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: dwashbur AT nyx.net
  • Cc: b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
  • Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] the little things
  • Date: Fri, 5 Nov 2010 13:43:09 -0500

Hello Dave:

Thanks for your comments.

I recognize your expertise.

I agree with much of your post.

And I believe that your post implies what I see the factual record disclose,
namely: that the hebrew language represents process over .... versus product
in ... time.

Hence, the classifications, .... classical, dead sea scroll, mishnaic,
medieval, modern (and others) ... hebrew ... form not units discrete, but
flow continuous.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hebrew_language#Oldest_Hebrew_inscriptions


The evolution of human dna in a person, aka aging, does not happen in
discrete pieces and parts, but rather occurs as a continuous process of dna
replication degradation. The evolution of human dna over generations;
witness the japan people growing taller and bigger via the joy of meat
consumption (versus rice), involves not a pool of water, but a stream of
water.

The attempt to isolate a single time era of the hebrew language cannot
succeed because the language, imho, equals process ... not product.
Finally, i am of the opinion that significant and substantial knowledge of
biblical hebrew can be gained by comparison of the changes revealed in its
successor incarnations. My betters here and elsewhere however, have
determined, in their wisdom, that protocol achieves the truth, the way and
the life .... not.

regards,

fred burlingame
On Fri, Nov 5, 2010 at 12:23 PM, <dwashbur AT nyx.net> wrote:

>
>
> On 5 Nov 2010 at 8:34, fred burlingame wrote:
>
> >
> > Hello Dave:
> >
> > I am expert in these matters, not.
>
> I sort of am. Biblical materials in the DSS are the subject of my book.
>
> > But i do believe that most reasonable people, having heard the below
> > quotedexpert testimony,
> > would conclude a mishnaic hebrew language for this document, rather
> > than biblical hebrew.
>
> No, they would conclude, and rightly so, that the language of the temple
> scroll is a) unique,
> and b) in a form of the language that is sort of a transitional phase
> between BH and MH.
> Some have used the term "Qumran Hebrew" but that has its own set of
> problems. In any
> case, it is definitely not "Mishnaic Hebrew." The temple scroll is also
> most definitely not
> representative of the language of the DSS in general; it's a major anomaly
> that has never
> really been adequately explained.
>
> Part of your problem is that you seem to think BH and MH are the only
> options. This is not
> the case.
>
> Dave Washburn
>
> http://www.nyx.net/~dwashbur
> _______________________________________________
> 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