Comments on: Bad language in the Good Book

By: Simon Holloway

Simon Holloway — Tue, 10 Nov 2009 11:59:17 +0000

My source was an article on Akkadian etymology that I read three years ago, and that I shall now have to dig up. I have a copy of it somewhere in one of the folders in my room, and I’ll let you know as soon as I come across it. I’m aware, of course, that it’s a contested etymology. HALOT, for example, suggest that the verb may come from a shafel of גלה, while they likewise suggest that the noun is a contraction of the Akkadian ša ekalli. BDB also separates the two forms, but doesn’t suggest an etymology for either.

Thanks for the link: I think I missed that post.

By: Dave (Balashon)

Dave (Balashon) — Tue, 10 Nov 2009 07:24:30 +0000

Interesting post. I didn’t know that etymology of שגל when I wrote this post:

http://www.balashon.com/2008/02/heichal-adrichal-and-tarnegol.html

And actually Klein doesn’t agree, but I think Kaddari does (even though he doesn’t mention היכל.) What was your source of the etymology?

By: Simon Holloway

Simon Holloway — Thu, 05 Nov 2009 09:05:43 +0000

According to Etymonline, “harlot” derives from an Old French word meaning “vagabond”, and its sense as prostitute was possibly reinforced by its usage in English translations of the Bible. Interesting that the English word “tramp” underwent a similar transformation.

The Hebrew zonah more likely derives from a word for “food”: hence the innkeeper/prostitute in the book of Joshua.

By: ariel

ariel — Thu, 05 Nov 2009 05:53:44 +0000

What’s the difference between “harlot” and “whore”?
Is it like the difference between “intestine” and “gut”?
Or “faeces” and “sh*t”?

By: Simon Holloway

Simon Holloway — Thu, 05 Nov 2009 03:29:59 +0000

Another interesting example can be found in Genesis 31:35. When Laban is searching for his gods and Rachel refuses to stand for him, most Bibles have her complain that “the way of women is upon me”. The New International Version (which, while I personally find it an atrocious translation, has some theoretical elements to recommend it) has her complain that “I’m having my period”. Of course, that’s what the Hebrew means, but it’s not what traditional translations say. Needless to say, NIV detractors found that passage most “offensive”.

(And for the record, most contemporary Bible translations that I encounter eschew “harlot” for “whore”. A small victory, for the ‘dynamic translators’ amongst us.)

By: A A Lederman

A A Lederman — Thu, 05 Nov 2009 03:03:21 +0000

By the way, there are a number of famous ‘Shegals’ out there on the web.

Whenever the Tanach is translated by those who wish to retain its sanctity, of course some words are adjusted (ie. ‘harlot’ instead of ‘prostitute’ (Joshua, 6:25), ‘her belly’, instead of ‘her Kavatah’- uterus(?) (Numbers 25:8) come to mind).

I guess its all social norms. In today’s age of scientific dominance, you could get away with uterus, in a serious adult text. Just don’t let the little kiddies see it…But, conservative sexual sentiment, especially by Americans, means we’ll stick with ‘harlot’ over ‘prostitute’.

The words, like ‘to concubine’ and ‘to lay her down’ had an original meaning and purpose when written. But this seemed to be lost or drastically changed, with social changes. Words stay because they’re needed, or they change with the times, or they become archaic, and survive only in books such as Isaiah.

Question is: Is a word what is means now, or what it meant then? And if both, then how should we take its message?

Its historical linguistics, baby!

Simon, I’m sure you get my very oversimplified, if partially incorrect point.

By: Simon Holloway

Simon Holloway — Thu, 05 Nov 2009 02:37:21 +0000

This was a bit of a parve post (it’s strange not suddenly finding myself in the middle of an argument…), but you’re quite correct, Ari. My presentation of the Masoretes is very simplistic and I’m quite conscious of the fact. Truth is, most people know fairly little about them so, in order to present my linguistic argument, I simply took certain things as a given.

Interestingly, of course, even scholars of the Masoretes know fairly little about them. Consensus amongst many these days is that they were Karaites, but who they were, and the extent of their activities (not to mention the extent to which their activities were grounded in older traditions) is reasonably speculative.

By: Ari Silbermann

Ari Silbermann — Tue, 03 Nov 2009 18:07:04 +0000

Indeed your case seems to prove the Rabbi’s point. That bad language is frowned upon. Now one could argue that the Masorites invented everything we know about how to read the text and that they were the ones that made the text gentler but is it really sound logic to suggest that such a large corpus was invented, had no basis and that the Masorites over time managed to educate the people? Indeed had it not been for this group(you do after all make it sound like they were a small group bound to a particularly small period of history) we would read the tanach to the tunes of Michael Jackson.
Rather, the Masorites on the whole simply developed methods for recording the ways of pronunciation, chanting and reading of the biblical text as had been handed down by mouth and learning by rote through the generations(and if anyone thinks it it not possible to remember the entire text by heart I recommend that when they do leave Melbourne they take a visit to a Yemenite Shule and ask one of the older men there the exact cantillation note of any particular word)(How much they changed things and if they changed things is not as clear cut as you make out in your article). Most likely, the Prophet used the original word for desired effect and when his words were recorded it was impossible to literally change the words he had said and instead it was simply instructed that the word should be universally read as a different word with almost the same meaning. And then the Masorites simply recorded this tradition.

I am willing to accept that the above theory may or may not be true however it is a distinct and logical possibility that has a solid basis.
Blanket statements like yours are misleading as to the view of Jewish tradition and even current academic positions(most of which are still up for debate).
In any case it is clear from your example how sensitive the tradition is to foul language. But I guess only a Karite worries about how it reads(Kri) and not how it sounds(Be’al Peh).

By: Chaim

Chaim — Mon, 02 Nov 2009 14:42:44 +0000

Remembered..

Zechariah 1:8, שְׂרֻקִּים

By: Chaim

Chaim — Mon, 02 Nov 2009 14:21:22 +0000

Interesting. Agreed with Rachel about being direct and blunt.

Artscroll is renowned for making up translations… There is one colour in the Neviim (can’t remember off hand) where Rashi says he has no idea what colour it is and Artscroll translated as the colour of a nut. I have no idea where they got that from except it is written that way in christian bibles………..

For translations I personally like Judaica press..

Rashi is always very explicit in Bereishit about sexual connotations. eg the raven would fly away because he thought Noach was going to sleep with his partner….