Ben:
Ben Putnam wrote:Just because you replied doesn't mean you answered the points.
In looking up some background info for this thread, I noticed that there seemed to be messages missing from the archive at ibiblio. Further checking showed even more missing data. Therefore, use of the archives to verify or falsify whether or not his points were answered cannot be done, except where extent messages specifically answer the points.
By the way, Dr. Buth disagreed with one of my claims, but never, ever provided the raw data, despite my repeated asking for them, that could verify or falsify either my claim or his rejection thereof.
Ben Putnam wrote: It wasn't his last message on B-Hebrew as you claim, but it does appear that it was nearly the last.
Didn’t you see my addendum posting?
Ben Putnam wrote: In any case, what does that even matter? He participated on the list for years and during that time went round and round with you, and I can't say that I really blame him for not posting more... Your statements about him not knowing Bible or Biblical Hebrew are an attack as well, and a very uninformed one at that. But any careful reader who is interested can go back into the archives and judge for themselves. I for one am not buying what you are selling. But no matter. I'm not interested in continuing this discussion, as I don't see any positives coming out of it. Have a good day.
During that time I was able to document errors that he made, documented by pointing to specific verses that contradicted his claims. Sometimes listing Bible verses was all my answer, without comment. I don’t remember how many of his errors that I caught that way. If he had known Hebrew Bible, would he have made those errors?
One of his central errors was his claim that conversational, indicative, present tense sayings are comprised of subject, verb in participle, optional object. He claimed that this is the default pattern. He claimed that the use of the participle indicates present tense. I documented the use of the participle in conversation for future, and since then I’ve noticed more verses for both future and past. Therefore, the use of the participle is not a marker for the present tense.
This last time reading Tanakh through in Hebrew, I decided I’d record all the indicative, present tense conversations I notice as I read. So far I have found many more conversations than I remembered existing, and the majority have a subject, verb in Qatal, then optional object. I have also found many more conversations using the participle than what were mentioned in the messages online, but they are fewer than those where the verb is in Qatal. Would Dr. Buth have made such an error, if he knew Hebrew Bible?
My first reaction to this clam by Dr. Buth was based on a seat-of-the-pants feeling that it didn’t sound right. But that seat-of-the-pants feeling was based on familiarity with the Hebrew Bible.
Now I will scold you personally a little—this forum is supposed to be one where Biblical Hebrew language and literature are discussed, without referring to people. Everyone makes mistakes, myself included, myself especially after learning that so much that I learned in class turned out to be wrong, so I’m questioning almost everything. I came to certain conclusions concerning the meanings of Biblical Hebrew verbal conjugations, but now am questioning those based on further reading. The patterns appear to be more complex than what I initially posited. So let’s deal with these ideas, rather than getting all uptight that I disagree with some icon of modern scholarship. I don’t think I’ve attacked Dr. Buth personally, other than that his ideas that he presented show unfamiliarity with the Hebrew Bible.
So let’s get back to discussing Biblical Hebrew.
Karl W. Randolph.