Biblical Hebrew Forum

[Yitzhak Sapir <yitzhaksapir AT gmail.com>]

On 9/19/05, Karl Randolph wrote:

> That method, as defined by Dr. G.G.
> Simpson et. al., limited science to the study of observable
> phenomena where the observations must be repeatable.
> If a study does not meet both criteria, it cannot be
> scientific. Then Dr. Simpson defined evolution as the
> belief that all life descended from simple common
> ancestors by natural means over long periods of time. By
> definition, this is inobservable. 

How do you define "observation"?  Is particle physics a 
science because we can't observe the quarks with our
own eyes?

> Similarly, no mountain of data from cognate languages
> will sway me as long as certain questions remain
> unanswered. 

You can't claim this is the issue until you've looked at the
evidence.  Right now, you refuse to look, no matter the
reason.  And really, it seems to me that the reason is that
you made an assumption regarding the roots of Hebrew 
being unique, spent a lot of time constructing a dictionary,
and now do not want to review that initial assumption which
was never based on anything more than your personal 
belief in it, without evidence, but which will effectively mean
the dictionary is erroneous in many places.  No wonder you
don't want to reconsider it or even devote time to reviewing
the evidence.

> First, why should be assume that if certain
> patterns exist in cognate languages, that they were
> originally in Biblical Hebrew and not merely imported into
> post Biblical Hebrew? 

When you understand the breadth of the evidence, you'll
understand why.  It also doesn't explain how the Shin/Sin
difference would be imported without importing the
associated phonetic values.

> You mentioned similarities between Ugaritic and Arabic; 
> seeing as both had northern Semitic origins, what's to 
> prevent their similarities having a common source, one 
> not shared by Biblical Hebrew, or even early Aramaic? 

Arabic is not Northern Semitic.  Hebrew and Aramaic 
are closer to Ugaritic and Phoenician than they are to 
Arabic.  Do you want to now reclassify Arabic and 
Ugaritic, two languages you haven't studied and 
know little about as a separate branch independent of
Hebrew and Aramaic?  You can propose a lot of things.
The question is not what you propose when you are
oblivious to the evidence.  But what you propose when
you are fully aware of it.

> You are making assumptions that I don't share.

You're the one assuming that each root must be uniquely
represented graphically.  I'm not assuming anything.  I'm
letting the linguistic evidence suggest the most plausible
answer.

> > The scrolls have the Massoretic text only.  But reading them
> > without the Massoretic system is not "good form."  In fact, a
> > good case can be made that you're supposed to read them
> > with the Aramaic targum interspaced and some early
> > manuscripts with Massoretic cantillation have the Torah
> > interspaced with Aramaic targum.
> >
> Were these latter scrolls for worship, or aids for study
> only? I seem to recall an earlier discussion that claimed
> that the DSS often added materes lectiones as study
> aids, but the official scrolls in the temple tended to
> leave them out. So likewise, the examples you give are
> for study, not worship.

Most likely, there were for worship if one has to choose
either "worship" or "study aid".  There are no official scrolls
from the Temple.  Any suggestion about "the official scrolls
in the Temple" is based on what the suggestor thinks and
not on any evidence from a Temple.  Particularly, I would
think that the Samaritan Temple had those mater lectiones
in official scrolls.

> Assuming that that wikipedia article is accurate, we find
> that the Arabs originally wrote in other languages, in the
> same manner as Europeans wrote in Latin rather than
> their vernaculars for centuries. When the Arabs for
> religious reasons wrote large documents in Arabic, they
> had the graphemes to indicate their recognized
> phonemes. Since then, has their spelling frozen?

Note where it speaks of "Pre-Islamic Arabic Inscriptions."
"They mostly do not use dots."  The list that follows shows
that Arabic was written over several centuries in this way.  And
you don't know that Arabic wasn't widely written this way, just
on perishable materials.

> > You don't know how Hebrew was spelled in the time of Moses and
> > it is not "historically attested" then, whenever you think Moses lived.
> >
> We simply have to trust the scribes, that they accurately
> transmitted the text. If we can't trust the scribes, then we
> should shut the door on the study of Biblical Hebrew, and
> claim that detailed study of Hebrew starts with the DSS.

Serious detailed study of Hebrew does begin with the DSS,
and that does not mean that we should "shut the door on
the study of Biblical Hebrew."  But if you trust the scribes
to transmit the text, why don't you trust the readers to 
transmit the vocalization?

> That these major documents from the dawn of alphabetic
> writing when graphemes were freely added or subtracted
> to fit the spoken language, their use of 22 graphemes is
> evidence that the language originally had 22 recognized
> consonantal phonemes. Just as Arabic when the first
> major documents were written in it, it had the graphemes
> to indicate its 28 consonantal phonemes, so Torah's 22
> graphemes indicate its original linguistic structure for
> the time of the writing.

You don't know when the first major documents were written
in Arabic, and you don't know that graphemes were freely 
added or subtracted in Semitic languages.  Those are 
assumptions you are making and which have no basis in
evidence.

> To summarize, data are useless unless they can be
> integrated into a theoretical construct. If the data can be
> integrated into more than one theoretical construct, then
> the question becomes which is the correct theoretical
> construct? The answer may be a third theoretical construct
> that neither of the first two considered.

Read the evidence then you can see which constructs you
can fit them into.

> You start with the theory that the later writing with
> indicators for more than the 22 consonantal phonemes
> show that these extra phonemes always existed in the
> language.

Again, that's a misrepresentation for what I wrote.  I use
the writing side by side with comparison to other languages
that are distantly related, after comparing a very large
number of combined roots.

> I claim that starting with the returnees from the
> Babylonian Captivity that they bastardized a language
> that they did not natively speak, but one that they used in
> the same manner as Latin in the medieval period. Already
> by the time of the LXX the pronunciation no longer
> reflected Biblical Hebrew, rather closer to the Aramaic of
> the period.

You claim this apparently not knowing Aramaic and
definitely not having studied Official or Qumran Aramaic.

> Without access to native speakers from the
> relevant periods, we cannot answer which theory is
> correct. Both theories provide for a consistent integration
> of the data. That your theory is today more widely held
> does not mean that it is correct.

So long as you don't look at the evidence, you can't 
suggest your theory is an alternative.  You know, I
always find that after looking at an analysis of the
evidence, I usually have to adjust my theory somehow.
It can be little, it can be a lot, but my theories always
become more robust as a result.  You've admitted there
is evidence but you don't have time to look at it.  You
can't just pretend it isn't there.

Yitzhak Sapir