Need Hebrew help in understanding something that...

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

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.

Gloria said:

 

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 said:

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.

Gloria said:

Why am I hearing Princess Bride movie quotes in my head

I don't know.  Are you playing a DVD on your computer?  [*-)]

Gloria said:

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

I am seminary trained as a pastor so I have invested more money in original language resources and when I right-click I "search Lemma" to get to definitions in lexicons and dictionaries or use reverse Interlinears.  If I had your skill-set I would also be using Strong's numbers (or another system called GK numbering) to discover the Hebrew or Greek words that underlie English translations.

Vincent Setterholm said:

David Thomas said:

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.

Gloria said:

David, can you tell me what the GK numbering system is called on Logos.  I would like to look at it.

GK stands for Goodrick-Kohlenberger, but it's a numbering system that's not available in Logos, only in paper-resources.

Gloria said:

I have tried the Lemma thing, and even took John's webinar trying to learn it, but it's just too much.  BUT...

Hebrew's much harder to get your head around than Greek, so the OT is harder than the NT for original language study. If you have time, next time you're doing an NT study, you might find it worth experimenting a little with lemmas in the reverse interlinear. (The lemma is simply the dictionary form of the Greek word, and knowing the lemma means you can go straight to the dictionary entry without needing to translate the word into a number and back.) When you're comfortable in the NT, you'll be reading to try the OT.

If you've not already seen it you might find this video helpful: http://www.logos4training.com/videos/reverse-interlinears/ - there's a segment towards the end (about 25 minute in) where I discuss Strong's numbers.

David Paul said:

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.

Mark Barnes said:

Hebrew's much harder to get your head around than Greek, so the OT is harder than the NT for original language study.

I disagree 1000%. Yes, I was able to teach myself Greek with little problem (to the extent I know it), whereas I couldn't get over the hump with Hebrew. The right-to-left, the similarity of certain letters, the 'aleph and the `ayin, the vowel points (niqquudh), and other things stymied me until I took a class. But literally after just a week of Hebrew class, I was off to the races. Of the two languages (both of which have their share of whacky rules), I find that Hebrew grammar is far simpler and more straightforward than Greek. For the most part, Hebrew is logically processional in its grammar. Greek is anything but. Just look at the Lexham Greek/English Interlinear (not reverse interlinear) and notice how they have to number the sentences so that someone can comprehend the order. It is not at all unusual to see a numbering pattern that looks like 5, 4, 1, 2, 6, 7, 8, 3, 12, 9, 10, 14, 15, 11, 13, 17, 18, 16, 19. Regardless of whatever grammar rules may "make sense" out such a mishmash, the thought breakdown of many such sentences is inescapably bizarre.

David Paul said:

Mark Barnes said:

Hebrew's much harder to get your head around than Greek, so the OT is harder than the NT for original language study.

 

I disagree 1000%. Yes, I was able to teach myself Greek with little problem (to the extent I know it), whereas I couldn't get over the hump with Hebrew. The right-to-left, the similarity of certain letters, the 'aleph and the `ayin, the vowel points (niqquudh), and other things stymied me until I took a class. But literally after just a week of Hebrew class, I was off to the races. Of the two languages (both of which have their share of whacky rules), I find that Hebrew grammar is far simpler and more straightforward than Greek. For the most part, Hebrew is logically processional in its grammar. Greek is anything but. Just look at the Lexham Greek/English Interlinear (not reverse interlinear) and notice how they have to number the sentences so that someone can comprehend the order. It is not at all unusual to see a numbering pattern that looks like 5, 4, 1, 2, 6, 7, 8, 3, 12, 9, 10, 14, 15, 11, 13, 17, 18, 16, 19. Regardless of whatever grammar rules may "make sense" out such a mishmash, the thought breakdown of many such sentences is inescapably bizarre.

As anyone who has read our exchanges knows, I have considerable differences with David.  Here, however, we find a point of agreement.  Initially Hebrew is a bit difficult to get into, but, once the initial phase is passed, Hebrew really is quite a bit simpler than Greek.  Just consider the many uses of the genitive in Greek (or other cases as well).  In fact, consider the different cases themselves in Greek (5 or 8 depending upon which convention you follow).  Hebrew does have a few points which aren't well understood by many who never get beyond the "See Spot … see Spot run … run, Spot, run" stage of reading Hebrew, but compared with Greek, they are relatively few.

EDIT:  I was unaware that the Greek interlinears number the clauses since I never use them and have hidden a number (I do find that, if I enter "interlinear" in the library, I still find a couple.  I'll need to correct that).

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...

You mean qamatz for the pre tonic lengthening? I agree.

I belive that the idea being protrayed here is more one of being ready for battle. The smaller units being able to respond more quickly to any threats, than larger units, while at the same time acting as a blocking unit in order to cause a delay until additional units could arrive to reinforce the smaller units. . The array portion I believe has to do with the stragic placement of units so as to form a type of cover (blanket) for the battle area.  Interestingly enough we see that same idea being employed in the book of Joshua.  the words share, allot, apportions, and assign come to mind. In any case, It is still one in which they are to be alert and prepared for, if in the event it should be necessary to either defend and repel, or defend and attack. It it to maintain a state of battle readiness. In this case a moving battle field. As far as harnessed goes, it may indicate that they have a responsibility to the greater whole community.

Eric Gregory Miller said:

I belive that the idea being protrayed here is more one of being ready for battle.

This is basically what I was suggesting by indicating that it (חֲמֻשִׁים) was a cohort of fifty (חֲמִשִּׁים).  Cf. the captain of fifty in 2 Kg 1.9 שַׂר־חֲמִשִּׁים.

Gloria,

   I have been impressed with your hunger to discover and understand the truth! I believe another user suggested you get the CHALOT as a Logos resource which would be less expensive than the full 5 volume set.

  I have a hardbound copy of BADG (2nd version) on my shelf that I would be willing to ship to you as a gift, since I now use BDAG in Logos and the older volume is just collecting dust on my shelf.

  I will message you directly to get your mailing information.