Hello Karl: Thanks for your comments.
My point in all of this is: a. not to level petty criticism at a great text; b. but rather to attempt to locate where the average speaker and consumer of the biblical hebrew language fit into this complex document; and c. to examine a little more closely whether the later incarnations of the language remain relevant to study of the biblical hebrew. The unanimous opinion today seems to be; that the biblical hebrew language represents a wonderful creation of exceptional depth ... but now resting comfortably in a museum for all to see and study. When I read abraham's biography below however; and when i listen to his tape recordings of his reading the language ...; it just doesn't sound like he treated the language as a museum piece; but rather, he had the language out on the playing field of his life ... and in actual use as a communication tool. It sounds like abraham and biblical hebrew equal: fish in water; bird in air; glove and hand. ... A supreme court justice once said: "i can't define it; but i know it when i see it." .... Well, it sure sounds like a living language for abraham; and as opposed to a nice museum display. http://individual.utoronto.ca/mfkolarcik/AbrahamShmuelof.html http://aoal.org/hebrew_audiobible.htm regards, fred burlingame On Fri, Nov 5, 2010 at 9:23 PM, K Randolph <[email protected]> wrote: > Fred: > > On Thu, Nov 4, 2010 at 7:48 PM, fred burlingame <[email protected]>wrote: > >> Hello Karl: >> >> 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 >> > > Which some people like myself consider untrustworthy and most likely > inaccurate. > >> >> 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. >> > > It’s more complex than that. > >> >> 3. The written BH text that we have (masoretic text, "MT") might equal a >> much older language form, but we have no facts at this time which would >> support such claim. In other words, the language of the MT might date from >> 1400 b.c., or earlier, but no facts extant at this time support such claim. >> > > Some texts, letters, etc. that date from before the Babylonian Exile, > sometimes centuries before, support the forms found in the consonantal > Biblical text. > >> >> regards, >> >> fred burlingame >> >> Personally, I think you are making a mountain out of a molehill. The > consonantal text is pretty well attested, not perfectly, but workable. > > Karl W. Randolph. > _______________________________________________ b-hebrew mailing list [email protected] http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew
