Biblical Hebrew Forum

[K Randolph <kwrandolph AT gmail.com>]

Nir:

On Sun, Nov 4, 2012 at 4:27 PM, Nir cohen - Prof. Mat. <nir AT ccet.ufrn.br> wrote:

karl,

>> Out of curiosity, where did you get that translation that you included?

MM = mechon mamre, one of the main jewish translations. see
http://www.mechon-mamre.org/

Thanks, I found it not exactly literal. 

--------------------------------

karl,

this is my last email on this thread. clearly you are entrenched here and
we do not see eye to eye.

In this discussion I’m taking a ‘devil’s advocate’ role, asking for people to knock my speculation out of the park. So far in this discussion no one has.

In past discussions I have been shot down, sometimes by others, sometimes by myself, therefore coming to the conclusion that the proposal I put forward couldn’t be supported. 

in general i do not ascribe to your repeated declarations that
"the king is naked". in spite of many doubts and errors, some
consensus is slowly being reached, which is not the caprice of
one particular interpretation as you like to describe it, but a true
pluralistic concensus. though it is not the final word, it is probably
close to the truth, and he who chooses, like you, to challenge it
by principle is bound to be wrong most [not necessarily all] of the
time. i believe job 15:28 is no exception.

>> I don’t see those verses as a mocking digression, rather the context seems
to indicate the wicked are like wearing various pieces of armor, the names of
which were long ago forgotten, the only one widely remembered is the boss of
the shield.

this explains why you (and, i believe, only you) have so many
difficulties with this chapter. you translate 25-27 differently than most sources.
yes, the guy is up in arms against god, but the arms are not at the thematic center here.
just as the dwindling of the cities is not at the thematic center of v 28. who is
at the thematic center is the wicked man, the rebel.

>> Ps. from the context, vs. 26 צואר appears to be shoulder to neck protection,
גבי מגיו bosses of his shields. Vs. 27 חלב some sort of face protection worn
in battle, while פימה a cuirass to protect his torso. These are
things used by a warrior in battle.

the words you claim describe types of armour (vv. 25-27) are NEVER
used biblically as such - and there is pretty ample description of armour
in the bible. so, you are basing your argument on 5 thin conjectures:

PYMH=cuirass ???,
KSL=(???),
XLB=face protection,
CW)R= neck armour,
GB (MGN)=back armour, back of armor

[clearly, had armour been the thematic center, i would have expected to
find one of the above: XRB, SIP, XNYT, RWMX etc: namely, assault arms
and not merely defensive armour. you cannot win a war with your shield.
see for example david's reference to goliath or other biblical references
to arms.]

I am willing to admit that there is still a lot we don’t know about Biblical Hebrew. Yes, we have the main themes down pat, but when we get to obscure details, especially those that appear only once or twice in Tanakh, we are guessing. Educated guesses for sure, but guesses none the less.

There’s evidence that already by the time of the LXX that some (how many?) lesser used terms were forgotten. Other terms had different meanings by the time of Mishnaic Hebrew. Later scholars can be led astray by depending on these sources.

A further problem: because Biblical Hebrew was written lacking vowels, we have examples of homographs that could very well have had different vowels, hence easily recognizable to a native speaker, but we have trouble recognizing them today. For example, we have four different words spelled אח )X, but in this case the contexts are well enough different that we can recognize them. Other contexts are not as clear, and that’s where we can get into trouble. That is especially true when we deal with homographs from the same root.

let us revise the five terms one by one.

(I) pimah (used in modern hebrew to mean roughly a furuncle; older dialects: double chin)
biblically only appears in this very verse. but let me quote an arabic source:

The term פִּימָה (pimah), a hapax legomenon, is explained by the Arabic fa’ima,
“to be fat.” Pope renders this “blubber.” Cf. KJV “and maketh collops of fat
on his flanks.”
http://alkitab.sabda.org/passage.php?passage=Ayb%203:5%2011:6%2013:12%2015:25%2015:26%2015:27%2022:14%2023:16%2041:13%2041:15&tab=alt#n14

the arabic source is not likely to be a mere late derivative of the
biblical source, since it appears (only?) as a VERB in arabic, only as a
NOUN in hebrew. but the etymology is clearly the same: fat.

Is this not the etymological error? The context indicates something that is made as a covering, hence how can “fat” be its meaning? 

(II) KESEL appears biblically as part of the animal flesh (the rear part of the animal, associated with kidneys)
in several (repeated) verses on sacrifice: Lev 3:4, 4:9, 7:4. though repeated, they establish the same meaning.
for human flesh, see also Ps 38:8 where often the translation is loins.
all of them are consistent with fat, not with armour.

The context of this verse is that this is what is being covered. Elsewhere in plural refers to intestines, hence used poetically for the part of the body that contains the intestines. Used poetically also for strength as energy is imported to bodies through their intestines. 

(III) needless to say, XLB is used biblically many many times, all
of them meaning just - milk or fat, not armour. 

The context here indicates instrumentality, which is why I raised the question that could it here refer to a happax legomenon homograph that refers to a face shield of some sort? 

(IV-V) so, in this context, CW)R and GB can only mean one thing:
indicating a fat neck and a fat body.

GB refers to a hollow, arch, and in this context the hollow of a shield. Further this is in the context of being used instrumentally in this sentence.

CW)R used instrumentally, hence as a piece of armor being worn?

to me, the accumulation of all these five expressions in just three
phrases can only indicate one thing: fat, not armour. admittedly,
the fat is being put in armour; but it is the fat which is being
described here, not the armour.

Does not the context argue against this conclusion? That’s why I raised the question in the first place. 

once the meaning of vv 25-27 is seen in this light, as a mocking of a fat
man up in arms, one may cross out vv 25-27 and read v 28 as if it were the
direct continuation of v. 24. suddenly all your difficulties have disappeared.

We haven’t even gotten to verse 28, is that cities being brought down, or inhabited? 

nir cohen

Karl W. Randolph.