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: "d.roe AT t-online.de" <d.roe AT t-online.de>
  • To: "fred burlingame" <tensorpath AT gmail.com>, "K Randolph" <kwrandolph AT gmail.com>
  • Cc: b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
  • Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] the little things
  • Date: Fri, 05 Nov 2010 04:09:41 +0100

Hi Fred,

It might be possible that pigs can fly, but we have no facts at this
time that would support such a claim. In other words. it could be
possible that even-toed ungulate omnivores are capable of flight, but no
facts extant at this time support such a claim. We just don't know at
this time.

Cheers,
David

D.W. Roe
Rheinland-Pfalz, Germany


-----Original Message-----
Date: Fri, 05 Nov 2010 03:48:51 +0100
Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] the little things
From: fred burlingame <tensorpath AT gmail.com>
To: K Randolph <kwrandolph AT gmail.com>

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.
>
_______________________________________________
b-hebrew mailing list
b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew







Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page