[b-hebrew] deut 32 KPR

K Randolph kwrandolph at gmail.com
Mon Dec 24 16:01:35 EST 2012


Nir:

Thank you for this response.

On Mon, Dec 24, 2012 at 8:42 AM, Nir cohen - Prof. Mat. <nir at ccet.ufrn.br>wrote:

> karl,
>
> I. KPR and all its nuances are described in e.g. douglas judisch,
> concordia theol quat 84,
>
>
> http://www.google.com.br/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=3&ved=0CEQQFjAC&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.ctsfw.net%2Fmedia%2Fpdfs%2Fjudischpropitiation.pdf&ei=UXDYUI7IBNLW0gHd04GYAg&usg=AFQjCNFQzTBCVv4Y5T3PCHyw8w2amHbSjQ&bvm=bv.1355534169,d.dmQ
>
> or michael l brown, p 189 in
>
> http://books.google.com.br/books?id=mpYDLXUfIO8C&pg=PA192&lpg=PA192&dq=kpr+semitic+root&source=bl&ots=uwxAmkkd2S&sig=WXw-6ohnvhMLlKLGrmavfGs8GgI&hl=pt-BR&sa=X&ei=43PYUJWEO4y60QGx7YFQ&ved=0CEkQ6AEwAw#v=onepage&q=kpr%20semitic%20root&f=false
>
> also, p29 in
>
>
> http://books.google.com.br/books?id=qfddOUt3K-QC&pg=PA29&lpg=PA29&dq=kpr+semitic+root&source=bl&ots=DTbTNMZ9Du&sig=3ovLHv__qw2IpIQyEXsSWpCXUIA&hl=pt-BR&sa=X&ei=43PYUJWEO4y60QGx7YFQ&ved=0CEsQ6AEwBA#v=onepage&q=kpr%20semitic%20root&f=false
>
> as far as i could see, none of them evokes deot 32:43. it seems that there
> is
> a real etymological problem there. HOWEVER....
>

Not surprising that they reference only a few examples, when KPR is listed
as a verb about 100 times in Tanakh, not counting noun derivatives.

Just as English “cover” has a lot broader meaning than just related to a
blanket or lid, so I see the Hebrew usage as similar, with a much broader
meaning than just a lid or physical cover.

I don’t concern myself with etymology, just usage. I see etymologies
counting only where we have a paper trail to follow, and in Biblical
Hebrew, we don’t have a paper trail. (In recognizing nouns derived from
verbs, only where recognized meaning by usage show that verb and noun have
a common origin. Form alone doesn’t count. Meaning must be present.)

>
> ---------------------
>
> 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.
>

I don’t see a sound elimination of KPR as a noun in this verse, whereas I
see contextual clues that it’s not a verb. Further, the idea of expiation
or atonement is not the only use of the word. Third, “his people” isn’t
referenced in this verse.

>
> 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"
>

Other than the theological explanations you listed above (when I see
authors emphasizing theological issues, it raises a warning flag in my
mind), is there any verse where KPR is necessarily connected to the meaning
of “wipe out”? I know of none.

(One problem with theological explanations is that in words such as this
with broad semantic range, theologians often zero in on just the
theological uses, often without referencing other uses of a term. Those
other uses can often affect the theological understanding of a term, but by
not bringing them up, can distort its understanding.)

>
> -----------------------------
>
> 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.
>

I see a parallelism of contrast, both regarding God’s actions towards his
enemies and his land.

There are many verses that don’t have an explicit verb, rather the verb is
an implied “to be”. So that’s not an argument here.

I didn’t say that it cannot be a verb, just that the context indicates that
it isn’t.

As for etymology, see above.

>
> 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] .
>

“Tar” is related in that it is used as a covering for waterproofing. Both
ancient and modern. But that’s not the meaning here.

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

Where do you get the idea of “regain”?

>
> (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:
>

I need to see it in Tanakh in order to say that it’s relevant.

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

I see this as wrongly pointed, “with him”.

>
>

> nir cohen
>
> Karl W. Randolph.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail/b-hebrew/attachments/20121224/e2ce98cb/attachment.html 


More information about the b-hebrew mailing list