kwrandolph at gmail.com
Wed Dec 26 14:43:02 EST 2012
On Tue, Dec 25, 2012 at 11:21 PM, Nir cohen - Prof. Mat.
<nir at ccet.ufrn.br>wrote:
> thanks for your reply.
> De: K Randolph <kwrandolph at gmail.com>
> Data: Mon, 24 Dec 2012 13:01:35 -0800
> >>> Third, “his people” isn’t referenced in this verse.
> you are jumping to hasty conclusions here.
> let us stick to the facts. this word appears 4
> times in this chapter, three of them clearly mean "his people"
> but not "with him". on the fourth, it is your private opinion
> that (MW reads "with him", contrary to all the
> accepted translations.
Each time a word appears in a chapter, it needs to be analyzed on its own
merits, within its own context, not how it’s used elsewhere, even in the
same chapter, or even in the same verse. That’s especially true of Biblical
Hebrew which has many homographs that come from different roots, that are
homographs because Biblical Hebrew doesn’t include vowels (those homographs
may very well have had very different pronunciations).
As for translations—I long ago realized that translators very often stick
to tradition more than they do to independent research. One of those
traditions is the Masoretic points, which is followed almost religiously.
(Remember, in this verse, I claim that the Masoretic points are wrong.)
Translation and understanding a language from within are two similar but
very different activities. That’s why I cannot accept a translation as
proof, rather merely as how the translator understood the text.
> >> Other than the theological explanations you listed ...
> >>> ... it raises a warning flag in my mind
> this is a kind of empty accusation to which no answer is
> possible, or worth while. after all, we are discussing a
> theological document, a theological-national ode of victory
> and a theologically charged root. can we ignore all that?
This is based on my experiences with theologians and how they treat
Biblically based questions that may go against a teaching of their
> besides, you can rest assured i have no theological inclinations
No, I didn’t accuse you of theological inclinations, rather that the
references to which you linked have theological inclinations.
> >>> is there any verse where KPR is necessarily connected to the meaning of
> “wipe out”? I know of none.
> as there is absolute divergence among the scholars what is the basic
> hebrew meaning of the verb KPR, rather than the derived meaning
> "expiate", we are both at a dead end here. but "wipe off/wipe out"
> is indeed among the main candidates, along with "cover" and
> "annul" etc. see the three sources quoted in my last email.
Yes, but they don’t refer to Hebrew or Tanakh as justification for their
“Annul” is an extrapolation that is somewhat far out of a use that I
> few places have the explicit sense of "cover". maybe only once in gen 6
> it oddly is in binyan QAL and could also be translated as "smear". some
> corroborating evidence for "cover" comes from arabic.
Where can it be translated as “smear”? I mean in a non-theological setting?
> on the other hand, the verbs KPR and MXH=wipe out are parallel in
> jer 18:23.
Which doesn’t mean that they have the same or even similar meanings. The
meanings can be very different but complimentary in a verse. BTW the phrase
there is KPR (L.
> a less clear, but perhaps more DRASH thought-provoking,
> juxtaposition of the two verbs is found in ex. 30-33. for "wipe off/wipe
> out" once again i suggest p 28-29 of "blood rituals" in
> he reaches the conclusion that (i) a likely translation for the D-form of
> KPR in akkadian (parallel to hebrew piel) is "wipe off/remove by wiping"
> similars. (ii) it is possible that the original BH meaning was similar.
> tim hegg in
> also cites "wipe off/wipe out" as a hebrew possibility.
Every example to which you have linked base their speculation on cognate
languages. I have repeatedly claimed that such attribution is a bruised
reed—sometimes useful, sometimes counter-indicative—that needs to be
treated with the utmost caution and not as a proof. For proof you need to
show examples from Tanakh itself, and so far you’ve failed, as well as all
Part of the problem here is the history of Hebrew scholarship in the last
two centuries: so much of it is based on the German anti-Semitic musings of
the early 19th century, who considered Jews to be such simple-minded rubes
that they couldn’t consider using words sometimes literally, sometimes
idiomatically. Among these were Gesenius and his disciples such as BDB.
(The reason for my dictionary started with using the above dictionaries,
and realizing that their glosses didn’t fit the contexts I was reading. So
I started writing notes in the margins.)
As for me, I see no problem with an idiomatic use of the word very
similarly to the idiomatic phrase “I’ll cover the cost” in English. As such
it’s used for payments, redemption costs and bribes in Tanakh. There’s no
need for speculation for a separate meaning of “smear” for this word.
Especially apart from any evidence within Hebrew for that meaning.
Tim Hegg begs the question, simply assumes that Averbeck is correct and
Akkadian cognate use is proof. None of the verses cited in this article
have “to smear” as a necessary meaning for KPR. Literal or idiomatic uses
of “to cover” fit just as well as, if not better than, “to smear”.
> >> I need to see it in Tanakh in order to say that it’s relevant.
> i respect your opinion but do not accept it as a necessary
> prerequisite for any meaningful discussion.
My opinion is not important. I view evidence as a necessary prerequisite
for meaningful discussion. Reasons given above.
> nir cohen
> Karl W. Randolph.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the b-hebrew