Biblical Hebrew Forum

[Niels Peter Lemche <npl AT teol.ku.dk>]

Dear Liz,

OK, except from the term 'archaizing'... when we have no safe anchor for
dating texts we must be extremely careful when we argue that there is within
the HB a development of language from something to something.

Let's take up an example-discussed on this or another list half a year ago:

Hebrew/Phoinician/Moabite etc display no elaborate system of consecutive
forms like the prose narrative in the HB. Neither does post-biblical Hebrew.
The argument runs: It starts to break down already in late biblical Hebrew,
but it was not there from the beginning of the history of the language. If
you remember the earlier discussion, I found some examples of a consecutive
preformative (imperfect) in the Mesha inscription, and-if my memory serves
me right, in the Yavne Yam letter of complaint. Never a consecutive perfect,
never the change among the forms. From a strictly philological point of
view, which I have difficulties accepting, standard biblical Hebrew is later
and represents a special development within the history of the language, but
as seen from this quarter, Hurvitz late biblical Hebrew in some ways is
closer to inscriptions than standard biblical Hebrew. So what can we deduct
from this? For the time being I would be satisfied with linguistic studies
of the differences. Then the fight can start another day about datings.

We should never forget that standard biblical Hebrew represents a highly
developed literary kind of Hebrew. It need not be older neither younger than
other forms of the language. It's like Latin: what is the oldest form?
Cicero's elaborate literary written Latin or the spoken Latin sometimes
showing up in Horace's poems? When I first read Horace, I was stunned: His
spoken Latin was so colloquial and in some ways much closer to Italian than
Cicero's learned language.

The remains of casus, are they not mostly related to locative endings and a
few more like that. I am not so sure that I can remember a single case of
the nom-acc-gen-endings as in Ugaritic, Akkadian or Arabic.

NPL


        -----Original Message-----
        From:   Liz Fried [SMTP:lizfried AT umich.edu]
        Sent:   Saturday, June 03, 2000 18:19
        To:     Niels Peter Lemche; Biblical Hebrew
        Subject:        RE: Hebrew language, antiquity of ?

        Interesting, Niels Peter.
        If I remember correctly, my teacher Charles Krahmolkov has
        argued for vestiges of case endings occasionally in the Hebrew Bible
similar
        to those you mention for Ugaritic. I'm sorry I don't recall where
these
        are -- perhaps in the psalms. Even if one were to say it was
"deliberate
        archaizing," it testifies to an earlier archaic language the writer
knew
        about.
        Liz

        > -----Original Message-----
        > From: Niels Peter Lemche [mailto:npl AT teol.ku.dk]
        > Sent: Saturday, June 03, 2000 6:32 AM
        > To: Biblical Hebrew
        > Subject: RE: Hebrew language, antiquity of ?
        >
        >
        > I read the various answers to this mail but will not make any
        > comments as to
        > the historicity of thepatriarchs and such items that have nothing
        > to do with
        > the question of language.
        >
        > Hebrew in its various attested forms is a late development of
Amorite that
        > has been around since the 3rd millennium BCE. From the early phase
it is
        > attested in many personal names from the time of the UR III
dynasty and
        > probably earlier than that through the Mari letters and right down
to the
        > end of the LB Period. We see from the Amarna letters from Syria
and
        > Palestine that the native language was Amorite (if in doubt
        > consult Rainey's
        > four volumes of Canaanite in the Amarna Letters), and of course we
have
        > extensive documentation from Ugarit and from other places like
Ta'anach
        > using the Ugaritic system of writing. The big difference between
        > LBA Amorite
        > and the various dialects of the 1st millennium BCE - Phoenician,
Moabite,
        > Palestinian Hebrew (i.e. inscriptions) - is the disappearance of
        > cases (the
        > -u, -a, -i endings attested in Ugaritic but also in Amarna
        > Amorite). Several
        > other changes took place. The place of biblical Hebrew within the
        > history of
        > this language-and I still think until I am convinced of the
opposite that
        > Aramaic was originally a spin off from Amorite-is contested. We
have
        > diferent dialects within the Hebrew Bible, 1) what I will prefer
to call
        > standard biblical Hebrew, and 2) non-standard biblical Hebrew. In
contrast
        > to Avi Hurwitz I do not believe that it is on the basis of the
biblical
        > literature possible to say what is early and what is late within
this
        > textual corpus.
        >
        > Hope this will clarify matters.
        >
        > NPL
        >
        > By the way, Fred based his article on Knauf's article in
Zeitschrift für
        > Hebräistik (Vol. 3 [1990], 11-23, 'War "biblisch Hebräisch" eine
        > Sprache'..
        > Fred's contribution will be 'The Problem of Dating Biblical Hebrew
and the
        > Hebrew of Daniel' in Knud Jeppesen, Kirsten Nielsen and Bent
Rosendal, In
        > the Last Days. On Jewish and Christian Apocalyptic and its Period
        > (Aaarhus:
        > Aarhus University Press. 1994), 185-198.
        >
        >       -----Original Message-----
        >       From:   Walter Mattfeld [SMTP:mattfeld AT mail.pjsnet.com]
        >       Sent:   Friday, June 02, 2000 08:48
        >       To:     Biblical Hebrew
        >       Subject:        Hebrew language, antiquity of ?
        >
        >       The recent posts between Ian and Jonathan on "Ur of the
Kasdim,"
        > called to
        >       mind several questions. If they have been reviewed before in
the
        > archives,
        >       please let me know.
        >
        >       I believe Dr. Fred Cryer (of Copenhagen, Denmark) did an
article a
        > few years
        >       ago comparing a thousand years of the German language and
its
        > manifested
        >       evolution in word forms and tenses, comparing and
contrasting it
        > with the
        >       alleged thousand year history of the Hebrew Bible's "Primary
        > History"
        >       (Genesis to 2 Kings) and his findings led him to believe
that the
        > evidence
        >       did support the notion of layer after layer of various
archaic word
        > forms
        >       from the world of Moses ( the Pentateuch of 15th century
BCE) to
        > that of the
        >       Exilic period (2 Kings 25:27) ca. 560 BCE.
        >
        >       Would anyone care to make any observations about the
validity or
        > invalidity
        >       of this work, or differing conclusions ?
        >
        >       For example, when one reads Chaucer, the archaic English is
obvious
        > when
        >       compared to Shakespeare (1500/1600's), or Dickens (19th
century) or
        > modern
        >       authors of the 20th century. Dr. Cryer's study suggested
that this
        > great
        >       range of  various archaic levels of expression did not
appear to be
        > present
        >       in the texts, suggesting for him, the text was a more recent
        > creation,
        >       composed within a much shorter interval of time, certainly
not
        > accretions of
        >       a thousand years. If I am drawing the wrong conclusions, or
        > attributing
        >       incorrect ideas to Dr. Cryer, please so advise. This is all
from
        > memory from
        >       an article I read several years ago.
        >
        >       Another question I have is that in the Genesis narratives,
Abraham's
        > dialogs
        >       are in Hebrew (correct me if I am wrong). If he is from
Harran, why
        > isn't he
        >       speaking in Aramaic ? If he is from Lower Mesopotamia, why
isn't he
        > speaking
        >       in Akkadian ?  If these dialogs are really "his preserved
words",
        > and if one
        >       wants to argue later generations rendered his words into
Hebrew,
        > then
        >       wouldn't word studies reveal an Aramaic or Akkadian language
        > underlying the
        >       Hebrew translation ? I have read that the Book of Daniel is
partly
        > Hebrew,
        >       partly Aramaic. Some scholars have argued that Aramaic was
the
        > original
        >       composition, and that the Hebrew is a translation or later
        > reworking, or,
        >       whoever wrote Daniel was more comfortable in Aramaic than
Hebrew.
        > Any
        >       thoughts, yea or nay ?
        >
        >       All the best,
        >
        >       Walter
        >
        >       Walter Reinhold Warttig Mattfeld
        >       Walldorf by Heidelberg
        >       Baden-Wurttemburg
        >       Germany
        >
        >
        >
        >       ---
        >       You are currently subscribed to b-hebrew as: npl AT teol.ku.dk
        >       To unsubscribe, forward this message to
        > $subst('Email.Unsub')
        >       To subscribe, send an email to
join-b-hebrew AT franklin.oit.unc.edu.
        >
        > ---
        > You are currently subscribed to b-hebrew as: lizfried AT umich.edu
        > To unsubscribe, forward this message to
        > $subst('Email.Unsub')
        > To subscribe, send an email to join-b-hebrew AT franklin.oit.unc.edu.
        >