Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

b-hebrew - BH: BH diachronics

b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Biblical Hebrew Forum

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: Cynthia Edenburg <cynthia AT oumail.openu.ac.il>
  • To: 'Biblical Hebrew digest' <b-hebrew AT franklin.oit.unc.edu>
  • Subject: BH: BH diachronics
  • Date: Sun, 20 Feb 2000 14:00:36 +0200


My apologies if I seem out of synch with the on-going discussion on the
list. I receive the digest version, and prefer to respond from my office
where I have access to my notes and bibliography. In the meantime Greg and
Rolf have made valuable comments on the difficulties involved with
attempting to date texts on the basis of perceived BH diachronics, and I
will limit myself to a brief response to comments made on my post.
Peter Kirk wrote:
the difference has to be explained somehow, the most probable
explanation
(for books which are probably all produced by elite circles in
Jerusalem) is a time gap, and that since Ezra-Nehemiah must be late
the best explanation is that Samuel-Kings is, as it claims to be,
earlier.
Peter - First of all, the LBH/Standard BH dichotomy has been based upon
comarison of the language of *Chronicles* with Sam-Kgs. Ez-Neh share many of
Chr's linguisitic characteristics, but not all. Chronicles and Ez-Neh are no
longer attributed to a common author (cf. Japhet and Williamson). Now,
applying your comment to the relationship between Chr and Sam-Kgs, the
assumption that Sam-Kgs is earlier than Kgs is not necessarily the best
explanation: 1. it does not take into account certain literary problems,
such as the fact that Chr does not always seem to be aware of the text of
Sam-Kgs (apart from what is taken to be conscious expunging, as in the case
of the Court History); 2. it is possible that Sam-Kgs and Chr were derived
independently from a common source (G. Auld, *Kings Without Priviledge*), or
that Chr was derived from a version of Sam-Kgs not identical with MT (S.
McKenzie *The Trouble with Kings*) - in the second case, MT Sam-Kgs is later
than Chr! An examination I made of the Catalogue of David's conquests in
both Sam and Chr, as a tangent issue involved in a paper I presented at the
San Francisco SBL meeting two years ago I found that good cause to conclude
that the Sam and Chr versions were separately edited on the basis of a
common source; 3. contemporaneous authors may adopt different styles in
order to identify themselves comprising a specific ideological group, and in
some cases they may engage in conscious evocation of what is perceived to be
an antiquarian style for the purpose of establishing the antiquity of their
claims, and see E. Ben Zvi, "The Urban Center of Jerusalem and the
Development of the Literature of the Hebrew Bible," Urbanism in Antiquity:
>From Mesopotamia to Crete, eds. W.E.Aufrecht, N.A. Mirau and S.W. Gauley,
(JSOT Supp 244), Sheffield 1997, pp. 194-209.

Peter: [on the relation of BH to the Hebrew of Iron age epigraphic sources]:
You speak of "this matter". What about other matters? In such a
case one needs to look at the whole range of indicators, rather than

focusing on one which happens to fits one's presuppositions. Has
there
been a detailed study of the whole range of indicators?

Unfortunately it is only recently that a systematic study of epigraphic
Hebrew has been attempted, and see: S.L.Gogel, A Grammar of Epigraphic
Hebrew, (SBLRBS 23) Atlanta 1998. I have not undertaken (nor intend to
undertake) a full comparison of BH with epigraphic Hebrew, but chanced upon
the matter I mentioned previously (acc. suffixes as opposed to acc.
pronouns) while investigating possible LBH characteristics of a text I was
working on. I might also mention that the use of waw consecutive is far less
pervasive in epigraphic Hebrew than we should expect on the basis of
classical BH. In any event, the results of any comparison must be evaluated
in light of the fact that for the most part, the genres preserved in
epigraphic Hebrew sources are different from the genres in Biblical lit.
Different genres employ language in different fashions.

Peter:
But you are assuming a late date for parts of 1 Sam 17 on the basis
of certain assumptions about its obviously complex textual history. I have
never heard of a Hebrew text of Psalm 151 - is this the same as the LXX
Psalm 151? Or did you make a slip with the numbering here? Then on what
basis do you assume that this psalm is late?

For 1 Sam 17 see McCarter's Anchor Bible Samuel commentary, and E. Tov, "The
Nature of the Differences between MT and the LXX," The Story of David and
Goliath, ed. D. Barthיlemy, D.W. Gooding, J. Lust, E. Tov, Gצttingen 1986,
pp. 19-46. Tov, a cautious and rigorous scholar, is particularly convincing.
In addition to Soren's remarks on Ps 151 see the recent article: M.S. Smith,
"How to Write a Poem: The Case of Psalm 151A (11QPsa 28.3-12)," The Hebrew
of the Dead Sea Scrolls and Ben Sira: Proceedings of a Symposium Held at
Leiden University 11 - 14 December 1995, (Studies on the Texts of the Desert
of Judah 26), eds. T. Muraoka and J.F. Elwolde, Leiden 1997, pp. 182-208.
Why assume that Ps. 151 is late if I insist (unlike Hurvitz) that it's
language is classical Hebrew? 1. It's position in 11QPs-a and in LXX.
Sanders, Flint and Wilson have shown that the last two books of the Psalter
were the latest to crystallize. Now while it is possible that the psalms
included in them are in fact early, it seems difficult to explain why, if
this is the case, it took so long for these sections to reach their final
form. In addition, most of the Pss that Hurvitz concedes to be late on
linguistic grounds indeed belong to the final sections of the Psalter. 2.
the superscription of the ps. in LXX in which it is identified as a
supernumery Psalm. This concedes that the Psalter in effect was already
closed before the Ps. was added. Where was it circulating all this time if
it indeed is an early composition? 3. The genre of the Psalm. This seems to
be the earliest Hebrew exemplar of royal autobiographical hymn (of course
this is Pseudo-autobiography), and this genre with its accompanying
self-praise is absent from the bible. The question is what is the most
suitable context for such a pseudo-autobiographical genre. My opinion could
be debated of course, but I think it is best understood as a late phase in
the development of the David traditions.

Randall wrote:
Thus, a relatively short inscription cannot be properly analyzed as
to its internal consistency with -ehu // oto. Citing it as 'contradictory'
becomes irrelevant, even if multiplied by several examples.
The literary/discourse phenomena need to be controlled before this
piece of
the puzzle can be properly used.
1. At this stage, I am not optimistic that any significantly long Hebrew
inscriptions will yet be uncovered. So, the choice is between evaluating the
evidence at hand or ignoring it on grounds that it is not signifcant enough.
2. On the phenomenon itself see Gogel (cited above), p. 162, note 193. She
notes that there are more than twice as many occurances of acc. suffixes as
there are of independent acc. pronouns. 3. The seven attestations of the
unattached object marker cited by Gogel all occur in a limited group of
texts: Arad (4 times), Lachish (twice), Ajrud (once). These corpora also
attest to the acc. suffixes - Arad (3 times), Lachish (twice), Ajrud
(twice). Arad 24 is the only text I observed which attests to both usages.
Other inscriptions, including some relatively lengthly, attest only to the
acc. suffix forms. Particularly instructive is the lengthy Mesha text with 7
suffix forms and no independent acc pronouns.
Back to grading exams and preparing for the new semester,

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











  • BH: BH diachronics, Cynthia Edenburg, 02/20/2000

Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page