Biblical Hebrew Forum

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

karl,

thanks for your response.

nir cohen


On Thu, 27 Dec 2012 16:23:23 -0800, K Randolph wrote
> Nir:
>
> On Thu, Dec 27, 2012 at 10:17 AM, Nir cohen - Prof. Mat. <nir AT ccet.ufrn.br> wrote:
>

> 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.

>
> I have no “private notes” or secret sources, what I have is Tanakh itself and to help me the Lisowski concordance as well as electronic texts on my computers.
>
> YOU have no etymologies to point to, other than speculations whose trustworthiness is not very good.
>
> If you really want to look at etymologies, you also need to look at the words derived from KPR: כפור covered cup Ezr 1:10, 1C 28:17, כפור frost Ex 16:14, Ps 147:16, כפר covering ⇒ bribe Nu 35:31–32, Am 5:12 (hush money) Ex 21:30, 1S 12:3, Pr 6:35, purchase price Is 43:3, Pr 13:8, (⇐ to cover the cost), כפרים atonement (covering for sin) Ex 29:36, 30:16, Yom Kippur Ex 30:10, Lv 25:9, Nu 29:11, כפרת cover, lid Ex 25:17–22, Nu 7:89 As you can see, the idea of covering, both physically and figuratively, is well represented in the etymology.
>
> Incidentally, “smear” in English is a synonym for “cover”, as a method of covering, does not mean “wipe away”. 

>
>
> --------------------------
>
> 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.
>

>
> Wrong verses: take Isaiah 43:3 or Proverbs 13:8 to find similar uses for this noun where we see it used idiomatically to refer to purchase price. We need to look at relevant contexts, does it fit the same pattern?

>
> --------------------------
>  
> 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".
>

>
> If he has a good demonstration outside of a theological argument, then I’ll listen. But if it’s only based on theological preferences, I don’t reject it outright, but consider it a lower trustworthy argument. 

>
> 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?
> ------------------------------------------------------
>

>
> Since both refer to the same action, why not the verb?
>
> Strictly speaking, we don’t have an etymology that we can analyze, so the most accurate way of describing the relationship is to say that they came from a common root, referring to the action of covering. 

>
> 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]
>

>
> This evidence is low quality, as likely to lead astray as to give an accurate reference. 

>
> ...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".
>

>
> See above concerning “smear”. There’s no evidence that it could mean “wipe away”. 

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

>
> You’re speculating, grabbing at straws. 

>
> 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!

>
> People, even on this discussion group, still refer to Gesenius’ dictionary and grammar, as well as BDB. Or haven’t you been watching? 

>
> 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)
>

>
> He just substituted one set of theological and religious prepossession for another. And which one is more accurate, if either?
>
> Since when is Wikipedia an accurate source to describe ideas where there is some controversy? Since he was connected with a group that later included Welhausen, (Nazi party member) Bultmann, and others to this day, what’s the probability that he didn’t share their anti-Semitism?
>
> I found his dictionary somewhat sloppy and sometimes inaccurate, which is why I started writing corrections in the margins.
>
>  

>
> nir cohen
>
>

Karl W. Randolph.


--
Open WebMail Project (http://openwebmail.org)