[Lexicog] names as characteristic of a category

Tue Mar 27 19:32:25 UTC 2007

Dear John,

My apologies, this message is too long.

Yes, John, they do. They  use such  expressions, either  in direct  meaning  or  in  joking (ironic) meaning: you are real Solomon; what, are you Elija? or directly quoting "also Saul is among the prophets!" By the name of Ruth they bless the new bride, having in mind that she will be a true member of new extended family, by the names of Ephraim and Menashe (Manassia?) they bless boys who came to bar mitzwa age (13 years). Joseph (son of Jacob) received fame mostly for this beauty even outside of Jewish tradition, ask any Muslim  (especially  Iranians)  and they will tell you that Joseph (Yusuf) was  a paragon of beauty.

The Jewish conventions connected to biblical names were developed outside of biblical text in the rabbinical literature. In the early exposition (interpretation) of the bible they would as questions like who are the most beautiful person in the world? And usually they select either Joseph or David. (David and Solomon also treated kindly for their authorship, real or ascribed, of certain books of the Bible, David for Psalms, Solomon for Song of Songs or Canticle, Proverbs and Ecclesiast).

There were hundreds of such series of questions (e.g. about beauty of women, when four mothers of Jewish people (Sara, Rebecca, Lea and Rachel) competed with Esther. If you are interested in these questions and do not have direct access to rabbinic writings, you can consult 7 volume English work "The Legends of the Jews" / by Louis Ginzberg (Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society, many editions and reprints). Vol. 7 is very detailed index. So you can figure out the notion connected to any name, looking for the names you are interested in the index.  

This early (between 3rd century B.C.E. to 8th century  C.E.)  interpretations are known  as midrashim,  some  notions also penetrated into two Talmuds. They were extremely popular and through sermons in synagogues and through primary religious education (in yeshivot) they became widespread among general population. From Hebrew and Aramaic it was transmitted in vernaculars such as Yiddish (Judeo-German), Ladio (Judeo-Spanish), Judeo-Arabic, Judeo-Persian, Bukharian and modern Judeo-Aramaic dialects, even Judeo-Berber. 

If you ask a regular Jewish person, he would relate to you a fact, but most frequently would be unaware from what source the notion is coming. He would be under impression this came from the Bible. So the notions are fortified in language usage without feeling that it came from an other language. Also he would know about a biblical figure more than it is related in the Bible. But his additional materials again come from Talmuds and midrashim, because early interpreters of biblical text were trying to clarify seeming inconsistencies or fill in missing details. For example, on many occasions the name of wife or mother of a famous person is not mentioned in the Bible. So one of Rabbis would fill  the missing names. (Today you will question such practices, but go and ask one who did it let say in the 4 century of C.E.) Sometimes in the Bible  some  one was mentioned passing. In Bereshit Rabba (one of the midrashim, by the way translated into English) you may read entire story
 about him. Midrashim is  a plural from midrash  (study, exposition). Another case, certain deeds are mentioned, but no name of person who is responsible for this particular deed.
Again compiler of a midrash would clarify who was the person.

The difference of acceptance and use of the Bible by Jews and Christians was such that the Christians received a canonic text and looked at it in particular direction, trying to find in it what they were bound to search for (mostly allusions to Christ like in the book of Isaiah), while for the Jews the Bible was a living tradition, when every word was under magnifier and discussion. This was not only word of God, this was also a part of ethnic and national tradition, a part of identity. The Christians had their countries, the Jews had the Bible. The rest of Jewish culture, the law, the literature, even secular one, and above all the language were based on the Bible. It came to such curious situation that if you take any Jewish text (perhaps with the exclusion of medical or astronomical) let say up to the middle 19th century you need to fill scriptural reference list which will be longer than the original text itself.

The situation I describe can explain why Jewish literature created thousands upon thousands volumes bound to explain the text prior to appearance of such commentators like Nicholaus de Lyra or Gregory the Great in the Christian literature.

Already Origen and Hieronymus (St. Jerome) were familiar with some of this
Jewish literature (they studied with the Jews), but later the prejustice and hatred prevented the collaboration, although in 15-16th century Italy some Catholic scholars studied with rabbis (Pico de la Mirandola with Don Judah Abravanel, Cardinal Egidio de Viterbo with Elia Levita, who was also Hebrew teacher for Fagius. See my article about Elia Levita in the new Elsevir ed. of the Encyclopedia of Languages and Linguistics. There were Jewish teachers for Johann Reuchlin, Sebastian Muenster, etc.)

Some of popular Jewish notions I exhibit in my drama "Risk: a Battle for Redemption" (Charleston, SC: BookSurge Publishing) which is coming out in April.

Hayim Y. Sheynin

John Roberts <dr_john_roberts at sil.org> wrote:                                  Thanks for this clarification, Hayim.

 When you said:

 "As specialist in biblical translations you must be aware on many 
 biblical names
 that made such categories:

 Solomon - wise man
 David - wise king
 Jonathan - good friend
 Ruth - true proselite
 Esther - beautiful patriot
 Elija - maker miracles"

 I wasn't clear what the context was you had in mind that these names are 
 idiomatic for the meanings you gave. You mentioned a Biblical context 
 but none of these names (except one) are used idiomatically in the 
 Bible, as far as I can tell. Wherever they are used they refer to the 
 historical character, not to the idiomatic meaning you give. The names 
 Jonathan and Esther do not occur in the NT. Only one of these names has 
 a possible idiomatic usage in the NT and that is Elijah. After the 
 disciples had seen Jesus with Moses and Elijah on the mountain (E.g. Mt 
 17.1-13) they asked him "Why then do the (Jewish) teachers of the law 
 say that Elijah must come first?" [The traditional eschatology of the 
 teachers of the law, based on Mal 4.5-6, held that Elijah must appear 
 before the coming of the (Jewish) Messiah. The disciples reasoned that 
 if Jesus really was the Messiah, as the transfiguration proved him to 
 be, why had not Elijah appeared? Things did not add up for them.] Jesus 
 replied, "To be sure Elijah comes and will restore all things. But I 
 tell you, Elijah has already come, and they did not recognise him, but 
 have done to him everything they wished. ..." The the disciples 
 understood that he was talking to them about John the Baptist. So here 
 Jesus gives the name "Elijah" the idiomatic meaning of "the one who must 
 precede the coming of the Messiah".

 So, are you saying Jewish people today use these names with the 
 idiomatic meanings you have given them? E.g. Do they say "he is a 
 Solomon" meaning 'he is a wise man' or "he is an Elijah" meaning 'he is 
 a worker of miracles'?

 John Roberts

 -- 
 ********************
 John R Roberts
 SIL International Linguistics Consultant
 dr_john_roberts at sil.org
 ********************

---------------------------------
Need Mail bonding?
Go to the Yahoo! Mail Q&A for great tips from Yahoo! Answers users.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listserv.linguistlist.org/pipermail/lexicography/attachments/20070327/38575f6c/attachment.htm>