Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

b-hebrew - Re: [b-hebrew] Aramaic to Hebrew language switch?

b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Biblical Hebrew Forum

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: Rolf Furuli <furuli AT online.no>
  • To: b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
  • Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] Aramaic to Hebrew language switch?
  • Date: Tue, 31 Aug 2010 09:13:38 +0200

Dear Jack,

We should always be open for alternative interpretations, and I agree with Uri's cautiousness. Any attempt to date the text of the Tanakh is to a great extent faith-based. For example, you believe in the interpretations of Finkelstein/Silberman, while I am skeptical. There are so many uncertainties. Regarding the towns Judah, are the correctly identified, archaeologically speaking? Regarding the text of the Tanakh, has it been orthographically modified, for example from a system with case endings (nominative, accusative, genitive) to a non-case system? We do not know.

The history of the first part of the second millennium B.C.E. is obscure indeed. We know that Akkadian was spoken, because cuneiform documents have been found. But we do not have a list of all the other languages that were spoken at that time. We do not have any evidence whatsoever, on the basis of which we can demonstrate that the account in Genesis 31 regarding Jacob speaking Hebrew and Laban Aramaic is history or fiction. So our standpoint must be based on faith.

I will refer to two examples as recent as the middle and last part of the first millennium B.C.E., in order to show the uncertainty of "established truths". First I refer to the book "Judah and the Judeans in the Neo-Babylonian Period," eds. O, Lipschits and J. Blenkinsopp, 2003. The issue was whether Jerusalem and Judah were inhabited or not during the Babylonian Exile. The conclusions of the different scholars regarding the archaeological evidence often are diametrically opposite-faith evidently played a large role in the interpretations. I take another example from my own work with dated cuneiform business documents. It is an "established truth" that the chronology of Ptolemy for Babylonia and Persia, which is the basis for the chronology of Parker and Dubberstein, is correct. But it is definitely contradicted by dated tablets! If the dates are taken at face value, there must be at least three extra years (perhaps as much as five) between Cambyses and Darius I in the Persian Empire, and there must be one or more extra years between Nebuchadnezzar II and Evil-Merodach, and between Evil-Meridach and Neriglissar in the Neo-Babylonian Empire. Because the chronology is tied to astronomical positions, just one extra year would completely destroy the whole chronological scheme. And here we have several extra years.

When "established truths" from a time as recent as the middle of the first millennium B.C.E. can be seriously questioned, how much more can events that are supposed to have happened 500 or 1000 years of more before our common era, be questioned. So, to know whether dialects of Hebrew and Aramaic were spoken in the second millennium B.C.E. is impossible. And similarly, to know when each book of the Tanakh was written is impossible. Discussions of these issues can be interesting, but we must always keep in mind the great part pure faith plays in connection in the interpretation of arcchaelogical finds and textual history.


Best regards,

Rolf Furuli
University of Oslo




Hi Rolf:

Actually, it does have foundation in the texts themselves. Quoting Israel Finkelstein and Neil Asher Silberman in The Bible Unearthed, Archaeology's New Vision of Ancient Israel and the Origin of Its Sacred Texts. New York. The Free Press. 2001:

"This basic picture of the gradual accumulation of legends and stories- and their eventual incorporation into a single coherent saga with a definite theological outlook- was a product of that astonishingly creative period of literary production in the kingdom of Judah in the 7th century BCE. Perhaps most telling of all the clues that the book of Joshua was written at this time is the list of towns in the territory of the tribe of Judah, given in detail, in Joshua 15:21-62. The list precisely corresponds to the borders of the kingdom of Judah during the reign of Josiah. Moreover, the placenames mentioned in the list closely correspond to the 7th century BCE settlement pattern in the same region. And some of the sites were occupied ONLY IN THE FINAL DECADES OF THE 7TH CENTURY BCE."

Now I think we remain on topic only if we are discussing the use of EBH (950-586 BCE) in MBAII (1950-1550 BCE) on the subject of putative Abraham speaking pre-exilic Hebrew. If Abraham was, as the texts claim, an Aramean in MBAII he would have spoken Akkadian (Old Assyrian) and would have adopted Canaanite when he migrated from Haran to Canaan with his family. I think any foreign ("Asiatic") clan chieftain in Egypt at this time would have used Akkadian as a language of discourse with the Egyptians.

Regards,

Jack

Jack Kilmon
San Antonio, TX




--------------------------------------------------
From: "Rolf Furuli" <furuli AT online.no>
Sent: Monday, August 30, 2010 1:15 PM
To: <b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org>
Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] Aramaic to Hebrew language switch?


Dear Jack,

We should all realize that ancient history cannot be proven! The conclusions of the critical historian regarding ancient Israel is just as faith-based as the view of the fundamentalists. And your claim that Genesis-2Kings were composed in the late 7th century-early 6th century B.C.E. has no foundation whatsoever; it is based on axioms, which per definition cannot be proven.

Best regards,

Rolf Furuli
University of Oslo






Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page