Biblical Hebrew Forum

["Kevin Riley" <klriley AT alphalink.com.au>]

James,
Are you not forgetting that the Jews of Asia and Africa did not have that
much to do with Latin, and their knowledge of Hebrew outside Hebrew itself
has been transmitted through Arabic?  The pronunciation schemes used by
Sephardi and Mizrahi Jews owes very little to Greek and I suspect nothing to
Latin.  The medieval Hebrew grammarians were very much aware of Arabic
pronunciation and grammar, and that had an impact on their understanding of
Hebrew.  I don't think there is much, if any, evidence of them paying
similar attention to Latin and Greek authors.  What has come, at least
partly, through Greek and Latin is the modern European Christian tradition
when it comes to Hebrew, including how the letters were pronounced.
European scholars may have been influenced by their exposure to Greek and
Latin.  But to subsume everyone under that "we" may be a bit of a stretch.

Kevin Riley

> -----Original Message-----
> From: b-hebrew-bounces AT lists.ibiblio.org [mailto:b-hebrew-
> bounces AT lists.ibiblio.org] On Behalf Of James Read
> 
> Hi,
> 
> Quoting Yodan <yodan AT yodanco.com>:
> 
> > At the risk of an unpleasant response,
> 
> No unpleasantness should be necessary. It's a perfectly reasonable
> question to which there is a simple answer.
> 
> > I have to ask: Who exactly is "we"?
> >
> 
> We was not meant in the sense of you and I. It was used to the sense
> of the collective knowledge that we as a human race that researches
> this kind of thing. It was not to imply that you first learned Latin
> and then Greek and then Hebrew. It was just to show that most of what
> we think we know about the language has come through this transmission
> sequence.
> 
> >
> >
> > I didn't know/think that this group's members have all the same
> > background/knowledge, and that their knowledge of Hebrew comes from
Greek,
> > Latin, etc.
> >
> 
> Agreed.
> 
> >
> >
> > Some in this group (including myself) know Hebrew through Hebrew. Not
> > through Greek, not through Latin, not through any translation of Latin.
> >
> >
> 
> 
> >
> > And while my Hebrew is probably not pronounced exactly like the Hebrew
> > spoken in Biblical times or when the Hebrew Bible was written, my
knowledge
> > is not based on Greek, etc. but on the Hebrew that was passed from
> > generation to generation.
> >
> >
> 
> Now I really don't think you can substantiate that statement. What you
> have just said is like a Creole speaking pigeon English to claim that
> they have received English passed down from generation to generation
> and thus perfectly understands and reads Beowulf in its original
> language.
> 
> The simple facts of the matter are that Hebrew is a dead language. If
> I choose a dead language and a group of friends to revive it with that
> does not make it a language that never died and has been passed down
> to us with unbroken tradition through the generations.
> 
> Most of what we can confirm about the meanings of Hebrew words comes
> to us through our (collective) knowledge knowledge of the language it
> was transmitted through, using context where it helps and as a last
> resort the analysis of cognates.
> 
> >
> > I believe that knowledge of ancient Greek is probably helpful in order
to
> > understand certain aspects of ancient Hebrew (as it was expressed in
LXX),
> > but to imply that "we" know Hebrew from a translation of Latin is
incorrect.
> >
> >
> 
> Again, I do not mean 'we' as in you and I and the other list members.
> I meant it in the generic sense. I hope this was clear to others. I
> didn't realise at the time that the statement could be ambiguous.
> 
> James Christian
> 
> >
> > The use of "I" or "some of us" would have been better in your post so as
not
> > to imply including those who have a different connection to Hebrew.
> >
> >
> >
> > Bruryah Yodan
>