... Again on page 90 BDB insisted that “with” or “of” be used for working in
crafts, where “in” is perfectly acceptable English. ...
... The impression I get from BDB is that they analyzed each tree almost in
isolation from the forest around it.
Secondly, Biblical Hebrew lexemes should be studied according to Biblical
Hebrew standards. Comparisons, even to cognate languages let alone widely
disparate languages, to be done only later. It appears that BDB started with
such comparisons (though occasionally, especially in hapax legomai words, the
Hebrew doesn’t have enough data to indicate meaning).
Thirdly the analysis should be done in context. Yes, BDB did this, but I mean
in even a broader sense: ...
Fourth, probably should have been first, I look at function, what action is
described whereas BDB looked at form, how does it look in its uses?
Functionality often ties together apparently disparate uses into one
understanding. As a result, my first sentence covers half of the definition
given in BDB; one sentence for a page and a half of their work.
Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.