INTRODUCTION<\/p>\n
You cannot read the Bible for yourself unless you know the languages in which it was written.\u2026 Hence if we want to know the Scriptures, to the study of Greek and Hebrew we must go.
\n\u2014J. GRESHAM MACHEN<\/p>\n
Many would agree that the study of Biblical Hebrew and Biblical Aramaic is necessary for those who want to interpret the Hebrew Bible faithfully. But, to truly study Hebrew and Aramaic requires an understanding of the way these languages work, which in turn requires familiarity with scholarship on these languages. This presents a challenge to many readers of the Hebrew Bible. They face the unfortunate fact that such scholarship is often technical, filled with unfamiliar terms and theories, and inaccessible to those outside the guild. Given these difficulties, they may even wonder why linguistic scholarship matters for reading the Hebrew Bible.
\nThis book addresses this dilemma by providing an accessible introduction to the world of Biblical Hebrew and Biblical Aramaic scholarship. My aim is that this book will introduce anyone who engages with the Hebrew and Aramaic of the Bible\u2014students, pastors, professors, and scholars\u2014to current issues of interest on these languages. The desired goal is a better understanding of what the key issues are in Hebrew and Aramaic scholarship and why they matter.<\/p>\n
0.1 WHAT IS THIS BOOK ABOUT?<\/p>\n
As already mentioned, this book surveys issues of interest in Biblical Hebrew and Biblical Aramaic scholarship. By this I mean that it explores issues that set new directions for interpretation and scholarship of the Hebrew Bible. I have intentionally selected the issues I address in this book because they reflect significant advances\u2014and in some cases, controversy\u2014in the field. I have not selected issues that have not seen much development or controversy in recent years because these issues do not represent genuine advances in the field. This book is not intended to be a general introduction to Biblical Hebrew and Biblical Aramaic scholarship but a survey of developments in the study of these languages.
\nThroughout, this book focuses on advances in the study of Biblical Hebrew and Biblical Aramaic. In other words, its concern is not with more general scholarship on Hebrew and Aramaic because I have a particular readership in mind: those who seek to understand the Hebrew Bible. At the same time, it is not possible to completely separate the study of Biblical Hebrew and Biblical Aramaic from their broader Semitic context. Accordingly, as necessary I situate Biblical Hebrew and Biblical Aramaic within what is known of the Semitic languages, and Hebrew and Aramaic in particular. I hope that this makes the book useful to others whose primary interest may not be the Hebrew Bible.<\/p>\n
0.2 WHY IS THIS BOOK NEEDED?<\/p>\n
No other book surveying modern advances in the study of Biblical Hebrew and Biblical Aramaic currently exists. This is true despite the many exciting developments that have taken place in the field over the past several decades. As a result of the application of modern linguistic approaches, we have a better understanding of what Biblical Hebrew and Biblical Aramaic words mean, the function of specific verbal forms, the structure of discourse, the Hebrew Bible\u2019s linguistic diversity, and even teaching Biblical Hebrew and Biblical Aramaic. Unfortunately, the scattered studies that treat these topics individually tend to be inaccessible for the average reader.
\nThis book presents the most important areas of development for students, pastors, professors, and scholars so that they might apply these advances to their study of the Hebrew Bible. This is important because the study of Biblical Hebrew and Biblical Aramaic ultimately affects everyone interested in the Hebrew Bible, whether they know it or not. The advances that have taken place lead us to new insights, enhance our exegesis, and correct misunderstandings. If knowledge of the biblical languages truly is necessary for understanding the Hebrew Bible, then we ignore any advances to our peril, as the history of Biblical Hebrew and Biblical Aramaic scholarship confirms.<\/p>\n
0.3 WHAT TOPICS DOES THIS BOOK INCLUDE, AND WHY?<\/p>\n
The first chapter addresses linguistics and the major schools of linguistic thought. The complexity of linguistic terminology and ideas has played a large role in making Biblical Hebrew and Biblical Aramaic scholarship inaccessible. So, chapter one explains and clarifies many of the key concepts and theories in linguistics. The topics addressed in this chapter thereby provide the reader with the knowledge base necessary to understand the rest of the book.
\nThe second chapter also sets the stage for the remainder of the book. It does so by surveying the history of Biblical Hebrew and Biblical Aramaic scholarship, especially as it relates to the concepts and theories discussed in chapter one. By knowing the history of scholarship, we can better comprehend modern trends in Biblical Hebrew and Biblical Aramaic scholarship, understand where they have come from, and appreciate current issues of debate and controversy.
\nChapter three examines lexicology (the meaning of words) and lexicography (the making of dictionaries). Despite many advances in lexicology, biblical scholars have been particularly slow to incorporate them. This necessarily impacts exegesis, which directly depends on the meaning of words, and word studies in particular. Advances in lexicology, in turn, affect the use of dictionaries, which are crucial tools for anyone reading Hebrew and Aramaic.
\nThe next several chapters discuss the Biblical Hebrew and Biblical Aramaic verbal systems. Chapter four surveys recent scholarship on the verbal stems. Especially significant developments have taken place in our understanding of the Niphal and Piel. These developments, which deal in part with grammatical voice, are analogous to the rejection of deponency in Biblical Greek. Like this advance, these developments are controversial but important because they directly impact the way we understand the function of these stems.
\nChapter five examines tense, aspect, and mood in both Biblical Hebrew and Biblical Aramaic. For nearly 2000 years the dominant view was that the verbal conjugations primarily expressed tense. Within the last one-hundred years, however, much scholarship has advanced the idea that aspect is most important. This has generated significant discussion regarding the function of the verbal conjugations and the role that modern linguistic concepts like grammaticalization play in our understanding of their meaning.
\nChapter six deals with an especially popular topic, discourse analysis. Current interest in discourse analysis reflects a broader trend within linguistics to explore meaning within real-life contexts of usage. Not only are there a variety of approaches to discourse analysis of Biblical Hebrew and Biblical Aramaic texts, there are also a growing number of resources for applying discourse analysis to the Hebrew Bible. Discourse analysis ultimately enhances our understanding of what the Hebrew Bible\u2019s authors were trying to do with their words.
\nChapter seven treats the related topic of word order in Biblical Hebrew and Biblical Aramaic. Although traditionally Hebrew has been understood as a verb-subject-object language, recent years have seen proponents of the order subject-verb-object. There has also been much discussion in the past few decades of word order in Biblical Aramaic. The word order debate directly impacts exegesis because departure from standard word order can draw attention to a particular word or clause, but we cannot know what words are highlighted without first knowing what that standard word order is.
\nThe next two chapters investigate linguistic variation within the Hebrew Bible. Chapter eight discusses register, dialect, style-shifting, and code-switching. Although perhaps lesser known issues, these topics have significant exegetical implications for the language choices made by the biblical authors. These topics also reflect the current popularity of sociolinguistics, or the study of linguistic variation, within the field of linguistics.
\nChapter nine examines the question of whether some of the Hebrew Bible\u2019s linguistic variation is chronological in nature. Traditionally, scholars have argued that older linguistic features in the Hebrew Bible can be distinguished from newer ones. Challenges to this view have led to refinement in the way we understand the dating of biblical texts. This ongoing debate has a very practical application in that dating biblical texts can help establish the historical context of specific passages, a necessary part of exegesis.
\nThe tenth, and final, chapter explores pedagogy of the biblical languages. This important topic does not relate to the study of Biblical Hebrew and Biblical Aramaic, at least not properly speaking. However, how we view pedagogy has obvious impact on anyone learning them or teaching them to others. Insights from the field of second language acquisition have produced some exciting advances in how we go about learning the biblical languages.<\/p>\n
0.4 HOW SHOULD THIS BOOK BE USED?<\/p>\n
This book can be used by students, pastors, professors, and scholars for both personal study and classroom use. Its accessibility makes it ideal for anyone interested in learning more about the study of Biblical Hebrew and Biblical Aramaic and how this study impacts our interpretation of the Hebrew Bible. In the classroom, it would serve well as a textbook in second-year Hebrew courses, especially as a supplement to other textbooks treating advanced Hebrew grammar. Those interested in pursuing further study of Biblical Hebrew and Biblical Aramaic, those presently involved in postgraduate study, and current scholars will especially benefit from using this book.
\nWith these potential uses in mind, I have tried to strike a helpful balance between presenting developments as comprehensively as possible without sacrificing accessibility. Each chapter sketches a basic outline of the topic it covers, evaluating the strengths and weaknesses of the different advances that have taken place. I strive to present this information as objectively as possible, but I do not keep from making my own opinions and conclusions known; my own views should not dissuade the reader from forming their own conclusions. The \u201cModern Linguistic Framework\u201d sections found after the introduction in each chapter as well as the \u201cFurther Reading\u201d resources listed at the end of each chapter provide excellent starting points for those wishing to dig deeper.<\/p>\n
0.5 WHAT ARE THE INTENDED OUTCOMES OF THIS BOOK?<\/p>\n
My overarching goal is that whoever reads this book will gain a meaningful understanding of the key issues in Biblical Hebrew and Biblical Aramaic scholarship, and why they matter. This entails several outcomes related to biblical interpretation, teaching, and scholarship. Each of these outcomes is, furthermore, practical in nature. They aim to encourage faithful exegesis of the Hebrew Bible and to foster more effective ministry in whatever contexts readers serve.
\nRegarding biblical interpretation, I hope that readers of this book will be better equipped to read the Hebrew Bible in its original languages with linguistic sensitivity and an accurate understanding of what it communicates. Regarding teaching, I hope that readers of this book will be empowered to communicate the Hebrew Bible to others more accurately and to teach the biblical languages in an informed way. Finally, regarding scholarship, I hope that readers of this book will come to grasp the foundational issues in current scholarship, empowering them to engage with that scholarship and perhaps even contribute to it.<\/p>\n
CHAPTER 1<\/p>\n
A SHORT INTRODUCTION to LINGUISTICS and LINGUISTIC THEORIES<\/p>\n
All scholars interested in biblical language owe it to themselves to acquire a basic competence in linguistics.
\n\u2014ADINA MOSHAVI AND TANIA NOTARIUS<\/p>\n
1.1 INTRODUCTION<\/p>\n
Many students, pastors, and even scholars of the Hebrew Bible shudder at the mention of the term linguistics. For some, linguistics conjures up bad memories of learning grammar in grade school. They ask, \u201cIf I struggled so much with grammar in school, how can I ever understand linguistics?\u201d For others, linguistics seems irrelevant. They ask, \u201cWhy does linguistics matter? I can understand the Hebrew and Aramaic of the Old Testament just fine without it.\u201d
\nQuestions like these reflect a long-standing tension. Traditionally we have done a good job learning Biblical Hebrew and Biblical Aramaic, but a not so good job of understanding these languages in light of linguistics. This is a problem because\u2014as this book will demonstrate\u2014linguistics directly impacts exegesis. Whether we realize it or not, we each have our own understanding of linguistics that we bring to the table when we read Hebrew and Aramaic. An informed understanding will produce good results, but a poor understanding will produce bad results. To ignore linguistics is to bring harm to our understanding of the Hebrew Bible, which then weakens our effectiveness in ministry and the academy.
\nNevertheless, the fact remains that linguistics is a relatively specialized, technical field. To remedy this situation, in this chapter I sketch a selective outline of linguistics and key linguistic theories. I begin by defining linguistics and presenting its various subfields. Then I survey the most important approaches to linguistics and discuss their relevance for Biblical Hebrew and Biblical Aramaic. This chapter thereby lays the necessary foundation for understanding the concepts explored in more detail throughout this book.<\/p>\n
1.2 WHAT IS LINGUISTICS?<\/p>\n
1.2.1. Defining Linguistics<\/p>\n
Linguistics can be defined as the scientific study of language, and a linguist is someone who studies linguistics. As a scientific field of study, linguistics uses empirical research to investigate the languages of the world. Furthermore, its primary goal is descriptive rather than prescriptive. Linguistics does not aim to say how language should be used but to describe what language is like and how language is used in actual practice.<\/p>\n
1.2.2 Core Branches of Linguistics<\/p>\n
The field of linguistics has many different branches, or levels of organization. Linguists relate these branches in different ways and have varying perspectives on which ones represent the core of linguistic analysis. But, many linguists represent the core of linguistic study with some variation of the following branches: phonetics, phonology, morphology, syntax, semantics, and pragmatics. Each branch directly relates to the study of Biblical Hebrew and Biblical Aramaic in its own way.
\nPhonetics and phonology both relate to the physical sounds of a language. Phonetics deals with the physical way that speech sounds are produced (i.e., pronounced) and heard, whereas phonology deals with the way that languages pattern their sounds. Every language has its own set of sounds pronounced in a particular way and puts those sounds together in particular ways. For example, in Hebrew a shewa will be either silent or vocal depending on where it occurs in a word and the type of vowel (short or long) it follows. Furthermore, when vocal, the shewa is pronounced as a short, reduced vowel.
\nMorphology deals with the way that word units are structured and patterned. Many words can be analyzed in terms of their various components, called morphemes, that have a specific grammatical function. Likewise, Hebrew and Aramaic use different morphemes to mark key features of nouns and verbs. For example, the final \u05be\u05b8\u05d4 on the noun \u05de\u05b7\u05dc\u05b0\u05db\u05b8\u05bc\u05d4 (\u201cqueen\u201d) represents the feminine singular morpheme, which tells us that \u05de\u05b7\u05dc\u05b0\u05db\u05b8\u05bc\u05d4 is feminine singular. As another example, the ending \u05ea\u05b4\u05bc\u05d9- on the verb \u05d0\u05b8\u05de\u05b7\u05e8\u05b0\u05ea\u05b4\u05bc\u05d9 (\u201cI spoke\u201d) represents the qatal first-person common singular morpheme, which tells us that \u05d0\u05b8\u05de\u05b7\u05e8\u05b0\u05ea\u05b4\u05bc\u05d9 is a qatal first-person common singular verb.
\nSyntax deals with the way that words are patterned to form phrases and sentences. Words can be categorized according to their role in a sentence or clause and often have different positions depending on their function. Hebrew and Aramaic are no different, and we can examine syntax at both the phrasal and sentence level. For example, in the phrase \u05d0\u05b4\u05e9\u05b8\u05bc\u05c1\u05d4 \u05d7\u05b2\u05db\u05b8\u05de\u05b8\u05d4 (\u201cwise woman\u201d), the adjective \u05d7\u05b2\u05db\u05b8\u05de\u05b8\u05d4 modifies the noun \u05d0\u05b4\u05e9\u05b8\u05bc\u05c1\u05d4. As another example, in the sentence \u05d1\u05b8\u05bc\u05e8\u05b8\u05d0 \u05d0\u05b1\u05dc\u05b9\u05d4\u05d9\u05dd \u05d0\u05b5\u05d7 \u05d4\u05b7\u05e9\u05b8\u05bc\u05c1\u05de\u05b7\u05d9\u05b4\u05dd \u05d5\u05b0\u05d0\u05b5\u05ea \u05d4\u05b8\u05d0\u05b8\u05e8\u05b6\u05e5 (\u201cGod created the heavens and the earth\u201d), \u05d1\u05b8\u05bc\u05e8\u05b8\u05d0 is the verb, \u05d0\u05b1\u05dc\u05b9\u05d4\u05b4\u05d9\u05dd serves as the subject, and \u05d4\u05b7\u05e9\u05b8\u05bc\u05c1\u05de\u05b7\u05d9\u05b4\u05dd and \u05d4\u05b8\u05d0\u05b8\u05e8\u05b6\u05e5 serve as the direct objects.
\nFinally, semantics and pragmatics deal with meaning. Semantics examines the encoding of meaning through individual words or through grammatical (i.e., morphological or syntactical) features, whereas pragmatics looks at how a particular context determines meaning. Hebrew and Aramaic both express meaning through words and grammatical constructions, and that meaning will naturally depend on the specific context of usage. For example, the word \u05e1\u05b5\u05e4\u05b6\u05e8 in Hebrew refers generally to a written document. Depending on the context, however, the type of written document it denotes may take the form of a scroll (e.g., Jer 36:8), letter (e.g., 2 Sam 11:14\u201315), legal deed or certificate (Deut 24:1, 3), or royal edict (e.g., Esth 9:25).<\/p>\n
1.2.3. Other Branches of Linguistics<\/p>\n
Beyond these core levels, several other key branches are important for linguistics, many of which overlap with other disciplines. These include language typology, historical linguistics, sociolinguistics, discourse analysis, and language acquisition. As is the case with the core branches, each of these additional branches is important in its own way for the study of Biblical Hebrew and Biblical Aramaic.
\nLanguage typology, also known as typological linguistics, is the study of structural similarities between languages, regardless of their history. The goal of this branch of linguistics is to establish a classification, or typology, of language. Language typology is important for Hebrew and Aramaic because we can compare proposed functions with the way that languages typically work across the world. Particularly of interest here are the verbal system and word order.
\nHistorical linguistics is the study of how languages change over time. It explores the reasons for language change. It also tries to reconstruct the past histories of and relationships between different languages. Placing Hebrew and Aramaic within their broader Semitic context can enhance our understanding of these languages. Specific areas of application include determining the meaning of Hebrew and Aramaic words, tracing the development of the verbal system, and distinguishing between earlier and later stages of the Hebrew and Aramaic preserved in the Bible.
\nSociolinguistics is the study of language in its social context. It examines the variation in languages that can be explained through social, rather than purely historical, factors. Thus, it deals with topics such as register, dialect, and stylistic variation. This branch of linguistics is relevant for Hebrew and Aramaic because the Hebrew Bible contains much evidence for sociolinguistic variation. A knowledge of sociolinguistics can help us to identify this variation, to determine the reason for it, and to distinguish it from variation due to historical language change.
\nDiscourse analysis is the study of patterns in language and how those patterns affect meaning. It therefore deals with the way that stretches of languages\u2014spoken or written\u2014are connected together and structured. Discourse analysis is especially important for the study of Hebrew and Aramaic because the Hebrew Bible consists of extended texts put together in a certain way. Understanding the way these texts have been put together and structured can enhance our comprehension of their meaning.
\nLanguage acquisition is the study of the process of acquiring comprehension and production of a language. It can deal with either how children learn their first language or how adults learn languages other than their native tongue. Learning Biblical Hebrew and Biblical Aramaic falls within the latter category, known as second language acquisition. This branch of linguistics is relevant for Hebraists and Aramaicists because it can provide insight into how we should, or should not, teach and learn these languages.<\/p>\n
1.3 MAJOR APPROACHES TO LINGUISTICS<\/p>\n
Language has been studied for more than four millennia, beginning in antiquity. Grammatical discussions from ancient Mesopotamia, India, and China testify to the study of language from a very early period, and the Greeks and Romans laid the foundation for Western linguistics. But the modern study of language finds its origins much later in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, and modern linguistics during the twentieth century.
\nThe past several centuries attest to several key linguistic approaches: Comparative Philology, Structuralism, Generative Grammar, Functionalism, and Cognitive Linguistics. Each of these approaches has its own unique characteristics that set it apart, although naturally some theories exhibit overlap. Furthermore, each of these linguistic approaches is important for understanding modern linguistics and its application to Hebrew and Aramaic.<\/p>\n
1.3.1 Comparative Philology<\/p>\n
1.3.1.1 Overview and History of Comparative Philology<\/p>\n
Beginning with the sixteenth century, Europeans were exposed to many different languages through voyages, conquests, trade, and colonization. This prompted language comparison for both grammar and the lexicon. By the eighteenth century, interest had shifted from comparison of various native African, Asian, and American languages to comparison of Indo-European languages. Individuals like Sir William Jones (1746\u20131794), Christian Jacob Kraus (1753\u20131807), Rasmus Rask (1787\u20131832), Franz Bopp (1791\u20131867), and Jacob Grimm (1785\u20131863) explored the implications of these comparisons for relating the languages to each other.
\nThese explorations led to the development of Comparative Philology, which came to dominate linguistic study until the twentieth century. This approach sought to learn about history and culture through the study of ancient written texts like the Hebrew Bible and classical literature. It also sought to reconstruct the history of the languages in which these texts were written, all with the goal of better understanding those texts. Thus, Comparative Philology emphasizes the diachronic nature of language and uses linguistic comparison as a means of better understanding grammar and the lexicon.
\nComparative Philology largely gave way to other linguistic approaches around the beginning of the twentieth century. This was mainly due to that era\u2019s growing emphasis on synchronic rather than diachronic language study. However, the historical-comparative approach continues to remain important; even today, more linguists list historical linguistics\u2014the branch of linguistics that shares much of Comparative Philology\u2019s approach\u2014as one of their areas of specialization than any other subfield of linguistics. This approach\u2019s enduring influence is evident, for example, in recent interest in grammaticalization.<\/p>\n
1.3.1.2 Key Tenets of Comparative Philology<\/p>\n
Comparative Philology emphasizes the diachronic study of language. It entails three tenets: philology, the importance of language change, and use of the comparative method. These three notions directly relate to one another in that the comparative method permits reconstruction of past language change as attested in written documents.<\/p>\n
1.3.1.2.1 PHILOLOGY<\/p>\n
As its name implies, Comparative Philology gives primacy to philology. Although originally the term philology (from Greek \u03c6\u03b9\u03bb\u03bf\u03bb\u03bf\u03b3\u03af\u03b1) meant \u201clove of learning and literature,\u201d it has since come to refer to the historical study of texts. It focuses especially on ancient texts, which pose a unique set of challenges because no living speakers of their languages exist today. One way that philology addresses these challenges is through linguistic reconstruction. This entails attention to historical linguistics as well as other fields of study, like textual criticism and literary criticism.<\/p>\n
1.3.1.2.2 THE COMPARATIVE METHOD<\/p>\n
Comparative Philology also holds to the importance of the comparative method. The similarities between some languages (e.g., between English and German) are best explained by a common origin. The image of a family tree is helpful and therefore commonly used: these languages, said to be within the same language family, are \u201cgenetically descended\u201d from a single original language (i.e., a protolanguage). The comparative method compares genetically related languages to reconstruct their history, including the various changes that have taken place in those languages. This process of reconstruction, the task of philology, helps us to understand ancient texts better.<\/p>\n
1.3.1.2.3 LANGUAGE CHANGE<\/p>\n
Comparative Philology\u2019s final foundational notion is the importance of language change. Language change may originate within a language due to physical or psychological factors or may be prompted by contact with another language. Regardless of the cause, linguists identify many different kinds of language change. These can affect language at various levels, including phonology, morphology, syntax, and semantics. One type of syntactic change that has become an important topic of study in recent years is grammaticalization, or the process by which words are given a grammatical function (e.g., English will, originally meaning \u201cwant,\u201d is now a future-tense marker).<\/p>\n
1.3.1.3 Relevance for Biblical Hebrew and Biblical Aramaic<\/p>\n
Comparative Philology is less popular today than it was during the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries. Yet, it has significantly influenced the study of Hebrew and Aramaic because academic study of the biblical languages emerged while Comparative Philology was flourishing. Furthermore, a good number of modern Hebrew and Aramaic scholars have been trained in Comparative Philology. They point to the importance of comparative Semitics for understanding the Hebrew Bible. Well-known Semiticists like J. A. Emerton, John Huehnergard, and Stephen A. Kaufman belong to this mold.
\nThe historical-comparative tradition also lies behind many modern grammars and lexicons. This is in part due to the enduring influence of Wilhelm Gesenius, whose grammar (Hebr\u00e4ische Grammatik) and lexicon (Hebr\u00e4isches und aram\u00e4isches Handw\u00f6rterbuch \u00fcber das Alte Testament) still serve as standard reference works today. Comparative Philology\u2019s influence does not stop with Gesenius, however. In terms of grammar, Comparative Philology lies behind many current discussions of the Hebrew verbal system. In terms of the lexicon, two of the most popular Hebrew dictionaries\u2014Francis Brown, S. R. Driver, and Charles A. Briggs\u2019s A Hebrew and English Lexicon of the Old Testament and Ludwig K\u00f6hler and Walter Baumgartner\u2019s The Hebrew and Aramaic Lexicon of the Old Testament\u2014are based on Comparative Philology.<\/p>\n
1.3.2 Structuralism<\/p>\n
1.3.2.1 Overview and History of Structuralism<\/p>\n
Structuralism emerged as a reaction against Comparative Philology. Two structuralist schools of thought arose, one in Europe and one in the United States. Although different, both viewed language as a system to be studied and described scientifically. They emphasized study of the structures\u2014linguistic elements like phonemes and morphemes\u2014that make up languages. This approach serves as a major turning point in linguistic thought because it shifted the focus from diachronic to synchronic analysis.
\nIn Europe, Structuralism can be traced to the work of the Swiss linguist Ferdinand de Saussure (1857\u20131913). His Cours de linguistique g\u00e9n\u00e9rale (Course in General Linguistics) was compiled from student notes on his general linguistics course offered at the University of Geneva between 1906 and 1911. For Saussure, a linguistic structure can be defined only through the system of relations it has with other units. Thus, Saussure\u2019s Structuralism can be summarized in terms of several dichotomies that I discuss more below, including synchrony versus diachrony, langue \u201clanguage\u201d versus parole \u201cspeaking,\u201d and syntagmatic versus associative relations.
\nIn the United States, the linguist-anthropologists Franz Boas (1858\u20131942) and Edward Sapir (1884\u20131939) were the first to develop structuralist thought, but it was Leonard Bloomfield (1887\u20131949) who gave American Structuralism\u2014also known as Descriptivism\u2014its basic form. Like his predecessors, he emphasized the scientific description of language structure, but he was also influenced by behaviorism and denied a connection between language and mentalism. Accordingly, Bloomfield argued that language was a response to external stimuli rather than something innate to the brain.
\nStructuralism had enormous impact on linguistics during the first half of the twentieth century. In Europe, linguists like \u00c9mile Benveniste (1902\u20131976) adopted and further developed Saussure\u2019s ideas. Several schools of linguistics influenced by Saussure\u2019s thought also emerged in Europe, including the Geneva School, the Prague School, and the Copenhagen School. In the United States, linguists like Charles Francis Hockett (1916\u20132000), Zellig S. Harris (1909\u20131992), and Bernard Bloch (1907\u20131965) popularized forms of Bloomfield\u2019s Structuralism. Today, almost all approaches to linguistics exhibit at least some influence from Structuralism, especially as formulated by Saussure.<\/p>\n
1.3.2.2 Key Tenets of Structuralism<\/p>\n
Structuralism\u2019s key tenets are best presented through the dichotomies established by Saussure. The most relevant for our purposes are langue versus parole, synchrony versus diachrony, and syntagmatic versus associative relations. These tenets all relate to Structuralism\u2019s view of language as a system in which linguistic structures are defined in relation to one another.<\/p>\n
1.3.2.2.1 LANGUE \u201cLANGUAGE\u201d VERSUS PAROLE \u201cSPEAKING\u201d<\/p>\n
The starting point of Saussure\u2019s dichotomies is his distinction between langue and parole. On the one hand, langue (French for \u201clanguage\u201d) refers to an abstract language system, or the common code shared by all the speakers of a given language. On the other hand, parole (French for \u201cspeaking\u201d) refers to the actual use of a language by specific individuals. According to Saussure, the abstract linguistic system\u2014langue\u2014rather than its specific usage\u2014parole\u2014should be the object of linguistic study.<\/p>\n
1.3.2.2.2 SYNCHRONY VERSUS DIACHRONY<\/p>\n
Saussure also distinguished between synchrony and diachrony. The difference between these two concepts relates to time. Synchronic analysis views a language as a whole system at a specific point in time, whereas diachronic analysis traces the development of a language through time. In reaction to Comparative Philology, Saussure argued that synchronic analysis, not diachronic analysis, is primary in linguistic analysis: \u201cThe synchronic point of view predominates, for it is the true and only reality to the community of speakers.\u2026 [If a linguist] takes the diachronic perspective, he no longer observes language [langue] but rather a series of events that modify it.\u201d<\/p>\n
1.3.2.2.3 SYNTAGMATIC VERSUS ASSOCIATIVE RELATIONS<\/p>\n
Saussure\u2019s final dichotomy distinguishes between syntagmatic and associative relations. On the one hand, a syntagmatic relation is the relationship between two or more signs that go together; for example, the words a, good, and teacher in the phrase a good teacher. On the other hand, an associative relation is the relationship between a sign and others that are similar; for example, the word teacher can be associated with other words like the plural noun teachers, the verb teach, and the synonym professor. Associative relations like these relate linguistic structures to one another abstractly within a language system (langue) rather than actual use (parole). Thus, Saussure contended that associative relations are the proper object of linguistic study.<\/p>\n
1.3.2.3 Relevance for Biblical Hebrew and Biblical Aramaic<\/p>\n
Structuralism has substantially impacted the linguistic study of Hebrew and Aramaic. One of its biggest proponents was James Barr. Although he saw a proper use for Comparative Philology, he critiqued the common abuse of this approach in his Comparative Philology and the Text of the Old Testament and The Semantics of Biblical Language. Barr argued for a primarily synchronic approach to the biblical languages; he also contended that language is an abstract system, separate from one\u2019s worldview. In this Barr clearly follows Saussure\u2019s emphasis on langue (rather than parole) and synchrony (rather than diachrony). One of Barr\u2019s students, Mois\u00e9s Silva, promoted a similar structuralist understanding of linguistics in his God, Language, and Scripture.
\nMuch of Hebrew and Aramaic studies today displays influence from Structuralism. Two of the most commonly used reference grammars, Bruce K. Waltke and Michael O\u2019Connor\u2019s An Introduction to Biblical Hebrew Syntax and Paul Jo\u00fcon and Takamitsu Muraoka\u2019s A Grammar of Biblical Hebrew, apply general structuralist principles. However, Structuralism has had the most impact on lexical analysis, which is not surprising given Saussure\u2019s focus on words as the object of linguistic analysis. David J. A. Clines\u2019s widely used lexicon, Dictionary of Classical Hebrew, is structuralist, as is evident from its lack of comparative data and its focus on how words are used in relation to one another. Silva has done much to popularize structuralist semantics, especially among Christians, in his Biblical Words and Their Meaning.<\/p>\n
1.3.3 Generative Grammar<\/p>\n
1.3.3.1 Overview and History of Generative Grammar<\/p>\n
Generative Grammar originated in the United States as an alternative to Bloomfield\u2019s Structuralism. Its primary proponent was Noam Chomsky (born 1928), who revolutionized the linguistics world when he published his Syntactic Structures in 1957. Chomsky argued that, contra Bloomfield, language does stem from some internal, innate ability. Every person possesses a basic linguistic \u201ccompetence\u201d in their language without having been taught. This competence enables everyone to generate a potentially infinite number of linguistic combinations.
\nThe task of linguistics, according to Chomsky, is to determine a \u201cuniversal grammar.\u201d This universal grammar represents the internal, innate ability in the brain. For Chomsky, only an underlying universal grammar shared by all humanity can explain why a person can possess competency in their language without any formal training. In this, Chomsky departs sharply from Structuralism\u2014not only Bloomfield\u2019s descriptivism, but also Structuralism as formulated by Saussure\u2014because he sees language as part of the mind and not simply an external, autonomous system.
\nThe significance of Chomsky\u2019s work cannot be overstated. Chomsky himself produced several different iterations of his Generative Grammar throughout his career: Standard Theory, Extended Standard Theory (The Lexicalist Hypothesis), Trace Theory, Government and Binding (Principles and Parameters), and the Minimalist Program. Many other spin-off theories sharing Chomskyan principles have also emerged (e.g., Head-Driven Phase Structure Grammar, Lexical-Functional Grammar, and Relational Grammar). Today, Chomsky is \u201camong the ten most-cited writers in all of the humanities (beating out Hegel and Cicero and trailing only Marx, Lenin, Shakespeare, the Bible, Aristotle, Plato, and Freud).\u201d<\/p>\n
1.3.3.2 Key Tenets of Generative Grammar<\/p>\n
Generative Grammar as first formulated by Chomsky can be characterized in terms of three basic tenets: universal grammar, transformations, and competence versus performance. These ideas are logically related to one another and naturally follow from Chomsky\u2019s view of language as innate to the human brain. Although Generative Grammar has many varieties today, these three tenets remain foundational to this linguistic approach.<\/p>\n
1.3.3.2.1 UNIVERSAL GRAMMAR<\/p>\n
First, as already noted, Generative Grammar is based on the premise of a universal grammar. The idea here is that all languages have certain features in common (e.g., the existence of verbs or the ability to give commands). Beneath the world\u2019s variety of languages, then, there lies a set of language universals, or features that all languages have in common. These universals together make up a universal grammar, and any differences that exist between languages can be explained through a set of rules. According to Chomsky, the existence of a universal grammar explains why a child without any formal training can speak their native language.<\/p>\n
1.3.3.2.2 TRANSFORMATIONS<\/p>\n
A second tenet foundational to most theories of Generative Grammar is the importance of transformations. Not only do languages themselves share certain universal features, but so do many sentences within a language. For example, the sentences I read the book and The book was read by me express the same basic idea\u2014reading a book\u2014even though they each use a different grammatical voice. These sentences\u2019 similarities represent an underlying deep structure whereas the differences reflect different surface structures. This is where transformations come in. Each language possesses a set of transformations, or mathematical-like rules, that determine how a single deep structure can manifest itself in various surface structures. Speakers of the language innately know those transformations, which is what enables them to generate a potentially infinite number of sentences.<\/p>\n
1.3.3.2.3 PERFORMANCE VERSUS COMPETENCE<\/p>\n
A third tenet of Generative Grammar is its distinction between competence and performance. Competence describes people\u2019s innate ability to produce a potentially infinite number of different linguistic expressions. Performance describes the actual output of real speakers, which due to errors of human speech can be messy in practice. According to Chomsky, competence\u2014the idealized, potentially infinite language ability\u2014rather than performance represents the proper object of linguistic study. Any understanding of how a language is actually used therefore requires understanding speakers\u2019 unconscious knowledge of that language.<\/p>\n
1.3.3.3 Relevance for Biblical Hebrew and Biblical Aramaic<\/p>\n
Generative Grammar has not impacted Hebrew and Aramaic studies as much as some other approaches, despite the enormous influence it has had on the field of linguistics. However, the few Hebraists actively promoting Generative Grammar have been quite prolific and have significantly impacted our understanding of Hebrew grammar. In accordance with Generative Grammar\u2019s interest in syntax, their work has especially focused on word order and the placement of constituents in clauses. Key scholars here include Vincent DeCaen, Robert D. Holmstedt, and Jacobus A. Naud\u00e9. Only a few scholars have explored generative approaches to other topics, like Hebrew phonology.
\nIn addition, generative concepts appear in several key resources for the study of Hebrew and Aramaic. Generative Grammar appears in some standard reference works. For example, Waltke and O\u2019Connor\u2019s Introduction to Biblical Hebrew Syntax highlights the importance of surface structure versus deep structure for Hebrew syntax and seems to support universal grammar. Various other important resources exhibit influence from Generative Grammar. An example in this category is the Holmstedt-Abegg Syntactic Database of Ancient Hebrew. This resource, an electronic database of Hebrew syntax, is explicitly based on generative principles.<\/p>\n
1.3.4 Functionalism<\/p>\n
1.3.4.1 Overview and History of Functionalism<\/p>\n
Functionalism\u2019s roots lie in the structuralist Prague School, especially the work of Vil\u00e9m Mathesius (1882\u20131945). He and other Prague School members highlighted the function that a language\u2019s components have when used to communicate. Linguists in Eastern Europe continued to develop this line of thought after World War II, but Functionalism also spread farther west, particularly in Europe. The work of scholars like Simon C. Dik (born 1940) in the Netherlands and M. A. K. Halliday (born 1925) in England helped to popularize it. Today, Functionalism remains most popular in Europe, although it also has many practitioners on the West Coast of the United States.
\nTrue to its origins, Functionalism asserts that the role of language in communication is central to linguistic study and analysis. Functionalists examine the way languages express different speech acts\u2014such as conveying information, asking questions, or giving commands\u2014in different ways. They explore the meaning of and conditions for using different speech acts. They also explore how grammar and word choice are used to say one thing over another. To help them determine why one speech act or construction might be used over another, functionalists often turn to cross-linguistic comparison and linguistic typology.
\nThis brief description demonstrates that Functionalism differs from both Structuralism and Generative Grammar. Functionalism\u2019s attention to language use in real-life contexts diverges from Structuralism\u2019s focus on language as an abstract system, apart from actual use. Functionalism\u2019s view that the purpose of language is communication provides a very different starting point than that of Generative Grammar, which instead sees the communicative functions of language as irrelevant for analysis. In this way, Functionalism exists as an alternative to the two approaches that have dominated much of linguistic thought since the twentieth century.<\/p>\n
1.3.4.2 Key Tenets of Functionalism<\/p>\n
Today there are three main varieties of Functionalism: Functional Grammar and its newer version, Functional Discourse Grammar; Systemic Functional Grammar; and Role and Reference Grammar. The existence of these three varieties demonstrates the diversity that exists within Functionalism. Yet, despite this diversity functionalist thought can be summarized by at least three central tenets: language as communication, the non-autonomy of grammar, and the centrality of meaning.<\/p>\n
1.3.4.2.1 LANGUAGE AS COMMUNICATION<\/p>\n
First, Functionalism claims that the primary purpose of language is communication. Functionalism does not deny that some uses of language may be non-communicative, but it does contend that the primary function of language is to communicate. All linguistic acts have a variety of functions in common, each of which relate to communication. Language\u2019s functions are informative (language makes a particular reality relevant to a communicative situation), intentional (language allows a user to pursue communicative intentions with respect to that reality), and social-contextual (language can be adapted to the specific setting in which communication occurs).<\/p>\n
1.3.4.2.2 NON-AUTONOMY OF GRAMMAR<\/p>\n
Second, Functionalism contends that grammar is non-autonomous. A language system cannot be abstracted from the real world because it is shaped by various external factors related to how we communicate. These factors\u2014which can be cognitive, socio-cultural, physiological, and diachronic\u2014reflect actual language use in the real world. The analogy of an ecosystem is helpful here. An ecosystem like a rainforest cannot exist or even be understood autonomously because it is interdependent with other ecosystems. In the same way, grammar cannot be isolated from other linguistic systems but must be viewed in relationship to those other systems.<\/p>\n
1.3.4.2.3 CENTRALITY OF MEANING<\/p>\n
Finally, Functionalism asserts that human language primarily communicates meaning. Functionalism therefore focuses especially on the realms of semantics (what words and sentences mean) and pragmatics (what speakers intend to communicate by using specific forms and constructions). Syntax is subordinate to these two realms because it simply provides one possible way of communicating meaning. Syntax is therefore also subordinate to higher-level concerns like discourse analysis. This is because communication of meaning takes place within the context of discourse rather than isolated sentences.<\/p>\n
1.3.4.3 Relevance for Biblical Hebrew and Biblical Aramaic<\/p>\n
Out of all the linguistic approaches, Functionalism has had the most significant impact on modern Biblical Hebrew and Biblical Aramaic studies. The two primary applications of Functionalism to Hebrew and Aramaic\u2014in both general and specific form\u2014have been pragmatics and discourse analysis. These are natural applications given Functionalism\u2019s emphasis on language as communication. Over the past several decades, many scholars have explored these topics and assigned functionalist labels to different grammatical constructions. Other scholars have applied specific models of Functionalism, like Dik\u2019s Functional Discourse Grammar, to the linguistic study of the Hebrew Bible. Key scholars here include Randall Buth, Christo H. J. van der Merwe, and Nicolai Winther-Nielsen.
\nAlthough Functionalism has appeared in many recent studies of Hebrew and Aramaic, few of the standard reference works incorporate Functionalism to any substantial degree. The noteworthy exception is Christo H. J. van der Merwe, Jacobus A. Naud\u00e9, and Jan H. Kroeze\u2019s A Biblical Hebrew Reference Grammar. This grammar is the first to devote significant attention to issues of discourse analysis and word order. Although it seeks to present Hebrew grammar in as theory-neutral a way as possible, its reliance on functionalist concepts of discourse analysis and word order is evident.<\/p>\n
1.3.5 Cognitive Linguistics<\/p>\n
1.3.5.1 Overview and History of Cognitive Linguistics<\/p>\n
Cognitive Linguistics has no single founder or theory but gradually emerged as a linguistic school of thought during the mid-1970s. It was at this time that George Lakoff (born 1941) used the term \u201ccognitive\u201d to describe his linguistic approach and began work on his foundational Metaphors We Live By, co-authored with Mark Johnson (born 1949). It was also around this time that other scholars like Ronald W. Langacker (born 1942) and Leonard Talmy (born 1942) began to lay important foundations for Cognitive Linguistics. Since then, Cognitive Linguistics has developed into a flourishing school of thought.
\nThe basic principle behind Cognitive Linguistics is that linguistics is not just knowledge of a language but is itself a form of knowledge. Cognitive Linguistics sees language as a psychologically real phenomenon and takes the processing and storage of information in the brain as crucial to language. In other words, language encompasses the way that the brain processes and categorizes our interaction with the world. Thus, in Cognitive Linguistics language is all about meaning.
\nAs this brief summary indicates, Cognitive Linguistics departs significantly from both Structuralism and Generative Grammar. Both of these linguistic models see language as an autonomous entity\u2014an abstraction\u2014that exists apart from the brain, but Cognitive Linguistics considers language inextricably linked with cognition. This perspective closely aligns Cognitive Linguistics with Functionalism, which also connects language with its concrete usage. Cognitive Linguistics and Functionalism share significant overlap, although Functionalism has a broader focus on the communicative usage of language, generally speaking.<\/p>\n
1.3.5.2 Key Tenets of Cognitive Linguistics<\/p>\n
Cognitive Linguistics entails many different research topics, including Prototype Theory, Conceptual Metaphor Theory, and Frame Semantics. Furthermore, several different cognitive frameworks (e.g., Cognitive Grammar) for bringing these concepts together exist, but uniting these concepts and perspectives are at least three basic tenets: perspectival meaning, encyclopedic meaning, and usage-based meaning.<\/p>\n
1.3.5.2.1 PERSPECTIVAL MEANING<\/p>\n
Cognitive Linguistics\u2019s first tenet is that meaning is not just an objective reflection of the world, but actually shapes the world. Language\u2019s categorization function actually gives a structure to the world, or \u201cembodies\u201d a perspective onto the world. Consider the two sentences, which describe the same situation: The bicycle is behind the house and The bicycle is in front of the house. Both of these sentences embody a different perspective on the world. On the one hand, the bicycle appears behind the house from your perspective if you\u2019re looking at your back yard toward your front yard, where the bicycle is. On the other hand, the bicycle appears in front of the house from the perspective of the house because a house is thought to face the direction of the front yard.<\/p>\n
1.3.5.2.2 ENCYCLOPEDIC MEANING<\/p>\n
A second tenet of Cognitive Linguistics is that meaning does not exist abstractly apart from the brain. This follows naturally from the tenet that meaning is perspectival. If language meaning is perspectival, then meaning must have a connection with humanity\u2019s perspective on the world. Meaning therefore cannot be reduced to a simple dictionary definition. Rather, it is encyclopedic in that it incorporates our understanding of the world. Furthermore, that encyclopedic knowledge is directly impacted by one\u2019s life experience. For example, the word house will have a different meaning for different people, depending on their life experience with houses.<\/p>\n
1.3.5.2.3 USAGE-BASED MEANING<\/p>\n
A third tenet of Cognitive Linguistics is its understanding of meaning as usage based. In Cognitive Linguistics, grammar and the lexicon can never be abstracted because they do not simply exist \u201cout there.\u201d Rather, grammatical constructions and words are always used as part of actual utterances and actual conversations. They have no meaning apart from their usage in the real world. Thus, in Cognitive Linguistics the study of language must entail the real-life use of grammatical constructions and words, rather than some abstract, idealized system (i.e., Saussure\u2019s langue and Chomsky\u2019s competence).<\/p>\n
1.3.5.3 Relevance for Biblical Hebrew and Biblical Aramaic<\/p>\n
Although young compared with other approaches, Cognitive Linguistics has a substantial following in Hebrew and Aramaic studies. Naturally, given its focus on meaning, Cognitive Linguistics has primarily impacted Hebrew and Aramaic studies in terms of the lexicon. Both Christo H. J. van der Merwe and Reinier de Blois have pointed out the value of cognitive linguistic concepts, especially encyclopedic and usage-based meaning, for understanding Hebrew word meaning. Blois\u2019s online Hebrew lexicon, The Semantic Dictionary of Biblical Hebrew, takes as its starting point a cognitive approach to word meaning. Various other applications of Cognitive Linguistics to Hebrew and Aramaic word meaning\u2014especially ones incorporating Prototype Theory, Frame Semantics, and Conceptual Metaphor Theory\u2014have also appeared in recent years.
\nCognitive Linguistics has also had some impact on the study of Hebrew and Aramaic grammar. Perhaps the most notable scholar to apply Cognitive Linguistics to Hebrew grammar is Ellen J. van Wolde. She proposes a cognitive approach to Biblical Hebrew grammar and syntax founded on Cognitive Grammar. Other scholars have applied cognitive-based approaches to various aspects of Hebrew and Aramaic studies, such as the verbal system and discourse analysis. As more biblical scholars become familiar with Cognitive Linguistics, we will hopefully continue to see more applications of Cognitive Linguistics to the study of Hebrew and Aramaic.<\/p>\n
1.4 CONCLUSION<\/p>\n
The topics treated in this chapter are essential for understanding many of the issues discussed later in the book. Before delving into these issues, though, we also need to explore the history of Hebrew and Aramaic study. Throughout the years the study of Biblical Hebrew and Biblical Aramaic has been directly impacted by different approaches to linguistics and a changing understanding of linguistic concepts. So, with the linguistic framework established by this chapter in mind, let us now examine the history of Hebrew and Aramaic study.<\/p>\n
1.5 FURTHER READING<\/p>\n
Akmajian, Adrian, Ann Kathleen Farmer, Lee Bickmore, Richard A. Demers, and Robert M. Harnish. Linguistics: An Introduction to Language and Communication. 7th ed. Cambridge: MIT Press, 2017.
\nAllan, Keith, ed. The Oxford Handbook of the History of Linguistics. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2013.
\nAronoff, Mark and Janie Rees-Miller, eds. The Handbook of Linguistics. 2nd ed. Blackwell Handbooks in Linguistics. Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell, 2017.
\nBodine, Walter R. \u201cLinguistics and Biblical Studies.\u201d ABD 4:327\u201333.
\nCampbell, Lyle. \u201cThe History of Linguistics: Approaches to Linguistics.\u201d Pages 97\u2013117 in The Handbook of Linguistics. Edited by Mark Aronoff and Janie Rees-Miller. 2nd ed. Blackwell Handbooks in Linguistics. Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell, 2017.
\nCook, John A. and Robert D. Holmstedt. Linguistics for Hebraists. LSAWS. University Park, PA: Eisenbrauns, forthcoming.
\nGoldenberg, Gideon. \u201cThe Contribution of Semitic Languages to Linguistic Thinking.\u201d JEOL 30 (1987\u20131988): 107\u201315.
\nHeine, Bernd and Heiko Narrogk, eds. The Oxford Handbook of Linguistic Analysis. 2nd ed. Oxford Handbooks in Linguistics. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2015.
\nMcGregor, William B. Linguistics: An Introduction. 2nd ed. London: Bloomsbury Academic, 2015.
\nRobins, Robert H. A Short History of Linguistics. 4th ed. Longman Linguistics Library. London: Routledge, 1997.
\nSampson, Geoffrey. Schools of Linguistics. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press, 1980.
\nSeuren, Pieter A. M. Western Linguistics: An Historical Introduction. Oxford: Blackwell, 1998.
\nSilva, Mois\u00e9s. God, Language, and Scripture: Reading the Bible in the Light of General Linguistics. Foundations of Contemporary Interpretation 4. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1990.
\nThompson, Jeremy P. and Wendy Widder. \u201cMajor Approaches to Linguistics.\u201d Pages 87\u2013133 in Linguistics and Biblical Exegesis. Edited by Douglas Mangum and Joshua R. Westbury. Lexham Methods Series 2. Bellingham, WA: Lexham, 2017.<\/p>\n
CHAPTER 2<\/p>\n
A SHORT HISTORY of BIBLICAL HEBREW and BIBLICAL ARAMAIC STUDIES<\/p>\n
The language of the Old Testament has been intensively studied for the most part of two millennia, and every detail has been subjected to multiple scrutiny.\u2026 Within such a subject, can anything new arise? In fact, on the contrary, the pace of new research is increasing.
\n\u2014JAMES BARR<\/p>\n
2.1 INTRODUCTION<\/p>\n
The past is the key to the present. Who we are in the present is largely shaped by our past\u2014our backgrounds, experiences, and so on. It is similar for academic fields of study, and the study of Biblical Hebrew and Biblical Aramaic is no exception. If we are to understand the advances that have taken place in the study of Hebrew and Aramaic, we must first understand the history of Hebrew and Aramaic studies.
\nSo, in this chapter I sketch a short history of Biblical Hebrew and Biblical Aramaic studies, beginning with medieval Jewish scholarship, when the linguistic study of Hebrew and Aramaic originated. From there I trace the emergence of this study as an academic discipline during the Renaissance and Enlightenment eras, the historical-comparative study of Hebrew and Aramaic during the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, and finally trends during the modern era. Along the way I highlight key resources that integrate linguistics into the study of these languages.
\nThis chapter is necessarily selective. Since most scholarship has concerned Biblical Hebrew rather than Biblical Aramaic, I naturally focus more on the former than the latter. Furthermore, my goal is not to be comprehensive but instead to capture the most important developments in Biblical Hebrew and Biblical Aramaic studies, especially as they follow developments in linguistics as discussed in the last chapter. Doing so will set the stage for the rest of the book and provide a context for the different topics it discusses.<\/p>\n
2.2 BIBLICAL HEBREW AND BIBLICAL ARAMAIC STUDIES FROM THEIR BEGINNINGS TO THE PRESENT DAY<\/p>\n
The Encyclopaedia Judaica\u2019s article on linguistic literature presents an excellent overview of linguistic scholarship on the Hebrew Bible, although short surveys can be found in the standard Hebrew reference grammars. In what follows, I rely closely, although not exclusively, on Encyclopaedia Judaica\u2019s survey of biblical linguistic literature from its origins in the medieval period to the present day.<\/p>\n
2.2.1 Medieval Jewish Scholarship (Tenth\u2013Sixteenth Centuries CE)<\/p>\n
2.2.1.1 First Attempts (Tenth Century)<\/p>\n
Rabbinic literature contains sporadic grammatical and lexical observations on features such as directional he and the different meanings of the particle \u05db\u05b4\u05bc\u05d9 (b. Yebam. 13b; Gi\u1e6d. 90a). Proper linguistic study of Biblical Hebrew and Biblical Aramaic, however, did not begin until the tenth century CE. This is because it was not possible to have true linguistic discussion prior to the establishment of a vocalized, fixed text by the Masoretes ca. 1000 CE. Their work produced an authoritative vocalization of the biblical text that could serve as a faithful source for grammars and lexicons of the biblical languages. The influence of Arabic linguistic literature upon the Jewish scholars of this time further encouraged the linguistic study of Hebrew and Aramaic, as did the Jews\u2019 growing realization that study of the Bible required a linguistically informed understanding of what the Bible said.
\nAs a result, during the tenth century the first genuine linguistic literature began to appear in both Arabic (in the East and in North Africa) and in Hebrew (in Spain). The linguistic literature that emerged included both grammar and lexicography but focused primarily on the latter. Saadiah ben Joseph Gaon (882\u2013942) produced the first grammar of Biblical Hebrew, his Kutub al-Lugha (Books on the [Hebrew] Language), as well as the first Biblical Hebrew lexicon, his Sefer ha-Egron (Book of the Vocabulary). Two of Saadiah\u2019s contributions remain significant for our understanding of grammar today: the division of words by part of speech (i.e., noun, verb, and particle) and the need to relate the different forms and functions of a grammatical feature.
\nSaadiah\u2019s scholarship set the standard for subsequent linguistic literature during the tenth century. In particular, Saadiah\u2019s lexical studies\u2014which also included a study of hapax legomena known as Kit\u0101b al-Sab\u02bf\u012bn Laf\u1e93a al-Mufrada (Book of the Interpretation of Seventy Words)\u2014generated significant interest in biblical vocabulary and prompted the publication of other lexicons. Among these were Judah Ibn Quraysh\u2019s Ris\u0101la (Epistle) and Dunash ibn Tamim\u2019s lexicon (of unknown name because it is now lost), both of which compared Biblical Hebrew words with their Aramaic and Arabic cognates. These early lexicons focused exclusively on Biblical Hebrew vocabulary, but some works encompassing Biblical Aramaic also appeared, including David ben Abraham Alf\u0101si\u2019s Kit\u0101b J\u0101mi\u02bf al-Alf\u0101\u1e93 (Book of Collected Meanings) and Mena\u1e25em ben Saruq\u2019s Ma\u1e25beret (Notebook).<\/p>\n
2.2.1.2 The Creative Period (1000\u20131150)<\/p>\n
Building on Saadiah\u2019s legacy, a new set of Jewish scholars emerged during the eleventh century. Most of them lived in Spain and wrote in Arabic. The first scholar of this new era was Judah ben David \u1e24ayyuj (ca. 945\u20131010). About 1000 CE \u1e24ayyuj wrote two important works on the Hebrew verb: Kit\u0101b al-Af \u0101l Dhaw\u0101t \u1e24ur\u016bf al-L\u012bn (The Book of Weak Letter Verbs) and Kit\u0101b al-Af \u0101l Dhaw\u0101t al-Mithlayn (The Book of Geminate Verbs). In these studies, \u1e24ayyuj introduced the concept of the three-letter root that had been popular in Arabic linguistic literature since the eighth century. He also formulated the classification of weak verbs by the letters they contain. These two concepts remain very important to this very day, as any student of Biblical Hebrew will recognize.
\n\u1e24ayyuj\u2019s work was controversial and generated several responses. His main opponent was Jonah ibn Jan\u0101\u1e25 (ca. 990\u20131050), who produced a complete description of Biblical Hebrew in his two-part Kit\u0101b al-Tanq\u012b\u1e25 (Book of Minute Research). The grammar portion, Kit\u0101b al-Luma\u02bf (Book of Colored Flowerbeds), represents the first comprehensive Hebrew grammar due to its scope of coverage. The lexicon portion, Kit\u0101b al-U\u1e63\u016bl (Book of [Hebrew] Roots), was the first dictionary to group words by their three-letter root and present its entries in alphabetical order, a tradition that continues in most Biblical Hebrew lexicons today.
\nThe works of \u1e24ayyuj and ibn Jan\u0101\u1e25 set a trajectory for subsequent linguistic literature of the eleventh and twelfth centuries, most of which focused on grammar rather than the lexicon. The significance of this period is summarized by David T\u00e9n\u00e9: \u201cThe authors of this period are the great creators of Hebrew linguistics. It is they who determined its scope, consolidated its system, and formulated its rules. It is they who fixed its terminology and phraseology.\u201d<\/p>\n
2.2.1.3 The Period of Dissemination (1150\u20131250)<\/p>\n
When the Almohad Caliphate conquered southern Spain in 1148 CE, many Jewish intellectuals fled to Italy and southern France. There they spread the ideas of their predecessors by translating and adapting previous linguistic writings, especially those of \u1e24ayyuj and ibn Jan\u0101\u1e25. The most influential scholars of this period include Abraham ben Meir ibn Ezra (1089\u20131164) and members of the Kim\u1e25i family, including Joseph (ca. 1105\u20131170) and his sons Moses (died ca. 1190) and David (ca. 1160\u20131235).
\nOf their works, the most important is probably David Kim\u1e25i\u2019s Sefer Mikhlol (Book of Completeness). Following the tradition of Ibn Jan\u0101\u1e25\u2019s Kit\u0101b al-Tanq\u012b\u1e25 this work is arranged into two parts: a grammatical portion titled \u1e24eleq ha-Diqduq (later known independently as Mikhlol) and a lexical portion titled \u1e24eleq ha-\u02bfInyan (later known independently as Sefer ha-Shorashim, or the Book of the [Hebrew] Roots). As its name implies, Kim\u1e25i\u2019s Mikhlol is comprehensive and complete. Its major contribution was its systemization of the presentation of grammar, with the verb at the center. It focused especially on the various verbal stems (binyanim) and conjugations and the presentation of their forms in paradigms.
\nAlthough the works of this period made very few original contributions to linguistic thought, this period is crucial for our modern understanding of Hebrew and Aramaic. As T\u00e9n\u00e9 summarizes:<\/p>\n
It was the translators and adaptors who saved Hebrew linguistics from oblivion and made it a permanent branch in the history of Jewish literature. They also translated into Hebrew the Arabic grammatical terms used in the works of \u1e24ayyuj and ibn Jan\u0101\u1e25, and they fixed a mode of exposition for grammatical and lexicographical issues, that has existed until today in the study and teaching of the Hebrew language and in Hebrew biblical exegesis.<\/p>\n
2.2.1.4 The \u201cStandstill\u201d (1250\u20131500)<\/p>\n
The publication of David Kim\u1e25i\u2019s Mikhlol serves as the transition to the final period of Jewish medieval scholarship. Throughout this period the Mikhlol largely dominated Hebrew and Aramaic studies, whether through copying, adaptation, or reliance on it. The result was a standstill, with little advancement in the field. Nevertheless, this period saw several important developments that continue to impact Hebrew and Aramaic studies today. These developments are particularly evident in the works of Profiat Duran (died ca. 1414) and Abraham de Balmes (ca. 1440\u20131523).
\nDuran\u2019s major contribution was his comprehensive Hebrew grammar entitled Ma\u02bfaseh Efod (Work of Ephod, \u201cEphod\u201d being a pseudonym of Duran). Duran criticized Kim\u1e25i\u2019s Mikhlol, reacting against its mechanical understanding of language. In its place Duran argued for a more theoretical view of language, as was characteristic of Ibn Jan\u0101\u1e25\u2019s Kit\u0101b al-Luma\u02bf. Duran\u2019s reframing of the linguistic enterprise placed more emphasis on the linguistic study of logic, which highlighted the role that theory plays in linguistic analysis.
\nDe Balmes incorporated concepts of Latin grammar in his Miqneh Avram (Collection of Abram). This was a significant development because, up until de Balmes, the categories of Arab grammarians had shaped the linguistic understanding of Hebrew and Aramaic. Another major contribution of de Balmes\u2019s Miqneh Avram was its establishment of a tripartite system\u2014following the Indo-European tradition\u2014of linguistic study: phonology, morphology, and syntax. These three categories remain the basic categories of Hebrew and Aramaic grammar to this day.<\/p>\n
2.2.2 Emerging Academic Study of Biblical Hebrew and Biblical Aramaic (1500\u20131800)<\/p>\n
The early sixteenth century saw a major shift in Hebrew and Aramaic linguistics. The Reformation emphasized the need for individual study of Scripture, and the Renaissance\u2019s concern for ancient civilization generated interest in original sources and their languages. The result was that Biblical Hebrew and Biblical Aramaic, which had been largely ignored in the medieval Christian world, emerged as a key component in Christian scholarship. No longer, then, was the linguistic study of Hebrew and Aramaic an exclusively Jewish enterprise.
\nThe first important Christian Hebraist of this period was Johann Reuchlin (1455\u20131522). In 1506 he published his Rudimenta linguae hebraicae. This work consisted of both a grammar and a lexicon and was influenced by David Kim\u1e25i in that it was attached to the Mikhlol. At the same time, Reuchlin applied Latin terminology to Hebrew grammatical phenomena, some of which is still in use today (e.g., the status absolutus \u201cabsolute state\u201d of nouns). The primary contribution of Reuchlin, though, was his popularization of Hebrew and Aramaic among Christians. He wrote his Rudimenta linguae hebraicae for the purpose of teaching Hebrew to Christians, and subsequent church leaders\u2014perhaps even Martin Luther\u2014learned Hebrew from this foundational work.
\nThe Jew Elijah Levita (1468 or 1469\u20131549) also significantly influenced Christian Hebraists during this period. He wrote his own grammar, Sefer ha-Ba\u1e25ur (Book of the Ba\u1e25ur, \u201cBa\u1e25ur\u201d representing one of Levita\u2019s nicknames). Levita was well integrated within the humanist movement of the time and taught his Kim\u1e25ian understanding of Hebrew to Sebastian M\u00fcnster (1489\u20131552). M\u00fcnster, who served as professor at Basel, Switzerland from 1529 until his death, translated Levita\u2019s work into Latin and published it alongside his own Melekhet ha-Diqduq ha-Shalem (Work of Complete Grammar). In this way, M\u00fcnster popularized medieval Jewish views of Hebrew grammar among Christians.
\nJewish influence on the Christian Hebraists was also evident in the works of Johann Buxtorf the Elder (1564\u20131629) and Johann Buxtorf the Younger (1599\u20131664). Nevertheless, Jewish influence upon Christian Hebraists began to wane as the persecution of Jews in Europe hindered Jewish academic study. This era also saw the establishment of the study of Hebrew and Aramaic in European universities. For example, the Regius chairs at Oxford and Cambridge\u2014later occupied by giants in the field such as S. R. Driver, J. A. Emerton, and James Barr\u2014were established by Henry VIII in 1540. These developments resulted in the emergence of Western academic study of Hebrew and Aramaic apart from Jewish tradition.
\nThe academic study of other ancient Near Eastern languages also developed during this time. Syriac and Classical Ethiopic (Ge\u02bfez) came to be studied alongside Aramaic and Arabic in the university. The result was the gradual reconnection of Hebrew and Aramaic with their Semitic context, something that had largely been lost when de Balmes and his successors began using Latin categories. By the end of the eighteenth century, influential professors of Oriental languages like Albert Schultens (1686\u20131750), Johann David Michaelis (1717\u20131791), and Nikolaus Wilhelm Schr\u00f6der (1721\u20131798) had fully situated Hebrew and Aramaic within their ancient Near Eastern context. They emphasized that these languages belonged to the Semitic language family and that knowledge of other Semitic languages was necessary to understand Hebrew and Aramaic.
\nJames Barr well summarizes the status of Hebrew and Aramaic studies by the end of the eighteenth century:<\/p>\n
The academic Hebraist was now expected to be an Orientalist; this meant not only knowledge of Arabic, but also an awareness of the new information brought by travelers from the East about customs, the physical surroundings of life, and now\u2014in its first rudimentary form\u2014archaeology. By this time the Christian Hebraist was less involved in traditional dogmatism, and was likely, on the contrary, to be something of a rationalist.<\/p>\n
2.2.3 Comparative Philology and the Study of Biblical Hebrew and Biblical Aramaic (1800\u20131950)<\/p>\n
These developments set the stage for the work of Wilhelm Gesenius (1786\u20131842), one of the greatest Hebraists of the nineteenth century who remains highly influential today. Gesenius taught at the University of Halle and, among many other contributions, published both a grammar and lexicon that remain standard reference works to this day. His work\u2014especially his grammatical and lexical work\u2014exemplifies the comprehensive and empirical study that distinguish this period. Today, Gesenius is known for freeing Biblical Hebrew study from theological dogmatism and instead situating it within rational linguistic description.
\nGesenius\u2019s Hebrew grammar was first published in 1813 under the title Hebr\u00e4ische Grammatik. It was subsequently revised numerous times by Gesenius himself as well as others. The most recent English edition, entitled Gesenius\u2019 Hebrew Grammar and published in 1910, represents A. E. Cowley\u2019s translation of the twenty-eighth German edition produced by Emil Kautzsch. The later editions of Gesenius\u2019s grammar, including this one, exemplify the many historical-comparative insights of the nineteenth century. The end product is a comprehensive grammar that describes the Hebrew language as fully as possible in light of Hebrew\u2019s historical development.
\nGesenius\u2019s lexicon, which includes both Biblical Hebrew and Biblical Aramaic, first appeared in German in 1810\u20131812 under the title Hebr\u00e4isch-deutsches Handw\u00f6rterbuch \u00fcber die Schriften des Alten Testaments. It was subsequently revised by several different individuals, eventually serving as the basis for Francis Brown, S. R. Driver, and Charles A. Briggs\u2019s A Hebrew and English Lexicon of the Old Testament. Like his grammar, Gesenius\u2019s lexicon exemplifies careful presentation of linguistic data. It focuses especially on the presentation of etymology and cognate information, in accordance with the Comparative Philology of his day.
\nGesenius\u2019s influence is reflected in the grammars and lexicons that appeared throughout the latter nineteenth century. Among the Biblical Hebrew grammars following the historical-comparative tradition are those of Heinrich Ewald (1803\u20131875), Justus Olshausen (1800\u20131882), Julius Friedrich B\u00f6ttcher (1801\u20131863), Bernhard Stade (1848\u20131906), and Eduard K\u00f6nig (1846\u20131936); among the most important Biblical Aramaic grammars are those of Emil Kautzsch (1841\u20131910), H. L. Strack (1848\u20131922), and Karl Marti (1855\u20131925). Like Gesenius, these grammars rely on empirical observation and historical-comparative reconstruction of the Semitic languages for their grammatical descriptions. They utilize Latin-based categories and are arranged into the same three parts\u2014phonology, morphology, syntax\u2014popularized during the standstill period.
\nCarl Brockelmann (1868\u20131956) brought the comparative Semitic enterprise to its full fruition in the early twentieth century. His study laid the groundwork for the Hebrew and Aramaic grammars of this period. The most influential include the grammars of Hans Bauer (1878\u20131937) and Pontus Leander (1872\u20131935), as well as Gotthelf Bergstr\u00e4sser (1886\u20131933). Bauer and Leander co-wrote grammars of both Biblical Hebrew and Biblical Aramaic that offered detailed grammatical description\u2014especially of the verb\u2014as informed by comparative reconstruction of Proto-Semitic. Bergstr\u00e4sser\u2019s grammar, based on Gesenius, is similar to, but more historically oriented than, Bauer and Leander\u2019s. Also in the historical-comparative tradition, but with more attention to syntax, is the descriptive grammar of Paul Jo\u00fcon (1871\u20131940).
\nComparative Philology continued to dominate Biblical Hebrew and Biblical Aramaic studies even after Structuralism emerged around the turn of the twentieth century. This was partially due to Hebraists\u2019 and Aramaicists\u2019 reluctance to adopt new linguistic theories. However, the decipherment and discovery of new Semitic languages like Ugaritic (discovered and quickly deciphered ca. 1930) also contributed to this trend, as did the discovery of new Hebrew texts like the Dead Sea Scrolls (discovered in 1948). The giants of this era, who largely embraced Comparative Philology, are still well-known today: William Foxwell Albright (1891\u20131971) in America, Godfrey Rolles Driver (1892\u20131975) in Britain, and Naphtali Herz Tur-Sinai (1886\u20131973) in Israel.
\nThe enduring influence of the historical-comparative approach\u2014and specifically the work of Gesenius\u2014demonstrates the significance of this period. Gesenius\u2019s grammar remains a standard reference work today and has essentially determined the structure and content of all modern grammars of Biblical Hebrew. This era\u2019s focus on the verb laid the foundation for modern discussions of the verbal stems and especially tense, aspect, and mood. Furthermore, Gesenius\u2019s historical-comparative approach to lexicography serves as the basis for the two most popular lexicons today: A Hebrew and English Lexicon of the Old Testament (by Francis Brown, S. R. Driver, and Charles A. Briggs) and The Hebrew and Aramaic Lexicon of the Old Testament (by Ludwig K\u00f6hler and Walter Baumgartner).<\/p>\n
2.2.4 The Modern Era of Biblical Hebrew and Biblical Aramaic Studies (1950\u2013Present)<\/p>\n
2.2.4.1 The Application of Modern Linguistic Approaches<\/p>\n
Despite continued attention to Comparative Philology, about halfway through the twentieth century Hebraists and Aramaicists began to adopt other linguistic methods. The earliest scholars to do so were linguists who were also in part Hebraists, such as Zellig S. Harris (1909\u20131992) and Noam Chomsky (born 1928). Because they had a linguistic background, these scholars did not have the same fear of applying linguistic theories to the biblical languages that many Hebraists and Aramaicists did. However, eventually Hebraists and Aramaicists without any formal linguistic training also began to apply modern linguistic approaches to the study of their languages.
\nThese scholars first applied Structuralism, the major alternative to Comparative Philology at the time, to Hebrew and Aramaic phonology. They encountered difficulty, though, when trying to apply Structuralism to the Semitic verbal system. This was because it is difficult to fully disconnect the diachronic development of the verbal system from its synchronic usage. This challenge, combined with ongoing study of Ugaritic and Amarna Akkadian, generated many studies on the Biblical Hebrew verbal system. Some of these studies concerned the verbal stems (binyanim), but the vast majority focused on the question of tense, aspect, and mood. Key scholars contributing to this debate include William L. Moran (1921\u20132000), Jan Joosten (born 1959), and John A. Cook (born 1968).
\nIn contrast to the grammar of verbs, Structuralism found easy application to the realm of lexicography. James Barr (1924\u20132006) served as the primary champion of this approach. He argued against too much reliance upon the historical-comparative approach for determining words\u2019 meanings, beginning in his The Semantics of Biblical Language (published 1961). Barr\u2019s influence on biblical lexicography cannot be overstated, and recent dictionaries like the Dictionary of Classical Hebrew (published 1993\u20132011) largely adopt a structuralist approach. Nevertheless, the rise of Cognitive Linguistics has also produced a significant minority of scholars who rely more on Cognitive Linguistics instead. The Semantic Dictionary of Biblical Hebrew (launched online in 2000) is representative of this recent trend.
\nAnother important development in modern Biblical Hebrew and Biblical Aramaic studies is interest in discourse analysis. Many recent Hebraists and Aramaicists, particularly those influenced by Functionalism and Cognitive Linguistics, have shown concern for the meaning that words have within the broader context of their discourse. They investigate the way meaning is expressed at the macro level, particularly through use of specific verbal forms, and within the sentence through word order. This development, which parallels more general linguistic interest in discourse analysis, has been pioneered by scholars like Robert E. Longacre (1922\u20132014), Randall Buth (born 1950), and Robert D. Holmstedt (born 1972).
\nModern interest in sociolinguistics has led to the investigation of linguistic variation within the Hebrew Bible. Prior to the decline of Comparative Philology, most Hebraists understood this variation in chronological terms. However, in recent times scholars such as Gary A. Rendsburg (born 1954) and Ian Young (born 1962) have postulated alternative understandings. They have explained at least some of the Hebrew Bible\u2019s linguistic variation through sociolinguistic variables like social status, dialect, and style-shifting. The existence of sociolinguistic variation in the Hebrew Bible has in turn generated much discussion over whether linguistic features can indicate a biblical text\u2019s date of composition. Along with Young, several others like Robert Rezetko (born 1967) have challenged the linguistic dating of biblical texts in recent years.
\nSince 1950, only a few significant reference grammars of Biblical Hebrew and Biblical Aramaic have appeared. Important Biblical Hebrew reference grammars include Bruce K. Waltke and Michael O\u2019Connor\u2019s An Introduction to Biblical Hebrew Syntax (published 1990), Christo H. J. van der Merwe, Jacobus A. Naud\u00e9, and Jan H. Kroeze\u2019s A Biblical Hebrew Reference Grammar (published 1999), and Takamitsu Muraoka\u2019s A Grammar of Biblical Hebrew (published in 1991 as a translation and revision of Jo\u00fcon\u2019s Grammaire de l\u2019h\u00e9breu biblique). The most important Biblical Aramaic reference grammar to appear is Franz Rosenthal\u2019s A Grammar of Biblical Aramaic (published 1961). Most of these grammars are primarily structuralist and ignore more recent linguistic approaches, such as discourse analysis. The exception is A Biblical Hebrew Reference Grammar, the sole grammar from this era to devote special attention to discourse analysis.<\/p>\n
2.2.4.2 Modern Resources on Biblical Hebrew, Biblical Aramaic, and Linguistics<\/p>\n
The use of modern linguistic approaches to describe Biblical Hebrew and Biblical Aramaic represents one important aspect of modern Hebrew and Aramaic studies. Another significant trend is the emergence of resources devoted to Biblical Hebrew, Biblical Aramaic, and linguistics. These resources exist in at least three different forms: monographs, academic journals, and Brill\u2019s Encyclopedia of Hebrew Language and Linguistics.<\/p>\n
2.2.4.2.1 MONOGRAPHS<\/p>\n
The past twenty-five years have seen the publication of several works on linguistics and the biblical languages. These monographs encompass both the Old and New Testaments and therefore cover Biblical Greek in addition to Biblical Hebrew and Biblical Aramaic. Nevertheless, they serve as helpful resources to the Hebraist and Aramaicist for understanding developments in linguistics and how those developments impact exegesis. Of these, most helpful is the recent Linguistics and Biblical Exegesis, edited by Douglas Mangum and Joshua Westbury and part of the Lexham Methods Series. This invaluable resource explains linguistic fundamentals, covers the major linguistic schools of thought, and discusses current issues in the application of linguistics to the biblical languages.
\nIn recent years several monographs have also sought to apply modern linguistic methodology specifically to the study of Biblical Hebrew. The most accessible of these is Susan Groom\u2019s Linguistic Analysis of Biblical Hebrew, which provides a survey of the application of linguistics to select issues in Biblical Hebrew. In addition, various collections of essays such as The Study of Linguistics and Biblical Hebrew (edited by Walter R. Bodine) and Advances in Biblical Hebrew Linguistics: Data, Methods, and Analyses (edited by Adina Moshavi and Tania Notarius) apply modern linguistic methodology to the study of Biblical Hebrew. Finally, many of the volumes in Eisenbrauns\u2019s Linguistic Studies in Ancient West Semitic (LSAWS) series explore issues in Biblical Hebrew and Biblical Aramaic within a modern linguistic framework. Monographs like these demonstrate modern interest in applying linguistic theory to the biblical languages.
\nOne of the most important monographs in the LSAWS series is Linguistics for Hebraists, co-edited by John A. Cook and Robert D. Holmstedt. This book aims to advance understanding of contemporary linguistic theories and model their application to the Hebrew Bible. Each of its essays presents a major linguistic theory (e.g., Historical-Comparative Linguistics, Functionalism, and Cognitive Linguistics) in a clear and understandable way, then discusses several case studies using that linguistic theory. Linguistics for Hebraists is intentionally aimed at those with a minimal background in linguistics. It is accessible and represents an invaluable resource to everyone\u2014students and pastors included\u2014wanting to understand linguistics\u2019 relevance for the Hebrew Bible.<\/p>\n
2.2.4.2.2 ACADEMIC JOURNALS<\/p>\n
Several academic journals also attest to a growing interest and application of linguistics to Biblical Hebrew and Biblical Aramaic. The sole journal devoted specifically to linguistics and Biblical Hebrew is Le\u0161on\u00e9nu, published by the Academy of the Hebrew Language in Israel, but many other journals contain academic articles on Hebrew, Aramaic, and linguistics. Especially included among them are journals devoted to the study of the Semitic languages and the ancient Near East: Aramaic Studies, Hebrew Abstracts, Hebrew Studies, Journal of Near Eastern Studies, Journal of Northwest Semitic Languages, Journal of Semitic Studies, Journal of the Ancient Near Eastern Society of Columbia University, Maarav, Tarbiz, and Zeitschrift f\u00fcr Althebraistik. However, other journals more broadly devoted to biblical studies also frequently include articles of value: Biblica, Catholic Biblical Quarterly, Journal of Biblical Literature, Revue biblique, Vetus Testamentum, and Zeitschrift f\u00fcr die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft.<\/p>\n
2.2.4.2.3 BRILL\u2019S ENCYCLOPEDIA OF HEBREW LANGUAGE AND LINGUISTICS (EHLL)<\/p>\n
Finally, a monumental recent resource for all students and scholars of Biblical Hebrew is Brill\u2019s Encyclopedia of Hebrew Language and Linguistics (EHLL). It was edited by Geoffrey Khan, Regius Professor of Hebrew at the University of Cambridge, and his team of associate editors. EHLL contains over 950 entries available in both online and print format. These entries cover history of scholarship, major grammatical features (phonology, morphology, and syntax), lexicon, stylistics and sociolinguistics, discourse analysis, Hebrew in relation to other languages, and the major periods of the Hebrew language.
\nEHLL is limited to the Hebrew language, and as such it does not contain entries devoted to Biblical Aramaic or even the Aramaic language in general. Yet, it contains a plethora of entries invaluable for Hebraists. Even the entries covering topics related to other periods of Hebrew are helpful because they situate Biblical Hebrew within its broader context. Given its scope and comprehensiveness, EHLL is rightfully self-described as \u201cthe authoritative reference work for students and researchers in the fields of Hebrew linguistics, general linguistics, Biblical studies, Hebrew and Jewish literature, and related fields.\u201d All students, pastors, and scholars interested in Hebrew and linguistics need to familiarize themselves with and regularly consult this monumental resource.<\/p>\n
2.3 CONCLUSION<\/p>\n
The study of Biblical Hebrew and Biblical Aramaic has a long history that goes back to the Middle Ages. Medieval Jewish grammarians and lexicographers established a tradition of describing Hebrew and Aramaic that continues to this day. Beginning with the Renaissance era, the study of Hebrew and Aramaic further developed and found solid academic footing. This led to the historical-comparative study of Hebrew and Aramaic, which continues to influence the field today. Finally, since the 1950s scholars have sought to apply other linguistic theories to the study of Hebrew and Aramaic. The result has been the publication of various resources that describe Hebrew and Aramaic in a linguistically informed way.
\nThe historical developments discussed in this chapter set the stage for the rest of this book. Specifically, the linguistic theories, major figures, and trends provide a context for the topics discussed in the following chapters: lexicology and lexicography (chapter 3); the verbal stems (chapter 4); tense, aspect, and mood (chapter 5); discourse analysis (chapter 6); word order (chapter 7); register, dialect, style-shifting, and code-switching (chapter 8); dating Biblical Hebrew and Biblical Aramaic texts (chapter 9); and finally, teaching and learning the languages of the Hebrew Bible (chapter 10). Keeping the history of scholarship presented by this chapter in mind, let us now explore each of these fascinating issues.<\/p>\n
2.4 FURTHER READING<\/p>\n
Barr, James. \u201cSemitic Philology and the Interpretation of the Old Testament.\u201d Pages 31\u201364 in Tradition and Interpretation: Essays by Members of the Society for Old Testament Study. Edited by G. W. Anderson. Oxford: Clarendon, 1979.
\nCampanini, Saverio. \u201cChristian Hebraists: Renaissance Period.\u201d EHLL 1:440\u201349.
\nDelgado, Jos\u00e9 Mart\u00ednez. \u201cLexicography: Middle Ages.\u201d EHLL 2:510\u201314.
\n\u2014\u2014\u2014. \u201cPhonology in Medieval Grammatical Thought.\u201d EHLL 3:122\u201330.
\nEmerton, J. A. \u201cThe Hebrew Language.\u201d Pages 171\u201399 in Text in Context: Essays by Members of the Society for Old Testament Study. Edited by Andrew D. H. Mayes. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2000.
\nHirschfeld, Hartwig. Literary History of Hebrew Grammarians and Lexicographers, Accompanied by Unpublished Texts. Jews\u2019 College Publications 9. London: Oxford University Press, 1926.
\nKutscher, E. Y. \u201cAramaic.\u201d Pages 347\u2013412 in Linguistics in South West Asia and North Africa. Edited by Thomas A. Sebeok. Vol. 6 of Current Trends in Linguistics. 14 vols. The Hague: Mouton, 1970.
\nMaman, Aharon. \u201cMorphology in the Medieval Rabbanite Grammatical Tradition.\u201d EHLL 2:712\u201321.
\nMerwe, Christo H. J. van der. \u201cA Short Survey of Major Contributions to the Grammatical Description of Old Hebrew since 1800 A. D.\u201d JNSL 13 (1987): 161\u201390.
\n\u2014\u2014\u2014. \u201cSome Recent Trends in Biblical Hebrew Linguistics: A Few Pointers towards a More Comprehensive Model of Language Use.\u201d HS 44 (2003): 7\u201324.
\nRabin, Chaim. \u201cHebrew.\u201d Pages 304\u201346 in Linguistics in South West Asia and North Africa. Edited by Thomas A. Sebeok. Vol. 6 of Current Trends in Linguistics. 14 vols. The Hague: Mouton, 1970.
\nT\u00e9n\u00e9, David, Aharon Maman, and James Barr. \u201cLinguistic Literature, Hebrew.\u201d EncJud 13:29\u201361.
\nValle Rodr\u00edguez, Carlos del. \u201cGrammarians: Medieval Spain.\u201d EHLL 2:94\u2013101.
\nWaldman, Nahum M. The Recent Study of Hebrew: A Survey of the Literature with Selected Bibliography. Bibliographica Judaica 10. Cincinnati: Hebrew Union College Press, 1989.<\/p>\n
CHAPTER 3<\/p>\n
LEXICOLOGY and LEXICOGRAPHY<\/p>\n
All biblical interpreters need exposure to and experience in lexicographic method if they would use the linguistic data in a responsible way.
\n\u2014MOIS\u00c9S SILVA<\/p>\n
3.1 INTRODUCTION<\/p>\n
The study of meaning, or semantics, represents one of the most fundamental areas of study within linguistics. Meaning can be represented at several levels, but one of the most basic levels is the word level. This is because words constitute a fundamental component of every language. They establish a bridge between abstract concepts and the real world, enabling us as humans to communicate with one another.
\nYet, despite its importance, word meaning seems to present a particular challenge for scholars of the Hebrew Bible. Time and time again, it has been subject to abuse in sermons, popular-level books, and even scholarly publications. The situation was so dire in the early 1960s that James Barr called for significant reform in our understanding of word meaning and its application to the Hebrew Bible. We have made much progress since then, but many of the problems have not gone away. As a result, Hebrew Bible lexicology and lexicography continue to suffer from misunderstanding and abuse today. This is unfortunate because word meaning must be understood properly to carry out accurate exegesis and to avoid various exegetical fallacies and mistakes.
\nSo, in this chapter I examine the meaning of words and demonstrate this topic\u2019s relevance for understanding Biblical Hebrew and Biblical Aramaic. I begin with a survey of lexicology, the branch of linguistics that deals with lexical meaning. Then I explore various applications of lexicology to the meaning of biblical words. Finally, I discuss lexicography, or the practical application of lexicology through the writing of dictionaries, with reference to Biblical Hebrew and Biblical Aramaic lexicons.<\/p>\n
3.2 A MODERN LINGUISTIC FRAMEWORK FOR LEXICOLOGY<\/p>\n
This section explores key aspects of lexicology and its relevance for interpreting the Hebrew Bible. Specifically, I discuss lexical meaning, lexical relations, etymology and meaning change, and polysemy. These topics provide a framework for examining lexicology as it applies to Biblical Hebrew and Biblical Aramaic.<\/p>\n
3.2.1 Lexical Meaning<\/p>\n
Lexical semantics, or the study of word meaning, necessarily distinguishes word, reference, and sense. A word is a sequence of letters that together function as a symbol; it has no meaning in and of itself. This symbol points to its reference, or the thing in the world to which the word refers. A word and its reference are not directly equivalent to one another but are linked together by the sense, which is an abstract representation of what the word and its reference have in common. Distinguishing between sense and reference explains how different words can designate the same reference. For example, a book can be designated as book in English, Buch in German, livre in French, and \u05e1\u05b5\u05e4\u05b6\u05e8 in Hebrew because all legitimately express the sense of book.
\nTraditionally, lexical meaning has been described through lexical entailment. According to this notion, to know the meaning of a word is to know that something else about it is true\u2014in other words, if A is true about a word, then B must also necessarily be true. For example, a lexical entailment of the English word book is that of a written text because if something is a book, then it is a written text (\u201cIf it is a book, then it is a written text\u201d). A word\u2019s lexical entailments are often expressed through componential analysis, which analyzes a meaning in terms of the presence or absence of certain binary features. For example, the English word woman could be analyzed via componential analysis as [+HUMAN], [+FEMALE], and [+ADULT] whereas the English word girl could be analyzed as [+HUMAN], [+FEMALE], and [-ADULT].
\nAlthough helpful, the notion of lexical entailment as traditionally understood is limited. It does not distinguish what elements are most important to a word\u2019s meaning, nor can it express the full sense of a word. This is partly because meaning cannot be limited to a simple dictionary definition. Meaning also entails concept, or information derived from encyclopedic (i.e., experiential) knowledge of a word. For example, the English word in-law can have any number of mental associations, both good and bad. These associative meanings reflect common knowledge, a cultural \u201cbaggage\u201d of sorts, that impacts one\u2019s understanding of the word in-law just as much as a dictionary definition does.
\nGiven the limitations of lexical entailment, Cognitive Linguistics has instead advocated Prototype Theory, which uses a prototype (i.e., exemplar) of a semantic category as a point of reference for understanding the \u201cfuzzy boundaries\u201d of words. For example, the meaning of the English word bird can be understood in light of its prototype. This approach enables expression of the central (e.g., having two legs and feathers) and peripheral (e.g., flying and living in trees) features of the word bird and thereby provides a better understanding of its meaning. Furthermore, unlike traditional lexical entailment, prototypes incorporate experiential knowledge in that prototypes differ from culture to culture. A bird like a robin or sparrow\u2014but probably not a penguin or chicken\u2014will serve as the prototype of the word bird for most English speakers in the United States, but other birds will serve as the prototype in other parts of the world.<\/p>\n
3.2.2 Lexical Relations<\/p>\n
Lexical meaning can be further explored by comparing a word\u2019s meaning with those of other words, a concept known as lexical relations or paradigmatics. The primary concern of lexical relations is the classification of meanings according to their characteristics. As such, lexical relations entail synonymy, antonymy, and inclusion relations as well as semantic field theory. The key idea behind lexical relations is that the meanings of different words mutually define one another.
\nA synonym has the same meaning as another word, whereas an antonym expresses a meaning incompatible with that of another word. Rarely are two words absolute synonyms in that one can be exchanged for the other with no change in meaning. Much more common is near-synonymy, in which two words can substitute for each other in some contexts\u2014but not every context\u2014due to differences in sense, including connotation. The natural implication is that authors choose a specific word, at the exclusion of all others, to express the particular meaning they have in mind. This requires that we pay close attention not only to what word is used in discourse, but to what words are not used.
\nAnother aspect of paradigmatics is inclusion relations, or the hierarchical categorization of meanings that contain or are contained in other meanings. For example, tulip is a subset of flower in that its meaning falls within the general meaning of flower, and flower is in turn a subset of plant. In such a taxonomy, meanings that are subordinate are termed hyponyms, words that are superordinate are termed hypernyms, and the most general category is the basic level item. An important contribution of Cognitive Linguistics to our understanding of inclusion relations is the recognition that most people categorize words according to a popular-level folk taxonomy rather than a technical, scientific one.
\nSynonyms, antonyms, and inclusion relations all facilitate the classification of meaning according to semantic field, a notion that has its origins in Structuralism. Words that can be grouped together based on similar meaning, such as steam, boil, fry, broil, roast, and bake make up a semantic field under the hypernym cook. Our understanding of something is often enhanced by comparing and contrasting it with something else, especially that which is similar. So, by juxtaposing word meanings in this way, semantic field theory enhances our understanding of each individual meaning.<\/p>\n
3.2.3 Etymology and Meaning Change<\/p>\n
Thus far I have discussed words and their meaning synchronically. However, it is important to consider words diachronically too. Etymology is the investigation of a word\u2019s history. It examines not only the origin of a word but any subsequent developments or changes that word may have undergone. Because words and their meanings are connected, etymology naturally entails investigation of the history of a word\u2019s meaning. The study of etymology can be traced back to classical times (e.g., Plato, Cratylus 390e\u2013427d), but as a modern discipline it emerged from Comparative Philology during the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries.
\nWords originate in one of three different ways. First, a word can be inherited from a linguistic ancestor, known as a proto-language. Related words with related meanings, each derived from the same \u201cparent\u201d language, are known as cognates (e.g., English house, German Haus, Dutch huis, Danish, Norwegian, and Swedish hus, and Icelandic h\u00fas are all descended from Proto-Germanic *h\u016bsa- \u201chouse\u201d). Second, a word can be created within a language through the process of word formation. Common means of forming words include adding affixes (e.g., the addition of the suffix -ly to English slow creates the adverb slowly) and compounding (e.g., English skyscraper, formed from sky and scraper). Finally, a word can enter a language from the outside as a loanword. When a language has no word to express a new thing or concept, it often adopts a word from a language that already has a word to express the thing or concept (e.g., Europeans first encountered chocolate in the New World but had no word for it, so they adopted the native Nahuatl word for chocolate, \u010dokol\u0101tl, hence English chocolate).
\nOver the course of its history, a word often takes on meanings different from its original meaning. There are several different ways a word can acquire a new sense. Metonymy occurs when a word takes on meanings of something related to it (e.g., Hollywood refers not only to a geographical location but also to the American film industry). Metaphor entails comparison between different things and describing one as if it were the other (e.g., the word hands in the phrase hands of a clock compares the pointers of a clock with people\u2019s hands). A word\u2019s senses can also be broadened (e.g., English cupboard originally referred to a place for storing dishes but now refers to any small storage cabinet) or narrowed (e.g., English meat originally meant \u201cfood\u201d in general but now refers to animal flesh that is eaten).
\nBecause meanings can change like this, etymology cannot conclusively establish a word\u2019s present-day meaning. For example, English deer comes from Proto-Germanic *deuza-, which means \u201canimal.\u201d Whereas German Tier and Dutch dier preserve the original general meaning, English has narrowed the definition to refer to a specific type of animal, namely one with four legs and antlers. Another problem with using etymology to determine a word\u2019s meaning is that a word is not always analyzable in terms of its components or root. For example, whereas the meaning of English microbiology makes good sense in light of its components micro and biology, such is not the case with English butterfly. Nevertheless, a key function of etymology is that it illuminates the formal and semantic relationships between words. Especially in absence of other evidence, etymology can potentially play a role in clarifying\u2014although not conclusively establishing\u2014the meaning of a word.<\/p>\n
3.2.4 Polysemy<\/p>\n
Investigation of etymology enables us to explain why many words have multiple meanings. In some cases, a word has multiple meanings due to homonymy, which occurs when two different words of separate, unrelated origin have come to look the same for historical reasons. In most cases, however, multiple meanings can instead be attributed to polysemy. This occurs when the multiple meanings arise from semantic change rather than differing etymologies. An example is English coat, which can mean \u201can outer garment with sleeves,\u201d \u201can animal\u2019s covering of fur,\u201d or \u201ca covering of paint or similar material.\u201d The various meanings of coat can be explained by expansion of existing senses to include other senses. Specifically, the garment sense was broadened to include other types of coverings, including an animal\u2019s fur and a layer of paint.
\nA single \u201ccore meaning\u201d is rarely discoverable when polysemy occurs. In the case of coat, the original sense\u2014a garment\u2014no longer plays a significant role in the secondary meanings of this word. One could perhaps try to argue that each of its meanings entails the notion of covering. However, this idea cannot be abstracted as the core meaning because this word coat refers to specific kinds of coverings, and coat and covering are therefore not fully interchangeable. Thus, although certain senses are undoubtedly central to a polysemous word, it is often difficult, if not impossible, to determine a core meaning.
\nIn light of this difficulty, Cognitive Linguistics offers a helpful perspective for understanding polysemy. In cognitive approaches like Frame Semantics (developed by Charles J. Fillmore) and Cognitive Grammar (developed by Ronald W. Langacker), encyclopedic meaning in the form of frames or domains creates a network for understanding a word\u2019s various meanings. For example, the English word mother can be used with reference to giving birth, contributing genetic material, nurturing, and marriage to one\u2019s father. These different senses create a network, or frame, that establish the prototypical concept mother. Not every usage of the English word mother will activate each of these meanings, but they provide a general framework that helps to explain its various usages, including non-prototypical ones.
\nA significant corollary of all this is that a given word will rarely, if ever, possess all its possible meanings in a single usage. It is true that sometimes an expression contains a word with deliberate vagueness in order to create wordplay or a double entendre. However, this phenomenon is relatively rare. The only way to know which of a word\u2019s senses is intended in a particular usage is consideration of the context. The context entails the cotext, which includes syntagmatics, or the relationships with other words in the utterance, as well as the literary context, or the placement of the word within the broader discourse. It also entails context of situation, or the historical-cultural background of the text.<\/p>\n
3.3 LEXICOLOGY AND THE HEBREW BIBLE<\/p>\n
Mois\u00e9s Silva\u2019s Biblical Words and Their Meaning and James Barr\u2019s The Semantics of Biblical Language provide an excellent starting point for summarizing some important implications of the above theories for understanding Hebrew Bible lexicology, and I draw largely from them in what follows. However, I also expand upon and even modify some of their conclusions in light of recent developments in lexicology, particularly those of Cognitive Linguistics.<\/p>\n
3.3.1 Determining Meaning<\/p>\n
One of the most important areas in which lexicology impacts our understanding of the Hebrew Bible regards word meaning. Silva especially emphasizes the importance of context for determining the meaning of biblical words. This is because, for words with various possible meanings, \u201cthe context does not merely help us understand meaning\u2014it virtually makes meaning.\u201d We cannot simply pick what we want a word to mean, nor can we assume that a word carries all of its possible meanings at the same time. Rather, we must rely on the contextual clues that a biblical author has given us to know which of a word\u2019s possible meanings is intended. In the Hebrew Bible, context exists at multiple levels, both linguistically (at the linguistic level) and extralinguistically (beyond the linguistic level).
\nLinguistically, we can investigate the cotext of a biblical word. This entails both the syntagmatic relationship between a biblical word and its surrounding words as well as the broader literary context of the word\u2019s textual unit. Ideally, the cotext is examined in terms of contextual circles, beginning with the most immediate context and expanding outward to other contexts, namely the paragraph, major literary unit, the entire composition, all of the author\u2019s works, and finally the entire Hebrew Bible. For example, if we were interested in the meaning of the Biblical Hebrew word \u05d7\u05b5\u05df in Gen 6:8, we would begin by investigating all occurrences of the syntagm \u05de\u05e6\u05d0 \u05d7\u05b5\u05df \u05d1\u05b0\u05bc\u05e2\u05b5\u05d9\u05e0\u05b5\u05d9 \u201cto find favor in the eyes of\u201d within the book of Genesis. Then we would gradually work our way outward to occurrences outside the book, giving priority to those that are conceptually parallel (e.g., Exod 33:12\u201313, 16\u201317; 34:9) and therefore contextually closer.
\nExtralinguistically, we can examine the historical-cultural circumstances surrounding the production of that textual unit as well as the way that the word has been interpreted in the history of biblical exegesis. Returning to the example of \u05d7\u05b5\u05df in Gen 6:8, we would examine the cultural associations of generosity and favor within the ancient Near East, including ancient Israel. We would also examine the reception history, an important step because we commonly understand theologically loaded concepts in light of past interpretation. In the case of \u05d7\u05b5\u05df, the Protestant Reformation\u2019s dichotomy between grace and works-righteousness may or may not lead us astray from the biblical author\u2019s understanding of this word.
\nSilva also discusses how the meaning of a biblical word can be investigated in terms of lexical relations. This is especially true of synonyms. When a biblical author has the option of using several different words to refer to the same thing, his choice of a specific word over others naturally evokes a particular association that the others do not. Thus, for example, the use of \u05ea\u05bc\u05d5\u05b9\u05e8\u05b8\u05d4 in Josh 1:7\u20138 evokes the association of the law given at Sinai, connotations that terms within the same general semantic field (e.g., \u05de\u05b4\u05e6\u05b0\u05d5\u05b8\u05d4 or \u05d7\u05b9\u05e7) would not necessarily have. In the same way, the meaning of \u05d8\u05d5\u05b9\u05d1 (\u201cgood\u201d) can be illuminated by investigating one of its antonyms, \u05e8\u05b8\u05e2 (\u201cbad, evil\u201d). The interpreter therefore benefits from asking not only the question \u201cWhat is the meaning of the word used by the author?\u201d but also \u201cWhy did the author use this particular word as opposed to others?\u201d
\nSilva\u2019s analysis rightly notes how lexical meaning is mutually defining, and he rightly presents the importance of context for determining the meaning of a biblical word. At the same time, such an approach primarily reflects Structuralism, which views language as an internal system. Accordingly, although Silva does discuss the importance of context of situation (i.e., the text\u2019s historical-cultural background) for understanding a word, through his emphasis on syntagmatics and paradigmatics he downplays the role that encyclopedic knowledge plays in determining meaning. This same shortcoming is evident in many works on Biblical Hebrew and Biblical Aramaic semantics of the second half of the twentieth century, particularly those that focus on syntagmatics and the semantic fields of biblical words.
\nFollowing Cognitive Linguistics, recent scholarship on biblical semantics has sought to incorporate encyclopedic knowledge into meaning. These studies do so through use of cognitive approaches like Prototype Theory and Frame Semantics. A potential problem with many of these works is that they require a background in Cognitive Linguistics, rendering them inaccessible to most scholars of the Hebrew Bible. Furthermore, since scholars have only recently begun to apply Cognitive Linguistics to Biblical Hebrew and Biblical Aramaic, their methodologies and application will necessarily require some refinement. Nevertheless, these works represent significant advances in our understanding of lexical meaning, especially because they rightfully incorporate encyclopedic knowledge. We look forward to more contributions along these lines.<\/p>\n
3.3.2 Lexicology and Biblical Theology<\/p>\n
Whereas Silva focuses much on establishing a linguistic foundation for biblical semantics, Barr critiques scholarship\u2019s application of lexical semantics to Biblical Hebrew and Biblical Aramaic. One topic he examines is the identification of language with worldview. He notes how it is common to hear \u201cHebrew thought\u201d distinguished from \u201cGreek thought\u201d on the basis of language. According to those who distinguish the two, the ancient Israelites\u2019 way of thinking was concrete and dynamic because Biblical Hebrew only possesses the masculine and feminine genders whereas the Greeks, who also used a neuter gender, were supposedly more abstract and static. Identification of language with worldview is quite ancient but has been popularized in the modern era as the so-called Sapir-Whorf hypothesis, which argues that language actually determines worldview. However\u2014with all due respect to science fiction movies like Arrival\u2014this perspective has largely been discredited by various scientific studies. Accordingly, no significant link can be established between a particular way of thinking and the languages of the Hebrew Bible.
\nAfter establishing that there is no direct link between language and worldview, Barr turns to a critique of the use of words to construct biblical theology. Here Barr severely criticizes theological dictionaries, especially the Theological Dictionary of the New Testament. His critique focuses on these dictionaries\u2019 failure to adequately distinguish between words and concepts, as is evident by their discussion of concepts under single words or word-groups. For example, the standard theological dictionaries for the Hebrew Bible all discuss the concepts of faith and faithfulness under a single entry for the word-group \u05d0\u05de\u05df, giving the impression that there is a one-to-one correspondence between the word-group \u05d0\u05de\u05df and these concepts. This, however, is not true because these concepts can be associated with other words (e.g., \u05d1\u05d8\u05d7) and may even be present contextually in a passage that does not explicitly use \u05d0\u05de\u05df or its derivatives.
\nThis critique is important and certainly worth our attention. Nevertheless, Barr\u2019s strict distinction between words and concepts was largely influenced by the structuralist thought of his day. Structuralism overreacted to Comparative Philology, the linguistic school of thought that produced the first theological dictionaries. With the advent of Cognitive Linguistics, however, the pendulum has swung back toward the middle as linguists once again recognize a connection between language and worldview. It is true that words and concepts are not the same thing. However, they are not entirely unrelated either. This is because encyclopedic knowledge contributes to our understanding of what a word means, as already discussed.
\nThese associations are largely connected with one\u2019s culture. Thus, for example, within ancient Israelite culture, Biblical Hebrew \u05de\u05b6\u05dc\u05b6\u05da\u05b0 (\u201cking, ruler\u201d) would have mentally evoked a number of associations that are not necessarily evoked by modern English king in today\u2019s United States (and certainly in today\u2019s United Kingdom). Recognition of the link between language and culture reopens the door for exploration of the relationship between words and biblical theology. Hopefully, some will take up this important task.<\/p>\n
3.3.3 The Use of Etymology<\/p>\n
A final way in which modern lexicology impacts our understanding of the Hebrew Bible regards etymology. Barr especially criticizes the use of etymology for establishing the meaning of biblical words. He rightfully points out that usage\u2014not etymology\u2014determines a word\u2019s meaning, and that a Biblical Hebrew or Biblical Aramaic word cannot always be easily analyzed in terms of its compound or root elements. For example, Biblical Hebrew \u05de\u05b7\u05dc\u05b8\u05bc\u05d7 (\u201csailor\u201d) seems to be connected in terms of its root to the word \u05de\u05b6\u05dc\u05b7\u05d7 (\u201csalt\u201d) because both share the same three root letters. However, there is no connection between the two. Barr also notes that comparison with cognates in other Semitic languages can be misleading because a word may change meaning differently in those languages than in Biblical Hebrew and Biblical Aramaic. For example, whereas Biblical Hebrew \u05d0\u05de\u05e8 means \u201cto say, think,\u201d its Akkadian cognate am\u0101ru means \u201cto see.\u201d Both verbs ultimately relate to perception, but they have different meanings due to different semantic developments within their respective languages.
\nAt the same time, Barr\u2019s point is not that etymology can never be useful. Rather, his point is that etymology is not always reliable and that scholars therefore need to utilize it carefully, especially given its history of abuse. As Barr admits, etymology remains a useful tool for determining the meaning of words that have little context. This is especially true for rare words, including the approximately 1500 hapax legomena that make up about 15 percent of the Hebrew Bible\u2019s vocabulary. With very few occurrences, and therefore little context, scholars are often forced to rely on comparative data to determine the meaning of rare words. If a scholar is to use comparative data rightly in these cases, he or she should ideally possess a thorough knowledge of the other languages involved. Any proposed relationships, furthermore, should reflect attested sound correspondences to avoid fanciful proposals.
\nA good example of etymology\u2019s value for understanding rare words is Hebrew \u05ea\u05bb\u05bc\u05db\u05b4\u05bc\u05d9, which occurs only in 1 Kgs 10:22 and its parallel, 2 Chr 9:21. This word was taken by the ancient versions (cf. the Vulgate\u2019s pavo, the Peshitta\u2019s \u1e6dws\u02be, and the Targum\u2019s \u05d8\u05d5\u05d5\u05e1) as meaning \u201cpeacock,\u201d a rendering that found its way into the King James Version and persisted in many modern translations (e.g., ESV, NASB, NRSV). However, this does not make much sense because the other items imported by Solomon in 1 Kgs 10:22\u2014gold, ivory, and apes\u2014seem to be products from the Horn of Africa, and peacocks do not live there. This word\u2019s meaning was solved in the early twentieth century, when William Foxwell Albright first suggested a connection with Egyptian t\ua722-ky, which denotes a species of African ape. Such a meaning makes good sense within the context of 1 Kgs 10:22 and thereby helps to establish the meaning of this rare Hebrew word.<\/p>\n
3.4 LEXICOGRAPHY OF THE HEBREW BIBLE<\/p>\n
Lexicography puts the theoretical discipline of lexicology into practice in that it entails the making of dictionaries. Below I outline some of the challenges involved in producing a Hebrew Bible lexicon and then evaluate the most important Hebrew Bible lexicons, semantic domain dictionaries, and theological dictionaries.<\/p>\n
3.4.1 The Challenges of Producing a Hebrew Bible Lexicon<\/p>\n
It may be an obvious point, but it is worth remembering that Hebrew Bible lexicons fall within the category of dictionaries of dead languages. This automatically presents a significant challenge. Typically, the users of a dictionary are users of the language treated in the dictionary. Such is not the case for Hebrew Bible lexicons, however, because they deal with languages that are no longer spoken. This presents a difficulty because ideally a lexicographer has direct access to speakers of the language treated in the dictionary.
\nThis fundamental problem is compounded by the practical decisions that face the biblical lexicographer. These decisions, which are encountered by all lexicographers of dead languages, entail issues of both extent and content.
\nFirst is the question of the corpus. Should the lexicon be limited to words in the Hebrew Bible, or should it also include material from contemporaneous material? Hebrew and Aramaic inscriptions as well as texts like the Dead Sea Scrolls contain additional, non-biblical words that could be included in the lexicon.
\nSecond is the question of form. How should the lexemes be presented? Some Biblical Hebrew and Biblical Aramaic words exhibit spelling variation (i.e., full versus defective writing), so the lexicographer must decide which form will serve as the headword. Another important decision here, especially pertinent to the Semitic languages, is whether to arrange the lexemes by three-letter root or entirely alphabetically by word.
\nThird is the question of the meaning. How should word meaning be presented? Here the lexicographer is faced with a choice between two basic options. Should a lexeme\u2019s meaning be listed by sense, starting with the most basic, prototypical senses followed by less frequent, metaphorical senses? Such an approach is arguably more in line with modern lexical semantics. Or should meaning be organized by syntactical constructions? Although not as linguistically sound, such an approach could be more helpful for the dictionary user.
\nFourth is the question of additional information. What information should be included beyond that of the lexeme\u2019s meaning? Information that could be included to illuminate the lexeme\u2019s meaning are data on syntagmatics, context in situation, and stylistics. Other possible information to include are cognates (e.g., Akkadian, Ugaritic, and Arabic) and etymologies (in the case of loanwords and newly invented words).
\nKeeping these challenges in mind, I now turn to investigating the most common lexicons of Biblical Hebrew and Biblical Aramaic. These works include lexicons proper, semantic domain dictionaries, and theological dictionaries.<\/p>\n
3.4.2 Lexicons for Biblical Hebrew and Biblical Aramaic<\/p>\n
3.4.2.1 A Hebrew and English Lexicon of the Old Testament (BDB)<\/p>\n
A Hebrew and English Lexicon of the Old Testament, with an Appendix Containing the Biblical Aramaic (BDB) can be traced back to the work of Wilhelm Gesenius. The three authors of BDB\u2014Francis Brown, S. R. Driver, and Charles A. Briggs\u2014based their lexicon on Edward Robinson\u2019s English translation of Gesenius\u2019s Hebr\u00e4isches und chald\u00e4isches Handw\u00f6rterbuch \u00fcber das Alte Testament. BDB was published in both the United States (1906) and Britain (1907) just after the turn of the twentieth century, and a second edition appeared nearly half-a-century later (1952). Jo Ann Hackett and John Huehnergard of the University of Texas-Austin are currently producing a revision of BDB that, when completed, will be available both in print and online.
\nBDB falls within the tradition of Comparative Philology, as might be expected given its time of publication and its dependence on the work of Gesenius. The introduction states that the lexicon\u2019s purpose is to establish the \u201cproper meanings\u201d of Hebrew words in light of their \u201cextra-Biblical history and relationship\u201d and \u201ccognate languages.\u201d In accordance with this purpose, each lexeme is arranged according to root, and most entries list pertinent etymological and cognate data after the headword. Word usages are grouped by meaning, with glosses and representative examples provided.
\nBDB remains a noteworthy lexicon for the study of Biblical Hebrew and Biblical Aramaic. It represents a significant accomplishment of scholarship for its time. Yet, its rendering of Biblical Hebrew and Biblical Aramaic words with glosses rather than definitions cannot adequately express their meaning. Furthermore, BDB\u2019s organization by root is problematic, especially in the cases of words that have no clear root. Finally, BDB\u2019s philological data is sorely outdated because it was produced prior to the discovery of Ugaritic and the Dead Sea Scrolls, and at a time when our understanding of other Semitic languages (e.g., Akkadian) was still in its infancy.<\/p>\n
3.4.2.2 The Hebrew-Aramaic Lexicon of the Old Testament (HALOT)<\/p>\n
What is now known as The Hebrew-Aramaic Lexicon of the Old Testament (HALOT) has a long publication history. The first edition was published in German by Ludwig K\u00f6hler between 1948 and 1953. Then, in 1957, it was succeeded by a supplement of Biblical Aramaic words, compiled by Walter Baumgartner, and published as a second edition along with a list of additions and corrections. After K\u00f6hler\u2019s death in 1956, Baumgartner began work on a third edition, enlisting the work of other scholars (especially Johann Jakob Stamm) to help bring it to completion. The project was finally completed in 1995, by which point both Baumgartner and Stamm had died. Meanwhile, the need for an English translation prompted M. E. J. Richardson to prepare an English edition, which was published between 1994 and 2000. A concise single-volume edition is presently being produced by a team at the University of Berne, and a supplement to the full English edition is currently in preparation by Chaim Cohen of Ben-Gurion University.
\nAs indicated in the preface, HALOT seeks to \u201crender accurately in modern language the meaning of the Hebrew words.\u201d HALOT also considers the \u201cmost important part of linguistics \u2026 the comparison of languages.\u201d Thus, HALOT adopts Comparative Philology\u2019s approach to lexicography, similar to BDB. However, because of its later publication date it incorporates comparative data not available when BDB was produced. Another significant difference is that HALOT organizes its lexical entries alphabetically by lexeme. Word usage within each entry is grouped by meaning, expressed as glosses.
\nHALOT\u2019s alphabetical arrangement of words gives it a distinct advantage over BDB in terms of ease of use. Its updated etymological data, presented in transliterated form rather than its original script, is also a significant strength. However, its etymological data is not without weakness. HALOT contains a number of questionable etymologies and comparisons, particularly with respect to Arabic, that sometimes overshadow semantic and syntactic evidence from the biblical text itself. Finally, like BDB, HALOT suffers from use of glosses rather than definitions.<\/p>\n
3.4.2.3 Dictionary of Classical Hebrew (DCH)<\/p>\n
The eight-volume Dictionary of Classical Hebrew (DCH) was first conceived in 1983. Work on the project began in 1988, and as volumes were completed it was published by Sheffield Academic Press between 1993 and 2011. The project was produced under the editorial leadership of David J. A. Clines at the University of Sheffield and under the auspices of the Society for Old Testament Study, making it a predominantly British work.
\nDCH significantly differs from its predecessors in two key ways, as noted by Clines in the introduction to the first volume. First, it covers the Hebrew language as attested in texts prior to 200 CE, which includes not only the Hebrew of the Old Testament but also Ben Sira, the Dead Sea Scrolls, and extrabiblical inscriptions. Thus, unlike BDB and HALOT, it does not include Biblical Aramaic. Second, in accordance with its belief that \u201cthe meaning of a word is its use in the language,\u201d DCH lists all word usages, expressed as glosses, according to their syntagmatic constructions rather than similar meaning. This exclusive focus on word usage means that DCH does not include any comparative or etymological data. The result is a lexicon that looks very different from BDB and HALOT.
\nDCH\u2019s focus on the usage of words within their context makes it a rich repository of data. However, because it lists every single occurrence of a word, the amount of data is overwhelming, difficult to sort through, and not necessarily helpful. These data are presented at the complete expense of philological information and do not provide any information on possible encyclopedic meaning. Furthermore, DCH\u2019s corpus is problematic. Including Hebrew from as late as 200 CE as if it fits alongside earlier material effectively disregards changes that have taken place in the language. The exclusion of Biblical Aramaic neglects a relatively small, but nevertheless important, portion of the canon.<\/p>\n
3.4.2.4 Semantics of Ancient Hebrew Database (SAHD)<\/p>\n
The Semantics of Ancient Hebrew Database (SAHD) originated during three workshops, held from 1992 to 1994, that explored the theoretical and practical aspects of a semantic database for ancient Hebrew. The project was officially launched in 1994 under the auspices of the European Science Foundation. Currently chaired by Holger Gzella of Leiden University, it operates out of a network of centers established at universities throughout Europe. According to the project website, its purpose is \u201cto prepare a tool which can be a useful inducement to further semantic research\u201d and to \u201cprovide a badly needed survey of the results and arguments found in the scholarly literature.\u201d Like DCH, it includes Hebrew words from the Old Testament as well as inscriptions, Ben Sira, and the Dead Sea Scrolls, but does not encompass Biblical Aramaic.
\nEach entry of SAHD contains several items. These include comparative Semitic and etymological data, key morphological characteristics, syntagmatics, translation equivalents in the ancient versions, categorization according to semantic field, exegetical insights for specific occurrences, concluding summary, and a bibliography. Although far from finished, the project is well underway, and a number of entries are complete and available online. The project has also resulted in a number of print publications.
\nSAHD represents a significant accomplishment and a model for future Hebrew Bible lexicons. It strikes a good balance between traditional historical-comparative (e.g., etymological data and data from ancient versions) and structuralist (e.g., syntagmatic information and semantic field data) approaches to lexicography. However, in doing so it largely ignores encyclopedic knowledge. Furthermore, although the data are laid out clearly in each entry, the user may not know what to do with the quantity of information, especially when it is provided without comment or evaluative judgment. Finally, SAHD\u2019s usefulness is limited to Hebrew because the project excludes Biblical Aramaic.<\/p>\n
3.4.2.5 Semantic Dictionary of Biblical Hebrew (SDBH)<\/p>\n
The Semantic Dictionary of Biblical Hebrew (SDBH) was launched online in 2000 under the auspices of the United Bible Societies. Reinier de Blois, now the chief editor of SDBH, conducted the preliminary research for the project that resulted in his Vrije Universiteit dissertation. The goal of the project is to \u201cbuild a new dictionary of biblical Hebrew that is based on semantic domains, comparable to Louw and Nida\u2019s Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament.\u201d Although currently available, it is a work in progress and not yet completed.
\nUnlike Louw and Nida, SDBH is based on Cognitive Linguistics, which provides a better model for expressing word meaning than componential analysis. Naturally, its semantic domains also differ from those of Louw and Nida because Biblical Hebrew contains a different range of vocabulary than New Testament Greek. Each Hebrew word belongs to one of three classes of words\u2014Objects, Events, or Relationals\u2014and is further sub-grouped with other words of similar semantic domains. Furthermore, words belonging to the Objects and Events classes are assigned both a lexical (i.e., extralinguistic) and contextual (i.e., within specific occurrences) meaning. Semantic distinctions therefore take priority over grammatical classification by part of speech.
\nOne strength of SDBH is its use of actual definitions rather than glosses. SDBH also incorporates a number of insights from Cognitive Linguistics. Perhaps most notable is its distinction between lexical and contextual meaning, an attempt to account for both the dictionary definition of a word as well as encyclopedic knowledge. Nevertheless, it is questionable whether SDBH\u2019s semantic domains accurately represent ancient Israelite categories as opposed to Blois\u2019s own categories. Furthermore, due to its focus on semantic domains, SDBH pays little attention to syntagmatics and no attention to etymological data.<\/p>\n
3.4.2.6 Theological Dictionaries<\/p>\n
The most-commonly used theological dictionaries are the Theological Dictionary of the Old Testament (TDOT), the Theological Lexicon of the Old Testament (TLOT), and the New International Dictionary of Old Testament Theology and Exegesis (NIDOTTE). Both TDOT and NIDOTTE are relatively comprehensive in terms of their scope, whereas TLOT is limited to key theological terms. Entries in each dictionary contain information on cognates, usage in the Hebrew Bible, and theological significance.
\nEach of these projects began after Barr\u2019s critique of theological dictionaries. Therefore, they exhibit at least some awareness of the pitfalls inherent to producing a theological dictionary, as is evident from the editors\u2019 introductory remarks. Overall TDOT, TLOT, and NIDOTTE maintain a distinction between word and concept. However, they do not always do so successfully, in part because their structure inherently associates specific concepts with each word set, rather than the other way around. At the same time, because words are ultimately not separable from concepts, and because we as interpreters lack encyclopedic knowledge of ancient Israel due to our historical and cultural distance, theological dictionaries remain useful repositories of data.
\nMore problematic is the issue of semantic fields. Although each project claims to offer a dictionary based on semantic fields, none fully delivers. NIDOTTE comes the closest to doing so in that it provides an index of semantic fields. Nevertheless, in each project semantic fields are not well defined, nor are they based on any clear criteria. Furthermore, entries do not always pay adequate attention to synonyms and antonyms. Here especially there remains significant room for growth, and hopefully future theological dictionaries will give greater consideration to this area.<\/p>\n
3.4.2.7 Evaluation<\/p>\n
The above survey demonstrates the rich and varied history of Hebrew Bible lexicography. Traditional dictionaries such as BDB and HALOT remain useful tools, and the emergence of electronic databases such as SADH and SDBH is particularly encouraging. Theological lexicons, furthermore, are alive and well despite their potential pitfalls. At the same time, the above survey demonstrates some methodological problems in most Hebrew Bible lexicons.
\nFirst, a significant problem with most current Hebrew Bible lexicons is the use of glosses. Glosses imply a one-to-one correspondence between the Biblical Hebrew or Biblical Aramaic word and the modern gloss. This can be misleading when their meanings do not match up entirely. It does not, furthermore, line up with current lexicographic practice. Especially when the dictionary user is unaware of the cultural world of the source language, lexicographers recommend giving an explanatory equivalent. This entails providing an extended definition that describes the word\u2019s meaning in encyclopedic terms. The challenge here is to know how much description is necessary\u2014and practical\u2014for the user. Nevertheless, biblical lexicographers would do well to incorporate definitions with at least some encyclopedic knowledge into their lexicons.
\nSecond, in part following Barr\u2019s strong critiques of etymology, several recent Hebrew Bible lexicons ignore etymological data altogether. It is true that etymological data is typically only included in diachronic (i.e., historical or etymological) dictionaries, which Hebrew Bible lexicons are not. It is also true that biblical lexicographers have frequently misused etymological data, as BDB and even the recent HALOT demonstrate. However, as noted earlier, the Hebrew Bible\u2019s many rare words require the use of etymology, and abuse does not preclude proper use. Furthermore, etymology is helpful for distinguishing homonyms even in synchronic dictionaries, and including etymological data facilitates the comparative method for the Semitic languages. It would therefore be rash to ignore etymological data altogether. Nevertheless, there is room for debate on how best to include such data.
\nFinally, at the practical level there is significant need for better attention to the structure and presentation of biblical lexicons. BDB, HALOT, and DCH each omit an introductory \u201cguide to the dictionary\u201d that facilitates use of the lexicon. Generally speaking, these lexicons also lack intuitive organization and microstructures (e.g., clearly divided entries and organization of data that reflects importance and contribution). The online databases of SAHD and SDBH, on the other hand, contain many of these features and make good use of technology to facilitate rapid access of data. Hopefully, future lexicon projects will follow suit by utilizing an open-ended, online database format.
\nDespite these critiques, I want to reiterate that existing Hebrew Bible lexicons are helpful resources. The key for us is to recognize lexicons for what they are\u2014tools\u2014and what they are not\u2014the final authority on the meaning of words. Here we do well to heed the conclusions of Richard Ashdowne regarding dictionaries of dead languages:<\/p>\n
The lexicographer always strives for a fair account of the surviving evidence, and, if it is diligently analysed, this gives the dictionary a degree of authoritativeness; users can reasonably rely on the information provided. However \u2026 the compiler of such a dictionary is repeatedly invited to go beyond the evidence into territory for which perhaps native knowledge and competence would be the only true source of authority. In the absence of this, it is unsurprising that dictionary users may come to a dictionary assuming that it can and will provide the information needed and that this information is uniformly certain. In how such a dictionary presents itself, however, we have seen ways in which this attitude is carefully discouraged: lexicographers of dead languages instead encourage their users to approach their dictionaries with different expectations and to reach views about interpretation for themselves aided by rather than derived from the dictionary.<\/p>\n
3.5 THE WAYS FORWARD<\/p>\n
James Barr\u2019s critique of scholars\u2019 application of lexical semantics to the Hebrew Bible was much-needed. His clarion call gave scholars of the Hebrew Bible a solid foundation for applying lexical semantics to Biblical Hebrew and Biblical Aramaic, and many others\u2014most notably Mois\u00e9s Silva\u2014have continued in this vein. All this has led to the production of many helpful tools and resources for understanding the meaning of Biblical Hebrew and Biblical Aramaic words. The end result is more linguistically informed exegesis and, ultimately, a better understanding of the text of the Hebrew Bible.
\nYet, as always, there is continued room for improvement. Cognitive Linguistics offers valuable refinement of Barr\u2019s and Silva\u2019s approaches, which were largely based in Structuralism and the trappings of their time. Of particular note is the recent reawakening to the notion that encyclopedic knowledge plays an important role in word meaning. Hopefully, future scholarship will continue to explore the role of encyclopedic knowledge for the meaning of Biblical Hebrew and Biblical Aramaic words. Continued investigation along this line can only lead to refinement in method and improved understanding. As scholarship advances in this way, however, we must not forget the value of syntagmatics and pragmatics as well as etymology for understanding word meaning. Only combined with these traditional approaches can recent insights from Cognitive Linguistics enhance our understanding of lexical meaning and thereby better equip us for faithful exegesis and ministry.<\/p>\n
3.6 FURTHER READING<\/p>\n
Barr, James. The Semantics of Biblical Language. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1961.
\nClines, David J. A. \u201cThe Challenge of Hebrew Lexicography Today.\u201d Pages 87\u201398 in Congress Volume: Ljubljana, 2007. Edited by Andr\u00e9 Lemaire. VTSup 133. Leiden: Brill, 2010.
\nHoltz, Shalom E. \u201cLexicography: Biblical Hebrew.\u201d EHLL 2:507\u201310.
\nHovav, Malka Rappaport. \u201cLexical Semantics.\u201d EHLL 2:499\u2013504.
\nKedar-Kopfstein, Benjamin. Biblische Semantik: Eine Einfuhrung. Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 1981.
\nMerwe, Christo H. J. van der. \u201cBiblical Hebrew Lexicology: A Cognitive Linguistic Perspective.\u201d Kleine Untersuchungen zur Sprache des Alten Testaments und seiner Umwelt 6 (2006): 87\u2013112.
\n\u2014\u2014\u2014. \u201cTowards a Principled Working Model for Biblical Hebrew Lexicography.\u201d JNSL 30.1 (2004): 119\u201337.
\nO\u2019Connor, Michael. \u201cSemitic Lexicography: European Dictionaries of Biblical Hebrew in the Twentieth Century.\u201d Pages 173\u2013212 in Semitic Linguistics: The State of the Art at the Turn of the Twenty-First Century. Edited by Shlomo Izre\u02beel. IOS 20. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2002.
\nSilva, Mois\u00e9s. Biblical Words and Their Meaning: An Introduction to Lexical Semantics. 2nd ed. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1994.
\nTropper, Josef. \u201cLexikographische Untersuchungen zum Biblisch-Aram\u00e4ischen.\u201d JNSL 23.2 (1997): 105\u201328.
\nWalton, John H. \u201cPrinciples for Productive Word Study.\u201d NIDOTTE 1:161\u201371.<\/p>\n
CHAPTER 4<\/p>\n
THE VERBAL STEMS<\/p>\n
The question [of] how the function of Piel in relation to other conjugations, notably Qal, should be defined still remains one of the major challenges facing Hebrew and Semitic linguistics.
\n\u2014TAKAMITSU MURAOKA<\/p>\n
4.1 INTRODUCTION<\/p>\n
One of the major features of the Semitic languages\u2014including Biblical Hebrew and Biblical Aramaic\u2014is the verbal stems, or binyanim. The primary role of the verbal stems is to form new words, and thereby to expand the lexicon, by modifying the three-letter verbal root. Specific combinations of preformatives, vowels, and reduplicated consonants alter the basic pattern of the root and create new meanings. Hebrew and Aramaic therefore differ significantly from a language like English, for example, which relies primarily on the addition of words (i.e., auxiliaries) to express changes in meaning.
\nGiven their importance for the Semitic languages and their uniqueness compared with the Indo-European languages, it is not surprising that the verbal stems have occupied a significant place in research. During the heyday of Comparative Philology, scholars grew in their understanding of the verbal stems with the discovery of Semitic languages such as Akkadian and Ugaritic. Today, the verbal stems continue to be a common topic of discussion in research. Developments in modern linguistics have contributed to this conversation.
\nIn this chapter I examine recent advances in our understanding of the verbal stems, focusing mostly on Biblical Hebrew because little scholarship has treated this topic for Biblical Aramaic. I discuss modern linguistic concepts that shed light on the Biblical Hebrew verbal stems and canvas key scholarship on the primary derived stems: the Niphal (the N stem), the Piel (the D stem), the Hiphil (the C stem), and the Hithpael (the tD stem). Then, I survey scholarship on the verbal stems in Biblical Aramaic. I offer evaluation and conclude, finally, with some suggestions for the ways forward.<\/p>\n
4.2 THE MODERN LINGUISTIC FRAMEWORK FOR THE VERBAL STEMS<\/p>\n
Steven W. Boyd provides an excellent summary of the modern linguistic framework for the verbal stems. He discusses three topics relevant for the verbal stems: arguments and transitivity, semantic roles and grammatical voice, and situation aspect and phasal aspect. I now turn to these concepts, demonstrating their significance for Biblical Hebrew and Biblical Aramaic in the process.<\/p>\n
4.2.1 Arguments and Transitivity<\/p>\n
The concept of a linguistic argument has its origins in the Government and Binding framework of the 1980s, especially the research of linguists such as Edwin Williams. An argument is a nominal component of a clause (i.e., a noun) associated with a predicate (i.e., a verb). All verbs have at least one argument, the grammatical subject, but some may also have a direct object or additional arguments. For example, the sentence The girl drew a picture has two arguments: the subject girl and the direct object picture. Linguists use the term valency, which originated with the French linguist Lucien Tesni\u00e8re, to refer to the number of arguments associated with a verb.
\nAs I just noted, a verb may or may not possess arguments in addition to its subject. Whether or not the verb does depends on its transitivity, or ability to take a direct object. Some verbs (e.g., He ran) are intransitive and do not take a direct object. Other verbs are transitive and take one direct object (e.g., She wrote a book) or even multiple ones (e.g., She gave the man the book). Naturally, whether a verb is intransitive or transitive will depend on the kind of situation it describes.
\nThese concepts are important for understanding the verbal stems because the Semitic languages distinguish between active verbs (i.e., verbs that express an action) and stative verbs (i.e., verbs that express a characteristic), both of which can be either transitive or intransitive. Furthermore, since the derived verbal stems increase or decrease transitivity and the number of arguments by transforming the basic meaning of the verbal root, having a grasp of these concepts is important.<\/p>\n
4.2.2 Semantic Roles and Grammatical Voice<\/p>\n
The concept of a semantic role (also known as a thematic relation) has its origins in Generative Grammar and was first introduced by Jeffery Gruber and Charles J. Fillmore in the 1960s. But it is not bound to the generative approach and has since been developed significantly by functionalists like Robert D. Van Valin. A semantic role describes the relationship that the arguments have to the verb. There are two broad categories of semantic roles. The Actor is the one that brings about a state or event, and the Undergoer is the one affected by the situation.
\nClosely related to semantic roles is grammatical voice or diathesis, which describes the grammatical function of a sentence\u2019s arguments. For an active construction, the verb\u2019s subject is the Actor and any direct object is the Undergoer (e.g., The boy kicked the ball), but for a passive construction the verb\u2019s subject is the Undergoer (e.g., The ball was kicked). In between the active and the passive are the middle and reflexive voices. The subject of a middle construction acts but does not actually bring about a situation (e.g., The door opened). In reflexive constructions, the Actor and Undergoer are the same because the subject affects itself (e.g., The woman washed herself).
\nThese ideas are significant for understanding the verbal stems because one of the verbal stems\u2019 primary functions is to indicate the grammatical voice of the verbal root. For example, the Pual and Hophal both express the passive of the Piel and Hiphil, respectively. Grammatical voice is also frequently\u2014but not always\u2014expressed in the Qal stem\u2019s active versus stative dichotomy, in that active verbs naturally express the active voice whereas stative verbs instead are passive.<\/p>\n
4.2.3 Situation Aspect and Phasal Aspect<\/p>\n
The idea of situation aspect, also known as lexical aspect and often identified with Aktionsart (a German word meaning \u201ctype of action\u201d), can be found in the writings of Aristotle (Metaphysics 1048b. 27\u201334). However, Zeno Vendler is largely responsible for our modern understanding of this concept. Situation aspect refers to the type of situation that a verb expresses. A verb may describe either an event or a state (dynamicity), and its situation may have an end point or not (telicity), and may occur over a period of time or instantaneously (durativity). Linguists disagree on how to classify the possible combinations of these categories, but at most there can be seven different situation aspects.<\/p>\n
SITUATION CLASS
\nDYNAMICITY
\nTELICITY
\nDURATIVITY
\nEXAMPLE (S)
\nProperty
\n–
\n–
\n+
\nbe small, be red
\nPoint State
\n–
\n+
\n–
\nit is 12 o\u2019clock
\nTransitory State
\n–
\n+
\n–
\nbe young, be hot
\nSemelfactive
\n+
\n–
\n–
\nknock, tap, cough, sneeze
\nActivity
\n+
\n–
\n+
\nwalk, read, play
\nAccomplishment
\n+
\n+
\n+
\nbuild a house, grow up
\nAchievement
\n+
\n+
\n–
\nrealize, find, win a contest<\/p>\n
As indicated by its name, phasal aspect refers to a situation\u2019s phases of development and describes a situation\u2019s progression through time. A verb can be either punctiliar (i.e., instantaneous) or durative (i.e., non-instantaneous), with the possibility of progression at the beginning, middle, and end of a situation.<\/p>\n
PHASAL ASPECT
\nDESCRIPTION
\nEXAMPLE
\nInchoative
\nentrance into a state
\nbecome angry
\nInceptive
\nbeginning of an event
\nbegin walking
\nPunctiliar
\ninstantaneous, non-durative event
\nto knock
\nIterative
\nrepetition of a non-durative event
\nto knock for 30 seconds
\nFrequentative
\nnon-habitual repetition of a durative event
\nwalk back and forth
\nHabitual
\ncustomary repetition of a durative event
\nused to walk
\nCessative
\nend of a state
\nstop being angry
\nCompletive
\ncompletion of an event
\nfinish walking<\/p>\n
Situation aspect is directly connected with lexical meaning, which lies behind the primary function of the verbal stems. Furthermore, the derived stems may express certain types of situations that fall within the category of phasal aspect. Possible types include inchoative and inceptive situations (the Niphal) as well as iterative and frequentative situations (the Piel).<\/p>\n
4.3 THE VERBAL STEMS IN BIBLICAL HEBREW<\/p>\n
These linguistic concepts (arguments and transitivity, semantic roles and grammatical voice, and situation aspect and phasal aspect) directly relate to the verbal stems\u2019 different functions. With these concepts in mind, I now look at key studies on the derived verbal stems in Biblical Hebrew, specifically the Niphal, Piel, Hiphil, and Hithpael.<\/p>\n
4.3.1 The Niphal<\/p>\n
The most common view of the Niphal is that it represents several different diatheses, one of which is the reflexive voice. Many modern grammars hold to this perspective. However, especially over the past few decades, a growing number of scholars have come to recognize that the Niphal expresses something other than the reflexive voice.
\nIn this section I survey key studies of the Niphal, highlighting recent departures from the traditional notion that the Niphal is reflexive. The relevant scholarship can be categorized in terms of three different functions attributed to the Niphal: the passive-reflexive, the resultative, and the medio-passive.<\/p>\n
4.3.1.1 The Niphal as Passive-Reflexive<\/p>\n
4.3.1.1.1 MAYER LAMBERT<\/p>\n
On the one side of the spectrum of those who think the Niphal functions reflexively is Mayer Lambert, who published one of the earliest studies of the Niphal. Lambert systematically lists and discusses each of the roots for which the Niphal occurs. He classifies each usage of the Niphal and connects its different functions to the other stems in which a root is attested. Lambert concludes that the Niphal typically functions as the reflexive or passive of the Qal, Piel, and Hiphil but can sometimes have its own distinct nuance and behave like an active verb. He thinks that the basic sense of the Niphal is the reflexive voice and that its passive function developed from its reflexive sense.
\nLambert\u2019s study is important because it represents the first systematic analysis of the Niphal. Yet, Lambert\u2019s study was conducted prior to the advent of modern linguistics. Accordingly, Lambert\u2019s study does not attempt to understand the Niphal in light of modern insights on semantic roles and diathesis. As a result, Lambert gives little attention to the middle voice in his study. Furthermore, Lambert\u2019s classification of each usage of the Niphal is somewhat arbitrary and largely relies on translation possibilities.<\/p>\n
4.3.1.1.2 GEORGE LINAM KLEIN<\/p>\n
On the other side of the spectrum is George Linam Klein, who argues that the Niphal is primarily passive even if it is sometimes reflexive. He classifies all the Hebrew Bible\u2019s Niphals into one of nine categories: reflexive, reciprocal, passive, middle, resultative, tolerative, denominative, active, and ambiguous. According to the resulting analysis, the Niphal expresses the passive voice in just over 50 percent of its occurrences, whereas it denotes the reflexive and middle in only 14.7 percent and 1.6 percent of its occurrences, respectively. Accordingly, Klein contends that the Niphal is primarily passive and that its usage as a reflexive\u2014and more rarely, as a middle\u2014both result from its original passive function.
\nKlein\u2019s study is essentially the first systematic analysis of the Niphal to incorporate insights from modern linguistics. However, he largely relies upon the debated theories of Joan Bresnan, who considers the passive to be lexical rather than syntactic. Furthermore, his categorization schema lacks nuance in that his criteria for classifying a root as reflexive (intransitivity and possession of both an unspecified agent and animate subject) can equally apply to the middle voice.<\/p>\n
4.3.1.1.3 P. A. SIEBESMA<\/p>\n
At least one study on the Niphal avoids categorizing this stem as primarily passive or reflexive. P. A. Siebesma argues for a single core meaning of the Niphal that encompasses the passive and reflexive voices. Siebesma\u2019s approach largely follows that of Lambert in that he relates each root semantically to the Qal, Piel, and Hiphil\u2014even using Lambert\u2019s same categories\u2014and defines that semantic connection in terms of grammatical voice. However, unlike Lambert, Siebesma compares this data with similar data for the Pual, Hophal, and Hithpael. Also, unlike Lambert, Siebesma rejects the notion that the Niphal was primarily reflexive. He contends that the Niphal can be both passive and reflexive because Hebrew did not distinguish between the two. Thus, according to Siebesma, neither the passive nor reflexive voice takes priority in the Niphal, even though both are possible senses of the Niphal.
\nSimilar to Lambert\u2019s analysis, the primary contribution of Siebesma\u2019s work is its thorough summary of data related to the Niphal. Nevertheless, Siebesma does not conduct his analysis within any modern linguistic framework. He leaves several questions unanswered, particularly questions about the relationship between the Niphal and Qal stems. Finally, although he argues that the traditional passive-reflexive distinction is irrelevant, he ultimately holds to both of these functions for the Niphal and does not consider the possibility that the Niphal might express other diatheses.<\/p>\n
4.3.1.2 The Niphal as Resultative<\/p>\n
4.3.1.2.1 BELINDA JEAN BICKNELL<\/p>\n
Belinda Jean Bicknell examines the Niphal within the broader framework of all the passive stems in Hebrew (the Qal passive, Niphal, Pual, and Hophal). She rejects the standard attempt to understand the passive in terms of the relationship between the subject and an action. Instead, she views the passive in light of verbal function. She argues that the Niphal is resultative in that it expresses the final state resulting from an action, without reference to agency (e.g., the Niphal of \u05dc\u05d7\u05dd means \u201cto become engaged in battle\u201d). Thus, Bicknell views the Niphal\u2019s function exclusively in terms of situation aspect rather than grammatical voice.
\nBicknell\u2019s study provides some important conclusions regarding agency and passive constructions. Furthermore, Bicknell rightly recognizes that the verbal stems relate to situation aspect, a fact largely ignored by many works on the Niphal. At the same time, Bicknell is mistaken to privilege situation aspect at the exclusion of grammatical voice. Linguists note that situation aspect and diathesis\u2014including resultative and passive constructions\u2014are not mutually exclusive categories but naturally overlap and intersect.<\/p>\n
4.3.1.2.2 RICHARD C. BENTON<\/p>\n
Another scholar who argues that the Niphal expresses situation aspect is Richard C. Benton. Observing apparent overlap between the Niphal and Hithpael for some roots, he thinks the Niphal expresses the state that results from an action whereas the Hithpael expresses the process that results in a state (e.g., \u05d1\u05e8\u05da means \u201cto be blessed\u201d in the Niphal but \u201cto become blessed\u201d in the Hithpael). Benton rejects Bicknell\u2019s separation of the passive voice from situation aspect, arguing that many languages of the world (e.g., Spanish and Tagalog) demonstrate interaction between these two concepts.
\nLike Bicknell, Benton rightly notes the important role that situation aspect has in the verbal stems. He avoids a simplistic dichotomy between situation aspect and grammatical voice, recognizing that the two frequently intersect. He also attempts to understand the function of the Niphal in light of cross-linguistic observations. Nevertheless, Benton places too much emphasis on situation aspect at the expense of grammatical voice. Benton\u2019s analysis also does not interact with the role of the N stem within the Semitic languages more generally.<\/p>\n
4.3.1.3 The Niphal as Medio-Passive<\/p>\n
4.3.1.3.1 ERNST JENNI<\/p>\n
A significant step forward in the understanding of the Niphal was taken by Ernst Jenni, who in 1973 addressed the plethora of translation options for the Niphal. In accordance with his view that each of the verbal stems has a central meaning in opposition to the other stems, he contends that the Niphal is neither primarily passive nor reflexive. Rather, he argues that the Niphal marks an event experienced by (rather than affected by) the subject. He expresses the basic meaning of the Niphal as \u201cto show oneself as something\u201d (sich als etwas erweisen). Thus, for example, according to Jenni the Niphal of \u05e7\u05d3\u05e9\u05c1 would mean \u201cto show oneself as holy.\u201d
\nJenni comes close to understanding the Niphal\u2019s function as that of the middle voice, even if he does not state it as such. Jenni also understands the Niphal as a detransitiver, or a stem that removes an argument by making its root intransitive, which well suits the middle voice. He is to be commended for his desire to understand the Niphal apart from translation possibilities. Yet he does not offer much evidence for his conclusions, and his approach lacks a modern linguistic framework.<\/p>\n
4.3.1.3.2 STEVEN W. BOYD<\/p>\n
Stephen W. Boyd highlights the usage of the Niphal to express the middle voice. Boyd contends that most studies on the Niphal largely rely on translation possibilities in modern Indo-European. To avoid this pitfall, Boyd turns to the concept of semantic roles. He defines the reflexive voice as an argument in which the Agent and Patient are the same and defines the middle voice as an argument in which the subject\u2019s role becomes that of Actor. Boyd concludes that the Niphal is rarely reflexive but instead commonly expresses the middle voice in addition to the passive voice. Thus, for active verbs the Niphal is inceptive (e.g., \u05e7\u05d1\u05e8 means \u201cto be buried\u201d in the Niphal) whereas for stative verbs the Niphal is inchoative (e.g., \u05de\u05dc\u05d0 means \u201cto become full\u201d and \u05e8\u05d0\u05d4 means \u201cto appear, become seen\u201d in the Niphal).
\nBoyd\u2019s study represents a major breakthrough in our understanding of the Niphal. His research is thorough and founded on a cogent linguistic methodology rather than translation possibilities. Some may dispute Boyd\u2019s sharp distinction between the middle and the reflexive. Nevertheless, it cannot be disputed that Boyd has placed our understanding of the Niphal on solid linguistic footing.<\/p>\n
4.3.1.4 Evaluation<\/p>\n
The above survey demonstrates the need for linguistic sensitivity and sound methodology when considering the function of the Niphal. In particular, the research of Boyd cautions against imposing non-Semitic categories upon Hebrew. The native language of most current scholars of Hebrew\u2014and certainly of past scholars, who tended to be German and French\u2014is Indo-European. This can present problems for analyzing the Niphal because the middle voice is not inflected in these languages, making it easy to rely on translation possibilities and ignore the evidence that the Niphal is medio-passive.
\nMoving forward, scholars should avoid imposing grammatical categories of their native tongues upon Hebrew. Rather, Hebrew should be understood for what it is, namely, a Semitic language. To do otherwise will only perpetuate the errors of the past, in which the Niphal was viewed through translation possibilities in modern Indo-European languages. Important for this task is acknowledgement of the key role that grammatical voice plays in the Hebrew verbal system.
\nFuture studies on the Niphal should adopt a medio-passive, not reflexive, framework for this stem. There is need for further research on the interaction between the Niphal\u2019s medio-passive diathesis and other categories such as Aktionsart, agentivity, and transitivity. There is also the need to examine the Niphal in light of the function of the N stem and other medio-passive stems in the Semitic languages. One particularly interesting avenue of research on this topic regards roots that appear in the Niphal in Hebrew but occur in both the N stem and the Gt stem, or only in the Gt stem, in other Semitic languages.<\/p>\n
4.3.2 The Piel<\/p>\n
The second verbal stem to be examined is the Piel. It is perhaps the most debated of all the verbal stems, as noted by Takamitsu Muraoka in his translation of Paul Jo\u00fcon\u2019s grammar: \u201cThe question [of] how the function of Piel in relation to other conjugations, notably Qal, should be defined still remains one of the major challenges facing Hebrew and Semitic linguistics.\u201d
\nIt is no surprise, then, that scholars have proposed a variety of distinct functions for the Piel. Here I summarize their views according to four different categories: intensive, complex active, resultative, and pluralitive-factitive. By nature of the discussion, many of the studies mentioned below deal generally with the D stem, the Semitic languages\u2019 equivalent of the Hebrew Piel.<\/p>\n
4.3.2.1 The Piel as Intensive<\/p>\n
4.3.2.1.1 JACOB WEINGREEN<\/p>\n
The characterization of the Piel as intensive, or expressing strong and energetic action, can be traced to European Semiticists of the nineteenth century such as Wilhelm Gesenius. Yet, the first focused study to argue for an intensive function is that of Jacob Weingreen. Weingreen notes that the function of the Piel depends on whether the root is active or stative in the Qal. He contends that the Piel expresses energetic or habitual action for active roots (e.g., the Piel of \u05e9\u05c1\u05d1\u05e8 means \u201cto shatter, completely break\u201d) and the active promotion of a state for stative roots (e.g., the Piel of \u05e7\u05d3\u05e9\u05c1 means \u201cto promote holiness\u201d). Thus, Weingreen unifies the meaning of the Piel under the concept of intensification even as he distinguishes between active and stative roots.
\nOverall, Weingreen does not advance the conversation much. His study of the Piel is by no means comprehensive, and he does not incorporate modern linguistic insights into his analysis of the Piel. But he is right to draw attention to the active-stative distinction for verbal roots, a distinction that is fundamental not only to Hebrew but also to the other Semitic languages. This is an important contribution.<\/p>\n
4.3.2.1.2 N. J. C. KOUWENBERG<\/p>\n
N. J. C. Kouwenberg examines the function of the D stem in Akkadian, but his observations are significant for understanding the Piel in Hebrew. He postulates that Proto-Semitic adjectives existed in pairs, a simple adjective without reduplication (e.g., *rapa\u0161um \u201cwide\u201d) and an adjective with reduplication to indicate expressiveness or intensification (e.g., *rappa\u0161um \u201cvery wide\u201d). The D stem was formed from the second type of adjective, with its intensive function (e.g., ruppu\u0161u \u201cto be very wide\u201d) broadening to encompass verbal plurality (e.g., ruppu\u0161u \u201cto be wide repeatedly\u201d). Eventually, D stem verbs were created directly from G stem verbs rather than derived from adjectives. Then, because verbal plurality is associated with increased transitivity, the D stem became the preferred way of expressing the factitive, which turns an intransitive verb into a transitive one.
\nKouwenberg\u2019s reconstruction builds on a modern linguistic understanding of semantic roles, and it is able to explain why the D stem can be both pluralitive and factitive. Moreover, Kouwenberg has rightly noted the role that increased transitivity can play in the D stem. However, his hypothesis for the D stem\u2019s origin is speculative. Furthermore, Kouwenberg assumes an original intensive function for the D stem that broadened to encompass plurality. We know from cross-linguistic studies that reduplication is used to mark verbal plurality, not intensification, and among the world\u2019s languages the path goes from plurality to intensification, not the other way around. Finally, although Kouwenberg\u2019s desire to connect verbal plurality and factitiveness is admirable, it must be asked whether the diverse functions of the D stem need to be\u2014and can be\u2014unified.<\/p>\n
4.3.2.1.3 JAN JOOSTEN<\/p>\n
Jan Joosten also thinks an intensive function is original to the D stem. However, unlike Kouwenberg, Joosten postulates two different G stems in Proto-Semitic, one expressing the active voice and another expressing the middle voice. The D stem originally expressed the intensive of both the active form (e.g., \u1e25tt \u201cto dismay someone\u201d meant \u201cto dismay someone greatly\u201d in the D stem) and middle form (e.g., \u1e25tt \u201cto be dismayed\u201d meant \u201cto be greatly dismayed\u201d in the D stem). Within Hebrew, subsequent developments took place that gave the Piel a variety of different functions. Specifically, the Piel lost its intensive nuance for roots that lost their active counterpart in the Qal, but the Piel remained intensive for roots that lost their active or middle counterpart in the Qal.
\nJoosten tests his hypothesis against all occurrences of the Piel in the Hebrew Bible, and his reconstruction provides a way of unifying the different functions of the Piel. However, it seems that Joosten often interprets the data to fit his hypothesis rather than vice versa. Furthermore, like the work of Kouwenberg, Joosten\u2019s reconstruction is speculative and suffers from the same assumption that intensification led to plurality rather than the other way around. Yet Joosten is to be thanked for his efforts to understand the development of the Piel within the context of comparative Semitics.<\/p>\n
4.3.2.1.4 JOHN C. BECKMAN<\/p>\n
In his 2012 Harvard dissertation, John C. Beckman compares Kouwenberg\u2019s reconstruction of the D stem with the idea that the Piel is resultative. He concludes that Kouwenberg\u2019s analysis is superior, in part because it is able to connect the different functions of the D stem. In the midst of his evaluation, Beckman provides further support for Kouwenberg\u2019s work by noting cross-linguistic connections between intensification and causativity.
\nBeckman\u2019s attention to possible connections between intensification and causativity significantly advances the conversation on the Hebrew Piel. However, like the studies of Kouwenberg and Joosten, Beckman conflates the notions of plurality and intensification. Furthermore, the Piel is factitive, not causative, so any grammaticalization paths from intensification to causativity may not apply in the case of the Piel. Finally, it remains to be shown that the Piel\u2019s various functions need to be unified under a single meaning.<\/p>\n
4.3.2.2 The Piel as Complex Active<\/p>\n
A unique reconstruction of the Piel is found in Kenneth Laing Harris\u2019s dissertation completed at the University of Liverpool. Harris characterizes the Piel as \u201ccomplex active,\u201d which means that the Piel adds complexity to the action described in the Qal for active verbs (e.g., \u05e9\u05c1\u05dc\u05d7 means \u201cto send\u201d in the Qal but \u201cto send away\u201d in the Piel) and functions causatively for stative verbs (e.g., \u05d7\u05d6\u05e7 means \u201cto be strong\u201d in the Qal but \u201cto cause to be strong\u201d in the Piel). He argues that the designation \u201ccomplex active\u201d provides unity to the Piel. However, he admits not all verbs will neatly agree with this function due to lexicalization, and he contends that sometimes the Piel\u2019s meaning overlaps with other verbal stems.
\nHarris\u2019s study analyzes each of the roots that occurs in the Piel stem and is therefore systematic. However, his designation of the Piel as \u201ccomplex active\u201d is quite nebulous, in part because he wants to maintain a flexible understanding of the Piel. Furthermore, Harris provides no coherent methodology or linguistic framework for his conclusions.<\/p>\n
4.3.2.3 The Piel as Resultative<\/p>\n
4.3.2.3.1 ALBRECHT GOETZE<\/p>\n
A major break with the characterization of the Piel as intensive is found in the work of Albrecht Goetze, who analyzes the Semitic D stem. He argues that the label \u201cintensive\u201d does not encompass all the nuances of the D stem. He contends, furthermore, that genuine D stem verbs are resultative in that they cause their direct objects to enter the state described by the root. This distinction, according to Goetze, applies to both active and stative verbs. Active verbs emphasize the result of the action (e.g., \u0161br means \u201cto break\u201d in the G stem but \u201cto make broken\u201d in the D stem), whereas the D stem of stative verbs places the direct object in the root\u2019s state (e.g., qd\u0161 means \u201cto be holy\u201d in the G stem but \u201cto make holy\u201d in the D stem). Goetze explains away exceptions by appealing to a hypothetical Gn stem, or G stem with infixed n before the second radical, that just so happens to look like the D stem.
\nGoetze rightly notes that intensification cannot account for all the different functions of the D stem. However, Goetze simply claims, rather than demonstrates, that the D stem is resultative. The fact that Goetze must appeal to a hypothetical, otherwise-unattested stem to sustain his theory does not support his reconstruction, especially since he seems to be motivated by a desire to find a uniform function for the D stem.<\/p>\n
4.3.2.3.2 ERNST JENNI<\/p>\n
Goetze\u2019s understanding of the Piel is largely adopted by Ernst Jenni, who finds a uniform function for each of the Hebrew verbal stems, including the Piel. Like Goetze, Jenni argues that the Piel is resultative, expressing the imposition of the state associated with the root. The Piel therefore differs from the Hiphil, which instead describes the imposition of a process (e.g., the Piel of \u05e7\u05d3\u05e9\u05c1 means \u201cto consecrate, make holy\u201d whereas the Hiphil of \u05d1\u05d5\u05d0 means \u201cto bring, cause to enter\u201d). However, unlike Goetze, Jenni argues that all instances of the Piel fit the resultative mold in that the term \u201cresultative\u201d includes any action that is not a literal expression of an actual event.
\nJenni creates a clean and neat picture of the Piel in which this stem has a single, uniform function. The problem is that this picture is just a little too perfect. The category of resultative loses its meaning when Jenni redefines it so that he can include exceptions. Furthermore, in his attempt to impose a uniform meaning on the Piel, Jenni loses sight of the active-stative dichotomy fundamental to the Hebrew verbal system.<\/p>\n
4.3.2.3.3 STUART A. RYDER<\/p>\n
In the published version of his 1966 dissertation, Stuart A. Ryder agrees with Goetze and Jenni that the D stem is primarily resultative rather than intensive. However, unlike Goetze and Jenni, he is willing to allow for exceptions and does not attempt to explain all instances of the Piel as resultative. This is because Ryder does not view the D stem in opposition to the G stem but instead thinks that the D stem is denominative in origin (i.e., it is a verbal stem derived from nouns) and came about independently of the G stem.
\nRyder\u2019s work improves upon the studies of Goetze and Jenni in that he is willing to allow for exceptions to the resultative paradigm. Ryder is also thorough in his research. However, Ryder\u2019s conclusions are not convincing. His contention that the D stem is denominative in origin is especially unpersuasive because it is difficult to explain the D stem\u2019s different functions via grammaticalization of a denominative stem.<\/p>\n
4.3.2.4 The Piel as Pluralitive-Factitive<\/p>\n
4.3.2.4.1 ARNO POEBEL<\/p>\n
Goetze\u2019s rejection of the D stem as intensive dominated much of the latter part of the twentieth century, but Arno Poebel was actually the first modern scholar to deny the D stem\u2019s intensive function. Poebel suggests that the Semitic D stem expresses verbal plurality, or repeated verbal action or results of the action (e.g., \u0161br means \u201cto break into many pieces, break many times\u201d in the D stem), as well as factitiveness, or the imposition of a state (e.g., qd\u0161 means \u201cto consecrate, make holy\u201d in the D stem). He arrives at this conclusion primarily through lexical evidence but attempts to support it through a hypothetical reconstruction of the Proto-Semitic verbal system.
\nPoebel is right to observe from the lexical evidence that the D stem is frequently associated with verbal plurality and factitiveness. This is an especially important contribution. However, Poebel provides little evidence for his speculative reconstruction of the Proto-Semitic verbal system, and his methodological approach lacks linguistic sophistication.<\/p>\n
4.3.2.4.2 JOSEPH H. GREENBERG<\/p>\n
Joseph H. Greenberg approaches the topic of the Semitic D stem from the perspective of a linguist rather than a Semiticist. He points to the existence of verbal plurality in other language families, most notably Native American and African languages, and observes that reduplication is commonly used cross-linguistically to express verbal plurality. He argues that the Semitic D stem is characterized by reduplication and is also pluralitive, as should be expected typologically but as is also evident in its usage in the Semitic languages.
\nThe main contribution of Greenberg\u2019s article is his treatment of the Semitic D stem from a typological, cross-linguistic framework. Although his study is by no means comprehensive, his work is clear, logical, and straightforward. Accordingly, he places the pluralitive function of the D stem on solid linguistic footing.<\/p>\n
4.3.2.4.3 STEPHEN A. KAUFMAN<\/p>\n
In an article assessing the state of Semitic studies, Stephen A. Kaufman points to the Semitic D stem as a case study of how Semiticists and linguists can learn from one another. He rejects Poebel\u2019s methodological approach and Proto-Semitic reconstruction, but he does agree with Poebel that the D stem is pluralitive and factitive, not intensive. Like Greenberg, Kaufman appeals to the broader phenomenon of verbal plurality, especially as attested in the Chadic and Cushitic languages. He notes that in these and other languages, verbal plurality is quasi-ergative in that transitive roots possess plural objects and intransitive roots express repeated action. Kaufman rejects the need to find a single function for the D stem in light of the active-stative dichotomy characteristic of the Semitic languages, contending that the D stem is factitive rather than pluralitive for stative roots.
\nKaufman\u2019s discussion of the D stem is not comprehensive, and some may not appreciate Kaufman\u2019s refusal to unify the various functions of the D stem under a single meaning. Nevertheless, Kaufman grounds his conclusions clearly in linguistic typology and comparative data from Afro-Asiatic, the major language family to which the Semitic languages belong.<\/p>\n
4.3.2.4.4 ABDELKADER FASSI FEHRI<\/p>\n
Abdelkader Fassi Fehri approaches the function of the D stem from the perspective of an Arabic scholar. He categorizes the D stem as both pluralitive and factitive. However, unlike Kaufman, he tries to explain how these two different functions are connected through transitivity. Fehri notes how verbal plurality increases transitivity in that it adds a direct object; he observes that a factitive construction also increases transitivity because it makes an intransitive verb transitive by giving it a direct object.
\nFehri\u2019s study engages well with contemporary linguistics and theories of transitivity. However, like other scholars who argue for a unifying function for the Piel, it is questionable whether such an approach is even necessary, much less possible. Although Fehri can connect the verbal plurality of transitive verbs and factitiveness, his hypothesis does not easily account for verbal plurality of intransitive verbs, nor can it explain the D stem\u2019s frequent denominative usage.<\/p>\n
4.3.2.5 Evaluation<\/p>\n
As the above discussion makes evident, the Piel\u2019s function is highly debated. Yet, the above views can be largely categorized according to those who seek to find a unified explanation for the Piel\u2019s diverse meanings and those who do not. The views that consider the Piel to be intensive and resultative seem to be driven largely by the former. However, these attempts ultimately fall short, in part because the labels \u201cintensive\u201d and \u201cresultative\u201d must be generalized so much that they lose any significant meaning. As indicated by Kaufman, the shortcoming of these approaches is not surprising because the Semitic verbal system does not require that each stem\u2019s functions be unified.
\nThus, rather than assuming that the Piel must have a unified function, it is more profitable to examine the Piel typologically. Because reduplication frequently indicates verbal plurality, including in the Afro-Asiatic languages, and because the Piel is marked by reduplication of the second radical, scholars would benefit from incorporating verbal plurality into their perspective of the Piel. An important area of research here is the quasi-ergative nature of verbal plurality and how it relates to transitivity and multiplication of the argument. Our understanding of the Piel\u2019s factitive function could be improved by comparison with the Hiphil\u2019s causative sense and by typological comparison of factitives and causatives.<\/p>\n
4.3.3 The Hiphil<\/p>\n
The Hiphil, of all the verbal stems, has attracted the least amount of attention in the scholarly literature. The Hiphil is traditionally considered causative in that the subject of the verb causes the object to perform a certain action (e.g., the Hiphil of \u05d1\u05d5\u05d0 means \u201cto bring, cause to enter\u201d). However, the Hiphil can also express functions other than causativity, and scholars have struggled to understand how these other senses relate to one another. Another key issue regarding the Hiphil is how its causativity relates to the factitiveness of the Piel.
\nIn what follows I examine the few noteworthy works on the Hiphil. Throughout I especially highlight how scholars have understood the non-causative functions of the Hiphil and the Hiphil\u2019s relationship to the Piel. I classify their approaches according to four different categories: causative, causative-factitive, force dynamic, and causative-elative.<\/p>\n
4.3.3.1 The Hiphil as Causative<\/p>\n
Ernst Jenni\u2019s desire to find a single meaning for each stem leads him to characterize the Hiphil as solely causative. Yet, Jenni argues for several other features that characterize the Hiphil in opposition to the Piel, including imposition of an action (rather than a state) by the subject, durative (rather than momentary) action, occasional (rather than habitual) participation of the subject in the verbal action, and substantial (rather than accidental) action toward the object. For Jenni, these characteristics are a by-product of the Hiphil\u2019s causative function. This allows him to subsume any non-causative senses under the broader category of causativity.
\nJenni takes his sharp distinction between the Hiphil and Piel a little too far, and his resulting analyses of many Hiphils are debatable. He also ignores the possibility that the Hiphil does not have a unifying function and may even occasionally overlap with the Piel. Yet Jenni correctly argues that causativity must be distinguished syntactically from factitiveness in that the former denotes the imposition of an action whereas the latter denotes the imposition of a state.<\/p>\n
4.3.3.2 The Hiphil as Causative-Factitive<\/p>\n
The sole monograph-length study of the Hiphil is W. T. Claasen\u2019s University of Stellenbosch dissertation. Under the influence of James Barr, who served as one of his readers, he strictly adheres to a synchronic rather than diachronic approach. Claasen rejects Jenni\u2019s sharp distinction between the functions of the Piel and Hiphil. Instead, he argues that the Hiphil is frequently factitive, like the Piel, as well as causative, delocutive, and even expressive of simple action like the Qal. Claasen concludes that the Hiphil often has an unpredictable meaning, especially when considered in opposition to both the Qal and Piel.
\nClaasen refutes many of Jenni\u2019s subjective distinctions between the Hiphil and Piel. He is right to note the importance of synchronic analysis; he also correctly cautions against trying to fit Hebrew into a predictable and uniform mold. But, Classen goes too far in viewing so many Hiphils as factitive when other explanations are possible. Furthermore, his approach emphasizes synchronic analysis at the expense of diachrony and possible insights from comparative Semitics.<\/p>\n
4.3.3.3 The Hiphil as Force Dynamic<\/p>\n
W. Randall Garr presents a very unique perspective on the Hiphil. He agrees that the Hiphil is often causative but tries to find a more unifying function. For Garr, this function is evident in denominative Hiphils (i.e., Hiphils created from nouns) and certain roots for which the Hiphil is non-causative (e.g., \u05e7\u05e9\u05c1\u05d1, \u05d1\u05d9\u05df, and \u05e2\u05e8\u05da). According to Garr, the Hiphil can be understood in terms of force dynamics, a linguistic concept that analyzes expressions in light of force-exerting elements. The subject of denominative Hiphils is directly responsible for a verbal action with immediate effect (e.g., the Hiphil of \u05d6\u05e2\u05e7 means \u201cto let out a cry\u201d), and non-causative Hiphils express action that is more agentive and complex than that of the Qal (e.g., \u05d1\u05d9\u05df means \u201cto perceive\u201d in the Qal but \u201cto deeply understand\u201d in the Hiphil).
\nGarr bases his understanding of the Hiphil on a modern cross-linguistic perspective of causativity. However, Garr\u2019s interpretation of specific Hiphil forms is sometimes questionable. He seems to allow force dynamics to influence his understanding of the Hiphil rather than permitting the data to speak for themselves. Furthermore, Garr seeks to find a unifying function for the Hiphil, but the Semitic languages do not necessarily require that each stem has a single meaning.<\/p>\n
4.3.3.4 The Hiphil as Causative-Elative<\/p>\n
E. A. Speiser offers the most fruitful perspective on the Hiphil. He takes his cue from Comparative Philology in that he explores the Hiphil\u2019s function within the Semitic languages as a whole. Speiser draws attention to what he calls the \u201celative\u201d function of the Hiphil. Pointing to the similarity between the third-person personal pronouns and the C stem\u2019s preformative across the Semitic languages, Speiser argues that the C stem often expresses an action or state characterized by a particular quality in an exemplary way. According to Speiser, this is evident in the C stem\u2019s use to express colors, other lasting qualities or conditions, and superlative-like constructions.
\nSpeiser makes a plausible connection between the third-person personal pronoun and the C stem\u2019s preformative, especially because the N and t-infix stems also seem to contain pronominal elements. Speiser convincingly shows that the elative is a common function of the C stem in Semitic, especially for stative forms. The only disadvantage is that he does not interact with modern linguistic theories on the elative, but this is a relatively minor critique considering the strength of his argumentation otherwise.<\/p>\n
4.3.3.5 Evaluation<\/p>\n
As this survey indicates, the most cogent framework for understanding the Hiphil is Speiser\u2019s causative-elative approach. Only this theory considers comparative Semitics and adequately accounts for all the data. Moving forward, scholars should investigate how the elative is connected morphologically with the C stem and how elatives function typologically. Related, additional topics for research include the relationship between elatives and delocutive Hiphils as well as the connection between elative Hiphils and the adverbial Hiphil infinitive absolute.
\nThe relationship between the Hiphil and the other verbal stems remains an important one. There is still need for comparison of the Hiphil with the Piel, avoiding the rigidness of Jenni while maintaining a linguistically informed distinction between causativity and factitiveness. The relationship of the Hiphil to other stems is especially significant for roots that do not occur in the Qal stem and for roots in which the Piel has a lexicalized rather than factitive function.
\nAs these and other topics are researched, scholars should keep in mind that it is not necessary to find a single unifying function for the Hiphil stem. Linguistic theories such as force dynamics will undoubtedly be helpful as our understanding of the Hiphil\u2019s causativity is refined, but the Semitic languages never require that the functions of both active and stative verbs must be the same. In many cases the Hiphil may simply provide an available stem for representing a new meaning.<\/p>\n
4.3.4 The Hithpael<\/p>\n
The final Biblical Hebrew verbal stem to consider is the Hithpael. Hebrew grammars commonly characterize this stem as reflexive. However, the Hithpael can express the passive voice and can also have a frequentative meaning. An important question once again, then, is how this stem\u2019s different functions may be connected, if at all. Naturally, scholars have offered a variety of frameworks for answering this question.
\nBelow I survey important studies on the Hithpael, focusing especially on scholars\u2019 understandings of the relationship between this stem\u2019s various functions. I discuss the different views in terms of five categories: reflexive, intensive, resultative, inversative, and middle.<\/p>\n
4.3.4.1 The Hithpael as Reflexive<\/p>\n
4.3.4.1.1 PAUL MAZARS<\/p>\n
One of the first systematic studies on the Hithpael was conducted by Paul Mazars. He argues that the Hithpael is primarily reflexive. However, he also notes the frequent use of the Hithpael with simple transitive meanings, similar to the Qal stem. According to Mazars, these and other non-reflexive usages of the Hithpael are due to stylistic concerns (especially when found in the books of Kings and Psalms) and to a lexical shortage of certain stems. Mazars thus does not think that the Hithpael\u2019s non-reflexive functions have a grammatical explanation.
\nOverall, Mazar\u2019s analysis is not guided by sound linguistic methodology. Furthermore, some of Mazars\u2019s conclusions regarding stylistic use of the Hithpael seem subjective, especially because other scholars looking at the same data have reached different conclusions. Yet Mazars\u2019s study is important because it shows that sometimes the Hithpael occurs with non-reflexive meanings.<\/p>\n
4.3.4.1.2 E. A. SPEISER<\/p>\n
E. A. Speiser considers the Hithpael to be primarily reflexive. However, he concerns himself with non-reflexive usages of the Hithpael, especially the frequentative use for certain roots (e.g., \u05d4\u05dc\u05da means \u201cto walk\u201d in the Qal but \u201cto walk about\u201d in the Hithpael). He explains this frequentative function as a remnant of a Hebrew tan-infix stem, parallel to the frequentative tan stem found in Akkadian. According to Speiser, this hypothetical tan-infix form merged with the Hithpael in Hebrew, resulting in a frequentative use of the Hithpael alongside its reflexive function.
\nUnfortunately, there is no evidence for the existence of a tan-infix stem in West Semitic. Only Akkadian possesses the conditions that would have brought about the existence of tan stems, namely a present tense with doubled middle radical and consistent assimilation of n. Speiser\u2019s hypothesis cannot adequately explain the loss of intervocalic a between the first root letter and the tan-infix, nor can it account for its assumed metathesis of the first radical and the t. Yet Speiser is right to draw attention to the frequentative use of the Hithpael, and he is correct to note the parallels between the frequentative tan stem in Akkadian and the frequentative Hithpael.<\/p>\n
4.3.4.1.3 ALBERT FREDRICK BEAN<\/p>\n
Albert Frederick Bean offers an important study on the Hithpael in his 1976 PhD dissertation completed at Southern Baptist Theological Seminary. He contends that the Hithpael is often, but not solely, reflexive. He thinks the primary function of the Hithpael is to indicate simple action even though it can also express reflexive, passive, desiderative, and reciprocal meanings. He concludes that the Hithpael is not restricted to a particular syntactic function, nor can its usage be attributed purely to genre, geographical location, or diachrony.
\nThe main strength of Bean\u2019s study is his attention to Hithpaels that are not easily classified as reflexive. However, Bean excludes nearly one-third of the occurrences of the Hithpael by labeling their meaning as ambiguous, and this ignores a significant body of data. Bean\u2019s analysis, furthermore, does not interact significantly with insights from modern linguistics and comparative Semitics. As a result, his analysis is rather uninformed linguistically.<\/p>\n
4.3.4.2 The Hithpael as Intensive<\/p>\n
In another PhD dissertation on the Hithpael, Milton L. Boyle, Jr. rejects the primary classification of the Hithpael as reflexive. He surveys t-infix forms in the Semitic languages. He then concludes that the function of the Hithpael in Hebrew is to express intensification, which he defines as strong emotion, a profound sense of urgency, repetition of the action, or duration of the verbal activity. According to Boyle, the reflexive usage of the Hithpael is not primary. Rather, its reflexive use is a byproduct of its intensive function, developed from the subject\u2019s deep personal interest and involvement in the verbal action.
\nBoyle\u2019s primary contribution is his investigation of the Hithpael within the broader context of comparative Semitics. However, the t-infix stems in the Semitic languages do not have the function of intensification as Boyle claims. Furthermore, Boyle does not adequately define the term \u201cintensive\u201d and assumes without proof that intensification can appear as the reflexive voice.<\/p>\n
4.3.4.3 The Hithpael as Resultative<\/p>\n
4.3.4.3.1 RICHARD C. BENTON<\/p>\n
Another scholar who tries to find a unified but non-reflexive function for the Hithpael stem is Richard C. Benton, whose work on the Niphal was mentioned above. Benton contends that the Hithpael has a resultative meaning in that it relates to a state resulting from an action. As noted above, he argues that the primary difference between the Hithpael and Niphal is one of situation aspect. The Hithpael focuses on the process behind a resultative state whereas the Niphal focuses on the resultative state itself. The category of situation aspect, according to Benton, best explains the many different translation possibilities for the Hithpael.
\nThe strengths and weaknesses of Benton\u2019s perspective on the Hithpael are similar to those of his view on the Niphal. He correctly recognizes the important role that situation aspect has for the Hebrew verbal stems. Nevertheless, he overemphasizes this feature at the expense of grammatical voice. He also does not discuss the role that the t-infix plays in the different Semitic languages.<\/p>\n
4.3.4.3.2 KLAUS-PETER ADAMS<\/p>\n
Klaus-Peter Adams also argues that the Hithpael is resultative. He rejects a reflexive function for the Hithpael, arguing that scholars have understood the Hithpael as reflexive only because of translation possibilities in modern Indo-European languages. For Adams, the Hithpael instead expresses a status that results from an action, without focusing on that action. Adams furthermore suggests that a good number of Hithpael verbs specifically highlight one\u2019s social status. Thus, for example, the Hithpael of \u05e0\u05d1\u05d0 means \u201cto act as a prophet\u201d rather than \u201cto be a prophet\u201d as the Niphal of the same root indicates.
\nAdams rightly notes that the Hithpael frequently describes social status. Like Benton, he is right to draw attention to the important role that situation aspect has in understanding the Hebrew verbal stems. But, also like Benton, Adams overlooks grammatical voice at the expense of situation aspect. Another weakness of Adam\u2019s socio-demonstrative understanding of the Hithpael is that it can only explain a portion of Hithpael verbs, rather than accounting for all Hithpael forms.<\/p>\n
4.3.4.4 The Hithpael as Inversative<\/p>\n
Bruno W. W. Dombrowski uniquely argues that the t-infix of the Hithpael is primarily inversative. By this he means that the Hithpael indicates a change of direction in the verb with respect to the subject, a function that often appears as the reflexive and reciprocal voices (e.g., the Hithpael of \u05e8\u05d0\u05d4 means \u201cto look at one another\u201d). To support this conclusion, Dombrowski points to the t-element found in Akkadian\u2019s second-person personal pronouns and verbal affixes, as well as the final t found on feminine nouns. He suggests that both of these elements represent the \u201cother.\u201d Similar to Speiser, Dombrowski attributes the Hithpael\u2019s frequentative use to the merging of the Hithpael with another stem. However, he thinks that stem is the Gt stem rather than a tan-infix form.
\nAlthough by no means comprehensive, Dombrowski\u2019s study rightly attempts to understand the function of the Hithpael within the broader context of comparative Semitics. His hypothesis has great merit because it is likely that the t-element of verbal affixes is pronominal in origin. However, Dombrowski\u2019s analysis lacks careful definition of the term \u201cinversative.\u201d He also does not explore in detail the inversative\u2019s possible connections with the reflexive and reciprocal voices.<\/p>\n
4.3.4.5 The Hithpael as Middle<\/p>\n
4.3.4.5.1 MARK A. ARNOLD<\/p>\n
In his 2005 dissertation completed at Harvard University, Mark A. Arnold argues that the Hithpael\u2019s primary function is to express the middle voice. Relying on the work of Suzanne Kemmer, he contends that many of the atypical Hithpael functions (e.g., verbs describing changes in body posture, emotional states, and thinking) can be classified cross-linguistically under the category of the middle voice. This unifies the various functions of the Hithpael into a single meaning because, according to Arnold, the middle voice includes the reflexive. Arnold accounts for exceptions by assuming that the Hithpael took on the functions of the Gt and \u0160t stems once they were lost in Hebrew.
\nThe primary contribution of Arnold\u2019s study is its provision of a cogent linguistic framework for understanding the Hithpael. Arnold recognizes that the Hithpael\u2019s many different usages may not be so disparate when classified as middle. What needs refinement, however, is interaction with other scholars\u2019 definitions of both the middle and reflexive voices. Additionally, Arnold\u2019s work needs to be supplemented by a more thorough analysis of the t-infix stems in the Semitic languages.<\/p>\n
4.3.4.5.2 ERNST JENNI<\/p>\n
Like Arnold, Ernst Jenni argues that the Hithpael is predominantly middle. But, unlike Arnold, Jenni distinguishes sharply between the middle and reflexive voices and does not subsume reflexivity under the middle voice. Jenni argues that the exact way the Hithpael expresses the middle voice depends purely on the context of the verb\u2019s usage, and that it may not always be easy to express that nuance in modern target languages. Furthermore, according to Jenni, the difference between the Hithpael and the Niphal exists primarily at the pragmatic level: the Niphal expresses information that has already been given wheras the Hithpael introduces entirely new information.
\nJenni is right to draw attention to the middle nature of the Hithpael. He also rightly distinguishes between the sense of the Hithpael in Hebrew and translation possibilities in modern languages. However, Jenni struggles to incorporate occurrences of the Hithpael that seemingly express the reflexive voice. Jenni\u2019s limitation of the Niphal-Hithpael distinction to the pragmatic level is also problematic because Hebrew verbal forms always communicate meaning at the semantic level.<\/p>\n
4.3.4.6 Evaluation<\/p>\n
Dombrowski\u2019s work provides a solid starting point for understanding the Hithpael. His hypothesis is supported by morphological connections between the t-infix and second-person personal pronouns. Furthermore, it is easy to see how an inversative function could encompass the reflexive, reciprocal, and middle senses of the Hithpael. However, more work is needed to explore how these different grammatical voices fit together, particularly in light of Arnold\u2019s study. Exploration of how the inversative developed differently in the Semitic languages would be beneficial.
\nAlong these lines, another fruitful topic of research is the relationship of the Hithpael to other t-infix stems. The Hithpael is often considered in opposition to the Piel, but this is not always evident from the Hithpael\u2019s actual usage. The possibility that the Hithpael has merged with other t-infix stems needs to be explored, and the reasons for the Hithpael\u2019s frequentative usage should also be investigated.
\nA final area for research is the difference between the Niphal and Hithpael. As medio-passive and inversative stems, there understandably is a good deal of functional overlap. However, these two stems are morphologically distinct in Hebrew and are even used alongside each other (e.g., Gen 3:8, 10; Lev 11:43\u201344). This suggests that, despite occasional overlap, each stem may communicate a specific nuance. Appeals to situation aspect are helpful but ultimately unsatisfying, and more work needs to be done.<\/p>\n
4.4 THE VERBAL STEMS IN BIBLICAL ARAMAIC<\/p>\n
Having addressed the Biblical Hebrew verbal stems, I turn lastly to the verbal stems in Biblical Aramaic. Unlike the Biblical Hebrew verbal stems, which have occupied significant attention in scholarship, nothing substantial has been written on the verbal stems in Biblical Aramaic. The few discussions that exist are limited to those found in grammars and grammatical surveys of Aramaic. Such neglect of the verbal stems in Biblical Aramaic results from the relatively small size of the Biblical Aramaic corpus and the tendency of Aramaicists to focus on the diverse features of later Aramaic dialects at the expense of Biblical Aramaic. All this has left little room for controversy and disagreement regarding the Biblical Aramaic verbal stems.
\nNevertheless, there is value in surveying what scholarship exists on this topic, especially because what does exist in modern scholarship frequently agrees with recent advances in our understanding of the Biblical Hebrew verbal stems. Accordingly, in this section I survey what grammars and grammatical surveys of Aramaic have to say about the primary derived stems in Biblical Aramaic: the Pael, the Haphel, and the t-infixed Hithpeel and Hithpaal. Referenced in my discussion are the grammars of Hans Bauer and Pontus Leander, Karl Marti, and Franz Rosenthal, as well as the recent grammatical surveys by Stephen A. Kaufman and Holger Gzella.<\/p>\n
4.4.1 The Pael<\/p>\n
Biblical Aramaic\u2019s Pael stem generally corresponds to the Piel stem in Biblical Hebrew. Marti labels the Pael the Steigerungsst\u00e4mme, or \u201cincreasing stem,\u201d and states that its causative, iterative, declarative, and denominative uses can all be subsumed under its intensive function. Rosenthal similarly labels the Pael as \u201cintensive or causative.\u201d Bauer and Leander, however, exhibit a more nuanced understanding. They state that the Pael of active verbs has both an \u201cintensive\u201d and \u201cextensive\u201d sense: \u201cintensive\u201d refers to thoroughness of the action (e.g., the Pael of \u05e7\u05e6\u05e5 means \u201cto cut off thoroughly\u201d rather than \u201cto cut off\u201d), and \u201cextensive\u201d denotes pluraction (e.g., the Pael of \u05d4\u05dc\u05da means \u201cto walk in a group\u201d rather than \u201cto walk\u201d). For stative verbs, Bauer and Leander note that the Pael instead tends to be factitive.
\nThe recent grammatical surveys of Kaufman and Gzella largely agree with Bauer and Leander. But, importantly, they omit any reference to the Pael being \u201cintensive.\u201d They instead say that the Pael is pluralitive for active verbs and factitive for stative verbs. By distinguishing between active and stative verbs, by rejecting the misleading label \u201cintensive\u201d for the Pael, and by instead highlighting the pluralitive function of the Pael, Kaufman and Gzella are in line with important advances that have taken place in our understanding of the Biblical Hebrew Piel stem.<\/p>\n
4.4.2 The Haphel<\/p>\n
The Haphel in Biblical Aramaic essentially parallels the Hiphil in Biblical Hebrew. Marti and Rosenthal give a relatively simple presentation in their discussions of the Haphel stem. They state that the Haphel is causative, without much explanation. Bauer and Leander, however, once again pay attention to a given root\u2019s active-stative classification as it relates to the Haphel\u2019s meaning. The Haphel expresses causativity for active roots, whether transitive or intransitive, in a way that sometimes overlaps with the Pael\u2019s factitive function. Otherwise, for stative roots, the Haphel is intransitive.
\nBoth Kaufman and Gzella label the Haphel as a causative stem. They therefore do not distinguish between the function of the Haphel for active versus stative roots, at least not in their published presentations of the verbal stems. However, as indicated by the terminology they use, they differentiate between the factitive function of the Pael and the causative function of the Haphel. On this point they differ from their predecessors and incorporate the same distinction between factitiveness and causativity that many modern Hebraists have applied to the Biblical Hebrew Piel and Hiphil.<\/p>\n
4.4.3 The Hithpeel and Hithpaal<\/p>\n
The two primary t-infixed stems in Biblical Aramaic are the Hithpeel (the t-infixed form of the Peal) and the Hithpaal (the t-infixed form of the Pael). According to Marti and Rosenthal, the Hithpeel and Hithpaal express the reflexive or passive of the Peal and Paal. Bauer and Leander argue similarly. They contend that the t-infixed stems can express the true reflexive, in which the verb\u2019s Agent and Patient are identical, as well as the passive. But they also add that the t-infix can sometimes function like the dative case (i.e., the action is done on behalf of the subject) or express reciprocal action.
\nKaufman and Gzella understand the t-infix as a marker of the reflexive, middle, or passive voices. It originally indicated the reflexive and middle voice, but the gradual loss of the passive (marked by internal vowel modification) in Aramaic brought about the need for the t-infix forms to fulfill also the role of the passive voice. In their presentations of the t-infixed forms as reflexivemiddles, Kaufman and Gzella are once again in line with developments in our understanding of the Hithpael (the closest correspondent to Biblical Aramaic\u2019s t-infixed stems) in Biblical Hebrew.<\/p>\n
4.4.4 Evaluation<\/p>\n
Whereas there is significant dispute regarding the functions of the Biblical Hebrew verbal stems, much less controversy exists for the verbal stems in Biblical Aramaic. The way the Biblical Aramaic verbal stems were understood a century ago is largely the same as the way we understand them now. Nevertheless, progress has been made in that our understanding of the Biblical Aramaic stems is now more nuanced. Two important advances are differentiating between the functions of active and stative roots and rejection of the label \u201cintensive\u201d for the Pael.
\nAt the same time, much work remains to be done. The most significant gap to be filled is a comprehensive study of the verbal stems in Biblical Aramaic. Such a study would examine all the occurrences of each verbal stem and then synthesize the data into a coherent picture. Ideally this investigation would be informed by modern linguistic discussions of grammatical voice, valency, and semantic roles, and would also consider Biblical Aramaic\u2019s verbal system within the development of the verbal system in Aramaic more generally.<\/p>\n
4.5 THE WAYS FORWARD<\/p>\n
The above survey of the verbal stems in Biblical Hebrew and Biblical Aramaic reflects ongoing disagreement over their precise functions, especially when it comes to Biblical Hebrew. Yet, at the same time, our understanding of what the verbal stems mean has certainly advanced over the past century. I am hopeful that, as further research and discussion take place, our methodology for approaching the verbal stems will be refined, and even greater clarity regarding their functions will be achieved. With these hopes in mind, I now make a few general suggestions on how to move forward.
\nFirst, students and scholars need to familiarize themselves with modern linguistic concepts relevant to the verbal stems. Particularly important here are the notions of grammatical voice and Aktionsart, two of the most important concepts for understanding the verbal stems. This may sound intimidating, especially because most students and scholars of Hebrew are not trained as linguists. But, familiarity with these topics is necessary if we are to avoid many of the errors of the past and continue to advance our understanding of the verbal stems. Boyd\u2019s general discussion of the verbal stems provides an accessible starting point and should serve as the basis for all future explorations of the verbal stems.
\nSecond, following the important insight of Kaufman, any overarching paradigm for the verbal stems should be limited to the active-stative dichotomy. The history of scholarship shows how misconceptions arise when scholars assume that each verbal stem has a single function in opposition to the others. Accordingly, future scholarly discussion should avoid forcing the verbal stems into a neat and tidy framework. Each stem has typical functions, but exceptions certainly exist. Because the verbal stems exist to create new meaning, sometimes a stem was used simply because it was the only one available.
\nFinally, there is need to develop ways to teach and learn the verbal stems in an accessible but accurate way. Many teaching grammars of Biblical Hebrew hold to outdated understandings of the verbal stems by classifying the Niphal as reflexive and the Piel as intensive. Thankfully, at least one exception to this trend exists. Brian L. Webster\u2019s Reading Biblical Hebrew: Introduction to Grammar contains a short, but linguistically informed, discussion of the Piel stem. His analysis reveals a more nuanced, and accurate, understanding of the verbal stems than found in most grammars. Hopefully, future teaching grammars will follow suit.<\/p>\n
4.6 FURTHER READING<\/p>\n
Bj\u00f8ru, \u00d8yvind. \u201cDiathesis in the Semitic Languages: Exploring the Binyan System.\u201d MA thesis, University of Oslo, 2012.
\nBoyd, Steven W. \u201cThe Binyanim (Verbal Stems).\u201d Pages 85\u2013125 in \u201cWhere Shall Wisdom Be Found?\u201d A Grammatical Tribute to Professor Stephen A. Kaufman. Edited by H\u00e9l\u00e8ne M. Dallaire, Benjamin J. Noonan, and Jennifer E. Noonan. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2017.
\nCook, John A. \u201cActionality (Aktionsart): Pre-Modern Hebrew.\u201d EHLL 1:25\u201328.
\n\u2014\u2014\u2014. \u201cVerbal Valency: The Intersection of Syntax and Semantics.\u201d Pages 53\u201386 in Contemporary Examinations of Classical Languages (Hebrew, Aramaic, Syriac, and Greek): Valency, Lexicography, Grammar, and Manuscripts. Edited by Timothy Martin Lewis, Alison G. Salvesen, and Beryl Turner. Perspectives on Linguistics and Ancient Languages 8. Piscataway, NJ: Gorgias, 2017.
\nCreason, Stuart Alan. \u201cSemantic Classes of Hebrew Verbs: A Study of Aktionsart in the Hebrew Verbal System.\u201d PhD diss., University of Chicago, 1995.
\nDan, Barak. \u201cBinyanim: Biblical Hebrew.\u201d EHLL 1:354\u201362.
\nGzella, Holger. \u201cVoice in Classical Hebrew against Its Semitic Background.\u201d Or 78 (2009): 292\u2013325.
\nSinclair, Cameron. \u201cThe Valence of the Hebrew Verb.\u201d JANES 20 (1991): 63\u201381.
\nVerheij, Arian J. C. Bits, Bytes, and Binyanim: A Quantitative Study of Verbal Lexeme Formations in the Hebrew Bible. OLA 93. Leuven: Peeters, 2000.
\n\u2014\u2014\u2014. \u201cStems and Roots: Some Statistics Concerning the Verbal Stems in the Hebrew Bible.\u201d ZAH 5 (1990): 64\u201371.<\/p>\n
CHAPTER 7<\/p>\n
WORD ORDER<\/p>\n
A debate ensues concerning the identity of basic word order in B[iblical] H[ebrew].\u2026 This debate has made it essential for students to be able to interact with the ramifications of the differing proposals.
\n\u2014JEREMIAH XIUFU ZUO<\/p>\n
7.1 INTRODUCTION<\/p>\n
Recent years have seen a rise in the application of discourse analysis to the Hebrew Bible, including information structure and the way that constituents are packaged together in a clause. This naturally brings up the issue of word order, or the ordering of a clause\u2019s constituents. The recent interest in discourse analysis has therefore led to exploration of word order in the Hebrew Bible.
\nTraditionally, Biblical Hebrew has been characterized as a verb-initial language and Biblical Aramaic has been thought to have a free word order. Recent investigation of word order in the Hebrew Bible has sought not only to confirm but also to challenge the traditional perspective. Given the growing number of scholars who argue for non-traditional positions on word order, it is important that we are aware of this change. Furthermore, because one\u2019s view of word order directly relates to exegesis, we need to be familiar with the different positions on word order, the basic arguments for each position, and the implications that adopting one school of thought over another might have.
\nTo this end, in this chapter I explore recent scholarship on word order in Biblical Hebrew and Biblical Aramaic. I begin by presenting a modern linguistic framework for understanding word order. Then I examine key works on word order in Biblical Hebrew and word order in Biblical Aramaic separately. Finally, I offer some suggestions for the way forward in anticipation of continued discussion of this exciting topic.<\/p>\n
7.2 THE MODERN LINGUISTIC FRAMEWORK FOR WORD ORDER<\/p>\n
Two key concepts provide the linguistic framework for discussing word order. The first is the concept of markedness, and the second is the notion of basic word order itself, particularly as it relates to linguistic typology. I examine these two topics now before exploring analyses of word order in the Hebrew Bible.<\/p>\n
7.2.1 Markedness<\/p>\n
Although the concepts behind it were recognized much earlier, the structuralist-functionalist Prague School largely popularized markedness theory in the earlier part of the twentieth century. The terminology of marked and unmarked (in German, merkmalhaltig and merkmallos) first appeared in discussions between Nikolai Trubetzkoy and Roman Jakobson in 1930. Trubetzkoy primarily applied these terms to phonology and phonetic opposition. Jakobson, however, expanded the study of markedness to include grammar and lexical semantics.
\nAt the most basic level, markedness entails an opposition between two different features in a language, unmarked and marked. An unmarked feature is the \u201cdefault\u201d or normal feature, whereas a marked feature is any feature that differs from the default, standard one. On the one hand, the English word book is unmarked because it represents the most basic form; on the other hand, books is marked because it is plural and not the default form. Similarly, in Hebrew \u05e1\u05b5\u05e4\u05b6\u05e8 (\u201cbook\u201d) would be the unmarked form whereas \u05e1\u05b0\u05e4\u05b8\u05e8\u05b4\u05d9\u05dd (\u201cbooks\u201d) would be the marked form.
\nNaturally, the concept of markedness is foundational for determining word order. This is because exploration of word order requires knowledge of the way a language normally orders a sentence\u2019s elements. Departures from the unmarked word order commonly have pragmatic functions, such as topicalization or focus. With this in mind, I turn now to the subject of basic word order.<\/p>\n
7.2.2 Word Order Typology<\/p>\n
The modern study of word order has its foundations in linguistic typology. Generally speaking, linguistic typology may be defined as the classification of structural types across languages. Each language has its own unique features when compared with other languages, but that language will also share similarities with other languages. Languages can therefore be grouped together and classified by their relative similarities and differences, similar to how we classify animals and plants by phylum, class, order, and so on. The modern study of linguistic typology can be traced back to the work of the functionalist Joseph H. Greenberg.
\nTypological research shows that most of the world\u2019s languages can be classified according to their basic, or unmarked, word order. Most significant here is the relative order of the subject (S), verb (V), and object (O). Using these categories, the world\u2019s languages can be categorized according to the six logically possible orders: SOV, SVO, VSO, VOS, OVS, and OSV. Interestingly, Greenberg discovered that there is often a correlation between a language\u2019s basic word order and certain syntactical elements. For example, languages like English, in which the verb comes prior to the object (i.e., SVO, VSO, and VOS languages), tend to use prepositions whereas languages in which the verb comes after the object (i.e., SOV, OVS, and OSV languages) tend to use postpositions.
\nMost languages exhibit a variety of different word orders. For example, in English the word order is SVO for declarative statements (e.g., You want to go outside) but VSO for questions (e.g., Do you want to go outside?). This raises the issue of how to determine the basic word order of a given language. Linguists do not agree entirely on how to address this issue. However, generally speaking, linguists utilize several different criteria to determine the basic word order of a language: frequency, distribution, simplicity, and pragmatics.
\nFirst, the criterion of frequency means that the most dominant order in a language represents its basic word order. For many languages it is easy to determine what order is statistically dominant. For other languages, however, it can be more difficult. This is especially true if only a limited sample of the language is preserved. For example, the dominant word order in English is SVO, but this would not be obvious if most of the sentences in our text sample were interrogative sentences, which use VSO order. Thus, for frequency to serve as a viable criterion, it is important to consider large enough samples of text that accurately represent the language as a whole.
\nSecond, distribution serves as a criterion for determining basic word order. If one order appears in more types of constructions than another order, then the former should be considered more basic whereas the latter should be considered non-basic. This is because the more limited order is probably connected with the specific environments in which it occurs. To return to the example of interrogative sentences, VSO word order occurs in English primarily only in interrogative sentences whereas SVO word order occurs in most other environments. Based on the criterion of distribution, therefore, SVO and not VSO is the basic word order in English.
\nThird, the criterion of simplicity can help to determine a language\u2019s basic word order. The basic principle is that, when there are at least two different ways to express an idea in terms of word order, the simplest one is likely to be the most basic. Consider the phrases the smarter teacher, with the word order adjective-noun, and the teacher smarter than him, with the word order noun-adjective. Both are acceptable phrases in English, but the simplest phrase the smarter teacher is the most basic.
\nFourth, pragmatics can help determine basic word order. Most languages can vary word order to express pragmatic effect. On the one hand, if the word order of a sentence does not communicate anything special, as in the sentence I talked to Jenn, the word order should be considered unmarked or basic. On the other hand, if the word order of a sentence communicates something beyond the expression itself, as in the sentence Jenn I talked to, that word order is considered marked and therefore non-basic. The main problem with this criterion is that it is not always easy to tell if a given word order has a pragmatic function, especially for non-native speakers.
\nIn most cases, these criteria\u2014frequency, distribution, simplicity, and pragmatics\u2014can identify a language\u2019s basic word order. However, some languages exhibit a relatively flexible, or free, word order. Yet, even for these languages, word order typology remains relevant because these languages are themselves a linguistic type. Furthermore, although free-word-order languages may show flexibility in the position of the subject, verb, and object at one level, these languages tend to be fairly rigid in the ordering of elements at other levels.<\/p>\n
7.3 BIBLICAL HEBREW WORD ORDER<\/p>\n
Having sketched a modern framework for understanding word order, I move on to how scholars have applied these concepts to the study of the Hebrew Bible. I look first at Biblical Hebrew.
\nStatistically speaking, the most frequent word order in Biblical Hebrew is VSO. This results from the extremely common usage of wayyiqtol in verbal clauses. Therefore, the vast majority of the standard reference grammars argue that Biblical Hebrew exhibits a basic VSO word order. The vast majority of first-year Biblical Hebrew grammars also advocate a VSO word order. For these grammars, departure from the basic VSO word order has a pragmatic function, such as contrast or \u201cemphasis.\u201d
\nYet, this position has not gone unchallenged. In the first half of the twentieth century the Hebrew grammarian Paul Jo\u00fcon argued that Biblical Hebrew exhibits a SVO rather than VSO word order. More recently, a small minority of scholars and some introductory grammars have taken exception to classifying Biblical Hebrew as a VSO language. The emergence of such a perspective has challenged the traditional view on basic word order in Biblical Hebrew, which was assumed more than it was demonstrated. Naturally, the appearance of scholarship arguing for a basic SVO word order has encouraged those holding to VSO to refine and defend their position.
\nThe primary advocate for the SVO position is Robert D. Holmstedt. The major voices in recent years to offer support for the VSO position are Adina Moshavi, Aaron D. Hornkohl, and Karel Jongeling. Because Moshavi and Hornkohl both spend some time attempting to refute Holmstedt, I present Holmstedt\u2019s argumentation first for the SVO view. Then, after examining the SVO position as represented by Holmstedt, I explore the VSO position as represented by Moshavi, Hornkohl, and Jongeling.<\/p>\n
7.3.1 Robert D. Holmstedt<\/p>\n
Robert D. Holmstedt takes a generative approach to the question of word order in Biblical Hebrew. Adherents of Generative Grammar often believe that all VSO languages have an underlying, \u201cdeep structure\u201d SVO word order, and Holmstedt is no exception. His arguments for Biblical Hebrew having an underlying SVO language appear in a number of his publications. To arrive at his conclusion that Biblical Hebrew is a SVO language, Holmstedt applies to Biblical Hebrew the four basic criteria for identifying a language\u2019s word order. He also offers some arguments against the viability of a VSO order.
\nRegarding frequency, Holmstedt does not deny that VSO is statistically the most dominant word order in the Hebrew Bible. However, Holmstedt argues that VSO\u2019s dominance does not necessarily mean that VSO represents the basic word order of Biblical Hebrew. He contends that VSO is marked, rather than unmarked, and therefore not basic in light of his remaining three criteria.
\nRegarding distribution, Holmstedt observes that wayyiqtol occurs in a significantly more restricted environment than the verbal forms qatal and yiqtol do. He notes that with wayyiqtol the subject always comes after the verb, the verb cannot be negated, constituents cannot be fronted before the verb, and it cannot follow subordinators like \u05d0\u05b2\u05e9\u05b6\u05c1\u05e8 or \u05db\u05b4\u05bc\u05d9. In contrast, qatal and yiqtol occur with a variety of word order patterns in both main and subordinate clauses. For Holmstedt, this means that wayyiqtol clauses must be excluded from any consideration of word order.
\nRegarding clause type, Holmstedt largely follows Anna Siewierska in arguing that basic word order is found in independent, indicative clauses with an explicit human, agentive subject and object and with an active rather than stative verb. Holmstedt therefore excludes clauses without an overt subject, which results in a slight predominance of SVO over VSO. He further omits VSO narrative clauses with wayyiqtol, identifying the SVO order that tends to be found in speech as more basic. Also excluded are VSO modal clauses, which following Siewierska\u2019s definition are less basic because they are non-indicative.
\nRegarding pragmatics, Holmstedt argues that many instances of SVO order reflect fronting of the topic or marking a subject for focus. Thus, Holmstedt acknowledges that most SVO clauses are pragmatically marked. However, he points to a number of SVO examples that he contends cannot be explained pragmatically. According to Holmstedt, pragmatically neutral SVO clauses in Genesis outnumber the book\u2019s pragmatically neutral VSO clauses. For Holmstedt, this presents a challenge to the classification of Hebrew as a VSO language.
\nFinally, in addition to application of these criteria, Holmstedt contends that a VSO word order faces two significant challenges with respect to Biblical Hebrew. He argues that VSO cannot explain why there are so few VSO simple clauses (i.e., main indicative clauses with no fronted phrases preceding the verb) in the Hebrew Bible. He also contends that the VSO position creates an asymmetry in that all adherents to this position acknowledge the SVO order of verbless and participial clauses.
\nOn the basis of these considerations, Holmstedt concludes that Biblical Hebrew should be considered a SVO rather than VSO language. He argues that, far from representing the norm, all instances of VSO order reflect the generative concept of triggered inversion. VSO order is triggered by one of several different factors: a fronted constituent, a negative particle, modality, an interrogative, or a subordinating particle such as \u05db\u05b4\u05bc\u05d9 or. \u05d0\u05b2\u05e9\u05b6\u05c1\u05e8 Without one of these triggers, Hebrew preserves its SVO order.
\nYet, Holmstedt also recognizes that the Semitic languages in general are VSO rather than SVO. He suggests that an original VSO order may be preserved in subordinate clauses, which cross-linguistically tend to preserve basic word order more than independent clauses. Holmstedt argues, therefore, that the original word order was VSO but that this word order changed, over time, to SVO. According to Holmstedt, this happened through reanalysis of fronted subjects as \u201cnormal\u201d word order by child learners of Hebrew. In doing so, he builds upon the work of Talmy Giv\u00f3n, who also argues for a shift from VSO to SVO in Hebrew.
\nHolmstedt supports his conclusion that Hebrew shifted from VSO to SVO by investigating representative samples of the Hebrew Bible. According to Holmstedt, these representative samples evidence three trends when arranged chronologically. First, there is an increase in the overall use of SVO order, especially in contexts where the subject does not carry topic- or focus-fronting. Second, there is an increase in SVO order in subordinate and negated clauses, both of which tend to be conservative and preserve older word orders cross linguistically. Third, there is a slight increase in use of left-dislocation (i.e., casus pendens) that serves as an alternative to fronting once the SVO pattern becomes dominant.<\/p>\n
7.3.2 Adina Moshavi<\/p>\n
Unlike Holmstedt, but like the traditional perspective, Adina Moshavi argues that Biblical Hebrew is a VSO language. She does so primarily in her book Word Order in the Biblical Hebrew Finite Clause. Moshavi recognizes the difficulties with identifying word order purely based on statistical dominance. To get around those difficulties, she defines basic word order as the word order that is pragmatically neutral. Removing marked expressions provides a filter on the raw statistical data, and the remaining data can then be analyzed in terms of the criterion of frequency.
\nMoshavi characterizes Hebrew as a VSO language on the basis of her own analysis of main (i.e., non-subordinate) clauses in Genesis through Kings, although most of her discussion focuses on the book of Genesis. She finds that 84 percent of these clauses are VSO rather than SVO. To get this number, Moshavi includes all independent wayyiqtol, weqatal, and modal clauses. She even includes clauses that lack an explicit subject. For Moshavi, clauses with and without an explicit subject can be considered as one because Biblical Hebrew typically drops pronominal subjects unless they precede the verb. Notably, Moshavi does not consider verbless or participial clauses in her analysis.
\nThus, Moshavi does not exclude the same types of clauses that Holmstedt does in his analysis of word order in Biblical Hebrew. She argues that omitting wayyiqtol and weqatal clauses necessarily skews the data because such clauses are simply positional variants of their corresponding simple forms (qatal and yiqtol), used whenever the verb immediately follows a conjunction. She also contends that modal clauses should not be excluded because modality is a semantic\u2014rather than pragmatic\u2014feature.
\nMoshavi furthermore takes issue with Holmstedt\u2019s application of Siewierska\u2019s basic word order definition to Biblical Hebrew. She contends that this definition requires the exclusion of sentences that are marked, but to exclude marked sentences one must already have some idea of which order is marked. This, according to Moshavi, is circular. Moshavi also objects to excluding thousands of clauses from consideration as Holmstedt\u2019s approach requires. She contends that determining word order on such a small sample seems precarious, especially because Holmstedt\u2019s exclusions result in a language that looks very little like the Hebrew of the Bible.
\nFinally, Moshavi objects to Holmstedt\u2019s use of triggered inversion to account for VSO clauses, including wayyiqtol clauses, in Hebrew. She argues that triggered inversion does not count as evidence for Hebrew\u2019s characterization as a SVO language. Rather, it is merely a way of explaining the existence of VSO clauses in Hebrew. Moshavi argues that it is just as easy, if not better supported by the evidence, to argue that VSO is the basic word order of Hebrew and that SVO order is the result of pragmatic marking.<\/p>\n
7.3.3 Aaron D. Hornkohl<\/p>\n
Aaron D. Hornkohl\u2019s arguments for Biblical Hebrew as a VSO language are found primarily in his MA thesis, completed at Hebrew University, but also appear in at least one other of his publications. Hornkohl uses several criteria to identify word order in Biblical Hebrew: statistical dominance, statistical dominance with preceding particles, the markedness of non-VSO word order with preceding function words, and descriptive simplicity. For Hornkohl, the book of Genesis serves as a representative sample of the Hebrew Bible upon which he applies his criteria.
\nHornkohl first points to the statistical dominance of relative VSO word order. He finds, similar to Moshavi, that approximately 83 percent of clauses in Genesis exhibit a VSO order. But Hornkohl recognizes that there is more to the picture. He observes that the dominance of VSO is much more marked in narrative than direct speech. He also observes that the exclusion of wayyiqtol and modal forms results in a nearly even distribution between VSO and SVO word order in Genesis. These observations lead Hornkohl to turn to his other criteria for a more accurate picture of word order in Biblical Hebrew.
\nRecognizing that the exclusion of wayyiqtol results in some ambiguity, Hornkohl examines word order for clause types in which wayyiqtol cannot occur. These include both main and subordinate clauses headed by particles like \u05d0\u05b2\u05e9\u05b6\u05c1\u05e8, \u05dc\u05b9\u05d0, and \u05db\u05b4\u05bc\u05d9. Hornkohl finds that VSO word order is much more common than SVO word order. He emphasizes that the statistical dominance of VSO word order therefore holds true even in syntactic environments where it cannot be claimed that wayyiqtol forms require VSO word order.
\nHornkohl further observes that most of the SVO clauses with particles are best explained by pragmatic marking. This is particularly true of narrative but also evident in direct speech. According to Hornkohl, the observation that SVO clauses with particles exhibit pragmatic marking is highly significant because it provides an explanation for why SVO word order occurs if VSO is the default, basic order for Biblical Hebrew.
\nFinally, Hornkohl utilizes the criterion of descriptive simplicity. He argues that VSO word order explains the data more simply than SVO. This is especially true of clauses where a constituent X other than the verb or subject is fronted. In such cases, the overwhelming order attested in the Hebrew Bible is XVS. If Hebrew is VSO, then such a clause needs only a one-step process: the fronting of a single element before the verb. But, if Hebrew is SVO, then such a clause requires a two-step process: first, the fronting of X, and second, the fronting of the verb before the subject. According to Hornkohl, the fact that Holmstedt needs to appeal to triggered inversion for SVO word order to work only shows the superiority of the VSO position.
\nOverall, Hornkohl agrees with Holmstedt\u2019s methodological approach regarding the need to filter raw frequency data to determine basic word order, but Hornkohl argues that if Holmstedt were to apply his methodology strictly, the results would support VSO rather than SVO word order. Siewierska states that for basic word order the verb must be active and the subject must be human and agentive. Yet, according to Hornkohl, the majority of Holmstedt\u2019s pragmatically neutral SVO cases contain a non-active verb and a non-human or non-agentive subject. Omitting these clauses results in VSO as the statistically dominant order for pragmatically neutral clauses.<\/p>\n
7.3.4 Karel Jongeling<\/p>\n
The final scholar to argue substantially for a VSO basic word order is Karel Jongeling. His research predates that of Holmstedt, so naturally he does not have opportunity to interact with Holmstedt\u2019s work. Nevertheless, he recognizes that a VSO basic word order is assumed more so than proven in the traditional grammars and seeks to remedy this deficiency. Furthermore, Jongeling contributes uniquely to the conversation of Biblical Hebrew\u2019s basic word order by integrating typological considerations with frequency analysis.
\nJongeling\u2019s defense of a VSO basic word order begins with an argument from statistical dominance. He takes the book of Ruth as a test case and observes that the verb comes first in most instances, without excluding wayyiqtol clauses. Filtering the raw data by ignoring all clauses without an explicit subject, he argues that approximately 75 percent of the clauses in the book of Ruth have the verb in initial position. For Jongeling, this constitutes good evidence for classifying Biblical Hebrew as a VSO language.
\nJongeling\u2019s argumentation also entails typological comparison of Biblical Hebrew with Welsh, which is known to be a VSO language. He observes that both Biblical Hebrew and Welsh make common use of nominal sentences, construct compound nominal sentences similarly, reinforce a suffixed pronoun by means of a separate pronoun, and create relative clauses comparably. Jongeling does not think there is a genetic relationship between Biblical Hebrew and Welsh, but he contends that Biblical Hebrew\u2019s typological similarities with Welsh reinforce its classification as a VSO language.<\/p>\n
7.3.5 Evaluation<\/p>\n
Recent attention to the question of word order in Biblical Hebrew represents a significant advance in the field. Especially due to Holmstedt\u2019s work, scholars can no longer simply assume without proof\u2014as was done for many years\u2014that Biblical Hebrew exhibits a basic VSO order. Regardless of whether or not one accepts his conclusions, Holmstedt is to be thanked for challenging the status quo. Reconsideration of the question of Biblical Hebrew\u2019s word order can only lead to a better understanding of the issue, as it already has done.
\nIn terms of defining basic word order, the works of Holmstedt and Hornkohl are especially helpful. Both Holmstedt and Hornkohl discuss basic word order in light of the modern linguistic understanding of the term, which is a significant contribution. However, even they do not agree on how the Hebrew Bible\u2019s clauses should be filtered, if at all, to separate clauses exhibiting basic word order from non-basic word order. In fact, this is where the heart of the debate lies for Holmstedt, Moshavi, and Hornkohl. Moving forward, it is essential that Hebraists reexamine the definition of basic word order for Biblical Hebrew in light of broader linguistic definitions of basic word order. As they do, they will need to give greater attention to the specific factors that can impact word order.
\nAnother question that needs further exploration is that of word order typology, which is becoming an increasingly important component of word order research, even for those who understand word order in light of non-typological frameworks (e.g., Generative Grammar). Accordingly, Jongeling is right to focus on this issue even if the comparisons he raises between Biblical Hebrew and Welsh are somewhat misguided. The issue is complicated by the fact that SVO languages and VSO languages tend to exhibit similar features, and there is the question of what features\u2014if any\u2014are distinctive of verb-initial languages. Nevertheless, Hebraists would do well to investigate further the topic of word order typology and Biblical Hebrew, especially within the context of the Semitic languages\u2019 standard VSO order.
\nFinally, Hebraists need to test the explanatory power of the SVO and VSO approaches. This is particularly true as theories of word order relate to exegesis. On the one hand, if Biblical Hebrew is a SVO language as theorized by Holmstedt, then SVO clauses can be either basic or marked, and only VSO order without a trigger reflects pragmatic marking of the verb; on the other hand, if Biblical Hebrew is a VSO language as postulated by Moshavi and Hornkohl, then all instances of SVO order must reflect pragmatic marking of the subject. Thus, whether one characterizes Hebrew as a SVO language or a VSO language can potentially have significant implications for interpretation. Jeremiah Xiufu Zuo presents an excellent analysis of some of these implications, using Gen 18\u201319 as a case study. Nevertheless, there is a need for additional studies like Zuo\u2019s that focus on other portions of the Hebrew Bible.<\/p>\n
7.4 BIBLICAL ARAMAIC WORD ORDER<\/p>\n
Having investigated word order in Biblical Hebrew, I turn now to the topic of word order in Biblical Aramaic. Interestingly enough, the tradition in Biblical Aramaic grammar has been to characterize the language as having a free word order even if SVO is the statistically dominant order. This perspective is held by both the older grammars written during the late nineteenth and earlier twentieth centuries as well as the modern standard reference grammar authored by Franz Rosenthal. These and other scholars advocated a free word order in light of the fact that all six possible types of word orders (i.e., SVO, SOV, VSO, VOS, OSV, and OVS) are attested even in the small corpus of Biblical Aramaic.
\nThis position has been challenged in recent years. An interest in the application of discourse analysis, particularly information structure, to Biblical Aramaic is largely responsible for this trend. Scholars who fall into this camp make their arguments from different starting points and, as a result, have reached different conclusions. Most of the work done on this topic, furthermore, has used the book of Daniel as a starting point because Daniel\u2019s Aramaic makes up the majority of the Biblical Aramaic corpus.
\nI now survey recent scholarship on Biblical Aramaic\u2019s basic word order. The two primary works I examine are the full monograph length treatments of Randall Buth and Adriaan Lamprecht. I also discuss several smaller-scale, but still noteworthy, studies. After exploring all these works on word order in Biblical Aramaic, I offer an evaluation of their contributions.<\/p>\n
7.4.1 Randall Buth<\/p>\n
A very thorough analysis of word order in Biblical Aramaic is found in Randall Buth\u2019s University of California, Los Angeles PhD dissertation. His dissertation deals more broadly with word order in Aramaic ca. 850 BCE\u2013250 CE, including Old Aramaic, Imperial Aramaic, and Middle Aramaic (as represented in the Dead Sea Scrolls, the Genesis Apocryphon, and the Antiochus Scroll). Despite this broad scope, Buth\u2019s dissertation devotes a significant amount of time to investigating the Aramaic of the books of Ezra and Daniel.
\nButh approaches the question of word order in Biblical Aramaic from the perspective of Simon C. Dik\u2019s Functional Grammar. As such, he argues that every sentence has several different \u201cslots\u201d for putting information and that those slots follow a standard order cross-linguistically. The core of the sentence contains the subject, verb, and object. Prior to the core are the frame of reference, as well as any fronted focus or topic, whereas the tail or any other additional elements (e.g., adverbs) appear after the core. Within Dik\u2019s framework, Buth argues that the basic functional order of Biblical Aramaic is VSO whereas the statistically dominant order is SVO. According to Buth, SVO dominates because topicalization and focus frequently require placement of the subject before the verb.
\nButh\u2019s analysis of Biblical Aramaic begins with the book of Daniel. He categorizes all the main (i.e., non-subordinate) narrative clauses in the book according to their word order. Then he rules out both SOV and SVO as the basic word order for the main narrative clauses in Daniel. He invalidates the SOV word order by drawing attention to clauses with a constituent before the verb that cannot be explained as a marked topic. He also invalidates the SVO word order by noting clauses in which the placement of the subject after the verb cannot be accounted for pragmatically.
\nAccording to Buth, invalidation of both SOV and SVO leaves VSO as the only possible word order for Daniel\u2019s main narrative clauses. After demonstrating this, Buth goes on to argue that placement of the subject prior to the verb in Daniel\u2019s main narrative clauses can be explained pragmatically. He appeals to foregrounding, topicalization, frame of reference, and focus as pragmatic factors. After demonstrating that the book of Daniel exhibits a basic VSO word order, Buth checks this conclusion against the main narrative clauses in the book of Ezra. He argues that, like the book of Daniel, Ezra exhibits a basic VSO word order.
\nButh considers verbless clauses, clauses with the particle of existence \u05d0\u05b4\u05d9\u05ea\u05b7\u05d9, and infinitive clauses separately from main narrative clauses. He argues that each can be explained in terms of Functional Grammar without presenting any problems for Biblical Aramaic\u2019s basic VSO word order. For Buth, verbless clauses place the subject before the predicate, existence clauses reflect ordering of information from least salient to more salient, and infinitive clauses can place a marked topic prior to the infinitive but rarely do so.<\/p>\n
7.4.2 Adriaan Lamprecht<\/p>\n
Like Buth, Adriaan Lamprecht concludes that the basic word order of Biblical Aramaic is VSO. However, he arrives at this conclusion through a very different methodological approach than Buth. Lamprecht adopts a generative rather than functionalist approach, specifically the Minimalist Program put forward by Noam Chomsky. Lamprecht rejects the notion of a free word order for several reasons. First, he argues that the ability of the human mind to learn a language requires that certain linguistic structures, including word order, be innate to humanity. Second, Lamprecht contends that a lack of distinction between unmarked and marked word order would create great difficulty in conveying certain meanings in Biblical Aramaic. Lamprecht finally suggests that the need to express specific constructions with a fixed word order argues against a free word order for Biblical Aramaic.
\nLamprecht\u2019s generative approach to Biblical Aramaic word order manifests itself in another important way. When Lamprecht says the basic word order of Biblical Aramaic is VSO, he means that VSO appears at the surface structure of the language. In contrast, according to Lamprecht, Biblical Aramaic\u2019s deep structure exhibits a SVO word order. This differs significantly from Buth\u2019s functionalist approach, which attempts to connect form\u2014in this case, the word order used\u2014with function.
\nLamprecht accounts for Biblical Aramaic\u2019s surface VSO order through the phenomenon of verb movement. Remember that, in Generative Grammar, sentences consist of phrases (e.g., the noun phrase and verb phrase) arranged in a particular order, and this order has a hierarchical structure. In verb movement, a transformational rule causes the verb to move up the hierarchy while the subject, represented by the noun, remains where it is. The result is that the verb is placed prior to the noun rather than after it, as would normally be the case.
\nAfter explaining his methodological approach, Lamprecht explores how verb movement takes place in Biblical Aramaic for intransitive and transitive (and even ditransitive) verbs. Lamprecht highlights how both the aspect and subject-agreement encoded by qtl, yqtl, and the participle contribute to these verb forms\u2019 movement prior to the subject. The subject of both intransitive and transitive verbs, as well as the object of transitive verbs, does not move when the verb moves. The result is that the verb precedes the subject (and object) in terms of word order.
\nAccording to Lamprecht, whenever Biblical Aramaic wants to establish a given subject or object as the topic, that element is fronted. Thus, Lamprecht attributes cases in which the subject or object precedes the verb, as well as cases in which the object precedes the subject, to topicalization. Instances in which both the subject and object precede the verb are also explained via topicalization. In sum, Lamprecht attributes all non-verb-initial clauses to pragmatic factors, enabling him to maintain a basic VSO order for Biblical Aramaic.<\/p>\n
7.4.3 Edward M. Cook<\/p>\n
A smaller-scale exploration of word order in Biblical Aramaic is that of Edward M. Cook. He limits his study to clauses in the book of Daniel that have a finite verb, excluding the stereotyped phrase \u05e2\u05b8\u05e0\u05b5\u05d4 \u05d5\u05b0\u05d0\u05b8\u05de\u05b7\u05e8 (\u201che answered and said\u201d). In terms of the raw statistical data, he observes that SVO is the most common order but that, nevertheless, all other possible combinations appear. However, Cook argues that such raw data is unhelpful unless it is interpreted and one is able to give specific explanations for why certain word orders appear.
\nFor this reason, Cook attempts to explain departures from the basic word order. He contends that usage of the independent pronoun \u05d4\u05b4\u05de\u05bc\u05d5\u05b9\u05df (\u201cthem\u201d) as direct object and the relative particle \u05d3\u05b4\u05bc\u05d9 with verbs of perception (e.g., \u05d9\u05d3\u05e2 \u201cto know,\u201d \u05d7\u05d6\u05d9 \u201cto see,\u201d and \u05e9\u05c1\u05de\u05e2 \u201cto hear\u201d) both require placement of the verb before the object. Cook also suggests that word order directly relates to the role of the verb. For example, for the qtl conjugation, the verb appears before the object when expressing consecutive action, whereas the verb comes after the object when indicating the perfect or pluperfect.<\/p>\n
7.4.4 Christine Elizabeth Hayes<\/p>\n
Christine Elizabeth Hayes also examines word order in the book of Daniel, but with a different corpus than that of Cook. She limits her analysis to narrative clauses in the book of Daniel, excluding clauses found in poetry, prophetic visions, and in the interpretation of those visions because they may reflect elevated speech. Like Cook, Hayes concludes that the subject normally precedes the verb in Biblical Aramaic. Focusing her study on the order of the verb and the object, she also sees SOV and SVO as coexisting basic word orders.
\nAccording to Hayes, SVO order can be explained through case marking and the complexity of the object. Hayes notes a cross-linguistic correlation between the presence or absence of case markings and rigidity of word order, and she observes that the verb in Biblical Aramaic tends to occur before the object when the object is marked with \u05dc\u05b0- or \u05d9\u05b8\u05ea. Referring to the cross-linguistic principle that shorter elements tend to precede longer elements, Hayes notes that simple objects nearly always precede the verb in Biblical Aramaic whereas more complex ones almost always follow the verb. Mood, style, and topicalization account for the remaining exceptions to these trends, according to Hayes.<\/p>\n
7.4.5 Sung-dal Kwon<\/p>\n
Finally, the work of Sung-dal Kwon represents a return to the traditional understanding of free word order in Biblical Aramaic. Kwon\u2019s study is more comprehensive than those of Cook and Hayes in that he examines every clause in the entire Biblical Aramaic corpus, not just a limited portion. He emphasizes that every possible word order (i.e., SVO, SOV, VSO, VOS, OSV, and OVS) is attested in this corpus. Furthermore, in terms of the distributional difference between VO and OV, Kwon finds little difference with respect to main versus subordinate clauses and therefore argues that there is no apparent correlation between verb type and word order. The only noticeable pattern, according to Kwon, is that the subject most often comes before the predicate in nominal (i.e., verbless) clauses.
\nIn light of these observations, Kwon argues it is not possible to determine a basic word order for Biblical Aramaic. He then explores possible explanations for Biblical Aramaic\u2019s free word order, especially because the Semitic languages in general exhibit a VSO order. He rejects pragmatic explanations that attempt to account for Biblical Aramaic\u2019s word order through information structure. Rather, Kwon attributes the flexibility of word order to the influence of Akkadian, which has an SOV word order, upon Aramaic speakers in Mesopotamia. According to Kwon, verb-initial Aramaic\u2019s linguistic contact with verb-final Akkadian in Mesopotamia accounts for the relatively even distribution between VO and OV in Biblical Aramaic.<\/p>\n
7.4.6 Evaluation<\/p>\n
These studies on word order in Biblical Aramaic represent a significant advancement in the field. This is because traditional scholarship on word order in Biblical Aramaic did not offer conclusive proof for any particular position. Until recently there were no substantial treatments of this topic, and basic word orders were assumed rather than proven. Thus, the fact that word order in Biblical Aramaic has lately been a topic for investigation is a very good thing.
\nNevertheless, scholarship on word order in Biblical Aramaic is quite diverse. All the scholars discussed above approach this topic from different starting points and very different linguistic frameworks. It would be beneficial for future scholarship to analyze word order in Biblical Hebrew without being so tied to such specific linguistic theories, as is the case for both Buth (Functional Grammar) and Lamprecht (the Minimalist Program). There remains significant need for defining basic word order in broader linguistic terms. Particularly important here is the need to establish which clauses should be included and which should be excluded when determining basic word order.
\nAnother important issue surfaced by the above scholarship is how to account for the diversity of word orders attested in Biblical Aramaic. On the one hand, Buth, Cook, and Hayes are right to invoke pragmatics as well as the possibility that features like modality or foregrounding can result in departures from word order. On the other hand, Kwon correctly draws attention to the possibility of language contact, especially since the word orders of Akkadian and Old Persian likely influenced Biblical Aramaic. A full-orbed model that accounts for multiple factors like these is likely to have the most potential.
\nFinally, the above studies demonstrate the need for situating word order in Biblical Aramaic within broader discussions of word order in the wider Aramaic corpus. The first millennium BCE attests to a plentiful and diverse corpus of Aramaic texts. This opens the door for comparison between Biblical Aramaic word order and the word orders of Old and Imperial Aramaic, especially given the Aramaic language\u2019s general shift from VSO to SVO during the first millennium BCE. Yet only Buth has attempted to connect his understanding of Biblical Aramaic word order with this broader picture. Hopefully, others will contribute to this important conversation and enhance our understanding of the factors at play in Biblical Aramaic word order.<\/p>\n
7.5 THE WAYS FORWARD<\/p>\n
The most significant advance with respect to word order in the Hebrew Bible is that it is discussed at all. Thankfully, gone are the days when scholars simply assumed without proof that Biblical Hebrew and Biblical Aramaic exhibit a particular word order. Nevertheless, the question of basic word order in the Hebrew Bible remains disputed. The scholarly literature attests to a lively debate on this important issue, and it is likely that it will remain an important topic of conversation in the years ahead. I am hopeful that continued discussion will only clarify the issues that are now disputed.
\nMoving forward, perhaps the most important task at hand is clearly defining the notion of basic word order without overreliance on a specific linguistic framework like the Minimalist Program or Functional Grammar. The definition for word order adopted necessarily determines which clauses are considered when establishing basic word order, so more consensus here is crucial. By necessity, investigation of word order in Biblical Hebrew and Biblical Aramaic along these lines will have to give attention to the specific factors (e.g., pragmatics, modality, and discourse type) that can impact word order in particular situations.
\nAs scholars look at these issues, hopefully they will also give attention to linguistic typology. Particularly important here is discussion of how the word orders of Biblical Hebrew and Biblical Aramaic fit within the typological context of the Semitic language family. The form and function of word order in other Semitic languages could potentially clarify word order in Biblical Hebrew and Biblical Aramaic. Ideally, any typological consideration of word order in the Hebrew Bible should incorporate both synchronic and diachronic factors.
\nFinally, scholars need to explore the implications that word order can have for interpretation of the Hebrew Bible. The contemporary debate over word order is certainly fascinating in and of itself. However, as exegetes our goal should always be faithful interpretation of Scripture. Word-order analysis ultimately enables us to understand and teach the Hebrew Bible more accurately and more precisely than we would otherwise. It is for this reason that word order remains an important topic for students, teachers, and pastors.<\/p>\n
7.6 FURTHER READING<\/p>\n
Buth, Randall. \u201cWord Order in Aramaic from the Perspectives of Functional Grammar and Discourse Analysis.\u201d PhD diss., University of California, Los Angeles, 1987.
\nHolmstedt, Robert D. \u201cThe Typological Classification of the Hebrew of Genesis: Subject-Verb or Verb-Subject.\u201d JHebS 11.14 (2011): 1\u201339. http:\/\/www.jhsonline.org.
\nHornkohl, Aaron D. \u201cBiblical Hebrew Tense-Aspect-Mood, Word Order and Pragmatics: Some Observations on Recent Approaches.\u201d Pages 27\u201356 in Studies in Semitic Linguistics and Manuscripts: A Liber Discipulorum in Honour of Professor Geoffrey Khan. Edited by Nadia Vidro, Ronny Vollandt, and Esther-Miriam Wagner. Acta Universitatis Upsaliensis: Studia Semitica Upsaliensia 30. Uppsala: Uppsala Universitet, 2018.
\nMoshavi, Adina. \u201cWord Order: Biblical Hebrew.\u201d EHLL 3:991\u201398.
\n\u2014\u2014\u2014. Word Order in the Biblical Hebrew Finite Clause: A Syntactic and Pragmatic Analysis of Preposing. LSAWS 4. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2010.
\nZuo, Jeremiah Xiufu. The Biblical Hebrew Word Order Debate: A Testing of Two Language Typologies in the Sodom Account. GlossaHouse Thesis Series 3. Wilmore, KY: GlossaHouse, 2017.<\/p>\n
CHAPTER 8<\/p>\n
REGISTER, DIALECT, STYLE-SHIFTING, and CODE-SWITCHING<\/p>\n
The sociolinguistics of Ancient and Modern Hebrew remains a field of pioneering research.
\n\u2014MARIA MADDALENA COLASUONNO<\/p>\n
8.1 INTRODUCTION<\/p>\n
Our tendency may be to think of Biblical Hebrew and Biblical Aramaic as unified, homogenous languages. The titles of most grammars, which have names like Introduction to Biblical Hebrew Syntax or Grammar of Biblical Hebrew, only reinforce this perception. However, all languages contain variation. Among other things, this variation depends on who speaks, when and where they are speaking, and their intended audience.
\nBiblical Hebrew and Biblical Aramaic are no exception to this basic feature of language. It should not surprise us that Biblical Hebrew in particular contains variation because the portions of the Hebrew Bible it represents were written by many different individuals over the course of a long span of time. Despite any editing and standardization that has taken place, the Hebrew Bible preserves the diverse origin of its contents just as any other diverse literary composition would. The scribes who preserved the Hebrew Bible for us\u2014the Masoretes\u2014did not attempt to obliterate these changes. Rather, they simply transmitted the Hebrew and Aramaic text as they received it, variations and all.
\nThis chapter investigates linguistic variation within the Hebrew Bible, which like the previous two chapters falls within the realm of pragmatics because it deals with language use. I begin with a general discussion of sociolinguistics, the branch of linguistics that provides the framework for understanding language variation. Then I survey several topics relevant for applying sociolinguistics to the Hebrew Bible: register, dialect, style-shifting, and code-switching. The important issue of how Biblical Hebrew and Biblical Aramaic may have changed over time presents unique challenges and is discussed separately in the next chapter.<\/p>\n
8.2 THE MODERN LINGUISTIC FRAMEWORK FOR REGISTER, DIALECT, STYLE-SHIFTING, AND CODE-SWITCHING<\/p>\n
Sociolinguistics is the study of linguistic variation. All languages contain variation because all languages contain a variety of ways to express something. This variation can be attributed to any number of explanations. These include social status, gender, age, perceptions of what is offensive and acceptable, standards of formality, and geography. Thus, as argued by Joshua A. Fishman, sociolinguistics seeks to determine who speaks what language to whom and when.
\nThe discipline of sociolinguistics largely has its origins in the work of the linguist William Labov, who began presenting and publishing on sociolinguistic phenomenon during the early 1960s. Particularly significant was his analysis of the social stratification of English in New York City, published in 1966. Labov connected linguistic variation with different social contexts, including social class, age, and gender. Labov\u2019s pioneering research led to a flurry of research on language variation in America, Central America, and Europe. Today, sociolinguistics enjoys a prominent place within linguistics.
\nThe value of sociolinguistics for Hebraists is clearly articulated in a 2004 publication by William M. Schniedewind. In this article, Schniedewind emphasizes that Biblical Hebrew can serve as a social marker because language and linguistic forms can reflect social groups. Calling for the application of sociolinguistics to Biblical Hebrew, he argues that potential methodological issues\u2014including a limited written corpus and the lack of native speakers today\u2014can be overcome by identifying and assessing the social forces that contributed to linguistic change in ancient Israel.
\nSchniedewind\u2019s study is largely conceptual and concerned with how one might go about integrating sociolinguistics with Hebrew Bible scholarship, leaving the task of exploring the details of variation in the Hebrew Bible to others. Maria Maddalena Colasuonno offers an excellent analysis of the Hebrew Bible\u2019s sociolinguistic variation in her PhD dissertation. Gary A. Rendsburg and Agustinus Gianto present similar but smaller-scale surveys of the types of language variation that occur in the Hebrew Bible. Frank H. Polak has spent much of his career investigating sociolinguistics as it relates to style; because his publications relate directly to the dating of biblical texts, I will return to his work in the next chapter.
\nIn sum, scholars like Schniedewind, Colasuonno, Rendsburg, Gianto, and Polak have put the sociolinguistic analysis of the Hebrew Bible on solid footing. Their work covers several different types of variation in the Hebrew Bible, including register, dialect, style-shifting, and code-switching. With the above sociolinguistic framework and their studies in mind, I now discuss these concepts in more detail.<\/p>\n
8.3 REGISTER IN THE HEBREW BIBLE<\/p>\n
One important aspect of sociolinguistics is register, a concept largely popularized in the 1960s by the functionalist M. A. K. Halliday. A linguistic register may be defined as a variety of a language used in a particular setting. Formal settings require a different register of language than informal settings, written language requires a different register than spoken language, and the style of language used depends on the audience. For example, the styles of language I use when writing a book such as this, reporting to my academic dean, lecturing to my Hebrew students, texting my wife, and talking with my daughter are each very different.
\nAs indicated by these examples, register is closely connected with genre. Each genre, or type of literature, is characterized by a particular \u201cstyle\u201d of language. Whenever an author writes in a particular genre, he or she is expected to conform generally to that particular style. Otherwise, his or her writing (and the purpose of the writing) may be misunderstood. Thus, genre largely explains the similar styles between different pieces of literature and can account for register. At the same time, register also depends on a variety of other factors.
\nMany of the registers discussed by sociolinguists have also been studied to varying extents by scholars of Biblical Hebrew. I turn now to these different registers, which I discuss according to several different categories: generational register, gender register, politeness, and diglossia.<\/p>\n
8.3.1 Generational Register<\/p>\n
Each generation has its own particular way of speaking. Typically, older generations tend to be more conservative and resist change, whereas the speech of younger generations is more susceptible to change and contains new colloquialisms. For example, younger generations are more likely than older generations to pick up recent slang or SMS abbreviations like LOL.
\nTo my knowledge, no one has conducted a detailed study of generational register in the Hebrew Bible. One of the few scholars to even raise the issue is Edward F. Campbell, Jr., whose discussion of this topic is quite brief and limited to the book of Ruth. Campbell notes allegedly archaic forms in the speech of Naomi and Boaz and concludes that they speak differently because they are older than Ruth. Unfortunately, Campbell\u2019s analysis is quite limited in scope, and the forms he alleges are archaic can be better explained as style-shifting. Accordingly, more work on generational register in the Hebrew Bible remains to be done.<\/p>\n
8.3.2 Gender Register<\/p>\n
Sociolinguists have observed how the speech of men and women sometimes differs. Important differences can appear regarding politeness and domination of the conversation, and some languages even have gender-specific vocabulary. The modern study of gender register originated with Robin Lakoff, and since then scholars such as Deborah Tannen, Kira Hall, and Mary Bucholtz have further developed this concept.
\nAlthough some scholars have examined the grammatical representation of gender in Biblical Hebrew, little work has been done on gender register in the Hebrew Bible. That which exists focuses on the book of Ruth, which contains a good amount of female dialogue. Robert M. Johnson, Jr. compares the speech of Boaz with Naomi and Ruth. He concludes that Naomi and Ruth speak more politely and less frequently than Boaz. Thus, according to Johnson, the book of Ruth presents the speech of men and women differently. Another scholar to treat this topic is Elitzur Avraham Bar-Asher. He argues that Naomi\u2019s use of masculine-looking forms with reference to women (Ruth 1:8\u20139) is a literary way of representing female speech.
\nGiven the limited nature of these two studies, there is need for more comprehensive examination of gender register in the Hebrew Bible. Our data on this topic, however, are admittedly limited.<\/p>\n
8.3.3 Politeness<\/p>\n
Because we use language to communicate with other people, language is interpersonal and directly connected with social dynamics. When people speak, they choose their words to match the expectations of their social context. This requires attention to the relationship between the speaker and the audience, and whether or not they have the same social status (e.g., greater to lesser, lesser to greater, or equals). It also requires attention to how one communicates respect. In sociolinguistics these issues all fall within the concept of politeness.
\nModern politeness theory begins with the observation that human society contains social inequality. Politeness enables people to navigate this inequality because it establishes and maintains courtesy within society. Perhaps the most influential formulation of politeness theory is that of Penelope Brown and Stephen C. Levinson. They argue that speakers attempt to \u201csave face,\u201d or maintain rapport with their audiences, by showing appreciation (positive politeness) or by interacting with their audiences in a non-threatening way (negative politeness).
\nThere are many different ways to express politeness. A speaker can communicate politeness by using a particular form that marks the degree of formality and deference he needs to show to his audience. Various other politeness techniques include the addition of politeness particles (e.g., please), indirectness (e.g., Take out the trash! versus Could you take out the trash?), and terms of address that express honor (e.g., your royal highness) or deference (e.g., your servant).
\nRecent research on politeness in Biblical Hebrew has focused largely on syntactical structures, politeness particles, and terms of address. I now discuss each of these topics and provide evaluation along the way.<\/p>\n
8.3.3.1 Syntactical Structures<\/p>\n
Politeness can be encoded through syntactical structures, or specific forms that mark politeness. This method is not common in English and other Indo-European languages, but it is especially common in Asian languages such as Korean and Japanese, which use various levels of speech depending on the speaker\u2019s relationship to the audience.
\nIt has long been recognized that the Biblical Hebrew imperative expresses a direct command whereas the jussive and cohortative are typically more indirect and therefore polite. Recent scholarship, however, has expanded our understanding of syntactical structures and politeness regarding several forms. These include the long imperative, the infinitive absolute, the prohibition \u05dc\u05b9\u05d0 + yiqtol, and weqatal. I now survey each of these forms.<\/p>\n
8.3.3.1.1 LONG IMPERATIVE<\/p>\n
One syntactical structure that relates to social dynamics is the long imperative. It looks similar to the simple imperative (\u05db\u05b0\u05bc\u05ea\u05b9\u05d1) but with final qame\u1e63-he (\u05db\u05b8\u05bc\u05ea\u05b0\u05d1\u05b8\u05d4). Scholars have argued that the long imperative is a stylistic variant of the simple imperative, is emphatic, directs the action to the speaker, or expresses a softened, polite command. The problem with the first three of these views is that they cannot adequately explain the frequent presence of the long imperative within polite contexts and its complete absence from legal material (for which softened commands would not be appropriate).
\nThese observations indicate that scholars like H\u00e9l\u00e8ne M. Dallaire are right to say the long imperative softens requests. However, as she and others also point out, the long imperative is not used only by a lesser to a greater (e.g., Num 10:35; Deut 26:15) but can also sometimes be used by a greater to a lesser (e.g., Exod 32:10; 1 Kgs 21:2, 6) or between equals (e.g., 1 Sam 17:44). Thus, its usage is not limited to any particular social group even though it is connected with social dynamics and politeness.<\/p>\n
8.3.3.1.2 INFINITIVE ABSOLUTE<\/p>\n
A second syntactical structure sometimes connected with social dynamics is the infinitive absolute. Sometimes the infinitive absolute expresses a command, and the question is whether this function differs from the imperative at all. Some scholars say that the two are equivalent, whereas at least one other claims it expresses a softer command than the imperative. Most recent scholarship, however, argues that the infinitive absolute represents a strong, enduring command.
\nThis last function is likely given the infinitive absolute\u2019s frequent expression of general rules\u2014rather than immediate commands\u2014in legal material (e.g., Gen 17:10; Exod 20:8). Furthermore, the infinitive absolute is never accompanied by the politeness marker \u05e0\u05b8\u05d0 and is always used by a greater to a lesser. These observations suggest that recent scholarship is right to characterize the infinitive absolute as a strong, enduring command. It does not attempt to \u201csave face\u201d or be polite in any way but represents a very direct request from a greater to a lesser.<\/p>\n
8.3.3.1.3 PROHIBITION \u05dc\u05b9\u05d0 + YIQTOL<\/p>\n
A third syntactical structure marked for social dynamics is the prohibition \u05dc\u05b9\u05d0 + yiqtol. This structure occurs, for example, in each of the Decalogue\u2019s prohibitions (Exod 20:3\u20135, 7, 13\u201317). At least one scholar contends that it is the equivalent of the simple prohibition expressed by \u05d0\u05b7\u05dc + jussive. However, the vast majority of recent scholarship on this topic argues that \u05dc\u05b9\u05d0 + yiqtol expresses a strong, enduring prohibition.
\nThis conclusion makes the best sense of the contexts in which \u05dc\u05b9\u05d0 + yiqtol occurs. Particularly helpful from a sociolinguistics perspective is the work of H\u00e9l\u00e8ne M. Dallaire, who notes that \u05dc\u05b9\u05d0 + yiqtol is almost always used when a greater\u2014most commonly God or one of his messengers\u2014gives a prohibition to a lesser. She contrasts this with the usage of \u05d0\u05b7\u05dc + jussive, which appears in other social dynamics.<\/p>\n
8.3.3.1.4 WEQATAL<\/p>\n
A fourth and final syntactical structure sometimes connected with social dynamics is weqatal (often called the perfect consecutive). Unlike the structures previously discussed, the possible connection of weqatal with social dynamics has largely been ignored in the secondary literature. This is because much work on weqatal tends to focus on its aspect or discourse function.
\nHowever, recent work by H\u00e9l\u00e8ne M. Dallaire, Ahouva Shulman, and E. J. Revell has noted that volitive weqatal (i.e., weqatal following an imperative or the infinitive absolute) appears when a greater gives commandments to a lesser. These same scholars note that God is very frequently the one who gives these commands and that the politeness particle \u05e0\u05b8\u05d0 never occurs with volitive weqatal. These observations indicate that volitive weqatal expresses a strong command from a greater to a lesser.<\/p>\n
8.3.3.1.5 EVALUATION<\/p>\n
This brief survey demonstrates that some good work has been done recently on syntactical structures and politeness. It is encouraging that recent scholarship is paying attention to social dynamics in this way. Nevertheless, there is need for further study. Much of the scholarship mentioned above does not frame its discussion in light of modern politeness theory. It would also be useful to compare these syntactical structures with parallel ones in the other Semitic languages. Hopefully, others will join this important conversation and add to our understanding of syntactical structures and social dynamics.<\/p>\n
8.3.3.2 Politeness Markers<\/p>\n
Many of the world\u2019s languages add particles to an utterance to make it more polite or mitigated. A good example of this is English please, added to soften a request\u2019s directness (e.g., Sit down! versus Please sit down). The addition of a politeness particle helps the speaker to \u201csave face\u201d with the audience, especially when he or she belongs to a lower social status than the audience.
\nBiblical Hebrew\u2019s main candidate for marking politeness is the particle \u05e0\u05b8\u05d0. Many scholars argue either that \u05e0\u05b8\u05d0 is emphatic (i.e., it draws attention to speech) or marks logical consequence (i.e., \u201cthen\u201d or \u201ctherefore\u201d). However, \u05e0\u05b8\u05d0 frequently occurs with volitive forms in contexts that focus on the addressee, and it never appears within legislative material. Emphasis and logical consequence should not be limited to such contexts. For this reason, much recent work adopts the ancient rabbinic understanding that \u05e0\u05b8\u05d0 marks politeness (Ber. 9a; Sanh. 43b; 89b). Particularly insightful from a sociolinguistic perspective is the work of Timothy Wilt. In accordance with modern politeness theory, he distinguishes between direct volitives (i.e., volitives without \u05e0\u05b8\u05d0) and volitives that \u201csave face\u201d and are marked for politeness (i.e., volitives with \u05e0\u05b8\u05d0).
\nAs these recent studies argue, understanding \u05e0\u05b8\u05d0 as a politeness marker that softens requests makes good sense of the data. Nevertheless, there is room for further discussion. One issue especially needing clarification is the usage of \u05e0\u05b8\u05d0 with the singular cohortative, which is not easily translated politely in certain contexts (e.g., soliloquies). To deal with this difficulty, Bent Christiansen argues that \u05e0\u05b8\u05d0 indicates the propositive mood, which expresses proposals or suggestions. However, such a function does not fit the usage of \u05e0\u05b8\u05d0 everywhere. Worthy of further pursuit is Stephen A. Kaufman\u2019s argument that \u05e0\u05b8\u05d0 softens a request and that the cohortative with \u05e0\u05b8\u05d0 means \u201cI think it may be a good idea to.\u2026\u201d<\/p>\n
8.3.3.3 Terms of Address<\/p>\n
Terms of address express the social status of a conversation\u2019s participants. Many languages use a special form to address someone within a formal setting, especially when that person has a high social status. Honorific forms may appear as special titles (e.g., Mr., Mrs., Dr., and Rev.) or distinct grammatical forms used for formal versus informal settings (e.g., formal usted versus informal t\u00fa in Spanish). A person of low social status may also use deferential forms when speaking (e.g., your servant instead of the normal me or I). Our modern understanding of terms of address can be traced to the work of Roger Brown, Albert Gilman, and Marguerite Ford, who first published on this topic around 1960.
\nThere are only a few studies on terms of address in the Hebrew Bible, none of which examines this important topic comprehensively. In a very brief discussion, Cynthia Miller-Naud\u00e9 distinguishes between speaker-based deference (e.g., \u05d0\u05b2\u05d3\u05b9\u05e0\u05b4\u05d9 \u201cmy lord\u201d) and addressee-based deference (e.g., \u05e2\u05b7\u05d1\u05b0\u05d3\u05b0\u05bc\u05da\u05b8 \u201cyour servant\u201d), as well as indirect address (e.g., \u05e2\u05b7\u05d1\u05b0\u05d3\u05bc\u05d5\u05b9 \u201chis servant\u201d and \u05d4\u05b7\u05de\u05b6\u05bc\u05dc\u05b6\u05da\u05b0 \u201cthe king\u201d) in the books of Genesis through Kings. E. J. Revell\u2019s treatment of this topic\u2014which is limited to the books of Judges, Samuel, and Kings\u2014examines how characters are addressed, the relationship of speaker and addressee, the attitude of the speaker toward the addressee, and the social context in which the term of address appears. Other noteworthy studies include Bryan D. Estelle\u2019s works on deferential language in the Hebrew Bible (Esther, Daniel, and Ezra) and extrabiblical Aramaic (the Arsames Correspondence and Ahiqar) and Edward J. Bridge\u2019s analysis of deferential slave terms in the Hebrew Bible.
\nIt is encouraging to see this attention to forms of address in the Hebrew Bible. Nevertheless, each of these studies is far from comprehensive in terms of corpus and scope. Furthermore, many of these studies have not clearly applied a modern understanding of terms of address to the Hebrew Bible. Accordingly, there is still significant room for work in this important area.
\nThankfully, at least one scholar has recently taken on this task. Young Bok Kim is currently completing a dissertation at the University of Chicago on forms of address in the Hebrew Bible. His study seeks to be comprehensive and will be well-informed by modern understandings of address terms and politeness theory. We look forward to his contribution.<\/p>\n
8.3.4 Diglossia<\/p>\n
The fourth and final topic of register is diglossia, or a language community\u2019s use of a \u201chigh\u201d literary register and a \u201clow\u201d colloquial register. The literary register is more formal and used in \u201chigh\u201d contexts such as literature, and the colloquial register is informal and used in everyday speech. It has long been recognized that many languages often contain these two registers (e.g., literary Arabic versus spoken Arabic, standard French versus Haitian Creole). However, the modern notion of diglossia can largely be attributed to the linguist Charles A. Ferguson, who defined the state of the field in a 1959 article.
\nLike most religious texts, the Hebrew Bible represents a high literary register rather than a spoken, colloquial one. Nevertheless, scholars have often wondered if traces of spoken Hebrew can be found. Accordingly, the existence of colloquial language in the Old Testament was the object of several studies during the twentieth century. G. R. Driver argued that unusual forms in the Old Testament may reflect colloquialisms, and J. MacDonald tried to find colloquialisms in direct speech. However, the modern study of diglossia in the Hebrew Bible is largely the work of Gary A. Rendsburg.<\/p>\n
8.3.4.1 Gary A. Rendsburg<\/p>\n
Rendsburg argues that the Hebrew Bible contains various colloquialisms that represent the spoken rather than literary dialect of ancient Hebrew. He observes that the Hebrew of the Dead Sea Scrolls (i.e., Qumran Hebrew) and of the Mishnah (i.e., Mishnaic Hebrew) coexisted as literary and colloquial dialects, respectively. Rendsburg then argues that Mishnaic Hebrew is the descendant of earlier colloquial Hebrew, just as Qumran Hebrew grew out of the literary dialect of the Hebrew Bible. He identifies colloquialisms in the Hebrew Bible as features that resemble Mishnaic Hebrew, such as gender neutralization in pronouns (e.g., \u05e6\u05b9\u05d0\u05e0\u05b8\u05dd with third-person feminine plural referent in Exod 2:17) and use of the anticipatory pronominal suffix (e.g., \u05d0\u05b8\u05e0\u05b4\u05b9\u05d9 \u05e0\u05b9\u05ea\u05b5\u05df \u05dc\u05b8\u05d4\u05b6\u05dd \u05dc\u05b4\u05d1\u05b0\u05e0\u05b5\u05d9 \u05d9\u05b4\u05e9\u05b0\u05e8\u05b8\u05d0\u05b5\u05dc \u201cI give to them, to the children of Israel\u201d in Josh 1:2). As noted by Rendsburg, many of these same types of colloquialisms are also characteristic of colloquial Arabic.<\/p>\n
8.3.4.2 Ian Young<\/p>\n
Ian Young also postulates the existence of diglossia in ancient Israel, although his reconstruction is slightly different than Rendsburg\u2019s. Young argues that Biblical Hebrew represents a literary dialect that originated as a pre-Israelite, Canaanite prestige language. Behind this literary language are numerous colloquial registers\u2014in other words, multiple diglossia\u2014that reflect the social diversity of the Israelite tribes. These many different registers largely account for the Hebrew Bible\u2019s linguistic variation. According to Young, the exile brought about linguistic unity as well as a religious unity centered on Torah. The result was a single diglossia, the precursor of Mishnaic Hebrew. I will return to Young\u2019s work, which has important bearing on the possible diachronic development of Biblical Hebrew, in the next chapter.<\/p>\n
8.3.4.3 Scobie Philip Smith<\/p>\n
Scobie Philip Smith presents a completely different picture of diglossia. He agrees that Mishnaic Hebrew and Qumran Hebrew represent colloquial and literary registers during the Second Temple period. However, he disagrees that diglossia is attested for the biblical period and critiques Rendsburg\u2019s approach. Specifically, he characterizes Rendsburg\u2019s identification of colloquialisms as ad hoc, disputes Rendsburg\u2019s use of cognates as methodologically problematic, and accuses Rendsburg of ignoring Hebrew inscriptions as a possible source of colloquialisms.<\/p>\n
8.3.4.4 Maria Maddalena Colasuonno<\/p>\n
Maria Maddalena Colasuonno also challenges Rendsburg\u2019s view of diglossia. She argues that Rendsburg has not adequately addressed the different roles that spoken and written Hebrew would have in biblical times. She also disputes several of the features that Rendsburg identifies as diglossia, contending that they can be explained in other ways (e.g., contact with Aramaic and intentional literary devices). Colasuonno concludes that the sociolinguistic situation of ancient Israel is best understood as a mixture of dialects rather than diglossia as postulated by Rendsburg.<\/p>\n
8.3.4.5 Other Voices<\/p>\n
A number of other scholars have contributed to the conversation on diglossia. Among those accepting the existence of diglossia are Daniel C. Fredericks, who attributes some of Ezek 1\u2019s unusual language to colloquialisms, and Takamitsu Muraoka, who suggests that the alternation between \u05d0\u05b2\u05e9\u05b6\u05c1\u05e8 and \u05e9\u05b6\u05c1- in the book of Jonah reflects literary and colloquial registers. Others have been more skeptical. Sverrir \u00d3lafsson suggests that alleged colloquialisms are either slips of later scribes influenced by Mishnaic Hebrew or dialectal variations. Joshua Blau understands linguistic variation as reflecting different scribal traditions rather than genuine diglossia.<\/p>\n
8.3.4.6 Evaluation<\/p>\n
As this brief survey demonstrates, the existence of diglossia in the Hebrew Bible is a lively topic of debate. Rendsburg\u2019s research provides a good foundation for the discussion, but much work remains to be done. The possible connection of colloquialisms with genre needs to be explored in more detail. Also to be investigated is the relationship of the Hebrew Bible\u2019s diglossia to formal and colloquial registers preserved in extrabiblical Hebrew inscriptions. As these and other questions are examined, there is the need for interaction with modern linguistic conceptions of diglossia and clearly established models of diglossia in other languages, especially Arabic.<\/p>\n
8.4 DIALECT IN THE HEBREW BIBLE<\/p>\n
A dialect may be defined as a variety of a language associated with a particular region or people group. The English language exists as many different dialects, each associated with a different part of the world. For example, American English uses different spellings and expressions than, say, British English (e.g., in American English pants refers to an outer garment worn on the legs whereas in British English pants refers to underwear). Dialect differs from register in that it reflects a relatively permanent pattern of language. Specifically, it represents what people speak regularly because it is determined by where one lives geographically.
\nLinguists disagree on what makes something a dialect rather than a language\u2014it is often said that \u201ca language is a dialect with an army and a navy\u201d\u2014but one commonly suggested criterion is mutual intelligibility (i.e., a speaker proficient in one dialect must be able to understand enough of a related dialect). The study of dialects goes back to the medieval period, but in its modern form dialectology can be traced to nineteenth- and twentieth-century European philologists who produced grammars of regional dialects.
\nThe famous \u201cshibboleth\u201d incident of Judg 12:5\u20136 attests to the existence of different dialects in ancient Israel. Taking this as a starting point, already during the early twentieth century C. F. Burney detected traces of different dialects in the Hebrew Bible. Subsequent scholars postulated the existence of Israelian Hebrew, a dialect of Hebrew spoken in the northern portions of ancient Israel. They argued that Israelian Hebrew differs lexically and grammatically from the standard Judahite dialect that makes up most of the Hebrew Bible.
\nRecently, scholars such as W. Randall Garr and Stephen A. Kaufman have provided a helpful framework for understanding the ancient Northwest Semitic dialects. In accordance with modern dialectology they view these dialects along a dialect continuum, with Phoenician and Aramaic on opposite sides of the spectrum. However, as far as ancient Hebrew dialects go, the most prolific author is undoubtedly Gary A. Rendsburg. I begin with discussion of his work before turning to other scholars who have treated this topic.<\/p>\n
8.4.1 Gary A. Rendsburg<\/p>\n
Gary A. Rendsburg has surveyed Israelian Hebrew in numerous articles and monographs. He argues that much of the Hebrew Bible\u2014which was written about Jerusalem and Judah\u2014represents a Judahite dialect of Hebrew. However, a significant portion can also be attributed to the north, such as portions of Judges that take place in the north (e.g., the narratives concerning Deborah, Gideon, and Jephthah) and material in the book of Kings devoted to the Northern Kingdom of Israel. In addition to geographical clues, Israelian Hebrew can be identified through vocabulary and grammar that is atypical to Judahite Hebrew but is attested in Semitic languages spoken to the north (e.g., Ugaritic, Phoenician, and Aramaic).
\nBy Rendsburg\u2019s calculations, at least 15 percent of the Hebrew Bible represents Israelian Hebrew. In addition to Judges and Kings, it can be found in blessings to the northern tribes (e.g., Gen 49; Deut 33), prophetic oracles that relate to the north (e.g., Hosea, Amos, and Micah), northern psalms (e.g., Pss 9\u201310; 29; 36; 45; 53; 132), and other compositions with northern connections (e.g., Proverbs, Song of Songs, and Ecclesiastes). Rendsburg also suggests that the Hebrew Bible contains a small amount of material written in the Samaritan and Benjaminite dialects, primarily in texts that concern these regions (e.g., the Benjaminite dialect is found in portions of Jeremiah and texts regarding the tribe of Benjamin).<\/p>\n
8.4.2 Daniel C. Fredericks<\/p>\n
Daniel C. Fredericks was the first scholar to offer a substantial critique of Rendsburg\u2019s approach to dialects and Israelian Hebrew. He does not reject the existence of different dialects but thinks that we are not able to identify them reliably. Fredericks observes that many features said to be northern do not occur exclusively in Israelian Hebrew but also occur in southern Judahite texts. He also wonders why such features occur only sporadically in Israelian Hebrew, suggesting that more should be present if a text is genuinely northern. Fredericks concludes that many features attributed to Israelian Hebrew should instead be explained as colloquialisms.<\/p>\n
8.4.3 Na\u02beama Pat-El<\/p>\n
Na\u02beama Pat-El has offered another substantial critique of Rendsburg. Like Fredericks, Pat-El does not deny the existence of dialects in ancient Israel but questions whether or not we can reliably identify them. She argues that just because a text takes place in the north does not mean that it represents the northern dialect. She critiques the identification of northern characteristics as features also found in Northwest Semitic languages north of ancient Israel because, being a Northwest Semitic language, Hebrew will naturally share features with other Northwest Semitic languages. Ultimately, Pat-El concludes that the Hebrew Bible reflects a standard scribal tradition, a learned, written form that obliterates dialectical differences.<\/p>\n
8.4.4 Other Voices<\/p>\n
Several other scholars have contributed to the conversation on dialect in the Hebrew Bible. Of these, some follow Rendsburg in identifying other dialects whereas others dispute his argumentation.
\nOn the one hand, some scholars maintain that different dialects are observable in the Hebrew Bible. Most of these, but not all, are associated with Rendsburg in some way. Several of Rendsburg\u2019s students have completed dissertations on Israelian Hebrew (Chen Yiyi and Yoon Jong Yoo) and the Benjaminite dialect (Collin J. Smith). Richard M. Wright and Scott B. Noegel, two of Rendsburg\u2019s former students, have written on dialectical features since completing their doctorates. The Japanese scholar Jun Ikeda has written several articles on dialects in the Hebrew Bible, focusing especially on Israelian Hebrew in the book of Kings. William M. Schniedewind and Daniel Sivan accept the existence of Israelian Hebrew in Kings but argue that its identification requires a more robust methodology than Rendsburg\u2019s.
\nOn the other hand, other scholars dispute the existence of Israelian Hebrew, or at least argue for more caution in identifying its features. Ian Young questions Rendsburg\u2019s methodology and suggests that variant features are not \u201cnorthern\u201d but intentional literary representations of foreigners. Similarly, David Talshir contends that some features commonly identified as northern reflect linguistic diversity\u2014but not Israelian Hebrew\u2014because they occur in non-northern texts.<\/p>\n
8.4.5 Evaluation<\/p>\n
Once again, the work of Rendsburg provides an excellent starting point for the ongoing discussion of dialects in the Hebrew Bible. However, similar to the topic of diglossia, a more careful methodology is needed for identifying different dialects. Scholars should operate under a model in which geographical association suggests\u2014but does not definitively prove\u2014dialectal association with that region. In addition, more attention should be given to possible dialectal features as they fit within the dialect continuum of Northwest Semitic. Particularly helpful here will be the recognition that not all isoglosses (i.e., dialect features) are created equal\u2014grammatical features of greater frequency in normal speech are more useful for classification than infrequent ones. Such an approach may help determine whether a feature is authentically dialectal, especially given the fact that \u201cnorthern\u201d features are often found in non-northern texts.
\nAnother possibility to be considered is that unusual features in the biblical text represent a literary dialect rather than a geographical dialect. In other words, perhaps some unusual features reflect an intentional literary device on the part of the biblical author to color the text in some way. This leads us to the final topic I discuss in this chapter, the phenomena of style-shifting and code-switching.<\/p>\n
8.5 STYLE-SHIFTING AND CODE-SWITCHING IN THE HEBREW BIBLE<\/p>\n
Style-shifting, sometimes called style-switching by biblical scholars, refers to the intentional use of different language varieties (i.e., styles or dialects) within speech or writing; the similar phenomenon of code-switching refers to the intentional use of two different languages, rather than language varieties. Although scholars of literature began discussing these concepts in written texts during the mid-1900s, for the most part linguists have focused on style-shifting and code-switching in speech rather than the literary kind. However, that situation is now changing as scholars have begun to address style-shifting and code-switching in ancient, medieval, and modern literature.
\nIn literature, style-shifting and code-switching can have several different functions. Most often, they mark out different parts of a text or portray characters in specific ways. They are commonly used in literature and are, in many ways, the mark of a good writer because they give the text an authentic feel and aid characterization. For example, in The Lord of the Rings J. R. R. Tolkien recounts the speech of his characters differently in order to portray them differently. This is particularly evident in the account of the Council of Elrond at Rivendell. For example, the elf king Elrond uses archaic vocabulary and inverted word order whereas the dwarf Gl\u00f3in uses short sentences and apposition:<\/p>\n
[Gl\u00f3in:] \u201cAlso we crave the advice of Elrond. For the Shadow grows and draws nearer. We discover that messengers have come also to King Brand in Dale, and that he is afraid. We fear that he may yield. Already war is gathering on his eastern borders.\u2026\u201d
\n[Elrond:] \u201cYou have done well to come.\u2026 You will hear today all that you need in order to understand the purposes of the Enemy. There is naught that you can do, other than to resist, with hope or without it. But you do not stand alone. You will learn that your trouble is but part of the trouble of all the western world. The Ring! What shall we do with the Ring, the least of rings, the trifle that Sauron fancies? That is the doom that we must deem. That is the purpose for which you are called hither.\u201d<\/p>\n
Scholars have long recognized the presence of stylistic and non-native elements in the Hebrew Bible, but it was not until recently that scholars began to investigate these phenomena in detail. Chaim Rabin was the first in the modern era to identify a particular example of them, and subsequent scholars such as Avi Hurvitz, Jonas C. Greenfield, and E. Y. Kutscher have suggested that the biblical authors color foreigners\u2019 speech with stylistic and non-native elements. Since then, the primary scholars to discuss these concepts in detail are Stephen A. Kaufman, Gary A. Rendsburg, and Brian A. Bompiani. I now discuss their contributions along with several other more minor voices, focusing especially on style-shifting because that has occupied the most scholarly attention.<\/p>\n
8.5.1 Stephen A. Kaufman<\/p>\n
Stephen A. Kaufman was the first scholar to draw significant attention to the phenomenon of style-shifting in Biblical Hebrew. He argues that Aramaisms (i.e., Aramaic-like features) need not reflect a postexilic text written under Aramaic influence or translation from Aramaic as is often argued. Rather, Aramaisms frequently serve as intentional, stylistic representations of Trans-Jordanian speech on the part of Hebrew authors. Kaufman points to several different examples of style-shifting, including the oracles of Balaam (Num 22\u201324), the words of Agur and Lemuel (Prov 30:1\u201331:9), the desert oracles of Isaiah (Isa 21:11\u201314), and the poetic speeches of the book of Job, especially those of Elihu (Job 32\u201337).
\nIn addition, Kaufman also speaks very briefly to style-shifting in Biblical Aramaic within the broader context of Imperial Aramaic. He notes that Imperial Aramaic, including Biblical Aramaic, evidences a tendency toward verb-final position in clauses. According to Kaufman, this tendency cannot reflect Aramaic\u2019s actual word order because verb-final word order is not attested in later Aramaic dialects. Rather, Kaufman argues that the use of verbs in final position reflects a literary artifice, specifically an attempt to mimic the Aramaic of native Persian speakers.<\/p>\n
8.5.2 Gary A. Rendsburg<\/p>\n
Gary Rendsburg\u2019s work on dialects and diglossia in the Hebrew Bible naturally entails discussion of style-shifting. He builds significantly on the work of Kaufman by discussing this topic in more detail and providing additional examples of style-shifting, such as the narratives about finding a wife for Isaac (Gen 24), Jacob\u2019s sojourn in Aram (Gen 29\u201331), the Gibeonite deception (Josh 9), and the Aramean Naaman (2 Kgs 5\u20136). According to Rendsburg, style-shifting is most often employed when the scene shifts to a foreign land or a foreigner is present in the land of Israel.
\nRendsburg also discusses what he calls \u201caddressee-switching,\u201d or the use of non-Hebrew elements in prophetic oracles to the foreign nations. He finds evidence of addressee-switching in the books of Isaiah (Isa 17:10, 12; 32:12\u201313; 33:12), Jeremiah (Jer 48:36; 49:25), and Ezekiel (Ezek 26:11; 32:19), as well as the Minor Prophets (Joel 4:5; Zech 9:3). Addressee-switching, according to Rendsburg, helps us to better appreciate the rhetorical devices employed by the biblical prophets.<\/p>\n
8.5.3 Brian A. Bompiani<\/p>\n
Brian A. Bompiani, one of Kaufman\u2019s students, contributes significantly to our understanding of style-shifting in the Hebrew Bible. He finds additional examples of style-shifting not specifically discussed by Kaufman and Rendsburg (e.g., the speech of Esau in Gen 25:30). He also formulates a clear methodology for identifying style-shifting, based largely on Avi Hurvitz\u2019s methodology for identifying diachronic change in Biblical Hebrew. According to Bompiani, the use of rare forms that take the place of everyday vocabulary or grammar are likely to represent style-shifting. This is especially the case when the rare form is found at key junctures in a narrative (especially the first time a foreign character speaks), is juxtaposed with a synonymous form used by a Hebrew speaker, or is accompanied by other unusual forms. Thus, for example, the use of the otherwise-unattested \u05d4\u05b7\u05dc\u05b0\u05e2\u05b4\u05d9\u05d8\u05b5\u05e0\u05b4\u05d9 (\u201cgive me to eat\u201d) in Esau\u2019s first recorded words (Gen 25:30), rather than the expected Hiphil of \u05d0\u05db\u05dc, reflects Esau\u2019s characterization as a foreigner.
\nBompiani argues that style-shifting helps us to appreciate the literary genius of the Hebrew Bible\u2019s authors. Style-shifting encourages us to pay attention to the details of biblical narrative so that we can better understand and interpret it. Bompiani also notes how style-shifting provides an alternative explanation for the presence of Aramaisms and synonymous word-pairs. Rather than indicating a late text or different authors, these features can simply reflect the literary artistry of the biblical writers.<\/p>\n
8.5.4 Other Voices<\/p>\n
A number of other scholars, many of them students of Kaufman and Rendsburg, have joined the fray and also written on style-shifting in the Hebrew Bible. Aside from Bompiani, Kaufman has supervised theses on style-shifting by Laura S. Lieber (on the book of Judges) and Elaine A. Bernius (on the book of Job). Rendsburg has supervised a dissertation by Clinton J. Moyer that includes discussion of style-shifting in the oracles of Balaam (Num 22\u201324). Other contributions include a brief survey of style-shifting in the book of Ruth by Robert D. Holmstedt and Ian Young\u2019s identification of features in the book of Kings as style-shifting rather than Israelian Hebrew.
\nIn addition to style-shifting, several scholars have also explored code-switching. A few studies investigate code-switching within Biblical Hebrew. However, most discussion of code-switching has focused on the bilingual nature of the books of Daniel and Ezra, which contain both Hebrew and Aramaic. For scholars like Bill T. Arnold and Joshua A. Berman, switching between Hebrew and Aramaic reflects a shift in perspective: the use of Hebrew represents the perspective of the Judean exiles, whereas the use of Aramaic represents an external, international perspective. Timothy Hogue further labels the Aramaic of Ezra\u2019s narratives as local, like the Hebrew of the book, and the Aramaic of Ezra\u2019s letters as internationalist. Arnaud S\u00e9randour instead attributes the language used to the difference between profane and sacred subject matter. These and other studies offer interesting sociolinguistic\u2014rather than diachronic or structural\u2014explanations of the bilingualism in the books of Daniel and Ezra.<\/p>\n
8.5.5 Evaluation<\/p>\n
Style-shifting and code-switching offer many powerful explanations for linguistic variation in the Hebrew Bible. Kaufman and Rendsburg are to be thanked for drawing attention to these phenomena. The work of Bompiani especially offers a solid approach for identifying and understanding style-shifting in the Hebrew Bible. I trust that scholars will adopt his methodology and discover additional examples of style-shifting as well as code-switching.
\nOne area that needs special attention is addressee-switching. Although Rendsburg has drawn attention to this phenomenon, there are still no comprehensive studies on this important topic. Examination of addressee-switching will undoubtedly enhance our understanding of the prophets\u2019 various oracles against the nations and increase our appreciation for their literary artistry.
\nAnother area that requires investigation is code-switching with languages that are not Northwest Semitic. Nearly all analyses of code-switching focus on the literary use of Northwest Semitic languages, especially Aramaic. However, scholars need to explore possible literary usage of Akkadianisms in contexts associated with the Assyrians or the Babylonians. Furthermore, the Hebrew Bible also uses non-Semitic words within the speech of foreigners (e.g., the Egyptian exclamation \u05d0\u05b7\u05d1\u05b0\u05e8\u05b5\u05da\u05b0 \u201cpay attention!\u201d in Gen 41:43) or within oracles against the nations (e.g., the Egyptian loans \u05d9\u05b0\u05d0\u05b9\u05e8 \u201cNile,\u201d \u05e1\u05d5\u05bc\u05e3 \u201creed, rush,\u201d and \u05e2\u05b8\u05e8\u05b8\u05d4 \u201creed\u201d in Isa 19, an oracle against Egypt). I have investigated examples of non-Semitic code-switching in some detail in my own research on the Hebrew Bible\u2019s non-Semitic terminology, but there is still work to be done.<\/p>\n
8.6 THE WAYS FORWARD<\/p>\n
The above survey demonstrates that sociolinguistic analysis of the Hebrew Bible\u2019s variation is a fruitful field of study. A number of different scholars\u2014especially Gary A. Rendsburg and Stephen A. Kaufman\u2014have clearly shown the benefits of applying sociolinguistics to Biblical Hebrew and Biblical Aramaic. Their attention to register, dialect, style-shifting, and code-switching offers a powerful explanation for much of the Hebrew Bible\u2019s linguistic variation.
\nYet, as stated by Maria Maddalena Colasuonno, the sociolinguistics of the Hebrew Bible \u201cremains a field of pioneering research\u201d and \u201cfurther investigation may shed light on general sociolinguistic phenomena in the history of the language.\u201d As Hebrew Bible scholars respond to this challenge, they will need to interact more explicitly with current research on sociolinguistics. Scholars will also need to develop a cogent methodology for determining which of the available explanations applies to a given instance of variation, giving special attention to the likelihood of style-shifting or code-switching. In addition to register, dialect, style-shifting, and code-switching, another possible explanation is the diachronic development of Biblical Hebrew and Biblical Aramaic. This is the topic of the next chapter.<\/p>\n
8.7 FURTHER READING<\/p>\n
Colasuonno, Maria Maddalena. \u201cLinguistic Variation in Ancient Hebrew (1000 BCE\u2013200 CE).\u201d PhD diss., University of Naples, 2015.
\n\u2014\u2014\u2014. \u201cSociolinguistics.\u201d EHLL 3:581\u201384.
\nGianto, Agustinus. \u201cVariations in Biblical Hebrew.\u201d Bib 77 (1996): 494\u2013508.
\nKaufman, Stephen A. \u201cThe Classification of the North West Semitic Dialects of the Biblical Period and Some Implications Thereof.\u201d Pages 41\u201357 in Proceedings of the Ninth World Congress of Jewish Studies, Jerusalem, 4\u201312 August, 1985: Division D: Panel Sessions, Hebrew and Aramaic Languages. Jerusalem: Magnes, 1988.
\nKawashima, Robert S. \u201cStylistics: Biblical Hebrew.\u201d EHLL 3:643\u201350.
\nPerson, Raymond F., Jr. \u201cLinguistic Variation Emphasized, Linguistic Variation Denied.\u201d Pages 119\u201325 in The Archaeology of Difference: Gender, Ethnicity, Class, and the \u201cOther\u201d in Antiquity: Studies in Honor of Eric M. Meyers. Edited by Douglas R. Edwards and C. Thomas McCoullough. AASOR 60\u201361. Boston: American Schools of Oriental Research, 2007.
\nPolak, Frank H. \u201cParler de la langue: Labov, Fishman et l\u2019histoire de l\u2019h\u00e9breu biblique.\u201d Pages 13\u201337 in Le Proche-Orient ancien \u00e0 la lumi\u00e8re des sciences sociales. Edited by Madalina V\u00e2rtejanu-Joubert. Yod 18. Paris: Publications langues O\u2019, 2013.
\n\u2014\u2014\u2014. \u201cSociolinguistics: A Key to the Typology and the Social Background of Biblical Hebrew.\u201d HS 47 (2006): 115\u201362.
\nRendsburg, Gary A. How the Bible Is Written. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 2019.
\n\u2014\u2014\u2014. \u201cThe Strata of Biblical Hebrew.\u201d JNSL 17 (1991): 81\u201399.
\nSchniedewind, William M. \u201cProlegomena for the Sociolinguistics of Classical Hebrew.\u201d JHebS 5.6 (2004): 1\u201332.
\n\u2014\u2014\u2014. Social History of Hebrew: Its Origins through the Rabbinic Period. ABRL. New Haven: Yale University Press, 2013.<\/p>\n
CHAPTER 9<\/p>\n
DATING BIBLICAL HEBREW and BIBLICAL ARAMAIC TEXTS<\/p>\n
There is advancement in our understanding of the diachrony of Biblical Hebrew.\u2026 There is progress in the debate in that misunderstandings have been clarified and claims have become more nuanced.
\n\u2014JACOBUS A. NAUD\u00c9 AND CYNTHIA L. MILLER-NAUD\u00c9<\/p>\n
9.1 INTRODUCTION<\/p>\n
In the last chapter I introduced the concept of sociolinguistic variation within the Hebrew Bible. The forms of variation I considered were primarily synchronic in that they related to the coexistence of different linguistic features\u2014features that exist at the same point in time but are spoken by different groups of people in different places. Another important aspect of linguistic variation is diachronic variation, or the change of a language over time. We should expect to find this kind of variation in the Hebrew Bible, which describes events that span approximately 1500 years and therefore was probably written over a long period of time.
\nSo, it should come as no surprise that many interpreters have also looked to chronology to explain some of the Hebrew Bible\u2019s variation. They identified early features in books believed to be earlier and late features in books describing events from late in Israel\u2019s history. Identification of these chronological markers then helped scholars to date the Hebrew Bible\u2019s many anonymous portions. This, in turn, enabled them to establish the historical contexts for those parts of the Hebrew Bible, providing a solid foundation for exegesis. Linguistic dating thus has very practical application for biblical interpretation.
\nHowever, in recent years an increasing number of scholars have questioned whether Biblical Hebrew and Biblical Aramaic exhibit diachronic change. So, in this chapter I survey the present debate over diachrony in the Hebrew Bible. I first examine the notions of language change and linguistic dating within the context of historical linguistics. Then I summarize and evaluate the debates over dating Biblical Hebrew texts and Biblical Aramaic texts. I conclude with a summary of the resulting advances and then suggest some possible ways forward, focusing especially on how this debate is relevant for exegeting the Hebrew Bible.<\/p>\n
9.2 THE MODERN LINGUISTIC FRAMEWORK FOR DATING ANCIENT TEXTS<\/p>\n
In this section I examine the modern linguistic framework for dating ancient texts as a background to discussing diachrony in the Hebrew Bible. Two concepts are especially important: language change, which falls under the realm of historical linguistics, and linguistic dating, which falls under the realm of philology. I now explore both language change and linguistic dating in some detail.<\/p>\n
9.2.1 Language Change<\/p>\n
All languages change over time. To help appreciate the reality of this fact, consider the following English translations of John 3:16. Each represents a different stage in the development of the English language, beginning with Old English and continuing until our time.<\/p>\n
Old English
\nGod lufode middan-eard swa \u00fe\u00e6t he seale his \u00e1ncennedan Sunu \u00fe\u00e6t n\u00e1n ne forweor\u00f0e \u00fee on hine gelyf\u00f0 ac h\u00e6bbe \u00fe\u00e6t ece l\u00edf. (The West-Saxon Gospels, ca. 1050)
\nMiddle English
\nFor God louede so the world, that he \u021daf his oon bigetun sone, that ech man that bileueth in him perische not, but haue euerlastynge lijf. (Wycliffe Bible, fourteenth century)
\nEarly Modern English
\nFor God so loued \u00fee world, that he gaue his only begotten Sonne: that whosoeuer beleeueth in him, should not perish, but haue eternall life. (King James Version, 1611)
\nModern English
\nFor God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life. (New International Version, 2011)<\/p>\n
Comparison of the above translations reveals changes regarding phonology and orthography, grammar, and the lexicon. Earlier stages of English use some consonants unfamiliar to us today (\u00fe, \u00f0, and \u021d), and some words are spelled differently (e.g., h\u00e6bbe and haue for modern English have). Grammatically, earlier English dialects use eth for modern English (e)s, as is evident in earlier forms of the word believes (i.e., bileueth and beleeueth). Even the words used are different: for example, the West-Saxon Gospels uses words that are now obsolete like middan-eard (\u201cworld\u201d) and forweor\u00f0an (\u201cto perish\u201d). Changes like these are the object of study of historical linguistics, which explores the change of language over time.
\nHistorical linguists typically distinguish between internal and external causes of language change. Internal change occurs within the language itself, due to physical and psychological factors. One important type of internal change is sound change, which tends to take place in certain linguistic situations. An example of this from Biblical Hebrew is the Canaanite shift, in which \u0101 became o when accented, as is evident in Hebrew \u05e9\u05b8\u05c1\u05dc\u05d5\u05b9\u05dd (\u201cpeace\u201d; cf. Arabic sal\u0101m, pronounced with the original a-vowel). Another important type of internal change is analogy. Through analogy, a feature of a language that applies in one situation is extended to a different situation. In Hebrew, the so-called pseudo-cohortative is a good example of this. Based on the similarity between wayyiqtol and waw + volitive forms, a wayyiqtol form was created from the cohortative, complete with final he \u05d5\u05b8\u05d0\u05b6\u05db\u05b0\u05ea\u05b0\u05bc\u05d1\u05b8\u05d4).
\nExternal change is motivated by factors outside the language. The most frequent form of external change is borrowing, or the adoption of a particular feature from another language. Languages borrow from other languages for many reasons, but the two most common are necessity (i.e., lack of a native way to express something) and prestige (i.e., because a foreign linguistic feature is highly esteemed). Borrowings often appear as loanwords, or words adopted from another language. Loanwords in Biblical Hebrew come from other Semitic languages (e.g., \u05e1\u05b6\u05d2\u05b6\u05df \u201cgovernor, prefect\u201d < Akkadian \u0161aknu) or non-Semitic languages (e.g., \u05e4\u05b7\u05bc\u05e8\u05b0\u05e2\u05b9\u05d4 \u201cPharaoh\u201d < Egyptian pr-\u02bf\ua722 and \u05e4\u05b7\u05bc\u05e8\u05b0\u05d3\u05b5\u05bc\u05e1 \u201cgarden\u201d < Old Iranian *pard\u0113za-). However, phonological, morphological, and syntactical features can also be borrowed.
\nInternal and external changes operate at different levels, as demonstrated best by William Labov. Internal change occurs within a language from below. In other words, internal changes happen naturally\u2014and relatively regularly\u2014with little, if any, awareness of the language speakers. This is because internal changes simply come about as language is transmitted from one generation to the next. Nevertheless, external change also plays a significant role. External change is change from above, or change that takes place when language speakers consciously adopt a non-native linguistic feature. It takes place through diffusion, which is naturally less predictable than transmitted change.<\/p>\n
9.2.2 Linguistic Dating of Written Texts<\/p>\n
Languages themselves cannot be dated because they are always changing, but linguistic features found in a language can, in theory, be dated. Philologists attempt to date texts linguistically in light of what they know of the language\u2019s development. They determine how that language changed by applying principles of historical linguistics and by comparing related (i.e., cognate) languages. This allows them to identify early and late features in the language, in at least relative but often absolute terms. In this way, specific linguistic features can be linked with a particular stage of the language.
\nWith a knowledge of these features, philologists can date texts that do not possess any extra-linguistic evidence\u2014such as colophons or discovery of the manuscript in situ\u2014for their date. The most common application of linguistic dating takes place with medieval European texts, whose existing manuscripts are either undated or are copies of earlier, now lost manuscripts. Examples of texts that fall into this category include Old English poetry like Beowulf, Old French literature like the Chanson de Roland, Middle French plays (e.g., Le Myst\u00e8re de la Passion Nostre Seigneur), undated medieval charters written in Latin, and Old Norse poetry attested in the Poetic Edda. Although European literature has seen the most use of linguistic criteria to date texts, a similar approach has been applied to other texts, including ancient Near Eastern literature.
\nTo date texts like these, scholars turn to a variety of linguistic criteria, including phonological, morphological, syntactical, and lexical features. As an example, consider some of the evidence for dating Beowulf. Considerations of phonology and meter are especially helpful here. Beowulf contains words that must date early because the poem treats them metrically as if they are early, prior to certain changes in the English language. For example, Beowulf\u2019s meter indicates that the word hleahtor (\u201claughter\u201d) was treated as the monosyllabic *hleahtr before parasiting (i.e., the addition of a vowel before r) took place during the seventh century CE. Beowulf also contains other archaisms that point to an early date. For example, regarding morphology, the poem uses the old genitive plural ia (for later a) with the words Dene (\u201cDane\u201d) and wine (\u201cfriend\u201d). As another example, regarding syntax, Beowulf uses the dative case to mark the direct object for verbs beginning with the prefix for (e.g., forgrindan \u201ccrush\u201d). Beowulf shows signs of scribal updating, but there is otherwise no clear evidence of linguistic innovation. This observation, contrasted with the poem\u2019s archaic features, points to an early (i.e., eighth century CE) composition for Beowulf.
\nLinguistic dating is not foolproof. In absence of a clear chronological anchor, linguistic features like phonology can only provide a relative chronology. Because of limitations like these, lexical evidence is often the most useful criterion for linguistic dating. Furthermore, it is always possible that a text was updated or that the text\u2019s author tried to make his language look older than it really was. Nevertheless, linguistic criteria are held to be a generally reliable form of dating texts. They cannot provide definitive proof of a text\u2019s date in the scientific sense, but they can indicate probable dates.<\/p>\n
9.3 THE DATING OF BIBLICAL HEBREW TEXTS<\/p>\n
With the above linguistic framework in mind, I explore the application of linguistic dating to Biblical Hebrew. Traditionally, scholars have argued that the Hebrew Bible evidences three distinct phases in the stage of the Hebrew language: Archaic Biblical Hebrew (ABH) from the late second millennium BCE, a classical form of Hebrew called Standard Biblical Hebrew (SBH) from the period of the monarchy, and an exilic-postexilic form of Hebrew called Late Biblical Hebrew (LBH). Extrabiblical Hebrew inscriptions from the preexilic period are also attested. During the Second Temple period, Hebrew further developed into the Hebrew attested in the Dead Sea Scrolls, other non-canonical writings (e.g., Ben Sira), and eventually Rabbinic Hebrew.<\/p>\n
PHASE OF HEBREW
\nDATE
\nTEXTS
\nArchaic Biblical Hebrew
\n1200\u20131000 BCE
\nBlessing of Jacob (Gen 49:1\u201327), Song of the Sea (Exod 15:1\u201318), Balaam\u2019s Oracles (Num 23\u201324), Song of Moses (Deut 32:1\u201343), Blessing of Moses (Deut 33:2\u201329), Song of Deborah (Judg 5:2\u201331), Song of Hannah (1 Sam 2:1\u201310), Song of David (2 Sam 22:2\u201351)
\nStandard Biblical Hebrew
\n1000\u2013600 BCE
\nGenesis\u2013Numbers (except for the P source), Deuteronomy, Joshua, Judges, 1-2 Samuel, 1 Kings 1-2 Kings 23; Isaiah 1\u201339, Hosea, Amos, Obadiah, Micah\u2013Zephaniah
\nLate Biblical Hebrew
\n600\u2013200 BCE
\nthe P source, 2 Kings 24\u201325, Ezra\u2013Esther, Ecclesiastes, Isaiah 40\u201366, Jeremiah, Lamentations, Ezekiel, Daniel, Haggai\u2013Malachi
\nPost-Biblical Hebrew
\n200 BCE\u2013100 CE
\nBen Sira
\nMasada Fragments
\nDead Sea Scrolls
\nSamaritan Pentateuch
\nRabbinic Hebrew
\n100\u2013400 CE
\nBar Kokhba Letters
\nMishnah
\nTosefta<\/p>\n
However, this consensus has been challenged in recent years. Within the past few decades a handful of scholars\u2014particularly Ian Young, Robert Rezetko, and Martin Ehrensv\u00e4rd\u2014have argued that ABH, SBH, and LBH should be explained as different but coexisting scribal styles rather than distinct chronological phases of the Hebrew language. Not surprisingly, these ideas have been met with significant opposition by those holding to traditional diachronic typology. The resulting conversation has led to a better understanding of dating biblical texts and of Biblical Hebrew as a language.<\/p>\n
9.3.1 Establishment of a Diachronic Typology for Biblical Hebrew<\/p>\n
The earliest studies on diachronic typology were those of William F. Albright and two of his students, Frank Moore Cross and David Noel Freedman. These early studies focused exclusively on ABH as it appears in poetry. The 1970s saw further exploration of ABH through the work of David A. Robertson. It was also during the 1970s that serious investigation of LBH began under Robert Polzin, Paul D. Hanson, and Avi Hurvitz. In this section I survey the work of each of these scholars, focusing especially on Hurvitz because he has contributed most significantly to establishing a methodology for diachronic analysis of the Hebrew Bible.<\/p>\n
9.3.1.1 William F. Albright, Frank Moore Cross, and David Noel Freedman<\/p>\n
Initial exploration of chronological typology began under William F. Albright. Although certainly gifted in many areas, Albright\u2019s primary field was archaeology. His familiarity with ceramic typology, which proposes a relative chronology for pottery in light of various features, led him to propose a similar relative chronology for Biblical Hebrew poetry. Albright relies on stylistic features like repetitive parallelism (e.g., \u05e2\u05d5\u05bc\u05e8\u05b4\u05d9 \u05e2\u05d5\u05bc\u05e8\u05b4\u05d9 \u05d3\u05b0\u05bc\u05d1\u05d5\u05e8\u05b8\u05d4 \u05e2\u05d5\u05bc\u05e8\u05b4\u05d9 \u05e2\u05d5\u05bc\u05e8\u05b4\u05d9 \u05d3\u05b7\u05bc\u05d1\u05b0\u05e8\u05b4\u05d9\u05be\u05e9\u05b4\u05c1\u05d9\u05e8 \u201cAwake, awake, Deborah! Awake, awake, sing a song!\u201d [Judg 5:12]), typical of Ugaritic poetry, as well as themes attested in Ugaritic literature (e.g., victory over the sea) to establish his typology. However, he also points to linguistic features like the remnants of case endings and defective orthography as characteristic of ABH.
\nTwo of Albright\u2019s most influential students were Frank Moore Cross and David Noel Freedman, who co-wrote one of their PhD dissertations on archaic biblical poetry and subsequently published it as Studies in Ancient Yahwistic Poetry. Following their mentor, Cross and Freedman argue that it is possible to establish a typology of Biblical Hebrew poetry analogous to ceramic typology. Like Albright they point to archaic stylistic and thematic features to support the antiquity of certain poems. Included among the archaic features they discuss are metrical structure, the preservation of case endings, and the use of yiqtol as a preterite or true imperfect. But, unlike Albright, they rely more significantly on defective orthography as a marker of archaic poetry.
\nThe ABH corpus as defined by Albright, Cross, and Freedman spans several centuries. The oldest poems, which date to the thirteenth through tenth centuries BCE, are the Song of the Sea (Exod 15), the Song of Deborah (Judg 5), the Oracles of Balaam (Num 23\u201324), the Song of Moses (Deut 32), and the Blessing of Moses (Deut 33). Dating to the tenth century BCE are David\u2019s Lament (2 Sam 1:19\u201327) and Jacob\u2019s Last Blessing (Gen 49). Finally, David\u2019s Thanksgiving Hymn (2 Sam 22 \/\/Ps 18) and Habakkuk\u2019s Psalm (Hab 3) date to the ninth through eighth centuries BCE.<\/p>\n
9.3.1.2 David A. Robertson<\/p>\n
The early study of ABH found its fullest expression in David A. Robertson\u2019s Linguistic Evidence in Dating Early Hebrew Poetry. Robertson\u2019s reliance upon linguistic evidence\u2014rather than stylistic, orthographical, and historical concerns\u2014sets his work apart from that of his predecessors. Robertson takes as his starting point the typology of the classical prophets, whose writings reflect \u201cstandard\u201d poetic Hebrew. According to Robertson, ABH\u2019s features can be reconstructed by correlating rare grammatical features of Biblical Hebrew poetry with Ugaritic poetry and the language of the Amarna Letters.
\nRobertson identifies six key features of ABH that he connects with Ugaritic and Amarna Akkadian: use of the yiqtol prefix-form as a preterite and true imperfect, preservation of the yod\/waw in final yod\/waw roots, use of \u05d6\u05b6\u05d4\/\u05d6\u05b9\u05d4\/\u05d6\u05d5\u05bc as relative pronouns, the third-person masculine singular pronominal suffix -\u05b6\u05e0\u05d5\u05bc, the third-person masculine plural suffix -\u05de\u05d5\u05b9, use of yod and waw as affixes, and use of enclitic mem. According to Robertson, only the use of yiqtol and the pronominal suffix -\u05de\u05d5\u05b9 occur frequently enough to be significant for dating.
\nTo demonstrate that these features are genuine archaic features, Robertson shows that hymnic poetry did not significantly differ from prophetic poetry during the eighth century BCE or afterward. This enables Robertson to establish an ABH corpus. He dates Exod 15 and Judg 5 to the twelfth century BCE and Deut 32; 2 Sam 22 \/\/Ps 18; Hab 3, and the poetic portions of Job to the eleventh-tenth centuries BCE. He also dates Ps 78 early, to the late tenth or early ninth century BCE.<\/p>\n
9.3.1.3 Paul D. Hanson<\/p>\n
Paul D. Hanson similarly adopts Cross\u2019s and Freedman\u2019s typological approach. Like Cross and Freedman, and Albright before them, he believes that it is possible to establish a typology of Biblical Hebrew poetry, analogous to ceramic typology. But, rather than focusing on ABH, Hanson applies the typological approach to LBH as it appears in the poetic material of Third Isaiah and Second Zechariah. His approach to typology examines prosodic structure and poetic meter as markers of these texts\u2019 late date.
\nFirst, regarding prosodic structure, Hanson pays particular attention to the length of poetic cola. He claims, like Cross and Freedman, that ABH poetry is characterized by relatively short bi- or tri-cola. According to Hanson, classical Hebrew poetry largely adopted this poetic structure. But later poetry\u2014specifically that of Third Isaiah and Second Zechariah\u2014instead tends to contain longer, embellished cola. Hanson supports this development in Biblical Hebrew by comparing a similar development in Akkadian poetry.
\nSecond, regarding poetic meter, Hanson argues that LBH\u2019s increase in colon length produces a more erratic metrical pattern. He adopts a syllable-counting approach, rather than an accent-counting method, to determine poetic meter. He therefore labels each colon as long (longum) or short (breve) based on the number of syllables it contains. Hanson finds that the poetic meter of Third Isaiah and Second Zechariah contrasts with the meter of classical Hebrew poetry. According to Hanson, LBH poetry as found in Third Isaiah and Second Zechariah tends to be less stable and exhibits more variety than that of classical Hebrew poetry.<\/p>\n
9.3.1.4 Robert Polzin<\/p>\n
Robert Polzin compares the language of Chronicles and the P source. Like Hanson, Polzin also focuses on the distinction between SBH and LBH. On the whole, his approach differs significantly from that of Hanson. Polzin analyzes LBH with the goal of establishing its primary features and characteristics. The book of Chronicles forms the basis for Polzin\u2019s analysis of LBH because he considers the non-synoptic portions of Chronicles the most representative example of LBH.
\nPolzin identifies LBH\u2019s characteristics as found in Chronicles. He finds both grammatical and lexical characteristics of LBH in this corpus, but he considers grammatical features to be more reliable than lexical features and therefore settles on nineteen grammatical\u2014not lexical\u2014characteristics of LBH. He divides these features into those that developed within Hebrew independently (e.g., increased use of \u05e9\u05b6\u05c1\u05dc to express possession) and those that developed under Aramaic influence (e.g., use of \u05dc- to mark direct objects).
\nPolzin contrasts these features with those of other portions of the Hebrew Bible. He compares the LBH of Chronicles with samples from the J and E sources (exemplified by the books of Exodus and Numbers), the Succession Narrative (2 Sam 13\u201320; 1 Kgs 1), Deuteronomy, and the P source. Of particular note is Polzin\u2019s conclusion that P serves as a transition between SBH and LBH, and should be dated to the exilic period. In this he differs from other scholars like Avi Hurvitz, who instead argues that the book of Ezekiel serves as the transition between SBH and LBH.
\nPolzin\u2019s approach to diachronic typology serves as the basis for several other studies on LBH. Andrew E. Hill uses Polzin\u2019s LBH features to determine whether Malachi and Second Zechariah are closer to SBH or LBH. Based on the number of SBH versus LBH features they contain, he concludes that they typologically match early exilic material. Allen R. Guenther compares the syntax of Jer 37\u201345 and Esth 1\u201310, isolating various features that represent diachronic syntactic change between the two corpora. Similar to Hill, Guenther then places Jer 37\u201345 and Esth 1\u201310 typologically within Polzin\u2019s framework.<\/p>\n
9.3.1.5 Avi Hurvitz<\/p>\n
Avi Hurvitz is perhaps the most influential scholar working on diachronic typology. Since the completion of his dissertation on the diachronic typology of post-exilic psalms, Hurvitz has devoted most of his research to diachronic typology. Hurvitz argues that the Hebrew Bible attests to two major typologies, each linked to a particular time in history: preexilic SBH as attested in the Pentateuch and Deuteronomistic History, and postexilic LBH as found in Esther, Daniel, Ezra-Nehemiah, and Chronicles. For Hurvitz, the upheaval of the exile and resulting contact with Aramaic significantly changed the Hebrew language so that it became LBH. The exile had such an impact, furthermore, that it became impossible for postexilic Hebrew speakers to speak or even perfectly mimic SBH.
\nHurvitz uses three criteria to identify LBH features in Biblical Hebrew: linguistic distribution, linguistic opposition, and extrabiblical sources. First, regarding the criterion of linguistic distribution, any LBH feature must occur exclusively or primarily in undisputed postexilic books (i.e., Esther, Daniel, Ezra-Nehemiah, and Chronicles). Second, the criterion of linguistic opposition requires that any LBH feature be used in place of a clear SBH counterpart of similar meaning. This ensures that the proposed feature is actually a new one and not simply a feature that was unattested in SBH. Third, the criterion of extrabiblical sources requires that any LBH feature also appear in extrabiblical texts like the Dead Sea Scrolls or Mishnaic Hebrew. According to Hurvitz, a book or text can be identified as LBH only if it contains a significant accumulation of LBH features.
\nFor Hurvitz, the most reliable features are lexical rather than grammatical. Of special note here are Aramaisms (words borrowed or influenced by Aramaic) and Persian and Greek loanwords (words borrowed into Hebrew from Persian and Greek). One of his classic examples along these lines entails the words \u05de\u05b7\u05de\u05b0\u05dc\u05b8\u05db\u05b8\u05d4 and \u05de\u05b7\u05dc\u05b0\u05db\u05d5\u05bc\u05ea, both of which mean \u201ckingdom.\u201d The form \u05de\u05b7\u05dc\u05b0\u05db\u05d5\u05bc\u05ea occurs frequently in Esther\u2013Chronicles, but only rarely elsewhere, where \u05de\u05b7\u05de\u05b0\u05dc\u05b8\u05db\u05b8\u05d4 is instead more common. Given this distribution, and because \u05de\u05b7\u05de\u05b0\u05dc\u05b8\u05db\u05b8\u05d4 and \u05de\u05b7\u05dc\u05b0\u05db\u05d5\u05bc\u05ea have the same meaning, Hurvitz argues that in LBH \u05de\u05b7\u05dc\u05b0\u05db\u05d5\u05bc\u05ea replaces SBH\u2019s \u05de\u05b7\u05de\u05b0\u05dc\u05b8\u05db\u05b8\u05d4. This was prompted by emergence of Aramaic as an ancient Near Eastern lingua franca as indicated by the fact that \u05de\u05dc\u05db\u05d5\u05ea is the typical Aramaic word for \u201ckingdom.\u201d \u05de\u05b7\u05dc\u05b0\u05db\u05d5\u05bc\u05ea\u2019s identification as an LBH feature is then confirmed by its common usage in the Dead Sea Scrolls and Rabbinic Hebrew.
\nAs noted earlier, Hurvitz has had significant influence on studies of diachronic typology. William James Adams, Jr. does not adopt Hurvtiz\u2019s methodology but does share his concern for extrabiblical sources; he uses diachronic variation in Hebrew inscriptions (dating from the tenth century BCE through the first century CE) as an external control to determine the date of biblical texts. Many other scholars have applied Hurvitz\u2019s methodological approach directly to specific corpora of the Hebrew Bible. Ronald L. Bergey applies Hurvitz\u2019s methodology to the book of Esther, arguing that Esther is a postexilic composition. Mark F. Rooker similarly analyzes the book of Ezekiel, concluding from the book\u2019s ratio of SBH to LBH features that Ezekiel reflects a transitional stage between SBH and LBH. Richard M. Wright argues that the J source is preexilic in light of its features, which contrast with those of LBH. Finally, using Hurvitz\u2019s methodology Aaron D. Hornkohl dates the book of Jeremiah to the sixth century BCE.<\/p>\n
9.3.2 Challenges to Diachronic Typology<\/p>\n
Hurvitz\u2019s primary contribution to our understanding of diachronic typology is his formulation of a methodology for distinguishing between SBH and LBH\u2014he made it possible to date biblical texts purely by linguistic means. As already noted, Hurvitz\u2019s methodology was applied to specific portions of the Hebrew Bible by his own students and others. Even Hebraists who did not directly engage in diachronic typology considered Hurvitz\u2019s approach and results reliable. The outcome was that, by the turn of the twenty-first century, the vast majority of the scholarly community believed that Biblical Hebrew texts could be dated linguistically.
\nThis all changed drastically, however, early in the new millennium. In 2003 Biblical Hebrew: Studies in Chronology and Typology (edited by Ian Young) appeared. Although many of the essays in this volume championed diachronic typology, several of them challenged it. In response, the National Association of Professors of Hebrew arranged special sessions to explore dating biblical texts at the 2004 and 2005 annual meetings of the Society of Biblical Literature. The contributions to these sessions were published in two issues of the journal Hebrew Studies, volumes 46 (2005) and 47 (2006). As in Biblical Hebrew: Studies in Chronology and Typology, the contributors included advocates of diachronic typology as well as those opposed to it.
\nThe most significant challenge to Hurvitz\u2019s approach appeared a few years afterward with the 2008 publication of Linguistic Dating of Biblical Texts by Ian Young, Robert Rezetko, and Martin Ehrensv\u00e4rd. This was the first comprehensive work to directly challenge Hurvitz\u2019s method, and with a unified voice, too. In light of its importance, most of my survey of challenges to diachronic typology in this section focuses on the contribution of this work, although I consider some other key challengers as well.<\/p>\n
9.3.2.1 Linguistic Dating of Biblical Texts (LDBT)<\/p>\n
In Linguistic Dating of Biblical Texts (LDBT), Ian Young, Robert Rezetko, and Martin Ehrensv\u00e4rd argue that the scholarly use of language in dating biblical texts\u2014and even the traditional standpoint on the chronological development of Biblical Hebrew\u2014require thorough reevaluation. Their criticism of traditional diachronic typology focuses on four key issues: methodology, the use of Aramaisms and loanwords, textual fluidity, and non-diachronic variation in the Hebrew Bible.
\nFirst, LDBT criticizes Hurvitz\u2019s methodology. Young, Rezetko, and Ehrensv\u00e4rd observe that SBH features occur in LBH and that LBH features occur in SBH. The primary difference between SBH and LBH, in their opinion, is the accumulation of specific features. They acknowledge that SBH tends to have a higher accumulation of SBH features than LBH and that LBH tends to have a higher accumulation of LBH features than SBH. But, Young, Rezetko, and Ehrensv\u00e4rd also point out that very few features said to belong to a particular time period are characteristic of every book in that corpus. For them the lack of limitation of SBH and LBH features to their respective corpora means that there is no clear linguistic distribution as Hurvitz argues. It also means, according to Young, Rezetko, and Ehrensv\u00e4rd, that SBH and LBH features do not exhibit linguistic opposition as Hurvitz contends.
\nSecond, Young, Rezetko, and Ehrensv\u00e4rd dispute the use of Aramaisms and loanwords to date biblical texts. Regarding Aramaisms, they note that Aramaic influence can be found in texts other than LBH, including wisdom literature, texts of northern provenance, and texts relating to Aramaic speakers in some way. This means, according to LDBT, that Aramaisms cannot be seen as an LBH marker. Regarding loanwords, Young, Rezetko, and Ehrensv\u00e4rd argue that Old Persian and Greek loanwords could have been borrowed prior to the exile because there was opportunity for contact with Persians and Greeks before then. Thus, Old Persian and Greek loanwords cannot be correlated with LBH either.
\nThird, LDBT argues that biblical texts cannot be dated because of textual fluidity. According to Young, Rezetko, and Ehrensv\u00e4rd, the text of the Hebrew Bible was fluid and existed in multiple forms until the first century CE. They find evidence for this view in several forms: differences in synoptic passages in the Hebrew Bible, the existence of multiple copies of biblical passages at Qumran, and differences between the ancient versions and the Masoretic Text. They argue that editors and scribes regularly altered texts, hence these variations. For Young, Rezetko, and Ehrensv\u00e4rd, this textual fluidity undermines the stability of biblical texts required for the diachronic view.
\nFourth, LDBT highlights the existence of non-diachronic variation in the Hebrew Bible. For Young, Rezetko, and Ehrensv\u00e4rd, there is no need to resort to diachronic explanations for different features because variation can instead be explained in terms of register, dialect, style-shifting, and code-switching. LDBT supports this conclusion by pointing to extrabiblical Hebrew inscriptions, Mishnaic Hebrew, and Qumran Hebrew and Ben Sira. Following recent scholarship on these corpora, LDBT argues that each corpus represents a unique dialect of Hebrew. They attest to the diversity of Hebrew and cannot be seen as earlier or later stages of Biblical Hebrew.
\nAccording to Young, Rezetko, and Ehrensv\u00e4rd, all these points demonstrate that the distinction between SBH and LBH should not be viewed in diachronic terms. Rather, the best explanation for the Hebrew Bible\u2019s use of SBH and LBH features throughout is different scribal styles. On the one hand, SBH represents a conservative style in which the scribes stuck to a limited number of linguistic forms. On the other hand, LBH reflects a non-conservative style in which the scribes were open to using a greater variety of linguistic forms. As argued by LDBT, these two styles coexisted and were used for different purposes.<\/p>\n
9.3.2.2 Philip R. Davies<\/p>\n
While the arguments found in LDBT are largely limited to its authors, Philip R. Davies similarly holds that SBH and LBH were coexisting dialects during the postexilic period. According to Davies, SBH represents the literary language of the returned exiles, and LBH represents the language they spoke in postexilic Judea. Davies argues that it is unlikely that scribes would have lost the ability to write flawless SBH given their role in copying and editing manuscripts. Davies points to literary languages like Standard Babylonian Akkadian and Standard Literary Arabic, which coexisted with the common vernacular long after people stopped speaking them, to support the plausibility of his view. Davies\u2019s understanding of SBH and LBH as coexisting styles naturally stems from his belief that the entire Hebrew Bible originated in Palestine during the Persian period.<\/p>\n
9.3.2.3 Frederick H. Cryer<\/p>\n
Finally, Frederick H. Cryer offers a unique perspective on dating biblical texts, different from LDBT and Davies. Unlike nearly every other scholar, Cryer argues that Biblical Hebrew is homogeneous without any significant variation. Cryer contrasts the Hebrew Bible\u2019s alleged homogeneity with significant changes that have taken place in the English and German languages, changes that make works nearly 1000 years old like Beowulf (eighth century CE) and the Nibelungenlied (thirteenth century CE) unreadable today. The Hebrew Bible\u2019s lack of linguistic variation, according to Cryer, demonstrates that the Old Testament was written over a relatively short period of time, if not more or less at a single point in time.<\/p>\n
9.3.3 Response and Refinement<\/p>\n
These challenges to diachronic typology\u2014particularly those of LDBT\u2014have produced two different responses among scholars. A noteworthy minority have advanced the basic argumentation of LDBT, focusing on specific portions of the Hebrew Bible or particular issues related to the linguistic dating of biblical texts. Others, especially Hurvitz himself, have reaffirmed the possibility of dating Biblical Hebrew linguistically. In response to these reaffirmations, the authors of LDBT\u2014particularly Young and Rezetko\u2014have offered counter-arguments and continued to develop their approach. This is especially evident in their publishing of Historical Linguistics and Biblical Hebrew: Steps Toward an Integrated Approach.
\nIn addition to these, the linguistic dating of Biblical Hebrew has continued to occupy the attention of colloquia and academic journals. The Sixteenth World Congress of Jewish Studies held a special five-part session on historical linguistics in 2013. Diachronic typology occupied a significant portion of this session, and those papers were subsequently published. Similarly, in 2015 the National Association of Professors of Hebrew held a session devoted to the topic of historical linguistics and dating Biblical Hebrew texts, and the papers were published the next year\u2014along with many other articles on the same topic\u2014in the Journal for Semitics. Finally, in 2017 the journal Hebrew Studies presented a symposium entitled \u201cDoes Archaic Biblical Hebrew Exist?\u201d
\nIn the midst of these discussions, an important development has taken place. As I noted in the previous chapter, in recent years Hebraists have become increasingly aware of sociolinguistic explanations for linguistic variation. This awareness, further encouraged by the publication of LDBT, has prompted scholars to explore new approaches to the study of diachronic typology. Having sketched both the establishment of and challenges to traditional diachronic typology, I now investigate the most recent responses to the challenges along with emerging sociolinguistic approaches to the study of diachronic typology.<\/p>\n
9.3.3.1 Diachrony in Biblical Hebrew (DBH)<\/p>\n
The publication of LDBT prompted the National Association of Professors of Hebrew to host five sessions titled \u201cDiachrony in Biblical Hebrew\u201d in 2009 and 2010. Invited to present at these sessions were both those who hold to diachronic typology and those who reject it. Most of these sessions\u2019 papers were subsequently published in 2012 as Diachrony in Biblical Hebrew (DBH), edited by Cynthia L. Miller-Naud\u00e9 and Ziony Zevit. Of those who reject diachronic typology, only Martin Ehrensv\u00e4rd agreed to publish his paper in this book, so DBH is essentially a defense of diachrony in Biblical Hebrew. In addition, the contributors represent some of the top-scholars in the field, including Hurvitz himself. As such, DBH serves as the most unified rejoinder to LDBT to date.
\nAs noted by Miller-Naud\u00e9 and Zevit in the preface, this book seeks to investigate key questions that LDBT raises: whether or not there is linguistic evidence for diachronic change in Biblical Hebrew, the possibility of using linguistic methods to date the Hebrew Bible\u2019s features to particular time periods, and the interrelation of language variation and language change. To answer these questions, the first and second parts of the book establish a theoretical and methodological framework for diachronic study of the Hebrew Bible. They address issues like language change, language contact, stylistics, and sociolinguistics and together argue that written texts can be dated linguistically on the basis of historical linguistics.
\nThe bulk of DBH, represented by its third section, provides specific examples of diachronic change in the Hebrew Bible. The contributors to this section investigate orthography (e.g., defective versus full spelling), morphology (e.g., the third-person masculine plural pronoun -\u05de\u05d5\u05b9), syntax (e.g., Aramaic influence on Hebrew syntax), the lexicon (e.g., pseudo-classicisms that demonstrate a shift in semantic field), dialect (e.g., Northern Israelite Hebrew), and textual criticism. For the most part, these explorations focus on diachronic development between SBH and LBH, although a few treat issues related to ABH. Furthermore, with the exception of the examples given, the argumentation in this section essentially only rehashes old arguments. The fourth section of the book examines similar issues in other Semitic languages, namely Aramaic, Ugaritic, and Akkadian.
\nDBH\u2019s afterword, written by Ziony Zevit, serves as a review of LDBT. Zevit critiques several aspects of the book, focusing especially on LDBT\u2019s approach. These include an eclectic methodology and lack of engagement with studies that address the question of dating undated non-Semitic texts. Zevit also discusses at length the question of textual fluidity raised by LDBT. He contends that LDBT never proves that scribes actually erased evidence of diachrony to any significant degree. Rather, Zevit argues, scribal activity was limited to certain centers and that those centers\u2019 scribes were tasked with accurate transmission of the biblical text.<\/p>\n
9.3.3.2 Ronald S. Hendel and Jan Joosten<\/p>\n
Another book, published partially in response to LDBT, is Ronald S. Hendel and Jan Joosten\u2019s How Old Is the Hebrew Bible? A Linguistic, Textual, and Historical Study. Hendel and Joosten acknowledge potential difficulties in dating biblical texts, but they contend that trying to do so is important because the Hebrew Bible\u2019s narrative is shaped by its history and set within history. In response to works like LDBT, Hendel and Joosten state: \u201cContrary to recent claims, dating Hebrew texts on the basis of their language is not impossible.\u201d
\nHendel and Joosten open their study with several chapters that lay the context for the rest of the book. They examine the reality of language change, arguing that historical linguistics is a reliable tool even if it cannot definitively establish the date of a text. Then they discuss various types of language change (e.g., grammaticalization and language contact). They set this diachronic change alongside synchronic variation stemming from dialect, style-shifting, and other factors.
\nAccording to Hendel and Joosten, it is possible to distinguish diachronic variation from synchronic variation. Variation is diachronic rather than synchronic when the features are typologically earlier or later and have a relatively consistent distribution. Hendel and Joosten also address LDBT\u2019s claim that textual fluidity makes it impossible to distinguish diachronic development. According to them, textual variation does not alter the big picture; the criterion of accumulation permits the distinction between earlier and later texts.
\nFinally, Hendel and Joosten lay out their diachronic model of Biblical Hebrew. SBH is identified by early typological features and its similarities to preexilic Hebrew inscriptions. LBH is identified by its late typological features and the use of pseudoclassicisms, or imperfect imitations of SBH features. Transitional Biblical Hebrew\u2014found in books like Jeremiah, Ezekiel, Lamentations, and Haggai\u2014is more similar to SBH than LBH but is still a distinctive chronolect. According to Hendel and Joosten, this diachronic model matches well with what is known of the Hebrew Bible on historical-critical grounds.<\/p>\n
9.3.3.3 Frank H. Polak<\/p>\n
A different, but refreshing, perspective on diachrony in Biblical Hebrew is found in the work of Frank H. Polak. His approach is unique because it represents the most substantial effort to integrate sociolinguistics with diachronic differences between SBH and LBH. Specifically, Polak gives attention to the styles associated with oral culture and with literate writing culture. For Polak, SBH tends to preserve an older, oral style whereas LBH represents a literate, written style.
\nOne of Polak\u2019s methods for distinguishing between the SBH and LBH styles is statistics. He determines two different ratios in the Hebrew Bible: noun to verb, and nominal verb (i.e., participles and infinitives construct) to finite verb (i.e., qatal, yiqtol, and volitives). Polak argues from these data that SBH tends to use more verbs than LBH, which instead tends to use complex nominal clauses. According to Polak, this shift from verbs to nominal clauses reflects a shift to a literate, writing culture.
\nPolak also contends that SBH and LBH can be distinguished lexically. On the one hand, epic formulas (e.g., \u05d5\u05b7\u05d9\u05b7\u05bc\u05e2\u05b7\u05df \u05d5\u05b7\u05d9\u05b9\u05bc\u05d0\u05de\u05b6\u05e8 \u201che answered and said\u201d) typical of oral culture occur much more commonly in SBH than in LBH. On the other hand, LBH tends to be marked by references to writing as well as Aramaisms and Persian loanwords. These differences again reflect a shift from an oral to a literate, writing culture, especially as brought on by the scribal chancellery of the Persian Empire.
\nAccording to Polak, these data enable the distinction between three main styles that correspond chronologically to Israel\u2019s history. The Classical Style (e.g., the Samuel-Saul-David narratives in Samuel, the Elijah-Elisha narratives in Kings, and other narratives in the Pentateuch and Joshua-Judges) is relatively \u201cplain\u201d and roughly corresponds to SBH. The Late Preexilic\/Exilic Style (e.g., Deuteronomy and most of Kings) and Postexilic Style (e.g., Ezra-Nehemiah and non-synoptic Chronicles) have more rhetorical flourish and roughly correspond to LBH.<\/p>\n
9.3.3.4 Dong-Hyuk Kim<\/p>\n
Similar to Polak, Dong-Hyuk Kim puts forth a model for understanding the Hebrew Bible\u2019s variation that integrates sociolinguistics with diachronic typology. Kim analyzes and attempts to correlate two types of variables commonly used in historical sociolinguistics: dependent and independent. Dependent variables are the Hebrew Bible\u2019s actual linguistic features, whether grammatical, lexical, or phraseological. Independent variables are factors that can influence the use of variant linguistic forms, such as age, gender, social status, genre, and time. For Kim, genre\u2014specifically narrative versus direct speech\u2014and time are the two independent variables relevant for analyzing the Hebrew Bible.
\nThen, largely following the work of sociolinguist William Labov, Kim discusses both internal and external linguistic change. He defines internal change as change from below that takes place with little awareness of the speakers; he defines external change as change from above that occurs when lower social classes consciously adopt the speech of the dominant social class. Kim assumes that, in the Hebrew Bible, internal change is more common in direct speech whereas external change is more frequent in narrative. Kim then argues that only change from below can serve as a reliable indicator of chronology when correlated with the independent variable of time.
\nWith this framework in mind, Kim evaluates eight grammatical (e.g., temporal infinitive construct clauses introduced with and without \u05d5\u05b7\u05d9\u05b0\u05d4\u05b4\u05d9\/\u05d5\u05b0\u05d4\u05b8\u05d9\u05b8\u05d4) and lexical (e.g., \u05de\u05b7\u05de\u05b0\u05dc\u05b8\u05db\u05b8\u05d4 versus \u05de\u05b7\u05dc\u05b0\u05db\u05d5\u05bc\u05ea) features thought to be relevant for distinguishing SBH from LBH. Through variationist analysis he concludes that seven of these features represent authentic linguistic change over time rather than idiolect (i.e., the linguistic \u201cstyle\u201d of an author). According to Kim, furthermore, three of these changes are internal and three are external; the direction of change for the seventh cannot be reliably determined.
\nKim therefore concludes that the differences between SBH and LBH cannot be explained purely in terms of style as LDBT argues. Rather, there is a correlation between diachrony and the linguistic features he examines. At the same time, because nearly half of these features are external rather than internal, Kim argues that various features were used with conscious knowledge of the biblical author\u2014in other words, a stylistic choice. Thus, Kim agrees with LDBT that these features are not reliable guides for distinguishing between SBH and LBH.<\/p>\n
9.3.4 Evaluation<\/p>\n
The above survey demonstrates the ongoing debate regarding diachrony and Biblical Hebrew. Challenge of the status quo has led to fruitful reexamination of the presuppositions and methodology behind traditional dating of biblical texts. Young, Rezetko, and Ehrensv\u00e4rd are especially to be thanked for prompting such an important conversation. We can be thankful to their ongoing work as well as the thoughtful responses of those who maintain the possibility of diachronic typology.
\nSignificant advances have taken place regarding our understanding of linguistic change. The possibility that variation may be explained non-diachronically has forced Hebrew Bible scholars to define more clearly what language variation in the Hebrew Bible signifies and how Biblical Hebrew may have changed over time. This has provoked the development of theories of language change that are more nuanced than before and that incorporate sociolinguistics to one degree or another. The creative, innovative work of Polak and Kim represents a welcome contribution here. In addition, Jacobus Naud\u00e9 has contributed importantly through his theory of language change and diffusion, put forth in DBH.
\nAnother advance concerns models for analyzing the Hebrew Bible\u2019s variation. In the wake of LDBT, scholars have sought to develop methodologies for quantitative analysis. Rezekto and Young have contributed meaningfully here through their application of cross-textual variable analysis and variationist analysis to the Hebrew Bible. Another noteworthy scholar is A. Dean Forbes, well known for his statistical work with the Hebrew Bible. His contribution to the 2015 NAPH colloquium, published in the Journal for Semitics, lays forth a statistical approach that incorporates diachronic criteria while accounting for other textual parameters.
\nNevertheless, in another sense the diachrony debate remains largely unresolved. One key issue\u2014in fact, the primary question raised by LDBT\u2014that remains to be addressed is whether or not biblical authors could actually write in both SBH and LBH during the exilic and postexilic periods. On this point, Hebraists would benefit greatly from comparison with Arabic. This is because Arabic attests to a standardized, written form (Modern Standard Arabic) alongside its spoken, colloquial dialects. Analysis of this phenomenon would likely provide answers to this important question, in addition to enhancing our understanding of the relationship between written and spoken Hebrew in ancient Israel.
\nFinally, Hebraists could enhance and refine their own understanding of linguistic dating by learning from other disciplines\u2019 approaches to linguistic dating. The issues involved in dating Beowulf\u2019s linguistic features, for example, closely parallel that of the Hebrew Bible\u2014in both cases our textual evidence consists of manuscript copies rather than the original manuscripts themselves. Hebraists might also learn some fresh approaches to linguistic dating from ancient texts like Beowulf. The existence of meter in Biblical Hebrew is debated, but assuming it exists in some form\u2014as is plausible\u2014the meters of some poems may reflect dateable linguistic features, just as is the case in Beowulf. The connection between meter and diachronic typology was explored early in the development of diachronic typology but largely faded into the background with the work of Hurvitz. Some scholars have recently taken interest in meter and diachronic typology once again, but more remains to be done.<\/p>\n
9.4 THE DATING OF BIBLICAL ARAMAIC TEXTS<\/p>\n
Even though Biblical Aramaic makes up only a small portion of the Hebrew Bible, significant debate has taken place over its origin. Much of this debate has centered on the dating of the book of Daniel. As far back as the third century CE, the Neo-Platonist and anti-Christian philosopher Porphyry argued along these lines. He stated that the book of Daniel could not have been composed in the sixth century BCE, when the character Daniel is purported to have written it (cf. Jerome, Expl. Dan. Prologue). However, his argumentation was primarily theological in that he did not believe in the possibility of predicative prophecy.
\nIn modern times, the focus has shifted from theological arguments like this to linguistic arguments for dating Biblical Aramaic. Scholars have analyzed the relationship of Biblical Aramaic to other Aramaic dialects: Old Aramaic, Imperial Aramaic (also known as Official Aramaic), Middle Aramaic, and Late Aramaic. The general consensus is that Ezra fits within Imperial Aramaic, but scholars disagree on whether Daniel falls within Imperial Aramaic (ca. 600\u2013200 BCE) or Middle Aramaic (ca. 200 BCE\u2013250 CE).<\/p>\n
PHASE OF ARAMAIC
\nDATE
\nDIALECTS AND TEXTS
\nOld Aramaic
\n850\u2013600 BCE
\nStandard Syrian (e.g., Sefire)
\nSamalian (e.g., Zin\u00e7irli)
\nTel Fakariyah
\nMesopotamian (e.g., Uruk) Deir Alla
\nImperial Aramaic (Official Aramaic)
\n600\u2013200 BCE
\nEgyptian (e.g., Elephantine)
\nMesopotamian (e.g., Murashu)
\nPersia and Bactria (e.g., Persepolis)
\nAsia Minor (e.g., Xanthos)
\nSamaritan (e.g., Wadi Daliyeh)
\nMiddle Aramaic
\n200 BCE\u2013250 CE
\nPalmyrene
\nNabatean
\nHatran
\nJewish Literary Aramaic (e.g., Dead Sea Scrolls)
\nLate Aramaic
\n200\u20131200 CE
\nPalestinian
\nJewish Palestinian (e.g., the Palestinian Targum)
\nChristian Palestinian
\nSamaritan
\nSyrian
\nSyrian (e.g., Syriac)
\nLate Jewish Literary Aramaic (e.g., Targum Pseudo-Jonathan)
\nBabylonian
\nJewish Babylonian (e.g., Babylonian Talmud) Mandaic<\/p>\n
With this general picture of Aramaic\u2019s dialects in mind, I now sketch the history of scholarship on dating Biblical Aramaic. I begin with S. R. Driver, who launched the modern debate over dating Biblical Aramaic in the late nineteenth century when he contended that Daniel\u2019s Aramaic must date to the Hellenistic period. I survey Driver\u2019s arguments and the work of those who responded to him, then H. H. Rowley\u2019s defense of Driver and the scholars who responded to Rowley, and finally several other studies that take the debate in different directions. Throughout I give special attention to the Aramaic of Daniel in light of its importance for the conversation.<\/p>\n
9.4.1 The Challenge of S. R. Driver<\/p>\n
Some of the first discussions on dating Biblical Aramaic began to take place as critical scholarship became popular during the Enlightenment. Early investigations of Biblical Aramaic centered on the relationship between the Aramaic of Ezra and the Aramaic of Daniel, as well as how to account for the Greek loanwords found in the third chapter of the book of Daniel (\u05e7\u05b7\u05d9\u05ea\u05b0\u05e8\u05d5\u05b9\u05e1, \u05e9\u05c2\u05d1\u05b0\u05bc\u05db\u05b8\u05d0, \u05e4\u05b0\u05bc\u05e1\u05b7\u05e0\u05b0\u05d8\u05b5\u05e8\u05b4\u05d9\u05df, and \u05e1\u05d5\u05bc\u05de\u05b0\u05e4\u05b9\u05bc\u05e0\u05b0\u05d9\u05b8\u05d4). However, it was not until the late nineteenth century, when modern knowledge of Aramaic came to fruition, that S. R. Driver compared Daniel\u2019s Aramaic with other Aramaic dialects. In this section I present Driver\u2019s conclusions and the responses it prompted.<\/p>\n
9.4.1.1 S. R. Driver<\/p>\n
In his An Introduction to the Literature of the Old Testament, first published in 1891, S. R. Driver discussed the authorship and date of the book of Daniel, including the issue of the book\u2019s language. Driver\u2019s conclusion on the matter is now infamous: \u201cThe verdict of the language of Daniel is thus clear. The Persian words presuppose a period after the Persian empire had been well established: the Greek words demand, the Hebrew supports, and the Aramaic permits, a date after the conquest of Palestine by Alexander the Great (B.C. 332).\u201d
\nDriver\u2019s first argument for Daniel\u2019s late date centers on the non-Semitic loanwords in the book. Driver contends that the number of Persian loanwords in Daniel\u2019s Aramaic requires a late date. This is because he assumes that words can be borrowed only after lengthy periods of linguistic contact. Furthermore, Driver argues that Jewish contact with Greeks could not have taken place prior to Alexander\u2019s conquest. Thus, for Driver, no Greek words could have been borrowed before then.
\nDriver\u2019s second argument relates to the grammatical features of Daniel\u2019s Aramaic. He contends that Daniel\u2019s (and Ezra\u2019s) Aramaic is a western Aramaic dialect, of the type spoken in or near Palestine. He arrives at this conclusion by comparing Daniel\u2019s Aramaic with Palmyrene and Nabatean Aramaic as well as Targumic Aramaic. Driver points to several similarities between them, including the use of final he for originally final aleph roots, retention of nun in the yqtl conjugation of initial nun roots, use of later dalet for earlier zayin in the relative pronoun \u05d3\u05b4\u05bc\u05d9, and use of ayin for earlier qoph in the word \u05d0\u05b2\u05e8\u05b7\u05e2 \u201cearth.\u201d<\/p>\n
9.4.1.2 Robert Dick Wilson, William St. Clair Tisdall, and Charles Boutflower<\/p>\n
Driver\u2019s statement regarding the date of Biblical Aramaic met mixed responses. Many critical scholars accepted Driver\u2019s conclusions on the Aramaic of Daniel. However, several scholars holding to the traditional sixth-century BCE date individually published critiques of Driver. The most substantial of these responses was produced by Robert Dick Wilson, who taught at Princeton Theological Seminary before leaving to help start Westminster Theological Seminary. Two other important responders were William St. Clair Tisdall and Charles Boutflower, who offered similar arguments to those of Wilson.
\nLike Driver, Wilson, Tisdall, and Boutflower give significant attention to Daniel\u2019s vocabulary. They argue that the number and nature of Daniel\u2019s Persian loans match that of the Elephantine Papyri. They also note the existence of Greek loanwords in the Elephantine Papyri, disproving Driver\u2019s contention that Greek words could not enter Aramaic prior to Alexander\u2019s conquest. Finally, they point to the book\u2019s many Akkadian words, which suggest a Mesopotamian rather than Palestinian setting for Daniel\u2019s Aramaic.
\nRegarding Driver\u2019s grammatical arguments, Wilson, Tisdall, and Boutflower offer several counterpoints. They contend that Daniel\u2019s Aramaic and Ezra\u2019s Aramaic share more similarities with the Elephantine Papyri\u2014which were not available to Driver in 1891\u2014than later Aramaic. They also argue for the relative uniformity of early Aramaic, contending that Driver\u2019s distinction between eastern and western Aramaic does not apply until later. Thus, Driver is wrong to locate Biblical Aramaic specifically in Palestine rather than Mesopotamia. Finally, to explain the existence of later forms (e.g., the relative \u05d3\u05b4\u05bc\u05d9 for earlier \u05d6\u05b4\u05d9), they suggest that later scribes have updated the text to reflect newer spellings and forms of words.<\/p>\n
9.4.2 H. H. Rowley\u2019s Aramaic of the Old Testament and Response<\/p>\n
Together Wilson, Tisdall, and Boutflower offered a forceful critique of Driver\u2019s position on the Aramaic of Daniel. But, as thorough as their studies were, a comprehensive comparison of Biblical Aramaic with other Aramaic dialects was still lacking. This challenge was met by H. H. Rowley, who also sought to defend Driver against Wilson, Tisdall, and Boutflower. But, like Driver before him, Rowley\u2019s argumentation was challenged on several fronts.<\/p>\n
9.4.2.1 H. H. Rowley<\/p>\n
In 1929 H. H. Rowley published Aramaic of the Old Testament, a full monograph-length treatment of Biblical Aramaic and its relationship with other Aramaic dialects. Rowley\u2019s general conclusion is that the Aramaic of both Ezra and Daniel exhibit features later than those of the Elephantine Papyri but earlier than the Targums and Palmyrene and Nabatean Aramaic. But Daniel\u2019s Aramaic is more similar to these later dialects than Ezra\u2019s and therefore dates later than Ezra\u2019s. For Rowley, furthermore, the similarities of Biblical Aramaic with Palmyrene, Nabatean, and Targumic Aramaic indicates a Palestinian rather than Mesopotamian origin. To arrive at this conclusion, Rowley focuses on four key areas: phonology, morphology, syntax, and vocabulary.
\nFirst, Rowley argues that Biblical Aramaic\u2019s consonants clearly reflect a later stage of Aramaic than the Elephantine Papyri. Aramaic underwent a phonological shift in which the consonants zayin, shin, qoph, tsade, and samek were later replaced by dalet, tav, ayin, tet, and sin, respectively, in the spelling of certain words. The Elephantine Papyri use the earlier set of consonants whereas Biblical Aramaic uses the latter set (e.g., the word \u201cgold\u201d appears as \u05d6\u05d4\u05d1 at Elephantine but as \u05d3\u05b8\u05d4\u05b8\u05d1 in Biblical Aramaic). Rowley also examines alternation between final aleph and he, observing that the Elephantine Papyri tend to have he whereas later Aramaic tends to have aleph. According to Rowley, all these observations place Biblical Aramaic chronologically later than the Elephantine Papyri and geographically in the west.
\nSecond, Rowley contends that Biblical Aramaic morphology reflects a stage between the Elephantine Papyri and the Targums. To do so he examines the morphology of Biblical Aramaic\u2019s pronouns, nouns, adverbs, prepositions, particles, and verbs. He observes that, at least for some morphological features, Ezra tends to contain earlier ones whereas Daniel tends to have later ones. For example, in Biblical Aramaic the third-person masculine plural pronoun \u201cthey\u201d is \u05d4\u05b4\u05de\u05bc\u05d5\u05b9 in Ezra (as in the Elephantine Papyri) but \u05d4\u05b4\u05de\u05bc\u05d5\u05b9\u05df in Daniel (as in later Aramaic). For Rowley, this indicates that both Ezra and Daniel postdate the Elephantine Papyri but that Daniel dates later than Ezra.
\nThird, Rowley maintains that Biblical Aramaic syntax also seems to contain developments later than the Elephantine Papyri. A number of his points here relate to the use of the preposition \u05dc\u05b0-. For example, Rowley notes how the preposition \u05dc\u05b0- marks the direct object only sporadically in the Elephantine Papyri but commonly in Biblical and later Aramaic. As another example, he points out that Biblical Aramaic and later Aramaic tend to use \u05dc\u05b0- with the infinitive construct to express modality or purpose whereas the Elephantine Papyri tend to use yqtl. Rowley highlights how these features are more common in Daniel than Ezra, suggesting that Daniel therefore dates later than Ezra.
\nFourth, Rowley argues that Biblical Aramaic\u2019s vocabulary places it later than the Elephantine Papyri. For Rowley, there are few significant differences in terms of actual Aramaic vocabulary. Rather, the differences in vocabulary appear primarily with loanwords. Rowley contends that, despite also being common in the Elephantine Papyri, Biblical Aramaic\u2019s Akkadian loanwords only demonstrate the widespread persistence of these words at a later period. Rowley further argues that the Persian loanwords in Biblical Aramaic more closely match those of the Targums than of the Elephantine Papyri. Finally, Rowley says that Daniel\u2019s Greek loanwords reflect a late date because Greek words are rarely attested at Elephantine but are common in the Targums as well as Nabatean and Palmyrene Aramaic.<\/p>\n
9.4.2.2 Kenneth A. Kitchen<\/p>\n
Rowley\u2019s (and Driver\u2019s) argument that Biblical Aramaic originated in Palestine was decisively refuted in 1930 by Hans Heinrich Schaeder, who demonstrated that Aramaic cannot clearly be divided into eastern and western branches until ca. 200 CE onward. But many of Rowley\u2019s linguistic arguments remained unanswered. Kenneth A. Kitchen took up this very challenge in what was originally part of the Tyndale Fellowship Old Testament Study Group meeting at Tyndale House, Cambridge in 1964. His study seeks to defend an early date for the book of Daniel on linguistic grounds. In doing so he addresses three key issues: vocabulary, orthography and phonology, and morphology and syntax.
\nFirst, Kitchen analyzes the vocabulary of Daniel\u2019s Aramaic. He focuses primarily on the significance of Daniel\u2019s Persian and Greek loanwords. Regarding the Persian loans, Kitchen notes that many of them also occur in Imperial Aramaic and Elamite and that they are specifically Old Persian in form (i.e., originating prior to 300 BCE). In doing so Kitchen discredits Rowley\u2019s argument that Daniel\u2019s Persian words overlap more with the Targums than the Elephantine Papyri. Regarding the Greek loanwords in Dan 3, Kitchen argues that there was plenty of opportunity in Mesopotamia for contact with Greeks prior to Alexander the Great, but he notes how few the Greek loans are compared with the Persian ones. The higher frequency of Persian loanwords in the book, along with the fact that they are primarily related to administration, suggests an earlier date for Daniel\u2019s Aramaic. This is because a late writer would have used Greek, not Persian, administrative terms.
\nSecond, Kitchen explores the orthography and phonology of Daniel\u2019s Aramaic. With Rowley, Kitchen recognizes that Daniel\u2019s consonants seem to reflect a later stage of Aramaic than Old and Imperial Aramaic. Kitchen also notes that orthography does not always strictly reflect phonology. This is clear because earlier orthographical conventions are found even in later Middle Aramaic. According to Kitchen, it also is likely that copyists updated the spelling of words, especially since this was a common practice throughout the ancient Near East. For similar reasons, Kitchen does not attach chronological significance to alternations between final aleph and he and full versus defective spellings.
\nThird, Kitchen examines the morphology and syntax of Daniel\u2019s Aramaic. He claims that, because early morphological forms like \u05d4\u05b4\u05de\u05bc\u05d5\u05b9 continue to appear alongside late morphological forms like \u05d4\u05b4\u05de\u05bc\u05d5\u05b9\u05df throughout Aramaic, they are of little chronological value. Kitchen further cautions against arguing for a form\u2019s lateness based on a lack of evidence for early attestation. As an example, he points out that the accusative particle \u05d9\u05b8\u05ea\u2014attested only in late Nabatean and Palmyrene Aramaic when Rowley published Aramaic of the Old Testament\u2014was subsequently discovered in Papyrus Brooklyn 3, which dates to the fifth century BCE.<\/p>\n
9.4.2.3 E. Y. Kutscher<\/p>\n
The Aramaicist E. Y. Kutscher discusses the dating of Biblical Aramaic in his detailed analysis of the Aramaic dialects. He addresses Driver\u2019s and Rowley\u2019s contention that Daniel\u2019s Aramaic is western (i.e., Palestinian). He agrees with Schaeder that the relative uniformity of Imperial Aramaic prevents reading the eastern-western distinction of Late Aramaic back into earlier periods. Nevertheless, he thinks that Biblical Aramaic exhibits \u201ceastern\u201d (i.e., \u201cMesopotamian\u201d) features not as prevalent in the Dead Sea Scrolls, written in Palestine. According to Kutscher, this is particularly true of word order, which is relatively free in Biblical Aramaic because of influence from the word orders of Akkadian and Old Persian.
\nFurthermore, Kutscher largely affirms Kitchen\u2019s refutation of Rowley. Kutscher criticizes Rowley for rejecting, without rationale, the possibility of scribal updating. He notes how orthography cannot be a definite clue of a text\u2019s date because exceptions occur: for example, the Hermopolis Papyri use final he when all other inscriptions of the fifth century BCE use aleph, and Nabatean inscriptions of the first century BCE preserve archaic zayin. Kutscher also addresses Daniel\u2019s Greek loanwords. He observes how these words are limited to the semantic domain of music. He therefore suggests that the linguistic influence of Greeks in the east was limited to certain domains, like music, prior to Alexander\u2019s conquest. Although some of the Greek words borrowed by Daniel do not actually occur in Greek texts until the late period, Kutscher argues that we should not expect them to\u2014the Greeks in the east prior to Alexander\u2019s conquest were predominantly non-Attic Greeks, and we have less extant textual material for non-Attic Greek than we do Attic Greek.<\/p>\n
9.4.2.4 Peter W. Coxon<\/p>\n
Another significant response to Rowley is found in the work of Peter W. Coxon, who in a series of articles addresses the linguistic dating of Daniel\u2019s Aramaic. Coxon supports the need for reanalysis of Rowley\u2019s conclusions given the discovery of many new Aramaic texts (e.g., the Dead Sea Scrolls) since 1929, when Rowley published his study. Like Kitchen, Coxon also finds Rowley\u2019s methodology lacking. Yet, unlike Kitchen, Coxon does not aim to offer a response to Rowley or a defense of the traditional sixth-century BCE date of Daniel.
\nCoxon acknowledges, along with Rowley and Kitchen, that the best potential evidence for Biblical Aramaic\u2019s lateness is its orthography: its use of later dalet, tav, ayin, tet, and sin for earlier zayin, shin, qoph, tsade, and samek. But, like Kitchen, Coxon reiterates that late orthography does not necessarily indicate a late date. His argument for this consists of two points. First, older orthographical conventions appear in late texts such as the Nisa Ostraca (second century BCE), so there is not always a one-to-one correspondence between orthography and date. Second, it is likely that Jewish scribes updated the orthography of Biblical Aramaic in order to standardize it, similar to the way that the Masoretes standardized the orthography of the Hebrew text.
\nCoxon also reexamines the morphology and syntax of Daniel\u2019s Aramaic. For morphology, he looks at the use of the Haphel versus Aphel for the causative stem. Coxon observes that Biblical Aramaic aligns most closely with the Elephantine Papyri in its preference for the Haphel. For syntax, Coxon looks at the seven points of difference that Rowley observed between Biblical Aramaic and other dialects. He observes that most of the syntactical features are either more common in Imperial Aramaic than Rowley knew or have no relevance for dating. In contrast, Daniel\u2019s flexible word order aligns with Imperial Aramaic, which often departs from standard Semitic word order due to Akkadian and Persian influence.
\nFinally, Coxon addresses the question of whether Daniel\u2019s vocabulary indicates a late date. Here he addresses two specific issues: native vocabulary and Greek loanwords. Coxon\u2019s treatment of native vocabulary is especially important because this issue is largely ignored by Kitchen. Coxon examines seven pairs of early\/late synonyms. He finds that two pairs (\u05e9\u05c2\u05d9\u05dd\/\u05e9\u05c1\u05d5\u05d4 \u201cto set, make\u201d and \u05d1\u05e2\u05d4\/\u05d1\u05e7\u05e8 \u201cto ask, seek\u201d) align with Imperial Aramaic, one pair (\u05d0\u05b1\u05e0\u05b8\u05e9\u05c1\/\u05d0\u05b4\u05d9\u05e9\u05c1 \u201cman\u201d) aligns with later Aramaic, and the rest have no clear alignment. Thus, according to Coxon, Daniel\u2019s native vocabulary has little bearing on its date. Coxon\u2019s conclusion regarding the Greek words in Daniel is similar. Like Kitchen, he disputes Rowley\u2019s claim that Greek words could only be borrowed late, given evidence for Greeks in the east prior to Alexander the Great. Thus, according to Coxon, Greek words could have been borrowed at any time and are irrelevant for dating purposes.<\/p>\n
9.4.3 Redirection and Refinement<\/p>\n
The decades following Rowley\u2019s Aramaic of the Old Testament saw the discovery of many Aramaic texts. While many of the texts discovered in this period belonged to Imperial Aramaic, a notable number belonged to earlier and later dialects. Particularly ground breaking was the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls, which\u2014although primarily written in Hebrew\u2014contained a number of Aramaic texts. The result was several studies that sought to compare Biblical Aramaic with these newly discovered texts rather than to respond solely to Rowley. In this section, I examine contributions that fall within this category and conclude by exploring the most comprehensive analysis of Biblical Aramaic to date, that of Jongtae Choi.<\/p>\n
9.4.3.1 Robert I. Vasholz and Gleason L. Archer, Jr.<\/p>\n
Two studies that represent a focus on dialects other than Imperial Aramaic are those of Robert I. Vasholz and Gleason L. Archer, Jr. Rather than asking whether or not Biblical Aramaic aligns with Imperial Aramaic\u2014therefore determining the plausibility of a sixth century BCE date for Daniel\u2019s Aramaic\u2014Vasholz and Archer seek to exclude a second century BCE date for Daniel. They do so by comparing Daniel\u2019s Aramaic with the Aramaic of the Dead Sea Scrolls, specifically the Targum of Job (11Q10) and Genesis Apocryphon (1Qap Genar). This enables them to date Daniel\u2019s Aramaic, in relative terms, prior to both the Targum of Job and the Genesis Apocryphon.
\nVasholz and Archer date the Genesis Apocryphon to the first century BCE. This date is suggested by the manuscript\u2019s paleography, its similarity with Jubilees (ca. 100 BCE), its grammar, and finally its vocabulary, which includes many words characteristic of Targumic and Talmudic Aramaic. Archer contends that the linguistic differences between the Genesis Apocryphon and Daniel indicate that Daniel must be dated prior to the second century BCE. Vasholz takes this line of argumentation a step further by dating the Targum of Job earlier than Genesis Apocryphon\u2014to the third or second century BCE\u2014in light of its orthography, morphology, and vocabulary. According to Vasholz, the even older linguistic features of Daniel\u2019s Aramaic require a date for Daniel prior to the Targum of Job, in other words, prior to the third or second centuries BCE.<\/p>\n
9.4.3.2 Zdravko Stefanovic<\/p>\n
Zdravko Stefanovic\u2019s comparison of Old Aramaic and Daniel represents another attempt to situate Daniel\u2019s Aramaic in light of new textual discoveries. He draws his profile for Old Aramaic from a variety of inscriptions\u2014including the Ben-Hadad and Zakkur Stelae, the Sefire Treaty Inscriptions, and the Hadad (Panamuwa) Stele\u2014but gives special attention to the Tel Fakariyah Inscription, discovered in 1979. Stefanovic\u2019s basic argument is that the Aramaic of Daniel is aligned with Old Aramaic more than with later Aramaic. His approach is clearly apologetic, which unfortunately often clouds his analysis.
\nStefanovic focuses on grammar (orthography, phonology, and morphology) as well as syntax; he does not provide any substantial discussion of vocabulary. Regarding orthography and phonology, Stefanovic argues that vowel letters occasionally appear in Old Aramaic so that their presence in Daniel does not necessarily indicate a late date. For morphology, Stefanovic observes a few similarities between Old Aramaic and Daniel\u2019s Aramaic (e.g., use of precative \u05dc\u05b0-) but also acknowledges that there are many differences. Finally, regarding syntax Stefanovic finds several parallels with the Tel Fakariyah Inscription and argues\u2014like Kutscher\u2014that Daniel\u2019s Aramaic exhibits Mesopotamian features (e.g., free word order).<\/p>\n
9.4.3.3 Jongtae Choi<\/p>\n
Finally, the most substantial, up-to-date analysis of Daniel\u2019s Aramaic is Jongtae Choi\u2019s PhD dissertation, completed at Trinity Evangelical Divinity School under the supervision of Gleason L. Archer, Jr. Like Rowley, Choi\u2019s goal is to clarify the chronological relationship between the various Aramaic dialects and the Aramaic of Daniel. However, Choi incorporates many Aramaic texts not considered by Rowley, including the Dead Sea Scrolls. Choi compares all these Aramaic texts in electronically tagged format. Thus, Choi\u2019s study is much more comprehensive than Rowley\u2019s.
\nChoi begins with an investigation of Biblical Aramaic\u2019s orthography and phonology. Contrary to Rowley, he finds that the most significant phonological changes take place between Old Aramaic and Imperial Aramaic, not between Imperial Aramaic and Biblical Aramaic. Thus, Biblical Aramaic aligns with Imperial Aramaic and Middle Aramaic in terms of its use of later dalet, tav, ayin, tet, and sin for earlier zayin, shin, qoph, tsade, and samek. Furthermore, although Choi recognizes that final he gradually shifted to aleph in Aramaic, he finds no definite alignment of Biblical Aramaic with other dialects in these terms.
\nChoi next analyzes the morphology of Biblical Aramaic. He finds that Daniel\u2019s Aramaic seems to be later than that of Ezra\u2019s. For example, regarding pronominal suffixes, Choi argues that Ezra\u2019s Aramaic reflects a time when both older (e.g., \u05db\u05b9\u05dd-) and newer (e.g., \u05db\u05b9\u05d5\u05df-) forms were still used, whereas Daniel reflects a later stage of Aramaic in which only the younger form was used. Nevertheless, Choi contends that Biblical Aramaic on the whole aligns more closely with Imperial Aramaic than it does later dialects. For example, the absence of final nun in the third-person masculine plural qtl in Biblical Aramaic corresponds with Imperial Aramaic whereas final nun is absent at Qumran.
\nChoi also finds little evidence to separate Biblical Aramaic\u2014including Daniel\u2014from Imperial Aramaic in terms of syntax. He demonstrates that Rowley\u2019s conclusions are incorrect on several syntactical issues including the usage of the preposition \u05dc\u05b0- with infinitives and in dating formulae, which instead align Biblical Aramaic with Imperial Aramaic. Choi also points out that the relative pronoun \u05d6\u05b4\u05d9\/\u05d3\u05b4\u05bc\u05d9 only has a retrospective function in Old Aramaic, Imperial Aramaic, and Biblical Aramaic, once again aligning Biblical Aramaic earlier rather than later. In terms of word order, Choi confirms Kutscher\u2019s argument that Biblical Aramaic\u2019s word order follows the relatively free pattern of eastern Imperial Aramaic texts.
\nFinally, Choi examines Biblical Aramaic\u2019s non-Aramaic words. He notes that Akkadian and Persian loanwords occur frequently in Biblical Aramaic but rarely occur in the Aramaic of the Dead Sea Scrolls. The types of loanwords found in Biblical Aramaic reflect the setting in which Biblical Aramaic was written. For Choi, Biblical Aramaic must have been composed in Mesopotamia rather than Palestine. Furthermore, because at least two Greek words are attested in Imperial Aramaic, Choi rejects Rowley\u2019s argument that Daniel\u2019s Greek loanwords require a late date for the book.
\nIn light of all these findings, Choi concludes that Biblical Aramaic more closely aligns with Imperial Aramaic than it does later Middle Aramaic. Choi argues that Ezra\u2019s mixture of early and late forms, contrasted with Daniel\u2019s tendency to use late forms, indicates that Daniel dates later than Ezra. But Daniel nevertheless aligns with Imperial Aramaic and therefore cannot be dated to the second century BCE. The only late feature\u2014which Choi finds in both Ezra and Daniel\u2014is the orthography and phonology. For Choi, this is easily explained through scribal updating. Choi places these orthographical revisions no later than the fourth century BCE in Palestine, whereas Biblical Aramaic itself originated earlier in Mesopotamia as indicated by its word order and foreign loanwords.<\/p>\n
9.4.4 Evaluation<\/p>\n
Scholarship on dating Biblical Aramaic has come a long way since the turn of the twentieth century. Discoveries of new Aramaic texts have expanded the Aramaic corpus drastically, giving a fuller picture of the Aramaic language during the first millennium BCE. This has refined our understanding of the Aramaic dialects. A particularly noteworthy development along these lines, one that put to rest Driver\u2019s and Rowley\u2019s argument that Biblical Aramaic originated in Palestine, was Schaeder\u2019s proof that first millennium BCE Aramaic did not distinguish between eastern and western dialects as later Aramaic did.
\nExpansion of the Aramaic corpus has permitted more accurate comparison of Biblical Aramaic with other Aramaic dialects. This, in turn, has permitted significant refinement of Driver\u2019s and Rowley\u2019s conclusion that Biblical Aramaic dated to the fourth and third centuries BCE. The efforts of Kutscher, Kitchen, Coxon, and especially Choi have corrected this picture. As a result, it is now clear that Biblical Aramaic\u2014including Daniel\u2019s Aramaic\u2014falls within the dialect of Imperial Aramaic. Furthermore, it is likely that certain features of Biblical Aramaic betray a Mesopotamian origin.
\nNevertheless, as comprehensive as Choi\u2019s study is, it is not as comprehensive as it could be. Choi did not include the Palestinian Targums, which would have helped to provide a fuller picture of Middle Aramaic. Choi\u2019s data for the Elephantine Papyri were also somewhat incomplete because he did not have access to the entire authoritative Textbook of Aramaic Documents from Egypt. Furthermore, important new Aramaic texts have been discovered since Choi completed his study in 1994, such as the cache of Imperial Aramaic texts discovered at Bactria. Reevaluation of the data, including the Palestinian Targums and newly discovered Imperial Aramaic texts, would probably not change Choi\u2019s basic conclusions. However, it would help to further nuance our understanding of Biblical Aramaic\u2019s alignment with other Aramaic dialects.
\nIntegration of sociolinguistics is another area that needs growth. As I noted earlier, increased attention to these issues represents an advance for scholarship on dating Biblical Hebrew texts. However, scholars dealing with the date of Biblical Aramaic have not paid much attention to sociolinguistics. Rather, their explorations have tended to assume that any difference between Biblical Aramaic and other Aramaic dialects should be explained chronologically. So, more attention needs to be given to the sociolinguistic context of language variation and linguistic change. Kutscher has paved the way by explaining some of Biblical Aramaic\u2019s features (e.g., word order) in light of its plausible socio-cultural context. However, in the future hopefully more attention will be given to sociolinguistics\u2019s possible role.
\nMoving forward, scholars investigating Biblical Aramaic\u2019s date need to be aware of their own presuppositions. Kitchen has rightly stated: \u201cIn dealing with the book of Daniel, theological presuppositions are apt to colour even the treatment and dating of its Aramaic.\u201d This is evident in the work of critical scholars like Rowley, whose theological presuppositions preclude him from accepting an early composition for the book of Daniel. Theological bias is also evident in the work of some conservative scholars, especially Stefanovic, who significantly misjudges and misrepresents data because of his beliefs on Daniel\u2019s date. Both Kitchen and Choi do a much better job of evaluating the data objectively, even as they hold to an early date of composition for the book. Hopefully, future scholarship on this topic will follow their lead by balancing commitment to Scripture with objective analysis of the data.<\/p>\n
9.5 THE WAYS FORWARD<\/p>\n
The dating of Biblical Hebrew and Biblical Aramaic texts has stirred up much debate, especially in recent years. Yet, even as the status quo has been challenged, progress has been made on several fronts. Especially noteworthy are the advances in theory and method. Hebrew Bible scholars have begun to articulate theories of language change that are grounded in modern linguistics and that incorporate sociolinguistics. The diachrony debate has also resulted in the refinement of statistical methods for measuring language change and linguistic variation.
\nAs Hebrew Bible scholars continue to refine their theory, methodology, and analysis, they will do well to learn from other disciplines. Arabic potentially offers much for comparison in terms of the coexistence of written and spoken dialects. Outside the realm of Semitics, Hebrew Bible scholars can potentially learn much from Indo-European philology, which is much more developed than Semitic philology. Furthermore, as I already noted, the linguistic dating of medieval European literature is analogous in many ways to the dating of biblical texts, but what Hebrew Bible scholars can potentially learn is not limited merely to theory and method. Recent advances in linguistic dating of medieval European texts like Beowulf have also been accompanied by discussion of how one\u2019s presuppositions and expectations of data tie in with linguistic dating. It seems that Hebrew Bible scholars would profit from Indo-Europeanists\u2019 insights on both the opportunities and limits of linguistic dating.
\nOn this note, another area to be addressed is LDBT\u2019s notion of textual fluidity. This concept is part of a larger trend known as the \u201cNew Philology.\u201d This movement reacts against classical philology by claiming that all textual traditions are meaningful, not merely a means to reconstructing a hypothetical original text. This directly impacts the debate because textual fluidity is alleged to undermine the stability that diachronic analysis requires. This issue is complex and interrelated with ancient Near Eastern scribal culture and textual criticism. Some scholars have attempted to address these other issues, especially as they relate to the canon of the Hebrew Bible, but more work needs to be done from the perspective of historical linguistics and diachronic dating.
\nI am confident that, moving forward, these and other important issues will continue to be explored by scholars. But I also hope that teachers, students, and pastors familiarize themselves with the debate along the way. Because the date of a text\u2019s composition directly relates to its historical-cultural background, a better understanding of linguistic dating can only enhance our exegesis of Scripture.<\/p>\n
9.6 FURTHER READING<\/p>\n
Choi, Jongtae. \u201cThe Aramaic of Daniel: Its Date, Place of Composition and Linguistic Comparison with Extra-Biblical Texts.\u201d PhD diss., Trinity Evangelical Divinity School, 1994.
\nForbes, A. Dean. \u201cThe Diachrony Debate: A Tutorial on Methods.\u201d JSem 25 (2016): 881\u2013926.
\nGianto, Agustinus. \u201cArchaic Biblical Hebrew.\u201d Pages 19\u201329 in vol. 1 of A Handbook of Biblical Hebrew. Edited by W. Randall Garr and Steven E. Fassberg. 2 vols. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2016.
\nHendel, Ronald S. and Jan Joosten. How Old Is the Hebrew Bible? A Linguistic, Textual, and Historical Study. ABRL. New Haven: Yale University Press, 2018.
\nHornkohl, Aaron D. \u201cBiblical Hebrew: Periodization.\u201d EHLL 1:315\u201325.
\n\u2014\u2014\u2014. \u201cTransitional Biblical Hebrew.\u201d Pages 31\u201342 in vol. 1 of A Handbook of Biblical Hebrew. Edited by W. Randall Garr and Steven E. Fassberg. 2 vols. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2016.
\nHurvitz, Avi. \u201cBiblical Hebrew, Late.\u201d EHLL 1:329\u201338.
\nKitchen, Kenneth A. \u201cThe Aramaic of Daniel.\u201d Pages 31\u201379 in Notes on Some Problems in the Book of Daniel. Edited by Donald J. Wiseman. London: Tyndale Press, 1965.
\nLam, Joseph and Dennis Pardee. \u201cStandard\/Classical Biblical Hebrew.\u201d Pages 1\u201318 in vol. 1 of A Handbook of Biblical Hebrew. Edited by W. Randall Garr and Steven E. Fassberg. 2 vols. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2016.
\nMandell, Alice. \u201cBiblical Hebrew, Archaic.\u201d EHLL 1:325\u201329.
\nMiller-Naud\u00e9, Cynthia L. and Ziony Zevit, eds. Diachrony in Biblical Hebrew. LSAWS 8. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2012.
\nMorgenstern, Matthew. \u201cLate Biblical Hebrew.\u201d Pages 43\u201354 in vol. 1 of A Handbook of Biblical Hebrew. Edited by W. Randall Garr and Steven E. Fassberg. 2 vols. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2016.
\nNaud\u00e9, Jacobus A. \u201cThe Complexity of Language Change: The Case of Ancient Hebrew.\u201d Southern African Linguistics and Applied Language Studies 30 (2012): 395\u2013411.
\nNaud\u00e9, Jacobus A. and Cynthia L. Miller-Naud\u00e9. \u201cHistorical Linguistics, Editorial Theory, and Biblical Hebrew: The Current State of the Debate.\u201d JSem 25 (2016): 833\u201364.
\nRezetko, Robert and Ian Young. \u201cCurrents in the Historical Linguistics and Linguistic Dating of the Hebrew Bible.\u201d HIPHIL Novum 5.1 (2019): 3\u201395.
\n\u2014\u2014\u2014. Historical Linguistics and Biblical Hebrew: Steps Toward an Integrated Approach. Society of Biblical Literature Ancient Near Eastern Monographs 9. Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2014.
\nWalker, Larry L. \u201cNotes on Higher Criticism and the Dating of Biblical Hebrew.\u201d Pages 35\u201352 in A Tribute to Gleason Archer. Edited by Walter C. Kaiser, Jr. and Ronald F. Youngblood. Chicago: Moody, 1986.
\nYoung, Ian, Robert Rezetko, and Martin Ehrensv\u00e4rd. Linguistic Dating of Biblical Texts. 2 vols. Bible World. London: Equinox, 2008.<\/p>\n
CHAPTER 10<\/p>\n
TEACHING and LEARNING the LANGUAGES of the HEBREW BIBLE<\/p>\n
Learning how to teach languages from those who have devoted their professional lives to that project can only increase our success at bringing students closer to the text that is the center of our concern.
\n\u2014FREDERICK E. GREENSPAHN<\/p>\n
10.1 INTRODUCTION<\/p>\n
In her 2015 presidential address to the National Association of Professors of Hebrew, Cynthia Miller-Naud\u00e9 lamented several challenges facing the study of Biblical Hebrew today. The rapidly changing landscape of education has prompted many institutions to lower or even remove their curriculum requirements for Biblical Hebrew. Students often wonder whether learning Biblical Hebrew is ultimately worth the time and effort required to achieve proficiency. Accordingly, it is not uncommon for Biblical Hebrew courses to suffer from low enrollment. These difficulties are only exacerbated by the fact that many students who do complete a full Biblical Hebrew sequence fail to retain the language when they face the realities of life and ministry after graduation.
\nIn such a challenging climate, it is crucial that instructors of Biblical Hebrew and Biblical Aramaic show students and academic institutions how firsthand knowledge of the biblical languages is more than worth the time and energy required to master them. The key to accomplishing this is a commitment to successful pedagogy. Instructors of Biblical Hebrew and Biblical Aramaic must engage their students effectively and bring about lasting acquisition of the languages, not merely transference of knowledge about the languages. Only then will pastors and scholars be empowered to use Hebrew and Aramaic fruitfully for exegesis and ministry.
\nThis chapter discusses the teaching and learning of Biblical Hebrew and Biblical Aramaic. I address developments within the traditional approach to teaching Biblical Hebrew and Biblical Aramaic, explore the emergence of the communicative approach as a more effective form of pedagogy, and discuss several strategies for retaining the biblical languages. Throughout I focus primarily on Biblical Hebrew because most institutions offer Hebrew more regularly than Aramaic and also because the vast majority of educational resources are geared at learning Hebrew.<\/p>\n
10.2 FRESH IDEAS FOR TRADITIONAL METHODS<\/p>\n
The vast majority of Biblical Hebrew and Biblical Aramaic textbooks on the market today adopt what is known as the Grammar-Translation Method. This method, familiar to many, is characterized by explicit, systematic teaching of grammar and vocabulary in the student\u2019s native language. Content is reinforced and tested by means of memorization, translation, parsing exercises, and simple vocabulary quizzes.
\nIt is unfortunate that so many textbooks continue to follow the Grammar-Translation Method. This is especially true because Second Language Acquisition research indicates that it is one of the least effective methods of promoting language acquisition in use today; it lacks rationale and justification in the scholarly literature on Second Language Acquisition. Yet, a few notable developments have emerged over the past few decades with respect to textbooks and technology. I discuss these advances before turning to the emergence of more pedagogically sound methods for teaching the biblical languages.<\/p>\n
10.2.1 Textbooks<\/p>\n
The first development in teaching the biblical languages with the Grammar-Translation Method regards textbooks. The basic lesson content of most biblical language textbooks remains the same as it has long been. Yet recent biblical language textbooks have incorporated more and more supplemental material to reinforce the basic lesson content. Some supplemental materials, such as paradigms and Hebrew-to-English or English-to-Hebrew glossaries, have been around for years, but many recent grammars include workbooks and student exercises with answer keys. This trend essentially began with the publication of Gary D. Pratico and Miles V. Van Pelt\u2019s Basics of Biblical Hebrew Grammar and Van Pelt\u2019s Basics of Biblical Aramaic, modeled on the hybrid inductive-deductive approach of William D. Mounce\u2019s Basics of Biblical Greek Grammar. The inclusion of workbooks, student exercises, and answer keys is important because they provide the student with plenty of exercises whose answers can be checked immediately. Nevertheless, most current workbooks and student exercises stick with the traditional approach of translating from Hebrew or Aramaic to English, with very few incorporating other activities.
\nAnother advancement in traditional grammars is the incorporation of authentic biblical texts. Generally speaking, biblical language textbooks tend to incorporate more and more authentic biblical material as lessons progress. This is an important development because being able to read the biblical text provides the student with ongoing motivation for learning Biblical Hebrew and Biblical Aramaic. Even still, only a few traditional grammars, such as Brian Webster\u2019s Reading Biblical Hebrew, incorporate biblical texts early on by including English glosses. Avoidance of biblical texts at a textbook\u2019s beginning is probably provoked by the students\u2019 minimal knowledge of the biblical languages at the beginning of a course. Nevertheless, the inclusion of authentic biblical texts should be a top priority because it helps motivate the student and build confidence. Furthermore, Webster\u2019s textbook demonstrates that this can be done effectively.
\nAlongside traditional grammar textbooks, some advances have also been made in the area of vocabulary resources. Larry A. Mitchel\u2019s classic, A Student\u2019s Vocabulary for Biblical Hebrew and Aramaic, has recently been re-typset and made accessible to a new generation of Hebrew and Aramaic students. An especially welcome resource is J. David Pleins\u2019s Biblical Hebrew Vocabulary by Conceptual Categories. This innovative book arranges Hebrew vocabulary by semantic domain rather than frequency. Such an arrangement helps students to expand their knowledge of Hebrew vocabulary beyond basic glosses. It does so by facilitating connections with words in similar semantic domains, helping students to see the links between Hebrew words and real-world contexts.<\/p>\n
10.2.2 Technology<\/p>\n
The second development in teaching the biblical languages with the Grammar-Translation Method regards technology. Education in general has seen many technological developments in recent years. Similar to all technological advances, which can have both positive and negative effects, these developments have the potential either to facilitate or to hinder learning Biblical Hebrew and Biblical Aramaic.
\nUse of technology for classroom presentation is a topic familiar to most and therefore requires little comment. The learning possibilities provided by PowerPoint and other audio-visual presentation methods are vast, not least of which is the ability to better engage students. What is important to point out, however, is that use of this technology must be accompanied by attention to pedagogical method. Classroom technology is a wonderful asset, but it is merely a pedagogical tool and does not guarantee effective instruction.
\nAlso well known to many is the rapid expansion of online education. Numerous institutions have developed online biblical language courses using learning management systems such as Canvas, Blackboard, and Moodle. Fully packaged online course modules, such as those available through BibleMesh, are also available for purchase. The important question once again, however, is how to use these resources effectively. Being skills-based, rather than content-based, Biblical Hebrew and Biblical Aramaic are best taught under the apprenticeship model. Replicating this pedagogical approach online is difficult, although instructors can help their online students to succeed by assuming a role like that of a learning coach.
\nThe topic of digital supplements is perhaps less well-known and deserving of some comment. Very few biblical language textbooks following the Grammar-Translation Method include some kind of digital supplement. Webster\u2019s Reading Biblical Hebrew has an accompanying website that includes grammar illustrations, parsing practice, practice reading, and vocabulary flashcards. Pratico and Van Pelt\u2019s Basics of Biblical Hebrew Grammar and Van Pelt\u2019s Basics of Biblical Aramaic similarly have an e-workbook, accompanying video lectures, online answer keys, and audio recordings of vocabulary. These resources provide students with multiple avenues for learning outside the classroom and are therefore a welcome addition to biblical language pedagogy. Nevertheless, the incorporation of digital supplements remains largely untapped. Future textbooks should be designed for use on devices, complete with hyperlinked material such as interactive materials, audio, and supplemental videos.
\nEducation-based websites independent of biblical language textbooks can also benefit teachers and students. Some websites are geared toward providing free instruction in Biblical Hebrew, such as the website Hebrew for Christians. Other websites provide resources for reinforcing grammar and vocabulary. A good example of such a website is Quizlet. Quizlet enables instructors to create online vocabulary flashcards accompanied by audio and images, aiding students in making a form-meaning connection without interference from their native language. Students can keep track of their vocabulary-learning progress by means of the flashcards, but they can also learn Hebrew and Aramaic vocabulary by means of other activities built into Quizlet. These include matching activities and even different games by which students can compete against their classmates. All this provides additional motivation for learning Biblical Hebrew and Biblical Aramaic.
\nFinally, Bible software packages such as Accordance and Logos bring welcome technological advances for learning Biblical Hebrew and Biblical Aramaic. Bible software is perhaps most useful beginning with the second year of language learning when students move into advanced reading and exegesis of Hebrew and Aramaic texts. Reading courses can be enhanced by projecting the Bible software\u2019s original text for the whole class to see; with each student watching, the instructor can easily pull up resources such as grammars or lexicons and search for words or forms, providing hands-on experience with these resources. The instructor might also require an assignment in which students search for a particular syntactic construction so they can discover for themselves what that construction means.
\nHowever, Bible software has the potential to hinder the learning of Biblical Hebrew and Biblical Aramaic, and therefore it must be used wisely. One danger is overreliance on the software\u2019s English glosses and parsing information, which naturally weakens one\u2019s memorization and internalization of the biblical languages. Another danger is that Bible software is unable to unlock the elements of Hebrew and Aramaic that cannot be parsed, such as the contextual nuance of words; it is for this reason that biblical language tools classes (i.e., classes that teach students about the biblical languages and how to use basic tools for exegesis) are ultimately inadequate substitutes for reading Hebrew and Aramaic. As noted below, similar perils exist when using Bible software for retention purposes.<\/p>\n
10.3 NEW METHODS FOR TEACHING THE BIBLICAL LANGUAGES<\/p>\n
Despite the overall popularity of the Grammar-Translation Method, a growing number of language instructors are seeking more effective ways to help students learn. Their explorations have led them to Communicative Language Teaching, a more recent approach to teaching foreign languages that finds its basis in modern research on Second Language Acquisition. Teaching the biblical languages communicatively has become a common topic of academic conferences and scholarly publications. Several Biblical Hebrew grammars based on a communicative approach have even emerged. In the discussion that follows, I focus on Biblical Hebrew because most applications of Communicative Language Teaching to the languages of the Hebrew Bible have focused on Biblical Hebrew, not Biblical Aramaic.<\/p>\n
10.3.1 Communicative Language Teaching<\/p>\n
Communicative Language Teaching developed during the latter half of the twentieth century, in part as a response to the Grammar-Translation Method\u2019s emphasis on Structuralism. As its name implies, Communicative Language Teaching focuses on language\u2019s potential to communicate rather than on mastery of linguistic structures. Practically speaking, this means that language teachers utilize real-world tasks\u2014especially speaking, listening, writing, and reading\u2014in the classroom. These tasks are conducted in the second language as much as possible in order to increase student proficiency. The use of real-world tasks like this facilitates connections with real life, provides motivation for learning, and minimizes explicit grammar instruction (which unnecessarily encumbers a student\u2019s ability to process new material).
\nThe communicative approach includes a variety of different methods, including Total Physical Response, Total Physical Response Storytelling, Content-Based Instruction, and Processing Instruction. Total Physical Response, based on the assumption that students learn a second language the same way they learned their first language, requires students to respond to verbal commands given by the instructor. Total Physical Response Storytelling is similar but also incorporates reading and writing to supplement the auditory focus of simple Total Physical Response. Content-Based Instruction, or Immersion, places students in environments characterized by use of the second language, forcing them to use it rather than their first language. Finally, Processing Instruction provides the student with comprehensible and meaningful input in the second language through real-world, relevant communication, often in the form of classroom activities. This method has proved particularly effective in the teaching of different languages.
\nMost modern language programs adopt the communicative approach because it has been proven very effective. For this reason, some instructors of ancient languages, including Greek and Latin, have adopted the communicative approach in their classrooms. Similarly, in recent years a growing number of Biblical Hebrew instructors have sought to incorporate Communicative Language Teaching in various ways. I now sketch these developments, following in many aspects Scott J. McQuinn\u2019s important survey.<\/p>\n
10.3.2 Textbooks<\/p>\n
One of the primary evidences of interest in Communicative Language Teaching is the emergence of Biblical Hebrew (but not yet Biblical Aramaic) textbooks that seek to incorporate a communicative approach. The most noteworthy textbooks in this vein are Randall Buth\u2019s Living Biblical Hebrew, John A. Cook and Robert D. Holmstedt\u2019s Beginning Biblical Hebrew, Paul Overland\u2019s Learning Biblical Hebrew Interactively, and H\u00e9l\u00e8ne M. Dallaire\u2019s Biblical Hebrew: A Living Language.<\/p>\n
10.3.2.1 Randall Buth\u2019s Living Biblical Hebrew<\/p>\n
Randall Buth was the first to apply Communicative Language Teaching to Biblical Hebrew (and Biblical Koine Greek). He received his PhD in Semitic Languages from the University of California, Los Angeles and served as a Bible translator and translation consultant in Africa until he moved to Israel. There, he founded the Biblical Language Center, where he and his team offer Biblical Hebrew language courses based on the ulpan immersion model. An outgrowth of Buth\u2019s immersion classes is his Living Biblical Hebrew, published as two parts with accompanying online modules.
\nPart one of Living Biblical Hebrew consists of about 1000 illustrations accompanied by audio that describes the images. The words, phrases, and events depicted in the illustrations gradually become more complex; only toward the end are students explicitly introduced to grammatical principles that they learned implicitly through the illustrations. Part two consists of short dialogues that prepare the student to read the Hebrew Bible. The dialogues accomplish this goal by introducing both vocabulary and grammar inductively. Passages from the book of Jonah, with audio and annotations, reinforce the material learned from the dialogues.<\/p>\n
10.3.2.2 John A. Cook and Robert D. Holmstedt\u2019s Beginning Biblical Hebrew<\/p>\n
John A. Cook and Robert D. Holmstedt both graduated from the University of Wisconsin\u2013Madison, where they received their doctorates and began to develop their own methodology for the teaching of Biblical Hebrew. They continued to refine their approach as they taught Hebrew at their respective institutions: Cook at Asbury Theological Seminary and Holmstedt at the University of Toronto. Then, in 2013 they together published Beginning Biblical Hebrew: A Grammar and Illustrated Reader. As claimed in the preface, their textbook possesses several distinctives \u201cgrounded in modern methods for teaching languages.\u201d
\nBeginning Biblical Hebrew features simple chapters with a minimal amount of grammar; more advanced topics or topics requiring detailed explanation (such as weak verbs) are relegated to the book\u2019s appendixes. This facilitates the presentation of grammar in small chunks and leaves more space for text-based exercises. The chapter exercises consist of traditional translation and parsing activities but also call students to write in Hebrew and complete small-group activities. An accompanying illustrated reader, which includes a variety of creative activities as well as color comic-strip presentations of the biblical text, is the most distinctive feature of Beginning Biblical Hebrew. A website with additional resources supplements the textbook, and further materials (e.g., an instructor\u2019s manual, sample quizzes, and lesson plans) are available from the publisher for instructors.<\/p>\n
10.3.2.3 Paul Overland\u2019s Learning Biblical Hebrew Interactively<\/p>\n
Paul Overland, who currently teaches for Ashland Theological Seminary in Ohio, was raised within a bilingual context in Japan. Recalling how he learned Japanese by immersion and faced with students struggling to learn Hebrew via the Grammar-Translation Method, Overland began to explore the communicative approach. His investigations eventually prompted him to spearhead a workshop known as the Cohelet (Communicative Hebrew Learning and Teaching) Project, which developed and field-tested communicative materials for the Hebrew classroom. Overland subsequently adapted many of the Cohelet Project materials into his own textbook, Learning Biblical Hebrew Interactively, which seeks to be \u201can SLA-oriented introductory textbook for Biblical Hebrew.\u201d
\nIn accordance with this goal, Learning Biblical Hebrew Interactively provides numerous output activities (e.g., conversations, writing activities, and games) in addition to traditional grammar explanations. Each lesson centers on a serialized adaptation of the book of Jonah, which reinforces the module\u2019s grammar and vocabulary, and more than forty articles throughout provide connections to the cultural context of Biblical Hebrew. A supplementary website provides a full set of instructional videos, PowerPoint presentations of each Jonah episode, audio files of vocabulary, and communicative-based assessments.<\/p>\n
10.3.2.4 H\u00e9l\u00e8ne M. Dallaire\u2019s Biblical Hebrew: A Living Language<\/p>\n
H\u00e9l\u00e8ne M. Dallaire teaches for Denver Seminary in Colorado. She became interested in the communicative approach to teaching Biblical Hebrew after studying Modern Hebrew at an ulpan in Israel. Her ulpan experience convinced her that the best way to learn a language is to actively engage with it in a dynamic, interactive way. This realization prompted her to author her own textbook, Biblical Hebrew: A Living Language, first published in 2016. According to the preface, the textbook \u201cis designed for teachers who wish to use a blended approach in classroom instruction.\u201d
\nEach chapter begins with a brief devotional song followed by a cartoon entitled \u201cMicah, Tamar, and Rabbi Shlomo,\u201d which serves as a review of the previous chapter\u2019s content. Then various in-class exercises and activities are interwoven in the midst of the chapter\u2019s grammar explanations, which utilize color to mark important features like vowel patterns. Dallaire provides homework exercises for each chapter, many of which entail writing in Hebrew in addition to the typical Hebrew-to-English translation. A website with teaching and visual vocabulary PowerPoints, assessments, and teaching suggestions for each chapter supplements the textbook.<\/p>\n
10.3.3 Institutes and Biblical Language Programs<\/p>\n
In addition to textbooks, the emergence of several institutes and language programs reflect growing interest in teaching the biblical languages communicatively. The most important of these are the Biblical Language Center, the Institute for Biblical Languages and Translation, and Polis: The Jerusalem Institute of Languages and Humanities.<\/p>\n
10.3.3.1 Biblical Language Center<\/p>\n
As noted earlier, Randall Buth founded the Biblical Language Center as a venue for teaching the biblical languages through immersion. This approach seeks to imitate the way that young children learn language, in other words, hearing and using Biblical Hebrew in context. Each Biblical Hebrew class is led by two instructors, which provides the repetition necessary for language learning and enables teachers to use each other as pedagogical props. Total Physical Response and Total Physical Response Storytelling represent the two primary teaching techniques used, creating a full immersion experience. The result is that more than 90 percent of the Biblical Language Center\u2019s classroom time consists of the spoken biblical language. Assigned reading and listening from Buth\u2019s Living Biblical Hebrew and its accompanying audio reinforce the day\u2019s content and prepare students for the next class.<\/p>\n
10.3.3.2 The Institute for Biblical Languages and Translation<\/p>\n
The Institute for Biblical Languages and Translation regularly offers intensive workshops in Biblical Hebrew Fluency and Pedagogy that are available to instructors. For those that wish to go deeper, the Institute also offers two different programs that count for Hebrew credit. The first program is a one-month intensive course, taught almost exclusively (approximately 90 percent) in Biblical Hebrew by means of oral teaching methods. The second program is an eight-month-long course designed to equip participants with the skills necessary for translating the Hebrew Bible. Similar to the Biblical Language Center\u2019s program, class sessions are structured around communicative activities like Total Physical Response, Teaching Proficiency through Reading and Storytelling, and Role Playing.<\/p>\n
10.3.3.3 Polis: The Jerusalem Institute of Language and Humanities<\/p>\n
Polis was founded to reconnect western civilization with both its Judeo-Christian and classical Greco-Roman heritage. To this end, Polis offers reading fluency training in ancient languages, including Greek, Latin, Hebrew, Arabic, and Aramaic. Polis teaches these languages via the \u201cPolis Method.\u201d This method consists of full immersion in the target language, using Total Physical Response, interactive narrative and stories, props, and songs. No speaking in one\u2019s native language is allowed. The end result, according to Polis, is that after two intensive summer courses students are able to read and understand simple ancient texts without a dictionary. This includes Polis\u2019s Biblical Hebrew course, which fully immerses participants in Biblical Hebrew and requires they listen, speak, read, and write in the language.<\/p>\n
10.3.4 Other Voices<\/p>\n
Lastly, several other voices promote the communicative teaching of Biblical Hebrew. At the institutional level, many different instructors have successfully implemented the communicative approach in their biblical language courses. Among them are Paul Ferris (Bethel University), Lee Fields (Mid-Atlantic Christian University), Jennifer Noonan (Columbia International University), and Brian Schultz (Fresno Pacific University). These and other like-minded individuals regularly participate in sessions on applied linguistics at the annual Society of Biblical Literature and Evangelical Theological Society meetings. Their sessions on applied linguistics and the biblical languages regularly discuss various aspects of Communicative Language Teaching in the Hebrew classroom. The high attendance rates of these sessions attest to a growing interest in the communicative approach to teaching the biblical languages.<\/p>\n
10.3.5 Evaluation<\/p>\n
As already noted, research demonstrates the superiority of Communicative Language Teaching to the Grammar-Translation Method for modern languages. Anecdotal evidence likewise points to the many benefits of teaching the biblical languages communicatively, both in terms of the learning experience it creates and the results it produces. Given its many benefits, we should not be surprised by the recent emergence of textbooks and institutes affirming the communicative approach. Especially encouraging among these are Buth\u2019s Living Biblical Hebrew and Overland\u2019s Learning Biblical Hebrew Interactively, which out of all recent textbooks best incorporate principles of Second Language Acquisition. All in all, recent interest in applying Communicative Language Teaching to the biblical languages is both a welcome and promising development.
\nYet, the communicative approach to Biblical Hebrew remains a relatively new field and faces several challenges. In particular, the great diversity of applications of Second Language Acquisition insights to teaching the biblical languages reveals the need for collaboration and further research on this topic. There is no common body of resources or research available for instructors seeking to implement the communicative approach into their own teaching. This has resulted in an inconsistent application of Communicative Language Teaching to Biblical Hebrew. There is therefore great need for a common body of research that shows how Second Language Acquisition research can be applied to teaching the biblical languages. Empirical research is also needed to establish the benefits of and best practices for teaching Biblical Hebrew communicatively. Such research will, undoubtedly, also empower instructors as they continue to develop a linguistically informed methodology for Biblical Hebrew pedagogy.
\nA closely related challenge is the general lack of training in communicative instruction. Currently, few instructors of Biblical Hebrew have specific training in applying communicative methods to the Biblical Hebrew classroom. This trend, however, is changing. Many of the institutes and language programs discussed above provide opportunity for instructors to learn how to teach communicatively. Perhaps the best option is the Biblical Language Center, which hosts regular training workshops for Biblical Hebrew that are available to instructors. Many instructors have already gone through the Biblical Language Center\u2019s ulpan in order to learn how to teach Biblical Hebrew communicatively. Similarly, since the Cohelet Project, Overland has held several workshops to train Biblical Hebrew teachers in the communicative approach. Hopefully, as more instructors receive training in teaching Biblical Hebrew communicatively, they will be able to replicate the necessary skills in others.
\nInstitutional realities present an additional challenge. This obstacle is not necessarily specific to the communicative approach because any approach to teaching Biblical Hebrew\u2014not just Communicative Language Teaching\u2014requires sufficient time and resources. In an era when many schools are lowering and even removing biblical language requirements, institutions are reluctant to devote time and resources to Biblical Hebrew language learning. However, instructors can offer creative solutions to work around these hurdles. Technology offers one possible way out through the capability of blended learning environments, such as the flipped classroom. The creation of a Biblical Hebrew language lab, akin to language labs in most other foreign language programs, could facilitate communicative learning, as could the hosting of various Biblical Hebrew social events. Speaking from my own experience, I meet weekly with my students for lunch to practice reading and speaking Biblical Hebrew, and I coordinate various social events\u2014such as an annual Passover Seder and Hanukkah party\u2014under the auspices of Eta Beta Rho, a national Hebrew honor society connected with the National Association of Professors of Hebrew. These activities encourage communicative learning and generate interest in Biblical Hebrew on campus.<\/p>\n
10.4 RETAINING BIBLICAL HEBREW AND BIBLICAL ARAMAIC<\/p>\n
The last topic I address in this chapter is retention. Retention is important because students learn the biblical languages not merely to know them, but to use them. Furthermore, given the amount of time and effort required to learn Biblical Hebrew and Biblical Aramaic, it would be a shame not to keep them!
\nThe best way to retain the biblical languages is to learn them well the first time. A solid foundation in Biblical Hebrew and Biblical Aramaic makes reading the biblical text easy and enjoyable, which in turn facilitates retention. Beyond this, however, there are various strategies for retaining the biblical languages. In an essay entitled \u201cKeeping Your Hebrew Healthy,\u201d Dennis Magary helpfully divides these strategies into two basic categories: review and use.
\nReview of vocabulary and grammar is necessary because one cannot achieve reading fluency without a solid grasp of them. To maintain vocabulary, Magary recommends tackling approximately twenty-five words each week. Electronic resources such as Quizlet, mentioned above, prove very helpful in this regard, but print resources such as Miles V. Van Pelt and Gary D. Pratico\u2019s The Vocabulary Guide to Biblical Hebrew and Aramaic remain useful. To retain grammar, Magary suggests reading through any one of the standard grammars, with the reading set at the pace required by comprehension.
\nThe second key to retaining the biblical languages is reading the biblical text. The old adage \u201cuse it or lose it\u201d certainly applies to Biblical Hebrew and Biblical Aramaic, and regular reading of the Hebrew Bible is the best way to refresh the memory and reinforce the knowledge and skills one has already learned. Reading of the biblical text should alternate between fast-paced, sectional readings and slow-paced, close readings in order to build reading confidence and the ability to interact carefully with the text. As Magary points out, audio readings can serve as a helpful supplement and reinforcement of one\u2019s own visual reading. An excellent resource for this is the ASI Hebrew Bible, originally produced by Audio Scriptures International, and now available through multiple websites online. Another helpful resource for listening to the text of the Old Testament is the BSI Hebrew Audio Bible, a dramatized reading of the Hebrew Bible (complete with different voice actors for the narrator and characters, as well as sound effects and music) produced by the Bible Society in Israel.
\nTo read the biblical text, one must select a text edition such as Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia or its partially completed successor, Biblia Hebraica Quinta. However, even with a solid grasp of vocabulary, one is bound to encounter words not yet learned. Thus, a welcome development of recent years is the emergence of several reader\u2019s Bibles, including A Reader\u2019s Hebrew Bible (edited by A. Phillip Brown II and Bryan W. Smith) and Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia: A Reader\u2019s Edition (edited by Donald R. Vance, George Athas, and Yael Avrahami). The former glosses all words occurring fewer than one-hundred times whereas the latter, based entirely on the text of Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia, glosses all words occurring fewer than seventy times and also parses all weak verbs. Resources such as these are to be preferred over interlinear Bibles or electronic editions of the biblical text found in Bible software packages. The latter make it all too easy to over rely on English glosses and parsing information and are therefore not helpful tools for retaining Biblical Hebrew and Biblical Aramaic, despite any usefulness they might have otherwise.
\nEspecially effective for retaining proficiency in the biblical languages is Hendrickson\u2019s Two Minutes a Day Biblical Languages Series. Edited by Jonathan G. Kline, this series includes two volumes for Biblical Hebrew (Keep Up Your Biblical Hebrew in Two Minutes a Day) and one volume for Biblical Aramaic (Keep Up Your Biblical Aramaic in Two Minutes a Day). Each of these volumes contains 365 one-verse passages from the Hebrew Bible. For each passage the Hebrew or Aramaic text of each verse is presented first in full and secondly divided into phrases, accompanied by an English translation. Each passage, furthermore, intentionally introduces one (for Hebrew) or two (for Aramaic) new vocabulary words. The new words are presented in order of decreasing frequency so that the reader has reviewed the most common 730 Hebrew words upon completion of both Hebrew volumes and all the Hebrew Bible\u2019s 716 Aramaic words after reading the Aramaic volume. Thus, Kline\u2019s Keep Up Your Biblical Hebrew and Keep Up Your Biblical Aramaic serve as valuable tools for maintaining reading proficiency as well as vocabulary.
\nOther helpful resources for reading practice include devotionals such as Heinrich Bitzer\u2019s Light on the Path or its sequel, More Light on the Path by David W. Baker and Elaine A. Heath. The recent Devotions on the Hebrew Bible: 54 Reflections to Inspire & Instruct, edited by Milton Eng and Lee M. Fields, is also a helpful collection of Hebrew devotionals that keeps the reader engaged with Biblical Hebrew while showing the value and relevance of knowing the language. Unlike the devotionals by Bitzer and Baker and Heath, Devotions on the Hebrew Bible is dedicated exclusively to Biblical Hebrew, and its selections intentionally attempt to present a wide variety of insights from representative samples of the entire Hebrew Bible.
\nAnother helpful resource along these lines is H. H. Hardy II\u2019s Exegetical Gems from Biblical Hebrew: A Refreshing Guide to Grammar and Interpretation. This book presents thirty different topics related to Biblical Hebrew and shows their relevance for biblical interpretation by applying them to specific passages. As such, it provides excellent motivation and encouragement to keep up one\u2019s Hebrew ability. Furthermore, because each chapter presents in systematic fashion the key concepts for the topic it covers, Exegetical Gems from Biblical Hebrew provides ample opportunity for reviewing the essentials of Hebrew grammar.
\nFinally, some online resources for retaining Biblical Hebrew exist. These include the websites Daily Dose of Hebrew created by Mark Futato (Reformed Theological Seminary) and Hebrew Day by Day created by Gary E. Schnittjer (Cairn University). Both websites contain helpful reviews of Biblical Hebrew grammar. Individuals can also subscribe to daily Hebrew videos. Five days per week, subscribers are sent a link to a short video that walks through the grammar and exegesis of a single Hebrew verse.<\/p>\n
10.5 THE WAYS FORWARD<\/p>\n
Attention to biblical language pedagogy is more important than ever as institutions decrease their commitment to Biblical Hebrew and Biblical Aramaic, as students question the value of learning the biblical languages, and as those who have learned the biblical languages struggle to retain them. If Biblical Hebrew and Biblical Aramaic teaching is to remain viable, instructors must learn to teach their students effectively and bring about lasting acquisition of these languages. Aiding biblical language students in this way ultimately helps the study of Hebrew and Aramaic as well as the exegesis, teaching, and preaching of the Hebrew Bible.
\nSome important innovations have taken place within the traditional approach to teaching Biblical Hebrew and Biblical Aramaic. Nevertheless, the most promising way forward is found in application of Communicative Language Teaching principles to biblical language instruction. Individuals such as Randall Buth and Paul Overland have laid a solid foundation for the communicative teaching of Biblical Hebrew, and others continue to build on their approach. Combined with successful approaches to retention, the communicative approach can help the next generation of students to use Biblical Hebrew and Biblical Aramaic more effectively in their exegesis and ministry. The teaching of the biblical languages, therefore, has a bright future.<\/p>\n
10.6 FURTHER READING<\/p>\n
Baker, David W. \u201cStudying the Original Texts: Effective Learning and Teaching of Biblical Hebrew.\u201d Pages 161\u201372 in Make the Old Testament Live: From Curriculum to Classroom. Edited by Richard S. Hess and Gordon J. Wenham. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1998.
\nCallaham, Scott N. \u201cRethinking Biblical Hebrew Instruction.\u201d Pages 235\u201358 in The Unfolding of Your Words Gives Light: Studies in Biblical Hebrew in Honor of George L. Klein. Edited by Ethan C. Jones. University Park, PA: Eisenbrauns, 2018.
\nGreenspahn, Frederick E. \u201cWhy Hebrew Textbooks Are Different from Those for Other Languages.\u201d SBL Forum. July, 2005. http:\/\/www.sbl-site.org\/publications\/article.aspx?ArticleId=420.
\nHarlow, Joel. \u201cSuccessfully Teaching Biblical Languages Online at the Seminary Level: Guiding Principles of Course Design and Delivery.\u201d Teaching Theology & Religion 10 (2007): 13\u201324.
\nMagary, Dennis R. \u201cKeeping Your Hebrew Healthy.\u201d Pages 29\u201355 in Preaching the Old Testament. Edited by Scott M. Gibson. Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 2006.
\nMcKenzie, Tracy. \u201cTeaching Biblical Hebrew to Congregational Leaders: A Personal Reflection on Its Challenges and Potential Ways Forward.\u201d Pages 259\u201371 in The Unfolding of Your Words Gives Light: Studies in Biblical Hebrew in Honor of George L. Klein. Edited by Ethan C. Jones. University Park, PA: Eisenbrauns, 2018.
\nMcQuinn, Scott J. \u201cToward a Principled Communicative Methodology for Teaching the Biblical Languages.\u201d MA thesis, Fresno Pacific University, 2017.
\nMorse, MaryKate. \u201cEnhancing the Learning and Retention of Biblical Languages for Adult Students.\u201d Teaching Theology & Religion 7 (2004): 45\u201350.
\nNoonan, Jennifer E. \u201cRecent Teaching Grammars for Biblical Hebrew: A Review and Critique.\u201d ATJ 43 (2011): 99\u2013118.
\n\u2014\u2014\u2014. \u201cTeaching Biblical Hebrew.\u201d Pages 317\u201335 in \u201cWhere Shall Wisdom Be Found?\u201d A Grammatical Tribute to Professor Stephen A. Kaufman. Edited by H\u00e9l\u00e8ne M. Dallaire, Benjamin J. Noonan, and Jennifer E. Noonan. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2017.
\nOverland, Paul, Lee M. Fields, and Jennifer E. Noonan. \u201cCan Communicative Principles Enhance Classical Language Acquisition?\u201d Foreign Language Annals 44 (2011): 583\u201398.<\/p>\n
CONCLUSION<\/p>\n
Properly using the languages opens doors of biblical discovery that would otherwise remain locked and provides interpreters with accountability that they would not otherwise have.
\n\u2014JASON DEROUCHIE<\/p>\n
I began this book by presenting an all-too common dilemma: the study of Biblical Hebrew and Biblical Aramaic is necessary for those who want to interpret the Hebrew Bible faithfully, but those reading the Hebrew Bible in its original languages face difficulty in grasping the linguistic study of the Hebrew Bible. In this book I have sought to remedy this problem by providing an accessible introduction to the world of Biblical Hebrew and Biblical Aramaic scholarship. My aim is that this book will introduce students, pastors, professors, and scholars to current issues of interest on these languages so they know why these issues are important for understanding the Hebrew Bible.
\nMy reason for all this is simple: the quality of exegesis is directly related to knowledge of the biblical languages, which is in turn directly dependent on one\u2019s engagement with scholarship on those languages. Every student, pastor, professor, and scholar who wants to understand and proclaim the Hebrew Bible as effectively as possible must therefore be familiar with the basic issues discussed in this book. We ignore recent developments in Biblical Hebrew and Biblical Aramaic scholarship to our own peril. As stated by Martin Luther: \u201cWe will not long preserve the gospel without the languages.\u2026 If through our neglect we let the languages go (which God forbid!), we shall \u2026 lose the gospel.\u201d
\nFurthermore, not only does engagement with Biblical Hebrew and Biblical Aramaic scholarship ensure our exegesis is as faithful as possible, it also brings joy. I hope that, as a result of this book, you have come to appreciate and even enjoy scholarship on the biblical languages. Hopefully Biblical Hebrew and Biblical Aramaic scholarship no longer seems as intimidating as it once did and instead comes to be an object of fascination and delight.
\nIt is an exciting time to study Biblical Hebrew and Biblical Aramaic. Continued developments in linguistics and an ever-increasing understanding of the Semitic languages have established Hebrew and Aramaic study on solid footing. Many important advances that impact our exegesis of the Hebrew Bible are taking place, and readers of Hebrew and Aramaic are increasingly interested in the application of linguistic scholarship to interpreting the Hebrew Bible. Having come now to the end, I invite you, the reader, to continue your study of Biblical Hebrew and Biblical Aramaic so that you may be equipped for exegesis and ministry the best you can be.<\/p>\n
title Advances in the Study of Biblical Hebrew and Aramaic: New Insights for Reading the Old Testament
\nauthor Noonan, Benjamin J.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
INTRODUCTION You cannot read the Bible for yourself unless you know the languages in which it was written.\u2026 Hence if we want to know the Scriptures, to the study of Greek and Hebrew we must go. \u2014J. GRESHAM MACHEN Many would agree that the study of Biblical Hebrew and Biblical Aramaic is necessary for those … <\/p>\n