10
That N-blood lingered in a less vital state after
one ceased breathing indicates why the Hebrews could extend the term N
to a corpse. The lingering presence of sacred N reminded the Hebrews that
they were not to tamper with the corpse. All instances of N denoting a
corpse are in passages concerning, the act of becoming unclean or defiled
through touching a corpse. (see Lev. 19:28, 21:1, 22:4; Num. 5:2, 6:11,
9:6,7,10, 19:11,13; Hag. 2:13) One became unclean through such an act
only because the corpse had N significance. When an OT passage mentions
a corpse but not defilement through touching a corpse, then N is not
found denoting a dead body!
Johnson held that this use for N is an example
of semantic polarization (when a word has two opposite meanings) which
was typical of near Eastern culture at that time. He concluded that N
had so much fluidity that "it one extreme it may denote that vital
principle in man which animates the human body and reveals itself in the
form of conscious life, and at the other extreme it may denote the corpse
from which such conscious life has departed." (p. 22) The Hebrews
did not perceive N to have two opposite meanings; it is only from a present
day perspective that N appears to have such a field of meaning. Western
thinking now emphasizes that a living body and a dead body are opposites.
For the Hebrews, however, the sacred aspect of N applied to the corpse
as well as a living person. The corpse was not a positivistically neutral
entity or thing, to which various meanings could be attached depending
on the circumstances. The ancient Hebrews would not have perceived a 'corpse'
any more than they would have perceived a 'body'. Only from the perspective
of a living 'body' and a dead 'corpse' does N acquire opposite
meanings. A view that resorts to semantic polarization in the case of
N thereby overlooks the unity intrinsic to its field of meaning. Johnson's
recognition of its fluidity was at the expense of the unity among uses
of N.
An examination of further expressions using N can
demonstrate that N was given the ability to take on a multitude of uses
and, consequently,the integrated relation between the various expressions
and phrases containing N. They do not demonstrate additional, isolated
definitions of N since it can be shown they too were originally connected
to the theme of danger and deliverance which captured man's perishable
status.
Is. 3:20 is the sole instance of a puzzling use
for N. Found in a list of clothing and jewelry, N is translated 'perfume
boxes' in the Revised Standard Version and 'scent bottles' in the Jerusalem
Bible. E Jacob provided a clue for re-interpretation when he realized
"the content suggests magical devices to protect life from danger".
(p. 618, n. 52) The devices were probably similar to those used in the magic rites
described in Ez. 13:18-20. The passage indicates that a prophetess
of that time would use wristbands and veils to "hunt for N".
E. Jacob's comment helps reclaim the original connection that this use
for N had with the more common uses. Magical rituals that tampered with
N in an attempt to deliver it from danger employed an object that was
eventually termed N. A comment by Wolff is also helpful. "So we ought
to think of a kind of necklet rather than amulets, which we would have
to think of as hollow objects in the form of 'a little house on the neck'.
The parts that are in danger are the parts adorned." (p. 14) It makes
sense that these magical devices may very well have been worn on the neck
-- right where N was most vulnerable. When understood correctly, Is. 3:20
is an excellent example of the semantic unity and diversity given to the
term N.
The example from Prov. 12:10 of the good master
having regard for the N of his beast indicates that N was not limited
to just human creatures; animals were also perishable, flesh and blood
creatures. Since N was the blood seen from the viewpoint of synthetic
thinking, any blooded creature could potentially be termed N. The phrase
most common in this instance is N hayyah which, like 'living water',
is translated 'living N' since hayyah is the Hebrew version of
the verb 'to be'. Infrahuman N both swarmed in the sea and lived on the
land. Those that swarmed in the sea, i.e. fish, may have had particular
significance with respect to N in that they dwelt in the sheolish sea.
When in a fish, Jonah cried "out of the belly of slieol".
(Jonah 2:2) Their natural habitat suggested a setting where N was removed
from ruah. Wolff noted, "In the Yahwist's account of the creation
(Gen. 2:7) we saw man expressly defined as N hayyah; ... According
to the tendency of the statements in Gen. 2:7, N hayyah introduces
no differentia specifica for animal life; if this
had been the case, then the subsequent definition in 2:19 of animal life
as being N hayyah as well would hardly be possible." (p. 22)
However, Johnson argued that N hayyah in Gen. 2:7 and N hayyah
in reference to animals are distinct. (see p. 19, n. 2) He appears to
have expressed the view that N hayyah in Gen. 9:16 did not refer
to both man and animal. "When the bow is in the clouds, I will remember
the everlasting covenant between me and every N hayyah of all flesh
that is upon the earth." Gen. 1:20,21,24, 9:10,12,15,16 have the
best examples of N hayyah thoughthere are two other examples, Lev.
11:10,46a,46b and Ez. 47:9. Interestingly, the phrase occurs in the Bible
primarily in the creation passages of Gen. I and 2, the post-flood
're-creation' passage of Gen. 9, and the destruction of this creation
in Revelation.
N was also used with respect to God. At
first impression one wonders how this could have been since the ancient
Hebrews believed that their God was not perishable nor dependent upon
deliverance like human and animal N. However, N was not the only Hebrew
term referring to man that was also used in reference to God. He was also
portrayed as having hands, a mouth, eyes, leb, and above all ruah;
basar (flesh) was the noticeable exception. In these instances common
expressions primarily used to say something about man communicated the
way God related with His people. Expressions referring to a king, whose
N desires lent themselves to use with respect to God, the Lord of creation.
"What his N desires, that he does." (Job 23:13) "I will
raise up for my self a faithful priest who shall do according to what
is in my leb and my N." (I Sam. 2:35) His N hates (Ps. 11:5)
and abhors (Lev. 26:30), delights (Is. 42:1) and loves (Jer. 12:7); God
swears by his N (Jer. 51:14; Amos 6:8) and avenges his N (Jer. 5:9,29,
9:9) on a godless nation for what it has done. These examples record that
N carried the intensity typical of a life and death matter during those
times when God was so distraught over the activity of His people that
He would have almost lost His N vitality and perished had not events taken
a turn for the better. Similarly, He was delivered from His anguish when
His people did change their ways.
There are several instances where a specific
number of people are designated N. "The N were 16,000 of which the
Lord's tribute was 32 N." (Num. 31:40) Why should one assume that
N in such an enumeration originally referred to a mere 'head count' without
communicating something of particular importance about these people? The
N in Num. 31: 35,40,46 are Midianite captives remaining after Israel executed
their Lord's vengeance. The captives were in a situation similar to the
stranger, beast, and slave. They were referred to as N because they were
at the mercy of the Israelites for their very lives and were kept from
execution as the Lord commanded. (see also I Chron. 5:21; Jer. 52:29,30)
If an enumeration alluded to that status which created the potential for
danger and need for deliverance, then the term N was used.
Jacob, renamed Israel, and his offspring are enumerated
in Gen. 46:15, 18, 22, 25, 26a, 26b, 27a, 27b and Ex. 1:5a, 5b. His clan
was here termed N only because its status in Egypt typified N. This N
went to Egypt, multiplied, and ended in bondage to Pharaoh. The nation,
Israel, was then in bondage in Egypt like fish that were engulfed in shoolish
waters. Israel, as N, went to Egypt with the promise that it would one
day return to Canaan. "I am God, the God of your father; do not be
afraid to go down to Egypt; for I will there make of you a great nation.
I will go down with you to Egypt, and I will also bring you up again..."
(Gen. 46:3) That Israel was later delivered from the bondage of Egypt
became the Hebrew's most recollected sign that the Lord did in fact take
care of His people. N in bondage to Pharaoh (who the writer of Ez. 29:3,
32:2f. compared to a sea monster reminiscent of Leviathan) was promised
deliverance. Furthermore, the deliverance of N occurred through the parting
of the sheolish sea. N was a flesh creature capable of perishing;
however, N was also given the promise of deliverance. N not only sought
deliverance and even longed and waited for it; N was promised deliverance
to those who obeyed the commandments of the Lord God. For Wolff's final
remark to his chapter on N, he wrote, "Thus, before Yahweh, man in
the OT does not only recognize himself as N in his neediness; he also
leads his self on to hope and to praise." (p. 25) The promise was
given and godly N hoped for its fulfillment.
|
