Jerry:
On Thu, Jul 11, 2013 at 1:23 PM, Jerry Shepherd <[email protected]>wrote: > Hi Karl, > > First of all, I pretty much agrfee with Chavoux's observations. > > Second, in reply to your question, "The reason for my question is how long > a period after the return does he consider the “post-exilic period” and > what all does he include with it?", my answer would be that in large > measure I would put the entire Hebrew Bible here. In addition to the books > that Chavoux mentions, I believe that much, if not all, of the Hebrew Bible > written before the exile was edited and updated, perhaps many of the > changes being orthographic and vocalic. > Without evidence, I don’t see how you can make such a claim. Personally, I think you’re all wet, but as that is a personal opinion with no malice intended, act like a duck and let it run off your back as irrelevant. > > Third, when you say, "I've noticed a simpler use of the Hebrew language > among those authors among the returnees after exile . . . and you can see > the difference, at least I do," this is highly subjective -- not to mention > the highly speculative decisions that have to be made with regard to dating. > These are the recorded dates in the books, other dates are speculative and a claim that the recorded dates are wrong. Again, where’s your evidence? > > Fourth, even if you are correct that Hebrew became at some point during > this time a "special language learned for official and religious duties," > this would actually be an argument that the pronunciation of biblical > Hebrew became, as it were, "frozen in time," and handed down through the > next generations or official scribes largely intact. > Not necessarily. There is more likelihood that the pronunciation changed when a “corrupted version” (Mishnaic Hebrew), was spoken. > > Finally, notice that all of the concession you've made in the last couple > of posts take you very far from your original unnuanced assertion that "you > can't trust the Masoretic points." > No concessions on my part, I don’t trust the Masoretic points. Period. But I also don’t hold to that straw-man perversion of my position of which people on this list accuse me. Never have. > > By the way, I'm still waiting for that Waltke-O'Connor documentation and > the evidence for the "strike" in baseball coming from a different root. > I dont have a copy of Waltke & O’Connor, so I can’t look it up to give the exact page. The comment was under a reference to evidence of the language spoken in Canaan during the time of the Amarna Letters. As for strike, there are words in other Germanic languages that refer to a line or mark, occasionally used as a negative mark against a person. If he gets enough of the negative marks, he’s out. Baseball still uses that meaning when referring to marks against a batter, if he gets three for a time up at bat, he’s out. If that baseball player hits 20 foul balls in a row, only two marks are counted against him. That shows that the “strike” against the batter is not for hitting the ball, but a negative count towards putting him out. > > Blessings, > > Jerry > > > Jerry Shepherd > Taylor Seminary > Edmonton, Alberta > [email protected] > > > Karl W. Randolph.
_______________________________________________ b-hebrew mailing list [email protected] http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew
