Introductory Remarks: Historical Linguistics and the Dating of Hebrew Texts ca. 1000-300 B.C.E.

The article examines instances of grammaticalisation in Mishnaic Hebrew, highlighting the transition from Biblical Hebrew. Key examples include the particle הוֹאִיל ‘because, since’, which evolved from a Biblical Hebrew verb to a causal conjunction in Mishnaic Hebrew, and כְּדֵי ‘in order that’, derived from דַּי ‘enough’ in Biblical Hebrew. The study also analyses בִּשְׁבִיל ‘for the sake of’ and כֵּיוָן ‘as soon as’, exploring their lexical origins and grammaticalisation processes. While the study acknowledges the role of Aramaic as a substratum during this period, these transformations are rooted in internal Hebrew developments. The findings reveal a dynamic interplay between continuity and innovation in Hebrew grammar, underscoring the complex linguistic evolution shaped by contact and internal mechanisms.

In his significant paper, Elisha Qimron successfully elucidates features of form and aspects of meaning of number of biblical words and expressions. The importance of this paper lies, however, also in providing additional support to the conceptual definition that should be, to my mind, applied to Qumran Hebrew. As evidenced in the major non-biblical scrolls-the Classical Dead Sea texts-and many fragmentary works, stylistically, lexically and morphologically, Qumran Hebrew is not an imitation of biblical Hebrew, a biblicising jargon,' but virtually living and natural continuation of biblical Hebrew. For the writers of the Classical Qumran texts biblical Hebrew was not remote entity, vehicle of expression of penod of the past in the history of the nation, but the literary language of their time.2 Indeed, Qumran Hebrew (in the general sense of the term) was not pure biblical Hebrew. Having distinct features of its own, it is hard to define it by the terms commonly used to name the consecutive stages in the history of Hebrew. It was blend of biblical Hebrew with certain traits that naturally were possessed also by Mishnaic Hebrew

The two direct discourse markers (DDMs) lymr and 'mr appear in Mishnaic Hebrew (200 BCE-500 CE) at the beginning of an asyndetic content clause that follows verbs of saying (e.g. s'l) and verbs that are not verbs of saying (e.g. smh). An examination of the two markers reveals that the appearance of lymr as a DDM is limited, and that it shows the continuity of the widespread use of l'mr as a DDM in Biblical Hebrew. On the other hand, y'mr is an independent DDM in Mishnaic Hebrew, and can be found not only with biblical verbs and with verbs of saying. Part 1 of this paper presents the findings of previous studies on the DDMs l'mr and y'mr in Biblical Hebrew. The two sections of Part 2 provide a description of the two uses of these DDMs in Mishnaic Hebrew - when they appear at the beginning of a clause following verbs of saying and when they appear at the beginning of a clause following verbs that are not verbs of saying.

Hebrew Studies 41 (2000) 227 Reviews various constructions is analyzed and interpreted will be of considerable interest to teachers of biblical Hebrew as well as to scholars. J. Glen Taylor Toronto School o/Theology Toronto, ON Canada jgtaylor@chass.utoronto.ca MODERN HEBREW FOR BIBLICAL SCHOLARS. By Takamitsu Muraoka. Weisbaden: Harrassowitz Verlag. 1998. pp. xlv + 183. Paper. 48.00DM. This book constitutes a revised and enlarged edition of a work published by the author in 1982. The first thirty pages of the book (pp. xvi-xlv) are introductory in nature. providing an outline of modern Hebrew grammar. They focus mainly on the following topics: a) the components of modern Hebrew in terms of spelling and pronunciation; b) morphology, focusing on the diverse kinds and functions of the modern Hebrew pronoun (personal . suffixal. demonstrative. relative. reflexive. emphatic, interrogative. indefmite. and comparative). the noun, the adjective, the verb. the adverb, and the preposition; c) syntax. which includes inter alia a discussion of the nominal clause and copula. word order. modal expressions. diverse kinds of clauses (relative. circumstantial. and conditional); d) rhetorics and pragmatics. including discourse markers and abbreviations. The object of this introductory grammatical outline, the author stresses. is not meant to teach basic Hebrew grammar per se, but rather to "highlight the major differences in linguistic structure between Biblical Hebrew and Modern Hebrew as is used in a specific literary genre. namely, academic and scholarly writings." (p. xi). The heart of the book constitutes a chrestomathy of 28 texts (pp. 2-137). divided into three sections: Hebrew and Semitic linguistics (13 texts). general biblical studies (10 texts). and Palestinian archaeology (5 texts). Each text is extensively annotated. They include texts of C. Rabin. Joshua Blau, H. Yalon, E. Y. Kutscher. M. H. Goshen-Gottstein. A. Hurvitz. Z. Ben-l:Iayyim. Sh. Morag. Sh. Talmon, H. Yeivin, E. Tov, J. Gutman, Y. Kaufmann, N. H. Tur-Sinai. A. Malamat, M. Haran, U. Cassuto, J. Licht, Y. Aharoni. B. Mazar, Y. Yadin, H. Tadmor and Sh. Ahituv. and P. Artzi. The texts are extensively annotated; English transla- Hebrew Studies 41 (2000) 228 Reviews tion for only three of them is provided. The first text of each of the three sections is fully vocalized, while others are partially vocalized, the extent of the vocalization decreasing gradually. The book ends with a HebrewEnglish glossary (pp. 140-183). One wonders as to the justification for yet another book on Hebrew grammar, morphology, and syntax when numerous detailed and in-depth studies in these areas have been published by Israeli scholars in Hebrew, parts of which, as the author admits, are available in West-European languages . The author seems to have anticipated such a question on the part of readers. The main objective of this work, he rationalizes, is to meet the needs of those Hebraists, Biblical scholars and Semiticists to whom "unpointed Hebrew publications remain a terra incognita." This book, he hopes, will help make these works accessible to non-Hebrew readers. Indeed, the author painstakingly and commendably takes the reader through a discussion of almost every aspect of Hebrew grammar, including its components and usage in comparison with biblical and Mishnaic Hebrew . The grammatical outline includes discussion on conjugations (binyanTm), inflection of verbs, dagesh lene and dagesh forte, distinction between shewa mobile and shewa quiescent, proclitic particles, diverse kinds of pronouns, subordinate clauses, cognate objects, asyndetic relative clauses, etc.-all with good examples from modem Hebrew. I have detected some errors in the book. Here are a few of them: In his discussion of biblical words and idioms which have fallen into disuse, the author states that the word ID'M "is only rarely used in the sense of man (= male), for which -ol is the nonnal expression" (p. xvii). I fmd this statement to be inaccurate. In addition to the meaning of male, the word ,:u carries in modem Hebrew the connotation of a person with qualities conventionally regarded as manly, such as strength and courage. The word ~R is far from being rare when referring to an adult male; in fact, it is rather common. The author's discussion of modem Hebrew pronunciation (pp. xviii-xx) seems to reflect an earlier linguistic situation...

This article traces the semantic development of the words śāp̄ah ‘lip’ and lāšon ‘tongue’ through Biblical, Late Biblical, Qumran, and Mishnaic Hebrew. Two semantic changes occupy the focus of this analysis: First, by the time of Mishnaic Hebrew, śāp̄ah had lost its meanings related to the lip’s association with talking, so that it should not be translated ‘speech’ in ambiguous contexts. Second, the semantic widening of lāšon to include the meaning ‘speech’ began to take place in Biblical Hebrew in the context of words from the realm of deceit.

Reviewed by: Linguistic Analysis of Biblical Hebrew Gary A. Rendsburg Susan Anne Groom . Linguistic Analysis of Biblical Hebrew. Carlisle, UK:Paternoster Press, 2003. Pp. xxvi + 207. Sue Groom's monograph,1 a revision of her master's thesis completed at the Open University of the United Kingdom,2 is designed to provide "a well-informed and critical, but also accessible, introduction to the use of linguistics methods, especially the most recent ones, for the study of the text of the Old Testament" (Graham Davies, in the foreword, p. ix). In the main, the author succeeds at her task, though regrettably, in this reviewer's opinion, the book does not live up to its full potential. Moreover, as we will see below, there are many errors and typographical mistakes (especially when Hebrew font is employed) which unfortunately mar the presentation of her prose. But before moving to these areas of concern, let me first describe the book's contents and note the manner in which the work does succeed. Groom begins with a nine-page introduction on the "basic hermeneutical model" of "author-text-reader." She presents such divergent views as Gadamer's focus on the reader's historical and social context and Hirsch's emphasis on authorial intent, and she then relates these approaches specifically to the enterprise of biblical studies. These pages comprise a fine entree into the subject, though this reviewer questions their placement at the very beginning of the book. I would have preferred arriving at this topic towards the end of the book, in part 3, "Modern Linguistic Methods." In its present position, the introduction devoted to the hermeneutics of reading sets a tone for the book, which on the one hand remains with the reader throughout, and on the other hand does not impact fully on the following treatments. The bulk of the book is divided into three parts, each of which is in turn divided into different chapters: part 1, "Preliminary Issues" (with chapters 1-3, "The Data," "The Masoretic Text," and "The Nature of [End Page e1] Biblical Hebrew"); part 2, "Form and Meaning" (with chapters 4-5, "Comparative Philology" and "Versions"); and part 3, "Modern Linguistic Methods" (with chapters 6-7, "Lexical Semantics" and "Text Linguistics"). A conclusion and bibliography round out the book. In general, all these topics are presented in a very clear and succinct manner. Groom typically presents the topic first from the perspective of general linguistics and then turns to applying these findings to the specific subject of Biblical Hebrew (see, for example, my summary of the introduction above). As will become apparent from my remarks below, she utilizes Judges 4 throughout to illustrate points raised. In addition, the influence of James Barr is seen at every turn. The book is at once both a fine introduction to place in the hands of students desiring to know more about ancient Hebrew, and a volume which even seasoned scholars will wish to consult for surveys and analyses of particular subjects. From the following assorted comments, the reader will gain an idea of many of the topics covered in this book. More importantly, it is my hope that these remarks will improve the reader's use of this volume and/or serve the author should she contemplate a revised edition. •. It is odd to find the statement "Other scholars have concentrated on detailed study of LBH" [=Late Biblical Hebrew], supported by a footnote which refers to R. Polzin's Late Biblical Hebrew (1976), but not to A. Hurvitz, whose lifelong research has been specifically in this area (pp. 12-13, with n. 45). •. On pages 13, 15, Groom sets the date of 200 C.E. for the end of Mishnaic Hebrew (MH) as a spoken language. Most scholars, I believe, would set that date later; and indeed the Academy of the Hebrew Language uses 300 C.E. as its marker. •. On pages 13-14 Groom notes, correctly, that BH and MH occasionally use different terms for body parts, "which would be expected to remain reasonably constant in any language." For both the novice Hebrew student and for the scholar of the Bible who may know less about MH, a few...

Hebrew Studies 37 (1996) 131 Reviews English-Hebrew dictionary, but that to my mind is an advantage; they're better off not making heavy use of an English-Hebrew dictionary. The Multi Dictionary further provides many pages of topical lists of words and expressions which are extremely useful. It is more expensive, but it has many more uses. While the Zilkha dictionary reinforces a bad habit: memorizing a one-word equivalent for each vocabulary item, the Multi Dictionary instills good habits: examining context and looking to Hebrew for information. I now require my intermediate and advanced classes to purchase the Multi Dictionary, and we use some of the appendices actively in class. It is a very useful and interesting educational tool. Robert D. Hoberman State University ofNew York at Stony Brook Stony Brook, N.Y. //794-3355 A HISTORY OF THE HEBREW LANGUAGE. By Angel SaenzBadillos . John Elwolde, trans. Pp. xii + 371. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1993. Cloth, $39.95. Angel Saenz-Badillos' A History of the Hebrew Language is a translation from the original Spanish HislOria de la lengua hebrea. Shelomo Morag has written a foreword to the English translation, which best summarizes my feelings. He writes that this book is the most comprehensive history of Hebrew to date. Like Morag, I feel that there has been a need for such a book for students as well as scholars, teachers, and Hebraists as well as historians. Although he does not articulate his intentions, the author attempts to provide a useful handbook for Hebraists. It is evident that he has achieved the goals of presenting an overview of the Hebrew language in a concise and portable book, at the same time providing helpful detailed discussions. Saenz-Badillos provides a full survey of the history of the Hebrew language , tracing its origins in the Canaanite period, through a span of 3,000 years, including its modem use in Israel. He manages to cover all the periods of the language, without compromising the clarity and the important details. The survey he provides is not a mere overview; it discusses the phonology, morphology, syntax, and semantics relevant to each period. Furthermore, if the subject in question happens to be controversial, he discusses different approaches. For instance. the verbal system in biblical Hebrew Studies 37 (1996) 132 Reviews Hebrew is often controversial: whether it indicates tenses or aspects, whether it should be analyzed synchronically or within the framework of the historical comparative approach, and so forth. The author discusses this problematic topic in light of the approach he follows (the aspectual approach ), but he also provides a brief summary of the other views. In this and other topics, disagreements and arguments are all given exact detailed references by which the interested reader can find more details. As an overview of all Hebrew periods accompanied by discussions and comprehensive lists of bibliography, this survey provides a handy book for Hebraists, especially teachers. For example, a teacher who wants to teach mishnaic Hebrew would find a necessary and comprehensive discussion on rabbinic Hebrew in general and mishnaic Hebrew in particular, including the controversy over whether it is a development of biblical Hebrew or a different dialect. This discussion provides a framework as well as details of the period the teacher is interested in. However, for the scholar who wants to investigate a subject concerning the Hebrew language in more depth, the discussions in this book are insufficient. Yet these scholars, too, might find the book helpful when searching for bibliography or trying to access general ideas of related subjects. The fact that the author exhaustively discusses all periods of the Hebrew language yet does not exhaust the reader is very impressive. The organization , editing, and language are smooth, and the points he makes are easily followed. At this point I want to comment on the good work of the translator , John Elwolde. A good text could be ruined by its translation, and this is certainly not the case with this book; the English text is clear and smooth. I could not find many flaws in this book. I can recall only one or two minor problems. One is the author's treatment of the Hebrew language...

Hebrew belongs to the family of Semitic languages, which is part of the larger family of Afroasiatic languages. It spans more than three millennia, paralleling the history of the Jewish people—first in the Land of Israel, then in the Diaspora, and again in the Land of Israel and the State of Israel. It is customary to divide the language into the following four historical periods: Biblical Hebrew, Rabbinic Hebrew (also known as Mishnaic Hebrew), Medieval Hebrew, and Modern Hebrew (alternatively referred to as Contemporary Hebrew, Israeli Hebrew, or even simply Israeli). Two further divisions should also be noted: Hebrew of the Second Temple period, and oral traditions of Hebrew. Biblical Hebrew in its narrow sense (c. 1000–530 bce) is attested mainly in the pre-exilic books of the Hebrew Bible. Hebrew in the Second Temple period (530 bce–70 ce) is a transient stage between Biblical Hebrew and Rabbinic Hebrew; the post-exilic books of the Hebrew Bible and the Dead Sea Scrolls are its main corpora. Rabbinic Hebrew (70–c. 500 ce) is further divided, according to whether it was still spoken or not, into Tannaitic Hebrew or Rabbinic Hebrew I (70–c. 200 ce), which is the language of the Mishna, and Amoraic Hebrew or Rabbinic Hebrew II (c. 200–500 ce), which is the language of the Hebrew part of the Palestinian and Babylonian Talmuds. Medieval Hebrew (c. 500–c. 1850) includes various works of poetry and prose produced in major Jewish communities. Oral traditions of Hebrew refer to recitations of the Hebrew Bible and the Mishna in traditional Jewish communities after Biblical Hebrew and Rabbinic Hebrew ceased to be spoken; these traditions are still preserved among certain circles. Modern Hebrew in its narrow sense (c. 1850 to the present) is a planned and unplanned amalgam of the earlier phases of Hebrew (as well as Jewish Aramaic), with a heavy grammatical and lexical influence from Yiddish, Russian, etc. It now fulfills all the social functions of a modern society, both in speech and in writing as well as online. It is also an important lingua franca of Hebrew linguistics (and many other areas of Jewish studies). In each of these divisions of Hebrew, as well as in the first group of sections (dealing with the language in general), selected important works in the following areas are mentioned, where relevant: encyclopedia, introductory works, dictionaries, bibliographies, journals, collected works, history, writing system, language “revival,” grammar in general, (articulatory) phonetics, phonology, morphology, syntax, semantics, pragmatics, discourse analysis, (meta-)lexicography, onomastics, sociolinguistics, psycholinguistics, and the spoken language.

A lively debate has engulfed the study of the early history of the Hebrew language in the past two decades. Traditionally, scholars classified the language of the Hebrew Bible into three categories: Archaic, Standard, and Late Biblical Hebrew. But recent trends in biblical criticism have tended to date biblical literature much later, and some scholars date almost all of biblical literature to the Persian and Hellenistic periods. This trend undoes traditional linguistic categories for biblical Hebrew and questions the validity of the linguistic dating of biblical literature. In spite of the challenges, a modified and more complex model for the history of Classical Hebrew remains the working consensus model. A lively debate has engulfed the study of the early history of the Hebrew language in the past two decades, especially advanced by the work of Ian Young and Robert Rezetko (e.g., Young & Rezetko, ). Conferences have been organized to address this issue (e.g., Miller‐Naudé & Zevit, ). Young and Rezetko have continued to advocate for their approach in spite of critical reviews (e.g., Joosten, ). Traditionally, scholars have classified the language of the Hebrew Bible into three categories: Archaic Biblical Hebrew (that is, early biblical poems), Standard Biblical Hebrew (the major part of biblical literature), and Late Biblical Hebrew (comprising compositions from the Persian and Hellenistic periods). But trends in biblical criticism over the past several decades have tended to date biblical literature later and later. Now, one can find some prominent scholars who date almost all of biblical literature—and particularly Pentateuchal literature (Sommer, )—to the Persian and Hellenistic periods. This trend raises serious questions about the validity of the traditional linguistic dating of biblical literature. Although some have ignored this linguistic problem, others have offered a variety of rationales justifying the dismissal of linguistic dating. These divergent trends have resulted in continuing debate regarding the historical linguistics of Biblical Hebrew that is addressed in Ronald Hendel and Jan Joosten's recent book, How Old is the Hebrew Bible? (2018).

The paper discusses nominal clause patterns in the Dead Sea Scrolls. Nominal clauses were collected from several Dead Sea Scrolls (DSS) that represent an independent language, and are not late versions of biblical texts. These are Pesher Habakkuk , the Damascus Document, the War Scroll, The Temple Scroll, and Serekh Ha-Yaḥad . The DSS nominal clause patterns revealed in these sources can be divided into two major groups: (1) simple nominal clauses in the order of predicate–subject or of subject–predicate, and (2) extended nominal clauses involving extraposition. Although both word orders of the simple nominal clauses found in the DSS exist in Biblical Hebrew, those of the DSS display more restrictions in their preference for a certain word order with certain types of predicates. The DSS simple nominal clauses in the order of subject–predicate also contain a pattern, unknown in Biblical Hebrew and limited in Mishnaic Hebrew, in which the predicate is a content clause. This pattern appears only in Pesher Habakkuk , and its content clause is introduced there by the subordinate, more commonly relative particle, asher . Extended patterns appear to be very rare in the DSS, and they mostly include clauses also labeled as the exegetical formula, which show similarity to a certain type of appositional clauses in Biblical Hebrew.

The paper discusses nominal clause patterns in the Dead Sea Scrolls. Nominal clauses were collected from several Dead Sea Scrolls (DSS) that represent an independent language, and are not late versions of biblical texts. These are Pesher Habakkuk , the Damascus Document, the War Scroll, The Temple Scroll, and Serekh Ha-Yaḥad . The DSS nominal clause patterns revealed in these sources can be divided into two major groups: (1) simple nominal clauses in the order of predicate–subject or of subject–predicate, and (2) extended nominal clauses involving extraposition. Although both word orders of the simple nominal clauses found in the DSS exist in Biblical Hebrew, those of the DSS display more restrictions in their preference for a certain word order with certain types of predicates. The DSS simple nominal clauses in the order of subject–predicate also contain a pattern, unknown in Biblical Hebrew and limited in Mishnaic Hebrew, in which the predicate is a content clause. This pattern appears only in Pesher Habakkuk , and its content clause is introduced there by the subordinate, more commonly relative particle, asher . Extended patterns appear to be very rare in the DSS, and they mostly include clauses also labeled as the exegetical formula, which show similarity to a certain type of appositional clauses in Biblical Hebrew.

The five cases of לֹא כִי in the Hebrew Bible (1Kgs 3:22–23 [3 times]; 2Kgs 20:10; Isa 30:16), which are contrasted with the more usual cases of לֹא כִּי, should not posit an additional meaning for כִי (i. e., »so« or »thus«) but be considered to have resulted from Mishnaic Hebrew interference to Biblical Hebrew. Two factors are discussed: that interference occurred between Biblical Hebrew and Mishnaic Hebrew and that לֹא כִי in Mishnaic Hebrew means »Not so«.

This contribution tackles Old Testament citations in the New Testament. While in many cases the quotations are identical to the Septuagint, not seldom the wordings differ. The differences can be variously explained: at times, it appears most likely that the Christian authors personally rephrased the Old Testament, while on other occasions it is more difficult to account for the divergences with sufficient reliability. In this paper, I address the scenario in which the dissimilarities between the New Testament and the Septuagint seem to depend on the influence that a later Hebrew variety, Mishnaic Hebrew, and/or Aramaic exerted in the translation process: in these cases, words or phrases in the Hebrew Bible appear to be translated into Greek with reference to the Mishnaic Hebrew and/or Aramaic usage, rather than the biblical Hebrew one. Specifically, I analyze three scriptural citations in the Pauline epistles that exhibit some differences from the Septuagint, which can be accounted for by referring to Mishnaic Hebrew and/or Aramaic.

REVIEWS MyCgwm Mydwhyh twnwClbw tymrab ,tyrboh NwClb Myrqjm :NwCl yroC rCa-rb hCml (Sha‘arei Lashon: Studies in Hebrew, Aramaic, and Jewish Languages Presented to Moshe Bar-Asher). Volume 1: Biblical Hebrew, Masorah, and Medieval Hebrew. Edited by A. Maman, S. E. Fassberg, and Y. Breuer. Pp. wn + 344 + vii + *184. Jerusalem: The Bialik Institute, 2007. Cloth, $37.83. Sha‘arei Lashon is a remarkable collection of articles in all areas of the Hebrew language, in all its periods and traditions, as well as in Aramaic and Jewish Languages. The studies in these three volumes contribute a wealth of knowledge to the study of the Hebrew language. The authors of the articles are colleagues, students, and friends of an outstanding scholar and teacher, Professor Moshe Bar-Asher to whom this book is presented in honor of his retirement from the Hebrew University after forty-four years of research and teaching. The wide scope of the studies in Sha‘arei Lashon is a fitting tribute to Moshe Bar-Asher, who is acknowledged as one of the foremost authorities on the Hebrew language, Aramaic, and Jewish languages. The first volume of Sha‘arei Lashon deals with Biblical Hebrew, Masorah, and Medieval Hebrew, the second with Rabbinic Hebrew and Aramaic, and the third with Modern Hebrew and the Jewish languages. The first volume of Sha‘arei Lashon begins with speeches in appreciation of Moshe Bar-Asher expressed by his colleagues Zeev Ben Hayyim and Mordechai Breuer, who talk about their personal friendship with Moshe Bar-Asher and discuss his scholarly contribution, his multifarious interests, and his personal attributes. Also included is a survey of Professor BarAsher ’s impressive publications. There are twenty-nine articles in this volume: nineteen in Hebrew, six in English, and four in French. Space does not permit this reviewer to thoroughly examine every article. Therefore, only several studies will be briefly discussed. This volume is divided into three parts. The first part is entitled, “Biblical Hebrew and the Language of the Dead Sea Scrolls.” Articles in this part deal with Biblical Hebrew morphology, phonology, semantics, and lexicography, as well as the language of the Dead Sea Scrolls. Joshua Blau (“Some Morphological Problems Concerning the Infinitive in Biblical Hebrew,” pp. 3–9) discusses the two forms of the infinitive in Biblical Hebrew: absolute and construct. Blau claims that these two forms of the infinitive were used originally in similar syntactic functions and only later developed in different directions. However, Blau also shows that, although their functions were similar, they are two distinct forms with dif- Hebrew Studies 50 (2009) 390 Reviews ferent origins. In a very methodological manner, Blau provides convincing evidence that the infinitive construct is not a transformation of the infinitive absolute as argued by some scholars. Two studies on the language of the Dead Sea Scrolls analyze phenomena in that language and shed light on its origins. Scholars have debated whether the language of the Dead Sea Scrolls developed directly from Biblical Hebrew or was one of a few dialects that existed side-by-side. These two articles are: “The System of Independent Pronouns at Qumran and the History of Hebrew in the Second Temple Period,” by Matthew Morgenstern (pp. 44–63), and “Nominal Clause Patterns in the Dead Sea Scrolls,” by Tamar Zewi (pp. 64–80). Morgenstern collected and studied all independent pronouns in the Dead Sea Scrolls and in good manuscripts of Rabbinic Hebrew. Based on the study of the different forms and their occurrences in the Dead Sea Scrolls, in Biblical Hebrew, in the Samaritan version of the Torah, and in Rabbinic Hebrew, Morgenstern concludes that the language of the Dead Sea Scrolls may not be described as a direct development from classical Biblical Hebrew. He does not accept the approach of Kutscher, who had argued that the language reflected in the Tiberian tradition is the standard, whereas other traditions represent the sub-standard language of the Second Temple period influenced by Aramaic and other languages (p. 45). Morgenstern’s data is summarized in a table on page 56. He found that the distribution of the first person singular forms, yˆnSa and yIkOnDa, is the only one that can be said to reflect...

Hebrew Studies 49 (2008) 373 Reviews IN SEARCH OF GENRE: HEBREW ENLIGHTENMENT AND MODERNITY. By Moshe Pelli. Pp. 361. Lanham, Md.: University Press of America, 2005. Paper, $45.00. There is no way whatsoever to underestimate the importance and prominence of the Haskalah (Enlightenment) movement in the evolution of modern Hebrew/Jewish thought, culture, and literature as well as the evolution of Jewish nationality. Like the Bible, the Mishnah, and the Talmud, the Haskalah movement that budded in Italy, Germany, Austria, and later in Russia and Poland at the end of the eighteen century, blazed a new trail in the Hebrew/Jewish world. That new trail introduced modernity to the Jewish world in the broadest meaning of the term. Indeed, modern Hebrew literature that commenced with Mendele (Sh. Y. Abramowitz) and later with Ch. N. Bialik and S. Tchernichowsky at the commencement of the twentieth century could not evolve and thrive without the pioneering and daring work of the early Haskalah writers. The Haskalah was not limited, however, to belle letters only. It produced a bountiful yield in fields such as science, philosophy, education, Hebrew linguistics, biblical commentary, history, pedagogy, and much more. Like the Bible, the Mishnah, the Talmud, and the Responsa literature in their times, the Haskalah molded and dictated the spiritual portrait of the Jewish people for numerous years to come. In his comprehensive and insightful book under review, Professor Moshe Pelli does the most worthy justice to the nature of the early Haskalah and its role in sculpting the new secular world of the Jewish nation after hundreds of years of being “besieged” by religious thought and scholarship only. Although no one aims to undermine that stupendous value of Jewish religious scholarship, it eventually acted in the capacity of a stumbling block that dammed modernity and secular knowledge and creativity upon the part of the Jewish people. In this respect, the Haskalah movement operated as a harbinger that knocked down the suffocating walls of the Jewish mental/spiritual ghetto and heralded modernity and freedom of thought and creativity in the new world of the Jewish people. Pelli’s book introduces the commencing evolution of the Hebrew/Jewish Haskalah movement in the late eighteenth century in Prussia with both elucidating attention and penetrating insight. The book casts a valuable light upon the Haskalah’s agenda and accomplishments: the rebirth of Hebrew letters, the revival of the Hebrew language and the rejuvenation of the Jewish people. The first Hebrew periodical, “Hame’asef” (The Gatherer) was established at the dawn of the Haskalah in Germany. That periodical heralded and advocated the ideology, credo, and practice of the Haskalah. The Maskilim (the enlightenment/Haskalah seekers) focused on Jewish/ Hebrew issues. They desired to bring modernity to the Jewish world and to establish Hebrew Studies 49 (2008) 374 Reviews a bridge between the past and the present. Hence the Haskalah brought the long period of Jewish passivity and sole religiously-oriented inclinations to an end by revitalizing the Jewish concept of “ge’ula” (redemption) in the most vigorous fashion. One of the cultural-national proclivities of the Haskalah was reviving the Hebrew language as a language that could unite the Jewish nation in times of modernity. As a linguistic model for the latter, Haskalah chose Biblical Hebrew, although Mishnaic Hebrew is more “modern” and rich. Nevertheless , as the orthodox rabbis opposed both bitterly and blatantly Haskalah (that promoted the departure from the Jewish religious-mental ghetto) and as the Mishnah (as well as the Talmud) are associated with Jewish orthodoxy, the Maskilim “by-passed” Mishnaic Hebrew and inclined to Biblical Hebrew. That was a time of awakening upon the part of the Jewish nation. It is quite customary that national inclinations go back to the glorious national past in order to nourish and fortify the budding nationality. Upon the part of the Jews, the biblical past was the very vertex of national might, thriving, and pride. When the Maskilim endeavored to revive Jewish nationality, they naturally went back to the biblical past and revived its language. That revival , however, was not only of the Hebrew language but of Hebrew literature as well (next to numerous fields of study from geography to...