Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

b-hebrew - Re: [b-hebrew] XSD

b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Biblical Hebrew Forum

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: Peter Kirk <peterkirk AT qaya.org>
  • To: bill.rea AT canterbury.ac.nz
  • Cc: b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
  • Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] XSD
  • Date: Thu, 01 Sep 2005 12:13:22 +0100

On 31/08/2005 21:57, Bill Rea wrote:

...

While you claim ``Truth is not decided by popular vote, nor even by
scholarly consensus'' in reality, in many cases, we cannot distinquish
been accepted truth and absolute truth except from some priviledged
vantage point in the future. ...


In many cases, I agree, but not in all cases. An obvious example is when a researcher makes a new discovery of some "truth" which disagrees with the common consensus. To start with, the researcher knows that their new "truth" is true, but it is not the majority opinion. And this continues to be true for whatever time it takes for that new "truth" to be published and widely accepted.

For most scientific discoveries nowadays that time is now rather short, simply because for financial reasons most of them are made by teams within the recognised academic community - except I suppose for discoveries which are not published e.g. for security reasons. (The majority believed that British WWII pilots were effective because they ate carrots to improve their night vision - because the real reason, radar, was kept secret.)

But in subjects like language and history it is still possible for real discoveries to be made by lone researchers who can find it very difficult to publish their findings in respected journals - especially if the findings conflict with academic orthodoxy. And, although many such discoveries are spurious, some of them are genuine, and known to be genuine by the researcher and anyone they can personally persuade, but are still rejected or ignored by the academic community, at least for a long time.

I don't say this to support Karl's particular theories about XSD etc. But in principle he and others like him can make real discoveries. So we shouldn't answer him along the lines of "you can't possibly be right because lone researchers are never right and the academic establishment is never wrong". Instead we need to answer him with good arguments from the Hebrew - and if we can't find them, accept the possibility that he might be right.

...

This is circular. You have to already know the potential range of
meanings a word can take before you can determine precisely how
it functions in a particular context. For example take Gen 24:63.
I don't have my Hebrew Bible at work so I can't transliterate the
Hebrew word, but I'm sure list members can find it.

Gen 24:63 Isaac went out to meditate in the field toward evening;

It is well known the word translated here as meditate has an unknown
meaning. We assume he's going something spiritual, but an assumption
is just something you believe without any evidence. There is a huge
range of things Isaac could have gone out into the field to do. ...


I don't think this is a good example. The rendering "meditate" is based on a very plausible argument that LF&W.XA or LASUAH here is an infinitive construct form of the well known verb &YX "meditate". The vav where a yod might be expected may be a variant form, because these "hollow" verbs tend to vary between vav and yod "fillings", or it may be textual corruption. LXX ADOLESCHSAI may support this interpretation.

--
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: 7.0.344 / Virus Database: 267.10.18/86 - Release Date: 31/08/2005





Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page