Biblical Hebrew Forum

[Harold Holmyard <hholmyard3 AT earthlink.net>]

Karl,
> Thank you. But now I'll have to find how the Masoretes changed the text.
> Well, I have a printed "dead tree" copy of Biblia Hebreica sitting around
> somewhere, I'll have to find it. (While writing this, I see you sent another
> message giving the proposed translations of those changes, but not the
> Hebrew. I'll still have to look them up. I don't read English translations
> for my personal readings, why should I read English for my scholarly
> studies?)
>   

HH: Because failure to do so can leave a person uninformed and misguided.
> And there are reasons to deny that they were deliberate changes.
>
> 1) There is no record that a change was ever affected.
>   

HH: There is a record that changes exactly like this were made. They are 
called tiqqune sopherim.

> 2) Words don't have one meaning, and its opposite.
>   

HH: They can, if the history of the word develops in that way. The 
English word "bad" is sometimes used to indicate something good. This 
sort of thing happens. Words can also be used ironically or 
sarcastically with just the opposite of their apparent meaning.

> 3) Comparing the use of the idiomatic phrases in the verse with their use in
> other verses gives no compulsion for a change. In other words, it makes
> perfect sense as written.
>   

HH:  It does not make perfect sense as written, nor do the other texts. 
That is why modern translations do not translate these verses, about six 
of them in the Bible, the way you are suggesting. The jerry-built 
solutions you offer for these texts are not believable. And  )M L) has a 
pattern of usage in the Bible that shows what the likely sense is in 
Satan's speech, where )M L) evidently means "surely." And you have Satan 
not saying that Job will do anything wrong.

> 4) The earliest translation of Job 1:11, 2:5, the LXX, has bless.
>   

HH: The LXX is known, in general, to be woodenly literal in many parts.

> 5) The functional meaning of a word does not change from context to context:
> that in one context it is difficult to understand is not an excuse to allow
> for different meanings.
>   

HH: Words have different meanings that develop historically. While I 
agree with you that they usually develop out of a basic meaning, the 
developments can be quite diverse. Of course, if the word were a scribal 
emendation, there would be no change in the meaning of the word. It 
could merely substitute for the original "curse."
>   
> > Apparently, for the biblical writer the combination of the verb "to
> > curse/blaspheme" and
> > "God" ("to curse God") was offensive to his or her religious
> > sensitivity, making it necessary to
> > paraphrase the concept using one that sounded less offensive. The result
> > was the substitution of
> > the verb "bless" for the verb "curse."
> >
> >     
>
> See above, where is the evidence of a change?
>   

HH: The evidence of a change is that the verses are not meaningful as 
they stand unless "bless" is used euphemistically. The evidence of 
change is the fact that 1 Kings 21:10 is a known member of the tiqqune 
sopherim. It may represent the class of such changes, since 1 Kings 
21:13 is not listed among the 18 tiqqune sopherim, though it is the same 
as 21:10. Also, other listed tiqqune sopherim concern the use of words 
like blaspheme and curse with God (1 Sam 3:13; 2 Sam 12:14; Ps 10:3; Mal 
3:9).
>   
> > Euphemistic expressions are common in all languages, and Hebrew is no
> > exception. The
> > question is whether in some cases the verb "to bless" is used
> > euphemistically. Let's examine
> > some texts.
> >
> > 1. Euphemistic Usage Outside Job: The number of passages in which we
> > find the
> > phenomenon just described is very limited. One of the best examples is
> > recorded in 1 Kings
> > 21:10, 13. Jezebel asked for false witnesses to testify against Naboth
> > saying that they heard him
> > "cursing [blessing]" God and the king. On that basis Naboth received the
> > death penalty.
> > Obviously, no one is to be stoned for blessing God; therefore the verb
> > "to bless" is used here as a
> > euphemism.
> >
> >     
>
> Not necessarily. Did Naboth "bless" both God and the king? 

HH: No, it would not be an accusation to say that he blessed God and the 
king.

> Or did his
> "blessing" for the king turn out like that friendly encouragement of the
> prophet Mikiyahu in the next chapter?

HH: There is nothing said about Mikiyahu in relation to Naboth. Mikiyahu 
is neither God nor the king.

>  Or in 1 Kings 21:13 was this an
> imperative, and when Naboth was unable to fulfill the command completely,
> i.e. the "blessing" for the king stuck in his throat, that he was then
> executed for civil insubordination? 

HH: Then the accusation would be that he did not bless the king.

> Where is the necessity that the only way
> to understand this verse is through claiming that it is a euphemism?
>   

HH: Other explanations don't really make sense
>   
> > 2. Euphemistic Usage in Job: It was Job's practice to offer sacrifices
> > on behalf of his
> > children because, he thought, "Perhaps my children have sinned and
> > cursed [blessed] God in
> > their hearts" (Job 1:5, NIV). No sacrifice is needed for blessing God.
> > Job moves from sin in
> > general to the most radical expression of it in cursing God.
> >
> >     
>
> Are you not taking this out of context? Does not the context indicate that
> this is an improper blessing due to error?
>   

HH: No, the context does not indicate that it is an improper blessing 
due to error. There is nothing said about such ideas. There is mention 
that the children may have sinned. What in the world is an improper 
blessing, anyway?
>   
> > Next we find Satan saying to God, "Stretch out your hand and strike
> > everything [Job] has,
> > and he will surely curse [bless] you to your face" (Job 1:11, NIV; see
> > also Job 2:5). This is not a
> > sarcastic expression"He will surely bless you!" but an expression of
> > certainty. The phrase "to
> > your face" expresses open contempt. The euphemistic use of the verb
> > "bless" seems to fit the
> > context very well.
> >
> >     
>
> And there are a few reasons that this is not true, among which:
>
> I already mentioned that (L PNY in none of its other uses has the concept of
> "to your face" in the English sense of the phrase. To give it that meaning
> only here is bad linguistics.
>   

HH: The phrase means "to your face" in Job 6:28. The meaning is given in 
the lexicon. The phrase has a wide range of meanings that could apply, 
including "in front of," "before," and "in the sight of."  See, for 
example, Jer 6:7; Ex 33:19; Gen 32:22; Job 4:15; Lev 10:3; Ps 9:20.
> The sentence here is not in the context of an oath or promise, rather a list
> of actions. In a list of actions, the phrase )M L) has the meaning of "if
> not [action] then [action]" where in these verses the first action is
> assumed from the context.
>   

HH: It is called a suppressed oath formula. Satan is emphasizing how 
certain it is that Job will curse God.

> In view of the phrases used in these verses, how does a euphemistic changing
> of "blessing" to "curse" fit?
>   

HH: It fits because Satan is claiming that if he afflicts Job, then Job 
will curse God. It obviously fits because all translations seem to have 
it except a few that specialize in being painstakingly literal.

> > 3. Euphemistic Usage in the Speech of Job's Wife: Did Job's wife say
> > "Curse" or "Bless God
> > and die"? Job's answer seems to support the idea that "bless" is being
> > used here as a euphemism for "curse." If she is encouraging him to bless
> > God and die, why did Job say to her "You are talking like a foolish
> > woman" (Job 2:10, NIV)? Whatever she was trying to say, Job found it
> > inconsistent with devotion to God. We know very little about this woman,
> > and the tendency has been to consider her an evil woman. Undoubtedly
> > Job's suffering caused her to suffer as well. Losing all her wealth was
> > painful, but even more emotionally and psychologically devastating would
> > have been losing all her children. Her pain may have been even more
> > intense than her husband's. Yet in the story she bears her pain quietly.
> > She loved Job. It must have been extremely painful for her to see her
> > husband going through excruciating physical, psychological, and
> > spiritual pain and be unable to do anything to bring relief.
> >
> > There seems to be only one way left for her. She speaks to Job from the
> > depth of her love and
> > concern for him. She doesn't realize that, like Peter, she is echoing
> > Satan's words. No, she is not
> > a foolish woman, but that day she spoke "like" one.
> >
> >     Job realizes her deep pain and says to her, "Shall we accept good
> > from God, and not
> > trouble?" (verse 10). He seems to be saying, "God has given us good
> > things to administer for
> > Him, and we did it joyfully; now we have become stewards of pain for
> > Him; hold on to your
> > faith." It may be that at that moment she embraced him and they both
> > cried together.
> >
> >     
>
> Spoken like a true, 21st century, sensitive American male. But is that the
> way Job and his wife interacted? The LXX added extra verses here bringing
> out some of this idea, but I understand it more in the sense of accusatory
> action.
>   
HH: The writing above assumes that there is an accusation, and that is 
exactly why the idea of "bless" does not fit. If Job's wife had told him 
to bless God and die, then there would have been no real reason to 
accuse his wife of speaking like one of the foolish women.
> I already gave my translation, showing why there is need neither for a
> scribal amendation nor a euphemistic rendition.
>   

HH: Your various solutions for these numerous verses are not credible. 
You would not have Satan saying that Job would do anything wrong. You 
would have Job offering sacrifices because his children might have 
blessed God. You would have Job accusing his wife of talking like one of 
the foolish women because she said, "Bless God and die." You would have 
the town accusing Naboth and putting him to death, because he blessed 
God and the king.

Yours,
Harold Holmyard
>