Biblical Hebrew Forum

[Uri Hurwitz <uhurwitz AT yahoo.com>]

       David,
       
       According to your multi-faceted description below, the poor Piel
serves no function at all...
 
       Let us remember again the well known case of "dibber".
 
       Uri Hurwitz                                           Great Neck, NY
   
"...the Piel,....  would seem to be multifunctional, 
with a verbal plurality function as well a 
factitive/causative/estimative of (generally) stative verbs.

Regards,
David Kummerow"



>From kwrandolph AT gmail.com  Fri Feb  6 11:07:36 2009
Return-Path: <kwrandolph AT gmail.com>
X-Original-To: b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
Delivered-To: b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
Received: by lists.ibiblio.org (Postfix, from userid 3002)
        id 8C2C84C01C; Fri,  6 Feb 2009 11:07:36 -0500 (EST)
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.2.3 (2007-08-08) on malecky
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.0 required=5.0 tests=HTML_MESSAGE
        autolearn=disabled version=3.2.3
Received: from el-out-1112.google.com (el-out-1112.google.com 
[209.85.162.180])
        by lists.ibiblio.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 636ED4C01A
        for <b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org>; Fri,  6 Feb 2009 11:07:35 -0500 
(EST)
Received: by el-out-1112.google.com with SMTP id j27so446156elf.15
        for <b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org>; Fri, 06 Feb 2009 08:07:35 -0800 
(PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.142.102.5 with SMTP id z5mr1000280wfb.334.1233936454464; Fri,
        06 Feb 2009 08:07:34 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <e6ea6c000902060019l242eae8fg4da56d92a9be4798 AT mail.gmail.com>
References: <mailman.1.1233771613.17652.b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org>
        <A47458F1AE3BC545911B10628202E9D2698354 AT ucexchange2.canterbury.ac.nz>
        <a06240826c5b04449904d AT 192.168.1.34>
        <e6ea6c000902051649n792694b9i1ca523aa5808cb68 AT mail.gmail.com>
        <acd782170902051902w3b4a4e77gdca0e4628a48fb2f AT mail.gmail.com>
        <e6ea6c000902052054sd460a07rafbbc9dd566e58f2 AT mail.gmail.com>
        <acd782170902052245r3324b50fh88946a67ae7a4c79 AT mail.gmail.com>
        <e6ea6c000902060019l242eae8fg4da56d92a9be4798 AT mail.gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 6 Feb 2009 08:07:34 -0800
Message-ID: <acd782170902060807y1d61de09r4c9d56ea404fcea9 AT mail.gmail.com>
From: K Randolph <kwrandolph AT gmail.com>
To: B-Hebrew <b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Content-Filtered-By: Mailman/MimeDel 2.1.9
Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] Can absence of evidence be evidence of absence?
X-BeenThere: b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: Biblical Hebrew Forum <b-hebrew.lists.ibiblio.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew>,
        <mailto:b-hebrew-request AT lists.ibiblio.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://lists.ibiblio.org/sympa/arc/b-hebrew>
List-Post: <mailto:b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org>
List-Help: <mailto:sympa AT lists.ibiblio.org?subject=HELP>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew>,
        <mailto:b-hebrew-request AT lists.ibiblio.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 06 Feb 2009 16:07:36 -0000

Yitzhak:

On Fri, Feb 6, 2009 at 12:19 AM, Yitzhak Sapir <yitzhaksapir AT gmail.com>wrote:

> On Fri, Feb 6, 2009 at 6:45 AM, K Randolph wrote:
>
> > Did I? Didn't you say not finding those bones is evidence against the
> > veracity of the text?
>
> That is exactly what I didn't say.
>

What do you mean by "you have no sound proposition to begin with"? By the
same standard, would not the Documentary Hypothesis also not be a "sound
proposition"? If not, why not?

Would you say that our knowledge of the Peloponesian Wars is not a sound
proposition, as they are known only from the writings of Thucidites?

Or what about the findings at the end of the 13th dynasty, where the
archaeological data show Semitic slaves leaving their abodes en mass so
suddenly and helter-skelter that valuables like tools and even jewelry were
left behind? Is that not evidence for the Exodus? If not, why not?

As for finding the bones, that would be a shocker, for the reasons I gave
before.

>
> >> Iron smelting was not known in the ANE prior to the 12th century.
> >
> > I looked up online sources, and find they are all over the map. Some say
> > that smelted iron was known as early as 3000 BC, and in Egypt by 1500 BC.
> > Others agree with you.
>
> Your source of Egypt is probably referring to a dagger from Tutankhamen's
>  tomb.
> But they describe simple wrought iron.  Not smelt iron.  If your
> websites say it is
> smelt iron, they are wrong.  A website can't make evidence that doesn't
> exist.
>

You had better learn a bit about iron technology before making such claims.
Your statement shows abject ignorance.

>
> >> or a the material of which a yoke is made (Deut 28:48).
> >
> > Look at the context, is this a literal yoke, or metaphorical?
>
> To make a metaphor, one needs something real to compare it to.  It would
> make no sense to describe an iron yoke when the yokes are made of wood,
> and iron is soft and brittle.
>

Not compared to wood. Furthermore it is much, much heavier. Thus wouldn't
even the thought of such give pause?

While discussing this, a question came to mind: how common was the use of
iron, wrought iron, among the lower classes? That I was mistaken, that
rather than being rare, iron implements were much more common? Because of
iron's inferiority to bronze, it was not used for weapons or fine tools that
need to keep an edge like saws, nor among the higher classes who could
afford the superior but more expensive bronze, but because it was superior
to wood and stone tools the lower classes made use of it? And because of its
rusting and reusability, that such finds should be rare? What say other
ancient documents?

>
> >>  Num
> >> 35 is particularly interesting since it is clear, as you say, that it is
> >> meant
> >> for boasting, because people who had such special tools like iron, wood,
> >> or rocks were too egotistical and if they used it to kill someone they
> must
> >> be put to death, but someone who used a humble weapon made of bronze
> >> could go free.
> >
> > What? I don't see your logic here. Or are you deliberately making a crazy
> > statement for effect?
>
> I am following your claim about boastfulness to its logical conclusion.


Not when sticks and stones are mentioned in the same context, then it makes
your statement sound off the wall.

>
>
> >> The only thing unsound is the proposition that the Pentateuch was
> >> originally a unitary work.
>
> >>  For example, what evidence do you have that
> >> Deuteronomy was ever part of the same work as Gen - Num?
> >
> >
> > What evidence do you have that it wasn't? Especially after it was listed
> > that Moses (the same author) was listed as the one who wrote it and
> > delivered it?
>
> Since it appears in a separate book, all the way back to the DSS, I have
> no reason to think it was part of the same book.  We see that Moses
> wrote and delivered the book -- but which -- Deuteronomy or the whole
> set of five books?  The book of Deuteronomy is self contained, and
> always appears as a separate book.  So there is pretty reasonable
> evidence that it is not part of the same work.  The question has to be,
> why should we see it as part of the same unitary composition in the
> first place?


Didn't you see my other questions before, none of which you addressed in
this message? Didn't they already answer this objection? If not, why not?

>
>
> Yitzhak Sapir
>

Karl W. Randolph.