karl, thanks for your response.
nir cohen On Thu, 27 Dec 2012 16:23:23 -0800, K Randolph wrote > Nir: > > On Thu, Dec 27, 2012 at 10:17 AM, Nir cohen - Prof. Mat. <[email protected]> > wrote: > > karl, > > > > No, I didn’t accuse you of theological inclinations, rather that the > > references to which you linked have theological inclinations. > > > Yes, but they don’t refer to Hebrew or Tanakh as justification for their > > speculations. > > I. you discredit ALL the sources i know for KPR as theologically biased and > as not basing their > conclusions on BH. i guess i have to accept your word for it - i just found > them on the internet. > > meanwhile, i do not know what are YOUR sources, other than "private notes", > which > define KPR as clearly "cover", based on hebrew only, in a non-theological > way, and > clearly rejecting the other etymologies. unless you post these sources, > i see no point in repeating my arguments. > > I have no “private notes” or secret sources, what I have is Tanakh itself and > to help me the Lisowski concordance as well as electronic texts on my > computers. > > YOU have no etymologies to point to, other than speculations whose > trustworthiness is not very good. > > If you really want to look at etymologies, you also need to look at the words > derived from KPR: כפור covered cup Ezr 1:10, 1C 28:17, כפור frost Ex 16:14, > Ps 147:16, כפר covering ⇒ bribe Nu 35:31–32, Am 5:12 (hush money) Ex 21:30, > 1S 12:3, Pr 6:35, purchase price Is 43:3, Pr 13:8, (⇐ to cover the cost), > כפרים atonement (covering for sin) Ex 29:36, 30:16, Yom Kippur Ex 30:10, Lv > 25:9, Nu 29:11, כפרת cover, lid Ex 25:17–22, Nu 7:89 As you can see, the idea > of covering, both physically and figuratively, is well represented in the > etymology. > > Incidentally, “smear” in English is a synonym for “cover”, as a method of > covering, does not mean “wipe away”. > > > -------------------------- > > II. is cross-reference relevant...simetimes? > > >> Each time a word appears in a chapter, it needs to > be analyzed on its own merits, within its own context, not how it’s used > elsewhere, > even in the same chapter, or even in the same verse. > > so, you reject my use of 4 events of the word (MY in the same chapter; > > meanwhile, you accept cross-reference when it suits you. you allow yourself > the freedom of comparing > single events occurring in different books, such as KPR in gen6:14 vs KPR in > deut 32. > > > Wrong verses: take Isaiah 43:3 or Proverbs 13:8 to find similar uses for this > noun where we see it used idiomatically to refer to purchase price. We need > to look at relevant contexts, does it fit the same pattern? > > -------------------------- > > III. > > >>Where can it be translated as “smear”? I mean in a non-theological setting? > let us leave this unfortunate word, "theological", out of the discussion. you > are using it > synonymously to "anything which i do not approve of". > > > If he has a good demonstration outside of a theological argument, then I’ll > listen. But if it’s only based on theological preferences, I don’t reject it > outright, but consider it a lower trustworthy argument. > > to your question: ...the same one time where it appears in BH as "cover", > i.e. gen 6:14. if you read it carefully, > וכפרת...בכפר just means what it would mean in english: and you should TAR it > with TAR. or PITCH it with PITCH. > whatever you prefer. > > KPR, n vs KPR, v: which came first? > ------------------------------------------------------ > > > Since both refer to the same action, why not the verb? > > Strictly speaking, we don’t have an etymology that we can analyze, so the > most accurate way of describing the relationship is to say that they came > from a common root, referring to the action of covering. > > at least within the hebrew evidence there is absolutely no way to tell. > [i assume that you ignore the other semitic evidence: akkadian, arabic, > syriac, assyrian etc] > > > This evidence is low quality, as likely to lead astray as to give an accurate > reference. > > ...well, at least IF the noun was there before the verb, and it meant "tar", > there is only > one conclusion possible: that the original exact meaning of LKPR in gen 6:14 > is just "to tar", > and both "to cover" and "to smear" are just two possible modern > interpretations. > but then you call the first interpretation "theological" and the second one > "correct". > > > See above concerning “smear”. There’s no evidence that it could mean “wipe > away”. > > now, if the verb came before the noun, we are back in square one: what does > KPR mean? > -------------------------------------- > > > You’re speculating, grabbing at straws. > > IV. > > >>> Part of the problem here is the history of Hebrew scholarship in the last > >>> two centuries: so much of it is based on the German anti-Semitic musings > >>> of the early 19th century, who considered Jews to be such simple-minded > >>> rubes that they couldn’t consider using words sometimes literally, > >>> sometimes idiomatically. Among these were Gesenius and his disciples such > >>> as BDB. > > it's time we moved forward to the 21st century. nobody reads their books any > more. > so much has been renewed in the field! > > People, even on this discussion group, still refer to Gesenius’ dictionary > and grammar, as well as BDB. Or haven’t you been watching? > > AND, at least your attacks on gesenius fall WAY off the mark. he may have > been plain wrong, but i do not > find any evidence for anti-semitic opinions in his writings. the following is > taken from wikipedia. > > >>> ... apart from the violent attacks to which he, along with his friend and > >>> colleague Julius Wegscheider, was in 1830 subjected by E. W. Hengstenberg > >>> and his party in the Evangelische Kirchenzeitung, on account of his > >>> rationalism, his life was uneventful. > >>> ...According to tradition, theology students in Halle put stones on his > >>> grave as a token of respect every year before their examinations. > >>> ...Gesenius takes much of the credit for having freed Semitic > >>> philologyfrom the trammels of > > theological and religious > prepossession! > > and for inaugurating the strictly scientific (and comparative) method which > has since been so fruitful... > (the boldface highlighting is mine) > > > He just substituted one set of theological and religious prepossession for > another. And which one is more accurate, if either? > > Since when is Wikipedia an accurate source to describe ideas where there is > some controversy? Since he was connected with a group that later included > Welhausen, (Nazi party member) Bultmann, and others to this day, what’s the > probability that he didn’t share their anti-Semitism? > > I found his dictionary somewhat sloppy and sometimes inaccurate, which is why > I started writing corrections in the margins. > > > > nir cohen > > Karl W. Randolph. -- Open WebMail Project (http://openwebmail.org)
_______________________________________________ b-hebrew mailing list [email protected] http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew
