karl, thanks for your correction. so i understand that my explanation is the same as the traditional one. but this is not a sufficient argument against it...
if this interpretation is correct then there was no perversion nor culpability which the text associated with the emorites. some jewish interpretations tend to justify the destruction of the canaanite peoples in terms of their perverse habits and sins towards god: this is natural. the case of human sacrifices and promiscuity in the baal cult, mentioned in the text itself, might be based on some fact. but in the case at hand there is no evidence in the text for any wrongdoing. more so, in juxtaposition to the recognition in the help abraham received from the emorites. grammatically, too, due to SMIXUT the combination (WN H)MWEY can only be read as "the culpability OF the emorites" but not as "the emorite culpability" [the only adjectives used in conjunction with (WN are the quantitative GDWL/KBD]. thus, the text puts no stigma on any emorite custom. nor can i see how (WN can be translated as "perversion". while it is correct that the root (WH may mean "sinned, acted perversely", the word (WN became legally specialized and came to indicate only the SCALE OF CULPABILITY (e.g. inexistent, existent, light, heavy) and not the quality of the act which generated that culpability. in particular, (WN can be inherited:PWQD (WN )BOT (L BNYM etc - culpability/punibility and not perversion.see also gen 4:13: GDWL (WNY MNS) - "my degree of culpability is too big to endure". the alternative "my perversion is too big to endure" makes no contextual sense. the "culpable" here is your procedure of attributing the same single value to similar words. here, for example, (WH and (WN represent two distinct nuances: "wrongdoing/rebelion/leaving the righteous path" and "scale of culpability". in counterpoint to (WN we find Xt) and Xt)T which refer to the sin itself, i.e. to the quality of the wrongdoing which is independent of, and prior to, any punishment and liable of pardon; for example, expiated by a sacrifice bearing the same name. (WN is already beyond the point of pardon, and requires punishment, as becomes evident also by the expression RCH )T (WNW "paid his punishment". so, the "perversion" interpretation is ... a bit "perverted"! or at least, not supported by the bare text. nir cohen >>> karl: A second question, is “Amorite” in this verse used as a noun or as an >>> adjective? In other words, was there a certain perversion (whose identity >>> was not mentioned in Genesis) that was particularly common among the >>> Amorites, hence was known as “the Amorite perversion”? On Fri, 5 Oct 2012 20:58:35 -0700, K Randolph wrote
_______________________________________________ b-hebrew mailing list [email protected] http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew
