Need Hebrew help in understanding something that...

Can anyone help me understand something.

A group of us is studying Exodus. We use the NASB. In Chapter 13:18 in the NASB it says, the “sons of Israel went up in ‘martial’ array.” In the interlinear, the strongs # for the word “martial” is #2567, and the dictionary I use tells me it means “to take one-fifth.

In the KJV, the word “martial” is translated as “harnassed.” If I r-click it, the strongs # given is #2571 and it means “armed.” That surprises me since I know their neighbors in Egypt gave them silver and gold, but weapons? Also, the next strong’s number in line, #2572 has something to do with the number 5, and yet all 3 of these words are very similar in Hebrew. Can someone help me understand what this means and what does someone do when they encounter something like and work it through?

It’s not a doctrinal issue, but this little old housewife, wants to know. Some day it may be a bigger issue, and I want to know what some of you scholars do with things like this.

Thank you very much.

Gloria

Find more posts tagged with

Comments

TCBlack

Words take their meaning from context. The idea here being "in groups" The history of the account, it's place in the story, it's overall intent flavors the final meaning.

If I write the sentence "Hal is running" you'll picture a fellow named Hal making loops around a running track. But if you know that Hal is the name of the computer in "2001 a space Odyssey" than you now picture a computer that is functioning properly. Context has changed the meaning of the sentence.

A simple rule: "Context is king" will help with dilemmas like this be they big or small.

The Hebrew root here "HMS". Left alone it is an ordinal number: "5". Taking it's actual form together with all the contextual clues it means much more than five. Since they understand this, the translators are trying to indicate that they were grouped, and they were grouped in a specific manner that historically could be consistent with the way that armies would march. The various translations all convey some aspect of this very organized (not chaotic) march out of Egypt.

EDIT: Slight edit for clarification

Alexander

Gloria:

In the NASB, the word for 'Maritial' is actually Strongs #H2571 - the definition of which is 'battle array.' The implication here is that Israel was leaving out marching in a formation like that of soldiers. It's my understanding, and someone can correct me, but this is not unsimilar to what will evetually happen after the Tabernacle - each tribe being assigned a place in marching order.

David Thomas

I admire your diligence to figure this out!!

I don't know where you got the idea that the KJV links to #2571. As you can see below both my NASB, ESV and KJV all link to #2567.

This is the entry for that word (hamas) in the New International Dictionary of Old Testament Theology and Exegesis

OT 1. Five is a small “round” number (Lev 26:8; Isa 30:17), perhaps related to the use of five fingers for a “handful,” or possibly because of its status as half of the basic counting unit of ten. Five, a multiple of five, or one fifth, is frequently found as a reward (Gen 43:34; 45:22), a compensation (Deut 22:29), or a penalty (Exod 22:1; Lev 5:16; 22:14). As half the standard decimal measure, it is found in the description of the tabernacle and temple (five in Exod 26; 36; fifty in Gen 6:15; five hundred in Ezek 42:15–20). Twenty-five is prominent in Ezekiel’s temple measurements (the number of steps 7+8+10, 40:22, 31, 37; the 25,000 square cubit holy area, 48:20). This may reflect the dating of the vision, the twenty-fifth year of Exile (40:1), possibly regarded as the middle point of a Jubilee period of exile (W. Zimmerli, Ezekiel, Hermeneia, 1983, 2:344).

2. Fifty as half of a hundred occurs in accounts of rectangular buildings (Exod 27:13; 1 Kgs 7:2; Ezek 42:2) and in places where a hundred has to be divided into two (1 Kgs 18:4). Fifty is the number of an intermediate-sized group of people, with its own leader (2 Kgs 1:13; 2:7; Isa 3:3). Priests are not able to minister after the age of fifty, which marks the onset of failing strength and intellect (Num 4:3).

P-B As in the OT, the QL finds fifty a significant age (1QM 7) and an intermediate size of group (1Q28a 1:14; 2:1).

NT In the NT five is a small round number (Matt 14:17; 25:2) or a larger round number (50 and 500, Luke 7:41; 5000, Matt 16:9; 50,000, Acts 19:19).

See Numbers

See Numbering, counting

BIBLIOGRAPHY

NIDNTT 2:689–90; Jastrow 1:480.

Philip P. Jenson

, vol. 2, New International Dictionary of Old Testament Theology & Exegesis, ed. Willem VanGemeren (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Publishing House, 1997), 191.

I think the idea is "chosen, set apart, and organized" for a particular use.

Vincent Setterholm

I don't know where you got the idea that the KJV links to #2571. As you can see below both my NASB, ESV and KJV all link to #2567.

Hello, David. The Strong's numbers in the Reverse Interlinears have been significantly improved for Logos 5 (though I think the plan is to release those updates to Logos 4 customers as well in the not-too-distant future - last I heard). In this case, HALOT treats 2571 and 2567 as the same verb, while Strong's analysis splits out the one piel form (in Gen 41:34) as 2567 while the 4 qal stem instances should be tagged as 2571 - and they are in the latest Reverse Interlinears.

George Somsel

A group of us is studying Exodus. We use the NASB. In Chapter 13:18 in the NASB it says, the “sons of Israel went up in ‘martial’ array.” In the interlinear, the strongs # for the word “martial” is #2567, and the dictionary I use tells me it means “to take one-fifth.

The Hebrew word here is חָמֻשִׁים which comes from the word חַמֵשׁ which is the number "five." In the plural form which appears here it signifies "fifty." According to HALOT it refers to groups of fifty. It would seem therefore to signify "companies" or groups of military units.

Gloria

I hope it's clear enough for you to see David, but the KJV I use does link me to 2571. Am I doing something wrong here?

Gloria

I agree TC. (and great example w/ Hal. I use the "word" trunk when trying to get the women in my study to understand context. My surprise was when I looked at the word in the KJV using the word harnassed, it had a whole different strongs number. Im still looking though. But that was a great concise, clear way to say it.

Gloria

Okay, now in English....

George Somsel

Okay, now in English....

It helps to quote a portion of the post to which you reply so that we know what you are replying to.

David Thomas

Am I doing something wrong here?

Gloria, it appears you are NOT doing anything wrong. According to Vincent's comment (about 3 post above your last one) there are a couple of different databases for Strong's numbers.

I rarely use Strong's numbers because of the resources that are in my library, but it is clear that we have different purposes for the way we each use Logos so I am NOT suggesting that you start doing it my way.

Gloria

I don't know where you got the idea that the KJV links to #2571. As you can see below both my NASB, ESV and KJV all link to #2567.

Hello, David. The Strong's numbers in the Reverse Interlinears have been significantly improved for Logos 5 (though I think the plan is to release those updates to Logos 4 customers as well in the not-too-distant future - last I heard). In this case, HALOT treats 2571 and 2567 as the same verb, while Strong's analysis splits out the one piel form (in Gen 41:34) as 2567 while the 4 qal stem instances should be tagged as 2571 - and they are in the latest Reverse Interlinears.

Okay, now in English.

Gloria

Am I doing something wrong here?

Gloria, it appears you are NOT doing anything wrong. According to Vincent's comment (about 3 post above your last one) there are a couple of different databases for Strong's numbers.

I rarely use Strong's numbers because of the resources that are in my library, but it is clear that we have different purposes for the way we each use Logos so I am NOT suggesting that you start doing it my way.

Which way is your way? (Why am I hearing Princess Bride movie quotes in my head) Maybe I should try something new.

Keep Smiling 4 Jesus :)

I hope it's clear enough for you to see David, but the KJV I use does link me to 2571. Am I doing something wrong here?

Logos has updated Reverse Interlinear resources so Strong's 2571 appears:

Keep Smiling [:)]

David Paul

I don't know where you got the idea that the KJV links to #2571. As you can see below both my NASB, ESV and KJV all link to #2567.

Hello, David. The Strong's numbers in the Reverse Interlinears have been significantly improved for Logos 5 (though I think the plan is to release those updates to Logos 4 customers as well in the not-too-distant future - last I heard). In this case, HALOT treats 2571 and 2567 as the same verb, while Strong's analysis splits out the one piel form (in Gen 41:34) as 2567 while the 4 qal stem instances should be tagged as 2571 - and they are in the latest Reverse Interlinears.

So it sounds like you are saying that Strong's is more correct than HALOT. I am not surprised. George, however, needs someone to call 911 for him...he is having a coronary.

David Thomas

So it sounds like you are saying that Strong's is more correct than HALOT.

I don't know if "correctness" is the right scale to assign to this discrepancy. The difference has to do with numbering of entries as it relates to the Piel and Qal stems. As a brief explanation for the masses, Piel is an intensive form of a verb (think of an exclamation point rather than a period). If I were to make a list of words, should "to break" (Qal stem) and "to shatter" (Piel stem) be one entry or two? Are they essentially the same word or are they significantly distinct?

HALOT is written as a resource for those who understand the differences of Hebrew intensity to both words can be listed in one section. Strong's numbering is written as a guide for English readers to indicate to someone reading in English "something is different about these words so you will want to investigate further"--as Gloria originally asked "what is the difference between 2567 and 2571."

Specifically in the text Gloria asked about one could write "the Israelites approached in military formation" or "the Israelites approached with complete combat readiness". Is the first statement incorrect or is the 2nd statement more precise? By differentiating 2567 and 2571 a student can make that distinction.

David Knoll

A group of us is studying Exodus. We use the NASB. In Chapter 13:18 in the NASB it says, the “sons of Israel went up in ‘martial’ array.” In the interlinear, the strongs # for the word “martial” is #2567, and the dictionary I use tells me it means “to take one-fifth.

The Hebrew word here is חָמֻשִׁים which comes from the word חַמֵשׁ which is the number "five." In the plural form which appears here it signifies "fifty." According to HALOT it refers to groups of fifty. It would seem therefore to signify "companies" or groups of military units.

חָמֻשִׁים is not the plural of חַמֵשׁ. HALOT reconstructs the etymology of the word as a derivative noun from חַמֵשׁ whose putative singular would be חָמֻשׁ. As for fifty that is חֲמִשִּׁים.

In Modern Israeli Hebrew the singular is no longer putative. Thus you can hear on the radio that a Palestinian חָמֻשׁ (gunman) or three חָמֻשִׁים (gunmen) were killed tonight etc.

George Somsel

חָמֻשִׁים is not the plural of חַמֵשׁ. HALOT reconstructs the etymology of the word as a derivative noun from חַמֵשׁ whose putative singular would be חָמֻשׁ. As for fifty that is חֲמִשִּׁים.

Apparently I didn't express myself with sufficient clarity. I did not claim that חָמֻשִׁים is the plural of חַמֵשׁ. I said that חֲמִשִּׁים is the plural of חָמֻשׁ. I regret any confusion this may have caused.

David Knoll

I am sorry to be insistent but חֲמִשִּׁים is semantically no plural (50 is not the plural of 5) morphologically however its singular would have to be reconstructed from חַמֵשׁ or חֲמִשָּׁה (the vowel i under the מ) and certainly not חָמֻשׁ (note also the long a vowel...).

Don't get angry for pointing that out it is for the sake of accuracy...

Gloria

Words take their meaning from context. The idea here being "in groups" The history of the account, it's place in the story, it's overall intent flavors the final meaning.

If I write the sentence "Hal is running" you'll picture a fellow named Hal making loops around a running track. But if you know that Hal is the name of the computer in "2001 a space Odyssey" than you now picture a computer that is functioning properly. Context has changed the meaning of the sentence.

A simple rule: "Context is king" will help with dilemmas like this be they big or small.

The Hebrew root here "HMS". Left alone it is an ordinal number: "5". Taking it's actual form together with all the contextual clues it means much more than five. Since they understand this, the translators are trying to indicate that they were grouped, and they were grouped in a specific manner that historically could be consistent with the way that armies would march. The various translations all convey some aspect of this very organized (not chaotic) march out of Egypt.

As I continue in my studying, it seems like the context could support an "armed for battle" meaning, based on Exodus 17:13. "So Joshua overwhelmed Amalek and his people w/ the edge of the sword."

If I start to look at the Hebrew meanings of the words "edge" and "sword" it would appear that once again Strong's would give me just enough information to make me "dangerous" and then I would have to buy the HALOT/Briggs software recommended. NONE of which I can afford, particularly in light of the new Logos 5 update. But that's another thread.

So, I'm still a bit confused here. I'm ready to go for the easy out.

"Okay, Ladies, it's quite possible, that when the waters of the Red/Reed (not going there) Sea covered over them, the tide brought in some swords from the dead Egyptians and they used them."

Gloria

George Somsel

"Okay, Ladies, it's quite possible, that when the waters of the Red/Reed (not going there) Sea covered over them, the tide brought in some swords from the dead Egyptians and they used them."

Now that's rationalizing more than a little. Remember that Moses' father-in-law was said to be a Kenite (Jdg 1.16).

Our knowledge of the Kenites in the Iron Age, when Israel occupied its land, is limited to a few texts only (Josh 15:57; Judges 4–5; Judg 1:16; 1 Sam 15:6; 27:10; 30:29; 1 Chr 2:55). There has been widespread agreement that the etymology of the term "Kenite" implies that the Kenites were itinerant smiths (AncIsr, 478–79; ARI, 96): the root, qyn, can form the basis for words meaning "to forge," or "a metal-worker," in Arabic, Syriac, and Palmyrene.

The Anchor Yale Bible Dictionary

. Edited by Freedman, David Noel, Gary A. Herion, David F. Graf et al, s.v. "Kenites". New York: Doubleday, 1992.