On 5 Nov 2010 at 8:34, fred burlingame wrote:
> > Hello Dave: > > I am expert in these matters, not. I sort of am. Biblical materials in the DSS are the subject of my book. > But i do believe that most reasonable people, having heard the below > quotedexpert testimony, > would conclude a mishnaic hebrew language for this document, rather > than biblical hebrew. No, they would conclude, and rightly so, that the language of the temple scroll is a) unique, and b) in a form of the language that is sort of a transitional phase between BH and MH. Some have used the term "Qumran Hebrew" but that has its own set of problems. In any case, it is definitely not "Mishnaic Hebrew." The temple scroll is also most definitely not representative of the language of the DSS in general; it's a major anomaly that has never really been adequately explained. Part of your problem is that you seem to think BH and MH are the only options. This is not the case. Dave Washburn http://www.nyx.net/~dwashbur _______________________________________________ b-hebrew mailing list [email protected] http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew
