Standard Biblical Hebrew Research Articles

דימון (Isa 15:9) and להמנות (Qoh 1:15): On Dialectal Wordplay and Nasal Spreading in the Bible

Abstract Biblical punsters occasionally moved beyond the confines of Standard Biblical Hebrew, producing dialectal wordplay. In a number of cases, the nonstandard form is a phonological variant from another dialect. The best-known examples of this type involve dialectal differences in diphthong contraction (monophthongization). Less attention has been paid to cases involving a phonological process called nasal spreading, known from Old Canaanite, Hebrew, Aramaic, etc. One product of this process is the toponym דימון in מֵי דִימוֹן מָלְאוּ דָם, “the waters of Dimon are full of blood” (Isa 15:9), referring to the Moabite town of Dibon. The form דימון was a phonological variant of דיבון, a dialectal form used in a prophecy against Moab to emphasize the appropriateness of the punishment. Another example is found in חֶסְרוֹן לֹא יוּכַל לְהִמָּנוֹת (Qoh 1:15), which means both “an incalculable loss” and “an irreplaceable loss.” In the second meaning, להמנות is a dialectal form of להמל(א)ות, “be made good,” a phonological variant produced by nasal spreading.

Dripping with Kindness: The Meaning of rebîbîm

AbstractThe common noun רְבִיבִים occurs six times in the Hebrew Bible (Deut 32:2; Jer 3:3; 14:22; Mic 5:6; Pss 65:10[10]; 72:6). Its contexts clearly suggest that it belongs to the semantic domain of rain and dew, and that it denotes something desirable. But further precision has eluded interpreters, and the much-discussed Ugaritic words rbb and rb are of little help in this regard. The apparent Akkadian cognate rabbu A, unmentioned in the standard Biblical Hebrew lexica, is considered here, and it is argued on that basis that the word means “gentle rain” or “drizzle.”

The history of Classical Hebrew: From the invention of the alphabet to the Mishnah

AbstractA 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 PROGRESSIVE IN ARCHAIC BIBLICAL HEBREW AND THE ORIGIN OF THE HEBREW PARTICIPIAL PREDICATE

The article is a diachronic study of the Biblical Hebrew imperfect and active participle in predicate position in Archaic (ABH) and Standard Biblical Hebrew (SBH). On the premise that the two forms developed along a progressive-imperfective diachronic path, the article looks for evidence of semantic change occurring between ABH and SBH. It is claimed that there is no evidence that the imperfect is the normal form for progressive meaning in ABH. Further, it is found that established models of diachronic pathways cannot explain all the uses of the participle, and that participial predicates probably stem from different source constructions. Whereas the progressive use has developed from attributive participles, some hymnic and proverbial uses may be based on substantivised forms. The substantivised constructions do not belong to the progressive-imperfective path, and can be old. The hymnic participial predicates in the Song of Hannah belong to this group.

A Diachronic Study of the Language of Haggai, Zechariah, and Malachi

The language of Haggai, Zechariah, and Malachi, the three postexilic prophets, has been relatively unstudied with regard to its contribution to a diachronic understanding of Late Biblical Hebrew. Recent scholarship argues that the entire biblical corpus was written in the literary Hebrew of the Persian and Hellenistic periods with no clear-cut dichotomy between Standard Biblical Hebrew and Late Biblical Hebrew. This view posits that Early Biblical Hebrew and Late Biblical Hebrew coexisted, places the Hebrew of Haggai, Zechariah, and Malachi at the center of the controversy, and claims that these postexilic prophetic books contain primarily Early Biblical Hebrew with very few Late Biblical Hebrew elements. Through discussion of selected items in morphology, phraseology, semantics, and orthography, this study shows that, contrary to the prevailing view, Haggai, Zechariah, and Malachi make considerable use of Late Biblical Hebrew.

성서히브리어 명사문장의 어순에 관한 연구

Word order in Biblical Hebrew nominal sentences is one of the most important themes that have been addressed for the past 100 years in the discipline of Biblical Hebrew linguistics. It can be said that the correct understanding of ‘word order’ has enormous influence on the interpretation of the Bible because the word order of ‘predicate-subject’ as well as ‘subject-predicate’ frequently occur actually in Biblical Hebrew and the interpretation of texts can differ depending on what is the normal word order. With semantic categories of nominal sentences, definiteness, morphological categories of subjects and predicates, chracters of sentences (identification and non-identification sentences), types of sentences (matrix and subordinate clauses, predicative and interlocutory styles, and declarative and interrogative sentences), syntactic structures (kinds of sentences, use of particular particles, and use of relative pronouns) etc. as important factors that can have influence on word order in Biblical Hebrew nominal sentences, this study tries to approach word order in Biblical Hebrew nominal sentences by systematically analyzing whether, and how far if any, such factors actually have a correlation with word order in nominal sentences.<BR> As a result of the statistical analysis of word order in Biblical Hebrew nominal sentences based on precise data along with diverse variables, we can draw the following conclusions.<BR> (1) In prayer texts, different from other interlocutory sentences, the order of ‘predicate-subject’ occurs about twice as much as that of ‘subject-predicate’.<BR> (2) In list texts, the proportion of ‘subject-predicate’ turns out to be high (82.3%).<BR> (3) There is a correlation between identification/non-identification sentences and word order.<BR> (4) There is a correlation between independent/subordinate clauses and word order.<BR> (5) There is a correlation between interrogative/declarative sentences and word order.<BR> (6) There is a correlation between definiteness and word order.<BR> (7) There is a very high correlation between morphological categories of subjects/predicates and word order. The word order is of ‘subject-predicate’ when the morphological category of the subject is demonstrative pronoun (94.7%), suffixal noun phrase (93.3%), ‘kol’-phrase (90.7%), and proper noun (90.1%).<BR> When the morphological category of the predicate is proper noun (92.8%), the word order is of ‘subject-predicate.’ Also, in cases where the predicate is a definite noun or a definte noun phrase, the word order of ‘subject-predicate’ absolutely accounts for 100%. When the morphological category of the predicate is demonstrative pronoun or interrogative pronoun, the word order of ‘predicate-subject’ absolutely accounts for 100%.<BR> (8) Variables that don’t have influence on word order in Biblical Hebrew nominal setnences are periods (Standard Biblical Hebrew and Late Biblical Hebrew) and semantic categories (simple be, exist, and become). Though tense and word order appear to have a correlation, we can say that there is no correlation between tense and word order since such a phenomenon appears because other variables have relations with tense rather than because tense itself has influence on word order.

The Recent Debate on Late Biblical Hebrew: Solid Data, Experts' Opinions, and Inconclusive Arguments

It is widely recognized that the sixth century B.C.E. marks a significant turning point in the history of Biblical Hebrew. The books written after this point reveal new linguistic features whose appearance reflects far-reaching modifications in the structure of the language. These neologisms , attested in grammar, lexicon, and syntax, are entirely lacking in Standard Biblical Hebrew, but are common in Post-Biblical Hebrew sources (Dead Sea Scrolls, Ben-Sira, Rabbinic Literature) and in the Aramaic dialects of the post-exilic period (Imperial Aramaic, Nabatean, etc.). Consequently, the dominant view prevailing among biblical philologists and Hebrew linguists specializing in the history of Biblical Hebrew is to classify them as post-classical features. In recent years, however, a dissenting thesis against this diachronic research has been voiced, minimizing—if not denying altogether—the existence of a chronological factor in the history of Biblical Hebrew. This paper seeks to examine the validity of the said non-diachronic approach.

Biblical Texts Cannot be Dated Linguistically

Linguistic evidence alone is not able to date biblical texts. Among the arguments challenged in this paper are that the archaic linguistic forms of Archaic Biblical Hebrew poems such as the Song of Moses in Exodus 15 demonstrate the great antiquity of those texts; that Standard Biblical Hebrew, such as the prose of the book of Samuel, is a phenomenon restricted to the pre-exilic or monarchic period of Israelite history; and that biblical texts which share the features of Late Biblical Hebrew as it is exemplified in works such as the book of Chronicles could only have been written in the post-exilic period. Modern text critical research indicates that we cannot be certain that the linguistic profile of the text we have is that of the original author. Nor, even if it is original, is any aspect of linguistic evidence necessarily indicative of only one chronological period of the Hebrew language.

Alleged Non-Past Uses of Qatal in Classical Hebrew (review)

Hebrew Studies 45 (2004) 302 Reviews serious attempt to apply discourse-linguistic methods more systematically to well defined groups of Biblical Hebrew prose texts. However, it focuses too much on statistics and ignores the major problem of word order of each clause type as well as the correlation of word order to the choice of verbal forms in verbal clauses. The preference for a certain clause pattern in each narrative or discourse type and the choice of a certain word order are intertwined in Biblical Hebrew. In addition, the plentiful nuances of aspect, tense, and modality, expressed by all combinations of prefix and suffix conjugation verbs with or without waw are more complex than admitted in this study. New theories regarding the semantic complexity of verb forms continue to appear. One theory involves the concept of relative time, which is presented by T. Goldfajn, in Word Order and Time in Biblical Hebrew Narrative (Oxford 1998), and by G. Hatav, in The Semantics of Aspect and Modality, Evidence from English and Biblical Hebrew (Amsterdam & Philadelphia 1997, pp. 3–5). Neither the concept of relative time nor these two works are mentioned by the author. It seems that a perfect solution to the question of verbal usage in Biblical Hebrew is not yet available. Tamar Zewi University of Haifa Haifa, Israel tzewi@univ.haifa.ac.il ALLEGED NON-PAST USES OF QATAL IN CLASSICAL HEBREW. By Max Rogland. SSN 44. Pp. vii + 164. Assen: Van Gorcum, 2003. Cloth, $57.72. € 49,00. This study deals with the form qatal in Biblical Hebrew within a synchronic analysis. In the introductory chapter, the author provides a brief overview concerning the notions of tense and aspect in language. For aspect, he adopts the (im)perfective distinction. For tense, he adopts the absolute/relative distinction of Comrie. Rogland reanalyzes it within the framework of Reichenbach’s analysis, which defines tenses in terms of speech-, event-, and reference-time (cf., H. Reichenbach, Elements of Symbolic Logic [New York: Macmillan, 1947]; B. Comrie, Tense [Cambridge: Cambridge University, 1985]). The author then briefly summarizes the well-known dispute concerning the verbal forms in Biblical Hebrew. As he mentions, one main approach sees the forms as marking tenses or both tenses and aspects. The competing approach regards Biblical Hebrew as a tenseless language whose verb forms mark only aspects (and maybe moods). Rogland adopts the approach that the Hebrew Studies 45 (2004) 303 Reviews forms may mark both tense and aspect. His main aim is to analyze the fientive qatal, which he understands to be semantically marked as absolute or relative past, but aspectually unmarked. Accordingly, qatal clauses refer to events lying in the past either with respect to speech-time or another reference-time in the past or the future. For the other forms, Rogland stipulates that qotel and yiqtol are imperfective, and in opposition to qatal they are non-past. He treats the waw-prefixed forms wayyiqtol and weqataltí as syntactic variations for qatal and yiqtol, respectively. Rogland does not accept the thesis that the verb forms function differently in prose and poetry. Neither does he limit his conclusions to standard Biblical Hebrew. He therefore aims to show that in both poetry and prose throughout the Hebrew Bible, qatal clauses can be interpreted as referring to past events. The challenge he faced with his endeavor was to show that qatal refers to the past and also in those cases that appear as non-past situations, namely, the so-called “gnomic,” “performative,” and “prophetic” perfects. In chapter 2, Rogland discusses the use of qatal in gnomic statements as they appear in proverbs, claiming that this use is better to be considered as “general-truth.” He then discusses the notion of “general-truth” statements in language and shows that speakers may address a “general past” just as they may speak of a “general present.” His main point is that the appearance of qatal in proverbs does not necessarily indicate that it is a present tense because such proverbs may be interpreted as referring to past situations. In chapter 3, Rogland discusses the so-called “Prophetic Perfect,” concluding that this title is a misnomer. He shows that this is a blanket...

Evidence of Diversity in Pre-Exilic Judahite Hebrew

A common assumption in modern scholarship has been that non-standard language usage in the biblical texts can only be explained as evidencing either pre-exilic northern or post-exilic southern Hebrew. This article argues that pre-exilic Judahite Hebrew was much more complex than merely being identical with standard biblical Hebrew. The argument discusses general socio-linguistic considerations, pre-exilic inscriptions, biblical texts (especially focusing on the work of G. A. Rendsburg), and mishnaic Hebrew.

Once again: The problem of dating biblical Hebrew*

In a recent article it is claimed that linguistic considerations support “the minimalist school” hypothesis that the bulk of the Biblical texts were thoroughly revised or even composed in Persian and/or Hellenistic times. Evaluating the validity of this theory, which runs counter to the basic concepts prevailing amongst linguists and philologists of the Hebrew Bible, the study is examined from different angles and is found to reveal grave deficiencies both on the factual and interpretative levels. Contrary to this theory, it is argued, on the basis of extra‐Biblical evidence, that linguistic considerations inevitably lead to the conclusion that texts written in Standard Biblical Hebrew most likely date to pre‐exilic times.

Diversity in Pre-Exilic Hebrew (review)

Hebrew Studies 36 (1995) 135 Reviews teousness" (p. 61). The passage in context stresses that it is God's action that enables the suppliant to walk in God's path "in righteousness." Yet Ho's comment, "Only by taking the right path and being a blameless person..... seems to contradict the text by implying that "righteousness" accrues to the suppliant through his own choice and efforts toward perfection. These two and many similar passages suggest that in biblical thought "righteousness," the essential quality of God, also accrues to people due to God's activity, not through human striving. This book is praiseworthy for its examination of two biblical terms denoting "righteousness" and for stimulating the reader to further reflection upon this vital biblical theme. Christopher W. Mitchell Concordia Publishing House St. Louis, MO 63JJ8 DIVERSITY IN PRE-EXILIC HEBREW. By Ian Young. Forschungen zum Allen Testament 5. Pp. xv + 256. Tubingen: J. C. B. Mohr (Paul Siebeck), 1993. In a recent article, I wrote: ''To all who have ever undertaken the linguistic study of the Hebrew Bible, it is abundantly clear that the text bristles with an inordinate number of grammatical peculiarities. Although I have no empirical evidence to substantiate the following statement, my sense is that on a relative scale one encounters more such difficulties in the Hebrew Bible than in comparable corpora, for example, Homer's Iliad and Odyssey, the Qur'an, the Avesta, Assyrian annals, etc." (Rendsburg, "Morphological Evidence for Regional Dialects in Ancient Hebrew," in Linguistics and Biblical Hebrew, W. R. Bodine, ed. [Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1992] pp. 65-88, in particular p. 65). Naturally, much of the diversity alluded to in the above quotation stems from the fact that the Bible is an anthology of literature spanning about one thousand years. The language behind these texts changed over time, and scholars thus divide Biblical Hebrew into different periods, typically called Archaic, Standard, and Late. But the diversity resulting from diachronic change is only part of the picture. For notwithstanding the very serious problem of fixing the date of numerous parts of the Bible, it is clear that roughly contemporary books or Hebrew Studies 36 (1995) 136 Reviews , chapters also reveal diverse language usage. Compare, for example, Judges 5 and Exodus IS, both presumably composed in Archaic Biblical Hebrew; or Hosea and Isaiah, both presumably composed in Standard Biblical Hebrew. The above picture stands as the springboard from which Ian Young launches his research in Diversity in Pre-Exilic Hebrew. As the title of the book implies, Young is not overly concerned with the issue of Late Biblical Hebrew-he takes it as proved that this brand of Hebrew is different from Standard Biblical Hebrew-rather, he is concerned with the diversity witnessed in the language's Archaic and Standard layers. This diversity can be explained, argues Young, by redefining what we mean by the term "Biblical Hebrew," by looking at the origins of the Hebrew language, and by taking into account various sociological and historical factors concerning the people of ancient Israel. Young begins his treatment with a discussion of the pre-Israelite period in greater Canaan and concludes that "Ugaritic and Amama Canaanite are northern and southern variations of the same basic literary tradition" (p. 10). Lying behind this basic literary tradition is what Young terms the "prestige language" of greater Canaan, which united the very diverse population of the region. Thus, "while Akkadian operated as a prestige language on the international level, the 'Canaanite' language existed for local communication, and as a vehicle for literature" (p. 10). A first millennium dialect such as Hebrew (likewise Phoenician) is "a continuation of the pre-Israelite literary prestige language of Syria-Palestine" (p. 11). Young relates the diverse historical origins of the nation of Israel to this scheme. He reviews the biblical evidence, which points to a multitude of streams (Aramean [Patriarchs], Egyptian [Lev 24:10], Midianite [Hobab], Kenizzite [Caleb, Othniel], Canaanite [Asher, Gibeon, etc.], Sea Peoples [Dan], etc.) coming together to form the Israelite nation. He assumes that "the Israelites spoke a widely divergent variety of dialects in the late second millennium Be" (p. 16; italics mine), but that Biblical Hebrew served the function...