radarmark
Quaker-in-the-Making
Everyone must excuse me, I just realized how totally stupid I was being, looking up references to disprove exile's thesis.
The thesis is (he never stated it directly): "Ancient biblical Hebrew is a different language than Mishnaic Hebrew (that of the Holy Land about the time of the third Roman-Judean or Bar Kochba war) which is a different language from the Masoretic Text”.
So I went to the library and did some pretty extensive searches. I know you do not all have the search capabilities I have, so I will present an easily verified simplification using Google Scholar.
First, search for “Biblical Hebrew”, about 256,000 references.
Second, search for “Masoretic Hebrew” (the language of the Hebrew TNKH or “Bible”), about 11,300 references.
Third, Search for “Mishnaic Hebrew”, about 6,000 references.
Fourth, Nnw use all three connected by AND and OR (Biblical Hebrew AND (Masoretic OR Mishnaic)); this will give every reference using the words “biblical”, “Hebrew”, and “Masoretic” or “Mishnaic”. Depending on order and what database you are using, that is about 1,000 hits.
Fifth, add either “separate language” or “different language”. This will capture those phrases (crucial to exile’s thesis). What do you get ? 27 for “separate language”… look at them, they all are adding some other language (Greek, Latin, Aramaic, etc). 509 for “different language”.
Sixth, just go in and add “-Greek”, “-Latin”, “-Aramaic”, “-Egyptian”, “-Ugarit”, what are you left with? Zero, no references.
I did this in about a dozen databases. If you want proof, try it on Google Scholar (the numbers are from that search).
In other words, in all the academic literature (the kinds of references you could use in a thesis or dissertation) there is not one article that supports the notion that “biblical Hebrew”, “Mishnaic Hebrew”, “Masoretic Hebrew” are “different languages” or “separate languages”. I will now consider this discussion closed and relax with the books I got to learn (and not read them to disprove and unsubstantiated thesis). I am always happy (if provided the reference, and not just some claim) to discuss the evolution of Hebrew.
I took this rather unilateral way to close because I realized it is my opinion that because of the persistent use of “Samaritan Bible” and an outrageous dating of the” Hebrew Bible” to Masoretic times (9th-11th century), exile has a hidden agenda. If the Samaritan Torah dates to circa 500 BCE and it is over 90% in agreement with the Masoretic Torah, I believe only ideology could lead one to assert the Masoretic Torah dates from 900 CE or so. If we have complete lists of the books within the Masoretic text from the Qumran and Septuagint era (200 BCE to 150 CE) and the Masoretic text and its authors claim that kind of history, what else can lead one to formulate some 900 CE date for the “Hebrew Bible”. Finally, there are so very many non-Jewish (let’s talk about all of the pre-800 Christian and Islamic references to the “Hebrew Bible” or “Old Testament” or “Books of the Jews”) what would lead one to even consider a post 800 dating, unless it was some kind of hidden agenda?
There, I said it. Exile does not have a leg to stand on in this thread (in terms of the theses). Nor does he have an iota of proof (meaning not cloudcookoo land hypotheses or obscure websites or Googlebook references others cannot get to immediately) to back him up.
The thesis is (he never stated it directly): "Ancient biblical Hebrew is a different language than Mishnaic Hebrew (that of the Holy Land about the time of the third Roman-Judean or Bar Kochba war) which is a different language from the Masoretic Text”.
So I went to the library and did some pretty extensive searches. I know you do not all have the search capabilities I have, so I will present an easily verified simplification using Google Scholar.
First, search for “Biblical Hebrew”, about 256,000 references.
Second, search for “Masoretic Hebrew” (the language of the Hebrew TNKH or “Bible”), about 11,300 references.
Third, Search for “Mishnaic Hebrew”, about 6,000 references.
Fourth, Nnw use all three connected by AND and OR (Biblical Hebrew AND (Masoretic OR Mishnaic)); this will give every reference using the words “biblical”, “Hebrew”, and “Masoretic” or “Mishnaic”. Depending on order and what database you are using, that is about 1,000 hits.
Fifth, add either “separate language” or “different language”. This will capture those phrases (crucial to exile’s thesis). What do you get ? 27 for “separate language”… look at them, they all are adding some other language (Greek, Latin, Aramaic, etc). 509 for “different language”.
Sixth, just go in and add “-Greek”, “-Latin”, “-Aramaic”, “-Egyptian”, “-Ugarit”, what are you left with? Zero, no references.
I did this in about a dozen databases. If you want proof, try it on Google Scholar (the numbers are from that search).
In other words, in all the academic literature (the kinds of references you could use in a thesis or dissertation) there is not one article that supports the notion that “biblical Hebrew”, “Mishnaic Hebrew”, “Masoretic Hebrew” are “different languages” or “separate languages”. I will now consider this discussion closed and relax with the books I got to learn (and not read them to disprove and unsubstantiated thesis). I am always happy (if provided the reference, and not just some claim) to discuss the evolution of Hebrew.
I took this rather unilateral way to close because I realized it is my opinion that because of the persistent use of “Samaritan Bible” and an outrageous dating of the” Hebrew Bible” to Masoretic times (9th-11th century), exile has a hidden agenda. If the Samaritan Torah dates to circa 500 BCE and it is over 90% in agreement with the Masoretic Torah, I believe only ideology could lead one to assert the Masoretic Torah dates from 900 CE or so. If we have complete lists of the books within the Masoretic text from the Qumran and Septuagint era (200 BCE to 150 CE) and the Masoretic text and its authors claim that kind of history, what else can lead one to formulate some 900 CE date for the “Hebrew Bible”. Finally, there are so very many non-Jewish (let’s talk about all of the pre-800 Christian and Islamic references to the “Hebrew Bible” or “Old Testament” or “Books of the Jews”) what would lead one to even consider a post 800 dating, unless it was some kind of hidden agenda?
There, I said it. Exile does not have a leg to stand on in this thread (in terms of the theses). Nor does he have an iota of proof (meaning not cloudcookoo land hypotheses or obscure websites or Googlebook references others cannot get to immediately) to back him up.
