Biblical Hebrew Forum

[Uri Hurwitz <uhurwitz AT yahoo.com>]

   Yes, and, it appears  that  they boorrowed and modified the Egyptian signs 
earlier than the Ugaritic inventors of the alphabetic script. There does not 
seem a connection between the two, or is there? 
 
  It is however interesting that two separate scripts appeared roughly in the 
same time, give or take a couple of centuries. A script, incidentally, that 
uses, with some changes, but in practically the same order, the very letters 
of our electronic correspondence.
 
  Uri

Trevor Peterson <abuian AT access4less.net> wrote, in part:

> ...." The point of the West Semitic innovation in borrowing from 
Egyptian was to create a simpler sign set, which could not have been 
done with a syllabary. Since that was the only other way that vowels had 
been represented up to this point, it's perfectly understandable why 
they wouldn't have gone in that direction...."

Trevor Peterson
CUA/Semitics
_______________________________________________
b-hebrew mailing list
b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew


__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 
http://mail.yahoo.com 
>From jwest AT highland.net  Sat Apr 30 18:11:05 2005
Return-Path: <jwest AT highland.net>
X-Original-To: b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
Delivered-To: b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
Received: from SMTP03.INFOAVE.NET (smtp03.infoave.net [165.166.0.28])
        by lists.ibiblio.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6323D4C00B
        for <b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org>; Sat, 30 Apr 2005 18:11:05 -0400 
(EDT)
Received: from [64.53.76.152] by SMTP00.InfoAve.Net (PMDF V6.2-X31 #30986)
        with ESMTP id <01LNPQ3NK9O29CCP93 AT SMTP00.InfoAve.Net> for
        b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org; Sat, 30 Apr 2005 18:10:55 -0400 (EDT)
Date: Sat, 30 Apr 2005 18:10:55 -0400
From: Jim West <jwest AT highland.net>
Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] Why would the scribal authorities find
        thisobjectionable?
In-reply-to: <FAEIIKJEKGHNGLFNMDBCGEMHCDAA.wattswestmaas AT eircom.net>
To: wattswestmaas <wattswestmaas AT eircom.net>,
        b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
Message-id: <4274026F.70108 AT highland.net>
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset=UTF-8
Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit
X-Accept-Language: en-us, en
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 1.0 (Windows/20041206)
References: <FAEIIKJEKGHNGLFNMDBCGEMHCDAA.wattswestmaas AT eircom.net>
Cc: 
X-BeenThere: b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: Hebrew Bible List <b-hebrew.lists.ibiblio.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew>,
        <mailto:b-hebrew-request AT lists.ibiblio.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://lists.ibiblio.org/sympa/arc/b-hebrew>
List-Post: <mailto:b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org>
List-Help: <mailto:sympa AT lists.ibiblio.org?subject=HELP>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew>,
        <mailto:b-hebrew-request AT lists.ibiblio.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 30 Apr 2005 22:11:05 -0000



I wrote:

>oh well its because "to stand before" means to worship or to wait for an
>authoritative word.  You cant have God doing that to Abraham!
>  
>
Then Chris replied

>Ok sorry, I hope that I can make it clearer.  You said the above, in view of
>this meaning which you have written I was suggesting that maybe it was
>correct to leave it in the "objectionable" construct because that fits in
>with the circumstances.  These circumstances were that God knew that Abraham
>was going to intercede and "question" or "politely alter" God's descision to
>destroy Sodom.  Abraham was in effect 'demanding' (albeit politely)
>something from God.  God had exalted Abraham to a place where God was going
>to listen to what Abraham had to ask, or, in other words Abraham had such a
>close relationship with God that even He would credit a certain amount of
>authority to Abraham's intercession.
>
> Maybe the scribes at the time could not cope with such an informality in
>the hebrew script yet maybe just this ONCE that was, what was precisely
>intended?
>  
>
I think there is a difference between God being willing to listen to 
supplication, (which is what Abraham appears to be doing) and God being 
ordered around (which appears to be the misunderstanding that the 
tiqqune sopherim tried to correct).

Best

Jim

-- 
Jim West

Biblical Studies Resources -  http://web.infoave.net/~jwest
Biblical Theology Weblog -  http://biblical-studies.blogspot.com