"the LORD of hosts" is a grammatical violation?

[Kristin]

I hope everyone can forgive me for another question about this. As some of you may remember I had been looking for a way to put a proper name in construct, and everyone in unison was saying that was not grammatically possible, so I dealt with it and have been abiding by what is supposedly a grammatical rule.

 

With this as a preface, what is the explanation for the common phrase "the LORD of hosts"? The "LORD" is obviously substituting a proper name, and regardless of how it is translated, "hosts" is a noun. So "the LORD OF hosts" is putting "the LORD" in construct, and I am unclear why this is alright given the prior conversations about this.

 

Thank you for any thoughts anyone has.

 

Kristin

[Robert Holmstedt]

I actually disagree with the supposed grammatical rule that a proper noun cannot be bound to another word. Yhwh of Hosts is the prime counter example, but there are others, such as Mizpah of Gilead (Judg 11:29), Ashterot of Karnaim (Gen 14:5), Ur of the Chaldeans (Gen 15:7) or Bethlehem of Judah (Ruth 1:2).

 

The notion of a proper name not being able to be bound is due taking its referentially properties too strictly. A proper noun refers to a unique item, but what happens when there is more than one unique item that shares the same name? This is, no doubt, how last names came into frequent usage, to disambiguate persons with the same name. And similarly, in ancient Israel (and in other ancient Semitic languages), it is not only possible but sometimes necessary to modify a proper noun by a descriptor, often by means of the bound/construct state, in order to disambiguate one place or person from another with the same name.

[Kristin]

Thank you very much, @Robert Holmstedt. The longer I work on my translation the less and less believable this "rule" seemed to be. I had been concerned, however, as I seemed to be the only one saying the rule had some practical problems. I feel a lot better knowing I am not the only one who feels this way.

[Robert Holmstedt]

Glad to be of help.

I've disputed the "rule" in both my Baylor Handbooks on Ruth and Esther (in Esther 1.1, Ahashveros is modified by a restrictive relative clause, i.e., "the Ahashveros who ruled ...").

[c. stirling bartholomew]

I have been looking at a tangental issue which is Apposition in Hebrew/Aramaic. Found a conference paper on Academia:

Robert D. Holmstedt / Andrew R. JonesApposition in Biblical Hebrew: Structure and Function 21–51

 

https://www.academia.edu/21850758/Apposition_in_Biblical_Hebrew_Structure_and_Function

 

Reading this may be a challenge if you haven't been hardened by decades of exposure to linguistics. I was wondering if Construct State was simply a subcategory of Apposition. The answer isn't that simple. 

Edited May 8, 2022 by c. stirling bartholomew

[c. stirling bartholomew]

1 hour ago, c. stirling bartholomew said:

I have been looking at a tangental issue which is Apposition in Hebrew/Aramaic. Found a conference paper on Academia:

Robert D. Holmstedt / Andrew R. JonesApposition in Biblical Hebrew: Structure and Function 21–51

 

https://www.academia.edu/21850758/Apposition_in_Biblical_Hebrew_Structure_and_Function

 

Reading this may be a challenge if you haven't been hardened by decades of exposure to linguistics. I was wondering if Construct State was simply a subcategory of Apposition. The answer isn't that simple. 

One of the prominent  ideas introduced in this paper is the distinction between Restricive and NonRestrictive Apposition which is introduced on page 10.

Quote

 

The third distinction that Quirk et al make is restrictive versus nonrestrictive.

Restrictiveness in apposition revolves around the type of

presupposition set that is created for the proper identification of the

anchor. In restrictive apposition (RA), the anchor introduces a presupposition

of a set of possible referents, some of which can be specified

by the appositive and some of which cannot. In nonrestrictive apposition

(NRA), the anchor also establishes a set of possible referents, but

it is the anchor alone that makes the particular referent specific and

identifiable. In contrast, in RA, the anchor alone does not render the

intended referent identifiable; the appositive is needed to make the

referent specific and identifiable. Robert D. Holmstedt / Andrew R. JonesApposition in Biblical Hebrew: Page 10.

 

It isn't the main point of the paper but it is a thread that comes up repeatedly coded as RA and NRA.  

 

Quote

 

 

[Kristin]

I think presuppositions have historically gotten people into more trouble than most people realize.