II Samuel vs. Patriarchal Narratives
For at least 35 years now [and possibly much longer than that], it has
been known that the spelling and grammar of Hebrew common words in most of the
Patriarchal narratives is remarkably similar to the spelling and grammar
of Hebrew common words in the second half of II Samuel. In particular, noted
Hebrew linguist Robert Polzin has observed that most of the Patriarchal
narratives [excluding chapter 14 of Genesis and whatever else he takes not to
be the J and E portions of Genesis, and I would also exclude here the
poetry of Jacob’s Blessings in chapter 49 of Genesis], and the second half of
II Samuel [which is often viewed as being an early 6th century BCE
composition, but may have been composed at the end of the 7th century BCE
(subject
in any event to some later editing)], show a “remarkable
grammatical/syntactical homogeneity”. Robert Polzin, “Late Biblical Hebrew”,
Scholars Press
(1976), p. 20.
Certainly the proper names, especially the foreign proper names, in the
Patriarchal narratives seem very old, being much, much older than II Samuel.
Yet the spelling and grammar of Hebrew common words in the Patriarchal
narratives, outside of chapters 14 and 49 of Genesis, isn’t much different at
all than the spelling and grammar of Hebrew common words in the second half
of II Samuel.
The g-r-e-a-t news about that scholarly observation is that it strongly
suggests that the Patriarchal narratives [always excluding chapters 14 and
49 of Genesis] were not transformed into alphabetical Biblical Hebrew until
the late 7th century BCE, in Jerusalem. That’s the o-n-l-y realistic
way in which the spelling and grammar of Hebrew common words in the bulk of
the Patriarchal narratives could show a “remarkable grammatical/syntactical
homogeneity” with the spelling and grammar of Hebrew common words in the
second half of II Samuel.
If the Patriarchal narratives were not transformed into alphabetical
Biblical Hebrew until the late 7th century BCE in Jerusalem, then in what
written form were the Patriarchal narratives recorded and stored prior to the
late 7th century BCE? On my threads we have seen dozens of foreign proper
names in the received text of the Patriarchal narratives that have
letter-for-letter spelling accuracy to non-west Semitic words attested in the
Late
Bronze Age. Letter-for-letter spelling accuracy like that as to non-west
Semitic words attested in the Late Bronze Age cannot possibly be coming from
an
oral tradition. Not. Moreover, the reason why the Patriarchal narratives
were not written down in alphabetical Biblical Hebrew prior to the late
7th century BCE [in Jerusalem] is precisely because the Hebrews well knew
that they had the totally accurate w-r-i-t-t-e-n original version of these
foundational stories of the Hebrews in hand, so there was no particular hurry
to transform it into alphabetical Biblical Hebrew.
Tons of analysts have noted, with some shock, that as to the spelling and
grammar of Hebrew common words in most of the Patriarchal narratives
[always excluding chapters 14 and 49 of Genesis], archaic elements as to
Hebrew
common words are in surprisingly short supply. Why is that? The answer is
that because the Hebrews always had the totally accurate w-r-i-t-t-e-n
original version of these foundational stories of the Hebrews readily at hand,
there was no necessity to transform the bulk of the Patriarchal narratives
into alphabetical Biblical Hebrew prior to the late 7th century BCE. At
that time, when the decision was finally made by King Josiah to transform
the original written version of the Patriarchal narratives into alphabetical
Biblical Hebrew [for the first time ever, except as to chapters 14 and 49
of Genesis], the Jewish scribes in Jerusalem made the following two very
sensible decisions: (1) all proper names, especially exotic foreign proper
names, would be rendered verbatim, not eliminating any archaic elements in
proper names; b-u-t (2) by stark contrast, as to Hebrew common words, the
scribes would simply glance at what had originally been written down
centuries earlier and then instantly turn that archaic prose into modern, 7th
century BCE Jerusalem alphabetical Biblical Hebrew prose, so that the text
could easily be read by any literate person in Jerusalem.
It’s a fool’s errand to go searching for archaic elements in the spelling
and grammar of Hebrew common words in most of the Patriarchal narratives,
because for the most part such common words reflect late 7th century BCE
Jerusalem and are not archaic in the slightest. But consider the exciting
flip side of that. The Patriarchal narratives were recorded in permanent
writing way back in the Late Bronze Age [hence all those vintage Late Bronze
Age foreign proper names in the received text with accurate Late Bronze Age
letter-for-letter spellings]. That permanent writing was precisely the
reason why there was no necessity of transforming that original permanent
writing [which after the 10th century BCE was stored safely in the Temple in
Jerusalem] into alphabetical Biblical Hebrew until the late 7th century BCE,
in Jerusalem.
Jim Stinehart
Evanston, Illinois
_______________________________________________
b-hebrew mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew
