The following warnings occurred:
Warning [2] Undefined property: MyLanguage::$thread_modes - Line: 46 - File: showthread.php(1617) : eval()'d code PHP 8.1.27 (Linux)
File Line Function
/inc/class_error.php 153 errorHandler->error
/showthread.php(1617) : eval()'d code 46 errorHandler->error_callback
/showthread.php 1617 eval




Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Shema questions please.
#1
So, my wife is Jewish and says the shema daily.   And just from the cognates, I understand the first line as a direct quotation from scripture.   But, I'm trying to understand the second line, and when I've asked her for a translation... she seems to simply have the words memorized, but can't really tell me what they mean.

בָּרוּךְ שֵׁם כְּבוֹד מַלְכוּתוֹ לְעוֹלָם וָעֶד
Baruch Shem K'vod Malchuto L'olam Va'ed.


1- First off, the last two words: both "translate to 'forever'"  But, I have to assume there's unique connotation where both words are used to mean "not just one or the other, but both."

2- בָּרוּךְ שֵׁם, I get.  "Blessed is the name..."  Seems rather simple.  But I've seen a few contradictory explanations for כְּבוֹד מַלְכוּתוֹ : Usually, it's "of his glorious kingdom" (implication being "all of reality").  But, another explanation was "of his royal majesty."  ... as a layman with a dictionary, both interpretations seem textually valid, but "blessed be the name of his royal majesty" seems to be a more logical response to the strong declaration of the first line than to switch focus from the creator to the creation by blessing "the name of the kingdom."   Clearly, I would agree, his kingdom should be blessed as well, but it seems awkward placing as a response to the first portion.

3- While attempting to look into this myself, one person pointed out a detail about the first line I hadn't seen elsewhere, and I'm curious if it's a common understanding.   He pointed out that the last letters in the first and last words are intentionally written slightly larger.   The ayin in שְׁמַ֖ע and the dalet in אֶחָֽד are intentionally written a bit larger on purpose, but said that was a whole different conversation and didn't go into it.   ... but I like knowing things... so... Would anyone be willing to help me understand a bit better?

thank you for your time. 
Reply
#2
There are several ways to say "forever" in Hebrew.

לָעָד "forever"
Psalm 111:10
רֵאשִׁית חָכְמָה יִרְאַת יהוה שֵׂכֶל טוֹב לְכָל־עֹשֵׂיהֶם תְּהִלָּתוֹ עֹמֶדֶת לָעַד׃
The fear of YHWH is the beginning of wisdom; all who do them have good sense. His praise stands forever.

לְעוֹלָם "forever"
Psalm 136:26
הוֹדוּ לְאֵל הַשָּׁמָיִם כִּי לְעוֹלָם חַסְדּוֹ׃
Give thanks to the God of heaven, for his loving faithfulness is forever.

לָנֶ֫צַח "forever"
Psalm 74:19
אַל־תִּתֵּן לְחַיַּת נֶפֶשׁ תּוֹרֶךָ חַיַּת עֲנִיֶּיךָ אַל־תִּשְׁכַּח לָנֶצַח׃
Do not give the soul of your turtledove to a wild beast, nor forget the life of your poor one forever.

לְנֵ֫צַח נְצָחִים "forever and ever"
Isaiah 34:10
לַיְלָה וְיוֹמָם לֹא תִכְבֶּה לְעוֹלָם יַעֲלֶה עֲשָׁנָהּ מִדּוֹר לָדוֹר תֶּחֱרָב לְנֵצַח נְצָחִים אֵין עֹבֵר בָּהּ׃
Night and day it will not go out; its smoke will ascend forever. From generation to generation it will be ruined, none shall pass through it forever and ever.

לְעוֹלָם וָעֶד "forever and ever"
Psalm 119:
וְאֶשְׁמְרָה תוֹרָתְךָ תָמִיד לְעוֹלָם וָעֶד׃
And I shall always keep your Torah forever and ever.

There are other such combinations, but the addition of more than one expression extends the emphasis from "forever" to what we would say as "forever and ever." In Greek, it would be the difference between εἰς αἰῶνα "forever" and εἰς αἰῶνα τῶν αἰώνων "forever and ever."
Reply
#3
I generally take the construct in a phrase like this in an adjectival way.

עִיר הַקֹּ֫דֶשׁ "holy city" (lit., "city of holiness"): The noun קֹ֫דֶשׁ takes on an adjectival force, and we also see this in the same phrase with the personal suffixes: עִיר קָדְשְׁךָ "your holy city" (lit., "city of your holiness"), הַר קָדְשִׁי "my holy mountain" (lit., "mountain of my holiness"), etc.

Thus, if I saw שֵׁם כְּבוֹדְךָ, I would naturally understand it to be adjectival, something like "your glorious name." I read the last noun in the construct also adjectivally, so I read the whole phrase שֵׁם כְּבוֹד מַלְכוּתוֹ as "his glorious regal name" (that is, "the name of his glorious kingship" or lit., "the name of the glory of his kingship").

בָּרוּךְ שֵׁם כְּבוֹד מַלְכוּתוֹ לְעוֹלָם וָעֶד׃
Blessed is his glorious regal name forever and ever.
Reply
#4
The Shema is central to Jewish liturgy, and the Scribes (הַסֹּפְרִים) wanted to surround the line at the beginning and the end to make it stand out in the text. Here is the text without the enlarged letters:

   

If they had enlarged the first and last letter of the verse, it would spell the word שֵׁד "demon," and that would not be nice. So, in order to make the text stand out from whatever surrounds it, they enlarged the first the ayin of the first word and the dalet of the last to form the word עֵד "witness," justifying this choice by the fact that this verse is the witness of the Jewish soul: that God is one and he is our God.

   

If the Scribes had had red ink or italics, they would have made the text stand out in that way. They used the means that they had to make the central verse of Jewish faith stand out on the page when someone reads from a Torah scroll.

   

I hope that makes sense!
Reply
#5
Thank you, that does make quite a bit of sense. I asked a local person, who's knowledge I trust, and he pointed out that the parallel Aramaic response says shemeh rabba, "His great name." Which seems to match the idea.

If you wouldn't mind another question, this reminds me of a conversation I had not long ago about Daniel 10:13, how most english translations interpret "מִֽיכָאֵ֗ל אַחַ֛ד הַשָּׂרִ֥ים הָֽרִאשֹׁנִ֖ים" as "Michael one of the chief princes" specifically suggesting he's just a random one of many. Given the weight of the statements in chapter 12, it seems more appropriate to say he's "uniquely the first captain" (contextually, of heaven's angelic army).

Likewise, would we interpret haShem being "one" as not just numerically "there's one of him" but also that he's first, the highest. I assume all here would agree with that statement, but do you think it's a stretch to say that's what the shema is declaring? Or am I reading too much into it, and it should be taken as only meaning that he's our God and we're to have no others?
Reply
#6
The parallel expressions would be:

שְׁמֵהּ רַבָּא = שְׁמוֹ הַגָּדוֹל "his great name"

This isn't exactly parallel to the phrase you're asking about, but the concepts are connected.

The expression מִיכָאֵל אַחַד הַשָּׂרִים הָרִאשֹׁנִים literally means what you brought out from the translation: "Michael, one of the first/chief ministers/priests." It doesn't mean "the chief of the ministers" or "the chief minister," which would be רֹאשׁ הַשָּׂרִים or הַשָּׂר הָרָאשִׁי, respectively. You shouldn't try to read your interpretation into the text, but rather draw your interpretation out of the text.

I think the Jehovah's Witnesses might try to translate the verse in that way, since they believe that Michael was the top angel who eventually incarnated into the person of Jesus.
Reply


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)