I have very little internet access where I am, so unfortunately I can only give a limited reply.
First, I want to thank Narkissos for an excellent post on Jenni's analysis....Assuming that his representation of Jenni is correct, I would be inclined to agree that le is likely not ever a static locative in BH but only appears to be when viewed through the lens of semantic categories from other languages. I see a similar situation happen all the time with tense/modality/aspect; an exotic language may have its verbal system characterized according to European categories such as imperfective, subjunctive, pluperfect, but a nuanced analysis of the language on its own terms may show that it has been mischaracterized in terms of imposed categories so that other semantic categories may be more appropriate.
Is there a searchable corpus of sectarian Qumran texts yet? It would be great to add to the corpus of pre-Mishnaic Hebrew.
pseudo-scholar:
Jonsson in his GTR, 3rd edn p.213 says:"Modern Hebrew scholars generally agree that the local or spatial sense of le is highly improbable, if not impossible, at Jeremiah 29:10".
Yes, as I thought, the statement is indeed qualified, "highly improbable, if not impossible". Your claims that Jonsson dogmatically declared the reading IMPOSSIBLE (dogmatically without clarification) are hereby nullified by your own words.
I do not believe for one moment that the grammatical or semantic construction excludes a locative sense for le in Jeremiah 29: 10
Right....again, you prefer the most unlikely rendering, just because it is not TOTALLY impossible (although, in light of Narkissos' last post, it may well be impossible....I would need to judge Jenni's analysis for myself).
if there is no lexical or grammatical rule forbidding such a locative sense and if lexica and tradition omits it, then the NWT rendering cannot be judged as inaccurate.
Again, totally false. One does not need to FORBID a locative sense 100% to conclude that it is INACCURATE. If it is EXTREMELY UNLIKELY (e.g., almost impossible), one is also perfectly justified for rejecting the rendering. Again, the translator must prefer the most probable rendering.... clearly, the NWT has instead preferred a translation that is most unlikely, and thus cannot be judged as accurate.
the textual evidence of a locative sense by the LXX and the Versions and the immebiate context of Jeremiah
I have already TOLD you several times already that the LXX does not give a locative translation; I even put it on my list of pseudo-scholar errors, and yet you still repeat it.
5. In this thread (in post #535), pseudo-scholar claimed that "the textual tradition beginning with the LXX ... allows for a locative reading". FALSE. In post #4256, I showed that the dative case used by the LXX supports exactly the non-static locative rendering (e.g. "pertaining to, belonging to, with respect to", etc.) that pseudo-scholar is objecting to. I have to wonder if pseudo-scholar even knows what the dative case is used for.
If the LXX gave a locative sense, there would be an en in front of Babuloni (en Babuloni "in Babylon"). But there isn't any. So the dative here is a DATIVE (e.g. "to, for")....that is, "FOR BABYLON". So here you are citing a piece of evidence in support of the NWT when in fact it refutes it.
You harp on the matter of construction of Jeremiah 29:10 which in itself excludes a locative sense because there are no other examples of it otherwise in the OT.
Don't forget that in contrast to the absence of a static locative in this construction, there are many examples of a quasi-genitive in exactly this construction. Any translator without an agenda would naturally understood the preposition as non-locative as he/she would for any other occurrence of this construction (as indeed the NWT translates other instances of this construction, as has been pointed out in this thread).
Hebrew has much fluidity in respect to prepositions and particles and I do not believe that the construction is of any grammatical or aematic significance as you, Narkissos and Jenni argue.
I have already explained to you a month ago why you can't use "fluidity" as an excuse to use whatever option you prefer, regardless of the grammatical context. By having recourse to "fluidity", you are merely taking a cop-out to facing all the EVIDENCE refuting the static locative. Where is the fluidity when you look at the actual construction that does occur in Jeremiah 29:10? There is none....it's a construction that NEVER expresses a static locative in any known example and has a very legible meaning of its own.
If there is then please cite a text on Hebrew grammar or syntax in support of your inventive linguistic opinion.
Nice try to turn the tables, but it doesn't wash....we have already cited copious examples in this thread of texts in which the construction occurs. Now it's your turn to provide an example of the construction expressing a static locative to show that there is variability or fluidity in this linguistic context. If anything is "inventive", it is your attempt to take a clear, recognizable construction and make it mean something it does not. It's like insisting that "John ran up a huge bill at the restaurant" actually means "John ran physically up a gigantic duck's bill inside an even bigger restaurant", and not only insisting that this very improbable meaning as the only correct one, but calling a person "inventive" for preferring the most natural, common meaning of the expression.
I add this to spice up your ignorant and amateurish thesis on the cross. It could not have been theologically posssible for our Lord to die on a cross because of its attribution to iconography. Further, the Gospel eyewitnesses testified to a stake as stauros instead of a cross and the word stauros in that early period of Christianity meant simply a stake or pole.
This is just as circular as everything else you just wrote. You say that the gospel writers used stauros instead of the word for cross to refer to Jesus' execution instrument.....well, what word did the Greeks have for the Roman two-timbered cross that had been existence for several hundred years already?? All you are doing is merely repeat the Watchtower line without dealing with any of the new evidence I brought to light; actually, none of it is really new, but new to those such as yourself who know only what the Watchtower says....that stauros meant only stake. I showed, first, that Romans used two-beamed crosses since the third or second century B.C., and second that non-Christian pagan writers, when referring to this instrument of the Romans, clearly used the word stauros to refer to it, especially in reference to the patibulum that was carried by the victim prior to execution. This includes Lucian who the Watchtower cites to prove that stauros meant merely a stake, when in fact he was very explicit that it was shaped like the letter T. Of course, you refuse to deal with any of this evidence, and would rather label the whole thing as "amateurish", which is the word that best describes your whole effort here.
