Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

b-hebrew - Re: [b-hebrew] comparative historical linguistics was Re: Nun-Tav-Vet root

b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Biblical Hebrew Forum

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: Peter Kirk <peter AT qaya.org>
  • To: davidfentonism AT aim.com
  • Cc: b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
  • Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] comparative historical linguistics was Re: Nun-Tav-Vet root
  • Date: Wed, 29 Nov 2006 10:08:04 +0000

On 28/11/2006 23:55, davidfentonism AT aim.com wrote:
Since there is not one single biblical Hebrew, given its evolution with some
overlapping and the introduction of Aramaic, pre- and-post-exile, I would very much
appreciate being edified as to what is meant by "biblical Hebrew" here. I
presume it is not being limited to one period and therefore is not limited to one stage
of its development.
David, thank you for asking. In this particular case I used "biblical Hebrew" in a very specific sense relating to Karl's position, which I thought was clear from the context. Karl's position seems to be that the Torah was written down by Moses in a form almost identical to the consonantal Masoretic text; he has now clarified that he accepts that there may have been copying errors and minor orthographic corrections. At this point I am using "biblical Hebrew" to refer to the hypothesised unchanging language of this unchanging text. This unchangeability of course relates only to the consonantal text, and not to the vocalisation, sin/shin distinctions etc, which on Karl's hypothesis came later.

For what I would personally call biblical Hebrew, I would have to give a more nuanced definition to fit with my less simplistic model of the development of Hebrew.

--
Peter Kirk
E-mail: peter AT qaya.org
Blog: http://speakertruth.blogspot.com/
Website: http://www.qaya.org/





Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page