Biblical Hebrew Forum

["Karl Randolph" <kwrandolph AT email.com>]

----- Original Message -----
From: "Peter Kirk" <peterkirk AT qaya.org>
> 
> On 14/04/2005 08:22, Karl Randolph wrote:
> 
> > ...
> >
> > I prefer Pshat to Drash. This is Drash based on the insistance 
> > that the term must refer to an object, in particular a female of 
> > the human persuasion. But a feminine noun can also indicate that 
> > it refers to an abstract concept, such as in this case “the 
> > unknown”.
> >
> >
> >
> If you prefer the more literal Pshat to speculative Drash, why do 
> you reject an obvious sense based on a well established meaning of 
> the word (and a well established translation and interpretation 
> tradition) in favour of a speculative completely new sense of the 
> word?
> 
> -- Peter Kirk
> peter AT qaya.org (personal)
> peterkirk AT qaya.org (work)
> http://www.qaya.org/

1) Context
2) This is not a completely new sense of the word, as it fits into the root 
meaning of being unknown as well as being a grammatically 
consistant construct.

I’ve already expanded on point #1. As a lexicographer, I am willing to state 
that the traditional definitions (now that Gesenius and BDB 
are “tradition”) can sometimes be wrong, though generally I try to avoid 
that. By acknowledging a definition of “unknown”, we have a 
unanimity of action for the context, as well as a clear Pshat reading that 
needs no interpretation or explanation, Drash, to try to make 
sense out of it.

Karl W. Randolph.
-- 
___________________________________________________________
Sign-up for Ads Free at Mail.com
http://promo.mail.com/adsfreejump.htm