WLC’s extra verses in Joshua

[Jason Hare]

I just wanted to say, Ben, that I’ve appreciated your contributions to the B-Hebrew forum already. I’ve read with interest both of the stories that you’ve posted, and I hope you keep up such thought-provoking and informative writing.

[kwrandolph]

Maybe I should have been clearer—not all of us accept the Masoretic tradition as being the final word on the text. As with any analysis of ancient manuscripts, we need to compare them to other manuscripts because of possible copyist errors. In the case of the Masoretes, we need to get rid of those pesky dots and squiggles, which are often demonstrably wrong as far as the meanings they confer.

“Pesky dots and squiggles.” You can obviously remove them and botch every single verse at your own peril.

And you botch many verses by including them.

Please, stop acting like they are meaningless and wrong.

To start out, the pronunciations are not the pronunciations from the time Tanakh was written. Secondly they reflect the interpretations and traditions of a group of men, interpretations and traditions that not every scholar shares. Thirdly, they are not original to the text, as can be seen also in the DSS. Fourthly, they are sometimes demonstrably incorrect as far as meaning is concerned.

Enough of this. Your comments are aimed at belittling the academy and Hebrew scholarship.

Oh? How?

How is your slavish adherence to the points not belittling Hebrew language scholarship?

You’ve had this platform for long enough, and it should be obvious by now that you will accomplish nothing by continuing to make these absurd comments. I will begin to edit them out of your posts if you don’t rein yourself in. How many years must you produce nothing of value to Hebrew learners before you realize that your methodology is flawed and useless? You are not going to get anyone to learn Hebrew without vowels.

My interest has not been to teach absolute beginners. I have given little thought to that. Rather my interest has been to discuss among more advanced learners, many of whom are self-learners. These are the people who should be able to read and understand Tanakh without the points. Maybe even through the use of ancient Hebrew font instead of the Aramaic square font used today.

Karl W. Randolph.

[Jason Hare]

My interest has not been to teach absolute beginners. I have given little thought to that. Rather my interest has been to discuss among more advanced learners, many of whom are self-learners. These are the people who should be able to read and understand Tanakh without the points. Maybe even through the use of ancient Hebrew font instead of the Aramaic square font used today.

Karl,

I’m not against reading the Paleo Hebrew script. I have translated old inscriptions from that time (the Mesha Stele and the Hezekiah Tunnel Inscription), and that’s great. I read unpoitend Hebrew, as I live in Israel and that’s how we write Hebrew, and the Dead Sea Scrolls are a treasure of unpointed Hebrew, as is the Mishnah from which I read.

What I oppose is your insistence on bringing this up in every single thread and detracting from serious discussions with your constant jabs and sneers. If you want to promote your practices, perhaps make a community of your own and stop hindering the growth of this space by making disparaging and insulting remarks at every turn.

I’ve almost convinced that you’ve been here long enough and should probably move on and let us get on about the business of promoting the study of Hebrew—as taught in academia—for those who are looking for guidance in how to learn and for a place to discuss the scholarship in which they are engaged in the field.

[kwrandolph]

… These are the people who should be able to read and understand Tanakh without the points.…

Karl,

What I oppose is your insistence on bringing this up in every single thread …

Please, Jason, be accurate. I don’t bring this up in every thread. For example, in the thread of the non-existence particle, there was no need to bring it up, and I didn’t. Neither did I bring it up in my response concerning the prophetic perfect. Nor in my response in the thread concerning אחרי. On threads devoted to questions on the points, such as “the tale of the qadma” and “saying the quiet part out loud”, I don’t bother answering.

I’ve almost convinced that you’ve been here long enough and should probably move on and let us get on about the business of promoting the study of Hebrew—as taught in academia—for those who are looking for guidance in how to learn and for a place to discuss the scholarship in which they are engaged in the field.

Which academia?

For example, I’ve been told that my understanding of Hebrew verbal conjugations is very similar to that of the late professor Dr. Diethelm Michel of Uni-Mainz, I came to this understanding independently of him, but he was first.

When I look at the academic papers being published, I see disagreement and confusion as to what the conjugations mean. Are you trying to say that only one view is correct, and that it is the one that you teach?

Isn’t it pretty universal that questions concerning textual criticism must deal with texts without the points, especially after the discovery of the DSS?

I bring up the points only where I see that it has bearing on the thread. Many time it is irrelevant, and I don’t bring up questioning the points.

Karl W. Randolph.

[kwrandolph]

Your comments are coming close to disparaging those who, like me, are only interested in a narrow set of sources for the Hebrew Bible.

Ben Denckla, welcome to the forum.

I had no intention to be disparaging of those who are interested in a narrow set of sources for the Hebrew Bible. Rather mine was more of a reaction of not understanding why someone would want to limit himself to that narrow set of sources, especially for me after finding that set of sources to be somewhat problematic. I won’t get into my reasons why here.

You also have a valid point that if an edition claims to be an accurate rendition of that narrow set of sources yet turns out to include text from outside of that narrow set of sources, that too is a problem. It’s a problem because that’s false advertisement. It makes you wonder if there are any other deviations from its claim that you just haven’t found yet.

I don’t understand why you do what you do, but it is not my intent to disparage you.

Karl W. Randolph.