Biblical Hebrew Forum

[K Randolph <kwrandolph AT gmail.com>]

Jerry:

On Fri, Jul 12, 2013 at 1:56 PM, Jerry Shepherd <jshepherd53 AT gmail.com> wrote:

Hi Karl,

 

(1) You ask: "Therefore, is it your assertion that the main authorship of the Tanakh came after the Babylonian exile?"

 

Me: No.  I do believe, however, that it went through editorial activity.

How much editorial activity? What evidence do you have that the MT consonantal text, apart from relatively few copyist errors, doesn’t represent an older text form? 

 

(2) You state and ask: "In other words, you don’t trust the consonantal text of Tanakh, so why are you making such a big stink about me not trusting the Masoretic points, which are a much later addition?"

 

Me: I trust the consonantal text.  I trust the Masoretic points.  I trust the consonantal text more than I do the Masoretic points.  But I believe the Masoretic points are largely accurate.

Even if the Masoretic points are 99% accurate, that averages out to one mistake every three to four verses. Often that 1% error can make a significant change in meaning. For me, unless I have verified the points in a verse, I don’t trust them. And I recommend to everyone else that he verify the points before he counts them as accurate.

In practice, I found that where the points are accurate, they clutter up the page and make it more difficult to read. Where they are wrong, they mislead. So between the two, it’s just easier to read an unpointed text.

 

(3) You ask: "So what do you call the action where a language has been corrupted—its grammar changed and some lexemes having different meanings—by being used by people who are not native speakers in a way that more approximates their native tongue?

 

Me: I do not call it corruption.

Well then, what do you call that corruption? 

 

(4) You state: "This response makes it appear that you don’t know what is a straw man logical fallacy."

 

Me: I know what the straw man fallacy is.  But it is not being used against you.  You are not the victim.  Your position has been described accurately.

Oh? How does that compare to what I wrote above concerning accuracy? In saying that, I repeated myself, as that has been my position all along. 

Now let’s look at your statement, “Finally, notice that all of the concession you've made in the last couple of posts take you very far from your original unnuanced assertion that "you can't trust the Masoretic points."”? How can you make such a statement, unless you distorted my position, i.e. straw man fallacy?

 

… 

(6) Finally, sorry Karl–making the assertion that the use of the word "strike" in baseball, meaning to miss, comes from a Norwegian or some other root, is not the same thing as demonstrating that such is actually the case.  It is much more plausible to suggest, rather, that "strike" referred originally to a ball that was struck foul, and then by extension came to cover balls that were missed entirely.

Now you haven’t demonstrated that. That assertion is speculation on your part to defend your position. I at least have evidence for a common root from cognate languages, which give probability. Another example is German, “ein Strich gegen” is used almost identically to “strike” in baseball to refer to a mark against the batter, leading to his being counted out. Its verb is “streichen”. So which is more likely, your speculation, or a Germanic root still used in baseball?

 

Blessings,

 

Jerry

Jerry Shepherd

Taylor Seminary

Edmonton, Alberta

jshepherd53 AT gmail.com

 

Karl W. Randolph.