Re: =?iso-8859-1?q?Re:_[b-hebrew]_etymology?_--_[was_=BB"virgin"_v?= s. "young woman" in Isaiah 7:14«]
yitzhaksapir at gmail.com
Sun Apr 3 21:08:17 EDT 2005
Karl Randolph wrote:
> The Arabic is a different language from a millenium later.
Both roots are attested in Ugaritic.
> Ugaritic post-dates the earliest Hebrew by centuries
Huh? Which Hebrew pre-dates Ugaritic? Please provide archaeological
and inscriptional evidence. If we assume at least two centuries for
Ugaritic post-dating Hebrew, that would mean the earliest Hebrew is c.
1600 BCE? What particular 1600 BCE inscription do you have in
mind? I know of none.
> But you have absolutely no historical data to back up your claims.
There's always the Siloam inscription.
> You, as the one challenging the internal claims, need to show actual
> data to show why the internal dates are not to be trusted.
No, you challenging the consensus of scholarship should show why
you believe otherwise. Uri does not need to prove anything when
he takes the consensus reached by linguists and Biblical scholars.
More information about the b-hebrew