Biblical Hebrew Forum

[Rolf Furuli <furuli AT online.no>]

Dear list-members,

I agree with Barry that in order to develop a balanced and 
well-founded view of some ancient linguistic matter, one must have a 
good knowledge of what different scholars have written about the 
subject. I also agree with James Spinti that because of Blau's 
excellent scholarship we should give a careful consideration to his 
conclusions.

But we must remember that Classical Hebrew grammar and phonology, as 
we understand them today, are based on induction and indirect 
evidence and includes a lot of scholarly guesswork.  We also see a 
clear tendency in monographs, textbooks, and reference works 
discussing ancient phonology, grammar, and lexical semantics to 
repeat what others have said without checking their conclusions 
thoroughly.

I will give one example that deals with ancient Greek , but which 
clearly is relevant for Classical Hebrew studies as well.

In 2010 Gunnar Samuelsson published his dissertation "Crucifixion in 
Antiquity." The author has done an extensive research (413 pages), 
and his conclusion, which I heartily endorse, is that much of what is 
said in textbooks and reference works about the basic words used for 
"cross; crucifixion" is without any foundation. On the back cover the 
author points out that almost all accounts from antiquity that 
scholars have used to prove crucifixion must be rejected; at the 
best, some of them are ambiguous. Then he says:

"The New Testament is not spared from this terminological ambiguity. 
The accounts of the death of Jesus are strikingly sparse. Their chief 
contribution is usage of the unclear terminology in question. 
Over-interpretation, and probably even pure imagination, have 
afflicted nearly every wordbook and dictionary that deals with the 
terms related to to crucifixion as well as scholarly depictions of 
what happened at Calvary. The immense knowledge of the punishment of 
crucifixion in general and the execution of Jesus in particular, 
cannot be supported by the studied texts."

We have exactly the same situation in connection with many ancient 
Hebrew issues. So we should carefully study the conclusions of the 
leading scholars, but be skeptical regarding their conclusions.


Best regards,

Rolf Furuli
University of Oslo






> ----- Original Message ----- From: Isaac Fried
> To: Barry
> Cc: b-hebrew
> Sent: Monday, August 02, 2010 1:31 PM
> Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] Blau's explanation for how ultimate stress 
> became inHebrew
>
> > I don't know and it irrelevant to me.
>
> Ok, thanks.  In my own academic training, I was taught that some 
> knowledge of the published writings in a given area was essential to 
> my own work, so I find this lack of knowledge... surprising.  You 
> must be operating on different principles.
>
> N.E. Barry Hofstetter
> Classics and Bible Instructor, TAA
> http://www.theamericanacademy.net
> (2010 Savatori Excellence in Education Winner)
> Mentor, TNARS
> http://www.tnars.net