Steps and Missteps in the Linguistic Dating of Biblical Hebrew

Abstract

STEPS AND MISSTEPS IN THE LINGUISTIC DATING OF BIBLICAL HEBREW William M. Schniedewind University of California, Los Angeles williams@humnet.ucla.edu A review of Biblical Hebrew: Studies in Chronology and Typology. Edited by Ian Young. JSOTSup 369. Pp. xii + 389. Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 2003. Cloth, $120. The hotly contested debate over the dating of biblical literature has now spread to the field of linguistics, and this collection of essays arises out of the debate. In editing this volume, Ian Young tried to craft a book that will generate light and not merely heat. The volume raises questions about assumptions and methodology that can serve to refine our methodologies and arguments. The book is separated into two parts with introductory and concluding reflections by the editor. The first part includes essays that support the traditional separation between Standard (i.e., pre-exilic) and Late (i.e., post-exilic) Biblical Hebrew. An essay by Mats Eskhult highlights the importance of loanwords for dating texts, especially noting the pattern of loanwords “fits into the political history of Ancient Israel, as described in the biblical texts” (p. 22). Avi Hurvitz revisits the problem of Aramaisms, which are often employed in the late dating of biblical texts. He points out that Aramaisms result from literary genre, literary technique, and regional-dialectal variation as well as diachronic developments; and, Hurvitz offers methodological nuance to the variety of dialectal and rhetorical purposes that Aramaic serves in biblical literature . Gary Rendsburg takes Hurvitz’s methodological observations and applies them to particular biblical texts. Frank Polak’s essay is among the more innovative, incorporating sociolinguistics into the methodological discussion. Using sociolinguistic observations about the differences between oral and written language (e.g., frequency of subordination, use of construct phrases, noun-verb ratios), Polak can quantitatively distinguish between literature that is oral-rhythmic (which can be associated with the storyteller) and complex-nominal (which can be associated with the chancellery). These differences in style may have diachronic implications , although we should not think of them in strictly diachronic terms. Richard Wright’s essay argues for lingering northern Israelite linguistic influence in late Biblical Hebrew. He takes Cyrus Gordon’s classic article on Hebrew Studies 46 (2005) 378 Review Essay northern Hebrew as a touchstone,1 and his work points to the complexity of biblical literature and its language. The second part of the book provides a series of challenges to the prevailing chronological model. Philip Davies begins with an appeal to “common sense.” Although he professes no solution to the problem, Davies points to the importance of social explanations for different types of Hebrew vocabulary and syntax, and he suggests that the prevailing consensus imposes “a naive explanation of a complicated problem” (p. 163). Martin Ehrensvärd takes exception to the linguistic dating of biblical texts, asserting that later writers could have imitated an earlier style and that late Biblical Hebrew could be merely a stylistic choice. He also rejects “the exile as the great turning point in the history of the Hebrew language” (p. 188). Jacobus Naudé rehearses the study of Hebrew linguistics within our discipline and tries to incorporate theoretical observations about linguistic change and diversity in spoken languages. Emphasizing linguistic diversity in speech communities, he critiques the oversimplified distinctions between Biblical Hebrew, Qumran Hebrew, and Mishnaic Hebrew. Robert Rezetko, being particularly influenced by Graeme Auld’s idiosyncratic views on the literary relationship between Samuel-Kings and Chronicles,2 challenges the view that Samuel-Kings and Chronicles have a diachronic linguistic relationship. David Talshir reassesses the relationship between late Biblical Hebrew (including Qumran Hebrew) and proto-Tannaic Hebrew (with Tannaic Hebrew being the Mishnaic Hebrew of the Tannafiim). He argues that both late Biblical Hebrew and Tannaic Hebrew are continuations of standard Biblical Hebrew, but they take different paths. The rise of late Biblical Hebrew did not occur until the exiles returned in the fifth century B.C.E. (e.g., Ezra and Nehemiah) and settled in the highlands. Meanwhile, proto-Tannaic Hebrew reflects the vernacular dialect that had evolved in the lowlands. Ian Young concludes this second part with an analysis of late Biblical Hebrew and Hebrew inscriptions. He feels that “it is not a priori impossible...

Cite this work

No public copy is stored for this record, so only the metadata is cited.

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 17 citations exist upstream.

Papers that cite the same references — the relational fallback while embeddings are still backfilling.