Biblical Hebrew Forum

[K Randolph <kwrandolph AT gmail.com>]

Randall:

On Sat, Mar 12, 2011 at 3:00 PM, Randall Buth <randallbuth AT gmail.com> wrote:

> > Don’t be ridiculous!
>
> "flourishing" was your criterion, not mine. We can drop it as
> a criterion.
>

Not at all.

I mentioned in an earlier post that my first criterion is theological, named
here the belief in Biblical inerrancy. That belief teaches that in the
original autographs, there were no mistakes. By no mistakes, that includes
that where datable material is presented in Tanakh (and New Testament), that
material is accurate.

• the first indication of dates are datable events mentioned in the books
• second indication of dates is the content of the books
• third, and a distant one at that, is linguistic style; but that linguistic
style was first recognized by analyzing those books that could be dated by
the first two criteria.

Not all books have specific dates of authorship listed nor can be dated by
their contents.

So far I have seen no good reason to give up Biblical inerrancy.

>
> > These statistics mean little in light of how few writings from Biblical
> > times remain. How much greater linguistic diversity would have been known
> if
> > the temple with its records had not burned in 70 AD? How many “late
> > features” are really early, just not recorded elsewhere in Tanakh?
> > Here we are arguing from silence, where we cannot even assign
> probabilities
> > because of lack of records.
>
> Yes, you are arguing from silence again. The statistics fit a SECOND
> TEMPLE placement, but there is always room to argue from silence that
> somehow writings with large doses of mixed asher/sh- would have
> occurred in the First Temple period. Or that many of the Mishnaic
> words would have occurred earlier.


I didn’t claim “would have”, just “could have”, and that “could have” is an
unknown that makes it impossible for us to assign probabilities. Those
statistics may be significant, may be not worth the paper they’re written
on, we just don’t know. Until we get a significant collection of documents
in Biblical Hebrew from the Biblical era, in particular the kingdom era, a
collection that dwarfs the Tanakh in breadth and subject matter, there is no
way that any scholar can even presume that those statistics are significant
and accurate. Therefore, all these arguments are arguing from silence.

The “would have” I mentioned is the library of literature that was in the
second temple and went up in smoke with it, would have gone a long way
towards answering some of the questions with which we now wrestle.


> Everyone does agree that at the end
> of the Second Temple, Hebrew shifted into a fully sh- dialect. Ben
> Sira, fortunately for dating, is self-proclaimed as late. And Ben
> Sira's asher/sh- style is the closest thing that exists to Qohelet.
>
> While that is interesting, it is irrelevant because of the lack of earlier
documentation.

>
>
> > This argument makes no sense at all. Even were it northern dialect,
> Solomon
> > ruled over the northern tribes and would have known the term from his
> > contacts with those northern tribes. To say he would not have known it
> makes
> > no sense.
>
> The argument is that a Judean would not write a book in Northern,
> without some special purpose and point. Was Solomon trying to pretend
> that he was a northerner? Would Obama give a speech in British English
> to the US congress?
>
> Did you notice that I put the claim that it is northern dialect in the
optative? I don’t believe that this is a sign of northern dialect. I think
that those who claim that it was northern dialect are again making
presumptions based on ignorance: ignorance because of the lack of
documentation that I mentioned earlier.

I also think they are making a specious argument designed to support their
ideology.

>
> >> > The features above are not 'silence' and they do, in fact, support the
> >> otherwise strong probability that pitgam and pardes were borrowed into
> >> Hebrew when there was strong Aramaic pressure from on top--during the
> >> Persian period. >
>

Look at the criteria I listed at the beginning of this message, the first
two rule out this possibility. The third criterion is merely the proverbial
nail in the coffin.

> >
> > You need to do better.
>
> I would prefer not doing better. Strong linguistic probability vs.
> wishful silence. It's enough for most to get started thinking and
> weighing.
>

What is wishful thinking in acknowledging the lack of contemporary
literature that could support or falsify either claim?

>
> Someday you may read BenSira, or study Segal's commentary and notes on
> the language. It is a published book. There is no point in repeating
> it. Others will be able to follow up if they are interested. And for
> them I've written this.
>

Chances for me are slim to none. At one time I would have jumped at the
possibility to study Ben Sira as a valuable tool in comparative linguistics,
today I see an advantage in not having the language of Ben Sira infect and
weaken my knowledge and understanding of Biblical Hebrew. In other words,
today I would rather give up the chance for comparative linguistics, than
lose my facility in Biblical Hebrew.

For those who wish to study comparative linguistics, go ahead and study Ben
Sira. That study will help in understanding the steps that Hebrew went
through as it transitioned from Biblical Hebrew as Hebrew to modern Hebrew.

>
> braxot
> Randall Buth
>
> I notice in this last posting, you present generalities and methodologies,
not specifics listing chapter, verse and word as in your previous message.

Karl W. Randolph.