[b-hebrew] the intended consumer of biblical hebrew language
tensorpath at gmail.com
Sat Oct 30 18:09:40 EDT 2010
I refer to the first paragraph of your post.
I can and do speak only for myself here.
My understanding of this forum's internal operating rules and conditions
follows. I emphasize these rules originate with me, not.
1. This forum defines its boundaries of discussion as the masoretic text
2. This forum forbids assertion of truth or falsity of the story told by the
The foregoing two rules govern and guide my posts.
I believe that:
a. the story told by the MT; and
b. the letters, words, sentences, and paragraphs of the MT;
appear joined together in one, indivisible language. Reasonable people
cannot divorce the above two components. To speak or comment on one part,
speaks necessarily of the other, and vice versa.
The perfect example of this conclusion includes the hebrew verb יהוה . That
word represents not simply a verb, perhaps defined as "to be,"
and conjugated in the third person singular, imperfect tense. Rather, it
defines and identifies a Person.
So, whether this forum considers the MT story as true, false or in suspended
animation ....; the story nonetheless becomes susceptible of separation from
its hebrew associated words and letters, not.
On Sat, Oct 30, 2010 at 2:01 PM, Bryant J. Williams III <bjwvmw at com-pair.net
> Dear Paul,
> It seems that the underlying (implied/inferred) premise in this discussion
> that secular documents are factual and that religious documents are not
> since those documents deal with theological elements. I do not accept that
> The documents of the Tanakh are both. To separate the one from the other is
> destroy the integrity of both. It is no accident that matters that we
> would take to be non-scientific are considered to be scientific though not
> couched in the modern terminology of our time. This is must be kept in mind
> all times; otherwise, we have eisegesis. Basically, we have a pretext to a
> which is no text at all.
> It appears that what is going on is that the authors of the Tanakh have
> what has happened but with a theological interpretation perspective. The
> of Nehemiah reveals a situation of what occurred. First, the Torah is being
> from Hebrew, then translated to the people in Aramaic. This makes completes
> since as it is readily discernable from historical fact that the people of
> land no longer spoke, let alone read, Hebrew. Hebrew, then was maintained
> by the
> leaders, both religious and secular, while everyday affairs was maintained
> Aramaic. Thus, Hebrew did not go out of existence, but not as widespread.
> Remember also that it was most likely during the Babylonian Exile that the
> of the synagogue occurred. This would allow for the exiles to continue to
> and use Hebrew, but not to the extant that it was used prior to the Exile.
> Rev. Bryant J. Williams III
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Paul Zellmer" <pzellmer at sc.rr.com>
> To: "'fred burlingame'" <tensorpath at gmail.com>
> Cc: "'B-Hebrew'" <b-hebrew at lists.ibiblio.org>
> Sent: Saturday, October 30, 2010 6:36 AM
> Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] the intended consumer of biblical hebrew language
> > You may have convinced Stoney, but your original proposition is still way
> base. The sole *surviving* witnesses are religious documents, but your
> proposition assumes that those form a legitimate sampling of the entirety
> of the
> historical works. You bring out as support to your proposition the case of
> people who had come from a lengthy stay in a land where both the trade and
> languages were something other than Hebrew. One would not expect that the
> average person would then maintain Hebrew as their lingua franca,
> since there is significant evidence that many (perhaps most) chose to
> into the new culture. How else should we interpret the fact that there was
> an en masse exodus to the homeland when such was allowed? In this
> situation, we
> would expect that the ones who would preserve the "home language" would be
> who would have motivation other than trade or day-to-day activities. Those
> are more concerned with religious matters would have such additional
> So it is not at all surviving when, upon a revival of the religious
> matters, the
> average person, who might have never even learned the Hebrew language,
> need the ones who preserved the language skill to explain the text to him.
> > We actually have Biblical claims that there were other documents written
> during the kingdom period, the period before the captivity which I believe
> caused the situation resulting in the priests needing to explain the text
> to the
> average people. The books of the Kings make several references to
> which have not survived to the modern period. Are you proposing that those
> written in a language other than Hebrew, or that those were religious in
> character? I would expect that they were indeed written in Hebrew, and
> were in
> general secular. If these were Hebrew secular documents which did not
> the ages, why should we not expect that there would be other, more mundane
> documents which were not preserved?
> > Your Exodus reference (is it really too difficult for people writing
> Hebrew on
> this list to use right-to-left word order?) actually shoots your
> proposition in
> the foot. If the nation is to be one of priests, would that not imply that
> nation as a whole would have the skills of the priesthood? If, as is your
> proposition, those skills would include literacy, it would follow that the
> nation in general would be literate. This response to Stoney is an example
> your habitual treatment of the Tanakh as a unified body. This may be
> in theological discussions, but goes beyond what we have generally agreed
> to do
> on this list. We may refer to other texts to determine the meaning of a
> word or
> phrase or form, but to take the *teaching* of a passage and use it to
> the meaning of another passage is getting away from the study of the
> > Every thread that you have tried to originate since you joined this list
> to have been aimed at making general statements about the Hebrew Bible.
> your posts would be more in line with the historical purpose of this list
> if you
> shifted your focus to the *elements* of the language and not the language
> general or culture/history of the Hebrew Bible.
> > Well, I'm going to crawl back into lurker mode. Too many other
> to lengthy discussions onlist!
> > Paul Zellmer
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: b-hebrew-bounces at lists.ibiblio.org
> [mailto:b-hebrew-bounces at lists.ibiblio.org] On Behalf Of fred burlingame
> > Sent: Friday, October 29, 2010 1:16 PM
> > To: Stoney Breyer
> > Cc: B-Hebrew
> > Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] the intended consumer of biblical hebrew language
> > An interesting theory, the secular nature of the biblical hebrew
> > but one bereft of factual support. Indeed, the sole witness to the
> > includes a highly religious document, aka the masoretic text; and its
> > sea scrolls fragmentary predecessor. The internal testimony of that
> > further confirms the intended religious nature of the language itself,
> > the announced purpose of the nation writing the language.
> > ואתם תהיו לי ממלכת כהנים וגוי קדוש
> > שמות 19:6
> > As for the consumer of the written language, the priestly monopolistic
> > exploitative behavior that you propose, could have occurred only in the
> > general absence of written words or scrolls. Such generally accepted
> > of written materials itself implies the illiteracy of the 14th century
> > hebrew, and the corresponding exclusivity of the written document for the
> > ruling class.
> > _______________________________________________
> > b-hebrew mailing list
> > b-hebrew at lists.ibiblio.org
> > http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew
> Internal Virus Database is out-of-date.
> Checked by AVG Free Edition.
> Version: 7.5.446 / Virus Database: 268.18.3/696 - Release Date: 02/21/2007
More information about the b-hebrew