Biblical Hebrew Forum

[fred burlingame <tensorpath AT gmail.com>]

Karl:

I mean that the dead latin language has been resurrected today because a
large number of people have chosen to agree on the precise meaning of the
latin words.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Latin_liturgical_rites

Biblical hebrew language ("BH") enjoys no such current unanimity of
agreement on its lexicon; and amongst a large group of people. Hence, BH is
not and cannot be, at this time, employed as a living language.

Further, this circumstance, while perhaps fostering the goal of academic
freedom, nonetheless inhibits understanding of BH.

Perhaps another way to state the problem follows. In science, a "default" or
"generally accepted" set of facts prevails. For example, "the earth is
flat." Against that default position, investigators propose alternate
hypotheses and conduct experiments. Once a sufficient body of facts arrives
in support of the alternate theory, the default position changes to "the
earth is round."

And the process begins anew. Mathematicians propose that the earth is
neither flat or round, but merely part of the space-time continuum; and
experiments or investigations begin to support that view.

BH currently suffers from a lack of such structured examination. No default
position exists. No general agreement prevails on the meaning of each word
in the masoretic text ("MT"), and as each word appears in the text.

Hence, no organized and ongoing inquiry into the language itself can
proceed. The investigators, the scholars if you will, have no standard
against which to propose (& measure) alternate hypotheses as to the meaning
of each word in the MT, and as it appears in such text.

ישראל נוע for 40 years in the desert (according to the story).  BH study
seems to so meander today, in the absence of an organized method of inquiry
into the meaning of the language.

regards,

fred burlingame.



On Tue, Nov 16, 2010 at 9:38 PM, K Randolph <kwrandolph AT gmail.com> wrote:

> Fred:
>
> What do you mean by this message? It doesn’t make apparent sense.
>
> Karl W. Randolph.
>
> On Tue, Nov 16, 2010 at 5:44 PM, fred burlingame 
> <tensorpath AT gmail.com>wrote:
>
>> Thanks for your comments. I basically agree.
>>
>> I have no doubt that the language of the masoretic text:
>>
>> a. was used effectively as a means of communication amongst many people,
>> in
>> 1010 a.d.;
>>
>> b. could be used effectively as a means of communication, amongst
>> many people, in 2010 a.d.; and
>>
>> c. suffers a lack of agreement now, as to what the words meant, then;
>> thereby rendering it an inappropriate vehicle for communication at this
>> time.
>>
>> regards,
>>
>> fred burlingame
>>
>> On Tue, Nov 16, 2010 at 4:01 PM, George Athas <George.Athas AT moore.edu.au
>> >wrote:
>>
>> > The line between precision and approximation is drawn quite subjectively
>> > most of the time. Different people would be comfortable in drawing that
>> line
>> > in different places. In any case, the mere fact that we can still
>> > communicate across cultural and linguistic boundaries suggests the
>> > approximation is often not far off precision.
>> >
>> > GEORGE ATHAS
>> > Moore Theological College (Sydney, Australia)
>> > www.moore.edu.au
>> > _______________________________________________
>> > b-hebrew mailing list
>> > b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
>> > http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew
>> >
>> _______________________________________________
>> b-hebrew mailing list
>> b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
>> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew
>>
>
>