Biblical Hebrew Forum

["Yitzhak Sapir" <yitzhaksapir AT gmail.com>]

On 3/12/07, K Randolph wrote:

> > Well, as I suppose you probably know, the advance of scholars towards
> > analysis of "waw-conversive" as in fact waw-consecutive before a preterite 
> was
> > grounded in advances in scholarship in the Amarna texts.  It was the Amarna
> > texts which led to a renewed analysis of the Biblical verb forms on the 
> basis
> > of those texts.  I am not sure why you think that claims regarding 
> Proto-Hebrew
> > cannot be utilized because its existence is not "proven" but "assumed"
> > -- do you
> > simply deny that Amarna vocables can teach us about an earlier stage of the
> > Hebrew language?  do you deny that cognate languages such as Aramaic or
> > Ugaritic can teach us about this earlier stage of the Hebrew language / 
> Proto-
> > Hebrew?  What have Comparative Semitists been doing for the last hundred
> > years if not to demonstrate an Afroasiatic (and daughter stage - 
> Proto-Semitic)
> > language?
> > ...
> >
> > Yitzhak Sapir.
>
> You are straying outside of linguistics that can be studied, to
> philosophy/religion accepted on blind faith.
>
> In studying Biblical Hebrew, all we have is the text, and a few
> ostraca and inscriptions to go on. The Masoretic points are post
> Biblical additions, which no one will deny. The earliest extent copies
> of the Biblical text are the DSS. Now to the text.
>
> I have previously pointed out that the text of the early chapters of
> Exodus gives references to actions that occurred during the Hyksos
> period. Therefore, if Moses wrote Torah (except possibly the last
> chapter of Deuteronomy), and you cannot prove that he didn't other
> than by faith, a faith that many of us do not ascribe to, if Moses
> wrote of the Hyksos period that would indicate that Biblical Hebrew
> was spoken as a distinct language cognate to, though separate from and
> prior to, the language spoken and recorded in the Tell Amarna letters.
> The same goes for the extant Ugaritic writings.
>
> I have never denied that a study of cognate languages can sometimes
> help with the study of Biblical Hebrew. All I emphasize is that any
> such study must recognize that cognate languages are not the same and
> can actually lead to incorrect conclusions if not treated carefully.
>
> A true scientist does not base his work of speculation, but on what
> can be observed. Proto-Hebrew, along with proto-Semitic, are based
> totally on speculation, albeit educated speculation, because there are
> no examples of either to study. There are many besides Rolf who reject
> references to a putative proto-Hebrew as being outside the realm of
> proper scholarly studies.

Karl, if anyone has strayed "outside of linguistics that can be studied, to
philosophy/religion accepted on blind faith", it is you, in the above
quoted message.

We have been over this before.  I didn't ask you.  I asked Rolf.  Rolf
studied linguistics.  Rolf teaches Ugaritic.  If anything, in your attempt
to support Rolf on this issue, you come out and completely contradict
him for he wrote "As for Masoretic pointing, I believe it accurately
represents the vowels that were used at the end of the first millennium
B.C.E. (with a few exceptions), and I will neither question the pointing,
nor the voclization without concrete evidence. [...]".  However, you
write, "In studying Biblical Hebrew, all we have is the text, and a few
straca and inscriptions to go on. The Masoretic points are post
Biblical additions, which no one will deny."  (It seems that your
ambiguous statement at the end, "which no one will deny" is intended
to mean that "no one will deny that they are post Biblical additions"
rather than "no one will deny the Massoretic points are authentic").
Evidently, if you are stating that they are post Biblical and in some
way do not represent an authentic realization of the text, you are at
odds with Rolf!  I do not believe the Massoretic points are "post
Biblical additions" in the sense that you intend it to mean, and I
do believe they are authentic, but a complete description of my
position can be found in the original message to Rolf to which you
are here replying.

The date of Moses, the theory of dating Moses to the period of the
Hyksos, etc. has nothing to do with linguistics, or with the topic at
hand.  Please refrain from bringing in personal beliefs into this
discussion.  Many (most? all?) people here do not ascribe to your
faith in the Hyksos dating of Moses and so obviously "you cannot
prove [Moses didn't write the Torah and make reference to Hyksos
events] other than by faith, a faith that most of us do not ascribe to"
is false.

In contrast, Comparative Semitics is very relevant to the subject
at hand.  I have asked you previously to define in your terms how
a cognate language may be defined as separate from an earlier
stage of the language and you suggested it has to do with literary
dependence.  Of course, that didn't stop you from suggesting that
a tablet actually written in Safaitic, and which you had interpreted
to be in Canaanite script, was in fact in Hebrew, despite the fact
that there is no literary dependence between anything written in
Sinaitic or Proto-Canaanite script and the Bible.  In contrast, I was
able to provide a direct example of literary dependence between
Isaiah and Ugaritic.  In truth, literary dependence has nothing to
do with determining where a language resides.  Rather, it is the
unique developments in a language that tell us this.  For example,
in Ugaritic, *ay > e, so that bayt "house" is written bt and
pronounced bet.  Because this development is not shared with
Hebrew, Ugaritic is only a cognate language of Hebrew but is not
an earlier stage of Hebrew.  (There are other similar issues that
strengthen this case).  In contrast, there are no unique
developments in the glosses of the Amarna letters related to
Jerusalem that are not shared with Hebrew (at least, that I know
of -- feel free to point out any that you know about!)  This suggests
that we cannot claim the Jerusalem dialect is a cognate language
rather than an earlier stage of Hebrew.  Of course, there may be
unique developments that we are not aware of, and of which we
simply have not found yet (or may never find), but that if we did
find, we would be forced to describe the two as cognate
languages rather than two stages of the same language.  However,
even the few words that are attested in the Jerusalem letters have
an impressive amount of information, so the fact that we do not
see any unique developments is significant as well.  Also
significant, of course, is that Hebrew in alphabetic script is first
attested in Jerusalem.  Of course, the claim that "there are no
examples of Proto-Hebrew to study" begs the question: how do
you know that the dialect observed in the Amarna letters of
Jerusalem is not "Proto-Hebrew"?

Comparative Semitics has nothing to do with belief, and people
of all beliefs, and various degrees of religious commitment, accept
it.  This is more than can be said for such claims as the Hyksos
dating or the denial of the authenticity of Tiberian vocalizations.
Rather than working on speculation and things that cannot be
observed or tested (such as a Hyksos dating for Moses, and the
assumption that Moses spoke a language that was "consonant-
congruent" with the text of the DSS or the MT), the use of Historical/
Comparative Semitics is methodological and based on what can be
observed.  I doubt most scholars who work with Hebrew reject the
idea of Proto-Hebrew, and this is why Rolf stands out.

Yitzhak Sapir