SOME EXAMPLES of LINGUISTIC VARIANTS in 1-2 SAMUEL David Toshio TSUMURA* Such Aural Features Are Characteristic of a Narrative
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
SOME EXAMPLES OF LINGUISTIC VARIANTS IN 1-2 SAMUEL David Toshio TSUMURA* The Masoretic text (MT) of the books of Samuel has often been treated as corrupt, and various emendations have been suggested based on the Greek translation (LXX).1 However, many seemingly corrupt words or phrases can be explained as linguistic variants. In 1999, I argued that these variants are often orthographic representations of the actual pronunciation, i.e. phonetic spellings, and indicate the aural nature of the books of Samuel.2 For example, wattazreni "and you girded me" (2 Sam. 22:40) is not a textual corruption of the normal watt•Ý azz•Ýreni, which is preserved in Ps. 18:40, but rather a phonetic spelling of the spoken form resulting from a vowel sandhi3 after the loss of an intervocalic aleph. Thus, watt•Ýazza•Ýreni •¨ watt•Ýazz•Ýreni •¨ wattazreni. Such aural features are characteristic of a narrative, while a formal, liturgical text such as Ps. 18 requires grammatically normal forms. It is possible that 2 Sam. 22 preserves "a number of archaic readings" which reflect "a text written in the dialect of Israel, the Northern Kingdom".4 To be sure, the defective spellings (without w) for the diphthong aw, which reflect a northern dialect, suggest that 2 Sam. 22 possibly originated or experienced a recension in the north.5 However, it is important to distinguish various types of linguistic variants. While some peculiar spellings may indeed be dialectal, one should remember that in some cases, colloquialism or the aural nature of narrative or the archaic nature of poetic texts are involved rather than foreign, dialectal features. In this lecture I would like to survey linguistic variants in the books of Samuel, especially 1 Samuel. Before we go on further, let us take an overview of the structure of 1 Samuel. The First Book of Samuel is composed of three major stories, i.e. the "Story of Samuel" (1:1 -7:17) , the "Story of Saul" (9:1-15:35) and the "Story of Saul and David" (16:1-31:13), plus a transitional section on the introduction of * Professor of Old Testament , Japan Bible Seminary 36 ORIENT SOME EXAMPLES OF LINGUISTIC VARIANTS IN 1-2 SAMUEL the monarchy (ch. 8). Each story consists of a number of episodes, selected and arranged according to the themes and purposes of the story. Individual sections were probably composed on different occasions and originated from various backgrounds, yet the transition from one section to another and from one episode to another is well planned. Consequently the entire narrative has a cohesive literary unity.6 It has been argued that the language of a book such as Hosea has northern characteristics because it was probably written in the north by a northerner for the northerners.7 Recently, G. A. Rendsburg argued that the language of 1 Samuel 1-2 also reflects northern features. "The heroes are from the territory of Ephraim, and the action centers on Shiloh in Ephraim, so it would not be surprising to find these chapters composed in the northern dialect of ancient Hebrew."8 Certainly, it is reasonable to assume that the documents whose content suggests a northern origin or which are written from a northern perspective are written in northern dialects or reflect the language of the north. On the other hand, it has been claimed that some passages, even some whole Biblical books and psalms, are of northern origin in the light of variants which display seemingly northern dialectal characteristics. For example, it is argued, the prophet Amos must have come from the northern, not the Judean, Tekoa because the language of the book of Amos sometimes exhibits northern characteristics. However, one should note that the sporadic existence of northern features would not necessarily make that document to be of northern origin. As for Psalm 29, which is often taken as having been originally a Canaanite hymn to Baa1,9 Rendsburg asserts it to be an "Israelian Hebrew" (IH)10 psalm." He lists beneelim (v. 1) "the sons of gods" (G-III-312) and lammabbeul (v. 10) "to the flood" as northern variants, since these forms also appear in Ugaritic and Phoenician (G-II-D1). However, an argument based on Ugaritic vocabulary is not conclusive since most of the Ugaritic cognates are from epic or mythological texts, in which many idiomatic and archaic expressions are preserved.13 In fact, the phrases bn ilm "sons of gods" (KTU 1.4:111:14) and bn it "sons of god/El" (1.40:2) refer to deities in the Ugaritic religio-mythological texts. The expression lammabbul, which etymologically has no connection with Ugaritic mdb, is idiomatically closer to the Akkadian expression lam abubi and probably means "from before the Deluge".14 So, for an expression to be literarily "Canaanite" or to have affinities with Ugaritic mythology does not make it necessarily "Israelian". The "Last words of David" in 2 Sam. 23:1-7 is also said to be of northern origin, based on the linguistic evidence.15 For example, the term n•Ýum Vol. XXXVIII 2003 37 "utterance" in a human context and DN al "the High God" (see REB) in v. 1 are, according to Rendsburg, northern dialectal words. However, strictly speaking, this initial verse is not a part of the song itself but an introductory comment by the editor or narrator in the south. Moreover, the preservation of the old Semitic root *kwn, "to be" (cf. Arabic), in v. 5 and the longer form kullaham "all of them" in v. 6 may be due to the song's archaic nature. Furthermore, the phrase dibber-bi (v. 2) probably means "to speak through" (see Num. 12:2, 1 Ki. 22:28, Hab. 2:1, 2 Chr. 18:27), rather than "to speak to", and so has nothing directly to do with northernisms. Therefore, none of these three expressions are necessarily IH. The last example, millato "his word", is certainly a northern Israelian feature with an Aramaic affinity. However, this example alone does not mean the song originated in the northern territory, as is also the case with Ps. 2, which has the noun bar (v. 12), an Aramaic form for "son", besides the normal noun ben (v. 7). In any linguistic study, it is an axiom that the linguistic features of a text should be observed and analyzed synchronically first and only then should one move on to diachronic investigation. On the other hand, any synchronic irregularity in a given text might indicate historical, or diachronic, aspects of that language, for rare and unusual forms are evidence of the "survival" of the older forms and hence point to the results of linguistic change.16 They are particularly attested in poetic texts, which usually preserve archaic expressions, and in peripheral dialects, which are often linguistically conservative. In the following, I would like to examine "rare and unusual" grammatical and lexical items mainly in the First Book of Samuel, without going into the problem of literary origin, to see whether they are dialectal variants which can be identified as Israelian Hebrew' (IH) or are archaic forms which are preserved in the poetic texts. I. Phonology A. Consonants areka (1 Sam. 28:16) "your enemy" (Samuel to Saul) G-I-A3 This unusual form for "enemy", with v rather than is, in the speech of Samuel through the 'witch' of Endor, probably reflects IH, as in Aramaic, where Proto-Semitic /d/ had shifted to / /. B. Vowels C. Diphthongs an (1 Sam. 10:14) "where?" (Saul's uncle) ay •¨ a G-I-C2 38 ORIENT SOME EXAMPLES OF LINGUISTIC VARIANTS IN 1-2 SAMUEL Rendsburg takes this monophthongization as an example of IH, since this phenomenon is attested in "Syrian Semitic and Arabic dialects of Lebanon, Syria, and northern Israel to this day". It seems this has been a northern Semitic feature since the 3rd millennium B.C. as in Eblaite and Amorite. As for abigal (1 Sam. 25:32, 2 Sam. 3:3 (K.), 17:25) "Abigal", however, ai •¨ a is due to a phonological adjustment at the boundary between two vowels, i.e. vowel sandhi, a bigayil •¨ abigail •¨ abigal rather than the monophthongization of diphthong ai to a.17 Cf. abigayil (25:3, etc.) in (1 Sam. 21:9) "there is not" (David to Ahimelech of Nob) ayin •¨ in In this example, the monophthongization ay •¨ i occurs. Is this a Bethlehemite dialect spoken by David? See Akkadian bitu •© *baytu. II. Morphology A. Pronouns kullaham (2 Sam. 23:6) "all of them" (David) G-II-A4 While it is not impossible that this form is IH in the light of Aramaic, as Rendsburg holds, the preservation of /h/ could also be due to poetic archaism. The fact that this is the only attestation in the Bible and that the standard form kullam appears even in Ps. 139:16, the psalm which Rendsburg takes as IH (see G-I-A3), rather supports the latter possibility. mah lameh (1 Sam. 1:8 x3) "why?" (Elkanah of Ephraim) G-II-A9 meh qo1(1 Sam. 4:6) "what (is) sound?" (Philistine) G-II-A9 meh qo1(1 Sam. 4:14) "what (is) sound?" (Eli, of Shiloh) G-II-A9 meh qo1(1 Sam. 15:14) "what (is) sound?" (Samuel) G-II-A9 bammeh (1 Sam. 6:2) "with what?" (Philistine) G-II-A9 ubammeh (1 Sam. 29:4) "with what?" (Philistine) G-II-A9 Rendsburg notes that among the 36 attestations of the interrogative pronoun meh before non-laryngeal consonants, 23 (64%) of them appear Vol. XXXVIII 2003 39 in a non-Judahite context, hence he concludes meh is IH.