On 25/11/2003 18:21, Karl Randolph wrote:--
>Dear Peter:
>
>My intention was never to be an aconoclast. Thus, when I started with the
Gesenius/BDB dictionaries, my notes (which have become a lexicon) started with
noting synonyms, antonyms, special usages and to try to give a tighter, more
‘native speaker’ understanding of the words. It was only with reluctance that I
later came to contradict BDB, and then only when I understand clear usage clues
for a different definition.
>
>There are too many times I read XSD in a context where I see (often
undeserved) kind actions as volitional acts where there is no obligation to
fulfill.
> >
Well, here you confirm that you differ from Reinier in your understanding of the word. If you want to evaluate his lexicographical method, you need to either suspend your disagreement or pick another term which you understand in the same way.
I would be interested to see some of the cases you are referring to. But a discussion of the meaning of XESED should be a separate thread
>My concept of ‘loyalty’ often is a volitional action where the only
obligation to fulfill is the obligation to one’s actions he has chosen to do and
to people he has chosen to associate with.
> >
Is this your concept of 'loyalty' or your concept of XESED? It is more or less my concept of both. Loyalty is very often, though not always, to one who has been chosen voluntarily; one pledges one's loyalty to another voluntarily (although perhaps in return for some benefits), and then one has an obligation to fulfil that pledge. I'm not talking about obligation in the sense of coercion and slavery, but of willingly offered service. God's XESED is his faithfulness or loyalty to his covenant pledges to provide for his people; although in English we would not so often use 'loyalty' for the obligations of a greater to a lesser.
--
Peter Kirk
peter AT qaya.org (personal)
peterkirk AT qaya.org (work)
http://www.qaya.org/
Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.