Biblical Hebrew Forum

[Yitzhak Sapir <yitzhaksapir AT gmail.com>]

On Tue, May 18, 2010 at 5:18 PM, Yigal  wrote:

> And here's a topic for discussion: as I'm sure most of the members here
> know, the story of Ruth is set "in the days of the Judges". Jewish
> tradition, and I think Christain as well, credits the prophet Samuel with
> the compostion of the book, together with Judges itself. Most modern
> scholars assume that the book was composed much later, in the post-exilic
> period, perhaps as a reaction to Ezra's "isolationist" policies. Now my
> question is, is there any LINGUISTIC evidence that would point to either an
> early or a late date? Since I won't be checking my computer over the
> holiday, I'll see your answers sometime tomorrow night.

Hi Yigal,

Hag Sameah!

On the basis of personal research, I am of the opinion that Hebrew changed
drastically during the 7th-6th centuries BCE, due to Aramaic influence.  This
included borrowing the Aramaic and Moabite plural construct suffix -y, and
the Aramaic and Moabite plural nonbound ending -n.  An additional change
(also due to Aramaic influence) included the lengthening of final open
vowels.  So the 2fs suffix of perfect verbs became -ti: instead of -ti.  The 
2ms
suffix became -ta: and this is the reason that already in pre-exilic 
orthography
we see -th spellings.  As for the 2fs suffix, this meant that the 2fs
suffix and
1cs became equivalent.  As a result, this caused ambiguity that resulted in
the 2fs suffix vowel being deleted.  In various places in the Bible we find 
the
2fs suffix vowel spelled out in the Kativ as -ty.  Where it occurs in poetry 
or
other archaic situations it could be explained as archaic language -- although
-ty was deleted it remained in archaic usage.  However, in Ruth, we have two
instances of this spelling in a non-archaic context in simple prose in 3:3-4.
This suggests that these verses were written or copied in the early stage
of the Aramaic influence, when -ty was not yet deleted.  As the change
began in the 7th century and is attested in Jeremiah and Ezekiel, it seems
that the -ti: pronunciation was well underway in the 6th century BCE.  It
seems to me unlikely that if the change began so early, the deletion would
not have begun as early and would have been delayed until the 4th century.
Very likely, by the 4th century the deletion of the -ti: 2fs vowel was well
underway.  Perhaps in some instances it was still used, and evidently it was
kept in compositions that had them.  But it is unlikely to me that a book
that was composed in the 4th century would show the non-deleted form
-ty in non-archaic context.  So, I think this is one reason to date the book
of Ruth earlier than Ezra.

Yitzhak Sapir