Biblical Hebrew Forum

[Isaac Fried <if AT math.bu.edu>]

Pere,

It has been my experience of many years that planting a new idea is  
easy but supplanting an existing idea is nigh impossible. Planted  
ideas are the MASMROT NTU(IM of Ecclesiastes 12:11. Explaining is  
also best done interactively.
You appear to agree with David that "gender-marking is not person- 
marking!", so pray, explain to me first what is in your opinion a  
Hebrew "gender-marking", what is a Hebrew "person-marking", and why  
"gender-marking IS NOT [or can not be] person-marking".
I really want to hear this from you, not David.

Isaac Fried, Boston University

On Dec 13, 2007, at 6:54 AM, <pporta AT oham.net> wrote:

> > > person-marking. I repeat: gender-marking is not person-marking!
>
> David,
>
> As regards noun-adjective, yes, I agree.
>
> By the way, I think the problem with Isaac Fried is this: either he  
> does not
> want to strive to explain things in such a manner that most of us can
> understand what he says....  or really his theories, statements,  
> assertions
> and so on are without any solid base.
>
> If it is the first thing .... there is no point in keeping  
> discussing with
> him. And if it is the second thing... ... the same!
>
> If he sincerely thinks he is right, he should do every effort to  
> explain his
> ideas... specially when some of listers have read his writing/s  -- 
> whose URL
> Isaac himself gave us here some days ago--  and his ideas or  
> message did not
> become clearer to readers after reading it/them.
>
> This is, imho, the central issue, the core thing with him.
>
> Pere Porta
> Barcelona
[cut]
> From JimStinehart AT aol.com  Thu Dec 13 10:08:45 2007
Return-Path: <JimStinehart AT aol.com>
X-Original-To: b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
Delivered-To: b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
Received: from imo-m23.mx.aol.com (imo-m23.mx.aol.com [64.12.137.4])
        by lists.ibiblio.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 371794C01E
        for <b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org>; Thu, 13 Dec 2007 10:08:43 -0500 
(EST)
Received: from JimStinehart AT aol.com
        by imo-m23.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v38_r9.3.) id 3.d2c.19d8b7b4 (41810)
        for <b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org>; Thu, 13 Dec 2007 10:08:39 -0500 
(EST)
From: JimStinehart AT aol.com
Message-ID: <d2c.19d8b7b4.3492a4f6 AT aol.com>
Date: Thu, 13 Dec 2007 10:08:38 EST
To: b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Mailer: 9.0 SE for Windows sub 5044
X-Spam-Flag: NO
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-Content-Filtered-By: Mailman/MimeDel 2.1.9
Subject: [b-hebrew] Genesis 49: 6:  The Joint Curse of Simeon and Levi
X-BeenThere: b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: Biblical Hebrew Forum <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: Thu, 13 Dec 2007 15:08:45 -0000


Kenneth Greifer:
=20
1.  You wrote:  =E2=80=9CI don't think the curse of Simon and Levi is so bad=
.  I=20
think Jacob cursed their anger, and not really them.=E2=80=9D
=20
(a)   You=E2=80=99re right that Jacob curses the anger of Simeon and Levi.
=20
(b)   But you=E2=80=99re wrong to say it=E2=80=99s not a terrible curse.  He=
re it is:
=20
=E2=80=9CCursed be their anger, for it was fierce, and their wrath, for it w=
as cruel;=20
I will divide them in Jacob, and scatter them in Israel.=E2=80=9D  Genesis=20=
49: 7
=20
Rather than winning the coveted leadership role, each of Simeon and Levi get=
s=20
no good inheritance at all, being =E2=80=9Cdivided in Jacob=E2=80=9D and=20=
=E2=80=9Cscattered in Israel
=E2=80=9D.  That=E2=80=99s a quite nasty curse, in my view.
=20
Especially when contrasted to the very next lines of text:
=20
=E2=80=9CJudah, thee shall thy brethren praise;  thy hand shall be on the ne=
ck of=20
thine enemies;  thy father's sons shall bow down before thee.=E2=80=9D  Gene=
sis 49: 8
=20
Now there=E2=80=99s a wonderful blessing, as a startling contrast to the imm=
ediately=20
preceding nasty curse.  As we will soon see on this thread, 
Judah=E2=80=99s=20=
great=20
blessing is beautifully foreshadowed by the magnificent birth name, =E2=80=
=9CJudah=E2=80=9D. =20
Likewise, Joseph=E2=80=99s surprisingly mediocre (though long) blessing is b=
eautifully=20
foreshadowed by the mediocre birth name, =E2=80=9CJoseph=E2=80=9D.  But I=
=E2=80=99m getting ahead of=20
myself.  And I haven=E2=80=99t even discussed =E2=80=9Coxen=E2=80=9D at Gene=
sis 49: 6 yet.
=20
You just can=E2=80=99t beat the pulsating excitement of the Patriarchal narr=
atives.
=20
2.  You wrote:  =E2=80=9CYou said Joseph was eight and a half years old (hal=
f of 17=20
years), but the curse said they killed or as you say tried to kill a 
"man".=20=
=20
Did they use to call young boys that old men or boys or youths?  If he was 1=
7=20
and called a man, at least that would fit your idea better.=E2=80=9D
=20
(a)  You actually raise a good point there.  Aleph-yod-shin (which appears a=
t=20
Genesis 49: 6) really means =E2=80=9Cmale=E2=80=9D, not =E2=80=9Cman=E2=80=
=9D.  It means man as opposed to=20
woman, and as such can mean husband.  And sometimes it means man as 
opposed=20=
to=20
beast.  But in Hebrew, unlike the English word =E2=80=9Cman=E2=80=9D, aleph-=
yod-shin does=20
not mean man/adult male as opposed to a mere boy.  Rather, the fundamental=20
meaning of aleph-yod-shin is =E2=80=9Cmale=E2=80=9D.  Thus consider 
Genesis=20=
4:1, where=20
aleph-yod-shin refers to male offspring, that is, a male infant:
=20
=E2=80=9CAnd the man [Adam] knew Eve his wife;  and she conceived and bore C=
ain, and=20
said:  'I have gotten a man [aleph-yod-shin] with the help of the LORD [YHWH=
].'
=E2=80=9D  Genesis 4: 1=20
=20
So what the Hebrew text is really saying at Genesis 49: 6, then, is that=20
Simeon and Levi =E2=80=9Cin their anger would slay a male=E2=80=9D.  The nor=
mal English=20
translation =E2=80=9Cman=E2=80=9D is in fact not quite accurate.  Thank 
you=20=
for raising that issue.
=20
(b)  As to Joseph at the beginning of chapter 37 of Genesis, since he is onl=
y=20
age 8=C2=BD regular years, naturally the narrator refers to young Joseph 
as=20=
being=20
a =E2=80=9Cnar=E2=80=9D, a =E2=80=9Cboy=E2=80=9D or =E2=80=9Clad=E2=80=9D:
=20
=E2=80=9CJoseph, being seventeen years old, was feeding the flock with his b=
rethren,=20
being still a lad [=E2=80=9Cnar=E2=80=9D] even with the sons of Bilhah, 
and=20=
with the sons of=20
Zilpah, his father's wives;  and Joseph brought evil report of them unto the=
ir=20
father.=E2=80=9D  Genesis 37: 2=20
=20
Note that everything about Genesis 37: 2 makes perfect sense if Joseph is ag=
e=20
17 =E2=80=9Cyears=E2=80=9D, in 6-month years, being age 8=C2=BD in regular y=
ears, whereas Genesis=20
37: 2 is utterly senseless if Joseph is a grown adult man age 17 regular=20
years.  Young Joseph is helping his father=E2=80=99s sons by minor wives ten=
d the flock,=20
and young Joseph tattles on these older half-brothers to his father.  That a=
ll=20
makes perfect sense for an 8=C2=BD-year-old boy, but would not make sense fo=
r a=20
grown man (in the ancient world) age 17 years in regular, 12-month years, wh=
o was=20
his father=E2=80=99s favorite son.
=20
3.  Everything makes perfect sense in the Patriarchal narratives.  Especiall=
y=20
everyone=E2=80=99s ages.  And the birth names of Jacob=E2=80=99s 12 sons.  A=
nd everything=20
else as well.
=20
Jim Stinehart
Evanston, Illinois




**************************************See AOL's top rated recipes=20
(http://food.aol.com/top-rated-recipes?NCID=3Daoltop00030000000004)