THE DISTINCTION BETWEEN CLASSICAL AND LATE BIBLICAL

HEBREW AS REFLECTED IN SYNTAX

Jan Joosten
Universit Marc Bloch

A strong tendency in recent historical-critical treatments of biblical literature is to

date more and more books, including most of the Pentateuch, to the exilic or
post-exilic periods. This development is problematic, not least for linguistic rea-
sons. Hebraists widely agree in distinguishing Classical Biblical Hebrew from
Late Biblical Hebrew, the former being roughly the language of Genesis
2 Kings, the latter being found most clearly in Ezra-Nehemiah, Chronicles,
Ecclesiastes, Daniel, and Esther. Classical Biblical Hebrew is usually associated
with the pre-exilic period, Late Biblical Hebrew with the Persian period. The
present paper contributes to the debate by showing, firstly, that the verbal system
used in Late Biblical Hebrew is systematically different and typologically later
than the Classical Biblical Hebrew system, and, secondly, that Classical Biblical
Hebrew syntax is very close to the syntax found in pre-exilic Hebrew inscrip-
tions. Although the attestation of early Hebrew is too scanty to attain certainty,
the facts brought to light strongly indicate that a terminus ad quem of about 500
B.C.E. should be maintained for texts written in Classical Biblical Hebrew.

1.!THE HISTORY OF THE HEBREW LANGUAGE AND THE HISTORICAL

CRITICAL APPROACH

Linguistic arguments played an important role in the development of the

historical-critical approach to the Old Testament.1 Thus, even a very conser-
vative scholar like Franz Delitzsch could accept the late date of Ecclesiastes
on the basis of its language: If the Book of Koheleth were of old Solomonic
origin, then there is no history of the Hebrew language.2 A large collection
of linguistic features indicative of a specific age is presented by Samuel Rolles
Driver in his Introduction to the Literature of the Old Testament (1897). In
Drivers synthesis, the linguistic approach is combined with other methods of
dating developed during the eighteenth to the nineteenth centuries. Nonethe-
less, the criterion of language stands out for its precision and functions as a
control to the other approaches.
During the twentieth century, however, the historical-critical approach be-
came increasingly divorced from linguistic analysis. The process of specializa-
tion drove a wedge between Old Testament exegetes on the one hand and

1
!This is true in particular for the disputed areas such as the date of Daniel, the distinction of different
authors within the book of Isaiah, and the date of the priestly passages in the Pentateuch.
2
!F. Delitzsch, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Song of Solomon (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 1993), p. 190.
Hebrew Studies 46 (2005) 328 Joosten: The Distinction

Hebraists on the other. Although diachronic study of the Hebrew Bible con-
tinued to be practiced, it is not unfair to say that little attention was paid to it
by mainstream Old Testament scholars.3 When John Van Seters and Hans
Heinrich Schmid proposed to date the so-called Jahwist in the exilic period or
later, they did not do so on the basis of linguistic criteria. Today it has become
fashionable to date the Pentateuch more or less wholesale to the Persian
period.4 Such re-dating of biblical texts has proceeded on various grounds,
but historical linguistics has been invoked only marginally, and only a
posteriori.5 Linguistic data are no longer expected, it seems, to play a part
within the historical-critical approach.
If this impression is correct, it reflects a problematic development. Spe-
cialization is inevitable, but it does not justify mutual disregard: if specialists of
biblical literature cannot keep up with research on biblical languages, then
they should consult specialists of biblical languages. Linguists do not agree
among themselves.6 This should not dispense anyone from listening to them.
Mutatis mutandis, the status of historical linguistics in biblical studies could be
likened to that of archaeology. Archaeologists of the land of Israel do not
agree with one another; yet no one would dream of attempting a historical
approach to the biblical text without taking into account the archaeological
data. Archaeological stratification is not an exact science; but it is a whole lot
more exact than, say, distinguishing factual historiography from historical fic-
tion on the basis of literary genre alone. Similarly, linguistic stratigraphy is not
an exact science, but it is rather more precise than dating literary motifs or
theological ideas.

2.!LEXICON AND SYNTAX

The most impressive illustrations of diachronic development in biblical
Hebrew come from the lexicon. The fact that Chronicles has a handful of
Persian words and probably at least one Greek one is a strong indication that

3
!For a bibliographical survey of research on Biblical Hebrew in language-historical perspective, see the
contribution of Ziony Zevit to the present volume.
4
!See, e.g., J. Blenkinsopp, The Pentateuch. An Introduction to the First Five Books of the Bible (ABRL
7; New York: Doubleday, 1992); J. L.!Ska, Introduction la lecture du Pentateuque: Cls pour
l'interprtation des cinq premiers livres de la Bible (Bruxelles: ditions Lessius, 2000).
5
!See, for instance, the remarks on language in P. Davies, In Search of Ancient Israel (JSOTSup 148;
Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1992); E. A. Knauf, War Biblisch-Hebrisch eine Sprache?: Empirische
Gesichtspunkte zur linguistischen Annherung an die Sprache der althebrischen Literatur ZAH 3 (1990):
1123.
6
!For a recent snap-shot of the debate among linguists, see I. Young, ed., Biblical Hebrew: Studies in
Chronology and Typology (JSOTSup 369; London: T & T Clark International, 2003).
Hebrew Studies 46 (2005) 329 Joosten: The Distinction

its language reflects a later variety of Hebrew than does Kings, where we find
only one Persian word and no Greek at all.7 Old words fall from use and new
words enter the language. Words may also change their meanings over time.
Such lexical indications can be fairly easily retrieved by means of the concor-
dance, and they can be presented in a way that clearly shows the diachronic
nature of the changes.8 Unsurprisingly, most of the research on the history of
Biblical Hebrew deals with vocabulary.
Nevertheless, there is a potential shortcoming to lexical arguments. Just as
it is relatively easy for us to see that, for example, iggeret letter is a late
word, replacing earlier sefer in some texts, ancient writers too may have been
aware of such distinctions. Many scholars suspect that some late Hebrew
writers may have avoided using words sounding too modern, in order to give
their writing an archaic ring. Thus the presence of Persian words in a given
book would still say something about its date, but the absence of such words
might not be equally significant. Perhaps the writer or redactor of Kings was
simply more of a purist than the Chronicler. The two works could then be
viewed as more or less contemporaneous.
This is where the importance of syntax comes in.9 The syntax of a lan-
guage, too, evolves over time. Moreover, syntactic differences are generally
less perceptible than lexical ones. They are certainly more difficult for modern
scholars to pin down. It would have been much harder for an ancient writer
to distinguish earlier and later syntax than to do so for earlier and later vo-
cabulary. Attention to syntax, then, can help circumvent the problem of
archaizing.
As has been established in a number of studies, there are indeed charac-
teristic differences between the syntax of Classical Biblical Hebrew as repre-
sented by the books of Genesis to 2 Kings, and the syntax of books that are
by common consent dated to the Persian period or later (notably:
Ecclesiastes, Esther, Daniel, Ezra, Nehemiah, Chronicles).10 Notably, the

7
!For the significance of loanwords in diachronic perspective, see M. Eskhult, The Importance of
Loanwords for Dating Biblical Hebrew Texts, in Biblical Hebrew: Studies in Chronology and Typology,
ed. I. Young (JSOTSup 369; London: T & T Clark International, 2003), pp. 823.
8
!One may refer to the works by A. Hurvitz, where this is achieved admirably.
9
!The statement is true also for grammar in general. The present paper is limited to a number of morpho-
syntactic features.
10
!The most important earlier studies are: R. Corwin, The Verb and the Sentence in Chronicles, Ezra and
Nehemiah (Borna, 1909); A. Kropat, Die Syntax des Autor der Chronik (BZAW 16; Giessen, 1909); A. R.
Guenther, A Diachronic Study of Biblical Hebrew Prose Syntax: An Analysis of the Verbal Clause in
Jeremiah 3745 and Esther 110 (Ph.D. diss., University of Toronto, 1977); M. Eskhult, Studies in
Verbal Aspect and Narrative Technique in Biblical Hebrew Prose (Uppsala: Almqvist & Wiksell, 1990); M.
Eskhult, Verbal Syntax in Late Biblical Hebrew, in Diggers at the Well. Proceedings of a Third
Hebrew Studies 46 (2005) 330 Joosten: The Distinction

Classical Biblical Hebrew system of consecutive tenses (wayyiqtol and

weqatal) appears to be in retreat in Late Biblical Hebrew, the verbalized par-
ticiple is relatively more frequent, and the infinitive absolute is used rather
differently in the two corpora.

3.!ILLUSTRATION 1: PREFIX CONJUGATION FORMS OF THE SECOND

PERSON WITH SIMPLE WAW

An interesting example, not noted before, is afforded by a detail of verbal

syntax.11 If one counts instances of second person prefix conjugation forms
immediately preceded by we (wetiqtol, wetiqtli, wetiqtlu, wetiqtolna)
jussive and non-jussive alikeone observes an interesting statistical fact. In
the large corpus of Classical Biblical Hebrew prose, there are only two occur-
rences of this combination, one of which is text-critically doubtful:12

Exod 19:3
lEarVcy ynVbIl dygAtw bOqSoy tyEbVl rAmat hO;k
Thus you shall say to the house of Jacob, and tell the Israelites.

Num 17:25 (English 17:10)

yAlDoEm MDtOnwlV;t lAkVtw yrRm_ynVbIl twaVl trRmVvImVl twdEoDh ynVpIl NOrShAa hEfAm_tRa bEvDh
Put back the staff of Aaron before the covenant, to be kept as a warning to the
rebels, so that you may make an end of their complaints.13

In comparison, the Late Biblical Hebrew corpus, which is only about a

third the size of the Classical Biblical Hebrew corpus, attests no less than nine
cases of we + second person prefix form:

International Symposium on the Hebrew of the Dead Sea Scrolls & Ben Sira, ed. T. Muraoka and J. F.
Elwolde (Leiden: Brill, 2000), pp. 8493.
11
!The findings presented here reflect research done in preparation of a monograph on the verbal system in
Biblical Hebrew.
12
!The form wmEoDfItw in Exod 15:17 is excluded on the grounds of its being poetry.
13
!Both the Septuagint and the Samaritan reading tradition reflect a third person verbal form, which may
here represent the original text.
Hebrew Studies 46 (2005) 331 Joosten: The Distinction

Dan 9:25
hDoVbIv MyIoUbDv dygn AjyIvDm_dAo MIAlDvwry twnVbIlw byIvDhVl rDbd aDxOm_NIm lE;kVcAtw odEtw
Know therefore and understand: from the time that the word went out to restore
and rebuild Jerusalem until the time of an anointed prince, there shall be seven
weeks.

Dan 12:13
NyImyAh XqVl KVlrOgVl dOmSoAtw AjwnDtw X;qAl JKEl hD;tAaw
But you, go your way, and rest; you shall rise for your reward at the end of
days.

Neh 9:28
MyI;tIo tw;br KyRmSjrV;k MElyIxAtw oAmVvI;t MyAmDvIm hD;tAaw
You heard from heaven, and many times you rescued them according to your
mercies.

2 Chr 20:9
yI;k KynDpVlw hzAh tyA;bAh ynVpIl hdVmAon bDorw rRbdw fwpVv brRj hDor wnyElDo awbD;t_MIa
AoyIvwtw oAmVvItw wnEtrDxIm KyRlEa qAoznw hzAh tyA;bA;b KVmIv
If disaster comes upon us, the sword, judgment, or pestilence, or famine, we will
stand before this house, and before you, for your name is in this house, and cry
to you in our distress, and you will hear and save.

2 Chr 20:20
wnEmaD tE w MRkyEhl aT hwhyAb; w nyImaS hA
Believe in the LORD your God, and you will be established.

The statistical divergence is striking. What clinches the matter, is that the di-
vergence can be explained if one takes a broader look at the verbal system
and the way it evolves.
In Classical Biblical Hebrew, modal (irrealis) or future statements can be
formed with two sets of forms, either yiqtol14 and weqatal, or cohortative,
imperative, jussive. Yiqtol and weqatal express more or less the same func-

14
!The name yiqtol will henceforth be limited to the long form of the prefix conjugation (historical yaqtulu)
as opposed to the short form or jussive (historical yaqtul).
Hebrew Studies 46 (2005) 332 Joosten: The Distinction

tions and often figure side by side. In fact, the two forms are in complemen-
tary distribution according to a simple principle: at the head of the clause one
finds weqatal, within the clause one finds yiqtol.15 The two forms make up a
single suppletive paradigm:

Gen 2:24
w;tVvIaV;b qAbdw w;mIa_tRaw wyIbDa_tRa vyIa_bzSoy NE;k_lAo
Therefore a man leaves his father and his mother and clings to his wife.

The cohortative, jussive, and imperative also form a suppletive paradigm,

this time varying according to person: cohortative for first person, imperative
for second person (except in negated clauses, where al + jussive is found),
and jussive for third person:16

1 Kgs 21:2
wyD;tVjA;t KVl hnV;tRaw yItyE;b lRxEa bwrq awh yI;k qry_NgVl yIl_yIhyw KVmrA;k_tRa yI;l_hnV;t
wnR;mIm bwf MrR;k
Give me your vineyard so that I may have it for a vegetable garden, because it is
near my house; I will give you a better vineyard for it.

The two sets express distinct functions: roughly, the cohortative and its con-
geners express volition of the speaker, while yiqtol and weqatal do not.17
This remarkable system explains why there are practically no instances of
e
w + tiqtol (etc.) in Classical Biblical Hebrew. In the first set, no occurrences
of this combination are expected, since we + second person at the head of the
clause will be expressed by weqatal (i.e., weqatalta, etc.); and indeed, there
are over a thousand examples of second person weqatal forms in Classical
Biblical Hebrew. Nor is the combination of we with a prefix form expected in
the second set, for in the second set, the second person is represented by the

15
!That yiqtol and qatal make up a single paradigm in Biblical Hebrew was first intimated by Otto Rssler
and the school of Wolfgang Richter, see, e.g., W. Gross, Verbform + Funktion. Wayyiqtol fr die
Gegenwart (St. Ottilien: Eos Verlag, 1976), pp. 2141.
16
!That cohortative, imperative, and jussive make up a single paradigm has been known for a long time:
Kohortativ, Jussiv und Imper. bilden ein einheitliches Bedeut ungs s ys t em fr den Ausdruck eines
Begehrens des Sprechenden irgend welcher Art, G. Bergstrsser, Hebrische Grammatik, vol. 2 (Leipzig: J.
C. Hinrichs, 1929), p. 45.
17
!More precisely, yiqtol and weqatal are unmarked for volition: although the forms may be used in volitive
statements (e.g., following an imperative), they do not by themselves imply volition of the speaker.
Hebrew Studies 46 (2005) 333 Joosten: The Distinction

imperative; we + imperative occurs about 350 times in Classical Biblical

Hebrew.
In Late Biblical Hebrew, the different forms known from Classical Biblical
Hebrew are in use, but they do not express a functional distinction. Notably,
the jussive form is used in non-volitive statements (bold) and alternates freely
with weqatal (italics):18

Dan 11:1719
w;mIo MyrDvyw wtwkVlAm_lD;k PqOtV;b awbDl wynDp MEcyw
hyVhIt wl_alw dOmSoAt alw ;hDtyIjVvAhVl wl_NR;ty MyIvnAh tAbw hDcDow
MyyIaVl wynDp bEvyw
wl byIvy wtDprRj yI;tVlI;b wl wtDprRj NyIxq tyI;bVvIhw MyI;br dAkDlw
wxrAa yzwoDmVl wynDp bEvyw
aExD;my alw lApnw lAvVknw
He shall also set his face to enter with the strength of his whole kingdom, and
upright ones with him; thus shall he do: and he shall give him the daughter of
women, corrupting her: but she shall not stand on his side, neither be for him.
After this shall he turn his face unto the isles, and shall take many: but a prince
for his own behalf shall cause the reproach offered by him to cease; without his
own reproach he shall cause it to turn upon him. Then he shall turn his face
toward the fort of his own land: but he shall stumble and fall, and not be found.

Conversely, clause-internal yiqtol is used in volitive statements:

Neh 2:3
hyVjy MDlwoVl JKRlR;mAh
May the king live forever! (contrast Classical Biblical Hebrew 1 Kgs 1:31 yIjy
MDloO lV dwd; KJ lR m;R hA yndO aS )

In other words, in Late Biblical Hebrew the different forms are used
promiscuously. This explains the use of wetiqtol in Late Biblical Hebrew.
Second person non-volitive modal verbal forms preceded by waw may, in
Late Biblical Hebrew, turn up as weqatal,19 as would be normal in Classical
Biblical Hebrew, but also as wetiqtol (see notably Neh 9:28, where Classical
Biblical Hebrew would have used weqatal). In volitive statements, waw +

18
!See E. Qimron, Consecutive and Conjunctive Imperfect: the Form of the Imperfect with Waw in
Biblical Hebrew, JQR 77 (1987): 151153.
19
!In the Late Biblical Hebrew corpus, there are around fifty cases of second person weqatal.
Hebrew Studies 46 (2005) 334 Joosten: The Distinction

second person may, in Late Biblical Hebrew, turn up as waw + imperative,20

in accord with Classical Biblical Hebrew usage, but Late Biblical Hebrew may
also use wetiqtol (see, e.g., 2 Chr 20:20, where Classical Biblical Hebrew
would have used waw + imperative).21

4.!THE EVOLUTION OF THE VERBAL SYSTEM

As was already indicated, the statistical divergence in the use of wetiqtol is

merely the tip of the iceberg. It is a symptom indicating a significant evolution
of the verbal system as a whole. In fact, it is one of the symptoms. Several
other differences, more or less sharply defined, can be made out between the
Classical Biblical Hebrew and the Late Biblical Hebrew system:
1). In Classical Biblical Hebrew, volitive forms occur in first position in the
clause and exceptionally in second position; in Late Biblical Hebrew,
one finds clauses expressing volition with the verb in third position
(Neh 2:3; Eccl 10:20).22
2). In Classical Biblical Hebrew, weqatal is used side-by-side with yiqtol to
express repetition in the past (over 150 examples); in Late Biblical
Hebrew, yiqtol is still used in this way, but weqatal hardly ever;23
3). In Classical Biblical Hebrew, a predicative participle in a past-tense con-
text almost always expresses concomitance; in Late Biblical Hebrew,
the predicative participle is regularly used in narrative to express re-
peated or habitual processes.24
These minute divergences are manifestations of a single evolution: within
Biblical Hebrew, yiqtol is gradually replacing all modal forms, pushing out the
cohortative and jussive on the one hand, and weqatal on the other; mean-
while, yiqtol is itself being replaced in its earlier (non-modal) functions by the
predicative participle. The end station of this process is found in Mishnaic
Hebrew, where there is only one set of prefixed forms, expressing non-
indicative modality, and where all non-past indicative functions have been
taken over by the participle. The development in the use of yiqtol from

20
!In the Late Biblical Hebrew corpus there are around seventy-five cases of waw + imperative.
21
!In Qumran Hebrew, too, waw + second person prefix forms is found occasionally. A rapid sampling
produced the following cases: 1QM XI 9 Cotw; 1QSb IV 28 dbktw; 4Q219 (4QJubd) II 29 jlxtw; 4Q415 1
II + 2 I 6 CyCtw.
22
!See J. Joosten, The Syntax of Volitive Verbal Forms in Qohelet in Historical Perspective,
forthcoming in a volume to be edited by P. Van Hecke in the OLA series (Leuven: Peeters).
23
!See J. Joosten, A Remarkable Development in the Biblical Hebrew Verbal System. The Disappearance
of Iterative weqatal, forthcoming in a volume to be edited by S. Fassberg in the ScrHier series (Jerusalem:
Magnes).
24
!See the forthcoming article J. Joosten, A Remarkable Development.
Hebrew Studies 46 (2005) 335 Joosten: The Distinction

Classical Biblical Hebrew over Late Biblical Hebrew and Qumran Hebrew to
Mishnaic Hebrew is entirely in keeping with what is known generally about
the evolution of verbal systems. Research in both general linguistics and com-
parative Semitic studies have shown: (a) that forms expressing, roughly, the
present-future tend to evolve into modal forms; (b) that the former functions
of these forms tend to be taken over by periphrastic expressions.25
To my mind, there is no way around the conclusion that Late Biblical
Hebrew really does represent, grosso modo, a diachronic development from
Classical Biblical Hebrew. Not only is the vocabulary of the Late Biblical
Hebrew corpus marked by innovations, the grammar too represents a more
evolved stage of the language. Moreover, while one can perhaps imagine later
writers sifting out lexical items that do not belong to the old stock of Hebrew
vocabulary, it is much harder to picture them avoiding such grammatical in-
novations as the use of wetiqtol. There are almost one hundred cases of
second person weqatal in Kings, and seventy-one cases of we + imperative:
how did the authors and redactors of this Book avoid using wetiqtol even
once if it wasnt because their own language system led them to?
Thus, the syntactical evidence tends to confirm the relative chronology of
Biblical texts: the language of the Late Biblical Hebrew corpus developed out
of the language attested in the Classical Biblical Hebrew corpus. The reason-
able inference is that the books written in Late Biblical Hebrew are later than
the books written in Classical Biblical Hebrew.

5.!COMPARISON WITH EXTRA-BIBLICAL DOCUMENTS

What cannot be determined on the basis of syntactic comparisons of the
type illustrated is an absolute date. In order to fix a period in absolute terms, a
comparison with dated documents is needed. As is well known, dated Hebrew
documents from the biblical period are scarce. The most important ones for
our purposes are a collection of Judean inscriptions from the eighth to the
sixth centuries, notably the Siloam inscription, the epitaph of a royal steward,
the Arad letters, the Lakhish letters and the judicial plea found in Mesad
Hashavyahu.26 The provenance and date of these writings have been fixed on
archaeological and palaeographical grounds and are widely accepted.

25
!For general linguistics, see J. Bybee, R. Perkins, and W. Pagliuca, The Evolution of Grammar. Tense,
Aspect, and Modality in the Languages of the World (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1994); for
comparative Semitics, see D. Cohen, La phrase nominale et l'volution du systme verbal en smitique
(Louvain: Peeters, 1984).
26
!The corpus has been edited by J. Renz and W. Rllig, Handbuch der althebrischen Epigraphik, 3 vols.
(Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, 1995).
Hebrew Studies 46 (2005) 336 Joosten: The Distinction

There are some differences between the language of the inscriptions and
Biblical Hebrew, but the one that is most frequently mentioned, namely the
different orthography, is linguistically irrelevant.27 Among the relevant fea-
tures, a few actually align the inscriptions with Late Biblical Hebrew.28 On the
whole, however, what is striking is the similarity of the language of the in-
scriptions to Classical Biblical Hebrew. Several distinctive Classical Biblical
Hebrew usages occur in the inscriptions. In the area of verbal syntax the
following may be listed:
1). The performative use of qatal (Ktkrb, I hereby bless you Arad
16:23 etc.);29
2). Use of the infinitive absolute in peremptory commands (Ntn, give [said
by a superior] Arad 2:1 etc.);30
3). The paronomastic use of the infinitive absolute (tjlC jl[C], sending I
have sent Mur 1:2);31
4). The use of weqatal continuing imperatives (tjqlwab, go inand
take Arad 17:14; see also Arad 2:15).32
All these usages are regular in Classical Biblical Hebrew but exceptional or
unattested in Late Biblical Hebrew.

27
!If any of the texts contained in the Bible were originally composed before the Judean exile, they must
have been updated to a certain extent during the Second Temple period. This updating will have affected not
only the orthography, but also the script.
28
!See I. Young, Late Biblical Hebrew and Hebrew Inscriptions in Biblical Hebrew: Studies in
Chronology and Typology, ed. I. Young (JSOTSup 369; London: T & T Clark International, 2003), pp.
276311. The sporadic use in the inscriptions of expressions that appear in language-historical perspective
to be later may be due: a) to the fact that the inscriptions do not, for the greater part, reflect literary
Hebrewlinguistic innovations tend to affect the vernacular before they penetrate into the literary form of a
language; b) to the relatively late date of the inscriptions, the bulk of which belongs to the late seventh and
early sixth century (the time of Jeremiah).
29
!See M. Eskhult, Verbal Syntax, p. 86. As is indicated by Eskhult, a few instances of performative
qatal can be found in Late Biblical Hebrew (1 Chr 21:23; 29:3; 2 Chr 2:9) but the usage seems to be largely
formulaic. In 2 Chr 1:12, a different construction is used where the parallel, 1 Kgs 3:12, has a performative
qatal. On possible attestations in post-biblical Hebrew, see M. Rogland, Alleged Non-Past Uses of Qatal in
Classical Hebrew, (Ph.D. diss.; Leiden , 2001), pp. 114117.
30
!See A. Kropat, Syntax, p. 23; M. Eskhult, Verbal Syntax, p. 90. The usage is found in Jer 32:14;
35:2; Zech 6:10 but there are no certain examples of it in the Late Biblical Hebrew corpus or post-biblical
Hebrew. Recent proposals to analyze Ntn in Arad 2:1 etc. as an imperative and not as an infinitive absolute
(I. Young, Late Biblical Hebrew, pp. 286, 300) are unpersuasive, for a) the usage of Ntn in Arad 2:1 etc.
is entirely analogous to the use of the infinitive absolute in biblical texts such as Deut 31:26 (the biblical
usage is not restricted to perpetual prescriptions); b) an imperative retaining the first radical is not only
unattested but also highly unexpected in view of Hebrew morphology (the only comparable form would be
aDcn, Ps 10:12), see GKC 66.1(b).
31
!See M. Eskhult, Verbal Syntax, p. 90. The usage is attested seven times in Late Biblical Hebrew
(1 Chr 4:10; 21:17, 24; 2 Chr 18:27; 32:13; Esth 4:14; 6:13), but it is much more frequent in Classical
Biblical Hebrew (almost three hundred examples).
32
!See M. Eskhult, Verbal Syntax, p. 87. The usage is found in Hag 1:8 and five times in the Late
Biblical Hebrew corpus (1 Chr 14:14; 15:12 [non-parallel]; 17:4; 21:10; 2 Chr 18:33 [contrast 1 Kgs
22:34]). In Classical Biblical Hebrew it is vastly more common, however (around two hundred examples).
Hebrew Studies 46 (2005) 337 Joosten: The Distinction

6.!ILLUSTRATION 2: LOCATIVE HE

A feature illustrating even better the closeness of epigraphic Hebrew to

Classical Biblical Hebrew in particular is the locative he. Locative he is
attested 752 times in Genesis to 2 Kings, but only 97 times in the Late
Biblical Hebrew corpus (8 times more cases in Classical Biblical Hebrew than
in Late Biblical Hebrew).33 These figures illustrate a diachronic development:
over the biblical period, locative he is slowly dying out. The evolution is con-
firmed by several other factors:34
1). In Qumran Hebrew the locative he is relatively rare. Moreover, it is
found in expressions that do not express direction. In other passages, it
combines with a preposition expressing direction. One may conclude
that in Qumran Hebrew, the ah ending has become otiose.35
2). The Septuagint translators often transcribe the ending as part of a
proper name, showing that they too were unaware of its grammatical
function.36
3). In Mishnaic Hebrew, locative he is limited to petrified expressions like
hxwj, hfm, hlom.
Now, the statistical contrast between Classical Biblical Hebrew and Late
Biblical Hebrew becomes even more striking if we pay attention to syntax.
The locative he is attached to a common noun defined by the article 140
times in Classical Biblical Hebrew, but only 7 times in Late Biblical Hebrew
(20 times more cases in Classical Biblical Hebrew than in Late Biblical
Hebrew). The locative he is attached to a noun in the construct state 25 times
in Classical Biblical Hebrew and not even once in Late Biblical Hebrew.37 This
means that a form like hryIoh D (2 Kgs 20:20) is rare in Late Biblical Hebrew,
and a syntagm like lEaw tVb hDtyEb; (Gen 28:2) is unattested. In light of this distri-
bution, it is interesting to note that in the small corpus of inscriptions we find
both hryoh (Lak 1.4:7) and bCyla!htyb (Arad 17:2). The latter expressions
show that in the Hebrew of the inscriptions, as in Classical Biblical Hebrew,
locative he is a living feature that can be freely attached to any nominal form

33
!One should keep in mind that the Late Biblical Hebrew corpus, as stated above, is only about a third the
size of the Classical Biblical Hebrew corpus.
34
!See E. Y. Kutscher, The Language and Linguistic Background of the Isaiah Scroll (1Q Isaa) (Leiden:
Brill, 1974), pp. 413414.
35
!See E. Qimron, The Hebrew of the Dead Sea Scrolls (Atlanta Ga.: Scholars Press, 1986), p. 69.
36
!See Z. Frankel, Vorstudien zu der Septuaginta (Leipzig: Vogel, 1841), pp. 197199.
37
!The cases in Classical Biblical Hebrew are: Gen 11:31; 12:5; 20:1; 28:2; 29:1; 31:18; 32:4; 42:29;
43:17, 24; 44:14; 45:17; 46:28; 47:14; 50:13; Exod 4:20; 8:20; Num 34:5; 35:10; Deut 4:41; Josh 18:12;
Judg 21:19; 1 Kgs 19:15; Isa 8:23 (twice).
Hebrew Studies 46 (2005) 338 Joosten: The Distinction

to express direction. This is an important isogloss linking Classical Biblical

Hebrew to the pre-exilic Hebrew of the inscriptions.
Late Biblical Hebrew for its part shows much similarity to the Hebrew of
the Qumran scrolls in the use of locative he.

7.!CONCLUSIONS
As is well known, there is practically no epigraphic Hebrew from the
period between the latest Lakhish and Arad letters (early sixth century) and
the earliest Dead Sea Scrolls. This leaves a gap of about four hundred years.
There can be no question of mapping developments within Biblical Hebrew
onto the extra-biblical documents in any precise way. Historical linguistics
cannot provide the carbon-14 test one would like to have for dating bibli-
cal texts. Yet this does not mean one should go to the other extreme of
radical relativism.
The close association between Classical Biblical Hebrew and the language
of the inscriptions shows that Classical Biblical Hebrew was in use in the pre-
exilic period. Classical Biblical Hebrew will, of course, have lived on beyond
the destruction of Jerusalem and the deportation of the Judean elite. Indeed,
even the books of Haggai and Zechariahprobably reflecting late-sixth-
century Hebreware written in a language that is still closer to Classical
Biblical Hebrew than to Late Biblical Hebrew.38 This opens the door, at least
theoretically, to the hypothesis that the practice of Classical Biblical Hebrew
continued into the fifth century, and even later.
On the other hand, Late Biblical Hebrew seems to have emerged in a fully
developed form around the middle of the fifth century.39 As the differences in
verbal syntax explored above indicate, Late Biblical Hebrew represents a later
stage of Classical Biblical Hebrew. Now, languages change gradually. At least
one or two generations must have passed for Classical Biblical Hebrew to
evolve into Late Biblical Hebrew. Some biblical books, like Ezekiel or Job,
actually seem to represent an intermediate stage between Classical Biblical
Hebrew and Late Biblical Hebrew. Such considerations make it hard to ac-
cept that the practice of Classical Biblical Hebrew (i.e., the form of language
found in Genesis to 2 Kings) continued very far into the Persian period. A

38
!The language of Haggai and Zechariah diverges from Classical Biblical Hebrew in a number of details.
The matter requires more intensive study.
39
!See D. Talshir, The Habitat and History of Hebrew during the Second Temple Period, in Biblical
Hebrew: Studies in Chronology and Typology, ed. I. Young (JSOTSup 369; London: T & T Clark
International, 2003), pp. 251275.
Hebrew Studies 46 (2005) 339 Joosten: The Distinction

prudent option would be to set the cut-off point for Classical Biblical Hebrew
in the year 500 B.C.E. or so.
At the very least, then, historical linguistics should be allowed to regulate
certain excesses. On the strength of linguistic evidence of the type sampled in
this paper, it appears very unlikely that any large sections of the Classical
Biblical Hebrew corpussay, the Joseph story, the Holiness Code, or the
Book of Joshuawere created from whole cloth in the fifth century B.C.E. or
later. Let alone the entire Pentateuch. Biblical scholarsnot just one or other
maverick, nor just a school of minimalistshave become too liberal in the
matter of dating, particularly with regard to Pentateuchal texts. Paraphrasing
Delitzsch, one is tempted to say: If the Pentateuch were of postexilic origin,
then there is no history of the Hebrew language.40

40
!What remains possible, from a linguistic point of view, is the addition of words, verses, and short
passages at a date later than 500 B.C.E.