Biblical Hebrew Forum

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

----- Original Message -----
From: "Yitzhak Sapir" <yitzhaksapir AT gmail.com>
> 
> On 9/8/05, Karl Randolph wrote:
> >
> > I'd hesitate to use either proto-Canaanite
> > or Ugaritic as evidence for this.
> >
> > First, Ugaritic was a different language,
> > and it may have had phones that Biblical
> > Hebrew never had.
> >
> > Secondly, proto-Canaanite apparently had
> > many variations.
> ...
> 
> Karl,
> 
> It is 9 September, so in a week or two the new JBL will
> come out and then the whole JBL 124.2 will probably be
> available for everyone to view.

Please provide the URL when it becomes available.

>  Then you can read this article
> and comment on his conclusions or methodology....
> Do you propose that you
> know for sure that the Hebrews invented the alphabet and
> therefore used only the phonemes in their language?

>From historical sources, we can't rule it out.

>  Do
> you propose that you know for sure that different linguistic
> developments ... did not develop in Hebrew and merge two
> phonemes prior to Hebrew becoming a written language?

>From historical sources, can't rule that out either.

> It appears to me that you depend on these two assumptions
> for your thesis.  Both your thesis and the assumptions are
> highly unlikely.  

Oh?? Based on what historical sources? Hebrew sources?

>   But let's wait for the article to be viewable
> publicly and then you can comment on it too.  I think this
> article demonstrates well the difference in quality between
> forum and discussion list postings and methodological
> peer-reviewed studies
> 
> Yitzhak Sapir

Yitzhak:

The problem is with historical sources. How many originals 
have survived? From what I have read about archeological 
finds, almost all early writing that survived have been those 
that depended on clay, as in cuneiform, as well as some stone 
inscriptions. What about writing that was done on perishable 
materials like bark, cloth or leather? Unless they were copied, 
they are lost. Who knows, was that written on perishable 
materials that majority of ancient records written? Since the 
surviving materials have so many holes, in fact could be more 
hole than substance, can we say anything definite about the 
origin of alphabetical writing from a strictly historical 
viewpoint?

Now the Bible claims that Torah, with minor exceptions, was 
written in the 14th century BC, a major literary work during 
the early phase of proto-Canaanite writing: if that claim is 
accurate, that means that the ancient Hebrews had alphabet 
well before the Phoenicians. That would also indicate that 
people were using perishable materials for their records even 
then, making it very unlikely to find materials prior to the 
DSS in the historical record, other than copied claims. But 
there is no independent confirmation of those claims.

Based on the above, I expect that the writer of the article 
you mentioned above based much of it on ahistorical 
presuppositions that passed peer review because those 
ahistorical presuppositions presently are the scholarly 
consensus. I'd like to see the article. Thanx.

Karl W. Randolph.

-- 
___________________________________________________________
Sign-up for Ads Free at Mail.com
http://promo.mail.com/adsfreejump.htm