Biblical Hebrew Forum

[Randall Buth <randallbuth AT gmail.com>]

Garth,

Your data was good as far as it goes, and a contribution.
Unfortunately, a discussion can be diverted by a strident 'Post-modernism'
on an e-list. The following is in support of your contribution
and recognizing that you are making a good-faith attempt at a
discussion in the face of sometimes inappropriate remarks.

For example, from quotes on this and related threads:

>> I’m mostly self taught as far as Biblical Hebrew is concerned, and in a
>> large extent in Greek too. That has certain disadvantages, but certain
>> advantages as well. One of the advantages is that I get to look at Hebrew
>> with fresh eyes,

One of the things that often happens is that the 'non-professional' puts forth
highly implausible theories based on an incomplete acquaintance with the
data. If, in addition, they seat themselves as 'judge' in the matter,
then there
is not much that can be added to a discussion, they will always be able to
say 'I'm not convinced', as if that then gives plausibility to their argument.

>> not through the glasses put on by long training in the
>> traditions. The old school doesn’t like people like me, as we often upset
>> the apple cart.

Actually,
the 'long training' of most Semitists is not in the 'traditions' but
in the data.
Most scholars enjoy a new theory if it shows competant acquaintance of all
the relevant data. However, if someone does not control the relevant data,
then a new proposer should be in a 'learning' mode rather than a 'judging'
mode.

>> Nor have we learned to worship the gods of political
>> correctness. For example, who is that schmuck Gesenius that I should listen
>> to him? Or how about HALOT? I exaggerate here.

Another common 'post-modern dodge' is to paint a status quo as somehow
beholden to a faith/political proposition rather than the data. The facts are
often the opposite, the scholars are looking at the broad data and the heckler
is just showing off a lack of competence. Calling Gesenius names was uncalled
for. (And I think that you are legitimate in labeling "schmuck Gesenius" a
heckling. And 'worship the gods' would wrongly imply that you are arguing from
dogmatism rather then data. Again, an inappropriate innuendo.)
Someone may get away with this because Gesenius isn't 'on list', so it may
not break protocol, technically.
I, too, have some issues with Gesenius, though I've learned that some of
them were introduced by Kautsch and Cowley, and
were not part of Gesenius' work himself. Gesenius made a good-faith
contribution to scholarship in his day.

>> So far I have not seen convincing evidence to back up your claims.
>> And now you tell me to go back to bow down at the
>> feet of the experts? Uh-uh, that dog don’t hunt. I’m too much a follower of
>> the Reformation for that.

Again, the post-modern dodge. Setting himself up as a legitimate judge/reader.
Yet admitting a lack of competence, and then
accusing you of not being able to convince him and using religious terminology
('bow down'), to boot. There is a logical fallacy here, as you've
pointed out below.
Any linguist who has read a hundred or so private papyri
documents from the Roman period will readily see the general soundness
of your proposal/reading.

>> If my analysis is correct, that means that Clement indicated a three 
>> syllabic name
>> consistent with evidence from Hebrew that the name in fact had at least
>> three syllables.

This may be where the resistence to your Greek evidence is coming from. Karl
holds to an idiosyncratic "Consonant-Vowel" interpretation of ancient Hebrew
orthography. It is a 'non-theory', in the sense that no one competent
to evaluate
the morphology of Massoretic Hebrew, epigraphic, mishnaic and Qumran Hebrew,
Ugaritic, Aramaic, Syriac, Arabic and Akkadian would put such a theory on the
map of 'reasonable options'. No Semitist or Hebraist holds such a theory. And
that is not based on dogmatism but on the responsible sifting of
available data.

Having said this, I am not saying that a three-syllable interpretation
of the Name
is impossible, I'm only pointing out that Karl is probably not in a position 
to
accept a two-syllable possibility. It would undermine his approach to
"Hebrew". And ironically, he ends up being 'dogmatic' while accusing all 
others
of the same.

Garth added, speaking to Karl:
> You are content to make assertions that being 'no expert in Greek' and
> seeing 'no real reason to pursue this further', you are unable and 
> unwilling to
> justify.  Yet you deny that what we demonstrate as probable and likely has
> any weight.
> If you can measure weight, report weight.
> If you can't measure weight, just say, "I don't know," -or don't say 
> anything.
> I have presented my understanding to this group to get expert feedback, not
> heckling.
>
> Karl, it seems you do not have the prerequisite knowledge and understanding
> to judge of what is possible or probable with regards to the pronunciation 
> of
> YHWH and to understand and weigh all the 'data' you have.  ...
>
> [Karl]>> About the only thing one can be pretty sure of, is that Gesenius 
> was
>        >> wrong.
>
> He may have been: I reckon he was wrong.  But I wouldn't be 'pretty sure'
> of it from the data and non-'expert' reasonings that you've presented.
> You've not proven him wrong in our eyes.  And unlike Gesenius,
> you are no expert in Greek or the history of Hebrew.
> Maybe it is you who are wrong.

Yes, Garth,
Gesenius may, or may not, have been wrong.
And Karl is really in no position to judge or to be name-calling.

And IAOYE does reasonably, though not absolutely, support a  two-syllable
reading of the Name.

ERRWSO/braxot
Randall Buth





-- 
Randall Buth, PhD
www.biblicalulpan.org
randallbuth AT gmail.com
Biblical Language Center
Learn Easily - Progress Further - Remember for Life