Biblical Hebrew Forum

[Yitzhak Sapir <yitzhaksapir AT gmail.com>]

On 11/8/05, Karl Randolph wrote:
> > And just for the record, in various cases that you have listed
> > what would convince you, I have asked for clarifying questions
> > ("Why is Onkelos not a valid example of 2nd Millenium
> > Aramaic?",
>
> 2) histories that I read stated that it is an example of
> second *century* AD Aramaic, long *after* the period in
> question. Again irrelevant.

But while you read "histories" to determine what Aramaic is,
you use "internal dating" to determine the place of the
consonantal text of the Bible.  Why don't you use "internal
dating" for Onkelos?

> >       "How would I know that some text in language X
> > is Ancient Hebrew and not a cognate language or vice versa?"),
>
> 1) recognized as cognate languages from standard
> comparative linguistics.

That is a great definition!  Comparative linguistics is based
on the ability to reconstruct a parent language from which
daughter languages are descended.  This is done by the use
of sound laws -- finding a large number of pairs of words of
similar meaning for which a set of sound laws can explain the
evolution of the words on the basis of shifts in the sound of
particular consonants or vowels in each of two languages.
Many times more than two languages are involved, forming
a matrix of words/languages, and then we are dealing with
"tuples" of words, as opposed to pairs.  Those daughter
languages are then called "cognate languages" and the
words "cognate words."  But you repeatedly claim that
cognate languages or words cannot be used to reconstruct
sounds in parent languages.  If they cannot be used to
reconstruct sounds, what exactly is left of "standard
comparative linguistics"?  In other words, if you disagree
with this methodology, what methodology do you use
to identify cognate languages and differentiate a "cognate"
from from "earlier stages of the language" and from
unrelated languages?

You may refer to the following article for a more in-depth
description of what is comparative linguistics:

http://www.utexas.edu/depts/classics/documents/PIE.html

> 2) you failed to show any geographic or linguistic
> connection between the languages (other than supplied
> by comparative linguistics, which show the above)

What is the "above"?  Why don't you use comparative
linguistics to identify the place of the Hebrew of the
consonantal DSS or the Hebrew of the MT?

> b) you failed to show any development from Ugaritic to
> Hebrew, either geographical or linguistic. All you have is
> comparative linguistics indicating #1 above.

Ugaritic is not necessarily a cognate language if that's what
"#1 above" is supposed to indicate.   See the following posts
for a summary of different views on Ugaritic's place compared
to Canaanite.  Remember that "comparative linguistics"
identifies Canaanite as an early stage of the language that
would also yield Hebrew and Phoenician.

https://listhost.uchicago.edu/pipermail/ane/2003-March/008092.html
https://listhost.uchicago.edu/pipermail/ane/2003-March/008097.html

> a) contemporary records indicate that Hebrew and
> Aramaic differed enough that native speakers could not
> understand each other (without translators or learning the
> other language). The two languages were contemporary.

By "contemporary records", do you refer to information given
in the Bible, such as the accounts of Laban and Jacob (who
are said to have understood each other), or the case of
Rab$aqe?  This would indicate that Aramaic and Hebrew were
originally mutually intelligible.  Not that I agree with using this
as "data" for these conclusions -- I stick with the comparative
linguistics method -- but I don't really know what other
"contemporary" evidence you are referring to, nor can I see
how this "contemporary evidence" supports your conclusions.

> c) you failed to show any indication that the historical
> claims recorded in Tanakh are inaccurate, those historical
> claims which indicate that Biblical Hebrew was written
> centuries *before* Ugaritic, hence Ugaritic was a
> contemporary cognate, not precursor, to Hebrew.

There are no historical claims in the Bible that it was written
centuries before Ugarit.  One possible way of interpreting
the Biblical evidence is that it refers to an Exodus in the
Hyksos period.  Another is that it refers to an Exodus
during Ramesses II's time.  Another is that it refers to a
non-event.  Each of these requires a different amount of
juggling "how much is the Bible true" as opposed to
archaeological records.  Basically all interpretations are
consistent with the archaeological record if it assumed
that the first two would leave no mention or traces in
the archaeological record, for the simple reason that then
no traces must be found for any of the scenarios to be
consistent with the lack of any traces that are there.

Even your claims show that Hebrew was written centuries
after the Execretion Texts, which are indicative in some
respects of the Canaanite language.  Canaanite is considered
by linguists to be parent to Hebrew.  Even if the Bible claims
are true, there is no place in the Bible that says that the
linguistic content of the Bible was not modified with time -- for
example, in much the same way that Shakespeare or Chaucer
are rewritten differently than the original to make them
comprehensible to modern readers.  That this did not happen is
an assumption on your part.  Thus even if the Torah was
composed prior to Ugarit, the consonantal text of the Bible may
represent a later stage than Ugaritic.

> 3) some of the surviving inscriptions are so short that
> researchers are not sure in which language they are
> written.

The rest, by definition, are not.

> > but these have been left without response.
> >
> All of the above responses were either answered by me,
> other contributers (which made me think that I didn't need
> to waste bandwidth answering them myself) or standard
> sources such as histories and linguistic writings (again
> reasons I didn't think I needed to answer them myself).

I guess I missed the responses which mentioned these, by
other contributors or by you.  Which histories and linguistic
writings do you use?

Yitzhak Sapir