Study Of Biblical Hebrew Research Articles

Andrew Chin Hei Leong. A Cognitive Semantic Study of Biblical Hebrew: The Root šlm for Completeness-Balance

Andrew Chin Hei Leong. <i>A Cognitive Semantic Study of Biblical Hebrew: The Root šlm for Completeness-Balance</i>

Harald Weinrich, Tempus: besprochene und erzählte Welt (1964)

As part of NTT JTSR’s series on Key Texts, the present article discusses the influence of Harald Weinrich’s classic work Tempus: besprochene und erzählte Welt (1964) on biblical studies. It describes Harald Weinrich’s position in the field of text linguistics which emerged in the 1960s and explores its introduction into Biblical Hebrew studies in the 1970s and its remarkable lasting influence in the field of Biblical scholarship, which appears to be more pervasive than in other fields of linguistics and textual scholarship.

Reclaiming the Text-grammar of Harald Weinrich and the Syntax of Genesis 24

We are approaching the 50-year mark since Wolfgang Schneider wrote a brief chapter on Hebrew syntax (in his Grammatik des biblischen Hebräisch [1974]) based on the text-linguistic method of Harald Weinrich (Tempus [1964]). This contribution offers reflections on this often-neglected linguist, and extends a recently proposed way of looking at the syntax of Biblical Hebrew, starting from a re-examination of Weinrich’s linguistic principles. A text-linguistic analysis of the wayyiqtol, xqatal, and xparticiple as evident in the indirect speech of Genesis 24 is presented. This contribution brings to the fore the relevance of Weinrich’s text-grammar for the study of Biblical Hebrew and the connection between Weinrich and Lucien Tesnière (dependency grammar).

Benjamin J. Noonan, Advances in the Study of Biblical Hebrew and Aramaic: New Insights for Reading the Old Testament

<scp>Benjamin</scp> J. <scp>Noonan</scp>, <i>Advances in the Study of Biblical Hebrew and Aramaic: New Insights for Reading the Old Testament</i>

Advances in the Study of Biblical Hebrew and Aramaic: New Insights for Reading the Old Testament.

Noonan received his Ph.D. from Hebrew Union College under Stephen A. Kaufman and currently is Professor of Old Testament at Columbia Biblical Seminary in Columbia, South Carolina. Given his interests in grammar and linguistics, he is well qualified to write this excellent overview of the past 50 years of scholarship concerning these specific issues in biblical Hebrew and Aramaic. It warms my heart to see that it is dedicated to students learning these languages (p. 21), especially at a time when seminaries are cutting back on the number of hours dedicated to them. Noonan effectively communicates throughout the book his passion for teaching biblical Hebrew and Aramaic, and his desire that students learn them well (see also the quotation of J. Gresham Machen, p. 25).The title suggests it is to be a companion to Advances in the Study of Greek by Constantine R. Campbell (2015). However, a better title would probably be “The Current State of Biblical Hebrew and Biblical Aramaic Studies,” since even Noonan admits that the works of some scholars mentioned are not truly advances—only time and more research will tell if some of the other issues covered in the book are truly advances. For those areas of biblical Hebrew and biblical Aramaic that have much less certainty than their counterparts in biblical Greek (i.e., some forms of verbal aspect are still debated), it would have been helpful to note where these uncertainties lie. I would also have liked to have seen some discussion of the verbal systems (especially on tense, aspect, and mood) from other Semitic languages, since they seem to be the basis for similarities in these areas in the biblical Hebrew and biblical Aramaic verbal systems. Also it would be worthwhile also to note the weaknesses and even pitfalls in the use of linguistic typology.The book first presents areas of linguistics and linguistic theories that serve as the foundation for many of the discussions later in the book. The short history of biblical Hebrew and Aramaic studies, while brief, could have been more specifically shaped to provide readers with a better foundation to help more accurately situate the advances in the areas discussed. The main core of the book covers areas of: (1) lexicology and lexicography; (2) the verbal system; (3) tense, aspect, and mood; (4) discourse analysis; (5) word order; (6) register, dialect, style-shifting, and code-shifting; (7) dating biblical Hebrew and biblical Aramaic; and (8) teaching and learning the biblical languages. This book covers certain areas that are somewhat more specific to biblical Hebrew and biblical Aramaic than its Greek counterpart.Each chapter focuses on one aspect of modern linguistic theory, providing various scholars’ views on the topic. Generally, each scholar’s work is presented descriptively with little commentary, so that it often reads like a “history of interpretation” as found in a dissertation. However, a more integrative approach between the view of the scholars may have been more helpful in light of the fact that it is dedicated to students of biblical Hebrew and Aramaic, many of whom would be introduced to these topics for the very first time. But to be fair, Noonan does provide a summary at the end of each chapter in which he gives some explanation as to the advantages of certain views, and ways forward for further research. He also provides a good bibliography at the end of each chapter, in addition to the final bibliography, which is 43 pages long.Some helpful changes in future editions could include: (1) a glossary, since many readers may not be familiar with the terminology and since not all scholars agree on the definitions of specific terms; (2) research on the biblical Hebrew and biblical Aramaic verbal systems prior to 1980 in order to give a context for the debates around these verbal systems; (3) more of the arguments concerning the verbal systems between Joosten and Cook (that is, there is little doubt that Noonan favors Cook’s view, but a fuller explanation of the disagreements between them may help the reader understand why Noonan prefers Cook’s perspectives); and (4) more examples from biblical Hebrew and Aramaic (surprisingly little is included in the book, but choice examples from the Hebrew and Aramaic texts would be very beneficial).When one covers such a breadth of scholarship, it is almost certain that people will not be totally satisfied with the areas developed or the depth in each area. However, despite its few drawbacks, the book is highly useful in that many of its topics are touched on only briefly, if at all, in Hebrew and Aramaic grammar classes but are foundational to good exegesis. Noonan provides an excellent overview and a wealth of helpful information on these topics. Especially useful to teacher and student alike are the discussions on word order and teaching biblical languages.

A Programmatic Proposal for the Study of Biblical Hebrew as a Language

The way in which the academic study of Biblical Hebrew as a language should be conducted is contested. In light of the current debate and the engagement in this question of some of the articles in this issue (viz. Naudé &amp; Miller-Naudé, Holmstedt, Robar, Hardy, Ehrensvärd, Rezetko, and Young, and Noonan), we provide in this article a summary of the status of the debate and a programmatic proposal for the academic study of Biblical Hebrew as a language to move the debate forward. We argue that considering the study of Biblical Hebrew as a language from the vantage point of Complexity Theory is a fruitful approach. Biblical Hebrew as a language can then be analysed as a complex phenomenon whose component systems display interconnectedness, dynamism and emergence.

Linguistics, Philology, and the Role of Theory

What is “philology” in contemporary research? How does it relate to linguistics? Does studying language for the purpose of reading texts legitimise a pre-theoretical approach to language analysis? Is research without an explicit theoretical undergirding (no matter how deep beneath the overt layers of argument) anything more than naive empiricism? This essay addresses a long-standing issue in Biblical Hebrew studies that has recently flared up: is a theory of language necessary for the study of Biblical Hebrew grammar? Rather than a comprehensive review of literature on the study of Biblical Hebrew, this essay is programmatic, weaving questions of discipline, theory, and praxis together to present a case for how Biblical Hebrew linguists ought to orient themselves in the process of collecting and analysing their data.

The Contribution of Linguistic Typology to the Study of Biblical Hebrew in Africa: The Case of Pronouns in Sesotho

African languages and linguistic communities differ in many respects from their Western counterparts. As a result, the standard philological resources available to African scholars of Biblical Hebrew are often inadequate for understanding Biblical Hebrew and for conveying the meaning and function of Hebrew terms and constructions in African languages and societies. This article is based on linguistic typology, which deals with the examination of linguistic features across languages. It compares pronouns in Sesotho to pronouns in Biblical Hebrew and examines their similarities and differences. The purpose of the comparison is to demonstrate how the relevant features of Biblical Hebrew pronouns can be communicated effectively to Sesotho students by determining how the two languages’ pronoun systems correspond to one other typologically.

Tracing Text Types in Biblical Hebrew

Abstract Weinrich’s monograph Tempus: besprochene und erzählte Welt (1964) had a tremendous influence on the study of Biblical Hebrew. Studies by Schneider, Talstra and Niccacci and others are strongly influenced by Weinrich. In the ETCBC database of the Hebrew Bible, initiated by Eep Talstra in the 1970s, some of Weinrich’s insights have been integrated. Amidst hundreds of studies in general linguistics, why was it precisely this book that had such a great impact? How should we evaluate this impact? Are Weinrich’s insights still useful or have they become outdated? In this article we describe the introduction of Weinrich’s insights into Biblical studies and some developments that have taken place since then, both in general linguistics and in Biblical studies. We further describe and evaluate the classification of Biblical Hebrew text types which developed from these insights

Estudio y enseñanza del hebreo bíblico en la Córdoba califal (929-1031)

A partir de las descripciones de las políticas de mecenazgo aplicadas por los califas omeyas de Córdoba y los períodos educativos de la época se reinterpretan todos los datos conocidos sobre los filólogos hebreos y el estudio del hebreo bíblico en la capital de al-Andalus durante el califato, confirmando que los judíos participaron y se beneficiaron de dichas políticas explotándolas hasta sus últimas consecuencias.

Jonah: A Handbook on the Hebrew Text

Jonah: A Handbook on the Hebrew Text

Currents in the Historical Linguistics and Linguistic Dating of the Hebrew Bible

In this essay we summarize the status quaestionis of diachronic linguistic study of Biblical Hebrew as reflected principally in some major publications of the recent several years. We reflect critically on research objectives, perspectives on sources, documentation of variation and change, and periodization issues. We also include a detailed bibliography of relevant works published since our Historical Linguistics and Biblical Hebrew (November 2014).

The evolution of biblical Hebrew linguistics in South Africa: the last 60 years

In this article we survey the evolution of Biblical Hebrew linguistics in South Africa during the last six decades—its dependence upon and contribution to European and American developments and its distinct contributions to the field. Three eras can be distinguished. In the first era, the study of Biblical Hebrew in South Africa was primarily philological in nature and both teaching grammars and research focused mainly on grammar and specifically phonetics, word formation and vocabulary. In the second era, the study of Biblical Hebrew in South Africa was heavily influenced by the new developments in Europe and the USA concerning linguistics and especially the influence in the fields of Biblical Hebrew syntax and discourse analysis. In the third era, Biblical Hebrew linguistics in South Africa contributes to the development of the field by taking into account the complexity of Biblical Hebrew as a language. The description and explanation of the nature of the verbless clause, and specifically the tripartite and left dislocated verbless clause in Biblical Hebrew are discussed as a case in point both of the development of linguistics and Biblical Hebrew in South Africa and of the impact of linguistics on exegesis and Bible translation.

BENEFITS OF A PRINCIPLED ANALYSIS OF BIBLICAL HEBREW PREPOSITIONS

 As Biblical Hebrew studies have become more attuned to the explanatory power accompanying modern linguistic theory, some theoretical pitfalls of standard lexicons have become more apparent. Specifically within the realm of lexicology, it has been demonstrated that current frameworks, such as cognitive semantics, can bring a great deal of theoretical muscle into semantic endeavours. This article applies a methodology based on such advances and shows the benefits of a principled analysis of BH prepositions, with עִם and אֵת as examples. In the end, a replicable investigation is rendered that carefully explores the semantic potential and network of each lexeme.Â

THE BALANCE OF PROBABILITY: STATISTICS AND THE DIACHRONIC STUDY OF ANCIENT HEBREW

In this article, I discuss three statistical tools that have proven pivotal in linguistic research, particularly those studies that seek to evaluate large datasets. These tools are the Gaussian Curve, significance tests, and hierarchical clustering. I present a brief description of these tools and their general uses. Then, I apply them to an analysis of the variations between the “biblical” DSS and our other witnesses, focusing upon variations involving particles. Finally, I engage the recent debate surrounding the diachronic study of Biblical Hebrew. This article serves a dual function. First, it presents statistical tools that are useful for many linguistic studies. Second, it develops an analysis of the he-locale, as it is used in the “biblical” Dead Sea Scrolls, Masoretic Text, and Samaritan Pentateuch. Through that analysis, this article highlights the value of inferential statistical tools as we attempt to better understand the Hebrew of our ancient witnesses.

Word Order and Information Structure in Ruth and Jonah: A Generative-Typological Analysis

The relationship between syntax and information structure is an increasingly popular subject of research within Biblical Hebrew studies. However, there exist two asymmetries within current approaches taken as a whole: first, the only theoretical linguistic frameworks employed are situated somewhere within the functional approach to linguistics (in contrast with formal, and specifically, generative approaches); second, a Verb-Subject typological classification for Biblical Hebrew is assumed without empirical justification. Yet, the relationship between syntax and semantics, on the one hand, and pragmatics, on the other, is primarily unidirectional; in other words, pragmatics necessarily accesses the syntactic and semantic features of a text, but not vice versa. It stands to reason, then, that any model of information structure can only be as accurate as the syntactic and semantic model upon which it builds. This study presents a typological and generative linguistic analysis of the data in Ruth and Jonah, an Subject-Verb classificiation for Biblical Hebrew and an Subject-Verb based model of information structure.

Review: Pocket Dictionary for the Study of Biblical Hebrew

Review: Pocket Dictionary for the Study of Biblical Hebrew

The Contibution of Wolfgang Richter to Current Developments in the Study of Biblical Hebrew

The aim of the paper is to create a greater understanding of Richter’s work without losing sight of its limitations. It commences with a brief description of the background against which Richter’s initiatives must be understood. Secondly, the theoretical frame of reference and the basic features of both the morphological, and the morphosyntactic databases he developed are discussed. Some of the prospects these linguistically highly differentiated tools have in store for a better description of Biblical Hebrew are illustrated by means of examples. Thirdly, the theoretical foundations and the structure of the sentence syntactic database which he is compiling are outlined. In conclusion it is pointed out that one may argue that one of Richter’s major weaknesses from a theoretical linguistic point of view is his eclectic use of mainly structuralist-oriented principles. However, it will also be illustrated that the practical application of many of these principles does not necessarily jeopardize the usefulness of Richter’s databases.

A Modern Grammar for Classical Hebrew (review)

Hebrew Sllldies 44 (2003) 240 Reviews among the plethora of new Biblical Hebrew grammars, although it does not seem destined to establish a new hegemony among them. Bill T. Arnold Asbury Theological Seminary Wilmore. KY 40390 BilCArnold@asbllrysem;llary.edll A MODERN GRAMMAR FOR CLASSICAL HEBREW. By Duane A. Garrett. pp. viii + 395 + verb charts. Na'ihville, Tenn.: Broadman & Holman, 2002. Paper, $34.99. Duane Garrett's Grammar is "written with the student in mind rather than the scholar" (backcover). Recently the field of Biblical Hebrew studies has seen works which attempt to be more learner-friendly. I have wondered whether this emphasis is rooted in scholars having a clearer understanding of more effective pedagogy, or having to address increasingly less academically prepared students. Perhaps it is a little of both. One of my own publications (Grammatical Concepts IOJ for Biblical Hebrew [Peabody, Millis.: Hendrickson, 2002]) was a response to encountering students with woefully inadequate understandings of language phenomena. Whatever the case may be, more learner-friendly resources surely assist all of us entrusted with the task of teaching. The grammar takes a non-inductive route through the Hebrew learning experience. Six major parts lead the student through (I) "The Alphabet and Phonetics of Hebrew," (2) "Nouns, Adjectives, Prepositions, and the Billiics of Verbs," (3) "The Hebrew Verb System in Summary," (4) "The Qal Stem in Detail," (5) "The Derived Stems in Detail," and (6) "Additional Details and Introduction to Advanced Issues." Appendixes include vocabulary, proper names, paradigms, and an answer key to the homework. The exercises are primarily Hebrew-to-English in their orientation. One does find some English-ta-Hebrew exercises, but these are restricted to the early sections. One enamoring feature within early exercises is the "diglot weave," Is Paris the ;.~ of;iN.? for example. My remarks focus now on particular sections.§1. The Hebrew Alphabet and Simple Vowels-Throughout this section the charts present the infonnation nicely. The grammar's phonetic descriptions are straightforward and non-technical. Fully appreciative of this need for simplicity, I fmd the descriptions, at points, lacking sufficient precision . The grammar's treatment of N. and!: serves as an example (§1.4, pp. 4-5). Alef is described as "almost no sound," while ayin is called a "glottal Hebrew Studies 44 (2003) 241 Reviews stop." Garrett clearly wants the student to understand that the two consonants have a slightly different sound. But if a professor is trying to recreate Masoretic or modem Israeli Sephardic Hebrew pronunciation, alef is a voiceless glottal stop/plosive, while ay;n is a pharyngeal voiced fricative. If a professor is recreating modem Israeli Ashkenazic Hebrew, both alef and ayin are identical voiceless glottal stops/plosives. We are told, further, that K was necessnry...because originally Hebrew wns written with no vowels. Writing without vowels obviously posed a problem. if. for example. a word beKan with (/ vowel sound [emphasis mine). Some letter had to be an "empty" consonant to show that there wns a vowel sound there. and K hnd thnt role (p. 5). Alef is a true root consonant. occurring in first, second, and third root positions and is not simply a placeholder for vowels. Garrett certainly knows this, but as written, what he says is, at best. awkward. and, at worst, wrong.§4.B. Overview of Hebrew Grammar-This is a good "big picture" presentation of Hebrew grammar using simple definitions (pp. 27-28).§8.B. The Qal Perfect and §9.B. The Qal Imperfect-Garrett understands the Hebrew perfect (*qatal) to be perfective in aspect. That is clear from the overall presentation. One particular paragraph, however, is confusing . On page 49. section (9) one reads "The 'perfect' is perfect in aspect, not in tense." Aspect, arguably. envelopes perfect aspect, either distinct from or related to perfective aspect. (The former commonly encodes a state that is the result of a preceding situation; the latter, as Garrett says in that paragraph, views a situation from the outside, as whole and complete.) Knowing that Garrett sees the perfect (*qatal) verbal form as perfective, how should the reader understand what Garrett means by the perfect being "perfect in aspect"? The Prefix Conjugation, being imperfective aspect, "includes future actions" (p...

A History of the Hebrew Language (review)

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...