Biblical Hebrew Forum

[Kimmo Huovila <kimmo.huovila AT kolumbus.fi>]

Karl,

If I remember correctly, you argue on the basis of internal evidence that 2nd 
temple period Hebrew texts in the Tanakh were not written by native speakers. 
Here you claim that we don't have enough data to say what is a mistake 
(instead of a native form) in Aramaic. Have I got this right so far?

Would you like to elaborate on the methodological questions here. Somehow I 
miss how you can make the claim about Aramaic and maintain the claim about 
Hebrew with a consistent methodology.

What is it that I miss?

Kimmo Huovila

On maanantai 16 toukokuu 2011, K Randolph wrote:
> On Mon, May 16, 2011 at 7:25 AM, Randall Buth <randallbuth AT gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> > > So rather than being wrong, as Randall avers,
> > > phonetically written Aramaic reflected the local dialectal varients
> > > of Aramaic, not “wrong” Aramaic written by people who spoke
> > > another language.>
> >
> > In other words, he is not willing to accept it as Aramaic, AND
> > he knows what he is talking about. Of course, it is true
> > that labelling it a mistake is an interpretation. A person must
> > compare the text with the hundreds of other texts in order to
> > make a reasoned judgment.
> 
> 
> And that is exactly what we don’t have, sufficient documentation to rule out
> a local dialectal use of Aramaic. We have enough data to make a course
> grained analysis, but not fine enough to rule out that such a dialectal use
> could have been used in a local area, a single valley for example, for a
> limited time. All we can say for certain is that it is not normal,
> broad-based Aramaic use.
> 
> >
> > --
> > Randall Buth, PhD
> > www.biblicallanguagecenter.com
> >
> 
> Karl W. Randolph.
> _______________________________________________
> b-hebrew mailing list
> b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew
>