Rooker begins his study by giving various, but now disputed,
theories of linguistic change. These include: the idea that language changes
are a result of the language falling into decay over time, the idea that
culture adopts more lax verbal expressions for ease of speech, and the idea
that a popular speaker/writer/group adopts a variation of speech, is then
countered by other variants, and thus change takes place. Rooker seems to adopt
the last of these.
He then proceeds to discuss a brief history of linguistic
study and centers on the more recent diachronic research of Hurvitz and Polzin
for their contributions toward the characteristics of Late Biblical Hebrew
(LBH). Rooker adopts Polzin’s criteria for determining LBH with some major
exceptions. He then proceeds to lay out the statistics of the various elements
within certain books believed to be evidencing a use of EBH and those
evidencing a use of LBH according to Polzin’s amended criteria and adds the
Book of Ezekiel to the mix (a book he is eager to point out that Polzin left
out of his study. A discussion of whether genre plays a role in discrediting
such studies, since poetry tends to archaize and can look early even when late, follows;
but Rooker concludes that even if one can make a distinction between poetry and
prose (following Kugel, he attempts to lessen the distinction), the work of the
later prophets, including that of Ezekiel, he contends, looks much more like
prose than poetry.
Rooker’s main purpose with this book is to displace the idea
laid down by Polzin that P (divided up between Pg and Ps) reflects a
transitional period (circa 600 BCE) with the conclusion that the Book of
Ezekiel is a much better candidate for such a demarcation, and instead, P (both
Pg and Ps) has far more characteristics of Early Biblical Hebrew (EBH), and that
very few of the criteria selected by Polzin and Rooker would even suggest LBH
influence (although he mentions the possibility that lexicography, as opposed
to a strictly grammatical/syntactical analysis may yield different results). What
this does is open up Rooker’s study to vie for that transitional position.
Rooker then proceeds to examine the text of Ezekiel in terms
of a contrast and distribution methodology, i.e., in terms of both its
grammatical or lexical features against what is thought to be known of EBH and
linguistic distribution within LBH of a particular grammatical or lexical usage.
This last component of Rooker’s methodology is important, since it may be that
EBH simply did not employ a particular construction due to its lack of any
occasion upon which to employ such a construction. In other words, it may
simply be that the extant material that makes up EBH, limited as it is, never
came across a need to employ a particular word or construction. Hence, there
needs to be an identification of a common use of another term or grammatical construct
that LBH has now, for the most part, replaced, and sources that are certainly
written in LBH comprise the data that Rooker uses to compare with what might be
features of LBH within the Book of Ezekiel.
After noting several features of LBH in Ezekiel, along with the fact that Ezekiel does not seem to use many of these features as often as much later examples of LBH, Rooker comes to his conclusion that Ezekiel is indeed the best candidate to serve as a transitional document that marks the "line" between EBH and LBH.
My Thoughts:
I think that, to a certain extent, such a work is useful.
Knowing when a work is written may yield valuable background information and
certainly help us with understanding the book itself, as we should not think
that there is such a thing as “Biblical Hebrew,” a uniform language that can be
used to interpret any text regardless of where that text might lay in history.
However, I was taken aback by the fact that there were so
many elements, even when Polzin’s criteria was abridged, that seem to make the
supposedly LBH features less evident, as they appeared in so many places in
works considered to be examples of EBH. For instance, in the statistical
analysis of wayĕhî as rare in LBH
doesn’t seem to add up, as Nehemiah (an example of LBH) has 78.96 occurrences
per 1000 vss of the construction, but Chronicles only has 33.10 per 1000 vss
and Ezra only 4.76 per 1000. Yet, Dtr (an example of EBH) has a greater
commonality with Nehemiah at 74.21 per 1000 vss. In other words, I’m baffled as
to why this was used as evidence either way, and said to occur only rarely in
LBH.
Still, there are many solid observations, such as the LBH’s
affinity for using plural forms of words and phrases that EBH used in the
singular. Here, the examples of EBH are all at zero uses, but Chronicles, Ezra,
Nehemiah, and Ezekiel all have a solid use of the practice.
Rookers use of the contrastive and distributive method is
helpful. This is especially the case when a variation of a synonymous
linguistic form can be observed in both Samuel-Kings and Chronicles, since the
form can then be reviewed within the larger body of literature in order to
identify the nature of the Hebrew found in a particular biblical text. In other
words, if an elongated form appears in Chronicles and is synonymous with a
shorter form, one can simply survey other sources of EBH and LBH in order to
discover whether it is a genuine feature of LBH and not simply a regional or idiosyncrasy
of the author (although Rooker notes that all of these changes likely had roots
in dialectical differences stemming from Aramaic influence and influences
stemming from regional dialects within Israel.
Although, I find it difficult to maintain that some texts
simply do not archaize so well as to look like EBH or that some sources that
were originally written in the EBH period were not simply updated and expanded.
To be sure, certain texts (e.g., Ecclesiastes) are lately written and
constitute definite examples of LBH (perhaps we should call this ELBH “Extremely
Late Biblical Hebrew”) with a heavy influence of Aramaic and Hebraizing. But
what is in place to ensure that the former two phenomena did not occur?
Rooker himself admits that Ezekiel made use of “earlier sources
and frozen forms” (177). Perhaps, Ezekiel is not transitional at all, but is
instead a late book that only looks earlier and not as far along the
transitional shift of the language due to features that are archaic looking?
What is important is that, even with the points with which I
would take issue, Rooker makes his case well enough in my mind that Ezekiel
should be seen as an example of transitional Hebrew and Polzin’s theory
concerning P, as a prime example of transitional literature, abandoned. What
this does for everyone who believes that P is a work of the fourth and fifth
centuries, I can’t say. It seems that Rooker’s analysis in this regard has been
largely ignored for some reason. Perhaps, this is a case in point of lesser
known works making huge contributions to the field, but made impotent simply by
their lack of word of mouth.
In any case, Rooker’s analysis helps build a diachronic
framework for studying the development of the Hebrew language, the final form
of the current texts of the Bible we now possess, and may, in fact, place P
back in the pre-exilic period.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.