Biblical Hebrew Forum

[Jerry Shepherd <jshepherd53 AT gmail.com>]

Hi Rolf,


Thank you for your reply.  But, there are just too many problems in this
post.



(1)  You start off by saying “The methodological problem with your post is
your insistence of ‘it (RQ(/RQY() can only have one meaning.’”  I don’t
know where you got the quote from, but it wasn’t from my post.  I did not
say that and I definitely do not believe it.   Of course RQ(/RQY(  can have
more than one meaning.  That is not the question.  The question is as to
whether it does have more than one meaning.  That is exactly why I went
through all the occurrences to look at the use of the terms in context.  This
accusation certainly doesn’t stick to me, and it doesn’t stick to George
other.



(2) In Isa 42:5, I do not think you are correct in your holding that RQ( is
in parallel BR).  That is possible, but it is more likely that BR) is the
overarching or introductory term and that N+( and RQ( are the terms in
parallel, and that they serve BR) in an epexegetical capacity.  In any
case, whether parallel or not, BR) and RQ( are not semantic equivalents.  To
answer one of your questions, no, I do not think the “earth” in this verse
includes the space where the birds fly.  On another point, and I would not
want to be dogmatic on this, but I don’t think that “produce” or
“offspring” actually does constitute a proper object for RQ(.  Although
this is possible, I find it more likely, in keeping with the thought of the
verse, that we have here what John Goldingay refers to as an instance of
zeugma.  There are many variations of how a zeugma may be formed, but in
this case, it would be the occurrence of a verb with two objects, and yet
only one of the objects properly applies.  So even though both “earth” and
“produce” are grammatically the subjects of RQ(, the verb is only in proper
logical relation to the first noun.  We can then understand either that the
author expected the reader to go back to the controlling verv BR) and read
that in, or that we should understand that there is an ellipsis in which
some verb proper to “produce” or “offspring” should be supplied in the mind
of the reader.



(3)  I think you are really resorting to desperate measures to explain away
the force of Job 37:18.  First of all, against what you say is your
practice, you end up doing just that with XZQ, arguing that its core
meaning is “strong.”  It can just as easily be said that the core meaning
is “hard” or “make hard.”  This is why most translations use something like
“hard” (NIV, NRSV, ESV, NWT), “solid” (NET), “firm” (NJPS), “tempered”
(NJB).  The point is not that the heavens have strength, but that they have
solidity, hardness, firmness.  Second, your point about the preposition K
doesn’t really argue anything.  No, the heavens are not literally a molten
mirror, but they are literally hard as a molten mirror.  Finally, in my
initial reply to you on this, I actually made a concession and allowed
שְׁחָקִ֑ים as referring to clouds/dust.  But I really don’t think this is
the case.  To be sure, the previous verses have been referring to clouds.  But
I think that it is more likely in this verse that the attention turns away
from the previously mentioned clouds to the skies.  Sometimes in the Hebrew
Bible, the term refers to dust, and other times it refers to clouds.  But
there are other times when it seems rather to refer to the skies.  For
example, in Prov 8:28, in a creation context, Wisdom says that she was
there when God “made firm (“established”) the  שְׁחָקִ֣ים  above, and fixed
securely the fountains of the deep.”  But clouds are not established, they
are not made firm, or, in parallel to the fountains of the deep, they are
not fixed securely.  This is why lexicographers and commentators have
suggested that in this and several other verses, the term refers to the sky
rather than to the clouds.  And this is also the reason that most
translations of Job 37:18 and Prov 8:28 use “sky” or “skies” rather than
“clouds.”  This last point aside, however, I think the point is still
“firm”ly established: whatever it is being talked about in Job 37:18, it is
made hard, firm, solid, like a cast mirror.



(4)  I apologize for not understanding you correctly in your paragraph
where, for some reason, you decided to talk about both the living creatures
of Ezek 1 and the birds of Gen 1.  Perhaps your point was that if the
author of Gen 1 had intended to say that the RQY( was above the birds, then
he should have used a term like TXT as in Ezek 1.  But I think this is
asking too much.  When the author has already told us that the RQY(
separates the waters above from the waters below, it seems fairly logical
that the birds would fly not above the RQY( but under it.  After all, if
they were above it, they wouldn’t be birds, they would be fish!  From the
perspective of someone standing on the earth and looking up, the birds fly
across the surface of the heavens; the heavens are the backdrop, not the
foreground, against which the birds fly.



(5)  Finally, in no way does what we have done constitute “lexical
semantics at its worst.”  The burden is on you to demonstrate that there
are occurrences of RQ( or RQY( that deviate from the idea of “beating out”
or “beaten out” (or something in the same semantic field: beating,
hammering, stamping, etc.).  You raise some possibilities, but even in your
possibilities, the referent is always something solid and/or tangible.  You
have no certain instances of anything otherwise.  To continue to argue
against known meanings using very uncertain suggested meanings constitutes
lexical evasion.



Blessings ,
 Jerry Shepherd
Taylor Seminary
Edmonton, Alberta
jshepherd53 AT gmail.com