Biblical Hebrew Forum

[JimStinehart AT aol.com]

Karl:

 

 

In response to scholar Robert Polzin’s assertion that the spelling and grammar of Hebrew common words in the Patriarchal narratives is not much different than the spelling and grammar of Hebrew common words in the second half of II Kings, you said:

 

 

“Now we know that this is utter balderdash, promulgated by an ideology, better known as a religion, that opposes the history recorded in Tanakh.  It has no historical evidence, merely belief, to back it up.  Here’s a case of GIGO, when you input wrong beliefs, wrong beliefs come out.”

 

 

Rather than dismissing out of hand all scholarly linguistic analysis of Biblical Hebrew regarding dating the texts of the Bible as being “utter balderdash, promulgated by an ideology”, it is more helpful to try to pinpoint the basic error that this line of scholarly analysis has made.

 

 

Scholars assume, erroneously, that if the spelling and grammar of Hebrew common words in the Patriarchal narratives is redolent of late 7^th century BCE Jerusalem, then the Patriarchal narratives must date to that time and place in terms of when they first came into being as a written text [even if their roots as allegedly being an oral tradition may be older]:

 

 

“[A]s far as dating texts is concerned – and dating the texts of the Hebrew Bible is at present the burning issue – it is precisely the evidence of language which must take precedence over historical and theological arguments.”  Avi Hurvitz, “Can Biblical Texts Be Dated Linguistically?  Chronological Perspectives in the Historical Study of Biblical Hebrew”, at p. 144 in “Supplements to Vetus Testamentum” (2000).

 

 

That is erroneous regarding the Patriarchal narratives.  The Patriarchal narratives in fact were never an oral tradition, but rather were written down from day #1, in the Late Bronze Age.  But that original writing was in Akkadian cuneiform, because alphabetical Biblical Hebrew either did not exist yet, or else certainly was not advanced enough to be able to record the sophisticated Patriarchal narratives.  It was not until the late 7^th century BCE, in Jerusalem, when the ancient, unchanged Akkadian cuneiform text of the Patriarchal narratives was first transformed into alphabetical Hebrew [except for chapters 14 and 49 of Genesis].   T-h-a-t  is why the spelling and grammar of Hebrew common words in the received alphabetical Hebrew text of the Patriarchal narratives is redolent of 7^th century BCE Jerusalem.

 

 

Ian Young, though a non-traditionalist, makes the same mistake in this regard as do the other scholars.  He properly notes that a “rhythmic verbal style” dominates Genesis 12-35, large parts of Exodus and Numbers, and I Samuel 1 – 1 Kings 2.  Ian Young, “Biblical Hebrew: Studies in Chronology and Typology” (2003), p. 66.  But he does not realize that the reason why the Patriarchal narratives and II Samuel have a similar “rhythmic verbal style” is not because they were both first committed to writing at about the same time, but rather is because the ancient Akkadian cuneiform of the original Patriarchal narratives was, for the most part, not transformed into alphabetical Biblical Hebrew until the time when II Samuel was being composed:  late 7^th century BCE Jerusalem.

 

 

Even university scholars who are willing to at least consider a very early dating for the Patriarchal narratives still make this same, fundamental mistake:

 

 

“[H]istorical traditions, patriarchal names, legal customs, and so on…most of the patriarchal material looks more at home in the second millennium than in the first….  But whether a very early date, e.g. thirteenth century, for J, the main redactor of Genesis, or a later date, e.g. tenth century, makes relatively little difference to the question of the reliability of the traditions enshrined in Genesis.  At least four hundred years separate the origins of the latest traditions of Genesis from the time they were committed to writing by J or proto-J.  This is an enormous time span for oral tradition to be accurately preserved.”  Gordon J. Wenham, “Genesis 1-15” (1987), pp. xliii-xliv.

 

 

Not.  The Patriarchal narratives were in fact committed to writing on day #1, in the Late Bronze Age.  But that writing was Akkadian cuneiform.  Those original cuneiform tablets were not transformed into alphabetical Biblical Hebrew until the late 7^th century BCE, in Jerusalem.   T-h-a-t  is why the spelling and grammar of Hebrew common words is basically the same in the truly ancient Patriarchal narratives and in a Biblical text like II Samuel that was not composed until 700 years later, in 7^th century BCE Jerusalem.

 

 

The Patriarchal narratives as a written text are really, really old, as we can tell from their (i) substantive content and (ii) archaic proper names.  But the spelling and grammar of Hebrew common words is nevertheless basically the same in the truly ancient Patriarchal narratives and in II Samuel, because the bulk of the Patriarchal narratives was not transformed from its original Akkadian cuneiform into alphabetical Biblical Hebrew until the late date and place at which II Samuel was composed:  7^th century BCE Jerusalem.

 

 

Jim Stinehart

Evanston, Illinois