[b-hebrew] deut 32 KPR

Nir cohen - Prof. Mat. nir at ccet.ufrn.br
Mon Dec 24 11:42:46 EST 2012

I. KPR and all its nuances are described in e.g. douglas judisch, 
concordia theol quat 84,


or michael l brown, p 189 in 

also, p29 in 


as far as i could see, none of them evokes deot 32:43. it seems that there is
a real etymological problem there. HOWEVER....


II. without a sound elimination of the options of KPR as a verb, you 
flat statement that KPR is a noun is just untenable. for example, i am 
not convinced that "his people would atone" or "his people would 
expiate" is not a possibility here, given that the egypt diaspora 
was seen as a punishment and the years in the desert (as fully 
commented in deut 32) were seen as sinful in many respects. the 
reconquest of canaan was perceived as requiring expiation. 

another plausible meaning of KPR, v. is "wipe out", which here 
may be understood as "remove the enemies from the land". thus: "and his people
would wipe out their land"


III. your main argument in favor of a noun (i.e. that it cannot be
a verb) is not convincing. you do not suggest an etymology, 
the versicle remains without a verb, with no clear parallelism 
within the couplet or the text.

moreover, KPR is already used as a noun and its two meanings: tar and village,
are not applicable here. [actually, a third meaning: ransom, 
is meaningful below] .


IV. a simple alternative solution for this versicle may be:
WKPR )DMTW (MW - "and his people would regain his land". 

(i) i understand KPR here in the sense of recover/regain, just as ransom money
KOFER is paid to recover the heldup person. although this 
sense is not attested in the OT, it may be a late derivative of KOFER as
reward or deposit, i.e. a kind of change or recovery of ownership. 
anyway, this hypothesis is less drastic than the hypothesis that 
KPR is a noun of unknown etymology. as to the remaining part of 
the versicle:

(ii) (MW=his people, i.e. god's people.

(iii) )DMTW=his land, i.e. the land of the people (syntactically, god's 
land would be a more remote possibility). 

i see no need to assume other meanings for the final waw except for the
possessive HIS.

nir cohen

More information about the b-hebrew mailing list