Vetus

Testamentum
Vetus Testamentum 60 (2010) 535-545 brill.nl/vt

On kuppuru, kippr and Etymological Sins that

Cannot be Wiped Away

Yitzhaq Feder
Bar-Ilan University

Abstract
The discovery of Mesopotamian ritual texts employing the term kuppuru (rub, wipe) has been
a major turning point in the semantic analysis of Hebrew kippr. It is now commonplace to find
the Hebrew term interpreted in light of the concrete sense of the Akkadian, yielding the notion
of wiping away sin. The present article demonstrates why this prevailing view is untenable by
means of 1) analysis of the lexical data, 2) identification of common misconstruals of this evi-
dence, and 3) comparison of the kuppuru / kippr relationship to the largely analogous case of
Akkadian salhu (sprinkle) and Hebrew slah (forgive).

Keywords
kuppuru, expiation, atonement, cultic terminology

The elusive term kippr has long been the center of scholarly debate due to its
importance as a term for expiation and atonement in the Hebrew Bible and its
foundational role in later Jewish and Christian religious conceptions. It is thus
understandable that Mesopotamian purification rituals featuring the ostensi-
bly cognate term kuppuru continue to attract much interest, long after their
initial discovery and publication at the turn of the twentieth century. Among
numerous similarities between kuppuru and kippr, particularly suggestive is
the fact that kuppuru appears frequently with the verb salh u, so that one can
hardly avoid viewing these terms as cognates to Heb. kippr and slah , which
appear together repeatedly in the Biblical sin offering rituals. A salient and
well-known example is the description of the Neo-Babylonian New Year festi-
val (aktu) of the month of Nissanu:

345 . . . e-nu-ma h u-up

346 al-mu ana .ZI.DA ana pa-pa-hi dAG

Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, 2010 DOI: 10.1163/156853310X530442

536 Y. Feder / Vetus Testamentum 60 (2010) 535-545

347 KU4-ma ina NG.NA GI.IZI.L A.GB.BA

348 i-hap-ma pa-pa-hi A.<ME> P -diq-lat
349 u P idPu-ra-at!-t i-sal-lh
gi
350 IG.ME pa-pa-hi gab-bi .GI EREN TAG
351 ina MRU KISAL pa-pa-hi NG.NA K.BABBAR GAR-ma
352 IMh u bu-ra- ina muh -hi i-sr!-raq!
l
353 GR.L G-ma SAG.DU UDU.NTA i-bat-taq-ma
354 ina pag-ri UDU.NTA lMA.MA -kap-par
When the consecration of the temple is completed, [the exorcist (apu)] will
enter Ezida, the cella of Nab, and consecrate the temple with censer, torch (and)
holy water-basin and sprinkle (isallah) with the water from a well along the Tigris
and from a well along the Euphrates. He will smear all of the doors of the cella
(with) cedar oil. He will place the silver censer in the middle of the courtyard of
the cella and scatter aromatics and the juniper on it. (The high priest) will call for
the slaughterer and he will cut off the head of the sheep and the exorcist will per-
form the wiping-rite on the temple (ukappar) with the carcass of the sheep.1

The resemblance of such passages to Biblical rituals such as that described in

Lev 16 captured the attention of numerous scholars, and even led Zimmern in
1915 to view Heb. kippr and slah as akkadische Fremdwrter.2
In the subsequent near-century of research, numerous proposals have been
offered to explain the semantic relationship between Akk. kuppuru and Heb.
kippr. Most of these are susceptible to critique on the following grounds:

1) lack of rigor in clarifying the available senses of the terms on the basis of
the lexical data of each language taken independently,
2) failure to explicitly address the nature of the reconstructed historical
context in which the Akk. terminology is assumed to be related to the
Heb.,
3) and most importantly, failure to heed Barrs warning regarding the
uncritical use of etymology as a guide to meaning.3

1)
For text and translation, see Linssen, pp. 221, 230 (with adaptations).
2)
Akkadische Fremdwrter als Beweis fr babylonischen Kultureinfluss (Leipzig, 1917), p. 66.
For a survey of early treatments of kuppuru, including preliminary comparisons to kippr, see
S. O. Hills, A Semantic and Conceptual Study of the Root KPR in the Hebrew Old Testament with
Special Reference to the Accadian Kuppuru (Diss. Johns Hopkins University, 1964), pp. 22-37.
3)
J. Barr, The Semantics of Biblical Language (London, 1961), pp. 117-119. A noteworthy excep-
tion to these generalizations is Janowski, though he ultimately equivocates regarding the rela-
tionship between the terms (p. 100).
 Y. Feder / Vetus Testamentum 60 (2010) 535-545 537

The present article seeks to clarify the relationship between kuppuru and kippr
in the following stages: 1) an analysis of the lexical data, 2) a discussion of false
leads which have led to scholars to misconstrue the evidence, and 3) compari-
son of the largely analogous case of salhu/ slah .

1. Lexical Analysis
The quest to relate Heb. to Semitic cognates is complicated by the poly-
semous nature of the root kpr in the Semitic languages.4 Until the end of the
nineteenth century, Biblical scholars tended to focus on Arab. kafara cover,
which is also used in the religious sense to absolve. This view was seemingly
supported by the fact that the expression ( do not cover up) in
Neh 3:37 parallels in Jer 18:23.5 However, this argument has already
been ably refuted: Even if we assume that the author of Neh 3:37 is expressing
his understanding of the Hebrew term, a questionable supposition in itself,
one can hardly rely on this late evidence for this ancient verbs etymology.6
From the beginning of the twentieth century, and increasingly in the past
fifty years, scholars have tended to focus on Akk. kapru, particularly the D
form kuppuru (to wipe off ), which corresponds to the Heb. kippr (pil).
Although this sense was already well-known from Aram.,7 only with the dis-
covery of Mesopotamian ritual texts employing kuppuru did this understand-
ing gain wide attention among modern scholars. Specifically, kuppuru can be
used to describe a wiping rite in which a wiping material, such as dough,
bread, cloth and sometimes an animal, is used to absorb dangerous forces such
as sickness and impurity. The wiping material (takpertu) is then carried off to
an innocuous location for disposal. In these contexts, kuppuru denotes either
the literal sense to wipe, rub or the more general to perform a wiping rite.8
The great similarity in context, sense and occasionally even syntax of such
usages to those of kippr has made quite an impression on Biblical scholarship.

4)
See B. Landsberger, The Date-Palm and its By-Products according to the Cuneiform Sources (AfO
Beheift 17, Graz, 1967), pp. 30-34; P. V. Mankowski, Akkadian Loanwords in Biblical Hebrew
(Winona Lake, 2000), p. 71.
5)
See Stamm, 1940, pp. 63-66.
6)
See Levine, p. 58; Janowski, pp. 99-100.
7)
See Janowski, pp. 66-82; M. Sokoloff, A Dictionary of Jewish Babylonian Aramaic of the Talmu-
dic and Geonic Periods (Ramat-Gan, 2002), p. 597. For an early interpretation of Heb. kippr in
light of the Aram., see Rashi on Gen 32:21 (discussed below).
8)
For textual evidence, see CAD K 178-180; CAD T 85-86. For further discussion and refs., see
below.
538 Y. Feder / Vetus Testamentum 60 (2010) 535-545

Today, one regularly finds the notion of wiping away sin in Biblical commen-
taries and translations, sometimes without further comment or qualification.
But if we attempt to probe further regarding the nature of the relationship
between the Akk. and Heb. terms, the picture becomes more complicated.
The primary difficulty is found precisely in the sources where the comparison
seems the strongest, namely in a juxtaposition of the usages of kuppuru and
kippr in ritual texts. As mentioned above, the Akkadian uses of kuppuru refer
specifically to the physical act of purifying by means of wiping a person or
object with a purificatory substance. Occasionally, this verb can be used to
refer to the rite as a whole, but it is never used as a general term meaning to
purify.9 In contrast, the Biblical term kippr appears in the goal formulas
which describe the overall function of a rite (to expiate, to purify), but not
any specific act such as rubbing or smearing (e.g. Lev. 4:20, 26, 31, 35; 5:6,
10).10 Furthermore, nearly all of the cultic usages of kippr pertain to the sin
offering, whose central act is the daubing and sprinkling of blood. This rite is
quite different from the rubbing rites described by Akk. kuppuru.
The observation that kippr refers to the abstract effects of the ritual is not
only supported by the overwhelming majority of cultic occurrences of the
term, but it is also corroborated by the non-cultic usages of derivatives,
nominal (namely: kper) and verbal.11 In non-cultic sources, one finds
derivatives in reference to placating anger (e.g. Gen 32:21; Ex 32:30; Num
25:13; Prov 16:14) or expiation of sin (e.g. 2 Sam 3:14; Isa 6:7). A distinct
subgroup of the latter category pertains to the expiation of blood-guilt (e.g.
Ex 21:30; Num 35:33; Deut 32:43). Since the two basic contexts which gov-
ern these various forms are 1) appeasement of anger, and 2) compensation for
guilt, one can hardly ignore the semantic continuity which connects these
forms with cultic kippr. Thus, the non-cultic and cultic sources are in accord
that kippr refers to the abstract effects of a persons actions (to appease, to
expiate), not a concrete action such as that described by kuppuru (to rub,
wipe). These semantic and syntactical differences make it highly unlikely that
the Israelite cult terminology is directly dependent on Assyrian or Babylonian
influence.

9)
See Janowski, pp. 46-58, D. P. Wright, The Disposal of Impurity: Elimination Rites in the Bible and
in Hittite and Mesopotamian Literature (SBL Dissertation Series 101, Atlanta, 1987), pp. 291-299.
10)
For a comprehensive treatment of the goal formulas, see Gane, pp. 106-143.
11)
For accounts of the non-cultic usage, see H. C. Brichto, On Slaughter and Sacrifice, Blood
and Atonement, HUCA 47 (1976), pp. 19-36; A Schenker, Kpher et expiation, Biblica 63
(1982), pp. 32-46; Janowski, pp. 103-181.
 Y. Feder / Vetus Testamentum 60 (2010) 535-545 539

2. False Leads in the Analysis of the Data

The distinctions presented above are the result of a strict analysis of the terms
as reflected in the lexicographic data of each language, taken independently.
The dominant theory which assumes a clear linear etymological development
from the concrete usage (represented by Akk. and Aram.) to the abstract usage
(represented by Heb.) rests on two basic pillars of argumentation, which upon
closer analysis appear to be quite shaky:

1. The alleged concrete sense of kippr in Gen 32:21

A major obstacle for interpreting kippr in light of Akk kuppuru is that none
of the usages of in any of its derivatives indicates the concrete sense to
wipe. However, some scholars have appealed to Gen 32:21 as the missing link
between the hypothesized original concrete sense and the abstract senses
appease and expiate. The Hebrew passage reads:

In this passage, which depicts Jacobs dispatch of an appeasement offering to

Esau and its accompanying message, the term in question appears with the
direct object ( lit. his face) in the expression .

Scholars who advocate interpreting the Heb. term in light of the Akk. and
Aram. cognates (to wipe off ) understand the statement elliptically as: I will
wipe (the wrath off of ) his countenance.12 In order to strengthen this sugges-
tion, Levine adds the following:

It should be noted that Akkadian also attests the idiom kuppuru pn to rub,
wipe off the face. This idiom occurs in omen texts. It was considered ominous if
a new-born infant rubbed his hand over one or the other side of his face, as babies
are wont to do.13

This argument is rather perplexing. Since these omen texts are referring to an
actual situation where a baby rubs his face, we are not dealing with an idiom

12)
So Rashi, citing the Aramaic, though he correctly interprets as anger (see below). The
Akkadian takes precedence in the arguments of Levine (p. 60) and J. Milgrom, Leviticus 1-16
(AB 3, New York, 1991), p. 1084.
13)
Levine, p. 60. He is citing CT 28 29:8 (see CAD K 179). A similar view was expressed by
M. Weinfeld as an editorial note to Shnaton 2 (1977), p. 13.
540 Y. Feder / Vetus Testamentum 60 (2010) 535-545

of any sort. Furthermore, one struggles in vain to find a connection between

this literal usage and the purported meaning of Gen 32:21. Nevertheless, this
argument is cited repeatedly in the secondary literature, as scholars desperately
attempt to salvage this flailing etymological theory.
As far as interpreting this passage, traditional Jewish commentators have
already pointed out that ( countenance) is frequently used to represent
anger or other negative emotions, a common case of metonymy whereby the
face is substituted for the emotion expressed by it.14 Accordingly, kippr in this
verse should be interpreted as assuage, yielding the following translation:

And you shall say: Behold, Jacob is also behind us, for he has said: I will assuage
his anger with this gift that goes before me. Then I will behold his countenance,
perhaps he will show me favor.

We are thus left without any examples of kippr used in a concrete sense, so
that all of its appearances in the Bible fall under the abstract senses: to
appease, to expiate and to forgive.15

2. Convergent usages of kuppuru and kippr

The semantic distinctions between the Akk. and Heb. terms are somewhat
obscured by the fact that some of their usages are remarkably similar in both
sense and syntax. In particular, I am referring to the fact that both terms can
be used in the general sense to perform a purificatory / expiatory rite.
For example, the Babylonian text cited at the beginning of this article con-
tains the instruction: ina pag-ri UDU.NTA lMA.MA -kap-par, which
is often translated in the general sense: the exorcist will purify the temple with
the carcass of the sheep.16 Though this translation is acceptable, it obscures
the fact that the text is referring specifically to a wiping rite which serves to
purify the temple. Nevertheless, it does seem that the Akk. verb was some-
times used in a more general sense in reference to the ritual sequence as a
whole.

14)
So Onqelos, Rashi and Ibn Ezra. Additional examples: Lev 20:5; 1 Sam 1:18; Jer 3:12. Com-
pare also Gen 31:2: Jacob saw Labans countenance, and it was no longer with him as it had
been in the past.
15)
The latter is usually implied when God is subject, e.g.: Ps 65:4; 78:35.
16)
So Linssen, ad loc.; cf. CAD K 179.
 Y. Feder / Vetus Testamentum 60 (2010) 535-545 541

Heb. kippr can also be used in contexts which refer to the performance of
the rite as a whole. For example, in the instructions governing the distribution
of prebends to the priests, we find the following (Lev 7:7):

The guilt offering is like the sin offering. The same rule applies to both: it shall
belong to the priest who performs expiation therewith.

In this example, kippr is employed in reference to the rite as a whole, thus

paralleling one of the usages of kuppuru.17
However, the convergence of usage in these cases is clearly the result of
opposite processes of intralinguistic semantic development. From the concrete
sense of kuppuru (to rub, wipe) developed the more general sense to per-
form a wiping rite, referring to the overall ritual sequence. Conversely, from
the primary usage of Heb. kippr signifying the abstract effects of the rite (to
expiate, to purify) developed the more concrete sense to perform an expia-
tory rite. This convergence can be represented as follows:

Verb Concrete Abstract

(Means) (Consequences)
kuppuru to rub, wipe to perform a wiping
rite
kippr to perform an expia- to expiate/ purify
tory/ purificatory rite

Since this type of semantic development can be just as easily explained on

inner linguistic grounds, one need not appeal to external influence to explain
the change in the usage of kippr.
From the evidence surveyed thus far, it emerges that there is no textual basis
for interpreting Heb. kippr in light of a hypothesized original concrete sense.
This conclusion is based on the lack of evidence for a concrete usage of kippr
and the fundamental agreement between cultic and non-cultic sources regard-
ing the abstract sense of kippr and other derivatives. Consequently, these

17)
Additional examples: Lev 6:23; 8:15; 16:17, 18, 27.
542 Y. Feder / Vetus Testamentum 60 (2010) 535-545

observations make it seem unlikely that Akk. kuppuru could shed light on
kippr, particularly on its historically primary sense.

3. Exilic Influence on Usages of kippr ?

At the same time, there exists a body of evidence which might support the
possibility that an awareness of Mesopotamian kuppuru rites in the exilic
period may have influenced the usage of kippr.18 In particular, I am referring
to cultic sources which feature the temple or altar as direct objects of kippr.
The clearest evidence of this usage can be found in Lev. 16 (vv. 16, 20, 33) and
Ezekiel 40-48 (43:20, 26; 45:20).19 These verses would seem to be referring to
the sense of purifying the altar or temple. In this respect, they are syntacti-
cally similar to the kuppuru evidence, which regularly employ concrete physi-
cal objects in conjunction with the verb, whether in the concrete sense to
wipe or the more general to perform a wiping rite upon.
Regarding these cases, the possibility might be entertained that they reflect
external linguistic influence, namely exposure of Israelite priests to the Meso-
potamian rituals and their terminology. The fact that several of these usages
appear in Ezekiel 40-48 which reflect additional signs of Babylonian influence
could lend some credibility to this proposition,20 though one must not ignore
the fact that, even in these sources, one finds no indication of a concrete sense
to wipe.

18)
For a recent attempt to view the relationship between kuppuru and kippr as evidence for
Babylonian influence in the exilic period, see K. L. Sparks, Enma Elish and Priestly Mimesis:
Elite Emulation in Nascent Judaism, JBL 126 (2007), pp. 632-635, 642-648. Unfortunately,
Sparks treatment of the issue overlooks two major considerations which seem to undermine his
conclusion: 1) the semantic differences between the Heb. and Akk. terms, and 2) the semantic
continuity which connects the cultic and non-cultic uses of kippr, not to mention other nomi-
nal and verbal derivatives of . Nevertheless, the more nuanced view presented here could be
reconciled with Sparks primary argument, though requiring a differentiation between the origi-
nal cult instructions and their later redaction.
19)
Ex 29:36, 37 may also perhaps be included in this category.
20)
These similarities are particularly apparent in Ez 43. For example, the daubing of blood on
the door-posts of the temple (v. 19) is reminiscent of the apotropaic use of blood in Babylonian
rituals (see D. J. McCarthy, The Symbolism of Blood and Sacrifice, JBL 88 [1969], pp. 166-
168). For calendrical similarities (based on the Greek version of v. 20), see J. A. Wagenaar, Post-
Exilic Calendar Innovations. The First Month of the Year and the Date of the Passover and
Festival of Unleavened Bread, ZAW 115 (2003), pp. 18-20, though arguments can also be
adduced in support of MT.
 Y. Feder / Vetus Testamentum 60 (2010) 535-545 543

However, since these usages could also be plausibly explained as resulting

from intralinguistic semantic developments, these considerations are hardly
conclusive. In any case, even if one embraces the possibility of external influ-
ence, it has no bearing on the search for the primary sense of kippr.

4. The Relation between salhu and

A heuristically useful analogy to this case can be adduced in the comparison of
Akk. salhu to Heb. .21 The former term is prominent in ritual contexts in
which it refers to aspersions with water or other liquids, usually for the pur-
pose of purification.22 Of course, the notion of ritual cleansing offers a sugges-
tive concrete etymological predecessor to the Heb. terms sense to forgive,
deriving perhaps from the notion that the person is thereby cleansed of guilt.
Interestingly, the Heb. term appears regularly in the goal formulas of the sin
offering ritual, together with kippr: The priest shall make expiation on his
behalf () , so that he may be forgiven () .23
At first glance, the appearance of these (possible) cognates (salhu / )in
similar ritual contexts might support the assumption that the Israelite cult
terminology reveals some form of Mesopotamian influence, tempting one to
find traces of a concrete sense in the usage of the Heb. term. However, such a
theory cannot be maintained. The attestations of the Heb. term, in cultic and
non-cultic contexts alike, unanimously reflect the abstract sense forgive.
This usage is clearly more appropriate for the sin offering formulas as well,
where it describes the result of the rite. Moreover, this formula appears exclu-
sively in reference to sin offering texts pertaining to sin; it does not appear in
those intended to purify people bearing bodily impurities (e.g. Lev 12-15).24
As a result, it is not surprising that no scholar has advanced arguments to
interpret Heb. slah in light of the concrete sense offered by Akk. salhu. In
fact, many scholars may view the semantic gap between these terms so wide as
to deny any etymological connection between them whatsoever.
Let us turn back to the analogous case of kuppuru/ kippr. Just as in the case
of salhu/ slah , we are dealing with the comparison of a concrete term per-
taining to an act of cleansing with a term describing an abstract state, which

21)
An etymological connection is advocated by e.g., HALOT, J. J. Stamm, , TLOT, vol. 2,
p. 797, idem, 1940, pp. 57f.; J. Hausmann, , TDOT, vol. 10, p. 259.
22)
For evidence, see CAD S 86. Cf. Linssen, pp. 149-150.
23)
E.g. Lev 4:26, 31; 5:26.
24)
See Gane, pp. 123ff.
544 Y. Feder / Vetus Testamentum 60 (2010) 535-545

could conceivably be derived from the concrete term. Likewise, in both cases,
the Heb. term is widely attested in non-cultic contexts which point to a more
abstract sense. In light of such fundamental similarities, one wonders why so
many scholars who (explicitly or implicitly) reject the comparison of salhu
and slah , find the kuppuru/ kippr comparison to be so appealing.

Conclusions
In light of the foregoing discussion, it seems clear that the only lexicographi-
cally prudent approach requires an analysis of kippr primarily, and perhaps
exclusively, on the basis of the inner-Biblical evidence. Though this topic can-
not be developed here,25 a meaningful picture of the semantic development of
the term can be inferred from this data alone. At the same time, there is no
reason to reject out of hand some form of etymological relationship connect-
ing kippr as well as slah with other ostensibly related Semitic cognates. Of
course, the assumption that these relations stem from a common Proto-Semitic
ancestry does not explain the appearance of the Akk. and Heb. terms in simi-
lar ritual contexts, but the evidence seems to indicate that this parallelism is
the result of independent semantic developments.
Though this relation has little or no bearing on the lexical sense of the
Hebrew term, it may provide an additional example of the pervasive and well-
known role of metaphorical conceptualization in the origin of abstract termi-
nology.26 In a blunt and somewhat simplistic formulation, Burke referred to
the process whereby language is extended by metaphor which gradually
becomes the dead metaphor we call abstraction.27 In reality, we cannot easily
determinein modern language and all the more so in ancient textsthe
metaphors that can be pronounced officially dead.28 As far as the terms
described in this article are concerned, there is no evidence that the concrete
sense that modern scholars deduce from Semitic cognates had any bearing on
the usage of Biblical authors.

25)
For a systematic account of the lexical development of Heb. derivatives based exclusively
on the Biblical evidence, see Y. Feder, Blood Expiation in Hittite and Biblical Ritual, (Atlanta,
forthcoming), Ch. 6.
26)
See E. Sweetser, From Etymology to Pragmatics (Cambridge, U.K., 1990), pp. 18-48.
27)
K. Burke, Language as Symbolic Action (Berkeley & Los Angeles 1966), p. 12. See also J. Searle,
Metaphor, in A. Ortony (ed.), Metaphor and Thought (Cambridge, U.K., 1993), p. 90.
28)
Cf. E. L. Greenstein, Some Developments in the Study of Language and Some Implications
for Interpreting Ancient Texts and Cultures, Israel Oriental Studies 20 (2002), pp. 456-457.
 Y. Feder / Vetus Testamentum 60 (2010) 535-545 545

In conclusion, it is worth noting that a similar distinction between concrete

and abstract senses of kpr is evident in later Aramaic dialects. Specifically,
whereas the Eastern dialects attest the concrete sense wipe as well as atone,
the concrete sense is unattested in Palestinian Aramaic.29 Thus, the Aramaic
dialects seem to reflect an East/ West distinction which parallels that of Akka-
dian and Hebrew, such that the concrete sense is absent from Western cognates.
Even the Babylonian rabbis of the Talmudic period who were equally aware
of the abstract usages of Biblical kippr and the more concrete sense to rub,
wipe available in their vernacular Aramaic did not seem to relate one to
another. The fact that these rabbis, for whom both usages were still active parts
of their spoken language, saw no reason to draw such a connection raises ques-
tions regarding the tendency of modern scholars to attribute a concrete sense
to Biblical kippr where there is no trace that one ever existed.

Works Cited
R. Gane, Cult and Character (Winona Lake, 2005).
B. Janowski, Shne als Heilsgeschehen. Studien zur Shnetheologie der Priesterschrift
und zur Wurzel KPR im Alten Orient und im Alten Testament (WMANT 55, Neu-
kirchen-Vluyn, 1982).
B. A. Levine, In the Presence of the Lord (Leiden, 1974).
M. J. H. Linssen, The Cults of Uruk and Babylon. The Temple Ritual Texts as Evidence
for Hellenistic Cult Practice (Leiden-Boston, 2004).
J. J. Stamm, Erlsen und Vergeben im Alten Testament (Bern, 1940).

29)
See Janowski, pp. 66-82; M. Sokoloff, A Dictionary of Jewish Palestinian Aramaic of the Byz-
antine Period, (Ramat Gan, 1990), pp. 267-268, according to which the only attested senses are
deny and atone, though one cannot rule out the possibility that deny is derivative of the
sense wipe. Cf. G. R. Driver, Studies in the Vocabulary of the Old Testament, JTS 34 (1933),
pp. 34ff.; Levine, pp. 123-127. Be that as it may, the more significant fact is the absence of wipe
in Western Aramaic dialects and the absence of both wipe and deny in Biblical Hebrew.