Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

b-hebrew - Re: [b-hebrew] Job and le-qabbel

b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Biblical Hebrew Forum

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: Rolf Furuli <furuli AT online.no>
  • To: b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
  • Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] Job and le-qabbel
  • Date: Mon, 7 Sep 2009 08:17:37 +0200

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





Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page