Biblical Hebrew Forum

["Mike Tisdell" <mike AT netronix.com>]

  _____  

From: Isaac Fried [mailto:if AT math.bu.edu] 
Sent: Wednesday, May 14, 2008 1:29 PM
To: Mike Tisdell
Cc: b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] Euphemistic curse

 

;Mike,

 

;I am not sure what you mean by "euphemism"

 

Most of the translation notes on this passage that I have found describe this
use of BRK as a euphemism and many ascribe this to a latter textual emendation
by scribes who didn't want to use QLL in reference to God. However, I did 
find a
reference by August  H. Konkel in the "Cornerstone Biblical Commentary""  
where
he proposes that this is really an example of antiphrasis rather than a
euphemism (He references a paper by Cheney, but so far I have not seen the
original paper). He does reference one such occurrence in a Yiddish idiom i.e.
misheberek; however, clearly that is far removed from the period when Job was
written and Job may actually have influenced this Yiddish idiom, so although
interesting I don't think it adds much in support of this explanation.

 

;but you may be overlooking a simple thing. The root BRK is neutral, all it
refers to is material aggregation. Indeed the root BRK spawned the disparate
words

; BRAK-AH, 'blessing', BEREK, 'knee', and BREK-AH, 'pool', that have all 
nothing
in common [discounting the "common wisdom" about kneeling during blessing, 

; or for ;sipping water from a pool.] 

 

This isn't something I overlooked; however, this is something still up for
debate. There is still somewhat of a question about whether BRK I (to bend a
knee) and BRK II (to bless) originally came from the same root. I tend to lean
towards the idea that BRK II was derived from BRK I, but the evidence for that
is not conclusive, and there are still those who argue against it. In either
case, it is still hard to jump from a neutral understanding of BRK to one 
where
it is clearly understood in a very negative light as in it is in Job.

 

;In this general sense BARAK may be but a variant of CARAX, 'screamed, 
shrieked,
yelled, shouted', as in Isaiah 42:13, which has also nothing to do with CRIAX,
'turret, spire'. 

;The root BRK is also akin to BRX, 'separate, escape', BRQ, 'polish, shimmer,
discharge', PRX, 'flourish', PRK, 'brittle' and PRQ, 'take apart'. Notice that
DBR 

;generated, among other, the distinct words DIBR-AH, 'saying', DOBR-AH, 'raft'
and DBAR-IM, 'things'.

;So, BERAK-TA of 1 Kings 21:10 is easily just 'talked loosely, spread loose
talk'. In its essence, QLL, 'curse', is also but raise the voice, 'QOL', to 
GLL,
'roll, 

;[bad words]', or to KLL, 'accumulate, include, [bad words of ill meaning]'. 
The
kindred HLL is the same accumulation, but of good words.

 

This is an interesting proposition, but something I have a much harder time
accepting; changing one of the root letters is very significant in Hebrew and
root letter changes that don't reflect a known pattern (such as the Lamed
Hey/Yod roots) would require a lot of evidential support before I would see 
that
as a valid explanation. Do you know of any references that deal with this
proposition more completely?

 

 

Thanks,

 

Mike Tisdell

San Jose, CA