Dating Archaic Biblical Hebrew Poetry: A Critique of the Linguistic Arguments 9781611439212, 2011002102, 1611439213

Table of contents :
TABLE OF CONTENTS
LIST OF TABLES
FOREWORD
PREFACE
ABBREVIATIONS AND EDITORIAL APPARATUS
PART I
CHAPTER 1. THE ISSUE
CHAPTER 2. LINGUISTIC EVIDENCE AND DATING OF TEXTS
CHAPTER 3. AN ‘EARLY’ POETIC CORPUS
CHAPTER 4. MORPHOLOGICAL ARCHAISMS AND AN ‘EARLY’ CORPUS
CHAPTER 5. SYNTACTIC ARCHAISMS AND AN ‘EARLY’ CORPUS
CHAPTER 6. TEXTUAL COMPARISONS
CHAPTER 7. TEXTUAL EMENDATION AND AN ‘EARLY’ CORPUS
PART II
CHAPTER 8. THE EVIDENCE
CHAPTER 9. THE UGARITIC CASE SYSTEM
CHAPTER 10. THE CASE SYSTEM OF THE AMARNA LETTERS
CHAPTER 11. THE CASE SYSTEM AND ARCHAIC BIBLICAL HEBREW
CHAPTER 12 UGARITIC EVIDENCE FOR THE 3mp PREFORMATIVE t- OF THE PREFIX CONJUGATION
CHAPTER 13 THE AMARNA EVIDENCE FOR THE 3mp PREFORMATIVE t- OF THE PREFIX CONJUGATION
CHAPTER 14 BIBLICAL HEBREW EVIDENCE FOR THE PURPORTED USE OF THE 3mp PREFORMATIVE t- OF THE PREFIX CONJUGATION
CHAPTER 15 THE 3fs SUFFORMATIVE -at OF THE SUFFIX CONJUGATION IN UGARITIC, AMARNA CANAANITE AND ARCHAIC BIBLICAL HEBREW
CHAPTER 16 REVIEW AND DISCUSSION ARCHAIC LINGUISTIC FEATURES: A POETIC STYLE, NOT A DATING TOOL
BIBLIOGRAPHY
INDEX

Citation preview

'DWLQJ$UFKDLF%LEOLFDO+HEUHZ 3RHWU\

3HUVSHFWLYHVRQ+HEUHZ6FULSWXUHVDQGLWV &RQWH[WV 

7KH VHULHV 3HUVSHFWLYHV RQ +HEUHZ 6FULSWXUHV DQG LWV &RQWH[WV SXEOLVKHVDFDGHPLFZRUNVGHDOLQJZLWKVWXG\RIWKH+HEUHZ%LEOH DQFLHQW ,VUDHOLWH VRFLHW\ DQG UHODWHG DQFLHQW VRFLHWLHV ELEOLFDO +HEUHZ DQG FRJQDWH ODQJXDJHV WKH UHFHSWLRQ RI ELEOLFDO WH[WV WKURXJKWKHFHQWXULHVDQGWKHKLVWRU\RIWKHGLVFLSOLQH9ROXPHVLQ WKH VHULHV LQFOXGH PRQRJUDSKV FROOHFWLYH ZRUNV DQG WKH SULQWHG YHUVLRQRIWKHFRQWHQWVRIWKHLPSRUWDQWRQOLQH-RXUQDORI+HEUHZ 6FULSWXUHV

'DWLQJ$UFKDLF%LEOLFDO+HEUHZ 3RHWU\

$&ULWLTXHRIWKH/LQJXLVWLF$UJXPHQWV

5RE\Q&9HUQ

 

*RUJLDV3UHVV//&5LYHU5RDG3LVFDWDZD\1-86$ ZZZJRUJLDVSUHVVFRP &RS\ULJKW†E\*RUJLDV3UHVV//& 

$OO ULJKWV UHVHUYHG XQGHU ,QWHUQDWLRQDO DQG 3DQ$PHULFDQ &RS\ULJKW &RQYHQWLRQV1RSDUWRIWKLVSXEOLFDWLRQPD\EHUHSURGXFHGVWRUHGLQD UHWULHYDO V\VWHP RU WUDQVPLWWHG LQ DQ\ IRUP RU E\ DQ\ PHDQV HOHFWURQLF PHFKDQLFDO SKRWRFRS\LQJ UHFRUGLQJ VFDQQLQJ RU RWKHUZLVH ZLWKRXW WKH SULRUZULWWHQSHUPLVVLRQRI*RUJLDV3UHVV//& 

€

,6%1

,661

/LEUDU\RI&RQJUHVV&DWDORJLQJLQ3XEOLFDWLRQ 'DWD 9HUQ5RE\Q 'DWLQJDUFKDLFELEOLFDO+HEUHZSRHWU\D FULWLTXHRIWKHOLQJXLVWLFDUJXPHQWVE\5RE\Q 9HUQ SFP3HUVSHFWLYHVRQ+HEUHZ 6FULSWXUHVDQGLWVFRQWH[WV,661  +HEUHZSRHWU\%LEOLFDO+LVWRU\DQG FULWLFLVP8JDULWLFSRHWU\+LVWRU\DQG FULWLFLVP%LEOH27/DQJXDJHVW\OH %LEOH27&ULWLFLVPLQWHUSUHWDWLRQHWF 5REHUWVRQ'DYLG,7LWOH %69  GF  3ULQWHGLQWKH8QLWHG6WDWHVRI$PHULFD

For my parents, Robert and Ethel Mercer

iii

TABLE OF CONTENTS Table of Contents ..................................................................................... v  List of Tables............................................................................................ xi  Foreword ................................................................................................ xiii  Preface ...................................................................................................... xv  Abbreviations and Editorial Apparatus ............................................ xvii  Abbreviations ............................................................................... xvii  Editorial Apparatus ....................................................................xviii  Ugaritic ― KTU2 ........................................................................xviii  Amarna Letters ...........................................................................xviii  Conventional Symbols ...............................................................xviii  PART I CHAPTER 1 THE ISSUE ...................................................... 1  Ugaritic Language and Amarna Canaanite .................................. 2  Introduction to Part I ..................................................................... 3  Introduction to Part II .................................................................... 5  The ABH Corpus ............................................................................ 6  Introduction to Part III .................................................................. 7  CHAPTER 2 LINGUISTIC EVIDENCE and DATING of TEXTS .............................................................................................. 9  Nature of the Evidence .................................................................. 9  Problems Associated with Using Linguistic Evidence for Dating ABH Texts Early ..................................................... 15  Influence of Robertson’s Research............................................. 23  CHAPTER 3 AN ‘EARLY’ POETIC CORPUS ............................. 29  Linguistic Evidence and Chronological Stages ......................... 29  Definition of ‘Archaism’ .............................................................. 31  Methodological Problems with Robertson’s Use of Linguistic Evidence for Dating This Corpus ................... 34 

v

vi

DATING ABH POETRY: A CRITIQUE

CHAPTER 4 MORPHOLOGICAL ARCHAISMS and an ‘EARLY’ CORPUS ....................................................................... 37  CHAPTER 5 SYNTACTIC ARCHAISMS and an ‘EARLY’ CORPUS ......................................................................................... 45  CHAPTER 6 TEXTUAL COMPARISONS .................................... 57  Conclusion ...................................................................................... 66  CHAPTER 7 TEXTUAL EMENDATION and an ‘EARLY’ CORPUS ......................................................................................... 67  Robertson’s Emendations ............................................................ 70  Albright’s ‘Recovery’ of the Text ................................................ 73  A Comparison of Robertson’s and Albright’s Emendations . 76  Autograph and ‘Early’ Corpus..................................................... 76  Conclusion ...................................................................................... 77  PART II CHAPTER 8 THE EVIDENCE ....................................... 79  CHAPTER 9 The UGARITIC CASE SYSTEM ............................ 81  Identification of Case Endings in the Consonantal Script ..... 82  The Construct State ...................................................................... 84  Discussion....................................................................................... 87  Conclusion ...................................................................................... 89  CHAPTER 10 The CASE SYSTEM of the AMARNA LETTERS ....................................................................................... 91  Features of the West Semitic Case System used in the Amarna Letters ..................................................................... 91  Noun Declension .......................................................................... 92  The Construct State ...................................................................... 96  Status of the Case System in the Amarna Letters .................... 98  Conclusion ....................................................................................104  CHAPTER 11 The CASE SYSTEM and ARCHAIC BIBLICAL HEBREW ...............................................................105  Hypotheses Concerning the Process of the Loss of Case Endings ................................................................................108  Evidence for this Analysis..........................................................111  Introduction .................................................................................111  The Termination -āh ...................................................................113  The Termination -û .....................................................................113  The Termination -î ......................................................................114  The Termination -ô ......................................................................118  Discussion.....................................................................................120  Identification of Vocalic Endings in Hebrew Poetry ............120 

TABLE OF CONTENTS

vii

Conclusion ....................................................................................122  EXCURSUS PURPORTED CASE ENDINGS in BIBLICAL HEBREW .....................................................................................123  1. The he Locale ...........................................................................123  Mistaken Instances of the Accusative Suffix ..........................123  2. The Termination -û .................................................................124  Analysis of Its Purported Use as a Nominative Case Ending on Proper Nouns .................................................124  3. The Termination -î ..................................................................126  Analysis of Its Purported Use as a Genitive Case Ending in Phrases and on Proper Nouns .........................................126  4. The Termination -ô .................................................................128  Analysis of Its Purported Use as a Genitive Case Ending in Phrases .................................................................................128  CHAPTER 12 UGARITIC EVIDENCE for the 3mp PREFORMATIVE t- of the PREFIX CONJUGATION ...131  History of Unravelling the Evidence........................................131  Ugaritic Substrate Evidence in the Akkadian from Ugarit ...134  The Evidence ...............................................................................134  Selection of Transliterations and Translations........................136  Specific Issues Relating to Ugaritic Verse ...............................136  Reconstruction of the Text ........................................................137  1. Disputed subject ......................................................................138  2. Verbal Forms Read as 3ms Passive Constructions ............150  3. I:weak verbal forms .................................................................153  4. Purported Use of a Singular Verb with a Plural Subject ...158  5. Textual Reconstruction and Emendation ...........................160  Summary of Findings ..................................................................166  Discussion.....................................................................................166  Conclusion ....................................................................................167  List of Verbal Forms in this Analysis .......................................168  CHAPTER 13 The AMARNA EVIDENCE for the 3mp PREFORMATIVE t- of the PREFIX CONJUGATION...169  The Evidence ...............................................................................174  1. Disputed Subject .....................................................................174  2. Two apparent persons for the subject .................................181  3. Use of the singular impersonal subject ................................183  4. Use of the form of ‘god’ in the plural with a singular verb .......................................................................................187 

viii

DATING ABH POETRY: A CRITIQUE

5. Textual Reconstruction ..........................................................188  6. Singular verb with a plural subject........................................194  Summary of the Data ..................................................................197  Conclusion ....................................................................................199  List of Verbal Forms in this Analysis .......................................200  CHAPTER 14 BIBLICAL HEBREW EVIDENCE for the PURPORTED USE of the 3mp PREFORMATIVE t- of the PREFIX CONJUGATION ...............................................203  Evidence .......................................................................................205  1. Use of the Extended Context ...............................................205  2. Emended Biblical Text ...........................................................209  3. Restoration of the Text ..........................................................212  Summary of Data ........................................................................215  Discussion.....................................................................................215  Conclusion ....................................................................................217  List of Verbal Forms in this Analysis .......................................218  CHAPTER 15 The 3fs SUFFORMATIVE -at of the SUFFIX CONJUGATION in UGARITIC, AMARNA CANAANITE and ARCHAIC BIBLICAL HEBREW .......219  The 3fs SUFFORMATIVE of the SUFFIX CONJUGATION in UGARITIC...................................219  The Evidence ...............................................................................219  Conclusion ....................................................................................220  The 3fs SUFFORMATIVE of the SUFFIX CONJUGATION in AMARNA CANAANITE .........220  The Evidence ...............................................................................220  Conclusion ....................................................................................222  The 3fs SUFFORMATIVE of the SUFFIX CONJUGATION in ARCHAIC BIBLICAL HEBREW ............................................................................222  Evidence for this Analysis..........................................................223  Conclusion ....................................................................................227  CHAPTER 16 REVIEW and DISCUSSION ARCHAIC LINGUISTIC FEATURES: A POETIC STYLE, NOT A DATING TOOL ........................................................................229  REVIEW and DISCUSSION of PART I: REVIEW of the LITERATURE ...................................................................230  REVIEW and DISCUSSION of PART II: RESEARCH ...234  Case Endings ................................................................................234 

TABLE OF CONTENTS

ix

The 3mp Preformative -‫ ת‬of the Prefix Conjugation ............235  The 3fs Sufformative -at of the Suffix Conjugation ..............235  Uses and Limitations of Linguistic Evidence from Archaic Biblical Hebrew...................................................................236  Discontinuity of Evidence .........................................................237  A Typological Approach ............................................................238  Dialect Variation ..........................................................................239  Linguistic Changes in Versions .................................................239  CONCLUSIONS ........................................................................240  FINAL WORD ...........................................................................241  BIBLIOGRAPHY ...............................................................................243  INDEX ..................................................................................................273  INDEX of BIBLICAL REFERENCES .................................273  INDEX of UGARITIC TEXTS ..............................................277  INDEX of AMARNA LETTERS ...........................................278  INDEX of AUTHORS ..............................................................280 

LIST OF TABLES Table 1: The ‘Early’ Corpus of Albright, Cross and Freedman ................. 11  Table 2: Robertson’s Chronology for an ‘Early’ Corpus from his Analysis of Morphological and Syntactic Data ............................................................ 24  Table 3: Modes and Tenses in Amarna Canaanite (Rainey 1986:4) .......... 45  Table 4: Frequency of the Three Verbal Forms Used in the ‘Early’ Corpus for Expressing Past Narrative ......................................................................... 53  Table 5: Noun Declension, Status Rectus ..................................................... 81  Table 6: Examples of Case Inflection in Ugaritic Consonantal Texts (Segert 1984:52) ................................................................................................ 82  Table 7: The Inflection of the Noun in the Construct State in Ugaritic (Segert 1984:51) ................................................................................................ 85  Table 8: Noun Declension, Status Rectus ........................................................ 92  Table 9: Examples of Case Inflection for Status Rectus in Amarna Canaanite (Lipiński 1997:263) ......................................................................... 93  Table 10: Endings for the Noun in the Construct State (Kossmann 1987– 88:46) .................................................................................................................. 97  Table 11: The Hypothesized Inflection of the Proto-Hebrew Noun *malk (after Waltke and O’Connor 1990:126) ....................................................... 106  Table 12: Examples of Personal Names in Construct (Joüon and Muraoka 1993:284) ......................................................................................................... 119  Table 13: Plural Nouns Construed as 3fs Collective Nouns .................... 172  Table 14: Plural Nouns Construed as 3fs Collective Nouns .................... 198  Table 15: Plural Nouns Construed as 3ms Collective Nouns .................. 199  Table 16: A Comparison of the 3fs Sufformatives of the Akkadian Stative, the Canaanite Suffix Conjugation, the Ugaritic Suffix Conjugation and the Hebrew Suffix Conjugation .......................................................................... 220 

xi

FOREWORD Issues of the linguistic dating of biblical texts have come into prominence recently.1 Much of the focus has been on the question of “Late Biblical Hebrew.” However, also gaining attention is the question of whether certain poetic texts, predominantly in the Pentateuch and Former Prophets (e.g. Exodus 15, Deuteronomy 32 and Judges 5) can be demonstrated to have been composed early due to their archaic language.2 The classic work on the so-called archaic poetry by David Robertson, is now half a century old.3 Robertson argued that at least some of the archaic poetic texts could be dated early, based on their language, in particular Exodus 15, the Song of the Sea. Despite the quality of Robertson’s work, it is now urgently necessary to re-evaluate his theory. The current work by Robyn Vern is timely, therefore―indeed one might say long overdue. Not only is it the case that linguistic dating arguments are coming under intense scrutiny at present, it is also very clearly the case that schoSee Ian Young, Robert Rezetko, and Martin Ehrensvärd, Linguistic Dating of Biblical Texts (2 volumes; London: Equinox, 2008); and the essays collected in Ian Young (ed.), Biblical Hebrew: Studies in Chronology and Typology (JSOTSup, 369; London: T&T Clark, 2003). 2 See e.g. Brian D. Russell, The Song of the Sea: The Date of Composition and Influence of Exodus 15:1–21 (Studies in Biblical Literature, 101; New York: Peter Lang, 2007; Young, Rezetko and Ehrensvärd, volume 1, chapter 12). The latter work draws on the research in the PhD from which the present work is derived. 3. David A. Robertson, Linguistic Evidence in Dating Early Hebrew Poetry (SBLDS, 3; Missoula, MT: Scholars, 1972), based on a 1966 Yale PhD. 1

xiii

xiv

DATING ABH POETRY: A CRITIQUE

larship on the second millennium BCE Northwest Semitic sources that Robertson referred to―primarily Ugaritic and Amarna Canaanite―has made important advances in the last half century. The author brings a detailed acquaintance with the latest scholarship on the second millennium sources to bear on Robertson’s theory and other attempts to date the poems early on the basis of language. She finds that scholars’ concentration on the couple of repeated possible archaisms in (some) of the texts has caused them to overlook the many important cases where the so-called archaic poetry contrasts linguistically with second millennium sources. The language of the poetry turns out to be not significantly different from first millennium Hebrew. This finding, while revolutionary in its field, should not be surprising to those with training in the textual history of the Hebrew Bible where it is well known that biblical texts went through a complex redactional history. In the light of this we would hardly expect details as peripheral as the language of the text to persist for any length of time, never mind a millennium as previous scholars claimed. I commend this study as a model of how scholars can use extra-biblical evidence to cast light on the language of the Hebrew Bible. Ian Young University of Sydney January, 2011

PREFACE The content of this publication reflects the development of my doctoral dissertation presented to the University of Sydney in February, 2008 entitled, “The Relevance of Linguistic Evidence to the Dating of Archaic Poetry of the Hebrew Bible.” My supervisor I. Young and I worked within the area of Archaic Biblical Hebrew, dealing with similar issues. Subsequently, a part of Young’s latest work with Rezetko and Ehrensvärd (2008) drew on my research, particularly in chapter 12 of the first volume of their two volume work. I acknowledge the contribution Young has made to this publication by introducing me to the Hebrew Bible, and by providing guidance, encouragement and insightful feedback on this journey. Noel Weeks led me through the maze of Akkadian cuneiform into the Amarna Letters. Lucy Davey opened my eyes to the Ugaritic texts through her patient and diligent teaching of the intricacies of the consonantal script. Brian Taylor persisted with teaching me German in an Ancient Near Eastern context, even though all the grammatical texts seemed somewhat dry. I am also indebted to my family, friends and colleagues who have provided support in so many loving and caring ways. Special thanks are due to Steve Watson who has assisted me with technical advice along the way. Robyn C. Vern University of Sydney January, 2011

xv

ABBREVIATIONS AND EDITORIAL APPARATUS ABBREVIATIONS ABH BDB BH C EA EBH ESV fs GKC KTU2 LBH LXX mp SBH v 2ms 3cd 3fp 3fs

Archaic Biblical Hebrew Brown, F., S. Driver and C. Briggs, Hebrew and English Lexicon. 1906. Massachusetts: Hendrickson, reprinted 1996. Biblical Hebrew consonant Knudtson, J. A. Die El-Amarna-Tafeln mit Einleitung und Erläuterungen, 1915. Aalen: Otto Zeller Verlagsbuchhandlung, reprinted 1964. Early Biblical Hebrew Holy Bible, English Standard Version. Wheaton, Illinois: Crossways Bibles, A Division of Good News Publishers, 2001. feminine singular Gesenius’ Hebrew Grammar. E. Kautsch, ed., trans. A. E. Cowley. 1909. New York: Dover Edition, 2006. Dietrich, M., O. Loretz and J. Sanmartin, Cuneiform Alphabetic Texts from Ugarit, Ras Ibn Hani and Other Places. 2nd Enlarged Edition. Münster: Ugarit Verlag. Late Biblical Hebrew Septuagint masculine plural Standard Biblical Hebrew vowel second person, masculine singular third person, common dual third person, feminine plural third person, feminine singular xvii

xviii 3mp 3ms

DATING ABH POETRY: A CRITIQUE third person, masculine plural third person, masculine singular

EDITORIAL APPARATUS UGARITIC ― KTU2 [ ] [ ] { } < > [[ ]] xx.xx italics

restored passage of damaged signs break on the right break on the left redundant sign missing sign erased sign(s) word divider clear transliteration

AMARNA LETTERS [ ] {.. } --…… < > | ~ ( ) italics \

restored text missing text missing text obscure or greatly damaged text omission by scribe sign(s) partly illegible word(s) supplied by the editor to clarify the text translation doubtful gloss marker

CONVENTIONAL SYMBOLS an asterisk * form not attested > a form changes to another form double slash // a parallel passage

PART I CHAPTER 1 THE ISSUE Attempts persist to date poetic texts containing archaic Biblical Hebrew forms to a period earlier than the remainder of the Hebrew Bible. These include datings into the latter part of the second millennium BCE. Researchers base their work on the assumption that under certain conditions archaic linguistic forms which characterize these poems also identify them as early texts. Evidence for dating purposes often includes various linguistic elements taken in combination with historical, social and/or archaeological theories. Dating outcomes based on these arguments, however, are not compelling. Studies based on linguistic evidence alone have resulted in proposals of late second millennium and early first millennium datings of poems in an Archaic Biblical Hebrew (ABH) corpus. Robertson’s research presented in his book, ‘Linguistic Evidence in Dating Early Hebrew Poetry,’ (1972) is regarded by some scholars as the most outstanding work in this area, and in the period since its publication, his findings continue to be uncritically cited in many places. For many years Robertson’s work has needed a comprehensive review which this work is intended to supply. It highlights the inadequacies of his hypotheses and his methodology and, as a consequence, shows that linguistic evidence is not an appropriate tool for dating some of the poems of the ABH corpus to the late second or early first millennia BCE. Robertson’s purported early datings are based on the hypothesis that Hebrew, being a Northwest Semitic language with its antecedents in the second millennium BCE, has its earlier stages reflected in Ugaritic texts and the Canaanite of the Amarna letters. Robertson finds approximately twenty morphological forms and 1

2

DATING ABH POETRY: A CRITIQUE

two syntactic forms common to either of these second millennium sources and to ABH poetic texts. He analyzes several of them in detail as being used either as ‘genuine’ archaic forms or as the product of archaizing. From the evidence he gathers, Robertson identifies his ‘early’4 poetic corpus and assigns dates to these poems. The resemblance of certain linguistic forms is clearly evident across these Semitic languages. However the conclusions he draws are not compelling. Upon closer scrutiny, the overall linguistic evidence indicates that the poetry of this corpus is typologically more representative of first millennium sources. The corpus has content references to the earliest stages of Israel’s history and the use of archaisms for stylistic purposes reinforces this. This does not necessarily imply that a poem cannot be of second millennium provenance. What it does show is the lack of relevance of linguistic evidence as a tool for the early dating of certain ABH poetry. Consequently the research purportedly indicating that linguistic evidence can be used for dating biblical Hebrew to the early period must finally be set aside.

UGARITIC LANGUAGE AND AMARNA CANAANITE Ugaritic and Amarna Canaanite are second millennium BCE Northwest Semitic languages. The first discoveries of texts from Ugarit were made in 1929 in North Syria. Over decades of discoveries at Ras Shamra (Ugarit) and Ras Ibn Hani more than 1,200 alphabetic texts were recovered. Some were of a literary or administrative nature, while others were lexical fragments. These clay tablets represent the only substantial second millennium source wholly written in the language of the inhabitants of the greater Syria-Israel region (Sivan 1997:1; Bordreuil and Pardee 2009:1–3). The limited corpus of alphabetic texts and their fragmentary nature has led to 4 The use of inverted commas for ‘early’ indicates that this is a hypothetical concept, not to be confused with Early Biblical Hebrew (EBH), one of the labels for biblical texts whose linguistic features are purportedly representative of the pre-exilic biblical period. This usage becomes even more helpful as the discussion develops and focuses upon the attempts to identify an ‘early’ biblical poetic corpus from the second millennium BCE.

CHAPTER ONE

3

difficulties with their interpretation and the formation of an Ugaritic grammar. The study of Ugaritic depends in a certain measure on reconstructions and various assumptions, some of which are discussed in the following chapters. Some of the administrative texts were written in Peripheral Akkadian, the international language of the Late Bronze Age. This involved the use of the cuneiform script. Researchers have uncovered approximately three hundred Ugaritic words which the local scribes inserted into these texts. While the purpose of these insertions is not clear, they do provide important information for the vocalization of Ugaritic, as vowels are not indicated in its alphabetic script. There is no evidence of Ugaritic tablets written after the beginning of the twelfth century when Ugarit was destroyed. The Amarna letters were uncovered at Tell el-Amarna in Middle Egypt in 1887. Approximately three hundred and eighty clay tablets written in Peripheral Akkadian were found. Containing correspondence between Egypt and its vassal states, they are dated circa the first half of the fourteenth century, and span possibly fifteen to thirty years (Moran 1992:xxxiv). Many of the tablets from Canaanite cities were written in a mixed language consisting mainly of an Akkadian lexicon with a Canaanite syntax and morphology. There are occasional purely Canaanite words in the flow of the texts, possibly as a translation or as an explanatory gloss. These glosses are considered to be the oldest vocalized Canaanite words yet attested (Izre’el 1995:103). They also give valuable insights into the state of the Canaanite linguistic system. As yet there are no substantial written records in the Canaanite dialects prior to the eleventh century. The Canaanite influence on Peripheral Akkadian in the Amarna letters is the only source of knowledge regarding the structure of early Canaanite dialects. This evidence is referred to as Amarna Canaanite.

INTRODUCTION TO PART I In Part I, we examine Robertson’s assumptions and methodology in his use of linguistic evidence to assign an early date to ABH poetry. The outcome of this examination indicates the lack of appropriateness of Robertson’s linguistic evidence to the dating of archaic poetry of the Hebrew Bible. Part I has six focal points, each of which is presented in sequential chapters. The first focal point is a review of the literature

4

DATING ABH POETRY: A CRITIQUE

which is particularly relevant to attempts at dating biblical poetry to the second millennium and the early first millennium BCE on the basis of linguistic evidence (chapter 2) which is generally of a literary, orthographic, morphological and/or syntactic nature. This survey emphasizes the research in which linguistic evidence is given precedence in the dating process. Five problems associated with the use of this data for dating purposes are discussed with a view to highlighting the speculative nature of any consequent findings. It is in this context that Robertson’s work and its influence on subsequent literature is analyzed. Our central concern is on his early twelfth century dating of the Exodus 15 poem, as its endorsement without due critical analysis occurs in many places in the literature. To justify his ‘early’ dating of Exodus 15, he uses both a ‘genuine’5 early morpheme and a ‘genuine’ early syntactic form. The second focal point relates to the definition of an archaic/‘early’ corpus (chapter 3). This involves exploration of the variety of uses of the term ‘archaic’, and the use of linguistic evidence and chronological stages of language development for dating purposes. From a methodological standpoint we analyze Robertson’s formulae for defining archaic usages, and his use of these for dating purposes. We examine from several perspectives Robertson’s claim that linguistic evidence is autonomous and objective. Particular emphasis is given to the dating of Exodus 15 in relation to the dating of the event of the exodus from Egypt. We explore the thesis that linguistic evidence, particularly in the case of archaisms, is not an appropriate tool for dating a poem ‘early’, but that linguistic evidence indicates a style of poetry in the ABH poetic corpus. The third focal point examines the relationship of morphological archaisms and an ‘early’ corpus (chapter 4). We address the 5 In this study, the term ‘genuine’ appears in inverted commas as the author argues that Robertson has not proven his case. Robertson defines a ‘genuine’ archaic morpheme to be ‘a form rare in biblical poetry and at the same time present in either or both of these sources [Ugaritic poetry or Amarna glosses]’ and which therefore was once common in early poetic Hebrew (Robertson 1972:4). For Robertson, certain conditions apply. These are discussed in chapters 3 and 4.

CHAPTER ONE

5

difficulties of differentiating ‘genuine’ archaic forms from archaizing in the context of Robertson’s assertion that a ‘genuine’ form is a linguistic necessity at the specific time of the writing of a poem. We explore Robertson’s argument that the presence of an earlier form used consistently in a cluster and the absence of its later Standard Biblical Hebrew (SBH) form are significant indicators of the temporal proximity of the ‘early’ poem to the second millennium sources. The fourth focal point examines the relationship between Robertson’s purported syntactic archaisms and the ‘early’ poetic corpus (chapter 5). This involves an analysis of the parallels Robertson finds with the yqt.l past narrative forms in Ugaritic and in his ‘early’ corpus. We contrast Robertson’s findings with later research to examine the feasibility of his evidence and its possible relation to dating poems to the early period. The fifth focal point concerns the textual comparisons upon which Robertson bases his data (chapter 6). Robertson’s reconstruction of the early Hebrew language is based on the comparison of linguistic evidence in biblical texts, in extra-biblical sources, across several languages and across widely varying time periods. Due to the absence of attested epigraphic and textual evidence, Robertson does not have Hebrew linguistic evidence from the early period, that is, from the late second millennium, to corroborate his reconstruction. The sixth focal point concerns the use of textual emendation as a linguistic resource for the dating of texts to the early period (chapter 7). We discuss the possibilities for recovering the original autograph of any of the ‘early’ texts against the background of the controversial, complicated and highly speculative nature of the methodologies used.

INTRODUCTION TO PART II The findings in Part I indicate that there are serious flaws in the assumptions made about the use of linguistic evidence for the early dating of the ABH corpus and for Robertson’s ‘early’ poetic corpus. The morphological studies in this section focus on aspects of these flaws. These studies are based on the rationale that if Robertson’s argument is correct, that is, these poems are old because they share linguistic forms with Ugaritic and Amarna Canaanite and therefore they are to be dated in close temporal proximity to these

6

DATING ABH POETRY: A CRITIQUE

two second millennium sources, then more than the few morphological features will appear, either as genuine archaic forms or as archaisms. The focus text is Exodus 15 as Robertson considers this poem to be the earliest in his corpus, dating it to the twelfth century. This poem is also the one most frequently referred to in the literature. Three morphological forms are selected from among several possibilities which the evidence indicates were in current use as general forms in the two second millennium sources. We argue that that these forms should appear in Exodus 15 either consistently or as identifiable remnants if it is indeed of twelfth century provenance. Each of the selected forms has either a parallel form in Biblical Hebrew or has been subject to linguistic developmental processes which are clearly distinguishable. The three selected morphological forms are: 1. The system of noun declension which is analyzed in chapters 9, 10 and 11. 2. The third person masculine preformative -‫ ת‬of the prefix conjugation which is analyzed in chapters 12, 13 and 14. 3. The third person feminine singular affix ‫ת‬- of the suffix conjugation which is analyzed in chapter 15. Other possibilities for selection include the energic nun and the enclitic mem. From the literature, traces of each of these are purportedly found in Biblical Hebrew. The definite article, an outcome of a distinct linguistic development, is another possibility. The procedure adopted in Part II follows a pattern. For each category, evidence is examined to establish clearly the morphological form which is unequivocally standard in Ugaritic and Amarna Canaanite. Any variation from the standard form is explored. The ABH corpus and Robertson’s ‘early’ corpus which are identified at the close of this chapter are then critically examined for evidence of the form. Arguments in the literature for examples or traces of each form are scrutinized against the evidence. Implications from the findings are discussed in terms of the relevance of linguistic evidence to the dating of the archaic poetry of the Hebrew Bible.

THE ABH CORPUS The generally-accepted ABH corpus includes the following poems: Genesis 49.2–27 Exodus 15.1b–18, 21b

CHAPTER ONE

7

Numbers 23.7b–10, 18b–24; 24.3b–9, 15b–24 Deuteronomy 32.1–43 Deuteronomy 33.2–29 Judges 5.2–31a Robertson’s ‘early’ poetic corpus includes the following poems: Exodus 15.1b–21 Deuteronomy 32.1–43 Judges 5.1–30 2 Samuel 22.2b–51 // Psalm 18 Habakkuk 3.2–19 Psalm 78 Job 3.2b–42.6 In the following discussions, the texts are referred to by book and chapter only, with the exception of the poetry of Job, which is referred to as ‘Job’, unless a more specific reference is required.

INTRODUCTION TO PART III The first part of chapter 16 has two aspects. It presents a review and discussion of our challenge to Robertson’s methodology and conclusions, followed by a review and discussion of the research undertaken in this study. The second part of chapter 16 gives details of the conclusions which support the argument that ABH is a poetic style and that linguistic evidence is not an appropriate tool for dating poetic texts to the late second and early first millennia BCE.

CHAPTER 2 LINGUISTIC EVIDENCE AND DATING OF TEXTS Researchers use a wide range of linguistic evidence in their attempts to date biblical poetry which has not yet been dated compellingly by other means. The main exponents of the linguistic dating of ABH poetry are Albright, Cross and Freedman, Robertson and Halpern. They sought to determine a corpus of what they considered were the most ancient poetic texts. Much of their research is based on the assumption that some of these texts ‘derived their special character, expressed in linguistic evidence, because they were the oldest biblical texts.’ (Cross and Freedman 1955:237) The core texts of this study are those in the ABH poetic corpus which have been argued to date to the second millennium BCE on the basis of linguistic and/or literary evidence and for which no other indisputable dating mechanism is found. The nature of this evidence and the problems associated with its use for the early dating of ABH texts are discussed below.

NATURE OF THE EVIDENCE Literary evidence is often used alongside evidence from linguistic forms to date poetry to the ‘early’ period, that is, to the late second millennium or the early first millennium BCE. Poetic forms including climactic and repetitive parallelism, seen as characteristic of pre1200 BCE Ugaritic poetry (Wyatt 2002:22), are used to date biblical poetry containing these forms to this period. On the basis of the use of parallelism in Exodus 15 and Judges 5, Albright assigns a 1300–1100 BCE dating (Albright 1950–51:5), and Schniedewind (2004:54) assigns a 1300–1200 BCE dating for Exodus 15. Albright found that ABH poetry also contains parallels with literary forms in Canaanite literature which he labels as ‘archaic type’ (Albright 9

10

DATING ABH POETRY: A CRITIQUE

1950–51:24). From the evidence Bloch examines, he finds that the forms of parallelism characteristic of Ugaritic and of what are possibly the earliest specimens of Hebrew poetry, are also to be found in biblical compositions dating from the eighth to the fifth century and possibly later, as well as in Aramaic poetic texts from the first millennium BCE (Bloch 2009:45). Thus he finds no argument for the use of parallelistic structure as evidence for an early dating of biblical Hebrew poetry. Researchers also use archaic stylistic features, parallel expressions found in both Exodus 15 and Ugaritic writings, as well as common motifs and archaic terminology as evidence for an early dating (Cross and Freedman 1955:240; Hauser 1987:281n1; Schniedewind 2004:54). While it is acknowledged that Hebrew poetry contains techniques and verbal formulae in common with verse from Ugarit (Propp 1998:507), this does not provide reliable evidence for dating purposes, as traditional forms, archaic expressions and modes of speech from earlier times tend to be retained in poetry (Soggin 1981:93). Robertson argues that Exodus 15 is earlier than the eighth century prophetic style of poetry, and that it may even approach (but not overlap with) sources in the early twelfth century BCE. Robertson’s theory, based on the presupposition that the two styles of poetry could not co-exist at the same time (Robertson 1972:150–152), is not convincing. Exodus 15 in its current form could be contemporary with second millennium sources, later than the eighth century BCE, or different from other biblical poetry. Orthographic evidence is also used for dating poetic compositions from the eleventh to the tenth century (Cross and Freedman 1948:191–210), and is frequently used to strengthen the assertion that an early corpus of poems was committed to writing in the tenth to the ninth century (Goodwin 1969:158). Defective spelling in early Israelite writing is the main focus in these studies. Its occurrence, especially at the end of words, has been used to justify the restoration of tenth century consonantal orthography (Albright 1950–51:9–10). A corpus of ‘early’ poetry based on orthographic and linguistic evidence has been developed from this twentieth century period of research. However, in 1995, Freedman finds that

CHAPTER TWO

11

nothing has been proved about the date of the poems from the orthography preserved in the Masoretic Text (Cross and Freedman 1997:x6). These findings are summarized in table 1. Table 1: The ‘Early’ Corpus of Albright, Cross and Freedman

Poetry Exodus 15

Date BCE early C13 C12–C10

Judges 5

Deuteronomy 33

ca. 1150 ca. 1100 late C13 C12–C10 C11 C9 C10–C9 C11–C10

2 Samuel 1.19–27

pre-C11 early C10

Numbers 23–24 Deuteronomy 32

early C10

Genesis 49 2 Samuel 22 // Psalm 18 Habakkuk 3

C10 style pre-C11 C9–C8

C9–C8

Albright 1968:10 Cross and Freedman 1955:237, 240; 1997:3 Albright 1968:11 Cross and Freedman 1997:3 Albright 1968:29 Cross and Freedman 1997:3 Albright 1959:339 Cross 1973:264n193 Freedman 1980:118 Cross and Freedman 1948:192 Cross and Freedman 1997:4 Albright (in Freedman 1980:118) Cross and Freedman 1997:3 using historical evidence confirmed by orthographic and linguistic indicators Albright 1959:344–345 Cross and Freedman 1997:4 Cross and Freedman 1953:2 Cross and Freedman 1997:4 using archaic linguistic evidence Albright 1950:8

6 In 1950, Cross and Freedman together presented a doctoral dissertation entitled ‘Ancient Yahwistic Poetry’. It was published in 1975 and republished in 1997. It is to this latter edition that reference is made.

12

DATING ABH POETRY: A CRITIQUE

Not only is the use of defective spelling questioned as significant for dating purposes, but more recent scholarship also shows ‘a strong reaction against seeing orthographic inconsistency as historically or linguistically significant. [Orthographic variation is] more likely related to scribal inconsistency as a feature of the transmission of the text.’ (Young 1992:368) Defective and plene spellings do not attest to the date or provenance of biblical works (Barr 1985:29-33), nor is archaic orthography necessarily restricted to an early period as it is in use in the post-exilic period (Brenner 1991:10). This contrasts with the interpretations of the data by F. I. Andersen and Forbes (1986:32-33), Kutscher (1982:81) and SáenzBadillos (1993:116). With regard to Deuteronomy 32, Sanders considers its orthography to favour neither an early nor a late date, as this is the nature of this data (Sanders 1996:323–333). F. I. Andersen suggests that the most archaic spelling in the Hebrew Bible, that of the Pentateuch, is the norm of Ezra’s time, possibly circa the fifth century BCE. The ability to propose absolute dates for the spelling features of any portion of the Hebrew Bible is improbable, as the overlapping of the three possible phases of orthography— archaic, standard and late—obscures the picture (Freedman, Forbes and Andersen 1992:73, 74, 78). The absence of extant archaic Hebrew poetic texts of purely consonantal orthography from the second millennium BCE gives no basis for comparison. Archaic morphological forms are also used as evidence to support arguments for dating poetry ‘early’, that is, from the thirteenth to the tenth centuries. For example, Robertson gives a twelfth century BCE date for Exodus 15 based on a cluster of a single ‘genuine’ archaic morpheme and the repetition of the use of one particular syntactic structure (Robertson 1972:155). Albright argues that case endings had been dropped in practice by circa 1230 BCE, and that the remnants of case endings which he finds, especially in the poetic segments of Numbers 23–24, survive for the sake of metre. This provides Albright with further evidence for an early dating of this poem (Albright 1944:232 and n145). This is not the only interpretation of the evidence however, as Brenner finds that the repeated use of an archaic morphological form is intentional and part of the style, and ‘once it is concluded that this phenomenon is artificial, a late dating is more likely the inference.’ (Brenner 1991:36)

CHAPTER TWO

13

Evidence from analyses of syntactic forms has also been used for dating purposes. Robertson uses the distribution of the two finite verbal conjugations in past narrative to differentiate the ‘early’ corpus from other ABH and SBH poetry (Robertson 1972:1), this being part of his argument for dating Exodus 15 early. Sanders finds the free use of yiqt.ol forms as narratives in Deuteronomy 32, but suggests that this serves to create only the impression of a relatively early date, as does its use in other poems (Sanders 1996:431). From his analysis of the problem of finite verb translation in Exodus 15, Schreckhise identifies three views in interpreting these verbs. Evidence from each of these three methods may be considered to have a bearing on the dating of this poem, yet for each there are intrinsic difficulties (Schreckhise 2008:287–310). Given the wide range of linguistic data used to date an ‘early’ ABH poetic corpus, it is relevant to ask why linguistic data are considered critical to the dating process. In the past century, Biblical Hebrew grammar has been further clarified as a result of the research into the Ugaritic literature and the Canaanite of the Amarna letters. Mendenhall considers that these new linguistic criteria provide a more objective basis for dating specific parts of the Hebrew Bible (Mendenhall 1960:310). For Hurvitz, a certain type of linguistic analysis for discussing biblical texts whose date of composition is questionable, presents at least two significant advantages. It is an autonomous and independent criterion and it may be used without subscribing to any particular prevailing literary, historical or theological theory (Hurvitz 1974:17). The linguistic features he discusses include syntactic and grammatical data which apply to both poetry and prose (Hurvitz 1988:89, 91n14, n16). Schniedewind considers that linguistic evidence provides objective criteria for dating most of the Pentateuch to the pre-exilic era (Schniedewind 2004:18). He assigns the possible date of Exodus 15 as early as the thirteenth century BCE, with the support of stylistic and literary parallels from Ugarit. He argues that the linguistic features of Exodus 15 indicate an early date, even if it is difficult using this methodology to nominate a precise date for a text (Schniedewind

14

DATING ABH POETRY: A CRITIQUE

2004:54).7 He refers to the linguistic evidence given by Cross (Cross 1973) which Cross himself later re-analyzed, resulting in an amended dating for Exodus 15 to the twelfth century BCE (Cross 1997:3). The use of linguistic evidence for dating purposes is not always objective. This is apparent as various datings result from its use. Determinations of dating on linguistic grounds per se can be found to depend on the historical nature of the biblical text (Chomsky 1964:32-37). Schools of biblical interpretation may be perceived as subordinating objective fact and careful analysis to the requirements of the ‘cause’ of the school (Goodwin 1969:159). Some attempts to date Exodus 15 using linguistic evidence close to the dating of the exodus event possibly fit this category (Robertson 1972; Halpern 2003). An inference from certain research findings is that the dating of the text’s archaic language is related to the dating of the second millennium historical context which is then used to justify the concept of genuine ‘early’ forms. Thus the use of linguistic evidence does not necessarily entail objectivity, autonomy and/or independence. A related issue is the ready assumption that the poetry of Exodus 15 and Judges 5 is clearly older than the prose narratives in their preceding chapters. Reference is frequently made to the work of Albright, Cross and Freedman and associated researchers in support of this argument. This is often stated without detailed justification apart from reference to the linguistic evidence (e.g., Schniedewind 2004:55). Schniedewind justifies this position by comparing songs from Ugarit with Israelite songs. Using a parallel between the forms of the songs from Ugarit and the forms of the Israelite songs, he dates the poetry of Exodus 15 to the second millennium BCE. In his view, the Israelite songs would have been written by the tenth century BCE: ‘This would have been as true for ancient Israel as it was for ancient Ugarit.’ (Schniedewind 2004:570) No further evidence is offered for this assumption. Weitzman is critical of this so-called fact arguing that, on the evidence available, ‘it is impossible to prove that the language in the 7 Schniedewind cites case endings, the enclitic mem and the relative zû as some of these linguistic features (2004:54).

CHAPTER TWO

15

songs in the biblical narrative is older than the language of the surrounding prose.’ (Weitzman 1997:157n55) From another point of view, Wong explores the idea that Judges 4 and 5 are independent compositions composed for different purposes. He uses linguistic evidence to establish a datable and credible real-life setting from which each composition might arise (Wong 2007:19, 21). Studies of the interdependence of poetry and prose in the book of Job generally conclude that this poetry is earlier than the prose setting, although the Prose Tale may be of an earlier date and the presupposed basis of the poetic discourses. Both the poetry and the prose are essential to each other, as is also the case in the Balaam Oracles.

PROBLEMS ASSOCIATED WITH USING LINGUISTIC EVIDENCE FOR DATING ABH TEXTS EARLY The time of composition and the provenance of the biblical texts under consideration are not determinable at this time and therefore may incorporate forms that may have originally belonged to different dialects (or languages) and to distinct historical periods. Although the starting points for some of the developments particular to Hebrew may have been recovered (Moscati et al. 1964:15), these data need to be used cautiously for an understanding and reconstruction of linguistic history. The data on morphological and syntactic archaisms in the ABH poetic corpus are limited and do not necessarily reflect all the developments which occurred in preBiblical Hebrew. Thus they are not an appropriate basis for firm conclusions for dating some ABH texts to an ‘early’ thirteenth or twelfth century BCE pre-biblical period (Zuckerman 2002:481; Niccacci 2006:249–50). This problem is exacerbated where, in Robertson’s study, his argument for dating Exodus 15 is reliant upon the clustering of one morpheme, the 3mp pronominal suffix, ‫מוֹ‬-, and the repetition of yiqt.ol preterite verbs. Although he discusses three other archaic morphemes in Exodus 15, he does not consider that these are significant for dating purposes. Various investigations into the grammatical patterning of morphology and syntax, particularly in relation to the dating of certain archaic-style poetry to the second millennium BCE, indicate a variety of outcomes for dating an ‘early’ poetic corpus. On the basis of a re-examination of the evidence, it is argued that linguistic data is not an appropriate tool for dating these biblical texts in ei-

16

DATING ABH POETRY: A CRITIQUE

ther absolute or relative terms. The following problems are associated with using linguistic data for dating purposes. Firstly, different outcomes are apparent. Regardless of how autonomous and independent linguistic data might appear, their use in dating biblical poetry still seems to be related to other perspectives. Freedman raises the issue that two scholars of the same ‘school’, Haupt, the foundational father, and Albright, both coming from similar scholarly backgrounds and sharing similar linguistic insights, saw Exodus 15 differently. Haupt saw Exodus 15 as ‘a late post-exilic, deliberately archaizing creation’, and Albright saw Exodus 15 as ‘authentically archaic, one of the oldest in the Bible, a genuine composition by Moses in C13.’ (Freedman 1999:67–68) Freedman admits to maintaining a focus on the literary data, the circumstances which relate to the presumed narrator and the intentions of the editor in placing the poem where it is in the book of Exodus. While he agrees that it may never be possible to discover the real author, date or setting of this poem, Freedman revises his dating of the text by perhaps a century from Albright’s date. This represents the upper or conservative stream, while at the lower or radical end, numerous scholars are found. In contrast to Robertson’s dating of Exodus 15 to the twelfth century BCE, Brenner finds that this poem is a post-exilic composition, and not a redaction of an earlier pre-exilic work. He finds substantial evidence of exclusively late usages in the poem. Again, where Robertson’s findings date Deuteronomy 32 to the eleventh or tenth century based on numerous examples of both early forms and standard forms (Robertson 1972:154–155), Sanders finds that the occurrence of archaic forms alongside standard forms does not suggest an early date. He indicates that the poet has probably striven for morphological and syntactic variation, as attested in many poems, both earlier and later, in the Hebrew Bible (Sanders 1996:320). Sharp differences of opinion occur as scholars persist in using linguistic data for the dating of a possible ‘early’ corpus of biblical poetry. This course of inquiry will produce no conclusive findings and therefore no general agreement. Differences in outcomes where linguistic evidence is used for dating purposes are not confined to the analysis of archaic poetry. There is also a diversity of opinions on dating other portions and books of the Hebrew Bible, even in the apparently authoritative treatments of the history of Biblical Hebrew. For example, both

CHAPTER TWO

17

Freedman (1978) and Hurvitz (1985) use linguistic evidence to identify the earlier of two texts, Psalm 113.5–9 and 1 Samuel 2.1– 10. However their findings vary considerably. Hurvitz notes that Freedman’s reasoning and judgement give considerable weighting to the linguistic aspect when dating Psalm 113 as more archaic. More than once Freedman presents evidence of archaisms to prove his point. On the other hand, Hurvitz gives an earlier dating to 1 Samuel 2 based specifically on the linguistic nature of some of the so-called archaisms encountered in Psalm 113 (Hurvitz 1985:116).8 More generally it has been argued that some texts which must be post-exilic or even post-biblical, have an EBH linguistic profile, thereby breaking the correlation between EBH and an early date (Young et al. 2008, chapters 2–4). Secondly, linguistic criteria are not sufficiently discriminatory for conclusive dating purposes. Some linguistic forms which are found in the Canaanite of the Amarna letters and the Ugaritic poetic texts are also found in the Hebrew Bible as standard usages. These include the prefix and suffix conjugations. Some morphemes, including the 3mp pronominal suffix ‫ ֶהם‬-, are found in Ugaritic as well as in Hebrew, and some, including the 3mp pronominal suffix, ‫מוֹ‬- are found in the Canaanite of the Amarna letters and in the Hebrew Bible. Some linguistic features are recognized as archaisms in the Hebrew text, but there is no corroborating evidence to indicate when they entered the Hebrew language as a matter of linguistic necessity (that is as genuine early forms), when they ceased to be early forms and were used as archaisms or when they dropped out of use completely. It is argued here that the use of archaisms is subject to a poet’s or later scribe’s stylistic choice, as in the use of the 3mp pronominal suffix, ‫מוֹ‬- in Exodus 15 and Deuteronomy 32. In the poetry of Exodus 15 this morpheme is used exclusively on the verbal form; in Deuteronomy 32 it is used on preposition

8 Hurvitz especially analyzes words with a final -ō or -ī as well as a definite article. He considers this latter form to be a later development, and not attributable to the pre-exilic era (Hurvitz 1985:120–121).

18

DATING ABH POETRY: A CRITIQUE

and noun forms; and in the poetry of Job it is found on certain prepositions interspersed with the standard form ‫ ֶהם‬-. There are many instances of forms which appear to have changed over time from their usage in Ugaritic or Canaanite to their usage in biblical poetry. The phrase ‘over time’ remains vague due to lack of sufficient reliable evidence. The examples from Robertson’s research are those of the 3ms pronominal suffix -anhū /‫נְ הוּ‬-, the ABH form, and -annū/‫נּוּ‬-, the SBH form. For Hebrew in the latter half of the second millennium and early first millennium BCE, there is no certain textual or epigraphic evidence to demonstrate developments in linguistic usage, especially in relation to morphological forms. Extra-biblical evidence is critical if Robertson’s reconstruction of ‘early’ Hebrew is to be credible (1972:77–110). Davies with Bockmeuhl, de Lacy and Poulter give some possible examples of second millennium Hebrew evidence on sherds (Davies et al. 1991:109, 113, 116 and 178). Generally the epigraphic evidence is badly damaged, philologically difficult and often fragmentary (Pardee 1982:3), extremely short, consisting of names or an abecedary (Lemaire 2006:184), and consonantal, often making morphological and lexical analysis uncertain (Davies et al. 1991:xi). From a linguistic point of view, there may be difficulties with distinguishing a Hebrew text from another Northwest Semitic text. One particular case which is evident from the literature is the Gezer calendar. It is variously classified as Hebrew (Davies et al. 1991:85), a style of language use that is well attested in Hebrew literature (Young 1992:363), an archaic Hebrew dialect (Gibson 1971:2), a Hebrew-like dialect (Hoffman 2004:4), Philistian (Lemaire 2006:184) and Phoenician (Tropper 1993:228; Renz 1995:32). Where dating is involved, the Gezer calendar is again a case in point. Dates assigned to it are a matter of disagreement, although a tenth century date is more common (Cross and Freedman 1952:10; Davies et al. 1991:85; Lemaire 2004:366; Hoffman 2004:31). Smelik indicates that this epigraphic tablet was found in a layer which contained material from the eleventh to the sixth centuries BCE. However, he estimates that the date of the calendar was approximately the close of the tenth century (Smelik 1991:21). Pardee proposes a seventh to sixth century date (Pardee 1982:3). Thus, as there are no certain, attested Hebrew data sufficient to test the validity of Robertson’s reconstructed ‘early’ Hebrew, it is

CHAPTER TWO

19

not possible to assess the related issues which Robertson addresses concerning the retention of ‘early’ forms, the adoption of alternative forms and the incorporation of both ‘early’ and standard forms in one poetic work. There is also no evidence that these processes are necessarily linked to particular time periods, especially as dialects may overlap or develop in parallel. Thus the same linguistic evidence may be explained in more than one chronological setting. Freedman also makes claims concerning the Hebrew language from after the thirteenth century BCE without attested extraBiblical Hebrew evidence against which to compare his datings of ‘early’ poetry. Referring to archaic forms and particles in his corpus of earliest Hebrew songs, he writes: ‘Since none of these features was in regular usage in the language after C13 BCE, and since they do not noticeably affect meaning, it would appear that their chief function was aesthetic.’ (Freedman 1960:101) The lack of attested Hebrew epigraphic evidence from the second millennium is of critical significance when calling into question dating outcomes which must rely on hypothesized linguistic evidence. Assumptions regarding the dating of texts which are based on inadequate data present problems. A case in point is Albright’s dating of the loss of case endings in Hebrew on the basis of one Egyptian list of names where the Hebrew proper names did not have case endings (Albright 1944:232, 232n145). In this circumstance, there is difficulty in determining whether it is appropriate to make this general conclusion on the evidence from proper nouns, since Hebrew proper nouns may never have had a system of case endings, and/or the names on the list may not have been of specifically Hebrew derivation. Considering that Egyptian orthography did not have a system of case endings (Redford 2002:116), other factors may be involved. Thirdly, Hebrew morphological and syntactic archaisms have been identified in Amarna Canaanite, though the label ‘Canaanite’ may occur for want of a better term (Rainey 2006:88), and in Ugaritic, a language which is not considered to be necessarily of the Canaanite branch of Northwest Semitic (Emerton 1992:53–54; Rainey 2006:4). However, evidence of Ugaritic tablets found in the area of Canaan (Dietrich and Loretz 1988:359) suggests the possible contact of these languages at some period prior to the first millennium BCE. Amarna Canaanite and Ugaritic provide the chronologically closest linguistic evidence for a hypothesized second mil-

20

DATING ABH POETRY: A CRITIQUE

lennium BCE ‘early’ ABH poetic corpus, a point which is probably relevant to the diachronic history of the development of the early Hebrew language. However, these two Northwest Semitic languages relate, at best, to a stage of development hundreds of years earlier than the earliest extant Hebrew texts (Moran 1961:64; T. D. Andersen 2000:18). Since these two second millennium sources significantly predate any relevant, datable and attested Hebrew texts, long-held assumptions need to be reconsidered. The possibility exists that both Canaanite and Ugaritic are not necessarily the direct forerunners of early Hebrew linguistic development. The various Canaanite dialects, including Hebrew, may have split from a more or less uniform Proto-West Semitic language. Hebrew itself may have emerged as a related Northwest Semitic dialect experiencing a parallel development, or may have been influenced by dialect contact and/or dialect mixture (Blau 1998:275). An alternative proposal is that Hebrew is not a Canaanite language, but a Transjordanian language with a borrowed Canaanite alphabet (Rainey 2006:5), a view which has not received support in the literature.9 The lack of attested second millennium Hebrew textual evidence highlights the speculative nature of assumptions made concerning this period. Thus only tentative conclusions can be suggested. This certainly weakens any arguments for the dating of archaic Hebrew poetry based on linguistic evidence. Fourthly, linguistic data are susceptible to scribal variation due the processes involved in the transmission of the text. The study of both the production and the transmission of the text highlight seemingly insuperable problems for the use of linguistic evidence for dating purposes. For example, Schniedewind implies that archaic features were preserved, despite the hypothesized continual use of the Exodus 15 poem in early Israelite liturgy from the time of its authorship (Schniedewind 2004:56). Thus he finds no argument from textual criticism to modify his dating of this poem. By contrast, Thiessen argues that if a liturgical background for the composition of Deuteronomy 32 is accepted, and this song was 9 A brief summary of a debate on this matter is found in an editorial in Biblical Archaeology Review 2010, 36:22.

CHAPTER TWO

21

passed down in a cultic setting, it would have evolved over time with some changes in vocabulary occurring. Thus, he argues, in this song we may find some evidence of language that represents various periods. He suggests that this would account for the variety of datings of the linguistic evidence (Thiessen 2004:422). Albright, Cross and Freedman and Robertson adopt a different approach. They undertake textual emendations in an attempt to recover the original autograph of the text. This latter position creates significant uncertainty about the data collected. Cross expresses doubts about the results of his earlier work in relation to text critical problems. He notes the problem of the long period of the transmission of the poems, a problem only partially overcome by modern textcritical methods. He also notes the current uncertain knowledge of the details of the Hebrew language in which the poems were composed (Cross and Freedman 1997:viii). Since these positions cannot all be valid, any conclusions remain highly speculative. Young’s research highlights the uncertainty surrounding the current distribution of archaisms in the Masoretic Text in relation to the most ancient version of the ABH poetry (Young 1998:75). In his discussion of the variations of some examples of ABH poetry, he compares the evidence in the Masoretic Text, the Samaritan Pentateuch and 4QExodc to indicate the unpredictable and inconsistent nature of scribal processes which have shaped the text. With regard to archaisms in particular, Young discusses their different treatments in the three textual traditions across the poetic texts of Exodus 15, Deuteronomy 32 and 33. He finds that overall, the Samaritan Pentateuch largely preserves the archaic nature of Exodus 15 in the Masoretic Text, but for Deuteronomy 32 and 33, there is a marked loss of archaisms in the Samaritan Pentateuch when compared with the Masoretic Text (Young 1998:79). In the preserved text in 4QExodc (Exodus 15.9–21) the treatment of the archaisms in Exodus 15 is analogous to the treatment of archaisms in Deuteronomy 32 in the Samaritan Pentateuch, in that there is a reduction in their numbers (Young 1998:80). This evidence indicates that there is an argument for archaisms not only to be edited out of a text, but also for archaisms to be introduced into a text. The example below concerns the archaism for the 3mp pronominal suffix ‫מוֹ‬-. In Exodus 15.17 of the Masoretic Text, the archaic form of the 3mp pronominal suffix ‫מוֹ‬- appears twice. By comparison, in

22

DATING ABH POETRY: A CRITIQUE

4QExodc, this suffix is presented as final mem, ‫ם‬-, on both occasions. There is an analogy where ‫מוֹ‬- in the Masoretic Text parallels the ‫ם‬- in the Samaritan Pentateuch. In Exodus 15.12 and 15, again in the Masoretic Text, the archaic ‫מוֹ‬- form appears. In 4QExodc this suffix appears as a final mem written medially followed by a waw, ‫םו‬-. We cannot presume to know the intentions of the scribe who made the correction, from which particular manuscript it was copied, or to which tradition this manuscript belonged. However the corrections, if indeed they are such, are possibly scribal interventions negating the attempted deletion of archaisms found in the manuscript from which 4QExodc was copied. Young indicates that there are three possibilities for the evidence in Exodus 15.12 and 15. The ‫מוֹ‬- has been edited out but corrected in some places; the ‫מוֹ‬- was introduced in two places which did not previously have it, on the basis of a text other than the one from which 4QExodc was copied; or, less likely, the ‫מוֹ‬- was introduced by a scribe without the authority of another text (Young 1998:80–81). The uncertainty of the scribal processes which have taken place and the unpredictability and inconsistency of the direction of scribal interventions are illustrated in these examples. Which textual tradition best reflects the autograph of these poems cannot be determined at this time as each of these texts indicates the last stages of textual transmission. Fifthly, in many investigations which date otherwise undatable texts to an early ABH poetic corpus, linguistic evidence is supplemented with related considerations which, presented together, are seen as adding weight to the dating outcome of the investigation. For example, while Albright bases his arguments for early dating on archaic stylistic features of the corpus under consideration in his work, he also uses historical data to add strength to his arguments (Albright 1968:37–46). Cross uses evidence including orthographic analysis, the typology of the language and its prosody alongside the typology of the development of Israel’s religion, the history of the Red Sea tradition and historical allusions in his argument for dating Exodus 15 early (Cross 1973:123–143). Russell’s investigation which focuses on the dating of Exodus 15, not only presents linguistic and comparative evidence, but also an analysis of the historical allusions in the poem and its inter-textual use in Psalms 74, 77 and 78 (Russell 2007). Russell is tentative about the use of linguistic evidence for dating purposes, and suggests a dating of mid-

CHAPTER TWO

23

twelfth century BCE to late eighth century BCE for Exodus 15. To linguistic and literary evidence Wong adds the author’s purpose for composing the poem as a credible Sitz im Leben as additional information for dating the composition of the text of Judges 5 (Wong 2007). He finds that this poem had the rhetorical purpose, of a polemic against Israelite non-participation in military campaigns against Israelite enemies, which needs to be taken into account for dating purposes. Thiessen adds authorial purpose to the literary evidence in the determination of the dating of Deuteronomy 32 (Thiessen 2004). He regards this poem as a cultic song which originated in the context of liturgical worship, predating both the temple and the establishment of the monarchy. He indicates that some changes in vocabulary and style probably modified this liturgical poem as it was passed down over time, and that there may be evidence of language that represents various periods of development. This, he suggests, accounts for vocabulary and stylistic evidence of a late date (Thiessen 2004:422). Leuchter does not find linguistic data sufficiently specific for dating purposes. His search for the purpose of the Deuteronomy 32 song leads him to see it as a ‘propagandist appeal to ancient northern Levitical tradition… which is hermeneutically associated with the Josianic-era law book.’ (Leuchter 2007:315) This provides him with a period and purpose for the song’s redaction into Deuteronomy, although he considers its compositional origins to be in the early days of the monarchic period, a proposal which appears to rely on linguistic data. These findings indicate that linguistic evidence alone is not necessarily considered sufficient for dating purposes. However, the accumulation of evidence from different sources does not provide conclusive evidence for dating purposes if at least one source is not conclusive in itself. Linguistic evidence lends hypothetical corroborating support of a most general nature, and as is indicated, may be used to support a variety of differing hypotheses on the dating of these poems. No conclusive evidence for dating has as yet been presented for any one of these poems.

INFLUENCE OF ROBERTSON’S RESEARCH Robertson’s findings regarding the dating of several ABH poems from the period of the thirteenth century to the ninth century BCE, although tentatively expressed, have had a considerable influ-

24

DATING ABH POETRY: A CRITIQUE

ence on the work of scholars since its publication. A summary of Robertson’s dating of his ‘early’ corpus is presented in table 2. Table 2: Robertson’s Chronology for an ‘Early’ Corpus from his Analysis of Morphological and Syntactic Data

Date-BCE C12 late C12 C11-10 late C10 or early C9

Poetry Exodus 15 Judges 5 Deuteronomy 32, 2 Samuel 22 // Psalm 18, Habakkuk 3 and Job Psalm 78

The issue at hand is that Robertson’s speculations regarding the dating of poems in his ABH corpus based on syntactic and morphological evidence have been regarded as certainty by some scholars. It is evident that some who have used Robertson’s results for their own purposes have not applied rigorous investigative procedures to his theory and methodology. Although Robertson indicates the tenuous nature of the relative and absolute chronologies he describes (Robertson 1972:154), users of his findings have not always acknowledged this point and thus his evidence has been injudiciously incorporated into theories, commentaries and grammars. In this way, Robertson’s range of findings has pervaded many of the areas of the literature relevant to this matter, even into this century. For example, in 2010, Butts argues that the suffix on ‫ נֶ ְא ָדּ ִרי‬in Exodus 15:6 is a relic of the feminine singular morpheme and that this adds to the number of archaisms in Exodus 15:1–18 which Robertson identified. Butts argues that his finding has implications for an early dating of this poem (2010:170). The works of Robertson, Albright, Cross and Freedman are cited by researchers and biblical commentators as support for regarding Exodus 15 as the oldest composition of second millennium BCE provenance in the Hebrew Bible. For example, Cross cites Robertson’s work as confirmation for his dating of this poem to the Late Bronze Age (Cross 1973:121n32). Halpern uses the conclusions of both Robertson (1972) and Cross (1973) as support to affirm his argument that Exodus 15 is one of the oldest compositions in the Hebrew Bible, an argument based on dating using linguistic evidence (Halpern 2003:57). This evidence is also used for dating other ABH poems prior to the eighth century BCE. Fre-

CHAPTER TWO

25

quent reference is made to the use of genuine ‘early’ forms in these poems. Nigosian acknowledges Robertson’s work as one of the most important syntactic and morphological studies relating to the dating of Deuteronomy 32, among other poems (Nigosian 1997:209). Using Robertson’s study with minor variations and other linguistic evidence, he considers that the presence of a significant number of early and late forms represents poetic composition during a ‘period of transition’ from early to late poetic Hebrew, that is, from the tenth century to the eighth century BCE (Nigosian 1997:212). Examples of references in commentaries are found in the works of Goldin (1971:36n10), Childs, especially on the enclitic mem (1974:243), Cole (1973:123) and Dozeman (1999:105, 107). Waltke and O’Connor make reference to Robertson’s research with a clear statement of his findings but with no critical comment on its methodology including the process of selecting the ‘early’ poetic corpus, or the use of comparative texts to determine an ‘early’ corpus. An exception is their reference to the corpus as the ‘so-called early poetry’ (Waltke and O’Connor 1990:14), and some criticism of Robertson’s analysis of the yqt.l form (Waltke and O’Connor 1990:498n7). There are further recent examples of Robertson’s work and that of others in this specific field being quoted where the aim is to establish dates, so as to determine a purpose for the composition of a specific poem. Wong (2007) employs this technique in his analysis of Judges 5 and Leuchter (2007) in his analysis of Deuteronomy 32. Kloos writes, ‘In my opinion, the controversy regarding the composition of the Song of the Sea can now be regarded as settled, due to the study of D. A. Robertson… There is strong linguistic evidence for an early date.’ (Kloos 1986:130–131) Robertson’s work is not without its critics. There are those who have criticized various aspects of his assumptions and methodology. For example, Robertson’s confidence in particular linguistic and prosodic features as decisive evidence for an early date for certain ABH poems has been questioned (for example, Houston 1997:398n37). Robertson’s criterion of the multiplication of archaic elements is criticized as not being of value for establishing an early period of composition, as the use of these elements may be intentional and part of the style (Brenner 1991:36). We argue that the clustering of archaic forms justifies treating this poetry as a distinct corpus of ABH poetry in stylistic terms, but contest that it is sig-

26

DATING ABH POETRY: A CRITIQUE

nificant for dating purposes. Young finds that the claim that archaisms are due to the extreme age of the text is not sustainable (Young 1992:374). Propp finds that the syntactic and morphological evidence presented for Exodus 15 only appears to be archaic. He does not commit to a pre-ninth century date for this poem. He argues the possibility that the work may be a competent archaicstyle composition on the basis of similarities with works from the monarchic and later periods (Propp 2006:723). Following his examination of the range of poems within Robertson’s ‘early’ corpus, Day states: ‘That caution is needed in applying Robertson’s approach is indicated by the early date which he ascribes to Job, since on other grounds this is generally dated to the post-exilic period. This suggests that the attempt to date Hebrew poetry in this way is in danger of imposing a linguistic straitjacket on it which does not accord with reality.’ (Day 1985:100n50) Robertson’s preconceptions regarding an ‘early’ corpus, with particular reference to an early date for Deuteronomy 32, have been regarded as influencing his discussion. For example, Sanders argues that this led him to look on the third person feminine singular (3fs) sufformative of the suffix conjugation as an archaic form and not consider it as an Aramaism (Sanders 1996:231). For some scholars, linguistic evidence is given precedence in the dating process. Robertson’s focus is on linguistic evidence firstly as he compares the datable poetry in his terms10 with the undatable poetry in his terms, and secondly as he attempts to differentiate an ‘early’ corpus from a later corpus of otherwise undatable poetry of archaic style. This study calls into question the following assertions particularly in relation to an ‘early’ ABH poetic corpus from the second millennium BCE. We can date Biblical texts with a considerable degree of certainty with archaeology on the one hand and the study of language on the other. (Halpern 2003:50)

10 The expression, ‘in his terms’, refers to poems for which Robertson claims there is some general agreement that they are early, an agreement based on historical verisimilitude (Robertson 1972:2–5).

CHAPTER TWO

27

Freedman concurs: I am as firmly convinced today as I was 45 years ago that early poems are really early. (Freedman in Cross and Freedman 1997:x) Cross predicts that Robertson’s research will ‘eventually…bring an end to the discussion of the date of the poem [Exodus 15], at least for those with training in the history of the Canaanite dialects’ (Cross 1973:121n29). Paradoxically, in this research, we claim that it is our ‘training in the history of the Canaanite dialects’ which brings Robertson’s research into question. As these assertions are being carried forward into the twentyfirst century, there is a critical need for a thorough re-examination of the evidence. The criticisms of Robertson’s assumptions and methodology have mainly been piece-meal and related to the ongoing work of each scholar. In the subsequent chapters of Part I we argue that the theory that certain linguistic features are chronologically significant for dating some poetry containing ABH forms to the second millennium cannot be sustained. Robertson himself proposed the challenge: But what cannot be challenged without first exposing the inadequacies of the methodology is the use of linguistic evidence as a very strong argument for dating Exodus 15 early. This is the one unequivocal, firmly grounded conclusion of this study. (Robertson 1972:155) An analysis of Robertson’s assumptions, methodology and findings follows.

CHAPTER 3 AN ‘EARLY’ POETIC CORPUS Biblical Hebrew is usually divided on linguistic grounds into two periods, Early Biblical Hebrew (EBH) and Late Biblical Hebrew (LBH) (see, for example, Sáenz-Badillos 1993:52; Waltke and O’Connor 1990:15). The exile has been used as a turning point for linguistic change. However further research has shown this turning point to be an arbitrary selection (Ehrensvärd 2003:188), and it is argued that both styles appear side by side in certain texts, especially in poetry where earlier forms may be preserved among later forms as a matter of stylistic choice. It can also be shown that forms which are considered ‘late’ may also appear in ‘early’ poetry. An example is ‫מל ֻכתוֹ‬ ְ , ‘his kingdom’. Instances of this particular noun in poetic texts are found in Numbers 24.7 in an ABH poem, Jeremiah 10.7, a book generally treated as an EBH text and in Psalm 45.7, a royal psalm which is probably pre-exilic. Other uses of this particular noun in EBH texts are in the prose of 1 Kings 2.12, 1 Samuel 20.31, Jeremiah 49.34 and 52.31. All other instances are in books generally considered exilic or post-exilic.

;

LINGUISTIC EVIDENCE AND CHRONOLOGICAL STAGES EBH is regularly divided into SBH and ABH. ABH, so labelled by Kutscher (1982:12), is represented mainly in the poetry of the Pentateuch and the Early Prophets. He considers that there is a corpus of poetic texts which contain archaic linguistic features including verbal forms, noun forms, morphological forms, syntax and vocabulary. Kutscher does not identify this corpus in more specific terms, although he refers to morphological archaisms in the poetry of Genesis 49 and Deuteronomy 32. He does not specify dates for this poetry which his reference to a possible archaism in Jeremiah implies (Kutscher 1982:79). 29

30

DATING ABH POETRY: A CRITIQUE

The generally accepted features of the Biblical Hebrew poetic genre, as distinct from prose, are that it contains archaic linguistic features, restricts the use of particular linguistic features including certain prose particles, and demonstrates a free use of tenses (Freedman 1985:49–62; Seow 1995:157–159; Blau 1998:13). It is expected that some archaic forms will occur in preserved older vocabulary and grammatical usage. Thus the poet or scribe may draw upon increased lexical and morphological resources. The relationship between linguistic evidence and chronological stages is explored in the following ways. Firstly, the evidence in the literature suggests that some scholars consider the poetry containing archaisms is early because of its placement in the Pentateuch and the Early Prophets. They then argue that there is a linguistic relationship to chronological periods. This is examined. The tendency to divide the history of the Hebrew language into chronological stages according to the available collections of literature ignores the fact that the evidence involves collections of literature rather than language data necessarily specific to successive chronological periods. Secondly, in contrast to this chronological definition, Young’s definition of ABH poetry is examined. He defines this poetry as ‘written with a characteristic use of language, i.e., concentration, or clustering of dead linguistic features for stylistic reasons. As such it may, but does not necessarily, correspond to the corpus of earliest Hebrew poetry… ABH is not only characterized by unrestricted variation of standard and archaic forms: this stylistic variation includes dialectal forms as well.’ (Young 1992:370–371) Thirdly, attempts to date an ‘early’ corpus to the period from the thirteenth to the tenth centuries BCE inclusive are argued to be fraught with many uncertainties. These relate to our limited knowledge regarding language use in the poetic genre, the encoding of meaning in the choice of both words and linguistic structures, and ways to analyze issues concerning the author’s choice of one particular form over another equivalent one (Groom 2003:xxv). This investigation into Robertson’s hypothesized ‘early’ corpus of ABH poetry demonstrates that any attempt at linguistic dating of these texts must lead to inconclusive results. The two descriptors, archaic morphology and archaic syntax, are critically examined in the following chapters.

CHAPTER THREE

31

DEFINITION OF ‘ARCHAISM’ There are various shades of meaning in the terminology used to describe archaic language and archaic linguistic forms when applied to ABH poetry. One set of definitions describes an ‘archaism’ or an archaic linguistic feature (or form) as either a ‘primitive’ or an ‘antiquated’ form of language no longer in common use, though retained for special purposes. To ‘archaize’ refers to the practice of imitating, or affecting, the archaic, or copying the ancients (Fowler et al. 1964:59). Toynbee describes the use of archaism as the result of having dropped what one ‘has been holding in order to set the hand free for grasping some lost treasure from the Past.’ Archaism is ‘unlikely to have been cultivated as an end in itself,’ and may be restricted to a minimum quota ‘in order to convey…some literary message…which was of capital importance in the archaist’s own estimation.’ (Toynbee 1939:62, 77, 77n2) Toynbee suggests several reasons for the use of linguistic archaism. Among them are the pleasure of the use of the medium, the making of the literature to appear old, the love of using archaic language, and the re-creating of a linguistic medium with the ability to recapture a dead social environment, transporting the reader into the past (Toynbee 1939:78). He considers linguistic archaism as a deliberate return to some form of language that has fallen into disuse, a choice which differs from linguistic conservatism (Toynbee 1939:62). To enable meaningful discussion to proceed in the context of biblical poetry as well as for comparative purposes, an archaism is defined here as a rare morphological form found in poetic Biblical Hebrew in the Masoretic Text as well as in Ugaritic and/or the Canaanite of the Amarna letters. Both of these latter sources are dated to the latter half of the second millennium BCE. This definition implies a non-specific time interval between the standard use of linguistic forms in one language or dialect, and their subsequent use as archaisms in another language or dialect. According to this definition, linguistic evidence in ABH poetry shows how archaism as a stylistic device is used in accordance with the nature of the composition. Archaic morphological forms, vocabulary and structures create the impression of antiquity. This phenomenon is well recognized in poetry within prose settings and

32

DATING ABH POETRY: A CRITIQUE

in the psalms. However, when this stylistic device is related to the dating of biblical poetic texts, there is much dispute, as, for example, in the dating of Exodus 15. The archaic style of Exodus 15 may be considered to be ‘too authentic’ as it attempts to support a Mosaic authorship.11 The use of archaisms in Exodus 15 may also be seen as intentional, allowing for the possibility that the poet produced the poem in a period possibly hundreds of years later than the events depicted in the poem. How much later however is a matter for conjecture. Brenner argues that the pattern of appearances of the archaisms does not favour an ‘early’ period which is, prior to the tenth century BCE (Brenner 1991:34–35). Robertson claims that by using the process of linguistic analysis there is the potential to differentiate from within the ABH corpus a group of poems previously dated by other less effective means. He identifies these poems as an ‘early’ corpus which is from the thirteenth century to the tenth century BCE inclusive, on the grounds that the so-called archaisms are in fact ‘genuine’ forms used as a matter of linguistic necessity. Robertson’s ‘genuine’ early forms are morphological and/or syntactic forms which he claims were in use in second millennium Hebrew as well as in the second millennium BCE texts from Ugarit and/or the Canaanite of the Amarna letters even though there are no attested texts in Hebrew from that time which confirm his assumptions. Robertson argues that this is valid evidence that the poet is writing in a period close to the time of these other sources (Robertson 1972:4). In the discussion of Robertson’s work, the terminology, ‘genuine’ form, is used for this description of an archaism, and the general term, ‘archaism’, is used in relation to archaizing. Robertson’s phrase ‘close to the time’ needs clarification. The Amarna letters are quite narrowly dated to the mid-fourteenth century BCE, while the Ugaritic texts are dated prior to 1190 BCE (Singer 1999:729–730). Robertson’s dating has to take into account various historical factors including the date of the exodus from In a similar way, Hoffman sees the composition of Jeremiah 6.16– 21 as a deliberate attempt to imitate Jeremianic authorship ‘too beautifully’, considering that it has an unusually high proportion of Jeremianic expressions (Hoffman 1994:116–17). 11

CHAPTER THREE

33

Egypt. Robertson begins his study with a statement which describes the early phase of Israelite political, cultural and literary development as the period beginning in thirteenth century BCE with the exodus from Egypt and the conquest of Canaan, and ending in the tenth century BCE with the establishment of the monarchy. His quest is to determine if any of the poetry in the Hebrew Bible can be dated by linguistic evidence to this phase (Robertson 1972:1). His study indicates that it can, but on closer examination, his findings remain hypothetical and inconclusive. Robertson’s conclusions are related to his dating of the exodus to the thirteenth century BCE. Dates of circa 1290–1280 are proposed by some scholars (Kitchen and Mitchell 1962:200; Archer 1974:225). Later dates in the thirteenth century including circa 1250 and circa 1225 are proposed (Jones 1970:115; Walton 2003:259). Many scholars who consider the exodus to be a historical event place the exodus in the thirteenth century, with the key datum the mention of the city Raamses in Exodus 1.11 (Albright in Freedman 1999:68). Other historical datings for the exodus are proposed which would not fit as readily into Robertson’s linguistic dating. Using data from biblical texts, for example, 1 Kings 6:1, a date of circa 1445 BCE or maybe even earlier, circa 1480 is proposed (Jones 1970:115; Bimson 1981:222). Using added archaeological, Egyptological and Amarna data in juxtaposition, Walton finds for a fifteenth century date (Walton 2003:270), but notes that this date is far from definite. By contrast, Rendsburg presents a later date, circa 1150, based on the occupation history of Jericho, Ai, Heshbon and Arad, along with biblical statements about the Philistines, the ancestral genealogy of King David, and the Egyptian evidence concerning Pharaohs Ramesses II and Ramesses III (Rendsburg 1992: 513, 516 and 521). Bietak dates the exodus in the mid-twelfth century, suggesting a date for Exodus 15 about the mid-tenth century (Bietak 2003:82). Halpern dates the exodus from the twelfth to the eleventh centuries, the composition of the poem to 1125–1000,

34

DATING ABH POETRY: A CRITIQUE

and the recording of the poem from the ninth to the eighth centuries (Halpern 2003:57).12 These possible variations in the date of the early phase of Israelite development bring Robertson’s dates for an ‘early’ poetic corpus into question. A fifteenth century dating for the exodus places Robertson’s dating of Exodus 15 approximately three centuries later than the event. A mid-twelfth century date for the exodus, if a distinct possibility, would require a full reconsideration of Robertson’s proposal. If Robertson has confidence in his use of linguistic evidence as an independent variable for dating texts to the ‘early’ period, then he would not need to assert a time period for the exodus. Robertson would also not have had to limit his datings of poetry in the ‘early’ corpus to a hypothesized time period of Israelite development by introducing other variables which may be interpreted as having a significant influence on his outcomes. The varied datings from the fifteenth to the twelfth centuries are all seen to have implications for Robertson’s hypothesized development of the Hebrew language, both synchronically and diachronically. As there is no scholarly consensus in the matter of dating the exodus, and as Robertson has adopted one point of view which cannot be proven, the basis for his projected dating of this essential piece of evidence, that is, the dating of Exodus 15, as well as the dating of the period for an ‘early’ poetic corpus, must be considered hypothetical and speculative and therefore inconclusive.

METHODOLOGICAL PROBLEMS WITH ROBERTSON’S USE OF LINGUISTIC EVIDENCE FOR DATING THIS CORPUS It is argued that Robertson’s attribution of dates prior to the eighth century, in particular those dates in the second millennium, to several ABH poems on the basis of hypothetical historical evidence can only lead to inconclusive findings, especially because of his questionable assumptions and methodology. Robertson asserts that there was an agreed dating among scholars of the datable SBH poetic texts. This is not the case 12 Studies such as those by Hendel (Hendel 2001) which question the historicity of the exodus are not discussed here as the emphasis is on the text of the Hebrew Bible.

CHAPTER THREE

35

(Waltke and O’Connor 1990:13; Ehrensvärd 2005:165; Emerton 2006:34). There are also those who would not agree with the preexilic dating of any text (for example, Davies 1992:36–37). Robertson assumes that the undatable texts in his archaic corpus are preexilic works. In his search for an ‘early’ pre-SBH poetic corpus, Robertson makes several assumptions about linguistic forms which were common in his hypothetical ‘early’ Hebrew poetic corpus. He assumes that these are forms rare in biblical poetry and present in Ugaritic poetry and/or the Canaanite of the Amarna letters and were once common in ‘early’ Hebrew poetry. Robertson also assumes that there are rare forms in biblical poetry which are not present in Ugaritic poetry and/or the Canaanite of the Amarna letters but which were once common in ‘early’ Hebrew poetry. While Robertson concedes that a rare form in a Hebrew text is not necessarily old, he makes the assumption that there are particular rare forms which are older, and were previously common in ‘early’ Biblical Hebrew. These he also refers to as ‘genuine’ forms, specifically with reference to the 3mp pronominal suffix ‫מוֹ‬-. One distinguishing feature of the ‘genuine’ form is that a parallel younger form does not appear in the same text. If both appear, then Robertson argues that archaizing has occurred, thus indicating that the text is more recent. Robertson argues that the presence of archaic morphology and archaic syntax, under the conditions he defines, indicate that the texts in which they appear are temporally closer to their Ugaritic and Canaanite counterparts and are earlier than the archaizing in the SBH poetic counterparts. He argues that these texts are most likely to be of second millennium BCE provenance, thus providing grounds for an ‘early’ corpus. Finally, Robertson assumes that ‘early’ poetic Hebrew can be reconstructed reliably and validly. He claims he can reconstruct the process of the development of the language and reveal when new forms were added and when old forms disappeared (Robertson 1972:1). The latter three assumptions are discussed under the following headings: Morphological Archaism and an ‘Early’ Corpus Syntactic Archaism and an ‘Early’ Corpus Textual Comparisons Textual Emendation and an ‘Early’ Corpus

CHAPTER 4 MORPHOLOGICAL ARCHAISMS AND AN ‘EARLY’ CORPUS The generally accepted features of biblical poetry, as distinct from prose, are the presence of archaic linguistic features, the restriction of the use of certain linguistic features and the evidence of a free use of tenses. These features are not exclusively poetic. However poetry takes full advantage of the first and third of these features, explores the resources of the language and widens these possibilities. The relevance of archaic features, particularly archaic morphemes in the context of Robertson’s study, to dating a corpus of poetry to an early period is explored in this chapter. Following the definition provided in the previous chapter, all archaisms reflect language usage in a previous linguistic era, that is, they are imitations of earlier forms (Hurvitz 1973:75). However, to label a poetic work as archaic may have two meanings in common parlance. One meaning is that, as a whole, the poem is old, that is, it is ancient. This is the sense that is indicated when not referring specifically to linguistic evidence (Simpson and Weiner 1989:609). This use of ‘archaic’ indicates a temporal reference, whether actual or apparent, which may be difficult if not impossible to determine. Another meaning is that a poem may be described as archaic in style with reference to specific linguistic details which are contained therein. The poem contains archaic linguistic traces or socalled fossilized relics which may have survived, been revived, or adopted as a matter of choice by an author or scribe. The specific purpose for their inclusion may be as an attempt to make the poem appear old, as a concern for metrical elements, for the maintenance of sound rhymes or for the creation of an overall compositional unity.

37

38

DATING ABH POETRY: A CRITIQUE

In this study, ‘archaic’ poetry refers to poetry with an archaic linguistic style which is not necessarily linked to a specific time period. Though the possibility must be conceded that some poetry using this style may indeed be ancient, as this possibility is only hypothetical, and Robertson’s study in no way confirms this hypothesis, the preferred interpretation for ‘archaic’ is that of linguistic style. Robertson argues that there are two types of archaisms: those that are ‘genuine’ in contrast to those forms which are the product of archaizing. He claims that a ‘genuine’ archaic form13 is in common use at a specific time, that is, the time of the writing of the archaic poem. He also claims that such a form is not used in a poem alongside its standard form as in standard biblical poetry. However Robertson acknowledges that if archaizing is used consistently, it is impossible to tell whether the archaism is ‘genuine’ or not (Robertson 1972:2). Thus it is argued here that as long as the ‘genuine’ archaism and archaizing cannot be differentiated with certainty, the use of these terms, and especially the claim of a ‘genuine’ archaic form, weaken his argument. If the argument is pursued that ‘early’ biblical poetry containing ‘genuine’ archaic forms is indeed contemporaneous with some period in which these archaisms were the standard usage (an element of Robertson’s argument), the implication is that the closer in time Hebrew poetry is to Ugaritic and Canaanite as indicated previously, the more likely it is that ‘genuine’ archaic forms will be identified from the source languages (or dialects). In the course of this study it is proposed to show that this is not necessarily the case. Robertson’s argument implies that the ‘genuine’ archaic form was used as a linguistic necessity in the ‘early’ poetry to the total exclusion of the later form. Robertson does not give textual evi-

The terminology, ‘genuine’ archaic form is reserved for Robertson’s proposed ‘early’ forms, and the term ‘archaism’ is used for forms which are generally considered to be forms from a pre-biblical period of the Hebrew language, but not of a specific dating. 13

CHAPTER FOUR

39

dence to support this argument either from attested second millennium Hebrew or from other languages.14 Robertson’s study does not prove that the presence of an earlier morpheme in certain ABH poetry (from the earlier source material) and the absence of its later SBH form is a significant indicator of the temporal proximity of the authorship of the poetic work to the source material. The argument that all archaisms in Biblical Hebrew poetry are the product of archaizing also cannot be proven. A dependent temporal relationship between the standard form in the presumed source language or dialect, in this case Ugaritic and the Canaanite of the Amarna letters, and the hypothesized standard form in pre-Biblical Hebrew cannot be ascertained at this stage because of the lack of relevant, attested, pre-Biblical Hebrew evidence. In addition, the temporal distance cannot be measured between the points when ‘genuine’ archaic forms were used and when they became archaized forms, not only because of the lack of attested evidence in early Hebrew, but also because of the multiplicity of undetermined linguistic factors which could be involved. Robertson comments that the vast majority of linguistic phenomena are alike in poetry, but there are significant differences with regard to twenty or fewer linguistic phenomena, and only the latter are relevant for dating. However Robertson analyzes fewer than half of these, with little comment on the remainder. The chief archaic morphemes which Robertson considers relevant for dating purposes include the following: 1. The preservation of the y/w of a final y/w root when it opens a syllable. This occurs in Ugaritic with very few exceptions (1972:57–58). 2. The use of z as a relative pronoun, as in Ugaritic (1972:58). 3. 3ms pronominal suffix -anhū and -annū. This occurs in Ugaritic with the energic nun and the possibility of the elision of the he (1972:65). 4. 3mp pronominal suffix -mw (-mô,15 -mû). This cannot be found in Ugaritic, but he claims it is old and in this case, early (1972:65). 14 It is argued subsequently that Robertson does not cite the evidence from Hebrew because it is not available.

40

DATING ABH POETRY: A CRITIQUE

5. Nominal or participial affix -y (-i). This is not identifiable from Ugaritic orthography, but is found in the Amarna glosses and possibly in Hebrew (Robertson 1972:69). 6. Nominal affix, singular -w (-ō). This is not identifiable in Ugaritic orthography, nor is it found in the Amarna letters, but is a rare poetic form exclusive to Hebrew (1972:76). 7. The enclitic mem on the preposition (1972:109–110). There is one reconstructed archaic form in Robertson’s analysis. The enclitic mem, which is not generally recognized in the Masoretic Text, has been recovered by textual reconstruction (Robertson 1972:80–92). For further discussion, see chapter 7, Textual Emendation and an ‘Early Corpus’. The evidence from a closer examination of two of these morphemes considerably weakens Robertson’s chief finding regarding the dating of Exodus 15. Robertson relies heavily on the finding that in this poem the 3mp pronominal suffix ‫מוֹ‬- is a ‘genuine’ archaic form as there is no use of the parallel standard form for this suffix. Although he finds no evidence of its occurrence in Ugaritic or Canaanite, its rarity, he argues, indicates that it is an archaism. He explains in detail that the datable poetry uses the ‫מוֹ‬- suffix on prepositions, but not on nouns and verbs, making it possible for ‫מוֹ‬- to be a ‘genuine’ archaic form since it is found nine times on verbal forms but not on prepositions in this poem (Robertson 1972:65–66). He explains the use of ‫ ֶהם‬- on the preposition in verse 16, ‫יהם‬ ֶ ‫ ֲע ֵל‬, as a ‘genuine’ archaic form which has been retained from Ugaritic, not as evidence of archaizing, but as a reflection of this usage in an early stage of the Hebrew language. An analysis of the Canaanite of the Amarna letters indicates two instances of the use of the ‫מוֹ‬- suffix, one as a noun gloss and one on a preposition. Both instances are generally considered to have come from the Central Hill country: EA 287 from Jerusalem and EA 252 from Shechem.16 15

tionis.

16

The circumflex with the vowel letter indicates the use of a mater lec-

Adamthwaite challenges the identification of Shechem with an alternative capital proposed at Pehel (Pella) in the Transjordan (Adamth-

CHAPTER FOUR

41

EA 28717:16: ma-ah -zi-ra-mu: *mahsiramô: ‘their needs’ ˘ EA 252:26: ta-ah˘ -ta-mu: *tah. tamô: ‘beneath them’ (Rainey ˘ 1996, I:92) The fact that the ‫מוֹ‬- suffix is found on a preposition in the Amarna letters and in the datable standard poetry, mainly from the prophets of the eighth century and later, means that it could reasonably be expected on the preposition in Exodus 15:16, ‫יהם‬ ֶ ‫ ֲע ֵל‬, ‘upon them’. This would indicate a continuity of usage, and its absence on the preposition as an indicator of a standard form. Thus in Robertson’s terms, archaizing has occurred. Robertson’s argument ruling out the use of the form consisting of a preposition with an attached ‫מוֹ‬- pronominal suffix in texts earlier than datable biblical poetry cannot be confidently sustained. Thus the argument that Exodus 15 has the only clear ‘genuine’ archaic morphological form which is significant for dating is brought into question. In contrast to Exodus 15, the poetry of Deuteronomy 32, also part of Robertson’s ‘early’ corpus, presents a contrasting pattern of usage for the pronominal suffix ‫מוֹ‬-. In Deuteronomy 32 this suffix is affixed to prepositions (verses 23, 32, 35) and nouns (verses 27, 32, 37, 38), but not verbal forms. Alongside the Amarna evidence, this supports the argument that there was no break in its use on the preposition and the noun. The absence of this pronominal suffix on nouns in Exodus 15 may only be that a 3mp suffix is never required by the poet or scribe. Evidence from the poetic section of the book of Job, which is also in Robertson’s ‘early’ corpus, reveals that the pronominal suffix ‫מוֹ‬- is used with prepositions and one noun (Job 27.23: ‫ )כפימו‬but not on verbs. Parallel standard forms are also found on prepositions. Robertson indicates that this is an indicator of standard poetic Hebrew. There are other forms of archaizing in the poetry of Job, but Robertson assigns it to a possible second millennium BCE date. This also supports the argument for waite 1992:1). He bases this identification on the content of EA 255, EA 256 and on a re-examination of EA 289. He expresses some doubt about suggestions made by a few scholars as to its location. 17 Texts from the el-‘Amarna archive are cited with the prefix EA followed by the text number according to the standard edition of Knudtzon (1915).

42

DATING ABH POETRY: A CRITIQUE

the continuity of use of this morpheme on prepositions. Thus Robertson does not provide irrefutable evidence that the ‫מוֹ‬- pronominal suffix on the verbal forms in Exodus 15 is a significant factor in identifying it as an ‘early’ archaic poem. As the preposition in Exodus 15:16 does not have the expected ‫מוֹ‬- affix, but a later form, archaizing has occurred. This also negates Robertson’s use of his chief item of morphological evidence for the ‘early’ dating this poem. Robertson discusses the 3ms pronominal suffixes attached to imperfect verbs which are formed from the Ugaritic forms -anhū and -annū. He indicates that both forms are found in Ugaritic: the former as -nh and the latter as -n or -nn, both occurring in more or less equal distribution. His criteria suggest that both could be considered as possible archaic forms. However, as he only includes the former as an archaic form, this is an indication of a lack of discriminatory function in his criteria, as he has to take into account that the ‫נּוּ‬- form in Hebrew is also a standard form in poetry and prose. Only the former appears as ‫נהוּ‬- in his ‘early’ corpus. In Exodus 15.2 the text reads: ‫‘ וַ ֲאר ְֹמ ֶמנְ הוּ‬I will exalt him’; in Deuteronomy 32.10 ‫‘ יְ ס ְֺב ֶבנְ הוּ‬he encircled him’, ‫‘ יִ ְצּ ֶרנְ הוּ‬he guarded him’; and in ָ ‘and may he bless him’. Robertson mistakenly Psalm 72.15 ‫יְב ֲר ֶכנְ הוּ‬ adds another in Deuteronomy 32.10 ‫( יבו ֺנְ נֵ הוּ‬Robertson 1972:65). There are two other of these forms in Jeremiah 5.22 ‫לֺא יַ ַע ְב ֶרנְ הוּ‬ ‘he cannot pass over it’, and ‫‘ לֺא יַ ַע ְב ֻרנְ הוּ‬they cannot pass over it’. This is another factor which needs to be taken into consideration. Gesenius suggests that the use of the form with the energic nun could be associated with its position as a pausal form which occurs in three out of five of these uses of the energic nun with this 3ms pronominal suffix (GKC §58l). The number and range of these examples do not clearly indicate a necessarily ‘genuine’ archaic form in Robertson’s own terms. With his treatment of the form ‫נהוּ‬- and his explanation of its low incidence in his ‘early’ corpus, Robertson admits that both poetic style and an early date are both relevant options for evaluating archaic forms in linguistic data (Robertson 1972:65). With this comment Robertson has opened the door for all archaic forms, even his ‘genuine’ archaic forms, to be considered as choices of poetic style. As Robertson’s chief example of a ‘genuine’ archaic morpheme, ‫מוֹ‬- is untenable in his own terms, and as he acknowledges

CHAPTER FOUR

43

that the use of archaic forms may be considered as a matter of scribal choice, his argument that the linguistic evidence demonstrates that Exodus 15 is the oldest poem in the Hebrew Bible and is of second millennium BCE provenance, must be called into question. It then follows that all Robertson’s datings of the ‘early’ poetry which have been based on morphological evidence must also be brought into question. Thus from this evidence, his identification of an ‘early’ poetic corpus has no sound foundation. In Robertson’s study one further grouping of morphemes which he considers became archaic even in ‘early’ Hebrew poetry is indicated below. 1. The 3fs ending ‫ת‬- of the suffix conjugation. 2. The retention of the ‫ ה‬of the hiphil stem in the prefix conjugation. 3. The 3ms pronominal suffix -ahū with plural nouns. 4. The energic ending -an(na). 5. 3mp prefix conjugation taqṭulu. In Part II, some of these morphemes and other possible ‘genuine’ archaic morphemes are analyzed. They reasonably could have been expected in the second millennium BCE period to which Robertson refers, particularly as he argues for the antiquity of his corpus on the grounds of its temporal proximity to Ugaritic and Amarna Canaanite. Examples examined include the use of case endings, remnants of which are held to occur in the Hebrew Bible,18 the 3mp preformative of the prefix conjugation -‫( ת‬which is also analyzed in Robertson’s study, but for the present study the data require re-analysis); and the use of the 3fs ending ‫ת‬- of the suffix conjugation. These morphemes are explored using Robertson’s sources for evidence.

18

For a discussion of this point, see Vern, forthcoming.

CHAPTER 5 SYNTACTIC ARCHAISMS AND AN ‘EARLY’ CORPUS The focus of this chapter is the syntax of the verb in past narrative. From his analysis of the verbal forms in past narrative in Ugaritic, Robertson finds parallels with the verbal forms in past narrative in ABH poetry. He determines that in Ugaritic, the prefix conjugation (yqt.l), the suffix conjugation (qt.l) and the yqt.l with the waw attached (wyqt.l) are syntactically equivalent in certain circumstances with all forms indicating the past tense. The waw does not seem to have the same conversive function on prefix conjugation verbs in Ugaritic as it does in Hebrew (Robertson 1972:14–17; Niccacci 2006:268). Robertson makes use of this finding for selected prefix conjugation verbs in early Hebrew poetry where neither the imperfect sense nor the past frequentative sense applies. By contrast, standard Biblical Hebrew poetry makes habitual, although not exclusive use of the qat.al and wayyiqt.ol for narrating past events (Robertson 1972:9). Later research into the Canaanite of the Amarna letters has led to further perspectives on the Northwest Semitic verbal system. Rainey finds that in Northwest Semitic there is a bipartite modal system (indicative and injunctive), with a tripartite subdivision in each mode (indicative: preterite, imperfect, energic; injunctive: jussive, volitive, energic) (Rainey 1986:4). Rainey’s system is set out in table 3. He argues that this system existed in Amarna Canaanite Table 3: Modes and Tenses in Amarna Canaanite (Rainey 1986:4)

INDICATIVE Preterite: yaqt.ul, -û Imperfect: yaqt.ulu, -ûna Energic: yaqt.ulun(n)a

INJUNCTIVE Jussive: yaqt.ul, -û Volitive: yaqt.ula, -û Energic: yaqt.ulan(n)a 45

46

DATING ABH POETRY: A CRITIQUE

and in Ugaritic (Rainey 1988:37). Sivan’s analysis of the Ugaritic verbal system supports this argument (Sivan 1997:98–102). There are many examples of the yaqt.ul preterite. Rainey understands this to indicate that the preterite was a living tense form in West Semitic of the time (Rainey 1996, II:223). Examples of Canaanite preterites include: EA 197:7: yi-mur-ma from amāru, to see: ‘he saw’ EA 197:8: yi-an-na-mu-uš from namāšu, to depart: ‘he departed’ EA 197:9: yi-du-ul from edēlu, to lock: ‘he locked’ Examples of Canaanite imperfects include: EA 89:36: ya-aš-pu-ru from šapāru, to send: ‘he keeps sending’, iterative imperfect EA 197:34: ya-ha-li-ku from h alāqu, to destroy: ‘he is destroying’, ˘ ˘ iterative imperfect EA 227:15: yi-ik-šu-du from kašādu, to arrive: ‘he will arrive’ Such examples provide a differentiation of the prefix conjugation, yqt.l, into two forms. The preterite form of the prefix conjugation is a short form with no vocalic ending. The imperfect form of the yqt.l is a long form with a vocalic ending which may be read as a present-future or as past continuous (Rainey 1986:4; Rainey 1996, II:221–264). Rainey considers that the qt.l form was in current use as it had virtually taken over the past tense function (Rainey 1990:409). Rainey’s analysis of examples from the Amarna letters provides further substance for his argument (Rainey 1996, II:222– 227). Rainey’s evidence for relating his findings from the Amarna letters to the Hebrew text indicates that the Northwest Semitic imperfect was originally yaqt.ulu. Certain weak verbs in Hebrew, as well as the strong verbs in the hiphil stem, demonstrate the formal distinction between yaqt.ulu and yaqt.ul. For example, the yaqt.ulu forms are found in Job 4.18:

‫ֵ ֣הן ַ ֭בּ ֲע ָב ָדיו ֣ל ֹא יַ ֲא ִ ֑מין ֝וּ ְב ַמ ְל ָא ָ֗כיו יָ ִ ֥שׂים ָתּ ֳה ָ ֽלה‬ Behold, he does not trust his servants and to his messengers he imputes folly. (Rainey 1986:7) An example of a yaqt.ul preterite form is found in Deuteronomy 10.3:

‫רוֹן ֲע ֵ ֣צי ִשׁ ִ֔טּים‬ ֙ ‫וָ ַ ֤א ַעשׂ ֲא‬

And I made an ark of acacia wood (Rainey 2003:401) This distinction, Rainey argues, was originally a feature of ancient Hebrew (Rainey 1988:36).

CHAPTER FIVE

47

Some grammarians consider that early in the evolution of the Hebrew language, the final short vowels disappeared and so the imperfect form *yaqt.ulu became *yaqt.ul, and was thus identical to the preterite yaqt.ul. In time, *yaqt.ul, in either the imperfect or the preterite, developed into yiqt.ol. Thus the yiqt.ol form may be imperfect or preterite. In its latter function there is some overlap with the perfect. The waw-conversive became a convenient way to distinguish the preterite from the imperfect (Seow 1995:225–227). Thus from second millennium BCE Northwest Semitic sources there are both prefix and suffix verbal conjugations in past narrative. Past narrative in Biblical Hebrew commonly employs the suffix conjugation and the wayyiqt.ol form. Robertson finds that the wayyiqt.ol form provides the alternative past narrative function and is the most commonly used in SBH. Thus there is a linguistic variation, though it is not clear that a diachronic development from second millennium sources can be assumed. Robertson argues that early biblical poetry provides evidence of a predominant use of the past narrative use of the yiqt.ol verbal form similar to that in Ugaritic, as the earliest of the biblical poetry is from the period between the second millennium BCE sources and eighth century SBH poetic corpus. This hypothetical, diachronic development is extremely tenuous, especially in the absence of Hebrew data reliably attested prior to the eighth century. The link to the late second millennium is even more uncertain. In contrast to this view, Niccacci claims that it is not the archaic peculiarities in the use of the verbal forms qat.al and yiqt.ol that are at play in Hebrew poetry where the past sense of the verbal forms appears to be indicated (Niccacci 2006:249). He argues that any phenomenon in one language cannot automatically be applied to another without appropriate control within the framework of the verbal system of that language. He also argues that different verbal forms should be expected to exercise different functions, and that texts should be analyzed accordingly. For this purpose he outlines five of these functions.19 He focuses on the importance of

19 The five different functions of the two syntactic constructions qat.al /yiqt.ol :

48

DATING ABH POETRY: A CRITIQUE

a synchronic analysis rather than depending on a comparative, diachronic analysis (Niccacci 2006:253–54). Thus he finds no justification for taking the qat.al and yiqt.ol forms as equivalent and translating them in the same way. ‘The absence of the narrative yiqt.ol in BH combined with the absence…of “inverted/converted” verbal forms in Ugaritic makes me suspicious of any quick comparison between the two verbal systems.’ (Niccacci 2006:252) An analysis of these points of view in terms of some examples from Deuteronomy 32.8–13 indicates the points of departure of Niccacci, Rainey and Robertson, and the influence of their theories on readings of the text. This analysis of their theories follows in the above order to highlight developments in more recent scholarship. Niccacci finds that the yiqt.ol form in Biblical Hebrew is not used to narrate events when conveying historical information. It is only used to comment, specify, detail or describe an event in some way (Niccacci 2006:252). He also considers that morphology is not a sufficient criterion to distinguish jussive from indicative yiqt.ol, as in many cases such verbal forms are not distinguishable from the indicative, and morphology is not always rigorously respected even when distinctive verbal forms are possible. He considers that the principle of the initial position in the sentence is a more basic criterion, although second place (x-yiqt.ol) forms are also clearly attested (Niccacci 2006:251). Based on these principles, Niccacci translates Deuteronomy 32 verses 8 and 10 in the following way, highlighting the functions of the verbs under consideration. Verse 8 a) qat.al and yiqt.ol may refer each to its own specific time axis:- past and future respectively. b) When both qat.al and yiqt.ol refer to the axis of the past, they signal a shift from main-line, punctual information (qat.al) to secondary-line, repeated/habitual/explicatory/descriptive information (yiqt.ol). c) Sentence-initial yiqṭol can be functionally a non-initial yiqt.ol, because of a double-duty modifier. d) Sentence-initial yiqt.ol plays a volitive function. e) Volitive yiqt.ol can play the function of protasis. (Niccacci 2006:253)

CHAPTER FIVE

49

‫גּוֹים ְבּ ַה ְפ ִר ֖ידוֹ ְבּ ֵ ֣ני ָא ָ ֑דם יַ ֵצּ ֙ב גְּ ֻב ֹ֣לת ַע ִ֔מּים ְל ִמ ְס ַ ֖פּר‬ ִ֔ ‫ְבּ ַהנְ ֵ ֤חל ֶע ְל ֙יוֹן‬ ‫ְבּ ֵ ֥ני יִ ְשׂ ָר ֵ ֽאל׃‬ When the Most High portioned out the inheritance to the nations/when he separated the children of men/he would fix (‫יַ ֵצּב‬: apodosis) the boundaries of the nations/according to the sons of Israel. Verse 10:

‫הוּ ֣יְבוֹנְ ֔ ֵנהוּ יִ ְצּ ֶ ֖רנְ הוּ‬ ֙ ְ‫מן יְ ֽסֹ ְב ֶ֙בנ‬ ֹ ֑ ‫תהוּ יְ ֵ ֣לל יְ ִשׁ‬ ֹ ֖ ‫וּב‬ ְ ‫הוּ ְבּ ֶ ֣א ֶרץ ִמ ְד ָ֔בּר‬ ֙ ‫יִמ ָצ ֵ֙א‬ ְ ‫ישׁוֹן ֵעינֽ וֹ׃‬ ֥ ‫ְכּ ִא‬ Should he find him/When he should find him (‫יִ ְמ ָצ ֵאהוּ‬: protasis)/

in the land of the desert and in the wilderness, the howling of the steppe,/ he would surround him (‫יְ ס ְֺב ֶבנְ הוּ‬: apodosis), / take care of him (‫יְבוֹנְ ֔ ֵנהוּ‬ ֣ : coordinate)/, protect him (‫יִ ְצּ ֶ ֖רנְ הוּ‬: coordinate)/ as the apple of his eye. (Niccacci 2006:261n24) These examples provide an indication of the variety of functions of the yiqt.ol verbal form. It is noted that in these verses Niccacci provides no preterite reading. Rainey explores the preterite and the imperfect past in the same passage, where he sees the preterite without a waw employed as an archaism in contrast to the imperfect as past continuous. He finds that where energic nun is linked to the verb, the yiqt.ol verbal form may be read as an imperfect continual, and where there is no energic nun, it may be read as a preterite or an imperfect of habitual behaviour (Rainey 1986:15–16).20 Rainey’s reading of the relevant segment in Deuteronomy 32.8 is: ‫יַ ֵצּב‬: ‘He fixed the boundaries of the people’ His comment is that this verbal form is the short form of the hiphil with preterite connotation (Rainey 1986:15). Rainey’s reading of the verbal forms in Deuteronomy 32.10 is: ‫יִ ְמ ָצ ֵאהוּ‬: he found him. He comments that this is a single instance in the past which can only be preterite.

>

Robertson also recognizes this energic nun as an archaism, but only in relation to the morphology of the 3ms pronominal suffixes from Ugaritic -anhū and -annū (Robertson 1972:65). 20

50

DATING ABH POETRY: A CRITIQUE

‫יְ ס ְֺב ֶבנְ הוּ‬: he continually encircled him. Rainey comments that the nun form of the accusative suffix indicates that the verbal form is an imperfect expressing continual encompassment. ‫יְבו ֺנְ נֶ הוּ‬: he instructed him. He comments that this is a hapax in the polel stem, lacking a nun, and is viewed as a single action in the past and therefore the verb form is a preterite. ‫יִ ְצּ ֶרנְ הוּ‬: he continually protected him. Rainey comments that here there is a return to the nun form as a resumption of the imperfect verbal usage expressing continual protection of the deity (Rainey 1986:16). Rainey notes the pattern of the verbal forms in this verse as a movement from the preterite to the imperfect to another preterite, concluding with a second imperfect. He indicates that his analysis of the poetic usage of the preterite and the imperfect past yields a proper understanding of the verbal nuances used by the poet and that this awareness is essential for a thorough appreciation of the scribe’s message. Rainey also notes that the work of the scribes of the Second Temple period and the later Masoretes, whose Hebrew did not use the old verbal system, did not generally obscure the original pattern (Rainey 1986:16). This raises the issue as to whether Rainey’s reconstruction of the ‘older verbal system’ is the form used in this poem, or whether the Masoretes may have had other ways of reconciling these forms with what they understood the verbal system to be. Against the developments involved in these two interpretations of the verbal usage in these two verses, Robertson’s readings of these verbal forms appear below. He analyzes all of these verbs as unambiguously referring to past time, and the nature of the events narrated showing their past reference. Deuteronomy 32.8: ‫יַ ֵצּב‬: he fixed Deuteronomy 32.10: ‫יִ ְמ ָצ ֵאהוּ‬: he found him ‫יְ ס ְֺב ֶבנְ הוּ‬: he surrounded him ‫יְבו ֺנְ נֶ הוּ‬: he taught him ‫יִ ְצּ ֶרנְ הוּ‬: he guarded him (Robertson 1972:36–38) For Robertson, the use of the yiqt.ol verbal form as a preterite is beyond doubt. However, the insights into the verbal system by Rainey and Niccacci outlined above need to be considered since

CHAPTER FIVE

51

they cast doubt on the simplicity of Robertson’s approach as to possible consequences which might arise. While Robertson lists a range of yiqt.ol verbal forms in his study to support the dating of his ‘early’ corpus, not all the forms may actually narrate past events. Niccacci hypothesizes that yiqt.ol forms do not narrate past events in Hebrew, but are used to give repeated/habitual/explicatory/descriptive information. In sentence-initial position, yiqt.ol plays a volitive function, and the volitive yiqt.ol can play the role of the protasis. If this is the case, then it severely depletes Robertson’s collected data, and his argument probably becomes unsustainable. Rainey’s hypothesis, that the yiqt.ol verbal form expresses both the preterite and the imperfect past continuous in Hebrew, also serves to decrease Robertson’s data base. The possibility that the Hebrew yiqt.ol form has a direct link with the Canaanite prefix conjugation in the Amarna letters and the prefix conjugation in Ugaritic expressing the same preterite sense, raises several issues, especially as Rainey regards the qat.al form in Ugaritic to have almost completely taken over the past narrative function of the yiqt.ol verbal form. There is no linguistic evidence which attests to this direct link between the verbal system in Biblical Hebrew and the second millennium sources in relation to the development, assimilation and maintenance of these nuances. Without this evidence Robertson’s assumption of the temporal proximity of ‘early’ Hebrew to these languages providing this direct link is not supported, especially if the yiqt.ol form is argued to have almost lost its past narrative use at the latest by the close of the thirteenth century. Niccacci clearly states that in Biblical Hebrew poetry a narrative yiqt.ol is not an archaic residue of the midfourteenth century Canaanite of the Amarna letters nor of the Ugaritic texts pre-circa 1200, as without proper controls, features in either language are not automatically applicable to Biblical Hebrew. He adds that there are clear differences between Ugaritic and Hebrew with regard to their verbal systems. For example, in Hebrew there is the use of the wayyiqt.ol and the weqat.al forms both in poetry and prose, while these forms are almost non-existent in Ugaritic. Secondly, he refers to the jussive yiqt.ol with narrative function on the model of the Ugaritic short yaqt.ul, which does not have a place in the Biblical Hebrew verbal system (Niccacci 2006:268).

52

DATING ABH POETRY: A CRITIQUE

In order to analyze these interpretations in another setting, these explanations of the yiqt.ol form are applied to the poetry of Exodus 15, as Robertson presents this as the earliest poem in his corpus. Robertson finds, as in Ugaritic, an abundant occurrence of both yiqt.ol and qat.al forms expressing the past narrative. He finds that qat.al forms predominate, there being 15 of them, 7 certain yiqt.ol forms with no waw-conversives and 4 doubtful yiqt.ol forms which occur in verses six and seven.

‫אוֹיֽב׃‬ ֵ ‫הוה ִתּ ְר ַ ֥עץ‬ ֖ ָ ְ‫יְמינְ ָך֥ י‬ ֽ ִ ‫הוה נֶ ְא ָדּ ִ ֖רי ַבּ ֑כֹּ ַח‬ ֔ ָ ְ‫יְמינְ ָך֣ י‬ ִֽ ‫אכ ֵ ֖למוֹ ַכּ ַ ֽקּשׁ׃‬ ְ ֹ ‫וּב ֥ר ֹב גְּ אוֹנְ ָך֖ ַתּ ֲה ֣ר ֹס ָק ֶ ֑מיָך ְתּ ַשׁ ַלּ ֙ח ֲח ֣ר ֹנְ ָ֔ך י‬ ְ

6. Your right hand, O Lord, majestic in power. Your right hand, O Lord, shattered/shatters the enemy. 7. In the greatness of your majesty, you threw down/you throw down those opposing you. You sent forth/you send forth your fierce anger. It consumed them/it consumes them like stubble. Robertson’s method involved selecting only yiqt.ol forms which he determined referred unambiguously to past time. He found he could argue both for and against the inclusion of these four doubtful verbs as past narratives. Thus, strictly speaking, the ambiguity should have led him to disregard these forms, since the application of his definition of a prefixed verbal form in past narrative in early Hebrew poetry did not clearly fit this circumstance. In verses 14 and 15 there is a patterning of verbal forms.

‫ָ ֽשׁ ְמ ֥עוּ ַע ִ ֖מּים יִ ְרגָּ ז֑ וּן ִ ֣חיל ָא ַ֔חז י ְֹשׁ ֵ ֖בי ְפּ ָ ֽל ֶשׁת׃‬ ‫מגוּ ֖כֹּל י ְֹשׁ ֵ ֥בי‬ ֹ ֕ ָ‫אח ֵ ֖זמוֹ ָ ֑ר ַעד נ‬ ֲ ֹ ‫מוֹאב ֽי‬ ָ֔ ‫ילי‬ ֣ ֵ ‫לּוּפי ֱא ֔דוֹם ֵא‬ ֣ ֵ ‫ָ ֤אז נִ ְב ֲה ֙לוּ ַא‬ ‫ְכ ָנ ַֽען׃‬

14. The nations heard and trembled. Anguish gripped the dwellers of Philistia. 15. Then the chiefs of Edom were terrified. Trembling seized the leaders of Moab. All the people of Canaan melted away. The verbal patterning in each verse is a suffix conjugation verb/a prefix conjugation verb/a suffix conjugation verb. Robertson argues that it is best to understand the prefix conjugation verb as syntactically equivalent to the suffix conjugation verb as in Ugaritic. He finds the validity of this interpretation corroborated by the fact that the forms occur in parallel three times, that is, in verses 14 and 15 above, and also in verse 12.

‫יְמינְ ָ֔ך ִתּ ְב ָל ֵעמוֹ ָ ֽא ֶרץ׃‬ ֣ ִ ‫ית‬ ָ֙ ‫נָ ִ֙ט‬

CHAPTER FIVE

53

12. You stretched forth your right hand. The earth swallowed them. Following Niccacci’s argument, the explanation would be that these are not straightforward examples of the yiqt.ol form of the preterite in past narrative. When both qat.al and yiqt.ol refer to the axis in the past, they signal a shift from the main-line, punctual information (qat.al) to the secondary-line, repeated /habitual/explicatory /descriptive information (yiqt.ol). When this explanation is applied to the prefixed verbal forms in verses 12, 14 and 15, a fine nuancing of the use of the verbal forms is apparent. In Robertson’s discussion of his data on Exodus 15, he also comments that in ‘early’ Hebrew poetry, as in Ugaritic poetry, both the yiqt.ol and the qat.al forms expressing the preterite occur abundantly, that is, there are 7 (or 11) yiqt.ol forms and 15 qat.al forms, with the qat.al forms predominating. In the discussion of his data from 2 Samuel 22 // Psalm 18 (another poem in his ‘early’ corpus), Robertson comments that while this psalm is like those Ugaritic poems where the yiqt.ol is the predominant form, the qat.al and wprefix forms also occur, as shown in table 4. Robertson uses the presence of these two verbal forms to support his argument that Hebrew poetry is similar to Ugaritic poetry. However, the ratio of occurrences raises questions. Robertson is particular to note that the past narrative function is taken over by the qat.al form in Ugaritic. 2 Samuel 22 // Psalm 18 and Deuteronomy 32 do not display this pattern. Table 4: Frequency of the Three Verbal Forms Used in the ‘Early’ Corpus for Expressing Past Narrative

Poem Exodus 15 Judges 5 Habakkuk 3 2 Samuel //Psalm 18 Deuteronomy 32

yiqṭol form 7 or 11 6 9 18

qaṭal form 15 31 15 6

waw-conversive 1 3 15

19

3

7

Robertson indicates that when qat.al and yiqt.ol forms are used to narrate past events in poetry, they distinguish undatable poems (in his terms) as ‘early’ in contrast to standard datable poetry. In SBH poetry the qat.al and wayyiqt.ol forms occur with the occasional

54

DATING ABH POETRY: A CRITIQUE

use of the yiqṭol form, sometimes as a past frequentative and sometimes as a preterite (Robertson 1972:27–28). The introduction of the wayyiqt.ol form presents a complicating factor. Since Ugaritic and Amarna Canaanite do not have a waw-conversive form, a significant difference between these verbal systems and Hebrew is indicated. All the w-yiqt.ol forms in Robertson’s ‘early’ poems of unbroken significant length are waw-conversives with the exception of Exodus 15 which does not have any. The evidence in Exodus 15 fits Robertson’s theory. The occasional use of the wayyiqt.ol in Judges 5 and Habakkuk 3 may also fit. However, where 29% and 48% of the verbal forms in Deuteronomy 32 and 2 Samuel // Psalm 18 respectively are wayyiqt.ol forms, and 65% and 58% respectively are yiqt.ol forms, the contribution of this evidence to determining an early dating becomes less clear. The lower incidence of yiqt.ol forms than the standard forms in Exodus 15, Judges 5 and Habakkuk 3 (32%, 16% and 33% respectively) indicates a less clear distinction from datable poetry than Robertson would have us believe. From a reconsideration of the evidence of the alternative forms for expressing past narrative, we suggest that rather than contributing to markers of an early dating, the choice of the verbal forms used is a matter of the poet’s or scribe’s stylistic expression. Robertson compares the use of the waw-conversive across the Masoretic Text, the Samaritan Pentateuch and the Septuagint. Where one or two versions provide a variant form which Robertson needs to support a preterite yiqt.ol, this is added to his data (Robertson 1972:36, 37). For example, in 2 Samuel 22 // Psalm 18, where two forms of the verb differ with regard to the wawconversive, Robertson selects the yiqt.ol form for his data, justifying his action with reference to Cross and Freedman’s study in 1953, that in this text the yiqt.ol form is more likely to represent the original autograph than the text with the wayyiqt.ol form (Robertson 1972:35). This is certainly a circular argument. Thus Robertson’s thesis that the presence of a pattern typical of early poetic Hebrew can be based on the Ugaritic model prior to the thirteenth century BCE has four serious flaws. Ugaritic poetry and Hebrew poetry employ verbal systems with significant differences. The qat.al and the yiqt.ol forms cannot necessarily both be translated as simple preterites in Hebrew, even when a wawconversive is used in parallel forms, appearing to indicate a preterite sense for a yiqt.ol form. Similar patterns of verbal usages can be

CHAPTER FIVE

55

found in SBH poetry. The use of the qat.al, yiqt.ol and wayyiqt.ol may be a matter of stylistic choice in poetic Biblical Hebrew. Thus Robertson has not substantiated beyond reasonable doubt that the use of the preterite is an indicator of an ‘early’ poetic corpus. His use of this data to substantiate a close temporal proximity of his ‘early’ corpus with the period of Ugaritic poetic writings remains highly speculative. His claims that this early verbal patterning on the Ugaritic model can be used as evidence of a second millennium date for his ‘early’ corpus (Robertson 1972:148), and that this syntax is legitimate evidence for this date (Robertson 1972:135) are unsustainable. He has failed to show that the verbal patterning in his ‘early’ corpus is a matter of temporal contiguity with the composition of Ugaritic poetry and the Canaanite of the Amarna letters. The general description of the Biblical Hebrew poetic genre given in chapter 3 indicates that a free use of tenses would be expected. From the evidence above, it is concluded that it is necessary to explore all the possibilities within the Hebrew language itself before settling for possibilities drawn from another language.

CHAPTER 6 TEXTUAL COMPARISONS Robertson makes textual comparisons among the poetic texts of the Hebrew Bible and defines three categories relevant to his study: standard biblical poetry; poetry which he considers undatable in his terms, and which contains deliberate archaisms; and poetry which is undatable in his terms and which contains ‘early’ forms which he claims were not archaic at the time of composition. Robertson asserts that in this third group there is no evidence of archaizing so that this category forms the basis for his ‘early’ corpus. His claim that Exodus 15 fits into the third category is disputed here. Robertson develops a hypothetical partial reconstruction of linguistic developments in Hebrew poetry prior to the eighth century BCE. This provides his own typological markers against which to compare his hypothesized corpus. The dearth of textual evidence in early Hebrew of the second millennium BCE with which to compare this hypothesized ‘early’ corpus in Biblical Hebrew poetry renders Robertson’s hypothesis unsupportable. To substantiate the assumption that there is an ‘early’ Biblical Hebrew poetic corpus prior to the eighth century BCE and reaching back into the second millennium, Robertson partially reconstructs the development of early Hebrew. This is based on samples from Amarna Canaanite prose circa 1350, from Ugaritic poetry before 1200 BCE, from SBH poetry post-ninth century and from his hypothesized ‘early’ poetic corpus. He then argues that these samples indicate the synchronic stages of the development of the Hebrew language, and that sequentially they provide a diachronic analysis of the development of the written Biblical Hebrew language. He refers to this method of construction as a necessary procedure, ‘an oblique route’, caused by the absence of textual evidence for comparative purposes (Robertson 1972:3–4). Thus Robertson makes comparisons of linguistic features across biblical 57

58

DATING ABH POETRY: A CRITIQUE

and extra-biblical sources, across several languages and across widely varying time periods. The complex product, the hypothetical reconstruction of the Hebrew language, raises several methodological problems which have implications for its accuracy and usefulness. Five of these problems are discussed below. The first consideration relates to data sampling. Robertson bases his hypothetical history of the development of the Hebrew language over approximately five centuries on four clusters of textual evidence, one of which is a hypothetically dated corpus and two of which are not the same language as Biblical Hebrew. His analysis produces the speculative findings which form the basis for Robertson’s claim that it is possible to date literary documents of unknown date, that is, his hypothesized ‘early’ corpus (Robertson 1972:1–2). He also claims that he can identify when new forms were added and when old forms disappeared (Robertson 1972:1), but these data are not specified nor provided for scrutiny. Robertson argues that his hypothetical reconstruction of the history of the development of early Hebrew language explains the structure of the Hebrew language in its earliest written documents21 and its development over time. As his ‘early’ corpus remains hypothetical, and especially as the data for Exodus 15 is not as definitive as Robertson assumes, his dating of the Exodus 15 poem on these grounds is brought into question. It seems possible, but not definitive,22 to assume that early forms which are found in common with Amarna Canaanite and Ugaritic may have been a matter of linguistic necessity for early Hebrew at one stage,23 that is, before the Hebrew language devel21 There is no identification of these documents, unless one accepts that these documents are the poems in Robertson’s ‘early’ poetic corpus. 22 Even though Amarna Canaanite and Ugaritic show morphemes in common with the archaic morphemes in the poetry under discussion, this does not necessarily indicate that they are the specific precursors of these Hebrew forms. Kaufman has concerns with ‘the presuppositions underlying the study of the system of the linguistic code used in the West Semitizing Amarna tablets’ as well as with the study of the volitive modality (Kaufman 2002:302). 23 This assumes that Hebrew is a Canaanite language. Rainey presents an alternative theory (Rainey 2006:2).

CHAPTER SIX

59

oped parallel forms. The lack of epigraphic evidence results in three related problems. There is no evidence to refute or confirm Robertson’s proposition that ‘genuine’ early forms once existed in second millennium early Hebrew. There is no attested evidence that the two forms found in Exodus 15: the 3mp pronominal suffix ‫מוֹ‬- and the verbal patterns in past narrative, are critical for dating purposes as he asserts. There is also no evidence to indicate that archaizing has necessarily occurred when a later and an earlier form occur within one poem. It may be hypothesized that there was a period in the development of Hebrew language when both forms would be in use, and thus archaisms would co-exist with standard forms without necessarily resulting from archaizing. The lack of evidence also prevents an assessment of the dating of the stage of development at which a ‘genuine’ form became an archaism. By analogy with Phoenician and Sam’alian inscriptional evidence in the first millennium (approximately 850–730 BCE), Hebrew lacks attested evidence of a transition period during which second millennium forms were replaced by SBH forms.24 Examples of the presence of a transitional stage in Phoenician and Sam’alian inscriptional evidence indicate that a case-ending system is found to function alongside the use of the nota accusativi, and the feminine singular affix is retained with the possibility of a vocalized case ending. Evidence of stages in the loss of case endings given below comes from approximately the mid-ninth century to the mid-eighth century. The case ending system is found to function in the Phoenician Karatepe inscription dated circa 730 BCE (Young 2002:94–95). It is noted that vowels are not indicated in the inscription, but where a 1cs or a 3ms pronominal suffix is intended to be read on the nomen rectum of the construct form, the yod appears on this genitive. The following examples indicate this. Karatepe A i:10: ‫בת אדני‬: house of his/my lord Karatepe A i:11: ‫כסא אבי‬: throne of his/my father (Gibson 1982:47) Similar examples are found in the Kilamuwa inscription, dated circa 850 BCE (Dion 1978:117). Kilamuwa 5: ‫בת אבי‬: my father’s house 24

This argument is pursued in chapter 11.

60

DATING ABH POETRY: A CRITIQUE

Kilamuwa 9: ‫כסא אבי‬: my father’s throne (Gibson 1982: 34) Evidence of another possible transitional stage occurs where there is an instance of the nota accusativi and a fs -t ending with the possibility of a vocalic case ending marking the accusative in the same noun phrase. This is found in the Karatepe inscription, A iii:14–15: ‫ז אית הקרת‬: this city (Gibson 1982:50). The indicator of the fs noun -t is retained, and does not shift to the -h as in ABH. There is evidence of the nota accusativi preceding a singular and a plural proper noun in the accusative in the Karatepe inscription: A:III:3: ‫אית אזתוד‬: Azatiwada and A:I:3–4: ‫אית דננים‬: Danunites. In Hebrew there is no comparable inscriptional or other textual evidence for a transitional phase. Thus there is no contributing evidence from which to gauge the time period covering the loss of case endings, the 3mp preformative t- or the 3fs -at or any other morphological or syntactic form. A second methodological problem relates to the text genre. The relationship of genre to the development of a hypothetical description of the growth of the early Hebrew language needs noting. When examining the evidence from the sources of his ‘genuine’ early forms, Robertson uses both the prose of the Amarna letters and selected Ugaritic poetic texts.25 Even though he concludes that there is no justification for assuming that prose and poetic dialects were at all close at the time of the above sources (Robertson 1972:5), he uses both sources in his theory of the development of early Hebrew language in relation to identifying his ‘early’ poetic corpus. Robertson makes more use of comparative data from Ugaritic than from the Amarna glosses to which he refers. Significant ongoing advances in Amarna scholarship since the time of his original research in 1966 make this imbalance problematic. From an analysis of a selection of psalms, Robertson considers that there are two poetic genres which are relevant to his study: the prophetic and the psalmodic. He observes that SBH poetry is mostly prophetic and that ‘early’ poetry is mostly psalmodic, and 25 Robertson selected the narrative passages in 4 (51, 11AB) and 3 (‘nt, VAB) and the epic poetry of 14 (Krt, 1K) for his syntactic data.

CHAPTER SIX

61

considers that the use of early forms may be related to a difference in genre rather than date (Robertson 1972:150). He postulates ‘that psalmodic types, originating in the midst of a conservatively oriented cult, preserved ancient grammatical forms far longer than did other poetic traditions in Israel, so that by the eighth century prophetic types had shed archaic forms but psalmodic types had not.’ (Robertson 1972:150) Robertson searches for a psalmodic-type poem with only vestiges of ‘early’ forms, and attempts to date Psalm 78 to 930–721 BCE, not by the use of linguistic evidence, but by ‘the polemic against the northern kingdom which is evident in three places in the psalm.’ (Robertson 1972:151) He indicates that he is searching for a ‘hint’ on which to base the arguments that the forms of SBH were predominant in both psalmodic and prophetic poetic types by 721 BCE, and that these SBH forms had gained ascendancy ‘not too long before this.’ (Robertson 1972:150) He finds his results ‘inconclusive but suggestive.’ (Robertson 1972:152) The variety of datings proposed for Psalm 78 does not indicate support for Robertson’s hypothesis. There are scholars who date Psalm 78 prior to 721, for example Day (1990:58–59) and Holladay (1993:41). Other scholars find evidence to date the psalm to the period 722–589, for example Sabourin (1974:21), and yet others to the post-exilic period, for example Kloos (1986:205), Tate (1990:285–286) and Kraus (1993:123–124). To further his argument, Robertson engages in some dubious reasoning. He states that ‘in spite of our ability to date specific psalms incontrovertibly to the pre-exilic period, it is virtually certain that a very large number of them do derive from this period.’ (Robertson 1972:152) He refers to Eissfeldt’s finding that ‘there is a tendency to ascribe at least a substantial number of psalms to the pre-exilic period.’ (Robertson 1972:152n5) This gives him the first statement of the syllogism: ‘most of the psalms (A)’ are ‘pre-exilic (B)’. His second statement is that: ‘most of the psalms (C)’ resemble ‘pre-exilic prophetic poems in the use of archaic forms (D)’. As items A and C are not shown to be identical categories, and there are problems with the use of the term ‘resemble’, his conclusion does not necessarily follow. He concludes that ‘the probability is very high that many of the psalms that resemble prophetic poetry in the use of archaic forms are at the same time pre-exilic.’ (Robertson 1972:153) His second conclusion is that ‘psalmodic poetic

62

DATING ABH POETRY: A CRITIQUE

composition probably resembles prophetic poetic composition in the pre-exilic era.’ (Robertson 1972:153) Robertson finds that in the pre-exilic period, psalmodic composition was no more archaic than prophetic composition of the same period (Robertson 1972:153). He parallels the texts of these psalms with his ‘early’ corpus in an attempt to further explain why this particular corpus preserves clusters of ancient grammatical forms until the eighth century BCE. What Robertson does not allow for is the idea that psalmodic and poetic genres could be composed in similar or different styles in the same period. More significantly, he does not consider the argument that the poems in his ‘early’ poetic corpus may also be described as being written in SBH with vestiges of ‘early’ forms, that is, archaisms, used as a matter of stylistic choice. When the density of archaic usage in the text of each poem is compared with the density of SBH usage in each poem, it is clear that these poems are written predominantly in SBH. The critical indicators for inclusion of a poem in his ‘early’ corpus required only one instance of an ‘early’ form and no evidence of archaizing. This standard could well be achieved by stylistic archaizing to make the poem appear old in an SBH linguistic setting. Robertson admits that the psalm in Habakkuk 3 resembles standard poetry, as does Judges 5 and 2 Samuel 22 // Psalm 18 (Robertson 1972:138–139), with the exception of the verbal forms in past narrative. Robertson finds both Job and Psalm 78 have an equivocal relationship to standard poetry (Robertson 1972:145– 146). What also needs to be questioned here is the concept of clustering in relation to the length of the poem. Robertson did not consider that a single instance of a ‘genuine’ early form was sufficient evidence for dating a poem ‘early’, but a cluster of such instances was needed. However, Robertson did not take into account a required size or proportion of the cluster, particularly in relation to the length of the poem. The graphic units in the poetry of Exodus 15 number 179. Of these, nine graphic units include the third masculine pronominal suffix ‫מוֹ‬-. This gives a ratio of the clustering as 5 per cent. When the four other morphological archaisms in Exodus 15 are added to this figure, the total is 12 graphic units. This gives a ratio of 6.7 per cent. In the poetic sections of the Book of Job, there are 5,794 graphic units, of which 19 include the suffix ‫מוֹ‬-. This gives a ratio of 0.25 per cent. When the two remaining

CHAPTER SIX

63

morphological archaisms for the poetic section in Job are added to this figure, a total of 24 archaisms are found, giving a total of 24 graphic units, amounting to a ratio of 0.31 per cent. Thus Robertson’s concept of clustering is too elastic to be a useful, discriminatory tool. Given this analysis, Robertson’s use of the linguistic evidence he has collected for the early dating of these poems is not at all clear. The assigning of both Judges 5 and the poetry of Job to an ‘early’ corpus are striking cases where the weighting of the evidence is blurred. Robertson indicates that Judges 5 resembles standard poetry in that it contains no more than two early morphological forms (both with archaizing) and syntactic archaism (Robertson 1972:138), and has its total number of forms supplemented by a remnant of a morpheme, the energic ending -an(na), which Robertson refers to as a questionable reconstruction (Robertson 1972:148–149). From this evidence Robertson dates Judges 5 as the second earliest poem in his corpus. This re-affirms the argument for this thesis that the use of linguistic data is not an objective tool for dating biblical texts. A third methodological problem relates to the archaic linguistic appearance of a text. Robertson admits that ‘a psalm might look old, but not be old’ (Robertson 1972:150). His examples are Psalm 78 and Psalm 18 // 2 Samuel 22. This statement has significant repercussions for the validity of his findings of an ‘early’ poetic corpus in two specific ways. If a psalm written in Biblical Hebrew might look old because of its use of archaic forms, but can be shown to be of post-ninth century BCE provenance, then it must follow that any poem may be considered in this manner. While Robertson acknowledges this possibility, he is hard pressed to differentiate indisputably between what ‘looks’ old and what really ‘is’ old when it applies to the selection of the poems for his ‘early’ corpus (Robertson 1972:2). It follows that not only is Robertson comparing the poems of his ‘early’ corpus with his hypothetical diachronic development of the Hebrew language, but he is also comparing these poems which might only ‘look’ old with standard Biblical Hebrew poetry. It is thus a possible outcome that both sets of poetry are of post-ninth century origin. Robertson further comments: ‘The dating of individual psalms [written in standard poetic Hebrew and containing only vestiges of early forms] is a most precarious undertaking. Usually all that can be said is that nothing ab-

64

DATING ABH POETRY: A CRITIQUE

solutely prohibits a dating in such and such a time; positive evidence favouring such a date is seldom forthcoming.’ (Robertson 1972:150) This comment must also apply to his ‘early’ corpus. A fourth methodological problem relates to the production and transmission of the text and the use of the versions. The process of the production and transmission of the poetic texts has a critical bearing on the outcome of any linguistic analysis of the Masoretic Text. The poems may have been composed, copied or edited in such a way that the texts appear old: a detail which Robertson acknowledges. Thus the text of Exodus 15 may be, among other possibilities, the product of highly successful editing by a later scribe, the product of the style adopted by a scribal school, or a work written in an archaic style at any time and inserted into the biblical text to meet cultic requirements (Weitzman 1997:15). Hyatt, for example, considers that verses 1–12 may be very old, or at least incorporate very ancient material, and that verses 13–18, presupposing the conquest of Canaan and probably the erection of Solomon’s Temple, may be a later addition. However, in its present form, Hyatt interprets it as a whole (Hyatt 1971:163). There is insufficient evidence to indicate that changes have occurred for any one of the above specific purposes. By contrast, Brenner finds Exodus 15 cleverly organized and quite different from all other poetry, and consequently he understands Exodus 15 to be purpose written (Brenner 1991:41). He considers the use of archaisms to be a poetic technique, artificial and intentional, giving an overall compositional unity (Brenner 1991:33–34). Textual comparisons across the versions and the Dead Sea scrolls indicate that changes occurred during the transmission of the text. Evidence presented by Young regarding the 4QExodc text of Exodus 15:9–21, the Masoretic Text and the Samaritan Pentateuch text, which has been discussed in chapter 2, highlights this feature (Young 1998:80–82). Arguing from the assumption that there is an early corpus, Albright places considerable emphasis on the updating of the text by scribal intervention during the process of the transmission of the text. He argues that archaic forms and constructions have been replaced with forms and constructions resulting from linguistic changes from the time of the ‘original’ authorship of the text. However as the argument here must proceed on the basis of at-

CHAPTER SIX

65

tested texts, hypothetical incidences of updating are not taken into consideration. A fifth methodological problem relates to dialectal variations. Even though there is insufficient attested evidence of written late second millennium BCE Hebrew, dialectal variations are recognised in early spoken Hebrew. One such example is the ‫ ִשׁבֹּ ֶלת‬/ ‫ ִסבֺּ ֶלת‬incident in Judges 12.4–6 (Young 1993:50). This is based on the presumption that the text is historically accurate. There is a rich literature on dialect variation in pre-exilic Hebrew.26 In his discussion of the poetry of Judges 5, Burney refers to certain dialectal peculiarities in the Hebrew of northern Canaan (Burney 1918:173). Young reports that biblical authors reveal an awareness of dialect differences in ancient Hebrew in the texts of Ruth and Kings, although the precise chronology of the text is not certain (Young 1997:10–11). Rendsburg finds that significant dialectal variation has been preserved in the Masoretic Text across the relatively large corpus of the Hebrew Bible (Rendsburg 1990a:3). The focus of his study is on differentiating textual variation in the Israelian dialect as distinct from the Judahite dialect, which he maintains exhibits the regional standard of the Bible (Rendsburg 1990a:3–4). The data collected has enabled him to determine a northern provenance for some early poetry which is included in Robertson’s ‘early’ corpus, for example, Judges 5. Young disputes Rendsburg’s methodology and conclusions (Young 1997), and takes a different perspective on the matter. He argues that there are at least some texts with a significant number of variant linguistic items which seem to have a southern origin, and that thus the Judahite dialect is also characterized by linguistic diversity (Young 1993; 1997:7–20). Robertson has not given sufficient consideration to the possibility that dialectal variations account for the appearance and range of linguistic forms in individual poems in his ‘early’ poetic corpus. These possibilities include the parallel development of dialects with the further possibility that similar changes may have occurred independently of each other across dialects, and possibly at different rates (Blau 1980:17–18). If Robertson’s second millennium BCE 26 References include Burney (1903, 1918), Rendsburg (1990a, 1990b, 2002), Young (1993) and Kaufman (1998).

66

DATING ABH POETRY: A CRITIQUE

dating of Exodus 15 and Deuteronomy 32 is to be taken at face value, then the inclusion of the 3mp pronominal suffix ‫מוֹ‬- needs to be explored further as a possible dialectal variant. In Exodus 15, this pronominal suffix is used exclusively on verbal forms. In Deuteronomy 32, this pronominal suffix is used on nouns and prepositions but not on verbal forms. Robertson finds this latter pattern to be the case in standard biblical poetry (Robertson 1972:65). However it has been shown that the Amarna evidence does not support the use of the ‫מוֹ‬- pattern exclusively on verbs in Exodus 15.

CONCLUSION Five significant methodological problems arise from Robertson’s attempt to develop a partial diachronic history of early Hebrew language. His sampling procedures for determining the diachronic development of early Hebrew are brought into question. Whilst Robertson questions the use of both poetry and prose genres for his evidence, he nevertheless proceeds to develop his theory with this combined data. His assumptions concerning the differing datings of different poetic genres in Hebrew are considered to be unfounded. His inability to definitively differentiate between poetry which ‘looks’ old and poetry which actually ‘is’ old brings into doubt the reliability of his argument for linguistic dating. Issues with the production and the transmission of the text and the versions render his thesis problematic. Finally, given the paucity of our present state of knowledge of the possibility of the differing rates of development of dialectal variation, this linguistic diversity cannot be realistically accounted for in chronological terms.

CHAPTER 7 TEXTUAL EMENDATION AND AN ‘EARLY’ CORPUS Textual emendation and/or reconstruction (also referred to as textual recovery and/or textual retrieval) do not provide relevant or reliable evidence upon which to develop theories concerning the dating of texts on linguistic grounds. An analysis of attempts by Robertson and Albright to include emended and/or reconstructed linguistic elements into their studies indicates some of the misconceptions which may follow. No attempts are made to incorporate emended or reconstructed evidence into the findings of this study which are reported in Part II. Where this evidence has been included in previous studies which are related to this study, it is excluded, but noted. For the purpose of this study, the term ‘textual emendation’ refers to ‘a change, an omission or an addition of an isolated letter, a complete word or an entire paragraph, including changes in the order and division of words.’ (Tov 2001:354–355) The chief reason given for textual reconstruction and emendation is the need to recover the autograph of the Hebrew Bible. The position on an autograph remains controversial. The situation is most complicated, as there is no solid evidence from which to decide the position to take with regard to the original form of the biblical text, particularly with a smaller, discrete portion of a larger text, such as a poetic text. Tov indicates that the view accepted by most scholars is that there is a single original text, that is, a copy (a textual tradition) that contains the finished literary product and which stood at the beginning of the process of textual transmission. He claims that most of the known evidence points in this direction, and little evidence points to parallel texts (Tov 2001:171–172). Those ‘who adhere to 67

68

DATING ABH POETRY: A CRITIQUE

the assumption of one original text will try to reconstruct it, partially or fully, from the differences [among witnesses]… Claiming a preferable reading…presupposes one original text.’ (Tov 2001:166) The many differences among the early textual witnesses would seem to contradict this view. An outcome for those scholars who hold this contrary view is that they only rarely resort to reconstructions, sometimes renouncing them altogether (Tov 2001:166). The complexity of this issue is compounded when it is recognised that the original form of the text, the autograph, must necessarily remain hypothetical, as there is no extant evidence of biblical books in their first stage of textual transmission (McCarter 1986:11; Tov 2001:169). Textual corruption occurs in the process of textual transmission, bringing about texts which diverge to some extent from a hypothetical earlier text (McCarter 1986:7). McCarter argues that it is the role of textual criticism to reconstruct the text to account for the differences among witnesses in order ‘to retrace the steps of the ancient scribes, and where possible, recover a more original form of the words they wrote down.’ (McCarter 1986:7) In McCarter’s opinion, there was a recent period of great confidence in emendation. Critics made a number of ingenious and implausible emendations which found their way into scholarly books and articles. That scribal intervention has occurred in the transmission of the text, particularly at the site in which a scholar is interested, appears not a little coincidental. The assumptions underlying the concept of one autograph so that scribal intervention can be validly and reliably undone cannot be circumvented by the establishment of critical criteria for the emendation of the text, no matter how stringently they are applied. The process of revealing assumed scribal alterations to the text, whether these alterations were originally accidental or purposeful, results in making changes to the text as it is now before us, by clearing away text which has accumulated possibly over unknown hundreds of years of textual transmission. In this process, an original text may also be mistakenly altered. Robertson divides his third chapter on morphology into two sections. The first section contains an analysis of morphological variants in the Masoretic text which are recognized by the Masoretic pointing (Robertson 1972:57–79). In the second section, none of the morphemes analyzed is indicated by the Masoretic pointing (Robertson 1972:79–110). It is only in the latter section

CHAPTER SEVEN

69

that he compares and evaluates the variants in the biblical textual witnesses. Two significant inferences from this methodology directly impinge on this and related studies. The first inference is that errors occurred in the Masoretic pointing and in the word divisions of the text. As a purported result, there was a failure by the Masoretes to recognise the archaic morphemes which ‘early’ Biblical Hebrew had in common with the two second millennium BCE sources, Ugaritic and Amarna Canaanite. The main focus is on recovering the enclitic mem. The second inference is that the recovered data may be useful in supporting the hypothesis that there is an ‘early’ poetic corpus dating from the late second millennium to the tenth century BCE. There are problems associated with these assumptions and inferences which render the evidence produced both hypothetical and inconclusive, and thus inappropriate for use in developing a probable theory of dating poetic texts. In this section of Robertson’s study, the process of textual emendation in the context of revealing an ‘early’ poetic corpus depends upon the validity of a hypothesized reconstructed early Hebrew. In the emendation of a particular morpheme, for example the enclitic mem, only one emendation to an earlier stage is required to find possible instances of its use. This requires several assumptions: that the early dialect of Hebrew is known, that the form of the emendation was in current usage, and that this dialect was in close temporal proximity to the Canaanite of the Amarna letters and/or to the Ugaritic texts. This disregards the possibilities of stylistic usage of this morpheme even in this hypothetical time setting, and assumes that because morphological parallels are found in these two second millennium BCE Northwest Semitic languages this necessarily implies consistency in usage across the early Hebrew language, particularly in its written poetic form. In relation to this issue, Cross, after almost fifty years of research in this area, comments that he has become less certain of the results he and Freedman published. I have become less certain of the results of our work, given the problem of the long transmission of the text of these poems, only partially overcome by text-critical methods, and perhaps more serious, our uncertain knowledge of the details of the Hebrew language in which the poems were composed. (Cross and Freedman 1997:viii)

70

DATING ABH POETRY: A CRITIQUE

Robertson’s ideas on textual emendation arise from arguments relating to the Masoretic Text. Robertson indicates that there are a number of morphological variants which differentiate ‘early’ and standard poetry which were not recognized by the Masoretes, and are thus not indicated by their pointing. His procedure in highlighting these is to alter the pointing, but generally not to alter the consonantal text. ‘Text-critically speaking,’ Robertson argues, ‘such alteration does not constitute a drastic change of the received text. But it does mean that for every proposed emendation the merits of the received text must be weighed against the merits of the altered text.’ (Robertson 1972:57) Robertson’s statement that ‘the dialect we are interested in is that of the original autograph,’ places his study in the area of textual criticism, especially as he attempts to produce a text as close as possible, in his terms, to the text that left the author’s hand. This is achieved by means of his emendations and with reference to the works of Albright (1944 and 1945), Moran (1950) and Hummel (1957) (Robertson 1972:81). We argue that the emendations and reconstructions proposed by scholars are hypothetical and conjectural. Proposals based on this data are ultimately circular in their reasoning as this process is based on the assumed second millennium BCE antiquity of the poetry.

ROBERTSON’S EMENDATIONS In Robertson’s study, the assumption is that there is only one original autograph and that this is recoverable. Another assumption is that this autograph was written in the dialect which is being pursued by emendation, a second millennium BCE dialect even without attested Hebrew evidence. The considered northern provenance of Judges 5, Job, the Oracles of Balaam and certain Psalms (Rendsburg 1990a:11) indicates the existence of a variety of dialects, a factor which needs to be taken into consideration. The latter assumption brings into question the outcomes of all textual emendations which purport to reflect the morphological situation in a period earlier than the eighth century BCE. This relates to the period of Robertson’s ‘early’ corpus of ABH poetry which he posits as being of second millennium provenance. Robertson claims that ‘there is no logical reason why they [the justifiable, unrecognized morphemes] should not have continued in use as archaic

CHAPTER SEVEN

71

survivals in literary poetry’ (Robertson 1972:78). However, with the lack of attested comparative evidence, there is no certainty that these emendations are valid. Robertson’s attempts to outline the developments in ‘early’ Hebrew language have already been shown to be dubious. Robertson researches the use of one particular unrecognized morpheme, the enclitic mem, which is found in Ugaritic (Ginsberg 1943:115; Albright 1944d:215; Hummel 1957:85, 89–90; Sivan 1997:192–193) and the Canaanite of the Amarna letters (Hummel 1957:90; Rainey 1996, III:227–248). The enclitic mem is the subject of considerable reconstruction. In the classical sense the enclitic mem on a word is defined as causing a word to lose its own accent and be pronounced as if it were part of the preceding word. It is employed quite arbitrarily, at the discretion of the writer, and its function is quite uncertain (Hummel 1957:85n1). Robertson re-analyzes reconstructions of the enclitic mem in the biblical text in both poetry and prose and groups the instances into a possible fourteen linguistic settings (Robertson 1972:79-108). Robertson finds examples where the probability favours reading this unrecognized morpheme in the undatable poetic corpus. Some of these examples are also included in his ‘early’ corpus. The examples appearing below are those found in poetry which is considered to be part of a possible ‘early’ corpus. The variety of methods by which emendations occur in a text is apparent. The emendations appear in transliteration below the Hebrew script, and the page references in parentheses refer to Robertson’s 1972 publication. Numbers 24.19

‫וְ ֵי֖ ְ ר ְדּ ִ ֽמיַּ ֲע ֑קֹב וְ ֽ ֶה ֱא ִ ֥ביד ָשׂ ִ ֖ריד ֵמ ִ ֽעיר׃‬

(page 94) wyrd-m y‘qb And one from Jacob shall exercise dominion and destroy the survivors of cities! Robertson is reading this enclitic mem against a reading of the preposition min, which makes ‘Jacob’ the subject of the verb, and which requires further modifications. He is sure Albright is right is his recognition of the enclitic mem (Robertson 1972:94). Deuteronomy 33.11

‫וּמ ַשׂנְ ָ ֖איו‬ ְ ‫ָבּ ֵ ֤רְך יְ הוָ ֙ה ֵח ֔ילוֹ וּ ֹ֥פ ַעל יָ ָ ֖דיו ִתּ ְר ֶ ֑צה ְמ ַ֨חץ ָמ ְת ַנ֧ יִם ָק ָ ֛מיו‬

(page 81) mh. š mtny-m qmyw

‫קוּמוּן‬ ֽ ְ‫ִמן־י‬

72

DATING ABH POETRY: A CRITIQUE

Bless, O Lord, his substance, and accept the work of his hands; crush the loins of his adversaries, of those who hate him, that they rise not again. Robertson argues that in Hebrew, when specifying the person to whom a part of the body belongs, the bound phrase is always used, never an appositional phrase. He finds this the most likely of several alternatives. His reading is: ‘strike the loins—those who rise up against him’ (Robertson 1972:81–82). 2 Samuel 22.16 // (Psalm 18.16)

‫הוה ִמנִּ ְשׁ ַ ֖מת ֥ר ַוּח ַא ֽפּוֹ׃‬ ֔ ָ ְ‫אוּ ֲא ִ ֣פ ֵקי ָ֔ים יִ גָּ ל֖ וּ מ ְֹס ֣דוֹת ֵתּ ֵ ֑בל ְבּגַ ֲע ַ ֣רת י‬ ֙ ‫וַ יֵּ ָֽ ר‬

Then the channels of the sea were seen; the foundations of the world were laid bare, and at the rebuke of the Lord, at the blast of the breath of his nostrils. Psalm 18.16

‫הוה ִ֝מנִּ ְשׁ ַ֗מת ֣ר ַוּח‬ ֑ ָ ְ‫מוֹס ֪דוֹת ֵ֫תּ ֵ ֥בל ִמגַּ ֲע ָ ֣ר ְתָך֣ י‬ ְ ‫וַ ֵיּ֤  ָר ֨אוּ ֲא ִ ֥פ ֵיקי ַ֗מיִם ַ ֽו יִּ גָּ ֮לוּ‬ ‫ַא ֶ ֽפָּך׃‬

Then the channels of the sea were seen, and the foundations of the world were laid bare at your rebuke, O Lord, and the blast of the breath of your nostrils. Robertson’s comment is that the Samuel reading is correct and that the original reading ’pyqy-m ym very well accounts for the facts. The Psalm reading indicates a reading of ‘the channels of water(s)’ (Robertson 1972:107). Psalm 29.6

‫ן־ר ֵא ִ ֽמים׃‬ ְ ‫מוֹ־עגֶ ל ְל ָבנ֥ וֹן וְ ֝ ִשׂ ְר ֗י ֹן ְכּ ֣מוֹ ֶב‬ ֑ ֵ ‫ידם ְכּ‬ ֥ ֵ ‫וַ יַּ ְר ִק‬ (page 99)

wyrqyd-m

He makes Lebanon to skip like a calf, and Sirion like a young wild ox. Robertson finds that the enclitic mem and not the masculine plural gives the more appropriate reading, considering that it is highly unlikely that there is an anticipatory suffix on a verb for two singular objects (Robertson 1972:89). Psalm 89.51 (page 99)

‫ל־ר ִ ֥בּים ַע ִ ֽמּים׃‬ ַ ‫יקי ָכּ‬ ִ֗ ‫זְ ֣כֹר ֭ ֲאד ֹנָ י ֶח ְר ַ ֣פּת ֲע ָב ֶ ֑דיָך ְשׂ ֵא ִ ֥תי ְ֝ב ֵח‬ rby-m

Remember, O Lord, how your servants are mocked, and how I bear in my heart (the insults) of all the many nations. Robertson finds no problem with the text as it is, but comments that he prefers Hummel’s more attractive alternative with the en-

CHAPTER SEVEN

73

clitic mem, ‘all the strife of the nations’ (Robertson 1972:99). We consider that this is not a sufficient reason for an emendation of the Masoretic Text. Job 4.20

‫אבדוּ׃‬ ֽ ֵ ֹ ‫יֻכּתּוּ ִמ ְבּ ִ ֥לי ֵ֝מ ִ֗שׂים ָל ֶ ֥נ ַצח י‬ ֑ ַ ‫ִמ ֣בֹּ ֶקר ָל ֶ ֣ע ֶרב‬ (page 106) mbly-m šm Between morning and evening they are beaten to pieces; they perish forever without anyone regarding it. Robertson reads the emendation ‘without name’, with the deletion of the yod (Robertson 1972:106). Job 15.18

‫בוֹתם׃‬ ֽ ָ ‫ר־ח ָכ ִ ֥מים יַ ִ ֑גּידוּ וְ ֥ל ֹא ִ ֽ֝כ ֲח ֗דוּ ֵמ ֲא‬ ֲ ‫ֲא ֶשׁ‬

(page 94) kh. dw-m ’byt-m what wise men have told, without hiding it from their fathers Robertson finds this text clearly corrupt, and favours a reading with two enclitic mems. The text then reads: ‘what the wise men declared and their fathers did not hide.’ (Robertson 1972:94-95) Job 31.11

‫ילים׃‬ ֽ ִ ‫ִכּי־הוא זִ ָ ֑מּה והיא ָע ֺ֥ון ְפּ ִל‬

(page 82) ‘wn plyly-m For that would be a heinous crime; that would be an iniquity to be punished by the judges; Robertson accepts Pope’s emendation and reading: ‘For that were licentiousness, criminal iniquity.’ (Pope 1965:225) As there is no clustering of these examples, Robertson concludes that there is no reliable evidence for an early date. However, he does retain this in the cumulative evidence. A second list of instances does not provide further support for his thesis. There the probability favours either reading an unrecognized morpheme or reading the Masoretic Text and explaining the difficulty within it as textual corruption.

ALBRIGHT’S ‘RECOVERY’ OF THE TEXT Albright shows a concern for the relative lack of differentiation among the languages and dialects of Northwest Semitic in the late second millennium BCE. The many emendations made to the Balaam Oracles in his studies are evidence for this (Albright 1944d). Underlying his studies are assumptions involved in the concept of a recoverable autograph and the presence of linguistic similarities with the two second millennium BCE sources, both in the Amarna

74

DATING ABH POETRY: A CRITIQUE

evidence (1944d:219n3 and 222n103) and the Ugaritic evidence (1944d:219n82, 83, and 222n103). He states that the basis for his emendations is the assumption that the differences between Hebrew and Ugaritic were very much fewer in the second millennium BCE than might be supposed. He compares Ugaritic of the fourteenth century with Hebrew of a considerably later period, and emends and reconstructs the Oracles accordingly. Albright’s date for the first written text of the Balaam Oracles depends on the inductive agreement of textual criticism with the spelling found in epigraphic documents (Albright 1944d:208). We do not consider his references to epigraphy to be relevant to second millennium or early first millennium Hebrew on the grounds that there is no attested Hebrew epigraphic evidence for this period for comparative purposes. He infers that the Gezer calendar is written in Hebrew without any vowel letters and is of tenth century provenance, and therefore textual evidence earlier than this must be spelled without vowel letters. Each of these points is disputable (see also chapter 2). Albright also uses material related to the traditional date for Balaam for dating the Oracles. This gives Albright a date range from between the thirteenth century and the twelfth century BCE for the composition of the Oracles, and not later than the tenth century or the early ninth century for the recording of the Oracles (Albright 1944d:227). In his reconstructed evidence for the enclitic mem in the Oracles, Albright finds five possibilities. It is evident that Albright uses considerable flexibility when emending the text. His examples appear to exemplify McCarter’s comments about ingenious emendations. The emendations appear in transliteration below the Hebrew script, and the page references in parentheses refer to Albright’s publication (1944d). Numbers 23.10

‫שׁי ֣מוֹת יְ ָשׁ ִ ֔רים‬ ֙ ִ ‫מת נַ ְפ‬ ֹ ֤ ‫וּמ ְס ָ ֖פּר ֶאת־ ֣ר ֹ ַבע יִ ְשׂ ָר ֵ ֑אל ָתּ‬ ִ ‫ִ ֤מי ָמנָ ֙ה ֲע ַ ֣פר יַ ֲע ֔קֹב‬ ‫מהוּ׃‬ ֹ ֽ ‫יתי ָכּ‬ ֖ ִ ‫וּת ִ ֥הי ַא ֲח ִר‬ ְ

yšr-m (page 213) Who can count the dust of Jacob or number the fourth part of Israel? Let me die the death of the upright, and let my end be like this! In determining the mem to be enclitic, Albright has removed the yod and made the noun singular.

CHAPTER SEVEN

75

Numbers 23.22

‫תוֹע ֹ֥פת ְר ֵ ֖אם ֽלוֹ׃‬ ֲ ‫יאם ִמ ִמּ ְצ ָ ֑ריִם ְכּ‬ ֣ ָ ‫מוֹצ‬ ִ ‫ֵ ֖אל‬ (page 215) - with conjectural emendation ’l-m hs. y’h God brings them out of Egypt and is for them like the horns of the wild ox. This conjectural emendation reads: ‘It is El who brought him from Egypt, while he stormed like a wild bull’ (Albright 1944d:224). Numbers 24.17

‫כּוֹכב ִ ֽמיַּ ֲע ֗קֹב וְ ָ ֥ קם ֵ֙שׁ ֶב ֙ט‬ ָ֜ ‫שׁוּרנּוּ וְ ֣ל ֹא ָק ֑רוֹב ָדּ ַ ֨רְך‬ ֖ ֶ ‫ֶא ְר ֶ֙א ֙נּוּ וְ ֣ל ֹא ַע ָ֔תּה ֲא‬

(page 219)

drk kkb-m y‘qb

‫י־שׁת׃‬ ֽ ֵ ֵ‫ל־בּנ‬ ְ ‫מוֹאב וְ ַק ְר ַ ֖ קר ָכּ‬ ָ֔ ‫וּמ ַח ֙ץ ַפּ ֲא ֵ ֣תי‬ ָ ‫ִמיִּ ְשׂ ָר ֵ֔אל‬ I see him, but not now; I behold him, but not near: a star shall come out of Jacob, and a sceptre shall rise out of Israel; it shall crush the forehead of Moab and break down all the sons of Sheth. This is Albright’s example of the insertion of the Canaanite mi between the nominative and the genitive of the construct chain, on the presumption that this was an ‘early’ text. Albright’s reading of this phrase is: ‘when the stars of Jacob shall prevail…’ (Albright 1944d:225). Numbers 24.19

‫וְ ֵי֖ ְ ר ְדּ ִ ֽמיַּ ֲע ֑קֹב וְ ֽ ֶה ֱא ִ ֥ביד ָשׂ ִ ֖ריד ֵמ ִ ֽעיר׃‬

(page 221) yrd-m y‘qb And one from Jacob shall exercise dominion and destroy the survivors of cities! The repositioning of the mem gives the reading of the phrase: ‘Jacob shall rule over his foes…’ (Albright 1944b:225). Numbers 24.22

‫ד־מה ַא ֥שּׁוּר ִתּ ְשׁ ֶ ֽבּךָּ ׃‬ ֖ ָ ‫ִ ֥כּי ִאם־יִ ְה ֶי֖ה ְל ָ ֣ב ֵ ֽער ָ ֑קיִ ן ַע‬ (page 222) ‘d-m Nevertheless, Kain shall be burned when Asshur takes you away captive. Albright omits the he, since he argues the mem is enclitic. With further emendations to this section of the verse, Albright’s translation reads: ‘And yet they shall become fuel, The while I gaze, thy sojourners!’27 (Albright 1944b:226) 27

Albright’s awkward translation is noted.

76

DATING ABH POETRY: A CRITIQUE

A COMPARISON OF ROBERTSON’S AND ALBRIGHT’S EMENDATIONS Differences are found in the outcomes of textual emendation for both Robertson and Albright in the sample of poetry from Numbers 23 and 24. Robertson claims that in Numbers 23.22 and Numbers 24.17 there are no good grounds for emendation of the Masoretic Text. Robertson and Albright agree on the probability of an enclitic mem in Numbers 24.19. Robertson’s discussion on the matter of the enclitic mem indicates that there is much debate on the matter of its presence in the Hebrew Bible, and at that time the matter was far from resolution. It is of interest to note that if all of Albright’s emendations were to be accepted, there would be sufficient evidence for a clustering of the enclitic mem in this selection of poetry, and in Robertson’s terms would support an earlier date for this poem. It seems plausible to suppose that there may be traces of the enclitic mem in the Hebrew Bible, especially in some Hebrew poetry. If the phenomenon of the enclitic mem satisfactorily resolves inconsistencies in the text, then this may be positive evidence for the probability of its presence. If the text requires further emendation to allow for an enclitic mem, then the enclitic mem must be discarded. Emerton’s intensive study of purported instances of the enclitic mem reveals that the evidence is not sufficiently strong to constitute proof of this phenomenon in the Hebrew Bible (Emerton 1996:338).

AUTOGRAPH AND ‘EARLY’ CORPUS As already stated, the basis of this study is the Masoretic Text. Hurvitz asserts that linguistic analysis can only deal with attested texts, not reconstructed ones. Where evidence of Hebrew texts exists, for example, the Masoretic Text, the Samaritan Pentateuch or the Qumran texts, Hurvitz’ ideal of the use of only actual texts for comparative linguistic study is appropriate. However, where there is no evidence of another comparative text, conjectural emendation may be necessary and appropriately noted (Hurvitz 1982:19). Even though attested texts are unlikely to be a flawless, problems arise when reconstruction and emendation occur to support a particular point in a particular context. Decisions need to be made

CHAPTER SEVEN

77

as to whether the emendations are warranted, desirable or feasible. However these issues are viewed, there is a need for a consideration of the matter of subjectivity in relation to the outcomes, particularly as there are no external Hebrew language criteria of second millennium provenance for comparison with ABH poetry. Scholars may emend texts which then appear as if they were written in an earlier period for comparison with the texts in other second millennium languages, when in fact the reconstructed text is just that, a reconstruction. Each emendation needs critical evaluation. This does not deny that there are linguistic relationships which can be identified among these languages, but a temporal contiguity cannot be asserted for this data. Text-critical theory does not extend to this purpose.

CONCLUSION The issue that by emendation a Hebrew poetic text can be recovered and designated of second millennium BCE provenance and thus be part of an ‘early’ poetic corpus cannot be resolved unequivocally. Alteration of the Masoretic Text without attested Hebrew evidence, on the presumption that there was an ‘early’ corpus displaying ‘genuine’ early forms from Canaanite evidence in the Amarna letters and the Ugaritic texts, renders the emendations hypothetical. As these emendations cannot be substantiated, they are not of value as a foundation for further theory development with particular reference to the dating of the text on linguistic grounds. Creative possibilities are found in the light of research into the Northwest Semitic languages and into Ugaritic texts in particular. However, neither necessary emendations nor solid, attested evidence has been brought to light. Subjective suggestions regarding possible developments are made implying textual corruption in the ‘early’ poetic texts, but these do not provide evidence of an early date nor any dialectal provenance outside Biblical Hebrew itself.

PART II CHAPTER 8 THE EVIDENCE The preceding findings indicate that there are serious flaws in assumptions made about the use of linguistic evidence for the early dating of the ABH corpus and for Robertson’s ‘early’ poetic corpus. The following morphological studies focus on aspects of these flaws. Robertson’s chief assumption is that the poems in his study are old because they share several linguistic forms with Ugaritic and Amarna Canaanite, and therefore may be dated in close temporal proximity with these two second millennium sources. The rationale for the studies in Part II is that if Robertson’s thesis is correct, then more than the few morphological features he discusses are to be expected in the ABH poems either as ‘genuine’ archaic forms or as archaisms. The focus text is Exodus 15 as Robertson considers this poem to be the earliest in his corpus, dating it to the twelfth century BCE. Three morphological forms are selected from among several possibilities which the evidence indicates were in current use as general forms in the two second millennium sources. We argue that that these forms should appear in Exodus 15 either consistently or as identifiable remnants if it is indeed of twelfth century provenance. Each of the selected forms has either a parallel form in Biblical Hebrew or has been subject to linguistic development processes which are clearly distinguishable. The three selected morphological forms are: (1) the system of noun declension, which is analyzed in chapters 9, 10 and 11; (2) the third person masculine preformative -‫ ת‬of the prefix conjugation, analyzed in chapters 12, 13 and 14, and (3) the third person feminine singular affix ‫ת‬- of the suffix conjugation, analyzed in chapter 15. 79

80

DATING ABH POETRY: A CRITIQUE

The procedure adopted follows a pattern. For each category, evidence is examined to establish the morphological form which is unequivocally standard in Ugaritic and Amarna Canaanite. Any variation from the standard form is explored. The ABH corpus and Robertson’s ‘early’ corpus which are identified in chapter 1 are then critically examined for evidence of the form. Arguments in the literature for examples or traces of each form are scrutinized against the evidence. Implications from the findings are discussed in terms of the appropriateness of linguistic evidence to the dating of the archaic poetry of the Hebrew Bible.

CHAPTER 9 THE UGARITIC CASE SYSTEM The functioning of the Semitic three-case system for nouns is attested in Ugaritic (Gordon 1947a:95; Segert 1984:51; Layton 1990:42; Sivan 1997:82; Lipiński 1997:263; Tropper 2000:302). Diptotic case endings are also present on some personal pronouns (Emerton 1992:56), but as these do not have a direct bearing on this study, they are only noted here. The Semitic case system is outlined in table 5. Table 5: Noun Declension,28 Status Rectus29

Old Babylonian masculine feminine singular absolute nominative genitive accusative plural absolute nominative oblique

Ugaritic masculine feminine

-um -im -am

-(a)t-um -(a)t-im -(a)t-am

/-u/ /-i/ /-a/

/-(a)tu/ /-(a)ti/ /-(a)ta/

-ū (or -ānū) -ī (or -ānī)

-āt-um -āt-im

/-ūma/ /-īma/

/-ātu/ * /-āti/

28 The vocative and the locative are not considered to be true cases. The adverbial functions: accusative of time, place, manner, direction and relationship which are discussed in some of the literature (for example, Tropper 2002:310–312) are also not considered to be relevant to this study. 29 Sources: Old Babylonian: Caplice et al. 1988:11; Ugaritic alphabetic texts: after Segert 1984:51.

81

82

DATING ABH POETRY: A CRITIQUE

IDENTIFICATION OF CASE ENDINGS IN THE CONSONANTAL SCRIPT The Ugaritic consonantal script, which does not represent final vowels, has necessarily restricted this outline of case endings to words whose final root consonant is aleph (III:aleph). The case vowel is identifiable in the consonantal script by the three signs which are used to represent the glottal stop with the vowels ’a, ’i, and ’u. Examples of the III:aleph forms in the Ugaritic consonantal system are indicated in table 6. The presence of a case vowel or other vowel may also be indicated by a final -y or -w (Gordon 1965:56). An example Gordon gives is the proper noun bn. ’gw, where the -w would not appear unless it remained consonantal by the presence of a following vowel. Table 6: Examples of Case Inflection in Ugaritic Consonantal Texts (Segert 1984:52)

masculine forms singular absolute nominative ksu/kussi’u/ ‘throne’ genitive ksi/kussi’i/ accusative ksa/kussi’a/ plural absolute nominative mrum/mur’ūma/ ‘commanders’ oblique mrim/marī’īma/

feminine forms30 mit/mi’tu/ ‘100’ mit/mi’ti/ šnt/šanata/ ‘year’ mat/mi’ātu/ mat/mi’āti/

The Ugaritic influence on the syllabic Akkadian writings at Ugarit provides evidence of feminine forms (Huehnergard 1987b:294–96, 298–300). Huehnergard notes that the feminine 30 Case endings are directly attested for the masculine; the dual endings are reconstructed, and the case differentiation in the feminine plural is probably indicated by short vowels after the feminine plural marker. These vowels correspond partly to the case endings of the singular. Since case markers are only rarely visible in the consonantal writing, syntactic function is used along with form in determining the case of nouns (Segert 1984:86).

CHAPTER NINE

83

endings are identical with those of the contemporary Akkadian dialect in which the tablets are written, so that the actual Ugaritic endings may not be isolated absolutely (Huehnergard 1987b:298n12). Care has been taken to ensure that the texts providing this data were written at Ugarit proper, so that, as far as possible, the texts are representative of Ugaritic and, if written in Akkadian, that the substrate linguistic influence is Ugaritic.31 From this evidence it is argued that nouns as well as substantives, adjectives and participles inflect for case endings in the singular, dual and plural (Layton 1990:42; Sivan 1997:82). The general consensus is that singular nouns are triptotically inflected while plural nouns are diptotically inflected (Segert 1984:51; Tropper 2000:306). Tropper makes some further observations. In the case inflection of the dual he finds a diptotic inflection of nominative â and oblique ê (Tropper 2000:306), as did Segert (Segert 1984:51). As variants to this pattern, Tropper finds some instances where, for the masculine plural, only the -i is used as a case ending vowel (Tropper 2000:306). In the feminine plural he finds some examples of an -a ending which he suggests is most likely to be a hypercorrect form (Tropper 2000:307). The analysis of the Akkadian syllabic texts from Ugarit complements the morphological analysis of the Ugaritic consonantal texts, particularly in relation to the limitations of identifying case vowel endings in the consonantal texts. A distinct Ugaritic influence in the Akkadian writings at Ugarit has led to variations in the standard Akkadian forms of the period (Huehnergard 1987b:4; van Soldt 1991:412). These similarities and differences have been ex31 Huehnergard chiefly refers to the texts in PRU III and VI, and Ugaritica V (Huehnergard 1987:351–355). For his evidence, Sivan collects approximately 300 Ugaritic words in the Akkadian texts from Ugarit, from the administration texts from Ugarit, found in the Le Palais royal d’Ugarit, (PRU) III, IV and VI, and Ugaritica V (Sivan 1997:2). Tropper uses Ugaritic words from Syllabary A Vocabulary, isolated instances in the Akkadian text corpus, primarily in legal and economic texts, and a set of names in the syllabic texts (Tropper 2002:17). However, as Tropper does not claim the names are Ugaritic, this set is not used in this study.

84

DATING ABH POETRY: A CRITIQUE

plored by scholars to shed light on the possible vocalization of the restricted consonantal Ugaritic texts. The influence of Ugaritic on the Akkadian written at Ugarit is not considered to be as profound as the influence of Canaanite on the Amarna Akkadian. This is evident from van Soldt’s work (van Soldt 1991). There are approximately 300 Ugaritic words in the Akkadian texts from Ugarit which are especially important for the study of the Ugaritic case system because their vowels are indicated (Sivan 1997:2). Sivan includes these in his list of indices which he uses to develop his grammar (Sivan 1997:301–302). It is acknowledged that the syllabic sources show only imprecisely the differentiated consonant inventory of the Ugaritic writing. However, the syllabic sources do show the vowel structure of the words concerned and is therefore of great importance for the vocalization of the Ugaritic writing. Tropper cites extensive grammatical studies to support his use of the syllabic writing in his analysis of Ugaritic grammar (Tropper 2002:17). His examples in both forms of writing are an indication that the Semitic case system was being used efficiently in both arenas, that is, in Peripheral Akkadian and in Ugaritic. The Akkadian-Ugaritic texts date from the first half of the fourteenth century BCE to the beginning of the twelfth century. The fall of Ugarit is dated to approximately 1190 BCE (Singer 1999:729–30). Although Singer considers that most of the tablets found at Ugarit belong to the last fifty years of its history (Singer 1999:704), the dating of the composition of some of the literary consonantal texts is considered to be somewhat earlier. Thus the grammar of some of these earlier tablets may on occasion be relatively more archaic (Huehnergard 1987b:40). Robertson’s dating of Exodus 15 and Judges 5 to the twelfth century brings these Hebrew texts into close temporal proximity to the Ugaritic evidence.

THE CONSTRUCT STATE The evidence shows that case vowels are generally present and correctly used on the construct noun in the nominative and the accusative (Tuttle 1978:258; Sivan 1984:121–23; Huehnergard 1987: 300). The inflection of the noun in the construct state in Ugaritic is indicated in table 7. Final vowels are omitted in the construct form of the noun in Akkadian, where the shortest possible phonetic

CHAPTER NINE

85

form is taken (Caplice et al. 1988:17). This is not the situation in Ugaritic. Table 7: The Inflection of the Noun in the Construct State in Ugaritic (Segert 1984:51)

singular nominative genitive accusative plural nominative oblique

masculine

feminine

-u -i -a

-(a)tu -(a)ti -(a)ta

-ū -ī

-ātu -āti

In the consonantal texts, exceptions are found to be few in number (Huehnergard 1987:300n16). These may be attributed to scribal error. Masculine singular nouns in construct are found to be correctly inflected in the nominative and the accusative for III-aleph nouns. Had the case vowel been lost, it would be expected that the final syllable would be closed with an aleph represented by -i (Tuttle 1978:255–56). Examples are given below. KTU2 1.4 VIII:12–13, nominative case mk . ksu . tbth low is the throne of his sitting (Tuttle 1978:256) KTU2 1.6 VI:28, accusative case l yhpk . ksa . mlkk verily he will overthrow the throne of the king (Tuttle 1978:256) The masculine singular nouns in the genitive construct may not be distinguishable because the i vowel may represent both ’i and the syllable-closing aleph (Gordon 1965:4§8; Tuttle 1978:258). However it may reasonably be inferred from the foregoing evidence that in the genitive, the case ending is also preserved. There is evidence from the III:yod forms for the retention of the case vowel of the construct form, though this evidence is of lesser value because it may derive from fixed formulae, occasional textual ambiguity and unique attestations (Tuttle 1978:260–63). It is convincingly argued that the III:yod singular nominal form in construct with the yod still present indicates that the case vowel is present. An example is set out below.

86

DATING ABH POETRY: A CRITIQUE

KTU2 4.390:1–2 any . al[šy ] the ship of Al[šy ] d b atlg(?) [ ] which is in Atlg [ ] (See Tuttle 1978:260) A contrary position is taken by Zevit to that of both Huehnergard and Tuttle. Zevit considers that the appearance of the three forms of aleph is the result of conflicting orthographic conventions (Zevit 1983:229). However the consistency in the data examined by other researchers for the appropriate use of case inflection does not support Zevit’s position. Zevit’s examination of Ugaritic names uses the most conservative data which is in a fixed form. He finds that the vowel between the two elements of a name is euphonic and optional rather than grammatical and necessary (Zevit 1983:231). However, for the reasons previously discussed, this evidence from proper nouns is not relevant to this study, and it cannot be used to indicate the date of the breakdown and loss of the case system. His reference to Blau’s position in support of his own argument that case endings were certainly dropped in the construct state in some Canaanite dialects by circa 1300 BCE (Zevit 1983:231), also presents a difficulty, in that Ugaritic is not necessarily regarded as a Canaanite dialect (Gordon 1965:147; Lipiński 1997:56). Four examples are cited below where a final yod on a plural or dual construct noun has been used. It would be expected that this yod is a mater lectionis for -ī, the construct oblique case, but as in these forms the terms are in the nominative position, errors have occurred. These may be seen as scribal errors (Rainey 1987:401) and can scarcely be viewed as support for an argument that there is a breakdown in the case system. In the following examples from Sivan’s work (Sivan 1997:84–85), two of the texts are ambiguous. The remaining two instances provide insufficient evidence to make a case that the yod replaces the nominative plural case ending. KTU2 2.16:4–5 ’ily /ugrt tǵrk [’ugarita/’ugarīti taǵǵurūkĭ/ī]: may the gods of Ugarit protect you (fs) Since the ‘gods of Ugarit’ are the subject of the clause, the form should have been *’ilū (nominative plural construct). Sivan indicates that the correct orthography is demonstrated in the phrase ’il ms. m [>ilū mis.rêma/i] the gods of Egypt: KTU2 2.23:22 (Sivan 1997:84). Israel comments that Liverani used this particular example in his 1964 work to support his argument that a weaken-

CHAPTER NINE

87

ing of the inflectional case system can be seen in Ugaritic (Israel 1995:255). However, his evidence is insufficient to sustain this argument. KTU2 1.103:33–34 tqs. qn / ymy b‘lhn: the days of their (fp) lord will be short The yod is a mater lectionis for the oblique construct where we would expect the nominative (Sivan 1997:85). KTU2 1.23:60 ’atty ’il ylt [’attatê ’ili yalattā]: the two wives of El gave birth The nominative *’attatā would have been expected (Sivan 1997:84). KTU2 1.103:7 mrḥy mlk tdlln: the spears of the king will be subjugated It seems that mrhy is the subject of the sentence and therefore the ˘ yod reflects an error in case (Sivan 1997:84–85). From the syllabic evidence, five possible examples occur of bound forms each without a case ending (Sivan 1984:121–123; Huehnergard 1987:301). In view of the much larger set of forms that do bear case endings, it is considered that these examples are scribal errors where the scribe wrote a vC sign for a Cv sign. This is apparent from the examples below where the vowel is repeated in the relevant adjoining syllables. Another explanation for errors is that the scribes are imitating the Akkadian practice of not using case endings in this type of context. RS 20.149:7 i-zi-ir [‘idir] help RS 19.023:3 ku-ri-ka-at [kurikāt/kurīkāt?] agricultural implements The singular is ku-ri-ku [kuriku /kurīku] RS 15.122:4 A.ŠÀ.MEŠal-la-an [’allān] fields of oak RS 19.112:2 2 URUDU ma-am-s. a-ar bu-li [mamṣar būli] two cattle knives (Sivan 1984:121–23)

DISCUSSION Despite the limitations of the consonantal texts and the difficulties inherent in the relevant syllabic texts, the case system in Ugaritic is apparently in full operation. A satisfactory argument has not been proposed that would indicate otherwise. Gordon did not pursue his proposal that there might be the beginnings of a breakdown in case

88

DATING ABH POETRY: A CRITIQUE

distinctions as there was insufficient evidence to indicate that there was a confusion of cases in the Ugaritic consonantal texts (Gordon 1947:95). Rabin’s argument that the case system could not be reconstructed because of insufficient evidence using only nouns ending in aleph (Rabin 1969:191) no longer applies, as the evidence from the syllabic texts complements the evidence from the consonantal texts. As the case system is undoubtedly in operation in Ugaritic, then it is argued that in all probability, case endings could be expected in the ‘early’ Hebrew poetic corpus in terms of Robertson’s assumptions. It is argued here that though there are inconsistencies in the application of the case system in Ugaritic, the frequency of inconsistencies is insufficient to indicate that the case system was breaking down. These inconsistencies may be attributable to scribal error. Due to morphological restrictions, difficulties with the consonantal texts inhibit a precise analysis of the status of the case system. Added to this problem is the matter of the damage to many of the Ugaritic tablets. This makes the study of Ugaritic even more problematic as the actual text of many passages is incomplete. Obscurities give rise to many conflicting opinions among the scholars involved in the textual studies (Sivan 1997:4). The option of supplementing the studies with the data from the inflection of geographic and personal names has been used by some (Gordon 1965:56; Segert 1984:50), but as already noted, this evidence is not used in this study as it is improbable that it represents the most recent stage of usage in Ugaritic. Despite these difficulties in the consonantal texts, correct case endings are generally present on singular nouns (Tropper 2000:305), whereas a small number of possible noun forms without case endings, or with possible incorrect case endings, are attested (Sivan 1997:84; Tropper 2000:305, 335–336). Tropper regards these as possible cases only, and thus does not propose an argument for a confusion of case endings. There is the possibility that cardinal numbers do not have case endings in particular syntactic constructions, so an argument cannot be made for the loss of case endings here. Thus in the consonantal text, it is argued that the scribes consistently implement a case system for the III:aleph nouns, providing a strong indicator that this is the situation across

CHAPTER NINE

89

all nominal forms. This does not diminish the difficulties one has in analyzing the consonantal texts from Ugarit. With regard to the syllabic texts, the general opinion is that the examples of case endings which can be attributed to Ugaritic are generally correct (van Soldt 1991:412; Tropper 2000:335). Van Soldt’s research indicates some particular circumstances in which variations occur, but their number does not alter the general opinion. With professional designations, usually in apposition, the -u ending occurs in place of an -i or -a ending. In another instance, van Soldt indicates that one scribe’s practice seems to involve the use of the -a ending in place of the -u or -i ending, specifically in relation to the phrase ‘pilka…yānu’ (van Soldt 1991:413). Van Soldt explains the use of the accusative ending as being based in West Semitic. He relates this finding to Moran’s work in the Amarna letters (Moran 1950:14–15) where it was noted that yānu regularly takes the accusative in the letters from Byblos (van Soldt 1991:413). Rainey also sees this as a remarkable feature of the Canaanized EA texts (Rainey 1996, I:167). A third variation is the use of -i instead of -u or –a. Van Soldt finds the reason for this remains obscure. He also finds forms without case endings. He suggests that the CvC signs in his examples are perhaps meant to be CvCv, but for other cases he has no explanation (van Soldt 1991:414). A few Ugaritic nouns are found without case endings, but as the majority of these are plurals in construct, the reason could be related to the morphological system in Akkadian (Tropper 2000:335).

CONCLUSION The evidence from the consonantal and syllabic texts from Ugarit supports the argument that the case system was in operation at the close of the thirteenth century BCE. The few variations found are best interpreted as scribal errors. The consonantal texts show that scribes consistently implemented a case system for III:aleph nouns, which then may be argued to represent the situation across all nominal forms. The small amount of evidence from the syllabic texts which indicates the loss or inappropriate use of case endings by Ugaritic scribes may be explained as scribal error or interference from the practices and developments in Akkadian. To sustain Robertson’s arguments it is necessary to assert that case endings are to be expected in a second millennium BCE Hebrew poetic corpus. This would imply that Ugaritic is a direct fore-

90

DATING ABH POETRY: A CRITIQUE

runner of Biblical Hebrew. If this is so, an argument could be made that their temporal proximity to each other was a factor in determining that case ending forms in both languages were used as a matter of linguistic necessity. This is implied in Robertson’s dependence upon Ugaritic as his main source of evidence.

CHAPTER 10 THE CASE SYSTEM OF THE AMARNA LETTERS The significant influence of Canaanite on the verbal system of the Akkadian of the Amarna letters led to an expectation that there would also be an influence of the Canaanite case system on the Akkadian of the Amarna letters (Kossmann 1987–88:38). This has not been found. The substrate influence of the case system of Canaanite in the Amarna tablets (Amarna Canaanite) is clearly identified from the Canaanite glosses which are distinguishable from the Akkadian forms (Amarna Akkadian) which use case endings in the period of the letters, circa 1350 BCE. As the case system of Northwest Semitic is similar to that of Akkadian, these glosses are of critical importance for this study. This Amarna Canaanite evidence, together with Ugaritic textual evidence, shows the most ancient attestation of the West Semitic case system (Kossmann 1987– 88:38).

FEATURES OF THE WEST SEMITIC CASE SYSTEM USED IN THE AMARNA LETTERS The case systems found in each of the Akkadian and the West Semitic of the Amarna letters are almost identical. Thus the Canaanite of the Amarna letters usually exhibits correct use of noun declension (Rainey 1996, I:161; Izre’el 1998:14; von Dassow 2003:197). In an attempt to clarify the defining features of the case system in use in the Amarna letters, the focus is on the status rectus and the status constructus, as these are most relevant to this study. Comparisons are generally made with the case inflection of Old Babylonian. In the literature some references are also made to Middle Babylonian which Reiner prefers to refer to as a dialect (Reiner 1966:20), and Peripheral Akkadian. Regarding the amount of Middle Babylonian 91

92

DATING ABH POETRY: A CRITIQUE

in the Akkadian of the Amarna letters, Moran considers that the language of the Amarna letters reflects many of the developments in Middle Babylonian, but as it is provincial, it retains old orthographies (Moran 1992:xix–xx). However Rainey considers that in the letters ‘Middle Babylonian developments are surprisingly rare…’ (Rainey 1996, II:17) After the Old Babylonian period, the case system underwent a simplification: mimation and nunation fell into disuse with only sporadic instances of mimation (Caplice et al. 1988:3). There is considerable evidence that the case system was in full effect in the period of the Amarna letters. Syllabic signs for closed syllables with final -m that served so often to represent the final forms with mimation, are usually transcribed without the -m or -n (Rainey 1996, I:162). This is shown in table 8. Noun Declension The Old Babylonian paradigm for the Akkadian forms, with the possible omission of mimation, is the most appropriate paradigm for the Amarna period (Rainey 1996, I:27; Izre’el 1995:101; Huehnergard 1998:63; van Soldt 1998:595). Table 8: Noun Declension, Status Rectus32

singular nominative genitive accusative plural nominative oblique dual nominative oblique

Old Babylonian masculine feminine

Amarna Canaanite masculine feminine

-um -im -am

-(a)t-um -(a)t-im -(a)t-am

-u -i -a

-(a)t-u -(a)t-i -(a)t-a

-ū (or ānū) -ī (or -ānī)

-āt-um -āt-im

-ûma -îma

-(ā)t-u -(ā)t-i

-ān -īn

-(a)t-ān -(a)t-īn

32 Old Babylonian data: Caplice et al. 1988:11; Amarna Canaanite data: Kossmann 1987–88:46

CHAPTER TEN

93

In table 9, the case endings from several Canaanite glosses in the Amarna letters are provided. Table 9: Examples of Case Inflection for Status Rectus in Amarna Canaanite (Lipiński 1997:263)

singular nominative genitive accusative plural nominative oblique dual

-u -i -a

s. ú-ú-nu sú-ki-ni ma-aṭ-ni-a

s. ’n: small cattle (EA 263:12) skn: governor (EA 256:19) m ṭ n’: supply (EA 337:9, 21)

-ūma -īma -ā

ša-mu-ma ša-me-ma hi-na-ia

šmm: heaven (EA 211:17) šmm: heaven (EA 264:16) ‘ny: my eyes (EA 144:17)

The examples below show that the scribes were able to use case endings correctly on both Akkadian nouns and the Canaanite glosses they inserted. EA 105: (8) ki-ma is. s. uri ša libbibi (9) hu[-h]a-ri [\] ki-lu-bi33 ˘ ˘ like a bird in a trap Both the Akkadian and the Canaanite nouns have the correct genitive singular ending. EA 138: (126) ù [i]a-pu \ ha-mu-du (127) ša-a ša-bi-ir i[š]-tu (128) šarri ˘ and a nice (thing) that was sent from the king Both the Akkadian noun and its Canaanite gloss have the correct nominative singular ending. EA 244: (16) a-zi bâbua-bu-ul-li \ ša-ah-ri ˘ (we are unable to go out) through the city gate Both the Akkadian noun and its Canaanite gloss have the correct genitive singular ending. EA 256: (9) iš-tu pa-ni amêlūtura-bi-zi \ zu-ki-ni (10) šàr-ri EN-šu from the presence of the commissioners of the king, his lord

33 All transliterations, unless specified, are from Knudtzon 1915, and translations, unless specified, are from Moran 1992. Where Rainey’s transliterations are available and provide a significantly different reading of the text in relation to the variable under discussion, his transliterations are included and noted.

94

DATING ABH POETRY: A CRITIQUE

Both the Akkadian noun and the Canaanite gloss have the correct genitive singular ending. Textual evidence for the status rectus supports the conclusion that the case system is in full effect in Amarna Canaanite. For the declension of the status rectus, little variation is found. Generally there is a triptotic system of case endings in the singular and a diptotic system in the plural. The similarity between the Akkadian and the Amarna Canaanite declension of the noun is noted (Rainey 1996, I:182). The Canaanite scribes display correct usage of the genitive and the accusative functions in the Amarna Akkadian syllabic letters. Variations occur in the case system in the Amarna letters from Canaan which distinguish it from the Amarna Akkadian in the following respects. One feature is the infrequent loss of the phonetic complement on logograms where a high-frequency expression is used in a variety of case settings. There is also an occasional error (Rainey 1996, I:163–64). These variations may be alternative readings or careless scribal errors particularly in the case of the Jerusalem scribe. Secondly, there is a variation in the declension of adjectives. Whereas the Akkadian and West Semitic plural adjectives are diptotically declined, some plural adjectives in Amarna Canaanite are found to be triptotically declined. Izre’el explains this as ‘a morphological attraction of the adjectival combined morph ūt, which is identical to the abstract noun marker’ (Izre’el 1998:17). An example he gives is: EA 117:29: a-wa-te ša-ru-ta: treacherous words (29) a-wa-te ša-ru-ta aš-ta-pa-ru (30) a-na bêli-ia Had I been writing treacherous words to my lord? This phrase is in the oblique case, and the -uti form would be expected, not an apparent accusative form. Izre’el finds this also occurs in substantives of the same form. Some examples include the following: EA 103:31: amêlūtu ša-ru-ta: the enemies (30) ù yu-ša-am-ri-ir šarruru (31) ilušamaš amêlūtu ša-ru-ta eš-tu l[ib]bibi mâti-šu May the king, the Sun, expel the traitors from his land EA 365:16: LÚ.MEŠ ha-za-nu-tameš: the city rulers ˘ (15) u a-mur-mì (16) awīlū(LÚmeš) ha-za-nu-tameš (17) ša it-ti-ia (18) la-a ti-pu-šu-na (19) ki-ma ia-ti-ia ˘

CHAPTER TEN

95

But see! The city rulers who are with me are not doing as I. (Rainey 1970:24–27) Against the 15 plural accusatives with -ūta, only one instance of -ūti is found (Kossmann 1987–88:48). EA 285:19: amêlūtu [ha-zi]-a-nu-ti: the rulers ˘ (18) ù li-il-ki (19) [ amêlūtu ha-zi]-a-nu-ti it-ti-šu ˘ that he may fetch [the ma]yors to himself Thirdly, in several situations some variations occur in the correct usage of case endings in Amarna Akkadian. This approximates to the Neo-Babylonian usage, where all vowel endings occur without reference to their syntactic function. One of these situations is the lack of case endings on personal names and geographic names. The syntactic function is taken over by word order (Reiner 1966:67). More than one ending may be attested for a toponym but these endings are not related to case differences, as in the forms of the toponym Symira: Ṣumur, Ṣumura and Ṣumuri, and the personal name Amanappa/Amanappi (Kossmann 1987–88:47). In names of West Semitic origin which are not in a genitive construction, case inflection is usually found, possibly suggesting that the case system is still being applied by skilled scribes. Kossmann indicates that in the letters from Byblos and Beirut the form Aziru occurs sixteen times in the nominative and the form Aziri twelve times in the genitive with no overlap between the two. However this is not the pattern for the letters from Tyre. The form Azira is used twice in the nominative and three times in the genitive. The form Aziri occurs once in a genitive context (Kossmann 1987–88:47). There is apparent variation between case-marked and non-declinable forms. An argument can be made for the declension of West Semitic names, but this is based on data from only a few name forms as the various corpora are of limited size (Kossmann 1987–88:48). Kossmann refers to a fourth feature of the case system in the Amarna letters as ‘akkadograms’. He argues that substantives may have been adopted from Mesopotamian Akkadian in a petrified, indeclinable form. He compares akkadograms with ideograms which are indeclinable but function as normal substantives. Even if the substantive shows a petrified ending, it may be indeclinable. He indicates that these are not errors in implementing the case system, but are related to problems with orthography (Kossmann 1987– 88:51).

96

DATING ABH POETRY: A CRITIQUE

Kossmann’s examples of akkadograms which are corpusspecific include the following. From Byblos there is ŠE.im. HI.A, ˘ ‘grain’, which he cites in comparison with Middle Babylonian where še’um occurs as an akkadogram (Kossmann 1987–88:51n31). From Tyre, the word a-ma-tam, ‘word’, occurs only in this form: in EA 147:69 as a genitive, status rectus, and in EA 155:46, as a nominative, status constructus. From Qiltu come two akkadograms, LUGAL-ri, ‘king’, and DINGIR.MEŠ-nu-ia, ‘my gods’. LUGAL-ri occurs twenty-eight times as a nominative, while the expected nominative form LUGAL-ru appears only once. In the remaining seven occurrences, -ū is the nominative ending. DINGIR.MEŠ-nuia occurs three times as a genitive, but -i is the genitive ending in the five remaining genitive cases. Thus it is plausible to treat LUGAL-ri and DINGIR.MEŠ-nu-ia as akkadograms, a finding for which Kossmann gives corroborating evidence from other corpora from Southern Palestine (Kossmann 1987–88:51–52). From Jerusalem, nu-kúr-tam occurs five times and only in nominal sentences. From a comparison with other nouns with case endings in a similar syntactic position, Kossmann concludes that nu-kúr-tam is best regarded as an akkadogram (Kossmann 1987–1988:52). A fifth feature of the case system employed in the Amarna letters is that the existential negative particle yānu(m) takes its subject in the accusative.34 This feature was recognized as early as Böhl’s writings in 1909, and has since been incorporated into the grammar of the Amarna letters (Rainey 1996, I:167). This use of yānu is in contrast with the linguistic situation in Middle Babylonian, where it takes the nominative. In the Byblos texts alone the accusative, yāna(m) occurs twenty-one times, but in the Tyre letters the nominative and accusative forms both occur, and in the Jerusalem letters the nominative construction occurs eight times with two exceptions (Kossmann 1987–88:57). The Construct State In the letters from the Palestine area little Canaanite substrate influence appears on the Akkadian forms of the construct state. The 34 See also the previous discussion of this feature in relation to the Ugaritic case system.

CHAPTER TEN

97

endings which appear for the noun in construct, which are not case vowels, are generally the Amarna Akkadian forms. The endings of the noun in the construct state are set out in table 10. In Amarna Akkadian, the difference between the cases in the singular is not indicated. The appearance of the -i ending or the absence of an ending is related to the structure of the noun stem, partly arbitrarily, partly lexically (Kossmann 1987–88:40). There are sporadic examples of the preservation of case vowels on Akkadian nouns in construct. Examples of these are listed below. Table 10: Endings for the Noun in the Construct State (Kossmann 1987–88:46)

Case nominative accusative genitive oblique

Singular -ø/-i -ø/-i -ø/-i

Plural -u/-i? -i

Nominative Case EA 136:21–23 (21) ù la-a (22) ka-ši-id a-wa-tu (23) LUGAL EN-ia a-na ÌR-šu But the word of the king, my lord, has not reached his servant EA 147:25–26 (25) e-nu-ma it-ta-z[i] (2) še- hu šarri a-na muh hiJ [ i-i]a ˘˘ Now that the breath of the˘ king has come forth to me EA 155:46 (46) a-ma-tú šarri \ pa-ni-mu [i-]la-ak The word of the king {g}oes : before him Accusative Case EA 147:40 (40) ú-bal a-ma-ta5 LUGAL be-li-ia I bear the command of the king EA 147:45 (45) ù la-a iš-te-mé a-ma-ta5 LUGAL be-li-šu but if he ignored the command of the king, his lord (Sources: Kossmann 1987–88:41; Rainey 1996, I:175) Kossmann finds a possible eight correct case endings on singular nouns in the construct state from a possible 192 examples throughout the Amarna letters (Kossmann 1987–88:41). There is one example of a Canaanite gloss in the construct position on

98

DATING ABH POETRY: A CRITIQUE

which a nominative case ending would be expected. Both the Akkadian noun and the Canaanite gloss have the -ø ending for the singular noun in construct. EA 287:27–29 (27) k.ât (28) zu-ru-uh [ šarriri da]nnu (29) [n]a-ad-na-an-ni a-na ˘ ia-a-ši the strong hand\arm (gloss)\of the king gave it to me Rainey’s transliteration indicates that there is a space before the broken text. EA 287:27-29 (27) ŠU (28) zu-ru-uh [šarriri da]nnu (Rainey 1996:I:74) ˘ As this is the only such instance of Canaanite evidence, it could be an error or an Akkadianised form. The scarce evidence for case endings on the noun in construct is, in all probability, due to a weak Canaanite substrate influence in this respect.

STATUS OF THE CASE SYSTEM IN THE AMARNA LETTERS We find that in the Amarna letters from Canaan the case system is operative for the noun in status rectus. Evidence is available for the correct use of case endings on substantives, adjectives, nominal and adjectival verbal forms (infinitive and participle) and the various relevant classes of pronouns (Rainey 1996, I:161). In the few instances where case endings are used on the noun in construct, evidence indicates that they are used correctly. Data from names of West Semitic origin where a case system is applied (Kossmann 1987–88; Hess 1993) cannot be dated reliably and are disregarded. Errors occur in the marking of cases. Most errors are considered to be attributable to scribal errors due to the complex cuneiform script (Rainey 1996, I:170–171). These are generally infrequent, but with small corpora it is difficult to determine the overall level of frequency of errors. Errors occur in an arbitrary way. Logographic writings with frozen complements which are indeclinable function as normal substantives, and Kossmann’s ‘akkadograms’ are not considered as errors (Kossmann 1987–88:51–56; Rainey 1996, I:170–171). Errors may also occur on pronouns, on nouns with pronouns affixed, and on adjectives, but the examples given here are mostly on noun forms. The variations discussed above are not considered to be errors, but are viewed as patterns of usage.

CHAPTER TEN

99

Kossmann’s treatment of errors by corpora is a valuable resource making possible informed comment not only as to whether the corpora represent the Hurro-Akkadian from the north or the West-Semitized Babylonian of the south, but also insight into the relationship of language usage among the southern centres. Moran draws a rough dividing line between the north and the south, from Ṣumur on the coast to Qaṭna inland (Moran 1992:xx). Data from the southern centres sheds light on the status of the case system in the Amarna letters. Excluding the data from an analysis of the construct forms, which is dealt with separately, the following summary of case ending errors by centre is found. There are approximately forty errors in all: Byblos 24; Irqata 1; Gezer 4; Jerusalem 4; Kumidi 1; Acre 2; Megiddo 1; Lakhish 1; Qiltu 1; Ashqalon 1 (Kossmann 1987–88:54–55). An example of errors comes from the Byblos corpus, where the regular singular accusative is used 123 times correctly, with only 3 errors in usage. In the small corpus from Hazor there are no case ending errors in the accusative, but nine instances of a genitive -i ending in place of a nominative ending (Kossmann 1987–88:53). In the Tyre corpus, in 9 out of 22 instances where an accusative ending is expected, the -u ending occurs, though an -a ending never appears in the nominative. In the genitive, -i is regularly used, but there are three instances of -u instead of -i (Kossmann 1987–88:53). Before this data which indicates a confusion of cases and the first stage in the disintegration of the case system is considered, one critical factor needs to be taken into account. Rainey recognised that Knudtzon’s transcriptions did not necessarily reflect the real situation. Using the example of the feminine forms with the sign UD as their final syllable, Rainey explains that Knudtzon assigned it the value tú according to Neo-Assyrian practice. But it was later recognised that the same sign could also be read as tam, or in modern practice, ta5 where mimation was not expected. Rainey indicates that the most glaring cases of apparent errors are the many accusatives which have been read as nominatives (Rainey 1996, I:162). The Tyre corpus needs much closer analysis on this basis. After taking this matter into consideration, it is readily seen that the rate of error in the use of case endings is significantly low overall. It is thus argued that the system of case endings in Amarna Canaanite is in full operation in the Amarna letters. The evidence assembled above refutes any assumption that the case system in Canaanite was

100

DATING ABH POETRY: A CRITIQUE

in the process of breaking down during the Amarna period (Moran 1961:59; Kossmann 1987–88; Hess 1993; Rainey 1996, I:170). Among those scholars who do not agree with this conclusion are Blau and Izre’el. Working from a basic understanding that the Akkadian and the Canaanite case systems are almost identical in the period of the Amarna letters, Blau argues that the Canaanite scribes’ use of case endings is only due to archaism, as in living speech the case system had already disappeared. He supposes that if the Canaanite case endings had still been in living usage, the Canaanite scribes would have applied the Akkadian case system of that period without difficulty. He found that the Canaanite scribes used the Babylonian case endings less precisely, and applied pseudo-correct forms. In Blau’s opinion, this demonstrates that the Canaanite system had already broken down (Blau 1970:37). However he admits that this is an indirect conclusion as the evidence is based on texts reflecting in one language the influence of another (Blau 1968:35). Blau’s argument lacks adequate supporting evidence as his findings represent an earlier stage of Amarna research, and new readings have resolved these supposed difficulties. By contrast, Rainey makes a strong point about the reading of the accusative, especially the accusative feminine singular, in support of the correct usage of this ending (Rainey 1996, I:162). At no time does Rainey imply that pseudo-correct forms were being utilised in the Amarna letters by Canaanite scribes, nor that the case endings on Canaanite glosses were archaisms. That Canaanite glosses have correct case endings is sufficient evidence that a case system existed in Canaanite. To explain the use of case endings in Amarna Canaanite, Izre’el claims that the system was breaking down in the substrate dialects contemporaneously with or shortly after the time of the letters. He indicates that this process may have been taking place on different scales at different sites in the Canaanite area (Izre’el 1998:19). Despite his argument that the process may have commenced in the ‘word final environment’ as there are dictionary forms used either in Canaanite glosses or in the body of the text (Izre’el 1998:19), he does not specify this data. He finds some confusion in the employment of case endings, but only gives four examples in the construct state where the appearance of the vowel seems to be unpredictable and dependent on scribal tradition and on individual morphemes (Izre’el 1998:18). As has been seen, the

CHAPTER TEN

101

case system with regards to the construct state is not a system in confusion. Izre’el’s lack of precision in the expression of his claim, and his lack of quantified data to substantiate his claim make it difficult to have confidence in his ‘overall impression’. A concern with Izre’el’s findings and the references he cites relates to the stage of development of scholarship in this area. Rainey highlights one of the early difficulties which arose from Knudtzon’s edition, which was partially corrected by Ebeling. He notes that when Böhl was studying noun formations in the Amarna corpus, there were still many facets of Akkadian morphology that had not as yet been formulated fully (Rainey 1996, I:125). A century of lexical research which is reflected in CAD35 and AHw36 has led to more precision in translating Akkadian vocables. The thorough analysis of West Semitic nominal forms reflected in glosses and proper nouns in the work of Sivan (1984) and Hess (1993) have significantly contributed to our understanding of the morphology of West Semitic in the late Bronze Age, in spite of the limited corpus of vocables with which Hess and Sivan were able to work. An example of developments in scholarship in Amarna Canaanite relates to Böhl’s early work with the examples he uses to support his argument that the use of case endings was weakening in the Amarna corpus, even though it was not in a state of chaos (Böhl 1909:32). Böhl found examples of nominative endings instead of the expected genitive endings, very frequent genitive endings instead of nominative endings, four instances of genitive endings instead of accusative endings, moderately frequent use of accusative endings instead of genitive endings, and genitive forms without endings. Some examples of changes of interpretation of the data indicate that Böhl’s findings now have to be modified. Several examples are developed below.

CAD: The Assyrian Dictionary of the Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago. See bibliographic reference under: A. L. Oppenheim and E. Reiner. 36 AHw: Akkadisches Handwörterbuch, 3 vol., W. von Soden. Weisbaden: Otto Harrassowitz, 1965–1981. 35

102

DATING ABH POETRY: A CRITIQUE

Example 1 Böhl gives an example from the Rib-Haddi letters where šar tamhar has no genitive ending (Böhl 1909:32). Kossmann finds that it˘ is also written šar tamhara. Kossmann indicates that in the former in˘ stance, tamhar follows the toponymic pattern where it is not de˘ clined. This suggests to Kossmann that perhaps the expression ‘(The) King of Battle’, the title of an Akkadian epic well known in Amarna, was reinterpreted by the writer as ‘king of Tamhar’ and ˘ that this would have made him adapt tamhar to the declensional ˘ pattern of other toponyms (Kossmann 1987–88:50–51). From an analysis of the instances to which Böhl and Kossmann refer, there is none in which the genitive ending is present, there are four instances where šàr ta-am- ha-ar is written (EA 74:2, 114:2, 116:2–3 ˘ and 122:3), one where šarriri ta-am- ha-ar is written (EA 123:3–4), and seven instances where šàr ta-am-˘ha-ra is written (EA 76:3, 79:3, ˘ 81:2, 105:2, a restoration, 107:3, 108:3, and 117:2). One other instance has an incomplete form, EA 119:3, šàr ta-am- ha(?), which is ˘ excluded from this analysis. As all instances are found in the opening formulaic section of the letters, and are nouns in a list of nouns in apposition to the title of the one addressed, and as there is none with a genitive ending, there is support for Kossmann’s argument that tamhar is not inflected. ˘ Kossmann finds Youngblood’s explanation for the above phenomenon to be entirely ad hoc and unacceptable because of its syntactic consequences. Youngblood’s explanation reads as follows: ‘šar tamhar is a status indeterminatus, a rare phenomenon in RibHaddi, ˘attesting to the scribal familiarity which surrounded the phrase. In LUGAL tamhāra, the latter word can only be an accusa˘ tive of specification…’ (Youngblood 1961:129) Kossmann comments that ‘in a construction like šar tamhar one expects a genitive, and as far as I know, there are no other˘ examples of a specifying accusative in this kind of context.’ (Kossmann 1987–88:50) Kossmann prefers not to analyze šar tamhar and šar tamhara as two ˘ ˘ different constructions.

Example 2 EA 270:9-12 (9) yi-di šarru be-li (10) ip-ši ša yi-pu-šu-ni (11) Iia-an- ha-mu (12) iš˘ tu a-zi-ia

CHAPTER TEN

103

In this example ip-ši ša yi-pu-šu-ni, Böhl argues that ip-ši indicates a genitive case instead of the expected accusative case. Rainey analyzes this as an oblique bound form which can be recognised as plural by the context. This -i vowel is the correct vowel for the oblique case. Rainey’s translation reads, ‘May the king, my lord, be apprised of the deeds which Yanḥamu is committing against me…’ (Rainey 1996, I:143–44) Moran’s translation: ‘of the deeds that Yanhamu keeps doing…,’ is in accord with Rainey’s analysis ˘ (Moran 1992:316).

Example 3 Böhl cites a number of instances where a nominative phonetic complement has been given with a logogram instead of a genitive phonetic complement (Böhl 1909:33). Kossmann’s proposal is that if an akkadogram is used, then this is not an error, as Akkadian nouns in this orthography are indeclinable and they may show a petrified case ending which is not related to the case of the substantive (Kossmann 1987–88:51). This would then apply to Böhl’s six examples. EA 106:39 amêlūtumtum amêlu EA 131:19–20 šarrumrum be-li-ia EA 228:8 šarrumrum bêli-ia EA 53:34 bîtumtum š[a] Inam-ja-[z]a(!) EA 53:48 iš-tu mâtumtum an-nu-[ù] EA 55:57 mâtumtum šâ be-lî-ia Some alternative explanations of these forms are offered. In the case of amêlūtumtum, Rainey suggests that the post-determinative tum which should have been tím may be a simple error for some other sign such as TIM = tì (Rainey 1996, I:153). In regards to šarrumrum, Knudtzon comments on the horizontal wedge which occurs after this post determinative, which possibly suggests that the sentence ended before this word (Knudtzon 1915:557no). However, Kossmann lists this as a scribal error (1987–88:55), there being a similar example occurring in EA 228:8 (1987–88:53).

Example 4 EA 118:34: ú-ul I i-ti-zi-ib ali[m(!)]lim (Knudtzon 1915:514) EA 118:34: ú-ul ›DIŠ ‹ i-te9-zi-ib UR[U]-lì lest I abandon my city (Rainey 1996, II:88)

104

DATING ABH POETRY: A CRITIQUE

In this example, the use of a genitive or an accusative is disputed. Rainey sees this as an orthographic problem. He finds this and other instances are where the scribe evidently intended the value lì without any reference to mimation (-lim). One of Rainey’s examples is |URU~-lì ‘my city’, as a direct object of the verb (Rainey 1996, I:21). Moran’s translation does not reflect an intended 1cs possessive suffix: ‘lest I abandon the city’ (Moran 1992:196). Thus, in contrast to the scholarship of the early twentieth century, more recent scholarship indicates that the case system in the Amarna letters was not in disarray as at first suggested.

CONCLUSION There is evidence in both Akkadian and in the substrate Canaanite dialects that the case system is in operation particularly in the context of the declinable status rectus. The Canaanite case system in the Amarna letters has several distinguishing features of its own, five of which are described above. It is considered that these reflect linguistic development, and they need not be considered as errors, nor do they indicate a collapse of the case system in the substrate Canaanite dialects. The study of the individual corpora is important in highlighting scribal variations across the dialects.

CHAPTER 11 THE CASE SYSTEM AND ARCHAIC BIBLICAL HEBREW Biblical Hebrew as a written language lacks the system of case endings found in Ugaritic and Amarna Canaanite of the second half of the second millennium BCE. It is hypothesized that the earlier form of the Hebrew language had a fully operating case system with vocalic case endings which resembled the system used in both of the other languages prior to the writing of the Hebrew Bible. Although this system is argued to have been lost before the writing of the Hebrew Bible, purported evidence of its presence has been claimed by some scholars. While the analysis of certain forms of vowel endings in the Hebrew Bible has led to the identification of these vocalic endings as remnants of case endings, there has been considerable uncertainty and variability regarding the precise identification of these remnants. In this chapter there is an analysis the purported remnants of the hypothesized vocalic system of case endings. This involves an examination of issues relating to the declension of the noun and the linguistic processes involved in the disintegration of the vocalic case system prior to the writing of Biblical Hebrew. The discussion includes the evidence from proper nouns, the use of nomenclature other than ‘remnants of case endings’, and the implications of this for dating the archaic poetry of the biblical text. The evidence below indicates that there are no convincing examples of functional case endings in ABH poetry or anywhere else in the Hebrew Bible.

105

106

DATING ABH POETRY: A CRITIQUE

The declension of the noun37 which is shown in table 11 assumes that in Proto-Hebrew, singular nouns were triptotically declined, and plural and dual nouns were diptotically declined. Thus the example in early Hebrew, *malk- (king) (later *mélék) would be hypothetically inflected in the following way. Table 11: The Hypothesized Inflection of the ProtoHebrew Noun *malk (after Waltke and O’Connor 1990:126)

singular absolute nominative genitive accusative plural absolute nominative oblique dual absolute nominative oblique

masculine

feminine

*malku *malki *malka

*malkatu *malkati *malkata

*mal(a)kūma *mal(a)kīma

*malkōtu38 *malkōti

*malkā *malkay

*malkatā *malkatē

In the Hebrew Bible the entire system of vocalic case endings is lost. The syntactic function of nouns is indicated by word order, context and by case-specific grammatical forms. An example of one of these forms is the use of the nota accusativi which appears almost always in Hebrew prose and less commonly in poetry to mark the definite direct object of the verb. It is very seldom found before a noun in the accusative which is, or appears to be, in the indefinite state (GKC §117d). There are no instances of the nota accusativi in the following poetic texts under consideration: Exodus 15, Numbers 23 and 24, Deuteronomy 32 and Judges 5. However 37 The declension of the noun presented here follows conventional nomenclature, being a purely descriptive tool for the comparison of morphological forms. 38 The shift of the accented â > ô (the Canaanite shift) is found as early as the Canaanite glosses in the Amarna letters. An example written by a Jerusalem scribe is found in EA 287:66, 69: a-na-ku > a-nu-ki. This shift is not attested in the Ugaritic writings (Gordon 1965:147).

CHAPTER ELEVEN

107

in the following poems there are instances of the nota accusativi which are considered to add clarity to the reading of the text. ֶ ‫ וְ ֶא‬and his brothers; ‫ת־בּנׇ ו‬ ‫  וְ ֶא ׇ‬and his Deuteronomy 33.9 ‫ת־א ָחיו‬ children

‫ת־בנׇ ו‬ ‫ת־א ָח ֙יו ֣ל ֹא ִה ִ֔כּיר וְ ֶא ׇ‬ ֶ ‫יתיו וְ ֶא‬ ִ֔ ‫מּוֹ ֣ל ֹא ְר ִא‬ ֙ ‫וּל ִא‬ ְ ‫ָהא ֵֹ֞מר ְל ָא ִ ֤ביו‬ ‫יתָך֖ יִ נְ ֽצ ֹרוּ׃‬ ְ ‫וּב ִ ֽר‬ ְ ‫רוּ ִא ְמ ָר ֶ֔תָך‬ ֙ ‫֣ל ֹא יָ ָ ֑דע ִ ֤כּי ָ ֽשׁ ְמ‬

Who said of his father and mother, “I regard them not”; he disowned his brothers and ignored his children. For they observed your word and kept your covenant. In this verse the objects, ‘his brothers’ and ‘his children’ are placed before the verb. Genesis 49.15 ‫  וְ ֶאת־ ׇה ׇא ֶרץ‬and the land

‫ת־ה ָ ֖א ֶרץ ִ ֣כּי נָ ֵ ֑ע ָמה‬ ָ ‫וַ יַּ ֤ ְ רא ְמנֻ ָח ֙ה ִ ֣כּי ֔טוֹב וְ ֶא‬

He saw that a resting place was good, and that the land was pleasant. In this verse there is a second object of the verb, ‘the land’. Numbers 23.10 ‫ ֶאת־ר ַֺבע‬fourth part

‫וּמ ְס ָ ֖פּר ֶאת־ ֣ר ֹ ַבע יִ ְשׂ ָר ֵ ֑אל‬ ִ ‫ִ ֤מי ָמנָ ֙ה ֲע ַ ֣פר יַ ֲע ֔קֹב‬

Who can count the dust of Jacob or number the fourth part of Israel? In this passage there is also a second object of the verb, ‘the fourth part of Israel’. Gesenius interprets the variable occurrences of the nota accusativi in poetry as evidence of a somewhat more archaic poetic style. He argues that the need for some external forms to indicate the accusative could only have been felt after case endings had become wholly extinct (GKC §117a, b). If we were to accept this argument, then the presence of the nota accusativi in these poems provides evidence that these poems in their current form date from the period after case endings were lost. As evidence of a transitional period for this stage is not available,39 we cannot be certain that the nota accusativi did not appear until after the case endings became extinct. What can be reasonably argued is that if there are no case endings and the nota accusativi is present, we could have the final stage of a particular linguistic development for denoting the accusative.

39

See chapter 6

108

DATING ABH POETRY: A CRITIQUE

HYPOTHESES CONCERNING THE PROCESS OF THE LOSS OF CASE ENDINGS Working from the assumption that a fully operating system of case endings existed in Proto-Hebrew similar to that found in the Ugaritic texts and the Amarna letters, there have been many points of view offered as to the sequence of the linguistic processes which led to the loss of case endings. There is a paucity of textual evidence for this intermediary period, making it impossible to glean the sequence and calculate the time period over which these processes took place.40 The inconsistent use and final loss of mimation, which is argued in some places to have protected the final short vowels of case endings in second millennium sources, may have contributed to the loss of case endings. The evidence from the Ugaritic texts and the Amarna letters indicates that the inflection of the noun is in full operation. The misuse of the vocalic case endings has been offered as evidence that the case system was breaking down in late second millennium BCE sources, and may represent the intermediate stage in this process (Layton 1990:44–45). However, as has already been noted, the number of instances of misuses is limited. They may have occurred through scribal errors, or through problems arising from the complex cuneiform script, or may indicate factors of substrate influence. The evidence as to when, in which dialects, in which grammatical categories and in which order these developments took place is too fragmentary to allow for more specific conclusions. There are claims that remnants of vocalic case endings can be found. If scholars are correct in claiming that the language of the ABH poetic texts is of second millennium BCE provenance, then evidence of case endings is expected on all nouns. Instead, the situation is quite the reverse. Case endings on nouns are missing in the ABH poems. It certainly could be argued that the masculine singuThere is little attested inscriptional evidence for Biblical Hebrew language, with none certainly attested to the second millennium BCE. Since the texts of inscriptions are transmitted without vocalization and there is a restricted use of matres lectionis, inscriptions yield scanty evidence for information regarding early Hebrew. 40

CHAPTER ELEVEN

109

lar noun shows no evidence of a vocalic case ending because its presence or absence cannot be reflected in Hebrew orthography. However if the case ending on the feminine singular noun were in existence, or if it were in the process of being dropped, then the ending would be expected to include the feminine singular affix -at, since the consonant -t is considered to have been dropped only after it was in word-final position.41 This is not found to be the case in the biblical text. The development expected for the masculine singular noun would be: malku > malk > mélék and for the singular feminine noun: malkatu > malkat > malkāh The feminine singular affix -at is not part of the orthography for the feminine singular absolute noun in the Hebrew Bible. Taking an example from Exodus 15.3, ‫ ִאישׁ ִמ ְל ָח ָמה‬warrior, the expected development of the form42 would be: *milh. amati > *milh. amat > milh. āmāh The instances of the feminine singular absolute noun forms in ABH poetry which do not demonstrate this expected -at affix are indicated below. There are no fs nouns in the absolute state in the poetry of Numbers 23 and 24. Exodus 15 verse 2: ‫ ִלישׁוּ ָעה‬as salvation verse 3: ‫ ִאישׁ ִמ ְל ָח ָמה‬man of war, warrior verse 16: ‫ימ ָתה‬ ָ ‫ ֵא‬terror Judges 5 verse 25: ‫ ֶח ְמ ָאה‬curd verse 30: ‫ ִר ְק ָמה‬embroidered cloth Deuteronomy 32 41 The discussion in Young et al. makes reference to a disputable example preserved in Exodus 15.2: ‫( זִ ְמ ָרת‬Young et al. 2008, I:338, 338n60). The finding that: ‘Once again Exodus’s language is much closer to SBH than second-millennium Northwest Semitic’, is in accord with earlier findings (Vern 2008:11.4–7). 42 The base form with Masoretic vocalization has been used with the affixes under consideration.

110

DATING ABH POETRY: A CRITIQUE

ָ ‫ ֵא‬terror verse 25: ‫ימה‬ verse 25: ‫ ְבּתוּ ָלה‬virgin verse 28: ‫ ְתּבוּנָ ה‬discernment, understanding verse 38: ‫ ִס ְת ָרה‬shelter verse 42: ‫ וְ ִשׁ ְביָ ה‬and captivity Genesis 49 verse 11: ‫ וְ ַלשּ ֹ ֵר ָקה‬and to the choicest branch verse 15: ‫ ְמנֻ ָחה‬resting place verse 21: ‫ ַאיָּ ָלה‬doe Deuteronomy 33 verse 4: ‫ תּו ֺ ָרה‬law verse 4: ‫ מו ָֺר ָשׁה‬possession verse 10: ‫ ְקטו ָֺרה‬incense verse 27: ‫ ְמעֺנָ ה‬refuge The instances below include Robertson’s ‘early’ corpus. This yields similar results. 2 Samuel 22 // Psalm 18 verse 40: ‫ ַל ִמּ ְל ָח ָמה‬to the battle Psalm 78 verse 5: ‫ וְ תו ָֺרה‬and law, instruction Habakkuk 3.2–19 verse 16: ‫ ָצ ָרה‬calamity verse 17: ‫ ְת ֵאנָ ה‬fig tree verse 17: ‫ ִמ ִמּ ְכ ָלה‬from an enclosure Job (some examples) 3.7: ‫ ְרנָ נָ ה‬shout of joy 4.14: ‫ וּ ְר ָע ָדה‬and trembling 4.18: ‫ ָתּ ֳה ָלה‬error 4.21: ‫ ְב ָח ְכ ָמה‬with wisdom These forms are evidence that the language of these ABH poems and the additional poems from Robertson’s ‘early’ corpus does not include case endings. There is a lack of substantial evidence upon which to make definite observations concerning the details of the process of a loss of case endings. This point is further complicated by the problem of our lack of sure knowledge about the features of the original language of the biblical text. There is evidence that archaic elements were edited out of the biblical text, but the extent to which this occurred is unknown, and thus arguments can only be based

CHAPTER ELEVEN

111

on currently available texts (Young 1998:83). The evidence examined here maintains this position. Theories have been proposed to explain a loss of case endings in Hebrew and related Northwest Semitic dialects (Harris 1939:50, 59–60; Albright 1945:18n44; Rabin 1969:202; Blau 1976; SáenzBadillos 1993:72; Andersen 2000:49). A sequence of linguistic events which may have led to the loss of case endings is not likely to have followed the same course across all dialects and across all geographic areas in the same time periods. There is also the possibility that different case vowels were lost in varying sequences at varying times.43 Evidence from Egyptian syllabic transcriptions of Canaanite place names shows a confusion of the use of final short vowels for some time before they were dropped or possibly fossilized. It is probable that these vowels were first reduced to an undifferentiated shewa vowel during a period when case endings were no longer differentiated, and only later were the vowels completely dropped (Harris 1939:60). On the timing of the changes in these linguistic features, no specific dating is possible for the Hebrew language. However, the loss of case endings, and in particular the elision of final short vowels, occurred before the development of the -āh form of the feminine suffix in the noun (Harris 1939:60).

EVIDENCE FOR THIS ANALYSIS Introduction Numerous scholars consider that there are traces of case endings from a previous period of the Hebrew language which are retained in the text of the Hebrew Bible. It is these traces that are examined below. Very few examples of these purported traces are to be found in the archaic poetic texts featured in this study, even though it is in the poetic genre that they might be expected if dating arguments are to be justified. As we have seen above, the appearance of the accusative marker, ‫ ֶאת‬, and the feminine nominal termination, ‫ה‬-, are strong, positive evidence of the loss of case endings in these texts. (Examples of purported case endings outside these archaic 43For example, early first millennium BCE Phoenician and Sam’alian both preserve case endings to some degree.

112

DATING ABH POETRY: A CRITIQUE

poems are presented in the excursus at the end of this discussion.) None of the archaic features under consideration here depends on Masoretic pointing. Mention is made, where appropriate, of textual emendations and reconstructions made by scholars, but these are not considered to be relevant to this discussion.44 Much of the evidence for traces of case endings is from proper nouns. These forms are seen to lie outside the mainstream of language change and to be exempt from certain developments that language undergoes. The morphology of proper nouns may also reflect archaisms in other languages. Proper nouns may have their antecedents in many languages, as is the case in the Amarna letters where seven distinct language groups are represented (Hess 1991:201). The presence of vocalic endings on proper nouns may also be evidence of their great antiquity and of their existence in proto-Hebrew. The evidence is grouped into four categories: the termination -āh the termination -û the termination -î the termination -ô It is noted that each of these vowels has been lengthened in the Hebrew text where it appears as a final vowel ending on a singular noun. It has been suggested that the pointing in the Masoretic Text could represent either a long or short vowel, as the pointing expresses quality, not quantity. It is recognized that vowel quantity is difficult to determine in the analysis of Biblical Hebrew due to the artificiality of the Masoretic pointing (Freedman 1980:12).

Evidence based on textual emendations is considered to be unreliable as one cannot be sure whether each instance is indeed a textual corruption or whether there is as yet no information adequate to explain the difficulty. There is also the issue as to whether, if there is indeed a corruption of the text, the original morphological form can be restored. The discussion here is based on the Masoretic Text exclusively, whilst acknowledging that the Masoretic Text is not necessarily free from corruption. A discussion of these and related issues is found in chapter 7. 44

CHAPTER ELEVEN

113

The Termination -āh The form ‫ימ ָתה‬ ָ ‫ ֵא‬, terror, (Exodus 15.16), has been analyzed as ‫ימה‬ ָ ‫( ֵא‬Deuteronomy 32.25), with an accusative suffix (SáenzBadillos 1993:58). Many attempts have been made to define this termination as the accusative suffix on a singular noun. However, the context of the verse indicates that if a correct case ending were being used it would be in a nominative form: ‫ימ ָת ֙ה‬ ָ֙ ‫יהם ֵא‬ ֤ ֶ ‫ִתּ ֨ ֹפּל ֲע ֵל‬ ‫וָ ֔ ַפ ַחד‬: terror and dread fall upon them. This is the only occasion on which this noun is given this ending, as the other five occasions in poetry employ the standard form (BDB 1906:33).45 A more appropriate explanation of this ending is that it is a poetic termination which is found to be common in biblical poetry where there is no definite article used with the noun (Hurvitz 1985:119).46 This ending is also understood as part of the poet’s style (Brenner 1991:33), being ornamental and having no meaning, as in the example in Jonah 2.10: ‫יהוה‬ ֽ ָ ‫שׁוּע ָתה ַל‬ ֖ ָ ְ‫י‬: salvation belongs to the Lord. Outside the corpus of ABH poetry, all examples of purported traces of the accusative suffix are found to be instances of the he locale. The Termination -û The second category involves nouns with the purported nominative ending -û. Two sets of evidence are suggested in the literature. The first involves a final -û on an absolute noun. The second is considered to be a connective -û in a medial position. No examples of a purported nominative case ending occur on an absolute noun in either the ABH poetic texts or in the remainder of the Hebrew Bible. Examples of a purported nominative case endings found on proper nouns occur outside the ABH poetic corpus. They do not indicate a regular pattern of nominative case usage. The evidence from personal names is considered to be of an earlier period when ‫ימה‬ ָ ‫ ֵא‬Deuteronomy 32.25; Isaiah 33.18; Ezekiel 3.3; Job 39.20; 41.6 Examples include: Hosea 10.13: ‫ ַעוְ ָל ָתה‬injustice; Psalm 3.3: ‫יִ שׁוּ ָע ָתה‬ ָ ‫ ֵע‬darkness. salvation; Psalm 94.17: ‫ ֶעזְ ָר ָתה‬assistance; Job 10.22: ‫יפפ ָתה‬ 45 46

114

DATING ABH POETRY: A CRITIQUE

case endings were fossilized. These examples and an analysis of this evidence are found in the excursus at the close of this chapter. The Termination -î The genitive case marker, -î, is redundant for the noun in status absolutus as there is a wide use of prepositions for indicating the genitive (the indirect object of the verb). The first term of the construct state is modified, but not in terms of the case matching its syntactic position, as in Ugaritic or Amarna Canaanite. The treatment of the -î as a non-case ending involves possible alternative explanations for this relatively rare, apparently superfluous termination. It is found mostly in the poetry of the Hebrew Bible, with the exception of its use on proper names in prose lists. Among the alternative explanations for the appearance of this vocalic ending is the argument that this form functioned originally as a genitive case ending but survived as a h. ireq compaginis. The evidence presented below does not bear this out. The apparent archaic nature of the h. ireq compaginis has been taken to indicate that exceedingly ancient elements are preserved in this -î termination (Robertson 1972:69; Hurvitz 1985:117). This at best is represented in the orthography of a few proper nouns, but the evidence below indicates that this explanation is hypothetical only. In the Akkadian of the Amarna letters, the construct form for certain classes of nouns the nomen regens has an epenthetic -i vowel added for phonetic reasons (Huehnergard 1997:58–59). The nomen rectum retains the genitive -i case vowel. Even though West Semitic noun morphology is only rarely indicated, usually most clearly in the glosses, Rainey found that for the construct form there was a West Semitic influence in which the nomen regens takes the case vowel appropriate to the case of the noun phrase, and the nomen rectum takes the genitive case vowel (Rainey 1996, I:175). This occurs only in a few instances. Thus, in Hebrew, it is only when the -î occurs as an ending on a noun in status absolutus, on the nomen rectum in the construct state or on the nomen regens when the noun phrase is in the genitive case that it may be said to be a genuine case ending. Thus it is possible to relate this vowel to Rainey’s discussion of the bound form in the Canaanite of the Amarna letters to the epenthetic vowel with no grammatical force (Rainey 1996, I:172–73). It is argued here that if the genitive -î ending in certain instances in the Hebrew Bible, particularly in ABH poetry, were to be understood

CHAPTER ELEVEN

115

as a remnant of a genitive case ending, then it would follow that a pattern of genitive uses of this ending would be found in the data, but no such pattern emerges. This final -î in Biblical Hebrew is best designated as a paragogic termination or a h. ireq compaginis, a meaningless binding vowel associated with a close relationship between two words, usually either substantives in apposition or associated structures which are rarely in the construct relationship.47 Evidence to the contrary is scant and inconclusive in Robertson’s study (Robertson 1969:217). Thus there is considerable doubt whether any instances in the text are genitive case endings from which the h. ireq compaginis has been derived. This -î is also used as a hypocoristic ending, an archaic ending for neutral and absolute nouns or an ending of the infinitive absolute which results in a smoother reading.48 The derivation of the h. ireq compaginis is difficult to determine. From his study of the Amarna letters, Moran finds three participles with an -i ending which are not related to the genitive. This finding, though only in three instances, suggests that in Hebrew the h. ireq compaginis attached to participles is not a remnant of an older genitive.49 Moran argues that, ‘whatever its function, the vowel in the Amarna letters cannot be a remnant of the genitive in a period when case endings are still in use, [so] the archaizing participles in Hebrew are not to be considered differently.’ (Moran 1961:60) Thus the hypothesis that this form originally functioned as a case ending for the genitive is not supported.

For example, Robertson finds only one case which is unquestionably a bound form, and four cases where binding might apply, since the participles might be taken as verbs governing nouns, not nouns governing nouns (Robertson 1969:217, 221). 48 The form of the anticipatory suffix is loosely the same, but is not relevant in the examples analyzed here. Where the -î ending can be understood to indicate a noun in apposition, this material has not been included (Robertson 1972:72; Layton 1990:150). 49 Moran conjectures that di-ki (EA 131:23), and the two occurrences of h a-zi-ri (EA 138:80 and 130), are possible passive participles. ‘If they ˘ finite forms, di-ka (cf EA 132:45) and h a-zi-ra would be expected.’ were ˘ (Moran 1961:60n52) 47

116

DATING ABH POETRY: A CRITIQUE

Two examples in the construct state presented in the literature which are found in ABH poetry are analyzed as follows. Genesis 49.11 ֺ ‫ ְבּנִ י  ֲאתֺנו‬his ass’s colt

‫ירוֹ וְ ַלשּׂ ֵֹר ָ ֖ קה ְבּ ִ ֣ני ֲאתֹנ֑ וֹ‬ ֔ ‫א ְֹס ִ ֤רי ַלגֶּ֙ ֶ ֙פן ִע‬

Binding his foal to the vine and his donkey’s colt to the choice vine The noun phrase is in the accusative syntactic position, not in the genitival position where the -î case vowel would be appropriate. Deuteronomy 33.16 ‫  וּ ְרצוֹן שׁ ְֺכנִ י ְסנֶ ה‬the favour of the dweller in the bush.

‫ֹלאהּ ְוּר ֥צוֹן שׁ ְֹכ ִ ֖ני ְס ֶ ֑נה‬ ָ֔ ‫וּמ‬ ְ ‫וֹ…וּמ ֶ֗מּגֶ ד ֶ ֚א ֶרץ‬ ִ ‫הוֹה ַא ְר ֑צ‬ ֖ ָ ְ‫ְמב ֶ ֹ֥ר ֶכת י‬ Verse 13: Blessed by the Lord be his land…(verse 16) with the best gifts of earth and its fullness; and the favour of him who dwells in (the) bush The noun phrase is in a genitival syntactic position, so the vowel -î on the second item in the construct chain is appropriate. However, a case vowel on the first and third items is absent. The analysis of these two examples (three further poetic ones50 occur outside ABH poetry), which are in a construct relationship does not indicate any consistent pattern of a case relationship between the -î ending in the bound relationship and the genitival syntactic position of the relevant phrase. This use of the -i vowel on the construct noun is not consistent with the Ugaritic evidence or the small amount of Canaanite evidence which Rainey finds in the Amarna letters where the noun in construct takes the vowel of the syntactic position of the phrase, and the dependent noun takes the genitival vowel. Thus the -î vowel occurs in quite specific circumstances. The appearance of an -î in closely-bound phrases, both prepositional and adverbial, is also distinguished (GKC §90l; Waltke and O’Connor 1990:1280). Examples in ABH poetry include the following: Genesis 49.11 ‫ א ְֺס ִרי ַלגֶּ ֶפן ִעירוֹ‬binding his foal to a vine

‫ירוֹ וְ ַלשּׂ ֵֹר ָ ֖ קה ְבּ ִ ֣ני ֲאתֹנ֑ וֹ‬ ֔ ‫א ְֹס ִ ֤רי ַלגֶּ֙ ֶ ֙פן ִע‬

Binding his foal to the vine and his donkey’s colt to the choice vine 50

Isaiah 1.21, Zechariah 11.17 and Psalm 110.4

CHAPTER ELEVEN

117

This indicates a nominative syntactic position for the closely-bound phrase, where a nominative vowel would be expected, not the -î vowel of the genitive. Exodus 15.6 ‫ נֶ ְא ָדּ ִרי ַבּכֺּ ַח‬glorious in power

‫אוֹיֽב׃‬ ֵ ‫הוה ִתּ ְר ַ ֥עץ‬ ֖ ָ ְ‫יְמינְ ָך֥ י‬ ֽ ִ ‫הוה נֶ ְא ָדּ ִ ֖רי ַבּ ֑כֹּ ַח‬ ֔ ָ ְ‫יְמינְ ָך֣ י‬ ִֽ Your right hand, O Lord, glorious in power, Your right hand, O Lord, shatters the enemy. This indicates a nominative syntactic position for the closely-bound phrase, where a nominative vowel ending would be expected, not the genitive vowel ending. Examples of closely-bound phrases in poetry outside ABH poetry are also analyzed in the excursus. No pattern of genitival use which would be consistent with West Semitic usage is found. The -î ending may best be described as a h. ireq compaginis or a paragogic vowel which has no specific syntactic function. Robertson’s description of this -î vowel as reinforcing the bound structure (Robertson 1969:221) fits one of the uses of the h. ireq compaginis, but there are other possibilities. Some examples are identified where there is no notion of a construct state, and it is proposed that the -î ending has only a rhythmic value (Joüon and Muraoka 1993:283). However, none are found in ABH poetry.51 Compound names have been argued to contain probable examples of the genitive -î. The toponym ‫יאל‬ ֵ ִ‫ ְפּנ‬, Peniel, (Genesis 32.30), is thought to contain the old ending of the oblique plural.52 It is questionable whether this explanation is relevant to personal names since ’abî and other names expressing family relationship53 may be interpreted in this situation only as construct forms, with no reference to a nominal sentence. As a critical example, the name ‫יאל‬ ֵ ‫ ֲא ִב‬, Abiel (1 Samuel 9.1; 1 Samuel 14.51; 1 Chronicles 11.32) For further details, see the excursus at the close of this chapter. The oblique plural ending is preserved in standard Hebrew as -ay. 53 An analogy has been made with the construct state of kinship terms: e.g. ’āb > ’bî, ’āh. > ’āh. î, and the use of the h. ireq compaginis in the construction of such compound names. It has been argued that the origin of the h. ireq compaginis may be found in this genitive case ending (Layton 1990:116n43). The variety of ways in which names with a connective -î may be read does not support the fossilization of a single usage. 51 52

118

DATING ABH POETRY: A CRITIQUE

with a nominal-sentence meaning, ‘Father is god/El’, is appropriate, whereas a construct meaning, ‘Father of god/El’, presents semantic difficulties (Layton 1990:116, 146).54 By contrast, the name ‫יאל‬ ֵ ‫ ַע ְב ִדּ‬, Abdiel, (1 Chronicles 5.15) needs to be read as a construct-phrase name, ‘servant of god/El’, not as a nominal-sentence name. There are no names in ABH poetry presented in the literature as probable examples of this use of the -î vowel. There are several names outside the ABH corpus which are presented, but an analysis of these does not support the case for a genitival use.55 The evidence indicates that the -î termination does not conform to a pattern which derives from the use of the genitive case ending. The description of this morphological feature is best restricted to a h. ireq compaginis or paragogic vowel with no specific syntactic function. Such vowels were possibly added to emphasize the linking of words, or to contribute to the rhythmic nature of poetry. The Termination -ô Of several theories, two are pertinent56 for analysis of this termination as a case ending. Firstly, if the final -ô is derived from a historical short *-u, then it is the Hebrew reflex of a nominative case vowel (Layton 1990:47). That Albright saw it this way is clear from his reconstruction of ‫ ְבּנוֹ ְבעֺר‬as < *binu ba‘uri, in Numbers 24.15 54 By contrast with the construct form in Akkadian which the Canaanite scribes used with proficiency in the Amarna letters, an epenthetic vowel was added for phonetic reasons, with no grammatical significance (Rainey 1996, I:172–73). 55 For an analysis of this evidence, see the excursus at the close of this chapter. 56 The argument that the -ô may derive from the contraction of an *aw diphthong, with the resultant morpheme being analyzed as a 3ms pronominal suffix, is not relevant to this study. In the construct phrase, it would be expected that the proleptic suffix would have the same gender as the noun in apposition to that to which it refers. This is not the pattern in these instances. Layton indicates, with reference to Nöldeke’s work, that Semitic languages do not normally place a pronominal suffix immediately before the genitive (Layton 1990:47–48). In the case of the three examples containing benô (Numbers 23:18, 24:3, 15), this vocalic ending may be analyzed as a proleptic suffix, although it is unlikely.

CHAPTER ELEVEN

119

(Albright 1944:232n145). In support of this argument, Albright uses evidence from the Amarna letters and Ugaritic texts to analyze this ending as a nominative case ending, a genuine archaism, with its function being to emphasize the construct phrase. The only argument for its antiquity is, with one exception, that it is a rare poetic form (Robertson 1972:76). The possibility that the -ô may be an archaic case ending is explored, but there is no evidence of this ending on any noun. Secondly, there is the proposition that the final -ô is derived from stressed *-ā of the accusative, following the pattern of the declension of nouns with a biconsonantal stem for kinship terms (Joüon and Muraoka 1993:284). However, the supposed accusative form of kinship terms is nowhere attested, and Canaanite furnishes no evidence to support this reconstruction (Layton 1990:48). The historical approach to seeking out the derivation of this ending is not productive. An examination of the function of this ending is set out below. It is noted that this termination is attached only to singular nouns, seemingly emphasizing a bound state. Two personal names in construct form occur in the ABH poetic corpus. Some scholars propose that these contain the termination -ô as a remnant of a case ending. The examples in table 12 do not indicate a specific case function for this termination. Robertson understands that these forms indicate the use of a name formula, possibly perpetuating former archaic forms (Robertson 1972:77). Table 12: Examples of Personal Names in Construct (Joüon and Muraoka 1993:284)

‫ְבּנוֹ ִצ ֺפּר‬

‘son of Zippor’ Numbers 23.18

accusative

‫ְבּנוֹ ְבעֺר‬

‘son of Beor’ Numbers 24.3, 15

nominative, nominative

By contrast with the two examples in table 12, two similar phrases in the construct form occur in the ABH poetic corpus where the vocalic ending does not occur. Judges 5.6: ‫ן־ענׇ ת‬ ֲ ‫ ֶבּ‬son of Anath Judges 5.12: ‫ן־א ִבינ ַֺעם‬ ֲ ‫ ֶבּ‬son of Abinoam Thus both morphological forms were available to the scribe if each example is from the same period. Rendsburg and others suggest that another factor contributing to this variation may be the

120

DATING ABH POETRY: A CRITIQUE

northern derivation of Judges 5 and the Oracles of Balaam with the strong influence of a Northern Hebrew dialect (Rendsburg 1990a:11 and 2002:19). Several similar examples, which are listed in the excursus, occur in other poetic texts, with one example, Genesis 1.24, in prose. Each of these examples is analyzed to determine its syntactic position in the sentence in order to explore the possibility that the -ô is a case ending deriving from West Semitic influence in the Amarna letters. Where the final -ô is found as a suffix on singular nouns in construct, it is conceded that this is an archaic formation with no specific function. This evidence is discussed further in the excursus. Thus in the examples in the construct form, the -ô vowel is not found to be an indicator of any one syntactic use of the case ending since there is no consistency in the pattern of its use. It does not appear in any particular section of the Hebrew Bible. However all examples are found in poetic texts with the one exception. It is therefore argued that even if this morpheme is considered to be an archaism, it does not function regularly as a case ending. It is best described as one of the litterae compaginis or as a paragogic linking vowel attached only to singular nouns retained in fossilized name forms and in certain set phrases to emphasize the bound state and/or for poetic purposes.

DISCUSSION Identification of Vocalic Endings in Hebrew Poetry The identification of the vocalic endings in Hebrew poetry as remnants of case endings is a possibility, but if so, they are no longer used to indicate case. Hence their presence indicates that there is a considerable temporal distance from the period of regular use of the vocalic case system in the second millennium sources. This study does not present an analysis of the restored or emended evidence that Albright, Cross and Freedman developed to explain the presence of final vowel letters in the Hebrew texts as

CHAPTER ELEVEN

121

case vowels.57 There is no evidence in the biblical text or in orthographic theories that these case endings were ever written even though they may be ascribed to correct oral tradition (Goodwin 1969:114–118). Not only is there insufficient knowledge of the early beginnings of Hebrew poetry to identify the purpose in the use of these vocalic endings, but more specifically, our knowledge of scansion of Hebrew poetry is inadequate to support textual emendation and the restoration of purported archaic case endings (Robertson 1972:220). Albright, Cross and Freedman give examples which they claim indicate both long and short vowel case endings on singular nouns. They argue in support of these for stress and for metrical purposes. Goodwin comments: ‘The chief difficulty which we encounter is that we have no evidence that the stress ever shifted to the final short vowels before they were lost in Canaanite. That they ever became long vowels must have been due to a secondary stresslengthening which took place long after the dropping of the final short vowels, as in the perfect stem of the verb.’ (Goodwin 1969:48) Goodwin draws on the work of Bergsträsser (1918) and Harris (1939) for these observations on the restoration of long vowel case endings on singular nouns. Albright, Cross and Freedman have relied on their metrical theories and/or syllable-count scansion in order to justify the preservation and eventual lengthening of these vowels, making no systematic effort to explain the phenomenon (Goodwin 1969:118). Thus the argument that these endings are remnants of case endings is not supportable. That they are vocalic endings retained for rhythmic purposes or as a matter of stylistic choice is the preferred explanation.

The vowel endings they recognized as case endings preserved in the Masoretic Text include Exodus 15.16, Numbers 24.3, Deuteronomy 33.16, 2 Samuel 22.24, 44, and Psalm 18.24. Some of their restorations or emendations to the Masoretic Text include Exodus 15.11, 15c, 16, Numbers 23.19, 21b, 22b and Deuteronomy 33.14, 17. 57

122

DATING ABH POETRY: A CRITIQUE

CONCLUSION The term, paragogic vowels, is the best fit for the evidence in Biblical Hebrew to describe these rare, anomalous or archaic morphological vocalic forms which occur in poetry. Due to their erratic appearance in poetic texts throughout the Hebrew Bible, these vocalic terminations are considered to be optional endings resulting from stylistic choice. No relationship between the original purpose of vocalic case endings and these vowels is proposed (Brovender 1971:1566; Joüon and Muraoka 1993:281–83). Thus there is no compelling reason to explain these endings as case endings or even remnants of case endings. It is sufficient to describe them as paragogic endings or as litterae compaginis where they occur on a nomen regens. The indisputable lack of case endings in ABH poetry, especially in the poetry which Robertson considers to be of second millennium BCE provenance, supports the argument that the paragogic vowels are not traces of a lost case system. If proto-Hebrew had a system of vocalic case endings which may have existed in personal names in the Hebrew Bible, then this system was lost by the time of the writing of any part of the biblical text. The specific evidence of the loss of both the case ending and the feminine singular Semitic -t on nouns in the absolute state makes it clear that the language of the composition of ABH poetry postdates the loss of case endings. One of the consequences of these findings is that there is no substantial support for the assertion that the language of the texts of ABH poetry in the Hebrew Bible are archaic and of second millennium BCE provenance, as it would be expected that the morphology of the case system, typical of this era, would be in evidence. Young et al. (2008, I:336) affirm this finding from Vern’s earlier research (Vern 2008).

CHAPTER ELEVEN

123

EXCURSUS PURPORTED CASE ENDINGS IN BIBLICAL HEBREW The instances cited in this excursus are those that occur in the biblical text excluding the ABH poetic corpus. These purported case endings occur on proper nouns, in seemingly stereotyped phrases, and as connective vowels in the construct state. This evidence indicates that the purported use of case endings is not specific to an ABH poetic corpus and that these endings do not have a discernable case function. The English forms of the Hebrew proper nouns are from the Holy Bible, English Standard Version, 2002. There are four sections. 1. The he locale: mistaken instances of the accusative suffix. 2. The termination û: an analysis of its purported use as a nominative case ending on proper nouns. 3. The termination î: an analysis of its purported use as a genitive case ending in phrases and proper nouns. 4. The termination ô: an analysis of its purported use as a genitive case ending in phrases.

1. THE he LOCALE Mistaken Instances of the Accusative Suffix Before evidence from Ugarit became available, the he suffix was considered by grammarians to be derived from the old accusative ending but this is no longer the situation (Emerton 1992:55). Citing examples from the Ugaritic texts (Gordon 1965:62–63), Gordon specifies that the consonantal directive suffix ‫ ה‬is either locative or temporal. The final ‫ ה‬is not a mater lectionis, as Ugaritic lacks matres lectionis, but a consonant which is attested in a form such as ars. h, to the ground (Brovender 1971:1566). The original consonantal cha-

124

DATING ABH POETRY: A CRITIQUE

racter of ‫ ה‬is assured in view of the corresponding Akkadian morpheme š, which, when used as a grammatical morpheme, often corresponds to ‫ ה‬in Canaanite.58 Joüon and Muraoka note that Ugaritic provides evidence of the earliest stage of the loss of the consonantal value of ‫( ה‬Joüon and Muraoka 1993:278, 279n1). An example of the weakening of the postvocalic ‫*( ה‬-ah) and the consequent reduction of the postposition to the vowel -a is shown in šá ydk šmm (KTU2 1.14 II:22–23) when compared with nšá ydh šmmh (KTU2 1.14 IV:4–5): he lifts his hands heavenward. Tropper recommends careful demarcation of the corresponding instances of the adverbial accusative of direction from the defectively written instances (Tropper 2000:312). Hebrew preserves this reduced directive postposition -â (Lipiński 1997:262).

2. THE TERMINATION -û Analysis of Its Purported Use as a Nominative Case Ending on Proper Nouns The only putative examples of the nominative case vowel ending in the Hebrew Bible are to be found on a few proper nouns which are presented below (Layton 1990:94–98; Joüon and Muraoka 1993:284) ‫ ק ְמ ִליכוּ‬/ ‫ ְמלוּ ִכי‬Malluchi, in genitive position (Nehemiah 12.14) ‫ בֺּ ְכרוּ‬Bocheru, in genitive position (1 Chronicles 8.38) ‫ גַ ְשׁמוּ‬Gashmu, in nominative position (Nehemiah 6.6) ‫ ַסלּוּ‬Sallu, foreign name (Nehemiah 12.7) ‫ ִעירוּ‬Iru, in nominative position (1 Chronicles 4.15) ‫ ְרעוּ‬Reu, in accusative and nominative position (Genesis 11.18, 21) These examples do not indicate a regular pattern of nominative case usage. Evidence found in personal names is hypothetically from an earlier period after which they became fossilized. Problems exist with each of these names. Factors which need to be taken into consideration include variant spellings, textual corruption and/or 58 Rabin also expresses the possibility that for the adverbial case, the Akkadian -iš and the Ugaritic and Hebrew -(ā)h are correlated (Rabin 1969:192).

CHAPTER ELEVEN

125

inadequate knowledge of the source of the name.59 It is also noted that most of these names are in late Biblical Hebrew books which are definitely post-exilic, and not in the early poetry where they would be expected if this case ending were functional. Compound personal names with medial û, referred to here as a connective û, derive their form from the nominative case ending. This derivation is not without its difficulties. These names may be formed in several ways: as construct-phrase names, nominalsentence names, verbal-sentence names or hypocoristic names (Layton 1990:49–50). In some names where a meaning for each part of the compound form can be determined, the -û- may be explained as a connective vowel, sometimes in the singular, for example, ‫ ְבּתוּ ֵאל‬, Bethuel, house of God, and sometimes in the plural, for example, ‫ ְפנוּ ֵאל‬, Penuel, face of God. The meaning of some names thus connected has been lost.60 The syntactic position of most of these names does not indicate a consistent nominative pattern of use. Some names are used in several syntactic positions with the same spelling. This indicates that the purported case vowel has fallen out of functional use as, by analogy with other ancient Near Eastern names, it had in the Middle Babylonian period. That this connective vowel û is derived from the nominative case ending is possible on the basis of the grammar of the construct form from 59For

example, Layton discusses the example, ‫בֺּ ְכרוּ‬. There is doubt about the genuineness of this form as a proper name as it is unparalleled in the West Semitic onomasticon. 1 Chronicles 8.38

‫וּשׁ ַע ְר ָ֔יה‬ ְ ‫רוּ וְ יִ ְשׁ ָמ ֵ ֣עאל‬ ֙ ‫מוֹתם ַעזְ ִרי ָ ֥ קם ׀ ֙בּ ֹ ְכ‬ ָ֗ ‫ם וְ ֵ ֣א ֶלּה ְשׁ‬ ֒ ‫וּל ָא ֵצ ֮ל ִשׁ ָ ֣שּׁה ָבנִ י‬ ְ ‫ל־א ֶלּה ְבּ ֵ ֥ני ָא ַ ֽצל׃‬ ֖ ֵ ‫וְ ע ַֹב ְד ָ ֖יה וְ ָח ָנ֑ ן ָכּ‬

This putative name occurs after the name of the first son, and may be the appellative běkōrô ‘his firstborn’. This leaves the list of names in the verse one short. The Lucianic version of the LXX includes the name ‘Azaryah, which may be inserted after Sheariah to complete the list of six names. Otherwise the names Beker or Bikri, forms of names attested elsewhere in the Hebrew Bible, may be read from the text, with the vocalization Bokeru as a contamination of the appellative běkōrô (Layton 1990:94–98). 60 Further examples are to be found in Wright 1966:142; Brovender 1971:146; Waltke and O’Connor 1990:127; Joüon and Muraoka 1993:284.

126

DATING ABH POETRY: A CRITIQUE

the Canaanite found in the Amarna letters,61 and from the Ugaritic texts from the second millennium BCE. However, in the Hebrew Bible it is best analyzed as a fossilized form of this case ending specific to these names. On this basis, if this û vowel is regarded as a fossilized form in the biblical text, its syntactic position is not significant. This also indicates that these forms are of an earlier stage of linguistic development. As will be seen in the following sections, the î and the ô vocalic terminations are also used as connective vowels in similar syntactic circumstances. The process by which names acquired their fossilized connective vowel is best hypothesized to be related to phonetic factors such as vowel harmony.

3. THE TERMINATION -î Analysis of Its Purported Use as a Genitive Case Ending in Phrases and on Proper Nouns From a range of studies three examples of phrases in the construct state are found outside the ABH corpus. The analysis of these examples does not indicate a consistent pattern of case relationship between the -î ending in the bound state and the genitive syntactic position of the relevant noun phrase. This evidence is presented below (GKC §90l, m; Waltke and O’Connor 1990:127–128; Kutscher 1982:79; Wright 1996:142 and Robertson 1969:212–214). ‫ ְמ ֵל ֲא ִתי ִמ ְשׁ ָפּט‬that was full of justice, in nominative position (Isaiah 1.21) ‫ֺזבי ַהצּ ֺאן‬ ִ ‫ ע‬that leaves the flock, in genitive position (Zechariah 11.17) ‫י־צ ֶדק‬ ֶ ‫ ַעל־ ִדּ ְיב ָר ִתי ַמ ְל ִכּ‬after the order of Melchizedek, in genitive position (Psalm 110.4) The appearance of a final -î in closely-bound phrases, both prepositional and adverbial, is also identified. In the examples below, no pattern of genitival use is found, nor is there any relationship to the bound state. The -î ending may best be described as a hireq compaginis or a paragogic vowel which has no specific syntactic ˘

61

Rainey 1996, I:173.

CHAPTER ELEVEN

127

function. The following examples are taken from the works of GKC §90l, m, and Waltke and O’Connor 1990:128. ‫ ָשׂ ָר ִתי ַבּ ְמּ ִדינוֹת‬a princess among the provinces, in the genitive (Lamentations 1.1) ‫ ח ְֹצ ִבי ָמרוֹם ִק ְברוֹ‬he who hews his tomb on the height, in the nominative (Isaiah 22.16) Gesenius considers that the participles with the article and an î ending possibly reflect the use of this î ending as an ornamental device of poetic style (GKC §90m). Joüon and Muraoka analyzed the examples below as having no relation to a construct state. They argue that the -î ending has a rhythmic value only (Joüon and Muraoka 1993:283). ‫ א ַֹה ְב ִתּי ָלדוּשׁ‬loving to tread out the corn, in the genitive (Hosea 10.11) ‫יהי ָל ָשׁ ֶבת‬ ִ ‫ ַה ַמּגְ ִבּ‬the one being on high, in the nominative (Psalm 113.5) ‫ ַה ַמּ ְשׁ ִפּ ִילי‬the one stooping down, in the nominative (Psalm 113.6) ‫ ַהה ְֹפ ִכי‬the one turning, in the nominative (Psalm 114.8) ‫ ַהיּ ְֹשׁ ִבי‬the one sitting, in the accusative (Psalm 123.1) In the following examples from Layton’s work on proper nouns containing a connective -î (Layton 1990:122-142), the grammatical case of each has been examined and, even though only one reference has been given for each, no argument can be offered to support a genitival use. Each citation is in the nominative. ‫יאל‬ ֵ ‫ ַע ְב ִדּ‬Abdiel, 1 Chronicles 5.15 ‫ ִחזְ ִקיָּ ה‬Hezekiah, 2 Kings 18.1 ‫ ִחזְ ִקי‬Hizki, 1 Chronicles 8.17 ‫יאל‬ ֵ ִ‫יַתנ‬ ְ Yathniel, 1 Chronicles 26.2 ‫ ָדּנִ ֵאל‬/ ‫יאל‬ ֵ ִ‫ ָדּנ‬Daniel, Ezekiel 14.20 ‫ ַע ְב ִדּי‬Abdi, 1 Chronicles 6.29 ‫יאל‬ ֵ ‫ גַּ ְב ִר‬Gabriel, Daniel 8.16 ‫יאל‬ ֵ ִ‫ ַחנּ‬Haniel, Numbers 34.23 ‫ימ ֵאל‬ ִ ‫ יְ ִשׂ‬Yesimiel, 1 Chronicles 4.36 ‫י־צ ֶדק‬ ֶ ‫ ַמ ְל ִכּ‬Malki-Zedek, Genesis 14.18 ‫ ִצ ְד ִקיָּ ה‬Zidqiyah, Nehemiah 10.2

128

DATING ABH POETRY: A CRITIQUE

4. THE TERMINATION -ô Analysis of Its Purported Use as a Genitive Case Ending in Phrases Several examples of the purported use of -ô as a genitive case ending occur in poetic texts other than the ABH poetic corpus, with one example, Genesis 1.24, in prose. Each of these examples is analyzed to determine its syntactic position in the sentence in order to explore the possibility that the -ô may be a case ending. Where the final -ô is found to be suffixed to singular nouns in the construct, this may be a fossilized formation, but not an indicator of any specific syntactic use. The following examples are in the construct form with an -ô termination (Wright 1966:142; Robertson 1969:222; Joüon and Muraoka 1993:284). ‫יְתוֹ־א ֶרץ‬ ֶ ‫ וְ ַח‬and animals of (the) earth, in the accusative (Genesis 1.24) ‫יְתוֹ־א ֶרץ‬ ָ ‫ ְל ַח‬to beasts of (the) earth, in the genitive (Psalm 79.2) ‫נוֹ־מיִם‬ ָ ְ‫ ְל ַמ ְעי‬into a fountain of water, in the genitive (Psalm 114.8) ‫ל־חיְתוֹ־יָ ַער‬ ַ ‫ ָכ‬every animal of (the) forest, in the nominative (Psalm 50.10) ‫ כֹּל ַחיְתוֹ ָשׂ ָדי‬every beast of (the) field, in the nominative (Isaiah 56.9) ‫ל־חיְתוֹ ַבּיָּ ַער‬ ַ ‫ ָכּ‬every beast of the forest, in the nominative (Isaiah 56.9) ‫ל־חיְתוֹ ָשׂ ָדי‬ ַ ‫ ָכּ‬every beast of the field, in the accusative (Psalm 104.11) ‫ל־חיְתוֹ־יָ ַער‬ ַ ‫ ָכּ‬every beast of (the) forest, in the nominative (Psalm 104.20) ‫ל־חיְ תוֹ־גוֹי‬ ַ ‫ ָכּ‬every beast of (the) nation, in the nominative (Zephaniah 2.14) For the Hebrew examples beginning with ‫ ָכּל‬, an analogy is considered pertinent. If there is a direct relationship between the construct form in Ugaritic and Hebrew, then the following argument should apply. In Ugaritic, construct forms have case endings (Sivan 1997:82), and where more than one construct appears in a cluster, all but the first must be genitive (Gordon 1965:56), that is, the counted objects are in the genitive (Segert 1984:88). Thus, in Hebrew, all the items in the construct chain following ‫ ָכּל‬are expected to be in the genitive. This is not found to be the case in these examples, as the ô vowel cannot be argued to be a genitive

CHAPTER ELEVEN

129

case vowel. Thus either this analogy with Ugaritic does not apply, or it does apply, and the -ô vowel bears no relationship to the nominative. While the -ô termination occurs with the bound state, the form is more likely to be a stereotyped phrase with variations (Robertson 1972:77; Kutscher 1982:79), or the vowel is retained for poetic purposes (Brovender 1971:1566). Once presumed to be a case ending, the -ô termination is more accurately described as a paragogic linking vowel.

CHAPTER 12 UGARITIC EVIDENCE FOR THE 3mp PREFORMATIVE t- OF THE PREFIX CONJUGATION The starting point for this section of the analysis of the t- preformative in the second millennium BCE sources is Tropper’s assertion that, as a rule, the 3mp preformative for the prefix conjugation in Ugaritic and in the Canaanite of the Amarna letters is t- (Tropper 2000:432). This stands against the expected West Semitic 3mp preformative y-.

HISTORY OF UNRAVELLING THE EVIDENCE Ginsberg (1936), Herdner (1938) and Cassuto (1938) are among the early researchers to assert the use of a 3mp t- preformative in the prefix conjugation in the Ras Shamra texts. Herdner indicates that the t- preformative is used along with the y- preformative (Herdner 1938:77), and cites the work of Ginsberg (1936:188) and Cassuto (1938:278n4) in support. She finds that Albright’s translations allow for the possibility of these two forms (Herdner 1938:76). Not all scholars agree on the form of this 3mp preformative. The occurrences of the form tqt.l(n) are not numerous, and other interpretations of the data are given in the literature for this form. However the frequency of difficulty with this verbal form in the texts gives Herdner the impetus to study some relevant examples. Subsequent scholars differ on the relative frequency of use of the t- and the y- preformative, but there is general agreement that the 3mp preformative consonant in Ugaritic varies between the two. Albright, for example, specifies that masculine plural nouns were often treated as collectives and construed with feminine singular verbal forms (Albright 1945:22). It would appear that he had 131

132

DATING ABH POETRY: A CRITIQUE

not yet acknowledged the use of the conjugation of masculine plural nouns with the 3mp t- preformative verbal forms. This may be a result of the expectation of the 3mp y- preformative on the basis of Hebrew grammar, where the use seemed to fit many cases in the Ugaritic alphabetic texts. Several years later, with his colleague Moran, both acknowledged the 3mp t- preformative (Albright and Moran 1950:165). Several researchers comment that the 3mp t- preformative in the prefix conjugation is an unusual feature of Ugaritic. Gordon, for example, recognises the 3mp t- as a Canaanitism, and gives examples of the use of both preformatives in Ugaritic texts (Gordon 1947a:63). While both the t- and the y- preformatives are acknowledged as 3mp preformatives (Emerton 1992:62), the t- is recognised as the standard form and the y- as the less frequently used (van Selms 1971:422; Pardee 1997:139–140; Sivan 1997:111). Segert finds that the y- performative is used only rarely (Segert 1984:60). We find a continuum of positions of scholars on this issue. At one end is Dobrusin’s position that wherever a y- preformative is used which is read as a 3mp, an alternative explanation is available indicating that in Ugaritic the t- preformative is the only form for the 3mp in the prefix conjugation. At the other end of the continuum is the position that the y- and the t- preformatives are interchangeable. Tropper suggests that the y- preformative may be a morphological fossil which can be found in the poetic writings from Ugarit (Tropper 2000:433). Tropper and Dobrusin, whose individual research is presented below, examine, from different perspectives, the possibility that the t- 3mp preformative is the regular preformative in the Ugaritic alphabetic writings. In her background studies, Dobrusin observes that the grammars to which she refers in her footnote (1981:5n1), including that of Hammerschaimb (1941), Gordon (1965) and Moscati (1969), agree that the preformative for the 3mp may be either t- or y-. She also observes that while Goetze (1938) finds that the preformative t- is normal for the 3mp prefix conjugation, he later cites two examples with the y- preformative. However, upon examination, Dobrusin finds that one of these examples can be explained as a masculine singular and the other as a dual (1981:5). Dobrusin also cites the work of Harris (1939) who implies that those dialects which use the t- preformative do so to the exclusion of any other preforma-

CHAPTER TWELVE

133

tive for 3mp. Thus Harris is casting a wider net which includes the Ugaritic evidence (Harris 1939:48). Dobrusin’s own survey of the poetic texts shows that there is no certain basis for the establishment of a 3mp verbal form with a y- preformative. In the poetic texts she examines there are at least fifty clear instances of a 3mp form of the verb with a preformative t-. She gives a brief listing of these forms (Dobrusin 1981:6–8). Dobrusin finds fifteen cases where the t- preformative is interpreted as a third person common dual (3cd). She notes that a ypreformative may also be used with a 3cd. She excludes these dual forms with y- preformative from her study of the alleged 3mp ypreformative verbal forms. Dobrusin’s analysis of the 3mp t- preformative and the socalled 3mp y- preformative leads her to conclude that there is a case for the use of the t- preformative for the 3mp prefix conjugation. Dobrusin argues that the t- and y- preformatives are not alternatives for the 3mp, nor can it be argued, as it is by Gibson (1978:41n5), that the t- preformative does not even exist in Ugaritic. She finds it hard to believe, she states in a footnote, that Gibson hesitates to accept this evidence (Dobrusin 1981:14n41). Dobrusin’s proposal from her evidence is that ‘the 3rd masculine plural prefixed form of the Ugaritic verb is formed only by the preformative t. Any examples of y preformative are suspect and should be scrutinized for alternative interpretations.’ (Dobrusin 1981:14) Dobrusin acknowledges Rainey’s correspondence confirming his publicly stated opinion that the 3mp Ugaritic verb is formed only by the preformative t (Dobrusin 1981:14n42). Having excluded the dual forms with y- preformative, Dobrusin considers that only a few cases remain, all of which need be analyzed because they have a y- preformative and are frequently read as 3mp. In this chapter, the discussion of specific passages includes her analyses. Tropper argues that the 3mp t- preformative is the regular form of the prefix conjugation. He notes that in the Amarna texts 3mp forms with the prefix t- are common. In his response to the controversy as to whether the t- and the y- preformatives may be used interchangeably, or whether the t- is the regular preformative, he cites two such instances where the y- preformative emerges in the consonantal texts: yblk 1.4 V:15–17, and yblnn 1.4 V:38–40 (yblnn occurs twice in these lines). Tropper argues that the former can be shown to be parallel to tblk, and that the latter is a variant of

134

DATING ABH POETRY: A CRITIQUE

the normal form. He then proceeds to cite fourteen examples where other scholars have adduced in the past that the y- preformative forms are examples of the Ugaritic yaqṭulū(na) form (Tropper 2000:433–434). Tropper’s examples are re-analyzed below.

UGARITIC SUBSTRATE EVIDENCE IN THE AKKADIAN FROM UGARIT In the Akkadian syllabic writings from Ugarit, van Soldt comments on some conjugation preformatives whose origin may be traced to West Semitic rather than to Akkadian. While he finds constant attestations of the use of the 3fs t- preformative, the 3ms y- preformative occurs only once, and the 3mp t- preformative is attested a possible three times (van Soldt 1991:432). These three examples are te-s. a-bi-tu4 (RS 17.388:16), ti-tu-ru-nu (RS 22.399:17) and possibly tuul-ta-lu-na (RS 20.06:6) which may also be a 3fp. Tropper disagrees with van Soldt concerning the alternate gender of the third verbal form. He indicates that it is 3mp (Tropper 2000:432). He gives the reading ti7-s. a-bi-tu for the first, analyzing it as Akkadian s. abātu G, ‘they grabbed’. The second form he analyzes as Akkadian târu G, ‘they turned back’, and the third as Akkadian elû Š, ‘they caused to climb (again and again)’. In Huehnergard’s discussion of dialect affinities and substrate influences, he compares the distinctive features of Ugarit Akkadian with their counterparts in other Western Peripheral Akkadian dialects. Since substrate interference is a concern in his study, based on his assumption that the scribes at Ugarit who wrote the texts were not native speakers of Akkadian, he argues that there are invariably features that betray their own language (Huehnergard 1989:20–21). Huehnergard finds a single example of a 3mp verb with a prefix t- in a poorly written text (PRU 6 50:16/RS 17.388) which he considers undoubtedly reflects the scribe’s native Ugaritic. He comments that the 3mp preformative forms with the tprefix are also common in Amarna texts (Huehnergard 1989:280).

THE EVIDENCE In their research to clarify the standard form(s) for the 3mp preformative for the prefix conjugation, both Dobrusin and Tropper analyze segments of Ugaritic texts written in consonantal form where scholars interpret the y- preformative as 3mp. Dobrusin ana-

CHAPTER TWELVE

135

lyzes five passages containing eleven such verbal forms, which includes one form she cites in a footnote (Dobrusin 1981:10n17). Tropper analyzes fourteen passages containing twenty-three such verbal forms. The two scholars examine three passages in common, containing a total of seven relevant y- preformative verbal forms. Dobrusin argues from the position that there are no y- 3mp preformatives. Though she asserts that the I:yod of the root of a verbal form may cause confusion and be mistakenly read as a 3mp preformative instead of a suffixed conjugation form, she claims that the two conjugations are distinguishable. Tropper does not take such an extreme position. In one passage which they both analyze there are four verbal forms with the y- preformative. Tropper argues that these could be 3mp forms of the prefix conjugation. These examples are discussed below. In the remaining two passages which they both analyze, there are four verbal forms. Both scholars read the y- preformative as 3ms prefix conjugation verbal forms, and not as 3mp forms. This study compares the claims and counter-claims of Dobrusin and Tropper. We examine and evaluate the textual evidence relevant to the examples cited and relevant strengths of their arguments. Where possible, we use categories similar to those used in examining the Amarna evidence. However, as the script of Ugaritic is a consonantal one, variations occur. The following categories are used in this analysis. They provide insight into the role of relevant variables in determining the understanding of the verbal forms. 1. A disputed subject. 2. A verbal form read as a 3ms passive construction. 3. I:weak verbal forms, where y, as the first consonant of the root, is to be read as a 3mp suffix conjugation, a difficulty specific to consonantal texts in Semitic languages. 4. The purported use of a singular verb with a plural subject. 5. Textual reconstruction and emendation. The examples cited, with two exceptions, are from Ugaritic verse. They include passages from the Baal cycle, from the Keret and the Aqht cycles, from other poetic texts and some prose texts including a Hippiatric text (KTU2 1.85) and a letter (KTU2 2.2). All Ugaritic texts are cited using KTU2 numbering.

136

DATING ABH POETRY: A CRITIQUE

SELECTION OF TRANSLITERATIONS AND TRANSLATIONS The base for the transliteration of the Ugaritic text is KTU2. Where appropriate, other transliterations are included. In the literature, various translations of the Ugaritic text are cited but these translators are not identified. The selection of translations in this study represents approximately seventy years of scholarship. A selection of types of translations for different purposes includes the early literal translation by Gordon(1949),62 a more popular translation by Coogan(1978),63 and Wyatt’s scholarly but readable recent translations with annotations(2002).64

SPECIFIC ISSUES RELATING TO UGARITIC VERSE As the examples cited are thus almost all from Ugaritic verse, some problems arise within the context of this literary form. Watson suggests that the principal problem arises from the uncertainty of the stichometry on most tablets. In some cases this hinders the determination of the relevant context for a verbal form and thereby the location of its subject (Watson 1999:166). Example 3:2 in the following analysis illustrates this problem. Watson also notes that the vocabulary used can pose problems, especially when this affects the meaning of passages. Dobrusin indicates where this factor is relevant to her study, and on one occasion (cited in example 3:3) decides not to pursue further analysis. In other cases, the repetition of extended passages may assist in an analysis (for example, examGordon says of his translations: ‘Sometimes my translations are literally possible but not exegetically clear. Though this leaves much to be desired, it is better than a smooth English version that violates the Ugaritic original.’ (Gordon 1949:XIn1) 63 Coogan says he aims at providing a readable translation, and therefore he gives no signals of omissions and reconstructions (Coogan 1978:23). 64 Wyatt says of his work: ‘I hope that on the scale from dull pedantry to readability both in translation and annotation, I have approximated to the latter end of the range, and that this has not been too much at the expense of accuracy and faithfulness to the original.’ (Wyatt 2002:9) 62

CHAPTER TWELVE

137

ple 1:3). Watson notes that there is no prose material strictly comparable to the Ugaritic verse narratives so there can be no comparison of forms in different styles of composition (Watson 1999:167). Some aspects of the poetic form of the texts are useful in this analysis. Watson recognizes that parallelism is a structural principle of Ugaritic poetry, even though it does not necessarily impose a metre on the verse nor determine the length of the line (Watson 1999:168–170). Tropper uses poetic parallelism and its relation to the verse line to assist in the unravelling of verbal forms, particularly with the interaction of the various forms of parallelism (depending on meaning, syntax, degrees of separation, and groupings, for example). We argue that this introduces a subjective interpretation of the forms into the research, creating problems for an assessment of the findings. As the prefix forms of the verb are the norm for poetic narration (Smith 1995:789; Watson 1999:168–169), these verbal forms can be used in contrast with one another, and different or identical verb forms can occur in parallel lines. Specifically on the use of verbs in parallel lines of a couplet, Watson finds that these can be in various ‘tenses’ giving rise to the following patterns: qt.l //qt.l, qt.l //yqt.l, yqt.l //qt.l and yqt.l //yqt.l (Watson 1999:171). Smith refers to examples given by Cassuto (1938) and Held (1962) of the parallelistic use of the indicative prefix and suffix forms which support Watson’s generalization (Smith 1994:49–50). Smith, however, finds it unclear why varying verbal forms occur in the same or similar contexts in Ugaritic poetry (Smith 1994:39). Examples of this problem occur in examples 3:1 and 3:3, and 1:6 and 2:1. Where the clarification of the 3mp preformative consonant is involved, some explanations of a grammatical interpretation of the poetic parallelism are suggested.

RECONSTRUCTION OF THE TEXT Other solutions have been sought to explain the text, including reconstructions, emendations and the expansion of details in the narratives, each with varying degrees of speculation. With specific reference to Ugaritic texts, Lewis indicates that there are issues concerning the desirability, feasibility or justification of such actions. He indicates that it is prudent to take a minimalist approach to reconstruction (Lewis 1996:119), warning that each emendation in a text may have implications within the proximate context, or may lead to further emendations. He suggests that where a text is

138

DATING ABH POETRY: A CRITIQUE

reconstructed, such interpretations be regarded only as possibilities, and as such form a poor foundation for theory development. It is also wise, he suggests, to take into consideration the degree of speculation which a scholar uses to augment the details in a narrative. Each of these factors is relevant to this study, which takes the position that this type of evidence provides unsatisfactory argument in support of a grammatical principle. Other related problems include the relatively limited scope of the Ugaritic corpus and the condition of the tablets which leaves large gaps in the poetic texts, making many reconstructions uncertain. The lack of vocalization of the text provides its own difficulties, particularly, as it will be seen, with impersonal verbal forms. 1. Disputed subject A re-analysis of the extended text shows that the verbal form with an assumed plural subject may indeed have a singular subject.

Example 1:1 : ytbš/ y‘bš, y‘bš KTU2 1.22 I:6–7 (6) blsmt . tm . y‘ [[x]]bš . šm . il . mtm (7) y‘bš . brkn . šm . il . ġzrm (6) *blsmt tm ytbš šm il mtm (7) y‘bš brkn šm il ġzrm (*transliteration given by Dobrusin 1981:12) Dobrusin offers two translations. Dobrusin 1981:12, after Caquot et al. Then, the name of El…some men with speed The name of El…some heroes…65 Dobrusin 1981:12, after Driver With alacrity; there (mortal) men will laud(?) Heroes will extol the name of El with blessings However, Driver’s translation includes a modification: Driver 1956:69 With alacrity; there (mortal ) men will laud (?) the name of El, 65 The format and punctuation of each selected portion of translation is that of of each author’s original.

CHAPTER TWELVE

139

heroes will extol the name of El with blessings(!) Dobrusin examines Driver’s version and finds that he assumes plural subjects for these verbs, whereas she notes that Caquot et al. reverse the syntax to provide a singular subject. The verbs in their version are therefore understood as 3ms prefix conjugation. Dobrusin finds Dietrich and Loretz agree with this latter finding, and this supports her argument (Dobrusin 1987:13). However, Caquot et al. find that the two verbs under discussion are scarcely intelligible. They are not sure that indeed they are two different verbs (Caquot et al. 1974:474nq). Driver’s transcription of the verbal forms agrees with that of Dobrusin. Wyatt’s discussion of these two forms sheds no further light on the meaning of the verbs, but he does refer to de Moor’s translation which favours a singular subject for the verbal forms: ‘the name of Ilu gave substance to the dead/the blessing of the name of Ilu gave substance to the heroes.’ (de Moor 1987:272) The problem remains as to which is the subject and which is the object of each verbal form. The parallelism of the poetry would seem to indicate that both subjects are of the same number, as are both objects. Lewis translates the passage as follows: Lewis 1996:130 There mortals…the name of El, …Heroes bless the name of El Lewis indicates that the form y‘ bš is a hapax and is best left untranslated (Lewis 1996:138). As no definite argument can be made from Dobrusin’s reconstruction of the first verbal form (…ytbš/y‘[x]]bš), and as there is no certainty concerning the number of the subject for the latter verbal form, there is no compelling argument for either a singular or plural subject.

Example 1:2 : ys.h. KTU2 1.4 IV:47–50: (47) [an]y [.] l yh . tr il . abh ˘ (48) [i]l . mlk . d yknnh . ys. h. (49) aṭrt . w bnh . ilt . w s. brt (50) aryh . Tropper suggests that comparison be made to KTU2 1.4 I:4–8, a parallel context in a damaged tablet (Tropper 2000:434).

140

DATING ABH POETRY: A CRITIQUE

(4) [any . l yṣ]h. . tr (5) [il . abh . i]l mlk (6) [d yknnh . yṣ]h. . at (7) [rt . w bnh . ] i{.}lt (8) [w ṣbrt . ary]h Tropper 2000: 434 Klagend ruft er (sc. Ba‘lu) fürwahr den Stier Ilu, seinen Vater, an, den König Ilu, der ihn erschaffen hat; (klagend) ruft er Atiratu und ihre Söhne an, die Göttin und ihre gesamte Verwandtschaft…66 The context is goddess Atiratu’s speech to the god Ilu where Ilu is informed that Ba‘lu is asking for a palace. Tropper argues that the subject of this verbal form, which occurs twice in this passage, can only be Ba‘lu, and thus the verb must be a 3ms in the prefix conjugation. Wyatt’s translation of this text agrees with Tropper’s analysis of the verb. Wyatt 2002:100 [Groan]ing he cries to Bull El his father, to [E]l the king who begot him. He cries to Athirat and her sons, to the goddess and the band of her kinsmen. Tropper recognises that other authors who understand that the subject of the verb is plural, suggest an alternative interpretation, that is, the subject is the goddess Atiratu and her sons. In Tropper’s opinion, this makes little sense (Tropper 2000:434). Sivan indicates a plural verbal form, but he does not specify the subject (Sivan 1997:157). The following translations, to which Tropper did not make specific reference, indicate variant interpretations. Gordon 1949:32 Loudly Tôr - ’Il, her father, shouts, King ’Il who brought her into being; There shout Asherah and her sons 66 Wailing, he (namely Ba‘lu) calls in truth upon the bull god his father, the king god, who has created him; wailing, he calls upon Atiratu and her sons, the goddess and her whole kin…

CHAPTER TWELVE

141

The goddess and the band of her kin Coogan 1978:100 The Bull El, her father, shouted loudly, El the King, who brought her into being; Asherah and her sons shouted, The goddess and her pride of lions There is a parallel passage in KTU2 1.3 V:36 for which Sivan translates this verbal form as ‘they may shout’ (Sivan 1997:157). By contrast, Wyatt reads this as a singular form, as he does in the form above (Wyatt 2000:87). The context of this verbal form is more probable with a singular subject, and thus the preferred reading of this verbal form is a 3ms with a y- preformative.

Example 1:3 : yšu, ymzl KTU2 1.14 II:45–47 (45) zbl . ‘ršm (46) yšu . ‘wr . mzl [[xt]] (47) ymzl Tropper cites the parallel text given below. KTU2 1.14 IV:23–25 (23) zbl . ‘ršm (24) yšu . ‘wr (25) mzl . ymzl Tropper 2000:435 Der Kranke wird (sein) Bett tragen, der Blinde wird hinter herhinken(?)67 Tropper finds that some authors analyze these verbal forms as 3mp in the prefix conjugation. Tropper does not cite the sources of these translations and so they cannot be analyzed here. From the context, Tropper expects that zbl and ‘wr are the singular subjects of the verbal forms and thus the verbs are masculine singular. The translations below also indicate a singular subject for the verbal form. 67

hind.

The sick man will carry his bed, the blind man will limp along be-

142

DATING ABH POETRY: A CRITIQUE

Gordon 1949:69 (187) The invalid carry the bed (188) The one-eyed indeed - Driver 1956:31 the sick man(?) shall take up (his) bed, the blind man indeed shall foretell (good) luck and put (forth) a bowl(?) Coogan 1978:60 the sick man will carry his bed; the blind man will be assigned a station; Gibson 1978:84 the sick man take up (his) bed (and go), the blind man indeed stumble along behind; Wyatt 2002:191 let the sick man take up his bed; let the blind man outrun the runner. Another translation is offered where the zbl and ‘wr become the singular object of the verb and the singular subject of the verb respectively. Caquot et al. 1974:518 On portera le malade dans son lit: L’aveugle cherchera à tâtons son chemin68 Wyatt translates Herdner’s translation into English with a plural subject which then reads: Wyatt 2002:191n71 Let them carry the sick man on his bed These translations highlight the potential difficulties which may occur in these circumstances. Wyatt also notes the translation, ‘the sick man be carried…’ thus giving the verbal form a passive sense. Again, the subject of the verbal form is singular. Wyatt concludes that his original translation, with 3ms verbal forms, is to be preferred ‘in terms of the hyperbolic style.’ (Wyatt 2002:191n71) The extended context of this particular passage is as follows: KTU2 1.14 II:43–50 (43) yh. d . bth . sgr 68

One will carry the sick (one) in his bed: the blind (one) will grope his way along his path

CHAPTER TWELVE

143

(44) almnt . škr (45) tškr . zbl . ‘ršm (46) yšu . ‘wr . mzl [[xt]] (47) ymzl . w ys. i . trh (48) h. dt . yb‘r . l tn ˘ (49) atth . lm . nkr (50) mddth The parallelism in the poetry supports the use of the masculine singular. Wyatt 2002:191–192 Let the single man lock up his house; let (even) the widow be enlisted. let the sick man take up his bed; let the blind man outrun the runner. And let the newly-wed go out: let him abandon his wife because of another on account of a foreigner his beloved. Sivan indicates that this verbal form may be read in two ways: as an active verb with a plural subject or as a passive verb with a singular subject. He vocalizes the forms in the following manner: |y~š’u: *yišša’ū/w t‘rb. As the two signs are so dissimilar (y- being a pair of triple vertical wedges and t- being one horizontal wedge), one can only assume that Tropper cannot determine any part of the sign. The KTU2 transliteration given above indicates that there is some difficulty with the text, but this does not appear to be as severe as Tropper suggests. Driver’s transliteration does not agree with Tropper’s emendation, and he transliterates the form as wl‘rb which he translates in context as ‘and the birds from the heaven and the fishes from the sea verily do enter their mouths…’ (Driver 1956:122, 123) From his emendation, Tropper reads either a 3fs prefix conjugation with a short ending, with reference to the subject ‘s. r : ‘bird’, or a 3mp verbal form of the prefix conjugation with a short ending. He prefers the latter analysis. It is also evident that the two plural component parts of the subject of the verb are linked with the conjunction waw. For Tropper, this construction usually indicates a plural subject and the need for a plural verbal form. However, this may not necessarily be the case. As an alternative argument, Tropper suggests that even if y‘rb were to be the reconstruction, it would not be interpreted as a 3mp verbal form, as a 3ms form would be possible on the assumption of free agreement conditions. He indicates in his German translation of this passage that the birds and the fish represent a single concept. Both are expressed in the plural form even though the Ugaritic does not necessarily require the plural for dg b ym, ‘the fish of the sea’. From the context of the passage, the birds and the fish may be said to represent the concept of the great gluttony being discussed: the great appetite of Mot. This interpretation is supported by Gibson (1978:126n8). These arguments present no compelling evidence for one particular use for the y- preformative, particularly as they are based on an indistinct portion of the tablet and are subject to reconstruction.

Example 5:3 : y[tl]k KTU2 1.4 VI:18–19 (18) y[tl]k . l lbnn . w ‘s. h (19) l [š]ryn . mh. md . arzh

CHAPTER TWELVE

163

Tropper 2000:435 …ging(?) zum Libanon und(?) (zu) seinen Bäumen, zum [Si]rion, [zu] seinen kostbaren Zedern90 Tropper notes that this verbal form is a reconstruction. He suggests that where signs for two consonants are usually inserted, there is only space for one, and other possibilities for this verbal form need to be explored. After examining the verbal forms yrk, ylk and ygzr, he does not state a preference. An examination of the photograph of the relevant tablet, Herdner’s cuneiform copy and transcription lend support to Tropper’s argument (Herdner 1963:Plate IX, Figure 16 and page 28 respectively). Tropper finds that this verbal form is usually analyzed as 3mp prefix conjugation. This is supported by the following translations. Driver 1956:99 They went to Lebanon and its trees, to Syrion (and) its choicest cedars Gibson 1978:63 Men went to Lebanon and its trees, to Sirion (and) its choicest cedars Wyatt 2002:105–106 They [we]nt to Lebanon and its trees, to [Si]ryon and its choicest cedars The following two translations do, however, attempt to reflect the y- preformative as a masculine singular. From the extended context of the poetry, a 3ms verbal form is probable. Gordon 1949:34 He [goe]s to Lebanon and its trees Syria (and) the choicest of cedars. Caquot et al. 1974:210 On fait [venir] du Liban et de ses bois, et du [Sir]yon leurs cèdres les plus précieux.91 There is an attempt to reconstruct the verbal form which is part of the illegible left side of the tablet. This reconstruction is …went to the Lebanon and to its trees, to the Sirion, to its precious cedars 91 One brings their most valuable cedars from Lebanon, from its woods and from Syria. 90

164

DATING ABH POETRY: A CRITIQUE

plausible, but not necessarily valid. Thus the readings are not relevant to the context of this study.

Example 5:4 : yt‘r KTU2 1.24:35–36 (35) ihh . yt‘r ˘ (36) mšrrm Tropper 2000: 436 Ihr Bruder montierte das Zünglein(?) (der Waage)92 There is a problem with identifying the number of the subject of the verb. In this circumstance, this leads to a division of opinion on the number of the verbal form itself. Tropper’s argument for not accepting the usual 3mp translation of this verbal form is that the form ihh is read as ‘her brothers.’ Tropper argues that the spelling of this˘ form is that of a singular, i.e., ‘her brother’. He expects the plural form to be ahh..93 Thus he argues for a 3ms verbal form. ˘ Caquot et al. also recognise that there could be a problem with the form of the subject. They translate the line: ‘Ses frères disposent ce qui fait pencher (la balance),’94 but add the footnote explaining that ‘ih appears to be an internal plural of ‘ah, ‘brother’, as ˘ ‘ib is of ‘ab ‘father’ in the expression ‘il ‘ib ‘god of˘ the fathers.’ (Caquot et al. 1974:39nx) Thus they do not agree with Tropper. Other sources do not agree with Tropper. They have a plural ‘brothers’ as the subject of the verbal form: ‘her brothers arrange(d)’ (Gibson 1978:129; Driver 1956:127–127; Gordon 1949:64; Wyatt 2002:339). Using Wyatt’s translation as a case in point where, in the following line, the form for ‘sisters’ is aht{t}h ˘ (Dietrich et al. 1995:70) we read: (33) adnh (34) yšt . ms. b . mznm . umh (35) kp mznm . ihh yt‘r ˘ (36) mšrrm . aht{t}h .la ˘ (37) bn mznm Her brother set up the tongue(?) (of the scales) Tropper presents this argument in detail in his Ugaritische Grammatik, 2000:33, 215.31b and 54.113.3. 94 Her brothers arrange the balance (The meaning is uncertain.) 92 93

CHAPTER TWELVE

165

Wyatt 2002:339 Her father set the beams of the scales, Her mother set the trays of the scales. Her brothers arranged the ingots, Her sisters the stones of the scales. Considering the poetic nature of the text and evidence of the use of parallelism, one could expect that two lines would have a singular subject (‘her father’, ‘her mother’) and the following two a plural subject (‘her brothers’, ‘her sisters’), but this is not necessarily the situation. The findings from this example are speculative, and therefore make no significant contribution to this study.

Example 5:5 : ymġyk KTU2 2.2:7–9 (7) by . šnt . milt . t[ ] (8) ymġyk . bnm . ta[ ] (9) bnm . w bnt . ytnk[ ] (Dietrich et al. 1995:161) Tropper cites Dijkstra’s transliteration of line 8 and reads: ymġyk . bnm . ta[rš ] (Tropper 2000:437 references Djikstra 1999:152). Dijkstra’s translation reads: ‘children you asked for will come to you.’ This tablet is broken along the right edge making the full context of the text uncertain. Tropper attempts to give a context to this verbal form by reading lines 7–9 as: ‘In einem vollen Jahr wird …(?) zu dir kommen. Kinder warden…Söhne und Töchter wird er dir geben.’95 (Tropper 2000:437) Thus Tropper interprets this verbal form as a 3ms by using his reconstruction of the extended text to arrange the syntax in an alternative way providing for a singular verbal form. His reading indicates that the broken text includes a singular subject. As this text is a letter, its syntactic form provides no further assistance. The findings for this example are speculative, and therefore are not considered relevant to this study.

95 In a full year is…(?) will come to you. Children are…he will give you sons and daughters.

166

DATING ABH POETRY: A CRITIQUE

SUMMARY OF FINDINGS Of the forms which Dobrusin and Tropper propose, this study finds that several present difficulties in the attempt to determine if the y- preformative is an alternative for the predominant use of the t- for the 3mp in the prefix conjugation. This summary of findings excludes reconstructed or emended forms. Dobrusin proposes nine forms with the performative y- which she considers are not plural forms, but singular forms. However, she admits there are four forms that could be either singular or plural, and explains her preference for singular readings. Tropper proposes twenty-two forms, and, excluding those which have been emended, finds that they are mostly clear singulars. Where there are forms which could be singular or plural, Tropper expresses a preference for the plural reading with one exception. Tropper supports a plural number for three forms in two passages on the basis of grammatical parallelism with the t- preformative. We find no certain evidence for the 3mp y- preformative to be considered as an alternative form for the 3mp t- preformative in the prefix conjugation. As there are unresolved instances even where the contextual evidence is taken into account, there is the possibility that some examples of a 3mp y- preformative exist. The examples which provide most difficulty are those where the 3mp active or 3fs passive use of the verbal form could be read, or contexts where I:yod verbs which could be interpreted as 3ms suffix conjugation verbs or 3mp prefix conjugation verbs are found.

DISCUSSION It has been necessary not only to take the scholarship of Dobrusin and Tropper into account in this analysis, but also to take into account the work of a range of scholars in the field. The study considers not only their transliterations and translations, but also their contributions in the clarification of points of Ugaritic grammar in an alphabetic script which presents many ambiguities. Although the expected West Semitic 3mp preformative is y-, Ugaritic shows a regular use of the 3mp t- preformative. Tropper argues that the y- preformative may have been used in protoUgaritic, and thus occurs here as an archaism (Tropper 1999:105n28). He acknowledges only two certain 3mp y- preformative forms, apart from three other forms which he finds attested in

CHAPTER TWELVE

167

grammatical parallelism with the usual t- preformative form (Tropper 1999:105n28). He considers these to be remnants of this rarely used archaic form. Various comments indicate a lack of unanimity in the reading the consonantal text. Given the hypothesized antiquity of the 3mp y- preformative, it is quite possible that some of the suggested examples which could not be determined with certainty do contain this preformative. Although Dobrusin takes the opposite position, she concedes that this did occur, but only in a few instances. The analysis of the data highlights some of the problems associated with reading the consonantal texts. There are possible misreadings where a variety of interpretations can be made of one verbal form. This occurs where there is an option to read an active plural sense or a passive singular sense for a verbal form, particularly when the context is not clear. There is also the problem of the I:yod radical in the verbal root which may mask the intended reading. Matters of preference may also enter into the translations where the contextual material gives inconclusive evidence. Research into West Semitic languages may have influenced the recognition of the y- preformative as a 3mp preformative of the prefix conjugation in Ugaritic. One reason may be that many earlier researchers had a background in Hebrew language where the 3mp y- preformative is the regular form. In this period, scholars were also studying the Amarna letters and were also coming to grips with the Canaanite substrate language in which 3mp t- preformative occurs. The reason for the use of a dominant 3mp t- preformative is uncertain. It is not necessarily a matter of earlier or later scholarship which affects the readings given by scholars. For example, in example 1:5, both Driver (1956) and Wyatt (2002) indicate a preference for the 3mp y- preformative, and Gordon (1949) and Tropper (2000) indicate a preference for a 3ms y- preformative.

CONCLUSION The assumption that a 3mp prefix conjugation form yaqt.ulū(na) exists in Ugaritic is examined. We find no certain evidence of this preformative. However the consonantal script masks the reading of certain forms and thus some ambiguous readings are possible, even with the use of available contextual evidence. Given the antiquity of the 3mp y- preformative in Semitic languages, there is the possibility of its existence in these few ambiguous readings. We argue

168

DATING ABH POETRY: A CRITIQUE

that in the second millennium BCE Ugaritic writings in alphabetic texts the 3mp t- preformative is the regular form in the prefix conjugation. List of Verbal Forms in this Analysis

1. Disputed Subject Example 1:1: ytbš/y‘bš, y‘bš Example 1:2: ys. h. Example 1:3: yšu, ymzl Example 1:4: ymġy, ylk

2. Verbal Forms Read as 3ms Passive Constructions Example 2:1: yšql Example 2:2: yttbn Example 2:3: ybl Example 2:4: yttb

3. I:weak verbal forms Example 3:1: yblk Example 3:2: ytb Example 3:3: yblnn

4. Purported Use of a Singular Verb with a Plural Subject Example 4:1: ydk, ys. q

5. Textual Reconstruction and Emendation Example 5:1: ys. u Example 5:2: y‘rb Example 5:3: y[tl]k Example 5:4: yt‘r Example 5:5: ymġyk

CHAPTER 13 THE AMARNA EVIDENCE FOR THE 3mp PREFORMATIVE t- OF THE PREFIX CONJUGATION The Canaanized Amarna letters yield evidence of hybrid verbal formations for the prefix conjugation. These verbal forms are constructed from the Akkadian form of the selected paradigm with modifications according to Canaanite modes and tenses. This results in an almost complete set of West Semitic prefix conjugation afformatives (Rainey 1996, II:13–14) as there are no documented verbal forms for the 3fp in these texts (Rainey 1996, II:34). This substrate interference in Akkadian verbal forms makes a significant contribution to the understanding of second millennium BCE Canaanite verbal forms. These Canaanized letters indicate the possibility of two 3mp preformatives, t- and y-. The aim of the analysis in this chapter is to determine the status of the 3mp t- preformative in Amarna Canaanite. As the alternative 3mp y- preformative was the expected preformative, this will be the focus of the study. Early scholarship indicates that the 3mp t- preformative was used alongside the 3mp y- preformative (Böhl 1909:52; Ebeling 1910:39–79; Dhorme 1913–1914:435; Herdner 1938:76). Possible influences on the thinking in this period may derive from two sources. One source is the assumption that the 3mp *y- preformative is the Proto-Semitic preformative to which Bergsträsser (1928, in Bergsträsser and Daniels 1983:13) and Lipiński refer (Lipiński 1997:377). The second source is the close relationship of the Canaanizing verbal forms with those of Biblical Hebrew leading to the expectation of a y- preformative. These influences are apparent in some of the early research which is outlined below. Ebeling considers the y- preformative to be the standard for the 3mp form, with the use of the t- preformative as an inconsis169

170

DATING ABH POETRY: A CRITIQUE

tency resulting from the Canaanizing of the tablets. He indicates that this practice occurs in both the preterite and the present tenses (Ebeling 1910:46–48). He offers several examples, three of which appear below. EA 245:3: yi-pu-šu they bring about EA 124:15: yi-il-qu they took/they have taken EA 137:12: ti-iš-la-hu they point (abusingly) ˘ In his glossary, Ebeling lists the use of approximately one hundred and twenty-three 3mp t- preformatives and approximately twenty-one y- forms (Ebeling 1915a:1358–1545). He notes that some of these y- preformatives are doubtful 3mp usages. The 3mp y- preformatives identified by Ebeling are included in the analysis of the evidence which is considered later in this chapter. Dhorme explains the use of the 3mp t- preformative as an option to avoid the confusion of the y- preformative (the PI sign in Akkadian) for both the 3ms in the prefix conjugation (yaqt.ulu imperfect 3ms) and the 3mp in the prefix conjugation (yaqt.ulu preterite 3mp), otherwise the two forms could look alike in the Canaanite of the Amarna letters (Dhorme 1913–14, reprinted 1951:435). He reasons that scribes in the territories controlled by Egypt had a choice between preformatives. It was later recognized that the underlying Canaanite layer of the local language had penetrated the formal Akkadian, the prestige written language of that period in Canaan, and that the t- preformative was the dominant 3mp preformative. Herdner was amongst those early scholars who recognized the unexpectedness of this grammatical point. In her view, this assisted in the better explanation of passages which had remained obscure (Herdner 1938:76). A significant proportion of Albright’s publications from the mid 1930s to the mid 1940s focuses upon the transliteration, translation and interpretation of many of the Amarna letters. His emphatically-stated position was that there was a close relationship between the North Canaanite of Ugarit and the South Canaanite of Phoenicia and Palestine (Albright 1943:7). While he acknowledged that the details still needed further clarification, he allowed for only insignificant differences in Canaanite, Ugaritic and Hebrew syntax, morphology and phonology. Albright argued that one similarity of Canaanite, Hebrew and Arabic involved collective singulars or plurals which are regularly construed with a feminine singular verbal

CHAPTER THIRTEEN

171

form, that is, with the t- preformative of the 3fs. One of his examples comes from EA 252:16–19. (16) ki-i na-am-lu (17) tu-um-ha-ṣú la-a (18) ti-qá-bi-lu ù ta˘ a-aš-ši an-|šú~-ku (19) qa-ti awîlili ša yi-ma-h ˘ Albright 1943b:29 If ants are smitten they do not accept (the smiting) quietly, but they bite the hand of the man who smites them. Rainey seems to favour Albright’s suggestion that namlu is meant to be a collective, identical with the Arabic collective (Rainey 1989–90:686 and 1996, I:131). Moran reads namlu as a collective noun conjugated with a feminine singular verb expressing habitual action (Moran 1992:305). We contest this conclusion and read the noun as a plural and the verbal form as a 3mp preterite. In a re-interpretation of EA 82 in 1948, Albright and Moran analyze the letter using the same principle. They give examples of collectives construed with feminine singular verbs, as in EA 82:10– 11; 105:36; 108:11 and 118:47. Albright considered that the supposed plural ending of the verbal form was probably the energic ending (Albright 1943b:29n89). Thus their readings of these forms needed later amendment. In a lengthy note to EA 82:10–11, they set out their argument which did not allow for the possibility of a 3mp t- preformative under certain circumstances. In 1950, in their translation of EA 89:35 which appears below, it is difficult to tell whether both Albright and Moran agreed on the reading of the t3mp preformative, as there is no explanatory note (Albright and Moran 1950, in Huehnergard and Izre’el 2003:145). EA 89:35: la-a tu-uš-mu-na a-wa-tu-š[u] hi[s] words were not heeded In his dissertation, Moran continues to argue that the masculine plural subject may be taken as a collective and construed with a 3fs verb (Moran 1950, reprinted in Huehnergard and Izre’el 2003:57). In his résumé of this section of his dissertation he states: ‘There is little in the syntax of verbal agreement in these letters that cannot be paralleled in Biblical Hebrew. One is the frequent use of the feminine singular with a plural construed as a collective. This idiom, familiar from Arabic, may have had a larger place in early Hebrew… However, this is not to say that all taqt.ulu forms with a plural subject are to be considered as 3fs.’ (Moran 1950, reprinted in Huehnergard and Izre’el 2003:59–60) Moran adds a footnote at

172

DATING ABH POETRY: A CRITIQUE

this point, indicating that this represents a modification of his 1948 views, and that he is speaking for himself, and not for Albright, with whom he collaborated at that time. In order to assess the relative frequency of the use of the 3fs form with a plural subject construed as a collective, we analyzed the forty-four 3fs prefix conjugation verbal forms given by Rainey from the Canaanized Amarna letters (Rainey 1996, II:37–38). The first four of these forms in table 13 have a collective noun, three of them being s. âbē/army as a subject and we contest the fifth. Table 13: Plural Nouns Construed as 3fs Collective Nouns

EA 274:14 141:31 281:13 234:17 252:72

3fs verbal form

Subject

amêlūtuSA.GAZ.MEŠ (Habiru) ti7-ih-la-aq ˘ ˘ ti-ra-ha-aṣ ṣâbē bi-ta-(?)šu (archers) ˘ tu-pu-uš ṣâbē bi-ta-ti (archers) tu-uṣ-ṣa ṣâbē (soldiers/army) tu-um-ha-ṣú na-am-lu (ants) ˘ Moran analyzes the t- preformative for the 3mp verbal form as a true plural form. He recognises that there is a problem with the nature of the form taqt.ulu when used with plural subjects. Only the long -ū of the plural explains the final -u in these instances. Moran explains that if the forms were really 3fs, then a final -u should not appear in any of them, for the indicative is out of place in a purpose clause dependent on a volitive in a main clause (Moran 1951 in Huehnergard and Izre’el 2003:162). He resolves that taqt.ulū can be used as a 3mp jussive, and taqt.ulūna is used almost exclusively with plural subjects. He notes also that the yaqt.ulū also occurs as a 3mp, but only rarely. Thus Moran shows that there is no doubt of the existence of taqt.ulūna as a 3mp verbal form in early Canaanite based on the argument of modal congruence. However he maintains that there exists also a 3fs construed with a plural subject, to be taken as a collective, as in Hebrew. More recent scholarship identifies the 3mp t- preformative as the dominant preformative for the prefix conjugation in the Canaanized Amarna letters. Rainey acknowledges that the verbal forms in these texts are almost certainly in accordance with West Semitic practice (Rainey II, 1996:37). He regards the predominance of the t- preformative for the 3mp verb as one of the most striking

CHAPTER THIRTEEN

173

features of the prefix conjugation (Rainey 1975:376). His footnote recognizing Herdner’s 1938 article indicates that he has no doubt concerning this matter. He recognizes that it has been argued that there are also 3mp forms with a y- preformative, as Ebeling had listed in 1915. Rainey notes that Izre’el collected sixteen instances of 3mp verbs with y- preformatives, and that Izre’el said he could explain all but two of them as singulars. As seen below, Rainey does not necessarily agree with Izre’el’s analysis, but he does seem to agree with Izre’el’s two possible instances of 3mp verbs with ypreformatives. Scribal practice did not require that the verbal form indicate whether the final -u was long or short. This may be one of the reasons for some of the confusion in the prefix conjugation for the 3ms/3mp, especially for the weak verb. For example, laqû to take: ti-la-qu-na >ti-la-qu-u-na >ti-la-qû-na >tilaqûna (3mp) ti-la-qu >ti-la-qu-u >tilaqū (3mp) yi-la-qu (3ms) or yi-la-qu-u >yilaqū (3mp) The cuneiform writing of the verbal forms presents possible ambiguities. Where the long forms are read with only cuneiform signs there may be alternative readings. For example: ti-iq-t.a-lu-na: present/future 3mp, 2ms with energic sufformative, (EA 103:53: tu-wa-‹ši›-ru-na), or 3fs with energic sufformative ti-iq-t.a-lu: preterite 3mp or 3fs yi-iq-t.a-lu: present/future 3ms or 3mp This line of reasoning may be relevant also to Ebeling’s reading of some of the verbal forms, especially where the forms are viewed in isolation, and in the early days also when not all the complementary evidence was available. The frequency of the y- preformative is a matter of contention. In order to make a clearer determination of the ratio of the occurrences of the 3mp t- and y- preformatives in use in Amarna Canaanite, purported instances of a 3mp y- preformative are examined across the works of several scholars of the Amarna letters. The basic list comes from Izre’el’s 1987a study, while the supplementary list is from Ebeling’s work. The contributions of Knudtzon, Böhl, Youngblood, Moran and Rainey are included in this examination. Izre’el questions whether there was a y- 3mp preformative in the Amarna letters. This in essence leads him to re-examine the texts to determine the number of the subject of the verb in cases

174

DATING ABH POETRY: A CRITIQUE

where the y- preformative appears to have a 3mp subject. As against the approximately one hundred and fifty 3mp verbal forms with a t- preformative, Izre’el collects only sixteen instances where there might be a case for 3mp verbal forms with a y- preformative. His analysis highlights the discrepancies among the findings of scholars including Böhl, Knudtzon, Ebeling and Moran. Izre’el seeks to clarify whether the y- preformative is used alongside the tpreformative in West Semitized prefix conjugation verbs, or whether in fact the t- preformative is standard. An analysis of Izre’el’s research yields six categories into which his research is reorganized for the purposes of this study. These categories fall under the following headings: 1. A disputed subject. 2. Two apparent persons for the subject. 3. The use of a singular impersonal subject. 4. The use of the form of ‘god’ as a plural term with a singular verbal form. 5. Textual reconstruction. 6. The purported use of a singular verb with a plural subject. The transliterations and the German translations are from Knudtzon (1915). Where Rainey’s transliterations are available and yield a significantly different reading of the text in relation to the variable under discussion, his transliterations are included. Where available, Moran’s translation in English follows (Moran 1992). Where a translation is available which sheds light on the number of the subject of the verbal form under discussion, this translation is detailed following the verbal form. All citations are presented in each scholar’s original format, details of which are found in the Abbreviations section at the beginning of this study. Where appropriate, examples from Ebeling’s works, to which Izre’el makes no reference, are included in this analysis and are identified with the initial E after the example number. Only the relevant excerpt from a letter is given in each case. A list of the verbal forms appears at the end of the chapter.

THE EVIDENCE 1. Disputed Subject Investigative evidence from scholars of the purported 3mp y- preformative shows that upon re-analysis of the extended text, a modi-

CHAPTER THIRTEEN

175

fication in translation may be necessary. Where the y- preformative for the verbal form is used, a 3mp subject for that verb is no longer necessarily appropriate.

Example 1:1 : EA 124:15 yi-íl-qú-še (14) i-na-na a-di yu-pa-hi-ru ka[-l]i (15) alāni ù yi-il-qu-še hat er jetzt wahrhaftig˘ zusammengebracht al[l]e Städte. Und nimmt er es… Moran 1992:203 He (i.e. Aziru) is now in fact gathering together all the cities in order to take it Izre’el 1987:81 Now he is again gathering all the cities in order to take it (i.e., Byblos) Rainey 1996, II:341 …now he is again mustering al[l] the cities and he will take it From his reading of the extended text, Izre’el finds that the subject of the verb is Aziru. Moran’s translation (1992:203) also reflects this. Rainey transliterates the verbal form as yi-il-qú-šix (ŠE), and lists it as an example of a 3ms y- preformative (Rainey 1996, II:36). From the context, a singular number for the y- preformative is indicated. Izre’el reports that Ebeling analyzes this form as plural in his treatment of the Amarna verbs (Ebeling 1910:46). However, in the glossary (Knudtzon 1915:1451), Ebeling lists this particular form as a masculine singular form. Izre’el suggests that Ebeling ‘changed his mind.’ Izre’el comments that in Ebeling’s analysis of verbal forms under the same heading, laqû, in his glossary, only the West Semitic t- preformative appears in the category 3mp. However, there are three more 3mp y- preformative forms in his Glossary, yiíl-ti-qu (EA 109:17, 19), and yi-íl-ti-qu-šu-nu (EA 90:25) (Knudtzon 1915:1453). This evidence indicates that early scholars considered alternatives for this preformative.

Example 1:2 : EA 124:53 yi-li-ú (yi-le-ú Izre’el’s transliteration) (50) ù a-na (51) [m]i-ni uš-ši-ir šarru ṣâbē [šir]mama (52) [b]i-tati a-na la-qi al[āni] (53) [l]a-a yi-li-ú la-qa[-še-na]

176

DATING ABH POETRY: A CRITIQUE

Und [w]ar-um hat der König gesandt [Šir]ma-Leute der [F]eld(truppen), um [die] Städt[e] zu nehmen? [Nic]ht haben sie vermocht, [sie] zu nehmen. Moran 1992:203 Why has the king ‹not› sent {chari}oteers (and) archers to take the ci{ties}? If he is unable to take [them… Izre’el 1987:81 Why did not the king send širma pdt soldiers to take the city (so that) he (i.e., Aziru) could not take [them]…? Izre’el reads a singular subject, King Aziru, for the verbal form. He finds confirmation in another reference to Aziru, where he is accused of having already captured these cities (EA 124:40) (Izre’el 1987:81). Both Izre’el and Moran agree that the verbal form is 3ms, and this appears in their translations of the extended text. Their differing translations may be explained by the brokenness of the extended text, even though the verbal form is intact. Rainey lists this verbal form under the 3ms present-future theme (Rainey 1996, II:55). From the context, a singular number for the verbal form with the y- preformative is indicated.

Example 1:3 : EA 365:27 yi-la-ku (25) ub-ba-lu awīlī(LÚ.MEŠ) ma-as-sàmeš (26) iš-tu uruia-pu|ki~ (27) yi-la-ku iš-tu šu-[nu] (28) an-ni-ki-ma iš-t[u] (29) |uru~nuri-ib-tá|ki~ Rainey 1970:27 I am furnishing corvée workers. From Yapû they have come, from th[em] (as well as) from here and fro[m] Nurbita Moran 1992:362 I furnish corvée workers. From Yapu they come, and from {my} resources here, (and) from Nuribta Moran 1992:362 …I am furnishing corvée workers. From Yapû they have come, from th[em] (as well as) from here and fro[m] Nurbita Izre’el 1987:83 From Yapû it (i.e., the corvée) comes, from…here and from Nurbita The use of the extended context assists with the determination of the number of the subject. Izre’el notes that Rainey changes

CHAPTER THIRTEEN

177

the number of the verbal form to singular in the second edition of his book. Rainey explains the subject of the verb as a collective singular. Moran notes that the language is quite ambiguous and gives two translations (Moran 1992:365). He states that the verbal form is singular, the subject being massu, corvée, which he regards as a collective. Rainey classifies this verb as a 3ms form (Rainey 1996, II:51). Although LÚ.MEŠ ma-as-sàmeš appears plural in form, it is read here as a collective noun, conjugated with a masculine singular verbal form.

Example 1:4: EA 254:16 yi-ka-lu (16) a-nu-ma yi-ka-lu ka-ar-zi-ia (17) ha-ba-lu-ma ˘ gehandelt Siehe, man verleumdet mich, hat schlect Moran 1992:307 He denounces me unjustly… Izre’el 1987:83 (Look: I am a loyal servant to the king, and I have not committed any crime, I have not sinned, and I have not refused [to pay] my tax, and I have not refused the demands of my commissioner.) Yet he is harmfully denouncing me Izre’el finds that this particular construction is not an impersonal subject, as Knudtzon’s translation indicates. From his reading of the extended text, Izre’el concludes that an actual subject for this verb is identifiable. Lab’aya is complaining and accusing his commissioner in front of the Pharaoh (Izre’el 1987:83). Moran agrees with Izre’el’s use of the singular in this context (Moran 1992:307n2). Ebeling lists this verbal form as 3mp, and translates it as ‘they slander me.’ (Ebeling 1910:51) Rainey classifies this verbal form as a 3ms (Rainey 1996, II:51) and translates it with a change of subject: ‘Now I am being slandered in a harmful way.’ (Rainey 1996, III:6) From the context, a singular number for the verbal form with the y- preformative is indicated.

Example 1:5E: EA 126:19 yu-ša-ru (18) ù pa-na-nu (19) a-na amêlua-bu-ti-ia yu-ša-ru (20) iš-tu êkallāti kaspē (21) ù mi-im-mu a-na ba-la-ti-šu (!) (22) ù yu-širu be-li ṣâbē (23) a-na ša-a-šu-nu

178

DATING ABH POETRY: A CRITIQUE

Früher aber wurde zu meinen Vätern gesandt vom großen Hof Silber und alles mögliche für sein (ihr) Leben und es sandte mein Herr auch Krieger zu ihnen. Moran 1992:205 Previously, money and anything for the‹ir› provisions were sent from the palace to my ancestors, and my lord would send troops to them. Rainey 1996, II:179 But formerly to my ancestors there were being sent money and material for the‹ir› sustenance… and, Rainey 1996, II:163 and formerly…and my lord was sending troops to them. This additional translation completes the passage. Knudtzon’s translation indicates a singular verb, the subject being the king who is doing the sending. Moran’s translation suggests a passive plural sense of the verb, by transposing the object of the verb, the silver and the provisions, to the subject of the verb. Rainey reads the Dp form of the verb. Izre’el discusses the point that the use of the D form of the verb with its u vowel in the preformative is often a true marker of a passive (Izre’el 1987:86). However, this particular verb, wašāru, uses the D form to convey the meaning, ‘to send’, while in the G form it means ‘to sink down’ or ‘lower’. This may not be a definitive argument however, as the 3ms passive Canaanite form of this verb presents a problem. We suggest that Moran and Rainey are providing a freer translation of the text which does not definitively indicate the number of the verb. The literal translation could read, ‘and previously to my ancestors silver was sent from the palace, and anything for his (their) sustenance,’ or ‘and previously there was sent silver from the palace to my ancestors, and anything for his (their) sustenance.’ Thus, in this instance, a singular impersonal subject is the preferred option.

Example 1:6E: EA 126:40 yu-ša-r[u ] (40) ṣâbē la-a yu-ša-r[u ] (41) ù amêlumâr ši-ip-r[i-ia] (42) la-a tu-ša-zu-na (Aber) Krieger werd[en] nicht gesandt und [meinen] Bote[n] laßt du nicht ausziehen

CHAPTER THIRTEEN

179

Moran 1992:206 …but troops are not sen{t}, and {my} messenger you do not allow to come out Rainey indicates that the verb is transliterated as yu-ša-[ru], ‘the army is not being sent…’ (Rainey 1996, II:243) The verbal form is a 3ms with the object of the verb preceding the verb as it does for the following clause. Thus the section could be translated literally, ‘troops not he sent and my messenger not you allow to come out,’ that is, ‘he did not send troops and you did not allow my messenger to come out.’ Rainey presents an alternative option in his translation where the singular subject ‘army’ is given as a collective noun for s. âbē (the plural marker MEŠ sign appears in the cuneiform), in order to agree with the singular form of the verb. The possibility of the use of certain nouns in these texts being used as plurals or collectives, with implications for the use of plural or singular verbs, is recognised, but there are few instances where this seems to present a difficulty, as is seen below.96

Example 1:7E: EA 83:43 yi-ma-qu-ta (43) ú-ul yi-ma-qu-ta ṣâbē ka-ra[-š]i (44) muhhi-ia ˘˘ Laß nicht Leute des Verderb[e]ns herfallen über mich! Moran 1992:153 May the troops on the campaign not fall upon me Youngblood 1961:241 may the bivouac[ck]ing force not attack me! Rainey 1996:II:56 Let not an expeditionary force fall on me This is the second instance of s. âbē with the plural marker. Rainey analyses yi-ma-qú-ta as a 3ms verbal form (Rainey 1996, II:56), considering it to be the subject of a masculine singular verb. It is noted that the ERIN.MEŠ has a modifier, ka-ra[-š]i, ‘of the military camp,’ and this is significant in determining the number of the verbal form. Youngblood’s translation supports a singular number for this verbal form. From the context, a singular number for the y- preformative is indicated. 96

See also the reference to amêluGaz.Meš in example 1:10E

180

DATING ABH POETRY: A CRITIQUE

Example 1:8E : EA 249:7 yi-h a-ba-lu(!)

˘ (5) u lí-di i-nu-ma te-la-ku-na(!) - - ia-tú 1mi[-il-ki-lí] (6) mi-na ip-ša-te a-na 1mi-il-ki-lí (7) i-nu-ma yi-ha-ba-lu(!) amêlūti-ia ˘ (8) muhhi ardūti-šu ˘ Und er˘ möge wissen daß gekommen sind die - - - des Mi[lkilu]! Was habe ich getan dem Milkilu daß er meine Leute - - - gegen seine Diener? Moran 1992:302 May he know that my m{en} are doing service in the day{s} of Mi{lkilu}. What have I done to Milkilu that he should treat my own men (even) more unjustly that his own servants? Knudtzon does not translate this verbal form. Moran indicates that Milkilu is the singular subject of the verb. From the context, a singular number for the y- preformative is indicated.

Example 1:9E : EA 109:19 yi-íl-ti-qu [ù šum]-ma mu-ša yi-iš-mu ù (19) [mu-š]a yi-íl-ti-qu šu-nu kina-[na] (20) [ka-w]i a-na-ku i-na libbibi-ia [Auch we]nn er (es) in einer Nacht gehört hätte, so hätten sie [in einer Nach]t genommen. Unter solchen Umständen [brennt] es in meinem Herzen Moran 1992:183 {And i}f he gives heed for a night, {in (that) n}ight he will take them. Accordingly, I am {fi}rm in my resolve Rainey includes this particular verbal form in his comment as a 3ms form (Rainey 1996, II:54). In this context, Moran keeps the continuity of the masculine singular subject, which appears appropriate.

Example 1:10E : EA 81:31 yi-ma-qu-ta (30) ù - - - (31) [amêla-ka] ú-ul yi-ma-qu-ta [a-na] (32) [muh hi˘˘ ]ia ù yi-íl-qa-ni b[alt.a a-na] (33) [ê]kalli s[o sende] [dienen Mann,] damit sie nicht herfallen [über] mich, und er nehme mich le[bendig nach] [dem H]of! Moran 1992:151 May he not fall {upon} my {city} and take me. I h{ave written to the pal}ace

CHAPTER THIRTEEN

181

Youngblood 1961:215 (that) he may not attack me and that he may take me a[live to the pa]lace Depending upon the restoration of the text, the context could have the subject of the verb as ‘Abdi-Aširta or the s. âbē bi-ta-ti. There is a preference for the former, and this is reflected in Moran’s and Youngblood’s translations. 2. Two apparent persons for the subject

Example 2:1 : EA 197:34 yu-h a -li-qú

˘ (32) u an-nu-ú (33) 1ar-za-wi-ia qa-du 1bi-ri-da-aš-wa (34) yuha-li-qu mâtua-bi ˘ …und siehe, Arzawija nebst Biridašwa haben Abi zugrunde gerichtet Moran 1992:275 …and since Arsawuya along with Biridašwa is causing the loss of Apu… Izre’el 1987:81 …and now, Arsawija with Piridašwa is destroying the land of Api Rainey 1975:418 …and now, Arsawiya with Piridaša is destroying the land of Api Rainey 1996, II:150 …and lo, Arzawuya, with Biridashwa, is causing the loss of the land of Api Böhl notes this form as 3mp (Böhl 1909:50n1) as do Ebeling (Ebeling 1915a:1413) and Knudtzon (Knudtzon 1915:727). They interpret this form as having two persons for the subject. Rainey explains that this verb agrees with the singular subject, Arsawiya, which is the first name mentioned (Rainey 1975:418n209), otherwise we would expect the ending of this indicative verb to be -ūna. Izre’el’s reading of the text implies that the second person mentioned is connected to Arsawiya by the preposition qadu, ‘with.’ Moran’s translation agrees with this (Moran 1992:275). Izre’el cites examples of similar constructions: EA 337:15–17, EA 189: Rev 1– 3, 21–23, where the subject is linked with another noun by the use of the preposition qadu. Moran’s translations of the forms listed

182

DATING ABH POETRY: A CRITIQUE

below indicate a masculine singular subject with a 3ms verbal form. The first example uses a Canaanized verbal form and the latter two use Akkadian forms. EA 337:15–17: (15) ú yi-ta-ṣa (16) 1šarru bêli-ia qa-du (17)ummâni-šu …daß ausziehe der König, mein Herr, nebst seinem Heer Moran 1992:358 …and may the king my lord, come forth with his large army EA 189: Rev 1–3: (1) [- - - d]u šu[m-ma] (2) [n]am-ia-wa-za ki-na-an-n[a] (3) urru-du-ka a-na-ku qa[- d]u[-m]e (4) gab-bi ahē-ia ˘ (1) - - - (2) [N]amiawaza. Auf diese Wei[se] diene ich dir ne[b]st allen meinen Brüdern Moran 1992:270 …Biryawaza. Thus do I serve you along w[it]h all my brothers EA 189: Rev 21–23: (21) ù ur-ru-du-me (22) šarra bêli-ia qa-du (23) gab-bi ahē-ia Und ich diene dem König, meinem Herrn, nebst allen ˘meinen Brüdern Moran 1992:270 …for I serve the king, my lord, together with all my brothers

Example 2:2 : EA 140:31 yi-pu-šu (30) ša-ni-tú la- (31) a yi-pu-šu šàr mâtuha-at-ta (32) ù šàr mâtuna˘ ri-ma (33) ù Ferner: nicht mögen tun der König von Hatta und der König ˘ von Narima und… Moran 1992:226 Moreover, is not the king of Hatta active, and the king of ˘ Narima and… Izre’el 1987:82 Further: The king of the land of Hatta and the king of the ˘ land of Nârīma and…do not make… The evidence for this text is incomplete as this is the end of the tablet as we have it. Moran assumes that the remainder is on a second tablet (Moran 1992:227). The hypothesized subjects, possibly three or more, would be joined by the conjunction u. As does Tropper (2000:887), Izre’el argues that instances where a 3ms verb precedes more than one subject and agrees with the first one, are

CHAPTER THIRTEEN

183

not rare in West Semitic, and that this is also a well-recognized feature in Hebrew grammar (Izre’el 1987:82). Izre’el suggests that this is the case here. Rainey makes no comment on this specific verbal form. This is an appropriate use of the singular verbal form where the compound subject is a co-ordination of several nouns with different referents. 3. Use of the singular impersonal subject Extended contextual evidence indicates a singular impersonal subject conjugated with a 3ms verbal form with a y- preformative. There are indications of a passive form which entails reading a yupreformative rather than a yi- preformative.

Example 3:1: EA 137:62 yi-ṣa-ba-tu-ši (62) šumma yi-ṣa-ba-tu-ši (63) šarru be-li ki-ma yi-pu-šu ana ardi-šu (64) yi-pu-uš Wenn man sie erobert, so möge der König, mein Herr, wie er tun, seinem Diener tun! Moran 1992:218–219 If the king my lord seizes it, let him do to his servant as he will Izre’el 1987:82 If one conquers it, so may the king my lord, do to his servant as he will do Ebeling specifies this verbal form as 3mp (Ebeling 1910:46). Knudtzon uses the singular impersonal form, ‘If one conquers it,’ which could also be read: ‘If they (the people, understood) conquer it’ in an English translation. However, Izre’el states that the rule is that the 3ms with a y- preformative denotes the impersonal. By contrast, Moran’s 1992 translation determines the subject to be the king, the Pharaoh, and assigns the subject’s identity to the protasis rather than to the apodosis. Izre’el also suggests that RibHaddi’s brother may be the subject of the verb in question (Izre’el 1987:82). Moran asserts that this verbal form is always interpreted to be plural, ‘if they take it…’ However he notes that the plural throughout this letter has the t- preformative and cites seven instances of this. He finds that when šarru and/or bēlī function as the subject of

184

DATING ABH POETRY: A CRITIQUE

the verb, they always appear directly after the verb (Moran 1992:220n2). He cites thirteen texts where he sees this occurring, with only two exceptions. Rainey lists this verbal form as a 3ms with a preterite theme, with reference to Moran (1992:220n12) and Izre’el (1987:81–82) (Rainey 1996, II:59). From the context, a singular number for the y- preformative is indicated.

Example 3:2 : EA 116:8 yi-qa-bu-na (8) i-nu-ma yi-qa-bu-na i-na (9) [pa]-ni-ka Wenn man sagt vor dir… Moran 1992:191 As to its being told to you… Izre’el 1987:85 When it is said in your presence… In his 1950 dissertation, Moran analysed this form as a plural impersonal form (Moran in Huehnergard and Izre’el 2003:63). However, after further analysis, Moran interprets the form as a 3ms impersonal form with a y- preformative (as above). The ‘it’ refers to the message, ‘Ṣumur belongs to the king.’ Izre’el indicates that Moran thought that he had uncovered an exception to the 3ms rule for verbs denoting the impersonal form, two with the t- preformative and one with a y- preformative, which meant that the 3mp had at least one instance of a y- preformative. However this is not the case. Izre’el also reads an initial yu- syllable instead of the yi- syllable for the PI sign (which may be read with either vowel), thus indicating that this is an actual passive form (Izre’el 1987:86). Rainey lists this form as a 3mp with a present-future theme, along with yi-qa-bu in EA 124:17 and in 131:41 (Rainey 1996, II:58). Comment on these latter two examples appears below. Izre’el disagrees with Rainey in all three cases. From the context, a singular number for the y- preformative is indicated.

Example 3:3 : EA 131:41 yi-qa-bu (41) i-nu-ma yi-qa-bu a-na [pa-ni] (42) šarri Wenn man sagt v[or] dem König

CHAPTER THIRTEEN

185

Moran 1992:213 As to its being said before the king… Izre’el 1987:85 When it is said in the presence of the king… Rainey 1996, III:109 If they say be[fore] the king Moran adds a note to this verbal form which indicates that he is following Izre’el’s latter suggestion of reading the PI sign as yu-. Rainey lists this form as a 3mp with a present-future theme, and makes no further reference as to why this breaks the usual plural tprefix form pattern for a 3mp Canaanite preformative (Rainey 1996, II:58). From the context, a singular number for the y- preformative is indicated.

Example 3:4: EA 124:17 yi-qa-bu (16) al-[lu-ú] (17) ki-a-ma yi-qa-bu Wir[klich] sagt man so Moran 1992:191 Loo{k}, he now speaks as follows Izre’el 1987:85 Is it not that it is being thus said? This is another instance where Izre’el reads the preformative with a u vowel, not the usual i vowel, and thus as a passive form. Rainey lists this verbal form as a 3mp verb as in the previous examples (Rainey 1996, II:58). From the context, a singular number for the y- preformative is indicated.

Example 3:5E : EA 227:10 yi-ša-ma (8) u e-nu-ma iš-te-me a-wa-te meš-ka (9) an-nu-tú u a-zi-ti ilu šamaš ili-[i]a u - - (10) u ki yi-ša-ma \\ mu-ti am-ri - (11) u el-la-ti-ia ia-ṣa-at ša-li – Und als ich hörte diese deine --- Worte, da ging ich hinaus, o Sonne, [me]in Gott, und - - - und wie ich hörte: muti amri - - da brach mein Jubel aus - - -

186

DATING ABH POETRY: A CRITIQUE

Moran 1992:289 And when I heard these words of yours and of the coming forth of the Sun to m{e}, I rejoiced accordingly. I pond{ered} (the news), and my jubilation came forth Rainey (1996, II:120) has a variant transliteration of the text. (8) u i12-nu-ma iš-te-me a-wa-ti7 meš-ka (9) an-tu-ta5 u a-ṣí TI dUTU ána (AN) ia-ši (10) u ki yi-ša-ma ah!-dì-am ri[-iš-ta ] 5 ˘ (11) u il5-la ti-ya ia-ṣa-at ša-li -|mu~(?) Rainey 1996, II:120 …and when I heard these words of yours and the coming the life force of the sun god to me, I rejoiced joy[fully(?)] and exaltation sprang forth altogether Moran indicates that to translate this verbal form from Knudtzon’s transliteration as ‘when it (the message?) was heard,’ introduces a repetition that is hard to explain. He suggests a realignment of signs which removes this problem,97 and substitutes the adverb ‘accordingly.’ (Moran 1992:289n3) As this emendation is not critical to the context of the verbal form, the data from this example is retained. Rainey indicates that this verbal form is passive, with the translation rendered, ‘and when it was heard.’ In order to avoid the repetition in his translation, Rainey omits the clause containing the verbal form in question (Rainey 1996, II:60). This clause appears to be redundant and is therefore omitted in the translation. We have included this verbal form as a 3ms with an impersonal subject.

Example 3:6E : EA 117:68 yu-ú-ul-qu-na (67) ka-li (68) mi-im-me ša-a yu-ú-ul-qu-na (69) eš-tu ša-a-šunu a-na šarri ú-ul (70) yi-íl-qi-šu amêlu ša-nu a-na ša-šu Alles, was immer genommen wird von ihnen für den König, möge nicht ein anderer Mann an sich nehmen! Moran 1992:194 Everything that is taken from them belongs to the king. Let no one else take it for himself. 97 Moran suggests ki-ia -ša-ma is an archaism and translates it ‘accord8 ingly/appropriately.’ He may have reconstructed the form thus: kiam+šu >kiaššu+ama.

CHAPTER THIRTEEN

187

Rainey reads this in the context of a subordinate clause giving the translation: ‘all the property that was taken from them belongs to the king; let not another man take it for himself.’ (Rainey 1996, II:244) The subject of the verb, mimma, is translated as a singular collective noun, with the -na ending on the verb as an emphatic ending. This maintains the continuity with the object of the verb, yi-ílqi-šu, in line 70. 4. Use of the form of ‘god’ in the plural with a singular verb

Example 4:1 : EA 245:3 yi-pu-šu-mi (3) šum-ma-mi yi-pu-šu-mi (4) ilānunu ša šarriri bêli-nu (5) ù ni-ik-šu-du-um-mi (6) 1la-ab-a-ia …wenn es dazu kommen lassen die Götter des Königs, unseres Herrn daß wir habhaft warden des Labaia Moran 1992:299 …if the god of the king brings it about that we overcome Lab’ayu Izre’el 1987:82 If the god of the king, our lord, will do…, then we shall in deed capture Lab’aya Rainey 1996, II:241 If the deity of the king, our lord, grants that we catch Lab’ayu The subject of the verb appears plural, DINGIR.MEŠ-nu >ilānū. Ebeling specified this verbal form as 3mp (Ebeling 1910:46). Izre’el finds a parallel construction in Ugaritic, in RS 20:33:30–32. The form is literally plural, yet the subject is treated as a singular noun, as is also the case in EA 96:4–6 and EA 97:3 in blessing formulae. Izre’el relates this to the use of ‫ֹלהים‬ ִ ‫ ֱא‬in the Hebrew Bible (Izre’el 1987:83). Rainey examines this subject of the verbal form in the following manner. He finds that all the examples of plural forms from ilu are written logographically as DINGIR.MEŠ. Those that have a phonetic complement are all in the ilānū pattern. There are three circumstances in which this form may be used: as a plural subject of a 3mp verb; as the subject of a 3ms verb with the impression that the plural of the substantive is conceived of as a kind of abstract, yet without the -ūt suffix; or as a divine plurality, usually identified with the Pharaoh or maybe the Egyptian deity Amon.

188

DATING ABH POETRY: A CRITIQUE

This latter use may denote ‘plural of majesty’ or excellence. Rainey also makes reference to the parallel form in Biblical Hebrew (Rainey 1996, II:147–148). 5. Textual Reconstruction The examples below are from reconstructed text. Scholars have used these examples for evidence to support their arguments regarding the number of the verbal form. Even though great care is taken and great skill is exercised by scholars with considerable knowledge of the corpus to unravel, within reasonable limits, the textual possibilities for reconstructions and to supply their textual evidence and argument for their selections, we find it an unsatisfactory basis for this argument. There are three aspects of reconstructed text which are relevant to this study. They are the reconstructed third person preformative as in EA 77:20, EA 109:7 and EA 281:24; the reconstructed third person preformative and other signs for the verbal form in EA 121:48, EA 239:27 and EA 90:25; and the reconstructed parts of the context of the verbal form which are significant for determining the number of the verb. Examples include EA 74:57, EA 109:17, EA 120:24, EA 77:20 and EA 281:24. The texts in EA 77:20 and EA 281:24 present both reconstructed verbal forms and reconstructed contexts. The items included under this heading are based on a significant degree of conjecture. This renders them unsuitable for use as the basis for theory development. They are noted as they indicate the process through which reconstruction occurs, and the reasoning which takes place as the verbal form is analyzed.

Example 5:1E : EA 77:20 [yi-]na-mu- ša (18) - - a-na mi[-ni qa-]la-ta (19) - - up-ri - - ša (20) [yi-]namu-ša - - mâtāti - - - wa[r]um hast du [dich zurü]ckgehalten? - - - Staub - - [we]ichen - - - der Länder Moran 1992:147 Wh{y have you been neg}ligent?…who {m}oves {agains}t the country Youngblood 1961:181

CHAPTER THIRTEEN

189

Wh[y] dost thou [remain si[lent? [ ] [A]l‹l of› the lands [are in f]erment Due to the brokenness of the text, it is difficult to ascertain a helpful context for the missing preformative. Both lateral edges of the tablet are missing (Winckler and Abel 1889:85). Youngblood reconstructs the verbal form as [ti]-na-mu-ša, explaining that he has restored it to correspond more closely to the Canaanite ideal of the 3fp. However, as Rainey finds no documented verb forms in Canaanized texts for the 3fp (Rainey 1996, II:34), this construction would be the only example, and therefore must be considered unlikely, even improbable.

Example 5:2: EA 109:7 [y]i-na-mu-šu-n[a] This example has been placed in category 6 (example 6:1) due to its significance for Izre’el’s argument.

Example 5:3 : EA 281:24 [y]i-pu-šu (23) [me-i]a-mi (24) [y]i-pu-šu - - - a-[n]a 1šarri (25) ù Ur [ - - a]n-nu-tu (26) ù u[p-p]u-[š]u - - a-na šarri Wa]s tun - - dem König u[nd d]iese Hu[nde]? Es [wird] do[c]h - - dem König get[a]n’ Moran 1992:322 {Th}ese fellows are d{ogs}, and so they have com{mit}ted {a crime} against the king Considering the brokenness of the text across lines 24 and 25 (Winckler and Abel 1889:100), we find it difficult to base a reading on the restored text, even though scholars have taken great care, with considerable knowledge of the corpus, to reason out within acceptable limits, the textual possibilities. Izre’el argues for a reconstruction of the syntax of the text which gives an alternative reading of a singular subject for the verb (Izre’el 1987:84). Izre’el argues that, even if Knudtzon’s restoration to line 24 proves valid, the meaning of mīya should not be ‘what’ but ‘who’, so that this must be the subject of the verb. Hence the agreement should be with the singular, as is demanded by the form of the verb. Izre’el considers that line 25 should be connected to the following line, starting a new sentence (Izre’el 1987:84) but he does not give a translation for this passage. Rainey (1996) does not make reference to this particular verbal form.

190

DATING ABH POETRY: A CRITIQUE

Example 5:4: EA 121:48 y[i-na-ṣa-ru] (47) ù yu-wa-ši-r[a] (48) ṣâbē bi-ta-ti y[i-na-s. a-ru] (49) mât šar rir[i] a-n[a] šarrir[i] und sende Feldtruppen, (welche) s[chützen] das Land des Königs für den König! Moran 1992:200 (Now, may the king [heed] the words of {his} serva[nt]) and send archers to ‹t›a{ke} the land of the king for the king,… Izre’el finds Knudtzon’s restoration is a probability (Izre’el 1987:84). Moran reconstructs the verb as ‹ti›-e{l-qé}from the root leqû, ‘to take’, and not nas. āru, which usually means ‘to guard or protect.’ He justifies this position by citing the use of this verb with ṣâbē bitati in similar passages including the following, for which we have given Knudtzon’s transliterations. They are presented below in order of the least reconstructed to the most reconstructed forms. EA 107:30: bi-ta-ti ù ti-íl-ki-šu EA 94:11: ṣâb[ē] bi-ta-ti ù ti-el-ku EA 123 (41) …ṣâbē] (42) bi-ta-ti [ù ti-il-ku- (43) š]u-nu EA 91:38: [bi-ta-ti ù t]i-íl-ki EA 91:45: [— ti]-íl-ki Moran 1992:201n3, 164n10 EA 90:61: --- ki mat--- {ù ti}-|el ~ -qé KUR {a-mur-ri} We note the extent to which reconstruction has occurred not only of the verbal form used but also of the preformative selected. Moran favours a 3mp prefix conjugation verb with a t- preformative as is evident in these reconstructions and in the first two citations that are not reconstructed. However, as the subject of the verb is ERÍN.MEŠ bí-ta-ti (line 48), it is impossible to draw any solid conclusions concerning the agreement of this verb. It can be a plural verb, a feminine singular (as a collective), or a masculine singular verb (as a collective). In our case, we may assume a masculine singular verb (ending in -a or -ø for the volitive), as is attested, for example, in EA 77:27 (Izre’el 1987:84). EA 77:27: yu-ṣa-na (26) šum-ma šanāti a[n-n]i-ta ú-ul (27) yu-ṣa-na ṣâbē [bi-t]a-ti Wenn in d[ie]sem Jahre nicht ausziehen [Fe]ldtruppen… Moran 1992:148 If t[hi]s year no [ar]chers come out…

CHAPTER THIRTEEN

191

Example 5:5 : EA 239:27 [y]i-iq[-bu This verbal form comes under two categories in this analysis, as an impersonal form and as presenting difficulties with broken text. (23) [i]-nu-ma (24) li-im-ni (25) ardūti-ka (26) i-na pa-ni-k[a] [y]i-iq[-bu] Denn Böses deine Diener [hat man] vor d[ir] gesproch[en] Moran 1992:295 …may the magnate come forth and know our crime {f}or in yo{ur}presence he has been speak{ing } evil of your servants. Moran adds a note to this translation. He affirms that the form {y}i-iq-{bu} is singular, and cites Izre’el’s article (1987) which is under discussion here (Moran 1992:296n2). Moran suggests that if the text were to be reconstructed to {y}i-iq-{bi}, then the translation would be ‘he has spoken,’ retaining its singular number. Böhl also analyzes this form as singular (Böhl 1909:50n1), which Izre’el notes is in agreement with his interpretation of impersonal verbs beginning with a y- preformative as 3ms forms. Knudtzon translates this verbal form as an impersonal 3ms verb. Izre’el’s translation, using the extended text, is as follows: ‘And let the officer go out so that he may know our crime, since bad (things) are being told about your servants in your presence.’ Izre’el indicates that of the various ways of translating the impersonal verb, this is one. Izre’el gives a possible alternative translation of the sentence using the officer as the subject of the verb, rather than an impersonal subject (Izre’el 1987:84). However, the verb remains singular in number. From an examination of the reproduction of the cuneiform (Winckler and Abel 1889:139), the only sign that is sufficiently visible for transliteration of that verbal form is the final iq. It appears that Izre’el has difficulty only with the CAD entry which indicates a plural subject (CAD L 1973:125). Considering all the above evidence, and the various ways an impersonal verb can be translated from one language to another, it may be argued that the CAD translation could be considered as one of these. The impersonal verb may be translated in English as ‘one says,’ ‘people say’ or ‘they say.’ Other options are to translate the verb into the passive, as Izre’el does, or to translate it as ‘he has been speaking…’ as Moran has. Rainey makes no comment on this verbal form.

192

DATING ABH POETRY: A CRITIQUE

Example 5:6E: EA 90:25 [y]i-í[l]-ti-qu-šu-nu (23) at-ta (24) [qa-]la-ta a-na alāni-ka i-nu-ma (25) [yi-]í[l]-tiqu-šu-nu amêluGaz.Meš Du hast dich [zurückg]ehalten deinen Städten gegenüber, wenn die Gaz-Leute sie [n]e[h]men Moran 1992:163 You yourself have been {neg}ligent of your cities so that the ‘Apiru {dog} takes them Rainey 1996:58 You (yourself) [ne]glected your towns when the ‘Apiru men took them Youngblood 1961:341 As for thee, thou [art si]lent with reference to thy ci[t]ies, so that the ‘Apiru [have ta]ken them [ ] The restored text with a yi- preformative is retained following Knudtzon’s transliteration. Knudtzon could have used the word Volk had he wished to convey a collective meaning to the word ‘people’, but he did not. Youngblood considers that the ti- preformative is more plausible here than Knudtzon’s [yi-], and gives a plural rendering of the verbal form (Youngblood 1961:345). Winckler and Abel’s reference work (Winckler and Abel 1889:60) gives no evidence for the necessity for the yi- prefix, and so it is assumed that Knudtzon was of the belief that the two Canaanite preformatives were interchangeable, but that probably the yi- preformative which paralleled the Hebrew with which researchers of his era were familiar, was the preferred preformative for the 3mp. This then raises the issue as to why later researchers retained this transliteration. It also raises the issue of the form of the 3mp West Semitic sufformatives in the context of the prefix conjugation.

Example 5:7E : EA 74:57 yi-da-ga[l-lu] (Ebeling’s transliteration is yi-da-[gal-lu].) (56) a-di b[êlt]i-nu (57) ilāni-nu a[-s. a-ú-nim-mi] ù yi-da-ga[l-lu] (58) [māta]-šu ù [šarruru li-im]-lik a-na māt[i- šu] …bis unsere H[erri]n (und) unsere Götter au[sziehen u]nd besi chti[gen] sein [Lan]d. Un[d der König möge so]rgen für [sein] Lan[d!] Moran 1992:143

CHAPTER THIRTEEN

193

…along with our L{ady} (and) our gods, f{or you}. May {the king} vis{it} his {land} and {his servant}. {May he} give thought to his land Rainey 1996, II:258 …with our Lady, our deity, fo[r you] and so that [the king] may see his [land] and [his city] Youngblood has an alternative reconstruction of the text: a-di [I]N-nu DINGIRMEŠ -nu a-[ ] ù yi-da-ga[l LUGAL] [KUR]-šu ù [LUGALru yi-im]-lik a-na K[UR-šu] : ‘until our L[ad]y (and) our gods [ ]. So let the king surve[y] his [land], and [let the king ca]re for [his] l[and]!’ (Youngblood 1961:124, 128) The extended context provides evidence for a masculine singular subject, the king, for this singular verbal form. The later reconstructions of the damaged tablet are in accord with this reading of the verb. Knudtzon’s insertion of und implies a plural subject rather than two nouns in apposition. Here we have an example of ilāni-nu being misunderstood as a plural noun, where it is a singular noun in apposition to the singular noun for the subject. This is a section of text has significant reconstructions due to the brokenness of the tablet.

Example 5:8E: EA 109:17 yi-íl-ti-qu (15) [aluul-l]a-za la-ku a-na-ku aq-bu (16) [- û]mē yi-iš-mu šarruru (17) [- û]mē yi-íl-ti-qu-šu-nu [Ull]aza haben sie genommen. Ich sprach (dann): [ In (einigen) Ta]gen hörte (es) der König; [in (einigen) Ta]gen nahmen sie Moran 1992:183 [And so] they have taken {Ull}assa. For my part, I keep saying, {If} the king gives heed for a {d}ay, in (that) day the king will take them Moran inserts ‘the king’ as the subject for this verb, continuing the theme from the previous verb. Considering the brokenness of the text and the sense that can be ascertained, this seems probable. Rainey’s analysis of this verb agrees with Moran’s (Rainey 1996, II:54).

Example 5:9E : EA 120:24 yi-t[u]-ra-an-š[i] (23) ia-nu [i]-na pa-nu-[t]e Ur- ši-[n]a (24) _-te-[n]i yi-t[u]-rana-š[i] (25) ù li-[g]a zi[ka]rē

194

DATING ABH POETRY: A CRITIQUE

der[e]n…[a]n der Vorderdei[t]e fehlt, _ die…mögen zu uns z[urüc]kkehren; ni[mm] aber die m[ä]nnlichen. Presumably the tablet consists of a list of stolen goods. Moran and Rainey offer no translation or comment on this particular verbal form. 6. Singular verb with a plural subject The implications of textual reconstructions and the possibility of scribal variations are a significant consideration in this set of examples.

Example 6:1: EA 109:7 [y]i-na-mu-šu-n[a] (7) ù la-a [y]i-na-mu-šu-n[a] (8) [a-]bu-tu-ka iš-tu a-[b]u-[tu-ia] [u]nd nicht wichen deine [V]äter von [mei]n[en] V[ä]te[rn] Moran 1992:183 …your ancestors did not deser{t my} ancestors Izre’el 1987:86 and your forefathers did not defect my forefathers (sic!) Izre’el analyzes this verbal form as a possible 3ms based on the principle of the verbal form preceding its subject. He finds evidence of this phenomenon in both Hebrew and other West Semitic languages (Izre’el 1987:86). However, as this is the only section of the data where this argument is used, it needs to be regarded with caution. A comparison of Winckler and Abel’s representation of the tablet (Winckler and Abel 1889:59) and Schroeder’s representation of the tablet (Schroeder 1915, reprinted 1973:71) shows a difference in the reading of this sign for the preformative missing at the intersection of two broken pieces of the tablet. Rainey argues that the subject is masculine plural and there is no apparent reason for a singular energic (with -una). Rainey amends Moran’s reconstruction of [ÌR-ka] at the end of line 33 (Moran 1992:187) to [ÌR.MEŠ-ka]. Rainey allows that Moran may be right, eliminating one of the anomalous forms. Rainey conjectures that the scribe may have changed his mind in mid-stream, and switched from singular to plural in his thinking, thus providing a singular form with a plural ending, producing a hapax (Rainey 1996, II:44). As the form stands, the verb namāšu has a y- preformative with a masculine plural sufformative. There are several possibilities. The

CHAPTER THIRTEEN

195

form is the result of a plural subject with a scribal error in the preformative, or the form has the correct use of the y- preformative from the proto-Semitic period. There is also the possibility that the subject could be understood as a singular abstract noun with an -ut ending, rendering a translation ‘ancestry.’ This would then take a singular verbal form, rendering the y- preformative correct and the sufformative incorrect. A definite conclusion is not possible.

Example 6:2 : EA 113:34 yi-na-mu-šu (32) ya-di-en ilušamaš baš[ta] (33) i-na pa-ni-ka ù šu-up-ši-i[h mâta] (34) ù la-a yi-na-mu-šu* (35) iš-tu mu-hi-ka (At the aster-˘ ˘ isk Knudtzon indicates that some text could follow in the remaining space on this line.) Es gebe die Sonne Kraftfülle vor dir, und verschaffe du [dem Land] Ru[he]! Dann warden sie nicht weichen* von deiner Seite (At the asterisk Knudtzon indicates that some text could follow in the remaining space on this line.) Moran 1992:187 May the Sun establish {my} honour in your presence so that you bring peace to {your servant}* and then he will never leave your side Izre’el 1987:86 May the sun-god grant you dignity, and calm the country, and (= so that) they (it?) will not desert you In the space marked with an asterisk Moran inserts, ‘your servant’, thereby supplying a masculine singular subject for the verb. Both Izre’el and Knudtzon use the restoration, ‘lands,’ based on evidence from three Byblos texts.98 Izre’el has difficulty with the number of this verb, acknowledging that he could interpret this verbal form as a 3ms to agree with māta (KUR) had he proof that it was a masculine noun in this letter. He finds that mātu is always feminine in Byblos even though it is found to be masculine in Amurru Akkadian (Izre’el 1987:86, 86n48). Izre’el considers Moran’s solution to be most unlikely. He argues: ‘In a purpose 98

EA 112:39, EA 118:44 and EA 132:59

196

DATING ABH POETRY: A CRITIQUE

clause following a volitive verb and an imperative, we would expect another volitive verb to appear. Such an interpretation of yi-na-mušu is possible only if we analyse it as a plural verb.’ (Izre’el 1987:86– 87) Rainey agrees on this point of verbal congruence (Rainey 1996, II:44). As the case is based on a reconstruction at the end of line 33 and a possible insertion at the end of line 34, it is difficult to sustain an argument that this is an exception to the rule. In this category, Izre’el finds two verbal forms with a y- preformative which are difficult but not impossible to interpret as singular verbs. Izre’el suggests that the verbs are from the root namāšu, a verb which may prove to be important for the future resolution of the problem. No other scholars have indicated a difficulty with this verb. In EA 109, in lines 25 and 35, Izre’el notes there are two 3mp verbal forms which have the t- preformative and therefore it is difficult to accept the y- preformative for another 3mp form in the same text. Further research may provide a sound explanation for these forms.

Example 6:3 : EA 108:20 yu-qa-bu (20) i-na-na yu-qa-bu a-wa-tu (21) ša-ru-tu i-na pa-ni šarriri ilušamši Jetzt werden feindliche Worte gesprochen vor dem König, der Sonne Moran 1992:181 False words are now being spoken in the presence of the king, the Sun Rainey 1996, I:159 Now treasonous words are being spoken before the king Rainey 1996, I:130 Now (a) lying word(s) is/are being spoken before the king Rainey presents this example as a genuine use of the 3ms verbal form with a 3mp subject (Rainey 1996, II:78). His former translation acknowledges this use and his latter translation indicates that a problem may exist. He highlights this fact with an exclamation mark. In his 1992 publication Moran uses the plural subject without any comment. Izre’el does not present this form in his collection. As the adjective is plural, and this is commonly an indicator of the number of the noun, it usually follows that the subject is plural. However, Huehnergard indicates that if the noun ‘words’ is to be

CHAPTER THIRTEEN

197

taken as a collective, ‘matter’, then it may be construed with either a singular or plural modifier (Huehnergard 1997:10). Summary of the Data Thirty-one verbal forms with a y- preformative, each of which has been analyzed as 3mp by at least one significant Amarna-Canaanite scholar, have been included in this analysis. This section attempts to classify the reasons behind the re-reading of these verbal forms as 3ms and not the 3mp as had been the case previously. In ten instances of a re-analysis of extended texts where the number of the subject is disputed, it is found that the subject of the verb is not plural, but singular. In two instances where two persons have been considered as the subject of the verb, it is found that the two persons are linked by a preposition and not a conjunction, and thus the former person is the subject of the verb. In one instance a compound subject preceded by a singular verb which agrees with the first subject is argued to follow a West Semitic pattern. In six instances the preferred reading involves an impersonal verbal form, which may be considered as passive and singular in form. Where the subject is DINGIR.MEŠ, ‘god’, this particular form is conjugated with a singular masculine verbal form. For the final two verbal forms which have been considered most likely to have a plural subject and a y- preformative verbal form, other explanations are possible. The reconstructed verbal forms, which are considered to be insufficiently reliable as core data for this study, involve reconstructions within the verbal form itself and/or reconstructions or restorations of significant parts of the context which have implications for the interpretation of the verbal form. These examples have been excluded from the general findings. Rainey stands alone on EA 124:17, yi-qa-bu, EA 124:17, yi-qabu and EA 108:20, yu-qa-bu, by reading these verbal forms with ypreformatives as 3mp. Rainey and Moran agree on a 3mp reading for EA 116:8, yi-qa-bu-na, and probably EA126:19, yu-ša-ru. There is a difficulty on some occasions in determining the precise number of the verbal forms in some of Moran’s less literal translations. Since Izre’el finds only two y- preformative verbal forms which are difficult to analyze as 3ms forms, he concludes that only the t- preformative should be listed for 3mp of the prefix conjugation. Wherever a verbal form which has a plural subject appears to have a y- preformative, an alternative explanation should be sought,

198

DATING ABH POETRY: A CRITIQUE

and the verb analyzed as 3ms where possible. However, in a later publication where he discusses affixes, Izre’el lists both the t- and the y- preformatives for the 3mp of the prefix conjugation (Izre’el 1998:25), although he gives no compelling reason for doing so. He notes that the variants are listed according to their frequency, with the y- preformative as the second option.

Collective Nouns It has already been indicated that masculine plural nouns construed as collectives may be conjugated with 3fs verbs. We find a possible four instances. The data from table 13 is presented again in table 14 for convenience. Table 14: Plural Nouns Construed as 3fs Collective Nouns

EA

3fs verbal form

Subject

274:14 141:31 281:13 234:17

ti7-ih-la-aq ˘ a-aṣ ti-ra-h ˘ tu-pu-uš tu-uṣ-ṣa

amêlūtuSA.GAZ.MEŠ

(Habiru) ˘ ṣâbē bi-ta-(?)šu (archers) ṣâbē bi-ta-ti (archers) ṣâbē (soldiers/army)

In the analysis of these examples, the evidence indicates that masculine plural nouns construed as collectives are conjugated with 3ms verbs. This is presented in table 15. In his discussion of the noun form ERÍN.MEŠ/s. ābū, Rainey finds that s. ābū is a collective noun which is masculine in standard Akkadian, but feminine singular in some West Semitic contexts (Rainey 1996, I:132). The logogram is marked as a collective in seven instances over four texts with the post determinative HA (Rainey 1996, I:133). One clear example of this form is found˘ in EA 141:31, with a 3fs verbal form. Rainey does not give another clear example in the nominative case. He finds that in line with general Akkadian practice, ERÍN.MEŠ is often treated as a masculine singular, in spite of the plural marker (Rainey 1996, I:133). The indicators may include the singular form of the modifying adjective and/or the verbal agreement in the singular. He suggests that the scribe could be using the masculine singular for the feminine singular. In other contexts, ERÍN.MEŠ could also be used as a feminine singular, and similarly this is recognised by the form of the modifying adjective and/or the verbal agreement. However, in other con-

CHAPTER THIRTEEN

199

texts, this logogram may have a 3mp verbal agreement. Rainey makes no specific reference in this study to any of the verbal forms in his analysis of the logogram. Reference to CAD (1962 Ṣ 46) indicates that the plural form s. ābū is mostly used as a collective. Thus the logogram and the y- preformative verbal form may be read as a masculine singular, whilst bearing in mind other possibilities. Table 15: Plural Nouns Construed as 3ms Collective Nouns

EA

3ms verb

Subject

E.g.

126:40-41

yu-ša-r[u ]

1:6E

121:48

y[i-na-ṣa-ru]

83:43

yi-ma-ku-ta

365:25-27

yi-la-ku

245:3 117:68 109:7

yi-pu-šu-mi yu-ú-ul-ku-na [y]i-na-mušu-n[a] yu-qa-bu

ṣâbē /ERIN.MEŠ (soldiers/army) ṣâbē /ERIN.MEŠ bi-ta-ti (archers) ṣâbē /ERIN.MEŠ ka-ra[-š]i (campaigning army) awīlī /LÚ.MEŠ ma-as-sàmeš (corvée workers) DINGIR.MEŠ (gods) ka-li mi-im-me (everything) [a-]bu-tu-ka (your ancestors a-wa-tu ša-ru-tu (treasonous matters)

108:20

5:4 1:7E 1:3 4:1 3:6E 6:1 6:3

CONCLUSION In the Amarna letters of the second millennium BCE where a Canaanite verbal form is used in the prefix conjugation, the t- preformative appears as the standard form for the 3mp. The y- preformative does not appear to be a functional alternative preformative for the 3mp. It is possible that there are traces of the y- preformative, but these may be explained in other ways. An investigation of the evidence available has led to the clarification and general resolution of the number of verbal forms under discussion. We consider that the explanation for any discrepancies may lie outside the standard use of the t- preformative for the 3mp verbal form, and relate to such influences as scribal variations, scribal errors, a flexible understanding of collective nouns, and

200

DATING ABH POETRY: A CRITIQUE

possibly the influence of the hypothesized use of the 3mp y- preformative in proto-West Semitic. List of Verbal Forms in this Analysis

1. Disputed Subject Example 1:1: EA 124:15 yi-íl-qú-še Example 1:2: EA 124:53 yi-le-ú Example 1:3: EA 365:27 yi-la-ku Example 1:4: EA 254:16 yi-ka-lu Example 1:5E: EA 126:19 yu-ša-ru Example 1:6E: EA 126:40 yu-ša-r[u ] Example 1:7E: EA 83:43 yi-ma-qu-ta Example 1:8E: EA 249:7 yi-ha-ba-lu(!) ˘ Example 1:9E: EA 109:19 yi-íl-ti-qu Example 1:10E: EA 81:31 yi-ma-qu-ta

2. Two apparent persons for the subject Example 2:1: EA 197:34 yu-ha-li-qú ˘ Example 2:2: EA 140:31 yi-pu-šu

3. Use of the singular impersonal subject Example 3:1: EA 137:62 yi-ṣa-ba-tu-ši Example 3:2: EA 116:8 yi-qa-bu-na Example 3:3: EA 131:41 yi-qa-bu Example 3:4: EA 124:17 yi-qa-bu Example 3:5E: EA 227:10 yi-ša-ma Example 3:6E: EA 117:68 yu-ú-ul-qu-na

4. Use of the form of ‘god’ in the plural with a singular verb Example 4:1: EA 245:3 yi-pu-šu-mi

5. Textual reconstruction Example 5:1E: EA 77:20 [yi-]na-mu-ša Example 5:2: EA 109:7 [y]i-na-mu-šu-n[a] Example 5:3: EA 281:24 [y]i-pu-šu Example 5:4: EA 121:48 y[i-na-ṣa-ru] Example 5:5: EA 239:27 [y]i-iq[-bu Example 5:6E: EA 90:25 [y]i-í[l]-ti-qu-šu-nu

CHAPTER THIRTEEN Example 5:7E: EA 74:57 yi-da-[gal-lu] Example 5:8E: EA 109:17 yi-íl-ti-qu Example 5:9E: EA 120:24 yi-t[u]-ra-an-š[i]

6. Singular verb with a plural subject Example 6:1: EA 109:7 [y]i-na-mu-šu-n[a] Example 6:2: EA 113:34 yi-na-mu-šu Example 6:3: EA 108:20 yu-qa-bu

201

CHAPTER 14 BIBLICAL HEBREW EVIDENCE FOR THE PURPORTED USE OF THE 3mp PREFORMATIVE t- OF THE PREFIX CONJUGATION In the preceding two chapters it is argued that the 3mp t- preformative in the prefix conjugation is the standard preformative for Ugaritic and Amarna Canaanite of the latter half of the second millennium BCE. Traces of a y- preformative may occur in Ugaritic and Amarna Canaanite. This evidence has led to suggestions that a 3mp t- preformative also appears in Biblical Hebrew indicating an aspect of common morphology among these three languages, though some scholars dispute this view. An examination is undertaken of proposals for a 3mp t- preformative in the Hebrew Bible, particularly in the ABH poetic corpus where this phenomenon might be expected to occur, if it exists at all. If there is sustainable evidence that there are second millennium remnants of the 3mp tpreformative, these poetic texts may be considered of second millennium typology with regard to this particular linguistic feature. The expected plural preformatives in Biblical Hebrew are yod for the 3mp and taw for the 3fp. There are several attempts to provide evidence for a t- 3mp preformative in Biblical Hebrew. The Ugaritic and Amarna Canaanite evidence is used as the basis for the explanation of these examples. Individual scholars have claimed they have identified third masculine plural verbal forms with the tpreformative. Among these scholars are Albright, Moran, Gordon, Dahood and Brovender. Albright commented that the study of Ugaritic added several new sections to Biblical Hebrew grammar, and that in every case the new phenomena eliminated the need for textual emendations. One such new phenomenon, in both Ugaritic 203

204

DATING ABH POETRY: A CRITIQUE

poetry and in the Amarna letters, was the treatment of masculine plural nouns as collectives construed with feminine singular verbs. He proposed that there were two such parallel cases in Biblical Hebrew: Nahum 1.5b and 1.8–9 (Albright 1945:22–23). From his studies of the Amarna letters and the evidence from Ugarit, Moran indicates that, even though scholars had not settled the matter regarding the relevance of the t- preformative for the 3mp to Biblical Hebrew when he was writing in 1958, it was virtually impossible to reach conclusions because of the ambiguities of the Hebrew text (Moran 1961:63). He notes that Albright had not extended the application of the 3mp t- preformative to Hebrew forms, preferring to see in them a 3fs with a plural subject taken as a collective. Moran finds that Gesenius’ work attests to these forms in Biblical Hebrew. Gesenius indicates that the plurals of names of animals, things and abstracts, whether masculine or feminine, are frequently construed with the feminine singular verbal form, and he gives twenty-four examples. The plural of persons is found to be construed sometimes with the singular verbal form where the distributive singular is intended (GKC §145k, l). This matter will be discussed further after the suggested examples of the 3mp t- preformative are analyzed. Moran expresses the view that it would be most surprising if in archaic or archaizing texts of the Hebrew Bible, the Ugaritic and Amarna verbal form with the 3mp t- preformative never occurred. For him, the existence of the form in Biblical Hebrew has to be considered highly probable, though lacking conclusive proof (Moran 1960:71–72). Gordon is among the early researchers who consider that the 3mp preformative t- often alternates with the y- preformative in both Ugaritic texts and the Canaanized Amarna letters. He indicates that there are examples in Biblical Hebrew where the 3mp tpreformative is used (Gordon 1947:63). His examples include Deuteronomy 5.20–21, 33.3; Ezekiel 37.7 and Job 19.15 (Gordon 1947:10, 1965:74). The latter two examples indicate that, according to Gordon, archaisms could be used in the late pre-exilic and exilic periods. Gordon considers that Ugaritic poetry is linguistically closer to the poetry of the Hebrew Bible, and finds three of his examples there.

CHAPTER FOURTEEN

205

EVIDENCE The evidence presented above and other similar evidence has been disputed. Although Brockelmann cites examples of the 3mp t- preformative in the Amarna letters, he does not indicate that a 3mp tpreformative exists in Biblical Hebrew (Brockelmann 1913:567). In his examination of some of the claims for a 3mp t- preformative, Ratner finds that there is not a single valid example of a 3mp tpreformative in the Hebrew Bible (Ratner 1988:88). These claims and counter claims are examined below under similar headings to those in the examination of the Ugaritic and Canaanite preformative. 1. Use of the extended context. 2. Emendation of the biblical text. 3. Broken and corrupt contexts. 1. Use of the Extended Context In these examples an acceptable explanation of the t- preformative within the context of normative Biblical Hebrew is found.

Example 1:1 : ‫וַ ִתּ ְק ְרבוּן‬ Deuteronomy 5.23

‫ת־הקּוֹל֙ ִמ ֣תּוְֹך ַה ֔חֹ ֶשְׁך וְ ָה ָ ֖הר בּ ֵ ֹ֣ער ָבּ ֵ ֑אשׁ וַ ִתּ ְק ְר ֣בוּן‬ ַ ‫וַ יְ ִ֗הי ְכּ ָשׁ ְמ ֲע ֶ ֤כם ֶא‬ ‫יכם׃‬ ֽ ֶ ֵ‫יכם וְ זִ ְקנ‬ ֖ ֶ ‫אשׁי ִשׁ ְב ֵט‬ ֥ ֵ ‫ל־ר‬ ָ ‫ֵא ֔ ַלי ָכּ‬ And as soon as you heard the voice out of the midst of the darkness, while the mountain was burning with fire, you came near to me, all the heads of your tribes, and your elders. Gordon proposes that the t- preformative in this verbal form indicates a 3mp based on his argument from parallels in Ugaritic and Amarna Canaanite (Gordon 1965:74). Brovender also suggests that this may be the case (Brovender 1971:1568). Ratner reads this t- preformative as 2mp, where the verbal phrase is in apposition to its governing subject clause: ‘When you heard the voice out of the darkness, while the mountain was ablaze with fire, you came close to me, [namely] all your tribal heads and leaders, and you said…’ (Ratner 1988:83). Ratner suggests that a verbal form which is part of a comparable syntactic structure as in Deuteronomy 29.8, supports his analysis of this verbal form. Here the 2mp verbal forms remain consistent with the 2mp subjects in this example.

206

DATING ABH POETRY: A CRITIQUE

Deuteronomy 29.8: ‫ַתּ ְשׂ ִכּילוּ‬

‫יתם א ָ ֹ֑תם ְל ַ ֣מ ַען ַתּ ְשׂ ִ֔כּילוּ ֵ ֖את‬ ֖ ֶ ‫ת־דּ ְב ֵ ֙רי ַה ְבּ ִ ֣רית ַה ֔זּ ֹאת וַ ֲע ִשׂ‬ ִ ‫וּשׁ ַמ ְר ֶ֗תּם ֶא‬ ְ ‫ל־א ֶ ֥שׁר ַתּ ֲע ֽשׂוּן׃‬ ֲ ‫ָכּ‬

Therefore keep the words of this covenant, and do them, that you may prosper in all that you do. From the use of the extended context in example 1, a 2mp subject ‘you’ is the continuing subject, and there does not appear to be any morphological or syntactic reason for alternating between a 2mp and a 3mp subject for the verbal forms.

Example 1:2 : ‫אמרוּ‬ ְ ֺ ‫וַ תּ‬ Deuteronomy 5.24

‫ת־כּב ֹ֣דוֹ וְ ֶאת־גָּ ְד ֔לוֹ וְ ֶאת־ק ֹ֥לוֹ ָשׁ ַ ֖מ ְענוּ‬ ְ ‫ינוּ ֶא‬ ֙ ‫ֹלה‬ ֵ֙ ‫הוה ֱא‬ ֤ ָ ְ‫אמ ֗רוּ ֵ ֣הן ֶה ְר ָ֜אנוּ י‬ ְ ֹ ‫וַ תּ‬ ‫ִמ ֣תּוְֹך ָה ֵ ֑אשׁ‬ And you said, ‘Behold, the Lord our God has shown us his glory and greatness, and we have heard his voice out of the midst of the fire.’ Brovender suggests that this form supplies a hint of a taqt.alu(na) 3mp form. However, the use of the extended context, especially noting the clearly indicated 2mp subject of the infinitive construct of the previous verse (‫) ְכּ ָשׁ ְמ ֲע ֶכם‬, indicates that his argument is improbable.

Example 1:3 : ‫וַ ִתּ ְק ְרבוּ‬ Ezekiel 37.7

‫ה־ר ַעשׁ וַ ִתּ ְק ְר ֣בוּ ֲע ָצ ֔מוֹת‬ ֔ ַ ֵ‫אי וְ ִהנּ‬ ֙ ִ ‫י־קוֹל ְכּ ִה ָנּ ְֽב‬ ֤ ‫יתי ַ ֽו יְ ִה‬ ִ ‫שׁר ֻצֵ ֑וּ‬ ֣ ֶ ‫אתי ַכּ ֲא‬ ִ ‫וְ נִ ֵ ֖בּ‬ ‫ל־ע ְצ ֽמוֹ׃‬ ַ ‫ֶ ֖ע ֶצם ֶא‬ So I prophesied as I was commanded. And as I prophesied, there was a sound, and behold a rattling,99 and the bones came together, bone to its bone. Ratner finds this example most promising for identifying a 3mp t- preformative in Biblical Hebrew. He finds that the text is relatively free from corruption, except that the word ‘bones’ lacks a definite article. He analyzes the occurrences where in this pericope 99

Or an earthquake (compare Ezekiel 3.12, 13)

CHAPTER FOURTEEN

207

the substantive ‫ ֶע ֶצם‬is used in the masculine gender (m) and in the feminine gender (f) and finds support for the substantive being masculine. His evidence gives the number of occurrences as: verse 2 [m:1, f:2], verse 3 [m:0, f:1], verse 4 [m:2, f:1], verse 5 [m:2], verse 6 [m:6], verse 7 [m:1, f:1] and verse 8 [m:3]. He concludes: ‘therefore the form ‫ וַ ִתּ ְק ְרבוּ‬is surely acceptable evidence of the t- preformative third person masculine plural morpheme, is it not?’ (Ratner 1988:86) Detailed examination of the text reveals that the substantive in the plural is always formed with the feminine plural ending. Of the masculine referents, ten are masculine pronominal suffixes affixed to prepositions, three are masculine plural verbal forms and one is a masculine singular pronominal suffix affixed to a noun. Ratner proceeds to answer his own question by indicating that this evidence does not necessarily support the interpretation of the verbal form in question as a masculine plural form. He explains the context as an ‘audience metaphor’ phenomenon in which the audience is one element. The pericope could also be addressing the bones metonymically for ‘the ones slain’ and thus the bones are personified and addressed in the masculine plural. Ratner suggests that if this verbal form is to be regarded as a feminine plural form, then some sense can be made of it when it is placed into the broader context of the history of the Hebrew language. He finds that there are few unique ‘mixed’ verbal forms with reference to Kutscher’s argument that while the prefix in this example remains that of the feminine, the suffix is taken over from the parallel masculine form. Kutscher explains that this case could be taken as an indication of the weakening of the feminine (Kutscher 1982:41). There is another perspective on this matter. Joüon and Muraoka find that occasionally the form tiqt. e lu occurs for a 3fp verbal form with the -u the plural morpheme doubling for the feminine plural ending. As an example, they refer to Ezekiel 37.7. They argue that the t- preformative is an adequate indicator, with the -na form completely disappearing by the period of Mishnaic Hebrew (Joüon and Muraoka 1993:136). There is no definitive evidence for a 3mp verbal form. The 3fp reading of the verbal form complies with accepted Biblical Hebrew practices.

208

DATING ABH POETRY: A CRITIQUE

Example 1:4 : ‫ַתּ ְח ְשׁ ֻבנִ י‬ Job 19.15

‫יהם׃‬ ֶ ֵ‫יתי ְב ֵעינ‬ ִ ִ‫יתי וְ ַא ְמה ַֹתי ְלזָ ר ַתּ ְח ְשׁ ֻבנִ י נָ ְכ ִרי ָהי‬ ִ ‫גָּ ֵרי ֵב‬

The guests in my house and my maidservants count me as a stranger; I have become a foreigner in their eyes. Gordon proposes that this form is an instance of a 3mp verbal form with a t- preformative, again from an Ugaritic and Amarna Canaanite perspective (Gordon 1965:74). Ratner explains that this verse contains the ‘feminine takes precedence’ syntagm100 in which the verb ‫ ַתּ ְח ְשׁ ֻבנִ י‬has as its subject ‫ ַא ְמה ַֺתי‬and is therefore a third person plural verbal form in the prefix conjugation with a first person pronominal suffix (Ratner 1988:84). There is a difficulty with this verbal form in that the expected 3fp ending is absent. Ratner explains that there is one other example in Biblical Hebrew of a 3fp imperfect plus a pronominal suffix where the -nâ termination was apparently dropped before the pronominal suffix, and replaced by the common plural marker -û.101 Thus, Ratner argues, there is a case for a 3fp form tiqt. e lû + pronominal suffix (Ratner 1988:84). For this example Joüon and Muraoka argue that this is another fp subject with a 3fp verbal form (Joüon and Muraoka 1993:136). The t- indicates the feminine, and the -u ending is an alternative for the 3fp ending. Thus, in their view, the 3fp plural reading of the verbal form complies with accepted Biblical Hebrew practice.

Example 1:5 : ‫ְתּ ֵא ֲהבוּ‬ Proverbs 1.22

‫יִם ְ ֽתּ ֵא ֲה ֫בוּ ֶ ֥פ ִתי וְ ֵל ִ֗צים ָ ֭לצוֹן ָח ְמ ֣דוּ ָל ֶ ֑הם ֝וּ ְכ ִס ֗ ִילים‬ ֮ ‫ד־מ ַ ֣תי ְפּ ָת‬ ָ ‫ַע‬ ‫אוּ־ד ַעת׃‬ ֽ ָ ְ‫יִ ְשׂנ‬ Ratner argues for the syntactic construction, ‘feminine takes precedence’, where the feminine member of the nominal subject series governs the gender of the verb, adjective, pronoun or pronominal suffix under the circumstances of word order and the concept of principal person which is not in accord with expected Biblical Hebrew syntax (Ratner 1990:238, 251). 101 Jeremiah 2.19 ‫תּוֹכ ֻחְך‬ ִ they will rebuke you, i. e., your backslidings (fp). 100

CHAPTER FOURTEEN

209

How long, O simple ones, will you love being simple? How long will scoffers delight in their scoffing and fools hate knowledge? Dahood’s argument for this verbal form as a 3mp in the prefix conjugation is based on the shift from the second person plural in the first colon to the third person plural in the second and third cola. From the Amarna and Ugaritic evidence he finds that the taqt.ulû form of the 3mp may apply, and hence ‫ ְתּ ֵא ֲהבוּ‬may be parsed as 3mp, balancing ‫ ָח ְמדוּ‬and ‫( יִ שׂנְ אוּ‬Dahood 1973:5–6). The verse would then read: How long will simple ones love being simple? How long will scoffers delight in their scoffing and fools hate knowledge? Ratner argues that Dahood’s demand for consistency in the usage of person is unwarranted and weakens the passage’s rhetorical power (Ratner 1988:83). As the three clauses are syntactically different, there is support for Ratner’s argument for a 2mp verbal form.

(

2. Emended Biblical Text Ratner argues that since the scholars who proposed these three verbal forms had to emend the biblical text in order to arrive at the verbal forms they desired, and since these forms do not exist in Biblical Hebrew, they must be eliminated automatically from consideration as evidence of the t- preformative 3mp morpheme (Ratner 1988:85).

Example 2:1 : ‫וְ ֵת ֵבל‬ Nahum 1.5

‫ָה ִר ֙ים ָר ֲע ֣שׁוּ ִמ ֶ֔מּנּוּ וְ ַהגְּ ָב ֖עוֹת ִה ְתמ ָ ֹ֑גגוּ וַ ִתּ ָ ֤שּׂא ָה ָ֙א ֶר ֙ץ ִמ ָפּ ֔ ָניו וְ ֵת ֵ ֖בל‬ ‫וְ ָכל־ ֹ֥י ְשׁ ֵבי ָ ֽבהּ׃‬

The mountains quake before him; the hills melt; the earth heaves before him, the world and all who dwell in it. Albright’s reading of part of the text is as follows: wa-ttiššā’ ha-’áreṣ mi-ppānāw

210

DATING ABH POETRY: A CRITIQUE

wa-ttêbál kol-yôšbê-bāh102 His translation is as follows: And the earth became waste before him and all its inhabitants drooped. (Albright 1945:23) Moran refers to this verbal form, ‫וְ ֵת ֵבל‬, as evidence for a 3mp t- preformative. He notes Albright’s clarification of the passage, but he adds that instead of rejecting the waw (tbl W kl),103 there is an indication that the correct reading is the plural form têbālû (Moran 1961:83n109). Goodwin comments that in choosing to delete the waw conjunction Albright finds the feminine singular form he is looking for. If he had retained the waw as a verbal ending he could have restored *wa-ttēb elū, which is a ‘Canaanite’ 3mp prefix conjugation verbal form, similar to that found in the Amarna letters (Goodwin 1969:135). Goodwin finds that the form têbālû does not exist in Biblical Hebrew. Albright’s variant reading and Moran’s variant reading are dependent upon the emendation of the Masoretic Text, which, for the purposes of this study, provides insufficient grounds for definitive evidence of a t- 3mp preformative in Biblical Hebrew. This is a very complex verse. There is difficulty in finding a meaning for the presumed verbal root. Albright finds parallels in Amos 8.8 and 9.5 for the use of the verbal form ‫( ָא ַבל‬Albright 1945:23). Goodwin indicates that Albright has used a ‘shortened’ form of the regular 3fs qal imperfect (te’ebal)104 which is found in Jeremiah 4:28 and Hosea 4:3 (Goodwin 1969:135). An alternative explanation for this form is that it is a fs noun meaning ‘the world’ used in poetic Hebrew as a synonym for ‫ֶא ֶרץ‬ (BDB:385). This reading is also given in Wigram (1984:1335–1336) with the translation given above for this verse. Ratner explains that the meaning of the verb ‫ וַ ִתּ ָשּׂא‬in the second part of the verse may seem difficult, but that the syntactic difficulty is removed once it is recognized that the feminine singular verb has as its subject ‫ ָה ָא ֶרץ‬, a feminine singular noun, and then it is understood elliptically in the next dependent clause. Ratner A true copy of Albright’s transliteration. Albright’s transliterations. 104 Goodwin’s transliteration. 102 103

CHAPTER FOURTEEN

211

explains this phenomenon as the ‘feminine takes precedence’ syntagm. He refers to a parallel situation in Ezekiel 26.17.

Example 2:2 : ‫וַ ֶתּ ֱחנַ ף‬ Psalm 106.38

‫שׁר ִ ֭ז ְבּחוּ ַל ֲע ַצ ֵ ֣בּי ְכ ָ ֑נ ַען וַ ֶתּ ֱח ַנ֥ ף‬ ֣ ֶ ‫יהם ֲא‬ ֶ֗ ‫נוֹת‬ ֵ ‫יהם וּֽ ְב‬ ֤ ֶ ‫ם־בּ ֘ ֵנ‬ ְ ‫וַ ִ ֽיּ ְשׁ ְפּ ֨כוּ ָ ֪דם נָ ִ֡קי ַדּ‬ ‫ָ֝ה ָ֗א ֶרץ ַבּ ָדּ ִ ֽמים׃‬

They poured out innocent blood, the blood of their sons and daughters, whom they sacrificed to the idols of Canaan, and the land was polluted with blood. Dahood (1970:66) proposes an emendation to this verbal form so that the text would read: They shed innocent blood, the blood of their sons and daughters, whom they sacrificed to the idols of Canaan and they desecrated the land with torrents of blood. Dahood explains that he emended the usual reading of the text by retaining ‘the Israelites’ as the subject of all three verbs in this verse. Thus te-h. e nap,105 which is to be vocalized as defectivelyspelt teh. enepū, parses as the third person plural with a preformative t- (Dahood 1970:74). Ratner finds that the verbal form in the text conforms to normative Biblical Hebrew grammar and needs no emendation. He comments that the latter part of the verse reveals the consequences of the actions of Israel described in verses 37 and 38a (Ratner 1988:84).

Example 2:3 : ‫ָת ְקעוּ‬ 1 Chronicles 10.10

‫יהם וְ ֶאת־גֻּ ְלגָּ ְל ֥תּוֹ ָת ְק ֖עוּ ֵ ֥בּית ָדּגֽ וֹן׃‬ ֑ ֶ ‫ֹלה‬ ֵ ‫ת־כּ ֔ ָליו ֵ ֖בּית ֱא‬ ֵ ‫ימוּ ֶא‬ ֙ ‫וַ יָּ ִ ֙שׂ‬ And they put his armor in the temple of their gods and fastened his head in the temple of Dagon. Watson questions the root of this verbal form. He suggests that it is not ‫תקע‬, with the meaning ‘to fasten, affix,’ but ‫ יקע‬in the 105

Dahood’s transliteration

212

DATING ABH POETRY: A CRITIQUE

hiphil, with the meaning ‘to expose’. He argues that the form can be explained as 3mp with a preformative t-. Consequently the latter part of the verse would read: ‘they exposed his skull up in the temple of Dagon.’ (Watson 1972:199) BDB (429) acknowledges this root, adding that in the hiphil the meaning would be: ‘of some solemn form of execution, but meaning uncertain.’ The verbal form would have to be emended to ‫תוֹ ִקיעוּ‬. There is one other instance of this verbal form in the 3mp prefix conjugation in 2 Samuel 21.9, ‫יעם‬ ֻ ‫וַ יֺּ ִק‬, ‘and they hanged them’. This meaning from the I-yod root seems inappropriate in the context of this verse. Ratner finds the verbal form under discussion perfectly clear. He parses the form as the third common plural perfect of ‫תקע‬, meaning ‘to drive something into something else.’ (Ratner 1988:84) Other instances of the use of this root are found in Judges 3.21, 4.21; 2 Samuel 18.14 and Isaiah 22.23, 24 (BDB:1075). 3. Restoration of the Text Ratner notes that both Deuteronomy 33 and Psalm 68 are among the oldest specimens of Biblical Hebrew poetry that have come into our hands (Ratner 1988:84). The following examples are from these two texts. If Ratner’s proposal is correct, and if a 3mp t- preformative is to be found in poetry, these and Robertson’s proposed ‘early’ poetic texts would be the most likely places it would appear. This view would provide a basis for restoration.

Example 3:1 : ‫ֻתּכּוּ‬ Deuteronomy 33.3

‫ל־קד ָ ֹ֖שׁיו ְבּיָ ֶ ֑דָך וְ ֵה ֙ם ֻתּ ֣כּוּ ְל ַרגְ ֔ ֶלָך יִ ָ ֖שּׂא ִמ ַדּ ְבּר ֶ ֹֽתיָך׃‬ ְ ‫ַ ֚אף ח ֵ ֹ֣בב ַע ִ֔מּים ָכּ‬

Yes, he loved his people,106 all his holy ones were in his107 hand; so they followed108 in your steps, receiving direction from you. As can be seen from these footnotes, and as Ratner argues, this verse contains hapax legomena, unclear referents and seemingly Septuagint; Hebrew peoples (ESV 2002:176n2). Hebrew your (ESV 2002:176n3). 108 The meaning of the Hebrew word is uncertain (ESV 2002:176n4). 106 107

CHAPTER FOURTEEN

213

disconnected ideas (Ratner 1988:85). This is supported by editorial footnotes in BHS, where it is suggested that this verbal form may be read in conjunction with the two preceding consonants, that is, ‫( המתכו‬BHS 1969/77:349). Cross and Freedman analyze this restored compound form as an infixed -t form from the root ‫ מוך( מך‬or ‫)מכך‬, a common Semitic root meaning ‘to bend, be low, or humiliated.’ They therefore translate it as: ‘they prostrate themselves at thy feet.’ (Cross and Freedman 1997:73n16) Their reading of the verse is: Yea, the guardians of the peoples All the holy ones are at thy hand They prostrate themselves at thy feet They carry out thy decisions. (Cross and Freedman 1997:66) Goodwin, however, finds that the text of this passage is grammatically and syntactically correct, and the difficulties of the verse may be resolved without altering the Masoretic text (Goodwin 1969:122). Ratner’s tentative solution is to parse ‫ ֻתּכּוּ‬as a 3mp pu‘al or qal passive perfect of an otherwise unattested root ‫תקה‬, of unknown signification (Ratner 1988:85). This verse, with all its concentration of problems, is considered to be an inappropriate source of evidence for this study.

Example 3:2 : ‫ִתּנְ דּ ֺף‬ Psalm 68.3

‫ֹלהים׃‬ ֽ ִ ‫אב ֥דוּ ְ ֝ר ָשׁ ֗ ִעים ִמ ְפּ ֵ ֥ני ֱא‬ ְ ֹ ‫י־אשׁ י‬ ֑ ֵ ֵ‫ְכּ ִהנְ ֥דּ ֹף ָע ָ֗שׁן ִ֫תּנְ ֥דּ ֹף ְכּ ִה ֵ ֣מּס דּ֭ וֹנַ ג ִמ ְפּנ‬ As smoke is driven away, so you shall drive them away; as wax melts before fire, so the wicked shall perish before God! Dahood translates this passage: Like drifting smoke they are driven, like melting wax before the fire; At the sight of God the wicked disappear. (Dahood 1973:130) Dahood’s translation indicates an emendation to the text by vocalizing the MT ‫ ִתּנְ דּ ֺף‬as tinnādēpû,109 niphal third person mascu109

Dahood’s transliteration.

214

DATING ABH POETRY: A CRITIQUE

line plural: ‘they are driven’. He makes reference to Gordon (1965:74) as justification for his reading. He also cites Albright’s reading where he prefers the singular pointing tinnādēp,110 explaining the plural subject, ‘foes’, as collective in meaning with a feminine singular verbal form (Albright 1950–51:12, 17). Dahood adds that while Albright’s analysis is possible, the Amarna evidence points to a plural vocalization of the tqt.l form in Ugaritic where the subject is formally masculine (Dahood 1973:135). Ratner follows Albright’s suggestion that the cola do not necessarily give any connected context, and lack coherence (Ratner 1988:85). He makes no use of this verbal form for his case. This verbal form may be read as 2ms: ‘as smoke is driven away, (so) you drive (them?) away.’ The text does not necessitate an emendation. The 3mp ‘foes’ of the previous verse becomes the object, understood, of the verb, thus linking it with the previous verse, and creating a parallel form with the following cola in this verse. Goodwin also suggests that this verse makes perfectly good sense as it stands, and there would seem to be no reason for altering it (Goodwin 1969:134). Consequently, this verbal form is considered to be an inappropriate source of evidence for this study.

Example 3:3 : ‫ִאם־ ִתּ ְשׁ ְכּבוּן‬ Psalm 68.14

‫יה ִ ֽבּ ַיר ְק ַ ֥רק‬ ָ ‫רוֹת‬ ֶ֗ ‫בוּן ֵ ֪בּין ְשׁ ֫ ַפ ָ ֥תּיִם ַכּנְ ֵ ֣פי י ֭וֹנָ ה נֶ ְח ָ ֣פּה ַב ֶ ֑כּ ֶסף וְ ֝ ֶא ְב‬ ֮ ‫ם־תּ ְשׁ ְכּ‬ ִ ‫ִ ֽא‬ ‫ָח ֽרוּץ׃‬

Though you men lie among the sheepfolds— the wings of a dove covered with silver, its pinions with shimmering gold. Dahood (1973:131)translates the verse: O that they would empty out between the sheepfolds! The wings of the dove are plated with silver, and her pinions with yellow gold. In his notes on this verse, Dahood refers to the Ugaritic use of the t- preformative for the 3mp as in Psalm 68.3 above (Dahood 1973:141). 110

Albright’s transliteration.

CHAPTER FOURTEEN

215

Concerning this psalm Albright writes: ‘Psalm 68 has always been considered with justice as the most difficult of the Psalms.’ (Albright 1950–51:7) As the title of his article suggests, Albright sees this psalm as a catalogue of lyric poems and finds no less than thirty separate beginnings and a collection of sentences and phrases strung together apparently haphazardly (Albright 1950–51:9). This may explain the disconnectedness of the first colon with the latter two. Albright’s translation of this verse reads: Will ye remain seated by the hearths? The wings of a dove are plated with silver, And her pinions with yellow gold! (Albright 1950–51:37) The argument that this verbal form has a 3mp t- preformative ignores the interpretation of the inflexion of the imperfect in Hebrew. In this context the 2mp form is appropriate, with the sufformative presented in its more complete form with an energic nun (GKC §47c).

SUMMARY OF DATA After an analysis of eleven forms with a purported 3mp t- preformative, none of these examples provides a definitive use of the 3mp t- preformative. There are four instances that are read as 2mp (examples 1:1, 1:2, 1:5 and 3:3), two instances as 3fp (1:3 and 1:4), one instance as 2ms (3:2), one instance as 3fs (2:2), one instance as 3cp in the suffix conjugation (2:3), one instance as a noun (2:1) and one as a hapax legomenon of uncertain derivation (3:1). Neither textual emendation nor textual restoration contributes to the finding of a 3mp t- preformative in Biblical Hebrew.

DISCUSSION There are no instances of the 3mp t- preformative in either Robertson’s ‘early’ ABH poetic texts, where it is most likely to occur, nor in the remainder of the Hebrew Bible. Only one purported example occurs in ABH poetry, in Deuteronomy 33.3. Possibilities exist in what has been classified by Robertson as the early poetry of the Hebrew Bible, for the appearance of the t- 3mp preformative, if indeed it ever existed in Biblical Hebrew. If this early poetry were indeed a product of the second millennium BCE, as some scholars would have us believe on the basis of other linguistic data, then it is expected that there would be the possibility of the t- preformative

216

DATING ABH POETRY: A CRITIQUE

showing through particularly as its usage has been clearly demonstrated in Ugaritic and Amarna Canaanite of the second millennium BCE. It is suggested in the literature that the most archaic poetry of the Pentateuch is Exodus 15. In this poem there are three instances where a t- preformative 3mp might occur: v5: ‫ יְ ַכ ְסיֻמוּ‬v14: ‫ יִ ְרגָּ זוּן‬v15: v16: ‫יִ ְדּמוּ‬ In Judges 5 the following instances occur: ְ v30: ‫ יְ ַח ְלּקוּ‬v31: ‫אבדוּ‬ ְ ֺ‫י‬ v30: ‫יִמ ְצאוּ‬ In Deuteronomy 32 the following instances occur: v16: ‫ יַ ְקנִ ֻאהוּ‬v16: ‫יסהוּ‬ ֻ ‫ יַ ְכ ִע‬v27: ‫ יְ נַ ְכּרוּ‬v29: ‫יַ ְשׂ ִכּילוּ‬ ִ v30: ‫ יָ נִ יסוּ‬v38: ‫אכלוּ‬ ֵ ֺ ‫ י‬v38: ‫יִ ְשׁתּוּ‬ v29: ‫יָבינוּ‬ v38: ‫ יָ קוּמוּ‬v38: ‫וְ יַ ְעזְ ֻר ֶכם‬ In Genesis 49 the following instances occur: ָ ַ‫ ו‬v23: ‫ וַ יִּ ְשׂ ְט ֻמהוּ‬v24: ‫וַ יָּ ֺפזּוּ‬ v8: ‫ יו ֺדוָּך‬v8: ‫ יִ ְשׁ ַתּ ֲחוּוּ‬v23: ‫יְמ ֲר ֻרהוּ‬ In Deuteronomy 33 the following instances occur: v9: ‫ יִ ְצ ֺרוּ‬v10: ‫ יָ ִשׂימוּ‬v11: ‫ יָ ִשׂמוּ‬v19: ‫יִ ְק ָראוּ‬ v19: ‫ יִ זְ ְבּחוּ‬v19: ‫ יִ ינָ קוּ‬v28: ‫ יַ ַע ְרפוּ‬v29: ‫יִ ָכּ ֲחשׁוּ‬ In the poetry in Numbers 23 and 24 there are no 3mp verbal forms in the prefix conjugation. The general rule in Biblical Hebrew is that the verbal form conforms to the subject in gender and number. As indicated in Ugaritic and Amarna Canaanite research, even though the dominant preformative is t-, a case can be made for some instances of a y- preformative. These exceptions are used to support contentious readings of the Hebrew Bible. An examination of the Biblical evidence indicates that some researchers use precarious grounds upon which to base their theories. Knudtzon, Böhl and Ebeling were researching and writing in the very early days after the discovery of the Amarna letters. They lacked the resources of comparative research to assist in their preliminary studies. Like Moran during the earlier period of his research, they appear to have used Hebrew for the West Semitic comparison purposes. They therefore assumed that first millennium Biblical Hebrew was very similar to purported second millennium Hebrew, and consequently argued from Biblical Hebrew morphology to unravel the second millennium sources of Ugaritic and Amarna Canaanite. Numerous exceptions from normative Biblical Hebrew may apply. In relation to this study, exceptions are mainly dependent upon the focus of the text. They may be due partly to whether at-

CHAPTER FOURTEEN

217

tention is paid to meaning rather than grammatical form, or to the position of the predicate. Where the verbal form precedes the subject which involves animals or things, the uninflected 3fs is frequently used. The instances in which the gender and number of the following verbal form appears to differ from the subject may be due partly to errors in the text (GKC §145a, o, u). The discussion in the two preceding chapters makes reference to Biblical Hebrew morphology and syntax for the understanding of one aspect of usage in both Ugaritic and Amarna Canaanite: the plural subject construed with a 3fs verbal form where the subject is treated as a collective, in place of the 3mp preformative for a plural subject. Some examples are listed below. Joel 1.20:

‫ם־בּ ֲה ֥מוֹת ָשׂ ֶ ֖דה ַתּ ֲע ֣רוֹג ֵא ֶ ֑ליָך‬ ַ ַ‫גּ‬ Even the beasts of the field pant for you Psalm 37.31:

‫ֹלהיו ְבּ ִל ֑בּוֹ ֖ל ֹא ִת ְמ ַ ֣עד ֲא ֻשׁ ָריו׃‬ ֣ ָ ‫תּוֹרת ֱא‬ ַ֣ The law of God is in his heart; his steps do not slip. 2 Samuel 10.9:

‫וּמ ָאחוֹר‬ ֵ ‫יְתה ֵא ָליו ְפּנֵ י ַה ִמּ ְל ָח ָמה ִמ ָפּנִ ים‬ ָ ‫י־ה‬ ָ ‫יוֹאב ִכּ‬ ָ ‫וַ יַּ ְרא‬ When Joab saw that the battle was set against him, both in front and in the rear… Where persons are in the plural form, they are sometimes construed with a singular verbal form. Of the thirteen examples in Gesenius’ work (GKC §145l), four are in the prefix conjugation as 3ms verbal forms. As none are 3fs examples, they are not relevant to this study. Singular nouns which reflect a collective idea or which may occasionally have a collective sense, may be construed with a singular or a plural form (GKC §145b).

CONCLUSION From the analysis of the purported instances of a 3mp t- preformative in the prefix conjugation in ABH, it is concluded that no examples are confirmed. This is in contrast to the Ugaritic and Amarna Canaanite of the second millennium BCE, where a 3mp tpreformative is usual. There is a discontinuity in this respect between the second millennium sources and Biblical Hebrew. This does not demonstrate that ABH poetry cannot be early, since the 3mp y- preformative is considered to be Proto-Semitic. However, it does call into question the linking of the ABH poems to the second

218

DATING ABH POETRY: A CRITIQUE

millennium sources on the basis of morphology. ABH poetry does not fit with the second millennium sources with regard to this feature, contrary to the general impression given by Robertson, whose work presents an unproblematic fit of ‘early’ poetry with these sources. Young, Rezetko and Ehrensvärd have referred to the findings of these last three chapters from an earlier presentation (Vern 2008:12:1–14:17) as support for their argument, concluding that: ‘Exodus 15 thus conforms in this feature also to SBH against our evidence for second-millennium BCE Northwest Semitic.’ (Young et al. 2008, I:338) It is therefore possible to establish a typology of the use of this morphological form in the following way. Second millennium sources (Ugaritic and Amarna Canaanite) use a 3mp t- preformative in the prefix conjugation as against first millennium sources (for example, ABH and all Hebrew, Phoenician, Moabite and Ammonite) which use a 3mp y- preformative in the prefix conjugation. List of Verbal Forms in this Analysis

1. Use of the extended context Example 1:1: ‫וַ ִתּ ְק ְרבוּן‬, Deuteronomy 5.23 Example 1:2: ‫אמרוּ‬ ְ ֺ ‫וַ תּ‬, Deuteronomy 5.24 Example 1:3: ‫וַ ִתּ ְק ְרבוּ‬, Ezekiel 37.7 Example 1:4: ‫ ַתּ ְח ְשׁ ֻבנִ י‬, Job 19.15 Example 1:5: ‫ ְתּ ֵא ֲהבוּ‬, Proverbs 1.22 2. Emended Biblical text Example 2:1: ‫וְ ֵת ֵבל‬, Nahum 1.5 Example 2:2: ‫וַ ֶתּ ֱחנַ ף‬, Psalm 106.38 Example 2:3: ‫ ָת ְקעוּ‬, 1 Chronicles 10.10 3. Restoration of the Text Example 3:1: ‫ ֻתּכּוּ‬, Deuteronomy 33.3 Example 3:2: ‫ ִתּנְ דּ ֺף‬, Psalm 68.3 Example 3:3:- ‫ ִאם־ ִתּ ְשׁ ְכּבוּן‬, Psalm 68.14

CHAPTER 15 THE 3fs SUFFORMATIVE -at OF THE SUFFIX CONJUGATION IN UGARITIC, AMARNA CANAANITE AND ARCHAIC BIBLICAL HEBREW Semitic languages possess two genders, masculine and feminine, which are not always related to natural gender. In the singular, the masculine gender is represented by the pure stem and the feminine is mostly distinguished by the primitive Semitic feminine morpheme -at. There is a significant departure in Biblical Hebrew from the use of this singular feminine morpheme in the sufformative of the suffix conjugation verb. This analysis aims to clarify the pattern of usage of the third feminine singular (3fs) sufformative in the ABH poetic texts in relation to the second millennium BCE sources of Ugaritic and Amarna Canaanite. We argue that if some poems from the ABH poetic corpus and Robertson’s ‘early’ corpus are of second millennium provenance, then we expect the primitive 3fs morpheme -at to be in evidence.

THE 3fs SUFFORMATIVE OF THE SUFFIX CONJUGATION IN UGARITIC The Evidence The 3fs sufformative of the suffix conjugation in Ugaritic is regularly -(a)t (Segert 1984:58; Sivan 1997:110). The suffix conjugation has three uses: to express the preterite and the present in poetic texts; to express the future in result clauses which are preceded by the waw conjunction; and to express the optative (Sivan 1997:96– 98). Some of these uses are found in the following examples. KTU2 1.3 II:8: w l šb‘t /šabi‘at / she is not satisfied 219

220

DATING ABH POETRY: A CRITIQUE

KTU2 1.4 II:8 štt hptr l ’išt /šatat / she put hptr on the fire The 3fs -(a)t sufformative is used for III:waw/yod verbs, with the retention of the waw.111 KTU2 1.4 IV:32 ’atwt /’atawat / she came KTU2 1.96:1 šnwt /šanawat / she hastened KTU2 2.38:25 ‘ryt /‘arayat / (your ship) came back KTU2 1.4 IV:31 mǵyt /maǵayat / she arrived III-aleph verbs also show the 3fs -(a)t sufformative. KTU2 1.18 IV:36 ys. ’at / yas. a’at / it went forth KTU2 1.116:2 qr’at /qara’at / she called Conclusion The evidence indicates that all instances of the 3fs sufformative in the suffix conjugation is -at.

THE 3fs SUFFORMATIVE OF THE SUFFIX CONJUGATION IN AMARNA CANAANITE The Evidence The West Semitic influence in the Amarna letters from Canaan indicates that the 3fs sufformative in the suffix conjugation is -at. The suffix conjugation mainly expresses past tense, but it is also attested for present and future tenses (Rainey 1996, II:346). The Table 16: A Comparison of the 3fs Sufformatives of the Akkadian Stative, the Canaanite Suffix Conjugation, the Ugaritic Suffix Conjugation and the Hebrew Suffix Conjugation

Akkadian stative Canaanite suffix conjugation Ugaritic suffix conjugation Hebrew suffix conjugation

3fs: parsat -at -at ‫ה‬-

Canaanite form is equivalent to the Akkadian stative parsat. The comparison of the 3fs sufformatives in table 16 indicates the com111

occurs.

This is in contrast with Hebrew where in III:waw/yod verbs, a he

CHAPTER FIFTEEN

221

monality across the second millennium BCE sources and the contrasting Biblical Hebrew form. There is one 3fs verbal gloss which demonstrates Canaanite formation. This occurs in a letter from Jerusalem, EA 288:52. EA 288:51–53: h al-k.a-at / a-ba-da-at she (the lands) is lost ˘ (51) [ù] śum‐ma ia‐a‐nu‐mi s. âbē pi‐da‐tum (52) i‐na šatti an‐ni‐ti hal-k.a-at / a‐ba‐da‐at ˘ ri (53) \ gab‐bi mâtāt šarri bêli‐ia Knudtzon places the gloss marker at the beginning of line 53, whereas its expected position is between h al-k.a-at and a‐ba‐da‐at on ˘ line 52. If there are no archers this year, all the lands of the king, my lord, are lost. (Moran 1987:331) The subject of the verb is ‘all the lands’, which is fp, but in this context it is construed as a collective with a fs verb. This form is also discussed in chapter 13. A significant number of instances indicate that this West Semitic 3fs sufformative is used consistently in the letters displaying a West Semitic influence. There is no evidence that there was an alternative Canaanite form for this West Semitic sufformative. In the Ribaddi letters there are fifty-nine instances of this sufformative, in the letters from Tyre there are seven instances, and in the letters from Jerusalem there are eleven instances.112 Even though the Canaanite 3fs suffix conjugation is identical to the Akkadian 3fs stative, it is clear that suffix conjugation verbs in the Amarna letters from Canaan have a tendency to reflect West Semitic morphology. Thus, for example, over 80% of 1cs qt.l forms have the suffix -ti, usually with the connective vowel -a- attached to the Akkadian verb form, replacing the Akkadian sufformative -aku (Rainey 1996, II:284). Several examples of the 3fs sufformative are presented below. Each is translated literally. EA 76:6 (from Ribaddi): šal-ma-at she (Gubla) is well We derived this data from Knudtzon’s transliteration of the Amarna letters (Knudtzon 1915, Part I), from Ebeling’s glossary (Knudtzon 1915, Part II), and from Rainey’s discussion of suffix conjugation verbal forms (Rainey 1996, II, chapters 12 and 13). 112

222

DATING ABH POETRY: A CRITIQUE

EA 76:34 (from Ribaddi): en-ni-ip-ša-at she (the land of the king and Ṣumur) has been joined (The subject is construed as a collective.) EA 138:98 (from Ribaddi): na-ad-na-at she (the troops) is given (The subject is construed as a collective.) EA 149:64 (from Tyre): ga-aš-ta-at she (the powerful hand) will defeat EA 290:12 (from Jerusalem): pa-ṭa-ra-at she (the land of the king) will desert to Conclusion The evidence from a Canaanite gloss, the parallel of the Akkadian stative and the Canaanite suffix conjugation indicate that the 3fs sufformative is -at. There is no evidence of any other marker for the 3fs -at verbal form in the suffix conjugation for the Canaanite of the Amarna letters in the fourteenth century BCE.

THE 3fs SUFFORMATIVE OF THE SUFFIX CONJUGATION IN ARCHAIC BIBLICAL HEBREW In the ABH poetic corpus, the 3fs sufformative -at of the suffix conjugation occurs only once, in Deuteronomy 32.36: ‫‘ ָאזְ ַלת‬she (their strength) is gone’. This form is considered to be a remnant of an earlier stage of Hebrew morphology (GKC §44f, §75m; Wright 1966:167; Young 1993:127). This form is analyzed in the text below with other instances of the 3fs sufformative ‫ת‬- in the final position. We also discuss the conditions under which this West Semitic feminine morpheme occurs in a non-final position. The focus is primarily on the ABH texts, but is expanded to include poetry and prose across the Hebrew Bible. If ABH poetry is of second millennium provenance, then the 3fs -at ending is expected to occur since it is found in both of the second millennium sources in our study. The 3fs sufformative -at occurs only once, even though possibilities exist for its occurrence in three poems generally considered to be in the ABH corpus. The shift from the Semitic 3fs -at to the Biblical Hebrew ‫ה‬- occurs almost without exception. This shift may be accounted for by analogy with the feminine singular mor-

CHAPTER FIFTEEN

223

pheme of the noun (Moscati et al. 1964:139; Lipiński 1997:362).113 Evidence is found of the development of the qat.ala perfect active form of the verb in the period of the Amarna letters and other West Semitic forms from the middle of the second millennium. The 3fs -at of the suffix conjugation remains unchanged in the final position except in Hebrew (Harris 1939:45). Several further proposals, which are not mutually exclusive, add to our understanding of this morpheme. Wright proposes that the -āh is a weakened form of -at, and that the progression was -at >-ath >-ah >-āh (Wright 1966:167). Waltke and O’Connor propose that the fs ‫ה‬termination on absolute nouns in Biblical Hebrew is a later development of the Semitic -(a)t ending. They suggest that the -āh arose as a pausal variant of -at, a variant which is found in Classical Arabic (Waltke and O’Connor 1990:96). One proposal for the retention of the -at in III:yod/waw verbs is that after the elision of the yod/waw between unstressed short vowels the long ā results from the syncope, preserving the -āt. The short -at developed into an -āh, the he being a mater lectionis. Further, probably later, the -āt ending of III:yod/waw verbs developed into -tāh by analogy with strong verbs (Harris 1939:57–58; Blau 1980:18–19). Evidence for this Analysis Verbal forms in the ABH corpus and in Robertson’s ‘early’ poetic corpus which provide for the possible presence of the 3fs -at sufformative are indicated below. There is no use of the 3fs suffix conjugation form in Exodus 15, Numbers 23 and 24, and Deuteronomy 33. Judges 5 verse 4: ‫( ָר ָע ָשׁה‬the earth) shook verse 25: ‫ נָ ָתנָ ה‬she gave verse 25: ‫יבה‬ ָ ‫ ִה ְק ִר‬she brought verse 26: ‫ וְ ָה ְל ָמה‬and she struck verse 26: ‫ ָמ ֲח ָקה‬she crushed verse 26: ‫ וּ ָמ ֲח ָצה‬and she shattered verse 26: ‫ וְ ָח ְל ָפה‬and she pierced 113

The Semitic fs -(a)t on nouns is discussed in chapter 11.

224

DATING ABH POETRY: A CRITIQUE

verse 28: ‫ נִ ְשׁ ְק ָפה‬she looked out Many scholars consider this poem to be most ancient (SaénzBadillos 1993:35), but it does not contain any examples of the -at sufformative. Yet one might expect the use of this archaism if the poem conformed to the typology of the second millennium sources. Genesis 49 verse 15: ‫( נָ ֵע ָמה‬his land) is pleasant Deuteronomy 32 verse 22: ‫( ָק ְד ָחה‬a fire) is kindled In this poem both sufformatives occur: verse 36: ‫ ָאזְ ַלת‬and verse 22: ‫ ָק ְד ָחה‬. This variation of usage may be explained as a dialectal variant (Young 1992:371), an author’s choice among possible stylistic options, or the result of inconsistent scribal updating. There is insufficient evidence to make a determination in this specific case. Another example of the use of both sufformatives in close proximity is found in Ezekiel 46.17: ‫‘ וְ ָשׁ ַבת‬and (the gift) shall ָ ‫‘ וְ ָה‬she will be’. As this latter form is a III:weak root return’, and ‫יְתה‬ verb the taw is used with an added pleonastic ‫ה‬-. The use of this form for comparative purposes indicates a contrast with the -at ending. According to the scholarly notes in BHS, there is a suggested correction: ‫ושׁ ָבת>וְ ָשׁ ַבת‬. There is no probable correction suggested for the form in Deuteronomy 32.36 and Isaiah 23.15. Thus in the BHS notes, different perceptions of the use of the -at sufformative appear to be operating. An extension of this analysis to include the poems in Robertson’s corpus yields no instances of the -at sufformative, even though there are possibilities for its occurrence. No occurrences of a 3fs suffix conjugation verb were found in 2 Samuel 22 // Psalm 18. Habakkuk 3 verse 3: ‫ ָמ ְל ָאה‬she (his praise) was full Psalm 78 verse 21: ‫ נִ ְשּׂ ָקה‬she (the fire) was kindled verse 54: ‫ ָקנְ ָתה‬she (his right hand) purchased (?) verse 63: ‫ ָא ְכ ָלת‬she (the fire) consumed Job (Some examples are presented below.) 5.13: ‫ נִ ְמ ָה ָרה‬she (the schemes of the wily) are swept away 5.16: ‫ ָק ְפ ָצה‬she (injustice) shuts 5.23: ‫ ָה ְשׁ ְל ָמה‬she (the wild animal) will be at peace

CHAPTER FIFTEEN

225

6.13: ‫ נִ ְדּ ָחה‬she (success) was driven 9.24: ‫ נִ ְתּנָ ה‬she (the land) was given 13.2: ‫ ָשׁ ְמ ָעה‬she (my ear) heard 15.19: ‫ נִ ְתּנָ ה‬she (the land) was given 16.20: ‫ ָדּ ְל ָפה‬she (my eye) pours tears This evidence confirms the use of the standard 3fs sufformative ‫ה‬- in ABH poetry. Within the Hebrew Bible there are two other forms suggested in the literature with the 3fs sufformative -at in the suffix conjugation which are not special grammatical exceptions. These occur in Isaiah 23.15: ‫‘ וְ נִ ְשׁ ַכּ ַחת‬and she (Tyre) shall be forgotten’, and Ezekiel 46.17: ‫‘ וְ ָשׁ ַבת‬and it (the gift) shall return’, previously mentioned (Wright 1966:136–137; Kutscher 1982:39; Young 1993:127). The ‫ וְ נִ ְשׁ ַכּ ַחת‬form is analyzed as a feminine singular niphal participle in Hebrew (BDB 1013). However Gesenius indicates that as this form has come under Aramaic influence, it is the Aramaic form for ‫( וְ נִ ְשׁ ְכּ ָחה‬GKC §44f; Kutscher 1982:39). It is probable that this verbal form is an indication of the use of dialectal variation in the text as a poetic device. Rendsburg presents evidence of a style-switching technique whereby the speech of Transjordanians is presented in the biblical text by unusual grammatical forms which may be classified as Aramaisms (Rendsburg 2006:164). As the passage in which this form occurs is an oracle concerning Tyre and Sidon, mostly in poetic form, style-switching indicates an addressee at this point. With regard to the form ‫וְ ָשׁ ַבת‬, Gesenius refers to this as an isolated anomaly in the perfect, indicating the original ending of the feminine for ‫( וְ ָשׁ ָבה‬GKC §72o). While the -at sufformative is uncommon in Hebrew and may be referred to as an Aramaism, it is not a case of borrowing, but a return to an original form (GKC §44fn1). Kutscher however disagrees on a point of emphasis. He argues that the oracle concerning Tyre and Sidon was composed when Aramaic was already dominant, and therefore this form must be considered as an Aramaism (Kutscher 1974:26). To this he also adds the observation that the form in Deuteronomy may also be a product of Aramaic influence. Robertson views both the above forms ‫ וְ ָשׁ ַבת‬and ‫ וְ נִ ְשׁ ַכּ ַחת‬as best explained as Aramaisms (Robertson 1972:111n2). Following Rendsburg’s arguments (Rendsburg 2006:163), both forms are either in texts of northern origin or the

226

DATING ABH POETRY: A CRITIQUE

setting of the texts has an Aramaean flavour, and therefore the verbal forms have this Aramaic-like feature. These findings lead back to the consideration of the form in Deuteronomy 32.36, ‫ ָאזְ ַלת‬as an early form. The above evidence could indicate that this is the only distinctly Biblical Hebrew example of the -at ending, as well as being the only example in ABH. Sanders regards this form as an Aramaism (Sanders 1996:50n264). Young contests the idea that Hebrew forms corresponding to Aramaic forms may be labelled ‘Aramaisms’. He indicates that Hebrew language would have always had an Aramaic substratum which would have survived in Hebrew dialects, especially those of the north (Young 1993:30, 54, 60). The form in Deuteronomy 32.36 may also be an Aramaic-like dialect feature (Young 1993:127). As the 3fs sufformative is common to both the second millennium West Semitic sources and Aramaic, reflecting their earlier common heritage, there is no compelling reason to refer to this sufformative as an Aramaism in this instance. In the Siloam Tunnel inscription, there is one item of Hebrew inscriptional evidence of the use of the 3fs suffix conjugation using the older sufformative ‫ת‬-, ‫‘ הית‬she was’. Gibson indicates that the expected vocalization -at from proto-Hebrew would be appropriate here (Gibson 1971:23). There is no Hebrew epigraphic evidence available of the ‫ה‬- sufformative in the suffix conjugation (Garr 1985: 60). As the evidence from the Siloam Tunnel inscription is dated circa 700 BCE, only cautious observations may be made. The reservations which Young has stipulaterd in his argument for the possible relationship of the Gezer Calendar to ABH (Young 1992:374), and the lack of identity of inscriptional evidence with the SBH corpus (Young 2003:308) need to be borne in mind. From this scant evidence, Harris suggests that the ‫ה‬- ending appeared after 700 BCE (Harris 1939:308). By contrast, Robertson argues that ‘it is virtually certain that this [-at] ending had become -a by the early period [before the dating of his ‘early’ corpus]. The older ending is found only once in Biblical Hebrew: Deuteronomy 32.36 ‫ ָאזְ ַלת‬.’ (Robertson 1972:111) While neither of the two theories can be proven at this stage, it does indicate the precariousness of dating the appearance or loss not only of this morphological form but also of any morphological form. In SBH, traces of the retention of the Semitic 3fs sufformative ‫ת‬- in the suffix conjugation occur under certain conditions. One

CHAPTER FIFTEEN

227

such condition is where the addition of a pronominal suffix and the taw replace the sufformative he (Wright 1966:170). Jeremiah 20.14: ‫ יְ ָל ַד ְתנִ י‬she (my mother) bore me Hosea 2.9: ‫ וּ ִב ְק ָשׁ ַתם‬and she will seek them In III:he verbs, a taw replaces the he before an added pleonastic ending ‫ה‬-, probably by analogy with the standard 3fs form (GKC §75i). Examples from the root ‫ גלה‬are given below. Isaiah 26.21: ‫ וְ גִ ְלּ ָתה‬and she (the earth) shall disclose Lamentations 1.3: ‫ גָּ ְל ָתה‬she (Judah) is gone into captivity Nahum 2.8: ‫ גֻּ ְלּ ָתה‬she shall be led away into captivity Esther 2.6: ‫ ָהגְ ְל ָתה‬she was carried away Further examples appear below. Psalm 78.54: ‫ ָקנְ ָתה‬she (his right hand) took Job 13.1: ‫ ָר ֲא ָתה‬she (my eye) saw One III:he form, ‫ היה‬in 2 Kings 9.37 yields the consonantal form ‫הית‬, pointed ‫יְת‬ ָ ‫ וְ ָה‬in the Masoretic Text. The Qĕrê ‫ והיתה‬indicates the he mater lectionis, thus completing the standard orthography. In original III:yod/waw verbs, where the he appears instead of the yod or waw in standard Hebrew, the -at sufformative is retained in a few exceptional cases. Leviticus 25.21: ‫ וְ ָע ָשׂת‬and it (the sixth year) shall bring forth (produce) Leviticus 26.34: ‫ וְ ִה ְר ָצת‬and she will be pleased Ezekiel 24.12: ‫ ֶה ְל ָאת‬she has wearied Where the verbal stem is a III:aleph, the taw is occasionally retained. Exodus 5.16: ‫ וְ ָח ָטאת‬and she is at fault Deuteronomy 31.29: ‫ וְ ָק ָראת‬and she (evil) will befall Jeremiah 44.23: ‫ ָק ָראת‬she (this evil) happened Conclusion The standard 3fs sufformative in Biblical Hebrew is ‫ה‬-. The 3fs sufformative -at of the suffix conjugation is an archaic remnant of proto-Hebrew which has parallels in the second millennium BCE texts of Ugaritic and Amarna Canaanite. One probable instance of this sufformative in ABH poetry is in Deuteronomy 32.36: ‫ ָאזְ ַלת‬. This analysis of the 3fs sufformative -at of the suffix conjugation provides further evidence of the linguistic contrast between ABH poetry and the second millennium sources. The use of the later

228

DATING ABH POETRY: A CRITIQUE

linguistic form of the 3fs sufformative ‫ה‬- of the suffix conjugation is a morphological characteristic of the ABH corpus.

CHAPTER 16 REVIEW AND DISCUSSION ARCHAIC LINGUISTIC FEATURES: A POETIC STYLE, NOT A DATING TOOL The tendency to date poetic compositions containing archaisms to the late second and early first millennia BCE has been particularly evident in the twentieth century CE and even into the twenty-first century. This is particularly marked following the research of Robertson and his contemporaries. Biblical commentators in particular, drawing on his work, have often overlooked the basis for Robertson’s argument and the tentative manner in which he presents the dates for the poems in his ‘early’ corpus. This study clearly shows that linguistic evidence is not an appropriate tool for dating the texts in the ABH poetic corpus. We challenge Robertson’s conclusions and methodology on many fronts. Robertson frames his argument in terms of the antiquity of linguistic elements in the poems in his ‘early’ corpus, that is, their temporal proximity to the language of Ugarit and Amarna Canaanite. The chief challenge focuses upon certain expected morphological forms which should be present if his corpus belongs to the second millennium BCE. As they are not present, even in Exodus 15, the poem which he dates the earliest, then the morphology of his corpus is not typical of the second millennium sources to which he refers. We reject the sufficiency of Robertson’s two supposedly ‘genuine’ archaic linguistic features which he uses for dating his corpus, and specifically for the dating of Exodus 15 as the earliest poem. As a consequence it is not possible to identify an ABH poem using linguistic evidence as necessarily reflecting an

229

230

DATING ABH POETRY: A CRITIQUE

earlier stage of Hebrew than SBH, and then assign the text a second millennium BCE dating. ABH poetry is characterized by the use of archaisms which are rare morphological forms. Although these forms are found in second millennium BCE Ugaritic and Amarna Canaanite texts, their presence does not necessarily imply that any text from the ABH corpus also came from that period. Consequently, it is argued that linguistic evidence is not an appropriate tool for dating ABH poetic texts to the second millennium BCE.

REVIEW AND DISCUSSION OF PART I: REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE Research into Ugaritic literature and the Canaanite of the Amarna letters from the second millennium BCE provides an impetus for the linguistic comparison of these sources with the poetry of the Hebrew Bible, particularly the poetry of the Pentateuch and Judges 5. Studies by Albright, Cross and Freedman and others use linguistic evidence of a literary, orthographic, morphological and syntactic nature to date this poetry to the second millennium. These poems generally include Exodus 15, Judges 5, Numbers 23–24, Deuteronomy 33, Genesis 49, Deuteronomy 32 and 2 Samuel 1.19–27. Poems usually attributed to the early first millennium include 2 Samuel 22 // Psalm 18 and Habakkuk 3. Some later studies claim to confirm these approximate datings, with Freedman being as firmly convinced in 1997 as he was in 1951 that early poems are really early. However Cross expresses less certainty about the results of their early work when considering the long period of the transmission of the texts of these poems. Robertson uses primarily linguistic evidence in his research to provide a basis for an early dating of some of the poems listed above. He selects second millennium BCE Ugaritic and Canaanite evidence for comparative purposes, and as a consequence, dates these Hebrew poems to the second and early first millennia. To this data he adds Hebrew forms which he considers to be genuinely old but which he does not find in the two other sources. The 3mp pronominal suffix ‫מוֹ‬- is his most significant example. His second millennium corpus includes Exodus 15 and Judges 5 which he dates to the twelfth century. 2 Samuel 22 // Psalm 18, Deuteronomy 32, Habakkuk and the poetry of Job he dates to the eleventh

CHAPTER SIXTEEN

231

century with a possible extension into the tenth century. He dates Psalm 78 to the ninth century. Robertson bases his conclusions on a formula for identifying ‘genuine’ archaic morphological forms and syntactic structures which produces this smaller corpus of ‘early’ poetry. His criteria for identifying ‘genuine’ morphological forms include the following features. The morphological forms were required to be present in Ugaritic and/or in Amarna Canaanite, or they had to be genuinely old, rare forms, for example, the suffix ‫מוֹ‬-; they had to appear in the poem without the use of later parallel morphological forms; and they had to occur in a cluster of one form or a cluster of a variety of forms. As regard syntactic structures, Robertson argues that, as in Ugaritic, the prefix conjugation was also to be syntactically equivalent to the preterite. We challenge Robertson’s arguments on the grounds that his linguistic criteria are neither necessarily appropriate nor sufficiently discriminatory to establish the dating of an ‘early’ poetic corpus. There is no certain evidence for the uninterrupted continuity of linguistic development from Ugaritic and/or Amarna Canaanite to the morphology of the ABH poetry of the Hebrew Bible. The chief hindrance to finding this evidence is the lack of second millennium and early first millennium BCE epigraphic or textual material of certain Hebrew provenance. The poetry of the ABH corpus does not provide this evidence. We consider the older morphological forms to be archaisms, defined as rare morphological forms found in poetic Biblical Hebrew of the Masoretic Text and also found in second millennium Ugaritic and/or Canaanite of the Amarna letters. This definition implies a non-specific time interval between standard forms in one language or dialect and their subsequent use as archaisms in another language or dialect. The very limited number of archaic forms represented in the ABH corpus is evident in this study and in Robertson’s study. These variants are common across the entire ABH poetic corpus. This may be explained as the scribe making use of the limited number of morphological and syntactic forms which are available to best convey the message. There is evidence of a choice of morpheme to suit poetic purposes, for example, meter or sound pattern, or to maintain a consistency of usage in certain situations. On occasions this use appears to be almost too precise, as in the case of the consistent use of the 3mp pronominal suffix ‫מוֹ‬- on verbal forms but not on prepositions in Exodus 15. In other cases a con-

232

DATING ABH POETRY: A CRITIQUE

trasting consistent usage is found as in Deuteronomy 32, where this suffix is used on nouns and prepositions but not on verbs. There is also the possibility that the scribe is exercising his skill in selecting from among the possibilities available, the forms which best suit the circumstances of the context in which the poem is set. In these poems, which are considered in many cases to have a premonarchic setting, the use of archaisms seems most appropriate. To distinguish a ‘genuine’ form, an archaism and archaizing, the quantitative formula which Robertson implements has pretensions of objectivity, but this is not confirmed in the resulting evidence. His formula depends on many subjective speculations and is therefore misleading. The phenomenon of the use of archaic linguistic forms to create the impression of antiquity is well recognised. Although Robertson indicates that a successfully archaized poem may not be distinguishable from a genuinely old poem, he continues his study on the hypothesis that he can distinguish between the two. His two examples of ‘genuine’ forms in Exodus 15, the 3mp pronominal suffix ‫מוֹ‬- and the preterite use of the prefix conjugation which we argue do not meet his own criteria on the basis of current research, are also disputed in this study on the grounds of their relevance for dating. Robertson severely compromises his own argument for ‘genuine’ archaic forms on two occasions. Robertson acknowledges that if archaizing is used consistently, it is impossible to tell whether the archaism is ‘genuine’ or not. Thus we argue that if the two cannot be differentiated with certainty, his criteria for implementing his formula are no longer appropriate. His admission that both poetic style and an early date are both relevant options for evaluating linguistic data opens the door for all archaic forms, even his ‘genuine’ archaic forms, to be considered as stylistic choices. Robertson’s claim that Exodus 15 is the earliest poem in the Hebrew Bible, dating to the twelfth century BCE, is brought into question on the basis of his use of linguistic evidence and the methodology he undertakes. The current state of our knowledge indicates that Robertson’s procedures have not stood the test of time. It also indicates that there are some critical impediments to our knowledge of the influence of one language on a later language in the West Semitic linguistic arena. Because of the lack of attested evidence, we cannot identify linguistic developments which may have occurred in parallel but over different periods of time.

CHAPTER SIXTEEN

233

There is a significant range of attested Ugaritic textual material, but alongside this, the Amarna Canaanite material has been extracted from the Amarna letters as a substrate language which penetrated Akkadian, the dominant literary language of the region. The incompletely attested Canaanite evidence in the relevant letters indicates that it contains different dialects, and this has consequences for interpreting comparative data. An example of a positive consequence for this study is that the 3mp pronominal suffix ‫מוֹ‬- is found only in a letter from Shechem (EA 252) and in one from Jerusalem (EA 287). This does not necessarily preclude its presence in other Canaanite dialects at that time. Robertson bases his hypothetical, reconstructed, early Hebrew literary language (twelfth to the ninth centuries inclusive) mainly on the linguistic forms which are common to either or both of the two second millennium sources and archaic Biblical Hebrew poetry, all of which he claims differ from standard Biblical Hebrew poetry. This questionable methodology, the hypothetical nature of the reconstructed early literary Hebrew, and the indeterminate time period over which changes may have occurred do not provide a reliable basis from which to date ABH poetic texts. Many possible intervening variables may have brought about changes in the literary language rendering Robertson’s use of textual comparisons untenable for dating purposes. The necessity to draw upon historical, political and social evidence, not only from pre-Israelite and Israelite times, but also from events in the region for indicators which may support linguistic dating of ABH poetry becomes apparent throughout his study. Particularly so is the case of the dating of the exodus and its relationship to the many possible dates for the dating of Exodus 15. Therefore it follows that as there is no certainty about the date of the exodus, there can be no certainty about the earliest date of Exodus 15, as the two dates involve a chronological interdependence. Robertson asserts that his interpretation of linguistic evidence is a very strong argument for dating Exodus 15 early. This one equivocal, firmly grounded conclusion of his study is undermined by two contra-arguments. As his identification of the 3mp pronominal suffix ‫מוֹ‬- as a ‘genuine’ archaic form is strongly disputed, his argument cannot be sustained. Secondly, research subsequent to Robertson’s proposal of the yqt.l preterite as an archaic form raises many unanswered questions.

234

DATING ABH POETRY: A CRITIQUE

REVIEW AND DISCUSSION OF PART II: RESEARCH Part II presents the chief challenge to Robertson’s methodology and conclusions. The research examines the thesis that if the poetry in Robertson’s ‘early’ corpus belongs to the period of the late second millennium BCE, that is, later than the Ugaritic literature and the Amarna letters, then certain morphological forms are expected to appear, if not consistently, then as identifiable remnants of the two sources. The focus text is Exodus 15, as Robertson dates this as the earliest poem, that is, to the twelfth century BCE, and thus in close temporal relationship to the Ugaritic writings and to his dating of the exodus. Three morphological forms which appear incontrovertibly in both Ugaritic and the Canaanite of the Amarna letters are the system of noun declension, the 3mp preformative -‫ת‬ of the prefix conjugation, and the 3fs affix ‫ת‬- of the suffix conjugation. These three morphological forms are typical of the two second millennium sources to which Robertson refers, and are thus in accordance with Robertson’s first criterion for a ‘genuine’ archaic form. These forms are expected to be amongst the ‘genuine’ archaic forms in an ‘early’ second millennium ABH poetic corpus appearing, if not as a matter of linguistic necessity, then as consistently used, identifiable remnants of an earlier linguistic period. These three forms are expected to be represented in particular in Exodus 15. Case Endings The evidence from the analysis of case endings in Ugaritic indicates that the scribes consistently implemented the West Semitic case system for III:aleph nouns, which may then be reasonably argued to represent the situation across all nominal forms. In Amarna Canaanite the case system is in operation particularly in the context of the declinable status rectus. Five features of the case system distinguish it from the Akkadian system, and are understood to reflect linguistic developments in Canaanite specific to the dialects recorded in individual corpora. In both the ABH corpus and Robertson’s ‘early’ corpus there are no certain instances of case endings. This evidence indicates a significant departure of ABH morphology from the two second millennium sources.

CHAPTER SIXTEEN

235

The 3mp Preformative -‫ ת‬of the Prefix Conjugation The 3mp -‫ ת‬preformative in the prefix conjugation is the standard preformative for Ugaritic and Amarna Canaanite of the latter half of the second millennium BCE. This evidence led to suggestions that a 3mp -‫ ת‬preformative also appears in Biblical Hebrew, indicating an aspect of common morphology among these three languages. No examples of this preformative are confirmed for the ABH poetic corpus or for Robertson’s ‘early’ corpus. This evidence indicates a significant departure of ABH morphology from the two second millennium sources. The 3fs Sufformative -at of the Suffix Conjugation The standard 3fs sufformative of the suffix conjugation in Ugaritic and Amarna Canaanite is -at. No other sufformative is indicated. In the ABH poetic corpus the 3fs sufformative is ‫ה‬- and no other sufformative is indicated with one exception. In Deuteronomy 32.36, which is common to both the ABH corpus and Robertson’s ‘early’ corpus, the 3fs verbal form ‫ ָאזְ ַלת‬occurs, which is a probable instance of the use of the -at sufformative. This almost exclusive preference for the feminine ending ‫ה‬- indicates a strong contrast with the second millennium sources. In summary, the evidence indicates that these three forms in our study are neither represented in Exodus 15 nor in Judges 5, both of which Robertson dates to the twelfth century BCE. There is only one instance of one form in one poem, ‫ ָאזְ ַלת‬, in Deuteronomy 32.36, which Robertson dates to the eleventh-tenth centuries. There is no compelling linguistic evidence in any Hebrew poem in Robertson’s ‘early’ corpus, or in any poem characterized as archaic, of the antiquity of these texts. In Hebrew poems, the absence of these standard forms which are present in the second millennium sources indicates a marked discontinuity of linguistic forms and a typological difference between the two second millennium sources and both Robertson’s corpus and the ABH corpus. Young et al. agree: ‘For the fact of the matter is, as argued by Vern (2008), even Exodus 15 is missing a number of archaic forms which would be expected in comparison with Amarna Canaanite and Ugaritic.’ (2008, I:338)

236

DATING ABH POETRY: A CRITIQUE

Uses and Limitations of Linguistic Evidence from Archaic Biblical Hebrew Morphological and syntactic evidence is considered sufficient to stylistically characterize the ABH poetic corpus. The presence of archaic forms and rare forms which are argued to be of an earlier linguistic period set these poems apart. However, this stylistic feature, no matter how distinctive, cannot be assumed to provide certain evidence for dating the corpus or any part of it to the second millennium BCE. The term ‘archaic’ must be understood in this context, and its two uses differentiated. Robertson clearly uses this term to relate the date of the composition of the poem with its chronological proximity to the event described. However it is more appropriate to use this terminology to indicate a style of linguistic presentation which is presumed to reflect the period in which the composition is set. The rare forms in archaic poetry were likely to be part of the poet or scribe’s literary expertise, although this cannot be proven because of the lack of availability of attested early Hebrew evidence. To assume that these few forms in archaic poetry had a necessary chronological relationship to their appearance in the second millennium sources is purely speculative. It is now indisputably evident that linguistic evidence which involves archaisms or rare forms is not a reliable tool for dating ABH poetry. The elements presented as linguistic evidence vary across the research. Linguistic variables have been described by some as autonomous and independent, but as different dating outcomes for individual poems are reported, this description is invalidated. For example, using linguistic variables, Robertson assigns a twelfth century date for Exodus 15 whilst Brenner assigns it a postexilic date. Robertson assigns an eleventh to a tenth century date for Deuteronomy 32 whilst Sanders considers a date ranging from Israel’s settlement in Canaan to the period of the exile. Linguistic criteria have been shown not to be sufficiently discriminatory for dating purposes. Robertson’s use of the morphological form ‫מוֹ‬ and the syntactic evidence he presents to date Exodus 15 as the earliest of his ‘early’ poetic corpus indicate this. That Ugaritic is a progenitor of Hebrew is brought into question. As the term ‘Canaanite’ is considered to represent a multiplicity of dialects, the reliability of using these sources as a basis for dating an ABH corpus is therefore questionable. Linguistic data are susceptible to scribal variation due to the processes involved in the

CHAPTER SIXTEEN

237

transmission of the text. There is therefore considerable doubt that the Masoretic Text which we have before us reflects an author’s autograph. Reconstructed and emended texts have not been considered acceptable evidence for this study. Discontinuity of Evidence This study indicates that there are three sources for a marked discontinuity of linguistic data from the Ugaritic and the Amarna Canaanite sources to the ABH corpus and Robertson’s ‘early’ poetic corpus. Firstly, three distinct morphological forms common to the two second millennium sources, that is, case endings, the 3mp preformative of the prefix conjugation and the 3fs affix of the suffix conjugation, are not found as either archaisms or ‘genuine’ early forms in either the ABH poetic corpus or Robertson’s ‘early’ poetic corpus. Secondly, the limited number of archaic morphological and syntactic forms is another aspect of this discontinuity of linguistic evidence. Thirdly, there is a marked gap in our knowledge of the development of pre-Biblical Hebrew, as second millennium and early first millennium attested Hebrew epigraphic and textual evidence is not available to indicate linguistic changes in relation to the developments from proto-Hebrew to the Hebrew of the ABH poetry. This lack of attested evidence for the diachronic pattern of linguistic changes in Hebrew severely inhibits the drawing of linguistic and chronological parallels with Ugaritic and Amarna Canaanite linguistic forms. Robertson’s attempts to explain this gap with his reconstruction of early Hebrew by relating it to ‘genuine’ archaic forms is speculative and therefore unacceptable evidence for dating purposes. When compared with Phoenician and Sam’alian inscriptional evidence in the first millennium (approximately 850–730 BCE), Hebrew lacks attested evidence of the transition which occurred as the second millennium forms were lost. An example from Phoenician and Sam’alian inscriptional evidence where a transitional stage of linguistic development is present indicates that a case-ending system is found to function alongside the use of the nota accusativi, and the feminine singular affix is retained with the possibility of a vocalized case ending. This provides evidence of three stages in the loss of case endings. In Hebrew there is no comparable inscriptional or other textual evidence for a transitional phase. Thus there is no contributing evidence

238

DATING ABH POETRY: A CRITIQUE

from which to gauge the time period over which the loss of case endings, the 3mp preformative t- or the 3fs -at or any other morphological or syntactic form occurred. A Typological Approach It is possible to establish a typology of the use of the three morphological forms analyzed in this study. The second millennium sources, Ugaritic and Amarna Canaanite, are characterized by the use of case endings, the 3mp preformative t- of the prefix conjugation and the 3fs sufformative -at of the suffix conjugation. By contrast, there is no sufficient, compelling, linguistic evidence114 that these forms occur in ABH poetry or in Robertson’s ‘early’ corpus. With regard to the three morphological features in our discussion, the text of Exodus 15, as it has come to us in the Masoretic Text, is not typologically similar to the two second millennium sources. No statement is offered as a result of this study as to the temporal proximity of Exodus 15 to these two sources. What can be said, assuming that Ugaritic and Amarna Canaanite are direct ancestors of Biblical Hebrew, is that sufficient time has elapsed to allow these forms to be subsumed by later forms. This process also applies to Robertson’s linguistic data which he uses for dating Exodus 15 and his other ‘early’ corpus poems. Data from first millennium Northwest Semitic sources suggest that there are parallels with the ABH data across these languages. Thus ABH poetry and Robertson’s ‘early’ corpus present little linguistic difficulty when classified as belonging to first millennium typology. This does not necessarily prove that either the ABH corpus or Robertson’s ‘early’ corpus is of first millennium provenance, but it does indicate that there are sufficient grounds for rejecting the use of Robertson’s methodology and linguistic evidence ‘as a very strong argument for dating Exodus 15 early.’ (Robertson 1972:155)

114 There is only one instance of one form in one poem, ‫ ָאזְ ַלת‬Deuteronomy 32.36, which Robertson dates to the eleventh-tenth centuries.

CHAPTER SIXTEEN

239

Dialect Variation The archaic forms which are present in the ABH poetry and in Robertson’s ‘early’ poetic corpus may not in fact be direct descendants of forms from Ugaritic and Amarna Canaanite in a chronological sense. Another possibility is that the archaic forms are linked geographically to dialectal influences across the Northwest Semitic linguistic area. Dialectal influences and possible parallel developments may emerge from a further analysis of the deviations of the northern and southern linguistic differences. This could indicate that we are dealing with not just one but two overlapping sets of available options for use as archaisms, a northern and a southern one. It may also provide a reason for the distinct difference in the use of the 3mp pronominal suffix. In Exodus 15 the form may indicate that this is a southern poem, while the probable northern derivation of Deuteronomy 32 provides a different usage. There is also the probability that a stylistic choice has indicated the outcome in each case. The complexity of the issue of dialects is realized when such factors as geography, settlement, historical and political factors, development of nationhood, religious and cultural differences, and economic factors are found to impinge on the diffusion or the arresting of linguistic change. These influences on linguistic change need to be taken into consideration. Linguistic Changes in Versions In Part I we indicate that there are significant problems relating to the use of linguistic evidence for assigning early dates to ABH poetic texts. Uncertainty surrounds the originality of the presence or absence of archaisms and the consistency of their usage. This uncertainty also relates to the purported earlier forms of Hebrew, three of which are examined in Part II: case endings, the 3mp -‫ת‬ preformative in the prefix conjugation and the 3fs ‫ת‬- ending in the suffix conjugation. From the time of the composition of these poems to the time of the texts we have before us, these texts have been susceptible to scribal variation. This time period could extend for a millennium or more, depending on when Exodus 15 was composed. Attempts to recover the original text by emendation and reconstruction presume that scribal processes throughout the trans-

240

DATING ABH POETRY: A CRITIQUE

mission of the text are predictable and that they took place in one direction only, that is, in terms of updating the text. However evidence indicates that this is not necessarily the case. Comparative evidence of archaic linguistic forms across the Masoretic Text, the Samaritan Pentateuch and 4QExodc give credence to the argument that not only could linguistic forms be updated, but that archaic forms could be inserted. Thus the archaic linguistic forms in poems in actual texts, considered in the light of the uncertainty of their originality, the unpredictability of scribal interventions and the probable inconsistency of their use, are an unstable base from which to date this poetry. The instability becomes even more apparent if we accept that the use of archaisms is equally likely to be a matter of choice by the author or scribe.

CONCLUSIONS The findings from our study indicate a clear discontinuity between linguistic evidence of the two second millennium BCE sources, Ugaritic and Amarna Canaanite, and the ABH texts with regard to three of the standard forms in these sources. Of several possibilities in these sources including lack of the definite article and the enclitic mem, we discussed three forms. These are case endings, the 3mp preformative -‫ ת‬of the prefix conjugation and the 3fs sufformative -at of the suffix conjugation. The evidence indicates a lapse of an indeterminate period of time between the second millennium sources and the ABH poetic corpus, a period during which these forms were presumably replaced by standard Hebrew forms. The absence of case endings and the use of the standard Hebrew feminine form are indisputable evidence of linguistic discontinuity. Further evidence is found in the absence of the 3mp preformative t- in the prefix conjugation, and the absence of the 3fs affix -at of the suffix conjugation. This finding of discontinuity is replicated for Robertson’s research, particularly in relation to his two ‘genuine’ early forms critical for dating Exodus 15 to the twelfth century BCE. Two factors which highlight this discontinuity are the unsubstantiated relationship of proto-Hebrew to the two second millennium sources, and the absence of pre-tenth century attested Hebrew epigraphic sources through which to track linguistic changes from proto-Hebrew to the literary language of Biblical Hebrew.

CHAPTER SIXTEEN

241

Linguistic evidence is not an appropriate tool for dating the stylistically archaic poetry of the Hebrew Bible. The unpredictability of scribal variation of linguistic evidence during the transmission of the text casts doubt on whether the text we have before us retains the forms of the autograph of each poem. No archaic linguistic feature, either singly or in combination across the range of forms, provides evidence relevant for dating the archaic poetry of the Hebrew Bible. The variety of dating outcomes which linguistic evidence yields contradicts claims of objectivity and autonomy of linguistic evidence for dating purposes. The presence of archaisms in the ABH corpus indicates a poetic style which uses linguistic forms from another period, a common feature of poetry in many cultures. The ABH poetic corpus is typologically more representative of first millennium sources than second millennium sources. This does not imply that an individual poem cannot be of late second millennium provenance. As this has been a linguistic study, no date for any ABH poem is proposed.

FINAL WORD Robertson’s challenge to expose the inadequacies of his methodology has been met. His assumptions have also been brought into question. The remaining challenge he proposes is his ‘one equivocal, firmly grounded conclusion [that] the use of linguistic evidence is a very strong argument for dating Exodus 15 early.’ (Robertson 1972:155) This challenge has also been met by showing that linguistic evidence is not an appropriate tool for the dating of the archaic poetry of the Hebrew Bible. The matter of the dating of Exodus 15 has not been settled. Archaic Biblical Hebrew is a style of poetry which applies to a particular poetic corpus in the Hebrew Bible. Exodus 15 is best described as a Standard Biblical Hebrew poem containing archaisms for stylistic reasons.

BIBLIOGRAPHY Adamthwaite, M. R. 1992 “Lab’aya’s Connection with Shechem Reassessed.” Abr-Nahrain 30, 1–19. Albright, W. F. 1934 The Vocalization of the Egyptian Syllabic Orthography. New Haven, Connecticut: American Oriental Society. Reprinted 1996. 1941 “Two Letters from Ugarit (Ras Shamra).” Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 82, 43-49. 1942a “A teacher to a man of Shechem about 1400 BC.” Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 86, 28– 31. 1942b “A case of Lèse-majesté in pre-Israelite Lachish, with some remarks on the Israelite conquest.” Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 87, 32–38. 1943a “Two little understood Amarna letters from the middle Jordan Valley.” Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 89, 7–29. 1943b “An archaic Hebrew proverb in an Amarna letter from Central Palestine.” Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 89, 29–32. 1943c “A tablet of the Amarna age from Gezer.” Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 92, 28–30. 1944a “A prince of Taanach in the fifteenth century BC.” Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 94, 12– 27. 1944b “A vow to Asherah in the Keret Epic.” Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 94, 30–31. 1944c “An unrecognized letter from Ugarit.” Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 95, 30–33.

243

244

DATING ABH POETRY: A CRITIQUE

1944d “The Oracles of Balaam.” Journal of Biblical Literature 63, 207–233. 1945 “The Old Testament and Canaanite Language and Literature.” Catholic Biblical Quarterly 7, 5–31. 1950–1951 “A Catalogue of Early Hebrew Lyric Poems (Psalm LXVIII).” Hebrew Union College Annual XXIII, 1, Hebrew Union College Seventy-fifth Anniversary Publication, 1–39. 1959 “Some Remarks on the Song of Moses in Deuteronomy XXXII.” Vetus Testamentum 9, 339–346. 1963 “Archaic Survivals in the Text of Canticles.” In D. W. Thomas and W. D. McHardy, eds., Hebrew and Semitic Studies, Presented to Godfrey Rolles Driver. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1–7. 1965 “The Role of the Canaanites in the History of Civilization.” In Wright 1965, Appendix 1, 438–87. 1968 Yahweh and the Gods of Canaan: A Historical Analysis of Two Contrasting Faiths. Jordan Lectures in Comparative Religion, 7. London: Athlone Press. Albright, W. F. and W. L. Moran 1948 “A Re-interpretation of an Amarna Letter from Byblos (EA 82).” Journal of Cuneiform Studies 2, 239–248. Reprinted in Huehnergard and Izre’el, eds., 2003, 131141. 1950 “Rib-Adda of Byblos and the Affairs of Tyre (EA 89).” Journal of Cuneiform Studies 4, 163–68. Andersen, F. I. 1999 “Orthography in Ancient Hebrew Inscriptions.” Ancient Near Eastern Studies 36, 5–35. Andersen, F. I. and A. D.Forbes 1986 Spelling in the Hebrew Bible. biblica et orientalia 41. Rome: Biblical Institute Press. Andersen, T. D. 2000 “The Evolution of the Hebrew Verbal System.” Zeitschrift für Althelbraistik 13, 1–66. Ashley, T. R. 1956 The Septuagint Version of the Old Testament. London: Bagster and Sons. 1993 The Book of Numbers. New International Commentary on the Old Testament. Michigan: Eerdemans.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

245

BDB see Brown, F., et al. Barr, J. 1989 The Variable Spellings of the Hebrew Bible. The Schweich Lectures of the British Academy, 1989. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Bauer H. und P. Leander 1962 Historische Grammatik der Hebräischen Sprache des Alten Testaments. Hildesheim: Georg Olms Verlagsbuchhandlung Bergsträsser, G. 1918 Hebräische Grammatik 1. Hildesheim: Georg Olms. 1983 Introduction to the Semitic Languages: text specimens and grammatical sketches. Translated by P. T. Daniels with additional material. Winona Lake, Indiana: Eisenbrauns. Bezold C. & Budge E. A. W. 1892 The Tell el-Amarna Tablets in the British Museum. London: Harrison and Sons. Bietak, M. 2003 “Israelites found in Egypt.” Biblical Archaeology Review 29, 40–49, 82–83. Bimson, J. J. 1981 Redating the Exodus and Conquest. Journal for the Study of the Old Testament, Supplement Series. Sheffield: The Almond Press. Black, J., A. George. and N. Postgate, eds. 2000 A Concise Dictionary of Akkadian. 2nd (corrected) printing. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz Verlag. Blau, J. 1968 “Some Difficulties in the Reconstruction of ‘ProtoHebrew’ and ‘Proto-Canaanite’.” In J. Blau 1998b, 266–282. 1970 On Pseudo-Corrections in Some Semitic Languages. Jerusalem: Israel Academy of Sciences and Humanities. 1971 “Marginalia Semitica I.” In J. Blau 1998b, 185–220 1972 “Marginalia Semitica II” In J. Blau 1998b, 221–246. 1976 A Grammar of Biblical Hebrew. Wiesbaden: Otto Harrassowitz. 1977 “Marginalia Semitica III.” In J. Blau 1998b, 247–266.

246

DATING ABH POETRY: A CRITIQUE 1978

“Hebrew and North West Semitic: Reflections on the Classification of the Semitic Languages.” In J. Blau 1998b, 308–332 1980 “The Parallel Development of the Feminine Ending -at in Semitic Languages.” In J. Blau 1998b, 126–137. 1998a “Introduction: On the History and Structure of Hebrew.” In J. Blau 1998b, 11–20. 1998b Topics in Hebrew and Semitic Linguistics. Jerusalem: Magnes Press. Bloch, Y. 2009 “Should Parallelistic Structure Be Used as Evidence for an Early Dating of Biblical Hebrew Poetry?” Journal of the Ancient Near Eastern Society of Columbia Universtiy 31, 23–45. Bodine, W. R. ed. 1992 Linguistics and Biblical Hebrew. Indiana: Eisenbrauns. Böhl, F. M. 1909 Die Sprache der Amarnabriefe mit besonderer Berüchsichtigung der Kanaanismen. Leipzig: J. C. Hinrichs’sche Buchhandlung. Bordreuil, P. and D. Pardee 2009 A Manual of Ugaritic. Linguistic Studies in Ancient West Semitic, Vol. 3. Winona Lake, Indiana: Eisenbrauns. Brenner, M. L. 1991 The Song of the Sea, Exodus 15:1-21. Beihefte zur Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 195. New York: Walter de Gruyter. Brockelmann, C. 1903 Die Femininendung T im Semitischen. Breslau: G. P. Anderholz. 1913 Grundriss der Vergleichenden Grammatik der semitischen Sprachen. I Band: Morphologie/Formenlehre. II Band: Syntax. Berlin: Verlag von Reuther & Richard. Brooke, G., A. H. W. Curtis and J. F. Healey, eds. 1994 Ugarit and the Bible. Proceedings of the International Symposium on Ugarit and the Bible, Manchester. Ugaritisch-biblische Literatur 11. Münster: UgaritVerlag.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

247

Brovender, C. 1971 “Hebrew Language—Pre-Biblical.” Encyclopaedia Judaica 16, 1560-1568. Jerusalem: Keter Publishing House. Brown, F., S. Driver and C. Briggs 1906 Hebrew and English Lexicon reprinted 1996. Massachusetts: Hendrickson. Burney, C. F. 1903 Notes on the Hebrew Text of the Books of Kings with an Introduction and Appendix. Reprinted 1970. New York: KTAV Publishing House Inc. 1918 The Book of Judges with an Introduction and Notes. Reprinted 1970. New York: KTAV Publishing House Inc. Butts, A. B. 2010 “A Note on ne’dārî in Ex 15:6.” Vetus Testamentum 60, 167–171. Caplice, R. and D. Snell 1988 Introduction to Akkadian, 3rd ed. Rome: Biblical Institute Press. Caquot, A., M. Sznycer and A. Herdner 1974 Textes Ougaritiques Tome I Mythes et Légends: Introduction, Traduction, Commentaire. Textes sémitiques de L'Ouest. Paris: Les Éditions du Cerf. Caquot, A. and J-M de Tarragon 1989 Textes Ougaritiques Tome II Textes Religieux et Rituels: Introduction, Traduction, Commentaire and J. L. Cunchillos, Correspondance, Introduction, Traduction, Commentaire. Textes sémitiques de L'Ouest. Paris: Les Éditions du Cerf. Cassuto, U. 1975 Biblical and Oriental Studies. Translation by I. Abrahams. Vol II: Bible and Ancient Oriental Texts. Jerusalem: Magnes Press, 16–59. Childs, B. S. 1974 Exodus: A Commentary. Old Testament Library. London: SCM Press Ltd. Chomsky, W. 1964 Hebrew: The Eternal Language. Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society of America.

248

DATING ABH POETRY: A CRITIQUE

Cole, R. A. 1973 Exodus: An Introduction and Commentary. Tyndale Old Testament Commentaries. London: Tyndale Press. Coogan, M. D. ed. 1978 Stories from Ancient Canaan. Philadelphia: Westminster Press. Cross, F. M. Jr. 1973 Canaanite Myth and Hebrew Epic: Essays in the History of the Religion of Israel. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press, 112–144. Cross, F. M. Jr. and D. N. Freedman 1952 Early Hebrew Orthography: A Study of the Epigraphic Evidence. American Oriental Series 36. Connecticut: American Oriental Society. 1953 “A Royal Song of Thanksgiving—2 Samuel 22=Psalm 18.” Journal of Biblical Literature 72, 15–34. 1955 “The Song of Miriam.” Journal of Near Eastern Studies 14, 237–250. 1997 Studies in Ancient Yahwistic Poetry, 2nd ed. Michigan: Eerdemans. Dahood, M. 1965 Ugaritic-Hebrew Philology Marginal Notes on Recent Publication. Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute. 1965 Psalms I, 1–50. The Anchor Bible. New York: Doubleday & Co. 1973 Psalms II, 51–100. The Anchor Bible. New York: Doubleday & Co. 1970 Psalms III, 101–150. The Anchor Bible. New York: Doubleday & Co. Dassow, E. von 2003 “What the Cuneiformists Wrote: Review Article.” Israel Exploration Journal 53, 196–217. Davies, G. 2004 “Was There An Exodus?” In Day 2004, 23–36. Davies G. I., with M. N. A. Bockmeuhl, D. R de Lacy, and A. J. Poulter 1991 Ancient Hebrew Inscriptions: Corpus and Concordance. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

249

Davies, P. R. 1992 In Search of ‘Ancient Israel’. Sheffield: Journal for the Study of the Old Testament, Supplement Series. Sheffield: JSOT Press. 1998 Scribes and Schools: The Canonization of the Hebrew Scriptures. Library of Ancient Israel. Kentucky: Westminster John Knox Press. Day, J. 1985 God’s conflict with the dragon and the sea: Echoes of a Canaanite Myth in the Old Testament. University of Cambridge Oriental Publications 35. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 1990 Psalms. Old Testament Guides 14. Sheffield: JSOT Press. Day, J., ed. 2004 In Search of Pre-Exilic Israel: Proceedings of the Oxford Old Testament Seminar. Journal for the Study of Old Testament Series 406. London: T&T Clark International. Delbridge, A., J. R. L Bernard, D. Blair, S. Butler, P. Peters and C. Yallop 1997 Macquarie Dictionary, 3rd ed. North Ryde, NSW: Macquarie Library. Dever, W. G. 2001 What did the Biblical Writers Know and When did They Know It? What Archaeology Can Tell Us about the Reality of Ancient Israel? Grand Rapids, Michigan: Eerdemans. 2003 Who Were the Early Israelites and Where Did They Come From? Grand Rapids, Michigan: Eerdemans. 2006 “There are Reasons for Scholarly Consensus.” Biblical Archaeology Review. Accessed 16/11/2006 http//www.bib.arch.org/bswbBAR/Rainey/bswb RaineyMainPage.asp. Dhorme, E. 1913–14 “La Langue de Canaan.” In Recueil Édouard Dhorme. Études Bibliques et Orientales. Paris: Imprimerie Nationale. Reprinted 1951, 405–488. 1924 “Les Nouvelles Tablettes d’el-Amarna. In Recueil Édouard Dhorme. Études Bibliques et Orientales, Paris: Imprimerie Nationale. Reprinted 1951, 489–530.

250

DATING ABH POETRY: A CRITIQUE 1930

L’ancien hébreu das la vie courante. In Recueil Édouard Dhorme, Études Bibliques et Orientales. Paris: Imprimerie Nationale. Reprinted 1951, 541–554. Dietrich, M. and O. Loretz 1988 Die Keilalphabete. Die phönizish-kanaanäischen und altarabischen Alphabete in Ugarit. Abhandlungen zur Literatur Alt-Syrien-Palästinas 1. Münster: UgaritVerlag Dietrich, M., O. Loretz and J. Sanmartín 1995 The Cuneiform Alphabetic Texts from Ugarit, Ras Hani and Other Places. 2nd ed. Abhandlungen zur Literatur AltSyrien-Palästinas 8. Münster: Ugarit-Verlag. Dion, P. E. 1978 “The Language Spoken in Ancient Sam’al.” Journal of Near Eastern Studies, 115–118. Dobrusin, D. L. 1981 “The Third Masculine Plural of the Prefixed Form of the Verb in Ugaritic.” Journal of the Ancient Near Eastern Society of Columbia University 13, 5–14. Dozeman, T. B. 1999 “The Song of the Sea and Salvation History.” In S. L. Cook and S. C. Winter, eds., On the Way to Nineveh: Studies in Honour of George M. Landes. ASOR Books. Atlanta, Georgia: Scholars Press, 94–112. Driver, G. R. 1936 Problems of the Hebrew Verbal System. Old Testament Studies 2. Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark. 1956 Canaanite Myths and Legends. Old Testament Studies 3. Edinburgh: T&T Clark. Ebeling, E. 1910 “Das Verbum der El-Amarna-Briefe.” Biblical Archaeologist 8, 39–79. 1915a “Glossar.” In J. A. Knudtzon, Die El-Amarna-Tafeln, Part 2. Aalen: Otto Zeller Verlagsbuchhandlung, 1358–1545. 1915b “Kanaanäische Wörter.” In J. A. Knudtzon, ed., Die El-Amarna Tafeln, Part 2 Aalen: Otto Zeller Verlagsbuchhandlung, 1545–1549.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

251

Edzard, D. O. 1985 “Die 3. Person M. Pl. TIPRUSŪ Im Altakkadischen von Mari.” J-M Durand & J-R Kupper, Miscellania Babylonica: Mélanges Offerts À Maurice Birot réuni. Paris: Éditions Recherche sur les Civilisations, 85-86. Ehrensvärd, M. 2003 “Linguistic Dating of Biblical Texts.” In I. Young, ed., 2003a, 164–188. Elliger, K. and W. Rudolph, eds. 1970 Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia. Stuttgart: Bibelanstalt. Emerton, J. A. 1992 “What Light Has Ugaritic Shed on Hebrew?” In Brooke, Curtis and Healey 1994, 53–70. 1996 “Are There Examples of Enclitic mem in the Hebrew Bible?” In M. V. Fox, V. A. Hurowitz, A. Hurvitz, M. L. Klein, B. J. Schwartz and N. Shupak, eds., Texts, Temples and Traditions. A Tribute to Menahem Haran. Indiana: Eisenbrauns, 321–338. 1999 “How Many Months are mentioned in the Gezer Calendar?” Palestine Exploration Quarterly 131, 20–23. 2006 “The Kingdoms of Judah and Israel and the Ancient Hebrew History Writing.” In Fassberg and Hurvitz 2006, 33–50. Even-Shoshan, A. ed. 1993 A New Concordance of the Bible. Jerusalem: Kiryat-Sefer. Fassberg, S. E. and A. Hurvitz, eds. 2006 Biblical Hebrew in Its Northwest Semitic Setting: Typological and Historical Perspectives. Publication for the Institute for Advanced Studies, Jerusalem: Magnes Press. Fenton, T. 1992 “Nexus and Significance: is greater precision possible?” In Brooke, Curtis and Healey 1994, 71–91. 2004 “Hebrew Poetic Structure as a Basis for Dating.” In Day 2004, 386–409. Follis, E. R. ed. 1987 Directions in Biblical Hebrew Poetry. Journal for the Study of the Old Testament, Supplement Series 40. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press.

252

DATING ABH POETRY: A CRITIQUE

Fowler. H. W. and F. G. Fowler, eds. 1964 The Concise Oxford Dictioary of Current English. Oxford: Clarendon Press. Franks, J. A. 2005 “Exodus Chronology.” In M. Dacy, J. Dowling and S. Faigan, eds., Feasts and Fasts: A Festschrift in Honour of Alan David Crown. Sydney: Mandelbaum Publishing, 179–193. Freedman, D. N. 1960 “Archaic Forms in Early Hebrew Poetry.” Zeitschrift für Alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 72, 101–107. 1975 “The Massoretic Text and The Qumran Scrolls: Study in Orthography.” In F.. Cross and S. Talmon, eds., Qumran and the History of the Biblical Text. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 196–211. 1975 “Early Israelite History in the Light of Early Israelite Poetry.” In Goedicke and Roberts 1975, 3–23. 1980 Pottery, Poetry, and Prophecy: Studies in Early Hebrew Poetry. Indiana: Eisenbrauns. 1985 “Prose Particles in the Poetry of the Primary History.” In Kort and Morschauser 1985, 49–62. 1987 “Another Look at Biblical Hebrew Poetry.” In E. R. Follis, ed. 1987, 11–28. 1999 “Moses and Miriam: The Song of the Sea (Exodus 15:1–18, 21).” In P. H. Williams Jr. and T. Hiebert, eds., Realia Dei: Essays in Archaeology and Biblical Interpretation in Honour of Edward F Campbell, Jr. at His Retirement. Atlanta Georgia: Scholars Press, 67–83. Freedman, D. N., A. D. Forbes and F. I. Andersen 1992 Studies in Hebrew and Aramaic Orthography. Biblical and Judaic Studies 2. Winona Lake, Indiana: Eisenbrauns. GKC see Gesenius, F. H. W. Gesenius, F. H. W. (GKC) 1909 Gesenius’ Hebrew Grammar. E. Kautsch, ed., translated by A. E. Cowley. New York: Dover Edition, 2006. Gibson, J. C. L. 1971 Textbook of Ancient Syrian Semitic Inscriptions. Volume I: Hebrew and Moabite Inscriptions. Oxford: Clarendon Press.

BIBLIOGRAPHY 1977

253

Canaanite Myths and Legends. Originally edited by G. R. Driver. Edinburgh: T&T Clark Ltd. 1993 “The Anatomy of Hebrew Narrative Poetry.” In A. E. Auld, Understanding Poets and Prophets: Essays in Honour of George Wishart Anderson. Journal for Study of the New Testament Supplement Series 152. England: Sheffield Academic Press, 141–148. Ginsberg, H. L. 1943 “The Ugaritic Texts and Textual Criticism.” Journal of Biblical Literature 62, 109–115. 1946 The Legend of King Keret: A Canaanite Epic of the Bronze Age. Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research Supplementary Studies 2–3. New Haven: American Schools of Oriental Research. Goedicke H., ed. 1971 Near Eastern Studies in Honor of William Foxwell Albright. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins Press. Goedicke, H. and J. M. Roberts, eds. 1975 Unity and Diversity, Essays in History, Literature and Religion of the Ancient Near East. Johns Hopkins Near Eastern Studies. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins Press. Goldin, J. 1971 The Song of the Sea being a commentary on a commentary in Two Parts. New Haven: Yale University Press. Golomb, D. M. ed. with the assistance of S. T. Hollis 1987 Working with No Data: Semitic and Egyptian Studies: Presented to Thomas O. Lambdin. Winona Lake, Indiana: Eisenbrauns. Goodwin, D. W. 1969 Text-Restoration Methods in Contemporary U.S.A. Biblical Scholarship. Pubblicazioni del Seminario di semitistica. Ricerche 5. Naples: Instituto Orientale di Napoli. Gordon, C. H. 1940 Ugaritic Grammar: The Present Status of the Linguistic Study of the Semitic Alphabetic Texts from Ras Shamra. Rome: Pontificum Institutum Biblicum. 1947a Ugaritic Handbook: Revised Grammar, Paradigms, Texts in transliteration, Comprehensive Glossary. Rome: Pontificum Institutum Biblicum. 1947b “The New Amarna Tablets.” Orientalia 16, 1–21.

254

DATING ABH POETRY: A CRITIQUE 1949

Ugaritic Literature: A Comprenhensive Translation of the Poetic and Prose Texts. Rome: Pontificum Institutum Biblicum. 1965 Ugaritic Textbook: Grammar, Texts in Transliteration, Cuneiform Selection, Glossary, Indices. Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute. Gordon, C. H. and G. A. Rendsburg 1997 The Bible and the Ancient Near East. 4th ed. New York: W. W. Norton & Company. Grabbe, L. L. 1992 ‘“Canaanite”: Some Methodological Observations in Relation to Biblical Study.” In Brooke, Curtis and Healey 1994, 113–122. Groom, S. A. 2003 Linguistic Analysis of Biblical Hebrew. Glasgow: Paternoster Press. Halpern, B. 2003 “Eyewitness Testimony: Parts of Exodus written within Living Memory of the Event.” Biblical Archaeology Review 29, 50–57. Harris, Z. S. 1939 Development of the Canaanite Dialects: An investigation in linguistic history. Connecticut: American Oriental Society. Reprinted New York: Kraus Reprint Corporation, 1967. Hauser, A. J. 1987 “Two Songs of Victory: A Comparison of Exodus 15 and Judges 5.” In Follis, ed. 1987, 265–284. Held, M. 1973 “Pits and Pitfalls in Akkadian and Biblical Hebrew.” Journal of the Ancient Near Eastern Studies of Columbia University 5, 173–190. Hendel, R. 2001 “The Exodus in Biblical Memory.” Journal of Biblical Literature 120, 601–622. Herdner, A. 1938 “Une Particularité Grammaticale Commune aux textes d’el-Amarna et Ras-Shamra: t- préfixe promominal de la troisième masculin pluriel.” Revue des Études Sémitiques 1, 76–83.

BIBLIOGRAPHY 1963 1963

255

Corpus des Tablettes en Cunéiformes Alphabétiques Découvertes à Ras-Shamra-Ugarit de 1929 à 1939 (Texte). Paris: Impremerie Nationale. Corpus des Tablettes en Cunéiformes Alphabétiques Découvertes à Ras-Shamra-Ugarit de 1929 à 1939 (Figures et Planches). Paris: Impremerie Nationale.

Hess, R. S. 1991 “The Operation of Case Vowels in the Personal Names of the Amarna Texts.” Mesopotamie et Elam. Actes de la XXXVème Rencontre Assyriologique Internationale, Gand, 10–14 juillet 1989. Belgium: University of Ghent, 201–210. 1992 “Late Bronze Age and Biblical Boundary Descriptions of the West Semitic World.” In Brooke, Curtis and Healey 2004, 123–138. 1993 Amarna Personal Names. American Schools of Oriental Research Dissertation Series, 9. Indiana: Eisenbrauns. 2003a “Israelite Identity and Personal Names from the Book of Judges.” Hebrew Studies 44, 25–39. 2003b “Language of the Pentateuch.” In T. D. Alexander and D. W. Baker, eds., Dictionary of the Old Testament: Pentateuch. Illinois: Inter-varsity Press, 491–497. Hoffman, Y. 1994 “Isn’t the Bride Too Beautiful?” The Case of Jeremiah 6, 16-21. Journal for the Study of the Old Testament 64, 103–120. Holladay, W. L. 1993 The Psalms through Three Thousand Years: Prayerbook of a Cloud of Witnesses. Minneapolis: Fortress Press. Houston, W. J. 1997 “Misunderstanding or midrash? The prose appropriation of poetic material in the Hebrew Bible, Part 1.” Zeitschrift für Althebraistik 109, 342–355. 1997 “Murder and midrash: The prose appropriation of poetic material in the Hebrew Bible, Part 2.” Zeitschrift für Althebraistik 109, 534–548. Huehnergard, J. 1981 “Akkadian Evidence for Case-Vowels on Ugaritic Bound Forms.” Journal of Cuneiform Studies 33, 199– 205.

256

DATING ABH POETRY: A CRITIQUE

1987a “Three Notes on Akkadian Morphology.” In Golomb and Hollis 1987, 181–193. 1987b Ugaritic Vocabulary in Syllabic Transcription. Harvard Semitic Studies 32. Georgia: Scholars Press. 1989 The Akkadian of Ugarit. Harvard Semitic Studies 34. Atlanta: Scholars Press. 1997 A Grammar of Akkadian. Harvard Semitic Studies 45. Atlanta: Scholars Press, corrected reprint, 1998. 1998 “Review Article: A Grammar of Amarna Canaanite. Canaanite in the Amarna Tablets: A Linguistic Analysis of the Mixed Dialect Used by the Scribes from Canaan, by Anson F. Rainey, 1996.” Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 310, 59–77. Huehnergard, J. and S. Izre’el, eds. 2003 Amarna Studies—Collected Writings by W L Moran. Harvard Semitic Studies 54. Indiana: Eisenbrauns. Hummel, H. D. 1957 “Enclitic mem in Early Northwest Semitic, Especially Hebrew.” Journal of Biblical Literature 76, 85–107. Hurvitz, A. 1973 “Linguistic Criteria for Dating Problematic Biblical Texts.” Hebrew Abstracts 14, 74–79. 1974 “The Date of the Prose-Tale of Job Linguistically Reconsidered.” Harvard Theological Review 67, 17–34. 1982 A Linguistic Study of the Relationship between the Priestly Source and the Book of Ezekiel: A New Approach to an Old Problem. Cashiers de la Revue biblique 20. Paris: J. Gabalda. 1985 “Originals and Imitations in Biblical Poetry: A Comparative Examination of 1 Sam 2:1–10 and Ps 113:5– 9.” In Kort and Morschauser 1985, 115–21. 1988 “Dating the Priestly Source in Light of the Historical Study of Biblical Hebrew A Century after Wellhausen.” Zeitscrift für die Alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 100, 88–100. 1997 “The Historical Quest for ‘Ancient Israel’, and the Linguistic Evidence of the Hebrew Bible: Some Methodological Observations.” Vetus Testamentum 47, 301–15.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

257

Hyatt, J. P. 1971 Exodus. New Century Bible Commentary. Grand Rapids: Eerdemans. Israel, F. 1995 “Études de Grammaire Ougaritique: La dernière phase de la langue.” In M. Yon, M. Sznycer et P. Bordreuil, Le Pays D’Ougarit autour de Av. J.-C Histoire et archeology. Actes du Colloque Internationale, Paris, 28 juin–1er juillet 1993, Paris: Éditions Recherche sur les Civilisations, 255–262. Izre’el, S. 1987a “Early Northwest Semitic 3rd pl m Prefix: The Evidence of the Amarna Letters.” Ugarit-Forschungen 19, 79–90. 1987b “Some Methodological Requisites for the study of the Amarna Jargon: Notes on the Essence of that Language.” http:www.tau.ac.il/ humanities/semitic/ eameth.html, July, 2003. 1995 “The Amarna Glosses: Who Wrote What for Whom? Some Sociolinguistic Considerations.” In S. Izre’el and R. Drory, eds., Language and Culture in the Near East. Israel Oriental Studies 15, 101–22. 1997 The Amarna Scholarly Tablets. Cuneiform Monographs. Groningen: Styx Publications. 1998 Canaano-Akkadian. Languages of the World: Materials, 82, Germany: Lincom Europa. Izre’el, S., ed. 2002 Semitic Linguistics: The State of the Art at the turn of the Twenty-First Century. Israel Oriental Studies, 20. Winona Lake, Indiana: Eisenbrauns. Jones, H. R. 1970 “Exodus.” In T. D. Guthrie and J. A. Motyer, eds., New Bible Commentary, 3rd ed. England: Inter-varsity Press, 115–139. Joüon, P. and T. Muraoka 1993 A Grammar of Biblical Hebrew. Translated and revised by T. Muraoka, I, Part 1: Orthography and Phonetics, Part 2: Morphology. II, Part 3: Syntax. Roma: Editrice Pontifico Instituto Biblico.

258

DATING ABH POETRY: A CRITIQUE

Kaltner, J. and S. L. McKenzie eds., 2002 Beyond Babel: A Handbook for Biblical Hebrew and Related Languages. Resources for Biblical Study 42. Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature. Kaufman, S. A. 1995 “Paragogic nun in Biblical Hebrew: Hypercorrection as a Clue to a Lost Scribal Practice.” In Z. Zevit, S. Gitin and M. Sokoloff, eds., Solving Riddles and Untying Knots—Biblical, Epigraphic and Semitic Studies in Honor of Jonas C Greenfield. Indiana: Eisenbrauns, 95–99. 2002 “Languages in Contact: the Ancient Near East.” In Izre’el 2002, 297–306. Kitchen, K. A. and T. C. Mitchell 1962 “Chronology of the Old Testament.” In J. D. Douglas, ed., New Bible Dictionary, 2nd ed. England: Intervarsity Press, 188–200. Kloos, C. 1986 Yhwh’s Combat with the Sea: A Canaanite Tradition in the Religion of Ancient Israel. Amsterdam: G. A. van Oorschot. Knudtzon J. A. 1915 Die El-Amarna-Tafeln mit Einleitung und Erläuterungen. Part 1 and 2. Aalen: Otto Zeller Verlagsbuchhandlung, reprinted 1964. Kort, A. and S. Morschauser, eds. 1985 Biblical and Related Studies Presented to Samuel Iwry. Indiana: Eisenbrauns Kossmann, M. 1987–88 “The Case System of West-Semitized Amarna Akkadian.” Jaarbericht van het Vooraziatisch-Egyptisch Genootschap, Ex Oriente Lux 30, 38–60. 1994 “Amarna-Akkadian as a Mixed Language.” In P. Bakker and M. Mous, eds., Mixed Languages: 15 Case Studies in Language Intertwining. Amsterdam: Institute for Functional Research into Language and Language Use, 169–173. Kraus, H-J. 1993 Psalms 60–150. A Continental Commentary. Translated by H. C. Oswald. Minneapolis: Fortress Press.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

259

Kutscher, E. Y. 1974 The Language and Linguistic Background of the Isaiah Scroll (1Q Isaa). Studies on the Texts of the Desert of Judah 6. Leiden: Brill. 1982 A History of the Hebrew Language. R. Kutscher, ed. Jerusalem: Magnes Press. Labat, R. 1952 Manuel D’Épigraphie Akkadienne (Signes, Syllabaire, Idéogrammes). Paris: Imprimerie Nationale. Layton, S. C. 1990 Archaic Features of Canaanite Personal Names in the Hebrew Bible. Harvard Semitic Monographs 47. Georgia: Scholars Press. Lemaire, A. 2004 “Hebrew and West Semitic Inscriptions and PreExilic Israel.” In Day 2004, 366–385. 2006 “Hebrew and Aramaic in the First Millennium B.C.E. in the Light of Epigraphic Evidence (Socio-Historical Aspects).” In Fassberg and Hurvitz 2006, 177–196. Leuchter, M. 2007 “Why is the Song of Moses in the Book of Deuteronomy?” Vetus Testamentum 57, 295–317. Lewis, T. J. 1996 “Towards a Literary Translation of the Rapiuma Texts.” In Wyatt, Watson and Lloyd 1996, 115–150. Lipiński, E. 1997 Semitic Languages: Outline of a Comparative Grammar. Orientalia Lovaniensia Analecta 80. Leuven: Uitgeverij Peeters en Departement Oosterse Studies. Margalit, B. 1989 The Ugaritic Poem of AQHT Text, Translation, Commentary. Beiheft zur Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 182. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter. 1995 “Observations in the Jael-Sisera Story (Judges 4-5).” In Wright, Freedman and Hurvitz 1995, 629–641. McCarter, J. K. 1986 Textual Criticism―Recovering the Text of the Hebrew Bible. Guides to Biblical Scholarship. Old Testament Guides. Philadelphia: Fortress Press.

260

DATING ABH POETRY: A CRITIQUE

Mendenhall, G. E. 1957 “Biblical History in Transition.” In Wright 1965, 27– 58. Moor, J. C. de 1987 A Cuneiform Anthology of Religious Texts from Ugarit. Semitic Studies Series 6. New York: Brill. 1996 “Egypt, Ugarit and Exodus.” In Wyatt, Watson, and Lloyd 1996, 213–247. Moran, W. L. 1950a “A Syntactical Study of the Dialect of Byblos as reflected in the Amarna Tablets.” Reprinted in Huehnergard and Izre’el 2003, 1–130. 1950b “The Use of the Canaanite Infinitive Absolute as a Finite Verb in the Amarna letters from Byblos.” Journal of Cuneiform Studies 4, 169–72. 1953 “New Evidence on Canaanite taqtulū(na).” Journal of Cuneiform Studies 5, 33–35. Reprinted in Huehnergard and Izre’el 2003, 159–164. 1961 “The Hebrew Language in its Northwest Semitic Background.” In Wright 1965, 59–84. 1967 “Amarna Letters.” In W. J. McDonald et al., eds., The New Catholic Encyclopaedia 1, 368–369. New York: McGraw-Hill. Reprinted in: Huehnergard and. Izre’el 2003, 223–226. 1972 “Tell el-Amarna Letters.” In Encyclopaedia Judaica, vol. 15, 933–935, Jerusalem: Keter. Reprinted in Huehnergard and Izre’el 2003, 237–242. 1975 “The Syrian Scribe of the Jerusalem Amarna Letters.” In Goedicke and Roberts 1975, 146–166. 1975 “Amarna Glosses.” Revue d’Assyriologie 69. Reprinted in Huehnergard and Izre’el 2003, 147–158. 1987 “Join the ’Apiru or Become One?” In Golomb and Hollis 1987, 209–212 1992 The Amarna Letters. W. L Moran, editor and translator. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press. Moscati, S., A. Spitaler, E. Ullendorff and W. von Soden 1964 An Introduction to the Comparative Grammar of the Semitic Languages: Phonology and Morphology. Porta Linguarum Orientalium 6. Wiesbaden: Otto Harrassowitz.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

261

Niccacci, A. 2006 “The Biblical Hebrew Verbal System in Poetry.” In Fassburg and Hurvitz 2006, 247–268. Nigosian, S. A. 1997 “Linguistic Patterns of Deuteronomy 32.” Biblica 78, 2, 206–224. Oppenheim, A .L. and E. Reiner 1962 The Assyrian Dictionary of the Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago, 16. Illinois: Oriental Institute, Chicago. Pardee, D. 1982 Handbook of Ancient Hebrew Letters: a study edition. (with a chapter on Tannaitic letter fragments by S. David Sperling); with the collaboration of J. David Whitehead and Paul E. Dion. Sources for Biblical Study 15. California: Scholars Press. 1997 “Ugaritic.” In R. Hetzron, ed., The Semitic Languages. New York: Routledge, 1997, 131–54. 1999 “Review: Canaanite in the Amarna Tablets: A Linguisitc Analysis of the Mixed Dialect Used by Scribes from Canaan. 1996.” Journal of Near Eastern Studies 58, 313–17. Pope, M. H. 1965 Job: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary. The Anchor Bible. New York: Doubleday. Propp, W. H. C. 1999 Exodus 1–18: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary. The Anchor Bible. New York: Doubleday. 2006 Exodus 19–40: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary. The Anchor Bible. New York: Doubleday. Rabin, C. 1963 “The Origin of the Subdivisions of Semitic.” In D. W. Thomas and W. D. McHardy, eds., Hebrew and Semitic Studies Presented to Godfrey Rolles Driver. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 104–115. 1969 “The Structure of the Semitic System of Case Endings.” In Proceedings of the International Conference on Semitic Studies, held in Jerusalem, 19–23 July, 1965. Jerusa-

262

DATING ABH POETRY: A CRITIQUE

1973

lem: The Israel Academy of Sciences and Humanities, 90–202. A Short History of the Hebrew Language. Jerusalem: The Publishing Department of the Jewish Agency.

Rainey, A. F. 1970 El Amarna Tablets 359–79. Supplement to J. A. Knudtzon, Die El-Amarna-Tafeln AOAT 8. NeukirchenVluyn: Butzon & Bercker Kevelaer. 1973 “Gleanings from Ugarit.” Israel Oriental Studies III, 34– 62. 1975 “Morphology and the Prefix-Tenses of West Semitized El-‘Amarna Tablets.” Ugarit Forschungen 7, 395– 426. 1976 “Enclitic -ma and the logical predicate in Old Babylonian.” Israel Oriental Studies 6, 51–58. 1986 “The Ancient Hebrew Prefix Conjugation in the Light of Amarna Canaanite.” Hebrew Studies 27, 6–19. 1988 “Further Remarks on the Hebrew Verbal System.” Hebrew Studies 29, 35–42. 1990 “The Prefix Conjugation Patterns of Early Northwest Semitic.” In T. Abusch, J. Huehnergard and P. Steinkeller, eds., Lingering over Words: Studies in Ancient Near Eastern Literature in Honour of William L Moran. Harvard Semitic Studies 37. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 407– 420. 1996 Canaanite in the Amarna Tablets: A Linguistic Analysis of the Mixed Dialect Used by the Scribes from Canaan. Vol. I: Orthography, Phonology, Morphosyntactic Analysis of the Pronouns, Nouns and Numerals, Vol. II: Morphosyntactic Analysis of the Verbal System, Vol. III: Morphosyntactic Analysis of the Particles and Adverbs, Vol IV: References and Index of Texts Cited. Leiden: E J Brill. 2006 “The ‘Consensus Theory’ is Dead.” Biblical Archaeology Review. http://www.bib-arch.org/bswb BAR/Rainey /bswbRaineyMainPage.asp. Accessed 6/11/2006. Rainey, A. F. and R. S. Notley 2006 The Sacred Bridge: Carta’s Atlas of the Biblical World. Jerusalem: Carta.

BIBLIOGRAPHY Ratner, R. 1988

263

“Does a t-preformative Third Person Masculine Plural Verbal form exist in Biblical Hebrew?” Vetus Testamentum 38, 1, 80–88. 1990 “The ‘Feminine Takes Precedence’ Syntagm and Job 19, 15.” Zeitschrift für Althebraistik 3, 238–251. Redford, D. B. 2002 “Egyptian.” In. Kaltner and McKenzie 2002, 109– 137. Reiner, E. 1966 A Linguistic Analysis of Akkadian. The Hague: Mouton & Co. Rendsburg, G. A. 1980a “Late Biblical Hebrew and the Date of ‘P’.” Journal of Ancient Near Eastern Studies 12, 65–80. 1980b Evidence for a Spoken Hebrew in Biblical Times. Doctoral Dissertation, New York University: University Microfilms International. 1990a Linguistic Evidence for the Northern Origin of Selected Psalms. Society of Biblical Literature Monograph Series 43. Georgia: Scholars Press. 1990b Diglossia in Ancient Hebrew. American Oriental Series 72. Connecticut: American Oriental Society. 1992 “The Date of the Exodus.” Vetus Testamentum 42, 510–527. 1995 “Linguistic Variation and the ‘Foreign Factor’ in the Hebrew Bible.” In S. Izre’el and R. Dory, eds., Language and Culture in the Near East. Israel Oriental Studies 15. Winona Lake, Indiana: Eisenbrauns, 177–190. 2002 Israelian Hebrew in the Book of Kings. Occasional publications of the Department of Near Eastern Studies and the Program of Jewish Studies, Cornell University 5. Maryland: CDL Press. 2003 “Hurvitz Redux: On the Continued Scholarly Inattention to a Simple Principle of Hebrew Philology.” In Young 2003c, 104–128. 2006 “Aramaic-like Features in the Pentateuch.” Hebrew Studies 47, 163–176.

264

DATING ABH POETRY: A CRITIQUE

Rendsberg, G., R. Adler, M. Arfa and N. H. Winter, eds. 1980 The Bible World. Essays in Honor of Cyrus H. Gordon. New York: KTAV Publishing House and the Institute of Hebrew Culture and Education of New York University. Renz, J. 1995 Die althebräischen Inschriften, Teil 1, Text und Kommentar. Handbuch der altherbräischen epigraphic. Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft. Rezetko, R. 2003 “Dating Biblical Hebrew: Evidence from SamuelKings and Chronicles.” In Young 2003c, 215–248. Robertson, D. A. 1969 “The Morphemes -Y(-Ī) and -W(-Ō) in Biblical Hebrew.” Vetus Testamentum, 211–223. 1972 Linguistic Evidence in Dating Early Hebrew Poetry. Society of Biblical Literature Dissertation Series 3. Montana: University of Montana. Russell, B. D. 2007 The Song of the Sea: The Date and Significance of Exodus 15:1–21. Studies in Biblical Literature 101. New York: Peter Lang Publishing. Sabourin, L. 1974 The Psalms: Their Origin and Meaning. New York: Alba House. Sáenz-Badillos, A. 1993 A History of the Hebrew Language. Translated by J. Elwolde. Cambridge: Cambridge University. Sanders, P. 1996 The Provenance of Deuteronomy 32. Oudtestamentische Studiën 37. Leiden: E.J. Brill. Sanderson, J. E. 1986 An Exodus Scroll from Qumran 4QpaleoExodm and the Samaritan Tradition. Harvard Semitic Studies 30. Atlanta: Scholars Press. Sarna, N. M. 1976 “Review: D. A. Robertson, Linguistic Evidence in Dating Early Hebrew Poetry.” Journal of Biblical Literature 95, 126, 128–129.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

265

Scherman, N., ed. 1996 Tanach. The Stone Edition. New York: Mesorah. Schniedewind, W. M. 2000 “Review: Orality and Literacy in Ancient Israel by J. Crenshaw.” Religious Studies Review 26, 327–32. 2004 How the Bible Became a Book, The Textualization of Ancient Israel. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Schroeder O. 1915 Die Tontafeln von El-Amarna. Vorderasiatische Schriftdenmäler der königlichen Museen zu Berlin, XI-XII. Reprinted: Osnabrück: Otto Zeller, 1973. Segert, S. 1971 “The Ugaritic Texts and the Textual Criticism of the Hebrew Bible.” In Goedicke 1971, 413–420. 1984 A Basic Grammar of the Ugaritic Language, with Selected Texts and Glossary. Berkeley: University of California Press. Selms, A. van 1971 “Some Reflections on the Formation of the Feminine in Semitic Languages.” In Goedicke 1971, 421–431. Seow, C. L. 1995 A Grammar for Biblical Hebrew. Revised Edition. Nashville: Abingdon Press. Shreckhise, R. 2008 “The Problem of Finite Verb Translation in Exodus 15:1–18.” Journal for the Study of the Old Testament 32, 287–310. Simpson, J. A. and E. S. C. Weiner 1989 The Oxford English Dictionary, 2nd ed., Vol 1. Oxford: Clarendon Press. Singer, I. 1999 “A Political History of Ugarit.” In Watson and Wyatt 1999, 603–733. Sivan, D. 1984 Grammatical Analysis and Glossary of the Northwest Semitic Vocables in Akkadian Texts of the 15th–13th BCE from Canaan and Syria. Alter Orient und Altes Testament 214. Neukirchener Verlag Neukirchen-Vluyn: Verlag Butzon and Bercker Kevelaer. 1997 A Grammar of the Ugaritic Language. Leiden: E J Brill.

266

DATING ABH POETRY: A CRITIQUE 2000

“The Status of Ugaritic among the Northwest Semitic Languages in the Wake of New Research.” Ugarit Forschungen 32, 531–41. Smelik, K. A. D. 1991 Writings from Ancient Israel: A Handbook of Historical and Religious Documents. Translated by G. I. Davies. Louisville, Kentucky: Westminster/John Knox Press. Smith, M. S. 1994 The Ugaritic Ba‘al Cycle. Volume 1: Introduction with Text, Translation and Commentary of KTU 1.1-1.2. Supplements to Vetus Testamentum 55. Leiden: E. J. Brill. 2004 The Memoirs of God; History, Memory, and the Experience of the Divine in Ancient Israel. Minneapolis: Fortress Press. Soggin, J. A. 1981 Judges: a Commentary. Translated by J. Bowden from the Italian original. London: SCM Press Ltd. Soldt, W. F. van 1991 Studies in the Akkadian of Ugarit: Dating and Grammar. Alter Orient und Altes Testament 40. Neukirchener Verlag Neukirchen-Vluyn: Verlag Butzon and Bercker Kevelaer. 1998 “Book Review: A. F. Rainey: 1996: Canaanite in the Amarna Tablets: A Linguistic Analysis of the Mixed Dialect Used by Scribes from Canaan. Vol 1–4.” Journal of the American Oriental Society 118, 595–597. Tate, M. E. 1990 Psalms 51–100. Word Biblical Commentary 20. Texas: Word Books. 2002 “Review: Edward Lipiński. Semitic Languages: Outline of a Comparative Grammar. 1997.” In Izre’el 2002, 511–520. Thiessen, M. 2004 “The Form and Function of the Song of Moses (Deuteronomy 32:1–43).” Journal of Biblical Literature 123, 401–424. Thomas, D. W. ed. 1958 Documents from Old Testament Times. London: Thomas Nelson and Sons Ltd.

BIBLIOGRAPHY Tov, E. 2001

267

Textual Criticism of the Hebrew Bible. 2nd Edition. Minneapolis: Fortress Press. Toynbee, A. J. 1939 A Study of History, 6. London: Oxford University Press. Tropper, J. 1992 “Is Ugaritic a Canaanite Language?” In Brooke, Curtis and Healey 1994, 343–353. 1993 “Nominativ Dual *yarih. au im Gezer-Kalender.” Zeitschrift für Althebraistik 6, 228-231. 1998 “Sprachliche Archaismen im Parallelismus membrorum in der akkadischen und ugaritischen Epik.” Aula Orientalis 16, 103–110. 1999 “Ugaritic Grammar.” In Watson and Wyatt 1999, 91– 121. 2000 Ugaritische Grammatik. Alter Orient und Altes Testament 273. Münster: Ugarit-Verlag. 2002 Ugaritische: Kurzgefasste Grammatik mit Übungstexten und Glossar. Elementa Linguarum Orientis 1. Münster: Ugarit-Verlag. 2002-3 “Die Vokativepartikel yāh im Hebräischen.” Zeitschrift für Althelbraistic 15, 168–171. Tuttle, G. A. 1978 “Case Vowels on Masculine Singular Nouns in Construct in Ugaritic.” In G. A. Tuttle, ed., Biblical and Near Eastern Studies: Essays in Honour of William Sanford LaSor. Grand Rapids: Eerdemans, 253–268. Ulrich, E. 1999 The Dead Sea Scrolls and the Origins of the Bible. Studies in the Dead Sea Scrolls and Related Literature. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Eerdemans. Ulrich, E. and F. M. Cross, J. R. Davila, N. Jastram, J. E. Sanderson, E. Tov and J. Strugnell, eds. . 1994 Qumran Cave 4, VII, Genesis to Numbers (Discoveries in the Judean Desert XII). Oxford: Clarendon Press, 97–126. Vern, R. C. 2008 “The Relevance of Linguistic Evidence to the Dating of Archaic Poetry of the Hebrew Bible.” Ph. D. Dissertation, University of Sydney.

268

DATING ABH POETRY: A CRITIQUE

Forthcoming “Morphological Notions: Case (i) Vestiges of Case Inflections.” G. Khan, general editor, Encyclopedia of Hebrew Language and Linguistics. Leiden, The Netherlands: Koninklijke Brill NV. Virolleaud C. 1936a La Légende Phénicienne de Danel. Texte Cunéiforme alphabétique avec Transcription et Commentaire, precede d’une introduction à l’étude de la civilisation d’Ugarit. Mission de Ras-Shamra Tome I. Paris: Librairie Orientaliste Paul Geuthner. 1936b La Légende de Keret Roi des Sidoniens. Mission de RasShamra Tome II. Paris: Librairie Orientaliste Paul Geuthner. 1938 La Déesse ‘Anat. Mission de Ras-Shamra Tome IV. Paris: Librairie Orientaliste Paul Geuthner. 1955 Le Palace Royal d’Ugarit. Mission de Ras-Shamra, Tome III. Paris: Imprimerie. Waltke, B. K. and M. O’Connor 1990 An Introduction to Biblical Hebrew Syntax. Indiana: Eisenbrauns. Walton, J. H. 2003 “Date of Exodus.” In T. D. Alexander and D. W. Baker, Dictionary of the Old Testament: Pentateuch. Illinois: Intervarsity Press, 258–272. Watson, W. G. E. 1972 “Archaic Elements in the Language of Chronicles.” Biblica 52, 191–207. 1999 “Ugaritic Poetry.” In Watson and Wyatt 1999, 165– 192. Watson, W. G. E. and N. Wyatt, eds. 1999 Handbook of Ugaritic Studies. Handbuch der Orientalistik, Erste Abteilung, Nahe und der Mittlere Osten 39. Leiden: Brill. Weitzman, S. 1997 Song and Story in Biblical Narrative. The History of a Literary Convention in Ancient Israel. Indiana Studies in Biblical Literature. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

269

Wevers, J. W. and D. B. Redford, eds. 1970 Essays on the Ancient Semitic World. Toronto Semitic Texts and Studies. Toronto: University of Toronto Press. Wigram, G. V. 1984 The New Englishman’s Hebrew Concordance. J. P. Green, revising editor. Massachusetts: Hendrickson. Williamson, H. G. M. 1997 “Review: P. Sanders, The Provenance of Deuteronomy 32.” Vetus Testamentum 47, 276. Winckler H. and Abel L. 1889-1891 Der Thontafelfund von El Amarna nach den originalen Autographirt von Ludwig Abel. Heft 1, 2 und 3. Berlin: W. Speman. Wong, G. K. T. 2007 “Song of Deborah as Polemic.” Biblica 88, 1–22. Wright, D. P., D. N. Freedman and A. Hurvitz, eds. 1995 Pomegranates and Golden Bells: Studies in Biblical, Jewish and Near Eastern Ritual, Law, and Literature in Honor of Jacob Milgrom. Indiana: Eisenbrauns. Wright, G. E. ed. 1965 The Bible and the Ancient Near East. Essays in Honour of William Foxwell Albright. New York: Anchor Books. Wright, W. 1964 A Grammar of the Arabic Language. Translated from the German of Caspari. Revised by W. Robertson Smith and M. J. de Goeje, Vol. II. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 1966 Lectures on the Comparative Grammar of the Semitic Languages. Amsterdam: Philo Press. Wyatt, N. 2002 Religious Texts from Ugarit. Biblical Seminar 53. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press. Wyatt, N., W. G. E. Watson and J. B. Lloyd, eds. 1996 Ugarit, Religion and Culture. Proceedings of the International Colloquium on Ugarit, Religion and Culture, Edinburgh, July 1994 Ugaritische-biblische Literatur 2. Münster: Ugarit-Verlag.

270 Young, I. 1992

DATING ABH POETRY: A CRITIQUE

“The Style of the Gezer Calendar and Some ‘Archaic Biblical Hebrew’ Passages.” Vetus Testamentum 42, 362–375. 1993 Diversity in Pre-Exilic Hebrew. Forschungen zum Alten Testament 5. Tübingen: Mohr. 1995 “The ‘Northernisms’ of the Israelite Narratives in Kings.” Zeitschrift für Althebraistik 8 63–70. 1997 “Evidence of Diversity in Pre-Exilic Judahite Hebrew.” Hebrew Studies 38, 7–20. 1998 “The ‘Archaic’ Poetry of the Pentateuch in the MT, Samaritan Pentateuch and 4QExodc.” Abr-Nahrain 35, 74–83. 2001 “Observations on the Third Person Masculine Singular pronominal suffix -h in Hebrew Biblical Texts.” Hebrew Studies XLII, 225–242. 2001 “‘Edah and Qahal as Collective Nouns in Hebrew Biblical Texts.” Zeitschrift für Althelbraistic 14, 68–78. 2002 “The Languages of Ancient Sam’al.” Maarav 9, 93– 105. 2003a “Late Biblical Hebrew and Hebrew Inscriptions.” In Young 2003c, 276–311. 2003b “Concluding Reflections.” In Young 2003c, 312–317. 2005 “Biblical Texts cannot be dated linguistically.” Hebrew Studies 46, 341–351. Young, I., ed. 2003c Biblical Hebrew: Studies in Chronology and Typology. Journal for the Study of the Old Testament Supplement Series 369. London: T&T Clark International. Young, I., R. Rezetko and M. Ehrensvärd 2008 Linguistic Dating of Biblical Texts. Vol 1: An Introduction to Approaches and Problems. Vol 2: A Survey of Scholarship, A New Synthesis and a Comprehensive Bibliography. London: Equinox. Youngblood, R. F. 1961 “The Amarna Correspondence of Rib-Haddi, Prince of Byblos (EA 68–96).” Ph. D. Dissertation, Dropsie College for Hebrew and Cognate Learning (unpublished), Philadelphia.

BIBLIOGRAPHY Zevit, Z. 1983 2001

271

“The Question of Case Endings on Ugaritic Nouns in Status Constructus.” Journal of Semitic Studies 28, 225– 232. The Religions of Ancient Israel: A Synthesis of Parallactic Approaches. London: Continuum.

Zewi, T. A. 1999 Syntactical Study of Verbal Forms Affixed by -n(n) Endings in Classical Arabic, Biblical Hebrew, El-Amarna Akkadian and Ugaritic. Alter Orient und Altes Testament 260. Münster: Ugarit-Verlag. Zuckerman, B. 2002 “Working with a Little more Data: New Finds in the Twentieth Century: the Semitic Languages of the Ancient World.” In Izre’el 2002, 481–497.

INDEX INDEX OF BIBLICAL REFERENCES Genesis 1.24 11.18 11.21 14.18 32.30 49

120, 128 124 124 126 117 11, 29, 110, 216, 224, 230 49.2–27 7 49.8 216 49.11 110, 116 49.15 107, 110, 224 49.21 110 49.21 216 49.24 216 49.29 216 Exodus 1.11 33 4.29 159f 5.16 227 7.6 159 7.10 159f 15. 4, 6, 9–17, 20–24, 26, 27, 32–34, 40– 43, 52–54, 57–59, 62, 64, 66, 79, 84, 106, 218, 223, 229– 236, 238–241 15.1–18 24 15.1b–18, 21b 7 15.1b–21 7 15.2 40, 109f

15.3 109 15.6 24, 113, 117 15.9–21 22, 64 15.11 33, 121f 15.12 22 15.14 216 15.15 22, 121f 15.16 41, 42, 109, 113, 216, 227 15.17 21 Leviticus 25.21 227 26.34 227 Numbers Numbers 23 and 24 (Oracles) 15, 69, 73, 74, 106, 120, 216 23.7b–10 7 23.10 74 23.18b–24 7 23.18 118, 119 23.19 121f 23.21b 121f 23.22 75 23.22b 121f 24.3b–9 7 24.3 118, 117, 121f 24.7 29 24.15b–24 7 24.15 118 24.17 75

273

274

DATING ABH POETRY: A CRITIQUE

24.19 75 34.23 127 Deuteronomy 5.20–21 204 5.23 205, 218 5.24 210, 218 10.3 46 29.8 205, 206 31.29 227 32 11–13, 16, 17, 20, 21, 23–26, 29, 41, 53, 54, 66, 106, 230, 232, 236, 239 32.1–43 7 32.8 48, 50 32.10 42, 48, 49 32.16 216 32.22 224 32.23 41 32.25 110, 113f 32.26 222 32.27 41, 216 32.28 110 32.29 216 32.30 216 32.32 41 32.35 41 32.36 222, 224, 226, 227, 235, 238f 32.37 41 32.38 41, 110, 216 32.42 110 32 and 33 21 33. 11, 212, 223, 230 33.2–29 7 33.3 212, 215, 218 33.4 110 33.9 107, 216 33.10 110, 216 33.11 71, 216 33.14 121f 33.16 116, 121f 33.17 121f 33.19 216

33.27 33.28 33.29 Judges 3.21 4.21 5.

110 216 216

212 212 9, 11, 14, 15, 23– 25, 53, 54, 62, 63, 65, 70, 84, 106, 120, 230, 235 5.1–30 7 5.2–31a 7 5.4 223 5.6 119 5.12 119 5.25 109, 223 5.26 223 5.28 223 5.30 109, 216 5.31 216 12.4–6 65 1 Samuel 2 17 2.1–10 17 9.1 117 14.51 117 20.31 29 2 Samuel 1.19–27 11, 230 10.9 217 18.14 212 21.9 212 22 11, 24, 53, 54, 62, 63, 224, 230 22.2b–51 7 22.16 72 22.24 121f 22.40 110 22.44 121 1 Kings 2.12 28 2 Kings 18.1 127

INDEX 1 Chronicles 4.15 124 4.36 126 5.15 1169 127 6.29 127 8.17 127 8.38 124, 125f 10.10 211, 218 11.32 117 26.2 127 Nehemiah 6.6 124 10.2 127 12.7 124 12.14 124 Esther 2.6 227 Job 3.2b3–42.6 7 Poetry of 7, 18, 24, 41, 62, 63, 70, 230 3.7 110 4.14 110 4.18 46, 110 4.20 73 4.21 110 5.13 224 5.16 224 5.23 224 6.13 225 9.24 225 10.22 113f 13.1 227 13.2 225 15.18 73 15.19 225 16.20 225 19.15 204, 208, 218 27.23 41 31.11 73 39.20 113f 41.6 113f

275 Psalms 3.3 18

113f 7, 11, 24, 53, 54, 61, 62, 63, 224, 230 18.16 72 18.24 121f 18.40 110 29.6 72 37.31 217 45.7 29 50.10 128 68 212, 215 68.3 213, 215, 218 68.14 214, 218 72.15 42 74 22 77 22 78 7, 22, 24, 63, 231 78.5 110 78.21 224 78.54 224, 227 78.63 224 79.2 128 89.51 72 94.17 113f 104.11 1267 104.20 127 106.38 211, 218 110.4 116f, 126 113 17 113.5 127 113.5–9 17 113.6 127 114.8 127, 128 123.1 127 Proverbs 1.22 208, 218 Isaiah 1.21 116f, 126 22.16 127 22.23–24 212 23.15 224, 225 26.21 227 33.18 113f

276

DATING ABH POETRY: A CRITIQUE

56.9 127 Jeremiah 2.19 208f 4.28 210 5.22 42 6.16–21 32f 10.7 29 20.14 227 44.23 227 49.34 29 52.31 29 Lamentations 1.1 129 1.3 227 Ezekiel 3.3 113f 3.12 206f 3.13 206f 14.20 127 24.12 227 26.17 211 37.7 204, 206, 207, 218 46.17 224, 225 Daniel 8.16 127

Hosea 2.9 227 4.3 210 10.11 127 10.13 113f Joel 1.20 217 Amos 8.8 210 9.5 210 Jonah 2.10 113 Nahum 1.5 204 1.8–9 204 2.8 227 Habakkuk 3 11, 53, 54, 62, 230 3.2–19 7, 110 3.3 224 3.16 110 3.17 110 Zephaniah 2.14 128 Zechariah 11.17 116f, 126

INDEX

277

INDEX OF UGARITIC TEXTS KTU2 1.2 I: 20–21 1.3 II: 8 1.3 V: 36 1.4 I: 4–8 1.4 II: 8 1.4 IV: 31 1.4 IV: 32 1.4 IV: 47–50 1.4 V: 15 1.4 V: 15–17 1.4 V: 31 1.4 V: 38–40 1.4 V: 46–48 1.4 VI: 18–19 1.4 VIII: 12–13 1.6 VI: 28 1.6 VI: 33–35 1.14 II: 43–50 1.14 II: 45–47 1.14 IV: 4–5 1.14 IV: 22–23 1.14 IV: 23–25 1.14 IV: 32–48 1.16 I: 52–53 1.18 IV: 3 1.19 IV: 8–17 1.22 I: 6–7 1.23: 9–11 1.23: 59 1.23: 60 1.23: 61–63

155 129 141 139 220 220 220 139 157 133, 153 157 133, 157 152 163 85 85 150 142 141 124 124 141 143 160 220 146 138 148, 150 151 87 161

1.24: 35–36 1.72: 36–40 1.85 1.85: 12–14 1.96: 1 1.97: 2–5 1.103: 7 1.103: 33–34 1.116: 2 2.2 2.2: 7–9 2.16: 4–5 2.38: 25 4.390: 1–2 Keret 1 K 195–211 II K VI: 12 III K IV: 27 RS 15.112: 2 15.122: 4 17.388 17.388: 16 19.023: 3 19.112: 2 20.06: 6 20.149: 7 22.399: 17 PRU 6 50:16 134

164 159, 161 135 158 220 159 87 87 220 135 165 86 220 86 143 156 156 87 87 134 134 87 87 134 87 134

278

DATING ABH POETRY: A CRITIQUE

INDEX OF AMARNA LETTERS 53: 34 103 53: 48 103 55: 57 103 74: 2 102 74: 56–58 192 74: 57 186, 201 76: 3 102 76: 6 221 76: 34 222 77: 18–20 188 77: 20 188, 200 77: 26–27 190 79: 3 102 81: 2 102 81: 30–33 180 81.31 200 82: 10–11 171 83: 43 198 83: 43–44 179 89: 35 171 89: 36 46 90: 23–25 192 90: 25 173, 188, 200 90: 61 190 91: 38 190 91: 45 190 94: 11 190 96: 4–6 187 97: 3 187 103: 30–31 94 103: 53 173 105: 2 102 105: 8–9 93 105: 36 171 106: 39 103 107: 3 102 107: 30 190 108: 3 102 108: 11 171 108: 20 197, 199, 201 108: 20–21 196

109: 7 188, 189, 199, 200, 201 109: 7–8 194 109: 15–17 193 109: 17 175, 178, 201 109: 19 175, 200 109: 19–20 180 109: 25 196 109: 35 196 112: 39 195f 113: 34 201 113: 32–35 195 114: 2 102 116: 2–3 102 116: 8 195, 200 116: 8–9 184 117: 2 102 117: 29–30 94 117: 67–70 186 117: 68 199, 200 118: 34 103 118: 44 195f 118: 47 171 119: 3 102 120: 23–25 193 120: 24 188, 201 121: 47–49 190 121: 48 188, 198 122: 3 102 123: 3–4 102 123: 41–43 190 124: 14–15 175 124: 15 170, 200 124: 16–17 185 124: 17 184, 197, 200 124: 40 176 124: 50–53 175 124: 53 200 126: 18–23 177 126: 19 197, 200 126: 40 200

INDEX 126: 40–42 178 131: 19–20 103 131: 23 115f 131: 41 184, 200 131: 41–42 184 132: 45 116f 132: 59 195f 136: 21–23 97 136: 126–128 93 137: 12 170 137: 62 200 137: 62–64 183 138: 80 115f 138: 98 222 138: 130 115f 140: 30–33 182 141: 31 172, 198 144: 17 93 147: 25–26 97 147: 40 97 147: 45 97 147: 69 96 149: 64 222 155: 46 96, 97 189 rev.: 1–3 181, 182 189 rev.: 21–23 181, 182 197: 7 46 197: 8 46 197: 9 46 197: 32–34 181 197: 34 46, 200 221: 17 93 227: 8–11 185 227: 10 200 227: 15 46 228: 8 103 234: 17 172,198 239: 23–26 191

279 239: 27 188, 200 244: 16 93 245: 3 170, 199, 200 249: 5–8 180 249: 7 200 252 40, 233 252: 16–19 171 252: 26 41 252: 72 172 254: 16 200 254: 16–17 177 255 41f 256: 9–10 93 256: 19 93 263: 12 93 264: 16 93 270: 9–12 102 274: 14 172, 198 281: 13 172, 198 281: 23–26 189 281: 24 188, 200 285: 18–19 95 287 40, 233 287: 16 41 287: 27–29 98 287: 66 106f 287: 69 106f 288: 51–53 221 289 41f 290: 12 222 337: 9 93 337: 15–17 181, 182 365: 15–19 94 337: 21 93 365: 25–27 199 365: 25–29 176 365: 27 200

280

DATING ABH POETRY: A CRITIQUE

INDEX OF AUTHORS Adamthwaite, M. R. 40–41 Albright, W. F. 9–12, 14, 16, 19, 21, 22, 33, 64, 70, 71, 73–76, 110, 119, 120, 131, 132, 170, 171, 203, 204, 210, 210f, 214, 214f, 215, 230 Andersen, F. I. 12 Andersen, T. D. 20, 111 Barr, J. 12 Bergsträsser, G. 121, 169 Bietak, M. 33 Bimson, J. J. 33 Blau, J. 20, 30, 65, 100, 111, 223 Bloch, Y.10 Böhl, F. M. 101, 102, 103, 169, 173, 174, 181, 191, 216 Bordreuil, P. and D. Pardee 2 Brenner, M. L. 12, 16, 25, 32, 64, 113, 236 Brovender, C. 122, 123, 125f, 129, 203, 205 Brown, F.et al. (BDB) 113, 210, 212, 225 Burney, C. F. 65 Butts, A. B. 24 Caplice, R. et al. 81f, 85, 92, 92f Caquot, A. et al. 138, 139, 142, 145, 147, 148, 151, 152, 153, 155, 161, 163, 164 Cassuto, U. 131, 137 Childs, B. S. 26 Chomsky, W. 14 Cole, R. A. 26 Coogan, M. D. 136, 136f, 141, 142, 145, 147, 153, 154 Cross, F. M. Jr.9–11, 11f, 14, 18, 21, 23, 25, 28, 54, 69, 120, 213, 230 Dahood, M. 203, 209, 211, 211f, 213, 214, 214f, 215

Dassow, E. von 91 Davies, G. I., et al. 19 Davies, P. R. 35 Day, J. 25, 61 Dhorme, E. 169, 170 Dietrich, M. et al. 20, 139, 164 Dion, P. E. 57 Dobrusin, D. L. 132–135, 138, 139, 143, 144, 148, 149, 154–157, 166 Dozeman, T. B. 25 Driver, G. R. 138, 142, 147, 148, 151, 152–154, 161, 162– 164, 167 Ebeling, E. 169, 170, 173–175, 177, 181, 183, 187, 216, 221f Ehrensvärd, M. 29, 35 Emerton, J. A. 19, 35, 76, 81, 81f, 123, 132 Fowler, H. W. and F. G. Fowler 31 Freedman, D. N. 9–11, 11f, 14, 16–19, 21, 24, 27, 30, 69, 112, 1208, 213, 230 Freedman, D. N., et al. 12 GKC see Gesenius et al. Gesenius, F. H. W. et al. 42, 106, 107, 116, 126, 127, 204, 215, 222, 225, 227 Gibson, J. C. L. 18, 59, 60, 133, 142, 147, 151–154, 156, 161–164, 226 Ginsberg, H. L. 71, 131, 144, 145, 155 Goetze 132 Goldin, J. 25 Goodwin, D. W.10, 14, 121, 210, 210f, 213, 214 Gordon, C. H. 81, 82, 85, 86, 88, 106f, 123, 128, 132,

INDEX 136, 136f, 140, 142, 145, 147, 150, 152–154, 163, 164, 167, 203–205, 208, 214 Groom, S. A. 30 Halpern, B. 9, 14, 24, 26, 33, 34 Harris, Z. S. 111, 121, 132, 133, 223, 226 Hauser, A. J. 10 Held, M. 137 Hendel, R. 34f Herdner, A. 131, 154–155, 157, 169, 170 Hess, R. S. 98, 100, 101, 112 Hoffman, Y. 17, 32f Holladay, W. L. 61 Houston, W. J. 25 Huehnergard, J. 82, 83, 83f, 84, 85, 87, 92, 114, 134, 171, 172, 197 Hummel, H. D. 70, 71 Hurvitz, A. 13, 17, 17f, 37, 76, 113, 114 Hyatt, J. P. 64 Israel, F. 87 Izre’el, S. 3, 91 92, 94, 100, 173– 178, 181–185, 187, 189– 191, 194–198 Jones, H. R. 33 Joüon, P. and T. Muraoka 117, 119, 122, 124, 125f, 127, 128, 207, 208 Kaufman, S. A. 58f Kitchen, K. A. et al. 33 Kloos, C. 24, 61 Knudtzon J. A. 41f, 93f, 99, 103, 173–175, 177, 178, 180, 181, 183, 186, 189– 193, 195, 216, 221, 221f Kossmann, M. 91, 92f, 95–100, 102, 103 Kraus, H-J. 61 Kutscher, E. Y. 12, 29, 126, 129, 207, 225

281 Layton, S. C. 81, 83, 108, 115f 117f, 118, 119, 124, 125, 125f, 127 Lemaire, A. 18 Leuchter, M. 24, 26 Lewis, T. J. 137, 139 Lipiński, E. 81, 86, 93, 124, 169, 223 Margalit, B. 148 McCarter, J. K. 68, 74 Mendenhall, G. E. 13 Moor, J. C. de 139 Moran, W. L. 3, 20, 70, 89, 92, 93f, 99, 100, 103, 104, 115, 115f, 132, 171–186, 186f, 187–195, 197, 203, 204, 216, 221 Moscati, S. A. 15, 132, 223 Niccacci, A. 15, 45–48, 48f, 49, 51, 53 Nigosian, S. A. 26 Oppenheim, A. L. et al. 100f, 191, 199 Pardee, D. 2, 18, 132 Pope, M. H. 73 Propp, W. H. C. 26 Rabin, C. 88, 111, 124f Rainey, A. F. 19, 20, 41, 44, 45, 48–51, 58f, 71, 86, 89, 91, 92, 93f, 94–101,103, 104, 114, 118f, 126f, 169, 171– 173, 175–181, 183–189, 191–194, 196–199, 220, 221f Ratner, R. 205–208, 208f, 209, 212–214 Redford, D. B. 19 Reiner, E.91, 95, 101f Rendsburg, G. A. 33, 65, 70, 119, 120, 225 Renz, J. 18 Robertson, D. A. 1–7, 10, 12– 16, 18, 21, 23–26, 26f, 27, 32–35, 37–43, 45, 47, 48,

282

DATING ABH POETRY: A CRITIQUE

49f, 50–55, 57, 58, 58f, 59, 60f, 61–66, 68, 70-73, 76, 77 89, 90, 114, 115, 115f, 117, 119, 121, 122, 126, 128, 129, 215, 219, 225, 226, 229–238, 238f, 240, 241 Russell, B. D. 22 Sabourin, L. 61 Sáenz-Badillos, A. 12, 29, 111, 113, 224 Sanders, P. 12, 13, 16, 26, 226, 236 Schniedewind, W. M. 9, 10, 13, 14, 14f, 20 Schroeder O. 194 Segert, S. 81, 81f, 82, 82f, 83, 85, 88, 128, 132, 129 Selms, A. van 132 Seow, C. L. 28, 47 Shreckhise, R. 13 Simpson, J. A. et al. 37 Singer, I. 32, 84 Sivan, D. 2, 71, 81, 83, 84, 86– 88, 100, 128, 132, 140, 141, 143, 152, 156, 160, 219 Smelik, K. A. D. 18 Smith, M. S. 137, 154 Soggin, J. A. 10 Soldt, W. F. van 84, 89, 92, 134 Tate, M. E. 61 Thiessen, M. 21, 23

Tov, E. 65, 68 Toynbee, A. J. 31 Tropper, J. 18, 81, 83, 83f, 84, 88, 89, 124, 131, 132, 134, 135, 139–141, 146, 148, 150–164, 164f, 165–167, 182, 183 Tuttle, G. A. 84, 85, 86 Vern, R. C. 43f, 109, 123, 235 Waltke, B. K. and M. O’Connor 25, 29, 35, 106, 116, 125f, 126, 127, 222 Walton, J. H. 33 Watson, W. G. E. 136, 137, 156, 212 Weitzman, S. 14, 15, 64 Wigram, 210 Winckler H. and L. Abel 189, 191, 192, 194 Wong, G. K. T. 15, 23, 25 Wright, W. 124f, 126, 128, 225, 227 Wyatt, N. 9, 136, 136f, 140–143, 147, 148, 151–154, 161, 163–167 Young, I. 12, 17, 18, 21, 22, 26, 30, 59, 64, 65, 111, 122, 218, 222, 224–226, 235 Youngblood, R. F. 102, 173, 179, 181, 188, 189, 192, 193 Zevit, Z. 86 Zuckerman, B. 15