domain: sdv sde

text:
ABSTRACT FOR BCD 2013 (250 words)

Session 3: Sustainable uses, applications and environmental impact of biochars, composts and digestates TITLE -Impacts of biochar on the phytostabilization of contaminated soils with ryegrass Author: Frédéric REES Co-authors: Cyril GERMAIN, Jean-Louis MOREL Biochar has been regarded as a promising carbon sequestration and fertilizing agent in soils. Its ability to sorb pollutants also offers new possibilities to remediate contaminated sites. However, very few studies have investigated the actual effect of biochar on the transfer of heavy metal to plants.

In order to evaluate the potential of biochar in this context, we examined the effect of a woodderived biochar at different amendment rates on the growth of ryegrass in one acid and one basic soil, both similarly contaminated by Zn, Pb and Cd from smelter industry. After 12 weeks of growth in one-liter pots, both roots and shoots were harvested, weighted and analyzed for their total trace element content. In addition, we also sampled the pore solution during the first weeks and analyzed soil samples after harvest to monitor changes in pH and in metal or nutrient availability. The increasing addition of biochar lead to an increase of pH on both soils and a continuous decrease of Zn, Pb and Cd concentration in the soil solution, which resulted in a reduced transfer of metals to the plants. Positive effects of biochar on the plant growth were observed on both soils, but the increasing addition of biochar after 0.5 % on the basic soil resulted in a decrease of shoot biomass, which we attributed to a decrease of nutrient absorption. The ability of biochar to reduce the phytotoxicity of heavy metal contaminated soils may therefore be counterbalanced by the limitation of nutrient availability to plants.


published or not. The documents may come

the diaspora has also persuaded many scholars. 5 Both these recent approaches tend toward a date in the postexilic period. 6 Other exegetes prefer to date the text rather earlier, in the monarchic period, as was in fact common practice until about 40 years ago. 7 Criteria allowing one to decide between the competing approaches appear to be lacking.

A possible approach to dating is the linguistic one. Languages evolve through time and it is often possible to relate certain forms of language to specific epochs in history. If the "chronolect" of the Joseph story could be determined this might allow one to situate the text in the history of the Hebrew language, and in the history of biblical literature.

The diachronic approach to Biblical Hebrew Linguistic dating of biblical texts builds upon the diachronic approach to ancient Hebrew.

Historical linguists have striven to distinguish stages in the language of the bible and to relate those stages to epochs in the history of Israel. Since no part of the Hebrew Bible has come down to us in autograph and only dates post quem can claim absolute validity-e.g. the book of Nehemiah cannot have been written before the time of its protagonist-there is very little solid ground, and certainly no Archimedean point on which to rest the chronology. The diachronic approach was developed over a long process of trial and error, from the sixteenth century onward until today. 8 It remains rather approximate even today. But the twilight of well-founded approximation is preferable to the darkness of complete ignorance.

<26> The distinction between classical and late Biblical Hebrew

Central to the approach is the observation that two clearly demarcated sub-units can be distinguished within biblical prose: a "classical" sub-corpus, and a "late" sub-corpus. The 5 See Arndt Meinhold, "Die Gattung der Josephsgeschichte und des Estherbuches: Diasporanovelle I, II," ZAW 87, 88 (1975, 1976): 306-324, 72-93. 6 Descending much lower than the end of the Persian period is ill-advised because the entire Pentateuch, including the Joseph story, was translated into Greek early in the third century BCE.

7 See e.g. Blum and Weingart, "Joseph Story." 8 The approach was set on a sure footing by Wilhelm Gesenius at the beginning of the nineteenth century, see Jan Joosten, "Wilhelm Gesenius and the history of Hebrew in the Biblical period," in Biblische Exegese und hebräische Lexikographie. Das "Hebräisch-deutsche Handwörterbuch" von

מ וֹ ﬠ ֵ ד ז ְ מ ָ ן "end" ק ֵ ץ ס וֹ ף "plunder" בּ ַ ז ִבּ זּ ָ ה "west" י ַ ם מ ַ ְﬠ ָר ב
On the basis of their vocabulary, certain texts can be assigned to the "classical" corpus, notably the bulk of the Enneateuch (Genesis to 2 Kings); other texts can be assigned to the "late corpus": Ezra-Nehemiah, Chronicles, Esther, Ecclesiastes and Daniel.

Up to this point, the method is based merely on patterns of distribution: words are considered late because they occur in the late sub-corpus, or early because they are used in the early sub-corpus. Consequently, the method has at times been criticized for circular reasoning. However, a closer look at the words characteristic of the "late" corpus shows that such criticism misses the mark. The noun ִא גּ ֶ ֶר ת is a loanword from Aramaic, while ס ֵ פ ֶ ר is a genuine Hebrew noun well integrated into the language system (cf. ס ֹ פ ֵ ר "scribe"); ס ֵ פ ֶ ר is also the word for letter in pre-exilic Hebrew inscriptions. 10 The linguistic data make it likely that Hebrew ִא גּ ֶ ֶר ת is an innovation reflecting influence from Official Aramaic, the administrative language throughout the Ancient Near East in the Persian period. Texts using this word are therefore likely to have originated in that period. Again, a single example <27> proves little, 10 See e.g. Lachish 3:9-11. Hebrew inscriptions will be quoted from Johannes Renz and Wolfgang Röllig.

Handbuch der althebraïschen Epigraphik. 3 vols. (Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, 1995).

but evaluation of the special vocabulary of the "late" corpus confirms that most items are due to lexical innovation in exilic-postexilic times. The two criteria, the distributional and the typological, converge. Words that are identified as late Hebrew on the basis of distribution turn out to be typologically late as well.

Scholars have pointed out that linguistic variation may be due to many factors other than the diachronic one. deterioration can all account for the use of different forms. The observation of multiple sources of linguistic variation is correct. But it does not justify rejecting the diachronic approach. As was pointed out above, the contrast between early and late Hebrew is not based on a single opposition, but on a long series of oppositions. The alignment of distribution and typology across tens of examples shows that classical Biblical Hebrew (CBH) and late Biblical Hebrew (LBH) are distinct chronolects. Explanations from dialects, registers, or textual deteriorations cannot account for the data as efficiently as the diachronic approach.

An important corollary is that the diachronic method should always be established on the basis of a multiplicity of features. The approach is cumulative. A single example, or even two or three, may reflect non-diachronic sources of linguistic variation. A certain density of diagnostic features is needed before a given passage can be assigned to a specific chronolect. 12 Grammatical evidence of diachronic development Other evidence exists of the systematic difference between CBH and LBH. Some Hebrew words change their meaning over the biblical period. For instance, the word תּ וֹ ָר ה most often means something like "teaching, instruction, direction" in the classical corpus, but always "divine law (as codified in the Pentateuch)" in the late corpus. Also significant is that all books in the LBH corpus have multiple Persian loanwords, while such words are <28>

11 See e.g. Ian Young and Robert Rezetko, with the assistance of Martin Ehrensvärd, Linguistic Dating of Biblical Texts, 2 vols. (London: Equinox, 2008).

conspicuously absent from the classical corpus. 13 Finally, much Hebrew grammar also manifests systematic variation in diachronic perspective. 14 Grammatical examples of diachronic development tend to be more difficult to grasp than lexical ones. This is true, unfortunately, for modern students of the Hebrew Bible. But it was true also-and this is more felicitous-in the biblical period. The latter circumstance makes grammatical features more effective than words in the demonstration of diachronic developments. Lexical evidence is often asymmetrical: the innovative usage is limited to the late sub-corpus, but the earlier usage occurs in early texts as well as late ones. The word ִא גּ ֶ ֶר ת is found only in LBH, but ס ֵ פ ֶ ר "letter" is found in both sub-corpora, including books such as Esther that use ִא גּ ֶ ֶר ת . The lopsided distribution shows that languages change slowly: new words do not supplant old ones at once, there is a period of overlap-particularly so in written language, which is relatively conservative. As a result of this imbalance, it is sometimes said that only the lateness of LBH can be demonstrated, while the early date of CBH cannot be positively established. 15 At this point grammatical evidence becomes particularly valuable. Several grammatical features typical of CBH disappear completely from later stages of the language, with LBH using a different construction in the same function. A good example is the iterative-habitual use of weqatal in past-tense contexts, occurring around 150 times in CBH but virtually unattested in LBH or post-biblical Hebrew. 16 In LBH, this function is expressed either with yiqtol, a usage attested also in CBH, or with the participle, a usage that is very rare in CBH. Constellations like this provide positive evidence for CBH. They show that while it was relatively easy for later authors to pick up classical vocabulary, classical grammar was much harder to decode and follow.

13 See e.g. Mats Eskhult, "The Importance of Loanwords for Dating Biblical Hebrew Texts," in Biblical Hebrew: Studies in Chronology and Typology (ed. Ian Young; JSOTSup 369; London: T&T Clark, 2003), 8-23. 14 For illustrations, see below. 15 So Gesenius, Geschichte, 26. 16 See Jan Joosten, "The Disappearance of Iterative WEQATAL in the Biblical Hebrew Verbal System," Biblical Hebrew in Its Northwest Semitic Setting. Typological and Historical Perspectives (ed. Steven E. Fassberg, Avi Hurvitz; Jerusalem: Magnes / Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 2006), 135-147.

From relative to absolute chronology CBH and LBH are distinct chronolects, and the latter reflects a later period than the former.

Because of the numerous and profound differences, some <29> time must have gone by between the composition of the CBH corpus and the LBH one. To translate this relative chronology into absolute terms, external pegs are needed. The Persian words in LBH are useful: they show that the books in question were composed no earlier than the Persian period. This conclusion tallies with the content of some of these books: Ezra-Nehemia, Esther and Chronicles relate to events and historical figures from this period and require to be dated in the fourth century or later. 17 But how shall we determine the historical horizon of CBH?

The most important peg is the correspondence between CBH and the language of Judahite inscriptions from the monarchic age. A modest amount of epigraphic material from the eighth to the early sixth century BCE-letters, tomb and building inscriptions-show what Hebrew looked like when it was a national language. Several features characteristic of CBH, unattested in LBH, also occur in these epigraphic texts, indicating that CBH was in use during a period overlapping that of the inscriptions. 18 LBH for its part shows much proximity to Qumran Hebrew (QH). Although in this case, the epigraphic texts are probably somewhat later than the biblical ones, the similarity between LBH and QH is striking enough to confirm the diachronic approach. Several features showing up for the first time in the LBH corpus then continue or develop further in the Dead Sea scrolls. 19 From the period between the latest Arad and Lachish letters and the earliest Dead Sea scrolls very little epigraphic material in Hebrew has come down to us. 20 This means that there is no external evidence to establish when CBH went out of use, nor when LBH first emerged.

It stands to reason, however, that the language changed when the literate elite were forcibly 17 The earliest manifestation of full-blown LBH may be found in the Nehemiah memoir. removed from their home country and settled among other populations in Babylonia. Some form of confirmation of this change may be found in biblical literature itself. The Hebrew of books situated in the exilic period-Jeremiah (partly), <30> Ezekiel, Lamentations, Haggai and Zechariah-clearly differs from CBH along diachronic lines without reflecting the thorough transformation attested in LBH. Hebraists have termed the language of these books "Transitional Biblical Hebrew" or TBH. 21 TBH has few if any distinctive features, it is characterized rather by a mix of CBH and LBH elements: classical features that will later fall from use set TBH apart from LBH, and innovations that become more common in LBH set it apart from CBH. Although it cannot be accepted as a given that these books were written in the time they relate to, the fact that TBH comes between CBH and LBH is surely significant.

In conclusion, although we cannot set demarcation lines in too definitive a manner, the data suggest that CBH is at home in the monarchic period and LBH in the late Persian period, with TBH coming between the two. This rough chronology is a matter of consensus among knowledgeable Hebraists. 22 Linguistic dating Linguistic dating exploits the diachronic analysis of Hebrew in order to date textual units or layers. Scholars try to relate writings that are not part of the core-set of CBH or LBH texts to either corpus. Hurvitz showed in his doctoral thesis that a number of Psalms exhibit such a density of LBH features that they have to be considered to reflect the Persian period. 23 Dobbs-Allsopp did something similar for Song of Songs. Textual units within the CBH and LBH corpora are dated to the time of the respective chronolects by default. 25 All other things being equal, a section of the Enneateuch will be preexilic or at most early exilic; any part of <31> the LBH corpus will be from the fifth century BCE or later. But there could be exceptions. Certain sections, or certain strata, in either corpus may have been composed at a different date than the surrounding context. Some linguistically literate scholars nevertheless argue that parts of the CBH corpus are not really written in CBH, or-more rarely-parts of the LBH corpus not in LBH. Alexander Rofé argued that Gen 24 is much later than most of the rest of the Abraham story and buttressed his demonstration with linguistic arguments. 26 Gili Kugler tried to show that Neh 9 could be much earlier than the rest of the book, and that the language of the chapter would allow such a dating. 27 Consequently, the options with regard to the linguistic dating of the Joseph story are the following: does the story fully belong to CBH, continuing its typical features and eschewing any typical LBH features? Or does the language of the story differ from the rest of the CBH corpus and align with LBH to a significant extent? 28 The language of the Joseph story

The language of the Joseph story is CBH as can be established with a wealth of arguments.

Nevertheless, there are some complications: a small amount of late words do not fit the linguistic cast of the story, and one chapter exhibits puzzling instances of late syntax. The discussion will proceed from vocabulary to syntax and address the difficult points as they arise. (VTSup, 20; Leiden: Brill, 1970), 54-65, 187-253. For Nevertheless, the Joseph story notoriously contains a few late words, notably שׁ ַ ִלּ י ט "ruling, ruler" (Gen 42:6), and מ ָ ז וֹ ן "food" (Gen 45:23).

• The root ש ל ט "to govern, be in power" is well known from Aramaic, but in the bible, apart from Gen 42:6, it occurs exclusively in the LBH corpus: Eccl, Esth, Neh, and Ps 119, one of the Psalms Hurvitz dated to the LBH period. 32 Although a noun šlyṭ is attested in Ugaritic, in Hebrew it must be considered a late loanword from Aramaic.

<33>

In CBH, "to govern, be in power" is מ ש ל . The meaning required in Gen 42:6 would in CBH be expressed with the active participle מ ֹ שׁ ֵ ל .

• Although מ ָ ז וֹ ן is rare in the Hebrew Bible, there is little doubt that it represents LBH.

The only other biblical occurrence is in 2 Chron 11:23. The word is found also in QH (4Q521 f5i+6:7) and very often in Mishnaic Hebrew (e.g. Ber. 3:3, 4) 33 They may therefore be late loanwords in Biblical Hebrew. 34 But they may equally well be rare CBH words that happen to have a cognate in Aramaic. Because the distributional criterion is inoperative one cannot be certain.

Two LBH words, each used once only, do not suffice to overturn the impression that the vocabulary of the Joseph story is CBH. The criterion of accumulation is not met. How then shall we deal with the few instances of late words? The most probably suggestion is that they reflect ad hoc updating or modernization by Persian-period scribes. Such occasional updating of the vocabulary is known particularly from the Samaritan Pentateuch and the great 31 See Mats Eskhult, "Markers of Text Type in Biblical Hebrew from a Diachronic Perspective," in Hamlet on a Hill. Semitic and Greek Studies Presented to Professor T. Muraoka on the Occasion of his Sixty-Fifth Birthday (ed. M. F. J. Baasten and W. Th. Van Peursen;OLA 118;Leuven: Peeters, 2003), 153-164, on 158. 32 Hurvitz, Transition Period, 130-152. 33 The Hebrew cognate of ט ע ן may be צ ע ן Isa 33:20. But there are other cases where both the Aramaizing root and the expected Hebrew root co-exist in the Hebrew lexicon (e.g. נ ט ר and נ צ ר ). section, Gen 39 uses both

כּ ָ ל - א ֲ שׁ ֶ ר - ל וֹ and ְו כ ֹ ל א ֲ שׁ ֶ ר - י ֶ שׁ - ל וֹ
. The mixture of CBH and LBH elements may be indicative of Transitional BH. The chapter could then be a late supplement composed during the Babylonian or early Persian period.

Alternatively, the late syntax may reflect later rewriting of an early text. The entire Joseph story is close to wisdom literature, as has been remarked <41> by many. The story on

Joseph and Potiphar's wife is particularly close to sections in Prov 1-9 warning against the "foreign woman." Perhaps then Gen 39, although it was an original part the Joseph story, also led a life independently as an exemplum used in wisdom teaching. This independent use, which would have been mostly in oral form, could have affected the language of the chapter.

In a later stage, the oral innovations would have been incorporated to some extent into the written version. This scenario may seem excessively speculative, but it has the advantage of explaining the facts well. The LBH features in Gen 39 would not be due to punctual updating at the hand of scribes, as in the case of שׁ ַ ִלּ י ט and מ ָ ז וֹ ן , but to a more organic process of modernization in oral transmission.

Conclusions

The diachronic approach to biblical Hebrew may seem like so much alchemy to the uninitiated. It reposes nevertheless on over two hundred years of patient research and discussion. Some of the most prominent Hebraists in modern history-Wilhelm Gesenius, Samuel R. Driver, E.Y. Kutscher-have been among its champions, and it is today accepted by a large majority of specialists of biblical Hebrew. Nor are its basic principles hard to grasp. The narrative prose of the Enneateuch differs in obvious and measurable ways from the narrative prose of Chronicles, Ezra-Nehemiah, Esther and Daniel 1. Two corpora, each representing a distinct chronolect, clearly stand out. Moreover, the linguistic "pegging" of the earlier corpus to the pre-exilic period and that of the later corpus to Second Temple times is straightforward. The chronological implications for the contents of these corpora are selfevident. Linguistic dating is practised in other disciplines dealing with undated texts. 59 And it corresponds to a reality-languages evolve-that surrounds biblical scholars at every step in 59 See e.g. on the importance of linguistic arguments in dating Beowulf: The Dating of Beowulf: A Reassessment (ed. Leonard Neidorf; Anglo-Saxon Studies 24 (Cambridge: D. S. Brewer, 2014). their research: William Robertson Smith does not write the same kind of English as John Barton, and Bernd Janowski's German differs from that of Julius Wellhausen. 60 <42> The alignment of the language of the Joseph story with Classical Biblical Hebrew is confirmed by many distinctive features used in a large amount of passages throughout the story. There are indeed a handful of later features, but they do not change the global picture: they are too rare to make a difference, and they stand isolated within the Joseph story itself. The late features are to be attributed to the vicissitudes of oral/written transmission. But the classical features indicate that the Joseph story was created in the monarchic period. If the story had been created out of whole cloth in the Babylonian, Persian, or Hellenistic period, its language would have looked very different. If it had been wholly or partly rewritten, or extensively supplemented, or if scribes had modernized its language in these later periods, these processes should have left traces in the language-as, arguably, they do in the few passages where late elements are found (Gen 42:6; 45:23; 39:3, 5, 8, 20, 22-23).

Against the linguistic approach to dating, several biblical scholars have recently invoked the possibility of archaising composition: can one not imagine that a later author, during the exilic or postexilic period, was nevertheless capable of producing perfect or nearperfect classical prose? 61 The claim is a mere postulate. No biblical writing that is shown by its subject matter to belong to the sixth century or later is free of substantial amounts of late linguistic elements. The claim is also much less likely than one imagines. 62 Language does not spring from the creative genius of an author, but from the speech community to which the author belongs; it is, in Ferdinand de Saussure's words, a social contract. The only way an 60 A stray example: Julius Wellhausen, Das Evangelium Marci übersetzt und erklärt (second edition; Berlin: Georg Reimer, 1909), 72 (on Mark 9:14): "Nachdem der Meister sich weggegeben, versuchen sich seine Jünger am Geisterbannen, aber vergeblich. Sie kommen an einander darüber, woran die Schuld des Miserfolges (sic) liege und wer die Schuld trage." There are several features here that one will look for in vain in German writing of the early 2000s. The phrase "sie kommen an einander" gets three hits on Google, one to a book from 1817, another to a book of 1827 and a third one to the present passage of Wellhausen.

61 See e.g. Shimon Gesundheit, "Introduction: The Strengths and Weaknesses of Linguistic Dating," in The Formation of the Pentateuch. Bridging the Academic Cultures of Europe, Israel, and North America (ed. by Jan C. Gertz, Bernard M. Levinson, Dalit Rom-Shiloni, and Konrad Schmid;FAT 111;Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2016), 295-302. 62 See Frank H. Polak, "Storytelling and Redaction. Varieties of Language Usage in the Exodus Narrative," Formation of the Pentateuch, 449-454.

  According to Talshir LBH is essentially literary Hebrew as it developed in the Babylonian diaspora, see David Talshir, "The Habitat and History of Hebrew during the Second Temple Period," Biblical Hebrew: Studies in Chronology and Typology (ed. Ian Young; JSOTSup 369; London: T&T Clark, 2003), 251-75. 18 See below for examples. 19 See e.g. Elisha Qimron, The Hebrew of the Dead Sea Scrolls (HSS 29; Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1986), 116. 20 For the meager remains from this period, see Gordon J. Hamilton, "Paleo-Hebrew Texts and Scripts of the Persian Period," "An Eye for Form": Epigraphic Essays in Honor of Frank Moore Cross (ed. Jo Ann Hackett and Walter E. Aufrecht; Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2014), 253-90.

  24 21 See e.g. on Jeremiah, Aaron Hornkohl, Ancient Hebrew Periodization and the Language of the Book of Jeremiah. The Case for a Sixth-Century Date of Composition (SSLL 74; Leiden: Brill, 2013); on Ezekiel, Mark Rooker, Biblical Hebrew in Transition. The Language of the Book of Ezekiel (Sheffield: Academic Press, 1990); on Lamentations, F. W. Dobbs-Allsopp, "Linguistic Evidence for the Date of Lamentations," JANES 26 (1998): 1-36. 22 See e.g. A. Hornkohl, "Biblical Hebrew: Periodization," EHLL 1, 315-325. See also the recent collection of studies: Diachrony in Biblical Hebrew (ed. Cynthia L. Miller-Naudé, Ziony Zevit; Winona Lake IN: Eisenbrauns, 2012). 23 Avi Hurvitz, The Transition Period in Biblical Hebrew: A Study in Post-Exilic Hebrew and its Implications for the Dating of Psalms [Hebrew] (Jerusalem: Bialik, 1972). 24 F. W. Dobbs-Allsopp, "Late Linguistic Features in the Song of Songs," in Perspectives on the Song of Songs / Perspektiven der Hoheliedauslegung (ed. Anselm C. Hagedorn; BZAW 346; Berlin: De Gruyter, 2005), 27-77.

25

  Richard Wright, Linguistic Evidence for the Pre-Exilic Date of the Yahwistic Source (LHBOTS 419; London: T&T Clark, 2005). 26 Alexander Rofé, "An Enquiry into the Betrothal of Rebekah," in Die Hebräische Bibel und ihre zweifache Nachgeschichte: Festschrift für Rolf Rendtorff zum 65. Geburtstag (ed. Erhard Blum, Christian Macholz, and Ekkehard W. Stegemann; Neukirchen: Neukirchener Verlag, 1990), 27-39. 27 Gili Kugler, "Present Affliction Affects the Representation of the Past: An Alternative Dating of the Levitical Prayer in Nehemiah 9," VT 63 (2013): 605-626. 28 Linguistic arguments played a role in Redford's late dating of the Joseph story, see Donald Redford, A Study of the Biblical Story of Joseph

  of the first unit differs systematically from that of the second. The most conspicuous differences are of a lexical nature. Certain Hebrew words occur only in the second group, while the first group uses a synonym in the same meaning. For instance,

	Esther, Nehemiah and Chronicles use the word	ֶר ת	ִא גּ ֶ	for "letter, written missive" while the
	books of Samuel and Kings use only the word ס ֵ פ ֶ ר in this meaning. A single example of
	course means little, but there are many other instances of this phenomenon: 9
	Meaning	Classical			Late
	"appointed time"

Wilhelm Gesenius als Spiegel und Quelle alttestamentlicher und hebräischer Forschung, 200 Jahre nach seiner ersten Auflage (ed. Stefan Schorch, Ernst-Joachim Waschke ; BZAW 427; Berlin: De Gruyter, 2013), 94-106.

language

9

  In his recent Lexicon of Late Biblical Hebrew, Hurvitz provides 80 examples of words used exclusively, or nearly so, in the "late" corpus and for which a synonym can be found in the "classical" corpus. See Avi Hurvitz,

	A Concise Lexicon of Late Biblical Hebrew: Linguistic Innovations in the Writings of the Second Temple Period
	(VTSup 160; Brill: Leiden, 2014).

  criticism of his methodology, see Wright, Linguistic Evidence, 3.Vocabulary and phraseologyThe vocabulary of the Joseph story is mostly representative of CBH. Many words in the story are paralleled in CBH and prophetic texts, but unattested in LBH, e.g. Chron 29:21); and "fine linen" is שׁ ֵ שׁ in Gen 41:42 as elsewhere in the CBH corpus, while in LBH the same meaning is expressed with בּ וּ ץ .29 Admittedly, the last two examples lean heavily on the idea that the language of the Priestly Source, P, is CBH.30 The Joseph story has a rich vocabulary and uses several words that are not found elsewhere in the See Frederick W. Knobloch, "Linen and the Linguistic Dating of P," in Mishneh Todah: Studies inDeuteronomy and Its Cultural Environment in Honor of Jeffrey H. Tigay (ed. Nili S. Fox et al.; Winona Lake

	but nowhere else. 31 And the phrase	ה ַ פּ ַ ﬠ ַ ם	"this time, now" (Gen 46:30) is attested 12 times in
	CBH, but nowhere else.
											ם	ִנ י	ז ְ ק ֻ	"old age,"	ם	ִסּ י	פּ ַ
	"coloured (?)," בּ ָ ר "grain," ש ב ר ΙΙ "to sell grain." In some cases it is possible to establish a
	precise opposition: "end" is ק ֵ ץ in Gen 41:1, as generally in CBH, and not ס וֹ ף as it is four
	times in LBH; a "male goat" is	ִﬠ זּ ִ י ם	ִﬠ י ר	שׂ ְ	in Gen 37:31, as it is throughout CBH, while <32>
	in LBH, this animal is usually referred to with the noun צ ָ ִפ י ר :	ם	ִﬠ זּ ִ י	- ה ָ	ִפ י ר	ְצ	, Dan 8:5, 8 (cf. also
	Ezra 8:35; 2 bible: e.g. א ֹ כ ְנ ת	and Ÿ ט , both designating types of spices,	בּ ֵ י ת - ה ַ סּ ֹ ה ַ ר	"prison," פּ ָ ת ַ ר and	ן	וֹ	ר	ִפּ תּ ָ	"to
	interpret" and "interpretation" and	ַח ת	ַתּ	ְמ	אַ	"sack," as well as a number of hapax legomena:
	e.g.	שׂ ח ט	"to squeeze," ח ֹ ִר י "white bread," and the expression	ִי שּׁ ַ ק	¤	ִפּ י	-	ﬠ ַ ל	whose precise
	meaning is not clear.
		The Phraseology of the Joseph story, too, is redolent of CBH. The expression	ה	ְר ע ֹ	פ ַ	ח ֵ י
	"by the life of Pharaoh" (Gen 42:15, 16) corresponds to classical models. Oaths by the life of
	a human being ( ח ֵ י ) or God ( ח ַ י ) are frequent in CBH and in some prophetic books, occurring
	in all over 50 times. The oath by the life of YHWH is also attested, four times, in Judean
	inscriptions (e.g. Lachish 3:9	ח י ה ; 6:12 ה ו	ה	ה ו	ח י • י ). In contrast, the phrase "by the life of X" is
	attested only once in LBH, in 2 Chron 18:13, where it was taken over from the parallel in 1
	Kgs 22:14. The polite formula of address	ִנ י	ֹד	א ֲ	ִבּ י	"please my lord" (Gen 43:20; 44:18) is
	found 12 times in CBH (	ִנ י	ֹד	א ֲ	ִבּ י	when addressed to humans,	ֹד נ יָ	א ֲ	ִבּ י	when addressed to God),
	and ב ו ץ in the Bible and Its Implication for the Date of P," HTR 60 (1967): 117-21. The variation was already
	noted by Gesenius.
	IN: Eisenbrauns, 2009), 459-474.

30

  . It is a loanword from Aramaic (cf. Dan 4:9, 18). The equivalent in CBH is א ֹ

			כ ֶ ל or simply
	ל ֶ ח ֶ ם .
	Other possibly late words are	ְצ נ ֻ מ וֹ ת	"withered" in Gen 41:23 and the verb ט ע ן "to load (a
	donkey)" in Gen 45:17. Both are hapax legomena in Biblical Hebrew, and both are better-
	known from Aramaic.

This is a classic example of lexical differences between CBH and LBH, see Avi Hurvitz, "The Usage of ש ש

Note that ט ע ן is attested in Mishnaic Hebrew.

(And they told Jacob, "Joseph is still alive! He is even) ruler over all the land of Egypt."

<34>

The motif of Joseph's rule in these verses can further be connected to the explanation of one of his dreams:

His brothers said to him, "Are you indeed to reign over us? Are you indeed to rule over us?" Joseph's unexpected dominion is an overarching theme in the story. As is habitual in biblical narrative, it is expressed with a Leitwort. In light of all this, one expects the root מ ש ל in 42:6.

-Similarly, the verse using the word Other solutions could be imagined: perhaps the verses or the sections in which the LBH words occur are later additions to the story. Or perhaps the use of these words is due to a textual error. 36 Whatever explanation one adopts, the notion that two LBH words indicate a late date for the entire story is implausible. 35 Note that the NRSV actually uses the same equivalent to translate the two words. 36 Note that מ ָ ז וֹ ן is not represented in the Septuagint of Gen 45:23.

Grammar

The grammar of the Joseph story establishes its CBH character even more strongly than the vocabulary. The evidence is diverse and plentiful. It will be presented here in condensed form. a) Morphology 1. אָ ֹנ ִכ י (37:16; 43:9; 46:3, 4; 47:30; 48:21; 50:5, 21 5. Paronomastic infinitive (37:8, 10, 33; 40:15; 43:7, 7, 20; 44:5, 15, 28; 46:4; 50:24-25) The combination of an infinitive absolute with a finite form of the same verb is typical for CBH, being attested almost 300 times. The usage is found also in Judean inscriptions. 42 In The use of the he locale with a construct state is found nine times in the Joseph story, e.g.:

Gen 43:17

The man brought the men to Joseph's house. This feature occurs some thirty times in CBH. 45 The feature is also found in Judahite inscriptions: (ed. Takamitsu Muraoka and John F. Elwolde; Leiden: Brill, 2000), 193-214, in particular 194-195 (with references to earlier studies).

"sending I have sent." 43 In 2 Sam 24:17 the MT does not have an infinitive absolute, but see 4QSam a and the Septuagint. 44 The LBH evidence is limited to six cases in Chronicles, three of which are adopted from Samuel-Kings. Not dependent on the parallel: 1 Chr 14:10; 15:12; 2 Chr 18:33; dependent on the parallel: 1 Chr 14:14 (2 Sam 5:23); 1 Chr 17:4 (2 Sam 7:5); 1 Chr 21:10 (2 Sam 24:12).

And now, go into the house of Elyashiv.

The feature is never found in LBH, where the he locale is generally somewhat rare.

The occurrence in the Arad letter establishes that the he locale could be used with a construct state in the official Hebrew of the early sixth century BCE. The lack of the feature in LBH shows that at the latest by the late Persian period it had disappeared from the language. It is not always easy to define the LBH equivalent of these CBH particles. Consequently, the claim may be made that some of them are missing in LBH simply because the need to use them didn't arise. However, such a claim could not be made for all these particles at once. In aggregate, their attestation in CBH and absence in LBH is eloquent testimony to a momentous transformation in literary Hebrew. Between the CBH period and the time the LBH books were written the language system changed in crucial ways.

The particle

*

The grammatical evidence leaves no doubt that the bulk of the Joseph story is written in pure CBH. In line with what was said above, this indicates a date in the monarchic period or shortly after.

The language of the Joseph story exhibits several features that are absent from LBH, but attested in Judean inscriptions of the sixth to eighth centuries BCE. As was pointed out above, the main linguistic evidence for the monarchic date of CBH is provided by such isoglosses with inscriptional Hebrew. Even if there were no CBH corpus beyond the Joseph story, these features by themselves would suggest a monarchic date for the story.

Excursus: Grammatical features that are typologically late but not limited to LBH Gen 41:11

We dreamed on the same night, he and I.

A "pseudo-cohortative" combines with strong waw to express the preterit also in 43:21. As has often been observed, such forms are typologically late. Wayyiqtol forms in principle incorporate the short form of the prefix conjugation. 49 The expected form for the first person is represented by third <38> weak forms such as

. The addition of the cohortative ending is due to assimilation of the wayyiqtol paradigm to the volitive paradigm.

Consequently, it has sometimes been argued that the occurrence of such forms in the Joseph 49 See Wright, Linguistic Evidence, 22-26. Wright presents the evidence well but in building his argument he ignores the cases of the pseudo-cohortative in CBH: he prefers simply to point out that there are no instances in J.

story indicates a date in the LBH period. In LBH, pseudo-cohortative wayyiqtol forms are indeed relatively frequent (47 occurrences). The inference is nevertheless unsound because the feature is also fairly well attested in the CBH corpus: Gen 32:6; Num 8:19; Josh 24:8; Jud 6:9, 10; 10:12; 12:3; 1 Sam 2:28; 2 Sam 4:10; 7:9; 12:8. 50 One might argue that all these verses are late, but historical linguistics could not be invoked to strengthen that view. Based on its distribution, the form seems to have been already coming into the language in the CBH period. With regard to linguistic typology, innovations of this type can occur at any time, they are not due to influence from Aramaic or other datable factors.

The special case of Genesis 39

The Joseph story is written in pure CBH. This conclusion formulated at the end of the previous section applies to the entire story, except one chapter. As we will see presently, Gen 39 exhibits features of later language.

a) The syntax of the participle

In two or three verses of the Joseph story, the predicative participle is used in a way that is untypical of CBH:

Gen 39:22-23 22 The chief jailer committed to Joseph's care all the prisoners who were in the prison, and whatever was done there, he was the one who did it. 23 The chief jailer paid no heed to anything that was in Joseph's care, because the LORD was with him; and whatever he did, the LORD made it prosper. 51 <39> In CBH the predicative participle is an integral part of the verbal system, but its real home is in direct speech. 52 In CBH narrative the predicative participle is practically limited to 50 Some of these verses may indeed be late. Num 8:19 is a late priestly text and Jud 6:9-10 are not reflected in 4QJudg a . But some of the other verses are bona fide CBH: Jacob story, Jephtah, Saul-David story. The form is attested mostly in speeches of different kinds, but this simply reflects the fact that first person forms are not expected in straight narrative. 51 The same type of syntax is found in Gen 39:3. 52 See Jan Joosten, The Verbal System of Biblical Hebrew: A New Synthesis Elaborated on the Basis of Classical Prose (JBS 10; Jerusalem: Simor, 2012), 229-260. various types of readily recognizable subordinate clause: circumstantial, relative, object clause. In contrast, in the verses quoted the participle occurs in main clauses in narrative. In addition, it refers to recurrent processes, and in v. 23a it occurs in a negated clause in a pasttense time frame. All these uses are vanishingly rare in CBH. 53 In pure CBH, these verses would presumably have been formulated with yiqtol and weqatal. In LBH, however, these uses of the participle are normal. 54 b) Relative א ֲ שׁ ֶ ר followed by י ֵ שׁ Τhe combination of א ֲ שׁ ֶ ר and י ֵ שׁ is found in Gen 39:5 (twice), 8:

and he has put everything that he has in my hand This type of syntax is not found elsewhere in CBH. It is attested, however, one time each in Jonah and Qoheleth: 55 Jon 4:11

…Nineveh, that great city, in which there are more than a hundred and twenty thousand… Although Jonah is not generally considered to be part of the LBH corpus, it exhibits many LBH features. 56 The syntagm א ֲ שׁ ֶ ר י ֶ שׁ also occurs in Eccl 4:9, and then more frequently in QH (e.g. 1QS 6:12; 4Q266 f6 i:8; 4Q 274 f3 ii:3; 11QT 49:15; 52:17; 58:3). With שׁ ֶ instead of א ֲ שׁ ֶ ר , it is widely attested in Mishnaic Hebrew (e.g. Peah 8:9). Since a similar combination of the relative and existential particles is known from Aramaic (e.g. Dan 2:30), the Hebrew syntagm may well be a "calque" from that language.

53 Joosten, Verbal System, 127 note 6; 247; 394-396. 54 Joosten, Verbal System, 394-396, participle in main clause in narrative: Esth 9:3-4; Dan 8:3; 9:21; Ezr 3:12-13; Neh 8:7, 11; 2 Chr 30:16; iterative processes: Esth 2: 11,14;4:3;8:17;9:19;Neh 4:10,11,12,15;6:9,17;9:3;12:47;15:24;16:5;23:5;[2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9][10][11][12]4:3;9:14,24,28;17:11;30:21;32:23;33:17;negated: Esth 2:20;Neh 4:17;13:24. 55 Martin F. J.Baasten, "Existential Clauses in Qumran Hebrew," in Diggers at the Well (above note 41), 1-11, on 3. 56 Although Gesenius classified Jonah with LBH, he has not been followed in this by most other Hebraists.

Nevertheless, Jonah has many late linguistic features. See George M. Landes, "Linguistic Criteria and the Date of the Book of Jonah," ErIsr 16 (1982): *147-*170.

In CBH, nominal clauses introduced by the relative particle are never, except in the two verses in Gen 39, constructed with י ֵ שׁ . In CBH, "everything <40> that he has" is always If this analysis is correct, the late character of the syntagm would be established. However, since the nature and the development of the relative clause in Biblical Hebrew is not entirely understood, it is hard to be certain.

These late features cannot be explained as punctual modernizations in the same way as the late word שׁ ַ ִלּ י ט and מ ָ ז וֹ ן discussed above. The concentration in a single chapter is hardly due to chance. Note that the first two features are used several times, in multiple verses. It would be preferable to find a scenario that accounts for the occurrence of these features in this precise chapter.

A possible way to go would be to postulate that Gen 39 was added to the Joseph story secondarily and at a later date. Several exegetes have suggested that Gen 39 as a whole is a late supplement. 58 The linguistic evidence could be seen as supporting that suggestion. It is to be noted, however, that Gen 39 also contains some marked CBH features. Above, the composite particles מ ֵ אָ ז and ִבּ ְג ל ַ ל in v. 5 were mentioned, and as was seen in the present 57 Note that ש ם is lacking in the relative clause (unlike Gen 40:3).

author from the sixth century or later would have been able to write classical Hebrew is through imitation of classical models. Historical instances of such artificial imitation of literature of a different age are indeed attested, but they are almost never successful. At the heyday of Atticism, when a whole school of Greek writers had made it their business to write in the pure Attic of the classical period, Lucian mocks his contemporaries for the details they get wrong. 63 Today <43> too archaising writing is very popular. In his series Fortune de

France written between 1977 and 2003, the author Robert Merle purports to recreate the language of sixteenth-century France. This mostly comes down to using a number of rarefied words, however, such as "dextre" instead of "droite" ("right hand"). No Romanist would ever mistake a page of one of Merle's novels for a piece of authentic early modern literature.

There are similar examples in other modern languages. The notion that the author of the Joseph story was able to write twelve long chapters, using all the right forms and particles of classical Hebrew (and avoiding all late elements) in the Persian period is far-fetched in the extreme.

As was mentioned in the first part of this paper, linguistic dating is approximate. The date ad quem of the story is hard to define. Historical linguistics cannot prove that the Joseph story was written before 587. The literary language practiced in the Judean state did not all of a sudden die out at the beginning of the sixth century. If there were strong other reasons to date the story to the first half of the sixth century, the linguistic approach could not be fielded against this. But the data can only be stretched so far. The further one strays from the monarchic period, the less likely the dating becomes.

63 "What is most ridiculous of all is that although you want to be more than Attic and have meticulously shaped


ou non, émanant des établissements d'enseignement et de recherche français ou étrangers, des laboratoires publics ou privés.

<55> Introduction

Hebraists like H. L. Ginsberg have described the history of Biblical Hebrew as the succession of a "Golden Age," corresponding to the monarchic period, and a "Silver Age" during and after the Babylonian exile. 1 In more recent writing, such evaluative terms are frowned upon. 2 Indeed, the aesthetic judgment runs <56> the risk of missing the point. The essential difference between the Classical Biblical Hebrew (CBH) of the Enneateuch and the Late Biblical Hebrew (LBH) of the books of Chronicles, Ezra-Nehemiah, Esther, Qoheleth and Daniel is not that the former is more elegant than the latter-although it often is. 3 Nor is the essential difference that the "LBH" corpus is more tainted with Aramaic influence, although this too is certainly true. The essential difference is rather that the later corpus betrays a different attitude to language. While most of the prose texts in Genesis-2 Kings draw on dialects of living Hebrew, the later books borrow much of their language from older writings. I do not wish to suggest that the entire Pentateuch and Former Prophets existed from the exilic period in the form known to us. It is extremely difficult to know when the various books of the Hebrew Bible crystallized in the form that has come down to us. But even without this knowledge, it is easy to observe that the postexilic books exhibit a dense web of 1 See H. L. Ginsberg, "The Northwest Semitic Languages," The World History of the Jewish People. First Series: Ancient Times, vol. 2 Patriarchs (Edited by Benjamin Mazar; Tel-Aviv: Massada, 1970), 102-124, 112.

2 See Mark F. Rooker, Biblical Hebrew in Transition: The Language of the Book of Ezekiel (JSOTS 90. Sheffield: JSOT, 1990), 14. 3 This is of course a subjective judgment and as such perhaps futile. Arguably Esther and Qoheleth belong to world literature the same way Genesis and Isaiah do. intertextual connections to earlier writings: Chronicles follows, and rewrites, Samuel-Kings; 4 Esther echoes the Joseph story at every step; the apocalyptic chapters of Daniel build on prophecies contained in the book of Isaiah. 5 The language of the late books is full of expressions that seem antiquated and appear to have been lifted wholesale from earlier texts. 6 The active re-use of classical expressions in religious writings of the later period is not purely literary in nature. It testifies to a group increasingly defining <57> their own identity in function of a body of texts. Judaism is turning into a book religion. The authors of the later books had read, and studied, texts that now figure in the Pentateuch and Former Prophets. Their deep engagement with earlier texts generated a special type of language, which intended to link up with Hebrew as it had been practiced at an earlier period. The earlier texts were viewed as authoritative, if not canonical. Jews drew upon the classical texts in order to tell their own story. This is a long process that sets in at some point in the Babylonian period and progresses beyond the latest biblical books into the Dead Sea Scrolls.

In the present paper we will look at a single example of this textual dynamic in the book of Chronicles.

A remarkable linguistic usage in 2 Chron 35:22

4 From the beginning of historical-critical investigation of the Hebrew Bible, Chronicles has been recognized as a rewriting, by and large, of Samuel-Kings. This classical view was criticised some decades ago by Graeme Auld, who argued instead that Chronicles and Samuel-Kings depend on a common source that has not been preserved. Several other OT scholars have followed in Auld's footsteps. In the new approach Chronicles and Samuel-Kings are usually regarded as more or less contemporaneous works both dating to the Persian period.

Recently, however, the classical view has again rallied the support of many important scholars. The rewriting hypothesis explains most of the facts much better than the independent-development-from-a-common-source hypothesis. For discussion see e.g. David Carr, The Formation of the Hebrew Bible. A New Reconstruction (Oxford: OUP, 2011), 57-101, in particular 74. Strong support for the later date of Chronicles comes from its language. Whereas Samuel-Kings on the whole reflects the classical Hebrew of the Pentateuch, Chronicles clearly represents late biblical Hebrew. 5 See H. L. Ginsberg, "The Oldest Interpretation of the Suffering Servant," VT 3 (1953), 400-404. In 2 Chron 35, it is told that King Josiah goes out to block Necho, the King of Egypt, who is on his way to make war against the Babylonians. 7 Necho sends his emissaries to inform Josiah that his war is not with him, he is hurrying on to Karkemish. But Josiah persists: 2 Chron 35:22

ו ְ * א - ה ֵ ס ֵ ב י ֹ א שׁ ִ יּ ָ ה וּ פ ָ נ יָ ו מ ִ מּ ֶ נּ וּ כּ יִ ל ְ ה ִ לּ ָ ח ֵ ם - בּ וֹ ה ִ ת ְ ח ַ פּ ֵ שׂ ו ְ * א שׁ ָ מ ַ ע א ֶ ל - דּ ִ ב ְ ֵר י נ ְ כ וֹ מ ִ פּ ִ י א ֱ * ה ִ י ם ו יַּ ָ ב ֹ א ל ְ ה ִ לּ ָ ח ֵ ם בּ ְ ב ִ ק ְ ע ַ ת מ ְ ג ִ דּ וֹ ׃
Josiah would not turn away from him, but disguised himself in order to fight with him. He did not listen to the words of Necho from the mouth of God, but joined battle in the plain of Megiddo (NRSV, emphasis added).

The clash leads to the tragic death of Josiah. Archers shoot him in his chariot and he is taken back to Jerusalem to die.

The hithpael of the verb ח פ ש "to seek" is attested in several passages in Samuel and Kings in the meaning "to disguise oneself." 8 This meaning is <58> etymologically plausible, implying something like "to let oneself be sought for," and fits the contexts in which the verb occurs well. 9 For example, in 1 Sam 28:8, King Saul disguises himself (

ו יַּ ִ ת ְ ח ַ פּ ֵ שׂ שׁ ָ א וּ ל ו יַּ ִ ל ְ בּ ַ שׁ בּ ְ ג ָ ד ִ י ם א ֲ ח ֵ ִר י ם
) when he goes to consult the necromancer of Endor, who then nevertheless recognises him by help of Samuel's spectre.

In our passage, most English versions translate ה ת ח פ ש similarly as "to disguise," and this is also the meaning proposed in the standard dictionaries. 10 But a moment's reflection will show that it makes little sense. Why would Josiah disguise himself when going to war with Necho? 11 In what follows, the text states that when the two armies clash, the Egyptian archers take aim at Josiah, wounding him fatally. This again shows that the notion of disguise is alien to the context.

Several ancient versions seem to diverge from the Hebrew. The Septuagint has ἐκραταιώθη "he strengthened himself." Consequently, some textual critics have argued that the earlier reading was ה ת ח ז ק "he strengthened himself." 12 But it is hard to explain how or why this simple reading was changed into the problematic Hebrew that has come down to us.

The Septuagint variant would seem to be facilitating. It confirms that the meaning "he disguised himself" is not suitable, but does very little to solve the problem of the semantic mismatch. The same may be said for 1 Esdras's ἐπιχειρεῖ "he undertook" (1 Esd 1:26) and the Vulgate's praeparavit "he prepared himself." Conjectural emendations have been proposed, but they are unlikely. 13 It seems the MT needs to be kept. But what does it mean? 14 <59> I will suggest that the verb means "to arm oneself" in our passage. The argument for this interpretation will have to be put off until we have explored some intertextual echoes in the story.

Josiah's death in Chronicles modelled on Ahab's death

An important aspect of our passage is the way it echoes an earlier story. As many exegetes have noted, the Chronicler has modelled Josiah's death upon that of Ahab in 1 Kgs 22 (par. 2

Chron 18):15 something like "he pretended" to be on his way to Karkemish but was in reality intending to "fight him," Josiah.

See Yehuda Kiel, Sepher Divrey Hayyamim (Daat Miqra; Jerusalem: Mossad Harav Kook, 1986), 927. But this seems highly unlikely: the usual meaning of the verb is "to disguise oneself," not "to pretend"; also the subject must be Josiah in light of the intertextual connection to be explored below.

12 See Dominique Barthélemy, Critique textuelle de l'Ancien Testament I (OBO 50/1; Fribourg: Éditions Universitaires/Göttingen: Vandenhoek & Ruprecht, 1982), 519.

13 Rudolph proposed to repoint the text and read a shin instead of a sin and to understand the form as: "he freed himself" (from the root ח פ ש "to be free"), see HAL I, 328. This proposal is without merit: the hithpael of ח פ ש is not attested elsewhere, and the meaning "he freed himself" hardly fits the context. 14 Talshir has argued that the verb means "to seek (to fight) despite the warnings" ("Three Deaths," 219).

Although this is not the meaning that seems most likely to me, the proposal correctly implies that the verb means something different in 2 Chron 35:22 and in 2 Kgs 22:30. <61> Why the Chronicler assimilated the story of Josiah's death to that of Ahab is not immediately clear. There was a general similarity between the two events even in the earlier account in Kings: both Ahab and Josiah are killed while confronting a foreign army and then carried off in their chariots. 19 If the Chronicler perceived an analogy, he may have felt free to fill in some details of the Josiah story from that of Ahab. The passage gives insight into the art of historical writing as practiced by the Chronicler.

But art and the joy of exploring intertextual connections cannot fully explain the

rewriting. There is also a theological aspect. While Josiah was so to speak the "best king of Judah after David," Ahab was not only a king of Northern Israel but also a notorious apostate and abuser of his royal power. The implicit comparison of Josiah to Ahab suggests that something in Josiah's last royal act was somehow "Ahabic" in nature: Josiah behaved in an 19 As Talshir points out ("Three Deaths," 215), 2 Kgs 23:29 does not necessarily imply Josiah went out to battle against Necho. Chronicles, however, certainly understood the text in this way.

unfaithful and arrogant manner. The intertextual connection contributes to the Chronicler's effort to explain the righteous King's ignominious death. 20 The

ו יַּ ִ ת ְ ח ַ פּ ֵ שׂ מ ֶ ל ֶ P י ִ שׂ ְ ָר א ֵ ל ו יַּ ָ ב וֹ א בּ ַ מּ ִ ל ְ ח ָ מ ָ ה
And the king of Israel disguised himself, and went into the battle. 21 notion of disguise makes sense here. As is explained in the near context, Ahab wanted to trick the Aramaeans. 22 The ruse worked at first-the <62> Aramaeans didn't recognize Ahab-although it almost backfired upon his ally, Jehoshaphat, King of Judah. In the end, however, a stray arrow accomplishes Ahab's destiny.

The presence of the verb ה ת ח פ ש in 1 Kgs 22 explains its use in 2 Chron 35, but it gives no help in identifying the meaning of the verb in the latter passage. In the Chronicles passage, the notion of disguise is not suitable. Nor should one think that the verb was simply copied from the source text, without interest in the meaning. Instead a glance at the reception history of 1 Kgs 22 may prove helpful.

The notion of disguise is relevant to the story in 1 Kgs 22, but some versions nevertheless translate ה ת ח פ ש differently. Notably, the Vulgate and the Peshitta attribute to it the meaning "to arm oneself": 20 Josiah's arrogance and disobedience may be referred to more explicitly in 2 Chron 35:22 where the text states that: "(Josiah) did not listen to the words of Necho from the mouth of God." On the ambiguity of this prophecy, see Janzen, "Good and Bad Deaths." 21 The verb occurs twice in this verse, first in Ahab's proposal, then in the narrative. 22 The motif is somewhat obscured in the textual history of 1 Kgs 22:30, see BHS. The logic of Ahab's proposal would seem to require the reading: "and you, put on my clothes" (

ו א ת ה ל ב ש ב ג ד י
), which is indeed supported by the Septuagint. The change reflected in the Masoretic text ("…and you, put on your clothes") may be due to the type of reinterpretation which will be argued for below in the next section.

• The Vulgate of 1 Kings 22:30 translates one of the two occurrences of this verb as sume arma "take up your weapons."

• The Peshitta renders the Kings passage correctly as "to disguise," but in the , to disguise oneself, had been <66> reinterpreted as "to dress up in armour" thus enhancing the picture of the Israelite King. Ahab and Jehoshapat were still disobedient kings, but at least they were kingly.

Finally, language. The re-use of the verb in the new meaning in 2 Chron 35:22 is surprising, but it finds many analogues in Chronicles and other Hebrew writings of the same period. Hebrew authors of the Persian and Hellenistic periods tried to write in the "biblical" style of earlier writings that had become authoritative, but they didn't wholly succeed. Old words they found in the earlier writings had been reinterpreted in the exegetical tradition. The later authors revived the use of the words with the new meaning. This remarkable phenomenon betrays an emerging attitude to Hebrew as an eternal language. Not a language learned from listening to one's parents, or in conversation, but a language one learns from studying scripture.

The pseudo-classical nature of the language of Chronicles is an important argument for the relative dating for the books of Kings and Chronicles. Some scholars, notably Graeme Auld, have argued that Chronicles and Kings are roughly contemporary works, with differing literary objectives. Analysis of the language of Chronicles makes this claim hard to accept.

For a word to fall into disuse, its meaning to be forgotten, and a new meaning to be attributed to it, a lot of time needed to pass. The view that Chronicles is a post-exilic rewriting of a much earlier work-for the most part composed in the monarchic period but redacted in its final form during the exile-fits the linguistic facts much better.

a certain man drew his bow and unknowingly struck the king of Israel

  31 Now the king of Aram had commanded the thirty-two captains of his chariots, "Fight with no one small or great, but only with the king of Israel." 32 When the captains of the chariots saw Jehoshaphat, they said, "It is surely the king of Israel." So they turned to fight against him; and Jehoshaphat cried out. 33 When the captains of the chariots saw that it was not the king of Israel, they turned back from pursuing him. 34 But between the scale armor and the breastplate;

	1 Kgs 22:30-35 16
	30 So the king of Israel disguised himself ( שׂ	ִ ת ְ ח ַ פּ ֵ	ו יַּ ) and went into battle.

so he said to the driver of his chariot, "Turn around, and carry me out of the battle, for I am

  Kgs 22 in 2 Chron 18 with very few changes. In what follows I will systematically relate to 1 Kgs 22 which is the source text for the Chronicler. As is well known, Ahab is generally called "the king of Israel" in this chapter, and an earlier form of the story may have had a different king in mind. But this is not relevant to our present concerns.

		2 Chron 35:20 After all this, when Josiah had prepared
	2 Kgs 23:29 In his days Pharaoh Necho king of Egypt	the temple, Necho king of Egypt went up to fight
	went up against the king of Assyria to the river	against Carchemish by the Euphrates:
	Euphrates:
	and king Josiah went to meet him;	and Josiah went out against him.
		21 But he sent ambassadors to him, saying, What have
		I to do with you, you king of Judah? I come not
		against you this day, but against the house with which
		I have war; and God has commanded me to make
		haste: forbear you from meddling with God, who is
		with me, that he not destroy you. 22 Nevertheless
		Josiah would not turn his face from him, but disguised
		himself, that he might fight with him, and didn't listen
		to the words of Necho from the mouth of God, and
	and Pharaoh Necho killed him at Megiddo, when he	came to fight in the valley of Megiddo. 23 The archers
	wounded ( had seen him. י ת ִ י ל ֵ ח ֳ ה ָ 30 His servants carried him in a chariot dead from Megiddo, and brought him to Jerusalem, and buried him in his own tomb. ).ה ָ ח ֳ ל ֵ י ת ִ י shot at king Josiah; -2 Chron 35:23; 1 Kgs 22:34/2 Chron and the king said to his servants, Have me away; for I am sore wounded.
	18:33); like Ahab, his men take him away from the battle before he dies. The verb	ש	פ	ה ת ח	is
	another element confirming the analogy. 17 More (and more tenuous) analogies are explored in Janzen, "Good and Bad Deaths": the king goes to war in
	spite of an ambiguous prophecy to the contrary.
	18 Williamson has argued that the rewriting of Josiah's death in 2 Chron 35:20-27 is not, or not wholly, due to
	the Chronicler but was already present in a reworked version of 2 Kgs 23:29-30 which the Chronicler used as
	his source. See Hugh Williamson, "The Death of Josiah and the Continuing Development of the
	rightly so.

" 35 The battle grew hot that day, and the king was propped up in his chariot facing the Arameans, until at evening he died.

Like Ahab, Josiah is killed in his chariot by an arrow, and like Ahab he tells his men: "I am wounded," using the same Hebrew word ( 17 <60> These echoes of the story of Ahab are not present in the Kings version of Josiah's demise. They are part of the specific literary and theological shape the Chronicler gave to his account. 18

16

The story of Micah ben Yimlah was taken over from 1 Deuteronomistic History,"

VT 32 (1982)

, 242-247. This argument has not been received in later exegetical writings, see notably Talshir, "Three Deaths" (with discussion of earlier criticisms of Williamson), to my mind 24 So his servants took him out of the chariot, and put him in the second chariot that he had, and brought him to Jerusalem; and he died, and was buried in the tombs of his fathers.

  Although "to take up arms" is not the meaning we today would attribute to this verb, one can understand why it would have seemed a good interpretation in antiquity. Two factors seem to be at play. Firstly, it is likely that the meaning of the Hebrew verb was forgotten early on. In LBH the only cases of the hithpael of ח פ ש are the three cases in Chronicles (2 Chron 18:29 twice; 35:22), and in post-biblical Hebrew the verb is no longer attested.24 ThisConclusionAlthough this study has somewhat single-mindedly focused on one word in 2 Chron 35:22, it has shed light on various aspects of Hebrew writing in the Persian period.First, creative writing. The Chronicler based his account of Josiah's anomalous death on the much shorter version in Kings. However, he added much material to address a theological question: why did Josiah, who was such a good king, die young? Various answers are suggested to this question. A somewhat explicit answer is that Josiah didn't listen to the word of God from the mouth of Necho. But there is also a more subtle, implicit answer: at the end of his life, Josiah behaved, very briefly, like Ahab. He rode to war without reason, and was killed in a providential way. His death was a punishment for his disobedience and his arrogance. In elaborating this answer, the Chronicler rewrote the story of Josiah's death in the image of the story of Ahab's death in 1 Kgs 22 / 2 Chron 18. He explicitly referenced the earlier story by using a few rare words and expressions used there. Second, exegesis. It is important to realize that the use the Chronicler made of the story of Ahab's death had been prepared in the interpretive tradition of the earlier text. 1 Kgs 22, a story on two Kings going to war against the Arameans for frivolous reasons, against the better counsel of Micah ben Yimlah, is elaborated with comical traits. The introduction of Micah's prophecy in the first part of the story (1 Kgs 22:7-18) is one of the most hilarious passages in the Hebrew Bible. The comedy continuous when the kings go to war: Ahab behaves like a clown, and Jehoshaphat like a fool. Ahab's plan to disguise himself turns out to be stupid, in that it puts at risk his ally, and futile because he gets shot anyway. In this form, the story could hardly have served the Chronicler as a model for Josiah. But in the history of exegesis, Ahab and Jehoshaphat had been given a more dignified reading. Notably

	Chronicles parallel, 2 Chron 18:29, the Syriac twice renders	ה ת ח פ ש	as 'ezdayyan "to
	arm oneself."
	These do not seem to be random variants. The agreement of two versions between which
	there can hardly have been a historical connection suggests that the interpretation of	ח פ ש	ה ת	as
	"to arm oneself" reflects an exegetical tradition. As it seems, there was an ancient reading of
	the story in 1 Kgs 22 / 2 Chron 18 in which the verb	ה ת ח פ ש	was not interpreted as "to
	disguise oneself" but as "to take up arms." 23
	indicates that	ש	ה ת ח פ	fell into disuse after the Babylonian exile. Secondly, an ideological
	factor may have been at work. Later readers may have considered it unworthy of an Israelite
	king-even an apostate king like Ahab-to disguise himself before going into battle. <63>
	Kings are not supposed to play tricks, but to ride into battle in full costume. Faced with a
	somewhat rare verb whose meaning was perhaps not well remembered, some of these later
	readers shied away from the meaning "to disguise" and opted for the meaning "to arm
	oneself."
	Implications for 2 Chron 35:22
	These considerations make it possible to understand our verse in Chronicles. Indeed, the the verb ה ת ח פ ש
	verse becomes crystal clear if the verb	פ ש	ה ת ח	as applied to Josiah is understood not as "to
	disguise," but "to arm oneself":

The first one to observe the connection between the two texts seems to have been Torrey. See Charles C. Torrey, Ezra Studies (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1910), 220-221.

This interpretation was not shared by all ancient readers. The Septuagint correctly understands the verb in the meaning "to disguise."

The piel is attested in Mishna Pes. 2:3 in reference to a dog "digging out" food, but the hithpael is not found in Mishnaic Hebrew.

But Josiah would not turn away from him, but armed himself in order to fight with him.

The semantic fit is impressive enough to suggest that the Chronicler himself intended this meaning. The new meaning was not an innovation of the Chronicler, it came down to him as part and parcel of the story of Ahab's death in battle. In fact, the reinterpretation of Ahab's actions, reflected independently in the Peshitta and Vulgate as seen above, was a preliminary stage enabling the Chronicler's use of the story in his rewriting of Josiah's demise. The Chronicler's Ahab was not the trickster who disguised himself so as to escape the Aramaeans' arrows, but the tragic king of the North who armed himself for battle. As such Ahab could serve as an exemplar for the good king Josiah, who came to a tragic end.

Note that the Targum of Chronicles correctly identifies this new meaning in our verse: Similar cases occur in other late books of the Bible and in Ben Sira. [START_REF] Jan | Pseudo-classicisms in Late Biblical Hebrew, in Ben Sira, and in Qumran Hebrew[END_REF] They grow more numerous in the Dead Sea Scrolls. [START_REF]Jan Joosten, How Old Is the Hebrew Bible? A Linguistic, Textual, and Historical Study (Anchor Bible Reference Library[END_REF] Each case is arguably a bit different, but they all reflect an effort on the part of later writers to use the Hebrew language they had found in earlier writings. The usages are "pseudo-classical."


Isabelle Capron

Herve Bizot

Solène Grosbois

Heiko Winter

Bernard Cathala

Solène

Novel microparticles from cellulose based Pickering emulsions

à la diffusion de documents scientifiques de niveau recherche, publiés ou non, émanant des établissements d'enseignement et de recherche français ou étrangers, des laboratoires publics ou privés.

 I., Langmuir 2011, 27, (12), 7471-7479. Kalashnikova, I.;Bizot, H.;Cathala, B.;Capron, I., Biomacromolecules 2012, 13, 267-275.

  de Recherche Biopolymères, Interactions et Assemblages -INRA -Nantes Titre : Organisation des nanocristaux de cellulose aux interfaces eau / huile pour des émulsions de Pickering Résumé : Emulsions are usually metastable systems of two non-miscible phases stabilized by surface active species like surfactant molecules. Emulsions stabilized by solid colloidal particles adsorbed at the interface (Pickering emulsions) offer some competitive advantages with respect to classical emulsions. Most studies published up to now concern emulsions stabilized by inorganic or polymeric particles while biomass derived alternatives have only been explored to a limited extent. We report the stabilization of emulsions by unmodified cellulose nanocrystals. Cellulose nanocrystals were produced from several sources and used to form droplets ranging around 4µm in diameter with narrow dispersity. SEM images evidenced that the nanocrystals are adsorbed at the oil/water interface. The influence of surface chemistry on the stability of the emulsions was also investigated. Finally, this work discusses the importance of the amphiphilic nature of cellulose on emulsification and show that these new armored microparticles from cellulose open opportunities to build new materials. polymerised emulsion stabilised by bacterial cellulose nanocrystals Bizot H., Kalashnikova I., Capron I., Buléon A., Cathala B. -brevet N°FR1055836 07/19/2010 Kalashnikova, I.; Bizot, H.; Cathala, B.; Capron,