Biblical Hebrew Forum

[Stephen Shead <srshead+bh AT gmail.com>]

George (and Oun and others),

You said: "You may see two concepts, but Hebrew does not." I'm afraid I
disagree - and you go on to contradict yourself, in your example about
"run", where you say: "The concepts are very far apart, and yet the one word
is used for all of them." This is the point of metaphoric language: if there
is an obvious correspondence or conceived connection between two different
CONCEPTS, that construed connection will often show itself in a language;
i.e. one word (or word family) can serve for multiple concepts. In my view,
if a translation doesn't attempt to wrestle with the question at a
conceptual level, it isn't a (good) translation at all.

The construed connection between the physical/experiential concept HEAT and
the emotional concept ANGER is well documented in the linguistics
literature, and (as far as I understand) exists in diverse language
families. Presumably this has to do with the fact that we become hotter (and
redder) when we become angry. So a connection between XOM "heat" and XEMAH
"anger" is entirely to be expected, and should not be written off as
accidental. Conversely, it is almost always obvious in the context whether
an emotional or a physical state is meant.

And as an aside to Isaac Fried, your root analysis of XOM/XEMAH ("XEMAH,
'anger', needs have nothing to do with heat") ignores this cross-linguistic
data in favour of your theory about the Hebrew root system.

What to do with Ezekiel 3:14, then? Firstly, Bill Rea suggested "heat" as
his initial translation. But even if you translate it as "heat", surely you
are interpreting it metaphorically. You're not suggesting that Ezekiel was
out in the sun too long and wanted a drink and some shade? If not, it's some
kind of emotional state - which is confirmed by the parallel with MAR
"bitter", and the phrase itself "XEMAH of my spirit". So what kind of
emotional "heat"? Leaving it completely uninterpreted simply avoids the
translation issue and hides behind a "gloss".

Secondly, XEMAH seems to refer very consistently either to "poison" or to
"rage, wrath". That is, there are two clear-cut and common senses elsewhere,
so we need a strong indication of something else here. Does "poison" work
metaphorically here (meaning something similar to bitterness)? That is much
less likely than "rage" in my opinion, given that "rage" is the obvious
"emotional state" sense. (In fact, it never actually means "heat" in the
physical sense, unless I'm missing something, so why would we translate it
as that?)

So after all that, I think it is pretty straightforwardly "anger of my
spirit". That would leave us with the more interesting question of WHY he
goes away in a rage - and Bill's thoughts sound good to me. And perhaps a
little rage at the people's sin was needed to make him hard and unmoveable
(cf. 3:8-9)?

Stephen Shead
Centro de Estudios Pastorales
Santiago, Chile

---------- Forwarded message ----------
> From: George Athas <George.Athas AT moore.edu.au>
> To: B-Hebrew <b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org>
> Date: Tue, 20 Jan 2009 11:25:54 +1100
> Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] Re Ezk 3:14 in the heat of my spirit
> > I see two concepts are simply far apart.
>
> And there, I think, is the problem, Oun. You may see two concepts, but
> Hebrew does not. And you cannot impose your own view onto Hebrew. Each
> language has its own system of logic, which we call grammar, syntax, and
> semantics. You have to accept it for what it is. There is a big difference
> between learning and imposing.
>
> I've used this example before, but how would you take the word "run" in
> English? If it means "to move quickly with the feet", then what do you do
> with phrases like "run a business" or "run a computer"? It's just the
> semantic range of the word applied in different contexts. It just is! The
> concepts are very far apart, and yet the one word is used for all of them.
>
>
> Regards,
>
> GEORGE ATHAS
> Moore Theological College (Sydney, Australia)
> www.moore.edu.au
>
>