Biblical Hebrew Forum

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

Chris:

To start out, thank you too for the dialog. It is helping me think through 
and understand the text better. Thanx.

As for the NRSV taking “BRZL ... WNX$T” as a compound subject, I have seen 
similar examples in Tanakh, but right off hand I don’t remember where. In 
fact, as I read this verse, I almost automatically read this verse as “iron, 
(description of what sort of iron) iron from the north and bronze”. Does 
anyone else remember any examples?

As for the use of )Y$ in a sentence referring to “someone”, I see examples 
such as Genesis 13:16, Leviticus 15:24, 27:31, Judges 4:20 and many other 
verses. The examples you gave I read as passives in Hebrew, something I see 
as allowed in the Hebrew grammar, but not allowed in English grammar. In 
other words, Waltke & O’Connor, are they not imposing English grammar rules 
onto ancient Hebrew?

Now back to Jeremiah 15:12:

While I find the evidence for R(( II root weak, I don’t absolutely rule it 
out, at least not yet. If its meaning includes the idea of being hurtful, 
that unites it with R(( I which often refers to a hurtful unpleasantness. 
Even if it ends up with only one or two undisputed verses that have R(( II 
root, I think we have to keep it. Right now I question every occurance I 
looked at.

I agree that this passage is hard to read. Verses 1–9 are God talking about 
what judgments he will bring on the people. Verse 10 Jeremiah bemoans his 
status. Verse 11 looks to me that he is transitioning back to talking about 
the national fate that is coming, the reason for his low status. Verse 12 
this disputed one. Verses 13–14 again talking about the national fate. Then 
verses 15 through the end of the chapter a comment on his personal 
relationship with God. It is within this context that I think my reading 
makes the most sense. But I’m not going to go out, jump up and down and 
proclaim that the other readings are all wrong, at least not yet. I think it 
suffices to say that I find them hard to justify.

Karl W. Randolph.

----- Original Message -----
From: "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?
> >.
>
> 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
-- 
___________________________________________________________
Sign-up for Ads Free at Mail.com
http://promo.mail.com/adsfreejump.htm