Biblical Hebrew Forum

["Nir cohen - Prof. Mat." <nir AT ccet.ufrn.br>]

karl,
 
> No, I didn’t accuse you of theological inclinations, rather that the references to which you linked have theological inclinations.
> Yes, but they don’t refer to Hebrew or Tanakh as justification for their speculations. 

I. you discredit ALL the sources i know for KPR as theologically biased and as not basing their
conclusions on BH. i guess i have to accept your word for it - i just found them on the internet.

meanwhile, i do not know what are YOUR sources, other than "private notes", which
define KPR as clearly "cover", based on hebrew only, in a non-theological way, and
clearly rejecting the other etymologies. unless you post these sources,
i see no point in repeating my arguments.

--------------------------

II. is cross-reference relevant...simetimes?

>> Each time a word appears in a chapter, it needs to
be analyzed on its own merits, within its own context, not how it’s used elsewhere,
even in the same chapter, or even in the same verse.

so, you reject my use of 4 events of the word (MY in the same chapter;

meanwhile, you accept cross-reference when it suits you. you allow yourself the freedom of comparing
single events occurring in different books, such as  KPR in gen6:14 vs KPR in deut 32.

--------------------------
 
III.
>>Where can it be translated as “smear”? I mean in a non-theological setting?

let us leave this unfortunate word, "theological", out of the discussion. you are using it
synonymously to "anything which i do not approve of".

to your question: ...the same one time where it appears in BH as "cover", i.e. gen 6:14. if you read it carefully,
וכפרת...בכפר  just means what it would mean in english: and you should TAR it with TAR. or PITCH it with PITCH.
whatever you prefer.

KPR, n        vs        KPR, v:            which came first?
------------------------------------------------------

at least within the hebrew evidence there is absolutely no way to tell.
[i assume that you ignore the other semitic evidence: akkadian, arabic, syriac, assyrian etc]

...well, at least IF the noun was there before the verb, and it meant "tar", there is only
one conclusion possible: that the original exact meaning of LKPR in gen 6:14 is just "to tar",
and both "to cover" and "to smear" are just two possible modern interpretations.
but then you call the first interpretation "theological" and the second one "correct".

now, if the verb came before the noun, we are back in square one: what does KPR mean?
--------------------------------------

IV.

>>> Part of the problem here is the history of Hebrew scholarship in the last two centuries: so much of it is based on the German anti-Semitic musings of the early 19th century, who considered Jews to be such simple-minded rubes that they couldn’t consider using words sometimes literally, sometimes idiomatically. Among these were Gesenius and his disciples such as BDB.

it's time we moved forward to the 21st century. nobody reads their books any more.
so much has been renewed in the field!

AND, at least your attacks on gesenius fall WAY off the mark. he may have been plain wrong, but i do not
find any evidence for anti-semitic opinions in his writings. the following is taken from wikipedia.

>>> ... apart from the violent attacks to which he, along with his friend and colleague Julius Wegscheider, was in 1830 subjected by E. W. Hengstenberg and his party in the Evangelische Kirchenzeitung, on account of his rationalism, his life was uneventful.

>>> ...According to tradition, theology students in Halle put stones on his grave as a token of respect every year before their examinations.

>>> ...Gesenius takes much of the credit for having freed Semitic philology from the trammels of

                                                 theological and religious prepossession!

and for inaugurating the strictly scientific (and comparative) method which has since been so fruitful...

(the boldface highlighting is mine)

nir cohen