Biblical Hebrew Forum

[<tladatsi AT charter.net>]

James,

Well, I was commenting more on the radio-carbon dating 
issue.  However, I did find a precident on this topic on 
this list (before I joined), see below:

Stare decisis- 

Wed Jun 16 15:07:27 EDT 2004

Dear b-hebrew,

Even the evolution of languages is not a topic of 
discussion within the mission of b-hebrew.  Please end this 
topic, and get back on track.

Bryan Rocine
b-hebrew co-chair




> From: "Read, James C" <K0434995 AT kingston.ac.uk>
> Date: 2005/09/22 Thu AM 08:58:46 EDT
> To: <tladatsi AT charter.net>
> CC: <b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org>
> Subject: RE: [b-hebrew] Language Evolution - Out of 
Bounds
> 
> 
> While I agree with you that this topic has the potential 
to go 
> out of bounds (especially when we have to explian to you 
the 
> limitations of dating techniques) I disagree that the 
discussion 
> is completely out of bounds.
> 
> The amount of time that Arabic, Hebrew, Ugaritic, Aramaic 
etc. had 
> to divrsify from their common ancestor has a direct 
relevance on the 
> linguistic discussion. 
> Historic tesimonies of the origin of the Arabic language 
are scarce 
> but Genesis tells us that Ishmael came from Abraham's 
loins and it 
> is reasonable to assume that they spoke the same 
language. As Arabic 
> tradition does not contradict the long held tradition 
that Ishmael 
> became the father of the Arabian nation it is not 
impossible that 
> the Arabic language and the Hebrew of the bible came from 
the 
> language that Abraham spoke. Now, Abraham is described as 
a hebrew. 
> Exactly what that term means we do not know. If the 
language he spoke 
> was exactly the same as the hebrew we see in the bible, 
we do not know 
> either. Archaic forms such as YHWH seem to suggest that 
the language 
> had adapted slightly by the days of Moshe and this is not 
unreasonable 
> as the language would undoubtedly have been affected by a 
few hundred 
> years of Egyptian slavery.
> 
> However, your sweeping claims that all who doubt the 
authenticity of 
> dating methods are motivated by blind faith was a little 
unwarranted.
> I am not some religious maniac born into a Christian 
family who has 
> brainwashed into rejecting everything that slightly 
contradicts the bible.
> I come from a very strong scientific background and am 
more qualified to 
> speak science than linguistics, especially chemistry 
(more especially 
> thermodynamics and reaction feasibility). I only became 
interested in 
> linguistics after being converted by strong scientific 
proofs of Yah's 
> existence and I can assure you that I was well aware of 
the limitations 
> of dating well before this time. Your summarial position 
on dating betrays 
> a surface knowledge of scientific dating methods and it 
is you who are 
> not acquainted with the facts and are reacting out of a 
'faith position'.
> 
> Without going into the technicalities (and risking going 
out of bounds) 
> it is only common sense that when you see that various 
scientific dating 
> methods vary in different orders of magnitude for the 
same object that 
> each method is based on different variables and presents 
different 
> limitations. Your idea that people on this list have 
expressed a flat 
> refusal to consider scientific dating evidence is more 
than a little 
> extreme and all who have expressed their limitations have 
adequately shown 
> that they are more acquainted with the facts than 
yourself. No-one here is 
> dissing the methods as completely useless and your idea 
that that is the case 
> is completely unfounded. In many cases the dating methods 
can give us a 
> relative model and can tell us without a shadow of a 
doubt what happened 
> before what, although in certain circumstances even here 
caution must be 
> exercised. In conclusion, dating methods are useful for 
constructing a 
> relative model but cannot and should not be used as 
absolute indications 
> of dates.
> 
> This email has been scanned for all viruses by the 
MessageLabs Email
> Security System.
> 

Jack Tladatsi