Biblical Hebrew Forum

[Søren Holst <sh AT teol.ku.dk>]

Yigal Levin wrote:

> So that "late" language does not rule out
> "early" composition, which was then "updated" by a later copyist
> 
it's a lot more fun to argue that there's something we know - than the
opposite. So I'll try to keep this brief:

What Yigal says above is obviously true, but presupposes that we actually
know how to distinguish between "late" and "early" language.

There's no doubt that the language of Ezra, Nehemiah and Chronicles is
slightly but consistently different from that of Genesis-Kings. Whether this
difference is necessarily a difference of time of composition remains
disputed. The two "sorts" of Hebrew might have been in use at the same time.
If (and only IF) this was the case, not only could a text in "late" language
have been authored in an "early" period as indicated by Yigal, but the
contrary is also possible: A text written in the Hebrew of Genesis-Kings
could have been authored late. The only way to demonstrate that this is
actually possible, would be to show that a text who talks about events in
the Persian period is actually written in the same sort of Hebrew as
Genesis-Kings. Precisely this, Danish scholar Martin Ehrensvärd has done in
his recently defended ph.d. thesis (analyzing texts like Haggai, Malachi and
Zecharaiah and finding no more features of "late" Biblical Hebrew in them
than in, say, the Books of Samuel). The relevant parts of the dissertation
are due out as an article in a volume edited by Ian Young (sorry, I can't
find the title).

kol tuv
Soren
>From mc2499 AT mclink.it  Thu Feb 27 11:05:41 2003
Return-Path: <mc2499 AT mclink.it>
Delivered-To: b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
Received: from mail.mclink.it (net128-007.mclink.it [195.110.128.7])
        by happyhouse.metalab.unc.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 60DEF2003C
        for <b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org>;
        Thu, 27 Feb 2003 11:05:40 -0500 (EST)
Received: from nergal (net203-175-187.mclink.it [213.203.175.187])
        by mail.mclink.it (8.11.0/8.11.0) with SMTP id h1RG6wh20587
        for <b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org>;
        Thu, 27 Feb 2003 17:06:58 +0100 (CET)
Message-ID: <0b4601c2de7a$426fba30$f3afcbd5@nergal>
From: "Ian Hutchesson" <mc2499 AT mclink.it>
To: "b-hebrew" <b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org>
References: <NFBBKDEKJBKDMCGCFJNKAEDCENAA.lizfried AT umich.edu>
Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] The Priestly Stratum
Date: Thu, 27 Feb 2003 17:06:58 +0100
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
        charset="Windows-1252"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2600.0000
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000
X-BeenThere: b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1
Precedence: list
List-Id: A forum on the Hebrew Bible, its language and interpretation
        <b-hebrew.lists.ibiblio.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew>,
        <mailto:b-hebrew-request AT lists.ibiblio.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://lists.ibiblio.org/sympa/arc/b-hebrew>
List-Post: <mailto:b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org>
List-Help: <mailto:sympa AT lists.ibiblio.org?subject=HELP>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew>,
        <mailto:b-hebrew-request AT lists.ibiblio.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 27 Feb 2003 16:05:41 -0000

Liz Fried wrote:

> Perhaps Ezekiel is a fixed point:

Or might be if you could date it. (-:

> 1) According to Ezekiel only the descendants of Zadok
> are allowed to approach the altar.
> 2) Ergo (?) the priests who approached the altar in
> the post-exilic period were the descendants of Zadok.

(Noting that the other priests had control
of the house.)

> 3) We all know who Zadok was, right? He was the one
> who kicked out Abiathar in the time of Solomon.

Though that's what the tradition indicates,
the reality is not so clear. But note what
the sons of Zadok say in CD 5:2-5 -- it was
their eponymous ancestor who found the book
(of the law) some time after David and
Solomon! This is a tradition which is
contrary to the current biblical one on the
time of Zadok and on he discover of the
book. How does one explain it? At the moment
the DSS tradition seems to me to have been
the older one which died with the sons of
Zadok. As it was a priestly tradition it was
not held by the "secular" tradents of late
Sam/Kings.

> 4) Ergo (?) they had the priesthood all along, the entire
> pre-exilic period.

With the glorification of the lost holy land
regained it's not strange that even priests
extended their lineage back before the exile.
If you'd like I'll plot the evolution of the
priestly genealogy again. One thing is certain
it still isn't sufficient to cover the time
it's meant to.

> 5) Ergo (?) Ezekiel was not creating anything new.
> 6) Ergo (?) they were the ones who wrote the P stratum,
> whenever it was written.

Well, they are probably responsible for most
of the Torah. They had control of the
literature for several centuries.

Now as to when, I think there is enough of
a case that the pre-exilic religion was
polytheistic. Not just because of sites
such as Kuntillat Ajrud, but because of the
temple at Arad with its double altar,
because of the high place at Malhah just
outside Jerusalem and because of the
numerous "Asherah" figurines found in the
city, all around the time of the "Josian
reforms". The repudiation of Asherah was
after the exile. Remember Ezekiel still
complaining about worship under every
green tree.

> If so, why is there not one word about Zadok in
> the entire Pentateuch?

For the same reason that Jerusalem is not
directly mentioned, but then Aaron is a
surrogate for Zadok (just as Melchizedek
is for the Hasmonean priest-kings).

> Why suppose that they are
> pretending to be descendants of Aaron?
> Why would they have created a fiction about Aaron,
> when they could have created any fiction they wanted?
> Why didn't they just have one of Aaron's sons be named Zadok???

He was a son of a son of a son of a...

But then the relationship between Zadok and
Aaron is basically the same as that between
Aaron and Levi. It was to this latter's
progeny that the priesthood was given, then
suddenly to only one specific descendant,
and while they "kept" their priestly
position, it was only the sons of Zadok who
could approach the altar, which I gather
refers to the ability to perform the whole
burnt offering. The sons of Aaron could
perform the other sacrifices.

> Why doesn't P refer to the sons of Zadok instead of to the sons of
> Aaron?
>
> I am definitely missing something here.

You're not the only one.


Ian