Biblical Hebrew Forum

[K Randolph <kwrandolph AT gmail.com>]

Jim:

On 4/5/13, JimStinehart AT aol.com <JimStinehart AT aol.com> wrote:
>
> 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 7th century

It would take a book for an adequate analysis of all that is wrong
with this line of thinking. However, someone else has already done it
for the first century of its development, as a PhD dissertation
published in 1970, titled “Zur Datierung der Genesis “P’ Stücke” by
the late Dr. Samuel Külling. In it, he has extensive quotes from those
early practitioners (in French, Dutch and English as well as German)
showing the religious basis for the belief: an à priori belief in
evolution (which is a religion, don’t let anyone fool you that it is
anything other) with a dash of anti-Semitism.

My number one objection to that belief is that there is absolutely no
historical evidence to back it up. None whatsoever. That includes the
claim that the ancient Hebrews didn’t have an alphabetic writing
system until late, while the historical evidence points to that the
ancient Hebrews brought their alphabetic system to Canaan around 1400
BC with Joshua, only later picked up by the Phoenicians. Did the
patriarchs already use an alphabet? No reason to say that they didn’t.

With no supporting evidence, it becomes merely a belief, a religious
belief. It doesn’t matter how many scholars can dance on the head of a
pin, if they have no supporting evidence, what they say is not worth
listening to.

As for the linguistic analysis: languages can be remarkably stable,
even over centuries, especially when linguistically isolated, as
history indicates was largely the condition of Biblical era Hebrew.
Add to that that the Torah, written in the 15th century BC, was the
literary bedrock of society, that would be an even stronger anchor
keeping the language from drifting during that era. Under those
circumstances, it’s almost expected that there would be a close
linguistic similarity between the patriarchal narratives (rewritten in
the 15th century?) and Samuel, probably written in the 10th century
BC.

Karl W. Randolph.