Biblical Hebrew Forum

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

> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Yitzhak Sapir" <yitzhaksapir AT gmail.com>
> 
> On 2/9/06, Karl Randolph
> >
...
> >
> > True, but the fact that this is a common expression
> > in Biblical Hebrew and it reads correctly in this
> > document the same way, means that we should prefer
> > it over the other options.
> 
> This point was meant for you to consider that in the Bible
> itself there are such uses.  Consider:
> 
> Ex. 26:54 )y$ lpy pqdyw
> 1 Sam 30:6 )y$ (l-bnw w(l-bntyw
> Perhaps also 1 Sam 25:10 )y$ mpny )dnyw [although this
> is not really plural]

So? That doesn’t make your point.
> 
>...
> 
> You're assuming that "pre exilic inscriptions" and
> "consonantal text of Tanakh" are part of the exact
> same stratum in Hebrew (what you call "Biblical
> Hebrew").  This has not been shown and is in fact
> much the issue we are trying to determine in this
> discussion.

You have yet to show any evidence to the contrary.

>    The above question was meant for
> you to show that.  Instead, you asked something
> else that assumes without showing this particular
> assertion.  Obviously, if they are not part of the
> same stratum, it would be wrong to (directly) use
> "consonantal Tanakh" conventions to interpret pre-
> exilic inscriptions, just like it would be wrong to use
> Mishnaic Hebrew conventions to (directly) interpret
> Qumran Hebrew texts (including Biblical texts).
> 
If... If... If...  Where's the evidence?

> > To me it appears that you are grasping at straws to
> > maintain your theory.
> 
> You're the one who brought a stone out of Scandinavia
> to support your argument.
> 
So you don't like it that a stone found in 
Scandinavia just so happens to have an inscription 
on it in proto-Sinaitic where the language used is 
recognizably Biblical Hebrew? Is not your objection 
based on the fact that it contradicts someone's pet 
theory on how the language developed? C'mon!

> > > Maybe if you noted them you'd find there is some
> > > regularity involved -- even for the cases where they
> > > are missing.  But since you figure they are "not worth
> > > noting," I guess you'd never know.
> > >
> > "Missing" materes lectionis are so common that I
> > didn't bother to list them. Anyone who has read the
> > whole Tanakh using an unpointed text would have
> > noticed them. Lots of them.
> 
> This must be why you had so far failed to give me a
> numeric comparison of $mrm vs. $wmrm vs. $mrym vs.
> $wmrym noun forms in the Bible to explain why the
> standard usage in pre-exilic inscriptions is $mrm and
> in the Bible this is very rare if used at all.  (I attempted
> to search via the mechon-mamre FreeFind search to
> determine if the entirely defective spelling was in use
> and if to trust its results, this form is entirely absent
> from the Bible.  But I am not sure I trust the search
> results.)
> 
This argument is getting ridiculous!

One word! One word? And only a spelling variation 
according to a pattern that is well attested in 
Tanakh? Give me a break!

> Regarding the Mesad Hashavyahu ostracon:
> 
> > Thank you for the example. But even there the
> > photograph of the ostracon is of such low quality
> 
> I had pointed you to an high-resolution site of
> inscriptions.  Look in the archives.
> 
Remind me. I'm not about to spend my time 
searching.

> > that only by looking at the page of "Mezad
> > Hashavyahu - Inscription - navah's reading" can we
> 
> Who is Navah?

Beats me. Never heard of him before. Doesn't matter 
anyhow.

>    In any case, since you seem to
> understand that #5 essentially refers to the standard
> reading even if you didn't realize it was the standard
> reading as established by a well-known paleographer,
> you probably understood that #3 and #4 were intended
> as college level student exercises in deciphering the
> text themselves.  So you didn't have to depend on
> Naveh's reading to read this, unless you're unable to
> decipher a text such as this yourself -- something
> you have in the past widely claim to be able to do.
> #4 even provides the table of the alphabet right next to
> the inscription.
> 
Look at the photo again. Many of the words are  
blurs. I have no trouble reading paleo-Hebrew 
script where it is clear: this is anything but 
clear. You claim you have a better image of that 
ostracon? OK, where is it?

> > get an idea of what the text reads, then we have to
> > take on faith that he has read the text correctly.
> 
> Or, you can shell out $20 and buy a standard inscriptions
> handbook:
> 
> http://www.bialik-publishing.com/product_info.php?cPath=79&products_id=1220
> 
> (Perhaps they don't ship internationally, but their account
> sign up allows you to specify other countries.  The older
> version costs ~ $30 at biblio.com).
> 
> > If we strip out navah's dots, (BDH meaning "work"
> > is a perfectly normal reading for the text. There
> > is no need to insist that it means "his slave" as
> > navah's dots imply.
> 
> No, it's not.  "The matter of the work" requires a definite
> article - "h(bdh", which is not present in the text.  It can't
> mean "his work" because that would be "(bdth."  See
> also 1 Sam 26:19.  Add to that the obvious consistent
> references to the author as "(bdk."
> 
> Yitzhak Sapir

Yitzhak, you remind me of the people running 
wikipedia: a bunch of college students, some of 
them maybe even grad students, showing off their 
supposed erudition as they defend pet theories 
spouted by their professors and favored authors. 
That's why wikipedia has such a reputation for 
biased and untrustworthy articles.

You, obviously, have not read Tanakh. You are not 
familiar with its language. You are, however, 
familiar with various "scholars" pet theories 
concerning the language, which you defend with 
vigor.

As for me, I have read the Tanakh through several 
times, including a few times without points. While 
my purpose was not to document spelling variations 
(I mainly studied lexicography), I had to make 
myself familiar with the patterns of spelling 
variations in order to understand the text. So far 
you have not shown any reason to consider that 
spelling variations found on pre-Exile inscriptions 
is any different from pre-Exile authors found in 
Tanakh.

In view of the fact that you have obviously not 
done the research to back up your claims, I see 
no reason to continue this discussion.

Karl W. Randolph.

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