Am'alek

Imo, this thread is nothing but a very weak pop shot at discrediting the Bible with this kinda nit pickey nonsense.The instruction given is there so Israel will not forget what God did for them there in Caanan. All of Israel's history was to be preserved intact throughout the ages. But as for Amelek, there would be no more history to record or preserve for them, for they were finished and kaput.[This message has been edited by buzsaw, 11-17-2003]

ConsAth:You wrote:"That is a remarkable assertion. Presumably, those at netbible who suggested idiom 'did not know what each of the words meant' and simply fabricated something for our amusement, leaving it to you, who apparently does not know what idiom means, to clarify matters. No, the word "zecher" is not an idiom."I feel badly that you have misinterpreted my words. I am not sure if you realize it, but your response to my posting is rather harsh.I do feel that I know what an idiom is. If you have an alternative definition, perhaps you could post it, and we could discuss it, instead of just asserting that I don't know what one is.I don't know anything about NetBible, but I assume that if they called a phrase an idiom, that they had a working definition of what an idiom is. Do they post on their web site what they mean by "idiom?"I am NOT saying that THEY don't know what the words mean; I am saying that, by definition, an idiom is a phrase, the meaning of which cannot be inferred by reference only to the words used. It other words, it requires the deep knowledge of the language and contexts outside the phrase to supply the missing material. I have every confidence that those at Net Bible have Hebrew skills equal or superior to mine. Otherwise, they would not be able to translate idioms, which by their and your word, they do admirably.I am asserting, from strong foundations in biblical Hebrew, that "zecher" (a word that has a range or meanings, all understandable to one who knows biblical Hebrew) is not an "idiom", as the term "idiom" is commonly used.I gave the connection to "zachar" to give a sense of the etymological stretch of the word.Perhaps the only thing really being discussed is the definition of "idiom." Your posting your definition would help advance the conversation

I am not of the opinion that I have misinterpreted anything. And, yes, the response was harsh. Yes. Idiom (as the term "idiom" is commonly used) is a phrase. Idiom (as the term "idiom" is commonly used) is not a word, be that word 'zecher' or 'bagel'. Therefore? So, those with "Hebrew skills equal or superior to" yours claim that the phrase is idiom, and you dismiss the claim as, not merely false, but obviously false to "any reader of the Bible who knows what each of the words "timcheh et zecher Amalek" means". One can only conclude that you are, either, absurdly arrogant or disturbingly disingenuous.So, I am at a disadvantage. On the one hand, I have your claim to "strong foundations in biblical Hebrew", along with some rhetoric that leaves me uncomfortable with your claim.On the other hand, I have a modest footnote. I have a naming tradition that impresses me as consonant with that footnote. And I have the English translation of the Targum Onkelos which renders the Exodus 17:14 phrase:

• I will blot out the memorial [sic] of Amaleq from under the heavens.

Despite all of this, you might turn out to be right. But for now, I see no reason to presume so and, therefore, no particular reason to hold Exodus 17:14 up for particular ridicule.

I tend to agree, and hope we can all agree that 'weak pop shot' should be taken as idiom.

That was really dumb ...

I think I understand the problem here.I went to NetBible (good site!) and looked up Ex 17:14. I see that I was focused on Deut 25:14-17 (where there is no mention of the phrase being an idiom), so I could not figure out what the problem here was.NetBible does not say that "zecher" is an idiom. They that that "blot out the memory of" is an idiom, so I see that I misinterpreted the question.Depending on how they define idiom, maybe it is. I would still have to see from them (or ConAth) what they mean by idiom.I am still not sure why it is so important whether "blot out memory" is an idiom, and why if it is or not, that holds up Ex 17:14 to ridicule.Regarding Targum Onkelos: Targum Onkelos translates "machoh emcheh et zecher amalek" as "mimchah amchi yat dukhrana d'amalek". But earlier in the verse, he translates "k'tov zot zikaron ba-sefer" as "k'tav da-dukhrana b'sifra" -- that is to say, he translates "zikaron" and "zecher" both as "dukhrana."Targum Yonatan, however, translates "zikron ba-sefer" as "dukhrana b'sefer s'vaya dim'l-kadmin" and "zecher" as "dukhran."What do you make of that? (curious question to another reader of Aramaic translations -- not a challenge!!)In any case, I am not sure how Targum Onkelos helps determine what the definition of an idiom is and whether the phrase under discussion ought be called one.I see that I have somehow touched a nerve (idiomatically speaking) with ConAth, so I think in the interest of good discussion, it would be toss up whether this phrase is an idiom or not, unless I could see why such a determination is so crucial in biblical hermeneutics, and results in such heated inquiry.ConAth: If I understand "arrogant" correctly, i.e., "to claim that which I don't deserve," I don't think I am arrogant. I am an ordained rabbi, have a Ph.D. in Religion, and have taught Hebrew Grammar, Bible and Aramaic at the graduate level (as well as Talmud, Halakhic Codes and other subjects). I speak fluent Hebrew. It is not uncommon at all for Bible scholars to critique translations or literary determinations; it is typically done in an amicable, scholarly spirit of sharpening each others work.When I think I am right about an issue, I lay out my evidence, and based on that evidence, others will either accept or, based on counter evidence, show that I am mistaken. I have been correct often, and just as often, if not more, been corrected. I don't think it is arrogant to trust well earned scholarly skills and use them in discussion.Whether I am disingenuous or not is not something that can be, nor ought be, assessed in this forum. I believe that such claims ought to be ignored (and perhaps unspoken) as beyond the proper purview of discussion of biblical Hebrew.I have enjoyed the reading through many of these posts, and hope to participate here in a productive way. It seems I've gotten off on the wrong foot (so to speak). If I have offended, I apologize.

The thread is about Exodus 17:14. Let me try this one last time. The term "idiom" is typically used for an expression and rarely (if ever) makes sense when applied to a single word. To say that "zecher" is, or is not, an idiom is almost nonsensical. At issue is whether or not it is being used idiomatically. It will be cool when I leave for work this morning. As for now, I'm surrounded by some pretty cool pictures of my grandkids. The word "cool" is not an idiom. Good grief!They mean:

• an expression in the usage of a language that is peculiar to itself either grammatically (as no, it wasn't me) or in having a meaning that cannot be derived from the conjoined meanings of its elements [Merriam-Webster]

They mean:

• the idea of removing the memory of a people is an idiom for destroying them-they will have no posterity and no lasting heritage. [netbible]

In brief, nothing. [It might be more fun to discuss Targum Pseudo-Jonathan and Deuteronomy 32:8, but that's far off topic.] Sorry. In my opinion, the idea of eradicating the 'memorial' of a people stands closer to the purported idiomatic meaning of 17:14 than does the standard text. Nor do I. What does, in fact, seem arrogant to me is a willingness to (a) dismiss the footnote, then (b) talk nice about its author(s) and only later, (c) reference the readily available source. Trusting "well earned scholarly skills" is not license to dismiss others without investigation. Then you should have much to offer these discussions.[This message has been edited by ConsequentAtheist, 11-18-2003]

by your definition of idiom:"an expression in the usage of a language that is peculiar to itself either grammatically (as no, it wasn't me) or in having a meaning that cannot be derived from the conjoined meanings of its elements [Merriam-Webster]""blot out the memory" is not an idiom. It is neither peculiar to itself grammatically, nor does it have a meaning that cannot be derived (by someone who knows biblical Hebrew )from the conjoined meaning of its elements.I am not sure why NetBible would call it an idiom, using your definition of idiom. Perhaps they have their own.Here is my guess: In the English language "to blot out a memory" fits the definition of idiom. Meaning, when you translate the words alone, it does not make sense it English in the context of Ex 17 and Deut 25, if in English a "memory" is something stored in the memory. In English, it looks like an idiom, as you have defined it. In Hebrew, it is not, as you have defined an idiom.In Hebrew, the word "zecher" does not just mean something stored in memory. Therefore, a commandment to "blot out a "zecher"" that must be written in a sefer zikaron (book of memory) (Ex 17,) that you should not forget (Deut 25), is not "idiomatic" usage, it is straightforward usage. In English, it looks strange, and requires a footnote. In Biblical Hebrew, it is not strange.Your other points are well taken. Idioms are phrases, and not words. My focusing on "zecher" and not the whole phrase added to the obfuscation that plagued us here for a moment. The only reason I focused solely on zecher was that there seemed to be no contention as to the meaning of "machah" "blot out." "Zecher" was the word in the phrase under discussion.By the way, I am surprised that you don't see any relevance of the Targum Pseudo Yonatan. The way he defines "sefer zikaron" proves the point you adduce from Onkelos even more strongly.

I'm sorry, you are both wrong. Let's put this phrase to the test!Conseq. provided a defenition of idiom, "an expression in the usage of a language that is peculiar to itself either grammatically (as no, it wasn't me) or in having a meaning that cannot be derived from the conjoined meanings of its elements [Merriam-Webster]."So Conseq. I must ask you a second time to explain how, to "blot out the remembrance of Am'alek from under heaven" is an idiom. As to blot out the memory of someone means....to blot out the memory of someone! Pretty simple, really, as I can easily derive the meaning of the phrase from the conjoined meaning of it's elements! And I hope we can all agree that the phrase is not an expression in the usage of the English language that is peculiar to itself grammatically.So again ConSeq it seems you need to explain how this is an idiom. As you stated previosly that, "Whether or not we're dealing with idiom here is a question of fact, not belief."You got anything better than, "that was really dumb" this time?

That clarifies a great deal. Thank you.

quote:

---

By the way, I am surprised that you don't see any relevance of the Targum Pseudo Yonatan. The way he defines "sefer zikaron" proves the point you adduce from Onkelos even more strongly.

---

Lacking your language skills, I am forced to rely solely on English translations, i.e.:

• And the Lord said unto Mosheh, Write this memorial in the book of the elders that were of old, and these words in the hearing, of Jehoshua, that blotting, I will blot out the memory of Amalek from under the heavens. And Mosheh builded an altar, and called the name of it, The Word of the Lord is my banner; for the sign which He hath wrought (in this) place was on my behalf. And he said, Because the Word of the Lord hath sworn by the throne of His glory, that He by His Word will fight against those of the house of Amalek, and destroy them unto three generations; from the generation of this world, from the generation of the Meshiha, and from the generation of the world to come.

That I saw nothing of relevance is no doubt solely due to that limitation. As I noted above, you should have much to offer these discussions.

Wait, am I missing something here? If it is not an idiom in English and not an idiom in Hebrew, then how is it an idiom?Maybe it is an idiom in French???

A masterful understatement.

But we can now agree that this is not an idiom. Correct? If so than it seems that God made a strange error...

My God people lets focus a little bit, there is no timeframe given for when this blotting out is going to take place.------------------
But Who Am I?
NoBody[This message has been edited by NoBody, 12-04-2003]

Why is a time frame needed? The Lord said he would simply blot out the rememberance of Am'alek...and that has not happened. No need to add in a time frame that was never mentioned by the Lord.