Biblical Hebrew Forum

[Rolf Furuli <furuli AT online.no>]

Dear Randall,

Thank you for your clear answers to my questions. In connection with 
any attempt to date texts on linguistic grounds, it is extremely 
important to keep in mind the limitations of any method. The material 
(texts) we have at our disposition is limited, and all the auxiliary 
hypotheses that are needed for a theoretical dating approach are 
questionable. On the one hand I do not agree with the extreme 
skepticism of the Copenhagen school (Lemche and Thompson), but on the 
other hand I am very skeptical to Martin Noth's theory of 
Deuteronomistic history and the Graf-Wellhausen hypothesis about 
"J,E.P. and D". Therefore, when you say that Hurwitz have found that 
P is pre-exilic, my reaction is as follows: The existence of "P" in 
contrast with J, E. and D is an auxiliary hypothesis (for the 
theoretical framework of dating), and I reject the whole scheme as 
very doubtful. So, the dating of a supposed "P" does not tell me much.

When I analyzed all the verbs of the Tanakh in connection with my 
doctoral dissertation, I had to make a careful diachronic study in 
order to find whether the meaning of some verb forms had changed 
through time. In connection with that I studied the writings of 
Hurwitz and others, and my conclusion was that no diachrocic change 
in verb *meaning" was discernible throughout the Tanakh. But I found 
some differences in other areas of the language. I have already 
mentioned the study of Polzin, who in several areas contradicts 
Hurwitz, and I would also recommend the studies of Alexander Sperber 
from the middle of the 20th century. Sperber is viewed as a fine 
Aramaic scholar, but his achievements i Hebrew studies have been 
underestimated. Any scholar working with textual dating should take 
the writings of Sperber into account.

My conclusion is that a very limited dating of some parts of the 
Tanakh on linguistic grounds may be possible, but by and large, 
linguistic dating of parts of the Tanakh is highly questionable.


Best regards,

Rolf Furuli
University of Oslo




> vayyixtov Rolf
> > A discussion of whether a word or a text is "First Temple Hebrew" or
> not is only meaningful if we know the characteristics of  "First
> Temple Hebrew" .  Many scholars today believe that the whole Tanakh
> was written after the exile. So my questions to you are:>
> >  1) Which books or parts of books in the Tanakh represent "First 
> > Temple Hebrew"?
> >  2) Do we find documents outside the Tanakh that are written in "First
> Temple Hebrew"?
> >  3) On the basis of which criteria can we know that a text is "First
> Temple Hebrew"?
>
> The best foundation for a discussion of First and Second Temple Hebrew
> is that by Avi Hurvitz in articles and books over 40 years. He has
> shown that First and Second Temple Hebrew differ, and has produced a
> methodology for dealing with 'accident'. He has also shown that it
> is virtually impossible to believe that the whole tanax was written
> after the exile. His findings that "P" are pre-exilic is one of the most
> helpful contraindications of what might be termed 'Copenhagenism".
> But it causes a re-evaluation of standard wellhausenism, too.
> On your questions:
> 1. requires too detailed an answer for this list, but in broad strokes
> the Tora is pre-exilic, many of the prophets, and some psalms. Second
> Temple include Post-exilic prophets (Haggai, Zech., Mal.), Ezra, Neh.,
> Chron., Qohelet, Jonah, Job framwork story.
> 2. Yes,
> e.g., the standard ostraca (Arad, Lashish, yavne-yam,), ShiloaH,
> and I would include Mesha`, it is apparently a mutually
> intelligible dialect, though with non-Judean features.
> 3. I would run things thru Avi's methodology. He mostly deals with
> vocab, though the methodology could include syntax, and it has
> long been known that there are even some spelling details that
> have patterns according to First / Second Temple.
>
> PS: I vocalized le-qabbel in the subject header, because too many
> people were having trouble with the unvocalized form. It was intended
> as a real form for an includsive verb not limited at any one of its forms.
> One may read "D-stem Q-B-L" if it helps.
>
> braxot
> Randall
>
>
> --
> Randall Buth, PhD
> www.biblicalulpan.org
> randallbuth AT gmail.com
> Biblical Language Center
> Learn Easily - Progress Further - Remember for Life
> _______________________________________________
> b-hebrew mailing list
> b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew