karl, I. KPR and all its nuances are described in e.g. douglas judisch, concordia theol quat 84,
http://www.google.com.br/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=3&ved=0CEQQFjAC&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.ctsfw.net%2Fmedia%2Fpdfs%2Fjudischpropitiation.pdf&ei=UXDYUI7IBNLW0gHd04GYAg&usg=AFQjCNFQzTBCVv4Y5T3PCHyw8w2amHbSjQ&bvm=bv.1355534169,d.dmQ or michael l brown, p 189 in http://books.google.com.br/books?id=mpYDLXUfIO8C&pg=PA192&lpg=PA192&dq=kpr+semitic+root&source=bl&ots=uwxAmkkd2S&sig=WXw-6ohnvhMLlKLGrmavfGs8GgI&hl=pt-BR&sa=X&ei=43PYUJWEO4y60QGx7YFQ&ved=0CEkQ6AEwAw#v=onepage&q=kpr%20semitic%20root&f=false also, p29 in http://books.google.com.br/books?id=qfddOUt3K-QC&pg=PA29&lpg=PA29&dq=kpr+semitic+root&source=bl&ots=DTbTNMZ9Du&sig=3ovLHv__qw2IpIQyEXsSWpCXUIA&hl=pt-BR&sa=X&ei=43PYUJWEO4y60QGx7YFQ&ved=0CEsQ6AEwBA#v=onepage&q=kpr%20semitic%20root&f=false as far as i could see, none of them evokes deot 32:43. it seems that there is a real etymological problem there. HOWEVER.... --------------------- II. without a sound elimination of the options of KPR as a verb, you flat statement that KPR is a noun is just untenable. for example, i am not convinced that "his people would atone" or "his people would expiate" is not a possibility here, given that the egypt diaspora was seen as a punishment and the years in the desert (as fully commented in deut 32) were seen as sinful in many respects. the reconquest of canaan was perceived as requiring expiation. another plausible meaning of KPR, v. is "wipe out", which here may be understood as "remove the enemies from the land". thus: "and his people would wipe out their land" ----------------------------- III. your main argument in favor of a noun (i.e. that it cannot be a verb) is not convincing. you do not suggest an etymology, the versicle remains without a verb, with no clear parallelism within the couplet or the text. moreover, KPR is already used as a noun and its two meanings: tar and village, are not applicable here. [actually, a third meaning: ransom, is meaningful below] . ------------------------- IV. a simple alternative solution for this versicle may be: WKPR )DMTW (MW - "and his people would regain his land". (i) i understand KPR here in the sense of recover/regain, just as ransom money KOFER is paid to recover the heldup person. although this sense is not attested in the OT, it may be a late derivative of KOFER as reward or deposit, i.e. a kind of change or recovery of ownership. anyway, this hypothesis is less drastic than the hypothesis that KPR is a noun of unknown etymology. as to the remaining part of the versicle: (ii) (MW=his people, i.e. god's people. (iii) )DMTW=his land, i.e. the land of the people (syntactically, god's land would be a more remote possibility). i see no need to assume other meanings for the final waw except for the possessive HIS. nir cohen _______________________________________________ b-hebrew mailing list [email protected] http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew
