Jemoh66 wrote: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.
OK, I’m told that there is an oak forest. But when I enter the forest and look at each tree, I find elms, birch, hickory, walnut, even a sassafras or two thrown in for good measure, but nary an oak, don’t I have a cause to question the one who told me that that was an oak forest?
Jemoh66 wrote: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.
He mentioned it at the beginning, then in his “well laid out argument” gave no reason why I should change my question that it is a Qal in the first place, a question that came up in his first mention. That’s why I listed it first. Why insist that it’s a Qal, when its form could be a Niphal? Or Pual? Or Hophal?
Jemoh66 wrote: The fact is that context shows time and again that כבה in the Qal is passive,
Why should I take it as a Qal in the first place?
Jemoh66 wrote: and only takes on an active meaning when manipulated by the piel and hiphil.
Lisowski lists only Qal and Piel.
Jemoh66 wrote: 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.
There are many assumptions contained in the above paragraph, and if any one of those is wrong, then the whole edifice comes tumbling down.
There’s no question that the Masoretic points do not reflect Biblical era pronunciations.
There’s no question that Tiberian Hebrew was a different language from Biblical Hebrew—different grammar, different pronunciation, even many terms had different meanings. When the points were invented, they were developed to reflect Tiberian Hebrew, not Biblical Hebrew. Can you rule out that the so-called Qal passive was imported from other languages and not original to Biblical Hebrew?
There were over a thousand years from when Biblical Hebrew ceased to be a natively spoken language till when the vowel points were invented. What assurance can you give that the points accurately recorded even the correct binyanim? The correct meanings?
Jemoh66 wrote: 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.
Assumptions, assumptions. Speculation. The lack of vowels in Biblical Hebrew means that the change could have been the other way.
Jemoh66 wrote: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.
Whoever is Blauser and whatever is his argument are irrelevant to this discussion.
That this one example can be read as an active in most of its uses undercuts the argument that there exists a Qal passive. How many more so-called passives are really actives?
Jemoh66 wrote: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.
I have no idea who is Blauser, nor what is his argument. I have read nary a word from him.
To get this definition, I started with the Hebrew text and a listing of the uses of a verb as listed in a concordance. Then I worked from there. According to Peoples, Blauser based his arguments on the lexicography of others. The definition that I list above is original research. No, I didn’t start with a premise, rather I started wtih the question “what is going on here?”
Jemoh66 wrote: 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.
I ask for evidence. In this discussion, all I’ve gotten so far is argument.
Jemoh66 wrote:1. The reason this is true in Peoples' article is Blauser's argument fails for including his conclusion in his premises.
Blauser is irrelevant to this discussion.
Jemoh66 wrote: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. … He is not making an argument for Qal passive.
If that’s the case, then why did you bring up these blog postings?
Jemoh66 wrote: 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.
You should know me by now. I’m not impressed by reputations, I want to see data. (Chances are that even if you named those scholars, I wouldn’t recognize the names.)
Jemoh66 wrote:…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.
On the other hand, there are clear examples of where the Masoretic points are wrong. That was one of the reasons I stopped reading the pointed text many years ago. That was before I had heard of B-Hebrew discussion group where I might be asked to give examples of wrong points, so I merely stopped reading the points without recording those that are wrong. Now I don’t even see the points.
So given the fact that the points are untrustworthy because they are wrong for Biblical Hebrew elsewhere, why shouldn’t I question them here?
Jemoh66 wrote: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.
In written Biblical Hebrew there are no vowels. Further, in many cases the written forms are the same across multiple binyanim. Therefore, the native speaker of Biblical Hebrew had to rely on context to tell him which binyan was intended when he read a verb. With this being the case on both points, there’s no reason to posit that a Qal passive existed in Biblical times. The only evidence for such a thing comes from over a thousand years after Biblical Hebrew ceased to be spoken as a native tongue, therefore could be late rather than early.
Jemoh66 wrote: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.
This is your strongest argument for the existence of a Qal passive, but where are your examples? Your data?
So far, what I’ve seen in Biblical Hebrew of the binyanim, is that there were three pairs of binyanim with the pattern of active, passive, active, passive, active, passive, focused on the subject usually reflexive. In the contexts where the meaning is passive, the verbal forms present can be read as at least one of the passive binyanim. Therefore, I see no need in Biblical Hebrew to posit a Qal passive. Nor do I see evidence that such existed in Biblical times.
Karl W. Randolph.