Biblical Hebrew Forum

[Peter Kirk <peter.r.kirk AT ntlworld.com>]

On 11/07/2003 05:49, Karl Randolph wrote:

> 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/
> >    
Karl, I think you are right here, but I am not a moderator. I made that 
comment to make the point that I didn't want to discuss the issues which 
Walter had just raised, which were not language related. The moderators 
usually allow some civil discussion of historicity and dating when 
related to language, but have intervened in the past when the link to 
language has been lost.

--
Peter Kirk
peter.r.kirk AT ntlworld.com
http://web.onetel.net.uk/~peterkirk/