Biblical Hebrew Forum

["K Randolph" <kwrandolph AT gmail.com>]

Dear Carl:

Different people have different standards of evidence that they will
accept. Even different fields of study differ on what they consider
valid evidence.

Under classical thought, used in ancient Greece and Rome, a logically
understood concept was supreme. All other concepts were to be in
subjection to logic and rational thought. An application in "science"
of this way of thinking would put theory at the head, the most
important, of scientific inquiry.

On the other hand, under the influence of the Reformation, action
became the most important factor that supersedes all others. For
example, in science, observation, even when the observation is not
understood, takes precedence over any other factor, even to the
overthrowing of theories. To make sure one observation was not a
fluke, other observations of the same phenomenon are necessary. In
history, human records take precedence over modern reconstructions
based on theory. Imperfect as they are, human records recount past
events that no longer can be observed. Reformation thinking is not
irrational, rather it puts rationality as the servant of observation,
not the boss as in classical thought.

Classical thought, as done in ancient Greece and Rome, is still widely
practiced, especially in philosophy, but was also a factor in the
resurrection of the ancient belief in evolution in the 18th and 19th
centuries. You will find among some of our members a call for people
to follow a rational way of thinking, to acknowledge theory, as the
way to understand the development of the Hebrew language.

I, among others on this list, am in more than one way a son of the
Reformation, accept nothing less than a paper trail as the foundation
for theory. We find in copies of the ancient records that Moses wrote
Torah in the mid second millenium BC. The only thing we find that
contradicts those records is theory. According to Reformation
thinking, the records take precedence over theory. The only way to
disprove those records is to find other records that contradict those
records in a way that is more trustworthy than those records. Even
archeology is not enough, unless it finds written records.

To sum up, disagreements on the development of Biblical Hebrew
language are based on classical vs. Reformation thought: the primacy
of theory and rationality on the one hand, or on observation on the
other.

I hope this helps.

Karl W. Randolph.

On 7/2/06, Carl Christensen <cwbachur AT gmail.com> wrote:
> Hello to All,
>
> I direct this request to all parties as to avoid "taking a dog by the ears"
> and to seek common fellowship in this forum.  Being a new reader to this
> forum I have observed a few things that may aid my understanding, at least,
> and perhaps clarify discussion.
>
> I would like to raise the awarness of the philosophical considerations that
> are greatly being avoided in discussion.  I have been educated in Hebrew
> only three years and comparative Semitics for two years (Ugaratic, Aramaic,
> Egyptian Hieroglyphs).  Therefore, I am at least aware--but not keenly
> astute--of assumptions being proported behind statements of "logic" and
> "evidence."  Could these assumptions be at least refrenced more specifically
> in the disscussion--especialy of large topics such as "Lingusitical
> Evolution of Semtic Languages" and "Canaanite Dilects"?  Could these also be
> referenced without misunderstood labels or at least with brief explication
> of those labels?
>
> I recognize this is a forum for disscussing Hebrew Studies; I desire to
> remain in this scope and not stray to philosophical inquiry.  In fact, we
> may avoid unnecessary segues by stating assumptions or at least provoke more
> thought.
>
> I simply believe this to be a scholarly courtesy for the facility and
> alacrity of discussion.  If untenable or unreasonable let my comments rest.
> If profitable, let it be of aid.  Come whatever may.
>
> Best Regards,
> Carl Christensen
> Maryland, USA
> --
> אשרי־אדם לא יחשב יהוה לו עון ואין ברוחו רמיה