Biblical Hebrew Forum

["Harold R. Holmyard III" <hholmyard AT ont.com>]

Dear Karl,

>  > HH: That's the verb. I asked about the noun. That was my point. One
> >  meaning of the verb is not necessarily transferable to this noun.
> >  Does the noun show this meaning elsewhere. The lexicons do not give
> >  "error" as a meaning of the noun X+)T. The word occurs 298 times, and
> >  the lexicons never give "error" as its meaning.
> Harold, unless you are extremely dense, you know that one
> of the features of Biblical Hebrew language is that most
> expressed terms are derived from roots, at least
> morphologically. Secondly, unless there is evidence to
> the contrary, derivitive lexemes also carry root meanings
> expressed as verbs, nouns, etc. This is not the root
> fallacy. The root fallacy is to claim that the root
> meanings trump all other indications.
>
> The root meaning of X+) is "to err" and, as an exception
> to another rule that lexemes don't have two distinct
> meanings, "to make amends for error", the contexts tell
> us which meaning to use. There is no indication that the
> noun X+)T is an exception to the rule in the above
> paragraph. Hence, the noun's meaning parallels the verb's
> meaning. While most uses of words derived from X+) are
> used in a theological context, that is not true of all.

HH: I asked you before if you had any other 
example of where X+)T means error. If you have 
other examples, you ought to bring them forward 
to support your case. You are claiming a new 
meaning for the noun in this verse (not found in 
the lexicons), so why don't you offer any example 
of where the noun has this meaning elsewhere?

>  > >  > >  > > "Justice exults a nation,
> >  >  > >>  but undeserved good favor of peoples errs."
> >  >
> >  >  > HH: Even the general use makes no sense. Kindness is a good thing to
> >  >>  show people.
> >  >>
> >  > Not in the context, where kindness is done at the expense
> >  > of justice. If a murderer is set free instead of executed,
> >  > that is undeserved kindness that is injust. Genesis 9:6.
> >
> >  HH: But the word means kindness, goodness. You can't insert the idea
> >  "undeserved" and then claim that that is a main idea in this verse.
> You are wrong in your definitions.

HH: Some lexicons give kindness. Others give 
loyalty. Nobody insists that the idea of 
"undeserving" has to be part of the basic meaning 
of the word, or especially that it has to carry 
such a sense in every occurrence. Here are some 
main meanings from BDB: "goodness, kindness, 
mercy." Here are some of the meanings from HAL: 
"joint obligation, loyalty, faithfulness, favor, 
goodness, graciousness." You haven't proved their 
definitions wrong or your definition right.

>  > HH: You have neither refuted the old or proved the new.
> >
> Don't need to. All I need to do is to show that the old is
> not necessary, as the non-standard definition is based on
> the belief that it is necessary to fit the context. That I
> have done.

HH: You certainly have not shown me that. You 
cannot just assert something as roughly possible 
and expect people to accept it. We're looking for 
what the text actually said. And your theory may 
not even be roughly possible in Prov. 25:10.

>  > >  > HH: I don't see that you have tried to prove this assertion anywhere.
> >  >>  I don't see how it would work in Prov. 25:10.
>  > >>
> >  > To put that verse into modern English, if you have an
> >  > argument with someone else, argue with him, and don't
>  > > reveal other consultations, lest the one who hears it
> >  > treats you well undeservably and your evil report will
> >  > not return. As I understand these verses, if one gets
> >  > people to treat him well based on falsehood (more likely,
> >  > one sided portrayal), when they find out that they have
> >  > been snookered into supporting him (taking sides in his
> >  > argument), they will make sure that he has a bad
> >  > reputation at least in their own hearts. Like all
> >  > proverbs, I am reading between the lines, looking at
> >  > the actions, to try to make sense of what is said.
> >  >
> >  > This is the same sort of reading between the lines to
> >  > make sense of "a stitch in time saves nine" or "pretty
>  > > is as pretty does".
> >  HH: The proverb does not say what you're claiming it does. It would
> >  need more words to say all that. As it stands, it can't say that:
> >
> >  HCSB Prov 25:9-10: make your case with your opponent without
> >  revealing another's secret; otherwise the one who hears will disgrace
> >  you, and you'll never live it down.
> >
> >  HH: You want for verse 10: "otherwise the one who hears will treat
> >  you well undeservedly, and you will never live it down.
> >
> >  HH: That makes no sense. You would need more explanatory words to get
>  > your idea.

HH: You did not respond to this idea that even 
granting your definition of the verb, the proverb 
still does not say what you claim it does. It 
would need more words to say that. Could you 
please give your translation for Prov. 25:10?

> It is important to know that the verb XSD means to be
> >  kind, as many lexicons and many scholars have established. The noun
> >  is similar. The idea that the word XSD explicitly includes the idea
> >  "undeserved" or "undeservedly" is incorrect. Look at this verse for
> >  example:
> >
> >  Gen. 40:14 But when all goes well with you, remember me and show me
> >  kindness; mention me to Pharaoh and get me out of this prison.
> >
> >  HH: Joseph is asking for kindness specifically because the man owes
> >  it to him, not because it is undeserved.
> The man owed Joseph nothing. Joseph merely did his job as a
> trusty in prison, to try to quiet restless inmates to make
> it easier for the jailor. Joseph was asking for a favor.

HH: You are forgetting that Joseph interpreted 
their dreams when they were sad because they 
could not understand them. That was not part of 
Joseph's job. He did that out of the goodness of 
his heart, and through the gift God gave him. So 
they owed him something. He did them a service, 
and all he asked was that they remember him to 
pharaoh as one unjustly imprisoned.

Gen. 40:6 ¶ When Joseph came to them the next 
morning, he saw that they were dejected.
Gen. 40:7 So he asked Pharaoh's officials who 
were in custody with him in his master's house, 
"Why are your faces so sad today?"
Gen. 40:8 ¶  "We both had dreams," they answered, 
"but there is no one to interpret them." ¶ Then 
Joseph said to them,  "Do not interpretations 
belong to God? Tell me your dreams."
Gen. 40:9 ¶ So the chief cupbearer told Joseph 
his dream. He said to him,  "In my dream I saw a 
vine in front of me,
Gen. 40:10 and on the vine were three branches. 
As soon as it budded, it blossomed, and its 
clusters ripened into grapes.
Gen. 40:11 Pharaoh's cup was in my hand, and I 
took the grapes, squeezed them into Pharaoh's cup 
and put the cup in his hand."
Gen. 40:12 ¶  "This is what it means," Joseph 
said to him.  "The three branches are three days.
Gen. 40:13 Within three days Pharaoh will lift up 
your head and restore you to your position, and 
you will put Pharaoh's cup in his hand, just as 
you used to do when you were his cupbearer.
Gen. 40:14 But when all goes well with you, 
remember me and show me kindness; mention me to 
Pharaoh and get me out of this prison.

>  > HH: And you never dealt with one main objection I had to your
> >  handling of Lev 20:17. Since you did not like the NIV translation, I
> >  will use the HCSB:
> >
> >  HCSB LEV 20:17 If a man marries his sister, whether his father's
> >  daughter or his mother's daughter, and they have sexual relations, it
> >  is a disgrace. They must be publicly cut off from their people. He
> >  has had sexual intercourse with his sister; he will bear his
> >  punishment
> >
> >  HH: The punishment is not the XSD here. It is the sexual relations
> >  that are the XSD, and they are not "undeserved good favor."
> So the HCSB (whoever that is) also parses the sentence
> wrongly? What sort of evidence is that? Look also at
> preceding verses, starting with verse 10, for context.

HH: The HCSB translation in no way conflicts with 
verse 10. You are going against the ancient and 
authoritative Masoretic pointing of the verse, 
which lies behind the HCSB translation. It puts 
the words "it is a disgrace/undeserved favor" 
with what precedes, not what follows. The 
Masoretes would not have pointed it the way they 
did if they could not get a good meaning that way.

> Are you satisfied?

HH: I appreciate that you addressed my questions, 
but you did overlook one issue, noted above. I 
don't think you dealt very seriously with the 
other ones, but I may have left out some 
information in my first try, assuming you knew it.

                                        Yours,
                                        Harold Holmyard