Nir: On Sun, Oct 7, 2012 at 12:12 PM, Nir cohen - Prof. Mat. <[email protected]>wrote:
> * > 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. > * > Here I must be thinking more like an ancient Hebrew than a modern English speaking person, There was no such thing as committing an act of perversion, rebellion or mistake that didn’t include with it the culpability for that action. The two were not separated in Biblical Hebrew. I don’t know about Mishnaic to modern Hebrews if they make the distinction, all I know is that Biblical Hebrew did not. My main interest has been in understanding the language from within as far as that is possible, not on how to translate it. … > * > > > nir cohen > > * > Karl W. Randolph.
_______________________________________________ b-hebrew mailing list [email protected] http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew
