Further, it is a matter of relativeness: while you
may be considered a maximalist compared to extreme
minimalists, you are a minimalist compared to my
position. And my position is shared by several on
this discussion forum.
But the historicity of the text is a legitimate
linguistic question. While for purposes of this
discussion we don't have to agree on historicity,
it has a bearing on how we interpret historical
data and how Hebrew compares to cognate languages.
It has been pointed out elsewhere (not on this
forum that I know of) that from the genealogies
that Melchizedek mentioned in Genesis 14 could have
been Shem, son of Noah, born before the flood. If
so, it is hard to imagine that he would not have
had a very conservative influence on the local
languages (people wanting to speak like the great
sage). I put this forward as an example of how
one's interpretation of the historicity of Tanakh
influences how we interpret historical linguistic
data.
Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.