Need Help Understanding an Explanation of the Grk "Kol" in Gesenius’ Hebrew Grammar

Chapter 2 of The Fundamentals (ed. by R. A. Torrey) is the article, The Mosaic Authorship of the Pentateuch by George Frederick Wright. In it, he says "they have completely misunderstood the permission given in Ex. 20:24:"

Where the revisers read in “every place” and the authorized version in “all places” the correct translation is “in all the place” or “in the whole place.” The word is in the singular number and has a definite article before it. The whole place referred to is Palestine, the Holy Land, where sacrifices such as the patriarchs had offered were always permitted to laymen, provided they made use only of an altar of earth or unhewn stones which was kept free from the adornments and accessories characteristic of heathen altars. [Pg 51]

At that point, I became curious and began a study of the Greek word, kōl. I wanted to see what others said about this.

The Net Bible had a footnote that references Gesenius' Hebrew Grammar, which I happen to have. But I'm not sure of what is meant by this:

61 tn Gesenius lists this as one of the few places where the noun in construct seems to be indefinite in spite of the fact that the genitive has the article. He says בְּכָל־הַמָּקוֹם (békhol-hammaqom) means “in all the place, sc. of the sanctuary, and is a dogmatic correction of “in every place” (כָּל־מָקוֹם, kol-maqom). See GKC 412 §127.e.

Here's that section from that resource:

In Ex 20:24 בְּכָל־הַמָּקוֹם‎ in all the place, sc. of the sanctuary, is a dogmatic correction of בְּכָל־מָקוֹם‎, in every place, to avoid the difficulty that several holy-places are here authorized, instead of the one central sanctuary. In Gn 20:13 also כָּל־הַמָּקוֹם (unless it means in the whole place) is remarkable, since elsewhere every place is always (8 times) כָּל־מָקוֹם‎.

Ref: Friedrich Wilhelm Gesenius, Gesenius’ Hebrew Grammar, ed. E. Kautzsch and Sir Arthur Ernest Cowley, 2d English ed. (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1910), 412.

Am I understanding correctly that the Net Bible footnote & Gesenius is saying the opposite of George Wright? If so, then these are the very critics that Wright is arguing against. LOL! But I'm stumbling over the wording so I don't know.

Can someone decipher this for me, please? TIA!

Find more posts tagged with

Comments

Sharon Hillam

Sorry about the formatting. I'm not sure what happened. I indented the quoted paragraphs, but the indentation was not retained. Seem I've discovered a bug in the forum software.

David Thomas

Can someone decipher this for me, please? TIA!

You ask a great Interpreters question. Namely, is this referring to a COLLECTIVE (all) or DISTRIBUTIVE (every) sense of a plural. [e.g. Is he speaking to the whole team or every member of the team?] This is ultimately an interpreters dilemma.

HALOT (considered by many to be among the best works of Biblical Hebrew) identifies Ex 20:24 in the 8th sense of the word.

—8. preceding a generic word, the individual members of which are focused: every: כָּל־הַבֵּן every man who was a son, i.e. every son Ex 1:22, כָּל־הָעִיר all that is a city, i.e. every city Jr 4:29, בְּכָל־הַמָּקוֹם in every place Ex 20:24 (König ZAW 42:435f.) כָּל־הָאִישׁ every man 2S 15:2 = כֻּלּוֹ everyone Is 1:23 9:16 Jr 6:13 Hab 1:9 Ps 29:9 with inf. בְּכָל־יַחֵם at every getting hot, i.e. whenever they got hot Gn 30:41, בְּכָל־קָרְאֵנוּ whenever we call Dt 4:7.

Ludwig Koehler et al., The Hebrew and Aramaic Lexicon of the Old Testament (Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1994–2000), 474.

Elsewhere the collective/distributive question arises in "verbal plenary inspiration" which I read as verbal= each and plenary=all.

See Luke 24:27 for a New Testament similar interpreters challenge with the Greek word lemma:πᾶς When Jesus was on the Road to Emmaus, how many different references did He use to make His point?

Sharon Hillam

—8. preceding a generic word, the individual members of which are focused: every: כָּל־הַבֵּן every man who was a son, i.e. every son Ex 1:22, כָּל־הָעִיר all that is a city, i.e. every city Jr 4:29, בְּכָל־הַמָּקוֹם in every place Ex 20:24 (König ZAW 42:435f.) כָּל־הָאִישׁ every man 2S 15:2 = כֻּלּוֹ everyone Is 1:23 9:16 Jr 6:13 Hab 1:9 Ps 29:9 with inf. בְּכָל־יַחֵם at every getting hot, i.e. whenever they got hot Gn 30:41, בְּכָל־קָרְאֵנוּ whenever we call Dt 4:7.

Ludwig Koehler et al., The Hebrew and Aramaic Lexicon of the Old Testament (Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1994–2000), 474.

Thanks for this. I find it quite interesting, and what you said about COLLECTIVE versus DISTRIBUTIVE. And what you asked about Luke 24:27...

how many different references did He use to make His point?

. I've never thought about it. Was Jesus selective, yet thorough (i.e.comprehensive) or exhaustive? My guess (and that's all it is) would be the former. But that's where you drill down on the Greek lemma,

πᾶς

— something i haven't done.

But most of this is a bit above my level of understanding. I've not studied Greek, Hebrew, or Aramaic, and don't find reading Lexicons all that easy.

What I'm looking for is for someone to help me understand what Gesenius is saying in this statement:

When he says "in all the place...[is a] dogmatic correction...to avoid the difficulty that several holy-places are here authorized, instead of the one central sanctuary? My understanding is that he's doing his best to counter any idea that "several holy-places are here authorized." I say that because his last statement, "(unless it means in the whole place) is remarkable" indicates to me that he's incredulous that כָּל־הַמָּקוֹם could mean "the whole place" since "elsewhere every place is always (8 times) כָּל־מָקוֹם‎"

Therefore, my BEST guess is that George F. Wright is saying YES, this is exactly the case, remarkable or not. It means "the whole place." Whereas, Gesenius is saying...not so fast. There are 8 other places where it means "every place" instead.

David Thomas

Therefore, my BEST guess is that George F. Wright is saying YES, this is exactly the case, remarkable or not. It means "the whole place." Whereas, Gesenius is saying...not so fast. There are 8 other places where it means "every place" instead.

I (and it is only my opinion, so it's worth what you are paying for it [:D]) is that your summary is accurate. You have found 2 scholars who disagree on which sense of the word is being used: since the actual word can mean either. Context and comparing Scripture to Scripture (especially within the same human author and genre) is our task as indwelt students.

Are you familiar with D.A. Carson's booklet https://www.logos.com/product/6874/exegetical-fallacies-2nd-ed ? One of the fallacies Carson warns is our choices of what the word DOES mean, without considering what it CAN mean. Wright and Gesenius both seem to be ruling out the contrary possibility from the position each holds.

"We sometimes fail to appreciate how wide the total semantic range of a word is; therefore when we come to perform the exegesis of a particular passage, we do not adequately consider the potential options and unwittingly exclude possibilities that might include the correct one,"

D. A. Carson, Exegetical Fallacies, 2nd ed. (Carlisle, U.K.; Grand Rapids, MI: Paternoster; Baker Books, 1996), 57.

I provided the sense that HALOT concludes is present in your text, but here are 12 other options.

—1. a) all, the whole: b) i) all, everything; ii) all: .
—2. preceding a determinate noun expressing a unit; the whole earth, my whole people, the whole of her.
—3. appositional and with suffix - Israel, its whole, meaning the whole of Israel.
—4. preceding an indeterminate word: the whole mouth Is 9:11, (:: 9:16 every mouth), with the whole heart 2K 23:3.
—5. following an enumeration: total, in all: the total of the cities, in all they were Jos 21:26.
—6. preceding plural all: all of them Ps 102:27; all the firstfruits of everything Ezk 44:30.
—7. preceding collective all: a;;l men Gn 7:21.
—8. preceding a generic word, the individual members of which are focused: every: every man who was a son, i.e. every son Ex 1:22, all that is a city, i.e. every city Jr 4:29, in every place Ex 20:24, every man 2S 15:2, everyone Is 1:23 9:16 Jr 6:13 Hab 1:9 Ps 29:9, at every getting hot, i.e. whenever they got hot Gn 30:41, whenever we call Dt 4:7.
—9. preceding a singular without an article: every: a) every nation Est 3:8, every house Is 24:10; b) everyone who strives after it 2C 30:18f and every one whose spirit God had stirred Ezr 1:5; c) all fighting men Ju 3:29.
—10. qualitative: a) of every kind, any beast Lv 18:23 (:: 20:15), any thing Ru 4:7; b) of all sorts: all sorts of valuable objects Gn 24:10; c) as much as you can Sir 4330.
—11. with a negative that is in most cases separated, and therefore stressed: no … from no tree at all Gn 3:1, no work at all Ex 12:16, nothing whatever 2S 12:3, nothing at all Ps 49:18, not to eat any unclean thing Ju 13:14.
—12. with casus pendens - any man who was sacrificing each time somebody sacrificed 1S 2:13, each time an enemy Ps 74:3.
—13. in adverbial acc.: a) stressed: because ... still 2S 1:9, the whole duration, i.e. as long as Jb 27:3; b) ? completely (always before a verb, → Is 30:5K, Hos 14:3, Ps 39:6.

Ludwig Koehler et al., The Hebrew and Aramaic Lexicon of the Old Testament (Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1994–2000), 474–475.

DMB

Therefore, my BEST guess

Irrespective of the/an answer (smiling), you'd have to assume the priests got royally tangled up on the issue. Judging from Elephantine and southern judaic forts, multiple jewish temples had to be consolidated. Resources concerning Persian management suggest a strong preference for centralization.

DMB

Just accidental but illustrative, the snippet below is from the recently (last night) shipped resource on aramaic. It's at Elephantine on the upper-Nile River. What is interesting is the translation for 'fortress' (matching another YHWH temple at a 'fortress' in southern Judah), and how the temple would be used (demanded YHWH sacrifices, etc). There's also no apparent hint that an authoritative temple = an only temple yet.

Sharon Hillam

it is only my opinion...that your summary is accurate. You have found 2 scholars who disagree on which sense of the word is being used: since the actual word can mean either. Context and comparing Scripture to Scripture (especially within the same human author and genre) is our task as indwelt students.

Thanks, David. I have come to value your opinion. And I appreciate what you said here, especially this: "since the actual word can mean either." Admittedly, I wasn't even thinking of that option but rather simply trying to determine if others affirmed or opposed what Wright said. And yes, context and comparing scripture to scripture is essential.

I've only been using Logos for a few months. Prior to that, my attempts to "drill down" (do exegesis) were primitive, at best. And as I said earlier in this thread, I struggle to even understand what's being presented in Lexicons since I'm unfamiliar with Greek and Hebrew grammar, syntax, and language "rules."

I've heard of Carson's book, Exegetical Fallacies, but I don't have it. (I just now added it to my Wish List, by the way.)

Exegetical work fascinates me; it also overwhelms me, at this point since I really don't know how to do it.

But I'm here (on Logos) to stay! And that means I'll keep popping up here in the forums frequently. So thanks for what you share. I read it...and I do my best to digest it. And what I can't (digest) I simply put on the back burner, for now. [:)]

Sharon Hillam

you'd have to assume the priests got royally tangled up on the issue.

Mmm...I don't think we're on the same page, brother. Ex 20:24 (the passage that I'm referencing here) isn't about priests at all. It's about whoever (lay people) building an altar — at least, that's what Frederick Wright is contending, which is the context of this thread.

In Ex. 20, Moses has just been given the 10 commandments. We're a LONG way from Jewish temples! LOL!