[b-hebrew] Ex 6:6 hiphil imperative 'bring' (K Randolph)
kwrandolph at gmail.com
Thu Jul 11 19:32:23 EDT 2013
On Thu, Jul 11, 2013 at 1:23 PM, Jerry Shepherd <jshepherd53 at gmail.com>wrote:
> Hi Karl,
> First of all, I pretty much agrfee with Chavoux's observations.
> Second, in reply to your question, "The reason for my question is how long
> a period after the return does he consider the “post-exilic period” and
> what all does he include with it?", my answer would be that in large
> measure I would put the entire Hebrew Bible here. In addition to the books
> that Chavoux mentions, I believe that much, if not all, of the Hebrew Bible
> written before the exile was edited and updated, perhaps many of the
> changes being orthographic and vocalic.
Without evidence, I don’t see how you can make such a claim.
Personally, I think you’re all wet, but as that is a personal opinion with
no malice intended, act like a duck and let it run off your back as
> Third, when you say, "I've noticed a simpler use of the Hebrew language
> among those authors among the returnees after exile . . . and you can see
> the difference, at least I do," this is highly subjective -- not to mention
> the highly speculative decisions that have to be made with regard to dating.
These are the recorded dates in the books, other dates are speculative and
a claim that the recorded dates are wrong. Again, where’s your evidence?
> Fourth, even if you are correct that Hebrew became at some point during
> this time a "special language learned for official and religious duties,"
> this would actually be an argument that the pronunciation of biblical
> Hebrew became, as it were, "frozen in time," and handed down through the
> next generations or official scribes largely intact.
Not necessarily. There is more likelihood that the pronunciation changed
when a “corrupted version” (Mishnaic Hebrew), was spoken.
> Finally, notice that all of the concession you've made in the last couple
> of posts take you very far from your original unnuanced assertion that "you
> can't trust the Masoretic points."
No concessions on my part, I don’t trust the Masoretic points. Period. But
I also don’t hold to that straw-man perversion of my position of which
people on this list accuse me. Never have.
> By the way, I'm still waiting for that Waltke-O'Connor documentation and
> the evidence for the "strike" in baseball coming from a different root.
I dont have a copy of Waltke & O’Connor, so I can’t look it up to give the
exact page. The comment was under a reference to evidence of the language
spoken in Canaan during the time of the Amarna Letters.
As for strike, there are words in other Germanic languages that refer to a
line or mark, occasionally used as a negative mark against a person. If he
gets enough of the negative marks, he’s out. Baseball still uses that
meaning when referring to marks against a batter, if he gets three for a
time up at bat, he’s out. If that baseball player hits 20 foul balls in a
row, only two marks are counted against him. That shows that the “strike”
against the batter is not for hitting the ball, but a negative count
towards putting him out.
> Jerry Shepherd
> Taylor Seminary
> Edmonton, Alberta
> jshepherd53 at gmail.com
> Karl W. Randolph.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the b-hebrew