« Sectarian Science and Mecca Mean Time
Main
Watch Out for Those Low Notes »
April 25, 2008
On The Boundaries of Ancient Hebrew "Writing"
As part of his series on Isaiah 38:9-20 John Hobbins took occasion to review the occurrences of מכתב in ancient Hebrew. In addition to Isaiah 38:9, he cites Exodus 32:16 (twice) and Deuteronomy 10:4 where the authors makes a distinction between the tablets (הלחת) and the writing on the tablets (המכתב). John notes Exodus 39:30 where מכתב refers to the words "Holy to Yahweh" inscribed a golden rosette (or something like that); 2 Chronicles 35:4 where the word seems to mean written edicts and 2 Chronicles 36:22 and Ezra 1:1 where it refers to the written form of an oral proclamation. He tells us of 2 Chronicles 21:12 where מכתב is the text of a letter. Boy does he like the word "rescript." I need to remember to work that into my next conversation. And if you check a standard concordance of Biblical Hebrew and account for the two instantiations in Exodus 32:16, John's citations are exhaustive. But still John missed at least one.
Arad ostracon 40:11b-12 reads,
And Eshyuhu was staying [in my house(?).]
And he requested the report. [. . . ]
This usage, from an 8th/7th century BCE ostracon, is very much like that of 2 Chronicles 21:12.
Now, I'm not picking on John for being insufficiently diligent. Well, perhaps I am a little. In his defense, he specifically says that he is looking at the MT (Masoretic Text). But why would one, even for a casual word study, limit one's gaze to the MT when 10% of the occurrences of a low to mid-frequency word come from somewhere else. I admit that there isn't much to learn from this additional example that isn't already clear from the Hebrew Bible. My point is that there is a body of texts, much of it datable, that is in the same language as the Hebrew Bible. We often overlook these texts when we do word or grammatical studies. Yes, I know there are dialectical issues within the Hebrew epigraphic texts but there are also dialectical issues within the Hebrew Bible. And compared to the whole of the Hebrew Bible, these epigraphic texts are a small corpus indeed. And certainly, they are a corpus that scholars call upon when historical issues are at stake. But I worry that when it comes to the language of the Hebrew Bible students at all levels too easily forget them.
Posted by Duane Smith at April 25, 2008 3:55 PM | Read more on Hebrew Bible |
Trackback Pings
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.telecomtally.com/mt/mt-tb.cgi/2483
Comments
Thanks, Duane.
You nailed me good. I wrongly assumed that any occurrence in the epigraphic texts would have been cited in HALOT. Bad assumption. I need to remember to put my copy of Gogel right next to my BDB, HALOT, etc.
Posted by: JohnFH at April 25, 2008 6:23 PM
Good point, Duane, but, then, I study the Arad and Lachish ostroca -- and all those little artifacts for the script, primarily.
Still, you have hit on one of my translation bug-bears.If examining the language of the MT, watch the mind-set. "Holy" is anachronistic. That should be "Sacred to YHVH."
It's not a question of Hebrew; it's a question of word choice in the target language. "Holy" (haelig) is purely physical: it means "whole, complete (physically), hale, hearty, well." True, the term underwent semantic slip, but the concept of the "sacred" being "holy" in the actual meaning of the word simply did not exist back then. It's one of those small things that makes a difference in interpretation. We do need reminders that the distinction was between the sacred and the profane. "Sacred" instead of "Holy" is a simple way to bring this distinction to mind.
Then I do wonder if that was a rosette... the rosette is the symbol of Shamash. (And let's not go into the Greek-influenced use and non-use and by whom of rosettes at the turn of the Common Era in Judea.)
Silly me, picking on a side issue.
Posted by: rachel at April 25, 2008 11:48 PM
John,
I didn't mean to "nail" you. I was trying to "nail" a lot of us who, for one reason or another, all too often don't look at the epigraphic material. You just happened to provide a convenient example. Of course, Rochelle does look at this material with great care.
Rochelle,
I think you are correct about "sacred" rather than "holy." The use of "holy" represented my intellectual laziness. As to the "rosette," you will note that I indicated some uncertainty about the meaning of the Hebrew. I will say that it's association with Shamash doesn't bother me all that much. In fact, I think that association works well in context
Posted by: Duane at April 26, 2008 8:51 AM
Sorry, comments are closed for this post.
Send me an email if it is important.