[b-hebrew] exodus, dating of linguistics

Peter Kirk peterkirk at qaya.org
Thu Jun 3 09:41:52 EDT 2004


On 03/06/2004 06:30, Michael Abernathy wrote:

>    Actually, I did not suggest that the texts were all written at one time and place. ...
>

Sorry, Michael. I should have qualified this. What you wrote before and 
again here is that if there are no discernable linguistic differences, 
then the texts must have been written at one time and place. Is that 
fair? And I am arguing that there is a logical fallacy here.

>... I suggested that discernable lingusitic differences should exist and that it should be possible to find evidence of that in the text. I proposed looking at those areas where scribes misinterpreted some passage because of linguistic change because I believe those who do not accept an early origin for any part of the Hebrew Bible would assume that some of the differences were deliberate imitation of earlier texts to make them look ancient.  Others appeared to suggest that the Hebrew language was homogenous. I reject that.  My speculation concerning the time and place of writing was in response to the idea that the language was homogenous. In essence, I was saying that it would be unnatural for Biblical Hebrew to be free of dialectal differences. ...
>

And this is where I differed from you. A natural explanation for freedom 
from dialectal differences is that the style of an older work is copied 
by a newer author. Did you respond to this argument and reject it? I 
don't remember anything.

>... I proposed some possible explanations for why Biblical Hebrew could be uniform, but I rejected them.  I argued and continue to argue that we do find differences in the text due to language development and regional variations in usage.  
>  
>

I agree with you that there are such differences. But within the core of 
the prose corpus, especially Deuteronomy to Kings, these differences are 
rather small. But that does not imply that these books were written at 
the same time and place.

>Such differences should contribute some small amount of evidence concerning the origin of the text.  If as others seemed to suggest, no differences in the language exist, then that also suggests something concerning the origin of the text.  
>Sincerely,
>Michael Abernathy    
>    
>  
>


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




More information about the b-hebrew mailing list