Karl,I've enjoyed the Deut. 32:8-9 discussion. I have a few comments:
1. KPR as Noun:
a. It seems to me KPR as a noun with elipsed hayah would call for a prepositional ×, i.e.: ××××תש b. W + KPR fronted in the clause is usually the Subject, and often signals a change, like new paragraph or antithesis. c. a Verb seems to flow right out of the momentum set by the two preceding verbs. d. Nir suggested "his people" as the subject, but this would represent a VOS word order. This would be bizarre in a clause fronted by a WC.
2. KPR as "cover" not "smear" :
I totally agree with you. There is no need to run to a cognate language for a root as pervasively common as KPR. Comparative philology should be reserved for hapax legomenon.
3. (MW "his people" vs "with him:"
a. If context is king, especially immediate context and its structure, then "his people" completes a chiastic parallelism -->
A. his people
B. vengeance
B1. vengeance
A1. his people
b. ADMTW --> It's seems more likely that a scribe could have omitted the waw that was attached to (MW, because the two waw's followed each other.
4. The veracity of oral tradition coupled with the fact that this is a song discourages me from emendation so far removed from the Masoretic choice. ... Jonathan Mohler
Send b-hebrew mailing list submissions to
b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
b-hebrew-request AT lists.ibiblio.org
You can reach the person managing the list at
b-hebrew-owner AT lists.ibiblio.org
When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
than "Re: Contents of b-hebrew digest..."
Today's Topics:
1. Re: KPR (K Randolph)
2. Deuteronomy 32:8-9 (kenneth greifer)
3. Re: Deuteronomy 32:8-9 (K Randolph)
4. Re: context (Michael Abernathy)
5. Re: Deuteronomy 32:8-9 (kenneth greifer)
6. Re: Deuteronomy 32:8-9 (kenneth greifer)
7. Re: Deuteronomy 32:8-9 (Barry)
From: K Randolph <kwrandolph AT gmail.com>
Date: December 26, 2012 1:43:02 PM CST
To: "Nir cohen - Prof. Mat." <nir AT ccet.ufrn.br>
Cc: b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] KPR
Nir:
On Tue, Dec 25, 2012 at 11:21 PM, Nir cohen - Prof. Mat. <nir AT ccet.ufrn.br> wrote:
karl,
thanks for your reply.
De: K Randolph <kwrandolph AT gmail.com>
Data: Mon, 24 Dec 2012 13:01:35 -0800
>>> Third, âhis peopleâ isnât referenced in this verse.
you are jumping to hasty conclusions here.
let us stick to the facts. this word appears 4
times in this chapter, three of them clearly mean "his people"
but not "with him". on the fourth, it is your private opinion
that (MW reads "with him", contrary to all the
accepted translations.
Each time a word appears in a chapter, it needs to be analyzed on its own merits, within its own context, not how itâs used elsewhere, even in the same chapter, or even in the same verse. Thatâs especially true of Biblical Hebrew which has many homographs that come from different roots, that are homographs because Biblical Hebrew doesnât include vowels (those homographs may very well have had very different pronunciations).
As for translationsâI long ago realized that translators very often stick to tradition more than they do to independent research. One of those traditions is the Masoretic points, which is followed almost religiously. (Remember, in this verse, I claim that the Masoretic points are wrong.)
Translation and understanding a language from within are two similar but very different activities. Thatâs why I cannot accept a translation as proof, rather merely as how the translator understood the text.
---------------
>> Other than the theological explanations you listed ...
>>> ... it raises a warning flag in my mind
this is a kind of empty accusation to which no answer is
possible, or worth while. after all, we are discussing a
theological document, a theological-national ode of victory
and a theologically charged root. can we ignore all that?
This is based on my experiences with theologians and how they treat Biblically based questions that may go against a teaching of their theological organization.
besides, you can rest assured i have no theological inclinations whatsoever.
No, I didnât accuse you of theological inclinations, rather that the references to which you linked have theological inclinations.
------------------------
>>> is there any verse where KPR is necessarily connected to the meaning of
âwipe outâ? I know of none.
as there is absolute divergence among the scholars what is the basic
hebrew meaning of the verb KPR, rather than the derived meaning
"expiate", we are both at a dead end here. but "wipe off/wipe out"
is indeed among the main candidates, along with "cover" and
"annul" etc. see the three sources quoted in my last email.
Yes, but they donât refer to Hebrew or Tanakh as justification for their speculations.
âAnnulâ is an extrapolation that is somewhat far out of a use that I mentioned.
few places have the explicit sense of "cover". maybe only once in gen 6 where
it oddly is in binyan QAL and could also be translated as "smear". some
corroborating evidence for "cover" comes from arabic.
Where can it be translated as âsmearâ? I mean in a non-theological setting?
on the other hand, the verbs KPR and MXH=wipe out are parallel in
jer 18:23.
Which doesnât mean that they have the same or even similar meanings. The meanings can be very different but complimentary in a verse. BTW the phrase there is KPR (L.
a less clear, but perhaps more DRASH thought-provoking,
juxtaposition of the two verbs is found in ex. 30-33. for "wipe off/wipe
out" once again i suggest p 28-29 of "blood rituals" in
http://books.google.com.br/books?id=qfddOUt3K-QC&pg=PA29&lpg=PA29&dq=KPR+hebrew+wipe&source=bl&ots=DTbTOP-9Cy&sig=gGdNvObZUOwuJC17ZMBlTB6lMyQ&hl=pt-BR&sa=X&ei=fXfaUKKIPIyK8QSN7YGAAQ&ved=0CDIQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=KPR%20hebrew%20wipe&f=false
he reaches the conclusion that (i) a likely translation for the D-form of
KPR in akkadian (parallel to hebrew piel) is "wipe off/remove by wiping" and
similars. (ii) it is possible that the original BH meaning was similar.
tim hegg in
http://www.google.com.br/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=2&ved=0CDcQFjAB&url="http%3A%2F%2Fwww.torahresource.com%2FEnglishArticles%2Fkafar%2520study.mell.pdf&ei=fXfaUKKIPIyK8QSN7YGAAQ&usg=AFQjCNHZ9OgWHZcUSRN5Q1u3A8p4Od2ewg&bvm=bv.1355534169,d.eWU
also cites "wipe off/wipe out" as a hebrew possibility.
Every example to which you have linked base their speculation on cognate languages. I have repeatedly claimed that such attribution is a bruised reedâsometimes useful, sometimes counter-indicativeâthat needs to be treated with the utmost caution and not as a proof. For proof you need to show examples from Tanakh itself, and so far youâve failed, as well as all the others.
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 couldnât consider using words sometimes literally, sometimes idiomatically. Among these were Gesenius and his disciples such as BDB.
(The reason for my dictionary started with using the above dictionaries, and realizing that their glosses didnât fit the contexts I was reading. So I started writing notes in the margins.)
As for me, I see no problem with an idiomatic use of the word very similarly to the idiomatic phrase âIâll cover the costâ in English. As such itâs used for payments, redemption costs and bribes in Tanakh. Thereâs no need for speculation for a separate meaning of âsmearâ for this word. Especially apart from any evidence within Hebrew for that meaning.
Tim Hegg begs the question, simply assumes that Averbeck is correct and Akkadian cognate use is proof. None of the verses cited in this article have âto smearâ as a necessary meaning for KPR. Literal or idiomatic uses of âto coverâ fit just as well as, if not better than, âto smearâ.
-------------------------
>> I need to see it in Tanakh in order to say that itâs relevant.
i respect your opinion but do not accept it as a necessary
prerequisite for any meaningful discussion.
My opinion is not important. I view evidence as a necessary prerequisite for meaningful discussion. Reasons given above.
nir cohen
Karl W. Randolph.
From: kenneth greifer <kenneth AT messianicmistakes.com>
Date: December 26, 2012 3:13:29 PM CST
To: b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
Subject: [b-hebrew] Deuteronomy 32:8-9
Deut.32:8-9 says something like "...when He divided the sons of man, He set the borders of peoples to the number of the sons of Israel, because the portion of the L-rd is His people, Jacob, the portion of His inheritance."
I was thinking that maybe it says "...when He divided the sons of a man (not mankind), He set the borders of peoples to the number of the sons of Israel, because the L-rd divided His people, Jacob, the portion of His inheritance."
Maybe Jacob's sons were peoples like Gen. 28:3 says an assembly of peoples would come from him. Maybe G-d divided the sons of a man (Jacob) and set the borders for the peoples who came from him, the tribes of Israel.
I have read that adam can mean man or mankind, so maybe the usual translation is wrong. Any opinions?
Kenneth Greifer
http://www.messianicmistakes.com/
From: K Randolph <kwrandolph AT gmail.com>
Date: December 26, 2012 4:06:22 PM CST
To: kenneth greifer <kenneth AT messianicmistakes.com>
Cc: b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] Deuteronomy 32:8-9
Kenneth:
Why shouldnât we consider that the verse divisions are wrong, that the final phrase of verse 8 really belongs as the first phrase of verse 9? Then youâd have verse 8 referring to the nations (Is there any case where Israel is referred to as nations (plural)?) and verse 9 to Israel?
Karl W. Randolph. On Wed, Dec 26, 2012 at 1:13 PM, kenneth greifer <kenneth AT messianicmistakes.com> wrote:
Deut.32:8-9 says something like "...when He divided the sons of man, He set the borders of peoples to the number of the sons of Israel, because the portion of the L-rd is His people, Jacob, the portion of His inheritance."
I was thinking that maybe it says "...when He divided the sons of a man (not mankind), He set the borders of peoples to the number of the sons of Israel, because the L-rd divided His people, Jacob, the portion of His inheritance."
Maybe Jacob's sons were peoples like Gen. 28:3 says an assembly of peoples would come from him. Maybe G-d divided the sons of a man (Jacob) and set the borders for the peoples who came from him, the tribes of Israel.
I have read that adam can mean man or mankind, so maybe the usual translation is wrong. Any opinions?
Kenneth Greifer
http://www.messianicmistakes.com/
_______________________________________________
b-hebrew mailing list
b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew
From: Michael Abernathy <mabernathy AT conwaycorp.net>
Date: December 26, 2012 6:08:11 PM CST
To: b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] context
As a result of the
recent dialogue with Karl
on Deuteronomy 32:43, I would like to ask a question. Karl insists that we take ×פר
as a noun because of
context. No offense to
Karl but I find
that most people are pretty choosy about picking the evidence
that supports
their interpretation when they argue from context. So here is my question,
what linguistic tools
do you prefer for studying context?
Personally, I prefer propositional analysis to sentence
outlines.
Sincerely,
Michael Abernathy
From: kenneth greifer <kenneth AT messianicmistakes.com>
Date: December 26, 2012 8:22:47 PM CST
To: K Randolph <kwrandolph AT gmail.com>
Cc: b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] Deuteronomy 32:8-9
Karl,
The only place I could find that calls Israel two nations is in Ezekiel37:22 about the two kingdoms becoming one nation. I don't think the tribes were called peoples usually, but maybe they could have been called that.
Your idea of combining verses differently sounds interesting. I have never heard that before. I don't think you are right because the verses sound a little funny. I think the usual way sounds better. I have to think about it more.
Kenneth Greifer
P.S. Am I supposed to reply to all or just press reply? I never understood exactly how you reply on B-Hebrew. If I reply to all, does that send emails to everyone else on my contact list?
--- On Wed, 12/26/12, K Randolph <kwrandolph AT gmail.com> wrote:
From: K Randolph <kwrandolph AT gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] Deuteronomy 32:8-9
To: "kenneth greifer" <kenneth AT messianicmistakes.com>
Cc: b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
Date: Wednesday, December 26, 2012, 5:06 PM
Kenneth:
Why shouldnât we consider that the verse divisions are wrong, that the final phrase of verse 8 really belongs as the first phrase of verse 9? Then youâd have verse 8 referring to the nations (Is there any case where Israel is referred to as nations (plural)?) and verse 9 to Israel?
Karl W. Randolph.
On Wed, Dec 26, 2012 at 1:13 PM, kenneth greifer <kenneth AT messianicmistakes.com> wrote:
Deut.32:8-9 says something like "...when He divided the sons of man, He set the borders of peoples to the number of the sons of Israel, because the portion of the L-rd is His people, Jacob, the portion of His inheritance."
I was thinking that maybe it says "...when He divided the sons of a man (not mankind), He set the borders of peoples to the number of the sons of Israel, because the L-rd divided His people, Jacob, the portion of His inheritance."
Maybe Jacob's sons were peoples like Gen. 28:3 says an assembly of peoples would come from him. Maybe G-d divided the sons of a man (Jacob) and set the borders for the peoples who came from him, the tribes of Israel.
I have read that adam can mean man or mankind, so maybe the usual translation is wrong. Any opinions?
Kenneth Greifer
http://www.messianicmistakes.com/
_______________________________________________
b-hebrew mailing list
b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew
|
From: kenneth greifer <kenneth AT messianicmistakes.com>
Date: December 26, 2012 9:26:37 PM CST
To: K Randolph <kwrandolph AT gmail.com>
Cc: b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] Deuteronomy 32:8-9
Karl,
The usual translation is "when the Most High gave nations inheritances, when He divided sons of mankind..."
What if it says, "when the highest of nations (Israel) gave inheritances, when it (he) divided sons of a man, he (it) will set up (will be caused to set up) (hophal?) borders of peoples (the tribes) for the number of the sons of Israel, because the L-rd divided His (his) people, Jacob, the portion of His inheritance"?
G-d said Israel would be the highest of nations in Deut. 26:19 and 28:1.
Kenneth Greifer
--- On Wed, 12/26/12, K Randolph <kwrandolph AT gmail.com> wrote:
From: K Randolph <kwrandolph AT gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] Deuteronomy 32:8-9
To: "kenneth greifer" <kenneth AT messianicmistakes.com>
Cc: b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
Date: Wednesday, December 26, 2012, 5:06 PM
Kenneth:
Why shouldnât we consider that the verse divisions are wrong, that the final phrase of verse 8 really belongs as the first phrase of verse 9? Then youâd have verse 8 referring to the nations (Is there any case where Israel is referred to as nations (plural)?) and verse 9 to Israel?
Karl W. Randolph.
On Wed, Dec 26, 2012 at 1:13 PM, kenneth greifer <kenneth AT messianicmistakes.com> wrote:
Deut.32:8-9 says something like "...when He divided the sons of man, He set the borders of peoples to the number of the sons of Israel, because the portion of the L-rd is His people, Jacob, the portion of His inheritance."
I was thinking that maybe it says "...when He divided the sons of a man (not mankind), He set the borders of peoples to the number of the sons of Israel, because the L-rd divided His people, Jacob, the portion of His inheritance."
Maybe Jacob's sons were peoples like Gen. 28:3 says an assembly of peoples would come from him. Maybe G-d divided the sons of a man (Jacob) and set the borders for the peoples who came from him, the tribes of Israel.
I have read that adam can mean man or mankind, so maybe the usual translation is wrong. Any opinions?
Kenneth Greifer
http://www.messianicmistakes.com/
_______________________________________________
b-hebrew mailing list
b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew
|
From: Barry <nebarry AT verizon.net>
Date: December 26, 2012 10:43:48 PM CST
To: b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] Deuteronomy 32:8-9
On 12/26/2012 4:13 PM, kenneth greifer wrote:
Deut.32:8-9 says something like "...when He divided the sons of man, He set the borders of peoples to the number of the sons of Israel, because the portion of the L-rd is His people, Jacob, the portion of His inheritance."
I was thinking that maybe it says "...when He divided the sons of a man (not mankind), He set the borders of peoples to the number of the sons of Israel, because the L-rd divided His people, Jacob, the portion of His inheritance."
Maybe Jacob's sons were peoples like Gen. 28:3 says an assembly of peoples would come from him. Maybe G-d divided the sons of a man (Jacob) and set the borders for the peoples who came from him, the tribes of Israel.
I have read that adam can mean man or mankind, so maybe the usual translation is wrong. Any opinions?
"Sons of..." is a common Hebrew idiom for "descendents." In this case, it can only mean the descendents of Adam as the human race. Note the parallelism between the nations, the sons of Adam and the borders of the peoples. This again suggests that the phrase refers to the human race as a whole.
BTW, if you hit reply all, it does not send to everyone in your address book, but only those listed in the "from" and "cc" fields in the specific email to which you are responding. Hitting "reply all" in b-Hebrew means you send a copy to the list and to the specific person who wrote the response (so he or she gets two copies and every other subscriber gets 1). Thunderbird has a nifty "reply to list" feature that helps avoid that, but most email clients don't have that. So if you want everyone on the list to read your responses, the safest thing to do is hit "reply all."
--
N.E. Barry Hofstetter
Semper melius Latine sonat
The American Academy
http://www.theamericanacademy.net
The North American Reformed Seminary
http://www.tnars.net
Bible Translation Magazine
http://www.bible-translation.net
http://my.opera.com/barryhofstetter/blog
_______________________________________________
b-hebrew mailing list
b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew |
