Biblical Hebrew Forum

[Yitzhak Sapir <yitzhaksapir AT gmail.com>]

Karl, when I say I have a theory, it doesn't just mean a vague idea
that is unsupported by the evidence.

It means I have a detailed model that I have written up in a draft,
researched, with notes.  Unfortunately, it is only a draft, and while
I think I am onto something, I am wary of discussing it on list.  I
would rather first finish it up, bring it to someone qualified to review,
and then hopefully publish it.  In this draft, only about 20% deals
with the history of Hebrew, so the theory is not about the history
of hebrew.  That is a side issue that comes up along the way.
The main subject remains the linguistic classification of Canaanite
languages.  Hebrew comes up because it is a Canaanite language.

When Yigal asked for linguistic evidence for the date of Ruth, I
thought this pertains to it.  So I summarized parts of it that allowed
me to give him an answer.  I noticed only Randall and I gave answers
that were based on language.

Anyway, as I mentioned, my theory is only a work in progress, and
I am really wary of discussing all of it on list.  This is why when I
realized I accidentally brought it up in the context of the discussion
of orthography, I suggested we drop the line of argument based on
-y construct plurals.  Another issue is that I also don't want to tie it
in to the general discussion of orthography, as you seem to have
done in your response.

My theory does not pertain to the orthography.  The concepts I
have discussed here about the orthography of Hebrew are well
recognized by all scholars.

Karl, not everything that they teach in scholarship is a "first year
lie."  It seems that you like to pin this label on everything you
disagree with.  Well, the issue of orthography isn't a "first year
lie."  Yes, there are variations.  But orthography was not invented
only in the last few centuries.  Where did you get that idea?

I'm also impressed with your willingness to accept that the
Bible was accurately copied for thousands of years.  It is odd
that in light of this you don't accept that the vocalization and
cantillation was also accurately preserved.  I guess you have
a more strict doctrine than the general Christian doctrine of
the "inerrancy in the original autographs."  You believe that
what we have is the original autographs!

However, I'm still confused.  Do you think that the Samaritan
version is the accurately copied one?  The Jewish Tiberian one?
Perhaps the Jewish Yemenite one?  What about the Torah
of R' Meir that is described in the Midrash?  Or the versions of
the Bible and Pentateuch that are found in the DSS?  Which
of all of these is the accurately copied version?

You can read about gentilics in Gesenius:
http://books.google.com/books?id=VSUUAAAAYAAJ
No, it is not an imposition of western grammar into Hebrew.

Karl, I actually happen to think you have good library resources
available to you that you do not utilize.  Some people may not
have access to good libraries, but you do.  In any case, here is
a link to Gesenius' grammar.  So save it!

Having reviewed your mail I find that you provided no counter-
evidence to the issue of orthography.  All you provided were
hypothetical questions and insinuations.  Please provide
any counter evidence you have.  Like you yourself said,
"do you have examples to show us?"

Yitzhak Sapir