kwrandolph at email.com
Mon Aug 22 20:45:15 EDT 2005
----- Original Message -----
From: "Peter Kirk" <peterkirk at qaya.org>
> On 22/08/2005 15:53, Karl Randolph wrote:
> > Peter:
> > In Leviticus 20:17 is the XSD connected with the incest or the
> > punishment? If with the incest then yes, it refers to a negative,
> > but if with the punishment, then it is undeserved good favor to
> > banish them when they deserve death.
> Well, the first clause in this verse starts at the beginning and
> continues until XESED HU', with 'ASHER introducing a clause
> subordinate to this one. The sentence structure in fact seems to
> state that it is the man who is XESED, but it could be interpreted
> that the whole situation is so descibed. But I don't see that the
> meaning could a description of what follows, which is separated off
> by the VAV conjunction attached to a QATAL verb (i.e. WEQATAL)
> which always indicates a new clause.
Looking at the verse, the )$R precedes the XSD HW) so that
the latter is either part of the subordinate clause, or
the introduction to the following clause. I read it as the
Secondly, does the WAW prefix on a verb always indicate a
new clause, or only when affixed on a Qatal? I read the WAW
to have the same force as on the final verb in Isaiah 53:2.
Why should we consider them differently?
> -- Peter Kirk
> peter at qaya.org (personal)
> peterkirk at qaya.org (work)
On a related issue, when I see applications of a noun that
is used well over 100 times in Tanakh, all of them having
one meaning and only once apparently having a different and
opposite meaning, I then question why? Is this a special
figure of speach? Did I misunderstand the text? Is there
possible copyest error? Is this a loan word from another
language that just happened to have the same form as a
previous lexeme in the language (though in this case, with
Torah being the earliest section of Tanakh, it is very
unlikely)? Are we looking at an unusual though acceptable
grammatical construct? Is this slang? In short, a one time
opposite use raises many red flags.
Karl W. Randolph.
Sign-up for Ads Free at Mail.com
More information about the b-hebrew