Biblical Hebrew Forum

[JimStinehart AT aol.com]

II Samuel vs. Patriarchal Narratives

 

 

For at least 35 years now [and possibly much longer than that], it has been known that the spelling and grammar of Hebrew common words in most of the Patriarchal narratives is remarkably similar to the spelling and grammar of Hebrew common words in the second half of II Samuel.  In particular, noted Hebrew linguist Robert Polzin has observed that most of the Patriarchal narratives [excluding chapter 14 of Genesis and whatever else he takes not to be the J and E portions of Genesis, and I would also exclude here the poetry of Jacob’s Blessings in chapter 49 of Genesis], and the second half of II Samuel [which is often viewed as being an early 6^th century BCE composition, but may have been composed at the end of the 7^th century BCE (subject in any event to some later editing)], show a “remarkable grammatical/syntactical homogeneity”.  Robert Polzin, “Late Biblical Hebrew”, Scholars Press (1976), p. 20.

 

 

Certainly the proper names, especially the foreign proper names, in the Patriarchal narratives seem very old, being much, much older than II Samuel.  Yet the spelling and grammar of Hebrew common words in the Patriarchal narratives, outside of chapters 14 and 49 of Genesis, isn’t much different at all than the spelling and grammar of Hebrew common words in the second half of II Samuel.

 

 

The  g-r-e-a-t  news about that scholarly observation is that it strongly suggests that the Patriarchal narratives [always excluding chapters 14 and 49 of Genesis] were not transformed into alphabetical Biblical Hebrew until the late 7^th century BCE, in Jerusalem.  That’s the  o-n-l-y  realistic way in which the spelling and grammar of Hebrew common words in the bulk of the Patriarchal narratives could show a “remarkable grammatical/syntactical homogeneity” with the spelling and grammar of Hebrew common words in the second half of II Samuel.

 

 

If the Patriarchal narratives were not transformed into alphabetical Biblical Hebrew until the late 7^th century BCE in Jerusalem, then in what written form were the Patriarchal narratives recorded and stored prior to the late 7^th century BCE?  On my threads we have seen dozens of foreign proper names in the received text of the Patriarchal narratives that have letter-for-letter spelling accuracy to non-west Semitic words attested in the Late Bronze Age.  Letter-for-letter spelling accuracy like that as to non-west Semitic words attested in the Late Bronze Age cannot possibly be coming from an oral tradition.  Not.  Moreover, the reason why the Patriarchal narratives were not written down in alphabetical Biblical Hebrew prior to the late 7^th century BCE [in Jerusalem] is precisely because the Hebrews well knew that they had the totally accurate  w-r-i-t-t-e-n  original version of these foundational stories of the Hebrews in hand, so there was no particular hurry to transform it into alphabetical Biblical Hebrew.

 

 

Tons of analysts have noted, with some shock, that as to the spelling and grammar of Hebrew common words in most of the Patriarchal narratives [always excluding chapters 14 and 49 of Genesis], archaic elements as to Hebrew common words are in surprisingly short supply.  Why is that?  The answer is that because the Hebrews always had the totally accurate  w-r-i-t-t-e-n  original version of these foundational stories of the Hebrews readily at hand, there was no necessity to transform the bulk of the Patriarchal narratives into alphabetical Biblical Hebrew prior to the late 7^th century BCE.  At that time, when the decision was finally made by King Josiah to transform the original written version of the Patriarchal narratives into alphabetical Biblical Hebrew [for the first time ever, except as to chapters 14 and 49 of Genesis], the Jewish scribes in Jerusalem made the following two very sensible decisions:  (1) all proper names, especially exotic foreign proper names, would be rendered verbatim, not eliminating any archaic elements in proper names;   b-u-t  (2) by stark contrast, as to Hebrew common words, the scribes would simply glance at what had originally been written down centuries earlier and then instantly turn that archaic prose into modern, 7^th century BCE Jerusalem alphabetical Biblical Hebrew prose, so that the text could easily be read by any literate person in Jerusalem. 

 

 

It’s a fool’s errand to go searching for archaic elements in the spelling and grammar of Hebrew common words in most of the Patriarchal narratives, because for the most part such common words reflect late 7^th century BCE Jerusalem and are not archaic in the slightest.  But consider the exciting flip side of that.  The Patriarchal narratives were recorded in permanent writing way back in the Late Bronze Age [hence all those vintage Late Bronze Age foreign proper names in the received text with accurate Late Bronze Age letter-for-letter spellings].  That permanent writing was precisely the reason why there was no necessity of transforming that original permanent writing [which after the 10^th century BCE was stored safely in the Temple in Jerusalem] into alphabetical Biblical Hebrew until the late 7^th century BCE, in Jerusalem.

 

 

Jim Stinehart

Evanston, Illinois