Biblical Hebrew Forum

["Trevor Peterson" <speederson AT erols.com>]

Thomas L. Thompson wrote:

> Dear Raymond de Hoop,
> What is wrong? an excellent question. However, it should be observed that
> Mr. Humpal's argument is not really very far from your own, though his
> conclusions stand opposed to yours. That it is Solomon writing in Qohelet
> comes from the text: information which he views as potentially historical if
> proven not entirely impossible and which you call pseudepigraphy. However,
> to support your genre identification you refer to the early-state formative
> stages of a kingdom which had ideological interests in its literature. Yet,
> there is neither historical nor textual support for your asserted historical
> "kingdom" or its alledged ideology. Both contexts--yours and Mr.
> Humpals--are literary contexts which have little to do with the critical
> reading of either Qohelet or any other biblical book.

Good point, and I think it's worth noting that no reading, whether
critical or otherwise, can escape reading against the backdrop of some
interpretive model.  (This is not to say that some models aren't better
than others--just to observe that we're all working with one, whether we
think about it or not.)  But, hopefully in the interest of drawing this
discussion back to B-Hebrew proper, I'm curious about something, and maybe
you could give me some help here.  (Please permit me to generalize a bit,
as it seems like you, N. P. Lemche, P. Davies, and some others are
generally saying a lot of the same things about this issue.)  What is your
take on the standard reconstructions of the history of linguistic
development in Hebrew?  When I think in terms of comparing it with a
language like Akkadian, where we have autographs surviving from many
different periods of the language and can establish some sort of
chronology of linguistic development, it seems like we ought to be able to
observe some similar changes in Hebrew and note their development, even if
the surviving forms are only later copies.  So, if we're to view most of
the biblical literature as post-exilic, or some such thing, how would the
linguistic differences that others have assigned to periods of development
(for instance, between most of Deuteronomy and 2 Chronicles where it
doesn't seem to take its language directly from Kings or some common
source) be explained?

I guess one thing that intrigues me about this issue (and something that
seems to have appeared in this discussion) is that there are ways in which
it seems like the conservative scholar and (forgive me--I don't know what
you prefer to call yourself) what Halpern has labeled as the minimalist
are in a similar position relative to mainstream scholarship.  Whereas the
conservative looks at a book like Isaiah or Genesis and tries to debunk
source analysis in favor of a comparatively early date within a century's
time for the whole book, it seems like you would be inclined to do the
same thing, except that it would be in favor of a comparatively late date.
 Either way, both are arguing for a more compressed view of the history of
the literature, and both would therefore need to confront many of the same
arguments for a longer literary development.

Maybe I've got the situation completely wrong--my reading so far is fairly
limited on your side of the issue, but I do consider myself fairly
familiar with the historic debate between conservatives and the
mainstream.  I'm just trying to get a better understanding of your
position.

Thanks,
Trevor Peterson
CUA/Semitics