Epictetus (Discourses)

[RamistThomist]

It occurs to me that any view that supposes the Old Testament, including the Pentateuch, wasn't originally written in Hebrew, runs afoul of WCF/LBC 1.8

The Old Testament in Hebrew (which was the native language of the people of God of old), and the New Testament in Greek (which, at the time of the writing of it, was most generally known to the nations), being immediately inspired by God, and, by His singular care and providence, kept pure in all ages, are therefore authentical...​

Now, personally I'm not one to categorically exclude subsequent textual discoveries or advances in lingual scholarship from potentially needing to qualify what was possible to to be known by, and was thus expressed by our 17th century forebears in the faith. On the other hand, the notion that the OT texts we now have are based not on the original language, but are rather copies of a translation of something that was in a now unknown language, is indeed highly problematic in relation to the doctrine of plenary scriptural inspiration.

It's worth considering that just because the oldest known Hebrew inscription is deemed to date from around the 11th Century BC, there is still a very real possibility that language, or perhaps a more primitive proto-Hebrew, could well-predate that period. The oldest known or so far discovered examples of something ancient doesn't in any way preclude the possibility or in some cases even likelyhood that older examples may exist, or did exist but have since been lost to history.

Similarly, keep in mind that there is no known archeological or (extra-scriptural) chronicled proof of King David's or Solomon's existence, but there isn't even a shadow of a doubt that they most certainly did. Kind of like the way historians poo-pooed the reality of the Hittite empire as told in the OT because there was no known evidence of it - that is, until indisputable hard evidence of it was in fact discovered, and then the academic backtracking began in earnest...

Anyway...

I never said the OT wasn't written in Hebrew (whatever we make of Aramaic). I was just skeptical of what sort of proto-Hebraic language some Egyptian authors might have used would look like.

 

[Phil D.]

I never said the OT wasn't written in Hebrew (whatever we make of Aramaic). I was just skeptical of what sort of proto-Hebraic language some Egyptian authors might have used would look like.

Alright, I may be misunderstanding. You cast doubt on whether the Instructions of Amenemope (13th Century BC) could have been written in Hebrew because it's not a very old language, but now you're saying you don't doubt that the OT (w/Pentateuch probably being written 15th Century BC) was (or could have been) written in Hebrew.

 

[RamistThomist]

Alright, I may be misunderstanding. You cast doubt on whether the Instructions of Amenemope (13th Century BC) could have been written in Hebrew because it's not a very old language, but now you're saying you don't doubt that the OT (w/Pentateuch probably being written 15th Century BC) was (or could have been) written in Hebrew.

That’s correct. The Amenhotep instructions probably weren’t in Hebrew. If they were, then there should be evidence of it. The evidence we have is in Egyptian.

As to the dating of Hebrew, I will withdraw my statement

 

[Charles Johnson]

Phonetically, the evidence is that Hebrew is extremely old. Biblical Hebrew has all the same phonemes as reconstructed proto-Semitic, which means that they're likely not separated by much time. Even American English and British English have significant phonological differences.
Now, if you want to talk about when the written language came about, that is of course a different matter, and it doesn't necessarily predate Moses.

 

[RamistThomist]

Phonetically, the evidence is that Hebrew is extremely old. Biblical Hebrew has all the same phonemes as reconstructed proto-Semitic, which means that they're likely not separated by much time. Even American English and British English have significant phonological differences.
Now, if you want to talk about when the written language came about, that is of course a different matter, and it doesn't necessarily predate Moses.

Right. I was thinking of the written language

 

[py3ak]

Where are you going with this? Are you saying that Proverbs was copied from the Instructions?

Subject to the possibilities raised by Phil, yes. Biblical authors are not shy about borrowing or alluding to what is true and helpful, even if it arose in a different context or was misdirected (see Paul's speech in Acts 17 for a classic example).

I know that's the position almost universally held, and it can't simply or too readily be dismissed. But what do you think about the proposition that both of these writings may have taken their cue from an even earlier though now unknown text, perhaps even a Hebrew one (implying the teachings were originally inculcated in Israel's unique stewardship of godly wisdom)? In a similar vein, some of the 30 precepts in both Proverbs and the IofA are also contained in the Mosaic law, which chronologically precedes both (e.g. Prov. 22:22 and Ex. 23:6; Prov. 22:28 and Deut. 19:14). Regardless, even if they are wisdom points that can be, and perhaps were readily garnered from natural revelation, so to speak, they now have divine sanction (which renders moot the matter of literary origins).

Given the fragmentary nature of remains from antiquity, of course it's possible that there is an Ur-text of a similar collection, and naturally its provenance is currently unknowable. If we look at this occurrence in Proverbs in the context of other borrowings in Scripture, I think the valuable lesson is that we don't need to have a monopoly on insight.

 

[retroGRAD3]

Subject to the possibilities raised by Phil, yes. Biblical authors are not shy about borrowing or alluding to what is true and helpful, even if it arose in a different context or was misdirected (see Paul's speech in Acts 17 for a classic example).

Given the fragmentary nature of remains from antiquity, of course it's possible that there is an Ur-text of a similar collection, and naturally its provenance is currently unknowable. If we look at this occurrence in Proverbs in the context of other borrowings in Scripture, I think the valuable lesson is that we don't need to have a monopoly on insight.

Thanks for the clarification. This response, plus other responses, have helped me understand the issue rightly.