Biblical Hebrew Forum

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

Yigal:

I agree that Noah's words were prophetic, at the time he spoke them, 
referring to the individuals named. However, from the context, I disagree 
with your original claim that "the "characters" of Noah's sons and 
descendants are quite obviously representative figures, who reflect what the 
biblical authors thought about their "progeny"." Yours is an interpretation 
read into the text, not evident from the text itself.

Is your interpretation correct, or is mine where I say that it is limited to 
the individuals named? This is a philosophic and not a linguistic question, 
so I won't argue it here. All I note linguistically is that the story as it 
stands refers only to the individuals named.

Karl W. Randolph.


----- Original Message -----

> 
> Karl:
> 
> So you do agree that Noah's words are meant to be prophetic. That's the only
> part in your previous post that I objected to. A I wrote, I'm willing to
> accept that LMW can be used in the singular.
> However, when I wrote that "the characters of Noah's sons and descendants
> are quite obviously representative figures", I meant that this is how they
> were intended to be seen by the author(s). And yes, I do think that authors
> will use language differently for different types of writing.
> 
> Yigal
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "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