Biblical Hebrew Forum

["Vadim Cherny" <VadimCherny AT mail.ru>]

> On 30/09/2006 08:49, Vadim Cherny wrote:
> > ...
> > To ask, as Peter does, for the proof that the word cannot mean
"pierced," is
> > illogical. Negative proof could never be formally asserted. ...
>
> True, and in fact that was my point, it cannot be proved. But it was not
> illogical to ask. Moshe had made an unqualified statement "none of the
> variants can correctly translated as 'pierced.'" and I was asking him
> for proof of his statement - while being well aware that none could be
> forthcoming. I don't think that people should make unqualified
> statements of this kind unless they are prepared to back them up with
> proof, or at least rather good evidence. This is all the more true when
> such proof is in principle impossible.

An implicit presumption is that a word has those and only those meanings
which are encountered in the Tanakh.
That presumption is statisticaly correct. Absent of such presumption, we
could ask, How do we know that shulchan never means a chair? Absence of such
meaning in the Tanakh is no formal proof; such meaning could be ecnountered
perhaps elsewhere.
If, for example, all entries in the Tanakh mean "to dig," there's no logical
basis to translate as "pierced."

> There are many cases in the Hebrew Bible of words being used in unique
senses.

That attitude has more to do with exegetical needs. Translators all too
often assert a unique sense for the words which could be perfectly
translated in their common sense. Frankly, translators too often twist a
meaning.

Anyway, we have to adhere to the above presumption and accept a common sense
for the word unless in clearly doesn't make sense (any sense - not the
required meaning).

Vadim Cherny