Biblical Hebrew Forum

[K Randolph <kwrandolph AT gmail.com>]

Dear Pere:

On Mon, Oct 18, 2010 at 10:53 PM, Pere Porta <pporta7 AT gmail.com> wrote:

>
>>>>> (PP) Patterns consisting of prefix M- and two root letters are always
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> 1. Either Hiph'il Participles as in Ez 33:32; Jr 21:4; Pr 17:4...
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> (KR) What makes you think they are all hiphils? Tradition? Masoretic
>>>> points?
>>>>
>>>>
>>> (PP)
>>>
>>> I say that (disregarding of vowel points), a Hebrew word that consists of
>>> [M + two root consonants] (as it would be the case for M'D in your
>>> viewpoint) cannot be a Pi'el Participle.
>>>
>>
>> (KR) Why? On what basis is this claim made?
>>
>>>
>>>
>> (PP) I have worked for many years (since 1990) to build up a list of as
> many as possible of Hebrew patterns or structures.
> My present list consists of about nine thousand (9,000) patterns with, of
> course, the corresponding explanation.
>
> In this sense I have some authority to confirm that the pattern or
> structure (M + two root consonants) is NEVER a Piel Participle.
>

How do you KNOW they are not piel participles?

I don’t begrudge your efforts, but at this point, it sounds like you started
out with the presupposition that they are not piel participles, therefore
the conclusion that they are not piel participles. It sounds like a circular
argument.

>
>
>
>>    (PP) By the way, Karl, are you creating a list of these words?).
>>>
>>
>> (KR) No, I’n not making a list. First and foremost, when I sit down to
>> read from Tanakh, I read an unpointed text, so usually I don’t know when I
>> read it using different points.
>>
>> There are a few exceptions, one being Isaiah 30:14 where the text reminds
>> me of blacksmithing (which I have done) and not of pottery (which I have
>> studied). But most of the time I don’t know.
>>
>>>
>
>>     (PP) I think it would be worthwhile to create this list, Karl. I
>>>>> mean: a list of those words in the Bible that could be pointed in a way
>>>>> other than the masoretic way. And at a time showing how this different
>>>>> pointing  would give a meaning or an understanding of the text that is
>>>>> different from that which has been currently accepted.
>>>>>
>>>> I admit that this is a work. yes. But... as you're a lexicographer, why
> not to do a little more work or effort to get such a list?
>

The reason I have not made such a list goes back to the reason I learned
Biblical Hebrew in the first place, namely to read the text. As a Bible
believing Christian, it was not to be a scholar, not to be a lexicographer,
but merely as an act of worship, to learn of God’s message to us people. The
only English translation I had at that time was the KJV, which I understood
to about 80%. I hoped that with reading in Hebrew that would go to 100%.
Instead I found out that our knowledge of Biblical Hebrew still has a lot of
holes, and we are the more honest to admit to those areas of uncertainty.

Some of those uncertainties are caused by poor lexicography, as I could see
from Gesenius, BDB, Davidson, and so forth, so that is why I started making
notes in the margins of the dictionaries I had.

Other uncertainties are caused by poor application of grammar.

Rather than a list of words, it seems to me that the more accurate way is to
list verses where the Masoretic pointing is wrong, and why. Both Isaiah
30:14 and Proverbs 1:19 led to discussion threads on this list because I
brought them up, and Job 39:13 I joined that thread. And I conclude that
Proverbs 30:19 should read “The way of an eagle in the air, the way of a
snake on a smooth rock, the way of a ship in heart of the sea and the way of
a hero into the unknown” where the context indicates that a word that is
pointed one way all the other times it is used should be pointed differently
here.


> I think this would result in a QUITE interesting work for the whole of the
> Bible world (both scholars and -within certain limitations-  also
> non-scholars).
> Of course it could become an interesting work to publish...
>
>
Other than a list like this where people can ask sometimes even stupid
questions (I am not exempt), which publication is willing to publish
articles questioning the status quo?

>
> Hearty,
>
>
> Karl W. Randolph.