Biblical Hebrew Forum

[K Randolph <kwrandolph AT gmail.com>]

Harold:

I don't follow you. Do you have other examples to back you up? Where in
Tanakh would they be found?

BTW the phrase is "upon" your face, not "to". A significant difference in
Biblical Hebrew.

On Tue, Jan 27, 2009 at 8:36 PM, Harold Holmyard
<hholmyard3 AT earthlink.net>wrote:

> John,
>
> You write:
>
> I'm not quite following what you are saying. What did Satan mean by "to
> > your face"?
> >
>
> The Hebrew words "if not" are part of an idiomatic development from a oath
> formula to the idea of "surely."


Where is this idea found? Please give other examples.


> The idea is, "May God do so-and-so to me if he does not . . . ." So Satan
> was saying that Job would surely "bless" God to his face. This is the tip
> off that the words have been adjusted by the scribes to avoid the offensive
> thought of "cursing" God. But the rewrite with "bless" is so obvious that
> readers would know the change was made for reverential reasons. That is why
> the scribes could afford to make such a change; it is so obviously a
> doctoring.
>

Are there "undoctored" texts extant go give other evidence to back you up?
Or is this whole thing made up in an attempt to "make sense" of the text?

There are other passages that have the "if not" used in the same manner as I
mentioned in my previous message, e.g. 1 Samuel 2:16, 6:9.


> The idea of blessing someone to their face seems pretty meaningless. If one
> blessed them behind their back, it would still be a blessing and in that
> sense would not differ much from blessing them to their face. Usually the
> temptation is to speak better of someone in their presence than away from
> them, so blessing God to his face seems "easier" than blessing him behind
> his back. On the other hand, there are plenty of people who might curse
> someone behind their back but would not curse them to their face. If you
> curse someone to their face, you are really angry and rejecting.


(L PNY, not LPNY. Satan's expectation was that Job, if he lost all, would
complain before God, not bless him, but if God did not cause Job to lose
all, then Job would bless him. But Job did not follow Satan's script.


> Just as improbable as Job's wife telling Job to bless God and die is the
> idea of blessing here.


And why can't Job's wife's statement be one of exasperation? Look at her
question that just preceeded this statement and the context in which it was
made—Job was now suffering physically after having lost all, yet he gave no
evidence that he would change his tune. A translation into English that
would give voice to this exasperation would add "alright then" or another
phrase giving the same flavor, making the translation "You still causing to
be firm in your perfection? Alright then, bless God … and die!" No need to
change the words.


>
> Yours,
> Harold Holmyard
>
> Karl W. Randolph.