Biblical Hebrew Forum

[K Randolph <kwrandolph AT gmail.com>]

David:

On Thu, Dec 29, 2011 at 4:29 AM, David Steinberg <
david.l.steinberg AT rogers.com> wrote:

>  Karl
>  I was surprised by your comment
>
>   Re sin/shin see Blau *Phonology and Morphology of Biblical Hebrew; An
> Introduction <http://www.eisenbrauns.com/item/BLAPHONOL>* sect 3.2. Roots
> such as shin-het-qof vs. sin-het-qof make it very likely that the
> phonological shin vs sin was still made in pre-exilic Hebrew
>
>
>  That book is not available for my perusal.
>
>
I am away from home on an extended trip, and I do not know when I will get
back, therefore I can not access my local library for inter-library loan. I
also don’t want to spend money to order a book not knowing if it will be a
good one or not.

>
> This book is the only comprehensive diachronic study of Biblical Hebrew
> written since the *Bauer and Leander* of the early 1920s. The author is
> one of the best Hebraists of the 20th century. Though this book is not
> without its weaknesses (see
> http://www.houseofdavid.ca/anc_heb_Blau_rev.htm ), the full range of
> material covered in it is absolutely fundamental knowledge for anyone who
> wishes to make knowledgeable comments on Biblical Hebrew historical
> linguistics. If I may say so, it is not a book to be "perused" but to be
> ingested and assimilated into one's fundamental knowledge and
> understanding. It is easily available to everyone either through purchase
> of through inter-library loan from your local library.
>

Other than a relatively few inscriptions and letters in Hebrew, whose
combined total add up to less than most of the minor prophets, we have
almost no indication concerning the historical development of Biblical
Hebrew language outside of Tanakh. That is the evidence.

Proto-Semitic is not evidence, as it is an invention based on theory,
theory that is not without its detractors. There is no evidence that it
ever existed. If much of Blau’s book is based on this theoretical basis, it
will have to be discounted.

The same is true of Proto-Hebrew.

As far as the post-Biblical changes, they hold just passing interest.

When does he claim that the Biblical books were written, and what is his
evidence for his claims? Evidence based on historical records, or modern
theory? If modern theory, then that section of the book needs to be
ignored, and any historical claims based on that theory is wasted paper and
ink.

What is the role of cognate languages in his view in the development of
Biblical Hebrew language, and which languages does he tap? I think that
from the time of Gesenius, entirely too much emphasis has been placed on
comparing cognate languages, which is like judging Swedish based on the
history of Dutch. (This is not to say that comparisons with cognate
languages is useless, it is not, rather that it is overdone.)

You may think highly of the book, but based on my questions above, I may
consider it a waste of money and time spent reading it. Which is why I wish
to peruse it before making a decision on it, and especially before
purchasing it.

>
> Regards
>
> David Steinberg
>

Yours, Karl W. Randolph.