[B-Greek] Veil: KALUMMA

George F. Somsel gfsomsel at juno.com
Tue Jun 29 22:02:58 EDT 2004


On Tue, 29 Jun 2004 23:51:24 +0300 "Iver Larsen" <iver_larsen at sil.org>
writes:
> >
> > LSJ at Perseus  has this entry
> >
> > PERIBOL-AION, TO, ([PERIBALLW]) that which is thrown round, 
> covering,
> > QANATOU PERIBOLAIA corpse-clothes, E. HF549; SARKOS TT. hHBWNTA 
> youthful
> > incasements of flesh, i.e. youth, manhood, ib. 1269, cf. PStrassb 
> 91.9 (i
> > B. C.) ; freq. in LXX, De. 22.12, al. (metaph., TT. XALKOUN hH 
> ISXUS SOU
> > Je 15.12); woman's headgear, 1 Ep.Cor. 11.15; covering for the 
> feet,
> > Plu.Arat.43; chariot-cover, Id. Alex. 67; bedcover, 
> Gal.18(1).103;
> > padding, PERIBOLAIA SPLHNWN ib.(2).381 ; dressing-gown, warm 
> wrap,
> > Herod.Med. ap. Orib.10.18.13, Archig. ap. Gal.13.264.
> >
> > The entry "covering for the feet" is interesting in view of the 
> fact that
> > "foot" was a euphemism for genitalia.
> >
> > george
> > gfsomsel
> 
> The last comment is far away from b-Greek, but since it was posted 
> here, it
> ought to be refuted here.
> 
> The misunderstanding that "feet" was used as a euphemism for 
> genitalia is
> popular, but without factual basis. The background is that the 
> Hebrew word
> (regel) which can mean either foot or leg depending on context, has 
> been
> wrongly translated as "feet" many times where it should have been 
> translated
> "legs". There are a couple of places where the expression "between 
> the legs"
> is used as a euphemistic reference to that area between the upper 
> part of
> the legs. I have found this in Gen 49:10 and Deut 28:57, and LXX 
> translate
> correctly by MHROS (thigh) in both places. In Isa 7:20 "hair of the 
> legs" is
> mentioned, but here the LXX wrongly translated by PODWN just like 
> many
> English versions wrongly translated it by "feet".
> 
________________

You correctly note that this relates to the Hebrew ReGeL.  Too often we
have a tendency to sanitize the writings of the Old and New Testaments
because they are sacred writings.  We seem to forget that the people of
that day were human as well and experienced the same necessities as we
today.   This can work to the detriment of our understanding of what the
text actually says or, at least, to an appreciation of the force with
which it was stated.

When I was a kid and read the story in Judges of Eglon and Ehud, I failed
to understand what it referred to when it said that his servants wouldn't
enter because they thought "he covereth his feet in his summer chamber." 
The RSV makes the sense plainer, but loses something of the indirect way
of stating it when it renders "He is only relieving himself . . ."

Similarly, Isaiah's vision of the Seraphim seems somewhat
incomprehensible if one fails to understand the meanng of "feet" in the
passage.  Since these were winged creatures, it is not surprising to hear
that they flew with one set of two wings.  The use of the other two sets
of wings, however, remind one of the three monkeys who cover their eyes
and ears and mouth -- see no evil, hear no evil, speak no evil.  The
covering of the face is understandable since God is supposed to be too
holy to look upon.  The problem is regarding the significance of the
covering of the feet.  It is only when one understands that "foot" here
is a euphemism for genitalia that the covering of the feet takes on any
significance -- namely modesty.

I think we sometimes out-Victoria the Victorians.  Perhaps that is in
reaction to life in a society which is so captivated by the erotic.  The
Elizabethans and Jacobeans, however, were a lusty bunch.  When the A.V.
was translated they rendered the judgment against Ahab "I will cut off
from Ahab him that pisseth against the wall" indicating every male
progeny since only a male would do such.  The RSV, however, renders it
rather flatly as "I will cut off from Ahab every male."  While it gives
the sense, it seems totally tame.

This lustiness was not limited to Hebrew either.  One only needs to read
a little of Aristophanes to discover that the Greeks had their own "four
letter words" even if the count was somewhat different.  I don't expect
any such usage in the NT though it certainly cannot be totally uninformed
regarding the society of which the church formed a part.  It could also
be that PERIBOLAION could have reference to a covering of the genitals. 
Though I tend to agree with another contributor to this list that the
writer may not make a very strong case for his argument that the word
itself refers to the genitals, it remains a possibility to be considered.
 I am more inclined to see it as analogous to the word "pants" in
English.  

In short, Iver, I think your rejection like the rumors of Mark Twain's
demise is a bit premature.

george
gfsomsel



More information about the B-Greek mailing list