n.
1. A cutting, often ironic remark intended to express contempt or ridicule.
2. A form of wit characterized by the use of such remarks: detected a hint of sarcasm in his voice.
[Late Latin sarcasmus, from Greek sarkasmos, from sarkazein, to bite the lips in rage, from sarx, sark-, flesh.]
American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fifth Edition. Copyright © 2016 by Houghton Mifflin Harcourt Publishing Company. Published by Houghton Mifflin Harcourt Publishing Company. All rights reserved.
See https://www.thefreedictionary.com/sarcasm
Two possible cases of sarcasm in the Bible are Zechariah 11:13 and 2 Cor. 11:12-29. Another one that comes to mind is the account regarding Elijah in 1 Kings 17-19: the way that Elijah deals with the prophets of Baal is filled with explicit and derisive irony.
Read the letters to the Galatians and Philippians for more examples of derisive speech.
See also https://www.leadershipresources.org/sarcasm-in-the-bible-dale-ralph-davis
https://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/1200275063
23 comments:
https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=ZTVTTcfVAj0C&pg=PA43&lpg=PA43&dq=elijah+privy&source=bl&ots=_cYNrptynW&sig=ACfU3U2UVsYgHvT6KZBKkogUqAcWpX8bbQ&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwj2n825lOjpAhURi1wKHUXSDm0Q6AEwAHoECAIQAQ#v=onepage&q=elijah%20privy&f=false
Why can't these books just be honest and say they do not know what the text is saying?
I'm not sure which part of the book you find unsatisfactory, but I've been reading this work edited by Hauser and Gregory. Much of it comes across as informative and the overall point Hauser tries to make is that the Elijah account is a battle between YHWH and Baal. But at the beginning of this book, Hauser admits the Elijah narrative could be read different ways. One thing that comes across clearly in 1 Kings 18 is the sarcasm, ridicule, and irony of Elijah.
"Elijah narrative could be read different ways." - agreed to some extent but the Hebrew regarding the part that is sometimes "translated" as "gone to the privy", can't.
It is sheer guess work.
The account is full of sarcasm but in that instance we do not know about what.
The LXX does not help much - meditating, or else perhaps he is engaged in business, or perhaps he is asleep, and is to be awaked.
IMO they are all guessing, including the LXX. What's wrong with saying - we don't know.
I think (know) that scholars admit they don't know things for certain all the time. I could adduce many cases of such admissions. But most things in the Bible have possibilities such that they can be rendered one way or another although we have no certainty about the passages.
Maybe it was you, who sent me the article by Gary Rendsburg, "The Mock of Ball in 1 Kings 18:27" Sorry that I don't remember, but the article deals with these issues too.
Rendsburg explains why neither LXX nor Targum Jon. is completely satisfactory for 1 Kings 18:27: neither source is faithful to the context.
So Rendsburg then builds on an idea set forth by G.R. Driver although he rejects Driver's conjecture for the Hebrew, but he insists we have plenty of evidence for his proposal, that is, Rendsburg's.
What does he conclude? There is good reason to believe Elijah was saying, "he may be defecating/urinating," which would constitute fitting derision for the Canaanite deity. The context is all about YHWH vs. Baal and which being deserves Israelite loyalty.
Rendsburg's piece appears in CBQ, 50, 1988: (pages 414-417).
Should be "Mock of Baal" instead of Ball.
https://jewishstudies.rutgers.edu/docman/rendsburg/498-cbq-mock-of-baal-2/file
"śîaḥ and śîg
The word in question is unique in Scripture yet it is nearly identical to the first:
שִׂ֧יחַ
שִׂ֛יג
This combination of שִׂ֧יחַ and שִׂ֛יג is alliteration, a deliberate device. If it is not taken as a hendiadys, it should be understood as connecting thoughts or actions which have something in common. The ESV’s “musing” and “relieving himself” is suspect since it presents two actions which have little or no affinity to one another and so fails to capture the obvious connection which is present.
Moreover, the modern treatment of the word ignores how Elijah’s mock ends. If there is a suggestion Ba’al is relieving himself, there is a reference (1 Samuel 24:3) from King Saul’s earlier attempt to kill David which would work. To believe "relieving himself" is the meaning intended requires a belief this writer abandoned His methodology of using Scripture to convey meaning and instead chose a word whose meaning must be determined from extra-Biblical usage.
Therefore, even if contemporary scholarship demonstrates an extra-Biblical etymological basis for the meaning of שִׂ֛יג to be "relieving himself," this conclusion conflicts with how the mock has been constructed (as well as how those scholars closest in time understood it). In fact, the Biblical evidence is that while the word used has a meaning which may not be precisely determined from other uses of the word or its root in Scripture, the overall passage has been also been crafted to reasonably exclude "relieving himself" as a candidate of potential meaning."
https://hermeneutics.stackexchange.com/questions/20670/was-baal-relieving-himself
I disagree that "relieving himself (defecating/urinating) is strictly based on extra-biblical sources. Rendsburg bases his argument on Targum Jon., and the work of medieval exegetes including Rashi. Then Rendburg turns to Semitic cognates and the work of Ben Yehuda. Moreover, see the argument developed on p. 416 of Rendsburg.
Relieving himself is wholly appropriate in view of the context.
See page 919 of Koehler-Baumgartner.
Are you referring to "Targum Pseudo-Jonathan" (Targum Yerushalmi) ?
I was speaking of the citations from the Rendsburg article. He just cites "Tg. Jonathan" twice, but does not say anything else about it, to my knowledge. But Tg. Jonathan and Targum Pseudo-Jonathan are apparently the same thing.
https://www.sefaria.org/Targum_Jonathan_on_I_Kings.18?lang=bi
https://www.chabad.org/library/bible_cdo/aid/15902/showrashi/true
This Targum is different to the one I was thinking of and later, somewhere in the Talmudic period. It interprets Joel 2:17 as "where are those who were redeemed by the memra of their god."
Isn't the LXX an earlier exegete?
The memra concept is definitely an older notion, but the LXX is usually dated to 3rd-2nd BCE. Rendsburg does talk about the LXX, but thinks it just doesn't quite it. Whether the LXX is right or not, earlier doesn't always mean better.
I meant to say the memra concept is a later concept, so not as old.
Robert L. Hubbard, Jr. shows that regardless of how we render 1 Kings 18:27, mockery copiously ensues from Elijah's mouth:
About noon, Elijah ridiculed them, sarcastically offering advice on how to reach Baal (v. 27). “Shout louder,” urged Elijah, “because he is a god”— that is, he must be able to hear. Snidely Elijah explained the need for more volume: “He’s too deep in thought, too preoccupied with his affairs, or too busy in the bathroom (lit. “turned aside”; NIV “traveling”). Maybe he’s asleep and must be awakened.” Elijah’s sarcasm portrayed Baal not as a god but as a mere human—hence, unable to act. Ironically, the prophets followed Elijah’s advice. They turned up the volume and began gashing themselves with swords and spears (v. 28). In the OT, self-laceration was a common part of mourning rites (Deut. 14:1; Jer. 16:6). The words “as was their custom,” however, showed that the practice was also a well-known part of Baal worship. Probably the bloodshed aimed to attract Baal’s attention and demonstrate the prophets’ devotion (cf. Jer. 41:5). All day long they carried on their ecstatic orgy, but still there was no response (v. 29). Even though Baal failed to answer, no one could blame the prophets for a poor effort.
To counter Rashi please see Radak.
https://www.sefaria.org/Radak_on_I_Kings.18.27?lang=bi
Traveling on business & sleeping.
What we have are lexical possibilities, but I think Rendsburg persuasively makes the case for the privy view. Additionally, when I consult lexicons, two basic possibilities for the word are given --not endless possibilities. Either way, Elijah's derision comes through.
There is always point-counterpoint in scholarship, but which view has the preponderance of evidence?
See also https://www.sefaria.org/I_Kings.18.27?lang=bi&with=Commentary&lang2=en
I have not been through each comment to see what differentiates one exegete from the other when it comes to 1 Kings 18:27. Maybe you'll find something there.
http://www.ocabs.org/journal/index.php/jocabs/article/viewFile/53/24
See the comment about Baal on page 3.
1 Kings 18:27 in Rotherham's Emphasized Bible: "And it came to pass, at noon, that Elijah mocked them, and said—Cry with a loud voice, for, a god, he is, either he hath, a meditation, or an occasion to retire, or he hath, a journey,—peradventure, he, sleepeth, and must be awaked."
Adam Clarke: Peradventure he sleepeth - Rab. S. Jarchi gives this the most degrading meaning; I will give it in Latin, because it is too coarse to be put in English; Fortassis ad locum secretum abiit, ut ventrem ibi exomeret; "Perhaps he is gone to the _____." This certainly reduces Baal to the lowest degree of contempt, and with it the ridicule and sarcasm are complete.
Among Asiatic idolaters their gods have different functions to fulfill, and require sleep and rest. Vishnoo sleeps four months in the year. Budhoo is represented in his temple as sleep, though his eyes are open. Vayoo manages the winds; Varoona, the waters; Indra, the clouds, etc.; and according to many fables in the Pooranas, the gods are often out on journeys, expeditions, etc.
Clark's Latin quote should end with exoneret instead of exomeret.
https://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/abs/10.1086/371011?journalCode=jnes
i Kings 18:27
Post a Comment