Biblical Hebrew Forum

[K Randolph <kwrandolph AT gmail.com>]

Randall:

On Sun, Dec 4, 2011 at 9:07 PM, Randall Buth <randallbuth AT gmail.com> wrote:

> > Karl:
> > > While I haven’t done an academic study on the subject, I have noticed
> a pattern that I have also seen among children of immigrants who still
> speak their parents’ languages. I noticed it among several language groups,
> the same pattern, a simpler vocabulary and far less usage of figures of
> speech. That, combined with the historical record, causes me to conclude
> that those who moved to Judea under Cyrus no longer had native speaking
> ability in Hebrew. And by extrapolation neither did those who lived later
> as well.
> >
> > The methodology is flawed, but more importantly
> > I don't believe the evaluation of Hebrew and challenge it for evidence.
> > Some of the postexilic books have as rich a vocabulary as preexilic.
>

Which Biblical writings do you count as post-exilic and why? If you count
as post-exilic some compositions I count as pre-exilic, that would account
for your response. So far, you refuse to respond to this question, making
your claim above empty.

>
> The challenge above seem to have been dropped from the list and/or
> diverted into questions about what else besides Zexarya, Mlaxi, Haggai,
> NeHemya, `ezra, and Divre-ha-yamim, should be included in Second Temple
> Hebrew. Well, at least start with these.
> Oh, you can add Esther, too, (And any other books that you wish to add
> to LBH, SecondTemple Hebrew, or not, as you wish.)
> Presumably, the pattern would continue with Qumranian Hebrew,
> since it is part of the Second Temple, too, but we can leave that for now.
>
> The challenge remains: please document the simpler vocabulary and lack of
> figures of speech in whatever you call 'Late Biblical Hebrew'.
>

You are asking for evidence of absence. In order to prove absence, one
needs to take months, if not years, analyzing sentence structure, syntax,
correlating statistical analysis of relative frequencies of writing, etc.
studying all pre-exilic writings comparing them to all post-exilic
writings. You haven’t done that to prove your disbelief in the pattern. I
haven’t done it to prove it. It is just something I have noticed while
reading through the text time and time again, which you admit you have not
done, but there were other studies I considered more important than to
prove that pattern. Your past history indicates you will not be satisfied
with anything less than a full-blown academic study, possibly a
dissertation: well, unless someone else does that study, you will have to
remain unsatisfied.

>
> I can give an example from the other side to help you along:
> In First Temple BH we have a generic word like sefer 'book, writing,
> letter'. It is used for a wide scope of written materials. From Second
> Temple texts Est 9.26, 29, Neh 2.7, 2.8, 2.9, 6.5, 6.17, 6.19, 2Chr 30.1,
> 30.6 we have a new word אגרת iggeret 'letter' that has entered the language
> and taken over a PART of the range of meaning of the older word 'sefer'. In
> that sense the language has become richer. Cf. Neh 7.5, 8.1, 8.3, 8.5, 8.8,
> 8.18, 9.3, 9.23, 13.1, where sefer is still used, but not for 'letter'.
> This looks exactly like the natural development of a language.
>

Focussing on one word that is used fewer than 20 times can be misleading.
What about the two times it is found in דברי הימים ב ל referring to a
pre-exilic event? Since דברי הימים is a condensation of pre-exile records
focussing on the spiritual life of the nation, what word was found in the
original pre-exilic records of the event? Can you prove it?

Secondly, look at how often letters are mentioned before the Babylonian
Exile, and how often afterwards: that fact alone can account for a
pre-exilic use not being recorded in Tanakh.

>
> Randall Buth
>
>
> Karl W. Randolph.