Gesenius — Not Biblical Hebrew

kwrandolph
Posts: 1531
Joined: Sun Sep 29, 2013 12:51 am

Gesenius — Not Biblical Hebrew

Post by kwrandolph »

<!-- This has been moved to a new thread. - Jason -->
Jason Hare wrote: Tue Jun 06, 2023 1:42 pm It is a conditional that is built only out of imperfects. Conditionals do not have to contain the words “if” and “then.” It is about the relationship between the clauses—one in which the apodosis is dependent on the protasis for its truth.

Any comments or questions?
Gesenius’ use of Greek grammar may work for medieval Hebrew, which was heavily influenced by Indo-European languages since the time of the Persian empire. But Biblical Hebrew is a Semitic language with a different grammar and syntax.

Karl W. Randolph.
User avatar
Jason Hare
Posts: 1920
Joined: Mon Sep 30, 2013 5:07 am
Location: Tel Aviv, Israel
Contact:

Re: Gesenius — Not Biblical Hebrew

Post by Jason Hare »

The claim that Gesenius doesn’t describe biblical Hebrew in his grammar is idiosyncratic and will be moved to this thread whenever it shows up. You can make your case here, but I cannot take the constant attempt to drive all other threads in that direction. I’m interested in you making your case, and everyone is welcome to go back-and-forth. Just keep it here instead of offering up distractions in other discussions.
Jason Hare
Tel Aviv, Israel
The Hebrew Café
יוֹדֵ֣עַ צַ֭דִּיק נֶ֣פֶשׁ בְּהֶמְתּ֑וֹ וְֽרַחֲמֵ֥י רְ֝שָׁעִ֗ים אַכְזָרִֽי׃
ספר משלי י״ב, י׳
kwrandolph
Posts: 1531
Joined: Sun Sep 29, 2013 12:51 am

Re: Gesenius — Not Biblical Hebrew

Post by kwrandolph »

Jason Hare wrote: Wed Jun 07, 2023 4:29 pm The claim that Gesenius doesn’t describe biblical Hebrew in his grammar is idiosyncratic and will be moved to this thread whenever it shows up. You can make your case here, but I cannot take the constant attempt to drive all other threads in that direction. I’m interested in you making your case, and everyone is welcome to go back-and-forth. Just keep it here instead of offering up distractions in other discussions.
And what is your definition of Biblical Hebrew? For me, it is the consonantal text alone. For me, the Masoretic points don’t represent Biblical Hebrew because they frequently deviate in meaning from the consonantal text.

By the way, I’m not the only one who argues that the Hebrew taught by Gesenius is not Biblical Hebrew.

Karl W. Randolph.
User avatar
Jason Hare
Posts: 1920
Joined: Mon Sep 30, 2013 5:07 am
Location: Tel Aviv, Israel
Contact:

Re: Gesenius — Not Biblical Hebrew

Post by Jason Hare »

kwrandolph wrote: Wed Jun 07, 2023 11:32 pm And what is your definition of Biblical Hebrew? For me, it is the consonantal text alone. For me, the Masoretic points don’t represent Biblical Hebrew because they frequently deviate in meaning from the consonantal text.

By the way, I’m not the only one who argues that the Hebrew taught by Gesenius is not Biblical Hebrew.

Karl W. Randolph.
“Biblical Hebrew” doesn’t mean “consonantal text.” It has to do with the grammar, lexical stock, syntax, and expressions of the language as used in the Bible. It doesn’t matter if it’s pointed or unpointed. The text can be pointed various ways within the limitations of the biblical language, and no matter what it would be biblical Hebrew.

For example, the use of the vayyiqtol is unique to biblical Hebrew. It doesn’t exist in rabbinic, medieval, or modern Hebrew, except in quotations of the biblical text or in writings that are intentional archaic in style. So, whereas biblical Hebrew would say וַיָּ֫שָׁב מֹשֶׁה אֶל־אַרְצוֹ, later forms of Hebrew have an explicit possessive particle and do not use the vayyiqtol. The same sense, then, would be וּמֹשֶׁה חָזַר אֶל־הָאָ֫רֶץ שֶׁלּוֹ. Later forms of Hebrew use חָזַר for “return” far more than שָׁב. Thus, the difference are clear in (1) word order, (2) syntactic forms, (3) lexical stock, (4) specific particles / prepositions, etc.
Jason Hare
Tel Aviv, Israel
The Hebrew Café
יוֹדֵ֣עַ צַ֭דִּיק נֶ֣פֶשׁ בְּהֶמְתּ֑וֹ וְֽרַחֲמֵ֥י רְ֝שָׁעִ֗ים אַכְזָרִֽי׃
ספר משלי י״ב, י׳
Jonathan Beck
Posts: 95
Joined: Mon May 11, 2020 5:16 pm
Location: Cincinnati, OH
Contact:

Re: Gesenius — Not Biblical Hebrew

Post by Jonathan Beck »

kwrandolph wrote: Wed Jun 07, 2023 11:32 pm And what is your definition of Biblical Hebrew? For me, it is the consonantal text alone. For me, the Masoretic points don’t represent Biblical Hebrew because they frequently deviate in meaning from the consonantal text.
If you don't have vowels, you have many different possibilities for vocalizing יקטל.

1. יִקְטֹל (Qal)
2 יִקָּטֵל (niphal)
3. יַקְטֵל (hifil jussive)
4.יְקַטֵּל (Piel)
5. יֻקְטַּל (Pual)


...and probably others I'm forgetting.

As a reader/interpreter, are you confident you'll pick the correct option every single time, without fail? I know Rabbis that make mistakes. Or are you saying, perhaps, that you pick the one that is congruent with the meaning you "want" the text to have? In other words, if anyone suggests (and defends) a meaning contrary to your own, are they automatically wrong? That's what it sounds like you frequently imply on your posts. Please correct me if I'm mistaken.

Jonathan
Jonathan Beck
Hebrew Union College - Jewish Institute of Religion, Cincinnati
Interim Pastor, Norwood Grace UMC, Cincinnati, OH.
kwrandolph
Posts: 1531
Joined: Sun Sep 29, 2013 12:51 am

Re: Gesenius — Not Biblical Hebrew

Post by kwrandolph »

Jason Hare wrote: Thu Jun 08, 2023 8:41 am
kwrandolph wrote: Wed Jun 07, 2023 11:32 pm And what is your definition of Biblical Hebrew? For me, it is the consonantal text alone. For me, the Masoretic points don’t represent Biblical Hebrew because they frequently deviate in meaning from the consonantal text.

By the way, I’m not the only one who argues that the Hebrew taught by Gesenius is not Biblical Hebrew.
“Biblical Hebrew” doesn’t mean “consonantal text.” It has to do with the grammar, lexical stock, syntax, and expressions of the language as used in the Bible.
I though you would understand, but it looks as if I have to bee more explicit. When I refer to the consonantal text, I refer to the grammar expressed by the consonantal text, to the lexical stock found in the consonantal text, the same is true of the syntax and expressions of the language as used in the Bible. They all differ from the grammar, lexical stock, syntax, and expressions of the language as indicated by the Masoretic points.
Jason Hare wrote: Thu Jun 08, 2023 8:41 am It doesn’t matter if it’s pointed or unpointed. The text can be pointed various ways within the limitations of the biblical language, and no matter what it would be biblical Hebrew.
That depends on how you define Biblical Hebrew.
Jason Hare wrote: Thu Jun 08, 2023 8:41 am For example, the use of the vayyiqtol is unique to biblical Hebrew. It doesn’t exist in rabbinic, medieval, or modern Hebrew, except in quotations of the biblical text or in writings that are intentional archaic in style.
That’s because already by DSS Hebrew, that grammar had been exchanged from its Semitic roots to one, at least in its verbal uses, that was based on Indo-European languages. Medieval Hebrew continued in that tradition. Modern Israeli Hebrew is based on medieval Hebrew. When the Masoretes invented their points, they preserved a tradition that tried to read Tanakh as if it were written in medieval Hebrew. That’s why the Masoretic points frequently deviate from the consonantal text.

What you call the Wayyiqtol in its by far most common use, is a continuation of the previous thought or further information, also found in narration to indicate what comes next.
Jonathan Beck wrote: Thu Jun 08, 2023 1:24 pm
kwrandolph wrote: Wed Jun 07, 2023 11:32 pm And what is your definition of Biblical Hebrew? For me, it is the consonantal text alone. For me, the Masoretic points don’t represent Biblical Hebrew because they frequently deviate in meaning from the consonantal text.
If you don't have vowels, you have many different possibilities for vocalizing יקטל.

1. יִקְטֹל (Qal)
2 יִקָּטֵל (niphal)
3. יַקְטֵל (hifil jussive)
4.יְקַטֵּל (Piel)
5. יֻקְטַּל (Pual)


...and probably others I'm forgetting.
You missed Hophal.

When you look at Tanakh, יקטל is used only twice, both times in Job, both times as an active third person singular.

The verb קטל is used only three times in Tanakh, all three times as a Yiqtol verb. A derivative is also found once as a participle noun.
Jonathan Beck wrote: Thu Jun 08, 2023 1:24 pm As a reader/interpreter, are you confident you'll pick the correct option every single time, without fail?
Of course not, at least not right away. Biblical Hebrew is still a second language to me, just as it is to the rabbis.
Jonathan Beck wrote: Thu Jun 08, 2023 1:24 pm I know Rabbis that make mistakes. Or are you saying, perhaps, that you pick the one that is congruent with the meaning you "want" the text to have?
This is why context is so important. What action is being expressed? How does the verb fit in (that is, after you have established which is the verb)? It has nothing to do with what I want, What is important, what does the text intend to communicate?
Jonathan Beck wrote: Thu Jun 08, 2023 1:24 pm In other words, if anyone suggests (and defends) a meaning contrary to your own, are they automatically wrong?
I defend my understanding strongly, but if someone gives a reason that is stronger than my understanding, I do change, and have changed.
Jonathan Beck wrote: Thu Jun 08, 2023 1:24 pm That's what it sounds like you frequently imply on your posts. Please correct me if I'm mistaken.

Jonathan
As for Gesenius, when I read that he published his first version of his dictionary when he was 25, I knew that he had just tweaked an older dictionary by someone else. No way could even the smartest man alive have done the tens of thousands of word studies needed to make that volume based on original research in that short of time. I expect that the same is true of his grammar—based on earlier grammars that described medieval Hebrew, not Biblical Hebrew.

Karl W. Randolph.
talmid56
Posts: 295
Joined: Tue Oct 01, 2013 9:02 am
Location: Carlisle, Arkansas, USA

Re: Gesenius — Not Biblical Hebrew

Post by talmid56 »

I suppose then you would say, Karl, that all current scholars and grammarians, as well as teachers of Hebrew, who claim to be working with Biblical Hebrew are also just doing scholarship in medieval Hebrew. After all, most of them, I suspect, would acknowledge the value of Gesenius' work, even when they disagree with him on some point or feel they have improved on his work.

Of course, I may have misread you here. But, I must say that it sure seems like he is working with BH, as the vast majority of his examples I've examined are all from Biblical Hebrew. He cites numerous examples from Tanakh. The fact that he uses a pointed text is not relevant, in my view.
Dewayne Dulaney
דואיין דוליני

Blog: https://letancientvoicesspeak.wordpress.com/

כִּ֤י שֶׁ֨מֶשׁ׀ וּמָגֵן֮ יְהוָ֪ה אֱלֹ֫הִ֥ים חֵ֣ן וְ֭כָבוֹד יִתֵּ֣ן יְהוָ֑ה לֹ֥א יִמְנַע־ט֝֗וֹב לַֽהֹלְכִ֥ים בְּתָמִֽים׃
--(E 84:11) 84:12 תהלים
talmid56
Posts: 295
Joined: Tue Oct 01, 2013 9:02 am
Location: Carlisle, Arkansas, USA

Re: Gesenius — Not Biblical Hebrew

Post by talmid56 »

The same point could be made about Biblical Hebrew lexicons as well. BDB was a revision of Gesenius' lexicon. HALOT, previously Lexicon in Veteris Testamenti Libros, was an expansion and improvement upon BDB. And so it goes. Are these reference works to be thrown out because they used pointed Hebrew texts?
Dewayne Dulaney
דואיין דוליני

Blog: https://letancientvoicesspeak.wordpress.com/

כִּ֤י שֶׁ֨מֶשׁ׀ וּמָגֵן֮ יְהוָ֪ה אֱלֹ֫הִ֥ים חֵ֣ן וְ֭כָבוֹד יִתֵּ֣ן יְהוָ֑ה לֹ֥א יִמְנַע־ט֝֗וֹב לַֽהֹלְכִ֥ים בְּתָמִֽים׃
--(E 84:11) 84:12 תהלים
kwrandolph
Posts: 1531
Joined: Sun Sep 29, 2013 12:51 am

Re: Gesenius — Not Biblical Hebrew

Post by kwrandolph »

talmid56 wrote: Fri Jun 09, 2023 11:57 am I suppose then you would say, Karl, that all current scholars and grammarians, as well as teachers of Hebrew, who claim to be working with Biblical Hebrew are also just doing scholarship in medieval Hebrew. After all, most of them, I suspect, would acknowledge the value of Gesenius' work, even when they disagree with him on some point or feel they have improved on his work.

Of course, I may have misread you here. But, I must say that it sure seems like he is working with BH, as the vast majority of his examples I've examined are all from Biblical Hebrew. He cites numerous examples from Tanakh. The fact that he uses a pointed text is not relevant, in my view.
Actually, Gesenius was working with Tanakh as filtered through medieval Hebrew.

The Masoretes thought that Tanakh was full of errors. That is evidenced not only their Kethib / Qere pairs, but also through their multiple “corrections” through the addition of their points. They came to that conclusion, as far as I can tell, because the consonantal text does not agree with medieval Hebrew language. So anyone who reads Tanakh as filtered through the Masoretic points does not read the original text. In short, one must decide if he will follow the consonantal text of Tanakh, or the Masoretic points—they differ.

Now you, Dewayne, mention “all current scholars and grammarians, as well as teachers of Hebrew”—how many of them have read Tanakh completely through at least once? Or at the most two or three times? I expect that the answer would be zero. At least that’s my experience when asking professors. Oh, they know all the other major professors and the minutiae of what they have to say about the language, they have studied cognate languages such as Ugaritic, Akkadian, Arabic, modern Israeli Hebrew, etc. but how much do those studies help in understanding the quirks of Biblical Hebrew? Why wouldn’t those studies work against a person’s ability to get a working feel for Biblical Hebrew language?

I noticed after reading Tanakh through a few times, that I no longer assiduously followed the Masoretic points. I had been taught that that was the only way to understand Tanakh. So the next time I tried to read Tanakh carefully following the points, but I noticed time after time that the points said one thing, and the consonantal text another. After about a time and a half of reading Tanakh, I gave that effort up as a lost cause. The majority of the points are correct as far as meaning is concerned. I finally came to the conclusion that where the points indicate a correct meaning, that they are unnecessary clutter on the page, and a distraction when wrong.

My first area of study was science, where one person who is correct trumps all the other scientists in the world who are wrong. So it does not bother me that I might be the only one who teaches, through my publications, the way I do. I have done something that none of them have done, namely starting with Tanakh and seeing where linguistic studies lead, instead of worshiping “experts” and following them.

My criticism of Gesenius is even stronger when it comes to his dictionaries. Not only were they derivative, not based on original research, but he was one of the founders of a school to teaching that was later named JEPD, then JEPDr, Form Kritik, or whatever nom du jour it has today, and his dictionaries were designed to push that teaching. BDB continued that tradition. The professor who taught the class where I first learned Hebrew, had us all buy Gesenius’ dictionary. The more I read Tanakh, the more I noticed Gesenius’ definitions don’t match the contexts. I bought Lisowski’s concordance in order to do original research, and noticed that Lisowski’s glosses tend to follow actual uses more closely than Gesenius.

Karl W. Randolph.
User avatar
Jason Hare
Posts: 1920
Joined: Mon Sep 30, 2013 5:07 am
Location: Tel Aviv, Israel
Contact:

Re: Gesenius — Not Biblical Hebrew

Post by Jason Hare »

kwrandolph wrote: Fri Jun 09, 2023 12:25 amI though you would understand, but it looks as if I have to bee more explicit. When I refer to the consonantal text, I refer to the grammar expressed by the consonantal text, to the lexical stock found in the consonantal text, the same is true of the syntax and expressions of the language as used in the Bible. They all differ from the grammar, lexical stock, syntax, and expressions of the language as indicated by the Masoretic points.
Let’s say that you find the word דברתי in the consonantal text. How do you know if this should be read as qal or as piel? For example, we find the following:
Genesis 16:13
ותקרא שם יהוה הדבר אליה אתה אל ראי כי אמרה הגם הלם ראיתי אחרי ראי׃
In this verse, we know that דבר here must be read as a qal participle (הַדֹּבֵר). It cannot be piel because a piel participle is prefixed with mem (הַמְדַבֵּר). This form is found in the following:
Genesis 45:12
והנה עיניכם ראות ועיני אחי בנימין כי פי המדבר אליכם׃
How do we know that the first is qal and the second piel? Because of the addition of the mem in the piel, whereas it is lacking in the qal. How can you tell that דברתי would be qal (a theoretical דָּבַ֫רְתִּי) or piel (דִּבַּ֫רְתִּי)? How can you know in a consonantal text in which they would be written identically?

This is especially poignant when we have a verb that really is evidenced in both the qal and the piel in the qatal and yiqtol, which are identical when unpointed. Should שברתי be read with שָׁבַ֫רְתִּי or שִׁבַּ֫רְתִּי, or תשבר as תִּשְׁבֹּר or as תִּשָּׁבֵר? What is the difference? How can we know? Do you make a distinction in your reading?
kwrandolph wrote: Fri Jun 09, 2023 12:25 am
Jason Hare wrote: Thu Jun 08, 2023 8:41 amIt doesn’t matter if it’s pointed or unpointed. The text can be pointed various ways within the limitations of the biblical language, and no matter what it would be biblical Hebrew.
That depends on how you define Biblical Hebrew.
No, it doesn’t depend on such a thing. Whether you point (mark it for pronunciation) or not, the following sentence is biblical Hebrew:
1 Kings 19:12
ואחר הרעש אש לא באש יהוה ואחר האש קול דממה דקה׃
וְאַחַ֤ר הָרַ֨עַשׁ֙ אֵ֔שׁ לֹ֥א בָאֵ֖שׁ יְהוָ֑ה וְאַחַ֣ר הָאֵ֔שׁ קֹ֖ול דְּמָמָ֥ה דַקָּֽה׃
The same verse might be rendered in modern Hebrew something as follows:
ואחרי הרעש באה אש ויהוה לא היה בתוך האש. ואחרי האש בא קול שקט כמו לחש.
וְאַחֲרֵי הָרַ֫עַשׁ בָּ֫אָה אֵשׁ וַיהוָה לֹא הָיָה בְּתוֹךְ הָאֵשׁ. וְאַחֲרֵי הָאֵשׁ בָּא קוֹל שָׁקֵט כְּמוֹ לַ֫חַשׁ.
Adding points (pronunciation) doesn’t shift the syntax to a different period of the language. It may add an interpretation to a word or verse, but it doesn’t shift the language into a different period of its linguistic development. You are very far from establishing your case. The only case you have made is that you feel it’s not biblical Hebrew because you choose to read words differently. That’s not a real case.
kwrandolph wrote: Fri Jun 09, 2023 12:25 amThat’s because already by DSS Hebrew, that grammar had been exchanged from its Semitic roots to one, at least in its verbal uses, that was based on Indo-European languages. Medieval Hebrew continued in that tradition. Modern Israeli Hebrew is based on medieval Hebrew. When the Masoretes invented their points, they preserved a tradition that tried to read Tanakh as if it were written in medieval Hebrew. That’s why the Masoretic points frequently deviate from the consonantal text.
Are you talking about the psharim from within the DSS literature? What DSS Hebrew are you talking about? Much of the DSS Hebrew is copies of the biblical texts. These texts clearly follow the grammar of the Hebrew Bible generally (there are obviously variations in the texts). Are you talking about the Community Rule? What examples can you pull to demonstrate your case?
kwrandolph wrote: Fri Jun 09, 2023 12:25 amWhat you call the Wayyiqtol in its by far most common use, is a continuation of the previous thought or further information, also found in narration to indicate what comes next.
Yet, in texts that give instructions or speak of the future (prophecies, for example), the vayyiqtol doesn’t appear, but rather the veqatal (vav with irreal qatal). Do you try to make sense of this or just ignore it? Why doesn’t this “continuation of thought” appear in such verses as:
Genesis 4:14
הֵן֩ גֵּרַ֨שְׁתָּ אֹתִ֜י הַיֹּ֗ום מֵעַל֙ פְּנֵ֣י הָֽאֲדָמָ֔ה וּמִפָּנֶ֖יךָ אֶסָּתֵ֑ר וְהָיִ֜יתִי נָ֤ע וָנָד֙ בָּאָ֔רֶץ וְהָיָ֥ה כָל־מֹצְאִ֖י יַֽהַרְגֵֽנִי׃
If it’s just a continuation and has no indication of tense, why is the qatal used here instead of the yiqtol? Have you done any kind of comparison between these forms or read what anyone other than your own brain has to argue about the various forms of the verb? How can you think that you are right and everyone else’s arguments are worthless?

kwrandolph wrote: Fri Jun 09, 2023 12:25 am
Jonathan Beck wrote: Thu Jun 08, 2023 1:24 pm If you don't have vowels, you have many different possibilities for vocalizing יקטל.

<!-- snip -->
<!-- snip -->

When you look at Tanakh, יקטל is used only twice, both times in Job, both times as an active third person singular.

The verb קטל is used only three times in Tanakh, all three times as a Yiqtol verb. A derivative is also found once as a participle noun.
Do you really think that Jonathan was talking about the root קט״ל in these various forms? In contemporary Hebrew grammars, the root קט״ל is used as a dummy root to represent any radicals. Thus, יִקְטֹל refers to any verb in the qal imperfect. It explicitly doesn’t refer to the root קט״ל in the qal imperfect. Does this really require explanation at this point in your Hebrew journey?
Jason Hare
Tel Aviv, Israel
The Hebrew Café
יוֹדֵ֣עַ צַ֭דִּיק נֶ֣פֶשׁ בְּהֶמְתּ֑וֹ וְֽרַחֲמֵ֥י רְ֝שָׁעִ֗ים אַכְזָרִֽי׃
ספר משלי י״ב, י׳
Post Reply