Biblical Hebrew Forum

["Read, James C" <K0434995 AT kingston.ac.uk>]

Dear Yitzhak,

your points are justified and have been taken on board.
The reason I haven't replied to your points made about 
the apparent contradictions in the torah is because I 
am still studying your claims objectively and am not 
yet prepared to make a well laid out answer.

However, I am still a little confused because apart from 
the observation that there is no explicit claim of authorship
of the entire torah inside the torah and your view that the 
text shows inconsistencies I still have not really understood
what leads you to doubt that the tradition is correct and 
valid.

I know that you are very knowledgeable and well read and 
so I am sure that there must be more to it than this. I 
don't regard you as the kind of person who would believe 
something just because its written in the Anchor bible 
dictionary or because it is written by some scholar.
And so I anxious to hear your reasons that have led you 
to such a firm conclusion.

Love and Shalom
James

This email has been scanned for all viruses by the MessageLabs Email
Security System.
>From kgraham0938 AT comcast.net  Sun Jul 31 14:37:23 2005
Return-Path: <kgraham0938 AT comcast.net>
X-Original-To: b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
Delivered-To: b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
Received: from sccrmhc14.comcast.net (sccrmhc14.comcast.net [204.127.202.59])
        by lists.ibiblio.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7DF884C005
        for <b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org>; Sun, 31 Jul 2005 14:37:23 -0400 
(EDT)
Received: from 204.127.205.172 ([204.127.205.172])
        by comcast.net (sccrmhc14) with SMTP
        id <2005073118372201400jf4g6e>; Sun, 31 Jul 2005 18:37:22 +0000
Received: from [69.136.149.33] by 204.127.205.172;
        Sun, 31 Jul 2005 18:37:21 +0000
From: kgraham0938 AT comcast.net
To: b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
Date: Sun, 31 Jul 2005 18:37:21 +0000
Message-Id: 
<073120051837.18755.42ED1A6100098BE5000049432200750438C8CCC7CF030E080E9D0905 AT comcast.net>
X-Mailer: AT&T Message Center Version 1 (Dec 17 2004)
X-Authenticated-Sender: a2dyYWhhbTA5MzhAY29tY2FzdC5uZXQMIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-Content-Filtered-By: Mailman/MimeDel 2.1.6
Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] Translating Ezekiel 16:26
X-BeenThere: b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.6
Precedence: list
List-Id: Hebrew Bible List <b-hebrew.lists.ibiblio.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew>,
        <mailto:b-hebrew-request AT lists.ibiblio.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://lists.ibiblio.org/sympa/arc/b-hebrew>
List-Post: <mailto:b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org>
List-Help: <mailto:sympa AT lists.ibiblio.org?subject=HELP>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew>,
        <mailto:b-hebrew-request AT lists.ibiblio.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 31 Jul 2005 18:37:23 -0000

Hey Harold, the problem that I see with 'lovers or paramours' is the relative 
clause which follows.  Ok, 'she lusted after *their* (masculine plural) 
lovers. (feminine plural), whose flesh was the flesh of donkeys.

If we translate this as concubine or lovers in the normal sene, then I think 
we are talking about homosexuality.  If she lusted after the mens lovers 
(women/concubine).  And that does not make sense.  Then it goes on to say 
that the lovers had flesh, the flesh of donkeys.

That really does not make sense to me.  How can concubines women have the 
flesh of a donkey?  That is why I think that PILAG:$"HEM should be translated 
as genitials or something related to it.

Because she lusted after it, then the relative clause seems to say something 
futher about it.

--
Kelton Graham
KGRAHAM0938 AT comcast.net

-------------- Original message --------------

> Kelton, "paramours" or "lovers" is what the first
> word implies according to translations or
> dictionaries I've seen. It is "concubine" in the
> feminine, but that's what concubines were, too:
> lovers or paramours.
>
> >I think it is refering to their genitials based
> >on Ezekiel 23:20. The only trouble is
> >translating PILAG:$"YHEM in Ez 23:20. I think
> >that it is refering to the Egyptians 'genitals'
> >as opposed to their concubines, because that
> >does not make sense to me. But the pronoun is
> >masculine, so it is something belonging to the
> >men. So I think the relative clause here is
> >futher describing PILAG:$"YHEM . So Israel
> >lusted after their genitials, which was the
> >flesh (genitial size) of a donkey.
> >
> >So, tracing back to Ez 16:26, even though the
> >context is fornication, I think mentioning the
> >size here points to the inticement of the
> >Egyptians. Israel was so blinded by lust, that
> >she went after what she really desired, namely
> >what attracted her eyes.
> >
> >And maybe the reason why the NIV and other
> >translators, translate this as lust is because
> >of censorship. I mean I'd have a hard time
> >publishing this one.
> >
> >--
> >Kelton Graham
> >KGRAHAM0938 AT comcast.net
> >
> >-------------- Original message --------------
> >
> >> I am working through Ezekiel and I am not sure how to take the phrase
> >> גדלי בשר [GDLY B&R] "those being great of flesh" in Ezekiel
> >> 16:26. It's clear enough from the context that the speaker is
> >> referring to male genitalia, and the use of בשר [B&R] in Ezekiel
> >> 23:20 confirms this. However, I am not sure whether to understand
> >> גדלי בשר [GDLY B&R] as a reference simply to large genitalia
> >> per se, or to _enlarged_ genitalia, that is, erections. NIV, NRSV,
> >> and JPS all take it in the latter sense, and translate it as
> >> "lustful." The LXX has a fairly literalistic translation,
> >> µεÎ"αλοσάρκος [MEGALOSARKOS], "big-fleshed." Neither the
> >> Hebrew word-pair nor the Greek word appear elsewhere in the Tanakh or
> >> LXX, so I don't have any comparative data there to work with. Does
> >> anyone know of any good evidence, e.g. uses of the Hebrew phrase or
> >> Greek word in extra-biblical sources, or similar phrases in cognate
> >> languages, that would help me solidify this translation, or is it an
> >> irreducible ambiguity? Anybody know why NIV, NRSV, JPS read this as
> >> they do?
> >> --
> >> R. Christopher Heard
> >> Assistant Professor of Religion
> >> Pepperdine University
> >> Malibu, California 90263-4352
> >> http://faculty.pepperdine.edu/cheard
> >> http://www.iTanakh.org
> >> http://www.semioticsandexegesis.info
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> b-hebrew mailing list
> >> b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
> >> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew
> >_______________________________________________
> >b-hebrew mailing list
> >b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
> >http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew
>
> _______________________________________________
> b-hebrew mailing list
> b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew
>From hholmyard AT ont.com  Sun Jul 31 15:57:41 2005
Return-Path: <hholmyard AT ont.com>
X-Original-To: b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
Delivered-To: b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
Received: from online.OnlineToday.Com (online.OnlineToday.Com [204.181.200.2])
        by lists.ibiblio.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 38E444C005
        for <b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org>; Sun, 31 Jul 2005 15:57:41 -0400 
(EDT)
Received: from [205.242.61.131] (na131.OnlineToday.Com [205.242.61.131])
        by online.OnlineToday.Com (8.12.10/8.12.8) with ESMTP id 
j6VJvb2F020029
        for <b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org>; Sun, 31 Jul 2005 14:57:39 -0500 
(CDT)
Mime-Version: 1.0
X-Sender: hholmyard AT mail.ont.com
Message-Id: <a06020403bf12dba3b266@[205.242.61.131]>
In-Reply-To: 
<073120051837.18755.42ED1A6100098BE5000049432200750438C8CCC7CF030E080E9D09
        05 AT comcast.net>
References: 
<073120051837.18755.42ED1A6100098BE5000049432200750438C8CCC7CF030E080E9D09
        05 AT comcast.net>
Date: Sun, 31 Jul 2005 14:56:17 -0500
To: b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
From: "Harold R. Holmyard III" <hholmyard AT ont.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" ; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] Translating Ezek 23:20 (was Ezekiel 16:26)
X-BeenThere: b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.6
Precedence: list
List-Id: Hebrew Bible List <b-hebrew.lists.ibiblio.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew>,
        <mailto:b-hebrew-request AT lists.ibiblio.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://lists.ibiblio.org/sympa/arc/b-hebrew>
List-Post: <mailto:b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org>
List-Help: <mailto:sympa AT lists.ibiblio.org?subject=HELP>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew>,
        <mailto:b-hebrew-request AT lists.ibiblio.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 31 Jul 2005 19:57:41 -0000

Yes, Kelton, you make a good point. I had not noticed the suffix.

>Hey Harold, the problem that I see with 'lovers 
>or paramours' is the relative clause which 
>follows.  Ok, 'she lusted after *their* 
>(masculine plural) lovers. (feminine plural), 
>whose flesh was the flesh of donkeys.
>
>If we translate this as concubine or lovers in 
>the normal sene, then I think we are talking 
>about homosexuality.  If she lusted after the 
>mens lovers (women/concubine).  And that does 
>not make sense.  Then it goes on to say that the 
>lovers had flesh, the flesh of donkeys.
>
>That really does not make sense to me.  How can 
>concubines women have the flesh of a donkey? 
>That is why I think that PILAG:$"HEM should be 
>translated as genitials or something related to 
>it.
>
>Because she lusted after it, then the relative 
>clause seems to say something futher about it.

HH: Daniel Block, in his NICOT commentary on 
Ezekiel, suggests that the quadriliteral 
structure of the word points to a non-Semitic 
origin, perhaps Philistine. He says that "given 
the obscurity of its etymology and the uniqueness 
of Ezekiel's usage, the meaning of the word 
remains unclear." However, he agrees with you 
that the connotation of the word is sexual here, 
and he translates Ezek 23:20, "And she craved 
copulation with them, . . . ." He comments about 
concubines that their main function seems to have 
been to gratify the sexual desires of the 
man/husband. So perhaps the word could imply 
something like sexual favors in Ezek. 23:20.

                                        Yours,
                                        Harold Holmyard

>
>--
>Kelton Graham
>KGRAHAM0938 AT comcast.net
>
>-------------- Original message --------------
>
>>  Kelton, "paramours" or "lovers" is what the first
>>  word implies according to translations or
>>  dictionaries I've seen. It is "concubine" in the
>>  feminine, but that's what concubines were, too:
>>  lovers or paramours.
>>
>>  >I think it is refering to their genitials based
>>  >on Ezekiel 23:20. The only trouble is
>>  >translating PILAG:$"YHEM in Ez 23:20. I think
>>  >that it is refering to the Egyptians 'genitals'
>>  >as opposed to their concubines, because that
>>  >does not make sense to me. But the pronoun is
>>  >masculine, so it is something belonging to the
>>  >men. So I think the relative clause here is
>>  >futher describing PILAG:$"YHEM . So Israel
>>  >lusted after their genitials, which was the
>>  >flesh (genitial size) of a donkey.
>>  >
>>  >So, tracing back to Ez 16:26, even though the
>>  >context is fornication, I think mentioning the
>>  >size here points to the inticement of the
>>  >Egyptians. Israel was so blinded by lust, that
>>  >she went after what she really desired, namely
>>  >what attracted her eyes.
>>  >
>>  >And maybe the reason why the NIV and other
>>  >translators, translate this as lust is because
>>  >of censorship. I mean I'd have a hard time
>>  >publishing this one.
>>  >
>>  >--
>>  >Kelton Graham
>>  >KGRAHAM0938 AT comcast.net
>>  >
>>  >-------------- Original message --------------
>>  >
>>  >> I am working through Ezekiel and I am not sure how to take the phrase
>>  >> גדלי בשר [GDLY B&R] "those being great of flesh" in Ezekiel
>>  >> 16:26. It's clear enough from the context that the speaker is
>>  >> referring to male genitalia, and the use of בשר [B&R] in Ezekiel
>>  >> 23:20 confirms this. However, I am not sure whether to understand
>>  >> גדלי בשר [GDLY B&R] as a reference simply to large genitalia
>>  >> per se, or to _enlarged_ genitalia, that is, erections. NIV, NRSV,
>>  >> and JPS all take it in the latter sense, and translate it as
>>  >> "lustful." The LXX has a fairly literalistic translation,
>>  >> µεÎ"αλοσάρκος [MEGALOSARKOS], "big-fleshed." Neither the
>>  >> Hebrew word-pair nor the Greek word appear elsewhere in the Tanakh or
>>  >> LXX, so I don't have any comparative data there to work with. Does
>>  >> anyone know of any good evidence, e.g. uses of the Hebrew phrase or
>>  >> Greek word in extra-biblical sources, or similar phrases in cognate
>>  >> languages, that would help me solidify this translation, or is it an
>  > >> irreducible ambiguity? Anybody know why NIV, NRSV, JPS read this as
>>  >> they do?
>>  >> --
>>  >> R. Christopher Heard
>>  >> Assistant Professor of Religion
>>  >> Pepperdine University
>>  >> Malibu, California 90263-4352
>>  >> http://faculty.pepperdine.edu/cheard
>>  >> http://www.iTanakh.org
>>  >> http://www.semioticsandexegesis.info
>>  >> _______________________________________________
>>  >> b-hebrew mailing list
>>  >> b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
>>  >> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew
>>  >_______________________________________________
>>  >b-hebrew mailing list
>>  >b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
>>  >http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew
>>
>>  _______________________________________________
>>  b-hebrew mailing list
>>  b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
>>  http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew
>_______________________________________________
>b-hebrew mailing list
>b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
>http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew