Biblical Hebrew Forum

[K Randolph <kwrandolph AT gmail.com>]

Randall & Garth:

On Sun, Mar 14, 2010 at 4:10 AM, Randall Buth <randallbuth AT gmail.com> wrote:

> 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.
>

Just calling names is not going to advance a discussion. You need to define
your terms above.

>
> 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,
>

A story that illustrates this is found in the Manhattan project, where one
evening Niels Bohr invited a young physicist over to dinner (I read the
story years ago, don’t remember the name of that other physicist). After
dinner, Niels brought out a blackboard and casually asked if the other
physicist would mind looking at a couple of figures? That started a
knock-em-down, drag-out argument that lasted for hours. At the end, the
other physicist apologized to Niels Bohr for ruining his evening, to which
Niels cheerfully answered that that’s why he invited him in the first place.
All the other physicists at Los Alamos were either his students, or students
of his students, so were unwilling to challenge “the great Niels Bohr”. But
Niels recognized that he was but human, he could still make mistakes, and
this self-taught physicist was the only one there who was competent enough
to challenge Niels, yet not in awe of him so he was willing to make that
challenge,

Just because someone is self taught, does not mean that he ipso facto does
not know what he is talking about.


> 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.


Correction, the data is the consonantal text of Tanakh. We all are dealing
with the same data. Where we differ is in the interpretation of and the
conclusions derived from said data.

Or how about the implausible theory that when a participle is used in a
conversational sentence that in English is translated as a verb, that it
refers to present, ongoing activity in a similar manner as modern Hebrew,
made implausible by verses such as Genesis 19:13 and 1 Samuel 3:11, not
counting the many cases among prophecies given in a conversational manner,
where a participle refers to a future event? You need to consider all 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.
>

When a given set of data is open to more than one interpretation, to insist
that only one is acceptable is not only poor scholarship, but can interfere
with advancing knowledge in a field as a whole.

>
> >> 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.
>

It is traditions, more than the hard data. Even in the hard sciences. There
is just too much data to assimilate. Therefore the interpretations are
taught more than the data itself.

In the hard sciences, mathematical traditions are developed, then even after
some have been proven to have been based on false premises, yet scientists
continue to use them because the incorrect mathematical models are often
close enough that they are workable even though false, and it would be more
effort than it is worth to make corrected mathematical models.


> 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.
>

I grew up in academia, and I can tell you from personal experience that the
claim that most scholar enjoy a new theory is only partially true, at best.
It is true only in so far as a new theory does not reflect badly on theories
and beliefs that scholars hold dear. Should a new theory contradict
previously held theories, especially if it is advanced by someone outside
the field or not yet part of the old boys club (graduate student), the
proverbial fur can fly. Then after the dust settles, name calling and
censorship.

>
> >> 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.
>

Your reaction (which I did not reproduce) is exactly the type of “worship
the gods of political correctness” that my statement parodied.

>
> >> 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.
>

Did you notice the language missing from the above list? ……Biblical Hebrew
as written in Tanakh. Without Masoretic points, and for fun, how about in
pre-Babylonian exile font.

Randall: you have studied theoretical works on grammar, comparative
linguistics, and so forth. But have you ever just sat down and read Tanakh,
cover to cover, merely for the purpose of understanding it? Even once?
Translating doesn’t count, as the emphasis is not on the Hebrew, rather on
rendering the ideas understood into the target language. Nor does for
purposes of scholarly analysis, as the emphasis is on the analysis, not on
internalizing the meaning, feel and flow of the language. I would not be
surprised if an honest answer is, “Not even once.”

>
> Garth added, speaking to Karl:
> >
> > [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.
>

The ‘experts’ have been wrong so often that not to question them is academic
mal-practice. Not to question ‘experts’ is a practice that goes back to
pre-scientific thinking, and also post-modernism.

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

I parody a practice I see in academia, and Randall has a hissy fit.

As for being in a position to judge Gesenius, that would have to count from
when? The first few times I read Tanakh cover to cover, I didn’t know enough
Biblical Hebrew to challenge him, though some of his definitions raised
eyebrows as they didn’t seem to fit with good lexicographic practices I
learned from modern languages. By ten times reading Tanakh cover to cover, I
was entering comments in the margins, referencing verses, synonyms, and
antonyms. I also noticed that where the glosses in Lisowski’s concordance
differed from Gesenius, that Lisowski usually fit the context better. By 15
times I had largely stopped using the Masoretic points, or even referring to
them, while my notes in the margins had been transferred over to the
Lisowski’s concordance, expanded and become much more systematic. Now after
more than 20 times of reading Tanakh cover to cover, I have transferred my
notes over to a stand alone dictionary (Acrobat file), read the text on
computers (it is on all my computers) and I have read Tanakh several times
through using a font derived from the Gezar calendar.

Since I have already found both Gesenius, as well as his disciples such as
BDB, less than authoritative in one area, and that supposedly is his area of
top expertise, why should I uncritically accept his ruling in an area
outside of his main expertise, namely the interpretation of a Greek
pronunciation?

I never set out to become a Hebrew scholar, all I wanted to do was to read
the Bible. Because I knew Hebrew, I decided the best way was to read Tanakh
in Hebrew. It was in that study that I found Gesenius, and his disciples, as
not reflecting the text that is before me.

By the way, I know enough Koiné Greek to have read the New Testament through
more than 20 times. I just don’t consider myself an expert in Koiné Greek.

(By the way, is there a list of lexical items that are found in the LXX but
not in the New Testament? It would be helpful to me when referencing the LXX
in these discussions. Thank you.)

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

If and only if certain assumptions are correct. I question those
assumptions, and under questioning the only response I have gotten is
‘because the experts say so’. That’s a non-answer.

So far the only ‘evidence’ beyond the non-answer presented above that has
been presented is on the same level as claiming that the pronunciations
preserved in the Katzenjammer Kids cartoons is a good indicator of how
American English is pronounced.

>
> ERRWSO/braxot
> Randall Buth
>
>
>
Karl W. Randolph.