Biblical Hebrew Forum

[Harold Holmyard <hholmyard3 AT earthlink.net>]

Karl,
> But seeing from your silence when asked if you had ever read the text even
> once through, cover to cover, in Hebrew, indicating that you never have,
> does that not leave you to being uninformed and misguided through ignorance?
>   

HH: I've read through the Bible in English, and in Hebrew, and more than 
once.
>   
> First you said that there were only 18 places, in 17 verses, where the
> Masoretes admitted to changing the text. These verses were not included in
> those 17.
>
> Now you are saying that there were more changes admitted to, including these
> verses.
>
> Which is it? Or are you including suspected changes which were not
> specifically admitted to?
>   

HH: Yes, there were more changes than the 18.

> You took my words out of context, I said outside of slang usage. Your
> example comes from slang. I further said I see no such usage of slang in the
> Bible.
>   

HH: But your slang is just somebody else's words. And we do see signs of 
various kinds of speech in the Bible. There are two different words for 
rape (apparently proper and improper), and for going to the bathroom, if 
I recall. And words take on other meanings. The word "sleep" takes on 
the meaning of "die." To be "at ease" and also can mean to "be 
careless." To be "trusting" can also mean to be 'heedless." And if a 
word is a euphemism, it's a euphemism. Here's a short list of biblical 
euphemisms Wayne Leman put together:

Gen. 3:19 return to the ground = die
Gen. 4:1 knew = have sex with (also 1 Kings 1:4)
Gen. 18:11 the manner/way of women = menstruation (also Gen. 31:35)
Gen. 24:2 thigh = male genitals
Gen. 34:1 defiled = had sex with
Gen. 38:5 added = conceived
Gen. 49:33 was gathered to his people = died
Ex. 21:10 duty of marriage = conjugal right (sex)
Deut. 21:14 Heb. ‘anah: humble/afflict/humiliate = have sex with (also 2 
Sam. 13:22)
Lev. 15:2 flesh = penis (also Ez. 16:26; 23:20)
Lev. 15:16 seed = semen Lev 18 repeatedly: "uncover nakedness" = have 
sex with (in a shameful way)
Lev 18:14 "approach" = have sex with
Lev 18:20 "give lying-down" = have sex with (as this word $:KOBET is 
only used for sex, maybe it was not a euphemism, but it comes from the 
root "lie down")
Lev 18:22 "lie with" = have sex with
Lev 18:23 "stand in front of" = have sex with (of a woman)
Num. 5:22 thigh = female genitals
1 Sam. 24:3 cover feet = relieve oneself
2 Sam. 16:21 go in to = have sex with
1 Kings 2:6 go down to the grave = die
1 Kings 18:27 gone aside = relieving himself (an English euphemism!)
2 Kings 2:10 slept with his fathers = died
Is. 7:20 feet = genitals
Is. 57:8 hand = penis
cut off = kill

HH: Since you haven't been accepting the Christian testimony on this, 
perhaps you'll consider the Jewish testimony:
http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/judaica/ejud_0002_0006_0_06141.html

Euphemism

Euphemism is the substitution of an agreeable or inoffensive word or 
term for one that is indelicate, blasphemous, or taboo. Various types of 
euphemisms are found in the Bible, including (1) avoidance of direct 
implication of the speaker – "Should you gouge out these men's eyes" 
rather than "our eyes" (Num. 16:14; similarly, I Sam. 29:4); (2) 
avoidance of direct implication in an oath – "God do so to the enemies 
of David" rather than "my enemies," David being the speaker (I Sam. 
25:22; similarly, I Sam. 20:16); (3) avoidance of the expression "to 
die": several different euphemistic expressions are employed, e.g., (a) 
"I am about to go the way of all the earth" (I Kings 2:2); (b) "I shall 
go the way whence I shall not return" (Job 16:22); (c) "Enoch walked 
with God; then he was no more, for God took him" (Gen. 5:24; cf. II 
Kings 2:3); and (d) "They shall sleep a perpetual sleep and not wake" 
(Jer. 51:39, 57); (4) avoidance of "cursing" (or rather, "blaspheming") 
God: the Hebrew verb /barakh/ ברך ("bless" or "praise") is employed (I 
Kings 21:10, 13; Job 1:5, 11; 2:5, 9), or, instead of the verb, the 
object is changed from "YHWH" to "the enemies of YHWH" (II Sam. 12:14); 
and (5) avoidance of indelicate and offensive expressions: (a) the 
expression "to cover one's legs" (Heb. /hasekh raglayim/) is substituted 
for "to defecate" (Judg. 3:24; I Sam. 24:3); "the bread he eats" (Gen. 
39:6) for "the woman with whom he has sexual relations" (cf. Prov. 
30:20); (b) the following are changed by the /keri/ (/qeri/) of the 
masoretic text: the verb /shagal/ ("to rape") to /shakhav/ (Deut. 28:30; 
Isa. 13:16; Jer. 3:2; Zech. 14:2); ʿ /afolim/ ("hemorrhoids") to 
/tehorim/ (Deut. 28:27; I Sam. 5:6, 9, 12; 6:4, 5); /ḥare/ (ʿ /e/) /hem/ 
("their excrement") to /Ẓo'atam/ (II Kings 18:27; Isa. 36:12; cf. also 
II Kings 10:27 where /Le-maḥara'ot/ is read /lemoẓa'ot/); and 
/sheineihem/ ("their urine") to /memei ragleihem/ (II Kings 18:27; Isa. 
36:12).

Lists of euphemistic expressions in the Bible are found in early 
tannaitic collections of halakhic Midrash. Eleven examples are given in 
the /Mekhilta/ (Shirah 6) and seven in the /Sifrei/ (Num. 84). The 
technical term employed is /kinnah hakatuv/, "Scripture used a 
euphemistic expression." Later collections of Midrash (Tanḥ. Be-Shalah 
16; Gen. R. 49:7; Ex. R. 13:1) employed the phrase /*tikkun soferim/ 
("emendation of the scribes") and record additional examples of this 
phenomenon. Though the difference in terminology reflects two different 
schools of thought, namely those holding that the Bible itself 
originally employed euphemistic expressions and those holding that the 
change was first made by the /soferim/, both agree that the changes were 
made in deference to the honor of the Lord (Lieberman). Examples of one 
such list follow: (1) "Abraham remained standing before the Lord" for 
"The Lord remained standing before Abraham" (Gen. 18:22); (2) "For his 
sons were blaspheming themselves" for "blaspheming God" (I Sam. 3:13); 
(3) "But my people have changed their glory for that which does not 
profit" for "My glory" (Jer. 2:11); (4) "Are you not from everlasting, O 
Lord my God, my Holy One? We shall not die" for "You shall not die" 
(Hab. 1:12); and (5) "For he who touches you touches the apple of his 
eye" for "my eye" (Zech. 2:12). Another kind of substitution resulting 
from religious scruples is found in the change of the vocalization of 
the verb /ra'ah/ (ראה; "to see") from the active to the passive, "to be 
seen" (Luzzatto). It is used when referring to the three appointed times 
during the year that the Israelite was obliged to make a pilgrimage to 
Jerusalem in order "to see," i.e., to be in the presence of God (e.g., 
Ex. 23:15; 34:20, 23; Deut. 16:16).



> > 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.
> >
> >     
>
> Harold, you are losing credibility here. That is not what I said. Didn't you
> read it?
>   

HH: What the text says is not very meaningful if taken with the normal 
value for "bless."

> What I said, and I'll repeat myself here, though rewording so that maybe you
> will understand, is that as long as God blesses Job, Job has no reason not
> to bless God in return. What Satan states is that if God allows misfortune
> to come upon Job, then Job will sing a different tune. This is the meaning
> in the text, keeping )M L) as "if not" instead of "surely" and BRK as
> "bless". This is from the Hebrew use in other verses as well as these
> verses.
>   

HH: But nothing is said about "another tune" under your interpretation. 
Satan mentions nothing wrong that Job will do.


> Now how best to translate it, is a different question.
>
> Could it be that most modern scholars and translators, because they are more
> familiar with the text in translation instead of the original Hebrew, that
> they are the ones, to use your terms, are "uninformed and misguided"?
>   

HH: No, it is not likely.
>   
> > > 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.
> >
> >     
>
> Huh? Your response makes no sense.
>   

HH: It makes perfect sense.
>   
> > >  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.
> >     
>
>
> Exactly, and it needn't be spelled out in the text.
>   
HH: But the text accuses him of blessing God and the king, not failing 
to 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
> >     
>
>
> Neither does yours. Don't you see that's what I am saying? Why else would I
> entertain other explanations?
>   

HH: The rest of the world thinks it makes sense.
>   
>
>   
> > >       
> > 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?
> >     
>
>
> Do you think God would be pleased if praised for sin that someone did? That
> God is so great because one is a glutton or drunkard (both condemned in the
> Bible)? Do you not see how blessing God for an error is an improper
> blessing?
>   

HH: Things like this would have to be specified in the text in Job 1 for 
us to suppose them to have happened. There is nothing about praising God 
wrongly. All that is mentioned is blessing God, not blessing him wrongly.

> > >       
> > 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.
> >     
>
>
> Did you not read earlier postings? I wrote )L PNY has three basic uses: 1)
> upon the surface of, 2) related to #1, in the presence of, of which before,
> in front of are subsets of presence, and 3) when bowing down, face to the
> ground. Job 6:28 fits meaning #2. Likewise Job 1:9, 2:5.
>   

HH: Your range of meanings should allow "to your face." If it does not, 
it is inadequate. (L can mean )L. These two prepositions often take on 
each other's values. And (L can mean "against," which gives a meaning 
like the English "to your face."
>   
>
> You grammarians make mountains out of molehills. There's no oath here, just
> simple action and consequence. Why not just take things at face value?
>   

HH: Because it's a known usage of the phrase )M L), and it fits here, 
and your idea really does not work because there is no specification of 
wrong behavior with yours.
>   
> > 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.
> >     
>
>
> Look at the context! In the immediate previous words, Job's wife accuses him
> in an exclamatory question. There's a lot that can be read into those words,
> but her following words, "Bless God … and die!" is the opposite of
> laudatory. Instead it sounds like exasperation.
>   

HH: The preceding context makes "curse" likely, but not "bless." This 
supports its euphemistic intent.
>   
> And how do you think your credibility is standing up, when you accuse me of
> saying the opposite of what I actually said? Where your knowledge of Hebrew
> looks more like book larnin and not experience? Where you take out of
> context or don't read carefully? Sometimes I think you go out on a limb,
> merely because you want to prove me wrong.
>   

HH: Yeah, I'm way out of a limb! Not.

Yours,
Harold Holmyard