Comments on: Davies, Philip R, “Biblical Hebrew and the History of Ancient Judah: Typology, Chronology, and Common Sense,” Pages 150-163 in Biblical Hebrew: Studies in Chronology and Typology Edited by Ian Young. London: T&T Clark, 2003. http://balshanut.wordpress.com/2008/08/20/davies-philip-r-biblical-hebrew-and-the-history-of-ancient-judah-typology-chronology-and-common-sense-pages-150-163-in-biblical-hebrew-studies-in-chronology-and-typology-edited-by-ian-young/ balshanut: Resources for the study of the Bible and Linguistics Tue, 08 Dec 2009 21:50:14 +0000 http://wordpress.com/ hourly 1 By: Peter Bekins http://balshanut.wordpress.com/2008/08/20/davies-philip-r-biblical-hebrew-and-the-history-of-ancient-judah-typology-chronology-and-common-sense-pages-150-163-in-biblical-hebrew-studies-in-chronology-and-typology-edited-by-ian-young/#comment-272 Peter Bekins Thu, 21 Aug 2008 11:11:37 +0000 http://balshanut.wordpress.com/?p=172#comment-272 James, it sounds like you are proposing an analogy to lectio dificilior for detecting truly archaic texts from archaisms. I think the reason earlier Hebrew features are more difficult to read is more that we tend to only study the grammar of standard classical Hebrew, therefore we are not used to them (and we don't have as many such texts so we are forced to go to comparative material more). In principle, if a scribe is archaizing, it may be possible to detect interference from their vernacular dialect. Of course, we would have to know something about their vernacular to detect it. Another clue may be hyper-correction (see Dr Kaufman's article on paragogic nun). Also, strictly speaking, I don't think Davies is arguing that the biblical texts were written in classical Hebrew to be archaizing, ie to give them an appearance of age. Rather, he is suggesting that classical Biblical Hebrew had prestige as a literary language and thus could have continued to be used to compose new texts through the Persian period and beyond. The admitted weakness of his argument is of course that we have no indisputable examples of such a text. Even at Qumran what we have is bits and pieces of classical Hebrew, usually in proximity to biblical texts if I remember correctly. James, it sounds like you are proposing an analogy to lectio dificilior for detecting truly archaic texts from archaisms. I think the reason earlier Hebrew features are more difficult to read is more that we tend to only study the grammar of standard classical Hebrew, therefore we are not used to them (and we don’t have as many such texts so we are forced to go to comparative material more). In principle, if a scribe is archaizing, it may be possible to detect interference from their vernacular dialect. Of course, we would have to know something about their vernacular to detect it. Another clue may be hyper-correction (see Dr Kaufman’s article on paragogic nun).

Also, strictly speaking, I don’t think Davies is arguing that the biblical texts were written in classical Hebrew to be archaizing, ie to give them an appearance of age. Rather, he is suggesting that classical Biblical Hebrew had prestige as a literary language and thus could have continued to be used to compose new texts through the Persian period and beyond. The admitted weakness of his argument is of course that we have no indisputable examples of such a text. Even at Qumran what we have is bits and pieces of classical Hebrew, usually in proximity to biblical texts if I remember correctly.

]]> By: James Pate http://balshanut.wordpress.com/2008/08/20/davies-philip-r-biblical-hebrew-and-the-history-of-ancient-judah-typology-chronology-and-common-sense-pages-150-163-in-biblical-hebrew-studies-in-chronology-and-typology-edited-by-ian-young/#comment-271 James Pate Wed, 20 Aug 2008 17:03:32 +0000 http://balshanut.wordpress.com/?p=172#comment-271 Hi Peter, I have a question about archaicizing. We know that it happens, for Davies in one of his books (I think it was Search for Ancient Israel) talks about how the Qumran community sometimes wrote new stuff in biblical Hebrew. In some Bible classes I've taken, when the Hebrew in a Bible passage is especially hard to decipher or make sense of, the professor says that's a sign of it being an old text. In archaicizing, does the text flow a lot more smoothly? Hi Peter,

I have a question about archaicizing. We know that it happens, for Davies in one of his books (I think it was Search for Ancient Israel) talks about how the Qumran community sometimes wrote new stuff in biblical Hebrew. In some Bible classes I’ve taken, when the Hebrew in a Bible passage is especially hard to decipher or make sense of, the professor says that’s a sign of it being an old text. In archaicizing, does the text flow a lot more smoothly?

]]>