Karl:
In response to scholar Robert Polzin’s assertion that the spelling and
grammar of Hebrew common words in the Patriarchal narratives is not much
different than the spelling and grammar of Hebrew common words in the second
half of II Kings, you said:
“Now we know that this is utter balderdash, promulgated by an ideology,
better known as a religion, that opposes the history recorded in Tanakh. It
has no historical evidence, merely belief, to back it up. Here’s a case of
GIGO, when you input wrong beliefs, wrong beliefs come out.”
Rather than dismissing out of hand all scholarly linguistic analysis of
Biblical Hebrew regarding dating the texts of the Bible as being “utter
balderdash, promulgated by an ideology”, it is more helpful to try to pinpoint
the basic error that this line of scholarly analysis has made.
Scholars assume, erroneously, that if the spelling and grammar of Hebrew
common words in the Patriarchal narratives is redolent of late 7th century
BCE Jerusalem, then the Patriarchal narratives must date to that time and
place in terms of when they first came into being as a written text [even if
their roots as allegedly being an oral tradition may be older]:
“[A]s far as dating texts is concerned – and dating the texts of the
Hebrew Bible is at present the burning issue – it is precisely the evidence of
language which must take precedence over historical and theological
arguments.” Avi Hurvitz, “Can Biblical Texts Be Dated Linguistically?
Chronological Perspectives in the Historical Study of Biblical Hebrew”, at p.
144 in
“Supplements to Vetus Testamentum” (2000).
That is erroneous regarding the Patriarchal narratives. The Patriarchal
narratives in fact were never an oral tradition, but rather were written
down from day #1, in the Late Bronze Age. But that original writing was in
Akkadian cuneiform, because alphabetical Biblical Hebrew either did not exist
yet, or else certainly was not advanced enough to be able to record the
sophisticated Patriarchal narratives. It was not until the late 7th century
BCE, in Jerusalem, when the ancient, unchanged Akkadian cuneiform text of
the Patriarchal narratives was first transformed into alphabetical Hebrew
[except for chapters 14 and 49 of Genesis]. T-h-a-t is why the spelling and
grammar of Hebrew common words in the received alphabetical Hebrew text of
the Patriarchal narratives is redolent of 7th century BCE Jerusalem.
Ian Young, though a non-traditionalist, makes the same mistake in this
regard as do the other scholars. He properly notes that a “rhythmic verbal
style” dominates Genesis 12-35, large parts of Exodus and Numbers, and I
Samuel 1 – 1 Kings 2. Ian Young, “Biblical Hebrew: Studies in Chronology and
Typology” (2003), p. 66. But he does not realize that the reason why the
Patriarchal narratives and II Samuel have a similar “rhythmic verbal style”
is not because they were both first committed to writing at about the same
time, but rather is because the ancient Akkadian cuneiform of the original
Patriarchal narratives was, for the most part, not transformed into
alphabetical Biblical Hebrew until the time when II Samuel was being composed:
late 7th century BCE Jerusalem.
Even university scholars who are willing to at least consider a very early
dating for the Patriarchal narratives still make this same, fundamental
mistake:
“[H]istorical traditions, patriarchal names, legal customs, and so on…
most of the patriarchal material looks more at home in the second millennium
than in the first…. But whether a very early date, e.g. thirteenth century,
for J, the main redactor of Genesis, or a later date, e.g. tenth century,
makes relatively little difference to the question of the reliability of the
traditions enshrined in Genesis. At least four hundred years separate
the origins of the latest traditions of Genesis from the time they were
committed to writing by J or proto-J. This is an enormous time span for oral
tradition to be accurately preserved.” Gordon J. Wenham, “Genesis 1-15”
(1987), pp. xliii-xliv.
Not. The Patriarchal narratives were in fact committed to writing on day
#1, in the Late Bronze Age. But that writing was Akkadian cuneiform.
Those original cuneiform tablets were not transformed into alphabetical
Biblical Hebrew until the late 7th century BCE, in Jerusalem. T-h-a-t is
why
the spelling and grammar of Hebrew common words is basically the same in the
truly ancient Patriarchal narratives and in a Biblical text like II Samuel
that was not composed until 700 years later, in 7th century BCE Jerusalem.
The Patriarchal narratives as a written text are really, really old, as we
can tell from their (i) substantive content and (ii) archaic proper names.
But the spelling and grammar of Hebrew common words is nevertheless
basically the same in the truly ancient Patriarchal narratives and in II
Samuel,
because the bulk of the Patriarchal narratives was not transformed from
its original Akkadian cuneiform into alphabetical Biblical Hebrew until the
late date and place at which II Samuel was composed: 7th century BCE
Jerusalem.
Jim Stinehart
Evanston, Illinois
_______________________________________________
b-hebrew mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew
