Biblical Hebrew Forum

["Heard, Christopher" <Christopher.Heard AT pepperdine.edu>]

On 1/6/05 7:12 AM, "Karl Randolph" <kwrandolph AT email.com> wrote:
> My first question that I ask myself after your response, is there really a 
> R((
> root that has the meaning of ³smash²?
> 
> But I¹m not convinced that that root exists. For example I read Proverbs 
> 18:24
> ³The unpleasant person makes himself unpleasant,...² (where ³unpleasant² is 
> a
> very mild term for what is meant). Similarly Psalm 2:9 ³You make things
> unpleasant for them...² (lit. ³You unpleasant them...²).

Karl, I have to admit a bit of surprise at your skepticism about R(( II,
"smash." My first thought was, "Karl doubts R(( II 'to smash' but is willing
to support an otherwise unattested transitive use of an otherwise unattested
participial form of YR(, which root is apparently attested but once in the
Tanakh, intransitive?" But anyway, the existence of R(( II "to smash" seems
almost impossible for me to deny in Psalm 2:9 and Job 34:24. There are least
the forms of R(( are transitive, qal, and contextually, must mean something
like "break, smash, hurt."

> Assuming that it exists, and the H- prefix is a interrogative, that makes 
> the
> question ³Will iron smash iron from the north, also bronze?² which in the
> context could refer to ³Will your weapons smash the weapons of the enemy?²
> followed by verse 13 where God declares that Israel will not succeed in its
> defense, but will be handed over to the enemy.

Yes, especially if "iron and bronze" alludes to 6:8 or the same idea as
expressed in 6:8. On the other hand, it could also belong with v. 11 and the
prior complaint, in which case it could be interpreted as "Will your [sing.,
Jeremiah] enemies prevail over you [sing., Jeremiah, "iron and bronze" to
stand against the Judeans per 1:18 and a bronze wall per 15:20]." I am not
able to finally convince myself of either interpretation. I seemed to be
faced with an irreducible ambiguity. Or perhaps this line is intentionally
vague, a Janus-like "stitch" between the complaint preceding and the doom
oracle following? Yet the whole context is a complaint, and 15:13f. seems
really out of place.

I'm also still left uncertain why NRSV takes BRZL ... WNX$T as a compound
subject for R((, with the object in between. I can't see any justification
for that. Can anybody else?

> Right off the top of my head, when an impersonal ³someone² is the subject of
> the verb, does not the sentance include a )Y$ with the verb? I don¹t 
> remember
> any case where it doesn¹t. Without a clear indication of an impersonal
> subject, it appears that the NIV is adding to the text.

)Y$ is definitely not necessary, and I'm not even sure it's normal. Consider
these examples from Waltke & O'Connor:

Gen 11:9 (L-KN QR) $MH BBL "Therefore [one] calls its name Babel"
Gen 4:26 )Z HWXL LQR) B$M YHWH "At that time [people] began to call on the
name of YHWH"
Exod 10:5 WL) YWKL LR)T )T-H)RC "[one] is unable to see the land"

(Hmm, if this were the "paraphrase" thread I'd "translate" WL) YWKL LR)T
)T-H)RC" as "nobody will be able to see the land." :-D)

> For one, the context of the chapter through verse 14 is dealing with the
> destruction wrought by the enemies of the people, not Jeremiah¹s personal
> foes. Jeremiah inserts a little personal vignette in verse 10 where he
> complains that he is beig treated like Rodney Dangerfield, sending out
> accusations and strife but no one gives him any respect.

Umm, with the possible exception of vv. 12-14, all of 15:10-21 centers on
Jeremiah's complaint. It's not just a "little personal vignette in verse
10." It's over half the chapter. And that half of the chapter includes
15:20, WNTTYK L(M HZH LXWMT NX$T BCWRH WNLXMW )LYK WL) YWKLW LK. That could
suggest the more personal reading.

I am pressing this point only because I want to get clarity about it in my
own mind, which is muddled at this juncture.
 
> I think the verse makes most sense as a dependent clause, describing )YB, 
> the
> last word of the previous verse.

To me, that seems to depend on reading HYR( as a participle of YR( and
giving YR( here a transitive sense which does not demonstrably have in its
(other?) attested occurrence in the Tanakh. So I am unconvinced of that.
HYR( really looks like an interrogative H + 3ms qal imperfect of R(( II "to
break" to me. I'm still working on understanding which of the other words in
the sentence, if any, are the subject and object. I keep turning it and
turning it, and not really coming to rest.

Thanks for the dialogue. It helps me think through the issues.

Chris
-- 
R. Christopher Heard
Assistant Professor of Religion
Armstrong Fellow in Religion
Pepperdine University
http://faculty.pepperdine.edu/cheard
http://www.iTanakh.org
http://www.semioticsandexegesis.info