Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

b-hebrew - Re: [b-hebrew] sorry

b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Biblical Hebrew Forum

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: "Jack Kilmon" <jkilmon AT historian.net>
  • To: "Doug Belot" <dbelot AT bigpond.net.au>, "Hebrew" <b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org>
  • Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] sorry
  • Date: Wed, 2 Mar 2011 18:32:32 -0600

The Old Hebrew/Paleo-Hebrew dated from about 1100 BCE in slight variations until it was replaced after the exile in the 6th century BCE (see my Early Phoenician, Moabite, Early Aramaic, Siloam Lachish and Elephantine fonts at my website http://www.historian.net/files.htm) with Aramaic Square Script at about the time Aramaic replaced Hebrew as the spoken language See the Habbakuk and Isaiah Scroll script from the Hasmonean and Herodian periods. The Ashuri script of the Hebrew Bible and the modern Hebrew scripts developed from the Aramaic Square Script. In pre=exilic times, the name of God/Shem haMeforash was written and pronounced (however that was) without prohibition. In the 2nd temple period the name of God/Tetragrammaton was usually written continually in Paleo-Hebrew while the text was written in the Aramaic Square Script and the name was not pronounced. In Mishnaic times, as in the Ben Ashur codices, the name was written out in Ashuri as yod-heh-waw-heh but replaced vocally when reading (or mentally) with "Adonai."

Jack

Jack Kilmon
San Antonio, TX

--------------------------------------------------
From: "Doug Belot" <dbelot AT bigpond.net.au>
Sent: Wednesday, March 02, 2011 2:47 PM
To: "Pere Porta" <pporta7 AT gmail.com>; "Isaac Fried" <if AT math.bu.edu>
Cc: "B-Hebrew List" <b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org>
Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] sorry


Could anyone tell me if the Script of Old hebrew and Modern hebrew changed thus giving the name of God a new look, was the Old Hebrew name of God written as ???? , and perhaps the New Hebrew being written YHWH , is that the sort of change we are looking at .

Or are both modern and old hebrew still writen in that "Arabic" type script .

doug belot

----- Original Message ----- From: "Pere Porta" <pporta7 AT gmail.com>
To: "Isaac Fried" <if AT math.bu.edu>
Cc: "B-Hebrew List" <b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org>
Sent: Thursday, March 03, 2011 5:14 AM
Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] sorry


A message for Karl Randolph from Pere:

Karl, I'm with Isaac regarding the question: "Is Biblical Hebrew the same
language as Modern Hebrew?" --My answer is "Yes".

Their structure is the same. They differ only in vocabulary: in the biblical
times there were no planes nor cars nor refrigerators..... so we cannot find
these terms in the biblical pages...

What makes "two languages" to be the same language is the sameness of their
inner structure, not some differences in the words entered in the general
dictionary.

Remark: I'm not saying that biblical Hebrew and modern Hebrew are a pair of
twin brothers. I'm saying that they are the same language (with some
differences between them, of course)

Heartly,

Pere Porta

2011/3/1 Isaac Fried <if AT math.bu.edu>

1. It is not clear to me how you are "looking at the meanings in Biblical
Hebrew".
2. I have never heard about "indicator of etymology".
3. It is not clear to me what "phases" are.
4. "not the same" is dependent on the norm for sameness.
5. Hebrew is not English.

Isaac Fried, Boston University


On Mar 1, 2011, at 11:30 AM, K Randolph wrote:

Isaac:


On Tue, Mar 1, 2011 at 4:25 AM, Isaac Fried <if AT math.bu.edu> wrote:
1. Meaning is not a point-wise, but rather an an extensive quality and
therefore comparison of meanings needs to be done in the original Hebrew,
not on its purported translation.

You are avoiding the issue. I am looking at the meanings in Biblical
Hebrew, and finding no connection at all, therefore no indication of common
etymology. For good, linguistic reasons, similarity in form alone is not
recognized as an indicator of etymology. It is on that basis that your claim
is invalid.


2. It is my firm opinion that "modern" Hebrew and "biblical" Hebrew are
one and the same language. As long as we don't have a norm for "sameness"
this discussion will be of no avail and of no end.

There are norms for sameness, and those norms, at least from discussions
on this list, indicate that there are three, if not four, phases that Hebrew
went through as it changed from Biblical to modern Hebrews. Those changes
include that the grammar of Biblical Hebrew is not the same as the grammar
of Mishnaic Hebrew which is not the same as the grammar of modern Hebrew.
There are other changes as well. That you do not acknowledge these
differences …

(Similar differences are recognized for English, from Anglo-Saxon
(Beowulf) to Middle English (Chaucer) to Elizabethan English (Shakespeare,
KJV) to modern English. Or is it your claim that a native speaker of modern
English should have no problems reading Chaucer?)

Isaac Fried, Boston University

Karl W. Randolph.


_______________________________________________
b-hebrew mailing list
b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew




--
Pere Porta
_______________________________________________
b-hebrew mailing list
b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 9.0.872 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/3476 - Release Date: 03/02/11 05:34:00

_______________________________________________
b-hebrew mailing list
b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew






Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page