Biblical Hebrew Forum

[fred burlingame <tensorpath AT gmail.com>]

Dear Yigal:

Thanks for your clear clarification of the boundaries of this forum.

I will so respect those walls in future postings.

Perhaps the moderators of this forum may wish to consider a change of forum
name to perhaps: "Tanakh forum," or "Biblical Old Testament forum," and in
order to avoid potential confusion to new posters in the future?

I also find of interest the irrelevancy of the dead sea scrolls ("dss") to
this forum; and yet, the corresponding relevancy of a 1,000 year later text,
the masoretic text. Are for example, the Isaiah scrolls of qumran, copied
(translated?) in the mishnaic hebrew; or do such dss scrolls contain
earlier "biblical" hebrew language? I had thought the latter.

Regards,

fred burlingame

On Wed, Oct 20, 2010 at 12:33 PM, Yigal Levin <leviny1 AT mail.biu.ac.il>wrote:

> Dear Fred,
>
>
> Discussion on this list is generally limited to the Hebrew of the Tanakh,
> which does indeed end with the return to Zion under Persian rule (as I'm
> sure you know, the last book of the Tanakh in the Jewish tradition is
> either
> Chronicles or Ezra-Nehemiah; Malachi is the last book of the Protestant Old
> Testament. However, since all three represent more-or-less the same
> historical period, we will not argue the point). The Hebrew of the DDS, the
> Mishna, Second Temple Period inscriptions and other sources from after
> Alexander's conquests are not discussed on this list, since, while they are
> Hebrew, they come from a time in which Jewish culture (of which language is
> a part) had undergone significant changes compared to the pre-Hellenistic
> periods. Such "late" sources are only discussed when they might serve to
> teach us about the text of the Tanakh itself.
>
> So that even if you could prove that the Shem-Tov manuscript represented an
> authentic 1st century Hebrew text of Matthew, it still would not qualify.
> As
> far as I understand, most scholars believe that it is a Medieval forgery.
> We
> don't discuss the Hebrew of Yosefon here, either.
>
> If you wish to continue participating in this list, please respect its
> parameters.
>
>
> Thank you,
>
>
> Yigal Levin
>
> Co-Moderator, B-Hebrew
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: b-hebrew-bounces AT lists.ibiblio.org
> [mailto:b-hebrew-bounces AT lists.ibiblio.org] On Behalf Of fred burlingame
> Sent: Wednesday, October 20, 2010 7:02 PM
> To: b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
> Subject: [b-hebrew] to be or not to be
>
> Hello all:
>
> The first sentence of this forum announces: "B-Hebrew is a forum dedicated
> to the discussion of Biblical Hebrew language and literature."
>
> This sentence prompts the existential question. Does biblical hebrew
> language and literature grind to halt with the scroll of malachi? Or does
> biblical hebrew continue to exist and flourish with the scroll of matthew
> and beyond?
>
> Matthew 15:1-14 and 23:1-3 argue for and support the latter conclusion.
>
> Perhaps true, perhaps false, but the greek text of matthew
> 15:1-14 nonetheless contains Jesus' vivid disapproval of both the entire
> hebrew oral law (takanot and what later becomes the talmud), and its
> keepers
> of that oral law, the rabbis (then pharisees) of jerusalem.
>
> Soon thereafter, Jesus apparently contradicts Himself and instructs His
> followers to do all that the jerusalem rabbis say (aka all of the oral law;
> the takanot). *See*, greek text of matthew 23:1-3.
>
> The hebrew matthew shem tov manuscript however, contains no such conflict.
>
> http://www.torahresource.com/Dutillet.html
>
> Shem tov matthew 23:1-3 includes Jesus' instruction to do what moses says
> (written torah) versus what the rabbis say (oral torah). A single letter
> (waw or vav) in the hebrew accounts the difference between greek and hebrew
> renderings; between "they say" in greek; and "he says" in hebrew.  *cf*., 2
> kings 17:24-41 (concerning approval of the statutes of God; and
> corresonding
> disapproval of customs of men.)
>
> My understanding of the primary tool utilized by the academic community at
> this forum, includes the internal examination of the text itself, rather
> than the external evaluation of circumstances surrounding the text.
>
> In other words, the academic community here observes the alef-bet hebrew,
> its letters, words, phrases, clauses, sentences, paragraphs, etc., and the
> relationships between and amongst these parts. Perhaps as an example of
> this
> process, witness the internal elegance and balance of hebrew isaiah 29:13
> as
> compelling a conclusion of its hebrew originality.
>
> External considerations on the other hand, such as date of the manuscript,
> date of composition of the story within the manuscript, etc., enjoy
> secondary import here.
>
> These considerations, if correct, counsel a hebrew original text of
> matthew,
> at least in the context of matthew 15 and 23.
>
> regards,
>
> fred burlingame
> _______________________________________________
> b-hebrew mailing list
> b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew
>
> _______________________________________________
> b-hebrew mailing list
> b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew
>