קָדוֹשׁ Leviticus 19:2

For discussions which focus upon specific words, their origin, meaning, relationship to other ANE languages.
Forum rules
Members will observe the rules for respectful discourse at all times!
Please sign all posts with your first and last (family) name.
Isaac Fried
Posts: 1362
Joined: Sat Sep 28, 2013 8:32 pm

קָדוֹשׁ Leviticus 19:2

Postby Isaac Fried » Thu May 09, 2019 6:16 pm

We read there
דַּבֵּר אֶל כָּל עֲדַת בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל וְאָמַרְתָּ אֲלֵהֶם קְדֹשִׁים תִּהְיוּ כִּי קָדוֹשׁ אֲנִי יהוה אֱלֹהֵיכֶם
KJV: “Speak to all the congregation of the children of Israel, and say to them: ‘You shall be holy, for I the Lord your God am holy"
קָדוֹשׁ = קד-הוּא-ש (where הוּא, 'he', is the bearer of the quality) QADO$ is translated into the English 'holy'. But what is QADO$, we want to know, in terms of its original "primitive" material embodiments? The quality is derived from the root קדש QD$, which is kin to the roots
גדש, חדש
with גדש having a clear reference to the physical manifestation of 'pack, replete'. From this rood we have the name גָּדִיש = גד-היא-ש (where היא, 'he', is the object) GADIY$, 'rick, pile', of Job 21:32
וְהוּא לִקְבָרוֹת יוּבָל וְעַל גָּדִישׁ יִשְׁקוֹד
KJV: "Yet shall he be brought to the grave, and shall remain in the tomb (a packed pile of earth)"
where יִשְׁקוֹט = יִשְׁקוֹד, 'rest, quiet, stationary, immovable.'

Hence the inherent meaning of קָדוֹשׁ is 'being full of high, meaningful, and, awe inspiring qualities'.

Isaac Fried, Boston University

Isaac Fried
Posts: 1362
Joined: Sat Sep 28, 2013 8:32 pm

Re: קָדוֹשׁ Leviticus 19:2

Postby Isaac Fried » Tue May 14, 2019 6:53 am

It is also possible that מִקְדָש = מי-קדש is merely a heaped structure.

Isaac Fried, Boston University

Isaac Fried
Posts: 1362
Joined: Sat Sep 28, 2013 8:32 pm

Re: קָדוֹשׁ Leviticus 19:2

Postby Isaac Fried » Tue May 14, 2019 9:16 am

In English too, "temple", מִקְדָש, may be related to "tomb", 'a mound', Hebrew במה BAMAH.

Isaac Fried, Boston University

Jemoh66
Posts: 254
Joined: Sat Sep 28, 2013 11:03 pm

Re: קָדוֹשׁ Leviticus 19:2

Postby Jemoh66 » Tue May 14, 2019 9:12 pm

Jonathan E Mohler
Studying for a MA in Intercultural Studies
Baptist Bible Theological Seminary

Isaac Fried
Posts: 1362
Joined: Sat Sep 28, 2013 8:32 pm

Re: קָדוֹשׁ Leviticus 19:2

Postby Isaac Fried » Wed May 15, 2019 4:52 pm

Thanks for pointing out this wikipedia site to me. I opened it, have read it, but parted from it not a iota wiser.
Saying that the Hebrew קָדוֹש QADO$ is the English 'holy' or 'sacred' is merely carrying over a Hebrew verbal fantasy into an equivalent English verbal fantasy. Suggesting that 'holy' actually descends from 'whole' or 'heal' comes closer to what we are looking for: the preliterate meaning of this root.
To be told that the Hebrew קָדוֹש is quddushu in "Akkadian" and qdsh in "Ugaritic" is also of little value to me. Does it add anything to our understanding as what it is in Hebrew?
Ernest Klein in his book: A COMPREHENSIVE ETYMOLOGICAL DICTIONARY OF THE HEBREW LANGUAGE FOR READERS OF ENGLISH says that the original meaning of קדש was probably 'to separate', but he does not lend any support to this thoughtful guess, which I doubt. Is קדוֹש ישראל separated from Israel?
A Hebrew root, as I see it, describes a material state. To understand what the vague קדש means materially we turn to its kin גדש GD$, 'pack', and then extend it by abstraction, to 'be meaningful.'

A קדשה is possibly a woman ready to service love at one of their temples.

Isaac Fried, Boston University

User avatar
Jason Hare
Posts: 255
Joined: Mon Sep 30, 2013 5:07 am
Location: Tel Aviv, Israel
Contact:

Re: קָדוֹשׁ Leviticus 19:2

Postby Jason Hare » Wed May 15, 2019 8:34 pm

Isaac Fried wrote:Suggesting that 'holy' actually descends from 'whole' or 'heal' comes closer to what we are looking for: the preliterate meaning of this root.


No offense intended, but I think you’re assuming a lot when you say that we are looking for a pre-literate meaning of a root. It seems to me that this is what you are looking for. The majority of people who study or wish to study the Hebrew language are doing so in order to read the Scriptures and to come away with their message in a more direct way than through translation. I don’t imagine that this goal can be met by the conjectural deconstruction of the language.

Isaac Fried wrote:To be told that the Hebrew קָדוֹש is quddushu in "Akkadian" and qdsh in "Ugaritic" is also of little value to me. Does it add anything to our understanding as what it is in Hebrew?


You might not personally find this information to be useful, but it is indeed useful for people who want to know if a word has cognate forms in other Semitic languages. We may not read Akkadian or Ugaritic (these are actual languages, so I don’t understand why you have placed them in quotation marks), but it is indeed useful and good information to have at our fingertips.

Yes, learning other ancient Semitic languages does much more to bolster our understanding of Hebrew than does chasing down roots and making questionable connections between things such as שער "gate" and סערה "storm." If your position were true, these words would have to have a connected meaning, and they clearly do not. Information about cognates is infinitely more important than ad hoc explanations of words in light of the sounds that make them up.

Isaac Fried wrote:Ernest Klein in his book: A COMPREHENSIVE ETYMOLOGICAL DICTIONARY OF THE HEBREW LANGUAGE FOR READERS OF ENGLISH says that the original meaning of קדש was probably 'to separate', but he does not lend any support to this thoughtful guess, which I doubt. Is קדוֹש ישראל separated from Israel?


One would say that YHWH is "set apart" as the "only God" in the minds of Israel. Those who call him קְדוֹשׁ יִשְׂרָאֵל would say that no other god can be worshiped by Israel, that no other god redeemed Israel, that no other god is Israel's god. He is, then, consecrated to Israel, set apart to Israel, made holy to Israel. The meaning of "separation" is clearly part of the meaning of קדוש, though this is not the complete meaning of the word (else we wouldn't have other words for "separate").

Isaac Fried wrote:A Hebrew root, as I see it, describes a material state. To understand what the vague קדש means materially we turn to its kin גדש GD$, 'pack', and then extend it by abstraction, to 'be meaningful.'


And this is where you are out on a limb. You will not find modern linguists agreeing with you. I find your theories playful and idiosyncratic, but the things that you propose and how you relate to Hebrew is something that people should never take seriously. No one will ever achieve fluency in the language by using etymology; no one will come to a better or more thorough understanding of the text.

"Holy" does not mean "meaningful" by any extension in any language. These things are the opposite of helpful to language learners.

Isaac Fried wrote:A קדשה is possibly a woman ready to service love at one of their temples.


A person who serves in a temple (any temple) is "devoted" to the deity. They are not allowed to give their service to other gods. They often are not allowed to marry anyone. They give their service to the one god that they have chosen to serve (or whom he has been compelled to serve). Even the "virgins" that worked at temples (and were far from virgins) were devoted to the service of their god.
Jason Hare
Tel Aviv, Israel

Isaac Fried
Posts: 1362
Joined: Sat Sep 28, 2013 8:32 pm

Re: קָדוֹשׁ Leviticus 19:2

Postby Isaac Fried » Wed May 15, 2019 10:30 pm

Jason Hare says
"Holy" does not mean "meaningful" by any extension in any language. These things are the opposite of helpful to language learners.
Says I
So what is "holy"? Is it subjective?

Isaac Fried, Boston University

User avatar
Jason Hare
Posts: 255
Joined: Mon Sep 30, 2013 5:07 am
Location: Tel Aviv, Israel
Contact:

Re: קָדוֹשׁ Leviticus 19:2

Postby Jason Hare » Thu May 16, 2019 8:13 am

Isaac Fried wrote:So what is "holy"? Is it subjective?

Isaac Fried, Boston University


Are you now asking about the concept associated with the Hebrew קדוש or with the English holy? I thought you made distinctions between such things.

I also don't know what you mean by subjective. A word's meaning is determined by its use within a given context. The root meaning of קד״שׁ has to do with distinction and separation.

הִקְדִּישׁ = dedicate, set apart
מִקְדָּשׁ = a place set apart, a place that is unlike other places, a holy place
קִדֵּשׁ = sanctify, make holy

A holy place is not common or profane. There are things you do not do in holy places (generally, wearing shoes, walking around uncovered [nude], taking care of your needs [toilet], cursing, playing profane music, etc.). There are things that you are expected to do in holy places (generally, being reverential and respectful, wearing appropriate attire, offering sacrifices or prayers, etc.).

Holy places are those which are marked off to be distinct from the world around them. They are to be different and to have a different purpose from our normal course of life.

This doesn't seem "subjective" (whatever that means) in any way in which "black" (as a descriptive color) is not subjective or "hot" is not subjective. Every description is somewhat dependent on subjective experience. What is hot to one person may not be hot to another person. However, that doesn't mean that we don't have a concept of hotness. What is holy to one person may not be holy to another, but that doesn't mean that we don't have the concept of holiness.

Saying that קדש means "pack" or "stack" or "pile" or anything else along these lines makes the word meaningless. In fact, I don't even know what you mean by "pack." Is this a verb (like לארוז) or a noun (like חפיסה) or something else? Does it mean "to pack inside of something" (like לדחוף או לדחוס לתוך משהו)? Your general etymological definitions do not even seem to make sense.

"To be holy" clearly means "to be separated off for a specific purpose," "to be dedicated or sanctified." I don't see how chasing down etymological roots is going to benefit anyone in understanding what this word (or any word) means in any real context.
Jason Hare
Tel Aviv, Israel

User avatar
Jason Hare
Posts: 255
Joined: Mon Sep 30, 2013 5:07 am
Location: Tel Aviv, Israel
Contact:

Re: קָדוֹשׁ Leviticus 19:2

Postby Jason Hare » Thu May 16, 2019 9:42 am

Isaac Fried wrote:It is also possible that מִקְדָש = מי-קדש is merely a heaped structure.


Isaac Fried wrote:In English too, "temple", מִקְדָש, may be related to "tomb", 'a mound', Hebrew במה BAMAH.


So, in your system, מִקְדָּשׁ means the same as תֵּל and קֶ֫בֶר and בָּמָה? I just don't understand how your system helps people really understand anything.

The mem prefix indicates a place in which something is done or characterized by something. It absolutely does NOT mean מי ("who?"). It's simply a prefix and has no meaning on its own, except to create a pattern out of a root.

מִקְדָּשׁ - a place of holiness
מִקְלָט - a place of refuge
מִפְלָס - a level or storey
מִקְלַ֫חַת - a place where you shower
מִכְבָּסָה - a place where you do laundry
מִרְפָּאָה - a place where you go for healing (רפואה) ("clinic")

The mem prefix is used for many other patterns, of course. For example, turning the verb "judge" (שָׁפַט) into an abstract noun "judgment" (מִשְׁפָּט). A class of nouns like this are created from some specific verbs. One should NOT think of this mem prefix as מי (just as one should NOT think of each and every ו and י infix as הוא). This does nothing to get the meaning across, and it is actually false.

Your system might make sense to you, but it is not correct. I'm surprised at how much of this stuff you post here on the forum without opposition. I don't know if it's because the forum is asleep or because someone in the past may have objected to your system only to be ignored, and people have simply given up.

Have you considered opening a blog and posting all of your musings there? I assume that you've created some kind of printed form of your etymology dictionary? I am aware that your professional specialty is in mathematical theory, and it seems that you would like to apply your thinking to Hebrew. However, language is not mathematics. That's just now how any language has ever worked.

Have you tried sending your claims as a bundled concept to a professional linguist and getting feedback? What is your relation to language? Is Hebrew the only language that you've tried doing this with?
Jason Hare
Tel Aviv, Israel

User avatar
Jason Hare
Posts: 255
Joined: Mon Sep 30, 2013 5:07 am
Location: Tel Aviv, Israel
Contact:

Re: קָדוֹשׁ Leviticus 19:2

Postby Jason Hare » Thu May 16, 2019 10:39 am

Searching, I find that you have already created a print-on-demand book that you've put up for purchase on Amazon.com. I'd think that the best option for continuing would be to create a blog that is connected to the book. You could use it to keep everything organized, to add errata sections, to have a place to discuss further theory development, etc.

One would think that B-Hebrew would be geared toward discussions that promote learning the Hebrew language and issues that arise from reading the text in Hebrew. It seems that the forum is dominated by idiosyncrasy without real discussion. Everyone is so tied up in theoretical pronouncements, taking offense at anyone who says "let's get back to pragmatics and good sense," that the forum doesn't seem to be serving its purpose.

I find your comments useful when they actually take context into consideration. I'm sure you have a lot of knowledge that you can pass on to eager listeners. However, using your theoretical developments (such that you might understand the -i- infix in אכיל to be an abbreviated personal pronoun היא that actually means "he" and not "she") is both counter-intuitive (because this isn't how language works) and counter-productive (because it doesn't assist anyone in learning the language).

I would think that we'd all be interested in building an online community in which Hebrew is our focus, the Bible more specifically, and that we would do our best to interact without imposing our theories beyond the point of what is reasonable. Your theories are fine, if they are not dominating the forum and causing people to lack it less seriously. That's what I feel is happening.

I have shown your posts to several Israeli friends (I live in Tel Aviv), and they have all responded in the same way... that the things you post here just make no sense. No one thinks of Hebrew that way, and while etymology might have been respected before modern linguistic theories took hold (and one of my friends with whom I shared your posts is a candidate for his M.A. in Linguistics in his final year at Tel Aviv University), modern theories do not hold etymology is good repute.

When I check into this forum, I constantly struggle with understanding what we think our purpose is as an online group. I wonder how we can make it a useful space for the promotion of understanding the Hebrew text. Pet theories that fly in the face of linguistic theory and research do not promote a better understanding of the text. We should be looking for best practices, not doing what's going on here right now (and has been happening for a long time). Where are those here who relate to Hebrew as a real language?
Jason Hare
Tel Aviv, Israel


Return to “Etymological & Lexicographic Approaches to the Hebrew Bible”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot] and 0 guests