Biblical Hebrew Forum

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

Yigal:

You are using evidence I have already rejected, namely Mishnaic Hebrew. 
Earlier evidence, the New Testament, as preserved in the Byzantine tradition, 
indicates that a pronunciation shift was nearing completion but still 
underway, with apparently Galilee lagging behind Judea (hence Peter with his 
Galilean accent). Part of the shift included that the Samech lost its 
distinctive sound.

Yes, I recognize that I take the text more literally than you, which, for the 
most part, makes no difference in how we look at the Hebrew language. There 
are a few places where it does make a difference, but those deal mostly with 
literary style and not linguistics.

Karl W. Randolph.

----- Original Message -----
From: "Yigal Levin" <leviny1 AT mail.biu.ac.il>
> 
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Karl Randolph" <kwrandolph AT email.com>
> > I do not deny that the Sin and Shin were different letters as early as
> late Second Temple period, but were they different letters in pre-Galut
> Babel Hebrew? I think the evidence is against it. The same is true for many
> of the other pronunciation shifts that occured after the Galut Babel.
> >
> 
> It seems to me that the opposite is true. Shin, Sin and Samekh are rarely
> interchanged in the Tanakh, but often in Mishanaic Hebrew. Many words that
> the Tanakh spells with sin are spelled with samekh in the Mishna, such as
> yaxas, xeres, taphas. But of course, when I say "the Tanakh spells", I mean
> that the Tanakh has a letter, to which the Masoretes added the left-side
> dot. However since the Mishna, which is later than Tanakh but before the
> Masoretes, used a Samekh, I think that the pronounciation as "s" is pretty
> strong.
> 
> 
> > Secondly, when did the ancient Hebrews become literate? I have read
> acheological reports that the 22 letter Sinaitic writing was known in Egypt
> before the Hyksos invasion, about the time Joseph was sold into slavery in
> Egypt. So is it beyond reason to say that the ancient Hebrews were literate
> when they left Egypt and it was they in about 1400 BC who brought the 22
> letter alphabet to Canaan and the Phoenecians, and not the other way around?
> >
> 
> The "Proto-Sinaitic" and "Proto-Canaanite" had more than 22 letters. Since
> all of our inscriptions are very limited, we don't know quite how many. The
> 12-11th century Izbet Sartah ostracon has an "abecedary" which seems to have
> the whole 22 letter alphabet, with a couple of mistakes. The context of that
> seems to be "Israelite" (whatever that meant in the 12 century). As for the
> rest - let's not get into a debate about the Hyksos, Joseph and the Exodus,
> but suffice that you take the text more literally than i do.
> 
> Yigal
-- 
___________________________________________________________
Sign-up for Ads Free at Mail.com
http://promo.mail.com/adsfreejump.htm