Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

b-hebrew - Re: [b-hebrew] How Long was Hebrew a Living Language?

b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Biblical Hebrew Forum

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: dwashbur AT nyx.net
  • To: Hebrew <b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org>
  • Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] How Long was Hebrew a Living Language?
  • Date: Fri, 04 Sep 2009 13:59:34 -0700



> On Fri, Sep 4, 2009 at 1:31 AM, Randall Buth <randallbuth AT gmail.com>
> wrote:
> > On the other hand we actually do have statements about Judea and
> Hebrew.
> > The letter of Aristeas (2c BCE) says that the people of Judea "do
> not speak
> > Aramaic, as is commonly supposed, but a different language"
> > (Aristeas11-12). This is understandable, because Egyptians would
> be able
> > to do business with Judea in Aramaic, but now Aristeas informs
> them that
> > Judea's own language was different and was needed for translating
> the torah
> > into Greek. It was Hebrew.

Does anybody really take the Letter of Aristeas seriously any more? Just
about everything
in it was discredited ages ago. I'm amazed you even bring it up as evidence
for anything.

> > You are free to doubt the author, but that is what he said.
> > Matthew Black AAAG quoted this and missed the point,
> > making the ridiculous claim that the author was referring to two
> dialects
> > of Aramaic. Why is Black's reading ridiculous? Because it was a
> language
> > related to Torah (Hebrew), and the Greek itself used ETERA rather
> than
> > ALLH to refer to the language. Some over here, when they've seen
> Black's
> > quote, just chuckle and roll their eyes,
> >
>
> Why bring in Black? He is irrelevant to this discussion.

Furthermore, as one who also dabbles in NT textual criticism, Black's
theories are anything
but generally accepted.

I'll try to address the Josephus question later, but for now I'll just say
that your "evidence"
weak at best, and rather selective.

Dave Washburn

http://www.nyx.net/~dwashbur




Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page