Special Issue IOSOT 2013 - Books and Journals

38 S. Japhet / Vetus Testamentum IOSOT (2013) 36-76
3. The linguistic resemblance between the books as revealed by common
vocabulary, syntactic phenomena and stylistic peculiarities.10
4. The alleged uniformity of theological conceptions, expressed both in the
material and its selection.11
Most weight is given to the last two arguments, which are internal and relate to
the main elements of the literary unit.
The purpose of the present study is to raise anew the question of the linguistic
and stylistic resemblances of the two books.12 We ask whether the two
books could really have been written by one author.
The research of many scholars has resulted in the unequivocal conclusion
that the language of Chr. and Ezr.-Neh. belongs to the same linguistic stratum13
i.e., the late biblical Hebrew which differs in many important respects from
pre-exilic Hebrew, and represents in many aspects the intermediate phase
between biblical and Mishnaic Hebrew. This stratum also includes the biblical
books Daniel, Esther and Eccl. and non-biblical texts.14 However, the strong
resemblance between Chr. and Ezr.-Neh. was regarded not only as the general
similarity of a comprehensive linguistic stratum but as a peculiar stylistic quality
which represents the personal stamp of one author.15 It was argued that no
other interpretation could do justice to such a strong resemblance.
The weakness of these studies was their lack of interest in the differences
between the two books, which is only natural. In the attempt to highlight all
the points of similarity, the points of difference were overlooked and neglected.
The study of these differences, both linguistic and stylistic, will show that on
10) These are given in detail by Driver, op. cit., fifth edition 1894, pp. 502-507, and E. L. Curtis-
A. A. Madsen’s commentary on Chronicles (I.C.C. 1910), pp. 27-36.
11) Alleged by all studies. Cf. Zunz, p. 22, and all the following studies. “They also resemble each
other in the point of view from which the history is treated, in the method followed in the choice
of materials as well as in the preference shown for particular topics”. (Driver, op. cit., p. 484).
12) We hope to deal with the question of their theological world in another context.
13) Among others, Torrey, Driver, Curtis and A. Kropat: Die syntax des Autors der Chronik,
B.Z.A.W. XVI, 1909.
14) Mainly the Samaritan Pentateuch, cf. G. Gerleman, Synoptic Studies in the Old Testament,
Lund 1948, pp. 3-7, the Isaiah Scroll, cf. E. Y. Kutscher, The language and linguistic background of
the Isaiah Scroll, Jerusalem, 1959, pp. IX-XII.
15) It is worth noting that A. Kropat differed in this respect from the general opinion, but as
his main concern was to examine the syntactical structure of the language found in Chr. and in
Ezr.-Neh. in comparison with earlier Hebrew he did not insist on this distinction. He states that
“Hierbei ist es ohne Belang dass ‘der Chronist’ aller Wahrscheinlichkeit nach nicht ein einzelnes
Individuum war sondern als Sammelname zu verstehen ist”, op. cit., p. V.