[b-hebrew] comparative historical linguistics was Re: Nun-Tav-Vet root

davidfentonism at aim.com davidfentonism at aim.com
Tue Nov 28 18:55:34 EST 2006


 Since there is not one single biblical Hebrew, given its evolution with some overlapping and the introduction of Aramaic, pre- and-post-exile, I would very much appreciate being edified as to what is meant by "biblical Hebrew" here. I presume it is not being limited to one period and therefore is not limited to one stage of its development.
 
 Thank you.
 
 David Fenton
 NYC
  -----Original Message-----
 From: peter at qaya.org
 To: bjwvmw at com-pair.net
 Cc: b-hebrew at lists.ibiblio.org
 Sent: Tue, 28 Nov 2006 1:23 PM
 Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] comparative historical linguistics was Re: Nun-Tav-Vet root
 
  ... the difference here is largely one of terminology. I think 
everyone (except presumably those who believe that the Exodus did not 
happen at all) would accept that the early Israelites in Egypt, and 
continuing as they left Egypt and moved to Canaan, spoke a NW Semitic 
language form which developed continuously into the biblical Hebrew of 
the monarchy period. As such it is not unreasonable to call this 
language, as spoken at the time of the Exodus, something like early 
Hebrew. As for whether the Torah was composed in this early Hebrew and 
subsequently unchanged (such that early Hebrew is biblical Hebrew), or 
was composed in early Hebrew and later updated into something more like 
the Hebrew of the monarchy period, or was not composed at all until the 
monarchy period, we really don't know apart from any faith positions we 
might take.

   
________________________________________________________________________
Check Out the new free AIM(R) Mail -- 2 GB of storage and industry-leading spam and email virus protection.



More information about the b-hebrew mailing list