Bible Words

[andrewlittle]

i am not one who is known for quoting the bible, but i do enjoy reading it, and when i have come accross something that is confusing or contraversial i like to try to find out what is behind the translation. one i have been trying to find out with little success is one of the clobber passages as to why the hebrew word ish (often used with the companion word ishah) is used as to the other words for man/kind

two other words i have found that could have been used is zukar or ha-adama, pardon any mispelling of those words i have very little exposure to hebrew

not quite greek i don't think.. from what i can tell ish means more of "holy male", male dedicated to god, or husband. the last especially when used with ish-ah.

ish/isha are, in my limited understanding, relatively generic. They are the words used in the Creation account, for example. However, the Levitical prohibitions mix the words, using both ish and zakur (in Lev. 20, Lev. 18 uses only zakur):

A man (ish) who lies with a man (zakur) as one lies with a woman (isha)...

You are right to observe that this juxtaposition is intriguing, but I'm not prepared to make much of it without some convincing ... the formula "If a man (ish)" begins most of the verses in the context. My first assumption would be that it was merely a literary style choice, with the switch to zakur perhaps hearkening back to the language of Chapter 18.

However, it is zakur that seems to have passed into the rabbinic tradition ... a fragment of the prohibition "mishkav zakur" (the lyings of a man) or "mishkav bzakur" (lying with a man) seem to have become virtually theological technical terms to refer to whatever practice is in view here. For a nice non-technical discussion of this, Robin Scroggs is worth a read (actually, he's well worth a read! His focus is NT, "The New Testament and Homosexuality" --but he covers Leviticus and 1st century Judaism as background)

My very limited opinion. Andy is away for a few days, but should arrive shortly after return with the real story.

I'm baaaack!

First, Rufus, you have to understand that I'm a geek. If it seems that I might enjoy a discussion about Hebrew words, or Greek for that matter, too damn much - I DO. If your eyes start rolling back in your head, or brain numbness sets in, just tell me to shut up. Okay?

So first, iysh (ish is fine, though)means man or husband (although husband in the sense we know it was unknown in those times - it is more the sense of male mate). Likewise, ishah (with an extended "sh" sound) means woman or wife (female mate).

zacar means male and n'qebah means female.

a'nashim means men/husbands (plural of iysh) and nashim means women/wives.

Then you get to adam (which would actually be pronounced more like ahdahm not Adam, but that may be just too damn picky), which is an interesting departure. While many, many texts translate adam inconsistently and intermittently as Adam and man, the NRSV is the closest to being right (sometimes) in the few instances when it uses "human" or "humankind".

In hebrew ha or h' before a word denotes the definite article, "the". So haadam means "the human" or, oddly enough, "the humans". You see, adam is a collective noun - which means that it refers not to a specific individual, but more correctly to generic person(s) - since it has not plural or feminine forms.

I did a study, for a women's conference on inclusive language, on the translations of adam through the ages. It occurs 17 times in the first two chapters of Genesis, while iysh occurs twice.

In the Septuagint (or Old Testament in Greek) adam was translated as the proper name Adam 7 times and as a form of anthropos the rest. anthropos means human (genderless).

In the Vulgate (Latin) adam was translated once as vir (man), 9 times as hominem or hominus (human) and 6 times as the proper name Adam.

In English, it gets interesting, but suffice it to say that the KJV uses the proper name Adam 4 times and "man" the others, the NIV uses Adam once and "man" the others, and the NRSV uses "human" or "humankind" 4 times and the rest "man". In the NRSV, Adam (as a name) doesn't show up until chapter 4.

The switch away from using words to convey the sense of "human" as opposed to "man" occurred in the late Middle English translations (Tyndale et al) in the early 1500's.

[andrewlittle]

For initial discussion on the Leviticus use of iysh or ish, zacar and ishah, maybe you could check out the post below.

http://www.soulforce.org/forums/showpost.php?p=21981&postcount=53

Then we could go from there if you're interested.

[RM260boy]

:applause: :applause: :applause: WOW!

[RM260boy]

do i follow? ish specific, zacar less specific adam generic?

[andrewlittle]

do i follow? ish specific, zacar less specific adam generic?

ish - definitely man/husband.
zacar - definitely male (as opposed to "man" or "husband")
adam - generic human

[RM260boy]

if you care to address it siras or is that saris (trying to do from memory).... is a whole 'nother animal so to speak

[andrewlittle]

if you care to address it siras or is that saris (trying to do from memory).... is a whole 'nother animal so to speak

Can you give me a chapter/verse reference?

shiras means root, but I don't know if that is what you mean.

[RM260boy]

have seen it translated as gaurd, chamberlain, eunuch and several other things it is very possible that i have misspelled it... but it seems to translate differently according to whom it is addressed... i have also seen it reffered to in the talmud writings when i was trying to get more meaniing out of it

[andrewlittle]

Sorry - completely different part of Genesis. I'm also kind of singles minded. This is a word, actually words, that give rise to parts of Genesis being redactions or later additions.

sariys, s'riys, sarisey, s'risey, sarisayu, sarisiym are all related words that are common to a later time - notably the period after the Babylonian exile. They are generally understood as official, representative, manager, etc. but in the sense of a trusted slave. Because of known or supposed cultural norms, a person called by this name may be assumed to be a eunuch.

The NRSV only translates 6 of the fourteen occurences of this word (in the entire OT) in the singular form as eunuch. The rest of the time they use one of the other words. The KJV uses eunuch only twice.

This is definitely one of those words where context, other textual references and preconceived notions affects translation. It is far from definitive.

[RM260boy]

i kind of figured it would be a difficult one to pinpoint ... so a translators mindset(boiling all the context culture and so forth) would have a large bearing on what comes out... sorry for the late response, sleep overcame me:sleep:

[andrewlittle]

i kind of figured it would be a difficult one to pinpoint ... so a translators mindset(boiling all the context culture and so forth) would have a large bearing on what comes out... sorry for the late response, sleep overcame me:sleep:

You'll have to be careful to avoid falling into the trap of being numbed into unconsciousness. Some people who have read my posts are still comotose. :D

Actually, I'm envious - last night I would have loved it if sleep overcame me.

I think Brent's post opened up good territory. Phrases that include a form of the word, mishcav, and a reference to man, male, woman or female.

I'll work on that next, unless you want to take this another direction. If you do, PLEASE do - it gets scary living only in my own head.:eek:

[RM260boy]

no please keep it coming i am eating it up... and hungry too!

it was the hour and not the message:love: , i realized that i should have edited it after i entered :headbang:

[andrewlittle]

I'm looking at it in more depth than I have before.

[andrewlittle]

The prohibition against same-sex relations is centered on the phrasing in Lev 18:22 and 20:13, which is no news to anyone who has been beaten about the head and shoulders with these verses.

The critical translation issue, about which I have written several times and is included in the link a previous post, is with the phrase mish'c'bey ishah.

While literally saying "the beds of a woman/wife", it is traditionally interpreted as "as with a woman". Despite this phrase appearing only twice in scripture, in these particular verses, and in exactly the same form, the translaters say it is a euphemism for "lying as you would with a woman", based on similar occurences with mish'cab zacar in Numbers and Judges. The argument goes that, if you cannot find the exact phrase repeated in another context, you go to a similar phrase in other contexts to decide the meaning.

I will see if I can use their logic to disprove their assumptions.

There only five instances of mish'cab being used in direct connection with a gender noun (man, woman, male, female, etc.). In each case the connection is known to be direct because, as is the case with the Leviticus verses, the form of the noun mish'cab is construct - meaning it intended to show possession by use of a suffix (giving the meaning of "my", "your", "his", "their", etc) or to be connected to the next noun by the use of the word "of". In the latter case it shows possession or association of an object by the following object. An example of the latter can be found in Genesis 49:4, in which mish'c'bey abiyca is rightly translated as "bed of your father"

The five instances are:

Numbers 31:17 Now therefore, kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman who has known a man by sleeping with him.
... v'cal-ishah yida't iysh l'mish'cab zacar.

Numbers 31:18 But all the young girls who have not known a man by sleeping with him, keep alive for yourselves.
... lo-yad'u mish'cab zacar

Numbers 31:35 ... and thirty-two thousand persons in all, women who had not known a man by sleeping with him.
... lo-yad'u mish'cab zacar

Judges 21:11 This is what you shall do; every male, and every woman that has lain with a male, you shall devote to destruction."
... cal-zacar v'cal-ishah yida't mish'cab zacar...

Judges 21:12 And they found among the inhabitants of Jabesh-gilead four hundred young virgins who had never slept with a man and brought them to the camp at Shiloh, which is in the land of Canaan.
... lo-yad'ah iysh l'mish'cab zacar

Now, forget the particularly heinous nature of these passages, if you can. Yet another example, even in scripture, of the human ability to justify oppression and mysogeny in the name of God, I guess.

Okay, to my point. In each case, the concept of a woman "lying with a man" is centered on mish'cab zacar, sometimes with a prefix which generally means "for", but is totally ignored in the translations.

My first problem is one of frequency of use. To be established as a valid euphemism, a pattern of use needs to be established. These five verses comprise only two occurances - Numbers deal with one story, and Judges with a second. That hardly represents a pattern of use to establish an idiom or common euphemism.

That aside, there is another major issue. The literal phrase "bed(s) of a male" (mish'cab zacar) establish the locus of the actions described. Sleeping with a man is described as being in the "bed of a male". In Leviticus, the phrasing mish'c'bey ishah should then mean "sleeping with a woman", not "as with a woman". In Genesis 49:4, the phrase mish'c'bey abiyca should be understood as "sleeping with your father", not "bed of your father".

The euphemism claimed to exist is used selectively - namely, only where it suits the purpose of claiming that same-sex intercouse is an abomination. If that pattern of idiom - that it says "as with a woman" is applied to other passages, it becomes apparent it it wrong.

Genesis 49:4 would read, "Unstable as water, you shall no longer excel because you went up and slept as with your father; then you defiled it-- you went up onto my couch!"

Makes no sense at all. The same would be true for the Numbers and Judges passages.

The important point of the phrasing mish'c'bey ... or mish'cab ... is that the bed is the locus of activity. In Gen 49:4, the son is not to be trusted. The reference to defiling his father’s bed comes from Gen 35:22, in which Rueben went and lay with Billah who was his father’s concubine (common-law wife). The act is adultery. The description is what happens to the bed. Rueben committed adultery with his father’s wife, but is described as defiling his bed. As the locus of marital relations, the bed is the focus of attention since it was defiled.

The stories in Numbers and Judges make sense only if the reference is understood that certain actions occurred in the "bed of a male". In Leviticus, then, the locus is the "bed of a woman/wife". Two men are prohibited from engaging in sexual relations on "a wife's bed", because that would constitute adultery (one of them would presumably be the wife's husband, or they are both guilty of traspassing(?)). And adultery is a common theme elsewhere in scripture, AND comes with the consequence of death.

Okay, does this make sense?

[BrentRichards]

See, I told you Andy would have the answer!

Andy, do you have a doctorate? Just curious.

[u-dog]

His head JUST exploded. Thanks SO MUCH Brent! He will be INSUFFERABLE from now on! Doctor Little! (the little doctor?)


But as long as the damage is done I might as well say that his amazing work on this site has inspired me to go back and audit beginning Greek this Fall. (I mostly want to find out if all the stuff he says is true or if he is just the best BS artist in the universe!:rolleyes:

[andrewlittle]

See, I told you Andy would have the answer!

Andy, do you have a doctorate? Just curious.

No, I decided I was too old to pursue a PhD. I finished seminary at age 51. I'd be 56 or so by the time I would be done with a doctorate. Not to mention the money involved.

I had a remarkable opportunity, however. I got to study for a full year at Cambridge University in 2003/2004. I concentrated on Biblical languages and Bible Studies while in England, after taking a year each of Hebrew and Greek at my home seminary.

It cost me an extra year for earning my MDiv, but it was well worth it and I would do it again in a heartbeat.

[BrentRichards]

The extra time shows! I'm toying with the idea of doing a PhD in a couple years when my kids are done with school. Might be able to get that all done by 45, which still leaves a chunk of life (one hopes) to use it.

[andrewlittle]

The extra time shows! I'm toying with the idea of doing a PhD in a couple years when my kids are done with school. Might be able to get that all done by 45, which still leaves a chunk of life (one hopes) to use it.

Do it! I envy you the age difference and the opportunity. You could still spend 20-30 years teaching.

Wow, another great Presbyterian professor - one step closer to controlling all academia.

Oh, excuse me - my mind wandered.

[BrentRichards]

Do it! I envy you the age difference and the opportunity. You could still spend 20-30 years teaching.

Wow, another great Presbyterian professor - one step closer to controlling all academia.

Oh, excuse me - my mind wandered.

AND, I'm a Freemason ... we know all about conspiracy! (Puh-lease)

[BrentRichards]

I'm currently looking at the joint PhD program run by Pitt/Pitt Theol Sem ... http://www.pitt.edu/~relgst/doctoral.html

Most interested in Biblical Theology and Ethics

[andrewlittle]

Sigh! Okay, I'm done dreaming.

Go for it, Brent.

[keltic63]

I'm currently looking at the joint PhD program run by Pitt/Pitt Theol Sem ... http://www.pitt.edu/~relgst/doctoral.html

Most interested in Biblical Theology and Ethics


A friend of mine is getting an MDiv at Pittsburgh Theological Seminary. She keeps trying to get me to join her there, but at this point, she'd be done about the time I'd start.

[Wanderer]

Andrew--
I just read your analysis of the Leviticus 18 and 20 verses, and I'm glad I did! I have read similar analyses which left me wondering why "lying on the bed of a woman" would be given the death penalty, even if it was an accurate translation.

Now I know. Many thanks.

Wanderer

[antonyh]

I had a remarkable opportunity, however. I got to study for a full year at Cambridge University in 2003/2004. I concentrated on Biblical languages and Bible Studies while in England, after taking a year each of Hebrew and Greek at my home seminary.

It cost me an extra year for earning my MDiv, but it was well worth it and I would do it again in a heartbeat.

I wondered where you got your skills in Greek and Hebrew :)

[RM260boy]

andrew! what another great post!:) keep them coming i love this thread!

[andrewlittle]

andrew! what another great post!:) keep them coming i love this thread!

But, so I don't jabber on just to see myself write, give me some direction. Where do you want to go from here.

Andy

[RM260boy]

But, so I don't jabber on just to see myself write, give me some direction. Where do you want to go from here.

Andy

will try :D currently working my way back through genesis... slowly

[RM260boy]

andrew,

sorry i have taken so long to get this going again. i work slow i am lazy and i have a computer that is held together with duct and uses chewing gum wrappers for connections. with my computer problems i had to rebuild my browser and i lost the site i was using that had english/hebrew/hebre transliteration side by side. if you know of a site could you post me a link, as i have been unsuccesful trying to find it. ok

1. i saw your post on another thread:

- I hope I'm not being picky here. Hav'vah, translated as "Eve", only occurs twice in Genesis, and the word "EVE" does not appear again until the New Testament. The closest literal translation of this word is "tent village" which, in my opinion at least, would serve as the closest thing to culture at the time. Culture, in this sense, is portrayed as leading humanity astray, and is it any wonder that in that day and age (or now, for that matter) it is attributed with feminine traits. Female=bad, male=good - where have we seen that crappe before. -

i found that very intriquing (i hate that word i can't spell it). i was wondering i if you would like to talk more about "Hav'vah".

2. king ambimelech confuses me. both abraham and isaac tell the same lie/deception to him. is it the very same king since abraham was old when isaac was born, and isaac did not marry until he was 40. the words sister wife cousin and how they relate to each other since sarah was abraham's half sister he was more truthful, and rebekah was isaacs cousin. i see it as more of a deception than a lie but would like if you could tell more :D.

3. i saw a website that claimed that the names of the patriarchs tell the history of mankind by the meaning on the names: eg, peleg because in those days the earth was divided. do you have any thoughts on that? i tend to see it as probably more of a memnomic device (butchered that word didn't i) to trigger certain stories since the first five books were oral tradition for so long (at least i think). although that website did provide a somewhat good case, it seemed that some of the names' meanings were twisted to fit what they were trying to prove. any thoughts would entertain me immensly.

you now have ten minutes to complete this exam :eek::D

btw this is the third time i have tried to post this. (i want a new computer.)

[RM260boy]

i had 5 cups of coffee today so i don't think i will sleep for a week, so....

something that keeps running through my mind, having some experience with translating, is how static is hebrew as a language. i mean to say like english is a dynamic language because it readilly adopts words from other languages, and disposes of words when the lose their usage or meaning. my guestimate is that there are about a million words in english, english speakers probably use about 5000 of those in day to day living, are familiar enough with - please folks just guesing i don't know if there is a scientific study on this - about 10,000 , and able to derive meaning from an additional 10,000 by usage and spelling.

and in word usage are meanings implied by context or are they all included?
i'll try to use a russian so that you might understand what i am asking. sample conversation -

"chital, li?" , (literaly read, if? understood words ty and ehtu knigu) have you read the (or this or that) book?
"da." (chital knigu) (literaly yes. read book) yes, i have read the book.
"ehta kniga!" (literaly, this book!) what a book!
"da. ochen' khoroshaya (kniga) (literaly yes. very good (book)) yes. it is a very good book.

to get the full meaning and implied words you have to read the whole conversation to know how to translate it. (i hope i am clear enough on that.)

my thoughts are that hebrew is a more static language because its alphabet has not had the drift that all other languages have had.

how close is hebrew to the indo-european prosprache (i think that is the word.), gosh i don't know how to express this, would i, having some knowledge of root meanings. be able to derive anything from from transliterated hebrew. because if it is fairly close i would start looking for them.

example russian gorod grad gvard (city roughly the equivalent to burg, like pittsburg and guard), german/english garden gourd guard, these all share a common root (consonant vowel consonant vowel consonant- if i remember correctly - is where you look for the root, that through language drift became the other words) and one that i think every one will get real fast russian semeni (seeds), won't do the english comparative.

so to say if i saw the word gard my first mutation step would be gar(unkown) d, and then start shifting through the other common mutations. (i had almost completely forgotten that we had two weeks of rood derivitive theory in my advanced class in 85/86

i really shouldn't drink coffee! :lol: make a pot, drink a pot.:D
and at least my russian spelling is still better than my english :D
and just in case anyone might have been wondering the courses were 47 weeks and 27 weeks that i did back to back, and then 37 for the advanced. eight hour days of study and lab.

[andrewlittle]

RM260boy, you have left me speechless - right now, at least. Unfortunately for most people, that doesn't last long.

This will take me a good while to digest, okay? I will then attempt to response. Be prepared for several answers to be, "I don't know."

But, like any good geek, I am really looking forward to learning something here.

[RM260boy]

the same here, will be patient. thanks:)

[u-dog]

The breadth and depth of knowledge and expertise in this group just blows me away! Whether its theology, ancient languages, modern languages, music, history, art, MATH :eek:, science, weight loss physiology we seem to have somebody who's an expert in it. Wow.

[BrentRichards]

The breadth and depth of knowledge and expertise in this group just blows me away! Whether its theology, ancient languages, modern languages, music, history, art, MATH :eek:, science, weight loss physiology we seem to have somebody who's an expert in it. Wow.

I'm still waiting for conversation to come around to something I'm an expert in ... don't know what that is, but I'll know it when I see it!

[u-dog]

I'm still waiting for conversation to come around to something I'm an expert in ... don't know what that is, but I'll know it when I see it!


Navel Lint?:love:

[BrentRichards]

Navel Lint?:love:

No, drawing a blank on that ... apparently that isn't it.

[andrewlittle]

I read, and re-read, and re-read your posts, RM, and you still confound me. You have knowledge about languages generally that I lack.

Perhaps, I can come up with some half-way intelligent questions that might advance to discussion, but I don't have much to offer on the bulk of it.

I would be glad to expound on hav'vah, but not sure whereyou want to go. A word showing up twice in Hebrew scriptures doesnot make for a wealth of discussion (other than perhaps how that word became a feminine person name Eve who, according to many classic theologians and many conservative modern theologians, was single-handedly responsible for the Fall). Mythoughtsin that other thread would not be widely accepted but, at the same time, can't really be nay-sayed either.

The Abraham and Isaac stories in Gen 20 and 26 have always confused me. There isn't much linguistically to explain the strangeness of "righteous lying" or why it would be acceptable for the men to put their wives in the position of committing adultery to save their own skins. I have problems with much of this part of Genesis, to be honest.

As for the rest of it, I think you already know way more than I do. Now, if I could just ask the right questions.

[RM260boy]

aw c-mon, you deffinitely know more about hebrew than i do!
i guess the question on that would be how much has the language drifted(changed) from biblical to modern. and i would re-ask in tranlating hebrew is it a language more similar to how english works (very little is assumed), or more like the russian were context plays so much more. the rest of the language question would only serve me if i can find that website that had the english/hebrew/hebrew transliteration side by side

and about eve, it just caught me off gaurd in that post as to how it shook up how one could look at the creation story. (or even "adam and tents" not "adam and steve".):lol:

in the abraham/isaac question, i meant more for it to be focused on the words sister cousin wife in hebrew. sort of like in russian you can call any man older than you uncle, even if there is no relationship. ambimelech and the deception was the reason that caught my eye.

does this help to muddy the waters?