Biblical Hebrew Forum

[K Randolph <kwrandolph AT gmail.com>]

Nir:

On Sun, Oct 7, 2012 at 12:12 PM, Nir cohen - Prof. Mat. <nir AT ccet.ufrn.br> wrote:

karl,

thanks for your correction. so i understand that my explanation is the same as the
traditional one. but this is not a sufficient argument against it...

if this interpretation is correct then there was no perversion nor culpability which the text associated with
the emorites.  some jewish interpretations tend to justify the destruction of the canaanite peoples in terms
of their perverse habits and sins towards god: this is natural. the case of human sacrifices and promiscuity
in the baal cult, mentioned in the text itself, might be based on some fact. but in the case at hand there is no
evidence in the text for any wrongdoing. more so, in juxtaposition to the recognition in the help abraham
received from the emorites.

Here I must be thinking more like an ancient Hebrew than a modern English speaking person, There was no such thing as committing an act of perversion, rebellion or mistake that didn’t include with it the culpability for that action. The two were not separated in Biblical Hebrew.

I don’t know about Mishnaic to modern Hebrews if they make the distinction, all I know is that Biblical Hebrew did not.

My main interest has been in understanding the language from within as far as that is possible, not on how to translate it. 

…

nir cohen

Karl W. Randolph.