Discussion of Hebrew Language (New thread from Hebrew Pictographs in Bible Study)

[Yaaqov ben Yisrael]

MOD NOTE: This thread was cut from the Bible Study forum and thread titled Hebrew Pictographs. The link to that thread is here, for reference)
http://bibleforums.org/showthread.ph...ew-pictographs

Shalom/Hello, I would like to first thank you for the opportunity to post in this forum and on this thread. I hope that those of you who are sincere about Truth and are serious students of linguistics, and Hebrew in particular will appreciate what I am about to share. I invite all the criticism you can muster on this topic, it has been a passion of mine ever since the "pictographiles" began to muster upon the World Wide Web. I apologize in advance if any toes are stepped upon; it is only my desire to separate Truth from False, and thereby help unsuspecting persons from being misled because of personal gain, and to attain true Biblical Insights. There are groups of individuals who make the claim that there is a deeper meaning of the Ancient Hebrew based upon the suggestion that the original Hebrew script might have been pictographic. This is really a pseudo-science and poor scholarship. Those making the claim are not trained linguists, and have no clue how languages evolved or work. The earliest languages recorded are the Sumerian and Egyptian Hieroglyphic. Both languages are infact hieroglyphic in nature, being that Sumerian is also based on pictures. In these most ancient of languages, which utilize pictures for letters, even these did not utilize the picture as any inner meaning to the word. Ancient Egyptian can demonstrate this easiest, as everyone is sure what the pictures are and represent; as opposed to the Sumerian Cuneiform, which has lost much of its original form. The Egyptian writing method employs 134 Phonetic signs, and 180 ideographic and determinative signs. The phonetic signs are divided into: monoliteral, the sign represents one phonetic sound; biliteral, the sign represents two phonetic sounds; and triliteral, the sign represents three phonetic sounds. The entirety of Egyptian grammar is much like any other Semitic language. It uses the phonetic signs to build vocabulary, verbs, and is used in the same manner as the later alephbets are used. The ideographs and determinatives are only used to give a clearer meaning to the words built upon the phonetic signs. This is due to the fact that there are many words (in many languages) which are homophones. They are spelled and sound the same, but have different meanings. It is the ideographs and determinatives which give the reader the true meanings of these words. The Egyptian Phonetic signs are used identically to how we use our English alphabet. For instance, the phonetic signs for “i/y” is a reed, the “glottal stop ie. aleph and ayin” is a vulture, and the “w” is represented by a quail chick. Looking at them together they would be: a Reed, Vulture, Quail chick. No Egyptian would read this as having anything to do with a Reed, Vuture or Quail chick. They would understand that these are Phonetic symbols, here they are monoliteral, and represents the sounds I, 3 (glottal stop), and W or I3W. In Egyptian this can represent two different words. This is where the ideograph or determinative comes into play. The ideograph and determinative come at the end of each word to give specific meaning about the word represented by the phonetic symbol. A man leaning on his cain or staff would represent “old age”, a man standing with arms stretched toward heaven would represent “adoration/worship”. Hence, when you see the Reed, Vulture, Quail chick with a man leaning on a staff, it means “old, or olderly”, while the exact same signs with a man holding his hands toward heaven at the end would represent prayer, or adoration. Two different meanings and neither have anything in common with the actual picture representations used for the phonetic symbol. This same method is employed by the Sumerians, Akkadians, Hittites, and even the modern Chinese and Japanese. The Hebrew language developed much later than the Egyptian, Sumerian or even Chinese. By the time the Semites developed their own alphabet, their language already employed the Cuneiform system of the Akkadians, which was a hieroglyphic type system, utilizing pictures to represent phonemes. Even if one could prove positively that the ancient Hebrew was indeed pictographic, these pictures were phonetic signs only, and the pictures had no significance to the meaning of the words in which they were employed. The names of the alphabet were used only to represent the intitial sounds. For instance, the letter Beth only represented the “b” sound, and did not have any meaning inherent in a “house” which was what the name Beth meant. This is known as acrophony: the naming of letters of an alphabetic writing system so that a letter's name begins with the letter itself. For example, Greek letter names are acrophonic: the names of the letters α, β, γ, δ, are spelled with the respective letters: ἄλφα (alpha), βῆτα (beta), γάμμα (gamma), δέλτα (delta). Hebrew developed among the nations which utilized pictographic writing, Sumerian, Akkadian, Egyptian, Hittite, etc. It would stand to reason that if the ancient Hebrews did employ a pictographic language, then their rules would resemble those of the nations in which it developed. Indeed it does. Looking at these early languages we find that there were certain signs which were used to represent phonemes; the phonetic signs. In each of these languages, Sumerian, Akkadian, Egyptian, Hittite, etc. there are signs which represent consonants, and vowels (Egyptian excluded); these languages had verb conjugation, and noun declensions, prepositions, adverbs, participles, ect. There are strong verbs, doubling verbs, weak verbs, and doubly weak verbs. Egyptian verbs work in a similar way to Hebrew verbs, mostly utilizing a triliteral root. For instance: SDMNF means “he heard”; which was written with the picture representation of: Bulls Ear, Owl, Water, Horned Viper (representing the “He” suffix pronoun). The perfect tense in Egyptian, like Hebrew is governed in the suffix. “I heard” in Egyptian would be SDMNI which would be written as: Bulls Ear, Owl, Water and a kneeling man (representing the “I” suffix pronoun). Hebrew works similarly to the Egyptian method. שמע Shama’ means “he heard”. It is written with the Shin (two front teeth) Mim (Water) and Ayin (Eye or Spring). “I heard” would be written שמעתי Shama’ti Shin (Two front teeth) Mim (Water) Ayin (Eye or Spring) Tav (an “x” mark) Yod (Hand). In Both Egyptian and Hebrew the 1st singular perfect is represented with an “I/Y”. Sedjemeni (I heard) Shamati (I heard). One famous Egyptian word is MS which is written: Three Fox Skins, Piece of Cloth meaning “to bear/give birth”. This is found in famous names such as Tutmoses, and could also possibly be the origin of the name Moses. Notice the meaning of the word has no relation to three fox’s skins nor a piece of cloth. The point I am trying to make is that even among those most ancient of languages which we all know to have used pictographs, these pictographs didn’t work the way many claim ancient Hebrew works in regard to pictographs. One final example. In Egyptian Hieroglyphic there is no pictograph for a “dove” even though "dove" is mentioned earliest among the Hieroglyphs. The word for “dove” is PAT, which is written as a Reed Mat, Arm, Loaf. What then does a reed mat, arm and loaf have to do with a dove? Nothing at all; the glyphs only represented the phonetic signs to pronounce the word PAT.

[shepherdsword]

A good site with an interesting take on the origin of Hebrew: http://www.ancient-hebrew.org/

[Yaaqov ben Yisrael]

A good site with an interesting take on the origin of Hebrew: http://www.ancient-hebrew.org/

It is because of sites such as Mr. Benner, who might I add is not a trained linguist, nor does he have more than a simple understanding of Hebrew, let alone Semitic in general, that I wrote the article which I posted. This kind of Hebrew understanding is really a sham, and a shame. What is being done is one person invents meanings based upon a false assumption of how he thinks Hebrew worked in times past. This leads to others following his lead, and invent new "mysterious" understandings of "hidden" meanings which were never intended by the Scripture, but in reality are mere whims and conjecture of those who hold it in their powers to utilize such deceptive interpretation tools.

As I said, even the truly pictographic languages never worked how Benner is claiming Ancient Hebrew worked, nor any other Ancient Semitic, not even Assyrian (Semitic-Akkadian) which is the oldest Semitic language known. The Assyrian was written in Cuneiform, which is a pictographic system. However, even this language worked similarly to all other languages, and did not utilize the pictures to lend meaning to the words they created, but were phonetic symbols representing sounds; and they utilized ideograms and determinatives to give clearer meanings to homophones.

I bought his book and reviewed it. I was appalled at the poor scholarship and the invented relations which are presented in it. However, as unfortunate as it is, the only ones who will fall for it are those with no training in Hebrew, or only a elementary knowledge of it.

[Brother Mark]

Question...

Are there any texts for scripture that were originally written in ancient Hebrew? I thought what some of these guys did was convert the text back to what they thought it was in ancient Hebrew, then moved forward with what meanings they would supply from ancient Hebrew after that.

[Yaaqov ben Yisrael]

Question...

Are there any texts for scripture that were originally written in ancient Hebrew? I thought what some of these guys did was convert the text back to what they thought it was in ancient Hebrew, then moved forward with what meanings they would supply from ancient Hebrew after that.

The Hebrew Tenakh was written in the Aramaic square letters which you see today. There are Talmudic references that prior to the captivity of Babylon, the scriptures were written in the Israelite (Samaritan) script, which is still in use by the Samaritans in Israel. There is not one shred of evidence anywhere that the scriptures were written in the concocted Pictographic Hebrew. If we concede that at the time of the Exodus, Moses and the other Israelites were at the least bilingual, then they would have spoken Ancient Egyptian as well as the Canaanite language they had when Joseph and Israel went to Egypt.

The earliest of the Canaanite scripts to be found is the graffiti of Serabit al-Khadim, which is Proto-Sinaitic. Even this is not the pictographic which was contrived by Brenner on his website. This script was the precurser to the Phoenician proper; some say it is derived from the Egyptian Hieroglyphs. It is possible the Semites who wrote this, I am guessing either Phoenician or its sister Punic, may have used the Egyptian as an example to follow, but by no means were the symbols based upon the meaning of Egyptian symbols.

The earliest writing recorded in Canaan is in the Phoenician proper, there is no trace of Proto-Sinaitic in Canaan. The earliest Hebrew writing dates to the time of the early kings of Israel, and it too was written in the Phoenician script. The Phoenicians who left Lebanon and settled North Africa, who are called Punics, called themselves Chanani, which means Canaanite.

Here is a link to Punic and Lybian inscriptions; as you can see these are close to what is found at Serabit Al-Khadim:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:In..._de_Thugga.jpg

[Yaaqov ben Yisrael]

The following is a quote from Jeff Benner's site; I will make my comments in red:

"Many tablets containing cuneiform (Latin for "wedge shaped") texts have been found throughout the Near East and used to write many different languages including Sumerian, Akkadian and Eblaite. This cuneiform writing was a logogram style of writing where one cuneiform sign represented one word, similar to modern day Chinese. It was found that the cuneiform writing developed out of an older "pictographic" writing. Each pictograph was a picture of what that logogram represented such as in ancient Egyptian Hieroglyphs. Over time the pictures were replaced by the cuneiform.

Cuneiform is not only a logogram style of writing. Sumerian as well as Assyro-Akkadian has phonetic signs, ideograms as well as determinative signs, just like Egyptian, Hittite, and modern Chinese and Japanese. One need only ask their oriental neighbor who knows Kanji if their language is solely pictographic, you will be surprised to find it is not. I have already explained how he is wrong about Egyptian Hieroglyphs, so I will not cover this again; if you need refreshing please read my earlier post. Here is a great wiki article on Chinese:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese...classification

In 1928 French Archeologists discovered a large collection of cuneiform tablets with a script unlike the previously discovered cuneiform writing. This discovery was made at a site known as "Ras Shamra" near the Mediterranean coast in modern day Syria. The site was later discovered to be the ancient Canaanite city of Ugarit. It was later discovered that the Ugarit cuneiform was a phonogram, or alphabetic, where each cuneiform sign represented one letter of an alphabet. The Ugarit Alphabet was Semitic, the same as Hebrew. Some have even called the writing system of Ugarit "Hebrew cuneiform". Not only is the Ugarit alphabet Semitic, the Ugarit language was also Semitic and almost identical to Hebrew. This was a great discovery for Biblical Hebrew scholars as the Ugarit language was able to shed some light on some Hebrew words of uncertain meaning.

He admits here that Ugarit, which is a Semitic language, and is earlier than Hebrew, not Hebrew, is an alphabetic language utilizing Cuneiform, a pictogram, which is used to indicated One Letter, or one Phonetic value. What he fails to understand, or to admit, is that Ugarit only removed the need for ideograms and determinatives, and used only the phonetic signs to build all their vocabulary. This is really only a simplification of language.

The city of Ugarit was occupied from pre-historic times to about 1200 BCE when it was mysteriously deserted. The tablets with the Ugarit cuneiform were written in its later life (about 1300 to 1200 BCE). It was discovered through the writings of the tablets that the people of the city were worshipers of the same Canaanite gods as their surrounding neighbors including deities as El, Baal, Asherah and even Yahweh. The culture, lifestyles and literary writings were found to be very similar to the Israelites and can also shed much light on the Biblical text.

YaHWeH is not found in the Ugarit texts.

The origins of the Ugarit cuneiform script is not known but can be assumed that it was derived out of the same Pictographic script used to write Hebrew, just as the Sumerian cuneiform evolved out of a pictographic script. This theory adds to the evidence that the Semitic/Hebrew script is older than previously thought."

Brenner is here trying to imply, and erroneously lead the ignorant to believe that Hebrew was an early Semitic dialect. This is not so. All Semitic languages are similar, but each has its own peculiarities also. The earliest Hebrew inscriptions can be found only as far back as the time of the early Israelite kings. Brenner is making the common mistake many who haven't had any higher education in Semitic Studies; that is, they assume Semitic in all its forms equals Hebrew.

[shepherdsword]

It is because of sites such as Mr. Benner, who might I add is not a trained linguist, nor does he have more than a simple understanding of Hebrew, let alone Semitic in general, that I wrote the article which I posted. This kind of Hebrew understanding is really a sham, and a shame. What is being done is one person invents meanings based upon a false assumption of how he thinks Hebrew worked in times past. This leads to others following his lead, and invent new "mysterious" understandings of "hidden" meanings which were never intended by the Scripture, but in reality are mere whims and conjecture of those who hold it in their powers to utilize such deceptive interpretation tools.

As I said, even the truly pictographic languages never worked how Benner is claiming Ancient Hebrew worked, nor any other Ancient Semitic, not even Assyrian (Semitic-Akkadian) which is the oldest Semitic language known. The Assyrian was written in Cuneiform, which is a pictographic system. However, even this language worked similarly to all other languages, and did not utilize the pictures to lend meaning to the words they created, but were phonetic symbols representing sounds; and they utilized ideograms and determinatives to give clearer meanings to homophones.

I bought his book and reviewed it. I was appalled at the poor scholarship and the invented relations which are presented in it. However, as unfortunate as it is, the only ones who will fall for it are those with no training in Hebrew, or only a elementary knowledge of it.

Welcome the board! I hope you stick around and provide input to some our discussions that hinge on subtle interpretations based on Hebrew grammar and syntax.

I admit my knowledge of Hebrew is not yet on a full scholar level. Therefore I rely on those who are at that level. And you're not the first I have spoken to that have had issues with his claims.What do you think of his theory that paleo-Hebrew and ancient Phoenician were one and the same? This claim seems to be backed up by archaeological evidence and the two alphabets appear the same. I was doing some research on the history of the greek word "arrabon" Vines claims that this word is probably of Phoenician origin. If Benner is right then that would make the word perhaps of paleo-Hebrew origin. Any thoughts on this? Also can you provide some links to a site with advanced Hebrew tutorials that you judge as accurate? I can go with your claims because the ancient hebrew found at the wall at Tel Zayit doesn't appear pictographic in the typical sense. It may have some roots in pictograph ,but like you have stated,words can be assembled that have no relation to the root pictures.

Thanks!

[Yaaqov ben Yisrael]

Welcome the board! I hope you stick around and provide input to some our discussions that hinge on subtle interpretations based on Hebrew grammar and syntax.

I admit my knowledge of Hebrew is not yet on a full scholar level. Therefore I rely on those who are at that level. And you're not the first I have spoken to that have had issues with his claims.What do you think of his theory that paleo-Hebrew and ancient Phoenician were one and the same? This claim seems to be backed up by archaeological evidence and the two alphabets appear the same. I was doing some research on the history of the greek word "arrabon" Vines claims that this word is probably of Phoenician origin. If Benner is right then that would make the word perhaps of paleo-Hebrew origin. Any thoughts on this? Also can you provide some links to a site with advanced Hebrew tutorials that you judge as accurate? I can go with your claims because the ancient hebrew found at the wall at Tel Zayit doesn't appear pictographic in the typical sense. It may have some roots in pictograph ,but like you have stated,words can be assembled that have no relation to the root pictures.

Thanks!

Paleo-Hebrew is the Phoenician abjad; this is the earliest form of writing found in Canaan. The Phoenician language and Hebrew are nearly identical, as is Hebrew and Assyrian, and Assyrian and Phoenician are also identical. This is because what became Hebrew and Phoenician was originally Assyrian. Of all the Semitic languages Assyrian is closest to Phoenician and Hebrew, and after these two to Arabic. Of the Semitic languages Aramaic is furthest from Assyrian in relation to sibilants, emphatic state, plural construct, and much much more. Hebrew as a distinct language began to form during the time of the early Israelite kings. Paleo-Hebrew as a language is properly Assyrian.

Arrabon (עֵרָבֹון) comes from the Assyrian, which is sometimes called Chaldee. It is from the root עָרַב 'arav (to be a surety). Being that is it Assyrian, it is no wonder that the word is found in Phoenician, Hebrew and Arabic. The Greeks borrowed it from the Phoenicians with whom they bartered, the Romans in turn from the Greeks; and even the Egyptians made it a loanword.

[Yaaqov ben Yisrael]

I find it very strange how you arrive at Adam and Chawah as being clothed in light from a supposed "pictographic" meaning of the Alephbeth. Exegesis is a wonderful science, when used properly.

In the science of Biblical interpretation there is a branch called exegesis. Exegesis comes from the Greek εξηγησις which means explanation, from the verb εξηγεομαι “I explain, interpret” from the two words εξ “out” and ηγεομαι “I lead out”. In Hebrew this is called פַּרְשָׁנוּת parshanuth, from פֵּרוּשׁ peirush, which means “explanation”; the verb form being in the pi’el פֵּרַשׁ/לְפָרֵשׁ lefareish/peirash meaning “to explain/interpret”.

Exegesis of the Hebrew Text is based upon the following four principles, each interdependent upon the other: פְּשָׁט peshat (simple/straightforward), רֶמֶז remez (implication/allegorical), דְּרַשׁ derash (derived/comparative), and סֹוד sod (consensus [ijma’]/council).

Peshat/פְּשָׁט
As mentioned above, peshat is the simple or straightforward meaning, which would be the meaning anyone would arrive at upon the reading of the Text. Peshat is not “literal” meaning, as the context can sometimes demand figurative, metaphorical, or allegorical meanings. For instance:

1. When an inanimate object is used to describe a living being, the statement is metaphor. Example: Isaiah 5:7 - For the vineyard of the Lord of hosts is the house of Israel, and the men of Judah his pleasant plant; and he looked for judgment, but behold oppression; for righteousness, but behold a cry.

2. When life and action are attributed to an inanimate object the statement is allegorical. Example: Zechariah 5:1-3 - Then I turned, and lifted up my eyes, and looked, and behold a flying scroll. And he said to me, What do you see? And I answered, I see a flying scroll; its length is twenty cubits, and its width ten cubits. And he said to me, This is the curse that goes out over the face of the whole earth; for everyone who steals shall be cut off henceforth, according to it; and everyone who swears falsely shall be cut off henceforth, according to it.

3. When an expression is a comparison using “like” or “as” the statement is a simile. Example: Psalm 17:8 - Keep me as the apple of the eye, hide me under the shadow of your wings ...

Remez/רֶמֶז
Remez literally means a hint. This in terms of exegesis means though there is no direct address of an issue, there is a hint, or an implication in the Text in question. For example: Proverbs 20:10 - Different weights, and different measures, both of them are alike an abomination to the Lord. Here the peshat demands the Text concerns only divers weights and scales; however the implication (remez) would be any sort of dishonest gain in a business transaction or otherwise.

Derash/דְּרַשׁ
Derash means literally studied, or searched out. It comes from the Hebrew verb דָּרַשׁ darash meaning to seek, investigate, to inquire, ect. This is where an exegete will compare the words of a Text to the similar words used in other Texts, and inquire into the etymological meaning of the words in the Text. This is where the grammar and meaning of the Hebrew Text is diligently scrutinized. A perfect verse to show the meaning of derash is Deuteronomy 13:15:

וְדָרַשְׁתָּ֧ וְחָקַרְתָּ֧ וְשָׁאַלְתָּ֖ הֵיטֵ֑ב וְהִנֵּ֤ה אֱמֶת֙ נָכֹ֣ון הַדָּבָ֔ר נֶעֶשְׂתָ֛ה הַתֹּועֵבָ֥ה הַזֹּ֖את בְּקִרְבֶּֽךָ׃

You have inquired (darashta) and investigated and asked diligently, and behold truth, the matter is established, this abomination has been done in your midst.



Sod/סֹוד
Sod means council, and this is in reality a confidential council, or a private consensus. This basically means that when there are words or meanings which are not clear in the Hebrew Text, due mainly to linguistic degradation; then the scholarly will contend and reach a consensus as to what the meaning is. This is akin to the Arabic اجماع Ijma’. There is no magical or mystical quality to this process. The idea of “secret” meaning was propagated by the kabbalists in the middle ages initiated by Baḥya ben Asher of Saragossa (1291) in his commentary of the Torah. Though this is the first mention of PaRDeS, I believe the practice could go back to the beginning of Biblical exegesis, which was a science established by the Israelite scholars of the second Temple period. The word sod comes from the Hebrew verb יָסַד which means to lay a foundation. Below is Gesenius’ definition from his Hebrew Lexicon of the Old Testament page 714


These four disciplines are interdependent on one another. In every Text of the Tenakh there exists the possibility to utilize each of these disciplines to prise out a wealth of information and meaning. However, when employing these methods it is useful to remember the Talmudic warning:

אין מקרא יוצא מידי פשוטו

"A verse cannot depart from its plain meaning."
(Shabbat 63a; Yev. 11b, 24a)

Looking at the context of these verses, we find your first verse to actually disagree with your premise that they were "clothed", either in light or skins, or otherwise, as the Text clearly says they were "עֲרוּמִּ֔ים" (naked); and even so "וְלֹ֖א יִתְבֹּשָֽׁשׁוּ" (they were not ashamed of themselves). Their shame would have come, according to the context, from their nakedness. If they were clothed, then it could not have been said they were naked, nor that despite their nakedness they were not ashamed.

Ya'aqov ben Yisrael

[episkopos]

I find it very strange how you arrive at Adam and Chawah as being clothed in light from a supposed "pictographic" meaning of the Alephbeth. Exegesis is a wonderful science, when used properly.

In the science of Biblical interpretation there is a branch called exegesis. Exegesis comes from the Greek εξηγησις which means explanation, from the verb εξηγεομαι “I explain, interpret” from the two words εξ “out” and ηγεομαι “I lead out”. In Hebrew this is called פַּרְשָׁנוּת parshanuth, from פֵּרוּשׁ peirush, which means “explanation”; the verb form being in the pi’el פֵּרַשׁ/לְפָרֵשׁ lefareish/peirash meaning “to explain/interpret”.

Exegesis of the Hebrew Text is based upon the following four principles, each interdependent upon the other: פְּשָׁט peshat (simple/straightforward), רֶמֶז remez (implication/allegorical), דְּרַשׁ derash (derived/comparative), and סֹוד sod (consensus [ijma’]/council).

Peshat/פְּשָׁט
As mentioned above, peshat is the simple or straightforward meaning, which would be the meaning anyone would arrive at upon the reading of the Text. Peshat is not “literal” meaning, as the context can sometimes demand figurative, metaphorical, or allegorical meanings. For instance:

1. When an inanimate object is used to describe a living being, the statement is metaphor. Example: Isaiah 5:7 - For the vineyard of the Lord of hosts is the house of Israel, and the men of Judah his pleasant plant; and he looked for judgment, but behold oppression; for righteousness, but behold a cry.

2. When life and action are attributed to an inanimate object the statement is allegorical. Example: Zechariah 5:1-3 - Then I turned, and lifted up my eyes, and looked, and behold a flying scroll. And he said to me, What do you see? And I answered, I see a flying scroll; its length is twenty cubits, and its width ten cubits. And he said to me, This is the curse that goes out over the face of the whole earth; for everyone who steals shall be cut off henceforth, according to it; and everyone who swears falsely shall be cut off henceforth, according to it.

3. When an expression is a comparison using “like” or “as” the statement is a simile. Example: Psalm 17:8 - Keep me as the apple of the eye, hide me under the shadow of your wings ...

Remez/רֶמֶז
Remez literally means a hint. This in terms of exegesis means though there is no direct address of an issue, there is a hint, or an implication in the Text in question. For example: Proverbs 20:10 - Different weights, and different measures, both of them are alike an abomination to the Lord. Here the peshat demands the Text concerns only divers weights and scales; however the implication (remez) would be any sort of dishonest gain in a business transaction or otherwise.

Derash/דְּרַשׁ
Derash means literally studied, or searched out. It comes from the Hebrew verb דָּרַשׁ darash meaning to seek, investigate, to inquire, ect. This is where an exegete will compare the words of a Text to the similar words used in other Texts, and inquire into the etymological meaning of the words in the Text. This is where the grammar and meaning of the Hebrew Text is diligently scrutinized. A perfect verse to show the meaning of derash is Deuteronomy 13:15:

וְדָרַשְׁתָּ֧ וְחָקַרְתָּ֧ וְשָׁאַלְתָּ֖ הֵיטֵ֑ב וְהִנֵּ֤ה אֱמֶת֙ נָכֹ֣ון הַדָּבָ֔ר נֶעֶשְׂתָ֛ה הַתֹּועֵבָ֥ה הַזֹּ֖את בְּקִרְבֶּֽךָ׃

You have inquired (darashta) and investigated and asked diligently, and behold truth, the matter is established, this abomination has been done in your midst.



Sod/סֹוד
Sod means council, and this is in reality a confidential council, or a private consensus. This basically means that when there are words or meanings which are not clear in the Hebrew Text, due mainly to linguistic degradation; then the scholarly will contend and reach a consensus as to what the meaning is. This is akin to the Arabic اجماع Ijma’. There is no magical or mystical quality to this process. The idea of “secret” meaning was propagated by the kabbalists in the middle ages initiated by Baḥya ben Asher of Saragossa (1291) in his commentary of the Torah. Though this is the first mention of PaRDeS, I believe the practice could go back to the beginning of Biblical exegesis, which was a science established by the Israelite scholars of the second Temple period. The word sod comes from the Hebrew verb יָסַד which means to lay a foundation. Below is Gesenius’ definition from his Hebrew Lexicon of the Old Testament page 714


These four disciplines are interdependent on one another. In every Text of the Tenakh there exists the possibility to utilize each of these disciplines to prise out a wealth of information and meaning. However, when employing these methods it is useful to remember the Talmudic warning:

אין מקרא יוצא מידי פשוטו

"A verse cannot depart from its plain meaning."
(Shabbat 63a; Yev. 11b, 24a)

Looking at the context of these verses, we find your first verse to actually disagree with your premise that they were "clothed", either in light or skins, or otherwise, as the Text clearly says they were "עֲרוּמִּ֔ים" (naked); and even so "וְלֹ֖א יִתְבֹּשָֽׁשׁוּ" (they were not ashamed of themselves). Their shame would have come, according to the context, from their nakedness. If they were clothed, then it could not have been said they were naked, nor that despite their nakedness they were not ashamed.

Ya'aqov ben Yisrael

Sod in the Hebrew means secret, or hidden or shared in an intimacy. As in...Sod hashem Lireyav...or...the secret of the Lord is with them that fear Him.

Psa_25:14 The secret (Sod) of the LORD is with them that fear him; and he will shew them his covenant.


The Sod level of interpretation is the secret meaning...the darker saying that requires revelation to understand. This is very well known.

To the comment about the skin/light substitution....

I find it strange that you don't get a simple play on words from the Hebrew text. Do you actually read and speak Hebrew? You should ask a rabbi about this. I was told this allusion of the clothing for Adam and Eve to light by a rabbi...who was told it by a leading Kabbala teacher. So your premise is faulty.

I have a question for you... Why does the Donkey and then the angel of the Lord tell Balaam ..."why have you struck me these 3 pilgrimage festivals?" (shalosh regalim) Why not just say...these 3 TIMES???

Num 22:28 And the LORD opened the mouth of the ass, and she said unto Balaam, What have I done unto thee, that thou hast smitten me these three times? (shalosh regalim OR 3 PILGRIMAGE FESTIVALS))

Num 22:32 And the angel of the LORD said unto him, Wherefore hast thou smitten thine ass these three times? behold, I went out to withstand thee, because thy way is perverse before me: (Again...shalosh regalim)

Exo 23:14 Three times (shalosh regalim) thou shalt keep a feast unto me in the year.

[Yaaqov ben Yisrael]

[QUOTE=episkopos;2826851]For instance, there is no verb in Hebrew for "is" or "are" ...so when translating these verbs must be added to make sense out of the text.QUOTE]

This actually isn't correct. In Hebrew there generally is no copula, or linking verb. However, there is a verb for "is" "are" etc. The verb היה is used in either the perfect or imperfect for is, are, was, will be, etc. It is also used as a temporal modifier. The verb הוה is also used in a similar way; for instance:

כָּת֣וּב בָּ֗הּ בַּגֹּויִ֤ם נִשְׁמָע֙ וְגַשְׁמ֣וּ אֹמֵ֔ר אַתָּ֤ה וְהַיְּהוּדִים֙ חֹשְׁבִ֣ים לִמְרֹ֔וד עַל־כֵּ֛ן אַתָּ֥ה בֹונֶ֖ה הַחֹומָ֑ה וְאַתָּ֗ה הֹוֶ֤ה לָהֶם֙ לְמֶ֔לֶךְ כַּדְּבָרִ֖ים הָאֵֽלֶּה׃

It is written in it "Among the nations it is heard, as Gashmu says, You and the Judeans are thinking to revolt, for such you are building the wall; and you are (הֹוֶ֤ה , HoWeH) like a king for them, according to these words. Nehemia 6:6

Howeh is the present active participle of HaWaH.

Ya'aqov ben Yisrael

[episkopos]

[QUOTE=Yaaqov ben Yisrael;2831002]

For instance, there is no verb in Hebrew for "is" or "are" ...so when translating these verbs must be added to make sense out of the text.QUOTE]

This actually isn't correct. In Hebrew there generally is no copula, or linking verb. However, there is a verb for "is" "are" etc. The verb היה is used in either the perfect or imperfect for is, are, was, will be, etc. It is also used as a temporal modifier. The verb הוה is also used in a similar way; for instance:

כָּת֣וּב בָּ֗הּ בַּגֹּויִ֤ם נִשְׁמָע֙ וְגַשְׁמ֣וּ אֹמֵ֔ר אַתָּ֤ה וְהַיְּהוּדִים֙ חֹשְׁבִ֣ים לִמְרֹ֔וד עַל־כֵּ֛ן אַתָּ֥ה בֹונֶ֖ה הַחֹומָ֑ה וְאַתָּ֗ה הֹוֶ֤ה לָהֶם֙ לְמֶ֔לֶךְ כַּדְּבָרִ֖ים הָאֵֽלֶּה׃

It is written in it "Among the nations it is heard, as Gashmu says, You and the Judeans are thinking to revolt, for such you are building the wall; and you are (הֹוֶ֤ה , HoWeH) like a king for them, according to these words. Nehemia 6:6

Howeh is the present active participle of HaWaH.

Ya'aqov ben Yisrael

You are incorrect...

Haya means...WAS...not is. And the famous statement of the Lord...I am that I am...is not correct. It is set in the future tense...I will be what I will be.

The present tense has no "is" ...I am a man in Hebrew is I man (ani ish)

Any Hebrew speaker knows this. Just who are you?

[Yaaqov ben Yisrael]

Sod in the Hebrew means secret, or hidden. As in...Sod hashem Lireyav...or...the secret of the Lord is with them that fear Him.

The Sod level of interpretation is the secret meaning...the darker saying that requires revelation to understand. This is very well known.

To the comment about the skin/light substitution....

I find it strange that you don't get a simple play on words from the Hebrew text. Do you actually read and speak Hebrew? You should ask a rabbi about this. I was told this allusion of the clothing for Adam and Eve to light by a rabbi...who was told it by a leading Kabbala teacher. So your premise is faulty.

I have a question for you... Why does the Donkey and then the angel of the Lord tell Balaam ..."why have you struck me these 3 pilgrimage festivals?" (shalosh regalim) Why not just say...these 3 TIMES???

Sod means a council, one which is usually held in private, or secret. Hence Sod has come to mean "secret". It doesnt mean "mystery" or something Unknowable. This is a result of Kabbalist teaching, first promoted by Baḥya ben Asher of Saragossa (1291) in his commentary of the Torah; this meaning has only been "well known" from his time on-ward.

Yes, I read and know Hebrew very well, and I have no need of Rabbinic training, but thanks for the suggestion. Now to your question:

It does not say: These three pilgrim festivals. שָׁלֹ֥שׁ רְגָלִֽים means three times. Regalim is used in this manner only here, and has the same meaning as פַּעַם Pa'am, which means to beat, to step, to stike, etc. Taking your definition it would indeed be strange to see how you interpret these verses:

וְה֤וּא יָץָא֙ וַעֲבָדָ֣יו בָּ֔אוּ וַיִּרְא֕וּ וְהִנֵּ֛ה דַּלְתֹ֥ות הָעֲלִיָּ֖ה נְעֻלֹ֑ות וַיֹּ֣אמְר֔וּ אַ֣ךְ מֵסִ֥יךְ ה֛וּא אֶת־רַגְלָ֖יו בַּחֲדַ֥ר הַמְּקֵרָֽה

And when he had gone out, his servants came. And they looked, and, behold, the doors of the roof room were locked. And they said, Surely he is covering his feet in the cool roof room. Judges 3:24

Here, מֵסִ֥יךְ ה֛וּא אֶת־רַגְלָ֖יו meisikh hu eth-raglaw means literally "he is covering his feet" which is a euphamism for having a bowel movement. Raglaw is the plural regalim with the pronoun "he/his" and is spelled by dropping the "mim" and adding "waw"; raglaw.

וַיֹּ֨אמֶר אֲלֵיהֶ֜ם רַב־שָׁקֵ֗ה הַעַ֨ל אֲדֹנֶ֤יךָ וְאֵלֶ֙יךָ֙ שְׁלָחַ֣נִי אֲדֹנִ֔י לְדַבֵּ֖ר אֶת־הַדְּבָרִ֣ים הָאֵ֑לֶּה הֲלֹ֣א עַל־הָאֲנָשִׁ֗ים הַיֹּֽשְׁבִים֙ עַל־הַ֣חֹמָ֔ה לֶאֱכֹ֣ל אֶת חֲרֵיהֶם צֹואָתָ֗ם וְלִשְׁתֹּ֛ות אֶת־שֵׁינֵיהֶם מֵֽימֵי רַגְלֵיהֶ֖ם עִמָּכֶֽם׃

And the chief of the cupbearers said to them, Has my master sent me to speak these words to your master, and to you, and not to the men that sit on the wall, to eat their own dung, and to drink the water of their feet with you? 2 Kings 18:27

Here, מֵֽימֵי רַגְלֵיהֶ֖ם meimi ragleihem means literally "waters of their feet"; and this is used also euphamistically as "urine".

Regalim is used in such a manner in Num 22:28, meaning "three times". This is the same manner as pa'am is used:

אֲנִ֣י קַ֔רְתִּי וְשָׁתִ֖יתִי מַ֣יִם זָרִ֑ים וְאַחְרִב֙ בְּכַפ־פְּעָמַ֔י כֹּ֖ל יְאֹרֵ֥י מָצֹֽור׃

I have dug and drunk strange waters, and I dried up with the sole of my feet all the rivers of Egypt.

בְּכַפ־פְּעָמַ֔י bekhaf-pe'amay here means "with the palm of my feet" literally, and not with the palm of my "times". Pe'amay is the plural pa'amim with the pronoun "my", dropping the plural "mim" ending.

Ya'aqov ben Yisrael

[Yaaqov ben Yisrael]

I will apologize now to you. I meant no offense to you, and if this was taken to be such, it was surely not my intention. My intention was merely to point out a very dangerous, and cultic form of exegesis, by which many are becoming misled, and are themselves forming interpretations by similar methods which were never meant by the Author, nor the context of the Text itself.

Ya'aqov ben Yisrael

[episkopos]

I will apologize now to you. I meant no offense to you, and if this was taken to be such, it was surely not my intention. My intention was merely to point out a very dangerous, and cultic form of exegesis, by which many are becoming misled, and are themselves forming interpretations by similar methods which were never meant by the Author, nor the context of the Text itself.

Ya'aqov ben Yisrael

No offense taken!

I think the fear of kaballa "cultic" teachings gets in the way of simple biblical exegesis. The bible is full of word plays and hidden allusions to other verses. It is rather precisely because of this that some have gone overboard and started inventing allusions to prop up a certain theory. It is healthy to search the scriptures for hidden treasures...we are told to do this very thing.

Isa_45:3 And I will give thee the treasures of darkness, and hidden riches of secret places, that thou mayest know that I, the LORD, which call thee by thy name, am the God of Israel.
Isa_48:6 Thou hast heard, see all this; and will not ye declare it? I have shewed thee new things from this time, even hidden things, and thou didst not know them.


The Kabballa is a man-made system of seeking to attain to God by some secret knowledge...as if God were a thing and not a person. We need to know Him...not just about Him.

As for the word plays..here is one...

Jer 1:11 Moreover the word of the LORD came unto me, saying, Jeremiah, what seest thou? And I said, I see a rod of an almond tree.
Jer 1:12 Then said the LORD unto me, Thou hast well seen: for I will hasten my word to perform it.

Can you see the word play in the Hebrew on this one?