Biblical Hebrew Forum

[Yitzhak Sapir <yitzhaksapir AT gmail.com>]

On 2/3/06, Peter Kirk wrote:
> On 03/02/2006 13:40, Yitzhak Sapir wrote:
>
> > ... I'm not saying these were
> > "different  languages."  But they weren't the same language at the
> > same point in time either.  And since here Biblical Hebrew is defined as
> > the consonantal text this places the text as post-exilic.
> >
> But they could have been different dialects of the same language at the
> same time. Or for that matter, since we are mostly talking about matres
> lectionis, they could just be different spelling conventions for the
> same language at the same time. I would have no problem with a
> suggestion that the spelling of the Torah was updated to some extent
> after the exile. But changing spelling conventions is not the same as
> rewriting in a different language or form of language. There is simply
> not the evidence that the text of the Torah was changed in any more than
> spelling conventions after the exile.

There is no evidence because there is not enough data (ie, pre-exilic
literature).  The spelling convention is something that we do have enough
pre-exilic data to be able to make such a statement.  And when you
suggest above that "they could just be different spelling conventions" you
are in effect retracting the earlier statement that "we find very
little difference
between the biblical text and pre-exilic inscriptional Hebrew."  It doesn't
serve the discussion to actually argue the likelihood of there being two
different spelling conventions of the official Jerusalem court scribal school,
one preserved in the Torah, and one preserved in inscriptions.  That the
spelling may have been updated (a suggestion with which you "have no
problem") suggests two things: 1) that Hebrew was spoken or used after
the exile in the form to which the spelling was updated -- it makes little
sense that they updated the spelling to reflect some never existing form,
if so, why update? 2) there may have been developments in Hebrew from
the stage present in the inscriptional pre-exilic material, and the stage
represented in the Torah -- such as sound changes, as well as other
types.

The issue at hand is actual evidence for the transcriptions of what Hebrew
sounded like prior to the exile.  But even if such evidence were at hand,
this may not represent the sound of "Biblical Hebrew" -- when defined as
the consonantal part of the Hebrew Bible.  It may very well represent an
earlier stage.  This is not to say that a Torah or parts of it may not have
existed in the pre-exilic time, but they were probably both spelled and
pronounced differently than in post-exilic times which is the time frame
which the spelling of the Torah most likely represents.

Karl's response to me began with: "What I have asked for is evidence
from when everyone can agree that Biblical Hebrew was spoken as a
native tongue, namely from before the Babylonian Exile."  Various
assumptions underly the statement, but using Karl's definition of
Biblical Hebrew = consonantal text, the above statement is a
misrepresentation of what "everyone can agree."  It's also important
because if you go further back, and arrive at the Amarna Canaanite
glosses or Ugaritic -- Karl just isn't willing to accept that these may
represent the language that later developed into what is now called
Biblical Hebrew.  And these have direct relevance on whether
Hebrew was a CV language or not.  It's also important because we
do have post-exilic transcriptions of various Hebrew words, including
the LXX and if Biblical Hebrew as Karl defines it represents a post-
exilic stage, we may be able to look there for evidence of what Karl's
definition of Biblical Hebrew may have sounded like.

Yitzhak Sapir