Jump to content

Tagging issue, or am I missing something?


Kristin

Recommended Posts

I hope this question is ok to ask. It concerns [KEY H4541]. At first I thought I needed to report a tagging issue, but now I think I am just really missing something. I would appreciate any help anyone has. the word מַּסֵּכָ֥ה obviously means "metal image" or something to that effect (see same inflected word at Ex 32:4, Ex 34:17, Lev 19:4, etc, etc, etc, etc....). HALOT says "metal casting, cast image". Obviously.

 

Yet now it is a "veil"? (Is 25:7). Same Key. Same inflection. Same everything.  Yet now if you click on the word מַּסֵּכָ֥ה there it brings up HALOT as "something woven: covering." Uh... am I seriously missing something, or is something miskeyed?

Thank you for any help anyone is able to provide.

Kristin

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Interesting NASB2020 tags the two distinctly as H4541a (metal image) and H4541b (veil).

 

HALOT lists both definitions for the word (I and II):

 

I מַסֵּכָה, SamPM147 me/assı̄ka: I נסך to pour, Bauer-L. Heb. 492t; MHeb., Ph. (Jean-H. Dictionnaire 160): ‏מַסֵּכַת‎, ‏מַסֵּכוֹת‎ and ‏מַסֵּכֹתָם (Bauer-L. Heb. 597g): —1. metal casting, cast image (BRL 379ff; Reicke-R. Hw. 570): פֶּסֶל וּמַ׳ Dt 2715 Ju 173f 1814 Nah 114;צַלְמֵי מַ׳ ; cast images of deities Nu 3352; ‏מַסֵּכַת זָהָב image cast in gold Is 3022, עֵגֶל מַ׳ casts of animals Ex 324.8 Dt 916 Neh 918, אֱלהֵי מַ׳ deities in cast metal (amulets ?) Ex 3417 Lv 194; מַ׳ cast idol Dt 912 1817f 2K 1716 Is 4217 Hos 132 Hab 218 Ps 10619, pl. 1K 149 2C 282 (לַבְּעָלִים) 343f; —2. libation (:: Pedersen Isr. 1/2:521: as II): with I נָסַךְ as in נָסַךְ נֶסֶךְ to pour out a libation, which is like σπονδὰς σπένδειν (→ Wendel 112ff), at the sealing of a contract, therefore meaning to conclude an agreement Is 301 (parallel with עָשָׂה עֵצָה‎). †

II ‏מַסֵּכָה‎: II ‏נסך‎ to plait, braid, Bauer-L. Heb. 492t; MHeb. something woven: covering, ‏הַמַּ׳ הַנְּסוּכָה Is 257 (parallel with ‏לוֹט), 2820 (parallel with ‏מַצַּע; 1QIsa ‏המסכסכה‎: MHeb. ‏מְסַכְסֶכֶת‎, II ‏סכך‎). †


HALOT, s.v. “מַסֵּכָה,” 2:605.
https://accordance.bible/link/read/HALOT#10937

 

As does BDB

 

541    † I. ‏מַסֵּכָה‎ n. f. 1. libation; 2. molten metal, or image;—‏מ׳‎ Ex 32:4 +; cstr. ‏מַסֵּכַת‎ Is 30:22; pl. ‏מַסֵּכוֹת‎ 1 K 14:9 +; sf. ‏מַסֵּכֹתָם‎ Nu 33:52;—
1. libation, with covenant sacrif. in making covenant Is 30:1 (= 1. ‏נֶסֶךְ; see, however, sub II. [נָסַךְ]).
2. molten metal, or image: עֵגֶל מַסֵּכָה molten calf Ex 32:4, 32:8, Dt 9:16, Ne 9:18, cf. ψ 106:19; אֱלֹהֵי מַסֵּכָה molten gods Ex 34:17, Lv 19:4; ‏צַלְמֵי מ׳ Nu 33:52; פֶּסֶל וּמַסֵּכָה Dt 27:15, Ju 17:3, 17:4, 18:14, Na 1:14, 2 Ch 34:3, 34:4, elsewh. (variously) Dt 9:12, Ju 18:17, 18:18, 1 K 14:9, 2 K 17:16, 2 Ch 28:2, Is 30:22, 42:17, Ho 13:2, Hb 2:18.

5259    † II. [נָסַךְ] vb. weave (Ar. ‏نَسَجَ‎ has same meaning);—
Qal Pt. pass. f. ‏נְסוּכָה Is 25:7; perh. also Inf. cstr. לִנְסֹךְ 30:1; on both v. foll.

4541    † II. מַסֵּכָה n. f. woven stuff, web, esp. as covering;—abs. הַמּ׳ הַנְּסוּכָה עַל־ Is 25:7 the web that is woven over all the nations (i.e. mourning-veil, symb. of distress; || הַלּוֹט הַלּוֹט); = bed-covering 28:20 (in fig.). Perhaps also לִנְסֹךְ מ׳ 30:1 weave a web (|| לַעֲשׂוֹת עֵצָה), ref. to negotiations with Egypt (so 𝔅 Aq Ew De Che Di; > 𝔊 Ges Hi Kn Brd Du pour a libation; מ׳ not elsewhere = נֶסֶךְ).

4545    † [מַסֶּ֫כֶת] n. f. web of unfinished stuff, on loom (v. GFMPAOS, Oct. 1889, clxxvii);—only abs. ‏מַסָּ֑כֶת‎ Ju 16:13, 16:14.—‏מָסָךְ‎, ‏מְסֻכָה‎ v. ‏סכך‎.

BDB, s.v. “נָסַךְ,” 651.
https://accordance.bible/link/read/BDB_Complete#16613

 

I'll leave it to the Hebrew experts to comment further on how this but I don't know that they aren't just homographs but I'm not qualified to comment.

 

Thx

D

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

Hello Kristin, 

 

When the Lockman Foundation built their own concordance to accompany the NAS95 (or was it the NAS77? Idk), they updated Strong's numbering by adding an “a” or “b” as necessary to distinguish between different lexemes which Strong himself confounded in his original numbering system. When Zondervan had the G/K key number system developed to accompany the NIV, they built an entirely new database for the Hebrew and Greek lexemes that is more correct than Strong's original numbers. Therefore, the NIV with G/K numbers, the NASB 1995 with Strong's and the NASB 2020 with Strong's distinguish between homonyms.

 

However, for all the other “with Strong's” Bibles, since they are using the same original Strong's numbering system that confuses many homonyms, the same key number may refer to different words according to the lexicons. If there is a discrepancy between Strong's numbering and the lexicons, always go with what the lexicons say.

Edited by Iconoclaste
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi @Iconoclaste,

Thank you for the explanation and that makes sense. It also really stresses that I need to be following the actual words rather than numbers when doing semantic range studies. For example, I of course fully agree that the trunk of an elephant does not have much in common with the trunk of my car, but if I were doing a word study to find the semantic range, and the dictionary had already decided the range and had edited out some of the homonyms, it would skew the results.

 

If I am understanding correctly, you are saying that Strongs himself used different keys for different homonyms? Or rather, are you saying that he did not, and that that was later entirely done with the "a" and "b"?

Thanks,

Kristin

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You're welcome! 


I am saying the latter. Wherever the NAS Hebrew Dictionary adds an “a”, a “b”, or a “c”, to the Strong's number, that is a place where Strong used only one key number and did not disambiguate between homonyms. 

It is easy to find these if you open the NAS Hebrew Dictionary, set the search field to “Key Number” and search for : *a

If you consult The Kohlenberger/Mounce Hebrew Dictionary, any Strong's number that is used for more than one entry is a Strong's Key that is used for two or more homonyms.

 

Thus only the NASB Bibles and the NIV use a numbering system that disambiguates between homonyms more consistently, whereas the other Bibles that are keyed “with Strong's” will be lacking that definition.

Edited by Iconoclaste
Add information
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...