Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

b-hebrew - Re: [b-hebrew] Scope of data for correctly appraising BH

b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Biblical Hebrew Forum

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: ISAAC FRIED <if AT math.bu.edu>
  • To: Randall Buth <randallbuth AT gmail.com>
  • Cc: Hebrew <b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org>
  • Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] Scope of data for correctly appraising BH
  • Date: Wed, 17 Mar 2010 12:40:44 -0400

All this is patently unnecessary. All you need to know is this: Hebrew word (sans prepositions) = root +pronouns.

Isaac Fried, Boston University

On Mar 17, 2010, at 11:42 AM, Randall Buth wrote:

Karl, in the midst of your comments
(not all within list etiquette but that is a different issue),
there is a basic issue that could be discussed as a thread.

Consequently, I have re-titled the thread,
The "scope of data for correctly appraising BH”,
since this issue is not directly related to Greek vowels.

I don’t think that there should be much disagreement on the scope of the
data, at least by Hebraists.

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.

Here is a substantive difference. The consonantal text of the tana”x is
only part of data. One must include epigraphic texts from the area and
time periods, spelling and morphological developments between 1st and 2nd
Temple Hebrew,and one must include the relationships, especially
morphological and structural parallels with related languages like
Phoenician, Ugaritic, El Amarna Canaanite, Moabite, Ammonite, Aramaic
in its many dialects, and then the trajectory of Hebrew itself through
Dead Sea Hebrew and mishnaic Hebrew and Masoretic Hebrew (plus more than
one written tradition and/or recorded tradition of these) and Karaite
and Samaritan traditions, not to mention farther-related languages Arabic
and Akkadian, South Arabic and Ge`ez. Languages are like living
organisms, they grow and change, but they are also connected. One must
come up with a theory that reasonably explains the relationships. E.g.,
both vowel and consonant phonemic length are necessary in order to
explain these languages. Sometimes differences like a shift in Phoenician
from ‘a’ to ‘o’ while others are ‘a’ to ‘u’ are best explained as two
different lengths or different syllable accent patterns of ‘a’. So both the
internal evidence of Phoenician/Punic and its relationship to Biblical Hebrew
throughout the First and Second Temple are part of the evidence. Another
fairly simple example are the nouns belonging to a Consonant- shortVowel-
Consonant-Consonant pattern found in all the Semitic languages. These
need a reasonable explanation. One cannot just jump into the middle, make
a CVCVCV claim, and then declare all other evidence ‘speculation’ or
‘unrelated’. It’s all related, and a good theory reasonably explains the
whole as well as the parts. And a person needs some expertise in
linguistics in order to evaluate developmental probabilities in these
languages. (Just like a conversant with Niels Bohr needs to be able to
discuss the Lorentz transformations or Shroedinger equations. The
statement“Karl: ‘to which Niels cheerfully answered ...’” implies that the
conversational partner knew the relevant data AND the possibilities of
appropriate and inappropriate application.)
So your ‘correction’ is not acceptable to Hebraists or to Semitists. It
is artificially limiting the data and excluding evidence that would
otherwise render some proposals as ‘non-theories’ and ‘unacceptable’.

[[(Karl)
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.

This comment doesn’t relate to this new thread, but it does represent a
mis-reading of what I said. I did not claim that the only function or
application of a BH participle was to an actual present situation. So
these last two comments can be deleted from this thread. ]]

[Karl]> >> 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.

[RB]>> Actually,
the 'long training' of most Semitists is not in the 'traditions' but
in the data.

[Karl]> It is traditions, more than the hard data.

Logically, how can a person who was ‘not-trained’ reliably evaluate the
training that they didn’t have? (They might show differences between
systems, but if the untrained person has not reasonably explained the
relevant data, then any negative evaluation would remain unreliable.)
Most of what I have seen in grad schools revolves around reading
actual texts. The theories are relatively brief, easy to grasp, and
then discussed in relationship to data where relevant. E.g.,
in Ugaritic we don’t know the shape of the fem plural prefix verb suffix.
Was it –an (//Aramaic) or was it –na (//Canaanite-Hebrew), or -anna?
We don’t know.
Students are expected to know the state of the art, but it is a
discussion of data in relationship to theories of what is known and of
what is probable. Portraying this as “tradition” is a mis- representation
of conscientious scholarship.

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

The appropriate response might have been to apologize for inappropriately
calling Gesenius a pejorative name. I will let the moderators decide if
you should receive further caution.
Your ‘hissey-fit’ comment at another point in your last post doesn’t help
your cause, and yes, it too, is inappropriate and emotional.

[Karl]
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.”

Well it’s good that you don’t include “translating”, since that doesn’t
relate to real language experience. When someone is functioning in
a language they are not usually translating, unless providing help
for someone outside the discussion. So - - -
Let’s see -- reading the tana”x, cover to cover? [first—I don’t read it in
English or autre langue, though I did once in ‘69.]
The first time that I remember cover-to-cover Hebrew was 1975, and again
in 1977. That was 35 years ago, and I don’t count or keep records of
reading pleasure, though I tend to read by book, sometimes at a sitting,
or the annual parashot cycle of torah, rather than end-to-end canonical
order.
Maybe another relevant question would be to ask the opposite:
how many times has someone mis-read the text? If someone were reading
the consonantal text with only CVCVCV patterns, or if one doesn’t
recognize an infinitive absolute structure being used for a finite verb,
then someone else may have legitimate doubts about just what
“language” is being read by such a claimant. A CVCVCV language is
neither First Temple BH, nor Second Temple BH.
So I suggest dropping ‘personalities’ and following this thread.

Just what are the relevant data?
And maybe a side question, does the sum of the data allow for a
reasonable CVCVCV claim for Biblical Hebrew? No one that I know,
who is competent to evaluate such data, considers CVCVCV to be a
possibility.At this point a ‘consensus’ may be useful. If someone is
unacquainted withthe scope of the data, then they need to be referred
to people who are so acquainted. This is not ‘bowing to dogma’ but
filling out background where someone is lacking background.

(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.)

As for a list of LXX vocab not appearing in the GNT, that can be generated
from a program like Accordance. But the ouput will run about 8000 lines
and is not appropriate to the list. In the meantime, for vocab, there is
a new LXX lexicon (that I do not own), and Liddel-Scott-M-J will usually
list any special usage found in the LXX. The Hatch-Redpath hard copy
concordance is still available and I find it useful, even in these days of
software data searches. There is also a reverse Heb-Greek ‘expanded’ index
that was prepared by Elmar Dos Rios Santos [Jerusalem: Dugit] (out of
print, but more useful than the newer publication by Muraoka.)
Hope that helps.

blessings
Randall Buth



--
Randall Buth, PhD
www.biblicalulpan.org
randallbuth AT gmail.com
Biblical Language Center
Learn Easily - Progress Further - Remember for Life
_______________________________________________
b-hebrew mailing list
b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew





Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page