Biblical Hebrew Forum

[Dan Wagner <Dan.Wagner AT dstm.com>]

Bill Rea writes on 42:6, "I am still interested in what the LXX says at this
point."

Hmmm, interesting: "Therefore I disparage(d) myself, and
faint/melt/dissolve(d): now/but/then [de] I have considered myself [to be]
ground/dirt and ashes."

The verbs are aorist, aorist, & perfect respectively, but that's probably
not important for our purposes. My assumption would be that they are
interpreting multiple ideas possible in the M)S verb and then trying to
cover the scope of it's meaning with two separate verbs (trying to reflect
your "double meaning" in his translation!?), and that the 3rd verb reflects
NXM (though not very well it would seem). I don't think i'd want to suppose
in any difference in the LXX's Vorlage, although i suppose only someone
well-studied in the LXX of Job (assuming one translator of the book) would
be in position to make a strong statement on that issue.

Dan Wagner

-----Original Message-----
From: Bill Rea [mailto:cctr114 AT it.canterbury.ac.nz]
Sent: Wednesday, November 08, 2000 15:17
To: Biblical Hebrew
Subject: Re: Job 42:1-6


Reggie wrote:-


>>[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                                    (/' 


---
You are currently subscribed to b-hebrew as: [dan.wagner AT dstm.com]
To unsubscribe, forward this message to
$subst('Email.Unsub')
To subscribe, send an email to join-b-hebrew AT franklin.oit.unc.edu.