Biblical Hebrew Forum

[K Randolph <kwrandolph AT gmail.com>]

Randall:

On Tue, Sep 28, 2010 at 7:01 AM, Randall Buth <randallbuth AT gmail.com> wrote:

> >>>> [RB] Based on the evaluated, weighed evidence of all sources,
> >>>> this is not and never was Biblical Hebrew.
> >>>
> >>> [KR] By the same measure, Masoretic Hebrew “ is not and never was
> >>> Biblical Hebrew.”
> >>
> >> 'By the SAME measure' would mix apples and oragnges.
> >> The difference is organic connection versus imagination. Scholars can
> >> work with organic development, like thalassa and thalatta in Greek.
> >> But idiosyncratic imagination is simply unconnected 'nothing'.
>

So the written text doesn’t count?

No, we are not comparing my apples against your oranges, we are comparing
both against BH peaches.

As for your “organic connection”, we know that there was not only begad
kephat, but dropping of unstressed vowels as well. How many? We don’t know,
but the unstressed vowels dropping out in one generation, will lead to other
vowels being unstressed, hence dropped, a few generations later. How many
other mispronunciations came about during the centuries because of
pronouncing Hebrew according to the speakers’ native tongues? With all these
questions and reasons to doubt the “organic connections”, why ignore
evidence from the text itself?

> >
> > I see you do not deny that “By the same measure, Masoretic Hebrew “ is
> > not and never was Biblical Hebrew.” ”
>
> Karl, most everyone agrees that the MT shows some dialectical
> development from First Temple BH, e.g. begedkefet letters, and
> the 7-8 phonemic vowel system, however,
> my comment was questioning and denying the use of the words
> 'by the SAME  MEASURE'.
>

“Same measure” being, is this accurate representation of Biblical Hebrew
pronunciation? The answer clearly is “No!” I suspect that if Elijah were to
return, he would have difficulty understanding a word of spoken modern
Hebrew pronunciation.


> The little test' had been proposing a 'pig latin' Hebrew
> " Ba ray ah sa yay te ba ray ah eh lo ha ye ma eh ta ha sa ... "
> That proposal is not 'in the ballpark' and cannot even be related to
> what First Temple BH was like.


How do you know? What is the basis of your knowledge? If it is the
discredited Masoretic points, how can I trust it?

I have never claimed that my proposed pronunciation is accurate. All I have
pointed to is that the text as written gives evidence for a CV pronunciation
of Biblical Hebrew, which I illustrated with my little test.


> Such a proposal is
> not based on a weighed, evaluation of all available evidence
>

Which evidence trumps the written text?


> but was an idiosyncratic proposal that cannot be entertained
>

That’s not a scholarly statement.


> by Semitists or by people that can evaluate the full scope of
> the evidence. (That evidence includes evaluating and weighing the
> connections with closely related languages like Arabic, Aramaic, Ugaritic,
> El-Amarna, the spelling of the consonantal BH text, and the internal
> development of Hebrew and doing such weighing and evaluation with the
> experience and skill of knowing the parameters within which languages
> develop and change.)
>

It also includes numerous references to that fictional language called
“proto-Semitic” for which there is no evidence, further I have seen claims
in the discussions that contradict recorded history of how languages
actually change, so those arguments are a bruised reed.


> On the other hand, the Masoretic vocalization of BH shows an organic
> development within the parameters within which languages develop and
> change.


Which I have never denied. I just question the timing and by how much?


> No one whom I know who has the skills to evaluate the above
> would argue that the MT represents BH exactly with the phonetic quality
> of First Temple Hebrew. But the MT is 'in the ballpark', it is structually
> on target, it shows evidence of preserving information and structures
> that were from older linguistic layers than its own system, and it is part
> of any evidence for reconstructing a more precise First Temple BH. In
> that sense, the MT is a real representation of BH.
>

The more I read, the more I respect the Kethib over the Qere. The Kethib is
BH, the Qere is MH. Oh yes, there are a few obvious copyist errors where the
Qere gives a better reading, but they are in the tiny minority of examples.


> I say all of this, relying on personal acquaintance with the evidence, it
> is not a blind 'argument from authority'.


But if you don’t spell out those arguments, they become an argument from
authority.


> Unfortunately, if you want to
> dispute this you will need the prerequisite skills listed. It will do no
> good
> to point out that people make mistakes and that none of the individual
> pieces of evidence are 100% reliable. They require evaluation and
> weighing so that the composite picture comes more and more in focus.
>

So how do references to a fictional language trump evidence from the text
itself? Or references to other languages where differences can be arbitrary
and unpredictable?


>
> I probably don't have much more to say on this thread unless a person
> shows acquaintance with the prereqs.


Since we are dealing with a language where almost all of it is written in
one surviving book, is not the most important prerequisite knowing that
book? So how many times have you read the whole book cover to cover? (You
already admitted to just once.) How well do you know that whole book? How
about your colleagues? I have seen numerous examples to question that the
scholarly community has fulfilled that most basic of prerequisites.

For me, the first ten times reading it through cover to cover merely gave me
the basics, the next ten times, during which I did most of the research for
writing a dictionary from Hebrew to English, provided me with a lot of
details. I neglected grammar, after finding that much of the grammar I was
taught didn’t fit the text, but concentrated on getting a feel for the
language. Yes, I make mistakes, correct me by referring to Bible verses that
show where I am wrong, not “scholarly opinion”.


> We've been down that road
> before and it inevitably boils down to one side throwing out evidence
> based on lack of access versus evaluating and weighing all sources
> of evidence, related to things like the existence of CVC syllables in BH
> and the various noun and verb morphological shapes of BH and the
> related languages. Most people would either learn from those with
> wider experience (at least provisionally until further knowledge was
> acquired), or else would actively learn and control the wider evidence.
> To continue to propose pigLatin Hebrew as an option is a kind of
> flat-Earthism.
>

You should speak!

You have no evidence for CVC syllables in Biblical Hebrew other than
questionable theories connected with analysis of cognate languages and
transliterations that postdate the death of the last native speakers of
Biblical Hebrew by centuries. And those are supposed to be convincing?
Especially after I have corrected you on Biblical Hebrew usage by
referencing specific verses?

At first I wanted to go through the same program that you did, but by not
doing so, have I avoided indoctrination into views and methods that obscure
rather than illuminate Biblical Hebrew?

>
> Maybe the other thread would be more profitable for discussion since
> it has some specific data.
>
> kwa heri (I'm currently spending some time with Swahili)
> Randall Buth
>
> --
> Randall Buth, PhD
> www.biblicalulpan.org
> randallbuth AT gmail.com
> Biblical Language Center
> Learn Easily - Progress Further - Remember for Life
>

Berakawote.

Karl W. Randolph.