The “Missing Link”: Cuneiform Writing of Early Hebrew Words
I believe that all previous analysts have assumed that the first written
form of the Patriarchal narratives was in alphabetical Hebrew narrative
prose. On that assumption, scholars have toiled for decades to try to
determine the time period of the Hebrew language that appears in the received
text
of the Patriarchal narratives. For example, Prof. Yigal Levin made the
following apt remark on my prior thread [which I will assume represents the
middle of mainstream academic scholarship, and with which I do not
significantly disagree]:
“Standard Biblical Hebrew seems to be the dialect of late Iron Age Judah
(called ‘Yehudit’ in 2 Kings 18)….”
However, the academic community has erroneously deduced from that fact
that the first time the Patriarchal narratives were reduced to writing [as
opposed to being an old oral tradition] was therefore in late Iron Age Judah
[8th - 7th centuries BCE], with the very first written version of the
Patriarchal narratives allegedly being in alphabetical Hebrew narrative prose
in
that time period: the late Iron Age Judah era. Not!
I believe I may have come up with the “missing link”, which will enable
us to square (i) a Late Bronze Age w-r-i-t-t-e-n version of the
Patriarchal narratives, many centuries before late Iron Age Judah, with (ii)
the fact
that it appears that the first alphabetical Hebrew narrative prose written
version of the Patriarchal narratives, per the received text, does not
appear until the late Iron Age Judah era -- the time period of the Books of
Joshua, Judges, I and II Samuel, and I and II Kings. If, prior to late Iron
Age Judah, the Patriarchal narratives had been purely an o-r-a-l
tradition, then absent a written document the storyline would have changed
continuously over the centuries, by being told and re-told around innumerable
campfires; as such, the text could not possibly have pinpoint historical
accuracy. With an ancient contemporary writing being the key to historical
accuracy, what then is the “missing link” to the Patriarchal narratives having
been recorded in w-r-i-t-i-n-g in the Bronze Age by a contemporary?
The “missing link”, I suggest, is that in the Late Bronze Age a
comprehensive outline of the Patriarchal narratives was written down, using
the
medium of cuneiform writing of west Semitic/pre-Hebrew words. It was similar
to
the style of the Amarna Letters, except that instead of using cuneiform to
write Akkadian words, cuneiform was used to write west Semitic pre-Hebrew
words [such as the 9 west Semitic words written in cuneiform by IR-Heba’s
scribe at Jerusalem, which I set forth in my prior thread].
For sake of argument, I will now on this thread tentatively agree with
Prof. Levin’s assertion that the Canaanite of mid-14th century BCE Jerusalem
was not “Hebrew”, but rather was a Canaanite dialect of west Semitic that
shares many, but by no means all, words with early Biblical Hebrew. On that
mainstream view of the case, the first written version of the Patriarchal
narratives was not done in “Hebrew”, narrowly defined, but it was done in
west Semitic/Canaanite. And it was done using cuneiform [not alphabetical
Hebrew] to write west Semitic words.
Now, for the first time, we can understand the following apparent paradox:
(a) the substantive content of the Patriarchal narratives has pinpoint
historical accuracy regarding the Patriarchal Age of Years 12-14 in the
Amarna Age, yet (b) the spelling and grammar conventions of the received text
are, by sharp contrast, vintage late Iron Age Judah [except for some poetical
passages, especially Jacob’s Blessings in chapter 49 of Genesis]. But you
see, there’s no real paradox there at all. Rather, the sequence was as
follows. First, in the Late Bronze Age, a comprehensive outline of the
Patriarchal narratives was reduced to w-r-i-t-i-n-g , using cuneiform [like
the
Amarna Letters, n-o-t alphabetical Hebrew narrative prose] to write west
Semitic pre-Hebrew words. [Per Amarna Letter EA 273, we know that tent
dwellers in a valley in south-central Canaan in Year 14 sometimes had their
thoughts recorded in cuneiform writing.] Then many centuries later, in late
Iron Age Judah, this cuneiform text was, for the very first time, changed
over to being alphabetical Hebrew narrative prose. Although there are a
few notable archaic anomalies in the text of the Patriarchal narratives
[especially regarding poetical passages], nevertheless the vast bulk of the
non-poetical Hebrew common words in the received text [as opposed to proper
names] seem comfortable in the context of the time period that generated the
so-called ‘Deuteronomistic History’. But thankfully for mankind, the
scribes in late Iron Age Judah did not change the substantive content of the
Patriarchal narratives when they were changing over the truly ancient
cuneiform pre-Hebrew words into alphabetical Hebrew narrative prose.
This changes e-v-e-r-y-t-h-i-n-g ! Now we see that it’s not a “miracle”,
much less impossible, that the received text of the Patriarchal narratives
accurately recalls all the many historical details of Years 12-14. That’s
the case because it was only a few years after those historical events
occurred when the first Hebrews used a scribe [such as IR-Heba’s former
scribe] to do a formal w-r-i-t-t-e-n outline of the Patriarchal narratives,
using cuneiform to write down west Semitic pre-Hebrew words. The substantive
content of the Patriarchal narratives has, for the most part, never changed
one whit from the Patriarchal Age even unto this very day. Rather, all
that changed was that the cuneiform pre-Hebrew words that had been written
down in the Patriarchal Age/Late Bronze Age were changed over, in late Iron
Age Judah, to alphabetical Hebrew narrative prose, using for the most part
the style for Hebrew non-poetical common words that was au courant in
8th-7th century BCE Judah, but not changing the original Amarna Age
substantive
content.
Jim Stinehart
Evanston, Illinois
_______________________________________________
b-hebrew mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew
