Biblical Hebrew Forum

["John Gray" <jgray AT lfmp.com.au>]

I wonder if someone may be so kind as to refer me to somewhere I can
understand how Hebrew is transliterated into "English"alphabet,  as used in
the latest post - John Gray
----- Original Message ----- 
From: <b-hebrew-request AT lists.ibiblio.org>
To: <b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org>
Sent: Friday, April 29, 2005 2:00 AM
Subject: b-hebrew Digest, Vol 28, Issue 30


> Send b-hebrew mailing list submissions to
> b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
>
> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew
> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
> b-hebrew-request AT lists.ibiblio.org
>
> You can reach the person managing the list at
> b-hebrew-owner AT lists.ibiblio.org
>
> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
> than "Re: Contents of b-hebrew digest..."
>
>
> Today's Topics:
>
>    1. Punishment for sins "Samuel" (tladatsi AT charter.net)
>    2. PQD in English in 1 Sam 15  (tladatsi AT charter.net)
>    3. Re: The mystery of vav-consequtive (Rolf Furuli)
>    4. Re: Why Semitic languages had no written vowels? (Peter Kirk)
>    5. Re: How does the eagle become new? (Peter Kirk)
>    6. Re: The mystery of vav-consequtive (Vadim Cherny)
>    7. Re: Why Semitic languages had no written vowels? (Vadim Cherny)
>    8. Re: Why Semitic languages had no written vowels? (Vadim Cherny)
>    9. Punishment and  book of Samuel (wattswestmaas)
>   10. Re: Why Semitic languages had no written vowels? (Vadim Cherny)
>   11. Re: Why Semitic languages had no written vowels? (Trevor Peterson)
>   12. Re: Hebrew spelling (Dr. Joel M. Hoffman)
>   13. The mystery of vav-consequtive (David Roth)
>   14. New version of Westminster Leningrad Codex (WLC) of 20 Apr
>       2005 now available. (Christopher V. Kimball)
>   15. Grammatical extension of Magnanimity??? (wattswestmaas)
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Message: 1
> Date: Thu, 28 Apr 2005 4:50:38 +0000
> From: <tladatsi AT charter.net>
> Subject: [b-hebrew] Punishment for sins "Samuel"
> To: <wattswestmaas AT eircom.net>
> Cc: b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
> Message-ID: <41dmfb$q7jmns AT mxip06a.cluster1.charter.net>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
>
> Chris,
>
> Way back when, the original question, or challange posed
> was: *were there any examples in the OT of later
> generations being punished for the sins of an earlier
> generation (sins of the father being visited on the
> children)* as described in Ex 34:7. I offered these two
> examples (1 Sam 15 and 2 Sam 21) were this occurred.
>
> I did not claim that this punishment was *unjust* or *
> unfair* or question the ethics or equity of punishing later
> generations for the actions of earlier generations in any
> way.  I merely say that that these two stories are examples
> of this sort of punishment.
>
> Jack Tladatsi
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 2
> Date: Thu, 28 Apr 2005 5:53:35 +0000
> From: <tladatsi AT charter.net>
> Subject: [b-hebrew] PQD in English in 1 Sam 15
> To: <b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org>
> Message-ID: <41dmfb$q7n541 AT mxip06a.cluster1.charter.net>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
>
> The thrust of the story of 1 Sam 15 is that Ameleq fought
> with Isreal when Moses lead Isreal out of Egypt.  This
> created sin that was unatoned.  Two hundred years later,
> God decided it was time to settle the score.  God commands
> Saul (through Samuel) to attack and kill every single
> member of the Ameleq tribe in their city.  God is dis-
> satisfied with the status quo and takes the initiative to
> bring things into balance.  1 Sam 15:2 reads
>
> e&-r$) le) r&yl qelm( h&( -r$) te) yTdqP tw)bc hwhy rm)hK
>  .eyrcMm wtl(B jrDB  wl
>
> How do we translate *paqadetiy*?  I will punish, I will
> visit iniquity upon, I will settle accounts, I will pay
> attention to, I will charge guilt, I have remembered, I
> have marked, I have considered - are all options that have
> been offered.  Does changing the translation of the this
> one verb change the general thrust of the story any?
>
> In my opinion it does not.  In the story God wants justice
> for the sin of Ameleq against Isreal. The sin creates a
> debt to God that has not been paid. Whether it is 2 years
> old or 200 years old does not matter.  The way to *settle
> the books* (NLT's translation) is to kill all of Ameleq,
> from old men to infants as well as destory their goods.
>
> No matter how *paqadetiy* is translated, the point of the
> story is the same.  If you sin against God, you will create
> a debt to God that someone must pay. That may be you, or it
> may be your decendants or it may be your compatriots. It
> may be now  or it may be many generations later. This is
> the same perspective in 2 Sam 21 (where the verb pkd was
> not used).
>
> Having said all of the above, punish seems to be the most
> direct translation in the context of this story.
>
> Jack Tladatsi
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 3
> Date: Thu, 28 Apr 2005 08:13:11 +0200
> From: Rolf Furuli <furuli AT online.no>
> Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] The mystery of vav-consequtive
> To: b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
> Message-ID: <42707EF7.2020207 AT online.no>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
>
> Dear Ken,
>
> I agree with you regarding Sperber's conclusions, and I mention this in
> my dissertation as well.  The primary advantage of Sperber's grammar for
> the student of Hebrew verbs, is that the author presents so much data
> from the Hebrew Bible that contradicts the standard thinking.  The
> second advantage is that he draws conclusions that contradict the
> established tradition.  We should not study the sources in order to find
> conclusions that we can adopt.  But we should study the data material
> and test the conclusions.
>
> I agree with you that Cook and Smith are worth reading. Nontheless, Cook
> does not disinguish between past reference/past tense and future
> reference/future tense, something which in my view is a flaw and which
> can question his conclusions. Smith's conclusions are based on the
> presupposition that imperfect consecutive do exist and that
> prefix-forms+waw in the cognate languages can be interpreted as
> "converted" imperfects rather than as imperfects with the conjunction
> waw prefixed.  This is of course questionable, and therefore his
> conclusions regarding the existence of particular examples are less than
> certain.
>
> Another important source is L. McFall: "The Enigma of the Hebrew Verbal
> System" (1982). Sheffield:The Almond Press.  The author outlines the
> different views regarding consecutive imperfect from the Masortes and up
> to 1954. All the different data he presents show the shaky foundation of
> the waw consecutive hypothesis.
>
>
> Best regards
>
> Rolf Furuli
> University of Oslo
>
> Ken Penner wrote:
>
> >Rolf wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> >>In addition to Cook and Smith, who give much insight into the
> >>issue, I
> >>recommend A. Sperber: "A Historical Grammar of Biblical
> >>Hebrew". 1966: E. J.
> >>Brill.  Reading Sperber will help against circularity and traditional
> >>thinking.
> >>
> >>
> >
> >You seriously recommend Sperber's work? Certainly it is an example of
> >non-traditional thinking! Granted, I use it for the primary data
collected
> >there, but not for his conclusions regarding the historical development
of
> >Hebrew, especially its tenses. He certainly would not have agreed with
your
> >aspect-based system, would he? IIRC, he saw two distinct dialects each
with
> >one "tense", and when the literary output of these two dialects merged
(in
> >the Biblical literature), it appeared that there were two "tenses." I
think
> >we've come a long way since he formulated these ideas.
> >
> >Ken Penner
> >McMaster/Hebrew
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 4
> Date: Thu, 28 Apr 2005 12:31:19 +0100
> From: Peter Kirk <peterkirk AT qaya.org>
> Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] Why Semitic languages had no written vowels?
> To: Kevin Riley <klriley AT alphalink.com.au>
> Cc: b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
> Message-ID: <4270C987.8010205 AT qaya.org>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
>
> On 28/04/2005 01:38, Kevin Riley wrote:
>
> >The suggestion that the vowels may have been left out specifically
because
> >they were variable is a good suggestion also. If the Canaanite dialects
were
> >like most modern languages [Arabic is a good example] then it is likely
that
> >the consonants differed in predictable ways but not necessarily the
vowels. ...
> >
> >
>
> This may be true of Arabic, and it may have been true of the Canaanite
> dialects which were the immediate ancestors of Arabic as well as Hebrew,
> but is it really true of "most modern languages"? My impression, based
> on knowledge of Indo-European and Turkic as well as Semitic languages,
> is that in most languages (although Semitic languages may be a partial
> exception) vowel phonemes are no less distinctive and no less stable
> than consonant phonemes.
>
> Note that even in Arabic there is considerable variation in
> pronunciation of certain consonants, e.g. jim (gim, in Egypt etc cf.
> Hebrew gimel from which it is derived) and qof.
>
> -- 
> Peter Kirk
> peter AT qaya.org (personal)
> peterkirk AT qaya.org (work)
> http://www.qaya.org/
>
>
>
> -- 
> No virus found in this outgoing message.
> Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
> Version: 7.0.308 / Virus Database: 266.10.4 - Release Date: 27/04/2005
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 5
> Date: Thu, 28 Apr 2005 12:42:07 +0100
> From: Peter Kirk <peterkirk AT qaya.org>
> Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] How does the eagle become new?
> To: Deborah Millier <deborahmillier AT yahoo.com>
> Cc: b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
> Message-ID: <4270CC0F.3080808 AT qaya.org>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed
>
> On 28/04/2005 03:42, Deborah Millier wrote:
>
> >Dear List Members,
> >
> >
> >TIT:XAD"$   KANE$ER   N:(W.RFY:KIY
> >
> >". . .your youth becomes new like the eagle" (Psa.
> >103:5).
> >
> >
> >The one addressed is the writer's NEPE$, I see that.
> >But I can't find a satisfying point of comparison
> >between NEPE$ and NE$ER, save the near transposition
> >of letters.  :-)
> >
> >How does an (the?) eagle become new, hence a NEPE$'s
> >youth become new?
> >
> >
> >
> It is literally "the eagle" with the Hebrew article - you have omitted
> the dageshes which confirm this in your transcription. But presumably
> "the eagle" in the sense of a typical individual eagle, rather than a
> specific bird.
>
> I think this is a good example of how Hebrew poetry, and indeed poetry
> in any language, needs to be appreciated rather than analysed. For
> surely the general message of this is obvious, even if strict logic is
> not observed. But if you need to analyse it, as you might for
> translation, I would suggest that here we really have two interleaved
> sentences: "your youth will be renewed, you will become like an eagle".
> An alternative with a subtly different meaning, which I found in a
> translation, might be "you will be renewed, you will become like a young
> eagle".
>
> -- 
> Peter Kirk
> peter AT qaya.org (personal)
> peterkirk AT qaya.org (work)
> http://www.qaya.org/
>
>
>
> -- 
> No virus found in this outgoing message.
> Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
> Version: 7.0.308 / Virus Database: 266.10.4 - Release Date: 27/04/2005
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 6
> Date: Thu, 28 Apr 2005 15:04:14 +0300
> From: "Vadim Cherny" <VadimCherny AT mail.ru>
> Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] The mystery of vav-consequtive
> To: "Evgeny Ivanov" <evi7538 AT yahoo.com>, <b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org>
> Message-ID: <004f01c54beb$26d3f530$801ea8c0@Vadim>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
>
> That's all scholasticism. Waw denotes the PT-FT tense shift. Later, a new
> grammatical structure (based on imperative) replaced it for the future
> tense, and wa- appeared as a symmetrical FT-PT shift instrument. Quite
> often, translators twist the waw to comply with preconceived meaning,
> creating these ideas of enigmatic and complex usage of waw, which is
rather
> straightforward.
>
> Vadim Cherny
>
>
> > I was thinking recently about the mystery of vav-consequtive. My
> understandning is that the first imperfect verb brings the reference point
> in time to the event of that first action, and then all consequtive verbs
> would be in the future as seen from that reference point in time. This is
a
> different sense of time compared to modern languages.
> >
> > Traditionally the imperfect verbs in vav-consequtive form are translated
> as perfect. However, if the above understanding of vav-consequtive is
> correct, the actual  time of their action with respect to the present
moment
> is unknow. It is unknown whether the action has been finished by now, or
it
> is still going to be finished. The only thing known for sure is that the
> action was not finished at the moment of the first action in the
> vav-consequtive sentence. So the form of the verbs (and time of actions)
in
> vav-consequtive form would rather be determined by exegesis and context.
> >
> > For example, in Genesis 2.1-2.3 the actions are translated in perfect
> form: "And the heaven and earth were finished". However, literal
translation
> would rather be that they are not finished at the time when the action of
> the first verb in the vav-chain happened (which is probably Gen1.1), but
> it's unknown whether they are finished by the present moment or not.
> >
> > Would you agree with this understandidng of vav-consequtive phenomenon?
> >
> >
> > Shalom,
> > Evgeny
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > __________________________________________________
> > Do You Yahoo!?
> > Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
> > http://mail.yahoo.com
> >
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 7
> Date: Thu, 28 Apr 2005 15:13:19 +0300
> From: "Vadim Cherny" <VadimCherny AT mail.ru>
> Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] Why Semitic languages had no written vowels?
> To: "Peter Kirk" <peterkirk AT qaya.org>
> Cc: b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
> Message-ID: <009101c54bed$531d03f0$801ea8c0@Vadim>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
>
>
>
> > >мÑfка as flour is a new word. The original root is min - mon - mok -
muk.
> I'm
> > >not an expert in Russian linguistics, but the root is the same "min" as
> in
> > >Ñ?азминаÑ,ÑO (make softer). мÑfка as torment is from mit - mot
root, as in
> > >мÑfÑ,иÑ,ÑO.
> >
> > Thank you. But the age and derivation of these words is irrelevant.
>
> Irrelevant?? What is a value of an example of mutated words?
>
> > >There is a huge difference between unmarked stress and vowels.
> > >Unmarked stress differentiation appeared in highly developed language
> with
> > >fluent speakers, while unmarked vowels should be suitable for humans
just
> > >beginning to talk.
> >
> > Are you talking about children? Or are you claiming that the Hebrews and
> > other Semites of the biblical period had only just evolved to a level of
> > intelligence at which they were able to talk?
>
> Speech is a physical ability, not directly related to intelligence. Early
> humans had limited speech abilities.
>
> What it all boils to, is that dropping vowels in writing is highly
unlikely.
> Not impossible, but bizarre, meaningless, and unlikely. In the end,
nothing
> is impossible. But if the earliest Semitic speakers had diversified
vowels,
> it is highly implausible that they omitted them in writing.
>
> And I suggest a mechanism of a single vowel sound plausibly evolving into
> all modern vowels.
>
> Vadim Cherny
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 8
> Date: Thu, 28 Apr 2005 15:38:17 +0300
> From: "Vadim Cherny" <VadimCherny AT mail.ru>
> Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] Why Semitic languages had no written vowels?
> To: "Kevin Riley" <klriley AT alphalink.com.au>,
> <b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org>
> Message-ID: <009e01c54bef$75713eb0$801ea8c0@Vadim>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
>
> Vowel variation between languages cannot plausibly explain absence of
> written vowels. By this token, definite article should be omitted, too,
> since it is different in Hebrew and Aramaic.
>
> Modern languages generally omit the vowels (usually only allophones)
> non-essential semantically.
> Few people comfortably read shorthand writing, and those people have
highly
> developed reading abilities. This was not the case with ancients. The
better
> analogy for them is students - for whom even Hebrew books add vowels.
>
> A major reason for vowelless shorthand writing in modern languages is
great
> suprasufficiency of consonants. You wouldn't mistake a root dffclt, though
> still open to various readings. But Semitic short roots are less
comfotrable
> vowelless.
>
> While we cannot definitely rule out or prove some explanation, we can
> consider it plausible or not. Shorthand writing is quite implausible. It
is
> more advanced stage of writing, not suitable for primitive people.
>
> Vadim Cherny
>
>
> > The suggestion that the vowels may have been left out specifically
because
> > they were variable is a good suggestion also. If the Canaanite dialects
> were
> > like most modern languages [Arabic is a good example] then it is likely
> that
> > the consonants differed in predictable ways but not necessarily the
> vowels.
> > As, in context, the vowels for any dialect could be supplied with a
> > reasonable degree of accuracy, writing them may have actually been a
> > disadvantage. I am not convinced that having a grapheme that may have
> > multiple pronunciations is in any way an advance on not having a
grapheme
> at
> > all. There are still modern languages which do not indicate all the
> vowels,
> > or fail to distinguish between different vowels, as they are predictable
> > from context.  Which shows that even people who usually write vowels do
> not
> > feel the need to write them just because they exist.
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 9
> Date: Thu, 28 Apr 2005 13:42:19 +0100
> From: "wattswestmaas" <wattswestmaas AT eircom.net>
> Subject: [b-hebrew] Punishment and  book of Samuel
> To: "B-Hebrew" <b-hebrew AT lists.Ibiblio.org>
> Message-ID: <FAEIIKJEKGHNGLFNMDBCMELNCDAA.wattswestmaas AT eircom.net>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
>
> HALLO GEORGE, YOU WROTE::
> =============================================================
> Chris said -----  You state "you can not possibly know the crimes that
were
> being committed
> by the Amalekites at this stage" and "HOW MANY ISRAELITES DO YOU THINK .
> . . ."  This is all supposition.  All we know is what the writer
> presented in the text.  This is the picture he wished for us to have.  We
> can make all of the suppositions we want, but these aren't worth the time
> it takes to write this.
>
> george
> gfsomsel
> =============================================================
>
> RESPONSE FROM CHRIS:
>
> George, firstly it is already a supposition for some that INNOCENT people
> are punished for the sins of the fathers -- Then to support this with the
> situations in Samuel.  I am bringing in other LOGICAL variables to suppose
> that this is not what it seems. FOR EXAMPLE:  we are told that Moses slew
an
> Egyptian, right?  WHY?  What led him to do that?  How many times had he
seen
> other Israelites beaten by Egyptian task masters.  What struggles and
> thoughts and inner wranglings had led up to this precise moment in time?
> All this is jolly good suposition based upon an understanding of human
> nature.  We have every possibility to paint a portrait of Moses's
emotional
> turmoil that he MUST have experienced for a few years or a few months.  If
> we follow your line of reasoning and portray Moses ONLY from what the
writer
> has told us then we are truly left with a very strange character indeed.
He
> is a prince, he kills an egyptian. that is rather dull.
>
> There are NO WRITTEN RECORDS that tell us why the norsemen harrassed
> Ireland. BUT with careful analysis of their way of life and culture that
> reason can be very accurately SUPPOSED.
>
>
> Best regards, chris. Ireland
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 10
> Date: Thu, 28 Apr 2005 15:49:05 +0300
> From: "Vadim Cherny" <VadimCherny AT mail.ru>
> Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] Why Semitic languages had no written vowels?
> To: "Karl Randolph" <kwrandolph AT email.com>, "Hebrew"
> <b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org>
> Message-ID: <00a301c54bf0$b0491160$801ea8c0@Vadim>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
>
> Karl,
>
> We discussed it several times, and you know that I disagree completely.
> I taught speed reading years ago, a sort of reading few thousands
(actually,
> almost hundred thousand in one case) words per minute, and found out that
> people understand text when they remember just 2-3% of it, and 25-27% is
> subjectively considered "photographic."
> When you speak about few ambiguities, you imply that the text is
> understandable. But you cannot distinguish piel from paal.
>
> Vadim Cherny
>
> > Likewise, a native speaker in ancient Hebrew could read fluently with
few
> ambiguities a vowelless text.
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 11
> Date: Thu, 28 Apr 2005 09:20:53 -0400
> From: "Trevor Peterson" <abuian AT access4less.net>
> Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] Why Semitic languages had no written vowels?
> To: <b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org>
> Message-ID: <4270e335.58.6c8.10904 AT access4less.net>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
>
> ----- Original Message Follows -----
> From: "UUC" <unikom_ug AT mail.ru>
> To: "Trevor Peterson" <abuian AT access4less.net>,
> <b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org>
> Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] Why Semitic languages had no written
> vowels?
> Date: Thu, 28 Apr 2005 15:42:50 +0300
>
> > I don't exclude that some vowelless script predates
> > cuneiform. I know this is an unorthodox view. But we have
> > too little epigraphic material to be certain otherwise.
>
> True, but we do have epigraphic West Semitic, and its
> derivation from Egyptian is fairly well established. If our
> comparatively significant body of evidence for Egyptian and
> cuneiform script development makes it nearly impossible to
> say which came first, then it seems like a stretch to
> suppose that West Semitic script predates either one. But
> even if it did originate before, why wouldn't they have
> chosen a different writing system as the language changed?
> If Ugaritic was being written side-by-side with logosyllabic
> Akkadian, and as you say at this point the vowels were
> differentiated, why would they not have been inspired to
> write vowels? It seems to me that your theory requires an
> explanation of this point. If a vowelless writing system can
> only be explained by an absence of vowel differentiation,
> then significant phonemic differentiation of vowels would
> have created enormous pressure to adapt the writing system.
> And the contact with cuneiform would have compounded this
> pressure, because it was clearly evident that a writing
> system could accommodate vowels. Indeed, Ugaritic script
> does seem to have been influenced by cuneiform in its
> wedge-formation. So why not orthographic modifications?
> Vowel writing did eventually develop in the form of matres
> lectionis, but in Phoenician, for instance, it never seems
> to have caught on. Why not, if it is so inconceivable that a
> vowelless writing system would work for a language that
> differentiates vowels?
>
> > Also, cuneiform is reasonably developed writing. Syllabic
> > cuneiform, at any rate, is quite late.
>
> Quite late with reference to what? The origin of language?
> If that's the issue, we don't have any evidence of writing
> that goes back anywhere near the beginning.
>
> Trevor Peterson
> CUA/Semitics
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 12
> Date: Thu, 28 Apr 2005 09:16:01 -0400 (EDT)
> From: "Dr. Joel M. Hoffman" <joel AT exc.com>
> Subject: [b-hebrew] Re: Hebrew spelling
> To: b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
> Message-ID: <m1DR8s5-000GhjC AT exc.com>
>
> >Um, I have to squawk a bit here; the KH ending of the DSS is the oldest
form
> >we have, since the K- ending in "Biblical Hebrew" is found in the
medieval
> >Masoretic manuscripts and we don't have a clue which spelling
predominated
> >in, say pre-exilic Hebrew writing.  So it is possible that the DSS
spelling
> >is in fact the older one and the short version is the "late invention."
It's
> >also possible that the DSS spelling is an artificial invention to aid in
> >pronunciation; the scrolls include many variations in spelling that seem
to
> >be designed for just such a purpose.  So comparing DSS Hebrew to
"Biblical
> >Hebrew" (i.e. Masoretic Hebrew) doesn't get us anywhere in terms of
dating
> >texts.
>
> Again, yes and no.
>
> Yes, we have to be careful, becuase, as we both know, we don't have
> any substantial mss. from before the DSS.  (Indeed, it is one of my
> frustrations that so much "academic" work wrongly equates Masoretic
> Hebrew with biblical Hebrew.)
>
> But no, because:
>
> 1.  Not all of the DSS are written in what most people call "DSS
>     Hebrew."  The biblical material tends to be written in the older
>     script and with the older (canonical, a.k.a Masoretic) spelling.
>     That is, while we frequently see -KH as a suffix in the
>     non-biblical DSS, we seldom see it, for example, in 11Q1
>     ("PaleoLev"), we find a text remarkably close to the Masoretic
>     text.
>
> 2.  The sort of changes that we see from Biblical Hebrew to Late
>     Biblical Hebrew to DSS Hebrew to Rabbinic Hebrew are exactly the
>     same sort of changes we see in Modern Hebrew.  There seems to be
>     something natural about the progression.
>
> So while I suppose it's possible that the DSS-ites wrote Leviticus and
> other biblical material with new spelling, and then wrote their
> commentaries on it in an older spelling (and in so doing went in the
> opposite direction of Modern Hebrew), it seems exceedingly unlikely.
>
> -Joel
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 13
> Date: Thu, 28 Apr 2005 09:36:39 -0400
> From: David Roth <daroth AT JTSA.EDU>
> Subject: [b-hebrew] The mystery of vav-consequtive
> To: b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
> Message-ID: <000201c54bf7$4ea86030$0302a8c0@W2KLAP>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
>
> Peter Kirk quoted Rolf Furuli:
> > ... On the basis of years of textual studies, he was able to show that
> > the authors of Biblia Hebraica in many cases had changed the Hebrew
> > text in order to conform with their grammatical views (we find the
> > same in the apparatus of BHS regarding weyiqtols in "wrong" places
> > etc.). ...
>
> And commented:
> Are you, or Sperber, claiming that there are cases where the BHS authors
> have departed from the text (rather than the apparatus) of their base
> manuscript, Leningradensis, to conform to grammatical views? That is a
> grave charge - at least if it applies to cases where Leningradensis is
> clear, rather than where it is damaged and a reconstruction must be
> made.
>
>
> Sperber is referring to Biblia Hebraica (either 1 or 2), but certainly not
BHS.   Notice that Rolf Furuli cites "Biblia Hebraica" (as opposed to the
BHS apparatus, on which he comments later) regarding Sperber's claim
(whether they emend the text "inside" or suggest emendations in the notes,
his point is the same: that their preconceived grammatical assumptions lead
them to deny the evidence before them (the actual text), rather than
deriving the grammar from the data).  I believe the difference between the
early BH (1-2) and BHK (Kittel) and BHS is that the latter two are meant to
be diplomatic representations of the Leningrad Codex.
>
> To give just one example that I remember (correctly, I hope) from
Professor Sperber's work, he gives example after example of cases where 'el
and `al seem to have identical meanings, thus arguing against emending `al
to 'el when the meaning is clearly "to."  It seems that Rolf Furuli is
pointing out that a suggested emendation in the notes may have the same
methodological problems that Sperber noticed in BH; he does not seem to be
implying any dishonesty or misrepresentation on the part of the BHS editors.
>
> Since you mention Kirk Lowery's work with the electronic text of
Leningradensis, can anyone point to a statement of purpose for the project?
I have a couple of questions about it:
> 1) Will it include the Masorah?
> 2) Will this version have the rafe marks (it seems that any diplomatic
representation of L should have these).  It would be fairly easy to remove
them automatically for those who find them to be annoying.
>
> Best Regards,
> David Roth
>
> P.S. Anyone happen to have any second-hand copies of Sperber's works
they'd like to sell at a reasonable price?
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 14
> Date: Thu, 28 Apr 2005 11:38:53 -0400
> From: "Christopher V. Kimball" <mail AT cvkimball.com>
> Subject: [b-hebrew] New version of Westminster Leningrad Codex (WLC)
> of 20 Apr 2005 now available.
> To: b-hebrew <b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org>, "Christopher V. Kimball"
> <mail AT cvkimball.com>
> Message-ID: <4271038D.3050105 AT cvkimball.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
>
>
> Professor Lowery has graciously provided an updated version of the
> Westminster Leningrad Codex (WLC), wlc43-20050420.txt.  The Unicode/XML
> transcription of the WLC at
>
> http://www.cvkimball.com/Tanach/Tanach.xml .
>
> has been updated from the new version.  As always, changes often induce
> errors. Let me know if you have problems.
>
> A number of derivative works have been made from the site.  These works
> should include both the WLC date and the XML date, as defined in the
> "Technical" link, to avoid later confusion of versions.
>
> Chris Kimball
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 15
> Date: Thu, 28 Apr 2005 16:54:48 +0100
> From: "wattswestmaas" <wattswestmaas AT eircom.net>
> Subject: [b-hebrew] Grammatical extension of Magnanimity???
> To: "B-Hebrew" <b-hebrew AT lists.Ibiblio.org>
> Message-ID: <FAEIIKJEKGHNGLFNMDBCKELOCDAA.wattswestmaas AT eircom.net>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
>
> I really can not remember who what or where, it is just one of those
> thoughts that seem to pop up by asociation for some reason (that or old
> age)!  Anyway my question is this:  Is there any truth in this statement
> that -- 'JaH (as in yod heh and not the name of God) prefixed to a noun or
> suffixed(?) can be seen as a grammatical extension of magnanimity'?  If
this
> is totaly stupid please forgive me but I am sure that I read this
somewhere
> in some rabbinical literature.
>
> Thankyou,  Chris Watts.
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> _______________________________________________
> b-hebrew mailing list
> b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew
>
> End of b-hebrew Digest, Vol 28, Issue 30
> ****************************************