Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

b-hebrew - Re: [b-hebrew] Proto-Semitic, was WAYYIQTOL

b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Biblical Hebrew Forum

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: "Karl Randolph" <kwrandolph AT email.com>
  • To: "Hebrew" <b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org>
  • Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] Proto-Semitic, was WAYYIQTOL
  • Date: Mon, 15 Mar 2004 04:07:53 -0500

Peter:

If this is what Huxley really said, he was more ignorant than I thought. And not below making an ad homonym attack (even if the bishop asked for it).

I learned the definition of science in biology class where the textbook was written by Dr. George Gaylord Simpson, professor of biology and evolution at Harvard (when he retired, Stephen Jay Gould took his place). To distill his three page definition to a paragraph, science can deal only with phenomena which can be observed, observed repeatedly. Any phenomena which cannot be observed, or observed only once but the observation cannot be repeated, cannot be studied as a scientific study. In a series of observations, scientists look for patterns, which are stated as hypothesis and after more testing (by observations) can become theories. In researching the library in physics, chemistry and other biology texts, I found none that contradicted this definition.

Evolution, as defined by the same professor, is the theory that all life developed by natural means over long periods of time from simple, common ancestors. Again, no textbook that I have seen contradicts this definition.

Putting the two paragraphs together, we see that evolution, by definition, cannot be observed, therefore cannot be scientific. When one looks at the “evidences” for evolution, most, if not all, somewhere depend on a presupposition that cannot be observed, sometimes several, that invalidate them as scientific evidences for evolution.

Admitting that evolution is not a scientific theory does not falsify it, it merely acknowledges that it is a metaphysical theory, which is a 50¢ word for religious theory.

As for historical linguistics, the fossils indicating the existence and development of those languages are the surviving documents written in those languages. Unfortunately, those documents are often just skeletons, even parts of skeletons, unable to flesh out the richness the languages originally had. Where is the skeleton of proto-
Semitic? By your own admission, it doesn’t exist. It is merely a conjecture, based on a theory. To use conjecture based on theory to have veto power over how one should interpret the observed skeleton of a historical language, sounds backwards to me. Especially as long as there is the possibility that the theory may be wrong.

My interpretation of the bones of Biblical Hebrew are that the 22 letters represented 22 consonantal phonemes, each with one sound that existed from Moses to the Galut Babel. The consonantal sounds may have been different than as we interpret the signs left by the Masoretes. Just because a cognate language may have had more phonemes does not mean that Hebrew did. Absent documentary evidence, there is no way to prove, nor disprove, my interpretation.

Karl W. Randolph.

Ps: This is the last I hope to hear of evolution on this mailing list.

----- Original Message -----
From: Peter Kirk <peterkirk AT qaya.org>
On 14/03/2004 05:58, Brian Roberts wrote:
>
> As there is no conclusive proof of the origins of Phoenician, Hebrew, > or Aramaic, I believe Karl's questions are not only valid, but should > be supported. If proto-Semitic is becoming a sacred cow without good > call, then it must be challenged.
>
> I believe that was Karl's point. He wasn't assuming Hebrew was the > original language, he was suggesting it. There is a tremendous > difference.
>
>
Well put, Brian. Proto-Semitic is indeed a scholarly construct, and like all scholarly constructs it needs to be reviewed carefully by scholars. If Karl has done that kind of thorough review, based on a proper understanding of comparative Semitic linguistics and of the evidence for and against the generally accepted scholarly reconstruction, he is of course entitled to put forward an alternative theory. I trust that he is not assuming without good reason (even in the Bible taken very literally, I should point out) that the traditional theory is wrong and that the original language is Hebrew. If he is taking that position, then (since Karl mentions evolution) Huxley's (alleged) words to Bishop Wilberforce apply:

"If there were an ancestor whom I should feel shame in recording, it would rather be a /man/... who... plunges into scientific questions with which he has no real acquaintance, only to obscure them by aimless rhetoric, and distract the attention of his hearers from the real points at issue by eloquent digressions and skilled appeals to religious prejudice."

--
Peter Kirk
peter AT qaya.org (personal)
peterkirk AT qaya.org (work)
http://www.qaya.org/
--
___________________________________________________________
Sign-up for Ads Free at Mail.com
http://promo.mail.com/adsfreejump.htm





Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page