Thank you, Jim for the link to google book. Could you comment on this wiki entity in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zipporah_at_the_inn#Difference_in_translation? The first paragraph makes a good sense to me: Zipporah touching the cut off foreskin to the boy's penis and exclaim!
However, the second and third paragraph sound like b.s. (either brilliant or baloney stuff). Is it true that the root verb means 'perform marriage'. He did not even bother to write and spell out the Semitic word itself! What about Akkadian? Is this guy a NE linguist or scholar, or just copier of other's writing? Happy New Year to all. Copied from wiki section here: Difference in translation In Hebrew, the word “feet” is used as a euphemism for the word “genitals.” Very few translators chose to use the word “genitals” in their interpretation, so it's not clear what Zipporah touched with the bloody foreskin. The Hebrew for “bridegroom of blood” written as “hatan damim,” is derived from a Semitic root verb which means “perform marriage.” In the Arabic language this phrase is linked to Hebrew, but means “perform circumcision.” In ancient Akkadian language related to Arabic and Aramaic/Hebrew, this phrase means “to protect.” Zipporah was a Midian woman. Midian was in the northwestern region of the present day Saudi Arabia where Arabic is spoken. However, in Zipporah‘s day, Akkadian was spoken. Some claims[1] (with no further references in it) that, in the ancient Akkadian language, casting the foreskin meant “to protect.” So “You are a bridegroom of blood,” can also mean, “This blood will protect you.” On Wed, Jan 9, 2013 at 8:13 AM, <[email protected]> wrote: > > Kenneth Greifer: > > <clipped> > > > Although I have no personal knowledge of any relevant wedding ritual, I > was able to find a short, readable account of various midrash approaches to > this famous, ambiguous incident. See pp. 127-139, chapter 27 ‘The Incident > at the Inn’, in “Moses’ Women”, by Shera Aranoff Tuchman and Sandra E. > Rapoport (2008), especially p. 137, here: > > http://books.google.com/books?id=uIq_rVBTkKIC&pg=PA137&dq=bridegroom+of+blood&hl=en&sa=X&ei=ZXTtUK3uGKKE2gW0kYDgBg&sqi=2&ved=0CDEQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=bridegroom%20of%20blood&f=false > > In particular, that chapter discusses competing views in midrash as to > whether it’s the baby, or whether it’s Moses, who is the “bridegroom of > blood”, and why that would be so. Several of the midrash explanations of > this ambiguous incident focus on the fact that Zipporah is a Midianite, not > a Hebrew, which was one main point that I made in my first post on this > thread. [My sincerest apologies for some of my later posts on this thread > getting off-topic, as George Athas properly noted.] > > For what it’s worth, even after reading those various midrash > explanations, I myself agree with your statement that “no one really knows > what the quote says”. > > Jim Stinehart >
_______________________________________________ b-hebrew mailing list [email protected] http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew
