Biblical Hebrew Forum

["Yitzhak Sapir" <yitzhaksapir AT gmail.com>]

On 2/23/06, Bryant J. Williams III wrote:
> Considering the analysis of Cross and Friedman (since I have no means of
> accessing their work) is it possible to determine which parts of the Tanakh 
> is
> pre-exilic or post-exilic? Or should I say Pre-Monarchal, United Monarchal,
> Divided Monarchal, then Exilic and Post-Exilic?

The short answer: No.  The two questions are unrelated questions.
Just like you can't tell Shakespeare's works' time of composition by
the spelling of most current editions so too you can't tell the time of
Biblical books by the spelling that they use.  Also, while we have pretty
good documentation for the spelling since Shakespeare's time that
allows us to see how the spelling evolved, we do not have such
documentation for most of the "Biblical era".  Basically, we have
only Late First Temple period and Late Second Temple period
documentation.  The Early First Temple period, Exilic, Persian, and
Early Greek are missing.  And even if we found a book of the Bible
in an earlier spelling convention than the Biblical spelling, we can't
tell the original time of composition based on the spelling because
we still wouldn't know if that earlier spelling is the original spelling
or an "earlier than current" spelling but still a "later than time of
composition" spelling.

> I only ask these questions since they can help(?) us see the flow of the
> language from the beginning (whenever that was) to the Intertestamental 
> Period
> to Qumran to Massorettes.

Qumran comes before the "Intertestamental period" or overlaps it.
Our ability to see the flow of language is based on the
documentation available.  We have some documentation of
"Canaanite" from the Old Sinaitic/Canaanite inscriptions as well
as from the Amarna glosses.  We have the relatively consonantal
texts from archaeological discoveries throughout the "Biblical era."
We have the texts from Qumran.  We have certain documents
from after this period.  This allows us to learn no more than a little
about the ancient form of the Hebrew language but also to fit it into
an absolute time scale.  We can also study the Bible and compare
"earlier" books with "later" books based on linguistic criteria.  This
allows us to establish a relative timescale between books, but it
also provides us little information about the language.  It provides
mostly information about vocabulary.  The rest of the information
is hidden behind a relative standardization of the language, first by
the standardization of spelling to a later paradigm, and later by the
Massoretes.  Thus, in the case of II Kings 4, we may see hints that
the feminine second person pronouns/verbs maintained a -ti, -ki
suffix at least until the 9th century and probably throughout the First
Temple period.  But this information is normally hidden away and
it is only through such a coincidence that we are able to deduce it.

So like I said, I think the short answer to your question is no.

Yitzhak Sapir