Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

b-hebrew - Re: [b-hebrew] barak (bless? curse?) in the Book of Job

b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Biblical Hebrew Forum

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: Harold Holmyard <hholmyard3 AT earthlink.net>
  • To: "b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org" <b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org>
  • Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] barak (bless? curse?) in the Book of Job
  • Date: Thu, 29 Jan 2009 09:55:31 -0600

Karl,

Thank you. But now I'll have to find how the Masoretes changed the text.
Well, I have a printed "dead tree" copy of Biblia Hebreica sitting around
somewhere, I'll have to find it. (While writing this, I see you sent another
message giving the proposed translations of those changes, but not the
Hebrew. I'll still have to look them up. I don't read English translations
for my personal readings, why should I read English for my scholarly
studies?)

HH: Because failure to do so can leave a person uninformed and misguided.

And there are reasons to deny that they were deliberate changes.

1) There is no record that a change was ever affected.

HH: There is a record that changes exactly like this were made. They are called tiqqune sopherim.

2) Words don't have one meaning, and its opposite.

HH: They can, if the history of the word develops in that way. The English word "bad" is sometimes used to indicate something good. This sort of thing happens. Words can also be used ironically or sarcastically with just the opposite of their apparent meaning.

3) Comparing the use of the idiomatic phrases in the verse with their use in
other verses gives no compulsion for a change. In other words, it makes
perfect sense as written.

HH: It does not make perfect sense as written, nor do the other texts. That is why modern translations do not translate these verses, about six of them in the Bible, the way you are suggesting. The jerry-built solutions you offer for these texts are not believable. And )M L) has a pattern of usage in the Bible that shows what the likely sense is in Satan's speech, where )M L) evidently means "surely." And you have Satan not saying that Job will do anything wrong.

4) The earliest translation of Job 1:11, 2:5, the LXX, has bless.

HH: The LXX is known, in general, to be woodenly literal in many parts.

5) The functional meaning of a word does not change from context to context:
that in one context it is difficult to understand is not an excuse to allow
for different meanings.

HH: Words have different meanings that develop historically. While I agree with you that they usually develop out of a basic meaning, the developments can be quite diverse. Of course, if the word were a scribal emendation, there would be no change in the meaning of the word. It could merely substitute for the original "curse."
Apparently, for the biblical writer the combination of the verb "to
curse/blaspheme" and
"God" ("to curse God") was offensive to his or her religious
sensitivity, making it necessary to
paraphrase the concept using one that sounded less offensive. The result
was the substitution of
the verb "bless" for the verb "curse."


See above, where is the evidence of a change?

HH: The evidence of a change is that the verses are not meaningful as they stand unless "bless" is used euphemistically. The evidence of change is the fact that 1 Kings 21:10 is a known member of the tiqqune sopherim. It may represent the class of such changes, since 1 Kings 21:13 is not listed among the 18 tiqqune sopherim, though it is the same as 21:10. Also, other listed tiqqune sopherim concern the use of words like blaspheme and curse with God (1 Sam 3:13; 2 Sam 12:14; Ps 10:3; Mal 3:9).
Euphemistic expressions are common in all languages, and Hebrew is no
exception. The
question is whether in some cases the verb "to bless" is used
euphemistically. Let's examine
some texts.

1. Euphemistic Usage Outside Job: The number of passages in which we
find the
phenomenon just described is very limited. One of the best examples is
recorded in 1 Kings
21:10, 13. Jezebel asked for false witnesses to testify against Naboth
saying that they heard him
"cursing [blessing]" God and the king. On that basis Naboth received the
death penalty.
Obviously, no one is to be stoned for blessing God; therefore the verb
"to bless" is used here as a
euphemism.


Not necessarily. Did Naboth "bless" both God and the king?

HH: No, it would not be an accusation to say that he blessed God and the king.

Or did his
"blessing" for the king turn out like that friendly encouragement of the
prophet Mikiyahu in the next chapter?

HH: There is nothing said about Mikiyahu in relation to Naboth. Mikiyahu is neither God nor the king.

Or in 1 Kings 21:13 was this an
imperative, and when Naboth was unable to fulfill the command completely,
i.e. the "blessing" for the king stuck in his throat, that he was then
executed for civil insubordination?

HH: Then the accusation would be that he did not bless the king.

Where is the necessity that the only way
to understand this verse is through claiming that it is a euphemism?

HH: Other explanations don't really make sense
2. Euphemistic Usage in Job: It was Job's practice to offer sacrifices
on behalf of his
children because, he thought, "Perhaps my children have sinned and
cursed [blessed] God in
their hearts" (Job 1:5, NIV). No sacrifice is needed for blessing God.
Job moves from sin in
general to the most radical expression of it in cursing God.


Are you not taking this out of context? Does not the context indicate that
this is an improper blessing due to error?

HH: No, the context does not indicate that it is an improper blessing due to error. There is nothing said about such ideas. There is mention that the children may have sinned. What in the world is an improper blessing, anyway?
Next we find Satan saying to God, "Stretch out your hand and strike
everything [Job] has,
and he will surely curse [bless] you to your face" (Job 1:11, NIV; see
also Job 2:5). This is not a
sarcastic expression"He will surely bless you!" but an expression of
certainty. The phrase "to
your face" expresses open contempt. The euphemistic use of the verb
"bless" seems to fit the
context very well.


And there are a few reasons that this is not true, among which:

I already mentioned that (L PNY in none of its other uses has the concept of
"to your face" in the English sense of the phrase. To give it that meaning
only here is bad linguistics.

HH: The phrase means "to your face" in Job 6:28. The meaning is given in the lexicon. The phrase has a wide range of meanings that could apply, including "in front of," "before," and "in the sight of." See, for example, Jer 6:7; Ex 33:19; Gen 32:22; Job 4:15; Lev 10:3; Ps 9:20.
The sentence here is not in the context of an oath or promise, rather a list
of actions. In a list of actions, the phrase )M L) has the meaning of "if
not [action] then [action]" where in these verses the first action is
assumed from the context.

HH: It is called a suppressed oath formula. Satan is emphasizing how certain it is that Job will curse God.

In view of the phrases used in these verses, how does a euphemistic changing
of "blessing" to "curse" fit?

HH: It fits because Satan is claiming that if he afflicts Job, then Job will curse God. It obviously fits because all translations seem to have it except a few that specialize in being painstakingly literal.

3. Euphemistic Usage in the Speech of Job's Wife: Did Job's wife say
"Curse" or "Bless God
and die"? Job's answer seems to support the idea that "bless" is being
used here as a euphemism for "curse." If she is encouraging him to bless
God and die, why did Job say to her "You are talking like a foolish
woman" (Job 2:10, NIV)? Whatever she was trying to say, Job found it
inconsistent with devotion to God. We know very little about this woman,
and the tendency has been to consider her an evil woman. Undoubtedly
Job's suffering caused her to suffer as well. Losing all her wealth was
painful, but even more emotionally and psychologically devastating would
have been losing all her children. Her pain may have been even more
intense than her husband's. Yet in the story she bears her pain quietly.
She loved Job. It must have been extremely painful for her to see her
husband going through excruciating physical, psychological, and
spiritual pain and be unable to do anything to bring relief.

There seems to be only one way left for her. She speaks to Job from the
depth of her love and
concern for him. She doesn't realize that, like Peter, she is echoing
Satan's words. No, she is not
a foolish woman, but that day she spoke "like" one.

Job realizes her deep pain and says to her, "Shall we accept good
from God, and not
trouble?" (verse 10). He seems to be saying, "God has given us good
things to administer for
Him, and we did it joyfully; now we have become stewards of pain for
Him; hold on to your
faith." It may be that at that moment she embraced him and they both
cried together.


Spoken like a true, 21st century, sensitive American male. But is that the
way Job and his wife interacted? The LXX added extra verses here bringing
out some of this idea, but I understand it more in the sense of accusatory
action.
HH: The writing above assumes that there is an accusation, and that is exactly why the idea of "bless" does not fit. If Job's wife had told him to bless God and die, then there would have been no real reason to accuse his wife of speaking like one of the foolish women.
I already gave my translation, showing why there is need neither for a
scribal amendation nor a euphemistic rendition.

HH: Your various solutions for these numerous verses are not credible. You would not have Satan saying that Job would do anything wrong. You would have Job offering sacrifices because his children might have blessed God. You would have Job accusing his wife of talking like one of the foolish women because she said, "Bless God and die." You would have the town accusing Naboth and putting him to death, because he blessed God and the king.

Yours,
Harold Holmyard





Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page