Biblical Hebrew Forum

["Karl Randolph" <kwrandolph AT email.com>]

Dear Peter Kirk:

Whoops! It was the historicity and dating that provided some of the clues I 
see that sparked the discussion based on my view that Hebrew, while 
continuing as the language of religion, government and high literature, was 
no longer the language of market, field nor hearth after the Galut Babel. (I 
don’t intend to start that discussion again.)

I suspect that you mean that discussions of historicity and dating are off 
topic except where linguistically relevant, and even then limited to civil 
discussion. If one accepts the traditional dating and historicity of the 
Bible, there are different linguistic patterns observable than if one prefers 
those concepts of historicity and dating provided by modern theories, 
therefore such discussion is linguistically relevant. But I can see the point 
not to argue that others must accept our view or be considered faulty in 
reasoning.

Yours, Karl W. Randolph.

----- Original Message -----
From: Peter Kirk <peter.r.kirk AT ntlworld.com>
><snip>
> As discussions of historicity and dating are off topic for this list, 
><snip>
> -- 
> Peter Kirk
> peter.r.kirk AT ntlworld.com
> http://web.onetel.net.uk/~peterkirk/
-- 
__________________________________________________________
Sign-up for your own FREE Personalized E-mail at Mail.com
http://www.mail.com/?sr=signup

CareerBuilder.com has over 400,000 jobs. Be smarter about your job search
http://corp.mail.com/careers