Dictionary of Classical Hebrew, The

Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society, Dec 2000 by Eng, Milton

Clines's critics have pointed out that even DCH is dependent upon comparative Semitic data when dealing with rare words of the Hebrew lexicon.

In spite of the above, two examples will suffice to demonstrate the value of the syntagmatic analysis presented in DCH. Taking as our first example the Hebrew term tap, "children, little ones," the term occurs 42 times in the OT. The dictionary first presents all the verbs of which it is subject, and here nothing of semantic significance is evident. As might be expected, children or little ones in the Hebrew Bible are said "to live," "to die," "to know," "to come," "to go," "to go out," "to stand," "to inherit," etc. (normal activities of the youngest generation in a human family when spoken of in general). However, when the verbs of which it is object are listed two particular nuances seem to be evident. Children or little ones are said to be "brought," "assembled," "sent away," "provided (for)," "kept alive," "abandoned," "oppressed," "plundered" (or "taken as booty"), "taken captive," "destroyed," "killed." These associated verbs suggest that our particular Hebrew term is at home in the context of movement and survival. This confirms the strong impression (along with other data like the LXX) that tap not only means "children" but includes the semantic component of "children as dependents of a household often nomadic." Indeed, Koehler and Baumgartner include as a second sense of the term "those of a nomadic tribe who are not (or to a small extent) able to march."

A second example has to do with the Hebrew term adam, "humankind," which occurs approximately 550 times in the OT. Under verbs of which 'adam is object, the lexical data are further divided into contexts where (a) God is the subject of the associated verbs and (b) where other subjects are used. When this is done, it reveals that God is far more often used as the subject of verbs in collocation with "adam than any other term (the difference is approximately five to one). This points to the highly theological contexts in which the term most often appears and with further study confirms the notion that adam means not merely homo sapiens but includes the semantic component of "humankind in contradistinction to God in all his/her creatureliness, transitoriness, and frailty."

Some reviewers have remarked that using DCH is like using a mere listing of syntagmatic data with little analysis and interpretation. Depending upon how far one wishes to take this, this is not strictly true. The editor states plainly in his introduction to vol. 1 that the delineation of the meanings and senses for each lexeme in their "semantic analysis" contains "a large subjective element" (p. 19). Already one scholar has noticed the change given in the number of meanings for ohel "tent" between the introduction and the actual lexical entry in the first volume of the dictionary! Furthermore, the syntagmatic analysis is not strictly a mere listing of subjects, objects, and collocated verbs. In the case of subjects of verbs, for example, Clines states that "these subjects are listed, not in random or merely alphabetical order, but with some attempt at a rational and meaningful order. Thus personal subjects may be grouped together, or abstract nouns; and among abstract nouns, subjects of similar meaning or belonging to the same semantic field, such as verbs of movement, will be gathered together" (ZAH 3 [1990]: 75). More recently, in the example of Yahweh, Clines writes: "Our categorization has been explicit in the outline, showing that we review the verbs in these groups: states and attributes, movement, communication, perception, general activities, beneficial activities, hostile activities (DCH, vol. 4, p. 11).