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.