Biblical Hebrew Forum

[Ian Hutchesson <mc2499 AT mclink.it>]

>>If some of the basic presuppositions used in the interpretation of biblical
>>Hebrew are in error then, one's assumptions about biblical Hebrew need to
>>be revised. Some people on this list seem to be interested in the
>>historical linguistics of Hebrew: if the time frames are wrong, the
>>historical linguistic analyses are also wrong. 
>
>Please explain why you think this. I have followed with great interest
>the discussion of models put forward by Rolf Furuli and others about
>the Hebrew verbal system, discussions of various nuances of translation
>of participles, discusions of the meaning of key words in various
>passages, and so on.  I don't see how the dating of, say, the Pharoahs
>of Egypt, 

I didn't mention dates of pharaohs or whatever you think you should be
talking about. I was talking about biblical Hebrew not pharaohs.

>or, say, whether the "minimalist position" is motivated by
>anti-semiticism, does or does not support Eastern peace, and similar
>topics, have much to speak to these matters.

What is the relationship between that which is called late biblical Hebrew
and that which is called biblical Hebrew? When Vince looked at the
distribution of the 3ms pronominal suffixes -iw/-ihu (Sun Oct 24 15:54:39
1999), was he looking at diachronic or synchronic evidence?

>>When did that which we call
>>biblical Hebrew stop being used as a medium for literature?
>
>It never did. 

I don't think many people would agree with you.

>The problem is that in a list such as this there
>isn't really the time and space to devote to studying the Hebrew
>Bible as literature. 

We were talking about the use of biblical Hebrew, not about studying the
Hebrew Bible as literature.

>We have to recognise the limitations of the
>medium and make the best use of what we have. 

I don't understand the logic of this. If a text like Chronicles should be
dated two centuries later than it is now understood, the limitations you
are referring to are no longer valid.

>In our case the list
>is really good for nuts-and-bolts discussions. 

If the redating of the texts is correct there's a lot of pure linguistic
work ahead. It sure will be nuts-and-bolts.

>Reading an email of 
>more than a page or two quickly becomes tedious, yet sitting down
>with a book and working through a passage for a hour or so in the
>evening is great. 

You don't have to download long posts. For example, in Eudora you can
choose Options, from there Checking Mail, and select a size over which you
can skip.


Cheers,


Ian