Biblical Hebrew Forum

["Karl Randolph" <kwrandolph AT email.com>]

Dear Harold: 
 
To me it appears that the reasons that the Aramaic meaning is 
considered also a Hebrew meaning is because: 
 
Mishnaic and later Hebrew had that meaning as an option (after Aramaic 
became the main spoken language among the peasants) 
 
Cognate languages have that as an option 
 
The LXX used it for some verses (after Aramaic became the main spoken 
language among the peasants) 
 
It seems to fit some verses (however, it appears forced in some of 
those verses and no more a better reading than as I understand them 
where it does not sound forced) 
 
Most scholars do not want to rock the boat (which usually can be career 
destroying) (My father just retired from academia, so I know how that 
racket runs. A person can make a discovery, rarely as early as an upper 
level undergrad, but needs to wait years before making it public, in 
other words, after he gets tenure if even then. The worst case I heard 
of was that of a young woman who, upon replicating her chief advisor's 
dissertation research to make a master's thesis, found her advisor had 
made a mistake: in order to get her master's degree she had to falsify 
the data. Similarly, peer reviewed journals often enforce the status 
quo, restricting original research, an important factor in the "publish 
or perish" millieu.). 
 
Well, I have no career to destroy, so I am willing to ask questions in 
writing, saying in this case that the emperor seems to have no 
clothing. But I take that on a case by case basis, not as a blanket 
statement. 
 
In closing, if you are unconvinced, you are unconvinced. I am 
unconvinced of the majority scholarly reading. It does not fit what I 
know of languages in general nor of Biblical Hebrew in particular. I am 
not here to enforce my understanding on others, but I will defend it 
unless you can give me good reasons not to. So far no one has. 
 
Karl W. Randolph. 
 
----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Harold R. Holmyard III" <hholmyard AT ont.com> 
 
> Dear Karl, 
>  
> ... 
>  
> HH: The problem with all this is that most  
> scholars disagree with you about XBL in Hebrew.  
> It seems almost unanimous. And the way you handle  
> verses with XBL at issue seems forced and  
> unconvincing to me. 
>  
>                                       Yours, 
>                                       Harold Holmyard 
-- 
_______________________________________________
Talk More, Pay Less with Net2Phone Direct(R), up to 1500 minutes free! 
http://www.net2phone.com/cgi-bin/link.cgi?143