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: David Kummerow <farmerjoeblo AT hotmail.com>
  • To: b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
  • Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] barak (bless? curse?) in the Book of Job
  • Date: Fri, 30 Jan 2009 14:01:14 +1100




David:

On Thu, Jan 29, 2009 at 2:38 PM, David Kummerow
<farmerjoeblo AT hotmail.com>wrote:
>
> You grammarians make mountains out of molehills. There's no oath
here, just
> simple action and consequence. Why not just take things at face value?
>

HH: Because it's a known usage of the phrase )M L), and it fits here,
and your idea really does not work because there is no specification of
wrong behavior with yours.
>

Exactly. Conklin has recently done an exhaustive analysis of all oath
formula in the Hebrew Bible. These verses in Job are analysed and fit
the pattern of oath formula where the curse half is suppressed (be it
for politeness reasons, assumed cultural knowledge, etc.).

Conklin, Blane W. 2005. "Oath Formulae in Classical Hebrew and Other
Semitic Languages." PhD diss., University of Chicago.

From memory, I think the work is now published.

Regards,
David Kummerow


Either you two are using a different definition of "oath" than what I have
learned, or this is not an oath statement. I see just a simple "if…then…"
statement where the "if" is given in the negative, in a manner used
elsewhere in Tanakh ( the )M L) phrase is not limited to oath statements),
where the "then" is the consequence if the action of the if statement is not
carried out. The unstated implicated completion of the thought is that if
the action is carried out, then there will be a different outcome.

In the particulars, if God doesn't allow Job to lose his wealth and children
1:11, then Job will bless God. In 2:5 extended to his health. Where is the
oath? Where is the need to change the wording of the sentence from "bless"
to "curse"?

I'm not up to answering Harold directly. How can one have a discussion where
I say one thing, then Harold answer me in the next line claiming that I said
the opposite of what I just said? Especially after I said the same thing two
or three times?

Karl W. Randolph.



Hi Karl,

The oath statement by satan is a reduced form of the more full "If he does not bless you to your face, [then may I be cursed]". Conklin has demonstrated that oaths in BH and other Semitic languages more often than not come in some reduced form, either for politeness reasons, or assumed cultural knowledge on the part of the speaker where the addressee is assumed to be able to fill in the ellipsis. Put positively, the statement by satan is that "he will surely bless you to your face". Like Harold, I take it that satan doesn't actually mean that as the statement is the opposite of what the context of the utterance implies, ie "that he will curse you to your face". Given this, it is not unreasonable to assume obvious scribal alteration. This seems much more likely to me than the lexicographic gymnastics you have to go through to make "bless" say something other than "bless".

Regarding idiomatic statements in BH which "say" one thing but mean the opposite, see one form of this type of thing in the following article:

Driver, G. R. 1973. “Affirmation by Exclamatory Negation.” Journal of the Ancient Near Eastern Society 5: 107-114.

Regards,
David Kummerow.






Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page