[b-hebrew] Isaiah 53:8 lamo

Peter Kirk peterkirk at qaya.org
Mon Dec 20 09:05:54 EST 2004


On 20/12/2004 13:23, Vadim Cherny wrote:

>>>Everywhere but in Hebrew and to some extent in Chinese. Of course, modern
>>>languages, for one, deviated from etymological meaning, and for another,
>>>accumulated huge contexts. This does not work with Tanakh, ...
>>>      
>>>
>
>
>  
>
>>So, are you claiming that Hebrew was preserved by divine intervention
>>from the processes which affected all other human languages? Hebrew
>>already had centuries, maybe millennia of use before the Bible was
>>written and had plenty of time to accumulate "huge contexts" and
>>semantic shift.
>>    
>>
>
>Had we possess these contexts now, I would agree with you. Since Tanakh is
>more or less all we have from that time, other texts amounting to a fraction
>of it, we have too little data for contextual analysis. Etymological
>analysis is a better bet.
>Had we the Library of Congress amount of data for Hebrew, I would agree with
>you that we have to proceed contextually.
>
>  
>
We don't have the contexts to work from, I agree. But they did exist in 
ancient times, at least in spoken language if not in written. The 
implication is that semantic shift did take place - even if we don't 
have evidence of it. This implies that etymological analysis is 
seriously flawed.

If you are not convinced, follow George's excellent advice and read 
James Barr.


-- 
Peter Kirk
peter at qaya.org (personal)
peterkirk at qaya.org (work)
http://www.qaya.org/





More information about the b-hebrew mailing list