Biblical Hebrew Forum

["Thomas L. Thompson" <tlt AT teol.ku.dk>]

Trevor Petersen wrote:
> 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?
        [Thomas L. Thompson]  
        I am not at all sure I can identify a very specific CBH. On the
other hand LBH seems to have a string of characteristics that Hurvitz and
others have convinced me exist as a particular form of the language and
which do not exist in Iron Age inscriptions. However, CBH has not been shown
to be "not-late" and thus to be chronologically datable on the basis of
forms alone. I do not find the use of explanatory metaphors or scenarios
such as schools or pubs useful, before we can first establish the
classification of CBH. The distinction has to be clearly established before
it can be adequately explained. If we could show that CBH is never late, we
would be a lot farther in our effort to assert a useful chronology.


> 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?
> 
        I find vocabulary less chronologically sensitive: especially when
standing within a theory of a transmission of texts. I like the syntactic
arguments very much, but I get stuck in my progressive evolution when so
much which looks like CBH shows up at Qumran. I feel uncertain that the
progression from CBH to Mishnaic Hebrew goes by way of LBH--> Qumran in such
a direct way that I don't have to worry about our ability to do this well
when we need to deal with such huge chronological periods and so many
secondary texts in both biblical and Rabbinic literature.
          
> > >   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?
        Here, humility needs to take over. My problem is that I doubt we
have either chronological development in our biblical texts or the ability
to observe such development within the biblical corpus were such to exist.
We have more than a millennium of text production by the shortest
calculations and only 2 (or perhaps 2 1/2) chronological steps clearly
identified. I can not silence my own quandery that if we could finally
distinguish sharply between CBH and LBH so that CBH were always earlier than
LBH, why would one need to date that transition sometime in the 7/6th
century rather than in the 6/5th, 5/4th or 4th/3rd or 3rd/2nd or later. why
do we not find such sharp linguistic developments in Isaiah? Can a text
develop over 3 centuries without an observable changes in the language.
Well--to answer my own question. Yes, at least until we improve our methods
of observation.
        Thomas

        [Thomas L. Thompson
>