Read it again. It mentions some technical terms that have a lot in common with mishnaic hebrew and such, but does not say it's written in any kind of mishnaic hebrew.
On 4 Nov 2010 at 23:13, fred burlingame wrote: > > ooops .... > > http://www.imj.org.il/shrine_center/Temple_article.html > > regards, > > fred burlingame > > On Thu, Nov 4, 2010 at 10:30 PM, <[email protected]> wrote: > > > On 4 Nov 2010 at 21:48, fred burlingame wrote: > > > Hello Karl: > > > > Thanks for your comments. > > > > Let me see if I understand correctly the current status of > biblical > > hebrew > > ("BH") language, facts (versus faith). > > > > 1. We have a circa 1,000 a.d., BH vocalization code (nikkud); > and > > > > 2. We have a circa 400 b.c., written BH language, implied by > the > > dead sea > > scrolls which contain documents composed in mishnaic hebrew > and in > > BH > > language. > > The DSS do not contain any documents "composed in mishnaic > hebrew." > > Dave Washburn > > http://www.nyx.net/~dwashbur > _______________________________________________ > b-hebrew mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew > > > Dave Washburn http://www.nyx.net/~dwashbur _______________________________________________ b-hebrew mailing list [email protected] http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew
