Biblical Hebrew Forum

[Dave Washburn <dwashbur AT nyx.net>]

On Tuesday 01 November 2005 15:54, Karl Randolph wrote:
> Dave:
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Dave Washburn" <dwashbur AT nyx.net>
>
> ...>
>
> > You haven't looked at very many, then.
>
> You're right, I haven't seen very many. Those that I have
> seen tend to teach towards and ideal, which is often
> transgressed in practice.

I can suggest one or two offlist if you're interested.

> >    All the ones I have seen, including
> > the ones I base my teaching on, explain what the points are and how to
> > use them cautiously, but they also explain something that you don't seem
> > to grasp: as far as we can tell, the pronunciation tradition that the
> > points preserve goes back MUCH further than the Masoretes themselves,
>
> I keep saying that the Masoretic points represent a
> snapshot on a tradition going back a thousand years
> earlier. How much longer do you want?
>
> However, they are a snapshot on an evolving tradition,
> where some now question if we correctly understand
> and pronounce those points.

This is the part you haven't shown.  You say they represent a "snapshot" but 
what exactly does that mean?  As for "an evolving tradition," what does that 
mean?  We know the points are wrong in some places, but from my experience 
those places are few and far between.  Yet, based on that, you seem to 
denigrate the whole system.  However, as has already been said, "biblical" 
Hebrew includes both the consonantal text and the Masoretic points.  You 
can't appeal to the DSS to try and refute this, because that's a whole 
different ball of wax.  And the fact that "some now question if we correctly 
understand and pronounce those points" proves very little; I should think you 
would recognize this, considering the attitude you have taken toward 
scholarly consensus and/or lack thereof in the past.  "Some now question" 
your understanding of the text; does that mean you're ready to chuck it?

> >   and can tell
> > us much about how the generations going back to who knows when pronounced
> > the text.  And there are plenty of us who don't see reading without
> > points as a "graduation."  You assume this is a better way because it's
> > the way you chose, but I have yet to see an adequate justification for
> > it.  From what I have seen over the past several months or so, your
> > "graduation" has brought you to absurd readings, unlikely definitions,
> > and thorough befuddlement. I'll pass, thank you.
> >
>
> You attribute to my not reading with points conclusions
> that I have come to when I was still reading the text with
> points. I have explicitly stated those conclusions apart
> from any mention of points. That you confuse those issues
> sounds like an example of ... well, I won't go there.

Karl, you are the one who keeps hammering away at the point about reading 
unpointed text, as though it makes your readings and definitions superior.  
You can backpedal all you want, but it's a fact.  Whether or not you came up 
with some of your conclusions before or after you started reading unpointed 
text is irrelevant, because you keep bringing up the pointed vs. unpointed 
text topic.  If it's not important, maybe you shouldn't mention it so much.

-- 
Dave Washburn
http://www.nyx.net/~dwashbur
"Maybe I'll trade it for a new hat."