Biblical Hebrew Forum

[Greg Doudna <gd AT teol.ku.dk>]

I agree with the proposal as to method as far as it is stated.
In the application of that method, though, what would we get?
Let us start with what I work with, the Qumran texts.  Here
one can (with some argument) make the following case on
fairly good grounds: (a) there are no Qumran text compositions
later than 1st BCE; this is fairly mainstream (Ian Hutchesson
and I have also separately published arguments that no Qumran 
text copies date from later than mid-1st BCE, which is definitely 
not yet mainstream, but that is a separate issue).  (b) among the
wide range of Qumran texts one major cluster is the "yachad" 
texts, which can roughly and inexactly be thought of in terms 
of this acronym: they are the HSDM texts (Hymns [H], 
Serekh/Community Rule [S], Damascus [D], and War Scroll [M] 
texts series' and spinoffs, and the pesharim).  Here is where
there is definitely disagreement and debate among scroll scholars, 
but a good argument can be made that this cluster, these HSDM 
texts, date in composition from 1st century BCE.  (For a good 
presentation of this argument, see the introduction to the Wise, 
Cook, & Abegg 1996 English edition of the Dead Sea Scrolls,
or now M. Wise, _The First Messiah_, Eisenbraun's, just 
published.)

(c) None of the "yachad" texts are ever quoted in any other text
but the "yachad" texts are filled with quotations from other texts,
both biblical and non-biblical (as we think of them).  These
other quoted texts are therefore earlier than the "yachad" texts,
and that in principle sets up the relative sequence.  Since there
are linguistic differences in details as well, there is in principle
the possibility of starting an analysis.  (d) one subset among the
biblical texts, however, the "chronicler" or what is called the
LBH texts ("late biblical Hebrew") seems, curiously, _almost
missing_ from Qumran (there is no Esther, there is one scrap
with a few lines said to be from Chronicles, but is that a whole
book of Chronicles or some fragment of a Kings edition, or
some source used in Kings/Chron?, etc.).  Highly conjectural
and definitely would be disputed here, but from my chronological
perspective on the scrolls, I consider it possible that the Qumran
texts, which I think ended mid-1st BCE, may actually predate
the production of Chronicles which might date in its production
and redaction from as late as the Herodian period.  But never 
mind.

(e) The Qumran texts (by looking at what the "yachad" texts
are quoting) know of a collection of the Twelve (minor prophets),
and apart from minor and generally inconsequential scribal
variants these are exactly the same texts as in the Bible's Minor
Prophets today--that may have been an early "mini-canon" of 
sorts, and it is in use by the "yachad" texts, mid-1st BCE.  
Yet it is possible this "mini-canon" of the "minor prophets" did not 
take shape until after mid-2nd BCE, since Daniel--from the way 
it is quoted within the "yachad" texts--seems to be one of these 
prophets no less than Nahum or Habakkuk.

(f) But the disappointing thing--this is following the method
outlined below; the disappointment is only in the fruits of its
application--is that all of the "biblical" and "non-biblical"
(let's call them "traditional texts") prior to the yachad texts
cannot really be known to be put together earlier than say
3rd BCE.  Obviously here is an area of widespread dispute,
but although some (or many) of these texts _may_ be earlier
than the 3rd century BCE, it is very, very difficult to _know_
this.  Referring here to the finished form of these texts as we
know them, not to earlier written sources.  It is like the 
Qumran texts give a good window into what is going on
mid-1st BCE, with some information that can be extrapolated
backward into 2nd BCE, and then going back the signals
become fainter and fainter in 3rd BCE, and by 4th BCE its
shrouded in the mists of fragmentary snippets of data and
huge gaps and spaces of missing context . . . and rare
recourse except for guesswork [concerning the question at
hand: the dating of composition of texts] in the centuries
stretching back before that.  

This is not the whole database that would establish a basis for
"linguistic dating", and the issue of dialects and all that is very
thorny and difficult.  Nevertheless from the Qumran texts this
might be some slight basis for a beginning.  But in the end
one comes up with clustering the Qumran texts into these:
(a) 1st century BCE texts ("yachad" texts), and (b) pre-
"yachad" texts and therefore maybe a little or a lot pre-1st 
century BCE.  But category "b" here is itself an umbrella 
group of many categories of Qumran and biblical texts.  

And as an example of how linguistic dating might break
down, there is a definite difference between certain Qumran
texts written in "proto-mishnaic Hebrew" (that is, affinities,
but not exactly the same, with MH) and the Hebrew of the
"yachad" texts.  But is there a generalized difference in their 
dates of composition?  A very clear difference in the Hebrew, 
the one associated with "earlier" (the "yachad" texts Hebrew 
being really simply a part of the spectrum of biblical Hebrew) 
and the other associated with later (the Hebrew of the Mishnah).
But these texts are likely all contemporary, all 1st century
BCE compositions.  I refer to calendar texts, 4Q448, MMT,
and 3Q15 the Copper Scroll [this last commonly dated, 
mistakenly in my opinion, to 1st CE; the others are 
conventionally 1st BCE].  These two different types of Hebrew
in different sets of Qumran texts seem to correlate with 
differences in genre rather than chronological development!  
And if that is the case with these texts--i.e. no relative 
sequence in dating even from this distinct difference 
linguistically--then this might be a caution toward assuming 
linguistic dating can be considered reliable, even relatively, 
in other periods for which there are little other external controls.

I hope some of this is helpful!

Greg Doudna
Copenhagen   

        [from Peter Kirk]
> 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
>