E
exile
Guest
I see that the Dead Sea Scrolls were written in Dead Sea Scroll Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek. So does that mean that they weren't written in an earlier form of Hebrew?
radarmark
Quaker-in-the-Making
Not that it matters, but since some are written in Hebrew (and I know of no "earlier form of Hebrew"), you question resolves itslef.
seattlegal
Mercuræn Buddhist
Check out the script the Samaritans use, and compare to Archaic Hebrew script.
E
exile
Guest
There are several stages Archaic Biblical Hebrew, Standard Biblical Hebrew, Late Biblical Hebrew, Isrealian Hebrew, and Dead Sea Scroll Hebrew. So does that mean that the Dead Sea Scrolls that were written in Hebrew were all written in this later stage of Hebrew?
radarmark
Quaker-in-the-Making
Okay, these are all Hebrew, merely palaeographic versions (differences in script). It is likely that somewhere around 1000BCE a form of Canaanite-Phoenician script was adopted (this, I believe is continued in the Samaritan Hebrew, SG, and really forms a different Language and Script). This is (I think) your “Archaic Biblical Hebrew Script”.
Gradually it evolved into “Late Biblical Hebrew Script” (flourished 500-200BCE?) which was in a “Imperial Aramaic Script”, a kissing cousin to Hebrew today (rounded not square letters).
The final stage was the evolution of “Late Biblical Hebrew” into “Mishnaic Hebrew Script” (first examples from time of J!esus, then gradually evolved into “Modern Hebrew Mishnaic Script” as it exists in the Talmud by 300CE).
Again, I am no expert, but I can read “Archaic Biblical Hebrew Script” on a letter-for-letter basis as if it were “Modern Hebrew Mishnaic Script”, which is why I think the differences are not linguistic but palaeographic.
The latest of the Qumran Scrolls are in Mishnaic (I know the Copper Scroll is, and I think some small percentage—1% or so of the Qumran scrolls are also).
See, when the scrolls were found we did not have a lot a material for the Late Biblical to Mishnaic era (250BCE-50CE), so “Dead Sea Scroll Hebrew” was invented to fill the void. It covers the earliest scrolls (400-200BCE, huge uncertainty in dating both radiographically and palaeologically), the Wadi-Daliyeh deed. At the other end are the Bar Kokhba Letters (150-250 CE), which are in Mishnaic Script (I think, since they are the latest testable ones, the Copper Scroll is notoriously hard to date).
So except for these two endpoints and the 18% or so in Aramaic, the entire corpus of the Dead Sea Scrolls is in (logically enough) “Dead Sea Scroll Hebrew”. Again, this is a textual, a palaeographic difference, not a difference in language (imho).
With this you can probably do a pretty good search in “Google Scholar” and fill in the detail (which I could only guess at), exile. Good Luck!
radarmark
Quaker-in-the-Making
Hey, banannabrain and ben masada, if you drop by this thread, see if I was close in the previous post, please!
radarmark
Quaker-in-the-Making
Also, exile, does this thread have anything to do with the one on "YHWH" SG is commenting on?
Do you have a hidden agenda?
We have had a couple of pretty rabid anti-Semites (imho) use this line of reasoning to establish that J!sus is disconnected from Judaisn or was a Roman creation or that the OT was a fainly recent development (actually the septuagent was the original version).
Do you have a hidden agenda?
We have had a couple of pretty rabid anti-Semites (imho) use this line of reasoning to establish that J!sus is disconnected from Judaisn or was a Roman creation or that the OT was a fainly recent development (actually the septuagent was the original version).
E
exile
Guest
I've seen several dates for when the OT was written. The date for the Dead Sea Scrolls looks like the most reliable date for when the OT was actually written, 3rd century. But are you saying that the Dead Sea Scrolls were derived from the Septuagent?
radarmark
Quaker-in-the-Making
No. I am saying that some claim that... just as you are claiming a Dead Sea Scroll era dating. Neither is correct.
Just because we do not have copies predaing the Dead Sea Scroll era by much does not mean it did not exist. That is like saying the NT did not exist before the Beatty Papyri (circa 250). Or the Gathas did not exist before the 1300s (the age of oldest manuscript). Or that the Buddhist Canaon did not exist before the Pali Canon of 30 BCE.
These are all preposterous claims.
Just because we do not have copies predaing the Dead Sea Scroll era by much does not mean it did not exist. That is like saying the NT did not exist before the Beatty Papyri (circa 250). Or the Gathas did not exist before the 1300s (the age of oldest manuscript). Or that the Buddhist Canaon did not exist before the Pali Canon of 30 BCE.
These are all preposterous claims.
E
exile
Guest
Are you saying that there is no difference between Archaic Hebrew and Michnaic Hebrew when it comes to the language and only the writing systems differ?