Seeking clarifiaction - The Prefixed Vav - Posted 2019

[Chris Watts]

Hi there Karl,

1.

However, my criticism starts with that he “…demonstrated the strong elements of continuity which bound the Hebrew Bible into an ongoing tradition of what were understood as rabbinic modes of interpretation;…” In other words, even his understanding of Biblical Hebrew grammar was colored by “rabbinic modes of interpretation”

A number of points here Karl, first, where would we be without the grammar of all these VERY capable and thoroughly experienced Rabbis in the first place, without them there would be 100 times more scholarly debates and diverging opinions and the world would have had to wait another 500 years before any unified grammar could be found in the narrow hall ways of university Libraries. They solidified, unified and handed down a grammar unsurpassed in any other historical language, and their dedication and respect for God's Word - that is their legacy and certificate of absolute authority. Mistakes? Mmm...I will take that one on further down in this post.

2.

What he failed to recognize is that the language used by the rabbis was no longer the same language written up in Tanakh

I absolutely doubt it Karl, no way!

3.

My starting point is that of a linguist, not a theologian

This does not help me to understand why you appear? to disagree almost fanatically? with the established grammar of a long list of Jewish Grammarians. Who else did you expect to be able to pass on the Hebrew Scriptures, a western thinking Latinate Monk from Rome? God forbid!

4.

I invite others to evaluate what I wrote and suggest criticisms and corrections

Ok now to the Mistakes bit I mentioned at the beginning. I really would like you to send just a couple of examples of what you believe needs correcting, where you think that the scripture needs altering. I am seriously interested, because I would like the opportunity to see what it is you are seeing.


5. Just to be sure, I presume you do differentiate between Rabbinic and Karaite Masoretic History? The latter being the choice of Moses ben Asher?

So yes,I am interested to read examples from you.

Chris Watts

[kwrandolph]

Hi there Karl,

1.

However, my criticism starts with that he “…demonstrated the strong elements of continuity which bound the Hebrew Bible into an ongoing tradition of what were understood as rabbinic modes of interpretation;…” In other words, even his understanding of Biblical Hebrew grammar was colored by “rabbinic modes of interpretation”

A number of points here Karl, first, where would we be without the grammar of all these VERY capable and thoroughly experienced Rabbis in the first place,

Maybe a lot further to understanding Tanakh.

without them there would be 100 times more scholarly debates and diverging opinions and the world would have had to wait another 500 years before any unified grammar could be found in the narrow hall ways of university Libraries.

Have you looked at the discussions going on in Academia.edu?

They solidified, unified and handed down a grammar unsurpassed in any other historical language, and their dedication and respect for God's Word - that is their legacy and certificate of absolute authority. Mistakes? Mmm...I will take that one on further down in this post.

2.

What he failed to recognize is that the language used by the rabbis was no longer the same language written up in Tanakh

I absolutely doubt it Karl, no way!

Examine it for yourself. Read Tanakh, all of it, cover to cover, 10–15 times, then compare its use of language even with DSS Hebrew, let alone Tiberian Hebrew. Read for understanding. After that, then see if you are following the grammar past down by the rabbis.

3.

My starting point is that of a linguist, not a theologian

This does not help me to understand why you appear? to disagree almost fanatically? with the established grammar of a long list of Jewish Grammarians. Who else did you expect to be able to pass on the Hebrew Scriptures, a western thinking Latinate Monk from Rome? God forbid!

LOL! That’s exactly what I am fighting against! I read Waltke & O’Connor’s description of DSS (not Bible copies) Hebrew and found that after centuries of Farsi and Greek influences, Hebrew grammar had largely been exchanged for a simplified Indo-European grammar. I suspect that the same change had happened in Aramaic grammar.

As for passing down the Scriptures correctly, all that needs is careful and accurate copying, the philosophy of the copyist is not important.

As for rabbinic philosophy, do you think that it is the same as Biblical philosophy? According to a book, which I no longer have, rabbinic philosophy very quickly went down the same paths as western philosophy. Neo-Platonism was the primary influence during the early medieval era. Maimonides championed neo-Aristotelianism and apparently was a major influence for Aquinas and his contemporaries to champion neo-Aristotelianism.

4.

I invite others to evaluate what I wrote and suggest criticisms and corrections

Ok now to the Mistakes bit I mentioned at the beginning. I really would like you to send just a couple of examples of what you believe needs correcting, where you think that the scripture needs altering. I am seriously interested, because I would like the opportunity to see what it is you are seeing.

“Scripture needs altering”? What??? That’s precisely my point! It’s wrong understanding of grammar that causes Scripture to be misunderstood. Among other things, that misunderstanding is behind many of the Kethiv/Qere pairs.

5. Just to be sure, I presume you do differentiate between Rabbinic and Karaite Masoretic History? The latter being the choice of Moses ben Asher?

As long as they kept the consonantal text pure, these long post-Biblical histories are irrelevant.

So yes,I am interested to read examples from you.

Chris Watts

I posted my dictionary, along with several pages of grammar addendum, on academia.edu .

Karl W. Randolph.

[Chris Watts]

Hallo Karl,

There is so much, so much in your replies that needs to be answered but I am convinced nothing fruitful will ensue, it would simply be a ping-pong match. However I would indeed like you to answer the following please...

It’s wrong understanding of grammar that causes Scripture to be misunderstood

HOW? Give me a demonstration using a few scriptures that have been misunderstood for 1500 years or so, and demonstrate what has been lost to us until you discovered the correct interpretation. I need to read what you are reading please. No I do not want to or need to go through academia, I just need you to reason with a reasonable set of examples - that's all, just a couple. What Hebrew scripture has been wrongly translated into English as a result of a complete and utter shambles of the incorrect grammar.

Kind regards
Chris watts

[talmid56]

So, the rabbis were used to a later Hebrew with different grammar. Fine, but does that mean that they were unable to examine the Tanakh's grammar and note differences and similarities? They lived much closer in time to the Biblical authors. So, Karl, you can interpret the Tanakh's grammar correctly but they couldn't? Perhaps that is not what you're claiming. If so, apologies for misunderstanding you. But, it sure sounds that way. Surely, if you can look at BH grammar and see differences between how it expresses meaning and how your native language does, the rabbis were capable of doing the same.

[talmid56]

Also, I don't see what bearing the rabbis' philosophy has on the question.

[talmid56]

Karl wrote:

So I decided to read Tanakh over and over again, letting the language flow over me in the same manner as a child learning his first language.

That is certainly the ideal. However, given your other statements as to your views and methods of Hebrew learning, I am puzzled as to how that could work in your case. You have stated, repeatedly, that the current systems of BH pronunciation, ALL OF THEM, are wrong, based only on "medieval Hebrew", and that the Biblical pronunciation is unknowable. If I understood you correctly it is impossible to even guess at or approximate it. Therefore, you presumably do not read the text aloud or listen much if any to recordings of it, since, after all, the traditional vocalization is unreliable.

A child learning his or her first language, on the other hand, does nothing at first but listen to it being spoken, then slowly, learns to speak it. Given your rejection of the various existing pronunciations, I cannot picture you trying to speak any BH conversationally either.

So, please enlighten us as to how that language flow works again?

[talmid56]

Also, please note that a child normally learns to read after he/she learns to understand and speak the language. The average English-speaking child has been fluent in English, both speaking and understanding it spoken, for several years before starting to read. In my case, at least four years (I started to read at age five). This has not happened with your Biblical Hebrew, by your own statements.

[talmid56]

And, just so I'm clear on this, do you reject all of the Qere readings, or just some? If just some, what grounds do you use for acceptance or rejection? I have the impression you reject all, but maybe I misread you on that.

[talmid56]

I'm assuming also that a native speaker of Israeli Hebrew, who has read Tanakh from childhood (if he or she went to a Jewish school: this is standard in their curriculum, and they must pass a test on it to graduate high school), could not produce a useful, accurate grammar of Biblical Hebrew today. Even if they ignored all existing BH grammars and totally wrote their own from scratch. That is, if I'm understanding correctly the implications of the arguments Karl has made above. Karl, if if have misunderstood your points, feel free to jump in and correct me.

[kwrandolph]

Hallo Karl,

It’s wrong understanding of grammar that causes Scripture to be misunderstood

HOW? Give me a demonstration using a few scriptures…

Kind regards
Chris watts

Try Proverbs 31:10–31. All the verbs there refer to present, continuous action. Is there a single translation that follows the grammar rules of Weingreen when translating that passage?

Karl W. Randolph.