¹ Cf., for instance, Driver, S.R., An Introduction to the Literature of the Old Testament, New York 1956 [ = Meridian Library], pp. 473–4Google Scholar; 505–6.

² Ibid., p. 505.

³ Cf., for instance, a. hurvitz, “When was the Hebrew Phrase לאךשי לע םוךש coined?” Leshonenu XXVII–XXVIII, 1963–4, pp. 297–302 [in Hebrew].

⁴ Idem., “Observations on the Language of the Third Apocryphal Psalm from Qumran”, RdQ V, 1965, pp. 225–232.

⁵ Sarna, N.M., “Epic Substratum in the Prose of Job”, JBL LXXVI, 1957, pp. 13–25Google Scholar. Cf. also Cassuto, U., Knesset VIII, 1944, p. 142Google Scholar [in Hebrew], For the reasons why the method cannot decidedly be utilized for the poetic discourses of Job, see our remarks in IEJ XVIII, 1968, p. 236. An interesting parallel in another Wisdom composition, where a clear distinction between the language of the narrative framework and the gnomic portions must be drawn, is supplied by the Aramaic Words of Aḥiqar: here as well the kind of language in which the proverbs are formulated is distinctively different from that used in the framework story (Cf. Kutschee, E.Y., JBL LXXVI, 1957, p. 338Google Scholar; Greenfield, J.C., Leshonenu XXXII, 1967–8, pp. 364–5 [in Hebrew]Google Scholar).

⁶ Gordis, R., The Book of God and Man, Chicago-London 1965 [1966], pp. 163Google Scholar; 164 (Gordis allows, however, for one exception — לבקל; ibid., p. 345, n. 32).

⁷ Mention should be made here of k. kautzsch's study Das sogenannte Volksbuch von Hiob, Leipzig 1900, pp. 22–39, where, while discussing the chronological problems of Job's Prose Narrative, he analyses its peculiar expressions. Unfortunately, however, some good observations were indiscriminately mixed up with dubious material and, as a result, completely neglected by subsequent scholars. It seems that Kautzsch's failure is due mainly to his lack of disciplined standards in determining what “late” linguistic elements actually are. Nevertheless, our criticism of the Old School methods — in this case as well as in others — hardly justifies a complete discarding of the issues they dealt with. In the light of the new data available — and the refined methods developed — we are at present in a much better position to examine thoroughly the whole issue of LBH. Cf. A. Hurvitz, Bein Lashon Lelashon (the Transition Period in Biblical Hebrew: a Study in Post-Exilic Hebrew and its Implications for the Dating of Psalms), Jerusalem 1972.

⁸ In order not to enter into detailed reconstructions, which inevitably involve non-linguistic considerations, the following discussion is limited to a presentation of the essential semantic development of ןטש in its general outline only.

⁹ Cf., for instance, s.r. driver — g.b. gray, The Book of Job (= ICC), 1921, pp. 10–11. Ps. Cix 6 is of no help for a chronological study, since its date is unknown.

¹⁰ Cf., for instance, driver, op. cit (Supra, n.1), p. 434.

¹¹ Cf. Brandwein, C., “The Legend of Job According to its Various Stages”, Tarbiz XXXV, 1965–6, p. 9Google Scholar [in Hebrew], Cf. also 11Q Ps^a Plea, line 15: טלשת לא ןטש יב as against Ps. CXIX 133 ןוא לב יב טלשת לאו (r. polzin, HThR LX, 1967, pp. 470–471).

¹² Cf., for instance, Testuz, M., Les Idées Religieuses du Livre des Jubilés, Genève-Paris 1960, p. 87Google Scholar. In Yer. Rosh Hashana I 2 it is explicitly stated, that the names of the angels — as well as the names of the months — were introduced by those who returned from Babylonia: לבבמ ןדיב ולע םיבאלמח חומש.

¹³ Cf., for instance, sarna, op. cit. (Supra, n. 5), p. 22.

¹⁴ In non-linguistic terms: The Satan in Job is far from being an immediate “reflex of early Near Eastern mythology” (ibid.; italics are mine — A.H.). Its late character within Hebrew suggests that rather we ought to consider it a reflex of post-exilic angelology.

¹⁵ See the rich variety of examples quoted in e. ben-iehuda'sThesaurus … XI, s.v.

¹⁶ Cf. the etymological references in koehler-baumgartner'sLexicon, p. 1117 s.v.

¹⁷ Cf. Kutscher, E.Y., Leshonenu XXX, 1965–6, pp. 21–23Google Scholar [in Hebrew]; Bendavid, A., Biblical Hebrew and Mishnaic Hebrew, Tel Aviv 1967, index [in Hebrew]Google Scholar.

¹⁸ םד לבקל is a common expression in MH. Cf., for instance, M. Yoma III 4; Mc'ila I 1; Zeb. III 1. It is being discussed, among other technical idioms, in “The Evidence of Language in Dating the Priestly Code (a Linguistic Study in Technical Idioms and Terminology)”, RB LXXXI, 1974, pp. 52–85.

¹⁹ r. polzin, op. cit. (Supra, n. 11), p. 474.

²⁰ Many instances for the equations חקל = לבק, אשנ = לבק, עמש = לבק may be found in ch. j. kasowski, Thesaurus Aquilae Versionis I, Jerusalem 1940, s.v. לבק. It should be emphasized that only after לבק found its way into literary/written Hebrew, a clear differentiation in use was developed between לבק on the one hand, and חקל, אשנ, עמש on the other. This was not the case with classical/pre-exilic Hebrew; since in that period various connotations of the yet-not-known לבק are being expressed, as mentioned above, by חקל, אשנ, עמש. For a parallel development compare אב/םנבנ: in MH, which employs both roots, there is a clear distinction between אב (meaning “come, arrive”) and םנבנ (meaning “enter”). However, in BH — which is unaware yet of the post-biblical םנבנ — the meaning “enter” may be conveyed by אב (Jos. VI 1; Cf. Kutscher, E. Y., Words and their History, Jerusalem 1961, p. 76Google Scholar [in Hebrew]).

²¹ “Though w.f. albright believes he has discovered the root in a Canaanite Gloss in the Tel-el-Amarna Letters … the exclusively late usage of the verb makes it a late word in Hebrew” — gordis, op. cit (Supra, n. 6), p. 345, n. 32 (italics are mine — A.H.). Against the uncritical identification — prevailing in certain circles — of Hebrew = Ugaritic = Amarna Glosses = Phoenician, see a.f. rainey's most important remarks in Leshonenu XXX, 1965–66, p. 253 [in Hebrew]. This point was emphasized, as a matter of fact, by Albright, as well. Cf. his “A Re-interpretation of an Amarna Letter”, JCS II, 1948, p. 240Google Scholar, footnote: “research on each dialect must take constant stock of pertinent phenomena in all the other dialects, without reading interpretations valid for one dialect into another unless these interpretations fit the facts of the case in question”, [due weight is not given to this linguistic point in Kitchen, K.A., Ancient Orient and Old Testament, London 1966, p. 145Google Scholar. However, as far as the book of Proverbs is concerned, K. is undoubtedly right in insisting, that the occurrence there of לבק cannot be taken as evidence for the lateness of the book. Cf. our remarks in IEJ 18, 1968, p. 236].

²² BDB., p. 867 s.v.

²³ I Sam. I 10 ῾ח לע ללמחחל means, of course, “to pray to God” (and not “to intercede for God”). Ps. XXXII 6; 2 Ch. XXXII 20 ללמחחל + חאז לע again do not belong here, since they involve “something” and not “somebody”.

²⁴ Note that the preposition לע is also used in the Aramaic equivalent לע᾿לצ which renders, in the Targumim, the biblical דעב ללמחח. Cf., for instance,

דע ללמחח may be considered, consequently, as a further illustration of late Aramaic “caique” in Hebrew. Cf. e.y. kutscher, “Aramaic Calque in Hebrew” Tarbiz XXXIII, 1963–64, pp. 118–130 [in Hebrew].

²⁵ The fact that in XLII 10 use is made of the normal דעב ללמחח seems to indicate that the author — unwilling to repeat himself — deliberately modified his wording. The revelant point for discussion is that such interchanging, between לע ללמחח and לעב ללמחח, could not arise before the idiom לע ללמחח was coined. It is only in the late period — when לע ללמחח found its way into BH — that a biblical writer was able to play with the two synonymous idioms (for a parallel phenomenon cf. Eccl. III 1, where ןמו and חע are used synonymously. This interchangeability however, is inconceivable in pre-exilic Hebrew, before the penetration of the late, obviously Persian, ןמז into BH.).

²⁶ In Job III 1 this idiom was indeed employed: והימ חא בויא חמ ןב יךחאו. Cf. Supra, n. 25.

²⁷ I Kings XIII 33 חוח רבדח רחא being close, but not identical, to them.

²⁸ BDB, pp. 29; 30; 260.

²⁹ Most recently Snaith, N.H. has drawn attention to this fact (The book of Job, its Origin and Purpose, London 1968, p. 5, n. 6Google Scholar).

³⁰ The definitions are taken from BDB, s.v. בצי, p. 426.

³¹ Numbers XXIII 3 (15) ךחלע לע (הכ) כציחה; Hab II 1 רוצמ לע הכציחאו; Ps. XXXVI 5 בוט אל ךרר לע בציהי are all cases of “לע loc.” — not “לע pers.” — and therefore are irrelevant to our discussion.

³² BDB, s.v לע 6c, p. 756.

³³ Cf., for instance Gen. XVIII 2 וילע םיבצנ םישנא השלש; Gen. XLV 1 is also found in similar contexts (BDB., op. cit.) Cf., for instance, Gen. XVIII 8 םהילע רמע אוהו; Jud. III 19 וילע םירמעה לכ … ואציו. Both roots are found in parallelism in Ex. XVIII 13–14 וילע כצנ םלה לכו … השמ לע םעח רמעיו. In judicial contexts, בצנ/בצי (Ps. LXXXII 1) and רמע (1 Kings XXII 19) may denote — beside “stand” — “participate as a member” in the court. This is suggested in particular by the Accadian parallel uzuzzu; cf. f.m. cross, “The Council of Yahweh in Second Isaiah”, JNES XII, 1953, PP. 274–5, n. 3.

³⁴ The late Prof, kutscher called my attention to MH לע םייקחה (Cf. e. beniehuda, Thesaurus … XII, p. 5918), which may elucidate the preference for לע in LBH.

³⁵ BDB, s.v. III רל, II 2c, p. 725.

³⁶ This normal expression is used twice in Job I 16, 17 אב הזו — רברמ הז רוע. Cf. Supra, n. 25.

³⁷ For the same construction with the same root — (ח) רברמ ה/ונרוע — Cf. Gen. XXIX 9; 1 Kings I 22; 2 Kings VI 33. All of these are rendered, in the Aram. Targumim and the Syriac, by אללממ/ל (י) לממ (א) יה/(א)וה (ר) רע.

³⁸ Note that in “Jewish Aramaic” as well… ר רע covers both BH רוע and רע … ר רע means “während … bis … ehe”; cf. c. dalman, Aramäischneuhebräisches Handwörterbuch, Frankfurt a. Main 1922, p. 306. See also:

Is. LXV 24

Num. XI 33

³⁹ Cf., for instance, Graetz, H., “Verwechselung der Partikeln לע mit רע … und רע mit רוע”, MGWJ XXX, 1881, pp. 233–5Google Scholar. graetz, failing to take into consideration Aram, and MH, concluded that רע = “While”, “ist grundfalsch” and, as a result, “corrected” the pertinent biblical examples of ר into ר.

⁴⁰ a. bendavid, op. cit. (Supra, n. 17), pp. 61–62.

⁴¹ Segal, M.H., A Grammar of Mishnaic Hebrew, Oxford 1927 [1958], § 104, p. 54Google Scholar.

⁴² Cf. a. kropat, Die Syntax des Autors der Chronik, Giessen 1909 [= BZAW XVI], p. 22; e.y. kutscher, The Language … of the Isaiah Scroll, Jerusalem 1959, p. 269 [in Hebrew].

⁴³ The disuse of biblical יהיו also underlies the other types of opening, current in the Tosephta and Bab. Talmud (bendavid, op. cit. [Supra, n. 17], pp. 210–211): … ש רחאכ השעמ, … ש רחא םראב השעמ (against … רחא שיא יהיו).

⁴⁴ Cf. s.r. driver, op. cit. (Supra, n. 1), pp. 538 (n. 37), 506 (n. 12); idem, Notes on … the Books of Samuel ², Oxford 1913 [1960], p. 148. Cf. also kropat, op. cit. (Supra, n. 42), pp. 22–23.

⁴⁵ Cf., for instance, driver-gray, op. cit. (Supra, n. 9), Part II, p. 1.

⁴⁶ Besides, as far as יהיו itself is concerned, it had lost its contextual connotation already in biblical times. The optional choice of יהיו by a LBH writer is particularly instructive in the case of Esther: on the one hand, the book opens in I 1 with יהיו, although Esther has nothing to do in contents with any of the books it follows; on the other hand, the book of Esther avoids יהיו in II 5 though we are right in the middle of the plot. The conclusion seems inevitable: the use or disuse of the introductory יהיו is not necessarily indicative of the text's narrative relationship with the surrounding compositions.

⁴⁷ Cf., for instance, m. pope, Job [ = Anchor Bible], 1965, p. XXXV.

⁴⁸ Albright, W.F., JAOS LXXIV, 1954, pp. 225–226Google Scholar; Maisler, B., Tarbiz XIII, 1941–2, p. 72Google Scholar. Probably Ḫayabum of the Mari Letters reflect the same name; Cf., albright, op. cit. and Huffmon, H.B., Amorite Personal Names …, Baltimore 1965, pp. 103Google Scholar; 161.

⁴⁹ Cf. Spiegel, S., “Noah, Danel and Job”, L. Ginzberg Jubilee Volume, English section, New York 1945, pp. 305–355Google Scholar.

⁵⁰ הטישק, הבר הרכע, םימי עבשו ןקז (See the commentaries).

⁵¹ sarna, op cit. (Supra, n. 5). The interpretation which links Job with the background of the Pentateuch was already adopted — and further developed — in Rabbinic Literature, in the early Bible Translations and in the Apocryphal Literature: in Bab. Baba Bathra 14^b we find the view that “Moses wrote his own book and the portion of Balaam [Num. XXII–XXIV] and Job” (though other Rabbis assume that “Job was among those who returned from the [Babylonian] Exile” or “in the time of Ahasuerus [ibid., 15^a; 15^b]); In a certain tradition of the Peshiṭta the book of Job immediately follows the Pentateuch; the addition appended to the Septuagint of Job identifies בויא with בבוי King of Edom, mentioned in Gen. XXXVI 33, and so does the apocryphal composition “The Testament of Job”. This composition even claims that Job was married to Dina, Jacob's daughter (as do the Aramaic Targun to Job II 9 and other Rabbinic sources).

⁵² This is also sarna's own view (orally).

⁵³ s.r. driver — g.r. gray, op. cit. (Supra, n. 9) p. LXVI. See also gordis, op. cit. (Supra, n. 6), p. 164.

⁵⁴ Note that for our discussion it is irrelevant to decide whether the author “ein schriftlich niedergelegtes Volksbuch vorgefunden hat” or “er eine mündlich überlieferte, obwohl schon in ziemlich feste Form gebrachte Volkserzählung übernahm oder verwertete”; Whether “er die Erzählung umgearbeitet, redigiert oder frei gestaltet hat” or “sie ihm nur als aüssoror Anknüpfungspunkt für sein Gedicht gedient oder ihn dazu inspiriert hat”; whether or not “die Rahmenerzählung nicht vom Dichter selbst mit seinem eigenen Werk verbunden, sondern erst später zu diesem hinzugefügt worden sein” (these being the alternative explanations usually suggested while analysing the book of Job: Fohrer, G, “Zur Vorgeschichte und Komposition des Buches Hiob”, VT VI, 1956, pp. 250–1Google Scholar; Cf. also Rowly, H.H., “The Book of Job and its Meaning”, BJRL XLI, 1958–9, p. 177Google Scholar).

⁵⁵ Cf., for instance, Mowinckel, S., “Zur Sprache der biblischen Psalmen”, ThL LXXXI, 1956, p. 201Google Scholar: “das Vorhandensein von an sich alten … Vorstellungen und Wendungen in einem Gedicht nichts über die chronologische Ansetzung desselben beweist”.

⁵⁶ Cf. a. hurvitz, op. cit. (Supra, n. 4), p. 231. Some of the linguistic peculiarities discussed above involve the substitution of prepositions, and not of words or roots. It must be emphasized that it is often the selection of prepositions which indicates mastery of a language and, therefore, deviations from classical usage in this regard should be given due consideration.

⁵⁷ “Apart from the reference to the Satan, there is scant ground for dating the Prologue-Epilogue in the Post-exilic period” — m. pope, op. cit. (Supra, n. 47), p. XXXV.

⁵⁸ h.h. rowley, op. cit. (Supra, n. 54), p. 197.

⁵⁹ r. gordis, op. cit. (Supra, n. 6), p. 163.