Biblical Hebrew Forum

[K Randolph <kwrandolph AT gmail.com>]

Randall:

On Sat, Oct 2, 2010 at 11:22 PM, Randall Buth <randallbuth AT gmail.com> wrote:

> >>
> >> At this point it would have been proper to admit a basic mistake.
> >
> > I went on to the next step. You had claimed that this verse shows a
> certain
> > use of NGD נגד whereas my response that even using the verb TQP תקף does
> not
> > show what you claim, as you had misused that verb.
>
> I suppose that that is as close as we get to an admission from Karl:
> "the other guy is wrong. [=too.]" So we interpret this last sentence,
> "I went on to the next step." as equivalent to "Yes, my proposal was
> wrong. It was impossible Hebrew." And the readers can draw
> their conclusions.
>

I realized that in this regard, we are very similar. Randall never admits
when he is wrong, rather he quietly drops the issue and/or changes the topic
and hopes that no one notices.

In this case Randall has made a very good argument, but I wanted to analyze
it a bit more before making a final decision, hence the hesitancy.

>
> However, when you 'went on', you immediately returned to the same
> mistakes. You judged that someone else was 'wrong' on the basis of
> an etymological fallacy, that is, because a noun "toqef" can mean
> 'validity, authority, strength' then the verb taqaf cannot mean attack or
> to be stronger than someone else. Also please remember, that just
> because you claim
> that someone 'misused that verb', your judgement itself is liable to
> error. This, too has happened in the past when you cite your own
> judgements as if they were settled facts.
>

תקף TQP


Using a concordance, the following lists the times it is found in Tanakh.


Noun—is found only three times in Tanakh:


Twice in Esther (9:29, 10:2) where it refers to appointed power, derived
from the king.


Once in Daniel (11:17) where the king of the north comes with his nation’s
power such that no one was able to withstand him. The use of תקף in this
verse clearly refers to the power, not to the use that was made of that
power.


In all the cases the noun refers to power, possibly greater power than
others, but never to ‘attack’.


Verb—is found only four times in Tanakh: twice in Job (14:20, 15:24) and
twice in Ecclesiastes (4:12, 6:10)


Job 14:16–22 forms a section where Job is laying out his case before God,
and when he turns to God’s relation to man, vs. 19c and following, God is
perpetually more powerful than man who dies. The ‘going’ and ‘sending’ are
poetic references to dying, while the not knowing is because he is dead.


Job 15 is again where one of Job’s “friends” makes a deceptively false
accusation against Job. Verses 20–35 describes what he thinks is the life of
the wicked, with the implication that because Job was suffering similarly,
that therefore Job, too, must be wicked. One of the accusations is that the
wicked are terrified of problems that close in, and wearing down by troubles
is more powerful than he. The accusation is deceptive because that is often
not the case of the wicked, while the just can suffer.


Ecclesiastes 6:10 is the only time it is found in hiphil, where a person is
not able to bring an accusation against one who is made more powerful than
he.


In all of these cases, we find reference to power — in the noun great power,
very likely power over others, in the verb power that is greater than
others’. In none of these cases is ‘attack’ part of the definition,
especially not Ecclesiastes 6:10. Here Hebrew uses a transitive verb where
in English we use the phrase, “to be more powerful than”.


So now we come to the verse in question because of its bearing on the
adjective נגד NGD — Ecclesiastes 4:12: “If one is more powerful than he (the
single person listed previously), two can stand in his presence, …” This is
not resisting attacks, as in the later use of NGD, rather the ability of two
to stand in a place in the presence of one who is more powerful than one.


It is not good lexicography to define words uniquely for each use, nor a
unique meaning for one time, different from all its other times used. Since
‘attack’ is not part of any of the noun uses, nor part of other verbal uses,
it cannot be part of this use either. Further, NGD is always used elsewhere
in pre-Exile writings to refer to being in the presence of, again
consistency argues for that use in this verse too.


> b(e)rakot [not ever berakawote !]
> Randall
>

Because of the dropped unstressed vowels and changes over the centuries, we
don‘t know what was the pronunciation of ברכות. But we know it was not
‘b(e)rakot’.

ברכות

Karl W. Randolph.