Re: [b-hebrew] etymology? -- [was »"virgin" v _s._"young_woman"_in_Isaiah_7:14=AB]?=

Karl Randolph kwrandolph at email.com
Mon Apr 4 00:37:44 EDT 2005


On the Ugaritic, I'll have to double check. The last source I read indicated that its surviving texts were from about the same time as Raamses II the Great or later, which was centuries after Moses wrote Torah (e.g. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ugarit ). Apparently there's some disagreement?

I already wrote that the only evidence I have is the internal dates indicated in the documents themselves.

But as for the "consensus of scholarship", it is like the emporer with no clothes. The whole "consensus of scholarship" has no evidence to back up its claims. Since it is the "consensus of scholarship" that has taken on itself to claim that Tanakh's internal dates are wrong, it is incumbant upon the "consensus of scholarship" to show the reasons for their claims. That has not been done. Instead, with hubris, the "consensus of scholarship" has taken on itself to discern "sources" where there is no physical evidence that such sources ever existed. Find those original documents, in Hebrew, and you'll have people like me singing a different tune. 

Instead, the earliest copies extant, indicate from their context, that they were copies of documents that predated them by centuries, basically unchanged.

I have already posted on this list that there is a recognizable development of the language, if we take the internal dates of those documents that claimed dates when they were written.

As for the Siloam inscription, its existance says almost nothing about the development of the Hebrew language. We need 1000 more that length or longer that are datable from about Moses to Alexander the Great, before we can point to stylistic reasons to doubt Tanakh's internal dates. And they must be in Biblical Hebrew. Well....where are they? Are there even 100?

The lack of physical evidence for either "consensus of scholarship" or for the traditional dates means that both views are more dependent on philosophy (a synonym for "religion") than archeology or history. With that being the case, neither view should be pushed as normative on any truly scholarly forum.

Karl W. Randolph.

----- Original Message -----
From: "Yitzhak Sapir" <yitzhaksapir at gmail.com>

> 
> Karl Randolph wrote:
> 
> > The Arabic is a different language from a millenium later.
> 
> Both roots are attested in Ugaritic.
> 
> > Ugaritic post-dates the earliest Hebrew by centuries
> 
> Huh? Which Hebrew pre-dates Ugaritic? Please provide archaeological
> and inscriptional evidence.  If we assume at least two centuries for
> Ugaritic post-dating Hebrew, that would mean the earliest Hebrew is c.
> 1600 BCE?  What particular 1600 BCE inscription do you have in
> mind?  I know of none.
> 
> > But you have absolutely no historical data to back up your claims.
> 
> There's always the Siloam inscription.
> 
> > You, as the one challenging the internal claims, need to show 
> > actual data to show why the internal dates are not to be trusted.
> 
> No, you challenging the consensus of scholarship should show why
> you believe otherwise.  Uri does not need to prove anything when
> he takes the consensus reached by linguists and Biblical scholars.
> 
> Yitzhak Sapir

-- 
___________________________________________________________
Sign-up for Ads Free at Mail.com
http://promo.mail.com/adsfreejump.htm




More information about the b-hebrew mailing list