יִשְׂרָאֵל
In my recent post about Eidah, Rabbi Maroof requested more information about ways the Torah refers to the Jewish people. One very common word that is used is יִשְׂרָאֵל. I wish to consider the usage of this word. Firstly, let me make it clear what I am considering. I do not wish to consider usage of the word referring to the person Yaakov, but only to the nation. Moreover, I will ignore usage of the word in phrases such as Ziknei יִשְׂרָאֵל, Elokei יִשְׂרָאֵל, Shivtei יִשְׂרָאֵל, Eish יִשְׂרָאֵל, or Yisroeli, where we are not speaking of the nation but only using the word to refer to some other body. Moreover, I exclude usages of the word that begin with a prefix letter such Miyisroel, LiYisroel etc.
After the exceptions are removed, the word appears 481 times in chumash. It can take 4 forms as follows
1. בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל as in וַיִּלֹּנוּ עַל-מֹשֶׁה וְעַל-אַהֲרֹן, כֹּל בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל
2. Kehal, Adat, or Beit Yisroel
3. כָּל-יִשְׂרָאֵל, as in אֵלֶּה הַדְּבָרִים, אֲשֶׁר דִּבֶּר מֹשֶׁה אֶל-כָּל-יִשְׂרָאֵל, בְּעֵבֶר, הַיַּרְדֵּן
4. יִשְׂרָאֵל alone as in וַיֵּשֶׁב יִשְׂרָאֵל, בַּשִּׁטִּים; וַיָּחֶל הָעָם, לִזְנוֹת אֶל-בְּנוֹת מוֹאָב.
What are the distribution of these three disparate usages between the 3 books, JE, P, & D? The following chart displays the results:
Update: Some readers have informed me that they could not see the chart. I am therefore including the data again here in text format. In accordance with my general format, (314, 42, 10) means 314 times in P, 42 times in JE, and 10 times in D.
Bnei Yisroel (314, 42, 10)
Kehal/Adas/Beis etc Yisroel (16, 0, 1)
Kul Yisroel (0, 2, 15)
Yisroel alone (1, 32, 15)
When it comes to overall usage of the word, P is the clearly dominant writer, using 85% of the total occurrences. We therefore would have expected to see similar dominance in all of the subgroups. Yet, כָּל-יִשְׂרָאֵל is used 17 times in the other sources and never in P and יִשְׂרָאֵל alone is used 47 times in the other sources and only once in P. Said differently, JE uses יִשְׂרָאֵל alone 42% of the time it wants to use the word Yisroel, while P uses it less than ½ of 1% of the time it wants to use the word. . כָּל-יִשְׂרָאֵל, is never used by P, although P has over 85% of the total usages of the word Yisroel. Had יִשְׂרָאֵל been a rare word, this could be attributed to chance. But, the law of large numbers precludes that possibility for such a common word.
The above evidence should be seen in conjunction with my earlier post regarding Eidah. Another thought to consider is the word “Am.” My sense is that this word is favored by JE and shunned by P, but I have never counted the occurrences of this word and so I have no data at this time.
posted by littlefoxlings at 10:43 PM
7 Comments:
What was your methodological basis for excluding cases of prefix and combinations like Eloke or Zikne? How is that justified? Would counting them have any effect on the pattern of the results?
1/14/2007 12:18 PM
I do not believe I need a justification. My claim about the difference in writing style of the 3 authors pertains to their usage of the word Yisroel in certain syntactic contexts. I am not making a claim about how they use the word in the other context so it is not relevant. Your question essentially amounts to asking me how I could claim JE and P are different authors since they both use the word "Et." the answer is obvious. It is possible for 2 different authors to both use the same word. Likewise, it is possible for two different authors to both use the word "misyisroel," but for one to never use "yisroel" alone. In contrast, if the book has one author, the clumpiness in the word “Yisroel” should not be justified in any well defined subset of its uses, so long as that subset is large enough to preclude the possibility of happening by chance.
Since I am considering whether or not the word Yisroel comes with an added word like "b'nei" in front of it, it seems very logical to me that the existence of another word or letter in front of the word, like Miyisroel, or Ziknei Yisroel would influence the usage of the word b'nie. Yes, you could say MiB’nei Yisroel, but it is more cumbersome, so I see no reason why you can’t say that an author would have a greater tendency to drop the B’nei in that context than he does in a context that has no prefix.
Anyway, here's the data you requested.
Miyisroel, Liyisroel, Biyisroel – in P 13 times, in JE 7 times, in D 8 times
ziknei, shivtei, Elokei etc. - in P 10 times, in JE 21 times, in D 2 times
1/14/2007 12:50 PM
I fail to see how, from a methodological perspective, בני ישראל is any different to שבטי ישראל. I appreciate that the latter refers divisively to the people, but it nonetheless testifies to the existence of that people as a cohesive whole. The same goes for זקני ישראל, although perhaps not so forcefully. Finally, why do you consider קהל, עדה and בית as all belonging to the one group, while בנים and כל are taken as separate groups? I would have put כל and קהל together, conceptually, as they both denote entirety; בנים and בית have more clanlike connotations; and עדה is more similar to your excluded שבט. Those are conceptual considerations, of course; from a linguistic perspective I would have grouped them all together. Of course, grouping them together won't look as impressive on your chart...
1/14/2007 11:14 PM
Simon,
Welcome to littlefoxling.
You raise some good points so my response will need to be detailed. Unfortunatly, I have very limited blogging time at work today. I will respond tonight.
1/15/2007 10:03 AM
Likewise, it is possible for two different authors to both use the word "misyisroel," but for one to never use "yisroel" alone.
But I'm not sure why this would ever be the case in literature. The prefixes are prepositions, the noun is what is essential. Are you telling me that an author who would write "Israel" would never write "to Israel" or "from Israel"? The idea that one author is restricted in his use of specific prepositions in connection with a particular word, when the same author uses the word and the prepositions on other occasions separately, doesn't seem to prove anything. It is pure chance.
In contrast, if the book has one author, the clumpiness in the word “Yisroel” should not be justified in any well defined subset of its uses, so long as that subset is large enough to preclude the possibility of happening by chance.
This is probably true, but it would depend heavily upon the proportion of each use in the language in general, not just in the book. We would have to examine all of Tanach with a concordance to come up with a definite assessment.
But the observation is still of interest. I don't mean to imply that I am dismissing it.
1/15/2007 10:13 AM
Simon,
I fail to see how, from a methodological perspective, בני ישראל is any different to שבטי ישראל. I appreciate that the latter refers divisively to the people, but it nonetheless testifies to the existence of that people as a cohesive whole. The same goes for זקני ישראל, although perhaps not so forcefully.
Since we are discussing this item in greater detail, let me first give a complete list of what is in this category
1. Ziknei Yisroel
2. Elokei Yisroel
3. Mikenei Yisroel
4. Machanei Yisroel
5. Shivtei Yisroel
6. Alphei Yisroel
7. Nisiei Yisroel
8. shoftie Yisroel
9. matos Yisroel
10. bnos Yisroel
11. bnei Yisroel in the passuk לֹא-תִהְיֶה קְדֵשָׁה, מִבְּנוֹת יִשְׂרָאֵל; וְלֹא-יִהְיֶה קָדֵשׁ, מִבְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל
Why have I grouped these all together? Because, in all these cases, the function of the word Yisroel is not really serving as a noun, but as an adjective (though it is grammatically still a noun), describing which elders? the elders of Israel. Said, differently, if our purpose is to consider the use of the word “b’nei” before Israel, it is highly logical that in the phrase zikeni b’nei Yisroel, there would be a greater tendency to drop the b’nei since it is more cumbersome than in a case such as וַיֵּשֶׁב יִשְׂרָאֵל, בַּשִּׁטִּים
I do agree with you regarding the issue of Shivtie Yisroel. Though, I honestly included it only for intellectual honesty. That phrase only appears in JE and D so your method would actually help my results. You may argue that matos Yisroel, which is in P, should be treated the same as shivtei Yisrael. However, in context, it is really talking about the tribes.
אֶלֶף, לַמַּטֶּה, אֶלֶף, לַמַּטֶּה--לְכֹל מַטּוֹת יִשְׂרָאֵל, תִּשְׁלְחוּ לַצָּבָא
Finally, why do you consider קהל, עדה and בית as all belonging to the one group, while בנים and כל are taken as separate groups
Kol is debatable. Does it mean the entire nation, in which case it should be with Beit, or does it mean every man of Israel, in which case it should be separate. It is debatable, but it does not affect the results much as I will argue below.
Putting Bnei with Beit also has little impact on results, as I will argue below, but I have put it separately for two reasons. Firstly, its importance as the staple usage. Secondly, since it has a completely different meaning. In Adat Yisrael, Yisrael is the nation and Adat modifies it. In B’nei Yisrael, Yisrael is the person Jacob and B’nei means the children, it’s a completely different meaning.
Of course, grouping them together won't look as impressive on your chart...
I do not agree that any of the above makes a substantial effect on the result. If I were to accept you on Shivtie it would help my case. The grouping of B’nei to kahal Adath etc. is irrelevant. The point of this post is that JE frequently uses Yisroel alone and P does not. Adding Kahal etc with B’nei would not hurt that point. It’s true that it would hurt my point about Kahal, Beis etc. but that was not the main point here and anyway, I’ve already gotten what I want to out of that point in my Eidah post itself.
Grouping Kul with the others is also irrelevant. Again, it would not hurt the point that P always uses a prefix and JE does not. There is another point here that D uses Kul Yisrael and the others do not, but I could make the same point even if I grouped them together. It would just be that within the group of kahal, adath, kul, we say that P never uses kul and D always does. The problem would still exist.
The only point you have made that would hurt the results is your point about grouping “Yisrael alone” with Ziknei Yisrael. That would indeed hurt my point. But, my question to you is this: are you trying to say that you would have done it differently than I, or are you are saying that there is no distinction between these two groups. If you are saying the latter, I disagree. You may disagree that my distinction should have importance, but how can you deny the very clear way I have defined it? If you are still not convinced, I would recommend looking through all the verses yourself. After looking at them inside, I really see a very clear distinction between these groups.
On the other hand, if you are saying that you would have done it differently, I do not see the relevance. The point is, there is a certain set of words, that when you analyze it, has a clumpiness to it in the Torah. Just because there are other sets of words that do not have clumpiness does not take away from the clumpiness of the words that are clumpy.
Of course, you may argue that I have picked and choose how to define my groups based on what will work out nicely. That, again is irrelevant. Consider the following. I will do it your way. I will only have 2 groups, Yisroel alone, and yisroel with a word before it(but, I am not agreeing to do it your way on the Zikenei Yisroel point). Yisroel alone is used approximately 10% of the time. The probability that P would use Yisroel only once is less than 10 to the negative 13. The probability that JE would use no prefix 32 times is equal to the probability of the standard normal random variable being equal to 8.85. My chart ends at 4.7 so I don’t know what the probability of that is, but it is certainly astronomically small. In other words, in order for me to be able to choose the right divisions to suit my purposes, we would have to assume that there were 10 trillion possible ways to divide up the words and I chose the one that suits my purposes. That is ridiculous.
Now, there is another consideration that I have chosen how to divide the Bible up for my purposes. There are certainly more than 10 trillion ways I could have divided up the Bible. That is a fair argument. RJM and I have tabled it for now and have agreed to have it some time in the future, and you are welcome to join us then. But, what is clear is that the few different ways I could have divided up the “Yisroel’s” are irrelevant.
One may dispute my analysis here by claiming that occurrences of Yisroel are not independent random variables because passages that use Yisroel once would tend to use it again. However, many of the Yisroel’s are spread throughout many passages. Moreover, it is unclear to me that that assumption is justifiable since many passages do switch back and forth freely. I have not looked into the complete distribution of the words at this time, but I will look into that if there is an interest in pursuing that line of argument.
1/15/2007 3:56 PM
RJM,
But I'm not sure why this would ever be the case in literature. The prefixes are prepositions, the noun is what is essential. Are you telling me that an author who would write "Israel" would never write "to Israel" or "from Israel"?
That is a very bad analgy. Firstly, I am talking about Hebrew where the prefix is a letter in the word. Secondly, I am not saying someone would not say "to Israel," I am just saying that if you wanted to say Mib'nei Yisrael, you might drop the B'nei since it is combersome. I see no reason why that is not possible.
It is pure chance.
Again, the chance of this happening is 1 in 10 trillion. Unless you are reverting to your circular reasoning argument, that I had more than 10 trillion ways I could have divided up the Bible. Again, a fair point, which I will post on in the near future.
We would have to examine all of Tanach with a concordance to come up with a definite assessment.
I have already done this, but I have limited my scope to Chumash due time constraints (remember, it's not just this word. There's hundreds of words the DH makes similar claims about, I didn't have the time to do this for all of Nach as well). My conclusion was that DH was the best explination. If you think otherwise, please share
1/15/2007 4:03 PM
Post a Comment
<< Home