TDOT links to wrong lemma
When clicking the TDOT link in this BWS, it goes to a lemma with the same radicals, but is nonetheless the wrong place.
It lands on this page [TDOT Volume 5, Page 199] instead of this one [TDOT Volume 5, Page 180].
Comments
-
Thanks. We'll be pushing out a fix.
0 -
Reuben Helmuth said:
When clicking the TDOT link in this BWS, it goes to a lemma with the same radicals, but is nonetheless the wrong place.
It lands on this page [TDOT Volume 5, Page 199] instead of this one [TDOT Volume 5, Page 180].
Could you be more specific? No one can reproduce this unless you indicate the passage. We might be able to determine the word you are referencing from what you have given, but we cannot test what you say.
george
gfsomselיְמֵי־שְׁנוֹתֵינוּ בָהֶם שִׁבְעִים שָׁנָה וְאִם בִּגְבוּרֹת שְׁמוֹנִים שָׁנָה וְרָהְבָּם עָמָל וָאָוֶן
0 -
George,
An example would be Lev 27:29.
The TDOT text refers to this passage ... (see below). This is from what Reuben calls "TDOT Volume 5, Page 180".
However the link jumps to the NEXT lemma in TDOT (=TDOT Volume 5, Page 199).
Strange, since the same lemma is used 2 words before and TDOT has the correct link.
Stephen Miller
Sydney, Australia
5. Postexilic Priestly Law. In postexilic priestly law, we find ḥērem used as a term for a special form of private dedication of things and persons to the sanctuary. Such a dedication is qōḏeš-qoḏāšîm and cannot be annulled by payment (cf. Lev. 27:21, 28; Nu. 18:14; Ezk. 44:29). According to Lev. 27:29, ḥērem survived as a form of punishment, although we are not told when it was imposed and there exists the suspicion that the verse is just a theoretical legal harmonization referring to Ex. 22:19(20), with no basis in actual practice. This view would be supported by the observation that Ezr. 10:8 threatens a ḥērem punishment that affects things, not persons. We are clearly dealing with confiscation of property for the sanctuary, while the delinquent himself is punished by exclusion from the qehal haggôlâ, described by a different terminology.
This context brings us in some proximity to the talmudic ḥērem, which, however, is terminologically different. Isa. 43:28 may have provided a stimulus for this development (ḥrm in parallel with profanation and reviling; cf. the same combination of motifs in Jer. 25:9 MT, a text that has undergone late revision). See Behm for a discussion of the semantically close anáthē/ema of the NT and the early Church.
Lev. 27:29 was probably occasioned by the mention of persons in the preceding verse as a possible private ḥērem offering to Yahweh. These dedicated individuals remain alive, probably as slaves of the sanctuary. In Lev. 27:28, we find ḥrm hiphil, and the subject of the gift is specified: ʾîš. To distinguish this case clearly from the killing of a person, v. 29, referring to the ancient ḥērem punishment, was appended. The crucial point is that v. 29 uses the hophal, which shows that we are dealing with a different and distinct case. In view of the function performed by v. 29, it appears risky to reconstruct earlier forms of the “law.”42 The verse certainly has nothing to do with Jephthah’s vow: he sacrificed his daughter as ʿôlâ (Jgs. 11:30f.).0 -
Stephen Miller said:
An example would be Lev 27:29.
The TDOT text refers to this passage ... (see below). This is from what Reuben calls "TDOT Volume 5, Page 180".
However the link jumps to the NEXT lemma in TDOT (=TDOT Volume 5, Page 199).
Normally I don't use BWS; however, in this case I made an exception. Whether I double-click on יָחֳרַ֛ם or run a BWS I still wind up at I חרם on p 353. This seems to indicate that either something is wrong with his / your copy of the Hebrew text or perhaps you're using an outdated text. What Hebrew text are you using?
george
gfsomselיְמֵי־שְׁנוֹתֵינוּ בָהֶם שִׁבְעִים שָׁנָה וְאִם בִּגְבוּרֹת שְׁמוֹנִים שָׁנָה וְרָהְבָּם עָמָל וָאָוֶן
0 -
George,
A little more digging.
I think the problem lies with TDOT.
Forget about BWS altogether. This is irrelevant.
Open an MT and double click on the 4th word of Lev 27:29.
Regardless of which MT version I use (I have quite a few) the TDOT always lands on the wrong lemma. The two lemmas are identical.
TDOT lands on the correct lemma if I double click the second word of the verse.
I note that other lexicons HAL, TLOT, TWOT etc) do not make the same confusion.
I hope this helps.
Stephen Miler
Sydney, Australia
0 -
A little more digging on my part. Does anyone have a wash cloth? I seem to have egg on my face. I was thinking of HALOT rather than TDOT. You are correct that it links to the wrong word. This seems the case whether you double-click or use BWS. Sorry to introduce confusion into the discussion, but my go-to in Hebrew is HALOT (sometimes A Dictionary of Classical Hebrew).
george
gfsomselיְמֵי־שְׁנוֹתֵינוּ בָהֶם שִׁבְעִים שָׁנָה וְאִם בִּגְבוּרֹת שְׁמוֹנִים שָׁנָה וְרָהְבָּם עָמָל וָאָוֶן
0 -
Even when I open HALOT to חרם 1 and then open TDOT (which should then open to the same word as HALOT) TDOT still opens to the wrong word. There is definitely a problem with TDOT.
george
gfsomselיְמֵי־שְׁנוֹתֵינוּ בָהֶם שִׁבְעִים שָׁנָה וְאִם בִּגְבוּרֹת שְׁמוֹנִים שָׁנָה וְרָהְבָּם עָמָל וָאָוֶן
0
