[b-hebrew] Ex 6:6 hiphil imperative 'bring' (K Randolph)

Jerry Shepherd jshepherd53 at gmail.com
Fri Jul 12 00:39:43 EDT 2013


Hi Karl,



You wrote: "Without evidence, I don’t see how you can make such a claim."



Me: Actually there is quite a bit of evidence of redactorial work on
earlier books, including rearrangement, orthographic revision, expansion of
plene readings, etc.



You wrote: "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?"



Me: But we do not have the texts from those dates.  I am not arguing that
the recorded dates are wrong; but I am arguing the very evident datum that
we don't have any texts from those dates.  All our texts come from later
periods, and the texts were most likely edited and updated in those later
periods.



You wrote: "Not necessarily. There is more likelihood that the
pronunciation changed when a “corrupted version” (Mishnaic Hebrew), was
spoken."



Me: The answer lies somewhere in between on a spectrum, but I would still
argue closer to my "frozen" thesis.  And it is very prejudicial to refer to
Mishnaic Hebrew as a "corrupted" version.



You wrote: "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."



Me: Actually, the "straw-man perversion of my position" turns out to be not
a straw man at all.  You don't trust the Masoretic points.  You are the
straw man!



You wrote: "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."



Me: I suspected as much.  I do have a copy of Waltke & O'Connor, and unless
I'm completely missing it, they do not say what you reported them as saying.
There are a couple of places in the book where they reference the Amarna
correspondence, and suggest that perhaps Hebrew, like other Akkadian and
Ugaritic, may have had vocalic case endings which, in the development of
the language, were subsequently dropped.  But this is a far cry from
suggesting that at one time in Hebrew every consonant was followed by a
vowel.



You wrote: "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."



Me: You have not shown, however, that the word "strike" in baseball was
derived from one of these other words; and I don't believe there is really
any plausibility to this at all.  So when you said, "When a baseball player
swings his bat, he attempts to hit a speeding ball (if he misses, he then
has a count against him, which is called a “strike”, from a different root
than “strike” to hit)," you were seriously outrunning the evidence in a
fairly desperate attempt to hold on to your "single unique meaning" lexeme
theory.



By comparison, the Masoretes look superlatively trustworthy.



Blessings,


Jerry

Jerry Shepherd
Taylor Seminary
Edmonton, Alberta
jshepherd53 at gmail.com
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail/b-hebrew/attachments/20130711/b9cad508/attachment.html 


More information about the b-hebrew mailing list