Biblical Hebrew Forum

[Niels Peter Lemche <npl AT teol.ku.dk>]

I promised Cynthia Edenburg to forward this as she is semingly having
trouble getting on this list--or at least getting her mail here.

NPL


>  From:        Cynthia Edenburg
> > Sent:       ?יום שלישי 15 פברואר 2000? 15:42
> > To:         'Biblical Hebrew digest'
> > Subject:    BH-l: BH/LBH and purpose of discussion
> > 
> > Dear Peter, Paul and others who would rather discuss the historical
> > aspects of Biblical Hebrew,
> > 
> > The main problem you must take into account is that the arguments for
> > BH/LBH progression are circular and do not adequately tally with the
> > phenomena observable from epigraphic Hebrew sources throughout the first
> > millenium. 
> > 1. Yes, the Hebrew of Chronicles, Ezra-Nehemia is different from that of
> > Samuel-Kings (conveniently termed "classical Hebrew"), and that this
> > divergent Biblical Hebrew has affinities with Mishnaic Hebrew, and
> anyone
> > wishing bibliography on this may apply to me offline. But does this
> > necessarily mean that the Hebrew of Sam-Kings is earlier, and that of
> > Chron, Ez-Neh is later? The argument is based upon literary assumptions
> -
> > a) that Sam-Kings is a pre-exilic composition; b) that Chronicles is a
> > rewriting of Sam-Kings. Both of these assumptions have been hotly argued
> > in recent scholarly discussion, and again, apply to me offline for
> > references. Now, if Sam-Kings is a pre-exilic composition, then we
> should
> > expect the Hebrew of this work to accurately reflect the characteristics
> > (other than those of orthography which changed in transmission) of the
> > inscriptional Hebrew of the Iron Age. But this is not the case. For
> > example, it is frequently stated that Classical BH uses accusative
> > pronouns alongside accusative suffixes, while LBH has near exclusive use
> > of accusative suffixes. However, in this matter oddly enough, Iron Age
> > inscriptional Hebrew displays the usage considered characteristic of
> LBH,
> > rather than the alternation of suffixes with separate acc. pronouns in
> > "classical" biblical texts.
> > 2. If the Hebrew of Chron., Ez.-Neh., which is conveniently termed LBH,
> > represents in fact a late development of biblical Hebrew, then how is it
> > that late biblical texts, like Esther, the MT addition to I Sam 17 and
> > others, are relatively free of LBH? How is it that a text as late as Ps.
> > 151 is written in classical Hebrew devoid of elements of late morphology
> > or syntax?
> > 
> > In light of these problems, there is good reason to doubt whether one is
> > justified in appealing to BH diachronics when attempting to date
> > composition of texts. How, then, to explain the differing linguistic
> > characteristics of biblical texts? Part of the answer might have to do
> > with stylistics. Another factor might be sociolects adopted by writers
> in
> > order to indentify themselves with different groups. Synchronic regional
> > variations must not be ruled out either. 
> > 
> > Cynthia Edenburg
> > 
> > The Open University of Israel         Tel. 972-3-6460500    fax.
> > 972-3-460767
> > Dept. of History, Philosophy and Jewish Studies
> > POB 39328     Rehov Klausner   16        
> > Ramat Aviv, Tel Aviv 61392  ISRAEL        
> >                             
> >  
> > 
> 
>