From: "Read, James C" <K0434995 AT kingston.ac.uk>
To: "Yitzhak Sapir" <yitzhaksapir AT gmail.com>
Cc: b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] Author of the torah
Date: Sun, 31 Jul 2005 19:17:01 +0100
Dear Yitzhak,
your points are justified and have been taken on board.
The reason I haven't replied to your points made about
the apparent contradictions in the torah is because I
am still studying your claims objectively and am not
yet prepared to make a well laid out answer.
However, I am still a little confused because apart from
the observation that there is no explicit claim of authorship
of the entire torah inside the torah and your view that the
text shows inconsistencies I still have not really understood
what leads you to doubt that the tradition is correct and
valid.
I know that you are very knowledgeable and well read and
so I am sure that there must be more to it than this. I
don't regard you as the kind of person who would believe
something just because its written in the Anchor bible
dictionary or because it is written by some scholar.
And so I anxious to hear your reasons that have led you
to such a firm conclusion.
Love and Shalom
James
This email has been scanned for all viruses by the MessageLabs Email
Security System.
>From kgraham0938 AT comcast.net Sun Jul 31 14:37:23 2005
Return-Path: <kgraham0938 AT comcast.net>
X-Original-To: b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
Delivered-To: b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
Received: from sccrmhc14.comcast.net (sccrmhc14.comcast.net [204.127.202.59])
by lists.ibiblio.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7DF884C005
for <b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org>; Sun, 31 Jul 2005 14:37:23 -0400
(EDT)
Received: from 204.127.205.172 ([204.127.205.172])
by comcast.net (sccrmhc14) with SMTP
id <2005073118372201400jf4g6e>; Sun, 31 Jul 2005 18:37:22 +0000
Received: from [69.136.149.33] by 204.127.205.172;
Sun, 31 Jul 2005 18:37:21 +0000
From: kgraham0938 AT comcast.net
To: b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
Date: Sun, 31 Jul 2005 18:37:21 +0000
Message-Id:
<073120051837.18755.42ED1A6100098BE5000049432200750438C8CCC7CF030E080E9D0905 AT comcast.net>
X-Mailer: AT&T Message Center Version 1 (Dec 17 2004)
X-Authenticated-Sender: a2dyYWhhbTA5MzhAY29tY2FzdC5uZXQMIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-Content-Filtered-By: Mailman/MimeDel 2.1.6
Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] Translating Ezekiel 16:26
X-BeenThere: b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.6
Precedence: list
List-Id: Hebrew Bible List <b-hebrew.lists.ibiblio.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew>,
<mailto:b-hebrew-request AT lists.ibiblio.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://lists.ibiblio.org/sympa/arc/b-hebrew>
List-Post: <mailto:b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org>
List-Help: <mailto:sympa AT lists.ibiblio.org?subject=HELP>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew>,
<mailto:b-hebrew-request AT lists.ibiblio.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 31 Jul 2005 18:37:23 -0000
Hey Harold, the problem that I see with 'lovers or paramours' is the relative
clause which follows. Ok, 'she lusted after *their* (masculine plural)
lovers. (feminine plural), whose flesh was the flesh of donkeys.
If we translate this as concubine or lovers in the normal sene, then I think
we are talking about homosexuality. If she lusted after the mens lovers
(women/concubine). And that does not make sense. Then it goes on to say
that the lovers had flesh, the flesh of donkeys.
That really does not make sense to me. How can concubines women have the
flesh of a donkey? That is why I think that PILAG:$"HEM should be translated
as genitials or something related to it.
Because she lusted after it, then the relative clause seems to say something
futher about it.
Yes, Kelton, you make a good point. I had not noticed the suffix.
>Hey Harold, the problem that I see with 'lovers
>or paramours' is the relative clause which
>follows. Ok, 'she lusted after *their*
>(masculine plural) lovers. (feminine plural),
>whose flesh was the flesh of donkeys.
>
>If we translate this as concubine or lovers in
>the normal sene, then I think we are talking
>about homosexuality. If she lusted after the
>mens lovers (women/concubine). And that does
>not make sense. Then it goes on to say that the
>lovers had flesh, the flesh of donkeys.
>
>That really does not make sense to me. How can
>concubines women have the flesh of a donkey?
>That is why I think that PILAG:$"HEM should be
>translated as genitials or something related to
>it.
>
>Because she lusted after it, then the relative
>clause seems to say something futher about it.
HH: Daniel Block, in his NICOT commentary on
Ezekiel, suggests that the quadriliteral
structure of the word points to a non-Semitic
origin, perhaps Philistine. He says that "given
the obscurity of its etymology and the uniqueness
of Ezekiel's usage, the meaning of the word
remains unclear." However, he agrees with you
that the connotation of the word is sexual here,
and he translates Ezek 23:20, "And she craved
copulation with them, . . . ." He comments about
concubines that their main function seems to have
been to gratify the sexual desires of the
man/husband. So perhaps the word could imply
something like sexual favors in Ezek. 23:20.