Thank you. But now I'll have to find how the Masoretes changed the text.
Well, I have a printed "dead tree" copy of Biblia Hebreica sitting around
somewhere, I'll have to find it. (While writing this, I see you sent another
message giving the proposed translations of those changes, but not the
Hebrew. I'll still have to look them up. I don't read English translations
for my personal readings, why should I read English for my scholarly
studies?)
And there are reasons to deny that they were deliberate changes.
1) There is no record that a change was ever affected.
2) Words don't have one meaning, and its opposite.
3) Comparing the use of the idiomatic phrases in the verse with their use in
other verses gives no compulsion for a change. In other words, it makes
perfect sense as written.
4) The earliest translation of Job 1:11, 2:5, the LXX, has bless.
5) The functional meaning of a word does not change from context to context:
that in one context it is difficult to understand is not an excuse to allow
for different meanings.
Apparently, for the biblical writer the combination of the verb "to
curse/blaspheme" and
"God" ("to curse God") was offensive to his or her religious
sensitivity, making it necessary to
paraphrase the concept using one that sounded less offensive. The result
was the substitution of
the verb "bless" for the verb "curse."
See above, where is the evidence of a change?
Euphemistic expressions are common in all languages, and Hebrew is no
exception. The
question is whether in some cases the verb "to bless" is used
euphemistically. Let's examine
some texts.
1. Euphemistic Usage Outside Job: The number of passages in which we
find the
phenomenon just described is very limited. One of the best examples is
recorded in 1 Kings
21:10, 13. Jezebel asked for false witnesses to testify against Naboth
saying that they heard him
"cursing [blessing]" God and the king. On that basis Naboth received the
death penalty.
Obviously, no one is to be stoned for blessing God; therefore the verb
"to bless" is used here as a
euphemism.
Not necessarily. Did Naboth "bless" both God and the king?
Or did his
"blessing" for the king turn out like that friendly encouragement of the
prophet Mikiyahu in the next chapter?
Or in 1 Kings 21:13 was this an
imperative, and when Naboth was unable to fulfill the command completely,
i.e. the "blessing" for the king stuck in his throat, that he was then
executed for civil insubordination?
Where is the necessity that the only way
to understand this verse is through claiming that it is a euphemism?
2. Euphemistic Usage in Job: It was Job's practice to offer sacrifices
on behalf of his
children because, he thought, "Perhaps my children have sinned and
cursed [blessed] God in
their hearts" (Job 1:5, NIV). No sacrifice is needed for blessing God.
Job moves from sin in
general to the most radical expression of it in cursing God.
Are you not taking this out of context? Does not the context indicate that
this is an improper blessing due to error?
Next we find Satan saying to God, "Stretch out your hand and strike
everything [Job] has,
and he will surely curse [bless] you to your face" (Job 1:11, NIV; see
also Job 2:5). This is not a
sarcastic expression"He will surely bless you!" but an expression of
certainty. The phrase "to
your face" expresses open contempt. The euphemistic use of the verb
"bless" seems to fit the
context very well.
And there are a few reasons that this is not true, among which:
I already mentioned that (L PNY in none of its other uses has the concept of
"to your face" in the English sense of the phrase. To give it that meaning
only here is bad linguistics.
The sentence here is not in the context of an oath or promise, rather a list
of actions. In a list of actions, the phrase )M L) has the meaning of "if
not [action] then [action]" where in these verses the first action is
assumed from the context.
In view of the phrases used in these verses, how does a euphemistic changing
of "blessing" to "curse" fit?
HH: The writing above assumes that there is an accusation, and that is exactly why the idea of "bless" does not fit. If Job's wife had told him to bless God and die, then there would have been no real reason to accuse his wife of speaking like one of the foolish women.3. Euphemistic Usage in the Speech of Job's Wife: Did Job's wife say
"Curse" or "Bless God
and die"? Job's answer seems to support the idea that "bless" is being
used here as a euphemism for "curse." If she is encouraging him to bless
God and die, why did Job say to her "You are talking like a foolish
woman" (Job 2:10, NIV)? Whatever she was trying to say, Job found it
inconsistent with devotion to God. We know very little about this woman,
and the tendency has been to consider her an evil woman. Undoubtedly
Job's suffering caused her to suffer as well. Losing all her wealth was
painful, but even more emotionally and psychologically devastating would
have been losing all her children. Her pain may have been even more
intense than her husband's. Yet in the story she bears her pain quietly.
She loved Job. It must have been extremely painful for her to see her
husband going through excruciating physical, psychological, and
spiritual pain and be unable to do anything to bring relief.
There seems to be only one way left for her. She speaks to Job from the
depth of her love and
concern for him. She doesn't realize that, like Peter, she is echoing
Satan's words. No, she is not
a foolish woman, but that day she spoke "like" one.
Job realizes her deep pain and says to her, "Shall we accept good
from God, and not
trouble?" (verse 10). He seems to be saying, "God has given us good
things to administer for
Him, and we did it joyfully; now we have become stewards of pain for
Him; hold on to your
faith." It may be that at that moment she embraced him and they both
cried together.
Spoken like a true, 21st century, sensitive American male. But is that the
way Job and his wife interacted? The LXX added extra verses here bringing
out some of this idea, but I understand it more in the sense of accusatory
action.
I already gave my translation, showing why there is need neither for a
scribal amendation nor a euphemistic rendition.
Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.