Biblical Hebrew Forum

[Yitzhak Sapir <yitzhaksapir AT gmail.com>]

On Fri, May 21, 2010 at 2:34 AM, K Randolph wrote:

>> 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.
>
> They are recognized, but not without their detractors.

Which detractors?  I'm not aware of anyone with a knowledge, not to
say expertise, in pre-exilic inscriptions that could be considered a
detractor.

>> 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?

> Concerning orthography, i.e. one correct way to write and spell, is widely
> recognized as a relatively new phenomenon, only within the last few
> centuries. In some countries and languages, it still doesn’t exist.

Who widely recognizes it?  I'm not sure where you're getting this stuff.
It is not correct.

> As for “first year lies” (a phrase I to which I was introduced on this list,
> I don’t remember who taught it to me), I was taught that Hebrew followed
> certain grammar, syntax and spelling rules, and all the examples in the text
> books followed those rules. Later, when I started reading Tanakh for myself,
> cover to cover, I was in for a shock—those rules were often violated. I had
> to learn a new set of rules to fit the data before my eyes.

Karl, just because the first-year rules are violated, does not mean there are
no strict rules.  Sometimes -- usually -- there are various exceptions that 
are
simply not yet taught in the first year Hebrew.  If you only have the 
knowledge
of first year Hebrew, then you don't really know Hebrew.  You don't have a
mastery of the rules, to be able to see additional exceptions yourself.  You
cannot propose your own alternative rules or reading, because you don't
know how to fully analyze the reading which you are contesting.  Just like the
issue of using an infinitive as a finite verb.  You are unable to properly 
weigh
its use because you never learned of it as a possibility while you read the
Bible.

> My criticism in this particular example (not by any means for anything with
> which I disagree) was that you seem to insist that Hebrew follow those rules
> as taught in first year class, rather than how the language is actually used
> in Tanakh.

No, I do not.  Orthography is not a modern invention, and it is not "widely
recognized" that this is so.  Where are you getting this?  Here for example
is a discussion in Emanuel Tov's Textual Criticism:

http://books.google.com/books?id=egDUOjN1qI4C&pg=PA221

Specifically the discussion on p. 224:
http://books.google.com/books?id=egDUOjN1qI4C&pg=PA224

(Note to James: As you can see, the 6th century is actually the *maximalist*
position!)

Also, "orthography" does not mean "one correct way" but means "the correct
way."  There may be several possibilities that can be used, all considered
correct.  But this does not mean that there are no incorrect ways.

>> 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!
>>
>
> This is a criticism of you that I have repeatedly leveled against you, that
> you take a person’s statements, pervert them to something that the person
> didn’t say, then use that distortion to attack that person. You have done
> this so often. This is the straw man logical fallacy.

I'm not sure where I'm attack you - the person.  I'm only further
delineating your position.  You said (not quoted above):

> But what about Hebrew? If the Torah was accurately copied from
> when it left Moses’ pen, then we have plenty of such plurals.

Exactly how am I misrepresenting your position.  If it isn't then the above
serves to only highlight just how extreme this position is.

> That you have done this so often speaks badly of you. Either you are a)
> incompetent, unable accurately to assess what is written which, if true,
> calls into question the accuracy of all of your scholarship, or b) a nasty
> fellow, disagreeable to know personally, more pleasantly known only as
> shimmering pixels on a screen.

I did not attack you - the person.
The above is an attack on me - the person.

Please see the difference:
me - "You believe that what we have is the original autographs!"
you - "Either you are a) incompetent ... or b) a nasty fellow"

Karl, this is not a straw man attack.  You suggested that the Pentateuch
was accurately copied, and I explained the repercussions.  But what you
wrote is an ad hominem.

> I have repeated many times how I think the text was preserved, do I need to
> repeat it again?

Certainly better than using an ad hominem.

>> 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.
>
> Do you know where in the book the description is found? The book is a bunch
> of scans, not text, so a quick search doesn’t find it.

There is a "search" box in the left sidebar.  Type your word, and click
"Search".

>> 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?"
>
> For a specific example found also on the Siloam inscription, I looked for (L
> R)$ [plural noun] and found Numbers 8:12, 1 Kings 7:17, 18, 19, 41, Jeremiah
> 23: 19, 30:23, Ezekiel 10:1, 2 Chronicles 3:16, 4:12 [twice]. With your
> knowledge of computers and electronic texts, you should have been able to
> find these.

Karl, like I said, I do not want to discuss R)$ for the reasons outlined in 
the
correspondence with you and James.  However, the same idea can be taken
(even more forcefully) to the -ym endings.  Yes, there are -m endings
for plurals
in the Bible.  But the common use is -ym.  In contrast, there are no -ym 
endings
for plurals (with the noted exceptions) in the epigraphic pre-exilic
inscriptions.
There are many opportunities, but no -ym endings.  So while the -m endings
are present though very rare in the Bible, the -ym endings are completely
absent in the pre-exilic inscriptions.  This suggests that the
original spelling of
-m endings was updated to -ym at some point after the lastest pre-exilic
inscriptions are dated, which is the very early 6th century.  (Nebuchadrezzar
was so considerate to destroy Judea just on the turn of the century).  This is
only one example and there are many other examples of spelling differences
that only re-enforce this conclusion.

> As for access to libraries, the local library gives me access to JSTOR
> articles online, which I can access through their website. I have to input
> my library card number to prove I’m local to access the files.

There is also interlibrary loan.  Also, some of the libraries that I think are
accessible to you are at churches and you may be able to work something
out with a local branch of the church.

> Therefore, it is only good manners that if
> you cite a book, either to give where the citation is available on the web,
> or otherwise provide for it to be viewed by others.

Karl, there is a limit.  Not everything is online.  But it also has to do with
your approach.  If you say, "well, I don't really know about pre-exilic
inscriptions, so can you show me evidence of what you mean," that is
one thing.  But if you say, "you are absolutely wrong about pre-exilic
inscriptions but show me your evidence in high resolution photos
or scan them and upload them yourself because I don't have access
to them," that is a different thing.  Besides, although the evidence is not
much, it is still too much to write it all on list.  That's why they have 
books
with anthologies of inscriptions.  Because it takes books to deal with the
issue.

Yitzhak Sapir