Biblical Hebrew Forum

[Yitzhak Sapir <yitzhaksapir AT gmail.com>]

Karl, as you see from the moderators' announcement, they hope to
curtail threads
that are going nowhere.  It is nice that you followed up on Emanuel
Tov's link -- we
can already see that there was misunderstanding, and this allows us to 
progress.

Note, however, that Emanuel Tov does speak of "orthographic practices."  Also,
you shouldn't read too much into his definition.  His work is an
introductory textbook
and it is only reasonable that scholarly terms be defined for the
reader, even if the
reader does have an idea what they mean.

As far as orthography goes, as you see (from the other responses),
orthography is
not really new.  Modern English orthography may be somewhat new, but
that is only
because Modern English is itself only a few centuries old.

I did not suggest that detractors must have a familiarity with the
evidence.  However,
it is *NOT* a circular argument to suggest that.  If you think it is a
circular argument,
that is, that someone familiar with the evidence would necessarily not
be a "detractor,"
then we can happily announce to the list that we have come to an agreement on
the subject!

A circular argument would be something like -- oh, if the Torah was
given on Mt Sinai
in the 2nd millenium BCE and accurately transmitted until today -- in the vast
majority of cases, to the very letter, then the orthography of the
Torah was not
changed to reflect post-exilic orthographic practices.

Incidentally, Karl, you never told me which version of the Torah was 
accurately
transmitted -- the Samaritan, Jewish, Qumran, R' Meir's, or what?  All of 
these
have significant deviations from one another in terms of spelling.  (Emanuel
Tov raises this issue in the pages surrounding those I linked).

Karl, you consistently reject "cognate" evidence.  However, because you have
read one Moabite inscription, you consider it reasonable to make certain
conclusions based on Moabite.  Yes, you consider that Moabite may also have
different idioms, etc.  But you also write -

> Moabite, as shown by the Mesha stele [...] was almost identical to Biblical 
> Hebrew.
> There is less difference between Biblical Hebrew and Moabite than between 
> many
> dialects and their parent languages.

Imagine what statements you would make if you read other dialects --
Samarian, or
Philistine (Eqron, Masad Hashavyahu), Ammonite, Edomite, or Phoenician.  I use
the term dialect because sometimes these are considered simply Hebrew!  Before
you reject them as evidence, how about you read them too?

Even if I were to limit myself to only Judaean Hebrew inscriptions,
I'd still find myself
having to prepare for you hundreds of inscriptions to read!  Karl, I
don't have time
for that.  Yes, it is a major hassle for me!  And as someone pointed
out, it is a
major copyright violation too!  Even if it was not a hassle and not a 
copyright
violation, there's no reason for me to provide you with the text.  For 
example,
if you were to either make a claim or dispute a claim of mine about the Aleppo
codex, it would not be my responsibility to provide you with photocopies of 
the
Aleppo codex.

Not everyone on this list comes with equal knowledge.  Some may not know 
Hebrew
and want to ask a question.  But I am sure you will agree that if
someone comes and
makes certain statements regarding Hebrew grammar and phonology then he should
have a basic familiarity with Hebrew grammar and phonology.  If someone wants 
to
make statements about Hebrew epigraphy, he should have a basic familiarity 
with
Hebrew epigraphy.

I'm willing, as I said before, to help you out if you want to go to
the library, to try to
find some solution in terms of inter library loan or what else.
Perhaps this should
be taken off-list.  Not only that, but for a limited time only, you
can purchase a
book on Biblical Hebrew orthography for less than $15, not to say a
book on linguistics
and Biblical Hebrew for under $15:
http://www.eisenbrauns.com/pages/SPECIAL

(And, you can get there the Hebrew 1992 version of Ahituv's handbook of
inscriptions for just $18 -- with photos, transcriptions, and drawings
for each of
the hundreds of inscriptions in the book.  It is sad to see the 2005 Hebrew
version out of print, though.)

If you are unwilling to put in the effort to go read some epigraphic
inscriptions,
then this thread is going to go nowhere.  You will simply not have any
evidence to
substantiate your position.  This will simply become another thread
dealing with
your post-modernist views of evidence.

Last note -

Gentilics are, for the purposes of this discussion, adjectives created
from place
names.  For example, the place name yhwdh or yhwd will give the gentilic 
yhwdy.
The place name mw)b will give the gentilic mw)by.  The final -y
probably indicates
a long -i: (although it probably does derive from a consonantal suffix
-y).  When
plurals of gentilics are created, you get the plural suffix added to
the gentilic
suffix - mo)abi:-i:m, creating a semivowel in between, which is
spelled in Hebrew
always with at least one -y-.  This would also work even if the plural
suffix was not
just -i:m but also if it was -a:m or -u:m.

Yes, google books does have only bitmapped images for the books online.
But you can search them!  There's a search box titled "Search this book" to
the left of the text.  Do you really think google will offer you something you
can't search?

Yitzhak Sapir