Biblical Hebrew Forum

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

On 3/12/07, Yitzhak Sapir <yitzhaksapir AT gmail.com> wrote:
> 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.


Yitzhak: There is a difference between blind faith, and one chosen after
careful consideration of the alternatives.

In science, it can properly deal only with that which is observable.
Anything that is not observable by definition cannot be studied as a
scientific study. The same with linguistics. As soon as you can show
examples of extant proto-Hebrew, or proto-Semitic for that matter, then I
will change my tune. But at the moment, all you have is a constructed
language based on theory. And theory without observation is not evidence.

You cannot claim Ugaritic, nor the Amarna letters, are examples of
proto-Hebrew, for more than one reason. The main one for me is the
historical references in Tanakh that predate either, and I trust history
more than I trust modern theory and the faith upon which it is based.

We have been over this before.  I didn't ask you.  I asked Rolf.  Rolf
> studied linguistics.


True.  If you think my response was inappropriate, the best response is to
ignore it. But apparently this is a hot button belief with you as you try to
proselytize all to your faith.

...
> 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.


Yes it does. If Moses predates the Amarna letters by centuries, as the
historical records indicate, then they represent writings in a cognate
language that had little influence at best on Biblical Hebrew. They
certainly don't represent anything to do with a putative proto-Hebrew.

 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.


First of all, I said "many" not "most",  and "many"  can still refer to a
minority.

Secondly, I can echo your request that you refrain from bringing in your
personal beliefs into this discussion.

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.


I said it has to do with historical dependence.  Cognate languages are
contemporaneous similar languages: stages of a language are separated by
time. Historical records embedded in Tanakh indicate that Ugaritic and Tell
Amarna letters recorded cognate languages.

 Of course, that didn't stop you from suggesting that
> a tablet actually written in Safaitic,


Oy veh! Do I have to repeat myself? Given your history of misrepresenting
what others say, I guess I must.

First of all, I have to thank you for finding the true history of the stone
(not a tablet), where it was found. Incidentally, it was found far from
where Safaitic inscriptions are found.

Secondly, an analysis of the inscription shows that it has more similarities
with proto-Sinaitic (for which we have inscriptions to study) than Safaitic
(for which we also have inscriptions pictured also on the web). Most of the
letters are recognizable from proto-Sinaitic.

Third, using the letters from proto-Sinaitic, the stone yields a message
recognizable as an early form of Semitic language very similar to Biblical
Hebrew, a complete sentence alluding also to the action pictured also on the
stone. I also pointed to a couple of differences between it and Biblical
Hebrew.

...
> Comparative Semitics has nothing to do with belief, and people
> of all beliefs, and various degrees of religious commitment, accept
> it.


Where have I argued against comparative Semitics? We disagree with how
important comparative Semitics is in the study of Biblical Hebrew, but I
have been consistent is saying that it has at least some value.

But what I argue against are certain claims outside of comparative Semitics.

 This is more than can be said for such claims as the Hyksos
> dating or the denial of the authenticity of Tiberian vocalizations.


The fact that there are differences in the transcriptions of Hebrew names
into Greek and other languages, differences in place and time, bring the
authenticity of Tiberian vocalizations into question.

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.


How can it be historical if it contradicts historical references?

 I doubt most scholars who work with Hebrew reject the
> idea of Proto-Hebrew, and this is why Rolf stands out.
>
> Yitzhak Sapir


He should be congratulated for having the guts to stand against the crowd,
as long as he has a valid reason. The fact that there are no examples of
proto-Hebrew to study is a valid reason.

Karl W. Randolph.