kwrandolph at gmail.com
Thu Dec 27 19:23:23 EST 2012
On Thu, Dec 27, 2012 at 10:17 AM, Nir cohen - Prof. Mat.
<nir at ccet.ufrn.br>wrote:
> * karl,
> > No, I didn’t accuse you of theological inclinations, rather that the
> references to which you linked have theological inclinations.
> > Yes, but they don’t refer to Hebrew or Tanakh as justification for their
> I. you discredit ALL the sources i know for KPR as theologically biased
> and as not basing their
> conclusions on BH. i guess i have to accept your word for it - i just
> found them on the internet.
> meanwhile, i do not know what are YOUR sources, other than "private
> notes", which
> define KPR as clearly "cover", based on hebrew only, in a non-theological
> way, and
> clearly rejecting the other etymologies. unless you post these sources,
> i see no point in repeating my arguments. *
I have no “private notes” or secret sources, what I have is Tanakh itself
and to help me the Lisowski concordance as well as electronic texts on my
YOU have no etymologies to point to, other than speculations whose
trustworthiness is not very good.
If you really want to look at etymologies, you also need to look at the
words derived from KPR: כפור covered cup Ezr 1:10, 1C 28:17, כפור frost Ex
16:14, Ps 147:16, כפר covering ⇒ bribe Nu 35:31–32, Am 5:12 (hush money) Ex
21:30, 1S 12:3, Pr 6:35, purchase price Is 43:3, Pr 13:8, (⇐ to cover the
cost), כפרים atonement (covering for sin) Ex 29:36, 30:16, Yom Kippur Ex
30:10, Lv 25:9, Nu 29:11, כפרת cover, lid Ex 25:17–22, Nu 7:89 As you can
see, the idea of covering, both physically and figuratively, is well
represented in the etymology.
Incidentally, “smear” in English is a synonym for “cover”, as a method of
covering, does not mean “wipe away”.
> II. is cross-reference relevant...simetimes?
> >> 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
> even in the same chapter, or even in the same verse.
> so, you reject my use of 4 events of the word (MY in the same chapter;
> meanwhile, you accept cross-reference when it suits you. you allow
> yourself the freedom of comparing
> single events occurring in different books, such as KPR in gen6:14 vs KPR
> in deut 32.
Wrong verses: take Isaiah 43:3 or Proverbs 13:8 to find similar uses for
this noun where we see it used idiomatically to refer to purchase price. We
need to look at relevant contexts, does it fit the same pattern?
> >>Where can it be translated as “smear”? I mean in a non-theological
> let us leave this unfortunate word, "theological", out of the discussion.
> you are using it
> synonymously to "anything which i do not approve of".
If he has a good demonstration outside of a theological argument, then I’ll
listen. But if it’s only based on theological preferences, I don’t reject
it outright, but consider it a lower trustworthy argument.
> to your question: ...the same one time where it appears in BH as "cover",
> i.e. gen 6:14. if you read it carefully,
> וכפרת...בכפר just means what it would mean in english: and you should TAR
> it with TAR. or PITCH it with PITCH.
> whatever you prefer.
> KPR, n vs KPR, v: which came first?
Since both refer to the same action, why not the verb?
Strictly speaking, we don’t have an etymology that we can analyze, so the
most accurate way of describing the relationship is to say that they came
from a common root, referring to the action of covering.
> at least within the hebrew evidence there is absolutely no way to tell.
> [i assume that you ignore the other semitic evidence: akkadian, arabic,
> syriac, assyrian etc]
This evidence is low quality, as likely to lead astray as to give an
> ...well, at least IF the noun was there before the verb, and it meant
> "tar", there is only
> one conclusion possible: that the original exact meaning of LKPR in gen
> 6:14 is just "to tar",
> and both "to cover" and "to smear" are just two possible modern
> but then you call the first interpretation "theological" and the second
> one "correct".
See above concerning “smear”. There’s no evidence that it could mean “wipe
> now, if the verb came before the noun, we are back in square one: what
> does KPR mean?
You’re speculating, grabbing at straws.
> >>> 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.
> it's time we moved forward to the 21st century. nobody reads their books
> any more.
> so much has been renewed in the field!
People, even on this discussion group, still refer to Gesenius’ dictionary
and grammar, as well as BDB. Or haven’t you been watching?
> AND, at least your attacks on gesenius fall WAY off the mark. he may have
> been plain wrong, but i do not
> find any evidence for anti-semitic opinions in his writings. the following
> is taken from wikipedia.
> >>> ... apart from the violent attacks to which he, along with his friend
> and colleague Julius Wegscheider<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Julius_August_Ludwig_Wegscheider>,
> was in 1830 subjected by E. W. Hengstenberg<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ernst_Wilhelm_Hengstenberg>and his party in the
> *Evangelische Kirchenzeitung*, on account of his rationalism<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rationalism>,
> his life was uneventful.
> >>> ...According to tradition, theology students in Halle put stones on
> his grave as a token of respect every year before their examinations.<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wilhelm_Gesenius#cite_note-1>
> >>> ...Gesenius takes much of the credit for having freed Semitic<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Semitic>
> philology <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philology> from the trammels of
> * theological and
> religious* *prepossession*!
> and for inaugurating the strictly scientific (and comparative) method
> which has since been so fruitful...
> (the boldface highlighting is mine)
He just substituted one set of theological and religious prepossession for
another. And which one is more accurate, if either?
Since when is Wikipedia an accurate source to describe ideas where there is
some controversy? Since he was connected with a group that later included
Welhausen, (Nazi party member) Bultmann, and others to this day, what’s the
probability that he didn’t share their anti-Semitism?
I found his dictionary somewhat sloppy and sometimes inaccurate, which is
why I started writing corrections in the margins.
> nir cohen
> Karl W. Randolph.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the b-hebrew