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
Comments
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.
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.
Making Disciples! Logos Ecosystem = LogosMax on Microsoft Surface Pro 7 (Win11), Android app on tablet, FSB on iPhone & iPad mini, Proclaim (Proclaim Remote on Fire Tablet).
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Making Disciples! Logos Ecosystem = LogosMax on Microsoft Surface Pro 7 (Win11), Android app on tablet, FSB on iPhone & iPad mini, Proclaim (Proclaim Remote on Fire Tablet).
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.
Making Disciples! Logos Ecosystem = LogosMax on Microsoft Surface Pro 7 (Win11), Android app on tablet, FSB on iPhone & iPad mini, Proclaim (Proclaim Remote on Fire Tablet).
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.
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.
Making Disciples! Logos Ecosystem = LogosMax on Microsoft Surface Pro 7 (Win11), Android app on tablet, FSB on iPhone & iPad mini, Proclaim (Proclaim Remote on Fire Tablet).
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.
David, can you tell me what the GK numbering system is called on Logos. I would like to look at it. Thanks for recognizing my "skill-set" which could also be called "no skill-set." If I weren't consumed with taking care of my ill husband and bible study, I would be working on that "skill-set" so I appreciate you mentioning the using of Strong's is okay for me. I have tried the Lemma thing, and even took John's webinar trying to learn it, but it's just too much. BUT...
That's why I am saying a huge THANK YOU to you all for your input. You guys are like having a bunch of professors available to me. I appreciate every single point of all the input. And maybe this time, we all learned a little something maybe.
Poor George, whoever he is. I'll pray for his [U]
Now, to check on whether it's worth it to me to update to Logos 5. The help that I get from your input is often worth the most to me. So thank you very much for your responses to me and to others.
Gloria
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.
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.
This is my personal Faithlife account. On 1 March 2022, I started working for Faithlife, and have a new 'official' user account. Posts on this account shouldn't be taken as official Faithlife views!
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.
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.
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).
george
gfsomsel
יְמֵי־שְׁנוֹתֵינוּ בָהֶם שִׁבְעִים שָׁנָה וְאִם בִּגְבוּרֹת שְׁמוֹנִים שָׁנָה וְרָהְבָּם עָמָל וָאָוֶן
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 [:)]
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.
george
gfsomsel
יְמֵי־שְׁנוֹתֵינוּ בָהֶם שִׁבְעִים שָׁנָה וְאִם בִּגְבוּרֹת שְׁמוֹנִים שָׁנָה וְרָהְבָּם עָמָל וָאָוֶן
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.
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.
george
gfsomsel
יְמֵי־שְׁנוֹתֵינוּ בָהֶם שִׁבְעִים שָׁנָה וְאִם בִּגְבוּרֹת שְׁמוֹנִים שָׁנָה וְרָהְבָּם עָמָל וָאָוֶן
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...
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 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.
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
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.
. Edited by Freedman, David Noel, Gary A. Herion, David F. Graf et al, s.v. "Kenites". New York: Doubleday, 1992.The Anchor Yale Bible Dictionary
george
gfsomsel
יְמֵי־שְׁנוֹתֵינוּ בָהֶם שִׁבְעִים שָׁנָה וְאִם בִּגְבוּרֹת שְׁמוֹנִים שָׁנָה וְרָהְבָּם עָמָל וָאָוֶן