Biblical Hebrew Forum

["Peter Kirk"<peter_kirk AT sil.org>]

Dear Rolf,

Thank you for trying to clarify the issues here. My points here are in 
response (if not answer) to your numbered sets of questions.

1) I would be interested in answers here also. One approach would 
include comparison (for the moment excluding verb forms, see below) of 
features in the texts with features of texts of known (or relatively 
better known) date e.g. the Moabite Stone, DSS etc - and those for 
which we have an earliest possible date e.g. the biblical books 
describing post-exilic history. Of course we have to be careful here 
of uncertain inductive or even circular reasoning. We also have to be 
careful because features can be mixed in texts which have been 
redacted over a long period, and also because some features are 
dialectical rather than diachronic. But I think there is a possibility 
of showing something, even if in part it will be a matter of relative 
rather than absolute dating. Once a reasonably secure framework has 
been established, it can be used for dating other texts whose date is 
otherwise unknown.

2) Once such a framework exists based on less controversial features, 
it will be possible to relate the verb forms used in particular texts 
to their dating, without circular argumentation if verb forms were 
excluded from the initial list of features compared.

3) I would accept that any framework developed as in 1) above would 
not be entirely secure and would be unlikely to convince scholars who 
are already committed to an incompatible view of the dating of the 
biblical texts. Therefore such people would be unlikely to accept the 
results of the analysis coming from 2) above. In this way I would 
expect scholars' presuppositions concerning the dating of the texts to 
affect their understanding of the Hebrew language.

Peter Kirk


______________________________ Reply Separator 
_________________________________
Subject: Diachronic study (was Purpose for discussion)
Author:  <furuli AT online.no> at Internet
Date:    15/02/2000 16:38

<snip>

This being said, I must stress that I have nothing against critical 
scholarship, (provided that its limitations are kept in mind), so therefore 
I pose my questions (and these are sincere questions in order to get good 
input:


(1) There can be no doubt that there are old and young traits in the 
biblical text (the MW-suffix in some Psalms versus compound verbs 
consisting of a participle and a finite form, as examples), but is there a 
way to date the text on linguistic grounds? Do you have any sources?

(2) To date the different books on linguistic means is one thing, to show 
that the meaning of the verbal system has changed from the old parts to the 
new parts of the Tanach is quite another thing. Is it possible to 
demonstrate such a change without a particular presupposition about the 
meaning of the different parts of the verbal system,i.e. can it be 
demonstrated without circular aguments? Do such studies or attempts exist?

(3) Will different views regarding the age of parts of the text or of the 
whole text affect our understaning of the classical Hebrew verbal system? 
In other words: how will a view that the whole text is younger than the 
sixth century affect our understanding of the verbs compared with a view 
that parts of the text are much older? Do we have any sources here?

<snip>