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: Fri, 5 Nov 2010 22:21:47 -0500

Hello Karl:

Thanks for your comments.

My point in all of this is:

a. not to level petty criticism at a great text;

b. but rather to attempt to locate where the average speaker and consumer of
the biblical hebrew language fit into this complex document; and

c. to examine a little more closely whether the later incarnations of the
language remain relevant to study of the biblical hebrew.

The unanimous opinion today seems to be; that the biblical hebrew language
represents a wonderful creation of exceptional depth ... but now resting
comfortably in a museum for all to see and study.

When I read abraham's biography below however; and when i listen to his tape
recordings of his reading the language ...; it just doesn't sound like he
treated the language as a museum piece; but rather, he had the language out
on the playing field of his life ... and in actual use as a communication
tool. It sounds like abraham and biblical hebrew equal: fish in water; bird
in air; glove and hand. ...

A supreme court justice once said: "i can't define it; but i know it when i
see it." .... Well, it sure sounds like a living language for abraham; and
as opposed to a nice museum display.

http://individual.utoronto.ca/mfkolarcik/AbrahamShmuelof.html

http://aoal.org/hebrew_audiobible.htm


regards,

fred burlingame



On Fri, Nov 5, 2010 at 9:23 PM, K Randolph <kwrandolph AT gmail.com> wrote:

> Fred:
>
> On Thu, Nov 4, 2010 at 7:48 PM, fred burlingame
> <tensorpath AT gmail.com>wrote:
>
>> Hello Karl:
>>
>> 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
>>
>
> Which some people like myself consider untrustworthy and most likely
> inaccurate.
>
>>
>> 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.
>>
>
> It’s more complex than that.
>
>>
>> 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.
>>
>
> Some texts, letters, etc. that date from before the Babylonian Exile,
> sometimes centuries before, support the forms found in the consonantal
> Biblical text.
>
>>
>> regards,
>>
>> fred burlingame
>>
>> Personally, I think you are making a mountain out of a molehill. The
> consonantal text is pretty well attested, not perfectly, but workable.
>
> Karl W. Randolph.
>




Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page