Biblical Hebrew Forum

["Bryant J. Williams III" <bjwvmw AT com-pair.net>]

Dear Paul,

It seems that the underlying (implied/inferred) premise in this discussion is
that secular documents are factual and that religious documents are not 
factual
since those documents deal with theological elements. I do not accept that
premise.

The documents of the Tanakh are both. To separate the one from the other is to
destroy the integrity of both. It is no accident that matters that we moderns
would take to be non-scientific are considered to be scientific though not
couched in the modern terminology of our time. This is must be kept in mind at
all times; otherwise, we have eisegesis. Basically, we have a pretext to a 
text
which is no text at all.

It appears that what is going on is that the authors of the Tanakh have 
recorded
what has happened but with a theological interpretation perspective. The 
account
of Nehemiah reveals a situation of what occurred. First, the Torah is being 
read
from Hebrew, then translated to the people in Aramaic. This makes completes
since as it is readily discernable from historical fact that the people of the
land no longer spoke, let alone read, Hebrew. Hebrew, then was maintained by 
the
leaders, both religious and secular, while everyday affairs was maintained by
Aramaic. Thus, Hebrew did not go out of existence, but not as widespread.
Remember also that it was most likely during the Babylonian Exile that the 
rise
of the synagogue occurred. This would allow for the exiles to continue to 
learn
and use Hebrew, but not to the extant that it was used prior to the Exile.

Rev. Bryant J. Williams III


----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Paul Zellmer" <pzellmer AT sc.rr.com>
To: "'fred burlingame'" <tensorpath AT gmail.com>
Cc: "'B-Hebrew'" <b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org>
Sent: Saturday, October 30, 2010 6:36 AM
Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] the intended consumer of biblical hebrew language


> You may have convinced Stoney, but your original proposition is still way 
> off
base.  The sole *surviving* witnesses are religious documents, but your
proposition assumes that those form a legitimate sampling of the entirety of 
the
historical works.  You bring out as support to your proposition the case of a
people who had come from a lengthy stay in a land where both the trade and 
legal
languages were something other than Hebrew.  One would not expect that the
average person would then maintain Hebrew as their lingua franca, especially
since there is significant evidence that many (perhaps most) chose to 
assimilate
into the new culture.  How else should we interpret the fact that there was 
not
an en masse exodus to the homeland when such was allowed?  In this situation, 
we
would expect that the ones who would preserve the "home language" would be 
those
who would have motivation other than trade or day-to-day activities.  Those 
who
are more concerned with religious matters would have such additional 
motivation.
So it is not at all surviving when, upon a revival of the religious matters, 
the
average person, who might have never even learned the Hebrew language, would
need the ones who preserved the language skill to explain the text to him.
>
> We actually have Biblical claims that there were other documents written
during the kingdom period, the period before the captivity which I believe
caused the situation resulting in the priests needing to explain the text to 
the
average people.  The books of the Kings make several references to chronicles
which have not survived to the modern period.  Are you proposing that those 
were
written in a language other than Hebrew, or that those were religious in
character?  I would expect that they were indeed written in Hebrew, and were 
in
general secular.  If these were Hebrew secular documents which did not survive
the ages, why should we not expect that there would be other, more mundane
documents which were not preserved?
>
> Your Exodus reference (is it really too difficult for people writing Hebrew 
> on
this list to use right-to-left word order?) actually shoots your proposition 
in
the foot.  If the nation is to be one of priests, would that not imply that 
the
nation as a whole would have the skills of the priesthood?  If, as is your
proposition, those skills would include literacy, it would follow that the
nation in general would be literate.  This response to Stoney is an example of
your habitual treatment of the Tanakh as a unified body. This may be 
acceptable
in theological discussions, but goes beyond what we have generally agreed to 
do
on this list.  We may refer to other texts to determine the meaning of a word 
or
phrase or form, but to take the *teaching* of a passage and use it to 
interpret
the meaning of another passage is getting away from the study of the language
itself.
>
> Every thread that you have tried to originate since you joined this list 
> seems
to have been aimed at making general statements about the Hebrew Bible.  
Perhaps
your posts would be more in line with the historical purpose of this list if 
you
shifted your focus to the *elements* of the language and not the language in
general or culture/history of the Hebrew Bible.
>
> Well, I'm going to crawl back into lurker mode.  Too many other distractions
to lengthy discussions onlist!
>
> Paul Zellmer
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: b-hebrew-bounces AT lists.ibiblio.org
[mailto:b-hebrew-bounces AT lists.ibiblio.org] On Behalf Of fred burlingame
> Sent: Friday, October 29, 2010 1:16 PM
> To: Stoney Breyer
> Cc: B-Hebrew
> Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] the intended consumer of biblical hebrew language
>
> An interesting theory, the secular nature of the biblical hebrew language;
> but one bereft of factual support. Indeed, the sole witness to the language
> includes a highly religious document, aka the masoretic text; and its dead
> sea scrolls fragmentary predecessor. The internal testimony of that document
> further confirms the intended religious nature of the language itself, given
> the announced purpose of the nation writing the language.
>
> ואתם תהיו לי ממלכת כהנים וגוי קדוש
>
>   שמות 19:6
>
>
> As for the consumer of the written language, the priestly monopolistic and
> exploitative behavior that you propose, could have occurred only in the
> general absence of written words or scrolls. Such generally accepted rarity
> of written materials itself implies the illiteracy of the 14th century
> hebrew, and the corresponding exclusivity of the written document for the
> ruling class.
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> b-hebrew mailing list
> b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew
>


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Internal Virus Database is out-of-date.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.5.446 / Virus Database: 268.18.3/696 - Release Date: 02/21/2007 
3:19
PM