Biblical Hebrew Forum

[Cynthia Edenburg <cynthia AT oumail.openu.ac.il>]

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