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 17:08:13 -0500

Peter:

What we need to keep in mind is the
influence of the logical positivists on
western intellectual thought, particularly
among scientists.

The logical positivists were illogical in
certain, crucial areas. They were blinded
by their presuppositions (which they denied
they had) and thought methodology so that
they could not recognize their cognitive
shortcomings.

In particular, I refer to their
presupposition that all knowledge is either
scientific, or “nonsense” (which they
defined in various ways). The problem with
this presupposition is that there are
different types of knowledge. The rules
regarding historical evidence are different
from those governing scientific evidence.
Does that make a study of history
“nonsense”? Even they recognized that
history is not nonsense, but in their
effort to assert the validity of historical
studies, they went by the proposition that
the present is the key to the past, i.e.
the present day phenomena and processes
that can be observed and repeatedly so,
hence scientific, are the only ones that
have acted throughout the history of the
universe (not scientific). “Scientific
cosmology” is an oxymoran.

While the logical positivists have largely
passed from the scene, their belief that
the present is the key to the past is still
a factor. Historical artifacts are listed
as “fake” based on this belief. Historical
records are “myths”. Which is more
trustworthy: modern theories concerning the
past, or the actual observations of the
past that were recorded in art or written
documents?

Which is a more trustworthy indicator of an
ancient language: modern theories about
what moderns think the language should have
been like, or surviving documents written
in that language? Which is a better
indicator of Biblical Hebrew: the
postulated proto-Semitic, or the surviving
documents written in Biblical Hebrew?

You wrote:
> you had better conclude that it is impossible to say anything about
> Hebrew except what is immediately deducible from the surviving texts.

I think what is deducible from
surviving texts is more accurate
than that based on a theory
derived from a proposition,
especially a proposition that
I believe is invalid.

Karl W. Randolph.
--
___________________________________________________________
Sign-up for Ads Free at Mail.com
http://promo.mail.com/adsfreejump.htm





Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page