Biblical Hebrew Forum

[Dewayne Dulaney <dewayne.dulaney AT gmail.com>]

Karl, I'm willing to be convinced of your argument that

>>Rather what you have is
people speaking it as a second language, some very well copying aspects
from Biblical Hebrew, others more like Hebrew words on an Aramaic grammar
of that time. >>

as far as the post-exilic writers of the Tanakh are concerned. Could
you give us some examples from those books and show how they differ
from the Hebrew of the books produced before the exile?

Dewayne Dulaney

On 11/22/11, K Randolph <kwrandolph AT gmail.com> wrote:
> David:
>
> I looked at your documents linked to below, and found concepts that I
> rejected decades ago because they did not fit the text of the Tanakh. In
> other words, they are not the last word on the subject.
>
> In short, I don’t dispute the scholarship that went into the writing of
> those documents. Rather I claim that the scholars that you depended on were
> not accurate in their understanding of Biblical Hebrew. And I question some
> of their other conclusions as well.
>
> As far as Mishnaic Hebrew, all I know about it is what I have read on this
> list. As far as it being natively spoken, I have seen nothing that
> indicates that it was nor proof that it wasn’t. Rather what you have is
> people speaking it as a second language, some very well copying aspects
> from Biblical Hebrew, others more like Hebrew words on an Aramaic grammar
> of that time. Those selected to write documents would be chosen from among
> the better speakers, until that class was largely wiped out by the Romans.
> Hence one would expect to find a range of abilities before the Jewish
> revolts against the Romans, and apparently that is what is found.
>
> But I do find indications that those who came to Judea after the Babylonian
> exile to repopulate that empty land did not speak Hebrew on the street nor
> at the hearth. I then extrapolate from that to expect that the same
> situation probably continued through the Mishnaic period. So far I have
> seen no evidence (scholars’ theories yes, but no evidence) that my
> extrapolation is unfounded.
>
> Karl W. Randolph.
>
> On Tue, Nov 22, 2011 at 5:49 AM, David Steinberg <
> david.l.steinberg AT rogers.com> wrote:
>
>> There have been a number of mentions of Mishnaic Hebrew without any
>> background re. its linguistic structure, relationship to Biblical Hebrew
>> and Aramaic, history, or locations of use. For some info on the topic
>> see the following and their links -
>>
>> Mishnaic, Middle or Rabbinic Hebrew -
>> http://www.adath-shalom.ca/history_of_hebrew.htm#mishheb
>>
>> Development of Proto-Mishnaic Hebrew -
>> http://www.houseofdavid.ca/anc_heb_diglossia.htm#koine_PMH
>>
>> David Steinberg
>>
>>
> _______________________________________________
> b-hebrew mailing list
> b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew
>


-- 
"In the world you will have trouble. But, be brave! I have defeated the 
world!"
—John 16:33, DDV (Dewayne Dulaney Version)

My Bible blogs: http://my.opera.com/Loquor/blog/ and
http://hasopher.preachersfiles.com/

Read my translation of the Gospel of John in the Blog at www.greekingout.com.