Biblical Hebrew Forum

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

Yitzhak:

----- Original Message -----
From: "Yitzhak Sapir" <yitzhaksapir AT gmail.com>
> 
> On 10/28/05, Karl Randolph wrote:
> 
> > First, you are the only person I have interacted with who
> > makes the claim that "Biblical" Hebrew includes the
> > Masoretic points.
> 
> You have a Biblical Hebrew grammar book without
> Massoretic vocalization?

That is irrelevant. All the grammars I have seen are for 
beginning students with the expectation that they will 
never graduate to reading Hebrew without points. None 
that I have seen will prepare a student for the variations 
in the consonantal text found in Tanakh. None prepares 
for the fact that the points are demonstrably wrong on 
occasion. In short, the grammars teach towards an ideal 
that is not always found in fact.

>   Biblical Hebrew is not the Hebrew
> spoken during the Biblical period (only).

I am not the only one who disagrees with you on this.

>   Biblical Hebrew is
> a wide-ranging term that refers to the Hebrew of the Bible.
> This is a layered construct of which one layer is definitely
> the Massoretic vocalization.  In general, that is what most
> people learn initially as "Biblical Hebrew."  Anyone who wants
> to go earlier than that must deal with the DSS/Hexapla/LXX
> variants and the epigraphic evidence from the Biblical period.

That is exactly where I"m going. Or rather, I'm trying to go 
before LXX if possible.

> So the "Biblical" period is the period described by the
> Bible, and  "Biblical Hebrew" is the language of the Bible,

Exactly! The Masoretes were a millennium later.

> which is why Biblical Hebrew contains Massoretic vocalization
> that is actually later than the Biblical period.

Where's the logic in this claim?

The Masoretic pointing preserves one tradition that had 
developed over a millennium when there were no native 
speakers of Biblical Hebrew. Transliterations from other 
sources indicate that this was but one tradition among 
several.

>      But if you are
> using the Massoretic text, you are very much effectively
> bound to the Massoretic marks.

Who says?

If you can point me to a consonantal text that is both better 
and older than the Masoretic text, I will gladly use that 
instead. In the meanwhile, an unpointed Masoretic text 
is better than nothing.

>      That way you know you are
> using a complete system.  A different method would be to
> analyze the DSS Biblical scrolls in their entirety.  That would
> also provide you a rather complete system.  And a last
> method is to accept all available evidence, including the
> Massoretic text, but also its variants.

Where is that available on line so that those who neither 
live in an area where complete theological libraries are 
available nor can afford to buy one can see it?

>     But a system that
> simply arbitrarily ignores the Massoretic marks because of
> the "DSS" while ignoring the rest of the DSS evidence is
> methodologically flawed.
> 
But it is better than nothing.

> > The way I was taught is that the Masoretic points are
> > merely study aids, and that the authentic way to read
> > Tanakh, i.e. the way it was read in Biblical times, is
> > without points. Hence synagog scrolls lack points.
> 
> The "authentic" way to read the Tanakh is to read it the
> way it had been traditionally read.  That is, go to the
> synagogue and have the Reader teach you to read it.
> Originally, this was an oral tradition, but the Massoretes
> put this tradition down in written form.
> 
Notice, if the teacher in this method is not a native 
speaker, but speaks using a foreign accent, the student 
will learn an inauthentic pronunciation. The Masoretes 
followed a millennium of foreign accented teachers.

> > > Can you cite a place where the spelling )$ is used for
> > > man in the Bible? Or H) for "he"?
> > >
> > I just checked photos I have of both documents: where is
> > H) used for "he" on either document? Does )$ on the
> > Siloam stone refer to "man" or "fire" of an iron tool? Of
> > course you can't leave out the )$ in 2 Samuel 14:19.
> 
> H) is used in First Temple period documents such as the
> Mesha inscription among others.

The Mesha inscription is not Hebrew. There are several 
differences between it and Hebrew even though Moabite 
and Hebrew were close cognates.

Which other documents do you refer to? Are they 
available online? Can we see them with a sharp image 
for independent confirmation of the claims? Or must we 
accept the scholars' opinions and a blurry image?

>    It is not used just in the
> Mesha inscription, but also in the Arad ostraca, so it is not
> a "Moabite feature."  )$ in 2 Samuel 14:19 is best left out
> since it is quite possibly a variant of "y$".  )$ in the Siloam
> inscription refers to "man."

"Fire" was used elsewhere, including Tanakh, to refer to 
the metal head of a tool or weapon. The Siloam inscription 
has it used in a context where "metal against metal" 
makes more sense than )$ meaning "man"

>      "Fire" is simply a forced and
> incorrect reading, especially in light of such words as
> "W)$ GD" in Mesha.
> 
"Mesha", see above.

> 
> > > > > ... I am not at odds with tradition,
> > > > > as you have suggested I am.
> > > > >
> > > > Where did I ever make such a claim?
> > >
> > > You wrote, among other places,  "It is your different set of
> > > presuppositions that makes you value cognate language
> > > study and diss the Biblical record."  Hopefully the links
> > > here provided will prevent future questions such as this one.
> > >
> > Granted what you do here is the same as others: the
> > Biblical record indicates that Moses wrote Torah around
> > 1400+ BC. There is no record of him using a different
> > alphabet than what we use today, other than a different
> > font face. You diss that record in favor of Ugaritic.
> 
> Your above statement there regarding the Biblical record
> is wrong, no matter how many times you claim it.

OK, when do *you* claim that Torah was written? 
Remember, in order to have a convincing argument, 
you need documents to back up your claim.

>     Rather,
> the Biblical record, read with your personal interpretation,
> indicates that Moses wrote the Torah around 1400+ BCE.
> Tradition claims Moses wrote the Torah vocalized with the
> Massoretic vocalization or their equivalents, including the
> Shin/Sin difference.  If the Biblical record and archaeological
> record can be said to not contradict Moses having written
> the Torah around 1400+ BCE, it definitely can't be said to
> contradict that Moses wrote the Torah around 1400+ BCE
> and vocalized with the Massoretic cantillation or their
> equivalents.  "You diss" the traditional claim, as well as
> the linguistic claim, in favor of your own personal invention.
> 
My "personal invention"? Wow, I'm impressed! I didn't 
realize that my influence went back centuries before my 
birth, to Bishop Usher and before.

Seriously, I think their dates are in the ballpark, "close 
enough for gummint work", thus can be used in a 
discussion.

As for the tradition concerning Moses' pronunciation, 
that's what I was taught in Hebrew class, but in light of 
transliterations and other sources, I don't see how that 
can be seriously maintained.

> > The reason you do is because of philosophical presupposition
> > that not everyone on this list shares,
> 
> No, there is an additional "philosophical presupposition" that
> you make in addition to the one you stated above: "Moses wrote
> the Torah in an alphabet that included only grapheme for each
> phoneme that were to be pronounced in reading the Torah."
> That is something most people in this list do not share, and at
> least James seems to have been convinced by the evidence
> I provided that this claim is false.

My claim is consistent with phonetic spelling, of which we 
have several examples from different time periods. The 
question then becomes, was Hebrew originally spelled 
phonetically or not? I say it was, you claim "No". You have 
no documented evidence to back up your claim 
concerning Hebrew. You claim that cognate languages 
provide that documentation, but that is a philosophical 
determination as long as there is no documentation from 
within Hebrew to back up that claim.

That my understanding is a minority position is irrelevant 
to the discussion. That you bring it up is a red herring 
logical fallacy.

>     This claim of yours is not
> shared either by any tradition, nor by any "authentic" reading
> of the Torah or Tanakh.  One can agree or disagree with
> Mosaic authorship or date, and still hold the Torah was not
> written in an alphabet that included all phonemes.  This is
> proven by tradition which claims exactly that.  This is why I
> say I am not at odds with tradition in this respect.  But you are.
> 
> ...
> 
> > But when you read an unpointed
> > text, you need to recognize that variant spelling for what
> > it is and means. Other examples include that the Hiphil
> > often lacks an internal Yod and a Waw can appear or
> > disappear separated by only a verse or two in the same
> > word. Thus the Siloam inscription contains no surprises,
> > no spellings I had not seen elsewhere before.
> 
> I think you are the one who doesn't recognize the variant
> spelling for what it is and isn't, as well as being not as
> perceptive to the differences if you just think they are "the
> same."  They are not the same.
> 
By your own admission, you have not done the study to 
back up the above claims.

> 
> > > 2) You have evidently claimed that many words were
> > > influenced by different words in Aramaic, so much so that
> > > a whole new phoneme (&in) developed to represent some
> > > words so influenced.
> 
> > Do you have any evidence against it?
> 
> First I need to have a clear understanding of how the influence
> worked.

Maybe, as the grandson of immigrants whose mother 
tongue was not English, and living and working among 
many other immigrants whose mother tongues are not 
English, after having lived overseas where people did not 
speak English, I may be so used to seeing the patterns of 
language acquisition and use that I am taking for granted 
that people know and understand those patterns. 
Apparently you don't know them.

Describing those patterns would be a long discussion in 
and of themselves, and I am not in the mood right now to 
describe them, especially since several people on this list 
are in the same boat as I.

>      You tend to make rather generic claims without ever
> providing details such as how Aramaic influenced Hebrew,
> what words were influenced, by which Aramaic words, etc.  I
> had previously asked for details (see link) regarding your claims
> of relationship and Aramaic influence on the words $m (there)
> and &m (put) but you failed to provide any.  How exactly did the
> Aramaic influence the two words to "bifurcate"?
> 
> https://lists.ibiblio.org/sympa/arc/b-hebrew/2005-September/026191.html
> 
> > > Now, first, in light of what you write above, can you either provide
> > > evidence that Aramaic indeed "bifurcated" sin/shin?
> 
> > I have already indicated two, but let me repeat: 1) the
> > number of times that sin and shin make phonemic
> > difference is very rare, no more than for other letters
> > where the same spelling has drastically different
> > meanings, and 2) there are a number of words, where
> > they are spelled once with a sin, another time with a
> > shin yet the same word with the same meaning, or one
> > derivative with a sin and another with a shin. The latter
> > indicates that both were the same phoneme, hence most
> > likely had the same pronunciation as well.
> >
> > With evidence that they were originally the same letter, the
> > question becomes, what caused the bifurcation? If it was
> > not Aramaic, then what? The time line is right for Aramaic.
> 
> There is no evidence they were the same letter.

I just provide two evidences and you say "no evidence"? 
What sort of argument is that?  Certainly not a scholarly 
one. It is the attitude on your part that this response 
illustrates is why I almost didn't read this response, let 
alone answer it.

>     You can't prove they
> were the same letter if you start reading the Bible with the assumption
> that they are the same letter because then you are going into a circular
> reasoning loop.

By your own admission, you have yet to read Tanakh 
through even once. I have repeatedly stated (which you 
conveniently ignore) that I came to my conclusions after 
reading Tanakh through cover to cover several times, 
including a few times without points. That you can even 
claim that I am using circular reasoning after what I have 
already said is more akin to demagoguery than to serous 
scholarship.

>     The only way to prove they were the same letter is to
> start reading the Bible with the assumption they are not the same letter
> and come to the conclusion that this doesn't work.

Which is exactly what I did.

>     Let us take the word
> "mouth" and assume that "th" (dh) and "th" (th) are totally unrelated
> phonemes.  However, because "mouth" and "mouths" are evidently
> related -- I specifically chose to contrast singular vs plural rather than
> verb vs noun since verb and noun may not necessarily be etymologically
> related -- I may assume that there was some sound law affecting "th" in
> this word.  I come to this conclusion even if I start  out assuming that
> "th"/"dh" are not related by any sound law.  This doesn't show that all
> instances of "th"/dh and "th"/th are related but it certainly shows that
> some are.  Can you show similar evidence that &in and $in are the same
> letter, starting from the assumption that they are not?
> 
At this point, I have such little confidence that you are 
ready for a scholarly discussion that I will put the shoe on 
the other foot: you go and provide a list of all the instances 
where sin and shin are claimed to have phonemic import, 
including where the sin or shin appears in the middle and 
at the ends of words. Further, you must say why they are 
to be counted as separate phonemes. Then we can 
discuss it on a word by word basis. I mean *all*, don't 
leave out one example.

> > > Second, it would seem to be the case that even if Hebrew originally
> > > had one phoneme, but if it borrowed a great many words from cognate
> > > languages, then the etymology of those words is no longer necessarily
> > > related by root to one another and they may be etymologically unrelated.
> > > That is, we still have to conclude that words do not necessarily have
> > > "one meaning" as you have described your assumption earlier:
> > >
> > Do I need to go back to linguistics 101?
> 
> Going into a long discussion of homonyms is irrelevant.  The question
> related not to homonyms, but to different words which you claim were
> "bifurcated" due to Aramaic influence.  Let's assume for a moment
> that somehow, for example, $am/there and &am/put (which are a minimal
> pair in Massoretic Hebrew).  Now, you claim that somehow these
> bifurcated due to Aramaic influence.  Aramaic always had the root
> "tm" in the equivalent word for "$am" (there).  So how Aramaic influence
> worked in these words is a question that I've asked you before in this
> discussion and you ignored (see above).  However, let us go on.  Now,
> evidently cognate words do not always have the same meaning.  Hence,
> the Aramaic cognate for "$am" is not necessarily of the same meaning
> as Hebrew "$am."  If Hebrew "bifurcated" $am into $am and &am because
> of influence from Aramaic, how can I be sure that there wasn't also
> semantic influence from the hypothetical "bifurcated" cognate word with
> non-equivalent meaning?  If there was semantic influence, how can I still
> connect the two words together, etymologically?
> 
> Yitzhak Sapir

In closing, you have not read Tanakh through even once, 
let alone several times. You have read only some of the 
easy books. You don't know Biblical Hebrew that well.

You remind me of those people over at Wikipedia, who, as 
far as I can tell, are a bunch of college students or grad 
students who think they know something because their 
prof told them that in class. That is why Wikipedia has 
gotten such a reputation for flakey scholarship: sometimes 
good, sometimes terrible. Even Wikipedia now recognizes 
that they have a problem, called "quality" which they don't 
know how to fix.

Further, much of what I see from you appears muddled, 
that you have neither thought it through, nor do you 
accurately respond to what others say.

So go back, read Tanakh through a few times, try at least 
once without points, and see where it leads you.

Karl W. Randolph.

-- 
___________________________________________________
Play 100s of games for FREE! http://games.mail.com/