Biblical Hebrew Forum

["Jack Kilmon" <jkilmon AT historian.net>]

The Old Hebrew/Paleo-Hebrew dated from about 1100 BCE in slight variations 
until it was replaced after the exile in the 6th century BCE (see my Early 
Phoenician, Moabite, Early Aramaic, Siloam Lachish and Elephantine fonts at 
my website http://www.historian.net/files.htm) with Aramaic Square Script at 
about the time Aramaic replaced Hebrew as the spoken language See the 
Habbakuk and Isaiah Scroll script from the Hasmonean and Herodian periods. 
The Ashuri script of the Hebrew Bible and the modern Hebrew scripts 
developed from the Aramaic Square Script.  In pre=exilic times, the name of 
God/Shem haMeforash was written and pronounced (however that was) without 
prohibition.  In the 2nd temple period the name of God/Tetragrammaton was 
usually written continually in Paleo-Hebrew while the text was written in 
the Aramaic Square Script and the name was not pronounced.  In Mishnaic 
times, as in the Ben Ashur codices, the name was written out in Ashuri as 
yod-heh-waw-heh but replaced vocally when reading (or mentally) with 
"Adonai."

Jack

Jack Kilmon
San Antonio, TX

--------------------------------------------------
From: "Doug Belot" <dbelot AT bigpond.net.au>
Sent: Wednesday, March 02, 2011 2:47 PM
To: "Pere Porta" <pporta7 AT gmail.com>; "Isaac Fried" <if AT math.bu.edu>
Cc: "B-Hebrew List" <b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org>
Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] sorry

> Could anyone tell me if the Script of Old hebrew and Modern hebrew changed 
> thus giving the name of God a new look, was  the Old Hebrew name of God 
> written as  ????   , and perhaps the New Hebrew being written YHWH , is 
> that the sort of change we are looking at .
>
> Or are both modern and old hebrew still writen in that "Arabic" type 
> script .
>
> doug belot
>
> ----- Original Message ----- 
> From: "Pere Porta" <pporta7 AT gmail.com>
> To: "Isaac Fried" <if AT math.bu.edu>
> Cc: "B-Hebrew List" <b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org>
> Sent: Thursday, March 03, 2011 5:14 AM
> Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] sorry
>
>
> A message for Karl Randolph from Pere:
>
> Karl, I'm with Isaac regarding the question: "Is Biblical Hebrew the same
> language as Modern Hebrew?"  --My answer is "Yes".
>
> Their structure is the same. They differ only in vocabulary: in the 
> biblical
> times there were no planes nor cars nor refrigerators..... so we cannot 
> find
> these terms in the biblical pages...
>
> What makes "two languages" to be the same language is the sameness of 
> their
> inner structure, not some differences in the words entered in the general
> dictionary.
>
> Remark: I'm not saying that biblical Hebrew and modern Hebrew are a pair 
> of
> twin brothers. I'm saying that they are the same language (with some
> differences between them, of course)
>
> Heartly,
>
> Pere Porta
>
> 2011/3/1 Isaac Fried <if AT math.bu.edu>
>
> > 1. It is not clear to me how you are "looking at the meanings in Biblical
> > Hebrew".
> > 2. I have never heard about "indicator of etymology".
> > 3. It is not clear to me what "phases" are.
> > 4. "not the same" is dependent on the norm for sameness.
> > 5. Hebrew is not English.
> >
> > Isaac Fried, Boston University
> >
> >
> > On Mar 1, 2011, at 11:30 AM, K Randolph wrote:
> >
> > Isaac:
> > > On Tue, Mar 1, 2011 at 4:25 AM, Isaac Fried <if AT math.bu.edu> wrote:
> > > 1. Meaning is not a point-wise, but rather an an extensive quality and
> > > therefore comparison of meanings needs to be done in the original 
> > > Hebrew,
> > > not on its purported translation.
> > >
> > > You are avoiding the issue. I am looking at the meanings in Biblical
> > > Hebrew, and finding no connection at all, therefore no indication of 
> > > common
> > > etymology. For good, linguistic reasons, similarity in form alone is not
> > > recognized as an indicator of etymology. It is on that basis that your 
> > > claim
> > > is invalid.
> > >
> > >
> > > 2. It is my firm opinion that "modern" Hebrew and "biblical" Hebrew are
> > > one and the same language. As long as we don't have a norm for 
> > > "sameness"
> > > this discussion will be of no avail and of no end.
> > >
> > > There are norms for sameness, and those norms, at least from discussions
> > > on this list, indicate that there are three, if not four, phases that 
> > > Hebrew
> > > went through as it changed from Biblical to modern Hebrews. Those 
> > > changes
> > > include that the grammar of Biblical Hebrew is not the same as the 
> > > grammar
> > > of Mishnaic Hebrew which is not the same as the grammar of modern 
> > > Hebrew.
> > > There are other changes as well. That you do not acknowledge these
> > > differences …
> > >
> > > (Similar differences are recognized for English, from Anglo-Saxon
> > > (Beowulf) to Middle English (Chaucer) to Elizabethan English 
> > > (Shakespeare,
> > > KJV) to modern English. Or is it your claim that a native speaker of 
> > > modern
> > > English should have no problems reading Chaucer?)
> > >
> > > Isaac Fried, Boston University
> > >
> > > Karl W. Randolph.
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > b-hebrew mailing list
> > b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
> > http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew
>
>
>
> --
> Pere Porta
> _______________________________________________
> b-hebrew mailing list
> b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew
>
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
>
> No virus found in this incoming message.
> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
> Version: 9.0.872 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/3476 - Release Date: 03/02/11 
> 05:34:00
>
> _______________________________________________
> b-hebrew mailing list
> b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew