Biblical Hebrew Forum

[peter_kirk AT sil.org]

______________________________ Reply Separator 
_________________________________
Subject: Re: Autographs, MSS and REAL Historiography  Re: Methods in
Author:  <npl AT teol.ku.dk> at Internet
Date:    30/12/1999 09:48

<snip>
        
        [Niels Peter Lemche]
        Again you are telescoping the issues. 1-200 years are as a matter of
fact a very long period, and the biblical Hebrew is not the late Palestinian 
Amorite of the Iron Age. As I write this I am waiting for the new grammer of 
the inscriptions, I saw at the SBL stand in Boston in November, but although 
morphology seems close, syntax is not--lack of xconsecutive forms--so 
biblical Hebrew is not the language of the Iron Age as maintained by many 
scholars who should know. And I still have to wait for some to stand up 
against Knauf's claim that biblical Hebrew--which is only attested in the HB 
and in literature quoting from the HB--is an artificial language.

PK: That new grammar would be interesting. Who is the author? So, what 
do we have? Morphology is close. Is the syntax really that different? 
- Randall Buth seems to disagree, and recently made especial note of 
the WAYYIQTOL forms in the Moabite inscription which you are now 
claiming to be lacking. Is Randall one of the scholars you are 
disagreeing with here?

PK: As for Knauf's claim, does he answer the problem of how writers in 
the 3rd century BCE (say) were able artificially use the morphology of 
600 years earlier, if this was recorded only on a few stones which 
were probably already lost? Also, were they clever enough to 
deliberately invent a seperate intermediate language "Late Biblical 
Hebrew") which they used mainly in materials presented as post-exilic? 
Or did all of this happen by chance?

<snip>

Peter Kirk