Whoops! It was the historicity and dating that provided some of the clues I
see that sparked the discussion based on my view that Hebrew, while
continuing as the language of religion, government and high literature, was
no longer the language of market, field nor hearth after the Galut Babel. (I
dont intend to start that discussion again.)
I suspect that you mean that discussions of historicity and dating are off
topic except where linguistically relevant, and even then limited to civil
discussion. If one accepts the traditional dating and historicity of the
Bible, there are different linguistic patterns observable than if one prefers
those concepts of historicity and dating provided by modern theories,
therefore such discussion is linguistically relevant. But I can see the point
not to argue that others must accept our view or be considered faulty in
reasoning.
Yours, Karl W. Randolph.
----- Original Message -----
From: Peter Kirk <peter.r.kirk AT ntlworld.com>
><snip>
> As discussions of historicity and dating are off topic for this list,
><snip>
> --
> Peter Kirk
> peter.r.kirk AT ntlworld.com
>http://web.onetel.net.uk/~peterkirk/
--
__________________________________________________________
Sign-up for your own FREE Personalized E-mail at Mail.com http://www.mail.com/?sr=signup