Stand-Alone Perfect and Imperfect examples with identical 'time' meanings

[Jason Hare]

And I'm not interested in arguing back and forth with you whether not having faith is faith. That's just absurd, and I'm not interested in convincing you, which would obviously be a useless enterprise.

[kwrandolph]

The problem is just that... if one ignores what we find in the other Semitic languages, we are left with a system in which "there is no tense" must be true.

Biblical Hebrew is not the only language that has no tense, yet people have no problem communicating in those languages, using context to indicate time references.

It's why there is no system or good sense in how you read biblical Hebrew, Karl.

I have no problem recognizing a system and good sense in how I read Biblical Hebrew.

The use of the various forms in Hebrew is NOT random,

Of course not.

and there IS tense and mood involved in the verbal system of Hebrew.

There is mood, but not tense, in the verbal system of Biblical Hebrew. But the modalities, with a couple of exceptions, are different from those in English. Post-Biblical Hebrew is a different matter.

Not recognizing that the forms emerged from different places in the linguistic history leaves one with the impression that this isn't the case, which is where you are.

I don’t accept theory without documentation. So where are the pre-Biblical Hebrew documents? Where is your linguistic history? You need to show a trail of linguistic history from documents that are unquestionably Hebrew, not other languages. No one has shown me that such a trail of linguistic history for pre-Biblical Hebrew exists, do you have one that is in Hebrew? Cognate languages can differ in unexpected and surprising ways, therefore they are not evidence.

Karl W. Randolph.

[kwrandolph]

And I'm not interested in arguing back and forth with you whether not having faith is faith. That's just absurd, and I'm not interested in convincing you, which would obviously be a useless enterprise.

I do not attempt to change you faith system, as that is proselytism. However, from your responses, it appears that you know little about comparative religions/philosophies.

There are two main messages I want to communicate to you:

1) Every person has a faith system, including you. Your faith system is no less based on faith than mine. Yours is just different.

2) For this forum, the main issue that I see is appreciating and recognizing what is said in a language. Because this forum’s subject is Biblical Hebrew, in order to understand and recognize nuances in the language, we must take Tanakh at its word. Taking it at its word means recognizing its underlying faith system. That doesn’t mean that you agree with its underlying faith system, just that you recognize it so that you can accurately analyze the language used. But when you sneer at what it claims, are you accurately putting its claims into their contexts? Do you really understand its language?

Karl W. Randolph.

[Jason Hare]

Although I appreciate your attempt to trap me in talking about something I've already said I'm not going to talk about, I, again, note that this is a topic not worth comment. Have a nice day.

[Jonathan Beck]

Karl, I find it curious that you say Jason is twisting himself into a pretzel based on the vowel points, when 1500 years of Jewish tradition uses these vowel points. If anyone is twisting themself into a pretzel, it is you - you who choose to jettison the vowel points in favor of your own extremely suspect interpretations.

Self-examination is a blessing.

Jonathan

[Jason Hare]

Well, I can see an argument for reading בטחו as a perfect in those verses (especially since the LXX translated them as past tense [בָּטַח \ בָּֽטְחוּ], but I'm saying that there's nothing keeping me from reading it as pointed (בְּטַח \ בִּטְחוּ). Both would be possible. I don't need to reject the points. No pretzeling. No twisting. No wrangling. No need for someone to get all insulty and childish because the points say what they say.

[kwrandolph]

Karl, I find it curious that you say Jason is twisting himself into a pretzel based on the vowel points, when t1500 years of Jewish tradition uses these vowel points. If anyone is twisting themself into a pretzel, it is you - you who choose to jettison the vowel points in favor of your own extremely suspect interpretations.

Self-examination is a blessing.

Jonathan

Reasons I don’t follow the Masoretic points:
• They’re not original, found in the original texts of Tanakh
• The points were invented to preserve the pronunciations of medieval Hebrew
• They were assigned in accordance with the grammar of medieval Hebrew
• The points often don’t follow the consonantal text
• The point that cinched it for me—I read many years ago, where? I don’t remember, where it was reported that rabbis don’t consider themselves bound by the points, rather they may change the points and teach accordingly if they think the points are wrong.

If even rabbis, with whom I disagree theologically, don’t consider the points on the same level as the consonantal text of Tanakh (the Masoretes already considered the consonantal text as having copyist errors, hence the Kethiv/Qere “corrections”), why should I consider the points as without error? Why should I even follow them? Why not go back to the original and read the unpointed text?

That means that instead of depending on medieval theologians to recognize what the text says, I need to look at grammar, syntax, context, word meanings to discover what the text says. Yes, it’s not uncommon that those clues give a different reading than how the Masoretes, based on medieval Hebrew, understood the text.

Karl W. Randolph.

[Jason Hare]

That means that instead of depending on medieval theologians to recognize what the text says, I need to look at grammar, syntax, context, word meanings to discover what the text says. Yes, it’s not uncommon that those clues give a different reading than how the Masoretes, based on medieval Hebrew, understood the text.

If there were such a dichotomy, I would agree with you. We need to consider the grammar, syntax, context, word usages, etc. This is, however, a false dichotomy. The choice is not between the points and all of these things. In fact, I have a feeling that real mastery of biblical Hebrew grammar cannot be grasped without the points. I have not seen that your mastery of the grammar is strong enough to teach the language and present it to the next generation of Hebrew readers. The fact that you don't distinguish between qal and piel in most forms doesn't speak well for your non-systematic system. Until you can provide a functional substitute for the traditional grammar that covers accidence and phonology, your system is only your own.

I don't agree with the rabbis theologically, either. But, I don't make theological agreement part of my argument for every discussion that I involve myself in. I don't need to agree with someone's theology, nor do I generally care about what people believe individually. We can settle discussions apart from theological matters. There's no reason that I need to agree with someone's theology when the question is on how to understand the language of a text. It's either well presented and well argued, or it isn't. Theology shouldn't come into play.

[Jonathan Beck]

• The points often don’t follow the consonantal text

That's simply because they're making a correction because the text as it is doesn't make any sense. Nothing unusual here. This very thing should serve to discredit your point below.

• The point that cinched it for me—I read many years ago, where? I don’t remember, where it was reported that rabbis don’t consider themselves bound by the points, rather they may change the points and teach accordingly if they think the points are wrong.

If you're saying that the vowel pointings are infallible in the same way that Scripture as whole is, then you are wrong. No Hebrew scholar, much less a Rabbi, thinks this. You disproved this point when you talked about the Masoretes' willingness to amend the text. It's not infallible. Moreover, the Rabbis don't even consider the main CONSONANTAL text to be infallible. If you do, then that's your faith tradition getting in the way.

If even rabbis, with whom I disagree theologically, don’t consider the points on the same level as the consonantal text of Tanakh (the Masoretes already considered the consonantal text as having copyist errors, hence the Kethiv/Qere “corrections”), why should I consider the points as without error? Why should I even follow them? Why not go back to the original and read the unpointed text?

Like I said above, they don't consider it infallible. Nobody does (or at least, nobody should). The vowel points are secondary to the text, which is the very reason why the editors were so willing to amend the text. They CORRECTED the text. And there were Jews on this board.

In closing, once again, nobody is saying that the points are infallible. They're not. They're a starting point - a best guess. Yes, there are mistakes and they are imperfect. But that doesn't mean you should jettison the system entirely.

Jonathan

[Jason Hare]

But that doesn't mean you should jettison the system entirely.

Right. Just because pizza doesn't quench your thirst doesn't mean that you should throw it in the garbage. It wasn't intended to quench your thirst. No one thinks that the points are perfection, but they are necessary for proper understanding of the text.