On Tue 23 Aug 2005 (14:06:41 +0100), peterkirk AT qaya.org wrote:
> Not at all. )$R introduces a subordinate clause which is very often
> embedded within the main clause. And that seems to be what is happening
> here (Lev 20:17), at the formal syntactical level, literally "A man
> {who takes his sister, daughter of his father or daughter of his
> mother and sees her nakedness and she sees his nakedness} he/it is
> XESED." {...} indicates the embedded clause. Formally HU' is a
> resumptive pronoun referring back to the man.
Is it possible that the XeSeD here is a deliberate euphemism for Reproach
or Disgrace?
Compare 1 Kings 21:13 where we read "Naboth blessed God" meaning "Naboth
cursed God".
Ben
--
Revd Ben Crick, BA CF ZFC Hf
<ben.crick AT NOSPAM.argonet.co.uk>
232 Canterbury Road, Birchington, Kent, CT7 9TD (UK)
*Acorn RPC700, RO4.03+Kinetic Card, 126MB, 4.3GB HD, x32CDROM
*Castle Iyonix X100, RO5.06, 600MHz XScale processor, 512MB DDR RAM,
114GB HD, CD-RW, etc. *Ethernet networking.