Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

b-hebrew - Re: [b-hebrew] euphamism, was 2Sam24:1 subjects

b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Biblical Hebrew Forum

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: "Harold R. Holmyard III" <hholmyard AT ont.com>
  • To: b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
  • Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] euphamism, was 2Sam24:1 subjects
  • Date: Thu, 11 Aug 2005 10:03:10 -0500

Dear George,

The Ex passage makes no sense if it is not understood that it was Moses'
privates which were touched. I don't know offhand where you get the idea
that angels were supposed to be sexless creatures since Enoch certainly
portrays them as sexual. I'm not Peter, however, so I won't argue the
point with you until the cows come home. Believe what you will since
you're the one who will miss the significance of the text (and not merely
with respect to Ex 4.25).


HH: While I see how you could apply a euphemistic meaning to "feet" and get a relevant idea, I have never read the text that way and have found the text understandable. So do the major translations, which handle the word as "feet." So your statement seems an exaggeration. If Zipporah threw the foreskin at Moses' feet, it got to him. It was because of him that the circumcision was necessary. The action seems to carry a tone of rebuke.

HH: Moses should have circumcised his son but failed to do so. Zipporah realized that Moses' near death was due to his failure to circumcise the son, and perhaps Zipporah had been resisting Moses at this point. So perhaps she yielded and carried out the circumcision, or perhaps she just did it, without having resisted earlier. But her words, "You are a bridegroom of blood," imply that circumcision was something that she realized was a necessary consequence of her marriage with Moses.

Yours,
Harold Holmyard






Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page