Biblical Hebrew Forum

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

> > -----Oprindelig meddelelse-----
> > Fra:        Thomas L. Thompson 

[snipped]

> >     I have been in favor of dating biblical Hebrew since my Origin
> > Tradition of 1987 and I still am. Although I find it difficult to assign
> > dates to such complex secondary literature as we find in the Pentateuch,
> > the Psalter and Isaiah because of their collective nature, I do think we
> > have been able to establish on the basis of other texts what is often
> > referred to as Late Biblical Hebrew. What we have had some difficulty in
> > showing is that classical biblical Hebrew--including what seems to be used
> > in some of the Hodayoth and other Qumran texts as well as in so-called 3rd
> > Isaiah, P and many "late" psalms--is in fact earlier than late biblical
> > Hebrew. Similarly, I am much disturbed that we do not see a linguistic
> > development between DTR 1 and DTR 2 and am only relieved by the
> > realization that the existence of such "texts" along with 3rd Isaiah and
> > P, as independent strata of literature has been frequently cast into
> > doubt.

So, just to make sure I'm clear on your response, are you saying that you
think we *can* distinguish between CBH and LBH (so-called) as different
styles but *cannot* relate them chronologically to one another?  How then
would the distinction be explained?  Would you favor a suggestion
something like what Davies seems to say in In Search of Biblical Israel (I
think that's the title--I don't have it handy)--that there would have been
different "schools" with different literary styles but existing
simultaneously?

[snipped]

> >     I would be much more sanguine about our actual (rather than
> > theoretical) abilities to date biblical Hebrew if the methods used were
> > less dependent on vocabulary and on largely unvalidated assumptions about
> > Aramaisms.

I'm familiar with the objection to Aramaisms; what is your contention with
methods based on different vocabulary?  Is it simply the difficulty of
assigning particular vocabulary to particular periods, or is there more to
it?  And what about syntactic differences?  It seems, for instance, like
there is a difference in the way verb forms are distributed in LBH vs.
CBH.  Is it not possible to observe a progression from the older syntax,
through LBH, into what we can verify about Mishnaic and Modern Hebrew?

[snipped]

> >     I am somewhat mystified by writers who seem to assume that dating
> > biblical Hebrew would somehow make my task more or less difficult or my
> > arguments more or less convincing. I really do not see how it has much to
> > do with my issues. I do not see myself, for instance, as having a
> > compressed view of the literary aspects of biblical texts. In this, I
> > believe I have been consistent since my dissertation on the patriarchal
> > narratives in 1971 to my article in the new issue of the Revue Biblique:
> > namely, that the earliest literary developments of "biblical" traditions
> 
> > long antedate the gleam in Israel's father's eye.

So what criteria would you consider valid for observing such a
chronoogical development?

Trevor Peterson
CUA/Semitics