The Hebrew word for foot is רגל (regel). Like "hand," most of the time regel means exactly what you think it should mean, the things at the lower end of your legs that you put in shoes and stand on. For the record, at least in Rabbinic Hebrew, regel sometimes also means "leg."And begins his case with Ezekiel 16:25. Now, evidently this verse is concerned with sex, so obviously "feet" here do not mean what is at the bottom of ones legs, but rather what is between them ;-0
Or does it... If instead of assuming a euphemistic use of רגל why not just assume that רגל means "leg" here, as it does in 1 Sam 17:6 and as Rashi, and various later translators and commentators have thought it does here?
Having failed to convince me that his first example requires a euphemistic reading Duane passes on to Judges 3:24. I discussed this at some length in my first post, now I would just add that (as Rashi again noted) "Targum Jonathan renders עָבִיד צוֹרְכֵיה (doing his needs), i. e., moving his bowels" this does not require an equation of feet with anything other than "feet", but does seem to me to suggest possibly anachronistic forms of clothing. Actually, the more I look at this passage the more puzzled I become. Everyone seems agreed that the mention of "covering his feet" is a reference either to urination or to defecation. Yet the location in which Eglon is "covering his feet" is the (same?) "upper room" in which in v.20 he received Ehud - was the Moabite king in the habit of inviting guests into his toilet?
Duane's example from 2 Kings 18:27 is thoroughly convincing. Here the Hebrew text of the Bible reads that the besieged Judeans will be doomed:
לֶאֱכֹ֣ל אֶת חֲרֵיהֶם וְלִשְׁתּ֛וֹת אֶת־שֵׁינֵיהֶם
The Masoretic scribes found this a little too explicit, so for both terms they suggested alternative "readings":
"to eat their own dirt, and drink the water of their feet"
The trouble with this for my purposes is that all it demonstrates is that by the time of the Masoretes "feet" had possibly come to have a euphemistic meaning of the sort proposed. There is according to Duane no clear cut example in Ugaritic (which anyway uses a word that is not a cognate of רגל. And: "I was unable to find and did not look too diligently for examples in Akkadian or Egyptian."
It still seems to me that the case for a common euphemism רגל = sexual organs is simply unproven. Biblical scholars should stop appealing to this supposed euphemistic use until there is better evidence to support it for biblical Hebrew. (That it existed later I do not dispute. The example above is (almost) enough to convince me ;-)
Labels: 1 Kings, bible, biblical.studies, ezekiel, isaiah, judges
¶ 7:26 PM
[to Del.icio.us]
Tim
Thanks for the engaging discussion. If I were to write those posts again, I would no doubt see them differently in some details, but I do remain convened that feet/legs sometimes means something other than feet/legs. You have convinced me that my Ezekiel 16:25 example is weaker than I had thought at the time. And I'm a little more confused about what "covering his feet" means than I once was. As you might guess, I object to the use of the word "unproven." Rather, I take it that you think it unlikely that רגל was regularly used as a euphemism in Biblical Hebrew. I no doubt think that it is more likely that it was than you do. These days, I would much rather speak in terms of probability and synthesis of evidence and let the logicians and the mathematicians have their "proofs." I sometimes wonder if there is purposeful ambiguity in some of these passages. The Ruth example comes to mind. Anyway, one thing that you and Sean-the-Baptist will likely find, as I have, is that these post will become among the most often linked to from Google searches.
By 
Duane Smith, at
June 12, 2008 5:45 AM
If one understands it in the sense of mathematical "proofs" then the word was very badly chosen, sorry! I had in mind the image of a law court, which is where I come across the form "unproven" (I think). All I meant was that if instead of doing as generations of biblical scholars have done, and assuming there is a common euphemism feet = sex organs, but rather regards this as a novel reading whose probability has to be demonstrated then the case is (I think) still "unproven", that is there is not enough evidence to convict ;-)
Though if there was such a usage, then in the Ruth example it would certainly add to the general air of innuendo in that chapter!
By Tim, at
June 12, 2008 6:29 AM
The Hebrew has gone out of proper word order (at least on my computer screen).
By N T Wrong, at
June 13, 2008 9:14 AM
Hi, Milord Wrong, at a guess you are using Internet Explorer, at least to reproduce the problem I had to fire IE up as in Firefox everything was fine. At a guess FF is more tollerant and IE stricter or something about Unicode RTL. In any case I have - I hope - got it all orderly in both browsers.
Thanks for pointing it out. I also fixed the quote that had the line breaks as a bonus extra!
Now all it needs is someone using a Mac to still find problems to really make my day ;-) and I thought that Unicode would solve all this "problems with Hebrew on the web" stuff.
It does... BUT only when all the programs play nicely by the (same) rules.
By Tim, at
June 13, 2008 9:48 AM
It all looks good now (and I am using IE). Thanks.
I've just given up on the Aramaic (square script) font, and stick to transliteration. I'm sick of finding that words have changed places when I open up a Word doc that had been saved before. And if I save a Word doc as a pdf, often the Aramaic font flips around again. You don't get those problems with transliteration.
On a more substantial note, my interest was piqued by this topic - not only for the obvious and banal reasons - because I once tried to pursue the idea that one the sources in the David & Goliath story involved Goliath being struck in the goolies - a comic below-the-belt hit that fits well with David's general character in Samuel. I might revisit it.
By N T Wrong, at
June 14, 2008 10:47 AM
Let me be clear on what I am claiming; it is very modest indeed. The strongest thing I want to say is that the "hand" has been used as a euphemism or, perhaps better, metaphor for penis or phallus from time to time in human history. While I think that it was a widespread usage in the Northwest Semitic world, I have not proven that.I think this is a careful and accurate conclusion, each of the examples is a strong one, where almost any reader will suspect that the word is being used euphemistically. But they are too few to demonstrate a regular usage.
The follow-up post A Euphemism for Pudenda deals with the evidence for "feet" as a euphemism. I will return to that post when I next have time for blogging.
Labels: bible, biblical.studies, isaiah
¶ 9:08 AM
[to Del.icio.us]
Hi, I saw this on Goodacre's blogroll and thought I'd drop by.
There is a chapter about euphemisms in "Ancient Israel: The Old Testament In Its Social Context", Philip Esler being the editor. I read it many months ago so I can't provide any useful details; I only remember it taking on a couple of ANE laws about crushing testicles.
By J. Archer, at
June 11, 2008 12:49 PM
Thanks, our library doesn't have the book - on order I hope, but perhaps I missed it - so I'll get it on ILL. It is not (as I think I suggest at least in my reply a minute ago to Duane's comment above) that I am quite convinced that there was not such a euphemistic usage, rather that no one has taken the trouble to convince me there was, so I'd rather assume there was not till the case is made!
By Tim, at
June 12, 2008 6:42 AM
On Deut. 11.10: the point is exactly that the Promised Land will be naturally fertile and thus will not require irrigation by other means (of course the language is symbolic, irrigation is as necessary there as in Egypt in reality). Tim asks 'in Egypt is most irrigation done by peeing?' - well no, but neither is there literal milk and honey flowing in Israel-Palestine, and perhaps good deal more irrigation took place by this means than by carrying water on your foot (images of hopping with a bucket attached anyone?)But why interpret the language as "symbolic" whatever that means here, I had assumed that even read as a euphemism the use was intended literally.
Irrigating with the feet would then refer to the habit of opening and closing irrigation ditches using the feet. While I cannot really see how the euphemistic reading works, in the promised land water falls from the sky, while in Egypt humans had to pee to water the ground - presumably entailing frequent trips to the irrigation ditch to drink...
On Ruth we basically agree - except whether Boaz' "feet" are literal or euphemistic (I still wonder at the plural euphemism here?).
On Is 6:2 Sean brings up the topic of ANE iconography, as Jim Getz said in a comment on a post: Another "Feet" Euphemism in the Hebrew Bible? on this topic on Shibboleth I think I was convinced by Keel's identification of the Seraphim here with Egyptian uraus snakes, my copy of Keel is at college, so i can't check, but I do not remember these snakes as having prominent phalluses which might need covering to preserve Hebrew modesty! On Is 7:20 I am quite willing to agree thsat ritual humiliation is in view, and that a euphemistic reading is possible. But when the "head to foot" shaving seems to cover that pretty comprehensively I do not see the need to invent a new "euphemistic" reading. (And that is really my point, I believe that those who repeat conventional wisdom and claim a common euphemism in Biblical Hebrew "feet" = "phallus" need to provide some evidence to support this view. And where simply reading "feet" as "those two things we walk on that stop our legs fraying at the ends" works fine then they have NOT provided such evidence EVEN IF "phallus" works just as well.
Result, I am still unconvinced that this particular item of "popular wisdom" has a leg to stand upon! Sometimes in the Bible, when you read "feet" they do simply mean "feet", now on the basis of Ugaritic evidence one might I think (someone could ask Duane about the abnormally interesting uses of "finger" in those texts, and perhaps also look at Hebrew Bible texts like 1 Kings 12:10).
Labels: 1 Kings, 2sam, bible, biblical.studies, isaiah, ruth
¶ 6:08 PM
[to Del.icio.us]
That is that the word for feet רַגְלָיו sometimes refers to what we might politely call 'other parts of the (male) anatomy'.I have never really been convinced by the claim. Sean cites the following passages as the best evidence for this supposed usage (the order is mine, as are the comments in straight type):
Exodus 4.25 But Zipporah took a flint and cut off her son’s foreskin, and touched Moses’ feet with it, and said, “Truly you are a bridegroom of blood to me!”
Now why on earth would one suppose that "feet" here is a euphemism - after all no euphemism was used for "foreskin" עָרְלַת seems explicit enough.
Deuteronomy 11.10 For the land that you are about to enter to occupy is not like the land of Egypt, from which you have come, where you sow your seed and irrigate by foot like a vegetable garden.
In Egypt is most irrigation done by peeing? No wonder they brewed so much beer! Or maybe the small earth dams on irrigation ditches are quite easily broken by foot?
If this one is a euphemism, does it not remove all the tension from the chapter where the most significant "gap" the hearer must fill is: "Did they or didn't they?" there is plenty of other innuendo in the chapter to build up the tension, without this (possible, maybe) one.
Isaiah 6.2: Seraphs were in attendance above him; each had six wings: with two they covered their faces, and with two they covered their feet, and with two they flew.
Really? Now why should face and feet not simply mean face and feet? Please explain!
Isaiah 7.20: On that day the Lord will shave with a razor hired beyond the River—with the king of Assyria—the head and the hair of the feet, and it will take off the beard as well.
Hairy feet or hairy [euphemism]? Which is more plausible? Though I suppose if the euphemism is for the whole genital area, this one might make sense.
Judges 3.24: After he had gone, the servants came. When they saw that the doors of the roof chamber were locked, they thought, “He must be relieving himself (literally 'covering his feet') in the cool chamber.” cf. 1 Sam. 24.3
At first sight, this one is good! In this sample I am almost convinced, there is a good case to answer, though why "covering his feet" should be a euphemism for peeing, and not merely another example of the rather gross schoolboy humour of the passage I am unclear.
2 Samuel 11.8 Then David said to Uriah, “Go down to your house, and wash your feet.” Uriah went out of the king’s house, and there followed him a present from the king.
Could be a euphemism, but then it could be that the sentence is euphemistic even if the "feet" are literal. "Wash your feet" = "make yourself at home"...
So, in the end, what evidence is there for this conventionally supposed common euphemism? Two cases where you might argue with some strength that reading euphemistically is the "best" reading, a couple more where it might just be possible but overall I'd say: No case to answer. In the Bible feet are just that. And Eglon as well as excessively fat, and greedy, also was known to his servants as having a poor aim. As the sign in our downstairs loo read for a while (we had teenage boys in the house) "We aim to please. You aim too, please!"
Labels: 2sam, bible, biblical.studies, deuteronomy, exodus, isaiah, judges
¶ 10:35 AM
[to Del.icio.us]
The first is Duane's abnormally interesting, and credulous(?), Isaiah 38:9-20: An Abnormal View in which he provides a strong sketch of arguments that might be made to claim that Hezekiah actually wrote part of the Bible in his own hand. (At the moment I hope he does expand the post to a paper, it would be fun to hear the discussion! And perhaps I will as I continue to follow the blogs over the next few days/weeks :)
The second I am also noting for my Genesis class reading list (for next semester) where John (Hobbins) asks: Does Genesis 1 describe the creation of things or the assignment of functions to things? A Response to John Walton frankly he takes John (Walton)'s special pleading more seriously than I would, but he provides a really good clear discussion that I want my students to follow.
Two fine examples of why (biblio/biblia)blogging is both fun, and useful!
Labels: biblical.studies, genesis, is.38, isaiah, open.biblical.studies
¶ 2:00 PM
[to Del.icio.us]
Tim,
Thanks for your interest in my post on Isaiah 38:9-20. I continue to think about developing this into a paper. The main problem is one of methodology. Whatever is going on here, it is likely too underdetermined to say much of anything with certainty. As to "credulous:" I tried to be as equivocal as possible and still be more or less coherent. I doubt very much that Hezekiah wrote any or much of this. Some part of it may, I say "may," go back to him. Despite a complex history of editing, even in Isaiah, every text began with something. My underlying purpose in doing this post is to (continue to) lay some groundwork for something quite different. What that is will unfold over time.
By Duane Smith, at
May 5, 2008 3:48 AM
The word was probably badly chosen, what I meant to mean was that I find the argument intriguing, fairly convincing, but only because it is an idea I like. If I am properly critical there are too many "probables" in it that maybe multiply together into an "unlikely".
But I still think discussing it is abnormally interesting and could be fun. (And useful too, if only in that it might help clarify some of the issues, such as the distribution and nature of literacy in the Iron Age Levant.
By Tim, at
May 5, 2008 6:11 AM
Dr. Walton is "the man" - just had to say it.
By Tim, at
May 7, 2008 1:50 AM
I haven't met him, though he writes and speaks (judging by the Wheaton 'cast http://www.wheaton.edu/physics/research/symposia/conferences03/ ) clearly and simply yet with interesting and useful ideas - a great combination when one finds it in my book :)
By Tim, at
May 7, 2008 6:27 AM
For a long time I have held my peace,Stephen Cook has a couple of interesting posts responding to a paper given recently at VTS. ("The presenter was Dr. Juliana Claassens and the paper looked at the image of God in Isaiah 42.")
I have kept still and restrained myself;
now I will cry out like a woman in labour,
I will gasp and pant.Isaiah 42:14
Stephen concludes his first post, God "Like a Woman in Labor" (Isaiah 42)
A woman's helplessness and frailty during labor is nothing less than power, the power to bring about new life--something a "powerful" male cannot do! This theological theme that vulnerability and frailty is a source of true, marvelous power is a big one throughout Isaiah 40-66. I think Juliana is really on to something here.Which captures one of the ways in which this passage fits so well with traditional Christian theology and preaching, though using an image that did not become a major part of the tradition - at least since the Middle Ages, I've argued that various sorts of mother imagery for God was more common earlier than 1450AD!
In his second post Whence Comes God's Pain in Labor (Isaiah 42)? Stephen says:
Dr. Claassens in her paper interpreted God's pain in labor as God's work of entering into the trials and trauma of the people, who have been exiled to Babylonia as prisoners of war. In my response to her paper, I suggested another possibility that to me seems more in keeping with the overall theology and thinking of 2 Isaiah.Stephen locates God's pain in this passage in the idea that "In 2 Isaiah God is seen to put aside God's right to justice, to put aside what's fair and deserved." His discussion provides a good theological entry point into the passage in Isaiah 42. It is one that fits well with the description of the "servant" at the start of the chapter.
However, it seems to me that this discussion rather misses the immediate cotext of verse 14. The preceding verse presents God as a (male?) warrior:
The LORD goes forth like a soldier,and in the following God declares:
like a warrior he stirs up his fury;
he cries out, he shouts aloud,
he shows himself mighty against his foes.Isaiah 42:13
I will lay waste mountains and hills,The verse about pregnancy, labour and birth is thus set in a context that is surprising, at least in a world of sanitised congratulations cards and Baby's First Blog's! Fury, destruction and war seem out of place in such a world. But these images are not so strange in a delivery room. Mothers can speak for themselves, but to a husband and lover standing, almost helplessly, by these images fit the event. So, in my reading of this passage vv.13 and 15 need to be heard. The terror, cries and anguish you are seeing - says YHWH - are the birth pangs of something new, to which I am giving birth!
and dry up all their herbage;
I will turn the rivers into islands,
and dry up the pools.Isaiah 42:15
Labels: god, is.42, isaiah, mother
¶ 11:50 AM
[to Del.icio.us]
