In previous studies of the collective noun in Hebrew, collectives have been treated as a homogeneous group of nouns. Collectives have been defined as a noun that refers to a group of real-world entities and is grammatically singular. Sometimes included in this discussion are mass nouns and proper nouns. This article argues that mass nouns and proper nouns should not be included as part of the discussion about collective nouns. Then it seeks to apply the research of Joosten et al. on Dutch collective nouns to Biblical Hebrew. Joosten identifies three types of collective nouns. First, Type 1 nouns focus on the collection as a whole. On the other end of the spectrum are Type 3 nouns which focus on the members of a collection. Type 2 nouns have the flexibility to refer to the collection in one context, while in others it can have a member focus. Using a sampling of collectives that appear in Deuteronomy, this article uses attributives, demonstratives, and cardinal numbers to help identify collective nouns in Biblical Hebrew using Joosten’s categories. Observing these syntactical elements alongside collectives this article shows that Type 1 nouns will have agreement between adjectives and collectives. Type 3 nouns will have disagreement. Type 2 nouns will, depending on the focus, have either agreement or disagreement.
{"title":"Defining Collective Nouns: How Cognitive Linguistics Can Help Hebrew Grammarians","authors":"Dougald W. McLaurin","doi":"10.25159/2663-6573/9288","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.25159/2663-6573/9288","url":null,"abstract":"In previous studies of the collective noun in Hebrew, collectives have been treated as a homogeneous group of nouns. Collectives have been defined as a noun that refers to a group of real-world entities and is grammatically singular. Sometimes included in this discussion are mass nouns and proper nouns. This article argues that mass nouns and proper nouns should not be included as part of the discussion about collective nouns. Then it seeks to apply the research of Joosten et al. on Dutch collective nouns to Biblical Hebrew. Joosten identifies three types of collective nouns. First, Type 1 nouns focus on the collection as a whole. On the other end of the spectrum are Type 3 nouns which focus on the members of a collection. Type 2 nouns have the flexibility to refer to the collection in one context, while in others it can have a member focus. Using a sampling of collectives that appear in Deuteronomy, this article uses attributives, demonstratives, and cardinal numbers to help identify collective nouns in Biblical Hebrew using Joosten’s categories. Observing these syntactical elements alongside collectives this article shows that Type 1 nouns will have agreement between adjectives and collectives. Type 3 nouns will have disagreement. Type 2 nouns will, depending on the focus, have either agreement or disagreement.","PeriodicalId":42047,"journal":{"name":"Journal for Semitics","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2022-01-26","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"42754627","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
The article contrasts two views of “land” in two texts which both originated in priestly circles. The first text is the Priestly creation narrative, and here the article leans heavily on the work of Norman Habel and the Earth Bible Project. For Habel, Genesis 1 is the story of the loss of partnership between God and Earth. The article then describes the portrayal of the “land of Canaan” or “Erets Canaan” in the Holiness Legislation and shows how the old partnership is remembered and rekindled. In the second part of the article the earlier work of Esias Meyer is used. The objective of this article is to contrast these two views of relationship to land and to make clear that the Holiness Legislation is much less anthropocentric than its Priestly predecessor in Genesis 1.
{"title":"Partnership Remembered: Erets Canaan as Co Provider and Co-Enforcer in H","authors":"Esias Meyer","doi":"10.25159/2663-6573/9070","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.25159/2663-6573/9070","url":null,"abstract":"The article contrasts two views of “land” in two texts which both originated in priestly circles. The first text is the Priestly creation narrative, and here the article leans heavily on the work of Norman Habel and the Earth Bible Project. For Habel, Genesis 1 is the story of the loss of partnership between God and Earth. The article then describes the portrayal of the “land of Canaan” or “Erets Canaan” in the Holiness Legislation and shows how the old partnership is remembered and rekindled. In the second part of the article the earlier work of Esias Meyer is used. The objective of this article is to contrast these two views of relationship to land and to make clear that the Holiness Legislation is much less anthropocentric than its Priestly predecessor in Genesis 1.","PeriodicalId":42047,"journal":{"name":"Journal for Semitics","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2022-01-12","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"43718223","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
The cognitive approach to metaphor has faced many challenges: one of these challenges is a lack of more cross-linguistic and cross-cultural research that needs to be done to better understand the claim of the cognitive approach that abstract concepts and abstract reasoning are partly metaphorical. This paper provides evidence that a universal spatial metaphorical system exists (the claim of Cognitive Linguistics) and shows that the theory of conceptual metaphor accommodates the findings to a certain extent. However, this theory of conceptual metaphor does not account for the entire Biblical Hebrew conceptual system and needs to be rethought. This study extends the existing knowledge of conceptual metaphor. Specifically, it expands the knowledge concerning verbs conflating a bipolar conceptual component, that is, MOTION and PATH. This study discusses evidence from the Hebrew Bible, and argues that the Biblical Hebrew verbs (yrd) (descend) and ('lh)(ascend)’s bipolar lexical concepts MOTION DOWN and MOTION UP, respectively, may split into two unipolar lexical concepts MOTION and DOWN and MOTION and UP, respectively, and in which only one unipolar lexical concept, that is DOWN or UP, respectively, is used for metaphorical conceptual mapping.
{"title":"Unipolar Conceptual Metaphors in Biblical Hebrew","authors":"At Lamprecht","doi":"10.25159/2663-6573/9563","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.25159/2663-6573/9563","url":null,"abstract":"The cognitive approach to metaphor has faced many challenges: one of these challenges is a lack of more cross-linguistic and cross-cultural research that needs to be done to better understand the claim of the cognitive approach that abstract concepts and abstract reasoning are partly metaphorical. This paper provides evidence that a universal spatial metaphorical system exists (the claim of Cognitive Linguistics) and shows that the theory of conceptual metaphor accommodates the findings to a certain extent. However, this theory of conceptual metaphor does not account for the entire Biblical Hebrew conceptual system and needs to be rethought. This study extends the existing knowledge of conceptual metaphor. Specifically, it expands the knowledge concerning verbs conflating a bipolar conceptual component, that is, MOTION and PATH. This study discusses evidence from the Hebrew Bible, and argues that the Biblical Hebrew verbs (yrd) (descend) and ('lh)(ascend)’s bipolar lexical concepts MOTION DOWN and MOTION UP, respectively, may split into two unipolar lexical concepts MOTION and DOWN and MOTION and UP, respectively, and in which only one unipolar lexical concept, that is DOWN or UP, respectively, is used for metaphorical conceptual mapping.","PeriodicalId":42047,"journal":{"name":"Journal for Semitics","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2022-01-12","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"44363125","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
In the Wisdom of Solomon, with special reference to chapters 6 to 10, wisdom is personified as a woman. This image is quite often found, especially in the wisdom literature. In the Wisdom of Solomon, Sophia is portrayed as a person who can speak, act, and feel, but most of all someone who can be loved and desired. She is portrayed as someone that is loved alternately by God and by the righteous. In Wisdom 10 Sophia is interwoven in the retelling of the Pentateuchal stories. She is the reason the righteous forefathers made the correct decisions, she protected and preserved them and gave them power, while the unrighteous are portrayed as leaving her and consequently making the wrong decisions. It is also interesting to notice the development in the concept of both wisdom and retribution from the traditional perspectives.
{"title":"A Love Triangle Between God, Sophia, and the Righteous Interwoven in the Retelling of the Pentateuchal Stories in Wisdom 10","authors":"Ananda B. Geyser-Fouché","doi":"10.25159/2663-6573/9217","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.25159/2663-6573/9217","url":null,"abstract":"In the Wisdom of Solomon, with special reference to chapters 6 to 10, wisdom is personified as a woman. This image is quite often found, especially in the wisdom literature. In the Wisdom of Solomon, Sophia is portrayed as a person who can speak, act, and feel, but most of all someone who can be loved and desired. She is portrayed as someone that is loved alternately by God and by the righteous. In Wisdom 10 Sophia is interwoven in the retelling of the Pentateuchal stories. She is the reason the righteous forefathers made the correct decisions, she protected and preserved them and gave them power, while the unrighteous are portrayed as leaving her and consequently making the wrong decisions. It is also interesting to notice the development in the concept of both wisdom and retribution from the traditional perspectives.","PeriodicalId":42047,"journal":{"name":"Journal for Semitics","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2022-01-12","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"43621239","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Leviathan and other sea-monsters in the Hebrew Bible have caused great dissonance amongst biblical scholars. No consensus exists amongst them on how to translate the Hebrew words referring to these mythical monsters. Therefore, a tendency developed amongst exegetes to transfigure these mythical beasts into ordinary animals, to translate them in a vague and general way, or to interpret them as mere symbols. This article investigates ways in which the assumed existence of Leviathan is identified and denied. To gain a better understanding of the nature and function of Leviathan, similar creatures in the ancient Near East are highlighted with a focus on sea-monsters and dragons associated with the primeval sea. These findings propose not only a more distinct epitome of Leviathan, but also of other monsters associated with the primeval waters (Rahab, tanninim, behemoth, and dag gadol), as depicted in the Old Testament. These beasts, interpreted against the magico-mythical cosmology of the ancient Near East and the Old Testament, should be seen as mythical creatures assumed to be real by the ancient audience of the biblical text. In striving for fidelity and loyalty to both the text and the current reader, translations should reflect the foreignness of Leviathan and other monsters or dragons to the contemporary reader.
{"title":"Leviathan, Rebuffing the Notion of Being Identified as a Natural Animal?","authors":"Allan Dyssel","doi":"10.25159/2663-6573/9108","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.25159/2663-6573/9108","url":null,"abstract":"Leviathan and other sea-monsters in the Hebrew Bible have caused great dissonance amongst biblical scholars. No consensus exists amongst them on how to translate the Hebrew words referring to these mythical monsters. Therefore, a tendency developed amongst exegetes to transfigure these mythical beasts into ordinary animals, to translate them in a vague and general way, or to interpret them as mere symbols. This article investigates ways in which the assumed existence of Leviathan is identified and denied. To gain a better understanding of the nature and function of Leviathan, similar creatures in the ancient Near East are highlighted with a focus on sea-monsters and dragons associated with the primeval sea. These findings propose not only a more distinct epitome of Leviathan, but also of other monsters associated with the primeval waters (Rahab, tanninim, behemoth, and dag gadol), as depicted in the Old Testament. These beasts, interpreted against the magico-mythical cosmology of the ancient Near East and the Old Testament, should be seen as mythical creatures assumed to be real by the ancient audience of the biblical text. In striving for fidelity and loyalty to both the text and the current reader, translations should reflect the foreignness of Leviathan and other monsters or dragons to the contemporary reader.","PeriodicalId":42047,"journal":{"name":"Journal for Semitics","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2022-01-12","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"43270042","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
{"title":"Curriculum Vitae: Prof. S. W. van Heerden","authors":"W. Wessels","doi":"10.25159/2663-6573/9829","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.25159/2663-6573/9829","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":42047,"journal":{"name":"Journal for Semitics","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2021-08-16","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"48641308","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
To Whom Belongs the Land? Leviticus 25 in an African Liberationist Reading, by Ndikho Mtshiselwa Peter Lang. 2018. xviii + pp. 284. ISBN: 978-1-4331-3893-5 https://doi.org/10.3726/978-1-4331-3897-3
土地属于谁?《利未记第25章:非洲解放主义解读》，作者:恩迪科·姆齐塞尔瓦·彼得·朗，2018年出版。Xviii + pp. 284。ISBN: 978-1-4331-3893-5 https://doi.org/10.3726/978-1-4331-3897-3
{"title":"The Socio-legal Praxis of Leviticus 25","authors":"N. Sindane","doi":"10.25159/2663-6573/9517","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.25159/2663-6573/9517","url":null,"abstract":"To Whom Belongs the Land? Leviticus 25 in an African Liberationist Reading, by Ndikho Mtshiselwa \u0000Peter Lang. 2018. xviii + pp. 284.\u0000ISBN: 978-1-4331-3893-5 \u0000https://doi.org/10.3726/978-1-4331-3897-3","PeriodicalId":42047,"journal":{"name":"Journal for Semitics","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2021-08-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"48043228","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
This study engages in an ecotheological reading of Habakkuk 2:5–20, a text riddled with text-critical, redaction-critical, and theological problems. I argue that the central theme permeating this text is the condemnation of human hubris and self-centredness, resulting in violent behaviour, whether it is perpetrated against nature, animals, or humanity in general (Hab 2:17). Utilising a hermeneutics of reminiscence as point of departure, the study argues that the book of Habakkuk is an ancient Near Eastern text bound to its own worldview(s) and societal issues. However, reading Hab 2:5–20 from the perspective of victims of violence against the background of exile and marginalisation opens avenues for ecotheological application. Such a reading recognises both the integrity of the ancient text and its relevance for modern readers struggling with urgent issues that did not exist in biblical times.
{"title":"“This Wine Is Treacherous” (Hab 2:5a): Reading Condemnations against Violence in Habakkuk 2:5–20 from an Ecotheological Perspective","authors":"G. Prinsloo","doi":"10.25159/2663-6573/9096","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.25159/2663-6573/9096","url":null,"abstract":"This study engages in an ecotheological reading of Habakkuk 2:5–20, a text riddled with text-critical, redaction-critical, and theological problems. I argue that the central theme permeating this text is the condemnation of human hubris and self-centredness, resulting in violent behaviour, whether it is perpetrated against nature, animals, or humanity in general (Hab 2:17). Utilising a hermeneutics of reminiscence as point of departure, the study argues that the book of Habakkuk is an ancient Near Eastern text bound to its own worldview(s) and societal issues. However, reading Hab 2:5–20 from the perspective of victims of violence against the background of exile and marginalisation opens avenues for ecotheological application. Such a reading recognises both the integrity of the ancient text and its relevance for modern readers struggling with urgent issues that did not exist in biblical times.","PeriodicalId":42047,"journal":{"name":"Journal for Semitics","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2021-07-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"46772326","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
According to Job 12:7–10, the friends of Job should realise that creation can communicate what “the hand of God has done”: animals and the earth can teach or instruct; the birds of the air can tell you and the fish of the sea can inform you. The question remains: what do these animals, birds, and fishes communicate to the friends of Job and readers of the book of Job? It is argued that verses 7–9 are framed by ambiguous references to the “hand of God/YHWH” in verses 6 and 10: creation can either affirm the reassuring presuppositions of the friends that there is order in creation and that God is just or it can point out that creation presents many examples of how an unjust God is reflected in a disorderly creation—from personal experience in verses 4–6 and from creation in general from verses 11–25. It is also pointed out that there are no nominal or verbless clauses in verses 7–9 and that numerous examples of nominal and verbless clauses are found in the preceding and subsequent sections of Job 12. This provides a further indication that 12:7–9 might be a sapiential quotation that seems to affirm the presuppositions of the friends but is now used by the author of Job to counter these presuppositions by means of ironical critique.
{"title":"Creation Proclaiming Knowledge about God: Animals and Ironical Critique in Job 12:7–10","authors":"H. Bosman","doi":"10.25159/2663-6573/9386","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.25159/2663-6573/9386","url":null,"abstract":"According to Job 12:7–10, the friends of Job should realise that creation can communicate what “the hand of God has done”: animals and the earth can teach or instruct; the birds of the air can tell you and the fish of the sea can inform you. The question remains: what do these animals, birds, and fishes communicate to the friends of Job and readers of the book of Job? It is argued that verses 7–9 are framed by ambiguous references to the “hand of God/YHWH” in verses 6 and 10: creation can either affirm the reassuring presuppositions of the friends that there is order in creation and that God is just or it can point out that creation presents many examples of how an unjust God is reflected in a disorderly creation—from personal experience in verses 4–6 and from creation in general from verses 11–25. It is also pointed out that there are no nominal or verbless clauses in verses 7–9 and that numerous examples of nominal and verbless clauses are found in the preceding and subsequent sections of Job 12. This provides a further indication that 12:7–9 might be a sapiential quotation that seems to affirm the presuppositions of the friends but is now used by the author of Job to counter these presuppositions by means of ironical critique.","PeriodicalId":42047,"journal":{"name":"Journal for Semitics","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2021-07-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"48599807","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
This article explores the attitude God shows towards the animals as presented in Old Testament (OT) texts outside of the law texts. While these law texts present God’s imperative for his people, the other OT texts display his attitude towards nature more directly. We will interpret the findings as part of a “cosmic covenant” (Robert Murray) between God and his animals on the one hand and God and humans as his viceroys on earth on the other hand. The article is written from a canonical viewpoint. This means that it does not try to distinguish divergent aspects or developments of ideas but rather looks at their similarities. The aim is not just to do an exegesis on certain Old Testament tests but to explore the relationship between God and his creation as displayed in these verses. The canonical viewpoint in connection with the idea of a “cosmic covenant” presents a new angle on this topic. The article intends to show that God, being the creator of everything, cares for his whole creation. As his people, we should therefore also treat his creation with respect and care.
{"title":"God and His Animals. Some Thoughts on God’s Care about Animals in the Old Testament","authors":"Hans-Georg Wünch","doi":"10.25159/2663-6573/8948","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.25159/2663-6573/8948","url":null,"abstract":"This article explores the attitude God shows towards the animals as presented in Old Testament (OT) texts outside of the law texts. While these law texts present God’s imperative for his people, the other OT texts display his attitude towards nature more directly. We will interpret the findings as part of a “cosmic covenant” (Robert Murray) between God and his animals on the one hand and God and humans as his viceroys on earth on the other hand. The article is written from a canonical viewpoint. This means that it does not try to distinguish divergent aspects or developments of ideas but rather looks at their similarities. The aim is not just to do an exegesis on certain Old Testament tests but to explore the relationship between God and his creation as displayed in these verses. The canonical viewpoint in connection with the idea of a “cosmic covenant” presents a new angle on this topic. The article intends to show that God, being the creator of everything, cares for his whole creation. As his people, we should therefore also treat his creation with respect and care.","PeriodicalId":42047,"journal":{"name":"Journal for Semitics","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2021-07-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"42039451","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
扫码关注我们
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：