JOURNAL FOR THE STUDY OF THE OLD TESTAMENT SUPPLEMENT SERIES
369
Editors David J.A. Clines Philip R Davies
Executive Editor Andrew Mein
Editorial Board Richard J. Coggins, Alan Cooper, J. Cheryl Exum, John Goldingay, Robert P. Gordon, Norman K. Gottwald, John Jarick, Andrew D.H. Mayes, Carol Meyers, Patrick D. Miller
This page intentionally left blank
Biblical Hebrew Studies in Chronology and Typology
edited by
Ian Young
t & t clark
Copyright © 2003 T&T Clark International A Continuum imprint Published by T&T Clark International The Tower Building, 11 York Road, London SE1 7NX 80 Maiden Lane, Suite 704, New York, NY 10038 www.continuumbooks.com Reprinted 2004 All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording or any information storage or retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publishers. British Library Cataloguing-in-Publication Data A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library Typeset and edited for Continuum by Forthcoming Publications Ltd www.forthcomingpublications.com Printed on acid-free paper in Great Britain by Antony Rowe Ltd, Chippenham, Wiltshire
ISBN 0-8264-6841-1
CONTENTS Abbreviations List of Contributors
vii xi
IAN YOUNG
Introduction: The Origin of the Problem
1
Parti
STUDIES WITHIN THE CHRONOLOGICAL FRAMEWORK: PRE-EXILIC STANDARD BIBLICAL HEBREW AND POST-EXILIC LATE BIBLICAL HEBREW MATS ESKHULT The Importance of Loanwords for Dating Biblical Hebrew Texts
8
AVI HURVITZ Hebrew and Aramaic in the Biblical Period: The Problem of 'Aramaisms' in Linguistic Research on the Hebrew Bible
24
FRANK POLAK Style is More than the Person: Sociolinguistics, Literary Culture, and the Distinction between Written and Oral Narrative
38
GARY A. RENDSBURG
Hurvitz Redux: On the Continued Scholarly Inattention to a Simple Principle of Hebrew Philology
104
RICHARD M. WRIGHT
Further Evidence for North Israelite Contributions to Late Biblical Hebrew
129
Biblical Hebrew
vi
Part II CHALLENGES TO THE CHRONOLOGICAL MODEL PHILIP R. DA VIES Biblical Hebrew and the History of Ancient Judah: Typology, Chronology and Common Sense
150
MARTIN EHRENSVARD Linguistic Dating of Biblical Texts
164
JACOBUS A. NAUDE The Transitions of Biblical Hebrew in the Perspective of Language Change and Diffusion
189
ROBERT REZETKO Dating Biblical Hebrew: Evidence from Samuel-Kings and Chronicles
215
DAVID TALSHIR The Habitat and History of Hebrew during the Second Temple Period
251
IAN YOUNG Late Biblical Hebrew and Hebrew Inscriptions
276
IAN YOUNG Concluding Reflections
312
Bibliography Index of References Index of Authors
318 367 383
ABBREVIATIONS 1. Bibliographical Abbreviations
AB
ABD AbrN AbrNSup AcOr AJBA AJSL ALASP AnBib ANES AnOr AOAT AOS BASOR BBB BDB
BETL BHS Bib Biblnt BibOr BKAT BIOSCS
BO BR BSOAS BZAW CAD
Anchor Bible David Noel Freedman (ed.), The Anchor Bible Dictionary (New York: Doubleday, 1992) Abr-Nahrain Abr-Nahrain, Supplements Acta orientalia Australian Journal of Biblical Archaeology American Journal of Semitic Languages and Literatures Abhandlungen zur Literatur Alt-Syrien-Palastinas Analecta biblica Ancient Near Eastern Studies Analecta orientalia Alter Orient und Altes Testament American Oriental Series Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research Bonner biblische Beitrage Francis Brown, S.R. Driver and Charles A. Briggs, A Hebrew and English Lexicon of the Old Testament (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1907) Bibliotheca ephemeridum theologicarum lovaniensium Biblia hebraica stuttgartensia Biblica Biblical Interpretation: A Journal of Contemporary Approaches Biblica et orientalia Biblischer Kommentar: Altes Testament Bulletin of the International Organization for Septuagint and Cognate Studies Bibliotheca orientalis Bible Review Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies BeiheftezurZ^^ The Assyrian Dictionary of the Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago (Chicago: The Institute, 1956-)
viii CAP CBQ DCH DISO DJD Erlsr ETL ETR FAT FRLANT GKC HALA T
HAR HDHL HdO HKAT HSM HSS HTR HUCA IB ICC IEJ IOS JANESCU JAOS JBL JCS JJS JM
JNES JNSL JQR JSNTSup
Biblical Hebrew A.E. Cowley, Aramaic Papyri of the Fifth Century B. C. (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1923) Catholic Biblical Quarterly D.J. A. Clines (ed.), Dictionary of Classical Hebrew (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1993-) C.F. Jean and J. Hoftijzer (eds.), Dictionnaire des inscriptions semitiques de I'ouest (Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1965) Discoveries in the Judaean Desert Eretz-Israel Ephemerides theologicae lovanienses Etudes theologiques et religieuses Forschungen zum Alien Testament Forschungen zur Religion und Literatur des Alten und Neuen Testaments Gesenius' Hebrew Grammar (ed. E. Kautzsch, revised and trans. A.E. Cowley; Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1910) Ludwig Koehler et al. (eds.), The Hebrew and Aramaic Lexicon of the Old Testament (5 vols.; Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1994-) Hebrew Annual Review Historical Dictionary of the Hebrew Language Handbuch der Orientalistik Handkommentar zum Alten Testament Harvard Semitic Monographs Harvard Semitic Studies Harvard Theological Review Hebrew Union College Annual Interpreter's Bible International Critical Commentary Israel Exploration Journal Israel Oriental Society Journal of the Ancient Near Eastern Society of Columbia University Journal of the American Oriental Society Journal of Biblical Literature Journal of Cuneiform Studies Journal of Jewish Studies P. Joiion and T. Muraoka, A Grammar of Biblical Hebrew (Subsidia Biblica, 14; 2 vols.; Rome: Pontificio Istituto Biblico, 1991) Journal of Near Eastern Studies Journal of Northwest Semitic Languages Jewish Quarterly Review Journal for the Study of the New Testament, Supplement Series
Abbreviations JSOT JSOTSup JSP JSS JTS KAI
KAT KB
KTU
LUA NCB NBA NICOT OBO OLA OLP OIL OTS PEQ RA RB RevQ SBA SBL SBLDS SBLMS SBLSS SEA SH SJOT STDJ TLOT TOTC TZ UF VT VTSup WBC WTJ ZA
IX
Journal for the Study of the Old Testament Journal for the Study of the Old Testament, Supplement Series Journal for the Study of the Pseudepigrapha Journal of Semitic Studies Journal of Theological Studies H. Donner and W. Rollig, Kanaandische und aramdische Inschriften (3 vols.; Wiesbaden: Otto Harrassowitz, 1962-64) Kommentar zum Alten Testament Ludwig Koehler and Walter Baumgartner (eds.), Lexicon in Veteris Testament! libros (Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1953) M. Dietrich, O. Loretz and J. Sanmartin, The Cuneiform Alphabetic Texts from Ugarit, Ras Shamra Ibn Hani and Other Places (ALASP, 8; Munster: Ugarit-Verlag, 1995) Lunds universitets arsskrift New Century Bible Near Eastern Archaeology New International Commentary on the Old Testament Orbis biblicus et orientalis Orientalia lovaniensia analecta Orientalia lovaniensia periodica Old Testament Library Oudtestamentische Studien Palestine Exploration Quarterly Revue d'assyriologie et d'archeologie orientale Revue biblique Revue de Qumran Studies in Biblical Archaeology Society of Biblical Literature SBL Dissertation Series SBL Monograph Series SBL Semeia Studies Svensk exegetisk arsbok Scripta hierosolymitana Scandinavian Journal of the Old Testament Studies on the Texts of the Desert of Judah E. Jenni (ed.), Theological Lexicon of the Old Testament (3 vols.; trans. M.E. Biddle; Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1997) Tyndale Old Testament Commentaries Theologische Zeitschrift Vgarit-Forschungen Vetus Testamentum Vetus Testamentum, Supplements Word Biblical Commentary Westminster Theological Journal Zeitschrift filr Assyriologie
Biblical Hebrew
x ZAH ZA W ZDMG ZDPV
Zeitschrift Zeitschrift Zeitschrift Zeitschrift
fur Althebraistik fur die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft der deutschen morgenldndischen Gesellschaft des deutschen Paldstina-Vereins
2. Hebrew Abbreviations ABH BH CBH EBH IH JH LBH MH QH RH SBH TH
Archaic Biblical Hebrew Biblical Hebrew Classical Biblical Hebrew Early Biblical Hebrew Israelian Hebrew Judahite Hebrew Late Biblical Hebrew Mishnaic Hebrew Qumran Hebrew Rabbinic Hebrew Standard Biblical Hebrew Tannaitic Hebrew
LIST OF CONTRIBUTORS Philip R. Davies Department of Biblical Studies, University of Sheffield, Sheffield, England Martin Ehrensvard Faculty of Theology, University of Aarhus, Aarhus, Denmark Mats Eskhult Department of Asian and African Languages, Uppsala University, Uppsala, Sweden Avi Hurvitz Departments of Bible and Hebrew Language, The Hebrew University, Jerusalem, Israel Jacobus A. Naude Department of Near Eastern Studies, University of the Free State, Bloemfontein, South Africa Frank Polak Bible Department, Tel Aviv University, Tel Aviv, Israel Gary A. Rendsburg Department of Near Eastern Studies, Cornell University, Ithaca, NY, USA Robert Rezetko The School of Divinity, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, Scotland David Talshir Hebrew Language Department, Ben-Gurion University of the Negev, Beer Sheva, Israel
xii
Biblical Hebrew
Richard M. Wright University Baptist Church, Baton Rouge, LA, USA Ian Young Department of Hebrew, Biblical, and Jewish Studies, University of Sydney, Sydney, NSW, Australia
INTRODUCTION: THE ORIGIN OF THE PROBLEM Ian Young For the past 200 years, scholars have discussed the linguistic variety in Biblical Hebrew (BH) in terms of chronological development (see the history of scholarship in Rooker 1988b; 1990a: 23-33; Naude 2000c: 47-52). The language of books dated 'later' was contrasted with those dated 'earlier'. From this starting point, language has commonly been used as an argument in fixing the date of problematic texts. As an example, it is fair to say that language is the primary argument for the 'late' dating of the Song of Songs (e.g. A. Brenner 1989: 57-62). One also recalls Franz Delitzsch's famous statement: 'If the Book of Qoheleth was OldSolomonic, there would be no history of the Hebrew language'.1 In recent decades, the contribution of Avi Hurvitz to this field has outweighed all his contemporaries. In numerous books and articles (see the bibliography) he has advanced and, indeed, shaped the current discourse on the topic of diachronic variation in BH. The dilemma facing language scholarship in the last decade, however, is brought out by comparison of Hurvitz's early work with his more recent. In his masterful The Transition Period in Biblical Hebrew,2 Hurvitz gives a clear exposition of his methodology. After a preliminary discussion of some problems in deciding what are 'early' and 'late' linguistic features, Hurvitz then turns to discussing how language variations between the books of Samuel and Kings on the one hand, and the book of Chronicles on the other provide a solid base for establishing linguistic oppositions between early Hebrew (Samuel-Kings) and late Hebrew (Chronicles; Hurvitz 1972a: 15-16).
1. ' Wenn das B. Koheleth altsolomonisch ware, so gabe es keine Geschichte der hebraischen Sprache'—see the survey of scholarship on Qoheleth in Bianchi 1993. 2. Hebrew pvh1) "[IK/? fOr Hurvitz 1972a, regrettably still not accessible in an English version.
2
Biblical Hebrew
Hurvitz points out the scholarly consensus on the dating of Chronicles to the post-exilic period. This is based on such evidence as the mention of post-exilic characters (e.g. Zerubbabel) and the presence in the language of Persian words (Hurvitz 1972a: 16). He then turns to substantiate the existence of a linguistic opposition to the parallel material in the books of Samuel and Kings. Here again he could point to a scholarly consensus that these books are closer in time than Chronicles to the events they are portraying. In other words, continues Hurvitz, they can be seen as generally representing compositions of the First Temple period. Furthermore, Hurvitz could point to the scholarly consensus that Chronicles used Samuel-Kings as its source for the passages they share (Hurvitz 1972a: 15). Thus the linguistic opposition between Samuel-Kings on the one hand, and Chronicles on the other, concludes Hurvitz, gives us a firm grasp of the differences between pre-exilic and post-exilic Hebrew. In recent years, however, the old consensus, that the books of Samuel and Kings (as well as other substantial portions of the Hebrew Bible such as [much of] the Pentateuch and Psalms, and the pre-exilic prophets) represent pre-exilic sources, has been challenged. Indeed, it has been claimed that all of the biblical literature has its origins in the Persian or later eras.3 Hurvitz has found himself at the forefront of those defending the consensus (Hurvitz 1997a; 1999; 2000a; 2001). Now, however, the basis of the argument has changed utterly. If Samuel-Kings are older than Chronicles then it is obviously most likely that linguistic contrasts between them reflect that chronological difference. However, can the argument be reversed, and the linguistic contrasts be used to show that Samuel and Kings are in fact older than Chronicles? Hurvitz has argued that this is in fact possible. His argument rests on the correlation between linguistic typology and chronology. 'Typology' in this context refers to the idea that there are different types of Hebrew language in different biblical sources. Some of these are 'typologically older', that is, they represent an older form within the historical development of the language. An easy English analogy is the recognition that the pronoun 'thou' for 'you' represents an older type of language than modern standard English. Within BH it is generally considered that the language of Samuel-Kings represents a typologically older sort of Hebrew than the language of Chronicles. However, it is possible for typologically older and younger sorts of language to co-exist in the same chronological period. To 3. Good introductions to the debate are P.R. Davies 1992; and the volumes of essays edited by Grabbe (1997; 1998; 2001).
YOUNG Introduction
3
demonstrate that the typological difference reflects a genuine chronological difference Hurvitz relies heavily on externally dated evidence for the Hebrew language. The language of the pre-exilic inscriptions demonstrates that Samuel-Kings (and texts in similar Hebrew) are pre-exilic; texts such as the Qumran scrolls show that Chronicles (and texts in similar Hebrew) are post-exilic. It should be emphasized that the argument is not 'Hurvitz against the rest'. I have merely concentrated on Hurvitz here because he is the most prominent scholar of Late Biblical Hebrew. His influence is due not only to the breadth of his research and his publications, but also to the encouragement and guidance he has given to other scholars working in the field, myself included. It is in fact the case that a substantial number of scholars believe that the linguistic evidence is the most serious obstacle in the way of any attempt to date the bulk of biblical literature to the Persian or later eras (e.g. Barr 2000: 100 n. 107; Becking 2001: 87-88; Halpern 1993:4.8; Hendel 2001: 8; Japhet 1998:225-26; Rendsburg 2001:33,46). Nor is the argument about whether Hurvitz is 'wrong' or 'right'. Hurvitz's substantial contributions to scholarship include bringing the task of delineating LBH as a distinct linguistic corpus to a new level, and the identification of new links with the corpus, such as the recognition that the language of Ezekiel has significant links with LBH. The relative redating of the SBH corpus would not diminish these achievements. At this point, a word about terminology is in order. Typically, scholars follow Kutscher's tripartite division of Biblical Hebrew into Archaic Biblical Hebrew (ABH), Standard Biblical Hebrew (SBH) and Late Biblical Hebrew (LBH). According to Kutscher's original definitions, ABH 'is represented mainly by the poetry of the Pentateuch and the Early Prophets', SBH 'represents] Biblical prose', and LBH 'appears in the Chronicles and other Books' (Kutscher 1982: 12). In practice, SBH has been expanded to include more than just prose texts, of which the chief representatives are the books of the Primary History, stretching from Genesis to 2 Kings. One may speak of the majority of Psalms as SBH (Hurvitz 1972a), as well as the pre-exilic prophets (cf. Hurvitz 1982). Within the Pentateuch, Polzin (1976) has argued for links between the P source and LBH, whereas Hurvitz (1967; 1974b; 1982; 1983a; 1988; 2000c) has argued for its SBH status. SBH is considered to be 'early' Hebrew, that is, Hebrew from the monarchic, or preexilic period, thus earlier than c. 586 BCE. Hence another term, which covers both SBH and ABH is Early Biblical Hebrew (EBH). Finally, SBH
4
Biblical Hebrew
can be described as 'classical (biblical) Hebrew' (CBH) as opposed to LBH, which is a representative of post-classical Hebrew' (Hurvitz 1982: 157). LBH initially comprises those books whose contents show them to be written during the Second Temple period (after c. 515 BCE). Chronicles, Esther, Ezra, Nehemiah and Daniel would be a starting list. To these books, others have been added which share linguistic features with them, such as the book of Qoheleth, or a number of Psalms (Hurvitz 1972a). Hurvitz (1982) and Rooker (1990a) have argued that the language of the exilic prophet Ezekiel represents a transition between SBH and LBH, as it exhibits a significant LBH component. The eleven articles in this volume are organized under two broad headings. Part I contains 'Studies within the Chronological Framework: Pre-Exilic Standard Biblical Hebrew and Post-Exilic Late Biblical Hebrew'. Mats Eskhult, in 'The Importance of Loanwords for Dating Biblical Hebrew Texts', discusses Aramaic, Egyptian, Akkadian, and Persian loanwords in the biblical texts. He concludes that these loanwords are found in the places they may be predicted to turn up according to the standard chronology of BH. In particular, Persian words are not found in works generally considered to have been composed before the Persian period. Avi Hurvitz, in 'Hebrew and Aramaic in the Biblical Period: The Problem of "Aramaisms" in Linguistic Research on the Hebrew Bible', describes the various ways in which Hebrew interacted with Aramaic throughout the biblical period. He argues that the sixth century BCE marks the decisive turning point in the relationship between the two languages. BH after this point is characterized by linguistic 'neologisms', heavily influenced by Aramaic. Frank Polak, in 'Style is More than the Person—Sociolinguistics, Literary Culture, and the Distinction between Written and Oral Narrative', differentiates two styles of narrative in the Hebrew Bible. The 'rhythmicverbal' style bears characteristic features of speech, and hence is related to oral narrative. The 'complex-nominal' style reflects the written style of the professional scribe. Polak argues that these two styles were employed in different cultural contexts. The rise of literacy saw the gradual demise of the rhythmic-verbal style at the expense of the complex-nominal style. Hence the differences of style between biblical narratives are related to chronology. The complex-nominal style comes to full fruition in post-
YOUNG Introduction
5
exilic, LBH works like Esther. The pure rhythmic-verbal style is restricted to the early pre-exilic period. The later pre-exilic period saw the gradual encroachment of features of the complex-nominal style. Thus, Polak's argument harmonizes with the standard model of the chronology of BH, with a pre-exilic SBH and a post-exilic LBH. Gary A. Rendsburg, in 'Hurvitz Redux: On the Continued Scholarly Inattention to a Simple Principle of Hebrew Philology', argues against some recent attempts to date works generally considered pre-exilic to the post-exilic period on linguistic grounds. In particular he focusses on the argument regarding Aramaisms. He argues that one should distinguish between early, dialectal Aramaisms used in Israelian Hebrew, and the sort of late Aramaisms characteristic of LBH. Richard M. Wright, in 'Further Evidence for North Israelite Contributions to Late Biblical Hebrew', discusses the sporadic appearance of LBH linguistic forms in early, Israelian Hebrew texts. He first gives a succinct summary of the methods used by Avi Hurvitz to isolate LBH features, and by Gary Rendsburg to isolate Israelian Hebrew forms. Then he analyses six LBH linguistic forms which he argues were already present in preexilic Israelian Hebrew. Part II contains 'Challenges to the Chronological Model'. Philip R. Davies, in 'Biblical Hebrew and the History of Ancient Judah: Typology, Chronology and Common Sense', defends his dating of texts written in SBH to the Persian period, against Avi Hurvitz's claim that such a dating is linguistically impossible. He argues on the contrary that it is not impossible that various sorts of Hebrew were written by Persian-period scribes, or that classical Hebrew was one such variety. Martin Ehrensvard, in 'Linguistic Dating of Biblical Texts', argues that LBH differs from SBH only in a relative degree. He argues that SBH was demonstrably being written in the post-exilic period, giving a detailed analysis of Isaiah 40-66, Joel, Haggai, Zechariah, and Malachi. In view of this, a post-exilic date for the final linguistic form of all the biblical texts is likely, in his opinion. Jacobus A. Naude, in 'The Transitions of Biblical Hebrew in the Perspective of Language Change and Diffusion', argues that a correct view of the linguistic concepts 'change' and 'diffusion' shows that the distinction EBH vs. LBH does not reflect the reality of linguistic variation in BH as reflected in styles, registers, idiolects, dialects, and so on. The idea of a uniform kind of Hebrew in any one period is therefore not sound.
6
Biblical Hebrew
Robert Rezetko, in 'Dating Biblical Hebrew: Evidence from SamuelKings and Chronicles', challenges some of the fundamental bases of the conventional chronology of BH. He questions the consensus that Chronicles used Samuel-Kings as sources. He discusses a series of supposedly 'late' Hebrew featues for which, he argues, a diachronic explanation is inadequate. Finally, he questions the methodology underlying the chronological theory. David Talshir, in 'The Habitat and History of Hebrew during the Second Temple Period', proposes a new theory on the origins of LBH and Mishnaic Hebrew. He argues that SBH continued to be the language of Yehud until the time of Ezra in the middle of the fifth century BCE, when a large, dominant group of Babylonian exiles returned. LBH had developed in Babylon under Aramaic influence, and was brought by these returnees. Subsequently, during the course of the Second Temple period, political separation saw the development of a separate dialect, Tannaitic (Mishnaic) Hebrew in the lowlands, while in Yehud proper, (LBH and Qumran) Hebrew remained more conservative. In my article, 'Late Biblical Hebrew and Hebrew Inscriptions', I discuss the argument that since SBH is identical with the language of the Hebrew inscriptions of the monarchic period, it cannot be dated to the Persian or later periods. In response, I first argue that even if SBH is identical to inscriptional Hebrew this does not prove that SBH was not also used, say, in the Persian period. Then I investigate the inscriptions and conclude that in fact they represent an independent linguistic corpus (or more than one) rather than being identical with SBH.
Parti STUDIES WITHIN THE CHRONOLOGICAL FRAMEWORK: PRE-EXILIC STANDARD BIBLICAL HEBREW AND POST-EXILIC LATE BIBLICAL HEBREW
THE IMPORTANCE OF LOANWORDS FOR DATING BIBLICAL HEBREW TEXTS
Mats Eskhult
In recent decades it has been questioned whether all the texts of the Hebrew Bible in its present form date from Persian-Hellenistic times. Linguistically, this suggestion has been corroborated by the statement that we cannot date any biblical books on linguistic grounds, and that BH was not one language, but rather a conglomerate of languages, so that early and late features cannot be singled out. Allegedly, the Hebrew known from the Bible was, then, created in learned priestly circles of post-exilic Judaea. A number of more or less provocative approaches have deprived BH from being a once fully spoken language. As early as 1971, E. Ullendorff, in his essay 'Is Biblical Hebrew a Language?' (Ullendorff 1977), rightly pointed out that the language contained in the Hebrew Bible is clearly no more than a linguistic fragment; to be sure, he says, a very important and indeed far-reaching fragment, but scarcely a fully integrated spoken language. In the vein of M.H. Segal, he suggested that there is a strong case for looking upon MH as a developed co-existing colloquial counterpart to the predominantly formal and elevated diction of BH. In 1990, E.A. Knauf, in his article 'War "Biblisch-Hebraisch" eine Sprache?' (Knauf 1990), declared that BH is an artificial Bildungssprache, made up of several earlier dialects, none of which was standard. To prove this point he makes the most of the differences between the epigraphic material—including the mixed dialect of Deir 'Alia—and BH. In 1992, P.R. Davies, in his In Search of 'Ancient Israel' (Davies 1992) attacked the established way of looking at BH in terms of early and late—a pre-exilic standard language, succeeded by a post-exilic vernacular, which did not reach the same original and innovative heights. From a literary and politico-economic point of view, he asserted that BH is merely an artificial product of an elite of scribes, who—by their use of earlier literature—created 'the glorious past of Ancient Israel'. More recently, R. North, in his article 'Could Hebrew
ESKHULT The Importance of Loanwords
9
Have Been a Cultic Esperanto?' (North 1999), points out that most exegetes hold the view that it was only the Ezra era that saw the actual formation of the Pentateuch through Kings. Elaborating on Davies' contention, he suggests that the coming into being of BH in the Ezra era might have been similar to the creation of Esperanto. Certainly, MH supplies the general Hebrew lexicon with a good many senses and nuances, and even words, that are not found in the Bible, but may very well have existed in Ancient Hebrew. One cannot simply put BH on a par with Ancient Hebrew. The word stock preserved in the books of the Bible is not large enough to meet the needs of a living language. However, its fragmentary character per se does not mean that it is unlikely to represent the living language of Israelite society. Also, the circumstance that a word is used infrequently in the Bible does not mean that it was not common and well known in the society of Ancient Israel.1 In many respects BH is a riddle. As early as in the beginning of the twentieth century, Hans Bauer and G.R. Driver held BH to be a mixture of an early Canaanite layer that was close to Akkadian, and a later layer closer to Aramaic. In view of the differences between the epigraphic material and the biblical text, it should be borne in mind that even the Aramaic of the Achaemenid period, though generally considered very homogeneous, actually shows a considerable linguistic variation. M. Folmer's important investigation on linguistic variation in the Aramaic of the Achaemenid period shows, for example, that the word for 'wool' may be spelt "IQp or ""IQU, the word for 'land' may be spelt p~IN or 1T)K, and a doubled consonant may be dissolved by nun plus a consonant, whether nun is etymological or not, and the pael and aphel infinitive may be formed with or without a preformative mem. Such variations are to be attributed to the factors of area, time, individual scribe, or genre. Nevertheless, these variants were apparently accepted within the highly standardized Aramaic language of the Achaemenid period and obviously caused no problems in communication. What is more, S.L. Gogel, in her conclusion to the chapter on syntax in her A Grammar of Epigraphic Hebrew (Gogel 1998: 292) says: 'The syntax of epigraphic Hebrew sentences and selected phrases discussed in 1. Mankowski, in his Akkadian Loanwords in Biblical Hebrew (Mankowski 2000: 114-46), informs us that the hapax o'pD ('ladder'), Gen. 28.12, tallies with Arabic sullam14", Jewish Aramaic KQ^D and (perhaps) Phoenician PQ^D. Due to metathesis, the formation in Akkadian is simmiltu and in Syriac sebbelta. In spite of the metathesis, D^D may be the correlative of Akkadian simmelat Samani ('stairway of heaven'), but this suggestion, made by Cohen (1978: 34) remains uncertain.
10
Biblical Hebrew
this chapter is, in most cases, strikingly similar to those of the Bible...' From a general point of view, one can say that words and spelling of words may differ, but if the syntax is strange, there is a problem in mutual understanding.2 What is most important to stress, is that //BH is an artificial language, created only in post-exilic times, then its loanwords—whether Akkadian, Egyptian, Aramaic or Persian—ought to be fairly equally distributed throughout the various biblical books, and the literary genres contained in them, such as law, history and poetry. Davies—in the opinion of the present writer—rightly criticizes Old Testament exegetics, inter alia, for attaching too much confidence in the Exile as the most creative period in biblical times, an idea he finds romantic. What is important in connection with the subject treated here, is, however, his contention that no biblical books can be properly dated, and thus serve as point of departure for estimating a development of the Hebrew language within the Bible (P.R. Davies 1992: 102). Why cannot biblical texts be dated on linguistic grounds? After all, the Mesha inscription shows us what pre-exilic prose looks like. We can compare its style and diction with the incontestably late prose writings: Chronicles, Ezra-Nehemiah and Esther, and with biblical historiographic narrative prose in general. Thus, it may be established in what ways the aforementioned books differ linguistically from the bulk of biblical narrative prose and in what details. As the next step one may decide whether or not the various differences are chronologically conditioned. This is made by comparing the portions that are paralleled in Chronicles and Samuel-Kings in order to find a pattern in the alterations that matches what we know about the development of Hebrew from BH to the language found in Ben Sira, Qumran and the Mishnah.3 However, it must be admitted that this method covers only the plain prose. The situation appears different in the biblical literature that is composed in a poetic genre. In fact, G.R. Driver as early as 1953, in his 2. Her conclusion is corroborated by A. Schiile, who in his Die Syntax der althebraischen Inschriften (Schiile 2000: 188), concerning the Yavne-Yam ostracon and precisely on the issue of whether Hebrew was a spoken language, says: 'All that can be said is that the textual form of a petition, made by a certainly non-educated person, is put in a form analogous to what is otherwise encountered in literary style, whether inscriptions or (literally) corresponding Old Testament texts'. 3. Cf. Saenz-Badillos (1993: 115-16) and Eskhult (1990). See also several articles by A. Hurvitz, e.g., 2000a.
ESKHULT The Importance of Loanwords
11
influential study on early Hebrew poetic diction (G.R. Driver 1953), showed that Hebrew poetry abounds with verbal roots and verbal forms that are otherwise the normal equivalents of Hebrew expressions in Aramaic. Of course, appealing to a general lateness of Hebrew poetry cannot solve this lexicographic phenomenon. On the contrary, a number of poems are held to be the oldest samples of Hebrew, both on cultural and linguistic grounds.4 This state of affairs cannot be explained, unless one supposes a common word stock that, in distribution, is employed differently in the two languages. One also has to assume that a special poetic style may account for a good many features that otherwise are taken as evidence of late language. Accordingly, the Aramaisms of Job and Proverbs may derive from Old Aramaic (cf. Saenz-Badillos 1993: 114). Nevertheless, the Aramaic influence increased in the post-exilic period, so that, in general, there is a connection between late date and many Aramaisms. This observation can easily be confirmed by a look at the synopsis of M. Wagner's investigation of the lexical and grammatical Aramaisms in the Hebrew Bible (Wagner 1966: 139-43). The problem in the particular cases is to discern between early and late, that is, to estimate approximately when Hebrew picked up an Aramaic word or usage. It stands to reason that the lexicon of a language tells a lot about various cultural influences that this language has been exposed to throughout the centuries. The problem with Aramaic is that it is so close to Hebrew as to render suspected loans hard to prove. Also, Aramaic was in the position of being able to influence Hebrew during the entire monarchical period, and not only in the exilic and post-exilic periods. Words borrowed from a language, not as close to Hebrew as Aramaic, are easier to discern as foreign. In the case of Akkadian the donor language is so well investigated that one can form an opinion about the period in which a certain loanword passed into Hebrew. Persian words are in most cases readily recognized and the direct influence of this language is, in all probability, limited to the Achaemenid era. BH has loanwords from four languages in particular: Akkadian, Aramaic, Persian and Egyptian.5 Akkadian exerted an influence on Northwest
4. See D. A. Robertson's (1972) monograph on linguistic evidence in dating early Hebrew poetry. 5. Recently, two books have succeeded Ellenbogen' s (1962) investigation of the foreign words in the Hebrew Bible and Wagner's collection of its alleged Aramaisms— namely, Mankowski's (2000) book on Akkadian loanwords in BH, and Muchiki's (1999) study of Egyptian proper names and loanwords in Northwest Semitic.
12
Biblical Hebrew
Semitic in the Late Bronze Age, since at that time it was then the lingua franca of the Ancient Middle East, attested in the Tell Amarna correspondence. Some Akkadian words may have entered Canaanite, and subsequently Hebrew, in this period. Others entered Hebrew during the monarchical period, but most of them belong to the exilic/post-exilic period. Egyptian loanwords are fewer and more elusive in terms of time of entrance. Persian loanwords, however, almost unequivocally point to the Persian era, and have mostly entered Hebrew via Aramaic. On the matter of dating biblical texts, the issue may, accordingly, be discussed from three angles. First, is it at all possible to date biblical texts linguistically? Second, is the scholarly discussion of Aramaisms influenced by preconceived ideas on the date of problematic biblical texts? Third, what can loanwords tell us concerning the historical study of BH?
I A look at the evidence as embodied in what are certainly late compositions makes it easier to comprehend how and why loanwords are used. In the case of Esther, the flavour of the Persian era is strongly felt in the foreign words of Persian origin, or otherwise late words of Akkadian origin: D^Slie™ ('satraps', 3.12; 8.9; 9.3); D'DmS ('nobles', 1.3; 6.9; also in Dan. 1.3); DS"O ('fine woven fabric', 1.6); m ('law', 1.8 et passim); DTIB ('decree', 1.20); D^TDJ ('treasury', 3.9; 4.7); plBTIB ('copy', 3.14; 4.8; 8.13); andD^nnEH^ ('royal horses', 8.14), which are all ultimately Persian. Late words of Akkadian origin are ]mi ('palace', 1.5); ]QT ('time', 9.27,31); and ITm&('sceptre', 4.11; 5.2; 8.4). Daniel and EzraNehemiah, too, show a number of new words, many of them Persian loanwords: IDflS ('delicacies', Dan. 1.5, 8, 13, 15, 16; 11.26); pa» ('palace', Dan. 11.45); ]1QD1T (Ezra 2.69; Neh. 7.69-71) mirrors Greek, genitive plural SpaxM^v, ultimately of the same origin as pTTK ('drachma', 1 Chron. 29.7 [< Persian darika-, 'golden']) and J1TO ('letter', Ezra 4.7; 7.11). Accordingly, the excess of Akkadian and Persian loanwords is a clear characteristic of the later language.6 It might be remarked that these words are all employed in order to give a cultural flavour to the presentation, and do not point to any characteristic
6. Cf. the eighth characteristic of the Eastern type of Official Aramaic in Kutscher 1970: 362.
ESKHULT The Importance of Loanwords
13
of later Hebrew as a language. Interestingly enough, however, it turns out that the Chronicler, too, employs words of Persian origin and words of Akkadian origin—in both cases words that have entered Hebrew through Aramaic. What is more, the Chronicler employs these new words even in cases where they are out of place, as being entirely anachronistic, He does not use them because of the lack of possible synonyms; on the contrary, these new words replace obvious synonyms that are found in similar situations in the texts from which he otherwise draws much of his material. There are several such instances. In 1 Chron. 21.27, the destroying angel on Oman's threshing-floor put his sword back, not into the "1170, but into the |"I] ('sheath', < Persian *nidani, cf. KB s.v., and Wagner 1966: no. 183). 1 Chronicles 28.11 employs "JTD3 ('treasure chamber', < Persianganza- plus ending -k\ and not "IH'IN, in the account of how David provides Solomon with a design for the temple. Moreover, in 1 Chron. 29.1,19, the late word HTD (< Akkadian birtu, 'palace'), not the expected ^3Tf or IVD, is used in David's address to the people gathered before him; and in 1 Chron. 29.7 "pTlN is used about David's raising money for the building of the temple. In 2 Chron. 2.6 fUl^ ('purple') is used in its Aramaic shape with -w-, not ]D3"1^ with -m-. Also, in the same verse 1TQ"G ('crimson', < Persian kirmis), and not "'Dtp, is used in Solomon's correspondence with King Hiram of Tyre. In 2 Chron. 16.14 the word |T (' kind ',< Persian zana\ and not "pO, is used in the expression 'spices of various kinds' in connection with King Asa's burial. According to 2 Chron. 30.6 each of King Hezekiah's messengers, who were sent to invite people to his Passover festival, have an fTDN7 ('letter', < Akkadian egirtu) with them, not a "ISO. Finally the Chronicler in 1 Chron. 15.27 uses ^DIDQ ('clothed'), in the phrase j"D lTI7Cn ^T~QQ, playing on an trans-Aramaic Persian word for 'a part of Persian dress' (Rosenthal 1961: 63,onK L ?3~O in Dan. 3.21), when he 'corrects' the account in 2 Sam. 6.14 (Tl? ^m "a"OQ Tin, 'David danced with all his might'). The change seems to be made on purpose and with the intention of keeping the rhythm of the Vorlage?
1. In Aramaic this Akkadian loanword appears for the first time in the Assur ostracon, from c. 650 BCE (KAI233) and is to be found particularly in official letters of the Achaemenid period. It survived in most Aramaic dialects. See Folmer 1995: 712. 8. C. Rabin, in his discussion of probable Hittite words in Hebrew (1963:123-24), discerns a Hittite loan in ^""QQ—namely, kariulli-, which denotes a hood-like female garment.
14
Biblical Hebrew
As can be seen, the Chronicler reveals his setting in the Persian era, even when he describes events in the days of David, Solomon and Hezekiah.9 He simply slipped into an employment of words that should have been avoided, had he thought that his credibility lay in a using a Hebrew vocabulary that matches the alleged age of his sources. In this case, there is a general opposition between the work of the Chronicler and what can be read in Samuel-Kings, which in all probability served as his Vorlage. Such anachronisms as in Chronicles are not to be found in Samuel-Kings, which accordingly suggests that they came into being in an earlier period.10 II
Aramaisms may be phonemic, in which case one can see that the word is not Hebrew in form. Alternatively, a word may be judged an Aramaism when it is uncommon in Hebrew, but frequent in Aramaic, and the idea could well have been expressed by the usual Hebrew word. Among the examples can be mentioned T^CD ('cover with a roof, Neh. 3.15; Wagner 1966: no. 114). The root is b^H in Hebrew and zll in Arabic, and the Aramaic pael is used for 'cover with roof. Another example is CD^CTin ('holdout', Esth. 4.11; 5.2; 8.4; Sir. 7.32; Wagner 1966: no. 122), which is used in the aphel in Aramaic in the sense of 'hold out' and has as Hebrew synonym 2T1S which occurs in similar contexts. A third example is DtHTl ('write', Dan. 10.21; Wagner 1966: no. 291). It is attested as early as in Old Aramaic (Sefire) and is widespread in Aramaic and has its natural synonym in DfG. More doubtful is "IpD ('inquire, investigate, often in connection with sacrifice', Lev. 13.26; 27.33; 2 Kgs 16.15; Ezek. 34.11, 12; Ps. 27.4; Prov. 20.25; Wagner 1966: no. 45). It can hardly be concluded that the similar usage in Aramaic dialects provides enough evidence to consider the verb as an Aramaism, the less so, as the alleged synonym KTll has no sacrificial connotations. As can be seen, a phonetic Aramaism is easily discernible; and the evidence is fairly conclusive as to words that are found in the Bible only a few times and in a single source, while they are widely used in Aramaic. It is, however, not that natural to suppose an Aramaism in cases where the 9. It seems that Blenkinsopp (1996: 511 n. 38), is far from right when he says concerning Persian loanwords: 'Such borrowings are relatively rare and restricted to contexts involving dealings with Persian imperial authorities'. 10. THE) ('anterior court[?]') in 2 Kgs 23.11 is an exception. However, 2 Kgs 23 exhibits a typologically late verbal syntax (cf. Eskhult 1990: 111).
ESKHULT The Importance of Loanwords
15
proposed genuine Hebrew synonym does not quite cover the word in question. What is more, the date of the sources in which the supposed Aramaism is contained, definitely plays a role in one's final judgment, and here a circulus vitiosus lies near at hand. Consequently, a supposed influence of Aramaic, as a tool to determine age, is difficult to handle when it comes to biblical texts whose date is uncertain. Also, it is hard to discern between Aramaisms and Mishnaisms, since the symbiosis between the two of them facilitated adaptations in both directions; and Mishnaic words are by no means always new coinages. Accordingly, it can be questioned whether lexicographic studies are of any use at all when it comes to the date of a work whose time of origin is not incontestably established. 'What the following study shows is that style and vocabulary (lexicographic analysis) is almost useless in establishing the chronological status of P', R. Polzin states in the introduction to his study of the typology of LBH (Polzin 1976:16). What is true for the priestly material ought to be true for any other group of texts, too, in establishing the characteristics of the various stages of BH; but why should the evidence from the use and nonuse of late words not be trusted? A didactic problem is, however, that the notion of 'Aramaism' is still employed in an indistinct manner to underpin the argument for dating biblical books, as if an Aramaism per se inherently points to a late date (cf. Hurvitz 1983a: 85-86). An example of this didactic problem is the book of Ruth. Eissfeldt, in his Einleitung in das Alte Testament (Eissfeldt 1964: 654), says that the many Aramaisms favour a post-exilic date for this book—a contention echoed in a good many Old Testament isagogics (unexpectedly even in Saenz-Badillos 1993: 125). In fact, the alleged Aramaisms are: ]H7 ('therefore'); ~Q£> (piel, 'wait, hope') and p# (niphal, 'restrain from marriage'), all in 1.13, plus D n p^ ('establish', 4.7), while HER K2» ('marry', 1.4), is considered a neologism for H^ Hp 7. Jouon in his commentary (Joiion 1993: 40) says: 'lahen, which exists in Aramaic, does not mean "therefore", but "only"'. Also, Wagner dropped the word ] H7.'' Moreover, the verb "QCJ (piel, 'wait, hope') is rare and poetic in Hebrew, and common in Aramaic (pael, 'hope'), but two of the biblical passages, Ps. 104.27 and Isa. 38.18, cannot simply be given a post-exilic date. Also, it is of interest to note that the verb pu means 'enclose, tie' in MH and Aramaic, as well as Arabic (stem iv). The restricted sense 'restrain from marriage' derives 11. DISO: 135, informs that Ihn is used as the equivalent of (1) strictly adversative 'but'; (2) less adversative 'to introduce a new subject'; (3) with a prepositional function—(a) 'except', (b) 'besides'.
16
Biblical Hebrew
from its technical employment in marriage laws. There remains nttfN N2E ('marry'), which indeed points to a later usage (seven times in EzraNehemiah and Chronicles). However, Ht^ N£Q in Judg. 21.23 does not fit in. Either the construction is not late after all, or it had the sense of abduct' in earlier usage. S.R. Driver in his An Introduction to the Literature of the Old Testament (S.R. Driver 1913a: 426-27), says that of these items, only D^p1? (for the expected DDIpb) cannot be defended as being early Hebrew, and adds that maybe 4.7 is a later gloss. In conclusion, it is clear that the idea of 'the many Aramaisms' in Ruth is ill-founded, and still worse is the conclusion that these alleged Aramaisms point to a late date. As is well known in Hebrew lexicography, philological suggestions on the basis of corresponding meanings in Arabic may help to clarify shades of meanings in a Hebrew word. The same may be true for corresponding meanings in Aramaic, which consequently means that the sense, drawn from the Aramaic word, in these cases is not borrowed, but inherent in the Hebrew word. Besides, if borrowed, the word may have entered Hebrew from Old Aramaic, and the fragmentary character of the Bible as evidence for Ancient Hebrew makes all conclusions tentative. The problem may be illustrated by a closer look at five suggested late Aramaisms in Wagner's investigation. (1) ]T"OT ('memorial, remembrance'), due to semantic considerations, is judged to be an Aramaism in three passages—namely, Exod. 17.14;12 Mai. 6.16; Esth. 6.1—that is, a caique of Aramaic ]"Q"1 ('protocol'). However, one can just as well argue that there is room for the meaning 'protocol' even within the genuine Hebrew usage. (2) DIDO ('tax', Num. 31.28,37-41)—with secondary formation HDDQ ('reckoning', Exod. 12.4; Lev. 27.23)—is held to be a probable trans-Aramaic loan from Akkadian. The word is borrowed from the Akkadian miksu, which is attested already in the Akkadian texts from Ugarit, and whose way into Hebrew remains uncertain. It can very well have entered Hebrew during the Amarna age (cf. Hurvitz 1983a: 92). Furthermore, the 'biblical attestations do not point to a special Aramaic influence, nor are the forms phonologically Aramaicized' (Mankowski 2000: 93). (3) The root "IKD ('be proper', Esth. 8.5; Qoh. 10.10; 11.6), and the noun ]1"IEB ('profit, success', Qoh. 2.21; 4.4; 5.10), corresponds to Akkadian kaSaru ('restore; have success'). Owing to the Ugaritic equivalent ktr—which would produce *ktr in Aramaic—"IKD ('be proper'), is held to be an Akkadian, or a 12. Eissfeldt in his Hexateuch-Synopse (Eissfeldt 1922: 143*) considers Exod. 17.14 to be a gloss.
ESKHULT The Importance of Loanwords
17
Canaanite, borrowing in Aramaic.13 If Canaanite in origin, the word may very well be genuine Hebrew. (4) In the case of B^C? ('ruler', Qoh. 7.19; 8.8; 10.5; cf. Ezek. 16.30), the occurrence in Gen. 42.6 is disturbing.14 It caused BDB to note: 'prob. late substitution for original word of E'. The occurrence of Ugaritic Slyf ('powerful') makes Wagner conclude: 'In Hebrew the root subsequently was replaced by synonyms and was reintroduced only due to Aramaic influence' (Wagner 1966: no. 309). This suggestion can by no means be ruled out, but the quotation shows that somehow BH is considered as if it were equal to Ancient Hebrew, albeit the latter is only partly known through the former.15 (5) The root "ITO ('be black') is discussed as late, only due to its occurrence in Lev. 13.31, 37; Zech. 6.2,6; Cant. 1.5,6; 5.11; Job 30.30; Lam. 4.8(7); and Qoh. 11.10— in spite of the fact that Hebrew could not possibly have managed without it in earlier periods. Also, the only synonym to present itself is 'mm II ('to darken', Lam. 4.1). It should be pointed out, though, that Wagner readily acknowledges that many of the passages treated are pre-exilic. In the first place, passages that contain old poetic synonyms to ordinary prose words are reckoned, such as ^TK ('go'), nn« ('come'), 2BK ('man'), HTH ('see'), H^Q ('word'). Also, there are some real—and yet—early loanwords that are regarded as pre-exilic, such as nr"TD ('province') and partly TFID ('price').16 However, one cannot avoid the conclusion that the examples discussed above reveal the prejudice that texts, already considered late, also should contain late Aramaisms. Besides, one cannot disregard the general observation—not made by Wagner—that in some cases there is obviously a semantic distinction between the Hebrew and the more Aramaic shape of a root. This distinction seems to be inherited from oldest times. Thus, ~"li£] is 'watch, guard, keep', while "ICO] (qal)—except for Cant. 1.6; 8.11-12—is 'bear 13. See KB s.v. 14. Also the occurrence in Akkadian is problematic. The fact that the root Sit is more common in Aramaic than Akkadian, Salatu ('be in authority'), makes Kaufman (1974: 98-99) conclude that its usage in Neo-Babylonian and Late Babylonian is modelled after Aramaic usage, and not the reverse. 15. For a partly different view concerning CD7t£, see Hurvitz 1968: 239. 16. The word TOO ('price, hire', inter alia Deut. 23.19; Mic. 3.11; Dan. 11.39), certainly connects to Akkadian mahiru ('market, rate of exchange'—attested from the oldest periods). Due to reduction in pretonic open syllable, the word in its present form seems to have entered Hebrew via Aramaic (cf. Mankowski 2000: 92).
18
Biblical Hebrew
grudge against someone', and f*D"1 is 'lie down', whereas IO"I (qal)— except for Ps. 139.3—is 'to lay down for copulation'. In these cases it actually seems that only the passages in Canticles and Psalms reveal themselves as Aramaisms in a more restricted sense. If this is true, the attestations of Hft] ('bear grudge against someone') and IOT ('to lay down for copulation') are not a priori to be judged as affected by Aramaic usage in a period when Aramaic was about to surpass Hebrew. Ill
In the introduction to his above-mentioned study on the typology of LBH, Polzin mentions that Giesebrecht, in an article on Hexateuch criticism (Giesebrecht 1881), presents lexical evidence to prove the late date of the priestly material in Genesis-Joshua. Driver, in his review article, 'On Some Alleged Linguistic Affinities of the Elohist' (S.R. Driver 1882), 'challenges successfully'—in Polzin's words—most of Giesebrecht's evidence. His dismissal of faulty evidence 'was made all the easier by emphasis on lexical features of P, a choice in methodology which weakened considerably Giesebrecht's chances of proving his case' (Polzin 1976: 17).'7 Certainly, the priestly material is special, but why should not observations regarding lexical features bear on the age of this material? The examples of anachronistic words in Chronicles discussed above show that the vocabulary reveals the approximate date of some sources referred to. The Chronicler was scarcely drawing on an old source when he accounted for the correspondence between Solomon and King Hiram of Tyre, or, he chose to rework it. At the same time, a closer look at Wagner's discussion of some of his entries drew attention to the assumed date of a text as an important component in the discussion of Aramaisms. It seems that scholars in general do not leave enough room for the idea of linguistic diversity in earlier 17. For a critical assessment of Polzin's investigation, see Zevit 1982: 494-501. The aim of Polzin's investigation was a fairly exact outline of the typological development of BH, in order to solve his main problem—namely, the relative date of the so-called Priestly Code. Polzin apparently endeavoured to find connecting links between the Priestly samples and his 19 isolated features of LBH, and thus promoted 12 of them to key features, namely, those by which the JE samples stand in marked contrast to the profile of LBH as demonstrated in Chronicles. As a result, Esther and the Nehemiah memoirs do not share the majority of these features. To put these sources off as archaizing, as Polzin does, seems unwise, in view of the fact that they are compositions of the Persian era and not based on earlier material.
ESKHULT The Importance of Loanwords
19
periods of Hebrew. Consequently texts which contain features that were prevalent in a later period are more or less a priori dated to that later period.18 There are many factors to be reckoned with, and little can be said with certainty. However, it can hardly be contested that alleged loanwords of purely Aramaic origin have less value as evidence for a late date than loanwords that entered Hebrew via Aramaic from Akkadian and Persian. Put another way, loanwords that could not possibly have entered Hebrew before a certain time in history present themselves as stronger criteria when judging the date of certain texts than loanwords that may have passed into Hebrew at an earlier period. Mesopotamian culture from very early times influenced the Levant. Several old Eastern culture words entered Northwest Semitic at such an early stage that they are found in Ugaritic, that is, before about 1200 BCE. Concerning a number of old culture words, Akkadian derivation is, however, nowadays seriously questioned. Drawing chiefly from the respective word entries appearing in Mankowski' s A kkadian Loanwords in Biblical Hebrew (Mankowski 2000), the following deserves to be pointed out: Hebrew 1Q31K or "piriN ('purple', 2 Chron. 2.6), occurs first in the West during the Late Bronze Age, and only later in Mesopotamia. It has Luwian and Hittite counterparts, and correlates to Akkadian argamannu ('tribute, purple thread or cloth'), and is also found in Ugaritic 'rgmn ('tribute'). The common Aramaic form is 'rgwn. This word made two entrances into 18. I. Young in his (1993) dissertation on evidence for linguistic diversity in preexilic Hebrew, suggests that Hebrew owes its diversity to its very origin, when the heterogeneous Israelite tribes took over Hebrew as the super-tribal, prestige language, used in the Canaanite area. In the beginning of the first millennium this old fashioned language began to lose its hold on the area. Hebrew, supported by a new centralized monarchy, developed its genres in such a way that poetry and wisdom literature kept an old inherited Aramaic flavour. He remarks that S.R. Driver, in his commentary on Deut. 32, on the basis of lexical features argues for a late date, something that shows how inclusive such a reasoning may be—if the presumptions are wrong. One difference between BH and epigraphic Hebrew, is that the 3rd masc. sg. suffix is almost always written with waw in BH, but with he in the inscriptions. Possibly, one can point to an analogy in Arabic ta' marbuta, which is a compromise between ordinary -at (Hebrew -at, ~ef), the old pausal -a, and the modern -a (Hebrew -a), in which the he is silent. By analogy, then, the scribes in Ancient Israel did perhaps not intend an 'ordinary waw' by the 3rd masc. sg. suffix waw but rather a kind of compromise between waw and he.
20
Biblical Hebrew
Hebrew. The form ]Q;HN is on a par with common Akkadian and Ugaritic, whereas the variant ]infc is an Aramaism and mirrors the Babylonian intervocalic change [m] > [w] (see further Kaufmann 1974: 35-36). Another culture word is NDD ('chair, throne'). It corresponds to Ugaritic ks', with retained aleph. If it is a loanword from Akkadian, it must accordingly be very early. In addition, the Aramaic form of this word, krs', shows a dissimilation of original -ss- to -rs-.Moreover, ;>T"Q ('iron') certainly goes back to Akkadianparzillu, but Ugaritic brdl, with initial bindicates some intermediary language. It deserves to be pointed out that Phoenician/Punic has brzl, but Aramaicprzl'. Interestingly enough, 7TH ('palace, temple') corresponds better to Ugaritic hkl, with an initial /?-, than to Akkadian ekallu, although the word is ultimately derived from Sumerian E.GAL. BH, accordingly, exhibits a number of ancient culture words, whose spellings reflect the situation in the West, rather than the situation in the East. This means that BH is firmly rooted in the literary tradition in the Canaanite area. In addition, the word D"TH ('footstool'—considered late in BDB) has no Semitic etymology, but the existence of Ugaritic hdm, and the fact that Egyptian hdm.w is not found before c. 1500 BCE, suggests an East Mediterranean origin (Muchiki 1999: 242-43). If a word is not adapted to the Hebrew language, but stands out as being foreign in form, it may have the precise function of distinguishing a foreign phenomenon. A characteristic of a number of such words that have entered Hebrew from Akkadian is that they retain an (often) Assyrian form. Three words signify military officers—namely, npiZDI, ]P"in and "IDSE. Of these, npEm is a high official (etymological!^ 'chief cup-bearer', 2 Kgs 18; Isa. 36passim), and]n~lP (2 Kgs 18.17, Isa. 20.1, < Akkadian tartanu < Human tartanu) is 'field marshal'. The early versions apparently understood both of them to be proper names. It should be mentioned that the absence of a definite article suggests that ]mn was not fully assimilated as a common noun in BH (Mankowski 2000: 152). The third, "1DBB ('marshal', < Akkadian tupSarru, 'scribe', with Assyrian [s] > [s]), occurs in Jer. 51.27; Nah. 3.17. Both passages suggest that the connection between scribe and officer is not far-fetched. The word seems to have been generally misunderstood by the early translators, which suggests that it fell out of use in later periods (see Mankowski 2000: 61 for an overview). The fourth word is an administrative title, namely, "pD ('governor, prefect', < Akkadian Saknu 'governor', with Assyrian [s] > [s]). The word is used for prefects of Assur and Babel, and for officials in post-exilic Judah.
ESKHULT The Importance of Loanwords
21
A word may be so closely connected to a certain context as to suggest a foreign practice. An example is the hapax legomenon !T]"[] of Ezek. 16.33, borrowed from Akkadian nuladannu, which can be understood to mean 'dowry', or, better (with CAD): 'a gift made by a husband to his wife to ensure her livelihood after his death'. The proper legal sense highlights the special piquancy of the verse, something that demands that author and audience share the same connotations. Another example is the verb *pN, which in the story about Naaman's leprosy in 2 Kings 5 obviously means, 'heal by exorcism'. The special meaning of the verb in this chapter seems to be borrowed from Akkadian dsapu, which in the D stem means 'cure by exorcism' (the G stem is not attested)—however with Assyrian pronunciation of [s] (Mankowski 2000:43-45; 85). Perhaps, the occurrence of the verb in 2 Kings 5 reflects a usage that was current in contemporary Aramaic. The word №D ('linen', Gen. 41.42; Exod. 25.4; 26.1, et passim) derives from Egyptian ss, found since the Middle Kingdom. As Hurvitz (1967) has demonstrated, №V) in post-exilic times was replaced by j"O; there is no instance of this word before c. 850 BCE (Muchiki 1999:240). From words that relate to specific Egyptian phenomena, the following may be adduced. The exclamation "]"QN (Gen. 41.43, < Egyptian 'b-r.k, 'attention'), and the loanword DtDHH ('magician', Gen. 41.8, 24; Exod. 7.11, 22; 8.3, 14, 15; 9.11, < Egyptian hr\y]-tp, 'chief), both point to an Egyptian setting. Also, the Egyptian borrowing ^p ('ape') and D^riDIE ('ivory', < [sen] + 3b{w\)—both in 1 Kgs 10.22 and 2 Chron. 9.21—are related among the cargo brought home by Solomon's fleet. In addition, these two passages also mention D^DH ('peacocks'), by Ch. Rabin considered a Tamil loan 19 (in Pope 1977:27-33). In conclusion, it may be said that the Akkadian and Egyptian loanwords by and large show a clear concordance between the story related and the terminology used. This circumstance corroborates the idea that their employment in BH reflects a usage in the contemporary language used in Ancient Israel. Whereas Akkadian and Egyptian culturally and politically could influence Hebrew from the oldest time, Persian had little possibility to do so before the sixth century BCE. Persian influence on vocabulary was transmitted via Aramaic, in the form of Imperial Aramaic, the lingua franca of the Persian
19. See Muchiki 1999: 236 for fDR, 245 for GQin, 254 for *p, 257 forD'Sim
22
Biblical Hebrew
empire. However, in the Aramaizing culture of the Achaemenid period, several Akkadian loanwords, too, entered Hebrew via Aramaic. The late Akkadian loans can, for one thing, be distinguished from earlier ones by not being found in Ugaritic. On the whole, the abundance of new words in incontestably late narrative prose writings strongly suggests that they form a true characteristic of later biblical usage. Adding to the evidence of the words referred to in the discussion above, there are in the post-exilic period two trans-Aramaic loans that compete with the old "ISO ('book, letter'), namely, DUN and JintEQ (Ezra 4.7; 7.11, < Persian *ni$tavan, 'written order'; cf. Rosenthal 1961: 63). Ezra 4.7 stands in the transition from the Hebrew to the Aramaic part of the book. This may explain why— in addition to ]ini£?3—the word H3D ('associate', < Akkadian kinatu) is used in this verse, although Hebrew already offers in and "OH as synonyms. Other new words are HTD (< Akkadian birtu, 'citadel') and fiTD (< Akkadian bitanu, 'inner part of palace'). Both of them replace fVD "f^Qil and ^DTT in the meaning 'palace'. Moreover, m ('decree, law', < Persian data) competes with the old words rmn, pl"I, and so on, and ]DT ('appointed time', probably < Akkadian simanu, via Old Persian; cf. Mankowski 2000: 54-55) competes with 117113. Finally, in 2 Chron. 2.6, 13; 3.14, the Persian borrowing 'TQID ('purple') is used instead of 327 or
••32? ni^in.
Words, which did not pass into Hebrew through Aramaic, are ~[ 7S ('district', Neh. 3 [eight times]) deriving from Akkadian pilku, with the same meaning, and ")H A3 ('guardian', Dan. 1.11, 16, probably < Akkadian massaru\ and ^DK ('annex', 1 Chron. 26.15, 17; Neh. 12.25, < Akkadian asuppu, 'outbuilding, annex'), as well as !"I1Q ('tax', Neh. 5.4 < Akkadian madattu).^ It would thus seem that the new loans that entered Hebrew in the postexilic period reflect the linguistic reality of that time, a reality that stands in sharp contrast to earlier periods of the Hebrew language. Conclusions The enrichment of the BH vocabulary follows a pattern that by and large fits into the political history of Ancient Israel, as described in the biblical texts. The literature contained in the Hebrew Bible—as regards the distribution of loanwords—indicates that Ancient Hebrew enriched its vocabu-
20. See Mankowski 2000:129-30 Q^D); 95-97 (II^ID); 36-38 (*)DK) and 84 (HID).
ESKHULT The Importance of Loanwords
23
lary subsequently throughout the biblical period and in close connection to its political history. Some Akkadian loanwords have entered Hebrew via Aramaic during the heyday of Assyrian supremacy. Some reflect the Aramaizing culture that prevailed in Mesopotamia in the Persian period. Others give the impression of being foreign words that are not assimilated into common usage. In a language, artificially constructed long after the historical events took place, one would scarcely find such a close connection between words and contents. Also, there is a concurrence between the time factor and the borrowings, so that late words occur in those texts where they are, so to speak, supposed to be found. Quite exceptional is the Chronicler in his account of events in early monarchical history. The Aramaic element in BH remains a riddle. There seem to be distinctive pairs of the same root, where the 'Aramaic' form has one sense, the 'Hebrew' another. When employing Aramaisms as an instrument for dating biblical texts, one has to be aware of various factors, as possible borrowings from Old Aramaic, foremost in poetry, as well as dialectal differences within Ancient Hebrew. Most of all, one must be aware of the fact that the assumed (late) date of a certain text affects the discussion concerning possible Aramaisms. Persian loanwords abound in the incontestably late prose writings—plus occasional occurrences in Qoheleth and Canticles. Whereas Chronicles, Ezra-Nehemiah and Esther exhibit a mixed style with many neologisms and numerous loanwords from Persian, this is not the case concerning the priestly material (cf. Hurvitz 2000c: 191). What deserves to be stressed is that Persian words are not to be found in the Pentateuch at all! If loanwords of Persian origin are considered a strong argument when dating biblical texts, then the lack of every vestige of such loanwords ought to be considered as an important evidence for a date of origin prior to the Persian era. To the questions posed above, the following answers may be given: it is possible to date biblical texts on linguistic grounds, though the notion ' Aramaism' demands a special methodological awareness, and the surest lexicographic results are to be gained from languages not as close to Hebrew as Aramaic. Trans-Aramaic Akkadian, and especially Persian loanwords, are good guidelines for establishing an approximate date for biblical texts.
HEBREW AND ARAMAIC IN THE BIBLICAL PERIOD: THE PROBLEM OF 'ARAMAISMS' IN LINGUISTIC RESEARCH ON THE HEBREW BIBLE*
Avi Hurvitz
One of the most interesting chapters in the linguistic history of Ancient Israel is that of the inter-relationship between BH and Aramaic, as known to us from the various dialects current in and around Palestine. For almost 2000 years the two languages were in use side by side; and, naturally, this situation engendered mutual influences which affected their history and development. The implications of this linguistic situation—a classical case of 'languages in contact'1—for the study of 'Aramaisms' in BH is the subject of this article. 1. The Relationship of Hebrew and Aramaic According to the Biblical Descriptions The biblical tradition, as preserved in both narrative and historiographical compositions, points to a continuous contact between the two languages throughout the entire era—from 'the Patriarchal Period' (whose historicity and chronological background are, of course, a matter of debate) through to the Restoration and the establishment of the Second Temple. While much detail pertaining to these contacts remains unclear, especially in the
* This article originally appeared in Hebrew in Bar-Asher (ed.) 1996:79-94. For the suggestion to translate it, and the translation itself, I am grateful to Dr Michael Rosenbaum, who lectures in the Near Eastern Languages and Cultures Department at UCLA. A few references to studies which appeared after the article was submitted for publication in the Morag Volume are incorporated in the footnotes in angle brackets. The English translations of the Old Testament are taken from Tanakh: A New Translation of the Holy Scriptures According to the Traditional Hebrew Text (Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society of America, 1985). It should be noted that some of the basic issues discussed in the present article were already dealt with in Hurvitz 1968. 1. One of the classic works on the subject is Weinreich 1953.
HURVITZ Hebrew and Aramaic in the Biblical Period
25
earlier periods, sufficient information appears in the biblical texts to enable us to sketch the linguistic picture in general outline. a. Genesis 31.46-47 And Jacob said to his kinsmen, 'Gather stones'. So they took stones and made a mound... Laban named it Yegar-sahadutha, but Jacob named it Gal-ed.
The tradition preserved in the book of Genesis presents two branches of the patriarchal family, one using Hebrew and the other Aramaic. This tradition even puts two words into the mouth of Laban the Aramean which are recognizable as words in regular use in the Aramaic language—"IP Nrvnntt? (as against the Hebrew words ;3 and 1I7).2 b. 2 Kings 18.26-27 (Isaiah 36.11-12) Eliakim son of Hilkiah, Shebna, and Joah replied to the Rabshakeh, 'Please, speak to your servants in Aramaic, for we understand it; do not speak to us in Judean in the hearing of the people on the wall'. But the Rabshakeh answered them, 'Was it to your master and to you that my master sent me to speak those words? It was precisely to the men who are sitting on the wall...'
This passage describes the rather naive attempt by three Judean high officials to persuade the Assyrian Rabshakeh to speak Aramaic with them instead of Hebrew (milT), so that the common soldiers stationed on the wall of the city could not understand his threats. The story is significant in that it reflects the linguistic situation prevailing in Judah around 700 BCE. The episode narrated here indicates that Aramaic, which functioned as a lingua franca in the Assyrian Empire west of the Euphrates (Cogan and Tadmor 1988: 232), was indeed known in the land of Judah in the days of Hezekiah, though only to the educated, not to the common people.3
2. See recently Morag 1985: 181. Here some fundamental questions arise concerning the historical-linguistic value of the episode recorded in the book of Genesis. For example: To what extent is the distinction between Canaanite and Aramaic in the first millennium BCE valid for the second millennium? See Kaufman 1988, and, for a different view, Huehnergard 1991: 286 n. 12. 3. On this there is broad scholarly consensus. See, e.g., Kutscher 1961: 52; Rosenthai 1961: 6; Naveh and Greenfield 1984: 118-19; Lemaire 1988: 12.
Biblical Hebrew
26 c. Ezra 4.6-7
And in the reign of Ahasuerus...they drew up an accusation against the inhabitants of Judah and Jerusalem. And in the time of Artaxerxes, Bishlam, Mithredath, Tabeel, and the rest of their colleagues wrote to King Artaxerxes of Persia, a letter fTGnVf Orm H-BIR D1H3.
Although the last sentence is problematic (see the commentaries), the basic meaning is clear: the document (or the accompanying letter) sent to the Persian king was written in Aramaic. This agrees with the biblical (Ezra 4-7; Dan. 2-7) and extra-biblical (Elephantine letters, etc.) evidence concerning the special status of Aramaic in this period. It is the 'Imperial Aramaic' used by the imperial bureaucracy throughout the Persian empire—including, of course, Ezra and Nehemiah (and their contemporaries), who were active in the province of Judah under Persian rule.4 d. Nehemiah 13.23-24 Also at that time, I saw that Jews had married Ashdodite, Ammonite, and Moabite women; a good number of their children spoke the language of Ashdod.. .and did not know how to speak Judean.
The exact nature of the language entitled 'Ashdodite' remains uncertain. It may have been a local dialect (perhaps Philistine or Canaanite?) spoken in the vicinity of the city of Ashdod. It is also possible that 'Ashdodite' is not a term denoting a specific language but, rather, a general reference to 'the language used by the people of Ashdod' (Rabin and Fassberg 1991:46)— which might have been, for instance, Aramaic.5 Whatever the case, the reality reflected in these verses clearly testifies to a linguistic situation quite different from the one portrayed in 2 Kings 18. By the time of the Restoration, knowledge of Hebrew was becoming increasingly weaker among the 'Jews' (see Neh. 13.24, above) due to the growing influence of languages such as 'Aramaic' and 'Ashdodite'. 4. Cf. Naveh and Greenfield 1984: 121. The interpolation of a complete verse in Aramaic in Jer. 10.11 (though indeed it is a 'stray' sentence [Rosenthal 1961: 5]) testifies to the growing influence of Aramaic already at the end of the First Temple period. See on this matter Morag 1971: 140-41; 1972: 300. On the special status of the book of Jeremiah as one of the 'forerunners' of the age of LBH see also Bar-Asher 1985:93-94, 95 n. 84. 5. Cf. KB, 1:93. Recently, D. Talshir has suggested that 'Ashdodite' is the 'ProtoTannaitic' language, that is, the language 'from which the language of the earlier sages from Gimzo, Lod, Emmaus, and Yavneh developed' (D. Talshir 1993:295,298). This suggestion is highly questionable.
HURVITZ Hebrew and Aramaic in the Biblical Period
27
The picture which emerges from the biblical descriptions cited above is evidently partial and fragmentary. Many details are lacking and many questions remain unanswered. Nevertheless, we are in a position to establish the general framework in which the various linguistic forces operated; it is even possible to set up several historical milestones which make a chronological orientation possible (see Lemaire 1988: 10-13): 1. The first contacts between Hebrew and Aramaic are found at the dawn of the history of the people of Israel, a period represented in the biblical tradition by 'the patriarchal stories' in the book of Genesis. 2. At the time of Sennacherib's siege of Jerusalem (700 BCE) the knowledge of Aramaic in Judah was limited to the upper classes. The common people, it would seem, neither spoke nor wrote Aramaic. 3. In the period of the Restoration, when Aramaic became the dominant language throughout the Persian empire, the status of Hebrew was undermined. According to the testimony of the book of Nehemiah, already at that time certain sectors of the Jewish population were unable to speak proper Hebrew. This, then, is the linguistic background that emerges from the descriptions found in the biblical literary tradition. As we shall see in what follows, this is also the basic picture that emerges from the linguistic testimony of BH. 2. 'Aramaisms' in Earlier Research One of the favorite topics in nineteenth- and early twentieth-century biblical scholarship was the attempt to uncover 'Aramaisms'; that is, linguistic elements whose appearance in the Hebrew Bible could be attributed to the influence of (late) Aramaic. This issue, which was frequently discussed in the scholarly literature, became the specific topic of a monograph by E. Kautzsch (1902). By and large, Kautzsch's work constitutes a summary statement of the opinions and viewpoints which were commonly held on this subject in the research of the time. The pioneering work of these earlier scholars contributed greatly to the recognition that the general phenomenon of 'Aramaisms' within BH is an undeniable fact. Moreover, it should be stated that a substantial portion of their specific findings, especially regarding LBH, are still firmly
28
Biblical Hebrew
established, successfully withstanding the strictures of present-day scholarship.6 At the same time, in light of recent developments in the field of Hebrew linguistics, it is clear that we must re-examine many of the working hypotheses which were once widely accepted by biblical scholars. This re-evaluation is essential for two reasons. First, we have at our disposal today an abundance of linguistic sources which were unknown in the past. Second, methods of research and procedures of analysis have improved significantly due to the advances in the discipline of linguistics. This new perspective makes it possible to highlight points of weakness in the work of earlier scholars, especially in the matter of methodology which was quite often not given proper attention. In order not to distort the historical record, it should be kept in mind that many of the flaws in the works of the 'Old School' were competently criticized at the time of publication. Two authorities in particular should be mentioned in this connection: Th. Noldeke, who wrote a review of Kautzsch's monograph (Noldeke 1903), and S.R. Driver, who published a detailed critique (S.R. Driver 1882) of F. Giesebrecht's study on 'Aramaisms' in the language of the Priestly Source (Giesebrecht 1881). Unfortunately, however, by and large their comments were like a voice crying in the wilderness. The impact of their criticisms on the overall direction of BH research was hardly noticeable. A real change in approach to the problem of 'Aramaisms' has manifested itself only lately.7 This development is mainly a by-product of the progress made recently in research on Northwest Semitic in general; progress which makes it possible to examine the whole issue here under consideration from a vantage point that was inaccessible to earlier scholars. 3. 'Aramaisms' in Recent Research a. 'Aramaisms' Devoid of Chronological Implications The study of Aramaic has achieved impressive results in the last few decades. The discovery of new texts, reflecting previously undocumented 6. See, e.g., Gesenius 1815. S.R. Driver's classic introduction (Driver 1913a) should also be mentioned here; it contains detailed and carefully sifted lists of'Aramaisms' whose use is characteristic of the later books of the Old Testament (Esther, Daniel, Ezra-Nehemiah, etc.). 7. From this perspective, the comparatively recent book of M. Wagner (1966) represents 'a retrogressive step' (Rabin 1970: 323). Recent linguistic work on the topic is not adequately reflected in Wagner's monograph; see the reviews by Greenfield 1968; Hurvitz 1969b; Morag 1972.
HURVITZ Hebrew and Aramaic in the Biblical Period
29
stages in the history of Aramaic, has paved the way for a more profound knowledge of the Aramaic dialects and their linguistic history. Naturally, this development directly illuminates the issue of'Aramaisms' within BH (cf. Kutscher 1970: 358). For our purposes, it is particularly important to note here the discovery of Aramaic inscriptions dated as early as the beginning of the first millennium BCE—that is, the First Temple period. Such findings have completely overturned the older view that every ' Aramaism' is necessarily indicative of the late biblical era. This mistaken view, which—as already noted—was especially common among nineteenth-century scholars,8 was fostered by the absence of writen sources testifying to the vitality of Aramaic in the early biblical period. However, since it has become clear from these new sources that Aramaic was widespread and enjoyed high prestige already in the pre-exilic period, it could no longer be maintained that the 'Aramaisms' encountered in BH must reflect later linguistic usage. One group of so-called 'Aramaisms' that should not necessarily be categorized as late are lexical items and grammatical forms which appear in poems contained in the Pentateuch and the Former Prophets—poems which are widely assigned to the earliest biblical period because of their strong ties with the Ugaritic writings (see, for instance, Morag 1981: 1). It is possible, then, that these supposed 'Aramaisms' are not taken over from Aramaic but, rather, 'Archaisms'—that is, ancient linguistic elements which in antiquity were part of the common legacy of Hebrew and Aramaic, except that in Hebrew (as opposed to Aramaic) these 'Archaisms' simply disappeared from regular usage and survived only in the conservative language of biblical poetry.9 For example, in the Song of the Sea the root *rmh is found in the passage D/'D HO"! "OD^n DID ('Horse and driver he has hurled into the sea', Exod. 15.1). This root, which is rare in BH, is common in Aramaic. Accordingly, A. Bender, in an article on the Song of the Sea published a century ago (Bender 1903: 11), did not hesitate to declare *rmh an 'Aramaism' reflecting post-exilic times. However, in light of the considerations mentioned above, it is extremely doubtful whether this judgment can withstand critical examination today. The assumption underlying such a viewpoint is questionable for two reasons:
8. Though present-day scholarship may fall into the same error; cf. the end of n. 21, below. 9. See G.R. Driver 1953; Kutscher 1961: 50; Hurvitz 1972a: 27-28; Rabin and Fassberg 1991: 100
.
30
Biblical Hebrew
(1) it may well be that *rmh should be classified as an 'Archaism' and not as an 'Aramaism' (Cross and Freedman 1955: 238) since it is attested (KB, III: 1239) in both Arabic and Akkadian (and perhaps even in Ugaritic!), yet in neither of these languages is it interpreted as an 'Aramaism'; and (2) even if *rmh is indeed an 'Aramaism' which Hebrew borrowed from outside, there is no evidence whatsoever indicating the time of such a supposed borrowing. Perhaps, then, *rmh is an early 'Aramaism' and not a late one? (Cf. Hurvitz 1982: 159-60 n. 6 .) At all events, whatever stand we take on this matter, one basic fact remains unchanged: the linguistic phenomena commonly called 'Aramaisms', when found in the poetic stratum of biblical literature, cannot be accepted indiscriminately as markers of a later period (cf. above, n. 9). A second group of 'Aramaisms' which should not be attributed uncritically to the period of LBH is found in texts believed to have preserved dialectical usages. These are linguistic elements which were apparently current, perhaps only in popular speech or in local idioms within restricted geographical districts of Palestine alongside the SBH of the First Temple period.10 Indeed, the available data testify that BH was the standard language used (at least in writing) in Jerusalem and the land of Judah, but not necessarily in the Northern Kingdom. This fact is obvious from the evidence of the epigraphic material at our disposal (see, e.g., Sarfatti 1982; Garr 1985: 227, 234). On the one hand, we find a far-reaching correlation between CBH and the language employed in the Hebrew inscriptions dated to the First Temple period—all of which have been uncovered in the area of Judah (Siloam Tunnel, Royal Steward, Yavneh-Yam, Arad Letters, Lachish Ostraca). On the other hand, from the Samaria Ostraca we learn about the existence of a local dialect in the Northern Kingdom which deviates in some significant features from 'the Jerusalem standard' (p instead of ]", P2? instead of FTO). In addition to this epigraphic data, there are some indications in the Bible which suggest a certain measure of heterogeneity in both the pronunciation of Hebrew1] and its vocabulary.12 10. Such a linguistic situation is known as 'diglossia'. See recently Rendsburg 1990a. 11. The famous episode in Judg. 12.6 which tells how the Ephraimites had difficulty in enunciating the word n^32J, attests that the first consonant of this word was pronounced differently in different parts of the country (the exact nature of the protoSemitic phoneme which is represented in the story by a № or a D is still at issue; see, e.g., Rendsburg 1992e). 12. One of the classic examples customarily mentioned in this connection is the relative pronoun £>, whose earliest occurrences in the Bible are specifically associated
HURVITZ Hebrew and Aramaic in the Biblical Period
31
Due to the geographic proximity of the northern tribes to the land of the Arameans, we may decidedly expect to find isoglosses between Aramaic and 'northern Hebrew' even before the Babylonian exile—isoglosses which are not documented in the standard 'Jerusalemite' language.13 Consequently, if in a book like Song of Songs, which is widely believed to have been composed (in whole or in part) in northern Israel,' Aramaisms' (and/or 'Mishnaisms'14) are found in abundance, they may well be interpreted as (early) vestiges of the northern dialect and not necessarily as (late) traces of post-exilic BH.15 In other words, 'Aramaisms' do not have to be taken as compelling proof of chronological lateness in biblical writings which may have originated in northern Israel.16 A third group of 'Aramaisms', to whose appearance in the Hebrew Bible no chronological dimension need necessarily be attributed, is documented in texts describing foreign characters and/or events connected to a with the Northern Kingdom (see, e.g., S.R. Driver 1913a: 449 n.*; Kutscher 1982:32). As is well-known, this KJ later replaced biblical "1KJN in Rabbinic literature. This is one of the linguistic phenomena which scholars rely on when they suggest northern Palestine as the place where MH originated; see, for instance, recently Rendsburg 1992b. 13. See, e.g., Morag 1972: 299; Kaufman 1988: 45; Lemaire 1988: 11, 13. 14. See n. 12 above and also Rabin 1970: 322-23. 15. Indeed, scholars are divided on this issue. The controversy may be illustrated by comparing the opposing views of H.L. Ginsberg and A. Bendavid—both of whom are acknowledged experts in BH, MH, and the various dialects of Aramaic. Ginsberg, for instance, interprets HO^tC1 (Song 1.7) and the syntactic structure underlying the phrase nb^tp^lp 1HI2Q (Song 3.7) as an 'imitation of Aramaic language patterns' (Ginsberg 1970: 114). These 'Aramaisms' are part of the data which bring Ginsberg to the conclusion that 'the linguistic character of Canticles is pronouncedly later than that of Esther' (p. 112). In contrast, Bendavid refers to the language of Song of Songs—including the 'Aramaisms' appearing in it—as a 'popular dialect which has been elevated to serve in the temple of poetry' (Bendavid 1967-71: 76). However, he goes on to say, 'when we define the language of Song of Songs as 'popular', it does not mean that this is the actual language of the Mishnah; rather, it is a link with '^prototype. After all, it is an ancient scroll...' (p. 76, my emphasis). The whole point of this disagreement is eliminated if we adopt the 'compromise position' (Rendsburg 1992b: 238) which classifies Song of Songs (from the perspective of its place of origin) as a northern composition, and associates it (from the perspective of time) with the late biblical period; underlying this view, of course, is the assumption (p. 238) that the northern language did not disappear altogether after the destruction of Samaria. 16. Cf. S.R. Driver 1913a: 448-49; Hurvitz 1972a: 31,35; 1983c: 217-18 .
32
Biblical Hebrew
non-Israelite background. The use of 'Aramaisms' in such contexts is a well-known literary device, meant to impart an authentic atmosphere to the narrative by introducing unconventional modes of expression into BH; in so doing, the ancient author deliberately attempts to employ a style which will suit the foreign scene of his story.This is exemplified in 2 Kgs 6.8-19, in the account of the wars between Aram and Israel: While the king of Aram was waging war against Israel, he took counsel with his officers and said, 'I will encamp in such and such a place'. But the man of God sent word to the king of Israel, 'Take care not to pass through that place, for the Arameans are encamped there'... Greatly agitated about this matter, the king of Aram summoned his officers and said to them, 'Tell me! Who of us is on the side of the king of Israel?' 'No one, my lord king', said one of the officers. 'Elisha, that prophet in Israel, tells the king of Israel the very words you speak in your bedroom'. 'Go find out where he is', he said, 'so that I can have him seized'... Elisha said to them, This is not the road, and that is not the town...'
D n nm ('encamped', v. 9), 1]^Q ('of us', v. 11), HITS ('where', v. 13) and nt ('that', v. 19 [instead of DNT]) are usages which are not a part of standard biblical language. Their concentration in these verses suggests that the author of the passage intentionally chose 'words with an Aramaic flavor'17 for the purpose of the story because the episode described here deals with Arameans.18 Finally, there is a fourth group of'Aramaisms', connected with Wisdom Literature. 'The wisdom of the men of the East' was quite famous in antiquity and so it is not a coincidence that this is the standard by which the wisdom of Solomon is measured in the biblical tradition (1 Kgs 5.10: Dip "]D ^D STOnO nzb® nann mm). According to the prevailing view, these 'men of the East' dwelt in northern Transjordan (cf. Num. 23.7: Dip mnD nfcin f^n p^ "Unr DIN p)—that is, in a distinctively 17. Kutscher 1961: 50. (Can the unique form "fl inn [v. 8] also be interpreted in this way?) See also Hurvitz 1972a: 31, 35; Greenfield 1981: 129-30 . 18. C.F. Burney (1903: 208-209) dealt with this in detail over a century ago. On nm, PITH and HI, see also Kutscher 1961: 50-51; 1982: 31; and on I^OD, Montgomery 1951: 383 ('this good N[orth] Israelite particle is appropriate in citation of a Syrian'). As for DTITO, it should be noted that according to Yalon 1971: 9, 10, Tin] is just a secondary form of mn' and 'its meaning is "go down, descend"'. Kaufman (1988: 55-56) has also discussed this phenomenon (he calls it 'style switching'), though without mentioning the scholars who preceded him (see above, in this and the previous note).
HURVITZ Hebrew and Aramaic in the Biblical Period
33
Aramaic environment—and therefore we may assume that their language was Aramaic or some dialect closely related to it.19 In any event, we possess a wisdom work written in Aramaic, The Proverbs ofAhiqar, which— along with its language—obviously 'belong to the Aramaic wisdom literature of North Syria' (Greenfield 1964: 312; see also Lemaire 1988: 16 n. 31). Consequently, it is legitimate to assume that certain compositions within biblical Wisdom Literature (Job, Proverbs) may have absorbed words and forms from Wisdom Literature whose language was ancient Aramaic. In other words, here again the existence of' Aramaisms'20 is not in itself proof of lateness.21 Having surveyed the types of 'Aramaisms' which should not be classified as 'Late Aramaisms', we may now proceed to those linguistic constituents for which this label is appropriate; that is, those 'Aramaisms' which in light of the data in our possession may legitimately be assigned to the late biblical period. b. Late 'Aramaisms' (1) General background?-2 The sixth century BCE marks a significant turning point in the history of BH. The books written after this point reveal new linguistic features whose appearance reflects far-reaching modifications in the structure of the language. These 'neologisms', attested in grammar, lexicon and syntax, are absent from the earlier Hebrew sources but are common in the Aramaic dialects of the post-exilic period. Consequently, the tendency prevailing among scholars is to classify them as late 'Aramaisms' (cf. above, n. 6). This linguistic development is determined by two political events which decisively shaped the history of the people of Israel in this period: the Babylonian exile and the return to Zion. The deportation from the land of 19. Somewhat like the dialect of Deir 'Alia, concerning whose linguistic classification and exact relation to Aramaic opinions are divided. See, e.g., Garr 1985:2,229; Kaufman 1988; Lemaire 1988: 14; Huehnergard 1991. 20. Such as HS (instead of p), j'D^Q (instead of D'D^Q) in Prov. 31.2-3; ^ "IFD -pnm TUT in Job 36.2 (Rashi: N1H "OIK []1Kfr =] *? I^ID [= 'all of it is Aramaic']). 21. See Kutscher 1961: 51; Hurvitz 1972a: 30-31, 35; 1983c: 216-17 . Y. Hoffman's statement that 'Proverbs 31.4,6 are part of an oracle containing a number of Aramaisms, so it is reasonable to assume that it is among the latest layers in this book' (Hoffman 1986: 17, my emphasis) is therefore surprising (the personal name ^NIQ1? should be omitted from the 'Aramaisms' mentioned there [n. 16]). 22. Cf. Hurvitz 1983c: 210.
34
Biblical Hebrew
Israel, which separated the exiles from the natural habitat of their language, resulted in a severe break in the linguistic history of Hebrew; while the return from Babylon brought back a Jewish population which for 70 or so years had been exposed to the eroding influence of Aramaic, both in speaking and in writing. Moreover, the close contact between Hebrew and Aramaic, which became so strong during the Babylonian exile, did not cease with the repatriation of the exiles. In the Restoration period Aramaic was at the peak of its expansion and its dominance encompassed the land of Israel as well. Indeed, under its impact distinctively late biblical works such as Esther, Ezra-Nehemiah and Chronicles were composed, abounding in linguistic innovations widely attributed to the 'extensive Aramaic influence'23 dominating the writings of the period. The paramount position of Aramaic in the days of the Persian empire greatly affected the local languages of the entire area. Its traces are recognizable not only in Hebrew but also in Akkadian, Arabic, Ethiopic, and even the Persian script which adopted Aramaic ideograms. This is why the 'watershed' in the linguistic history of BH is so strongly linked with the history of Aramaic. It is also the reason why the critical meeting point of these two languages is assigned to the sixth century BCE, even though some sporadic contacts are documented in the biblical tradition prior to this date. (2) Procedures for identifying late 'Aramaisms'. In view of the data and conclusions peresented above, the following question arises: What philological procedure should we follow in order to identify specific late 'Aramaisms' which may have penetrated into biblical literature? In other words: What are the linguistic considerations and methodological criteria that will enable us to detect these 'Aramaisms'? E.Y. Kutscher, who has enlightened us on so many subjects connected with the linguistic milieu of the Second Temple period, has contributed to the resolution of this problem as well. In his programmatic essay 'Aramaic Caique in Hebrew', he offered the following 'formula': 23. Naveh and Greenfield 1984: 121. See also Bendavid 1967-71,1: 64-74; Fitzmyer 1970: 501-502; Kutscher 1982: 81-84 ('LBH was shaped to a very great extent by Aramaic influence' [p. 81]); Hurvitz 1983c: 219-20. The extensive influence of Aramaic on late biblical literature has even prompted theories that the books of Daniel, Qohelet and Chronicles were originally written in Aramaic; see Rabin 1970: 317; Lemaire 1988: 24 and n. 75. R. Polzin, on the other hand, endeavors to drastically reduce the part played by Aramaic in the formation of the book of Chronicles; see Polzin 1976: 14,69, 160.
HURVITZ Hebrew and Aramaic in the Biblical Period
35
If one finds a lexeme which appears in biblical sources considered to be early and also in those considered to be late, but in the late sources a change occurs in its meaning, 'behavior', etc.—then one should check the Aramaic. If a parallel to this phenomenon may be shown to exist in Aramaic, there is ground to suspect that Aramaic is the cause [for the change attested in the Hebrew]. (Kutscher 1964: 119)
Indeed, this formulation delineates the three basic conditions required for determining the lateness of an 'Aramaism': (1) the biblical documentation of the 'Aramaism' must be characteristic of distinctively late biblical texts; (2) it must be demonstrated that the 'Aramaism' deviates from standard language usage in the earlier books of the Old Testament; and (3) the 'Aramaism' must be shown to have enjoyed widespread usage and vitality in the Aramaic dialects in which it presumably originated.24 By way of example (see Bergey 1983: 148-49 ): (1) the word n"UN ('letter') appears ten times in the Hebrew Bible—all of them in distinctively Second Temple compositions (Esther, Nehemiah, Chronicles); (2) the use ofn"UN represents a deviation from the norm of CBH, which ordinarily has "ISO to denote 'letter'; and (3) the word Krn3K/rn3N is very common in the various dialects of Aramaic, including Imperial Aramaic of the Persian period which is contemporary with LBH (and also in Targumic Aramaic, which uses this word as the standard translation of the biblical ~ISD when it means 'letter'). Consequently, there is clear justification to categorize Pl^K as a late 'Aramaism' within BH (thus, e.g., Bendavid 1967-71,1: 64) which encroached on the CBH word ~1SD ('letter') in the Second Temple period.25 (3) Borderline cases. In this section, I would like to touch on two compositions—Jonah and Qohelet—which, again, illustrate the chronologically problematic character of 'Aramaisms' in the Hebrew Bible. For many 24. In other words, the three criteria upon which we can rely for establishing the lateness of an 'Aramaism' are: biblical distribution, linguistic contrast, and external sources; cf. Hurvitz 1983c: 222 . For similar methodological procedures, discussed in the context of identifying 'Hebraisms' in Aramaic, see Fassberg 1992; and for the entire problem dealt with here cf. also Gluska 1987. 25. To be sure, many are of the opinion that the word is originally Akkadian and not Aramaic. See Kaufman 1974:48 (cf. also Kutscher 1970: 386; and also the detailed bibliography in Wagner 1966: 19). Nevertheless, m3K certainly entered BH through Aramaic, and from this perspective we are entitled to call it an 'Aramaism' (on this matter see Kutscher 1954: 246-47).
36
Biblical Hebrew
years these two books were considered to be indisputable examples of late works composed during the days of the Second Temple. Recently, however, several scholars have suggested moving back their date; and, necessarily, re-evaluating the precise nature of the 'Aramaisms' which appear in them. In Jonah we are confronted with several 'Aramaisms' (some of which are also 'Mishnaisms' [cf. above n. 14]) such as H^fin (Jon. 1.6), ''p'pECl (1.7), pntj (1.11-12), H3Q (2.1; 4.6,7,8). These 'Aramaisms' were almost universally interpreted as indications of lateness, an opinion still widely common in present-day scholarship.26 However, the proposition has been voiced that the linguistic peculiarities—particularly the 'Aramaisms'— encountered in the book of Jonah are not necessarily indicative of LBH but, rather, are intended to reflect the northern, or non-Israelite, background of the story.27 In other words, according to this interpretation, the book of Jonah and its 'Aramaisms' should be grouped with writings like Song of Songs (a possibly North Israelite composition) or 2 Kings 6 (a text dealing with non-Israelite characters) and thus excluded from the corpus of late biblical literature. Qohelet too is generally considered, by earlier as well as recent commentators, to be a late biblical work, one of the decisive considerations supporting this conclusion being its language. F. Delitzsch even declared that 'If the Book of Koheleth were of old Solomonic origin, then there is no history of the Hebrew language' (Delitzsch 1877: 190). Notwithstanding this opinion, it has been proposed that the 'Aramaisms' and/or 'Mishnaisms' found in the book may be interpreted either as vestiges of an ancient dialect (Phoenician/Northern Hebrew) or as features of the particular literary genre of the composition (Wisdom-philosophical). Thus, according to this view, there is no compelling evidence to date Qohelet to the end of the biblical period.28 I mention these two examples not because I am convinced of their correctness (it seems to me that the theory referring to Qohelet is particularly doubtful29), but because they point to the necessity of regularly reviewing 26. See, e.g., A. Brenner 1979; Qimron 1980b: 181-82; Naveh and Greenfield 1984: 121; Allen 1976: 186-88. 27. See especially Landes 1982. And compare also the note in Qimron 1980b: 182. 28. See the survey of Schoors 1992: 1-16. Schoors himself does not endorse this opinion; see his summary, on pp. 221-24. 29. See Hurvitz 1983c: 214; 1990.
HURVITZ Hebrew and Aramaic in the Biblical Period
37
and re-evaluating accepted views and positions, even in cases where they for many years have been considered the assured results of scholarly research (cf. section 2, above). 4. Concluding Remarks It clearly emerges, then, from the discussion presented above, that the term 'Aramaism' is polysemous and associated with a variety of phenomena, each of which constitutes a matter unto itself. Obviously, the term was coined to designate a non-Hebrew linguistic feature which was understood to have entered the language due to the (direct or indirect) influence of Aramaic—an influence invariably associated with the late biblical period. However, this definition is no longer valid. The term 'Aramaism', which we continue to use to this day, 'is rather a philological convenience than a demonstrable fact' (G.R. Driver 1953: 38). Consequently, we have to recognize that the linguistic nature of an 'Aramaism' is determined by the character of the texts in which it is used, and its appearance in different writings is contingent on several factors: on the one hand, literary genre (ancient poetry, Wisdom sayings) and literary technique (deliberate imitation of a particular style); and, on the other, regional-dialectical differences (north/ south) and diachronic developments (early/late).
STYLE is MORE THAN THE PERSON: SOCIOLINGUISTICS, LITERARY CULTURE AND THE DISTINCTION BETWEEN WRITTEN AND ORAL NARRATIVE*
Frank H. Polak
The main thesis of this paper is that large sections of biblical narrative are based on a substratum of oral literature. Although biblical narrative has been committed to writing, it is possible to recover considerable traces of its oral substratum by means of syntactic and stylistic analysis.1 The existence of oral narrative is represented as a matter of course in the tale about Gehazi who recounted 'the great things that Elisha has done', and told how the prophet 'had revived a dead person' (2 Kgs 8.4-5). But Gehazi's story is only referred to, and is not introduced as it was told. How then to characterize oral narrative in ancient Israel? In which respect does it differ from a story that was composed from the outset in writing? And what kind of literary culture does it represent?2 It is possible to answer these questions with the help of some basic features of spoken and written language that have been established in sociolinguistic research in the last 20 years (Miller and Weinert 1998; Chafe 1982; 1985; 1994: 41-50; Halliday 1989). Some of these distinctions, as far as they fit ancient Hebrew, indicate that biblical narrative harbors two kinds of style. Many narratives, such as those found in large sections of the books of Kings, Chronicles, Ezra-Nehemiah and Esther, tend to prefer intricate sentence constructions, long noun groups, and * I am grateful to Ms Cynthia Edenburg who improved my English and suggested some important clarifications. 1. The present paper reports on some of the findings of a larger research project that attempts to develop criteria of this kind for BH, for which see Polak 1997-98; 1998; 2001b; 2002; Ehrensvard 1997:34-36; Rendsburg2002b: 32-35; Na'aman 2002: 37-39; Greenstein 2002: 176-77. 2. In the present study the term 'literature' will include 'oral literature', as customary in ethnopoetic research, e.g., Finnegan 1970.
Polak Style is More than the Person
39
subordinated clauses. Since these features involve planning, rereading and correction (Stubbs 1980:15-18,29-42,97-115;Ochs 1979;Halliday 1989: 96-97; Chafe 1994: 42-45, 224-300), narratives in this style probably are at home in the scribal chancery. Other narratives, among them the tales of the patriarchs, the Saul-David narratives and many prophetic legends, reveal a marked proclivity to short, simple clauses in parataxis. Such diction demands far less planning, and therefore narratives in this style are probably close to spontaneous spoken language (Miller and Weinert 1998; Chafe 1985; 1994:42-70,108-69; Halliday 1989:92-93), and thus to oral narrative. The sociolinguistic approach is able to overcome some of the sceptical objections, such as the declaration that 'it is not possible to prove that any biblical work was orally composed' (Niditch 1993: 7), or the thesis that 'virtually everything that one can identify as a feature of oral composition can also be found in written composition' (Van Seters 2000: 84), considering the 'interplay between the oral and the written in traditional cultures' (Niditch 1996: 4, 107; Widengren 1959: 261). The latter view is largely based on aspects of literary design, such as repetition, formulaic language,3 and narrative patterns (Niditch 1996: 10-21; Ben Zvi 2000:17-18,21-23). Although these patterns seem ultimately rooted in the oral performance, they are ubiquitous in ancient literature, and thus could hardly serve as criteria for the mode of composition, even when they can be indicative of the oral roots of ancient literature ('Oral-derived literature', according to Foley 1995: 137-43; Culley 2000: 55-56). In the present study, analysis of some of the features of oral and written prose ('the sociolinguistics of language', Fasold 1990) and their social and cultural background ('the sociolinguistics of society', Fasold 1987) will be buttressed by a comparative examination of the diction in various tales about the Sinaitic covenant and the appointment of the elders, in Exodus, Numbers and Deuteronomy, in order to determine the relationship between the style of the Deuteronomic versions of these narrative events, and that of the non-Deuteronomic versions. Finally, I will consider the possibility that the stylistic profile of these tales derives from stylistic imitation or literary preference rather than from a distinct social and cultural background. 3. On formulaic language in biblical narrative see Cassuto 1973: 7-16; 1975: 16-26,69-71,74-80; Cross 1983; the frequency of the epic formulae has been analyzed by Polak 1989; 1991. For a definition of'epic formula' seeReichl 1989: 46-49; Polak 1989:438-41.
40
Biblical Hebrew 1. The Wise Woman from Tekoa and the Scribe
A comparison between a number of short texts will suffice to indicate a few basic differences between the written and the oral. The wise woman from Tekoa is introduced as telling her story to David in order to convince him to treat Absalom leniently (2 Sam. 14.5b-7a).4 Hence her tale is a ploy for convincing the king, rather than a narrator's yarn. Nevertheless her case must be heard. The text is quoted clause by clause, as indicated by the clause markers (forward stroke V is used to separate independent clauses, underlining is used for subordinate clauses, noun groups are opened and closed by angle brackets, e.g., ''):5
/ mra DmtD iun / f nnst^i (v. 5b) / IPR no11! / in^n n» in«n isn / Dmra.^D ]^i / 'KTR nani / ']& ^N (v. 6) / TOTI /"jnnsK? b:? nap n:m (v. 7a) / <m.i2M vn» 2»ja> innaii / vrm HDD n« ^n enrn PIN DJ nTotrai Alas, I am a widow-woman, my husband is dead, and your servant had two sons. The two-of-them came-to-blows in the field, and there was none tostop them, and the one struck the other and killed him. Then the whole clan confronted your-servant and said, 'Hand over the one-who-killed hisbrother, that [we] may kill him for the life of his-brother, and destroy the heir also'.
This short tale (15 clauses) stands out by its predilection for a crisp, rhythmic sequence of short clauses, and a high number of verbal forms. Hence, this particular style is best characterized as 'rhythmic-verbal'. In order to make this impression explicit, I will use the term 'argument' to refer to those parts of speech that are directly related to the predicate (explicit subject, object, modifier, etc.).61 will also count the noun groups 4. The high adroitness with which the wise woman from Tekoa succeeds in persuading the king is described by Fokkelman 1981: 128-42; Hoftijzer 1970:428-31, 442-44; Greenstein 1999: 157-59. In the terms of Conversation Analysis, the Tekoite initiates a transaction which is concluded to her full satisfaction. 5. In the translation words that are needed for the English but are expressed in Hebrew by bound morphemes (the implicit subject of the verbal predicate, indicated by prefix and affix conjugation) are marked by square brackets (e.g. '[we]'). When two words are needed to render one word in the Hebrew, their connection is indicated by the hyphen (e.g. two-of-them came-to-blows). 6. This definition does not cover the object suffix (nor any other suffix), but the particle with suffix is counted as (pronominal) argument, for example, DflN, ~\b. In the nominal clause the subject is counted as argument, but the predicate is not, even if it
Polak Style is More than the Person
41
(e.g. nouns with attribute, including construct state, or in junction with additional nouns, for instance, D^m ilKQn) and the subordinate clauses (hypotaxis). 1. The present tale contains a relatively large number of independent clauses that consist of a predicate with one argument—for example, ""DK nDQ^N !T2?N—or even of a predicate only—"HOtTl (altogether nine short clauses out of 15 [60%]). The introductory clause "HEN1'! is continued by a sequence of four clauses with one argument—TTI& mD inTOl / Vrm rQDriK "in cnrn n» DJ HTOTI / rin -\m (apartfromrin i^), covering more than a quarter of this pericope. The preference for sequences of short clauses ('verbal sequences') is characteristic for this style. 2. Only three clauses include more than one argument. 3. Some short clauses are dependent on the main clause, such as the relative clause 31H "1K7N (three clauses [20%]; participles and infinitives construct count as subordinated); 4. This excerpt contains no more than a few noun groups (!"I2?K nDQ^N). 7 Reference is often by pronoun or by pronominal suffix with particle (inN).8 The typology of this pericope is indicated by Table 1 (see next page), in which the illustratory quotes do not represent all instances of the indicated class. Since the woman is characterized as wise, the crisp, rhythmic style of her tale must be recognized as competent, all the more so as the narrator makes her deliver the best speech possible.9 has the form of an indication of place (mo) or time. Additional complements are of course counted as argument. 7. The style of the following peroration (v. 7b) is far more intricate, since it includes a metaphor, which also is a clause that includes a relative clause (E"IK 13D1 mwra "IftN 'nbm) and a long infinitive clause:'JS ^U n'-ftttn DK? Wvb Dlft *rb& nQ~!K!"[. The peroration embodies the rhetoric of public discourse rather than narrative. On the use of cultivated language in public discourse see Polak 2002b: 81-94; 2001c: 87-95. 8. For this purpose the object suffixes have not been taken into account, since their stylistic status has not as yet been sufficiently established. 9. The relatively high percentage of clauses in hypotaxis (20%) could be considered problematic, but in fact this percentage is marginal, all the more as the clause 3~irt ~IK)N is quite simple. Moreover, the slightly more complex style suits the diction of public discourse (see n. 7, above).
Biblical Hebrew
42
Table 1. The Tale of the Wise Woman Selected Samples from the Text 0 Arguments 1 Argument
Ton ']« n:cb& ne» '2r« non
Total Cases in Text
%
1
8
6.67 53.33
9 3
60.00 20.00
3
20.00
— 4
26.67
—
—
1HN nO'l TTTK DSJZl 1HHQ31
Total 0-1 Arguments 2+ Arguments Simple Subordination Complex Subordination Short Noun Groups
enrn n« DJ m-oron men or™ liJn iriNn n« in^n im jnnsty bu nnsran ^D nap Drrrn b-ao rnK HDQ :nn -IE» HDO^ ntz»
—
D^3 •'D2J
Long Noun Groups
nnEjron ^D vn« &sn
By contrast, many narratives are characterized by the use of long, intricate clauses, hypotaxis, and long noun groups, such as, for example, the Deuteronomic version of Moses' stay at Mt Horeb (Deut. 9.8-11).10 Some subordinate clauses are dependent on a clause in hypotaxis. This configuration ('complex subordination') will be indicated by the equals sign ('=')• A system of brackets will be used to distinguish the component parts of noun groups that contain additional, embedded subgroups. For example, in the noun group [ |*pl3], square brackets mark the extent of the entire group, while embedded subgroups are distinguished using angle brackets: DSHfc TDfflCT^Dja n ^jwri / n n« onsapn mrm (v. 8 = ] nnpls = nnnn ^n'aa (v. 9 /[D3Qr_7lJinD1M
/ ^rbi* vfo nnV [ ] "inn ne»i / nn^n!y vfo D^I 10. Lohfink (1963:208-15) considers various proposals for redaction-critical analysis of this section, only to reject them on the basis of the narrative use of various formulae.
Polak Style is More than the Person
43
]n« ^« n ]m (v. 10
D'"Qin b:a>] nrrhJin / [^rn^K matQ> p^ro / [ <&Kn -pno> ] TH (v. 11) [ ] -b« n ]ro At Horeb [you] provoked the Lord / and the Lord was so angry (enough) with you to have destroyed you. When [I had] ascended the mountain, to receive the tablets of stone, the Tablets of the Covenant, that the Lord had made with you. / And [I] stayed on the mountain 40 days and 40 nights / [I did] not eat bread / nor drink water. / And the Lord gave me the two tablets of stone, inscribed by the finger of God, and on them the exact words that the Lord had addressed to you on the mountain out of the fire on the day of the Assembly. / At the end of those 40 days and 40 nights, the Lord gave me the two tablets of stone, the Tablets of the Covenant.
Like the brief tale of the wise woman, this pericope contains 15 clauses. But the style is different.11 Only four clauses (26.61%) contain one argument. Three clauses (20%) contain three arguments (e.g. DID 71 ^pNm D3HK TDETI1?). Five clauses (33.33%) are dependent on the main clause (e.g.DDnN TGEFl1?),12 or on subordinate clauses (CmiKn nm1? HHpb, DIDQtf 'H HID 1KJ» rvnn nm1?). Noun groups stand out by their length:
rr-nn nmb D'lnKn nm^ ^ (twice).13 The noun group D-imn bm
is expanded by an intricate relative clause, that contains six arguments:
(i)"i^(iDi),(2)'n,(3)DDQi:,(4)-inn,(5)^n-]inQ,(6)bnpnDrn. The stylistic profile of this pericope is demonstrated by the Table 2 (see next page), in which the samples are illustrative rather than exhaustive. In all respects, then, the style of this pericope is the opposite of that of the wise woman from Tekoa. If the wise woman uses short, simple clauselets, the Deuteronomic tale is couched in long, intricate clauses. If the wise woman employs few subordinate clauses, these are abundant in the Deuteronomic tale, and what is even more significant, two clauses are dependent on hypotactic clauses. As against the low number of noun groups in the tale of the Tekoite, one notes the high number of such groups in the Deuteronomic narrative, as well as their length. 11. Note that the excerpt from the tale of the wise woman contains 41 words, as against 69 words in the excerpt from Deut. 9. 12. S.R. Driver (1895: 113) points to the possibility that v. 9 is dependent on v. 8, but prefers to construe it as the protasis to v. 10 ('^N 71 ]m), paralleled by, e.g., Gen. 22.4; Isa. 6.1. However, in this case the transition from v. 1 to the main body of the retrospection seems too harsh. 13. Five noun groups with three to five nouns, three with two nouns; in the mean 73% of all clauses contains a noun group.
Biblical Hebrew
44
Table 2. Moses' Stay at Mount Horeb
0 Arguments 1 Argument
%
Selected Samples from the Text
7b/a/ C<7565 w Tex/
—
—
—
4
26.67
5
33.33
4
26.67
2
13.33
6 4
40.00 26.67
5
33.33
9
60.00
'n^DN vb Drib Tvniz? »b D"m
DT31M DV DT31« fpQ TH
n^
D'13TJ ^33 Dn'^in 2+ Arguments
'n n« nnsHpn 31021 D'lniKI DV D'1731N 103 3KM
Simple Subordination
n^ 1 D3n« Taen ? DDD n ^»n-i D^DNH nm1? -DE? n« ^« n ]m D'Dswn nn^ S3e? n« 'b»n n jra D3n« i omb ninn ••nte 1H3 DD13I? 'H 131 12» D^nb« J73S«3 D"3nD
Complex Subordination
D']3«n nmb nnp^ DDOU 71 H13 12»
Total Subordination Short Noun Groups
n^nb» uny«n D-13in ^DD
Long Noun Groups
E»n f ino ^npn DV3 rvi3n nm1? D"D3«n nm1? nb^ D"1731»1 DV D^SIW
D"n«n nm1? "^
H^b D^21«l DV D"r31« fpQ
n^inn mnb nn]3«n nnb ^iz?
Total Noun Groups
In view of the preference for intricate syntactic structures and complicated noun phrases, this style may be characterized as 'complex-nominal'. On a formal level, this style stands out by: (a) The low frequency of short clauses (10-30% of all clauses). (b) The high frequency of clauses containing from two to five arguments (35-50%).14
14. Seven distinct arguments are found in Num. 1 . 1 , six in Lev. 23.20; Num. 9.1; 18.6.
Polak Style is More than the Person (c)
(d)
45
The high frequency of subordinated clauses (25-50%), and, specifically, of clauses in complex subordination, and of subordinate clauses that contain multiple arguments or long noun groups (10-20%). The high frequency of long, intricate noun groups.
By contrast, the rhythmic-verbal style is characterized by: (a) The high frequency of verbal sequences and short clauses with only a predicate, or a predicate with one argument/pronominal arguments (50-70%). (b) The low frequency of clauses with two arguments or more (around 20%). (c) The low frequency of hypotactic clauses (5-15%, mostly short). (d) the low frequency of noun groups in general (mostly in 10-30% of all clauses), and long noun groups in particular. The contrasting profiles of the two styles are summarized in the following table: Table 3. Rhythmic-Verbal vs. Complex-Nominal Style 0-1 Arguments 2+ Arguments Simple Subordination Complex Subordination Short Noun Groups Long Noun Groups
Rhythmic- Verbal Frequent: 50-70% Infrequent: mostly 15-30% Infrequent: mostly 5-15%
Complex-Nominal Infrequent: 10-30% Frequent: mostly 35-50% Frequent: mostly 25-50%
Infrequent: mostly 0-5%
Frequent: mostly 10-20%
Less frequent: mostly 10-30% Highly frequent: mostly 60-100% Rarely found
Frequently found
The above profiles describe probabilistic tendencies. Texts in which the complex-nominal style prevails may nevertheless contain some crisp rhythmic clauses. However, in the long run and in most passages such clauses are the minority, and mostly fulfill particular purposes, whereas the basic preference is the more complex clause. By the same token, passages in the verbal style may contain some complex clauses, but most clauses met are short, crisp and rhythmic. Longer and more intricate clauses generally fulfill some particular purpose (exposition, legal discourse, narrator's comment, climax—see Labov 1972: 360-70,393-96; Longacre 1989: 18-19,30-39; 1996:37-45).
46
Biblical Hebrew
Why does the one tale prefer the complex-nominal style, and the other one the rhythmic-verbal style? Previous research suggests that the difference is related to the distinction between written and spontaneous spoken language. Hence it would not be a matter of chance that the rhythmic-verbal diction prevails in a narrative in the mouth of a speaking person such as the wise woman from Tekoa. By contrast, the complexnominal style seems related to written language, a connection which is underscored by the fact that this style prevails in a text from Deuteronomy, in which the central mode of communication is writing (Weinfeld 1972: 158-66), in spite of its pretended origin in spoken discourse. Thus, the following section will deal with the sociolinguistic characteristics of the rhythmic-verbal and the complex-nominal style. 2. The Sociolinguistics of Language a. What Writers Know A characteristic example of the complex-nominal style is provided by the Aramaic documents of the Persian era, for instance in the report by the scribe Ma'uziyah:
<-ni ^u>] <noK BI;M!? soD_[ JHT.UJLTD nim
/ [jrj;i. TD3en .!i <«pst p«>
<"Bmm H-m DU> mntw [<*33i? ^wby> <mm «nu>] pn» *?i7 t
/ !Ji3TC_ni? [ ^to]
And now, when Vidranga the garrison commander arrived at Abydus—he imprisoned me on account of one dyer's stone, which one had found stolen in the hands of the merchants. / Finally Seha and Hor, servants of Anani, intervened with Vidranga and Hornufi with the help of the God of Heaven, until they set me free. (CAP 38,11. 3-5; Porten and Yardeni 1986: 58; see also Lindenberger 1994: 58-59)
In both these sentences the number of arguments is high. In the first sentence one notes the indications of (1) time ('when Vidranga...'), (2) place ('at Abydus'); and (3) cause ('on account of one dyer's stone'). In addition this sentence includes a subordinated time clause ('when Vidranga arrived...'), and an intricate relative clause ('which one had found stolen in the hands of the merchants'). The second sentence contains no less than five arguments: long, intricate noun groups serve as subject (Seha and Hor, servants of Anani), as indirect object (Vidranga and Hornufi) and as complement (with the help of the God of heaven). Only the indication of time ('finally'/]"1H^ 717) contains no more than one noun. In addition one notes the hypotactic time clause f313T27117).
Polak Style is More than the Person
47
The scribal context is clear in the case of the Egyptian Aramaic Ahiqar narrative, in which the preference for complex noun groups is more than striking. For instance, Sennacherib is styled HDT ]lNmDK ^T TTOK NDbQ (1. 47);Esarhaddonisnamed~nn«"f^ ]1»mD» (11. 10, 11,20, 32). Ahiqar's title is nnpTI? miJtt mDK CDJT ('counsellor of Assyria and its seal holder', 11. 2-3).15 He is also called
••mbai nnDU bjjp mn p-ns -ma] -T NTOB wnos brm «Q"Dn tnsp] N^D "iin« mn wise scribe and good counsellor, who [was a just man and] whose advise and decisions were relied upon by all Assyria (11. 42-43)
as well as
[Tin n^D] Tins ^m «±>ia znaruD nnc:r bu ^ n^D Tina -T man thepraeceps of all Assyria, on whose advise Sennacherib the king and [all] the Assyrian army [were relying]. (11. 55-56; so also 11. 60-61)
The predilection for long noun groups and precise identification seems related to the language habits of the official scribal chancery, as witnessed by the Egyptian Aramaic contracts from Elephantine. The characteristic features of this style are found in all Aramaic prose from the Persian period, whether in narrative, in written report or in legal contract. The intricate style also prevails, though to a lesser extent, in the ancient Hebrew epigraphic remains of the Judean monarchy. The narrative genre is represented by the Siloam inscription which mainly consists of intricate clauses (S.B. Parker 1997: 37-38):
/h>[KDi0]oi p-a nun mi irn 'D... / ]na bu |n: im mp1? e» caijnn isn nnp]n nvm / now "f?«i CTW33 naian bx Kinan }a iran in^i .. .for there was an upsurge in the rock to the right and the l[ef]t. Now, on the day of the breakthrough the stone masons struck one to another, axe on axe. And the water streamed from the source to the pond in 1200 cubits.
The last clause contains one predicate with five arguments; its subject consists of a participle clause (DDHnn).16 Although the diction of the letter from Yavneh Yam is far less intricate (S.B. Parker 1997: 16-17), we still 15. See also 11. 12, 18-19, 35-36, and see Polak 1996: 83. 16. The fronted time indication is not marked by "n"l, and is followed by simple qatai. C3i£nn 1DH rnpDH DV21. The only wayyiqtol form is 1!Dln. See also Rainey 2000: 78-79.
48
Biblical Hebrew
note a number of features of the complex-nominal style, in particular in the account of the matter, for example: / HUD ^]Sb CQ'D DDK! / ^D"l / ~p3U ISp'!
/ '3K? p irniOT am BQ'D DDK! nap n» ^isp ^pjiiaw / -[-m? in n» np1? DJT .ni..iisp n». rba IBKD. / "p30 nn n« np"i And your servant reaped and measured17 and stored-away for the days (agreed)18 before Shabbath.19 After your servant had measured the harvest,20 and stored-away as agreed for the days, along-came Hashabiah son of Shobai, and took your servant's garment. After I had measured my harvest as agreed for the days, he took your servant's garment.
Reflecting a commoner's petition, this account contains a number of short clauses (e.g. bD"1 / "[T3U "l^Tl, "["QI? TD HN HjTI), but also more intricate clauses (e.g. yni? TO D« npb DDVm_.i|"13ip.n».nl?3.."lS8D, with a long hypotactic clause).21 Thus in spite of the popular tone, the narration is drawn in the complex-nominal style, as is only to be expected in an official petition. Complicated syntactic structures are also encountered in plain letters, as in, for instance, Lachish 4.10-13: / '3"w_jni_iB8 =_nn»n ^ZOJHDB urn ycb. n»m^.:3 irn npiu n« n«iD vb ^ And may (he) know that we are tending the fire-signals from Lachish according to all the codes which my lord has given, for we cannot see Azekah.22
17. So following Gibson 1971: 29, and of late, Rainey 2000: 76-77. 18. Following Gibson 1971: 29. 19. Following Rainey 2000: 78; £1327 could be construed as an infinitive ('ceasing work'), as assumed by many scholars (Gibson 1971:29; S.B. Parker 1997:15), but this construction seems forced. 20. For the use of FIN before an indefinite common noun see, e.g., Exod. 21.2 Lev. 26.5; Deut. 14.14; Judg. 7.22; 2 Sam. 4.11; 5.24; 15.16; 18.18; 20.3; Isa. 34.14; 41.7; Prov. 3.12; 13.21; 23.6. 21. Hence four clauses out of nine are short (44.45%), but two contain two arguments, e.g., HUtE1 ^sb GiTD QDN1 (22.22%). Three clauses occur in hypotaxis (33.33%), e.g., DtTD DDN1 lUp HR "\"n[0 ^p HtftO. This clause is continued b n D£> p 11TI1O1 NiTI, as main clause opened by an apodotic waw, which is a rare construction after ~\W3 (Exod. 17.11; 2 Sam. 20.12). 22. KAI194; according to Lindenberger (1994:112-13) this clause is the apodosis of the previous protasis (...1p3n fQDrQ DN ""D). In his view the predicate of this clause is [Np[n].
Polak Style is More than the Person
49
This excerpt contains a long object clause (nnNI"L. .flNKD btt ''D), that includes three arguments (two noun groups, ED1? flNOS ^N, DDK!! ^DD; one pronoun, IDFI]), and a relative clause OHK ]H] "IID^; complex subordination). Hence, in Judean inscriptions from the late monarchy (c. 700-586) the complex-nominal style is found in narrative sections and in plain letters (Polak 1998:103-104). These findings justify the inference that the complex-nominal style represents scribal language. Further, this inference is in keeping with the findings of cross-cultural linguistic analysis. A number of linguistic features that are the hallmarks of the complex-nominal style are characteristic of written discourse in general: (a) The long noun group—Chafe (1982:39,42; 1985:108-10)points to the frequent use of syndetic noun pairs, long noun strings and attributes;23 (b) The use of two arguments and more—Chafe (1982: 39; 1985: 109-10) indicates the frequency of prepositional phrases, that is, the use of indirect object and modifiers in addition to subject, object and predicate;24 (c) The predilection for subordination—Chafe (1982: 40-41; 1985: 109-10) points to the increased use of present participles, and participle clauses, object clauses (either as that-clause or in the form of an infinitive), and indirect discourse;25
23. See also Miller and Weinert 1998: 133-39; Halliday 1989: 69-73. 24. See also Biber and Conrad 2001: 185. 25. See also Miller and Weinert 1998: 80-94; Halliday 1989:72-73. Factors a-c are discussed by Beaman 1984: 46-50; Kim and Biber 1994: 164-69; Biber and Hared 1994: 186-92, 192-203. It is to be noted that (1) some subordination occurs in all discourse (and in some forms is even more frequent: Beaman 1984: 56-70; Schleppegrell 1992) and (2) in particular that relative clauses are not infrequent in spoken discourse (Beaman 1984: 66-70). Hence the decisive factor is not the occurrence of hypotactic constructions, but the frequency of particular constructions, and in particular their complexity (Beaman 1984:75-80). Not all data, however, are comparable. For instance, Beaman finds that in spoken narrative relative clauses are more frequent whereas in written narrative participle clauses are found more often (see also Schleppegrell 1992; Thompson 1987). However, this observation is based on a Californian student public (Tannen 1984b: 22 n. 1), and thus hardly representative of authentic oral narrative (Labov 1972: 213-22). On the importance of the type of speakers chosen for sampling see Miller and Weinert 1998: 19-21. See also n. 46, below.
Biblical Hebrew
50 (d)
Complex subordination—Beaman (1984: 75-80) highlights this feature as a specific trait of written language.26
Thus modern linguistic research recognizes a cross-cultural profile of written language. The characteristic features of the complex-nominal style fit this profile exactly. Halliday (1989: 61-75, 87, 92-93) subsumes the characteristic features of written language under the heading 'lexical density', meaning the high number of content words per clause, and thereby the high number of arguments and long noun groups. In my view, in BH narrative all characteristics of the complex-nominal style pertain to density in this sense. The phenomenon that in written language these features occur together is related to cultural and technical factors alike. The technique of writing enables the scribe to reread what he has written; to correct it (if necessary); to add what he has forgotten at the correct place; to remove whatever seems, in hindsight, redundant (Chafe 1985:105; Miller and Weinert 1998: 22); and thus to build well-formed, intricate sentences (Halliday 1989: 73-75, 87). In this regard spoken discourse, which is produced instantaneously, does not offer the same technical possibilities (Biber 1995: 2-4),27 while the limitations on the production of sentences, such as breathing, intonation, and short-term memory, are far more evident (Miller and Weinert 1998: 22; Chafe 1980: 33-49; 1994: 45-48, 53-70, 108-19).28 Moreover, from a cultural point of view, in a written text the integration is realized by diverse intricate syntactic constructions, for example, causal, temporal and final clauses in hypotaxis, which enable the writer to join various aspects of the subject matter into one interlocked discourse (Halliday 1989: 87,93-96; Notopoulos 1949: 1-8; Winter 1994).29 Texts of this kind demand a reader who is able to decode such intricate structures. Thus the density of written discourse is a cultural rather than an exclusively 26. See also Halliday 1989: 87. When Halliday describes a series of highly intricate clauses as 'simple', he does not mean syntactic structure but the opposition to the dynamic complexity of spoken discourse. 27. On speaking as an instantaneous activity see pp. 55-59, below. 28. This is not the place to discuss involvement and formality as stylistic factors (Tannen 1984b; 1985; Beaman 1984). A variety of different parameters is analyzed by Biber 1995: 18-37, 95-111,270-79, 318-20, 359-61; Kim and Biber 1994: 179; Biber andHared 1994: 191-211. 29. On the integration of idea units in written texts see also, e.g., Chafe 1982: 39, 52-53; 1994:42,44-45,278-300; Gumperz, Kaltman and O'Connor 1984: 7-9,13-15; Stubbs 1982; Tannen 1985: 130-31; Biber 1995: 274.
Polak Style is More than the Person
51
stylistic phenomenon (Biber and Conrad 2001: 186-87; Winter 1994: 47-50, 66-68). b. The Cultural Setting of the Complex-Nominal Style These circumstances suggest a strong connection between the knowledge of writing and the use of the complex-nominal style.30 Indeed, the Aramaic documents of Persian times were written by professionals, as shown by the subscripts of some of the contracts, for example: ]H] "D iTD!"lQ DPQ UEJin "1H !T]T DBS ('Mahseyah son of Nathan wrote [this] according to the speaking of Yedanyah son of Hosea", CAP 25,1. 17; Porten and Yardeni 1989: 48). Small wonder, then, that in biblical narrative the characteristics of the complex-nominal style stand out in texts from the Persian era, for example, Esth. 3.12:
/ <-[^on nso> itnp^i ] <]an niH ~\m ^3D> nnm / <mnSH ^1>
/ iDiKfcD / mrou [«nrioi nna> n^> ^«i nnnDi / DHDD [ DBD] On the thirteenth day of the first month the king's scribes were summoned and a decree was issued, as Haman ordered, to the king's satraps, to the governors of every province, and to the officials of every people, to every province in its own script and to every people in its own language. The orders were issued in the name of King Ahasuerus and sealed with the king's signet.
And also 2 Chron. 30.1:
/ [ ^n ^»] irrpirr r6izH linn ni"ia» D:I [<*?Kigr ^n^^> rb>} nos mai?1? = [] wa1? Hezekiah sent word to all Israel and Judah; he also wrote letters to Ephraim and Manasseh, to come to the House of the Lord in Jerusalem, to keep the Passover for the Lord God of Israel.
Accordingly, the use of the complex-nominal style is not only a matter of typology, but also of setting. This style is at home in the scribal chancery. 30. This inference is underscored by the use of the complex-nominal style in a number of writtern texts, for example, Deut. 17.18-19; 31.19, 22, 24-25; Josh. 18.8; Jer. 36.6. On Deut. 27.3, Josh. 8.32 and Exod. 31.18 see Polak 2001b: 57-58; 2002: 264-65.
52
Biblical Hebrew
Its rules and norms are set by the professional scribe, who knows how to plan the discourse, and to formulate intricate sentences, who is able to reread them and to insert corrections wherever necessary. That is to say, the technical and cultural knowledge involved in the use of the complexnominal style presupposes a well-developed, professional bureaucracy as provided most readily by the royal administration.31 In biblical narrative, the characteristics of the complex-nominal style are demonstrated by the redaction of the book of Kings, since the chronological framework refers to written records concerning the deeds of the kings, for example: [<"U2p.!)2& 1iepl> «HQT -"Ql> TH>] [«b«HKT 'ZbEb>
[ «BSKnrr '"m> -irn>] [«rmrr 'DbDb>
The concept of writing, then, is basic to the redactional framework of the book of Kings. The administrative background of the complex-nominal style is demonstrated by the complex sentences that indicate the beginning and length of the the king's period of rule, for example:
[ man] ~jba [«nin- "jbo> NDNb> <&bc rat£n> <™ ymai nne?y> nmnn In the third year of King Asa of Judah, Baasha son of Ahijah became king in Tirzah over all Israel for 24 years. (1 Kgs 15.33) 31. Crenshaw 1998: 29-49, 87-113; Erman 1966: Iv-li, 185-88; Weinfeld 1972: 158-66; I. Young 1998a: 419-20. The assumption of a royal chancery (including a school) is necessitated by the existence of a rather unified orthographic standard, differing from that of Phoenician and Aramaic, but similar in the Mesha stele and the inscriptions from Samaria and Judah (e.g. the use of// as mater lectionis indicating the vowel /o/ at the end of the word), and the commonalities of epistolographic formulation, for example, the use of fin introducing the operative paragraph. The existence of a system of this type over three centuries and in a number of different centers presupposes some centralization (Puech 1988: 201), and an expertise which could hardly be provided by private instruction only.
Polak Style is More than the Person
53
nmm ^u ~f?tt [ BBtmm]
[«6tnizr 'pQ> 3«n«^> <w"i& n]tra>] islaa [
[^nbc nn> mill?] /D Now Jehoshaphat son of Asa bad-become king of Judah in the fourth year of King Ahab of Israel. Now Jehoshaphat [was] 35 years old when hebecame-king, and for 25 years he reigned in Jerusalem. Now his mother's name was Azubah daughter of Shilhi. (1 Kgs 22.41-42)
These sentences contain an abundance of administrative detail that is specified in a clause with no less than five arguments (1 Kgs 15.33), comprising an indication of time ('in the third year of King Asa of Judah'), a subject ('Baasha son of Ahijah'), a local modifier ('in Tirzah'), an indirect object ('over all Israel'), and an indication of duration ('for 24 years'). One also notes long noun groups, for example, 'in the fourth year of King Ahab of Israel', and an infinitive clause CO7EQ). Thus the redaction of the book of Kings is couched in the complex-nominal style,32 and presupposes the royal administration and the scribal desk. Moreover, scribal expertise fulfills a central role in the tale of the discovery of the Torah during the temple restoration, since it was Shaphan the sopher, who read the scroll to the king.33 This pericope (2 Kgs 22.8-11) and the royal solemnization of the covenant (23.1-3) are couched in the complex-nominal style. In Deuteronomy the idea of writing the law stands at the center of the ceremonies mentioned in chs. 27 and 31 (Niditch 1996: 79-80, 86-8S),34 and these accounts themselves are formulated in the complex-nominal style.35 32. Also note the indication of the royal sins (15.26b—a noun phrase with three nouns and an attributive clause). For the following texts see Polak 1998 (relevant page numbers supplied in brackets): 1 Kgs 10.1-7 (67-68, and Polak 2001b: 71-72); 2 Kgs 11.3-20 (92-94); 16.5-9; 22.3-11 (67-68). 33. In fact, Lohfink (1991: 75-79) finds a connection between some of the biographical narratives in the book of Jeremiah (Jer. 26; 36; and parts of Jer. 37-43) to members of the Shaphan family, who also seem very conscious of the tale of the discovery of the Deuteronomy scroll (2 Kgs 22-23). 34. Deut. 27.3,8; 31.9,24; and in legal context: Deut. 17.8; 24.1,3. After teaching the 'Song of Moses' (Deut. 31.19ab), it is also to be written down as witness (31.19b, 2la). Note also 11.20. 35. Characteristically, the case of divorce quoted in the Deuteronomic law involve the writing of a contract (niT"O "ISO il1? Hfm, Deut. 24.3) which is not mentioned in the prophetic allusion to this or a similar case (Jer. 3.1). The 'bill of divorce' is mentioned in the prosaic homily (Jer. 3.8), and in Isa. 50.1 (in Isa. 40-66 the root DPQ occurs in 44.5; 65.6).
54
Biblical Hebrew
In the Jeremiah Vita one notes the tale of the redemption of the field of the prophet's uncle, Hanamel, for which a written deed is drawn (Jer 32.12), a document that is to be preserved in a (2Tin ^D ('an earthen jar', 32.14).36 The Jeremiah tales also mention technical terms such as "ISO mpan (32.11), "ISO fte (36.2), "1SDH POT1? (36.12), "ISDn "ll?n (36.23). A clear indication of the administrative expertise is provided by the elaborate system of dating, for example, 'in the ninth month of the fifth year of King Jehoiakim' (Jer. 36.9; similarly 28.1).37 Baruch is servin Jeremiah in a private capacity (36.4; 32.13), but in these chapters, the role of the royal bureaucracy and the royal scribe also is very much in evidence (Jer. 36.10, 12,20-21, 23-26; 37.15,20). These circumstances imply more than just scribal know-how. Legal formulation presupposes a polished linguistic culture. The cultural implications of the development of the royal bureaucracy are clarified by the tale of the confrontation between Rabshakeh and Hezekiah's ministers:
npra n~i ^N rwn nncn irrpbn p a'p^w "iotn iDnjN D11 BOB -a rra~iN -j'lafl b« ND ~ai nonn *?« -\m nun ^JTNII mirr iDQfl imn ^»i Then Eliakim son of Hilkiah, Shebna, and Joah replied to the Rabshakeh, 'Speak now to your servants in Aramaic, for we understand that; but do not speak to us in Judean in the hearing of the people on the wall'. (2 Kgs 18.26)
According to this verse, which itself exemplifies the complex-nominal style,38 the king's ministers take it for granted that the soldiers and civilians 36. Writing is mentioned in Jer. 32.10, 12, 44; 36.2, 4, 6, 17, 27, 28, 32; 45.1 51.60. And in a purely prophetic context: 17.1, 13; 22.30; 25.13; 30.2; 31.33. This is more than in any other book of the Major Prophets (Isa. 1-36, six cases; 40-66, two instances; Ezek. 1-39, seven examples; 40-48, one case). 'Written documents' (~ISD) are mentioned in 24 passages in Jeremiah (e.g. 3.8; 25.13; 29.1,29; 30.2; 32.10-16,44; 36.2-18; 45.1; 51.60, 63); while 'scribes' (ISO) are mentioned in 12 (e.g. 8.8; 36.21 26,32; 37.15,20; 52.25). The noun HDD is found once in Ezekiel (13.9); nine times in Esther (e.g. 3.12; 4.8); once in Hebrew Daniel (10.21) and in Ezra 2.61 (//Neh. 7.64); also note 1 Chron. 28.19; 2 Chron 2.10 (no parallel in 1 Kgs 5.20-21); 35.4. In Aramaic, note Ezra 4.7; 6.18; 7.22; Dan. 5.7,8,15-17,24-25; 6.9-11 (ten cases in Dan. 5-6). See also n. 40, below. 37. So also 32.1; 36.1; 40.1; 41.1; and less elaborated: 34.1, 8; 35.1; 37.1. Als note the elaborate list of addresses in 29.1; 44.1. In the LXX the text of these verses largely reflects that of the MT, unlike 27.1 (not represented by the Greek). In 26.1; 36.9 (33.1; 43.9) the LXX offers a shorter version of the royal titles. 38. One notes the long nominal group in the first and the third clause (five and three nouns respectively), and the high number of arguments per clause (2-2-1-3).
Polak Style is More than the Person
55
on the walls would not be able to understand a formal address in Aramaic. Only people with extensive education and governmental experience would have the required expertise. Hence the social context in which this style was esteemed and cultivated was that of the developed monarchy, and its bureaucratic framework. The cultural context, then, of the complex-nominal style is that of a society in which scribes, scribal technology, and scribal administration occupy a central place. Thus the scribal desk and the royal bureaucracy provide the social background against which to view the narrative sections in the book of Deuteronomy (chs. 1-6; 9-10; 31-34); many sections in the book of Kings (e.g. 1 Kgs 3; 15-16; 2 Kgs 11-12; 14-25); parts of the books of Joshua (chs. 3-8; 22-24)39 and Jeremiah (chs. 26-28; 32; 36-43; 52). From a chronological point of view the most plausible candidate for a historical context of this style is the late Judean monarchy, under which the royal bureaucracy was becoming more and more important, and the period of Babylonian and Persian domination.40 (Additional aspects of this issue will be treated later, in the discussion of the societal aspects of stylistics.) c. The Wisdom of Speech In contrast, many signs indicate that the rhythmic-verbal style has its roots in spoken language, and thus in oral narrative (Chafe 1987: 22-24, 38-40; Miller and Weinert 1998: 14-22). According to a number of crosscultural linguistic studies, concerning, inter alia, English (from different regions and strata),41 German, Russian, Modern Greek, Japanese, Korean, 39. In the book of Joshua the complex-nominal style is the prevailing one. On Josh. 9; 22; 24, see Polak 1998: 91, 95-96. Writing is mentioned in covenantal and administrative contexts (Josh. 1.8; 8.31-34; 24.26; 18.4-9, respectively). 40. The verb HfO (not including the passive participle) has 120 instances in the Hebrew Bible, including the Aramaic parts. It is highly frequent in the books reflecting the Persian period (Esther = 15 cases [34.97% of all verbs in qal]; Ezra = seven cases [35.90%]; Nehemiah - eight cases [12.60%]; Daniel = four cases [11.08%]), but it does not occur in Genesis, Ruth, 1 Kgs 1-20 and Leviticus (these points have been duly noted by Wahl 1997: 113-15). In Judges it is found only once (8.14); in Samuel it occurs three times in narrative context (1 Sam. 10.25; 2 Sam. 11.14-15). For Chronicles the situation is similar (1 Chron. 24.6; 2 Chron. 26.22; 30.1; 32.17). ~ISD ('written documents') occurs in 191 cases, only one of them in a heading in Genesis (5.1); see also n. 36, above. 41. The discussions based on the English Pear stories (Chafe, Tannen, Beaman and Clancy) reflect a Californian student public (Tannen 1984b: 22 n. 1); Biber's spoken language data (1995: 42-43) reflect a group of middle-class, male academics (Miller
56
Biblical Hebrew
Nukulaelae Tuvaluan (spoken on an atoll in the Central Pacific Tuvaluan group), Somali, Tamil and Turkish, spoken language is characterized by a number of different phenomena (Chafe 1985).42 (a) Fragmented syntax—Miller and Weinert (1998: 22) assert that 'the syntax of spontaneous spoken language is in general fragmented and unintegrated'.43 (b) Frequent use of short clauses—Miller and Weinert (1998: 22) find that in spontaneous spoken language 'the clausal constructions are less complex' than in written language.44 (c) Pronominal reference—according to Miller and Weinert (1998: 22) in spontaneous spoken language 'deictics' play 'a central role in signalling relationships between chunks of syntax'.45 (d) Disinclination to various kinds of subordination46—Miller and Weinert (1998:22) conclude that 'spontaneous spoken language typically has far less grammatical subordination than written language and much more coordination or simple parataxis'.47 and Weinert 1998: 13). Miller and Weinert (pp. 7-9) use texts from various different regions in Scotland and representing different social strata. 42. See also B. Fox 1987: 137-39; Biber and Hared 1994: 187-92, 200-203, 206-209; Biber 1995: 105-11, 238-42, 270-79 (and nn. 24 and 25, above); Biber and Conrad 2001: 184-91; Miller and Weinert 1998: 14-22. 43. Miller and Weinert 1998: 23-26, 58-71. Eggins and Slade (1997: 89-95) mention elliptical and minor clauses (having no syntactic structuralization). In Halliday's approach this is the complexity of spoken language (1989: 76-91). 44. See also Eggins and Slade 1997: 75-89, 111-15; Miller and Weinert 1998: 15-16, 46-49. Due to the emphasis on tagging for computerized analysis, Biber does not present a syntactic analysis, but indicates various measures of 'elaboration' characteristic of written language (Biber 1995: 334-35). 45. See also Crystal and Davy 1969: 102-103,112; Clancy 1980: 127-33,167-75, 197-98 (discussing English and Japanese); Hausendorf 1995; Miller and Weinert 1998: 267-306; Biber and Conrad 2001: 185. B. Fox (1987:137-38,140-48) finds deep-lying differences in the syntactic use of pronominal reference in spoken (pp. 16-76) and written English (pp. 93-136). 46. See Miller and Weinert 1998: 72-79, 94-99, 142-44. But Miller and Weinert (1998: 79-94) show that 'topical adverbial clauses' and various kinds of relative clauses are not infrequent in spontaneous spoken discourse, although their structure differs from that of similar clauses in written language (1998: 100-32; see also n. 25, above). 47. For this research, 'parataxis' is defined as the connection between clauses by the copula, in a variety of functions, for example, as waw consecutive or waw conjunctive, or by asyndetic junction. Thus the logical relation between the clauses is
Polak Style is More than the Person (e)
57
Disinclination to long nominal groups—Miller and Weinert (1998: 22) assert that in spontaneous spoken language 'a small quantity of information' is 'assigned to each phrase and clause'; 'phrases are less complex than phrases of written language'.48
Thus modern linguistic research recognizes a cross-cultural profile of spoken language. The characteristic features of the rhythmic-verbal style fit this profile exactly. On a more general level Halliday (1989: 72-86) characterizes spoken discourse by (1) its lexical sparsity (i.e. the low amount of content words per clause), and (2) the free connection between the clauses in a clause complex rather than in a well-formed sentence.49 Thus the opposition between spoken and written language is that between two different overall structures, between sparsity and density, between freely connected clause complex and well-formed sentence. Let me illustrate this thesis with the help of a piece of transcribed English dialogue: 'Look. See that guy. He plays the double-bass.' 'Does he?' 'In the orchestra. He is a funny bastard, and his wife is German and he is insane' (Eggins and Slade 1997: 67).50 The short staccato clauses in this conversation illustrate the typical form of casual, spontaneous spoken language.51 Even when public occasions cause the speaker to use more formal language, his discourse use still differs from that of written language.52 The reason for this tendency is obvious: spoken language is produced on the spot in face-to-face interaction (Chafe 1994: 41-44; implied by the context (Rynell 1952: 31-36). At the time Eduard Nielsen (1954: 36) suggested defining oral composition in the Hebrew Bible, inter alia, by means of the paratactic style. However, Nielsen does not indicate which text will count as paratactic and which will not. 48. See also Miller and Weinert 1998: 132-33, 139-82. 49. With regard to the status of clause and sentence Halliday's approach is significantly supported by the extensive discussions of Miller and Weinert 1998: 28-49, 72-81. 50. See also the narratives analyzed by Eggins and Slade 1997: 227-72; Biber 1995: 329-33; Miller and Weinert 1998: 15, 23-24, 29, and excerpts on pp. 146-49. 51. For the present argument the term 'spontaneous spoken language' (Miller and Weinert 1998: 14-15, 23) is of critical importance, since spoken formal language can be intricate when used by persons who have learned how to use formal language, such as clergymen, jurists, and other academics (p. 38). 52. Different dimensions of spoken discourse are analyzed by Miller and Weinert (1998: 14-22), on the basis of samples designed to be large enough so as to be representative (pp. 6-14), and differentiated enough so as to reflect diverse types of speakers (PP. 19-21).
58
Biblical Hebrew
Miller and Weinert 1998: 22).53 Self-correction ('self-repair') is possible (Hutchby and Wooffitt 1998: 57-69), but interrupts the flow of information, and thus contributes toward the typical fragmented character of spoken discourse. In written texts, on the other hand, correction does not leave its imprint on syntactic structure. The kind of planning involved in the process of composing written texts (Ochs 1979; Stubbs 1980; Chafe 1982; 1994:41-50), is inconceivable in spoken discourse. Hence, the intricate syntactic structures and stylistic patterns found frequently in written texts are hardly compatible with the context of spoken language. In contrast, oral discourse attains the connection between various themes by means of the complex interaction of a succession of clauses, intonation, rhythm, and body language (Halliday 1989: 46-60, 82-86), and the involvement of the addressee in the reception of the message (Tannen 1989: 169-95).54 The audience that is being addressed by narrators using this style, must be able to appreciate its particular subtleties, that are quite different from the qualities of written texts. Thus the cultural conditions presupposed by orally communicated narrative (and other texts) are totally different from those ingrained in written discourse. The characteristic style of oral narratives has been discussed extensively in cross-cultural linguistic research (Chafe 1980; 1985; Tannen 1982; Ervin-Tripp and Kuntay 1997). Excellent examples are found in some tales such as those recorded and collected by Dorson (1960; 1964).55 For instance: Jack says, 'Give me a tomahawk'. (That's a thing like a hatchet 'cept it has two heads to hit. They used hit in olden times. Indians used to use hit to scalp with.) 'And I may be in for dinner, and hit may be night when I get in'. So they give him a tomahawk and he went over in the forest and climb a great, long pine. (Dorson 1964: 169)
53. Halliday (1989: 78) describes spoken discourse as a 'medium in which text is a process (and becomes a product only by translation—being "written down")'. See also Chafe 1982: 38; 1985: 105; Biber 1995: 2-4, 238; Hutchby and Wooffitt 1998: 54-92, 149-54; Biber and Conrad 2001: 191. 54. On involvement of addressee and audience see also, e.g., Eggins and Slade 1997: 116-68; Notopoulos 1949: 17-21; Chafe 1982: 52; Tannen 1984a: 54-129, 144-53; 1989: 9-35. 55. Wahl (1997: 126-32) points to the simple sentences, the verbal style, and the short noun phrases (at most one apposition) in some oral narratives, but does not check these aspects of the Jacob narrative (pp. 245-67). On the other hand, he highlights colloquial language (Polak 200Ib: 59-74) and couleur locale (I. Young 1995).
Polak Style is More than the Person
59
The non-standard pronunciation 'hit' for standard 'it' indicates the regional language. One notes the short clauses and the restricted use of noun groups ('two heads', 'olden times', 'a great, log pine'), the paratactic clause connections ('And I may be...and hit may be', 'and he went...and climb'). Hypotaxis, however, is found more than in biblical narrative (four clauses out of 13). Another tale concerns a strong-man (Dorson 1964: 41): Broke his neck. Broke the horse's neck because he didn't like the policeman. He said something to him, and he was in Portland. And that's when the police were on horses. And he hauled off and thumped the horse and broke his neck—killed by him right in the street.56
This fragment contains even less hypotactic clauses and complex noun phrases than the previous excerpt. In general, then, the characteristic style of oral narrative is close to casual, spontaneous spoken language. Since this style is also displayed by the rhythmic-verbal diction in biblical narrative, it seems that the sources of this diction are to be found in oral narrative. This inference is supported by the rich evidence for the rhythmic-verbal style in the folktales found in the midrashic Aggadah, which reflects the preacher's speaking voice (such as Vayyiqra Kabbah, Eichah Kabbah; Alexander 1991; Stemberger 1992: 241-44). In addition, it is possible to point to the language used by biblical stories that are by consensus considered close to the ancient folktale, for example, the tales of Samson (Judg. 14-15), and Elisha (2 Kgs 4; 6-8).57 Linguistic analysis shows that the biblical rhythmic-verbal narrative style resembles that of quoted speech (direct discourse; Polak 2001b: 59-65; 200Ic: 53-65). More than a few signs suggest that the ancient Israelite narrators were aware that the language used for speaking has its own characteristics that set it apart from written language. The style of the Ezra memoirs in general is 'complex-nominal'par excellence, but casual language is used when the narrator has to introduce a person as speaking (Polak 2001b: 65-72; 2001c: 57-60), for example,
56. Also note Labov's analysis of (pre-)adolescent tales in the South Central Harlem (1972: xviii-xxii), in particular his stylistic characterizations (pp. 359-95 [esp. p. 380]). 57. Polak 1998: 78-81; 200Ib: 65-73; 200Ic: 63-77. For the Samson tales see Niditch 1990. On the Elisha tales see Rofe 1988a: 13-18; S.D. Hill 1992; Hoover Renteria 1992; Todd 1992:4-8. Na'aman(1997b: 160-72) highlights the way in which the Dtr redaction of Kings uses the prophetic narratives and battle accounts as 'historical' sources.
60
Biblical Hebrew ™m / pm / -pa umKi / nmn j^r ^ / Dip Take-action, for the responsibility is yours, and we are with-you. Be strong, and act. (Ezra 10.4)
By the same token, the historiographic anecdote in the book of Kings has Joash address the Judean king, Amaziah, in casual language: ipy rmm nn« nn^BDi / nim mnn na^i / ~\rm nen / lion Enjoy-your-glory but stay home. For why provoke-disaster, and fall, you and Judah with-you? (2 Kgs 14.10)
Thus, even narrators who use the complex-nominal style are aware of the special nature of spoken language.58 For a better appreciation of this similarity it is important to note that the linguistic profile of spontaneous spoken language is for a large part dependent on face-to-face interaction (Miller and Weinert 1998: 140-41, 194,267-68; Hausendorf 1995). When the speakers face one another they share a common background, and can ask for clarification. In such a context ellipsis and reference by deictics and pronouns are self-evident. Hence the preference for deixis and the tacit changes of subject (implicit turn taking), such as found in the tale of Elisha and Hazael:59 m» *?« R3-1 /ircr^K n»Q -p^ (v. 14) rrnn rrn / ^ IQR / -on / ovrbm "p IQ« nos/ -\b "ovi / r3s bo p~isn / D"E3 ^ncri / i:Dan npM / ninoo m (v. is) vnnn ^»nin "pn^ I non And he (= Hazael) left Elisha / and returned to his master / and he (= BenHadad) asked him, 'What did Elisha say to you?' And he (= Hazael) said, 'He (= Elisha) told me "(you) will recover'". / And j^it] was the next day, and he (= Hazael) took a-piece-of-netting, dipped [it] in water, and spread [it] over his face. So he (= Ben-Hadad) died, and Hazael became-king instead.
A recent translation of v. 15 introduces explicit indications of the subject: The next day, Hazael took a piece of netting, dipped it in water, and spread it over his face. So Ben-Hadad died. (2 Kgs 8.14-15 NJPS)
In the Hebrew, however, the identification of the two participants is dependent on the understanding of their role in the context at hand, as 58. The corollary is that dialogue is only partially indicative of the rhythmic-verbal style. The main characteristics must be detected on the level of the narrative sequence in the narrator's voice (Polak 200Ib: 64-65). 59. On these subjects see de Regt 1999: 13-19, 28-31; Polak 200la: 208-18.
Polak Style is More than the Person
61
customary in face-to-face interaction. In this respect, then, the rhythmicverbal style reflects the nature of oral discourse: in written texts complete, explicit reference is required. All characteristics of oral narrative are found in the tale of the wild vine (2 Kgs 4.38-41): / VDS1? D-aizr D^nari ^m / pan amm / rtoan 30 svrbw (v. 38 / D'K'aDn -331? TTD ^em / n^nan TDH ns& / •nujb -om uan cap^-i / me? ]s: KHITI / niNjsp1^ men *?« in» Km (v. 39 / IUT «b '3 / TTDH TO ^K rrba'i / NTI / 1133 N^n mto nups / ipuu nnm / TTDHD nbriND TH / ITD»I? D'traK1? pin (v. 40) / ^73^ l^T »^l / D'n^KH t£T« TDD HID / TOn
/ i^3^i / DU^ pu / -iD«-i / TDH ^« "jben / nop inpi / -iiatn (v. 41 TDD y"i -QI n^n «bi Elisha returned to-Gilgal. [There was a] famine in-the-land, and thedisciples-of the-prophets were-sitting before-him. [He] said to-his-servant, 'Set the-large-pot, and cook a-stew for-the-prophets'-disciples'. So one [of them] went out into the fields to gather sprouts, and came-across a wild vine and picked from it wild gourds his garment full, and came-back and sliced [them] into the pot of stew, for [they] did not know, and [they] served [it] for the people to eat. While they were eating of the stew, they cried-out and said: 'Death in the pot, man of God!' And [they] could not eat [it]. But [he] said: 'Fetch [some] flour'. [He] threw [it] into the pot and said, 'Serve [it] to the people and [let them] eat'. And [there was] nothing harmful in the pot.
This tale represents the worries of the common people,60 and their solution by the prophet's magical arts (S.D. Hill 1992: 39-45; Hoover Renteria 1992: 92-113, 116). Hence it obviously originates in popular culture.61 This surmise suits the rhythmic-verbal style of the narrative, as shown by the extended verbal sequences in vv. 39b-41:62 60. The assumption of a farmer-based, anti-establishment background for the tales of Elijah and Elisha is strengthened considerably by the archeological discovery of a farmer stratum under the building strata of Jezre'el (Zimhoni 1997: 83-84, 87; Na'aman 1997a: 124-25). 61. The generic definition of Gressmann (1914:24; 1921:269-70) is supported by comparison to the popular French and English-Scottish literature of the sixteentheighteenth centuries: Mandrou 1999: 20-25, 44-49; Bolleme 1971: 18-20. Spufford (1981: 3-9, 50-65, 227, 231) comments on the connection between the chapbook and oral literature, and highlights popular religious literature ('Small godly books', pp. 194-213), and folk heroes (pp. 222, 229-32). 62. The construction of TH with infinitive construct, for example, Q^DKD TH, is analyzed as an indication of setting in the opening of a narrative sequence (Polak 1998: 73). Because of its direct connection to the narrative sequence, a clause of this type is
Biblical Hebrew
62
I TT3HD D^3N3 TPI / 1ITT N1? '3 / TT3i1 TD ^N nl?B
natri / ipuii nom i*73tn / nr^ pn / -on / Ton h>« f ben / nap inpi / -intn Clauses with multiple arguments are rare, but do occur in the exposition.63 V]Sb D'ner D-tran -m/n^n 3271?^^. The few noun groups consist of two words only (e.g. H^llJin TDH, m2? ]SH). The resulting picture is clarified by the following table: Table 4. Elisha and the Wild Vine Selected Samples from the Text
Km
0 Arguments
1 Argument
%
Total Cases in Text 5
17.86
13
46.43
18 7
64.29 25.00
3
10.71
— 9
32.14
1UT Vh "D TON1!
TDtn ibn«ni p«3 Duim n^nan TDH nsD TDH b» i^^i mto ]B3 Kao11! TT3H TO ^« n^S1!
Total 0-1 Arguments 2+ Arguments
n^^ pu T'DD un -m n-'n «^i
n^;^n ne; rerbw VDB1? D"3er D^-DDH "331
Dsn^Kn Kr« Ton ma
Simple Subordination
1133 «^Q niKJ Hi?pB 1DQQ Dp^l 1
rnuBpli men *?« in» KH ! ^138?? D-KWh) ipu-l ^D^b l^D' «^1
Complex Subordination Short Noun Groups
— D^^DH •'331
—
rrbnj Ton mra ]33 1133 «^Q TT3H TO
not dependent on the following clause (with a wow consecutive). See also Eskhult 1990: 30-31; Niccacci 1990: 152, 156-61. 63. On the stylistic character of the exposition see Polak 2001b: 64-65; 2001c: 65, 77.
Polak Style is More than the Person I Long Noun Groups
-
63 -
-
This tale, then, has all characteristics of the rhythmic-verbal style. The story Gehazi told the king was probably couched in a similar style, for the cycle of the Northern prophets contains many examples of this diction. d. The Cultural Setting of the Rhythmic-Verbal Style The importance of this stylistic characterization is underscored by the cultural aspects. The tale of the wild vine is dominated by the theme of the prophet's magical power, a theme also frequent in other tales of Elisha (Rofe 1988a: 14-15). In this respect the Elisha cycle is close to a number of narratives, all in the rhythmic-verbal style, that contain residues of ancient, possibly animistic and dynamistic conceptions, such as the tale of Jacob's wrestling with the Angel (Gen. 32.25-33; Ringgren 1968: 73; Geller 1982: 37-38, 44-55),64 and the tale of the divine assault on Moses (Exod. 4.24-26; Avishur 1999: 137-72; Geller 1982: 57-58). The Moses tale contains a relatively large number of short clauses,65 two clauses with two arguments ("liJ HlSiJ npm, ^ nnK D'CTf JDH n D), and only one case of hypotaxis (irPQil £p!IH). The exposition of the Jacob tale and the etiological note contain some long clauses (v. 33: ''ID I^D^1' $b p br
nin Dvn 11? "pri =p ^ -\m mri T: n» ^trrcr) and some cases of hypotaxis (v. 26: "intOT Hlbu "TI? 1EU ET» pHtTl; v. 32: tODKTI 1^ mn b^l]S DN "QU "123KD). But most clauses include no more than a predicate with one argument (v. 29: ^IPl Dn^]« Din DTrbK DU me? ^).66 These episodes, then, are excellent examples for the rhythmic-verbal style, which also prevails in the tale of the three mysterious wayfarers at the terebinths of Mamre with its well-known mythical background (Gen. 18.1-15; Avishur 1999: 57-74; Polak 2001b: 62-64, 73; 2001c: 53-54). 64. Geller (1982: 38-39, 52-57) focuses on the exegetical import of the duality implied by the combination of the ancient relics with the national level of pentateuchal narrative. 65. The Moses tale contains nine short clauses out of 12 (75%), with predicate only ("lIDKm) or with one argument (71 inraS'l, rbrb Wm), sometimes in the form of a pronoun/adverb (1DDD ^Tl, mQN IN). Noun groups include one apposition ("p"Q ]1^Q3), and a few construct states (T1D3 rblU, D'Ql ]Pin [33%]). The three intricate clauses cover 25% of all clauses. 66. The tale of Gen. 32.25-33 includes 37 clauses, 21 of which contain at most one argument (56.76%), ten contain between two and four arguments (27.03%), and five occur in hypotaxis (13.51%). Long noun groups occur in 29.73% of the clauses. One has to note that the motif of the Jacob tale is used and attenuated in the prophecy of Hos. 12.
64
Biblical Hebrew
The fact that tales embodying such ancient and popular beliefs and mythic residues67 are couched in the rhythmic-verbal style is consistent with the thesis that this style reflects the diction of ancient Israelite oral narrative, with roots in the archaic culture of village, small townlet, and encampment.68 This inference is corroborated by the fact that writing is not mentioned anywhere in patriarchal narrative (Gandz 1935: 249-50; Demsky 1988: 18).69 Although negative evidence in general cannot be regarded as affirmative proof to the contrary (Fischer 1970: 47-49), one can hardly disregard the fact that none of the agreements recounted in these narratives is represented as backed up by a written document. The quasi-political covenant ceremony of Laban and Jacob includes the putting up of pillars and a solemn declaration, but not the inscription of any written enumeration of obligations and witnesses. Nor are messages of Jacob and Esau accompanied by written missives, unlike Sennacherib's 'letter' to Hezekiah (2 Kgs 19.14: DHSDil/^/7/r/w).70 Thus, even though these agreements andmessages are concerned with regulating the relationship with Arameans and Edomites, they do not involve a written text. The acquisition of real estate by Abraham and Isaac was formalized in the narrative by oral agreement, not by written contract (Gen. 21.22-32; 23.6-18; 26.28-30), even though the narrative is most interested in the validity of the witnesses' testimony (23.18) and the presents given on the occasion (21.2830; Pedersen 1914: 24-25, 52-54). We are hardly allowed to surmise that these tales represent the same kind of culture as the narratives in which the royal administration necessitates writing even for purposes of far less 67. Not all narratives embodying such ancient beliefs are couched in the rhythmicverbal style. The late classical style is found in Gen. 2-A and in Judg. 13.15-23. But in these tales the numinous element is less vehement than in the tales of Jacob and Moses quoted above. Even in the Adam narrative, the concrete divine presence is indicated by hearing and speaking, whereas even the Abraham tale alludes to divine dining. 68. See Otto 1996; 1999:366. 69. The emphasis on Jabbok, Mahanaim, and Penuel in the Jacob narrative favors the conclusion that these tales precede the Assyrian conquest of Gilead (734 BCE). Even if one assumes that the narrative was composed only after this conquest, one has to admit (1) that the narrator is familiar with the data by virtue of a living tradition, and (2) that he presumes that his public is also acquainted with the situation. 70. In contrast, the well-known statement concerning the correspondence between the spoken proclamation by the messenger and the written text on the tablet (the Muwatalli-SunaSsara treaty IV, 11.32-39), implies that written messages were standard (Weidner 1923: 108).
Polak Style is More than the Person
65
importance. Would the scribal milieu on its own initiative create an ancestor who is implicitly represented as either unable to formulate a legal obligation in writing, or not interested in jotting it down? The reluctance to ascribe writing to the patriarchs requires explanation, particularly in view of the self-conscious ideology of the masters of the scribal arts (Ps. 45.2).71 And indeed, according is Jubilees 'Jacob learned to write', which for Abraham is a good reason to prefer him to Esau (Jub. 19.14-15).72 But this motive contrasts sharply with the absence of any such allusion in the biblical Jacob cycle. In patriarchal narrative, then, the rhythmic-verbal style fits the archaic cultural horizon implied for the narrated world.73 In the narratives of the savior-judges and the first kings the situation is slightly different, for here writing is occasionally mentioned. The case of the na'ar (probably an official [I. Young 1998a: 250]) who wrote down the names of the magnates of Sukkoth (Judg. 8.14), shows that some townspeople knew reading and writing for administrative purposes (Haran 1988: 84). By contrast, Jotam is represented as proclaiming his riddles from the mountain before he flees to an unknown destination, when he might have remained at a safe distance and addressed the Shechemites by letter. Hence, the public literary culture of the town was popular and oral (Burke 1988: 24-31).74 By the same token, writing is mentioned in the book of Samuel in two cases only: recording the 'manner of the kingdom' (1 Sam. 10.25), and David's letter to Joab concerning Uriah (2 Sam. 11.14-15). The mention of writing in the latter case fulfills a narrative function: since Uriah himself is the messenger, an oral message would be impracticable.75 This tale presumes a limited amount of literacy. A scribe
71. See Pearce 1995: 2265-66; Lichtheim 1976: 168-75; and cf. Prov. 22.29. 72. This is the rendering of Charles 1902: 126 n. 14. The text of the Latin Parva Genesis is 'et didicit Jacob litteras' (Ronsch 1874: 24); see also Greenfield 2001: 941-44. 73. In the narratives concerning the revelation at Mt Sinai writing is mentioned as a divine act, or as a human act in the presence of the divine. Thus the problems posed by these pericopes are not related to human communication in patriarchal narrative. 74. The style of the Gideon narrative is characteristic of the transition to the late classical style (Polak 200 Ic: 78-86). 75. Joab is not represented as sending David any written message, but he'supplied the king ("f^DH ^..."[m) with the number of the people that had been recorded in Israel' (D^H IpSQ HSOE flN, 2 Sam. 24.6; the NJPS has 'reported to the king'). Note that in reporting Uriah's death a tactician like Joab might well have preferred a written message in view of its secrecy and the high subtlety of formulation (2 Sam. 11.19-24).
66
Biblical Hebrew
is found at the court,76 and Joab (or some people in his staff) can read, but writing is not common enough to be perceived as a prerequisite for participation in the public culture of the narrated world. Thus, the stories of Samuel, Saul and David presuppose a society in which writing was an exceptional activity.77 This cultural horizon fits the style of most of the narratives concerning the Patriarchs and the early monarchy.78 A society in which a few people know to write, but the great culture is in the main oral (S.B. Parker 1997: 9), provides an adequate and consistent explanation for the presence of written texts that are formulated in the rhythmic-verbal style, and in which writing is mentioned at best sparingly. In this sense it is possible to describe the rhythmic-verbal style as the classical style of BH narrative, dominating large sections in Genesis 12-35; Exodus 2-24; Numbers 11-12; 22-24; 1 Samuel 11 Kings 2; 1 Kings 17-2 Kings 10. An intermediate style, that is slightly more intricate than the classical rhythmic-verbal style, but not as complicated as the complex-nominal style, is found in, for example, parts of the tales of Joseph (Gen. 40.4-21; Polak 1998: 8S-92),79 and Gideon (Polak 2001 c: 78-85), and the Mesha inscription.
76. The assumption of a relationship between the Egyptian terminology for scribes and other court officials and the titles of David's officials, such as his sopher (ND1C1/ N"1^), has been rejected by Kitchen (1988: 110-13) on compelling linguistic grounds. Kitchen is able to point to Egyptian names that could serve to explain the Hebrew name, but envisions Human prototypes as well. 77. Even the eulogy of Solomon represents the king as a sage who 'spoke 3000 proverbs' (*?ED D'B^R PtD^K? "DTI, 1 Kgs 5.12). In contrast, Qoheleth sought to find out (according to the ASV translation) 'acceptable words, and that which was written uprightly, words of truth' (TDK "131 HET 3irai |*sn nm.Eccl. 12.10). The culture presumed in the latter verse is literate, whereas the former verse presupposes a mainly oral culture. 78. The scribal society described by Lipihski (1988) belongs to a later period. 79. This stratum also includes the tales of Adam and Eve and Cain and Abel, which in source criticism are attributed to 'J'. From a stylistic point of view, however, these tales are hardly comparable with most sections in the cycles of Abraham and Jacob, which mostly adhere to the classical rhythmic-verbal style (Polak 1998: 81 -85). Thus, it seems counterintuitive to maintain the unity of the presumed 'J' source (or subsources). Within the tales of Abraham and Jacob no stylistic differences are observable between the hypothetical 'J' and 'E' sources, whereas they are minimal in. for example, Gen. 37 (see Polak 2002: 266-68). Hence systematic stylistic analysis does not support the source-critical distinctions within the non-Deuteronomic/non-Priestly narrative texts.
Polak Style is More than the Person
67
3. Two Versions, Two Styles The ancient animistic, dynamistic and mythical conceptions found in the episodes concerning Moses and Jacob are also conspicuous in the tales of the revelation at Mt Sinai and the appointment of the elders in the nonDeuteronomic/non-Priestly sections in Exodus 19-20 and Numbers 11, with their highly concretized sacral sphere that is very near to the human sphere. On the other hand, the Deuteronomic homiletic versions of these tales(Deut. 1; 4-5) stand out by their preference for attenuated, rationalized interpretations, in which the sacral sphere is less concrete and more remote (Weinfeld 1972: 244; 1973; 1991: 55-57; Milgrom 1989: 105-106).80 These differences in worldview are coincident with the stylistic difference, as the Deuteronomic homily employs the complex-nominal diction, in sharp contrast with the rhythmic-verbal style of the correspondent tales in Exodus 19-20 and Numbers 11. The convergence between these linguistic and ideational aspects is the subject of the present section. a. The Appointment of the Elders in the Rhythmic-Verbal Style The tale of the appointment of the elders (Num. 11.16-17,24-30) upholds the sacral (or maybe rather magical) view of the leader's divine inspiration and its spread by means of the actual transfer of the im that was on Moses to the elders, thus impelling them to ecstatic behavior (v. 25; Levine 1993: 338-41; Ringgren 1968: 248-53; Blum 1990: 79-80, 194; Zevit 2001: 499-500). This pericope is dominated by short clauses,81 for example v. 16: ~[QU D£> "OlTnrn. Only the description of the persons to be chosen is more intricate: Dn_i|3_= PITT "mbtrilZr ^pTQ ETK D"jntZ? 'b HSDK in2n.DI?n_!!3pl (v. 16): main clause (two arguments)-relative clauseobject clause/complex hypotaxis. This description includes two long nominal groups (btriKT ^pTD 2TK DTnflandVIKTl Din n ]pT),andtwo subordinate clauses in complex hypotaxis (Dm ^DpT DH S3 PUT "l&K VW1).
80. The particular way in which the Deuteronomic law-giver overhauls the law of Exodus and adapts it to his needs and vision is discussed by Levinson 1997: 3-20, 54-64, 93-97, 144-57. 81. Four clauses contain deictic arguments; see, for instance, D5£) ~|QU TTQTI (Num. 11.17). Half of all clauses (21 out of 42) contain one argument (DH^U ^nOEJl, v. 17; nti?Q Km, v. 24; "On / HKttb TH / lUDH p1"!, v. 27) or consist of predicate only (e.g. TUTl, v. 17; ~I!3K'1, vv. 27, 28).
68
Biblical Hebrew
On the other hand, the description of the transfer of the spirit and the prophesying of Eldad and Medad is formulated in short, plain clauses. In the divine instructions one notes the verbal sequence (v. 17):
nn^y TOOT I T^U ~o* rmn p sn^H«i / uv -|ou Tr-mi / "rn-n I will come down and speak with you there, and I will draw upon the spirit that is on you and put it upon them.
The description of the action itself is dominated by two verbal sequences (v. 25):
/ vh>0 -\m rmn ]Q bum / V^K "QTI / pm n TVI / iKnsrn / rrnn nn^u m:n TH / D-Dpin tjr« D-mra ^u jrn ISO1 K1?! And the Lord came down in a cloud, and spoke to him, and drew-upon the spirit that (was) on him, and put it upon the seventy elders. And when the spirit rested upon them, they acted-in-ecstasy, but did not continue.
Short clauses also stand out in the account of Eldad and Medad, and the bystanders' reaction (vv. 26-27a).82
/ rmn DIT^I? mm /... / mnon D^N *w n«en (v. 26) / nbn«n IRJT N^I / D^:D:I nom / ninan i«3Dmi
rman Dn«33na ITQI n^« / IDK-I / nra^ in / iwn yn-i (v. 2? And two men, one named Eldad and the other Medad, had remained in camp; yet the spirit rested upon them—they [were] among-those-recorded,83 but had-not gone-out to the Tent—and they spoke-in-ecstasy in the camp. A youth ran out and told Moses, saying, 'Eldad and Medad are-acting-theprophet in the camp!'
Thus the parts with the highest numinous content are also those passages in which the rhythmic-verbal style is most prominent. b. The Appointment of the Elders in the Complex-Nominal Style The style of the Deuteronomic version of this episode (Deut. 1.9-17 [30 clauses]) is of quite a different nature. In this version short clauses cover one third of all clauses only; for instance, lID^ni TIN 1DI7m (1.14).
82. Two longer clauses in the opening (pin 71 Tri) and within the sequence (rmn Dn^U m3D ''n1''!) do not change the picture since they do not contain any noun groups. 83. The phrase DTHIDD nom refers to administrative writing (composition of lists) just like in Judg. 8.14.
Polak Style is More than the Person
69
Clauses with multiple argument are frequent; such as, ""DD1DD DVil DDDHI m1? D^D^H (v. 10).84 The appointment of the judges is described in a clause with four arguments and a complex noun phrase (v. 15): rnwu ntm c-oan ntm HIND nen D-B^K -"IBJ D3"bu D*iz»ri DHK ]nw DD-tDDtD^ DnCDlCT
...and I appointed them heads over you: chiefs of thousands, chiefs of hundreds, chiefs of fifties, and chiefs of tens, and officials for your tribes.
In this respect the Deuteronomic version goes far beyond the episode in Numbers (Num. 11.16; but this verse contains a case of complex hypotaxis). Indeed, Moses' complaint in the latter tale contains three arguments andan infinitive clause (Num. 11.14: ^D HK tmh *izfr'DDK SlDIK*b nil"! DIH), and thus seems comparable to the complex-nominal style. But this complaint continues with a short clause, as is normal in the rhythmicverbal style ODQD "Q3 ^3). The Deuteronomic parallel, by contrast, is carried on by a series of clauses with two, three and four arguments: D3HK nnin D3-r6« n (v. lOa) 3-6 D'nm '33133 nvn D3Dm (v. iob) D^QUS *)^« DDD DT^r ^D1 DD^niD^ ^n^« Tl (v. 1 la) D3^ 131 1^3 DDH« 113-1 (v. 1 Ib
This sequence is continued by a long rhetorical question: DDT")! D3KOD1 DDniB H3b KBR HD-W (v. 12)
Only the concluding phrase of v. 13 consists of a short clause—DQ'Wl DD^t^nH (v. 13)—matching the parallel account in Num. 11.17—TID&H DiT^I?. The resemblance to the tale in Numbers is even more obvious in the lexical choice of Moses' complaint itself.85 Compare Num. 11.14: nm nun ^D n« rmvh 'i^b
"DDK
^3i« *b
I am not able to bear all this people alone (ASV) with Deut. 1.9b:
D3n« n«e? •H3b
^3i« y>b
I am not able to bear you myself alone (ASV). 84. Clauses with 0-1 argument are found in ten cases out of 30 (33.33%). 14 clauses (47%) contain two or more arguments; for example: ^D" DDfYnN TI^N 'n D'OUS sf^N DD3 DT^JJ (v. 11). 85. Weinfeld 1972: 244-45. The difference between the two verses lies in (1) the highlighting oP33K in Num. 11; (2) the mention of PITH DIT! ^3 n«.
70
Biblical Hebrew
The narrative formula HOSHl Tl» 13IHT] (Deut. 1.14) is found in the Eldad and Medad scene (Num. 11.28: natri...]l] p 2271 iT fin).86 Thus, with respect to style and lexical choice the tale in Numbers resembles the Deuteronomic version. Nevertheless, decisive differences set the complexnominal style of the episode in Deuteronomy apart from the rhythmicverbal style of the tale in Numbers. Thus even though the Deuteronomic version treats of the same theme as the tale in Numbers, and uses similar lexical and stylistic means, it still employs a different type of discourse. Moreover, in the Deuteronomic version the numinous aspect is not as important as judicial discernment. Not inspiration by the spirit is what counts, but understanding how to judge. In this respect the Deuteronomic version seems rather rationalistic, whereas the tale in Numbers represents the sacral view of an almost concrete transfer of the m~l from one person to another (Weinfeld 1972: 244).87 Thus, we note a double convergence: the sacral vision converges with the rhythmic-verbal, and the rationalistic version with the complex-nominal style. The complex-nominal style, however, hardly is the privilege of the Deuteronomic school. For instance, features that are characteristic of this style are also found in the Jethro tale (Exod. 18.13-27). A clause network that opens with the introductory indication of time in an independent clause (PnnOQ TH, v. 13), continues with two intricate clauses: HKD 32T1 DUn DK tOS^S (with an infinitive clause) and jD HO3 bv DUPI TDm 2"II?n 11} "IpDJl (three arguments). The continuation is hardly less complex: DDb n&U K1H -IBB* ^ n& nt0Q ]nn NT! (clause with two arguments, followed by a relative clause). Jethro's proposals and Moses' explanations are couched in the cultivated style, as often found in the discourse of prominent individuals, who are thereby characterized as leaders.88 The polished style, however, is also found in the narrative sequence. The description of the appointment (Exod. 18.25) contains a series of clauses with three arguments:
86. In Deuteronomy this formula is found as wayyiqtol in 1.41, and as weqatal in the legal formulation of 21.7; 25.9; 26.5; 27.14, 15. 87. The same opposition dominates the relationship between the rational representation of Joshua's stature as Moses' successor ('And Joshua the son of Nun was full of the spirit of wisdom', Deut. 34.9) and the reflection on the requirements of his function ('Take thee Joshua the son of Nun, a man in whom is the spirit', Num. 27.16-18 KJV); see Weinfeld 1972: 181 n. 3. 88. See Greenstein 1999; Polak 2001b: 82-89; 2001c: 89-95.
Polak Style is More than the Person
11
btnur ^na "m *wx nra -irai (v. 25a D'lDon niz? m»o nto D-B^K -no nun ^u D-WI cn« ]rn (v. 25b mew —ien The closure is seemingly formulated in simple clauses lacking noun groups, but even they contain two arguments:bfc lb "j^TT /1]nn PK H^Q nblD-l 1i£lN (v. 27). Thus the Jethro narrative reveals all features of the complexnominal style. Nevertheless, one notes remarkable differences between these narratives and the Deuteronomic version. In the latter the description of difficult cases is formulated by means of a relative clause QlDIpP DDE i"ll2)p- 12JK -IN, Deut. 1.17), where the Jethro tale has a short noun group as object q-b» IK-IT bin imn b:D n-m, Exod. 18.22). Second, the Deuteronomic description of the appointment includes, besides the complex noun phrase, D-lCDttfl niCK? -12TI D'2OT -1271 HIKE -1271 D-S^K -12}, an additional function, DTI2!32}b (Deut. 1.15). Thus the Deuteronomic style is more intricate than that of the Jethro tale in Exodus. However, both reflect a rational view of the judge's office, although in the Exodus version the qualities required are moral, whereas in Deuteronomy they incline to the intellectual side (Weinfeld 1972: 245). Both tales, then, seem to embody the administrator's view of society rather than the sacral view implied by the tale in Numbers. The plausible inference is that the latter mirrors the archaic culture and oral narrative, whereas the two other versions reflect the scribal desk, even though in the Jethro tale some features seem slightly less intricate than in the Deuteronomic tale. c. The Sinaitic Covenant in the Rhythmic-Verbal Style The tale of the appointment of the elders in Numbers is in many respects similar to the narrative of the Sinai covenant in Exodus 19-20 (19.3-8, 10-19; 20.18-21). The account of the preparations for the theophany consists for the main part of short independent clauses,89 although clauses with two arguments are not infrequent, for example (Exod. 19.7-8):
89. In the tale of Exod. 19.3-8, 10-19; 20.18-21, 45% of the clauses contain 0-1 arguments (38 out of 84). Clauses with two arguments are found in 19 clauses out of 84 (22%), whereas three arguments or more are found in nine clauses (10.71%). The narrative contains 19 embedded clauses (22.62%).
72
Biblical Hebrew nninn ^n n« ams1? oizn / Di;n ^pih> «-ip-i /TOONTI (v. 7 TLinia -o* n^Nn / HEW 71.TH.3BN ^3 / TOn /IIFT DI?n ^3 Wl (v. 8
n b« Dun n~m n«TOOsen
And Moses came and summoned the elders of the people and put before them all those things that the Lord had commanded him. And all the people answered as one, and said, 'All that the Lord has spoken we will do!' And Moses reported the people's words to the Lord.
This passage contains two verbal sequences of two clauses each (/ "nON"! DUn ^plh KIjTI /nO3 «T1;n^]...bD), two simple relative clauses (TI IITIU "12^,71 "Q"7 "12^), and two clauses with two or three arguments
(n^Kn cnrnn ^D n» arnsb DKH, rr ^ nun -im n« nra nen). Thus the preference for short, simple clauses is balanced by some slightly more intricate constructions.90 A similar tendency may be detected in the divine instructions to Moses (vv. 10-11): 10:01 / ~inai nvn on^ipi / Di?n *?» -f> / nra b« n no^^i (v. 10) anba^ nun ^3 ^^^ 'n IT 'Erbton nvn ^D / -er^Kn m-1? DS]D] vm (v. ii) TO nn ^r And the Lord said to Moses, 'Go to the people and and sanctify them today and tomorrow, and let them wash their clothes. And let them be ready for the third day; for on the third day the Lord will come down, before the eyes of all the people, on Mount Sinai.
This sequence contains six clauses, four of them short (one argument, e.g.: Dm ^8 "f1^), and two long (two arguments: i"TO2 bft 71 "IQ^1!; four arguments: TO in ^U Din ^D TD^ 'H TH1 -KT^En DVD -D). One notes five noun groups (inQl DTil, "^EH Dl"^, s2T^2n DVD, ^D TV*? DUn, ^''D "in 7U), which, however, contain hardly more than two nouns (Dm 7D TJJ7). These clauses are all independent, but in the following sequence we meet a number of cases of hypotaxis (vv. 12-15): ina_m^j? DD^ iiDrn / ID^ n-no nun n« nbnam (v. 12
nor ma 103 pain ^D / innpaimi / nann D« / n-r HT i« / ^po- ^ipo -3 / T 13 ran «b (v. 13
nnn ^u- nan 'za-n "f^Q2 / n^rr »b / ET« DK nn^ae? 1033-1 / D^n n« enp-i / c^n *:>« inn p nra ITI (v. 14 new ^ iran ^« / o-o11 ne^e/5 0^33 rn / ni;n ^ na^i (v. 15)
90. The pericope of vv. 20-25 displays a similar profile.
Polak Style is More than the Person
73
'And you shall set bounds for the people round about, saying, "Beware of going up the mountain or touching the border of it. Whoever touches the mountain shall be surely put to death. No hand shall touch him, but he shall surely be stoned or shot; beast or man, he shall not live." When the ram's horn sounds a long blast, they may go up on the mountain.' And Moses went down from the mountain to the people and sanctified the people, and they washed their clothes. And he said to the people, 'Be ready for the third day: do not go near a woman'.
This section contains a number of short clauses in hypotaxis, such as "10^, TO mbi;, "inn Umn, ^Tn -[Em, and three clauses with three arguments, 10Kb TDD DUH DK ftejm, TO I^IT HDH ^n^CDD, DIJn ^8 "inn ]D nO2 TVI. Short clauses, however, are still predominant, for example, Dm HN enp1'1!, DnbQft IDHin, TIT *&, ^ipo "D
nn" HT iN/bpo1,^'' nvhvh D'DDD vn,ntz» ^« i^:n b«.
In the section on the theophany itself the findings are similar. The opening picture is extremely terse. It consists of a number of short clauses,91 introduced by a unique circumstantial clause, in which the narrative tag Tfl marks both the time indication ''ET 72TT DV3 and the infinitive clause 92
ipnn irnn (v. i6):
/ inn ^u i3D pin / o-pim rbp sn"i / ipan nnn3 ^^en DVD ^i ninon ie» c^n ^D inn^i /1^0 pin ns& ^pi Now it was on the third day, when it was daybreak, there was thunder, and lightning, and a dense cloud upon the mountain, and a very loud blast of the horn; and all the people who were in the camp trembled.
The continuation of this scene leads gradually to a climax (vv. 17-19): •airm / n]nan p D^n^n ntnp1? own n» nt^o «nri (v. 17) inn rrnnra / mi 7ui!!2i? .Tr_"iffi».'JBQ 1^3 ]e?r SD'D -im (v. 18) i«o nnn ^D -nm / ]2nan ]K?BD i32:u ^uni 1 IDDW a-n^m / nm nos / I«Q pirn "(bin isiran ^ip -n-i (v. 19 bipn So Moses led the people out of the camp toward God, and they stationed themselves at the foot of the mountain. And Mount Sinai smoked all over, for the Lord had come down upon it in fire; its smoke rose like the smoke of
91. In the clause D^plDl fl^p Tl^, existential HTI is to be regarded as a normal predicate rather than as a copula. The phrase "inn ^U 13D ]]U1 is counted as a compound subject. 92. See n. 62, above.
74
Biblical Hebrew a kiln, and the whole mountain trembled violently. And the blare of the horn was growing louder and louder. Moses spoke, and God answered him by sound.
This scene contains a number of short clauses, "inn PTinrQ "QHTn, -QT iTO3, or, less obviously, 1KD pim -[Vin ISIIOT ^ip -m. But most clauses are longer, for example, with two arguments, 13271? ^ITI jemn |K7i?D,i»D nnn ^D nm^ipn i]]ir D^n^m. This configuration marks the theophany scene as the apogee of the narrative, distinguished from its surroundings by its exceptional stylization (Longacre 1989: 18-19, 30-39; 1996: 37-45). Thus the account of the Sinai covenant can in general be described as close to the rhythmic-verbal style, with a slight inclination toward more complex constructions. This characterization seems also to hold true of the style of the divine invitation to the covenant (19.3b-5).93 This section consists of a series of mainly short paratactic clauses:
b«ner 'nb -nm / apir rrn1? -o«n HD (v. 3b / n-itra 'BDD bu D3n« «e»i / vnxEb-TFM ~\m nrrto DPN (v. 4) ^» DDnN N3N1
/ 'rr-n n« DP-OBI / ^p3 i^Qtyn UIDID D« nnn (v. 5) f i»n *?D ^ -D / Dnorn ^DD n^;o ^ orr m Thus shall-you-say to the house of Jacob and tell the children of Israel: 'You have-seen what [I] did to the Egyptians, how [I] bore you on eagles' wings and brought you to-me. Now then, if [you] will obey me faithfully and keep my covenant, [you] shall be my own-treasure among all the peoples: for mine is all the earth.'
The historical retrospection contains one clause with two arguments: N£>N1 D"H£0 ""SJD b^ DDPIN. But its continuation is based on pronominal reference: ^K DDnN N3K1. This excerpt does not contain any clause with three arguments; the object clause DHiJQ1? TP27I7 "I27N is simple. Two clauses, each with one argument, form the protasis ("vpD irQ^fl UIQK' DN and TP"D fl^ Dn"lDE71). The apodosis is introduced by the conjunction waw (D'Q^n ^DQ nb^D ^ nn"m), which turns apodosis and protasis into two independent clauses. 93. The parallelistic construction in this pericope is readily explained by the poetic background of the Exodus tradition, as maintained by Cross 1983: 20-22, 25-27; Cassuto 1973: 7-16. On the poetic nature of the theophany theme see Loewenstamm 1980 and cf. Ps. 18.8-16//2 Sam. 22.8-16. The use of Tin in Exod. 19.18 is matched by such poetic passages as, e.g., Isa. 10.29; Job 37.1; in prose, note 1 Sam. 14.15 (with the parallels p«n mm andDTI^N HTinb).
Polak Style is More than the Person
75
Complex hypotaxis, however, is found in Moses' explanation to the frightened Israelites (Exod. 20.20): / n-n^n «n DDD» niormnia1? '3 / itrrn ^N itMsnn xhsb =.02:35 ^n&T-mnn imsi 'Be not afraid. For it-is-to-test you that God has come, to [have] awe-ofhim be upon you, so that [you] will-not-sin'.
The clause INftPin Th^h is dependent on the final clause ...TOim DD^S. This final clause is coordinate with the previous final clause— DSnK HID] lining—which in turn is formally dependent on the clause DTlb^n N3. This intricate construction, however, is balanced by a long verbal sequence consisting of six short clauses (vv. 18b-19a):94 / 13DU nns HDI / noa b« i"on / prno main / luri / nun NTI nuiaizm And the people saw [it], and faltered and stood far-off, and said to Moses 'You speak to us, and [we] will-obey'.
We conclude, then, that the Sinai account in Exodus is mainly couched in the rhythmic-verbal style, even though its diction is slightly more intricate than customary in narratives in this style. These slight deviations from the rhythmic-verbal diction could be explained as influence of a more formal style (possibly the 'late classical style', as witnessed above).95 However, in spite of these deviations, the style of this account is a far cry from the complex-nominal style. d. The Sinaitic Covenant in the Complex-Nominal Style The introduction to Deuteronomy contains three versions of the revelation at Mt Sinai (or Horeb)—Deut. 4.9-24, 25-40; 5.1-5, and the inclusio of 5.22-33.% These pericopes have a number of features in common.
94. The continuation of v. 20, P1Q] ]B D'H^N 1DQU -QT ^«1 ('but [let] not God speak to us, lest [we] die'), contains a clause with three arguments and a short subordinate clause. This intricate structure, which parallels the previous sequence nflN ~O1 nUQCQl 13QU (v. 19a), fits the nature of cultivated spoken discourse, as found often in dialogue in narratives in the rhythmic-verbal style (Polak 2001b: 74-87; 2001c: 87-93). Hence intricate constructions of this kind do not impair the rhythmic-verbal typology if they are found sparingly in dialogue. If they occur frequently in the narrative sequence, that is a different matter. 95. See p. 84, below. For a stylistic comparison with Num. 11 see p. 79, below. 96. On the nature of these pericopes see Lohfink 1963: 139-52, 271-76.
76
Biblical Hebrew
First, sequences of short, simple clauses, such as found in the Exodus tale, are extremely rare in the Deuteronomic version. The account of the theophany (Deut. 4.11-13), which is the climax of the homiletic retrospection, opens and closes with some short clauses (/]TH"lpni..."l^ DV 97
inn nnn pnram, w. iOa, iia;D^n« rnnb ^ 7V Dnn:n,v. is),
but even in this pericope most clauses are longer. Second, one notes the long clauses in this pericope: £>KD 1IH mm
D'Dtzn nb ID (v. lib); L^n -pno nyb& 'n urn (v. 12); DD^ in
Dnmn ni2?U...>irri:: n« (v. 13).98 The opening call makes use of the phrase: ...ratTI )£> 1NQ "[27S3 10271 (v. 9). Third, the number of long noun groups stands out: D'HDin nit&U,
D'HK nin^ -<w (v. 13); mp: IK IDT msn ^ED ^D roion ^DS (v. 16); sp nsa ^3 mnn p^n IK» nann ^D rran (v. i?);n^n D^en »nn ^D nD^DiDn n«i HTPI n^i iron n« (v. i9a); ^D^
D'Q&n ^D nnn n OI7n (v. 19b). In the excerpt from Deuteronomy 4 (11 clauses) the majority of the clauses contains a noun group (63%). Fourth, an additional factor to be taken into account is the surprisingly high number of intricate subordinate clauses. The first reminiscence of the theophany opens with two short clauses, but the main information is presented in a series of hypotactic clauses in which additional clauses are embedded. The resulting hierarchy includes three levels of subordination (4.9-10):
D"i3in HK nufln ]s i»o f CDSD ioen / -p la^n pi (v. 9 / "["•'n ntr bn "[33?a imp1 ]ai /1'*]1'!? 1^1 ~\m = / TDD ^3^1 jinb Dnimm / ^ rr -ia^3 = 3im jn^ TI ^357 moi? ig» = DV (v. 1 nil n« Di7DtD«i / nun n« ^ bnpn 1
/ naiKn br G^n an -ICH = n^n ^j •'n^ n^T ? = •pia'r "ie»
p:iDl2iDma_n8i But take utmost care and watch yourselves scrupulously, so that [you do] not forget the things that [you] saw with your-own eyes, and so that [they do] not fade from your mind all days of your life. And make them known to your children and to your children's children. The day you stood before the
97. Note also the verbal sequence in v. 19: DrTDJJI Dr6 mnnizm JYrm However, this sequence is found in a context of subordinated clauses. 98. In the sequence Deut. 4.11-13 (11 clauses) one notes four short independent clauses (36%), as against two cases of complex hypotaxis (18%), and three clauses with three arguments (27%).
Polak Style is More than the Person
77
Lord your God at Horeb, when the Lord said to me, 'Gather the people to me that I may let them hear my words, in order that they may learn to revere me as long as they live on earth, and may so teach their children'.
The allusion to the divine instruction opens with a command in two short independent clauses: '"m DN DUDEKI/DUn DN ^ bnpn. This order is continued by a final clause—D'DTT ^D TIK nKT1? "p-frfr ~\m (first level of subordination)—which includes an embedded object clause— TIN n NT ^ (second level of subordination) with two arguments, ^3 TIN D^tm, that are expanded by a relative clause—"IQINH ^U D"F1 DH ""l£>N (third level of subordination).99 The reminiscence of the situation of the people is presented in a relative clause that is dependent on DV (v. 10). This clause contains four arguments, including a temporal clause:
- pBtc) (4) mm (3) •pnbfc 'n *i*b (2) mou ~\m (i) - DV (nun n« ^ ^npn) ^« 'n -iota (the day) (1) on which [you] stood (2) before the Lord your God (3) at Horeb (4) (when the Lord said to me, 'Gather the people to me...')
This clause contains besides the relative particle and the predicate with implicit subject (mQJJ) two locative modifiers CjnbN 7P]B^ and 3"im), and a temporal clause (.. ."IQND).100 In addition, the entire clause is dependent on the antecedent QV, which itself is part of an embedded clause.101 Hence the Deuteronomic homily reveals a definite preference for syntactic subordination.102 In this respect the style of this homily greatly resembles that of the rhetorical retrospection in Deuteronomy 5, in part the exact parallel of the covenant scene at Mt Sinai in Exodus 19-20 (Blum 1990: 93-95). First, some clauses in Deuteronomy 5 contain even more constituents than found in the preceding homily; for example, Deut. 5.4-5:103 99. Such an intricate style is also found in the account of the divine commission of Moses (v. 14). 100. This (condensed) temporal clause includes in itself subject (71) and addressee C^K). 101. S.R. Driver (1895: 66) describes the connection of DV to 1KT ~\W. D'~mn ~[TU as 'loose apposition'. In any case, the phrase "pn^N 71 ''DSb fllQi? "ItDN Cl" T"IFQ serves as temporal modifier to "pT 1K~1 "O*. 102. One notes the cases of subordination in Deut. 4.12-13, 15-18, 19-20 (23 clauses out of 48 [49%]). Note also such verses as Deut. 4.33-35, 38. 103. Since v. 5a constitutes a parenthetical clause (S.R. Driver 1895: 83), its ending, "10N1?, relates to v. 4.
78
Biblical Hebrew 1DN1?.. .Bun "pro Tin DDQU n -m D^DSD DS]S Face to face the Lord spoke to you on the mountain out of the fire.. .saying...
This clause includes six arguments: (1) a subject (71), (2) an addressee (DDQ17), (3) a locative adverb (Hi"Q), (4) an indication of source ("JinQ 2Wi"I), (5) a circumstantial modifier (D^DSD D^S), (6) an infinitive clause, which is found in v. 5 ("1QK7). The circumstantial clause within v. 5 contains four arguments and a subordinate clause with two arguments:
Ti^aiimcs^s1? Ninn nm wrm n j'n IBS; 'DDK (1)1 stood (2) between the Lord and you (3) at that time, (4) to convey the Lord's words to you.
Six arguments are found in the narrative summary (v. 22a): ^snum pun mr\ -jina -im DD^np ^u ^« n -QI nb«n n-imn n»
^n: Vip (1) These words (2) the Lord spoke (3) unto all your assembly (4) in the mount (5) out of the midst of the fire, of the cloud, and of the thick darkness, (6) with a great voice.
Second, the phrase bs~lUrn ]]I?n C^H "]1DD contains no less than four nouns. Other long noun groups include the phrase D^pnm illHQn ^D D'CDBtDQm (v. 31). Third, complex subordination is only slightly less frequent than in the preceding chapter.104 Thus one notes the reassurance (v. 26): pan finia HJIQ = p^n nnn^ *?ip i:^ "ita^ nen ^3 ^D ^ ^nn 1323
For what mortal ever heard the voice of the living God speak out of the fire, as we did, and lived?
The relative clause (IDOa mn "JinQ nniQ=D"n DTT^K ^lp ^DK? "12») contains an embedded circumstantial clause in complex subordination (IBNil "]1HQ ~Q"7Q), and is itself continued by a coordinate clause (TV)). The divine instruction to Moses opens with a short clause, 112 nDNl HQI^ 1DI?, but is continued by a highly intricate construction (5.31):105
104. In the peroration of 5.32-33 (ten clauses) we find three independent clauses and seven clauses in complex hypotaxis. 105. For the perfect consecutive |""I$O 1&U1 following the relative clause "lEN Q-TQ^n, cf. 2.25 andGKC §112p.
Polak Style is More than the Person
79
Discern nrpnm mnian ^D n» 7^8 n-m«i nn_2n!2.= on1? ]n]_^m^«_=Lp_^31^1 o-ra^n n^ And \ will speak to you all the commandment, and the laws and the rules, which you will teach them, that they may observe them in the land which I give them to possess.
The long noun group serving as object, D^SOTn D^pnm iTIiSQn ^D, is expanded by a relative clause (DTQ^n "ItftN). The latter clause is continued by a coordinate clause—|*"1N3 12JI71—which in its turn is once again expanded by a relative clause—UTO ]fl] ''DDK "12^ (second level of subordination)—in which a final clause is embedded—"inKTP (third level of subordination). Thus we note a systematic, radical contrast between the theophany account in Exodus and the sections from Deuteronomy 4-5, a result that seems all the more significant as the latter sections treat the same subject matter as the Exodus narrative. On the other hand, one notes a striking similarity between the Exodus tale (19.3-8,10-19; 20.18-21) and the tale in Numbers (11.16-17,24-30), both manifesting the rhythmic-verbal style, even though the diction of the Exodus narrative is slightly more intricate. By contrast, the complexnominal style is very much in evidence in all Deuteronomic episodes which have been analyzed, whether they relate to the theme of the appointment of the elders or to the covenant scene; whether they embody narrative (Deut. 1.9-17; 5.1-5, 22-33; and see also Exod. 18.13-27) or homiletic discourse (Deut. 4.9-14,25-40). Hence theme and genre fail to provide an explanation for the differences in style. Moreover, in the Deuteronomic sections (and the Jethro tale in Exod. 18.13-27) the sacral aspects are significantly attenuated and reduced, in comparison with the highly numinous nature of the sections from Exodus 19-20 and Numbers 11. Thus, the distinction between the complex-nominal and the rhythmicverbal style is related to cultural aspects of far wider nature, and cannot be explained by personal stylistic preference. 4. Societal Aspects of Narrative Style Thus far I have noted a number of arguments in favor of the thesis that the use of the complex-nominal and the rhythmic-verbal style is rooted in societal and cultural milieu:
Biblical Hebrew
80 (a)
(b)
(c)
(d)
(e)
The basic features of the complex-nominal style are characteristic of written language in general. More precisely, the proclivity to intricate clauses, subordination and long noun chains fits the cross-cultural profile of written language. The complex-nominal style reflects the language skills of the professional and experienced scribe, the sopher in the widest sense of the word. Many features of the complex-nominal style fit the Hebrew inscriptions from the late Judean kingdom (including narrative texts), and the Aramaic documents from the Persian era (includeing the story ofAhiqar). References to writing and written documents figure prominently in sections in the complex-nominal style, but are rare or nonextant in sections in the rhythmic-verbal style. The complex-nominal style prevails in many units that fit the late pre-exilic or the exilic period, and in particular the narrative sections of Deuteronomy (ch. 1-5; 9-10; 34), large sections in the book of Kings (from 1 Kgs 3 onwards) and the Jeremiah Vita (Jer. 26-28; 32; 36.1^13.7). The complex-nominal style is even more in evidence in literature from the Persian era, such as the Esther scroll, the book of Chronicles, and the books of Ezra and Nehemiah.106
In addition, I have noted a number of arguments in favor of the thesis that the rhythmic-verbal style was used by narrators who were close to oral narrative: (a) The conspicuous preference for short clauses, ellipsis and pronominal reference, and the tendency to refrain from subordination and long noun chains is characteristic of instantaneous spoken language, and fits the cross-cultural profile of spoken language. (b) The rhythmic-verbal style is similar to the style of quoted speech (direct discourse) in biblical narrative (Polak: 200Ib: 59-65, 73-79; 2001c: 53-65).
106. The reference to the book of Nehemiah needs to be qualified. The sections of the memoir in which Nehemiah describes his own personal actions generally contain fewer arguments, since the agent is referred to by the verb in the first person (PN N£>K1 "[^Q1? H3PN1 j^n, Neh. 2.1). But when another subject is mentioned, the number of arguments is higher (e.g. 2.7-8, 10). One notes the differentiation in 2.4: "^ ~IQN''1
D'oen 'n^N ^K ^SPNI / cypno HPK ni no bo I -rban.
Polak Style is More than the Person (c)
(d)
81
The rhythmic-verbal style is well-attested in oral narrative in general,107 and is especially prominent in biblical tales that are by consensus considered close to the ancient folktale, such as the Samson tales in Judges 14-15, the Elisha narratives in 2 Kings 4; 6-7,108 and folktales included in midrashic Aggadah. This style is frequent in tales that embody numinous, animistic, dynamistic, magical and overtly sacral themes, in sharp contrast with the rationalization and attenuation of these themes in Deuteronomic, chronistic and other post-exilic literature, such as the Esther scroll (Esth. 4.14).
An examination of the societal background of the stylistic distinctions will help us to place the social and cultural setting in historical perspective. a. Oral Society and Literary Culture The rhythmic-verbal style, then, hails from oral narrative and the art of the storyteller. Accordingly, the scribes who formulated narratives in this style were aware of the art of oral narrative, ready to honor this art and able to apply its rules and norms to their narrative, in spite of the decisive difference between the oral and the scribal style. By implication, then, these tales were written down in a period in which the art of oral narrative was still very much alive, and even occupied a position of honor in society. In other words, the society in which the narratives in the rhythmicverbal style were written down was dominated by oral culture. This term applies to the culture of a society in which scribal learning is not the norm. Thus it is characteristic not only of the the 'lower strata', for instance, peasant farmers and poor townspeople,109 but also of the higher echelons of society, that is to say, the prominent officials, royal officials and courtiers,110 the higher army commanders, and the well-to-do farmers, merchants and owners of large workshops (I. Young 1998a: 245-49,412-20; 107. One also notes the oral style in narratives such as those recorded and collected byDorson 1960; 1964. 108. These cycles contain many epic formulae (see n. 3, above), that are especially frequent in narratives in the rhythmic-verbal style, while their use strongly decreases in texts in the complex-nominal style (Polak 1989; 1991). 109. On the jealously preserved subculture of the 'lower classes' in early modern Western society see Burke 1988: 21-22, 29-36. 110. Parpola (1997) discusses a neo-Assyrian letter by a governor who had no scribe at his disposal. Not being a professional scribe himself, he used a reduced syllabary of the same kind as found in the ancient Assyrian Ktiltepe letters.
82
Biblical Hebrew
Burke 1988: 23-29, 58-64), who thus form the natural audience of storyteller and singer of tales. That is to say, even if members of the higher classes were able to write and used writing in everyday life, they still would not necessarily be able to read literary texts. And even if they were able to read such texts, we can hardly assume that they had many literary manuscripts at their disposal, for the promulgation of literary texts presupposes a large economic and professional apparatus for copying and distribution, which in antiquity cannot be taken for granted (Hall 1968: 10-11).111 In a society of this type, then, the great literary tradition is preeminently that of oral literature (Burke 1988:21 -58). Its bearers, the promulgators of the epic, of panegyric, religious poetry and of narrative, are first and foremost the masters of oral narrative and poetry. That the knowledge of reading and writing is a problematic matter in ancient Israel is indicated by the famous Lachish letter from the time of the Babylonian invasion into Judah, in which a commanding officer protests against the insinuation that he doesn't read his letters himself (I. Young 1998a: 410-12). In the early monarchial era (until the period of Jeroboam II) the high officials needed seals with pictures in order to identify the owner, in addition to the name itself. The seal of Jeroboam's official, Sammua' ('bdyrb'm)—dating from around 750 BCE—would mostly be recognized by the lion, rather than by name and title (Demsky 1985: 351). Accordingly, the rhythmic-verbal style reflects the preferences and interests of Israelite culture before the full development of the royal bureaucracy. It seems reasonable, then, to attribute this style to the premonarchic and early monarchial era, until the beginning of the eighth century BCE (the classical style). The rhythmic-verbal style of classical biblical narrative is rooted in the archaic great culture of ancient Israel.112 111. Even at the zenith of the Athenian culture (490-350 BCE), for which man data indicate the existence of a distinct class of literati (Marrou 1956: 80-94; W.V.Harris 1989: 49, 62-63, 93-95, 101-102) and wide-spread minimal literacy including craftsmen (Marrou 1956: 72), literary texts were promulgated by declamation. The written text, mostly the product of private copying, often served as an 'aid for memory' (uTr6|Jvr||ja). Prose texts were designated as 'word' (Xoyos, not unlike Hebrew ~Q"I; Hall 1968: 25-28). Herodotus is said to have received a prize from the Athenian council after reading his scrolls to them (Eiravayvous auroTs xas |3i(3Aous; Jacoby 1956: 17-18, quoting Eusebius, Chron. Can. 1572). Marrou (1956: 159-63, 201-22; so also W.V. Harris 1989: 96-98) assigns the foundation of a wider educational system to the Hellenistic age. 112. This is not the place to describe the basic features of biblical narrative in its syntactic, stylistic and discourse aspects. Although the foundations for a better
Polak Style is More than the Person
83
In a society in which the great literature primarily consists of oral narrative and poetry, the oral literary style will also dominate the literary scene in general, including written literature.113 In such a cultural context,114 scribal authors may create texts that employ the style of oral narrative,115 even when they lacked a specific oral source.116 This may be seen from the example of the ninth century Anglo-Saxon monks who were able to employ the formulaic register of oral poetry in translations from Latin (Foley 1985: 42; 1995: 185-207; Reichl 1989: 44-46). The culture of oral ballads, which in early modern times were also promulgated in chapbooks,117 was common to both lower classes and upper classes (landowners, merchants, owners of large workshops, and clergy), to both illiterate and literate (Buchan 1972:62-73, and 17-27,35-49,274-75). On the other hand, Greek inscriptions from the eighth century BCE show that even in a society in which the large majority of the population was illiterate (W.V. Harris 1989: 7-9, 21-32, 52-55), some wealthy aristocrats were literate enough to appreciate inscriptions in verse on bowls and goblets, inspired by themes and phrases of Homeric literature (Robb 1994: 23-32,
understanding of these subtleties has been provided by a number of studies (Niccacci 1990; Longacre 1989; Eskhult 1990; de Regt 1999), we are still far from a full comprehension of the system. The organization of the dialogue is discussed by Polak 200 la. 113. Or in a strict formulation, in such a social context the language of oral literature is prestige language, and thus also sets the standard for literary performance in general. 114. The dynamic of the written composition of texts originating in oral composition and performance (oral-derived texts) is studied by Foley 1995, who emphasizes the use of a 'traditional, performance-derived register' and the continuity of reception from the performance-end to the book-end, and highlights the need of syncretic poetics. 115. I. Young (1998a: 252-53) points to the possibility that oral narratives of prophetic circles 'became useful to the literate circles of the royal court'. For the present argument it is important to note that the Elisha tales scrupulously preserve the forms of oral narrative. In the Elijah narratives the style seems slightly more formal. On the linguistic character of these tales see Rendsburg 1992a; I. Young 1995; Schniedewind andSivan 1997. 116. In seventeenth-century England chapbooks were even sold to inn-keepers interested in broadening their clientele by enriching their repertoire of yarns (Spufford 1981: 65-67). Thus, an oral culture can adopt and encompass written and printed texts. 117. Even cheap chapbooks and 'livresbleus' were also read by the higher classes. See Mandrou 1999: 27; Bolleme 1971: 20-22; Spufford 1981: 72.
84
Biblical Hebrew
45-48; Jeffery 1961:236-39). Thus, the biblical narratives in the rhythmicverbal style, though transmitted in writing, basically and for the most part, represent a society in which the oral culture is the great culture. Partial external confirmation for this thesis is provided by the Mesha stele (composed after 850 BCE) in which the number of noun groups and subordinate clauses is extremely low (similar to some of the Jacob tales), although the frequency of short clauses (0-1 argument) is lower than in the rhythmic-verbal style of BH narrative (40% in the stele as against the frequent percentage of 50-70%; Polak 1998: 104-105). Hence this inscription probably marks the inception of the transition to more complex styles.118 In this respect the style of the Mesha stele may be compared with some biblical naratives in which some characteristics of the verbal style are less developed, whereas features of the nominal style are slightly more prominent, such as the Paradise Narrative and the Cain Tale, part of the Joseph Narrative; Polak 1998: 88-92,104; 200 Ic: 77-86). If the rhythmicverbal style is characterized as 'classical', the more developed style could be characterized as 'intricate classical' or 'late classical' (attributable to the ninth and eighth century BCE). b. Royal Administration and Literary Culture The cultural horizon of the late monarchy and the exilic period is quite different from that of the earlier period which was mostly characterized by the low extent of literacy, even among high royal officials and army commanders. During the late monarchy the royal bureaucracy became more and more important, as indicated by the epigraphic finds from this period and the increased use of seals with no additional indication of the owner, apart from the name (E. Stern 2001: 170-71,178-85). If seals from the ninth-eighth century BCE contain iconography in addition to the owner's name, in the seventh century the personal name with patronymic is assumed to provide sufficient identification.119 It may be inferred that more people could read by this time (e.g. Hezekiah in 2 Kgs 19.14), and that an illiterate person could find a reader without difficulty (Demsky 1985:351; Millard 2001: 84).120 This conclusion is supported by the many bullae of 118. S.B. Parker (1997: 56) points out the naivety of the disposition in the Mesha inscription, in comparison with the sophistication of the Assyrian annals and Babylonian chronicles. 119. However, E. Stern (2001: 185-88) also points to ornamented seals with no name inscribed. Maybe these were meant for identification by illiterate persons. 120. Historical research indicates that in the seventeenth century, in the England of the Reformation (and the ensuing restoration), even sons and daughters of agricultural
Polak Style is More than the Person
85
private documents, found in the 'House of the Bullae' where the documents were kept (mid-seventh until beginning sixth century BCE; Shoham 2000: 30). At this juncture many members of the higher echelons of society (meaning royal officials, army commanders,121 merchants and the well-to-do farmers) were literate enough to keep written deeds. I have already pointed to the central role of writing in the Jeremiah Vita, in connection with a real estate transaction as well as in religious context. In addition, the knowledge of reading and writing is presupposed in many stories about Hezekiah, Josiah and Jehoiakim. The full weight of these data for the literary culture of this period is only realized when one recalls that literacy implies education. For legal formulation and the writing of contracts one needs to master a complex, sophisticated style. When this knowledge becomes a dominating factor in the culture of the upper classes, written language turns into prestige language, as indicated very clearly in the Judean inscriptions which I have already referred to (I. Young 1993: 104-11, 120-21, 168; Polak 1998: 103-104) and in such biblical texts such as, for example, Deuteronomic and Priestly writings (Polak 2002: 270-79).122 Can we surmise a priori that in such a context the gifted scribes know to formulate narratives in both styles (Ben Zvi 2000:21; Na'aman 2002: 38)? This assumption seems unlikely. The large corpora in the complexnominal style do not contain a free mixture of pericopes in both styles.123
laborers could learn to read if their parents, or the children themselves, insisted (Spufford 1981: 3, 19-27). The figures for the sale of chapbooks suggest that large segments of the population knew how to read, even though full literacy was less widespread. Thus, 'yeomen, as we know, were 65 per cent literate in East Anglia' (p. 46). According to Spufford (pp. 26-290) even children of poor parents could learn to read, since this was taught at an early age, before the children joined the labor force. But children of parents with the necessary means, would be taught writing at a later age, when the poorest children would already be working. Therefore, a socially significant difference exists between the knowledge of reading and writing. 121. The officer in command who sent the famous letter from Lachish (see p. 82, above) is incensed at the insinuation that he needs a scribe for reading. By implication, then, illiteracy is an insult for an army commander. 122. It is important to note that in the Siloam inscription the fronted time indication occurs without the TH marker, and is followed by simple qatal: "OH rnp]H DVD1 DUlinn. The only wayyiqtol form is "OV1!. 123. On Josh. 9.2-15 (intricate classical with signs of transition to the complexnominal style) see Polak 1998:91-92; on the complex-nominal style in chs. 22-24 see pp. 95-96.
86
Biblical Hebrew
Actually, the predominance of the scribal style implies a retreat of the diction of oral narrative, because of social and cultural factors. (1) The stylistic profile of traditional oral narrative is diametrically opposed to that of scribal language, with its proclivity to official administrative exactitude. I refer, for example, to the long noun groups used for recurring role definition in the Aramaic Ahiqar tale, and the complex style of the chronological notes in the book of Kings and the Jeremiah Vita. As I argued above, these stylistic features reflect the needs of the scribal administration and entail the cultural knowledge required for the formulation and comprehension of intricate sentences. By contrast, in narratives in the rhythmic-verbal style the identification of the participants is for the most part dependent on face-to-face communication and tacit presupposition. Such elliptic references as found, for example, in the tale of Elisha and Hazael (2 Kgs 8; see above, pp. 60-61) imply a cultural attitude that is totally different from that of the scribal administrator who is trained to spell out unequivocally participants and circumstances. Thus, the rhythmic-verbal and the complex-nominal style are not only totally different from a linguistic point of view, but they also imply totally different cultural knowledge, and diametrically opposed cultural attitudes. In view of these considerations, it is extremely difficult to imagine a scribe who has attained the cultural knowledge of his metier, formulating the short, simple, and often elliptic clauses that are characteristic of the rhythmic-verbal style. (2) From a literary point of view one has to note that narratives in the rhythmic-verbal style reach their goals by means of exceedingly simple syntactic structures and a scant lexical register. The most elevated tales and the most complex psychological effects are founded on an extremely restricted repertoire of linguistic means.124 In this respect a notable contrast exists between biblical narrative and poetry, for the latter domain is characterized by the richness of its lexical and grammatical register. The highly developed art of the limited repertoire is easily explained on the background of the oral art of narrative, since the popular audience cannot always be assumed to be familiar with the poetic diction. Moreover, in the oral setting narrative is embodied by performance. The narrator's active interaction with the audience in face-to-face communication enables him to enrich his discourse by means of gesture and intonation (Finnegan
124. Thus even a short inscription like the Siloam text may contain a lexeme not known from BH (mi).
Polak Style is More than the Person
87
1970:373-77). Thus the complex and elevated art of the limited repertoire contrasts sharply with the sophistication of the educated scribe. As long as the literary scene is dominated by oral poetry and narrative, the writing author may be assumed to adopt the oral diction at least partially. But when scribal expertise and education start to occupy a central position in society, the adoption of non-scribal norms becomes less likely. (3) An additional factor is the societal difference. The social context of written language is the bureaucracy of the chancery and the professional scribe. In a society in which literacy is the norm for the higher classes, public life is dominated by scribal language, whereas spoken language is relegated to informal communication in the household, the circle of friends, and lower-class professional life. This context entails a change in the status of oral narrative, which no longer represents the great literary tradition, since the majority of the upper classes are no longer illiterate. By now it is scribal culture that embodies the literary tradition, whereas oral narrative becomes a lower-class endeavor (or, in another perspective, Gesunkenes Kulturgut; Burke 1988: 58-61). Even though the interaction between the different echelons of society facilitates the acceptance of lower-class cultural forms by the upper strata (Burke 1988: 61-63), it is difficult to envision the possibility that the gifted scribes would not transform the oral style into a more intricate diction.125 Even if one expects that religious practice would preserve the rhythmic-verbal style as prestige language for religious purposes (Samarin 1976: 4-6, 10-11), the ancient style would hardly be maintained in its original state. Indeed, in the Priestly writings the prevailing style is complex-nominal, even if here and there one encounters rhythmic phrasing, such as the opening of the revelation to Abram in Gen. 17.1b-2, 4:
c'on n-m /-asb f^nnn / -ira ^K UN (v. ib) ...-TKD iwan fm» m"w /"pun u'3 TP-O ninai (v. 2 v. 4 ITU pan mb rrm / f n« 'rr-a run UN (v. 4 'I am El Shaddai. Walk in my ways and be blameless. And [I] will-establish my covenant between me and you, and [I] will-make you exceedingly numerous'... 'As-for-me, here, my covenant [is] with you: [You] shall-be the father of a multitude of nations'.
But the continuation is phrased in the nominal style:
125. When poet or composer is influenced by rural poetry, music or dance (Burke 1988: 61-62), he is not supposed to merely reproduce popular art.
88
Biblical Hebrew D13N -|DE) n« 111? K~lpn N^l s
D^iu rvab urrrh -p-irm "[ini pi -[3-21 T3 n-a nn 'nopm "pna -[irrrbi DTI^ -[^ nrnb
'Thus your name shall no longer be called Abram... [I] establish my covenant between me and you, and your offspring to come, as an everlasting covenant throughout the ages, to be God to you and to your offspring to come', (vv. 5,1)
Thus the complex-nominal style is the predominant one, whereas the rhythmic style is limited to a conservative reminiscence in the opening.126 (4) In this regard a distinction must be made between the period of the Judean monarchy (the late pre-exilic period), and that of the Babylonian and Persian domination (the exilic and post-exilic period). Under the Judean monarchy, Hebrew was the spoken and the official written language of Judah. Oral and written literature, then, although mostly representing different social settings, still belonged to one continuum. If Baruch wrote down Jeremiah's spoken discourse, he was acquainted with the register of oral literature. Thus, within the boundaries of a tale in the complex-nominal style one may detect a few verbal sequences, characteristic of the rhythmic-verbal style even in the narrative sequence proper. For example, 26.21:127 / v~m n« D-im biDi vnn: bm D'p'irr -j^on UDEH D—iUD Km / rnm / KTI / imiN yiaen / iiran -r^an rapm And King Jehoiakim and all his warriors and all the officials heard his address, and the king wanted to put him to death. Uriah heard (of this), and feared and fled, and came to Egypt.
Verbal sequences of this type are very infrequent in the Jeremiah Vita and thus are to be viewed as residues of the rhythmic-verbal style. The
126. In the revelation of Exod. 6.1-4 one notes a similar transition from verbal to nominal style. On the gradual evolution of the Priestly style from close-to-oral in H (see also Joosten 1996: 154-58, 160-61) to highly scribal in the end of Numbers see Polak 2002: 276-79. 127. The LXX (6 (3aaiAe\Js ICOCXKIM KCU TTOCVTES 01 apxovTE?) represents a shorter text, for example, D'HtOT ^Dl D^T'IT "[^QH. In this case the variance hardly affects the stylistic constellation. However, in a few cases the LXX represents a different style altogether, for example, KCU cxrreSavEV EV TCO priv'i TOO E^Sopco (Jer. 28.17 [LXX 35.17]); this short clause alternates with the intricate clause in MT: tVDDH ITDDn run ''irntOT tZTirn NTin nitiD. However, the variance between the LXX of Jeremiah and the MT is only rarely that decisive.
Polak Style is More than the Person
89
presence of such features indicates that under the monarchy the rupture between the oral and the scribal milieu is not a total one.128 Although the literary scene is now dominated by the scribal milieu, the scribal and the oral style still are coexistent. c. The Provincial Chancery of the Empire and Literary Culture The nature of Hebrew literary culture changes under Babylonian and Persian rule. The imperial language in Western Asia was Official Aramaic. Thus, more is at stake than the position of the Judeans in Babylonia and the returning exiles, to whom Aramaic as the lingua franca of the empire would be the preferred language for all public discourse. The language problem also pertains to the Judeans who had remained in their homeland. As Judah is swallowed by the empire, the former kingdom turns into a small governmental province (WinD "FIT, Ezra 5.8) which was part of the satrapy of Western Asia (milD "DU, Ezra 4.10; 5.3; 6.6; 7.21; E. Stern 2001: 370-71, 431-38), and which extended as far south as Beth Zur (c. 6 km to the north of Hebron, which belonged to Edom; E. Stern 2001: 443-47). Thus the Judean royal chancery is replaced by a local Aramaic chancery serving the administrative needs of the empire and the province of Yehud (as illustrated by the Aramaic papyri from Elephantine). In this situation the Judean scribe would be formally instructed in Official Aramaic, and thus always remain bilingual. This situation brings with it an increasing cultural split between written and spoken language, and thus also between scribal and oral culture. As long as the chancery was occupied by scribes who had received their education under the Judean monarchy, the new constellation probably did not have a strong effect on the use of Hebrew.129 Indeed, changes in the Hebrew style must 128. In seventeenth-century England Burke (1988: 274) notes 'the growing split between learned and popular culture' in Western Europe, which comes to expression in religious culture (pp. 273-75), language culture and the adoption of court language (pp. 276-77), and the abandonment of trivial' literature, such as the romance of chivalry, to the lower classes. In Scotland and Eastern Europe this split occurred far later (1988:278-81). Even in England, however, this split was not complete. Educated readers were well acquainted with chapbooks, partly because of the mediation by schoolboy readership, including such prominent lettres as Samuel Johnson, Bunyan and Burke (Spufford 1981:7-9, 72-75). 129. E. Stern (2001: 307-16, 321-26) points to the stability and relative welfare of Judah under the Babylonians. The impoverishment of the region to the North of Jerusalem is attributed to the period of 480 (pp. 322-23). The latter date could suggest some connection with the suppression of the Babylonian rebellion.
90
Biblical Hebrew
have been gradual. A scribe who was educated in the chancery of the Judean monarchy would probably absorb Aramaic influence gradually, all the more so as Aramaic was now the language of the authorities, and thus prestige language.130 By the next generation, Aramaic would already have been the main language. Real estate contracts, for instance, would be written in Aramaic, just as they were at Elephantine. According to the logic of'languages in contact' other social strata were also affected by the influence of Aramaic. In administrative and commercial contexts Aramaic would be the preferred language for all persons having business with the government, that is to say, the entire propertyowning and professional part of the population (witness the real estate contracts from Elephantine). Thus Aramaic turns into the prestige language for all public purposes.131 Moreover, many of the daily commercial contacts of the tiny Judean community (E. Stern 2001: 366-72, 428-45) would have been inter-regional, if not international. In such circumstances negotiations would have been conducted in Aramaic rather than in Hebrew. Buying fish from the 'Tyrians' (Neh. 13.16) on the market would necessitate the use of a 'northern' dialect, even if the sellers came from Dor or Jafo, which at the time belonged to the king of Sidon (KAI14.1819; Elayi 1980: 14-17, 24; 1982: 97-104; E. Stern 2001: 385-89, 392-412, 417-22). This does not imply that Hebrew disappeared as a spoken language. Instead it ceased functioning as the official scribal language of the royal bureaucracy. Because public life became dominated by Aramaic, the use of Hebrew as a prestige language became now restricted to religious discourse, and thereby far removed from the sphere of daily public life. Literary Hebrew was no longer fostered by a central royal chancery, and had to be acquired through study of classical prototypes (Joosten 1999) rather than from living usage. Since letters, contracts and other official documents were written in Official Aramaic, Hebrew epistolography was
130. On the position of Lamentations between pre-exilic and post-exilic language see Dobbs-Allsopp 1998. The transitional position of Ezekiel has been studied by Rooker (1990a), who is criticized by E. Ben Zvi in his recension (Ben Zvi 1992). 131. We must distinguish carefully between this situation and the sporadic knowledge of Aramaic by Hezekiah's ministers. If these officials could urge the Rab-shakeh to speak Aramaic in order to prevent the common people from understanding his intentions (2 Kgs 18.26), such an effect would have been surprising and even counterintuitive in the Persian era.
Polak Style is More than the Person
91
taught no longer. Thus writing Hebrew became the occupation of the most learned of scribes, who would use a learned, complex style, as attested in the texts from the Judean desert.132 The status of spoken Hebrew is no less problematic. Disappearing from public life, Hebrew became primarily a low status language for the household,133 the circle of friends, and informal conversation on more or less private subjects (Fishman 1971: 236-39, 250-59, 288-93; 1972: 16-23; Fasold 1987: 34-52).134 Qimron (2000: 233-36), who postulates a Jerusalem local language, points to Nehemiah's complaint of the many Judeans who married 'Ashdodite, Ammonite, and Moabite women' (Neh. 13.23), and hence 'a good number of their children spoke the language of Ashdod...and did not know how to speak Judean' (v. 24 NJPS). Thus Judean Hebrew was a spoken language with its own distinct identity.135 But one should note the nature of the Judean Hebrew referred to in this case. Nehemiah complains that IT 11 !T "131^ D^TDD DiTKl ('and did not know how to speak Judean'). This use of TD!1 (in CBH equivalent with 'being acquainted with someone, something', 'recognizing'; German 'kennen', Latin cognoscere) to indicate practical ability (German 'konnen', Latin posse) is utterly non-Classical. It replaces the construction of I7T
132. One has to take into account that the Qumran scrolls also include a number of biblical texts in paleo-Hebrew script, which, accordingly, was still in use under the imperial occupation. Thus, not only the texts from Ketef Hinnom were in the ancient script. 133. Note that Nehemiah's complaint about the lack of knowledge of 'Judahite' would be rather improbable, if commercial and administrative business would require the use of Hebrew. 134. One might compare the (former) situation of Brussels Flemish vis-a-vis French (Louckx 1978:54-57); and see in general Thomason and Kaufman 1988:19-20, 91-119. The findings of Einar Haugen amid Norwegian communities in English speaking Minnesota (Haugen 1972: 1-36, 110-32), provide a perfect model for the adoption of more and more Aramaic features of all kinds by the Hebrew vernacular. 135. In consequence, Rabin (1958:152)andSchaper(1999: 16) classify the Judean community as trilingual. It would be preferable to describe it as bilingual (with Hebrew and Aramaic spoken and written) and diglossic, as the Hebrew vernacular is opposed to (1) Official Aramaic, and (2) Hebrew as the preferred language for religious purposes. It seems to me that Qimron is right in his rebuttal of the assumption that at this stage the Hebrew vernacular already was altogether distinct from the literary language. His analysis of the lexicon of QH (Qimron 1986: 86-97,105-18) and Smith's analysis of the use of the wayyiqtolform (M.S. Smith 199 la: 59-63) indicate a large measure of continuity from CBH through LBH until QH and MH.
92
Biblical Hebrew
with infinitive, for example, "Ql TIITr «^ (Jer. 1.6; also Job 34.33);136 the substitution of ITP by TDH is also found in QH(4Q398fr. 11-13,1.3; DJD, X: 36). This verse, then illustrates the marked difference between CBH and the language spoken at Jerusalem during the fifth century BCE.137 This vernacular displays a marked Aramaic influence as seen in features, such as UD^ in the niphal with b as indication of the agent (Neh. 6.1): "m:i -D irTK "irr'n ^nnun D^I rrTiBi zbiio1? awn -IE»D -m noinn n« When word reached Sanballat, Tobiah, Geshem the Arab, and the rest of our enemies that I had rebuilt the wall.
According to Kutscher (1977: 73-79) this construction reflects a Persian syntagm, and is characteristic of Egyptian Aramaic and other Aramaic languages.138 Lexical Aramaisms in Nehemiah include l^bl^l ('he roofed it over', 3.15);139 m», in the sense 'to lock' (ITPIKI nin^Tl 1ST, 'let the doors be closed and barred', 7.2 NJPS; Kutscher 1977: cccxcviii); pT (2.6);140 and the phrases PHOTO DTTO (13.31) and D^QTD DTIU1? (Ezra 10.14; Neh. 10.35). Accordingly, LBH is to be regarded as a language state sui generis (Saenz-Badillos 1993: 112-29). Indeed, the first and most obvious result of the high status of Aramaic is the adoption of Aramaic language features (e.g. Aramaic lexemes), and the decline of corresponding terms of BH, first of all in the field of govern136. So also Exod. 36.1; 1 Sam. 16.18; 1 Kgs 3.7; 5.20; Isa. 7.15; 8.4; 56.11; Amos 3.10; and in LBH, Eccl. 4.17; 6.8; 10.15; 2 Chron. 2.13. 137. These circumstances hardly favor Qimron's thesis that QH was a later descendent of the Jerusalem local language (Qimron 2000: 233), although the existence of a number of regional and local languages in Judea is not to be cast in doubt (Hurvitz 2000b: 112). From a sociolinguistic point of view one could envision the emergence of a higher class, priestly oriented Jerusalem language that contained (a) features of the local vernacular, and (b) CBH features. 138. Soalsor6«n Dnma ~f?EbJOT nnjn ('now, the king will hear of it', Neh. 6.7); and probably also ^ 1ttfU] ('had I prepared' rather than 'were prepared for me', which does not necessarily involve Nehemiah's account: Neh. 5.18). 139. As against Hebrew imip (Neh. 3.3,6); in Biblical Aramaic note aphel ^Dfl ('finding shadow', Dan. 4.9, which is comparable with Neh. 13.19). On the additional Aramaism, DIDD1? (Neh. 12.44; and similarly 1 Chron. 22.2; Eccl. 3.5; Esth. 4.16; Ps. 147.2, as against CBH ^DN and pp) see Hurvitz 1972a: 175 n. 308. 140. For the Persian origin of this noun see BOB: 1091. In BH, cf. Eccl. 3.1; Esth. 9.27, 31; and in Biblical Aramaic, Dan. 2.9, 16; 7.12, and passim; Ezra 5.3. For the verb see also Dan. 2.9.
Polak Style is More than the Person
93
ment and administration (Kutscher 1982: 52, 75-76; Rosenthal 1961 57-59; Schirmer 1926:19,39-43; Strang 1970:122-23,184-85,252,254, 367,389). The adoption of HID^Q (for CBH nm^D, rO^OD) probably is dependent on its use in official documents. Thus one also notes LBH D'TlpS ('orders', or 'commandments', Pss. 103.18; 119.4).141 The retreat of "ISO ('written document' and in particular 'letter') for m3R andpOHS (Hurvitz 1999) belongs to this domain, as well as the introduction of D'Dm (Josh. 22.8; Eccl. 5.18; 6.2; 2 Chron. 1.11-12; Hurvitz 1972a: 24-26) as term for property (in Aramaic, Ezra 6.28; 7.26), along with the Hebrew terms C^OT and rnpft. This field also comprises such terms as ]3D, nns, rmft and all the Persian terms for treasury and archives (T3H). A second field of lexical borrowing is technology,142 for instance, the textile term pD (Hurvitz 1967), replacing WD (of Egyptian descent, and thus at home in Egyptian-Israelite commerce). The field of commerce includes such terms as *7Dp ('to receive'; Hurvitz 2000c: 181 -85) replacing Hebrew Plpb. To the same field belongs the meaning 'to buy', assumed by npb (Neh. 5.1-3; Kutscher 1982: 83). A second phenomenon is that Hebrew words adopt the function of the Aramaic correspondent term. Thus the Hebrew relative particle p£N) assumes the tasks of Aramaic 'H, which serves both as introduction to the relative clause and to the object clause (like Akkadian So). With regard to syntactic structure one notes some cases in which the object of the infinitive clause precedes the predicate (as in Aramaic and Akkadian; Kropat 1909: 59-60), for example, m^ITn DV3 DV "mm HOD niHQlD ('What was due for each day he sacrificed according to the commandment of Moses', 2 Chron. 8.13); DPS D^KTITI mi IT ^D D^b rnnS2/7l anni^ Eni6 DnaN ('Do you now intend to subjugate the men and women of Judah and Jerusalem to be your slaves?', 28.10);143 141. See also Pss. 19.9; 103.18; 111.7; 119.15, 56, 134, 159, 168, etc. For t Aramaic equivalents see Hurvitz 1972a: 126-29; Ezra 1.2; 4Q196 (4QTobaar) 14.8, •ppS H -J-QK Hl[p2...] (Tob 6.16; DID, XIX: 20); 4Q198 (4QTobcar)1.2, mpBI [H]b HQK1 (DID, XIX: 57). 142. Kutscher (1982: 48, 50-53) refers to the fields of government, warfare, merchandise and technology (of Human descent, IDIp/D and ]'H2?; of Indo-Iranian descent, DID). On the Human origin of 2TIB see Loretz and Mayer 1980. On the Roman origin of many agricultural terms in German see Schirmer 1926: 41-42. For West Semitic languages this field includes the culture termyyn. 143. The two other examples given by Kropat (1909: 60)—2 Chron. 29.16; 30.17—are dubitable at best. For the Aramaic usage, which is rooted in Akkadian syntax, see Dan. 2.18; 3.16; 5.8, 16; 6.5; Ezra 4.22.
94
Biblical Hebrew
r™n nKin nman rriJK n» D^pb »pn ^D nK..."inoK nrarn ('And Esther.. .wrote a second letter of Purim for the purpose of confirming the authority', Esth. 9.29); TKB "102/7 ~HPS nrra HH« ('You have commanded to keep your precepts diligently', Ps. 119.4).144 Probably this phenomenon also pertains to the field of administration, since these constructions are in wide use in official documents, as demonstrated by the texts from Elephantine. In addition, both the prestige language and the less preferred language lose many of their subtleties.145 In the Hebrew of this period, as well as in QH, one notes the disappearance of the internal passive of the qal (Fassberg 2001: 252-55), and the fading away of the paronymous infinitive, which is rare in the language of the Chronist (1 Chron. 4.10),146 and not found in Ezra-Nehemiah (including the memoirs).147 The wayyiqtol narrative tense forfeits its characteristic short forms, which were exceptional in that they occurred only with special verb classes (final 1*1; middle V), and thus turned into a full yiqtol with waw consecutive (Kutscher 1974: 354-55; Eskhult 2000: 91-92). In MH these forms are no longer attested (Muraoka 2000). The extended 'eqteld form which in CBH indicates the cohortative, can now be used with waw consecutive for the narrative tense (e.g. mnfcl, Eccl. 1.17; Neh. 2.1,9, etc.; HHW1, Ezra 9.3). Although this form apparently has existed in Judean speech of the post-exilic community (Qimron 2000: 237), the use itself could hardly have come into being as long as Hebrew was the official language of the scribal chancery.148 144. This verse also contains the LBH lexeme D'HIpS ('commandments'), for which see n. 141, above. 145. For the process of simplification of Middle English under the influence of the Scandinavian languages (the Danelaw) see Thomason and Kaufman 1988: 328-30. 146. 2 Chron. 32.13, and, following the source text in Samuel and Kings, 1 Chron. 21.24//2 Sam. 24.24; 2 Chron. 18.277/2 Kgs 22.28; 1 Chron. 21.17 Ommn mm for THinn Hinn "DDK); in Esther there are two cases to be noted: Esth. 4.14; 6.13. See also Zech. 6.15; 7.5; 8.21; 11.17,17; 12.3; Dan. 11.10,13. 147. However, this is not a matter of straightforward Aramaic influence, since the paronymous infinitive does exist in Syriac, as shown by Noldeke 1880: 206-209. 148. This LBH innovation probably represents a hypercorrection (according to Kutscher 1974: 326-27, by analogy with the use of forms that are similar to the jussive for the narrative tense). Fishman (1971:266; following Labov 1971:193-95,197-204) attributes the innovative role of hypercorrection mainly to members of the lower middle class, that is to say to people who have some education but not more than that. We may assume that in a diglossic, bilingual community similar tensions exist between the practical knowledge of people without scribal education and their lack of linguistic expertise.
Polak Style is More than the Person
95
The general situation, then, is that in the exilic/post-exilic period the scribal education is oriented more towards Official Aramaic than to spoken Hebrew. Moreover, the small province (or rather district) of Judah is open to strong foreign influences in almost all spheres of public life. Could these social and linguistic conditions permit the composition of entire books in CBH, a language which in many respects is totally different from the Hebrew vernacular and the official Aramaic government language? Since the ancient Indian scholars went so far as to build a model linguistics (culminating in Panini's linguistic analysis, Cardona 1994: 33-46) in order to preserve the purity of Sanskrit as a liturgical language (pp. 25-33), one might assume that the use of Hebrew as sacred language could have brought with it a tendency to preserve specific features of CBH in a similar way (Loewe 1994:114), all the more so as some phenomena could suggest a certain continuity between Masoretic and Karaite linguistics and early language traditions (Khan 1999: 191-99; Dotan 1991). Thus the assumption seems justified that these approaches to language study harken back to the Second Commonwealth.149 A high level of language consciousness may be assumed for the circles around Sirach (as witnessed by the translation prepared by his grandson) and the Qumran community. But still we have to distinguish between language consciousness and the creation of a full-fledged linguistic model (even though the existence of a rudimentary model seems plausible). Only a complete linguistic model would enable the perfect distinction between LBH and CBH indicators. Actually, one wonders whether the poor circumstances of the tiny province of Yehud may be assumed to create the institutions in which the classical language would be fostered in a systematic way.150 The poetry of Sirach and the Qumran texts also include a large number of non-classical features (Muraoka 2000; Kutscher 1974: 8-45). In fact, QH has its own flavor, morphology, and lexical register (Qimron 1986).151 The presence of these features is not affected by the impact of CBH texts. In fact, most non-classical features have been detected in texts that 149. I thank my friends and colleagues, Dr Meira Polliack and Dr Chaim Cohen for some stimulating remarks on this matter, although I assume all responsibility for the conclusions drawn. 150. On the role of education and ideology in language maintenance see Weinreich 1963: 99-103, 108-109; Fishman 1971: 330-36, objecting to earlier generalizations (pp. 312-19). 151. Even if one adopts the position that the 'Jerusalem dialect' of the period was closer to CBH than to MH (Qimron 2000), one cannot but admit that this local language was significantly different from the language of the Judean monarchy.
96
Biblical Hebrew
are strongly influenced by classical models. The Chronist copies texts from the books of Samuel and Kings, and presents his reader with a list of the generations from Genesis. In consequence he is immersed in classical reading, and highly proficient in the classical language. But in spite of the theologically motivated deviations from his sources, most synoptic material reflects his sources meticulously. The characteristic phenomena of LBH are far more frequent in non-synoptic material than in the parallels to Samuel and Kings (Verheij 1990: 32-33,36). Nevertheless, the book of Chronicles provides the principal starting point for a discussion of LBH (Kropat 1909). The Esther scroll contains many of the motifs originating in CBH tales, such as the Joseph tale, and the Saul-David narrative. Some 'classical' flavor is evident in the use of the paronymous infinitive (qatol yiqtoh Esth. 4.14; 6.13). Nevertheless this book contains a high number of non-classical features, besides those phenomena that can be ascribed to the need to imitate the Persian milieu (Bergey 1984). For instance, on two occasions the narrator uses TH to mark the modifier that opens a new action sequence (Esth. 1.1; 2.8; 3.4; 5.1,2), as found in CBH.152 Thus he is conscious of the classical option. On the other hand, in many sentences he brings the infinitive clause without 'H1! (1.2, 4, 5, 10; 2.1, 8, 12, 15, 19; 9.25), as found often in Chronicles and Ezra-Nehemiah. These phenomena indicate the retreat of the classical style and syntax, and thus the influence of the colloquial. It is difficult to imagine that the language of religion would not be affected by these processes.153 Indeed, non-classical features stand out in the doxologies marking the closure of the subcollections in Psalms, for example,154 D^n lin D^HD andnnrWlb 155 in Ps. 41.14:
nbiin lui nbiuno bvrvtr TI^K n 7113
152. Note, however, that this construction is followed by a qatal clause (1.3; 3.4; 5.2). The continuation with narrative preterite is found in 2.8; 5.1. 153. Even though in Jerusalem the notion of 'correct Hebrew' could hardly have been less vital than that of 'correct Norwegian' in the mouth of a Norwegian pastor in Wisconsin, who also was affected by English (Haugen 1972: 114-15). 154. SoalsoPss. 28.9 (concluding verse) and 106.48 (doxology). Hurvitz(1972a: 158-59) points to the biblical parallels in 1 Cnron. 17.14 as against 2 Sam. 7.16 (D^IU 117); Neh. 9.4; Dan. 2.20; 7.18 (NQ^U 1U), as against Gen. 13.15 (D^ltf 1U). 155. For the verb me? see Hurvitz 1972a: 88-91, 158,andcf.,e.g.,Pss. 145.2 (on which see Hurvitz 1972a: 70-107); 147.12, Sirach 51.12; Targ. Onq. on Gen. 15.15; Exod. 15.1 (but note its occurrences as poetic Aramaism in Pss. 63.4; 79.13; 117.1).
Polak Style is More than the Person
97
and Ps. 106.47:
•jrbnrn nnn^nb "jtznp nek nnn?...irn?N n iDir-rain Scrutiny of Psalm 137, the speaker of which introduces himself as a temple singer (vv. 1-2) contains a number of non-classical features: the suffix of-D"IDT« (v. 6) and the particle 27 in vb rbftW "[^ D^ETE "O* (v. 8) and TrW2? "HtOR (v. 9). The other song that possibly reflects the thinking of the exiles, Psalm 126, contains the nouns HT2? (v. 1), a noun pattern found in Ezekiel and Lamentations,156 and ITOI2? (v. 4, gere fTD^), a rare noun pattern in CBH, that is very active in Aramaic, in Qumran texts and in MH (Hurvitz 1972a: 79-86).157 The singer guilds may have clung to classical poetry, but they did not succeed in maintaining morphology, syntax and lexical register of the classical language.158 And why wonder? After all, the Temple hierarchy was not less exposed to outside influences than their lay countrymen. The Temple was not the institution that it was under the Judean monarchy, for it was no longer sustained by the Judean monarchy, but either by the empire (Ezra 6.6-10; Weinberg 1992: 111-12, 116-17) or the local community, according to the agreement attributed to Nehemiah (Neh. 10.33-40; 13.4-9, 10-13, 28). As Darius I had made the administration responsible for the economy of Temple and priesthood (Ezra 6.8-9), the priests would have had far more significant contact with the administration than commoners. The socio-economic position of the priesthood is illustrated by the extent of their participation in the reconstruction of the town walls (Neh. 3.1,4, 20-22, 28-29), while their role in public life is sufficiently indicated by their connections with the Tobiad party (Neh. 13.4-7; Ezra 2.60-63).159 The priests, then, did not constitute an isolated community. Even if one
156. nam (Ezek. 8.5); nnirpl (Lam. 3.63); see Hurvitz 1972a: 174 n. 305; Dobbs-Allsopp 1998: 16. 157. On the late elements in the archaistic Ps. 113 see Hurvitz 1985. 158. The book of Lamentations exemplifies intricate concatenation and symmetry patterns and contains many archaic phenomena, but the linguist registers a significant number of LBH indicators (Dobbs-Allsopp 1998). 159. Moreover, since the priests were an extremely significant stratum from the economic point of view, they probably were also involved in commercial projects, and by implication had more foreign contacts, as noted by Bickerman (1937: 56-58, 126-31) with regard to the Hellenistic era. On the other hand, even the good fortune of this hierarchy was subject to the many vicissitudes of fate and the economic plight of the Judean community (Neh. 13.10).
98
Biblical Hebrew
admits that they had their own subculture, they entertained intensive contact with the authorities and leading families. Hence we are hardly allowed to suppose that they would have been able to preserve the language of the pre-exilic period in general. In conclusion, then, we see that the special status of LBH is conditioned by the political, social and cultural situation in Judea after the fall of the Judean kingdom and the subsequent disappearance of the central royal chancery. The predominance of the Aramaic administrative and legal usage brings with it large-scale Aramaic influence on the syntax and lexical register of the Hebrew of this period, and strongly affects the style of literary Hebrew, which now tends even more to the complex-nominal style than in the era of the late Judean kingdom. A total rupture separates the scribal culture of this period from the low-ranking oral culture of the Hebrew vernacular. 6. Discussion: Alternative Possibilities Could one envision alternative theories? Are there other ways to explain the language variation in biblical prose? Some possibilities have been considered by Cratylus and his friends Hermogenes and Philo. Happening to pass by, Phaedrus jotted down some parts of the discussion. Unfortunately, he didn't know how it started. Cratylus: Let us assume for a moment that the Hebrew of the Second Commonwealth differs from that of the Israelite and Judean monarchy. Then we have still to take into account that the rhythmic-verbal style could also be cultivated by authors from the Persian and Hellenistic era, for whom this style represented the norms of semi-canonized literature. Philo: This hypothesis raises the grave question of which economic milieu could have given those authors the opportunity to immerse themselves in these norms. However, even if it be admitted that successful imitation is possible, the hypothesis of systematic imitation is undermined by the assumptions on which it is based. And, second, wholesale imitation of a certain style presumes the adoption of a large number of stylistic and syntactic patterns, attending the many delicacies of the Hebrew verbal system. And, what is more, in order to be faithful to the norm, the scribe has to be gifted enough to remove all interference from the scribal patterns and norms he is accustomed to by
Polak Style is More than the Person
99
virtue of a long and systematic education. And that means, first of all, the patterns of Aramaic epistolography and legal writing. Cratylus: Don't you agree, then, that the scribes of the Persian era were gifted narrators and poets? Philo: I certainly do agree. Their narrative is extremely lively, their poetry excellent. But their language is not 100 per cent Classical Biblical Hebrew. The Temple scroll, the book of Jubilees, Sirach, Hebrew Tobit, the great compositions of the Dead Sea Scrolls, the books of Job and Chronicles, none escapes the regularity imposed by the language of the post-exilic community. In order to write perfect Classical Biblical Hebrew, the scribes would have had to acquire norms that were strange to their milieu, just from reading and rereading. If you assume that complete imitation is possible, you must assume linguistic analysis and knowledge on a level that are hardly imaginable. What is more, their lively language indicates that they had regard for the living vernacular. Thus they would hardly be able to represent the classical language in its purity. Hermogenes: And what about a poetic genius, someone like James Joyce? Philo: Granted. But would you compare Joyce's schooling with the education of the ancient scribe? Cratylus: Maybe. But what about those hidden assumptions you forgot to specify? Philo: First of all, the hypothesis of perfect imitation takes for granted that the rhythmic-verbal style was recognized as literary norm by a certain number of scribes. Accordingly, one has also to presume that these scribes were aware of certain narratives in this style, for otherwise there would be no norm to appreciate or imitate. If prophetic narrative does not suggest a certain style, the narrator of a given narrative J is unable to imitate that diction. Hermogenes: But you don't have to assume a complete corpus in order to justify that argument.
100
Biblical Hebrew
Philo: The number of normative, 'semi-canonized' literary works cannot be presumed to be too small. In order to absorb the implicit norms of a certain literature by experience, the scholarly imitator must be able to become well-versed in such literature. If one wants to argue that a given narrative R imitates the style of the narratives on the patriarchs and the first kings, the narrator must have quite a number of such tales at his disposal. If the corpus of tales in this style is too small, it would hardly be recognizable as normative. Accordingly, the imitation hypothesis must assume a considerable corpus serving as prototype. And then, take into account that language norms basically are unconscious. Even if you can successfully adhere to a set of rules when awake and clear-headed, it is a different matter when you are tired and worn-out, and writing by candle light. Cratylus: I think I have to question you on two points. First of all, do you think that this corpus has been preserved after all those centuries? Philo: If you presume that the corpus in the rhythmic-verbal style was regarded as normative in a given religious, cultural and literary climate, you must be ready to admit that this culture preserved at least significant parts of it. Or would you rather argue that the scholarly authors who adopted this corpus as exemplary and imbibed its style also failed to preserve their hallowed examples? As I see it, the argument that all (or most) narrative in the rhythmic-verbal style represents no more than late imitation, entails three assumptions to the contrary. Cratylus: But you have to explain how this presumed corpus could have been transmitted over the centuries. Philo: Written transmission must have begun somewhere on the time line, but when the oral tradition was still very much alive. Albert Lord has discovered some moments of this nature in the Serbo-Croation tradition. He points to a prince who was an oral poet, but was literate as well. The first scholar to record Serbo-Croation epic songs in writing, Vuk Karadzic, was a school teacher, and the son of an oral poet. Thus the transition from oral to written narrative (and law) is not contrary to the laws of nature.160 The nature of this transmission is not too problematic. In Egypt many texts 160. For convenient summaries see Lord 1991: 26-27, 170-85; Drerup 1915: 25. The transition from oral to written law is discussed by Otto 1996 (Phaedrus' note).
Polak Style is More than the Person
101
have been written on leather, such as the copy of the building inscription of Sesostris I. The monumental account of Thutmoses' battle at Megiddo mentions the record 'on a roll of leather at in the Temple of Amun'. Thus the technology of writing on leather was known in Egypt. So why reject this possibility for Canaan and Israel? Since ink was employed for writing on ostraca and papyrus, it could also be used to write on leather, as it was in Egypt (but in Mesopotamia ink was not used for writing on clay and wood). Thus there is no reason at all why Israelite scribes would not have written on leather. If it is admitted that Deuteronomy could have been written on leather,161 why not the tales of the patriarchs? Or the tales of the inception of the monarchy? Or the Exodus account? Hermogenes: Even if we take that for granted, we still have to deal with the second point. You have still not explained why a given style should be scribal and another style oral. Could we not assume that the extensive narratives in which you detect the scribal style represent exceptional developments? Are these exceptional narratives not best explained by the assumption that for special reasons these narrators did not want to reflect the highly regarded style? Would it be absurd to view the particular style of the Esther narrative as representative of the royal Persian court rather than the style of the period? May the Chronist not have used his-own style in order to profilize his particular ideology as against the books of Samuel and Kings? And why would the histories of the Judean court in the book of Kings not use the scribal style because of the link to the monarchy? Philo: Although these arguments taken together look suspiciously like special pleading, they could seem plausible. But one still would have to explain why the presumedly normative David narrative is linked to the commoners rather than to the magnates. Why would the highly revered Genesis tales adopt analphabetism as the norm? And why is analphabetism almost the norm in the stories about the emergence the monarchy, the stories that are viewed as paradigmatic for kingship, namely, the tales of Samuel, Saul, David and Solomon? What is the difference between the implied culture of these tales and the explicitly scribal culture reflected by the chronicles concerning Hezekiah and Josiah?
161. These remarks could refer to Lichtheim 1975:115 (copy from the time of the Eighteenth Dynasty); 1976: 33; Janssen 1962: 44-45; Milik 1961: 93-96; DupontSommer 1948: 43-44, 62-65; Haran 1982: 166-67 (Phaedrus' note).
102
Biblical Hebrew
Cratylus: Could we not explain the difference between the rhythmicverbal and the complex-nominal style as a matter of theme and genre? Philo: These suggestions fail to exhaust the matter. Excerpts in both styles represent a variety of different genres. The rhythmic-verbal style is represented by a tale in character speech (the tale of the Tekoite), prophetic legend, and patriarchal narrative, whereas the complex-nominal style is found in historical narrative, and in Deuteronomic narrative retrospections. Narrative as such, then, can embody both styles. Moreover, both the book of Samuel, which is represented by an excerpt in the rhythmic-verbal style, and the book of Kings, from which an excerpt in the complex-nominal style was adduced, represent historical narrative. If one argues that the tale of the Tekoite is historical narrative rather than historiography proper, as, for example, the tale of Baasha and Asa, one must also bear in mind that the Jeremiah Vita certainly represents narrative, but is dominated by the complex-nominal style. Hence, this style fits narrative and historiography alike. The difference between the two styles, then, is not merely a matter of genre. Hermogenes: And why not simply a matter of personal preference? Philo: Then you risk disregarding differences of implied cultural background. The Esther scroll mentions writing and written orders on several occasions, whereas this theme is hardly mentioned in the David tales. This datum suggests that the particular style of the Esther novella is a manifestation of the cultural inclination of a society where writing is the basic technique of the bureaucracy. If the use of this style would be a matter of choice, it would be difficult to explain the stylistic similarity between a historiographic work like Chronicles and a. fictional narrative like the Esther scroll. By the same token one may ask whether the use of the rhythmic-verbal style in the books of Genesis and Samuel is a matter of personal preference. Isn't it disturbing to think of the similarity between the historical tales of the latter book, part of which recounts wars and court occurrences, and the private history of the patriarchs which focus on the tent, the fields around it, and the herds? And how are we to explain the difference between the Joseph tales and the Esther novella, in spite of the similarity in themes? And why is this historiography so different from the Chronistic work? It seems to me that the fundamental point is that Chronicles and Esther reflect the same basic scribal culture, whereas most
Polak Style is More than the Person
103
narratives in the rhythmic-verbal style reflect the stylistic norms of the archaic great culture in which oral composition and delivery was the main mode of literary life, only gradually to be replaced by writing. As the royal bureaucracy gradually starts to dominate the higher echelons of society, oral narrative turns into a lower class endeavor, fit for the commoners and for private communication, but not for public life and literature.
HURVITZ REDUX: ON THE CONTINUED SCHOLARLY INATTENTION TO A SIMPLE PRINCIPLE OF HEBREW PHILOLOGY
Gary A. Rendsburg 1. Introduction In 1968 Avi Hurvitz wrote a programmatic article on the subject of Aramaisms in BH (Hurvitz 1968). Therein he noted that not every form or lexeme which at first glance looks like an Aramaism can automatically be used to date a specific biblical text to the Persian period and beyond. Clearly, as Hurvitz noted, there is a great increase in the number of Aramaic features in BH during the Persian period (late sixth through to late fourth centuries BCE), as even a surface reading of such books as Esther, Ezra-Nehemiah, and Chronicles demonstrates. But as he also noted, Aramaic (or perhaps better, Aramaic-like) features 'appear sporadically in earlier texts of the Bible as well' (Hurvitz 1968: 234). Such Aramaic-like features (I shall use this term when referring to elements in texts which I deem to be pre-exilic, while reserving the term 'Aramaism' for traits which entered Hebrew from Aramaic in the postexilic period) are to be found in specific settings. These include: (a) Words that are part of Hebrew poetic diction, present in poetry 'because poets normally employ an extensive and recondite vocabulary which naturally makes considerable use of archaisms' (G.R. Driver 1953:36). (b) Words which appear in certain Wisdom texts such as Job and Proverbs, which may have circulated throughout the West Semitic world in Aramaic guise before being adapted by Hebrew writers. (c) Words which appear in books or narratives set in northern Israel, whose dialect included features forming isoglosses with Aramaic to the northeast but not with JH to the south. (d) Words which occur in stories in which Arameans play a prominent role, and which therefore were employed by the authors for
RENDSBURG Hurvitz Redux
105
specific stylistic purposes (see Kaufman 1988:54-55; Greenfield 1981: 129-30). We may illustrate each of these with the following examples: (a) The roots V?D ('speak'), HHK ('come'), ^TK ('go'), nm ('go down'), HTn ('see'), and so on, forming the basic vocabulary of all Aramaic dialects, occur in the Bible almost without exception in poetry. (b) The best instance of proverbial material with Aramaic-like features is Prov. 31.1-9, with forms such as "D ('son', v. 2) and I'lte ('kings', v. 4). (c) 2 Kings 15, detailing the reigns of the kings of Israel from Zechariah through Pekah, includes the following features attested more commonly in Aramaic: blip ('before', v. 10), D^lTD"! ""H ('those of the fourth generation', v. 12), HT ('month', v. 13), PlNtD!! |D ('from the sins', v. 28—with unassimilated nun).1 (d) The oracles of Balaam, the prophet from Aram, are filled with Aramaic-like features, for example, D"1K ]Q ('from Aram', Num. 23.7—again, with unassimilated nun), 3O"I£T ('accounted', v. 9) (one expects the niphal here, but since Aramaic lacks this conjugation and utilizes T-stem forms instead, the author places this form—the only hithpael of the root DO"I in the Bible—in the mouth of Balaam), m~l ('dust-cloud', v. 10), VD3 ('stretch out', 24.6—with retention of theyod), ITD^D ('kingdom', v. 7), etc. There is, of course, overlap between these categories. Thus, since the proverbial material is poetic, an Aramaic-like feature in a particular Wisdom saying belongs to both category (a) and (b). Or, because Arameans frequently interact with Israelians (= members of the kingdom of Israel) in the material recorded in Kings, an Aramaic-like feature in such a setting, such as the word DTIPI] ('descend' > 'encamp') in 2 Kgs 6.9, may belong to both category (c) and (d).2 Furthermore, the book of Job presents points in common with three categories: (a), (b), and (d). That is to say, Job is poetry, it is a Wisdom book, and because its geographical setting is the 1. For detailed discussion of these features, see Rendsburg 2002a: 126-28, 132. 2. Schniedewind and Sivan (1997: 325) considered this example as belonging to category (c). I. Young (1995) most likely would concur, though his study is limited to examples of unusual linguistic items occurring in speech, whereas DTIFO in 2 Kgs 6.9 occurs in third-person narration. Finally, in Rendsburg (2002a: 101-103) I treated this example as belonging to category (d), though I also stated (p. 146) that I am quite willing to see an example such as this as more appropriate for category (c).
106
Biblical Hebrew
Transjordanian desert fringe, its characters speak a language on the boundary between Canaanite and Aramaic (and Arabian too),3 though of these I see category (d) as most operative. In addition to Hurvitz's four categories, I would posit the following additional three contexts in which Aramaic-like features may appear: (e) In addition to the 'obvious' cases in category (c) above, sometimes we encounter a cluster of Aramaic-like features in compositions which do not disclose a northern setting per se, but which are to be explained as IH texts nonetheless. Such texts usually exhibit other IH features unrelated to Aramaic, to wit, lexical and/or grammatical traits better known from Phoenician and/or Ugaritic. Moreover, with no overriding Persian-period evidence in such texts, one should assume a pre-exilic date for these compositions. Prime examples of such texts include the various psalms treated in my book Linguistic Evidence for the Northern Origin of Selected Psalms (Rendsburg 1990b), among them Psalm 116 to be discussed further below. (f) Occurrences of addressee-switching, that is to say, prophetic speeches to the foreign nations, especially those which spoke Aramaic, which in classical prophetic times, the eighth-sixth centuries BCE, included not only Aram, but also Assyria and Babylonia. This phenomenon, which is closely related to category (d) above, will explain the presence of such forms as jTQiT ('they roar', with retention of the yod) and D^TIQ ('great, strong, mighty'), both in Isa. 17.12 within the pronouncement addressed to Damascus and with possible or probable reference to Assyria.4 (g) Occasional instances in which lexemes more characteristic of Aramaic than of Hebrew are invoked by authors for the purposes of alliteration, especially in prose texts—for in poetic texts we might have merely another case of category (a) above. An excellent example is the use of the root b^Q ('speak') in Gen. 21.7, the only instance of this vocable in a BH prose text, 3. If one accedes to the view of Freedman (1969) that the dominant defectiva spelling in the book of Job demonstrates Phoenician influence over a northern Israelite writer, then category (c) would be operative as well. I, for one, am not convinced by Freedman's proposal. 4. For a brief comment on the former, see Rendsburg 1990b: 42. For a treatment of the latter, along with other uses of TDD in the Bible, see Rendsburg 1992d.
RENDSBURG Hurvitz Redux
107
invoked by the author to produce the sound effect with the root 'DO ('circumcise') in v. 4 and the root ^Q3 ('wean') in v. 8 (twice).5 Similarly, the noun DTfT ('months') is employed in Exod. 2.2, instead of the much more common and indeed SBH synonym D^ETTI"!, to enhance the aural nexus with "lOPD mftnm ('and she smeared it with pitch') in v. 3, with a further echo heard in ^Qnm ('and she took pity') in v. 6. The first four settings delineated above—laid out in the aforecited Hurvitz article (Hurvitz 1968), developed by several scholars since 1968 (e.g. Kaufman 1988), and reiterated by Hurvitz on several occasions during the intervening 35 years (e.g. Hurvitz 1996a6)—along with the additional three settings that I have described, together create a comprehensive picture of the inter-relationship between Hebrew and Aramaic. One would expect that all scholars would recognize and accept this picture, especially the four categories presented by Hurvitz, since his article has become a classic over the years. Such, however, is not the case. Instead, as the following will illustrate, one is surprised to find how often this simple principle of Hebrew philology embodied by Hurvitz's approach (with or without my contributions) is ignored. 2. The Rush to Late-Dating In the recent decades, as is well known, there has been a rush among scholars to date virtually the entire biblical canon to the Persian period. The ideological underpinnings of this movement are manifest.7 In my reading of this literature—from the pens of such people as Niels Peter Lemche, Thomas L. Thompson, and Keith W. Whitelam—I have been struck as to how infrequently, if ever, these individuals invoke the evidence of language.8 The reasons for this are clear: the linguistic evidence, in line with 5. The oddity of the root ^G ('speak') in Gen. 21.7 triggered the attention of rabbinic commentators as well (Ber. R. 53.9; Rashi) though naturally they offered a totally different explanation: the gematria of ^Q is 100, equaling Abraham's age at this point in the story. My thanks to my son David E. Rendsburg for bringing this comment by Rashi to my attention. 6. An English version of this article appears in the present volume. 7. See the convenient summary and critique of the movement by Dever (1998). A more recent and more comprehensive treatment is Dever (2001). 8. Philip R. Davies typically is mentioned in the same breath as Thompson, Lemche and Whitelam; but Davies at least has tried to deal with the linguistic evidence
108
Biblical Hebrew
the above outline, contradicts the effort to shift the date of clearly preexilic compositions to the post-exilic period. Accordingly, those involved in this movement simply ignore the evidence. This is true not only of the aforementioned individuals, who are the most public figures in the minimalist movement, but also of others who have followed suit.9 One can respond to these studies in general terms, as Hurvitz has done recently (Hurvitz 1997a; 1999; 2000a; 2001),10 but (1) it is difficult to present linguistic facts to dispute a case which does not utilize linguistic evidence, and (2) it is unlikely that those who ignore linguistic evidence will be convinced by an argument that utilizes the testimony of language. Accordingly, the present article will not respond to the silent approach invoked by Lemche et al., but instead will offer a response to selected other essays which have utilized linguistic data in their work. In general, these essays are devoid of the kind of ideological argumentation at the heart of the minimalist movement, though their ultimate conclusions are similar. That is to say, they too attempt to shift the date of texts traditionally assigned by the majority of scholars to the pre-exilic period to the period of Persian rule. I already have treated two such attempts in a recent article entitled 'Some False Leads in the Identification of Late Biblical Hebrew Texts: The Cases of Genesis 24 and 1 Samuel 2.27-36' (Rendsburg 2002b). The first part of this article responded to an attempt by Alexander Rofe to view the many Aramaic-like features in Genesis 24 as evidence of the late date of that chapter.11 Rofe was absolutely correct to identify and isolate these features, but whereas he viewed them as true Aramaisms, that is, the result (P.R. Davies 1992: 102-105; see also his contribution to the present volume), even if I disagree with his approach and assumptions. 9. For example, in his monograph on Exod. 15, considered by most scholars to be the oldest piece of Hebrew literature in our possession, M.L. Brenner (1991) argued for a Persian-period dating of this poem, but with no real linguistic argument to support his claim. Brenner referred to the work of earlier scholars (e.g. A. Bender and F. Foresti) who claimed to have identified 'a series of Aramaisms' in Exod. 15 (M.L. Brenner 1991: 3), but he did not provide the evidence in detail. Furthermore, when Brenner attempted to rely on linguistic evidence, the analysis was quite weak. For example, he asserted that n^llSQ ('depths') in v. 5 is a LBH feature, because it appears ' 11 times outside the Song and never before the exile' (p. 95), thereby asking the reader to accept at face value that texts such as Mic. 7.19, Pss. 68.23(1); 69.3, 16; 88.7, are late. 10. See also Wright 1998. 11. Rofe's treatment appeared in three versions, in Hebrew (Rofe 1976), in Italian (Rofe 1981), and in English (Rofe 1990).
RENDSBURG Hurvitz Redux
109
of linguistic influence during the Persian period, I explained them, to use the term above, as Aramaic-like features employed by the author of Genesis 24 to provide an Aramaic coloring for a story set in Aram. Among the relevant traits in this chapter, note the expression D^DIZn TI^N ('God of Heaven', vv. 3, 7), well known from Aramaic sources; PIpP $h ~1£>K ('that you not take', v. 3), as a caique on a postulated Aramaic DDD NTT (indeed, this is the rendering of Targum Onqelos); and $b EN ('but rather', v. 38), modeled after Aramaic $h ]H (= later Aramaic $b ]K). In other words, my analysis is guided by category (d) above. The second part of my article responded to an attempt by Marc Brettler to view 1 Sam. 2.27-36 as an exilic addition to the story of Eli in order to serve as a legitimation of the house of Zadok. Brettler posited three linguistic markers of LBH in these ten verses in support of his position. Only one of these items is due to Aramaic influence, namely, the verbal root K~Q ('make fat, make well, strengthen', v. 29), so we will limit the discussion to this single feature. Apart from the problems inherent in demonstrating that a particular verse or set of verses is a late addition to a text, in the present instance we are not dealing with a true Aramaism in an exilic Judahite text, but rather with an IH feature in a section of the Bible replete with other northern traits, for example, the noun 11"! ('pot, kettle, vessel') in 1 Sam. 2.14 (for details, see Rendsburg 2002b: 42). The heroes of 1 Samuel 1-2 are from the territory of Ephraim and the action centers on Shiloh in Ephraim, so it is not surprising to find IH elements in the author's prose. In other words, in this case I am invoking category (c) above. If this were a section of the Bible focused on events in Judah, then Brettler's argument would be strengthened. But since the setting is Ephraim, one should regard the presence of Aramaic-like features in the story as evidence for northern composition. In addition, 1 Samuel 1-2 evinces IH features with no connection to Aramaic whatsoever, for example, the unusual infinitive construct form nh£) ('drinking') in 1.9, paralleled elsewhere only in Judg. 13.21 (with a Danite setting) and 1 Sam. 3.21 (again with a setting at Shiloh). Such IH features, I would argue, act as a control against explaining usages such as K"Q and TH as Aramaisms which penetrated Hebrew after 586 BCE.12
12. Notwithstanding the fact that IH features occur sporadically in LBH as well, apparently due to the reunion of Israelian and Judahite exiles during the sixth century BCE. See Gordon 1955a.
110
Biblical Hebrew 3. The Case of Psalm 116
There is no need, of course, to rehearse all the material presented in my recent article. Instead, I would like to discuss three additional articles that have appeared in the secondary literature. The first of these is not an article devoted expressly to promoting a late date for a specific biblical composition, but en passant remarks within the essay provide fodder for the current study. I refer to an article by Michael Barre on Psalm 116 entitled 'Psalm 116: Its Structure and Its Enigmas' in which the author treats a series of issues towards the elucidation of this poem (Barre 1990). As I just indicated, the date of this composition was not the main thrust of Barre's article, yet it figured in his treatment in the following way. Barre rejected the Masoretic reading of HniQil ('death'—this meaning is recognizable notwithstanding the atypical form) in v. 15, and instead posited an original HfllDQil ('faith, trust') from the root JEN, with the quiescent aleph not represented as common in Aramaic orthography (Barre 1990: 72). Barre further explained: 'As for the proposed hm\vth itself, during much of the history of the Hebrew alphabet the letters mem and nun were similar in appearance. The scribal omission of a nun after a mem is an understandable error' (Barre 1990: 72). And still further: But why did the poet employ an Aramaic word here? The other Aramaisms in Psalm 116 consist of Aramaic pronominal suffixes—Imnwhyky, 'lyky (v. 7), and tgmwlwhy (v. 12). But in the case of hmwth we have a purely Aramaic vocable. The author may have chosen this particular word, rather than some other noun based on the root '-m-n, because it corresponds most closely to h'mnty ['1 trust' in v. 10], being derived from the hiphil form of the Hebrew verb. Moreover, this word establishes the closest sonant connection to h 'mnty, both words beginning /heman-l. (Barre 1990: 73)
At this point, Barre added a footnote with the following: 'Given the probability of a late date for Psalm 116, indicated especially by the undeniable presence of Aramaisms, I am assuming that the aleph in h 'mnty is quiescent' (Barre 1990: 73 n. 47). How are we to judge this suggestion? First of all, as the reader familiar with my publications will recognize, I am a strong proponent of working with MT, difficult as it may be in many places (see, e.g., Rendsburg 1999b). Accordingly, I am unsympathetic to the entire procedure worked out by Barre. MT nniQil is a difficult form, and all of v. 15 is a difficult verse, but Barre's string of emendations and reconstructions certainly takes us
RENDSBURG HurvitzRedux
111
further from the poet's intent than does it bring us closer.13 Furthermore, the notion that the aleph in n n]ftNn was originally quiescent in Aramaiclike fashion and that somehow the ancient Jewish tradents in time read the form in Hebrew-like fashion (not stated explicitly by Barre, but implied of course) is without foundation. But more to the point of the present article: Barre assumed that the 'Aramaisms' in Psalm 116 are evidence of a late date for the poem, and this opened the door for him to propose reading still another Aramaic feature in this psalm. But I question whether these features—the pronominal suffixes in particular—are to be seen as true Aramaisms. In my book devoted to Israelian material in the book of Psalms, I analyzed these items as IH features (Rendsburg 1990b: 83-86). To be fair, of course, they could be seen as either. Unusual grammatical and lexical features in Hebrew which are better attested in Aramaic, as suggested above, can be seen equally as either evidence for IH, in which case we should posit a preexilic date, or as true Aramaisms, in which case we should posit a postexilic date. Or to put this in other terms: the question is: Where does the default lie? For most scholars, almost in knee-jerk fashion, and contrary to Hurvitz's approach, the default is to assign a late date to any composition with Aramaic features. For me, with no overriding Persian-period evidence (such as the setting of a particular book such as Haggai, the presence of Persian loanwords as in Qohelet and Song of Songs, and so on), the default is to assume a pre-exilic date. In the case of the specific items under discussion—excluding Barre's posited nniDQil ('faith, trust') in v. 15, which must remain hypothetical in the extreme—obviously the 3rd masc. sg. pronominal suffix on TIl^lQ^n ('his good-deeds') in v. 12 is unique in BH. It occurs, however, in the eighth-seventh century Deir 'Alia inscription (Hackett 1980: 115-16), which should be viewed as a Canaanite dialect (Rendsburg 1993), and it may occur in Moabite as well (Naveh 1979: 136; Greenfield 1980: 250; Garr 1985: 108). There is, therefore, no reason to exclude the possibility, even the probability, that some regional dialect of ancient Hebrew, presumably a Gileadite one, included this feature. As for the 2nd fem. sg. pronominal suffix SD-, attested three times in the psalm (w. 7 [twice], 19), note that this form occurs four times in the kethib in 2 Kings 4 (vv. 2,3,7 [twice]), all in the mouth of Elisha, who most likely hailed from Gilead (see Rendsburg 1981: 71). And while scholars typically associate this
13. In my opinion, the best solution to Ps. 116.15 is that of Emerton (1983).
112
Biblical Hebrew
feature automatically with Aramaic, one should recall that it also occurs in Punic (Segert 1976: 96), suggesting that it was a Phoenician trait throughout the first millennium BCE, even though one could never demonstrate the point since Phoenician orthography excluded all matres lectionis, including final ones. Other BH examples of the 2nd fern. sg. pronominal suffix 'D- appear in Jer. 11.15;Pss. 103.3 (twice), 4 (twice), 5; 135.9; 137.6. The first of these occurrences may be a true Aramaism c. 600 BCE, or this may reflect the Benjaminite dialect of the prophet from Anathoth, while the examples from Psalms 103, 135, and 137 clearly are Aramaisms. I make this latter statement not on the basis of this feature alone, or even the presence of other linguistic features in these psalms with analogs in Aramaic (e.g. the verb D!T"1 governing the preposition ^U in Ps. 103.13, on which see Hurvitz 1972a: 107-109), but on the cumulative evidence. The lateness of Psalm 103 is evident from crucial non-linguistic testimony, namely, the appeal to God's heavenly angels, hosts, and ministers in w. 20-21, reflecting a well-recognized late theological development (pp. 122-26), and a bit of a quasi-linguistic testimony, namely, the replacement of "pQ ('king') with mD7Q ('kingdom') as witnessed in v. 19, reflecting an increased abstraction in the concept of God as divine king, paralleling a similar abstraction in the understanding of the human king (Hurvitz 1972a: 110-13).14 Once the lateness of Psalm 103 is established on these grounds, then, yes, 2nd fern. sg. "l<3- and other elements are to be seen as LBH traits and/or true Aramaisms (for a full survey of such features see Hurvitz 1972a: 107-30). Similarly, with Psalm 135, which is a pastiche of passages from other biblical books, including Jeremiah (see Ps. 135.7 quoting Jer. 10.13; 51.16 [with variation]), and which therefore must be a sixth-century composition at the earliest; and of course likewise with Psalm 137 whose setting is clearly an exilic one. But without hints of lateness from nonlinguistic testimony, I submit that there is no reason to date Psalm 116 to the post-exilic period, just as there is no suggestion that 2 Kings 4 should be assigned to the Persian epoch. There are other linguistic traits in Psalm 116 relevant to our discussion. Two grammatical items are (1) the form IT 271 IT ('saves') in v. 6, with retention of the he of the hiphil prefix-conjugation (PC); and (2) the use of lamedas the direct object marker, clearly present in HDIQ1? nnns ('you 14. I do not refer to the form of the word HID^D ('kingdom'), which, once the lateness of this psalm is established, can be deemed an Aramaism, but rather to the concept involved, the use of the abstract form 'kingdom' (in any morphological shape) as opposed to the more concrete idea of 'king'.
RENDSBURG Hurvitz Redux
113
released my bonds') in v. 16 (as noted by Barre 1990: 61 n. 1), and most likely to be seen in 1DI7 hlfrKD HTl] ('lead now my people') in vv. 14, 18 (for this interpretation, see Fokkelman and Rendsburg forthcoming). Lexical features include (1) the root ~Q~1 ('carry off, pursue') in v. 10 (G.R. Driver 1934: 382); (2) the word "Ip"1 meaning 'grievous' in v. 15 (as opposed to its usual connotations 'precious, costly, expensive'; Emerton 1983); and (3) the root ~HJ in the qal meaning 'lead' in vv. 14, 18 (see above, and again see Fokkelman and Rendsburg forthcoming). All of these features have strong parallels in Aramaic, but I repeat: their presence in Psalm 116, with no other evidence in support of such a conclusion, should not a priori lead one to conclude that we are dealing with a Persian-period composition. As parallels, note that grammatical item (1) above, the retention of the he in the hiphil PC, occurs in Ps. 45.18, in a poem dated by almost all scholars to the period of the Israelian monarchy (see Rendsburg 1990b: 48-49 for discussion of this feature); and that grammatical item (2) above, the use of lamed to mark the direct object, occurs in Exod. 32.13 (three times), in a chapter with well-known links to the cult established by Jeroboam I in northern Israel, even if there is no agreement among scholars as to the exact nature and consequences of these links.15 With the exception of the radical minimalists, however, there is no rush to date these texts to the Persian period, a policy which should govern our judgment of Psalm 116 as well. In short, given the neutral evidence, my preference is to date Psalm 116 to the pre-exilic period and to assume that it was authored by someone who hailed from the Northern Kingdom of Israel (or, if written some time after 721 BCE, then from the territory of the former kingdom of Israel). There is an additional grammatical feature in Psalm 116 which is germane to the present discussion. The 'double plural' construct chain mint* D^nn (lit. 'lands of the living' > 'land of the living'), that occurs in v. 9. The term 'double plural' construct chain refers to those cases in which both nomen regens and nomen rectum appear in the plural, though logically—and, according to the norms of Hebrew grammar, that is, those of SBH = JH, also grammatically—one or the other should be in the singular. In the present example, we may point to the well-known biblical expression D"n(n) |HK ('land of the living'), attested 14 times in the corpus, as witness to the typical formulation. Such double plural constructions are 15. The use of the name 'Israel' as the name of the third patriarch in this passage (thus the MT; the Samaritan Pentateuch reads 'Jacob') may suggest a northern nexus as well.
114
Biblical Hebrew
known from Ugaritic and Phoenician, they occur in IH compositions of the pre-exilic period, they then become common in LBH texts emanating from Judah in the main, and finally they become a standard feature of MH. Based on this evidence, I reconstruct the following history of this syntagma (see Rendsburg 2002a: 130-31 for further details). The double plural construction originally was at home in northern Canaanite dialects, represented by Ugaritic, Phoenician, and IH. With the reunion of Israelian and Judahite exiles in the sixth century (on which see Gordon 195 5a), this feature penetrated JH as well, and thus it occurs frequently in LBH, especially in Chronicles (see further Polzin 1976: 42; Gevirtz 1986). I would explain its regular presence in MH on the grounds that this dialect of Hebrew represents the speech of the Galilee during the Roman period (Rendsburg 1992b), while others would be inclined to see here a chronological continuity from LBH to MH (though in my opinion the relative absence of this grammatical trait from QH makes this less likely). This is a totally inner-Hebrew development, I hasten to add, with, unlike the elements treated above, no connection to Aramaic. To cite just two of the many examples of the double plural construction in IH texts, note the following: (l)D'"Ti:^ "13 (lit. 'sonsoftheGileadites',thatis, 'Gileadites'), in 2 Kgs 15.25, in the course of relating the history of the kingdom of Israel (see my illustrations of category [c] above from the same chapter)— this atypical usage is even more striking because the nomen rectum is a toponym in this case and we expect "Tin 3 "13* of course (cf. miiT ""in, ]1 "13, nn "13, etc.); and (2) D"OU "3"11 (lit. 'princes of the peoples' = 'princes of the people') in Ps. 47.10, part of the Korah collection in which a northern setting has been detected (Goulder 1982) and in which numerous IH features may be found (Rendsburg 1990b: 51-60); here we may contrast the expected form DI? "3" "II found in Num. 21.18 and Ps. 113.8 (the former with the definite article, the latter with a pronominal suffix). In the case of D""nn miMN, the nomen rectum must be plural (because of the nature of the word D""H), and this has caused the nomen regens to shift from its usual singular form to a plural form. In most 'double plural' construct chains, as in my two additional examples above, the nomen regens must be plural (for the sense of the expression), and this has caused the nomen rectum to shift from its usual singular form to a plural form. Either way, the creation of this syntagma is a characteristic of IH in pre-exilic times, forming an isogloss with the contemporary Phoenician dialect of Canaanite and with the older Ugaritic dialect. Once more, to be fair, this evidence from Psalm 116 is neutral. It could be viewed as
RENDSBURG Hurvitz Redux
115
evidence for the northern provenance of the poem, or it could be viewed as evidence for the LBH nature of the psalm. But again, to reiterate what I stated above, with no a priori reason to date this composition to the Persian period, a pre-exilic date should be assumed. As an aside, I note that Barre treated the expression D" fin miPlN in Ps. 116.9 in a separate article devoted to the widespread use of D"l"I(n) jHN throughout the Bible (Barre 1988). His main proposal, that the expression 'land of the living' or 'land of life' refers to the Jerusalem Temple in certain passages (e.g. Pss. 27.13; 52.7, as well as 116.9), is plausible. More pertinent is his suggestion that D"nn miPN in Ps. 116.9 is intentionally worded in this fashion to create a long-range paronomasia with mHUn HUT rPD ('courts of the house of YHWH') in v. 19, especially since the latter clearly refers to the Temple. I am happy to accept this suggestion, but I would emphasize that it is specifically someone writing in the Israelian dialect who would have this option in his store of linguistic usages. The final point to make about the language of Psalm 116 stems from another comment by Barre: A word is in order here about the verbs in Psalm 116. It is difficult to see any logic to the author's use of qtl andyqtl forms. Perhaps in this relatively late (postexilic) poem he is attempting to imitate classical Hebrew poetry, without much success. Thus, I would translate the verbs in the indicative mood (qtlandyqtl) as follows: (\)past: those in vv. 2-8, 11, 16c, plusySm' in v. la and 'dbr in v. lOa; (2)present: 'hbty in v. la and h 'mnty in v. 1 Oa (3) future: those in vv. 9, 12-18. (Barre 1990: 76-77 n. 60)
I do not quite follow Barre's logic here, but it is possible that we have different ideas about the verbal system in CBH poetry. In my view, what he describes is absolutely typical of verbal usage in CBH poetry, with poets shifting naturally between qtl forms andyqtl forms, irrespective of tense concerns. Or to put this in other words, qtl forms can indicate past, present, and future, and yqtl forms also can indicate past, present, and future. That is to say, in poetry these forms serve more as universal tenses. The proof would be those cases in Hebrew poetry in which qtl and yqtl forms of the same verb (or even of different verbs) stand in parallelism, for example, Ps. 38.12 and Isa. 60.16 (Berlin 1985: 35-36; Watson 1986: 279-80). In the words of Adele Berlin, 'It is important to emphasize that the qtl-yqtl shift, of which we have given only a few examples, occurs not for semantic reasons (it does not indicate a real temporal sequence), but for what have been considered stylistic reasons' (Berlin 1985: 36). In short, I am a bit puzzled by Barre's aforecited statement, though to repeat
116
Biblical Hebrew
what I said above, it is possible that we have different understandings of the verbal system in CBH poetry. After this lengthy discussion about various linguistic issues in Psalm 116, the bottom line is: I see no reason to ascribe this poem to the postexilic period. The psalm evinces no theological or social setting that would situate it in the Persian period; the so-called Aramaisms are better seen as Aramaic-like features typical of the northern dialect of ancient Hebrew; the 'double plural' construction D n Tin niH"IN is another trait of IH attested in pre-exilic northern texts; and the verbal system is consonant with that of CBH poetry. I hasten to add that Barre is not alone in ascribing Psalm 116 to the post-exilic period, as a glance at various standard commentaries indicates (see, e.g., Kraus 1960: 794; Anderson 1972: 790). If I have focused on his article, it is because Barre has dealt with the language issues in a more appropriate way than most scholars, even though, as I stated above, the date of Psalm 116 was not the main focus of his treatment.16 4. The Case of 1 Kings 21 The next article to be discussed is another essay by Alexander Rofe, this time devoted to 1 Kgs 21.1-20 entitled 'The Vineyard of Naboth: The Origin and Message of the Story' (Rofe 1988b). According to Rofe, the story dates to the Persian period and thus it allies with 'the complaint of the oppressed against the upper class, elsewhere vented by Nehemiah, Malachi and Trito-Isaiah[,] as well as the protest against intermarriage as broached by Malachi, Ezra and Nehemiah' (p. 102). That is to say, Ahab the king takes advantage of Naboth of lower status in order to obtain his vineyard, all the while driven onward by his foreign wife Jezebel. Once more Rofe is to be distinguished from the radical minimalists who make similar assertions but who do not support their claims with linguistic evidence. In this article, Rofe put forward six items of a linguistic nature to bolster his interpretation of the story. Only one of these features (the fifth one to be discussed below) is linked to Aramaic per se, so to some extent Rofe's treatment of 1 Kings 21 is not totally germane to the present article. But as it attempts to use linguistic evidence to date a chapter of the 16. To return to the point which served as the springboard for this discussion, while I do not accept Barre's proposal to read an original nmDQH ('faith, trust') in v. 15, if this reconstruction were accepted it could be seen as simply another Aramaic-like feature in a poem composed in IH, and not a true Aramaism borrowed during the postexilic period.
RENDSBURG Hurvitz Redux
117
Bible to the post-exilic period, it is relevant to the larger picture being painted in the present enterprise. I will not review the six linguistic items isolated by Rofe in 1 Kings 21 with the same detail as I examined his work on Genesis 24 (Rendsburg 2002b: 24-30), but instead I will discuss them more schematically. My conclusion is predictable: as with my analysis of Brettler's effort to date 1 Sam. 2.27-36 (Rendsburg 2002b: 35-45), and as with my approach to Psalm 116 above, I view the linguistic data put forward by Rofe as fodder for the IH dialect in which the Israelian material in Kings was composed (see Rendsburg 2002a). Rofe's six items (delineated in Rofe 1988b: 97-100), along with my comments, are as follows: (l)]rOtf 1^Q('king of Samaria') in 1 Kgs21.1 (seealso2Kgs 1.3). I think even Rofe would admit that this is not a major piece of evidence. As he himself noted, analogs exist in Assyrian texts, in which both Joash and Menahem are referred to as Samerindya (Cogan and Tadmor 1988: 26). Furthermore, note that in both cases, 'king of Samaria' is used by the author(s) of Kings specifically when the monarch (or his messengers) is/are away from the capital city. In 2 Kgs 1.3, Ahaziah sends his messengers to inquire of Baal-zebub of Eqron, while in 1 Kgs 21.1 Ahab is in Jezreel. Yair Zakovitch recognized the literary effect of the latter usage: the Hebrew refers to Ahab as 'King of Samaria'.. .in order to remind us that Samaria, not Jezreel, is Ahab's royal city. The latter is a sort of royal retreat, an extra home. The contrast is clear: against the simple villager Naboth, whose one inherited piece of property is in his own ancestral home, stands the king from Samaria, who has an additional palace in Jezreel, and yet covets the villager's land. (Zakovitch 1984: 384)
(2) The verb ""Q"7 ('speak') not followed by HQN1? ('saying'), or any other form of the verb "IQN ('say'), in vv. 5, 6. As Rofe noted in another treatment (Rofe 1988a: 37 n. 23), this usage occurs in scattered passages throughout the Bible: Gen. 41.17; Exod. 32.7, 13; Lev. 10.12, 19; Num. 18.8; Josh. 22.21; 1 Sam. 4.20; 1 Kgs 13.7,12,22; 2 Kgs 1.3; Ezek. 40.4, 45; 41.22; Ps. 116.10; Dan. 2.4 (and in Aramaic in Dan. 6.22). One can hardly assume on the basis of this evidence that we are dealing here with a late feature, nor would I press the case for a northernism, notwithstanding the appearance of a goodly number of these examples in northern texts (e.g. 1 Kgs 13 and 21,2 Kgs 1, all of which deal with kings of the Northern Kingdom of Israel). (3) The syntax of DUPI mm nU3 DK ITtOim D1H INlp ('they proclaimed a fast, and they seated Naboth at the head of the people'), in v. 12,
118
Biblical Hebrew
with two suffix-conjugation (SC) forms, as opposed to the expected wayyiqtol. Rofe correctly noted that this is more typical of MH. But given the many links between IH and MH which I have established in previous research (most importantly in Rendsburg 1992b, but in scattered comments elsewhere as well, e.g., Rendsburg 2002a: 69), a nexus with MH does not automatically permit one to date 1 Kings 21 to the late biblical period. Moreover, again we may have to reckon with a literary factor. The author of this pericope wished to show that the men of the city carried out Jezebel's instructions exactly (note the striking similarity between her words in v. 9 and the above third-person narration in v. 12) up to this point, in contrast to what is related in the next verse. In v. 10 Jezebel directed that the scoundrels should address Naboth in second person—'you have cursed God and king'—but when push comes to shove in v. 13 they are unable to face the accused directly and therefore state in third person 'Naboth has cursed God and king'. (4) The use of 7i£N 31 "lp ('near') in v. 2. Rofe astutely noticed that this compound preposition is a hapax legomenon in the Bible, but that it has a very similar parallel in the Mishnah: POTOn ^HN 31"lpn ]H3 ('a priest who is near to the altar') in m. Pes. 5.6.17 Again, we must consider that IH-MH links are part of the larger picture of northern Canaanite regional dialects; accordingly this usage is not necessarily evidence for lateness. Once more, we also may need to reckon with a literary purpose. The inclusion of the word 31 "lp serves to produce an alliteration with the key word D~13 ('vineyard') in the same verse (twice), the sounds of which are echoed later in the chapter with the rare verb ""QQnn ('take counsel') in vv. 20, 25.18 (5) The word D^lin ('nobles, freemen') in vv. 8, 11. Rofe stated that 'this is a loan-word from Aramaic, Imperial Aramaic to be sure' (Rofe 1988b: 98). True, our earliest attestations of the word come from the Persian imperial period (Elephantine, Behistun, Ahiqar-—see Hoftijzer and Jongeling 1995: 401), but there is no reason not to assume the existence of this lexeme in Aramaic centuries earlier. This is especially so given the fact that newly discovered Old Aramaic inscriptions frequently provide for us the attestation of a particular Aramaic word known previously only from later sources, whether it be Imperial Aramaic or even Middle Aramaic. And if D'Hin existed in Aramaic of, let us say, the ninth century 17. Quoting from the Kaufman Ms; some textual witnesses read 3~lpH. 18. I also owe the recognition of the alliteration between D~Q and "QQfin to my son, David E. Rendsburg.
RENDSBURG Hurvitz Redux
119
BCE, there is no reason not to assume its existence in Hebrew guise during the same period in the Israelian dialect. My studies into IH have shown that time and again we may trace isoglosses between IH and Aramaic to the exclusion of JH. To my mind, the important word D'Hin is a stellar example of this phenomenon (see already Rendsburg 2002a: 72-73). Eventually, under the overwhelming influence of Aramaic throughout the Persian empire, the word entered JH as well; thus one finds D'Hin seven times in Nehemiah, for example. (6) The verb TI7H in the sense of 'testify' (as opposed to 'warn' or 'cause someone to testify') in vv. 10,13. As Rofe himself recognized, this is 'the best piece of evidence for the late date of our story' (Rofe 1988b: 99). Apart from 1 Kgs 21.10, 13, this usage occurs only in Mai. 2.14 and Job 29.11, after which it is attested at Ben Sira 46.19 (the occurrence in Ben Sira 4.11 means 'warn, admonish'), three times in the Dead Sea Scrolls (IQSa 1.11; CD A 9.20; CD B 19.30), twice in the Murabba'at letters (42.13; 43.3), and then several hundred times in Tannaitic texts.191 have no counter to Rofe's argument here, which is indeed quite convincing, except to suggest that the nexus between IH and MH would explain the use of TUH ('testify') in both 1 Kgs 21.10,13, and Tannaitic sources, though I admit that this would leave unexplained the other two biblical attestations and the handful of post-biblical occurrences. How are we to evaluate this evidence? As I hope to have shown, of the six features put forward by Rofe, only the last of these items points to a late date for 1 Kings 21. In my estimation, items (1) and (2) are not relevant, while items (3) and (4) point to an IH-MH continuum, but do not bear on the dating of the chapter. Most germane for the present study is item (5), which is not to be viewed as an Aramaism per se, but as an Aramaic-like feature appearing in a northern source, and therefore belonging to category (c) denoted at the outset. The presence of D"1 Tin ('nobles, freemen') in vv. 8,11 should in no way be utilized to establish the date of this story. The question, then, is: Is the use of one linguistic trait, item (6), Ti?n in the sense of'testify' in vv. 10 and 13, sufficient grounds to affix a Persian-period date to the story of Naboth's vineyard? Were there no 19. These figures are based on the database of Ma 'agarim: The Hebrew Language Historical Dictionary Project,CD-ROM version of the Academy of the Hebrew Language (Jerusalem, 1998). The verb TI?n occurs a total of 335 times in Tannaitic texts, but Ma 'agarim does not differentiate between the two meanings 'warn, admonish' and 'testify'. I have not done an exhaustive study of these attestations, but a quick glance suggests that in the majority of them the connotation 'testify' is present.
Biblical Hebrew
120
evidence to the contrary, I would be the first to answer this question in the affirmative. There is, however, evidence to the contrary, which I now present. I refer to the methodology recently introduced into the study of biblical narrative by Frank Polak (1997-98; 1998). This approach pays attention to (1) the ratio of nouns to verbs (NV ratio) in biblical prose, and (2) among verbs, the ratio of finite to non-finite verbs (NF ratio). According to Polak, the lower the ratio, for both sets of data, the earlier the date of composition. A thorough survey of the biblical narrative corpus reveals that the Elijah cycle belongs solidly to the classical stratum, in sharp contrast to those sections which are to be dated to the late pre-exilic/exilic period and to the Persian period. In fact, the .600 NV ratio for the Elijah cycle is the third lowest NV ratio among the different sections analyzed, and the . 133 NF ratio is the second-lowest NF ratio. Or to put it differently, even within the classical stratum of biblical prose, with its mean ratios of .612 and .154 respectively, the Elijah cycle is decidedly on the low end of the spectrum (Polak 1998: 70; see also Polak 1997-98: 156-57 for percentages as opposed to ratios). An analysis of the specific pericope under discussion reveals the following figures, presented here in three sets of numbers: (1) for 1 Kgs 21.1 -20, that is, the limits of Rofe's study; (2) for the final nine verses (vv. 21-29) of the chapter, especially since some scholars view these verses as a later addition; and (3) for the chapter as a whole.20 Below these figures appear Polak's mean ratios for the three major groupings of biblical narrative. 1 Kgs 21. 1 -20 1 Kgs 21.21-29 1 Kgs 2 1.1-29 Classical Stratum Late Pre-Exilic/Exilic Persian Era
Noun 147 59 206
Verb 107 36 143
NV ratio .579 .621 .590
.612 .724 .739
Finite 86 27 113
Nominal NF ratio 21 .196 9 .250 30 .209
.154 .207 .326
If we focus on the NV ratio of .579 for 1 Kgs 21.1-20, we note that this pericope ranks as the lowest unit in Polak's entire database, even lower than the Samson cycle with anNV ratio of .581 (Polak 1998: 70). The NF ratio of. 196 is a bit higher than might be expected, placing the material in 20. I am indebted to Professor Frank Polak of Tel-Aviv University for an e-mail exchange in June 2002 in which we discussed the various figures for the story of Naboth's vineyard.
RENDSBURG Hurvitz Redux
121
between the classical stratum and the late pre-exilic/exilic grouping, but clearly this figure points to a pre-exilic date nonetheless. The figures for the last nine verses of the chapter suggest a somewhat later date, but the .621 NV ratio, the more crucial of the two discriminants under consideration here, is still squarely within the classical stratum. In addition, one must keep in mind that the more limited the database—in this case only nine verses—the greater the chance for skewed figures. When the two sets of data are incorporated into one set of figures for the chapter as a whole, the .590 NV ratio is, as expected, among the lowest in the corpus, though once more the .209 NF ratio suggests a slightly later date. In no way, however, do any of these ratios point to the Persian period as the time of composition for 1 Kings 21. I admit that the NF ratios for this chapter provide potential support for a later dating of this story than I would countenance. Accordingly, the following point is worth emphasizing. As intimated above, when the NV ratio and the NF ratio do not correspond exactly as one would expect in a given narrative section, it is clear from Polak's research that the former deserves pride of place. Accordingly, I would argue that the extremely low NV ratio for the story of Naboth's vineyard far outweighs any other data that could be presented in assisting us in our quest to date this chapter. In other words, given the choice of relying on the NV ratio calculated using Polak's methodology, on the one hand, and the presence of one apparent LBH feature, namely, T^H ('testify'), even with the support of the NF ratio computed via Polak's method, on the other hand, I would rely strongly on the former as a guide to establishing the date of the text, and therefore seek a different explanation for the latter. As noted above, TUH could be an IH feature; or it simply could be an early attestation of a feature which becomes more common in late biblical and post-biblical times. At this point, I hasten to add that there are, not surprisingly, additional IH features in 1 Kings 21 which impact upon our discussion. These are (1) the use of ^DTI in v. 1 with the sense of'palace' (as opposed to 'temple'), a usage found in other northern texts (Ps. 45.9, 16; Hos. 8.14; Amos 8.3) as well as in Ugaritic and Aramaic; (2) the syntagma ITDD b# "OTN "TD ('because I spoke to Naboth') in v. 6, with the preterite use of the PC, especially in a clause introduced by n!D, exactly as in Mesha Stele 11. 5nH"lND O2D r]]^<1 ''D ('because Kemosh was angry with his land'—the parallel between these two lines was first noted by Gibson 1971: 78); and (3) the verb "Oftfin ('take counsel'), to be related to the verb "[^Q ('advise, counsel'), known from Aramaic and MH (as well as Akkadian),
122
Biblical Hebrew
notwithstanding the fact that this relationship involves 'both a metathesis and an interchange of consonants' (Greenfield 1993: 33 n. 36—for thorough discussion of these three features, see Rendsburg 2002a: 70-74). Now, these IH features in 1 Kings 21 do not preclude the possibility that 1 Kings 21 was written in the Persian period—for a text may be both late and northern (see, e.g., Rendsburg 199la on Neh. 9). But a far preferable approach is to conclude that this story, like the other stories about Elijah and Elisha, along with the annalistic material about the kings of the Northern Kingdom in the book of Kings, was composed while the kingdom of Israel still existed. The total picture, according to the above analysis, reveals a story which is written in pre-exilic northern Hebrew. Polak's work demonstrates that 1 Kings 21, consonant with the Elijah narratives as a whole, belongs to the classical stratum of biblical narrative prose; while my linguistic research yields a series of lexical and grammatical traits characteristic of IH, suggesting a composition during the time of the kingdom of Israel's existence. Aramaic-like features in 1 Kings 21, such as the word D'Hin ('nobles, freemen'), reflect the fact that Aramaic and IH shared linguistic features that straddled both sides of the Aramaic-Canaanite divide within Iron Age West Semitic. 5. The Case of Judges 5 The final case that we will investigate is the recent attempt by Michael Waltisberg to date the Song of Deborah in Judges 5 to the Persian period (Waltisberg 1999). The author understood a series of unusual linguistic features as Aramaisms, which to his mind leads to the conclusion that the poem was composed in the Persian period. As the reader can predict by now, I take a different tack: these elements are to be viewed as Aramaiclike features which were part of the Israelian dialect; they are not evidence of late date, but rather are further examples of traits shared by IH and Aramaic. As most scholars have concluded, the Song of Deborah is to be viewed as one of the oldest pieces of Hebrew poetry in our possession, albeit one composed in the northern part of the country, as one would expect from a poem which lauds the heroics of brave individuals from the general region of the Jezreel Valley and the Lower Galilee. The features that Waltisberg isolated (1999: 218-26), along with my comments, are the following:
RENDSBURG Hurvitz Redux
123
(i) The 2nd fern. sg. SC marker Tl- in TIDp ('you arose') in v. 7. True, this feature is representative of Aramaic (see, e.g., Muraoka and Porten 1998: 97-98), but most likely it was a feature of the majority of Canaanite dialects as well, though not of JH. Unfortunately, we have no way of demonstrating the point, first, because the strictly consonantal orthography of Ugaritic and Phoenician is not helpful in this regard,21 and second, because our meager remains from the other dialects which do represent final vowels by means of a mater lectionis, for example, Moabite, do not attest to any 2nd fem. sg. SC verbs (nor is Amarna helpful; see Rainey 1996, II: 287). But with no evidence to the contrary, especially since this feature is a trait of proto-Semitic (Lipinski 1997:360-62), one will assume that its presence in Judg. 5.7 is indicative of ABH and/or IH with a link to Aramaic. Its occurrence in later books such as Jeremiah and Ezekiel, on the other hand, is probably the result of true Aramaic influence, unless the Jeremiah examples attest to the presence of this feature in the Benjaminite dialect. The occurrences in Ruth 3.3-4 (both in kethib) may serve a literary function: these are archaisms placed in the mouth of Naomi, representing the older generation, in contrast to the youthful (nubile?) Ruth (Campbell 1975: 25; see also I. Young 1997: 10). (ii) The masculine plural nominal ending ] n - in j'HQ ('blankets[?]') in v. 10. This ending is clearly identified with Aramaic in all its dialects. The evidence from BH is complicated. Some examples occur in decidedly Judahite texts, for example, 2 Kgs 11.13, for which I have no ready explanation. An example such as "pD^E ('kings') in Prov. 31.4 was referenced above as an illustration of category (b). The 13 cases of "p^O ('words') in Job belong to category (d) above. A true Aramaism would be ]^ff ('days') in Dan. 12.13. But the best explanation of this feature in Judg. 5.10 is to assume a regional dialectal trait, in line not only with Aramaic but also with Moabite and Deir 'Alia (see Garr 1985: 89). (iii) Reduplicatory plural of a noun based on a geminate stem, occurring twice, in "pQQU ('your people') in v. 14, and in "ppH ('decisions [ofj[?]') in v. 15. This too is a feature of Aramaic, but its distribution in various Israelian texts in the Bible, for example, Ps. 36.7, reveals it to be an element of IH as well (see Rendsburg 199 la: 356-58). (iv) The root H3H ('praise, relate') in v. 11. Once more Waltisberg is correct to note the affiliation between this usage and Aramaic. ProtoSemitic I\J shifts to /§/ in Hebrew but to /t/ in Aramaic. Thus SBH yields 21. Punic frequently aids us in reconstructing the vowels of Phoenician, but in this case there is no evidence (Segert 1976: 131).
124
Biblical Hebrew
the root !"[]£), but Aramaic produces the root HDPl. But one should not a priori conclude that ilDfl in Judg. 5.11 is therefore an Aramaism.22 The verb occurs again in Judg. 11.40 in the story of Jephthah's daughter set in Gilead, suggesting that we are dealing once more with a regional dialectal feature. Note that the same phonological shift is attested in DT!1~Q ('cypresses') in Song 1.17 in a book replete with IH features.23 (v) The nounfriil^E) ('divisions') in w. 15-16. The same noun occurs in Job 20.17 with the meaning 'stream'. A byform Pri^S occurs in 2 Chron. 35.5. The root is clearly to be associated with Aramaic. Waltisberg (1999: 222) pointed to jinnies ('their divisions') in Ezra 6.18; plus the word is well attested in later Aramaic dialects (see, e.g., Sokoloff 1990:434). But one should note that the root pig ('divide'), along with the noun form pig ('stream'), occurs in Ugaritic (del Olmo Lete and Sanmartin 1996-2000: 349). In addition, 372 occurs in the Phoenician Umm el-Awamid inscription (KAI 18.3), and although there is some uncertainty regarding its meaning, probably it means 'district', clearly related to the meaning 'division' (Hoftijzer and Jongeling 1995, II: 913). This Ugaritic-Phoenician evidence indicates that the root 3^2 'divide' and nouns derived therefrom was part of the Canaanite lexis as well, even if this root were not standard in the JH lexicon. Its scattered occurrences in the Bible are restricted to poetic texts, suggesting that it was part of Hebrew poetic diction, including 22. I desist from a detailed discussion of the complicated question of the actual realization and graphic representation of Proto-Semitic /t/ in both Aramaic and IH at the time of composition of Judg. 5, let us say, c. 1100 BCE. But the following brief comments are in order. Our earliest Aramaic inscriptions use the letter U) to represent /t/ and only later do we encounter the letter fl to represent /t/ (I exclude here the evidence of the Tell Fakhariye inscription, which uses D to represent /t/). This evidence suggests that in Early Aramaic /t/ was still pronounced as [t], though represented by !D, and only later did the shift of/t/ > /t/ occur, with D quite naturally used to represent this sound. Accordingly, we have two options for explaining the root Hin in Judg. 5.11. One option is to assume that also in IH, or at least in the subdialect reflected in the Song of Deborah, the phoneme /t/ was retained, that is, realized as [t], but that scribal convention among the Israelians called for the letter fl to graphically represent this sound. The second option is to assume that in IH the shift of/t/ > /t/ occurred earlier than in Aramaic, with Judg. 5.11 as testimony thereto (thus Rabin 1973: 27, citing E.Y. Kutscher, though I have not been able to locate the specific reference; see also I. Young 1993: 60). 23. I have presented the evidence from Song of Songs in several public lectures, most recently at the Institute for Advanced Studies of the Hebrew University in Jerusalem in December 2001. The published version will be included in a co-authored book with Scott Noegel tentatively entitled Studies in Song of Songs.
RENDSBURG Hurvitz Redux
125
JH poetic diction—category (a) above—but not in everyday use in JH. The totality of the evidence yields the conclusion that m^S ('divisions') in Judg. 5.15-16 is a lexical trait of IH. (vi) The root pPID ('strike') in v. 26. As Waltisberg correctly noted, the picture concerning this root is complicated (Waltisberg 1999: 222-24). This verb could derive from proto-Semitic mhq, in which case it is not particularly relevant to our discussion. The meaning of this root, as attested in Aramaic, for example, is 'blot out, wipe out, erase' (see, e.g., Sokoloff 1990: 301), a slightly different connotation from 'strike' and one which does not quite fit the context of Judg. 5.26.1 therefore prefer the alternative approach, to derive pffQ in v. 26 from the proto-Semitic root mhd, which in Hebrew appears as ^RQ, but which in Old Aramaic would appear first as pl"!ft and then as I?nQ, though neither of these is attested, since only the later form NTO/nflE, reflecting dissimilation ofhet-ayin to hetaleph, occurs (see, e.g., Sokoloff 1990: 299). Of course, in v. 26 the expected Hebrew form jTIQ occurs adjacent to pHO, but this is typical in the Bible, with standard and non-standard forms occurring side-by-side (as a parallel note that Job includes not only the aforementioned 13 cases of f v f t , but also ten cases of D n 7D; and see the discussion in I. Young 1992b; 1993: 124). In any case, I analyze pTO as an Aramaic-like feature in the Song of Deborah due to its northern provenance. The shift of/d/ > /q/, I should note, occurs in Deir 'Alia as well (Hackett 1980: 1II). 24 In addition to these six items, Waltisberg also treated the verbal system, though I must confess that I do not fully follow him here (Waltisberg 1999: 224-26). He appears to admit that the verbal system in Judges 5 is archaic in nature, in line with most scholars who point to the repeated use of the PC to express the preterite; but since he wishes to date the poem to the late period, he simply concludes that during the Persian and Hellenistic epochs it was possible for Hebrew poets to write poetry in an archaizing style. I agree that this is possible, but it seems much more preferable simply to conclude that the Song of Deborah is ancient. From all of the above, it is obvious, to me and to many previous scholars (indeed as early as Burney 1903:172-73), that Judges 5 is an ancient poem 24. The discussion in n. 22 vis-a-vis the phoneme /t/ is relevant here as well for the phoneme /d/. That is to say, the use of the letter p to represent this sound may reflect an actual phonetic shift of/d/ > /q/, or it simply may be a scribal convention to graphically represent the sound /d/, that is, [d], which still was pronounced at this time in Aramaic, in the Deir 'Alia dialect, and in at least the subdialect of IH represented in Judg. 5.
126
Biblical Hebrew
written in the northern dialect of ancient Hebrew. The features which Waltisberg considered to be Aramaisms are instead to be understood as Aramaic-like features, lexical and grammatical traits shared by IH and Aramaic. There are, in fact, many other IH features in the poem, including items with parallels in Aramaic and items with parallels in UgariticPhoenician. These include (I continue the numbering system from above): (vii) The use of the relative pronoun -£> in v. 7 (twice), to be correlated with the same or similar (JDK)form in Phoenician, Ammonite, and MH (see Rendsburg 2002a: 103). (viii) The 3rd masc. sg. SC "IT ('went down') in v. 13 (twice), with a vocalization reflecting that of Aramaic. (ix) The presence of ]Q before an anarthrous noun, as in D"1^ ]D ('from the heavens') in v. 20 (see other examples in categories (c) and (d) at the outset; and see Rendsburg 2002a: 132). (x) The noun 7SD ('bowl') in v. 25, attested elsewhere in the Bible only in Judg. 6.38 in the Gideon cycle, twice in Ugaritic and more than 20 times in MH (see Rendsburg 1999a: 257-58). (xi) The root ZQ"1 ('whine, shrill') in v. 28, a hapax legomenon in the Bible, but slightly better attested in MH (one occurrence in a Tannaitic source [m. Ros Has. 4.9] and one occurrence in an Amoraic source \y. Yeb. 15.4]) and in Aramaic. (xii) The fem. sg. nominal ending -6t in niQ3n ('wise woman') in v. 29, as in Phoenician (see Rendsburg 2002a: 99-101). This long list of items—twelve in number if item (i) is seen as evidence of IH, eleven in total if this item is simply a feature of ABH—in toto demonstrate that Judges 5 is to be seen as an Israelian composition. As to the antiquity of the poem, we may point to item (i) noted above, that is, the 2nd fem. sg. SC marker TV, along with two other features: the use of HT as a relative marker TO HT ('the one of Sinai') in v. 5 (see Robertson 1972: 62-65), and the use of the 3rd fem. sg. PC with energic -na in rnrrbtzm ('she sent') in v. 26 (see pp. 116-17 for discussion25). In short, the Song of Deborah in Judges 5 is representative of both ABH and IH, with several markers of the former and numerous markers of the latter.26 25. I disagree, however, with Robertson's comment, 'It is, of course, obvious that the MT is in error'. The energic ending can take different forms; see JM: 172-73. 26. The conclusion that Judg. 5 is representative of ABH (in addition to its being a hallmark of IH) is not dependent on how one defines ABH. For a general discussion, see I. Young 1992b; 1993: 122-30.
RENDSBURG Hurvitz Redux
127
6. Conclusion Thirty-five years after it was published, Hurvitz's classic study of Aramaisms and Aramaic-like features in BH (Hurvitz 1968) stands as a solid statement. It presents in very concise terms a simple principle of Hebrew philology. Some additional work in the intervening years has enlarged and enhanced the picture, but nothing has contradicted the basic outline described by Hurvitz. It is unfortunate that various scholars totally ignore linguistic evidence in their rush to date a panoply of biblical texts to the Persian period and even to the Hellenistic period. Notwithstanding some recent attempts by Hurvitz, there is little that the serious scholar of Hebrew philology can do to combat an argument that consciously disregards the testimony of language. Far more praiseworthy are those scholars who realize that efforts to date texts to the late period need to be supported by linguistic evidence. Foremost among these individuals in his attention to such details has been Alexander Rofe. But a closer examination of five such attempts reveals (1) that in one case we are dealing with the intentional use of Aramaic-like features for stylistic purposes, because the story is set in Aram (Gen. 24); (2) that in three cases we must keep in mind that the geographical setting is in northern Israel, with the resultant conclusion that the linguistic evidence bespeaks the Israelian dialect of ancient Hebrew (1 Sam. 1-2; 1 Kgs 21; Judg. 5); and (3) that in one additional case, even when there is no clear connection to northern Israel, the evidence of language nevertheless points to that region as the place of composition (Ps. 116). I have written this article as a call to the authors of the studies treated above, and to all other scholars who wish to date sections of the Bible to the late period, to consider the totality of the linguistic evidence. I congratulate the individuals whose work I have critiqued herein for realizing— unlike too many other scholars—that research of this ilk needs to incorporate the evidence of language. But in their rush to identify Aramaisms in these texts, these authors have neglected the guidelines so excellently drafted by Hurvitz. Due consideration of the whole picture reveals that even a conglomeration of so-called Aramaisms in a particular text is insufficient grounds to assign a Persian-period date to the section of the Bible under study. I wish to conclude with a personal statement. Over the years I have enjoyed warm relationships with both Marc Brettler and Alex Rofe (with
128
Biblical Hebrew
the latter notwithstanding the distance of 6000 miles which separates us). Their erudition is obvious to all, and I have learned much from their numerous excellent publications. In like spirit, I have benefited from the many writings of Michael Barre on Hebrew poetry and on Phoenician inscriptions, though I do not know this scholar personally. (I cannot say more about Michael Waltisberg, because his treatment of Judg. 5 is the first of his writings that I have encountered.) My critical assessment of these individuals' work contained herein should be viewed solely as an indication of how seriously I take their scholarship.
FURTHER EVIDENCE FOR NORTH ISRAELITE CONTRIBUTIONS TO LATE BIBLICAL HEBREW*
Richard M. Wright 1. Introduction 'The North Israelite contributions to post-exilic Hebrew prose (and indirectly even to post-exilic Hebrew literature in general) remain to be worked out in detail', Cyrus Gordon wrote in a short article that appeared in 1955 (Gordon 1955a: 88). Scholars since then have made significant progress in their study of both dialectal variation within and the chronological development of BH. But few studies have attempted to bring together these two distinct but similar areas of research. The purpose of this article is to pursue further the hypothesis laid out by Gordon in 1955 Is there more evidence for a relationship between IH (here, pre-exilic, nonJH) and LBH? Most Hebraicists today agree that BH can be divided into three main stages (Kutscher 1982: 12, 77-85; Saenz-Badillos 1993: 30-160): ABH found in a small number of biblical texts which pre-date the DavidicSolomonic monarchy (see especially Robertson 1972); SBH, the stage of the language to which most pre-exilic texts belong; and LBH, commonly understood to be BH in the post-exilic period. This schema does not exclude the possibility that these stages can be divided into sub-categories (see S.R. Driver 1913a: 504-505; Wright 1998: 190-93,258-59 and refer ences). Hurvitz (1982) has demonstrated that LBH features began to appear in BH during the exilic period—and so exilic texts such as Ezekiel and possibly Isaiah 40-66 represent a transitional (sub-)stage between SBH and LBH. * This article is dedicated in memory of Richard 'Dick' Wright, Sr. 1]1~OT TT1 HD"!^. I would like to express my appreciation to Dr Gary Rendsburg and Dr Ian Young for their invaluable assistance in the preparation of this article. Both provided several of the bibliographic references used herein and commented on an earlier version.
130
Biblical Hebrew
Although previous scholars certainly had observed that certain features of BH—morphological, lexical, grammatical, even phonological—were characteristic of LBH, it was Avi Hurvitz who in 1972 established a sound and consistent methodology for identifying certain features as late (Hurvitz 1972a: 15-26; see also Hurvitz 1973).1 First, the linguistic feature in question must occur exclusively or predominantly in biblical texts which are undisputedly post-exilic in date; this is known as 'linguistic distribution' ? This criterion is the first indication that a given linguistic item is potentially a feature of LBH and ensures that the item is present in post-exilic Hebrew. Second, there must be expressions in earlier biblical texts which convey the same meaning as the linguistic item in question and are employed in similar contexts; this is known as 'linguistic contrast'. One must demonstrate that the item which is potentially late is equivalent to and used in place of an earlier expression. This helps ensure that the item in question is not simply an expression that earlier books had no cause or opportunity to employ. Third, the linguistic item in question must appear in post-exilic sources other than the Hebrew Bible, such as Ben Sira, Qumran Hebrew (the Dead Sea Scrolls), and Tannaitic Hebrew; this is known as 'extra-biblical attestation'.3 This third criterion helps ensure that the late expression is not a peculiarity of the biblical writer's style and reflects the larger linguistic situation in the post-exilic period. To these three we can add a fourth consideration to determine whether a particular biblical text is late. A text should not be considered late on linguistic grounds unless it displays multiple expressions which are characteristic of LBH; this is known as ' linguistic concentration'. Occasionally the presence of late expressions may be explained by something other than a post-exilic date for the text in question. Hurvitz has shown that recent challenges to this methodology are unpersuasive (1997a; 2000a). Although several scholars before him had observed and described dialectal variation in BH, it has been Gary Rendsburg who during the past 15 years has contributed the most to this topic within Hebrew studies.4 1. For a more detailed presentation of the methodology and the various issues involved, see also Bergey 1983: 1-11; Rooker 1988b; Wright 1998:4-28 and references. 2. The primary sources for post-exilic BH are: Isa. 56-66, Jonah, Haggai, Zechariah, Malachi, 1-2 Chronicles, Ezra, Nehemiah, Daniel, Esther, and Qohelet. For a survey of the literature reflecting the consensus of scholars on these texts, see Wright 1998: 15-18 and references. 3. For a more detailed discussion of what constitutes extra-biblical attestation (of a LBH feature), see Bergey 1983: 1-11; Wright 1998: 22-28 and references. 4. See also Rofe 1992; I. Young 1993; 1995 and references.
WRIGHT Further Evidence for North Israelite Contributions 131 Rendsburg has adapted the methodology established by Hurvitz for the study of LBH to the study of dialectal variation within BH—which normally means linguistic items which do not reflect the standard literary dialect of pre-exilic Jerusalem and Judah (Rendsburg 1990b: 15-16; 2002a: 18-19). The phrase 'Israelian Hebrew' (here abbreviated to IH) normally describes such items, although this does not necessarily assume that all such dialectal variants were employed in the Hebrew of the Northern Kingdom of Israel (see Rendsburg 1991b; 1996). First, a linguistic item which may represent non-JH must appear exclusively or primarily in texts which most scholars regard as 'northern' or non-Judahite; this is the same as 'distribution' described above. Second, one should be able to show a contrast between the alleged IH feature and a corresponding feature within SBH (or JH; see Rendsburg 2002a: 17). Third, the item in question should have a cognate in one of the languages used outside Judah and Israel, such as Ugaritic, Phoenician, Aramaic, or one of the Transjordanian dialects; this is analogous to 'extra-biblical attestation' described above. Finally, a text should be regarded as 'northern' or non-Judahite only if it contains a concentration of IH features. In his article 'The Strata of Biblical Hebrew' which appeared in 1991, Rendsburg made some important observations regarding the nature and function of dialectal variation in the Hebrew Bible. First, some non-standard forms may represent the spoken dialect of the language; this category is normally labeled 'diglossia' (Rendsburg 1991b: 83-84). Second, IH features in a particular text may reflect the regional dialect of the writer(s) (pp. 87-92). Third, in some cases IH features may represent an effort on the part of a Judahite writer to represent non-Judahite dialect; this is known as 'style-switching' (pp. 92-95). Finally, in some cases a Judahite writer attempted to reproduce the speech patterns of a non-Judahite person or group to whom a text is addressed. This last category is especially common in prophetic texts—wherein prophetic oracles often are addressed to Israel's neighbors—and is labeled 'addressee-switching' (pp. 96-97). This more nuanced approach to IH items is important because it is possible a particular feature of IH was not in fact used by Israelians—let alone Judahites—but only appears in BH because of style-switching or addressee-switching. The method I employ in this study is to present six examples of linguistic items that are characteristic of LBH but which also occur sporadically in early texts. Moreover all or most of the early texts in which these items appear also display characteristics of IH as identified by other scholars.
Biblical Hebrew
132
a. D^DTll? ('Everlastingness, Eternity') Although the singular noun Q1?"!!? occurs commonly throughout the Hebrew Bible (KB, II: 798-99), the plural forniD'D^ir appears much less frequently.5 BOB distinguishes between D^DTUtf (1) with the sense 'years of ancient times, of olden times' (BDB: 762a), and (2) as a plural intensive of D^II? with the sense 'everlastingness, eternity' (BDB: 762b): (1) Isa. 51.9: Ps. 77.6:
Qoh. i.io: (2) !Kgs8.13(=2Chron. 6.2): Isa. 26.4: Isa. 45.17:
Ps. 61.5: PS. 77.8: Ps. 145.13: Dan. 9.24:
D'Obli) mil Dip D'Obll? HUttf DlpD
n^zbyb rrn
D-Q^ll? ~[mvh )1DD D-QblU IIH miT 1U 'Dl7lini7...Dl'Dl7IIJ nui&n
D^IU "[briND mm n ]iK mr D^iu^n D^blT^n HID^Q ^niD^D D'D^U plJJ trnn1?!
Note that with either meaning the plural form D^DT1U appears primarily in texts which most scholars agree are exilic or post-exilic: Isa. 45.17; 51.9;6 Qoh. 1.10; Dan. 9.24. Psalm 145 displays several characteristics of LBH— including the LBH expression D'D^irSrD (Hurvitz 1972a: 100-104)—and is clearly a post-exilic text. That the plural form D^D^ir began increasingly to displace 0^117 in similar contexts can be seen from its distribution in post-biblical literature. The term D^D^II^ appears frequently in the Hebrew of the DSS. Note the following examples (HDHL:plates 14486-91): 1QS 4.22: (Compare 2 Sam. 23.5:
IQS 4.7-8: (Compare Isa. 35.10: and Isa. 60.19, 20: 1QM 13.7: (Compare LBH Ps. 145.1:
D'Bbli? m±> b« 103 D3 K'D D^ltf tT-Q)
D^^ir nwa..^^1?!!: nnat^i 11? niDin 0^1^ nnati; D^IU -n») O^IU1? HD"Q] nDDty 101 D^IU^ "[027 HD13W)
5. See also Wright 1998: 112-18 and references. 6. Rooker (1996) has attempted to demonstrate that the language of Isa. 40-66— which most scholars date to the exilic or post-exilic period—reflects a pre-exilic rather than exilic or post-exilic linguistic background. Although he showed successfully that in several instances the exilic book of Ezekiel displays LBH characteristics where Isa. 40-66 employs SBH features, Rooker did not include D'OblU in his analysis.
WRIGHT Further Evidence for North Israelite Contributions 133 It also occurs in rabbinic literature, especially in the compound phrase Ds/±ni7 IT3, literally 'house of eternity' (= 'grave'; Hurvitz 1992; HDHL: plates 14491-521): m. Tarn. 7.4: t. Ber. 3.24:
G^IIT! "H^ ITD^m ITDD
We may observe further how frequently the Targumim rendered Hebrew 0^117—as well as the expressions PIH3 and "TI7—with Aramaic "pQ^U: Targ. Onq. Exod.15.18:
(Note MT: Targ. Ctoa. Dew/. 32.40: (Note MT: Targ. Isa. 25.8: (Note MT:
Wtblfa WcfrzhiTTTabB
in D^u1? ~pw mrr)
'pabub KD« D"p mDKI 0*71 JJ1? "3DK Tr TniDKI) j^tf1? KJTIID ptBJrr HUD^ man 1^3)
Targ. Me. 7.18: (Note MT:
man l^abr^ "[mo «b 1S« 1^^ |TTnn »b)
Targ. Ps. 104.5: (Note MT:
j^Dbi; "'Ob^ UlTn «bl 1U1 D^l^ l21Qnn-^3)
The LBH pleonastic expression D*10^117 ^D—mentioned earlier—also is well attested in post-biblical sources. It appears occasionally in the Dead Sea Scrolls: IQapGen 20.13-14:7
D'Cbs ^1D^ no ]V^U b« HH]« 713
The Greek equivalent of D^D^li? ^D appears once in the New Testament: Jude 1.25:
sis TTOVTCCS TOUS cucivas
It also appears several times in apocryphal literature: Dan. 3.52 (Lxx):8
si? rravTocs TOUS aiobuas
We can confirm that the Hebrew plural form D^ttblU is a characteristic feature of LBH on the basis of its appearance primarily in exilic and postexilic biblical texts; its contrast with earlier equivalent expressions such as D*7117, FliJD, and 117; and its widespread attestation in post-BH literature— as well as the vitality of the Aramaic and Greek equivalents of the pleonastic construction D^^II? 73 in the Targumim, in apocryphal literature, and in the New Testament. 7. 8.
See also IQapGen 21.10, 12. See also Tob. (B, A) 8.15; 13.4, 18; (S) 8.5, 15; 11.14; 13.4, 7.
134
Biblical Hebrew
What remains is for us to consider examples of D"107*117 in texts which are not clearly exilic or post-exilic: 1 Kgs 8.13 (= 2 Chron. 6.2); Isa. 26.4; Pss. 61.5; 77.6, 8. Psalm 77, one of the Asaph psalms, contains features which are characteristic of IH (Rendsburg 1990b: 75, 78): the double plural construction D^QTli? HID^ ('years of eternities') in 77.6; and the reduplicatory plural form "jiJHn ('your arrows') in 77.18. Indeed the Asaph collection as a whole reflects the northern dialect (IH; Rendsburg 1990b: 73-81). 1 Kings 8.13 appears in a narrative that contains other possible features of IH (such as kethib PHD, 'you [masc. sg.] built' [qere TTDQ, 'I (c. sg.) built'] in 1 Kgs 8.48, where context clearly requires us to read rn!H as 7 built'; see Rendsburg 1990b: 29). Rendsburg commented: Based on the use of the Phoenician month names Ziv, Bui, and Ethanim in 1 Kgs 6.1,6.37-38,8.2, it is most likely that the description of the construction and dedication of Solomon's Temple is the product of Phoenician scribes. In other words, not only did Phoenician architects and craftsmen build the Temple, their scribes also recorded the activity. (Rendsburg 1990b: 29-30)
S. Noegel has demonstrated that Isaiah 26, part of the 'Isaiah apocalypse' (Isa. 24-27), displays a high concentration of IH features (1994: 183-87 and references): 711 meaning 'rampart' instead of the more common 'strength' in 26.1; 117 "117 ('forever and ever') in 26.4; mp ('city') in26.5;DI7S ('foot') in 26.6; the double plural construction D^l ""QUS in 26.6; CD^S ('weigh, trample down') in 26.7; 1FIC7 ('seek early, search diligently') in 26.9; the negative particle bn in 26.10; the 'virtual doubling' ofH in] TV in 26.10; the retention of yo din the imperfect of Illy C"7) verbs as seen in ]VTTV in 26.11; b^S ('do, make, work') in 26.12; CTKSri ('shades [inhabitants of the underworld]') in 26.14, 19; the retention of waw in Illy nouns in construct as seen in Vi£p in 26.15; ]lpi£ ('they poured out') in 26.16; the word pair IT"* || ^"ITl ('have labor pangs || bear, give birth') in 26.17, 18; milK ('herbs' and not 'lights') in 26.19. Indeed the entire 'Isaiah apocalypse' (Isa. 24-27)—as well as Isaiah 28 (Noegel 1994: 191)—contains numerous IH grammatical, syntactical, and lexical features (Noegel 1994). The date of Isaiah 26 however is debated by scholars. Some scholars see it as an integral part of First Isaiah (Kissane 1960: 276, 303). Others view it as belonging to the exilic period. Noegel did not attempt to date
WRIGHT Further Evidence for North Israelite Contributions 135 Isaiah 24-27 in his study, but appeared to associate these prophecies with First Isaiah (1994: 192).9 W. Millar commented: 'The author [of Isa. 24-27] emerges as one.. .who shared in Second Isaiah's vision for the reconstruction of Israel. For that reason, we label the genre of Isaiah 24-27 proto-apocalyptic. A 6th century date is not unreasonable' (1992:489; see also Millar 1976). The issue of the date of Isaiah 26 is far from settled, but the strong possibility that it is an exilic text must be considered. But whether Isaiah 26 is early or late, what is important to note is that the LBH plural form D^Q^ir occurs in a text which displays numerous IH characteristics. We can compare the above examples of D^QblU in early(?) non-Judahite texts to evidence from cognate languages. Ugaritic attests one example of the plural of 7m ('Imt) (see Gordon 1965, III: 456, § 19.1858). Note also the Aramaic isogloss "pQvU in Dan. 2.4 etpassim.™ The plural of u~?D appears in Northwest Semitic only in Imperial Aramaic and Nabatean (DISO: 213). The presence of the plural form D^CPI!? in texts which contain other examples of non-JH (Ps. 77 and 1 Kgs 8) and in a possibly early exilic text with a high concentration of IH features (Isa. 26) may indicate that D^fcjTlIJ originated in IH and became more common in JH after the Exile. I suggest that D^ltf represents (1) IH in 1 Kgs 8.13, Ps. 77.6, 8, and perhaps in Isa. 26.13; (2) the transition from SBH to LBH in the exilic texts Isa. 45.17; 51.19, and perhaps 26.13; and (3) LBH in Qoh. 1.10 and Dan. 9.24. I am at present unable to explain the presence of D"10*711? as IH or LBH in Ps. 61.5.n
9. Noegel (1994: 191-92) suggested that the IH features in Isa. 24-27 represent addressee-switching: the author is attempting to represent the speech patterns of northerners (inhabitants of the Northern Kingdom of Israel). Noegel then drew the conclusion that the purpose for the switch in dialect was political: 'P. Machinist has examined the prophecies of the first Isaiah [sic] and has found the prophet to possess a remarkable flare for Neo-Assyrian rhetoric, especially in those prophecies which are aimed at Assyria... By spicing his prophecy with IH dialectical features, Isaiah is able to appeal to northern sensitivities and, hence, convey a sense of solidarity [with Judah]' (p. 192). See especially the reference to 'Isaiah of Jerusalem' in n. 110 on p. 192. 10. See also Dan. 2.44; 3.9; 5.10; 6.6, 21, 26; 7.18. 11. Rendsburg (in a 2002 personal communication) suggested D'O^II? rather than D^IU in Ps. 61.5 perhaps enhances the alliteration with "]17D_!D_''_ *TLU in Ps. 61.7. The form D^II? in Ps. 61.5 alone would alliterate, but the extra mem in D^VlI? strengthens the connection between the two halves of the psalm.
Biblical Hebrew
136
b. X-1 Xb^ ('EveryX') The syntagma X-l X 73 ('every X') appears 14 times in the Hebrew Bible.12 It occurs primarily in texts which are clearly post-exilic: Esth. 2.11: Esth. 3.14; 4.3; 8.13, 17: Esth. 8.11, 17: Esth. 9.21, 27: Esth. 9.28: 2 Chron. 28.25: 2 Chron. 32.28:
DV1 DT ^IDl nriBI HDHO ^33 T171 T17 ^D ilDtm HDSD ^33 mil in ^1D3 Tin Tl> ^331 norm nQHD ^D1?
It arises once in a text which contains a concentration of LBH features and is therefore post-exilic (Hurvitz 1972a: 67-73): Ps. 145.13:
Tin in ^DD
It also occurs once in a text of uncertain date, though almost undoubtedly pre-exilic:
PS. 45.18:
TTmte
In each of these examples, the idea of totality is expressed by TO followed by a repeated singular noun joined by 1 (GKC: 395, §123c;BDB:481b).13 This construction does not occur in earlier books of the Hebrew Bible. SBH employed either (1) an asyndetic construction in which a singular noun is repeated—also known as the quivis construction—without an intervening waw, or (2) a syndetic construction in which a repeated singular noun is joined by waw. Contrary to Polzin (1976: 49-51) and Qimron (1986: 81, §400), there is no semantic distinction between the syndetic and asyndetic quivis constructions. Rendsburg called this 'a distinction without a difference' (Rendsburg 1980a: 68). Although Polzin was incorrect to argue that the syndetic construction is distinctively post-exilic—Gevirtz (1986: 26-27) has shown that syndetic constructions occur in early biblical (and extra-biblical) contexts—he was correct insofar that the asyndetic construction is more archaic. Rendsburg (1980a: 69; see also Rendsburg 1991b: 82-83) summarized the development of the construction well:
12. See also Hurvitz 1972a: 70; Bergey 1983: 68-69; most recently Wright 1998 77-84 and references. 13. See also JM: 499, § 135d: 'Certain ideas analogous to the idea of plurality are expressed by the repetition of the singular noun: the idea of each, every... with the addition of ^3 and Waw as in LBH, QH, and MH'.
WRIGHT Further Evidence for North Israelite Contributions
137
I would conclude by positing the following chronological development. The asyndeta dor dor, yom yom, etc., were used first, as in the Ugaritic texts and commonly in the Pentateuch (as well as in Ps. 68). The syndeta dor vfdor, yom weyom, etc., developed next, gradually replacing the earlier formulation (but note that yom yom occurs still in Prov. 8.34).
So although the asyndetic construction is older, both it and the syndetic formulation are characteristic of SBH. However the syntagma X-l X TO appears commonly in post-BH. The syndetic construction with preceding ^D is well attested in the Dead Sea Scrolls and in materials from Murabba'at (HDHL:plates 10398-424; Qimron 1986: 81, §440.15; Hurvitz 1972a: 72-73; Bergey 1983: 69):14 11QT15.1: Murabba'at 24, Bl6; C18:
DVIDV^ID rrJIOT n32? blD
The feature also appears in rabbinic writings from the Tannaitic period (HDHL:plates 10244-605; Hurvitz 1972a: 72; Bergey 1983: 70):15 m. Ab. 6.2: /. Ber. 6.7:
DV1 DV ^D KJB31 KB] *?D
Qimron (1986:81, §440.15) commented: 'The construction "X-l X ^Dp)", meaning "every X", is only attested in the Hebrew of the Second Temple period and thereafter; it is common in late biblical, Mishnaic, and Aramaic usage'. In summary, the distribution of the syndetic construction with preceding ^3 in post-exilic biblical texts, its contrast with the SBH syndetic and asyndetic constructions without preceding ;O, and its widespread appearance in post-BH demonstrate convincingly that the syntagma X-l X ^D is characteristic of LBH. What remains is for us to consider the one example of X-l X ^D in a text which probably is pre-exilic: Ps. 45.18. This psalm contains a large number of IH features (Rendsburg 1990b: 45-50): the feminine singular nominal ending -ot in v. 11 and v. 16; the verb Oil ('astir') in v. 2; the term THE ('skillful') in v. 2; the word ITD^D ('kingdom') in v. 7; the noun 7DTT as 'palace' instead of 'temple' in v. 9 and v. 16; the double plural syntagma D^D^Q ni33 ('daughters of kings') in v. 10; the nonelision of he in the hophal imperfect "]1"I1!T ('[peoples] shall praise you') in v. 18. Note also the reference to "lliJ fin ('daughter of Tyre') in v. 13. 14. See also 3Q15 12.12-13; 11QT 22.12; 23.7; 40.8; 42.13; 48.14. 15. A representative list of examples might include m. Sot. 5.4; m. Suk. 5.4; m. Ber. 6.6; m. Seq. 6.5; Sifrct Hovah 9.2; Mek. Bahodesh 5.
Biblical Hebrew
138
Further evidence for the dialectal—non-Judahite—nature of this expression comes from an Eteocretan inscription from the sixth century BCE, where we read KX ES u ES (analogous to BH KTK1 2TK ^D) (Rendsburg 1980a: 69; Gordon 1966: 10). Although it would strengthen our case if we had more examples of the syndetic quivis construction with preceding ^D in Northwest Semitic inscriptions (DISO: 119-20), we can conclude that the syntagma X-l X ^D was present in IH and became more frequent in BH after the Exile. c. ODD The verb D3D in the piel and qal conjugations occurs eight times in exilic and post-exilic texts (Ezek. 22.21; 39.28; Qoh. 2.8, 26; 3.5; Esth. 4.16; Neh. 12.44; 1 Chron. 22.2; BDB: 488b; KB, II: 484),16 and twice in texts of uncertain date (Pss. 33.7; 147.2). It appears several times also in Aramaic portions of the Bible (= EflD, 'assemble'; BDB: 1097a). In the examples cited above the verb ODD is used to describe gathering crops (Nehemiah), people (Ezekiel, Chronicles), and raw materials (Qohelet). The piel and qal of DID do not appear in undisputably early books of the Bible, which instead employ ^jDK or j*Dp with the same meaning of 'gather (people or crops)' (BDB: 62a, 867b; KB, I: 74-75; III: 1062-64). It should, however, be noted that both verbs continue to appear in exilic and post-exilic texts.17 The book of Ezekiel uses both earlier ^DN and j*Dp as well as later ODD to describe the gathering of the exiles: Ezek. 11.17:
mjnKrT'JD DDHN ^HSDNl... DDHK nnH3pl
Compare: Ezek. 39.28:
DnOTtrblJ DTO3D1
But DDD in the piel and qal conjugations is attested in post-biblical literature. It occurs occasionally in the Dead Sea Scrolls (HDHL: plates 10694-723): 4QOrd 2.4
^ DDD1 n^DlNl
i IQT 34.7
mpiTcn [mn n]« D^DDID rm
And also in Tannaitic literature: 16. For a fuller discussion see Bergey 1983: 129-30; Hurvitz 1982:123-25; Wright 1998: 156-60 and references. 17. For examples of »]OK see Jer. 16.5; Ezek. 11.7; Dan. 11.10; Ezra 3.1; Neh. 8.13; 1 Chron. 5.14. For examples ofpp see Jer. 29.14; Ezek. 22.20; Esth. 2.3, 8,19; Ezra 7.28; Neh. 4.14; 2 Chron. 15.19.
WRIGHT Further Evidence for North Israelite Contributions m. B. Bat. 3.1: /w. Toh. 9.13:
m. Sebu. 4.8:
139
ISf] (l)p P« ODD maiim HN D3D ]1|«DDD ^31«^ ]DD'D
1JTD flP^ DD1D ertan
Thus the evidence suggests strongly that LBH 033 in the qal and piel appeared alongside and began to replace SBH spN and |*3p in the exilic and post-exilic periods, although all three roots continued to be used in post-BH. That leaves three examples of the verb 03 D in texts which are of uncertain date. In Psalm 147 the verb 033 appears in a verse (v. 2) which describes the rebuilding of Jerusalem and the gathering of the 'exiles of Israel' (033^ ^"lET TT1]). Either the verse or the psalm as a whole is clearly post-exilic, and so 033 here reflects LBH. I am unable to explain the appearance of ODD in Ps. 33.7. In addition to the distribution of 033 in the qal and piel conjugations as described above, the hithpael of ODD ('gather oneself) occurs once in Isa. 28.20: D33nn3 HIH HDDDm ('and the cover too narrow for curling up [or "gathering oneself up, pulling one's limbs together"]', JPS). Hurvitz (1982:124) commented: 'DOT!, which is found in Is. XXVIII, 20, should be excluded from discussion since (semantically) its exact meaning is unclear and (morphologically) it belongs to a different conjugation'. However the meaning in this context is not so unclear as Hurvitz maintained. And although we should exercise caution in including this example because it is in the hithpael rather than in the piel or qal conjugations still we can observe that the verbal root 033—which does not appear in the hithpael anywhere else—appears in a text of uncertain date which displays significant number of IH features (Noegel 1994:189-91): D^n ('strike') in v. 1; D-T33 ('great, mighty') in v. 2; 3Bp ('cut off) in v. 2; POT ('go astray') in v. 7; plS ('totter') in v. 7; pTU7 ('old, advanced in years') in v. 9; ]li6 ('scorn') in v. 14 and v. 22; 11\D ('harrow') in v. 24; miE? ('rows' or 'grain') in v. 25; ]QD3 ('appointed place, marked place') in v. 25; 2T1K ('silent') in v. 28; rPKTin ('wisdom') in v. 29. The root 033 appears also in Aramaic (= 2?33) and in Punic, Imperial Aramaic, and Palmyran inscriptions (DISO: 123). Its appearance in Isaiah 28—even if in the hithpael conjugation—might be an example of addressee-switching in a prophecy addressed to the tribe of Ephraim (Noegel 1994: 189, 192; Rendsburg 1991b: 96-97).18 18. Biblical passages set in Ephraimite contexts often display non-standard forms and vocabulary. Regarding such evidence for a distinctive Ephraimite dialect of ancient Hebrew, see Rendsburg 1990b: 7,14,20,22,24-25,70 and references. Since the tribes
Biblical Hebrew
140
Recently, however, Joseph Naveh has published what may be attestation of the verb ODD in a pre-exilic text from Jerusalem (Naveh 2000).19 The text in question is a jar inscription that is dated paleographically to the First Temple period (Naveh 2000: 1, 2-3). The second and third lines of the three line inscription read:
[.^pD.mDn.innDn.p.inn [].D]Dmn'in[\p.]irr[] Naveh has suggested the translation: 'PN son of PN2 who gathers silver [and gold].. .PN3 son of PN4 who gathers [silver and gold]' (Naveh 2000: 2). If the date, provenance, and reading of the text are correct, then the verb DD3 was present in pre-exilic Jerusalemite Hebrew and therefore is not a feature of either LBH or IH. I would suggest this evidence is too recent to draw any firm conclusions. Note also the unusual form ETlDn in 1. 1—if this stands for B"I2? (> CD1D in later Hebrew; see Naveh 2000: 3) then the text may come from outside of Jerusalem. The use of the verb ODD—which in the piel and qal conjugations is characteristic of LBH—in a text which contains other IH features and is addressed to the tribe of Ephraim suggests that ODD may have been present in non-JH and then became more frequently used in the exilic and postexilic periods. But because D3D occurs in Isaiah 28 in the hithpael rather than piel or qal conjugation, because the date of Isaiah 28 is disputed, and because of DD3 in a pre-exilic Hebrew inscription recently found in Jerusalem, this conclusion is tentative. d. ^np ('Receive, Take') The piel of bnp 'receive, take' (BDB: 867a; KB, III: 1061-62) appears eight times in the Hebrew Bible:20 Prov. 19.20:
Job 2.10 (twice): Esth. 9.23: Esth. 9.27:
1D1Q ^pl HHU UBK?
vb mrrrwi D-n^n n«a bapD men-fin D: *73p] nitDUb l^nn—I10«TIK D'Tin^n ^Upl DH^U Q-Tin'n ^3pl
of Ephraim and Manasseh are associated with Joseph, note the presence of IH features in the blessing of Joseph in Gen. 49 (Rendsburg 1992c: 167-69). 19. I would like to thank Ian Young and Gary Rendsburg for bringing this item to my attention. 20. See Hurvitz 1974a: 20-23; 1982: 22; Bergey 1983: 145-47; Polzin 1976: 150; Wright 1998: 174-78 and references. This discussion does not include the hiphil of ^Dp ('correspond'), which appears in early texts (Exod. 26.5; 36.12).
WRIGHT Further Evidence for North Israelite Contributions 141 1 Chron. 12.19: 1 Chron. 21.11: 2 Chron. 29.16:
Til D^Tl l^'^P nin ' ^N'^D train1? D'lbn ib^Tl
Note that piel ^3p ('receive, take') occurs primarily in texts which most scholars accept as post-exilic: Esth. 9.23, 27; 1 Chron. 12.19; 21.11; 2 Chron. 29.16. The two examples of piel 7Dp in Job 2.10 occur in the prose portions of Job, which Hurvitz (1974a) has shown exhibits several features of LBH and on linguistic grounds can be dated to the post-exilic period. The piel of ^3p occurs—with one possible exception—nowhere in early books of the Hebrew Bible. Instead we see the common lexeme Hp7 ('take') employed in a manner similar to piel 7Dp in later texts: Gen. 33.10-11: (Compare Esth. 4.4:
njT1...Tima Tinpl7l...]n TIKUD K3 Dtt *73p N71.. .'DUD HN ET^H1? D'TQ n^On)
Exod. 24.6: np'l POTOn ^U plT Din ' Jjm.. .D1H 'SPl nO2 (Compare 2 Chron. 29.22: nmTOn ipin Din~n« D"3nDn I^Dp-l)
Although npb continued to appear frequently in post-exilic texts, the evidence indicates clearly that the piel of TQp began to be used alongside early np1? in similar contexts (Even-Shoshan 1990: 607; Hurvitz 1974a 22; several other examples in Wright 1998: 175-76). The piel of bnp was employed even more frequently in post-biblical literature. Note the following examples (HDHL:plates 15868-83): Ben Sira 15.2:
iQSai.il: 4QpPsaa 171 2.9
ID^pn DHIW TOBD
v^yTun 1 ? bnpn munn II:IQ n« i^ap
And from Tannaitic literature:
m. Ber. 2.2: ^np1 p in«i n^-nn ... v^r ^ap-e? HD «b« 5/^-e Dent. 54 (122):
"niTTJ 1^3p TrO^D DH^^p
Concerning the evidence summarized above, Bergey concluded (1983: 146-47): np1? remains the preferred form throughout LBH, including Esther where it appears twice as often as ^3p. Also np1? is the more frequently used term of the two [npb and ^Hp] in the DSS. So from the literary evidence, it appears that ^Dp never thoroughly permeated the language until Tannaitic times. Nevertheless, its appearance in Esther, Ezra, and Chronicles is the earliest indication of this lexeme's penetration into the Hebrew literary sources, an entrance which was the harbinger of its gradually increased use as is evidenced especially in the Mishnah.
142
Biblical Hebrew
The piel of ^3p—even though it occurs alongside and less frequently than SBH Hp^—can confidently be regarded as a characteristic feature of LBH. What remains is for us to consider the one instance of piel ^Dp in a text of uncertain but probably pre-exilic date: Prov. 19.20. Other scholars have observed and discussed IH features throughout Proverbs (Albright 1960: 1-15; Ginsberg 1982: 36; Rendsburg 1990b: 10 nn. 39-40). In a recent doctoral dissertation Y. Chen (2000) conducted an extensive study of the language of book of Proverbs. He confirmed that Proverbs contains a multitude of IH features, including several within Proverbs 19 alone (Chen 2000: 149-54 and references): the -Tl prefixed noun-form 31Dl?n based on a strong root in 19.10; ]11D ('strife, contention') in 19.13; the phrase "HE ff|irn ('continuous dripping') in 19.13; and the negative particle ^3 in 19.23.21 The non-Judahite character of piel blip ('receive, take') can be seen further in how it is distributed in (an)other Semitic language(s). The verb TQp ('take, receive') is very common in Aramaic sources (DISO: 248-49). Chen (2000: 152) suggested persuasively that bmp is an 'IH vocable that is shared between IH and Aramaic'. Albright (1943: 31) interpreted the Canaanite gloss ti-ka-bi-lu in (Amarna text) EA 252 as the equivalent of Hebrew bnp (see also Gordis 1965: 163-64,345 n. 32; Hurvitz 1974a: 22 n. 21), but this interpretation has been disputed persuasively by Moran (1975: 148)andRainey(1996,II: 148).22 Based on the occurrence of LBH piel TOp in a pre-exilic text with numerous IH features, we can conclude that this form represents another IH isogloss with Aramaic which became part of the literary dialect during the post-exilic period.23
e. nn^n ('West') The termini^ ('west'; BDB: 788a; KB, II: 615) appears 13 times in the Hebrew Bible: Isa. 43.5; 45.6; 59.19; Pss. 75.7; 103.12; 107.2; 1 Chron. 7.28; 12.16; 26.16,18,30; 2 Chron. 32.30; 33.14.24 Ten of these examples 21. Chen (2000: 149-54) provided several other examples of IH features in Prov. 19, but these were less persuasive than the examples I cite above. 22. Moran interpreted the gloss as qubbulu ('to fight', CAD Q, 292b), whereas Rainey has suggested instead kapalulqapalu ('curl up', CAD K, 174-75; Rainey 1996, II: 148). I would like to thank Ian Young for bringing this information to my attention. 23. Note also BDB: 867a: '(late) Aram, loan word'; and KB, III: 1061: 'an old Heb. verb, which was replaced by np1?, but under Arm. influence was later revived...' 24. For fuller discussion see Hurvitz 1972a: 113-16; Wright 1998: 164-68.
WRIGHT Further Evidence for North Israelite Contributions 143 are in texts which are clearly exilic or post-exilic: Isa. 43.5; 45.6; 59.19;25 1 Chron. 7.28; 12.16; 26.16,18,30; 2 Chron. 32.30; 33.14. Psalm 103 contains sufficient LBH elements for us to conclude that it is a post-exilic text (Hurvitz 1972a: 107-30). Note that in several of the verses cited above D"1UQ ('sunset, the West') appears in conjunction with PIHTQ 'rising (of the sun), the East'. Earlier texts in the Hebrew Bible by contrast employ (1) Dn ('seafward], the West'; BDB: 41 la; KB, II: 414) or (2) KinQ ('entry [of the sun into the horizon], the West'; BDB: lOOb) to express the same idea: (a) Josh. 11.3: Josh. 12.7: (Compare 1 Chron. 26.30: Isa. 11.14: (b) Deut. 11.30 etpassim26
D^Ql mTQD '3IttDn HQ" ]TVn -DID m"IUD JTTH -QUO) HIT DTIKkB "pm 1SU1 IDOen K13Q f 11 nn« JTVn H3U3
Although both expressions do continue to appear in late texts,27 the distribution of D~IUQ suggests that it began to displace earlier (1) D"1 and (2) NIDQ in the exilic and post-exilic periods. We can confirm the late nature of D"1UQ by observing how frequently it is employed in post-biblical literature such as the Dead Sea Scrolls, the Bar Kokhba letters, and Tannaitic literature (HDHL: plates 14765-68; Hurvitz 1972a: 114-16): 11QT 10.35:
IIQT 13.31: Bar Kokhba 15: m. Ma'as. S. 3.5: /. 'Erub. 4.6: SifreNum. 73:
^DTFn n"\SKb DIpD HP-Din
n-iBana psunai nitons mrana I^BIZ? mtfQ )D 1«H 2"II?D1 niTD «1H HT mUQ^I }12l6 TplP
Thus there is little question that D"1UQ ('west') represents a late expression which began to replace SBH D* and N1HE in similar contexts. So what of the two texts of uncertain date wherein LBH D"~lUQ appears? Although Hurvitz was unwilling to conclude on linguistic grounds that Psalm 107 was late (1972a: 173-76 esp. 173 and n. 308), internal evidence suggests a post-exilic date. Psalm 107.2-3 clearly refers to the return of the 25. Rooker (1996) ommitted 31UQ from his analysis of the linguistic background of Isa. 40-66. 26. Note examples also in Josh. 1.4; 23.4; Pss. 50.1; 104.19; 113.3. 27. ForD1 seeZech. 14.4 and Even-Shoshan 1990:470-72. For 8130 see also Zech. 8.7; Mai. 1.11; and Even-Shoshan 1990: 617.
Biblical Hebrew
144
exiles to Jerusalem following the decree of Cyrus in 538 BCE: 'Thus let the redeemed of the LORD say, those He redeemed from adversity, whom He gathered in from the lands, from east and west, from the north and from the sea' (JPS). Even if the rest of the psalm were composed earlier, D"11?Q in Ps. 107.2 represents LBH. Psalm 75 is one of the Asaph psalms, and I have noted earlier how the Asaph collection as a whole reflects northern (IH) dialect (Rendsburg 1990b: 73-81). Psalm 75 displays two other characteristics of IH: "ion ('wine') in 75.9, and ~JDQ ('mixed wine') in 75.9. The non-Judahite character of 3~II?Q can be seen in its distribution in other Semitic languages. Ugaritic displays m 'rb ('sunset'), but it is unclear whether the term can also mean 'west' (Gordon 1965, III: 461, §1915). Observe the use of D1JJQ in a Samalian inscription from Zenjirli (Gibson 1975: 76-78; KAI, 11:31-34): Panammu 13:
DIED lin EOT KplQ )ID
The word was also common in Imperial and Judean Aramaic (DISO:162). Sabean also exhibits DT")UQ/''3"IUQ ('west, western'). The Semitic root 'rb ('enter, go in') and its extended meaning of'west'—in the sense of the direction where the sun 'enters' the horizon at sunset—may be reflected in Greek Eupoira and the myths which surround her (Bernal 1991: 93, 497-98 and references). The presence of LBH H1UQ ('west') in a text which displays other characteristics of IH (Ps. 75) and its attestation in Sabean and early Aramaic inscriptions and possibly in Ugaritic together may indicate that D~lUft originated or was present in IH and became more common in JH during and after the exile. We can conclude that 3~II?E represents IH in Ps. 75.7; the transition from SBH to LBH in Isa. 43.5; 45.6; 59.19; and LBH in those biblical texts which are clearly post-exilic.
6. bn3 ('Hasten') In BH the verb ^rD has two distinct meanings: (1) 'disturb, terrify' and (2) 'hasten' (BOB: 96a; KB, I: 111).28 The verb with the former meaning of 'disturb, terrify' can be found throughout the Hebrew Bible, but brn with the sense of 'hasten' occurs only seven times:
28. For a fuller discussion see Bergey 1983: 111-12; Polzin 1976: 129; Wright 1998: 138-41. In my 1998 study (Wright 1998: 138n. 372) I incorrectly cited'Bergey, "Esther", 11-112' instead of Bergey 1983: 777-12.
WRIGHT Further Evidence for North Israelite Contributions 145
PS. 48.6: Prov. 20.21: Esth. 2.9: Esth. 6.14: Esth. 8.14: 2 Chron. 26.20: 2 Chron. 35.21:
iisra ibmD man ito nan nDtara (Q)r6mB I1?™ nb nrb nm3DTi«i rrpi-iDrrnR ^rann ]arrn« R-nnb i^n3 i "f^DH 1313 D'BiriTI D^mB 1KJT Dm imVa''! ^brcb ~1Q« DT6&1
Five of these examples are clearly post-exilic texts: Esth. 2.9; 6.14; 8.14; 2 Chron. 26.20; 35.21. Note also that h>i"Q in the hithpaal occurs three times in Biblical Aramaic: Dan. 2.25; 3.24; 6.20 (BDB: 1084a). This later usage of 7i~Q does not—with the exceptions of Ps. 48.6 and Prov. 20.21—occur in earlier books of the Bible which instead employ "HO or ISO in similar contexts (BDB: 342a, 554b; KB, 1:339; II: 553-54). For example (Bergey 1983: 112):
Gen. 27.20:
^3 Nuab rnno nrno
Exod. 2.18: (Compare Esth. 6.14:
DTT! 83 jima W7Q pn~n« VT3rb lbn3 n l)
Josh. 8.14: (Compare Esth. 8.14:
Tll?n~
1 Sam. 23.26:
b^V "DDD FCb1? TSTO lin 'Tl
Note that "1HD continued to appear in later texts. Although the verb TTO was employed in BH during the pre-exilic period, it was not until the postexilic period that it became more widespread and began to replace "1HQ and TSH in similar contexts. Evidence for ^HD meaning 'hasten, hurry' instead of'disturb, terrify' in post-biblical literature is scarce (HDHL: plate 5310). We find one example in Tannaitic literature: m. Ab. 5.7
3ntOTb ^n3] 11T81
Despite this slight evidence, Bergey (1983: 112) concluded: The evidence gathered from the Hebrew literary sources points to the semantic development of "">n3 'hasten' in post-exilic times, resulting in its extension to the semantic sphere of two others lexemes occurring in EBH [SBH]—"inQ and TSn. This development, no doubt, contributed to the decline of TSn, which nowhere occurs in LBH prose.
Nevertheless the distribution within the Hebrew Bible of ^rn with the meaning 'hasten, hurry' is such that we safely can regard brQ ('hasten, hurry') as a characteristic feature of LBH.
146
Biblical Hebrew
We can then consider the two examples of ^iin ('hasten, hurry') in texts of uncertain but probably pre-exilic date: Ps. 48.6 and Prov. 20.21. Psalm 48, one of the Korah psalms, contains three IH features (Rendsburg 1990b: 51-60): the verb NT governing the preposition D in 46.3; the plural construct form n}3C)p ('tabernacles') in 46.5; the negative particle ;Q in 46.6. The probable allusions to Carmel and Rosh Haniqra in the north of EretzYisrael and to the coastal plain along the Mediterranean Sea in the south further attest to a northern (non-Judahite) origin for this psalm (pp. 52). The Korah collection of psalms as a whole displays numerous IH features and likely was composed in the Northern Kingdom of Israel (pp. 51-60 esp. 51). The book of Proverbs, as noted above, contains a multitude of IH features, including many within Proverbs 20 (Chen 2000: 155-59).29 b#S ('do, make, work') in v. 11; ^TN ('go [away]') in v. 14; the retention of initial ^ in the imperative form of Plpb in v. 16; and the verb H~l^ ('be sweet, pleasing') in v. 17.30 The verb ^PQ with the meaning 'hasten, hurry' instead of the more common 'disturb, terrify' appears to be a characteristic of LBH. The two examples of LBH 7!"Q ('hasten, hurry') in early texts which reflect a northern (non-Judahite) linguistic background suggest that 7i~Q as 'hasten, hurry' was already present in IH and then—perhaps due to the influence of Aramaic—became more widespread in JH following the Babylonian Exile. Conclusions Many of the characteristic features of LBH identified by Hurvitz and other scholars occur sporadically in earlier texts.31 This does not automatically disqualify these items as late: It was not until the post-exilic period that such competing [LBH] forms were used increasingly at the expense of the earlier expression or replaced the earlier form altogether. In such cases it is the increased or predominant use of the language element in post-exilic texts which marks that element as
29. Chen (2000: 155-59) did not discuss ^rn in his analysis of dialectal features in Prov. 20—perhaps because it appears only as a qere reading. 30. Chen (2000: 155-59) discussed several other possible IH features in Prov. 20, but 1 have cited above only the most persuasive examples. 31. See examples in Hurvitz 1972a; 1974a; 1982; Polzin 1976; Bergey 1983; Wright 1998 especially Tables la-Id (pp. 250-53).
WRIGHT Further Evidence for North Israelite Contributions 147 characteristically late. (Wright 1998: 257; see also Bergey 1983: 173-74; Hurvitz 1982: 24-27 esp. 25 n. 9)
What is of interest for the purposes of this study is when an LBH feature appears in early texts all or most of which display characteristics of IH. So far we have looked at six examples of LBH features which appear also in early, non-Judahite texts: (1) the plural formD^D^l^ ('everlastingness, eternity') which occurs also in 1 Kgs 8.13, Isa. 26.4, Pss. 77.6, 8; (2) the syntagma X-l X ^D ('every X') which appears also in Ps. 45.18; (3) the root ODD ('gather, collect') which we find also in Isa. 28.20; (4) the piel form of the verb 7Dp ('receive, take') which appears also in Prov. 19.20; (5) the term 3"II?!3 ('west') which occurs also in Ps. 75.7; and (6) *TQ with the meaning 'hasten, hurry', which occurs in Ps. 48.6 and Prov. 20.21. These examples of linguistic items that occur rarely in preexilic, non-Judahite texts and later become characteristic features of LBH appear to support the hypothesis offered by Gordon (1955a) and others (see most recently Chen 2000: 5, 9-11; Rendsburg 2002a: 21) that the 'northern' dialect(s) influenced post-exilic Hebrew. Even if we exclude D^IU in Isa. 26.4 and the hithpael of ODD in Isa. 28.20 because of the problems in dating Isaiah 24-28—and because D3ID appears in a pre-exilic Hebrew inscription from Jerusalem—that still leaves five examples within this study alone. A full analysis of LBH items which appear occasionally in early texts and of whether those texts exhibit IH is still forthcoming.32 But a possible relationship between IH (that is, early, non-JH) and LBH raises two sets of related questions. First: What is—or perhaps, what are— the precise relationship(s) between non-JH in the pre-exilic period and post-exilic Hebrew? How does the apparent influence of IH on LBH compare with other sources of influence? What are the mechanisms and processes by which IH features penetrated the literary idiom in the postexilic period? Out of 44 characteristic features of LBH, I found six items that appear only or mostly in texts that reflect a non-Judahite linguistic background. Although with a larger corpus of non-Judahite texts we might find more such examples, it appears that IH is one stream that flows into the river we call LBH. Gordon emphasized the reunion in Babylon and Persia between 32. For this study I began with the 44 features of LBH which I discussed in my doctoral dissertation 'Linguistic Evidence for the Pre-Exilic Date of the Yahwist Source of the Pentateuch' (1998). So far that is six out of 44 LBH features that appear in early, non-Judahite texts. There are numerous other LBH items that I have not yet analyzed to see if they occur in Israelian Hebrew.
148
Biblical Hebrew
Israelians who had been taken into exile during the eighth century BCE and newly arrived Judahites (1955a: 86-87). The Hebrew dialect(s) ofthe North Israelite tribes thereby influenced the dialect of the exiles from Judah. Chen (2000: 5) and Rendsburg (2002a: 21) have cited this 'reunion' view, although Rendsburg also warned: 'One must exercise caution and not rely on this explanation [for the influence of IH on LBH] too frequently, lest it become a "crutch"' (2002a: 21). Indeed Gordon was careful to note: 'This is not to deny other factors, such as the Aramaization of the whole Near East, and Babylonian and Persian influence' (1955a: 87). Although it is not the purpose of this study to offer a detailed scenario for how IH influenced(?) LBH, I mention briefly C. Rabin's theory that the central government in Jerusalem attempted to create a standard literary dialect of ancient Hebrew (Rabin 1979: 71-78,293-95). Because ofthe inscriptional evidence from Lachish and Arad I am not fully persuaded by this theory. But it may lead us to consider the linguistic consequences of the widespread social and political upheaval following the destruction of the Northern Kingdom of Israel in 723/722 BCE and the exile ofthe political and social elite of Jerusalem in 603 and 586 BCE. It is possible that without the old intelligentsia of Jerusalem, regional and colloquial dialects in and around Judah began to assert themselves more strongly. Further studies may help us understand better the various processes by which SBH became or gave way to LBH. Finally, if there is a relationship between IH and LBH, then how can we distinguish between the two? How do we know if an 'early' text with IH features displays a LBH item because it is in fact late? Similarly, when an IH item appears in post-exilic texts, how do we know if in those texts that linguistic feature represents IH or LBH?33 Although Hurvitz began to address these issues when he attempted to distinguish between 'Aramaisms' as dialectal variation vs. 'Aramaisms' as a characteristic of LBH (1968: 234-40), further work is needed in order to refine our methodologies for identifying ABH, SBH, early IH, LBH, and late IH.
33. Shortly before this article was completed, Gary Rendsburg kindly provided me with a copy of the page proofs for his book Israelian Hebrew in the Book of Kings (2002a). Among the numerous IH features which he identified in 1-2 Kings, I found at least 18 examples of IH features which occur also in late (northern or Judahite) texts. I hope to discuss these linguistic items in a later study.
Part II
CHALLENGES TO THE CHRONOLOGICAL MODEL
BIBLICAL HEBREW AND THE HISTORY OF ANCIENT JUDAH: TYPOLOGY, CHRONOLOGY AND COMMON SENSE
Philip R. Davies
Since the beginnings of modern biblical scholarship the dating of its various sources has been based almost entirely on literary criteria: stylistic, structural, ideological. This is how the Pentateuch, the three parts of the book of Isaiah and the Deuteronomistic strands of Jeremiah, for example, were distinguished and related to each other. Most biblical scholars continue with such methods, myself included. In recent years a new method has emerged, which may be called typological. It claims to be more scientific and less subjective than the literary method, and holds that through statistical evaluation of a set of criteria a precise typology of the language of any text can be constructed. The method itself, and undoubtedly much of its appeal, is drawn from the role of ceramic typology in establishing archaeological correlation. It has also been applied, notably in the case of the Qumran texts, to palaeography. Typological analysis is primarily useful for understanding the mechanics of social activity: pottery manufacture and use, or the conventions of writing, social and material. But in the area of biblical studies, the greatest impact of typological analysis is its potential for conversion into chronology. Hurvitz (1997a: 308) comments that 'there is a far-reaching linguistic uniformity underlying both the pre-exilic inscriptions and the literary biblical texts written in Classical BH'. He continues: 'We have, therefore, to conclude that "Classical BH" is a well-defined linguistic stratum, indicative of a [typologically] distinctive phase within biblical literature and a [chronologically] datable time-span within biblical history'. He thus refers in his work to CBH as 'early' and post-CBH as 'late': and the equation of typology with chronology is now virtually automatic. (In fact, as, e.g., Knauf 1990 and I. Young 1993 have demonstrated, the inscriptions themselves do not constitute a clear 'linguistic uniformity' either among themselves or with 'Classical Hebrew'.)
DAVIES Biblical Hebrew and the History of Ancient Judah
151
The attraction of this method is that, unlike the increasingly centrifugal conclusions of literary-critical analyses, it offers criteria that are based on a set of very simple premises, and are quantifiable. Potentially, such a method provides a secure foundation for the sequencing of biblical books, and its attraction to a number of biblical scholars is hardly surprising. Can such a solution to centuries of literary-historical criticism really exist? At the outset, it must be very clearly borne in mind that typology does not automatically imply chronological sequence. To create a chronology out of typology in this case, then, two provisions are essential. One is that a number of individual samples of BH need to be independently dated. The other is that the BH must represent a single linguistic tradition. If more than one tradition or usage is present, so that typologies represent distinct lines of evolution, then these must be separated and individual chronologies for each must be constructed from the relevant typologies. If either of these criteria are ignored, then no correlation between typology and chronology can be relied upon. A simple application of the method allows the linguistic profile of biblical texts (or at least passages) of unknown date to be compared with that of dated texts and assigned a chronology relative to those texts. Further development of the method is also tempting: the creation of a chronological table of linguistic development that permits relative dates to be turned into absolute ones. Hurvitz is the leading advocate of this new method of dating, and has made this agenda his life's work; his writings offer the best source for a presentation and analysis of the 'linguistic dating method' (though several other scholars tacitly accept such a scheme). As I understand his thesis, it begins from the observation that a clear distinction can be seen between 'Classical' and 'post-Classical' BH. CBH, he notes, is the language in which Iron Age Judaean documents are written, and post-Classical the language of indisputably 'late' (Persian period onwards) texts, such as Chronicles, Ezra and Nehemiah. Biblical texts are either similar to one or other of these kinds of Hebrew, or they mix features of the two, in which case they belong to a period of transition. Hurvitz regards the change from one kind of Hebrew to another as fairly swift, and dates it to the early postexilic period. He offers an explanation for this change, namely, the influence of Aramaic, to which, he suggests, Judaean Hebrew was directly exposed only from the sixth century onwards. Hence, for example, proposals to date 'Classical' BH (e.g. the Pentateuch) to the Persian period or later can be refuted. Since I am one of those proposing such a dating for many 'Classical Hebrew' texts, it is my obligation either to make a defence
152
Biblical Hebrew
or to concede defeat. I shall try and make a defence of my views, not by trying to assert that Hurvitz is wrong but that he is incorrect to insist that he must be right. For there is a lack of balance in the debate that has recently begun (see Hurvitz 1991 a). While he insists that he is right and that I (and an increasing number of scholars) are definitely wrong, I am not able to make a similar counter-charge, because his method cannot be falsified. This does not mean, of course, that he is right, rather that he is wrong in thinking he has to be right. What I can do is show that his thesis is far from sound and in fact is in several respects implausible. And although in this brief space I cannot elaborate an alternative understanding of the data he cites in his support, I can, I think, suggest that other theories are available that require to be rejected before any claims to have discovered the truth can be entertained. The difference between Hurvitz's approach and mine lies, in fact, not over the basic facts, but over the way in which they can be explained. There is no disagreement over the fact that two kinds of Hebrew can be distinguished by vocabulary and syntax. Their differences were some while ago spelled out by Polzin (1976);1 Hurvitz has published a great deal of material (see Bibliography) illustrating this difference; though the differences are little disputed by most scholars of BH. Furthermore, that there is a chronological relationship between the two is also widely agreed: 'Classical' BH is closer to Iron Age Judaean inscriptions than 'postClassical Hebrew'/'Late Biblical Hebrew'. And post-CBH is not found in any text that we can securely date to the Iron Age. The difference between Hurvitz and me does not lie in accepting these facts, but in how they are to be best interpreted. 1. Polzin lists the following characteristics of LBH: reduced use of HN with the pronominal suffix; increased use of HN before nominative (emphatic); possession indicated by prospective suffix or bl0; collectives treated as plurals; preference for plural forms where classical Hebrew uses the singular; reduced use of infinitive absolute plus finite verb of the same stem; or as command; reduced use of the infinitive construct with 3 and 3; repetition of singular word to express distributive; merging of 3rd masc. plur. with 3rd fem. plur.; 1st sg. impf. with H hardly used; TH used less in appositional relationship; preference for substantive before numeral, and this usage always in plural; increased use of infinitive construct with preposition b. Features caused by the influence of Aramaic are given as: citing material and weight or measure as material + weight + number; ^ introducing an accusative; ]D not always assimilated before an anarthrous noun; ^ before the last element of a list; CT3"! sometimes placed before the substantive; the use of b 11? to mean 'until'.
DA VIES Biblical Hebrew and the History of Ancient Judah
153
As far as I can tell from his writings (and from private conversation) Hurvitz rests his case at this point, content with the conclusion that one kind of Hebrew replaced the other within a fairly short space of time. He proceeds to offer a reason why, if this were the case, it may have happened. But this is an assumption, and there are other hidden assumptions about ancient Hebrew that Hurvitz is concealing and which need to be exposed to examination. The most fundamental is that there is only one kind of Hebrew language being used at any one time, and hence that the spoken and written language were always identical. These assumptions and explanations are not facts, and not argued or discussed, even though his hypothesis depends as much upon them as upon the agreed data. The hypothesis also suffers from logical defects: the automatic conversion of typology into chronology without any external controls in the form of independently dated biblical texts in 'Classical Hebrew' and the resulting circularity of his entire argument. The crucial weaknesses of Hurvitz's case, however, are not that it is open to counter-assumptions (which is true), but that these alternative assumptions, unlike his, can be supported by evidence. In the following essay I shall first expose and examine the hidden assumptions, then discuss the significance of a typological classification of BH, the problem of dialect, and, finally, suggest the outline of an alternative account of the development of BH that accommodates a wider range of data. Confronting Some Hidden Assumptions I begin by identifying and challenging four basic assumptions in Hurvitz's hypothesis: that a single homogeneous Hebrew was spoken and written at any one time; that scribes trained to read and copy texts in a classical language lose the ability to reproduce that language correctly; that the influence of Aramaic on JH adequately accounts for a supposedly sudden change in BH; and that there is no distinction necessary between written and spoken languages. The first assumption, then, is that we are dealing with a monolithic Hebrew language, in which dialectal differences and, more importantly, differences between literary and spoken forms are not admitted into the equation. Put another way, Hurvitz assumes that the scribal communities responsible for the biblical texts, at any given time, all wrote and spoke an identical Hebrew, and that differences are thus to be accounted for by chronological distance.
154
Biblical Hebrew
We have clear counter-evidence, however, in a datable archive of manuscripts exhibiting different forms of Hebrew written at the same time (many perhaps even written in the same community): the Qumran scrolls. Here we encounter CBH (25% of the texts are of scriptural books), 'Qumran Hebrew' (e.g. the Community Rule, the War Scroll), proto-TH (4QMMT, the Copper Scroll), and texts that are very close to CBH (such as the Damascus Document). The range of linguistic types confounds any theory that at a given time scribes will write the same kind of Hebrew. It also, more concretely, demonstrates that in the Graeco-Roman period there was no uniform Hebrew language usage, thus raising serious doubts about any preceding uniform usage, such as 'Late Biblical Hebrew', and thus about Hurvitz's typological analysis which requires chronology to be the only index of variation. The second assumption of Hurvitz concerns scribal behaviour. He assumes that the scribes of the early Second Temple period quickly forgot how to write CBH and were thereafter incapable of reproducing it without making mistakes. There are Hebrew texts generally dated to the post-exilic period that appear to reproduce CBH but display examples of 'incorrect' usage. Hurvitz uses these as evidence that in the Persian period some scribes tried to write in CBH, and did not succeed completely in so doing. One example of such a failure is the book of Jonah. There are numerous problems with this assumption. First: Even if it were the case that the writer of Jonah, for instance, tried, yet was incapable of accurately reproducing CBH (and it is not certain that this was the intention), how does it follow that every other scribe was also incompetent, or did not bother to try but wrote 'post-Classical' Hebrew instead? How does it follow that there are no examples of CBH from this period? Hurvitz's method does not allow such a suggestion to be tested, because he concludes that any such texts will be 'pre-exilic'. Since Judaean scribes of the Persian period cannot have written CBH—ergo they didn't: the theory is driving the data, and the argument is completely circular; it is a version of the absurd claim that we can always detect a forgery because forgers always make mistakes! But there is a range of CBH texts with a terminus a quo in the sixth century. Leviticus 26, 1 Kings 8 (or at least vv. 46-53), 2 Kings 25 (or at least w. 27-30) are clear examples. Scholars conventionally date these references to the exile itself, but without any convincing reasons against a later date. Haggai and Zechariah, also written in CBH, bring the dating of this linguistic stratum to at least the late sixth century.
DAVIES Biblical Hebrew and the History of Ancient Judah
15 5
To explain a sudden and rather complete linguistic change between the writing of Haggai and the writing of Nehemiah (if the book comes from Nehemiah) Hurvitz offers one explanation only (see below). But did Judaean scribes really forget, within two generations, how to write CBH? These scribes did, after all, continue to copy, and even to edit and expand, texts in CBH up to the time in which the Qumran biblical manuscripts were copied (Talmon 1975; Ulrich 1992). Yet Hurvitz requires, for his theory, that they were incompetent at writing it for themselves—even though modern biblical scholars and students believe themselves quite capable of doing it. It is an implausible suggestion, but not impossible. However, it is not dictated or even suggested by evidence, only by the requirements of a theory. (There is abundant evidence that ancient scribes preserved classical literary languages long after these languages ceased to be spoken. But in order to disregard this evidence, Hurvitz requires another unlikely hypothesis: that written and spoken Hebrew were not different in the Persian period; again, not supported by evidence, but asserted as a necessary explanation for an unlikely hypothesis; on this see below.) Hurvitz has a single explanation for the change from a uniform 'Classical' Hebrew to a uniform 'post-Classical' or 'Late Biblical' Hebrew: only in the sixth and fifth centuries did Aramaic seriously influence Judaean Hebrew, and then dramatically so. Aramaic was a language long spoken and written in Syria and Palestine, and was indeed the lingua franca of most of the Levant during the entire first millennium BCE as well as the diplomatic language of the Assyrian empire. It was thus known and frequently written by the scribes of both Samaria and Judah. But, Hurvitz suggests, while the spoken language of Israel was influenced by Aramaic from the eighth century, that of Judah was not affected until the late sixth century. Again, we must note that this is not a conclusion independently argued from evidence, but a manufactured explanation in defence of a hypothesis. How plausible is it? Certainly, the Assyrians did not make Jerusalem a province, as they did Samaria. But here Hurvitz fatally contradicts another of his assumptions: linguistic uniformity. The Hebrew of, say, Shiloh and that of Jerusalem differed noticeably in its accommodation of Aramaic. So within a space of a few kilometres, at the same time, exist two kinds of Hebrew, one influenced by Aramaic, the other not? If such variety is possible here, why not at other times? According to all the evidence and theory that we have about language use, the linguistic profile of Palestine even in the Iron Age must have been a little more complicated. Language use does not conform so simply to political boundaries; indeed,
15 6
Biblical Hebrew
linguistic use can vary from one village to another (even in modern industrial and urban Britain, we find significant differences between the north and south of England, and between England and Scotland). No doubt the language of Dan differed a good deal from that of Beersheba, and was (if this language is in fact attested in the recently-discovered Tel Dan inscription) classifiable as Aramaic rather than Hebrew, whether or not the inscription was composed for the king of Damascus. Aramaic, then, as an influence on CBH, can also be an index of geography as well as date. Hurvitz's theory must assume that in the Hebrew Bible we have only Judaean (or perhaps only Jerusalem) texts, and that these were uninfluenced by the large influx of population to Jerusalem in the early seventh century. Although I happen to agree we have only Judaean texts, I do so for different reasons (and non-linguistic ones). While, then, it cannot be denied that LBH reflects a larger influence of Aramaic than CBH, such influence cannot be made the sole explanation for a sudden change in written Hebrew in the sixth and fifth centuries BCE that in fact we do not know even happened. The final assumption of Hurvitz that I wish to consider is that there is no distinction between a literary and a spoken Hebrew. I do not challenge his assertion that CBH was a spoken as well as a written language in Iron Age Judah. But he also assumes-—whether or not he actually states this—that LBH was also the only written as well as spoken Hebrew of PersianHellenistic Judah. This is, yet again, not the result of a careful examination of the evidence for the linguistic profile at the time, but a necessary claim to bolster a hypothesis. In fact, so great is our ignorance on this matter that we do not at present agree whether the predominantly spoken language of Judah in the Persian period was Aramaic or Hebrew! The indications are that it was highly varied (see below). In this situation, could CBH survive in Persian and Hellenistic Judah as a literary language? The crucial question is not whether it did, but whether it could have, because Hurvitz's theory cannot accommodate even the possibility. Again, in confronting this assumption we can appeal to actual evidence, though it has, obviously, to be comparative. The phenomenon of a literary language outliving its oral stage and persisting is well attested: Akkadian, Greek, Latin and Arabic. These examples show us that the phenomenon of a preserved literary language different from the vernacular takes many forms, depending on the circumstances. But they all illustrate that classical languages persist beyond the stage that they cease to be vernacular. Often there is over time a gradual
DAVIES Biblical Hebrew and the History of Ancient Judah
157
change in this literary language, and sometimes it will be superseded entirely and become a totally dead language. But it usually becomes dead for social and political reasons rather than linguistic ones. And the process is considerably longer than a century. Thus, if the Hebrew scriptures originated in the Judaean scribal class, and if these scribes were taught, whether or not in schools, the classical language of their profession, how and why would they cease to use it in their literary output? Hurvitz simply says that they forgot. But how exactly did they forget, and why? We must remember that most Judaeans did not go to Babylonia and come back Aramaized. Most remained in Judah, and these scribes continued to function as before. Why would the formal training of scribes in CBH be abandoned, whatever kind of Hebrew they may have heard or spoken? Indeed, since they continued to copy (and expand) texts in CBH, we can be sure they did write the language. It is indeed true that CBH disappeared at some point; there is no example of a new Qumran text for example, written in perfect CBH (it would nevertheless be interesting to recover the Semitic original of 1 Maccabees). But the timing and the reasons for this change are not at all clear to us yet. We cannot decree that CBH disappeared early in the Persian period as a literary language. Even the use of LBH does not entail that CBH was no longer written; if LBH reflects the spoken Hebrew of the time, then the reasons for the decision to employ it as a literary language need investigating. I have tried to show so far that Hurvitz's case is based on a dubious and unargued interpretation of agreed data, made possible by a number of assumptions that are at best implausible and at worst contradicted by evidence. His theory cannot be disproved, but his claim that CBH cannot have been written in fifth-century Judah is entirely specious. Far from providing a sound and quasi-scientific basis for dating Hebrew texts, his work begs more questions than it claims to answer. The Central Issue: From Typology to Chronology Once it is agreed that CBH is typologically older than LBH, and once Hurvitz's assumptions are exposed, we are left with one very huge (though superficially attractive) assumption at the core: the conversion of typology to chronology. The link between typology and chronology is common in ceramic dating and palaeography, and the mistakes and difficulties in both cases are well
158
Biblical Hebrew
known. Typological analysis is scientifically based and valid, if enough comparative material is available. And broadly speaking it does correspond with chronology. But the correspondence is never so precise as to permit a mathematical conversion, because the making of pots and handwriting, like language, are subject to cultural and geographical variation within a broad overall development. Human knowledge and behaviour changes through a complex system of interaction, not according to some law of regular universal change. Typology is always relative and never absolute. Typology allows one to say that one form of vessel, or writing, or language, is typologically earlier than another. To establish a chronological relationship, further steps are necessary. In particular, wherever there is more than one system or tradition, separate typologies have to be constructed for each (scribal school, cultural region, linguistic group), and comparison between these different systems is possible only when we have an independently-derived fixed point. Hurvitz's scheme is possible only if he can claim a single system, a single typology. He therefore denies the possibility of two important kinds of variable: written/spoken, and dialect. Both of these have been explored in some detail by other scholars (e.g. Polak 1989,1996, 1998; Rendsburg 1980b, 1986,1990a, 1990b). But such a denial flouts all probability and a good deal of evidence. Classical Arabic is typologically older than the vernacular Arabics of Palestine, Egypt or Libya, but it is still the language of the official media in these countries. We can investigate how far the Arabic of the daily newspapers or the radio is really Quranic after a millennium of use. But the point is not how close the modern classical is to the modern spoken forms, but that two different forms, each with its own typologies are contemporary. The case of Latin is similar; it was preserved as a lingua franca and as a literary medium through the Middle Ages, while vernacular forms of Latin, influenced by other languages used by the speakers, continued to develop. Spoken language affected literary language. But it did not replace it. Both the spoken and written evolved, gradually. And when, how and why did these emerge as literary languages, replacing Latin? Very gradually, and for a variety of reasons. Latin faded from use as a linguafranca,but as a literary medium it did not die out until the twentieth century (read the Introduction to BHS\). There is an example closer to CBH. The earliest Mesopotamian texts we possess were composed in Sumerian, and Sumerian continued to be written, and even to develop, until about the end of the second millennium, as
DAVIES Biblical Hebrew and the History of Ancient Judah
159
a scribal language (Foster 1993). Alongside Sumerian, however, the scribes of the Old Babylonian period (2000-1500 BCE) also composed literary texts in an Akkadian which, unlike documentary texts such as letters or administrative records, represented a distinct dialect, with its own grammar, vocabulary and even spelling. This may have represented, or evolved from, an actual ancient dialect (Lambert 1968) or it may have constituted a 'fabricated antique style deemed appropriate for higher expression' (Foster 1993,1: 3). A similar conservatism is evident in the literary dialect known as 'Standard Babylonian', used for literary works from the middle of the second millennium; this remained little changed for over a thousand years, and was then succeeded by an archaizing kind of Akkadian, until the use of Akkadian died out at about the turn of the era. Thus, it is demonstrable that scribes can preserve a language they do not speak for many centuries. Over a millennium or so, changes in this language can usually be detected. But in the case of BH theory, we are not talking about such a long period. Hurvitz does not accommodate any difference between literary and spoken at all, and certainly not for & gradual change in the character of a preserved classical language. But the phenomenon of a classical language persisting alongside a vernacular that itself gradually becomes a literary vehicle is well enough known to provide a very plausible basis for a theory of Hebrew in the Persian period. On such a scheme, typological analysis needs to be managed rather more carefully. It remains true that the 'classical' language is typologically earlier than the post-classical, but it is not true that one displaces the other suddenly and that the two cannot exist simultaneously. A social typology, then, also needs to be employed, with texts written in a high literary style belong at one end and texts in a vernacular style at the other. Texts that show a certain mixture of both types are not necessary transitional in a chronological sense, but only in a typological one, witnessing to the fact that the two styles are influencing each other in differing degrees with different kinds of scribe. Lexical Variation Hurvitz seems generally unaware of the dangers of a purely chronological account of typology, for, curiously, a good deal of his work is devoted to illustrating lexical variation between CBH and post-CBH. Lexical variation, however, already has a significant history in biblical scholarship. The differences in vocabulary between J, E, D and P were listed long ago as one of the major reasons for differentiating these source-documents, and
160
Biblical Hebrew
any competent student of BH can recognize a typical 'D' piece of Hebrew prose from a typical 'P' one: the best known examples, apart from the divine name, are that !T""Q and ^!"[p are characteristic of D, mil? and mi? of P; and D refers to Horeb, other sources to Sinai. But there is a respectably long list. The Pentateuch, then, shows that different authors, or even the same authors, used different words for the same thing if one believes in the documentary hypothesis (as Hurvitz does); and if one does not, one must conclude that different vocabulary can exist together at the same time and be used by the same people. Hurvitz appears unwilling or unable to apply his chronological explanation of lexical variation to what he regards as 'classical' and pre-exilic biblical literature (in a private conversation he had told me that he does not believe that classical Hebrew
DAVIES Biblical Hebrew and the History of Ancient Judah
161
But the linguistic situation in monarchic Judah, oversimplified by Hurvitz like everything else, is not the chief concern here; the issue is the Persian. Here the case for dialectal variation is overwhelming. In the late fifth- and early fourth-century Judah's population consisted of several elements: native Judaeans, who no doubt still spoke Hebrew (not necessarily without dialects; were the dialects of Jerusalem and Mizpeh identical?); immigrants from Mesopotamia, encouraged to return by the Persians, claiming Judaean descent but speaking Aramaic as a first language (and possibly without any Hebrew); and those from neighbouring territories (Ammon, Edom) who had immigrated to Judah during the sixth century, and who probably spoke a Hebrew influenced by their own language (probably close to Hebrew). In this variegated linguistic climate, no doubt a large number of the population were bilingual, but the likelihood that they all spoke an identical form of Hebrew, or that these forms of Hebrew registered an equal and measurable increase in Aramaic influence, is implausible if not absurd. It is likely that at this time a number of Aramaic speakers learned Hebrew, the language of the land they were settling in, and that their Hebrew contained a number of Aramaic features. But this was hardly the Hebrew of the indigenous Judaeans; and there was no standard Judaean Hebrew spoken. More than this, however, we have to confess we do not know: even now those expert in the history of the Hebrew language cannot agree whether the common spoken language of Judah in the Persian period was Hebrew or Aramaic, probably because both were in common use, and used in different ratios by different sectors of the population. We can say, however, that even in the Graeco-Roman period there is still no evidence of uniformity in written Hebrew: the Qumran texts make this quite clear. And what of the literary languages? Were they identical to the spoken ones, as Hurvitz's scheme requires? Certainly both Hebrew and Aramaic were used for literary compositions, though among those preserved in the Jewish canon, little Aramaic survives. Some of this literature is written in a form of Hebrew that probably was spoken or at least highly influenced by the spoken language (LBH); hence the differences between this and classical Hebrew. But was classical Hebrew also preserved in the scribal literary tradition, as the book of Haggai suggests, or as parts of Leviticus, Jeremiah and Kings, all reflecting upon the exile, may also suggest? Was there a sudden shift in the 80 years between (taking the conventional dates) Haggai and Nehemiah? Or is the difference accounted for by the fact that Haggai was probably written by a native Judaean while the author
162
Biblical Hebrew
of Nehemiah was not? Would one in fact expect the two writers to display the same literary Hebrew? But is the difference really a matter of chronology? Not in this case. There is not a single piece of concrete evidence to suggest that by the mid-fifth century there were no more 'Haggais' to write classical Hebrew, even though there were obviously many 'Haggais' continuing to copy, edit and expand classical Hebrew texts. That classical Hebrew died out during the Second Temple period is probable: it is not widely represented in the sectarian writings from Qumran. However, Hurvitz himself holds that these texts represent a literary language that was not representative of spoken Hebrew at the time (Hurvitz 2000b: supported by Blau 2000 and opposed by Qimron 2000). Perhaps the same is true of much of the classical Hebrew literature of the Bible? That Ezra, Nehemiah and Chronicles are probably written in a form of Hebrew reflecting the spoken language of some Judaeans may have more to do with the fact that their authors came from the so-called 'golah' population element (in which the 'exiles' are heroes) while other writings, such as Jeremiah and Kings (perhaps, as Noth [1981] originally supposed, the 'Deuteronomistic' tradition as a whole) came from native scribes. Such a social explanation of linguistic difference needs to be considered in deciding whether classical Hebrew should be included in the repertoire of Persian period Judah. At the very least it would seem to be a significant factor (see further on this Naude 2000c, largely responding to Rooker's [1990a] development of Hurvitz's [1982] study of Ezekiel, who examines the phenomenon of'linguistic change' and suggests social-geographical explanations for the difference between CBH and LBH). Conclusion Hurvitz calls the idea that classical Hebrew could have been written by Persian period scribes 'non-conformist' and 'far-reaching' (Hurvitz 2000a: 143). But the opposite is the truth. In fact, scholars have been proposing this for generations, trying to date texts on the basis of non-linguistic criteria such as references to Greeks, re-use of other texts, ideology, or tradition-historical considerations. It is Hurvitz who is actually nonconformist and his own approach that is 'far-reaching'. A whole tradition of literary-historical biblical scholarship is, on his agenda, dead, to be replaced with a kind of linguistic carbon-14 test. If it were successful, Hurvitz's approach would be revolutionary in terms of the way biblical studies has been done for two centuries.
DAVIES Biblical Hebrew and the History of Ancient Judah
163
For future studies to make progress, however, such an agenda must be recognized as a dead end; instead a range of factors needs to be brought into the discussion, including stylistic analysis (Polak) and the mapping of dialectal variation; but also the confusion that can be caused by the habits of scribal transmission, such as the occasional replacing of older words by more recent ones, and the revising of orthography. Here the data afforded by the Qumran scrolls is exceptionally rich. We also need to utilize linguistic theory on a range of factors, especially socio-linguistic and in particular linguistic change and bilingualism. We need at present a broad, not a narrow, range of approaches, and a good deal more sophistication in our ideas and our analysis. I am far from proposing my own solution to the question of the relationship between CBH and LBH. There are too many factors involved, and our ignorance of the Persian period is too profound. But I protest against the imposition of a naive explanation of a complicated problem, not simply because it is inadequate, not even because it has a superficial simplicity and elegance that apparently attracts a number of followers, and thus impedes a very important and interesting question—the limits of dating of biblical literature—but because in its pseudo-scientific arrogance it attempts to dismiss other views as inadmissible. I have therefore attempted here to demonstrate that the issue is wide open and that Hurvitz's hypothesis is fragile; it can continue to contribute to the debate, but only alongside other avenues of research. And until there are sound arguments to the contrary, I shall continue to suggest that classical Hebrew can be dated to the Persian period.
LINGUISTIC DATING OF BIBLICAL TEXTS Martin Ehrensvard 1. Introduction For two centuries, scholars have pointed to consistent differences in the Hebrew of certain biblical texts and interpreted these differences as reflecting the date of composition of the texts.1 Until the 1980s, this was quite uncontroversial as the linguistic findings largely confirmed the chronology of the texts established by other means: the Hebrew of Genesis-2 Kings was judged to be early and that of Esther, Daniel, Ezra, Nehemiah, and Chronicles to be late. In the current debate where revisionists have questioned the traditional dating, linguistic arguments in the dating of texts have come more into focus.2 In the following study, I intend to critically examine some linguistic arguments adduced to support the traditional position, and reviewing the arguments I will point to weaknesses in the linguistic dating of EBH texts to pre-exilic times. When viewing the linguistic evidence in isolation it will be clear that a post-exilic date for the (final linguistic form of the) EBH texts is more likely. The Israeli scholar Avi Hurvitz is well known for arguing that linguistic considerations force us to stick to the traditional dating of the texts. He does not give priority to historical or theological arguments in this dating: as far as dating texts is concerned.. .it is precisely the evidence of language which must take precedence over historical and theological arguments. (Hurvitz 2000a: 144 [emphasis in original])3 1. The German scholar Gesenius started this trend in 1815 with his Geschichte der hebrdischen Sprache. 2. Studies in favour of the revisionist position include: Knauf 1990; P.R. Davies 1992: 102-105; 2001 b; Cryer 1994; DeCaen 2001; cf. also Elwolde 1997;Schule 1997; 2000: 1-3, 182-86, 192-95. Studies in favour of the traditional position include: Ehrensvard 1997; Hurvitz 1997a; 1999; 2000a. 3. Further, 'The antiquity of a given corpus—in any language, at any period of time—ought to be established, in the first place, by the linguistic profile of its texts',
EHRENSVARD Linguistic Dating of Biblical Texts
165
His argument runs along the following lines. There exist in the biblical texts at least two (on the surface not very different) types of Hebrew, one of which is more similar to pre-exilic inscriptions, and one which is more similar to post-BH. The bulk of the biblical texts are written in the first type of Hebrew. The latter, being a post-exilic type of Hebrew and in addition a deteriorated and more Aramaized version of the first type,4 shows that post-exilic writers5 no longer knew how to write pre-exilic Hebrew. In Hurvitz's words: ...it would be a gross error to assume that the post-exilic authors, whose writing habits are openly recorded in the LBH corpus, were able to accurately reproduce the outdated style of Classical/Standard BH without slips betraying their own linguistic background. (Hurvitz 2000a: 154)6
When this is the case, he argues, EBH texts must have found their final linguistic form before the exile. Hurvitz's linguistic dating of texts does not go further than distinguishing between pre- and post-exilic.7 Apart from the weakness inherent in the effort linguistically to date texts,8 there are two weaknesses in this argument. One is that Hurvitz and and 'the historical age of the extant biblical texts can only be determined after the language in which they are written has been properly placed along the linguistic continuum presented by BH' (Hurvitz 2000a: 144 [italics original]; see also Hurvitz 1999: 22). It would strengthen his case if he could point to other text corpora where this was an accepted method. I know of none. Other BH scholars also lend credence to linguistic dating; for example, Rooker (1996: 303): '...the diachronic study of the Hebrew language which has proven itself to be trustworthy and objective in dating biblical texts...' 4. If we include Polak's work (1998), we can add that this form of Hebrew is written in a more literal register as opposed to the more oral register of the first type. 5. When I use the term 'writers', I use it in the sense of whoever is responsible for the (more or less) final linguistic form of the texts. For the intricate question of the relationship between writers, scribes, copyists, and texts, see Tov 1992; Ulrich 1992; Wise 1992; I. Young 1999: 74-76. 6. See also Hurvitz 1999: 32:'.. .the language of the fifth century, which is unmistakably post-exilic', and cf. Hurvitz 1982: 153. 7. Cf. P.R. Davies' observation (1992: 102) that scholars do not use linguistic arguments in deciding whether J stems from the tenth or the sixth century, but often use linguistic arguments in deciding whether texts stem from the seventh or the fifth century. His observation is quoted and more or less confirmed by Hurvitz (1999: 32). 8. It is quite conceivable that later writers would know an earlier form of their language well enough to produce texts in it (for an example from another time and place, see Blau 1997: 28: 'there were Arabic authors who wrote in a late period in a purely classical style and succeeded in avoiding not only neo-Arabic forms, but also
166
Biblical Hebrew
other scholars have not shown that EBH was the standard language that LBH writers tried to reproduce. In other words we have no clear indications that LBH is a deteriorated form of EBH, and writing LBH may have been a stylistic choice for biblical writers. But the crucial weakness is that some prophetic books show that both semi-poetic and narrative EBH was in use after the exile. Hence, at least some post-exilic writers knew how to write EBH which, in turn, increases the likelihood of LBH being a stylistic choice for post-exilic writers. In what follows, I shall elaborate on these two points. 2. The Differences between the Linguistic Layers of Biblical Hebrew As mentioned, there are consistent differences in the language of two groups of biblical books. The question remains how to interpret these differences. Here I shall first sum up briefly the differences, analyze a few points of interest, and then turn to the question of interpretation. The differences between (1) the Hebrew of Genesis-2 Kings and other books, and (2) the Hebrew of Esther, Daniel, Ezra, Nehemiah, Chronicles, and other books, are small but noticeable and by no account do they seem to be the result of idiosyncrasies of single writers, as there are features that are frequent in some or all books belonging to one group that are less frequent in the other group. In addition, comparison with datable extrabiblical evidence makes it very likely that the first group is reflecting an earlier type of Hebrew than the second because the pre-exilic inscriptions, like EBH, have relatively few traits in common with LBH,9 whereas the post-biblical inscriptions, most notably the Dead Sea Scrolls, have many traits in common with LBH. Note, however, that just as there are also differences between QH and LBH, there are differences between the preexilic inscriptions and EBH10—even the inscriptions closest to EBH show differences in orthography," morphology,12 and lexicon.13 post-classical forms'). The likelihood of this going unnoticed is higher the less we know of the history of a language, and apart from the Hebrew Bible which we are trying to date, our knowledge of pre-QH must be said to be extremely limited. 9. For an argument, see Ehrensvard 1997, and cf. Torczyner 1938: 17; Hurvitz 1972a: 177-79; 1997a: 307-10; Rabin 1976: 1012. 10. For a presentation and interpretation of the facts, see Rnauf 1990. 11. For example, the 3rd masc. sg. suffix spelt regularly with H- in the inscriptions; very sparse use of internal matres lectionis in the inscriptions. 12. For example, ITn for 3rd fern. sg. qatal of iTH (Siloam tunnel inscr. 1. 3; there is a possibility, however, that this only reflects a difference in orthography—see the
EHRENSVARD Linguistic Dating of'Biblical Texts
167
a. Vocabulary The vocabulary of LBH is characterized by the presence of more Aramaic loanwords than EBH, and in both groups the Aramaic loanwords are sometimes used side by side with their Hebrew counterparts, in many cases very probably as free variants. A further difference is that whereas about 15 of the Aramaic loanwords in LBH ultimately are of Persian origin, no such words are found in EBH. To a certain extent the groups also favour different prepositions, LBH again showing more Aramaic influence.14 b. Morphology The higher frequency of a few morphological features shared with Aramaic sets LBH apart from EBH.15 c. Syntax More importantly, as syntax tends to be more conservative than vocabulary, there also are differences in the syntax between the two groups, and with regard to many of these differences, again, LBH is closer to Aramaic. The nominal syntax shows only a few differences, such as more occurrences of the double plural construction in construct chains (as in "HII^I D^Vri, 'valiant men'), the quivis construction (= the repetition of nouns as in DTI DT) with prefixed 7D, and uncountables and collectives construed as plurals.16 More differences are found in the verbal syntax,17 but the discussion in Ian Young [ 1993: 104-105]) against the predominant BH form HPTI; 17"! with suffix 1- for 3rd masc. sg. (Siloam tunnel inscr. 1. 3) against the predominant BH suffix 1H-. 13. For example, the nouns n~!T and rop] (Siloam tunnel inscr. lines 1,3,4) unknown to BH. 14. For the question of Aramaisms, see Wagner 1966; Hurvitz 1968. 15. See previous note. 16. E.g. Kropat 1909: 8-13. Gevirtz (1986) argues that the existence of the double plural and the quivis construction in early Northwest Semitic literature precludes the conclusion that it is characteristic of LBH. However, there is a marked difference in frequency between the two groups and this fact is not changed by Gevirtz's, otherwise interesting, research. 17. For example, verbal suffixes, compared to the construction of flN + suffix, are more common. Temporal constructions of the type I^BpDO) are found much more commonly without introductory TH. Yiqtol is less common in the past. Qatal is more common in the past and less common in its other functions. Weqatal in the apodosis after a condition is less common. Periphrastic construction of HTT + participle signifying cursivity is more common. For a discussion of these and other differences, see Eskhult 1990: 103-20; 2000; see also below.
16 8
Biblical Hebrew
differences in nominal and verbal syntax are all differences in frequency: the syntactic features of one group are also found in the other, and some of these features, then, have a significantly higher frequency in one of the groups.18 d. Style Scholars have noted in LBH a tendency to use longer sentences with the verb placed towards the end.19 Scholars have made an additional stylistic observation relevant to the discussion here. They have noticed a certain kind of uniformity in EBH texts not shared by LBH texts. From many perspectives one cannot say that EBH texts are uniform with regard to language use,20 but from a grammatical point of view there is at least a certain uniformity, the EBH grammatical features being employed with a certain regularity throughout EBH texts. As opposed to this, some LBH writers (idiosyncratically?) use some grammatical EBH features more, and others use other grammatical EBH features more.21 e. Some Points of Detail I have come across only two syntactic traits claimed to be characteristic of one group and not found at all in the other: the participle as a narrative form exclusive to LBH, and the infinitive absolute as a word of command exclusive to EBH. In the following I will examine these claims and a few other points of detail.
18. I have found this important fact explicitly stated only twice in the literature, Rabin 1971: 70:' [LBH] changed to a certain extent the frequency of the grammatical and the syntactic forms without adding to them' (my translation); Eskhult (1990) states: 'It is not so easy to isolate features of late usage. It is almost exclusively a matter of tendency in some direction (the only exception would be loan-words of Persian origin)' (p. 14), and'...it is all a matter of tendency in one direction or other' (p. 119). 19. Naveh and Greenfield 1984: 120; Eskhult 1990: 117-18, 120; Polak 1998. 20. See, e.g., S.R Driver 1882 for examples of different language use in the different sources, or Bendavid 1967-71 for abundant examples of (general) BH language variation. 21. E.g., the widespread use of the infinitive absolute as a continuance form in Esther (as evident, e.g., from the examples listed in Eskhult 2000: 90 n. 30), but note that most LBH features are shared between LBH texts (because this is what constitutes LBH features). For a thorough argument in favour of EBH texts being of one 'flavour' and LBH texts being of individually different 'flavours', see Bendavid 1967-71:60-80.
EHRENSVARD Linguistic Dating of Biblical Texts
169
(1) Participle as Narrative Form. Mark S. Smith (1991 a: 28; 1999: 307) is the proponent of the theory of the participle used as a simple narrative form in LBH, as in Esth. 2.20; 3.2; 8.17; 9.3. He claims that this use is found in EBH direct discourse but not in narrative. His criterion for seeing these participles as narrative forms is presumably that the text perfectly well could have used wayyiqtoh. However, Mats Eskhult (1990: 113-14) regards Smith's examples as cursive use of the participle,22 and this seems very likely. None of the examples prevent us from seeing the participle used in its normal cursive function. It is true that wayyiqtoh would suit the texts equally well, but it is precisely because the participle is used that we must see them as cursive. EBH has examples of use of the participle that could well be regarded as simple narrative use (e.g. 1 Sam. 1.13; 1 Kgs 1.5; 22.10, 12) since they could be meaningfully replaced by wayyiqtols, but because the participle is used, we regard the verbal actions as having a cursive character. In order to safely assign a new function to the participle we would need at least a few unambiguous examples of this use. Until we have that, it is preferable to remain conservative in this regard. (2) Infinitive Absolute Used as Command. It is possible that the infinitive absolute used for command is not found in LBH. Eskhult (2000: 90) examines a corpus consisting of the non-parallel parts of Chronicles, the Nehemiah memoirs (1.1-7.5; 12.27-13.31), and Esther, and he does not find the infinitive absolute used for command at all.23 In undisputed LBH texts outside of his corpus I have not found it either.24 The use is well attested in BH: M.S. Smith (2000: 259) counts 48 instances.25 However, 22. Polak (1998: 63 n. 23), however, agrees that the participle is turning into a narrative tense, but it seems that he does not distinguish between instances where the use of participle denotes cursivity and the alleged use of the participle as a simple narrative form. 23. See also Kropat 1909: 23; Polzin 1976: 43; Kutscher 1982: 82; SchatmerRieserl994:200,215-16. 24. But note the ambiguous form 31"lpl in the probable LBH of Qohelet (for a convincing case of Qohelet being LBH, see Schoors 1992), in 4.17, which might be considered an infinitive absolute used as imperative, as Fredericks (1988: 85), arguing for an early date for Qohelet's language, believes; Schoors (1992: 179) hesitantly prefers other options. 25. AH of these are acceptable to me, except three: DflH and npim, Ezek. 24.10— Smith does not say which two of the four possible choices in this verse he regards as infinitive absolutes, but if he is gathering data from the Westminster Theological Seminary Hebrew Morphology and Lemma Database (= WTM, Release 3, 1998-99
170
Biblical Hebrew
one of the examples on Smith's list is taken from an LBH text included in Eskhult's corpus, TDUm inNeh. 7.3. Gotthelf Bergstrasser (1929: §12m) reads this form as a continuation of the preceding twoyiqtols, and Eskhult (2000: 90 n. 30) regards it as replacing a finite verb, but it is easier, with Smith, to read it simply as a word of command, equivalent of an imperative. In order to read it as continuing theyiqtols, one would have to accept the change of subject and the presence of an imperative as the immediately preceding form, the yiqtoh being more at a distance from the infinitive absolute. While this is not impossible, the other option is easier. The presence of a conjunction before TDUff should not lead us automatically to assume that it is a continuation/replacement form. There is an instructive parallel in ]HDl of Ezek. 23.46, the only (other) certain instance of infinitive absolute used as command preceded by I26—whether one regards the preceding n^Un as imperative or infinitive absolute, the easiest way to understand the infinitive absolute ]PD1 is as a word of command, regardless of the conjunction. Nehemiah 7.3 is important because it is the only candidate for the infinitive absolute used as an imperative I have found in undisputed LBH texts.27 [WTM serves as basis for lemmatization in the Bible Works for Windows 4.0 computer program]) which analyzes these two as infinitive absolutes, and the other two candidates in the verse as imperatives, he is referring to Dfin and np~im—and "IBp in Amos 4.5. For argumentation concerning np~im and "ICDp, see the following note, and regarding Dm, when there is nothing to-prevent us from seeing it as an imperative, we should not see it as an infinitive absolute. Goddard (1943: 60-61) counts about 40 instances of infinitive absolute used as command (this work was unavailable to me so I am relying here on a quote in Eskhult 2000: 90 n. 28). 26. On Smith's list, another two forms are preceded by 1, but these are problematic and cannot count as further parallels: np~im in Ezek. 24.10 is not an infinitive absolute but an imperative—the patah in the last syllable shows this (infinitive absolute, as opposed to the imperative, has a historically long sere which requires patah furtivum instead of vowel change with third-guttural verbs, see, e.g., Bauer and Leander 1922: §46s and §51q). "ItDpI in Amos 4.5 is more likely an imperative (even though JM: §123x, albeit hesitantly, regards it as an infinitive absolute). The singular form is in opposition to the six plural imperatives in this and the preceding verse but such fluctuations are not uncommon in BH. In Amos, for instance, in the following passages I have found examples of fluctuation of number and/or gender, 4.2-3; 5.22-23; 6.1-7; 9.11. 27. But see n. 24, above. Note that another volitive use is attested in 1 Chron. 15.22, the infinitive absolute there used as equivalent of the injunctive^to/. In Esth. 2.3 and 6.9 the infinitive absolute continues an injunctiveyiqtol.
EHRENSVARD Linguistic Dating of Biblical Texts
171
(3) Narrative weqatal. Another syntactic feature believed by some scholars to characterize LBH and set it apart from EBH, is narrative weqatal.2^ However, the work on this subject by Hermann Spieckermann (1982: 120-30) shows that this clearly is a feature found no less in EBH than in LBH.29 (4) Modal *pN + Infinitive. The use of modal ]^ + infinitive is also believed to characterize LBH, but, as I have argued elsewhere (Ehrensvard 1999), this is not as certain an LBH feature as usually held.30 (5) !Tn + Participle. A feature characteristic of LBH is the rather frequent use of the periphrastic construction of HTt + participle,31 but some clarification is needed. Takamitsu Muraoka (1999: 195) has recently argued that this syntagm is too frequent in EBH to be said to be characteristic of LBH. This is correct when the occurrences of HTl + participle are counted,32 but Eskhult (2000: 89) argues that LBH more often shows this syntagm expressing cursivity and this is correct. In his rather small corpus (the nonparallel parts of Chronicles, the Nehemiah memoirs, and Esther) Eskhult counts 24 instances that clearly belong in this category, whereas I have found only 30 clear instances in the much larger corpus of Genesis2 Kings33—a significant difference in frequency. Moreover, the construction is quite frequent in QH (Qimron 1986: §400.01). 28. S.R. Driver 1892: 158-59; GKC §112pp; Rabin 1968: 32 ('wepa'alio denote the past and weyip 'al to denote the future becomes more and more frequent' [my translation]); Garr 1985: 186; Rooker 1990a: 100-102. 29. Note that whereas Spieckermann points to narrative weqatal forms in the Yavneh Yam ostracon, this is severely questioned by Weippert 1990. Verheij (1990: 97) and Eskhult (2000: 84-85) both find no evidence in support of seeing this construction as belonging chiefly to LBH. 30. Even though the construction is attested a few times in EBH texts, I am more optimistic now as to whether the construction characterizes LBH, in comparison with my quite negative conclusions in Ehrensvard 1999: 159-61. 31. S.R. Driver 1892: 170; Morag 1988: 160; Eskhult 1990: 113-14; 2000: 89; Gibson 1994: 138. 32. Excluding passive participles and participles of stative verbs, Muraoka (1999: 195) counts 124 instances in the biblical texts. 33. Gen. 1.6; 39.22; Deut. 9.7,22,24; 28.29; 31.27; Judg. 1.7; 11.10; 19.1; 1 Sam. 2.11; 2 Sam. 3.17; 4.3; 7.6; 8.15; 13.23; 15.32; 1 Kgs5.1,24; 12.6; 20.40; 2 Kgs 8.21; 9.14; 17.25, 28, 29, 32, 33, 41; 18.4. I am not counting instances where, as Eskhult (1990: 114; 2000: 89) correctly points out, the form TH seems to be the introductory TH not forming a syntagm with the participle.
172
Biblical Hebrew
f. Interpretation What we have, then, are two types of BH, very similar but not indistinguishable. One represents a typologically earlier stage of the language than the other. As for syntax, we do not find significant traits that are found exclusively in one group—the differences are differences in frequency. Some questions arise at this point. Were LBH writers attempting to write EBH? Did they think that they were writing EBH when they were in fact writing LBH? Or was LBH their preferred style of writing? Did LBH writers more or less consciously use more loanwords (being more open to foreign influence), or did they not know Hebrew from Aramaic so well? These are interesting questions and authorities in the field have come up with differing answers. Generally, LBH writers are looked upon as imitators as opposed to innovators,34 and, as stated above, their Hebrew is seen as a deteriorating form of EBH. Scholars point especially to deterioration of the verbal system in this connection,35 and among them Takamitsu Muraoka (JM: §119za-b) is the most explicit in arguing this point. In the following I shall discuss his arguments. He states that 'The later books show clear signs of gradual collapse or deteriorationof the classical tense system'. He goes on to cite four instances that 'No textual emendation can improve'—Neh. 9.7-8; 1 Chron. 17.17;2Chron. 12.10. In Neh. 9.7-8, 1 Chron. 17.17, and 2 Chron. 12.10 we find weqatal where we would expect wayyiqtol, but as mentioned above, narrative weqatal is no less a feature of EBH. In EBH, in 2 Kgs 34. Polzin 1976: 3, 74; Rabin 1976: 1014; Hurvitz 1983a: 84; 1995: 4; 2000a: 154-57; Naveh and Greenfield 1984: 120-21; Schattner-Rieser 1994: 215; Blau 1997: 21-22; Joosten 1999: 147-48; cf. also the handy collection of quotes in Qimron 1992: 350-52 n. 5. Note that Hurvitz (1997c: 85), does consider the possibility that the postexilic writers were not imitators but innovators. 35. See Kutscher 1982:45; Naveh and Greenfield 1984:120-21; Qimron 1986:81; Morag 1988: 155; M.S. Smith 1991a: XII-XIII; Saenz-Badillos 1993: 129. Note that I am referring to scholars who are pointing to the deterioration of the verbal system— other scholars, such as Kropat (1909), Eskhult (1990; 2000), and Verheij (1990), have studied the LBH verbal system and compared it with EBH, but have remained descriptive. In this connection, a note should be made of Joosten's interesting research (1999). Acknowledging the difficulties in establishing that LBH is an attempt to imitate EBH, he shows how some LBH expressions might be interpreted as if the author was trying to use an EBH term but misunderstood it and hence used the term or construction in a wrong way. If many more examples of this were found, this type of research would prove a better way of establishing the LBH writers as imitators and not innovators.
EHRENSVARD Linguistic Dating of Biblical Texts
173
18.4, we also have an occurrence of a string ofweqatals in a \vayyiqtol context. In the string in Neh. 9.7-8 in addition to the \veqatah and a wayyiqtol, there is also an infinitive absolute in its function of continuing a preceding verb. This function is known in EBH even though, in the extant EBH texts, it is not found precisely in connection with narrative weqatals. The sequence does seem slightly odd, but it should be noted that it is a semi-poetic text36 where oddities of verbal usage are more common than in prose.37 In 1 Chron. 17.10 we find a non-past wayyiqtol, but this is not impossible in EBH (see, e.g., 1 Sam. 2.29). Muraoka goes on to note the admittedly odd verbal use in Qohelet.38 He then notes the replacement of (TIT for rrm. I have found only one LBH example of !T1T that is clause initial and hence directly could be replaced by HTil—4 Chron. 12.18.Here!Tm certainly would be expected according to EBH usage. But the preceding clause is an DN clause and therefore the non-use of apodotic waw here is the rule rather than the exception in LBH.39 Such usage, with asyndetic yiqtol is not common in EBH, but there are examples, such as Exod. 22.6. It is correct, however, that iTm is used very infrequently in LBH: of the almost 400 BH occurrences of the form, only five are found in the undisputed LBH texts.40 Finally Muraoka points to yiqtol and short weyiqtol gradually replacing weqatal, using Dan. 11.14-17 as example. Short weyiqtol with indicative meaning is indeed rare in EBH prose, but Elisha Qimron (1986-87:154-55, 158) does count nine certain instances41 (e.g. 1 Sam. 10.5). Muraoka's examples are examples of differences in frequencies of verbal usage. None of them need to be interpreted as deterioration. Due to 36. Kittel's edition of the Biblia Hebraica (BHK) does not use poetic lay-out for the text whereas the BHS does lay it out as poetry. 37. See, e.g., Niccacci 1997:91:'.. .B[iblical]H[ebrew]P[oetry] remains a mystery from the point of view of the verbal system used while prose shows a substantial coherence'. 38. This is not necessarily due to its lateness as Isaksson (1987:39-68,190-97) has argued, an argument, however, that Muraoka (JM: §119za n. 1) does not seem to accept. 39. See Kropat 1909: 70-71; Qimron 1986: §400.19; Rooker 1990a: 120-22; Van Peursen 1999a: 313-16, 18; 2000: 218-25; Eskhult 2000: 87-88 with n. 20. 40. Twice in Nehemiah, three times in Chronicles and none in Esther, Daniel, Ezra; see Polzin 1976: 56; Rendsburg 2002b: 39. 41. Note however that he assumes that this usage was not originally found in EBH and therefore he believes these nine cases to be errors.
174
Biblical Hebrew
lack of evidence, therefore, it seems preferable to stay descriptive: what we have are not-so-common EBH syntactic traits that (except for narrative weqatal) are more common in LBH (or vice versa).42 One possible argument in favour of seeing LBH as a deteriorated form of EBH might be the fact that LBH contains both EBH traits and neologisms—when many or most EBH forms are preserved instead of being abandoned in LBH, one explanation may be that writers attempted writing EBH and failed. Another possible argument may be the relative linguistic uniformity in EBH texts vs. the relative lack of linguistic uniformity in LBH texts pointed to above—one may interpret this as a result of a continuous pre-exilic scribal tradition which was broken off by the exile, this in turn giving rise to individual post-exilic writers without a strong tradition being unconsciously idiosyncratic and erring in their balance in the use of EBH forms. These are quite possible explanations of the situation, but not the only conceivable ones. It seems clear enough that EBH writers were adhering to a tradition that LBH writers knew but (for reasons unknown) were not bound by. LBH writers may have felt free with regard to the EBH tradition and therefore used those traditional elements that appealed to them and introduced new elements when it suited them. Interestingly, not all scholars see all LBH as deteriorated Hebrew. Chaim Rabin (1958: 152) believed that the Hebrew of Ben Sira, which is close to LBH, and the deviations of the Chronicler from the (presumed) Vorlage in Samuel-Kings are not results of deterioration, but rather the result of a changed stylistic taste.43 The problem is our lack of knowledge. The case of, for example, Latin is different: Latin has served as a written language for two millennia, and looking at its history we can see writers at times writing very good Latin and at other times we see Latin deviating from the standard through the influence of the writers' mother tongue. In this case we know what the standard is, and we know that the writers knew that there was a standard. This kind of information is not available to us with regard to BH.44 42. Goldfajn (1998: 136) is of a similar opinion in this regard. 43. Kister (1990: 304-307) is of the same opinion regarding Ben Sira, as is Van Peursen (1999: 44-46, 51-52). 44. The same goes for QH. We know from the finds at Qumran that at that time different types of Hebrew existed simultaneously—QH, as well as a kind of proto-MH, and, for biblical texts, BH. No new texts were composed in BH so it is quite possible that the ability to write this language had vanished. But there is nothing that indicates that they thought they were writing BH when in reality they were writing QH. As
EHRENSVARD Linguistic Dating of Biblical Texts
175
The likelihood of LBH being the result of a stylistic choice rather than imitation increases if at least some LBH and EBH texts could be shown to stern from roughly the same time, because the imitation hypothesis presupposes that EBH was outdated at the time of the LBH writers.45 From the point of view of traditional dating this might be said to be the case with the LBH traits of Ezekiel,46 considered to date from the first half of the sixth century, a period when knowledge of EBH is considered to be intact (Hurvitz 1982: 153), but below I will show that EBH was in use even after the exile, thus increasing the likelihood of a coexistence of EBH and LBH. 1. Post-Exilic EBH As I stated in my introduction, the second weakness of Hurvitz's argument is that it is clear that EBH was in use in post-exilic times: most scholars date the books of Isaiah 40-66,47 Joel, Haggai, Zechariah,48 and Malachi to (very late exilic/) post-exilic times,49 even though complete consensus pertains to Haggai and Zechariah 1-8 only. Authorities make the following statements regarding the language of these books (all translations are mine);50 on Isaiah 40-66: ...like the language of Haggai and Zechariah—and to an even greater extent—the language of 'second Isaiah' is well anchored in classical Hebrew and the imprints of late biblical Hebrew are quite scanty. (Hurvitz 1983a:215 = 1997:21) ...almost perfect classical Hebrew. (Rabin 1988: 16)
On Joel: With regard to language no decisive proof for its lateness has been adduced... (Hurvitz 1983c: 216)
Naude (2000b: 116) writes: 'Considering the number of texts produced by the Qumran community as well as their relative coherence, it is hard for anyone to believe that QH could be an imitation of BH'. 45. See, e.g., Hurvitz's statement quoted above on p. 165. 46. For Ezekiel being partly LBH, see Hurvitz 1982; Rooker 1990a. 47. The question of whether or not one should distinguish between a Second and Third Isaiah is irrelevant to the discussion here. 48. Even though the consensus is not so strong with regard to Zech. 9-14. 49. See, e.g, the overview in Grabbe 2000: 15-19 and the literature there cited. 50. Even though (understandably) not quite up-to-date, see S.R. Driver's view of the language of these books (1913a: 505).
Biblical Hebrew
176 On Haggai and Zechariah:
.. .the language of [Haggai and (first) Zechariah] has still not recognizably moved away from classical biblical Hebrew... It seems that the reason for this is rooted mainly in the character of the prophetic literature which tends to be formulated in a semi-poetic language, a language that differs from prose in its strong adherence to the classical style and in its avoidance of clear linguistic innovations. But it is also possible that historical-chronological factors brought this about: the date of composition of Haggai and Zechariah is the beginning of the Persian period; and it is possible that at this time the language of the Bible was still preserved in its purity to a greater extent than in the years after that. (Hurvitz 1983c: 215 = 1997b: 20 [emphasis in original]) ...in Haggai and Zechariah still no change is observed. (Baumgartner 1940-41:609)51
On Malachi: With regard to language the clear late biblical Hebrew features are absent in the book—similar to what we found in Haggai and Zechariah. (Hurvitz 1983c:215; 1997b:21)52
I will argue that the language of these books is EBH rather than being close to EBH because: 1. EBH texts contain LBH features, occasionally even clear LBH features, and 2. no clear LBH features are shown to occur in these books, and the limited number of LBH features that scholars point to in the books can at best only tentatively be ascribed to LBH. Few detailed diachronic analyses of the language the books have appeared. I know of the works of Andrew Hill (1981; 1982; 1983; 1998: 395-400) and Mark Rooker (1996), and in addition, Hurvitz has sometimes analyzed words that appear in these books as LBH (1972a: 49, 104-106, 113-16, 164-65; 1974a: 19-20, 25-26; 1983c: 215; 1994; 1996b: 40-42; 1997b: 20-21). 51. Note that he regards the language of Malachi as belonging with Ezra and Nehemiah (in agreement with S.R. Driver 1913a: 505), a view which is in opposition to what I will argue below. Also in opposition to my views is Rendsburg's recent statement about the language of Haggai and Zechariah (among others) clearly dating from the Persian period (2002b: 23). 52. Also Sznejder (1934-35: 306): '.. .the books of Haggai, Zechariah, and Malachi.. .are in correct biblical language, i.e., there are no traits of the mishnaic language in them' (my translation).
EHRENSVARD Linguistic Dating of Biblical Texts
111
a. Hill
Hill, in his doctoral dissertation, two articles, and a commentary, thoroughly analyzes the language of the books of Haggai, Zechariah, and Malachi and finds a few imprints of LBH on it. He finds it to be earlier than the secondary additions to P (Ps), but later than JE, D, and the groundwork of P (PG). He bases his research on Robert Polzin's typological approach (1976). This approach relies mainly on syntax but allows for vocabulary to complete the typological picture of a given text. Polzin (1976: 85-122) developed a list of 19 syntactical and 84 lexicographical features characteristic of the language of the Chronicler and argued that these were (more or less) characteristic of LBH in general. He compared these features to P and concluded that both Ps and PG were influenced by LBH and hence could be placed between EBH and LBH. Polzin's 19 syntactical features are quite problematic from the perspective of the dating of the language, and only about five can be shown to certainly and usefully reflect LBH. Gary Rendsburg (1980a) has shown this, and his research is corroborated by Ziony Zevit (1982: 493-501) and Hurvitz (1982: 163-70).53 With regard to the language of P, Hurvitz (2000c, with references) has consistently shown all strands of it to be EBH. However, since Hill's is the only detailed linguistic analysis of these books, it is worthwhile to take a closer look at the LBH syntactic features that he finds in one or more of the books of Haggai, (first and second) Zechariah, and Malachi (1981: 47-75): (1) Preference for verbal suffixes instead of PK + suffix. This tendency is found in Zechariah 9-14 and the same tendency is found in LBH where it is generally somewhat stronger.54 The tendency continues in QH (Qimron 1986: §400.08). (2) Increased use of PN in the nominative case. There is one occurrence in Haggai and one in Zechariah 1-8, but, as Rendsburg 53. Note also Hill's critique of some of Polzin's 19 syntactical features (Hill 1982: 114). 54. According to Hill's calculations (1981: 47-51), Chronicles shows a ratio of c. 10:1 in favour of the verbal suffix, and the non-memoir portions of Nehemiah have 23 verbal suffixes and do not use HN + suffix at all. Zech. 9-14 shows a ratio of c. 5:1 which is similar to that of Ezra and the Nehemiah memoirs, and a little more than Ps, which has a ratio of c. 4:1. JE and D on the other hand have a ratio of c. 2:1. See also Striedl 1937: 77; Bergey 1983: 85-89; Fredericks 1988:148-50; Muraoka 1997:97-98; 2000: 202-204; Eskhult 2000: 88.
178
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
Biblical Hebrew (1980a: 66) shows, this feature probably is found with more or less the same ratio throughout BH.55 Collectives construed as plurals. Haggai has three collectives construed as plurals (1.2,12,14) against one construed as singular (1.12) which according to Hill might place it closer to LBH than EBH. However, all three plural cases involve DI? ('people') as subject found in the context before the verbs, and as Ian Young (1999: 53-54) has shown,56 this increases greatly the likelihood of finding verbs in the plural, in EBH and LBH alike. Decreased use of the infinitive absolute as command and in paronomastic constructions. These uses of the infinitive absolute are not found in Haggai and Malachi. The infinitive absolute as command is not found in Zechariah 9-14 either (it is found in 6.10), but as we have seen above, this use of the infinitive absolute is a fairly uncommon feature of BH in general. Decreased use of the infinitive construct with H and ID. As Rendsburg (1980a: 68) points out, Polzin is quite vague about this point, and to my knowledge no subsequent research has confirmed this as a trait of LBH. Decreased use ofTPI. Zechariah 9-14 and Malachi display this feature (actually Zech. 9-14 does not use TT1 at all). Rendsburg (1980a: 70) points out that this feature has quite an uneven distribution in EBH texts,57 and Hill (1981: 69) correctly (albeit tentatively) ascribes this feature to what he calls 'the poetic tendencies of "oracular prose" '.58
55. For a different evaluation, see Kropat 1909: 2, and the literature there cited; Schoors 1992: 191-92; Schattner-Rieser 1994:216; see also Rooker 1990a: 88-90, but note that Rooker, even though he quotes Rendsburg, does not address his arguments (according to Rendsburg, the feature is found 52 times in BH, and among them 28 in Genesis-2 Kings [albeit partly in clusters], against seven in Chronicles, four in Nehemiah, and one in Daniel). 56. Note also his critique of Polzin's work on this category, I. Young 1999: 69-70. 57. E.g., it occurs but seven times in the book of Deuteronomy. 58. Hill's hesitation in relying on 'poetic tendencies' in the books is probably due to his view that they are generally comparable to narrative prose. He argues (1981:4-5) for the narrative nature of the texts by reference to the research by Hoftijzer (1965) on FIN and the research of Andersen and Freedman on prose particles in general (1980: 57-66). The frequency of FIN and the other prose particles in the books point to them as being all narrative prose (except for Zech. 9). Note however that a couple of instances of verb gapping in the oracles of Malachi, in 1.6 and 3.24, speak against this— M.P. O'Connor (1980: 124-25) argues that this is a trait found in poetry only (even
EHRENSVARD Linguistic Dating of Biblical Texts (7)
179
Increased use of infinitive construct with 7. Haggai and Zechariah 1-8 show a high frequency of this feature, but, as it turns out, not significantly higher than many EBH texts.59
It turns out that there is very little to go on. Only (1) and (4) point to a tendency in the direction of LBH, that is, one feature in each of the books of Haggai, Zechariah 9-14, and Malachi. In the absence of other LBH grammatical features, this seems most reasonably explained as instances of personal style. Subsequently, Hill (1981: 86-108) looks for possible LBH words in the books by taking a list of 100 candidates for LBH words and checking to see how many are found in his books. Eighty-four of his candidates are Polzin's 84 lexicographic features of LBH mentioned above, and 16 are the LBH words and expressions Hurvitz (1974a; 1974b) lists. He finds the following LBH lexicographic features: (1) Non-use of "TDDK.60 Haggai and Zechariah 1-8 use S ]K exclusively.61 (2) Use of pSJT instead of ptfH (Hill 1981: 93). The root pin is used once in Zech. 6.8, and pUi£ is not found in the book. Both roots are found throughout EBH and LBH even though there is a preference for pI?T in LBH writings (see Kutscher 1974: 34, 314). However, of the 91 BH occurrences of the root, only ten are found in Esther, Daniel, Ezra, Nehemiah, and Chronicles, and there are, for example, 15 occurrences in Samuel, 11 in Judges, and seven in Isaiah 1-39. Usage of the root can therefore not be said to point in the direction of LBH. (3) Use of postpositive irh in the sense of 'a lot of.62 This use is found in Zech. 14.14. It is attested once in Job (26.3)63 and twice though C.L. Miller 1997 points to examples of this in direct discourse embedded in narrative texts [e.g., Gen. 42.7; 2 Kgs 6.27]). 59. Polzin (1976: 60) himself admits that the difference in frequency between parts of his EBH texts and LBH is negligible. 60. Hill 1981: 87-88; see also S.R. Driver 1882: 222; Hurvitz 1982: 169 n. 35; Fredericks 1988: 141-46; Schoors 1989: 71-72; 1992: 47-48; Schattner-Rieser 1994: 196. 61. Note Hurvitz's remark (1982: 169 n. 35) that in some texts the use of "3N 'represents simply a stylistic peculiarity which does not necessarily reflect LBH usage...' 62. Hill 1981:95; for an in-depth diachronic semantic analysis of the different uses of 3-|h>, see Margain 1976: 89-96; cf. also Margain 1974: 37. 63. Note however that the parsing of this verse is ambiguous.
180
(4)
(5)
(6)
Biblical Hebrew in 1 Kings (1.19, 25), but in Chronicles it is found 19 times.64 Outside of Chronicles, however, it is found but once in Nehemiah (9.25) and once in QH (11Q14.9), and it is found neither in Ben Sira nor in the Mishnah. Therefore it seems that this is not an expression pointing to LBH but attributable, rather, to the personal style of the author of Chronicles. Use of PpUlQ ('pipe/casting'; Hill 1981: 97). This word is found, in different meanings, in Zech. 4.2 ('pipe') and 2 Chron. 4.3 ('casting')65 only. It is not found in post-BH. No chronological implications can be ascribed to the use of this word in Zechariah. Use of ]CD2? with definite article (Hurvitz 1974a: 19-20; Hill 1981: 102, 104). This word is found in Zech. 3.1, 2, and in the pros tale of Job (passim).66 Arguing for the lateness of the prose-tale of Job, Hurvitz points out that a definite image of 'the Satan' is a concept that emerges in later times. If he is right, this would show the text of Zechariah 1-8 to be late since it refers to this extra-linguistic concept. It has little bearing on whether or not the language of the text is late. Use of *7I7 ZlHTin in the sense of 'present oneself before/take one's stand on the side of with the preposition governing a person (or God; Hurvitz 1974a: 25-26; Hill 1981: 105). This is found in Zech. 6.5; Job 1.6; 2.1 (twice); 2 Chron. 11.13, and i QH, 1 QSa 1.20. Hurvitz argues that this is a late expression whe it means to stand next to or before someone. The EBH linguistic contrast is the more usual combination l'3sb DHTIH (also found in LBH, Ben Sira, and QH). In the sense of taking one's stand on the side of something, we do find ^17 DKTin in EBH (Num. 23.3, 15; Hab. 2.1; Ps. 36.5), but the fairly subtle distinctio between the two uses of ^17 Dimn is correct. However, the scarcity of ^17 mrnn (pers.) and the fact that in BH it is found mostly in texts that are otherwise EBH makes it doubtful whether this is a genuine LBH expression or if it might not have been an option in EBH.
Again, none of the six features with any confidence point to LBH. 64. 1 Chron. 12.41; 22.3,4, 8; 29.2, 21; 2 Chron. 2.8; 9.1, 9; 14.14; 17.5; 18.1, 24.11,24; 30.13,24; 32.5, 29; note also the very similar uses in 2 Chron. 11.23; 16.8 65. But note that the parallel verse in 1 Kings (7.24) has a different noun, HplT. 66. The noun is found in EBH in the sense of 'adversary'. In the sense of 'accuser', the word is also found without article in Ps. 109.6 and 1 Chron. 21.1.
EHRENSVARD Linguistic Dating of Biblical Texts
181
b. Rooker In his 1996 study, Rooker, more or less explicitly arguing for an eighthcentury date of the text, analyzes some features of the Hebrew of Isaiah 40-66 and compares them to LBH features of Ezekiel. He points to nine orthographical, morphological, lexical, and stylistic features (analyzing four of them) where Isaiah 40-66 consistently shows EBH usage and where LBH usage is found in Ezekiel. He states in his conclusion that '.. .Ezekiel, from the exilic period as well as post-exilic Hebrew literature always indicates later linguistic features than those we find in Isaiah 40-66'(Rooker 1996: 312). c. Hurvitz A few times in his writings, Hurvitz points to words and expressions in Isaiah 40-66, Joel, Haggai, Zechariah, and Malachi that appear to be late. I have found the following: (1) Dim ('west') in Isa. 43.5; 45.6; 59.19 (Hurvitz 1972a: 113-16; 1983c: 215 = 1997b: 21). mtfD, instead of the usual D\ is used once in the Hebrew parts of Daniel and seven times in Chronicles, hinting to the possibility that it is a late word. However, it occurs six more times in the Bible, three times in Isaiah 40-66, once in the EBH Psalms 75 and 107, and once in Psalm 103. Psalm 103 uses some words that point to late language, but it is not a clear LBH text (Hurvitz 1972a: 107-30). In later Hebrew the term replaces D"1, and it is found in Aramaic, usually used in the Targumim for the Hebrew D n . So with eight out of its 14 BH occurrences found in clear LBH texts and with its continuity in post-BH, it is possible that the word indicates LBH. However, with five occurrences in otherwise EBH texts, it is doubtful that the word was not an option also in EBH. (2) in«D ('together') in Isa. 65.25 (Hurvitz 1983c: 215 = 1997b: 21). As for "iriND, the biblical distribution is more congenial to an interpretation as a late term: one occurrence in Qohelet, one in Nehemiah, three in Ezra, and one in Chronicles. The term is found in Aramaic, R"TfO ('together'), and is used for HIT in the Targumim, but "t!"!ND it is not found (in the sense of 'together') in post-BH. Isaiah 40-66 uses the usual term "HIT nine times. With its seven occurrences in BH and no continuity, it is still quite possible that this was an LBH word. But the question remains whether its presence in the otherwise EBH of Isaiah 40-66 does not show that the word also was an option in EBH.
182 (3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
Biblical Hebrew Snft in Zech. 1.7, and 1*XO in Zech. 7.1 (Hurvitz 1983c: 215 = 1997b: 20). In Zechariah we have these two occurrences of a Babylonian month name. These are indeed clear indicators of LBH,67 but Hurvitz correctly does not regard them as important for the dating of the language of the prophet since they appear only in superscriptions.68 In the main body of the book, in 7.3,5; 8.19, we find references to a number of months but all are referred to in the common EBH style. n^Q ('scroll') inZech. 5.1,2 (Hurvitz 1996b: 40-42). Otherwise the word occurs in Jeremiah (14 times, all in ch. 36), in Ezekiel (four times), and Psalm 40 (once). In post-BH it only occurs in MH. Hurvitz shows how the word enters into Northwest Semitic languages fairly late (it is not attested in Ugaritic or Canaanite) and may be a LBH word. The actual Hebrew distribution of it, lacking in clear LBH texts as well as in QH and Ben Sira makes this conclusion tentative. 1HlK(n) rP3 ('storehouse/treasure-house') in Mai. 3.10 (Hurvitz 1994). The expression occurs two more times in BH in Neh. 10.39 and Dan. 1.2. The common BH word for 'storehouse/treasurehouse' is "liMN, in the singular or the plural, without JTD. fTD ")iMN(n) is quite possibly attested once at Qumran69 and it is frequent in MH and in Aramaic, and in the Targumim it serves as translation of BH ~)H1N. This is possibly a LBH expression, even though its scarcity in the Hebrew prior to the Mishnah necessitates caution in this pronouncement. DIPT"!! ]1]n ('gracious and compassionate') in Joel 2.13 (Hurvitz 1972a: 104-106). These two words are combined 11 times in BH, but three times the order is the opposite—]13m Dim—in Exodus, Psalms 86 and 103. Outside of Joel, the order D11TT1 JIDH is found in Jonah, Psalms 111, 112, 145,70 Nehemiah (twice), and Chronicles. As Hurvitz (1972b) has pointed out with regard to ^DD/DHT and ]Bp/7ITI, LBH seems to prefer a different word
67. See Wagner 1966:20; cf. also Friedberg 2000, but note the critique by Larsson 2002. 68. For the linguistic and other differences between the superscriptions and the main bodies of prophetic books, see Floyd 1995. 69. In a reconstruction in the 3Q15 (= Copper Scroll) 8.1; see Hurvitz 1994: 81 n. 10 and the literature there cited. 70. These three are acrostic psalms and all three occurrences are in the PI-line, so there the word order is forced.
EHRENSVARD Linguistic Dating of Biblical Texts
(7)
(8)
183
order than EBH. This may also be the case with Dimi "p DPI, but Hurvitz points to no extra-biblical evidence to substantiate this. The scarcity of the phrase in EBH and the presence of the order Dimi ]1!3n in the otherwise EBH of Joel make it uncertain that both word orders were not an option in EBH. D'On-D m& ('return graciously') in Zech. 1.16(Hurvitz 1972a: 49). This is the only BH occurrence of D'WQ ('graciously') in combination with the verb TK#, but once at Qumran, in the Isaiah scroll, a form of the verb 1W in Isa. 52.8 is supplied with D^QrnD. This very rare expression may be late, but such a pronouncement can only be made with a high degree of uncertainty. mT ('corner') in Zech. 9.15 (Hurvitz 1972a: 164-65). Outside of Zechariah, the word occurs in BH only in Ps. 144.12,71 with a slightly different meaning, 'cornerstone'. In post-BH it is not found before MH. Hurvitz shows how in the Targumim the word is used to translate various Hebrew words for 'corner', 'side', 'end'—"IDS, JtfbiJ, DKp, HNS. Again, the scarcity of pre-Mishnaic occurrences makes it uncertain if it is indicative of lateness.
d. Interpretation In the otherwise EBH of Isaiah 40-66, Joel, Haggai, Zechariah, and Malachi we find some features that might be imprints of LBH. How, then, should we interpret this fact? Our texts taken together are of the same length as 1 Samuel, so the fairly small number of ambiguous words and expressions we have found is not impressive. And actually, even clearly late features are found in EBH texts.72 The most instructive example of this is the word HID^Q ('kingdom'),73 which is very frequent (about 80 of its 91 BH occurrences) in Esther, Daniel, Ezra, Nehemiah, and Chronicles where it to a large extent replaces the earlier terms HD^QD and ilDlbo. The extra-biblical evidence is equally convincing: it is an Aramaic loanword and is used for HD^ED and rOI^D in the Targumim, and in post-BH it almost completely replaces these two words. HID vft, however, is found in EBH texts, for example, once in Numbers, 1 Samuel, and 1 Kings, but this fact does not make it an EBH word, nor does it make Numbers, 71. This part of Ps. 144 contains some words and expressions that may be late, see Hurvitz 1972a: 164-69. 72. See Qimron 1992: 350, and the literature there cited. 73. See Hurvitz 1972a: 79-88; Margain 1974: 39; Bergey 1983: 31-35; Rooker 1994: 139-40; Schattner-Rieser 1994: 202-203.
184
Biblical Hebrew
1 Samuel, and 1 Kings LBH texts—LBH words are simply sometimes found in EBH texts. The crucial point is the accumulation of such features, as is most notable in Esther, Daniel, Ezra, Nehemiah, and Chronicles.74 Close scrutiny of Isaiah 40-66, Joel, Haggai, Zechariah, and Malachi could very well reveal more items that might be imprints of LBH,75 but I wonder if this is any different from at least parts of Genesis-2 Kings.76 As a preliminary test I looked for LBH imprints on the very small corpus of 1 Samuel 1-3.771 found no LBH words there, and in 1 Samuel 3,1 found no LBH grammatical features. But in 1 Samuel 1 and 2, there are a number of LBH grammatical features:78 (1) Use of the preposition ^17 instead of 7N—three occurrences.79
74. Cf. Hurvitz 1995; also Margain's remark, 'A few traits, isolated in a different context, would prove nothing' (1974:43 [my translation]). Attempts have been made at defining single chapters of Genesis-2 Kings as reflecting LBH and hence being late—see, e.g., Rofe 1990 (late-dating Gen. 24)—but such attempts have been met with due criticism; see Qimron 1992: 352 n. 7 (noting Rofe's research): 'I.. .will say.. .tha if we press the evidence too much we may find many more such "late" chapters in classical BH and thus destroy the credulity of the whole approach. Hurvitz rightly emphasized that a text can be considered with confidence as late only if it contains a substantial number of late features...' Cf. also Rendsburg 2002b: 24-35. 75. S.R. Driver (1898: 24) has a list of items for Joel of which *pD seems the only likely candidate for an LBH word. Likewise Hill (1981: 108-31) carries out a lexical study of Malachi and finds a couple of words he regards as being concurrent with LBH (see his list in 1981: 130 no. 8), of which the root ^83II ('defile') seems to be the only likely candidate for an LBH feature. 76. Cf. Eskhult's assessment, quoted in n. 18, above, and Qimron's remark in n. 74. 77. Note that Rendsburg (2002b: 37-45) recently has argued that 1 Sam. 1-2 are northern compositions. Two of Brettler's (1997) three suggestions for LBH features in 2 Sam. 2.27-36—the infinitive absolute "Tirm continuing a finite verb in 2.28, and the possible Aramaism DDlVHSn1? in 2.29—have been correctly rebutted by Rendsburg (2002b: 37-39). As to Brettler's third LBH feature, the non-use of apodotic 1 in 2.36 see n. 83, below. 78. By 'LBH grammatical features' I mean features known to EBH found more often in LBH. 79. 1 Sam. 1.10,13; 2.11; see Kropat 1909:41-42; Striedl 1937: 77; Wagner 1966: 143 n. la; cf. Goshen-Gottstein 1958: 108; Muraoka 2000: 204; Van Peursen 2000: 226-30. Note, however, that the two prepositions may interchange too much in EBH (see the opposite substitution in 2.34 and 3.12, and the long list of EBH interchanges in Sperber [1966: 631-33]) for the substitution of ^17 for ^N to count as an LBH feature; cf. the hesitation of Fredericks (1988: 151-53) and Schoors (1992: 200-201) in counting the interchange as an LBH feature.
EHRENSVARD Linguistic Dating of Biblical Texts (2) (3) (4) (5) (6)
185
Preference for verbal suffixes instead of flft + suffix—17 verbal suffixes80 against no non-forced instances of JIN + suffix.81 Use of the periphrastic construction iTI"! + participle to express cursivity82—one occurrence (2.11). Non-use of apodotic 1 in front of verbs—two occurrences (2.16, 36).83 r6DpKVpattern—one occurrence (2.28).84 Peculiar use of verb forms—(at least) three occurrences of frequentative wayyiqtol (1.7; 2.16) and non-past wayyiqtol (2.29).85
Of these, (2)-(5) are clearer LBH features than (1) and (6), but still, this is a remarkable frequency of LBH grammatical features. With this frequency of LBH features, 1 Samuel 1-3 is not characteristic of the corpus of EBH texts as a whole, but it goes to show that EBH texts can contain a number of LBH features and still count as EBH texts. It seems fair, then, to regard Isaiah 40-66, Joel, Haggai, Zechariah, and Malachi as EBH texts: they have their (expected) share of features that may belong to LBH, and no clear LBH features. In sum, at least some post-exilic writers knew how to write just as good EBH as that of Genesis-2 Kings. And it is important to note that these post-exilic prophetic texts only partly consist of the semi-poetic, oracular prose. As is usual in prophetic books, parts of the texts are common narrative (see, e.g., Hag. 1.12-14; 2.10-13; Zech. 1.4, 8-13; 2.1-7; 3.1-6; 4.1-5; 4.11-5.3; 5.5-6.11; 6.14-15; 7.11-14). With the most reliable evidence of post-exilic EBH stemming from prophetic literature, from the point of view of traditional dating this might 80. 1.6 (twice), 7, 11 (twice), 13, 19, 20, 22, 24 (three times), 28; 2.8, 25, 29; cf. n. 54, above. 81. The two instances of DK + suffix in 1.23 are forced because the verbs have a suffix already, and the one in 2.28 is forced because the verb is an infinitive absolute. 82. See above, p. 171. 83. See above, p. 173 and the references there in n. 39. As Rendsburg (2002b: 39) correctly notes in the case of the non-use of apodotic 1 in 1 Sam. 2.36, this is a feature also found in other EBH texts, but my point here is that it is a feature more frequently found in LBH. 84. Kropat 1909: 75; Qimron 1986: §310.122; D. Talshir 1987b; Morag 1988: 154-55; Eskhult 1990: 106; JM: §47d. 85. 1 Sam. 1 uses many different verb forms in ways that might seem peculiar, but Joosten (1997) has explained them well; see also van der Merwe 1997. For the tendency to use the verb forms in peculiar ways in LBH, see the discussion of JM: §119za-b, above pp. 172-74 and the references quoted there in n. 35.
186
Biblical Hebrew
count simply as a continuation of prophetic jargon. But even if this were so, and if it were possible to show that EBH was pre-exilic Hebrew, the fact would remain that the exile did not put an end to the actual ability to produce this form of Hebrew. 4. Post-Exilic Hebrew From the end of the exile and until the close of the Qumran corpus, then, there are attested at least four types of Hebrew, EBH, LBH, general QH, and a kind of proto-MH (Copper Scroll; MMT). How are we to view the differences between the extant forms of post-exilic Hebrew? Jackie Naude's recent publications (2000b; 2000c) have clarified matters. Drawing upon modern linguistic research in language change,86 he first clarifies the concept 'language' and then the concept 'change' (2000c: 61-65). Language, he explains, is best seen as idiolect, the output of a single speaker, because language as, for example, a socio-political concept has proved unfruitful in linguistic research. Regarding the concept 'change', he stresses the importance of distinguishing between the concept of'change' and the concept of'diffusion'. 'Change', he explains, is the imperfect transmission of language from parent to child, giving rise to hitherto unknown forms, whereas 'diffusion' is the spread of such forms. Within this terminology, within the domain of syntax, it means that no change has occurred between EBH and LBH—what has happened is a diffusion in LBH of changes that had already taken place in EBH. The actual changes we see are in the domain of vocabulary (e.g. loanwords ultimately of Persian origin). QH does not show many changes from LBH, but rather, in Naude's words, 'a large diffusion of forms that changed in the transition of Hebrew towards Late Biblical Hebrew' (2000b: 128). As for exilic and post-exilic BH Naude suggests that we might 'proceed from the presupposition of a coexistence of different styles of writing somewhere in a continuum between two poles, namely Late Biblical Hebrew and Early Biblical Hebrew' (2000c: 60).87 As for QH, he believes it is 'a situation where different grammars [i.e. idiolects].. .exist next to each other in the author's/speaker's mind' (2000b: 116). 86. He builds especially on Hale 1997, a work that was unavailable to me. 87. Note that he relies on the traditional dating of EBH texts to pre-exilic/exilic times.
EHRENSVARD Linguistic Dating of Biblical Texts
187
It is not within the scope of Naude's work to explain why there are differences,88 but he provides an elegant descriptive framework of the actual differences that we see. We can turn to date linguistically the disputed EBH texts.89 This is quite simple: Do we have EBH texts that are datable in regard to the distinction pre-exilic/post-exilic? Yes, as we saw above, at least some EBH texts, prophetic oracles and common (albeit prophetic) narrative alike, date to post-exilic times. This means that linguistically we (with due caution) should date the remaining EBH texts to around the time of the datable EBH texts—that is, sometime after the exile—since none of the inscriptions are as good matches as, for example, Haggai or Zechariah 1-8 in that their Hebrew differs from EBH in orthography, morphology, and lexicon.90 'Post-exilic' is still very unspecific, but with our limited knowledge of the linguistic situation it seems prudent to stay as unspecific as that. 5. Summary In order to test the conclusions of Avi Hurvitz, I have adopted his approach of giving linguistic considerations precedence in the dating of BH texts. This dating only pertains to the final linguistic form of the texts and does not have a bearing on whether or not it was written earlier and re-worked later since various old forms of Hebrew are found in all subsequent stages of the language. This also means that the presence of older forms does not necessarily show the language of a text to be older, but it is the absence of newer forms that shows this. On the strength of consistent similarities with pre-exilic inscriptions, the Hebrew of Genesis-2 Kings and other books was deemed to be earlier than that of Esther, Daniel, Ezra, Nehemiah, and
88. For opinions in this respect, see Blau (1997: 30 et passim) who operates with three post-exilic types of Hebrew, LBH, General QH and the language of the MMT. The presence of these different types of Hebrew side-by-side he explains by analogy with Middle Arabic where different schools and traditions, according to Blau, resulted in different types of Middle Arabic existing at the same time. See also P.R. Davies (1992: 103-105) who believes that the reason may be sociological, the differences between EBH and LBH being differences in register (for a socio-linguistic study of BH [from the point of view of a traditional dating of the texts], see Gianto 1996). 89. But note the reservation expressed in n. 8, above, that linguistic dating cannot take into account the possibility that older looking texts may have been written later by writers who commanded the older language. 90. Seenn. 10-13, above.
188
Biblical Hebrew
Chronicles, which on the strength of similarities with post-BH was deemed to be later. The relative dates of the language thus seem indisputable. Deciding the absolute dates of the language is, however, a different matter. Due to scarcity of sources for the relevant periods, Hurvitz is content with the distinction of pre- vs. post-exilic, and here there is no question for him: EBH is pre-exilic and LBH is post-exilic. However, even though EBH is close to the Hebrew of pre-exilic inscriptions, it does not conform to them entirely, even with the ones closest to it: for example, the very short Siloam inscription contains a couple of words and forms unknown to or very rare in BH. Given no alternatives, it would be quite satisfactory to date EBH to around the time of this form of Hebrew because different forms of Hebrew at other times have been known to coexist. But there are texts that EBH does conform to entirely, even with regard to the presence of occasional LBH features, and these texts are post-exilic. Therefore, if one gives precedence to linguistic considerations, without ruling out a pre-exilic date one would prefer a postexilic date for the (final linguistic form of the) EBH texts. In this way EBH comes closer to LBH in time, suggesting that there may have been a coexistence of these two forms of BH, just as there was a coexistence of typologically earlier and later types of Hebrew at Qumran. The discussion of the differences between EBH and LBH concluded that these differences may have been the result of either a stylistic choice or of an unsuccesful attempt at imitation. The increased likelihood of a coexistence of EBH and LBH was deemed to diminish the likelihood of LBH being the result of imitation. A further conclusion to be drawn from this study regards the choice of the exile as the great turning point in the history of the Hebrew language. In light of the evidence presented here, such a choice must from a linguistic viewpoint be said to be an arbitrary one.
THE TRANSITIONS OF BIBLICAL HEBREW IN THE PERSPECTIVE OF LANGUAGE CHANGE AND DIFFUSION
Jacobus A. Naude 1. Introduction Hebrew is usually divided into chronological periods corresponding to the different linguistic corpora, namely pre-exilic or EBH, post-exilic or LBH, QH, MH, and so on. It serves as a framework for providing a diachronic view of the language. However, the peculiarities of the language of each corpus cannot be explained by chronology alone. The concrete example of the Qumran archive challenges the view that there was a swift and uniform transition from BH to QH. Different forms of Hebrew can be dated to the same period and perhaps even to the same community. A uniform kind of Hebrew at any one period seems not sound (see also P.R. Davies 2001 a, along with his contribution to the present volume; Naude 2000a; 2000b; 2000c; I. Young 200Ib; 200Id). This article focuses on some developments in historical linguistics and illustrates how they contribute to the solving of problems concerning linguistic reconstruction and language change in Hebrew. The aim of the study is to outline a constrained theory of language change and diffusion. It will be shown that the shortcomings in conceptualization and method which have given rise to misconceptions of language change lie in the failure to utilize a coherent conception of the nature of language and the lack of clarity surrounding the notion of change. If the crucial distinction between change and diffusion events is allowed to be blurred, no meaningful generalizations are likely to be forthcoming. In keeping with the recent developments in syntactic theory, language changes are in fact not changes in the syntactic component of the grammar itself, but rather revisions and differences in features of lexical entries. The loss of the consecutive waw construction in BH and QH will be used to illustrate the nature of language change.
t++
+++++++++++++
The present study is organized as follows: Section 2 deals with the viewpoints on the transition from EBH to LBH as well as the relationship of BH to QH. The assumptions on language change as well as an outline of a theory to accommodate these assumptions will be outlined in Section 3. In Sections 4 and 5 some views on the relationship between EBH and LBH as well as between BH and QH will be evaluated from the perspective of the assumptions on language change and diffusion. The nature of language change is dealt with in Section 6. The loss of the consecutive waw construction in Hebrew will be discussed in Section 7. 2. The Transitions of Biblical Hebrew a. The Relationship between Early and Late Biblical Hebrew One fundamental tenet of the current view on the history of the Hebrew language is that BH falls into two successive stages, namely, pre-exilic or EBH and post-exilic or LBH (Saenz-Badillos 1993; Waltke and O'Connor 1990). The languages of several corpuses (the Priestly work in the Pentateuch [Polzin 1976], Ezekiel [Rooker 1990a], etc.) were proposed to constitute the link between EBH and LBH. In the first diachronic study of BH, Geschichte der hebrdischen Sprache und Schrif++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ the language of the biblical books while frequently drawing attention to late linguistic features. However, it was S.R. Driver who observed that BH contained chronologically distinct linguistic layers. Driver (1913a) observed that books such as Chronicles, Ecclesiastes, Esther, Daniel, Ezra and Nehemiah were linguistically different from the earlier books of the Hebrew Bible. Of special interest is his not infrequent manner of describing the language of a late biblical writer as 'New Hebrew'. Early in the twentieth century this view received a great impetus from Arno Kropat's landmark study (1909) on the linguistic features of the Chronicler. His modus operandi was to contrast the books of Chronicles with the parallel passages in Samuel-Kings. Presupposing that the Chronicler had as his source a Masoretic prototype of Samuel-Kings, Kropat was able to demonstrate the language of the Chronicler through his linguistic adjustments. A systematic presentation of the features of the post-exilic book of Chronicles as opposed to the earlier language of Samuel-Kings was now available. However, little was done to follow up Kropat's investigation of the diachronic study of BH. Hebrew grammarians like Bauer and Leander (1922) and Jotion (1923) were aware of the
NAUDE The Transitions of Biblical Hebrew
191
discrepancies between pre-exilic and post-exilic Hebrew but devoted little attention to the specific features which distinguish these two phases of the language. In the 1970s and '80s the diachronic study of Hebrew continued to flourish in Israel, particularly through the efforts of Avi Hurvitz. Since the completion and publication of Hurvitz's Hebrew University doctoral thesis as The Transition Period in Biblical Hebrew: A Study of Post-Exilic Hebrew and its Implications for the Dating of Psalms in 1972 (Hurvitz 1972a), Hurvitz has been indefatigable in his efforts to bring about a historical analysis of BH. Hurvitz's approach to the history of BH is in harmony with the work of Kropat. He insists, as did Kropat before him, that parallel chapters in the Bible are the most important aids for diachronic research. Just like Kropat, he affirms that the differences between the parallel texts in Chronicles and Samuel-Kings are due to different languages rather than due to stylistic tendencies of different authors. Hurvitz believes that lexicographical differences are sound and reliable indicators for distinguishing pre-exilic from post-exilic Hebrew, consequently he devotes minute attention to Aramaic words that might be found in post-exilic Hebrew. In his 1982 work A Linguistic Study of the Relationship between the Priestly Source and the Book ofEzekiel, Hurvitz demonstrated that the morphological and lexical status of the book of Ezekiel represented language of a later linguistic stratum than language of like content from the source designated as the Priestly work of the Pentateuch. Robert Polzin's research (Polzin 1976) based on the selective use he made of Kropat's work, yielded 19 aspects (on the morpho-syntactical level) which he subsequently propounded as the distinguishing features of LBH (1976: 35-36). He managed to prove that the Priestly work of the Pentateuch displays features from a subsequent period and can therefore constitute the link between EBH and LBH. Polzin's 19 LBH features are as follows: Features of LBH not Attributable to Aramaic Influence Al Radically reduced use of the object marker with pronominal suffix. A2 Increased use of the object marker before nouns in the nominative case. A3 Expression of possession by prospective pronominal suffix with a following noun, or ^ + noun, or *?№ + noun. A4 Collectives construed as plurals.
Biblical Hebrew
192 A5
A7
Preference for plural forms of words and phrases which the earlier language used in the singular. Less frequent use of the infinitive absolute in immediate connection with a finite verb of the same stem or as a command. Less frequent use of the construct with 3 and D not preceded by
A8 A9 A10 All A12 A13
Repetition of a singular word (= Latin quivis). Merging of the 3rd fern. pi. suffix with the 3rd masc. pi. suffix. Rare occurrence of lengthened imperfect or cohortative in 1 st sg Rare use of TH. Substantive occurs before the numeral and in the plural. Increased use of the infinitive construct with 7.
A6
(nym.
B1 B2 B3 B4 B5 B6
Features of LBHAttributable to Aramaic Influence Order of material weighed or measured + its weight or measurement. 7 often used to mark the accusative. ]- in the preposition ]D often not assimilated before a noun without an article. Use of 7" emphatic before the last element of a list. D^in used attributively before the substantive. Use of 7 117.
Polzin then analyzed pages taken from the Yahwistic and Elohistic passages of the Pentateuch, the Deuteronomic passages, as well as the Court History of 2 Samuel-1 Kings in light of these criteria. He affirms his ability to demonstrate that the Yahwistic and Elohistic passages of the Pentateuch (JE), the Deuteronomic passages (Dtr), and the Court History (CH) contain features of CBH or pre-exilic Hebrew, while the Priestly work of the Pentateuch (which is divided into the Groundwork of the Priestly work [PG] and the Alleged Secondary Additions to the Groundwork [Ps]) shows later features and is thus the link between CBH and the language of the Chronicles (Chr) (Polzin 1976: 113). (All Polzin's LBH features are extant in Chronicles and absent in material considered as being EBH. This corroborates the suggestion that these features are in fact characteristics of LBH.) The following table illustrates the distribution of Polzin's LBH features (the distribution of LBH features in Ezekiel [Ezek], Ezra and the non-memoir sections of Nehemiah [N2] is also included):
T++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
++++
Table 1. The Distribution ofPolzin 's LBH Features LBH Features
JE
CH
Dtr
pG
Ps
Ezek
Ezra
N2
Chr
Al A2 A4 A5 A6 A7 A8 A9 All A12 Bl B2 B3 B5 B6
Methodologically, Polzin (1976:27-28) differs fromHurvitz in two major areas. First, in his analysis of the Hebrew of Chronicles he shuns synoptic texts parallel to Samuel-Kings, in the belief that in doing so he will be able to penetrate to the actual language of the Chronicler. He does so in order to avoid suspicion that the differences that might exist in the Chronicler's synoptic text might be ascribed to the fact that the Chronicler was using a text other than the proto-MT of Samuel-Kings. Second, Polzin maintains that grammatical-syntactical distinctions provide more objective criteria than lexicographical features and should thus receive more weight in discussions of the typology of BH. Hurvitz makes no such distinction and in fact the preponderance of his evidence for post-exilic Hebrew is of a lexicographical nature. A third distinction arising from Polzin's work, which is in itself non-methodological but with methodological implications, relates to Polzin's evaluation of Aramaic influence. As indicated above, Hurvitz argues that many features of post-exilic Hebrew are due to the influence of Aramaic upon Hebrew. Polzin, on the other hand, minimizes this influence by his insistence on the fact that the changes occurring in BH result from the natural evolution of the language, more than anything else (Polzin 1976: 11). Mark F. Rooker (1990a) proposes that the language of Ezekiel is the best representative of the mediating link between pre-exilic and post-exilic Hebrew and hence the exemplar of BH in transition. An important subtheme in Rooker's work is that the Priestly work of the Pentateuch does
194
Biblical Hebrew
not represent such a mediating link. Using the criteria propounded by Polzin as a point of departure, Rooker analyzes the language of Ezekiel to determine the relative status of the language of Ezekiel in the chronological continuum of BH as this work is virtually ignored in Polzin's study. His conclusion is that Ezekiel should be considered an exponent of the transitional link between EBH and LBH, a position Polzin claims is best filled by the Priestly work of the Pentateuch. (The Priestly work of the Pentateuch contains five of the 19 LBH features proposed by Polzin and demonstrates a greater typological affinity with EBH. Ezekiel shares seven of the 19 LBH characteristics found in Chronicles and appears to be a superior example/instance of the transition state between EBH and LBH.) b. The Relationship between Biblical Hebrew and Qumran Hebrew The subsequent discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls at Qumran vastly increased the interest in Gesenius' and Kropat's earlier findings. In particular, after the early publications of the literature from Qumran, Abba Bendavid and Eduard Kutscher resuscitated the diachronic study of the Bible back in scholarly consciousness. Biblical Hebrew and Mishnaic Hebrew, a two-volume tome by Abba Bendavid, appeared in 1967 (vol. I) and 1971 (vol. II) and made full use of the linguistic aspects of the Dead Sea Scrolls in the discussion of the typologies of BH and MH. Kutscher made full use of the discoveries from Qumran and his enormous contribution in this field can be seen in his works The Language and Linguistic Background of the Isaiah Scroll (lQIsaa)(1974) and A History of the Hebrew Language, published posthumously (1982). The significance of the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls and the insight gained merely into the linguistic conditions of the two centuries immediately preceding 68 CE can hardly be exaggerated (Garcia Martinez 1994 XXXII-V). Prior to the discovery of the Dead Sea texts, it was commonly accepted that at that time Hebrew was already a non-living language that could only be acquired by the educated classes through study (cf. Goodspeed 1944: 59). This view has now been refuted. The outcome of the archaeological excavations at Khirbet Qumran relate this textual material to the same group of users or speech community, labelled the Qumran Community, who occupied the buildings excavated (de Vaux 1973). This relationship is further supported by the Groningen hypothesis (Garcia Martinez 1988), the Sadducean hypothesis (Schiffman 1994), the Christian origin hypothesis (Eisenman 1983; 1986) and the Local Member of the Main Jewish Union Movement hypothesis (Stegemann 1992). The theories
NAUDE The Transitions of Biblical Hebrew
195
contradicting such a linkage, for example, including the hypothesis of the Jerusalem origin of the Qumran texts of Golb (1980; 1995), nevertheless support a homogenous speech community as users/producers of the textual material. These texts were written in Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek. Among other things, a variant of the Hebrew language, hitherto unknown, became available, enhancing our knowledge of this subject to a remarkable extent. This language, QH, occupies a position between BH and MH. Emerging from a linguistic melting pot in which at least three languages and several dialects were interacting on each other, it provides a unique opportunity for observing a language in a stage of transition and to assess the impact of dialectal and other linguistic influences thereon (Fitzmyer 1979: 57-84). (A study of QH and its concomitant circumstances will fill in the hiatuses left in our knowledge of spoken and written Hebrew in Palestine during the Hellenistic and Roman eras.) Several opinions have been expressed on the classification of QH, which shows BH forms side by side with MH. The communis opinio is that there are two major types of Hebrew, namely, CBH and MH, while other varieties like QH are considered to be hybrids of these two. It has been suggested that the authors of the Qumran texts endeavoured to write BH, but that, under the influence of the spoken language a type of MH emerged. Alternatively, texts which were originally written in MH have been altered so as to bring them more in line with BH. To summarize, some scholars consider QH as an artificial entity or as a product of an attempt to revive BH. This implies an archaization process of writing QH in an archaic/oldfashioned style as if it continued the literary style of BH (Segal 1927: 13; Rabin 1958; 1973: 37;Kutscher 1974: 8-9,12; 1982: 82,99,131). Accordingly, QH has been regarded not as spoken Hebrew, but as an imitation of BH by speakers of MH. Polzin (1976: 6) underlines the archaic character of QH which he regards as sometimes closer to that of the Pentateuch than to that of the Chronicles. In line with such a view Fitzmyer (1979: 44-45) typifies QH as neo-CBH, a manifestation of the language that is an imitation of BH and that may be only literary. Schniedewind (1999: 235) views QH as an ideological 'antilanguage' created by conscious linguistic choices intended to set the speakers and their language apart from others. However, others view it as a direct continuation of LBH (Hurvitz 1965: 225; I. Young 1993: 83). Recently, the fairly standard scholarly consensus on the classification was challenged by the view that QH is independent in character and contains features which could only have evolved in a living spoken language (Morag 1988; Qimron 1992; Saenz-Badillos 1993: 132;
196
Biblical Hebrew
see also Qimron 1986; Leahy 1960; Kutscher 1982: 57-114; Polzin 1976; Waltke and O'Connor 1990: 9,11-20). The BH forms which occur in QH side by side with MH forms are not necessarily archaic forms, but may well have been part of the living spoken language (Qimron 1992: 356). The inconsistent usage of constructions could have followed from the fact that the phenomenon of diglossia is found in the speech community of QH. Two dialects co-exist: a more formal, literary (the high [H]) dialect which utilizes a formal variety that resembles BH and an informal, colloquial (the low [L]) dialect or vernacular which lacks some of the constructions of BH (Kesterson 1984: 172; M.S. Smith 1991a; 1991b; 1991c). Two texts, namely, 3Q15 and 4QMMT, come up for consideration in the classification of QH. Some classify 3Q15 as belonging to Classical MH (Sharvit 1967: 135; Wolters 1990). Others claim that it should be regarded as a distinct Mishnaic dialect: the Mishnaic dialect of the Jordan (Milik 1962:222-23) or Copper Scroll Hebrew (Morag 1988). Greenfield (1969) in his recension on Milik (1962) urges caution until more evidence is preserved. The Hebrew of 4QMMT is classified as Qumran Mishnaic by Morag (1988). Others are of the opinion that 4QMMT reflects the real spoken QH (Qimron and Strugnell 1994: 101-108). The consequence of such a view is that the other texts must then of necessity be imitations of BH. However, a close look at the data in recent studies (Muchowski 1994; Qimron and Strugnell 1994: 101-108) shows that the language of 3Q15 and 4QMMT are not so far removed from QH (as reflected in the Qumran texts) and LBH. Building directly on the insights of Hale (1997), assumptions on the notions language and change will be presented in the following section. 3. Assumptions on Syntactic Change a. The Notion Language The notion language like many concepts that have widespread pretheoretical distribution can be conceived in a variety of ways. Language as a socio-political notion is difficult to substantiate in linguistic research. The speakers of a language typically feel themselves bound to one another by way of their self-designated identity as, for example, the speakers of English. There are no empirical tests to assist in determining whether, for example, Cockney English and South African English are manifestations of the same entity, or whether a dialect spoken in Denmark and a comparable dialect spoken in Norway represent distinct entities (Danish and
NAUDE The Transitions of Biblical Hebrew
197
Norse). The standard attempts to develop tests designed to establish languagehood (such as mutual intelligibility, shared core vocabulary, etc.) proved to be not very fruitful (Schiitz 1972). The notion dialect is equally ill defined, in an empirical sense, just like the notion language, in that both notions suffer from the same defects. The notion language must be qualified by reference to idiolects (the output of a single individual). Idiolect is a term that denotes something closer to the actual empirical object—the innate grammar—which generative linguists recognize as the proper object of study. One could argue that in purely linguistic terms entities such as the English language and the dialect of South African English do not exist as well-defined formal objects of scientific study, but individuals actually do exist and their output can be studied scientifically. However, it is not the total output of individuals which forms the basis of study but only the individual grammars present in the mind of the person in question. Such a concept of language enjoys widespread acceptance in contemporary synchronic linguistic theory and is equal to the description of language faculty and I-language of N. Chomsky (1995): it goes under the name grammar (rather than language), and it is generally recognized as representing the proper object of study of linguistics as a discipline. Thus, the notion language must be qualified by reference to the output of a single individual for the purposes of this paper. If language as the object of linguistic study is to be taken as the equivalent of the modern theoretical concept of the grammar, what then is language change? b. The Notion Change If grammar is the definition of language for the purpose of linguistic study, then language change in a linguistic sense must be a change in grammars. Language does not change in the same manner as, for example, geological structures on the surface of the earth. In the latter case, the mutation occasioned by a variety of physical forces deals essentially with the same substance over lengthy periods of time. By contrast, in the case of language change, there is a different object (grammar) with the advent of each generation. The grammar of the parent does not change into the grammar of the child. The child is engaged in a process of grammar construction by using the parent's output (in part) as the basis for the construction of the acquisition target. It is inevitable that this process will give rise to a grammar that differs to a greater or lesser degree from the grammar that the parent has constructed by analyzing the input he/she received during
198
Biblical Hebrew
his/her lifetime. Thus, the child will eventually end up with a grammar which is not identical to that of his/her parent in every respect. Three factors: noise in the channel (induced by the body of the speaker who is used as basis for the construction of the grammar, the body of the acquirer or by the environment), the order of data presentation, and the frequency (and thus salience) of various constructions could, or so it seems a priori, influence the ultimate shape of the constructed grammar. It is probable that the inevitability of language change stems from the fact that perfect grammar transmission is impossible due to the factors mentioned. Consequently it is a foregone conclusion that the child's grammar will differ from that of the input sources. This difference is called change. Children go through a process of linguistic maturation that in practice means the convergence of all the grammars they have used as input sources. At some point acquirers stop accepting input which diverges from that on which they are basing their grammar. Instead, if they choose to adopt the new data into their linguistic behaviour, they start upon the construction of an additional grammar to produce the relevant competence. Confronted by data from a new (in his or her experience) dialect he/she will not revise his or her constructed grammar to fit the new data, no matter how desirable it may be to acquire competence in the new system. Instead, the acquirer will construct an additional grammar, alternating between these two under his or her interpretation of the appropriate social context, for example, in the case of diglossia. Most speakers have multiple grammars, for example, to generate different linguistic styles or registers, idiolects, local dialects and standard speech. The output of a single individual may not lead to the construction of a coherent grammar. In this case, the child has to learn at an early point in the acquisition process that she or he is receiving evidence for multiple grammars. If the acquirer mistakenly attributes utterance X to grammar A (when in fact it could only be generated by grammar B), the acquirer's version of grammar A will have to differ from that of his/her source of that grammar. In instances in which multiple source grammars are used for the construction of a single acquirer's grammar without any of the features undergoing change (i.e. misanalysis), there may be a new constellation of features in the grammar, but this new grammar is the result of the acquirer's accurate analysis of his or her input sources. The proposed model allows for the distinction of borrowing (e.g. of words) and an attempt to become a speaker of the newly presented dialect. Borrowing a few words from the local dialect and constructing a grammar
NAUDE The Transitions of Biblical Hebrew
199
of the local dialect are two vastly different processes. In the former case, the acquirer finds him- or herself with one grammar containing some loan words whereas, in the latter, the acquirer acquires two grammars. Note that this is the transmission of features of the grammar, not of output strings (such as words}. Forms themselves are not intransmissible: the grammar does not contain its own output, it generates it. Output forms are patterns of acoustic events; the grammar consists of mental representations. Change results when transmission is flawed with respect to one or more features. When transmission is immaculate (with respect to some feature), no change occurred. In what way then should statements, rife in both traditional and theoretical works on language change—of the type change X began in the thirteenth century and was completed only in the sixteenth—be interpreted? The statement presumably means that the change is found in some grammars as early as the thirteenth century but is not widespread in the language (socio-politically defined) until much later. It refers to the spread of change X from some speakers to others, which naturally, does take time. This instance obviously does not refer to change, as defined above, but much rather to the diffusion of linguistic variants. c. The Notion Diffusion The notion diffusionrefers to the spread (implementation/transmission) of change W from some speakers to others, which naturally, does take time. In the case of change, there has been imperfect transmission of some feature of the grammar. The acquirer's input sources had features X, Y, and Z, and the acquirer constructed a grammar which had features X, Y, and W. The difference (W instead of Z) represents a change (Z > W). In the case of diffusion, the acquirer had input sources with features X, Y, Z, along with other input source(s) with features X, Y, W, and constructed a grammar with features X, Y, and W. Note that there is no imperfect transmission of the relevant features: the child had feature W in his or her input sources and constructed a grammar with feature W. Many factors influence the spread of linguistic innovations—socioeconomic status, ethnicity, age, gender, and so on—without it being necessary to see these various aspects of speaker status and behaviour as the proper object of an explicit linguistic theory. Many of the differences between a given acquirer's input sources and the grammar he or she constructs will never spread to others. They will die with this acquirer and probably remain absent from the linguistic record altogether.
200
Biblical Hebrew
Diffusion is a many faceted phenomenon. Diffusion is the spread throughout a specific population group over a certain length of time and is temporal by nature. It follows from the very nature of diffusion that variation should be present during the period of diffusion (those grammars retaining the original form will continue to coexist for some time side by side with those grammars in which no innovation is apparent). Much diffusion displays an S-curve. First, spreading is gradual within a limited population group. When spreading is released among a critical mass of speakers more and more speakers become involved. Once the number of speakers from which an innovation can diffuse increases, there is a con comitant and rapid increase in the number of acquirers prone to the innovation. A strict distinction between change and diffusion allows for a segregation of the properties, which must be attributed to two very differently constrained domains, namely, historical linguistics and socio-linguistics respectively. While the issues may be seen by some as essentially terminological, it is important to point out that if the crucial distinction between change and diffusion events are allowed to be blurred, no meaningful generalizations about either domain are likely to be forthcoming. Lass (1997: 140) fails to distinguish between change and diffusion. None of the propositions regarding change cited by Lass are in fact properties of change: to the extent they are coherent properties of diachronic events at all, they are uniformly properties of diffusion events. As Lass fails to distinguish between change and diffusion, the uniform distribution of an innovation throughout the grammar (e.g. the lexicon) and its uniform distribution across a (well-defined) subset of the population are not distinguished. Support for the distinction between change (actuation of a change) and diffusion (implementation/transmission) of a change follows from the extensive treatment of the relationship between language variation and change by Labov (1994: 542). He posits, on the basis of extensive analysis of much of the primary data and secondary literature on change in progress (i.e. in the terminology of this paper, diffusion), the following two types of change: 1. Regular sound change is the result of a gradual transformation of a single phonetic feature of a phoneme in a continuous phonetic space. It is characteristic of the initial stages of a change that develops within a linguistic system, without lexical or grammatical conditioning or any degree of social awareness ('change from below')—for example, vowel shifts in place of articulation.
NAUDE The Transitions of Biblical Hebrew 2.
201
Lexical diffusion is the result of the abrupt substitution of one phoneme for another in words that contain that phoneme. The older and newer forms of the word will usually differ by several phonetic features. This process is most characteristic of the late stages of an internal change that has been differentiated by lexical and grammatical conditioning, or has developed a high degree of social awareness or of borrowings from other systems ('change from above')—for example, shortening and lengthening of segments.
Although Labov is normally talking about diffusion events, the basic contrast reflected by the last-mentioned distinction is one between change and diffusion as indicated by Labov's own labels (though of course he calls both types change). Like Labov, Kiparsky (1995) sees sound change and lexical diffusion as the two basic mechanisms of sound change, though the precise definition of each differs slightly from that advocated by Labov. To summarize, there are three dimensions by which linguistic variation comes about and within which it persists: along the dimension of time, society, and the individual. Along the time dimension languages are constantly, pervasively, and systematically changing. The result is linguistic variation, different ways of saying the same thing. Language change starts in an individual and diffuses in a speech community, a group or network of people whose language is more or less the same because they learn and influence one another in all sorts of behaviour including language. Speech communities are based on factors including geography, religion, age, and gender, and may be more or less cohesive (depending on the level of standardization), and recognizable by their characteristics of language use. Speech is also influenced by the speech-situation, which determines the style and register of utterances (e.g. intimate, casual, consultative, formal and frozen). Another factor is the differences between speech and writing. Writing is secondary to speech and employs special forms of language for its unique purposes, for example, the utilization of devices for the organization of discourse. Having listed the most important assumptions on language change and variation, the question of how language variation in Hebrew can be explained by this model will be investigated next. The traditional views on the relationship between EBH and LBH as well as the relationship between BH and QH will be evaluated in the light of the assumptions on language change and diffusion.
202
Biblical Hebrew 4. An Evaluation of the Views on the Relationship between Early and Late Biblical Hebrew
a. No Specific Variety of Biblical Hebrew is Biblical Hebrew in Transition The typology of Hebrew (and the so-called EBH and LBH) is firmly rooted in the socio-political concept of language and, as stated above, provides no workable basis for an empirical linguistic research. The concept grammar as explained above, offers far more attractive possibilities. Correspondingly the socio-political concept LBH consists of different grammars, namely, the language of the Priestly work of the Pentateuch, Ezekiel, Ezra, and so on. It is assumed that each grammar reflects the grammatical sentences of that specific language, that is, they conform to the rules of the grammar of the idiolect the final speaker/author/redactor has in mind. Hence the typology of Ezekiel's language can be generalized as follows: a speaker of Ezekiel's language has acquired at least a grammar that shows, according to Polzin's analysis, four language changes (A4, A5, Bl, B2 [listed above]—if assumed that the grammar of the parent is represented by a language resembling the language of the Priestly work of the Pentateuch) and the diffusion of three of the five changes that happened when the parent had acquired his/her language (A2, A7, A9). The diffusion of two others is reflected in the language of Ezra (A6, All). The language of Ezra reflects four changes (Al, A8, A12, B6) and the diffusion of three of the changes in Ezekiel (A4, A5, B2). Furthermore, if change is an unconscious and imperfect transmission of the architecture of language, a close comparison of the grammars traditionally labelled as LBH will show that only a few changes can be detected in each grammar (according to Polzin's criteria): five in the language of the Priestly work of the Pentateuch (A2, A6, A7, A9, Al 1), four in the language of Ezekiel (A4, A5, Bl, B2), four in the language of Ezra (Al, A8, A12, B6), one in the non-memoir sections of Nehemiah (B5) and one in Chronicles (B3). Viewing Polzin's data from a historical linguistic viewpoint, any conclusion to the effect that any variety of BH is BH in transition is hardly justifiable. The accumulated effect of diffusion appears to be substantial if viewed only from the viewpoint of Chronicles, but in actual fact little diffusion of the changed forms took place if each grammar is looked at separately. Hence it is clear therefore that the language of any variety cannot be assessed adequate by comparing it to two sets of linguistic features, but only by way of a thorough comparison of the different grammars ofBH.
NAUDE The Transitions of Biblical Hebrew
203
b. The Grammars of Late Biblical Hebrew are a Direct Continuation of the Grammars of Early Biblical Hebrew Hebrew never ceased to be spoken. It is true that the grammars of LBH differ from the grammars of EBH but nevertheless, they also continue the grammars of EBH. Grammar is transmitted from parent to child by the process of acquisition as described above. Since a slightly different grammar comes with every generation, it is inevitable that this process will give rise to the grammar of the child, which differs, to a greater or lesser extent from the grammar of the parent. Some of these changes became diffused. Therefore the grammars of LBH in particular contain in addition new elements/innovations and variant forms as the continuation of EBH. It is possible that these new elements/innovations in the grammars of LBH may show features which survive in other traditions of Hebrew, but not in the tradition of EBH. It is a priori likely that they reflect the later Hebrew that was actually spoken more than anything else. c. Variation is Not a Mechanism of Language Change Language variation is not the mechanism of language change but the result of change, that is, an indication of how far a change has diffused. In actual fact, Rooker's assumptions on variation as a mechanism of language change deal with diffusion. Rendsburg (1990a) demonstrates that in BH two separate varieties of Hebrew could already be distinguished—a written dialect used for literary composition and for formal orations, and a spoken language used for everyday communication, a situation which can be termed diglossia. Diglossia, as originally defined, denotes a linguistic situation in which one language variety, usually an older, archaizing one serves as the vehicle of educated intercourse, especially in writing, while another variety is used as a spoken colloquial. Typically, one member of the diglossia (the high dialect) is static, resisting the changes that affect the vernacular variety (the low dialect; Ferguson 1959). However, note that diglossia is a term normally used for distinguishing between two different kinds of speech in any speech community and does not apply to any single grammar. It is prone to the same shortcomings as the notion of language or dialect. Although Rendsburg's view is correct in the sense of allowing two grammars to exist side by side, he excludes the possibility of more than two grammars and further complicates the explanation of interrelationship between change and diffusion.
204
Biblical Hebrew
d. Aramaic Influence is Not a Cause of Language Change Aramaic influence is not representative of linguistic change in the grammars of LBH. One of the input sources for the grammars of LBH was Aramaic and grammars with features already present in Aramaic are constructed. For example, of the possible seven LBH features indicated by Polzin only two represent diffusion into the language of Ezekiel, namely, the increased use of the piel stem and the use of the copula HTf with the participle. The remaining five were already diffused into other grammars of LBH, namely: the use of the proleptic pronominal suffix; 7 + direct object; the diminished employment of the use of the waw consecutive tense; the placement of the measurement dimension; and the asyndetic instead of the syndetic use of the apodosis of the conditional sentence. The diffusion of Aramaic loan forms is due to the prestige factor of speaking Aramaic by the educated classes. e. Analogical Mechanism is Not a Mechanism of Language Change The analogical mechanism together with several other attributes are widely believed to hold of change proper. Within structuralism they are, among other things, gap-filling, drag-chains, push-chains—and simplification. The evidence adduced to show that these factors are relevant is no better than the evidence that precisely the opposite factors (i.e. gap-creating, merger, complexification) are relevant. If change both simplifies and complicates, then change is no longer simplification. If gaps are both created and filled, then gap-filling is not a privileged process deserving of special attention. Within functionalism it is speaker-oriented (ease of articulation) or hearer-oriented (maintaining contrasts). Regarding the functionalist processes a critical problem arises: Where and how are these regulations enforced? f. Idiolects of Biblical Hebrew A close scrutiny of the verb DDD contained in Ezek. 44.20 reveals that this term, which is unique to this passage in BH, is apparently synonymous with the verb TT3, which occurs almost exclusively in EBH. It would seem that DDD is a lexical replacement of the earlier TT1 The occurrence of DDD is unique to the book of Ezekiel. This text reflects a specific language change, which occurred without diffusion. The grammars of the speakers of the language of Ezekiel show some difference from the grammars of the speakers of the languages of the other LBH texts.
NAUDE The Transitions of Biblical Hebrew
205
To conclude, from the viewpoint of the socio-political notion of language, the classifications EBH and LBH may be practical terms to designate the language of a certain linguistic corpus of the Hebrew Bible to a certain time dimension, but from the viewpoint of language change and diffusion this distinction does not reflect the reality of the language variation of the various grammars of BH as reflected in styles, registers, idiolects, dialects, and so on. Each grammar must be looked at separately. The differences among the varieties of Hebrew actually show to what extent a certain language change of a certain EBH/LBH speaker had already become diffused. The process of change and diffusion is a continuous process. Thus, the language changes reflected by none of the varieties of BH can be viewed exclusively as BH in transition. Each variety is a continuation of the grammars of EBH, but is in certain respects distinct from the other grammars of LBH. Only a few (syntactic) changes are expected in these varieties (if change is imperfect transmission of the architecture of language). However, these varieties already show a large diffusion of forms that changed in the transmission of Hebrew from parent to child. The variation in a specific variety can be explained as the existence of more than one or different grammars in the speakers of the language of that variety. 5. An Evaluation of the Views on the Language Classification ofQumran Hebrew a. Qumran Hebrew Consists of Various Grammars Although, logically speaking, QH as a living spoken language should reflect more generally prevailing linguistic phenomena of its time, the sociological and historic contexts in which it existed should be taken into account. On the one hand it has to be borne in mind that QH existed over a considerable period of time, more than 200 years in fact, and as one would expect it shows some linguistic diversity. On the other hand it would be incorrect to assume that the linguistic features of QH are typical of all the written and spoken Hebrew at the time. QH much rather forms an exponent of a dialectal continuum of Hebrew (see Garr 1985). It is therefore essential, as far as possible, to accommodate the linguistic varieties of QH theoretically when presenting grammatical descriptions and explanations of problematic data. Goshen-Gottstein (1958) provides informative observations on the differences displayed by the major texts from Qumran in their most significant linguistic features. In view of these observations
206
Biblical Hebrew
one should refrain from any attempt to incorporate into the overall description of the language the idiosyncrasies of a given text as typical of QH, no matter how important that text may appear to be (e.g. 3Q15 and 4QMMT). The same pertains when QH is compared to BH. BH consists of various grammars, so that any attempt to locate the language of a given document merely on the basis of the BH tradition is not compatible with the linguistic reality. BH reflects sporadic representations of the language, from different places and times, and does not represent a single language which developed over time; BH reflects different dialects that existed together and fought for hegemony. In the First Temple period the dialect in Jerusalem prevailed. It was in the post-exilic period that the struggle between the dialects was fiercest, traces of which survived in contemporaneous texts. BH thus does not represent a rectilinear historical development. The typologies of QH are based on the socio-political notion of language and it is argued above that such a view does not provide a useful basis for empirical linguistic research and it is better to operate with the concept grammar as explained. All the different viewpoints on the classification of QH can be generalized as follows: like BH, QH consists of various grammars. If change is an imperfect transmission of the architecture of language, a close comparison of the grammars of QH with the grammars of LBH will show that only a few changes can be detected. However, the grammars of QH show a large diffusion (and loss) of forms that changed in the various grammars of BH. b. Qumran Hebrew is Not an Artificial Entity Considering the amount of texts produced by the Qumran Community and their relative coherency makes it hard for anyone to believe that QH could be an imitation of BH. Second, the discovery of the Bar Kochba letters has brought clarity to the debate by demonstrating that Hebrew was indeed used as a means of daily communication and was not a mere creation by the rabbis. It is rather a situation where different grammars (Gl, G2, etc.) exist next to each other in the author's/speaker's mind. The religious texts from Qumran reflects G2, whereas Gl must be the grammar that a speaker utilizes in everyday life. c. Qumran Hebrew is a Direct Continuation of Late Biblical Hebrew Hebrew did not cease to be spoken before the period of the Qumran Community. (Compare, for example, the date of the composition of the books of Daniel, Esther as well as the abovementioned views of Segal.) Although
NAUDE The Transitions of Biblical Hebrew
207
it is true that the grammars of QH continue the grammars of LBH directly, they also differ from each other. Grammar is transmitted from parent to child by the process of acquisition as described above. Since a slightly different grammar comes with every generation, it is inevitable that this process will give rise to a grammar of the child which differs to a greater or lesser extent from the grammar of the parent. Some of these changes diffused. Thus QH in particular contains also new elements. Although it is possible that these new elements in QH may represent some features which survived in other traditions of Hebrew, it is a priori likely that they rather reflect the later Hebrew that was actually spoken at Qumran. d. Diglossia Does Not Explain Change and Diffusion of the Grammars of Qumran Hebrew It is shown by Rendsburg (1990a) that already in BH two separate varieties of Hebrew could be distinguished: a written and a spoken dialect. However, note that diglossia is a term normally used for distinguishing between two different kinds of speech in a speech community and does not apply to a single grammar. As indicated above, it is prone to the same shortcomings as the notion language. Although Rendsburg's view is correct in the sense of allowing two grammars to exist side by side, his view excludes the possibility of more than two grammars and complicates the explanation of inter-relation between innovation and diffusion in QH. e. 3Q15 and 4QMMT Reflect Idiolects of Qumran Hebrew Speakers A close scrutiny of the grammatical phenomena contained in 3Q15 and 4QMMT reveal that they are different from MH. These two texts reflect specific language changes that occurred without diffusion. The grammars/ idiolects of the QH speakers responsible for these two texts show some differences from the grammars of the QH speakers which are responsible for the other Qumran texts. To summarize, from the viewpoint of the socio-political notion of language, QH is a practical term to designate the language of the linguistic corpus of Qumran in general, but from the viewpoint of language change and diffusion this distinction does not reflect the reality of the language variation of the various grammars of QH as reflected in styles, registers, idiolects, dialects, and so on. Each grammar of QH must be looked at separately. The differences among the varieties of Hebrew actually show to what extent a certain language change of a certain QH speaker had
208
Biblical Hebrew
already become diffused. The language changes reflected by 3Q15 and 4QMMT had not yet spread and reflect a certain idiolect. In view of language change and diffusion as outlined above, QH is a continuation of (L)BH, but is in certain aspects distinct from (L)BH. The variation in texts themselves can be explained by the existence of more than one or different grammars in QH speakers. Some theoretical considerations, which will contribute to the understanding of the nature of syntactic change in a non-living language like BH or QH, will be proposed in the next section. 6. The Nature of Language Change Historical syntax lay, like the Sleeping Beauty, in a deathlike coma for the first half of the twentieth century, since there was remarkably little work on historical syntax before the 1960s (Aitchison 1980: 137). It was not until after the establishment of generative syntax that substantial research on syntactic change was carried out (N. Chomsky 1957). Large numbers of linguists realized the importance of the subject, and attempted to hack their way through the thorns encircling the Sleeping Beauty's castle and into the central issues of the topic. In early generative diachronic syntax, the Generativists compared successive grammars and attempted to show that any surface changes were due to changes in the syntactic rules. These could be added or lost, their form of order could alter, and children could construct a different, simpler grammar from their parents (Klima 1964; Traugott 1972). However, David Lightfoot may be viewed as the Prince who woke the Sleeping Beauty from her long sleep. Lightfoot's 1979 work is set within the Extended Standard Theory. The comparative lack of transformations within this model means that syntactic change could no longer be described solely or predominantly in terms of changes in these rules. Lightfoot's response to these innovations is a new approach to syntactic change. One of Lightfoot's most important contributions is his suggestion that part of the theory of grammar is a 'Transparency Principle' which controls the amount of exceptionality that can be tolerated in a grammar (Lightfoot 1979:121). Lightfoot proposes that complexity or exceptionality may build up in a grammar across time, perhaps through such factors as foreign influence or speakers' attempts to be expressive. Eventually, exceptionality increases to the point where it violates the Transparency Principle by passing the permitted level of complexity, and at this stage
NAUDE The Transitions of Biblical Hebrew
209
the Transparency Principle requires a catastrophic change or radical reanalysis in the grammar, making underlying forms conform more closely to surface structures. This deep change in the grammar will manifest on the surface by the emergence of a whole series of simultaneous changes. Lightfoot tells us that too much complexity will violate the Transparency Principle, but does not formulate the principle explicitly or give a measure of the exceptionality required to trigger it. Lightfoot (1991) claims significant advances in the recasting of the Transparency Principle. Lightfoot is now working with its successor, the Government and Binding or Principles and Parameter model (N. Chomsky 1981; 1986a; 1986b). The transformational component has been reduced even further in this model, and it is argued that the grammar is divided into a set of interacting modules. Each module has its own principles. Furthermore, the child is equipped with various innate parameters, which are set with reference to incoming language data. As an example of parameter setting, consider the fact that many languages are either head-initial or head-final. Lightfoot's work is pioneering in its attempt to explicate the mechanism whereby the proposed parameters might actually be set. However, it is a disappointment that no explicit formulation of specific parameters are provided. This is not a trivial omission: parameters are taken by Lightfoot, as others working in this framework, to be quite abstract, formal and general. A precise statement of the parameter involved in each case would allow the reader to deduce what further implications follow from a change in the setting for that parameter. In fact, this is part of the general failure of the Principles and Parameters framework to effectively articulate a useful set of possible parameters—a failure which has led to the abandonment of the enterprise and its replacement by the Minimalist Program. Syntactic changes are in fact not changes in the syntactic component of the grammar itself, but rather revisions and differences in features of lexical items in the lexicon. Consequently, there is nothing that varies across languages in the syntactic component itself. Cross-linguistic variation is triggered off by differences in the lexicon. The only difference among languages being the inventory of words/morphemes. 7. The Loss of the Consecutive Waw Construction in Hebrew In addition to the co-ordinate waw construction, BH also has a consecutive waw construction. The waw is then a subordinating conjunction. The
210
Biblical Hebrew
perfective and imperfective verb forms that are used in the consecutive waw construction not only express the relevant aspect, but also serve to present one situation as subordinate to another. It is important to note that the aspect that is conventionally associated with these verb forms is reversed in the consecutive waw construction. The perfective verb form in the consecutive waw construction expresses the non-perfective aspect whereas the imperfective verb form expresses the perfective aspect in this construction. The perfective verb forms that are used with a co-ordinate waw are distinguished from the perfective verb forms that occur with a consecutive waw by stress (in 1st sing, and 2nd masc. sg.) and by their meaning. The imperfective verb forms with co-ordinate waw are also morphologically distinguished by vocalization from the imperfective verb forms with consecutive waw construction. It is not altogether certain whether QH has the consecutive waw construction. QH lacks both vowel points and accents, which in BH often help to distinguish the co-ordinate waw from the consecutive waw (Abegg 1998, I: 337). It has been claimed in various studies of the QH verbal system that QH, like MH, lost the consecutive waw construction in the course of language change (Reider 1950-51: 67; G.R. Driver 1965: 437; Rubinstein 1955: 180,186; Kutscher 1974:41-42,351-58,427-28). Such a process of language change is never fully executed, which explains the existence of some remaining forms of the consecutive waw in QH. Another view is that the consecutive waw is used as part of an archaizing process of writing QH in an old-fashioned style (Kutscher 1982: 82, 99, 131) or alternatively, of replacing the consecutive waw with forms used in colloquial speech as part of a process of modernizing). Often archaizing betrays itself by using older forms or constructions in an incorrect way, which might explain the inconsistent usage of the consecutive waw. It has recently been claimed that the inconsistencies in the QH tense system should be related to the phenomenon of diglossia. The idea is that two variants co-existed: a more formal, literary (the high [H]) variant which utilizes the consecutive waw and an informal, colloquial (the low [L] dialect) variant which lacks the consecutive waw construction (Kesterson 1984: 172; M.S. Smith 1991a; 1991b; 1991c). The usage of tenses in the L-variant might eventually have superseded the formal usage of the consecutive waw. In certain grammars of QH the consecutive waw construction with perfective verb forms seems to have been replaced with the co-ordinate waw construction. Furthermore, the consecutive waw with imperfective
NAUDE The Transitions of Biblical Hebrew
211
verb forms has apparently been replaced by perfective verb forms, or perfective verb forms with the co-ordinate waw. These changes are supported by a variety of evidence. Compare the following BH and QH quotations. Note that the consecutive waw with the perfective verb form in BH C^iSpnm) is replaced by an imperfective verb form in QH (^SprT):
isa. 8.21:
«ppnm 3UT '3 rrm
1 QIsaa 8.15:
»|Spn
the translation of these two forms being: .. .and it will turn out that when they are hungry, they will be enraged...
Compare also the following example of a BH temporal clause with the QH equivalent. Here, the consecutive waw construction with the perfective verb form in BH ("pnnni) is replaced by an imperfective verb form in
QHCl-nrr): Deut. 29.18: 1QS 2.12-13:
133^3 -j-Onm HKTn H^H "121 HN 11)0^3 THl 133^3 -p3IT PITH mDn '131 n« lUClED Till
Once again, there is no difference in translation: And it shall be when he hears the words of this curse, that he will bless himself in his heart...
Kesterson (1984) mentions several other aspects of the verbal system in QH that cannot be paralleled with or explained in terms of BH: 1. The perfective verb form has supplanted the imperfective verb form for the expression of past activity after the conjunction DIE (pp. 7-8). 2. The positive volitive construction (simple waw plus volitive after volitive, question, etc.) is in demise and is replaced by an infinitive (p. 10). 3. In 1QS the co-ordinate waw construction with the imperfective verb form often appears where BH would employ the consecutive waw construction with the perfective form, which points to some breakdown in the usage of the consecutive waw in QH (pp. 10-11). 4. Introductory TH is absent (p. 11). 5. In contrast with BH, the predicative participle without HTI can manifest the modal nuance must/should (p. 12). MH utilizes only the co-ordinate waw construction. In the MH example that follows the co-ordinate waw construction with perfective verb forms
212
Biblical Hebrew
is used instead of the consecutive waw construction with imperfective verb forms that is found in BH: TDD DHDI raton n« 12:31 D^DNH n» wun ]DlpD3 13^1 1N31 D^33Kn PIN 1^31 DH^r 13HD1
They brought the stones, and built the altar, and plastered them with plaster, and wrote on them and took the stones, and came and lodged it in their place... (m. Sot. 7.5)
Since the consecutive waw construction enters into subordination, it is assumed that the waw of such a construction occupies a position in the complementizer position of the sentence. Furthermore, since the consecutive waw construction causes a reversing of verb forms with reference to aspect, it is assumed that the verb must be raised to the complementizer position. Changes in lexical features of the waw (from strong to weak) will not cause the raising of the verb to the complementizer position and will imply the disappearance of the wavv-consecutive phenomena. It will also imply a change in word order concerning independent personal pronouns. In BH the independent personal pronouns appear after verbs in the perfective and imperfective with the waw consecutive. This distribution is not detected in QH. In an earlier study (Naude 1996) I have shown that the verb-features of the wmv-consecutive which is used as a complementizer is weak in QH. The strong features of the waw in BH forces a verb in the complementizer position, which is prior to the topic position of independent personal pronouns. The verb is thus in a position in front of independent pronouns: D'3rTD2 Kin Win .. .and he fell upon the priests... (1 Sam. 22.18)
In certain grammars of QH the verb-feature in the complemetizer position is weak and the verb does not appear in the complementizer position: "p3 Dl HR 1J73n nnKI Thus you will eradicate the blood of innocents. (1 lQTa 63.7)
The independent personal pronouns in QH are used as topics with perfective and imperfective verb forms and are in the topic position, a position prior to the perfective and imperfective verb. The verb cannot be present in the complementizer position and is in a position after the independent personal pronoun. The change in the verbal features of the vraw-consecutive construction leads to a change in word order. In line with the data
NAUDE The Transitions of Biblical Hebrew
213
presented by Rendsburg and Smith this change must have happened in BH and has diffused in QH. In MH the diffusion is completed and no grammar of MH exhibits any form of the consecutive waw construction. 8. Conclusion In order to develop a constrained theory of language change, one has to distinguish carefully between change and diffusion. The most important way in which a language may change is with regard to the lexical entries in the grammar of a language. Changes which traditional historical linguistics analyze as phonological, morphological and syntactic are in fact not changes in these components of the grammar, but rather revisions in features of lexical entries (or creation/destruction of lexical entries like the innovation of new words or loss of words in disuse). There are three dimensions by which linguistic variation comes about and within which it persists: the dimensions of time, society, and the individual. Along the time dimension languages are constantly, pervasively, and systematically changing. The result is linguistic variation, different ways of saying the same thing. Language change starts in an individual and diffuses in a speech community, a group or network of people whose language is more or less the same because they learn and influence one another in all sorts of behaviour including language. Speech communities are based on factors including geography, religion, age and gender, and may be more or less cohesive (depending on the level of standardization), and recognizable by their characteristics of language use. Speech is also influenced by the speech-situation, which determines the style and register of utterances (e.g. intimate, casual, consultative, formal, and frozen). Another factor is the differences between speech and writing. Writing is secondary to speech and employs special forms of language for its unique purposes (e.g. the utilization of devices for the organization of discourse). From the viewpoint of the socio-political notion of language, BH, QH, MH may be practical terms to designate the language of a certain linguistic corpus of Hebrew to a certain time dimension, but from the viewpoint of language change and diffusion these distinctions do not reflect the reality of the existence of multiple grammars of Hebrew or the language variation of the various grammars of Hebrew as reflected in styles, idiolects, dialects, and so on. Only a few (syntactic) changes are expected in each grammar of Hebrew (if change is imperfect transmission of the architecture of language). However, each grammar of Hebrew shows a large diffusion
214
Biblical Hebrew
of forms that have changed. The process of change and diffusion is a continuous process. Consequently, no variety of BH can be viewed exclusively as a Hebrew in transition. Each variety is a continuation of earlier grammars of Hebrew, but is in certain respects distinct from other contemporary grammars. The language variation as reflected in a specific variety is rather due to a situation where different grammars exist next to each other in the author's/speaker's mind.
DATING BIBLICAL HEBREW: EVIDENCE FROM SAMUEL-KINGS AND CHRONICLES*
Robert Rezetko
The consensus regarding the main sources employed by the author(s) of the book of Chronicles is that they were the canonical books of Samuel and Kings, but that the text-forms of these books, especially of Samuel, were not identical to the Masoretic version.1 A.G. Auld, however, has recently re-argued the view that the books of Samuel and Kings on the one hand, and the book of Chronicles on the other, each represents a substantial revision of a common source,2 which he entitles 'The Book of Two * I thank Graeme Auld, Joe Fantin, Alan Lenzi, Tim Lim, David Reimer, Rick Taylor and Ian Young for their corrections and suggestions. Any errors and opinions are mine alone. 1. Brief summaries of issues related to the sources underlying the book of Chronicles are Japhet 1993: 14-23, 28-30; R.W. Klein 1992: 995-97; Williamson 1982: 17-23. A lengthier overview of these and other related issues is Peltonen 1996, II: 742-95 (' "Not a Closed Case": Caveats of the Consensus'). For detailed discussion and up-to-date bibliography also see Graham and McKenzie 1999. 2. This thesis, of course, is not original to Auld. Eichhorn (1780) argued for a common source underlying the synoptic stories in Samuel-Kings and Chronicles, and in so doing he was upholding what was already the standard view. Several decades later, de Wette (1806; 1817) argued that Samuel-Kings was the Vorlage upon which Chronicles was based. Torrey is perhaps the most influential figure to oppose the view that the Chronicler had any source other than the canonical books of the Bible. For example, he says, 'It is time that scholars were done with this phantom "source," of which the internal evidence is absolutely lacking, and the external evidence is limited to the Chronicler's transparent parading of "authorities;" while the evidence against it is overwhelming' (1909: 195). Dissenting voices have been few and far between. Keil (1878: 38, cf. 28-38) was an early nonconformist: 'But our canonical books of Samuel and Kings are by no means to be reckoned among the sources possibly used besides the writings which are quoted. It cannot well be denied that the author of the Chronicle knew these books; but that he has used them as authorities, as de Wette, Movers, Ewald, and others think, we must, with Bertheau [1854] and Dillmann [1878], deny.' Also see Keil 1833 and 1859. More recently, the following scholars argue, or at least
216
Biblical Hebrew
Houses', and which itself does not originate prior to the period of the exile.3 His thesis has elicited a range of reactions, including statements concerning the relationship of the date and language of Samuel-Kings to those of Chronicles. Thus, on the one hand, Barr (2000: 86-87) cautiously endorses Auld's thesis, saying, it means that Chronicles and Samuel/Kings can be closer to one another— in type, in procedure, and possibly in date—than previous assessments would have suggested. This leaves open the date when the Shared Text was composed, of course; but it certainly damages the impression that Samuel/ Kings comes directly from some near-contemporary source. Or, in other words, if Chronicles is still thought of as 'a late book', it provides a kind of parallel in general genre for the idea that Samuel/Kings was 'a late book' too, at least in some degree.
On the other hand, Z. Talshir (2000: 248 n. 31) rejects Auld's thesis, claiming he 'discards, with no tenable explanation, the proof from the diachronic nature of the language of the Old Testament, Chronicles being an obvious witness of late Biblical Hebrew'. She also maintains that 'In the eyes of a philologist, the relationship between Samuel-Kings and Chronicles, no matter how one looks at it, is of a diachronical nature...' (Z. Talshir 1999:248, cf. 248-51 ).4 Auld has not yet given a detailed reply are sympathetic toward the view, that the composers of Samuel and Kings on the one hand, and those of Chronicles on the other, relied in part or in whole upon a common source: Edelman 2000; Friedman 1987:211-13; Halpern 1981; Harrison 1969:1159-63; Ho 1994; 1995;Macy 1975;Rainey 1997; Rothstein and Hanel 1927; van den Bussche 1948; E.J. Young 1960: 415-17; Zawiszewski 1968. 3. See Auld 1994, although Auld does not call the common source 'The Book of Two Houses' in this book. Auld's view first surfaced in Auld 1983, and shortly before the publication of his monograph examples of his argumentation appeared in Auld 1992; 1993. Auld has since responded to his critics and advanced his thesis in Auld 1995; 1996; 1998a; 1999a; 1999b; 1999c;2000a;2000b;2000c;2000d;2000e;2001; 2002a; 2002b; 2002c; forthcoming. Also see Auld and Ho 1992. 4. Knoppers (1995) raises a similar concern, but other reviews of Auld's work do not mention this issue, focusing rather on methodological, socio-historical and literary matters. Scholars mainly disagree with Auld over (1) the motivation for the author(s)/ redactor(s) of Kings, working in the context of the exilic or post-exilic period, to include so much material about the northern kingdom (e.g. the Elijah and Elisha stories); (2) the awareness the author(s)/redactor(s) of Chronicles may show for supplemental material in Samuel and Kings, which was not part of the common source used by these books (e.g. the Succession Narrative/Court History); and (3) the suitability of a shared story beginning with the death of Saul (1 Sam. 31//I Chron. 10). It is unfeasible to address these issues in this essay.
REZETKO Dating Biblical Hebrew
217
to this criticism (cf. Auld 1994: 9-10), but I hope to show that more work must be done on the language of these books before scholars can confidently affirm Talshir's evaluation. To accomplish this I shall (1) set the study of the language of Samuel-Kings and Chronicles in the context of contemporary debates on the language and composition of the Hebrew Bible; (2) highlight some 'late' BH features for which the conventional diachronic explanation is inadequate; and (3) appeal for the recognition of frequently overlooked presuppositions and for the application of more rigorous methodology in the study of the language of these books. 1. Framework The debate over the 'Tenth Century', concerning the history and historicity of Davidic and Solomonic monarchies, and the debate over the dates of origin of biblical literature, whether of the Iron Age onward or of predominately or even exclusively the Persian and/or Hellenistic periods,5 have included surprisingly few first-hand treatments of the linguistic issues. One noteworthy exception is the related stream of publications on the Siloam and Tel Dan inscriptions, but by and large most discussions simply make reference to the well-known Hebrew reference grammars and to the relatively few monographs on the history of BH, and then to the more recent contributions made by Knauf (1990), P.R. Davies (1995: 97-101 [section entitled 'Biblical Hebrew']) and Cryer (1994), and to the responses by Ehrensvard (1997)6 and Hurvitz.71 could now proceed to document the names and opinions of scholars who range from 'maximalists' to 'mini5. For recent discussion and bibliography see Dever 2001, Finkelstein and Silberman 2001, and the three published volumes of the 'European Seminar in Historical Methodology' (Grabbe 1997; 1998; 2001). The history and historicity of biblical persons and events and the dates of origin of biblical literature should not necessarily receive treatment together. It seems to me that scholars frequently confuse the realia of ancient Israel with their historiographic portrayal in the Bible, and wrongly assert that the closer a text is to the events it relates the more credible it is (cf. Danto 1965: 149-51). 6. However, Ehrensvard no longer holds the view that he expressed in this essay, which is the first chapter of his doctoral project (2000). Ehrensvard 1999 is the third chapter of this work. In his fourth chapter, 'Taking the "Late" out of Late Biblical Hebrew' (2000: 59-68), Ehrensvard argues that there is not necessarily a difference in time between the BH linguistic layers. See also Ehrensvard's contribution to this volume. 7. Scholars frequently cite his earlier monographs, especially Hurvitz 1972a and 1982, but see most recently Hurvitz 1997a; 1999; 2000a.
218
Biblical Hebrew
malists' and from 'early daters' to 'late daters', but in the end this would not change the fact that relatively few of these have published first-hand studies of the linguistic issues. Instead, I prefer to draw attention to some scattered statements of doubt concerning the linguistic datability of biblical literature, that are made by scholars who are not entangled in the current debates. For example, Murphy (1992: 150) on the book of Song of Songs: By the same token the date of the work cannot be ascertained. Dates before and after the Exile have been proposed, but none has established itself. As M. Pope [ 1977:27] has remarked, 'The dating game as played with biblical books like Job and the Song of Songs, as well as with many of the Psalms, remains imprecise and the score is difficult to compute. There are grounds for both the oldest and the youngest estimates'. The tendency of modern scholarship has been to assign a postexilic date. But the arguments, based primarily on language, are fragile.
V. Sasson (1979: 244) on the book of Ruth: Thus, it is our opinion that, despite an enormous literature on the subject, dating a Hebrew text on literary and linguistic bases will continue to be a most unreliable approach as long as our extra-biblical corpus of Hebrew vocabulary remains as sparse as it is presently.
Rosenberg (1986: 101-102) on Samuel's Succession Narrative/Court History: We should note that such studies often rely heavily on linguistic and lexical criteria. Yet to affirm the linguistic datability of sources may create more problems than it solves. Linguistic history itself, for better or for worse, is partly based on accepted views of literary history and is sharply circumscribed by the sparseness of the texts themselves. We simply know too little about biblical Hebrew to use linguistic criteria with any confidence.
Edelman (2000: 67) on the books of Samuel-Kings and Chronicles: Since neither narrative can be dated with any type of precision, chronological order is not a possible criterion upon which to base a choice. There seems to be a general acceptance that Chronicles is written later than Samuel and Kings and that its Hebrew reflects a later stage of development, but this impression is not supportable by clear documentation. There are not enough extrabiblical writing samples currently available to allow the dating of changes in the Hebrew language with confidence. An argument that the two could have been roughly contemporaneous in their composition does not seem impossible, based on our current, limited knowledge.
Olafsson (1992: 140 [emphasis in original]) in general and on the books of Samuel-Kings and Chronicles:
REZETKO Dating Biblical Hebrew
219
But as you might have guessed already, the key-word in all these studies is not 'Late Biblical Hebrew', 'the evolution of Hebrew' or the like, but datingl Now I would be the last person to suggest that dating is unimportant. But it seems a little premature to use linguistic typology or linguistic arguments in general for the date of composition of an Old Testament book or a part of a book, when the ground on which they stand is itself insecure. The differences in language between two books in the Old Testament may be due to other than chronological factors... Simply to assume, that Chronicles is the best representative of Late Biblical Hebrew in its 'purest' form, seems to me too easy; the differences between Chronicles and its sources must first be explained, and if they prove to be chronological, then, and only then, can Chronicles be said to be written in, or affected by, a clearly defined state of the Hebrew language called 'Late Biblical Hebrew'.
Garbini (1988: xv [emphasis in original]), a pre-eminent expert in Northwest Semitic languages and epigraphy, in general: The order in which the various chapters follow one another does, however, show how such a history could have been written: David before Abraham and Moses, Joshua after Darius, Ezra after Simon the Just; whereas it is no coincidence that only for the period before the exile can one talk of historical problems in the strict (or, if you like, traditional) sense. It is obvious that the dating of the biblical texts followed here is later than what one generally finds: sometimes it is discussed explicitly; at other times it is presupposed. It would not be inappropriate to remind anyone who is surprised at this that so far there is no evidence to provide a basis for the usual datings (those which can be found in the textbooks); they are only chronological hypotheses, when they are not merely wishful thinking.
The significance of these statements of doubt concerning the linguistic datability of biblical literature is amplified by the diverse opinions that scholars hold on particular portions and books of the Bible. Unfortunately, however, this diversity is frequently eclipsed by scholars' confident assertions of this or that view, and it is often 'overlooked' even in authoritative treatments of the history of BH.9 Again, I could multiply examples and deal with the 'Priestly Code' (P) and Jonah and the Song of Songs and Qoheleth and other portions and books of the Bible, but the following examples will suffice. According to Saenz-Badillos (1993:125) 'anumber of factors' support a late date for the book of Ruth, although scholars' 8. Olafsson (1992: 142-46) believes 'Late Biblical Hebrew' must be defined and described more strictly, and he gives some suggestions about how to proceed. 9. See, e.g., the third and fifth chapters of the significant contribution by SaenzBadillos (1993).
220
Biblical Hebrew
allotments of dates ranging from the tenth to the second century reflect broad disagreement. For example, the book is pre-exilic according to Campbell, Driver, Gerleman, Hubbard, Nielsen and Weinfeld, and postexilic according to Bush, Gordis, Joiion, Lacocque and Wellhausen. Again, according to Saenz-Badillos (1993: 125-26) the book of Esther is 'one of the latest biblical writings', but scholars' assessments of the character and date of this book also diverge widely. The book's language has been viewed as imitative of CBH (Driver, Polzin), LBH, that is, not archaistic (Moore), and proximate to MH (Bergey, Rabin), and the dates assigned to the book range from the early Persian (Friedberg, Talmon, Yamauchi) to the late Persian (Bergey, Berlin, Levenson, Moore—most contemporary scholars) to the Hellenistic (Striedl—most earlier scholars) periods. Turning to the Former Prophets, it is remarkable that there is clear disagreement over foundational issues in spite of wide consensus since Noth's Uberlieferungsgeschichtliche Studien (1943) over the concept of a Deuteronomistic History.10 Was the History first composed in the preexilic period (Boling, Cross, Friedman, Knoppers, Levenson, Mayes, Nelson, O'Brien, Provan, Weippert—especially the 'Harvard school') or in the exilic period (Dietrich, Hoffmann, Klein, McKenzie, Noth, Peckham, Smend, Van Seters, Veijola, Wurthwein—especially the 'Gottingen school')? And what are the scope and character of the (pre-Deuteronomistic) sources and of the (Deuteronomistic and post-Deuteronomistic) supplements to the original composition? For example, the extent and intention of the so-called Succession Narrative/Court History (2 Sam. 9-20; 1 Kgs 1-2) are hotly debated issues.1] In addition, most scholars on the one hand give a pre-exilic date to this pre-Deuteronomistic source (Blum, Brueggemann, Dietrich, Eissfeldt, Gunn, Kaiser, Keys, Naumann, Noth, Rost, Seiler, von Rad, Whybray), although there is considerable dis agreement between these scholars concerning the century to which it belongs; but on the other hand, Auld, McKenzie and Van Seters give an exilic or post-exilic date to this composition.12
10. This disagreement is helpfully documented in (and by the titles[!] of a few of) a number of recently published collections of essays: McKenzie and Graham 1994; de Pury, Romer and Macchi 1996; 2000; Schearing and McKenzie 1999; de Moor and van Rooy 2000; Knoppers and McConville 2000; Romer 2000. 11. See the essays by Blum, Dietrich, Kaiser, McKenzie, Naumann and Van Seters in de Pury and Romer 2000. Also see Frolov 2002. 12. Also note Linville 1998 which offers a Persian-period reading of Kings.
REZETKO Dating Biblical Hebrew
221
Most scholars in previous generations, and some scholars still today, assign the book of Chronicles to the Hellenistic era (333-175 BCE: e.g. Albertz, Benzinger, Bertheau, Curtis and Madsen, Driver, Michaeli, Noth, Peltonen, Wellhausen, de Wette, Willi), but today most assign it to a late Persian setting (400-333 BCE: e.g. Ackroyd, Albright, de Vaux, Japhet, Kalimi, Kittel, Klein, Kleinig, Myers, Rudolph, Williamson), although many also give the book an early Persian date (550-400 BCE: e.g. Braun, Craigie, Cross, Freedman, Halpern, Keil/Delitzsch, McKenzie, Newsome, Polzin, Rendsburg). Relative to the Former Prophets I note that 2 Kings closes with the thirty-seventh year of the exile, in the year Evil-Merodach became king of Babylon, 562 BCE (2 Kgs 25.27), and 2 Chronicles concludes with the first year of the rule of Cyrus of Persia, 539 BCE (2 Chron. 36.22), and thus slightly more than two decades separate the literary/ historical 'ends' of Kings and Chronicles. I also note that the common source which Auld has discerned concludes with 2 Kgs 24.20//2 Chron. 36.13, that is, with Zedekiah's rebellion against the king of Babylon, c. 589-588 BCE. Therefore, the terminus a quo for Auld's shared source is the early exilic period, and in theory it was supplemented by individuals or groups with very different agendas over the following decades and centuries. Further along I shall return to the evidence that scholars typically cite for dating the composition of the book of Chronicles. 2. Examples There are clear differences in language between the books of SamuelKings and Chronicles, and of course the language of Chronicles is also different from that used in other books of the Bible. The distinctive linguistic features of Chronicles and other 'late' BH compositions are highlighted in BDB, KB and GKC (e.g. §21-v), catalogued in commentaries (e.g. Curtis and Madsen 1910: 28-36), introductions (e.g. Davidson 1862, II: 85-86; S.R. Driver 1913a: 535-40;13 T. Parker 1843, II: 266-67, 445-4714) and dictionary articles (Brown 1898), and discussed in monographs such as those by Gesenius (1815), Kropat (1909), Polzin (1976), Kutscher (1982) and Saenz-Badillos (1993). It is noteworthy that these contributions characterize the differences between 'early' and 'late' BH as
13. Also see S.R. Driver 1913a: 448-50 (Song of Songs), 454-56 (Ruth), 473-76 (Qoheleth), 484-85 (Esther), 501-508 (Daniel), 545 and 553 (Ezra-Nehemiah). 14. Unfortunately, I have not yet seen de Wette 1817.
222
Biblical Hebrew
primarily lexicographical (e.g. Aramaisms, Mishnaisms, word replacements, semantic developments), then orthographical (z.g.plene spelling) and morphological (e.g. noun patterns), but rarely syntactical (e.g. verb syntax). It may also be added that Chronicles' differences in syntax mostly relate to matters of accusative, possessive, relative and infinitive expression.15 In contrast to the publications just given, I hold the view that many distinctive linguistic features of Chronicles and other 'late' BH compositions are stylistic idiosyncrasies devoid of any diachronic value or are explicable by (strictly speaking) non-chronological factors such as dialect, diglossia, and editorial and scribal activity. I shall return to these and other significant methodological issues in the third section of this essay. At this point I wish to highlight 16 features of 'late' BH for which the conventional diachronic explanation is inadequate.16 The data related to these features are abundant and complex, and their representation in biblical and non-biblical texts written in Hebrew and cognate languages should be examined in terms of distribution ([non-]occurrence and frequency) and function, and in view of 'replacement' in synoptic biblical passages and 'modernization' in later versions of the Bible (e.g. Samaritan Pentateuch Aramaic Targums). Consequently, I shall make available elsewhere the full extent of the data and thorough treatments of these issues, but my comments in this context are necessarily brief, restricted to the biblical phenomena, and mostly related to distribution.17 In a few cases I shall only cite one or more significant publications by other scholars, and at the outset I wish to make special mention of the perceptive third chapter of R.D. Wilson's A Scientific Investigation of the Old Testament (1926), and of Rendsburg's (1980a) review of Polzin's Late Biblical Hebrew (1976), in which Rendsburg accepts only four of Polzin's 19 features as 'LBH'.18 15. In contrast, JM (§3a, citing Kropat, Polzin and Hurvitz) says 'The variations in syntax are in general the least significant. Nevertheless, the differences appear quite noticeable when one compares texts separated by a long period of time. Thus the syntax of the post-exilic historical books such as Ezra, Nehemiah, and Chroniclesdiffers appreciably from that of Samuel and Kings' (my emphasis). I believe the evidence opposes this view. 16. In another context I plan to discuss the predicative participle construction. 17. I am well aware of the frequently cited comment in S.R. Driver 1882:203, 'they number words instead of weighing them', but I cannot give a thorough presentation of my research in this context. 18. He accepts Polzin's Al ('radically reduced use of 'et with pronominal suffix'), A5 ('the Chronicler exhibits a preference for plural forms of words and phrases which
REZETKO Dating Biblical Hebrew
223
a. Defective and Plene Spelling Barr has shown that variety of spelling is everywhere in the Bible, in every book, passage, and source, and concludes that defective andplene spellings do not attest the date or provenance of biblical works.19 Similarly, Young has argued that the language of biblical texts, including orthography, bears the marks of scribal intervention in its transmission.20 Sometimes this scribal intervention results in astonishing uniformity. For example, Kutscher (1982: 81) says 'Spelling in the later books of the Bible tends to be more plene than in SBH' and he cites as evidence the cases of the very common proper names 'David' and 'Jerusalem'.21 These two test-cases merit a number of observations, but I restrict my comments to the few that follow. On the one hand, it may not be surprising that the books of Joshua, Judges, Samuel and Kings have the defective spellings of these names almost exclusively (806 times, with three exceptions: TIT in 1 Kgs 3.14; 11.4, 36), but it is also interesting that the same is true for First and Second Isaiah, Jeremiah and Ezekiel (210 times, with two exceptions: DvCTIT in Jer. 26.18; Til in Ezek. 34.23). On the other hand, whereas Ezra (three times), Nehemiah (eight times) and Chronicles (261 times) have Til only, Ezra (48 times) and Nehemiah (38 times) have D^CTIT only, and Chronicles has D7K71T almost exclusively (148 times, with three exceptions: D^KTn- in 1 Chron. 3.5; 2 Chron. 25.1; 32.9). The conflicting trends in the spellings of 'David' and 'Jerusalem' in these three books, and the trends hold true for both the synoptic and non-synoptic portions of Chronicles, are difficult to explain in terms of historical development.22 the earlier language uses in the singular'), B2 ('le is used very often as mark of the accusative') and B3 ('Mm: "from": the nun is often not assimilated before a noun without an article'). 19. Barr 1985: esp. 29-33; 1988: esp. 125; 1989: e.g. 199. Barr's view contrasts with that of Kutscher 1982: 81; Saenz-Badillos 1993: 116; Andersen and Forbes 1986, and so on. 20. I. Young 1993: 86-87; and especially I. Young 1992b; 1998b; 1999; 2001a; 200 Ib, 200 Ic. 21. Similarly, see GKC: §2v,andn. l;Freedman 1983; Saenz-Badillos 1993: 116. These two proper names rank third and seventh in the Bible in number of occurrences:
mrr, *7mer, invi, mirr, nco, D—ISQ, on^iT. 22. Likewise, Barr 1989: 161, 165-66, and note his comment on p. 158, 'That Chronicles, in particular, was capable of a strong standardization, and one strikingly contrary to the use of other books, is made plain also by the case of the personal name "David"'. Rooker (1996) uses the spelling of 'David' as one of four examples to argue that Second Isaiah is a pre-exilic composition. Also see Rooker 1990a: 68-71. Halpem
224
Biblical Hebrew
b. Noun Afformative fl-1According to Kutscher (1982:43, cf. 81,84) 'Scholars have not yet drawn a clear historical picture of the development of the different nominal types, but the history of the nominal type built with the derivational suffix [-u:t], e.g. niD^D "kingdom", seems to be clear enough. It is rare in ABH and SBH, but becomes more common in LBH (Chronicles, Daniel, etc.)'.23 The comparative evidence for this abstract formation merits additional discussion, but again I must limit my observations to the following points. I am aware of 71 unique common nouns of this type in the Bible with a total of 380 occurrences. All but a third of these nouns occur only once in the Bible and very few can be contrasted with a non-Dl noun having a comparable meaning. The number of unique nouns of this formation is highest in Psalms (17), Jeremiah (16), Isaiah (15), Ezekiel (9), Proverbs (9) and Qoheleth (7), whereas, for example, the number is less for Samuel (5), Kings (4), Chronicles (4), Nehemiah (3) and Ezra (2). This distribution seems contrary to what is normally held to be true, and I suggest that topic and genre, and perhaps to some extent also dialect, are more significant than chronology for explaining it. Furthermore, the four nouns of this type that occur in Chronicles are rTO^E (28 times), fllli? (four times), miDT (once) and ni^SPf (once), and I think scholars' focus on miD^Q—the most frequent noun of this type in the Bible with 91 occurrences—over against riD^EE (and DID^DQ is a third related noun) is mostly to blame for the misjudgment of the situation in the Bible. A detailed look at all occurrences of these three nouns in Samuel-Kings and Chronicles is most instructive, and I emphasize the nearly equal number of occurrences of HID^D and PD^QQ in non-synoptic portions of Chronicles, but I shall take up this study elsewhere.
(2001: 59-64, cf. 57-72) argues in the chapter 'Dating 2 Samuel' in his recent monograph that most of David's story was written during Solomon's reign, and his linguistic evidence is limited to orthography, although he does call for a full-scale investigation of the 'syntax and grammar' of the book. 23. Similarly, see GKC: §86k, 95t; Qimron 1986:66; Saenz-Badillos 1993:116-17. Rooker (1990a: 56-57), uses the distribution of the terms nD^QO/mD^O as a 'classic illustration' of the methodological 'controls for demonstrating a diachronic shift'. In contrast to these scholars, a corrective statement is given in JM: §88Mj. Martin (1965: 28) and Cohen (1978: 80) also offer helpful comments related to mil?.
REZETKO Dating Biblical Hebrew
225
c. First Person Personal Pronouns "'DK am^DDK According to Kutscher (1982: 30; cf. 81, 82): One of the most striking features of BH is the use of two forms for the first person sing.: ""DN and TD3N. They are not used side by side in all the strata of BH. The early and poetical sections of BH prefer "DJK, while in later BH 11 DN has displaced *1N!$ almost entirely. The trend is especially conspicuou in Chronicles which includes a large amount of material that parallels the Second Book of Samuel and both Books of Kings which were apparently among its sources. Wherever the writer of Chronicles finds "DDK in these sources, he substitutesS]K; compare, for example, I Chron. 21,10, 17 with II Sam. 24, 12, 17.24
The percentages of 'early' ''DDK forms and 'late' ""3K forms may be characterized this way: "QDN predominates in Amos, Deuteronomy, Ruth, Joshua (69% to 31%), Judges (59% to 41%) and Genesis; -33H and n 3K occur an equal number of times in Samuel and almost equally in Hosea; and "'DK dominates in Kings (84% to 16%), in the remaining books of the Pentateuch (especially in the portions considered 'P') and the Latter Prophets, and in the Writings (except for Ruth—but almost exclusively in Song of Songs through to Chronicles). Both forms have an equal claim to antiquity (del Olmo Lete 1999: 104-107), and although the preference for ''DN in the Writings, and then also in post-BH, give the impression that chronology is the dominant factor, I am not persuaded that the situation is so straightforward for biblical literature. Consideration should be given to explanations related to literary (genre, rhythm, emphasis, character status), linguistic (dialect, diglossia) and scribal (standardization) factors.25 Furthermore, it is misleading to claim that ""DDK in Samuel and Kings is 'systematically' replaced by"" 3 K in Chronicles 'wherever' the former is found. In fact, if one considers synoptic passages, ''DDK occurs in both Samuel and Chronicles on a single occasion;26 n 3N occurs in both SamuelKings and Chronicles on eight occasions;27 "^N occurs in Samuel-Kings 24. Similarly, see GKC: §32c; JM: §39a; Kropat 1909: 75; Polzin 1976: 126-27; Rooker 1990a: 72-74; Saenz-Badillos 1993: 123, 125; Waltke and O'Connor 1990: §16.3 ("'Ditjt [in Samuel and Kings]...is systematically replaced by "3K [in Chronicles]'). 25. Helpful treatments of biblical usage are S.R. Driver 1882:222-27; Revell 1995; Rosen 1984; Schoors 1989: 71-72. 26. 2 Sam. 7.2//1 Chron. 17.1. 27. 2 Sam. 7.8//1 Chron. 17.7; 2 Sam. 7.14//1 Chron. 17.13; 1 Kgs 12.11//2 Chron. 10.11; 1 Kgs 12.14//2Chron. 10.14; 1 Kgs 22.87/2 Chron. 18.7; 1 Kgs 22.16//2 Chron. 18.15; 1 Kgs 22.21//2 Chron. 18.20; 2 Kgs 22.20//2 Chron. 34.28.
226
Biblical Hebrew
and n ]N occurs in Chronicles on only four occasions.28 Interestingly, all three situations appear in 2 Samuel 7//1 Chronicles 17. Finally, in the Bible as a whole I am aware of 14 occasions on which both forms occur side by side in the same verse.29 d. Preposition "2 + 3rd Masculine Plural Suffix JM (§103f) says 'Drill is appreciably more common in LBH than D3. In MH the former far outnumbers the latter.'30 Is there a clear trajectory within biblical literature? Looking broadly, and citing only books with ten or more occurrences for the sake of brevity: Deuteronomy, Jeremiah and Isaiah prefer the 'earlier' DD; Samuel (11 vs. 3), Nehemiah and Exodus prefer the 'later' D!"Q; and nearly equivalent instances of DH and D!"Q occur in Judges, Psalms, Ezekiel, Kings (6 vs. 7, respectively), Numbers, Leviticus and Chronicles (8 vs. 11, respectively). The book of Chronicles does not have a clear preference for either form. Furthermore, in synoptic passages, Kings and Chronicles share 03 once (1 Kgs 8.46/72 Chron. 6.36), and once Kings has DD and Chronicles has Di"D (1 Kgs 15.22// 2 Chron. 16.6).31 Finally, both forms are used side by side in seven verses.32 It is not obvious that a clear development in usage occurs within the books of the Bible, and I cannot see how a consideration of literary layers within books would affect this conclusion. e. Theophoric Names Ending with IT- and 1!TAccording to Japhet (1968:338-41) the long ending liT- is pre-exilic and the short ending iT- is post-exilic, the result of Aramaic influence.33 How28. 2 Sam. 7.18//1 Chron. 17.16; 2 Sam. 24.12//1 Chron. 21.10; 2 Sam. 24. Ill I 1 Chron. 21.17; 2 Kgs 22.19//2 Chron. 34.27. Van den Bussche (1948: 374 n. 39) concludes that Chronicles' "^N in 1 Chron. 17.16 is authentic, and that Samuel's ''DDN in 2 Sam. 7.18 is an archaism. 29. Exod. 7.17; Judg. 19.18; 1 Sam. 4.16; 2 Sam. 3.13; 20.17; Isa. 43.12; 45.12; Jer. 24.7; 25.29; Hos. 5.14; Jon. 1.9; Job 13.2; 33.9; Neh. 1.6. Of course, this phenomenon is even more frequent within a single discourse or passage. 30. Also see GKC: §103g. 31. The correspondence of ]!"Q in 1 Sam. 31.7 and CHD in 1 Chron. 10.7 is an interesting case which I cannot take up here. For now see GKC: §135o; Kropat 1909: vi, 61-62, 74; Polzin 1976: 52-54,99,103-104; Rooker 1990a: 78-81; Saenz-Badillos 1993: 119. However, contrast the view of Hurvitz 1982: 168-69. 32. Exod. 29.29; Lev. 11.43; 22.25; Qoh. 10.9; Neh. 9.29; 2 Chron. 4.6; 24.19. 33. Similarly, see G.R. Driver 1928; Kutscher 1974: 104; Saenz-Badillos 1993: 121; Torczyner 1938: 24-25. The evidence for dialectal variation cannot be taken up here.
REZETKO Dating Biblical Hebrew
227
ever, Ezra and Nehemiah unequivocally have IT-, whereas Chronicles generally has "!!T-, in independent material and in synoptic parallels where Kings has IT-. Japhet is forced to assert that in"1- in Chronicles is an archaism, but I agree with Watson (1972: 191) that her conclusion is tenuous. f. Paragogic He (71 This afformative may appear on masculine singular qtol forms of non-H "^ verbs without suffix, and on 1 st sg. and plur. yiqtol and wayyiqtol forms of non-iT'7 verbs without suffix. Some confusion persists concerning the distribution and significance of these verb forms in spite of many discussions.34 A frequent error is the failure to distinguish between the three types, but in this context the lengthened wayyiqtol form or H 7t3pKl should be the main object of debate. Scholars generally consider this verb form to be 'late' BH based on its occurrences in Daniel, Ezra and Nehemiah, its nearly exclusive usage instead of 7£DpN1 in QH, and its frequent appearance in the Samaritan Pentateuch. In the Bible the phenomenon occurs erratically on about 100 occasions, in 4% of all possible instances in the Pentateuch,35 20% in the Former Prophets,36 5% in the Latter Prophets,37 and 62% in the books of Qoheleth, Psalms, Job, Daniel, Ezra and Nehemiah in the Writings.38 The absence of the form from Chronicles has 34. GKC: §48c, d, i, 49e; JM: §45a, 47d, 48d; Bergstrasser 1918, II: 22-23; Blau 1971: 133-34; DeCaen 2001; S.R. Driver 1892: 74-75; Finley 1981: 243,260; Japhet 1968: 337-38; Kropat 1909: 75; Kutscher 1974: 326-27; 1982: 81; McFall 1982: 211-14; Morag 1988:154-55; Polzin 1976: 54-55; Qimron 1986:44-47; 1986-87:161; Revell 1988; 1991; Rendsburg 2002b: 32; Saenz-Badillos 1993: 121; Schoors 1992: 87-88; Sperber 1939:228-33;Throntveit 1982:202,204; Verheij 1990:85-86,100-103; Waltke and O'Connor 1990: §33.1.1c, 34.5.3b ('pseudo-cohortative'); Wright 1998:9, 34-40 (cf. his comments regarding H^tDpNl and spoken language). 35. Four times in total: Gen. 32.6; 41.11 (1st c. plur.); 43.21 (1st c. plur.); Num. 8.19. 36. Thirteen times in total: Josh. 24.8; Judg. 6.9, 10; 10.12; 12.3 (twice); 1 Sam. 2.28; 28.15(?) (cf. GKC: §48d); 2 Sam. 4.10; 7.9; 12.8 (twice); 22.24. 37. Seven times in total: Jer. 11.18; 32.9; Ezek. 3.3; 9.8; 16.11; 23.20 (3rd fern. sg.!?);Zech. 11.13. 38. Seventy-seven times in total: Qoh. 1.17; Pss. 3.6; 7.5; 69.12,21; 73.16; 90.10; 119.55,59,131,147,158;Jobl.l5,16,17,19; 19.20; 29.17; 30.26; Dan. 8.13,15,17; 9.3,4 (twice); 10.16 (twice), 19; 12.8; Ezra 7.28; 8.15,16,17 (twice), 23 (twice, Istc. plur.), 24, 25,26, 28, 31 (1st c. plur.); 9.3 (twice), 5 (twice), 6; Neh. 1.4; 2.1, 6,9,13; 5.7 (twice), 8, 13; 6.3, 8, 11, 12; 7.5; 12.31; 13.7, 8, 9 (twice), 10, 11 (twice), 13, 17 (twice), 19 (twice), 21 (twice), 22, 30.
228
Biblical Hebrew
figured often in discussions of the (common?) authorship of EzraNehemiah and Chronicles, and scholars have also debated which of these books reflects the 'real' linguistic situation (i.e.: Is the absence of the form from Chronicles an archaism?). It is rarely pointed out that the lengthened wayyiqtolform occurs in 1 of 15 possible instances in Joshua; 5 of 12 in Judges; 7 of 19 in Samuel; 0 of 14 in Kings;39 and 0 of 7 in Chronicles. It is often overlooked as well that the form occurs in 2 Sam. 7.9 (i~in~ON1l) but not in the parallel 1 Chron. 17.8 (TTHDK1). I concur with Schoors (1992: 87) that 'The total absence of this feature from Chrfonicles] is astonishing...' g. Syntax of Numerals Weitzman argued convincingly that postnominal syntax is a free variant rather than a diachronic shift from prenominal syntax.40 Nevertheless, on the basis of'substitutions' Weitzman (1996: 180) says 'Chronicles does indeed exhibit an inclination to place the numeral after the noun', but he misunderstands the actual situation in Chronicles. He says Herner notes 'several passages' where the Chronicler has switched the position of the numeral, and then on the next page he says the Chronicler 'frequently' changes the word order (Weitzman 1996: 178-79). In fact, Herner (1893: 69-70) cites less than a dozen synoptic verses, including Josh. 21.33// 1 Chron. 6.47, and the remainder are all in 1 Kgs 5.25-7.38/72 Chron. 2.9-4.6.41 The material in Joshua 21//1 Chronicles 6 is fraught with textual and literary difficulties, and Joshua is almost certainly the later edition.42 Indeed, Josh. 21.33 ("IT m^I? K/?K?) is secondary in this context (cf. Josh. 21.6/11 Chron. 6.47—both with mtBl? K/72? DHtf),and significantly LXX Josh. 21.33 has TroAeis SEKO: rpeTs, and the Greek version's consistent translation technique throughout this chapter underscores MT Josh. 21.33's tendentious reading. I must pass by additional comments on this passage to highlight briefly the concentration of the remaining occurrences
39. The preceding numbers differ slightly from those given by Revell and Verheij, which appear wrong on both the total occurrences and the total possible occurrences. 40. Weitzman 1996. For the standard view see GKC: §134; JM: §142d; Kropat 1909: vi, 50-53; Polzin 1976: 58-60,94-95,97,105-109; Qimron 1986:85-86; Waltke and O'Connor 1990: §15.2.2b. 'P' uses the 'later' postnominal syntax, like Chronicles, thus Hurvitz (1982: 167-68) assents to a non-chronological interpretation. 41. Herner (1893: 135-39) also discusses other differences in parallel material. 42. See the essays on these chapters, and on the relationship between Joshua and Chronicles, in Auld 1998b.
REZETKO Dating Biblical Hebrew
229
in the description of Solomon's temple construction project43—a very suspicious concentration of Chronicles' so-called tendency to alter the ??????? ???? ?????????? ?? ??????????? ??????? ? ??????? ???? ? ??????? textual and literary analysis of the usage in this material will show that Chronicles' 'mixed' usage is antecedent to revision in Kings.44
h. ZYX-pnri vs. -[bon ZYX GKC (§ 131 g) and JM (§ 131 k) correctly note that the appositional phrase ""[bftn ZYX', rather than 'ZYX "j^QH', represents the dominant Aramaic syntax (e.g. KD^D lyTTf), but is it really 'late' BH as they suggest?45 The ratio of instances of 'ZYX^QH' to '"[^ttn ZYX' outside Samuel-Kings and Chronicles46 is five to one, and noteworthy among many relevant observations are Song of Songs' use of the 'early' phrase twice and Esther's use of it 25 times, but neither book has the 'late' phrase. The phrase 'ZYX "f^DH' prevails in Samuel and Kings, occurring on 16 of 19 occasions in the former and on 83 of 86 in the latter.47 Chronicles has a nearly equal number of both expressions in non-synoptic texts: "j^Qn ZYX' appears 41 times, including 18 times in non-synoptic texts, and '"j^ftn ZYX' appears 21 times, including 19 times in non-synoptic texts. Synoptic texts share 'ZYX "f^ftH' in 23 of 25 cases, and twice the book of Chronicles has '"[^DH ZYX' where Kings has 'ZYX •fjori' (1 Kgs 11.1//2 Chron. 10.2; 1 Kgs 15.22//2 Chron. 16.6). In another context I shall argue on the bases of textual variation and a discernible literary polemic, which advocates 'King David' over '[King] Saul', that the phrase "111 "jbftn was standardised in a later version of the book of Samuel, thus 43. 1 Kgs 5.257/2 Chron. 2.9 (two cases); 1 Kgs 6.2/72 Chron. 3.3 (two cases); 1 Kgs 6.3/72 Chron. 3.4; 1 Kgs 6.207/2 Chron. 3.8 (two cases); 1 Kgs 6.237/2 Chron. 3.10; 1 Kgs 6.247/2 Chron. 3.11 (two cases); 1 Kgs 7.15-16/72 Chron. 3.15 (three cases); 1 Kgs 7.267/2 Chron. 4.5; 1 Kgs 7.38/72 Chron. 4.6. 44. Note, for example, the prenominal syntax in 2 Chron. 2.1 (two cases); 1 Kgs 5.29-30//2 Chron. 2.17 (three cases); 2 Chron. 3.9; 2 Chron. 4.1 (three cases); 1 Kgs 7.247/2 Chron. 4.3. 45. Also see Kropat 1909:74. Other designations show remarkable consistency in all supposed strata of biblical literature: TQ^O ZYX' (18 times) vs. 'ZYX HD^Q' (twice, Esth. 1.12, 15); 'tra ZYX' (91 times) vs. 'ZYX K'nr (once, 2 Chron. 13.22 [//I Kgs 15.7]); TW2D ZYX' (four times); '|H3 ZYX' (140 times); "ISO ZYX' (29 times); ""№ ZYX' (ten times), etc. 46. Isaiah-Ezekiel, Haggai, Zechariah, Song of Songs, Esther-Nehemiah. 47. The exceptions are 1 Sam. 18.6; 2 Sam. 13.39; 24.23; 1 Kgs 2.17; 2 Kgs 8.29; 9.15.
230
Biblical Hebrew
levelling what was a mixed state of affairs in an earlier version of this book. i. Assimilation and Non-Assimilation of Nun in ]Q Among many scholars both Polzin (1976: 66) and Qimron (1986: 30-31) consider the non-assimilation of nun as in !TT"fQ to be a LBH variant of rP3Q, and they relate the 'later' phenomenon to Aramaic influence.48 The preposition ]Q occurs c. 7700 times in the Bible,49 which number includes both Hebrew and Aramaic portions, as well as the long variants ^0 and -]QQ. Before the article, this preposition regularly has its full form ]Q, and is assimilated much less frequently, but in the absence of the article, the nun normally assimilates to the following consonant, thus resulting in -Q and -ft with dageshforte or 'virtual doubling' in the following consonant. I shall restrict my observations to the following points concerning )ft preceding an anarthrous noun. (I) Nun is assimilated in more than 95% of all occurrences of this construction in the Hebrew portions of the Bible, and contrary to what may be expected, only the 'early' assimilated construction is used in Ezekiel, Jonah, Haggai-Malachi, Ruth, Qoheleth and Esther, for example, and the 'early' assimilated construction with a single exception in each book is used in Proverbs, Song of Songs and Nehemiah, for example. In other words, there are more than 600 instances of the 'early' assimilated construction in these books but only several instances of the 'late' unassimilated construction. (2) Daniel and Ezra prefer the 'early' assimilated construction, and Ezra does so exclusively, in spite of nearly 60 examples of the 'late' unassimilated form in their Aramaic sections. (3) 60% of Chronicles' assimilated nun constructions are in non-synoptic texts. Also, this unassimilated construction in Chronicles is parallel to the assimilated construction in Samuel and Kings on only four occasions,50
48. Additionally, see BDB: 577; GKC: §102a-b; JM: §103d; Bauer and Leander 1922: 198, 642-44; Bergstrasser 1918,1: 108; Konig 1881: Part 1 of vol. II, 287-94; Kutscher 1974: 214; Saenz-Badillos 1993: 119; Sperber 1966: 3-5, 284; Waltke and O'Connor 1990: §11.2.11. 49. Bible Windows 7.0 (Cedar Hills, TX: Silver Mountain Software, 2002) finds 7717; DCH, V: 337, gives 7717; GRAMCORDfor Windows 2.4 (Vancouver, WA: The GRAMCORD Institute, 1999) finds 7688, 7569 in Hebrew and 119 in Aramaic portions of the Bible; Bible Works for Windows 5.0 (Norfolk, VA: Bible Works, 2001) finds 7563 in Hebrew; TLOT, III: 1436, gives 7550 for the Hebrew portions of the Bible. 50. 2 Sam. 6.12//1 Chron. 15.25; 2 Sam. 23.20//1 Chron. 11.22; 1 Kgs 9.22/7 2 Chron. 8.9; 2 Kgs 15.2//2 Chron. 26.3.
REZETKO Dating Biblical Hebrew
231
whereas the opposite phenomenon appears in 2 Kgs 14.2 (D^£nT~jft)// 2 Chron. 25.1 (D'^KJITQ). In addition, Chronicles has both constructions side by side in two non-synoptic texts (1 Chron. 13.5; 19.6). Finally, Chronicles has the assimilated construction on 272 occasions and the unassimilated construction on 54 occasions, which is far more frequent than in any other portion of the Hebrew Bible, but is it (phonologically?) significant that ]Q precedes "'DD in 38 of the 54 instances, ]Q"'DI1 in two, HIDD in one, and a word beginning with N/n/n/~l in eight?51 To conclude, Polzin (1976: 83 n. 110) says in an endnote(!) that 'Roughly one-third of its occurrences are in pre-exilic or chronologically questionable texts', and Sperber (1966: 284, cf. 3-5) wishes to relate the different constructions to two diverse dialects of Hebrew. Polzin's confession and Sperber's explanation call for additional reflection, but I suggest that the factor of standardization (and phonology?) has received insufficient consideration in the analysis of this feature. j. "pR Negating the Infinitive Ehrensvard (1999) recently argued that the frequency and usage of this construction do not uphold the common view that it is a trait of LBH.52 k. Collective Nouns Construed as Plurals The construal of collective nouns as plurals is frequently considered a 'late' feature of BH,53 but Young (1999; 2001 a) has investigated GU, mi? and bnp, concluding that collective nouns should not be treated as an undifferentiated group, and that current patterns of grammatical concord may be due to non-chronological factors. 1 and m. The Quivis Construction and the Double Plural Construct-Chain Formation Gevirtz (1986: 29) has shown that 'neither is peculiar to the idiom of LBH, but each finds precise counterparts in "Old Canaanite" dialects. The evidence furthermore suggests.. .that each of these features constitutes no 51. The situation is similar in about half of the other occurrences of the unassimilated construction in the Hebrew Bible, but mostly preceding a word beginning with
N/n/nn. 52. For the standard view see e.g. Waltke and O'Connor 1990: §36.2.1g. 53. GKC: §145b-g, 146c; JM: §150e,p; Kropat 1909:28-30,72,74;Kutscher 1974: 399; Polzin 1976: 40-42,94-95, 103; Qimron 1986: 83; Rooker 1990a: 94-96; SaenzBadillos 1993: 118, 126.
Biblical Hebrew
232
more than a free variant of what has come to be regarded as the standard syntactical construction'.54 Some books, however, do display a general pluralizing tendency, of which the assimilation of a singular nomen rectum to a plural nomen regens is an example.55 A case that scholars often cite, which is also one of the most recurrent cases in the Bible, is [D^pTI[n] ('able, capable, efficient, strong') as the second member in a construct formation. For the present discussion I leave aside the cases in which both the nomen regens and nomen rectum are singular, as well as the cases in which the nomen regens is "HK? or mpS, since in these latter instances the following [D'']lTn[77] is best understood as 'army' or 'armies'. The relevant possibilities are: VTI[n]
'E»N
Dentil] Vnp]
'KBR m3J
D-^-ntn] bTT[n]
mm ']3
D-'rnfn]
^3
Gen. 47.6; Exod. 18.21, 25; Judg. 20.44, 46; 2 Sam. 11.16; 2 Kgs 24.16; Isa. 5.22; Jer. 48.14; Nah. 2.4; Ps. 76.6; Qoh. 12.3; Neh. 11.6. — Josh. 1.14; 6.2; 8.3; 10.7; 2 Kgs 15.20; 24.14; Dan 3.20 (Aramaic); Neh. 11.14; 1 Chron. 5.24; 7.2, 9; 8.40; 9.13; 12.9, 22, 26, 31; 26.6, 31; 2 Chron. 14.7; 17.13, 14; 26.12. 1 Chron. 7.5, 7, 11, 40; 11.26 ('armies'?). Deut. 3.18; Judg. 18.2; 21.10; 2 Sam. 2.7; 13.28; 17.10; 2 Kgs 2.16; 1 Chron. 5.18; 26.7, 9, 30, 32; 2 Chron. 26.17; 28.6.
—
The preponderance of the unassimilated construction in Chronicles, and its exclusive occurrence elsewhere, are facts that seem in disagreement with the standard view concerning the chronology of the construction, as Gevirtz also argues. In addition, the alternation between the singular and plural forms of the nomen rectum in 1 Chronicles 7, as well as, for example, rrra 'tZBK alongside VTT mm in both 1 Chron. 5.24 and 12.31, or rmDDD nr in 2 Chron. 17.12 immediately prior to ^n mm in 2 Chron. 17.13,14,orD^p "IDN in 2 Chron. 26.14 just after ^H mm in 2 Chron. 26.12, are facts that suggest that the attraction of a singular 54. On the quivis construction see GKC: §123c; JM: §136d; Kropat 1909: 13 Kutscher 1982: 82; Polzin 1976: 47-51, 94-95, 98-99, 103, 112; Qimron 1986: 81-82 Saenz-Badillos 1993: 118. 55. For the standard diachronic view see GKC: §124q; JM: §136o; Kropat 1909: 8-11; Kutscher 1982: 82; Polzin 1976: 42-43, 112; Rooker 1990a: 75-77; Saen Badillos 1993: 117-18, 12
REZETKO Dating Biblical Hebrew
233
nomen rectum to a plural nomen regens in BH should be explained as free variation rather than chronological development. I shall offer a detailed study of these matters elsewhere. n. Wayyiqtol and Posf-Weqatal Scholars frequently affirm the gradual 'breakdown' of the 'Classical' verb system in 'late' BH narrative which 'heralds the future Mishnaic Hebrew'. In a lengthy investigation of this topic I have catalogued more than 30 recent statements describing (1) an increased frequency of past-vi^gata/ and a decrease ofwayyiqtol forms; (2) a routine replacement ofwayyiqtol by past-weqatal (and also 0-qatal) forms in synoptic passages; and (3) an elimination/reduction of the iterative/durative function of past-weqatal forms.561 shall briefly respond to these statements in reverse order.57 The third issue is beyond the scope of this essay, but even if one grants that such a function should be assigned to the verb form itself, rather than to the compositional situation as a whole, the occurrence of past-weqatal as a component of an iterative/durative situation is equally apparent among the 65 examples of past-weqatal in the Hebrew portions of Esther-Chronicles as it is among the 246 examples in the Former Prophets.58 The second point is shown to be false in passages shared by Samuel-Kings and Chronicles.59 On 658 occasions Samuel-Kings and Chronicles each has a wayyiqtol form. On 17 occasions Samuel-Kings has a wayyiqtol form and Chronicles has a 0-qatal form, and similarly on 17 occasions Chronicles has a wayyiqtol form and Samuel-Kings has a 0-qatal form. On only two occasions does Chronicles have a past-weqatal form that is parallel to a 56. See, e.g., Kropat 1909: 17-23; Kutscher 1982: 44-45, 75; Rooker 1990a: 100-102; Saenz-Badillos 1993: 120, 129. 57. For brief statements supportive of one or more of my responses see Dempster 1985: 266; Eskhult 1990:110-12,119; 2000: 84-85,92; Goldfajn 1998:136; Guenther 1977: 53, 196; Hughes 1970: 14, 23; Li 1999: 221; Loretz 1961; van Keulen 1996: 162-67; Van Peursen 1999: 137; Verheij 1990:92-120. The important contributions of Rudolf Meyer are cited throughout these works. 5 8. Actually, a significant problem with many publications on past-weqatal is their focus on usage in 1 Samuel, where the situation in which the verb form occurs could be construed as iterative/durative in about 41 of 51 cases. However, the state of affairs is very different in, for example, Judges and 2 Samuel, where only about half of the pastweqatal forms in each book occurs in a situation that could possibly be construed as iterative/durative (8 of 16, and 13 of 27, respectively). 59. For a diagram showing the numbers of all parallel verb forms in Samuel-Kings and Chronicles see Verheij 1990: 41.
234
Biblical Hebrew
wayyiqtol form in Samuel-Kings,60 but on six occasions Samuel-Kings has a past-weqatal form that is parallel to a wayyiqtol form in Chronicles!61 The following points are a digested response to the first statement concerning frequency. (1) The total number ofpast-weqata++++++++++++ in Joshua (91), Samuel (78), Kings (61), Ezekiel (37), Jeremiah (36), Exodus (33) and Chronicles (32).62 (2) The total number of wayyiqtol forms is greatest in Samuel (2372), Kings (2254), Genesis (2103) and Chronicles (1453).63 (3) As the following table shows,64 approximately seven to eight of every ten finite verbs in narrative in Samuel are wayyiqtol forms, and approximately six to seven of every ten finite verbs in narrative in Kings and Chronicles are wayyiqtol forms, and the difference in number is hardly significant. In discourse, however, Chronicles has a slightly greater percentage of wayyiqtol forms than either Samuel or Kings, but again the difference is insignificant. Finally, I shall argue elsewhere that the synchronic factor of diglossia, especially the associated notion of'code switching', accounts best for the sporadic emergence and functions of the past-weqatal form in the Bible. 60. 2 Kgs 12.11//2 Chron. 24.11; 2 Kgs 23.6/72 Chron. 34.4. 61. 2 Sam. 6.16//1 Chron. 15.29; 2 Sam. 7.11//1 Chron. 17.10; 1 Kgs 3.11//2 Chron. 1.11; 2 Kgs 12.12//2 Chron. 24.12; 2 Kgs 18.4//2 Chron. 31.1 (twice). 62. I have located 610 past-weqatal forms in the Hebrew Bible, which make up approximately 2% of all finite verb forms used for past time reference. 63. The smaller number of wayyiqtol forms in Chronicles is accounted for by (1) the significant amount of lists/genealogies in 1 Chron. 1-9, 23-27, and (2) the fewer number of finite verbs in 1 Chron. 10-22, 28-29; 2 Chron. 1-36. See Driver's comment on 'heavy combined sentences' (S.R. Driver 1913a: 539) and Verheij's discussion of Chronicles' greater average number of words per clause (Verheij 1990: 33-37,42, 119). 64. My presentation corrects two flaws in Verheij's otherwise helpful monograph. I give wayyiqtol forms as a percentage of all suffix, prefix and preterite verb forms, rather than as a percentage of all finite and non-finite verb forms, and I distinguish between narration (1 Chron. 10-22,28-29; 2 Chron. 1-36) and lists/genealogies (1 Chron. 1-9, 23-27) in the narrative portions of Chronicles. (I have counted the entirety of 1 Chron. 1-9, 23-27 as narrative, although 12 verses in these 14 chapters contain discourse: 4.9-10; 23.4-6,25-26,28-32. Also, note that in all of Samuel-Kings, only 1 Kgs 4 has list material comparable to the 14 chapters of this nature in Chronicles, but this chapter is 'verbally' insignificant since it has only five finite verb forms altogether.) Indeed, Verheij warns that 'the lists will therefore probably distort the picture of the use of verbs in general in Chronicles', but unfortunately he does not appear to have considered this factor in the chapter of his book on the issues discussed here. See Verheij 1990 16, and note the absence of his sigla 1C* and C* in Chapter 8.1 shall take up these and other related issues in another context.
REZETKO Dating Biblical Hebrew
235
Table 1. The Proportion o/Wayyiqtol Verb Forms in Narrative and Discourse Settings
Narrative Discourse Total
Narrative Discourse Total
Narrative Synoptic List Narrative Synoptic Non-List Narrative NonSynoptic List Narrative NonSynoptic Non-List Discourse Synoptic Discourse NonSynoptic Total
Wayyiqtol Forms 2204
168 2372 Wayyiqtol Forms 2139
115 2254 Wayyiqtol Forms
25
Samuel All Finite Forms 2795 1851 4646 Kings All Finite Forms 3026 1488 4514
Wayyiqtol Forms as a Percentage of All Finite Forms 78.9
9.1 51.1 Wayyiqtol Forms as a Percentage of All Finite Forms 70.7
7.7 49.9
Chronicles All Finite Wayyiqtol Forms as a Percentage Forms of All Finite Forms 56 44.6
630
911
69.2
97
269
36.1
624
950
65.7
46 31
462 316
10.0
1453
2964
49.0
M
o. TT1 and Temporal Sequences
Scholars believe that in 'late' BH TH declined in frequency as part of a decreasing use ofwayyiqtol, and that consequently the syntagm's role as an introductory or preparatory formula preceding temporal constructions expressed by D/D + infinitive construct was diminished. The evidence cited for this view is generally threefold:65 (1) TP Vs frequent appearance
65. See, e.g., S.R. Driver 1892: 89-90,156-57,187; Eskhult 2000: 91-93; Hurvitz 1974a: 28-30; Kropat 1909: 22-23,73-75; Polzin 1976: 3,45-46,56-58,60-61,94-97, 104-105; Rooker 1990a: 103-105; Saenz-Badillos 1993: 119; Wright 1998: 66-72.
236
Biblical Hebrew
in certain 'earlier' books of the Bible is contrasted with its decreased frequency, or complete absence, in certain 'later' books of the Bible; (2) TH CT» in the 'earlier' language (Judg. 13.2; 17.1; 19.1; 1 Sam. 1.1; 9.1; 2 Sam. 21.20 [//I Chron. 20.6]) is contrasted with ITi! 2T« in the 'later' language (Job 1.1; Esth. 2.5); and (3) TH 's presence in temporal sequence in the 'earlier' language is contrasted with its absence in parallel passages written in the 'later' language (1 Kgs 8.547/2 Chron. 7.1; 2 Kgs 12.11// 2 Chron. 24.11; 2 Kgs 22.37/2 Chron. 34.8). I shall briefly respond to several facets of these statements in reverse order. (1) A close look at the three synoptic passages routinely cited in the literature and at a fourth synoptic passage that is neglected shows that a trend of 'replacement' does not occur in Chronicles. 1 Kgs 8.54: 2 Chron. 7.1:
mbm m^mi
TH
2 Kgs 12.11: DmK"O TH 2 Chron. 24.11: DPIR-DI D'lbn T3 "[^QH mpB'^R jTWiTTIR N'T DID n m
Chronicles' reading lies within an expansion that in fact does begin with TTI. 2 Kgs 22.3: 2 Chron. 34.8:
IH1^1 "p^b rt№ mtOI? riDDED 'm ID^ab mt0I7 HDID^ ri3Km
Ironically, the construction with D + HDC? + numeral (not exclusively in this order) but without the verb, as in Chronicles' passage, dominates in the book of Kings 27 to 10(1). 2 Kgs 10.13: 2 Chron. 22.8:
NSQ Rim 1 RJttri DNHK {V3~DI7 N1H BSBra 'm
This counter example to the supposed 'trend' seems virtually unknown. This is the full extent of the synoptic 'evidence' for variation between Samuel-Kings and Chronicles regarding TH in temporal sequences. (2) On the one hand, it is impossible to address fully 2TK TTl in Judges and Samuel without looking at textual variation, the typology and stylization of biblical book beginnings, the relationships and divisions between biblical books, and the linguistic and literary relationships between biblical stories. On the other hand, TV! is used in the immediate context of Job 1.1 and Esth. 2.5,66 and a compelling case can be made that the (disjunctive) wording in each passage is related to the rhetoric of the 66. Job 1.3, 5, 6, 13; 2.1; 30.31; 42.7, 12, 13; Esth. 1.1; 2.7, 8; 3.4; 5.1,
REZETKO Dating Biblical Hebrew
237
introductions of Job and Mordecai, and this has absolutely nothing to do with historical grammar.67 (3) I shall make available elsewhere a lengthy study that I have prepared on ''m and on temporal sequences with and without this syntagm. In that study I have thoroughly documented issues related to statistics, semantics, stylistics, literary genre, first vs. third person perspective, discourse vs. narrative, synoptic vs. non-synoptic usage, translation technique, textual variation, editorial activity, other expressions of temporality in the Bible, and the evidence provided by extra-BH of the First and Second Temple Periods and by other Northwest Semitic languages. The results of my analysis are that (a) there is strong evidence for vernacular versus literary expressions of temporality in ancient Hebrew, and this variation is uniquely reflected in different portions of the Bible, and that (b) 'late' composers and editors ably created Hebrew texts using TH, and also in temporal constructions that were supposedly not in the repertoire of post-exilic Hebrew writers. For the moment I can confirm the gist of Rendsburg's (1980a: 70) critique of Polzin: 'The figures presented by Polzin do not show a tremendous decrease in the use of wayhi... That Chronicles uses wayhi less than Kings is still correct, but the difference is not as great as Polzin's statistics suggest.' p. Chronicles' Vocabulary I recently completed a preliminary study of common nouns68 in the book of Chronicles for the purpose of judging the methodological reasonableness of certain lexicographical research procedures, especially the notions of distribution and opposition/contrast, as advocated by Hurvitz and others. The relevant issues are numerous, calling for extensive commentary, but the following brief remarks must suffice in this context. The book of Chronicles makes up about 8% of the Bible and uses about 18% of the 67. On Esth. 2.5 see Anderson and Lichtenberger 1954: 840; Baldwin 1984: 65; Clines 1984:286-87; Crawford 1999: 886; M.J. Fox 1991:29,185-86; Levenson 1997: 55-57; Moore 1971: 19-20; Paton 1992: 166-68. On Job 1.1 see Alden 1993: 43; Andersen 1976: 78; Clines 1989: 9-10; Driver and Gray 1921: Part 2 ('Philological Notes'), 1; Habel 1985: 71,85-86; Hartley 1988:65;K6nig 1897: 511;McCarter 1980: 51; Pope 1965: 3; Rowley 1978: 28; M. Weiss 1983: 17-20. 68. Nouns represent the largest class of words in Chronicles, as one expects, and consequently they are most valuable for statistical and comparative analysis. There are approximately 1850 noun lexemes, 400 verb lexemes, and 100 adjective lexemes (including numerals) in the book of Chronicles. The noun lexemes include approximately 1180 proper nouns and 670 common nouns.
238
Biblical Hebrew
Bible's common noun lexemes. Ninety of Chronicles' 670 common noun lexemes do not occur in the books of Genesis-Kings.69 The most frequent of these are DTl^HQ ('cymbal', 11 times), IHIJE ('west', seven times), "USD ('bowl', six times), rniiSQ ('rampart', six times), fD ('byssus', five times), nQ"l# ('heap', five times), PIT3 ('castle', four times) and "1K2? ('rest', four times). Of the remaining 82, seven occur on three occasions, 14 on two occasions, and 61 only once. Regarding the entire group of 90: about one-third are labelled 'late' or 'later' in BDB, but the basis for these labels is seemingly their occurrence in Chronicles as opposed to GenesisKings; about one-quarter may meet the criterion of opposition/contrast with respect to another common noun lexeme in Genesis-Kings; about one-third may have entered Hebrew from or through Aramaic; at least a dozen are attested in Ugaritic; and not surprisingly, the usage domains are mostly the legal-administrative sphere and cultic-religious sphere. In the majority of cases it is uncertain what other term a writer of'Classical' BH would have chosen to use if the need had presented itself. Thus far my exploration of Chronicles' common noun lexemes has persuaded me that lexicographical data must be used with much caution in investigations and delimitations of diachronic strata in BH, and I shall deal with this issue in the final section of this essay, to which I turn now. 3. Method In the final part of this essay I wish to address five issues related to research on the history of biblical language, and in particular on the language of Samuel-Kings and Chronicles. My principal concerns are the recognition of frequently overlooked presuppositions and the application of more rigorous methodology. (1) The study of the language of Samuel-Kings and Chronicles should involve a comprehensive and unbiased investigation of features within these books as well as throughout the Hebrew Bible. It is commonplace to point out a single or several cases of 'replacement' in Chronicles vis-a-vis Samuel-Kings and to develop from this observation a generalized'impression or statement concerning the historical development of a particular linguistic feature of BH. In actual fact, however, the distribution and usage 69. In contrast, less than 30 of Chronicles' verb and adjective lexemes do not occur in Genesis-Kings. The choice of Genesis-Kings may seem arbitrary, but it is a fact that most scholars consider the majority of the material in these books to be pre-exilic. Of course, opinions vary concerning 'P'.
REZETKO Dating Biblical Hebrew
239
of this or that feature throughout the entire Bible very often does not sustain the view concerning chronological development that they are held to substantiate. In addition, the investigation of the language of these books should take account of both discontinuities and continuities. Discussions of the history of BH routinely take their point of departure from the 'Classical' compositions. At the outset, forms and functions in these materials are classified, and then a move is made to contrast the corresponding 'non-Classical' features. This procedure usually results in lists of 'departures' from the 'Classical' norm, many of which are then labelled pejoratively as 'non-Classical', 'degenerate', 'uncouth', 'peculiarities', and so on.70 In my view, this process is unsound, and in the end it prejudices further investigation and exaggerates the differences between the two corpora under investigation. (2) The study of the language of Samuel-Kings and Chronicles should be liberated from assumptions concerning the literary composition and development of these books, which assumptions also underlie most published studies of diachronic strata in BH. Very many views regarding developments in BH are based on the assumptions that Chronicles postdates (by a substantial lapse in time), utilized and changed Samuel-Kings. It is necessary to draw attention to four related issues, (a) This approach is rooted more deeply in the appraisal of Chronicles' ideology and historical reliability than of the book's language. In fact, Gesenius (1815) provided the detailed philological support for the conclusions concerning the book of Chronicles and the history of Israelite religion which de Wette (1806) had argued a decade earlier.71 (b) Kropat's 'pioneering' and 'landmark' Syntax (1909) is a cornerstone for the modern study of historical Hebrew grammar,72 and is routinely cited by Hebraists and biblicists, but Kropat's assumption was that the Chronicler used a proto-Masoretic text of SamuelKings, and consequently his modus operandi was to contrast the linguistic features of synoptic passages, (c) I noted earlier that most scholars in previous generations, and some scholars still today, assign the book of Chronicles to the Hellenistic era (333-175 BCE), but today most assign it to a late Persian setting (400-333 BCE), although many also give the book 70. For examples see the works that I cited at the beginning of the second section this essay. 71. For de Wette's views on Chronicles see Graham 1990: 9-34 (34-36 on Gesenius); Peltonen 1996,1: 69-82 (83 on Gesenius); Rogerson 1985: 29-33 (52 on Gesenius); 1992: 55-57. 72. Japhet 1993: 41; Rooker 1988b: 207; 1990a: 28-29; 1990b: 134; 1994: 136.
240
Biblical Hebrew
an early Persian date (550-400 BCE). Hence the stretch from the earliest to the latest dates suggested for the composition of the book covers a period of nearly 400 years. More than four decades ago Freedman (1961: 436) rightly declared concerning Chronicles that 'The scope, purpose, date, and historical value of this work are all subject to violent debate... bordering on chaos'. I would add that scholarly evaluations of the book's date are based primarily on historical, ideological and literary issues rather than on language.73 (d) I agree with Hurvitz that language should be given primary consideration for the dating of biblical texts, but I do not share his confidence that the dating enterprise has in fact been carried out effectively on this basis owing to literary-linguistic circularity. Hurvitz correctly asserts that certain books of the Bible were written during the (exilic or) postexilic period (e.g. Chronicles), but he assumes that others were not written then (e.g. Samuel). Or to rephrase this, he correctly asserts that certain books of the Bible are 'non-chronologically problematic texts' (e.g. Chronicles is not pre-exilic), but he assumes as well that other books are also 'non-chronologically problematic texts' (e.g. Samuel is pre-exilic). I hope to document Hurvitz' reasoning elsewhere,74 but the fact that other scholars have arrived at a similar conclusion concerning literary-linguistic circularity reassures me that I have not misconstrued the issue.75 73. This is a significant issue which I shall document elsewhere. The prevailing factors in most discussions are the literary relationship of Chronicles to Samuel-Kings, and the literary unity of the book of Chronicles, especially the discernment of primary and secondary literary features, with respect to 1 Chron. 1-9; 23-27; 29.7; 2 Chron. 8.3-4; 16.9; 26.15; 36.22-23—that is, 14 non-synoptic chapters in 1 Chronicles, and the words and/or contents of seven other verses. The evidence that is usually cited for the date of the book can be arranged according to tradition and canon; citation and documentation; history and ideology; composition; and language. The linguistic issues are the absence of Greek words; D']DTTK in 1 Chron. 29.7; mnoi in 2 Chron. 26.15; and generalizations concerning orthographical, morphological, syntactical, and lexicographical features, especially so-called Aramaic and Mishnaic elements, and most frequently with reference to the lists of features given in the contributions cited at the beginning of the second section of this essay. For detailed discussions of opinions concerning the dating of the book of Chronicles see Kalimi 1993; Peltonen 2001; Steins 1995:52-59,491-99. 74. A start can be made by a careful reading of Hurvitz 1973: 74-76; 1974b: 25; 1983a: 93; 1995: 3-4; 2000a: 144-48. 75. See the words of Edelman, Garbini, Olafsson and Rosenberg, which are cited at the beginning of this essay, and also Auld 1994: 9-10; Blenkinsopp 1996: 509-10; Cryer 1994: 198; P.R. Davies 1995: 101; Ehrensvard 2000: 61; Verheij 1990: 5-6; Wesselius 1999: 341.
REZETKO Dating Biblical Hebrew
241
(3) The study of the language of Samuel-Kings and Chronicles should make more space for the socio-linguistic factors of dialect and diglossia, both of which at times have proven to account for linguistic diversity more adequately than does the notion of chronological stratification.76 A handful of scholars have called attention to northern and/or colloquial elements in Chronicles and in other compositions traditionally identified as 'late'. Gordon (1955a; 1955b) pointed out Ugaritic parallels to the Bible that are limited to post-exilic prose, and argued that the language of (northern) Israel influenced the Hebrew of post-exilic books such as Qoheleth, Esther and Chronicles. Watson (1972) developed Gordon's brief remarks into a 14-page list of close parallels in vocabulary, grammar and style between the language of the book of Chronicles and Northwest Semitic texts, notably those from Ras Shamra. Hurvitz (1967) concluded that the 'shift' from WD to y"Q in Chronicles reflects increased post-exilic contact with the Northeast and the Aramaic language spoken there. Rabin (1958: 152) said Chronicles' deviations from the SBH of its Vorlage are 'evidence of changed stylistic taste' towards Imperial Aramaic. Adams (1987: 22) suggested that the linguistic differences between Samuel-Kings and Chronicles could represent diverse synchronic dialects of Hebrew, and Sperber (1966: 229-34, 501-503) actually argued this view. P.R. Davies (200 Ib) recently suggested that the difference in 'the two kinds of biblical Hebrew' is related to the diverse socio-linguistic situations of Palestinian and Babylonian scribes. Finally, Verheij (1990:29) discarded the consideration of dialectal differences and other paradigms in his monograph on the frequency of verb forms in Samuel-Kings and Chronicles, but in a subsequent reply to Cryer he admitted that historical development does not necessarily follow from his conclusions, and that he adopted this position because it emerged as a rather obvious one from the scholarly discussion (Verheij 1997: 42). I noted above that at least a dozen of Chronicles' 90 'unique' noun lexemes are attested in Ugaritic, including DTl^UQ, which is the most frequent of these, and which according to BOB and Polzin is a 76. For bibliography and summaries of work on dialect see Chen 2000; Rendsburg 2002a; O.K. Wilson 1996; Yoo 1999. On diglossia see Rendsburg 2002a; I. Young 1993. In several recent articles Fredericks (1996) and I. Young (1995; 1997) have convincingly argued on the bases of distribution and function that a number of linguistic features heretofore considered regional/dialectal variations must rather be attributed to colloquial language varieties. Fredericks' (1996:20) suggestion that 'What is northern about North Israelite texts is perhaps an attitude toward colloquialisms in transcribing that literature which is not matched by Judean scribal peers' merits considerable attention.
242
Biblical Hebrew
'later' equivalent of D^H^H. I also suggested earlier in this essay, and shall argue in detail elsewhere, that the factor of diglossia best explains the distribution and function of past-^qatal and temporal sequences without TH in these books and elsewhere. (4) The study of the language of Samuel-Kings and Chronicles should consistently consider explanations related to editorial and scribal practices11 for similarities and differences between these books, and this is especially true for synoptic material. My doctoral project is a textual, stylistic and literary analysis of portions of (mainly) the Hebrew and Greek versions of Samuel and Chronicles, in which I employ a textual-exegetical methodology for explaining the relationships and redactional developments of the accounts.78 As the project has advanced I have come to doubt more and more that the elucidation of chronological developments in BH can be undertaken apart from the consideration of 'higher critical' issues, and that it can be based exclusively on the MT.791 concur with W. Chomsky (1957: 30) that 'The literary control on linguistic change is particularly marked when, as in the case of the Hebrew language, the common literature is integrated with the religious traditions and experiences of the people'.80 Archaism, modernization, and especially uniformatization 77. See especially I. Young 1992b; 1998b; 1999; 200la; 200Ib; 200Ic. Also see Auld 1994: 9-10. 78. The twentieth-century breakdown of the 'textual-exegetical' endeavour is chronicled by Goshen-Gottstein (1983), but has undergone a resurgence in recent decades in the writings of a few scholars, most notably J.C. Trebolle Barrera (1980; 1984b; 1989; and 1982; 1984a for briefer studies in English). I discuss the work of other scholars in my doctoral project. 79. Hurvitz (1973: 74) is predictably cited in support of both these views. In another context I shall address Hurvitz' methodology in conjunction with his analysis of 1 Sam. 2.1-10//Ps. 113.5-9, in which he argues (contra Freedman 1978) that the former is the 'original' and the latter is an 'imitation' (Hurvitz 1985). My question for Hurvitz is this: In what sense is the 'text' or 'composition' of MT 1 Sam. 2.1-10 'preexilic' or 'original' in view of the clear evidence of the late stage of development in the MT Samuel version of the Song of Hannah? Among many publications on the Song, see especially Tov 1997. 80. His words resonate in the writings of many scholars, e.g., Bauer and Leander 1922:25-26; Bergstrasser 1918,1:11; Waltke and O'Connor 1990: §1.4.1. Ullendorff s comments concerning biblical Hebrew as a 'linguistic fragment' are pertinent (Ullendorff 1977). It would be helpful to review scholars' depictions of BH as relatively uniform or diverse, and to discuss the notions of Mischsprache and Bildungssprache. I think contradictory appraisals, or at least very different emphases, are related to the extent that a particular scholar interprets the data either through diachronic lenses or with a view to dialect, diglossia, and editorial and scribal factors.
REZETKO Dating Biblical Hebrew
243
('levelling, smoothing, standardizing') are significant issues. In addition, specialized ('standard, formal, high') literary language would have stimulated linguistic uniformity, the 'Classical' norm, whereas sporadic or sustained recourse to colloquial or dialectal language varieties related to genre or rhetoric would have given rise to linguistic diversity, or divergence from the 'Classical' form.81 I wish to highlight three significant related issues, (a) I am not certain that Chronicles' principal Vorlage was Samuel-Kings, but given that this is the scholarly consensus, it is necessary to keep in mind that Chronicles' Vorlage was not the proto-MT of Samuel-Kings. Earlier scholars, and some scholars still today, assumed that the Chronicler used a text much like that reflected in MT SamuelKings, and attributed the differences between the two to the composer's rewriting. A dramatic change in thought has come about in the past half century. Many recent commentaries on Chronicles acknowledge that the Vorlage of Chronicles was not identical to the text of MT Samuel-Kings. This view was forcefully championed from the early 1950s by Cross on the heels of the Qumran discoveries,82 and three subsequent Harvard dissertations on Chronicles (Letnke 1964; R.W. Klein 1966; McKenzie 1984) and two on Samuel (Ulrich 1979; Nysse 1984) have supported his thesis. In recent years others have offered corroborative evidence, and the cumulative result of these studies is that it is unacceptable to 'discredit' the Chronicler with many tendentious deviations from his Vorlage. (b) I argue in my doctoral project that many details related to the content and shape of MT Samuel, and especially that version's distinctive readings in synoptic passages shared with Chronicles, are late editorial developments that constitute a literary layer with a specific revisionary target. This conclusion should not necessarily come as a surprise since the book of Chronicles has held an inferior position in the annals of Jewish and Christian scholarly activity from the earliest times to the present day (Ben Zvi 1988; Japhet 1999; Kalimi 1998).83 This marginalized doublet was/is considered a contradictory repetition and/or supplement marked by less importance, reliability and authority, and worthy of less attention and use, than its counterparts in the Former Prophets. The evidence indicates that the book 81. Linguistic diversity related to rhetoric is mentioned or discussed in Baumgartner 1959: 228; Clendenen 1987: 405-408; Gianto 1996; Hurvitz 1983b; Kaufman 1988: 54-56; Rendsburg 1991b: 92-97; 1996; 1998; 2002b; I. Young 1992a; 1995. 82. See, for example, his reprinted articles in Cross and Talmon 1975. Of course, on the basis of the versions (esp. Greek) some scholars had suggested that this was the case more than a century before the discovery of the Qumran scrolls. 83. Also see Trebolle Barrera 2000.
244
Biblical Hebrew
was studied, revised, transmitted, and copied differently and less frequently than the books of Samuel and Kings. Consequently, the textual fluidity and multiformity that are evident in the early versions of Samuel and Kings are not characteristic of the early versions of Chronicles. The effect of all this is that many details in synoptic passages are more primitive texrually in Chronicles but are (ironically) more 'Classical' linguistically in Samuel-Kings.84 (c) The risk involved in 'blindly' comparing details in Samuel-Kings and Chronicles for the purpose of elucidating historical developments in the language of BH is amplified by several other limitations.85 (i) A common view is that the post-exilic corpus of biblical writings is mostly comprised of the books of Jonah, HaggaiMalachi, Ruth-Qoheleth and Esther-Chronicles,86 yet altogether these books make up less than one-fifth of the Bible, and Chronicles represents nearly one-half of the corpus.87 In my view these facts make it somewhat precarious to speak with absolute confidence about the stages of BH. 84. This is a fascinating topic that should be addressed along with the issues of mixed language and 'archaisms' in Chronicles, on which see the dissimilar views of Polzin 1976: 10,159;Hurvitz 1982:26-27 (and nn. 11-13), 80-81 (and n. 83), 108, and more recently 2000c: 185-88 ('The Methodological Aspect: The Merger of Old and New in LBH'). In an essay largely dealing with the views of Gerleman (1948), Talmon (1951: 146) says the book of Chronicles 'has long been recognised as embodying a systematised text. In this very book, more than in others, including Sam.-Kings, scholars have discovered emendations of late editors who intended to produce a linguistically and exegetically straightforward text'. On the contrary, in some ways MT SamuelKings are more 'polished' whereas MT Chronicles is more 'erratic', and this situation is probably due to later revisers' interest in the former books but not the latter, as Gerleman also argues. 85. Hurvitz' comments regarding synoptic material are also germane, although I do not think he would wish to apply them to the parallel passages in Samuel-Kings and Chronicles. In any case, he addresses the problems of a possible common source, difficulty in deciding direction of influence, and late editorial activity which could archaise or use material from earlier sources (Hurvitz 1982: 13-18). Polzin objects to the comparison of synoptic material, although curiously he sometimes uses differences in parallel texts for specifying late language (Polzin 1976:41,46,53,58,62). Some other scholars agree with Polzin in excluding duplicate passages, e.g., Rendsburg 1980a: 66; Throntveit 1982: 207. 86. Of course, the debate over some of these books, and also over 'P' and certain (portions of) other books in the Latter Prophets and Writings, is well known. 87. The problem is complicated further by the fact that Haggai-Malachi and Ruth show no clear signs of lateness: 'if the language of these texts can be post-exilic, it follows that all texts of this group can be post-exilic too, including Gen-2Kgs' (Ehrensvard 2000: 67; cf. 65-67).
REZETKO Dating Biblical Hebrew
245
(ii) The synoptic material makes up about 40% of the book of Chronicles, but only about 5% of Samuel and 15% of Kings (Polzin 1976: 27-28; Verheij 1990: 31). The comparison of this synoptic material is a standard modus operandi for defining the content and shape of LBH, since 'from a methodological perspective, it is easier to begin by using Kropat's technique' (Saenz-Badillos 1993: 116 n. 11). However, in my view the methodological 'ease' is outweighed by the limited scope of the material, as well as by the other complexities I have discussed. (5) The study of the language of Samuel-Kings and Chronicles should concentrate on grammar (morphology and syntax) rather than lexicography, and this focus is methodologically proper for investigating diachronic developments in BH in general.88 The balance of Hurvitz' evidence for LBH, and to a lesser extent the evidence adduced by Bergey and Rooker,89 is lexicographical. As far as I am aware, only Rooker (1990a: 58-59, cf. 31-32) has sought to defend this methodology against criticisms, saying, Indeed, no such hierarchical bifurcation of criteria exists in linguistic literature... Since this distinction is without foundation we believe lexicographical change should be recognized as being on equal footing with grammatical-syntactical developments in attempts to describe language change.
Rooker's remarks are unfounded. Research should focus on grammar for the following reasons, (a) Rooker's denial of a 'hierarchical bifurcation of criteria' is contradicted by general linguistic theory, and more specifically, by the concepts of complexity in language and synchronic variation in language. Language is complex (Crystal 1997: 83,95), and consequently it is customary to study it using models of language structure which may vary in their number of levels. The four-level model is among the most widely used: phonetics, phonology, grammar (morphology and syntax) and semantics (lexicon and discourse). On the one hand, these linguistic levels are interrelated, and therefore to some extent their demarcation is 88. Biblical scholars have effectively neglected the study of grammar, especially syntax, in diachronic investigations of BH. I shall not list the major exceptions here. For statements advocating the need to develop and focus on this area of research see Adams 1987: 7-8,14; Blenkinsopp 1996: 506,509-12; W. Chomsky 1957: 160; Cryer 1994:198; Eskhult 1990: 14-15,199; Fredericks 1988: 27-28,256; A.E. Hill 1981:45, 84-86; Isaksson 1987: 192-93; Levine 1981: 70; Nicholson 1998:220; Polzin 1976:2, 5-7, 15-18, 123-24, 159-60; Qimron 1992: 353 n. 10; Rendsburg 1980a: 80; Schoors 1992: 41, 221; Throntveit 1982: 208; Verheij 1990: 3; Zevit 1982: 494. 89. Bergey's (1983) and Rooker's (1988a) doctoral projects were completed under the influence of Hurvitz.
246
Biblical Hebrew
artificial, but on the other hand, the notion of levels seems to have empirical validity in psychological and neurological contexts. The widely used five-rank hierarchy of syntactic investigation is equally illustrative: morpheme, word, phrase, clause and sentence, with the morpheme at the lower limit and the sentence at the upper limit of grammatical enquiry; and beyond this the investigation focuses on discourse. Finally, language complexity may also be illustrated by discussions of child language acquisition, second language acquisition, and studies in aphasia. Turning to synchronic variation,90 it is simple to illustrate the orderliness of language in the realm of grammar as opposed to variability in the lexicon. For example, consider Noam Chomsky's 'Colorless green ideas sleep furiously', or a simple sentence such as 'I went to the home' with 'house' or 'residence' or 'dwelling' etc. instead of 'home', but not as *'Me goed to the home', and so on. The bottom line is this: grammar is more complex and invariable than the occurrence or non-occurrence of particular words, (b) Rooker's denial of a 'hierarchical bifurcation of criteria' is contradicted by the perspectives and procedures followed by scholars in the field of historical linguistics:91 Vocabulary items tend to be added, replaced, or changed in meaning more rapidly than any other aspect of language. (Aitchison 1994: 16) Words can be taken very freely from one language into another, with very little, if any, effect on the rest of the grammar or lexicon of the borrowing language. The vocabulary or lexicon is the most unstable part of any language, and words may be picked up or discarded as a given community feels the need. (Arlotto 1981: 184)92 Change in the lexicon can be largely accounted for by simple addition of items and relationships, or, less frequently, by the desuetude and loss of particular words: by hypothesis no examples of loss should spring to mind, but words like skylon,frut or teenage slang of the 30s might be candidates. The issue is not so clear-cut, however, with syntactic or morphological change. (Smith and Wilson 1980: 209)
90. See, e.g, Bloomfield 1933: 207; Hopper and Traugott 1993: 1-2; Trask 1999: 53-54. 91. In addition to the material cited here, further statements and illustrations are available in Bynon 1996:216,231; Crystal 1997: 330; Hock and Joseph 1996:215-16; Lehman 1962: 212; Liles 1975: 286, 293; Trask 1994: 72; 1996: 17, 309. 92. Common nouns are by far the most frequently borrowed class of words (Arlotto 1981: 187).
REZETKO Dating Biblical Hebrew
247
It is often said that there is less resistance to change in the semantics than in other areas of the grammar... so that meaning changes relatively quickly and easily. Most native speakers will thus be aware of semantic changes which have taken place within their lifetime: for instance, the English word gay meant 'bright, cheerful' before the 1960s, and now generally means 'homosexual', while ongoing changes in English might include the movement of the sense of flaunt towards that of flout, as in recent press allegations that businessmen have flaunted the laws on share dealing... According to Winter...'no component of a natural language is totally immune to change under the impression of outside languages. However, not all components appear to be equally susceptible to such changes'. In general, the lexicon is more easily and radically affected, followed by the phonology, morphology and finally the syntax. (McMahon 1994: 174-75, 209)
These statements affirm and illustrate historical linguists' view about stability in grammar vs. flexibility in lexicon. Languages are very tolerant of synchronic and diachronic change in the realm of the lexicon, and consequently historical linguists greatly prefer to deal with the more 'orderly' structure of language, (c) The lexical stock of the Bible is very restricted such that the approximately 8000 lexemes it contains must represent a somewhat limited portion of the vocabulary in regular use in spoken and written ancient Hebrew.93 This is also indicated to some extent by the absence, or the occurrence with a different meaning, in BH of lexical items which occur in Hebrew inscriptions94 or which are shared by Ugaritic and 'late' or post-BH.95 In contrast, the grammatical stock of the Bible does not suffer this limitation, (d) The vocabulary of'late' BH is not markedly different to that of the rest of the Bible, as indicated already in my brief comments on common noun lexemes in Chronicles and GenesisKings. Elwolde investigated developments in Hebrew vocabulary between Bible and Mishnah and concluded: This leads us into the issue of'LBH' ('Late Biblical Hebrew'). As before, if 'LBH' is nothing more than a terminological convenience for the Hebrew of the books written in the post-exilic period, it is innocuous. And if it simply stands for the 'three percent' of new words in those writings, it is both innocuous and trivial (unless of course the proportion of new words to old is much greater than one in thirty-three, which I doubt). But if it stands
93. Barr 1968: 224-27; Burney 1918: 171; North 1999: 204-207; Saenz-Badillos 1993: 74-75; Ullendorff 1977: 9; I. Young 1993: 170-71. Figures for each part of speech in the Bible are given in, e.g., TLOT, III: 1447. 94. For some examples see Sarfatti 1982: 73-80. 95. For detailed discussion of several examples see Levine 1962.
248
Biblical Hebrew for a discrete phase of the Hebrew language that is significantly different from preceding and succeeding phases, then, from a lexical perspective, it is unsound... (Elwolde 1997: 51-52, cf. 4S-55)96
(e) Changeability or unevenness in the lexicon of a language may be explained by many factors. Where do new words come from? Borrowing (i.e. language contact), creation, and modification (i.e. semantic change). What factors may account for the presence and absence of lexical items? Exact synonymy; gain or loss of objects, concepts and activities; social prestige or luxury loans; negative evaluation (i.e. to be derogatory); taboo, and so on. Consideration must also be given to a writer's level of learning; desire to archaize or innovate; aesthetic preference; style of writing; purpose in writing; subject matter; literary genre; and environment, including geographic location and association with a particular group or profession. Another significant factor is randomness of attestation.97 Dialect and diglossia may also explain variation in terminology. More specifically, northern (Israelian) and southern (Judean) dialects of Hebrew were unquestionably distinctive throughout the first millennium BCE due to regional necessities and influences and perhaps also to ideological differences and traditions. The notion of diglossia opens the door to viewing certain lexical items as characteristic of either the colloquial or literary realm of ancient Hebrew, and perhaps related to official vs. non-official communication, lower vs. upper class speech patterns, or Aramaized vs. non-Aramaized linguistic strata.98 In addition, the notion of diglossia also 96. Van Peursen's (1999: 356-57) analysis of the verb system in Ben Sira supports Elwolde's conclusion that Ben Sira is one of four 'Classical' Hebrew corpora, the other three being the Hebrew Bible, the Dead Sea Scrolls and the Hebrew epigraphic material: the verb system of Ben Sira 'conforms to a large extent to the verbal system of CH'. 97. This is true even for a language as well known as Akkadian: 'It is important to emphasize that these chronological and geographical categories cannot reflect the real distribution of each word's usage, only its attestations. The periods listed refer only to the texts from which the word is known to us, not to the periods in which the word may really have been used. In the course of preparing the CDA one of the commonest changes from AHw [Wolfram von Soden's Akkadisches Handworterbuch] has been the addition of new period attestations, and we can be confident that as new texts are found many of our words will turn up outside their presently known range of dialect and time' (Black, George and Postgate 2000: xiii [emphasis in original]). I thank Alan Lenzi for bringing this quote to my attention. 98. On difficulties in dealing with Aramaisms in BH, both identifying and dating them, see I. Young 1993: 54-63, 66-72, 73-96 (esp. 85-86,93). Views on a number of
REZETKO Dating Biblical Hebrew
249
opens the door to explaining some occurrences as intentional code switches for the purpose of emphasis, focus and the like. Finally, editorial and scribal practices may account for variation in terminology. The books of the Bible were formed and collected over a substantial period of time. Hence it is important to recognize that vocabulary is salient (i.e. prominent, as on the surface of a text), and as a result can be readily changed by later hands. The Bible is neither a unitary nor uniform composition, thus the process of formation of the biblical canon, stylizing and standardizing trends, urges to assimilate and dissimilate, and inner-biblical exegesis and polemic, may each have a part to play in explaining occurrences and nonoccurrences of particular lexical items. Therefore, the study of the language of Samuel-Kings and Chronicles should concentrate on grammatical features, which provide a more reliable and efficient basis for chronological analysis than do lexicographical features." 4. Conclusion One aim of this essay is to prompt scholars to (re-)ask certain questions: Is it possible to date biblical texts apart from historical and literary assumptions? Can biblical texts be dated on the basis of linguistic criteria? Should the language of Chronicles be considered the benchmark of LBH? Is there a linguistic basis for a chronological distinction between the language of Chronicles and the language of Samuel-Kings? The answers offered for these questions now appear inadequate in view of more thorough descriptions of the evidence and more frequent recourse to non-chronological explanations such as dialect, diglossia, and editorial and scribal activities. Another aim of this essay is to encourage a re-evaluation of the methods and conclusions of de Wette and Kropat, the two most pivotal figures for the literary and linguistic study of the book of Chronicles. Auld's thesis has caused some scholars to look again at some questions and answers regarding the language and composition of Samuel-Kings and Chronicles. lexical items are reviewed in Walker 1986. Hurvitz 1968 is a very important contribution. 99. Polzin 1976: 123-24. Other topics which I would like to discuss are semantic change in addition to lexical replacement; the definition, rate and mechanisms of language change; the inter-relationship of changes in different linguistic levels; transitional language with reference to Rooker's (1990a) analysis of Ezekiel; and mixed language and 'archaisms' with reference to Polzin's and Hurvitz' views, mentioned above. See Naude (2000c) for a helpful critique of Rooker's book.
250
Biblical Hebrew
I believe the best starting point for comprehending the relationship(s) between these books is a meticulous, comprehensive and dispassionate textual, stylistic and literary analysis of their content and shape. I also believe it will remain unsafe to label the book of Chronicles 'an obvious witness of late Biblical Hebrew' until such an analysis has been completed.
THE HABITAT AND HISTORY OF HEBREW DURING THE SECOND TEMPLE PERIOD*
David Talshir
An intriguing and frequently discussed development in the history of postBH is the co-existence—during a short period at the end of the first millenium BCE, within the small area of Jerusalem and its environs—of two distinct varieties of the language: LBH, including QH, and proto-TH (TH being the Mishnaic Hebrew of the Tanna'im). The present paper addresses this phenomenon once again and attempts to provide an explanation in historical perspective. 1. Biblical Hebrew in Second Temple Times Scholars usually tend to minimize the autonomous status of LBH. Many view it as RH in CBH garb;1 however, a thorough study of the latest biblical books—Koheleth, Esther, Daniel, Ezra-Nehemiah, and Chronicles2— reveals that their language differs from both CBH and RH,3 in grammar and syntax. As for the vocabulary, more than two thirds of new forms and phrases occuring in the late biblical books (compared with CBH) are absent from the literature of the Tanna'im.4 The contemporary prophets underscore the difficult conditions obtaining at that time and hindering genuine change or progress: 'You have sowed * For a previous Hebrew version of this study, see D. Talshir 1993. 1. Segal (1936:12) evaluates the language of the late biblical books in the following terms: 'There is no doubt that Biblical Hebrew was no longer the spoken tongue of their authors, but rather a literary language. They learned it and endeavoured to use it artificially.' Rabin (1970: 316) repeats this almost verbatim in his synoptic article on Hebrew. Kutscher (1982: 48) maintains: 'Most of the new verbs and forms that show up in LBH are common in MH.' See also Hurvitz 1997b: 24-25. 2. Except for Koheleth, these books reflect some connection to Babylon. 3. See, e.g., D. Talshir 1986; 1987a. 4. See, in the meantime, D. Talshir 1987a: 163-64.
252
Biblical Hebrew
much and brought in little... That is why the skies above you have withheld moisture and the earth has withheld its yield' (Hag. 1.6-10). Zechariah too speaks of'a day of small beginnings' (4.10). This situation persisted even decades later, as reported by Hananiah, Nehemiah's brother: 'The survivors who survived the captivity there in the province are in dire trouble and disgrace' (Neh. 1.3). Perhaps one of the reasons for this was the limited quantity of the first returning exiles in the sixth century BCE. Archeological evidence shows that the land of Judah was thinly populated throughout the whole of the sixth century BCE,5 and the first returnees of the last third of the sixth century did not leave their mark on local cultural patterns (E. Stern 1977). In contrast, the return migration of the fifth century BCE in Ezra's time entailed real change in many respects. The archeological evidence shows a large building boom with accelerated settlement in already existing population centers beside the establishment of new centers.6 The difference between the previous situation and the new one can be clearly observed in the realm of material culture. From the fifth century onward, architectonic innovations in building methods may also be noted. New and diversified tools and vessels made of metal and clay increase. Tools for arts and crafts emerge,7 as do new implements of worship, coins of various kinds, and a variegated system of weights. Changes in the political field are attested by stamp seals and by coins with a unique style (see E. Stern 1983), and by a system of fortifications set up along the border on the south and west of the Province of Yehud which attest to the existence of a strong political leadership which had arisen in Yehud in the middle of the fifth century BCE.8
The books of Ezra-Nehemiah also testify to a substantial change in Yehud in this period. The leaders—Ezra and Nehemiah—are described as active in both building and settlement, as well as in social and religious reforms.9 The returnees seem to have been the majority of the Judean 5. E. Stern 1984: 82-83. He is inclined to accept Alt's view that Yehud was not an independent administrative unit from the time of Zerubbabel until the time of Nehemiah. See also Weinberg 2000: 308. 6. As detailed in E. Stern 1977. 7. E. Stern (1982: 4) indicates that even with respect to the models of winedrinking vessels, the Persian period is divided into two sub-periods. The dividing line comes towards the end of the fifth century BCE. 8. See E. Stern 1977: 22-23; Kallai 1983: 78. 9. Such as the expulsion of non-Judean wives (Ezra 10; Neh. 13) and making the pledge (Neh. 10.1). Baer (1964: 310) points out that the sanctified custom of making
TALSHIR The Habitat and History of Hebrew
253
population, since the people is referred to as KTIpH IT1T ('the holy seed', Ezra 9.2), H^U bnp ('the congregation of the returning exiles', Ezra 10.8), and ^tniZT IT1T ('the stock of Israel', Neh. 9.2).10 A significant national awakening took place in the middle of the fifth century BCE in the Judean communities still in exile. Bickermann (1978) shows that the long-standing Judean inhabitants of Nippur, most of whom had clearly non-Judean names (chiefly Babylonian), suddenly—around the middle of the fifth centuiy—begin giving their children Judean theophoric names.1' This bears witness to a trend against syncretism and to an intensified national consciousness.12 The national awakening was probably encouraged by Artaxerxes I who wanted to settle loyal Judeans in Yehud after the pact with Greece in 460 BCE (Tadmor 1969:165; M. Smith 1971: 127). Thus, both biblical and archeological evidence suggests that the first groups of returnees at the beginning of the Persian period did not bring about a substantial change in the Judean way of life. Despite the encouragement of the Second Temple prophets and the great hopes entertained around the rebuilding of the Temple, no large groups of returnees from Babylon reached Yehud, and hence no noticeable change materialized. Only several generations later, in the middle of the fifth century BCE, did a great national awakening occur among the Judean exiles of Babylonia. Now, under the auspices of a firm leadership, thousands of returnees suffused with great enthusiasm arrived and brought about a change in the way the wood-offering was accepted in the time of Nehemiah (Neh. 10.35), and was in effect until the time of the destruction of the Temple. Mantel (1983: 46, 224) claims that among the innovations of Ezra was the application of the law of the priests to every man in Israel. Hence the ban on marrying non-Judean women. 10. Talmon (1983: 36) argues that since the returnees called themselves 'Sons of the Exile', the term 'exile', which is negative in nature, gained a positive meaning. It was now viewed as a kind of honorific title separating those who had merited making a new covenant with their God from the inhabitants that did not have a part in the Covenant. 11. For example, Bekuballit calls his son by the name of Nathania. Accordingly, names such as Zerubbabel and Sheshbazzar characterize the period prior to the turnabout, while no pagan names appear among those who returned with Ezra, several generations later. See Bickermann 1984: 356. 12. M. Smith (1971) argues that, in the period of the Return, the people were divided into two parties: the local inhabitants—mu~l^n "013 ('the people of the land')— who did not go into captivity and were syncretistic, and the returnees—~h"\yn ""3D ('sons of the exile')—who belonged to the 'Yahweh alone' party. Eventually, at the time of Nehemiah, the influence of the 'sons of the exile' increased and they pushed their opponents aside.
254
Biblical Hebrew
of life in the country by settling in large numbers throughout all parts of Yehud and by a real cultural and social revolution.13 Linguistic evidence would also seem to support a turning point towards the middle of the fifth century rather than during the first waves of return. The prevalent opinion among scholars is that the borderline dividing CBH, that is 'Golden Age' Hebrew, from LBH, that is 'Silver Age' Hebrew, is the period of the first wave of returning exiles. In Hurvitz' words: In the sixth century BCE a very significant turn took place in the history of the Hebrew language; in texts that were written thereafter, clearly distinctive linguistic traits show up that cannot be found in the earlier Hebrew sources.14
However, it is difficult to detect a substantial linguistic change in the texts attributed to the sixth century BCE. The language of books written during the exile and at the beginning of the Second Temple period does not differ significantly from CBH. While several late traits appear in books such as Haggai, Zechariah, or deutero-Isaiah, their language does not really diverge from CBH. S.R. Driver made this point clear: The real change in Hebrew style does not begin till a later age altogether; many parts of Ezek. (e.g. c[hapter] 20) and even Haggai and Zechariah, do not show more substantial signs of lateness than P. The change is beginning (c. 450) in the memoirs of Nehemiah and in Malachi; but Aramaisms and other marks of lateness (esp. in syntax) are abundant only in works written after this date—Esther, Chron., Eccl., etc.15
CBH continued to be the language of Yehud throughout the exile and, in fact, until the return of Ezra in the middle of the fifth century. The turning 13. The number of returning exiles in the biblical lists of returnees surpasses 40,000, a number that probably comprises various groups of returning exiles. See Talmon 1983: 35. Bright (1960: 344) assumes that the list of returnees in Ezra 2 (= Neh. 7) actually refers to the exiles who returned with Ezra. Since the archeological evidence shows a far-reaching change in material culture that began in the middle of the fifth century BCE, and especially the great expansion of the Judean population in this period, there are grounds to assume that the lion's share of the returnees mentioned in the genealogical lists were from the time of Ezra and Nehemiah, and that their numbers in relation to the number of local inhabitants of Judah in that period were relatively large. 14. Hurvitz 1983c: 210. Ben Yehuda (1948: 83) observes: 'The destruction of the kingdom of Judah, which was a political break of the nation, was likewise a linguistic break'. 15. S.R. Driver 1913a: 156; Ben Yehuda 1948: 90-95; Torrey 1930: 85.
TALSHIR The Habitat and History of Hebrew
255
point in the linguistic development of Hebrew did not come about with the returnees during the reigns of Cyrus or Darius, but rather about four generations after Zerubbabel, in the reign of Artaxerxes I, as a large and dominant group of exiles made their way from Babylonia. The exiles in the time of Jehoiachin, Zedekiah and 'Second Isaiah' adhered to CBH, but their language—cut off from its source of growth—gradually developed in Babylonia, imbibing its unique traits from the Aramaic speaking environment. The first contact between the language of the exiles and that of the local inhabitants of Judah, after only some 50 years of exile, did not occasion significant linguistic changes. After all: 'Many of the.. .old men who had seen the first house' were present at 'the founding of this house' (Ezra 3.12). Things were different in the second encounter—in the fifth century—between the local Hebrew and the language of the returnees: after almost a century in Babylonia, the changes in the former were many and significant. We may say by way of conjecture: the returnees in Ezra's time, whose parents had had time to grow accustomed over the years to the way of life in Babylonia, abandoned their places of residence in masses, not for economic reasons, but for ideological ones. Once given the opportunity, they preferred to live once again in their own homeland and close to the Lord's Temple. As already mentioned, their national awakening and their religious zeal are attested, both by their return to Judean theophoric names in exile and by extreme socio-religious reforms. This may indicate that the returnees were active in Judah, and even if they did not carry the local inhabitants along in their enthusiasm, they were able to impose their will on them.16 The activities of the returnees from Babylonia were a combination of extreme conservatism and far-reaching innovations (E. Stern 1977: 24). Apparently, this was also the gist of their language. They retained the structure of the language, patterns, modes of expression, but at the same time produced variegated grammatical and lexical innovations. It seems that the Babylonian exiles played a considerable role in the development of LBH; without their energetic influence, Hebrew would have developed differently.
16. Grintz (1969: 36) rightly pointed out that all the great leaders from the time of the Return to Zion until the time of Nehemiah were Babylonian exiles rather than local inhabitants.
256
Biblical Hebrew 2. The Borders of the Province ofYehud
What is the origin of TH, and how did the substantial gap between LBH and TH—in both grammar and vocabulary—come about? Two traits stand out among the characteristics of TH: its suitability to the everyday needs of a spoken language and its being a systematic, homogenous language. In order for such an organized and structured language to be created, a period of hundreds of years of crystallization is required. The only reasonable explanation would be that TH and LBH existed side by side for hundreds of years. a. The Separation of the Lowlands ofJudahfrom Yehud There are several pieces of evidence indicating that from the Persian to the Hasmonean period the western borderline of the Province ofYehud was located on the slopes of'the mountain country' of Judah, while to the west of it, between the Yarkon on the north and Nahal Sorek on the south, the land belonged to another province (Avi-Yonah 1984: 22). This political separation was probably based on the natural border that divides 'the mountain country' ("inn) from 'the lowlands' (n^SO!).17 Archeological evidence of the Persian period clearly shows that, as Stern puts it: 'a great distinction existed at that time between the material culture of the Judean mountain country and that of the lowlands, where a completely different international culture was found' (E. Stern 1977:24). And more emphatically, 'the boundary between these two cultural regions is often very sharp, almost like the boundary between two countries. Without understanding this division of Eretz Israel into two parts, it is almost impossible to understand the internal development of the culture of the [Persian] period' (E. Stern 1983: 136). In recent years coins from the Persian period have been discovered bearing the name TTCE'N.18 Just as 1!T coins19 and fHOft1 coins20 were the official coins of the governor of the province, Ashdod coins attest to the existence of a province by the name of Ashdod in the Persian period. In 17. See Finkelstein 1980:341; Finkelstein and Silberman 2001:354-55; Rosenfeld 1984: 372-76; Rainey 1983: 2, 18-19. 18. See Meshorer 1976; 1989. Meshorer has kindly informed me that further coins of the same kind from the Persian period have been found bearing the abbreviated name I2?N (= Ashdod). 19. Later 11H1, or mrr. See Kindler 1974; Rappaport 1980; Kochman 1982. 20. See Meshorer and Kedar 1991: 13-14. Gaza and Ashkelon had a special status at that period, and this is reflected in their coins as well.
TALSHIR The Habitat and History of Hebrew
257
the year 711 BCE, the Assyrian king Sargon conquered Philistia and made it into 'the province of Ashdod' (since, at that time, this city had hegemony over Philistia).21 However, later on in the Assyrian period, and afterwards in the Babylonian period, there was a semi-independent government in Philistia (see Tadmor 1973: 72) although the Hebrew 'Mesad Hashavyahu ostracon' found in Yavne-Yam suggests that at least part of the territory was under the rule of Judah, at the end of the seventh century BCE. After Judah lost its independence, inhabitants of Philistia settled in the Shephelah, west of Judah (see Liver and Stem 1961: 5-11) and later expanded eastwards, taking over the northern Shephelah of Judah, referred to in the Mishnah as Th nb'SID ('the lowlands of Lod', m. Sebu. 9.2).22 This situation went on in the Persian period. Ashdod was a province next to the province of Yehud (and that of Samaria),23 and its inhabitants were mainly the autochthonous population (Canaanite-Judean) along with Phoenicians24 and foreigners.25 The line of fortresses from the fifth century BCE, which protected the province of Yehud from Philistia in the west and Edom in the south (Beth Zur, Adullam, Azekah, and Jarmuth), and the distribution of Yehud stamp seals and coins over this area, indicate that the western border of Yehud passed along the juncture of the mountain country of Judah with its lowlands (Avi-Yonah 1984: 22).
21. See Forrer 1920: 63; Alt 1931: 72. 22. Klausner (1949: 183) suggests that there are hints of the expansion of the Philistines at that time in Ezekiel's prophecy: 'Because the Philistines.. .acted vengefully... I will stretch out my hand against the Philistines and cut off the Cherethites and wipe out the last survivors of the seacoast' (25.15-16). In any event, there is no archeological evidence of destruction and uprooting of the population living in Philistia in the Persian period. See Bar-Kochva 1980: 171-72. 23. Negev (1972: 33) argues that, in the Persian period, Ashdod served as the capital of a province that included Judah and Philistia. In his view the tenth century BCE in Ashdod was a period of transition from Philistine culture and language to a Semitic dialect and Canaanite culture. 24. The Eshmunazar inscription from the fifth century BCE attests to the Phoenician expansion southwards to Joppa. The area is described as 'the great grain districts', probably referring to the economic hinterland at the disposal of the coastal cities Dor and Joppa. See Schwartz 1986: 34. Phoenician inscriptions from the Hellenistic period discovered at Maresha suggest a trend of Phoenician expansion eastwards. 25. Avi-Yonah (1984:222) points out that the metropolis of the district of Ashdod in the Ptolemaic period was Jabneh. Schwartz (1989: 11-12) suggests that the area of Lod was exterritorial in the Persian period.
258
Biblical Hebrew
b. The Lists of Returning Exiles The lists of returning exiles and Judean settlers in Ezra-Nehemiah are not uniform. The inconsistencies, however, are understandable considering that there was no perfect match between the area of Judean settlement in general and the area that was subject to the control of the province of Yehud, that is, the Judean settlement exceeded the borders of the administrative unit. The list of builders of the city wall in Nehemiah 3 seems to be an authentic list that reflects its time; it is based on an administrative division of Yehud into districts (and half districts) and includes solely the mountain country of Judah.26 The settlements mentioned in Neh. 11.25-30 are partly outside the bounds of Yehud: places such as Beer-sheba, Kiriath-arba, Dibon, and Ziqlag pertain to the region of Idumea, as proven by archeological evidence.27 Nehemiah 11.30-36, which details the settlements in Benjamin's tribal territory, likewise includes settlements—Lod, Hadid, and Ono—that were populated by Benjaminites but were outside the bounds of Yehud. Zechariah seems to allude to the previous situation: 'Look, this is the message that the Lord proclaimed through the earlier prophets, when Jerusalem and the towns about her were peopled and tranquil, when the Negeb and the Shephelah were peopled' (Zech. 7.7). In other words, in contrast to the wretched situation of Judah in Zechariah's time, the Negev and the Shephelah had once been populated by Judeans. However, the lists of returning exiles in Ezra 2.30 (= Neh. 7.37; see Clines 1984:25) and the list of Judean settlements in Neh. 11.33-35 show that the exiles returned from Babylonia to their homesteads in the lowlands of Lod as well, although they were outside the political borders of Yehud.28 c. Evidence from the Hellenistic Period
The lowlands were apparently separated from Yehud administratively and politically until Hasmonean times. Ben Sira may already allude to the invasion of the inhabitants of Philistia into the northern lowlands of Judah, together with the Edomite expansion northwards and westwards: 'With 26. Contra Kallai, who greatly expands the western borders of the districts of Mizpeh and Beth-haCherem. See Kallai 1960: 87-94. 27. Avi-Yonah 1984: 19-20. E. Stern (1984: 85) claims that the list reflects the wishful thinking on the part of the author and that it does not reflect reality. 28. Neh. 4.1-6 also implies that Judeans lived within a non-Judean population: 'When Sanballat and Tobiah, and the Arabs, the Ammonites, and the Ashdodites heard...; When the Judeans living among them would arrive.'
TALSHIR The Habitat and History of Hebrew
259
two nations my soul is vexed, and the third is not even a people: those who live in Seir and Philistia and the rascally people that lives in Shechem' (Ben Sira 50.25-26). More explicit evidence regarding the status of the lowlands of Lod is found in 1 Mace. 9.49-51, where we read that after the defeat of Bacchides by Jonathan, the Syrian governor built around Judea a series of fortresses, whose layout reflected a well-defined territory: between the Jordan in the east and the western slopes of the Judean mountain country,29 and between Bethel in the north and Tekoa in the south. The most overwhelming proof that the region of Lod did not belong to Judea before the time of Jonathan the Hasmonean is the repeated report that cites the letter of the Syrian king to Jonathan: King Demetrius unto (his) brother Jonathan and unto the nation of the Judeans, greeting...we have confirmed unto them, therefore, the districts of Judea, and the three governments of Aphairema, and Lydda, and Ramathaim—(these) were added unto Judea from the country of Samaria. (IMacc. 11.30-34)30
It thus becomes completely clear that the Land of Benjamin and the lowlands of Lod were not part of the province of louSaia before Hasmonean times (see now Lifshitz 1999). The Land of Israel had long been divided into small administrative units determined according to their physical configuration and the make-up of the population. Such an administrative unit of no more than tens of square kilometers was liable to be annexed to one province or another, but essentially the province remained unchanged (cf. Safrai 1980: 5-7). The in-between regions of Aphairema, Lydda, and Ramathaim could, accordingly, change hands, since no natural border separated Judea from Samaria (Safrai 1980: 56). Demetrius would not have agreed to transfer these 29. The assumption that the Ayalon Valley was not included in Yehud in the Persian period is not unanimously accepted. Kallai and Stern, in their above-mentioned studies, rather maintain that the Ayalon Valley together with the lowlands of Lod, were part of the province of Yehud. Especially strong is the evidence based on the stamp impressions from Gezer, bearing the names Yehud and Jerusalem in the ancient Hebrew script. See also J. Klein 1939: 30. The fact is, however, that in the Hasmonean period Gezer became part of independent Judea only in the time of Simon son of Mattathias (1 Mace. 9.52; 13.43). Strabo, too, testifies to the special status of Gezer since he classifies it as an independent district. See Safrai 1980: 71. Even if Gezer was included in Yehud in the Persian period, this does not mean that the lowlands of Lod north of it belonged to the same province. 30. Note also I Mace. 10.38; Josephus, Ant. 13.125-27.
260
Biblical Hebrew
districts to the rule of Judea unless they were populated mainly by Judeans. He was merely giving official approval to the existing situation. Josephus— citing Hecataeus of Abdera—recounts that Alexander the Great attached Samaria to Judea (Apion 2.4). He was surely referring, as argued by Graetz (1857: 51-52), to the transfer of these border areas between Judea and Samaria to the authority of Judea. Thus it seems that the Land of Benjamin and its lowland areas, that is, the northern lowlands of Lod, constituted a bone of contention between the provinces of Samaria and Judea. The chief governor who resided in Samaria must have seen to it that these districts belonged under his jurisdiction. However, since this area was populated by Judeans, there was some legitimacy to Judea's demand to obtain possession of those districts. About 20 years after the outbreak of the Hasmonean revolt, the partitions between the province of Judea and the lowlands were removed and the 'mixture of cultures' began (M. Stern 1968: 100). d. Evidence from Rabbinic Literature The Mishnah clearly echoes the situation in which the lowlands of Lod were not included in the borders of the province of Judea until the Hasmonean period. The borders of the sanctity of the land are defined as follows: 'From Modi'in and inwards, people are deemed trustworthy in regard to the status of clay utensils. From Modi'in and outwards, they are not deemed trustworthy' (m. Hag. 3.5).31 This Mishnah reflects far-off days when Modi'in lay on the boundary of Judea, before the annexation of the lowlands of Lod.32 In the words of Avi-Yonah: 'At the time of the revolt, Modi'in lay outside the jurisdiction of Judea, as.. .delimited in the Seleucid state'.33 The Mishnah in Sebu. 9.2 also attests—as J. Klein (1923: 24-41) well made clear—that the lowlands of Judah were not a part of the province of Judea and were annexed to it at a late stage: Three regions [are delineated] with respect to [the laws of] removal: Judah and Transjordan and Galilee. And each of these [is divided] into three regions... And with Judah [the three subregions are]: the mountains, the lowlands, and the valley. And the lowlands of Lod [are deemed part of] the 31. See Baer 1964: 309. The Hebrew text reads: mmon. 32. The same matter underlies m. Pes. 9.2. See Safrai 1980: 72. 33. Avi-Yonah in Schalit 1972: 148; see the map (prepared by M. Stern) of the Hasmonean Kingdom, in Ben-Sasson 1969: 227. J. Klein (1939: 57-60) discusses the origin of the name.
TALSHIR The Habitat and History of Hebrew
261
southern lowlands. And its mountains [those near the lowlands of Lod are deemed part of] the King's Mountain country. The territory from Beth Horon34 to the sea [is deemed to be] a single region.
This Mishnah is composed of two layers. The first speaks of three regions: Judah, Transjordan, and the Galilee, while in the second a fourth region is added.35 'from Beth Horon to the sea', that is, the region of Lod. The Palestinian Talmud (y. Sebu. 38d) cites this passage in reference to four regions: 'Another region exists that contains mountain and lowland and valley: from Beth Horon to Emmaus—mountain, from Emmaus to Lod— lowland, from Lod to the sea—valley'. J. Klein (1939: 27) concludes as following: 'And we have before us an ancient Mishnah the beginning of which is from the time before Jonathan the Hasmonean—when Judea had only three regions—and its last paragraph dates from the time when another, a fourth part, had already been added to Judea proper: the region of Lod'. If this is indeed how this Mishnah developed, its original section must go back to pre-Hasmonean times; such ancient Mishnaic evidence is very rare.36 It suggests that as early as the second century BCE, halakhot were formulated in TH (or in a language very close to it). In the Persian and Hellenistic periods the area of the province of Yehud/ Judea did not exceed 1600 square kilometers (Avi-Yonah 1984: 20). The boundaries of this small mountain-country province were limited to the area from the Jordan and the Dead Sea in the east, to the western slopes of the mountain of Judah and Benjamin in the west, and from Beth Zur in the south to Bethel in the north.37 In the lowlands west of Yehud there was a small province centered on Lod and called at various times D^SJ (= Philistia) or TnKJN, among other names. The size of this province and 34. Several manuscripts read a conjunctive waw ('And from Beth Horon...'). See Melammed 1974:410. 35. J. Klein (1939: 26-27) rightly observes that the use of nriQ instead of pfc indicates that this part is an addition. 36. On ancient Mishnah passages, see, e.g., Ben Yehuda 1948: 57-58; Melammed 1973: 58-63. Despite the objections raised by Safrai (1980: 82-83), Klein's remarks remain valid: the mention of the Galilee and Transjordan in a text that deals with the regions of Judah is not necessarily indicative regarding the time of the passage. The parallel text in t. Sebu. 7.10 reads: 'They did not speak of three regions, except in Judea, while the rest of all the regions...' The version offered subsequently in the Tosefta already reflects a later stage in which 'Shephelat Lod' includes the lowlands of the south: 'In the lowlands—that is, the lowlands of Lod and the lowlands of the South' (Sifre Dent, pisqa 6). See also Lieberman 1955: 574-75. 37. Thus for instance: Avi-Yonah 1966: 13 (map 7).
262
Biblical Hebrew
the extent of its subordination to its northern neighbor, Samaria, changed from time to time (Avi-Yonah 1984: 30-35). Indeed, Judeans had been living continuously in the lowlands since First Temple times, but the northern lowlands of Judah were outside the territorial bounds of Yehud/ Judea during the second Temple period until the Hasmonean period. This distinction between the land of Yehud/Judea and the lowlands38 was not merely a formal, political distinction. While the Judeans were isolated in their mountainous land far from international thoroughfares (Klausner 1949: 202), the lowlands—connected to the rest of the world by the via mans—were subject to foreign material and cultural influences. It turns out that despite the fact that Judeans had lived continuously in the lowlands since First Temple times, political and cultural separation between the mountain country and the lowlands over a period of hundreds of years gradually caused significant cultural differences between the Judean inhabitants of the two regions, including different dialects. 3. The Origin of Rabbinic Hebrew The language of the mountain country and the language of the lowlands had, essentially, one and the same origin: CBH. Its development, however, took different courses. While in Yehud the language developed only to a limited extent, probably because of the conservative influence of the returned exiles returning from Babylonia, their influence did not reach the lowlands and the language could develop freely.39 Gradually, two separate dialects developed in the politically and culturally separated provinces. In the lowlands, CBH changed its appearance, as expected of a living spoken language, and was gradually transformed into proto-TH. In the province of Yehud, on the other hand, the language changed at a much slower pace and along more moderate tendencies although it too developed its own unique traits.40 38. In the Persian period, the medina of Yehud as oppposed to the medina of Ashdod; in the Hellenistic period, the merides of Judea as opposed to the toparchy (or nomos) of Lydda. 39. Although there were Judeans who returned to their places of residence in the lowlands, they were absorbed by the local population. 40. It is possible, however, that the beginnings of the language of the lowlands and of the land of Benjamin appear as early as the end of the First Temple period. BarAsher (1985: 93-94) traced phenomena common to the book of Jeremiah and RH that do not occur in the books of the Bible later than Jeremiah. Such is the pronoun 1DN which turns up once in a kethib form (42.6), and the use ofqatolas nomen agentis,
TALSHIR The Habitat and History of Hebrew
263
The dialect of the lowlands is possibly mentioned by Nehemiah in his accusation against the Judeans who married foreign wives: 'A good number of their children spoke the language of Ashdod and the language of those various peoples, and did not know how to speak Judean' (Neh. 13.24). By Ashdodite (= the language of Ashdod) he may well mean the language of the inhabitants of the lowlands, a dialect that later became the language of the early sages who lived in the very same area: Gimzo, Lod, Emmaus, and Yavneh (see Schwartz 1986: 207-208), compared with Judean that was spoken in Jerusalem and its surroundings.41 It would seem, then, that for hundreds of years—through the Babylonian and Persian periods until the beginning of the Hellenistic period—the province of Yehud was living in 'splendid isolation', cut off from its neighbors. But in the Persian period the borders of Yehud became too narrow to contain the constantly growing number of inhabitants and a process of migration began to the three southern districts of the province of Samaria (Aphairema, Lydda and Ramathaim). This would explain why, throughout the Hellenistic period, Judea repeatedly demanded the annexation of these districts. The new migrants from Judea, especially to the lowlands, learned the local dialect—the pre-TH—and may have formed a bridgehead for spreading 'Ashdodite' in Judea in the Hasmonean period. However, the turning point in the political and cultural history of Judea, entailing a substantial change in its linguistic history, occurred at the end of the Hellenistic period. The Hasmoneans, themselves inhabitants of Modi'in in the lowlands, lived outside the territorial boundaries of Judea. After having annexed the lowlands area to Judea and consolidating their rule over the
e.g., pittto (Jer. 22.3), Hlin (3.7, 10). Note, however, the form pan in Isa. 1.1 which—if meant as 'oppressor'—may belong to the same pattern. It would be difficult to explain why common TH forms that go back to the end of the First Temple period did not leave traces in late biblical literature, especially in books not too far in time from Tannaitic literature. However, if we assume that such forms emerged in the land of Benjamin and the lowlands—notably, Judah spread to the north and the west in the time of Josiah—it would be possible to consider them the harbingers of TH, and, it would also be understandable why they do not occur in LBH, which was limited to Judah alone. 41. Several texts from that period have been found in Ashdod and its environs, but they do not tell us much about Ashdodite 1T~QT Q""Q ('Zebadiah's vineyard'; Hestrin 1972: 158), and IHS ('potter'; Dothan 1967: 84) which may be Aramaic. The Phoenician name lU^in appears on an Aramaic pottery shard from Nebi Yunis (Cross 1964). The famous Hebrew inscription of Mesad Hashavyahu is also from this area.
264
Biblical Hebrew
expanded Judea, their language, too, spread throughout the land. Being the 'higher language' of the prestigious heroes, and, at the same time, a convenient and simple spoken tongue, this dialect encroached on LBH and eventually replaced it. 4. The Status ofQumran Hebrew Many believe that the living language spoken by the members of the Qumran community was in fact the contemporary RH, which was, however, defaced by the scribes in Qumran in an attempt to imitate CBH.42 Morag rather sees in QH a dialect in its own right, distinguished by linguistic traits that are not found in LBH.43 Indeed, a number of unique phonological and morphological peculiarities exist in QH that are not found in LBH. However, most of these peculiarities are such that spelling alone can conceal or reveal and therefore do not necessarily reflect genuinely different forms: pausal forms occurring in juncture; contraction of the diphthong [aw] > [o] at the end of a word; the pronominal suffixation in verbs, l^lBpVl^ftljT; the lengthened pronouns (e.g. HQD-, nODN), among other things. The spelling system in use at Qumran suggests pronunciation norms that differ from the Tiberian tradition. There is, however, a substantial gap of time between the defective spelling, preserved by the ancient scribes, and the vocalization applied to it at a much later time. While the vocalization may well be the product of later development, the text proper may conceal a pronunciation that did not differ very much from that in vogue at Qumran. In other words, the same text may have been used by both the copyists at Qumran and the Tiberian Masoretes but, while the former were not afraid to adjust it to their pronunciation, the latter were cautious not to alter the consonantal text. Likewise, it is impossible to figure out the Samaritan pronunciation from the Samaritan Pentateuch. For example, the spelling of the personal pronouns PN, for the second person feminine, and ]il, DPI, DHK, does not show that they were actually pronounced: atti, attima, imma, inna respectively (Ben-Hayyim 1979). It would seem, therefore, that the spelling differences attesting to a different pronunciation do not necessarily reflect a different dialect.
42. See the references in n. 1 above. The independence of QH is further supported by Qimron's important studies (1992; 2000). 43. Morag 1988. See also Blau 1997.
TALSHIR The Habitat and History of Hebrew
265
While the patterns of formation and pronunciation during the Hellenistic and Hasmonean periods remain obscure, an examination of the syntax and vocabulary of QH compared with the language of the late biblical books— especially since the consonantal text remained, in the main, untouched—is indicative regarding the relationship between the two. The syntagms which distinguish QH from CBH are almost all shared with LBH, and many of them are not found in TH. Such are the use of the infinitive as afinite verb (Leahy 1960: 137-43); the use ofpfc/K1? + infinitive to express prohibition or inability; the syntagm "pN/ts? + abstract noun (or infinitive; Qimron 1986:77-79), the distributive syntagm 'XI X', for example, Dl"! DV (instead of 'X X'—e.g. DV DV; Polzin 1976: 47-51), the substantive preceding the numeral, for example, O2F! H1QK (replacing PION O2F1; Polzin 1976: 58-60) and others. Not one outstanding syntactic trait was found that distinguishes QH from LBH. Examination of the vocabulary in Qumran literature shows that a considerable part of the innovations in QH compared with CBH already occur in LBH. Interestingly, many of these linguistic innovations do not occur in the Tannaitic literature, and many others are peculiar to Qumran (1976:292-304). There remains little doubt that QH and LBH are closely affiliated. More precisely, it would seem that QH is the natural continuation of LBH, although the exact relationship between them is hard to determine. QH must have been a living language rather than an artificial creation of a number of dedicated scribes. This is proven by the recurring and consistent use of linguistic patterns. Such are the first person inversive lengthened imperfect (H7tOp31/i"P£DpfcVl); the lengthened personal pronouns (HQriN, n^lil); the construct forms of 71CDp compared with the absolute state forms ^tDlp of the segholate nouns, and many other traits. QH was the language of the local inhabitants, and possibly also that of Judea in the (Persian and) Hellenistic period until the Hasmonean revolt. Following their success, the Hasmoneans moved from the Shephelah to the metropolis, Jerusalem. They brought with them their dialect and the Judeans easily adopted this prestigious 'higher language'. Those who, for various reasons, opposed the new situation, were compelled to flee from the assertive Hasmoneans and chose the desert as a hiding place where they could retain their way of life and culture, including their language. Once this explanation is accepted, the difficult assumption that QH was created by few dissidents and over a short period of time becomes unnecessary. This agrees with Ben-Hayyim's (1958: 231) evaluation: 'A language is the property of a society in a given time and place. It is not the property of a sect or a dissident group'.
266
Biblical Hebrew
The Qumran writers repeatedly use pejorative terms in reference to the language of their rivals: (mnN ]Wb) nS£> ^1~1I7 ('an uncircumcised tongue', 1QH 2.18 [= 10.18]), (TnnK ]1K/7I) HS& ;n^ ('a halting language', 1QH 4.16 [= 12.16]), D'STU \wb ('a tongue of blasphemies', 4QD 5.11-12; Rabin 1958: 146). These denominations may well coincide with Nehemiah's Ashdodite, namely proto-TH, later adopted in Judea. 5. Connections between Tannaitic and Classical Hebrew That Are Not Attested in Either Late Biblical Hebrew or Qumran Hebrew As argued above, TH did not descend directly from LBH, but rather developed autonomously from CBH. The following are some of the linguistic forms and phenomena setting CBH and TH apart from LBH and QH. From the field of general vocabulary we may consider, for example, the verb pI7T. Kutscher44 has already shown that the distribution of pI7T greatly increases in LBH (in the wake of Aramaic), and that this verb encroaches on the Classical pJJU. In QH too (in both the biblical and the non-biblical scrolls) the verb pi?T clearly dominates. But in TH p!?H is the dominant verb.45 Another example is the form i"D2?3 which is no more than an allomorph ofTDIZ/? ('chamber'), normal in all the strata of the Bible. This allomorph shows up in the book of Nehemiah, as well as in the Temple Scroll (Qimron 1980a: 249), apparently influenced by Aramaic (Milik 1958-59: 331-39). Tannaitic literature never uses i"Q£0, whereas T13Vh is very widespread. Likewise, the plural of 1TQ£> ('seven years')46 is miM3E? in both CBH and TH. On the other hand, the form in the book of Daniel as well as in the Rule of the Community (10.7-8) is DTI^E?,47 probably under the influence of the Aramaic form JT'OIZ? (see Hurvitz 1972a: 170). A number of special idioms point in the same direction. Hurvitz (1972b: 248-51) detected the phenomenon of'diachronic chiasm', namely, phrases whose constituents are used in reverse order in a later period. Thus, the Classical phrase 31111 ^jDD ('silver and gold'), changed into ^DDl Dili in late biblical literature, as well as in Qumran literature. Tannaitic literature, 44. Kutscher 1974: 34; followed by R. Weiss 1981: 128-29. 45. According to HDHL, the verb plUU1? appears in the Tannaitic literature 55 times compared with only seven times of plUlb. 46. For instance, my. Sebu. 37c. 47. To be precise, the Rule of the Community reads: D!TI7'OI2).
TALSHIR The Habitat and Histojy of Hebrew
267
however, exclusively uses the Classical form of the phrase.48 Similarly, the title Wl(i"[) ]rQ ('the chief priest'), is frequent in the book of Chronicles and in the War Scroll, but does not appear in Tannaitic literature, that frequently makes use of the equivalent Classical phrase VnXH) ]i"O(n).49 In the domain of spelling we note the pattern -"'Nf)-, used to designate a long T, or a split / (-f/-), in Chronicles (D
48. Sarfatti (1985) showed that Tannaitic literature tends to keep the order of components in a phrase. 49. Japhet 1968: 343-44; D. Talshir 1988: 177; Sarfatti 1989 esp. 158. 50. Discussed in detail in D. Talshir 1998. 51. Hurvitz 1969a. The pattern qitlon (besides qutlari) is used in Aramaic (includeing Syriac). 52. )1SJJp occurs in Ben Sira 30.23, but its pattern remains unknown. See Gross 1993; Yeivin 1985: l041-42.Ben-Hayyim(1967: 118-19) had already pointed out that most of the words in this pattern belong to the ""'^ roots. See also 1967: 134.
268
Biblical Hebrew
or dimension, for example, rnrn "p« HEN DINO 2/727 ('300 cubits is the length of the ark', Gen. 6.15); ^DD ^ D^tODO ('50 shekels of silver', m. 'Arak. 3.2). However, LBH and QH feature the reversed order: "pIN
nDK mi0i? im« ('14 cubits long', IQM 4.15); D^ma tr^pra ^DD
('40 shekels of silver', Neh. 5.15; Qimron 1986: 85-86; Bergey 1984: 66-78). Such characteristically Classical linguistic traits that assumed a new form in LBH and in QH, but were preserved in TH, may indicate that TH originated in CBH. It would seem that only the assumption of two separate locations can explain the origin of TH. In his study on 'The Origin of Mishnaic Hebrew', Klausner (1924) suggested that the heyday of MH began in the Hasmonean period. In his view, however, the Hasmoneans tried to revive the ancient language in an attempt to emulate the language of the Holy Scriptures as closely as possible. The Hasmoneans, he argued, were forced to create— through their courts—a lucid, precise language, concise, transparent and clear. This language evolved into MH, and eventually yielded RH. Attractive as this explanation may seem, it is difficult to imagine that RH was an artificial and purely imitative language dictated by the Hasmonean institutions. Segal responded to Klausner's suggestion in a well-known article: 'Mishnaic Hebrew: Its Origin and History'.53 In his opinion, the beginning of MH occurred at the end of Persian rule and the start of Greek rule in the land of Israel (Segal 1936: 39). MH, he argues, is the continuation of the popular spoken language in biblical times (p. 37). Even if we modify his proposal and assume that TH began to develop at the beginning of the Persian period, this still would not explain the essential differences between the dialects spoken by the very same speakers in the very same circumscribed territory. According to Rabin (1976:1015), the polarization between the party of Pharisees and the members of the Qumran sect played a decisive role in the formation of RH. The intense tendencies towards separatism caused the Pharisees to adopt the spoken language as their literary language as well. Rabin's explanation, too, does not supply a reason for the radical differences in grammar and vocabulary between LBH (including QH) and RH, that are said to have lived contemporarily in the same small region.
53. Segal 1926: 44. The text is repeated almost verbatim in Segal 1936: 12.
TALSHIR The Habitat and History of Hebrew
269
It is equally difficult to accept Rendsburg's assumption that MH descended from the Galilean dialect of the First Temple period, since a considerable political and geographical distance existed between the Galilee and the cultural center of Israel in the second century BCE (starting with the time of Shimeon the Righteous). Besides, it is difficult to make such sweeping assumptions given the small amount of data available in relation to the character of the northern dialect. The majority of forms adduced by Rendsburg as isoglosses shared by the alleged northern dialect and MH are not isoglosses at all, but rather a set of diverse Judean features.54 In contrast, our proposal to anchor the essential differences between the two contemporary dialects in different and separate regions, offers a straightforward sociolinguistic explanation of these problems. Moored in the lowlands, TH could have gradually developed its own linguistic patterns freely over a long time span. In addition, according to this solution LBH does not have to be viewed as an artificial language or a language in disguise. Finally, the cultural and linguistic separation between the regions is further substantiated by archeological and historical evidence. Against this background, long-standing queries suddenly fall into place. One famous example is the twofold formation of long and short pronominal suffixes in the 2nd person singular (i.e. [Hp-, [n]fl~), over which Kahle and Ben-Hayyim differed, and which Kutscher correctly explained as two types of Hebrew that existed side by side in ancient Jewish communities (Kutscher 1974: 46). Such linguistic variety demonstrates the struggle between the mountain country tradition, including Qumran (naturally, part of Judea), and the lowlands tradition from which TH emerged. Just as the mountain line dichotomized the culture of the mountain country and that of the lowlands, it also set the language of the mountain apart from the language of the lowlands, until the Hasmonean period, since language is, naturally, one of the outstanding components of human culture. This is, in my view, the explanation of the prominent difference between LBH and RH.
54. See the Excursus below.
270
Biblical Hebrew
EXCURSUS: THE SUPPOSED GALILEAN ORIGIN OF MISHNAIC HEBREW Some 30 years ago, Rabin advanced the interesting idea that the parent dialect of MH was of northern origin (Rabin 1970: 322-23). Recently, Rendsburg adopted this idea and adduced evidence in its support: 'I propose that MH is more specifically the colloquial dialect of the northern regions of Eretz-Israel, i.e. the Galilee' (Rendsburg 1992b: 226). He presented 12 linguistic features and lexical items shared by MH and those parts of the Bible that he had earlier established as northern literature,55 in comparison with JH that does not attest these forms. These allegedly northern features constitute the basis for his suggestion that MH originated in the Galilee. I shall not elaborate on the way Rendsburg characterized the northern dialect, on the method he employed in its description,56 or the significance of the substantial distanc between the Galilee and the center of the Tana'im's cultural activity in the last centuries BCE. I shall rather examine the alleged northern provenance of the isoglosses that supposedly show a clear affinity between Galilean and MH.57 1. The Relative Pronoun -ID The relative pronoun -2? replaces Classical 1K7N. This form is usually assumed to be northern, akin to Accadian sa and Phoenician/Ammonite £JN. It should be remembered, however, that little evidence has been produced of the incidence of-£J in Northwestern Semitic epigraphy. This assumption is further weakened by the use of "IttfN, rather than ID, in an eighth-century inscription on a stele from Samaria.58 While relative shin is indeed mainly used in 'northern' texts as well as in definitely late biblical texts (such as Koheleth,59 Ezra and Chronicles, whose northern origin is dubious), it also occurs in texts whose origin is certainly not northern: it is possibly embedded in DJKD (Gen. 6.3) and occurs 12 times in non-northern psalms, as Rendsburg himself admits. Further55. He applied four criteria used by Hurvitz 1973 for dating texts—distribution, linguistic contrast, external sources, and concentration—to a series of texts in an attempt to prove their northern origin. This process yielded lists of 'northern forms' attested in the Bible. In his opinion, a text displaying abundant northern forms and whose narrative takes place north of Judah, or involves someone that is not Judean, must be a northern text. 56. For a radical and convincing criticism of this, see Fredericks 1996; Schniedewind and Sivan 1997; I. Young 1997. 57. I. Young (1997:20) criticized the nature of these alleged isoglosses in general, but did not go into detail. 58. G.I. Davies 1991: 65; Davila 1990: 82; Schniedewind and Sivan 1997:328-29. 59. Gordis (1955), and Davila 1990: 69-76, raised convincing arguments against the Phoenician provenance of Qoheleth. Similarly, there is scarcely any evidence whatsoever for a northern provenance of Qoheleth, in spite of the interesting suggestions advanced by Davila 1990: 87. 60. Rendsburg 1990b. These are: Pss. 122 (twice); 123; 124; 129; 135 (three times); 136; 137; 144; 146.
TALSHIR The Habitat and History of Hebrew
271
more, it is attested three times in the book of Jonah, that is likewise not assigned a northern origin, and about ten times in Ben Sira (Barthelemy and Rickenbacher 1973 s.v.). These data show that relative shin is not distinctively northern. 2. The Feminine Demonstrative Pronoun iT/fit The northern origin of the feminine demonstrative pronoun IT is postulated on the basis of its occurrence in two northern sources (2 Kgs 6.19; Hos. 7.16).61 The rest of the examples, however, are later and hardly northern: it occurs once in Ezek. 40.45 and six times in Qoheleth. Also worth mentioning is the phrase riTin HID that occurs three times in the Former Prophets, of which at least 2 Sam. 11.25 is not of northern origin. The first epigraphic evidence in Hebrew of this form occurs in documents from the Bar Kokhva period, where it is used as a definite adjective: (N)1Tn. It may have been, therefore, a living form—possibly a low register form—in Judah as well. 3. The Plural Demonstrative Pronoun 1^8 The form 1^8—common in RH (replacing H^N)—is not attested in any other language. In Phoenician and Punic the plural demonstrative pronoun is ^K. In late Punic the form is $b$, and Plautus' Latin transliteration reads Illii/Ily. The form suggested by these data is *'//(/)«? (Friedrich and Rollig 1999:69-70), namely, Tl'pK, rather than ^. This is corroborated by Hebrew epigraphical evidence from the second century CE: texts from Murabba'at and Nahal Hever attest the form H^N. The first occurrence of 1^8 shows up in Inscription 17 from Bet She'arim from the beginning of the third century CE.62 These data hardly bear out the notion that the origin of "I'T'N harks back to the Galilee of First Temple times. 4. Nomen actionis qet!la Rendsburg mentions some examples of qetlla pattern nouns in 'northern' sources (including Job, Qoheleth and Chronicles). However, other biblical texts, recognized even by Rendsburg as being of non-northern origin, offer further examples of the same pattern: mii (Num. 35.20); nnt0 (Deut. 28.37); 7\*WD (Isa. 24.12); ITDl (15 times: once in Hosea and all the rest in Jeremiah, Micah, non-northern Psalms, Job and Proverbs); ntmp (Jon. 3.2); HD^H (Nah. 2.6); rm3 (Ps. 61.1); n-EJD (Ps. 88.13
nn-^o (Ps.130.4).
61. Rendsburg adduces a third supposedly northern example—DlQb'N IT Tnui (Ps. 132.12)—but here IT functions as a relative pronoun, like IT, and is not a demonstrative pronoun. 62. See the data ofHDHL, sub H^K and lh>K.
272
Biblical Hebrew 5. 3rd Feminine Singular Perfect of'*"} Verbs in -at
3rd fem. sg. perfect of "^ verbs ending in -at occur ten times in the Bible, twice in non ""'b verbs: P^TN (Deut. 32.36), fQE1 (Ezek. 46.17), and once in the Siloam inscription—JTn. Only one of the ten examples of this archaic ending occurs in a northern text: the kethib form PITT in 2 Kgs 9.37. The rest come from Classical Judean literature and include HRCm (Exod. 5.16);63 ntDlfl (Lev. 25.21); nmm (26.34); n«1p (Deut. 31.29; Jer. 44.23); rbm (Jer. 13.19, twice); andnN^n (Ezek. 24.12).64 How can these data substantiate a northern origin of the ending -at in RH? 6. The 'Double Plural' Construction65 As a rule, BH forms the plural of construct state phrases by turning the nomen rectum alone into plural, for example, N3U "IE? and pR m1? become R3iJ '"IK? and pR mm1?. However, there is a natural tendency to pluralize the nomen regens as well. Thus, we find in CBH beside pR mm1? the double plural D'HR mm1? and HlNDli ne? instead of NDiJ "HE?. There is no need to go as far as Ugarit, El-Amarna and Phoenicia in search for these doubly marked plural attributive constructs, since CBH literature—noticeably non-northern parts of it—abounds with them. Some examples from the Pentateuch follow: D'DQ ntD ('taskmasters', Exod. 1.11); D'BtB "UI7 ('acacia wood', e.g., Exod. 25.5); mUO n|TpT ('unleavened wafers', Exod. 29.2); Dn]3N mm1? ('stone tablets', Exod. 34.1) compared with p« HO1? (Exod. 31.18); mim m*?n ('unleavened cakes', Lev. 2.4); DD'Bnn ntftO ('new moon days', Num. 10.10; 28.11); m"") "131 ('matters of dispute', Deut. 17.8); mtdH "He? ('army commanders', Deut. 27.9). This natural development is not necessarily northern but rather a Classical feature that persisted and possibly intensified in LBH, in QH, and in RH. The supposedly 'northern' examples for this pattern adduced by Rendsburg are scarce and mostly inappropriate since in these cases the plural of the nomen regens is not the result of attraction but is meant as a real plural. For example, the meaning of the construct D^S^ft miO (Ps. 45.10) is probably 'daughters of different kings', not of 'one king'. Similarly, D^R ^D (Ps. 29.1) means, literally, 'sons of different gods';66 D'OI? TTl] (Ps. 47.10) are 'the great men of the peoples' rather than of 'a people';
63. See DC//, III: 194. 64. Blau (1996) argues that the origin of a form such as DTI in RH does not hark back to ancient times, but is rather the pausal form nmn that lost its last vowel in a late stage of the development of the language. 65. It is preferable to name this phenomenon: the doubly-marked plural of attributive constructs, as suggested by Qimron 1986: §400.06. 66. Rendsburg fails to mention the same phrase occuring in Ps. 89.7, a nonnorthern psalm in his view. The phrase further occurs in Ugaritic (bn Urn, KTU 1.4.111.14) and Phoenician (bn 7m, AL4/26.A.III.19). Its meaning there, too, is literal: 'sons of gods'. See, e.g., Dahood 1965: 175-76.
TALSHIR The Habitat and History of Hebrew
273
DTDH [s] before [r].
274
Biblical Hebrew
occurs only rarely in texts of allegedly northern provenance. Rendsburg found seven examples in Samuel and Kings (and Chronicles).71 In contrast, the book of Genesis alone, which is not thought to be 'northern', has a similar number of texts using this very same syntactic pattern: DnQ^ pa *7Haa n m (Gen. 1.6);]npl ]KH HIT! ^3H -m
nzn« iai? rrn (4.2); pto 131 IH Trm (4.i4);Ti? ma sn^ (4.17); n« nm rrm
]«aa vn« (37.2); nci? n n n Kin (39.22); D-bnD ir-n «b (42.31). The other books, too, abound with examples of this pattern; hence, there is no ground whatsoever to assume that im + participle in MH necessarily descends from a northern dialect.
10. Root cm Rendsburg argues that RH root D13 descends from BH D1N3, and since the non-divine predicated Q1N3 is used only in northern texts, one must conclude that the verb was imbibed into RH from the Galilee. This is an injudicious suggestion. Even if we accept the dubious assumption that the texts in question are northern (the Balaam pericope, the last words of David, Ps. 36 and Prov. 30), it is still difficult to understand how Mishnaic D131? ('to speak') developed from D1N3.72 D1N3 does not occur in RH. On the other hand, were D13 a northern root, it should have occurred in the allegedly northern texts or at least in the neighbouring Northwestern Semitic languages. The fact is, however, that the verb occurs only once in the Bible, and in a text that is not necessarily northern: DN31QK3"! Q31E/? DTlp^rT miT DN3 D*V33n bu "33H (Jer. 23.31). In addition, the relation between RH root D13 and BH root DN3 is not at all evident. The semantic gap between D1N3 DN3'j'j1? ('to make an oracular utterance') and mi^^/D^1? i ('tell') remains unaccountable. Whether it is a V'S or a 1"7 verb, it is difficult to imagine how it might attest a northern usage, seeing that there is no shred of evidence for root "03/013 in any northern language. I I . The Plural Construct mO" miT (alongside "D11)—the plural nomen rectum of DV—is attested in Ben Sira, RH, Aramaic COT, -TOT) and Phoenician. It occurs twice in biblical poetic texts: Deut.
71. Phoenician does not attest such usage. 72. If the relation between Q1K3 and D3 is analogical to that between "131 and 131 or between il'pp and b'pp—it is not important whether the verb is divine or human predicated. 73. This verb is structured in Talmudic literature both as VI? e.g., 1^ TO3 (/. Yeb. 12.11), and as" "^ piel, e.g., Dlb TPO] (/. Ohol. 5.12), or rather "JTQ13 (m. Yeb. 16.7), the first vowel having shifted to [u] because of the labial mem. In Arabic, nama ila means 'to be told', 'to be reported'. Accordingly, Guillaume 1957: 40-41, suggested reading nft!3n in IQIsa3 41.27 as npi3n, that is, 'the speaker'. This is Kutscher's explanation: 'It seems that this root [namely, root "03], which was unfamiliar to the copyists was therefore emended by them in most cases to an 1 "17 root under the influence of the BH D»3 (D13)' (Kutscher 1974: 451).
TALSHIR The Habitat and History of Hebrew
275
32.7 and Ps. 90.15. While the Song of Moses takes a place of pride among Rendsburg's northern sources, Psalm 90 is not mentioned among his northern psalms. The evidence from the non-northern psalm suggests that it existed—possibly as a dialectical form—in Ancient Judean Hebrew.'74 12. Hithpael in Passive Sense Phoenician is evidently not involved in this case, since it does not have the hithpael scheme.75 Rendsburg adduces three cases of hithpael in passive sense and argues that two of them are northern. The fact is, however, that there are other examples of this use and that they are not necessarily northern: ^JJPm ('and be oppressed', Gen. 16.9); 1B331 ('and they will be absolved', Deut. 21.8); ISDPr ('be expiated', 1 Sam. 3.14); "Iran" ('be informed', 2 Sam. 18.31); 1KDTH ('be oppressed', Job 5.4; 34.25). Since most of the examples for hithpael in a passive sense do not occur in texts of northern provenance, there is scarcely any basis to the assumption that it is characteristic of northern Hebrew. My survey of Rendsburg's twelve allegedly northern isoglosses in RH shows that most of them are not at all northern. Some of them are not attested in any northern dialect, others are by far more common in Judean literature than in northern literature. Even the two cases that are believed to be northern—ID and IT—are not exclusively northern, since there is unequivocal evidence of their use in Judean literature as well. The final redaction of the biblical books being Judean, it is understandable that some Judean forms could have penetrated northern texts; the opposite possibility, namely, that random northern forms would end up in Judean texts that have no northern context is difficult to defend. Therefore, unusual forms that occur in non-northern texts should preferably be treated as dialectal forms that were current in Judah and surfaced in literary texts.76 Even if some of these forms were originally northern, it is their Judean use that may well have influenced MH. In sum, since all the adduced 'northern' morphemes and syntagms are attested in non-northern texts as well, the origin of MH should not be placed in the Galilee. The assumption regarding the northern origin of RH still awaits demonstration based on real evidence.
74. Kutscher 1982: 134, believes that this archaic form was renewed under the influence of Aramaic -TlOi\ 75. Friedrich and Rollig 1999: 94, note that only two verbs in hithpael, possibly loan words, occur in late Punic. 76. Young's book of 1993 is devoted to this phenomenon; see also I. Young 1997: 20.
LATE BIBLICAL HEBREW AND HEBREW INSCRIPTIONS* Ian Young 1. The Hebrew Inscriptions in Recent Debate The corpus of Hebrew inscriptions from the biblical period1 has recently had a pivotal role in discussions of the history of the Hebrew language and its relevance for the origins of the Bible. The linguistic evidence has been used to argue against attempts to date the origin of all the biblical literature in the Persian or later eras (e.g. by P.R. Davies 1992). Two of the most authoritative statements of this position are by Avi Hurvitz and Martin Ehrensvard (Hurvitz 1997a; 1999; 2000a; 2001; Ehrensvard 1997).2I will first of all investigate the role which these scholars ascribe to the Hebrew inscriptions in their discussions. I shall then re-examine these claims in the light of the Hebrew inscriptional corpus. Hurvitz emphasises that 'non-biblical sources... pro vide us with the external control required in any attempt to detect and identify diachronic developments within BH' (Hurvitz 1997a: 307). He concludes 'that, by and large, there is a far-reaching linguistic uniformity underlying both the pre-exilic inscriptions and the literary biblical texts written in Classical BH' (p. 308). 'We have, therefore, to conclude that "Classical BH" is a well-defined linguistic statum, indicative of a (typologically) datable timespan within biblical literature and a (chronologically) datable time-span
* Thanks are due to Victor Sasson and Andreas Schiile who commented on and improved earlier drafts of this paper. All opinions and errors are of course my responsibility. 1. The corpus has been presented most recently in Renz and Rollig 1995 and Gogel 1998. When naming the inscriptions I have generally followed Gogel's simplified system. I also refer to the texts published by Beit-Arieh (1993), Deutsch and Heltzer (1994; 1995), and Naveh (2000). Schttle (2000) is a recent comprehensive linguistic analysis. 2. For Ehrensvard's revised position see his article above.
YOUNG Late Biblical Hebrew and Hebrew Inscriptions
277
within biblical history' (p. 309). The chronological distinction between a pre-exilic 'CBH' and a post-exilic 'LBH' is based, by and large, on two important corpora of extra-biblical sources... on the one hand, the Dead Sea Scrolls—dated to the end of the biblical period—which betray numerous isoglosses specifically with Late BH; and on the other hand, an increasing number of Hebrew epigraphical inscriptions—dated to the pre-exilic period—which largely conform to the linguistic profile of Classical BH. (Hurvitz 1999: 30* J3
Ehrensvard also strasses the importance of the extra-bibHcal linguistic evidence. He is aware that for example, 'One could argue that the differences [within BH] are simply due to differences in the proficiency of Standard Biblical Hebrew of two groups of contemporary writers' (Ehrensvard 1997- 36) However, the extra-biblical evidence strongly suggests a difference in time between the language of the two groups [SBH and LBH]; the linguistic features proper toLBHare net found in the (admittedly rather limited corpus of) pre-exilic inscriptions, but by and large they are prevalent in post-Biblical Hebrew In the pre-exilic inscriptions .there are found, on the contrary, distinctive features indicative of SBH. (Hurvitz 1999: 36-37)
The main points raised by Harvitz and Ehrensvard are the following. The CBH or SBH of, say, Genesis-2 Kings is practically identical with the Hebrew of the inscriptions from the monarchic period. That, they say, establishes the pre-exilic date of composition of those biblical books. In contrast, the LBH of, say, Chronicles, has definite links with late sources such as the Dead Sea Scrolls. There are linguistic features found in the early inscriptions which are not found in LBH sources. Nor are distinetirely LBH features found in the inscriptions. The extra-biblica! sources establish that SBH is contemporary with the Hebrew inscriptions of the 3. Hurvitz often also includes 'the Canaanite inscriptions of the first half of the first milieniumB.C.E.', as well as Ugaritic evidence (Hurvitz 1997a: 308 n. 18) alongside Hebrew epigraphical evidence (see, e.g., Hurvitz 1982: 80 n. 82). However he stresses that it is strictly the Hebrew evidence that is of greatest importance (Hurvitz 1997a: 307-308 n. 16). In accordance with this, Hurvitz discounts the significance of non-Hebrew evidence when it appears to contradict the chronological development in Hebrew (e.g. f"13 ['fine linen'] in the ninth-century Kilamuwa inscription [Hurvitz 1967 and see below]; cbu IV 3 ['tomb'] in the eighth-century Deir 'Alia inscription [Hurvitz 1992: 66 n. 25]; cf. the discussion of *73p in Hurvitz 1974b: 44 n. 36 now superceded by developments in Amarna philology; and of the form "jVlR in Mesha 14-15: Hurvitz 1982: 50 n. 76).
278
Biblical Hebrew
monarchic period, and that LBH is later, that is, post-exilic. The conclusion is drawn that there is thus no way linguistically that the SBH sources could in fact have been composed after the exile. 2. The Inscriptions as a Chronological Fixed Point I will first discuss the idea that the language of the inscriptions proves that works composed in SBH are pre-exilic. In its simplest form the argument is that the Hebrew inscriptions show us what pre-exilic Hebrew looked like, while sources like the Dead Sea Scrolls show us what post-exilic Hebrew looked like. I will for the moment take for granted that the inscriptions have a close link with SBH, a claim which we will investigate in the third section of this study. Is it implausible that SBH could be post-exilic? The answer to this must be 'No'. It is quite possible that there were several different contemporary styles of literary Hebrew in the post-exilic period. Just because, in general, LBH represents a typologically later form of Hebrew, does not mean that it could not have been used contemporarily with the typologically older SBH. Furthermore, the post-exilic period was long enough for diachronic developments to occur. It is possible, for example, to imagine diachronic developments that might mark Hellenistic period Hebrew as different from earlier Persian period Hebrew. Since it is not a priori impossible that the various varieties of BH all had their roots in the post-exilic period, we have seen the external sources invoked in order to prove that SBH really is from a chronologically earlier period. However, even if we take for granted that the Hebrew inscriptions have a closer relationship with SBH than with LBH, does this fact prove that SBH cannot be post-exilic? The major problem with using external sources in the current debate is the large gap in the middle of the period under discussion. The Hebrew inscriptions date almost exclusively to the monarchic period, in particular the eighth-early sixth centuries BCE. None of the Dead Sea Scrolls manuscripts is considered to be older than the third century BCE (Cross 1998 387). The other Hebrew sources mentioned by Hurvitz as 'External controls for the post-classical phase of BH'—Ben Sira, the Bar Kochba letters, and MH (Hurvitz 1997a: 310)—are even later. For the period stretching from the sixth to the third centuries BCE, which includes the whole Persian period, we have almost no extra-biblical evidence for Hebrew at all (Naveh and Greenfield 1984: 122). Since we have almost no idea, on the basis of external sources, what any sort of Hebrew in the Persian period looked
YOUNG Late Biblical Hebrew and Hebrew Inscriptions
279
like, we cannot exclude the possibility that the sort of Hebrew being used in the inscriptions from the monarchic period continued to be used at least for a while after the exile. This was the view, for example, of S.R. Driver. For him, 'the great turning-point in Hebrew style falls in the age of Nehemiah\ He adds in a footnote: 'And not, as is sometimes supposed, the Captivity. This appears with especial clearness from Zech., the style of which, even in the parts which are certainly post-exilic, is singularly pure' (S.R. Driver 1913a: 505 with n. 1). To fill in the gap created by the absence of extra-biblical evidence of Hebrew from the Persian period, Hurvitz lays stress on the much better represented Aramaic evidence. In particular he mentions the fifth-century BCE Elephantine papyri, which he notes 'display numerous linguistic features which, within BH, are exclusively attested in..."Late Biblical Hebrew"' (Hurvitz 1999: 27*). It is certainly valid to refer to the Aramaic evidence given not only its Jewish context, but also the strong interrelationship between Aramaic and Hebrew. The Aramaic texts show the strong impact which the Aramaic lingua franca had on the language of a book such as Chronicles (Bendavid 1967-71, I: 71-72). However, the issue at present is whether the absence of such Aramaic influence proves that a BH work cannot have been written during the Persian period. The answer must be 'No'. We cannot demonstrate that the Aramaic forms had already penetrated Hebrew at the time when they are attested in Aramaic. Indeed it is hard to find examples in the literature on LBH where it is even argued that the Aramaism in question is late within Aramaic.4 Nor can we demonstrate that such Aramaisms penetrated all varieties of literary Hebrew in the Persian period. Some scribes or scribal schools may have been more open or exposed to Aramaic influence than others. Thus, while 4. One of the exceptions is Landes' discussion of Aramaisms in Jonah (Landes 1982: 147-57). C.L. Seow has recently attempted to date Qoheleth to the fifth century, partly on the basis 'that a number of the terms are found in Official Aramaic but not in earlier inscriptions (Old Aramaic). Significantly, there is a significant cluster of terms, particularly economic expressions, all occurring in fifth- and fourth-century documents' (Seow 1996:654). However, his discussion, while erudite, seems to be methodologically flawed. Seow provides no example of a linguistic contrast with an Old Aramaic term, nor does he make a case that Old Aramaic would have had opportunity to use any of the terms he discusses. In regard to the economic terms he focusses on, it is more likely that these terms are first attested in Aramaic in fifth- and fourth-century texts simply because that is the first time that we have a significant number of economic texts in Aramaic, in contrast to the earlier period. Nor, for that matter do we have pre-exilic Hebrew economic texts.
280
Biblical Hebrew
the Aramaic sources are valuable, they do not give us direct evidence of any contemporary variety of Hebrew.5 Finally, we should note an inherent weakness of the whole enterprise of dating language. Even if one sort of Hebrew is well attested in external sources from any particular period, that does not prove that that was the only sort of Hebrew in existence at the time. All it proves is that that was the chosen style for that sort of writing. The more genres of writing that are attested, the more we can claim to know about styles of writing in a particular period. Thus, we are relatively well informed about the Hellenistic era due to the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls. The scrolls from cave 1 at Qumran present a larger corpus of Hebrew than all the epigraphic material from the preceding eras. On the basis of that knowledge we could feel confident to declare that we know what written Hebrew of that period looked like. But we would be wrong, since we would be unprepared for the distinctively different features of Copper Scroll Hebrew (from cave 3) or4QMMT Hebrew (from cave 4). Linguistic dating deals with probabilities, not certainties. The idea of a pre-exilic SBH and a post-exilic LBH arose naturally out of the critical consensus on the dating of many of the biblical books. It is, however, quite a different question to ask whether the linguistic evidence can exclude other datings of the biblical literature. Likewise, the Hebrew inscriptions demonstrate that it is plausible, by and large, that the language of the Bible was formulated in the monarchic period. They cannot, however, prove that any of the biblical books must have been written in the pre-exilic period. 5. Hurvitz has pointed out the pitfalls of using the Elephantine texts to argue about the chronology of Hebrew words: 'we must always bear in mind that although the Elephantine papyri were written down in the fifth century B.C.E., the language employed in these texts was not created suddenly in the Persian period... It is, therefore, perfectly clear that Elephantine Aramaic on the one hand and Biblical Hebrew on the other, even when exhibiting similar (or identical) linguistic usages, could have drawn, independently and at different times, on a common third source, earlier than them both' (Hurvitz 1983a: 92). He is arguing against Levine(1982: 127-29) who used the Elephantine evidence to argue that the P word ^"7 ('military unit') is no earlier than the Persian period. Note also other problems caused by the Elephantine evidence. For example, while it is claimed that the term iTTU for 'congregation' is not used in Persian period Hebrew, for instance Chronicles (Hurvitz 1970-71), it is attested a number of times in Elephantine texts (Hoftijzer and Jongeling 1995, II: 828). A full study seems called for. Note also the remarks of Rendsburg, above, against using the Aramaic sources to date Hebrew texts, and the comments below in n. 15, and sections 3.4.1.8 and 3.4.1.35.
YOUNG Late Biblical Hebrew and Hebrew Inscriptions
281
3. The Inscriptions, Standard Biblical Hebrew and Late Biblical Hebrew 3.1. Methodological Issues We have seen the scholars discussed above draw conclusions from the assumption that the language of the inscriptions from the monarchic period has strong and unmistakable links with SBH. However, I am not aware of any attempts to substantiate this assumption in detail. Often the relationship of SBH with the inscriptions is taken as self-evident. One of the most important statements is in Torczyner's publication of the Lachish letters. Torczyner states that the language of the letters is 'pure Biblical Hebrew, bearing a striking resemblance to the language of the books of Kings and Jeremiah' (Torczyner 1938: 17; cf. Albright 1939: 20-21). However, Torczyner does not attempt to substantiate this claim. Instead he immediately turns to describing the ways in which the language of the texts differs from what is known from the Bible. Torczyner's statement is, however, understandable for 1938. As he himself states (Torczyner 1938: 15), the Lachish letters were the first substantial find of a clearly biblicaltype Hebrew in an inscription. Previously, apart from the Siloam Tunnel inscription, discovered in 1880 (which has a number of non-SBH forms, see below), scholars had been faced with the peculiarities of the Gezer Calendar (found in 1908) or of the Samaria Ostraca (found in 1910). From that point of view, it is understandable that Torczyner stressed the biblical nature of the language. He was not, however, concerned with the specific affiliations of the language within BH. His mention of Kings and Jeremiah seems to be merely a reference to the biblical sources most contemporary with the Lachish letters. In effect, Torczyner was simply stating the fact that the Lachish letters were generally in the same sort of Hebrew as the Bible. There are, in fact, several major problems in trying to establish the relationship of the inscriptions to SBH and LBH. Three problems arise due to the nature of the inscriptional corpus. First, the inscriptions present a limited corpus in several ways. While we have a reasonable number of short inscriptions, these present a total amount of linguistic material that amounts to less than one percent of the size of the Hebrew Bible, according to one estimate (DC//, I: 28). The inscriptions, furthermore, have a focus on issues, such as supply of daily rations, which are not prominent in the biblical material. Thus for the majority of the suggested linguistic contrasts, SBH vs. LBH, the inscriptions
282
Biblical Hebrew
provide no evidence at all. Even such a common linguistic item as the 1st sg. independent pronoun, where the form n 3DN is said to die out in LBH in favour of 'DK (Rooker 1990a: 72-74; cf. Wright 1998: 132-37), is only clearly attested in the inscriptional corpus once (''IN, Arad 88.1; Gogel 1998: 153). Second, there is the problem that the majority of our inscriptions of any length are dated to the last half century of the kingdom of Judah, c. 625-586 BCE. Into this category fall the ostraca from Mesad Hashavyahu, Arad (largely), and Lachish, which represent the bulk of our knowledge of inscriptional Hebrew in extended contexts. Earlier dated texts of significant linguistic scope include the Gezer Calendar, Siloam Tunnel, Siloam Tomb, and the Khirbet el-Qom and Kuntillet' Ajrud texts. Yet this group of texts cannot rival the size and linguistic variety of the later texts. While bulky, the Samaria Ostraca do not generally provide a significant amount of linguistic material. Within the context of the biblical texts, therefore, the largest part of inscriptional material is from the period of Jeremiah (c. 627-586 BCE) and Ezekiel (beginning c. 593 BCE). Jeremiah is usually considered an example of SBH. However, it is noteworthy that within the language of Jeremiah, there are what might be called the early signs of the appearance of LBH (cf. Wright 1998: 258, 270). Even more importantly, Ezekiel is commonly described as exhibiting a transitional form of language from SBH to LBH (Hurvitz 1982; Rooker 1990a). In other words, an important part of the inscriptional corpus comes from a period when, even according to a traditional reading of the sources, LBH was already beginning to appear. Polzin (1976: 4), in fact, refers to the Lachish and Arad ostraca as 'late Hebrew'. On the basis of the biblical evidence, therefore, we might expect these inscriptions to exhibit a mixture of LBH elements among the SBH elements. The evidence from texts such as the Lachish and Arad ostraca is thus somewhat ambiguous if one is trying to demonstrate the close links of the inscriptions with SBH. Third, it is reasonable to ask in what way the inscriptions are relevant, if at all, to the discussion. It is widely acknowledged that the inscriptions generally represent different genres to those preserved in the biblical literature. In a previous study I dubbed the inscriptions as 'Official Hebrew' as opposed to the 'Literary Hebrew' of the Bible (I. Young 1993:103-13). If we are indeed dealing with a different variety of Hebrew, various alternative possibilities present themselves. Did LBH forms perhaps appear in Official Hebrew earlier than Literary Hebrew? Or was Literary Hebrew more open to linguistic variety than the more mundane style? In other
YOUNG Late Biblical Hebrew and Hebrew Inscriptions
283
words, we may not be able to make a simple equation of inscriptional Hebrew with BH. Another important problem relates to the nature of the LBH corpus. Very seldom is it the case that linguistic form X is confined to SBH, while in LBH it is completely replaced by form Y. This would be the easiest sort of case when arguing that the inscriptions have a close relationship with SBH, since the mere appearance of X, not Y, would constitute strong evidence. The reality and the complexity of the situation is illustrated by the well-regarded book by Rooker on Ezekiel (Rooker 1990a). Rooker is an especially good representative since he builds on the insights of both Avi Hurvitz and Robert Polzin (Polzin 1976). Rooker presents 37 linguistic items (20 grammatical and 17 lexical) as characteristic of LBH. Of these, only two (lexical) cases arguably represent the situation where the SBH form X is totally replaced by form Y in LBH. One of these is the replacement of SBH WD by LBH j*"O for 'fine linen'. Hesitation is caused in this case by the appearance of the SBH form in the poem about the good wife in Prov. 31.22, which is often considered 'late' on other grounds (cf. Wolters 1985: 585-86), and the appearance of the LBH form in the Phoenician Kilamuwa inscription (1.12/13), securely dated to the ninth century BCE (cf. Hawkins 1982: 395-98). The second case, SBH PpHp/nSHlQ vs. LBH nsin ('pavement') involves a total of 16 occurrences for all three words combined, 11 of which are found in Ezekiel (five cases of HSH"!) and 1 Kings 6-7 (six instances of JJp"lp). Ten of the remaining linguistic forms in Rooker's discussion involve the case where linguistic item X continues into LBH, but is joined by a new synonym Y. When investigating the relationship of SBH to the inscriptions, what are we to make of a case when X is found in a Hebrew inscription? Do we stress the fact that it is not Y? Or simply note that X is attested in all strata of Hebrew, and therefore its appearance in the inscriptions has no significance at all? In contrast, the attestation of form Y in the inscriptions would be more significant. The remaining 25 of Rooker's 37 LBH forms are cases where both linguistic forms X and Y are attested in SBH texts, but form Y becomes proportionately much more significant in LBH. Since both X and Y are attested in all strata, can we see any significance in the appearance of X in the inscriptions? With a small corpus, can we meaningfully discuss issues relating to the relative proportions of linguistic forms? With these difficulties in mind, I can now turn to a detailed discussion of the inscriptional corpus. The aim is to be comprehensive, but I am under
284
Biblical Hebrew
no illusions that I have covered all relevant forms. Hopefully at least, the following lists can serve as the basis for future research. 3.2. Links with SBH Here I discuss linguistic forms found in the inscriptions which have been suggested to be links with SBH. I have added other forms that have interesting patterns of distribution within BH. I have, however, avoided cases not suggested in the literature where it is clear that there is no linguistic opposition with a LBH form (see, e.g., Hurvitz 1973: 76). Thus, for example, the word EJDR ('yesterday') is found in Lachish letter 3.6. The word is not found in LBH. However, this is best explained by the fact that 'yesterday' happens not to be expressed in the LBH corpus. In this case there is no linguistic opposition between the SBH term and another term which fills the same linguistic slot in LBH. Absence of linguistic opposition rules out other links between the inscriptions and SBH. Thus the word ^D] ('jar, bottle') as a wine container is common in the Samaria Ostraca and SBH. However, no wine containers seem to be referred to in core LBH texts. ]TT1 ('axe, pick[?]') is used in Siloam Tunnel 11. 2 and 4, an four times in SBH, but not in LBH. However, such a tool does not seem to be mentioned at all in LBH. The organization of this and the following sections is roughly alphabetical according to (1) the name of the inscription or (2) the title of the general discussion. 3.2.1. Absence of Persian Loanwords. Although the classification 01 a Persian loanword is sometimes difficult (I. Young 1993: 69-71), it is indisputable that a concentration of suspected Persian loanwords is found in works which deal explicitly with the Persian period such as Esther. However, not all LBH works have a concentration of suspected Persian words. In regard to the large book of Chronicles, for example, ii has recently been noted that 'there are very few Persian words in the entire work' (Peltonen 2001:239). There are, moreover, no Persian words in tiie post-exilic books of Haggai, Zechariah, and Malachi (Seow 1996: 649). Persian words are not an inevitability in Persian period texts therefore. More surprisingly, Persian loanwords can be suggested in SBH texts, such as D'THa ('precincts [?]') in 2 Kgs 23.11 (Ellenbogen 1962:137-38; KB, III: 962), or HTT^S ('steel') in Nah. 2.4 (KB, III: 929). One wonders if more might be suggested if it was not presupposed that EBH is pre-Persian era? Note the attitude expressed in Driver's comment on Deut. 33.2: 'But m 'law" is a Persian word.. .it is next to impossible that it can have been
YOUNG Late Biblical Hebrew and Hebrew Inscriptions
285
used in Heb[rew] when this Blessing was written' (S.R. Driver 1895: 393 [emphasis in original]).6 The appearance of Persian loanwords in a text has usually been taken as strong evidence for dating that text. On the basis of the Persian words in Kings and Nahum, therefore, one could argue that the linguistic evidence points to a date of composition for the Primary History and (at least some of) the 'pre-exilic' Latter Prophets in the Persian period. However, it seems more sensible at present to stress that even granting that all the suggested Persian words are indeed Persian, this does not lead inevitably to the conclusion that the works containing them were thus first composed in the Persian period. First of all, the language of the biblical texts has been updated during scribal transmission. At the very least, individual late words might have been introduced by later scribes (cf. I. Young 2001b: 130). Second, the idea that Persian words could only have come into Hebrew in the Persian or later periods is questionable. Assyrian deportations had quite likely settled Iranians in the vicinity of the kingdom of Judah by the late eighth century BCE, for example in Ashdod (Na'aman and Zadok 1988; Na'aman 1993: 108-10; cf. I. Young 2001b: 130 n. 50). Is this the origin of the use of' Ashdodite' as a term for 'foreign language' in Neh. 13.24? Interaction with Iranians would explain how a few Persian loanwords can be found even in supposedly pre-exilic texts like Kings, Nahum (and, perhaps, Qoheleth; cf. I. Young 1993:140-57). A heavy concentration of Persian words would be a feature of those works which deal intimately with Persian affairs, above all Esther. Other books, including post-exilic books like Haggai, Zechariah, and Malachi, avoided using them completely. Thus the failure to find Persian words in the inscriptions does not link them exclusively to SBH works of supposed pre-exilic origin. 3.2.2. b« vs. br. Rooker (1990a: 127-31) argues that the preposition ^1? became more prominent in LBH at the expense of ^N ('to'). He points to the Lachish letters as illustrating the EBH situation (Rooker 1990a: 131 n. 21). In general the inscriptional corpus has a predominance of ^K (46 times, as against 14 cases of bl?). Note, however, that Gogel discusses a 6. As another example, note Seow's useful discussion of Persian words in Qoheleth, and BH in general. While he goes to lengths to cast doubt on the Persian origin of D'HUB and mi^S (Seow 1996: 648), presumably because they are in preexilic texts, he says that 'there can be no question that the word D1~1S is ultimately of Persian origin' (p. 649), presumably because it only occurs in what to him are postexilic texts, even though 'we should expect Old Persian d to appear as Hebrew z or d\ Hebrew s should go back to Old Persian s, not d' (p. 649 n. 38).
286
Biblical Hebrew
couple of cases (Arad 3.3-5; 24.14-16) where 7U may appear in place of b« (Gogel 1998: 213-14; cf. Layton 1990: 634 n. 2), that is, the LBH situation (cf. below 3.3.1.16). In this case do we emphasize that SBH sometimes also has ^U for btt? Or do we claim a link with LBH? Rooker notes that ^U for ^K is quite noticeable in Jeremiah, whose setting is contemporary with the Arad letters (Rooker 1990a: 131), and even more noticeable in their other contemporary, Ezekiel (Rooker 1990a: 131). In a case such as this, can the inscriptions be even expected to agree closely with SBH? 3.2.3. ]H3 ('give')—Arad 1.2; 2.1; 7.2; 11.2. The infinitive absolute used as a command is not attested in LBH according to Eskhult (2000: 90). However, it may be found in Neh. 7.3 according to Ehrensvard (in his contribution to the present volume, pp. 169-70). It also occurs at least once in Ben Sira (Van Peursen 2000: 225-26). More importantly, several scholars have suggested that the Arad form is actually an irregular, non-BH form of the imperative, which normally in BH drops the initial nun (Sarfatti 1982: 71; Gai 1996: 530-31; cf. below 3.4.1.2). 3.2.4. nn]1...DN ('if...then you will give')—Arad 2.7. Rooker (1990a: 120-23) notes a tendency in LBH for the apodosis of a conditional sentence to be expressed by an imperfect verb, as opposed to the waw consecutive plus perfect in EBH. Further, Rooker argues that 'the apodosis in LBH tends to be asyndetic [i.e. without waw]in contrast with the syndetic apodosis in EBH' (p. 120). However, Rooker makes no claim to exhaustive treatment of the topic, nor does he claim that this sequence was exclusive to EBH. Van Peursen (2000: 222-24) suggests some important modifications to Rooker's statement, and notes the use of the imperfect in the apodosis in some EBH texts. In contrast to the Arad example, note perhaps the sequence in Lachish 3.11-12: 'If (DK) I read it, afterwards (")[nN]—no waw)I could repeat(?) it (in^nK)' (Renz and Rollig 1995, I: 418; cf. I. Young 1998a: 412 n. 10). However, Van Peursen (2000:223) notes that 'in SBH syndesis is only the rule when the apodosis has a consecutive verb form'. Therefore, the absence of waw on "IflN is not a specific LBH feature, contra Rooker's argument. 3.2.5. D~IDD ('before')—Arad5.12. This word never occurs in the core LBH works such as Chronicles. However, it does appear, for example in Ezekiel. Furthermore, what is the LBH equivalent? ^S^5 ('before') used in
YOUNG Late Biblical Hebrew and Hebrew Inscriptions
287
a temporal sense is rare in LBH sources, being more common in SBH. There are no relevant parallel passages in Samuel-Kings//Chronicles, and the Targumic translation tifr "TU is rare in the Bible, and not found in the core LBH texts (Isa. 47.7; Prov. 8.26). 3.2.6. rnnQ ('quickly')—Arad 12.3; 17.5. This word does not occur in the core LBH books, and in books suspected of being LBH it occurs only in Qoh. 4.12; 8.11; Joel 4.4. LBH uses the verb, but alongside it uses the root brQ (Wright 1998: 138-41). 3.2.7. m!T JVD ('house of the Lord')—Arad 18.9; Moussaieff Ostracon 1.4. Dobbs-Allsopp (1998: 22) cites these two inscriptions while arguing that 'house of the Lord' represents the SBH equivalent of LBH fTD DTI^Nn ('house of God'). However, 'house of the Lord' is well attested also in LBH sources, and thus should be seen as a 'common Hebrew' feature, not a specific marker of SBH. 3.2.8. JS ('lest')—Arad 24.16, 20. Rooker (1990a: 172-73; cf. Hurvitz 1972a: 147-48; Wright 1998: 86-90) suggests that in LBH the expression N 7 | Da~) appeared in the semantic range of a number of SBH expressions, including ]S. It is noteworthy that ]S is very rare in LBH books, occurring only once in Chronicles (1 Chron. 10.4//1 Sam. 31.4) and not at all in Ezra, Nehemiah, Esther, or Daniel, nor in Qoheleth, Song of Songs or Ezekiel. However, the picture is complicated by other considerations. Thus ]S is almost as rare in the SBH Kings as it is in the LBH Chronicles, appearing only twice (2 Kgs 2.16; 10.23). Note the parallel passage 2 Kgs 18.32/7 Isa. 36.18 where Kings has n!D in place of the Isaiah text's ]S. Further, |S3 is very common in the LBH of Ben Sira (Van Peursen 1999b: 230-31) which may be related to its common use in Proverbs. Finally, we note the occurrence in the post-exilic (but not heavily LBH) Malachi in a verse which has been seen as part of a canon-conscious (hence late-editorial?) 'ending' of the prophetic canon (Mai. 3.24; Chapman 2000: 112). 3.2.9. HO ('in this place')—Deutsch andHeltzer 1994: 29. The locative sense of HID and HTD is not attested in LBH (Hurvitz 1982: 89-90). It is likely we have an example of HTQ ('from this place [from there]') in Lachish 3.18 (Torczyner 1938: 59). However, other readings and translations have been proposed (cf. Renz and Rollig 1995,1: 418).
288
Biblical Hebrew
3.2.10. PIT ('month')^Gezer Calendar,1 passim; Arad 20.2(?).s The word is not used in core LBH, which prefers the common biblical word 2nn. However, note Zech. 11.8; Job 3.6; 7.3; 29.2; 39.2, and, in Biblical Aramaic: Dan. 4.26; Ezra 6.15. 3.2.11. ISO ('letter')Lachish, passim. Rooker(1990a: 139-41; cf. Hurvitz 1972a: 58-59) suggests that in LBH a new word for 'written document', DPO, joined the EBH words "ISO and DfQQ (which was rare). He says further: 'Consistent with this diachronic distribution is the lexical preference of the Lachish letters of the early sixth century. In these letters the early term "ISO occurs repeatedly, while the late term HHD is not attested'. Interestingly Rooker is contrasting the linguistic usage of the Lachish letters with that of Ezekiel, whose career overlaps with the time when the Lachish letters were written. In any case, note that "ISO remains in common use in LBH. In the inscriptional corpus "ISO is found 13 times, only in the Lachish letters. Outside of Lachish, it is not out of the question that the LBH noun DfO does in fact appear in Khirbet el-Qom 1.1 (Zevit 1984: 43-44; I. Young 1993: 109; cf. below 3.3.1.7). 3.2.12. nrn ('the time')—Lachish 6.2. Polzin (1976:42-43) notes that the pluralization of certain nouns is a feature of LBH. The word DTIU is one of these. The plural is only found in EBH once, with a suffix (Isa. 33.6). D,y is found in the singular in Lachish, like the usual EBH form. However, since PU is often singular in LBH too, this is not an exclusive marker of SBH, but rather a feature of 'common Hebrew'. 3.2.13. R] ('please')—Lachish 3.5(?),9 6.5. Polzin (1976: 145; cf. Bendavid 1967-71: 67; Dobbs-Allsopp 1998: 24) points out that K3 is rare in LBH. However, it does occur eight times in Chronicles, seven in Ezra and 7. The relevance of the Gezer Calendar is debatable. While some view it as Judahite (Diringer and Brock 1968: 39), others view it as representing another southern dialect (Gibson 1973: 1), a northern dialect (Cross and Freedman 1952:47), or wonder whether it is non-Israelite (e.g. Kutscher 1982: 67; Schtile 2000: 26 n. 2). While my study (I. Young 1992b) demonstrated its links with ABH, it did not prove that such a style was exclusive to Israel. We remain largely ignorant of Phoenician literature, for example. 8. Gibson (1973: 51) and (Aharoni 1981: 40) read the word in the Arad text, but recently Renz and Rollig (1995,1: 386) do not. Gogel (1998: 391) notes both readings. 9. The reading in Lachish 3.5 is considered 'most likely' by Renz and Rollig (1995,1: 417), but other readings have been proposed.
YOUNG Late Biblical Hebrew and Hebrew Inscriptions
289
Nehemiah, and two in Daniel. Note also nine occurrences total in Ezekiel, Lamentations, Song of Songs and Qoheleth. Furthermore, one might ask whether one (or two) occurrences only in the inscriptional corpus is evidence of a link with SBH, or with the rarity of the form in LBH. 3.2.14. lap ('arise ')—Lachish 73.7.Rooker(1990a: 149-52) notes that in LBH 1ÛI? begins to intrude into the semantic field of Dip. He suggests that it is significant that 'The later parallel ~ÎQU however, does not occur in these [Lachish] letters from the early sixth century' (Rooker 1990a: 149 n. 83). Again one notes the peculiarity of such use of the Lachish letters in a work on LBH features in the language of their contemporary Ezekiel. In any case, since Dip remains common in LBH the question arises again whether its appearance in the inscription ("TftU is not attested) is a link with SBH or just an insignificant feature of 'common Hebrew'. 3.2.15. npb vs. «'Un. Polak (1997-98: 142-44) notes that npb ('take') is relatively rare in LBH. He argues that its main replacement is №31. In the inscriptions Pip1? is found eight times (G.I. Davies 1991:418) while neither ????? ??? ??? ?? ??? ????? ??????????? ??? ????? ??? ?????? ???????????? none of the occurrences of Flpb need have the additional LBH sense of 'buy', although 'buy' has in fact been suggested (Albright 1941: 20, on Lachish 3.18). Nevertheless, PIp7 ('take') is found in all types of Hebrew, so this is not an exclusive link with SBH. 3.2.16. "JO ('from '). Polzin (1976: 66) notes the tendency of Chronicles to leave ]Q unassimilated before a noun without an article. The inscriptions present 78 cases of assimilated nun in this environment (57 in the Samaria Ostraca), with only two exceptions, both uncertain readings: Arad 26.2; Beersheba 1.2. However, among the Masoretic Text of the Hebrew Bible (MT) forms of the biblical books it is actually only Chronicles and to a lesser extent Job and Daniel which have a significant proportion of unassimilated ]Q (cf. Rezetko's contribution to the present volume, pp. 230-31). ??????? ?? ??? ??? ??? ?????? ??????? ?????????? ?? ??? ???? ?? ????? also exhibits this feature very strongly (I. Young 200Ib: 122-23). Esther, on the contrary, has no examples of unassimilated nun in 29 occurrences. Further, sporadic occurrences are found in almost all EBH books. It is thus doubtful whether unassimilated nun is a general feature of LBH. 3.2.17. nnb£> rhv ('I have indeed sent')—papMurabba'at 17a.l. Polzin (1976: 43-44) claimed that the infinitive absolute used with a finite verb
290
Biblical Hebrew
was almost missing from Chronicles. However, Rendsburg (1980a: 67-68) has pointed out that it is common in the core LBH book of Esther and that its absence should thus not be considered a feature of LBH in general. 3.2.18. mpDH "D1 rrn 7\l*\—SUoam Tunnel 1. Ehrensvârd (1997: 37) points out that this sort of introduction (lit.: 'now this was the manner of the tunnel') is found three times in SBH, but not in LBH, as part of his argument that the inscriptions are close to SBH. However, he provides no LBH equivalent nor any reference to a place where such an introduction would have been appropriate in LBH. Further, all the SBH examples he cites are lacking ÎT1 even when the reference is clearly to a past event (e.g. 1 Kgs 9.15). Hence this may be better classed as a form independent of BH (cf. below 3.4.1.43). 3.2.19. Him ('whilestill')—Siloam Tunnel2. Ehrensvârd(1997:37)also cites this form and notes its absence from LBH. LBH would seem to prefer simple 1117(1), which is, of course, common in SBH also. 3.2.20. ID^TI ('and they flowed [went] ')—Siloam Tunnel 4. Hurvitz (1982: 48-52) argues that the piel of the verb "J^il, as opposed to the regular qal form, is late. He points out that the Siloam Tunnel evidences the qal (Hurvitz 1982: 50; the only occurrence of "f^l in the inscriptions—see 3.3.1.4). However, as Hurvitz points out: 'The root hlk in the Qal conjugation occurs frequently (over 1000 times) throughout all of biblical literature: ancient and late...' (Hurvitz 1982: 49). Therefore this is not a special link with SBH. 3.2.21. rrnn 7U IIZ^ ('who was over the house ')—Silwan Tomb 2.1. This title of a high official is also found on several seals (Layton 1990:637-41; Gogel 1998:462,487,492). Ehrensvârd (1997: 38) notes its absence from LBH. However, note that the full title is only found in the books of Kings and Isaiah. Most of these references are in the parallel texts about Sennacherib, King of Assyria's attack on Hezekiah of Judah (2 Kgs 18.18,37; 19.2//Isa. 36.3,22; 37.2). The other two references are to Arza, at the end of Elah's reign over Israel (1 Kgs 16.9), and Shebna, also in Hezekiah's reign (Isa. 22.15).10 It is important to note that none of the passages has a
10. A relationship between Shebna and the Siloam Tomb has often been suggested (cf. I. Young 1998a: 422 n. 29).
YOUNG Late Biblical Hebrew and Hebrew Inscriptions
291
parallel in Chronicles. Hence the question arises whether Chronicles (or LBH in general) ever had the opportunity to use this form of the title. A shorter version of the title seems to be PPDn 715, which occurs in the Joseph story in Genesis 3 7-50 and in Kings (1 Kgs4.6;2Kgs 15.5;Layton 1990: 633-37). 2 Kings 15.5 has a parallel in 2 Chron. 26.21, where instead of Kings' 'Jotham the king's son was over the house (FTOn 715)' we have 'Jotham his son was over the house of the king ("]7Q!"[ fTD 715)'. If these are to be considered variations on rPDH 715 "12JK we must note for our current discussion that neither Pf DH 715 nor "[7ÛH JT!} 715 occurs in the inscriptions. 3.2.22. nnn *pD ('silver and gold')—Silwan Tomb 2.1. Ehrensvàrd (1997: 37-38) argues that while SBH prefers the order 'silver and gold', LBH prefers 'gold and silver'. However, there is no absolute distinction, only a question of proportions. 'Gold and silver' is not uncommon in EBH texts. LBH also uses both. Thus Chronicles has eight 'silver and gold' alongside its ten 'gold and silver' (Rooker 1990a: 174-75). 3.2.23. nnQK ('his maidservant')—Silwan Tomb2.2. HQK ('maidservant') is almost completely missing from LBH, appearing only, in the plural, in Ezra 2.65//Neh. 7.67. However, its possible parallel nrtS^ is also rare (Esth. 7.4; 2 Chron. 28.10; cf. Joel 3.2; Qoh. 2.7) and thus it is unclear whether one should see any significance in this. 3.2.24. Summary. The overall impression left by the preceding discussion is just how weak is the case for a clear and close link of SBH with the Hebrew inscriptions. Very few strong points have been made. Points 3.2.3 (]D3 as infinitive absolute), 3.2.9 (locative HT), and 3.2.19 (T1I7D1) seem to be the strongest. In these three, a form unattested or very rare in LBH (which uses a different linguistic form) is found in the inscriptions. More often the argument is based on the absence of a rare LBH feature from the inscriptions in preference for the common (SBH and LBH) Hebrew form. Examples of this nature could be multiplied beyond those mentioned by other scholars and discussed above. We recall that LBH is basically identical to SBH with additional, special features. Thus while arguments about the absence of special LBH features indicate in what ways the inscriptions are not related to LBH, they do not provide a positive argument that the inscriptions are related in a special way to SBH. A more convincing interpretation of such features is that the inscriptions
292
Biblical Hebrew
simply share the pool of common biblical' features with SBH, LBH, and other types of BH such as ABH and QH. This is not an argument for a special link with any of them. At other times the forms suggested to be distinctively SBH or LBH were found to be not clearly characteristic of one variety of Hebrew. Finally, sometimes SBH forms absent from LBH lacked clear LBH linguistic oppositions. Thus, while there are some special links between the inscriptions and SBH, these are not strong enough to argue a self-evident identity between the two corpora. 3.3. Links with Late Biblical Hebrew I now turn to those linguistic features found in Hebrew inscriptions which might be suggested to be characteristic of LBH. I organize this section into two parts. The first gives those features which have a suggested linguistic opposition against a parallel SBH feature. The second gives those forms which, while found in LBH and not SBH, do not have a demonstrable opposition to a SBH form. 3.3.1. Late Biblical Hebrew Links with Linguistic Oppositions to Standard Biblical Hebrew 3.3.1.1. HO ]" ('wine: 3Bath')—Arad 1.3; 16.5. Polzin(1976: 58-60) argues that LBH has a tendency to place the substantive before the numeral in apposition, where SBH uses the opposite word order. Weitzman (1996; cf. Hurvitz 1982: 167-68) has pointed out not only that the LBH word order is used in EBH, but also (p. 180) has discussed the inscriptional evidence. 3.3.1.2. T bv ('under the command of )—Arad 24.15. Polzin (1976: 148; cf. Dobbs-Allsopp 1998: 22) notes that the idiom T ^V is only found in Chronicles, Ezra, and twice in Jeremiah, as well as in MH. He suggests that it perhaps replaces the EBH TD. Note again how Jeremiah, set contemporary with this Arad ostracon, shares a form otherwise LBH. 3.3.1.3. nun] ('he wanted')—Arad40.7. Hurvitz (1972a: 73-78; cf. Wright 1998: 124-28) points out that the word HiT) in SBH has such meanings as 'take pleasure in, be favourable to' (cf. KB, III: 1281). In MH the root develops the sense 'to want', which in BH is expressed by j*Sl"l. Hurvitz suggests that the semantic shift occured under the influence of Aramaic niTl. Although it does not preserve any cases of the verb !"Iin ('to want'), LBH does evidence the noun "piP ('will'), especially in the
YOUNG Late Biblical Hebrew and Hebrew Inscriptions
293
phrase |1H1P) ÎTOI^ ('to do the will of... '). Although the word is partially reconstructed, all recent commentators find the 'late Aramaism' nK"l ('to want') in Arad 40.7, dated to the late eighth century BCE (Aharon 1981: 71; Ahituv 1992: 88; Renz and Rôllig 1995,1: 147; Gogel 1998: 396). 3.3.1.4. N"Q vs. ~[bn. Polak points out that the verb "|bn ('go') is relatively rare in LBH, corresponding to a proportionate rise in the frequency of «ID ('come'; Polak 1997-98:144-48). Polak also notes that ~[bn is rare in the inscriptions, occuring in fact only once (Siloam Tunnel 1. 4) as against nine occurrences of «ID (G.I. Davies 1991: 301) corresponding thus with LBH rather than SBH (Polak 1997-98: 147). 3.3.1.5. DDDil ('the one who gathers')—City of David 2.2, 3 (Naveh 2000: 2-3). Rooker (1990a: 156-58; cf. Hurvitz 1982: 123-25; Wright 1998: 156-60) states that '[t]he verb ODD, in the Qal and Piel stems is restricted to LBH passages with the connotation "gather, collect'". Despite Rooker's strong formulation, one notes the qal participle in Ps. 33.7, a psalm one might consider to represent SBH, as well as the hithpael in Isa. 28.20. Note further the use of the root in Deut. 32.34 in the Samaritan Pentateuch in place of the MT's hapax DQ3. The SBH oppositions to ODD, j*3p and ^DN (cf. Gezer Calendar 1), continue to be used in LBH as well. 3.3.1.6. 1HT ('his months[?] ')—Gezer Calendar 1 (twice), 2, 6. Rooker (1990a: 91-93; cf. Polzin 1976: 38-40) states: 'The use of the proleptic pronominal suffix increased in frequency in the history of BH and can be seen as a characteristic of LBH'. However, Rendsburg (1980a: 69) objects that this construction is common in EBH as well. Further, the interpretation of the Gezer form is open to dispute (I. Young 1992b: 363-66; recent discussion in Emerton 1999b). 3.3.1.7. mPD ('his inscription ')—Khirbetel-Qom 3.1. Rooker(1990a: 139-41) states that 'The noun DPD...is restricted to Ezekiel, Esther, Daniel, Ezra, Nehemiah, and Chronicles'. Zevit (1984:43-44; cf. I. Young 1993: 109) has suggested that the noun is found in this eighth-century Khirbet el-Qom tomb inscription. Note, however, that the reading of a verb with an object suffix 'he wrote it' is preferred by most scholars. 3.3.1.8. HTH Pin ('in this season ')—Lachish 6.2. The noun PU is generally feminine in BH. Torczyner (1938: 106-107) discusses possible cases in the biblical text where PI? seems to be masculine. The majority of these (including all those which Torczyner, who believed PU was always feminine, could not explain away as anything but a scribal error) are found in books with LBH links: Ezekiel, Song of Songs, and Qoheleth. Furthermore,
294
Biblical Hebrew
nu is taken as masculine in LBH when it is expressed as the plural DTIIJ (cf. 3.2.12), which can be found with masculine adjectives, see Ezra 10.14 (cf. BDB: 773). 3.3.1.9. nS"l^ ('to cause to be slack')—Lachish 6.6. The normal SBH causative for the root Î1S") is the hiphil stem. The piel may reflect the Aramaic use of the pael stem. Within BH the distribution of the piel is 'late' (Ezra 4.4; Ezek. 1.24, 25; Jer. 38.4; cf. Job 12.21). However, the occurences in Jeremiah and Ezekiel, while both works reflecting LBH influence, are from texts which date themselves contemporary with the Lachish letters. 3.3.1.10. DON! ('andstored')—MesadHashavyahu111.5, 6-7. The verb DDK ('to store') is not found in BH. The cognate noun 'storehouse' is attested in Prov. 3.10 and 4Q416 2.2 from Qumran (DCH,I: 346). Since there is a linguistic opposition to SBH "1UN ('storehouse') a case could be made that this is a feature of LBH. 3.3.1.11. DDK! ('and stored')—Mesad Hashavyahu 1.5, 6-7. Rooker (1990a: 100-102) argues that 'a distinctive feature of LBH is the diminished employment of the waw consecutive tense... Accompanying the tendency to avoid the consecutive tense in LBH is the increase in the use of the simple tense with waw conjunction. ' Scholars have long noted what Rooker calls 'the reluctance to use the waw consecutive tense' in the Hebrew inscriptions, particularly the Lachish letters (Albright 1939:21 ; Baumgartner 1940-41: 609; Rooker 1990: 100 n. 123). It is notable that while the waw consecutive plus perfect is used eight times in the Arad letters, and waw consecutive plus imperfect is common in the Mesad Hashavyahu ostracon, waw consécutives are very rare elsewhere.12 Nevertheless, it is hard to find examples where simple waw with a verb is found where waw consecutive might be expected.13 One might explain this as due to the 11. The relevance of the Mesad Hashavyahu material for JH might be questioned, since neither Judahite political control of the region, nor a background of biblical law for the case discussed can be taken as certain (see recently Hubner 1997). Although we know little about the neighbouring languages, it is clear that all the inscriptions written in Canaanite (including Philistine, see the Ekron text) were in a language very similar to each other and to BH, and hence it is difficult to be sure we have 'Hebrew' here. 12. I found waw consecutive plus perfect at Arad 2.7-8; 3.5, 8; 7.5-6 (waw reconstructed); 16.4; 17.3-4; 24.13 (probably), 14-15(orimperative?);Moussaieff2.3, 4; and waw consecutive plus imperfect at Lachish 4.6-7; Mesad Hashavyahu 1.4, 5,7, 8; Siloam Tunnel 1. 4. 13. Apart from the current form, only the dubious case of waw plus imperfect in Kuntillet 'Ajrud 8.1 (context unclear; Phoenician?)
YOUNG Late Biblical Hebrew and Hebrew Inscriptions
295
nature of the texts—very seldom are two 'consecutive' actions described. However, Isserlin has suggested that an important factor is the predominance of inverted sentence structures in the inscriptions, that is, an avoidance of placing the verb in sentence initial position where the waw consecutive appears (Isserlin 1972: 200-202; cf. I. Young 1993: 104). In any case, there are numerous cases of simple waw plus perfect in EBH (see Rezetko's contribution to the present volume, pp. 233-35), and the converted tenses are used regularly in LBH. Also, 'The decline of wayyiqtol in [LBH] is significant, but.. .there is no indication that it declines in usage in favour ofweqatar (Eskhult 2000: 84). Note also, that an alternative interpretation of the Mesad Hashavyahu form is as an infinitive absolute (e.g. Diringer and Brock 1968: 42; cf. Gogel 1998: 267 n. 30). The infinitive absolute in place of a finite verb is slightly more common in LBH than SBH (Eskhult 2000: 90), but still well attested in EBH (Rendsburg 2002b: 37-38). Schule (2000: 133-34) has recently argued against seeing DDK"! as an infinitive.14 3.3.1.12. !Tn IHp ('he was harvesting')—Mesad Hashavyahu 1.3. Rooker(1990a: 108-109) states: 'The use of the copula PIT! with the participle, a common feature of MH [cf. Sarfatti 1992: 56-57], enjoyed an increased frequency in the literature of LBH'. However, the issue is merely increased frequency, not absence of this feature from SBH. Muraoka (1999: 194-201) has in fact argued that it is not uncommon in SBH, so much so that 'it is hardly the case that the syntagm is characteristic of Late Biblical Hebrew' (p. 195). Ehrensvàrd (in his contribution to this volume: p. 171) disputes this last claim, but does not dispute that there are a significant number of SBH occurrences.15 Finally, we should note the alternative reading of the inscription: 'Your servant is a harvester piJp ~j"QU). Your servant was...("["ai7 iTH)' (cf. Renz and Rôllig 1995,1: 324). 3.3.1.13. | Q (from ') unassimilated. As noted above (3.2.16) there area couple of suggested places where the preposition ]Q ('from') is unassimilated before a noun without a definite article, a supposed tendency of LBH. However, the readings are dubious. 14. Schule (2000: 133-42) proposes that the so-called 'perfect consecutive' in fact represents a stative form used for circumstantial clauses. 15. Dobbs-Allsopp (1998: 30-31) points out that rrn plus participle is not attested in Aramaic before the Hermopolis letters (c. 500 BCE). This shows commendable attention to the inner chronology of Aramaic (cf. n. 4, above). However, what are we to make of this? Is it evidence that SBH is post-exilic? Or that Aramaic evidence must be handled very cautiously when talking about the chronology of Hebrew?
296
Biblical Hebrew
3.3.1.14. "f^QH irn^N ('Ashiyahu the king')—Moussaieff Ostmcon 1.1-2.16 The word order 'X the king' is suggested to be LBH, in contrast to the SBH 'the king X' (Kropat 1909: 74; D. Talshir 1992: 280). However, as Rezetko points out (see his article in the present volume, pp. 229-30) the 'LBH' order is found in EBH texts, while some LBH books like Esther use the 'SBH' order completely. 3.3.1.15. Afowma/s/y/e. Frank Polak( 1997-98; 1998; 2002a; and in his contribution to the present volume, pp. 47-49) has argued that a 'nominal' style, that is, a high proportion of nouns to verbs, is a characteristic of LBH. Polak (e.g. 1997-98:51 -52) also points out the highly nominal style of Hebrew inscriptions: of course, there are no verbs in many administrative documents like the Samaria Ostraca. Polak himself sees this as due to the genre, and would suggest that his findings are relevant for the chronology of literary Hebrew only. The later strata of SBH, like the Jeremiah Vita, and LBH, are increasingly under the influence of the scribal style of administrative Hebrew, whereas the earlier narratives, like the Samson narrative, are under the influence of oral literary style. In any case, one may question whether Polak's data require a chronological interpretation. He points out that the verbal style, that is with a high proportion of verbs to nouns, which he sees as a feature of early narratives, is also found in late sources such as the later Midrashim and some medieval narratives (Polak 2002a; see also his contribution to the present volume, pp. 59, 81). The operative factor then is not date but nature of source. Works using oral traditions as their source tend to preserve some features of oral style; works using written sources, or heavily reworked by their scribes, reflect a more scribal style. Polak has thus discovered important information relating to the origins of biblical traditions, but it is not relevant to the question of chronology. 3.3.1.16. 71? for vN. As noted above (3.2.2) several cases of the supposed LBH tendency to use 7U in place of the preposition ^N ('to') have been suggested. 3.3.1.17. HON *f?Nl D^HNan ('for 200 and WOO [i.e. 1200] cubits')— Siloam Tunnel 5. S.R. Driver (1913b: x) points out that the order of the numerals, with the smaller first, is rare in the Hebrew Bible, except in P, 16. There is debate regarding the authenticity of the Moussaieff Ostraca, see: Berlejung and Schttle 1998; C.A. Rollston (1998 [a section that appears within Bordreuil, Israel and Pardee 1998]); Eph'al and Naveh 1998. Part of the case against the ostraca has rested on the presence of 'late' Hebrew elements in them. In view of the discussion in this section, we can see that such an argument cannot be decisive.
YOUNG Late Biblical Hebrew and Hebrew Inscriptions
297
Ezekiel and Chronicles. However, as is usual with LBH features, the construction is also attested in EBH sources (e.g. 1 Kgs 5.12). 3.3.1.18. HQK PINO ('100 cubits')—Siloam Tunnel 5-6. S.R. Driver ( 1913b: x) further notes that the use of the number ' 100' in the form HKQ is common in the P source, which has been argued to have links with LBH (Polzin 1976). Outside of the Pentateuch HNQ is only found in books with a concentration of LBH features: Qoh. 8.12; Esth. 1.4; Neh. 5.11 ; 2 Chron. 25.9. 3.3.1.19. IS» 3HT ('goldof Ophir')—Tell Qasile 2.1. The expression 'gold of Ophir' occurs four times in the Hebrew Bible. Three times (Isa. 13.12; Ps. 45.10; Job 28.16) the word 'gold' is expressed by the rare word DfD. Only in the LBH of Chronicles (1 Chron. 29.4), and in this inscription, is the common word DHT used (Sarfatti 1982: 77). Note that DPD occurs in LBH in Dan. 10.5, although its distribution hardly favours the idea that it is characteristic specifically of LBH (contra Dobbs-Allsopp 1998: 14). 3.3.1.20. Theophoric element IT- Kutscher (1974: 4-5, 122-23) suggested that the use of the theophoric element 1ÎT- in personal names in the MT of Isaiah reflected a linguistic background in the pre-exilic period. In contrast, the use of the short form !T- marked lQIsaa's linguistic background as from the Second Temple period. This idea is based on Torczyner's work on the Lachish letters where, it should be noted, he went to great lengths to explain away pre-exilic evidence of the co-existence of the short ending (Torczyner 1938: 24-25). While the long form certainly predominates in the inscriptions, I found the short form 14 times.17 No clear chronology emerges from the biblical evidence. Note especially the tendency of the LBH Chronicles to have long endings where the SBH Kings has short (Japhet 1968: 339). 3.3.1.21. Use of the infinitive construct. Polzin (1976: 45-46; cf. Wright 1998: 67-72) argues that LBH shows a less frequent use of the infinitive construct with 3 and D (typically 'when'), and that even when LBH uses these they are found without introductory TH. He further argues that LBH shows an increased use of the infinitive construct with 7 ('to'; Polzin 1976: 56-58). The Hebrew inscriptions present 19 forms identified as infinitive constructs with a preposition,18 17 of them with ;> and only one 17. Gezer Calendar left margin and reverse; Tell Jemmeh ostracon 2.3,4; for the seals see Gogel 1998: 485, 486, 489, 490, 493; Deutsch and Heltzer 1995: 47. 18. With^: Arad 1.8; 24.18; 40.14; 111.7; Lachish 3.1-2, 10, 14,15,18, 20 (note the number in Lachish 3!); 6.6; 13.1; Mesad Hashavyahu 1.12-13; Moussaieff 1.2;
298
Biblical Hebrew
each with 11 and D. Neither of these latter two cases appears with TP1 Gogel (1998:289-90) notes that no example of TH appears in the inscriptions. Schule (2000: 182-86) argues that this is evidence that TH is a late redactional element in BH. Instead, in the inscriptions circumstantial clauses have a prepositional/adverbial phrase in first position. Although the inscriptions link in with what might be expected of LBH in these cases, note for example that there are EBH cases of infinitives without TH (Polzin 1976: 46) and LBH cases with TPl (Rooker 1990a: 103). 3.3.2. Other Links with LBH. In this section I present forms which have connections with LBH sources but for which linguistic oppositions with SBH have not been found. 3.3.2.1. "D"lp^l ('andto the Qerosite')—Aradl8.5. The Qerosites are only attested, as a family of temple servants, in Ezra 2.44//Neh. 7.47. 3.3.2.2. flN m|T ('somethinghappen to ')—Arad24.16. The imperfect of mp with DN as the object marker only occurs in Qoh. 2.14; 9.11. However, note the participle with DK in Gen. 42.29. 3.3.2.3. "pun "131 ('an order from the king ')—Arad24.17. The expression is very common in Chronicles and Esther, but for EBH note 1 Sam. 21.9. 3.3.2.4. "1TQD a type ofwine(?) Hazor 7. This word is otherwise only attested in S ong 2.13, 15;7.13, meaning 'flowerbuds of the vine ' (KB, II : 759). 3.3.2.5.Dn]3 N7 ('withoutsons')—Moussaieff Ostracon 2.3. This expression is found only in 1 Chron. 2.30, 32 (Berlejung and Schûle 1998: 69), as well as Rabbinic sources and Aramaic (Qimron 1998: 181-82). However, the use of tib in similar syntagms to indicate non-existence or non-presence is attested in all strata of Hebrew, albeit only in poetry in BH outside of Chronicles (Van Peursen 1999: 226). 3.3.2.6. ^QI? "]T IT m ('let your hand be with me')—Moussaieff Ostracon 2.3-4. This expression is only found in 1 Chron. 4.10 (Berlejung and Schule 1998: 70; cf. Qimron 1998: 184). 3.3.3. Conclusion. It is initially quite surprising to see how many links can be suggested between the inscriptions and LBH. One might have expected these to be rarer, or indeed non-existent, as has sometimes been claimed in the literature (cf. Albright 1939: 20-21; Ehrensvàrd 1997: 36-37). On Ophel 1.3; Siloam Tunnel 2, 4. With 3: Kuntillet 'Ajrud 8.1 (Phoenician?). With D: Arad 16.3.
YOUNG Late Biblical Hebrew and Hebrew Inscriptions
299
reflection, however, this discovery can be seen in harmony with the biblical evidence. Scholars of LBH have always admitted that LBH forms could be found in EBH works. It is only the accumulation of such features which marks a work as LBH (see, e.g., Hurvitz 1973: 76). LBH features are found occasionally in pre-exilic texts, a fact demonstrated by the inscriptions. Thus (at least some of) the features of LBH were in existence in this period (remember that very few LBH features are unattested in EBH sources). Occasionally these LBH forms made their way into SBH compositions. An issue which has received inadequate attention is the logical argument: if pre-exilic authors could occasionally choose to use LBH forms, why could a pre-exilic author not choose to write in a style with a heavy concentration of LBH features (cf. my argument regarding Qoheleth in I. Young 1993: 140-57)? If the LBH features existed in pre-exilic times, yet authors chose to avoid them, can we prove that post-exilic authors could not likewise have been able to avoid such forms and write SBH? The accumulation of LBH forms discussed in this section do not, in my judgment, indicate a special relationship between the inscriptions and LBH. For one thing, too few 'LBH' forms are completely unattested in SBH sources. Also, one does not find a concentration of LBH features in one inscription comparable with the core LBH texts. In this sense the arguments of Hurvitz and Ehrensvàrd cited above are correct: the inscriptions are like SBH in that they avoid a heavy concentration of LBH features. However, this is not a strong argument that therefore SBH and the inscriptions must be closely related. Indeed, we did not find strong evidence of a special relationship between the inscriptions and SBH. Instead, the inscriptions share much that is common to both SBH and LBH. Occasionally they share special features of SBH and LBH. Quite a number of times inscriptional Hebrew is indépendant of both types of Hebrew (cf. I. Young 1997: 8-9). It is to these independent features that we now turn. 3.4. Inscriptional Forms Unattested or Rare in the MT 3.4.1. Unattested in the MT. Forms are unattested in the Bible for a number of reasons. Sometimes it is due to accident: no context for mentioning that word occurs in the Hebrew Bible. At other times other words are preferred in BH to express the meaning of the inscriptional word. 3.4.1.1. Abbreviations. The inscriptions use abbreviations such as £> for 'shekel' (e.g. Arad 16.5; see G.I. Davies 1991:488) or 3 for 'Bath (measure)' (e.g. Arad 1.3; see G.I. Davies 1991: 512-13). Although strongly suspected to have been used at some stage of the history of the text (Tov
300
Biblical Hebrew
1992: 256-58), no abbreviations are attested in existing biblical manuscripts. 3.4.1.2. ]HD ('give! ')—Arad 1.2; 2.1; 7.2; 11.2. Several scholars have suggested that this is the qal imperative of the root ]H], which in BH always drops the initial nun (Sarfatti 1982: 71; Gai 1996: 530-31) instead of an infinitive absolute used as a command (see 3.2.3). 3.4.1.3. D"1 ('day')—Arad 1.4 etc. The consistent defective spelling of this word in contrast to BH DV has been interpreted as indicating that the inscriptional form was pronounced *yam (Cross and Freedman 1952: 50, 53; Schule2000:52), the unattested singular to the MT plural D'tf('days'). However, it cannot be excluded that we have merely a case of non-MT orthography (cf. below, section 4). 3.4.1.4.11D ('remainder')—Arad 1.5; 5.3. The noun Til? ('remainder') is unattested in BH, which uses a range of other words for this meaning: "WEI, "irm, "IKK?, irr (V. Sasson 1979: 17-26; cf. I. Young 1993: 113). Ahituv (1995:379-80) notes the occurrence of TO in MH. Sarfatti (1992: 60-61) argues that the use of 111? as a noun, rather than an adverb 'still, yet, again (etc.)', represents a typologically more ancient linguistic usage in the inscriptions as opposed to BH. 3.4.1.5. ]10»TT Hup ('the first flour')—Arad 1.5-6; cf. 5.3-4. Although various sorts of flour are mentioned in BH, this designation is not used. 3.4.1.6. D!D~in ('you shall loadf?] ')—Arad 1.6-7. The interpretation of this word is disputed, but it is generally thought to be used in a sense not attested in the Bible, such as 'load onto a donkey' (Ahituv 1995: 380-81) or 'grind' (Gibson 1973: 52; V. Sasson 1979: 7-16; for other suggestions seeAharoni 1981: 13; Renz and Rôllig 1995,1: 355-56; Schiile 2000: 115 n.2). 3.4.1.7. "]Q^2/7 ^RET ('may [the Lord] ask for your wellbeing')— Arad 18.2-3. In BH the corresponding phrase attaches the pronoun to an additional preposition ^, not onto the noun D"!1?^ (e.g. DH^ I^NIZH DlW?, Gen. 43.27). Parallels to the Arad form are found in pre-Israelite Canaan in the Canaanite-Akkadian of the Ta'anach and Amarna letters (cf. Hani lisalu sulumka, 'may the gods ask after your wellbeing', Ta'anach 1.5-6; Rainey 1971: 14-15; Loewenstamm 1972: 70). Gibson (1973: 53; cf. Loewenstamm 1972:70) notes further that the expression is not used in the Bible with God as the subject. In Deut. 23.7 we find the expression DD^C^ Bmn $h ('you shall not seek their peace'), with the suffix on the noun, albeit with a different verbal root.
YOUNG Late Biblical Hebrew and Hebrew Inscriptions
301
3.4.1.8.-^ "|ru"Q ('1have blessedyou by [theLord]")~Arad 16.2 etc. The preposition 7 used to express agency with the verb ~["Q is only attested in inscriptional Hebrew, at Arad, and Kuntillet ' Ajrud. The Sheffield Dictionary (DC//, II: 270) also cites 1 Chron. 29.20. However, here the *7 seems to be simply indicating the object. Contrast, for example, Gen. 27.7: '1 will bless you before (^S^1) the Lord'. Sarfatti notes, however, the use of the passive participle ...^ ~p""Q in, for instance, Judg. 17.2. The parallels to the inscription form in the Aramaic of the Hermopolis papyri trom c. 500 BCE (Hermopolis 1.2 etc.; cf. Hoftijzer and Jongeling 1995,1: 201 ) show the dangers of using Aramaic sources to establish the chronology of Hebrew. 3.4.1.9. ""QTn ('Andconcerning the matter... ')—Arad 18.6-7. For 'concerning', BH prefers constructions with other prepositions, particularly 7U (see, e.g., Gen. 43.18). 3.4.1.10. mrrn ('as the Lord lives ')—Lachish 3.9; Arad 21.5(7) (cf Renz andRôllig 1995, I: 387; Gogel 1998: 391). BH always spells thi expression as two words (cf. Lachish 6.12; 12.3). While we may just be dealing with a non-MT spelling (cf. section 4), it is likely that the spelling reflects a colloquial pronunciation of the idiom (cf. Schniedewind 2000:160-61 ). Rooker cites this form as evidence of the SBH morphology of the perfect of the verb !Tn (Rooker 1990a: 82 n. 55). However the expression is not normally considered to contain a verb (BDB: 311-12; KB. I: 307-308). 3.4.1.11. DTpnm ('and hand them over)—Arad 24.14-15; DDmD ( on your life ')—Arad 24.18. The Ii/S interchange in these words OpD for BH IpS and EDD for BH 2ED3 ) has received much discussion (cf. Sarfatti 1982: 69-71; 1992: 43-44; 1. ïoune J993: 112-13). Whatever the explanation, we clearly have two non-biblical forms here. 3.4.1.12. D"1 Tip] ('[before] the sun sets')—Arad 40.10-11. The reading and interpretation of this section present some difficulties (cf. Renz and Rôllig 1995,1: 148) but most commentators read as above. The only possible biblical parallel where the day 'goes down' (~IT) rather than 'enters' (NIHl) is found in Judg. 19.11, which is, however, a very difficult text (cf. BDB: 433). 3.4.1.13. rfrvhD^T 133[*«]('we are not able to send')—Arad 40.13-14. The participle of blT is not attested in BH, but is typical of MH (Perez Fernandez 1999: 114). Similarly, the negation of the participle b ]••« is typical of MH (Segal 1927: 162-63). Eskhult (2000: 88) notes th parallel verses 1 Kgs 22.8/72 Chron. 18.7 where Kings has $fo + imperfect,
302
Biblical Hebrew
whereas the LBH Chronicles has ] n N + participle. In BH we would normally expect ^DID $h instead of the Arad form (Aharoni 1981: 73; cf. Sarfatti 1992: 55-56). If one wished to equate MH with 'lateness', this form would thus qualify as LBH. 3.4.1.14. ^TID ]" ('dark wine >l9)—Avigad Wine Decanter 1. Although many sorts of wine are referred to in the Hebrew Bible (Jordan 2002), this variety is not mentioned. This is either by accident or because BH refers to this sort of wine using a different name. Rabbinic sources refer to dark wine using the adjective 11112? (Demsky 1972: 234). 3.4.1.15. DID ('write[?]')—City of David 2.1 (Naveh 2000: 2-3). The root E~1D is not attested in the Hebrew Bible. Naveh (2000: 3) wonders whether 'it stands for u"12? (> CD"ID in later Hebrew), meaning "to incise, to scratch, to make marks, to make incisions in the body, to wound"'. 3.4.1.16. 1Î1T ('months[?] ')—Gezer Calendar 1 (twice), 2, 6. If this form is to be understood as terminating in a masculine plural construct case ending (I. Young 1992b: 363-66), rather than a proleptic suffix (see 3.3.1.6), it represents a form unattested in the Bible. 3.4.1.17. IHr ('harvesting[?] [flax] ')—Gezer Calendar 3. Although the tool named "TUI7D is attested in the Hebrew Bible (KB, II: 615) the verb is unattested. Since the exact translation is uncertain we cannot be sure whether there is a linguistic opposition to a biblical word such as "IHp ('harvest'). 3.4.1.18. |*p ('summerfruit')—Gezer Calendar 7. BH only attests the form pp. The absence of the medial yod has suggested to scholars that the Gezer form had a reduced diphthong (qës), contrary to the biblical evidence (Gibson 1973:4). It is possible, however, that we merely have here an orthographic difference (cf. section 4). 3.4.1.19. -]~n ('walled plot[?]')—Gibeon 1 etc. BH only attests the sense 'wall', whereas some scholars take this word in the inscriptions to refer to a walled plot or a vineyard (Gogel 1998: 315; cf. DCH, II: 327). However, other scholars see the form as a proper noun (Gibson 1973: 56). 3.4.1.20. Hieratic numerals. Our biblical texts spell numbers in full. This is found in some inscriptions (e.g. the 'year 9' and 'year 10' Samaria ostraca), but not in others (e.g. the 'year 15' Samaria ostraca, or commonly 19. Since all wine in this period was probably red (Jordan 2002), the precise sense of dark wine' is questionable. Demsky's references might suggest a darker variety of red wine (Demsky 1972: 234), whereas Avigad suggested that the wine was not named after a characteristic but was named after a locality briD (Avigad 1972: 4-5). In both cases we are still talking about the name of a variety of wine.
YOUNG Late Biblical Hebrew and Hebrew Inscriptions
303
in the Arad ostraca), where hieratic numerals of Egyptian origin are used (see Millard 1995). 3.4.1.21. Dp^SÛ ('dividers[?] ')—Horvat 'Uza Jar 8 (Beit-Arieh 1993: 34-40). The root p^S is not attested in BH. Beit-Arieh suggests a connection with the root ^S ('divide'), and hence a 3/p interchange (Beit-Arieh 1993: 38). 3.4.1.22. Tin ('tomb chamber')—Khirbet el-Qom 1; Siloam Tomb 2. BH attests the sense of 'inner room'. The reference to a tomb chamber is only attested in the inscriptions (DCH, III: 163-64). 3.4.1.23. ÎT"litt3 ('from his enemies ')—Khirbet el-Qom 3.3. The suffix IT- ('his') is possibly related to the suffix attested in Hab. 3.10 liTT and Job 24.23 irTTJ? (see Gogel 1998: 157-58 n. 182). 3.4.1.24. Divine element V- Kuntillet 'Ajrud; Samaria Ostraca etc. BH employs the divine elements "1ÎT- and !T- at the end of names, whereas inscriptions relating both to the Northern Kingdom and the Southern Kingdom (I. Young 1993: 114-15) have a form without the he, namely, V-. In general the V- names are northern, whereas most southern names agree with the biblical 1ÎT-/IT- (see 3.3.1.20). Nevertheless, despite hints of a different situation (Diringer and Brock 1968:41 ; Briquel-Chatonnet 1992: 104-105) it is significant that our current texts do not mention northerners with the V- theophoric element. 3.4.1.25. ""QIT ('may he give first knowledge ')—Lachish 2.5. This sense is unattested in BH (cf. Emerton 2001: 12). 3.4.1.26. VC^h ('ever')—Lachish 3.10. The expression mj]b is never used in BH with reference to past time (Torczyner 1938: 17, 56; Gibson 1973: 40). 3.4.1.27. D-D nr ('even today')—Lachish 2.3; 4.1; 5.5; 8.2. This collocation is unattested in BH. 3.4.1.28. rQDfQ ('in the turning of)—Lachish 4.9. This noun is unattested in BH. Its specific nuance is debated; one suggestion is 'inspection tour' (cf. V. Sasson 1979: 27-36; 1982a; Renz and Rôllig 1995,1: 422). 3.4.1.29. ]KJI? I" ('strong wine')—Lachish 25.1. This designation for wine is unattested in BH. 3.4.1.30. TQ ('extract')—Lachish30.1. Lemaire(1980: 92-93)suggests that this is a designation of a type of wine, unattested in the Hebrew Bible, and suggests reading it in a Hazor inscription also (Hazor 7; cf. Renz and Rôllig 1995,1: 128). 3.4.1.31. n"TO npOH ('black raisins ')—Lachish 30.1. In BH, 'raisins' are masculine ( 1 Sam. 30.12); whereas here the adjective indicates them to be feminine (Lemaire 1980: 94).
304
Biblical Hebrew
3.4.1.32. DDK! ('andstored')—Mesad Hashavyahu 1.5, 6-7. As pointed out above (3.3.1.10) the noun 'storehouse' is rare in BH. The verb is unattested. BH uses other words for 'storing', for example, ""IUN (V. Sasson 1979:46-55). 3.4.1.33. DQ^D ('according to the agreed days[?]')—Mesad Hashavyahu 1.5, 7. Whether understood as D^iT-D ('as usual') or DD'Tlp ('as every day'; cf. Renz and Rôllig 1995,1: 325), the nuance is not attested in BH. 3.4.1.34. ^ IJiT ('they will testify for me ')—Mesad Hashavyahu 1.10, 11. BH only attests -3 if]I7 ('testify against'). 3.4.1.35. DbttfnN r\rhv ('I have sent peace')—papMurabba'at 17a.l. The greeting 'send peace' is not attested in BH. Normally one asks (^NE?) about the wellbeing (DI^K/?) of someone. Sarfatti (1982:80) notes that the related expression at Arad ( 16.1 -2; 21.1 -2; 40.2-3), tfrvh rte, is also not attested in BH. He notes an occurrence of D^C? n^tî? at Elephantine (CAP 41.3), which is another example of the difficulties of guessing what is in contemporary Hebrew on the basis of Aramaic sources. 3.4.1.36. ^rf] ('guide ')—Neriyahu Seal (Deutsch and Heltzer 1994: 54-55). The verbal root ^il] (piel) is 'to guide' and is well known in BH; but the noun is unattested. However, since it is hard to think of a BH equivalent (there is no noun form of JH3 ['lead'] attested either) this is probably chance. 3.4.1.37. *]!£] weights. The weight name ff]^] is not mentioned in the Hebrew Bible. Other weight names such as UpD and D^S are also poorly attested, so this may simply be chance (Diringer and Brock 1968:40; Scott 1970). 3.4.1.38. r\\D ('year')—Samaria Ostraca 1.1 etc. Even in texts which might be considered to have links with the Northern Kingdom, for example, narratives about northern kings, or the prophecy of Amos, the word for year is HJ^, construct DJE?. The word 'year' is not attested in southern inscriptions. 3.4.1.39. "p ( 'wine ')—Samaria Ostraca 5.3 etc. The spelling without the medial yod has suggested to scholars that the word was pronounced with a reduced diphthong (Cross and Freedman 1952: 49). Southern Hebrew attests]'" (e.g. Arad 1.3), which links up with BH]". However, note that the form p"1 is found even in parts of the Bible where a northern link might be expected, such as narratives dealing with northerners, or the prophets Hosea and Amos. It is, of course, possible that the difference is merely one of spelling, rather than pronunciation (cf. section 4).
YOUNG Late Biblical Hebrew and Hebrew Inscriptions
305
3.4.1.40. |ET "p ('oldwine ')—Samaria Ostraca 5.3 etc. This designation of wine is never found in the Bible, but is attested in MH (Sarfatti 1982: 76). 3.4.1.41. y m ]QC? ('purifiedoil ')—Samaria Ostraca 16.3 etc. The term seems to be parallel to various BH (and southern?) words describing oil, such as fT ('clear, pure'; V. Sasson 1979:65-75; 1981; Ahituv 1992: 176), but note the alternative translation: 'oil for washing' (cf. Renz and Rôllig 1995,1:83). 3.4.1.42. mp] ('tunnel')—SiloamTunnel 1. V. Sasson (1982b: 116; cf. 1979: 105) contrasts this noun with BH H^Ufl. Other scholars suggest reading a verbal form (Renz and Rôllig 1995, I: 183-84). Note that the verb Dpj is never used in BH referring to anything but a small hole (V. Sasson 1979: 99; 1982b: 114). 3.4.1.43. -H "Ql (TH nil—Siloam Tunnel 1. As discussed above (3.2.18), the parallel BH expressions all lack iTTI. 3.4.1.44. HIT Cfissure[?] ')—Siloam Tunnel 3. This word is unattested in BH, although its exact meaning is debated (Renz and Rôllig 1995,1: 184-85) 3.4.1.45. rrçh ('towards ')—Siloam Tunnel 4. BH always derives this construction from the root Nlpn. The Siloam form seems to be from the parallel root Hip (Renz and Rôllig 1995,1: 188), unless the aleph has been dropped (cf. Gibson 1973: 23; Gogel 1998: 211 n. 274). 3.4.1.46. D'HNQD ('for [one thousand] 200 ')—Siloam Tunnel 5. Gibson (1973: 23) notes regarding the initial preposition: 'There are no very clear parallels to the use of [b]...' 3.4.1.47. "IIBN D1NH 1118 ('cursedbe the man [one] who... ')—Silwan Tomb 2.2. Sarfatti (1992: 58-60; cf. 1982: 74-75) points out the contrast between this expression and the common biblical expression IZTNil "THN. He notes that this is related to a more general phenomenon. BH rarely uses D~fN as an indefinite pronoun, 'someone, anyone', preferring instead to use the other word for 'man', CTN. He notes that MH, in contrast, uses only DIN for this function. Further, Sarfatti notes the use of DIN in the inscriptions as an indefinite pronoun in Lachish 4.5-6, DIN D£) pN ('there is no-one there')—contrast 2 Kgs 7.10: KTN DC? pN, although DIN is also used in the context. His third example, from Lachish 3.4-5 rests on a dubious reading (cf. Renz and Rôllig 1995,1: 417). Sarfatti notes that the more common BH usage of CTN as an indefinite pronoun also occurs in the inscriptions from Arad (40.8) and Lachish (3.9-10), and three times in the expression 'a man to his fellow' in the Siloam Tunnel inscription. With a small corpus one cannot meaningfully talk about the relative
306
Biblical Hebrew
proportions of DIN vs. CTN in the inscriptions vs. BH, but the contrast in the specific case of the curse expression is instructive. 3.4.1.48. Theophoric element -IPT. D. Talshir (1998) demonstrates systematic differences between the epigraphic evidence and the MT in the question of the theophoric prefixes -1ÎT and -T. Thus, for example, the name 3NV ('Joab') is found 146 times in the Bible with no trace of DN1ÎT. The long form, however, is the one which prevails in the epigraphic evidence (D. Talshir 1998: 368 n. 19). 3.4.2. Rare Forms in the MT 3.4.2.1. fir ('now')-Arad 1.2 etc. The MT normally attests the lon form mi?. However, the form without the he is attested as the kethib in Ezek. 23.43 and Ps. 74.6. The inscriptional form either reflects a linguistic variation (Cross and Freedman 1952: 52-53; Andersen 1999: 9-10) or simply a variation of spelling practice (cf. section 4 below). 3.4.2.2. "QJ? ('produce ')—AradSl. 10. The word l'Or only appears in Josh. 5.11-12, where it appears with (is explained by?) the more common wordnN-Dn (Aharoni 1981: 58). 3.4.2.3. rano ('rags[?] ')—City of David 2.1 (Naveh 2000: 2-3). The word rVOnD is only attested in Jer. 38.11-12. 3.4.2.4. 73 ('measuring')—Gezer5; Mesad Hashavyahu 1.5, 6, 8. The qal verb 'TD/b'O ('measure') is found in BH only at Isa. 40.12 (Diringer and Brock 1968:41-42). A derivation from H^D ('finish') is less likely (cf. V. Sasson 1979: 56-64; Renz and Rôllig 1995,1: 325-26). The general BH word for 'measuring' is "T1D. 3.4.2.5. HDin ('Iblessed')—Kuntillet 'Ajrud l;rbl ('I measured')-— Mesad Hashavyahu 1.8; finb^ ('I sent ')—papMurabba 'at 17a.l. The first person perfect without a final yod is attested five times in the MT (GKC 44i). The inscription forms may be interpreted as either a variant short form of the suffix (Gibson 1973: 30; Andersen 1999: 10) or as simply a spelling variation (cf. below section 4). 3.4.2.6. nmiBN ('hisAsherah ')—Kuntillet 'Ajrud8.2 etc. It is debatable whether any examples of suffixes on proper nouns appear in BH. However, it is also possible that the word 'asherah' here is the designation for an object, not a personal name (e.g. Emerton 1999a). 3.4.2.7. 'K ('there is not')~Lachish 2.5-6. Gibson (1973: 37-38) suggests reading the negative "'N in this place, which only occurs in Job 22.30 in the MT. It is common in RH. However, more commonly scholars suggest two letters are missing, giving the reading ** [3"T]N ('my lord')—Renz and Rôllig 1995,1: 412.
YOUNG Late Biblical Hebrew and Hebrew Inscriptions
307
3.4.2.8. imDHK ('I would give him[?] ')—Lachish 3.12. All of the various suggested interpretations involve forms rare or unattested in BH. As ]n3 ('give') the suffix with extra nun is rare and poetic in BH. The verb rnn ('repeat') is a rare dialect form of SBH HD27. The verb ]3P ('pay') is unattested in BH (cf. I. Young 1998a: 412 n. 10; Schniedewind 2000:161). 3.4.2.9.l]î"|] ('we')—Lachish 4.10-11. This form occurs four times in the MT Pentateuch (Gen. 42.11; Exod. 16.7, 8; Num. 32.32, all in quoted speech) and once in Lamentations (Lam. 3.42, in an acrostic). The Samaritan Pentateuch has the standard forml]n]K throughout (Tal 1994). 1DP1] is the only 1st c. pi. independent pronoun attested in the inscriptions (Gogel 1998: 154). On the basis of its distribution, Dobbs-Allsopp (1998: 24-25) argues that it is an 'early' linguistic feature. However, it is hardly characteristic of SBH, but rather a minority form. It is to be noted that the inscriptional form is considered typologically older than the regular BH form (Dobbs-Allsopp 1998: 24). 3.4.2.10. PITH niO ('in this season ')—Lachish 6.2. As pointed out above (3.3.1.8) Hi? is normally feminine in BH. LBH attests the masculine plural DTII7, and PU as singular masculine is very rarely attested in the MT. 3.4.2.11. "lûn ('wine ')—Ras ez-Zètûn 1. The word "lUPf ('wine') is rare in BH (Deut. 32.14 cf. Isa. 27.2). It is possible, however, that this inscription is Phoenician (Renz and Rollig 1995,1: 37). 3.4.2.12.1IT1 ('hisfellow')—Siloam Tunnel 2, 3, 4. BH attests 'his fellow' as inS7~l 117 times, and only once as 1171 (Jer. 6.21). Most likely underlying the Siloam form is a quite different morphology than is represented in the Tiberian Hebrew vocalization of Jer. 6.21 (e.g. rë'êw: Renz and Rôllig 1995,1: 187; cf. below with n. 20). Alternatively, one could simply take the suffix as plural (Schiile 2000: 37), bringing it in line with normal orthographic practice in the inscriptions. In this case, we would have a contrast to the regular use of the singular in the equivalent biblical phrase. 3.4.2.13. HT! ('she was ')—Siloam Tunnel 3. It is generally assumed that the 3rd fern. sg. perfect of Ill-he (il'v) verbs developed hayât>hâytâ with an additional feminine suffix (Z.S. Harris 1939: 75-76). Traces of the older ending are found in BH (e.g. Lev. 25.21 ; cf. 2 Kgs 9.37 [GKC: 75m]), and it is common in MH (Sarfatti 1992: 64-65). This makes it more likely that we have a variant morphology from SBH than that the difference is merely a question of orthography. The Siloam form is the only 3rd fern. sg. perfect in the inscriptions (Gogel 1998: 89-90). Harris considered the form as evidence that the language of the inscriptions represented an older type of Hebrew than that eventually fixed in the biblical text (Z.S. Harris 1939:76).
308
Biblical Hebrew
3.4.3. Conclusion. There is a significant amount of variation from BH in the inscriptions. Most important are the numerous cases discussed where the inscriptions use forms of language which contrast with what is attested or regular in BH. The non-biblical forms, coupled with the links with LBH, call into question an easy equation of mscriptional Hebrew with SBH. There are undeniably cases where the inscriptions link with SBH, against LBH, tor instance. However, these were found to be uncommon, making the case for a special link between the inscriptions and SBH appear quite weak. Inscriptional Hebrew is best seen as an independent corpus within ancient Hebrew, rather than as a mere adjunct of SBH. As an independent corpus it has links sometimes with SBH, sometimes with LBH. and sometimes with other types of Hebrew such as ABH (I. Young 1992b) and MH (Sarfatti 1992). Sometimes it displays forms independent of all of them. In my judgment the links with SBH are closer than with LBH or the others However, the links are not strong enough to posit an identity, chronological or otherwise, between SBH and the inscriptions. 4. Orthography SBH—indeed, every Bible text in our possession—shows a systematic difference from the Hebrew inscriptions in orthography. This is in two main categories. First, the 3rd masc. sg. pronominal suffixes. Second, the extent of use of medial matres lectionis. A third category would include the other anomalies above which I noted could be explained as spelling variations rather than, say, morphological variations (e.g. Hi? for HPU, ["now'] in 3.4.2.1, orCT ['day'] in 3.4.1.3). The 3rd masc. sg. suffix on a singular noun is IT- in the inscriptions. With the exception of some 55 cases (see I. Young 200 le), in our biblical manuscripts it is 1-. No clear case of 1- in the inscriptions is attested. The one possible candidate 1IH in the Siloam Tunnel is anomalous and is at present best explained on other grounds.20
20. Several proposals are discussed by Gogel 1998:156-57 n. 181. In addition note the attractive suggestion of Andersen and Forbes who note that there is evidence that the retention of the original lll-yod0"^) can lead to the attachment to the singular of suffixes more typical of plural nouns, hence 1IH (Andersen and Forbes 1986:41 ). On this phenomenon see GKC: 273-74 §93ss. Alternatively, a straightforward reading of the form as plural solves the orthographic problem (see 3.4.2.12).
YOUNG Late Biblical Hebrew and Hebrew Inscriptions
309
The 3rd masc. sg. suffix on plural nouns is -w (1) in the inscriptions. With, again, a significant minority of exceptions, in our biblical texts the form is V-. The only possible example of the latter form in the inscriptions, VDB in Ketef Hinnom Amulet 2.9, is problematic.21 Even granting all the possible exceptions, a clear contrast in the spelling of these suffixes emerges between the inscriptional corpus and the biblical manuscripts. The contrast has usually been explained as a historical development. The older spelling is that of the inscriptions. At some stage before our first attested biblical manuscripts in the third century BCE, probably in the Persian period, a thorough spelling reform was undertaken. The exceptional forms in our biblical manuscripts are the remnants of the older spelling of the biblical texts. It is clear from many examples that ancient scribes were capable of leaving such remnants.22 A discernable process in the inscriptions is the growth in the use of waw and>Wto mark vowels in the middle of words. Thus "THN in Siloam Tomb 1. 2 stands for the qal passive participle 'cursed' (""!!"№ in the MT). Nevertheless, it is clear that these matres lectionis are not used with the same frequency as in our biblical manuscripts, even in the latest dated inscriptions. Thus, for example, while the word 'prophet' in the MT is always №H] (167 times) with a yod, Lachish 3.20, from the last days of the monarchy, spells the word K33. In this feature also, therefore, the orthography of our Bibles is of a type later than that of the inscriptions. 5. Concluding Remarks The generally close link between the language of the Bible and that of the inscriptions shows that it is plausible that something similar to SBH was the language of the monarchic period. The inscriptional evidence is not drastically inconsistent with a pre-exilic origin of those biblical books whose contents suggest such a dating. The link with the inscriptions does not, however, prove that SBH could not have been written in the post-exilic period. Haggai and Zechariah, which date themselves to the early post-exilic period, are considered to contain few, if any, traces of LBH (see Ehrensvàrd's contribution to the 21. Several proposals are discussed by Gogel 1998: 159-60 n. 188. The texts are dated to the third century BCE by Renz and Rôllig 1995,1: 447-56. 22. See, e.g., the comments of I. Young 1998b: 82 with n. 38. For a study of the distribution of the il- suffix and other theories about their significance see I. Young 2001c.
310
Biblical Hebrew
present volume). We have no other direct extra-biblical evidence of Hebrew before the third century BCE. We cannot deny the possibility that a form of language linked to the pre-exilic inscriptions continued in the post-exilic period. The fact that LBH features co-existed with SBH is already acknowledged in that the language of Ezekiel, dated earlier than, for example, Haggai and Zechariah, has many LBH features. The only question is how long the two styles co-existed. The language of the inscriptions is not identical with SBH. Instead, the language of the inscriptions must first of all be seen as independent of other types of BH, with links to all of them. The identity of SBH with inscriptional Hebrew cannot be taken for granted and used as a secure base on which to argue to conclusions about the nature and date of SBH. The orthography of all known biblical manuscripts would seem to indicate that no manuscript in our possession could possibly date back unchanged earlier than the Persian period. We should not, of course, dogmatically assert that the inscriptions give us the full range of possible early Hebrews. Nevertheless, the best reading of the evidence at hand would place the Bible in its current form no earlier than the Persian period. One need not conclude that the biblical texts were composed in the Persian period. However, the commonly assumed alternative scenario, that pre-Persian period texts were edited to change their orthography in the Persian period, raises important questions. Did scribal intervention merely limit itself to spelling? Or was there more widespread editing of the language? The vastly different editions of biblical books which were produced by scribal reworking (Ulrich 1999:passim) raise the likelihood that all features of the biblical text were subject to extensive editorial revision during the Second Temple period (cf. Knauf 1990: 22) The language of the pre-exilic inscriptions is close enough to that of BH to suggest that it is unnecessary and unlikely that the fundamental linguistic structure of pre-exilic compositions would have been altered. There is a stable core to BH in all its forms, what I have referred to as 'Common Hebrew'. However, in the study of LBH it is often the details that make all the difference, such as whether JQ ('from') is attached to or separate from a following noun without the definite article (cf. Polzin 1976: 66). These are the very details which are found to change in scribal transmission (I. Young 200 Ib: 122-23). In this connection it is interesting that the few distinctive linguistic forms we know from northern inscriptions, in particular HE? ('year') and the theophoric ending of names V-, do not appear in the Hebrew biblical
YOUNG Late Biblical Hebrew and Hebrew Inscriptions
311
texts in our possession. If northern sources lie behind say, the accounts of the kings of Israel or the words of the prophet Hosea, this may indicate that the distinctive features of the language have been radically altered during their transmission. Such a radical treatment of the language would raise doubts about our ability to discern northern dialect features in the current biblical texts, such as have been suggested by, among others, Rendsburg (1990b etc.), Wright (1998), and I. Young (1993). The Hebrew inscriptions may thus be used in quite different reconstructions of the history of the Hebrew language. A strictly linear reading of the evidence discussed above might lead to a Persian period dating for BH. However, one should hesitate to draw far reaching conclusions on the basis of such meagre evidence.
CONCLUDING REFLECTIONS Ian Young 1. The Text-Language Problem The attempt to date books on the basis of their language proceeds, whether knowingly or not, from a text-critical assumption. This is that the language of the text under consideration has a relationship with the language used at the time of the composition of that text. However, I have written elsewhere that the linguistic profiles of the attested copies of biblical books cannot simply be assumed to represent the form of language used by the 'original author'. Instead, language, as with all other features of the emergent biblical text, was subject to constant revision at the hands of the scribes who passed the material down through the generations. (Young 200Ib: 130)
Furthermore, as I also argued in my contribution to this volume, 'external sources indicate the likelihood that no biblical text in our possession has escaped widespread scribal revision' (Young 200Ib: 130 n. 47). The text-critical dimension of language study has too often been ignored in biblical scholarship. Yet it is, logically, an issue that must be discussed before any conclusions are drawn from the extant texts. 2. Persian It would be well for students of Hebrew, especially of LBH, to heed the recent comments of James Barr. Barr points out that whereas there is a great stress on the Persian period in some recent scholarship, 'extremely little attempt has been made to learn Old Persian or encourage the study of this language among students' (Barr 2000: 88). The article by Mats Eskhult on loanwords demonstrates the potential importance of this study, while my article (section 3.2.1) proposes a new understanding of the significance of Persian loanwords in BH.
YOUNG Concluding Reflections
313
3. Questions for Future Scholarship The articles in this book are organized into two opposing camps: those working within the chronological framework, and those questioning that framework. This is of course overly simple. One may, for example, be sympathetic to the chronological interpretation, yet admit some difficulties in substantiating it. Yet, if I may be permitted to continue to talk of two opposing research programmes, I see different questions arising from the book for the different approaches. a. Questions Regarding the Chronological Framework In his article, Gary Rendsburg noted that 'it is difficult to present linguistic facts to dispute a case which does not utilize linguistic evidence' (above, p. 108) when discussing the move to late dating of biblical literature. Hopefully this volume will provide plenty of linguistic evidence to respond to. Some important questions have been asked of the chronological approach to BH, the most important being: Why couldn't SBH be written after the exile? The articles by Davies, Ehrensvàrd and Talshir all argue that SBH was in fact written in Second Temple times. Given the attestation of LBH features in pre-exilic inscriptions, my article also raised another question, less important for the current debate: Why couldn't a work with a concentration of LBH elements be written before the exile? The two questions together, however, lead to a greater question: If SBH could be used after the exile, and LBH before the exile, is it at all possible, given the current state of our knowledge of ancient Hebrew, to date the language of any part of biblical literature? b. Questions Regarding a Non-Chronological Approach Without chronological presuppositions, does LBH really exist as a distinct entity within BH? The LBH books were grouped together first of all on the basis that they were the ones known to be post-exilic (as opposed to other clearly earlier books). However, purely on linguistic grounds, are the links between Esther, Ezra, Nehemiah, Chronicles and Daniel strong enough to single this group of books out from BH in general? Or does every book of the Hebrew Bible simply have its own linguistic profile? If LBH really is a distinct entity, do the linguistic variations reflect social realities? If the differences between SBH and LBH are not to be explained chronologically, what sociolinguistic factors led to the co-existence
314
Biblical Hebrew
of these varieties of Hebrew? If LBH is not in fact 'late' BH, is there a need to invent a new term to describe it? c. The Problem ofEzekiel In different ways, both Philip Davies and David Talshir raised the possibility of connecting LBH with the eastern diaspora. In light of this suggestion, and as an example of an alternative, non-chronological approach to LBH, one might consider what I call 'the problem ofEzekiel' (cf. Young 200 Id). One of the major achievements of the scholarship of Avi Hurvitz has been to demonstrate the special link between the language of the book ofEzekiel and the core books of LBH, namely, Chronicles, Ezra, Nehemiah, Daniel, Esther (Hurvitz 1982). His insight has been followed by M.F. Rooker's monograph (Rooker 1990a), as well as other smaller scale studies. Thus in my previous discussion of DU (Young 1999) I found that the books that show a near consistent tendency to construe this collective noun as plural were Chronicles, Ezra, Nehemiah and Ezekiel. Hurvitz and Rooker explain the special relationship of Ezekiel with LBH in terms of transition. Ezekiel dates itself in the first half of the sixth century BCE, that is, the (early) exilic period. The exile is taken as the decisive socio-linguistic event that triggered the transition from EBH to LBH. Ezekiel, dating from the exile itself, shows the first major signs of this transition. Thus, to give one example, while BH uses the word №D for 'fine linen', LBH uses |*1D. However, Ezekiel shows its transitional status by using both (Hurvitz 1967; Rooker 1990a: 159-61). Certain considerations, however, indicate that the peculiarities of Ezekiel's language cannot be explained by chronology alone. As mentioned above, Ezekiel dates itself to the first half of the sixth century BCE. Other books either date themselves or are dated by scholarly consensus to the same period or later, but do not show significant traces of LBH. Thus, the final redaction of the book of Kings cannot be any earlier than the last event in it (c. 560 BCE). Deutero-Isaiah (Isa. 40-55) refers to events c. 540 BCE. Most significantly, Haggai and Zechariah (chs. 1-8) date themselves to the early post-exilic period (c. 520 BCE). These facts led S.R. Driver to see the decisive moment in the transition from EBH to LBH as only happening in the fifth century BCE (Driver 1913a: 505). In contrast, Hurvitz's position that the exile was the decisive event is clearly influenced by his discoveries relating to the language ofEzekiel.
YOUNG Concluding Reflections
315
There are other ways to explain Ezekiel's language than as a symptom of a transition from EBH to LBH during the course of the sixth century BCE. The most radical would be to cast doubt on the claim of Ezekiel to be a genuine product of the sixth century BCE. For example, Davies challenges the presumption that the biblical dating of Ezekiel is accurate (P.R. Davies 1995: 98). It is a commonly accepted scholarly position that the original core of the prophetic books was reworked by later redactors. It could thus be suggested that Ezekiel's language is a mixture of early and late because it reflects the late language of a redactor who reworked the early language of the original prophet Ezekiel. It is clear that the language of the biblical books has undergone scribal modification so that no available copy of a biblical book simply reflects the original language of that book (Young 1998b; 1999; 2001b; 2001c). Nevertheless, this theory does not really explain the peculiar nature of the language of Ezekiel. Scholars presume all the prophetic books underwent some redaction. Why does Ezekiel reflect a significant LBH element whereas Deutero-Isaiah, Haggai, Zechariah, and so on, do not? Perhaps, then, the link between Ezekiel and LBH can be explained by the circles that treasured and transmitted them. Ezekiel is conspicuous by clearly setting its hero in the eastern diaspora. In contrast, whereas Deutero-Isaiah is considered by many to have been based in Babylon, this is by no means obvious by the contents of these chapters. It is important to note that whatever their prehistory, Isaiah 40-55 are presented as part of the book of Isaiah of Jerusalem. When one turns to the core books of LBH, one finds another important link with Ezekiel: among them are the only other books in the Hebrew Bible with heroes who operate in the eastern diaspora. Thus both Esther and Daniel are set entirely in the eastern diaspora. Ezra and Nehemiah deal with events in Palestine, but they are books about residents of the eastern diaspora and we hear also of their activities in the east as well as the west. This leaves Chronicles, about whose authorship little is known. Could it represent the eastern version of the primary history represented in Samuel and Kings? It could be objected that Haggai and Zechariah parallel the situation in Ezra and Nehemiah. They too would presumably reflect the words and activities of easterners who deal primarily with the situation in the homeland. However, it is striking how little the eastern diaspora perspective comes through in these books. There is virtually no reference other Jewish
316
Biblical Hebrew
communities. The focus is firmly western, not eastern. The lack of interest in the eastern diaspora in Haggai and Zechariah as opposed to the situation in Ezra and Nehemiah probably is related not just to the outlook of the original authors of these works but also to the groups who nurtured the original traditions. A very serious objection to the theory suggested here is raised by the clear links between LBH and later Palestinian sources. In particular I refer to QH and MH. Although neither of these sources is identical to LBH, there are important isoglosses which they share with LBH in opposition to EBH. This could be taken as indicating that LBH is indeed late, and that there is no reason why it should be eastern. However, one could explain the later situation as due to migration from the eastern diaspora to Judea. Talshir's article points to the return under Ezra in the middle of the fifth century BCE as a significant socio-linguistic event. Thus, he notes, Persian period works dated earlier than this (Haggai, Zechariah, Malachi) reflect SBH, while later works reflect LBH. There are large gaps in our knowledge of the history of the fifth to third centuries BCE. Most scholars assume that Daniel and Esther were eastern diaspora works in whole or in part. It is, however, suggested that important migrations happened somewhere in his period, and that this explains, for example, the presence of the Daniel group in Palestine by the second century BCE (e.g. Collins 1975: 232-33). We should also recall that the origins of an important contributing group to the Qumran Scrolls have been suggested to be in the eastern diaspora (Murphy-O'Connor 1974; P.R. Davies 1990). Thus, even taking a conservative view of the dating of biblical books, and an optimistic evaluation of the relationship between the language of the current texts and that of the original authors, we can arrive at a different synthesis of the history of LBH. The inscriptions show us that at least some LBH forms already existed in varieties of monarchic era Hebrew. This is the same impression given by a pre-exilic dating of the SBH texts, which contain a notable sprinkling of LBH forms. Thus, beneath the surface of pre-exilic SBH we may suspect the existence of dialects (Young 1993 ; 1997) characterized by 'protoLBH' linguistic features. This is the context in which the language of Qoheleth, if pre-exilic (Young 1993: 140-57), can be understood. These proto-LBH features first began to make their presence felt strongly in literary Hebrew in sources linked to the exiles in the eastern diaspora (Ezekiel being the earliest example). SBH did not end, however, but con-
YOUNG Concluding Reflections
317
tinued to be used as a literary medium in the Persian period, especially in those sources without an eastern focus, such as Haggai and Zechariah. Over time the two streams of Hebrew (each themselves marked by significant diversity) mixed and converged due to such factors as migration between the various centres of Jewish population. Hence by the later part of the Second Temple period, many LBH features had become normal in all attested varieties of literary Hebrew. 4. The Next Stage The theory sketched above, whatever its individual merits, illustrates the new possibilities available to those investigating the nexus between linguistic typology and the origin of the Bible. It is clear that the debate has moved to a new stage. It is to be hoped that the articles in this book will help set the agenda for the next stage of the discussion.
BIBLIOGRAPHY Abegg, M.G. 1998 Adams, W.J. 1987
Aharoni, Y. 1981 Ahituv, S. 1992 1995
Aitchison, J. 1980 1994 Albright, W.F. 1939 1941 1943 1960
'The Hebrew of the Dead Sea Scrolls', in Flint and VanderKam (eds.) 1998, I: 325-58. 'An Investigation into the Diachronic Distribution of Morphological Forms and Semantic Features of Extra-Biblical Hebrew Sources' (PhD dissertation, University of Utah). AradInscriptions (Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society). Handbook of Ancient Hebrew Inscriptions (Jerusalem: Bialik Institute [Hebrew]). 'Flour and Dough: Gleanings from the Arad Letters', in Z. Zevit, S. Gitin and M. Sokoloff (eds.), Solving Riddles and Untying Knots: Biblical, Epigraphic, and Semitic Studies in Honor of Jonas C. Greenfield (WinonaLake, IN: Eisenbrauns): 379-83. Review of Lightfoot 1979, Linguistics 18: 137-46. Language Change: Progress or Decay? (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2nd edn). 'A Reexamination of the Lachish Letters', BASOR 73: 16-21. 'The Lachish Letters after Five Years', BASOR 82: 18-24. 'An Archaic Hebrew Proverb in an Amarna Letter from Central Palestine', BASOR 89: 29-32. 'Some Canaanite-Phoenician Sources of Hebrew Wisdom', in M. Noth and D.W. Thomas (eds.), Wisdom in Israel and in the Ancient Near East (VTSup, 3; Leiden: EJ. Brill).
Alden, R.L. Job (New American Commentary, 11 ; Nashville: Broadman & Holman). 1993 Alexander, P.S. 1991 'Orality in Pharisaic-Rabbinic Judaism at the Turn of the Eras', in H. Wansbrough (éd.), Jesus and the Oral Gospel Tradition (JSNTSup, 64; Sheffield: JSOT Press): 159-84. Allen, L.C. The Books of Joel, Obadiah, Jonah and Micah (NICOT; Grand Rapids: 1976 Eerdmans).
Bibliography Alt, A. 1931 Andersen, F.I. 1976
319
'Judas Nachbam zur Zeit Nehemias', ZDPV21: 66-74.
Job: An Introduction and Commentary (TOTC; Leicester: Inter-Varsity Press). 1999 'Orthography in Ancient Hebrew Inscriptions', ANES 36: 5-35. Andersen, F.I., and A.D. Forbes 1986 Spelling in the Hebrew Bible: Dahood Memorial Lecture (BibOr, 41 ; Rome: Biblical Institute Press). Andersen, F.I., and D.N. Freedman 1980 Hosea (AB, 24; New York: Doubleday). Anderson, A.A. 1972 The Book of Psalms, II (NCB; 2 vols.; Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans). Anderson, B.W., and A.C. Lichtenberger 1954 'The Book of Esther', in IB: 821 -74. Arlotto, A. 1981 Introduction to Historical Linguistics (Lanham, MD: University Press of America). Auld, A.G. 1983 'Prophets Through the Looking Glass: Between Writings and Moses', JSOT 27: 3-23 (repr. in R.P. Gordon [éd.], The Place is Too Small for Us: The Israelite Prophets in Recent Scholarship [Sources for Biblical and Theological Study, 5; Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1995]: 289-307). 1992 'Salomo und die Deuteronomisten—eine Zukunftsvision?', 7Z48: 343-55. 1993 'Solomon at Gibeon: History Glimpsed', Erlsr 24: 1 *-7*. 1994 Kings without Privilege: David and Moses in the Story of the Bible's Kings (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark). 1995 'Reading Joshua after Kings', in W.G.E. Watson, J. Davies and G. Harvey (eds.), Words Remembered, Texts Renewed: Essays in Honour of John F.A. Sawyer (JSOTSup, 195; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press): 167-81. 1996 'Re-Reading Samuel (Historically): "Etwas mehrNichtwissen"', in V. Fritz and P.R. Davies (eds.), The Origins of the Ancient Israelite States (JSOTSup, 228; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press): 160-69. 1998a 'The Former Prophets: Joshua, Judges, 1-2 Samuel, 1-2 Kings', in S.L. McKenzie and M.P. Graham (eds.), The Hebrew Bible Today: An Introduction to Critical Issues (Louisville, KY: Westminster/John Knox Press): 53-68. 1998b Joshua Retold: Synoptic Perspectives (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark). 1999a The Deuteronomists and the Former Prophets, or What Makes the Former Prophets Deuteronomistic?', in Schearing and McKenzie (eds.) 1999: 118-28. 1999b 'Réponse d'A.G. Auld', ETR 3: 422-26. 1999c 'What was the Main Source of the Books of Chronicles', in Graham and McKenzie (eds.) 1999: 91-99. 2000a ' The Deuteronomists between History and Theology', in Lemaire and Saeb0 (eds.) 2000: 353-67. 2000b 'Prophets Shared—but Recycled', in Romer (ed.) 2000: 19-28.
Biblical Hebrew
320 2000c
'Samuel and Genesis: Some Questions of John Van Seters's "Yahwist"', in S.L. McKenzie, T. Rorner and H.H. Schmid (eds.), Rethinking the Foundations: Historiography in the Ancient World and in the Bible: Essays in Honour of John Van Seters (BZAW, 294; Berlin: W. de Gruyter): 23-32. 2000d 'Tamar Between David, Judah and Joseph', SEA 65: 93-106. 2000e 'What if the Chronicler Did Use the Deuteronomistic History?', Biblnt 8: 137-50. 2001 'From King to Prophet in Samuel and Kings', in J.C. de Moor (éd.), The Elusive Prophet: The Prophet as a Historical Person, Literary Character and Anonymous Artist (OTS, 45; Leiden: E.J. Brill): 31-44. 2002a 'Bearing the Burden of David's Guilt', in C. Bultmann, W. Dietrich and C. Levin (eds.), Vergegenwàrtigung des Alten Testaments: Beitràgezurbiblischen Hermeneutikfiir Rudolf Smendzum 70. Geburtstag(Gottingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht): 69-81. 2002b 'Counting Sheep, Sins, and Sour Grapes: The Primacy of the Primary History?', in A. Hunter and P.R. Davies (eds.), Sense and Sensitivity: Essays on Reading the Bible in Memory of Robert Carroll (JSOTSup, 348; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press): 63-72. 2002c 'Samuel, Numbers, and the Yahwist-Question', in J.C. Gertz, K. Schmid and M. Witte (eds.), Abschied vom Jahwisten: Die Komposition des Hexateuch in derjungstenDiskussion (BZAW, 315; Berlin: W. de Gruyter): 233-46. forthcoming 'What was a Biblical Prophet? Why does it Matter?', in J.C. Exum and H.G.M. Williamson (eds.), Reading from Right to Left: Essays on the Hebrew Bible in Honour of David J. A. Clines (JSOTSup, 373; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press). Auld, A.G., and C.Y.S. Ho 1992 The Making of David and Goliath', J'SOT 56: 19-39. Avigad, N. 1972 'Two Hebrew Inscriptions on Wine Jars', IEJ22: 1-9. Aviram, J., et al. (eds.) 1985 Biblical Archeology Today: Proceedings of the International Congress on Biblical Archeology; Jerusalem, April 1984 (Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society and The Israel Academy of Sciences and Humanities, in Cooperation with the American Schools of Oriental Research). Avishur, Y. 1999 Studies in Biblical Narrative (Tel Aviv/Jaffa: Archeological Center). Avishur, Y., and R. Deutsch (eds.) 1999 Michael: Historical, Epigraphical and Biblical Studies in Honor of Professor Michael Heltzer (Tel Aviv/Jaffa: Archaeological Center). Avi-Yonah, M. 1966 Carlo's Atlas of the Period of the Second Temple, the Mishnah, and the Talmud (Jerusalem: Carta [Hebrew]). 1984 Historical Geography of Palestine (Jerusalem: Bialik Institute, 2nd edn [Hebrew]). Baer, Y. 1964 The Mishna and History', Molad2\: 308-23 (Hebrew). Baldwin, J.G. 1984 Esther: An Introduction and Commentary (TOTC; Leicester: Inter-Varsity Press).
Bibliography Bar-Asher, M. 1985
321
'The Historical Unity of Hebrew and Mishnaic Hebrew Research', in BarAsher (ed.) 1985:75-100. Bar-Asher, M. (ed.) 1985 Language Studies, 1 (Jerusalem: The Hebrew University of Jerusalem [Hebrew]). 1986 Proceedings of the Ninth World Congress of Jewish Studies, Jerusalem, August 4-12, 1985: Panel Sessions: Hebrew and Aramaic (Jerusalem: World Union of Jewish Studies/Magnes Press). 1996 Studies in Hebrew and Jewish Languages Presented to Shelomo Morag (Jerusalem: The Hebrew University/Bialik Institute). Bar-Kochva, B. 1980 The Battles of the Hasmonaeans: The Times of Judas the Maccabaeus (Jerusalem: Yad Ben-Zvi [Hebrew]). Barr, J. 1968 Comparative Philology and the Text of the Old Testament (Oxford: Clarendon Press). 1985 'Hebrew Orthography and the Book of Job', JSS 30: 1 -33. 1988 Review of Spelling in the Hebrew Bible by F.I. Andersen and A.D. Forbes, JSS 33: 122-31. 1989 The Variable Spellings of the Hebrew Bible (Oxford: Oxford University Press). 2000 History and Ideology in the Old Testament: Biblical Studies at the End of a Millennium: The Hens ley Hanson Lectures for 1997 Delivered to the University of Oxford (Oxford: Oxford University Press). Barré, M.L. 1988 ' 'rs (h)hyym~The Land of the Living?', JSOT 41: 40-59. 1990 'Psalm 116: Its Structure and Its Enigmas', JBL 109: 61-79. Barthélémy, D., and O. Rickenbacher 1973 Konkordanz zum hebrâischen Sirach (Gôttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht). Bauer, H., and P. Leander 1922 Historische Grammatik der hebrâischen Sprache des Alien Testamentes (Hildesheim: Georg Olms [repr. 1991]). Baumgartner, W. 1940-41 'Was wir heute von der hebrâischen Sprache und ihrer Geschichte wissen', Anthropos 35/36: 593-616. 1959 Zum Alien Testament und seiner Umwelt (Leiden: E.J. Brill). Beaman, K. 1984 'Coordination and Subordination Revisited: Syntactic Complexity in Spoken and Written Narrative Discourse', in Tannen (ed.) 1984: 45-80. Becking, B. 2001 'The Hellenistic Period and Ancient Israel: Three Preliminary Statements', in Grabbe(ed.) 2001:78-90. Beit-Arieh, I. 1993 'An Inscribed Jar From Horvat 'Uza', ErJsr 24: 34-40 (Hebrew). Ben Amos, D. 1990 'Response to Robert C. Culley', in Niditch (ed.) 1990: 35-45. Bendavid, A. 1967-71 Biblical Hebrew and Mishnaic Hebrew (2 vols.; Tel Aviv: Dvir [Hebrew]).
322
Biblical Hebrew
Bender, A. 1903 'Das Lied Exodus XV, ZAW23: 1-48. Ben-Hayyim, Z. 1958 'Masoret ha-Shomronim', Leshonenu 22: 223-45. 1967 The Literary and Oral Tradition of Hebrew and Aramaic amongst the Samaritans (Jerusalem: The Academy of the Hebrew Language [Hebrew]), III.2. 1979 The Literary and Oral Tradition of Hebrew and Aramaic amongst the Samaritans (Jerusalem: The Academy of the Hebrew Language [Hebrew]), V. Ben-Sasson, H.H. (ed.) 1969 A History of the Jewish People (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press). Ben Yehuda, E. 1948 A Complete Dictionary of Ancient and Modern Hebrew—Prolegomena Volume (Jerusalem: La'am [Hebrew]). Ben Zvi, E. 1988 'The Authority of 1 -2 Chronicles in the Late Second Temple Period', JSP 3: 59-88. 1992 Review of Rooker 1990a, CBQ 54: 540-42. 1997 'The Urban Center of Jerusalem and the Development of the Literature of the Hebrew Bible', in W.E. Aufrecht, N.A. Mirau and S.W. Gauley (eds.), Urbanism in Antiquity from Mesopotamia to Crete (JSOTSup, 244; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press): 194-209. 2000 'Introduction; Writings, Speeches, and the Prophetic Books—Setting an Agenda', in Ben Zvi and Floyd (eds.) 2000: 1-29. Ben Zvi, E., and M.H. Floyd (eds.) 2000 Writings and Speech in Israelite and Ancient Near Eastern Prophecy (SBL Symposium Series, 10; Atlanta, GA: SBL). Bergey, R. 1983 'The Book of Esther: Its Place in the Linguistic Milieu of Post-Exilic Biblical Hebrew Prose: A Study in Late Biblical Hebrew' (PhD dissertation, Dropsie College for Hebrew and Cognate Learning [available from University Microfilms International, Ann Arbor, MI]). 1984 'Late Linguistic Features in Esther', JQR 75: 66-78. Bergstrasser, G. 1918 Hebràische Grammatik, \ (Hildesheim: Georg Olms [repr. 1962]). 1929 Hebràische Grammatik, II (Hildesheim: Georg Olms [repr. 1962]). Berlejung, A., and A. Schiile 1998 'Erwàgungen zu den neuen Ostraka aus der Sammlung Moussaïeff, ZAH 11:68-73. Berlin, A. 1985 The Dynamics of Biblical Parallelism (Bloomington: Indiana University Press). Berlinerblau, J. 1993 'The "Popular Religion" Paradigm in Old Testament Research: A Sociological Critique', JSOT60: 3-26. Bernai, M. 1991 Black Athena, II (2 vols.; New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press).
Bibliography Bertheau, E. 1854 Bianchi, F. 1993 Biber, D. 1995
323
Die Bûcher der Chronik (Kurzgefasstes exegetisches Handbuch zum Alten Testament, 15; Leipzig: S. Hirzel). 'The Language of Qohelet: A Bibliographical Survey', ZAW 105: 210-23.
Dimensions of Register Variation: A Cross-Linguistic Comparison (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press). Biber, D., and S. Conrad 2001 'Register Variation: A Corpus Approach', in D. Schiffrin, D. Tannen and H.E. Hamilton (eds.), The Handbook of Discourse Analysis (Oxford: Basil Blackwell): 175-96. Biber, D., and E. Finegan (eds.) 1994 Sociolinguistic Perspectives on Register (New York: Oxford University Press). Biber, D., and M. Hared 1994 'Linguistic Correlates of the Transition to Literacy in Somali: Language Adaptation in Six Press Registers', in Biber and Finegan (eds.) 1994: 182-216. Bickermann, E.J. 1937 Der Gott der Makkabàer Untersuchungen ilber Sinn und Ursprung der Makkabàischen Erhebung (Berlin: Schocken Verlag/Jtidischer Buchverlag). 1978 'The Generation of Ezra and Nehemiah', Proceedings of the American Academy for Jewish Research 45: 1-28. 1984 'The Babylonian Captivity', in Davies and Finkelstein (eds.) 1984,1: 342-57. Black, J., A. George and N. Postgate (eds.) 2000 A Concise Dictionary of Akkadian (Wiesbaden: Otto Harrassowitz, 2nd corrected edn). Blau, J. 1971 'Studies in Hebrew Verb Formation', HUCA 42: 133-58. 1996 'Are Rabbinical Hebrew Forms like hayat Archaic?', in J. Blau, Studies in Hebrew Linguistics (Jerusalem: Magnes Press): 250-55 (Hebrew). 1997 The Structure of Biblical and Dead Sea Scrolls Hebrew in Light of Arabic Diglossia and Middle Arabic', Leshonenu 60: 21-32 (Hebrew). 2000 'A Conservative View of the Language of the Dead Sea Scrolls', in Muraoka and Elwolde (eds.) 2000: 20-25. Blenkinsopp, J. 1996 'An Assessment of the Alleged Pre-Exilic Date of the Priestly Material in the Pentateuch', ZAW\08: 495-518. Bloomfield, L. 1933 Language (New York: H. Holt). Blum, E. 1990 Studien zur Komposition des Pentateuch (BZAW, 189; Berlin: W. de Gruyter). Blum, E., C. Macholz and E.W. Stegemann (eds.) 1990 Die Hebrâische Bibel und ihre zweifache Nachgeschichte: Festschrift fur Rolf Rendtorff zum 65. Geburtstag (Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag).
324 Bollème, G. 1971
Biblical Hebrew
La Bibliothèque bleue. Littérature populaire en France du XVIIe au XIXe siècle (Paris: Gallimard/Julliard). Bordreuil, P., F. Israel and D. Pardee 1998 'King's Command and Widow's Plea Two Hebrew Ostraca of the Biblical Period',NEA6\: 2-13. Bottigheimer, R.B. 1993 'Bible Reading, "Bibles" and the Bible for Children in Early Modem Germany', Past and Present 139: 66-89. Brenner, A. 1979 'The Language of the Book of Jonah as a Means of Establishing the Date of its Composition', Beth Mikra 79: 396-405 (Hebrew). 1989 The Song of Songs (Old Testament Guides; Sheffield: JSOT Press). Brenner, M.L. 1991 The Song of the Sea: Ex 15.1-21 (BZAW, 195; Berlin: W. de Gruyter). Brettler, M. 1997 The Composition of 1 Samuel \-2\JBL 116: 601-12. Breuer, Y. 1998 'On the Hebrew Dialect of the 'Amora'im in the Babylonian Talmud', SH 37: 129-50. Bright, J. 1960 A History of Israel (London : SCM Press). Briquel-Chatonnet, F. 1992 'Hébreu du Nord et Phénicien: Étude Comparée de Deux Dialectes Cananéens', OLP 23: 89-126. 1996 Mosaïque de Langues Mosaïque Culturel: Le Bilinguisme dans le ProcheOrient Ancien (Paris: Maisonneuve). Brockelmann, C. 1908 Grundriss der vergleichenden Grammatik der semitischen Sprachen, I (Berlin: Reuther & Reichard). Brown, F. 1898 'Chronicles, I. and II. ', in J. Hastings (éd.), A Dictionary of the Bible (5 vols.; Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark), I: 389-92. Buchan, D. 1972 The Ballad and the Folk (London: Routledge & Kegan Paul). Burke, P. 1988 Popular Culture in Early Modem Europe (Aldershot: Wildwood House, 2nd edn [1978]). Burney, C.F. 1903 Notes on the Hebrew Text of the Books of Kings (Oxford: Oxford University Press). 1918 The Book of Judges: With Introduction and Notes (London: Rivingtons). Bynon, T. 1996 Historical Linguistics (Cambridge Textbooks in Linguistics; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press). Campbell, E.F. 1975 Ruth (AB, 7; Garden City, NY: Doubleday). Cardona, G. 1994 'Indian Linguistics', in Lepschy (ed.) 1994: 25-59.
Bibliography Cassuto, U.M. 1973
1975 Chafe, W.L. 1979
325
Biblical and Oriental Studies. I. Bible (trans. I. Abrahams; Jerusalem: Magnes Press). Biblical and Oriental Studies. II. Bible and Ancient Near Eastern Texts (trans. I. Abrahams; Jerusalem: Magnes Press).
'The Flow of Thought and the Flow of Language', in Given (ed.) 1979: 159-81. 'The Deployment of Consciousness in the Production of a Narrative', in 1980 Chafe (ed.) 1980:7-51. 'Integration and Involvement in Speaking, Writing and Oral Literature', in 1982 Tannen(ed.) 1982:35-53. 'Linguistic Differences Produced by Differences between Speaking and 1985 Writing', in Olson et al (eds.) 1985: 105-23. 1987 'Cognitive Constraints on Information Flow', in Tomlin (ed.) 1987: 21-51. 1992 'The Flow of Ideas in a Sample of Written Language', in W.C. Mann and S.A. Thompson (eds.), Discourse Description: Diverse Linguistic Analyses of a Fund-Raising Text (Amsterdam: Benjamins): 167-94. 1994 Discourse, Consciousness and Time: The Flow and Displacement of Conscious Experience in Speaking and Writing (Chicago: University of Chicago Press). Chafe, W.L. (ed..) 1980 The Pear Stories: Cognitive, Cultural and Linguistic Aspects of Narrative Production (Norwood, NJ: Ablex). Chapman, S.B. The Law and the Prophets: A Study in Old Testament Canon Formation 2000 (FAT, 27; Tubingen: J.C.B. Mohr [Paul Siebeck]). Charles, R.H. The Book of Jubilees or The Little Genesis (London: A. & C. Black). 1902 Chen, Y. 'Israelian Hebrew in the Book of Proverbs' (PhD dissertation, Cornell 2000 University). Chomsky, N. 1957 Syntactic Structures (The Hague: Mouton). Lectures on Government and Binding (Dordrecht: Foris). 1981 Knowledge of Language: Its Nature, Origin and Use (New York: Praeger). 1986a Barriers (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press). 1986b The Minimalist Program (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press). 1995 Chomsky, W. Hebrew: The Eternal Language (Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society of 1957 America). Clancy, P.M. 'Referential Choice in English and Japanese Narrative Discourse', in Chafe 1980 (ed.)1980: 127-201. Clendenen, E.R. 'Discourse Strategies in Jeremiah 10.1-16', JBL 106: 401-408. 1987 Clines, D.J.A. Ezra, Nehemiah, Esther (NCB; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans; London: Marshall, 1984 Morgan & Scott).
326
Biblical Hebrew
1989 Job 1-20 (WBC, 17; Dallas: Word Books). Cogan, M., and H. Tadmor 1988 // Kings (AB, 11 ; New York: Doubleday). Cohen, H.R. 1978 Biblical Hapax Legomena in the Light of Akkadian and Ugaritic (SBLDS, 37; Missoula, MT: Scholars Press). Collins, J.J. 1975 'The Court Tales in Daniel and the Development of Apocalyptic', JBL 94: 218-34. Coote, R.B. (ed.) 1992 Elijah and Elisha in Socioliterary Perspective (SBLSS; Atlanta: Scholars Press). Coss, P.R. 1985 'Aspects of Cultural Diffusion in Medieval England: The Early Romances, Local Society and Robin Hood', Past and Present 108: 35-79. Coulthard, M. 1985 An Introduction to Discourse Analysis (London: Longman, 2nd edn). Coulthard, M. (ed.) 1992 Advances in Spoken Discourse Analysis (London: Routledge & Kegan Paul). 1994 Advances in Written Discourse Analysis (London: Routledge & Kegan Paul). Cowley, A.E. 1910 Gesenius ' Hebrew Grammar as Edited and Enlarged by the Late E. Kautzsch (Oxford: Clarendon Press). Crawford, S.W. 1999 'The Book of Esther: Introduction, Commentary, and Reflections', in L.E. Keck (éd.), The New Interpreter's Bible (Nashville: Abingdon Press): 111,853-941. Crenshaw, J.L. 1998 Education in Ancient Israel: Across the Deadening Silence (New York: Doubleday). Cross P.M. 1964 'An Ostracon from Nebi Yunis', IEJ 14: 185-86. 1983 The Epic Traditions of Ancient Israel: Epic Narrative and the Reconstruction of Early Israelite Institutions', inR.E. Friedman (éd.), The Poet and the Historian: Essays in Literary and Historical Biblical Criticism (HSS, 26; Chico, CA: Scholars Press): 13-39. 1985 'A Literate Soldier—Lachish Letter III', in Kort and Morschauser (eds.) 1985:41-47. 1998 'Paleography and the Dead Sea Scrolls', in Flint and VanderKam (eds.) 1998,1:379-402. Cross, P.M., and D.N. Freedman 1952 Early Hebrew Orthography: A Study of the Epigraphic Evidence (AOS, 36; New Haven: American Oriental Society). 1955 'The Song of Miriam', JNES 14: 237-50. Cross, P.M., and S. Talmon (eds.) 1975 Qumran and the History of Biblical Text (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press).
Bibliography Cryer, F.H. 1994
Crystal, D. 1997
327
'The Problem of Dating Biblical Hebrew and the Hebrew of Daniel', in K. Jeppesen, K. Nielsen and B. Rosendal (eds.), In the Last Days: On Jewish and Christian Apocalyptic and its Period(Aarhus: Aarhus University Press): 185-98.
The Cambridge Encyclopedia of Language (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2nd edn). Crystal, D., and D. Davy 1969 Investigating English Style (London: Longman). Culley, R.C. 2000 'Orality and Writtenness', in Ben Zvi and Floyd (eds.) 2000: 45-64. Curtis, E.L., and A.A. Madsen A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Books of Chronicles (ICC; 1910 Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark). Dahood, M. Psalms 1-50 (AB, 16; New York: Doubleday). 1965 Danto, A. Analytical Philosophy of History (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press). 1965 Davidson, S. An Introduction to the Old Testament (2 vols.; Edinburgh: Williams & Nor1862 gate). Davies, G.I. Ancient Hebrew Inscriptions Corpus and Concordance (Cambridge: Cam1991 bridge University Press). Davies, P.R. 'The Birthplace of the Essenes: Where is Damascus?', RevQ 14: 503-20. 1990 In Search of 'Ancient Israel ' (JSOTSup, 148; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic 1992 Press). 1995 In Search of'AncientIsrael'(JSOTSup, 148; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 2nd edn). 1998 Scribes and Schools: The Canonization of Hebrew Scripture (Library of Ancient Israel; Louisville, KY: Westminster/John Knox Press). 2001a 'Biblical Hebrew and the History of Ancient Judah: Challenging Some Simplistic Scholarship' (unpublished paper, University of Sheffield). 2001 b 'Linguistic Analysis versus Social History: Assumption, Contradiction and Circularity' (unpublished paper presented at the 2001 SBL International Meeting in Rome). Davies, W.D., and L. Finkelstein (eds.) The Cambridge History of Judaism (Cambridge: Cambridge University 1984 Press). Davila, J.R. 'Qoheleth and Northern Hebrew', Maarav 5-6: 69-87. 1990 DeCaen, V. 'Hebrew Linguistics and Biblical Criticism: A Minimalist Approach', 2001 Journal of Hebrew Scriptures 3, article 6 (available online at <www.purl. org/jhs/>).
328 Delitzsch, F. 1877
Biblical Hebrew Commentary on the Song of Songs and Ecclesiastes (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark).
Dempster, S.G. 'Linguistic Features of Hebrew Narrative: A Discourse Analysis of Narrative 1985 from the Classical Period' (PhD dissertation, University of Toronto). Demsky, A. 1972 ' "Dark Wine" from Judah', IEJ 22: 233-34. 'On the Extent of Literacy in Ancient Israel', in Aviram et al. (eds.) 1985: 1985 349-53. 1988 'Writing in Ancient Israel. Part One: The Biblical Period', in M.J. Mulder (éd.), Mikra: Text, Reading and Interpretation of the Hebrew Bible in Ancient Judaism and Early Christianity (Assen: Van Gorcum; Philadelphia: Fortress Press): 2-20. Deutsch, R., and M. Heltzer 1994 Forty New Ancient West Semitic Inscriptions (Tel Aviv/Jaffa: Archaeological Center). 1995 New Epigraphic Evidence from the Biblical Period'(Tel Aviv/Jaffa: Archaeological Center). De Vaux, R. 1973 Archaeology and the Dead Sea Scrolls (London: Oxford University Press). Dever, W.G. 1998 'Archaeology, Ideology, and the Quest for an "Ancient" or "Biblical" Israel', #£461:39-52. 2001 What Did the Biblical Writers Know and When Did They Know It? What Archaeology Can Tell Us about the Reality of Ancient Israel (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans). Dillmann, A. 1878 'Chronik', in J.J. Herzog and D.G.L. Plitt (eds.), Real-Encyklopadie fur protestantische Théologie undKirche (24 vols.; Leipzig: J.C. Hinrichs), III: 219-24. Diringer, D., and S.P. Brock 1968 'Words and Meanings in Early Hebrew Inscriptions', in P.R. Ackroyd and B. Lindars (eds.), Words and Meanings: Essays Presented to David Win ton Thomas on his Retirement from the Regius Professorship of Hebrew in the University of Cambridge 1968 (London: Cambridge University Press): 39-45. Dobbs-Allsop, F.W. 1998 'Linguistic Evidence for the Date of Lamentations', JANESCU26: 1-36. Donner, H., and W. Rôllig 1966 Kanaanàische und aramàische Inschriften (2 vols.; Wiesbaden: Otto Harrassowitz). Dorson, R.M. 1960 'Jewish-American Dialect Stories on Tape', in R. Patay, F.L. Utley and D. Noy (eds.), Studies in Biblical and Jewish Folklore (Bloomington: Indiana University Press): 109-74. 1964 Buying the Wind: Regional Folklore in the United States (Chicago: University of Chicago Press).
Bibliography Dotan, A. 1991 Dothan, M. 1967 Drerup, E. 1915 Driver, G.R. 1928
1934 1953 1965
329
'From Masora to Grammar: The Beginnings of Grammatical Thought in Hebrew', Leshonenu 54: 155-68 (Hebrew, with English Summary). 'Excavations of Ashdod 1962', 'Atiqotl. Homer (Mainz: Kirchheim). 'The Original Form of the Name "Yahweh": Evidence and Conclusions', ZA W46: 1-25. 'Studies on the Vocabulary of the Old Testament. VIF, JTS 35: 380-93. 'Hebrew Poetic Diction', in G.W. Anderson (éd.), Congress Volume, Copenhagen 1953 (VTSup, 1; Leiden: E.J. Brill): 26-39. The Judaean Scrolls: The Problem and a Solution (Oxford: Basil Blackwell).
Driver, S.R. 'On Some Alleged Linguistic Affinities of the Elohist', The Journal of Philology \ 1:201-36. 1892 A Treatise on the Use of the Tenses in Hebrew and Some Other Syntactical Questions (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans; Livonia, MI: Dove [repr. 1998]). 1895 A Critical andExegetical Commentary on Deuteronomy (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark). 1898 The Books of Joel and Amos: With Introduction and Notes (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press). 1913a An Introduction to the Literature of the Old Testament (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 9th edn). 1913b Notes on the Hebrew Text and the Topography of the Books of Samuel (Oxford: Clarendon Press). Driver, S.R., and G.B. Gray 1921 A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Book of Job (ICC; Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark). Dupont-Sommer, A. 'Un Papyrus Araméen d'Époque Saïte Découvert à Saqqarah', Sem 1:43-68. 1948 Duval, R. 1969 Traité de Grammaire Syriaque (Amsterdam; Philo Press [first published 1881]). Edelman, D. 2000 'The Deuteronomist's David and the Chronicler's David: Competing or Contrasting Ideologies?', in Rômer (éd.) 2000: 67-83. Edmondson, W. 1981 Spoken Discourse: A Model for Analysis (London: Longman). Eggins, S., and D. Slade 1997 Analysing Casual Conversation (London: Cassell). Ehrensvârd, M. 1997 'Once Again: The Problem of Dating Biblical Hebrew', SJOT 11: 29-40. 1999 'Negating the Infinitive in Biblical Hebrew', ZAH 12: 146-64. 2000 'Studies in the Syntax and the Dating of Biblical Hebrew' (PhD dissertation, University of Aarhus). 1882
330
Biblical Hebrew
Eichhorn, J.G. 1780 Einleitung in das Alte Testament (Leipzig: Weidmann). Eisenman, R.H. 1983 Maccabees, Zadokites, Christians and Qumran: A New Hypothesis ofQumran Origins (Leiden: EJ. Brill). 1986 James the Just in the Habakkuk Pesher (Leiden: E.J. Brill). Eissfeldt, O. 1922 Hexateuch-Synopse (Leipzig: J.C. Hinrichs). 1964 Einleitung in das Alte Testament (Tubingen: J.C.B. Mohr, 3rd edn). Elayi, J. 1980 The Phoenician Cities in the Persian Period', JANESCU 12: 13-28. 1982 'Studies in Phoenician Geography during the Persian Period', JNES 41: 83-110. Ellenbogen, M. 1962 Foreign Words in the Old Testament: Their Origin and Etymology (London: Luzac & Company). Elman, Y. 1999 'Orality and the Redaction of the Babylonian Talmud', Oral Tradition 14: 52-99. Elwolde, J.F. 1997 'Developments in Hebrew Vocabulary Between Bible and Mishnah', in Muraoka and Elwolde (eds.) 1997: 17-55. Emerton, J.A. 1983 'How Does the Lord Regard the Death of His Saints in Psalm cxvi 15T,JTS 34: 146-56. 1999a ' "Yahweh and his Asherah": The Goddess or her Symbol?', VT49: 315-37. 1999b 'How Many Months are Mentioned in the Gezer Calendar?', PEQ 131: 20-23. 2001 'Were the Lachish Letters Sent To or From Lachish?', PEQ 133: 2-15. Emerton, J.A. (ed) 1981 Congress Volume, Vienna 1980 (VTSup, 32; Leiden: E.J. Brill). 1988 Congress Volume, Jerusalem 1986 (VTSup, 40; Leiden: E.J. Brill) Eph'al, I., and J. Naveh 1998 'Remarks on the Recently Published Moussaieff Ostraca', IEJ4S: 269-73. Erman, A. 1966 The Ancient Egyptians: A Sourcebook of their Writings (trans. A.M. Blackman; Introduction by W.K. Simpson; New York: Harper & Row). Ervin-Tripp, S.M. 1971 'Sociolinguistics', in Fishman (ed.) 1971: 15-91. Ervin-Tripp, S.M., and A. Kuntay 1997 'The Occasioning and Structuring of Conversational Stories', in T. Given (éd.), Conversation: Cognitive, Communicative, and Social Perspectives (Typological Studies in Language, 34; Amsterdam: Benjamins): 133-66. Eskhult, M. 1990 Studies in Verbal Aspect and Narrative Technique in Biblical Hebrew Prose (Acta Universitatis Upsaliensis: Studia Semitica Upsaliensia, 12; Uppsala: Almqvist & Wiksell). 2000 'Verbal Syntax in Late Biblical Hebrew', in Muraoka and Elwolde (eds.) 2000: 84-93.
Bibliography
331
Even-Shoshan, A. 1990 A New Concordance of the Old Testament (Jerusalem: Kiryat Sefer). Fasold, R. 1987 The Sociolinguistics of Society (Oxford: Basil Blackwell). 1990 The Sociolinguistics of Language (Oxford: Basil Blackwell). Fassberg, S. 1992 'Hebraisms in the Aramaic Documents from Qumran', in Muraoka (ed.) 1992:48-69. 2001 'The Movement of Qal to Pi 'el in Hebrew and the Disappearance of the Qal Internal Passive', Hebrew Studies 42: 243-55. Ferguson, C.A. 1959 'Diglossia', Word 15: 325-40. Finkelstein, I. 1980 'Shephelat Isra'el', Beit Miqra 25: 341-45 (Hebrew). Finkelstein, I., and N.A. Silberman 2001 The Bible Unearthed: Archaeology's New Vision of Ancient Israel and the Origin of its Sacred Texts (New York: Free Press). Finley, T.J. 1981 'The WAW-Consecutive with "Imperfect" in Biblical Hebrew: Theoretical Studies and its Use in Amos', in J.S. Feinberg and P.O. Feinberg (eds.), Tradition and Testament: Essays in Honor of Charles Lee Feinberg (Chicago: Moody Press): 241-62. Finnegan, R. 1970 Oral Literature in Africa (Oxford: Clarendon Press). Fischer, D.H. 1970 Historians ' Fallacies: Toward a Logic of Historical Thought (New York: Harper & Row). Fishbane, M. 1985 Biblical Interpretation in Ancient Israel (Oxford: Clarendon Press). Fishman, J.A. 1971 'The Sociology of Language: An Interdisciplinary Social Science Approach to Language in Society', in idem (ed.) 1971: 217-404. 1972 'The Relationship between Micro- and Macro-Sociolinguistics in J.B. Pride and J. Holmes (eds.), Sociolinguistics (Harmondsworth: Penguin Books): 15-32. Fishman, J.A. (ed.) 1971 Advances in the Sociology of Language. I. Basic Concepts, Theories and Problems; Alternative Approaches (The Hague: Mouton). Fitzmyer, J.A. 1970 'The Languages of Palestine in the First Century A.D.', CBQ 32: 501-31. 1979 A Wander ing Aramean: Collected Aramaic Essays (Missoula, MT: Scholars Press). Fleisch, H. 1994 'Arabic Linguistics', in Lepschy (ed.) 1994: 164-84. Flint, P.W., and J.C. VanderKam (eds.) 1998 The Dead Sea Scrolls After Fifty Years: A Comprehensive Assessment (2 vols.; Leiden: E.J. Brill).
332 Floyd, M.H. 1995 2000
Biblical Hebrew 'The Nature of the Narrative and the Evidence of Redaction in Haggai', VT 45: 470-90. ' "Write the Revelation!" (Hab. 2.2): Re-imagining the Cultural History of Prophecy', in Ben Zvi and Floyd (eds.) 2000: 103-43.
Fokkelman, J.P. 1981 Narrative Art and Poetry in the Books of Samuel. I. King David (II Sam. 9-20 and 1 Kings 1-2) (2 vols.; Assen: Van Gorcum). Fokkelman, J.P., and G.A. Rendsburg forthcoming '101? b^b «3 mH (Psalm cxvi 14, 18)', VT53.3. Foley, J.M. 1985 Oral-Formulaic Theory and Research: An Introduction and Annotated Bibliography (New York: Garland). 1990 Traditional-Oral Epic: The Odyssey, Beowulfand the Serbo-Croation Return Song (Berkeley: University of California Press). 1995 The Singer of Tales in Performance (Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press). Folmer, M. 1995 The Aramaic Language in the Achaemenid Period: A Study in Linguistic Variation (Leuven: Peeters). Forrer, E. 1920 Die Provinzeinteilung des assyrischen Reiches (Leipzig: J.C. Hinrichs). Foster, B. 1993 Before the Muses: An Anthology of Akkadian Literature (Bethesda, MA: CDL Press). Fox, B. 1987 Discourse Structure and Anaphora: Written and Conversational English (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press). Fox, M.J. 1991 Character and Ideology in the Book of Esther (Studies on Personalities of the Old Testament; Columbia: University of South Carolina Press). Fredericks, D.C. 1988 Qoheleth 's Language: Re-Evaluating its Nature and Date (Ancient Near Eastern Texts and Studies, 3; Lewiston, NY: Edwin Mellen Press). 1996 'A North Israelite Dialect in the Hebrew Bible? Questions of Methodology', Hebrew Studies 37: 7-20. Freedman, D.N. 1961 The Chronicler's Purpose', CBQ 23: 436-42. 1969 'Orthographic Peculiarities in the Book of Job', Erlsr 9 (= W.F. Albright Volume)'. 35-44. 1978 'Psalm 113 and the Song of Hannah', Erlsr 14: 56-69 (repr. in D.N. Freedman, Pottery, Poetry, and Prophecy: Studies in Early Hebrew Poetry [Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1980]: 243-61). 1983 'The Spelling of the Name "David" in the Hebrew Bible', BAR 7: 89-104. Friedberg, A.D. 2000 'A New Clue in the Dating of the Composition of the Book of Esther', VT 50:561-63.
Bibliography
333
Friedman, R.E. 1987 Who Wrote the Bible? (London: Jonathan Cape). Friedrich, J., and W. Rôllig 1999 Phônizisch-Punische Grammatik (Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute, 3rd edn). Frolov, S. 2002 'Succession Narrative: A "Document" or a Phantom?', JBL 121: 81-104. Gai, A. 'Linguistic Remarks on Hebrew Inscriptions', Tarbiz 65: 529-33 (Hebrew). 1996 Gandz, S. 1935 'Oral Tradition in the Bible', in S.W. Baron and A. Marx (eds.), Jewish Studies in Memory of George A. Kohut (New York: The Alexander Kohut Memorial Foundation): 249-69. Garbini, G. 1988 History and Ideology in Ancient Israel (London: SCM Press). Garcia Martinez, F. 1988 'Qumran Origins and Early History: A Groningen Hypothesis', Folia Orientalia2S: 113-36. 1994 The Dead Sea Scrolls Translated: The Qumran Texts in English (Leiden: E.J. Brill). Garr, W.R. 1985 Dialect Geography of Syria-Palestine, 1000-586 B.C.E. (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press). Gawthrop, R. 1984 'Protestantism and Literacy in Early Modern Germany', Past and Present 104:31-55. Geller, S.A. 1982 'The Struggle at the Jabbok', JANESCU 14: 37-60. Gerleman, G. 1948 Synoptic Studies in the Old Testament (LUÂ, NS 44; Lund: C. W.K. Gleerup). Gesenius, W. 1815 Geschichte der hebràischen Sprache und Schrift: Eine philologisch-historische Einleitung in die Sprachlehren und Wôrterbûcher der hebràischen Sprache (Leipzig: F.C.W. Vogel). 1909 Hebràische Grammatik, vôllig umgearbeitet von E. Kautzsch (Leipzig: F.C.W. Vogel, 28th edn). Gevirtz, S. 1986 'Of Syntax and Style in the "Late Biblical Hebrew"—"Old Canaanite" Connection', JANESCU 18: 25-29. 'Asher in the Blessing of Jacob (Gen 49.20)', VT31: 154-63. 1987 Gianto, A. 1996 'Variations in Biblical Hebrew', Bib 77: 493-508. Gibson, J.C.L. 1971 Textbook of Syrian Semitic Inscriptions. I. Hebrew andMoabite Inscriptions (Oxford: Clarendon Press). 1973 Textbook of Syrian Semitic Inscriptions. I. Hebrew andMoabite Inscriptions (Oxford: Clarendon Press, rev. edn).
Biblical Hebrew
334 1975 1994
Textbook of Syrian Semitic Inscriptions. II. Aramaic Inscriptions Including Inscriptions in the Dialect ofZenjirli(Oxford: Clarendon Press). Davidson's Introductory Hebrew Grammar: Syntax (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark).
Giesebrecht, F. 'Zur Hexateuchkritik. Der Sprachgebrauch des hexateuchischen Elohisten', 1881 ZAW2: 177-276. Ginsberg, H.L. 'The Northwest Semitic Languages', in B. Mazar (éd.), The World History of 1970 the Jewish People: Patriarchs (Tel Aviv: Massada): 102-24. The Israelian Heritage of Judaism (New York: Jewish Theological Society 1982 of America). Gluska, I. The Influences of Aramaic on Mishnaic Hebrew' (PhD dissertation, Bar1987 llan University, Ramat-Gan). Goddard, B.L. 'The Origin of the Hebrew Infinitive Absolute in the Light of Infinitive Uses 1943 in Related Languages and its Use in the Old Testament' (PhD dissertation Harvard Divinity School). Gogel, S.L. A Grammar ofEpigraphic Hebrew (SBL Resources for Biblical Study, 23; 1998 Atlanta: Scholars Press). Golb, N. 'The Problem of Origin and Identification of the Dead Sea Scrolls', Proceed1980 ings of the American Philosophical Society 124.1: 1 -24. 1995 Who Wrote the Dead Sea Scrolls? The Search for the Secret ofQumran (New York: Charles Scribner's Sons). Goldfajn, T. Word Order and Time in Biblical Hebrew Narrative (Oxford Theological 1998 Monographs; Oxford: Clarendon Press; New York: Oxford University Press). Goldwasser, O. 'An Egyptian Scribe from Lachish and the Hieratic Tradition of the Hebrew 1991 Kingdoms', Tel Aviv 18: 248-53. Goodspeed, E. 1944 'The Original Language of the Gospels', in T.S. Kepler (éd.), Contemporary Thinking About Jesus: An Anthology (New York: Abingdon-Cokesbury): 58-63. Gordis, R. 'Was Koheleth a Phoenician?', JBL 74: 103-14. 1955 1965 The Book of God and Man: A Study of Job (Chicago: University of Chicago Press). Gordon, C.H. 1955a 'North Israelite Influence on Postexilic Hebrew', IEJ5: 85-88. 1955b The Origin of the Jews in Elephantine', JNES 14: 56-58. 1965 Ugaritic Textbook (3 vols.; AnOr, 38; Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute). 1966 Evidence for the Minoan Language (Ventnor, NJ: Ventnor). Goshen-Gottstein, M.H. 1958 'Linguistic Structure and Tradition in the Qumran Documents', SH 4: 101-37.
Bibliography 1983
335
'The Textual Criticism of the Old Testament: Rise, Decline, Rebirth', JBL 102:365-99.
Goulder, M.D. 1982 The Psalms of the Sons ofKorah (JSOTSup, 20; Sheffield: JSOT Press). Grabbe, L.L. Judaic Religion in the Second Temple Period: Belief and Practice from the 2000 Exile to Yavneh (London: Routledge). Grabbe, L.L. (ed.) 1997 Can a 'History of Israel' be Written? (JSOTSup, 245; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press). 1998 Leading Captivity Captive: 'The Exile ' as History and Ideology (JSOTSup, 278; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press). 2001 Did Moses Speak Attic? Jewish Historiography and Scripture in the Hellenistic Period (JSOTSup, 317; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press). Graetz, H. 1857 'Simon der Gerechte und seine Zeit', Monatschrift zur Geschichte und Wissenschaft des Judentums 6: 45-56. Graham, M.P. 1990 The Utilization of I and 2 Chronicles in the Reconstruction of Israelite History in the Nineteenth Century (SBLDS, 116; Atlanta: Scholars Press). Graham, M.P., and S.L. McKenzie (eds.) The Chronicler as Author: Studies in Text and Texture (JSOTSup, 263; 1999 Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press). Greenfield, J.C. 'Linguistic Examinations in the Sefire Inscriptions', Leshonenu 27-28: 1964 303-13 (Hebrew). Review of Wagner 1966, JBL 87: 232-34. 1968 'The Small Caves of Qurnran', JAOS 89: 128-41. 1969 Review of J. Hoftijzer and G. van der Kooij, Aramaic Texts from Deir 'Alia, 1980 JSS 25: 248-52. 'Aramaic Studies and the Bible', in Emerton (ed) 1981: 110-30. 1981 'Etymological Semantics', ZAH6: 26-37. 1993 ' "Because He/She Did Not Know Letters": Remarks on a First Millenium 2001 C.E. Legal Expression', in S.M. Paul, M.E. Stone and A. Pinnick (eds.), 'Al Kanfei Yonah: Collected Studies of Jonas C. Greenfield on Semitic Philology (2 vols.; Jerusalem: Magnes Press; Leiden: E.J. Brill), II: 939-45. Greenstein, E.L. 'Jethro's Wit: An Interpretation of Wordplay in Exodus 18', in S.L. Cook 1999 and S.C. Winter (eds.), On the Way to Nineveh: Studies in Honor of George M. Landes (Atlanta: Scholars Press): 155-71. 'Some Developments in the Study of Language and Some Implications for 2002 Interpreting Ancient Texts and Cultures', Israel Oriental Studies 20:155-93. Gressmann, H. Die Anfànge Israels (Die Schriften des Alten Testaments, 1.2; Gôttingen: 1914 Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht). Die àlteste Geschichtsschreibung und Prophétie Israels (Die Schriften des 1921 Alten Testaments, II. 1; Gôttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2nd edn). Grintz, Y.M. Peraqim be-Toldot ha-Bayit ha-Sheni (Jerusalem: Marcus [Hebrew]). 1969
336 Gross, B.Z. 1993
Biblical Hebrew The Nominal Patterns ]17.US and pUS in Biblical and Mishnaic Hebrew (Jerusalem: The Academy of the Hebrew Language [Hebrew]).
Guenther, A.R. 1977 'A Diachronic Study of Biblical Hebrew Prose Syntax: An Analysis of the Verbal Clause in Jeremiah 37-45 and Esther 1-10' (PhD dissertation, University of Toronto). Guillaume, A. 'Some Readings in the Dead Sea Scrolls of Isaiah', JBL 76: 40-43. 1957 Gumperz, J.J., H. Kaltman and M.C. O'Connor 'Cohesion in Spoken and Written Discourse: Ethnic Style and the Transition 1984 to Literacy', in Tannen (ed.) 1984: 3-19. Habel, N.C. 1985 The Book of Job: A Commentary (OTL; Philadelphia: Westminster Press). Hackett, J.A. 1980 The Balaam Text from Deir 'Alia (HSM, 31 ; Chico, CA: Scholars Press). Hale, M. 1997 Theory and Method in Historical Linguistics' (unpublished manuscript, Concordia University). Hall, F.W. 1968 A Companion to Classical Texts (Hildesheim: Georg Olms [1913]). Halliday, M.A. K. 1989 Spoken and Written Language (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2nd edn). Halpern, B. 1981 'Sacred History and Ideology: Chronicles' Thematic Structure—Indications of an Earlier-Source', in R.E. Friedman (éd.), The Creation of Sacred Literature: Composition and Redaction of the Biblical Text (University of California Publications, Near Eastern Studies, 22; Berkeley: University of California Press): 35-54. 1987 'Dialect Distribution in Canaan and the Deir Alia Inscriptions', in D.M. Golomb (éd.), ' Working With No Data ': Semitic and Egyptian Studies Presented to Thomas O. Lambdin (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns): 119-39. 1993 Review of Davies 1992, loudaios Review 3.021 (available online at ). 2001 David's Secret Demons: Messiah, Murderer, Traitor, King (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans). Haran, M. 1982 'Book-Scrolls in Israel in Pre-Exilic Times', JJS 33: 161-73. 1988 'On the Diffusion of Literacy and Schools in Ancient Israel', in Emerton (ed.) 1988: 81-95. Harris, W.V. 1989 Ancient Literacy (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press). Harris, Z.S. 1939 Development of the Canaanite Dialects: An Investigation in Linguistic History (New Haven: American Oriental Society). Harrison, R.K. 1969 Introduction to the Old Testament (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans).
Bibliography Hartley, J.E. 1988 Hartmann, D. 1995
337
The Book of Job (NICOT; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans). 'Orality in Spoken German Standard and Substandard', in Quasthoff (ed.) 1995: 138-67.
Haugen, E. 1972 The Ecology of Language (éd. A.S. Dil; Stanford: Stanford University Press). Hausendorf, H. 'Deixis and Orality: Explaining Games in Face-to-Face Interaction', in 1995 Quasthoff (ed.) 1995: 181-97. Hawkins, J.D. 1982 'The Neo-Hittite States in Syria and Anatolia', in J. Boardman et al. (eds.), Cambridge Ancient History (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press), III. 1 372-441. Hendel, R.S. 2001 'Of Doubt, Gadflies and Minimalists', BR 17.3: 8. Herner, S. Syntax der Zahlwôrter im Alten Testament (Lund: Berlingsche Buchdruckerei 1893 & Schriftgiesserei-Actiengesellschaft). Hestrin, R. Inscriptions Reveal (Jerusalem: Israel Museum). 1972 Hill,A.E. 'The Book of Malachi: Its Place in Post-Exilic Chronology Linguistically 1981 Considered' (PhD dissertation, University of Michigan). 'Dating Second Zechariah: A Linguistic Reexamination', HAR 6: 105-34. 1982 'Dating the Book of Malachi: A Linguistic Reexamination', in C.L. Meyers 1983 and M. O'Connor (eds.), The Word of the Lord Shall Go Forth: Essays in Honor of David Noel Freedman in Celebration of his Sixtieth Birthday (Philadelphia: American Schools of Oriental Research): 77-89. Malachi: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary (AB, 25D; 1998 New York: Doubleday). Hill, S.D. 1992 'The Local Hero in Palestine in Comparative Perspective', in Coote (ed.) 1992:37-73. Ho, C.Y.S. 'The Troubles of David and his House: Textual and Literary Studies of the 1994 Synoptic Stories of Saul and David in Samuel-Kings and Chronicles' (PhD dissertation, University of Edinburgh). 'Conjectures and Refutations: Is 1 Samuel xxxi 1-13 Really the Source of 1995 1 Chronicles x 1-12?', VT45: 82-106. Hock, H.H., and B.D.Joseph Language History, Language Change, and Language Relationship: An Intro1996 duction to Historical and Comparative Linguistics (Berlin: W. de Gruyter). Hoenigswald, H ,M. 1960 Language Change and Linguistic Reconstruction (Chicago: University of Chicago Press).
338 Hoffman, Y. 1986
Hoftijzer, J. 1965
Biblical Hebrew 'The Lexicography of the P Document and the Problem Concerning its Dating', in M.A. Friedman and M. Gil (eds.), Te'udah, IV—-Studies in Judaica (Tel Aviv: Tel Aviv University): 13-22 (Hebrew).
'Remarks Concerning the Use of the Particle '/ in Classical Hebrew', OTS 14: 1-99. 1970 'David and the Tekoite Woman', FT120: 419-44. Hoftijzer, J., and K. Jongeling 1995 Dictionary of North- West Semitic Inscriptions (HdO, 21.1-2; 2 vols.; Leiden: E.J. Brill). Hoover Renteria, T. 1992 'The Elijah/Elisha Stories: A Socio-Cultural Analysis of Prophets and People in Ninth-Century B.C.E. Israel', in Coote (ed.) 1992: 75-126. Hopper, P.J., and E.G. Traugott 1993 Grammaticalization (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press). Horbury, W. (ed.) 1999 Hebrew Study from Ezra to Ben-Yehudah (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark). Houston, R. 1982 'The Literacy Myth? Illiteracy in Scotland 1630-1760', Past and Present 96: 81-102. Hiibner, U. 1997 'Bemerkungen zum Pfandrecht: Dasjudàische Ostrakon von Mesad Haâavyâhû, alttestamentliches und griechisches Pfandrecht sowie ein Graffito aus Marissa', f/F 29: 215-25. Huehnergard, J. 1991 'Remarks on the Classification of the Northwest Semitic Languages', in J. Hoftijzer and G. van der Kooij (eds.) The Balaam Text from Deir 'Allah Re-Evaluated: Proceedings of the International Symposium Held at Leiden 21-24 August 1989 (Leiden: E.J. Brill): 282-93. Hughes, J.A. 1970 'Another Look at the Hebrew Tenses', JNES29: 12-24. Hurvitz, A. 1965 'Observations on the Language of the Third Apocryphal Psalm from Qumran\RevQ 5.2: 225-32. 1967 'The Usage of ETO and f"Q in the Bible and its Implications for the Date of P\HTR60: 117-21. 1968 'The Chronological Significance of Aramaisms in Biblical Hebrew', IEJ18: 234-40. 1969a 'Akkaron = Amqar(r)una = fllpl?', Leshonenu 33: 18-24 (Hebrew). 1969b Review of Wagner 1966, IEJ 19: 182-83. 1970-71 'Linguistic Observations on the Biblical Usage of the Priestly Term "Edah" ', Torbiz 40: 261-67 (Hebrew). 1972a The Transition Period in Biblical Hebrew: A Study of Post-Exilic Hebrew and its Implications for the Dating of Psalms (Jerusalem: Mossad Harev Kook/Bialik Institute [Hebrew]). 1972b '"Diachronic Chiasm" in Biblical Hebrew', in B. Uffenheimer (éd.), The Bible and the History of Israel: Studies in Honour of Jacob Levor(Te\ Aviv: Students Organization of Tel Aviv University): 248-55 (Hebrew).
Bibliography 1973 1974a 1974b 1981 1982
1983b 1983c 1985
1988 1990 1992 1994 1995
1996a
1996b
1997a 1997b
1997c
1999 2000a
339
'Linguistic Criteria for Dating Problematic Biblical Texts', Hebrew Abstracts 14: 74-79. 'The Date of the Prose Tale of Job Linguistically Reconsidered', HTR 67: 17-34. 'The Evidence of Language in Dating the Priestly Code: A Linguistic Study in Technical Idioms and Terminology', RB 81: 24-56. 'The Language of the Priestly Source and its Historical Setting: The Case for an Early Date', in Krone (ed.) 1981: 83-94. A Linguistic Study of the Relationship between the Priestly Source and the Book ofEzekiel: A New Approach to an Old Problem (Cahiers de la Revue Biblique, 20; Paris: J. Gabalda). 'Ruth 2.7: "A Midrashic Gloss"?', ZAW95: 121-23. 'The Hebrew Language in the Persian Era', in Tadmor and Eph'al (eds.) 1983: 210-23, 306-309 (Hebrew). 'Originals and Imitations in Biblical Poetry: A Comparative Examination of 1 Sam. 2.1-10 and Ps. 113.5-9', in Kort and Morschauser (eds.) 1985: 115-21. 'Dating the Priestly Source in Light of the Historical Study of Biblical Hebrew A Century after Wellhausen', ZA W 100: 88-100. Review of Fredericks 1988, Hebrew Studies 31:144-54. 'trnnpTPD andD l 7)UTrD: Two Funerary Terms in Biblical Literature and their Linguistic Background', Maarav 8: 59-68. '~linN(n)TPn—The History of a Biblical Administrative-Economic Term', Erlsr 24: 78-82 (Hebrew). 'Continuity and Innovation in Biblical Hebrew—The Case of "Semantic Change" in Post-Exilic Writings', in T. Muraoka (ed.), Studies in Ancient Hebrew Semantics(AbrNSup, 4; Leuven: Peeters): 1-10. 'Hebrew and Aramaic in the Biblical Period—The Problem of "Aramaisms" in the Linguistic Research of the Hebrew Bible', in M. Bar-Asher (ed.), Studies in Hebrew and Jewish Languages Presented to Shelomo Morag (Jerusalem: Bialik Institute): 79-94 (Hebrew). 'The Origins and Development of the Expression ~1SD flb^D: A Study in the History of Writing-Related Terminology in Biblical Times', in M.V. Fox et al. (eds.), Texts, Temples, and Traditions: A Tribute to Menahem Haran (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns): 37*-46* (Hebrew). 'The Historical Quest for "Ancient Israel" and the Linguistic Evidence of the Hebrew Bible: Some Methodological Observations', VT41: 301-13. 'Historical Linguistics and Hebrew Bible—The Formation and Emergence of Late Biblical Hebrew', in M. Bar-Asher (ed.), Hebrew through the Ages in Memory ofShoshanna Bahat (Studies in Language, 2; Jerusalem: The Academy of the Hebrew Language): 15-28 (Hebrew). 'The Linguistic Status of Ben Sira as a Link between Biblical and Mishnaic Hebrew: Lexicographical Aspects', in Muraoka and Elwolde (eds.) 1997: 72-86. 'The Relevance of Biblical Hebrew Linguistics for the Historical Study of Ancient Israel', in Margolin (ed.) 1999: 21*-33*. 'Can Biblical Texts be Dated Linguistically? Chronological Perspectives in the Historical Study of Biblical Hebrew', in Lemaire and Saebo (eds.) 2000: 143-60.
Biblical Hebrew
340 2000b
'Was QH a "Spoken" Language? On Some Recent Views and Positions: Comments', in Muraoka and Elwolde (eds.) 2000: 110-14. 2000c 'Once Again the Linguistic Profile of the Priestly Material in the Pentateuch and its Historical Age: A Response to J. Blenkinsopp', ZAW60: 180-91. 2001 'The Archaeological-Historical Debate on the Antiquity of the Hebrew Bible in the Light of Linguistic Research of the Hebrew Language', in I.L. Levine and A. Mazar (eds.), The Controversy over the Historicity of the Bible (Jerusalem: Yad Ben-Zvi/Dinur Center): 34-46 (Hebrew). Hutchby, I., and R. Wooffitt 1998 Conversation Analysis (Cambridge: Polity Press). Ingram, M. 1984 'Ridings, Rough Music and the "Reform of Popular Culture" in Early Modern England', Past and Present 105: 79-113. Isaksson, B. 1987 Studies in the Language ofQoheleth with Special Emphasis on the Verbal System (Studia Semitica Upsaliensia, 10; Stockholm: Almqvist & Wiksell). Isserlin, B.S.J. 1972 'Epigraphically Attested Judean Hebrew and the Question of "Upper Class" (Official) and "Popular" Speech Variants in Judea during the 8th-6th Centuries E.C.\AJBA 2: 197-203. Jacoby, F. 1956 Griechische Historiker (Stuttgart: Druckenmiiller). Jamieson-Drake, D.W. 1991 Scribes and Schools in Monarchic Judah: A Socio-Archeological Approach (JSOTSup, 109; Sheffield: JSOT Press). Janssen, J.M.A. 1962 Hiesrogliefen. Over Lezen en Schrijven in Oud-Egypte (Leiden: E.J. Brill). Japhet, S. 1968 'The Supposed Common Authorship of Chronicles and Ezra-Nehemiah, Investigated Anew', FT 18: 330-71. 1993 / & II Chronicles (OTL; Louisville, KY: Westminster/John Knox Press). 1998 'In Search of Ancient Israel: Revisionism at All Costs', in D.N. Myers and D.B. Ruderman (eds.), The Jewish Past Revisited: Reflections on Modern Jewish Historians (New Haven: Yale University Press): 212-33. 1999 'Chronicles, Books of, in J.H. Hayes (ed.), Dictionary of Biblical Interpretation (2 vols.; Nashville: Abingdon Press), I: 179-87. Jean, C.-F., and J. Hoftijzer 1965 Dictionnaire des Inscriptions Semitiques de I 'Quest (Leiden: E.J. Brill). Jeffery, L.H. 1961 The Local Scripts of Archaic Greece: A Study of the Origin of the Greek Alphabet and its Development from the Eighth to the Fifth Centuries B.C. (Oxford: Clarendon Press). Joosten, J. 1996 People and Land in the Holiness Code: An Exegetical Study of the Ideational Framework of the Law in Leviticus 17-26 (VTSup, 47; Leiden: E.J. Brill). 1997 'Workshop: Meaning and Use of Tenses in I Samuel 1', in van Wolde (ed.) 1997: 72-83.
Bibliography 1999 Jordan, D.J. 2002
Joiion, P. 1923 1993 Kalimi, I. 1993
1998 Kallai, Z. 1960 1983
1986 Kaufman, S, A. 1974 1988 Kautzsch, E. 1902 Keil, C.F. 1833
1859 1878
341
'Pseudo-Classicisms in Late Biblical Hebrew', in Muraoka and Elwolde (eds.) 1999: 146-59. 'An Offering of Wine: An Introductory Exploration of the Role of Wine in the Hebrew Bible and Ancient Judaism through the Examination of the Semantics of Some Keywords' (PhD dissertation, University of Sydney). Grammaire de I 'Hebreu Biblique (Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute). Ruth. Commentaire Philologique et Exegetique (Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute, 2nd edn [ 1924]). 'Die Abfassungszeit der Chronik—Forschungsstand und Perspektiven', ZA W 105:223-33. 'History of Interpretation: The Book of Chronicles in Jewish Tradition', RB 105:5-41. The Northern Boundaries ofJudah (Jerusalem: Magnes Press [Hebrew]). 'Yehud and the Areas of Jewish Population under Persian Rule', in Tadmor and Eph'al (eds.) 1983: 72-80 (Hebrew). Historical Geography of the Bible (Jerusalem: Magnes Press). The Akkadian Influences on Aramaic (Chicago: University of Chicago Press). 'The Classification of the North West Semitic Dialects of the Biblical Period and Some Implications Thereof, in Bar-Asher (ed.) 1988: 41-57. Die Aramdismen im Alten Testament (Halle: Max Niemeyer). Apologetischer Versuch uber die Biicher der Chronik, und iiber die Integritdt des Buches Esra (Berlin: Ludwig Oehmigke). Lehrbuch der historisch-kritischen Einleitung in die kanonischen undapokryphischen Schriften des Alten Testamentes (Frankfurt: Heyder & Zimmer). The Books of the Chronicles (trans. A. Harper; Biblical Commentary on the Old Testament; Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark).
Kesterson, J. C. 1984 'Tense Usage and Verbal Syntax in Selected Qumran Documents' (PhD dissertation, The Catholic University of America, Washington, DC). Khan, G. 'The Karaite Tradition of Hebrew Grammatical Thought', in Horbury (ed.) 1999 1999: 186-203. Kim, Y.-Y. and D. Biber 'A Corpus-Based Analysis of Register Variation in Korean', in Biber and 1994 Finegan (eds.) 1994: 157-81. Kindler, A. 1974 'Silver Coins Bearing the Name of Judea from the Early Hellenistic Period', 1EJ 24: 73-74. Kiparsky, P. 1995 'Phonological Basis of Sound Change', in J. Goldsmith (ed.), Handbook of Phonological Theory (Oxford: Basil Blackwell): 640-70.
342
Biblical Hebrew
Kirshenblatt-Gimblett, B. 'A Parable in Context: A Social Interactional Analysis of Storytelling Perfor1975 mance', in D. Ben Amos and K.R. Goldstein (eds.), Folklore: Performance and Communication (Approaches to Semiotics, 40; The Hague: Mouton): 105-30. 'The Concept and Varieties of Narrative Performance in East European 1989 Jewish Culture', in R. Bauman and J. Sherzer (eds.), Explorations in the Ethnography of Speaking (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press [1974]): 283-308. Kissane, E. 1960 The Book of Isaiah (Dublin: Brown & Nolan, rev. edn). Kister, M. 1990 'A Contribution to the Interpretation of Ben Sira', Tarbiz 59: 303-78 (Hebrew). Kitchen, K.A. 1988 'Egypt and Israel during the First Millennium B.C.', in Emerton (ed.) 1988: 107-23. Klausner, J. 1924 'The Origin of Mishnaic Hebrew', Qedem we-Yahadut 1.10: 1-8 (Hebrew). 1939 Historya shel ha-Bayit ha-Sheni, I (Jerusalem: Achi'asaph [Hebrew]). 1950 Historya shel ha-Bayit ha-Sheni, II (Jerusalem: Achi'asaph [Hebrew]). Klein, R.W. 1966 'Studies in the Greek Text of the Chronicler' (PhD dissertation, Harvard University). 1992 'Chronicles, Book of 1-2', in ABD, I: 992-1002. Klein, S. 1923 'The Division of Judah and Galilee', in A. Zifroni et al. (ed.), Sefer haShana shel Eretz Isra 'el (Tel Aviv: Agudat ha-Sofrim ha-Ivrim be-Yisrael), 1:24-41 (Hebrew). 1939 Eretz Yehuda (Tel Aviv: Dvir [Hebrew]). Klima, E.S. 1964 'Relatedness Between Grammatical Systems', Language 40: 1-20. Knauf, E.A. 1990 'War "Biblisch-Hebraisch" eine Sprache?', ZAH3: 11-23. Knoppers, G.N. 1995 Review of Kings without Privilege by A.G. Auld, Ashland Theological Journal 27: 118-21. Knoppers, G.N, and J.G. McConville (eds.) 2000 Reconsidering Israel and Judah: Recent Studies on the Deuteronomistic History (Sources for Biblical and Theological Study, 8; Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns). Kochman, M. 1982 ' Yehud Medinta' in the Light of the Seal Impressions: Nina-Tin*', Cathedra 24: 3-30 (Hebrew). Konig, E. 1881 Historisch-Kritisches Lehrgebaude der Hebraischen Sprache (2 vols. in 3; Leipzig: J.C. Hinrichs, 1881-97).
Bibliography
343
Historisch-Comparative Syntax der Hebrdischen Sprache: Schlusstheil des historisch-kritischenLehrgebdudes des Hebrdischen (Leipzig: J.C. Hinrichs). Kort, A., and S. Morschauser (eds.) 1985 Biblical and Related Studies Presented to Samuel Iwry (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns). Kraeling, E.G. 1953 The Brooklyn Museum Aramaic Papyri (New Haven: Yale University Press). Kraus, H.-J. 1960 Psalmen, II (BKAT, 15.2; 2 vols.; Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag). Krispenz, J. 2001 Literarkritik undStilstatistik im Alien Testament. Fine Studie zur literarkritischen Methode, durchgefuhrt an Texten aus den Biichern Jeremia, Ezechiel und I Konige (BZAW, 307; Berlin: W. de Gruyter). Krone, D. (ed.) 1981 Proceedings of the Eighth World Congress of Jewish Studies, Jerusalem, August 16-21, 1981: Division A: The Period of the Bible (Jerusalem: World Union of Jewish Studies). Kropat, A. 1909 Die Syntax des Autors der Chronik verglichen mit der seiner Quellen (BZAW, 16; Giessen: Alfred Topelmann). Kutscher, E.Y. 1954 Review of Kraeling \953,JAOS14: 233-48. 1961 Words and their History (Jerusalem: Kiriath Sepher [Hebrew]). 1964 'Aramaic Caique in Hebrew', Tarbiz 33: 118-30 (Hebrew). 1970 'Aramaic', in T.A. Seboek (ed.), Current Trends in Linguistics 6: 347-412. 1974 The Language and Linguistic Background of the Isaiah Scroll (IQIsa0) (STDJ, 6; Leiden: E.J. Brill). 1977 Hebrew and Aramaic Studies (ed. Z. Ben-Hayyim, A. Dotan and G. Sarfatti; Jerusalem: Magnes Press). 1982 A History of the Hebrew Language (ed. R. Kutscher; Jerusalem: Magnes Press; Leiden: E.J. Brill). Labov, W. 1971 'The Study of Language in its Social Context', in Fishman (ed.) 1971: 152-216. 1972 Language in the Inner City: Studies in the Black English Vernacular (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press). 1994 Principles of Linguistic Change. I. Internal Factors (Language in Society, 20; 2 vols.; Oxford: Basil Blackwell). Lambert, W.G. 1968 'Literary Style in First Millennium Mesopotamia', in E. Bender (ed.), Essays in Memory of E.A. Speiser (American Oriental Series, 53; New Haven: American Oriental Society): 123-32. Landes, G.M. 1982 'Linguistic Criteria and the Date of the Book of Jonah', Erlsr 16 (Harry M. Orlinsky Volume}: 147*-70*. Larsson, G. 2002 'Is the Book of Esther Older than has been Believed?', VT52: 130-31. 1897
344 Lass, R. 1997 Layton, S.C. 1990
Biblical Hebrew Historical Linguistics and Language Change (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press). 'The Steward in Ancient Israel: A Study of Hebrew ('ASER) 'ALHABBAYIT in its Near Eastern Setting', JBL 109: 633-49.
Leahy, T. 1960 'Studies in the Syntax of 1QS', Bib 41: 135-57. Lehman, W.P. 1962 Historical Linguistics: An Introduction (New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston). Lemaire, A. 1980 'A Note on Inscription XXX From Lachish', Tel Aviv 1: 92-94. 1988 'Aramaic Literature and Hebrew Literature', in Bar-Asher (ed.) 1988: 9-24. Lemaire, A., and M. Saeb0 (eds.) 2000 Congress Volume, Oslo 1998 (VTSup, 80; Leiden: E.J. Brill). Lemke, W.E. 1964 'Synoptic Studies in the Chronicler's History' (PhD dissertation, Harvard University). 1965 The Synoptic Problem in the Chronicler's History', HTR 58: 349-63. Lepschy, G. (ed.) 1994 History of Linguistics. I. The Eastern Traditions (2 vols.; London: Longman). Levenson, J.D. 1997 Esther A Commentary (OIL; Louisville, KY: Westminster/John Knox Press). Levine, B.A. 1962 'Survivals of Ancient Canaanite in the Mishnah' (PhD dissertation, Brandeis University). 1981 'Late Language in the Priestly Source: Some Literary and Historical Observations', in Krone (ed.) 1981: 69-82. 1982 'Research in the Priestly Source: the Linguistic Factor', Erlsr 16: 124-31 (Hebrew). 1993 Numbers 1-20 (AB, 4; New York: Doubleday). Levinson, B. 1997 Deuteronomy and the Hermeneutics of Legal Innovation (Oxford: Oxford University Press). Li,T. 1999 'The Expression of Sequence and Non-Sequence in Northwest Semitic Narrative Prose' (PhD dissertation, Hebrew Union College-Jewish Institute of Religion). Lichtheim, M. 1975 Ancient Egyptian Literature. I. The Old and Middle Kingdoms (Berkeley: University of California Press). 1976 Ancient Egyptian Literature. II. New Kingdom (Berkeley: University of California Press). Lieberman, S. 1955 Tosefta ki-Fshutah, Order Zera'im (New York: Jewish Theological Seminary of America [Hebrew]).
Bibliography Lifshitz, O. 1999 Lightfoot, D. 1979 1991
345
'Formation of the Babylonian Yehud Provinces', in Margolin (ed.) 1999: 115-23. Principles ofDiachronic Syntax. (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press). How to Set Parameters: Arguments from Language Change (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press).
Liles, B.L. 1975 An Introduction to Linguistics (Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall). Lindenberger, J.M. 1994 Ancient Aramaic and Hebrew Letters (SBL Writings from the Ancient World Series; Atlanta, GA: Scholars Press). Linville, J.R. 1998 Israel in the Book of Kings: The Past as a Project of Social Identity (JSOTSup, 272; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press). Lipinski, E. 1988 'Royal and State Scribes in Ancient Jerusalem', in Emerton (ed.) 1988: 157-64. 1997 Semitic Languages: Outline of a Comparative Grammar (OLA, 80; Leuven: Peeters). Liver, J., and M. Stern 1961 Miggalut Bavel 'ad Mered ha-Hashmona 'im (Tel Aviv: Matkal [Hebrew]). Loewe, R. 1994 'Hebrew Linguistics', in Lepschy (ed.) 1994: 97-163. Loewenstamm, S.E. 1972 'Reply to A.F. Rainey', Leshonenu 36: 67-70. 1980 'The Trembling of Nature during the Theophany', in idem, Comparative Studies in Biblical and Ancient Oriental Literatures (AOAT, 204; Kevelaer: Butzon & Bercker; Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag): 173-89. Lohfink, N. 1963 Das Hauptgebot. Eine Untersuchung literarischer Einleitungsfragen zu Dtn. 5-11 (AnBib, 20; Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute). 1991 'Die Gattung der Historischen Kurzgeschichte in den letzten Jahren von Juda und in der Zeit des Babylonischen Exils', in idem, Studien zum Deuteronomium undzur deuteronomistischen Literatur (Stuttgarter biblische Aufsatzbande, 12; 3 vols.; Stuttgart: Verlag Katholisches Bibelwerk), II: 55-86. Longacre, R.E. 1989 Joseph: A Story of Divine Providence: A Text Theoretical and Textlinguistic Analysis of Genesis 37 and 39-48 (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns). 1996 The Grammar of Discourse Second Edition (New York: Plenum Press). Lord, A.B. 1991 Epic Singers and Oral Tradition (Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press). Loretz, O. 1961 'The Perfectum Copulativum in 2 Sam 7,9-11', CBQ 23: 294-96. Loretz, O., and W. Mayer, 1980. 'Hurrischparass "trainiertes Pferd"', ZA 69: 188-91. Louckx, F. 1978 'Linguistic Ambivalence of the Brussels Indigenous Population', International Journal of the Sociology of Language 15: 53-60.
346
Biblical Hebrew
MacDonald, P.J. 1992 'Discourse Analysis and Biblical Interpretation', in Bodine (ed.) 1992: 153-75. Macy, H. 1975 'The Sources of the Books of Chronicles: A Reassessment' (PhD dissertation, Harvard University). Mankowski, P.V. 2000 Akkadian Loanwords in Biblical Hebrew (HSS, 47; Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns). Mandrou, R. 1999 De la Culture Populaire aux 17e et I8e siecle. La Bibliotheque bleue de Troyes (Paris: Imago [first published 1974]). Mantel, H.D. 1983 The Men of the Great Synagogue (Tel Aviv: Dvir [Hebrew]). Margain, J. 1974 'Observations sur 1 Chroniques 22. A propos des anachronismes linguistiques dans la Bible', Sem 24: 35-43. 1976 Essais de semantiques sur I'hebreu ancien. Monemes fonctionnels et autonomes. Modalites (Comptes rendus du Groupe Linguistique d'etudes chamito-semitiques supplement, 4; Paris: Geuthner). Margolin, R. (ed.) 1999 Proceedings of the Twelfth World Congress of Jewish Studies, Jerusalem, July 29-August 5, 1997: Division A: The Bible and its World (Jerusalem: World Union of Jewish Studies). Marrou, H.I. 1956 A History of Education in Antiquity (New York: Sheed & Ward). Martin, W.J. 1965 'The Hebrew of Daniel', in D.J. Wiseman et al. (eds.), Notes on Some Problems in the Book of Daniel (London: Tyndale Press): 28-30. McCarter, P.K., Jr 1980 / Samuel: A New Translation with Introduction, Notes and Commentary (AB, 8; New York: Doubleday). McFall, L. 1982 The Enigma of the Hebrew Verbal System: Solutions from Ewald to the Present Day (Hebrew Texts and Interpreters in Biblical Scholarship, 2; Sheffield: Almond Press). McKenzie, S.L. 1984 The Chronicler's Use of the Deuteronomistic History (HSM, 33; Atlanta: Scholars Press). McKenzie, S.L., and M.P. Graham (eds.) 1994 The History of Israel's Traditions: The Heritage of Martin Noth (JSOTSup, 182; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press). McMahon, A.M.S. 1994 Understanding Language Change (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press). Melammed, E.Z. 1973 An Introduction to Talmudic Literature (Jerusalem: Sha'are Rahamim [Hebrew]).
Bibliography
347
'Tractate Shevi'ith', in E.Y. Kutscher et al. (eds.), Henoch Yalon Memorial Volume (Ramat-Gan: Bar-Han University Press [Hebrew]): 385-417. Merwe, C.H.J. van der 1997 'Workshop: Text Linguistics and the Structure of I Samuel 1', in van Wolde (ed.) 1997: 157-65. Meshorer, Y. 1976 'Means of Payment before the Appearance of Coins, and the First Coinages', Qadmoniyot 9: 56-58 (Hebrew). 1989 'The Mints of Ashdod and Ashqelon during the Late Persian Period', Erlsr 20:287-91 (Hebrew). Meshorer, Y., and Sh. Kedar 1991 The Coinage of Samaria in the Fourth Century BCE (Jerusalem: Numismatic Fine Arts International) Milgrom, J. 1989 'Rationale for Cultic Law: The Case of Impurity', in D. Patrick (ed.), Thinking Biblical Law (Semeia, 45; Atlanta: Scholars Press): 103-109. Milik, J.T. 1958-59 'Nouvelles inscriptions semitiques et grecques du pays de Moab', Liber Annus 9: 330-58. 1961 'Textes Hebreux et Arameens', in P. Benoit, J.T. Milik and R. de Vaux (eds.), Les Grottes de Murabba'dt (DJD, 2; Oxford: Clarendon Press): 93-100. 'Le rouleau de cuivre provenant de la grotte 3Q (3Q15). Commentaire et 1962 texte', in M. Baillet, J.T. Milik and R. de Vaux (eds.), Les 'Petites Grottes' de Qumran (DJD, 3; Oxford: Clarendon Press): 211-302. Millar, W. Isaiah 24-27 and the Origin of Apocalyptic (HSM,1; Missoula, MT: 1976 Scholars Press). 'Isaiah, Book of (Chaps. 24-27)', inABD, III: 488-90. 1992 Millard, A.R. 'An Assessment of the Evidence for Writing in Ancient Israel', in Aviram et 1985 al. (eds.) 1985:301-12. 'Strangers From Egypt and Greece: The Signs for Numbers in Early 1995 Hebrew', in K. van Lerberghe and A. Schoors (eds.), Immigration and Emigration within the Ancient Near East Festschrift E. Lipinski (OLA, 65; Leuven: Peeters Press): 189-94. 2001 'The Corpus of West-Semitic Stamp Seals: Review Article', IEJ 51: 76-87. Miller, C.L. 'Patterns of Ellipsis in Prose and Verse' (unpublished paper read to the 1997 Linguistics and Biblical Hebrew Section of the 1997 annual meeting of the SBL). Miller, J., and R. Weinert 1998 Spontaneous Spoken Language: Syntax and Discourse (Oxford: Clarendon Press). Montgomery, J.A. 1951 The Books of Kings (ICC; Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark). Moor, J.C. de, and H.F van Rooy (eds.) 2000 Past, Present, Future: The Deuteronomistic History and the Prophets (OTS, 44; Leiden: E.J. Brill). 1974
Biblical Hebrew
348 Moore, C.A. 1971 Morag, S. 1971
1972 1981 1985 1988 Moran, W.L. 1975 Muchiki, Y. 1999 Muchowski, P. 1994
Muraoka, T. 1997
Esther: Introduction, Translation, and Notes (AB, 7B; New York: Doubleday). 'The Tiberian Tradition of Biblical Hebrew—Homogeneous and Heterogeneous Features', P'raqim 2: 105-44 (Hebrew). Review of Wagner 1966, JAOS 92: 298-300. ' "Layers of Antiquity"—Some Linguistic Observations on the Oracles of Balaam', Tarbiz 50: 1-24 (Hebrew). 'The Beginnings of Hebrew: Some Semantic Considerations', in Bar-Asher (ed.)1985: 177-96. 'Qumran Hebrew: Some Typological Observations', FT38: 148-64. 'Amarna Glosses', RA 69: 147-58. Egyptian Proper Names and Loanwords in North-West Semitic (SBLDS, 173; Atlanta: SBL). 'Language of the Copper Scroll in the Light of the Phrases Denoting the Directions of the World', in M.O. Wise, J.J. Collins and D.G. Pardee (eds.), Methods of Investigation of the Dead Sea Scrolls and the Khirbet Qumran Site Present Realities and Future Prospects (New York: The New York Academy of Sciences): 319-27.
'Verb Complementation in Qumran Hebrew', in Muraoka and Elwolde (eds.) 1997: 92-149. 1999 'The Participle in Qumran Hebrew with Special Reference to its Periphrastic Use', in Muraoka and Elwolde (eds.) 1999: 188-204. 2000 'An Approach to the Morphosyntax and Syntax of Qumran Hebrew', in Muraoka and Elwolde (eds.) 2000: 193-214. Muraoka, T. (ed.) 1992 Studies in Qumran Aramaic (AbrNSup, 3; Leuven: Peeters). Muraoka, T., and J.F. Elwolde (eds.) 1997 The Hebrew of the Dead Sea Scrolls and Ben Sira: Proceedings of a Symposium Held at Leiden University, 11-14 December 1995 (STDJ, 26; Leiden: E.J. Brill). 1999 Sirach, Scrolls and Sages Proceedings of a Second International Symposium on the Hebrew of the Dead Sea Scrolls and Ben Sira (STDJ, 33; Leiden: E.J. Brill). 2000 Diggers at the Well: Proceedings of a Third International Symposium on the Hebrew of the Dead Sea Scrolls and Ben Sira (STDJ, 36; Leiden: E.J. Brill). Muraoka, T., and B. Porten 1998 A Grammar of Egyptian Aramaic (HdO, 32; Leiden: E.J. Brill). Murphy, R.E. 1992 'Song of Songs, Book of, inABD, VI: 150-55. Murphy-O'Connor, J. 1974 'The Essenes and their History', RB 81: 215-44.
Bibliography Na'aman, N. 1993
349
'Population Changes in Palestine Following Assyrian Deportations', Tel Aviv 20: 104-24. 1997a 'Historical and Literary Notes on the Excavation of Tel Jezreel', Tel Aviv 24: 122-28. 1997b 'Prophetic Stories as Sources for the Histories of Jehoshaphat and the Omrides',5/678: 153-73. 2002 The Past That Shapes the Present: The Creation of Biblical Historiography at the End of the First Temple Period and After the Destruction (Yeriot, 3; Jerusalem: Orna Hess [Hebrew]). Na'aman, N., and R. Zadok 1988 'Sargon H's Deportations to Israel and Philistia (716-708 B.C.)', JCS 40: 36-46. Naude, J.A. 1996 'Independent Personal Pronouns in Qumran Hebrew Syntax: A Minimalist Approach' (DLit dissertation, University of the Free State, Bloemfontein). 2000a 'Diachronic Syntax and Language Change: The Case of Qumran Hebrew', Southern African Linguistics and Applied Language Studies 18: 1-14. 2000b 'Qumran Hebrew Syntax in the Perspective of a Theory of Language Change and Diffusion', JNSL 26.1: 105-32. 2000c 'The Language of the Book of Ezekiel: Biblical Hebrew in Transition?', Old Testament Essays 13: 46-71. Naveh, J. 1979 Review of J. Hoftijzer and G. van der Kooij, Aramaic Texts from Deir 'Alia, IEJ29: 133-36. 2000 'Hebrew and Aramaic Inscriptions', in D.T. Ariel (ed.), Excavations at the City of David J 9 78-1985 Directed by Yigal Shiloh. VI. Inscriptions (Qedem, 41; Jerusalem: Hebrew University): 1-14. Naveh, J., and J.C. Greenfield 1984 'Hebrew and Aramaic in the Persian Period', in Davies and Finkelstein (eds.) 1984,1: 115-29. Negev, A. 1972 A re heological Lexicon of the Land of Israel (Jerusalem: Akademon [Hebrew]). Niccacci, A. The Syntax of the Verb in Classical Hebrew Prose (JSOTSup, 86; Sheffield: 1990 Sheffield Academic Press). 'Analysing Biblical Hebrew Poetry', JSOT74: 77-93. 1997 Nicholson, E. 1998 The Pentateuch in the Twentieth Century: The Legacy of Julius Wellhausen (Oxford: Oxford University Press). Niditch, S. 1990 'Samson as Culture Hero, Trickster and Bandit: The Empowerment of the Weak', CBQ 52: 608-24. 1993 Folklore and the Hebrew Bible (Minneapolis: Augsburg/Fortress Press). 1996 Oral World and Written Word: Ancient Israelite Literature (Louisville, KY: John Knox Press).
350
Biblical Hebrew
Niditch, S. (ed.) Text and Tradition: The Hebrew Bible and Folklore (Semeia Studies; 1990 Atlanta: Scholars Press). Nielsen, E. Oral Tradition: A Modern Problem in Old Testament Introduction (London: 1954 SCM Press). Noegel, S. 'Dialect and Politics in Isaiah 24-27', Aula Orientalis 12: 177-92. 1994 Noldeke, Th. Kurzgefasste Syrische Grammatik (Leipzig: Weigel). 1880 Review of Kautzsch 1902, ZDMG 57: 412-20. 1903 North, R. 'Could Hebrew Have Been a Cultic Esperanto?', ZAH12: 202-17. 1999 Noth, M. Uberlieferungsgeschichtliche Studien: Die sammelnden und bearbeitenden 1943 Geschichtswerke im Alien Testament (Schriften der Konigsberger Gelehrten Gesellschaft, Geisteswissenschaftliche Klasse, 18.2; Halle: Max Niemeyer). The Deuteronomistic History (trans. H.G.M. Williamson; JSOTSup, 15; 1981 Sheffield: JSOT Press [first published 1943]). Notopoulos, J. 'Parataxis in Homer: A New Approach to Homeric Literary Criticism', 1949 Transactions of the American Philological Association 80: 1-23. Nysse, R.W. 1984 'A Study of Relationships Between Greek and Hebrew Witnesses to the Text of 2 Samuel 1-9' (PhD dissertation, Harvard University). Ochs, E. 1979 'Planned and Unplanned Discourse', in Givon (ed.) 1979: 51-80. O'Connor, M.P 1980 Hebrew Verse Structure (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns). Olafsson, S. 'Late Biblical Hebrew: Fact or Fiction?', in Z.J. Kapera (ed.), Intertesta1992 mental Essays in Honour ofJozefTadeusz Milik (Qumranica Mogilanensia, 6; Cracow: Enigma): 135-47. Olmo Lete, G. del 1999 'The Semitic Personal Pronouns: A Preliminary Etymological Approach', in Avishur and Deutsch (eds.) 1999: 99-120. Olmo Lete, G., del, and J. Sanmartin 1996-2000 Diccionario de la lengua ugaritica (2 vols.; Barcelona: AUSA). Olson, D.R., et al. (eds.) 1985 Literacy, Language and Learning: The Nature and Consequences of Writing and Reading (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press). Otto, E. 1996 'Town and Rural Countryside in Ancient Israelite Law: Reception and Redaction in Cuneiform and Israelite Law', in J.W. Rogerson (ed.), The Pentateuch (The Biblical Seminar, 39; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press): 203-21. 1999 Das Deuteronomium. Politische Theologie und Rechtsreform in Juda und Assyrien (BZAW, 284; Berlin: W. de Gruyter).
Bibliography Parker, S.B. 1997
Parker, T. 1843
Parpola, S. 1997
351
Stories in Scripture and Inscriptions: Comparative Studies on Narratives in Northwest Semitic Inscriptions and the Hebrew Bible (Oxford: Oxford University Press). A Critical and Historical Introduction to the Canonical Scriptures of the Old Testament from the German ofWilhelm Martin Leberecht de Wette (2 vols.; Boston: Little, Brown & Co.).
'The Man Without a Scribe and the Question of Literacy in the Assyrian Empire', in B. Pongratz-Leisten, H. Kiihne and P. Xella (eds.), Ana sadi Labnani lit allik. Beitra'ge zu altorientalischen und mittelmeerischen Kulturen. Festschrftfur W. Rollig (AOAT, 247; Kevelaer: Butzon & Bercker; Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag): 315-23. Parret, H., and J Verschueren (eds.) 1992 Searle on Conversation (Pragmatics and Beyond, 21; Amsterdam: Benjamins). Paton, L.B. 1992 A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Book of Esther (ICC; Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark [1908]). Pearce, L.E. 1995 'The Scribes and Scholars of Ancient Mesopotamia', in Sasson (ed.) 1995: 2265-78. Pedersen, J. 1914 Der Eid bei den Semiten in seinem Verhdltnis zu verwandten Erscheinungen sowie die Stellung des Eides im Islam (Studien zur Geschichte und Kultur des islamischen Orients, 3; Strassburg: Triibner). Peltonen, K. 1996 History Debated: The Historical Reliability of Chronicles in Pre-Critical and Critical Research (Publications of the Finnish Exegetical Society, 64; 2 vols.; Gottingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht). 'A Jigsaw without a Model? The Dating of Chronicles', in Grabbe (ed.) 2001 2001:225-71. Perez-Fernandez ,M. An Introductory Grammar of Rabbinic Hebrew (trans. J. Elwolde; Leiden: 1999 E.J. Brill). Polak, F.H. 'Epic Formulas in Biblical Narrative', in R.F. Poswick et al. (eds.), Actes du 1989 Second Colloque International Bible et Informatique: Methodes, Outils, Resulats (Jerusalem, 9-13 Juin 1988) (Paris: Champion): 282-312. 'Epic Formulae in Biblical Narrative and the Origins of Ancient Hebrew 1991 Prose', Te'udah 1: 9-53 (Hebrew with English Summary). Biblical Narrative: Aspects of Art and Design (Jerusalem: Mossad Harev 1994 Kook /Bialik Institute [Hebrew]). 'New Means... New Ends: Biblical Scholarship and Computer Data', in 1995 Poswick (ed.) 1995: 282-312. 'Prose and Poetry in the Book of Job', JANESCU24: 61-97. 1996 ' Development and Periodization of Biblical Prose Narrative', Beit Mikra 43: 1997-98 30-52, 142-60 (Hebrew with English Summary).
Biblical Hebrew
352 1998 2001a 200Ib 200 Ic 2002
Polzin, R. 1976 Pope, M.H. 1965 1977 Porten, B. 1968
The Oral and the Written: Syntax, Stylistics and the Development of Biblical Prose Narrative', JANESCU 26: 59-105. 'On Dialogue and Speaker Status in the Scroll of Ruth', Beit Mikra 46: 193-218 (Hebrew with English Summary). The Style of the Dialogue in Biblical Prose Narrative', JANESCU 28: 53-95. The Style of the Dialogue in Biblical Narrative', Te'udah 16-17: 47-102 (Hebrew with English Summary). 'Parameters for Stylistic Analysis of Biblical Hebrew Prose Texts', in J. Cook (ed.), Bible and Computer—The Stellenbosch AIBI-6 Conference: Proceedings of the Association Internationale Bible et Informatique: 'From Alpha to Byte' University of Stellenbosch 17-21 July, 2000 (Leiden: E.J. Brill): 261-84. Late Biblical Hebrew: Toward an Historical Typology of Biblical Hebrew Prose (HSM, 12; Missoula, MT: Scholars Press). Job: Introduction, Translation, and Notes (AB, 15; New York: Doubleday). Song of Songs: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary (AB, 27C; New York: Doubleday).
Archives from Elephantine: The Life of an Ancient Jewish Military Colony (Berkeley: University of California Press). Porten, B., and A. Yardeni (eds.) 1986 Textbook of Aramaic Documents from Ancient Egypt, Newly Copied, Edited and Translated into Hebrew and English. I. Letters (Jerusalem: The Hebrew University, Department of the History of the Jewish People). 1989 Textbook of Aramaic Documents from Ancient Egypt, Newly Copied, Edited and Translated into Hebrew and English. II. Contracts (Jerusalem: The Hebrew University, Department of the History of the Jewish People). Poswick, R.F. (ed.) 1995 Proceedings of the Fourth International Colloquium on Bible and Computer: Desk and Discipline—The Impact of Computers on Bible Studies (Amsterdam 15-18 August, 1994) (Paris: Champion). Puech, E. 1988 'Les Ecoles dans 1'Israel Preexilique: Donnees Epigraphiques', in Emerton (ed.) 1988: 189-203. Pury, A. de, and T. Romer (eds.) 2000 Die Sogenannte Thronfolgegeschichte Davids: Neue Einsichten und Anfragen (OBO, 176; Freiburg: Universitatsverlag; Gottingen: Vandenhoeck& Ruprecht). Pury, A. de, T. Romer and J.-D. Macchi (eds.) 1996 Israel construit son histoire: L 'historiographie deuteronomiste a la lumiere des recherches recentes (Le monde de la Bible, 34; Geneva: Labor et Fides). 2000 Israel Constructs its History: Deuteronomistic Historiography in Recent Research (JSOTSup, 306; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press). Qimron, E. 1976 'Grammar of the Hebrew Language of the Dead Sea Scrolls' (PhD dissertation, Hebrew University, Jerusalem [Hebrew]).
Bibliography
353
'The Vocabulary of the Temple Scroll', Shnaton—An Annual for Biblical and Ancient Near Eastern Studies 4: 239-62 (Hebrew). 1980b 'The Language of the Book of Jonah as an Indicator for Fixing the Time of its Composition', Beth Mikra 81: 180-83 (Hebrew). 1986 The Hebrew of the Dead Sea Scrolls (HSM; Atlanta, GA: Scholars Press). 1986-87 'Consecutive and Conjunctive Imperfect: The Form of the Imperfect with Waw in Biblical Hebrew', JQR 77: 149-61. 1987 'Diphthongs and Glides in the Dead Sea Scrolls', Language Studies 2-3 (Abba Bendavid Volume): 259-78 (Hebrew). 1992 'Observations on the History of Early Hebrew (1000 B.C.E.-200 C.E.) in the Light of the Dead Sea Documents', in D. Dimant and U. Rappaport (eds.), The Dead Sea Scrolls: Forty Years of Research (STDJ, 10; Leiden: E.J. Brill; Jerusalem: Magnes Press/The Hebrew University): 349-61. 1998 'New Hebrew Inscriptions: Their Linguistic Contribution', Leshonenu 61: 181-85 (Hebrew). 2000 'The Nature of DSS Hebrew and its Relation to BH and MH', in Muraoka and Elwolde (eds.) 2000: 232-44. Qimron, E., and J. Strugnell 1994 Qumran Cave 4. V. Miqsat Ma 'ase Ha-Torah (DJD, 10; Oxford: Clarendon Press). Quasthoff, U.M. (ed.) 1995 Aspects of Oral Communication (Research in Text Theory, 21; Berlin: W. de Gruyter). Rabin, C. 1958 'The Historical Background of Qumran Hebrew', in C. Rabin and Y. Yadin (eds.), Aspects of the Dead Sea Scrolls (SH, 4; Jerusalem: Magnes Press): 144-61. 1963 'Hittite Words in Hebrew', Or NS 32: 113-39. 1968 Syntax of Biblical Hebrew (Jerusalem: Academon [Hebrew]). 1970 'Hebrew', in T.A. Sebeok (ed.), Current Trends in Linguistics. VI. Soviet and East European Linguistics (22 vols.; The Hague: Mouton): 304-46. 1971 TTHDiJ', in Encyclopaedia Biblica (9 vols.; Jerusalem: Bialik Institute), VI: 51-73 (Hebrew). 1973 A Short History of the Hebrew Language (Jerusalem: Jewish Agency). 1976 'Hebrew and Aramaic in the First Century', in S. Safrai et al. (eds.), Compendia Rerum ludaicarum adNovum Testamentum (Assen: Van Gorcum), II: 1007-39. 1979 'The Emergence of Classical Hebrew', in A. Malamat (ed.), The World History of the Jewish People: The Age of the Monarchies: Culture and Society (Jerusalem: Massada): 71-78, 293-95. 1988 Die Entwicklung der hebrdischen Sprache (Veroffentlichungen der Hochschule fur jiidische Studien Heidelberg, 2; Wiesbaden: Reichert). Rabin, C., and S. Fassberg 1991 Semitic Languages—An Introduction (Jerusalem: Bialik Institute [Hebrew]). Rainey, A.F. 1971 'Linguistic Method—May They Preserve It', Leshonenu 35: 11-15. 1983 'The Biblical Shephelah of Judah', BASOR 251: 1-22. 1996 Canaanite in theAmarna Tablets: A Linguistic Analysis of the Mixed Dialect Used by Scribes from Canaan (HdO, 25; 4 vols.; Leiden: E.J. Brill). 1980a
Biblical Hebrew
354 1997
2000
'The Chronicler and his Sources—Historical and Geographical', in M.P. Graham, K.G. Hoglund and S.L. McKenzie (eds.), The Chronicler as Historian (JSOTSup, 238; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press): 30-72. 'Syntax and Rhetorical Analysis in the Hashavyahu Ostracon', JANESCU 27: 75-79.
Rappaport, A.
1980
Redford, D.B. 2000 Regt, L.J. de
1999
'The Coins of Judea at the End of the Persian Rule and the Beginning of the Hellenistic Period', in A. Oppenheimer et al. (eds.), Jerusalem in the Second Temple Period—Abraham Schalit Memorial Volume (Jerusalem: Yad BenZvi):7-21 (Hebrew). 'Scribe and Speaker', in Ben Zvi and Floyd (eds.) 2000: 145-218. Participants in Old Testament Texts and the Translator: Reference Devices and their Rhetorical Impact (Studia Semitica Neerlandica; Assen: Van Gorcum).
Reichl, K.
1989
Reider, I. 1950-51 Rendsburg, G. 1980a 1980b
1981 1986 1988 1989 1990a 1990b
1991a 1991b 1992a 1992b
1992c 1992d 1992e
1993
'Old English: Formulaic Diction in Old English Epic Poetry', in A.T. Hatto (ed.), Traditions of Heroic and Epic Poetry. II. Characteristics and Techniques (London: The Modern Humanities Research Association): 42-70. 'The Dead Sea Scrolls', JQR 41: 59-70. 'Late Biblical Hebrew and the Date of "P"', JANESCU 12: 65-80. 'Evidence for a Spoken Hebrew in Biblical Times' (PhD dissertation, New York University). 'A Reconstruction of Moabite-Israelite History', JANESCU 13: 67-73. The Redaction of Genesis (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns). The Northern Origin of the "Last Words of David" (2 Sam 23.1 -7)', 5/6 69: 113-21. 'Additional Notes on the "Last Words of David" (2 Sam 23.1-7)', Bib 70: 403-408. Diglossia in Ancient Hebrew (AOS, 72; New Haven: American Oriental Society). Linguistic Evidence for the Northern Origin of Selected Psalms (SBLMS, 43; Atlanta: Scholars Press). 'The Northern Origin of Nehemiah 9', Bib 72: 348-66. 'The Strata of Biblical Hebrew', JNSL 17: 81-99. 'Morphological Evidence for Regional Dialects in Ancient Hebrew', in Bodine(ed.) 1992:65-88. 'The Galilean Background of Mishnaic Hebrew', in L.I. Levine (ed.), The Galilee in Late Antiquity (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press): 225-40. 'Israelian Hebrew Features in Genesis 49', Maarav 8: 161-70. 'Kabbir in Biblical Hebrew', JAOS 112: 649-51. 'Shibboleth', inABD, V: 1210-12. 'The Dialect of the Deir 'Alia Inscription', BO 50: 309-29.
Bibliography
355
'Linguistic Variation and the "Foreign" Factor in the Hebrew Bible', IOS 15: 177-90. 1998 'Confused Language as a Deliberate Literary Device in Biblical Hebrew Narrative', Journal of Hebrew Scriptures 2, article 6 (available online at <www.purl.org/jhs>). 1999a 'Notes on Israelian Hebrew (1)', in AvishurandDeutsch(eds.) 1999:255-58. 1999b 'Psalm ex 3b', VT49: 548-53. 2001 'Reading David in Genesis', BR 17.1: 20-33, 46. 2002a Israelian Hebrew in the Book of Kings (Occasional Publications of the Department of Near Eastern Studies and the Program of Jewish Studies, Cornell University, 5; Bethesda, MD: CDL Press). 2002b 'Some False Leads in the Identification of Late Biblical Hebrew Texts: The Cases of Genesis 24 and 1 Samuel 2.27-36', JBL 121: 23-46. Renz, J., and W. Rollig 1995 HandbuchderAlthebra'ischenEpigraphik(3 vols.; Darmstadt: Wissenschafttliche Buchgesellschaft). Revell, E.J. 1988 'First Person Imperfect Forms with Waw Consecutive', F738: 419-26. 1991 'First Person Imperfect Forms with Waw Consecutive—Addenda', VT4\: 127-28. 1995 'The Two Forms of First Person Singular Pronoun in Biblical Hebrew: Redundancy or Expressive Contrast?', JSS 40: 199-217. Ringgren, H. 1968 Israelite Religion (London: SPCK). Robb, K. 1994 Literacy and Paideia in Ancient Greece (Oxford: Clarendon Press). Robertson, D.A. 1972 Linguistic Evidence in Dating Early Hebrew Poetry (SBLDS, 3; Missoula, MT: SBL). Rofe, A. 1976 'Sippur 'Erusei Rivqa (Bereshit 24): Mehqar Sifruti-Histori', Eshel BeerSheva 1: 42-67 (Hebrew). 1981 'La Composizione di Gen. 24', Bibbia e Oriente 23: 161-65. 1988a The Prophetical Stories (Jerusalem: Magnes Press). 1988b 'The Vineyard of Naboth: The Origin and Message of the Story', VT 38: 89-104. 1990 'An Enquiry into the Betrothal of Rebekah', in Blum, Macholz and Stegemann(eds.) 1990:27-39. 1992 'Ephraimite Versus Deuteronomistic History', in D. Garrone and F. Israel (eds.), Storia e tradizioni di Israele: Scritti in onore di J. Alberto Soggin (Brescia: Paideia): 221-35. Rogerson, J.W. 1985 Old Testament Criticism in the Nineteenth Century: England and Germany (London: Fortress Press). 1992 W.M.L. de Wette: Founder of Modern Biblical Criticism: An Intellectual Biography (JSOTSup, 126; Sheffield: JSOT Press). Rollston, C.A. 1998 'Are They Genuine?', NBA 61: 8-9. 1995
356
Biblical Hebrew
Romer, T. (ed.) 2000 The Future of the Deuteronomistic History (BETL, 147; Leuven: Leuven University Press). Ronsch, H. 1874 Das Buch der Jubilden oder die kleine Genesis (Leipzig: Fues; repr. Amsterdam: Rodopi, 1970). Rooker, M.F. 1988a 'Biblical Hebrew in Transition: The Language of the Book of Ezekiel' (PhD dissertation, Brandeis University). 1988b The Diachronic Study of Biblical Hebrew', JNSL 14: 199-214. 1990a Biblical Hebrew in Transition: The Language of the Book of Ezekiel (JSOTSup, 90; Sheffield: JSOT Press). 1990b 'Ezekiel and the Typology of Biblical Hebrew', HAR 12: 133-55. 1994 'Diachronic Analysis and the Features of Late Biblical Hebrew', Bulletin for Biblical Research 4: 135-44. 1996 'Dating Isaiah 40-66: What Does the Linguistic Evidence Say?', WTJ 58: 303-12. Rosen, H.B. 1984 ""I3DN et S ]N: Essai de grammaire, interpretation et traduction', in idem, East and West: Selected Writings in Linguistics. II. Hebrew and Semitic Linguistics (2 vols.; Munich: W. Fink): 262-81. Rosenberg, J. 1986 King and Kin: Political Allegory in the Hebrew Bible (Indiana Studies in Biblical Literature; Bloomington: Indiana University Press). Rosenfeld, B.Z. 1984 'Tehume ha-Shephela mime ha-Miqra we-'ad Hazal', Beit Miqra 29:367-76 (Hebrew). Rosenthal, F. 1961 A Grammar of Biblical Aramaic (Wiesbaden: Otto Harassowitz). Rothstein, J.W., and J. Hanel 1927 Kommentarzum erstenBuch der Chronik(KAT, 18; Leipzig: A. Deichert). Rowley, H.H. 1978 Job (NCB; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans; London: Marshall, Morgan & Scott, repr. of the 2nd edn). Rubinstein, A. 1955 'Singularities in Consecutive-Tense Constructions in the Isaiah Scroll', VT5: 180-88. Rynell, A. 1952 Parataxis and Hypotaxis as a Criterion of Syntax and Style, Especially in Old English Poetry (Lunds Universitets Arsskrift, NF Avd. 1. Bd. 48.3; Lund: C.W.K. Gleerup). Saenz-Badillos, A. 1993 A History of the Hebrew Language (trans. J. Elwolde; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press). Safrai, Z. 1980 Gevulot we-Shilton be-'Eretz-Yisra'el biTqufat ha-Mishna we-ha-Talmud (Tel Aviv: Hakkibutz Hameuchad [Hebrew]).
Bibliography Samarin, WJ. 1976 Sarfatti, G.B. 1982 1985
1989
1992 Sasson, J.M. 1979
357
'The Language of Religion', in idem (ed.), Language in Religious Practice (Rowley, MA: Newbury House): 3-13. 'Hebrew Inscriptions of the First Temple Period: A Survey and Some Linguistic Comments', Maarav 3: 55-83. "Al Seder ha-Millim ba-TZmadim ha-Miqra'iyyim we-ha-'Ugaritiyyim', in B.Z. Luria(ed.), Sefer 'Avraham 'Even-Shoshan (Jerusalem: Kiryath Sepher): 301-13 (Hebrew). 'Definiteness in Noun-Adjective Phrases in Rabbinic Hebrew', in M.Z. Kaddari and S. Sharvit (eds.), Studies in the Hebrew Language and the Talmudic Literature, Dedicated to the Memory of Dr. M. Moreshet (Ramat-Gan: Barllan University): 153-68 (Hebrew). 'The Inscriptions of the Biblical Period and Mishnaic Hebrew', Language Studies 5-6: 41-65 (Hebrew).
Ruth: A New Translation with a Philological Commentary and a FormalistFolklorist Interpretation (The Johns Hopkins Near Eastern Studies, 11; Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press). Sasson, J.M. (ed.) 1995 Civilisations of the Ancient Near East. IV.9. Language, Writing and Literature (New York: Simon & Schuster/Prentice-Hall). Sasson, V. 1979 ' Studies in the Lexicon and Linguistic Usage of Early Hebrew Inscriptions' (PhD dissertation, New York University). 1981 'SMN RHS in the Samaria Ostraca', JSS 26: 1-5. 1982a 'The Meaning ofwhsbt in the Arad Inscription', ZAW94: 105-11. 1982b 'The Siloam Tunnel Inscription', PEQ 114: 111-17. Schalit, A. (ed.) 1972 The World History of the Jewish People: The Hellenistic Age: Political History of Jewish Palestine from 332 B.C.E. to 67 B.C.E. (New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press; Jerusalem: Massada). Schaper, J. 1999 'Hebrew and its Study in the Persian Period', in Horbury (ed.) 1999: 3-13. Schattner-Rieser, U. 1994 'L'hebreu postexilique', in E.-M. Laperrousaz and A. Lemaire (eds.), La Palestine a I'epoqueperse (Paris: Editions du Cerf): 189-224. Schearing, L.S., and S.L. McKenzie (eds.) 1999 Those Elusive Deuteronomists: The Phenomenon of Pan-Deuteronomism (JSOTSup, 268; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press). Schiffman, L.H. 1994 Reclaiming the Dead Sea Scrolls (Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society of America). Schirmer, A. 1926 Deutsche Wortkunde. Erne Kulturgeschichte des deutschen Wortschatzes (Berlin: W. de Gruyter). Schleppegrell, M.J. 1992 'Subordinaton and Linguistic Complexity', Discourse Processes 15:117-31.
358
Biblical Hebrew
Schniedewind, W.M. 'Qumran Hebrew as an Antilanguage', JBL 118: 235-52. 1999 'Sociolinguistic Reflections on the Letter of a "Literate" Soldier (Lachish 2000 3)',Z4//13: 157-67. Schniedewind, W.M., and D. Sivan 'The Elijah-Elisha Narratives: A Test Case for the Northern Dialect of 1997 Hebrew', J0tf 37: 303-37. Schoors, A. 'The Pronouns in Qoheleth', Hebrew Studies 30: 71-87. 1989 1992 The Preacher Sought to Find Pleasing Words: A Study of the Language of Qoheleth (OLA, 41; Leuven: Peelers Press). Schiile, A. 'Zur Bedeutung der Formel wajjehi im Ubergang zum mittelhebraischen 1997 Tempussystem', in A. Wagner (ed.), Studien zur hebrdischen Grammatik (OBO, 156; Freiburg: Universitatsverlag; Gottingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht): 115-25. Die Syntax der althebrdischen Inschriften. Ein Beitrag zur historischen 2000 Grammatik des Hebrdischen (Miinster: Ugarit-Verlag). Schutz, A.J. Language of Fiji (Oxford: Clarendon Press). 1972 Schwartz, J. Jewish Settlement in Judaea (Jerusalem: Magnes Press [Hebrew]). 1986 'On Lod in the Persian Period', Cathedra 49: 3-11 (Hebrew). 1989 Scott, R.B.Y. 1970 'The N-S-P Weights from Judah', BASOR 200: 62-66. Segal, M.H. Madda'e ha-Yahadut (Jerusalem: n.p.), I: 30-44 (Hebrew). 1926 1927 A Grammar ofMishnaic Hebrew (Oxford: Clarendon Press [repr. 1970]). 1936 Diqduq Leshon ha-Mishna (Tel Aviv: Dvir [Hebrew]). Segert, S. 1976 A Grammar of Phoenician and Punic (Munich: Beck). Seow, C.L. 1996 'Linguistic Evidence and the Dating of Qoheleth', JBL 115: 643-66. Sharvit, S. 1967 'Investigations Concerning the Lexicon of the Copper Scroll', Beth Mikra 31: 127-35 (Hebrew). Shoham, Y. 2000 'Hebrew Bullae', in D.T. Ariel (ed.), Excavations of the City of David 1978-1985 Directed by Yigal Shiloh. VI. Inscriptions (Qedem, 41; Jerusalem: The Institute of Archeology/The Hebrew University of Jerusalem): 29-57. Slouschz, N. Thesaurus of Phoenician Inscriptions (Tel Aviv: Dvir [Hebrew]). 1942 Smith, M. 1971 Palestinian Parties and Politics that Shaped the Old Testament (New York: Columbia University Press). Smith, M.S. 1991a The Origins and Development of the Waw-Consecutive: Northwest Semitic Evidence from Ugarit to Qumran (HSS, 39; Atlanta: Scholars Press).
Bibliography 1991 b
359
'Converted and Unconverted Perfect and Imperfect Forms in the Literature of Qumran', BASOR2M: 1-16. 1991 c 'The Waw-Consecutive at Qumran', ZAH 3: 161 -64. 1999 'Grammatically Speaking: The Participle as a Main Verb of Clauses (Predicative Participle) in Direct Discourse and Narrative in Pre-Mishnaic Hebrew', in Muraoka and Elwolde (eds.) 1999: 278-332. 2000 'The Infinitive Absolute as Predicative Verb in Ben Sira and the Dead Sea Scrolls: A Preliminary Survey', in Muraoka and Elwolde (eds.) 2000: 256-67. Smith, N., and D. Wilson 1980 Modern Linguistics: The Results of Chomsky's Revolution (Bloomington: Indiana University). Sokoloff, M. 1990 A Dictionary of Jewish Palestinian Aramaic (Ramat-Gan: Bar-Han University Press). Sperber, A. 1939 'Hebrew Based upon Biblical Passages in Parallel Transmission', HUCA 14: 153-249. 1966 A Historical Grammar of Biblical Hebrew: A Presentation of Problems with Suggestions to Their Solution (Leiden: EJ. Brill). Spieckermann, H. 1982 Juda unterAssur in der Sargonidenzeit (FRLANT, 129; Gottingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht). Spufford, M. Small Books and Pleasant Histories: Popular Fiction and its Readership in 1981 Seventeenth-Century England (London: Methuen). Stegemann, H. 1992 'The Qumran Essenes—Local Members of the Main Jewish Union in Late Second Temple Times', in J. Trebolle Barrerra and L. Vegas Montaner (eds.), The Madrid Qumran Congress: Proceedings of the International Congress on the Dead Sea Scrolls. Madrid 18-21 March, 1991 (Leiden: E.J. Brill): 83-166. Steins, G. Die Chronik als kanonisches Abschluflphanomen: Studien zur Entstehung 1995 und Theologie von 1/2 Chronik (EBB, 93; Weinheim: Beltz Athenaum). Stemberger, G. 1992 Einleitung in Talmud undMidrasch. Achte, neubearbeitete Auflage (Munich: Beck). Stern, E. 'Yehud in Vision and Reality', Cathedra 4: 13-25 (Hebrew). 1977 'Clay Wine Drinking Vessels in the Achaemenid Style from Eretz Israel', in 1982 Sh. Shaked (ed.), Irano-Judaica (Jerusalem: Ben-Zvi Institute): 1-5, 10 (Hebrew). 'Material Culture and Economic Life in Eretz Israel in the Persian Period', in 1983 Tadmor and Eph'al (eds.) 1983: 117-38 (Hebrew). 'The Persian Empire and the Political and the Social History of Palestine in 1984 the Persian Period', in Davies and Finkelstein (eds.) 1984,1: 70-87. Archeology of the Land of the Bible. II. The Assyrian, Babylonian and 2001 Persian Periods (732-332 B.C.E.) (New York: Doubleday).
360 Stern, M. 1968
Biblical Hebrew 'The Hasmonean Revolt and its Place in the History of Jewish Society and Religion', Cahiers D 'histoire Mondiale 9: 94-102.
Steuernagel, C. Das Deuteronomium (HKAT, Abt. 1, Bd. 3.1; Gottingen: Vandenhoeck & 1923 Ruprecht; 2nd edn). Strang, B.M.H. The History of English (London: Methuen). 1970 Striedl, H. 'Untersuchung zur Syntax und Stilistik des hebraischen Buches Esther', 1937 ZAW55: 73-108. Stubbs, M. Language and Literacy: The Sociolinguistics of Reading and Writing (Lon1980 don: Routledge & Kegan Paul). 'Written Language and Society: Some Particular Cases and General Obser1982 vations', in M. Nystrand (ed.), What Writers Know: The Language, Structure and Use of Written Discourse (New York: Academic Press): 31-55. Sznejder, M.B. 'The Literary Hebrew Language, Part 1', Leshonenu 6: 301-26 ( Hebrew). 1934-35 Tadmor, H. History of the Jewish People, I (Tel Aviv: Dvir [Hebrew]). 1969 1973 'On the History of Samaria in the Biblical Period', in J. Aviram (ed.), Eretz Shomron (Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society [Hebrew]): 67-74. Tadmor, H., and I. Eph'al (eds.) 1983 The World History of the Jewish People: The Return to Zion in the Persian Era (Tel Aviv: Peli & Am Oved [Hebrew]). Tal, A. 1994 The Samaritan Pentateuch Edited According to Ms 6(c) of the Shechem Synagogue (Tel Aviv: Tel Aviv University Press). Talmon, S. 1951 'The Samaritan Pentateuch', JJS 2: 144-50. 1975 'The Textual Study of the Bible—A New Outlook', in P.M. Cross and S. Talmon (eds.), Qumran and the History of the Biblical Text (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press): 321-400. 1983 'The Beginning of the Return to Zion', in Tadmor and Eph'al (eds.) 1983: 28-39. Talshir, D. 1986 'On Syntactical Peculiarities in Late Biblical Hebrew', in M. Bar-Asher (ed.), Proceedings of the Ninth World Congress of Jewish Studies, Jerusalem, August 4-12, 1985: Division D (Jerusalem: World Union of Jewish Studies/Magnes Press): 5-8. 1987a 'The Autonomic Status of Late Biblical Hebrew', in M. Bar-Asher (ed.), Language Studies 2-3 (Abba Bendavid Volume): 161-72 (Hebrew). 1987b 'The Development of the Imperfect Consecutive Forms in Relation to the Modal System', Tarbiz 56: 585-91 (Hebrew). 1988 'A Reinvestigation of the Linguistic Relationship between Chronicles and Ezra-Nehemiah', VT38: 165-93. 1992 'Y?an jrmrr orjnjliT 1 ~pnn\ Leshonenu 55: 277-80 (Hebrew).
Bibliography 1993
1998 Talshir, Z. 1999 2000 Talstra, E. 1995 Tannen,D. 1984a 1984b 1985 1989
3 61
'The Habitat and History of the Hebrew during the Second Temple Period', in M. Bar-Asher and D. Rosenthal (eds.), Mehqerei Talmud (Jerusalem: Magnes Press), II: 284-301 (Hebrew). 'Rabbinic Hebrew as Reflected in Personal Names', 57/37: 365-79. 'Textual and Literary Criticism of the Bible in Post-Modern Times: The Untimely Demise of Classical Biblical Philology', Henoch 21: 235-52. 'The Reign of Solomon in the Making: Pseudo-Connections Between 3 Kingdoms and Chronicles', FT50: 233-48. 'Desk and Discipline—The Impact of Computers on Biblical Studies', in Poswick(ed.) 1995:25-43. Conversational Style: Analyzing Talk among Friends (Norwood, NJ: Ablex). 'Spoken and Written Narrative in English and Greek', in idem (ed.) 1984: 21-41. 'Relative Focus on Involvement in Oral and Written Discourse', in Olson et al. (eds.) 1985: 124-47. Talking Voices: Repetition, Dialogue, and Imagery in Conversational Discourse (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press).
Tannen, D. (ed.) 1984 Coherence in Spoken and Written Discourse (Advances in Discourse Process, 12; Norwood, NJ: Ablex). Thomas, R. 1992 Literacy and Orality in Ancient Greece (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press). Thomason, S.G., and T. Kaufman 1988 Language Contact, Creolization, and Genetic Linguistics (Berkeley: University of California Press). Thompson, S.A. 1987 '"Subordination" and Narrative Event Structure', in Tomlin (ed.) 1987: 435-54. Throntveit, M.A. 1982 'Linguistic Analysis and the Question of Authorship in Chronicles, Ezra and Nehemiah', FT132: 201-16. Todd, J.A. 1992 'The Pre-Deuteronomistic Elijah Cycle', in Coote (ed.) 1992: 1 -35. Tomlin, R.S. (ed.) 1987 Coherence and Grounding in Discourse (Typological Studies in Language, 11; Amsterdam: Benjamins). Torczyner, H. (ed.) 1938 Lachish I (Tell edDuweir): The Lachish Letters (London: Oxford University Press). Torrey, C.C. 1909 'The Chronicler as Editor and Independent Narrator', AJSL 25: 188-217 (reprinted in idem, Ezra Studies [Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1910]: 208-51).
Biblical Hebrew
362 1930 Tov, E. 1992 1997
Trask, R.L. 1994 1996 1999 Traugott, B.C.
Pseudo-Ezekiel and the Original Prophecy (New Haven: Yale University Press). Textual Criticism of the Hebrew Bible (Minneapolis: Fortress Press; Assen: Van Gorcum). 'Different Editions of the Song of Hannah and of its Narrative Framework', in M. Cogan, B.L. Eicher and J.H. Tigay (eds.), Tehillah le-Moshe: Biblical and Judaic Studies in Honor ofMoshe Greenberg (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns): 149-70 (reprinted in E. Tov, The Greek and Hebrew Bible: Collected Essays on the Septuagint [VTSup, 72; Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1999]: 433-55). Language Change (London: Routledge). Historical Linguistics (London: Arnold). Key Concepts in Language and Linguistics (London: Routledge).
'Diachronic Syntax and Generative Grammar', in A.R. Keiler (ed.), A Reader in Historical and Comparative Linguistics (New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston): 201-16. Trebolle Barrera, J.C. Salomon y Jeroboan: historia de la recension y redaccion de I Reyes 2-12, 1980 14 (Bibliotheca Salmanticensis Dissertationes, 3; Salamanca: Universidad Pontificia). 1982 'Redaction, Recension and Midrash in the Books of Kings', BIOSCS 15: 12-35. 1984a 'From the "Old Latin" Through the "Old Greek" to the "Old Hebrew" (2 Kings 10.23-25)', Textus 11: 17-36. JehuyJoas: texto y composicion literaria de 2 Reyes 9-11 (Institucion San 1984b Jeronimo, 17; Valencia: Institucion San Jeronimo). 1989 Centena in libros Samuelis et Regum: variantes textuales y composicion literaria en los libros de Samuel y Reyes (Textos y estudios 'Cardenal Cisneros' de la Biblia Poliglota Matritense, Consejo Superior de Investigaciones Cienti'ficas, 47; Madrid: Consejo Superior de Investigaciones Cientificas, Institute de Filologia, Departamento de Filologia Biblica y de Oriente Antiguo). 2000 'Qumran Evidence for a Biblical Standard Text and for Non Standard and Parabiblical Texts', in T.H. Lim (ed.), The Dead Sea Scrolls in their Historical Context (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark): 89-106. Ullendorff, E. 1977 ' Is Biblical Hebrew a Language?', in idem, Is Biblical Hebrew a Language? Studies in Semitic Languages and Civilizations (Wiesbaden: Otto Harrassowitz): 3-17 (first published in BSOAS 34 [1971]: 241-55). Ulrich, E. 1979 The Qumran Text of Samuel and Josephus (HSM, 19; Missoula, MT: Scholars Press). 1992 The Canonical Process, Textual Criticism, and Latter Stages in the Composition of the Bible', in M. Fishbane and E. Tov (eds.), Sha'arei Talmon: Studies in the Bible, Qumran and the Ancient Near East presented to Shemaryahu Talmon (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns): 267-91. 1972
Bibliography
363
The Dead Sea Scrolls and the Origins of the Bible (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans). van den Bussche, H. 1948 'Le Texte de la prophetic de Nathan sur la Dynastic Davidique (II Sam., VII—I Chron., XVII)', ETL 24: 354-94. van Keulen, P.S.F. 1996 Manasseh Through the Eyes of the Deuteronomists: The Manasseh Account (2 Kings 21.1-18) and the Final Chapters of the Deuteronomistic History (OTS, 38; Leiden: E.J. Brill). Van Peursen, W.Th. 1999a 'The Verbal System in the Hebrew Text of Ben Sira' (PhD dissertation, Leiden University). 1999b 'Negation in the Hebrew of Ben Sira', in Muraoka and Elwolde 1999: 223-43. 2000 'Conditional Sentences with DN in the Protasis in Qumran Hebrew', in Muraoka and Elwolde (eds.) 2000: 215-31. Van Seters, J. 2000 'Prophetic Orality in the Context of the Ancient Near East: A Response to Culley, Crenshaw, Davies', in Ben Zvi and Floyd (eds.) 2000: 83-88. Vanstiphout, H. 1995 'Memory and Literacy in Ancient Western Asia', in Sasson (ed.) 1995: 2181-96. Verheij, A.J.C. 1990 Verbs and Numbers: A Study of the Frequencies of the Hebrew Verbal Tense Forms in the Books of Samuel, Kings, and Chronicles (Studia Semitica Neerlandica, 28; Assen: Van Gorcum). 1997 'Early? Late? A Reply to F.H. Cryer', SJOT 11: 41-43. Wagner, M. 1966 Die lexikalishen und grammatikalischen Aramaismen im alttestamentlichen Hebrdisch (Berlin: Alfred Topelmann). Wahl, H.M. 1997 Die Jakobserzdhlungen. Studien zu ihren mundlichen Uberliefering, Verschriftung und Historizitat (BZAW, 258; Berlin; W. de Gruyter). Walker, L.W. 1986 'Notes on Higher Criticism and the Dating of Biblical Hebrew', in W.C. Kaiser, Jr, and R.F. Youngblood (eds.), A Tribute to Gleason Archer (Chicago: Moody Press): 35-52. Waltisberg, M. 1999 'Zum Alter der Sprache des Deboraliedes Ri 5', ZAH 12: 218-32. Waltke, B.K., and M. O'Connor 1990 An Introduction to Biblical Hebrew Syntax (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns). Watson, W.G.E. 1972 'Archaic Elements in the Language of Chronicles', Bib 53: 191-207. 1986 Classical Hebrew Poetry: A Guide to Its Techniques (JSOTSup, 26; Sheffield: JSOT Press). Weidner, E.F. 1923 Politische Dokumente aus Kleinasien; Die Staatsvertrdge in akkadischer Sprache aus dem Archiv von Boghazkoi (Boghazkoi Studien, 8-9; Leipzig: J.C. Hinrichs). 1999
364 Weinberg, J. 1992 2000
Weinfeld, M. 1972 1973 1991 Weinreich, U. 1953 Weippert, M. 1990
Weiss, M. 1983 Weiss, R. 1981
Biblical Hebrew The Citizen-Temple Community (JSOTSup, 151; Sheffield: JSOT Press). 'Jerusalem in the Persian Period', in S. Ahituv and A. Mazar (eds.), The History of Jerusalem: The Biblical Period (Jerusalem: Yad Ben-Zvi [Hebrew]): 307-26. Deuteronomy and the Deuteronomic School (Oxford: Clarendon Press). 'On "Demythologization and Secularization" in Deuteronomy', IEJ 23: 230-33. Deuteronomy l-ll (AB, 5; New York: Doubleday). Languages in Contact: Findings and Problems (The Hague: Mouton). 'Die Petition eines Erntearbeiters aus Mesad Hasavyahu und die Syntax althebraischer erzahlender Prosa', in Blum, Macholz and Stegemann (eds.) 1990:449-66. The Story of Job's Beginning: Job 1-2, A Literary Analysis (Jerusalem: Magnes Press/The Hebrew University). Studies in the Text and Language of the Bible (Jerusalem: Magnes Press [Hebrew]).
Weitzman, S. 1996 'The Shifting Syntax of Numerals in Biblical Hebrew', JNES 55: 177-85. Wesselius, J.-W. 1999 'The Language of the Hebrew Bible Contrasted with the Language of the Ben Sira Manuscripts and of the Dead Sea Scrolls', in Muraoka and Elwolde (eds.) 1999:338-45. Wette, W.M.L. de 1806 Beitrage zur Einleitung in das Alien Testament. I. Historisch-Kritische Untersuchung iiber die Bticher der Chronik (2 vols.; Halle: Schimmelpfennig). 1817 Lehrbuch der historisch-kritischen Einleitung in die kanonischen und apocryphischen Bticher des Alien Testamentes (Berlin: Georg Reimer). Widengren, G. 1959 'Oral Tradition and Written Literature Among the Hebrews in the Light of Arabic Evidence, with Special Regard to Prose Narrative', AcOr 23:201-62. Williamson, H.G.M. 1982 1 and 2 Chronicles (NCB; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans; London: Marshall, Morgan & Scott). Wilson, O.K. Jr 1996 'An Investigation into the Linguistic Evidence and Classification of Dialect Variation in Biblical Hebrew' (PhD dissertation, Mid-America Baptist Theological Seminary). Wilson, R.D. 1926 A Scientific Investigation of the Old Testament (London: Marshall Brothers). Winter, E. 1994 'Clause Relations as Information Structure: Two Basic Text Structures in English', in Coulthard (ed.) 1994: 46-68.
Bibliography Wise, M.O. 1992
365
'Accidents and Accidence: A Scribal View of the Linguistic Dating of the Aramaic Scrolls from Qumran', Muraoka (ed.) 1992: 124-67. Wolde, E. van (ed.) 1997 Narrative Syntax and the Hebrew Bible: Papers of the Tilburg Conference 1996 (Biblical Interpretation Series, 29; Leiden: E.J. Brill). Wolters, A. 1985 'SOPIYYA (Prov 31.27) as Hymnic Participle and Play on Sophia', JBL 104: 577-87. 1990 'The Copper Scroll and the Vocabulary of Mishnaic Hebrew', RevQ 14: 483-95. Wright, R.M. 1998 'Linguistic Evidence for the Pre-Exilic Date of the Yahwist Source of the Pentateuch' (PhD dissertation, Cornell University). Yalon, H. Studies in the Hebrew Language (Jerusalem: Bialik Institute [Hebrew]). 1971 Yeivin, I. 1985 The Hebrew Language Tradition as Reflected in the Babylonian Vocalisation, II (Jerusalem: The Academy of the Hebrew Language [Hebrew]). Yoo, Y.J. 1999 'Israelian Hebrew in the Book of Hosea' (PhD dissertation, Cornell University). Young, E.J. 1960 An Introduction to the Old Testament (London: Tyndale Press, 2nd edn). Young, I.M. 1992a 'The Diphthong *ay in Edomite', JSS 37: 27-30. 'The Style of the Gezer Calendar and some "Archaic Biblical Hebrew" 1992b Passages', FT42: 362-75. 1993 Diversity in Pre-Exilic Hebrew (FAT, 5; Tubingen: J.C.B. Mohr [Paul Siebeck]). 'The "Northernisms" of the Israelite Narratives in Kings', ZAH 8: 63-70. 1995 'Evidence of Diversity in Pre-Exilic Judahite Hebrew', Hebrew Studies 38: 1997 7-20. 1998a 'Israelite Literacy: Interpreting the Evidence', FT148: 239-53, 408-22. 1998b 'The "Archaic" Poetry of the Pentateuch in the MT, Samaritan Pentateuch, and4QExod c ',y46r//35: 74-83. ' 'Am Construed as Singular and Plural in Hebrew Biblical Texts: Diachronic 1999 and Textual Perspectives', ZAH 12: 48-82. 200 la ' 'Edah and Qahal as Collective Nouns in Hebrew Biblical Texts', ZAH 14: 68-78. 'Notes on the Language of4QCant b ', JJS 52: 122-31. 200 Ib 'Observations on the Third Person Masculine Singular Pronominal Suffix -H 200 Ic in Hebrew Biblical Texts', Hebrew Studies 42: 225-42. 'The Problem of Ezekiel: A Discussion Paper' (unpublished paper, Uni200 Id versity of Sydney). Zakovitch, Y. 'The Tale of Naboth's Vineyard: 1 Kings 21', Addendum to M. Weiss, The 1984 Bible from Within (Jerusalem: Magnes Press): 379-405.
366
Biblical Hebrew
Zawiszewski, E. 1968 'Ksiegi Kronik—Apologia czy Historia?', Ruch Biblijny I Liturgiczny 21: 233-37. Zevit, Z. 1982 'Converging Lines of Evidence Bearing on the Date of P', ZA W94:481 -511. 1984 'The Khirbet el-Qom Inscription Mentioning a Goddess', BASOR 255: 39-49. 2001 The Religions of A ncient Israel: A Synthesis ofParallactic Approaches (London/New York: Continuum). Zimhoni, O. 1997 'Clues from the Enclosure-Fills: Pre-Omride Settlement at Tel Jezreel', Tel Aviv 24: 83-109.
INDEXES INDEX OF REFERENCES BIBLE Genesis 1.2 1.6 1.14 1.17 2-4 5.1 6.3 6.15 12-35 13.15 15.15 16.9 17.1-2 17.1 17.2 17.4 17.5 17.7 18.1-15 21.4 21.7 21.8 21.22-32 21.28-30 22.4 23.6-18 23.18 24
24.3 24.7 24.38
274 171,274 274 274 64 55 270 268 66 96 96 275 87 87 87 87 88 88 63 107 106, 107 107 64 64 43 64 64 108, 109, 117, 127 184 109 109 109
26.28-30 27.7 27.20 29.12 31.46-47 32.6 32.25-33 33.10-11 37-50 37 37.2 39.22 40.4-21 41.8 41.11 41.17 41.24 41.42 41.43 42.7 42.11 42.29 42.31 43.18 43.21 47.6 49 Exodus 1.11 2-24 2.2 2.3 2.6
64 301 145 9 25 227 63 141 291 66 274 171,274 66 21 227 117 21
21 21 179 307 298 274 301 227 232 140, 160
272 66 107 107 107
2.18 4.24-26 4.26 4.29 4.32 4.33 5.16 6.1-4 7.11 7.17 7.22 8.3 8.14 8.15 9.11 12.4 15 15.1 15.5 15.18 16.7 16.8 17.11 17.14 18.13-27 18.13 18.21 18.22 18.25 18.27 19-20 19.3-8
145 63 63 63 63 63 272 88 21 226 21 21 21 21 21 16 108 96 108 133 307 307 48 16 70,79 70 232 71 70,71, 232 71 67,71,77, 79 71,79
Biblical Hebrew
368 Exodus (cont.) 19.3-5 74 74 19.3 19.4 74 74 19.5 71 19.7-8 19.7 72 19.8 72 19.10-19 71,79 72 19.10-11 72 19.10 19.11 72 19.12-15 72 19.12 72 19.13 72 19.14 72 19.15 72 19.16 73 73 19.17 19.18 73,74 19.19 73 19.20-25 72 20.18-21 71,79 20.18-19 75 20.19 75 20.20 75 21.28 48 22.6 173 24.6 141 25.4 21 25.5 272 26.1 21 26.5 140 29.2 272 29.29 226 31.18 51,272 32.7 117 32.13 113, 117 34.1 272 36.1 92 36.12 140 Leviticus 2.4 10.12 10.19 11.43 13.26 13.31
272 117 117 226 14 17
13.37 22.25 23.20 25.21 26 26.5 26.34 27.23 27.33 Numbers 1.1 8.19 9.1 10.10 11-12 11
11.14 11.16-17 11.16 11.17 11.24-30 11.25 11.26-27 11.26 11.27 11.28 18.6 18.8 21.18 22-24 23.3 23.7 23.9 23.10 23.15 23.24.6 27.16-18 28.11 31.28 31.37-41 32.32 35.20
17 226 44 272, 307 154 48 272 16 14
44 227 44 272 66 67, 69, 75, 79 69 67,79 67,69 67-69 67,79 67,68 68 68 67,68 67,70 44 117 114 66 180 32, 105 105 105 180 105 70 272 16 16 307 271
Deuteronomy 1-6 55 1-5 80 1 67
.9-17 .9 .10 .11 .12 .13 1.14 1.15 1.17 1.41 2.25 3.18 4-5 4 4.9-24 4.9-14 4.9-10 4.9 4.10 4.11-13 4.11 4.12-13 4.12 4.13 4.14 4.15-18 4.16 4.17 4.19-20 4.19 4.25-40 4.33-35 4.38 5 5.1-5 5.4-5 5.4 5.5 5.22-33 5.22-23 5.22 5.26 5.31 5.32-33 9-10 9 9.7 9.8-11 9.8
68,79 69 69 69 69 69 68,70 69,71 71 70 78 232 67,79 76 75 79 76 76 16,11
76 76 77 76 76 77 77 76 76 77 76 75,79 77 77 77 75,79 77 77 77,78 79 75 78 78 78 78 55,80 43
43, 171 42 42,43
Index of References 9.9 9.10 9.11 9.22 9.24 11.20 11.30 14.14 14.28 17.8 17.18-19 21.7 21.18 23.7 23.19 24.1 24.3 25.9 26.5 27 27.3 27.8 27.9 27.14 27.15 28.29 28.37 29.18 31-34 31 31.9 31.19 31.21 31.22 31.24-25 31.24 31.27 31.29 32 32.7 32.14 32.34 32.36 32.40 33.2 34 34.9
42,43 43 43 171 171 53 143 48 267 53 51 70 275 300 17 53 53 70 70 53 51,53 53 272 70 70 171 271 211 55 53 53 51,53 53 51 51 53 171 272 19 275 307 293 272 133 284 80 70
Joshua 1.4 1.8 1.14 3-8 5.11-12 6.2 8.3 8.14 8.31-34 8.32 9 9.2-15 10.7 11.3 12.7 18.4-9 18.8 21.6 21.33 22-24 22 22.8 22.21 23.4 24 24.8 24.26
143 55 232 55 306 232 232 145 55 51 55 85 232 143 143 55 51 228 228 55,85 55 93 117 143 55 227 55
Judges
1.7 5
5.5 5.7 5.10 5.11 5.15-16 5.26 6.9 6.10 6.38 7.22 8.14 10.12 11.10 11.40
171
122, 12428 126 123 123 124 125 125, 126 227 227 126 48 55,65,68 227 171 124
369 12.3 12.6 13.2 13.15-23 13.21 14-15 17.1 17.2 18.2 19.1 19.11 19.18 20.44 20.46 21.10 21.23
227 30 236 64 109 59,81 236 301 232 171,236 301 226 232 232 232 16
Ruth 1.4 1.13 3.3-4
15 15 123
1 Samuel 1-3 1-2
1 1.1 1.6 1.7 1.9 1.10 1.11 1.13
1.19 1.20 1.22 1.23 1.24 1.28 2 2.1-10 2.8 2.11
184, 185 109, 127, 184 66, 184 185 236 185 185 109 184 185 169, 184 185 185 185 185 185 185 185 184 242 185 171, 184 185
Biblical Hebrew
370 1 Samuel (cont.)
2.14 2.16 2.25 2.27-36 2.28 2.29 2.34 2.36 3 3.12 3.14 3.21 4.16 4.20 9.1 10.5 10.25 14.15 16.18 18.6 21.9 22.18 23.26 28.15 30.12 31 31.4 31.7
109 185 185 108, 109, 117 185,227 109, 173, 185 184 185 184 184 275 109 226 117 236 173 55,65 74 92 229 298 212 145 227 303 216 287 226
2 Samuel
2.7 2.27-36 2.28 2.36 3.13 3.17 4.3 4.10 4.11 5.24 6.12 6.14 6.16 7 7.2
232 184 184 184 226 171 171 227 48 48 230 13 234 226 225
7.6 7.8 7.9 7.11 7.14 7.16 7.18 8.15 9-20 11.14-15 11.16 11.19-24 11.25 12.8 13.23 13.28 13.39 14.5-7 14.5 14.6 14.7 15.16 15.32 17.10 18.18 18.31 20.3 20.12 20.17 21.20 22.8-16 22.24 23.1-7 23.5 23.20 24.6 24.12 24.17 24.23 24.24
171 225 227, 228 234 225 96 226 171 220 55,65 232 65 271 227 171 232 229 40 40 40 40,41 48 171 232 48 275 48 48 226 236 74 227 160 132 230 65 225, 226 225, 226 229 94
/ Kings
1-20 1-2 1.5 1.19 1.25 2
55 220 169 180 180 66
2.17 3 3.7 3.11 3.14 4 4.6 5.1 5.10 5.12 5.20-21 5.20 5.22 5.24 5.25-7.38 5.25 5.29-30 6-7 6.1 6.2 6.3 6.20 6.23 6.24 6.37-38 7.15-16 7.24
7.26 7.38 8 8.2 8.13 8.46-53 8.46 8.48 8.54 9.15 9.22 10.1-7 10.22 11.1 11.4 11.36 12.6 12.11 12.14 13
229 55,80 92 234 223 234 291 171 32 66 54 92 273 171 228 229 229 283 134 229 229 229 229 229 134 229 180,229 229 229 135, 154 134 132, 134, 135, 147 154 226 134 236 290 230 53 21 229 223 223 171 225 225 117
Index of References 13.7 13.12 13.22 15-16 15.7 15.22 15.26 15.33 16.5-9 16.9 16.20 17 20.40 21
21.1-20 21.1 21.2 21.5 21.6 21.7 21.8 21.9 21.10
21.11 21.12 21.13 21.14 21.15-16 21.15 21.20 21.21-29 21.25 21.26 21.28 21.29 22.3-11 22.8 22.10 22.12 22.16 22.21 22.41-42 22.46 35.4
117 117 117 55 229 226, 229 53 52,53 53 290 52 66 171 116-19, 121, 122, 127 116, 120 117, 121 118 117 117, 121 126 118 118 118, 119, 123 118, 123 117, 118 118,119, 126 123 124 116, 123 118, 126 120 118, 126 125 126 126 53 225,301 169 169 225 225 53 52 54
2 Kings 1 1.3 2.16 4 4.2 4.3 4.7 4.38-41 4.38 4.39-41 4.39 4.40 4.41 5 6-8 6-7 6.8-19 6.9 6.13 6.19 6.27 7.10 8 8.4-5 8.14-15 8.21 8.29 9.14 9.15 9.37 10 10.13 10.23 11-12 11.13 12.11 12.12 14-25 14.2 14.10 14.14 14.15 15 15.2 15.5 15.10
117 117 232, 287 59,81, 111, 112 111 111 111 61 61 61 61 61 61 21 59 81 32 32, 105 32 32,271 179 305 86 38 60 171 229 171 229 272, 307 66 236 287 55 123 234, 236 234 55 231 60 60 60 105 230 291 105
3 71
18.17 18.18 18.26-27 18.26 18.32 18.37 19.2 19.14 22-23 22.3 22.8-11 22.19 22.20 22.28 23 23.1-3 23.6 23.11 24.14 24.16 24.20 25 25.27-30 25.27 28.26
105 105 232 114 105 14 171 171 171 171 171 171 26 171, 173 234 20 290 25 90 287 290 290 64,84 53 236 53 226 225 94 14 53 234 14,284 232 232 221 154 154 221 54
1 Chronicles 1-9 2.30 2.32 3.5 4.9-10 4.10
234, 240 298 298 223 234 94, 298
15.12 15.13 15.20 15.25 15.28 16.15 17.25 17.28 17.29 17.32 17.33 17.41 18 18.4
Biblical Hebrew
372 1 Chronicles 5.14 5.18 5.24 6 6.47 7 7.2 7.5 7.7 7.9 7.11 7.28 7.40 8.40 9.13 10-22 10 10.4 10.7 11.22 11.26 12.9 12.16 12.18 12.19 12.22 12.26 12.31 12.41 13.5 15.22 15.25 15.27 15.29 17 17.1 17.7 17.10 17.13 17.14 17.16 17.17 19.6 20.6 21.1 21.10 21.11
(cont.) 138 232 232 228 228 232 232 232 232 232 232 142, 143 232 232 232 234 216 287 226 230 232 232 142, 143 173 141 232 232 232 180 231 170 230 13 234 226 225 225 173,234 225 96 226 172 231 236 180 225, 226 141
21.17
29.199 29.20 29.211
94, 225 226 94 13 92, 138 180 180 180 234, 240 234 234 234 55 232 232 232 22 142, 143 22 142, 143 142, 143, 232 232 232 234 13 54 13 180 297 12, 13, 240 13 301 180
2 Chronicles 1-36 1.11-12 1.11 2.1 2.6 2.8 2.9-4.6 2.9 2.10 2.13 2.15
234 93 234 229 13,19,22 180 228 229 54 22,92 273
21.24 21.27 22.2 22.3 22.4 22.8 23-27 23.4-6 23.25-26 23.28-32 24.6 26.6 26.7 26.9 26.15 26.16 26.17 26.18 26.30 26.311 26.32 28-29 28.11 28.199 29.11 29.2 29.4 29.7
2.17 3.3 3.4 3.8 3.9 3.10 3.11 3.14 3.15 4.1 4.3 4.5 4.6 6.2 6.36 7.1 7.13 7.14 8.3-4 8.9 8.13 9.1 9.9 9.21 10.2 10.11 10.14 11.13 11.23 12.10 13.22 14.7 14.14 15.19 16.6 16.8 16.9 16.14 17.5 17.12 17.13 17.14 18.1 18.2 18.7 18.15 18.20 18.27
229 229 229 229 229 229 229 22 229 229 180,229 229 226, 229 132, 134 226 236 232 232 240 230 93 180 180 21 229 225 225 180 180 172 229 232 180 138 226, 229 180 240 13 180 232 232 232 180 180 225,301 225 225 94
Index of References 22.8 24.11 24.12 24.19 24.24 25.1 25.9 26.3 26.12 26.14 26.15 26.17 26.20 26.21 26.22 26.30 28.6 28.10 28.25 29.16 29.22 30.1 30.6 30.13 30.17 30.24 31.1 32.5 32.9 32.13 32.17 32.28 32.29 32.30 33.14 34.4 34.8 34.27 34.28 35.5 35.21 36.13 36.22-23 36.22 Ezra 1.2 2
236 180,234, 236 234 226 180 223,231 297 230 232 232 240 232 145 291 55 145 232 93,291 136 93, 141 141 51,55 13 180 93 180 234 180 223 94 55 136 180 142, 143 142 234 236 226 225 124 145 221 240 221
93 254
2.30 2.44 2.60-63 2.61 2.65 2.69 3.1 3.12 4-7 4.4 4.6-7 4.7 4.10 4.22 5.3 5.8 6.6-10 6.6 6.8-9 6.15 6.18 6.28 7.11 7.21 7.22 7.26 7.28 8.15 8.16 8.17 8.23 8.24 8.25 8.26 8.28 8.31 9.2 9.3 9.5 9.6 10 10.4 10.8 10.14
258 298 97 54 291 12 138 255 26 294 26 22,54 89 93 89,92 89 97 89 97 288 54, 124 93 22 89 54 93 138,227 227 227 227 227 227 227 227 227 227 253 94, 227 227 227 252 60 253 92, 294
Nehemiah 1.1-7.5 1.3 1.4
169 252 227
373 1.6 2.1 2.4 2.6 2.7-8 2.9 2.10 2.13 3 3.1 3.3 3.4 3.6 3.15 3.20-22 3.28-29 4.1-6 4.14 5.1-3 5.4 5.7 5.8 5.11 5.13 5.15 5.18 6.1 6.3 6.7 6.8 6.11 6.12 7 7.2 7.3 7.5 7.37 7.47 7.64 7.67 7.69-71 8.13 9 9.4 9.7-8 9.25 9.29 10.1
226 80, 94, 227 80 92, 227 80 94, 227 80 227 22, 258 97 92 97 92 92 97 97 258 138 93 22 227 227 297 227 268 92 92 227 92 227 227 227 254 92 170,286 227 258 298 54 291 12 138 122, 160 96 172, 173 180 226 252
Biblical Hebrew
374 Nehemiah (cont.)
10.33-40 10.35 10.39 11.6 11.14 11.25-50 11.30-36 11.33-35 12.25 12.27-13.31 12.31 12.44 13.4-9 13.4-7 13.7 13.8 13.9 13.10-13 13.10 13.11 13.13 13.17 13.19 13.21 13.22 13.23-24 13.23 13.24
13.28 13.30 13.31 23
97 92, 253 182 232 232 258 258 258 22 169 227 92, 138 97 97 227 227 227 97 97, 227 227 221 227 92, 227 227 227 26 91 26,91, 263, 285 97 227 92 252
Esther
1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.5 1.6 1.8 1.10 1.12 1.15 1.20 2.1 2.3
96, 236 96 12,96 96, 297 12,96 12 12 96 229 229 12 96 138, 170
2.5 2.7 2.8
9.28 9.29 9.31
236, 237 236 96, 138, 236 145 136 96 96 96, 138 169 169 96, 236 12,51,54 12, 136 136 141 12 12,54 12, 14 81,94,96 92, 138 96, 236 12, 14,96, 236 16 12, 170 94,96 145 291 12, 14 16 12 136 12, 136 12, 145 136, 169 12, 169 136 140, 141 96 12,92, 136, 140, 141 136 94 12,92
Job 1.1
236, 237
2.9 2.11 2.12 2.15 2.19 2.20 3.2 3.4 3.12 3.14 4.3 4.4 4.7 4.8 4.11 4.14 4.16 5.1 5.2 6.1 6.9 6.13 6.14 7.4 8.4 8.5 8.9 8.11 8.13 8.14 8.17 9.3 9.21 9.23 9.25 9.27
.3 .5 .6 .13 .15 .16 .17 .19 2.1 2.10 3.6 5.4 7.3 12.21 13.2 19.20 20.177 22.30 24.23 26.33 28.166 29.2 29.11 29.17 30.26 30.30 30.311 33.9 34.25 34.33 36.2 37.1 39.2 42.7 42.12 42.13
Psalms 3.6 7.5 18.8-16 19.9 27.4 27.13 28.9 29.1 33.7
33.14
236 236 180,236 236 227 227 227 227 180,236 140, 141 288 275 288 294 226 227 124 306 303 179 297 288 119 227 227 17 236 226
275 92 33 74 288 236 236 236
227 227 74 93 14 115 96 272 138, 139, 293 143
Index of References 36 36.5 36.7 38.12 40 41.14 45.2 45.7 45.9 45.10
45.11 45.13 45.16 45.18 46.3 46.5 47.10 48 48.6 50.1 52.7 61.1 61.5 61.7 63.4 68 68.23 69.3 69.12 69.16 69.21 73.16 74.6 74.13 75 75.7 75.9 76.6 77 77.6 77.8 77.18 78.49
274 180 123 115 182 96 65, 137 137 121, 137 137,272, 297 137 137 137 113, 136 137, 147 146 146 114,272 146 145-47 143 115 271 132, 134, 135 135 96 137 108 108 227 108 227 227 306 273 144, 181 142, 144, 147 144 232 134, 135 132, 134, 135, 147 132, 134, 135, 147 134 273
79.133 86 88.7 88.133 90 90.10 90.155 103 103.3 103.4 103.5 103.12 103.13 103.18 103.19 103.20-21 104.55 104.19 104.27 106.47 106.48 107 107.2 109.6 11.134 11.159 11.168 11.56 111 111.7 112 113 113.3 113.5-9 113.8 116
116.1 116.2-8 116.6 116.7 116.9 116.10 116.11 116.12-18 116.12
96 182 108 271 275 227 275 112, 143, 181, 182 112 112 112 142 112 93 112 112 133 143 15 97 96 143, 181 142, 144 180 93 93 93 93 182 93 182 97 143 242 114 110-14, 116, 117 127 115 115 112 110,111 113,115 110, 113, 115,117 115 115 110, 111
375 116.14 116.15 116.16 116.18 116.19 117.1 119.4 119.131 119.147 119.15 119.158 119.55 119.59 122 123 124 126 126.1 126.4 129 13.6 13.8 13.9 130.4 132.12 135 135.7 135.9 136 137 137.1-2 137.6 139.3 144 144.12 145 145.1 145.2 145.13 146 147 147.2 147.12
113 110, 111, 113 113, 115 113 111, 115 96 93,94 227 227 93 227 227 227 270 270 270 97 97 97 270 97 97 97 271 271 112,270 112 112 270 97,112, 270 97 112 18 183,270 183 132, 182 132 96 132, 136 270 139 92, 138 139 96
Proverbs
3.10
294
Biblical Hebrew
376 Proverbs (cont.) 48 3.12 8.26 287 8.34 137 48 13.21 142 19 142 19.10 142 19.13 19.20 140, 142, 147 19.23 142 146 20 20.11 146 146 20.14 20.16 146 146 20.17 20.21 145-47 20.25 14 22.29 65 48 23.6 274 30 105 31.1-9 31.2-3 33 31.2 105 31.4 105, 123 Ecclesiastes 1.10 1.17 2.7 2.8 2.14 2.21 2.26 3.1 3.5 4.4 4.12 4.17 5.10 5.18 6.2 6.8 7.19 8.8 8.11 8.12 9.11 10.5
132, 135 94, 227 291 138 298 16 138 92 92, 138 16 287 92, 169 16 93 93 92 17 17 287 297 298 17
10.9 10.10 10.15 11.6 11.10 12.3 12.10
226 16 92 16 17 232 66
Song of Songs 1.5 1.6 1.7 1.17 2.13 2.15 3.7 5.11 7.13 8.11-12
17 17 31 124 298 298 31 17 298 17
Isaiah 1-39 1-36 1.17 4-66 5.22
179 54 263 5 232
6.1 7.15
43 92
8.4 8.21 10.29 11.14 13.12 17.12 20.1 22.15 24-28 24-27 24.12 25.8 26 26.1 26.4
92 211 74 143 297 106 20 290 147 134, 135 271 133 134, 135 134 132, 134, 147 134 134 134 134 134
26.5 26.6 26.7 26.9 26.10
26.11 26.12 26.13 26.14 26.15 26.16 26.17 26.18 26.19 27.2 28 28.1 28.2 28.7 28.9 28.14 28.20 28.22 28.24 28.25 28.28 28.29 33.6 34.14 35.10 36.3 36.11-12 36.18 36.22 37.2 38.18 40-66
40-55 40.12 41.7 43.5
43.12 44.5 45.6 45.12 45.17 47.7
134 134 135 134 134 134 134 134 134 307 139 139 139 139 139 139 139, 147 293 139 139 139 139 139 288 48 132 290 25 287 290 290 15 53, 54, 129, 132 143, 175 181, 183 85 314,315 306 48 142-44, 181 226 53 142-44, 181 226 132, 135 287
Index of References 50.1 51.9 51.19 52.8 56-66 56.11 59.19 60.16 60.19 60.20 65.6 65.25 Jeremiah 1.6 3.1 3.7 3.8 3.10 6.21 8.8 10.11 10.13 11.15 11.18 13.19 16.5 17.1 17.13 22.3 22.30 23.31 24.7 25.13 25.29 26-28 26 26.1 26.18 26.21 27.1 28.1 28.17 29.1 29.14 29.29 30.2
53 132 135 183 130 92 142-44, 181 115 132 132 53 181
92 53 263 53,54 263 307 54 26 112 112 227 272 138 54 54 263 54 274 226 54 226 55,80 53 54 223 88 54 54 88 54 138 54 54
31.33 32 32.1 32.9 32.10-16 32.10 32.11 32.12 32.13 32.14 32.44 33.1 34.1 34.8 35.1 36^3 36 36.1-43.7 36.1 36.2-18 36.2 36.4 36.6 36.9 36.10 36.12 36.17 36.20-21 36.21 36.23-26 36.23 36.26 36.27 36.28 36.32 37^3 37.1 37.15 37.20 38.4 38.11-12 40.1 41.1 43.9 44.1 44.23 45.1 48.14
54 55,80 54 227 54 54 54 54 54 54 54 54 54 54 54 55 53, 182 80 54 54 54 54 51,54 54 54 54 54 54 54 54 54 54 54 54 54 53 54 54 54 294 306 54 54 54 54 272 54 232
377 51.16 51.27 51.60 51.63 52 52.25
112 20 54 54 55 54
Lamentations 3.42 3.63 4.1 4.8
307 97 17 17
Ezekiel 1-39 1.24 1.25 3.3 8.5 9.8 11.7 11.17 13.9 16.11 16.30 16.33 22.20 22.21 23.20 23.43 23.46 24.10 24.12 25.15-16 34.11 34.12 34.23 39.28 40^8 40.4 40.45 41.22 44.20 46.17 Daniel 1.2 1.3
54 294 294 227 97 227 138 138 54 227 17 21 138 138 227 306 170 169, 170 272
257 14 14 223 138 54 117 117,271 117 204 272
182 12
378 Daniel (cont.) 12,267 1.5 1.8 12 22 1.11 1.13 12 1.15 12 1.16 12,22 2-7 26 2.4 117,135 92 2.9 2.16 92 2.18 93 2.20 96 2.25 145 2.44 135 3.9 135 3.16 93 3.20 232 3.24 145 3.52 133 4.9 92 4.26 288 5-6 54 5.7 54 5.8 54,93 5.10 135 5.15-17 54 5.16 93 5.24-25 54 6.5 93 6.6 135 6.9-11 54 6.20 145 6.21 135 6.26 135 7.12 92 7.18 96, 135 8.13 227 8.15 227 8.17 227 9.3 227 9.4 227 9.24 132, 135 10.5 297 10.16 227 10.19 227 10.21 14,54 11.10 94, 138
Biblical Hebrew 11.13 11.14-17 11.26 11.39
94 173 12 17
11.45 12.8 12.13
12 227 123
Hosea 5.14 7.16 8.14 12
226 271 121 63
Joel 2.13 3.2 4.4
182 291 287
Amos 3.10 4.2-3 4.5 5.22-23 6.1-7 8.3 9.11
92 170 170 170 170 121 170
Jonah 1.6 1.7 1.9 1.11-12 2.1 3.2 4.6 4.7 4.8
36 36 226 36 36 271 36 36 36
Micah 3.11 7.18 7.19
17 133 108
Nahum 2.4 2.6
232, 284 271
3.17
20
Habakkuk 2.1 3.10
180 303
Haggai 1.2 1.6-10 1.12-14 1.12 1.14 2.10-13 4.10
178 252 185 178 178 185 252
Zechariah 1-8
1.4 1.7 1.8-13 1.16 2.1-7 3.1-6 3.1 3.2 4.1-5 4.11-5.3 4.2 5.1 5.2 5.5-6.11 6.2 6.5 6.6 6.8 6.10 6.14-15 6.15 7.1 7.3 7.5 7.7 7.11-14 8.7 8.19 8.21
175, 179, 180, 187, 314 185 182 185 183 185 185 180 180 185 185 180 182 182 185 17 180 17 179 178 185 94 182 182 94, 182 258 185 143 182 94
Index of References 9-14
9 9.15 11.8 11.13 11.17
175, 177-
79 178 183 288 227 94
12.3 14.4 14.14
94 143 179
Malachi 1.6 1.11
178 143
379 2.14 3.10 3.24 6.16
119 182 178 16
APOCRYPHA/DEUTERO-CANONICAL BOOKS AND PSEUDEPIGRAPHA Tobit 8.5 8.15 11.14 13.4 13.7 13.18
133 133 133 133 133 133
Ecclesiasticus 4.11 119 7.32 14
15.2 30.23 37.11 46.19 50.25-26 51.12
141 267 273 119 259 96
1 Maccabees 9.49-51 259 9.52 259 10.38 259
11.30-34 13.43
259 259
Jude 1.25
133
Jub. 19.14-15
65
4QOrd 2.4
138
4QpPsaal7l 2.9
141
11Q14 9
180
OTHER ANCIENT SOURCES Dead Sea Scrolls IQapGen 20.13-14 133 21.10 133 21.12 133 1QH 2.18 4.16 IQlscf 8.15 41.27 IQM 4.15 13.7
266 266
211 274
268 132
1QS 2.12-13 4.7-8 4.22
211 132 132
IQSa 1.11 1.20
119,141 180
3Q 15 (Copper Scroll) 8.1 182 12.12-13 137 4Q196 (4QTobaar) 14.8 93
4Q416 2.2
294
11QT 10.35 13.31 15.1 22.12 23.7 34.7 40.8 42.13 48.14
4QD 5.11-12
266
11QT 63.7
4Q198 (4QTobcar) 1.2 93 4Q398fr. 11-13 3 92
143 143 137
137 137 138
137 137 137
212
Biblical Hebrew
380 CD 10.7-8
266
CD A 9.20 CD B 19.30 Murabba 'at 24 B16 C18 Targums Targ. Isa. 25.8
Pe'ah 1.1
267
119
Pes. 5.6 9.2
118 260
119
Ros Has. 4.9
126
Sebu. 4.8 9.2
139 257, 260
137 137 137
Seq. 6.5
Targ. Onq. Exod. 15.18 133 Targ. Onq. Deut. 32.40 133
Suk. 5.4
Mishnah Ab. 5.7 6.2
Toh. 9.13 145 137
B. Bat. 3.1
268
139
fier 2.2 6.6
141 137
Yeb. 16.7 Talmuds >>. Sebu. 37 38
274
Midrash Ber. R. 53.9
107
Mek. Bahodesh 5 137
137
Sifra Shemini 1.3 267
137 212
137
139
133
yiraA:.
3.2
/. Yeb. 12.11
137
r<3/w. 7.4
261
Sifra Hovah 9.2
133
Sot. 5.4 7.5
/. Sebu. 7.10
274
266 261
#«. 3.5
260
/. Ber 3.24 6.7
Ma 'as. $. 3.5
143
t. 'Erub. 4.6
143
Afcg. 1.3
267
/. Ohol. 5.12
274
133 137
Sifre Num. 73
143
Sifre Deut. 6 122 54
261 141 141
Josephus Ant. 13.125-27
259
Apion 2.4
260
Classical Eusebius Chron. Can. 1572
82
Inscriptions, Ostraca, Papyri and Tablets Ahiqar 2-3 47 10 47 11 47 12 47 18-19 47
Index of References 20 32 35-36 42-43 47 55-56 60-61 Arad 1.2
47 47 47 47 47 47 47
1.4 1.5-6 1.5 1.6-7 1.8 2.1 2.7-8 2.7 3.3-5 3.5 3.8 5.3-4 5.3 5.12 7.2 7.5-6
286, 300, 306 292, 299, 304 300 300 300 300 297 286, 300 294 286 286 294 294 300 300 286 286, 300 294
11.2 12.3 16.1-2 16.2 16.3 16.4 16.5 17.3-4 17.5 18.2-3 18.5 18.6-7 18.9 20.2 21.1-2 21.5 24.13 24.14-16
286, 300 287 304 301 298 294 292, 299 294 287 300 298 301 287 288 304 301 294 286
1.3
24.14-15 24.15 24.16 24.17 24.18 24.20 26.2 31.10 40.2-3 40.7 40.8 40.10-11 40.13-14 40.14 111.7
294, 301 292 287, 298 298 297,301 287 289 306 304 292, 293 305 301 301 297 297
Avigad Wine Decanter 302 1 Bar Kokhba 15
143
Beersheba 1.2
289
CAP 25 17 383-5 41.3
51 46 304
City of David 302, 306 2.1 Gezer Calendar 293, 302 \ 293, 302 2 302 3 293, 302 6 302 7 Gibeon 1
302
Hazor 1
298, 303
Horvat 'UzaJar 303 8
381 KAI 14.18-19 18.3 26.A.1II. 19
90 124 272
KetefHinnom Amulet 309 2.9 Khirbet el-Qom 1 303 288 1.1 293 3.1 303 3.3 283 12 283 13 Kuntillet 'Ajrud 294, 298 8.1 306 8.2 Lachish 2.3 2.5-6 2.5 3.1-2 3.4-5 3.5 3.6 3.9-10 3.9 3.10 3.11-12 3.12 3.14 3.15 3.18
3.20 4.1 4.5-6 4.6-7 4.9 4.10-13 4.10-11 5.5 6.2 6.5 6.6
303 306 303 297 305 288 284 305 301 297, 303 286 307 297 297 287, 289, 297 297, 309 303 305 294 303 48 307 303 293, 307 288 294, 297
Biblical Hebrew
382 Lachish (cont.) 6.12 301 8.2 303 12.3 301 13.1 289,297 25.1 303 30.1 303 Mesad Hashavyahu 1.3 295 1.4 294 1.5 294,304, 306 294, 304 .6-7 306 .6 .7 294, 304 .8 294, 306 .10 304 1.11 304 1.12-13 297 Mesha Stele 5-6
121
Moussaieff Ostraca 1.1-2 296 1.2 297 1.4 287 2.3-4 298 2.3 294, 298 2.4 294
Ophel 1.3
298
Silwam Tomb 2.1 290,291 2.2 291,305
Panammu 13
144
Ta 'anach 1.5-6
300
Tell Qasile 2.1
297
papMurabba 'at 17a.l 289, 304, 306 Ras ez-Zetun 1
307
Samaria Ostraca 5.3 304, 305 16.3 305 Siloam Tunnel 1 290, 305 2 284, 290, 298, 303, 307, 309 3 166, 167, 305, 307 4 167,284, 290, 293, 294, 298, 305, 307 5-6 297 5 296, 305
Ugaritic Texts KTU 1 .4.111. 14 272
INDEX OF AUTHORS Abegg, M.G. 210 Adams, W.J. 241,245 Aharoni, Y. 288, 293, 300, 302 Ahituv, S. 293,300,305 Aitchison, J. 208,246 Albright, W.F. 142, 281, 289, 294, 298 Alden, R.L. 237 Alexander, P.S. 59 Allen, L.C. 36 Alt, A. 257 Andersen, F.I. 223, 237, 306, 308 Anderson, A.A. 116 Anderson, B.W. 237 Arlotto, A. 246 Auld,A.G. 216,217,228,240 Avi-Yonah, M. 256-58,261,262 Avigad,N. 302 Avishur, Y. 63 Baer, Y. 260 Baldwin, J.G. 237 Bar-Asher, M. 24,26,262 Bar-Kochva, B. 257 Barr,J. 3,216,223,247,312 Barre, M.L. 110, 115 Barthelemy, D. 271 Bauer, H. 170, 190,230,242 Baumgartner, W. 176,243,294 Beaman, K. 49,50 Becking, B. 3 Beit-Arieh, I. 276,303 Ben Yehuda, E. 254,261 BenZvi, W. 39,85,90,243 Ben-Hayyim, Z. 264, 265, 267 Ben-Sasson, H.H. 260 Bendavid, A. 31, 34, 35, 168, 194, 279, 288 Bender, A. 29
Bergey, R. 35, 96, 130, 136-38, 140, 141, 144-47, 170, 177, 183,245,268 Bergstrasser, G. 227, 230, 242 Berlejung, A. 296,298 Berlin, A. 115 Berlinerblau, J. 165 Bernal, M. 144 Bertheau, E. 215 Bianchi, F. 1 Biber, D. 49-51,55-58 Bickermann, E.J. 97,253 Black,!. 248 Blau, J. 162, 172, 187, 227, 264, 272 Blenkinsopp, J. 14, 240, 245 Bloomfield, L. 246 Blum, E. 67, 77 Bolleme, G. 61,83 Bordreuil, P. 296 Brenner, A. 1,36 Brenner, M.L. 108 Brettler, M. 184 Bright, J. 254 Briquel-Chatonnet, F. 303 Brock, S.P. 288, 295, 303, 304, 306 Brockelmann, C. 273 Brown, F. 221 Buchan, D. 83 Burke, P. 65,81,82,87,89 Burney,C.F. 32, 125,247 Bynon, T. 246 Campbell, E.F. 123 Cardona, G. 95 Cassuto, U.M. 39,74 Chafe, W.L. 38, 39, 49, 50, 55-58 Chapman, S.B. 287 Charles, R.H. 65 Chen, Y. 142, 146-48, 241
384
Biblical Hebrew
Chomsky, N. 197,208,209 Chomsky, W. 242,245 Clancy, P.M. 56 Clendenen, E.R. 243 Clines, D.J.A. 237 Cogan, M. 25, 117 Cohen, H.R. 9,224 Collins, J.J. 316 Conrad, S. 49,51,56,58 Crawford, S.W. 237 Crenshaw, J.L. 52 Cross, P.M. 30, 39, 74, 243, 263, 288, 300, 304, 306 Cryer, F.H. 164,217,240,245 Crystal, D. 56,245,246 Culley,R.C. 39 Curtis, E.L. 221 Dahood, M. 272 Danto, A. 217 Davidson, S. 221 Davies, G.I. 270, 289, 293, 299 Davies, P.R. 2, 8, 10, 108, 164, 165, 187, 189,217,240,276,315,316 Davila, J.R. 270 Davy, D. 56 DeCaen, V. 164,227 Delitzsch, F. 36 Dempster, S.G. 233 Demsky,A. 64,82,84,302 Deutsch, R. 276, 287, 297, 304 DeVaux, R. 194 Dever, W.G. 107,217 Dillmann, A. 215 Diringer, D. 288, 295, 303, 304, 306 Dobbs-Allsopp, F.W. 90, 97, 287, 288, 295, 297, 307 Dorson, R.M. 58,59,81 Dotan, A. 95 Dothan, M. 263 Drerup, E. 100 Driver, G.R. 11, 29, 37, 104, 113, 210, 226,235 Driver, S.R. 16, 18, 28, 31, 43, 77, 129, 168, 171, 175, 176, 179, 184, 190, 221, 222, 225, 227, 234, 237, 254, 279,285,296,297,314 Dupont-Sommer, A. 101
Edelman, D. 216,218,240 Eggins, S. 56-58 Ehrensvard, M. 38, 164, 166, 171, 217, 231, 240, 244, 276, 277, 290, 291, 298 Eichhorn, J.G. 215 Eisenman, R.H. 194 Eissfeldt, O. 15 Elayi,J. 90 Ellenbogen, M. 11,284 Elwolde, J.F. 164,248 Emerton, J.A. 111,113, 303, 306 Eph'al, I. 296 Erman, A. 52 Ervin-Tripp, S.M. 58 Eskhult, M. 14, 62, 83, 94, 167-73, 177, 184, 185, 233,235,245,286,295, 301 Even-Shoshan, A. 141,143 Fasold, R. 39,91 Fassberg, S. 26, 29, 35, 94 Ferguson, C.A. 203 Finkelstein, I. 217,256 Finley, T.J. 227 Finnegan, R. 38, 86 Fischer, D.H. 64 Fishman, J.A. 91,94,95 Fitzmyer, J.A. 34, 195 Floyd, M.H. 182 Fokkelman, J.P. 40, 113 Foley, J.M. 39,83 Folmer, M. 13 Forbes, A.D. 223,308 Forrer, E. 257 Foster, B. 159 Fox, B. 56 Fox, MJ. 237 Fredericks, D.C. 169, 177, 179, 184, 241, 245,270 Freedman, D.N. 30, 106, 240, 242, 288, 300, 304, 306 Friedberg, A.D. 182 Friedman, R.E. 216 Friedrich,J. 271,275 Frolov, S. 220 Gai,A. 286,300
Index of Authors Gandz, S. 64 Garbini, G. 219 Garcia Martinez, F. 194 Garr, W.R. 30,33,111,123,171,205 Geller, S.A. 63 George, A. 248 Gerleman, G. 27,244 Gesenius, W. 28,221,239 Gevirtz, S. 114, 136, 167,231 Gianto, A. 187,243 Gibson, J.C.L. 48, 144, 171,288,300, 302, 303, 305, 306 Giesebrecht, F. 18,28 Ginsberg, H.L. 31, 142 Gluska, I. 35 Goddard, B.L. 170 Gogel, S.L. 9, 276, 282, 286, 288, 290, 293, 295, 297, 298, 301-303, 305, 307-309 Golb,N. 195 Goldfajn,T. 174,233 Goodspeed, E. 194 Gordis, R. 142,270 Gordon, C.H. 109, 114, 129, 135, 138, 144, 147, 148,241 Goshen-Gottstein, M.H. 184, 205, 242 Goulder,M.D. 114 Grabbe,L.L. 2,175,217 Graetz, H. 260 Graham, M.P. 215,220,239 Gray.G.B. 237 Greenfield, J.C. 25, 26, 28, 32-34, 36, 65, 105, 111, 122, 168, 172,278 Greenstein, E.L. 38, 40, 70 Gressmann, H. 61 Grintz, Y.M. 255 Gross, B.Z. 267 Guenther, A.R. 233 Guillaume, A. 274 Gumperz, J.J. 50 Habel,N.C. 237 Hackett, J.A. I l l , 125 Hale, M. 186, 196 Hall, F.W. 82 Halliday, M.A.K. 38, 39, 49, 50, 57, 58 Halpem, B. 3,216,223,224 Hanel, J. 216
385
Haran, M. 65, 101 Hared, M. 49, 50, 56 Harris, W.V. 82,83 Harris, Z.S. 307 Harrison, R.K. 216 Hartley, J.E. 237 Haugen, E. 91,96 Hausendorf, H. 56,60 Hawkins, J.D. 283 Heltzer, M. 276, 287, 297, 304 Hendel, R.S. 3 Herner, S. 228 Hestrin, R. 263 Hill, A.E. 176-80, 184,245 Hill, S.D. 59,61 Ho, C.Y.S. 216 Hock, H.H. 246 Hoffman, Y. 33 Hoftijzer, J. 40, 118, 124, 178, 280, 301 Hoover Renteria, T. 59,61 Hopper, PJ. 246 Hubner, U. 294 Huehnergard, J. 25, 33 Hughes, J.A. 233 Hurvitz, A. 1-4, 10, 15-17, 23, 28, 29, 3136, 92, 93, 96, 97, 104, 107, 108, 112, 127, 129, 130, 132, 133, 13643, 146-48, 150, 152, 160, 162, 16467, 172, 175-77, 179-84, 191, 195, 217, 226, 228, 235, 240-44, 249, 251, 254, 266, 267, 270, 276-80, 282, 284, 287, 290, 292, 293, 299, 314 Hutchby, I. 58 Isaksson, B. 173,245 Israel, F. 296 Isserlin, B.S.J. 295 Jacoby, F. 82 Janssen, J.M.A. 101 Japhet, S. 3, 215, 227, 239, 243, 267, 297 Jeffery, L.H. 84 Jongeling, K. 118, 124,280,301 Joosten, J. 88,90, 172 Jordan, D.J. 302 Joseph, B.D. 246 Joiion, P. 15, 190
386
Biblical Hebrew
Kalimi, I. 240,243 Kallai,Z. 252,258 Kaltman, H. 50 Kaufman, S.A. 17, 20, 25, 31-33, 35, 105, 107,243 Kaufman,!. 91,94 Kautzsch, E. 27 Kedar, Sh. 256 Keil,C.F. 215 Kesterson, J.C. 196,210,211 Khan, G. 95 Kim, Y.-Y. 49, 50 Kindler, A. 256 Kiparsky, P. 201 Kissane, E. 134 Kister, M. 174 Kitchen, K.A. 66 Klausner, J. 257, 262, 268 Klein, J. 259-61 Klein, S. 215,243,260 Klima, E.S. 208 Knauf, E.A. 8, 150, 160, 164, 166, 217, 310 Knoppers, G.N. 216,220 Kochman, M. 256 Konig, E. 230,237 Kraus, H.-J. 116 Kropat, A. 93, 96, 167, 169, 172, 173, 178, 184, 185, 190, 191,221,22529,231-33,235,239,296 Kttntay, A. 58 Kutscher, E.Y. 3, 12, 25, 29, 31-35, 9295, 129, 169, 172, 179, 195, 196, 210, 221, 223-27, 230-33, 251, 266, 269, 274, 275, 288, 297 Labov, W. 45, 49, 59, 94, 200 Lambert, W.G. 159 Landes, G.M. 36,279 Larsson, G. 182 Lass, R. 200 Layton, S.C. 286,290,291 Leahy, T. 196,265 Leander, P. 170, 190, 230, 242 Lehman, W.P. 246 Lemaire, A. 25,31,33,34,303 Lemke, W.E. 243
Levenson, J.D. 237 Levine, B.A. 67, 245, 247, 280 Levinson, B. 67 Li,T. 233 Lichtenberger, A.C. 237 Lichtheim, M. 65, 101 Lieberman, S. 261 Lifshitz, O. 259 Lightfoot, D. 208,209 Liles,B.L. 246 Lindenberger, J.M. 46, 48 Linville, J.R. 220 Lipinski, E. 66, 123 Liver, J. 257 Loewe, R. 95 Loewenstamm, S.E. 74, 300 Lohfink, N. 42, 53, 75 Longacre, R.E. 45, 74, 83 Lord, A.B. 100 Loretz, O. 93,233 Louckx, F. 91 Macchi, J.-D. 220 Macy, H. 216 Madsen, A.A. 221 Mandrou, R. 61,83 Mankowski, P.V. 9, 11, 16, 17, 19-22 Mantel, H.D. 253 Margain, J. 179,183,184 Marrou, H.I. 82 Martin, WJ. 224 Mayer, W. 93 McCarter, P.K., Jr 237 McConville, J.G. 220 McFall, L. 227 McKenzie, S.L. 215,220,243 McMahon, A.M.S. 247 Melammed, E.Z. 261 Merwe, C.H.J. van der 185 Meshorer, Y. 256 Milgrom, J. 67 Milik, J.T. 101, 196,266 Millar, W. 135 Millard, A.R. 84,303 Miller, C.L. 179 Miller, J. 38, 39, 49, 50, 55-58, 60 Montgomery, J.A. 32
Index of Authors Moor, J.C.de 220 Moore, C.A. 237 Morag, S. 25, 26, 28, 29, 31, 171, 172, 185, 195, 196,227,264 Moran, W.L. 142 Muchiki, Y. 12,20,21 Muchowski, P. 196 Muraoka,T. 94,95, 123, 171, 173, 177, 184,295 Murphy, R.E. 218 Murphy-O'Connor, J. 316 Na'aman,N. 38,59,61,85,285 Naude,J.A. 1, 162, 175, 186, 189,212, 249 Naveh, J. 25, 34, 36, 111, 140, 172, 276, 278, 293, 296, 302, 306 Negev, A. 257 Niccacci, A. 62,83, 173 Nicholson, E. 245 Niditch, S. 39,53,59 Nielsen, E. 57 Noegel, S. 134, 135, 139 Noldeke, Th. 28,94 North, R. 9,247 Noth, M. 162,220 Notopoulos, J. 50, 58 Nysse, R.W. 243 O'Connor, M. 190, 196, 225, 227, 228, 230,231,242 O'Connor, M.C. 50 O'Connor, M.P. 178 Olafsson, S. 218 Ochs, E. 39,58 Olmo Lete, G. del 124,225 Otto, E. 64, 100 Pardee, D. 296 Parker, S.B. 47,48,66,84,221 Parker,!. 221 Parpola, S. 81 Paton, L.B. 237 Perez-Fernandez, M. 301 Pearce, L.E. 65 Pedersen, J. 64 Peltonen, K. 215,239,240,284
387
Polak, F.H. 38, 39, 41, 47, 49, 51, 53, 55, 58-63, 65, 66, 70, 75, 80, 81, 83-85, 88, 120, 158, 165, 168, 169,289, 293, 296 Polzin, R. 3, 15, 18, 34, 114, 136, 140, 144, 146, 152, 169, 172, 173, 17779, 190-93, 195, 196, 221, 222,22528, 230-32, 235, 244, 245, 249, 265, 283, 288, 289, 292, 293, 297, 298, 310 Pope,M.H. 21,218,237 Porten,B. 46, 51, 123 Postgate, N. 248 Puech, E. 52 Pury, A. de 220 Qimron, E. 36, 91, 92, 94, 95, 137,17173, 177, 183-85, 195, 196, 224, 227, 228, 230-32, 245, 264-68, 272, 298 Rabin, C. 13, 26, 28, 29, 31, 34, 91, 148, 166, 168, 171, 172, 174, 175, 195, 241,251,268,270 Rainey, A.F. 47, 48, 123, 142, 216, 256, 300 Rappaport, A. 256 Regt, L.J. de 60, 83 Reichl, K. 39,83 Reider, I. 210 Rendsburg, G. 3, 30-32, 35, 38, 83, 105, 106, 108-11, 113, 114, 117-19, 122, 123, 126, 131, 134-40, 142, 144, 146-48, 158, 160, 173, 176-78, 184, 185, 203, 207, 222, 227, 237, 241, 243-45, 270, 271, 274, 290, 293, 295,311 Renz, J. 276, 286-88, 293, 295, 300, 301, 303-307, 309 Revell, EJ. 225,227 Rickenbacher, O. 271 Ringgren, H. 63, 67 Robb, K. 83,84 Robertson, D.A. 11, 126, 129 Rofe, A. 59,63, 108, 116-19, 130, 184 Rogerson, J.W. 239 Rollig, W. 271, 275, 276, 286-88, 293, 295,300,301,303-307,309
388
Biblical Hebrew
Rollston, C.A. 296 Romer, T. 220 Rdnsch, H. 65 Rooker, M.F. 1,4, 90, 130, 132, 143, 165, 171, 173, 175, 176, 178, 181, 183, 190, 193, 223-26, 231-33, 235, 239, 245, 249, 282, 283, 285-89, 291, 293, 294, 295, 298, 301, 314 Rooy, H.F. van 220 Rosen, H.B. 225 Rosenberg, J. 218 Rosenfeld, B.Z. 256 Rosenthal,F. 13,22,25,26,93 Rothstein, J.W. 216 Rowley, H.H. 237 Rubinstein, A. 210 Rynell, A. 57 Saenz-Badillos, A. 10, 11, 15, 92, 129, 172, 190, 195, 219-21, 223-27, 23033, 235, 245, 247 Safrai,Z. 259-61 Samarin, W.J. 87 Sanmartin, J. 124 Sarfatti, G.B. 30, 247, 267, 286, 295, 297, 300-302, 304, 305, 307, 308 Sasson, V. 218,300,303-306 Schalit,A. 260 Schaper, J. 91 Schattner-Rieser, U. 169, 172, 178, 179, 183 Schearing, L.S. 220 Schiffman, L.H. 194 Schirmer, A. 93 Schleppegrell, M.J. 49 Schniedewind, W.M. 31, 83, 105, 195, 270, 307 Schoors, A. 36, 169, 178, 179, 184, 225, 227, 228, 245 Schiile, A. 10, 164, 276, 288, 295, 296, 298, 300, 307 Schutz,A.J. 197 Schwartz,!. 257,263 Scott, R.B.Y. 304 Segal, M.H. 195,251,268,301 Segert, S. 112, 123 Seow, C.L. 279,284,285 Sharvit, S. 196
Shoham, Y. 85 Silberman, N.A. 217,256 Sivan, D. 31,83, 105,270 Slade, D. 56-58 Slouschz,N. 273 Smith, M. 253 Smith, M.S. 91, 169, 172, 196, 210 Smith, N. 246 Sokoloff,M. 124, 125 Sperber, A. 184,227,230,231,241 Spieckermann, H. 171 Spufford, M. 61,83,85,89 Stegemann, H. 194 Steins, G. 240 Stemberger, G. 59 Stern, E. 84, 89, 90, 252, 255, 256, 258 Stern, M. 257,260 Strang, B.M.H. 93 Striedl,H. 177,184 Strugnell, J. 196 Stubbs, M. 39,50,58 Sznejder, MB. 176 Tadmor, H. 25, 117,253,257 Talmon, S. 155, 243, 244, 253, 254 Talshir, D. 26, 185, 251, 267, 296, 306 Talshir, Z. 216 Tannen, D. 49, 50, 55, 58 Thomason, S.G. 91,94 Thompson, S.A. 49 Throntveit, M.A. 227, 244, 245 Todd, J.A. 59 Torczyner, H. 166,226,281,287,293, 297,303 Torrey, C.C. 215,254 Tov, E. 165,299 Trask, R.L. 246 Traugott, E.G. 208,246 Trebolle Barrera, J.C. 242, 243 Ullendorff, E. 8, 242, 247 Ulrich, E. 155, 165,243,310 van den Bussche, H. 216,226 van Keulen, P.S.F. 233 Van Peursen, W.Th. 173, 174, 184, 233, 248, 286, 287, 298 VanSeters, J. 39
Index of Authors Verheij, A.J.C. 96, 171, 172, 227, 233, 234,240,241,245 Wagner, M. 11,13, 14, 17, 28, 35, 167, 182,184 Wahl, H.M. 55,58 Walker, L.W. 249 Waltisberg, M. 122,124,125,190 Waltke, B.K. 196,225,227,228,230, 231,242 Watson, W.G.E. 115,227,241 Weidner, E.F. 64 Weinberg,J. 97,252 Weinert, R. 38, 39, 49, 50, 55-58, 60 Weinfeld,M. 46,52,67,69-71 Weinreich, U. 24,95 Weippert, M. 171 Weiss, M. 237 Weiss, R. 266 Weitzman, S. 228,292 Wesselius, J.-W. 240 Wette, W.M.L. de 215, 221, 239 Widengren, G. 39 Williamson, H.G.M. 215 Wilson, D. 246 Wilson, O.K. Jr 241
389
Wilson, R.D. 222 Winter, E. 50, 51 Wise,M.O. 165 Wolters, A. 196,283 Wooffitt, R. 58 Wright, R.M. 108, 129, 130, 132, 136, 138, 140-42, 144, 146, 147,227, 235,282,287,293,297,311 Yalon, H. 32 Yardeni, A. 46,51 Yeivin, I. 267 Yoo, Y.J. 241 Young, E.J. 123,216 Young, I.M. 19, 29-33, 35, 52, 58, 65, 8183,85, 105, 124, 126, 130, 150, 160, 165, 167, 178, 189, 195,223, 231, 241-43, 247, 248, 270, 275, 282, 284-86, 288-90, 293, 295, 299302,307-12,314-16 Zadok, R. 285 Zakovitch, Y. 117 Zawiszewski, E. 216 Zevit, Z. 18, 67, 177, 245, 288, 293 Zimhoni, O. 61
This page intentionally left blank
JOURNAL FOR THE STUDY OF THE OLD TESTAMENT SUPPLEMENT SERIES 206 M0gens Muller, The First Bible of the Church: A Plea for the Septuagint 207 John W. Rogerson, Margaret Davies and M. Daniel Carroll R. (eds.), The Bible in Ethics: The Second Sheffield Colloquium 208 Beverly J. Stratton, Out of Eden: Reading, Rhetoric, and Ideology in Genesis 2-3 209 Patricia Dutcher-Walls, Narrative Art, Political Rhetoric: The Case ofAthaliah andJoash 210 Jacques Berlinerblau, The Vow and the 'Popular Religious Groups' of Ancient Israel: A Philological and Sociological Inquiry 211 Brian E. Kelly, Retribution and Eschatology in Chronicles 212 Yvonne Sherwood, The Prostitute and the Prophet: Hosea's Marriage in Literary- Theoretical Perspective 213 Yair Hoffman, A Blemished Perfection: The Book of Job in Context 214 Roy F. Melugin and Marvin A. Sweeney (eds.), New Visions of Isaiah 215 J. Cheryl Exum, Plotted, Shot and Painted: Cultural Representations of Biblical Women 216 Judith E. McKinlay, Gendering Wisdom the Host: Biblical Invitations to Eat and Drink 217 Jerome F.D. Creach, Yahweh as Refuge and the Editing of the Hebrew Psalter 218 Harry P. Nasuti, Defining the Sacred Songs: Genre, Tradition, and the PostCritical Interpretation of the Psalms 219 Gerald Morris, Prophecy, Poetry and Hosea 220 Raymond F. Person, Jr, In Conversation with Jonah: Conversation Analysis, Literary Criticism, and the Book of Jonah 221 Gillian Keys, The Wages of Sin: A Reappraisal of the 'Succession Narrative' 222 R.N. Whybray, Reading the Psalms as a Book 223 Scott B. Noegel, Janus Parallelism in the Book of Job 224 Paul J. Kissling, Reliable Characters in the Primary History: Profiles of Moses, Joshua, Elijah and Elisha 225 Richard D. Weis and David M. Carr (eds.), A Gift of God in Due Season: Essays on Scripture and Community in Honor of James A. Sanders 226 Lori L. Rowlett, Joshua and the Rhetoric of Violence: A New Historicist Analysis 227 John F.A. Sawyer (ed.), Reading Leviticus: Responses to Mary Douglas 228 Volkmar Fritz and Philip R. Davies (eds.), The Origins of the Ancient Israelite States
229 Stephen Breck Reid (ed.), Prophets and Paradigms: Essays in Honor of Gene M. Tucker 230 Kevin J. Cathcart and Michael Maher (eds.), Targumic and Cognate Studies: Essays in Honour of Martin McNamara 231 Weston W. Fields, Sodom and Gomorrah: History and Motif in Biblical Narrative 232 Tilde Binger, Asherah: Goddesses in Ugarit, Israel and the Old Testament 233 Michael D. Goulder, The Psalms ofAsaph and the Pentateuch: Studies in the Psalter, HI 234 Ken Stone, Sex, Honor, and Power in the Deuteronomistic History 235 James W. Watts and Paul House (eds.), Forming Prophetic Literature: Essays on Isaiah and the Twelve in Honor of John D. W. Watts 236 Thomas M. Bolin, Freedom beyond Forgiveness: The Book of Jonah Re237 Neil Asher Silberman and David B. Small (eds.), The Archaeology of IsraelConstructing the Past, Interpreting the Present 238 M. Patrick Graham, Kenneth G. Hoglund and Steven L. McKenzie (eds.), The Chronicler as Historian 239 Mark S. Smith, The Pilgrimage Pattern in Exodus 240 Eugene E. Carpenter (ed.), A Biblical Itinerary: In Search of Method, Form and Content. Essays in Honor of George W. Coats 241 Robert Karl Gnuse, No Other Gods: Emergent Monotheism in Israel 242 K.L. Noll, The Faces of David 243 Henning Graf Reventlow (ed.), Eschatology in the Bible and in Jewish and Christian Tradition 244 Walter E. Aufrecht, Neil A. Mirau and Steven W. Gauley (eds.), Urbanism in Antiquity: From Mesopotamia to Crete 245 Lester L. Grabbe (ed.), Can a 'History of Israel' Be Written? 246 Gillian M. Bediako, Primal Religion and the Bible: William Robertson Smith and his Heritage 247 Nathan Klaus, Pivot Patterns in the Former Prophets 248 Etienne Nodet, A Search for the Origins of Judaism: From Joshua to the Mishnah 249 William Paul Griffin, The God of the Prophets: An Analysis of Divine Action 250 Josette Elayi and Jean Sapin, Beyond the River: New Perspectives on Transeuphratene 251 Flemming A. J. Nielsen, The Tragedy in History: Herodotus and the Deuteronomistic History 252 David C. Mitchell, The Message of the Psalter: An Eschatological Programme in the Book of Psalms 253 William Johnstone, 1 and2 Chronicles, Volume 1:1 Chronicles 1-2 Chronicles 9: Israel's Place among the Nations 254 William Johnstone, 1 and 2 Chronicles, Volume 2: 2 Chronicles 10-36: Guilt and Atonement 255 Larry L. Lyke, King David with the Wise Woman ofTekoa: The Resonance of Tradition in Parabolic Narrative
256 Roland Meynet, Rhetorical Analysis: An Introduction to Biblical Rhetoric 257 Philip R. Davies and David J.A. Clines (eds.), The World of Genesis: Persons, Places, Perspectives 258 Michael D. Goulder, The Psalms of the Return (Book V, Psalms 107-150): Studies in the Psalter, IV 259 Allen Rosengren Petersen, The Royal God: Enthronement Festivals in Ancient Israel and Ugarit? 260 A.R. Pete Diamond, Kathleen M. O'Connor and Louis Stulman (eds.), Troubling Jeremiah 260 A.R. Pete Diamond, Kathleen M. O'Connor and Louis Stulman (eds.), Troubling Jeremiah 261 Othmar Keel, Goddesses and Trees, New Moon and Yahweh: Ancient Near Eastern Art and the Hebrew Bible 262 Victor H. Matthews, Bernard M. Levinson and Tikva Frymer-Kensky (eds.), Gender and Law in the Hebrew Bible and the Ancient Near East 263 M. Patrick Graham and Steven L. McKenzie, The Chronicler as Author: Studies in Text and Texture 264 Donald F. Murray, Divine Prerogative and Royal Pretension: Pragmatics, Poetics, and Polemics in a Narrative Sequence about David (2 Samuel 5.! 77.29) 265 John Day, Yahweh and the Gods and Goddesses of Canaan 266 J. Cheryl Exum and Stephen D. Moore (eds.), Biblical Studies/Cultural Studies: The Third Sheffield Colloquium 267 Patrick D. Miller, Jr, Israelite Religion and Biblical Theology: Collected Essays 268 Linda S. Schearing and Steven L. McKenzie (eds.), Those Elusive Deuteronomists: 'Pandeuteronomism' and Scholarship in the Nineties 269 David J.A. Clines and Stephen D. Moore (eds.), Auguries: The Jubilee Volume of the Sheffield Department of Biblical Studies 270 John Day (ed.), King and Messiah in Israel and the Ancient Near East: Proceedings of the Oxford Old Testament Seminar 271 Wonsuk Ma, Until the Spirit Comes: The Spirit of God in the Booh of Isaiah 272 James Richard Linville, Israel in the Book of Kings: The Past as a Project of Social Identity 273 Meir Lubetski, Claire Gottlieb and Sharon Keller (eds.), Boundaries of the Ancient Near Eastern World: A Tribute to Cyrus H. Gordon 274 Martin J. Buss, Biblical Form Criticism in its Context 275 William Johnstone, Chronicles and Exodus: An Analogy and its Application 276 Raz Kletter, Economic Keystones: The Weight System of the Kingdom ofJudah 277 Augustine Pagolu, The Religion of the Patriarchs 278 Lester L. Grabbe (ed.), Leading Captivity Captive: 'The Exile' as History and Ideology 279 Kari Latvus, God, Anger and Ideology: The Anger of God in Joshua and Judges in Relation to Deuteronomy and the Priestly Writings 280 Eric S. Christiansen, A Time to Tell: Narrative Strategies in Ecclesiastes 281 Peter D. Miscall, Isaiah 34—35: A Nightmare/A Dream
282 Joan E. Cook, Hannah's Desire, God's Design: Early Interpretations in the Story of Hannah 283 Kelvin Friebel, Jeremiah's and Ezekiel's Sign-Acts: Rhetorical Nonverbal Communication 284 M. Patrick Graham, Rick R. Marrs and Steven L. McKenzie (eds.), Worship and the Hebrew Bible: Essays in Honor of John T, Willis 285 Paolo Sacchi, History of the Second Temple 286 Wesley J. Bergen, Elisha and the End ofProphetism 287 Anne Fitzpatrick-McKinley, The Transformation ofTorahfrom Scribal Advice to Law 288 Diana Lipton, Revisions of the Night: Politics and Promises in the Patriarchal Dreams of Genesis 289 Jose Krasovec (ed.), The Interpretation of the Bible: The International Symposium in Slovenia 290 Frederick H. Cryer and Thomas L. Thompson (eds.), Qumran between the Old and New Testaments 291 Christine Schams, Jewish Scribes in the Second-Temple Period 292 David J. A. Clines, On the Way to the Postmodern: Old Testament Essays, 19671998 Volume 1 293 David J. A. Clines, On the Way to the Postmodern: Old Testament Essays, 1967— 1998 Volume 2 294 Charles E. Carter, The Emergence ofYehud in the Persian Period: A Social and Demographic Study 295 Jean-Marc Heimerdinger, Topic, Focus and Foreground in Ancient Hebrew Narratives 296 Mark Cameron Love, The Evasive Text: Zechariah 1-8 and the Frustrated Reader 297 Paul S. Ash, David, Solomon and Egypt: A Reassessment 298 John D. Baildam, Paradisal Love: Johann Gottfried Herder and the Song of Songs 299 M. Daniel Carroll R., Rethinking Contexts, Rereading Texts: Contributions from the Social Sciences to Biblical Interpretation 300 Edward Ball (ed.), In Search of True Wisdom: Essays in Old Testament Interpretation in Honour of Ronald E. Clements 301 Carolyn S. Leeb, Away from the Father's House: The Social Location ofna 'ar and na 'arah in Ancient Israel 302 Xuan Huong Thi Pham, Mourning in the Ancient Near East and the Hebrew Bible 303 Ingrid Hjelm, The Samaritans and Early Judaism: A Literary Analysis 304 Wolter H. Rose, Zemah and Zerubabbel: Messianic Expectations in the Early Postexilic Period 305 Jo Bailey Wells, God's Holy People: A Theme in Biblical Theology 306 Albert de Pury, Thomas Romer and Jean-Daniel Macchi (eds.), Israel Constructs its History: Deuteronomistic Historiography in Recent Research 307 Robert L. Cole, The Shape and Message of Book III (Psalms 73-89)
308 Yiu-Wing Fung, Victim and Victimizer: Joseph's Interpretation of his Destiny 309 George Aichele (ed.), Culture, Entertainment and the Bible 310 Esther Fuchs, Sexual Politics in the Biblical Narrative: Reading the Hebrew Bible as a Woman 311 Gregory Glazov, The Bridling of the Tongue and the Opening of the Mouth in Biblical Prophecy 312 Francis Landy, Beauty and the Enigma: And Other Essays on the Hebrew Bible 313 Martin O'Kane (ed.), Borders, Boundaries and the Bible 314 Bernard S. Jackson, Studies in the Semiotics of Biblical Law 315 Paul R. Williamson, Abraham, Israel and the Nations: The Patriarchal Promise and its Covenantal Development in Genesis 316 Dominic Rudman, Determinism in the Book of Ecclesiastes 317 Lester L. Grabbe (ed.), Did Moses Speak Attic? Jewish Historiography and Scripture in the Hellenistic Period 318 David A. Baer, When We All Go Home: Translation and Theology in LXX56-66 319 Henning Graf Reventlow and Yair Hoffman (eds.), Creation in Jewish and Christian Tradition 320 Claudia V. Camp, Wise, Strange and Holy: The Strange Woman and the Making of the Bible 321 Varese Layzer, Signs of Weakness: Juxtaposing Irish Tales and the Bible 322 Mignon R. Jacobs, The Conceptual Coherence of the Book ofMicah 323 Martin Ravndal Hauge, The Descent from the Mountain: Narrative Patterns in Exodus 19-40 324 P.M. Michele Daviau, John W. Wevers and Michael Weigl (eds.), The World of the Aramaeans: Studies in Honour of Paul-Eugene Dion, Volume 1 325 P.M. Michele Daviau, John W. Wevers and Michael Weigl (eds.), The World of the Aramaeans: Studies in Honour of Paul-Eugene Dion, Volume 2 326 P.M. Michele Daviau, John W. Wevers and Michael Weigl (eds.), The World of the Aramaeans: Studies in Honour of Paul-Eugene Dion, Volume 3 327 Gary D. Salyer, Vain Rhetoric: Private Insight and Public Debate in Ecclesiastes 328 James M. Trotter, Reading Hosea in Achaemenid Yehud 329 Wolfgang Bluedorn, Yahweh Verus Baalism: A Theological Reading of the Gideon-Abimelech Narrative 330 Lester L. Grabbe and Robert D. Haak (eds.), 'Every City shall be Forsaken': Urbanism and Prophecy in Ancient Israel and the Near East 331 Amihai Mazar (ed.), with the assistance of Ginny Mathias, Studies in the Archaeology of the Iron Age in Israel and Jordan 332 Robert J.V. Hiebert, Claude E. Cox and Peter J. Gentry (eds.), The Old Greek Psalter: Studies in Honour of Albert Pietersma 333 Ada Rapoport-Albert and Gillian Greenberg (eds.), Biblical Hebrew, Biblical Texts: Essays in Memory of Michael P. Weitzman 334 Ken Stone (ed.), Queer Commentary and the Hebrew Bible 335 James K. Bruckner, Implied Law in the Abrahamic Narrative: A Literary and Theological Analysis
336 Stephen L. Cook, Corrine L. Patton and James W. Watts (eds.), The Whirlwind: Essays on Job, Hermeneutics and Theology in Memory of Jane Morse 337 Joyce Rilett Wood, Amos in Song and Book Culture 338 Alice A. Keefe, Woman's Body and the Social Body in Hosea 1-2 339 Sarah Nicholson, Three Faces of Saul: An Intertextual Approach to Biblical Tragedy 340 Philip R. Davies and John M. Halligan (eds.), Second Temple Studies HI: Studies in Politics, Class and Material Culture 341 Mark W. Chavalas and K. Lawson Younger Jr (eds.), Mesopotamia and the Bible 343 J. Andrew Dearman and M. Patrick Graham (eds.), The Land that I Will Show You: Essays on the History and Archaeology of the Ancient Near East in Honor ofJ. Maxwell Miller 345 Jan- Wim Wesselius, The Origin of the History of Israel: Herodotus' Histories as Blueprint for the First Books of the Bible 346 Johanna Stiebert, The Construction of Shame in the Hebrew Bible: The Prophetic Contribution 347 Andrew G. Shead. The Open Book and the Sealed Book: Jeremiah 32 in its Hebrew and Greek Recensions 348 Alastair G. Hunter and Phillip R. Davies, Sense and Sensitivity: Essays on Reading the Bible in Memory of Robert Carroll 350 David Janzen, Witch-hunts, Purity and Social Boundaries: The Expulsion of the Foreign Women in Ezra 9—10 351 Roland Boer (ed.), Tracking the 'Tribes ofYahweh': On the Trail of a Classic 352 William John Lyons, Canon and Exegesis: Canonical Praxis and the Sodom Narrative 353 Athalya Brenner and Jan Willem van Henten (eds.), Bible Translation on the Threshold of the Twenty-First Century: Authority, Reception, Culture and Religion 354 Susan Gillingham, The Image, the Depths and the Surface: Multivalent Approaches to Biblical Study 356 Carole Fontaine, Smooth Words: Women, Proverbs and Performance in Biblical Wisdom 357 Carleen Mandolfo, God in the Dock: Dialogic Tension in the Psalms of Lament 359 David M. Gunn and Paula N. McNutt, 'Imagining'Biblical Worlds: Studies in Spatial, Social and Historical Constructs in Honor of James W. Flanagan 361 Franz V. Greifenhagen,Egypt on the Pentateuch's Ideological Map: Constructing Biblical Israel's Identity 364 Jonathan P. Burnside, The Signs of Sin: Seriousness of Offence in Biblical Law 369 Ian Young (ed.), Biblical Hebrew: Studies in Chronology and Typology 372 Karl Moller, A Prophet in Debate: The Rhetoric of Persuasion in the Book of Amos 374 Silvia Schroer and Sophia Bietenhard (eds.), Feminist Interpretation of the Bible and the Hermeneutics of Liberation 379 Mark W. Bartusch, Understanding Dan: An Exegetical Study of a Biblical City, Tribe and Ancestor
