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

Jerry Shepherd jshepherd53 at gmail.com
Fri Jul 12 16:56:21 EDT 2013

Hi Karl,

(1) You ask: "Therefore, is it your assertion that the main authorship of
the Tanakh came after the Babylonian exile?"

Me: No.  I do believe, however, that it went through editorial activity.

(2) You state and ask: "In other words, you don’t trust the consonantal
text of Tanakh, so why are you making such a big stink about me not
trusting the Masoretic points, which are a much later addition?"

Me: I trust the consonantal text.  I trust the Masoretic points.  I trust
the consonantal text more than I do the Masoretic points.  But I believe
the Masoretic points are largely accurate.

(3) You ask: "So what do you call the action where a language has been
corrupted—its grammar changed and some lexemes having different meanings—by
being used by people who are not native speakers in a way that more
approximates their native tongue?

Me: I do not call it corruption.

(4) You state: "This response makes it appear that you don’t know what is a
straw man logical fallacy."

Me: I know what the straw man fallacy is.  But it is not being used against
you.  You are not the victim.  Your position has been described accurately.

(5) You state: "You were not listening: they said the language of Canaan,
which I reproduced above, not 'Hebrew'. It is I who made the connection
that the archaeological record indicates that the Amarna letters were
written during the Divided Kingdom era, hence “language of Canaan” referred
to Hebrew. "

Me: Karl, this is absolutely incredible.

Here's your original statement: "Waltke and O’Connor mention that
apparently the Amarna letters, archeologically dated to the Divided Kingdom
period, indicated that the speech in Israel had every consonant followed by
a vowel."

I challenged you on that, and then you told me you had no access to the

But I do have the book.  Here's what they say: "From the Amarna
correspondence, Ugaritic texts, and other evidence, we can infer with
reasonable confidence that before the Amarna period (ca. 1350 B.C.E.)
Hebrew possessed final short vowels, which would have differentiated cases
with nouns (see 8.1) and distinguished various prefix conjugations (see
29.4). The grammar preserved by the Masoretes, however, represents a later
period, after these vowels had been dropped."

And now you tell me I'm not listening?  You simply did not remember
accurately what they actually said.  Or you read your own ideas into what
they said.  Notice, they said "Hebrew," not the language of Canaan"; and
they talked about final short vowels that might have indicated case endings
for nouns, or, for verbs, even different prefix conjugations – but nothing
about every consonant being followed by a vowel.

(6) Finally, sorry Karl–making the assertion that the use of the word
"strike" in baseball, meaning to miss, comes from a Norwegian or some other
root, is not the same thing as demonstrating that such is actually the case.
It is much more plausible to suggest, rather, that "strike" referred
originally to a ball that was struck foul, and then by extension came to
cover balls that were missed entirely.



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/20130712/21e92fe9/attachment.html 

More information about the b-hebrew mailing list