b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Biblical Hebrew Forum

List archive

Re: [b-hebrew] Re: b-hebrew Digest, Vol 28, Issue 30

From: "Heard, Christopher" <Christopher.Heard AT pepperdine.edu>
To: b-hebrew <b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org>
Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] Re: b-hebrew Digest, Vol 28, Issue 30
Date: Sun, 1 May 2005 16:06:16 -0700

John,

Try this post from the list some time ago:
https://lists.ibiblio.org/sympa/arc/b-hebrew/2003-December/016804.html

Chris H.

On May 1, 2005, at 4:05 PM, John Gray wrote:

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"

Ð¼ÑfÐºÐ° 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?Ð°Ð·Ð¼Ð¸Ð½Ð°Ñ,ÑO (make softer). Ð¼ÑfÐºÐ° as torment is from mit - mot

root, as in

Ð¼ÑfÑ,Ð¸Ñ,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
****************************************

_______________________________________________
b-hebrew mailing list
b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew

--
R. Christopher Heard
Assistant Professor of Religion
Pepperdine University
Malibu, California 90263-4352
http://faculty.pepperdine.edu/cheard
http://www.iTanakh.org
http://www.semioticsandexegesis.info

[b-hebrew] Re: b-hebrew Digest, Vol 28, Issue 30, John Gray, 05/01/2005
- Re: [b-hebrew] Re: b-hebrew Digest, Vol 28, Issue 30, Heard, Christopher, 05/01/2005