jack katav >I think most languages have written and vernacular forms and I just assume that Randall was referring to EBH as "High Hebrew" but will wait for him to respond. >
Jack, this raises a question of how close you are to the raw data. There is/was a noticeable difference between low Hebrew and high Hebrew in the Second Temple. That is what I was referring to. Without understanding this, all sorts of false things may be said about Hebrew. For example, many have said that 'Hebrew was a high language like Latin in medieval Europe', without realizing that Mishaic Hebrew was also a low language --like Vulgar Latin in early medieval Europe. ... >ALL of the Semitic inscriptions on all of the catalogued ossuaria are in Aramaic. > People would pay a lot of money for whatever you're smoking! One recent grave inscription discovered last year at Qiryat Shemuel, Hadashot Arkheologiyot / ESI 122 (2010), is published online at http://www.hadashot-esi.org.il/report_detail.asp?id=1497&mag_id=117 http://www.hadashot-esi.org.il/images//5621-7.jpg The report presents an inscription in mishnaic Hebrew, though mentioning a name with an Aramaic patronym: אלכסא בר שלום ברת אלכסא ארור שיטלני ממקומי (“Alexa bar Shalom berat Alexa // Cursed is the one who casts me from my place”) The clear part for potential grave robbers is in mishnaic Hebrew. Another ostracon of interest is a bilingual Hebrew--Aramaic one where the Aramaic side is written with a non-Aramaic form: CIIP 368a/CIJ 1352a: מרים יועזר שמעון בני יחזק בן קלון מן בני ישבאב CIIP 368b/CIJ 1352b: מרים יועזר ושמעון בני יחזק בר קלון מן ברי ישבאב (note: ברי instead of בני!). Why they bothered to do both languages remains a question when it is inconceivable that people couldn't read both/either-- but then the Aramaic part is 'artificial Aramaic' and incorrect. anyway, in Greek-Semitic ostraca where the Semitic language is unambiguous, there are 9 Gk-Aram and 13 Gk-Heb. In Semitic-only ostraca where the language is unambiguous, there are 25 Aramaic and 16 Hebrew. Guido Baltes in a forthcoming article concluded in general, "These conclusions drawn from the epigraphic material of the land of Israel might appear disappointing at first glance, since they are predominantly negative in essence: the language distribution within the inscriptions and documents is too evenly divided and too diverse to make any certain claims on geographical, functional or sociological language peculiarities. However, it might be just this non-existence of clear results that is the most important result of this study: Too easily New Testament scholars have looked for simple patterns and ready answers to explain the complexity of a reality two thousand years separated from ours. ... Too negligently, we have separated ourselves from the fruitful studies of our colleagues in the fields of archeology, linguistics, and history." (the article will be in the second volume of the Brill series Jerusalem Studies in the Synoptic Gospels, possibly available in SF SBL.) Any discussion of the sociolinguistics requires an accurate control of the development of and relationship of "biblical Hebrew" and "mishanic Hebrew". Too many, scholars and students both, write on this subject without controlling the linguistic data. blessings Randall Buth -- Randall Buth, PhD www.biblicallanguagecenter.com Biblical Language Center Learn Easily - Progress Further - Remember for Life _______________________________________________ b-hebrew mailing list [email protected] http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew
