Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

b-hebrew - Re: [b-hebrew] Early and late biblical Hebrew

b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Biblical Hebrew Forum

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: jimstinehart AT aol.com
  • To: david.l.steinberg AT rogers.com, b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
  • Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] Early and late biblical Hebrew
  • Date: Thu, 24 Nov 2011 18:37:28 -0500 (EST)


David Steinberg:

1. In a short article on the Internet, “Linguistic Dating of Biblical
Texts“, Ian Young rhetorically remarks:

“Once it is admitted that the language of the biblical texts has been changed
in scribal transmission, the claim that the language of the current texts is
evidence of the date of the original authors is thrown into serious doubt.”

Do you agree?

2. Ian Young considers, and often attacks/refutes, the following possible
bases for dating a Biblical text:

(a) Presence of Early Biblical Hebrew linguistic features

(b) Presence of Late Biblical Hebrew linguistic features

(c) Presence of Persian loanwords

(d) Presence of Aramaic features.

You will note that Ian Young n-e-v-e-r considers whether the presence of
Hurrian proper names should be given any consideration whatsoever in dating a
Biblical text. He doesn’t even refute such an idea. Why? Why are
university scholars so certain, apparently without ever having given the
matter a moment’s thought, that the presence of Hurrian proper names should
be totally ignored for all purposes in dating a Biblical text? When I
mention the presence of 6 Hurrian-based names for the Hurrians at Genesis 15:
19-21, why isn’t that at least worth considering as a factor in dating the
composition of the Patriarchal narratives? In particular, if
Qa-a-ni-ya/QYN-Y and Qa-ni-zi-ya/QN-Z-Y at Genesis 15: 19 are the only two
names in the entire Bible that are Akkadian-based names with Hurrian
characteristics, why isn’t that a critical clue in dating the Patriarchal
narratives?

Jim Stinehart
Evanston, Illinois







Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page