Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

b-hebrew - Re: [b-hebrew] WAYYIQTOL/YIQTOL/WEYIQTOL [was Kamatz katan; ...was: Translating]

b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Biblical Hebrew Forum

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: rochelle altman <willaa AT netvision.net.il>
  • To: b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
  • Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] WAYYIQTOL/YIQTOL/WEYIQTOL [was Kamatz katan; ...was: Translating]
  • Date: Thu, 12 Oct 2006 10:32:52 +0200

At 01:16 AM 10/11/2006, K Randolph wrote:

Karl,

[snip]

Going back to the example of Latin, it is still a living language in
that it is still spoken, literature is still written in it, including
poetry. True, the uses of Latin are but a fraction of how it was used
400 years ago, but even 400 years ago, no one learned Latin at his
mother's knee, yet Latin was spoken, literature written in it, some
international agreements were written in Latin, and if you go 200
years prior to that, almost everything of importance was written in
Latin and almost all legal, trade and scholarly discussion was spoken
in Latin.

Latin was the "lingua franca" in the West right into the 19th-century and is still a required language in many fields.. You are comparing apples and oranges.

Returning to Hebrew, in all of the examples you gave, which one cannot
be an example of use the same way as Latin is used?

To name just one among those mentioned: The Genizah documents - We can hardly expect a wife to write a letter to her husband complaining about his lengthy absence in a dead language, now can we. I have a complete listing of all documents from the Genizah that are in Hebrew or Hebrew and Aramaic oi Aramaic. It runs abut 400 pages. If you want an exact figure on how many are in Hebrew, I'll be going over the list in about a week or so and will be delighted to let you know when I have completed compiling the information that I need. I can run a check on the Hebrew for you at the same time...

As far as I can remember, I have never said that Hebrew was not
spoken, rather the evidence I have seen so far is that Hebrew was not
taught at one's mother's knee, rather that those who spoke it, spoke
it as a legal, high literature, religious, trade, etc. language, one
that they learned at school, the same as medieval Latin.

See the Genizah note. Kvetching about a husband wandering about in a personal letter is hardly "legal, high literature, religious, trade, etc. language."

A final question: while the DSS included documents that were old, I
was always taught that the oldest documents were from about 250 BC.
That includes those written in Paleo Hebrew script. Is there some new
information that has come out?

Karl, I never expect anyone to read what I write, but when I have written on a subject, then I do expect people to do their homework.

There are a number of problems with the dating schemata devised by Cross. One of the most important is that what are actually simultaneous, synchronic scripts are stated to be
diachronic, layered as if they were pottery from archaeological sites. This "archaeological layering" technique makes it quite impossible to type scripts by location. Nevertheless, people did distinguish scripts by locale. Script = Identity. The Jericho script design differs from the Jerusalem script design. I discuss this and ILLUSTRATE it, too. See, figure 2 at:

http://www.bibleinterp.com/articles/altmanupdates.htm .

Now, what about the Paleo-Hebraic scripts. The Paleo fragmenmts are in a completely different script design from what has been dubbed the late, even, Herodian period use of Paleo. First of all, take the design used in 11QPs. -- that's the large Psalm scroll -, is a consolidation font. Herod was hardly a "consolidator." This fact alone should raise a huge red flag about dating that script. I discuss the design of tis script in my guest lectures for St. Mary's School of Divinity at St. Andrews.at:

http://www.st-andrews.ac.uk/~www_sd/altman_dss.html

Second, the script design of the Paleo- frags is NOT an archaization; those frags are actually archaic. That pushes their date back to at least the 5th century and they may be pre-exilic "treasures" that had been safe-guarded for centuries..

Next, and this has been mentioned before out here:

https://lists.ibiblio.org/sympa/arc/b-hebrew/2006-February/027769.html

The "archaeological layering technique" glosses over all slight differences -- not only the different script designs used in different areas, but makes it impossible to distinguish hands on a document. There are FOUR hands in 1QSa and they use the staggering technique, which means that the document was (1) the product of a bookshop, and (2) the document was dictated. So, with inkwells et al, a bookshop at Qumran is a distinct possibility. BTW, it also means that the document is a piece of literature, noit an actual rulke for a community.

May I also suggest that you read Writing Systems and Manuscripts also at St. Mary's:

http://www.st-andrews.ac.uk/~www_sd/altman_writing.html

And it wouldn't be amiss to read the articles on the Orion site: "Some Aspoects" and the Report on the Zoilos Votive inscription..

http://orion.huji.ac.il/orion/programs/Altman/Altman99.shtml

http://orion.mscc.huji.ac.il/symposiums/programs/Altman/Altman00.shtml


Karl W. Randolph.

Now, although the variant forms are relevant to the topic of this list -- after all, the Greek symbol assignments tell us what phoneme was attached to what form, I am quite certain that list-members are tired of this thread; shall we get back to B-Hebrew?

Best regards,

Rochelle






Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page