Biblical Hebrew Forum

[John Ronning <ronning AT ilink.nis.za>]

Dear Bryan,

I have another "take" on the "over-specification" of Elohim in Exod 2:23-25 
(not that
I disagree with the application you made in the wider context).  The series of
"Elohim's" as subject begins with the note that the cry of the Israelites 
"rose up" to
God; Elohim is used here of God "in heaven" which sets up a contrast with the 
next
chapter, where "Yhwh said, I have seen . . . and given heed . . . so I have 
come down"
(3:7-8).  Thus the covenant name of God is particularly applicable where God
intervenes in history (here on behalf of his people, more generally in the 
Tower of
Babel incident, and in Gen 18:21 to destroy the cities of the plain and save 
Lot).
Lest we think the two names represent two different gods, they are also used
interchangably in Exod 3:1-7 (source critics, of course, have a different
explanation).

Another factor - many of the Israelites may have been crying out to other 
gods, not
the God of their fathers (thus the more general Elohim is used, perhaps 
repeatedly so
we see there is significance in it), yet God heard them anyway for the sake 
of the
fathers.

For under-specification, I'd be interested in your view of who is the subject 
of the
verb "they pulled him up" in Gen 37:28.  To read Genesis 37-50 as a coherent 
whole,
"his brothers" must be the subject (Gen 45:4 seems to indicate that Judah's 
intention
to sell Joseph ws carried out), while the Midianites and Ishmaelites must be 
the same
or somehow overlapping (as in Judges 6-8).

Why the "under-specification" here, which, as you say, "risks a (temporary)
mis-reading"?  A related question - why mix the Ishmaelites and Midianites 
(and
Medanites; 37:36)?

An example of over-specification is the redundancy of Gen 21:3, where it says 
three
times that Abraham is Isaac's father (a fact that has already been stated in 
v. 2 and
is stated again in v. 4).  The redundancy is especially apparent when 
comparing 21:2-5
to 16:15-16:
16:15 watteled Hagar le'Abram ben.  wayyiqra' 'Abram shem-beno 'asher yaledah 
Hagar,
Yishmael.  (v. 16) we'Abraham ben shemonim shanah weshesh shanim beledeth 
Hagar 'eth
Yishmael le'Abram.

21:2-5 watteled Sarah le'Abraham ben. . . . (v. 3) wayyiqra' 'Abraham 
eth-shem-beno
[hannolad lo], 'asher yaledah [lo] Sarah, Yitsxaq. . . . (v. 5) we'Abraham 
ben me'ath
shanah behiwwaled lo 'eth Yitsxaq [beno]

The brackets mark "extra" indications that Isaac is Abraham's son, so that 
Gen 21:2-5
is "marked" as you say.  This redundancy was noticed by a number of Rabbis, 
who gave
various explanations for it.  I think Rashi was on the right track, as he 
deduced that
someone must have been asserting that someone else was Isaac's father.  Who 
else could
be the father?  Note the previous context, in which Sarah was in Abimelech's 
harem
(thus 20:4 is especially significant).  Who was making the assertion?  Note 
the
following context, in which the son of Hagar mocks Isaac, in such a serious 
manner as
to be deprived of his inheritance.  I.e., Ishmael was saying that Isaac was 
the son of
Abimelech.  Such a claim would make Ishmael still the heir, and thus as 
punishment he
(not Isaac) is exiled.

A related question - should translators leave under- and over-specification 
in their
translations as much as possible?  Note how the NIV gets rid of all the
over-specification in Gen 21:3:
NASB Abraham called the name of his son who was born to him, whom Sarah bore 
to him,
Isaac.

NIV Abraham gave the name Isaac to the son Sarah bore to him.


Regards,

John Ronning

Bryan Rocine wrote:

> B-Haverim,
>
> there's a principle of economy at work in stylistics/pragmatics we can call
> over-specification.  i think i can fairly summarize the idea: what is
> longer than necessary is marked.  for example, imagine the following items
> in the middle of a paragraph recounting the assassination of Lincoln:
>
> a.  he shot him
> b.  Booth shot Lincoln
> c.  John Wilkes Booth, the deranged thespian, shot Abraham Lincoln,
> sixteenth President of the United States of America
>
> in an effort to get at the intentions of a speaker/writer, it is (c) that
> is marked for us.  (a) presumes the participants are merely being tracked.
> (b) avoids a possible mis-reading by specifying the participants more
> specifically than (a) but still economically.  the over-specification of
> the participants in (c) elevates the proposition to the status of "central
> to the speaker/writer's purpose."
>
> it seems to me that the Hebrew writer's stylistic/pragmatic sensibilities
> are a little different than ours in that he may use *under*-specification
> as well as over-specification as a marking device.  Over and
> under-specification are both used in  Exodus 2:21-25
>
>  21 And Moses was content to dwell with the man: and he gave Moses Zipporah
> his daughter.
>  22 And she bare him a son, and he called his name Gershom: for he said, I
> have been a stranger in a strange land.
>  23 And it came to pass in process of time, that the king of Egypt died:
> and the children of Israel sighed by reason of the bondage, and they cried,
> and their cry came up unto God by reason of the bondage.
>  24 And God heard their groaning, and God remembered his covenant with
> Abraham, with Isaac, and with Jacob.
>  25 And God looked upon the children of Israel, and God had respect unto
> them.
>
> I think v. 21b grates a bit against our sensibilities in terms of
> participant tracking.  in Hebrew mo$eh is at the end of the sentence and
> determining the subject of wayyitten requires a little extra work on the
> part of the reader.  the reader must read the entire sentence and figure
> out the subject cannot be mo$eh and so *must* be the only other 3ms
> participant available and logical: re`u'el.  we English speaker/writers
> usually try to make things easier on our readers and would probably choose
> a proper noun reference to re`u'el as in Lincoln example (b) above.  In
> that 21b requires this extra work on the part of the reader, in a sense,
> risks a (temporary) mis-reading, i would say it uses under-specification to
> demote re`u'el to the status of prop in this passage.  similarly, v. 22
> under-specifies tsipporah and mo$eh.
>
> in contrast to the under-specification exhibited in vv. 21-22, vv. 24-25
> over-specifies 'elohim.  even the wayyiqtol of v. 24a, the first of a
> series of four wayyiqtols, would not require a specification of 'elohim any
> more than those in 21b or 22; nevertheless, the specification in 24a is
> convenient for the reader as an aid in participant tracking.  In addition,
> the remaining wayyiqtols in the series all specify, pleonastically, 'elohim
> as subject.  in this way the narrator elevates 'elohim to the status of
> "central to the purposes of the narrator."  we can actually rank the
> participants in the narrative by their relative centrality:
>
> low: re`u'el, tsipporah
> middle: mo$eh
> high: 'elohim
>
> we now have linguistic grounds for the claim that the narrator intends to
> give 'elohim the greatest share of glory for His providential care of Moses
> and Israel, Moses the second, and Reuel, some leftovers.
>
> it seems to me that BH has a dynamic in participant reference tracking that
> we shun in English: a functional under-specification.  what do you think?
> can you refer me to helpful literature on the matter?
>
> Shalom,
> Bryan
>
> B. M. Rocine
> Associate Pastor
> Living Word Church
> 6101 Court St. Rd.
> Syracuse, NY 13208
>
> 315-437-6744(w)
> 315-479-8267(h)
>
> ---
> You are currently subscribed to b-hebrew as: ronning AT ilink.nis.za
> To unsubscribe, forward this message to $subst('Email.Unsub')
> To subscribe, send an email to join-b-hebrew AT franklin.oit.unc.edu.