Biblical Hebrew Forum

["Jack Kilmon" <jkilmon AT historian.net>]

--------------------------------------------------
From: "Rolf Furuli" <furuli AT online.no>
Sent: Tuesday, August 31, 2010 2:13 AM
To: <b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org>
Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] Aramaic to Hebrew language switch?

> Dear Jack,
>
> We should always be open for alternative interpretations, and I agree with 
> Uri's cautiousness. Any attempt to date the text of the Tanakh is to a 
> great extent faith-based. For example, you believe in the interpretations 
> of Finkelstein/Silberman, while I am skeptical. There are so many 
> uncertainties. Regarding the towns Judah, are the correctly identified, 
> archaeologically speaking? Regarding the text of the Tanakh, has it been 
> orthographically modified, for example from a system with case endings 
> (nominative, accusative, genitive) to a non-case system? We do not know.

Although it is true that the OT text provides little discernible data on the 
history of the language, the text of the Tanakh preserves some case endings 
as archaisms used in poetry (such as hmwth at Ps 116:15) and stately speech 
but had lost those case endings from its proto-Semitic past after the 
migration into Canaan and the transition from Old Assyrian (Akkadian) which 
had these case endings. Arabic, the "older brother" of Hebrew, preserves 
these original forms as a result. IMO. of its sequestration by desert 
tribes.  These case endings had long lost their significance between the 
Middle Bronze Age and the Iron II texts of the Tanakh.  There is just no 
basis to claim that the text of the Pentateuch has been "orthographically 
modified" from a proto-Semitic original.

> The history of  the first part of the second millennium B.C.E. is obscure 
> indeed. We know that Akkadian was spoken, because cuneiform documents have 
> been found. But we do not have a list of all the other languages that were 
> spoken at that time. We do not have any evidence whatsoever, on the basis 
> of which we can demonstrate that the account in Genesis 31 regarding Jacob 
> speaking Hebrew and Laban Aramaic is history or fiction. So our standpoint 
> must be based on faith.

I do not believe in the "argument from faith" defense of an argumentum ex 
silentio.  Regardless of whether Jacob and Laban were actual characters or 
based on historical characters, I can look at the historical and 
chronological context of that narrative.  The only historical "handle" that 
I can grasp is in Egypt for the Joseph Narrative in which Jacob plays a 
role.  The internal information in that Narrative can only place the story 
at the end of the Egyptian 2nd Intermediate Period and the reign of Apepi, 
the last Hyksos Pharaoh, the mid 16th century BCE.

Placing Hebrew in the 17th to 16th century BCE is like placing Tyrannosaurus 
rex (a Cretaceous species) in the Triassic.  In this case our "fossils" lie 
in the epigraphy for which we have examples throughout the Biblical and 
post-Biblical period with the oldest "fossil" being the Khirbet Qeiyafa 
inscription which clearly shows Hebrew in the mid 11th to late 10th 
centuries was still formative.

> I will refer to two examples as recent as the middle and last part of the 
> first millennium B.C.E., in order to show the uncertainty of "established 
> truths".  First I refer to the book "Judah and the Judeans in the 
> Neo-Babylonian Period," eds. O, Lipschits and J. Blenkinsopp, 2003. The 
> issue was whether Jerusalem and Judah were inhabited or not during the 
> Babylonian Exile. The conclusions of the different scholars regarding the 
> archaeological evidence often are diametrically opposite-faith evidently 
> played a large role in the interpretations.

I would have to see which evidence is being interpreted.  Jeremiah tells us 
that there were those coming out of the hills to make offerings at the ruin 
of the temple (Jer 41:4-5).  That even modern Jews go to pray at the Western 
Wall, a remnant of the 2nd Temple platform after the Roman destruction and 
the later Islamic usurpation of the temple site, would support a similar 
activity after the Babylonian destruction.  That people would take advantage 
of the site on the Ophel for shelter, scavenging, etc would be almost 
certain.  After the destruction and exile, a Judahite administration was set 
up in Mizpah with Gedaliah as governor.  If there was no one in Judah to 
govern, what was Gedaliah doing with his time?  Besides harassing Jeremiah. 
That his Bulla was found at the north Tower of the City of David suggests, 
to me, that Gedaliah sent a letter to Jerusalem from Mizpah during the 
exile.  I don't think bullae are found at their points of origin but at 
their destinations.  The clay is impressed with the seal on cordage around 
the letter before it is dispatched and removed by the recipient.  Gedaliah 
was in Jerusalem before the exile and at Mizpah afterwards.  That bulla 
would have originated at Mizpah.




> I take another example from my own work with dated cuneiform business 
> documents. It is an "established truth" that the chronology of Ptolemy for 
> Babylonia and Persia, which is the basis for the chronology of Parker and 
> Dubberstein, is correct.  But it is definitely contradicted by dated 
> tablets! If the dates are taken at face value, there must be at least three 
> extra years (perhaps as much as five) between Cambyses and Darius I in the 
> Persian Empire, and there must be one or more extra years between 
> Nebuchadnezzar II and Evil-Merodach, and between Evil-Meridach and 
> Neriglissar in the Neo-Babylonian Empire. Because the chronology is tied to 
> astronomical positions, just one extra year would completely destroy the 
> whole chronological scheme. And here we have several extra years.
>
> When "established truths" from a time as recent as the middle of the first 
> millennium B.C.E. can be seriously questioned, how much more can events 
> that are supposed to have happened 500 or 1000 years of more before our 
> common era, be questioned. So, to know whether dialects  of Hebrew and 
> Aramaic were spoken in the second millennium B.C.E. is impossible.

We could go on and on debating whether dialects of Hebrew and Aramaic (which 
take considerable periods of time to develop) existed in the Middle Bronze 
Age.  Just find me some epigraphy that is clearly Hebrew.

> And similarly, to know when each book of the Tanakh was written is 
> impossible. Discussions of these issues can be interesting, but we must 
> always keep in mind the great part pure faith plays in connection in the 
> interpretation of arcchaelogical finds and textual history.

It is not "faith" that tells me a text that discusses Jehoiakin was written 
after 597 BCE...or Zedekiah after 587 BCE.  Archaeological finds are pretty 
solid and if found in provenance it is usually "faith" that reinterprets it. 
I cannot comment unless you specify archaeological finds.


Regards,

Jack Kilmon
San Antonio, TX


> Best regards,
>
> Rolf Furuli
> University of Oslo
>
>
>
>
> > Hi Rolf:
> >
> > Actually, it does have foundation in the texts themselves.  Quoting Israel 
> > Finkelstein and Neil Asher Silberman in The Bible Unearthed, Archaeology's 
> > New Vision of Ancient Israel and the Origin of Its Sacred Texts. New York. 
> > The Free Press. 2001:
> >
> > "This basic picture of the gradual accumulation of legends and stories- 
> > and their eventual incorporation into a single coherent saga with a 
> > definite theological outlook- was a product of that astonishingly creative 
> > period of literary production in the kingdom of Judah in the 7th century 
> > BCE. Perhaps most telling of all the clues that the book of Joshua was 
> > written at this time is the list of towns in the territory of the tribe of 
> > Judah, given in detail, in Joshua 15:21-62. The list precisely corresponds 
> > to the borders of the kingdom of Judah during the reign of Josiah. 
> > Moreover, the placenames mentioned in the list closely correspond to the 
> > 7th century BCE settlement pattern in the same region. And some of the 
> > sites were occupied ONLY IN THE FINAL DECADES OF THE 7TH CENTURY BCE."
> >
> > Now I think we remain on topic only if we are discussing the use of EBH 
> > (950-586 BCE) in MBAII (1950-1550 BCE) on the subject of putative Abraham 
> > speaking pre-exilic Hebrew.  If Abraham was, as the texts claim, an 
> > Aramean in MBAII he would have spoken Akkadian (Old Assyrian) and would 
> > have adopted Canaanite when he migrated from Haran to Canaan with his 
> > family.  I think any foreign ("Asiatic") clan chieftain in Egypt at this 
> > time would have used Akkadian as a language of discourse with the 
> > Egyptians.
> >
> > Regards,
> >
> > Jack
> >
> > Jack Kilmon
> > San Antonio, TX
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > --------------------------------------------------
> > From: "Rolf Furuli" <furuli AT online.no>
> > Sent: Monday, August 30, 2010 1:15 PM
> > To: <b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org>
> > Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] Aramaic to Hebrew language switch?
> >
> > > Dear Jack,
> > >
> > > We should all realize that ancient history cannot be proven!  The 
> > > conclusions of the critical historian regarding ancient Israel is just as 
> > > faith-based as the view of the fundamentalists. And your claim that 
> > > Genesis-2Kings were composed in the late 7th century-early 6th century 
> > > B.C.E. has no foundation whatsoever; it is based on axioms, which per 
> > > definition cannot be proven.
> > >
> > > Best regards,
> > >
> > > Rolf Furuli
> > > University of Oslo
>
> _______________________________________________
> b-hebrew mailing list
> b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew