Biblical Hebrew Forum

[<david.kimbrough AT charter.net>]

I have to disagree.

1) The earliest that Genesis 32 could have been written was during the exodus 
by Moses.  This means the conversations of the Adullamite with the 
unspecified individuals occurred hundreds of years prior, at the ealiest.  It 
seems unlikely that Genesis 32 is a verbatim transcript of the conversations.

2) I do not see why the Adullamite and the folks he was speaking with would 
understand the Hebrew word ?kadeshah? but not the Hebrew word ?zonah?.  

3) The Hebrew sentence seems pretty clear that there is a ?because? (ky) 
connecting ?He thought she was a whore? and ?her face was covered?.



> 
> From: Peter Kirk <peterkirk AT qaya.org>
> Date: 2004/07/14 Wed PM 06:14:09 GMT
> To: david.kimbrough AT charter.net
> CC: "Medina, Vincent" <VMedina AT cbcag.edu>,  b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
> Subject: Re: Kadeshah & Zonah in Genesis 32
> 
> On 14/07/2004 18:33, david.kimbrough AT charter.net wrote:
> 
> >The author of Genesis 32 made a clear choice of words, kadeshah instead of 
> >zonah.  The author could have used the word zonah but did not, as was done 
> >just a few verses earlier.  The choice was made with a Hebrew speaking 
> >Isrealite audiance in mind.  The linguistic background of the Adullamites 
> >and the people to whom he was enquiring of is not the point.  The audiance 
> >and author understood the meaning of the Hebrew words kadeshah and zonah 
> >and understood the choice the author made.  What did that choice reflect?  
> >Did reflect a different assessment of the social standing of a kadeshah 
> >vs. a zonah?  Did that assessment change by the time of that 2nd Kings was 
> >writen?
> >
> >  
> >
> Or could it be that the author was carefully reflecting the different 
> perspectives of the Israelite and the Canaanite by having the latter 
> refer to qadesha and the former to zona? Just as a careful newspaper 
> reporter would use a different words for how e.g. an Islamic leader and 
> an American politician describe terrorist outrages. It seems clear that 
> the author takes care not to put positive references to qadesha on 
> Israelite lips, just as a reporter would not put positive references to 
> terrorism on American lips.
> 
> As for * ky kSth Pnyh *, surely that explains not why Judah thought 
> Tamar was a prostitute but why he did not recognise his own daughter. 
> Probably any woman on her own, at least if not dressed as a widow, would 
> have been assumed to be a prostitute. And because Tamar had taken off 
> her widow's clothes, maybe she was revealing more of her body than a 
> decent woman would have done.
> 
> -- 
> Peter Kirk
> peter AT qaya.org (personal)
> peterkirk AT qaya.org (work)
> http://www.qaya.org/
> 
> 

David Kimbrough
San Gabriel