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.
_______________________________________________ b-hebrew mailing list [email protected] http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew
