Biblical Hebrew Forum

[K Randolph <kwrandolph AT gmail.com>]

Yitzhak:

On Fri, May 21, 2010 at 4:46 AM, Yitzhak Sapir <yitzhaksapir AT gmail.com>wrote:

> 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.
>

You have just made a circular argument, that in order to be a detractor, one
must have expertise in pre-exilic inscriptions. Detractors, and I am one of
them, base their objections on other factors. You can win me over, but only
on the basis of good evidence, which you so far have failed to produce.

>
> > 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.
>

The first definition according to http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary is
“*a* *:* the art of writing words with the proper letters according to
standard usage” which is the definition used wherever I previously saw the
word. This definition includes proper rules for spelling and even grammar.
For English, this did not occur until the 19th century. There are other
languages that still don’t recognize a ‘standard usage’ of spelling rules.

Now I see you are using a different definition for ‘orthography’, namely “*b
* *:* the representation of the sounds of a language by written or printed
symbols”. Before this discussion, I had never heard of this definition of
‘orthography’. The differences between the two definitions is so great as to
cause misunderstanding. I used the first definition, you the second.

>
> Karl, just because the first-year rules are violated, does not mean there
> are
> no strict rules.


Depends. Depends on the contexts where they are violated and who violate
them. In my case, those rules were violated so consistently by so many
different writers that these are rules that should not have been made in the
first place.


> 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


This is the second definition listed above. That the author saw the need to
explain his definition of ‘orthography’ shows that he recognized that he
used the term in a different way than as normally used in society.

>
> >> 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.


I have made it very clear in previous messages what is my view on textual
criticism which we have discussed in previous discussions, and that you have
misrepresented it now twice does not speak well of you. If this
misrepresentation is inadvertent, then it calls into question all of your
scholarship. If it is deliberate, then it speaks poorly of you as a person.
And no, my view is not extreme, rather falls well within at least one stream
of scholarship.

One of the aspects of my understanding of textual criticism is that from the
beginning, copyists tried to be accurate in their copies. As in any human
endeavor, inadvertent errors creep in, but on the whole, they were minor
errors that could be easily recognized, such as spelling errors or leaving
out a word. In doing that, they would reject any deliberate wholesale
updating of spelling to reflect a new orthography. No we don’t have the
original autographs, but we don’t have deliberately bastardized copies
either.

>


> >> 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".
>

Even the online version of that book is bitmapped scans, not searchable
text.

>
>
> 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.
>

How many Hebrew inscriptions are you referencing? Cognate language
inscriptions don’t count for reasons I outlined previously.

>
> Karl, there is a limit.  Not everything is online.


That’s why when you cite data that is not online, you need to provide access
for that data that’s not online. Not everyone has the same access to off
line data, so if you publish some claim then cite some reference for that
claim, you need to be ready to provide some way to make that information
available to all members, not just to those who have access to good
libraries.


>  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,"


Or how about a third option which you don’t mention in the paragraph above,
that I mentioned, namely that you have made certain claims without support,
claims that we find questionable for other reasons, so can you show evidence
to back up your claims?


> 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.
>

I have a suspicion that if we restrict your response to Hebrew only and from
the Biblical era, that you will have no problem in providing the important
images of Hebrew inscriptions that are not online. The Gezar calendar and
the Siloam inscriptions are online, as well as the recent find from Judea,
what other images of long enough inscriptions from which to draw inferences
are there?

>
> Yitzhak Sapir
>

Karl W. Randolph.