No CrossRef data available.
Article contents
Magical Terms in the Old Testament
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 15 March 2011
Extract
My article in the Journal (1942,111–121) has evoked two repliesfrom Professor Driver: the first I answered (1943, 251–254) under twelve heads; Professor Driver has dealt with four only in his second article. If this interchange is to go on I hope that it will follow the precedent set by Professor Driver's controversy with Professor Rowley in the Z.D.M.G. Professor Driver had put forward the theory that the Hebrew preposition 
was a dual form and not a plural and that it was originally the noun “buttocks”. He stated his case and his opponent wrote his reply to each point of the argument. The advantages of this method are that the disputant has to rebut or concede his opponent's points, and the reader does not have to wait six months or more to read a reply to a halfforgotten controversy.
- Type
- Articles
- Information
- Copyright
- Copyright © The Royal Asiatic Society 1946
References
page 79 note 1 1. JRAS. 1944,165–7.
page 79 note 2 92, N.F. 17, 1938, pp. 53–59.
page 79 note 3 JRAS. 1943, 6.
page 79 note 4 The rest of Prof. Driver's note on the root kpr is incomprehensible to me. He seems to argue that because 
is sometimes a synonym for 
I ought to cite the former as a word of magical import! “Once a synonym always a synonym” is a new and dangerous doctrine.
page 80 note 1 In reply to Prof. Driver's assertion, p. 167, note 4, that spells and wild beasts are not naturally associated I need quote only the hijā, which acts 
page 80 note 2 JRAS. 1944, 168.
page 80 note 3 It is true that rumbling of the bowels is not necessarily accompanied by suffering, but as the patient cannot rest and is complaining of his sufferings throughout the long speech in which these words occur, I do not think that the point is relevant. But I agree with Prof. Driver that the text should not be altered 
to as 
would naturally mean as inpain.