Help @ Please
Deuteronomy 6:5 The word **Might** is it of Strength or of Things or maybe both.
Thanks
Armwood
Comments
-
strength, power, i.e., the exerting of force in a situation (Dt 6:5; 2Ki 23:25+), see also LN 74, LN 79.62–79.69
Swanson, J. (1997). Dictionary of Biblical Languages with Semantic Domains : Hebrew (Old Testament). Oak Harbor: Logos Research Systems, Inc.
0 -
Armwood, I'd be curious how you arrived at your question.
The reason I ask, is my belief (singlular and not recommended for the feint of heart), is that your question lies at the heart of Christianity's major issue today (especially the current Pope).
The Talmuds emphasize 'things'. The Targums are even more interesting. Each (3 versions) takes a swipe at it ... PseudJon (work/worship), Ongelos (wealth/flocks), Neofiti (money/wealth).
To confuse the situation further, of course the synoptic quotes introduce 'mind' also in three more combinations.
My guess (belief of course), is that this issue is the source of Jesus' question to the rich man: the aramaic included wealth/things and the rich man only wanted to pursue 'might' (as most wealthy westernized versions of Christianity).
And so today, 'wealth' remains a major issue.
If you want to pursue the question, Charlesworth discusses the issue at length in the Semitic cultures.
"If myth is ideology in narrative form, then scholarship is myth with footnotes." B. Lincolm 1999.
0 -
If your looking for more than a lexical def. here are some resources:
A. One is obligated to bless over evil as one blesses over the good, as it is said, “And you shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, with all your soul, and with all your might” (Deut. 6:5).
B. “With all your heart”—with both of your inclinations, with the good inclination and with the evil inclination.
C. “And with all your soul”—even if he takes your soul.
D. “And with all your might”—with all of your money.[1]
logosres:encycjud;ref=VolumePage.V_3,_p_1416;off=2150;ctx=_(M._Ber._9:4A-E):$0A_~A._One_is_obligated_
Once when Rabbi Akiva was being tried before the wicked Tineius Rufus, the time arrived for reading the Shema and he began to recite it joyfully. Said [Rufus]: “Old man, old man, either you are a magician or you bear pain with contumacy.” Rabbi Akiva answered him: “Woe to that man! I am neither a magician nor do I bear pain with contumacy; but alI my life I have read this verse: ‘And you shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your might’ [Deut. 6:5—the second verse of the Shema]. I loved Him with all my wealth [that is, might], but I was never called upon to face the ordeal of ‘with all my soul’ [that is, at the cost of my life]. Now that I experience ‘with all my soul’ and the time for reading the Shema has arrived, and I have not thrust it aside, therefore I am reciting the Shema with joy.”[2]
logosres:20thcentjew;ref=Page.p_943;off=1736
“With All Your Might”
Most English-language prayer books translate u-ve’khol me’odekha as “with all your might,” a translation undoubtedly derived from the King James translation of the Bible. Although none of the standard Jewish exegetes explains the word that way, it is nevertheless a legitimate translation of the word, for reasons that will become clear presently.
The Talmud interprets me’odekha, first, as “your money” (kol mamonkha) or “possessions” (so, for instance, Onkelos: u-ve’khol nikhsakh). The second translation is more of an interpretation: “no matter what destiny He metes out to you, thank Him” (a play on the words me’od-middah-modeh). Both talmudic explanations of the word are cited by Rashi in his Bible commentary. Leaving aside the second interpretation as more homiletic than literal, we are left with two alternative translations: “might” or “money/possessions.” There is, however, no need to choose between them. Ramban and Ibn Ezra before him both point to the obvious origin of the word as me’od, “very.” For Ibn Ezra, the phrase translates into “love Him very very much”; Ramban reconciles this understanding with the rabbinic term mamon, “money,” related either conceptually or etymologically—Ramban can be read both ways—to hammon, “multitude” or “large numbers.” “Very-ness” is thus akin to “money” or possessions. Ramban also relates me’od to ḥayyil, which means “wealth,” both of numbers and of substance, and also implies power or might. The word is often translated as “hosts” (indicating large numbers) while at the same time implying the power that comes with large numbers. So, ḥayyil means “soldier” and, in slightly different contexts, simply “might.” All the three alternative meanings—money, might, and multitude—are related to each other, and all derive, directly or indirectly, from the concept of me’od, “very.” We are commanded to love God with “all your very-ness”—with all we have that speaks of power and possessions.[3]
logosres:shemajps;ref=Page.pp_141-142;off=0;ctx=~$E2$80$9CWith_All_Your_Might$E2$80$9D$0AMost_English-langu
[1] Neusner, J., Avery-Peck, A. J., & Green, W. S. (Eds.). (2000). In The encyclopedia of Judaism. Leiden; Boston; Köln: Brill.
[2] Hartman, D. (2009). Suffering. In (A. A. Cohen & P. Mendes-Flohr, Eds.)20th Century Jewish Religious Thought: Original Essays on Critical Concepts, Movements, and Beliefs. Philadelphia, PA: The Jewish Publication Society.
[3] Lamm, N. (1998). The Shema: Spirituality and Law in Judaism (pp. 141–142). Philadelphia, PA: The Jewish Publication Society.
0 -
Interesting thread...
ASUS ProArt x570s Creator, AMD R9 5950x, HyperX 64gb 3600 RAM, ASUS Strix RTX 2080 ti
"The Unbelievable Work...believe it or not." Little children...Biblical prophecy is not Christianity's friend.
0 -
Thanks for this thread. Very helpful.
"In all cases, the Church is to be judged by the Scripture, not the Scripture by the Church," John Wesley0 -
Interesting indeed.
Using adventure and community to challenge young people to continually say "yes" to God
0 -
While it is difficult to argue with the ancient understanding of the Hebrew מְאֹד by the Aramaic ממונא which clearly signifies "wealth", I fail to note any instance in the Hebrew where it is clearly used to signify "wealth." It would certainly include one's possessions as well as one's physical strength, but I should think the understanding would be more inclusive than wealth.
george
gfsomselיְמֵי־שְׁנוֹתֵינוּ בָהֶם שִׁבְעִים שָׁנָה וְאִם בִּגְבוּרֹת שְׁמוֹנִים שָׁנָה וְרָהְבָּם עָמָל וָאָוֶן
0 -
Meaning is relative to the language spoken. It's safe to assume Jesus didn't speak hebrew (irrespective of the writings). And he definitiely felt empowered to nail Moses.
"If myth is ideology in narrative form, then scholarship is myth with footnotes." B. Lincolm 1999.
0 -
Denise said:
Meaning is relative to the language spoken. It's safe to assume Jesus didn't speak hebrew (irrespective of the writings). And he definitiely felt empowered to nail Moses.
Not safe to assume. He may have spoken Hebrew, Aramaic, Greek or even Latin (to some degree).
george
gfsomselיְמֵי־שְׁנוֹתֵינוּ בָהֶם שִׁבְעִים שָׁנָה וְאִם בִּגְבוּרֹת שְׁמוֹנִים שָׁנָה וְרָהְבָּם עָמָל וָאָוֶן
0 -
He'd be talking to himself then.
The question is not what he spoke, but rather what the Galilean jews spoke. He knew greek or latin definitely (Pilate / Herod). But more likely Aramaic in the north, judging from what showed up later.
I've never seen a discussion of what John the Baptist spoke. Clearly he had ongoing conversations with Herod, so he'd have to be fairly fluent in greek.
"If myth is ideology in narrative form, then scholarship is myth with footnotes." B. Lincolm 1999.
0 -
Denise said:
He'd be talking to himself then.
The question is not what he spoke, but rather what the Galilean jews spoke. He knew greek or latin definitely (Pilate / Herod). But more likely Aramaic in the north, judging from what showed up later.
I've never seen a discussion of what John the Baptist spoke. Clearly he had ongoing conversations with Herod, so he'd have to be fairly fluent in greek.
Consider what Josephus had to say regarding the siege of Jerusalem
ταλαντιαῖοι μὲν γὰρ ἦσαν αἱ14† βαλλόμεναι πέτραι, δύο δὲ καὶ πλείονας ᾔεσαν σταδίους· ἡ πληγὴ15† δ ̓ οὐ τοῖς προεντυχοῦσι μόνον, ἐπὶ πολὺ δὲ καὶ τοῖς μετ ̓ ἐκείνους16† ἦν ἀνυπόστατος. §271 οἵ γε μὴν Ἰουδαῖοι τὸ πρῶτον ἐφυλάττοντο τὴν17† πέτραν· λευκὴ γὰρ ἦν, ὥστε μὴ τῷ ῥοίζῳ σημαίνεσθαι μόνον, ἀλλὰ18† καὶ τῇ λαμπρότητι προορᾶσθαι. §272 σκοποὶ οὖν αὐτοῖς ἐπὶ τῶν πύργων19† καθεζόμενοι προεμήνυον, ὁπότε σχασθείη τὸ ὄργανον καὶ ἡ20† πέτρα φέροιτο, τῇ πατρίῳ γλώσσῃ βοῶντες “ὁ υἱὸς ἔρχεται.” διίσταντο21† δὲ καθ ̓ οὓς ᾔει καὶ προκατεκλίνοντο, καὶ συνέβαινε φυλαττομένων1† ἄπρακτον διεκπίπτειν τὴν πέτρανFlavius Josephus and Benedikt Niese, “Flavii Iosephi Opera Recognovit Benedictvs Niese ...” (Berolini: apvd Weidmannos, 1888–).Now, the stones that were cast were of the weight of a talent, and were carried two furlongs and farther. The blow they gave was no way to be sustained, not only by those that stood first in the way, but by those that were beyond them for a great space. (271) As for the Jews, they at first watched the coming of the stone, for it was of a white color, and could therefore not only be perceived by the great noise it made, but could be seen also before it came by its brightness; (272) accordingly the watchmen that sat upon the towers gave them notice when the engine was let go, and the stone came from it, and cried out aloud in their own country language, "THE SON COMETH:" so those that were in its way stood off, and threw themselves down upon the ground; by which means, and by their thus guarding themselves, the stone fell down and did them no harm.
Josephus, Flavius, and William Whiston. The Works of Josephus: Complete and Unabridged. Peabody: Hendrickson, 1987.
This would only be possible in Hebrew, not Aramaic. "Son" is likely a misunderstanding of the Hebrew אֶבֶן (stone) with the first syllable elided (בֶן is the Hebrew for son). In Aramaic it would have been בַר rather than בֶן. Randall Buth contends that this shows that Josephus himself spoke Hebrew though I tend to think that had he understood Hebrew well he would have realized that they were speaking of a stone and not a son. His Hebrew was likely limited. Many of the rebels in Jerusalem were from Galilee so it's possible they spoke Hebrew in Galilee. On the other hand, Nazareth was not far from Sepphoris where it is possible that Joseph found employment and where Greek would be predominant.
george
gfsomselיְמֵי־שְׁנוֹתֵינוּ בָהֶם שִׁבְעִים שָׁנָה וְאִם בִּגְבוּרֹת שְׁמוֹנִים שָׁנָה וְרָהְבָּם עָמָל וָאָוֶן
0 -
Now, George. I know (gnostic here) that your argument could be better given your expertise. When your talking to almost 10,000 people and no amplification, the language you have to use is the lingua franca (no matter your personal language).
And regarding lingua-franca's, they're the most predictable of all. Even in a single language speakers can identify by slight nuances where you're from. My spouse literally can't understand Japanese from southern Japan.
So the argument that has to be made concerns 'the 10,000' and the local language. But in the specific instance above, it would be the man who accosted Jesus 'on the borders of Judea'. Jesus plays with 'good' (Mark), so obviously the man or at least nearby listeners were multi-lingual. The man being wealthy would likely be multilingual; else he'd have trouble hiring people.
So maybe there's the answer; 'eternal life' (the rich man's question) depends on knowing (gnosis) the language of the listener?
"If myth is ideology in narrative form, then scholarship is myth with footnotes." B. Lincolm 1999.
0 -
Denise said:
Now, George. I know (gnostic here) that your argument could be better given your expertise. When your talking to almost 10,000 people and no amplification, the language you have to use is the lingua franca (no matter your personal language).
And regarding lingua-franca's, they're the most predictable of all. Even in a single language speakers can identify by slight nuances where you're from. My spouse literally can't understand Japanese from southern Japan.
So the argument that has to be made concerns the 10,000 and the local language.
Yes, we all know that southern drawl is hard to understand. [;)]
george
gfsomselיְמֵי־שְׁנוֹתֵינוּ בָהֶם שִׁבְעִים שָׁנָה וְאִם בִּגְבוּרֹת שְׁמוֹנִים שָׁנָה וְרָהְבָּם עָמָל וָאָוֶן
0
