Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

b-hebrew - Re: [b-hebrew] Ex 6:6 hiphil imperative 'bring' (K Randolph)

b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Biblical Hebrew Forum

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: Jerry Shepherd <jshepherd53 AT gmail.com>
  • To: B-Hebrew <b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org>
  • Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] Ex 6:6 hiphil imperative 'bring' (K Randolph)
  • Date: Thu, 11 Jul 2013 22:39:43 -0600

Hi Karl,

 

You wrote: "Without evidence, I don’t see how you can make such a claim."

 

Me: Actually there is quite a bit of evidence of redactorial work on earlier books, including rearrangement, orthographic revision, expansion of plene readings, etc.

 

You wrote: "These are the recorded dates in the books, other dates are speculative and a claim that the recorded dates are wrong. Again, where’s your evidence?"

 

Me: But we do not have the texts from those dates.  I am not arguing that the recorded dates are wrong; but I am arguing the very evident datum that we don't have any texts from those dates.  All our texts come from later periods, and the texts were most likely edited and updated in those later periods.

 

You wrote: "Not necessarily. There is more likelihood that the pronunciation changed when a “corrupted version” (Mishnaic Hebrew), was spoken."

 

Me: The answer lies somewhere in between on a spectrum, but I would still argue closer to my "frozen" thesis.  And it is very prejudicial to refer to Mishnaic Hebrew as a "corrupted" version.

 

You wrote: "No concessions on my part, I don’t trust the Masoretic points. Period. But I also don’t hold to that straw-man perversion of my position of which people on this list accuse me. Never have."

 

Me: Actually, the "straw-man perversion of my position" turns out to be not a straw man at all.  You don't trust the Masoretic points.  You are the straw man!

 

You wrote: "I dont have a copy of Waltke & O’Connor, so I can’t look it up to give the exact page. The comment was under a reference to evidence of the language spoken in Canaan during the time of the Amarna Letters."

 

Me: I suspected as much.  I do have a copy of Waltke & O'Connor, and unless I'm completely missing it, they do not say what you reported them as saying.  There are a couple of places in the book where they reference the Amarna correspondence, and suggest that perhaps Hebrew, like other Akkadian and Ugaritic, may have had vocalic case endings which, in the development of the language, were subsequently dropped.  But this is a far cry from suggesting that at one time in Hebrew every consonant was followed by a vowel.

 

You wrote: "As for strike, there are words in other Germanic languages that refer to a line or mark, occasionally used as a negative mark against a person. If he gets enough of the negative marks, he’s out. Baseball still uses that meaning when referring to marks against a batter, if he gets three for a time up at bat, he’s out. If that baseball player hits 20 foul balls in a row, only two marks are counted against him. That shows that the 'strike' against the batter is not for hitting the ball, but a negative count towards putting him out."

 

Me: You have not shown, however, that the word "strike" in baseball was derived from one of these other words; and I don't believe there is really any plausibility to this at all.  So when you said, "When a baseball player swings his bat, he attempts to hit a speeding ball (if he misses, he then has a count against him, which is called a “strike”, from a different root than “strike” to hit)," you were seriously outrunning the evidence in a fairly desperate attempt to hold on to your "single unique meaning" lexeme theory.

 

By comparison, the Masoretes look superlatively trustworthy.

 

Blessings,

 

Jerry

Jerry Shepherd
Taylor Seminary
Edmonton, Alberta
 





Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page