Karl,
Problems I see with the first article:
In the example of Isaiah 66:24, this looks like a pointing error by the Masoretes, because in an unpointed text this could be a Niphal, Pual or Hophal as well as Qal or Piel. Therefore we rely on context to tell which binyan to apply to this form.
In my view, you are missing the trees for the forest. The idea that כבה in Isaiah 66:24 means to be extinguished is not a premise for a following argument. It's the conclusion of a well laid out argument for the existence of Qal passives to begin with. תממ is brought out as one example from a list of 52 in a prior.
None of the so called problems you have with the articles do anything to negate the force of the argument laid out by Peoples, i.e. the fact that some Qal stems have as their 'meaning' a passive sense. The fact is that context shows time and again that כבה in the Qal is passive, and only takes on an active meaning when manipulated by the piel and hiphil. While they had the hophal as an option, the Masoretes
consistently point the verb in the qal. The only reason to point it
repeatedly in the qal where the context demands a passive meaning shows that the Masoretes treated it as a Passive Qal, and thus the theory arises that somewhere in the remote past, passive qals were common, and at some point obsoletized by the niphal. The distance between the Masoretes and the time of the writing should have produced more hophals and Niphals of that verb. And in fact, hophals are quite rare in the MT pointing. This suggests that they either were transmitting oral knowledge of the ancient use of
כבה, and/or they still used
כבה as a passive in the qal in their own Tiberian idiom. Whatever the case, if we accept the distance between BH and Tiberian Hebrew, we should expect to find hophals and niphals in all these cases. And if hypothetically we came across the occasional Qal, we could postulate a copying error. But with hundreds of Qal pointings where the context shows a root passive meaning, this cannot be the case.
Jemoh66 wrote:
In fact there are. Here are a few.
תָּמַם (tamam). This verb in its Qal form commonly means “to be finished,” “to be completed,” “to be consumed” and the like.
Well, you gave one, and as I have it now listed in my dictionary:
No Peoples gave it as part of his argument to show that Blauser's argument failed by arguing in a circle.
תמם to come to an end: to complete, used in the sense of coming to the end of, finishing a period of time Gn 47:18, Lv 25:29 and to come to the end of construction, to finish the making of something 1K 6:22, used of a person who is “complete” i.e. pure Ps 18:26 (25); sometimes used in the sense “there is no more” as all has been removed Gn 47:15, Dt 2:16 when in connection with a מ prefix on a following (pro)noun, has the idea of completely removing Jr 24:10, Ez 22:15
I have the Qal as an active, not passive.
You sound like Blauser, assuming your conclusion in your premise. Here is a word whose Qal form expresses a stative/passive meaning at its simplest core meaning. The existence of a Qal passive is the best explanation for the data observed. Just science at work.
Just because some claim that the Qal passive is found in other languages, does not mean that the Qal passive is found in Hebrew.
The fact that qal passives are observed in Arabic, Ugaritic, and Canaanite is not brought in to force them on BH, but as corroborating evidence added to the actual internal evidence for the argument.
This second article is basically a rewording and expansion of the first, with the same mistakes.
No, the second article is actually the article referred to in the first article. It precedes it chronologically.
It is “… like a disastrous long mathematical equation: If you make one mistake at the start … and the rest of your work depends on that mistake, you are wasting your time.” to quote Dr. Peoples.
You've made this mistake before.
1. The reason this is true in Peoples' article is Blauser's argument fails for including his conclusion in his premises.
2. There's a difference between a deductive argument and an inductive argument. In a sound deductive argument if the premises are true it follows necessarily that the conclusion is true. Blauser's argument is a deductive argument whose two premises are shown to be false. In fact, he was false on a third level that Peoples didn't even address. I'll talk about that further down. Peoples is just addressing the invalidity of Blauser's argument. He is not making an argument for Qal passive. The acceptance of Qal passive in the work of respected scholars is brought to bear on their discussion for the interpretation of a verse. The argument for the Qal passive comes from greater Hebrew scholars than you me or Peoples.
3. The argument for the existence of Qal passives is an inductive argument. An inductive argument offers the best explanation for what is observed. While a deductive argument is either sound or invalid, Inductive arguments are judged on their strength, which is tied to their explanatory power being greater than a competing explanation. Inductive arguments do not rise and fall on tearing a premise down.
4. You often dismiss a write up because you gleefully find something early in the essay that you can invalidate, then declare the rest of the article as a waist of time to read. This does not speak well of your supposed scientific method. The only way to argue with an inductive argument is to postulate a better explanation for what is observed in the evidence.
This brings me back to your first argument. It is invalid.
1. there is no correlation between your conclusion and your premise. Your premise is that "because in an unpointed text this could be a Niphal, Pual or Hophal as well as Qal or Piel." Your conclusion is that the MT made a mistake. Just because these other Binyans are available does not entail a mistake on the part of the Masoretes. There is no "because A then B" here.
2. The next statement, 'Therefore we rely on context to tell which binyan to apply to this form." is built on two assumptions, that the Masoretes made a mistake, and that there is no Qal passive. So like Blauser you are including your conclusion in your premise, which is begging the question.
While your argument for a mistake in pointing is invalid, the postulation of a Qal passive offers a good explanation for the said pointing, not only of this verse, but of all the verbs pointed in the qal while the context calls for a passive meaning. You are doing with the Qal passive what others do with the Tense/Aspect/Mood issue. And I have said I agree with you on the modality of the yiqtol. You have argued that verbs are marked for mood, and you have done so inductively by postulating that this is the best explanation for what we find in the text. Others argue in circles because they assume the verbs are marked for tense.