Seeking clarifiaction - The Prefixed Vav - Posted 2019

[talmid56]

And lest we forget, in medieval Europe, the bulk of the population was illiterate. Which is why cathedrals and other church buildings used pictures and sculptures to teach Christian doctrine (many of the stained glass windows contain pictures of Bible stories, etc.). There were also the "mystery plays", dramas that re-told the stories and events from Scripture to popular audiences. So it is unlikely that any conversational use of Latin, even as a second language, took place among the masses. Particularly that is indicated by the fact that the Romance languages had started developing and distinguishing themselves from Latin by the 8th or 9th centuries (which is when we find the earliest documents in those languages). The scholars and churchmen, yes, they could and did have conversations in Latin. The people, not so much. What little Latin they spoke was mostly at Mass, but this was in response to the priest and was learned by rote.

[talmid56]

I am almost completely in agreement with Chris' statement above about the accuracy and work ethic and devotion of the Hebrew scribes, and the Masoretes. I don't believe they were divinely inspired in the sense of being infallibly guided by God as Moses and the other writers of the Tanakh were. If they had been, they would not have made any copyist errors. I do, however, believe they were divinely prompted to be reverent and dedicated to excellence in their task and their work product. They were, in my view, used providentially by God to pass down the Scriptures to us. As for the accuracy of their work, one only needs to look at the Dead Sea Scrolls copies of Biblical texts. From what I've read, the vast majority of the readings in the DSS agree with the consonantal text of the MT (Masoretic Text). This shows a high degree of accuracy and fidelity in copying, given that a gap of several centuries exists between the work of the DSS scribes and the work of the Masoretes.

[talmid56]

And, like Chris, I believe that Karl has overstated his case. I believe he has not proved that the Tiberian vocalization and Qere notes are so unreliable that they cannot be used, even provisionally, to help us read and understand the Hebrew Bible. Karl, of course you have the right to hold whatever views you want about this. However, I do not plan to join you in it.

[kwrandolph]

Karl said :
Ok, let's make this less painful. Since you said that you have read the scripture 10 to 15 times right through, there will be things that stick in your head, so please give me examples where the vowel pointing of the text lends to a different meaning than what you believe it should read.
Chris watts

Karl Replied : I read elsewhere that the pointing of Proverbs 1:19 considers the two central word as a compound verb:

כן ארחות כל-בצע בצע את-נפש בעליו יקח

Actually they are two nouns. The first בצע is a participle refers to the person who take an unjust cut which closes the first part of the verse, the second בצע is a shegolate noun opening the second part of the verse that refers to the unjust cut itself

Karl W. Randolph.

1. Then please provide me with a translation of Prov 1:19 according to your interpretation.

You mean you can’t read it? “Such are the roads of all taking loot, loot takes the life of its master.”

2. You have provided absolutely no evidence that comes even close to suggesting that the Jewish grammarians, the scribes, the early and middle Medieval Hebraists have handed down to us a faulty Hebrew grammar, and misguided pronunciation.

Well, I guess that makes us equal. You have provided absolutely no evidence that they were correct.

Actually we have a few words transliterated from before the Babylonian captivity: יפת “Yapata”, לבי “labaya”, פקח “Paqakha”, עמרי “Omriyi”, and in backwards Galilee as late as the first century ירושלם “Yerosoluma”, אב “abba”.

As for the grammar, read Tanakh completely through, 10–15 times, then come to me and show me how you are able to read it consistently according to the grammar books of today that are based on medieval grammar.

May I remind you that every scribe and copyist and grammarian was not only fully capable, but knew his scripture and his language better than any of us could ever come close to.

Oh? By the way, which language? In daily life they spoke medieval Aramaic. With the Talmud being the main focus of study, how much did they know of Tanakh? What you say is not evidence.

That also their zeal and unremitting care for both accuracy and professionalism can never be brought into question, ever. That to even miss a single letter, or to insert an incorrect vowel they would throw the page away and re-start that hand written page all over again.

That’s copying. That can be done without knowing the language, nor what was being copied.

Karl, I was expecting to trawl through a whole list of words and grammatical points from you so that I could at the very least understand what you see.

In my dictionary, which is available on Academia.edu, I have 26 pages discussing grammar. That much data won’t fit in a discussion thread here. Then I have another 8 pages discussing other aspects of Biblical Hebrew language.

But all you provide are platitudes regurgitating the same unfounded accusations against a generation of hebraists and Rabbis and scholars. I even asked you (twice) if you make a difference between Karaites and Rabbis, do you at least concede that the latter are at odds with Rabbinical approaches?

Those are so long post Bible that they are irrelevant to this discussion.

A court would declare that the Masoretes and grammarians are exonerated and there is no case to answer.

All you have are unsupported statements and speculations.

The fact that Biblical Hebrew has even survived with its comprehensive grammar and with its meanings of verbs and nouns is a testament to absolute genius on the part of every scribe that sat in his wooden chair pursuing a task that God had given him, albeit he did not always perceive it as such maybe, but nevertheless, no other ancient literature in all of history since the dawn of time has ever achieved anything like this.

You haven’t demonstrated that the medieval scribes knew the differences between Biblical Hebrew and medieval Hebrew.

Chris watts

Karl W. Randolph.

[kwrandolph]

I am almost completely in agreement with Chris' statement above about the accuracy and work ethic and devotion of the Hebrew scribes, … They were, in my view, used providentially by God to pass down the Scriptures to us.

I agree. And those who copied the New Testament followed much the same ethic.

Karl W. Randolph.

[Chris Watts]

You mean you can’t read it? “Such are the roads of all taking loot, loot takes the life of its master.

Well I am going to ignore all your responses to my very last post. It sounds so much like you are fanatically working against something, rather than having discovered serious flaws that urgently need addressing by the scholarly community at large. There is a difference between being ANTI something, and SUPPORTING something. You trash the medieval scholars and you make so many suppositions about what they did and did not know - this is a fanatical perspective and not warranted.

My main focus right now wants to be on your translation, of course I can read it! - your little bit of sarcasm had me trembling there for a moment. The issue I have right now is that your translation looks just like a re-translation of the English rather than a re-translation of the Hebrew, as if somehow it highlights a subtle nuance lost to us through all the other English translations. What is so wrong with the Masoretic pointing/grammar here?

Chris watts

[talmid56]

Just as a point of curiosity, Karl: have you also studied Aramaic, as well as Biblical Hebrew? If you have, which periods and dialects?

[Jason Hare]

Just as a point of curiosity, Karl: have you also studied Aramaic, as well as Biblical Hebrew? If you have, which periods and dialects?

Or modern Hebrew? Or medieval Hebrew? Or mishnaic Hebrew? Or...

הֲלֹא יוֹדְעִים אֲנַ֫חְנוּ כְּבָר אֶת־הַתְּשׁוּבוֹת הָאֲחִידוֹת לַשְּׁאֵלוֹת הָאֵ֫לֶּה

[kwrandolph]

It sounds so much like you are fanatically working against something, rather than having discovered serious flaws that urgently need addressing by the scholarly community at large.

“Fanatically working against something”? What are you talking about?

There is a difference between being ANTI something, and SUPPORTING something.

If you looked at the 26 pages of grammar notes in my dictionary, you will hardly find a single ANTI statement in there.

You trash the medieval scholars

Where and how do I “trash” them?

and you make so many suppositions about what they did and did not know - this is a fanatical perspective and not warranted.

That’s ridiculous.

My main focus right now wants to be on your translation, of course I can read it! - your little bit of sarcasm had me trembling there for a moment.

After I described the grammatical understanding I have of the Hebrew, you then ask for a translation? How am I to understand that demand other than that you don’t know Hebrew?

The issue I have right now is that your translation looks just like a re-translation of the English rather than a re-translation of the Hebrew, as if somehow it highlights a subtle nuance lost to us through all the other English translations.

What English translations? I have not read an English translation, other than a few verses, since I started reading Bible in its original languages. So I have no idea how others have translated this verse.

What is so wrong with the Masoretic pointing/grammar here?

I already described it, do you want me to describe it again?

Chris watts

Karl W. Randolph.

[kwrandolph]

Just as a point of curiosity, Karl: have you also studied Aramaic, as well as Biblical Hebrew? If you have, which periods and dialects?

I have studied only enough Aramaic to read the Aramaic portions of Tanakh. No more.

Karl W. Randolph.