Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

b-hebrew - Re: [b-hebrew] exodus, dating of linguistics

b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Biblical Hebrew Forum

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: Peter Kirk <peterkirk AT qaya.org>
  • To: Michael Abernathy <mabernathy AT isot.com>
  • Cc: B-Hebrew <b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org>
  • Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] exodus, dating of linguistics
  • Date: Wed, 02 Jun 2004 11:04:54 -0700

On 29/05/2004 19:13, Michael Abernathy wrote:

I think you should reconsider your choice of examples. ...


Well, California was not that unique in the 19th century as plenty of other places saw massive migration. But I accept that California was not the best example, just one that came to me rather quickly, and one which you have some familiarity with. If you would like an alternative, consider the very gradual changes in the Turkic languages over several thousand miles from the Balkans to China. These were actually closer in the 19th century than now, because the modernisation of Turkish never took place in the more easterly areas. But the migrations of the Turks across this area took place many centuries earlier.

As for the mobility of the Hebrew people, I seem remember reading
several articles to the effect that Galilean Hebrew was dialectically
different than that of Jersualem both in the Old Testament period and in the
New Testament period.


Well, it would be interesting to see the details and the evidence given. Yes, the apostle Peter's Galilean accent was recognised in Jerusalem in the 1st century CE, but a recognisable difference of accent may go along with an almost identical literary style.

Further, I suggested that if the language of the Hebrew Bible was indeed
uniform, and that there were no editorial process involved, then the work
would appear to have been written in very limited chronological and
geographical limits. Personally, I don't subscribe to the possibility that
it was so limited as to eliminate dialectical differences. I would be more
prone to think that we simply have a limited ability to recognize those
differences.


I continue to reject this conclusion. Firstly, the premise is not true as there are differences in style and language. But even if it were true, there is nothing to stop skilled authors in later centuries and quite different places from deliberately mimicking the style of the earlier books. To show this, consider that a skilled writer in America could today produce texts which are stylistically identical to Shakespeare (I don't say with the same artistic merit), but that does not prove that they were written in 16th-17th century England.


--
Peter Kirk
peter AT qaya.org (personal)
peterkirk AT qaya.org (work)
http://www.qaya.org/





Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page