Biblical Hebrew Forum

[K Randolph <kwrandolph AT gmail.com>]

Arnaud:

On Tue, Jan 11, 2011 at 10:57 AM, Arnaud Fournet
<fournet.arnaud AT wanadoo.fr>wrote:

>
> ----- Original Message ----- From: K Randolph
>
> ***
> There are clearly three things I disagree with :
> 1. your replacement of words like heykhal by skeletons like HYKL
> This amounts to destroying information.
>
>
> KR
> I used the accepted transliteration scheme that has been used on this list
> for years. It is listed elsewhere on this site.
> Seeing as the consonantal text is original, I have not destroyed any
> information.
> ***
> No
> The "text" was originally a document spoken in a real language with vowels.
>

Yes, Biblical Hebrew was a real language with vowels, but today we don’t
know what those vowels were because the written text that was used to
preserve the language, preserved no vowels.


> and I see no reason to think the Masoretic tradition is incorrect.
>

I have already gone over this in more detail in previous messages. Evidences
include transliterations into other languages, other pronunciation schemes,
analysis of the text itself, all indicating that the Masoretic tradition was
only one of different pronunciation traditions with no way to verify which
was correct, if any one was.

Further, in individual readings, the Masoretic points are sometimes wrong as
far as meaning is concerned. Another reason not to trust the Masoretic
points.


> It's just your dogma that the document should be purged from its vowels.
>

The written document did not have vowels, therefore I purge nothing from the
text.


> I disagree with that purge.
> A.
> ***
>
> Seeing as the pronunciation points are de facto medieval commentary, I
> simply choose not to add them to the original.
> ***
> I disagree with the characterization as "medieval commentary".
> They are inherited.
>

It is a tradition as it was recorded for that place and time. Those points
are neither original nor canon.


> I don't really understand why you want or need to discard them. At this
> point i do not understand your motivations.
> A.
> ***
>
> My motive is merely to try to understand the text to the best of my
ability.

I figure I have a better time going back as close as we can to the original
text as far as we can discover it than to rely on a tradition from a
millennium or more later.

>
> History is off topic for this list, except that you included it in your
> messages.
> Whether you agree or not is irrelevant.
> ***
> If Biblical Hebrew is not a topic loaded with history,
> then what is ?
> A
> ***
>
> We can argue history until we are blue in the face, and not advance our
understanding of Biblical Hebrew one whit. There are different views of
history: e.g. for Egyptian history there are the views of Kenneth Kitchen
and his followers, those of David Rohl and his followers, Velikovsky and his
followers; which if any are correct? Each of those views impinge on our
understanding of Biblical Hebrew and the historicity of Tanakh. People on
this list disagree with these and more as far as history is concerned,
therefore history is off the table.

>
>
> KR:
> we can’t say when Sumerian ceased being a natively spoken language.
> ***
> I disagree.
> Probably sometimes around -1800 BCE at the very last.
> A.
> ***
> KR:
> And what is your evidence?
> ***
> At the beginning of the 2nd millenium, texts written in Sumerian gradually
> fossilize in a completely standardized language.
>

How do you *know* the *dates*? Is it through comparing them with Egyptian
dates, which are obviously messed up and contradict archaeological findings?


>
>
> Arnaud Fournet
>
>
>
Karl W. Randolph.