrew. 6 vols. (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1993–2007) Deuteronomistic History Dead Sea Scrolls Encyclopedia Judaica English translation Gesenius, William, A Hebrew and English Lexicon of the Old Testament, Including the Biblical Chaldee: From the Latin of William Gesenius. Translated by Edward Robinson (Boston: Crocker and Brewster, 1854; reprint, 1868) Gesenius. William and Emil Kautsch, Gesenius’ Hebrew Grammar. Translated by A. E. Cowley (Oxford: Clarendon, 1910). Grace Theological Journal

OrAnt OTDSD RHUD SVT TA TDNT

TDOT

THAT

xiii

Koehler, L., W. Baumgartner, and J. J. Stamm, Hebräische und aramäische Lexikon zum Alten Testament, Fascicles 1–5 with Supplement (KBL3), 1967–1996). ET: HALOT Koehler L., W. Baumgartner, and J. J. Stamm, The Hebrew and Aramaic Lexicon of the Old Testament. 5 vols. Translated and edited under the supervision of M. E. J. Richardson (Leiden: Brill, 1994–2000) Hebrew Union College Annual Israel Exploration Journal Journal of the Ancient Near Eastern Society Journal of the American Research Center in Egypt Journal of Biblical Literature Journal of Cuneiform Studies Journal of Near Eastern Studies Journal of Northwest Semitic Languages Jewish Quarterly Review Journal of Semitic Studies Koehler, L., and W. Baumgartner, Lexicon in Veteris Testamenti Libros. 2nd ed. (Leiden: Brill, 1958) Louw, Johannes P., and Eugene A. Nida, eds., Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament Based on Semantic Domains. 2 vols. (New York: United Bible Societies, 1988–89) [Wilhelm Gesenius], Hebräisches und aramäisches Handwörterbuch über das Alte Testament. 18th ed. 5 vols. Edited by Rudolf Meyer and Herbert Donner (Berlin: Springer Verlag 1987–2009) VanGemeren, Willem, ed., The New International Dictionary of Old Testament Theology and Exegesis. 5 vols. (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1997) Oriens antiquus Lübbe, J., ed., The Old Testament Dictionary of Semantic Domains (forthcoming) Random House Unabridged Dictionary. 2nd ed. Supplements to Vetus Testamentum Tel Aviv Kittel, G., and G. Friedrich, eds., Theological Dictionary of the New Testament. Translated by G. W. Bromiley. 10 vols. (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1964-1976) Botterweck, G. J., and Ringgren, H., eds., Theological Dictionary of the Old Testament. 15 vols. Translated by John T. Willis (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1974–2006) Jenni, Ernst, and Westermann, Claus, eds., Theologisches Handwörterbuch zum Alten Testament. 2 vols (München: Chr. Kaiser Verlag, 1971–76). ET: TLOT

xiv

Abbreviations

Botterweck, G. J., George W. Anderson and H. Ringgren, eds. Theologisches Wörterbuch zum Alten Testament. 10 vols. Stuttgart: W. Kohlhammer, 1973–. ET: TDOT TLOT Jenni, Ernst, and Westermann, Claus, eds., Theological Lexicon of the Old Testament. Translated by Mark E. Biddle (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1997) UF Ugarit-Forschungen VOT Anderson, Francis I., and A. Dean Forbes, The Vocabulary of the Old Testament (Rome: Editrice Pontificio Istituto Biblico, 1989) VT Vetus Testamentum Waltke and O’Connor Waltke, Bruce, and Michael O’Connor, An Introduction to Biblical Hebrew Syntax (Winona Lake, Ind.: Eisenbrauns, 1990) WTJ Westminster Theological Journal ZAH Zeitschrift für Althebraistik ZAW Zeitschrift für die Alttestamentliche Wissenschaft

xv

ThWAT

ILLUSTRATIONS 1.1 1.2 2.1 3.1 3.2

Page from Saadia’s Agron, the First Hebrew Dictionary, 902Â€C.E.6 The Ogden and Richards Triangle of Signification 24 The Life Spans of “Historical Man” 36 Repeated Lexemes in Folk Taxonomies 83 Semantic Neutralization 83

xvi

Acknowledgments

xvii

Last but not least, I express thanks to my family for their patience. To my wife, Victoria who enables me to do what I do and to my son, Jonathan, who now teaches me who once taught him, this book is dedicated.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS *** The completion of this work brings to a close a long overdue project. The present study is a significant updating and expansion of my 1998 dissertation at Drew University. Although it has been over a decade since then, the time has given me an opportunity to further refine my original ideas and take into consideration additional publications such as Carolyn Leeb’s monograph, Away from the Father’s House: The Social Location of na‘ar and na‘arah in Ancient Israel published in the year 2000. Consequently, ChapterÂ€1 has been updated and Chapters 2 and 3 significantly deepened and enlarged. The socio-historical information in my original ChapterÂ€2 has been expanded and more fully integrated into the study as a whole. I wish to thank, first of all, my original dissertation committee members. To George Landes, whose love for Hebrew and attention to detail is an inspiration, to Moisés Silva, whose book Biblical Words and Their Meaning got me started in lexical semantics, and especially to Herb Huffmon, who chaired my committee and whose friendship extends well beyond the classroom, I say, “thank you.” I also wish to thank publicly the William Randolph Hearst Foundation for awarding me a dissertation scholarship in 1993–94 at an important moment in my graduate studies. During the intervening years, many have come along to help and encourage. I want to thank the members of the Biblical Lexicography group of SBL, especially John Lee, Peter Burton, and James Aitken, for their support, encouragement, and camaraderie. Thanks also go to the members of the Ethnic Chinese Biblical Colloquium for critiquing papers constructed out of my original dissertation and for their encouragement and support over the years. I extend grateful thanks to T & TÂ€Clark for accepting my manuscript for publication, to Andrew Mein for his patience, and to the original reader’s report for his very helpful suggestions. Kind permission was granted by the Academy of Hebrew Language to reproduce here (in Figure 1.1) a photographic plate of Saadia’s Hebrew dictionary Agron (copyright owned by the Leningrad Library). In recent years, I’ve enjoyed the company and collegiality of faculty members at William Paterson University in Wayne, NJ. I thank Jim Hauser and the Professional Writer’s Group for reviewing the first chapter of this book and offering many helpful suggestions. I thank Prof. Yingcong Dai for bringing me on board in the department and Prof. Evelyn Gonzalez (Chair) for her support and encouragement to a newcomer. There are a number of people in contexts outside the academy who have helped and inspired me. On a small scale, my thanks go to Esther Louie of Grace Faith Church who helped with some Spanish translation. On a larger scale, I must thank the late Rev. Dr. Paul Siu of Alliance Theological Seminary who at a critical moment in my life journey inspired me to get this project done. I only regret that he did not live to see this day.

Unless otherwise indicated, Scripture citations are from the NRSV. In cases of differing versification, the Hebrew is followed with the English versification in brackets. Maundy Thursday, April 1, 2010

xviii

1

INTRODUCTION

1

THE QUEST FOR THE MEANING OF WORDS In the early days of Old Testament source criticism, Genesis 16 and 21 were considered two versions of one story, i.e. the expulsion of Hagar. Among the reasons for such a source analysis was the fact that in Genesis 21 Ishmael is depicted as a child whereas by the reckoning of Genesis 16 he would have been about 16 years of age by that time.1 Critical in such an analysis is the meaning of the Hebrew word dly, translated in the narrative as “child” (Gen. 21.14, 15, 16).2 Does dly indeed mean “child/infant” or can it refer to an older boy of teenage years? Again, when Jeremiah refuses his call in Jer. 1.6, complaining “I am only a r(n!”, are we to translate the Hebrew term as “child” (KJV, NIV) or “boy” (NRSV)? And either way, what are the subtle nuances between the two both in English and in Hebrew? It is with these exegetical issues in mind that the present study begins. Day of Our Years is a semantic study of the vocabulary of the life cycle in the Hebrew Bible. Because of the enormity of the task, not all vocabulary of the life cycle is studied, only the major lexemes pertaining to the young (ChapterÂ€3), the mature (ChapterÂ€4) and the aged (ChapterÂ€5). In the past, these individual terms have been studied in isolation. This is the first study that analyzes these terms from the perspective of the semantic domain of the life cycle in the Ancient Near East. The present work is not only a collection of semantic analyses of Hebrew words. It is also a journey in lexical semantics, Hebrew lexicography, and socio-historical data on the life cycle in antiquity. Thus, ChapterÂ€1 explores how the meanings of words were determined in the past, how they were reflected in Hebrew lexicography and both the contributions and limitations of modern linguistics upon Hebrew word studies today. ChapterÂ€2 is an expansive study of the concept of the life cycle in the Ancient Near Eastern and Greek periods from literary, historical, archaeological, and anthropological data. From the riddle of the Sphinx to the eight psychosocial stages of Erik Erickson,3 the concept of the life cycle is more than of academic interest. Finally, the Conclusion draws together lessons learned in lexical semantics, lexicography and the life cycle and closes with a final table outlining the six stages of the life cycle in biblical Israel and their accompanying Hebrew terminology.

1.â•‡ Gen. 16.16 states that Abraham was 86 years old when Ishmael was born. Genesis 21.5 states that Abraham was 100 years old when Isaac was born. The story of the expulsion of Hagar begins when Isaac had just been weaned (Gen. 21.5). 2.â•‡ Claus Westermann, Genesis 12–36: A Commentary (trans. John J. Scullion; Minneapolis: Augsburg, 1985), 341. 3.â•‡ Erik Erikson, The Life Cycle Completed: A Review (New York: Norton, 1982). The life stages are (1) Infancy, (2) Early Childhood, (3) Play Age, (4) School Age, (5) Adolescence, (6) Young Adulthood, (7) Adulthood, (8) Old Age.

The present work is a lexical semantic study of a particular set of vocabulary in the Hebrew Bible. The study of word meaning and Hebrew word studies in particular has changed dramatically since the days of Gesenius in the nineteenth century. Even what has changed is debated back and forth on some specific issues at the present time. Therefore, it is instructive to review and examine how scholars in the past have come to determine word meaning as background to the methods and approaches to be taken in this study. This history of research is especially needed at the present time, for new and shifting paradigms are not only offering new ways of constructing word-meaning books (i.e. dictionaries) but are challenging our very understanding of the nature of meaning. Thus, this chapter is not merely an historical survey of the Hebrew lexicographical tradition but an investigation into the nature of the meaning of words, the explication and description of such meaning, and the concurrent competing methodologies.1

The Greek Debate on the Nature of Meaning Since the days of the Greeks, individuals have reflected on the nature of word meaning. In Plato’s Cratylus, for example, the issue is raised as to whether the actual sounds of an utterance inherently convey meaning or whether they are merely a matter of convention. In the work, Socrates is prevailed upon to arbitrate between two young men, Cratylus and Hermogenes, who hold differing positions on the nature of the meaning of words. Cratylus believes that the meaning of a word is found in its nature, whereas Hermogenes holds that it is merely a matter of convention. In the end, both Socrates and the influential Stoic philosophers take the side of Cratylus and thus was born the foundation of the “etymological” approach to the meaning of words. So, for example, it is suggested in Cratylus that the Greek word tre&xw means “run” because the pronunciation of the Greek letter r conveys a sense of “movement” or “vehemence.”2 When the “form” of a word could not readily lead to its meaning, the idea was put forth that its original form was concealed and that if the original form could be

1.â•‡ See Kevin Vanhoozer’s contribution, “Language, Literature, Hermeneutics and Biblical Theology: What’s Theological about a Theological Dictionary?,” in the New International Dictionary of Old Testament Theology and Exegesis, ed. Willem VanGemeren (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1997), 15–50. 2.â•‡ Discussed in Johannes P. Louw, Semantics of New Testament Greek (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1982), 23–24.

2

The Days of Our Years

1.â•‡ The Quest for the Meaning of Words

uncovered so would its “true” meaning. Thus, in Cratylus we also see examples of the “etymological” fallacy where the “real” meaning of a word is determined by its etymology. So knw&ssein “sleep” was explained as deriving from kenou~n tou~ o1ssein “empty of looking.”3 It is interesting to note that the “earliest known work giving a lexical survey of part of the Hebrew language, with comments”4 is an etymological one. It is a dictionary of biblical proper names ascribed to Philo of Alexandria (20Â€B.C.E.–50Â€ C.E.) which was later revised by Origen and then by Jerome in his Onomasticon.

The Medieval Jewish Grammarians and Lexicographers

Early Lexicography In that the lexicon or dictionary is the primary tool for learning the meanings of words, a review of the history of lexicography will be instructive for helping us understand further how scholars of past generations understood the nature of the meaning of words and how they approached their task.5 We should be reminded that lexicographical works are very old. Three master vocabularies containing about 3,000 words were found at Ebla. In a typical bilingual vocabulary, the Sumerian word was listed first followed by its equivalent in Eblaite. In some cases, the Sumerian pronunciation was included before the Eblaite.6 As old as such works are, pride of place is usually given to the Arabs, for it is generally held that in terms of lexicography there were none better than the Arabists, who held the discipline in highest esteem.7 It was just such an Arabist as Saadia Gaon who wrote the first BH lexicon in 902Â€C.E. entitled Agron (“Vocabulary,” see below). “Before the end of the Medieval period they [Arabic lexicographers] had produced the most exhaustive and copious dictionary in any language prior to the Nineteenth Century.”8 Interestingly, however, Haywood goes on to write that “The Chinese rivaled the Arabs in their deep interest in their language, their scientific approach to it, and their assiduous writing of lexicons.”9 The first extant dictionary, in fact, comes from the Chinese. Hsü Shên’s “Shuo Wên” dictionary was written at the end of the first centuryÂ€C.E. and included 10,600 words!

3.â•‡Louw, Semantics, 25. 4.â•‡ W. Bacher, “Dictionaries, Hebrew,” in The Jewish Encylopedia, 579. 5.â•‡ On the history of Hebrew lexicography, see the recent publication of a Medieval Hebrew lexicon, Aron Dotan, Nitsanim rishonim be-ḥokhmat ha-milim: min ha-masorah el reshit ha-milona’ut ha-‘Ivrit / me-et (“Awakening of word lore”) (Yerushalayim: ha-Aḳademyah la-lashon ha-‘Ivrit, 2005) and M. O’Connor, “Semitic Lexicography: European Dictionaries of Biblical Hebrew in the Twentieth Century,” in Israel Oriental Studies XX, ed. Shlomo Isre’el (Winona Lake, Ind.: Eisenbrauns, 2002), 173–212. 6.â•‡ Walter C. Marlowe, “The Development of Old Testament Hebrew Lexicography” (Th.D. diss., Mid-America Baptist Theological Seminary, 1985), 24. 7.â•‡ John Kaltner, The Use of Arabic in Biblical Hebrew Lexicography, the Catholic Biblical Quarterly Monograph Series, no. 28 (Washington, D.C.: The Catholic Biblical Association of America, 1996), 11. 8.â•‡ John A. Haywood, Arabic Lexicography: Its History, and Its Place in the General History of Lexicography, 2nd ed. (Leiden: Brill, 1965), 2. 9.â•‡ Ibid., 6. It is a source of encouragement to this writer to have learned that his ancient ancestors were interested in the same subjects!

3

Among surveys of biblical lexicography, it is generally recognized that the first BH lexicon was that of Saadia Gaon in 902Â€C.E., entitled Agron (“Vocabulary”).10 Saadia Gaon is universally recognized as the first Hebrew grammarian and the father of the discipline. He was famous for translating the Hebrew Bible into Arabic and also wrote the first Hebrew grammar — his Kutub al-Lugha (“Books on the [Hebrew] Language”). Saadia was born in Upper Egypt in 882.11 Early on, however, he moved to Palestine, then to Babylonia, then to Aleppo in Syria, and finally back to Babylonia12 where he became the dean (“gaon”) of the Jewish Academy at Sura. He died in 942 at the age of 60. He was only 20 when he wrote his first work, the Agron. The dictionary consisted of two parts. In the first part, he listed all the Hebrew words in alphabetical order based upon their first two root letters. In the second part, the words were listed according to their final letters. It seems clear that the focus of Saadia’s work was to provide a dictionary for the paytanim, i.e. composers of Hebrew liturgical poems. Thus, the arrangement of the first portion of the dictionary was to assist in composing acrostics and that of the second was for rhymes. Definitions were given in Hebrew along with a citation of a biblical passage. A rhetorical introduction to the work was supplied in a “pure Biblical vocabulary, provided with vowel points and accents.”13 Several years later, Saadia wrote an enlarged and expanded edition of the same work (renamed Book of Hebrew Poetics) in which he provided an Arabic introduction and Arabic equivalents for each word. It should be kept in mind that Agron was not specifically a BH lexicon but a lexicon of the Hebrew language in general at the time. Eighty percent of the terms, however, were from the Old Testament. Unfortunately, many of Saadia’s works have been lost and survive mainly in quotations by later authors (particularly in the writings of Abraham ibn Ezra). The only portions of Saadia’s Agron extant today are the Hebrew and Arabic introductions and a portion of the dictionary14 representing a fourth or fifth of the total.15

10.â•‡ See David Tene and James Barr, “Hebrew Linguistic Literature,” in Encyclopedia Judaica (Jerusalem: Keter, 1971); Bruce Waltke and Michael O’Connor, “ChapterÂ€2: History of the Study of Hebrew,” in their An Introduction to Biblical Hebrew Syntax (Winona Lake, Ind.: Eisenbrauns, 1990); and W. C. van Wyk, “The Present State of OT Lexicography,” in Lexicography and Translation, ed. J. P. Louw (Cape Town: Bible Society of South Africa, 1985), 82–96. Another helpful survey with an eye toward linguistic issues is “Hebrew Old Testament Grammars and Lexicons” in Frederick Danker’s Multipurpose Tools for Bible Study, revised and expanded ed. (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2003), chapter 6. 11.â•‡ The year of Saadia’s birth has been a source of confusion for this writer. Various dates appear in the literature, including 880 (Kaltner) and 892 (Waxman, Marlowe). It was only after coming across Alexander Marx’s Essays in Jewish Biography (Philadelphia: The Jewish Publication Society of America, 1948) that the matter was clarified. The traditional date had been 892 until the discovery of a manuscript fragment in the Cairo Geniza containing additional biographical information. The definitive year is 882, somewhere between June 27 and July 5 (Marx, 6–7). Marx notes the long-standing ten-year discrepancy and how it even caused the millennial celebration of Saadia’s birth in 1892 to be ten years too late! Saadia died May 16, 942. (See also Danker, 9, n. 3.) 12.â•‡ Meyer Waxman, A History of Jewish Literature (New York: Thomas Yoseloff, 1960), 1:167. 13.â•‡ Malter, 139. 14.â•‡ Waxman, 168. 15.â•‡ The critical edition is that by Nehemya Allony: Saadia Gaon, Ha ‘Egron Kitāb ‘Uṣul al-shi ‘r

4



It should be noted that while this first Hebrew lexicon appeared in a second edition with Arabic additions, it was originally composed in Hebrew. In the literature, one is often led to believe that Agron, along with other Hebrew linguistic works, was originally written in Arabic.16 Greenstein, however, flatly states, “Students of the Gaon [Saadia] were the first to produce linguistic studies of BH in Hebrew rather than Arabic, and for this reason their books were for three centuries the primary texts for European Jewish scholars who knew no Arabic.”17 In addition, the influence of Arabic grammar and lexicography upon Saadia Gaon is also routinely mentioned but this has probably been overstated. Skoss lists grammatical examples where Saadia did borrow and make reference to Arabic language but he also notes cases where the grammarian could have borrowed from Arabic but did not. His conclusion is that “the Gaon was rather free and independent in the choice of his grammatical terminology.”18 Haywood writes that “Arabic influence, though real, was rather intangible and general in its character. Moreover, influence was probably mutual.”19 It was Saadia’s Agron which probably influenced the Arabic dictionary of Jauharī, Ṣaḥāḥ.20 For Saadia, “the principal source for Hebrew writing is the Bible.”21 It was him also who introduced an interesting duality within Jewish writing over the course of the Middle Ages: Hebrew was used for poetry and Arabic for prose writing (e.g.Â€the literature of grammar, medicine, philosophy, exegesis).22 This demonstrates that the Hebrew and Arabic languages were consciously distinguished and held apart as separate entities in the thinking of the grammarians and Hebrew-speaking community.23 Even Hirschfeld, speaking of early Hebrew grammarians in general, noted

a “characteristic difference” between Arabic grammarians and Hebrew grammarians, influenced as they were by Arabic grammar:

al-’ibrānī (Jerusalem: The Academy of Hebrew Language, 1969). 16.â•‡ See, for example, the statement of Hirschfeld that “the earliest works by Jews on the Hebrew language are not only written in Arabic” (Hirschfeld, 7). Waltke and O’Connor state specifically that Saadia’s dictionary and grammar were “two books written in Arabic” (p.Â€31). McFall, The Enigma of the Hebrew Verbal System writes of Menahem ben Saruk, a later grammarian, that “His Mahberet was the first complete Hebrew dictionary of the Bible; it was, so far as we know, the first grammatical work to be written in Hebrew” (p.Â€4)! 17.â•‡ Edward L. Greenstein, “Medieval Bible Commentaries,” in Back to the Sources: Reading the Classic Jewish Texts, ed. Barry W. Holtz (New York: Summit Books, 1984), 222–23. 18.â•‡ Solomon L. Skoss, Saadia Gaon, The Earliest Hebrew Grammarian (Philadelphia: Dropsie College Press, 1955), 60. 19.â•‡ Haywood, 120. 20.â•‡ Ibid., 121. 21.â•‡Goldenberg etÂ€al., “Hebrew Language,” in EJ, 16:1614. For specifics on Saadia’s Hebrew, see Angel Sáenz-Badillos, A History of the Hebrew Language, trans. John Elwolde (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1993), 214ff. 22.â•‡ Goldenberg, “Hebrew Language,” 1613–14, 1616. See also A. S. Halkin, “The Medieval Jewish Attitude toward Hebrew,” in Biblical and Other Studies, ed. Alexander Altmann (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1963), 233–48 and S. W. Baron, A Social and Religious History of the Jews, 2nd ed., vol. 7, Hebrew Language and Letters (New York: Columbia University Press, 1958), 3ff. 23.â•‡ In fact, Marlowe notes, “Surprisingly, some of the earliest lexicographers, translators, and commentators failed to render a number of words accurately when the Arabic language, in which they wrote, could have provided the lexical solution.” See his p.Â€154 and examples including ywd in Job 39.25 in his “The Development of Old Testament Hebrew Lexicography” (Th.D. diss.: Mid-America Baptist Theological Seminary, 1985). On the separateness of Arabic and Hebrew language modes of discourse,

5

While for Arab grammarians the minute elaboration of the finesses of their language became an end in itself, Jews brought their linguistic endeavours into the service of the study of the Holy Writ.24

When we come to the subject of the nature of the meaning of words, we learn that Saadia was not a rigid lexicographer or grammarian. For him, words could have different “shades of meaning.” He did not always use a word in the same sense in which he translates it in his Arabic-Hebrew dictionary. lbete for example, means “punishment” (Arabic dāhiya). But he would later use it in the sense of “abomination.”25 In Saadia’s later work, Ninety Words — his glossary of words which occur only once in the Bible — his customary delineation of the meanings of words is to cite references in the Mishnah and Talmud. Hirschfeld gives an example of Saadia’s lexicographical method.26 The grammarian explains the word yp#$ (Num. 23.3) by citing from the Talmud ypw#$bw “with tranquility.” This has led to the alternate translation in modern versions: “And he went off alone” (e.g. the Tanakh). Interestingly, the standard translation, “And he went to a bare height” (RSV) is based on its presumed relationship to ypi#$; and the latter’s occurrences in Job 33.21; Isa. 41.18; 49.9, and six times in Jeremiah.27 We conclude our discussion of Saadia by including a sample entry from his Agron on the word r(n.28 Among the very few fragments extant of Saadia’s Agron is an eightleaf fascicle discovered by Harkavy c.1898 covering Hebrew words from the middle of the letter k to the middle of the letter s.29 The manuscript (#3072) belongs to the Firkowich Collection in the Leningrad State library and on each page lies two columns of about 25 lines each. On each line is listed the Hebrew word first, followed by an Arabic equivalent in Judeo-Arabic (see Figure 1.1 below30). For r(n (the noun),

we may add the comment of Joshua Blau, “We come, therefore, to the conclusion that Judeo-Arabic proper, i.e. the writings of Jewish authors addressing a Jewish audience, must be accorded the status of a language in its own right.” The Emergence and Linguistic Background of Judaeo-Arabic, Scripta JudaicaÂ€V (London: Oxford University Press, 1965), 49. Judeo-Arabic is the writing of Arabic using Hebrew characters and script. 24.â•‡ Hartwig Hirschfeld, Literary History of Hebrew Grammarians (London: Oxford University Press, 1926), 7. 25.â•‡ Goldenberg, “Hebrew Language,” 1615. 26.â•‡ Hirschfeld, 15. 27.â•‡ On the relationship of mishnaic Hebrew to BH, see Gad B. Sarfatti, “Mishnaic Vocabulary and Mishnaic Literature as Tools for the Study of Biblical Semantics,” in Studies in Ancient Hebrew Semantics, ed. T. Muraoka, Abr-Nahrain Supplement Series, 4:33–48 (Louvain: Peeters, 1995). 28.â•‡ I am grateful to Mr. Bruce Bomberg Seltzer, the Hillel Jewish Chaplain at Drew University, for his assistance in translating the modern Hebrew comments in Allony’s critical edition of the Agron. 29.â•‡ See Solomon L. Skoss, “Fragments of Unpublished Philological Works of Saadia Gaon,” JQRÂ€23 (1932–33): 327–36. 30.â•‡ From Allony’s critical edition, Plate XX. Used with permission.

6



7

ExodÂ€33:11 where he uses the Hebrew equivalent rwxb.” From this, we see once again that Saadia did not quite follow a rigid, literal, word-for-word understanding of meaning but seems to have strived for the sense of terms from their context. Additionally, we learn that Saadia attempted to understand the meaning of r(n within the semantic range of Ml( and rwxb and as a term having to do with one stage in the human life cycle. During this first period of Hebrew linguistic literature (à la Tene and Barr), we must also note the work of David ben Abraham Alfasi (c.950) who wrote the first comprehensive dictionary for Hebrew and Aramaic, known in Arabic as Jami alAlfaz and in Hebrew as al-Agron. In his dictionary (also in Judeo-Arabic), Alfasi writes that r(n (= ybc Ar.) “refers to a boy from birth through his young years till he arrives at the border of twrxb.”33 Again, we see the understanding of r(n as an early stage in the life cycle of male persons. It is interesting to note that in Halakhic law, a hr(n is even more specifically understood. She is Lit., a young girl. A young woman between twelve and twelve-and-a-half years old, who has reached puberty (as evidenced by her having grown at least two pubic hairs), but not full Halakhic maturity. During this period, special laws apply to her. She is no longer considered a minor, nor is she yet an adult. Accordingly, her father retains certain authority over her.34

Figure 1.1â•‡ Page from Saadia’s Agron, the First Hebrew Dictionary, 902Â€C.E.; ybc ⇐ r(n, appears at the top of the left column Saadia’s Judeo-Arabic equivalent is ybc which is Arabic ṣby. In Lane’s dictionary,31 ṣby is defined as “A youth, boy or male child” or “a young male child.”32 In Allony’s critical edition of the Agron, he notes that ṣby is Saadia’s usual translation “except in Gen 41:12 where he uses the Hebrew equivalent Ml( and in

31.â•‡ Edward W. Lane, Arabic-English Lexicon, 8 vols. (London: Williams and Norgate, 1863–93; reprint, Beirut: Librairie du Liban, 1968). 32.â•‡ Lane, 4:1650.

In Halakhic law, these terms refer not only to a particular stage in the life cycle but also have to do with legal status and issues in the community. Finally, we cannot leave this initial period without mentioning the grammarian Menahem ben Saruq (c.910–c.970), who wrote his Maḥberet, the “first comprehensive dictionary for biblical Hebrew and Aramaic to be written in Hebrew and also the first linguistic work written in Spain” (emphasis mine).35 The “Creative Period” (1000–1150) of Hebrew linguistic literature is marked by the breakthrough insight of Judah Ḥayyuj (c.940–c.1010) who realized that the basic Hebrew root system did not consist of one or two radicals, as grammarians of previous generations had thought, and that its nature was in fact tri-radical. What is surprising is that in spite of familiarity with Arabic and its supposed influence upon Hebrew grammarians, it took over a century before this basic structure was fully discovered. According to McFall, “The Arab grammarians, on the other hand, knew about it in the 9th century at the latest, from whom Ḥayyuj learnt about it.”36 The standout lexicographer of this period (and perhaps grammarian as well) is Jonah ibn Janāḥ

33.â•‡ Alfasi’s definition is cited in Allony’s critical note on r(n. The English translation was provided by Bruce Seltzer. 34.â•‡ Adin Steinsaltz, The Talmud — The Steinsaltz Edition, trans. and ed. Israel V. Berman, “A Reference Guide” (New York: Random House, 1989), 230. 35.â•‡ Tene and Barr, 1356. Not as in Waltke and O’Connor (“the first complete Hebrew dictionary”),Â€p.Â€34. Credit for the first complete Hebrew dictionary goes to Alfasi. 36.â•‡ McFall, 3.

8



(c.990–1050). The greatest work of Rabbi Jonah (as he is commonly known) was his Kitāb al-Tanqīḥ (Hebrew Sepher ha-Diqduq), which consisted of a grammar Kitāb al-Luma’ and a dictionary Kitāb al-Usūl (Hebrew Sefer ha-Shorashim). W. Bacher refers to this dictionary as “the high-water mark of the lexical activity of the Middle Ages” and he comments on its enduring legacy: “This lexicon influenced directly or indirectly the entire later Hebrew lexicography.”37 Originally written in Arabic, it was later translated into Hebrew by Rabbi Judah ibn Tibbon (1171) in which form it became “the most widespread dictionary of the Hebrew language.”38 Rabbi Tibbon’s translation in turn became the basis for the work of David Kimḥi (1160–1235), the most prominent figure of that later generation of Hebrew grammarians.39 This youngest and most illustrious son of the Kimḥi family composed a two-part work, Sepher Mikhlol, consisting of a grammar Mikhlol and a lexicon Sepher ha-Shorashim, the latter based on Ibn Janāḥ’s Kitāb al-Uṣūl. Ironically, “This work of David Kimḥi, which did more than any other to spread the ideas of Ibn Janāḥ among the Hebrew-reading intellectuals, is the one that helped cause Ibn Janāḥ’s own works to be forgotten.”40 Though Kimḥi’s writings “eclipsed and displaced” those of Ibn Janāḥ’s (and Ḥayyuj’s for that matter), the more recent consensus seems to be that the efforts of the earlier grammarians were superior.41 For this period, we should also make mention of Isaac ibn Barūn (c.1100) who wrote the most complete grammatical work comparing Hebrew and Arabic up to that time, The Book of Comparison between the Hebrew and Arabic Languages. The latter work included not only more than 600 dictionary entries but also a short section comparing the grammars of the two languages. A sampling from Ibn Barūn’s work finds his comparison of P+ with Arabic ṭfl, meaning “small children.”42 Lane’s dictionary defines ṭfl as “a young one” or “youngling” or the “young.”43 Some authorities specify “a new-born child” or “young infant.” Another has “a child until he discriminates; after which he is called a ṣby.” Still other authorities that Lane cites

define the term as “a child from the time of his birth until he attains to puberty.”44 Apparently, there seems to have been some fluidity in the age range connoted. An important difference here, however, is that ṭfl can refer not only to the “young” of humans but also to that of animals.

37.â•‡ Bacher, “Dictionaries, Hebrew,” 580. The critical edition of this dictionary is that by Adolf Neubauer, The Book of Hebrew Roots, with additions and corrections by Wilhelm Bacher (Amsterdam: Philo Press, 1968). The latter is a 1968 reprint of the Oxford, 1875 edition. 38.â•‡ Tene and Barr, 1386. The critical edition of this dictionary is that by Wilhelm Bacher, Sepher Haschoraschim (Amsterdam, Philo Press, 1969). 39.â•‡ Tene refers to this era as “The Period of Dissemination” from 1150 to 1250 and characterizes it as one of “Hebrew adaptations and Hebrew translations” (Tene and Barr, 1358). 40.â•‡ Tene and Barr, 1359. In fact, McFall (p.Â€7) states that Kimḥi’s Mikhlol “was the Gesenius grammar of his age!” 41.â•‡ William Chomsky refers to David Kimḥi’s work as “inferior in originality and profundity,” cf. David Kimḥi’s Hebrew Grammar (Mikhlol) (New York: Bloch Publishing Company, 1952), xx; so also Waltke and O’Connor (p.Â€36). Note, however, the comments of Hirschfeld (pp.Â€85–86), that Kimḥi “frequently contradicts and even corrects Ibn Janāḥ” and that his dictionary “marks a distinct progress in Hebrew lexicography.” Oddly enough, the noted W. Bacher writes that Kimḥi’s lexicon “is much superior to Abu al-Walid’s [i.e. Ibn Janāḥ’s] lexicon” (p.Â€581). 42.â•‡ Pinchas Wechter, Ibn Barun’s Arabic Works on Hebrew Grammar and Lexicography (Philadelphia: The Dropsie College for Hebrew and Cognate Learning, 1964), 58. 43.â•‡ Lane, 1860.

9

The Development of the Comparative Method The next significant era in Hebrew grammatical and lexicographical studies was the development of the comparative method from the mid-eighteenth to the midnineteenth centuries.45 As other Oriental languages besides Arabic and Aramaic came to be studied, a new stage in the understanding of the place of Hebrew in the Semitic family came about. Thus, Syriac, from which there was an extensive literature, and Ethiopic joined other comparative languages in the understanding of the Hebrew lexicon.46 Barr also notes the role technology played in all this: Remarkable typographical feats were performed in order to assemble all this material. Excellent polyglot Bibles were published; one of the most important, the London Polyglot of Brian Walton (1657), contained (usually on the same page, for easy cross-reference) biblical texts in Hebrew along with the Samaritan Pentateuch and a number of Aramaic Targums, plus translations into Greek, Latin, Syriac, Ethiopic, Arabic, and Persian, with a Latin translation of each.47

It only remained for Albert Schultens (1685–1750) of Holland to put “Hebrew grammar on the new foundation of comparative semitic philology” with the publication of his Institutiones ad fundamenta linguae hebraeae in 1737.48 Two characteristics separate the latter period from all previous comparative study. First, it was marked in the main by a degree of independence from much of the previous Jewish medieval linguistic study because centers of learning shifted from the Arabic world to Europe and because much of the prior materials had become lost.49 Secondly, it was Schultens (perhaps more than any other) who challenged the traditional notion that Hebrew was the primary and original Semitic language from which all others descended.

44.â•‡ Ibid., 1860. 45.â•‡ The previous period of Christian Hebrew Studies (1550–1750) was not particularly significant, being dependent primarily upon the previous medieval Jewish grammarians. Note the comment of Waltke and O’Connor, that “during the first two centuries of Christian Hebrew studies, from Reuchlin to the epoch-making Institutiones (1737) of Albert Schultens, the vast majority of Hebrew grammars did little to advance the scientific study of language” (p.Â€40). 46.â•‡ Tene and Barr, 1394. 47.â•‡ Tene and Barr, 1394. One can only wonder about what similar changes will be wrought in our generation with the advent of the personal computer. The effects of such technology are already being felt in the field of biblical studies. Professor Silva, however, would often comment to his students: “With the rise of computers, we are now able to come up with the wrong answers faster!” 48.â•‡ Waltke and O’Connor, 41. 49.â•‡ Ibid., 40.

10



Far from accepting the traditional view that Arabic (like other languages) was a degenerate form of Hebrew, Schultens maintained that Hebrew was only one Semitic dialect, while the purest and clearest such dialect was Arabic.50

youth, e.g. in various ways: 1 Sam 1, 24 r(aanA r(ana%haw:, Vulg. et puer erat adhuc infantulus. 30, 17 r(ana-#$y)i twO)m' (ba@r;)a four hundred young men, youths. Jer 1, 6 I cannot speak, for I am a child. v. 7. Judg. 8, 20. 2 K. 9, 4. Ecc. 10, 16. Isa 65, 20. More fully KrawF r(ana young and tender .â•¯.â•¯. Sept. ne/oj, neani/aj, neani/skoj. b) In other passages r(n seems rather a name of condition and denotes servant, like the Greek pai=j, Germ. Bursche, Junge, Engl. boy; Gen 37, 2 r(ana )w%h he was servant with the sons of Bilhah, .â•¯.â•¯.

Schultens began a period of what has been termed “hyperarabism” in Semitic studies as he sought to explain obscure Hebrew words on the basis of the abundant Arabic vocabulary.51 Barr mentions that though his use of Arabic was rather “infelicitous and far from commendable,” he marked the beginning of an important epoch in Hebrew lexicography in which “one of the main forms of learned linguistic study was the use of cognate languages for the elucidation of difficulties in Hebrew.” Such a methodology has remained a standard approach in Hebrew philology and lexicography to the present.52 A second figure, one who indeed towers over this period, is Heinrich Friedrich Wilhelm Gesenius (1786–1842), whose grammar Hebräische Grammatik (1813) and lexicon Thesaurus linguae hebraicae (1829–58) have become standard works in Hebrew studies today (through their many editions over the years). No less than the BDB and the classic seventeenth edition of Gesenius’ lexicon edited by Frants Buhl (1921) are part of this great grammarian’s legacy. His grammar is today’s GKC.53 Barr notes that Gesenius’ gift was the ability to present material in a detailed, comprehensive, and empirical fashion. Far from being relegated to the halls of an esoteric minority, however, it is interesting to note that Gesenius’ “lectures were considered fascinating and drew students from far and wide.”54 By way of illustration, it may be instructive to note some of Gesenius’ comments in his lexicon on the term r(ana.55 r(ana m. 1. a boy; prob. primitive, and found in the Indo-European tongues for man, e.g. Sanscr. nr and nara man. f. narî and nârî woman. Zend. naere. Pers .â•¯.â•¯., Gr. a)nh/r.—Spoken both of an infant just born Exod 2,6. Judg. 13,5.7. 1 Sam 4,21; of a boy not yet full grown Gen 21.16 sq. 22, 12. Isa 7, 16. 8,4; and of a youth nearly twenty years old Gen 34, 19. 41, 12 (comp. 37, 2. 41, 2). 1 K. 3, 7. 2 Sam 18,5. 29. Spec. a) Often emphat. to express a tender age, like Lat. puer, Engl. boy, child,

50.â•‡ Tene and Barr, 1394. 51.â•‡ Kaltner, 5. 52.â•‡ Tene and Barr, 1394–95. 53.â•‡ W. Gesenius and Emil Kautsch, Gesenius’ Hebrew Grammar, trans. A. E. Cowley (Oxford: Clarendon, 1910). 54.â•‡ Barr, 1396. This should not be ignored by today’s philological specialists! Edward Robinson in the preface to his translation of Gesenius’ lexicon notes that the master grammarian opened his lectures on Genesis in 1829 to over 500 students! 55.â•‡ Taken from William Gesenius, A Hebrew and English Lexicon of the Old Testament, Including the Biblical Chaldee: From the Latin of William Gesenius, trans. Edward Robinson (Boston: Crocker and Brewster, 1854; reprint, 1868), 679–80 (page citations are to the reprint ed.). The 1854 edition was the last revision of Robinson’s translation (Danker, 96). A second English translation from the Latin was made by Samuel Tregelles which was “designed to combat ‘rationalistic and neologistic tendencies’” (Danker, ibid.): Wilhelm Gesenius, Gesenius’ Hebrew and Chaldee Lexicon to the Old Testament Scriptures, Translated with Additions and Corrections from the Author’s Thesaurus and Other Works, trans. Samuel Prideaux Tregelles (London, 1847; reprint, New York: John Wiley & Sons, 1888).

11

Gesenius was quick to observe the long-standing puzzle with regard to the term r(n, how one word could be used to refer both to a “new-born infant” and to a “young boy,” and even to a “male twenty years of age”! He was careful also to note possible nuances such as “to express a tender age” and other meanings such as “servant.” As great as his work was, however, Gesenius worked in the period before the full flowering of the comparative-historical method and his work, and those who followed in his footsteps, suffered from a number of weaknesses as such. Danker notes that “Like all lexicons prepared in the days before the newer developments in linguistics began to make their mark this work [i.e. BDB] suffers from confusion of gloss and meaning, as well as from some false etymologiesÂ€.â•¯.â•¯. ”56

The Comparative-Historical Method Barr was careful to note that while Schultens inaugurated the development of the comparative method in the mid-eighteenth century, “the increasing knowledge of cognate languages was not yet organized in a form which made a breakthrough possible, principally because the method, though comparative, was as yet imperfectly historical in character.”57 It took the work on Indo-European languages in the early nineteenth century to shine light upon comparative Semitic philology and thus give rise to the comparative-historical method or what Barr terms the “Classical Historical Method.” As such, the comparative method gave way to a diachronic approach whereby an earlier ancestor language could be reconstructed and shown by “statable changes” to underlie the extant phenomena within the Semitic languages.58 Thus, the concept of proto-Semitic was born, i.e. the concept of a parent language from which all other Semitic languages developed. Representatives of this approach appear in the grammars of Justus Olshausen (1861), Bernhard Stade (1879), and in classic form in Bauer and Leander (1922) and G.Â€Bergstraesser (1918). The twentieth century saw the discovery of a whole new language and greater linguistic materials. The discovery of Ugaritic and the uncovering of fresh finds of Canaanite, Phoenician, Moabite, Aramaic, and Punic inscriptions continued to drive the comparative enterprise. Perhaps in Koehler and Baumgartner’s classic Lexicon in

56.â•‡ Danker, 96. BDB is a congener/descendant of Gesenius’ lexicon. 57.â•‡ Tene and Barr, 1395. 58.â•‡ Barr gives a good example (p.Â€1396). Hebrew malki and malko (“my king, his king”) would suggest a proto-Semitic malk which later became the segholate melekh.

12



Veteris Testamenti Libros do we find in these developments their greatest heir. This standard work is now in its third edition, having first appeared in 1953 and then in 1958 in German-English editions. The third German edition has now been translated into English by M. Richardson.59 Koehler had at first been encouraged to undertake a revision of the Gesenius-Buhl lexicon but soon decided to author a completely new and independent work.60 To give a sense of the massive scale of the KBL enterprise, it took almost 30 years and five volumes to complete the third (German) edition alone. After the deaths of Koehler in 1956 and Baumgartner in 1970, the talents of B.Â€Hartmann, E. Y. Kutscher, J. Stamm, and P. Reymond were enlisted to complete the work.61 By comparison with Gesenius-Buhl, the Koehler-Baumgartner lexicon demonstrates a “broader lexical scope,”62 as one would expect. On the whole, however, HAL, appears to take a moderate approach to the comparative Semitic elaboration of meaning.63 It lists words alphabetically rather than by root families as in BDB, and it includes Ugaritic cognates. Holladay’s popular A Concise Hebrew and Aramaic Lexicon of the Old Testament64 is an abbreviated translation of HAL. Since the first edition of KBL, the lexicon has maintained basically three meanings of r(n, as (1) lad, adolescent, (2) young man, and (3) fellow, servant, attendant.

In terms of his influence upon the field of biblical studies, Saussure made basically four contributions. First, he distinguished between the synchronic and diachronic study of language. In what has become a classic illustration, Saussure uses the game of chess to illustrate this insight.

The Modern Linguistic Period The next and final movement to impact Hebrew lexicography and linguistics was the advent of modern linguistics in the 1940s.65 Just as Albert Schultens introduced the era of comparative Semitic philology in 1737, it was Ferdinand de Saussure (1857–1913) who founded the era of modern linguistics in the early 1900s. His lectures at the University of Geneva (1907–13) were published posthumously in 1915 by his students under the title Cours de linguistique générale.66

59.â•‡ Ludwig Koehler and Walter Baumgartner, The Hebrew and Aramaic Lexicon of the Old Testament, trans. M. E. J. Richardson (Leiden, New York: Brill, 1994 [Vol. 1], 1995 [Vol. 2], 1996 [Vol. 3], 1999 [Vol. 4], 2000, [Vol. 5]). Henceforth, abbreviated HALOT. The German edition is Ludwig Koehler and Walter Baumgartner, Hebräische und Aramäische Lexikon zum Alten Testament (Leiden: Brill, 1967 [Vol.Â€1], 1974 [Vol. 2], 1983 [Vol. 3], 1990 [Vol. 4], 1995 [Vol. 5], 1996 [Supp.]). 60.â•‡ In Benedikt Hartmann’s “Final Remarks” to the third edition (HALOT, p. CII), he comments how on an occasion when he questioned Professor Koehler’s omission of an Arabic equivalent when with other terms he had included it. The learned professor’s response was “On that occasion it seemed to me irrelevant, but on the others it was relevant. I am the one who decides what to put in. After all it is my dictionary.” 61.â•‡ Richardson comments “Seldom does a book owe so much to so many who have not lived to see it completed” (HALOT, xi). 62.â•‡ Danker, 97. 63.â•‡ Ibid., 97. 64.â•‡ William Holladay, A Concise Hebrew and Aramaic Lexicon of the Old Testament (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1971). 65.â•‡ Some date the period of modern linguistics proper to the nineteenth century, to include the historical/comparative developments. See Walter R. Bodine, “The Study of Linguistics and Biblical Hebrew,” in Linguistics and Biblical Hebrew, ed. Walter R. Bodine (Winona Lake, Ind.: Eisenbrauns, 1992), 1, and his article “Linguistics and Biblical Studies,” in ABD. 66.â•‡ Ferdinand de Saussure, Course in General Linguistics, trans. Wade Baskin (New York: Philosophical Library, 1959).

13

The position of the pieces after ten moves will be described in exactly the same terms by an observer who comes in at that point as it would be by one who has watched the previous moves. Similarly, the main goal of the linguist is to describe how a language works at a specific stage or state (synchrony), not how it has evolved from one state to another (diachrony).67

Bodine notes that while Saussure himself recognized the need for both approaches, “and spent a great deal of his life in diachronic study, his successors, especially in the United States, went on to emphasize the synchronic to the virtual exclusion of the diachronic.”68 As we shall see later, this will be problematic, for the Hebrew Bible is not synchronic (see “The Problem of the Hebrew Bible and Its Composition” on page 27). Saussure’s second contribution was the distinction between paradigmatic and syntagmatic relations. Syntagmatic relations has to do with words and linguistic elements when combined into sentence units in the flow of an utterance. Paradigmatic relations speaks to the so-called various “slots” in a sentence which words occupy and into which a number of related words can be substituted. Cotterell and Turner refer to the former as “collocational sense relations” and the latter as “substitutional sense relations.”69 They illustrate the former with the example “she ate spaghetti” vis-à-vis “she ate Chianti.” The syntagmatic relations are such that the first sentence is correct and the second incorrect because the meaning of the verb “to eat” determines and prescribes what types of food can be held in combination with it. It is the combinatory dimension which is the point of focus. With paradigmatic relations it is the interchangeability of words which is of interest. In the sentence, “Blood began to ooze from the wound,” one could easily substitute “to seep” for “to ooze.” Saussure’s third contribution was the distinction between that which is signified (French signifié) and the signifier (signifiant). To put it simply, it is the distinction between words as linguistic signs and the meanings of those signs. Saussure emphasized that the relationship between the two was wholly arbitrary. There is no particular reason why the substance “honey” is called #$bd in Hebrew, miel in French and mi-t’ang in Chinese.70 However, Waltke and O’Connor note that “Saussure believed that the tie between signifier and signified was entirely arbitrary, but this view is probably too extreme.”71 For example, they note the intriguing fact that in

67.â•‡ Moisés Silva, God, Language and Scripture: Reading the Bible in the Light of General Linguistics (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1990), 44. 68.â•‡Bodine, ABD, 329. 69.â•‡ Cotterell and Turner, 157. 70.â•‡ Waltke and O’Connor, 46. 71.â•‡Ibid.

14



many languages the “mother/father” pair is often signified by a contrast between the “m” phoneme and “b/p/f” phonemes: English mama: papa, Greek mētēr: patēr, Latin mater: pater, English mother: father, Chinese mu: fu.72 Saussure’s fourth contribution, and perhaps his most important according to Bodine, was his understanding of language as a system.

An important form of semantic domain study is called “componential analysis.” Like an individual molecule, each lexeme is unpacked into its “component” atoms and then placed in a grid relative to other lexemes in the same semantic field. To give a simple illustration, we borrow from Cotterell and Turner77 the following example.

in contrast to the piecemeal work of the 19th century, Saussure saw that a language is a system whose parts must be understood in relation to the whole; and for him this systematic character was present only in a language as it exists at a point in time, i.e., only in a language viewed synchronically.73

This is what is known as “structuralism” or “structural linguistics.” Such an approach holds that linguistic entities, such as sounds, words, etc., have no meaning or validity apart from their relations, whether contrastive or similar, to other such linguistic entities, whether sounds, words, etc.74 This is in stark contrast to any purely etymological approach to determining meaning. The insights of modern linguistics have already made their impact upon biblical studies in general and upon biblical lexicography in particular. Most notable in the latter regard is the appearance in 1988–89 of Louw and Nida’s Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament Based on Semantic Domains.75 This work probably represents the most radical departure from traditional biblical lexicography to date. Words are not listed alphabetically but according to semantic domains. For example, the Greek word pai=j is found under three different semantic domains: §9 “People” with pai=j meaning “child (generic),” §10 “Kinship Terms” with it meaning “child (own),” and §87 “Status” with it meaning “slave.” By bringing together different words that belong to the same semantic domain into one dictionary entry, finer distinctions in meaning can be more easily seen and drawn. The most important reason for a new approach to a Greek New Testament lexicon is the necessity of bringing together those meanings which are most closely related in semantic space. .â•¯.â•¯. .â•¯.â•¯. it forces the reader to recognize some of the subtle distinctions which exist between lexical items whose meanings are closely related and which in certain contexts overlap.76

72.â•‡ Ibid., 107, n. 41. The phenomenon of onomatopoeia would also militate against Saussure’s contention that the connection between what is signified and the signifier is wholly arbitrary. 73.â•‡Bodine, ABD, 329. 74.â•‡ John Lyons, Introduction to Theoretical Linguistics (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1968), 50. 75.â•‡ Johannes P. Louw and Eugene A. Nida, Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament Based on Semantic Domains (New York: United Bible Societies, 1988, 1989). Henceforth referred to as “L&N.” 76.â•‡ L&N, x.

man

15

human

male

adult

+

+

+

woman

+

–

+

boy

+

+

–

girl

+

–

–

In such a table the so-called components demonstrate both the semantic commonalities and distinctions between terms within the same semantic field. While intuitively clear and illustrative, componential analysis is a highly disputed approach among linguists today. For one thing, it has been criticized as a “checklist” approach to word meaning based on the Aristotelian notion that the delineation of a term must consist of all the necessary and sufficient properties which constitute its essential nature in equal measure.78 Moreover, it has been shown that in the semantics of a language system, what is a basic component of one word is not necessarily a basic component of the other. The classic example is the definition of the word “Cupid”: “in Roman Mythology, a naked, winged boy .â•¯.â•¯.” Obviously, here, “human” is not an essential, basic component of the meaning of “boy.” Most linguists today prefer to take the approach of prototype semantics. Based on studies in psycholinguistics and how infants and children develop cognitive categories, it is a more flexible understanding of word meaning.79 People understand words based on whether or not they conform to a basic prototype in mind. Naturally, the word will consist of essential or prototypical elements of meaning but this approach does allow for the flexibility of “peripheral” or “non-focal, non-nuclear” semantic components. Thus, it is a better model for understanding the meaning of the word “Cupid.” Cotterell and Turner mention the deficiencies of componential analysis and that there are even variations of method among those who apply it.80 But they do argue that in practice it is helpful, and highlight Eugene Nida’s approach. His form of componential analysis helps the semanticist to isolate the “focal” or “prototypical” senses of the word as opposed to the “peripheral” ones and also helps him see what these words “have in common and what differentiates them.”81 The approach has

77.â•‡ Peter Cotterell and Max Turner, Linguistics and Biblical Interpretation (Downers Grove: InterVarsity, 1989), 171. 78.â•‡ See John Lyons, Linguistic Semantics: An Introduction (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1995), p.Â€99. 79.â•‡ See Lyons, §3.4. 80.â•‡ Cotterell and Turner, 171–73. 81.â•‡Ibid.

16



probably been best explained by Louw and Nida in the Introduction to their lexicon. Each word is analyzed with three major semantic elements in mind: their shared, distinctive, and supplementary features.

we tried to study a given word in relation to another word or words which are semantically associated with it in one way or another. Without having a full inventory of all words occurring in the Twelve Prophets it was not possible to start with fully mapped-out semantic fields of the whole vocabulary of our corpus.87

The shared features are those elements of the meaning of lexical items which are held in common by a set of lexical items. The distinctive features are those which separate meanings one from another, and the supplementary features are those which may be relevant in certain contexts or may play primarily a connotative or associative role.82

The authors illustrate with the Greek word r(abdi/zw and like terms. BAGD83 defines this term as to “beat with a rod.” When compared to other terms like kolafi/zw, masti/zw, and mastigo/w, the shared feature has to do with the notion of striking or hitting which in turn belongs to the more general semantic domain of “Physical Impact” (§19). The distinctive feature has to do with the instrument used in the striking or hitting: r(abdi/zw involves the use of a rod or stick, kolafi/zw indicates striking or beating with the fist, and masti/zw and mastigo/w involve striking with a whip. masti/zw and mastigo/w involve a supplementary feature which distinguishes them from kolafi/zw and r(abdi/zw in that they usually refer to “officially sanctioned punishment.” While scholars have employed variant forms of such a paradigmatic approach in the past, the publication of L&N has spawned a host of new studies in the semantic domain direction.84 In fact, there has been in progress since 1981 a similar work, the Hebrew-English Lexicon of the Old Testament Based on Semantic Domains, sponsored by the South African Bible Society under the guidance of J. P. Louw and J. C. Lübbe.85 More and more, newer volumes are taking into account the dimension of semantic domains. For example, T. Muraoka’s A Greek-English Lexicon of the Septuagint, first published in 1993,86 takes a decidedly paradigmatic approach in the explication of word meanings.

82.â•‡ L&N, vi. 83.â•‡ The third edition of BAGD (now BDAG) defines the word in the same way. 84.â•‡ Of studies prior to L&N note Barr’s study of “image” terminology in Genesis (1969), J. Sawyer’s work on hošia’ and related terms (1972), Angelo Vivian’s study of the lexical field of “separation” (1978), Silva’s analysis of “Ginw/skein and Related Terms” (1980) and Vern Poythress’ study of the holiness word group (1981). For full bibliographical details and many other studies see the Subject Bibliography under “Semantic Domain Studies” on page 163. For further bibliography and discussion, see Cotterell and Turner, 170ff., 187, n. 81 and Silva, Biblical Words, 161ff. On studies after L&N see J.C. Lübbe’s componential analysis of pqd (1990), Karen Jobes’ exemplary study of the semantic domain for worship (1991), and Cheryl Iverson’s semantic domain study of terms having to do with “restoration and recovery” in the OT (1996). 85.â•‡ See J. C. Lübbe, “Hebrew Lexicography: A New Approach,” Journal for Semitics 2 (1990): 1–15; ________, “An Old Testament Dictionary of Semantic Domains,” ZAH 9 (1996): 52–57; L. J. deÂ€Regt, “Multiple Meaning and Semantic Domains in Some Biblical Hebrew Lexicographical Projects: the Description of zera‘,” ZAH 10 (1997): 63–75. 86.â•‡ T. Muraoka, A Greek-English Lexicon of the Septuagint (Twelve Prophets) (Belgium: PeetersLouvain, 1993). The lexicon was complete as of 2009.

17

Each word entry includes a list of semantically associated words. For example, under neani/skoj, Muraoka lists as semantically associated ne/oj, neani/aj, and presbut/ Â�eroj.88 In 1997, The New International Dictionary of Old Testament Theology and Exegesis89 (NIDOTTE) appeared, which also incorporates the idea of semantic domains.90 Again, each word entry also includes a list of terms belonging to the semantic domain of the head word. In addition, NIDOTTE includes a separate index of semantic fields in its index volume (V). Other lexicographical works appeared in 1990s which are clearly heirs of the modern linguistic impetus. Notable here is David Clines’ Dictionary of Classical Hebrew,91 which states in its Introduction that it is “one of the first Hebrew dictionaries to be informed by linguistics rather than philology.”92 Taking as its operating principle that “the meaning of a word is its use in the language,”93 Clines’ dictionary makes no references to cognates or etymologies. Instead, each word is listed with its syntagmatic relations systematically outlined. For example, when dealing with verbs, each entry lists every noun used as subject of said verb and every noun found used as its object. For each noun, every verb is noted of which it is the subject or object as well as modifying adjectives and attending prepositions. An additional work is Luis Alonso Schökel’s Diccionario bíblico hebreo-español, published in 1994 with a

87.â•‡ Ibid., xi. 88.â•‡ For a brief review of Muraoka’s lexicon, see M. Eugene Boring, “Review of A Greek-English Lexicon of the Septuagint (Twelve Prophets), ed. T. Muraoka,” JBL 117, 1 (1998): 176. 89.â•‡ Willem A. VanGemeren, gen. ed., The New International Dictionary of Old Testament Theology and Exegesis, 5 vols. (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1997). The dictionary also includes a feature article “Linguistics, Meaning, Semantics, and Discourse Analysis” by Peter Cotterell. 90.â•‡ See my review in JETS 42, 2 (June 1999): 305–308. 91.â•‡ David J. A. Clines, ed., Dictionary of Classical Hebrew, vol. 1 “),” vol. 2 “b-w,” vol. 3 “+-z,” vol. 4 “y-l,” vol. 5 “m-n,” vol. 6 “s-p” (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1993/95/96/98/2001/07). See also the “Berichte” or “report”: David J. A. Clines, “The Dictionary of Classical Hebrew,” ZAH 3 (1990): 73–80. For an extensive review of Clines’ dictionary see T. Muraoka, “A New Dictionary of Classical Hebrew,” in Studies in Ancient Hebrew Semantics, ed. T. Muraoka, 87–101 (Louvain: Peeters). See also F. I. Andersen’s lengthy review with replies in AusBR 43 (1995): 50–71, 72–74, 74–75 (abstract in Old Testament Abstracts 19 (1996): 392–93). For a brief but comparative review (vis-à-vis HALOT), see Stanislav Segert, CBQ 58 (January 1996): 106–108. For an early but incisive review from the point of view of a semantic domain lexicographer and semanticist, see John Lübbe, “Methodological Implications in the Early Signs of a New Dictionary of Classical Hebrew,” ZAH 4 (1991): 135–43. For later reviews, see Dennis Pardee, JNES 57, 1 (January 1998): 41–43; my own in JETS 43, 4 (December 2000): 723–26; and M. O’Connor, “Semitic Lexicography: European Dictionaries of Biblical Hebrew in the Twentieth Century,” in Israel Oriental Studies XX, ed. Shlomo Isre’el (Winona Lake, Ind.: Eisenbrauns, 2002), 173–212. 92.â•‡ Clines, 25. 93.â•‡ David A. Clines, “The Dictionary of Classical Hebrew,” ZAH 3 (1990): 74.Turabian, 143.

18



second edition in 1999.94 In his description of the dictionary, Alonso Schökel boldly states, “At the present time there is general agreement that neither etymology nor comparative linguistics is the proper approach to determine the meaning of a word.”95 Meanwhile, other dictionaries have appeared or are in progress which fall within the stream of more traditional, biblical lexicons. Philippe Reymond, who also participated in HAL, published in 1991 his Dictionnaire d’Hébreu et d’Araméen, Bibliques.96 This latter work appears to be basically philological in approach.97 A new edition of Gesenius’ lexicon, the 18th, began to appear in 1987 under the editorship of Rudolph Meyer and Herbert Donner.98

disciplines has proceeded at a furious pace.”100 On a different front, one may notice the growing number of program units established in the Society of Biblical Literature for such studies, e.g. the Biblical Greek Language and Linguistics, Linguistics and Biblical Hebrew, and the Biblical Lexicography sections. If the current state of biblical lexicography can be called a renaissance, it can also be called one of shifting paradigms. Many of the newer dictionaries are markedly different in appearance, arrangement, and, most importantly, philosophy from our traditional lexicons. In particular, when compared to the classic lexicons such as Brown, Driver, and Briggs; Koehler and Baumgartner; and Bauer, Danker, Arndt, and Gingrich, one notices a shift away from diachronic and historical/comparative study of words to synchronic and contextual approaches informed by modern linguistics. In fact, most of the newer dictionaries contain absolutely no historical, diachronic or comparative data. As noted above, it is almost with a sense of pride that Clines writes that his dictionary “is one of the first Hebrew dictionaries to be informed by linguistics rather than philology.”101 One senses a certain antipathy between traditional biblical scholars (i.e.Â€philologists) and those who would employ modern linguistic methods to the sacred discipline.102 Certainly, the former have enough to deal with in their own field of endeavor. The development of the comparative method in the mid-eighteenth to mid-nineteenth centuries forced Old Testament scholars not only to become Hebraists but also Orientalists and Semitists.103 If the current trend continues, Old Testament scholars must now become linguists — and modern, descriptive, structuralist-type linguists at that! This is not to mention the host of literary, social-scientific, anthropological, and semiotic approaches in vogue which biblical scholars are currently undertaking.104 Perhaps the issue of hegemony is also at stake. As if to throw down the gauntlet, Clines writes that his dictionary may be characterized as

The State of Biblical Lexicography Today The field of biblical lexicography has been experiencing at one and the same time a renaissance and a paradigm shift. Looking backward over the past several decades, we have seen the appearance of a number of new and important dictionaries. In addition to L&N, we have already mentioned Clines’ Dictionary of Classical Hebrew, Muraoka’s A Greek-English Lexicon of the Septuagint and the five-volume New International Dictionary of Old Testament Theology and Exegesis. To these will be added current works in progress including the BH lexicon based on semantic domains under the direction of J. P. Louw and sponsored by the South African Bible Society. 99 This is not to mention lexicographical works in Greek and other biblical languages and their associated theological wordbooks that have appeared in recent decades (see the Subject Bibliography on page 157). On the broader subject of linguistics and biblical interpretation at large, one can only bemoan the current state of prodigious production and publication. In the 1980s we had Silva’s Biblical Words and Their Meaning, Cotterell and Turner’s Linguistics and Biblical Interpretation, and D. A. Cruse’s Lexical Semantics. Writing in 1994 in the revised and expanded edition of his original book, Silva comments: “During the past decade, as was to be expected, work in general linguistics and ancillary

94.â•‡ Luis Alonso Schökel, Diccionario Bíblico Hebreo-Español, 2nd ed. (Madrid: Editorial Trotta, 1999). 95.â•‡ Luis Alonso Schökel, “The Diccionario bíblico hebreo-español (DBHE),” ZAH 4 (1991): 76. For further description and discussion of this work, those already mentioned and other “New Hebrew Lexicons,” see Iverson, 45ff. For a review of Alonso Schökel’s dictionary see Silva’s comments in his Biblical Words, 186–88. Schökel does not deny the value of etymology or comparative linguistics. In fact, many words in BH are so poorly attested that usage alone as a guide to meaning would be inadequate. As a primary approach, however, it is methodologically misguided. See the section “Etymology and Comparative-Historical Study Still Needed” on page 29. 96.â•‡ Philippe. Reymond, Dictionnaire d’Hébreu et d’Araméen, Bibliques (Paris: Cerf, 1991). 97.â•‡ Iverson, 46. See also Philippe Reymond, “Vers la publication d’un Dictionnaire Hébreu-Français,” ZAH 3 (1990): 81–83. 98.â•‡ [Wilhelm Gesenius], Hebräisches und aramäisches Handwörterbuch über das Alte Testament, 18th ed., ed. Rudolf Meyer and Herbert Donner, vol. 1 “)-g,” vol. 2 “d-y,” vol. 3 “k-M,” vol. 4 “n-p,” vol. 5 “c-#&” (Berlin: Springer Verlag, 1987/95/2005/07/09). 99.â•‡ See J. Lübbe’s excellent review of OT lexicography in his article “Hebrew Lexicography: A New Approach,” Journal for Semitics 2 (1990): 1–15.

19

post-modern — that is to say, as resisting concepts of authority, determinate meanings and the like, and as emphasizing instead the perpetual deferral of meaning as well as the plurality and historical conditionedness of scholarly values105

Scholars less eager to abandon comparative and etymological study have indeed taken up the challenge and delighted in skewering the dictionary in a hyper-critical panel review session of the Biblical Lexicography Consultation at the SBL Annual

100.â•‡ Moises Silva, Biblical Words and Their Meaning, revised and expanded ed. (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1994), 183. The first edition was published in 1983. 101.â•‡Clines, DCH, 1:25. 102.â•‡ See James Barr, “The Ancient Semitic Languages — the Conflict Between Philology and Linguistics,” Transactions of the Philological Society 68 (1969): 37–55. 103.â•‡ Cf. Tene and Barr, 1395, and Waltke and O’Connor, 41, 44. 104.â•‡ It would not be too far off to complain that the biblical scholar today must become a jack of all trades, as well as an expert in nun (paragogic and otherwise)! 105.â•‡Clines, DCH, 1:26. O’Connor calls the dictionary an “Enlightenment project” and the product of modernity (O’Connor, 197).

20



Meeting of 1994 held in Chicago.106 Needless to say, Clines’ riposte the following year was appropriately entitled “Philology and Power.”107 Writing much earlier, even Barr had admitted that

who work with hard language data, biblical scholars can hope to contribute to the continuing effort of linguists to understand the phenomenon of language.112

From about the 1940s onward the seemingly assured dominance of comparativehistorical study has begun to be challenged by the newer methods of descriptive linguistics, interested not only in the historical development of items but in the description of systems, and based on the study of living and spoken languages.108

In an excellent article in the ABD, Walter Bodine charts the history of “Linguistics and Biblical Studies” from the Ancient Near Eastern period, through the medieval grammarians to the modern linguistic era. He also makes some helpful and suggestive comments on the interactions of biblical studies vis-à-vis linguistics.109 First, he holds that pure, synchronic analysis of BH is impossible because among other things the language of the Hebrew Bible reflects over a millennium of change: “In other words, a realistic linguistic analysis of biblical Hebrew cannot proceed on a purely synchronic basis.”110 Secondly, any application of modern linguistic analysis to biblical texts must take into consideration that the data at hand is in written form and not in speech as is the usual assumption, and that therefore, “it is essential for biblical studies that the discipline of graphemics (as the linguistic study of writing is often called) be developed so as to indicate how linguistic research may be applied to written data.”111 Thirdly, Bodine calls for a more balanced interaction and cooperation between linguists and biblical scholars. In light of the barriers which remain, the sights of biblical scholars must be set on a higher goal than merely that of finding another ready-made tool which can be added to their already overcrowded stock of methods for analysis. They must, rather, pursue a deeper insight into the nature of language and, thereby, into the meaning of texts, as they enter into dialogue with linguists. Linguistic theories and consequent methods of analysis can aid biblical scholars immensely. Conversely, as people

106.â•‡ This writer cannot remember a single positive statement made with regard to the dictionary during the session. Among the panel reviewers were Peter Machinist of Harvard and Stephen Kaufman of Hebrew Union College — Jewish Institute of Religion, Cincinnati. 107.â•‡ Biblical Lexicography Consultation, SBL Annual Meeting, 1995, Philadelphia. Among Clines’ remarks (as reconstructed from this writer’s personal notes) were suggestions that the “age of innocence” in terms of Hebrew philology came to an end after Barr’s landmark 1968 publication Comparative Philology and the Text of the Old Testament. Over time, four schools of philology have emerged. These are (1) the Jewish school out of Cincinnati, (2) the Rome school à la Dahood, (3) the Oxford school represented by Thomas and Barr, and (4) the American school of Albright etÂ€al. 108.â•‡ Tene and Barr, 1400. 109.â•‡ Walter Bodine, “Linguistics and Biblical Studies,” in ABD. Bodine is particularly helpful on the modern period, including discussion of “American Descriptive Linguistics,” “G-T Grammar,” “Stratificational Grammar,” and “Discourse Analysis/Text Linguistics.” 110.â•‡ Ibid., “Linguistics,” 4:331. 111.â•‡ Ibid., “Linguistics,” 4:332.

21

Hebrew Lexicography Goes Digital The first decade of the new millennium has seen Hebrew lexicography move fully into the digital age. No less than three web-based Hebrew semantic projects have been launched. The first, the Semantics of Ancient Hebrew Database (SAHD), actually began in 1991 under the chairmanship of Professor J. Hoftijzer of Leiden and was initially underwritten by the European Science Foundation. It has since become an international collaborative project with no less than 12 centers in Europe, the United Kingdom, Australia and the United States (Azusa Pacific, Harvard, Bonn, Cambridge, Edinburgh, Florence, Oxford, Leiden, Leuven, Paris, Rome, and Sydney). Its goal is not to replace the standard and forthcoming lexicons of the Hebrew language but to locate in one place the latest research and scholarly literature on a particular lexical field or lexeme as an aid and time-saving resource, i.e. a database, for future scholarly work. At the same time, its collaborators are producing original research as each entry is signed and includes the lexeme’s occurrences in all texts of Ancient Hebrew (BH, inscriptions, Qumran, Ben Sirach), root and comparative philology, syntagmatics, lexical and semantic fields, and occurrences in the versions and scholarly literature. At the present time, the project is directed by Muraoka out of Leiden and the project secretary is H. G. M. Williamson of Oxford. Each center is responsible for a particular lexical field or set of fields and the best website for the project at the time of writing is that of the center at Edinburgh (http://www2.div.ed.ac.uk/research/sahd).113 The second web-only Hebrew lexicon is the Semantic Dictionary of Biblical Hebrew (SDBH) located at http://www.sdbh.org and launched in the year 2000. Unlike SAHD, this project is solely sponsored by the United Bible Societies and is the work of its main editor Reinier de Blois. The dictionary is called “semantic” because it strives to delineate word meaning based on semantic domains similar to L&N. Much of the project is based on de Blois’ dissertation “Towards a New Dictionary of Biblical Hebrew” (2000), which suggests that all Hebrew words belong to one of three semantic classes: objects, events or relationals.114 These are considered emic categories and comprise the fundamental theoretical framework for the project. There are about 3,400 entries available on the site at the time of writing. The third online project is Key Terms in Biblical Hebrew (KTBH) (http://www. ktbh-team.org) which was begun in 2003 under the auspices of SIL International and is run under an Editorial Committee of six members and 20 contributors, most of whom are translation consultants with SIL and UBS. As its name suggests, KTBH

112.â•‡Ibid. 113.â•‡ For further details, see Berichten (“reports”) in ZAH 6 (1993): 1–127; 7 (1994): 3–50; 10 (1997):Â€98; and 20 (2007): 247–48. For sample entries, see T. Muraoka (ed.), Semantics of Ancient Hebrew (Abr-Nahrain Suppl. 6; Louvain: Peeters, 1998); for a study of a complete lexical field, see James Aitken, The Semantics of Blessing and Cursing in Ancient Hebrew (Louvain: Peeters, 2007). 114.â•‡ Noticeably absent in this regard is the major semantic class of abstracts.

22



only studies terms that are of cultural and religious significance and which express the “cognitive frames, domains, networks” and “conceptual frameworks” of the biblical world that are necessary for translators to understand before rendering these terms into a target language. Some sample categories include: affection, authority, honour/ shame, time, wisdom/folly, and it is hoped that the work will eventually be the online equivalent of Barnwell, Dancy, and Pope’s Key Biblical Terms in the New Testament.

Iverson notes some typical examples. Michael Brown’s study of )pr, for example, concludes that its “basic” meaning is “restore, make whole” and that from this “fundamental sense” all other meanings such as “heal,” “remit,” “make fresh/wholesome,” and even possibly “forgive” may be derived.118 Nida notes that the sense “to be heavy” cannot be a common component of Hebrew dbk in all of its range of meanings.119 The notion of ascertaining a “basic,” “common,” or “root” sense is often one feature of Hebrew philological studies. Linguists argue that this particular focus is misguided and wrong.120

The Contributions of Modern Linguistics From our earlier survey, there appear to have been and presently are basically three general approaches to the elucidation of word meaning: (1) etymology, (2)Â€historicalcomparative study, and (3) modern linguistic approaches.

The Shift Away from Etymology The etymological method quite unobtrusively crept into the discipline to become at one moment an important paradigm for understanding the meanings of words. AÂ€classic example is the understanding of u(phre/thj in 1 Cor. 4.1. In 1975 the popular commentator William Barclay understood this word as meaning “rower,” being derived from e)re/ssw. He went even further to suggest that it refers to “a rower on the lower bank of a trireme”! This etymologizing also appears in A. T. Robertson’s Word Pictures in the New Testament (prior to Barclay in 1975) where u(phre/thj means “under-rower.” With Barrett and Louw we must certainly agree that u(phre/thj in 1 Cor. 4:1 is little different from dia/konoj since in NT usage hardly any distinction of meaning can be made between these two terms when referring to servants.115

The Problem of Grundbedeutung With the publication of his book The Semantics of Biblical Language116 in 1961, James Barr successfully discredited the etymological approach to word study. But a related idea was also part of the problem. This is the idea that words have an “inherent” or “basic” meaning, a Grundbedeutung (literally “ground meaning”), if you will. In a helpful article, Eugene Nida has elaborated on the problem of Grundbedeutung. In the first place, there has been the tendency to regard the “true meaning” of a word as somehow related to some central core of meaning which is said to exist, either implicitly or explicitly, in each of the different meanings of such a word or lexical unit.117

115.â•‡Louw, Semantics, 26. See also the example of Cotterell and Turner, 132–33. Just because the etymology of Greek baptizein derives from baptein which means “to dip,” it doesn’t mean that baptizein in the NT supports baptism by immersion. In fact, baptizein in the NT came to mean “to deluge with,” “overwhelm by,” which supports baptism by affusion just as well. 116.â•‡ James Barr, The Semantics of Biblical Language (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1961). 117.â•‡ Eugene A. Nida, “Implications of Contemporary Linguistics for Biblical Scholarship,” JBL 91

23

The Distinction between Sign, Sense, and Reference It was Saussure who established the separation between words as “signs” and their meanings, i.e. the signifiant from the signifié. Thus, words are no longer viewed as intrinsically having meaning; they are merely “signs” pointing to meaning. (Contrast this view with that of Cratylus discussed at the beginning of this chapter. Modern linguists would have agreed with Hermogenes.) To put it another way, “words do not have meanings, meanings have words.” This perspective on language helps lexicologists avoid the problems of etymologizing and Grundbedeutung. An additional distinction is also often raised, and appropriately so. This is the distinction between “sense” and “reference.” One needs to be very careful on how one uses these terms because of the serious problem of “terminological confusion.”121 Here we basically follow the prudent guidance of Silva. “Sense” is the “mental content called up by the symbol [i.e. sign]” and “referent” is “the extralinguistic thing denoted.”122 These distinctions are represented in Ogden and Richards’ classic Triangle of Signification shown in Figure 1.2. To illustrate from Cotterell and Turner,123 the sign could be a word such as “boy.” The “sense” would then be a mental construct consisting most likely of “male, child.” Finally, the referent would be a typical real boy in the world. The broken line between sign and referent illustrates that there is no direct one-to-one relationship between words as signs and their referents. This last point is significant because it lies at the heart of much of the problem with TDNT; the word studies too often make an “[u]nwarranted linking of sense and reference.”124 They confuse the “sense” of a word

(1972): 84. Note also Louw’s comments in his “Semantics” article in ABD (5:1078): “The etymological approach to semantics would have tried to find some underlying core connection between .â•¯.â•¯. meanings.” 118.â•‡ Iverson, 61. 119.â•‡ Nida, “Implications,” 85. It is with some embarrassment that I confess how on occasion I have illustrated the meaning of the fifth commandment by saying that the meaning of dbk “to honor” is “to consider weighty”! 120.â•‡ See also Cotterell and Turner, “Is There a Single ‘Basic’ or ‘Core’ Sense in Polysemous Words?,” 138–39. 121.â•‡ See Silva, Biblical Words, 101ff. 122.â•‡ Ibid., 102. While Silva uses the word “symbol,” I prefer to use the term “sign.” 123.â•‡ Cotterell and Turner, 116. 124.â•‡ See Don Carson, Exegetical Fallacies, 2nd ed. (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1996), 63–64 and Cotterell and Turner, 118ff.

24



Sense

25

implications of such a shift is to bring within the realm of word studies not simply individual words but idioms and phrases as well.131

The Shift Away From Glosses

Sign

Referent

Figure 1.2â•‡ The Ogden and Richards Triangle of Signification with the adjunct properties of the thing-in-the-world which the word denotes.125 For example, even if the ancients regarded the physical head of a body as the source of a variety of substances and influences relevant for the life of such body, this does not mean that the sense “source” obtains for the particular lexeme kephalē.126 In light of the above, Scanlin’s definition of meaning is helpful. The meaning of a word consists of a set or bundle of distinctive features that makes possible reference.127

In L&N, the authors have convincingly argued the case for real definitions and not mere glosses for dictionary entries.132 Glosses like “boy,” “lad,” “youth” are merely translation equivalents and can be easily misunderstood. Certainly the statement in L&N on neani/skoj “a young man beyond the age of puberty, but normally before marriage” is more enlightening than BAGD’s “youth, young man.” 133 What is a “youth” in one culture may not be in another.134 The most recent edition of BAGD (now BDAG) includes definitions as well as the usual glosses in each dictionary entry. Danker explains it well: Traditionally, lexicons have shown a preference for definition of a word in the source language with a corresponding word or phrase in the receptor language. A series of words or glosses is then offered to cover a variety of possibilities for translation. But these alleged meanings are for the most part mere formal equivalents, and in the case of words that occur very frequently in a language they run the hazard of being devoid of semantic value. Even worse, an unwary reader may think that a given word bears all the content expressed by a series of synonyms.135

The Shift Away from the Focus on Words Only One of the healthy contributions of modern linguistics has been to focus the attention of interpreters away from mere words as if the individual words themselves were the sine qua non of the theological task. Carson has quoted Nathan Söderblom well: “Philology is the eye of the needle through which every theological camel must enter the heaven of theology.”128 What is surprising is that according to linguist Eugene Nida, the correct meaning of any term is that which contributes least to the total context, or in other terms, that which fits the context most perfectly. In contrast to this, many biblical scholars want to read in every word in each of its occurrences all that can possibly be derived from all of its occurrences. (emphasis mine)129

Linguists have reminded scholars of the differing levels of analysis, from the word, to the sentence to an entire discourse. They have carefully pointed out the distinction between “lexical sense” and “contextual sense.”130 Finally, one of the practical

125.â•‡ Cotterell and Turner, 144. 126.â•‡Ibid. 127.â•‡ Harold P. Scanlin, “The Study of Semantics in General Linguistics,” in Linguistics and Biblical Hebrew, ed. Walter R. Bodine (Winona Lake, Ind.: Eisenbrauns, 1992), 128. 128.â•‡ Carson, 27. 129.â•‡ Nida, “Implications,” 86. This is not to deny the importance or usefulness of word studies perÂ€se. They are indeed necessary for determining word meaning. 130.â•‡ See J. P. Louw, “Semantics,” in ABD.

Better Classifications of Meanings A common lament among linguists is the unsystematic and confusing classifications of meanings within typical dictionary entries. Perhaps nothing is quite so confusing as most classifications of meanings, even many of those in Bauer’s dictionary of the New Testament vocabulary (e.g., treatments of e1xw, h(me/ra, kata/, pneu=ma).136

While classification along semantic lines may be difficult, at least L&N has the virtue of organizing entries “in terms of a series of more and more rigidly ‘marked’ meanings.”137

131.â•‡ As we shall see below, with such expressions as Mymy (b#& and hbw+ hby#& in the semantic domain of the aged. 132.â•‡ L&N, vii–xi. 133.â•‡ This is perhaps not the fairest example. BAGD does add “on the chron. limits of this period of life cf. what is said on neani/aj .â•¯.â•¯.” But the entry of the latter lexeme reads “youth,Â€young man” and confusingly continues, “(fr. about the 24th to the 40th year; Diog. L. 8, 10; Philo, Cher. 114 .â•¯.â•¯.).” 134.â•‡ In some cultures, a man of 40 years may still be called a “youth.” For another example of possible confusion, see the schema on page 55. 135.â•‡ Bauer, W., F. W. Danker, W. Arndt, and F. W. Gingrich, A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature. 3rd ed. (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2000),Â€viii. For neani/skoj, BDAG now has “a relatively young man, youth, young man.” But is this any more helpful? 136.â•‡ Nida, “Implications,” 85. See also L&N, ix. 137.â•‡ Nida, “Implications,” 86.

26



27

Semantic Domain Study

Biblical Hebrew as a Dead Language

We have already had occasion to discuss this new approach in biblical lexicography (see page 14). In his review of L&N, Moisés Silva sums up well the advantages of this approach.

Because BH is a dead language, there are no informants to whom we can pose diagnostic questions which are part and parcel of the modern linguist’s trade. We could not for example pose the following types of sentences and ask whether they were correct or not.

Its true significance lies, partly, in the fact that we normally succeed in identifying new entities by distinguishing them from others like it. More specifically, however, the structure of language is built on the principle of opposition (units of sound, for example, are most accurately defined not by the sum of their positive physical characteristics but by those that distinguish them from similar ones). When a NT student looks at a dictionary article and stops there, he or she ends up with a fragmented and fuzzy understanding of the word in question. The ability to see at a glance the lexical options available to the writer — and more so since they are accompanied by definitions that distinguish among them — enhances significantly the student’s perception and discrimination. One should moreover emphasize the important point that this Lexicon includes within appropriate domains both positive and negative terms; semanticists have long recognized that lexical contrasts are fundamental for the analysis of meaning.138

The Limitations of Modern Linguistics We have already begun to allude to some of the limitations and restrictions of modern linguistics when it comes to the biblical languages. Here we elaborate more directly on the issue and in more detail. Most of the difficulties have to do with the nature of the Hebrew Bible itself.

The Limited Corpus of the Hebrew Bible Relative to other ancient languages like Latin or Greek, where a sizable literature has long been available, the language milieu of the Hebrew Bible has produced no such quantities of texts for scholars today. This is why when whole new languages related to BH like Akkadian and Ugaritic were discovered, the scholarly energies of Semitists were mostly channeled and continue to be channeled into the decipherment and understanding of these languages and their accompanying texts.139 Aside from the Hebrew Bible itself, there remain only small segments of text from inscriptions, ostraca, and other materials. In as much as modern linguistics is based upon and in fact relies upon the analysis of living and spoken languages, its application to such a limited corpus as BH will also be limited.

138.â•‡ WTJ 51 (1989): 165–66. 139.â•‡ See Barr, “Semitic Philology,” 46–47. Akkadian (known since the 1850s) is now much better known than BH, whereas Ugaritic (deciphered c.1930) is not as well known as BH due to its much smaller corpus. For elaboration and further problems with Hebrew lexicography, see Barr’s contribution, “Hebrew Lexicography,” in Studies in Semitic Lexicography, Quaderni di Semitistica 2, Instituto di Linguistica & di Lingue Orientali, ed. Pelio Fronzaroli (Florence: Universita di Firenze, 1973), 103–104.

“It’s a bicycle but you ride it.”140 “It’s a dog but it can bark.”141 “This tea’s too powerful.” “This tea’s too strong.”142

Because such a diagnostic tool is not available to the Hebraist, one cannot expect the same kind of linguistic precision that one would enjoy when dealing with modern, living, and spoken languages.

The Problem of Hapax Legomena By one conservative count, the OT contains no less than 1,300 hapax legomena and about 500 words that occur only twice out of a total lexicon of approximately 8,000 words.143 Relative to other ancient languages, this problem is a particular oddity of BH and one of the main reasons why the comparative-historical approach is still a necessary one for Hebrew lexicography.144

The Problem of the Hebrew Bible and Its Composition The Hebrew Bible is unique in its long history of composition. Composed over a period of about a thousand years, it is the world’s oldest “living” text.145 Because of this phenomenon, Barr writes that “any approach to the lexicography of the Bible involves historical questions .â•¯.â•¯. and a scholarly dictionary must seek to distinguish between various historical layers” (emphasis his). 146 The OT is not a purely synchronic document but a diachronic one as well. Problems of the dating of texts and their compositional history, although a difficult issue, must be taken into consideration.147 As old as BDB is, it always takes these issues into consideration and

140.â•‡ Cotterell and Turner, 149. 141.â•‡ D. A. Cruse, Lexical Semantics (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1986), 17. 142.â•‡Silva, Biblical Words, 142. 143.â•‡ Ibid., 42. 144.â•‡ On the study of hapax legomena, see Frederick E. Greenspahn, Hapax Legomena in Biblical Hebrew. SBL Dissertation Series No. 74 (Chico, CA: Scholars Press, 1984) and Harold R. (Chaim) Cohen, Biblical Hapax Legomena in the Light of Akkadian and Ugaritic. SBL Dissertation Series No. 37 (Ann Arbor: Scholars Press, 1978). 145.â•‡ Much as China is the oldest “living” civilization. China is not the oldest civilization per se (cf. the Sumerians), but it is the oldest civilization which has survived continuously without interruption to the present day. 146.â•‡ Barr, “Hebrew Lexicography,” 105. 147.â•‡ The reigning paradigm in this regard is Wellhausen’s documentary hypothesis. This hypothesis,

28



applies the best knowledge available at the time, often noting whether occurrences of words were in J, E, D or P.

Arabic, Ethiopic, and Ugaritic as well as an essay on the basic principles of comparative philology.152 A second and related practical problem is just how to carry out some forms of linguistic analysis when the linguists do not even agree among themselves.

The Practical Limitations of Semantic Study Particularly when dealing with semantic domains and paradigmatic study, the largescale analysis required is often unmanageable. One often reads in the literature of such studies that they are “impractical at this point,” “far beyond our present scope,” or “would require inordinate resources.” Barr writes that one of the reasons why the Oxford Hebrew Lexicon project was abandoned was because of the impracticality of conducting semantic analysis: the lexicographer has to have perhaps two hundred cases of a word under the eye, with perhaps three or four departments of meaning, and has to think how these meanings are to be classified, arranged, ordered, and provided with English glosses.148

29

At the same time, however, a great deal of confusion has arisen because of the proliferation of different schools of linguistics (e.g. tagmemic, stratificational, and generative-transformational) .â•¯.â•¯.153

Componential analysis, for example, is applied differently by different scholars: “Moreover, there is no agreed procedure for analyzing terms componentially, and therefore, different scholars sometimes achieve quite different results.”154 Some linguists today have even abandoned componential analysis in favor of prototype semantics.

Etymology and Comparative-Historical Study Still Needed Later, Barr comments that “Each word required something like a dissertation, or the amount of study that would have produced a dissertation.”149 Finally, the OTDSD was supposed to appear in the late 1990s but nearly three decades have elapsed since the project began in 1981.150 Thus far, the Hebrew letters, daleth, heh, waw, zayin, heth, kaph, pe, qoph, resh, and taw have been treated, while aleph, beth, and ayin were in progress at the time of Lübbe’s report. While the OTDSD takes a singularly synchronic approach to the Hebrew lexicon, data from inscriptions and the Dead Sea Scrolls will be included for the Hebrew section, as well as materials from Elephantine and Qumran for the Aramaic. Nevertheless, Lübbe writes, “it is the lack of adequately trained participants that continues to hamper the progress of this project.”151 The Princeton Classical Hebrew Project formerly reported in the literature is no longer in operation. It would have been a traditional Hebrew lexicon with comparative-philological data, including cognates from Aramaic, Akkadian, Syriac,

however, has been subject to a number of difficulties in past decades. See the section, “Recent Developments: The Documentary Hypothesis in Crisis” in Joseph Blenkinsopp, The Pentateuch: An Introduction to the First Five Books of the Bible, Anchor Bible Reference Library (New York: Doubleday, 1992), 19ff. The challenge posed by Jewish scholars on the priority of P over D and its earlier dating (Y.Â€Kaufmann, The Religion of Israel, trans. M. Greenberg [Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1960]: 166–211); A. Hurvitz, A Linguistic Study of the Relationship between the Priestly Source and the Book of Ezekiel: A New Approach to an Old Problem [Paris: J. Gabalda, 1982]; cf. T. Dozeman, God at War: Power in the Exodus Tradition [New York: Oxford, 1996], 102 and 133, n. 6) is apparently a minority opinion; cf. Blenkinsopp, 26, 238, 13. 148.â•‡ James Barr, “Hebrew Lexicography: Informal Thoughts,” in Linguistics and Biblical Hebrew, ed. Walter R. Bodine (Winona Lake, Ind.: Eisenbrauns, 1992), 138. 149.â•‡ Ibid., 144. 150.â•‡ In Lübbe’s article “Hebrew Lexicography: A New Approach” the beginning date of the project was stated as 1981. In his progress report, “An Old Testament Dictionary of Semantic Domains,” he gives the beginning date as 1983. 151.â•‡ Lübbe, “An Old Testament Dictionary,” 53.

Because of the problems and limitations mentioned above it is clear that etymology and comparative-historical study are still needed when it comes to the Hebrew Bible. This is true not because they are better or more precise methods but because in certain cases they are the only methods. Barr writes that they are needed for the process of “gross semantics” but inadequate for the process of “fine semantics.”155 With hundreds of hapax legomena in the OT, etymology and comparative-historical study is better than no study at all.156 As Silva writes, “As a whole, then, the appeal to etymology is an indispensable element in Hebrew lexicography,”157 and this is much more so than for the Greek NT.158 In addition, the semantic trajectory of a word through time can be helpful in reconstructing what may have been the word’s meaning at a particular time. At the very least, it would assist in establishing the boundaries of its possible meanings at a particular time. Comparative-historical study is helpful for establishing such trajectories. Comparative-historical study is also important because it can explain many unusual features of BH which could otherwise be easily misunderstood by semanticists. The long-standing conundrum of the waw-conversive in past-time narrative, for example, is solved by understanding that in earlier Semitic speech two prefix conjugations

152.â•‡ See J. J. M. Roberts, “The Princeton Classical Hebrew Dictionary Project,” ZAH 3 (1990): 84–89. In a similar context, O’Connor wryly comments, “Lexicography is a rough business, and Zorell is not the only lexicographer of Biblical Hebrew who died in the saddle” (O’Connor, 188). 153.â•‡ Nida, “Implications,” 73. 154.â•‡ Carson, 50. See also Cotterell and Turner, 170ff. 155.â•‡ See Nahum Waldman, “Lexicography and Semantics,” in The Recent Study of Hebrew (Winona Lake, Ind.: Eisenbrauns, 1989), 51. 156.â•‡ On comparative philology, especially in the case of poorly attested Hebrew words, see J.Â€A.Â€Emerton, “Comparative Semitic Philology and Hebrew Lexicography,” in Congress Volume: Cambridge 1995, ed. J. A. Emerton, VT Supplements, 66:1–24 (Leiden: Brill, 1997). 157.â•‡Silva, Biblical Words, 43. 158.â•‡ Carson, 33.

30



existed, a short yaqtul form and a long yaqtulu form. The short yqtl form was used for past narrative while the long prefix conjugation denoted “non-perfective aspect, future tense, etc.” These two forms became indistinguishable when, around 1100Â€B.C.E, the language lost all its final short vowels.159 O’Connor has capably argued for the continued need for comparative-historical study in his review of semitic lexicography at the turn of the century, using an example from 2Â€Chron. 21.20.160

The Approach of This Study The approach and method of this study will be to fully employ the contributions of modern linguistics while keeping in mind all that has been mentioned above. In particular, our approach will be both to study each word in its context and in its sense relations with other terms in its semantic field. The semantic field in this study will comprise all OT terms having to do with the human life cycle from the cradle to the grave. Several years after publishing their Greek-English Lexicon, Louw and Nida provided another volume as an explanation, supplement, and guide to the principles that went into the lexicon, entitled Lexical Semantics of the Greek New Testament.161 Including a number of helpful examples, the authors set forth such specifics as “Analyzing the Different Meanings of the Same Lexeme” (chapter 3), “Analyzing the Related Meanings of Different Lexemes” (chapter 4), and “Domain Classification” (chapter 5). It is this latter volume which will guide much of the linguistic analysis in our study.162 The first step in our study will be to establish the semantic domain and what particular Hebrew words, phrases, and idioms belong. This is accomplished mainly by observing which terms appear in Hebrew pericopae in a series, in parallel or even in contrast (e.g. Jer. 6.11; 51.22). Next, grammatically related terms are also included (e.g. na‘ar and na‘arâ). A list of life cycle terms and their number of total occurrences follows, ordered in a general way from young to old. yeled

“boy”

89 occurrences

yaldâ

“girl”

3 occurrences

yônēq

“child”

9 occurrences

‘ôlēl, ‘ôlāl

“child”

11 occurrences

ṭap

“child”

42 occurrences

na‘ar

“boy”

239 occurrences

na‘ arâ

“girl”

62 occurrences

159.â•‡ See Waltke and O’Connor, §29.4. 160.â•‡ O’Connor, 185–87. 161.â•‡ Johannes P. Louw and Eugene A. Nida, Lexical Semantics of the Greek New Testament (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1992). 162.â•‡ In this regard, Lübbe’s article “Hebrew Lexicography,” with the example of pqd is also instructive.

‘elem

“young man”

2 occurrences

‘almâ

“young woman”

7 occurrences

bāḥûr

“young man”

45 occurrences

b etûlâ

“virgin/young woman”

51 occurrences

geber

“young man”

66 occurrences

’îš

“man”

2,166 occurrences

’ādām

“man”

540 occurrences

’iššâ

“woman”

775 occurrences

zāqēn

“old”

174 occurrences

m lê’ yāmîm

“full of days”

6 occurrences

’îš śêbâ

“grey-headed person”

20 occurrences

e

31

In L&N there is no specific domain for “life cycle” but the relevant terms are classified under “People” (§9) with subdomains of “Human Beings” (A.; §§9.1-9.23), “Males” (B.; §§9.24-9.33), “Females” (C.; §§9.34-9.40), “Children” (D.; §§9.41-9.45), and “Persons For Whom There Is Affectionate Concern” (E.; §§9.46-9.48). Once the semantic domain has been established, we must be careful to distinguish between different meanings of the same lexeme. Not to do so would leave us open to the fallacy of “root” meanings and etymologizing.163 In L&N, for example, the Greek word pai=j is classified under three different semantic domains according to its three different meanings, pai=ja “child (generic)” under “Persons”; pai=jb “child (one’s own)” under “Kinship Terms”; and pai=jc “slave” or “servant” under “Status.” This is similar to the situation of Hebrew na‘ar, which basically has two meanings, one based on function and the other based on age. In some contexts it means “boy, youth, lad” and in others it means simply “servant,” belonging therefore to two different semantic fields. Because of the above phenomenon (called polysemy) it is not necessary to analyze every occurrence of a studied term in the Hebrew Bible. Only those occurrences which pertain to the semantic field of the life cycle are relevant. For example, although the total number of occurrences of na‘ar in the OT is 239, we will only focus on the 120 occurrences that are age referential and have to do with the life cycle. The other occurrences belong to a different semantic domain pertaining to the meaning of “servant, helper.” Once the different meanings of the same lexeme are clearly distinguished and the appropriate occurrences included, it remains for us to analyze the related meanings of the different lexemes comprising the semantic domain. Both Cotterell and Turner164 and Moisés Silva165 give good summaries of what these “sense relations”

163.â•‡ While the history of a word (diachrony) may have something to do with its various meanings, it is the present understanding of the word (synchrony) which is primary for determining meaning. 164.â•‡ Cotterell and Turner, Linguistics, 155–61. 165.â•‡Silva, Biblical Words, chapter 5.

32


may consist of. These include synonymy (“pretty/beautiful”), contiguity (“walk/ run”), hyponymy (“flowers/roses”), antonymy (“short/tall”), and incompatibility (“red/green”). To use Louw and Nida’s words, the task remains to discern “the shared, distinctive and supplementary features” which obtain between all the terms. Although we will employ a table of componential analysis in our study, it is only a heuristic tool to isolate the “focal” or “prototypical” senses of a word in the manner of Eugene Nida’s approach. As our semantic analysis is conducted it will be instructive to refer to our traditional Hebrew lexicons and compare definitions. At what points will our linguistic approach contradict, supplement, confirm, and improve upon traditional biblical lexicography? On the other hand, what advantages do works such as Gesenius, BDB, and KBL have over the newer approaches of semantic domains and modern linguistics? Thus, our study is as much a journey in method as it is a quest for the meaning of key terms in the life cycle of ancient Israel.

33

2

THE LIFE CYCLE IN ANCIENT ISRAEL Realia One of the advantages of dealing with a set of terms that belong to the semantic category of “objects”1 is that they can be correlated with realia, that is, “readily identified elements of the ordinary world.”2 Realia can and do provide an extralinguistic check on our semantic studies. Indeed, in some cases it is the realia of the world around us that determine meaning. In an interesting article by P. Swiggers, just this point is made: “semantics cannot be properly carried out if one does not take into account that word meanings are socio-culturally determined.”3 Swiggers studies the root lḥm and points out that in Northwest Semitic languages (including BH), it bears the meaning “food” or “bread,” whereas in South Semitic languages such as Ethiopic and Arabic it bears the meaning “cow, ox” or “flesh, meat, pulp of a fruit.” In one South-Arabian dialect (of the island of Soqotri), lḥm even means “fish”! He concludes that, The semanticist of the mentalist vein will probably be at a loss when observing these differences in meaning, corresponding to one root. .â•¯.â•¯. .â•¯.â•¯. All one can say is that the basic meaning of the substantives [lḥm] mentioned above is the common food of every social (or national) group taken separately. For nomads the daily food is meat (and fruit), whereas in sedentary groups the most common victual is bread. The daily food of the Soqotri islanders is of course fish. (italics, author’s)4

It is to be acknowledged that the vocabulary of a particular culture reflects to a certain extent “a people’s knowledge of its natural environment and social institutions and its judgment of the relative importance of different aspects of them.”5 Regarding the former, two examples include the many different Eskimo words for snow and ice and the varied terminology for camels in Arabic. An area of great interest working in the opposite direction (i.e. a common terminology across cultures) has to do

1.â•‡ According to Nida, all languages reflect four principal semantic categories: objects, events, abstracts (i.e. quantities and qualities of objects and events) and relations (Implications, 77). 2.â•‡ Waltke and O’Connor, 57, n. 30. 3.â•‡ P. Swiggers, “The Meaning of the Root LḤM ‘Food’ in the Semitic Languages,” UgaritForschungen 13 (1981): 307. 4.â•‡ Ibid., 308. 5.â•‡ Joseph H. Greenberg, A New Invitation to Linguistics (New York: Anchor Books, 1977), 79.

34


2.â•‡ The Life Cycle in Ancient Israel

with color terminology. Berlin and Kay have discovered that there is a consistent delineation and distribution of color terms across various cultures. For example, when a language has only two terms it always uses “black” meaning all the darker colors and “white” meaning all the lighter ones. If a third color is added, it is always red; if a fourth, it is always yellow or green; if there are five terms, it is always black, white, red, yellow, and green.6 Athalya Brenner has conducted a comparable study for the OT and concluded that the basic color terms in BH are (in descending scale of distribution):

In conclusion, a basis in realia is a necessary anchor in semantic studies where mental reconstructions can be quite precarious. It is good to remember that language is not separate from culture but part of culture.10 In this regard, it is helpful to remember Ogden and Richards’ Triangle of Signification discussed in the previous chapter (page 24). While there is a connection between the word as sign and the real-world referent, it is not a direct one. It is mediated through a mental reconstruction which we refer to as the “sense” of the word. It is this “sense,” based in realia, that we are ultimately after.

Mdo) Nbfl f rxo#$f qwOryF bhocf

“brown-red-pink” “pale to white” “black” “pale,” “yellowish,” “green” “pale to yellow, shiny”7

With regard to social institutions, kinship terminology has been found to be particularly revealing. Greenberg cites the example of the Crow Indians, whose kinship terminology delineating matrilineal descent even overrides generational lines.8 For an example closer to home, we can note that in English there is only one word for a mother’s (or father’s) sister, namely “aunt.” In Chinese, however, there are separate terms for maternal and paternal aunts. There are even separate terms for aunties according to birth order, e.g. “first auntie on the mother’s side,” “second auntie on the mother’s side,” etc. In Chinese, there are separate terms for “older brother” and “younger brother.” Such elaborate kinship terminology thus reflects the importance of family relations and positions in Chinese culture and society. While the above instances are no doubt true, we are nevertheless cognizant of the extreme position which views language as determinative of worldview and perceptions. Such a position was advocated by the American linguist, Benjamin Whorf, and James Barr has adequately rebutted such views, particularly as manifested in biblical word studies. No one would suppose that the Turks, because they nowhere distinguish gender in their language, not even in the personal pronouns as we do in English, are deficient in the concept of sexual difference; nor would we seriously argue that the French have extended their legendary erotic interests into the linguistic realm by forcing every noun to be either masculine or feminine.9

6.â•‡ Greenberg, 82, referring to Brent Berlin and P. Kay, Basic Color Terms, Their Universality and Evolution (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1969). 7.â•‡ Athalya, Brenner, Colour Terms in the Old Testament, Journal for the Study of the Old Testament Supplement Series, 21 (Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1982), 105. 8.â•‡ Greenberg, 79. 9.â•‡Barr, Semantics, 39.

35

Life Expectancy in the Ancient Near East One of the related issues of the life cycle has to do with life expectancy. If indeed the average life expectancy in antiquity was very short, how would such a fact affect both the notion and extent of a life cycle? Therefore we should ask, “How long did the average person live in the Ancient Near East and what factors limited his or her age at death?” While our primary interest is in the Ancient Near East and ancient Israel, we note here by way of introduction the work of Kendig and Hutton, who have surveyed the life expectancies of persons through the first 90 percent of human history (see Figure 2.1).11 When we come to the data of Mesopotamia, some information comes as a surprise. Citing prosopographic data of first millennium Babylonia, Dandamayev suggests that life expectancy during the period was probably relatively high.12 It is well known that the mother of Nabonidus is said to have lived 104 years!13 Artabazus, a courtier of the Persian king Darius III, is recorded as having lived at least 95 years. M. Roth cites a thirteenth centuryÂ€B.C.E. letter from Ramses II of Egypt to the Hittite king Hattušili III mentioning that the latter’s sister was already 60 years of age and could not be expected to bear children regardless of what medicinal herbs and physicians he might send!14 Tracking the names of 2,997 scribes mentioned in the first millennium Babylonian records, Dandamayev writes that “Some of them are referred to several hundred times and in such cases we can draw a conclusion that many scribes lived, at least 70–90 years.”15

10.â•‡ Greenberg, 74. 11.â•‡ Frank Kendig and Richard Hutton, Life-Spans or How Long Things Last (New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1979). Although this work is not a scholarly or technical treatise, the authors state that their figures are based on “studies of skeletons, legal documents, and gravestones, among other effects” (8). 12.â•‡ M. A. Dandamayev, “About Life Expectancy in Babylonia” in Death in Mesopotamia, ed. Bendt Alster (Copenhagen: Akademisk Forlag, 1980), 183–86. 13.â•‡ This is the highest age ever mentioned in a historical document from Mesopotamia. See Jacob Klein, “The ‘Bane’ of Humanity: A Lifespan of One Hundred Twenty Years,” Acta Sumerologica 12 (1990): 69, n. 41. 14.â•‡ Martha T. Roth, “Age at Marriage and the Household: A Study of Neo-Babylonian and NeoAssyrian Forms,” Comparative Studies in Society and History 29 (1987): 717–18 and n. 5. 15.â•‡ Dandamayev, 184. As examples, Dandamayev cites the names of ten scribes whose lengths of service ranged from 38 to 68 years.

36



Life span (years) Neanderthal man Cro-Magnon man Man in the Copper Age Man in the Bronze Age Greek and Roman man Fifth-century man (England) Fourteenth-century man (England) Seventeenth-century man (Europe) Eighteenth-century man (Europe)

29 32 36 38 36 30 38 51 45*

* Epidemics in urban areas were the cause of this drop in life span.

Figure 2.1â•‡ The Life Spans of “Historical Man” Source: Kendig and Hutton, 8.

By establishing the length of scribes’ careers at about 40 or more years, they must have been at least 60 years of age, since a scribe would typically begin his career at age 20. Nor is this conclusion limited to the higher echelons of society. Dandamayev also followed the names of 1,234 privately owned slaves (including 371 slave women) and found that at least some slaves lived for 60–80 years.16 In a similar vein, Marten Stol writes: Surprisingly, a good number of people actually reached extreme old age. Several kings had long reigns: Shulgi of Ur, forty-eight years; Hammurabi of Babylon, forty-three years; Assurbanipal of Assyria, forty-two years, Queen Adad-guppi, the mother of Nabonidus, lived 104 years. Archives show that some individuals were active for a long time, enabling us to establish their age as at least seventy years. Certainly these people belonged to the privileged classes — such as the rich old women living in a cloister — but in later times house slaves could live that long. Those who survived the physical dangers of early childhood may have had a relatively good life expectancy.17

37

were already able-bodied adults when they appear in the records. Both groups may have been reckoned at lower chronological ages and Dandamayev’s figures may be “imprecise by a decade or more.”18 Secondly, My own impression is that the examples adduced represent the exceptions rather than the norms, and that the scribes and slaves mentioned are, if not all, then certainly almost all, of those with careers of any long duration. It is nearly inevitable that persons who lived longer and more active lives would be prominent in our sources, and the appearance of a few notable people living long lives cannot be indicative of a general demographic trend.19

Roth’s reservations are sound, but even if we lower the beginning chronological ages by ten years, we arrive at an average life span of about 51.1 years for the scribes and 50.6 years for the slaves. Without a doubt, Dandamayev’s mere ten scribes and five slaves cannot represent a demographic trend but these figures are probably higher than one might have expected. In an attempt to gauge the extent of Dandamayev’s “many scribes” (for “many” is indeed a relative term), we may roughly compare the percentage of “older persons” in the body of Dandamayev’s Babylonian material with a statistic from the United States. According to the U.S. Bureau of the Census, in 1900, out of a statistical population of 75,995,000, 4.1 percent were age 65 and older.20 Going by Dandamayev’s numbers, we arrive at only 0.33 percent for the scribes and 0.41 percent for the slaves, but this is a worst-case scenario because we are forced to assume that the rest of the 2,997 scribes died earlier when in fact the careers of many of them are simply not known (the same applies to the slaves). Of course, it needs to be reiterated that this comparison is a very rough one indeed but it does seem that the long-lived careers of these individuals in ancient Babylonia were the exception. An important distinction needs to be kept in mind at this point. There is a difference between “life expectancy” and “life span.” “Life expectancy” refers to “the probable number of years remaining in the life of an individual or class of persons determined statistically,”21 and thus life expectancy was relatively short for ancient societies faced as they were with war, disease and high infant mortality. “Life span,” however, refers to “the longest period over which the life of any organism or species may extend.”22 Thus, while the average life expectancy of a society may be short, its life span may be longer, because “life span” presupposes the age one might reasonably achieve barring life-threatening circumstances. In a work on ancient Greece, R.Â€Garland makes the following comment that is relevant to our discussion here:

M. Roth, however, carefully scrutinizes Dandamayev’s conclusions. She questions his assumption that scribes began their careers at age 20 and that the slaves mentioned

16.â•‡ Dandamayev cites as examples the names of five slaves whose lengths of service ranged from 34 to 51 years (p.Â€185). In addition, he notes that “Sometimes it is noted in slave-sale contracts that slaves were old: LÚ qal-la-šú LÚ ši-i-bi, qal-lat-su Mí ši-ib-tu” (ibid.). 17.â•‡ Marten Stol. “Private Life in Ancient Mesopotamia,” in Civilizations of the Ancient Near East, ed. Jack Sasson (New York: Simon and Schuster, Macmillan, 1995), 1:487.

18.â•‡ Roth, “Age at Marriage,” 719–20, n. 9. 19.â•‡Ibid. 20.â•‡ U.S. Bureau of the Census. Current Population Reports, Special Studies, P23–190, 65+ in the United States, prepared by Frank R. Hobbs with the assistance of Bonnie L. Damon (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1996), 2–3. The figure for 1990 is 12.5 percent. 21.â•‡ RHUD, s.v. 22.â•‡Ibid.

38



Median age at death is not, of course, the same as ‘when most people die’. The socalled mortality curve has peaks at birth, early childhood and the early twenties.23

would have been 40.6 years.29 K.Â€Weeks studied burial remains in ancient Egypt and writes,

Thus, in the ancient world, life was particularly fragile at certain points along the way. The situation was undoubtedly no different in Mesopotamia, but more individuals may have survived to old age than has been commonly assumed.24 Among the obstacles to longevity were war and disease. Epidemics were particularly feared — brought on as they were by the “hand of Nergal and Erra.”25 The situation for Egypt is a bit clearer thanks to recent demographic study. According to Bagnall, infant mortality in Egypt of late antiquity was very high: “nearly one-third of all children died before their first birthday and more than twofifths by the age of five.”26 Naturally, such high infant mortality rates shift statistical averages so that life expectancy values at birth were only in the mid- to low twenties (22 for women and 25 for men). Once a child survived early childhood, however, he or she could expect to live much longer, probably to his or her mid forties.27 In a later study, life expectancy at age 10 for females of Roman Egypt was found to be from 34.5 to 37.5 years, and at age 15, it was 48.28 For males, at age 5 life expectancy

The remains indicate surprisingly few differences in diet, health, or types of injuries between social classes or dynastic periods. They suggest that infant mortality was high in all levels of society and that life expectancy was rarely greater than forty or fifty years .â•¯.â•¯.30

23.â•‡ Robert Garland, The Greek Way of Life: From Conception to Old Age (Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1990), 246. 24.â•‡ The common assumption that the vast majority of people in the Ancient Near East were illiterate is also problematic. Stol comments that “More people may have been literate than is commonly assumed.â•¯.â•¯.Â€. There even were women who were scribes. Some kings boast of being able to read texts, and there is no reason to doubt them” (Stol, 492). See also Alan R. Millard, “The Question of Israelite Literacy,” Bible Review 3 (Fall 1987): 22–31 and H. Vanstiphout, “Memory and Literacy in Ancient Western Asia,” in Civilizations of the Ancient Near East, ed. Jack Sasson, (New York: Simon and Schuster Macmillan, 1995), 4: 2181–96. In an examination of prosopographic data, R. Zadok writes: “It is interesting that at least one third (if not 53%) of the interpreter-scribes in fifth century Nippur were Jews. The reasons cannot be directly ascertained from the sources. It should be remembered that the forefathers of the Nippur Jews were deported from Judah which — if one is entitled to judge from the rich epigraphic find — was a literate society” (“Onomastic, Prosopographic and Lexical Notes,” Biblische Notizen 65 [1992]: 52). 25.â•‡Ibid. 26.â•‡ Roger S. Bagnall, Egypt in Late Antiquity (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1993), 182. 27.â•‡Ibid. 28.â•‡ Roger S. Bagnall and Bruce W. Frier, The Demography of Roman Egypt (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1994), 83, 90, 120. Bagnall and Frier apply modern demographic methods to a body of ancient population data consisting of 300 census returns from Roman Egypt with dates from 11 to 258Â€C.E. The census returns reflect persons from all levels of society including men and women, both slaves and free citizens, and were preserved on papyri in varying conditions from scraps to full registers of family households. The returns were ostensibly for taxation purposes although they include information which would not have been relevant for such purposes. For example, the only persons subject to taxation were males between the ages of 14 and 62. Yet the census returns include data regarding women and males past the age of 62 (p.Â€27). For a review of Bagnall and Frier, see John Whitehorne, American Journal of Philology 117 (Summer 1996): 341–43, who notes that while the work “represents a quantum leap forward in the study of Roman Egypt’s population” (p.Â€341), “the census returns come from only three nomes (the Arsinoite with its three merides, the Oxyrhynchite, and Prosopite, representing the Fayum, Middle Egypt and the Delta respectively) out of a total of 50. They are concentrated almost entirely in the second century A.D., with the examples from the Prosopite deriving almost entirely from the census of 173” (p.Â€342).

39

Interestingly, G. Pinch notes that “Very low life-expectancy figures are often given for the ancient world, but the Egyptian’s own aspirations were high. One hundred years, or even 110 years, was the conventional figure given for a long life.”31 From the period of the twentieth dynasty, we have the will of a certain woman who died at Deir el-Medina at the age of 80. Pinch continues, Men who survived into adulthood and women who endured childbirth probably had a good chance of living to sixty. Among officials and artisans there are numerous examples of people who lived to seventy, eighty, or even older.32

Among the hazards of life feared were fevers, snake and scorpion bites, accidents on pilgrimages, journeys by water, and the collapse of houses. For women in particular, childbirth was an additional hazard. On the basis of skeletal remains, J. L. Angel cites a male life expectancy of only 25 for ancient Greece, c.640–350. Later, the figures increased to 35 for women and 44 for men in classical Athens. This corresponds to the situation in Rome, with one study of sepulchral inscriptions yielding 34 for wives and 46.5 for husbands.33 There are problems, however, with this type of artifactual evidence. Yet there are serious problems raised by these estimates. First, it is unlikely that those whose ages at death are recorded on gravestones are representative of the population as a whole, both because of the tendency of sepulchral inscriptions to over-represent the number of elderly decedents and because of the propensity of those who survive to old age to exaggerate their actual age (cf. Frier, 1983, 336). Secondly, the technique for determining age and sex from skeletal material is still extremely rudimentary and the database is at present far too small to draw anything but the most tentative conclusions from it. It is probable for instance that Angel,

29.â•‡ Ibid., 102. 30.â•‡ Kent R. Weeks, “Medicine, Surgery and Public Health in Ancient Egypt,” in Civilizations of the Ancient Near East, ed. Jack Sasson (New York: Simon and Schuster Macmillan, 1995), 3:1790. 31.â•‡ G. Pinch, “Private Life in Ancient Egypt,” in Civilizations of the Ancient Near East, ed. Jack Sasson (New York: Simon and Schuster Macmillan, 1995), 1:380. 32.â•‡Ibid. 33.â•‡ Garland, 245.

40



whose figures are based on an analysis of the pelvis, has seriously underestimated the age of older women, perhaps by as much as ten years (cf. Golden 1981, 327).34

concludes that the average age at death was approximately 35.42 Age at death was determined on the basis of the degree of suture closure.43 Returning to the biblical material, we note the mention of some who attained much older years. David it is said died at age 70 (2 Sam. 5.4), while Barzillai the Gileadite, a wealthy elder statesman who supported David during Absalom’s rebellion was at least 80 (2 Sam.17.27; 19.34-37), and the high priest Jehoiada died at age 130 (although this is from the Chronicler, 2 Chron. 24.15). Of course, there are also the ages of the patriarchs and other important figures of Israel’s formative past:

Garland goes on to state that among the things we do know is that women in ancient Greece had a “considerably lower life expectancy” than men, probably because they were expected to have children soon after menarche.35 Yet, in terms of the life span in general, “Total life span, as opposed to mean longevity, appears to have been no different in the ancient world than it is today” (emphasis his).36 In a more recent study, the general consensus regarding life expectancy in the ancient world in general and in the Roman Empire in particular is that it was between 20 and 30 years of age.37 As far as one can tell from the biblical data, the consensus seems to be that the average life span for ancient Israel was between 40 to 50 years of age. From a study of the chronology of 14 Davidic kings named in Kings and Chronicles, Wolff finds that the average age at death was only 44.38 The kings ranged in age from 21 to 66. Considering that kings were particularly well protected and cared for, Wolff suggests that the life span of the average person was even less. By one account, average mortality was at age 40.39 Some extrabiblical evidence is available from a study of the skeletal remains of an early Bronze Age site in Jordan just east of the Dead Sea. D. Ortner estimates in a preliminary study of 92 skeletons recovered from underground shaft tomb chambers at Bab edh-Dhra that 61 percent were 18 years of age or older, 30 percent were between 1 to 18 years of age, and 9 percent were less than one year of age.40 What is interesting is that by studying the characteristics of the skeletal materials (such as bone porosity and weight), Ortner discovered that “it is clear that many of the adults lived beyond 50 years.”41 In a study of 28 adult crania at the same site, W. Krogman

34.â•‡Ibid. 35.â•‡ Garland, 246. 36.â•‡Ibid. 37.â•‡ Tim G. Parkin, Old Age in the Roman World (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 2003), 36, 49. 38.â•‡ Hans W. Wolff, Anthropology of the Old Testament, trans. M. Kohl (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1974), 119. Starting from somewhat different premises, L. Köhler arrived at an average age of 47–48 years old: Hebrew Man, trans. Peter R. Ackroyd (Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1956), 38. 39.â•‡ Mayer I. Gruber, “Private Life in Ancient Israel,” in Civilizations of the Ancient Near East, ed. Jack Sasson (New York: Simon and Schuster Macmillan, 1995), 1:646. Gruber does not supply any specifics as to how he arrived at this figure. In a brief comment in a dictionary article, R. K. Harrison writes that the average life expectancy was 60 years of age: “Healing, Health,” in IDB, 542 (without citing any basis). 40.â•‡ Donald J. Ortner, “Disease and Mortality in the Early Bronze Age People of Bab edh-Dhra, Jordan,” American Journal of Physical Anthropology 51 (1979): 589–98. See also his study of the skeletal remains of approximately 150 persons, “The Skeletal Biology of an Early Bronze IB Charnel House at Bab edh-Dhra, Jordan,” in Studies in the History and Archaeology of Jordan I, ed. Adnan Hadidi (Amman, Jordan: Dept. of Antiquities, 1982), 93–95, which comes up with fairly similar statistics. 41.â•‡ Ibid., 596. Conditions such as osteoporosis normally occur only in post-menopausal women (age 50+).

41

Abraham

175

(Gen. 25.7)

Moses

120

(Deut. 34.7)

Isaac

180

(Gen. 35.28)

Joshua

110

(Josh. 24.29; Judg. 2.8)

Jacob

147

(Gen. 47.28)

Job

140

(Job 42.16)

Joseph

110

(Gen. 50.26)

But these figures, attached as they are to such “legendary” figures of Israel’s history, are not to be taken literally.44 The classic text on the human life span in the Bible is no doubt Ps. 90.10:

42.â•‡ Wilton M. Krogman, “Representative Early Bronze Age Crania from Bâb edh-Dhrâ’,” in Bâb edh-Dhrâ’: Excavations in the Cemetery Directed by Paul W. Lapp (1965–67), ed. R. Thomas Schaub and Walter E. Rast (Winona Lake, Ind.: Eisenbrauns, 1989), 519. This information was gleaned from an ancient Near East discussion list published on the World Wide Web. After referring to Krogman’s conclusions, T. Schaub writes that “This seems to be a similar range [of age at death] for the much larger body of data from our 1975–81 excavations.” 43.â•‡ For further archeological data from other areas and periods, see B. Arensburg and Y. Rak, “Skeletal Remains of an Ancient Jewish Population from French Hill, Jerusalem,” BASOR 244 (1981): 113–15; N. Haas, “Anthropological Observations on the Skeletal Remains from Giv’at ha-Mivtar,” IEJ 20 (1970): 38–39; and (for Roman and Byzantine burials) John D. Wineland, “Tel Abil, Northern Jordan: An Archaeological and Historical Examination of the Evidence” (Ph.D. diss., Miami University, Oxford, Ohio, 1996): 133ff. Basic data for the last is found in Thomas Kick, “Report of the Osteologist: Abila 1982–1984,” NEASB 24 (1985): 93–98 and N. Fuller, “Abila Tomb Excavations 1986,” NEASB 24 (1985): 31–62. I am thankful to Professor Wineland for the above references. 44.â•‡ There are differing ways to understand the unusually long life spans. Some understand each individual as representative heads of a period of time or particular generation. For another approach, see C. J. Labuschagne, “The Lifespan of the Patriarchs,” in New Avenues in the Study of the Old Testament, ed. A. S. van der Woude, Oudtestamentische Studiën, vol. 25, 121–27 (Leiden: Brill, 1989). Labuschagne observes that the ages of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob all derive from the number 17: Abraham 175 = 7×5×5 → 7+5+5 = 17 Isaac 180 = 5×6×6 → 5+6+6 = 17 Jacob 147 = 3×7×7 → 3+7+7 = 17 The number 17 is symbolic because it represents the numerical value of YHWH by the method of the mispār qāṭān, where the numerical value of Y normally taken as 10 is taken as 1. Thus Y+H+W+H = 1+5+6+5 = 17. (By the normal counting, YHWH = 26; C.Â€J. Labuschagne “On the Structural Use of Numbers as a Composition Technique,” Journal of Northwest Semitic Languages 12 [1984]: 93.) The number 17 also represents the numeral value of dwObkf. Thus, Labuschagne concludes, “The symbolic meaning of 17 is most probably that it signifies YHWH’s presence. IfÂ€so, then the intention of the author

42

The Days of Our Years The days of our life are seventy years, or perhaps eighty, if we are strong;

While the above statement can reasonably establish for us a terminus ad quem or upper limit for the life span in ancient Israel, it does not represent the life expectancy of the average individual. Note also Isa. 23.15: From that day Tyre will be forgotten for seventy years, the lifetime of one king.

From the evidence of the Davidic kings, however, it would seem that most kings did not reach 70. It is interesting to note Garland’s comment that Notwithstanding the brevity of human life in ancient Greece, there was a strong conviction that three score years and ten constituted a persons’ full apportionment of years. Solon authoritatively declared .â•¯.â•¯. seventy to be the age when a man could receive ‘the apportionment of death, not dying prematurely (aôros)’.45

There was apparently in the West Semitic cultural milieu and in Egypt the concept of an “ideal or maximal” life span. J. Klein cites a line from a bilingual version of the Sumerian folktale of Enlil and Namzitarra from Emar, which states, One hundred twenty years (are) the years of mankind — verily it is their bane;46

The same concept of 120 years appears in Gen. 6.3 but it is “not to be regarded as an average figure for life expectancy, but as a maximal and ideal figure.”47 The only person in the Bible who is credited with this “legendary” life span is Moses (Deut.Â€34.7; 31.2). Klein believes that the number 120 was arrived at because the limits of the maximum life span observed were between 110 and 140 years of age48 and that because of their sexagesimal numbering system only the number 120 would fit within such a range. Malamat notes that in Egypt the maximal life span was 100 while the ideal was 110 (or 120), representing “a century plus a serene bonus to the worthy.”49 These traditions, however, should be considered more legendary and literary than realistic. It is interesting to note that the oldest recorded age is 122 and that no one else reached 120.50 A French woman named Jeanne Louise Calment was born on February

of Genesis in choosing this number could have been to express YHWH’s presence in the lives of the .â•¯.â•¯. Israelite patriarchs.” 45.â•‡ Garland, 247. 46.â•‡ Jacob Klein, “The ‘Bane’ of Humanity: A Lifespan of One Hundred Twenty Years,” Acta Sumerologica 12 (1990): 59. 47.â•‡Ibid. 48.â•‡ According to Encyclopaedia Brittanica, s.v. “Life-Span.” According to the New Encyclopaedia Brittanica Macropaedia, however, the limits of the maximal life span observed by experience are 115–150. 49.â•‡ A. Malamat, “Longevity: Biblical Concepts and Some Ancient Near Eastern Parallels,” AfO, Beiheft 19 (1982): 222, n. 6. 50.â•‡ “A World of Methuselahs,” The Economist, June 27, 2009.


43

21, 1875 and died on August 4, 1997 in Arles, France. The oldest person alive in 2009, a Georgia-born woman named Gertrude Baines, died at 115 on September 25th.51 At this time of writing, the oldest person alive is a woman in Japan named Kama Chinen who is 114, according to the Gerontology Research Group.52 On the subject of life expectancy, we should note some contemporary statistics for comparison. According to the most recent data from the Center for Disease Control, the life expectancy for a child born in the U.S. in 2006 is 77.7 years, which represents a new high.53 In the late 1700s, when the U.S. was founded, life expectancy at birth was 35; by the mid-1800s it was 42; and by 1900 it was 47. By 1950, life expectancy had jumped to 68 years of age, primarily because of lower infant mortality rates.54 In India from 1951 to 1960 the average was 42 years for men and 41 for women; in the U.S. from 1959 to 1961 it was 67 for men and 73 for women.55 Today women live longer than men in all circumstances, regardless of race, country, or standard of living. In 1995, women in Africa lived to about 54, 2–3 years more than the men. In North America that same year, women outlasted men by about 8 years, achieving a life expectancy of 80.56 In the U.S. in 1992, life expectancy for women was at 79.1 and for men 72.3 (about 7 years greater).57 From 1900 to 1979, the difference in life expectancy widened from 2 years to 7.8. From 1979 to 1986, the difference narrowed from 7.8 to 7.0 years and fluctuated between 6.8 and 7.0Â€years until the early 90s.58 In 2006, the difference reached an all-time low of about 5 years.59 A variety of factors affect life expectancy. Currently, Andorra, a tiny country in the Pyrenees between France and Spain, holds the record for longest life expectancy at 83.5Â€years, edging out the historical leader Japan.60 One of the most important factors

51.â•‡ “World’s Oldest Person Dies at 115,” Miami Times, September 23, 2009, 18B. 52.â•‡ As of January 6, 2010. See “Validated Living Supercentenarians,” Gerontology Research Group [Web]; available from http://www.grg.org/Adams/E.HTM (accessed January 6, 2010. See also, Jennifer Harper, “Life Expectancy at a New High for Americans; Study Cites Medical Progress,” The Washington Times, September 13, 2007. 53.â•‡ “Mortality Data,” Centers for Disease Control [Web]; available from http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/ deaths.htm (accessed January 6, 2010). At the time of the original writing of this study, life expectancy was cited at 75.8 years for 1997 in the U.S., 64 years in Russia, 50 years in Laos, and 80 years in Japan (cf. “Longer, Healthier, Better,” The New York Times Magazine, March 9, 1997, 44). 54.â•‡ U.S. Bureau of the Census, 65+ in the United States, 3–1. 55.â•‡ Cited by Wolff, 243, n. 4. 56.â•‡ See “Vital Statistics,” The Washington Post, August 1, 1995, “Health” section, 5. 57.â•‡ National Center for Health Statistics, “Vital Statistics of the United States, 1992,” vol. II, sec. 6, Life Tables (Washington, D.C.: Public Health Service, 1996), 19. 58.â•‡ Ibid., 2. 59.â•‡ See Harper; and David Brown, “Life Expectancy Drops for Some U.S. Women; Historic Reversal, found in 1,000 Counties, may be Result of Smoking and Obesity,” The Washington Post, April 22, 2008, A01; and National Vital Statistics System, National Vital Statistics Report, vol. 57, no. 14 (April 17, 2009), 2, available from http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr57/nvsr57_14.pdf (accessed January 6, 2010). 60.â•‡ As reported in “U.S. News: U.S. Watch: Life Expectancy in US Hits a High,” Wall Street Journal, August 20, 2009, A.5; Steve Sternberg, “USA’s Record-High Life Expectancy Still Lags; Its 78 Years is 29th among U.N. Members,” USA Today, June 12, 2008, 6D. Japan had been no. 1 after surpassing longtime leaders the Netherlands, Norway, and Sweden in 1990 (see Lexie Verdon, “Japan Holds Record In Life Expectancy,” The Washington Post, August 13, 1996, “Health” section, 5). According to the World

44



in life expectancy percentages is infant and child mortality rates. According to one historian, life expectancy worldwide in the first millenniumÂ€C.E. was probably 25 years.61 By the early twentieth century, the U.S. and the better-off European countries were averaging 50. The turning point came with the Industrial Revolution when more children began surviving into adulthood. Other factors include high-quality medical care and diet,62 diseases like HIV/AIDS, SARS, bird- and swine flu,63 and the obesity epidemic. In conclusion, it must be re-emphasized that there is a difference between life expectancy and life span. Whether in Mesopotamia, Egypt or ancient Israel, the vision of these cultures was for a normal life span not much different from ours today, although actual life expectancy was much shorter.64 If one could survive infancy and early childhood (for mortality was high at these stages of life in antiquity), one could expect to live a normal life span barring, of course, war and pestilence.65 This is not unlike the demographic conundrum of ancient Sparta, whose city-state was governed by two kings and a council of elders called the gerousia. Members of the gerousia consisted of adult male citizens of at least 60 years of age!66 Thus, the problem that short life expectancy in the ancient world poses for the conception of the life cycle is only a superficial one. Though life expectancy in ancient Israel may only have been around the mid-thirties, the expected life span, barring unforeseen circumstances, would certainly have been in the fifties or sixties, and we have plenty of evidence for people of antiquity living much longer. Psalm 90.10’s “the days of our years” is not that far off then.

tion points along the biological life cycle, but there are always seven: infant, boy, girl, adult man, adult woman, old man, old woman.69 Thus, there are basically four stages in the minimal life cycle: infancy, boy/girlhood, adulthood, and old age. The most important of these stages is adulthood because the earlier stages are typically seen as preparation for entrance into adulthood and the last stage derives from and looks back on it. In many cultures, the transition into adulthood is marked by the rite de passage of marriage. But to illustrate how variable even this obvious transition can be, some cultures mark the transition into adulthood for woman with the birth of their first child. Thus, barren woman are referred to by terms used for members of the child or adolescent categories. Writing on marriage in the OT and on the law of levirate marriage in particular, Mary Shields observes:

The Life Cycle67 in the Ancient Near East The subject of the life cycle across cultures is indeed a fascinating one and our point of departure is the article written by the American anthropologist Ralph Linton inÂ€1942.68 In it he writes that age and sex categories will vary in number and transi-

Health Organization’s report, World Health Statistics 2009, however, Japan is still the leader at 83 years in its latest report (2007). Australia, Italy, San Marino, and Switzerland come in at 82 years, and Canada, France, Norway, Singapore, Spain, and Sweden come in at 81 years (the report is available at http://www. who.int/whosis/whostat/EN_WHS09_Full.pdf (accessed January 6, 2010) (pp.Â€35–42). 61.â•‡“Methusalehs.” 62.â•‡ See “Japans Holds Record.” 63.â•‡ Note, for example, David Firestone, “Life Span Dips for Men Born in New York,” The New York Times, April 27, 1996, 25 (sec. L), who writes that “For the first time in this century, the average life expectancy of males born in New York City has begun to decline, a reversal that researchers attribute largely to the city’s AIDS epidemic.” 64.â•‡ See Garland’s comment on page 40. 65.â•‡ It is well known that in the U.S. the infant mortality rate is higher than that of Cuba! See the CIA World Factbook, available from https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/ rankorder/2091rank.html (accessed January 8, 2010). 66.â•‡ Mark Kishlansky, Patrick Geary, and Patricia O’Brien, Civilization in the West, 7th ed. (New York: Pearson Longman, 2008), 58. 67.â•‡ The literature refers to the concept of the life cycle in different ways. The terminology includes “The Phases of Life” (Stol), “The Seasons of Life” (Wolff), “The Ages of Man,” “The Ages of Life.” 68.â•‡ Ralph Linton, “Age And Sex Categories,” American Sociological Review 7, 5 (October 1942):

45

This law illustrates the centrality of procreation to the institution of marriage. It was vital for a woman to have sons. In fact, a woman’s power was centered not in being the wife of her husband, but in being the mother of her sons.70

Further delineations of the life cycle occur but they are most frequently for the younger stages, like a separate category for adolescence. What is most important to recognize is that the main factor for age and sex delineation is cultural and not primarily based on chronological age. If ritual is any indicator, rites de passage ceremonies are most elaborate for those transitions in life where “the transfer from one category to another entails the greatest changes in the individual’s culture participation.”71 So, for example, Linton cites the contrasting situations of Polynesian and Melanesian societies. Anthropologists have wondered why in Polynesian cultures, with its notable sexual emphases, there are no puberty rites. Careful study of the young person in Polynesia shows a more gradual transition from the life of childhood to adolescence than that of the transition from adolescence to adulthood, when the individual first begins to assume the full responsibilities of marriage, demonstrating adult prowess and establishing a separate household. In terms of a general overview of the life cycle, there seems to have been understandably three main phases perceived in the Ancient Near East. The most general distinction made concerning the phases one [i.e.Â€men] goes through in a lifetime was that between the happily playing child, the grown man at arms, and the wise elderly person.72

589–603. 69.â•‡ Linton, 593. 70.â•‡ Mary Shields, “Marriage, OT,” New Interpreters Dictionary of the Bible 3:819. This would explain nicely why the Hebrew Bible uses the word hr(n when referring to Ruth even though as a widow she had been married (Ruth 2.5; 4.12). hr(n usually refers to a “young, unmarried girl.” Because she had not borne children, she could still be referred to by terms belonging to the child or adolescent categories. 71.â•‡ Linton, 600. 72.â•‡ Stol, 486. Note here too the legendary riddle of the Sphinx: “What animal is it that has four feet in the morning, two feet at noon and three feet in the evening?”

46


Wolff, in his assessment of the life phases in the OT, also sees three stages overall: (1)Â€“children” encompassing the Hebrew terms yônēq “the sucking child,” na‘ar “the boy,” and ṭap “pattering, not capable of walking,”73 (2)Â€the “young but fully grown men and grown-up girls,” including bāḥûr and betûlâ, and (3)Â€the “mature, elderly men and women” zāqēn, ’îš śêbâ, ’iššā. Further delineations of the life cycle come in a variety of sources. For example, Stol mentions a description in connection with Sumerian lists for food rations.74 In early archival material dating to about 2000Â€B.C.E., the lists distinguish (1) children up to five years old, (2) children five to ten years, (3) children ten to thirteen, (4) adults, and (5) old people. Later Babylonian and Assyrian lists offer (1)Â€child at the breast, (2) weaned child, (3) child, (4) adolescent, (5) adult, and (6) aged. 75 In assessing these schemas it is important to keep in mind that they were in all likelihood designed according to the purpose of such lists, i.e. food rationing. Therefore, they may not and probably do not reflect the overall conception of the life cycle in the culture in general. Note for instance how in these food-ration lists there is a greater delineation of groups for the young than for the adult and the aged. No doubt this has to do with the purpose for which the lists were drawn up, namely as guidelines for the distribution of food. We can only assume that for those particular purposes it was important to distinguish more between the ages among the young. In some lists, children were even categorized by height given in cubits! An often cited text comes from the Sultantepe tablets discovered in Turkey in 1951–52, being a late Akkadian text of speculative nature:76

73.â•‡ The word “pattering” comes from “patter” and means “To run with a rapid succession of quick sounding steps” (Oxford English Dictionary). M. Kohl uses it to translate from Wolff’s original German text the word “trippelnd,” which is from “trippeln” which means “to toddle, to walk with short steps.” In other words, in Wolff’s mind ṭap probably refers to very young children who walk with short, uncertain steps, i.e. “toddlers” in today’s terms. Children at this stage are about 1 year old. The term “toddle” derives from “to[otter] + [wa]ddle” (RHUD). 74.â•‡ Stol, 487. 75.â•‡ For more details see J. A. Brinkman, “Sex, Age and Physical Condition Designations for Servile Laborers in the Middle Babylonian Period: A Preliminary Survey,” in Zikir Šumim: Assyriological Studies Presented to F. R. Kraus on the Occasion of His Seventieth Birthday, ed. G. Van Driel etÂ€al., 1–8 (Leiden: Brill, 1982). Brinkman gives a preliminary account of terminology applied to what is apparently a servile laborer class recorded in several hundred personnel rosters of the period. These rosters indicate age, sex, and physical condition and were apparently compiled for determining rationing requirements and working capacities. Brinkman outlines six categories: (1) old, (2) adult, (3) adolescent, (4) child, (5) “weaned” and (6) “suckling.” Categories (4) and (5), however, have been found to be mutually exclusive in most records and there is some doubt over the interpretation of (6). 76.â•‡ Cited from Moshe Weinfeld, “The Phases of Human Life in Mesopotamian and Jewish Sources,” in Priests, Prophets and Scribes: Essays on the Formation and Heritage of Second Temple Judaism in Honour of Joseph Blenkinsopp,” ed. Eugene Ulrich, John W. Wright, Robert P. Carroll, and PhilipÂ€R.Â€Davies (Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1992), 183. The actual text can be found in O. R. Gurney and P. Hulin, The Sultantepe Tablets, vol. 2 (London: The British Institute of Archaeology at Ankara, 1964), tablet #400, Rev., ll. 45–47. A translation is provided in CAD, vol. L, p.Â€220, s.v. “littūtu.”


47

Forty [years mean] prime of life (lalûtum) Fifty [years mean] short life77 (ūmū kurûtu) Sixty [years mean] mature age (meṭlūtu)78 Seventy [years mean] long life (ūmū arkūtu) Eighty [years mean] old age (šîbūtu) Ninety [years mean] might79 (littūtu)

M. Roth writes that the above six decades of life merely represent “longevity aspirations.”80 Nevertheless, Weinfeld has compared the above text to a passage in the Mishnah (and other rabbinic citations) and arrived at some interesting correspondences. At five years [the age is reached] for the [study of] the Bible, at ten [the age is reached] for the Mishnah, at thirteen [the age is reached] for [the fulfilment of] the commandments, at fifteen [the age is reached] for the Talmud, at eighteen [the age is reached] for the bride-chamber, at twenty [the age is reached] for seeking [a livelihood], at thirty [the age is reached] for strength (xkl), at forty [the age is reached] for understanding (hnybl), at fifty [the age is reached] for counsel (hc(l), at sixty [the age is reached] for old age (hnqzl), at seventy [the age is reached] for extreme old age81 (hby#&l), at eighty [the age is reached] for might82 (hrwbgl), at ninety [the age is reached] for bending over, at a hundred, he is as if he had already died and gone from the world.83

The most obvious correspondence is that Hebrew hby#& “grey hair” and Akkadian šîbūtu are cognates. They are, however, at different points in the life span; the Akkadian term is applied at age 80 and the Hebrew at 70. Weinfeld, by a series of other derivations, arrives at further correspondences which intriguingly are all 10Â€years apart:

77.â•‡ Meaning that if one dies at age 50, he/she has had a “short life.” 78.â•‡ Some read belūtu, “lordship”, others mētellūtu, “excellence”. Stol translates as “manlihood” (p.Â€487). 79.â•‡Akkadian littūtu is normally translated “extreme old age.” Weinfeld renders the term “might” because it “originates from the root le ‘ǔ indicating strength, ability; thus litu denotes, might, victory” (Weinfeld, 184). 80.â•‡ Roth, “Age at Marriage,” 717, n. 3. 81.â•‡ H. Danby translates “at seventy for grey hairs,” The Mishnah (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1933),Â€458. J. Neusner translates as “[at] seventy to ripe old age,” The Mishnah: A New Translation (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1988), 689. 82.â•‡ Danby translates “at eighty for special strength” and Neusner “[at] eighty to remarkable strength.” 83.â•‡ m ’Abot 5:21. The translation is Weinfeld’s (p.Â€186).

48



Sultantepe

’Abot

1. prime (xk, lalūtum)

40

30

2. counsel/mature age (hc(, meṭlūtu)

60

50

3. old age (hnqz, ūmū arkū)

70

60

4. extreme old age (hby#&, sibūtu)

80

70

5. might (twrwbg, littūtu)

90

80

Whether the 10-year discrepancy is explainable by either the difference in life expectancy between the two civilizations or by some literary device,84 the implications of Weinfeld’s study remain: Both the Sultantepe list and the Israelite and Jewish traditions sprang forth from a common conceptuality of the phases of human life in the ancient Near East.85

In sum, we may suggest that Weinfeld’s study at the very least opens up the possibility that in ancient Israel the terms hnqz and hby#& may have denoted distinct phases in the life cycle of the aged. Malamat writes of an Egyptian text, the Insinger Papyrus86 from the Ptolemaic period, which in like fashion delineates the “ages of man.” (17,21)

The life that approaches the peak, two-thirds of it are lost.

(22)

He (man) spends ten (years) as a child before he understands death and life.

(23)

He spends another ten (years) acquiring the work of instruction by which he will be able to live.

(18,1)

He spends another ten years gaining and earning possessions by which to live.

(2)

49

Malamat notes that the notion of the “peak” of life arriving at age 60 in the Egyptian text above corresponds to the Akkadian phase of meṭlūtu “maturity” but not to m.Â€’Abot 5.21, where at age 60 one is already at “old age.”87 H. Hoffner has offered some discussion of “Hittite Terms for the Life Span.”88 While not describing any specific phases of the life cycle nor any specific information regarding what constitutes a “long life span” or “short life span,” some of his points are interesting. Three expressions are discussed which denote “longevity” or “long life span.” The first two are typical expressions: dalugaeš wetteš “long years” and mekkuš wettuš “many years.” They would be found in such prayers as “O god, grant me long years.” The third expression is interesting because it uses agricultural imagery. As the sheep is shaggy, so may the years of the king, queen and (their) children be “shaggy.”

Other texts speak of the gods spinning the years of an individual’s life as one spins wool.89 Again, Hoffner discusses three other expressions that denote “short life span.” Two are merely antonyms: maninkuwanteš wetteš “short years” and wetteš kappuwanteš “few (lit. “counted”) years.” The third is interesting because it means “called-in (recalled) years” wetteš nininkanteš and denotes a foreshortened life, i.e. one whose life was cut short from its original allotment of years by the gods. One cannot help but think of the Akkadian term for age 50, ūmū kurûtu, which means “short life” (see page 47). Weinfeld cites some rabbinic passages that maintain the same notion, including: “One who dies at fifty years old, dies by hikkārēt (trkhb).”90 Of course, Akkadian karû is a cognate of Hebrew trk. While the actual range of years may differ, some general observations can be made. There was in the Ancient Near East a general notion of years allotted to humankind which may be lengthened or shortened by the gods and by the “strength” of the particular individual and/or his behavior in life. This is the point of Ps.Â€90.10. There was a general conception of the life cycle reaching an expected allotment of years, whether this be 60 or 70 (at least for the societal elite). A life ending at age 50, for instance, was considered “cut short” (trk). A life extending further entered into “old age” (Nqz) and with strength (hrwbg), extreme old age (hby#&). The “peak” of

He spends another ten years up to old age before his heart takes counsel.

(3)

There remain sixty years of the whole life which Thoth has assigned to the man of god.

84.â•‡ Weinfeld, 189. 85.â•‡Ibid. 86.â•‡ “The Instruction of Papyrus Insinger” (Miriam Lichtheim, Ancient Egyptian Literature [Berkeley: University of California Press, 1980], 3:199).

87.â•‡ Malamat, 222, n. 6. 88.â•‡ Harry A. Hoffner, “Hittite Terms for the Life Span,” in Love and Death in the Ancient Near East: Essays in Honor of Marvin H), Pope, ed. J. Marks and R. Good (Guilford, Conn.: Four Quarters Publishing Company, 1987), 53–55. 89.â•‡ There may be a connection here to the Hebrew word hbf y #' ’& “grey-headedness, old age.” The Akkadian cognates are šābū and šibu but J. Gordon Harris refers to von Soden’s Akkadisches Handwörterbuch (3:1228, 1244) to remark that Akkadian sometimes uses ši-pa-tu to mean “old,” “old age,” “grey-haired.” ši-pa-tu literally means “wool”! 90.â•‡ That is, “cutting off.” The latter is “the rabbinic term for death as a result of crimes whose penalty is given in the Torah as ‘that soul shall be cut off from its people’; the assumption is that death by trkh is meted out by God at an early age” (Weinfeld, 187 and n. 25).

50



life was in one’s fifties or sixties, where wisdom, understanding, and counsel were considered at their full maturity.

(fifthÂ€centuryÂ€B.C.E.).94 The main parameters of this scheme center on the political milestones of citizenship, military service, and office holding. We can summarize his study as follows.

The Life Cycle in Ancient Greece The idea of the life cycle was actually an important literary and philosophical motif in the Greco-Roman world. Philo (c.20Â€B.C.E.–c.50Â€C.E.), for example, cites Hippocrates in support of his discussion on the “perfecting power of seven” in his work On the Creation. Hippocrates is said to have stated that there are seven “ages of man” of seven years each in the life cycle of a male person: In man’s life there are seven seasons, which they call ages, little boy, boy, lad, young man, man, elderly man, old man. He is a little boy until he reaches seven years, the time of the shedding of his teeth; a boy until he reaches puberty, i.e. up to twice seven years; a lad until his chin grows downy, i.e. up to thrice seven years; a young man until his whole body has grown, till four times seven; a man till forty-nine, till seven times seven; an elderly man till fifty-six, up to seven times eight; after that an old man. (Philo, Creation, 105 [Colson and Whitaker, LCL])

The Greek terms, and their translations, milestones, and years of age are as follows: (1) little boy

paidi/on

“time of shedding of teeth”

0–7 years

(2) boy

pai=j

“till puberty”

7–14 years

(3) lad

meira/kion

“till chin grows downy”

14–21 years

(4) young man

neani/skoj

“till whole body has grown”

21–28 years

(5) man

a)nh/r

28–49 years

(6) elderly man

presbu/thj

49–56 years

(7) old man

ge/rwn

56 →

In the same passage, Philo also cites Solon, who wrote of ten “ages of man” of seven years each. In the fifth heptad (ages 28–35), a man seeks a wife, and the tenth heptad (ages 63–70) is the desirable end of life because “the bodily organs are still compact and firm; for prolonged old age is wont to abate and break down the force of each of them.”91 In Greek and Roman literature, the individual stages of life vary from 7, 9, 10, 15, and 20 years in length and the number of stages varies from 4 to 10.92 Augustine wrote that old age began in the 60th year.93 On more historical grounds, V. Leinieks writes of a four-age-class scheme in ancient Greece in his study of Euripides’ play Bacchai, beginning with Xenophon

91.â•‡Ibid. 92.â•‡ Parkin, 16–18. 93.â•‡ Ibid., 17.

Life Stage

Greek Terminology

Ages

(1) boys

pai=dej, pai=j

0–18

(2) youths

e1fhboi, neani/skoi

18–30

citizenship/military service

(3) men

a!ndrej, a0nh/r, neani/aj

30–50

eligible to hold public office

(4) old men

ge/rontej

50 →

inactive military service

51

Political Milestone

There are also descriptions of a three-age-class life cycle where the middle stage neani/aj includes the “youths” (neani/skoi) and “men” (a!ndrej) of the above scheme. There are clear examples of neani/aj referring to both youths and older men, depending upon the context. Thus, neani/aj may refer to someone in the age ranges of 30–50 or 18–50. In contexts with neani/skoj, neani/aj is always the subsequent and older life stage. What is important to see here is that (1) distinct vocabulary terms were used for specific stages in the life cycle, (2) sometimes a specific term can be used to refer to either a broader or more narrow life stage depending upon the context (e.g. neani/aj), (3)Â€the life stage of the full adult or a!nhr is rather late by our standards (ages 30 and up), and (4) a “youth” is also rather late by our standards (ages 18 to 30). What is most interesting to note is that while eligible for military service and citizenship at age 18, the neani/skoj was not considered a full adult and the goal in life was to reach the stage of the a!nhr, about which Aristotle writes, “The body is in its prime from thirty till thirty-five years of age, the soul until about a year short of fifty.”95 AÂ€young man was not considered fully rational until age 30!96 To broadly conclude, we can make the following observations. First, it is important to distinguish between literary representations of the life cycle and sociological reality. Parkin’s caution is apropos here: What the tradition of the aetates hominum represents is not a realistic, everyday, or universal categorization of age-classes, but a poetical and philosophical convention, influenced by mathematics, astrology, and superstition and dominated by a desire for numerical symmetry.97

Nevertheless, while the numerical schema of these representations need not be taken literally, the general conceptions of life and the nature of its life stages can be discerned obliquely from the commentary attached to these representations.

94.â•‡ Valdis Leinieks, The City of Dionysos: A Study of Euripides’ Bakchai (Beiträge zur Altertumskunde 88; Stuttgart: Teubner, 1996), 199–209. 95.â•‡ Leinieks, 203. 96.â•‡ Even today, a U.S. Senator must be at least 30 years of age, a House Representative at leastÂ€25, and the President, 35. 97.â•‡ Parkin, 18.

52



Secondly, in the ancient world the stages of life are not based on chronological age but either on outward physical signs or functions and roles within society. We have already noted this in Linton’s essay above, but Roth’s comment here is also to the point:

Pour it out on the children (llwO() in the street, and on the gatherings of young men (Myrwxb) as well; both the husband and the wife (#$y), h#$)) shall be taken, the old folk (Nqz) and the very aged (Mymy )lm).

In many societies, especially non-Western preindustrial societies, these life stages are not tied to strict chronological age, but rather are signaled by observable outward signs or behavior. Thus, for example, weaning might mark the transition from infancy to childhood, menarche that from childhood to adolescence, physical prowess or intellectual achievement that from adolescence to adulthood.98

Other transitions could include social roles such as military service, child-bearing, and office holding.

The Life Cycle in Ancient Israel The literature of ancient Israel does not contain any comparable literary and philosophical reflections on the phases of life. Rather, in the OT we seem to have a more general conception of the life cycle covering broader ranges of age. We’ve already noted Wolff’s observations above that there were at least three stages (see page 46). children

qnwy, r(n, P+

young but fully grown

rwxb, hlwtb

mature, elderly

Nqz, hby#& #$y), h#$)

Particular texts suggest further delineations. In Jer. 51.22, for example, we have four groups: (1) children (r(n), (2) young adults (rwxb, hlwtb), (3) adults (#$y), h#$)), and (4) the elderly (Nqz): with you I smash man and woman (h#$)w #$y)) with you I smash the old man and the boy (r(nw Nqz) with you I smash the young man and the girl (hlwtbw rwxb)99

Jeremiah 6.11 seems to depict five phases: (1) children (llw(), (2) young men (rwxb), (3)Â€man and woman (#$y), h#$)), (4) the elderly (Nqz), and (5) the very aged (MymyÂ€)lm). But I am full of the wrath of the LORD I am weary of holding it in.

98.â•‡ Roth, “Age at Marriage,” 716. 99.â•‡ Admittedly, the delineations may not be by age but by status. Note Holladay’s translation: and I shall smash with you husband and wife, and I shall smash with you elder and youngster, and I shall smash with you youth and maiden (William L. Holladay, Jeremiah 2 [Minneapolis, Fortress Press, 1989], 397.)

53

To these can be added the terms lw( “suckling” (Isa. 49.15; 65.20), lwmg “weaned child” (Ps. 131.2, Isa.Â€11.8), Ml( “young man,” and hml( “young woman.”100 Other biblical data include the table of redemption values in Lev. 27.1-8: Age

Male

Female

1 month to five years

5 shekels

3 shekels

5–20 years

20

10

20–60 years

50

30

60+ years

15

10

Forming part of an appendix to Leviticus, the shekel values were allowed to substitute for actual persons whom an Israelite may have vowed to give unto Yahweh. Wolff understands the table to gauge the “working capacity” of such persons at these various stages.101 Thus, while a young girl’s working capacity is worth only half that of a young man’s, she achieves her highest value (in proportion to the male) at old age, being twothirds the value of a man at 60. She loses slightly less of her value upon entrance into old age — 66 percent — than her male counterpart, who declines in value by 70 percent. This is presumably because she is “useful as grandmother in the family group.”102 In terms of the transitions of life, we are reasonably confident of a number of them. The child was usually weaned103 in its third year and reached physical maturity at 13.104 The age of responsibility or maturity seems to have been 20 for men, for we find them eligible for military duty (Num. 1.3, 18; 26.2; 2 Chron. 25.5), taxation (Exod. 30.14), and moral culpability (Num. 14.29; 32.11) at this age.105 Half of

100.â•‡ Daniel I. Block, “Marriage and Family in Ancient Israel,” in Marriage and Family in the Biblical World (ed. Ken M. Campbell; Downers Grove: InterVarsity, 2003), 79. 101.â•‡ Wolff, 121. 102.â•‡ Wolff, 121. 103.â•‡ Most scholars refer to 2 Macc. 7.27 to establish that the suckling period was three years in length. Wolff cites the following passages for biblical testimony: 2 Chron. 31.16; 1Â€Sam. 1.21-28; cf. also Isa. 28.9 and Lam. 4.3f. (Wolff, 121; see also p.Â€243, n. 9 for a reference in the Egyptian Instruction of Ani: “Her breast was in thy mouth for three years”). That the event of weaning was notable in family life is suggested in Gen. 21.8, where Abraham holds a great feast on the day of Isaac’s weaning. For more information on this subject, see Raphael Patai, Sex and Family in the Bible and the Middle East (Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1959): 192–95. La Sor, Hubbard, and Bush mention that “This custom still prevails in parts of Jordan, where a case is known of a child being nursed until his tenth year” (Old Testament Survey: the Message, Form, and Background of the Old Testament, 2nd ed. (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1996): 769, n. 22. 104.â•‡ Wolff, 121. Wolff cites the circumcision of Ishmael at age 13 in Gen. 17.25 and understands this to have been originally “an apotropaic act at the beginning of puberty” (cf. n. 10). 105.â•‡ This is very much the conclusion of Raymond Dillard, who writes of Josiah that he “began to

54



theÂ€14 Davidic kings mentioned above began to rule when they were reportedly in their twenties:

upon the death of his father and with having the means to support his new family and household. In ancient Greece and Rome, the Mediterranean household was also the case. Male citizens were expected to serve in the military till their late twenties, whereupon they would marry, and their wife’s dowry might help them launch their career in politics.111 It is interesting to note that Abraham was 10 years older than Sarah (Gen. 17.17), Isaac and Esau married at age 40 (Gen. 25.20; 26.34), and Joseph at age 30 (Gen. 41.45-46). “In Egypt a girl could marry from the age of 12–14 years, a boy from the age of 16–17.”112 A most helpful outline is suggested by K. van der Toorn for the Israelite woman. Van der Toorn’s study integrates data from Mesopotamian and Israelite sources into one coherent picture. Aware of the dangers of such a method, the author nevertheless writes,

Ahaziah

22

(2 Kgs 8.26)

Rehoboam

41

(1 Kgs 14.21)

Amaziah

25

(2 Kgs 14.2)

Jehoshaphat

35

(1 Kgs 22.42)

Jotham

25

(2 Kgs 15.33)

Jehoram

32

(2 Kgs 8.17)

Ahaz

20

(2 Kgs 16.2)

Joash

7

(2 Kgs 11.21)

Hezekiah

25

(2 Kgs 18.2)

Azariah

16

(2 Kgs 15.2)

Amon

22

(2 Kgs 21.19)

Manasseh

12

(2 Kgs 21.1)

Jehoiakim

25

(2 Kgs 23.36)

Josiah

8

(2 Kgs 22.1)

By the legislation in Num. 4.23, however, Levites had to be at least 30 years of age before they could enter into their service. In Num. 8.24, the beginning age is set at 25 but this is understood as a later amendment.106 Even later, David lowered the beginning age to 20 (1 Chron. 23.24, 27; see also Ezra 3.8). According to Wolff, this earlier entrance into, and lengthening of, priestly service was no doubt due to “lack of new applicants.” Wolff reckons such a “later” age of entry upon service (i.e.Â€atÂ€30) was probably due to the fact that “The particular requirements of this office demanded complete maturity.”107 At the same time, retirement was rather early for these Levites, coming at age 50 (Num. 8.25), because the office demanded “also a man’s full powers.”108 Focusing specifically on “age at marriage,” Roth has been able to show, based on historical data in Mesopotamia, that at least by the time of the first millenniumÂ€B.C.E. women got married between the ages of 14 to 20 and men between 26 and 32.109 Thus, women typically married men who were at least a decade older than themselves.110 Beginning with sociological models of the household, Roth demonstrates that only data based upon Babylonian marriage contracts of late seventh through third centuriesÂ€B.C.E., and the Assyrian Doomsday Book, a census list of the late eighth or early seventh centuryÂ€B.C.E., support the Mediterranean household taking the form of a younger bride and older groom. The Western model is that of relatively late marriage and minimal difference of age between bride and groom, and the Eastern model is one of early marriage with minimal age difference between bride and groom. The late age of marriage for the groom coincides with the realization of his inheritance

seek God at age sixteen in the eighth year of his reign, a time when he would still probably be under the tutelage of regents. Though his personal piety may have begun to stir at this time, he did not initiate acts of reform until his twelfth year at age twenty; this would be the age of his majority (Num 1:3; 26:2; 1 Chr. 27:23; 25:5) and presumably then also the first year of his sole reign no longer under the authority of a regent” (2 Chronicles, WBC [Waco, Tx: Word Books, 1987), 278). 106.â•‡ Wolff, 120 and n. 7. 107.â•‡ Ibid., 120. 108.â•‡Ibid. 109.â•‡ Roth, “Age at Marriage,” 737. 110.â•‡ Stol, 488.

55

but in its defense I can state that the ‘popular religion’ has been subject to less changes than the state religion. Moreover, the concepts ‘Mesopotamian culture’ and ‘Israelite culture’ are more than casual labels. In spite of historical developments and geographical diversity, in both cases we can certainly speak of homogeneity.113

So stated, van der Toorn sees the life of the Israelite or Babylonian woman as divided into five stages. (1) The nursing period

0–3 years

(2) Youth

4–11 years

(3) Puberty

12–16 years

(4) married life

16–40 years

(5) widowhood

40–60 years

The transition from the nursing period to youth is marked by the weaning of the infant child, usually at age 3. Puberty is marked by the onset of menstruation, usually in the girl’s twelfth year. At age 16 or even less, the typical young woman is married and begins bearing children. At around age 40, the task of raising children is completed and the husband generally passes away, whereupon the Israelite woman enters into widowhood. By way of comparison, it is interesting to observe how the terminology of the life cycle developed in later Jewish law to the point where it became more specific

111.â•‡ See S. M. Baugh, “Marriage and Family in Ancient Greek Society,” and Susan Treggiari, “Marriage and Family in Roman Society,” in Marriage and Family in the Biblical World (ed. Ken M. Campbell; Downers Grove: InterVarsity, 2003), 103–131; 132–82 (esp. 107–109, 144). 112.â•‡ Hennie J. Marsman, Women in Ugarit and Israel: Their Social and Religious Position in the Context of the Ancient Near East (OTS 49; Leiden: Brill, 2003), 54, n. 23. 113.â•‡ Karel van der Toorn, From Her Cradle to Her Grave: The Role of Religion in the Life of the Israelite and the Babylonian Woman, trans. Sara J. Denning-Bolle (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1994), 15.

56



with reference to age and later denoted legal status. According to such Jewish law, up to the age of 13 years and 1 day, a boy was considered a minor and was so termed a qatan, N+q. Upon arriving at that age and showing the growth of two hairs in the pubic region, he then becomes a legally responsible adult, an ’iš, #$y).114 For the female, the situation is a bit different. A girl is considered a hn+q, a female minor, until the age of 12 years and 1 day. Upon reaching such age and having grown at least two pubic hairs, she enters an intermediate period called hr(n (lit. “a young girl”). This intermediate period lasts only 6 months; thus hr(n technically refers to “a young woman between twelve and twelve-and-a-half years old, who has reached puberty” (see the discussion above on page 7). As a hr(n, the young woman is no longer considered a minor but neither is she yet a legally, independent adult. After six months, the hr(n as a matter of course becomes an adult woman, a trgwOb.115 The legal provisions applying to these three stages (minor, girl, adult) were specifically outlined. A father, for example, could have his daughter married even without her consent if she was a hn+q or even a hr(n but would lose all rights and authority over her upon marriage (even if she was still a minor).116 A trgwb was considered an independent adult and her father no longer held any decision-making authority over her. Quite often, the legislation differed considerably between categories. In the case of the woman raped in the city (cf. Deut. 22.23), for instance, the Rabbis ruled that if the girl was a minor, she would be exempt from any and all punishment. If the girl was a hr(n (the term used in Deut. 22.23), she would be punished as described, by stoning. If she was a trgwb, however, she would receive the usual and less severe punishment for adultery which was death by strangulation!117 Bamberger suggests that the unusual skew of such legislation was to limit as much as possible the severity of such scriptural sanctions which the Rabbis found difficult to accept.

Languages employ a number of different terms for the age-grading of males. Some of the most common distinctions involve the following: (1)Â€male baby boys up to the time of weaning; (2) boys from the age of weaning to the time of puberty rites, when they are recognized as being sexually capable; (3) from puberty to the time of marriage; (4) from marriage until they cease to engage in normal military or work pursuits; and (5) old age, from the time of retirement from active responsibilities and work until the time of death.. .â•¯.â•¯. .â•¯.â•¯. In most languages terms for the age-grading of females parallel quite closely those relating to males. The principal distinctions in age include (1) girl babies before the age of weaning; (2) from weaning to puberty; (3) from puberty to marriage; (4) from marriage to menopause; and (5) after menopause.119

Van der Toorn’s divisions (see page 55 above) correspond almost exactly to Louw and Nida’s divisions for the female life cycle. Based upon all of the above, and Louw and Nida’s schema in particular, we may suggest a preliminary outline of the life cycle in ancient Israel: infancy

to weaning

qnwy, lw(

childhood

weaning to puberty

llw(, P+

youth/young adulthood

puberty to marriage

rwxb, hlwtb

mature adulthood

marriage/work

h#$), #$y)

old age

menopause/retirement

Nqz

extreme old age

Even though they were not permitted to try capital cases, the Rabbis never ceased to elaborate rules of procedure which would make a death sentence impossible. The restriction of the harsh laws in Deut. 22 to the na‘arah, so that they could be applied in full severity to any person only during a period of six months out of her entire life, may have been part of this process.118

To round out our comments on this subject, it is interesting to note what Louw and Nida have discovered regarding the terminology of the life cycle in languages in general.

114.â•‡ See Bernard J. Bamberger, “Qetanah, Na‘arah, Bogereth,” Hebrew Union College Annual 32 (1961): 281–94 and Adin Steinsaltz, The Talmud — The Steinsaltz Edition: A Reference Guide, trans. and ed. Israel V. Berman (New York: Random House, 1989), s.v. hn+q, N+q, hr(n, trgwb. 115.â•‡ trgwb is a term found only in Talmudic Hebrew and Aramaic. 116.â•‡Steinsaltz, The Talmud, s.v. hn+q. 117.â•‡ Bamberger, 284. 118.â•‡ Bamberger, 293.

57

119.â•‡ L&N, 107–8.

Mymy )lm

58

3.â•‡ Semantic Study of Hebrew Terms for the Young

3

SEMANTIC STUDY OF HEBREW TERMS FOR THE YOUNG The Terminology of the Young In her Ph.D. dissertation, Cheryl L. Iverson has ably explored the issue of how one goes about establishing a semantic domain.1 To summarize, one must first (ideally) base a semantic domain upon the worldview of the audience, i.e. one must strive for an emic approach. Secondly, one then brings together those terms that occur in parallel, in contrast, or in series with one another. Thirdly, one appreciates that the process is very much an “intuitive” one and dependent upon one’s knowledge of BH, as numerous accounts of previous domain studies have confessed.2 We begin our study by listing those Hebrew terms that belong to the semantic field of “the young.” They appear below in order of frequency, with their approximate number of occurrences. r(n “boy, youth, servant” hr(n “young woman, maidservant” dly “child, boy”

239 occurrences 62 occurrences 89 occurrences

hdly “girl”

3 occurrences

rwxb “young man”

45 occurrences

hlwtb “virgin, young woman” P+ “children” llw( “child”

51 occurrences 42 occurrences

In view of the number of terms and the enormity of studying even one term with respect to semantic domains,3 we will only attempt to deal with three particular lexemes of the semantic field for the young. We will examine r(n, dly, and P+. Because r(n is the most complex of all the terms and occurs second only to #&y) and Md) in number of occurrences (239 times) we will naturally spend the bulk of our study examining this term.

Semantic Study of r(n History of Research

No small attention has been paid to the word r(n in the HB and two full monographs on the one word alone have been produced. These are Hans Peter Stähli’s dissertation in German in 19784 and Carolyn S. Leeb’s JSOT contribution in 2000.5 Stähli’s work is primarily philological and contextual. He examines the etymology of the term in Akkadian, Arabic, and Aramaic; its occurrences in extrabiblical Ugaritic and Egyptian; and its related terms in Akkadian. He questions its etymology from I r(n “to growl” and II r(n “to shake,” and rightly argues that the only way to know the meaning of the term is to examine its occurrences in the HB apart from etymology and comparative semitic data. In this regard, he outlines the meaning of r(n in two ways. First as “boy/lad, youth” and secondly as “servant.” Nevertheless, Stähli contends that the word does not refer primarily to age or a lebensphase but to the social status of “dependency.” “Thus, a na‘ar may be a child, a servant (dependent in status, not a chattel slave), a soldier, or a civil servant.”6 The next individual of note in the study of r(n is John Macdonald, who argued in a series of articles in 1976 that the term in non-military contexts refers to a “young male of high birth” and in military contexts to a “squire.”7 Unfortunately, his analysis is plagued with the methodological problem of confusing reference with meaning, and as Leeb notes in her review of the history of the study of the term, the Myr(n are those who serve masters of “high birth” and are not necessarily of “high birth” themselves.8 Indeed, many Myr(n whose lineage and paternity we can know nothing about are briefly mentioned in narrative. Macdonald even goes so far as to suggest

20 occurrences

qnwy “infant, suckling”

9 occurrences

hml( “girl, young woman”

7 occurrences

Ml( “young man”

2 occurrences

lw( “suckling”

2 occurrences

lwmg “weaned child”

59

2 occurrences

1.â•‡ Iverson, 87–91. 2.â•‡ See the comments of Barr, Sawyer, and Silva in Iverson, 88, 89, 90 respectively.

3.â•‡ I am reminded of Barr’s remark, “Each word required something like a dissertation, or the amount of study that would have produced a dissertation” (see page 28). 4.â•‡ Hans Peter Stähli, Knabe-Jüngling-Knecht: Untersuchungen zum Begriff r(n im Alten Testament (Beiträge zur biblischen Exegese und Theologie 7; Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang, 1978). 5.â•‡ Carolyn S. Leeb, Away from the Father’s House: The Social Location of na‘ar and na‘arah in Ancient Israel (JSOTSup 301; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 2000). 6.â•‡ Dennis Pardee, review of Hans Peter Stähli, Knabe-Jüngling-Knecht: Untersuchungen zum Begriff r(n im Alten Testament, CBQ 42 (1980): 550. See also the reviews of J.Â€F.Â€A. Sawyer, JSS 25 (1980): 259–61 and J. Macdonald, JBL 99 (1980): 594–95. 7.â•‡ John Macdonald, “The Status and Role of the Na‘ar in Israelite Society,” JNES 35 (1976): 147,Â€169. See also John Macdonald, “The Role and Status of the ṣuh ̬ ārū in the Mari Correspondence,” JAOS 96 (1976): 57–68; B. Cutler and John Macdonald, “Identification of the Na‘ar in the Ugaritic Texts,” UF 8 (1976): 27–35. 8.â•‡ Leeb, 17.

60



that the syntagm Nqz-d(w r(nm does not mean “both young and old” but “both attendant and elder” or “both cadet and veteran,” focusing on function rather than age.9 This is only to turn a common poetic merism on its head. The data is made to fit the thesis rather than vice versa. In her review of the literature, Leeb also mentions the work of Lawrence Stager in his seminal article on the family in ancient Israel.10 There Stager identifies the r(n with a particular social stratum of Israelite society during the Iron II period. Citing Stähli, he is first an “unmarried male who has not yet become a head of household.” Stager then suggests that these individuals are later-born sons who could not survive on their patrimonial land inheritance and had to seek service and employment elsewhere. It is a historical fact that this was the case in medieval Europe, where the ranks of vassals, lords, and knights were filled with these laterborn sons and this is the social model explicitly drawn upon. Whereas Macdonald focused on the social direction of these young men towards the military, Stager points out that there were other possible directions these young men could move into including government and priestly service. It is indeed a fascinating question: who are these Myr(n and where did they come from? But this has nothing to do with the lexical meaning of the word. Once again, biblical scholars must be careful to distinguish between a sign, its referent, and its sense or meaning. There is no direct one-to-one correspondence between a referent and the sign used to point to it. The properties of a referent cannot automatically be read into the meaning or sense of its sign (see Ogden and Richards’ Triangle of Signification and discussion on pages 23–24). Leeb is correct in observing how the combination of Stähli’s and Macdonald’s work has influenced the rest of the ensuing literature on r(n and how it has “encouraged the proliferation of analyses that suggest a ‘high-born’ status for the term.”11 In his study of Prov. 22.6, Ted Hildebrandt argues from Macdonald that the term in the book of Proverbs refers to “royal squires” who are being prepared “for capable service at the head of the Israelite societal structure,” and that it refers primarily to status and not “youthfulness.”12 Stager writes that “na‘ar is an ascribed status, only indirectly related to age”13 and that the 12 Myr(n of Abner and Joab who fought together in 2 Samuel 2 were “elite troops,” like the “crack troops” of the Egyptian na‘aruna who saved RamsesÂ€II at the Battle of Kadesh.14 Leeb goes on, however, to undercut these views by showing how the work of one scholar unduly influenced the field and that

the cognate in both Egyptian and Ugaritic means just the opposite, i.e. “a ragtag troop of ‘servants, handymen, stable boys and assorted camp followers’”!15 It was E. Meyer in 1929 who suggested, based on his reading of an Egyptian account of the Battle of Kadesh, that the na‘aruna were an elite squadron.16 Meyer then influenced Breasted, who then influenced Gardiner, who in turn influenced Rainey, who maintained that “the n‘rm of Ugarit were first-class, experienced fighting-men”!17 Leeb notes that as early as 1962, A. R. Schulman had argued with regard to the Egyptian materials that:

9.â•‡ Macdonald, “Na‘ar,” 166–68. 10.â•‡ Lawrence E. Stager, “The Archaeology of the Family in Ancient Israel,” BASOR 260 (1985): 1–35. 11.â•‡ Leeb, 20. 12.â•‡ Ted Hildebrandt, “Proverbs 22:6a: Train Up a Child?,” GTJ 9 (1988): 13. While acknowledging indebtedness to Hildebrandt’s study, Bruce Waltke rejects his conclusions, including the notion that r(n refers to a young squire (cf. Bruce K. Waltke, The Book of Proverbs: Chapters 15–31 [NICOT; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2005], 203–204, n. 59). 13.â•‡ Stager, “Family,” 26. 14.â•‡Ibid.

61

In none of these occurrrences does n‘rn appear to be the name of a special unit or body of troops, or contain any real technical connotation. It was merely an Asiatic word for soldiers, and was so used by the Egyptians.18

It is ironic that Egyptian evidence was used to interpret Ugaritic even though n‘r is of Northwest Semitic origin. Leeb goes on to cite the work of Walter Mayer and R. Mayer-Opificius who argue in a careful survey of the Ugaritic occurrences that r(n means nothing more than “apprentice, assistant, underling” or “servant” and that this meaning of the term best fits all the occurrences in the Egyptian materials, including the particular account of the Battle of Kadesh.19 In an ironic twist of interpretation then, Ramses praises his na‘aruna not because they are an “elite corp of first-class fighting men” but because they are a lowly servile group of Amorite youths who had done their duty and saved the pharaoh in contrast to the Egyptian army regulars.20 Leeb has done the scholarly community a service in demonstrating what happens when a particular reading or interpretation is uncritically passed along in the literature. One study Leeb does not mention is the contribution of H. F. Fuhs in TDOT on the word and its related lexemes.21 The TDOT volume is a 1998 translation of the German ThWAT published 1984–86. So Fuhs’ original article appeared in the mid1980s. Somewhat surprisingly, he argues that r(n “clearly refers to youth.”22 Fuhs cites the fairly frequent appearance of r(n with Nqz as its antonym in expressions such as Nqz-d(…r(nm “from young to old” (Gen. 19.4; Josh. 6.21; Est. 3.13) and the host of synonyms and parallel expressions referring to age or stage of life for the term in support of his conclusion. His three main definitions for the lexeme are (a)Â€child, youth, young man, (b) soldier, and (c) servant. Finally, we come to the important study of Carolyn Leeb in her JSOT contribution,

15.â•‡ Leeb, 171. 16.â•‡ E. Meyer, Geschichte des Altertums. II/1. Die Zeit der ägyptischen Grossmacht (Stuttgart: J. G. Cotta’sche Buchhandlung, 1929). Cited in Leeb, 168, n. 9. 17.â•‡ Anson F. Rainey, “The Military Personnel of Ugarit,” JNES 24 (1965): 21. 18.â•‡ A .R. Schulman, “The N‘rn at the Battle of Kadesh,” JARCE 1 (1962): 47–52. Cited in Leeb, 170. 19.â•‡ Walter Mayer and R. Mayer-Opificius, “Die Schlacht bei Qadeš: der Versuch einer neuen Rekonstruktion,” UF 26 (1994): 321–68. Cited in Leeb, 19–20, 166–74. 20.â•‡ Leeb, 171. 21.â•‡ H. F. Fuhs, “r(n,” TDOT 9:474–85. 22.â•‡ Ibid., 9:480.

62



Away From the Father’s House: The Social Location of na‘ar and na‘arah in Ancient Israel, published in the year 2000. Her thesis is as follows:

with Nqz referring to a man who has achieved the status of paterfamilias, while r(n refers to a dependent male working under the tutelage of someone other than his own father.”27 Even with some later poetic materials Leeb is forced to admit some kind of “semantic drift” to a more generalized meaning of “youthfulness” for r(n.28 But it is more logical to see how a word originally meaning “youth” drifted to mean “servant” (as in French garçon) than how a word originally meaning “servant” came to mean “youth.” In spite of her erudition, scholarship, and contributions in other areas, Leeb’s thesis is ultimately unconvincing.

This study will demonstrate that the common social location that these characters all share is neither age nor marital status nor ‘social class’ (i.e.Â€‘high-born’ or noble). Their function or role is not always as a servant, whether domestic, military, agricultural or governmental. Rather, what these characters share is the situation of being ‘away from their father’s house’, beyond the protection and control of their fathers, while not yet master or mistress of their own households.23

63

Occurrences in the Hebrew Bible Using a combination of literary and sociological methods, Leeb attempts a close reading of biblical texts to uncover an essential nuance which underlies all the occurrences of the terms r(n and hr(n in the HB. The choice of the term r(n (or hr(n) by various biblical authors suggests that the term carries connotations that these other words do not. The intent of the proposed investigation is to discover what common threads connect this word in all its varied uses in the Hebrew Bible.24

Herein lies the rub. Even before beginning her study, her methodological premise is flawed. The assumption that there is a common thread or core meaning behind all the occurrences of a given lexeme is another example of the problem of Grundbedeutung (see page 22 ff.) and flies in the face of the universal linguistic principle called polysemy. In a highly critical review, Mayer Gruber writes: Leeb has turned the concept of a word study on its head in her vain attempt to find a single principle that will account for the deliberate choice of the word na‘ar in all of its occurrences in the Hebrew Bible. Democritus’ attempt to account for the material world on the basis of the indivisible atom was quashed by the Manhattan Project. Leeb’s valiant attempt to find the social matrix that would account for the use of na‘ar to describe both the infant Moses’ and Abraham’s two servants (Gen 22:5) would seem to be quashed by common sense.25

As Gruber points out, Leeb’s thesis leads to highly forced and strained interpretations of the word in various contexts. Believing the focus of the term is on status rather than age, she suggests that Prov. 22.6 should be translated, “Commit a ‘fosterchild’ to the right path, and if he becomes an elder, he will not depart from it”!26 The expression Nqz…r(n is also interpreted in terms of status, “rather than the spectrum of age,

23.â•‡ Leeb, 41. 24.â•‡ Ibid., 14. 25.â•‡ Mayer I. Gruber, review of Carolyn S. Leeb, Away from the Father’s House: The Social Location of na‘ar and na‘arah in Ancient Israel, JQR 43, 3–4 (2003): 615. Other reviews include those of Frank S. Frick, CBQ 63 (2001): 524–25 and Victor H. Matthews, Hebrew Studies 42 (2001): 326–28. 26.â•‡ Leeb, 155.

We begin our own study by making some statistical observations. There are 239 occurrences of r(n in the OT.29 This represents 0.08 percent of the total number of words in the length of the BHS text.30 The highest numbers of occurrences by biblical book are as follows: 1 Samuel

60 occurrences

Genesis

27 occurrences

2 Samuel

26 occurrences

2 Kings

24 occurrences

Judges

23 occurrences

As one can observe from the above, the vast majority of occurrences (146 total or 61 percent) are within the bounds of the Former Prophets. A detailed semantic analysis was conducted on the word, with the rough data recorded in a table (see “Table for Hebrew r(n” in the Appendix on page 137). For the purposes of this study, we did not examine all 239 occurrences of r(n but only those which pertain to the semantic domain of the human life cycle (see page 31). Accordingly, a preliminary sort was performed which separated out approximately 120 of the 239 occurrences. To fill out the study somewhat, a few additional and disputed references were included to bring about a total of 125 occurrences to be semantically analyzed. These 125 instances of r(n were examined and the results were tabulated in a nine-column chart, with the following guidelines. Those references which reflect a specific syntactical construction were kept together in a group of rows separated from other rows by a double horizontal line.31 Also, those

27.â•‡ Ibid., 152. 28.â•‡ Ibid., 21–22. 29.â•‡ There are 240 occurrences if one includes Zech. 11.16, as in Abraham Even-Shoshan’s A New Concordance of the Bible (Jerusalem: Kiryat Sefer Publishing House, 1985) — Mandelkern’s concordance and Andersen’s VOT do not. r(n in Zech. 11.16 must surely represent another root as per the Syriac, Greek, and Vulgate contexts to mean something in the nature of “the wandering” (NRSV). 30.â•‡ All statistics are from Andersen’s VOT unless otherwise noted. The total number of words in BHS is 305,000. 31.â•‡ This is why the first set of rows are together. Genesis 19.4, Josh. 6.21, and Est. 3.13 all reflect the same syntactical structure Nqz-d(w r(nm “from young to old.”

64


references which occur repeatedly in the same context or passage are indicated by double horizontal lines (except for poetical books). Moving to the columns, the first set in the table represents syntagmatic study, indicating (a) the verbs of which r(n was the subject (column 2), (b) those of which r(n was the object (columnÂ€3),32 and (c)Â€special syntactical collocations (column 4). The second set of columns represents paradigmatic study, indicating (a) words used with synonymous meaning in close context (column 5) and (b) words used as antonyms in close context (column 6).33 The third set of columns displays the LXX translation (if extant) and that of the NRSV. The final column contains special comments. In addition, the final column points out the person or “thing” (i.e. “referent”) to which r(n refers to in the particular passage and this is denoted by the symbol →. After examining the 125 occurrences of r(n, it is clear that from a semantic and contextual point of view the word must point to two meanings: (1) a male, young person and (2) a (male) servant or functionary of some sort.

r(n as “servant”

We begin by observing that there are many passages where r(n must mean “servant.” In 1 Sam. 2.13, for example, r(n must mean more than simply “boy” or “young man.”34 w%(d:yF )Ol l(ay,flib; yn'b@; yli(' yn'b;w% M(fhf-t)e Mynihjk@oha +p@a#$;miw% .hwfhy:-t)e xbazE xab'zO #$y)i-lk@f … Nh'k@oha r(ana )bfw%

Now the sons of Eli were scoundrels; they had no regard for the LORD or for the duties of the priests to the people. When anyone offered sacrifice, the priest’s servant would come .â•¯.â•¯. 1 Sam. 2.12-13

To the previous passage, may be added others. For example, -Nb@e xq@Ay,IwA MhfrFb;)a CrF rqFb@fha-l)ew: Abraham ran to the herd, and took a calf, tenr(an%Aha-l)e Nt@’y,IwA bwO+wF K7rA rqFb@f der and good, and gave it to the servant, who .wOt)o twO#&(jla rh’may:wA hastened to prepare it. Gen. 18.7 bc=fn%Iha wOr(jnAl; z(ab@o rme)Oy,wA Then Boaz said to his servant who was in … MyrIc;wOq@ha-l(a charge of the reapers .â•¯.â•¯. Ruth 2.5

32.â•‡ By subject and object we mean “grammatical” subject and object. A word may be the grammatical subject of a verb in terms of its “surface structure” but actually the object in terms of its “deep structure,” the conceptualization of the verbal action, cf. “The Lamb of God slain from before the foundation of the world.” This is however in contrast to Clines’ dictionary (p.Â€20) and that of the Septuagint lexicon of Muraoka (p. xiv). 33.â•‡ The aforementioned features of this study have been influenced by the format of Clines’ dictionary which was taken as a starting point for our analysis. 34.â•‡ English translations are from the NRSV unless otherwise noted.


65

wOnb@; lw%)#$f-l)e #$yqi rme)Oy,wA and Kish said to Saul, his son: MyrI(fn%:ham' dxa)a-t)e K1t@;)i )nf-xqA “Take one of the servants with you, .tnOto)jhf-t)e #$q'@b@a K7l' Mw%qw: and go search for the asses!” 1 Sam 9:3 (McCarter’s translation) …wytfr:#$fm; K7lem@eha-yr'(jnA w%rm;)Oy,wA Then the king’s servants who attended him .â•¯.â•¯. Est. 2.2 rma)Oy,wA bwOy,)i-l)e )b@f K7)fl;maw% twOnto)jhfw: tw#$or:xo w%yhf rqFb@fha lp@ot@iwa .Mheyd;y:-l(a twO(ro MyrI(fn%:ha-t)ew: Mx;q@Ft@iwA )bf#$; brExf-ypil; w%k@hi

a messenger came to Job and said, “The oxen were plowing and the donkeys were feeding beside them, and the Sabeans fell on them and carried them off, and killed the servants with the edge of the sword;” Job 1.14-15

In addition, a number of passages use r(n in construct or in connection with a proper name as in PN1 na‘ar PN2. )bfyci-l)e K7lem@eha )rFq;y,IwA Then the king summoned Saul’s servant …rme)Oy,wA lw%)#$f r(ana Ziba and said .â•¯.â•¯. 2 Sam. 9.9 #$)Orhfm' +(am; rba(f dwIdFw: When David had passed a little beyond the … t#$ebo-ypim; r(ana )bfyci hn%’hiw: summit, Ziba the servant of Mephibosheth .â•¯.â•¯. 2 Sam. 16.1 NmiyFn:b@imi wOm@(i #$y)i Ple)ew: with him were a thousand people from lw%)#$f tyb'@ r(anA )bfyciw: Benjamin. And Ziba, the servant of the house of Saul 2 Sam. 19.18[17] (#$fyli)v r(anA yzIxjyg'% rme)Oy,wA Gehazi, the servant of Elisha the man of … Myhilo)vhf-#$y)i God thought… 2 Kgs 5.20 wOr(jnA yzixjg%'-l)e rme)Oy,wA He said to his servant Gehazi .â•¯.â•¯. 2 Kgs 4.12 )rFyt@i-l)a hwFhy: rma)f hk@o “Thus says the LORD: Do not be afraid t@f(;ma#$f r#$e)j MyrIbfd@:ha yn'p@;mi because of the words that you have heard, .ytiwO) rw%#$@)a-K7leme yr'(jnA w%pd@:g%I r#$e)j with which the servants of the king of Assyria have reviled me.” Isa. 37.6

Because r(n can also mean simply “boy” or “young man,” it is not always clear in a number of passages whether the word suggests “young person” or more specifically

66


a “servant.” To make matters worse, knowledge of the referent in context does not help because most servants are also young.35 Now the asses of Kish, Saul’s father, were lost. So Kish said to Saul his son, “Take one of the servants with you, and arise, go and look for the asses.” 1 Sam. 9.3, RSV

Now the donkeys of Kish, Saul’s father had strayed. So Kish said to his son Saul, “Take one of the boys with you; go and look for the donkeys.” 1 Sam. 9.3, NRSV

I will shoot three arrows to the side of it, as though I shot at a mark. Then I will send the boy, saying, “Go, find the arrows,” .â•¯.â•¯. 1 Sam. 20.20-21

It was N. Avigad, however, who pointed out one case where a r(n was clearly not a young person. But Ziba, the na‘ar of Saul (2 Sam 9:9-10) and of the house of Saul (2Â€Sam 19:9), was no longer a youngster. He held the important position of custodian of the personal property of Saul and his family.36

The biblical text indicates that Ziba had “fifteen sons and twenty servants” (db() (2Â€Sam. 9.10); he was therefore no youth but a mature if not elderly person. Therefore, we must conclude that r(n at times refers to a specific office, position or functionary without the semantic component of age. One additional contextual and semantic factor is the parallel expressions that bring the word within the semantic domain of “servant.” In a number of passages, r(n is paralleled with db(. wydFbf(j-l)e lw%)#$f rme)Oy,wA So Saul said to his servants, “Find me a MtewO)ybihjwA Ng%'nAl; by+iym' #$y)i yli )nf-w%)r: man who plays well, and bring him to me!” rme)Oy,wA MyrI(fn%:ham' dxf)e N(ay,AwA .ylf)' Then one of the attendants spoke up. 1 Sam. 16.17-18 (McCarter’s translation)

35.â•‡ Much like the situation for “elders.” “Elder” denotes both an office and an age. But most “elders” are also aged. 36.â•‡ Nachman Avigad, “The Contribution of Hebrew Seals to an Understanding of Israelite Religion and Society,” in Ancient Israelite Religion: Essays in Honor of Frank Moore Cross (ed. Patrick D. Miller, Jr., Paul D. Hanson, and S. Dean McBride; Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1987), 205.


67

)bfyci wOm#$;w% dbe(e lw%)#$f tyb'l;w% Now there was a servant of the house of Saul whose name was Ziba .â•¯.â•¯. lw%)#$f r(ana )bfyci-l)e K7lem@eha )rFq;y,IwA Then the king summoned Saul’s servant Ziba .â•¯.â•¯. lkok@; K7lem@eha-l)e )bfyci rme)Oy,wA Then Ziba said to the king, “According K7lem@eha ynido)j hw%Ecay: r#$e)j to all that my lord the king commands his K1d@eb;(a h#&e(jyA Nk@' wOd@b;(a-t)e servant, so your servant will do.” 2 Sam. 9.2, 9, 11

In many of the above contexts db( seems to be the more general word for “servant,” while r(n seems to suggest something more.37 At times, the word strongly connotes the semantic component of “personal attachment,” as in a “personal attendant” or someone’s “page.” Elijah had his personal attendant, a r(n (1 Kgs 18.43), and Gehazi had the same relationship to Elisha (1 Kgs 4.12). Ziba was also attached to the house of Saul but he holds the additional distinction of being a “servant” of significant status and position. Avigad38 and McCarter39 liken this status to that of a “steward” or “superintendent of the property of an estate.” Fuhs draws an interesting additional distinction between r(n and db(: In contrast to the latter, however, who as a slave “in the power of another” is not free, the na‘ar is a free person who enters by choice into a servile relationship and may even under some circumstances possess ‘abādîm and šepāḥôt.40

Archeological evidence confirms the fact that at least “In the later period of the monarchy the title na‘ar came to signify an established class of officials.”41 A group of seals have come to light over the years bearing the pattern PN1 na‘ar PN2. The most famous of these was discovered by Albright in 1928 at Tell Beit Mirsim, when he uncovered a stamped jar handle bearing the paleo-Hebrew inscription l’lyqm n‘r ywkn. The discovery and interpretation of these seals has a long and interesting history.42 Assuming that the evidence of destruction in the first layer at Tell Beit Mirsim was due to the Babylonians in 587/6Â€B.C.E., Albright suggested that the seal impression referred to a certain servant named “Eliakim” who was in the service of none other than the Judean king “Jehoichin” who ruled in 598/7Â€B.C.E.43 This association of the jar handles with the Babylonian incursions of the sixth century led archeologists to date strata of other sites accordingly.44 Unfortunately, Albright 37.â•‡ There are about 800 occurrences of the word db( in the OT. 38.â•‡ Avigad, 205. 39.â•‡McCarter, II Samuel, 261–62. 40.â•‡Fuhs, TWOT 9:480. 41.â•‡ Avigad, 205. 42.â•‡ See Yosef Garfinkel, “The Eliakim Nacar Yokan Seal Impressions: Sixty Years of Confusion in Biblical Archaeological Research,” BA 53 (June 1990): 74–79 and Anson F. Rainey, “A Rejoinder to the Eliakim Nacar Yokan Seal Impressions,” BA 54 (March 1991): 61. 43.â•‡ ywkn was interpreted as an abbreviation of Jehoichin. 44.â•‡ In particular, Starkey’s dating of Stratum III at Lachish to 598/7Â€B.C.E.

68



was in error and it has since been proven that the associated jar handles belong to the period of Hezekiah, during the Assyrian incursions of 701. Thus, the ywkn of the na‘ar seal is not “Jehoichin” but apparently an unknown but wealthy private citizen. Still, the interpretation of the na‘ar seals remains a source of significant consternation. Not one but three additional seal impressions on stamped jar handles were uncovered with the same inscription: l’lyqm n‘r ywkn. A second was discovered by Albright at the same site in 1930, a third by Elihu Grant at Beth Shemesh that same year, and a fourth by Aharoni at Ramat Raḥel as late as 1961. Other seal impressions as well as a few seals themselves have been discovered with similar inscriptions:

consensus that the numerous jars and jar handles found, their dating and various locations reflect the storage of liquid goods (e.g. oil and wine) under royal authority by Hezekiah in preparation for the onslaught of Sennacherib and the Assyrians in 701Â€B.C.E.51 Na’aman’s suggestion is that the royal jars were first produced and stamped in a central workshop location near Lachish.52 The private seals represent “the king’s officers supervising the preparations for war, who were entitled to use the official royal seal.”53 The jars were then shipped empty to four military/administrative districts which served as supply and defense sites (Hebron, Ziph, Socoh, and an unknown mmšt54), where they were filled. Once filled, they were distributed and stored at various fortified cities in Judah particularly toward the northern and western approaches.55 Regardless of the provenance and purposes of the royal Judean storage jars, it seems clear that the na‘ar seals refer to significant functionaries who may have been royal officials, or at least under royal auspices. When all is said and done, it is ironic that the best portrait of the na‘ar servant may be in the Bible after all! AÂ€na‘ar in this context and time period was in all likelihood some sort of a “steward” or administrator, much like Ziba, the na‘ar of Saul’s estate.56 To add to the complexity of r(n as “servant,” there is evidence that the word in certain contexts also means “soldier”!

lmlkyhw n‘r špṭ lbnyhw n‘r ḥgy

‘belonging to Malkîyāhū na‘ar Šāpāṭ’ ‘belonging to Bēnāyāhū na‘ar Ḥaggî’

At first, Avigad argued that the stamped na‘ar jar handles represented the commercial ventures of wealthy private businessmen whose markets extended throughout the territories of Judah.45 Ussishkin, however, clearly demonstrated that these jar handles came from the same jars whose other handles bore royal seals, which included the words lmlk .â•¯.â•¯. along with the stamp of a typical two-winged insignia.46 In fact, a jar handle was discovered at Raḥel with both royal and private seals stamped on the same handle!47 This created the so-called “Servant of Two Masters” problem. How could a single jar belong both to the royal estate and that of a private citizen? Rainey explained the problem as a case of two different meanings. The term lmlk refers to ownership or “property of .â•¯.â•¯.” while the inscriptions of the private seals merely signify one’s signature, “this is the seal ofÂ€.Â€.Â€.”48 He goes on to argue that the owner of the private seal “was responsible for the correct size of the vessel, either as potter or inspector, which meant that he had to certify it with his own name.”49 This theory, however, that the jars represented some kind of royal standard of measure has not gained support. Many jars have been discovered with “considerable variation in capacity.”50 While considerable debate remains over the origin and purposes of the dually stamped jars, N. Na’aman’s theory seems best at this point in time. There is a general

45.â•‡ See Nachman Avigad, “New Light on the Na‘arSeals,” in Magnalia Dei: The Mighty Acts of God: Essays on the Bible and Archaeology in Memory of G. Ernest Wright, ed. Frank Moore Cross, Werner E. Lemke, and Patrick D. Miller, Jr. (Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1976), 294–300; and also his article, “The Contribution of Hebrew Seals to an Understanding of Israelite Religion and Society,” in Ancient Israelite Religion: Essays in Honor of Frank Moore Cross, ed. Patrick D. Miller, Jr., Paul D. Hanson, and S. Dean McBride (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1987), 195–208. 46.â•‡ See David Ussishkin, “Royal Judean Storage Jars and Private Seal Impressions,” BASOR 223 (1976): 1–13. 47.â•‡ Mentioned in Ussishkin (pp.Â€5, 12) referring to Y. Aharoni, Excavations at Ramat Rahel, Seasons 1959–1960 (Rome: Universita degli studi, Centro di studi semitici, 1962), 16–17, fig. 14:2, pl. 6:2. The inscription reads lnr’ šbn’, interpreted by Rainey as “‘Nera’, (son of) Shibna’,” in “Private SealImpressions: A Note on Semantics,” IEJ 16 (1966): 189. 48.â•‡ See Anson Rainey, “Private Seal-Impressions: A Note on Semantics,” IEJ 16 (1966): 187–90. 49.â•‡ Ibid., 190. For more on the latter views, see F. M. Cross, “Jar Inscriptions from Shiqmona,” IEJ 18 (1968): 226–33 (esp. 232). 50.â•‡ H. Darrell Lance, “Stamps, Royal Jar Handle,” in ABD, 184.

69

w%mw%qyF b)fwOy-l)e rn'b;)a rme)Oy,wA Then Abner said to Joab, “Let some soldiers w%nyn'pfl; w%qxj#&aywi MyrI(fn%:ha )nF take the field and play [i.e. have a contest] before us!” 2 Sam. 2.14, McCarter’s translation MydIm;(o C(amayxi)jwA NtfnFwOhywI hxfp;#@$iha hkfl;hfw: lg'ro-Ny('b@; w%kl;y' Mh'w: Mhelf hdFyg%ihiw: )Ol yk@i dwid@F K7lem@ela w%dyg%ihiw: .hrFy(ih )wOblf twO)rFh’l; w%lk;w%y … MOl#$fb;)al; dg%'y,AwA r(anA Mtf)o )r:y,awA f

Now Jonathan and Ahimaaz were waiting in En-rogel — a maidservant would come and give them information, and they would go and report it to King David — for they could not risk being seen entering the city. But a soldier saw them and told Abishalom .â•¯.â•¯. 2 Sam. 17.17-18a, McCarter’s translation

51.â•‡ See Lance, 185 and Nadav Na’aman, “Hezekiah’s Fortified Cities and the LMLK Stamps,” BASOR 261 (1986): 5–21. 52.â•‡ They were apparently in the preexilic period certain royal pottery workshops. In 1 Chron. 4.23 the potters of Netaim and Gederah are said to have “lived there with the king in his service.” See also de Vaux, 77–78. 53.â•‡ Na’aman, 17. 54.â•‡ These four city names have been found imprinted as part of the royal seal impressions, as in lmlk .â•¯.â•¯. [royal insignia] .â•¯.â•¯. ḥbrn [Hebron]. Some stamps, however, lack any city name. 55.â•‡ Another view is that of Anson Rainey who holds that the four city names represent royal vineyards. See his “Wine From the Royal Vineyards,” BASOR 245 (1982): 57–62. 56.â•‡ There also exists a class of seals, PN1 ‘ebed PN2, of which Avigad writes: “‘Ebed is known to have been the title of high-ranking officers of the royal court” (Avigad, “New Light,” 294.)

70


McCarter and others have cited significant data to indicate that r(n can even refer to “first-class fighting men”: But na‘ar also has a military use.â•¯.â•¯. . This seems clear from references to “young men = soldiers” in the present passage, as well as 1:15; 16:2; and 20:11 — to mention only examples from the present book. Similarly, Ugaritic n‘rm occurs frequently in lists of fighting men as a category of soldier, and in Egyptian texts of the New Kingdom n‘rn refers to skilled warriors in or from Canaan. According to Rainey .â•¯.â•¯., “there can be no doubt that the term n‘r, ‘youth,’ in Ugaritic and Hebrew, could be applied to first-class fighting men”57

But as we have seen above in Leeb’s work, this position is no longer tenable (see page 60 ff.). In any case, the use of r(n to refer to “soldier” is much like the use of M(, “people,” to refer to “army” or “troops.”58 Py'(fw: b('rF M(fhf w%rm;)f yk@i for they said, “The troops are hungry and rb@fd:m@ib@a )m'cfw: weary and thirsty in the wilderness.” 2 Sam. 17.29

A similar phenomenon occurs with the common word #$ y ). BDB notes that it sometimes has the meaning “retainers, followers, soldiers,”59 and Clines’ dictionary actually lists as a separate meaning “armed man, warrior.”60 The semantic potentialities of r(n are no doubt brought out by the strong military contexts of our passages and the lexicons have been quick to point this out. Gesenius writes that r(n is “used also of common soldiers .â•¯.â•¯. 1 Kings 20:15, 17, 19; 2 Kings 19:6.”61 Holladay has “military, i.e. personal retinue 1S 213Χ5.”62 De Vaux refers to these ne‘arîm as “cadets” or “professional soldiers” (and the latter vis-à-vis the national army, cf. 1 Kgs 20.15-20).63 The question arises whether “soldier” is a lexical sense or a contextual sense. One is tempted to propose a second root, na‘ar II, “soldier,” but this is unlikely since we have similar lexical semantic expansion in other languages. In English, for example, “boy” in the plural can mean “soldiers”: “7. boys, military personnel, esp. combat soldiers: Support the boys overseas.”64 While the lexical structure of na‘ar as “servant” is not the focus of our study, we may suggest a very preliminary semantic description.

57.â•‡McCarter, II Samuel, 96. 58.â•‡ The lexeme #$y) can also mean “soldier” (1 Sam. 18.27 and cf. BDB, s.v.) . 59.â•‡ BDB, 36. 60.â•‡ DCH, 222. 61.â•‡Gesenius, A Hebrew and English Lexicon, 555. 62.â•‡ Holladay, 241. 63.â•‡ de Vaux, 220–21. 64.â•‡ RHUD, s.v.

3.â•‡ Semantic Study of Hebrew Terms for the Young to help/assist

male

subordinate

personal attachment

na‘ar

+

+

+

+

‘ebed

+

+

+

−

71

In any case, it does seem that na‘ar stands in hyponymous relation to ‘ebed, i.e. that the latter is the more general term for “servant,” while the former is more specific, pointing to the component of “personal attachment” as in “personal attendant, retainer.”65 It is interesting to note that as long as 150 years ago, Gesenius had already made some of these observations (cf. page 10 above). b) In other passages r(ana seems rather a name of condition66 and denotes servant, like the Greek pai=j, Germ. Bursche, Junge, Engl. boy; Gen 37,Â€2 r(anÂ€a )w%h he was servant with the sons of Bilhah, i.e., he was herdsman’s boy, shepherd’s boy. 2 K. 4, 12. 5, 20. 8,4. Exod 33, 11. al. Also of common soldiers, Germ. die Burschen, Engl. boys, lads; 1 K. 20,15. 17. 19. 2Â€K.Â€19,Â€6 .â•¯.â•¯. (bold emphasis, mine).67

r(n as “boy, lad, youth” Having established that the term r(n must have a separate and distinct meaning as “servant,” we turn our attention to the main focus of our study: the term as a particular phase in the human life cycle.68 That one component of meaning of the term must be age-referential is shown by its occurrence in the collocation Nqz-d(w r(nm “both young and old”: ry(ihf y#$'n:)aw: w%bk@f#$;yI MrE+e tyIb@aha-l(a w%b@sanF Mdos; y#$'n:)a .hceq@Fmi M(fhf-lk@f Nq'zF-d(aw: r(an%ami

But before they lay down, the men of Sodom, both young and old, all the people to the last man, surrounded the house; Gen. 19.4

The same exact Hebrew phrase is also found in Josh. 6.21 and Est. 3.13. Similar phraseology is found in Exod. 10.9; Deut. 28.50; Isa. 20.4; 65.20; Jer. 51.22; Lam. 2.21; Ps. 37.25; 148.12. Here it is in Exodus:

65.â•‡ Many lexicons use the world “retainer” when giving the second meaning of r(n. In modern English, however, this word is not often used in this sense and therefore not clearly understood. Most people today think of a “retainer” as an orthodontic device! RHUD however gives a clear definition: “a servant or attendant who has served a family for many years.” 66.â•‡ Tregelles translates here “In other places boy is rather the name of function, and denotes servant .â•¯.â•¯.” (bold emphasis mine). 67.â•‡Gesenius, Hebrew and English Lexicon, s.v. 68.â•‡That r(n actually consists of two meanings is not new. Gesenius recognized this in his own dictionary entry quoted above. In the vein of Louw and Nida, we should probably distinguish the meanings by r(na and r(nb, but for the sake of simplicity we have not.

72

The Days of Our Years w%nyr'(fn:b@i h#$emo rme)Oy,wA w%nyn'bfb@; K7l'n' w%nyn'q'z:biw% w%nr'qFb;biw% w%nn')Ocb@; w%nt'wOnb;biw% .w%nlf hwfhy:-gxa yk@i K7l'n'

Moses said, “We will go with our young and our old; we will go with our sons and daughters and with our flocks and herds, because we have the LORD’s festival to celebrate. Exod. 10.9

Thus, the first age-referential meaning of r(n can be said to be young when used in collocations with Nqz. In fact, r(n can be understood as the linguistic complement or opposite of Nqz.69 In these contexts, the term functions more as an adjective than a noun. One of the difficulties of further defining the meaning of r(n is that the term has such a wide range of referents. First, it can be used to refer to an infant, such as Moses at three months of age (Exod. 2.6) or a newborn (Bathsheba’s, 2 Sam. 12.16; Ichabod’s, 1 Sam. 4.21). It can refer to a child not yet weaned (Samuel, 1 Sam. 1.22), just weaned (1 Sam. 1.24), or even a child yet to be born (Samson, Judg.Â€13.5, 7, 8,Â€12). It is used to speak generally in the manner of “and the boy(s) grew” (ldg) four times (Gen. 25.27; Judg. 13.24; 1 Sam. 2.21, 26). Secondly, it can be used to refer to young boys between the ages of 3 and 13.70 We have already mentioned Samuel just weaned (1 Sam. 1.24). But Isaac in Genesis 22 must have been within such an age range, as were Ephraim and Manasseh in Gen. 48.16, Jether in Judg. 8.20, and the Shunamite’s son in 2 Kgs 4.29-32, 35. Thirdly, r(n can be used to refer to young adults between puberty and just before marriage. A representative text is the story of the rape of Dinah in Genesis 34. The passage includes the terms hr(n (as Qere rf(jna) and hdly. h)fl'-tb@a hnFydI )c't@'wA twO)r:li bqo(jyAl; hdFl;yF r#$e)j .CrE)fhf twOnb;b@i rwOmxj-Nb@e Mke#$; h@tf)o )r:y,AwA h@tf)o xq@Ay,IwA CrE)fhf )y#&in: yw%ixiha .hfn%e(ay:wA h@tf)o bk@a#$;y,IwA hnfydIb@; wO#$p;nA qb@ad:t@iwA rF(jn%Aha-t)e bha)vy,ewA bqo(jyA-tb@a .rF(jn%Aha bl'-l(a rb@'dAy:wA wybi)f rwOmxj-l)e Mke#$; rme)Oy,wA .h#@$f)il; t)Oz@ha hd@Fl;y,Aha-t)e yli-xqA rmo)l'

34.1 Now Dinah the daughter of Leah, whom she had borne to Jacob, went out to visit the women of the region. 34.2 When Shechem son of Hamor the Hivite, prince of the region, saw her, he seized her and lay with her by force. 34.3 And his soul was drawn to Dinah daughter of Jacob; he loved the girl, and spoke tenderly to her [the girl]. 34.4 So Shechem spoke to his father Hamor, saying, “Get me this girl to be my wife.”

69.â•‡ Cf. Nida, Componential Analysis, 17ff. 70.â•‡ The age limits of 3–13 are established because they represent the most important transitional moments of weaning and the onset of puberty.

3.â•‡ Semantic Study of Hebrew Terms for the Young Nt@fmaw% rhamo d)om; yla(f w%b@r:ha ylf)' w%rm;)Ot@ r#$e)jk@a hnFt@;)ew: .h#@$f)il; rF(jn%Aha-t)e yli-w%nt;w rwOmxj yn'y('b@; Mheyr'b;dI w%b+;yy,iwA .rwOmxj-Nb@e Mke#$; yn'y('b;w% rbfd@Fha twO#&(jla r(an%Aha rxa)'-)Olw: bqo(jyA-tbab@; Cp'xf yk@i

73

34.12 Put the marriage present and gift as high as you like, and I will give whatever you ask me; only give me the girl to be my wife. 34.18 Their words pleased Hamor and Hamor’s son Shechem. 34:19 And the young man did not delay to do the thing, because he was delighted with Jacob’s daughter.

It is clear that the term as applied to Shechem, son of Hamor, cannot mean “boy” as in a male between the ages of 3 and 13, but “a male ready for marriage, a young man.” It is also interesting that the terms hr(n and hdly are applied to the counterpart, “a female ready for marriage.” It is now apparent why a number of lexicographers define r(n as “a marriageable young man” and hr(n as “a marriageable young female.” The terms are not simply referring to a person at any young stage of life but to a person in that particular young stage of life, when they are sexually capable and therefore eligible for marriage. Our lexeme in the sense of “young man” also occurs for Micah’s Levite priest (Judg. 17.7; 18.3), young David (1 Sam. 17.55), young Absalom (2 Sam. 18.5, 12, 29,Â€32), and young Josiah (2 Chron. 34.3).71 The term is used once to refer to Job’s older children, both male and female (Job 1.19)!72 r(n never seems to refer to a married person,73 nor to anyone older than age 20.74 It is difficult to conceive of any other word with a wider range of referents than ours in question. We do, however, have an analogy in English. It has been repeatedly

71.â•‡ It is interesting that Gesenius notes that r(n can be used “of a youth nearly twenty years old” (emphasis mine) and references in this connection Joseph (Gen. 37.2, 41.2), Solomon (1 Kgs 3.7), and Absalom (2 Sam. 18.5, 29). Tregelles adds Benjamin (Gen. 44.22) and Jeremiah (Jer. 1.6, 7) (Wilhelm Gesenius, Gesenius’ Hebrew and Chaldee Lexicon to the Old Testament Scriptures, Translated with Additions and Corrections from the Author’s Thesaurus and Other Works, trans. Samuel Prideaux Tregelles (London, 1847; reprint, New York: John Wiley & Sons, 1888). According to Holladay, Jeremiah was 12 years old at the time he refers to himself as “only a r(n” in Jer. 1.6 (Holladay, Jeremiah 1, 2 and idem, Jeremiah 2, 27). He takes the “thirteenth year of Josiah” (627Â€B.C.E.) in Jer.Â€1.2 to be the year of Jeremiah’s birth (not his call) and proposes a lower chronology against the majority of commentators. Even if Holladay is mistaken, the majority view holds that Jeremiah was between 12 and 16 years of age at the time of his call in 1.6 (Holladay, Jeremiah 2, 26; Thompson, Jeremiah, 51–52). 72.â•‡ The masculine Myr(n is even used to refer to Boaz’s young women servants, twr(n in Ruth 2.21, cf. vv. 8, 22, 23. LXX translates with the term kora/sia, which Louw and Nida suggest means “a girl about the age of puberty” (L&N, §9.40). 73.â•‡ As Hamilton also notes in NIDOTTE 3:125. 74.â•‡ Hamilton and others refer to Joseph at age 30 in 41.12; cf. v. 46. But r(n is used by the chief cupbearer in referring to Joseph in a retrospective manner, looking back to a time two years prior (41.1). In any case, the chronology of the patriarchal and Joseph narratives are notorious for their problems. See, for example, Westermann’s comments on the ages of Manasseh and Ephraim when Jacob blessed them in Genesis 48 (Westermann, Genesis 37–50, 186). Gesenius seems to have interpreted Joseph’s age in Genesis 41 as that “of a youth nearly twenty years old (Gen 37, 2. 41, 2)” (A Hebrew and English Lexicon, s.v.).

74



observed that the nearest lexical equivalent to r(n in English is the word “boy.”75 According to RHUD, the word “boy” has no less than 12 separate meanings, from its use as a term of familiarity, “He liked to play poker with the boys,” to its use as an exclamation of wonder, “Oh boy!”76 In the context of our study, the definition of most interest is the very first one listed, “aÂ€male child, from birth to full growth, esp. one less than 18 years of age.” Thus, rather than posit three separate meanings for r(n, as in “male child,” “young boy,” and “young man,” it is probably best to begin with the minimalist approach and posit one broad meaning: “any male young person, he being below the age of marriage or adulthood.” Depending upon the context, the meaning can be further delineated or refined to indicate “male child,” “young boy,” or “young man.” To view it another way, r(n can be understood as a general term until one or more of its components of meaning are “actualized” in specific contexts. At this point, we are assured that at least the following are basic semantic components of r(n.

Josiah was “still a boy” at age 16 (cf. v. 1) and, as we have noted in ChapterÂ€2, it appears that when he reached the age of majority (i.e. 20), he began to purify the worship of Judah. We need now to make some syntagmatic observations. It is significant that the syntagm N+qÂ€r(n “little boy” occurs six times in the HB (hn+qÂ€hr(n occurs once, at 2 Kgs 5.2). While we cannot be certain, it does seem that the expression easily conforms to that phase of boyhood from ages 3 to 13.

r(n

human

male

“young”

+

+

+

It is interesting to note that while dly is fairly often used for the “young” of animals, r(n is never so used, thus confirming that it is a term only for human persons.77 An imporÂ�tant text that demonstrates that our term refers to someone at the age of minority is 2 Chron.Â€34.3. )w%hw: wOkl;mfl; MynI#$f hnEwOm#$;biw% #$wOrd:li lx'h' r(anA w%n%dEwO( wybi)f dywid@F yh'Ol)l' lx'h' hnF#$f hr"#&;(e Myt@'#$;biw% twOmb@fha-Nmi MIla#$fw%rywI hdFw%hy:-t)e rh'+al; .twOks@'m@ahaw: Mylisip@;haw MyrI#$')jhfw:

34:3 For in the eighth year of his reign, while he was still a boy, he began to seek the God of his ancestor David, and in the twelfth year he began to purge Judah and Jerusalem of the high places, the sacred poles, and the carved and the cast images.

75.â•‡ See Hamilton’s article in NIDOTTE, 3:125, which seems to be dependent upon Dennis Pardee’s comments in his review of Knabe-Jüngling-Knecht: Untersuchungen zum Begriff r(n im Alten Testament by Hans-Peter Stähli, CBQ 42 (1980): 549–50 (esp. p.Â€550). 76.â•‡ “boy (boi), n. 1. a male child, from birth to full growth, esp. one less than 18 years of age. 2. a young man who lacks maturity, judgment, etc. 3. Informal. a grown man esp. when referred to familiarly: He liked to play poker with the boys. 4. a son: Sam’s oldest boy is helping him in the business. 5. a male who is from or native to a given place. 6. boys. (used with a singular or plural v.) a. a range of sizes from 8 to 20 in garments made for boys b. a garment in this size range. c. the departÂ�ment or section of a store where these garments are sold. 7. boys, military personnel, esp. combat soldiers: Support the boys overseas. 8. Disparaging and Offensive. a man considered by the speaker to be inferior in race, naÂ�tionality, or occupational status. 9. a young male servant; page. 10. Offensive. (in India, China, Japan, etc.) a native male servant, working as a butler, waiter, houseboy, etc. 11. Naut. an apprentice seaman or fisherman. -interj. 12. an exclamation of wonder, approval, etc., or of displeasure or contempt. [1250–1300; ME boy(e), perh. after OE B ia man’s name; c. Fris boi young man, akin to OE b fa, ON b fi, OHG Buobo man’s name (G Bube knave, (dial.) boy, lad)]” 77.â•‡ Job 24.5 is inconclusive.

75

My#$inF)jwA )w%h ddA)j xrAb;y,IwA but Hadad fled to Egypt with some wOt@)i wybi)f yd"b;(am' Myy,Imido)j Edomites who were servants of his father. .N+fqF r(ana ddAhjwA MyIrFc;mi )wOblf He was a young boy at that time. 1 Kgs 11.17

In his study of Hadad the Edomite, J. Bartlett argues that Hadad “was probably what we might call a small boy, older than a baby, probably older than a toddler, but not a teenager, when he left Edom.”78 He even cites the use of N+q in Song 8.8 referring to a little sister who has no breasts. Based on the chronology of David’s campaign against the Edomites c.990Â€B.C.E. (1 Kgs 11.17), and his death in 970 (v.Â€21) when Hadad returns, the Edomite prince could not have been a teenager when he fled to Egypt. Hadad was already married with a 3-year-old son (vv. 19-20) upon his return, putting his time of marriage 17 years after his flight to Egypt. If he was teenager at the time, his age at marriage would put him in his thirties, much too late for marriage, particularly for a crown prince. Kitchen suggests Hadad was only an infant of 2 or 3Â€years of age and arrived in Egypt during the reign of Amenemope in the twenty-first dynasty.79 The other occurrences of the syntagm N+qÂ€r(n are given below. (ba#$e Nd@"r:y,Ab@a lb@o+;y,IwA drEy,"wA MyhiOl)vhf #$y)i rbad:k@i Mymi(fp@; N+oqF r(ana r#&ab;k@i wOr#&fb@; b#$fy,fwA .rhf+;y,IwA

So he went down and immersed himself seven times in the Jordan, according to the word of the man of God; his flesh was restored like the flesh of a young boy, and he was clean. 2 Kgs 5.14

rm'nFw: #&bek@e-M(i b)'z: rgfw: rypik;w% lgE('w: Cb@fr:yI ydIg%:-M(i gh'nO N+oqF r(anaw: wd@Fx;yA )yrIm;w% .Mb@f

The wolf shall live with the lamb, the leopard shall lie down with the kid, the calf and the lion and the fatling together, and a little child shall lead them. Isa. 11.6

78.â•‡ J. R. Bartlett, “An Adversary against Solomon, Hadad the Edomite,” ZAW 88 (1976): 220. 79.â•‡ Kenneth A. Kitchen, The Third Intermediate Period in Egypt (1100–650 B.C.) (Warminster, England: Aris & Phillips Ltd, 1973), 274–75.

76

The Days of Our Years )w%hw: l)'-tyb@' M#@$fmi l(ay,awA Myn%I+aq; MyrI(fn:w% K7rEd@Eba hle(o wOb-w%sl@;qAt;y,IwA ry(ihf-Nmi w%)c;yF .xar"q" hl'(j xar"q" hl'(j wOl w%rm;)Oy,wA

He went up from there to Bethel; and while he was going up on the way, some small boys came out of the city and jeered at him, saying, “Go away, baldhead! Go away, baldhead!” 2 Kgs 2.23

w%b@#$;y,IwA MydIw%dg: w%)c;yF MrF)jwA Now the Arameans on one of their raids had hn%f+aq; hrF(jnA l)'rF#&;yI CrE)em' taken a young girl captive from the land of .Nmf(jnA t#$e)' yn'p;li yhit@;wA Israel, and she served Naaman’s wife. 2 Kgs 5.2

The occurrence in 1 Sam. 20.35 is indeterminable and that in 1 Kgs 3.7 appears to be a figurative use: “I am only a little child.” Cross-checking with our nearest lexical equivalent dly, we discover that N+qÂ€dly or similar expression never occurs in the text of the OT. We suggest therefore that when the biblical authors wished to focus their reference to a young person below puberty but above the age of an infant or weaned child, they would use the syntagm N+qÂ€r(n. In a number of contexts, our term is used in a rather figurative sense to suggest the supplemental component of “inexperience.” Gesenius seems to have alluded to this in his comment: “a) Often emphat. to express a tender age” (see page 10). hn%'hi hwIhoy: ynfdo)j h@hf)j rma)owF Then I said, “Ah, Lord GOD! Truly I do not ykinO)f r(ana-yk@i rb@'d@A yt@i(;dAyF-)Ol know how to speak, for I am only a boy.” Jer. 1.6 ht@f)a yhfOl)v hwfhy: ht@f(aw: dwid@F txat@a K1d@;b;(a-t)e t@fk;lam;hi )Ol N+oqF r(ana ykinO)fw: ybi)f .)ObwF t)c' (dA)'

And now, O LORD my God, you have made your servant king in place of my father David, although I am only a little child; I do not know how to go out or come in. 1 Kgs 3.7

In some cases, the element of “inexperience” or “youngness” is not figurative, as in JudgesÂ€8: Mw%q wOrwOkb@; rteyel; rme)Oy,wA 8.20 So he said to Jether his firstborn, “Go r(an%aha Pla#$f-)Olw: MtfwO) grohj kill them!” But the boy did not draw his .r(anf w%n%dEwO( yk@i )r"yF yk@i wOb@r:xa sword, for he was afraid, because he was still a boy. Mw%q (n%Fmul;caw: xbaze rme)Oy,wA 8.21 Then Zebah and Zalmunna said, “You #$y)ikf yk@i w%nb@f-(gAp;w% ht@f)a come and kill us; for as the man is, so is grohjy,Awa NwO(d:g%I MqFy,fwA wOtrFw%bg%: his strength.” So Gideon proceeded to xq@Ay,IwA (n%Fmul;ca-t)ew: xbaze-t)e kill Zebah and Zalmunna; and he took the .Mheyl@'mag: yr")w%:cab@; r#$e)j MynIrohj#@&aha-t)e crescents that were on the necks of their camels.


77

r(ana ynIb; hmoOl#$; dywId@F rme)Oy,wA For David said, “My son Solomon is young K7rFwF and inexperienced, .â•¯.â•¯.” 1 Chron. 22.5 Myqir" My#$inF)j wylf(f w%cb;q@Fy,IwA w%cm@;)at;y,iwA l(ay,Alib; yn'b@; hyFhf M(fb;xar:w% hmoOl#$;-Nb@e M(fb;xar:-l(a .Mheyn"p;li qz@axat;hi )Olw: bbfl'-K7rAw: r(anA

and certain worthless scoundrels gathered around him and defied Rehoboam son of Solomon, when Rehoboam was young and irresolute and could not withstand them. 2 Chron 13.7

)Ol dwId@F-l)e lw%)#$f rme)Oy,wA yt@i#$;lip@;ha-l)e tkelelf lkaw%t r(ana-yk@i wOm@(i Mx'l@fhil; hz@Eha .wyrF(un%:mi hmfxfl;mi #$y)i )w%hw: ht@f)a

Saul said to David, “You are not able to go against this Philistine to fight with him; for you are just a boy, and he has been a warrior from his youth.” 1 Sam. 17.33

McCarter comments on the latter verse that “Saul objects (v 33) not so much on the grounds of David’s youth and small stature as of his lack of training and experience.”80 On some occasions, it appears that the component of “maleness” is focused upon or stressed much like in English when awaiting the birth of a child, e.g. “It’s a boy!.” dley,Eha-t)e w%h)'r:t@iwA xt@ap;t@iwA When she opened it, she saw that it was a hkeb@o r(ana-hn%"hiw: child, a boy crying Exod 2:6, Tanakh translation On opening it, she saw the child — a boy — crying. Exod. 2.6, B. S. Childs’ translation81

On one occasion, we find the use of r(n in the sense of “son.” y#$ayI-l)e l)'w%m#$; rme)Oy,wA Samuel said to Jesse, “Are all your sons dw(o rme)Oy,wA MyrI(fn%:ha w%m@tahj here?” And he said, “There remains yet the N)Oc=b@a h(ero hn%'hiw: N+fq@Fha r)a#$f youngest, but he is keeping the sheep.” 1 Sam. 16.11

Finally, there is even the possibility that our lexeme can be used as a term of endearment. b)fwyO-t)e K7lem@eha wcay:wA The king ordered Joab and Abishai and rmo)l' yt@a)i-t)ew: y#$aybi)j-t)ew: Ittai, saying, “Deal gently for my sake with MwOl#$fb;)al; r(an%ala yli-+)al; the young man Absalom.” 2 Sam. 18.5

80.â•‡McCarter, 1 Samuel, 293. 81.â•‡ Brevard S. Childs, The Book of Exodus (OTL; Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1974), 5.

78


We take the liberty here of quoting McCarter in this regard: David’s use of na‘ar, “young (man)” in reference to Abishalom here and in vv. 12, 29, and 32 below is demonstratively affectionate (Budde, Schulz, Conroy 1978:48; contrast Caspari). As elsewhere, the narrator is intent upon keeping David’s love for his son before us.82

Semotactic83 Observations on r(n

In light of the complexities and various meanings of the term r(n, the linguistic question arises, “How does one know when means ‘servant’ and not some other meaning in a particular context?” For example, in 1 Sam. 2.11-17, the term appears with three different meanings in the same context. htfmfrFhf hnfqFl;)e K7ley,'wA tr"#$fm; hyfhf r(an%Ahaw: wOtyb@'-l(a .Nh'k@oha yli(' yn'p@;-t)e hwFhy:-t)e l(ay,flib; yn'b@; yli(' yn'b;w% .hwfhy:-t)e w%(d:yF )Ol M(fhf-t)e Mynihjk@oha +p@a#$;miw% )bfw% xbazE xab'zO #$y)i-lk@f r#&fb@fha l#@$'bak@; Nh'k@oha r(ana .wOdyFb@; MyIn%a#@$iha-#$Ol#$; gl'z:m@ahaw: wO) dw%d@ba wO) rwOy,k@iba hk@fhiw: r#$e)j lk@o rw%rp@fba wO) txal@aq@Aba Nh'k@oha xq@AyI gl'z:m@aha hle(jyA l)'rF#&;yI-lkfl; w%#&(jyA hkfk@f wOb@ .hOl#$ib@; M#$f My)ib@fha Nw%r+iq;yA MrE+eb@; Mg%A Nh'k@oha r(ana )bfw% blex'ha-t)e hnft@; xab'z@Oha #$y)ilf rma)fw: Nh'k@ola twOlc;li r#&fbf .yxf-M)i yk@i l#@$fbum; r#&fb@f K1m@;mi xq@AyI-)Olw: r+@'qA #$y)ihf wylf)' rme)Oy,wA r#$e)jk@a K1l;-xqAw: blex'ha MwOy,k@a Nw%ry+iq;yA Nt@'ti ht@f(a yk@i [)Ol] wOl rma)fw: K1#$ep;nA hw%e)at@; .hqFz:xfb; yt@ix;qAlf )Ol-M)iw: hlfwOdg%: MyrI(fn%:ha t)+@axa yhit@;wA w%c)jni yk@i hwfhy: yn'p@;-t)e d)om; .hwfhy: txan:mi t)' My#$inF)jhf

2.11 Then Elkanah went home to Ramah, while the boy remained to minister to the LORD, in the presence of the priest Eli. 2.12 Now the sons of Eli were scoundrels; they had no regard for the LORD 2.13 or for the duties of the priests to the people. When anyone offered sacrifice, the priest’s servant would come, while the meat was boiling, with a three-pronged fork in his hand, 2.14 and he would thrust it into the pan, or kettle, or cauldron, or pot; all that the fork brought up the priest would take for himself. This is what they did at Shiloh to all the Israelites who came there. 2.15 Moreover, before the fat was burned, the priest’s servant would come and say to the one who was sacrificing, “Give meat for the priest to roast; for he will not accept boiled meat from you, but only raw.” 2.16 And if the man said to him, “Let them burn the fat first, and then take whatever your wish,” he would say, “No, you must give it now; if not, I will take it by force.” 2.17 Thus the sin of the young men was very great in the sight of the LORD; for they treated the offerings of the LORD with contempt.

82.â•‡McCarter, II Samuel, 405. 83.â•‡ On “semotactic,” see page 150 of the Glossary.


79

The “boy” referred to in v. 11 is none other than the 3-year-old Samuel whom Hannah had just left behind to serve under Eli at the sanctuary in Shiloh. When attached to the definite article alone, as in r(nh, the term most often refers to some antecedent figure in the narrative and bears the meaning of “boy” rather than “servant.” More importantly, when r(n is in some genitival-possessive relationship, as in wr(n “his servant” or as in vv. 15 and 17 above, Nhkh r(n “priest’s servant,” it almost always means “servant” and not “boy.” Recall our previous examples, Gehazi the servant of Elisha, (#$yl(Â€r(nÂ€yzxyg, and Ziba the servant of the house of Saul, lw)#$Â€tybÂ€r(nÂ€(byc (see page 65 above). Others have also noticed this syntactical feature. In Gen 22 Abraham uses the absolute form (hanna‘ar) when referring to Isaac (22:5) as does the angel (v. 12), and here the meaning is clearly “young person.” But Abraham uses the construct form (with pronominal suffixes) when referring to his companions (vv.Â€3, 5, 19), and here the meaning is clearly the less personal “servants.”84

Indeed, it seems that Gesenius noticed this 150 years ago. With genit. or suff. the servant of any one, Judg. 7, 11. 9,54. 19, 13. Esth. 2, 2 al. But in Job 29, 5 yri(fn; my sons.85

Commenting on the feminine counterpart, hr(n, Hamilton notices the same phenomenon: “When used in the pl. with pronominal suffix, na‘arâ invariably means ‘servants, attendants.’”86 This syntactical feature is similar to an example from French. The term copine in general means “a friend (female)” versus copain which means “a friend (male).” But when spoken in the genitival-possessive relationship, as in ma copine, it means specifically “my girlfriend” (and likewise for mon copain, “my boyfriend”). In other words, genitival-possessive syntactic constructions can alter or shade the meaning of the head word. Thus, r(n when in construct almost always means “servant” and not “boy.” Other pericopae where this can be seen include Gen. 22.5-12 (treated by Hamilton above) and 2 Kgs 4.19-29. Regarding the “third” meaning of r(n as suggested in 1 Sam. 2.11-17, this last translation, “the sin of the young men” in v. 17 is actually debatable and could very well be translated “the sin of the attendants”87 or “the servants’ sin,”88 although most of the English translations have “the sin of the young men.”89

84.â•‡ Victor Hamilton, “r(n,” NIDOTTE. So also Stähli, as John F. A. Sawyer points out in his review of Knabe-Jüngling-Knecht: Untersuchungen zum Begriff r(n im Alten Testament by Hans-Peter Stähli. 85.â•‡Gesenius, A Hebrew and English Lexicon, s.v. 86.â•‡Ibid. 87.â•‡ Klein, 21. 88.â•‡McCarter, 1 Samuel, 77. 89.â•‡ RSV, NIV, JB, KJV, Tanakh. The correct translation is of no small exegetical interest: Whose sin

80


Conclusion

It is indeed quite remarkable that, in many ways, Hebrew r(n corresponds closely in meaning and lexical structure to our English word “boy.” This has often been observed by others but perhaps Pardee has said it best: One cannot help but think of the various usages of English “boy” (with many of the usages paralleled on the distaff side by “girl”): “It’s a boy” = primarily gender; “a small boy” = Hebrew na‘ar qaṭon; “he’s our boy” = family relationship; “our boys over there” = soldiers; “a boy” can be a servant; “the boys at the office” can be of any age.90

To review, we have seen how our term can be divided into two general meanings: one having to do with age, i.e. reference to persons below the age of adulthood, r(na “boy,”91 and the other having to do with function, r(nb “servant.” We have also seen how these two meanings are semotactically distinguished. Furthermore, it is interesting to note that the distribution of r(na and r(nb is roughly even, 133 versus 105 times respectively, by BDB’s count (my own count brings it closer to 50:50). With regard to r(na, we have seen in certain contexts that it can refer to (i) a male child, (ii) a son, or (iii) a male person as a term of endearment. Most of the time, however, it denotes “a male young person below the age of marriage or adulthood.” Depending upon the context, it can refer to a “young boy” between the ages of weaning and puberty or a “young man” between puberty and marriage. It can also refer to an infant, but the focus may be on gender, as in “It’s a boy!” If the author wished to refine his terminology he could use N+q r(n to signify a “young boy.” Our term also includes the supplemental component of “inexperience.” With the above as our framework, we would more specifically suggest that r(na usually means “a male young person between the ages of weaning and marriage or adulthood.” As mentioned in ChapterÂ€2, the anthropologist Ralph Linton has observed that all societies have at least four age categories: infancy, boy/girl-hood, adulthood and old age. Our term r(n would fit in well with his second age category, that of boyhood, between infancy and adulthood. Moreover, we saw in our discussion of The Life Cycle in Ancient Israel with the work of van der Toorn and Louw and Nida, (see page 57) that that second stage of life can be further broken up into “childhood,” from weaning to puberty, and “youth,” from puberty to adulthood. The latter pattern fits very much the semantic profile of r(n, depending upon the context. The fact that in some contexts r(n is further delimited by N+q, as in N+q r(n, demonstrates this conception of the life cycle. Thus, we would argue that r(n

is being highlighted in the text? Is it the “sin of the young men,” i.e. Eli’s sons (v. 12) or simply the “sin of the servants,” i.e. the priest’s servants (vv. 13, 15)? 90.â•‡ Dennis Pardee, review of Knabe-Jüngling-Knecht: Untersuchungen zum Begriff r(n im Alten Testament by Hans-Peter Stähli, CBQ 42 (1980): 550. 91.â•‡ One can no longer agree with Stähli that the “term does not denote primarily an age, but a social status.” Stähli’s semantic analysis is much like the problem of trying to establish a “basic” meaning to explain the multitude of other meanings for the term, i.e.Â€the problem of Grundbedeutung.


81

does describe a lebensphase (pace Stähli and others) and in particular that stage of life between infancy and full adulthood, incorporating the modern categories of childhood, adolescence, and early adulthood. It is important not to confuse our modern conceptions of “youth” and the life cycle with those of antiquity. In ancient Greece, males were not considered full adults until age 30 (see page 51)! Plato argued that the “proper age for a man to marry is between thirty and thirty-five.”92 Socrates wrote about the youth of his day: The young are irascible, quick to anger, and prone to act in anger. They are unable to restrain their rage. On account of their love of social prominence they cannot endure being slighted and greatly resent being wronged. They love social prominence and, even more, they love victory. Youth eagerly desires superiority, and victory is a kind of superiority.93

Socrates was referring to the ne/oi, aged 18 to 30! The conception of the young is not that much different in the HB. They are numbered among the “simple” ()tp) who lack sense (Prov. 7.7). Left to themselves, they will disgrace their mothers (Prov. 29.15, r(n). Foolishness is bound up in the heart of a r(n which only the rod of discipline can drive away (Prov. 22.15). Some argue that r(n does not refer to the life cycle of the young because there are other terms in the HB which do so.94 But this is a weak argument. Ml( “young man” only occurs two times, qnwy “infant, suckling” only nine times, llw( “child” only 20 times, ry(c “little, insignificant, young” only 22 times. The total frequencies of these terms are far short of what one might expect in the HB for the life cycle of the young. r(n in the sense of “young” occurs over 125 times. It is true that rwxb “young man” occurs 45 times, dly “child, boy” occurs 89 times, and that P+ “little ones” occurs 42 times. But these latter terms are more specific lexemes and not as broad a life stage as r(n. They have their own nuances and we shall see later that dly is a life stage outside of r(n, and that P+ is not even technically a life cycle term. In view of all of the above, we suggest the following lexicographical entry: r(n: 1. boy, youth, young man; a male, young person beyond the stage of an infant but before entry into full adulthood — a minor. Sometimes with the additional semantic component of “inexperience.” (a) in some contexts a boy between weaning and puberty. (b) in many contexts, a youth or young man between puberty and marriage. (c) sometimes used of infants with the focus on gender not age as in “It’s a boy!” (d) sometimes used figuratively to emphasize inexperience as in “I am only a boy!” (e)Â€sometimes used with a sense of affection or endearment “That’s my boy!” (f) sometimes used in the sense of kinship, a son, “I have one boy and one girl.” (g) sometimes used as an adjective young in expressions such as “young and old.”

92.â•‡ Leinieks, 205. 93.â•‡ Quoted in Leinieks, 203. 94.â•‡ Hildebrandt, 10; Leeb, 188.

82



83

things in nature

2. servant, attendant; a male, subordinate helper often with the notion of personal attachment (a) in some contexts, the word has more the meaning of steward. (b) in military contexts, the word means soldier.

animal1

vegetable

mineral

From the perspective of componential analysis, we suggest the following: animal2 Diagnostic Components

r(na

human

male

“young”

inexperience

+

+

+

+

young, r(n the young, r(n boy, N+q r(n/ r(n

human being

animal3

Figure 3.1â•‡ Repeated Lexemes in Folk Taxonomies

From the perspective of the semantic domain of the life cycle, we suggest the following:

infant

snakes, insects

Supplemental Component

lion1

dog1

old, Nqz the mature, #$y)

the aged, Nqz

young man, r(n

This means that the one word r(n functions in multiple ways in the above hierarchical structure but this is not all that uncommon in the semantic structures of human languages. In discussing folk taxonomies, Nida points out that “popular taxonomies are often spotty in their hierarchical structures” and that therefore “there is a tendency to make one term serve at different levels, that is, to employ the same term with different meanings.”95 A classic example is the use of the English word “animal.” Another way of understanding this phenomenon is to see it as another case of “semantic neutralization” as described by Cruse.96 For the sake of comparative lexicography, it is instructive to observe how other lexicons have delineated the meaning of r(n. DCH provides the general gloss “lad,” followed by four meanings: (1) boy, lad, youth, (2) young man, (3) servant, attendant, and (4) perhaps slave.97 HALOT delineates only three meanings: (1) lad, adolescent, (2)Â€young man, and (3) fellow, servant, attendant — not noting “boy” in those passages where r(n refers to an infant (e.g. Exod. 2.6; 1 Sam. 1.22). Victor Hamilton in NIDOTTE glosses “boy, youth, servant” and later explains that “a na‘ar might designate not only a minor (under the authority of his father), but also a (civil) servant or soldier/scout (under the authority of his superior).”98 Meyer and Donner

95.â•‡Nida, Componential Analysis, 92. 96.â•‡ Cruse, 255–57. 97.â•‡ For this last sense of “slave” Clines references Carlos Alonso Fontela, “La esclavitud a través de la Biblia,” Estudios Bíblicos 43 (1985): 89–124, 237–74 (95–96), who writes that while r(n originally referred to a “free young person” it later extended in meaning to include “slave.” 98.â•‡ Victor Hamilton, “r(n,” NIDOTTE 3:125.

dog2

bitch

lion2

lioness

Figure 3.2â•‡ Semantic Neutralization list the following glosses at the head of their entry: junger Mann, Jüngling, Junge, Knabe, meaning “young man, youth, boy, lad” respectively and add in parentheses: “i. versch. Altersstufen u. Funktionen, vor d. Verheiratung,” meaning “in different degrees of age or function, before marriage.” They then enumerate two subheadings: “1. a) v. kleinen Kindern.â•¯.â•¯. . b) v. Jungen n. d. Entwöhnung.â•¯.â•¯. . c)Â€junger Mann, Jüngling,” meaning: “1. a) small children.â•¯ .â•¯. . b) boy after weaning.â•¯.â•¯. . c)Â€young man, youth.” And secondly, “2. i. Abhängigkeitsverhältnissen: Junger, Bursche, Diener, Gefolgsmann,” meaning “2.Â€relationships of dependence: boy, lad, servant, follower.” Alonso Schökel’s DBHE has at the head of its entry, Varón no adulto, “non-adult male,” followed by two definitions based on age: “a) Niño, infante, bebé, párvulo, crío, chiquillo, rapaz, chaval,” meaning “a) young boy, infant, baby, toddler, kid, child, young child, boy,” and “b)Â€Joven, muchacho, adolescente, chico, mozo, zagal,” meaning “b) young man, guy, teenager, young boy, young man, lad.” AÂ€third definition includes glosses based on function: “mozo, criado, garzón, mancebo, dependiente,” meaning “young man, servant, waiter, youth, assistant.” What has fascinated this writer in the present investigation into the meaning of r(n is how close this study came to the work of Gesenius 150 years ago. Gesenius was well aware of some of the subtle nuances of the word, which we explained as “supplemental components.” He was keenly aware of significant syntactical phenomena such as the use of genitival-possessive constructions when the word means “servant.” It appears that Gesenius was only limited by the linguistic science of his day and that in spite of this he had an instinctive sense of the meaning of the term which was usually correct. For all the comparative data listed, it did not seem to affect his understanding of the meaning of the word in the HB, and Barr’s praise deserves repeating, “The strength of his work lies in its genius for detailed comprehensive

84



empirical observation.”99 Nevertheless, the great lexicographer’s methodology for explicating meaning was primarily by reference, i.e. “What did such and such word refer to?” While a legitimate methodology (and Gesenius appears judicious in his application of it), we have already noted that “reference” is not the same as “meaning” or “sense.” Not all features, for example, of a thing are semantic components but only those which appear in lexical contrasts.100 Gesenius was also limited by the manuscript evidence available in his day. 1 Samuel 1.24, r(n r(nhw, is probably a case of haplography due to homoioteleuton.101

the semantic focus does not seem to include gender, however. In the Pentateuchal legislation regarding punishment for the accidental causing of a miscarriage, the fetus is referred to as a dly (Exod. 21.22). Thus, we suggest at this point that the semantic component of “maleness” is either not a part of our lexeme or at least not a primary one. The semantic focus instead seems to be on the very young age of the referent, as in “infant” or “child.”104 This sense of dly can be said to roughly correspond to that first stage of the life cycle, from birth to the age of weaning. Unfortunately the total picture for dly is not that simple, for there are a number of other passages where our lexeme does not refer to a young child or infant at all. To begin with, there are two or three passages where the referents are clearly “young boys,” i.e. older than infants but not as old as youths or young men.

Semantic Study of dly There are 89 occurrences of dly in the OT, variously translated as “boy,” “child,” “youth” in the singular and “children,” “young men” in the plural. We have surveyed all these occurrences, noting the various Greek and English translations, as well as “Other Terms” which appear in near contexts (see the “Table for Hebrew dly” in the Appendix on page 129). According to VOT, the books with the greatest number of occurrences are: Genesis Exodus 2 Samuel


85

w%nt@;y,IwA lrFwOg w%d@yA ym@i(a-l)ew: and cast lots for my people, and traded boys w%rk;mf hd@Fl;y,Ahaw: hnFwOz@b@a dley,Eha for prostitutes, and sold girls for wine, and .w%t@#$;y,IwA NyIy,aba drunk it down. Joel 4.3[3.3] MydIlfy: w%)l;m@fyI ry(ihf twObxor:w% And the streets of the city shall be full of .hfyteboxor:b@i MyqIxj#&am; twOdlfywi boys and girls playing in its streets. Zech. 8.5

To the above could be added one additional passage: BH does have a feminine counterpart, hdly “girl,” which occurs only three times (Gen. 34.4; Joel 4.3; Zech. 8.5). In a large majority of occurrences, dly seems to refer primarily to a newborn infant or a very young child. (a) Gen. 21.8 (b) Exodus 2 (c) 2 Sam. 12.15 (d) 1 Kgs 3.25 (e) Isa. 9.5[6] (f) Ruth 4.16

“and the dly, [Isaac] grew and was weaned” various references to infant Moses Bathsheba’s child which died the contested child of the two prostitutes102 “for unto us a dly is born” Ruth’s child in the bosom of Naomi

Because in all the above cases the referents happen to be male, it is tempting to also specify a “very, young, male child.” This may, however, be a contextual sense and not necessarily a lexical sense. It is also somewhat odd that we have only three occurrences of the feminine counterpart hdly, whereas in the situation with r(n, the male to female ratio of occurrences is 120 to 48.103 We do have one reference where

99.â•‡ Tene and Barr, 1396. 100.â•‡Nida, Componential Analysis, 35. 101.â•‡ See McCarter, I Samuel, 57. 102.â•‡ Note that for some reason NRSV has “boy,” a change from “child” in RSV here. 103.â•‡ As with r(n, hr(n has two meanings: hr(na meaning “young woman” and hr(nb meaning

M)'r:y,IwA wyrFxj)a Npey,iwA hwfhy: M#$'b@; Ml'l;qAy:wa Myb@id@U MyIt@a#$; hnF)cet@'wA Mhem' hnF(;q@Abat@;wA r(ay,Aha-Nmi .MydIlfy: yn'#$;w% My(ib@fr:)a

When he turned around and saw them, he cursed them in the name of the LORD. Then two she-bears came out of the woods and mauled forty-two of the boys. 2 Kgs 2.24

These same boys are referred to as Myn+q Myr(n in the previous verse. There are several other passages where the referents appear to be “youth” or “young men.” brA znap@;#$;)al; K7lem@eha rme)Oy,wA yn'b@;mi )ybihfl; wysfyrIsf hkfw%lm@;ha (rAz@emiw% l)'rF#&;yI r#$e)j MydIlfy: .Mymit@;r:p@aha-Nmiw% … Mw%)m;-lk@f Mheb@f-Ny)'

then the king commanded his palace master Ashpenaz to bring some of the Israelites of the royal family and of the nobility, young men without physical defect .â•¯.â•¯. Dan. 1.3-4 (cf. vv. 10, 13, 15, 17)

“maidservant.” According to Even-Shoshan’s concordance, the count for hr(na is 48 occurrences. 104.â•‡ “Child” in terms of the meaning “a baby or infant.” RHUD gives the following definitions for “child”: (1) a young boy or girl, (2) a son or daughter, (3) a baby or infant, (4) a childish person, (5) a descendant.

86

The Days of Our Years dley,eha rma)Oy,wA wyxf)e-l)e b#$fy,fwA He returned to his brothers, and said, “The .)bf-ynI)j hnF)f yni)jwA w%n%nEy)' boy is gone; and I, where can I turn?” Gen. 37.30 (cf. 42.22) Mkfxfw: Nk@'s;mi dleye bwO+ Better is a poor but wise youth than an old r#$e)j lysik;w% Nq"zF K7lem@emi but foolish king, who will no longer take .dwO( rh'z@Fhil; (dAyF-)Ol advice. Eccl. 4.13 Myy,Ixaha-lk@f-t)e ytiy)irF M(i #$me#@$fha txat@a Mykil@;ham;ha dmo(jyA r#$e)j ynI#@$'ha dley,eha .wyt@fx;t@a

I saw all the living who, moving about under the sun, follow that youth who replaced the king; Eccl 4.15

The classic text of Lamech’s Song (Gen. 4.23) is often cited but it is a debatable example: hdF(f wy#$fnFl; K7mele rme)Oy,wA K7mele y#$'n: yliwOq N(ama#$; hl@fciw: #$y)i yk@i ytirFm;)i hn%Fz');ha dleyew: y(ic;pil; yt@ig:rAhf .ytirFb@uxal;

Lamech said to his wives: “Adah and Zillah, hear my voice; you wives of Lamech, listen to what I say: I have killed a man for wounding me, a young man for striking me. Gen. 4.23

In a critical note, Patrick Miller has argued that dly “can mean just what it says, a boy, a male child, and that we have here a sort of parallelism of degree as in vs. 2, rather than synonymous parallelism.”105 Finally, we have the case of our term being used in reference to mature, adult men, the yeladim of Rehoboam. r#$e)j Myniq"z@:ha tca(j-t)e bzO(jy,Awa MydIlfy:ha-t)e C(aw%Fy,IwA w%hcu(fy: r#$e)j wOt@)i w%ld:g%F r#$e)j .wynfpfl; MydIm;(ohf

But he disregarded the advice that the older men gave him, and consulted with the young men who had grown up with him and now attended him. 1 Kgs 12.8 (cf. vv. 10, 14 || 2 Chron. 10.8, 10, 14)

Assuming they were of the same approximate age as Rehoboam, they would have been about 40 years old! Holladay places the last case in a separate entry “‘the young men,’ advising group.” Malamat106 has suggested that the Mydly of 1 Kings 12 were royal princes, comprising a second group of advisors contrasting with the “elders.”

105.â•‡ Patrick D. Miller, “Critical Note: YELED in the Song of Lamech,” JBL 85 (1966): 477–78. 106.â•‡ Malamat, A. “Kingship and Council in Israel and Sumer: A Parallel,” JNES 22 (1963): 247–53. Malamat, A. “Organs of Statecraft in the Israelite Monarchy,” BA 28 (1965): 34–65.


87

The above passage may thus reflect a unique usage or ideolectical sense of the term and denote “royal princes.” If such is the case, this “new meaning” could also be applied to the DanielÂ€1 references and to Eccl. 4.13, 15. The varieties of reference shown above would seem to undercut this writer’s suggestion that the primary sense of dly is “a young child or infant roughly between birth and three years of age.” While it is not within the scope of our study to explicate the complete lexical structure of dly, a few comments in such a direction can explain the lexical dynamics and “incongruities” of some of the above references. In working through the 89 occurrences of dly, this writer noticed how the Hebrew Nb was often used in conjunction with the term. In 2 Kgs 4.1, dly is used to refer to the widow’s children and in vv. 4, 5 and 7 Nb is used. In fact, LXX translates dly in v. 1 as u(ioj (and so in Ruth 1.5). This suggests that in some cases, dly may have some affinity to kinship terms and may refer more to the idea of “offspring,” without reference to age. We have already noted above that even in English, the word “child” may refer to “son or daughter” (cf. footnote 104 on page 85). In this sense, dly may function much like te/knona “one’s immediate offspring, but without specific reference to sex or age” (L&N, 116).107 Thus, another possible sense of dly would be “a (male) offspring, one generation below ego and in a direct line of descent.”108 This would help explain the references to Joseph in Genesis not so much as a “boy” in terms of age but as a “boy” in the sense of “Jacob’s boy,” namely, his son. It is important to note that as the story unfolds, Joseph is a son of Jacob in a different way to his brothers and that the issue of sibling rivalry is one of the plot’s driving themes. Joseph is different because he is the son of Jacob’s favorite wife and a son of his old age, Mynqz-Nb (Gen. 37.3). Indeed, Joseph’s half-brothers sometimes make the distinction that he is rather the brother of their youngest sibling, Benjamin (Gen.Â€44.20). In his cries concerning the loss of Joseph in Gen. 37.30 and 42.22, Reuben could not very well use the word Nb “son.” Nor could he use the word x) “brother” without further implicating himself and his fellow half-brothers. At the same time, r(n is much too distant a term in such a context (it is not a kinship term).109 This lexical dynamic also settles the problem of Ruth 1.5, which refers to Naomi’s deceased married sons as Mydly.110 Turning to our traditional lexicographers both old and new, it is encouraging to find agreement on this last point. Gesenius gives as his first meaning for dly “1. one born, a son, poet. i.q. Nb'@.” J. Kühlewein writes in his article on the word in TLOT that “The segholate form yeled ‘boy’ is frequently used in a manner similar to → bēn ‘son.’” Thus, dly can be understood to have at least two different meanings and belong therefore to two different semantic fields. The situation is similar to that of

107.â•‡ Indeed, the LXX so translates dly eight times; see “Table for Hebrew dly” in the Appendix. 108.â•‡Nida, Componential Analysis, 33–34. 109.â•‡ An alternative approach is to understand Reuben’s cries in the following sense: “The kid is gone; and I, where can I turn?” (Gen. 37.30); “Did I not tell you not to wrong the kid?” (Gen. 42.22). 110.â•‡ But see Edward F. Campbell, Jr., Ruth: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary (New York: Doubleday, 1975), 56. Campbell sees the same word in ch. 1 repeated in ch. 4 as a literary leitmotif.

88



Greek pai=j, which is the overwhelming LXX translation of our term.111 Louw and Nida include the word under the separate semantic domains of “Persons” — pai=ja meaning “child (generic)” and “Kinship Terms” — pai=jb meaning “child (one’s own).” BDAG has “1.Â€a young pers. normally below the age of puberty, w. focus on age rather than social status, boy, youth .â•¯.â•¯. . 2. one’s own immediate offspring, child.” While this second meaning of dly belongs within the semantic domain of Nb and kinship terms, there is also the possibility of yet another distinction. It is well known that Nb is a rather general term which can mean not only “son” but also “grandson.” Also, in a study of every referent of dly which could be determined from context, they were always an immediate child and not a grandchild.112 We suggest, therefore, that perhaps dly is a more specific kinship term which refers to “an immediate (male) offspring.” A tentative but interesting analysis follows:

Semantic Study of P+

Nb dlyb

male

offspring

direct line of descent

one generation below ego

+

+

+

+/−

(+)

+

+

+

We are still left, however, with those three passages where our term seems to refer clearly to “young boys” (see page 85). We could expand our meaning of the term to include such an age range but in view of the vast majority of occurrences referring to “a young child or infant,” other explanations seem warranted. The meaning (or meanings) of our term do seem much more variegated and expanded in later texts and so perhaps the term came to include the sense of “young boys” in such postexilic texts as Joel 4.3 [3.3], Zech. 8.5, and 2 Kgs 2.24. Alternatively, perhaps dly began to shade over into the meaning of r(n in the sense of “boy: any male child from birth to full growth” in later texts. If we accept our initial understanding of the term as “a young child or infant” then we can complete our vocabulary of the life cycle as follows: young, r(n infant, dly

the young, r(n boy, N+q r(n/r(n

old, Nqz the mature, #$y)

the aged, Nqz

young man, r(n

111.â•‡ dly is most often translated by paidi/on (see the Appendix) in the LXX, which is the diminutive of pai=j. Louw and Nida hold that the difference in meaning between the original word and its diminutive was lost by NT times (see also Carson, 36–37). pai=j is also the overwhelming favorite LXX translation for r(n. 112.â•‡ References checked were for dly in the singular only. In the plural, lexical dynamics change and can expand meaning. Thus, for example, Mdly “children” in Exod.Â€21.4 includes sons and daughters (see the parallel term in v. 5, ynb). In Ezra 10.1 we have the expression “men, women and children” Mydlyw My#$nw My#$n).

89

Our third and final lexeme of study is P+, which is most often translated as “children” or “little ones.” P+ occurs 42 times in the OT, most often in the Pentateuch (28 times or exactly two-thirds of the total). It occurs most often in the following books: Numbers Genesis Deuteronomy


The term never appears in construct nor in the plural, being a collective noun. Wolff understood the term as referring to a “pattering, not capable of walking” or “toddler” (see above page 46). Apparently, etymology and Arabic cognatia have had its influence upon the meaning of the term and its trajectory in lexicographa. Gesenius associated our term with the hapax Ppo+f in Isa. 3.16. In first dealing with the hapax, he proposed a Hebrew root IÂ€Pp+ based on Arabic ṭff II “to trip (horse).” The proposal seemed to fit the context and therefore the root IÂ€Pp+ was established, meaning to “mince along, trip along.”113 Gesenius next associated P+ with IÂ€Pp+ and defined the former’s meaning, “little ones, little children, boys and girls so called from their quick and tripping gait.”114 Needless to day, such etymologizing is no longer acceptable today.115 Even if the etymology held up, the meaning of P+ as referring to “children” only does not. Locher has observed that “This restricted range of meanings does not do justice to the 42 occurrences of ṭap.”116 First, it is clear that in some passages P+ includes women as well as children.117 trod:g%I w%rm;)Oy,wa wylf)' w%#$g%:y,IwA hp@o w%nn'q;mil; hneb;nI N)Oc .w%np@'+al; MyrI(fw: yn'b@; yn"p;li My#$ixu Cl'xfn" w%nx;nA)jwA r#$e)j d(a l)'rF#&;yI MmfwOqm;-l)e MnU)oybihj-M)i rcfb;m@iha yr"(fb@; w%np@'+a b#$ayFw: .CrE)fhf yb'#$;yO yn'p@;mi

Then they came up to him and said, “We will build sheepfolds here for our flocks, and towns for our little ones, but we will take up arms as a vanguard before the Israelites, until we have brought them to their place. Meanwhile our little ones will stay in the fortified towns because of the inhabitants of the land. Num. 32.16-17

113.â•‡ HALOT, s.v. I Pp+. 114.â•‡ Gesenius, s.v. P+a. M. Kohl’s English translation of Wolff’s Anthropologie, “pattering, not capable of walking,” is apparently mistaken or at least misleading. Wolff’s original words are “trippelnd, nicht marschfähig.” We are dealing here not so much with children who are unable to walk as with children who walk with short and quick steps. The proper translation should probably be “toddlers, not capable of marching.” 115.â•‡ C. Locher, “P+,a,” TDOT 5:347. 116.â•‡Ibid. 117.â•‡ Even BDB notes this in the Addenda et Corrigenda.

90



The NEB translates P+ in the above passages as “our dependants,” and the NIV goes so far as to translate it as “our women and children”! Locher understands P+fhÂ€a ypil; in Gen.Â€47.12 as “according to the size of the household” (NRSV has “according to the number of their dependents”) and connects this passage with Gen. 45.11 and 50.21 as part of the leitmotif of “you and your household.”118 Gen. 50.21, BHS

Gen. 50.21, LXX

ykinO)f w%)rFyt@i-l)a ht@f(aw: Mkep@;+a-t)ew: Mket;)e lk@'l;ka)j

mh/ fobei=sqe e)gw/. diaqre/ yw u(ma/j kai\ ta\j oi)ki/aj u(mw/n

children; those not fit for marching; family.

In 2 Sam. 15.22, the NIV actually translates P+ as “families” (NEB “dependants”). A second, more restricted meaning is suggested in the direction of “‘dependents, those unfit for military service’ (i.e. children, the elderly, slaves, etc.),” which does not include women since My#$n are specifically collocated with P+ in the listed contexts.121

Gen. 50.21, NRSV “So have no fear; I myself will provide for you and your little ones.”

Along with the above passages, Gesenius and others include Exod.â•›12.37 and Num.Â€32.24. There are even passages where P+ includes the aged! w%nyr"(fn:b@i h#$emo rme)Oy,wA w%nyn"bfb@; K7l'n" w%nyn'q"z:biw% w%nr"qFb;biw% w%nn')Ocb@; w%nt'wOnb;biw% .w%nlf hwfhy:-gxa yk@i K7l'n" hwFhy: Nk' yhiy: Mhel')j rme)Oy,wA Mket;)e xl@a#$a)j r#$e)jk@a Mkem@f(i Mkep@;+a-t)ew:

Kinder: nicht Marschfähige; Familie.

91

Moses said, “We will go with our young and our old; we will go with our sons and daughters and with our flocks and herds, because we have the Lord’s festival to celebrate.” He said to them, “The LORD indeed will be with you, if ever I let your little ones go with you!” Exod. 10.9-10

w%nn'q;mi w%ny#$'nF w%np@'+a Our P+, our wives, our flocks, and all our M#$f-w%yh;yi w%nt@'m;heb@;-lkfw: livestock shall remain there in the towns of .d(fl;g%Iha yr"(fb@; Gilead; Num. 32.26

However, it is not always clear in the passages whether “dependents, including slaves, etc.” or simply “children” is meant. It seems that only when one brings in the data of the LXX does the broader sense of “dependents” emerge. hdF('hf M#$f-w%xl;#$;y,IwA yn'b@;mi #$y)i Ple)e r#&f(f-Myn"#$; rmo)l' MtfwO) w%w%cay:wA lyIxfhe yb'#$;wOy-t)e Mteyk@ihiw: w%kl; brExe-ypil; d(fl;g%I #$b'yF .P+@fhaw: My#$in%Fhaw:

kai\ a)pe/steilen e)kei+ h( sunagwgh\ dw/deka xilia/ daj a)ndrw=n a)po\ ui(w=n th=j duna/mewj kai\ e)netei/ lanto au)toi=j le/gontej poreu/esqe kai/ pata/ xate tou\j oi)kou=ntaj Iabij Galaad e)n sto/ mati r(omfai/aj [A kai\ gunai=kaj kai\ to\n lao/n.]

So the congregation sent twelve thousand soldiers there and commanded them, “Go, put the inhabitants of Jabesh-gilead to the sword, including the women and the P+. Judg. 21.10

-lkfw xar"qF-Nb@e NnFxfwOy xq@Ay,IwA wOt@)i-r#$e)j MyliyFxjha yr"#&f: r#$e)j M(fhf tyrI)'#$;-lk@f t)' -Nk@e l)('mf#$;yI t)'m' by#$ih' hk@h f i rxa)a hp@c f m ; h i@ -a Nmi hyFnt : na e@ MqFyxi)j-Nb@e hyfl;dAg%:-t)e hmfxfl;m@iha y#$'n:)a MyrIbfg%: r#$e)j MysirIsfw: P+aw: My#$inFw: .NwO(b;g%Imi by#$ih'

kai/ e)/laben Iwanan kai\ pa/ntej oi( h(gemo/nej th=j duna/mewj oi( met' au)tou= pa/ntaj tou\j kataloi/ pouj tou= laou= ou(/j a) pe/streyen a)po\ Ismahl dunatou\j a)ndraj e)n pole/ mw| kai\ ta/j gunai=kaj kai\ ta\ loipa\ kai\ tou\j eu)nou/ xouj ou(/j a)pe/streyen a)po\ Gabawn

Then Johanan son of Kareah and all the leaders of the forces with him took all the rest of the people whom Ishmael son of Nethaniah had carried away captive from Mizpah after he had slain Gedaliah son of Ahikam — soldiers, women, P+, and eunuchs, whom Johanan brought back from Gibeon. Jer. 41.16 [LXX 48.16]

Indeed, Locher has argued (with Rudolph) that 2 Chron. 20.13 and 31.18 include an explanatory gloss upon the word, which was needed because it was “largely unfamiliar at an early date and needed further explanation.”119 yn'p;li MydIm;(o hdFw%hy:-lkow: Meanwhile all Judah stood before the Mhey#$'n: Mp@f+a-Mg%A hwfhy: LORD, with their P+, i.e., their wives and .Mheyn"b;w% their children. 2 Chron. 20.13 Mp@f+a-lkfb@; #&x'yAt;hil;w% The priests were enrolled with all their Mheyt'wOnb;w% Mheyn"b;w% Mhey#$'n: P+, i.e., their wives, their sons, and their … lhfqF-lkfl; daughters, the whole multitude; 2 Chron. 31.18

Locher concludes from his study of the term that “In its most general sense — usually in isolation — ṭap probably means something like ‘hangers-on, family, household,’ including women, children, the aged, slaves, etc.” Indeed Fohrer’s dictionary120 has:

118.â•‡Locher, TDOT 5:348. 119.â•‡ Ibid. J. Lee holds to the same sort of “tautological” situation for Num.Â€16.27 (Lee, 435). 120.â•‡ Georg Fohrer, ed., Hebrew and Aramaic Dictionary of the Old Testament, in cooperation with

Hans W. Hoffmann, Friedrich Huber, Jochen Vollmer, and Gunther Wanke; trans. W. Johnstone (Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 1973). 121.â•‡ Locher lists Gen. 45.19; 46.5; Num. 16.27; 32.26; Deut. 2.34; 3.6, 19; 29.10; 31.12; Josh. 1.14; 8.35; Judg. 21.10; Est. 8.11; Jer. 40.7; 41.16; 43.6.

92



Finally, in some passages the word is used in parallel with Mynb to mean simply “children,” with the focus on their young age, because the context of the pericope calls for such an understanding.

11QT 62:10, xb#$ take captive Gn 34:29 Nm 31:9 (both || h#$)), hkn hi. strike Jg 21:10, db) pi. destroy Est 3:13 lQpHab 6:11(|| h#$)), Mrx hi. destroy Dt 2:34 3:6 (both || h#$)) dm#$ hi. destroy Est 3:13, grh kill Ezk 9:6 (||Â€h#$)) Est 3:13.

zbalf Mt@er:ma)j r#$e)j Mkep@;+aw: w%(d:yF-)Ol r#$e)j Mkeyn"b;w% hyEh;yI w%)ObyF hm@fh' (rFwF bwO+ MwOy,ha .hfw%#$rFyyI Mh'w: hn%FnEt@;)e Mhelfw: hm@f#$f

And as for your little ones, who you thought would become booty, your children, who today do not yet know right from wrong, they shall enter there; to them I will give it, and they shall take possession of it. Deut. 1.39

To the above we should also add Num. 14.31. A survey of P+ reveals some interesting contextual and syntagmatic relationships. First, it is often used in “military” contexts, with the verb zzb “to plunder.” In the Rules of Warfare, for example, in Deut. 20.14, we have “You may, however, take as your booty (zzb) the women (My#$n), the children (P+), livestock, and everything else in the town, all its spoil” (NRSV). Secondly, it is on a number of occasions part of a stock phraseology: “men, women and children,” with Mytm (Deut 2.34, 3.6); with My#$n) (Deut. 31.12; Jer. 40.7); and with rbg (Jer. 43.6). Thirdly, it is collocated most often with My#$n “women” (24 times), as in “Our wives and little ones will become booty” (Num.Â€14.3). Whatever one may say about the term, P+ seems to have less to do with the semantic domain of the life cycle than the domain of family and kinship terms. In an intriguing article, John Lee brings into the discussion the most common LXX translation of the word, a)poskeuh/.122 Evidence from the LXX and non-biblical Greek suggests that although a)poskeuh/ originally meant “movable property,” it developed in non-biblical Greek into the meaning “a soldier’s family,” and then in the LXX into the meaning “the group of persons comprising a man’s family.” We have already observed how P+ is often found in military contexts and associated with the verb zzb. Clines’ dictionary is helpful here in that the syntagmatic data demonstrate how often our term is collocated with verbs of motion.

93

The military contexts, the syntagmatic data, and the use of a)poskeuh/ in translation of P+ exclusively in the Pentateuch123 point to an interesting Sitz im Leben, i.e. the nomadic nature of Israel’s origins. To sum up then, P+ would appear to have the sense of “the members of a family (often nomadic) as dependents of a male head of household, often women and children but without specificity as to age or sex.” Thus, we conclude that P+ is not a term belonging to the language of the life cycle after all. The fact that it never appears in the same context as our other term, dly, would seem to confirm this. In a 1999 article, Michael O’Connor highlighted and emphasized the superordinate/hyponymous semantic profile of P+.124 Thus, the lexeme maintains both its superordinate sense of “dependents” and its hyponymous sense of “children, little ones”; it is the context which actualizes one or the other. This is similar to Locher’s position: The basic meaning is probably something like “hangers-on,” i.e., those who are “dependent,” the “remainder.” .â•¯.â•¯. Both linguistically and semantically, then, ṭap has a “complementary” function: only the context shows what ṭap refers to, when the groups mentioned before or after ṭap have been subtracted.125

O’Connor goes further and finds from a study of Numbers 31–32 that P+ can also include adolescent males and young nubile females. His study of the term’s occurrences in the Qumran materials reveals a similar semantic profile. In a fascinating review of contemporary lexica in their treatment of P+, O’Connor concludes: The reader of Numbers 31-32 curious about P+ would be best informed by KB 1 and KB 3. BDB and Zorell provide clues to the complexity of the word, but a dictionary user would have to work hard to follow them up. Madrid and Sheffield do not give any useful directions to unpacking the word in its Numbers 31-32 setting. The etymological data in BDB, KB 1 and KB 3 are all bad and potentially misleading.126

P+a 42.0.6 n.m. children — P+a sf. wnp+ /Mkp+ /Mp+ — alw. used collectively, children, infants. .â•¯.â•¯. .â•¯.â•¯. )wb hi. bring Nm 14:31, lhq hi. assemble Dt 31:12 (||Â€h#$) woman), xl#$ pi. send away Ex 10:10, xql take Jr 41:16 (+ rbg man, #$y) man, h#$)) 43:6, M#& place Jg 18:21, h#&n raise Gn 46:5, dqp hi. entrust Jr 40:7 (+ #$y)/ h#$)), lwp pilp. provide (for) Gn 50:21, hyh hi. keep alive Nm 31:18, bz( abandon Gn 50:8, rwc oppress Est 8:11(|| h#$) woman), zzb plunder, i.e., take as booty Dt 20:14

If only O’Connor had studied Gesenius, he would have had one more lexicon to add to his plus side; for the latter wrote in his dictionary entry, “Sometimes it is applied to a whole family, excepting only the father or head of the family” (emphasis his). And Gesenius wrote this over a century and half ago! In a follow-up article co-authored by O’Connor and Lee, the authors review and

122.â•‡ John A. Lee, “APOSKEUH in the Septuagint,” JTS N.S. 23 (1972): 430–37. Discussed originally in Lee’s 1970 University of Cambridge doctoral dissertation which was published as A Lexical Study of the Septuagint Version of the Pentateuch, Septuagint and Cognate Studies Series, ed. Harry M. Orlinsky, No. 14 (Chico, CA: Scholars Press, 1983), 101ff.

123.â•‡ Lee, 437. 124.â•‡ Michael O’Connor, “Biblical Hebrew Lexicography: P+ ‘Children, Dependents’ in Biblical and Qumranic Hebrew,” JNSL 25, 2 (1999): 25–40. 125.â•‡Locher, TDOT 5:348. 126.â•‡ O’Connor “Biblical Hebrew Lexicography,” 37.

94


95

bring together their separate lines of research and complain that a number of lexica and commentaries have not caught up with their findings.127 This present study, in its original dissertation form, had already made the connection between P+ and a)poskeuh/ over a decade ago.

4

SEMANTIC STUDY OF HEBREW TERMS FOR THE MATURE The Terminology of the Mature The life phase of the “mature” refers to the full-grown adult, marked typically by entrance into marriage usually at the age of 20 or older (on the age of majority, see pageÂ€53). This stage of life includes the pursuit of work, the raising of family, legal culpability, military eligibility, etc. Van der Toorn describes this stage for women as “married life,” from age 16 to 40 (see above page 55) and Louw and Nida call it “marriage to menopause” (page 57). The terminology of the mature includes the following lexemes. rbeg e #$y)i Mdf) f h#%f$) i

“man” “man” “man” “woman”

66 occurrences 2166 occurrences1 560 occurrences 775 occurrences

That such a category exists is demonstrated by passages where #$y) is contrasted with the terminology of the young. )Ol dwId@F-l)e lw%)#$f rme)Oy,wA yt@i#$;lip@;ha-l)e tkelelf lkaw%t r(ana-yk@i wOm@(i Mx'l@fhil; hz@Eha .wyrF(un%:mi hmfxfl;mi #$y)i )w%hw: ht@f)a

Saul said to David, “You are not able to go against this Philistine to fight with him; for you are just a boy, and he has been a warrior from his youth.” 1 Sam. 17.33

We also observe a contrast in the Song of Lamech. hdF(f wy#$fnFl; K7mele rme)Oy,wA K7mele y#$'n: yliwOq N(ama#$; hl@fciw: #$y)i yk@i ytirFm;)i hn%Fz');ha dleyew: y(ic;pil; yt@ig:rAhf .ytirFb@uxal;

Lamech said to his wives: “Adah and Zillah, hear my voice; you wives of Lamech, listen to what I say: I have killed a man for wounding me, a young man for striking me. Gen. 4.23

We have already mentioned Miller’s suggestion that dly can mean here “aÂ€child,” 127.â•‡ Michael O’Connor and John A. Lee, “A Problem of Biblical Lexicography: The Case of Hebrew ṭap and Greek aposkeuē,” ZAW 119 (2007): 403–409.

1.â•‡ Word counts here are from BDB. DCH gives a count of 2,179 for #$y).

96


and not so much “a young man” (see page 86 above). It is noteworthy that this is the only place in the Pentateuch where dly is translated “young man.” The LXX similarly interprets this passage, rendering it neani/skoj.2 neani/skoj, however, is used to translate dly only four times in the entire Hebrew Bible: here and in Eccl.Â€4.15, Dan. 1.4 and Ezra 10.1. Elsewhere in the Pentateuch dly is translated by paidi/on the vast majority of the time and has the sense of “child.” We suggest, therefore, that the proper interpretation of dly in Gen. 4.23 is as “child” and not “young man.” To put it another way, the parallelism of terms is not so much one of synonymy as one of contrast and degree:3

4.â•‡ Semantic Study of Hebrew Terms for the Mature M(ap@aha t)Oz MdF)fhf rme)Oy,wA yrI#&fb@;mi r#&fbfw% ymacf(jm' Mce(e #$y)im' yk@i h#@$f)i )r"q@FyI t)Ozl; .t)Oz@-hxfq?lu

subject God h#&) make Gn 1:26 6:6 Is 17:7 Jr 27:5 (||Â€Cr)Â€world) Hb 1:141QpHab 5:12 Ec 7:29 (+ r#$y upright) Si 50:22 4QJuba 7:2 4QapPsa 1.2:1, )rb create Gn 1:27 5:1 6:7 Dt 4:32 Is 45:12 (|| Cr)) Si 15:14 rcy fashion 1QH1:15 (+ lbtb in the world), ldg pi. make grow Si 50:22, hbr hi. make numerous Ezk 36:10.11, My#& place Jb 20:4 (+Â€Cr)-yl( on the earth), ty#$ place Si 15:14 (Segal) (+ wptwxÂ€dyb into the hand of his adversary), Ntn place Is 43:4 (or em. tmd) lands; +Â€Mym)Â€l nations) Si 15:14 (+Â€wrcyÂ€dyb into the hand of his own desire), (cm hi. cause to be found Zc 11:6, rws hi. remove Jb 33:17, qxr Pi. remove Is 6:12 4Q386-9 4:12 (+Â€Cr) land, Klh hi. cause to walk Ezk 36:12, xl#$ pi. send Zc 8:10, (dy know Ps 144:3 (||Â€#w$ n)-Nb person), rcn watch Jb 7:20, rqy hi. make precious, rare Is 13:12 (|| #$wn) person), dml pi. teach Ps 94:10 (+Â€Mywg nations), (#$y hi. save Ps 36:7, hxm wipe out Gn 6:7, tb#$ hi. destroy Jr 36:29, trk hi. cut off Ezk 14:13.17.19.21 25:13 29:8 Zp 1:3, Pws hi. put an end (to) 1:3, hkn hi. strike Jr 21:6 33:5.

Hamilton writes, This is the only place in the OT where ’îš and yeled form a word pair, .â•¯.â•¯. .â•¯.â•¯. If ’îš and yeled are not a word pair and the two lines are not synonymous, then Lamech is stating that, if provoked, he would not hesitate to kill even a child, let alone an adult.4

Another interesting exemplar text is Gen. 4.1. wOt@#$;)i hw%fxa-t)e (dAyF MdF)fhfw: Now the man knew his wife Eve, and she rme)Ot@wA NyIqA-t)e dlet@'wA rhat@awA conceived and bore Cain, saying, “I have .hwfhy:-t)e #$y)i ytiyniqF produced a man with the help of the LORD.”

Other subjects, +bn hi. look (at) Is 38:11, P+n hi. incite CD 19:25, dm#$ hi. destroy (of Israelites) Jos 11:14, hkn hi. strike fatally (of Israelites) 11:14 (+ ll#$ booty, hmhb cattle), xbz sacrifice Ho 13:2, lk) eat Ezk 19:3.6 (both with subj. lion) 36:13.14 (both with subj. land; + @ Kywg your people), (lb swallow (of earth) Nm 16:32 (|| #$wkr property). (underline emphasis mine).7

It is unusual that Eve does not say “I have produced a son” or “I have produced a child.” Note Westermann’s comments here:

It is certainly curious that up to this point the preferred term for “man” is Md), which occurs 26 times compared to only four instances of #$y)i. The latter term also first appears in the Bible in a poetic line featuring word play.

2.â•‡ Aquila translates dly here and usually elsewhere with paidi/on. 3.â•‡ Perhaps Kugel’s terms are helpful here: “A and what’s more B.” 4.â•‡ Hamilton, “dly,” NIDOTTE 2:457. 5.â•‡ Claus Westermann, Genesis 1–11 (trans. John J. Scullion; Minneapolis: Augsburg, 1984), 290.

Then the man said, “This at last is bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh; this one shall be called Woman, for out of Man this one was taken.” Gen. 2.23

It is also curious that while Md) is commonly the object of )rb “to create” (God is always the subject of this verb), #$y)i is never so.6 God is very often the subject of verbs with Md) as object as well.

Indeed, I have killed a man for wounding me, even a child for striking me.

This explanation solves automatically the second difficulty in v.Â€1b, namely that the word #$y)i cannot mean the newly born child and that it never occurs with the meaning “male child.” But this is not the purpose of the mother’s cry. Rather she sees in the child she has borne the (future) man; she boasts therefore that she has brought forth a man in a way that corresponds to the creation of man by the creator.5

97

Thus, the collocations of Md) vis-à-vis #$y) point to semantic differentiation. In any case, the passages above and others like them demonstrate that at least in the case of #$y) the category and sense of “mature, adult person” exists.

Semantic Study of #$y) Occurring 2,183 times by Kühlewein’s count8, #$y) is one of the most common, in fact, the sixth-most common substantive in the entire OT. It is distributed evenly

6.â•‡ Other objects of )rb include M( “people,” #$wOn) “human being,” and Nb “son.” See Clines’ DCH, s.v. 7.â•‡Clines, DCH, s.v. 8.â•‡ J. Kühlewein, “#$y),,” TLOT 1:98.

98


4.â•‡ Semantic Study of Hebrew Terms for the Mature

across the canon, although somewhat more densely in narrative and legal materials. On the diachronic study of the term, we note Bratsiotis’ comment:

Thus, for our semantic purposes, we are concerned with approximately 1,200 occurrences, 82 of which have the meaning “husband.” Interestingly, Even-Shoshan lists as Mybwrq “synonyms”: #$pn /Mytm /rbg /l(b /#$wn) /Md). Aside from the special syntactical constructions (nos. 3–7 above), Bratsiotis’ assessment is correct: “The principal meanings are ‘man’, ‘husband’, and ‘mankind’.”11 Chernick presents an interesting study on the interpretation of #$y) in the midrashim on legal passages in the Pentateuch.12 Accordingly, he concludes that unless context or other passages dictated otherwise, the Rabbis interpreted the term in the following order of precedence: (1) man, i.e. male, (2) adult, male, (3) adult person. Thus, in passages where meaning (1) was understood, the law applied only to men and not women:

Since ’ish is found almost uniformly both in OT literature (including Sir.) and in the ancient Hebrew inscriptions, it is impossible to speak of an earlier or later use of this word, as can be done with some combinations of words. The same also applies to ’ishshah.9

In terms of the lexical contours of the word, it is important to point out that many of the 2,000+ occurrences consist of special syntactical constructions; in fact, this is the case in approximately 50 percent of the occurrences. For example, in over 200 instances, #$y) is used in constructions meaning “each, everyone.” MrF)j w%snuy,FwA wO#$y)i #$y)i w%k@y,AwA +l'm@fy,IwA l)'rF#&;yI Mp'd@:r:y,Iwa sw%s-l(a MrF)j K7leme ddAhj-Nb@e .My#$irFpfw%

Each killed his man; the Arameans fled and Israel pursued them, but King Ben-hadad of Aram escaped on a horse with the cavalry. 1 Kgs 20.20

The term is also used in number counts of persons, as in My#$n) h#$l#$ “three men” (Gen.Â€18.2). Even-Shoshan gives eight definitions or rather categories for the term and by working out the list of occurrences we arrive at the following counts for each instance of meaning.10 #$y)

(1) man, human being, person, someone (predominant meaning)

~1,100 occurrences

(2) husband of a woman

82 occurrences

(3) everyone, each

229 occurrences

(4) “no one” (in negative clauses or questions)

101 occurrences

(5) number counts of persons

132 occurrences

(6) “man of .â•¯.â•¯.” (genitival const.)

426 occurrences

(7) with ref. to tribes, people e.g. l)r#$y y#$n)

86 occurrences

(8) special form, My#$y) “people”

3 occurrences

9.â•‡ N. P. Bratsiotis, “#$y),” TDOT 1:223. The question is exactly what he means by “uniformly”; does even distribution necessarily preclude diachronic study? Perhaps Bratsiotis is simply referring to what appears to be an even distribution of the various meanings and usages of the term across the canon. In other words, at all points in the textual history of the canon, all meanings and usages of #$y) appear together without a preponderance of one over the other (e.g. “husband” as opposed to “humankind”) and that therefore it is difficult to draw any diachronic conclusions. 10.â•‡ Abraham Even-Shoshan, ed., A New Concordance of the Bible (Jerusalem: Kiryat Sefer Ltd., 1985).

99

Thus Mekilta interprets the phrase “If a man (#$y)) sells his daughter as a maidservant” (Exod. 21:7) as granting only to men, not to women, the right to make such sales.13

Likewise, where meaning (2) or (3) was interpreted, the passage excluded minors. For example, Lev 22:14 requires restitution and a fine from a non-priest who eats of terumah, heave-offering, in error. Minors who eat of terumah, are exempt from the fine because, according to the Midrash, the appearance of #$y) in Lev 22:14 excludes them.14

#$y) was particularly interpreted as “man (male)” (excluding woman) in ambiguous passages because it was felt that the language had other terms which could be used to “indicate a genderless ‘person’, e.g. #$pn /Md) #$pn /Md).”15 Incidentally, the designation for “man” in Hebrew, #$y), is somewhat unique. In Akkadian, the typical terms are awīlu, eṭlu, mutu; in Ugaritic bnš, mt, ǵzr; in Aramaic

11.â•‡ N. P. Bratsiotis, “#$y),,,” TDOT, 1:223. For an additional alternative meaning see Alan D. Crown, “An Alternative Meaning for ’îs in the Old Testament,” VT 24 (January 1974): 110â•‚12, who, based on a particular idiom in the Tell El-Amarna letters, suggests that in some cases #$y) can mean “prince, king, leader.” Crown sees examples of this in 1 Kgs 2.1-2; Exod. 2.14; 1 Kgs 8.25. Hamilton includes in his entry in NIDOTTE “man, husband, of high rank, person” but does not explain his gloss. Probably, the reference is to Ps. 49.3(2) and 62.10(9), where English translations often take the parallel pair Md) ynb and #$y) ynb as “men of low estate” and “men of high estate” respectively. This in turn is based upon the LXX’s rendering of Md) ynb as ghgenh/j (but only in Ps. 49.3[48.3]) “earth-born” (“plebian,” cf. Lust; the word occurs only five times in the LXX). Kraus accepts these interpretations but for other reasons (see Kraus, Psalms 1–59, 481). “In Egypt and Babylonia influential proprietors were called ‘sons of a man,’ to distinguish them from the poor” (Kraus, Psalms 1–59, 148). But #$y) ynb and #$y) are not the same and in view of the rarity of the examples cited and the fact that they can easily be interpreted with the traditional meanings of #$y) (not to mention that we may be dealing with “contextual” meaning and not “lexical” meaning here), Crown’s suggestion is not easily accepted. 12.â•‡ Michael Chernick, “#$y) as Man and Adult in the Halakic Midrashim,” JQR 73Â€(January 1983): 254–80. 13.â•‡ Chernick, 258. 14.â•‡ Ibid., 262. 15.â•‡ Chernick, 259.

100


gbr; and in Arabic mar’. Phoenician-Punic, however, does use the same term. The plural of our word, My#$n), is also unusual in that it derives not from #$y) but from #$wOn), which occurs much less often (42 times) and mostly in poetic texts (e.g. Job, Psalms, and Isaiah, for a total of 39 times).16 From the perspective of the life cycle, we have already noted two passages where #$y) and h#$) exegetically stand for the life stage of the mature or full-fledged adult (see page 52 above). h#@$f)iw: #$y)i K1b; yt@ic;p@anIw: with you I smash man and woman; : r(anfwF Nq"zF K1b; yt@ic;p@anIw: with you I smash the old man and the boy; .hlfw%tb;w% rw%xb@f K1b; yt@ic;p@anIw with you I smash the young man and the girl; Jer. 51.22 yti)l'mf hwfhy: tmaxj t)'w: K7po#$; lykihf ytiy)'l;nI dwOs l(aw: Cw%xb@a llfwO(-l(a #$y)i-MgA-yk@i wd@Fx;yA MyrIw%xb@a w%dk'l@fyI h#@$f)i-M(i .MymiyF )l'm;-M(i Nq"zF

But I am full of the wrath of the LORD; I am weary of holding it in. Pour it out on the children in the street, and on the gatherings of young men as well; both husband and wife shall be taken, the old folk and the very aged. Jer. 6.11

When we come to the lexicographers, however, most do not explicitly approach the word from a life-cycle perspective, preferring simply to gloss the term as “man” and juxtaposing the word with respect to other terms: “man as opposed to female,” “man as opposed to God,” “man as opposed to beast,” etc. Kühlewein, however, writes that “The word’s basic meaning is ‘man’ (the mature male in contrast to the woman)”17 (emphasis mine). Bratsiotis is clearer. It denotes in the first instance ‘man’ in contradistinction to ‘woman’ and then: second, as a term denoting that a person is an adult man in contrast to yeledh, “young man” (4:23), or to na‘ar, “youth” (1 S. 17:33), but also in contrast to → Nqz zākhēn, “old man” (2:32f)18

Interestingly, Gesenius is the only lexicographer who includes as a subdivision of the main definition “man,” “c) As opp. to an old man, one of manly age, vigor, 1Â€Sam 2,Â€33.”19 The passage Gesenius cites in 1 Samuel however is not all that clear an illustration. 16.â•‡ Victor Hamilton, “#$wn),” NIDOTTE, 1:454. The rare term My#$y) appears only three times: Isa. 53.3; Ps. 141.4; Prov. 8.4. 17.â•‡ Kühlewein, 99. 18.â•‡ N. P. Bratsiotis, “#$y),” TDOT, 1:223. 19.â•‡Gesenius, A Hebrew and English Lexicon, s.v. Tregelles translates Gesenius as “(c)Â€opposed to

4.â•‡ Semantic Study of Hebrew Terms for the Mature lkob@; NwO(mf rca t@f+;b@ahiw: l)'rF#&;yI-t)e by+iyy"-r#$e)j K1t;yb'b@; Nq'zF hyeh;yI-)Olw: .Mymiy,Fha-lk@f yxib@;z:mi M(im' K1l; tyrIk;)a-)Ol #$y)iw: bydI)jlaw: K1yney('-t)e twOl@kal; tyb@ir:ma-lkfw: K1#$ep;nA-t)e .My#$inF)j w%tw%myF K1t;yb@'

101

Then in distress you will look with greedy eye on all the prosperity that shall be bestowed upon Israel; and no one in your family shall ever live to old age. The only one of you whom I shall not cut off from my altar shall be spared to weep out his eyes and grieve his heart; all the members of your household shall die by the sword. 1 Sam. 2.32-33

Gesenius notes an additional nuance: “d) Emphat. of manliness, warlike valour, comp. Hithpa. below. 1 Sam 4:9 My#$n)l w%yhw w%pzxth be strong and be ye men!” The notion of “manhood,” “adulthood,” “maturity” is conveyed by the following passages. First, #$y) appears in contexts in opposition with r(n. Mw%q wOrwOkb@; rteyel; rme)Oy,wA So he said to Jether his firstborn, “Go kill r(an%aha Pla#$f-)Olw: MtfwO) grohj them!” But the boy did not draw his sword, .r(anf w%n%dEwO( yk@i )r"yF yk@i wOb@r:xa for he was afraid, because he was still a boy. Mw%q (n%Fmul;caw: xbaze rme)Oy,w1 Then Zebah and Zalmunna said, “You #$y)ikf yk@i w%nb@f-(gAp;w% ht@f)a come and kill us; for as the man is, so is grohjy,Awa NwO(d:g%I MqFy,fwA wOtrFw%bg%: his strength.” So Gideon proceeded to xq@Ay,IwA (n%Fmul;ca-t)ew: xbaze-t)e kill Zebah and Zalmunna; and he took the yr")w%:cab@; r#$e)j MynIrohj#@&aha-t)e crescents that were on the necks of their .Mheyl@'mag: camels. Judg. 8.20-21 ry(ib@f r#$e)j-lk@f-t)e w%myrIxjy,Awa r(an%ami h#@$f)i-d(aw: #$y)im' h#&ewF rwO#$ d(aw: Nq"zF-d(aw: .brExf-ypil; rwOmxjwA

Then they devoted to destruction by the edge of the sword all in the city, both men and women, young and old, oxen, sheep, and donkeys. Josh. 6.21

And secondly, it appears in contexts in parallel with h#$) ‘mature woman’ to denote a ‘mature male’. wybi)f-t)e #$y)i-bzF(jyA Nk@'-l(a Therefore a man leaves his father and his w%yhfw: wOt@#$;)ib@; qbadFw: wOm@)i-t)ew: mother and clings to his wife, and they .dxf)e r#&fbfl; become one flesh. Gen. 2.24

an old man, it is the name of virile age, 1 Sam 2:33.”

102

The Days of Our Years bk'#$o #$y)i )c'm@fyI-yk@i w%tm'w% l(ab@a-tla(ub; h#@$f)i-M(i bk'#@$oha #$y)ihf Mheyn"#$;-Mg%A t@fr:(abiw% h#@$f)ihfw: h#@$f)ihf-M(i .l)'rF#&;y,Imi (rFhf

If a man is caught lying with the wife of another man, both of them shall die, the man who lay with the woman as well as the woman. So you shall purge the evil from Israel. Deut. 22.22

To conclude, it appears that in terms of the life cycle, #$y) is a rather generic term for “male adult,” usually encompassing that middle stage of life between “young” and “old.” The term implies a married adult or at least a marriageable adult. We suggest then the following analysis. human

male

adult

r(n

+

+

−

#$y)

+

+

+

Semantic Study of Md) The term Md) occurs approximately 550 times in the OT which is about 0.18 perÂ€cent of the biblical text. It occurs most often in the following books. Ezekiel Psalms Ecclesiastes Proverbs Genesis

132 occurrences 62 occurrences 49 occurrences 45 occurrences 43 occurrences

Westermann has written a long entry on the term in TLOT and notes that of the 132 occurrences in Ezekiel, 93 are of the construction Md)-Nb.20 Of the 43 occurrences in Genesis, all but one are found in Genesis 1–11 (the exception is Gen. 16.12), and about half of these are in Genesis 2–3 alone. Like #$y), Md) is limited to the Semitic languages and its etymology is still largely debated.21 There are cognates in Akkadian, adamātu and adamu, but they do not have the meaning of “man” or “humankind.” Rather they refer to “dark, red soil” and “red blood, red garment” respectively, being equivalent to Hebrew ’adamah and ’adom. Nor is there reference in Akkadian to a progenitor-type man by name, notwithstanding the figure of Adapa.22

20.â•‡ Claus Westermann, “Md),” TLOT, 1:32. Westermann counts a total of 554 occurrences and does not include Md) in the seven occurrences in Gen. 4.25; 5.1 (twice), 3, 4, 5; 1 Chron 1.1, considering them as occasions of the PN “Adam.” VOT counts 550 total occurrences but adds Gen. 2.20; 3.17, 21; and 5.2 to the list of PN occurrences. 21.â•‡ Md) is attested in Ugaritic and Phoenician. 22.â•‡ So F. Maass, “Md),” TDOT 1:77. By contrast, Hamilton does see Adapa as a (later) parallel to the story of Adam, albeit with some significant differences (V. Hamilton, “Md),” NIDOTTE 1:264).


103

The semantic equivalent of Md) is rather awīlum or amī(ē)lu.23 Though the term is never found in BH in the construct state (nomen regens), it does occur in Ugaritic: ’dm ṣ’t špš, “people of the East.”24 El is also found referred to as ’bÂ€’dm, “the father of humankind.” Although the Hebrew term can be used to refer to an individual, most often it is a collective term referring to “humankind.” Thus, Md) never appears in the plural, although the cognate in Phoenician does, as ’dmm (referring to “person(s)/ commoners”). The Hebrew term rarely takes a plural verb. Approximately 90 percent of the time it is translated by a)/nqrwpoj in the LXX. #$y), however, is most often translated by a)nh/r (50 percent of the time) and much less frequently by a)/nqrwpoj (24 percent of the time).25 To get an idea of the lexical contours of the term, we refer once again to EvenShoshan’s categories. Md)

(1) reference to the first man created by God

36 occurrences

(2) all of humankind or each individually (predominant meaning)

~308 occurrences

(3) a human being, mortal (in contrast to God)

31 occurrences

(4) in negative clauses, no one; not even one

18 occurrences

(5) [Md)-Nb] man, male, mortal, human being [Md)-ynb] men and woman [Md)h-twnk] woman


What the above shows is that unlike the case of #$y), only a small percentage (18Â€out of 550) of occurrences are unique or special syntactical constructions. Category 4 above is similar to category 4 for #$y) (see page 98 above). r('#$o-l)e w%)r:q;y,Iwa w%)Oby,FwA rmo)l' Mhelf w%dyg%iy,AwA ry(ihf hn%'hiw: MrF)j hn'xjma-l)e w%n)b@f … MdF)f lwOqw: #$y)i M#$f-Ny)'

So they came and called to the gatekeepers of the city, and told them, “We went to the Aramean camp, but there was no one to be seen or heard there… 2 Kgs 7.10

There are also other similar syntactical constructions: Mhel')j t@fr:ma)fw:l)'rF#&;yI yn'b@;-l)e rb@'d@A Speak to the people of Israel and say to Nb@fr:qF Mk@emi byrIq;yA-yk@i MdF)f them: When any of you bring an offering of hmfh'b@;ha-Nmi hwfhyla livestock to the LORD, Lev. 1.2

23.â•‡ Maass, 75–76. 24.â•‡ Ibid., 77. 25.â•‡ Alison M. Grant, “’adam and ’ish: Man in the OT,” AusBR 25 (1977): 8.

104

The Days of Our Years Mymilf#$;-xbaze byrIq;yA-yk@i #$y)iw: When anyone offers a sacrifice of wellhwFhyla being to the LORD .â•¯.â•¯. Lev. 22.21 hxfn:mi Nb@ar:qF byrIq;ta-yk@i #$penEw: When anyone presents a grain offering to hwFhyla the LORD, .â•¯.â•¯. Lev. 2.1

The expression yk Md), “when any man,” occurs only three times in the entire OT (above and in Lev. 13.2 and Num. 19.14).26 The expressions yk #$pn, yk #$y), however, are much more the norm. yk #$y) occurs 32 times in Exodus–Deuteronomy27 and yk #$pn eight times28 (all in Leviticus).29 It is certainly a curious fact that all occurrences of the latter expression are found in Leviticus 2Â�–7, while the vast majority of occurrences of the former occur in the Holiness Code (H) material of Leviticus. Perhaps we should see these variances as more a matter of sources than semantics. An additional syntactical construction where Md) seems to function more as an indefinite pronoun is that of Md) yr#$) “blessed is the man/one.” hwfhy: b#$ox;yA )Ol MdF)f yr'#$;)a Happy are those to whom the LORD .hy,Fmir: wOxw%rb@; Ny)'w: NwO(f wOl imputes no iniquity, and in whose spirit there is no deceit. Ps. 32.2 Also 84.6; 84.13; Prov. 3.13; 8.34; 28.14 hwfhy: bwO+-yk@i w%)r:w% w%m(j+a O taste and see that the LORD is good; .wOb@-hsexvyE rbeg%Eha yr'#$;)a happy are those who take refuge in him. Ps. 34.9[8] Also 40.5; 94.12; 27.5 K7lahf )Ol r#$e)j #$y)ihf-yr'#$;)a Happy are those who do not follow the My(i#$fr: tca(jb@a advice of the wicked, Ps. 1.1 Only other occurrence is in Ps. 112.1 w%n%xekiwOy #$wnO)v yr'#$;)a hn%'hi How happy is the one whom God reproves; h@awOl)v Job 5.17 Only other occurrence is in Isa. 56.2

26.â•‡ Contra Maass, who writes “P uses the word repeatedly as an indefinite pronoun in the construction ’adham ki, ‘when any men’” (Maass, 79). 27.â•‡ Exod. 21.33; Lev. 13.29; 13.38; 13.40; 15.2; 15.2; 15.16; 19.20; 20.27; 21.7; 21.9; 22.14; 22.21; 24.15; 24.15; 24.17; 24.19; 25.26; 25.29; 27.2; 27.14; Num. 5.6; 5.12; 5.12; 5.20; 6.2; 9.10; 9.10; 26.65; 27.8; 30.3; Deut. 1.17. 28.â•‡ Lev. 2.1; 4.2; 5.1; 5.4; 5.15; 5.17; 5.21; 7.21. 29.â•‡ The expression ykÂ€rbg never occurs in the OT.


105

Thus we can see that at least one of the meanings of these terms is as an indefinite pronoun. For our purposes, this function or meaning supplies the least amount of semantic content. It should not go unnoticed that Md) appears much more frequently in the J and P source materials (following VOT): J Source (J+L) E Source D Source P Source

43 occurrences 5 occurrences 6 occurrences 44 occurrences

No doubt Md) is the most “theological” of all our terms studied thus far. We have already indicated that one of the “meanings” of Md) is as an indefinite pronoun, much like the other terms of the same semantic field. We need now to point out the term’s three other “meanings.” A second lexical feature of the word is its use as an adjective to indicate “human .â•¯.â•¯.” KBL indicates that there are about 40 such constructions (“menschlich”) including Md)Â€bl, “human heart” (Gen.Â€8.21); Md)Â€ydy, “human hands” (Deut. 4.28 plus eight other occurrences30); Md)Â€Md, “human blood” (Gen. 9.6; Hab. 2.8, 17); and Md)Â€twmd “human form” (Ezek. 1.5). HAL also adds such constructions as Md)Â€lysk “a fool of a man” (Prov. 6.12) and Md)Â€)rp “a wild ass of a man” (Gen. 16.12). Such syntagmatic data certainly suggest that at least one component of meaning of Md) is “humanness.” Md) is often construed with hmhb, in the sense of “both man and beast, human and animal” (approximately 40 times; see Gen. 6.7; Exod. 9.25 and Westermann’s article in TLOT, p.Â€33, for further references). By far the most common semantic occurrence of our term is as a collective for “humankind, humanity.” yk@i MdF)fhf h)er:yI r#$e)j )Ol yk@i for the LORD does not see as mortals see; hwfhywA MyInAy('la h)er:yI MdF)fhf they look on the outward appearance, but .bbfl@'la h)er:yI the LORD looks on the heart. 1 Sam. 16.7 rq@"#$ay: )Ol l)'rF#&;yI xcan' MgAw: moreover the Glory of Israel will not recant )w%h MdF)f )Ol yk@i Mx'n%FyI )Olw: or change his mind; for he is not a mortal, .Mx'n%Fhil; that he should change his mind. 1 Sam. 15.29 l)'-)Olw; MdF)f MyIrAc;miw% The Egyptians are human, and not God; xaw%r-)Olw: r#&fb@f Mheys'w%sw: their horses are flesh, and not spirit. Isa. 31.3

30.â•‡ 2 Kgs 19.18; Isa. 37.19; Ezek. 1.8; 10.21; Ps. 115.4; 135.15; Prov. 12.14; 2 Chron. 32.19.

106

The Days of Our Years wOlmf(j-lkfb@; MdF)flf NwOrt;y,I-hma What do people gain from all the toil at .#$me#@$fha txat@a lmo(jy,A#$e which they toil under the sun? Eccl. 1.3 MdF)f-Nbew% bz@"kaywi l)' #$y)i )Ol God is not a human being, that he should )Olw: rma)f )w%hha MxfnEt;yIw: lie, or a mortal, that he should change his .hn%Fmeyqiy: )Olw: rb@edIw: h#&e(jyA mind. Has he promised, and will he not do it? Has he spoken, and will he not fulfill it? Num. 23.19 w%n%rEk@;z:ti-yk@i #$wOn)v-hmf What are human beings that you are mind.w%n%dEq;p;ti yk@i MdF)f-Nbew% ful of them, mortals that you care for them? Ps. 8.5[4]

What the above examples show is the strong theological contexts in which we find our lexeme appearing. In fact, the syntagmatic data is so strong that one may legitimately label Md) a theological term. As Fritz Maass notes, “In Deuteronomy and the Deuteronomistic history, the theological emphasis is quite clear in the use of ’adham.”31 Westermann writes: The OT does not use ’ādām for the creature Homo sapiens without differentiation, but primarily for this creature in relation to its creatureliness or to a particular aspect of its creatureliness. ’ādām is not the human being in any family, political, everyday, or communal situation; instead ’ādām refers to the human being aside from all of these relationships, as simply human. Above all else, however, God’s special salvific activity, God’s history with his people, does not concern the ’ādām. Not only the two literary complexes in which ’ādām occurs most frequently (Gen 1–11 and Eccl), but also the topically cohesive groups of usages concern the human beings as creature or an aspect of his creatureliness: no fixed literary or thematic complexes or speech forms in historical or prophetical books feature ’ādām.32

In view of the above, the distinct source attestations and our lexeme’s unique collocations vis-à-vis #$y) (see page 97 above), we must see Md) as more than simply an alternative term for “homo sapiens.” When one turns to the LXX and the Greek of the period, one finds confirmatory evidence. We have already noted that Md) is most often translated by a)/nqrwpoj and #$y) by a)nh/r. Note Jeremias’ discussion of the former term in TDNT.

31.â•‡ Maass, 79. 32.â•‡Westermann, TLOT, 34. Westermann acknowledges a neutral or secular use of the term (see p.Â€41, §(j)). Although #$y) occurs about four times more often than Md), TLOT devotes 12 pages to the latter and only seven to the former. TDOT is more even in this regard, devoting 14 pages to the latter and 13 to the former.


107

1. “Man” as species a. as distinct from animals (Mt. 12:12), angels (1Â€C. 4:9), Jesus Christ (Gl. 1:12) and God (Mk. 11:30 and par.); b. with special emphasis on the transitoriness and sinfulness of human nature as subject to physical weakÂ�ness (Jm. 5:17) and death (Hb. 9:27), as sinful (R. 3:4; 5:12), full of evil (Mt. 10:17; Lk. 6:22), loving flattery (Lk. 6:26) and subject to human error Gl. 1:1,11 f.; Col. 2:8, 22). Thus kata\ a)/nqrwpon does not merely introduce the general analogy of human relations and considerations of human logic (Gl. 3:15 in introduction of the figure of the human testament, or 1 C. 15:32: ei) kata\ a)/nqrwpon e)qhrioma/ xhsa e)n70Efe/sw where the kata\ a!nqrwpon might be amplified by a le/gw). In the NT it almost always expresses as well the limited nature of human thinking and conduct in contrast to God and His revelation. Thus Paul in R. 3:5 introduces kata\ a!nqrwpon le/gw as an epidiorthosis, in 1 C. 9:8 kata\ a)/nqrwpon lalw~ is set over against o9 no/moj le/gei and in Gl. 1:11 to\ eu0agge/lion .â•¯.â•¯. ou0k e1stin kata/ a/) nqrwpon is set over against di’ a)pokalu/yewj I)hsou= xristou= in 1:12. There is a particular emphasis on the sinful disposition of man in the kata\ a)/nqrwpon of I C. 3:3: kata anqrwpon peripatei=te (par. sarkikoi/ e0ste), as also in the plural form in I Pt. 4:6: i3/na kriqw~si me/n kata\ a)nqrw~pouj (as they have deserved as men) sarki/ zw~si de\ kata\ qeo\n pneu/mati, being delivered from the judgment of the intervening state.33 (emphasis mine)

Meanwhile, a0nh/r seems to refer primarily to the full-grown male adult. o#te h!mhn nh&pioj, e0la&loun w(j nh&pioj, e0fro&noun w(j nh&pioj, e0logizo&mhn w(j nh&pioj o3/te ge/gona a)nh&r, kath&rghka ta_ tou~ nhpi/ou.

When I was a child, I spoke like a child, I thought like a child, I reasoned like a child; when I became an adult, I put an end to childish ways. 1 Cor. 13.11

1. an adult human male, man, husband.â•¯.â•¯. . (b) in contrast to boy (Tobit 1:9; but a). of a child IK VII/2, I4) o3/te ge/gona a). when I became a man 1 Cor 13: 11. a&. te/leioj a full-grown man (X., Cyr. 1, 2, 4) Eph. 4: 13; in sense of maturity w. ethical component perfect Js. 3: 234 IV. a man emphatically, a man indeed, a) n e/ r ej e1 s te fi/ l oi Il. polloi\ me\ n a!nqrwpoi o0li/goi de\ a!ndrej many human beings, but few men, Hdt.35

In view of all of the above, the difference between Md) and #$y) may not be so much a technical linguistic variation as a theological nuance and connotation. Much like the difference between )rb “to create” and h#&( “to make,” Md) has come to have

33.â•‡ J. Jeremias, “a!nqrwpoj,” TDNT 1:364. 34.â•‡ BDAG, s.v. 35.â•‡ H. G. Liddell, An Intermediate Greek-English Lexicon: Founded upon the Seventh Edition of Liddell and Scott’s Greek-English Lexicon (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1889), s.v.

108



a meaning of its own, informed by the biblical data. This is why modern translations like “people,” “human being,” “human” are not satisfactory because they do not quite convey the biblical nuance. They are rather neutral terms and semantically vacuous compared to Md). The translation “mortal” is perhaps better, but the most satisfactory translation is “humankind,” with “persons/people” a distant second. In a substantial article, A. M. Grant has argued for a sharp distinction in meaning between #$y) and Md) on the basis of the following hypothesis.

DanielÂ€(17) and Ezra (4).39 By either reckoning the following displays the loci of the highest occurrences.

1. When a biblical author was thinking of mankind as a whole, human beings in general, or anyone in the sense of a human being, he would use the word ’ādām. 2. When a biblical author had in mind a particular individual or group of individuals, or any member of a particular group, he would use the word ’ish.36

He adduces data, for example, that show that whereas #$y) is used 427 times of some particular individual, Md) is used only once (excluding “Adam” and the “son of man” references to Ezekiel). Grant’s suggestion is pertinent, but the usage noted is only what one would expect from such a collective term as Md)! Since both Md) and #$y) can mean “humankind,” one wonders as to the difference in nuance between the two. It would appear that #$y) is the more secular or neutral term, while Md) appears to carry more “theological” freight.

Semantic Study of rbg After all our discussion of Md), it is apparent that the term does not belong within the semantic domain of life cycle terminology, although it does belong within the semantic domain of “People.”37 As we turn now to the word rbg, we move into the subdomain of “Males,” bringing us once again into the semantic circle of #$y). There are 66 occurrences of rbg in the OT, eight occurrences in Ben Sira and 22 in the DSS materials.38 VOT cites 87 but includes 21 Aramaic occurrences in

36.â•‡ Grant, 3. 37.â•‡ Note Louw and Nida’s arrangement: â•… §9 People â•… A. Human Beings (9.1-9.23) [incl. a!nqrwpoj] â•… B. Males (9.24-9.33) â•… C. Females (9.34-9.40) â•… D. Children (9.41-9.45) â•… E. Persons For Whom There Is Affectionate Concern (9.46-9.48) They include in a footnote the comments: “The domain of People includes all those meanings which are used to refer to individuals, while groups and members of groups are considered in Domain 11.â•¯.â•¯.. In general, sex and age grading are the most conspicuous distinctions employed in differentiating meanings relating to human beings.” 38.â•‡ The OT occurrences are: Exod. 10.11; 12.37; Num. 24.3; 24.15; Deut. 22.5; 22.5; Josh. 7.14; 7.17; 7.18; Judg. 5.30; 2 Sam. 23.1; Isa 22.17; Jer. 17.5; 17.7; 22.30; 23.9; 30.6; 31.22; 41.16; 43.6; 44.20; Joel 2.8; Mic. 2.2; Hab. 2.5; Zech. 13.7; Pss. 18.26; 34.9; 37.23; 40.5; 52.9; 88.5; 89.49; 94.12; 127.5; 128.4; Job 3.3; 3.23; 4.17; 10.5; 14.10; 14.14; 16.21; 22.2; 33.17; 33.29; 34.7; 34.9; 34.34; 38.3; 40.7;

VOT

109

HB Only

Daniel

18×

Job

15×

Job

15×

Psalms

10×

Psalms

10×

Jeremiah

9×

As one surveys the occurrences of the term, it is evident that rbg appears predominantly in late and poetic materials. Even-Shoshan merely delineates one category of meaning for the term: Md)-Nb /#$y) (modern Hebrew), meaning “man, human being, mortal.” In 1969, H. Kosmala published an article on rbg which seems to have influenced subsequent lexicography.40 His thesis is that in contrast to such terms as #$wn) /#$y) /Md), , rbg bears an additional nuance or semantic component, if you will, of “strength.” A gebher is less than a gibbor, which is indicated first of all formally in that gebher is a simple, and not an intensive form. However, gebher does not simply mean man like → Md) ’ādhām or → #$wn) ’enôsh, neither of which indicates a particular sex, nor does it mean man in general, for which the OT uses the Heb. → #$y) ’îšh. .â•¯.â•¯. .â•¯.â•¯. Of course, the word gebher also contains the element of strength especially in a general sense. A gebher without power is a self-contradiction, and is as good as dead (Ps 88:5f.[4f.]).41

The nuance of “strength,” however, can include or be expanded to suggest other meanings or nuances. Anyway, a geber is a male person who distinguishes himself from others by his strength, or courage, or uprightness, or some other quality.42 (emphasis mine)

After a series of discussions of occurrences of rbg in historical prose texts (the most important of which is Judg. 5.30), Kosmala concludes that in these texts “the term

Prov. 6.34; 20.24; 24.5; 28.3; 28.21; 29.5; 30.1; 30.19; Lam. 3.1; 3.27; 3.35; 3.39; Dan. 8.15; 1 Chron. 23.3; 24.4; 26.12. 39.â•‡ On the Aramaic use of rbg, Kosmala writes “The word ’îšh is also known in Aramaic, but it does not occur in Biblical Aramaic. In its place we find Aram. gebhar, which is widely used and means simply ‘man’, like Heb. ’îšh” (Kosmala, “rbg,” TDOT 2:377). 40.â•‡ Hans Kosmala, “The Term geber in the Old Testament and in the Scrolls,” SVT 17 (1969): 159–69. See also his later entry in TDOT 2:377–78. 41.â•‡ Kosmala, “rbg,” TDOT 2:377. 42.â•‡ Kosmala, “The Term geber,” 160.

110


geber is used in its concrete sense with the emphasis on physical strength, courage, and valour, on virility and procreative power.”43 He writes elsewhere, The word gebher seems to have had this secondary sexual meaning, “male,” from the earliest time and to have always retained it, because in Rabbinic Hebrew it is the normal word for a (powerful) penis.44

Our lexicographer does not stop there, however, and goes on to suggest a “Spiritualization of the Concept” in the later poetic and wisdom literature. The word gebher receives a far-reaching new meaning: a man is called gebher when he stands in an intimate relationship with God, trusts and fears God, and does what God requires of him.45

For better or for worse, the impact of such lexicography has made no small impression on the exegesis of the term. V. Hamilton cites Kosmala somewhat approvingly in his entry in NIDOTTE.46 Some uses of geber draw attention to the element of strength in the nom., especially when it is contrasted with child(ren) (ṭap) and with women (nāšîm): Exod 10:10, 11; 12:37; Jer 41:16 [NIV renders gebārîm ’anšê hammilḥāmâ simply as “soldiers”], 43:6). The same nuance appears when geber appears with neqēbâ: “The LORD will create a new thing on earth — a woman [neqēbâ] will surround a man [geber],” Jer 31:22b. Similar is JerÂ€30:6 “Can a man (’îšh) bear children? Then why do I see every strong man (geber) with his hands on his stomach like a woman in labor .â•¯.â•¯.?” (NIV).47

Even Holladay translates rbg in Jer. 30.6 and 31.22 as “hero.”48 Needless to say, there are many difficulties with Kosmala’s analysis, many of which have to do with the problems of linguistic analysis discussed in ChapterÂ€2. First and foremost of these is the confusion between lexical meaning and contextual meaning. Too often Kosmala reads into the word what is present from the context. He states, for example, that in the Psalms “a man is called gebher when he stands in an intimate relationship with God, trusts and fears God.”49 But this is only what one would expect in the book of Psalms, whose whole subject is intimacy, trust, and the fear of God. Then again, what does one do with texts like Jer. 17.5?

43.â•‡ Ibid., 162. 44.â•‡Kosmala, TDOT 2:378. 45.â•‡Kosmala, TDOT 2:379. 46.â•‡ V. Hamilton, “rbg,” NIDOTTE 1:816. 47.â•‡ Ibid. Hamilton’s reference to ’îšh in Jer. 30.6 is mistaken. The term is rkz. 48.â•‡ William L. Holladay, Jeremiah 1 (Hermeneia; Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1986), 172, 195. 49.â•‡Kosmala, TDOT 2:379.


111

rbeg%Eha rw%r)f hwFhy: rma)f hk@o Thus says the LORD: Cursed are those who r#&fb@f M#&fw: MdF)fb@f x+ab;yI r#$e)j trust in mere mortals and make mere flesh .wOb@li rw%syF hwfhy:-Nmiw% wO(roz: their strength, whose hearts turn away from the LORD. Jer. 17.5

In some instances, Kosmala greatly overstates his case. He writes that the term occurs frequently in the book of Job, and that “It is always applied to the gebher Job”50 to suggest that the element of piety is part of the word’s meaning. Many, if not most, of the references in Job, however, are rather general remarks about the limited nature of human existence. M)i qd@Fc;yI hawOl)vm' #$wOn)vha Can mortals be righteous before God? .rbeg%f-rha+;yI w%h#&'(om' Can human beings be pure before their Maker? Job 4.17 #$lfxvy,Ewa tw%myF rbegew: But mortals die, and are laid low; .wOy,)aw: MdF)f (wag:y,IwA humans expire, and where are they? Job 14.10

An additional problem is that there are already a number of other terms in Hebrew which refer to “strong man,” “hero,” “valiant one”: lyxh y#$n) (2 Kgs 24.16); rwxb (Ruth 3.10); rwbg (Jer. 14.9). The only occurrence of rbg which may suggest the element of strength is Job 38.3 (repeated in Job 40.7), and this may again be a matter of contextual usage. K1ycelfxj rbegek; )nf-rzF)v Gird up your loins like a man, .ynI('ydIwOhw: K1l;)f#$;)ew: I will question you, and you shall declare to me. Job 38.3

Kühlewein, in his entry on the word in TLOT, is more judicious: (c) The segholate form geber (see H. Kosmala, “The Term geber in the OT and in the Scrolls,” SVT 17 [1969]: 159–69) is primarily attested in later OT literature (Psa, Job, Prov). The basic meaning of the root is curtailed here: geber is used as a rule just like → ’îš “man.” Thus geber can parallel ’îš (Jer 22:30; Mic 2:2), zākār “man” (Jer 30:6) ’enôš “person” (Job 4:17), or ’ādām “person” (Job 14:10), ’iššâ “woman” (Deut 22:5; in the series “men-women-children,” Jer 43:6; cf. 44:20) and neqēbâ “woman”

50.â•‡ Kosmala, “The Term geber,” 164.

112



(JerÂ€31:22; cf. Rudolph, HAT 12, 198f.) occur as antonyms. Like ’îš (here the distance from the basic meaning of the root becomes esp. apparent), geber can even mean “male child” (Job 3:3) or be generalized to the pron.”anyone” Joel 2:8, etc.; cf. the usage in Aram.; seeÂ€1).51 (emphasis mine)

the genre and time period of the canonical literature. We have already seen that rbg predominates in the later and poetic portions of the Hebrew Bible. There is no reason to doubt that the poetic and wisdom writers may have preferred rbg over #$y) in their compositions, or at least preferred to vary their vocabulary. There is a noticeable decrease in the percentage of usage of #$y) in the canon just as the percentage of usage of rbg is greatly increased. While #$y) occurs in the Pentateuch 0.57Â€percent of the time and in the Former Prophets 0.88 percent of the time, it decreases to 0.20Â€percent in the Psalms and 0.35 percent in Job.52 Meanwhile, rbg occurs in both the Pentateuch and Former Prophets 0.01 percent of the time but increases to 0.05Â€percent, 0.18 percent, and 0.12 percent in Psalms, Job, and Proverbs respectively. One can only conclude that for some reason the use of rbg was indigenous or part and parcel of the vocabulary of the later poetic and wisdom writers. We conclude our study of this term with the comments of James Barr.

Clines allows the possibility (using the same reference as ours above) but certainly does not take it to the extent that Kosmala does. rbg I 66.8.22 n.m. man — rbg (Ps 18:26), rbg; pl. Myrbg — usu. man as distinct from woman (e.g. Jr 31:22 44:20 Pr 30:19) or from God (e.g. Jb 4:17); assoc. with childlessness (Jr 22:30), strength (Jb 38:3 40:7), perh. as indefinite pronoun, one, e.g. Jb 34:9 Pr 28:21 Lm 3:1 Si 11:28, distributive, each one Jl 2:8 Lm 3:39.

113

Gesenius’ entry is somewhat similar to Clines’: rbg m plur. Myrbg 1. a man, so called from his strength i.q. #$y); found only in poetry except a few examples, Deut. 22,5. 1 Chr. 24,4. 26,12, comp. Myrbgl; but the usual word in Aramaean, rbag%: .â•¯.â•¯. — 34.9 wb-hsxyÂ€rbghÂ€yr#$) happy the man who trusteth in him 52,9. 94,12. al. Myrikfg;l,i Myribfg@;la, man by man, Josh 7. 14. 17. 1 Chr. 23,3. Spec. a) Opp. to woman. a man, male, Deut. 22,5. Jer 30,6. 31,22; and so even of a man-child just born. Job 3,3 the night when it was said rbg hrh a man-child is conceived, Comp. #$y) 1. a. b) Opp. to a wife, a husband, Prov 6,34. c)Â€Sometimes put for manly vigour, might. Isa 22,17 behold Jehovah will cast thee out rbg hl+l+ with a manly cast, i.e., mighty, violent. Job 38,3. 40,7. Ps 88,5. Comp. #$y) 1. d. d) a man, mortal, opp. to God, comp. #$y) 1. e. Job 4,17. 10,5. 14,10.14. e) a soldier, warrior, comp. #$y) 1.1. Judg. 5,30; comp. Jer 41,16 hmxlm y#$n) Myrbg. 2. i.q. #$y) no. 4, each, every one. Joel 2,8 Nwkly wtlsmk rbg they shall go every one in his path. Lam 3,39 in the secÂ�ond hemistich.

In particular there is one point in which facts are evidently obscured by this kind of analysis. Geber certainly ‘comes from’ the well-known ‘root’ meaning ‘be powerful’; but there are a good number of cases where there is no reason to believe that ‘strong, powerful’ is any part of the semantics, of the significative value of the word, and where there is every reason therefore to take it as having come to mean simply ‘man’; so that it can be used in cases where man as an earthly and mortal creature is being contrasted with God or where the weakness and mortality of man is otherwise being involved. Examples are: Ps 88:5(4 EV); 89:49(48); Job 3:23, 10: 5, 33:29; Lam 3: 1. In such cases the semantic contribution of geber to the sentence is not ‘man as strong’ or ‘man as proud’ or ‘man as other than God’ but simply ‘man’.53

Both, however, highlight the fact that our term rbg is uncannily similar to our first lexeme #$y). Both rbg and #$y) reflect the following lexical structures: (a) the semantic component of “male” gender (b) can also mean “husband” (c) can mean “humankind” in general, “mortal” (d) can refer to a “soldier, warrior” (e) can be used as an indefinite pronoun “one” (f) can be used distributively “each one”

In view of the above, there appears to be no appreciable difference in meaning between the two terms. The distinction between them appears to be more a matter of

51.â•‡ J. Kühlewein, “rbg,” TLOT 1:300.

52.â•‡ The word, however, does occur 1.24 percent of the time in Proverbs. 53.â•‡ James Barr, The Semantics of Biblical Language (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1961), 146.

114

5.â•‡ Semantic Study of Hebrew Terms for the Aged Nqz

5

(1) old man

53 occurrences

(2) elder

133 occurrences

(3) old woman

1 occurrence 187 total occurrences

SEMANTIC STUDY OF HEBREW TERMS FOR THE A GED The Terminology of the Aged A. Malamat has shown that there are quite a number of expressions in the Hebrew Bible to refer to the aged.1 In addition, to the common lexemes Nqz and hnqz “old age,” he lists the following idioms: Mymy Kr) “length of days” Mybr Mymy “many days” Mymy (b#& “sated with days” Mymy )lm “full of days” Mymyb )b “advanced in years” hbw+ hby#& “a ripe old age”

115

This is roughly similar to Conrad’s estimates in his entry in TDOT: “The noun zāqēn is attested 178 times in the OT. A bare third of the occurrences has the meaning ‘old.’”3 Interestingly, Conrad notes that BH is unique in using Nqz to also mean “elder.” In Biblical Aramaic and Akkadian, the equivalent terms are śāb and šību (Hebrew cognate by#&). The word appears to be fairly evenly distributed throughout the OT, occurring approximately 0.07 to 0.09 percent of the time in the historical materials (the Pentateuch and Former Prophets) and 0.03 to 0.05 percent of the time in the remainder of the Hebrew Bible.4 The term occurs most often in Deuteronomy (21 times), where it predominantly refers to “elders.” Like the situation with r(n, Conrad has observed that syntactical constructions help determine whether Nqz denotes age or office in a particular context. He writes: This meaning [i.e. “elder”] can be recognized as a rule from determination by a dependent genitive or reference to a genitive phrase already mentioned in the context. As genitive we find terms designating specific social groups, primarily the names of cities, countries, tribes, and nations, but also general terms like ‘îr, ’erets, and ‘am, the latter always in determined form.5

In addition to the above, we have two other expressions. hby#& #$y) “a grey-headed man” #$y#$y “aged” (only in Job)

Semantic Study of Nqz Just as r(n has two general meanings, so does its counterpart on the other end of the age spectrum, Nqz: “old man” and “elder.”2 By Even-Shoshan’s count we have the following lexical breakdown:

Interestingly, he goes on to note that there is no necessary connection between the two meanings of the term, i.e. that they are not necessarily mutually inclusive. The elder is thus a member of a special committee representing a specific, clearly defined social community; he must be thought of primarily as the holder of an office, not the representative of a particular age group.6

Botterweck adds some data from the LXX, summarized below:7 Rendered as Nqz

1.â•‡ A. Malamat, “Longevity: Biblical Concepts and Some Ancient Near Eastern Parallels,” AfO 19 (1982): 215. 2.â•‡ The older lexicons mention how similar the phenomenon is in other languages. Gesenius remarks how it occurs in Arabic “sheik,” meaning both “old man” and “chief of a tribe,” Italian Signor, French Seigneur, Spanish Señor, English Sir deriving from Latin Senior “elder,” and even German Graf “count,” from graw, krawo “grey-headed.” R. Patai writes that “sheik” has many meanings today, including Bedouin tribal chief, head of a family, heads of dervish orders, preachers, teachers, spiritual leaders, village heads, and graduates of the al-Azhar, the theological university of Cairo (Patai,Â€231).

presbu/teroj

127×

presbu/thj

23×

gerousi/a

26×

3.â•‡ J. Conrad, “Nqz,” TDOT 4:123. 4.â•‡cf. VOT, 312. 5.â•‡Conrad, TDOT 4:123. 6.â•‡Ibid. 7.â•‡ In Conrad, TDOT 4:124.

116

The Days of Our Years ge/rwn

3×

a)nh/r

3×

fu/larxoj

1×

In Deuteronomy in particular, Nqz is almost exclusively translated as gerousi/a “council of elders,” whereas in Genesis, Leviticus, Numbers, DH, Ezekiel, and the Chronicler, presbu/teroj predominates. In determining the semantic dynamics of our term Nqz, all 53 occurrences as delineated by Even-Shoshan8 were examined and placed into one of four groupings. In agreement with Conrad, we found that the word can be a rather general term for the old. Thirty-one of the 53 occurrences belong in this category. rme)Oy,wA MwOl#$fl; Mhelf l)a#$;y,IwA He inquired about their welfare, and said, r#$e)j Nq"z@Fha Mkeybi)j MwOl#$fhj “Is your father well, the old man of whom .yxf w%n%dEwO(ha Mt@er:ma)j you spoke? Is he still alive?” Gen. 43.27 Mkfxfw: Nk@'s;mi dleye bwO+ Better is a poor but wise youth than an old r#$e)j lysik;w% Nq"zF K7lem@emi but foolish king, who will no longer take .dwO( rh'z@Fhil; (dAyF-)Ol advice. Eccl. 4.13 hlfw%tb;w% rw%xb@f-l(a lmaxf )Olw: and had no compassion on young man or .wOdyFb@; NtanF lk@oha #$#$'yFw: Nq"zF young woman, the aged or the feeble; he gave them all into his hand. 2 Chron. 36.17

A second grouping consists of 11 instances of specific collocations with r(n in the form of “the young and the old.” ry(ib@f r#$e)j-lk@f-t)e w%myrIxjy,Awa Then they devoted to destruction by the Nq"zF-d(aw: r(an%ami h#@$f)i-d(aw: #$y)im' edge of the sword all in the city, both men .brExf-ypil; rwOmxjwA h#&ewF rwO#$ d(aw: and women, young and old, oxen, sheep, and donkeys. Josh. 6.21 CrE)fhf-Nmi hwFhy:-t)e w%ll;ha .twOmhot@;-lkfw: MynIyn%It@a MynIq"z: twOlw%tb@;-MgAw: MyrIw%xb@a .Myri(fn:-M(i

Praise the LORD from the earth, you sea monsters and all deeps, Young men and women alike, old and young together! Ps. 148.7, 12

8.â•‡ It is difficult in some cases to determine whether Nqz means “elder” or simply “old [man],” but we have used Even-Shoshan as a point of departure.

5.â•‡ Semantic Study of Hebrew Terms for the Aged rw%#$@)a-K7leme ghan:yI Nk@' tw%lg%F-t)ew: MyIrAc;mi ybi#$;-t)e MwOr(f Myniq"z:w% MyrI(fn: #$w%k@ twar:(e t#$' ypaw%#&xjwA Px'yFw: .MyIrFc;mi

117

so shall the king of Assyria lead away the Egyptians as captives and the Ethiopians as exiles, both the young and the old, naked and barefoot, with buttocks uncovered, to the shame of Egypt. Isa. 20.4

A third group was observed, consisting of three instances, where Nqz was modified by the word d)m. d)om; Nq"zF yli('w: Now Eli was very old .â•¯.â•¯. 1 Sam. 2.22 Mynimo#$;-Nb@e d)om; Nq"zF yl@azIr:baw% Barzillai was a very aged man, eighty years old. hnf#$f 2 Sam. 19.33[32] K7lem@eha-l)e (be#$e-tba )Obt@fwA So Bathsheba went to the king in his room. d)om; Nq"zF K7lem@ehaw: hrFd:xaha The king was very old; 1 Kgs 1.15

It is interesting to note that when the biblical text uses the expression d)m Nqz, it refers to Eli who was in his nineties (1 Sam. 4.15 records his death at 98) and to Barzillai who was in his eighties. In the above passage, King David was at least in his sixties (he died at age 70 [2 Sam. 5.4]). The corresponding expression d)mÂ€r(n is never found in the Hebrew Bible. The fourth and last grouping consists of eight occurrences of Nqz in combination with other expressions from the semantic field of the aged. hbfy#&'b@; MhfrFb;)a tmfy,fwA (wAg:y,IwA Abraham breathed his last and died in a Pse)fy,"wA (ab'#&fw: Nq"zF hbfwO+ good old age, an old man and full of years, .wym@f(a-l)e and was gathered to his people. Gen. 25.8 Pse)fy,"wA tmfy,FwA qxfc;yI (wAg:y,IwA MymiyF (ba#&;w% Nq"zF wym@f(a-l)e bqo(jyAw: w#&f(' wOt)o w%rb@;q;y,IwA .wynfb@f

And Isaac breathed his last; he died and was gathered to his people, old and full of days; and his sons Esau and Jacob buried him. Gen 35.29 (also Job 42.17, 1 Chron. 23.1)

My)ib@f MynIq"z: hrF#&fw: MhfrFb;)aw: Now Abraham and Sarah were old, hrF#&fl; twOyh;li ldAxf Mymiy,Fb@a advanced in age; it had ceased to be with .My#$in%Fk@a xrA)o Sarah after the manner of women. Gen. 18.11 t@fr:dAhfw: Mw%qt@f hbfy#&' yn'p@;mi You shall rise before the aged, and defer to K1yheOl)vm@' tf)r"yFw: Nq"zF yn'p@; the old; and you shall fear your God: I am .hwfhy: yni)j the LORD. Lev. 19.32

118

The Days of Our Years l(aw: Cw%xb@a llfwO(-l(a K7po#$; wd@Fx;yA MyrIw%xb@a dwOs w%dk'l@fyI h#@$f)i-M(i #$y)i-MgA-yk@i .MymiyF )l'm;-M(i Nq"zF

Pour it out on the children in the street, and on the gatherings of young men as well; both husband and wife shall be taken, the old folk and the very aged. Jer. 6.11

We will discuss the above expressions below but before that we will summarize our findings with regard to Nqz. As noted above, the term is a general term for “old persons.” At some points, the addition of the modifier d)m would seem to distinguish two stages: old age and extreme old age.

Semantic Study of Expressions Using Mymy There appear to be only six occasions in which the expression or idiom MymyÂ€(b#& is found in the OT: four occurrences of (b#& in its adjectival form (Gen. 25.8, Gen. 35.29, Job 42.17, 1 Chron. 29.28) and two occurrences as a verb (1 Chron.Â€23.1, 2 Chron. 24.15).9 The first three references characterize legendary and foundational figures of the past: Abraham who lived to 175 (Gen. 25.7), Isaac who lived to 180 (GenÂ€35.28), and Job who lived to 140 (Job 42.16). Additionally, Jehoiada is mentioned as one who “grew old and full of days” and who died at age 130 (2Â€Chron.Â€24.15). David is the referent of the remaining instances. That the semantics of the expression may not necessarily denote length of years could be indicated by the lack of the expression appearing in Jacob’s death notice.10 Yet he lived to 147 (Gen. 47.28)! In any case, all the contexts in which the expression MymyÂ€(b#& appears are positive and suggest the meaning of a life well lived and “lived to the full.” Conrad expresses this nuance: Age, especially old age, is nevertheless an image of fulfillment. This idea finds expression in two phrases that are frequently found when death is mentioned: beśêbhāh ṭôbhāh (Gen 15:15; 25:8; Jgs.Â€8:32; 1 Ch. 29:28) and śebha‘ yāmîm (Gen 35:29; Job 42:17; 1Â€Chr. 29:28; cf. Gen 25:8; 1 Chr. 23:1; 2 Ch. 24:15). These phrases always refer to theologically significant figures, characterizing the age of the persons in question as the fulfillment of a life in harmony with God, to which natural death marks a meaningful conclusion. Both phrases are attested only in late strata of the OT, but they reflect a fundamental attitude that was widespread throughout the ancient Near East.11

It is interesting to note that both Gen. 25.8 and Gen. 35.29 are P passages.12

9.â•‡ It is perhaps better to say that the expression is rather MymyÂ€(b#&wÂ€Nqz, for MymyÂ€(b#& does not appear without Nqz except in 1 Chron. 29.28, where hbw+Â€hby#& is in its place. 10.â•‡ Cf. Gen. 47.28, as observed by Patai, 230. But note Jacob’s remark to Pharaoh: “The years of my earthly sojourn are one hundred thirty; few and hard have been the years of my life. They do not compare with the years of the life of my ancestors during their long sojourn” (Gen. 47.9). 11.â•‡Conrad, TDOT 4:125. 12.â•‡ Roddy Braun, 1 Chronicles (WBC; Waco, Tx: Word Books, 1986), 290.

5.â•‡ Semantic Study of Hebrew Terms for the Aged

119

The expression MymybÂ€My)b, “advanced in years,” occurs seven times in four contexts in the OT (Gen.Â€18.11; 24.1; Josh. 13.1 twice; 23.1, 23.2; 1 Kgs 1.1), all with Nqz. In two of the contexts, the physical effects of aging are highlighted. My)ib@f MynIq"z: hrF#&fw: MhfrFb;)aw: Now Abraham and Sarah were old, hrF#&fl; twOyh;li ldAxf Mymiy,Fb@a advanced in age; it had ceased to be with .My#$in%Fk@a xrA)o Sarah after the manner of women. Gen. 18.11 Mymiy,Fb@a )b@f Nq"zF dwId@F K7lem@ehaw: King David was old and advanced in .wOl MxayI )Olw: MydIgFb@;b@a w%hs@ukay:wA years; and although they covered him with clothes, he could not get warm. 1 Kgs 1.1

In the two remaining contexts, issues of succession and the continuance of the narrative story are in the foreground. Mymiy,Fb@a )b@f Nq"zF MhfrFb;)aw: MhfrFb;)a-t)e K7rAb@' hwfhywA wOd@b;(a-l)e MhfrFb;)a rme)Oy,wA .lk@ob@a wOl-r#$e)j-lkfb@;l#$'m@oha wOtyb@' NqAz: .ykir"y: txat@a K1d:yF )nf-My#&i MyIma#@$fha yh'Ol)v hwFhyb@a K1(jyb@i#$;)aw: r#$e)j CrE)fhf yh'Ol)w" twOnb@;mi ynIb;li h#@$f)i xq@Ati-)Ol .wOb@r:qib@; b#$'wOy ykinO)f r#$e)j ynI(jnAk@;ha t@fx;qAlfw: K7l't@' yt@id:lawOm-l)ew: ycir:)a-l)e yk@i .qxfc;yIl; ynib;li h#@$f)i yr"xj)a Myb@irA Mymiy,Fmi yhiy:wA l)'rF#&;yIl; hwfhy: xaynIh'-r#$e)j bybis@fmi Mheyb'y:)o-lk@fmi .Mymiy,Fb@a )b@f Nq"zF (a#$uwOhywI l)'rF#&;yI-lkfl; (a#$uwOhy: )rFq;y,IwA wy+fp;#$ol;w% wy#$f)rFl;w% wynFq"z:li yni)j Mhel')j rme)Oy,wA wyrF+;#$ol;w% .Mymiy,Fb@a yti)b@f yt@in:qAzF

Now Abraham was old, well advanced in years; and the LORD had blessed Abraham in all things. Abraham said to his servant, the oldest of his house, who had charge of all that he had, “Put your hand under my thigh and I will make you swear by the LORD, the God of heaven and earth, that you will not get a wife for my son from the daughters of the Canaanites, among whom I live, but will go to my country and to my kindred and get a wife for my son Isaac.” Gen. 24.1-4 A long time afterward, when the LORD had given rest to Israel from all their enemies all around, and Joshua was old and well advanced in years, Joshua summoned all Israel, their elders and heads, their judges and officers, and said to them, “I am now old and well advanced in years; Josh. 23.1-2

Conrad prefers to see most of the contexts as those in which “a previously responsible party must resign his position, and a new generation receives his testament.”13 While he may be inferring too much from these contexts, he is correct in pointing out that the

13.â•‡Conrad, TDOT 4:125.

120


expression focuses on the limitations of human life. MymybÂ€My)b certainly connotes a more negative perspective than MymyÂ€(b#& (judging from the contexts in which these expressions occur; see page 118 above). Both expressions refer to the extreme upper limits of the life span.14 In an intriguing case of the intersection of syntax and lexicography, Japhet makes some interesting comments on 1 Chron. 23.1, where the expression MymyÂ€(b#&wÂ€NqzÂ€dywdw “When David was old and full of days” appears.15 The latter verse is a parallel text to 1 Kgs 1.1. Japhet notes that in paralleling the syntax of 1 Kgs 1.1, the Chronicler uses the finite verbal form of (b#& but replaces MymybÂ€)bÂ€Nqz with MymyÂ€(b#&wÂ€Nqz. Japhet writes: but in place of ‘advanced in years’ (bā’ bayyāmīm) the present text reads ‘full of years’ (śāba‘ yāmīm), thus removing the negative tone which accompanies the description of David’s old age in I Kings 1-2. In the verse as it stands, and the following chapters in general, the Chronicler depicts in a most sympathetic light David’s activities at this stage in his life, clearly contravening the negative picture of his sources in Kings.16

Semantic Study of hby#& There are 19 occurrences of hby#& in the OT.17 It is interesting to observe how different lexicographers describe the semantics of the word. Generally, they delineate two meanings: “gray hair” and “old age.” BDB writes “1. grey hair, hoary head ” and “2. old age.” HALOT has “1. the gray hair of an old man” and “2. advanced age.” Gesenius, however, has one general meaning with two subcategories: “grayness of hair, hoariness, .Â€. . Meton. a) Of a person who has gray hairs, one gray-headed. .Â€.Â€.Â€ b) For old age.” According to Even-Shoshan’s delineation, there are five occasions where the term means “hair whitened by old age,” 13 instances where the term signifies “advanced age,” and only one instance where it is used as an “epithet” for “the man who is old” (Lev. 19.32). The middle category he describes as “metaphorical.” It appears that at least one of the meanings of hby#& is as a general term for the aged. t@fr:dAhfw: Mw%qt@f hbfy#&' yn'p@;mi You shall rise before the aged, and defer to K1yheOl)vm@' tf)r"yFw: Nq"zF yn'p@; the old; and you shall fear your God: I am .hwfhy: yni)j the LORD. Lev. 19.32

14.â•‡ Joshua is reported to have died at age 110 (Josh. 24.29). 15.â•‡ Sara Japhet, I & II Chronicles (OTL; Louisville: Westminster/John Knox Press, 1993), 411. 16.â•‡ Ibid., 411. 17.â•‡ Paul Wegner is not quite correct when he states that there are 20 occurrences in his entry in NIDOTTE. He is including no doubt the one hapax by#& which also means “old age” in 1 Kgs 14.4. hby#& occurs much of the time with Nqz or hnqz.

5.â•‡ Semantic Study of Hebrew Terms for the Aged hbfy#&'w: hnFq;zI-d(a Mgaw: ynIb'z:(at@a-l)a MyhiOl)v rwOdl; K1(jwOrz: dyg%i)a-d(a .K1terFw%bg%: )wboyF-lkfl;

121

So even to old age and gray hairs, O God, do not forsake me, until I proclaim your might to all the generations to come. Ps. 71.18 (cf. Ps. 92.15; Ruth 4.15)

However, we have four occurrences in three different contexts where hby#& in collocation with hbw+ means not simply “old age” but “advanced old age.” All instances utilize the same exact formula: hbw+Â€hby#&b. K1ytebo)j-l)e )wObt@f ht@f)aw: As for yourself, you shall go to your anceshbfy#&'b@; rb'q@Ft@i MwOl#$fb@; tors in peace; you shall be buried in a good .hbfwO+ old age. Gen. 15.15 (cf. Gen. 25.8) #$)fwOy-Nb@e NwO(d:g%I tmfy,fwA Then Gideon son of Joash died at a good rb'q@Fy,IwA hbfwO+ hbfy#&'b@; old age, and was buried in the tomb of his .yrIz:(ehf ybi)j hrFp;(fb@; wybi)f #$)fwOy rbeqEb@; father Joash at Ophrah of the Abiezrites. Judg. 8.32 (ba#&; hbfwO+ hbfy#&'b@; tmfy,FwA He died in a good old age, full of days, K7Olm;y,IwA dwObkfw: r#$e(o MymiyF riches, and honor; and his son Solomon .wyt@fx;ta wOnb; hmoOl#$; succeeded him. 1 Chron. 29.28

In the last example, the Chronicler has recast the parallel text of 1 Kgs 1.1 in a more positive light, transforming not only the expression MymybÂ€)b into MymyÂ€(b#& but adding our expression, hbw+Â€hby#&b. There are two other cases of hby#& without the modifier hbw+, which can arguably mean “advanced old age.” M(fb;rFyF t#$e)' Nk@' #&(at@awA )Obt@fwA hOl#$i K7let@'wA MqFt@fwA lkoyF-)Ol w%hy,Fxi)jwA hy,fxi)j tyb@' .wOby#@&'mi wynfy(' w%mqF yk@i twO)r:li

Jeroboam’s wife did so; she set out and went to Shiloh, and came to the house of Ahijah. Now Ahijah could not see, for his eyes were dim because of his age. 1 Kgs 14.4

brExe-lk@e#$at@; Cw%xmi In the street the sword shall bereave, and rw%xb@f-Mg%A hmfy)' MyrIdFxjm'w% in the chambers terror, for young man and .hbfy#&' #$y)i-M(i qn'wOy hlfw%tb@;-Mg%A woman alike, nursing child and old gray head. Deut. 32.25

qnwy “nursing child” represents extreme young age while hby#&Â€#$y) “old gray head” represents extreme old age — the opposite poles of the age spectrum. Another manifestation of hby#& as “old age” is as part of a figurative or metaphorical expression. We have five instances in two contexts, all occurring with the term “Sheol” but without Nqz.

122

The Days of Our Years Mkem@f(i ynib@; dr"y"-)Ol rme)Oy,wA wOd@bal; )w%hw: tm' wyxi)f-yk@i K7rEd@Eb@a NwOs)f w%h)frFq;w% r)f#$;nI Mt@ed:rAwOhw: h@bf-w%kl;t@' r#$e)j .hlfwO)#$; NwOgyFb@; ytibfy#&'-t)e

But he said, “My son shall not go down with you, for his brother is dead, and he alone is left. If harm should come to him on the journey that you are to make, you would bring down my gray hairs with sorrow to Sheol.” Gen. 42.38 (cf. also Gen. 44.29, 31)

dr"wOt-)Olw: K1temfk;xfk@; tfy#&i(fw: Act therefore according to your wisdom, .l)o#$; MOl#$fb@; wOtbfy#&' but do not let his gray head go down to Sheol in peace. 1 Kgs 2.6 (cf. 1 Kgs 2.9)

We should probably see the above instances as idiomatic expressions similar to such expressions in English as “when I’m dead and gone” or “when I’m old and gray.” Finally, we have five occurrences where the term refers to literal “gray/white hair.” rdAhjwA Mxfk@o MyrIw%xb@a trE)ep;t@i The glory of youths is their strength, but the .hbfy#&' Myniq"z: beauty of the aged is their gray hair. Prov. 20.29 (cf. Prov. 16.31) )w%h yni)j hnFq;zI-d(aw: even to your old age I am he, even when yni)j lb@os;)e yni)j hbfy#'-d(aw: you turn gray I will carry you. I have made, .+l@'ma)jwA lb@os;)e yni)jwA )#@&f)e yni)jwA ytiy#&i(f and I will bear; I will carry and will save. Isa. 46:4 (cf. Hos. 7.9) b#$ox;yA bytinF ry)iyF wyrFxj)a It leaves a shining wake behind it; one .hbfy#&'l; MwOht@; would think the deep to be white-haired. Job 41.24[32]

5.â•‡ Semantic Study of Hebrew Terms for the Aged

123

(e.g. Ps.Â€90.10). How could the biblical narrators realistically speak of “growing old and gray” when many, if not most, people did not live past age 40? We have already dealt with this issue by distinguishing between life expectancy and life span. If a person could survive the dangers of infancy and childhood, during which mortality rates were high in antiquity, they could expect to live a relatively normal life span (see page 37 above). There was also a real difference in life expectancy between the average population and the literati. In any case, our semantic study of the vocabulary of the aged suggests a two-stage conception of the life cycle of the aged in ancient Israel: old age and extreme old age. In addition, we have seen that the literary testimonies of both the Ancient Near East and Israel testify to such a conception (see ChapterÂ€2 and page 52 in particular). The difficult question is where the boundaries were drawn. One cannot be rigid about this as the ancients certainly were not. It would appear by one account that women entered old age and widowhood at age 40 (see above on page 55). Levitical priests retired at age 50 (Num. 8.25). The table of redemption values in Lev. 27.1-8 points to age 60. David is said to have died “in a good old age” (hbw+Â€hby#&, 2 Chron. 29.28) at the age of 70 (2Â€Sam. 5.4). We therefore suggest the tentative outline below. The Life Stage of the Aged in General (60+) Nqz Old Age (60–70?) Nqz

Extreme Old Age (70+?) hbw+Â€hby#&, MymyÂ€(b#&, d)mÂ€Nqz

It is interesting to note that sociologists today distinguish between the young old and the old old. Gerontologists take it a step further and divide old age into three subcategories: young old (aged 60–75), old old (aged 75–85), and oldest old (aged 85 and over).20 The oldest old are now the fastest growing segment of the population in the U.S. and in most developed countries those over 60 comprise 20 percent of the total population.21

The Life Cycle of the Aged According to developmental psychologists, adulthood can be divided into three stages: early adulthood from age 20 to 40, middle adulthood from age 40 to 60 and late adulthood from age 60 and up. Although the first gray hairs may appear as early as age 20, hair is generally noticeably gray after 40.18 In late adulthood, “Hair also undergoes very apparent changes, continuing to become thinner and grayer, and, in many people, eventually becoming white.”19 It may seem unusual that although the average life expectancy in the time of ancient Israel was rather low (around the mid-thirties), their own expectations and depictions in the literature seem rather high

18.â•‡ Kathleen S. Berger, The Developing Person through the Life Span (2nd ed.; NewÂ€York, NY: Worth Publishers, 1988), 392–93, 463. 19.â•‡ Berger, 529.

20.â•‡ Denise Boyd and Helen Bee, Lifespan Development (5th ed.; Boston: Pearson, 2009), 485. 21.â•‡ Tim G. Parkin, Old Age in the Roman World (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 2003), 276.

124

â•‡ Conclusion

CONCLUSION Lessons in Lexical Semantics It remains here only to summarize our primary conclusions. Bodine was right when he wrote that biblical scholars must “pursue a deeper insight into the nature of language.” He was also correct when he stated that they are “people who work with hard language data” (see page 21 above). Particularly when working with a dead language, the application of linguistic theory to hard language data is often a difficult task — nevertheless it is possible. When considering traditional, biblical word studies, the conclusions of modern linguistics have often been negative (e.g. etymology and the problem of Grundbedeutung). We have sought in this study to integrate in a positive way the contributions of modern linguistics. First, the insights of modern linguistics can aid us in understanding the “lexical structure” or what we have termed here the semantic profile of a Hebrew word. When one is constrained to understand meaning in terms of reference, the phenomenon of a term like r(n poses a great difficulty: how can one term refer to any male young person from weaning to young adulthood? When understood in terms of “Repeated Lexemes in Folk Taxonomies” or “Semantic Neutralization” (see Figures 3.1 and 3.2), however, the lexical structure and dynamics of the term become transparent. Secondly, the modern emphasis on syntagmatic study has certainly born fruit in our study. One of the problems the biblical interpreter faces when encountering a term (e.g. r(n) that has two meanings is how to choose between them in a particular context. With careful observation of syntagmatic data, we have shown that when r(n is used in construct (or in a genitival-possessive construction) it means “servant” and not “boy” the majority of the time (see page 78). This is not to say that the older lexicographers did not observe these so-called syntagms. Indeed, Gesenius wrote of the same phenomenon 150 years ago (see page 79). With the help of modern linguistics, however, we have a more sure foundation upon which to assert our claims. Thirdly, the modern linguistic emphasis on paradigmatic study has enabled us to draw out the implications of each term within the semantic domain of the life cycle. The syntagm N+qÂ€r(n was apparently not noted by Gesenius. It was, however, noted by BDB. The full implications of such a combinatory relation, however, are not brought out until one compares it with other terms within the same semantic domain. As such, it appears to refer to a male young person between the ages of weaning and puberty (i.e.Â€ages 3 to 13). In addition, we have also observed that when compared to db(, r(n (in its sense of “servant”) appears to consist of the additional semantic component of “personal attachment” (see page 71).

125

consequently very helpful in this regard) in pointing out what such and such word could and did refer to in the Hebrew Bible. But reference is not the same as meaning, and the reader is left to infer meaning from the referents. For example, just because r(n is used to refer to the 3â•‚month-old infant Moses in Exod. 2.6 does not mean that r(n includes the sense of “infant child.” The focal component in these cases may very well be gender, as in “It’s a boy!” and not age. Gesenius and others, however, are indeed careful not to attach such references to meaning. They simply gloss “boy, lad, youth.” But these are merely translation equivalents and not real definitions. We have already noted in a number of places our admiration for the work of Gesenius who, operating prior to the advent of modern linguistics, seemed to know intuitively what was of semantic significance. He noted that r(n could also refer to “common soldiers” (see page 71) and that the term could also include the supplemental component of “tender age” (our assessment was “inexperience,” see page 76). Gesenius noted the similarity between dly and Nb (see page 87). Thus, in some ways his lexical entries are more helpful than those of later lexicons. Unfortunately, newer is not necessarily better in the field of biblical lexicography.1 Despite his genius, however, Gesenius did rely far too much on etymology in some cases. We have already had occasion to note that his understanding of P+ as deriving from an Arabic cognate ṭff “to trip along” influenced his understanding of the Hebrew term: “little ones, little children, boys and girls so called from their quick and tripping gait” (see page 89 ff). Careful contextual study reveals, however, that the term has more the sense of “dependents,” which can include women and the elderly as well as children. Gesenius was also limited by the manuscript evidence of his day. He interpreted, for example, r(nÂ€r(nhw in 1 Sam. 1.24 as illustrating that the term is “Often emphat. to express a tender age” (see Gesenius’ lexical entry on page 10). Basing his evidence on the DSS (in part), McCarter has shown that the expression is rather a case of homoioteleuton.2 Clines’ new dictionary has received a fair degree of criticism but we have found it helpful on two occasions in this study. We must grant that not all of the syntagmatic data will be helpful much of the time. Our own syntagmatic data on r(n recorded in the Appendix proved to not demonstrate any significant patterns. (But then perhaps this itself is a contribution.) The Clines’ lexical entry on P+, however, demonstrated how often the term is collocated with verbs of motion (see page 92) and his entry on Md) shows how the latter term is very often collocated with verbs with God as subject (see page 97). With the increasing influence and sophistication of modern linguistics on biblical lexicography, one could easily give up the idea of ever producing a Hebrew-English dictionary that is semantically and linguistically satisfying. Some attempts have already fallen by the wayside in the wake of practical limitations (see page 28). With the advent of new tools (e.g. DCH, HALOT ) and, in particular, computer technology

Lessons in Lexicography We have noted above (see page 84 ff.) that Gesenius (and its congeners/descendants) explicated meaning primarily by reference. He was very meticulous (and

1.â•‡ See also O’Connor’s interesting review and comments in his “Biblical Hebrew Lexicography: P+ ‘Children, Dependents’ in Biblical and Qumranic Hebrew,” JNSL 25, 2 (1999): 25–40. 2.â•‡McCarter, I Samuel, 57.

126


â•‡ Conclusion

and collaboration over the web (see page 21 ff.), there is yet some hope for a new day in biblical lexicography.

adults.” After the Industrial Revolution and the enactment of child labor laws, the term “adolescence” was born. Today, psychologists point to a new view of early adulthood called the “emerging adult.” In fifth centuryÂ€B.C.E. Athens, Euripides and Thucydides complained of the youth’s tendency to go to war and the latter “adduces as one of the causes of the Peloponnesian War the large number of youths (neo/thj pollh/, 2.8.1) in Peloponnesos and Athens at the time.”5 They were referring to “youths” aged 18 to 30! Within the scope of the terms taken up in this study, we present on the following page an outline of the language of the life cycle in biblical Israel.

Lessons on the Life Cycle We have attempted to bring the insights of how we understand the life cycle of ancient Israel and the major transitions thereof to bear upon further “defining” or rather “conceptualizing” the sense of such terms as r(n, #$y) and Nqz. The major transitions appear to have been weaning, puberty, marriage/work/raising children, and retirement/menopause/widowhood. Sociologists, anthropologists, and linguists have acknowledged these life transitions as universal and a given. There is no reason to believe that ancient Israel was any different. What we have learned in this connection is the importance of socio-historical studies as an aid and background to lexical semantic studies. They perform a needed “reality check,” for if there is anything we have learned from the history of lexical semantics and Hebrew and Greek “word studies” it is that biblical scholars can be quite imaginative and fanciful about the meanings of words in the Bible. It is important to know, for example, what the socio-historical conception of “youth” was in the ancient world, and in ancient Israel in particular. For the ancient Israelite, being a “youth” was not the same as being a “teenager.” It was that stage in life after childhood when one becomes sexually capable or nubile, a stage which lasted until one married or realized one’s patrimony and was able to maintain a household. This could be anywhere from age 13 to 30. It was also a stage in life where one was not considered an adult but rather to be in preparation for becoming an adult. Among professionals in today’s society, adolescence is viewed as a continuation of childhood and not so much as preparation for adulthood.3 The socio-historical background helps the semanticist understand why, for example, such a term as r(n can refer to such a wide range of ages. Although this study has sought to delineate specific age ranges for life cycle terms in the Hebrew Bible, it must be clearly stated that in the ancient world life stages were not recognized or determined by strict chronological age but by outward physiological and social changes (e.g. sexual maturation, menopause, marriage, retirement from military service). Many people in antiquity did not even know their exact chronological age.4 Socio-historical study reminds both the linguist and biblical scholar of the vast distances of time, space, and culture that obtain between the ancient world and our own. It may even help us to reflect upon our own time and culture. In the early history of child development studies, children were considered no more than “little

3.â•‡ Linton, 601. 4.â•‡ Tim Parkin as well as others have noted the unreliability of using Roman tombstone inscriptions for determining age-at-death mortality data. The inscriptions are notorious for their age-rounding tendencies. Parkin also notes that “Apart from anything else, it is worth observing that in expressions of age in Roman numerals (as opposed to the Greek and Arabic systems), ages as multiples of five are shorter, and therefore cheaper to inscribe: for example, XL as compared with XXXVIIII or XXXIX” (Parkin, 31).

127

Table of the Life Cycle in Biblical Israel the young r(n the young r(n

the old Nqz the mature, adult rbg, #$y)

the aged Nqz

infant dly

boy r(n N+qÂ€r(n/

young man r(n

mature, adult rbg, #$y)

old age Nqz

extreme old age d)mÂ€Nqz MymyÂ€(b#&, hbw+Â€hby#&

ages 0–3

ages 3–13

ages 13–25

ages 25–60

ages 60–70

ages 70+

5.â•‡ Leinieks, 203.

Jacob meets Esau

Jacob meets Esau

Jacob meets Esau

Jacob meets Esau

Jacob at Peniel

Jacob to Laban

→Ishmael cast out

children

παιδία 33.2

33.5

παιδία

children

u9ioi/

children

children

children 33.2

children

children παιδία 33.1

children

children children παιδία

children παιδία 30.26

32.23 [32.22]

lad παιδίov 21.20 — r(n children

lad παιδίov 21.19 — r(n

boy

→Ishmael cast out

lad παιδίov 21.18 — r(n

boy

→Ishmael cast out

→Ishmael cast out lad παιδίov 21.17 — r(n

boy

boy lad παιδίov child παιδίov 21.16

child

21.15

παιδίov

παιδίov

child

child

child

child

21.12 — r(n 21.14

129

21.17 — r(n

lad παιδίov child child παιδίov Gen. 21.8

boy

→Ishmael cast out

→Ishmael cast out

→Ishmael cast out

→Ishmael cast out

→Ishmael cast out boy

man man a!vδρα vεαvίσκoς Gen. 4.23

young man

young man

#$y)

NRSV RSV LXX Other Terms NRSV RSV LXX Reference

Table for Hebrew dly

As an entrée into the methodological issues of semantic study, two tables were compiled to keep track of and to document our analysis. Tables were constructed for only two lexemes, r(n and dly, partly because these are among the most complex terms, partly because they are more manageable in terms of their number of occurrences, and partly because Clines’ dictionary provided data for the other terms. The plan and coverage of each table is different. The Table for Hebrew r(n is restricted to the 120 occurrences of the term considered to relate to the semantic domain of the life cycle (i.e. “boy,” “lad,” “youth”) plus an additional five disputed references. The Table for Hebrew dly, however, includes all 89 occurrences of the term. Once the detailed plan of the table on r(n had been carried out, it was deemed unnecessary for the same detailed analysis to be conducted on dly and thus a simpler table is presented for the latter. Several features are common to both tables. Distinct pericopae or contexts where the term in question occurs repeatedly are separated by single horizontal lines. Secondly, referents of the term in question are denoted by the symbol →. The plan of the table on r(n is as follows. Those references that reflect a specific syntactical construction are kept together in a group of rows at the very beginning of the table. Thus, we have two groups of rows which have brought together occurrences of the collocations (1) Nqz.â•¯.â•¯.r(n and (2) N+qÂ€r(n. The remaining occurrences follow in canonical order. Regarding the columns, the first set (columns 2–4) represents syntagmatic study, indicating (a) the verbs of which r(n was the subject (column 2), (b) those of which r(n was the object (columnÂ€3), and (c) special syntactical collocations (column 4). The second set (columns 5–6) represents paradigmatic study, indicating (a) words used with synonymous meaning in close context (column 5), and (b) words used as antonyms in close context (column 6). Columns 7 and 8 respectively give the LXX translation (if extant) and that of the NRSV. The final column usually indicates the referent in question and adds any special comments. References marked with an asterisk (*) indicate that the second meaning of r(n, “servant,” is the most likely meaning in that particular context. In the Table for Hebrew dly, all occurrences appear and follow row by row in canonical order. The first set of columns merely indicate the LXX, RSV, and NRSV translations of dly. The next set of columns points out “Other Terms” of the same semantic domain (of the life cycle) which happen to appear in the same context with their LXX, RSV, and NRSV translations. The final column usually indicates the referent in question and/or the gist of the pericope.

Comments

APPENDIX

→Isaac at weaning

Appendix

Lamech’s Song

128

παιδία

33.13

child children

children children child child child child

παιδίov παιδία παιδίov παιδία παιδία παιδίov παιδίov παιδαρίov παιδαρίov

2.10 21.4 21.22 1 Sam. 1.2 1.2 2 Sam. 6.23 12.15 12.18 12.18

12.16 — r(n

Mynb /tb /Nb

Other Terms

r(n

1.16 — tb/Nb

44.22 — r(n

Other Terms

παιδαρίov

LXX

—

παιδίov

LXX

child

RSV

babe

lad

RSV

child

NRSV

he

boy

NRSV

→Bathsheba’s dead child



Michal had no children

Hannah had no children

Peninah had children

→fetus

→slaves children

→Infant Moses (3 months)




Comments

→infant Moses (3 months)




“let the boys live”

“let the boys live”

“child of old age”

→Joseph (Reuben’s cry)

→Joseph (Reuben’s cry)

Jacob meets Esau

Jacob meets Esau

Jacob meets Esau

Jacob meets Esau

Jacob meets Esau

Comments

Appendix

child

child

child

child

children

children

(miscarriage)

children

child

child

child

child

NRSV

child

children

child

child

boys

boys

child

boy

boy

children

children

children

children

children

NRSV

Appendix

(miscarriage)

child

παιδίov 2.9

child

παιδίov

2.7

child

children

παιδία

2.6

παιδίov

child

παιδίov

2.6

2.9

child

παιδίov

2.3

child

male children

a!rsena

1.18

παιδίov

male children

a!rsena

Exod. 1.17

2.8

child

παιδίov

44.20

RSV

lad

παιδαρίov

42.22

LXX

lad

παιδαρίov

37.30

Reference

children

παιδαρία

33.14

children

children

children

τέκvα

33.6 τέκvα

children

παιδία

33.5 33.7

RSV

LXX

Reference

130 131

child child child child child child child

παιδαρίov παιδαρίov παιδαρίov παιδαρίov παιδαρίov παιδαρίov παιδίov

12.19 12.19 12.21 12.21 12.22 12.22

child boys children child child child

pai=j u9ioj παιδαρίov παιδαρίov παιδαρίov

4.1 4.18 4.26 4.34

17.23

παιδαρίov

child

child

child

2 Kgs 2.24

παιδαρίov

παιδαρίov

παιδαρίov

child

young men

young men

RSV

child

child

child

children

boys

child

child

child

child

child

young men

young men

NRSV

young men

boy

child

child

child

child

child

child

child

child

NRSV

4.29, 30, 31, 32 — r(n

4.4, 5, 7 Nb

παιδαρίov

u9ioj

παιδαρία μικρα

child

sons

small boys

child

παιδαρίov 14.17 — r(n

2.23 Myn+q Myr(n

child

RSV

παιδαρίov

LXX

14.3 — r(n

Other Terms

πρεσβυτερoς old men

child

παιδίov

3.27 — dwly Mynqz

child

RSV

παιδίov

LXX

3.26 — dwly

Other Terms

child

children

small boys

child

child

NRSV

older men

boy

boy

NRSV

→the Shunamitte’s son



Elisha and the widow’s oil

→the youths who made fun of Elisha

→widow’s son

→widow’s son

→widow’s son

→widow’s son

→Jeroboam’s child

→Jeroboam’s child

→Rehoboam’s coteries


Comments


→child of 2 prostitutes

→child of 2 prostitutes









Comments

Appendix

17.22

17.21

17.21

παιδαρίov [12.24]

παιδαρία

12.14 14.12

παιδαρία

LXX

12.10

Reference

12.8

young men

child

παιδαρίov

12.18

παιδαρία

child

παιδαρίov

12.18

1 Kgs 3.25

RSV

LXX

Reference

132 Appendix 133

children

τέκvα

29.23

children

young son child

παιδία vεoσσoι παιδία u9ioj παιδίov

Job 21.11 38.41 39.3

1.17

1.15

παιδαρία

παιδαρία

παιδαρία

youths

youths

youths

youths

παιδαρία 1.13

youths

vεαvισκoι

children

παιδία 1.10

youth

vεαvισκoς

youth

Dan. 1.4

Lam. 4.10

4.15

Eccl. 4.13

4.16

Ruth 1.5

young men

young men

young men

young men

young men

children

youth

youth

child

son

young

young ones

children

boys

boy

NRSV

children of

child

children

children of

children

young

child

children

(foreigners)

child

NRSV

—

11.8 — lwmg

par. Nqz

39.4 — Nb

par. lyw(

young ones

πρεσβυτερoς old

τεκvα

little ones

old women

πρεσβυτεραι —

old men

πρεσβυτερoι 8.4 — Mynqz 8.4 — twnqz

girls

girl

RSV

son

κoράσιov

κoράσιov

LXX

u9ioj

offspring

weaned child

suckling child

little child

son

child

RSV

par. hdly

par. hdly

Other Terms

par. Nb

σπερμα

παιδίov vηπιov

11.8 — qnwy

par. (rz

παιδίov μικρov

u9ioj

παιδαρίov

LXX

11.6 — N+q r(n

par. Nb

4.35 — r(n

Other Terms

→the young of raven

Comments

→the young of cow and bear


Comments

old

a royal youth?

a royal youth?

young ones →the young of goats

little ones

old women

old men

girls

girl

NRSV

son

offspring

weaned child

nursing child

little child

son

child

NRSV

Appendix

παις

boys

παιδαρίov

Zech. 8.5

young ones

boy

παιδαρίov

Joel 4.3 [3.3]

RSV

LXX

Reference

children of

τέκvα

child

children

Hos. 1.2

παιδίov [38.20]

τέκvα

57.5 Jer. 31.20

τέκvα

57.4

children of

young

παιδία

11.7

children child

9.5 [9.6]

παιδία

παιδία

8.18

(foreigners)

child

παιδαρίov τεκvα

RSV

LXX

Isa. 2.6

4.34

Reference

134 Appendix 135

1 Kgs 3.7

Jer. 51.22

Lam. 2.21

Isa. 20.4 bk#$ cpn

Nxy “to show favor”

/grh/ dm#$h db)

Est. 3.13

N+q r(n ykn)

r(nw Nqz

Nqzw r(n

Nqz

Nqz

r(nw Nqzl

h#$)w #$y) hlwtbw rwxb

Nqz

r(nm Nqz-d(w

Nqz

Ant.

Nqz

ytlwtb yrwxbw

Syn.

r(nw Nqzl

Mynqzw Myr(n

πρεσβυτερoι

a little child

boy

young

young

→(Solomon) N+q r(n

prose passage

showing no favor to young or old

young and old all Jews, ~, women, and children (My#$nw P+)

παιδαριov

παιδαριov μικρov

phrase: “young and old” young and old men and women (h#$)-d(wÂ€#$y)m), ~, oxen, sheep, and donkeys

young

lacking




Comments

Comments

older men

women

men, women

NRSV

both young and old

NRSV

vεαvισκoς

vεoς

“

vεαvισκoς, πρεσβυτερος

LXX

old men

women

men, women

αvδρες, γυvαικες

γυvαικες

RSV

LXX

Table for Hebrew r(n

cf. 1 Kgs 12.14

cf. 1 Kgs 12

My#$n

My#$n /My#$n)

Other Terms

Appendix

Deut. 28.50

Mrx

Josh. 6.21

d(nm Nqz-r(w

bbs

Gen. 19.4

young men

Collocations

young men

young men

young men

children

children

NRSV

Subject of Object of

vεωτερoι

10.14

young men

young men

children

children

RSV

Reference

παιδαρία

παιδαρία

10.10

2 Chron. 10.8

τεκvα

vεαvισκoι [Esd. 10.1]

Ezra 10.1 Neh. 12.43

LXX

Reference

136 Appendix 137

xl#$

Krb

boys

boy

Ny) 44.34 48.16

boy

hl( 44.33

44.33

παιδια

boy

παιδιov

boy

boy

παιδαριov Ny) 44.31

br( “to become surety for”

boy

παιδάριov Ny) 44.30

→Manesseh and Ephraim: on Jacob’s knees

→Benjamin

→Benjamin

→Benjamin

→Benjamin

→Benjamin

→Benjamin

→Benjamin

→Benjamin

→Joseph by the cupbearer

→Joseph at age 17

→Shechem; also with hr(n in vv. 3, 3, 12. hdly in v. 4

Comments

→Jacob and Esau

→Isaac

→Isaac: sacrifice of; also with r(n as servant

→Ishmael

→Ishmael

→Ishmael

→Ishmael

→Ishmael

→Ishmael at age 14?

N+q r(n

→Naaman’s leprosy cured N+q r(n

→boys who mocked Elisha N+q r(n

→Hadad N+q r(n

Comments

Appendix

44.32

boy

παιδιov

boy

young [Hebrew]

vεαvισκoς παις Εβραιoς παιδάριov

helper

young man

vέoς

vεαvισκoς

NRSV

lky

db(

hr(n hdly

LXX

44.22

43.8

yrb( r(n 41.12

Collocations

r(n )whw

rx) “to delay”


ldg

37.2

34.19

Reference

25.27

r(n-l(

Syn.

boy

παιδάριov

22.12

boys

boy

παιδάριov

22.5

vεαvισκoς

boy

παιδιov

Klh

boy

παιδιov

q#$n

21.19 Myhl) yhyw r(nh_t)

boy

παιδιov

)#&n

21.18

21.20

boy

παιδιov

boy

παιδιov

(m#$

child

young boy

small boys

a young boy

NRSV

παιδιov [μικρov]


παιδαρια


LXX

21.17

Ant.

Ant.

(m#$

vv. 14, 15, 16: dly

dly/qnwy/ lwmg

Mydly, v. 24

Syn.

21.17

r(nh-l(

N+q r(n

N+q r(n

Myn+q Myr(n

N+q r(n ddh

Collocations

(ry

ghn

)cy


Gen. 21.12

Isa. 11.6

5.14

2 Kgs 2.23

11.17

Reference

138 Appendix 139

hkb

Exod. 2.6

boy boy boy

παιδαριov παιδαριov παιδαριov

[N+qh]

boy

παιδαριov

child sons

παιδαριov παιδαριov

l)wm#$ r(nh r(nl r(nl

tr#$ 3.1 3.8 4.21 Mmt

boy

παιδαριov

l)wm#$ r(nh

ldgw Klh 2.26

16.11

boy

παιδαριov

l)wm#$ r(nh

ldg 2.21

→Jesse’s sons sans David

→Ichabod, newborn

→Samuel but no longer a child

→Samuel but later? “a boy”




→Samuel weaned

→Samuel weaned

→Samuel weaned

→Samuel weaned [haplography]

→Samuel weaned [haplography]

→Samuel before weaning

Comments

→Micah’s Levite priest





→Samson

→Samson

→Samson

→Samson: announcement of his birth

→Samson: announcement of his birth

→Jether, Gideon’s son

→Jether, Gideon’s son

“with our young and our old”

→infant Moses at 3 months

Comments

Appendix

2.18

2.11

hyh

child

παιδαριov 1.27

r(nh-l)

child

παιδαριov )wb

[young]

[μετ’ αυτωv] [r(n r(nh] 1.24 1.25

child

child


NRSV

LXX

[r(n r(nh]

lmg

Collocations

1.24

1 Sam. 1.22

Reference

18.15


young [Levite]

παιδαριoυ τoυ vεωτερoυ

young [Levite]

young man

παιδαριov

hyh

17.12

παιδαριov

young man

παιδαριov

hyh

17.11

lwq-t) ywlh r(nh

young man

παιδαριov

hyh

17.7

18.3

boy

παιδαριov

ldg

boy

παιδαριov

13.24

13.12

Ant.

boy

παιδαριov

13.8

boy

παιδαριov

hyh

13.7

boy boy

boy

παιδαριov vεωτερoς παιδαριov

young

He

NRSV

vεαvισκoς

—

LXX

hyh

#$y) (v. 21)

Nqz

Ant.

13.5

Syn.

dly

Syn.

Pl#$

r(nh-+p#$m

Collocations

8.20

Judg. 8.20

10.9


Reference

140 Appendix 141

4.30

2 Kgs 4.29

*20.19

*20.17

dqp

young man

παιδαριov

young men

young men

child child

παιδαρια

παιδαρια


yr#& yr(n

yr#& yr(n

34 (2×)

young men

yr#& yr(n

παιδαρια

child

child

young men

παιδαρια

young man

παιδαριov

boy

young man

παιδαριov

παιδαριov

young man

παιδαριov

young man

young man

παιδαριov

παιδαριov

young man

παιδαριov

NRSV

young men

παιδαριov

LXX

child

παιδαριov

young men

dly, vv.18, 26

dly, v. 12

ylk )#&n

Ant.

young man

παιδαριov

a youth

παιδαριov young man

boy

παιδαριov

[vεαvισκoς]

NRSV

LXX

παιδαρια yr#& yr(n

r(nk

Syn.

Nb

dly

#$y) hmxlm

Ant.



→”the young men who serve the district governors”




→Jeroboam’s ill son

→Jeroboam’s ill son

→Jeroboam

“soldiers”? (McCarter)

“a soldier”? (McCarter)

Comments

→”the young man, Absalom”





→David’s sons as young adults

→Bathsheba’s newborn child

→young David; direct address

→young David

→young David

→young David

Comments

Appendix

*20.15

*20.14

14.17

14.3

)cy

bbs

*18.15 1 Kgs 11.28

h)r

*17.18

18.32

h)r

r(nl Mwl#$h Mwl#$b)l

18.32

Collocations

r(nl Mwl#$ Mwl#$b)l

18.29

Reference

r(nb ymwrm#$ Mwl#$b)b

r(nl yl-+) l Mwl#$b)l

r(nh-t) Mwl#$b)-t)

18.12


bw#$

14.21 18.5

twm

13.32

2 Sam. 12.16

17.58

r(nh

r(n hyh yk

17.42 Ml(

wy(unm

ht) r(n yk

17.33

17.55

Syn.


Collocations

Reference

142 Appendix 143

rkn “make oneself known” (hitp)

vεoς

[22.6 lacking]

vεαvισκoς

vεαvιας

παιδι δε vε

vεωτερωv

vεωτερoς

vεωτερoς

boy

children

children

young man

young

[old and] young

young people

[I am] young

young men

note also twlwtb/ Myrwxb

→the young of wild asses

→Job’s children including daughters

Comments

→Josiah at age 16

→Rehoboam

→Solomon, my son is .â•¯.â•¯.

Appendix

22.15

22.6

r(nl Knx

bl-rsx r(n ytp, “the simple” 7.7 20.11

ytp, “the simple” Prov. 1.4

Nqz

Nqz

vεαvισκoι

their young my children

vεωτερoυς

young people

παιδια

παιδες

NRSV

still a boy

young and irresolute

LXX

παιδαριov

vεωτερoς και δειλoς

young and inexperienced

→Solomon, my son is .â•¯.â•¯.

→Zadok, a young warrior






Comments

Appendix

148.12

119.9

hkz “be pure”

h)r 29.8 Ps. 37.25

bbs

24.5 29.5

hyh

Collocations

Reference

yr(n

r(n wndw( ) whw

34.3

Job 1.19

Krw r(n hyh

2 Chron. 13.7

#$y#$y

Krw r(n

29.1


young and inexperienced

παιδαριov απαλov

Krw r(n

22.5

vεoς και απαλoς

a young warrior

vεoς δυvατoς ισχυι

lyx rwbg r(n

1 Chron. 12.29

the young man, the young prophet

τo παιδαριov o πρoφητης

r(nh )ybnh r(nh

Klh

9.4

two members

παιδαρια

Myr(n-yn#$

)wb

5.22

child

παιδαριov

xqp

child

παιδαριov

child

παιδαριov child

child


NRSV

LXX

4.35

Ant.

Ant.

rrz “sneeze”

Syn.

Syn.

4.35

Collocations

twm

Cyq


4.32

4.31

4.31

Reference

144 145

Collocations

#$qb

rwxb

1â•‡ An asterisk (*) indicates the sense is most likely in terms of a functionary, i.e. “servant.”

(11.16)

Zech. 2.8 [2.4]

Hos. 11.1

l#$k

that young man

child

boys →Zechariah himself “official” (Meyers)

→young Jeremiah

Comments

for lw( LXX has αωρoς

for rwxb, LXX has vεαvισκoς

prose passage

διεσκoρπισμεvov the wandering probably participle of (wn “to wander”

vεαvιαv εκειvov

vηπιoς

vεαvισκoς

boy

boy

NRSV

youth

youths

servants

young men

“before the child knows .â•¯.â•¯.”

“before the child knows how to refuse the evil and choose the good”

note trans. of parallel word “babes”

Comments

Appendix

Lam. 5.13

vεωτερoς

ykn) r(n 1.7

LXX vεωτερoς

Ant.

vεoς

ykn) r(n

Syn.

Nqz

vεωτερoς

πρεσβεις “ambassador”

Jer. 1.6


lw( “suckling”

twm

65.20

Reference

rwxb

P(y, “be faint”

40.30

*37.6

vεαvισκoς

child

παιδιov

btk

10.19 #$+r, “dash in pieces”

child

παιδιov

(dy

8.4

13.18

child

παιδιov

(dy

youth

παιδιov

7.16

Nqz

bhr, “be insolent”

Mylwl(t

servant boys

vεωτερoς vεαvισκoς

3.5

Isa. 3.4

Eccl. 10.16 Ntn

NRSV

child

LXX παις

Ant.

29.15

Syn. children

Collocations vηπιov


23.13

Reference

146 Appendix 147

148

Glossary

149

you seek?” Disciples: “Rabbi, where are you staying?” Jesus: “Come and see.” It is like “reading between the lines.”5

GLOSSARY1

cotext. The sentences, paragraphs, and chapters surrounding a text and related to it; when used with context, the latter refers to the sociological and historical setting of text. deep structure. “[A]n abstract representation of grammatical relations.”2 See also “surface structure.” For example, in the passive construction “Through whom we have received grace and apostleship .â•¯.â•¯.” the surface structure represents we as the subject of the sentence and received as formally an active verb. In terms of deep structure, however, God is the actual agent of the action and we is the goal of such an event, i.e. the granting of grace and apostleship. By means of understanding deep structure, the same construction can be “transformed” to read “Through him God gave me the privilege [i.e. “grace”] of being an apostle .â•¯.â•¯.” (TEV).3 emic. According to the worldview of the particular language; for example, Greek pyr “fire” would be classified under the domain of “natural substances,” rather than events; in contrast to etic.4

langue. A French termed coined by Saussure; in contrast to parole. It is “the overall structure of language as it is internalized for the speaker,” versus parole which consists of “the particular manner in which an individual speaker actualizes this competence in the production of a particular discourse.”6 The langue/parole principle is sometimes referred to as language “competence” versus “performance.” In technical parlance, langue is expressed in “sentences” and parole in “utterances.” “Style” is a subset of parole.7 lexeme. The basic or root form of a set of related forms such as “who,” “whom,” “whose”; derived or declined forms are referred to as word-forms. lexical semantics. The study of the meaning of words. lexicography. “[T]he study of words; the task of dictionary making.”8 lexicology. “[T]he principles and methods of word study; related to lexicography as theory is to practice.”9 linguistics. “[T]he scientific study of language.”10 metalanguage. Language about language.

functor. Words that function grammatically rather than semantically, e.g. “this,” “of”; sometimes also termed “empty,” i.e. having no lexical meaning. gloss. As used in this work, this simply means “translation equivalent,” as in r(n: “boy,” “lad,” “youth”. graphemics. The linguistic study of writing as the medium of communication; in contradistinction to speech as the object of linguistic study. idiolect. The unique speech habits of an individual.

paradigmatic. Referring “to words which, because of their semantic associations, may occupy the same slot in a sentence.”11 “Linguistic elements that can be interchanged.”12 Cotterell and Turner use the term “substitutional.” See also “syntagmatic.” parole. See langue. philology. The scientific study of words with regard to their historical and comparative dimensions.

implicature. Implied meaning; when the literal words of an utterance do not directly address an issue but rather lead to an implication; for example, Jesus: “What do

1.â•‡ The following works have been particularly helpful and were referred to most during the compilation of this glossary: Cotterell and Turner’s Linguistics and Biblical Interpretation and Silva’s Biblical Words and Their Interpretation. 2.â•‡ Waltke and O’Connor, 61. 3.â•‡ See Nida, “Implications,” 80–81. 4.â•‡ Harold P. Scanlin, “The Study of Semantics in General Linguistics,” in Linguistics and Biblical Hebrew, ed. Walter R. Bodine (Winona Lake: Eisenbraun’s, 1992), 135.

5.â•‡ See Cotterell and Turner, sec. 2.1.6. 6.â•‡ Ibid., 74. 7.â•‡Silva, Biblical Words, 114–17. 8.â•‡ Ibid., 219. 9.â•‡ Ibid., 220. 10.â•‡ John Lyons, Introduction to Theoretical Linguistics (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1968), 1. 11.â•‡ Silva, “Determining Meaning,” 22. 12.â•‡ Bodine, “Linguistics,” 4:329.

150

Glossary

pro-forms. Words that stand in the place of other words or groups of words. In English these are often pronouns, e.g. “him” instead of “Uncle George.” proxemics. The significance of proximity; the use of personal space (nearness and distance) in conveying meaning and/or modifying the meaning of the accompanying speech act. reference. A technical term in linguistics which has to do with the relationship of linguistic signs to the extralinguistic or non-linguistic entities of the real world. “Colorless green ideas sleep furiously” has no meaning because a breakdown has occurred between the linguistic signs and their “referent(s).” See Figure 1.2 — the Ogden and Richards Triangle of Signification — on page 24. See also “sense.”13 semanteme. One of the minimal elements of lexical meaning in a language (RHUD). semantic. “[A] defined area of meaning occupied by related words” 14; same as “semantic domain” or “lexical field.”

Glossary

151

purely from their relationship to other units in the same language system; contribution of Ferdinand de Saussure. (2) in regard to literary criticism, it is an approach to literature based on the social anthropology of Claude Levi-Strauss wherein the interaction of various characters are analyzed in terms of a prescribed set of “universal” roles giving rise to the “significance” of the text. surface structure. “[T]he linear sequence of elements in a sentence.”16 See “deep structure.” syntagm. “[A] series of different elements forming a syntactic unit” as in “run away” or “poor Nathan.”17 syntagmatic. “Linguistic elements that can be combined.”18 For example, “John drinks milk,” but not “John eats milk”. Cotterell and Turner use the term “collocational.” See also “paradigmatic.” taxeme. A feature of the arrangement of elements in a construction, such as selection, order, phonetic modification, or modulation (RHUD).

semantics. The study of meaning. semantics/pragmatics. The two divisions of understanding the semiotics of human communication; the former having to do strictly with the actual language used and the latter with accompanying circumstances such as gesture and proxemics. semiotics. The study of signs or signaling systems; from the Greek sēmeion.

utterance. Sequences of real language, whether spoken or written, as it is actually and practically used as opposed to artificially constructed sentences without a living context; as opposed to a sentence as a theoretical construct. Two sentences may be the same because they contain the same word-forms in the same sequence but as actualized in real life they are two different utterances (though the word-forms be the same) because the living contexts are different and the word-forms would refer to different objects and/or events.

semotactic. A term coined by this author to refer to syntactic constructions which by their syntax alter or affect the meaning (“semantics”) of the individual lexemes of the construction. For example, it seems clear that r(n in genitival constructions such as “Saul’s r(n” denotes only the second meaning of the word in construct, “servant” and not “boy”, i.e. “young, male person.” sense. A technical term in linguistics that has to do with the mental content called up by a linguistic sign and “involves the relationships that hold between linguistic elements; it is concerned only with the linguistic sphere.”15 See Figure 1.2 — the Ogden and Richards Triangle of Signification — on page 24. See also “reference.” structuralism. A term used in several different ways. (1) in regard to linguistics, an approach that views every language as a unique structure or system and wherein its units (whether sounds, words or meanings) derive their essence and existence

13.â•‡ Waltke and O’Connor, 47. 14.â•‡Silva, Biblical Words, 219. 15.â•‡ Waltke and O’Connor, 47.

16.â•‡ Ibid., 61. 17.â•‡ Waltke and O’Connor, 52. 18.â•‡ Bodine, “Linguistics,” 4:329.

152

Chapter Bibliographies

CHAPTER BIBLIOGRAPHIES Bibliography for ChapterÂ€1 Alonso Schökel, Luis. “The Diccionario bíblico hebreo-español (DBHE).” ZAH 4 (1991): 76–83. Bacher, Wilhem, “Saadia b. Joseph.” In The Jewish Encyclopedia. New York: Funk & Wagnalls, 1905. Baron, S. W. A Social and Religious History of the Jews, 2nd ed. Vol. 7, Hebrew Language and Letters. New York: Columbia University Press, 1958. Barr, James. Comparative Philology and the Text of the Old Testament. Oxford: Clarendon, 1968. Reprint with additions, Winona Lake, Ind.: Eisenbrauns, 1987. Blois, Renier de. “Towards a New Dictionary of Biblical Hebrew.” Ph.D. diss., Free University of Amsterdam, 2000. Chomsky, William. David Ḳimḥi’s Hebrew Grammar (Mikhlol). New York: Bloch Publishing Company, 1952. ——Hebrew: the Eternal Language. Philadelphia: The Jewish Publication Society of America, 1957. Clines, David J. A. “The Dictionary of Classical Hebrew.” ZAH 3 (1990): 73–80. Cohen, Harold R. (Chaim). Biblical Hapax Legomena in the Light of Akkadian and Ugaritic. SBL Dissertation Series No. 37. Ann Arbor: Scholars Press, 1978. Danker, F. Multipurpose Tools for Bible Study. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2003. Dotan, Aron. Nitsanim rishonim be-ḥokhmat ha-milim: min ha-masorah el reshit ha-milona’ut ha-‘Ivrit / me-et (“Awakening of word lore”). Yerushalayim: ha-Aḳademyah la-lashon ha-‘Ivrit, 2005. Emerton, J. A. “Comparative Semitic Philology and Hebrew lexicography.” In Congress Volume: Cambridge 1995. Edited by J. A. Emerton. Vetus Testamentum Supplements, 66:1–24. Leiden: Brill, 1997. Eng, Milton. Review of NIDOTTE. JETS 42, 2 (June 1999): 305–08. Goldenberg, E., etÂ€al. “Hebrew Language.” In Encyclopedia Judaica, 16:1613–16. Jerusalem: Keter, 1971. Greenspahn, Frederick E. Hapax Legomena in Biblical Hebrew. SBL Dissertation Series No. 74. Chico, CA: Scholars Press, 1984. Halkin, A. S. “The Medieval Jewish Attitude toward Hebrew.” Pages 233–48 in Biblical and Other Studies. Edited by Alexander Altmann. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1963. Halkin, A. S., etÂ€al. “Saadiah Gaon.” In Encyclopedia Judaica. Jerusalem: Keter, 1971. Haywood, John A. 2nd ed. Arabic Lexicography: Its History, and Its Place in the General History of Lexicography. Leiden: Brill, 1965. Hirschfeld, Hartwig. Literary History of Hebrew Grammarians and Lexicographers. London: Oxford University Press, 1926. Jones, D. R. “Appendix I: Aids to the Study of the Bible.” Pages 520–30 in The Cambridge History of the Bible, Vol. 3. Edited by S. Greenslade. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1963. Kaltner, John. “ChapterÂ€1: The Problem and the Resources.” In The Use of Arabic in Biblical Hebrew Lexicography. The Catholic Biblical Quarterly Monograph Series: 28. Washington, D.C.: The Catholic Biblical Association of America, 1966. Lübbe, J. C. “An Old Testament Dictionary of Semantic Domains.” ZAH 9 (1996): 52–57. ——“Hebrew Lexicography: A New Approach.” Journal for Semitics 2 (1990): 1–15. Malter, Henry. Saadia Gaon: His Life and Works. New York: Hermon Press, 1926. Marx, Alexander. Essays in Jewish Biography. Philadelphia: The Jewish Publication Society of America, 1948. McFall, Leslie. “A Brief Survey on the Understanding of the HVS before 1827.” Pages 1–17 in The Enigma of the Hebrew Verbal System. Sheffield: Almond Press, 1982. O’Connor, M. “Semitic Lexicography: European Dictionaries of Biblical Hebrew in the Twentieth Century.” Pages 173–212 in Israel Oriental Studies XX. Edited by Shlomo Isre’el. Winona Lake, Ind.: Eisenbrauns, 2002.

153

Regt, L. J. de.Â€“Multiple Meaning and Semantic Domains in Some Biblical Hebrew Lexicographical Projects: the Description of zera‘.” ZAH 10 (1997): 63–75. Reymond, Philippe. “Vers la publication d’un Dictionnaire Hébreu-Français.” ZAH 3 (1990): 81–83. Roberts, J. J. M. “The Princeton Classical Hebrew Dictionary Project.” ZAH 3 (1990): 84–89. Rosenthal, Erwin. “Medieval Jewish Exegesis: Its Character and Significance.” JSS 9 (1966): 265–81. Sáenz-Badillos, Angel. A History of the Hebrew Language. Translated by John Elwolde. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1993. Sarfatti, Gad B. “Mishnaic Vocabulary and Mishnaic Literature as Tools for the Study of Biblical Semantics.” In Studies in Ancient Hebrew Semantics. Edited by T. Muraoka. Abr-Nahrain Supplement Series, 4:33–48. Louvain: Peeters, 1995. Silva, Moisés. “ChapterÂ€1: Etymology.” Pages 35–52 in Biblical Words and Their Meaning. Revised and expanded edition. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1994. Skoss, Solomon L. Saadia Gaon, The Earliest Hebrew Grammarian. Philadelphia: Dropsie College Press, 1955. Tene, David and James Barr. “Hebrew Linguistic Literature.” In Encyclopedia Judaica, 16:1352–401. Jerusalem: Keter, 1971. Waltke, Bruce and Michael P. O’Connor. “ChapterÂ€2: History of the Study of Hebrew.” Pages 31–43 in An Introduction to Biblical Hebrew Syntax. Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 1990. Waxman, Meyer. “Chapter VII: Grammar and Lexicography.” Pages 158–79 in A History of Jewish Literature. Vol. 1. New York: Thomas Yoseloff, 1960.

Bibliography for ChapterÂ€2 Bagnall, Roger S. Egypt in Late Antiquity. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1993. Bagnall, Roger S., and Bruce W. Frier. The Demography of Roman Egypt. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1994. Baugh, S. M. “Marriage and Family in Ancient Greek Society.” Pages 103–31 in Marriage and Family in the Biblical World. Edited by Ken M. Campbell. Downers Grove: InterVarsity, 2003. Block, Daniel I. “Marriage and Family in Ancient Israel.” Pages 33–102 in Marriage and Family in the Biblical World. Edited by Ken M. Campbell. Downers Grove: InterVarsity, 2003. Brenner, Athalya. Colour Terms in the Old Testament. Journal for the Study of the Old Testament Supplement Series, 21. Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1982. Brinkman, J. A. “Sex, Age and Physical Condition Designations for Servile Laborers in the Middle Babylonian Period: A Preliminary Survey.” Pages 1–8 in Zikir Šumim: Assyriological Studies Presented to F. R. Kraus on the Occasion of His Seventieth Birthday. Edited by G. Van Driel, etÂ€al. Leiden: Brill, 1982. Dandamayev, M. A. “About Life Expectancy in Babylonia.” Pages 183–86 in Death in Mesopotamia. Edited by Bendt Alster. Copenhagen: Akademisk Forlag, 1980. Garland, Robert. The Greek Way of Life: From Conception to Old Age. Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1990. Greenberg, Joseph H. A New Invitation to Linguistics. New York: Anchor Books, 1977. Hoffner, Harry A. “Hittite Terms for the Life Span.” Pages 53–55 in Love and Death in the Ancient Near East: Essays in Honor of Marvin H. Pope. Edited by J. Marks and R. Good. Guilford, Conn.: Four Quarters Publishing Company, 1987. Klein, Jacob. “The ‘Bane’ of Humanity: A Lifespan of One Hundred Twenty Years.” Acta Sumerologica 12 (1990): 57–70. Köhler, Ludwig. Hebrew Man. Translated by Peter R. Ackroyd. Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1956 [original 1953]. Krogman, W. M. “Representative Early Bronze Age Crania from Bâb edh-Dhrâ‘.” Pages 507–20 in Bâb edh-Dhrâ‘: Excavations in the Cemetery Directed by Paul W. Lapp (1965–67). Edited by R.Â€Thomas Schaub and Walter E. Rast. Winona Lake, Ind.: Eisenbrauns, 1989. Leinieks, Valdis. The City of Dionysos: A Study of Euripides’ Bakchai. Beiträge zur Altertumskunde 88; Stuttgart: Teubner, 1996.

154


Linton, Ralph. “Age and Sex Categories.” American Sociological Review 7, 5 (October 1942): 589–603. Maier, J. “Die Wertung des Alters in der judischen Uberlieferung der Spatanike und des fruhen Mittelalters.” Saeculum 30 (1979): 355–64. Malamat, A. “Longevity: Biblical Concepts and Some Ancient Near Eastern Parallels.” Archiv für Orientforschung, Beiheft 19 (1982): 215–24. Marsman, Hennie J. Women in Ugarit and Israel: Their Social and Religious Position in the Context of the Ancient Near East. Old Testament Studies 49. Leiden: Brill, 2003. Ortner, Donald J. “Disease and Mortality in the Early Bronze Age People of Bab edh-Dhra, Jordan.” American Journal of Physical Anthropology 51 (1979): 589–98. ——“The Skeletal Biology of an Early Bronze IB Charnel House at Bab edh-Dhra, Jordan.” Pages 93–95 in Studies in the History and Archaeology of Jordan I. Edited by Adnan Hadidi. Amman, Jordan: Dept. of Antiquities, 1982. Parkin, Tim G. Old Age in the Roman World. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 2003. Roth, Martha T. “Age at Marriage and the Household: A Study of Neo-Babylonian and Neo-Assyrian Forms.” Comparative Studies in Society and History 29 (1987): 715–47. ——“The Neo-Babylonian Widow.” JCS 43–45 (1991–93): 1–26. Roth, Norman. “The ‘Ages of Man’ in Two Medieval Hebrew Poems.” Hebrew Studies 24 (1983): 41–44. Scharbert, J. “Das Alter und die Alten in der Bibel.” Saeculum 30: 338–54. Stol, Marten. “Private Life in Ancient Mesopotamia.” Pages 485–501 in Civilizations of the Ancient Near East. Vol. 1. Edited by Jack Sasson. New York: Simon and Schuster Macmillan, 1995. Toorn, Karel vanÂ€der. Family Religion in Babylonia, Syria and Israel: Continuity and Change in the Forms of Religious Life. Studies in the History and Culture of the Ancient Near East 7. Edited by B.Â€Halpern and M. H. E. Weippert. Leiden: Brill, 1996. ——From Her Cradle to Her Grave: The Role of Religion in the Life of the Israelite and the Babylonian Woman. Translated by Sara J. Denning-Bolle. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1994. Treggiari, Susan. “Marriage and Family in Roman Society.” Pages 132–82 in Marriage and Family in the Biblical World. Edited by Ken M. Campbell. Downers Grove: InterVarsity, 2003. Weinfeld, Moshe. “The Phases of Human Life in Mesopotamian and Jewish Sources.” Pages 182–89 in Priests, Prophets and Scribes: Essays on the Formation and Heritage of Second Temple Judaism in Honour of Joseph Blenkinsopp. Edited by Eugene Ulrich, John W. Wright, Robert P. Carroll, and Philip R. Davies. Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1992. Wolff, Hans W. Anthropology of the Old Testament. Translated by M. Kohl. Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1974.

Bibliography for ChapterÂ€3 General Carson, Don. Exegetical Fallacies, 2nd ed. Grand Rapids: Baker, 1996. Childs, Brevard S. The Book of Exodus. OTL. Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1974. Holladay, William L. Jeremiah 1. Hermeneia. Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1986. ——Jeremiah 2. Hermeneia. Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1989. Klein, Ralph W. 1 Samuel. WBC. Waco, Tx: Word Books, 1983. Mayer, Walter, and R. Mayer-Opificius. “Die Schlacht bei Qadeš: der Versuch einer neuen Rekonstruktion.” UF 26 (1994): 321–68. McCarter, P. Kyle. I Samuel. AB. New York: Doubleday, 1980. —— II Samuel. AB. New York: Doubleday, 1984. Thompson, John A. The Book of Jeremiah. NICOT. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1980. Vaux, Roland de. Ancient Israel: Its Life and Institutions. Translated by John McHugh. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1961.


155

On r(n Alonso Fontela, Carlos. “La esclavitud a través de la Biblia.” Estudios Bíblicos 43 (1985): 89–124, 237–74 (95–96). Avigad, Nachman. “The Contribution of Hebrew Seals to an Understanding of Israelite Religion and Society.” Pages 195–208 in Ancient Israelite Religion: Essays in Honor of Frank Moore Cross. Edited by Patrick D. Miller, Jr., Paul D. Hanson, and S. Dean McBride. Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1987. ——“New Light on the Na‘ar Seals.” Pages 294–300 in Magnalia Dei: The Mighty Acts of God: Essays on the Bible and Archaeology in Memory of G. Ernest Wright. Edited by Frank Moore Cross, Werner E. Lemke, and Patrick D. Miller, Jr. Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1976. Bamberger, Bernard J. “Qetanah, Na‘arah, Bogereth.” HUCA 32 (1961): 281–94. Bartlett, J. R. “An Adversary against Solomon, Hadad the Edomite.” ZAW 88 (1976): 205–26. Cutler, B., and J. Macdonald. “Identification of the Na‘ar in the Ugaritic Texts,” UF 8 (1976): 27–35. Frick, Frank S. Review of Carolyn S. Leeb, Away from the Father’s House: The Social Location of na‘ar and na‘arah in Ancient Israel. CBQ 63 (2001): 524–25. Fuhs, H. F. “r(n.” TDOT 9:474–85. Garfinkel, Yosef. “The Eliakim Nacar Yokan Seal Impressions: Sixty Years of Confusion in Biblical Archaeological Research.” BA 53 (June 1990): 74–79. Gruber, Mayer I. Review of Carolyn S. Leeb, Away from the Father’s House: The Social Location of na‘ar and na‘arah in Ancient Israel. JQR 43, nos. 3–4 (2003): 612–5. Hildebrandt, Ted. “Proverbs 22:6a: Train Up A Child?” GTJ 9, 1 (1988): 3–19. Lance, H. Darrell. “Stamps, Royal Jar Handle.” In ABD. Leeb, Carolyn S. Away from the Father’s House: The Social Location of na‘ar and na‘arah in Ancient Israel. JSOTSup 301; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 2000. MacDonald, John. “The Status and Role of the Na‘ar in Israelite Society.” JNES 35 (1976): 147–70. ——“The Role and Status of the ṣuh ̬ ārū in the Mari Correspondence,” JAOS 96 (1976): 57–68. ——Review of Hans-Peter Stähli, Knabe-Jüngling-Knecht: Untersuchungen zum Begriff r(n im Alten Testament. JBL 99 (1980): 594–95. Matthews, Victor H. Review of Carolyn S. Leeb, Away from the Father’s House: The Social Location of na‘ar and na‘arah in Ancient Israel. Hebrew Studies 42 (2001): 326–28. Na’aman, Nadav. “Hezekiah’s Fortified Cities and the LMLK Stamps.” BASOR 261 (1986): 5–21. Pardee, Dennis. Review of Hans-Peter Stähli, Knabe-Jüngling-Knecht: Untersuchungen zum Begriff r(n im Alten Testament. CBQ 42 (1980): 549–50. Rainey, Anson F. “Private Seal-Impressions: A Note on Semantics,” IEJ 16 (1966): 187–90. ——“A Rejoinder to the Eliakim Nacar Yokan Seal Impressions.” BA 54 (March 1991): 61. Sawyer, John F. A. Review of Knabe-Jüngling-Knecht: Untersuchungen zum Begriff r(n im Alten Testament, by Hans-Peter Stähli. JSS 25 (1980): 259–61. Stager, Lawrence E. “The Archaeology of the Family in Ancient Israel.” BASOR 260 (1985): 1–35. Stähli, Hans-Peter. Knabe-Jüngling-Knecht: Untersuchungen zum Begriff r(n im Alten Testament. Beiträge zur biblischen Exegese und Theologie, 7. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang, 1978. Ussishkin, David. “The Destruction of Lachish by Sennacherib and the Dating of the Royal Storage Jars.” TA 4 (1977): 28–60. ——“Royal Judean Storage Jars and Private Seal Impressions.” BASOR 223 (1976): 1–13.

On dly Malamat, A. “Kingship and Council in Israel and Sumer: A Parallel.” JNES 22 (1963): 247–53. ——“Organs of Statecraft in the Israelite Monarchy.” BA 28 (1965): 34–65. Miller, Patrick D. “Critical Note: YELED in the Song of Lamech.” JBL 85 (1966):Â€477–78. Stanton, Graham R. “Te/knon, pai=j and Related Words in Koine Greek.” Pages 463–80 in Proceedings of the XVII International Congress of Papyrology Athens 25–31 May 1986. Vol. 1. Edited by B.Â€G.Â€Mandilaras. Athens, 1988.

On P+ Koehler, Ludwig. “ṭapp = nicht oder wenig Marschfähige.” Theologische Zeitschrift (Basel) 6 (1950): 387–88. Lee, John A. “APOSKEUH in the Septuagint.” JTS N.S. 23 (1972): 430–37.

156


157

Bibliography for ChapterÂ€4 General Barr, James. The Semantics of Biblical Language. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1961. Holladay, William L. Jeremiah 1. Hermeneia: Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1986. Westermann, Claus. Genesis 1–11. Translated by John J. Scullion. Minneapolis: Augsburg, 1984.

SUBJECT BIBLIOGRAPHY

On #$y)

Chernick, Michael. “#$y) as Man and Adult in the Halakic Midrashim.” JQR 73 (JanuaryÂ€1983): 254–80. Crown, Alan D. “Alternative Meaning for ’îs in the Old Testament.” VT 24 (January 1974): 110–12. Bratsiotis, N. P. “#$y).” TDOT 1:222–35. Kühlewein, J. “#$y).” TLOT 1:98–104.

On Md) Grant, Alison M. “’adam and ’ish: Man in the OT.” AusBR 25 (1977): 2–11. Kutler, Laurence. “A Structural Semantic Approach to Israelite Communal Terminology.” Journal of the Ancient Near Eastern Society 14 (1982): 69–77. Maass, Fritz. “Md).” TDOT 1:75–87. Westermann, Claus. “Md).” TLOT 1:31–42.

On rbg Hamilton, Victor. “rbg.” NIDOTTE 1:816–17. Kosmala, Hans. “The Term geber in the Old Testament and in the Scrolls.” SVT 17 (1969): 159–69. ——“rbg.” TDOT 2:377–82. Kühlewein, J. “rbg.” TLOT 1:299–302.

Bibliography for ChapterÂ€5 Aitken, Kenneth T. “Nqz.” NIDOTTE 1:1137–39. Berger, Kathleen S. The Developing Person through the Life Span. 2nd ed. New York: Worth Publishers, 1988. Boyd, Denise and Helen Bee. Lifespan Development. 5th ed. Boston: Pearson, 2009. Campbell, R. Alastair. The Elders: Seniority within Earliest Christianity. Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1994. Conrad, J. “Nqz.” TDOT 4:122–31. Harris, J. Gordon. Biblical Perspectives on Aging: God and the Elderly. 2nd ed. New York: Haworth Pastoral Press, 2008. Knierim, Rolf P. “Age and Aging in the Old Testament.” Pages 21–36 in Ministry with the Aging. Edited by W. Clements. San Francisco: Harper and Row, 1981. Parkin, Tim G. Old Age in the Roman World. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 2003. Patai, Raphael. Sex and Family in the Bible and the Middle East. Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1959. Wegner, Paul D. “by#&.” NIDOTTE 3:1232–33.

General Berger, Kathleen S. The Developing Person through the Life Span. 2nd ed. New York, NY: Worth Publishers, 1988. Blenkinsopp, Joseph. The Pentateuch: An Introduction to the First Five Books of the Bible. Anchor Bible Reference Library. New York: Doubleday, 1992. Boyd, Denise and Helen Bee. Lifespan Development. 5th ed. Boston: Pearson, 2009. Carson, Don. Exegetical Fallacies, 2nd ed. Grand Rapids: Baker, 1996. Childs, Brevard S. The Book of Exodus. OTL. Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1974. Holladay, William L. Jeremiah 1. Hermeneia. Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1986. ——Jeremiah 2. Hermeneia. Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1989. Klein, Ralph W. 1 Samuel. WBC. Waco, Tx: Word Books, 1983. McCarter, P. Kyle. I Samuel. AB. New York: Doubleday, 1980. ——II Samuel. AB. New York: Doubleday, 1984. Patai, Raphael. Sex and Family in the Bible and the Middle East. Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1959. Thompson, John A. The Book of Jeremiah. NICOT. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1980. Vaux, Roland de. Ancient Israel: Its Life and Institutions. Translated by John McHugh. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1961. Westermann, Claus. Genesis 1–11. Translated by John J. Scullion. Minneapolis: Augsburg, 1984.

Dictionaries, Lexicons, Theological Wordbooks, and Lexical Tools Ancient Saadia Gaon. Ha ‘Egron Kitāb ‘Uṣūl al-shi‘r al-‘ibrānī. Critical edition with introduction and commentary by Nehemya Allony. Jerusalem: The Academy of Hebrew Language, 1969.

Modern Alonso Schökel, Luis. Diccionario Bíblico Hebreo-Español. 2nd ed. Madrid: Editorial Trotta, 1999. Anderson, Francis I. and A. Dean Forbes. The Vocabulary of the Old Testament. Rome: Editrice Pontificio Istituto Biblico, 1989. Bauer, W., W. Arndt, F. W. Gingrich, and F. W. Danker. A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature. 2nd ed. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1979. Bauer, W., F. W. Danker, W. Arndt, and F. W. Gingrich, A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature. 3rd ed. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2000. Botterweck, G. J., and H. Ringgren, eds. Theological Dictionary of the Old Testament. 15 vols. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1974–2006. Brown, F., S. R. Driver, and C. A. Briggs. Hebrew and English Lexicon of the Old Testament. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1907. Clines, David J. A., ed. Dictionary of Classical Hebrew. 6 vols. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1993–2007. Fohrer, Georg, ed. Hebrew and Aramaic Dictionary of the Old Testament. In cooperation with Hans W. Hoffmann, Friedrich Huber, Jochen Vollmer, and Gunther Wanke. Translated by W. Johnstone. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 1973. Gesenius, Wilhelm. A Hebrew and English Lexicon of the Old Testament, Including the Biblical Chaldee: From the Latin of William Gesenius. Translated by Edward Robinson. Boston: Crocker and Brewster, 1854. Reprint, 1868.

158

Subject Bibliography


——Gesenius’ Hebrew and Chaldee Lexicon to the Old Testament Scriptures, Translated with Additions and Corrections from the Author’s Thesaurus and Other Works. Translated by Samuel Prideaux Tregelles. London, 1847. Reprint, New York: John Wiley & Sons, 1888. ——Hebräisches und aramäisches Handwörterbuch über das Alte Testament. 5 vols. 18th ed. Edited by Rudolf Meyer and Herbert Donner. Berlin: Springer Verlag, 1987–2009. Holladay, William. A Concise Hebrew and Aramaic Lexicon of the Old Testament. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1971. Jenni, Ernst, and Claus Westermann, eds. Theologisches Handwörterbuch zum Alten Testament. 2 vols. München: Chr. Kaiser Verlag, 1971–76. ——Theological Lexicon of the Old Testament. 3 vols. Translated by Mark E. Biddle. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1997. Kittel, Gerhard, and Gerhard Friedrich, eds. Theological Dictionary of the New Testament. 10 vols. Translated by Geoffrey Bromiley. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1964–76. Koehler, Ludwig, and Walter Baumgartner. Lexicon in Veteris Testamenti Libros. 2 vols. Leiden: Brill, 1951–53. [American edition: Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1951–53.] ——Lexicon in Veteris Testamenti Libros. 2nd ed. Reprint with supp. Leiden: Brill, 1958. Koehler, L., W. Baumgartner and J. J. Stam. Hebräische und Aramäische Lexikon zum Alten Testament. 3rd ed. 5 vols. and supp. Leiden: Brill, 1967 [Vol. 1], 1974 [Vol. 2], 1983 [Vol. 3], 1990 [Vol. 4], 1995 [Vol. 5], 1996 [Supp.]. ——The Hebrew and Aramaic Lexicon of the Old Testament. 5 vols. Translated by M. E. J. Richardson. Leiden: Brill, 1994 [Vol. 1], 1995 [Vol. 2], 1996 [Vol. 3], 1999 [Vol. 4], 2000, [Vol. 5]. Liddell, H. G. An Intermediate Greek-English Lexicon: Founded upon the Seventh Edition of Liddell and Scott’s Greek-English Lexicon. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1889. Louw, Johannes P. and Eugene A. Nida, eds. Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament Based on Semantic Domains. 2 vols. New York: United Bible Societies, 1988, 1989. Lust, J., E. Eynikel, and K. Hauspie, eds. Greek-English Lexicon of the Septuagint. Rev. ed. with the collaboration of G. Chamberlain. Stuttgart: Deustche Bibelgesellschaft, 2003. Muraoka, T. Hebrew/Aramaic Index to the Septuagint: Keyed to the Hatch and Redpath Concordance. Grand Rapids: Baker Books, April 1998. ——A Greek-English Lexicon of the Septuagint. Louvain: Peeters, 2009. Pardee, Dennis. Review of The Dictionary of Classical Hebrew by David A. Clines. JNES 57, 1 (January 1998): 41–43. Reymond, Philippe. Dictionnaire d’Hébreu et d’Araméen, Bibliques. Paris: Cerf, 1991. VanGemeren, Willem A., gen. ed. The New International Dictionary of Old Testament Theology and Exegesis. 5 vols. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1997.

——“Semitic Philology and the Interpretation of the Old Testament.” Pages 31–64 in Tradition and Interpretation. Edited by G. W. Anderson. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1979. Bodine, Walter R., ed. Linguistics and Biblical Hebrew. Winona Lake, Ind.: Eisenbrauns, 1992. ——“Linguistics and Biblical Studies.” In ABD. ——“Linguistics and Philology in the Study of Ancient Near Eastern Languages.” Pages 39–54 in Working with No Data: Semitic and Egyptian Studies Presented to Thomas O. Lambdin. Edited by David M. Golomb. Winona Lake, Ind.: Eisenbrauns, 1987. Carson, Don. Exegetical Fallacies. 2nd ed. Grand Rapids: Baker, 1996. Chomsky, William. David Ḳimḥi’s Hebrew Grammar (Mikhlol). New York: Bloch Publishing Company. 1952. ——Hebrew: the Eternal Language. Philadelphia: The Jewish Publication Society of America, 1957. Clines, David J. A. “The Dictionary of Classical Hebrew.” ZAH 3 (1990): 73–80. Cohen, Harold R. (Chaim). Biblical Hapax Legomena in the Light of Akkadian and Ugaritic. SBL Dissertation Series No. 37. Ann Arbor: Scholars Press, 1978. Cotterell, Peter and Max Turner. Linguistics and Biblical Interpretation. Downers Grove: InterVarsity, 1989. Cruse, D. A. Lexical Semantics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1986. Dotan, Aron. Nitsanim rishonim be-ḥokhmat ha-milim: min ha-masorah el reshit ha-milona’ut ha-‘Ivrit / me-et (“Awakening of word lore”). Yerushalayim: ha-Aḳademyah la-lashon ha-‘Ivrit, 2005. Emerton, J. A. “Comparative Semitic Philology and Hebrew Lexicography.” In Congress Volume: Cambridge 1995. Edited by J. A. Emerton. Vetus Testamentum Supplements, 66:1–24. Leiden: Brill, 1997. Goldenberg, E., etÂ€al. “Hebrew Language.” In Encyclopedia Judaica, 16:1613–16. Jerusalem: Keter, 1971. Goodenough, Ward H. “Componential Analysis and the Study of Meaning.” Language 32 (1956): 195–216. Greenberg, Joseph H. A New Invitation to Linguistics. New York: Anchor Books, 1977. Greenspahn, Frederick E. Hapax Legomena in Biblical Hebrew. SBL Dissertation Series No. 74. Chico, CA: Scholars Press, 1984. Halkin, A. S. “The Medieval Jewish Attitude Toward Hebrew.” Pages 233–48 in Biblical and Other Studies. Edited by Alexander Altmann. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1963. Halkin, A. S., etÂ€al. “Saadiah Gaon.” In Encyclopedia Judaica. Jerusalem: Keter, 1971. Haywood, John A. Arabic Lexicography: Its History, and Its Place in the General History of Lexicography. 2nd ed. Leiden: Brill, 1965. Hirschfeld, Hartwig. Literary History of Hebrew Grammarians and Lexicographers. London: Oxford University Press, 1926. Huehnergard, John. “New Directions in the Study of Semitic Languages.” Pages 251–72 in The Study of the Ancient Near East in the Twenty-First Century. Edited by Jerrold S. Cooper and Glenn M. Schwartz. Winona Lake, Ind.: Eisenbrauns, 1996. Jones, D. R. “Appendix I: Aids to the Study of the Bible.” Pages 520–30 in The Cambridge History of the Bible. Vol. 3. Edited by S. Greenslade. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1963. Kaltner, John. The Use of Arabic in Biblical Hebrew Lexicography. The Catholic Biblical Quarterly Monograph Series, No. 28. Washington, D.C.: The Catholic Biblical Association of America, 1996. Lehrer, Adrienne. Semantic Fields and Lexical Structure. Amsterdam: North-Holland, 1974. Louw, Johannes P., ed. Lexicography and Translation. Cape Town: Bible Society of South Africa, 1985. ——“Semantics.” In ABD. Louw, Johannes P. and Eugene A. Nida. Lexical Semantics of the Greek New Testament. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1992. Lübbe, J. C. “An Old Testament Dictionary of Semantic Domains.” ZAH 9 (1996): 52–57. ——“Hebrew Lexicography: A New Approach.” Journal for Semitics 2 (1990): 1–15. Lutzeier, Peter Rolf. “The Relevance of Semantic Relations between Words for the Notion of Lexical Field.” Theoretical Linguistics 10, 2–3 (1982): 147–78. Lyons, John. Introduction to Theoretical Linguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1968. ——Language, Meaning and Context. Great Britain: Fontana Paperbacks, 1981.

Linguistics, Lexical Semantics, and Lexicography Alonso Schökel, Luis. “The Diccionario bíblico hebreo-español (DBHE).” ZAH 4 (1991): 76–83. Bacher, Wilhem, “Dictionaries, Hebrew.” In The Jewish Encyclopedia. New York: Funk & Wagnalls, 1905. ——“Saadia b. Joseph.” In The Jewish Encyclopedia. New York: Funk & Wagnalls, 1905. Baron, S. W. A Social and Religious History of the Jews. 2nd ed. Vol. 7, Hebrew Language and Letters. New York: Columbia University Press, 1958. Barr, James. Comparative Philology and the Text of the Old Testament. Oxford: Clarendon, 1968. Reprint with additions, Winona Lake, Ind.: Eisenbrauns, 1987. ——The Semantics of Biblical Language. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1961. ——“The Ancient Semitic Languages — the Conflict Between Philology and Linguistics.” Transactions of the Philological Society 68 (1969): 37–55. ——“Hebrew Lexicography.” Pages 103–126 in Studies in Semitic Lexicography. Quaderni di Semitistica 2, Instituto di Linguistica & di Lingue Orientali. Edited by Pelio Fronzaroli. Florence: Universita di Firenze, 1973. ——“Hebrew Lexicography: Informal Thoughts.” Pages 137–51 in Linguistics and Biblical Hebrew. Edited by Walter R. Bodine. Winona Lake, Ind.: Eisenbrauns, 1992.

159

160



——Semantics. 2 vols. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1977. Malter, Henry. Saadia Gaon: His Life and Works. New York: Hermon Press, 1926. Marlowe, Walter C. “The Development of Old Testament Hebrew Lexicography.” Th.D. diss., Midâ•‚America Baptist Theological Seminary, 1985. ——“A Summary Evaluation of Old Testament Hebrew Lexica, Translations, and Philology.” GTJ 12 (1991): 3–20. Marx, Alexander. Essays in Jewish Biography. Philadelphia: The Jewish Publication Society of America, 1948. McFall, Leslie. “A Brief Survey on the Understanding of the HVS before 1827.” Pages 1–17 in The Enigma of the Hebrew Verbal System. Sheffield: Almond Press, 1982. Muraoka, Takamitsu. “The Semantics of the LXX and Its Role in Clarifying Ancient Hebrew Semantics.” In Studies in Ancient Hebrew Semantics, ed. T. Muraoka. Abr-Nahrain Supplement Series, 4:19–32. Louvain: Peeters, 1995. ——ed. Studies in Ancient Hebrew Semantics. Abr-Nahrain Supplement Series, vol. 4. Louvain: Peeters Press, 1995. Nida, Eugene A. Componential Analysis of Meaning. The Hague: Mouton, 1975. ——“Implications of Contemporary Linguistics for Biblical Scholarship.” JBL 91 (1972): 73–89. Nida, Eugene A., Johannes P. Louw, and Rondal B. Smith. “Semantic Domains and Componential Analysis of Meaning.” Pages 139–67 in Current Issues in Linguistic Theory. Edited by Roger W. Cole. Bloomington, Ind.: Indiana University Press, 1977. O’Connor, M. “Semitic Lexicography: European Dictionaries of Biblical Hebrew in the Twentieth Century.” Pages 173–212 in Israel Oriental Studies XX. Edited by Shlomo Isre’el. Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 2002. Regt, L. J. de.Â€“Multiple Meaning and Semantic Domains in Some Biblical Hebrew Lexicographical Projects: the Description of zera‘.” ZAH 10 (1997): 63–75. Reymond, Philippe. “Vers la publication d’un Dictionnaire Hébreu-Français.” ZAH 3 (1990): 81–83. Roberts, J. J. M. “The Princeton Classical Hebrew Dictionary Project.” ZAH 3 (1990): 84–89. Rosenthal, Erwin. “Medieval Jewish Exegesis: Its Character and Significance.” JSS 9 (1966): 265–81. Sáenz-Badillos, Angel. A History of the Hebrew Language. Translated by John Elwolde. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1993. Sarfatti, Gad B. “Mishnaic Vocabulary and Mishnaic Literature as Tools for the Study of Biblical Semantics.” In Studies in Ancient Hebrew Semantics, ed. T. Muraoka. Abr-Nahrain Supplement Series, 4:33–48. Louvain: Peeters, 1995. Sawyer, J. F. A. A Modern Introduction to Biblical Hebrew. Boston, 1976. Silva, Moisés. Biblical Words and Their Meaning, revised and expanded edition. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1994 [1983]. ——God, Language and Scripture. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1990. ——“Describing Meaning in the LXX Lexicon.” Bulletin of the International Organization for Septuagint and Cognate Studies 11 (1978): 19–26. ——Review of Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament Based on Semantic Domains by Louw and Nida, eds. WTJ 51 (1989): 163–67. Skoss, Solomon L. Saadia Gaon, the Earliest Hebrew Grammarian. Philadelphia: Dropsie College Press, 1955. Steinsaltz, Adin. The Talmud —— The Steinsaltz Edition: A Reference Guide. Translated and edited by Israel V. Berman. New York: Random House, 1989. Tene, David, and Barr, James. “Hebrew Linguistic Literature.” In Encyclopedia Judaica, 16:1352–401. Jerusalem: Keter, 1971. VanÂ€DerÂ€Merwe, C. H. J. “A Short Survey of Major Contributions to the Grammatical Description of Old Hebrew since 1800 AD.” JNSL 13 (1987): 161–90. Waldman, Nahum. “Lexicography and Semantics.” In The Recent Study of Hebrew. Winona Lake, Ind.: Eisenbrauns, 1989. Waltke, Bruce and Michael P. O’Connor. “ChapterÂ€2: History of the Study of Hebrew.” Pages 31–43 in An Introduction to Biblical Hebrew Syntax. Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 1990. Waxman, Meyer. “Chapter VII: Grammar and Lexicography.” In A History of Jewish Literature, 1:158–79. New York: Thomas Yoseloff, 1960.

Works Related to the Life Cycle and Studies of Individual Terms

161

The Life Cycle Bagnall, Roger S. Egypt in Late Antiquity. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1993. Bagnall, Roger S. and Bruce W. Frier. The Demography of Roman Egypt. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1994. Brinkman, J. A. “Sex, Age and Physical Condition Designations for Servile Laborers in the Middle Babylonian Period: A Preliminary Survey.” Pages 1–8 in Zikir Šumim: Assyriological Studies Presented to F. R. Kraus on the Occasion of His Seventieth Birthday. Edited by G. Van Driel, etÂ€al. Leiden: Brill, 1982. Campbell, R. Alastair. The Elders: Seniority within Earliest Christianity. Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1994. Dandamayev, M. A. “About Life Expectancy in Babylonia.” Pages 183–86 in Death in Mesopotamia. Edited by Bendt Alster. Copenhagen: Akademisk Forlag, 1980. Durr, L. Die Wertung des Lebens im Alten Testament und im antiken orient. Munster, 1926. Harris, J. Gordon. Biblical Perspectives on Aging: God and the Elderly. 2nd ed. New York: Haworth Pastoral Press, 2008. ——“Old Age.” In Anchor Bible Dictionary. Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1992. Hoffner, Harry A. “Hittite Terms for the Life Span.” Pages 53–55 in Love and Death in the Ancient Near East: Essays in Honor of Marvin H. Pope. Edited by J. Marks and R. Good. Guilford, Conn.: Four Quarters Publishing Company, 1987. Klein, Jacob. “The ‘Bane’ of Humanity: A Lifespan of One Hundred Twenty Years.” Acta Sumerologica 12 (1990): 57–70. Knierim, Rolf P. “Age and Aging in the Old Testament.” Pages 21–36 in Ministry with the Aging. Edited by W. Clements. San Francisco: Harper and Row, 1981. Köhler, Ludwig. Hebrew Man. Translated by Peter R. Ackroyd. Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1956 [1953]. Krogman, W. M. “Representative Early Bronze Age Crania from Bâb edh-Dhrâ‘.” Pages 507–20 in Bâb edh-Dhrâ‘: Excavations in the Cemetery Directed by Paul W. Lapp (1965–67). Edited by R.Â€Thomas Schaub and Walter E. Rast. Winona Lake, Ind.: Eisenbrauns, 1989. Linton, Ralph. “Age And Sex Categories.” American Sociological Review 7, 5 (October 1942): 589–603. Maier, J. “Die Wertung des Alters in der judischen Uberlieferung der Spatanike und des fruhen Mittelalters.” Saeculum 30 (1979): 355–64. Malamat, A. “Longevity: Biblical Concepts and Some Ancient Near Eastern Parallels.” AfO 19 (1982): 215–18. Ortner, Donald J. “Disease and Mortality in the Early Bronze Age People of Bab edh-Dhra, Jordan.” American Journal of Physical Anthropology 51 (1979): 589–98. ——“The Skeletal Biology of an Early Bronze IB Charnel House at Bab edh-Dhra, Jordan.” Pages 93–95 in Studies in the History and Archaeology of Jordan I. Edited by Adnan Hadidi. Amman, Jordan: Dept. of Antiquities, 1982. Parkin, Tim G. Old Age in the Roman World. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 2003. Roth, Martha T. “Age at Marriage and the Household: A Study of Neo-Babylonian and Neo-Assyrian Forms.” Comparative Studies in Society and History 29 (1987): 715–47. ——“The Neo-Babylonian Widow.” JCS 43–45 (1991–93): 1–26. Roth, Norman. “The ‘Ages of Man’ in Two Medieval Hebrew Poems.” Hebrew Studies 24 (1983): 41–44. Scharbert, J. “Das Alter und die Alten in der Bibel.” Saeculum 30: 338–54. Stol, Marten. “Private Life in Ancient Mesopotamia.” Pages 485–501 in Civilizations of the Ancient Near East. Vol. 1. Edited by Jack Sasson. New York: Simon and Schuster Macmillan, 1995. Toorn, Karel vanÂ€der. Family Religion in Babylonia, Syria and Israel: Continuity and Change in the Forms of Religious Life. Studies in the History and Culture of the Ancient Near East 7. Edited by B.Â€Halpern and M. H. E. Weippert. Leiden: Brill, 1996. ——From Her Cradle to Her Grave: The Role of Religion in the Life of the Israelite and the Babylonian Woman. Translated by Sara J. Denning-Bolle. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1994.

162



Weinfeld, Moshe. “The Phases of Human Life in Mesopotamian and Jewish Sources.” Pages 182–89 in Priests, Prophets and Scribes: Essays on the Formation and Heritage of Second Temple Judaism in Honour of Joseph Blenkinsopp. Edited by Eugene Ulrich, John W. Wright, Robert P. Carroll, and Philip R. Davies. Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1992. Wolff, Hans W. Anthropology of the Old Testament. Translated by M. Kohl. Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1974.

Edited by Patrick D. Miller, Jr., Paul D. Hanson and S. Dean McBride. Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1987. ——“New Light on the Na‘ar Seals.” Pages 294–300 in Magnalia Dei: The Mighty Acts of God: Essays on the Bible and Archaeology in Memory of G. Ernest Wright. Edited by Frank Moore Cross, Werner E. Lemke and Patrick D. Miller, Jr. Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1976. Bamberger, Bernard J. “Qetanah, Na‘arah, Bogereth.” HUCA 32 (1961): 281–94. Bartlett, J. R. “An Adversary against Solomon, Hadad the Edomite.” ZAW 88 (1976): 205–226. Cutler, B. and J. Macdonald. “Identification of the Na‘ar in the Ugaritic Texts,” UF 8 (1976): 27–35. Fuhs, H. F. “r(n.” TDOT 9:474–85. Frick, Frank S. Review of Away from the Father’s House: The Social Location of na‘ar and na‘arah in Ancient Israel by Carolyn S. Leeb. CBQ 63 (2001): 524–25. Garfinkel, Yosef. “The Eliakim Nacar Yokan Seal Impressions: Sixty Years of Confusion in Biblical Archaeological Research.” BA 53 (June 1990): 74–79. Gruber, Mayer I. Review of Away from the Father’s House: The Social Location of na‘ar and na‘arah in Ancient Israel by Carolyn S. Leeb. JQR 43, 3–4 (2003): 612–15. Hildebrandt, Ted. “Proverbs 22:6a: Train Up a Child?,” GTJ 9, 1 (1988): 3–19. Lance, H. Darrell. “Stamps, Royal Jar Handle.” In ABD. Leeb, Carolyn S. Away from the Father’s House: The Social Location of na‘ar and na‘arah in Ancient Israel. JSOTSup 301; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 2000. MacDonald, John. “The Status and Role of the Na‘ar in Israelite Society.” JNES 35 (1976): 147–70. ——“The Role and Status of the ṣuh ̬ ārū in the Mari Correspondence,” JAOS 96 (1976): 57–68. ——Review of Knabe-Jüngling-Knecht: Untersuchungen zum Begriff r(n im Alten Testament by HansPeter Stähli. JBL 99 (1980): 594–95. Matthews, Victor H. Review of Away from the Father’s House: The Social Location of na‘ar and na‘arah in Ancient Israel by Carolyn S. Leeb. Hebrew Studies 42 (2001): 326–28. Na’aman, Nadav. “Hezekiah’s Fortified Cities and the LMLK Stamps.” BASOR 261 (1986): 5–21. Pardee, Dennis. Review of Knabe-Jüngling-Knecht: Untersuchungen zum Begriff r(n im Alten Testament by Hans-Peter Stähli. CBQ 42 (1980): 549–50. Rainey, Anson F. “Private Seal-Impressions: A Note on Semantics,” IEJ 16 (1966): 187–90. ——“A Rejoinder to the Eliakim Nacar Yokan Seal Impressions.” BA 54 (March 1991): 61. Sawyer, John F. A. Review of Knabe-Jüngling-Knecht: Untersuchungen zum Begriff r(n im Alten Testament by Hans-Peter Stähli. JSS 25 (1980): 259–61. Stager, Lawrence E. “The Archaeology of the Family in Ancient Israel.” BASOR 260 (1985): 1–35. Stähli, Hans-Peter. Knabe-Jüngling-Knecht: Untersuchungen zum Begriff r(n im Alten Testament. Beiträge zur biblischen Exegese und Theologie, 7. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang, 1978. Ussishkin, David. “The Destruction of Lachish by Sennacherib and the Dating of the Royal Storage Jars.” TA 4 (1977): 28–60. ——“Royal Judean Storage Jars and Private Seal Impressions.” BASOR 223 (1976): 1–13.

On Md) Grant, Alison M. “’adam and ’ish: Man in the OT.” AusBR 25 (1977): 2–11. Kutler, Laurence. “A Structural Semantic Approach to Israelite Communal Terminology.” Journal of the Ancient Near Eastern Society 14 (1982): 69–77. Maass, Fritz. “Md).” TDOT 1:75–87. Westermann, Claus. “Md).” TLOT 1:31–42.

On #$y)

Chernick, Michael. “#$y) as Man and Adult in the Halakic Midrashim.” JQR 73 (JanuaryÂ€1983): 254–80. Crown, Alan D. “Alternative Meaning for ’îs in the Old Testament.” VT 24 (January 1974): 110–12. Bratsiotis, N. P. “#$y).” TDOT 1:222–35. Kühlewein, J. “#$y).” TLOT 1:98–104.

On rbg Hamilton, Victor. “rbg.” NIDOTTE 1:816–17. Kosmala, Hans. “The Term geber in the Old Testament and in the Scrolls.” SVT 17 (1969): 159–69. ——“rbg.” TDOT 2:377-82. Kühlewein, J. “rbg.” TLOT 1:299–302.

On P+

Koehler, Ludwig. “ṭapp = nicht oder wenig Marschfähige.” Theologische Zeitschrift (Basel) 6 (1950): 387–88. Lee, John A. “70APOSKEUH in the Septuagint.” JTS N.S. 23 (1972): 430–37. ——A Lexical Study of the Septuagint Version of the Pentateuch, Septuagint and Cognate Studies Series, ed. Harry M. Orlinsky, No. 14. Chico, CA: Scholars Press, 1983 [Ph.D. diss., University of Cambridge, 1970]. Locher, C. “P+a.” TDOT 5:347–50. O’Connor, Michael. “Biblical Hebrew Lexicography: P+ ‘Children, Dependents’ in Biblical and Qumranic Hebrew.” JNSL 25, 2 (1999): 25–40. O’Connor, Michael and John A. Lee. “A Problem of Biblical Lexicography: The Case of Hebrew ṭap and Greek aposkeuē.” ZAW 119 (2007): 403–409.

On dly Malamat, A. “Kingship and Council in Israel and Sumer: A Parallel.” JNES 22 (1963): 247–53. ——“Organs of Statecraft in the Israelite Monarchy.” BA 28 (1965): 34–65. Miller, Patrick D. “Critical Note: YELED in the Song of Lamech.” JBL 85 (1966):Â€477–78. Stanton, Graham R. “Te/knon, pai=j and Related Words in Koine Greek.” Pages 463–80 in Proceedings of the XVII International Congress of Papyrology Athens 25–31 May 1986. Vol. 1. Edited by B. G. Mandilaras. Athens, 1988.

On r(n Alonso Fontela, Carlos. “La esclavitud a través de la Biblia.” Estudios Bíblicos 43 (1985): 89–124, 237–74 (esp. 95–96). Avigad, Nachman. “The Contribution of Hebrew Seals to an Understanding of Israelite Religion and Society.” Pages 195–208 in Ancient Israelite Religion: Essays in Honor of Frank Moore Cross,

163

Other Terms Aitken, Kenneth T. “Nqz.” NIDOTTE 1:1137–39. Conrad, J. “Nqz.” TDOT 4:122–31. Wegner, Paul D. “by#&.” NIDOTTE 3:1232–33. Weisman, Ze’eb. “The Nature and Background of baḥur in the Old Testament.” VT 31 (1981): 441–50.

Semantic Domain Studies Aitken, James. The Semantics of Blessing and Cursing in Ancient Hebrew. Louvain: Peeters, 2007. Balentine, Samuel E. “A Description of the Semantic Field of Hebrew Words for ‘Hide’.” VT 30 (1980): 137–53. ——The Hidden God: The Hiding of the Face of God in the Old Testament. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1983. Barr, James. “The Image of God in the Book of Genesis — A Study of Terminology.” BJRL 51 (1968–69): 11–26.

164


Boyce, Richard N. The Cry to God in the Old Testament. SBL Dissertation Series 103. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1988. Brenner, Athalya. Colour Terms in the Old Testament. Journal for the Study of the Old Testament Supplement Series 21. Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1982. Burres, K. L. “Structural Semantics in the Study of the Pauline Understanding of Revelation.” Ph.D. diss., Northwestern University, 1970. Clark, Gordon R. “dsexe — A Study of a Lexical Field.” Abr Nahrain 30 (1992): 34–54. ——The Word Ḥesed in the Hebrew Bible. Journal for the Study of the Old Testament Supplement Series 157. Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1993. Donald, T. “The Semantic Field of ‘Folly’ in Proverbs, Job, Psalms, and Ecclesiastes.” VT 13 (1963): 285–92. ——“The Semantic Field of Rich and Poor in the Wisdom Literature of Hebrew and Accadian.” OrAnt 3 (1964): 27–41. Erickson, R. J. “Biblical Semantics, Semantic Structure, and Biblical Lexicology: A Study of Methods, with Special Reference to the Pauline Lexical Field of ‘Cognition’.” Ph.D. diss., Fuller Theological Seminary, 1980. Fox, Michael V. “Words for wisdom: tebunah and binah; ‘ormah and Mezimmah; ‘eṣah and tušiyyah.” ZAH 6 (1993): 149–69. Hill, David. Greek Words and Hebrew Meanings: Studies in the Semantics of Soteriological Terms. SNTSM 5. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1967. Iverson, Cheryl L. “Restoration: A Semantic Domain Study of Restoration and Recovery as It Relates to Persons in the Ancient Israelite Community.” Ph.D. diss., Drew University, 1996. Jobes, Karen. “Distinguishing the Meaning of Greek Verbs in the Semantic Domain for Worship.” Filologia neotestamentaria 4 (1991): 183–92. Also revised as an appendix to Silva’s Biblical Words, revised and expanded edition. Kennedy, C. A. “The Semantic Field of the Term ‘Idolatry’.” Pages 193–204 in Uncovering Ancient Stones: Essays in Memory of H. Neil Richardson. Edited by Lewis M. Hopfe. Winona Lake, Ind.: Eisenbrauns, 1994. Kennedy, James M. “A Structural Semantic Analysis of Selected Biblical Hebrew Words for Punishment/Discipline.” Ph.D. diss., Drew University, 1986. ——“The Root G‘R in the Light of Semantic Analysis.” JBL 106, 1 (1987): 47–64. Klemm, Matthys. EIRHNH im neutestamentlichen Sprachsystem. FTL 8; Bonn: Linguistica Biblica, 1977. Kutler, Laurence. “A Structural Semantic Approach to Israelite Communal Terminology.” JANES 14 (1982): 69–77. Lyons, John. Structural Semantics. Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1963. Matsuda, I. “The Structure of Mental Activities in Biblical Hebrew.” Annual of the Japanese Biblical Institute 2 (1976): 79–99. Poythress, Vern S. Structural Approaches to Understanding the Theology of the Apostle Paul. Th.D. diss., University of Stellenbosch, 1981. Riesener, Ingrid. Der Stamm ‘BD im Alte Testament. Eine Wortuntersuchung unter Berücksichtung neuerer sprachwissenschaftlicher Methoden. BZAW 149. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 1979. Sawyer, John F. A. Semantics in Biblical Research: New Methods of Defining Hebrew Words for Salvation. SBT 2nd Series 24. London: SCM, 1972. Shults, F. L. “Ml#$ and Mmt in Biblical Hebrew: An Analysis of the Semantic Field of Wholeness.” Ph.D. diss., University of Texas at Austin, 1974. Silva, Moisés. “The Pauline Style as Lexical Choice: Ginw/skein and Related Terms.” Pages 184–207 in Pauline Studies: Essays Presented to Professor F. F. Bruce. Edited by Donald A. Hagner and Murray J. Harris. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1980. Swart, I. “The Hebrew Vocabulary of Oppression: The State of Semantic Description.” JNSL 16 (1990): 179–97. Vivian, Angelo. I campi lessicali della “separazione” nell’ebraico biblico, di Qumran e della Mishna: ovvero, applicabilità della teoria dei campi lessicali all’ebraico. QSem 4; Firenze: Istituo di Linguistica e di Lingue Orientali, 1978.

165

INDEX OF BIBLICAL AND EXTRABIBLICAL REFERENCES OLD TESTAMENT Genesis 1–11 102, 106 1.17 130 1.18 130 1.26 97 1.27 97 2 73n74 2–3 102 2.3 130 2.6 130 2.7 130 2.8 131 2.9 131 2.10 131 2.20 102n20 2.23 97 2.24 101 2.41 73n74 3.17 102n20 3.21 102n20 4.1 96 4.23 86, 95–6, 129 4.25 102n20 5.1 97, 102n20 5.2 102n20 5.3 102n20 5.4 102n20 5.5 102n20 6.3 42 6.6 97 6.7 97, 105 8.21 105 9.6 105 12 10 15.15 118, 121 16.12 102, 105 17.17 55 17.25 53 18.2 98 18.7 64 18.11 117, 119 19.4 61, 63n31, 71 19.41 10 21.4 131 21.8 53, 84, 129 21.12 138 21.14 129 21.15 129 21.16 10, 129 21.17 138

21.18 138 21.19 138 21.20 138 21.22 131 22 72, 79 22.5 62, 138 22.5–12 79 22.12 138 24.1–4 119 25.7 41, 118 25.8 117–18, 121 25.20 55 25.27 72, 138 26.34 55 30.26 129 32.23 129 33.1 129 33.2 129 33.5 129–30 33.6 130 33.7 130 33.13 130 33.14 130 34 10, 72 34.4 84 34.19 139 34.29 93 35.28 41, 118 35.29 117–18 37 11, 71, 73n74 37.2 73n71, 139 37.3 87 37.30 86–7, 87n109, 130 41 73n74 41.12 6, 139 41.45–46 55 42.22 87, 87n109, 130 42.38 122 43.8 139 43.27 116 44.20 87, 130 44.22 73n71, 139 44.29 122 44.30 139 44.31 122, 139 44.32 139 44.33 139 44.34 139 45.11 90 45.19 91n121 46.5 91n121, 92

47.9 118n10 47.12 90 47.28 41, 118, 118n10 48 73n74 48.16 72, 139 50.8 92 50.21 90, 92 50.26 41 Exodus 2 84 2.6 10, 72, 77, 82, 125, 140 2.14 99n11 9.25 105 10.9 71–2, 140 10.9–10 90 10.10 92, 110 10.11 110 10.11 108n38 12.37 90, 108n38, 110 21.4 88n112 21.7 99 21.22 85 21.33 104n27 30.14 53 33.11 71 33.11 7 Leviticus 1.2 103 2–7 104 2.1 104, 104n28 4.2 104n28 5.1 104n28 5.4 104n28 5.15 104n28 5.17 104n28 5.21 104n28 7.21 104n28 13.2 104 13.29 104n27 13.38 104n27 13.40 104n27 15.2 104n27 15.16 104n27 19.20 104n27 19.32 117, 120 20.27 104n27 21.7 104n27 21.9 104n27 22.14 99, 104n27

166

Index of Biblical and Extrabiblical References

22.21 104, 104n27 24.15 104n27 24.17 104n27 24.19 104n27 25.26 104n27 25.29 104n27 27.1–8 53, 123 27.2 104n27 27.14 104n27 Numbers 1.3 53–4 1.18 53 4.23 54 5.6 104n27 5.12 104n27 5.20 104n27 6.2 104n27 8.24 54 8.25 54, 123 9.10 104n27 14.3 92 14.29 53 14.31 92 16.27 90n119, 91n121 16.32 97 19.14 104 23.3 5 23.19 106 24.3 108n38 24.15 108n38 26.2 53–4 26.65 104n27 27.8 104n27 30.3 104n27 31–32 93 31.9 93 31.18 92 32.11 53 32.16–17 89 32.24 90 32.26 91, 91n121 Deuteronomy 1.17 104n27 1.39 92 2.34 91n121, 92–3 3.6 91n121, 92 3.19 91n121 4.28 105 4.32 97 20.14 92–3 22 56 22.5 108n38, 111–12 22.22 102 22.23 56 28.50 71, 137 29.10 91n121 31.2 42 31.12 91n121, 92

32.25 121 34.7 41–2 Joshua 1.14 91n121 6.21 61, 63n31, 71, 101, 116, 137 7.14 108n38, 112 7.17 108n38, 112 7.18 108n38 8.35 91n121 13.1 119 23.1 119 23.1–2 119, 120n14 23.2 119 24.29 41 Judges 2.8 41 5.30 108n38, 109, 112 7.11 79 8 76 8.20 11, 72, 140 8.20–21 101 8.32 121 9.54 79 13.5 10, 72, 140 13.7 10, 72, 140 13.8 72, 140 13.12 72, 140 13.24 72 17.7 140 17.11 140 17.12 140 18.3 140 18.15 140 18.21 92 19.13 79 21.10 91, 91n121, 93 Ruth 1.5 87, 135 2.5 45, 65 2.21 73 3.10 111 4.12 45 4.15 121 4.16 135 4.16 84 1 Samuel 1.2 131 1.21–8 53 1.22 72, 82, 141 1.24 11, 72, 125, 141 1.25 141 1.27 141 2.11 141 2.11–17 78–9 2.12–13 64

2.13 64 2.18 141 2.21 72, 141 2.22 117 2.26 72, 141 2.32 100 2.32–33 101 2.33 100, 101n19 3.1 141 3.8 141 4.9 101 4.15 117 4.21 10, 72, 141 9.3 65–6 15.29 105 16.7 105 16.11 77, 141 16.17–18 66 17.33 77, 95, 100, 142 17.42 142 17.55 73, 142 17.58 142 18.27 70n58 20.20–21 66 20.35 76 2 Samuel 2 60 2.14 69 5.4 41, 117, 123 6.23 131 9.2 67 9.9 41, 67 9.9–10 66 9.10 66 9.11 67 12.15 84, 131 12.16 72, 142 12.18 131–2 12.19 132 12.21 132 12.22 132 13.32 142 14.21 142 15.22 91 16.1 65 17.17–18a 69 17.18 143 17.27 41 17.29 70 18.5 10, 73, 73n71, 77, 142 18.12 73, 142 18.15 143 18.29 73, 73n71 18.32 73, 142–3 19.9 66 19.18 65 19.33 117

Index of Biblical and Extrabiblical References 19.34–37 41 23.1 108n38 1 Kings 1–2 120 1.1 119–21 1.15 117 2.1–2 99 2.6 122 2.9 122 3.7 10, 73, 76, 137 3.25 84, 132 4.12 67 8.25 99n11 9.4 11 11.17 75, 138 11.28 143 12 86, 136 12.8 86, 132 12.10 133 12.14 133, 136 14.4 120n17, 121 14.12 133 14.21 54 17.21 133 17.22 133 17.23 133 18.43 67 20.15 70–1 20.15–20 70 20.17 71 20.19 71 20.20 98 22.42 54 2 Kings 2.23 76, 138 2.24 85, 88, 133 4.1 87, 133 4.12 65, 71 4.18 133 4.19–29 79 4.26 133 4.29 143 4.29–32 72 4.30 143 4.31 144 4.32 144 4.34 133 4.35 72, 144 5.2 75–6 5.14 75 5.20 65, 71 5.22 144 7.10 103 8.4 71 8.17 54 8.26 54 9.4 11, 144 11.21 54

14.2 54 15.2 54 15.33 54 16.2 54 18.2 54 19.6 70–1 19.18 105n30 21.1 54 21.19 54 22.1 54 23.36 54 24.16 111 1 Chronicles 1.1 102n20 4.23 69 12.29 144 22.5 77, 144 23.1 117–18, 120 23.3 109n38, 112 23.24 54 23.27 54 24.4 109n38, 112 25.5 54n105 26.12 109n38, 112 27.23 54n105 29.1 144 29.28 118, 121 2 Chronicles 10.8 86, 136 10.10 86, 136 10.14 86, 136 13.7 77, 144 20.13 90 21.20 30 24.15 41, 118 25.5 53 29.28 123 31.16 53 31.18 90 32.19 105n30 34.3 73–4, 144 36.17 116 Ezra 3.8 54 10.1 88n112, 96, 136 Nehemiah 12.43 136 Esther 2.2 3.13 8.11

65, 79 61, 63n31, 71, 93, 137 91n121, 93

Job 1.14–15 65

167

1.19 73, 145 3.3 108n38, 112 3.23 108n38, 113 4.17 108n38, 111–12 5.17 104 7.20 97 10.5 108n38, 112–13 14.10 108n38, 111–12 14.14 108n38, 112 16.21 108n38 20.4 97 21.11 135 22.2 108n38 24.5 74n77, 145 29.5 79, 145 33.17 97, 108n38 33.21 5 33.29 108n38, 113 34.7 108n38 34.9 108n38, 112 34.34 108n38 38.3 108n38, 111–12 38.41 135 39.3 135 39.25 4n23 40.7 108n38, 111–12 41.24 122 42.16 41, 118 42.17 117–18 Psalms 1.1 104 8.5(4) 106 18.26 108n38, 112 27.5 104 32.2 104 34.9(8) 104 34.9 108n38 36.7 97 37.23 108n38 37.25 71, 145 40.5 104, 108n38 49.3(2) 99n11 52.9 108n38 62.10(9) 99n11 71.18 121 84.6 104 84.13 104 88.5 108n38, 112–13 88.5f(4f) 109 89.49 108n38 90.10 42, 44, 49, 123 92.15 121 94.10 97 94.12 104, 108n38 112.1 104 115.4 105n30 119.9 145 127.5 108n38 128.4 108n38

168


131.2 53 135.15 105n30 141.4 100n16 144.3 97 148.7 116 148.12 145 Proverbs 1.4 145 3.13 104 6.12 105 6.34 109n38, 112 7.7 81, 145 8.4 100n16 8.34 104 12.14 105n30 16.31 122 20.11 145 20.24 109n38 20.29 122 22.6 60, 62, 145 22.15 81, 145 23.13 146 24.5 109n38 28.3 109n38 28.14 104 28.21 109n38, 112 29.5 109n38 29.15 81, 146 30.1 109n38 30.19 109n38, 112 Ecclesiastes 1.3 106 4.13 86–7, 116, 135 4.15 86–7, 96, 135 7.29 97 10.16 146 Song of Songs 8.8 75 Isaiah 2.6 134 3.4 146 3.5 146 3.16 89 6.12 97 7.16 10, 146 8.4 10, 146 8.18 134 9.5[6] 84, 134 10.19 146 11.6 75, 134, 138 11.7 134 11.8 53, 134 13.12 97 13.18 146 17.7 97 20.4 71, 117, 137


22.17 108, 112 23.15 42 28.9 53n103 29.23 134 31.3 105 37.6 65, 146 37.19 105, 105n30 38.11 97 40.30 146 41.18 5 43.4 97 45.12 97 46.4 122 49.9 5 49.05 53 53.3 100n16 56.2 104 57.4 134 57.5 134 65.20 11, 53, 71, 146

3.39 109n38, 112 4.3 53n103 4.10 135 5.13 147

Jeremiah 1.2 73n71 1.6 11, 73n71, 76, 147 1.7 73n71, 147 6.11 30, 52, 100, 118 14.9 111 17.5 108n38, 110–11 17.7 108n38 21.6 97 22.30 108n38, 111–12 23.9 108n38 27.5 97 30.6 108n38, 110, 110n47, 112 31.20 134 31.22 97, 108n38, 110, 112 31.22b 110 33.5 97 36.29 97 40.7 91n121, 92 41.16 91, 91n121, 92, 108n38, 110, 112 43.6 91n121, 92, 108n38, 111 44.20 108n38, 112 51.22 30, 52, 71, 100, 137

Daniel 1 87 1.3–4 85 1.4 96, 135 1.10 135 1.13 135 1.17 135 8.15 109n38

Lamentations 2.21 71, 137 3.1 109n38, 112–13 3.27 109n38 3.35 109n38

Ezekiel 1.5 105 1.8 105n30 9.6 93 10.21 105n30 14.13 97 14.17 97 14.19 97 14.21 97 19.3 97 19.6 97 25.13 97 29.8 97 36.10 97 36.11 97 36.12 97

Hosea 1.2 134 7.9 122 11.1 147 13.2 97 Joel 2.8 108n38, 112 4.3 84–5, 88, 135 Micah 2.2

108n38, 111

Habakkuk 1.14 97 2.5 108n38 2.8 105 2.17 105 9.27 107 Zecharaiah 2.8[2.4] 147 8.5 84–5, 88, 135 8.10 97 11.6 97 11.16 63n29, 147 13.7 108n38

NEW TESTAMENT Matthew 10.17 107 12.12 107 Mark 11.30 107 Luke 6.22 107 6.26 107 1 Corinthians 4.1 22 4.9 107 9.8 107 13.11 107 15.32 107 Galatians 1.1 107 1.11 107

1.12 107 3.15 107

2 Maccabees 7.27 53

Ephesians 4.13 107

ANCIENT TEXTS

Colossians 2.8 107 2.22 107 James 3.2 107

DEUTEROCANONICAL

169

IQpHab 1.15 97 5.12 97 4QapPsa 1.2 97 4QJuba 7.24 97

Sirach 11.28 112 15.14 97 50.22 97

11QT 62.10 93

Tobit 1.9 107

Ha ‘Egron Kitāb ‘Uṣūl al-shi‘r al-‘ibrānī. 3n15

Saadia Gaon

170

Subject Index

SUBJECT INDEX Abraham 41, 53, 55, 64, 79, 117–19 Absalom 41, 73, 77, 142 adolescence 45, 52, 81, 126–7 adolescent 12, 45–6, 82–3, 93 adulthood 39, 44–5, 52, 74, 80–1, 101, 122, 126–7 full 81 late 122 mature 57 young 57, 124 advanced age 120 age categories 80 age-grading 57 Alfasi, David ben Abraham 7 anger 97 Aristotle 51 Assyria 36, 65, 117 attendant 66, 79 see also servant aunts 34 authority 7, 19, 22, 54, 56, 69, 82 Babylonia 3, 35, 37, 99 birth 7, 9, 38, 45, 74, 77, 85, 87–8, 140 high 59 order 34 body 50–1 bones 97 boy 6–7, 10–11, 15, 23, 25, 30–1, 45–6, 50–2, 55–9, 61, 64–6, 70–89, 95, 100–1, 107, 121, 124–5, 127–30, 132–3, 135, 137–47 little 50, 75 young 11, 72, 74–5, 80, 83, 85, 138 bride 54 brother 34, 86–7, 122 careers 36–7, 55 census 38, 54 child 8–11, 14, 23, 30–1, 38, 43–6, 48, 52–3, 55, 58–61, 72, 74–7, 80–1, 83–8, 95–6, 107, 110, 112, 125–7, 129–35, 137–8, 141–4, 146–7 male 6, 23, 74, 80, 84, 86, 88, 96, 112 nursing 121, 134 weaned 46, 53, 58, 76, 134 childbirth 39 childhood 36, 38, 44–5, 52, 57, 80–1, 123, 126 children 8, 15, 35, 38, 40, 44, 46, 49, 52–3, 55, 58, 73, 83–4, 87–93, 100, 110–11, 118, 125–6, 129–31, 133–7, 145–6 little 89, 125 cognates 12, 17, 29, 47, 49, 102 collocations 13, 64, 71–2, 97, 106, 116, 121, 128

contexts 7, 14, 16, 24, 29, 31, 51, 55, 59, 62–4, 66–7, 69–70, 72, 74, 76, 78, 80, 82, 84, 87–9, 91–3, 99, 101, 106, 110–11, 115, 118–19, 121, 124–5, 128 close 64, 128 courage 109–10 culture 25, 33–5, 44–6, 55, 126 data etymological 93 historical 54 language 21, 124 prosopographic 35, 38 syntagmatic 92–3, 105–6, 124–5 daughters 56, 72, 85, 87–8, 90, 99, 119, 145 David 41, 54, 65, 69, 73–4, 76–7, 95, 117–20, 123, 141–2 death 35, 38–42, 48–9, 55–7, 75, 107, 117–18, 126 dependents 90–1, 93, 125 diachronic study 11, 13, 19, 98 disease 37–8, 44 Edomites 75 Egypt 3, 35, 38–9, 42, 44, 55, 75, 99, 117 Roman 38 Egyptian texts 48–9, 70 Egyptians 61, 105, 117 elders 44, 66, 86, 115–16, 119 Eli 65, 67, 79, 133 Elisha 81, 83, 95, 149 Esau 55, 117, 129–30, 138 etymology 2, 11, 17–18, 22, 29, 59, 89, 102, 124–5 family 34, 38, 53, 55, 60, 66, 71, 80, 85, 90–3, 95, 101, 106, 114 father 7, 14, 34, 55–6, 62–3, 66, 72, 75–6, 82, 93, 101, 116, 121 father’s house 62 female 31, 38, 53, 56–7, 73, 79, 84, 93, 100, 108 flesh 33, 75, 97, 101, 105, 111 flocks 72, 89–91 function linguistic 87, 93, 104–5 social 31, 52, 60, 62, 71–2, 80, 82–3 functionary 64, 66, 147 gender 34, 80–1, 85, 99, 112, 125 generations 2, 7, 121 Gideon 76, 101, 121 girl 15, 30, 45, 52–3, 55–8, 72–3, 76, 80–1, 84–5, 89, 100, 125, 135

gloss 11, 25, 28, 82–3, 90, 99–100, 125, 148 God 54, 65, 74–6, 97, 100, 103–7, 110–13, 117–31, 125, 148 governors 143 gray hair 120–2 head 120–2 Greece 37, 39–40, 42, 50, 55, 81 groom 54 Grundbedeutung 22–3, 62, 80, 124 haplography 84, 141 Hayyuj, Judah 7 hero 110–11 hierarchical structures 82 house 65–7, 79, 121 slaves 36 household 38, 45, 54, 60, 62, 90, 93, 101, 126 human beings 83, 98, 103, 106–9, 111 humankind 49, 98, 102–3, 105, 108, 112 husband 39, 45, 52, 55, 98–100, 107, 112, 118 infancy 44–5, 52, 57, 80–1, 123 infant 8, 10–11, 15, 37, 39, 43–4, 55, 58, 62, 72, 75–6, 80–5, 87–8, 92, 125, 127, 130–1, 140 inscriptions 11, 21, 26, 39, 68, 98, 126 Isaac 8, 41, 53, 55, 72, 79, 84, 117–19, 129, 138 Ishmael 53, 91, 129, 138 Israelites 78, 85, 89, 97 Jacob 41, 72–3, 87, 117, 129–30, 138 Jeremiah 73, 147 Jesus 107 Jews 4–5, 38 Joab 60, 69, 77 Jordan 40, 53, 75 Joseph 41, 55, 73, 87, 130, 139 king 11, 35, 42, 49, 65, 67, 69, 76–7, 85–6, 98–9, 116–17, 119 kinship 81, 87, 92 terminology 34 “Kinship Terms” 14, 31, 88 lad 12, 25, 31, 50, 59, 71, 74, 82–3, 125, 128–30 Lamech 86, 95–6, 129 law 7, 45, 54–6, 85, 99 Levites 73, 140 lexical semantics 126, 149 structure 70, 80, 87, 124 lexicography 21, 26–7, 29–30, 32, 82, 109–10, 120, 125–6, 149 biblical 3, 14, 18–20, 26, 32, 125–6 comparative method 9, 11, 19 comparative-historical method 11, 27, 29–30 lexicon 2–4, 8–12, 14, 16–18, 21, 27–8, 30, 64, 93

171

life cycle 7, 30–2, 35, 44–6, 48–52, 55–7, 63, 71, 80–2, 85, 88, 92–3, 100, 102, 108, 123–4, 126–8 Table of 127 terms 30, 126 expectancy 35–40, 42–4, 48, 122–3 long 39, 47 short 47, 49 span 36–7, 40–2, 44, 47, 49, 120, 123 stages 51–2, 126 transitions 126 lifetime 42, 46 linguistic analysis 20, 29–30, 110 study 9–10, 20 linguistics 11–12, 14–15, 17–20, 22, 26, 29–30, 32, 124–5, 149 modern 12, 14, 19, 22, 24, 26, 30, 32, 124–5 linguists 15, 19–20, 23–5, 29, 126 little 50, 75–6, 81, 89–90, 92–3, 125–6, 134–5, 137 maidservant 58, 69, 85, 99 male 7, 11, 15, 31, 38–9, 44, 50, 53, 55, 57, 59–60, 63–4, 71, 73–4, 77, 79–88, 93, 96, 99–103, 108–10, 112, 124, 130 child 6, 23, 74, 80, 84, 86, 88, 96, 112, 130 man-child 128 marriage 25, 45, 54, 56–7, 72–5, 80–1, 83, 95, 126 meanings 1–2, 5, 7–8, 11–26, 28–34, 41, 59–64, 68, 70–2, 74, 78–80, 82–5, 87–9, 91–3, 96, 98–100, 102–3, 105, 108–15, 118, 120–4, 126 basic 22–3, 33, 80, 93, 100, 111–12 component of 71, 105 contextual 99, 110 lexical 60, 99, 110 predominant 98, 103 separate 70, 74 synonymous 64, 128 menopause 57, 95, 126 Mesopotamia 35–6, 38, 44, 54 military 53, 55, 57, 60, 62, 69–70, 74, 95 contexts 59, 70, 82, 92–3 service 51–2, 91, 126 mortality 38, 40, 113, 123, 126 infant 37–9, 43–4 mortals 105–6, 111 Moses 41–3, 62, 72, 84, 90, 125, 130–1, 140 Naomi 84, 87 New Testament (NT) 14, 22, 25–6, 29, 88, 107 offspring 87–8, 134 old age 38–9, 45, 47–9, 50, 53, 57, 80, 87, 101, 114, 117–18, 120–3, 127, 130 advanced 121 extreme 36, 47, 49, 57, 118, 121, 123, 127 man/men 44, 50–2, 71, 100–1, 114–17, 120, 132, 135–7

172

Subject Index

old (continued) persons 118 woman 45, 115 Old Testament (OT) 3, 16, 19, 27, 29–31, 34, 45–6, 52, 63, 67, 76, 84, 89, 96–8, 102, 104, 106, 108–9, 111, 115, 118–20 patriarchs 41–2 Philo of Alexandria 2, 50 philology 9–12, 17, 19–20, 24 comparative 21, 29 Plato 1, 81 polysemy 31, 62 priest 41, 64, 78, 90, 123 puberty 7, 9, 25, 45, 50, 53, 55–7, 72–3, 76, 80–1, 88, 124, 126 rites 45, 57 punishment 5, 16, 56, 85 Rehoboam 54, 77, 86, 132–3, 136, 144 Reuben 87, 130 royal princes 86 seal 68–9 youth 135 Saadia Gaon 2–5, 7 Sarah 55, 117, 119 Saruq, Menahem ben 7 Saul 65–7, 69, 77, 79, 95 scribes 35–8 semantic classes 21 component 15, 66–7, 74, 81, 84–5, 109, 112, 124 domain 14, 16–18, 21–2, 25–6, 28, 30–2, 58–9, 63, 66, 82, 88, 92, 108, 124, 128 fields 15, 17, 21, 30–1, 58–9, 87, 105, 117 semantics 15, 23, 29, 33, 104, 113, 118, 120 semiotic approach 19 semotactic 78 sense 7, 23–4, 32, 35, 60, 73, 77, 81–5, 87–8, 91, 93, 96–7, 105, 107–10, 124–6 contextual 24, 70, 84 lexical 24, 70, 84 relations 13, 30–1 servant 11–12, 22, 31, 58–9, 61–71, 73–6, 78–80, 82–3, 119, 124, 128, 138, 146–7 Shiloh 78–9, 121 slave 14, 31, 36–8, 59, 67, 82, 90–1, 131 Socrates 1, 81 soldier 59, 61, 69–71, 74, 80, 82, 91–2, 110, 112, 125, 143

Solomon 73, 75, 77, 121, 137, 144 son 60, 65–6, 68, 72–5, 77–8, 80–1, 85, 87–8, 91, 96–7, 108, 119, 121–2, 133–5, 140, 143–4 status 7, 14, 31, 52, 56, 59–60, 62–3, 67, 74, 80, 88 structure 7, 26, 82 deep 64, 148 lexical 70, 80, 87, 112, 124 surface 64, 151 syntactical 63 syntactical feature 79 syntagm 60, 75–6, 124, 151 syntagmatic data 92–3, 105–6, 124–5 relations 13, 17, 92 study 64, 124, 128 syntagmatics 21 syntax 120 teenager 75, 83, 126 terms collective 103, 108 general 71, 74, 88, 115–16, 118, 120 toddlers 62, 91, 99, 105 verbs 13, 17, 64, 92, 97, 103, 118, 125, 128 vocabulary 1–2, 10, 17, 25, 33, 51, 88, 113, 123 war 37–8, 44, 69, 127 warrior 70, 77, 95, 112, 144 weaning 46, 52–3, 57–8, 72, 76, 80–1, 83–5, 124, 126, 129, 134, 141 widow 45, 55, 87, 123, 126, 133 wife/wives 39, 45, 50, 52, 55, 72–3, 76, 86–7, 90–2, 95–6, 100–1, 112, 118–19, 121 years, advanced in 114, 119–20 young child 46, 83–5, 87–8 girl 7, 53, 56, 76 male 6, 59, 74, 84, 150 man/men 1, 11, 25, 31, 50–3, 58, 60–1, 63, 65, 70–1, 73–4, 77–86, 88, 95–7, 100, 116, 118, 121, 127, 129, 132–3, 135–6, 139–40, 142–7 person 45, 64–6, 74, 76, 79–82, 124 woman/women 7, 31, 53, 55–6, 58, 73, 84, 116 youth 6, 10–11, 25, 31, 51–2, 55, 57–61, 63, 66, 70–1, 73, 77, 80–6, 88, 95, 100, 116, 122, 125–8, 133, 135, 142, 146 Zalmunna 76, 101 Zebah 76, 101

173

AUTHOR INDEX Aitken, J. 21 Alonso Fontela, C. 82 Alonso Schökel, L. 17–18, 83 Angel, J. L. 39 Arndt, W. 19, 25 Avigad, N. 66–9

Even-Shoshan, A. 63, 85, 98–9, 103, 109, 114, 116, 120

Bacher, W. 2, 8 Bagnall, R. S. 38 Bamberger, B. J. 56 Baron, S. W. 4 Barr, J. 3, 7–11, 16, 19–20, 22, 26–9, 34, 58–9, 83–4, 113 Bartlett, J. R. 75 Bauer, W. 11, 19, 25 Baugh, S. M. 55 Bee, H. 123 Berger, K. S. 122 Blenkinsopp, J. 28 Block, D. I. 53 Bodine, W. R. 12–14, 20, 24, 28, 124, 148–9, 151 Boyd, D. 123 Bratsiotis, N. P. 98–100 Braun, R. 118 Brenner, A. 34 Briggs, C. A. 19 Brinkman, J. A. 46 Brown, D. 43 Brown, F. 19 Bush, F. W. 53

Garfinkel, Y. 67 Garland, R. 37–8, 40, 42, 44 Geary, Patrick 44 Gesenius, W. 1, 8, 10–12, 18, 32, 70–1, 73, 76, 79, 83–4, 87, 89–90, 93, 100–1, 112, 114, 120, 124–5 Gingrich, F. W. 19, 25 Grant, A. M. 103, 108 Greenberg, J. H. 33–4 Greenspahn, F. E. 27 Greenstein, E. L. 4 Gruber, M. I. 40, 62

Campbell, E. F. 87 Carson, D. 23–4, 29, 88 Chernick, M. 99 Childs, B. S. 77 Chomsky, W. 8 Clines, D. J. A. 17–20, 64, 70, 82, 92, 97, 112, 125, 128 Cohen, H. R. 27 Conrad, J. 115–16, 118–19 Cotterell, P. 13, 15–18, 22–4, 27, 29, 31, 148–9, 151 Crown, A. D. 99 Cruse, D. A. 18, 27, 82 Cutler, B. 59 Dandamayev, M. A. 35–7 Danker, F. W. 3, 10–12, 19, 25 Dillard, R. 53–4 Dotan, A. 2 Driver, S. F. 19

Frick, F. S. 62 Frier, B. W. 38–9 Fuhs, H. F. 61, 67

Halkin, A. S. 4 Hamilton, V. 73–4, 79, 82, 96, 99–100, 102, 110 Harris, J. G. 49 Harrison, R. K. 40 Haywood, J. A. 2, 4 Hildebrandt, Ted 60, 81 Hirschfeld, H. 4–5, 8 Hoffner, H. A. 49 Holladay, W. L. 12, 52, 70, 73, 86, 110 Hubbard, D. A. 53 Hutton, R. 35–6 Iverson,C. L. 16, 18, 23, 58 Jobes, K. 16 Kaltner, J. 2–3, 10 Kendig, F. 35–6 Kishlansky, Mark 44 Kitchen, K. A. 75 Klein, J. 35, 42 Klein, R. W. 79 Knierim, R. P. 156 Koehler, L. 11–12, 19, 40 Kosmala, H. 109–12 Krogman, W. M. 40–1 Kūhlewein, J. 87, 97, 100, 111–12 La Sor, W. S. 53 Lance, H. D. 68–9 Lane, E. W. 6

174

Author Index

Lee, J. A. 90, 92–4 Leeb, C. S. 59–63, 70, 81 Leinieks, V. 50–1, 81, 127 Liddell, H. G. 107 Linton, R. 44–5, 52, 80, 126 Locher, C. 89–91, 93 Louw, J. P. 1–2, 14, 16, 18, 22–4, 30, 32, 56–7, 71, 73, 80, 88, 95, 108 Lübbe, J. C. 16–18, 28, 30 Lust, J. 99 Maass, F. 102–4, 106 McCarter, P. K. 65–7, 69–70, 77–9, 84, 125 Macdonald, J. 59–60 McFall, L. 4, 7–8 Malamat, A. 42, 48–9, 86, 114 Malter, H. 3 Marlowe, W. C. 2–4 Marsman, H. J. 55 Marx, A. 3 Matthews, V. H. 62 Mayer, W. 61 Mayer-Opificius, R. 61 Meyer, E. 61 Miller, P. D. 68, 86, 95 Muraoka, T. 5, 16–18, 21, 64 Na’aman, N. 68–9 Nida, E. A. 14–16, 22–5, 29–30, 32–3, 56–7, 71–3, 80, 82, 84, 87–8, 95, 108, 148 O’Brien, Patricia 44 O’Connor, M. 2–4, 7–9, 13, 17, 19, 29–30, 33, 93–4, 125, 148, 150–1 Ortner, D. J. 40 Pardee, D. 17, 59, 74, 80 Parkin, T. G. 40, 50–1, 123, 126 Patai, R. 53, 114, 118 Pinch, G. 39 Poythress, V. S. 16

175

Rainey, A. F. 61, 67–70 Regt, L. J. de 16 Reymond, P. 12, 18 Roberts, J. J. M. 29 Roth, M. T. 35–7, 47, 52, 54 Sáenz-Badillos, A. 4 Sarfatti, G. B. 5 Sawyer, J. F. A. 16, 58–9, 79 Scanlin, H. P. 24, 148 Schulman, A. R. 61 Shields. M. 45 Silva, M. 9, 13, 16, 18–19, 23, 26–7, 29, 31, 58, 148–50 Skoss, S. L. 4–5 Stager, L. E. 60 Stahli, H.-P. 59–60, 74, 79–80 Steinsaltz, A. 7, 56 Stol, M. 36, 38, 44, 46–7, 54 Swiggers, P. 33 Tene, D. 3, 7–11, 19–20, 84 Thompson, J. A. 73 Toorn, K. van der 55, 57, 80, 95 Treggiari, S. 55 Turner, M. 13, 15–16, 18, 22–4, 27, 29, 31, 148–9, 151 Ussishkin, D. 68 Vanhoozer, K. 1 Vaux, R. de 69–70 Vivian, A. 16 Waldman, N. 29 Waltke, B. 3–4, 7–9, 13, 19, 30, 60 Waxman, M. 3 Weeks, K. R. 39 Wegner, P. D. 120 Weinfeld, M. 46–9 Westermann, C. 73, 96, 102, 105, 106 Wolff, H. W. 40, 43–4, 46, 52–4, 89

INDEX OF GREEK WORDS a!ndrej 51 a)nh/r 50, 51, 103, 106, 107, 116 a)/nqrwpoj 103, 106 a)poskeuh/ 92

neani/aj 17, 51 neani/skoj 25, 50, 51, 96 ne/oj 17, 81 neo/thj 127

ge/rontej 51 gerousi/a 115, 116 ge/rwn 50, 116

pai=dej 51 paidi/on 50, 96 pai=j 14, 31, 50, 51, 71, 88 presbu/teroj 17, 115, 116 presbu/thj 50, 115

dia/konoj 22 e)re/ssw 22 e1fhboi 51 kefalh& 24 knw/ssein 2, kolafi/zw 16, mastigo/w 16 masti/zw 16 meira/kion 50

r(abdi/zw 16, te/knon 87 tre/xw 1, u(ioj 87 u(phre/thj 22 fu/larxoj 116

176

INDEX OF HEBREW WORDS Page numbers in bold type indicate the main treatment of the word in this work. Md) 31, 95, 96, 97, 99, 102–8, 109 x) 87 #$y) 31, 53, 56, 57, 70, 92, 95, 96, 97, 97–102, 103, 107, 108, 109, 112, 126 hby#& #$y) 31, 46, 52, 114, 121 #$wn) 99, 109, 111 Mymy Kr) 114 h#$) 31, 46, 52, 53, 57, 91, 92, 95, 98, 101 Mymyb )b 114, 119, 120, 121 hmhb 105 trgwb 56 zzb 92 rwxb 7, 30, 46, 52, 53, 57, 58, 81, 111 Nb 87, 88, 92, 125 l(b 99 )rb 97, 107 hlwtb 31, 46, 52, 57, 58 rwbg 111 rbg 31, 92, 95, 99, 108–13 ldg 72 lwmg 53, 58 #$bd 13, Nqz 31, 46, 49, 52, 53, 57, 62, 63, 100, 114–18, 119, 121, 126 hnqz 48, 114 P+ 8, 30, 46, 52, 57, 58, 81, 89–94, 125 Pp+ 89 qnwy 30, 46, 52, 57, 58, 81, 121 dly xvi, 30, 58, 74, 76, 81, 84–8, 95, 96, 100, 101, 125

hdly 30, 58, 72, 84 Mybr Mymy 114 #$y#$y 114 dbk 23 Mxl 33 d)m 117, 118 Mymy )lm 31, 52, 53, 57, 114 Mytm 92, 99 r(n xvi, 5, 7, 10, 11, 12, 30, 31, 46, 52, 58, 59–84, 85, 88, 100, 115, 116, 117, 124, 125, 126 hr(n 7, 30, 45n. 70, 56, 58, 62, 72, 79 #$pn 99 db( 66, 67, 124 lw( 53, 57, 58 llw( 30, 52, 53, 57, 58, 81 Ml( 6, 7, 31, 53, 58, 81 hml( 31, 53, 58 M( 70 h#&( 107 )tp 81 ry(c 81 N+q 56, 75 hn+q 56 )pr 23 Mymy (b#& 114, 118, 120, 121 hby#& 47, 48, 49, 114, 115, 120–2 hbw+ hby#& 114, 121, 123 hxp#$ 67 yp#$ 5 lbt 5

Days of Our Years: A Lexical Semantic Study of the Life Cycle in Biblical Israel (Library Hebrew Bible Old Testament Studies)

Corporate Responsibility in the Hebrew Bible (The Library of Hebrew Bible - Old Testament Studies)

Writing the History of Israel (The Library of Hebrew Bible - Old Testament Studies)

Syntax of the Verb in Classical Hebrew Prose (The Library of Hebrew Bible Old Testament Studies)

The Bible in Ethics: The Second Sheffield Colloquium (The Library of Hebrew Bible Old Testament Studies)

Feminist Interpretation Of The Bible (The Library of Hebrew Bible - Old Testament Studies)

Philosophy and Practice in Writing a History of Ancient Israel (The Library of Hebrew Bible - Old Testament Studies)

Theocratic Yehud?: Issues of Government in a Persian Province (Library Hebrew Bible Old Testament Studies)

Yahweh and the Gods and Goddesses of Canaan (The Library of Hebrew Bible - Old Testament Studies)

Rhetoric and Social Justice in Isaiah (The Library of Hebrew Bible - Old Testament Studies)

The Chronicler as Historian (The Library of Hebrew Bible; Old Testament Studies)

Beyond the River: New Perspectives on Transeuphratene (The Library of Hebrew Bible Old Testament Studies)

Yahweh as Refuge and the Editing of the Hebrew Psalter (The Library of Hebrew Bible - Old Testament Studies)

Reading Leviticus: Responses to Mary Douglas (The Library of Hebrew Bible Old Testament Studies)

Prophecy, Poetry And Hosea (The Library of Hebrew Bible Old Testament Studies)

Politics and Theopolitics in the Bible and Postbiblical Literature (The Library of Hebrew Bible - Old Testament Studies)

Sustaining Fictions: Intertextuality, Midrash, Translation, and the Literary Afterlife of the Bible (Library of Hebrew Bible - Old Testament Studies)

God And Earthly Power: An Old Testament Political Theology: Genesis-Kings (Library of Hebrew Bible - Old Testament Studies)

(Per)mutations of Qohelet: Reading the Body in the Book (The Library of Hebrew Bible Old Testament Studies)

Joshua and the Rhetoric of Violence: A New Historicist Analysis (The Library of Hebrew Bible - Old Testament Studies)

Can a Cushite Change His Skin?: An Examination of Race, Ethnicity, and Othering in the Hebrew Bible (The Library of Hebrew Bible - Old Testament Studies)

There Is Hope for a Tree: The Tree As Metaphor in Isaiah (The Library of Hebrew Bible Old Testament Studies)

Holy Bible - Old Testament

Out of Eden: Reading, Rhetoric, and Ideology in Genesis 2-3 (The Library of Hebrew Bible - Old Testament Studies)

Death And Survival in the Book of Job: Desymbolization And Traumatic Experience (Library of Hebrew Bible Old Testament Studies)

Old Testament Theology: 1 (Old Testament Library)

Old Testament Theology: 1 (Old Testament Library)

Ahab Agonistes: The Rise and Fall of the Omri Dynasty (Library of Hebrew Bible - Old Testament Studies)

Minḥah le-Naḥum: Biblical and Other Studies Presented to Nahum M. Sarna in Honour of His 70th Birthday (The Library of Hebrew Bible - Old Testament Studies)

Between Sheol and Temple: Motif Structure and Function in the I-Psalms (The Library of Hebrew Bible - Old Testament Studies)

One hundred years of Old Testament interpretation

Days of Our Years: A Lexical Semantic Study of the Life Cycle in Biblical Israel (Library Hebrew Bible Old Testament Studies)

Corporate Responsibility in the Hebrew Bible (The Library of Hebrew Bible - Old Testament Studies)

Writing the History of Israel (The Library of Hebrew Bible - Old Testament Studies)

Syntax of the Verb in Classical Hebrew Prose (The Library of Hebrew Bible Old Testament Studies)

The Bible in Ethics: The Second Sheffield Colloquium (The Library of Hebrew Bible Old Testament Studies)

Feminist Interpretation Of The Bible (The Library of Hebrew Bible - Old Testament Studies)

Philosophy and Practice in Writing a History of Ancient Israel (The Library of Hebrew Bible - Old Testament Studies)

Theocratic Yehud?: Issues of Government in a Persian Province (Library Hebrew Bible Old Testament Studies)

Yahweh and the Gods and Goddesses of Canaan (The Library of Hebrew Bible - Old Testament Studies)

Rhetoric and Social Justice in Isaiah (The Library of Hebrew Bible - Old Testament Studies)

The Chronicler as Historian (The Library of Hebrew Bible; Old Testament Studies)

Beyond the River: New Perspectives on Transeuphratene (The Library of Hebrew Bible Old Testament Studies)

Yahweh as Refuge and the Editing of the Hebrew Psalter (The Library of Hebrew Bible - Old Testament Studies)

Reading Leviticus: Responses to Mary Douglas (The Library of Hebrew Bible Old Testament Studies)

Prophecy, Poetry And Hosea (The Library of Hebrew Bible Old Testament Studies)

Politics and Theopolitics in the Bible and Postbiblical Literature (The Library of Hebrew Bible - Old Testament Studies)

Sustaining Fictions: Intertextuality, Midrash, Translation, and the Literary Afterlife of the Bible (Library of Hebrew Bible - Old Testament Studies)

God And Earthly Power: An Old Testament Political Theology: Genesis-Kings (Library of Hebrew Bible - Old Testament Studies)

(Per)mutations of Qohelet: Reading the Body in the Book (The Library of Hebrew Bible Old Testament Studies)

Joshua and the Rhetoric of Violence: A New Historicist Analysis (The Library of Hebrew Bible - Old Testament Studies)

Can a Cushite Change His Skin?: An Examination of Race, Ethnicity, and Othering in the Hebrew Bible (The Library of Hebrew Bible - Old Testament Studies)

There Is Hope for a Tree: The Tree As Metaphor in Isaiah (The Library of Hebrew Bible Old Testament Studies)

Holy Bible - Old Testament

Out of Eden: Reading, Rhetoric, and Ideology in Genesis 2-3 (The Library of Hebrew Bible - Old Testament Studies)

Death And Survival in the Book of Job: Desymbolization And Traumatic Experience (Library of Hebrew Bible Old Testament Studies)

Old Testament Theology: 1 (Old Testament Library)

Old Testament Theology: 1 (Old Testament Library)

Ahab Agonistes: The Rise and Fall of the Omri Dynasty (Library of Hebrew Bible - Old Testament Studies)

Minḥah le-Naḥum: Biblical and Other Studies Presented to Nahum M. Sarna in Honour of His 70th Birthday (The Library of Hebrew Bible - Old Testament Studies)

Between Sheol and Temple: Motif Structure and Function in the I-Psalms (The Library of Hebrew Bible - Old Testament Studies)

One hundred years of Old Testament interpretation

Recommend Documents