Biblical Hebrew Forum

[K Randolph <kwrandolph AT gmail.com>]

On Mon, Jan 25, 2010 at 5:10 AM, James Spinti <JSpinti AT eisenbrauns.com>wrote:

> You know, that is an uncalled for ad hominem. The tone you are taking
> unfortunately sounds like you know it all and everybody else doesn't
> have a clue.
>

James C: unfortunately I have to agree with James Spinti here, namely that
your posts have taken on a rather abrasive tone in recent days.

>
> The weight of evidence in published works heavily leans towards
> Randall's statements; the last 150 years of work on the Semitic
> languages backs him up. The only places you find people disagreeing with
> the weight of evidence is on e-lists such as this one. Usually the
> people disagreeing have not done extensive study in linguistics, but
> have a predetermined understanding and are seeking to get proselytes.
>

However, while the above paragraph is historically accurate, it is also an
example of logical fallacies: bandwagon, appeal to authority and the
imputing of motives that may not be correct.

The above paragraph also alludes to a present problem in publishing, namely
the peer-review vetting of articles. As shown by “Climategate” recently, it
is largely broken, more used to censor ideas out of the mainstream, than to
advance learning. Only on the fringes of publishing, such as e-lists,
self-publishing, and similar, do some of these “heretical” ideas see the
light of day.

>
> If the moderators would care to weigh in here, it would probably be
> beneficial to the many on this list who are confused at this point.
>

I don’t think the moderators need to step in, except to calm down abusive
posts.

Are there any who are confused at this point?

>
> James
>
> ________________________________
> James Spinti
> Marketing Director, Book Sales Division
> Eisenbrauns, Good books for more than 30 years
> Specializing in Ancient Near Eastern and Biblical Studies
> jspinti at eisenbrauns dot com
> Web: http://www.eisenbrauns.com
> Phone: 574-269-2011 ext 226
> Fax: 574-269-6788
>
> While my formal training is rather thin, and I have never pretended that it
was anything more than that, I am one of the relatively few people who
actually followed through on the reason I studied Hebrew in the first
place—used it to read Tanakh. All the way through, cover to cover. It was in
the reading of it over and over, that I started noticing literary and
linguistic aspects of the language as used in Tanakh that I was not taught.

I got on this list not to make proselytes, but to discuss Hebrew. Sometimes
I am wrong, and have to admit it. Sometimes when discussing a difficult
verse I throw out one idea, only later have to say, “On second thought …”
Sometimes I stick to my guns, such as Isaiah 30:14 which I claim describes a
blacksmith’s smithy, and I am apparently the only one on this list who has
ever done any blacksmithing.

My preferred way of reading the text now is to read only the consonantal
text, using a pre-Exile, archaic Hebrew font (computers allow people to do
funny things like that). That, too, has affected the way I understand the
language.

I mention this merely to say that the mainstream, as represented by Randall,
does not have all the answers. In fact, there is the possibility that it is
wrong on certain particulars (which I expand to that I believe it is wrong).
But those who question are just as likely to be wrong. But as we put forth
our ideas, let’s have the humility to recognize that not everyone is going
to agree with us, and give others the room to disagree without being
disagreeable.

Karl W. Randolph.