Biblical Hebrew Forum

["Dr. Joel M. Hoffman" <joel AT exc.com>]

>In case you think that this is something I have said, I have not. I have 
>simply stated that as far as I can see LXX does not provide evidence 

This list has a way of taking simple ideas and obfuscating them.  Once
again:

1.  There's no evidence that TH (Tiberian Hebrew) vowels, syllable
    structure, or Beged Kefet rules reflect Hebrew from over 1,000
    years prior.

2.  In particular, the LXX does not provide this evidence (because
    there is no evidence).

3.  Linguists unanimously agree that languages change over time, so
    the default assumption ought to be that late first millennium CE
    Hebrew differed from late first millennium BCE Hebrew.

3a. By way of comparison, there's no evidence that TH sounded like
    Swahili, but until someone provides positive evidence, I'll choose
    to believe that Swahili and TH do not sound the same.

This thread resurfaced when someone (I forget who) asked the question,
"doesn't the LXX show that TH matches Biblical Hebrew."  I answered
"no."

[Though (1-3) are almost universally accepted (certain religious
advocates being the exception), the implications are widely ignored.
We do everyone a disservice when, for example, we talk about Dagesh or
Segholates in Biblical Hebrew.  Those are elements of TH, not Biblical
Hebrew.

By contrast, we do see evidence for ancient Binyan structure.]


-Joel M. Hoffman
 http://www.exc.com/JoelHoffman