Biblical Hebrew Forum

["Karl Randolph" <kwrandolph AT email.com>]

Yigal:

Let's look at the context as it is written, the interpretation should be a 
separate subject.

This "cursing of Canaan" takes place shortly after the flood, most likely 
less than a decade afterwards. Canaan, who was born after the flood, was just 
a small boy at the time. Noah's words are prophetic, as they refer to the 
later life of the individuals involved. As a sub-teen, Canaan could not 
fulfill his later role as a slave to his uncles, that would have to come in 
the future. Within the context, as written, this is a historical event 
involving the individuals named, hence LMW in this context is singular.

Now to the interpretations: is this a myth that is not true intended to serve 
as a metaphore to explain later events (e.g. Israel's invasion and 
subjugation of Canaan) as many people believe, or is it a record of actual 
historical events involving the individuals named, as I believe? Does it make 
a difference as far as analysing the linguistic form of the story itself? I 
don't think differing interpretations of the meaning of the story should 
affect a grammatical and linguistic analysis of the story itself. What do you 
say?

Karl W. Randolph.

----- Original Message -----
From: "Yigal Levin" <leviny1 AT mail.biu.ac.il>

> 
> Karl,
> 
> I personally have no well-defined opinion about whether LMW must be plural,
> and I'm perfectly willing to accept the idea that even in this case (Gen.
> 9:26) it is singular. However, Noah's words are quite obviously prophetic -
> he speaks about the future. Moreover, the "characters" of Noah's sons and
> descendants are quite obviously representative figures, who reflect what the
> biblical authors thought about their "progeny".
> 
> Yigal
-- 
___________________________________________________________
Sign-up for Ads Free at Mail.com
http://promo.mail.com/adsfreejump.htm