Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

b-hebrew - Re: [b-hebrew] 5th century BCE to 3rd century CE sociolinguistics minor point bre-

b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Biblical Hebrew Forum

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: K Randolph <kwrandolph AT gmail.com>
  • To: Kimmo Huovila <kimmo.huovila AT kolumbus.fi>
  • Cc: b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
  • Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] 5th century BCE to 3rd century CE sociolinguistics minor point bre-
  • Date: Mon, 16 May 2011 10:56:39 -0700

Kimmo:

On Mon, May 16, 2011 at 10:03 AM, Kimmo Huovila
<kimmo.huovila AT kolumbus.fi>wrote:

> 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?
>

We have at least seven books of the Tanakh, one of which was so long as
normally to be split into two, compared to a one line, a short one at that,
graffito of unknown provinance from a period when people often wrote
phonetically according to their local speech and from which period most
documents have been destroyed. From the former, there is enough data to
point to a difference in literary style compared to an earlier time, and the
latter not enough data to say anything definite.

>
> 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.
>

Data, how much is there?

>
> What is it that I miss?
>
> Kimmo Huovila
>

Karl W. Randolph.




Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page