Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Tamar's situation in Absalom's house

Expand Messages
  • finckean
    In an earlier post (#2757 of Jan.4) the opinion was expressed that LXX: XHROUSA playing the widow in 2 Samuel 13:20 is a euphemism for ERHMOUSA being
    Message 1 of 34 , May 25 11:38 AM
      In an earlier post (#2757 of Jan.4) the opinion was expressed that
      LXX: XHROUSA "playing the widow" in 2 Samuel 13:20 is a euphemism for
      ERHMOUSA "being desolate", which both corresponds to the Hebrew at
      the verse: SHOMEMA and suggests e-RECHEM-ousa "from the womb (so
      Hebrew RECHEM) generating", i.e. "being pregnant". An examination of
      the Coptic text, which is available in the critical edition of
      Drescher: The Coptic (Sahidic) Version of Kingdoms I,II, Louvain
      1970, substantiates this assumption. There we find: ESO NXHRA ESO
      NHWRA "being a widow being a ?" describing the way she sat.
      Drescher's strained argumentation about ? in a note at p. 110 of his
      translation volume invites the simpler explanation that HWRA
      transcribes Hebrew HORA "pregnant" distilled out of SHOMEMA=ERHMOUSA
      as explained above. Cf. 2 Samuel 3:22, where Coptic "David's
      servants and Joab came from the KEDDOUR" has no parallel in the LXX
      mss. but rather corresponds to "... came from the troop (GEDDOUD)" of
      the Hebrew. (Note that dalet and resh are interchangeable in Hebrew
      Andrew Fincke
      --- In lxx@yahoogroups.com, "finckean" <finckea@...> wrote:
      > Thanks, Ken!
      > Using your tool I converted the gist of the earlier message about 1
      > Samuel 2:22 = Luke 2:22 (message 2734, Dec. 29) into preunicode.
      > Here it is:
      > But that vow was alot more than
      > ONE WORD, so apparently what Elkana meant was "May the Lord stand
      > went forth from your womb!" - that is, the baby Samuel, who was
      > to
      > fragile to make the trip. But how do we get from "His word" to "what
      > went forth from your mouth" to "what went forth from your womb"? If
      > you
      > take ECELQON "going forth" and parse it to its first-person
      > root, you get ECERXOMAI, which is phonetically similar to
      > EK RHMA "from word" (cf. RXMAI to RHMA).
      > But in Hebrew RXMA is RECHMA "her womb", so that "word" merges
      > with "womb" and what went forth from "her mouth" with what went
      > from "her womb". (Cf. also RH with PE "mouth" in Hebrew!) This
      > RHMA grew into a LOGOS by the time of the Luke story,
      > that is into an entity sufficiently mature to make the trip to
      > Jerusalem. See Luke 2:36: "And Hannah was a prophetess advanced in
      > days".
      > Since Matthew is till unconvinced, I exort him to look at 2 Samuel
      > 13:20: "And Tamar sat in the house of Absalom, her brother, and was
      > devastated", that because of her dismissal by Amnon after their
      > tumultuous date (verses 8ff.). But - since it's nowhere said that
      > she loved Amnon - the question is why was she "devastated" about
      > break in the relationship? "Devastated" is VESHOMEMA in the
      > which ususally refers to a land ravaged by the weather or an
      > army. The Greek is ERHMOUSA, and the suspicion is that Tamar was
      > upset about something to do with RHM (ERHMOUSA stripped of its
      > morphemes), whose Hebrew counterpart is RECHEM "womb". Something
      > happened during the date that brought about a change to Tamar that
      > she hadn't planned on, and therefore she sat in Absalom's house
      > XHREUOUSA "being a widow" - so the Septuagint for "devastated". If
      > RHM is rather to be seen as homonym of RHMA "word", then she was
      > upset at Amnon's parting word: "Lock!" (verse 17: he told the
      > to "lock" the door behind her).
      > Andrew Fincke
    • Fr. John Whiteford
      I would ask the moderators to point out what, in the following comments is worthy of a serious response: That Tamar got preganant from the liaison with Amnon
      Message 34 of 34 , Jun 4, 2008
        I would ask the moderators to point out what, in the following
        comments is worthy of a serious response:

        That Tamar got preganant from the liaison with Amnon is also the
        implication of Matthew 15:27: "The dogs eat from the crumbs fallen
        from the table of their masters". Logic dictates that the speaker -
        the Canaanite woman, eating fallen crumbs - imitates Bathsheba, who
        stood on the street showering from water falling from the roof-top
        (hanging gardens?) of the palace. See 2 Samuel 11:2, where NETS has
        correctly "he saw a woman bathing from the roof". And the demon-
        possessed "daughter", for whose healing the Canaanite petitioned, is
        none other than Tamar, who two chapters later in 2 Samuel was healed
        from her habitual menstrual impurity through the incurred pregnancy.
        Matthew 15:28: "And she was healed from that hour (HORA)" shifts the
        pregnancy to Bathsheba, who was impregnated not by David, but rather
        by Uriah five weeks previously, and who - at the time David spotted
        her - was enjoying the beginning of cessation of her periods. See
        11:4 NETS: "And she was purifying herself from her uncleanness"
        for "And she ended the five days of waiting for the onset of her
        peiodic defilement". HORA at Matthew 5:28 is the same word that
        appears in the Coptic of 2 Samuel 13:20, modifying XHHROUSA "acting
        like a widow". That - in turn - refers not to Tamar but rather to
        Bathsheba, of whom David heard (11:3 NETS)"Is not this Bersabee
        daughter of Eliab, wife of Ourias the Chettite". The speaker is not
        named, but it stands to reason that it was the same Ethiopian
        messenger who at 18:31-32 told David about Absalom's death. If so,
        he probably said in Ethiopian: WAORYO KETYAWI META "And Uriah the
        Chettite her husband". David misunderstood META "her husband" as
        Hebrew META "her dead one" and summoned her to comfort her over the
        loss. When the truth came out, Hebrews 11:35 "Women took from the
        resurrection their dead" was fulfilled (contra Sigrid).
        Andrew Fincke

        Of course, one could argue that Matthew 15:28 "And she was healed (i.e.
        was pregnant) from that hour" belongs after "And he lay with her" in
        11:4. But that is both physiologically indefensible (why an hour?) and
        contradicts verse 5, which sets the onset of the pregnancy to a point
        of time after her return to her house. On the contrary, Matthew
        added "from that hour" to exonerate David from guilt, since thereby he
        avoided the inference "And she returned to her house [and she waited
        five weeks] and she became pregnant and told David". No, she became
        aware of the pregnancy immediately upon arrival home and justified her
        attribution of paternity to David on the grounds of David's documented
        penchant for self-gratification (see 1 Samuel 20:26), the habit of the
        patriarchs to ejaculate on the ground (see Gen 38:9) and her having
        been the recipient of droppings from the palace-roof (verse 2), where
        David - admittedly had been walking when he spotted her (idem).
        Andrew Fincke
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.