Once again: The linguistic profile of the priestly material in the Pentateuch and its historical age. A response to J. Blenkinsopp

Zeitschrift fur die Alttestamentliche Wissenschaft

Volumn 112, Issue 2, 2000, Pages 180-191

  Hurvitz, Avi ^a  

^a HEBREW UNIVERSITY OF JERUSALEM   (Israel)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 60950075586     PISSN: 00442526     EISSN: 16130103     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1515/zatw.2000.112.2.180     Document Type: Article

References (37)

1. S. R. Driver, On Some Alleged Linguistic Affinities of the Elohist, JP 11 (1882), 217
2. F. Giesebrecht, Zur Hexateuchkritik. Der Sprachgebrauch des hexateuchischen Elohisten, ZAW 1 (1881), 177-276
3. A. Hurvitz, The Evidence of Language in Dating the Priestly Code: A Linguistic Study in Technical Idioms and Terminology, RB 81 (1974), 43-45
4. The lateness of the Prose Tale of Job can be established on linguistic grounds (cf. A. Hurvitz, The Date of the Prose-Tale of Job Linguistically Reconsidered, HThR 67 [1974], 17-34
5. See also B. Zuckerman, Job the Silent, 1991, 26-28)
6. It is extremely doubtful, however, whether these linguistic tests may be applied conclusively in the case of the book of Proverbs (or, for that matter, to the poetic discourses in the book of Job; cf. A. Hurvitz, The Chronological Significance of »Aramaisms« in Biblical Hebrew, IEJ 18 [1968], 236)
7. For earlier scholarship cf., for instance, BDB 867a and GB 698a; for more recent publications cf., for instance, R. Polzin, Late Biblical Hebrew, 1976, 149-150
8. and E. Y. Kutscher, A History of the Hebrew Langauge, 1982, 83-84
9. E. Qimron, The Language, in: E. Qimron and J. Strugnell, Qumran Cave 4.V: Miqscombining dot belowat Ma'aśeh Ha-Torah, 1994, DJD X [= MMT], 1994, 94 f
10. A. Bendavid, Biblical Hebrew and Mishnaic Hebrew, vol. I, 121 [Hebr.]
11. Hurvitz, RB (n. 5), 43-45 and Job (n. 7), 20-23
12. Polzin, LBH (n. 8), 149 f.
13. Qimron, MMT (n. 9), 94 f
14. M. Sokoloff, The Targum to Job from Qumran Cave XI, 1974, 227
15. It has been suggested that the replacement of lāqahcombining dot below by qibbel, established between SBH on the one hand and LBH and MH on the other, may be observed within the internal history of Aramaic as well (E. Y. Kutscher, A History of Aramaic I, 1972, 47 [Hebr.])
16. cf. W. L. Moran, RA 69 [1975), 148 f.
17. and A. F. Rainey, AfO 36-37 (1989-90), 68 f. Rainey further notes that qibbel »appears in late biblical Hebrew, probably as a loan from Aramaic« (69 [italics added]). Among other virtues, discarding Albright's suggestion would relieve us from the hypothetical reconstruction (»an old Hebrew verb, which was replaced by PIpV, but under Aramaic influence was later revived« [HALAT, 993a], postulating a highly speculative »zigzag history« for qibbel within BH
18. Cf. Qimron, MMT (n. 9), 95
19. J. Neusner, Sifra -An Analytical Translation, vol. II, 1988, 343
20. (for the Hebrew text see L. Finkelstein, Sifra or Torat Kohanim According to Codex Assemani LXVI, 1956, n)
21. etāb appears in Ezekiel, but the very fact that the word is there! (for bibliographical references cf. M. F. Rooker, Biblical Hebrew in Transition, JSOT.S 20, 1990, 139-141)
22. Cf. U. Weinreich, Languages in Contact, 1953, 53-56
23. Cf. A. Hurvitz, Can Biblical Texts be Dated Linguistically? Chronological Perspectives in the Historical Study of Biblical Hebrew, in: A. Lemaire (ed.), Congress Volume Oslo, VT.S 74, 1999, vol. I, Intertextuality and the Plurality of methods (in print)
24. J. Naveh and J. C. Greenfield, Hebrew and Aramaic in the Persian Period, CHJud I, 1984, 121
25. J. Naveh and J. C. Greenfield, CHJud, Ibid
26. A. Saénz-Badillos, A History of the Hebrew Language, 1993,126 (italics added)
27. cf. A. Hurvitz, A Linguistic Study of the Relationship between the Priestly Source and the Book of Ezekiel, CRB 20,1982,193 (»Mixed Language«)
28. M. Kister, On the Language of Ben Sira, Leš. La'am 40-41 (1990), 11 (Hebr.)
29. Cf. also J. Blau, Leš. 60 (1996-97), 30 (»endeavor to make use of [old] biblical components« + »penetration of [late] elements from Aramaic and spoken Hebrew«). By the way, it is not quite clear on what grounds Blenkinsopp asserts that Blau »emphasizes the uniformity of Hebrew throughout the biblical period« (510). Anyone familiar with the linguistic work of Blau knows that the opposite is true (cf., for instance, the article quoted above)
30. S. Japhet, I & II Chronicles, OTL, 1993, 5
31. 91913 (1956), 473 f
32. Cf. W. G. E. Watson, Archaic Elements in the Language of Chronicles, Bib. 53 (1972), 191-207, Kutscher, History (n. 8), 84 f
33. Cf. A. Hurvitz, Continuity and Innovation in Biblical Hebrew - The Case of 〉Semantic Change〈 in Post-Exilic Writings, in: T. Muraoka (ed.), Studies in Ancient Hebrew Semantics, Abr-n. S. 4, 1995, 6
34. Or Document/Source/Tradition, etc. Note that for our purposes - establishing the chronological linguistic profile of the Pentateuchal texts widely assigned to »P« - the exact critical label employed and the specific literary classification adopted are of no consequence. Similarly, the whole issue of isolating the individual components contained in P and defining their original scope, setting, or function does not affect our argumentation. All these matters pertain basically to the - reconstructed -Urgeschichte of the texts, whereas our investigation deals exclusively with their form as we have it; cf. A. Hurvitz, Dating the Priestly Source in Light of the Historical Study of Biblical Hebrew a Century after Wellhausen, ZAW 100 (1988), 88 n. 2
35. Cf. A. Hurvitz, The Language of the Priestly Source and its Historical Setting - The Case for an Early Date, Proceedings (n. 20), 88-93
36. Z. Zevit, Converging lines of Evidence Bearing on the Date of P, ZAW 94 (1982), 493-501, 509-511
37. Hurvitz, CRB (n. 24), 154 f