Biblical Hebrew Forum

[Dave Washburn <dwashbur AT nyx.net>]

On Wednesday 27 April 2005 11:15, Dr. Joel M. Hoffman wrote:
> >So we can presume that if it isn't normalized now it wasn't when the dss
> >were written- or the HB.  And hence the effort to date texts by
> >"spelling" seems a flawed methodology.
>
> Yes and no.
>
> Yes, Hebrew has always enjoyed un-normalized spelling, so variant
> spellings were common throughout all periods of Hebrew.
>
> But no, that doesn't mean we cannot date texts based on spelling.
> Some spelling patterns were in use only during certain periods of
> Hebrew.  For example, spelling the 2nd-person-m-sng pronominal suffix
> KAF-HEH instead of just KAF is clearly a late invention.  We almost
> never see it in Biblical Hebrew, but constantly see it in DSS Hebrew.
[snip]

Um, I have to squawk a bit here; the KH ending of the DSS is the oldest form 
we have, since the K- ending in "Biblical Hebrew" is found in the medieval 
Masoretic manuscripts and we don't have a clue which spelling predominated 
in, say pre-exilic Hebrew writing.  So it is possible that the DSS spelling 
is in fact the older one and the short version is the "late invention."  It's 
also possible that the DSS spelling is an artificial invention to aid in 
pronunciation; the scrolls include many variations in spelling that seem to 
be designed for just such a purpose.  So comparing DSS Hebrew to "Biblical 
Hebrew" (i.e. Masoretic Hebrew) doesn't get us anywhere in terms of dating 
texts.  Furthermore, since all the texts (biblical works) were written at 
least before the DSS, I don't see how such comparisons get us anywhere in the 
first place.

-- 
Dave Washburn
http://www.nyx.net/~dwashbur
Reality is what refuses to go away when
you stop believing in it.