Biblical Hebrew Forum

[dwashbur AT nyx.net]

On 29 Jun 2006 at 2:48, Yitzhak Sapir wrote:

> On 6/29/06, Dave Washburn wrote:
> 
> > Actually, it does have a bearing.  The most common claim made by those
> > who reject the historicity of certain people, places and events is that 
> > the
> > texts are "late."  Using that basis, comparison to cognate languages such
> > as Ugaritic and Akkadian, and sometimes even Aramaic and Moabite,
> > becomes an implicit or explicit comparison of "early" languages versus the
> > "late" Hebrew, and virtually all differences between Hebrew and its 
> > cognates
> > are explained this way.
> 
> Can you:
> 
> 1) Give an example of such scholars who use the "late" date of the Bible to
> make linguistic conclusions on the similarity of Hebrew, Aramaic, Moabite,
> Ugaritic, and Akkadian?

At the moment, no.  I'm 900 miles from my library and there's nothing much I 
can use around 
here.  But for starters, most of the so-called minimalists take such an 
approach.
 
> 2) Explain how come this conclusion -- that Hebrew was a development of
> Canaanite -- came to be accepted in a time when it was the scholarly
> consensus that the Patriarchal narratives were historical?

Can you give some examples of this?
 
> 3) Give an example of specific linguistic phenomena that could be understood
> as ancient and prior/concurrent with such languages as Ugaritic or Amarna
> Canaanite?

See number 1 above, but a good place to start would be M. Dahood's works.  In 
fact, his 
commentary on the Psalms in the Anchor series caused a firestorm because of 
the way he 
used Ugaritic to challenge some of the more common linguistic assumptions 
about Hebrew. 
Sorry I can't be more specific; once again, see number 1 above :-(

Dave Washburn
Encephaloriasis: That condition generated when the person you are dealing 
with is so 
incredibly stupid, you can actually feel your own brain cells drying up and 
flaking off.