Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

b-hebrew - Re: [b-hebrew] Dating of Qohelet (was: Style and Qohelet)

b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Biblical Hebrew Forum

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: Randall Buth <randallbuth AT gmail.com>
  • To: K Randolph <kwrandolph AT gmail.com>
  • Cc: Hebrew <b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org>
  • Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] Dating of Qohelet (was: Style and Qohelet)
  • Date: Mon, 14 Mar 2011 12:46:09 +0200

Karl:
> my first criterion is theological, named here the belief in Biblical
> inerrancy . . .
> 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.

Karl, I support you in holding to your inerrancy claim. There is nothing
in my proposals that should detract you from that. But we do read the
content of the texts and the literary intentions differently. Probably a
majority of members of ETS OT-profs accept inerrancy and date
Qohelet late. Or maybe a minority. I don't know. Franz Delitsch,
certainly not Friedrich, would probably have been in that camp from
an earlier era.

Here, my concern is your "facility" in BH. You've apparently run
through the BH text twenty plus times, dissolving everything into roots
and some morphological categories that you learned from 'first year
Hebrew'. That is not the same thing as an internalized language and
no Semitic language works in the way that we sometimes see argued
in your posts. Most of the time this doesn't surface in an English email
about Biblical Hebrew, sometimes it is only visible from seeing that
a proposal cannot consistently work within the whole language, but
sometimes the proposal is small enough and definible enough that
it can be relatively 'easily' handled on a list like this.
Most recently, your comments on hatsil, and habenu הבנו
as "let's deliver", fit that category and were 'classic examples'
that reflect a 'non-viable' language, mixing roots and 'first year
categories' without reflection if the language works as presented.
It becomes worrisome if projected into how one would read the
rest of the HB. Further,
by refusing much information from the community that has used
BibHebrew continuously for 3000 years, and from the linguistic
community that can tighten up and verify much of that history,
a person risks creating a unique, non-viable, "corrupt language".
You appear to be developing a 'non-human/non-BH/artificial'
language. Ironically, this is the very thing that you wish to avoid.
I'll send another email, dealing with a couple of details in your last
email on Qohelet.

I realize that the above is only 'my opinion' and that you differ.
Mentioning that I speak other languages wouldn't help either, because
everyone on this list does. And everyone makes mistakes, too, for
many different reasons, even in a mother-tongue.
However, hatsil, habenu 'let's deliver' and the points
in the next email would be data for seeing how the 'philosophy of
BH', and its application, can be evaluated.

blessings
Randall Buth



--
Randall Buth, PhD
www.biblicallanguagecenter.com
Biblical Language Center
Learn Easily - Progress Further - Remember for Life




Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page