Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

b-hebrew - Re: [b-hebrew] the little things

b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Biblical Hebrew Forum

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: fred burlingame <tensorpath AT gmail.com>
  • To: K Randolph <kwrandolph AT gmail.com>
  • Cc: b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
  • Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] the little things
  • Date: Thu, 4 Nov 2010 21:48:51 -0500

Hello Karl:

Thanks for your comments.

Let me see if I understand correctly the current status of biblical hebrew
("BH") language, facts (versus faith).

1. We have a circa 1,000 a.d., BH vocalization code (nikkud); and

2. We have a circa 400 b.c., written BH language, implied by the dead sea
scrolls which contain documents composed in mishnaic hebrew and in BH
language.

3. The written BH text that we have (masoretic text, "MT") might equal a
much older language form, but we have no facts at this time which would
support such claim. In other words, the language of the MT might date from
1400 b.c., or earlier, but no facts extant at this time support such claim.

4. Furthermore, the 1,000 a.d., vocalization of the MT, might have existed
in 1,000 b.c.; but no facts exist at this time to support such a claim; or
any date earlier than 1,000 a.d.

So, when we (or anyone else) discusses the written BH language, such
language dates at the present time, only to approximately 400 b.c.? It may
or may not be an older language; we just don't know at this time?

regards,

fred burlingame

On Thu, Nov 4, 2010 at 5:48 PM, K Randolph <kwrandolph AT gmail.com> wrote:

> Fred:
>
> On Thu, Nov 4, 2010 at 3:30 PM, fred burlingame
> <tensorpath AT gmail.com>wrote:
>
>> If we discuss here how biblical hebrew evolved and became chanted in 900
>> a.d.; how come we do not discuss here how biblical hebrew evolved and
>> became
>> written in 90 a.d.,; aka mishnaic hebrew?
>>
>> regards,
>>
>> fred burlingame
>>
>> Biblical Hebrew didn’t evolve (unless you claim that copyist errors are
> “evolving”) and some of us ignore those pesky dots as being irrelevant. They
> certainly are not authoritative.
>
> Because those dots are attached to the Biblical text is the only reason
> they are discussed. Were it not for that, they would be ignored, just as
> Mishnaic Hebrew is.
>
> Karl W. Randolph.
>




Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page