Hello Dave: I am expert in these matters, not.
But i do believe that most reasonable people, having heard the below quoted expert testimony, would conclude a mishnaic hebrew language for this document, rather than biblical hebrew. " " It is clear that the writers of the scroll, especially the earlier scribe who copied most of the text, were expert craftsmen and excellent proofreaders. To endow the work with a divine authority, the author clearly strove to imitate biblical, especially Pentateuchal, Hebrew. However, despite his determined efforts, the scroll's grammar is clearly not that of the Torah or the rest of the Bible, and its language reflects the syntax and vocabulary of the late Second Temple period and is similar to the Hebrew of the Rabbis. The characteristic linguistic features of the Temple Scroll include the use of compound verbs; a preference for words current in the author’s own time rather than their First Temple period equivalents; the use of technical terms associated with the Temple and appearing exclusively in the Mishnah; othera typically Mishnaic collocations, legal phrases, and general usages; and words, terms, and idioms typical of other Judean Desert scrolls. " " *" " Dating and Origin* Most contemporary scholars believe that the Temple Scroll was composed in the Land of Israel in the late Second Temple period, or, more precisely, in the second half of the second century BCE (after 120 BCE, perhaps during the reign of John Hyrcanus I?). Among the main arguments for this view are the following: 1. The earliest extant copy of the scroll (4Q524), if it is indeed a copy and not an entirely different work, was copied in Hasmonean semi-cursive script (150-125 BCE). 2. The scroll's language is closely related to Mishnaic Hebrew. " " regards, fred burlingame On Thu, Nov 4, 2010 at 11:23 PM, <[email protected]> wrote: > 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 > _______________________________________________ b-hebrew mailing list [email protected] http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew
