Friday, March 01, 2019

New Book: How Old Is the Hebrew Bible?

13
In How Old Is the Hebrew Bible? A Linguistic, Textual, and Historical Study (Yale, 2018), Ronald Hendel and Jan Joosten provide an accessible treatment of some of the complex issues regarding inquiry into the history of the Hebrew Bible. In short, they are convinced that within the Hebrew Bible there is a traceable diachrony from Classical Biblical Hebrew (CBH; texts dated to the monarchy) to Late Biblical Hebrew (LBH; texts dated to the Persian period). The book is only 221 pages. It is not intended to be a full or complete study of all of the evidence but it does present some intriguing arguments for its thesis.

My interest in the book goes beyond the linguistic to the textual critical. In chapter 4, the authors address “Textual History and Linguistic History.” They state the problem plainly, “Textual variation interferes with diachronic linguistics” (p. 47). However, the situation is not hopeless in the eyes of the authors. The Masoretic Text is “notoriously layered” (p. 48) and the MT’s vowel pointing at times does preserve evidence of a later grammatical development (cf. Isa 1:12; p. 49), but our authors conclude, “Textual criticism and diachronic linguistics complement each other. The judicious combination of the two approaches paves the way to a correct understanding of the text” (p. 50, and similar on p. 53 regarding the consonantal text).

So how do we know whether we are reading early or late Biblical Hebrew in any one narrative or book? Under “The Criterion of Accumulation,” the authors say that the comprehensive difference between CBH and LBH could hardly be the result of textual corruption. Rather, only an accumulation of late features can date a text as late (cf. ch. 3). That is, early texts may contain anomalous late linguistic features due to sporadic linguistic modernization. The authors final assessment of the Masoretic Text in this regard is worth quoting in full:
The fact is that the MT of Isaiah and the Pentateuch does not exhibit this modernizing profile. On the whole, the MT is a rather conservative and well-preserved text. Occasional modernizations exist, but they did not affect the MT to the extent of making the diachronic approach impossible (p. 55).
They close the chapter with a section on Textual Criticism and Redaction Criticism, which addresses the matter of different literary editions; that is, textual change not due to scribal mistakes and modernizing versions (pp. 56–57).

The authors conclude the chapter as follows:
When textual criticism is brought into the picture, it has the global effect of confirming the diachronic approach. The textual history of the Hebrew Bible provides an explanation for occasional “false positives,” late features occurring in a relatively early text. In addition, such late features in the CBH corpus can often be shown to have entered the text secondarily, as scribal mistakes, as occasional modernizations, or as products of textual growth. Textual criticism and historical linguistics  reinforce one another, and together contribute to a better understanding of the biblical text (p. 59).
I’m only part way through chapter 5 of the book, but overall, the authors are to be commended for their treatment and presentation of the matter of historical linguistics and its relationship to TC. I plan to write a follow-up post attempting to engage the authors on one of their examples from chapter 4 with a view to show how they think diachony and TC work together.

13 comments

  1. I haven't read the book yet, but I heartily agree that at times text-critical work can clear up discrepancies in the diachronic data and diachronics can help eliminate secondary readings on linguistic grounds.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yes, this is the point of the book.

      Delete
    2. Well, maybe not the point. It seems to me relative chronology of authorial composition is the main concern.

      Delete
    3. That's right. Diachrony and removing obstacles to it (e.g. textual history) is the point of their book.

      Delete
  2. "The fact is that the MT of Isaiah and the Pentateuch does not exhibit this modernizing profile."

    When they say "Isaiah" do they mean all of what is traditionally called "Isaiah"? Or do they just mean chapters 1-39. If this claim applies equally to chapters 40-66, do they have much to say about implications that has on the dating of that material?

    Similarly with the Pentateuch, do they mean all of the Pentateuch? If so, then it seems that their claims have implications both scribal conservatism and the dating of its composition or redaction into the form we know.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. In this chapter, the authors do not distinguish. Here, 1QIsa-a is the update, while MT is conservative. For the Pentateuch, SamPent is the update, while MT is conservative.

      Delete
    2. Aha, I suspected they picked those parts of the Tanach since they are so well represented textually. But that's a bit counterintuitive--they are saying that manuscripts from the 20th century, and the end of a long chain of conservative transmission stretching back 1500 years, preserve an older text than manuscripts dug out of a cave in which they were buried 2000 years ago?

      Delete
    3. I'd file this under the heading: "The Myth that 'Older is Better'" ;-)

      Seriously, I don't think we should follow the MT at every point (and I'm inclined to say that in some books the MT is quite wide of the mark compared to other sources), yet it does, for the most part at least, preserve a text far older than the age of its MSS suggests. This conclusion can be reached from various independent angles, one of which is diachronics.

      Delete
    4. Yeah. But the authors did not base this conclusion on intuition. Though there are some differences between epigraphic Hebrew and the MT, overall, the MT reflects the Hebrew from that period. So in this case we can verify the antiquity and conservative nature of the MT over and against the modernized SamPent and 1QIsa-a. Make sense?

      Delete
  3. Glad to see a relatively accessible book that can bridge the world of exegesis, TC, and the evolution of grammatical nuances. My OT profs continually tried to demonstrate such issues, but this book sounds like the necessary tool to give a bigger picture than the occasional example given in an exegesis class. I am sure the authors all agree that for each book of the OT one could write a 221 page book without much effort, so this one can only serve as a launching pad for (hopefully) a series which will be helpful for future commentaries and dictionaries.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yeah. The book depends on other studies of course. But it does make the matter accessible.

      Delete
  4. Thanks, John, I look forward to the next instalment!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thanks, Jan. Look for it tomorrow morning.

      Delete