[b-hebrew] Ayin and Ghayin
kwrandolph at email.com
Mon Oct 3 10:04:03 EDT 2005
----- Original Message -----
From: "Yitzhak Sapir" <yitzhaksapir at gmail.com>
> On 9/30/05, Karl Randolph wrote:
> > > The difference between my evidence and your evidence
> > > is that your evidence requires accepting your beliefs. My
> > > evidence is hard facts.
> > >
> > Where are your cold, hard facts that prove that Torah was
> > not written by Moses in about the 15th century BC? What
> > documentation do you have?
In other words, you have no "cold, hard facts", just beliefs,
as the following attests to:
> My understanding is that Ugaritic is very close to Hebrew,
> but is far more archaic. This would be evidence, hard
> evidence, in terms of the language of Ugaritic texts
> against the language of Biblical texts.
The way I read this statement, you claim that "My
understanding" = "hard evidence". In other words, your
beliefs, your theological position, is the basis of your
claims. You need to have something more substantial.
The Bible makes certain history claims, which you so airily
dismiss, that puts the Torah in 15th century BC. Ugaritic,
according to the oldest dating which is contested, was first
written a century later if not three centuries. While there is
no question that it is a cognate language, how can it be
more archaic when its oldest examples date from one to
three centuries later?
Yes I admit that I am basing much of my understanding on
"what if?" arguments, what if the historical claims are
accurate? What if the text was accurately copied? You
base your arguments equally on "what if?" arguments,
what if the text was not accurately copied? What if the
history claims are mythological? What if the accounts they
relate are myths? What if ancient Hebrews learned the
alphabet from the Phoenicians instead of the other way
around? What if ...? What if ...?
If you had some documentary evidence to back up your
"what if?" claims, then I would find them more persuasive,
but as it is, with your faith claim countering my faith claim
with no universally recognized hard evidence, why do you
> I don't need evidence for whether Moses did or did not
> write the Torah in the 15th century BCE for this discussion,
> because that question is theological and does not pertain
> to this discussion which is linguistic.
It does pertain to this discussion. You have made certain
claims concerning the development of the language,
based on "hard facts". But if Moses wrote the consonantal
Torah in the 15th century BC basically as we have it
today, then the evidence from Hebrew contradicts your
claimed "hard facts".
> ... it is obvious there is another hidden claim
> behind your argument. That hidden claim appears to be
> basically, "Hebrew by definition cannot have more than
> 22 phonemes."
Since you can read my mind better than I myself, what
else is there that I don't recognize? As usual, you have
mangled my argument.
In summary, since it is merely your faith claims against my
faith claims, your attempts to change mine is nothing less
than proselytism. Let's get back to a study of the language.
Karl W. Randolph.
Sign-up for Ads Free at Mail.com
More information about the b-hebrew