The Old Hebrew/Paleo-Hebrew dated from about 1100 BCE in slight variations
until it was replaced after the exile in the 6th century BCE (see my Early
Phoenician, Moabite, Early Aramaic, Siloam Lachish and Elephantine fonts at
my website http://www.historian.net/files.htm) with Aramaic Square Script at
about the time Aramaic replaced Hebrew as the spoken language See the
Habbakuk and Isaiah Scroll script from the Hasmonean and Herodian periods.
The Ashuri script of the Hebrew Bible and the modern Hebrew scripts
developed from the Aramaic Square Script. In pre=exilic times, the name of
God/Shem haMeforash was written and pronounced (however that was) without
prohibition. In the 2nd temple period the name of God/Tetragrammaton was
usually written continually in Paleo-Hebrew while the text was written in
the Aramaic Square Script and the name was not pronounced. In Mishnaic
times, as in the Ben Ashur codices, the name was written out in Ashuri as
yod-heh-waw-heh but replaced vocally when reading (or mentally) with
"Adonai."
Jack
Jack Kilmon
San Antonio, TX
--------------------------------------------------
From: "Doug Belot" <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, March 02, 2011 2:47 PM
To: "Pere Porta" <[email protected]>; "Isaac Fried" <[email protected]>
Cc: "B-Hebrew List" <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] sorry
Could anyone tell me if the Script of Old hebrew and Modern hebrew changed
thus giving the name of God a new look, was the Old Hebrew name of God
written as ???? , and perhaps the New Hebrew being written YHWH , is
that the sort of change we are looking at .
Or are both modern and old hebrew still writen in that "Arabic" type
script .
doug belot
----- Original Message -----
From: "Pere Porta" <[email protected]>
To: "Isaac Fried" <[email protected]>
Cc: "B-Hebrew List" <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, March 03, 2011 5:14 AM
Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] sorry
A message for Karl Randolph from Pere:
Karl, I'm with Isaac regarding the question: "Is Biblical Hebrew the same
language as Modern Hebrew?" --My answer is "Yes".
Their structure is the same. They differ only in vocabulary: in the
biblical
times there were no planes nor cars nor refrigerators..... so we cannot
find
these terms in the biblical pages...
What makes "two languages" to be the same language is the sameness of
their
inner structure, not some differences in the words entered in the general
dictionary.
Remark: I'm not saying that biblical Hebrew and modern Hebrew are a pair
of
twin brothers. I'm saying that they are the same language (with some
differences between them, of course)
Heartly,
Pere Porta
2011/3/1 Isaac Fried <[email protected]>
1. It is not clear to me how you are "looking at the meanings in Biblical
Hebrew".
2. I have never heard about "indicator of etymology".
3. It is not clear to me what "phases" are.
4. "not the same" is dependent on the norm for sameness.
5. Hebrew is not English.
Isaac Fried, Boston University
On Mar 1, 2011, at 11:30 AM, K Randolph wrote:
Isaac:
On Tue, Mar 1, 2011 at 4:25 AM, Isaac Fried <[email protected]> wrote:
1. Meaning is not a point-wise, but rather an an extensive quality and
therefore comparison of meanings needs to be done in the original
Hebrew,
not on its purported translation.
You are avoiding the issue. I am looking at the meanings in Biblical
Hebrew, and finding no connection at all, therefore no indication of
common
etymology. For good, linguistic reasons, similarity in form alone is not
recognized as an indicator of etymology. It is on that basis that your
claim
is invalid.
2. It is my firm opinion that "modern" Hebrew and "biblical" Hebrew are
one and the same language. As long as we don't have a norm for
"sameness"
this discussion will be of no avail and of no end.
There are norms for sameness, and those norms, at least from discussions
on this list, indicate that there are three, if not four, phases that
Hebrew
went through as it changed from Biblical to modern Hebrews. Those
changes
include that the grammar of Biblical Hebrew is not the same as the
grammar
of Mishnaic Hebrew which is not the same as the grammar of modern
Hebrew.
There are other changes as well. That you do not acknowledge these
differences …
(Similar differences are recognized for English, from Anglo-Saxon
(Beowulf) to Middle English (Chaucer) to Elizabethan English
(Shakespeare,
KJV) to modern English. Or is it your claim that a native speaker of
modern
English should have no problems reading Chaucer?)
Isaac Fried, Boston University
Karl W. Randolph.
_______________________________________________
b-hebrew mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew
--
Pere Porta
_______________________________________________
b-hebrew mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 9.0.872 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/3476 - Release Date: 03/02/11
05:34:00
_______________________________________________
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
