Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

b-hebrew - Linguistic dating

b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Biblical Hebrew Forum

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: Greg Doudna <gd AT teol.ku.dk>
  • To: "'b-hebrew AT franklin.oit.unc.edu'" <b-hebrew AT franklin.oit.unc.edu>
  • Subject: Linguistic dating
  • Date: Fri, 18 Feb 2000 11:29:16 +0100



The dating of the composition of the "yachad" texts has a long
history of debate and discussion within the Qumran field. It is
even difficult to state--in this case--that there is a single
"mainstream" or "dominant" view, although there are views which,
though they are in print, can be characterized as non-mainstream.
A strong traditional view is that the yachad texts (composition!--not
scribal copies!) span c. 100-150 years, from c. mid-2nd BCE to
c. turn of the era. This is associated with notions of a lengthy
(c. 1-2 centuries) life of a sect dwelling at Qumran continuously
producing texts through most of this period. However some
speak of a shorter span of production of these texts, such as
c. two generations (D. Dimant in a survey article).

One "yachad" text, 4QpNah, has been widely regarded as
bearing a _terminus a quo_ of c. 88 BCE (a reference to
Demetrius III). A small minority of serious scholars have
always existed who think the reference could be rather to
Demetrius I of c. 160 BCE, however. I think I offer the best
and I think decisive argument excluding the earlier Demetrius
and establishing the later, 88 BCE date (in G. Doudna,
"The case for 63 BCE...", _Qumran Chronicle_ 1999, vol. 8,
No. 4, special issue). Therefore at least some "yachad" texts
are post-88 BCE. (I think all of the "yachad" texts were
contemporary from about the same generation, such that
if any one can be dated, that narrowly dates them all, but
that is a separate argument of which no need to get into
here.)

But it has been widely noted--this is mainstream here--that
new compositions of Qumran texts seem to have "stopped"
sometime mid- or late 1st BCE. (E.g. Stegemann's 1998
book in English, in which he says pHab, which he dates in
composition to 54 BCE, was the last text composed at
Qumran. After that they simply copied old texts for the entire
next century!)

So much for the "yachad" texts (either 2nd BCE, 1st BCE,
or both). The Hebrew has a high degree of internal consistency
within this cluster. If one were to put biblical Hebrew (which is
a spectrum, not a point) on the left of a line, and Mishnaic
Hebrew at the right, the "yachad" texts' Hebrew would be nearly
at the left end. A notion that it is "midway" is clearly not
correct (although this sometimes pops up in discussions).

Turning to the "proto-Mishnaic Hebrew" texts, the degree of
MH characteristics within the texts is variously discussed
and disputed, but one text, MMT (see the Oxford Press DJD X
by Qimron and Strugnell for the details on this) has especially
figured in these discussions. Yet many in the Qumran field
think MMT is a 2nd BCE composition!--earlier than most of
the "yachad" texts were written! Others think 1st BCE for
MMT (I'm in this camp). Only Norman Golb has offered a
_linguistic dating_ argument for dating MMT to the 1st
century CE, on the grounds that its MH characteristics
make it chronologically later than most other Qumran texts,
and require it (he says) to be close in time to the era of the
Mishnah.

Other Qumran texts with MH characteristics, the MishC
texts, contain specifically dateable c. 70's-60's BCE
references, and none later, and look very much like these
texts date in composition from the time period of the obscure
allusions to events involving known historical names from
those years.

It is interesting that the Copper Scroll, which has a number of
"MH" terms, is widely considered the latest Qumran text in
composition (usually 1st century CE; a few even say early
2nd CE), yet with the possible exception of Golb, no one
seems to have cited a linguistic dating argument in support
of this dating which is believed correct on other grounds.
(As previously noted, I think the basis for 1st CE dating of that
text can be shown erroneous, and that a 1st BCE dating is a
better fit with the data, but that is a matter which goes afield
from here.) For discussion of MH terms and characteristics
see DJD III, 1962, Milik on the Copper Scroll.

In other words, with the apparent exception of Golb, no one
in the Qumran field even claims or makes the argument that
the "MH"-aligned Qumran texts are chronologically later in
composition than the "yachad" texts as classes of texts,
nor in the case of the one MH-aligned text that is believed
to be late, the Copper Scroll, this is not claimed to be
so on the basis of linguistic dating. It is fair to say that
all known major treatments of Hebrew in the Dead Sea
Scrolls, and there have been many, appear to assume
the basic notion that MH-like texts were being produced
contemporaneously with texts in the "yachad"-texts type
of Hebrew.

Citing prevailing scholarly opinion is of course no guarantee
that some other picture could not be argued; but this is a report
that no one who has worked with the data has yet offered
a direct argument that the differences between MH-like and
"yachad"-texts' Hebrew represent actual systematic absolute
dating differences in Qumran text compositions. (There was an
earlier argument that the Aramaic of 1QapocGen indicated on
linguistic dating grounds 1st CE dating, but that is different
than the MH/yachad texts Hebrew issue here.) Its possible
there may have been some discussions, particularly earlier in
the history of Qumran scholarship, that I'm missing here, but
this is what seems to be the situation today.

Palaeography and radiocarbon are each, for separate reasons,
somewhat thorny issues at present concerning Qumran text
dating issues. However a statement that no one in the
Qumran field would dispute is this: there is no _palaeographic-
typology_ difference between most of the MH-type text copies
and the "yachad"-type text copies, e.g. MMT exemplars and
"yachad" text exemplars are all well-represented in the same
kind of "early Herodian formal" [typological-classification term]
scribal hands. One examplar of MMT was copied by the
identical scribe who copied an exemplar of 4Q267 Damascus
Document, a "yachad" text. The scribal hand is "early Herodian
formal". 4Q267 was carbon-dated to c. 1st century BCE.

In short, with the exception of Golb, nearly everyone in the
Qumran field today presumes texts with MH characteristics
and "yachad" texts without such characteristics are
nevertheless contemporary in composition and without
chronological distinctions attributable to linguistic development.
It would appear to be a difficult and formidable task to argue
otherwise. I hope this continues to be helpful!

Greg Doudna
Copenhagen


[from Peter Kirk]
> Thank you for your helpful posting. I agree that if we restrict
> ourselves to evidence from Qumran we can learn little about whether
> texts were written two or twenty centuries earlier. We need to look
> also at the evidence from earlier texts. I know that this is limited
> and its dating is uncertain, but there are some things which can be
> looked at.
>
> I wonder how securely you can date the "yachad" texts to no earlier
> than the 1st century BCE? I say this because the picture would be much
> easier to understand if the "yachad" texts were significantly earlier
> than the proto-MH texts. There can be other explanations of
> non-quotation of "yachad" texts in other texts. But are there clear
> indications of contemporaneity e.g. proto-MH texts quoted in "yachad"
> texts? I am not trying to bend the evidence but because I want to be
> sure that this plank of your structure, which carries a lot of weight,
> is truly firm.
>
> Peter Kirk
>




Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page