cctr114 at it.canterbury.ac.nz
Wed Nov 8 15:16:55 EST 2000
>>[ME] The problem is -- does mem-aleph-samek mean refuse or reject or some
>> similar meaning or is it the word which means to melt, dissolve, loose
>> courage and so on?
>R.W.P. -- I have cast my vote for refuse/reject, though I would be
>interested in the case for a different rendering
It's always interesting when two people examine the same evidence and
come to different conclusions. Given the extremely high level of skill
displayed by the poet of Job, we shouldn't discount the possibility
that he was deliberately inserting a double meaning at this point.
The question is -- how do we decide?
I am still interested in what the LXX says at this point. Any takers?
>R.W.P. -- "Refuses to repent" and "Refuses to be miserable" are different
>statements, however. To refuse to be miserable *is* a kind of repentance
>in this context, in which Job has been articulating his verge-of-despair
>mindset at great length. *Refuses to repent* is defensible on grammatical
>grounds, but I agree that it does not fit well with the context -- whether
>"context" is taken to mean 42:1-6 or the Book of Job as a whole. *Refuses
>to be miserable*, however, fits the context if one understands
>misery/mourning/despair as a major focus of Job's speeches.
You're absolutely right. I wrote refuses to repent/be miserable because
I thought originally the question was raised because Robert quoted
someone who thought the verse meant Job remained defiant, i.e. refused
to repent. Your interpretation is that Job refuses to be miserable.
Both cases taking mem-aleph-samek to mean refuse or reject.
Bill Rea, Information Technology Dept., Canterbury University \_
E-Mail b dot rea at it dot canterbury dot ac dot nz </ New
Phone 64-3-364-2331, Fax 64-3-364-2332 /) Zealand
Unix Systems Administrator (/'
More information about the b-hebrew