Biblical Hebrew Forum

[Uri Hurwitz <uhurwitz AT yahoo.com>]

  Well, Ian Young is a fine scholar indeed, and has already published
   widely on the subject. However, I could not accept his
   arguments. To take one example,  he holds that
   Qohelet was indeed written in the time of Solomon. The content
   alone would belie such an argument, since the book reflects certain
   aspects of Hellenistic philosophy. And this apart from the strong
   LBH features of its language.
   
   The above is only one of many examples.
   
   The subject is too involved to discuss here in greater detail. Young, and 
  those who follow him  have taken their stand in response to the more 
   customary position, that yes, there is indeed a diachronic development
   in biblical style  with certain poetry being the most ancient, and
   reflecting Canaanite predecessors. Avi Hurvits ( no relations of mine)
   is a prominent exponent of the diachronic approach.
   
   One has to add that of course language is not mathematics and
   that exceptions will occur, and most importantly, that late editing
   had a harmonizing effect on SBH which forms the largest part
   of the texts.
   
  Uri Hurwitz                                                  Great Neck NY,
   
   George Athas wrote:


Actually, dating a book on linguistic grounds is very perilous indeed.
The old distinction between Early Biblical Hebrew (EBH) and Late
Biblical Hebrew (LBH) can no longer be sustained on chronological
factors. They are distinct types of Hebrew, yes. However, close
analysis reveals that both existed at the same time. You can find
features of both types of Hebrew in books associated with both the
pre-exilic and post-exilic eras. In other words, they were
contemporary of each other, one being perhaps the more conservative
(EBH) and the other a bit freer (LBH). But we probably need to find
some new terminology to talk about these types of Hebrew.

Look out for a book on this topic next year by Young & Rezetko, and a
follow-up volume by Young, Rezekto & Ehrensvärd.



Best Regards, 

GEORGE ATHAS 
Moore Theological College (Sydney) 
1 King St, Newtown, NSW 2042, Australia 
Ph: (+61 2) 9577 9774 




 __________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 
http://mail.yahoo.com 
>From kwrandolph AT gmail.com  Mon Oct 29 22:46:33 2007
Return-Path: <kwrandolph AT gmail.com>
X-Original-To: b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
Delivered-To: b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
Received: from ug-out-1314.google.com (ug-out-1314.google.com [66.249.92.170])
        by lists.ibiblio.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 62C524C025
        for <b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org>; Mon, 29 Oct 2007 22:46:26 -0400 
(EDT)
Received: by ug-out-1314.google.com with SMTP id h2so47008ugf
        for <b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org>; Mon, 29 Oct 2007 19:46:24 -0700 
(PDT)
Received: by 10.78.151.3 with SMTP id y3mr4685676hud.1193712383869;
        Mon, 29 Oct 2007 19:46:23 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.78.181.4 with HTTP; Mon, 29 Oct 2007 19:46:23 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <acd782170710291946x629072bdv72252d91de0daa2d AT mail.gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 29 Oct 2007 19:46:23 -0700
From: "K Randolph" <kwrandolph AT gmail.com>
To: b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
In-Reply-To: <189B83AA-2ED3-42C5-B7DD-48088D300189 AT math.bu.edu>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline
References: <acd782170710230543j5aef49b8q3dd6bbc8289c1bda AT mail.gmail.com>
        <471E8AA1.000001.03580@YOUR-A9279112E3>
        <fc.3b9aca006f2ce4ba3b9aca00e68ecd95.92197d AT moore.edu.au>
        <fc.3b9aca000bf52b8e3b9aca00e68ecd95.92357c AT moore.edu.au>
        <8A722976-2F49-4563-A0B1-533CA4084525 AT math.bu.edu>
        <acd782170710290822q5c353fb8o3ff52a038ecb5b61 AT mail.gmail.com>
        <3E8949F8-230C-4F1C-B90C-9DE7D6E4E495 AT math.bu.edu>
        <acd782170710291753g303ab55avb2271782c2a2fca1 AT mail.gmail.com>
        <189B83AA-2ED3-42C5-B7DD-48088D300189 AT math.bu.edu>
Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] Two X letters
X-BeenThere: b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: Biblical Hebrew Forum <b-hebrew.lists.ibiblio.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew>,
        <mailto:b-hebrew-request AT lists.ibiblio.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://lists.ibiblio.org/sympa/arc/b-hebrew>
List-Post: <mailto:b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org>
List-Help: <mailto:sympa AT lists.ibiblio.org?subject=HELP>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew>,
        <mailto:b-hebrew-request AT lists.ibiblio.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 30 Oct 2007 02:46:33 -0000

Isaac:

On 10/29/07, Isaac Fried <if AT math.bu.edu> wrote:
> Karl,
>
> I think I start to understand you now. You are wishing for a witness
> or an attestor to "accurately indicate what Hebrew was like before
> Hebrew was written down". What about circumstantial evidence, will
> this not do?
>
> Isaac Fried, Boston University
>
Or more accurately, a written record, yes.

Cognate languages already make up one sort of circumstantial evidence,
and it is one that I treat as secondary at best. As far as I
understand your position, you reject it. Without a written record, we
don't know if the cognate languages split, or did Hebrew combine? Many
modern scholars teach that Hebrew combined phonemes. As I understand
you, you teach that Hebrew split, and the other languages split more.

So the answer is, circumstantial evidence is not enough, therefore No,
it will not do.

Karl W. Randolph.