Hello Dave: Thanks for your comments.
I recognize your expertise. I agree with much of your post. And I believe that your post implies what I see the factual record disclose, namely: that the hebrew language represents process over .... versus product in ... time. Hence, the classifications, .... classical, dead sea scroll, mishnaic, medieval, modern (and others) ... hebrew ... form not units discrete, but flow continuous. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hebrew_language#Oldest_Hebrew_inscriptions The evolution of human dna in a person, aka aging, does not happen in discrete pieces and parts, but rather occurs as a continuous process of dna replication degradation. The evolution of human dna over generations; witness the japan people growing taller and bigger via the joy of meat consumption (versus rice), involves not a pool of water, but a stream of water. The attempt to isolate a single time era of the hebrew language cannot succeed because the language, imho, equals process ... not product. Finally, i am of the opinion that significant and substantial knowledge of biblical hebrew can be gained by comparison of the changes revealed in its successor incarnations. My betters here and elsewhere however, have determined, in their wisdom, that protocol achieves the truth, the way and the life .... not. regards, fred burlingame On Fri, Nov 5, 2010 at 12:23 PM, <[email protected]> wrote: > > > 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 > _______________________________________________ b-hebrew mailing list [email protected] http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew
