Biblical Hebrew Forum

[K Randolph <kwrandolph AT gmail.com>]

George:

As a lexicographer of Biblical Hebrew, my method is as follows:

I look up as many examples of a word’s uses as is practical, for words used
about 30 times or fewer, I can have all occurrences of the term before me
at the time.

I then start a process of elimination that often has multiple recursions. I
ask “what action is implied by the use of this term in this context?” If
the context is not clear, then go to the next example, and so on. If a
context seems to give a clear understanding, then I go to other contexts
and ask “Is this action implied in this new context?” If the answer is
positive, then check the next occurrence. If negative, then make a new
guess and start all over checking the other contexts. By using that
recursive technique, I gradually eliminate all the wrong guesses and focus
in to an action that fits all contexts.

It is not always possible to get the same meaning to fit each word, as
there are homographs (we don’t know if they were homonyms, as the vowels
were not preserved), but this recursive process of elimination shows up
when there are two words that have the same spelling, but different
meanings.

There are some words where we have too little information to make guesses
as to their meanings. Fortunately, there aren’t many of those.

Etymologies can sometimes help, but not always. One needs to watch out for
the homographs, where what appears to be an etymology according to form, is
not one according to action. Avoid the etymological fallacy, but at the
same time don’t do the opposite error to ignore etymologies.

Notice, I focus on the action implied by the context. This is where I
differ from the medieval readers of the text, who focussed on the form
implied by the words. Focussing on the form has its roots in Greek
philosophy, rather than taking the Hebrew text on its own standards.

An article showing some of the differences of thought used in these
different methods, see
http://www.wikinfo.org/Multilingual/index.php/Hebrew_thought .

I believe I have previously mentioned that this is my method for
lexicography, but I don’t think it hurts to repeat it.

Using the above methodology, one finds that there are three distinct uses
to the two words used together על פני (L PNY: 1) “upon a face” referring to
a part of the physical body, used of bowing down with one’s face next to
and facing the ground, 2) “upon the surface of” an object and 3) a
reference to time or location that can be near, before, among other
objects. Because of this third use, one cannot insist that רקיע in Genesis
1:20 refers to a solid object with a surface. Other uses of רקיע in Genesis
1 do not require that it is a solid object with a surface, instead those
uses seem to indicate against that understanding. And a check with the
etymology seems to indicate merely an expansion, without reference to what
is being spread out in so far as what is being spread out is indicated by
the contexts.

Because of my use of the above methodology, it seems to me that your
arguments were more ideological than linguistic.

Karl W. Randolph.

On Tue, Sep 4, 2012 at 1:45 PM, George Athas <George.Athas AT moore.edu.au>wrote:

> So, Karl, your method is this: Let's take the word 'expanse' and talk
> about something expanding and apply that to רקיע and insist on ignoring the
> cues in the text itself. And anyone who says something different is basing
> their ideas on Greek philosophy which is ultimately about the Documentary
> Hypothesis.
>
> I give up with you, Karl.
>
>
> GEORGE ATHAS
> Dean of Research,
> Moore Theological College (moore.edu.au)
> Sydney, Australia
>