Biblical Hebrew Forum

[dwashbur AT nyx.net]

On 16 Jul 2007 at 12:18, Tory Thorpe wrote:

> On Jul 16, 2007, at 11:54 AM, dwashbur AT nyx.net wrote:
> 
> > It's hard to tell the actual sequence of events, especially from  
> > the language of verse 3.  Why
> > would he first rape her, and then fall in love with her and ask his  
> > father to arrange the
> > wedding?  It looks as though the LXX translators had the same  
> > question and assumed he
> > did his tenderness thing before he violated her, which would  
> > explain why they used
> > PARQENOS to render NA(AR.
> 
> First you said the word PARQENOS occurs in v. 3 before the rape, as  
> if this was fairly clear. Now you are saying the sequence of events  
> is not clear. The sequence is clear in the Hebrew and the Greek  
> translation. If it is as you say, the Hebrew text of Gen. xxxiv 2-3  
> is in a state of disorder.

Not really, unless you hold that the wayyiqtol form necessarily encodes 
sequence, which 
has been shown time and time again, both here and elsewhere, to be incorrect. 
 But that's a 
whole different can of worms, and we've been down that road many times 
before.  See the 
archives.
 
> > In any case, I suspect Karl is right: what we have here is nothing  
> > more than a case of poor
> > translation.  It certainly doesn't make your case.
> 
> Yes, well, Karl sees christian doctrine forcing changes in the  
> meaning of Hebrew words among native Hebrew speakers, where no such  
> changes can be demonstrated empirically. It is the ultimate non- 
> falsifiable - any evidence that points away from the conspiracy is  
> turned into more evidence supporting the conspiracy.
 
Once again, as Peter already pointed out, you retreat into the accusation 
that anybody who 
disagrees with you must be theologically or doctrinally motivated.  You're 
the one with the 
conspiracy theory, not Karl or I.  Obviously, it's a conspiracy by those 
rakkafrakka Christians 
to make you look silly...no, wait, you're doing that all yourself.  Never 
mind.

Dave Washburn
But I can't say Sylvester, George!