Biblical Hebrew Forum

[Yigal Levin <leviny1 AT mail.biu.ac.il>]

Fred,

 

You are confusing (not for the first time) language (which is an oral form
of communication) with script (writing system - a graphic representation of
language). The two are not the same. It is possible for many, unrelated
languages to use the same script (such as Akkadian and Hittite, French and
Turkish, Arabic and Persian), and it is possible for a single language to be
represented by more than one script. Turkish used to use the Arabic script,
and then "converted" to the Latin script, but it's still the same language.

 

In the case of Hebrew, the change is actually much less significant, since
both the "Old Hebrew" (actually Canaanite/Phoenician) script and the
"Aramaic" script are actually just different styles of the same 22-letter
alphabet, what in computereese today we would call "fonts". Aramaic itself
was originally written in the Canaanite/Phoenician script (all of the Iron
Age Aramaic inscriptions, e.g. Tell Dan or Zakkur) which eventually
developed the newer "font". 

 

The Talmudic sages were well aware of the fact that pre-exilic Hebrew was
written in the old script - in fact they called it "ktav Ivri" ("Hebrew
script"), and what they were using, the "Aramaic" script "ktav Ashuri"
("Assyrian script"). The old script was known during the Second Temple
period and was used on Jewish coins and in some of the DDS. It was also used
by the Samaritans, a fact that the Talmudic sages were also aware of. The
claim made by SOME of the sages, was that the Torah (or just the Decalogue)
was originally given in "ktav Ashuri" and then changed to "ktav Ivri", only
to be changed back by Ezra, is a claim that served their exegetical needs
(and perhaps also polemical needs). And in any case, they NEVER claimed that
either script was unique.

 

"Bible codes" are really a matter of faith and not the topic of this forum,
but even there, the usual claim is NOT that the language (or the script) is
unique, but that the TEXT is unique. Had God wished to, he could have worked
whatever hidden meanings exist in the text into English. He chose Hebrew. 

 

I have not heard that there are many "men on the pulpit" who actually claim
the LANGUAGE or the SCRIPT of the Bible to be UNIQUE. What is considered to
be unique is the MESSAGE of the Bible. In any case, what "men on the pulpit"
claim is not the topic of this list. Please respect that.

 

Yigal Levin

 

From: fred burlingame [mailto:tensorpath AT gmail.com] 
Sent: Tuesday, January 04, 2011 10:24 PM
To: Yigal Levin
Cc: b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] continuum of dialects

 

Hello Yigal;

 

I am not sure what you mean by serious? but ....

 

a. don't the sages and the medieval writers both claim the post exilic
aramaic script as the original lettering of the language? and
notwithstanding the prior letters (alphabet) of the siloam inscription,
etc.? that conclusion seems a fairly strong attestation of linguistic
uniqueness.

 

b. don't a lot of people who consider themselves mainstream (bankers,
barbers and bakers) ..... accept the claim that codes are written into the
tanakh lettering?

 

c. isn't the attitude of most mainstream people who engage in worship on the
weekend; "if that's what the man in the pulpit says; ... that's the facts we
go with?" isn't much of what happens in the religious services on the
weekend, the claim of linguistic uniqueness to the language?

 

d. i haven't conducted a survey, but i suspect that lots of people who
participate in this forum, make that claim of linguistic uniqueness.

 

e. i advocate no theology here ... one way or the other. but the suggestion
that 99.9 percent of serious people (be they linguists or relative lay
persons) claim the linguistic commonness of the biblical hebrew language,
represents in my humble opinion ... reality ... not.

 

regards,

 

fred burlingame

On Tue, Jan 4, 2011 at 1:48 PM, Yigal Levin <leviny1 AT mail.biu.ac.il> wrote:

Fred, very few serious people, including the sages of the Talmud or the
Medieval Jewish writers, have claimed that Hebrew was LINGUISTICALLY unique.
On the contrary, they routinely cited parallels in related languages.
Hebrew's status as a "holy tongue" is based on the belief that God chose to
reveal his word in that language, perhaps even to create the world in it.
But that belief is beyond the purview of this list.

Yigal Levin