Biblical Hebrew Forum

[ben.crick AT argonet.co.uk (Ben Crick)]

On Tue 23 Aug 2005 (14:06:41 +0100), peterkirk AT qaya.org wrote:
> Not at all. )$R introduces a subordinate clause which is very often 
> embedded within the main clause. And that seems to be what is happening
>  here (Lev 20:17), at the formal syntactical level, literally "A man
> {who  takes his sister, daughter of his father or daughter of his
> mother and  sees her nakedness and she sees his nakedness} he/it is
> XESED." {...}  indicates the embedded clause. Formally HU' is a
> resumptive pronoun  referring back to the man.

 Is it possible that the XeSeD here is a deliberate euphemism for Reproach
 or Disgrace?

 Compare 1 Kings 21:13 where we read "Naboth blessed God" meaning "Naboth
 cursed God".

 Ben
-- 
 Revd Ben Crick, BA CF                                       ZFC Hf
 <ben.crick AT NOSPAM.argonet.co.uk>
 232 Canterbury Road, Birchington, Kent, CT7 9TD (UK)
*Acorn RPC700, RO4.03+Kinetic Card, 126MB, 4.3GB HD, x32CDROM
*Castle Iyonix X100, RO5.06, 600MHz XScale processor, 512MB DDR RAM,
 114GB HD, CD-RW, etc. *Ethernet networking.