Biblical Hebrew Forum

[Norman Cohn <normanncohn AT yahoo.com.br>]

Hi, Karl!

 

Thanks for the very interesting reply. I agree with most of what you wrote, including the argument about Ezekiel 44:7 not being really an euphemism (Steven Mckenzie and John Kaltner seem to be reading to much into this).

 

In my humble opinion, I guess an _expression_ taken from the Tanakh should only be considered an euphemism in light of the biclical writer's culture, not ours. That is: an _expression_ should be considered an euphemism if and only if it's likely that the authors were trying to avoid offending the sensitivies prevailing in their social millieu.

 

That brings into the fore another very difficult discussion: who exactly was the target audience of the Tanakh? Tricky question!

 

Yes, I think you're totally right - the differences in sensitivies should not lead us to automatically judge the biblical writers unfavourably. In fact, one could argue whether it's not for our detriment that our sensitivies as modern urban people have become so blunt in some regards. I frequently ask myself, for instance, if we haven't grown much more accostumed to social injustice than the ancient Israelites ever were.

 

Now I remember another important euphemism: yada' ("to know") as a way of referring to sexual intercourse!

 

Thanks again for the reply and best regards!

 

Norman Cohn

São Paulo - Brazil.

 

 

 

 

 

 

De: K Randolph <kwrandolph AT gmail.com>
Para: Norman Cohn <normanncohn AT yahoo.com.br>
Cc: "b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org" <b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org>
Enviadas: Terça-feira, 8 de Janeiro de 2013 0:13
Assunto: Re: [b-hebrew] role of euphemism and racial stereotying in biblical hebrew

Norman:

Yes, there’s euphemism in Tanakh, the most common I know of is using the term “to be lost” as an euphemism for death and dying, but how much of what moderns may call euphemism actually is such?

For example, you brought up Ezekiel 44:7—I find no euphemism that I can recognize. This verse in its context refers to those who were not part of the covenant relationship with YHWH as expressed either spiritually (“of the heart”) or physically (“of the flesh”).

Leviticus 15:2–3 only dirty minded people would restrict it to a certain portion of the body. This refers to any open sore that oozes fluids. There’s no euphemism here. And because of the nature of Hebrew _expression_ that women are included in generalized statements (as it used to be also in English), this would apply also to women.

I wonder how much of our modern sensibilities are offended by what was daily living in ancient farming communities?

A humorous aside: the Disney corporation is working hard to hide early Mickey Mouse cartoons. Apparently many contained a lot of barnyard humor, which was appreciated by most of the audience then because most city folk were either transplants from the farm or a generation removed but had heard their folks talk about farm living. But a few generations removed now find it offensive. So to “preserve Disney reputation”, they’ve bought enough politician corruption to make it almost impossible legally to view those early cartoons.

Likewise, how much of our modern reaction to these passages reflect more our effete urban upbringing than a more rural understanding that the authors had?

Karl W. Randolph.