One of the major achievements in the modem study of the Bible and the Hebrew language is the capacity for scholars to distinguish between Standard Biblical Hebrew (SBH) and Late Biblical Hebrew (LBH). Major strides in this direction were made already in the nineteenth century,' while more solid philological work in the twentieth century elevated the discussion to even firmer ground.2 The identification of late biblical texts is often quite obvious. Books such as Ezra, Nehemiah, Chronicles, Esther, Daniel, Qohelet, Haggai, Zechariah, and some others clearly date from the Persian period (or, in the case of Daniel, from the Hellenistic period). Occasionally the evidence is less obvious, but given the strong foundation of the SBH-LBH dichotomy, scholars have sought to expand the size of the late biblical corpus by identifying selected texts elsewhere in the Bible as exilic or postexilic compositions. This paper will have a look at two such attempts, with the hope of demonstrating that the learned authors who have made these specific proposals have been misled by some false leads. 1 GKC, 12-17 ?21-v presented a general picture distinguishing the two strata of BH. In addition, many comments may be found in S. R. Driver, An Introduction to the Literature of the Old Testament (New York: Charles Scribner's Sons, 1906), as well as in the entries in BDB. 2 The leading scholar working in this area is Avi Hurvitz. Among his many publications, the most comprehensive are his monographs Beyn Lashon le-Lashon (Jerusalem: Bialik, 1972) and A Linguistic Study of the Relationship Between the Priestly Source and the Book of Ezekiel (Paris: Gabalda, 1982). 23 24 Journal of Biblical Literature I. Genesis 24 The first proposal is that of Alexander Rof6, who advocated a Persian period dating for Gen 24.3 Rof1 argued along five independent lines-language, legal background, religious doctrine, literary form, and the moral of the story-which he believed converge to prove his point. I will treat only the first of these approaches, the language issue, for it is on this pillar, I think one may state safely, that the remaining ones rest. Rof6 put forward eight linguistic points, which in his mind have strong parallels in Aramaic and in Mishnaic Hebrew (MH).4 Since these latter two idioms form the basis for isolating LBH features, one can easily see how Rof1 arrived at his conclusion. We will review these items one-by-one, but first let me state my alternative approach. Rof6 is not incorrect; there are Aramaisms in Gen 24. But Rof1 is wrong in utilizing these features to date the text to the Persian period, for he has not paid attention to the setting of the story. Abraham sends his trusted servant to Aram to procure a proper bride for Isaac. As occurs elsewhere in the Bible, so here: the Aramean setting serves as the catalyst for the inclusion of Aramaisms in the narrative. The best example of this technique occurs only a bit down the road in the book of Genesis, in the story of Jacob and Laban, where the language is filled with Aramaisms.5 Wit...
