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 <[email protected]>
Para: Norman Cohn <[email protected]>
Cc: "[email protected]" <[email protected]>
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.
_______________________________________________
b-hebrew mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew
