> Can you:
>
> 1) Give an example of such scholars who use the "late" date of the Bible to
> make linguistic conclusions on the similarity of Hebrew, Aramaic, Moabite,
> Ugaritic, and Akkadian?
At the moment, no. ... But for starters, most of the so-called minimalists
take
such an approach.
> 2) Explain how come this conclusion -- that Hebrew was a development of
> Canaanite -- came to be accepted in a time when it was the scholarly
> consensus that the Patriarchal narratives were historical?
Can you give some examples of this?
> 3) Give an example of specific linguistic phenomena that could be understood
> as ancient and prior/concurrent with such languages as Ugaritic or Amarna
> Canaanite?
See number 1 above, but a good place to start would be M. Dahood's works. In
fact, his commentary on the Psalms in the Anchor series caused a firestorm
because of the way he used Ugaritic to challenge some of the more common
linguistic assumptions about Hebrew.
Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.