Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

b-hebrew - Re: Diachronic study (was Purpose for discussion)

b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Biblical Hebrew Forum

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: "Peter Kirk"<peter_kirk AT sil.org>
  • To: <b-hebrew AT franklin.oit.unc.edu>
  • Subject: Re: Diachronic study (was Purpose for discussion)
  • Date: Tue, 15 Feb 2000 23:53:33 -0500


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>





Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page