The change from paleo-Hebrew to square Hebrew

VIEW:582 DATA:2020-03-20

The various documents in pale-Hebrew show that they used the Phoenician or Proto-Sinaitic writing, and the characteristic of the current writings is linked to Persian writing united to Aramaic.

The big question is why the Hebrews stopped writing in Paleo-Hebrew to write in square Persian, or square Aramaic.

Kthav ashurit, is an ideology of formation of the Hebrew through the ancient cuneiforms, but it does not define correctly, since being the Aramaic script of connection with Assyria, the ancient Hebrew script is the Paleo-Hebrew that has to do with the Semitic region, but Persia had a strong connection to the Assyrian system. So we have a Phenicia formation, then a leap into square Persian. The transition from the Phoenician form to a proper form does not occur. Which suggests that Moses wrote in pale Hebrew, the people were slaves in Persia, and changed their writing to square Persian. You can't see anything other than that. Based on historical facts.

We have the following connections. The cuneiform the Sumerian and the Akkadian forming the ancient Persian. The Sinaitic proto, forming the Phoenician, forming the Aramaic. Forming the proto-Hebrew. this goes up to approximately 560 when the Persians beat the Babylonians. Thereafter the Greeks became interested in copying the sacred writings, and the Hebrews changed their proto-Hebrew script to blend the Sumerian and Akkadian contained in ancient Persian. Forming square Hebrew.

The Greeks keep the name of God in their proto-Hebrew form in their writings and these books separate from the Hebrew line. The Hebrews in some texts retain the proto-Hebrew until it is completely superseded. Masorets appear in 6 sec AD and try to include the sound in the square Hebrew text.

Thus ancient Hebrew is dated to approximately 1000 BC, up to 100 AD. From this, square Hebrew becomes hegemonic.

Several Persian terms are included in Hebrew concepts. גּדבר gedabar ghed-aw-bawr ', הן hen hane, and many others. Showing the Persian influence on Hebrew terms.

According to the existing writings, what existed was the protosinaitic in 1500 BC Which is the date close to the existence of Moses. The question involves that the proto-Hebrew should be considered to the period of Moses, let us imagine that not. Did Moses, an Egyptian who knew the hieroglyphs, write the log in hieroglyphs? Now hieroglyphics are directly linked to Egyptian deities. So I could also have written in cuneiform, but it would be extremely difficult to write in this form. Like protosinaitic it is very similar to phenician. And many do not want to accept Proto-Hebrew as a direct formation of Moses, I prefer to accept that the Hebrews tried to preserve the Mosaic writing, and only in Babylonian or Assyrian captivity have they changed. It would be too much to consider that they already altered the mosaic writing in such a short time.

They determine that pale-Hebrew writing is the first writing formation of the Hebrew people. If so, then Moses did not write the Pentateuch. For the Hebrews did not know the writing. It is only after 500 years that the log began the path of writing. If Moses wrote in his lifetime, then pale-Hebrew was born with him. You see, we either accept Paleo-Hebrew in the time of Moses, or we deny that Moses wrote, and that God did not write the tablet of commandments because the people did not know how to write or read. Paleo-Hebrew is nothing more than Proto-Sinaitic with the Ugaritic language. Phenician is the proto-synaptic with Fenician language. For me, Moses spoke Ugaritic, and wrote with symbols similar to Proto-Sinaitic. Therefore being Paleu-Hebrew.

Semitic is a language common to Semitic peoples, with accent differences and a few words. So it is as if Brazil speaks Brazilian and Portugal speaks Portugal. So Moses learned the Semitic-Egyptian. And he knew 2 modes of writing, the cuneiform that was the form of Egyptian commercial documents, and the hieroglyph. On going to Midian, he met the protosinaitic. That is nothing more than the proto-midianitic. But Midiã is not considered as a constituted people, so we define that the region was proto-Sinaitic. So Moses knew the hieroglyph, the cuneiform and the proto-midianitic, which is called as proto-sinaitic. But the Hebrew people are a people, therefore Moses, wrote in Proto-Hebrew, which is the Proto-Sinaitic symbols with the Ugaritic language.

History is an analysis of facts and connections. And lines of foundation. One story line defines Abraham's existence, another defines that Abraham did not exist. Fact one the Hebrews and the Muslims has Abraham as their father. So the greatest logical form is that Abraham existed. Question did Abraham exist? Only with the Doctor Who machine to travel through time and see Abraham or not to see Abraham. So for a historical concept to be true it has to have historical logic for that. After all, really everything that happens is in the field of speculation. The most rational speculation is considered history.

How did you write in the past? There was what was said and there was the scribe. So the speaker meditated on his memory and the scribe copied it according to the old rules. Who wrote? The scribe? The story refers that everyone who followed this type of writing, has the scribe with a pen, so Moses wrote, the scribe just used rules passed to paper, leather, stone.

Let's look at Persian, Persian is linked to Assyrian culture. And several Assyrian words have been included in the Hebrew literature, one wonders where they came from? By magic? Were the Hebrews dominated by the Persians? So we either imagine that there is a magical system according to dreams or we walk in the contexts of analytical history. In the rational concept, we imagine that a steam engine predates the internal combustion engine. But we can imagine that a superior force sent an internal combustion engine directly without having to go through the evolution of a steam engine. But is that rational? Of course not. Proto-linguistic systems are nothing more than the use of proto-Sinaitic symbols on the sides of different peoples. How does square writing emerge amid curved Aramaic formations of Sinaitic regions? Somehow a location with a square bias. Is 2 + 2 4? We can imagine that someone has the great imagination to form a square writing, be it an evolutionary leap or a creative leap. Or imagine that Persian-Babylonian contact has influenced the shift to square writing. The point is to use logic or close your eyes to a variable imagination. When an archaeological study has discovered before, several logical concepts have been engineered. For example, cuneiform documents were written between Egyptians and Assyrians, but Assyrians did not write documents in hieroglyphics. The ancient Assyrian and Persian principles are square formulations, but the Hebrews acquired the square form of a celestial magic, or artistic lighting? I believe that the most rational logic is that for square writings to exist, it is necessary to have a connection with other square writings, which are square of origin. But we may not stick to logic, and saying I won't think. It is a clear option. But on average, all science is formed by rationally rationalizing the systems observed.

We have that the writings by Daniel, and the liberation of the Hebrew population over the Babylonian-Persian domain occurred in the Persian concept. We see this in the stories of Esther and the involvement of the population. While we see that in Babylon the people were separated, in Persian we see the opposite, we see a miscegenation among the Persians. Where a culture is more mixed, in a segregative policy or in a miscigenative policy, now in a miscigenative policy.

When there is a change in population size, we must have population involvement and not merely classicist involvement.

When you don't have a cultural interaction, you don't have a linguistic interaction. Having a captive people, and having a mixed people are totally different things for the involvement and modification of a people. This cannot be denied.

Furthermore, the connection between the Greek people and the Hebrews is due to Persian domination, if the Hebrew people had altered their writings during Babylon, the Greeks would not have written the name of God in Paleo-Hebrew in the LXX documents. So that there would be no such terms in the Persian conquest. So the change must take place during or after Persian domination.

Square Hebrew emerged before or after the Persian empire dominated the Babylonians. Shall we then determine how the Greeks wrote the name of God in Paleo-Hebrew if the Hebrews had already changed their writings to square Hebrew?

The LXX was written in Greek using the link of Greek power with Persian, to depose the Babylonian empire, so the LXX can only be produced after the removal of the Babylonian empire and the acceptance that Jews aided in this transfer. The idealization is that the writings of the LXX were based on paleo-Hebrew, so such things have to occur after the Babylonian empire. If we have pale-Hebrew after the Babylonian, we also have changes after the Babylonian (2 + 2 = 4).

See that, escaping from logic, you have to keep breaking down several historical factors to involve unfounded concepts, except the imaginative ones of possibility. The logical basis is always better than the philosophical imaginative.

What is philosophical imaginative. That's when I see a logic and look for possible non-logical causes to define about the logic. For example, science does not accept philosophy for its formulations, a car is not built in a philosophical way, nor a building. Rampant philosophy breaks any fixed point in order to live in a variable nimbus without anchors to be attached.

Philosophical reasoning? philosophical imagination. Reasoning has to be involved in reason, reason has to be linked to logic. Philosophy is the breaking of concepts, thus philosophical reasoning and the breaking for the logical construction of a concept. So that philosophical reasoning is correct, but philosophy without reasoning is not correct. Hence philosophical imaginative. 

FACEBOOK

Participe de nossa rede facebook.com/osreformadoresdasaude

Novidades, e respostas das perguntas de nossos colaboradores