Biblical Hebrew Forum

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

Dave:

You claimed that, because I prefer to read Tanakh without 
points, that has lead to readings with which you disagree 
based on "unlikely definitions". Then when I tell you that 
most of those "unlikely definitions" were developed before 
I switched to reading without points, you claim that I am 
backpedaling? And most of those "unlikely definitions" are 
based on looking at function instead of the usual scholarly 
emphasis on form. Consideration of function over form has 
nothing to do with points. I was looking at function over 
form long before it even crept into my mind to consider an 
unpointed text. At the very least, you should have asked 
before inserting your foot into your mouth.

While I read the text without points, most of the issues that 
come up on this mailing list find that whether one is 
reading with or without points is irrelevant. Before you 
jumped in the fray, the only one who was making a *big 
thing* about using points was Yitzhak, who made the 
claim as I understood him, that one can not claim to read 
Biblical Hebrew unless he uses points. Of course I found 
his claim untenable, and told him so.

Do you claim that the tradition preserved in the Masoretic 
points was not evolving? Do you have any documents to 
back that up? What about transliterations into Greek and 
other languages that indicate different pronunciations, 
both with each other and with the Masoretic points? Why 
shouldn't we consider them as evidences for change in 
pronunciation over time for that tradition?

Karl W. Randolph.

----- Original Message -----
From: "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,  ,
> > > 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."

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