Biblical Hebrew: Periodization

1. H i s t o r y o f t h e d i a c h r o n i c Amarna letters, which, though written in Akka-

approach to Biblical Hebrew dian, provide valuable information on pre-
biblical Canaanite, and the Cairo Geniza texts,
All things considered, the Hebrew Bible exhib- which illuminate post-exilic Hebrew. Finally,
its a remarkable degree of linguistic unifor- two noteworthy early-20th-century works are
mity. Though biblical texts represent diverse Brown, Driver and Briggs’ Lexicon (1906),
historical, cultural, and geographical contexts, which routinely notes late lexemes, and Kro-
Biblical Hebrew, as a standard literary lan- pat’s (1909) groundbreaking study of the late
guage, was subject to the leveling influence of syntactical features of Chronicles.
scribal convention (an effect only intensified by But the seminal contributions by Driver and
the superimposing of Masoretic vocalization, others notwithstanding, and despite the poten-
which likely conceals some amount of diver- tial for use of diachronic linguistic research in
sity in pronunciation). Notwithstanding this the Graf–Wellhausian source-critical approach,
leveling process, the language (including the the validity of contemporary philological argu-
Masoretic vocalization) also exhibits a consid- ments for the dating of biblical texts was
erable amount of diversity, due, at least in part, severely limited both by the comparatively
to linguistic differences reflecting diachronic small corpus of primary material and by the
development. lack of an objective methodology for identify-
The existence of distinct historical phases ing genuinely late linguistic features and the
within Biblical Hebrew has been recognized works that they typify (see, e.g., Driver 1882 on
since at least the 17th century, when Hugo Giesebrecht 1881; Nöldeke 1903 on Kautzsch
Grotius (1644:343–344) argued on linguistic 1902). While major reference works from the
grounds that Solomon could not have been the early 20th century indeed acknowledged the
author of the book of Qohelet (Ecclesiastes). distinction between pre- and post-exilic Biblical
Grotius noted that the author made frequent use Hebrew (e.g., Bergsträsser 1918–1929:I,§2h–k;
of words found elsewhere only in the late books Bauer and Leander 1922:§2q; Joüon 1923:§3a–
of Daniel and Ezra and in the Aramaic targu- b; Segal 1927:§§7, 17), they offered no system-
mim. Influential 19th-century scholars, among atic description of the two.
them Gesenius (1815), Ewald (1844:§3d), Del- The discovery of Ugarit and its language
itzsch (1877:190 and passim), and Wellhausen at Ras Shamra in 1929 was an important
(1883:§§IX.III.1–IX.III.2), were also aware of development. Linguistic and stylistic similari-
historical development within Biblical Hebrew ties between certain Ugaritic and biblical texts,
(with varying opinions on important details). especially poetic texts, led to a growing inter-
However, the most thorough and influential est in ancient Hebrew poetry (e.g., Cassuto
treatment of diachronic development in Biblical 1971:18–52) and later laid the foundation for
Hebrew prior to the 20th century was that of the eventual identification of linguistic fea-
S. R. Driver (1898), who took pains to list the tures characteristic of Archaic Biblical Hebrew.
linguistic features that distinguished late from However, the discovery of Ugaritic did not
earlier biblical literature, and observed that immediately engender a great deal of scholarly
post- but not pre-exilic Hebrew routinely bore interest in the diachronic treatment of Biblical
unmistakable signs of internal development and Hebrew.
external influence, features often characteristic Thus matters stood until 1947, when
of Rabbinic Hebrew and/or Second Temple the Dead Sea Scrolls were discovered. This
Aramaic dialects. unprecedented trove of primary material not
Significant discoveries of the late 19th cen- only contains post-biblical Hebrew material
tury that would eventually contribute to the untouched by the hands of later editors, but
diachronic study of Biblical Hebrew include the also demonstrates the relative antiquity of

Hornkohl, A._Periodization.indd 1 11/22/2011 10:08:55 AM

 2 biblical hebrew: periodization

the Hebrew preserved in the Masoretic Text. flaws and limitations inherent in a posthumous
The linguistic differences between Biblical and publication, remains a valuable repository of
Qumran Hebrew clearly show that the former diachronic evidence and analysis; and Rooker’s
is typologically earlier than the latter (though (1990) treatment of the transitional language
it should be noted that not all differences are (between Classical and Late Biblical Hebrew)
diachronic). Indeed, despite the multiplicity of of Ezekiel (on Transitional Biblical Hebrew see
textual traditions represented in the biblical The Phases of Biblical Hebrew below).
material at Qumran, the presence there of proto-
Masoretic text types confirms the antiquity of 2. C h a l l e n g e s
the Masoretic tradition. Clearly then, the lin-
guistic diversity in the Hebrew Bible should not A valid diachronic approach to Biblical Hebrew
be attributed merely to the vagaries of scribal must incorporate ways of overcoming several
transmission in the first millennium C.E. For obstacles, first and foremost its relatively small
more on Qumran Hebrew’s diachronic status corpus. Despite the ever-growing amount of
see especially Kutscher’s (1959) seminal study epigraphic and documentary material in both
of 1QIsaa (English edition 1974) and Qimron’s ancient Hebrew and cognate languages, the
(1986) description of the language of the Dead limited scope of the relevant biblical and extra-
Sea Scrolls. biblical texts necessarily limits the information
As the study of Rabbinic Hebrew came to at our disposal.
be based more and more on accurate medieval Second, misunderstanding of certain basic
manuscripts rather than on printed texts, which concepts often leads to faulty argumentation.
had often been ‘corrected’ on the basis of Bibli- Two of the most frequently misunderstood
cal Hebrew, further evidence of authentic post- notions are Aramaisms and Archaisms:
biblical Hebrew came to light (see especially Aramaisms—Hebrew texts from the post-
Bendavid’s [1967–1971] two-volume compari- exilic period exhibit clear and manifold instances
son of Biblical and Mishnaic Hebrew). of Aramaic influence, a development which
Important as the aforementioned discover- evidently began in the late pre-exilic period.
ies and developments were for the diachronic Second-Temple Hebrew material—biblical and
study of Biblical Hebrew, there still existed extra-biblical alike—is marked by borrowings
no scientifically sound procedure for isolating from and via Aramaic, calques based on Ara-
distinctively late linguistic features and for dis- maic usage, and the intensified use of certain
tinguishing between early and late texts on the features native to Hebrew but more common
basis of such features. Diachronic arguments in Aramaic (see below Late Biblical Hebrew
were frequently subjective and lacking in sci- under The Phases of Biblical Hebrew). Many
entific rigor. There was not yet a methodology of these features are late in Aramaic itself, being
that would introduce objective controls for the absent from Old Aramaic. However, not every
identification of late linguistic features and late apparent ‘Aramaism’ in Biblical Hebrew nec-
texts, thereby eliminating, or at least reduc- essarily indicates genuine Aramaic influence.
ing, subjectivity. In a series of works dating Moreover, not every instance of genuine Ara-
back to 1964, Avi Hurvitz has proposed and maic influence is necessarily late. First, Hebrew
demonstrated just such a method (for specifics, and Aramaic are related languages; since both
see Methodology below; see also a selection of derive from Semitic stock, they share many
Hurvitz’ works under References), which has features. Second, the two were in contact—and
become the standard for diachronic investiga- thus exercised mutual influence—long before
tions of Biblical Hebrew. the late pre-exilic period. Third, a Hebrew
Other noteworthy diachronic studies include writer’s use of Aramaic-looking forms may
Robertson’s (1972) attempt to identify the reflect Aramaic’s late influence on his language
characteristic linguistic features of Archaic Bib- or, alternatively, reflect a conscious stylistic
lical Hebrew and to date works of biblical choice. For example, ancient Hebrew poetry,
poetry linguistically; Polzin’s (1976) investiga- especially parallelism, regularly employs words
tion of the late non-lexical linguistic features in that are rare in non-poetic texts, but common
Chronicles; Kutscher’s (1982) historical survey in Aramaic. This likely reflects a desire for lexi-
of the Hebrew language, which, despite the cal variation, not true Aramaic influence, e.g.,

Hornkohl, A._Periodization.indd 2 11/22/2011 10:08:56 AM

 biblical hebrew: periodization 3

‫ ָחזָ ה‬ḥ <åz<å (for ‫ ָר ָאה‬r<å±å) ‘see’ (Num. 24.4, 18); this particular lexeme is doubly unique. First,
‫ ֱאנוֹשׁ‬±(nòš (for ‫ן־א ָדם‬ ָ ‫ ֶבּ‬bÆn ̣±å≈<åm) ‘man’ (Deut. no other pre-exilic text exhibits a comparable
32.26); ‫ ָא ָתה‬±åμå (for ‫ בּוֹא‬bò) ‘come’ (Deut. 33.2,
< < accumulation of this word or pattern. Second,
21). On the other hand, wisdom literature, with (First) Isaiah does not show a fondness for the
its eastern origins, may exhibit real, though not ‫ ְק ָטל‬që†<ål pattern in general (or for other late
necessarily late, Aramaic influence, e.g., Prov. features), but only for the word ‫ ְשׁ ָאר‬šë±<år.
31.1–9 (Tur-Sinai 1965:594; Hurvitz 2003:32– Thus, (First) Isaiah’s idiosyncratic use of ‫ְשׁ ָאר‬
33). In other genres, too, stylistic motivations šë±<år in no way contradicts the claim that the
may have favored the employment of Aramaic ‫ ְק ָטל‬që†<ål pattern is characteristic of Late Bibli-
forms (see Literary strategies below). When cal Hebrew. Nor does it support the claim that
dating texts on the basis of apparent Arama- Isaiah 1–39 is a late composition (see Method-
isms, care must be taken to determine, first, ology below; Kutscher 1982:§103).
whether or not there is real Aramaic influence Regional dialects—The modern dominance
and, second, whether this influence is late (see of relatively monolithic, trans-regional lan-
Driver 1882; Nöldeke 1903; Hurvitz 1968; guages (such as English, French, Italian), as
1969b; 2003). opposed to regional dialects, is a rather recent
Archaisms—While an early writer’s consis- turn of events, due in part to political develop-
tent use of a variety of late linguistic features is ments and in part to modern innovations such
a logical impossibility, the opposite case—a late as public education, mass media, and ease of
writer’s consistent use of a variety of early lin- travel. Despite these leveling factors, however,
guistic features—is not only possible, but very regional dialects survive and, in some places,
common. Indeed, nearly all post-exilic writers thrive. A priori, then, it seems reasonable to
attempted to archaize, i.e., to write in Classical assume the existence of regional dialects in
Biblical Hebrew (the authors of Qohelet and ancient Israel, generally speaking, a southern,
Song of Songs are notable exceptions, assuming Judahite dialect and its northern, Israelian
these works are late). Some, like Ben Sira and counterpart. However, while it is possible to
the author of Esther, were competent in the glean a certain amount of information on dia-
classical style and only rarely (but nevertheless lectal differences from the available biblical and
unmistakably) betrayed their books’ late prov- extra-biblical sources, the paucity of Hebrew
enance; others, like the authors of Daniel, Ezra, material of undeniably northern provenance
Nehemiah, Chronicles, and many of the Dead precludes certainty regarding all but a few dia-
Sea Scrolls, strayed from the classical style more lectal features. The Samaria Ostraca show that
frequently. But despite attempts at archaization, the northern dialect of Ancient Hebrew shared
no indisputably late text lacks a significant certain features with Aramaic and Phoenician,
accumulation of distinctively late linguistic fea- e.g., contraction of the diphthong ay > e in
tures (see Methodology below). words such as ‫ בת‬bèμ ‘house’ (for ‫ ַבּיִ ת‬bayiμ)
Finally, while many cases of linguistic diver- and ‫ ין‬yèn ‘wine’ (for ‫ יַ יִ ן‬yayin) (cf. the wordplay
sity in Biblical Hebrew are best explained in between ‫ ַקיִ ץ‬qayiß ‘summer (fruit), figs’ and ‫ֵקץ‬
terms of diachronic development, this is not the qèß ‘end’ in Amos 8.2), and with Moabite, e.g.,
only source of diversity (Young 1993). Other retention of the feminine nominal suffix ‫ת‬- -t
potential factors include: (for ‫ָ◌ה‬- -<å) and the form of the word ‫ שת‬šaμ
Individual styles—The appearance of a ‘year’ (for ‫) ָשׁנָ ה‬, reflecting the assimilation of
non-standard feature may reflect an author’s the nun and a syllable structure different from
personal idiosyncrasy rather than typical con- that of the form in Standard Biblical Hebrew.
temporary usage. For example, despite sporadic Turning to biblical literature, there is wide-
occurrences of the ‫ ְק ָטל‬që†<ål nominal pattern in spread consensus that many of the non-stan-
presumed early literature, the marked increase dard linguistic features in the Song of Deborah
in its use in late works (probably under Ara- (Judg. 5) reflect an early northern dialect of
maic influence) makes it a characteristic feature Hebrew, among them the following: the rela-
of post-exilic Hebrew. However, an exception tivizing particle -‫ ַשׁ‬ša- (v. 7 bis); the 2fs. qa†al
to this late trend is the early and frequent (13 suffix ‫ ִתּי‬- -tì (for ‫ ְתּ‬- -t) of ‫ ַק ְמ ִתּי‬qamtì ‘you (fs.)
times) use of the keyword ‫ ְשׁ ָאר‬šë±<år ‘rem- arose’ (v. 7 bis); the plural suffix ‫ִ◌ין‬- -ìn (for
nant’ in Isaiah (1–39). Isaiah’s fondness for ‫ִ◌ים‬- -ìm) in ‫ ִמ ִדּין‬middìn ‘cloths, blankets, rugs’

Hornkohl, A._Periodization.indd 3 11/22/2011 10:08:56 AM

 4 biblical hebrew: periodization

(v. 10); the root ‫ תנ"י‬t-n-y (for ‫ שנ"י‬š-n-y) in ‫יְ ַתנּוּ‬ of Rabbinic Hebrew, which would eventually
yëμannù ‘they (would) repeat, chant’ (v. 11); the evolve into the written medium of Rabbinic
form ‫ ָמ ֲח ָקה‬m<åḥ ≥q<å ‘she struck’ (for ‫ָמ ֲח ָצה‬ literature. Due, however, to the late provenance
m<åḥ ≥ß<å; v. 26); possibly also the pronuncia- of these sources, their evidential value vis-á-vis
tion ‫ יְ ַרד‬yëra≈ ‘he descended’ (for ‫ יָ ַרד‬y<åra≈; v. the spoken register of the pre-exilic period is
13 bis) (Burney 1918:171–176). Northern lin- uncertain. Where their language differs from
guistic features have also been identified in the Classical Biblical Hebrew it is difficult to deter-
Elijah–Elisha cycle in the book of Kings (Bur- mine if the diversity is a function of register or
ney 1903:208–209; Schniedewind and Sivan chronology.
1997; Rendsburg 2002b; cf. Young 1995) and To illustrate, consider the Biblical Hebrew
elsewhere. Linguistic diversity stemming from conversive tenses, which became obsolete in
dialectal differences is an important factor to Mishnaic Hebrew. Is their absence from the
consider in the diachronic study of Biblical latter due to diachronic development, or is it a
Hebrew, because both Late Biblical Hebrew carry-over from pre-exilic colloquial Hebrew,
and (early) northern Biblical Hebrew exhibit which (some assume) also eschewed their use?
features common in Aramaic. Consequently, The nature of the available evidence all but
what one scholar considers characteristically precludes a definitive answer. Regardless, the
late another may consider early and northern. probable difference between spoken and liter-
For example, most scholars consider the non- ary registers must be taken into account in the
standard linguistic features in Jonah, the Song diachronic analysis of Biblical Hebrew.
of Songs, and Qohelet to be indicative of late Literary genres—Ancient Hebrew poetry (like
provenance, but a minority has suggested the poetry in many languages) is characterized both
features are early and dialectal (Jonah: Landes by stylistic conventions—rhythm, word- and
1982:163*; Song of Songs: Driver 1898:449; sound-play, parallelism, archaic forms and struc-
Qohelet: Archer 1969; Fredericks 1988). Con- tures—and by poetic license, two factors that
ceivably, a given feature may be both late and distinguish it from non-poetic genres. Stylistic
northern. In sum, consideration of the possibil- conservatism often served to preserve linguistic
ity that linguistic variation in Biblical Hebrew features characteristic of an early stage of the
stems from dialectal diversity is a sine qua non language, which were no longer typical of con-
of sound diachronic analysis of this language. temporary non-poetic genres. On the one hand,
Social registers—Biblical Hebrew was a lit- there are many linguistic parallels between the
erary register that probably differed to some epic Canaanite poetry from Ugarit (destroyed
extent from contemporary colloquial Hebrew. in the early 12th century B.C.E.) and the poetry
The extent of any such difference, however, is of the Hebrew Bible (for details on Archaic Bib-
unclear, since unambiguous evidence for the lical Hebrew see The Phases of Biblical Hebrew
spoken register is hard to come by. Quoted below). On the other hand, some features, par-
speech in the Bible may reflect colloquial ticularly in the realm of the lexicon, resemble
features (MacDonald 1975), but it is often the Aramaic borrowings so characteristic of
couched in literary, even poetic style (Rends- Late Biblical Hebrew, but are in reality features
burg 1990:18–21, 159–161). Most of the avail- common to both languages—typical of Aramaic,
able evidence for ancient colloquial Hebrew rare in Hebrew—employed for poetic variety or
derives from extra-biblical letters and other effect (Tur-Sinai 1965:593–594; see Arama-
non-literary documents from the biblical and isms above). Because non-standard linguistic
post-biblical period, though it should be borne elements in ancient Hebrew poetry are often given
in mind that these too are written artifacts, the to multiple (and contradictory) explanations,
language of which may not accurately reflect great caution must be exercised in the dating of
contemporary spoken Hebrew. A few of the poetic texts (Hurvitz 1968:236; for attempts see
Dead Sea Scrolls, e.g., the Copper Scroll (3Q15) Hurvitz 1965b; 1967; 1972; Polzin 1967). The
and Miqßat Ma≠a«e ha-Torah (4QMMT), along eastern associations of wisdom literature may
with the Bar Kokhba letters, are written in a also have favored the use of non-standard, espe-
non-literary register. It is widely assumed that cially Aramaic forms (see Aramaisms above).
their language is to some extent representative Literary strategies—On occasion, biblical
of the spoken Hebrew of the day, an early form writers exploited linguistic diversity for literary

Hornkohl, A._Periodization.indd 4 11/22/2011 10:08:56 AM

 biblical hebrew: periodization 5

purposes, by adapting a text’s language to fit that its absence from (or rarity in) presumed
a (contrived) foreign audience (→ Addressee- early biblical (and inscriptional) material is
switching) or to reflect a foreign speaker more than just an accidental result of the
or context (see Baumgartner 1959:228 n. 3; narrow scope of the relevant sources. It is
Kaufman 1988:54–56; Rendsburg 1995; Hur- important to remember that an element’s
vitz 2003:31–32; → Style-switching). The use non-occurrence in earlier texts may stem
of such literary strategies has been identified from diachronic factors (i.e., it was not yet
in Gen. 24 (Rendsburg 2002a), Isa. 21.11–14 available for use), but it may also be no
(Tur-Sinai 1965:594; Rabin 1967:304–305; more than mere chance (i.e., opportunity
Kutscher 1982:§100; Kaufman 1988:54–56; for the element’s use never arose in the Bible
Rendsburg 1995:181–182), and certain pro- and/or in the relevant extra-biblical mate-
phetic oracles directed against foreign nations rial). One must therefore demonstrate the
(Rendsburg 1995:184–188), to list but a few existence of linguistic opposition between
examples. Obviously, sound diachronic analy- the apparently late feature and an alternative
sis must recognize the possibility of the con- (or alternatives) in presumed early material,
scious use of non-standard language for literary the existence of which opposition shows
effect. that the presumed early material indeed pre-
sented opportunities for use of the feature
3. M e t h o d o l o g y in question, but employed an alternative
(or alternatives) instead. Parallel texts (like
Hurvitz (e.g., 1998) has proposed a controlled those in Chronicles and Samuel–Kings) and
methodology for dating Biblical Hebrew texts parallel formulations are particularly use-
linguistically. It consists of two steps: (1) a ful for demonstrating linguistic opposition.
three-pronged procedure for isolating and This criterion eliminates from consideration
assembling an inventory of linguistic features those elements the exclusively late distribu-
distinctively characteristic of Late Biblical tion of which is no more than a product of
Hebrew; (2) a classification of late biblical their chance exclusion from presumed early
compositions based on a characteristically late material.
linguistic profile. 3. Extra-biblical corroboration: a given late
The three criteria for isolating linguistic fea- element is considered distinctively charac-
tures distinctively characteristic of Late Biblical teristic of Late Biblical Hebrew only if it is
Hebrew are: also employed in late extra-biblical sources,
such as the book of Ben Sira, the Dead Sea
1. Late distribution: the prerequisite for con- Scrolls, rabbinic literature, Biblical Aramaic,
sideration as a linguistic feature distinctively the Aramaic targumim, the Syriac Peshi†ta,
characteristic of Late Biblical Hebrew is or Second-Temple-period epigraphic or doc-
a given element’s exclusively (or predomi- umentary sources. This criterion serves to
nantly) late distribution within the Bible. eliminate from consideration possibly idio-
A characteristically late element’s sporadic syncratic linguistic features typical of certain
appearance in presumed early material biblical writers’ individual styles which were
(including early inscriptions) does not auto- not characteristic of post-exilic Hebrew in
matically disqualify it from consideration, general.
since a form used rarely in one phase of a
language may become characteristic later Second, a given composition is judged to be
on. Consider, for example, (First) Isaiah’s late only if its language is characterized by
exceptional use of ‫ ְשׁ ָאר‬šë±<år ‘remnant’ (see an accumulation of linguistic features distinc-
Individual styles above). tively characteristic of Late Biblical Hebrew,
2. Linguistic opposition: an element’s exclu- the presence of which cannot otherwise be
sively (or predominantly) late distribution explained (e.g., due to issues of dialect, regis-
in the Hebrew Bible is not in and of itself ter, genre, or literary strategy). Conversely, a
sufficient grounds for classification as a lin- text lacking such an accumulation is judged to
guistic feature distinctively characteristic of be early, i.e., pre-exilic. It is this corollary, the
Late Biblical Hebrew. It must also be shown identification of early texts on the basis of their

Hornkohl, A._Periodization.indd 5 11/22/2011 10:08:56 AM

 6 biblical hebrew: periodization

general lack of characteristically late language, usages (Young 2003c:342–343). Archaic Bib-
that is perhaps the most controversial aspect of lical Hebrew features appear to represent a
Hurvitz’ methodology. Certain scholars have stage of Hebrew earlier than Classical Biblical
objected to the contention that the absence Hebrew and often have parallels in Ugaritic,
of characteristically late language in a given Amarna Canaanite, or Old Aramaic. Compo-
text necessarily indicates early provenance. For sitions considered especially representative of
them the distinction between Classical and Archaic Biblical Hebrew include: The Blessing
Late Biblical Hebrew is merely stylistic, not of Jacob (Gen. 49), The Song of the Sea (Exod.
chronological, the assumption being that there 15), The Balaam Oracles (Num. 23–24), The
were late writers capable of writing acceptable Song of Moses (Deut. 32–33), The Song of
Classical Biblical Hebrew (Davies 2003:154; Deborah (Judg. 5), The Song of Hannah
Young, Rezetko, and Ehrensvärd 2008:55–56, (1 Sam. 2.1–10; cf. the merely archaizing lan-
92–93, 129–130). Admittedly, while Hurvitz’ guage of Ps. 113:5–9, on which see Hurvitz
approach involves the logical challenge of 1985), David’s Song of Thanksgiving (2 Sam.
proving a negative—that no late writer could 22 || Ps. 18), Hab. 3, Ps. 78. Characteristic
successfully imitate classical style—it must be features include: archaic suffixes, e.g., the 3ms.
emphasized that current evidence supports his possessive -ò written with heh ‫◌ ֹה‬- (for ‫ ֹו‬-) ‘his’,
claim: without exception, all undisputedly late e.g., ‫≠ ִﬠיר ֹה‬ìrò (for ‫‘ ) ִﬠירוֹ‬his donkey’ and ‫סוּתֹה‬
compositions—biblical and extra-biblical—are sùμò (for ‫‘ )סוּתוֹ‬his covering’ (Gen. 49.11, both
characterized by an accumulation of late lin- ktiv); the 3mpl. possessive/object suffix ‫מוֹ‬- -mò
guistic features (cf. Ehrensvärd 2003:175–186). (for ‫ ֶהם‬- -hÆm or ‫ָ◌ם‬- -<åm) ‘their, them’, e.g.,
Until the emergence of unequivocal evidence ֑ ֵ ‫̣ ֱא‬±(lòhèmò (for ‫ֹלהיֶ הם‬
‫ֹלהימוֹ‬ ֵ ‫̣ ֱא‬±(lòhèhÆm) ‘their
to the contrary, the burden of proof must be gods’ (Deut. 32.37), ‫ ִכּ ָ ֣סּמוֹ‬kiss<åmò (for ‫ִכּ ָסּם‬
borne by those who claim that post-exilic writ- kiss<åm) ‘(the sea) covered them’ (Exod. 15.10);
ers could produce passable Classical Biblical the 2fs. qa†al suffix ‫ ִתּי‬- -tì (for ‫ ְתּ‬- -t), e.g., ‫ַק ְמ ִתּי‬
Hebrew. qamtì (for ‫ ַק ְמ ְתּ‬qamt) ‘you (fs.) arose’ (Judg.
It should be noted that no methodology 5.7); the 3fs. qa†al suffix ‫ַ◌ת‬- -aμ (for ‫ָ◌ה‬- -<å),
of comparable objective rigor exists for the e.g., ‫̣ ָ ֣אזְ ַלת‬±<åzlaμ (for ‫ ׇאזְ ָלה‬±<åzl<å) ‘(their might) is
identification of Archaic Biblical Hebrew texts. gone’ (Deut. 32.36); the 3fpl. qa†al suffix ‫ָ◌ה‬- -<å
This is due mainly to the lack of a Hebrew (for epicene ‫וּ‬- -ù), e.g., ‫ ָבּנ֕ וֹת ָצ ֲﬠ ָ ֖דה‬b<ånòμ ß<å≠≥≈<å
corpus that is objectively datable to the pre- (for ‫ ָבּנוֹת ָצ ֲﬠדוּ‬b<ånòμ ß<å≠≥≈ù) ‘(his) branches
classical period of the language. Thus, whereas climbed’ (Gen. 49.22); retention of the reflexes
an otherwise unexplained accumulation of late of obsolete case endings on the head nouns of
features is incontrovertible evidence of late construct phrases (and the like), e.g., the ‫◌י‬- ִ -ì
provenance, a similar accumulation of archaic suffix in ‫ ֲאתֹנ֑ וֹ ְבּ ִנ֣י‬bënì ̣±≥μònò (for ‫ ֶבּן ֲאתֹנוֹ‬bÆn
features is more ambiguous, since classical ±≥μònò) ‘his donkey foal’ (Gen. 49.11) or the
(and even late) writers employed archaisms ‫וֹ‬- -ò suffix in ‫ ְבּנוֹ ְבעֹר‬bënò ∫ë≠òr (for ‫ן־בּעוֹר‬ ְ ‫ֶבּ‬
atypical of their own linguistic milieu. It is bÆn-bë≠òr) ‘son of Be≠or’ (Num. 24.3; 24.15);
often difficult to distinguish between the truly use of short yiq†ol verbal form as a simple past
archaic and the merely archaistic (see, however, tense without conversive waw, e.g., ‫ יַ ֵצּ ֙ב‬yaßßè∫
Hurvitz 1985). (for ‫ ִה ִצּיב‬hißßì∫) ‘he established’ (Deut. 32.8)
and ‫ ָי ֶ֤שׁת‬y<åšÆμ (for ‫ ָשׁת‬š<åμ) ‘he set’ (Ps. 18.12);
4. T h e P h a s e s o f B i b l i c a l non-assimilation of heh to energeric nun,
Hebrew, the compositions e.g., ‫ יִ ְצּ ֶ ֖רנְ הוּ‬. . . ‫הוּ‬
֙ ְ֙‫ יְ ֽסֹ ְב ֶבנ‬yësò∫ë∫Ænhù . . . yißßërÆnhù
belonging to each phase, (for ‫ יִ ְצּ ֶ ֖רנּוּ‬. . . ‫ יְ ס ְֹב ֶבנּוּ‬yësò∫ë∫Ænnù . . . yißßërÆnnù)
and some of their distinctive ‘he surrounded him . . . he guarded him’ (Deut.
features 32.10); retention of root-final consonantal yod
in ‫( ל"י‬final yod) forms, e.g., ‫ ָח ָ ֥סיוּ‬ḥ <ås<åyù (for
Archaic Biblical Hebrew is best reflected in ‫ ָחסוּ‬ḥ <åsù) ‘they took refuge’ (Deut. 32.37); the
the more ancient poetic works of the Hebrew frequent absence of the definite article -‫ ַה‬ha-,
Bible, though the dating of such texts remains the accusative marker ‫ ֵאת‬±èμ, and the relativ-
somewhat subjective, and other less ancient, izer ‫ ֲא ֶשׁר‬±≥šÆr (with parataxis or asyndesis in
mainly poetic, texts also contain archaic absence of the latter), e.g., ‫זְ ֻב ֗לוּן ַ ֣ﬠם ֵח ֵ ֥רף נַ ְפ ֛שׁוֹ‬

Hornkohl, A._Periodization.indd 6 11/22/2011 10:08:56 AM

 biblical hebrew: periodization 7

֥ ֵ ‫ ָל ֖מוּת וְ נַ ְפ ָתּ ִ ֑לי ַ ֖ﬠל ְמ‬Zë∫ùlùn ≠am ḥ èrèƒ

‫רוֹמי ָשׂ ֶ ֽדה‬ illustrative; Driver 1898:535–540; Kropat 1909;
naƒšò l<åmùμ wë-Naƒt<ålì ≠al mëròmè «<å≈Æ (for Polzin 1976; cf. Rezetko 2003; 2007). Other
‫*זְ ֻבלוּן ַﬠם ֲא ֶשׁר ֵח ֵרף ֵאת נַ ְפשׁוֹ ָלמוּת וְ נַ ְפ ָתּ ִלי ַﬠל‬ texts exhibiting an accumulation of charac-
‫רוֹמי ַה ָשּׂ ֶדה‬ ֵ ‫ ְמ‬Zë∫ùlùn ≠am ̣±≥šÆr ḥ èrèƒ ̣±èμ naƒšò teristically late features include Pss. 103, 117,
l<åmùμ wë-Naƒt<ålì ≠al mëròmè ha«-«<å≈Æ) ‘Zebu- 119, 124, 125, 133, 144, and 145 (Hurvitz
lon is a people that disdained his own soul 1972); the narrative framework of Job (Job
even to death and also Naphtali—up on the 1–2, 42:7–17) (Hurvitz 1974; cf. Young 2009);
high ground of the land’ (Judg. 5.18); ‫ זֶ ה‬zÆ and Qohelet (Delitzsch 1877:190–199 and
or ‫ זוּ‬zù as relative pronouns, e.g., ‫ית‬ ָ ‫ַﬠם־ז֥ וּ ָק ִ ֽנ‬ passim; Driver 1898:474–475; Hurvitz 1990;
≠am-zù q<ånìμ<å (for ‫ית‬ ָ ִ‫ * ָה ָﬠם ֲא ֶשׁר ָקנ‬h<å-≠<åm 2007; Schoors 1992–2004; Seow 1996; cf.
±≥šÆr q<ånìμ<å) ‘the people whom you purchased’ Fredericks 1988).
(Exod. 15.16); ‫ ַבּל‬for negation of the verb, e.g., Linguistically, much more unites Classical
‫מוּ‬֙ ‫ ַבּל־יָ ֻ ֙ק‬bal-y<åqùmù (for ‫פּן יָ קוּמוּ‬/‫ל‬ ֶ ‫א‬/‫א‬
ַ ֹ ‫ *ל‬lò/±al/ Biblical Hebrew and Late Biblical Hebrew
pÆn y<åqùmù) ‘they must not/may not/lest they than separates them. However, along with the
rise’ (Isa. 14.21); ‫<« ָשׂ ַדי‬å≈ay (for ‫<« * ָשׂ ֶדה‬å≈Æ) majority of elements common to both strata,
‘field’ (Robertson 1972; Kutscher 1982:§§111– Late Biblical Hebrew contains a minority of
116; Hadas-Lebel 1995:70–72). characteristically late linguistic features—
Classical Biblical Hebrew is the language orthographic, morphological, syntactic, and
of biblical and extra-biblical material from lexical (genuine neologisms and instances of
the First Temple period (10th century [?]–6th semantic development). Some features resulted
century B.C.E.): the Pentateuch (including the from internal development, others from exter-
Priestly portions thereof: on the date of P see nal influence, and the relevant factors are some-
Hurvitz 1982; 1988; 2000c; Rendsburg 1980; times unclear or may be a combination of
cf. Levine 1983; Blenkinsopp 1996:508–518; the internal and external. A clear case of late
on J: Wright 2005); the Deuteronomistic His- internal development is the nuf ≠al passive pat-
tory (i.e., Joshua–Kings); with some hesitation, tern (also known from Mishnaic Hebrew) that
due to the difficulty of dating poetry, First arose in analogy to the u–a vowel pattern in
Isaiah (Isa. 1–39), Hosea, Amos, Obadiah, other passive binyanim (i.e., pu≠al and huf ≠al)
Micah, Nahum, Habbakuk, Zephaniah, vari- as a more ‘transparent’ passive than nif ≠al, e.g.,
ous Psalms; and the relevant epigraphic mate- ‫נוּלּדוּ‬
ְ nullë≈ù ‘they were born’ (1 Chron. 3.5;
rial (Hurvitz 1999; cf. Young 2003b). The 20.8) (for nif ≠al ‫נוֹלדוּ‬ ְ nòl≈ù or the obsolete qal
sporadic appearance of a characteristically late internal passive ‫ יֻ ְלּדוּ‬yullë≈ù). External influ-
feature in a Classical Biblical Hebrew work is ence on Late Biblical Hebrew resulted mainly
not sufficient to prove late provenance, since an from the dominance of Imperial Aramaic,
early writer could conceivably have employed which led to the penetration into Hebrew not
a feature atypical of his time, which would only of Aramaic linguistic features, but of
only later gain currency, e.g., ‫ ַשׁ ִלּיט‬šallì† ‘ruler’ Akkadian and Persian features via Aramaic (a
(Gen. 42.6); ‫ נְ ָכ ִסים‬nëúåsìm ‘possessions’ (Josh. few doubtful Greek loanwords have also been
22:8). Some Classical Biblical Hebrew works suggested; → Aramaic, impact on Hebrew;
also contain late glosses and/or longer interpo- Greek loanwords). Examples of characteristi-
lations, the language of which is demonstrably cally late features are seen in the following
later than that of the work as a whole (e.g., the categories:
editorial framework in certain of the prophetic Proper names: the full spellings ‫( ָדּוִ יד‬for ‫) ָדּוִ ד‬
books). For the characteristic features of Clas- D<åwì≈ ‘David’ and ‫רוּשׁ ַליִ ם‬ ָ ְ‫( י‬for ִ‫רוּשׁ ַלם‬ָ ְ‫‘ )י‬Jeru-
sical Biblical Hebrew consult the relevant lexi- salem’ (the vocalization reflects the pronun-
cons and grammars. ciation Yërùš<ålayim, but the defective spelling
Late Biblical Hebrew is best represented by almost certainly reflects something along the
texts whose content dates them unequivocally lines of Yërùš<ålèm; cf. ‫ ָשׁ ֵלם‬Š<ålèm ‘Salem’ [Gen.
to the Persian Period or beyond. Clear-cut 14.18; Ps. 76.3]); the short theophoric suffix,
cases are Esther (Driver 1898:484–485; Bergey e.g., ‫ יִ ְר ְמיָ ה‬Yirmëy<å (for ‫ יִ ְר ְמיָ הוּ‬Yirmëy<åhù)
1983), Daniel (Driver 1898:504–508), Ezra– ‘Jeremiah’; ‫שׁוּע‬ ַ ֵ‫ י‬Yèšùa≠ (for ‫הוֹשׁ ַע‬
ֻ ְ‫ י‬Yëhòšùa≠);
Nehemiah (Driver 1898:553), and Chronicles ‫ ַדּ ְר ֶמ ֶשׂק‬DarmÆ«Æq (for ‫ ַדּ ֶמּ ֶשׂק‬DammÆ«Æq)
(parallels with Samuel–Kings are particularly ‘Damascus’.

Hornkohl, A._Periodization.indd 7 11/22/2011 10:08:57 AM

 8 biblical hebrew: periodization

Morphology: increased frequency of the ‫ְק ָטל‬ Driver 1898:240; cf. Rooker 1996); Ezekiel
që†<ål nominal pattern, e.g., ‫ ְכּ ָתב‬këμ<å∫ ‘writing’; (Hurvitz 1982; Rooker 1990); Haggai (Shin
increased frequency of abstract nouns ending in 2007); Zechariah (Hill 1982; Shin 2007); Mal-
‫וּת‬- -ùμ e.g., ‫ ַמ ְלכוּת‬malúùμ (for ‫ ַמ ְמ ָל ָכה‬maml<åk<å, achi (Hill 1981; Shin 2007); and Lamentations
‫לוּכה‬ָ ‫ ְמ‬mëlùú<å, or the infinitive construct forms (Dobbs-Allsopp 1998). Transitional Biblical
-‫מ ְלכ‬/‫ֹלְך‬
ָ ‫ ְמ‬mëlòú/målú-) ‘kingdom, reign, rule’; Hebrew consists of a dominant component
the pi≠el (rather than polel) forms of ‫י‬/‫( ע"ו‬mid- of Classical Biblical Hebrew interspersed with
dle waw/yod) verbs, e.g., ‫ ִקיֵּ ם‬qiyyèm (for ‫קוֹמם‬ ֵ forerunners of the inner Hebrew developments
qòmèm or ‫ ֵה ִקים‬hèqìm) ‘establish, fulfill’. and results of foreign influence more character-
Syntax: the appositional word order ‫ְשֹׁלמֹה‬ istic of Late Biblical Hebrew. As in Late Biblical
‫ ַה ֶמּ ֶלְך‬Šëlòmò ham-mÆlÆú ‘Solomon the king’ Hebrew, Transitional Biblical Hebrew’s late
(for ‫ ַה ֶמּ ֶלְך ְשֹׁלמֹה‬ham-mÆlÆú Šëlòmò ‘king Solo- features are orthographic, morphological, syn-
mon’); the double plural construct, e.g., ‫בּוֹרי‬ ֵ ִ‫גּ‬ tactic, and lexical, though grammatical tend to
‫ ֲחיָ ִלים‬gibbòrè ḥ ≥y<ålìm (for ‫בּוֹרי ַחיִ ל‬ ֵ ִ‫ גּ‬gibbòrè outnumber lexical developments. It is also sig-
ḥ ayil) ‘mighty warriors, heroes’; increased fre- nificant that Transitional Biblical Hebrew lacks
quency of accusative -‫ ל‬l- (for ‫ ֵאת‬±èμ); increased Persian loanwords (Seow 1996:647). In many
use of the preposition ‫≠ ַﬠל‬al (for ‫ ֵאל‬±èl) in the cases Transitional Biblical Hebrew reveals the
meaning ‘to’. beginning of a trend (sometimes even a lone
Lexicon (a very partial list): ‫ ִאגֶּ ֶרת‬±iggÆrÆμ example) later to become more prevalent in
and ‫ נִ ְשׁ ְתּוָ ן‬ništëw<ån (for ‫ ֵס ֶפר‬sèƒÆr) ‘letter’; Late Biblical Hebrew; occasionally, however,
the Babylonian month names (for the earlier further usage is not attested until post-biblical
Canaanite names or ordinal numbers); ‫ ָדּת‬d<åμ Hebrew, e.g., ‫< אנו‬ånù [?] (for ‫≥ ֲאנַ ְחנוּ‬naḥ nù) ‘we’
or ‫ ַמ ֲא ָמר‬mạ±≥m<år (for [‫ ְדּ ַבר ] ַה ֶמּ ֶלְך‬dë∫ar [ham- (Jer. 42.6) (ktiv); ‫וּמפֹּה‬ ִ . . . ‫ ִמפֹּה‬mip-pò . . . ù-mip-
mÆlÆú]) ‘command, (royal) decree’; ‫ בּוּץ‬bùß pò (for ‫וּמזֶּ ה‬ִ . . . ‫ ִמזֶּ ה‬miz-zÆ . . . ù-miz-zÆ) ‘on this
(for ‫ ֵשׁשׁ‬šèš) ‘(fine) linen’; ‫ זְ ַמן‬zëman (for ‫מוֹﬠד‬ ֵ side . . . and on that side’ (Ezek. 40.10), etc.
mò≠è≈ or ‫≠ ֵﬠת‬èμ) ‘(appointed) time’; ‫ זַ ן‬zan (for Transitional Biblical Hebrew texts occasionally
‫ ִמין‬mìn) ‘kind, type’; ‫ ִח ָפּה‬ḥ ipp<å (for ‫ ִצפּה‬ßipp<å) also contain sub-standard, colloquial elements
‘overlay’; ‫ ְכּ ֶא ָחד‬kë-̣±Æḥ <å≈ (for ‫ יַ ַחד‬yaḥ a≈, ‫יַ ְח ָדּו‬ that were never to take hold in later strata of
yaḥ d<åw, or ‫ ְכּ ִאישׁ ֶא ָחד‬kë-̣±ìš ̣±Æḥ <å≈) ‘together’; the language.
‫ כנ"ס‬k-n-s (for ‫ אס"ף‬±-s-p, ‫ קב"ץ‬q-b-ß, or ‫קה"ל‬ Finally, there are works which are difficult
q-h-l) ‘gather’; ‫≠ עמ"ד‬-m-d (for ‫ קו"ם‬q-w-m) to date linguistically: Jonah (Driver 1898:322;
‘stand up’; ‫ ַפּ ְר ֵדּס‬pardès (for ‫ גַּ ן‬gan) ‘park, Brenner 1979; Qimron 1980; Landes 1982;
orchard, garden’; ‫ ָצ ִפיר‬ß<åƒìr (for ‫<« ָשׂ ִﬠיר‬å≠ìr) ‘he- 1999; Dan 1996); many of the Psalms; Prov-
goat’; ‫ שב"ח‬š-b-ḥ (for ‫ הל"ל‬h-l-l) ‘praise’; ‫של"ט‬ erbs (Yoder 2000); the poetic sections of Job
š-l-† (for ‫ מש"ל‬m-š-l, etc.) ‘rule’; ‫ תק"ף‬t-q-p (Hurvitz 2003:33); Song of Songs (Driver
(for ‫ חז"ק‬ḥ -z-q, etc.) ‘be strong’ (many of these 1898:448–450; Dobbs-Allsopp 2005); and
forms are included in the list of the Late Biblical Ruth (though 4.7 is clearly late; see Driver
Hebrew Lexicon Project, under the direction of 1898:454–456; Hurvitz 1975).
Prof. Avi Hurvitz of the Hebrew University of
Jerusalem, the results of which have yet to be References
published). Of special significance are Persian Archer, Gleason. 1969. “The linguistic evidence for
the date of ‘Ecclesiastes’ ”. Journal of the Evangeli-
loanwords (e.g., ‫ ָדּת‬d<åμ, ‫ זַ ן‬zan, ‫ נִ ְשׁ ְתּוָ ן‬ništëw<ån,
cal Theological Society 12:167–181.
‫ ַפּ ְר ֵדּס‬pardès), which entered Hebrew around Bauer, Hans and Pontus Leander. 1922. Historische
the time of the Persian conquest or afterwards Grammatik der hebräischen Sprache des Alten
(see Hurvitz 1974:17; Seow 1996:647; Eskhult Testamentes. Tübingen: Halle.
Baumgartner, Walter. 1959. Zum Alten Testament
2003; cf. Young 1993:69–71). und seiner Umwelt. Leiden: Brill.
Transitional Biblical Hebrew characterizes Bendavid, Abba. 1967–1971. Biblical Hebrew and
compositions that date to a period extend- Mishnaic Hebrew (in Hebrew). 2 vols. Tel-Aviv:
ing from the close of the First Temple period, Dvir.
Bergey, Ronald L. 1983. “The book of Esther—Its
through the Exile, until the period of the place in the linguistic milieu of post-exilic Biblical
Restoration, such as the latter part of the Hebrew prose: A study in Late Biblical Hebrew”.
book of Kings; Jeremiah (Smith 2003); Sec- PhD diss., Dropsie College for Hebrew and Cog-
ond Isaiah (Isa. 40–66; Cheyne 1895:255–270; nate Learning.

Hornkohl, A._Periodization.indd 8 11/22/2011 10:08:57 AM

 biblical hebrew: periodization 9
Bergsträsser, Gotthelf. 1918–1929. Hebräische Hill, Andrew. 1981. “The book of Malachi: Its place
Grammatik. 2 vols. Leipzig: Vogel. Reprinted in in post-exilic chronology linguistically reconsid-
one volume Hildesheim: Olms, 1962. ered”. PhD diss., University of Michigan.
Blenkinsopp, Joseph. 1996. “An assessment of the ——. 1982. “Dating Second Zechariah: A linguistic
alleged pre-exilic date of the priestly material in reexamination”. Hebrew Annual Review 6:105–
the Pentateuch”. Zeitschrift für die alttestamentli- 134.
che Wissenschaft 108:495–518. Hurvitz, Avi. 1965. “Observations on the language
Brenner, Athalya. 1979. “The language of the book of the third apocryphal psalm from Qumran”.
of Jonah as a means of establishing the date of its Revue de Qumran 5:225–32.
composition” (in Hebrew). Bet Miqra 79:396– ——. 1967. “The language and date of Psalm 151
405. from Qumran” (in Hebrew). Eretz Israel 8:82–
Brown, Francis, Samuel R. Driver, and Charles A. 87.
Briggs. 1906. A Hebrew and English lexicon of the ——. 1968. “The chronological significance of ara-
Old Testament. Oxford: Clarendon. maisms in Biblical Hebrew”. Israel Exploration
Burney, C. F. 1903. Notes on the Hebrew text of the Journal 18:234–240.
books of Kings. Oxford: Clarendon. ——. 1969. review of Wagner 1966. Israel Explora-
——. 1918. The book of Judges. London: Rivingtons. tion Journal 19:182–183.
Cassuto, Umberto. 1971. The goddess Anath: ——. 1972. The transition period in Biblical Hebrew:
Canaanite epics of the patriarchal age, trans. by A study of post-exilic Hebrew and its implications
Israel Abrahams. Jerusalem: Magnes. for the dating of Psalms (in Hebrew). Jerusalem:
Cheyne, Thomas K. 1895. Introduction to the book Mossad Harav Kook/Bialik Institute.
of Isaiah. London: Black. ——. 1974. “The date of the prose-tale of Job
Dan, Barak. 1996. “Lešon sefer Yona be-sifrut linguistically reconsidered”. Harvard Theological
ha-meḥ qar: ≠Iyun ve-ha≠araxa nosafim” (in Review 67:17–34.
Hebrew). Bet Miqra 41:344–368. ——. 1975. “On the term ‫[ ָשׁ ַלף נַ ַﬠל‬š<ålaƒ na≠al]
Davies, Philip R. 2003. “Biblical Hebrew and the his- in Ruth 4:7” (in Hebrew). Shnaton—An Annual
tory of ancient Judah: Typology, chronology and for Biblical and Ancient Near Eastern Studies
common sense”. Young 2003a, 150–163. 1:45–49.
Delitzsch, Franz. 1877. Commentary on the Song of ——. 1982. A linguistic study of the relationship
Songs and Ecclesiastes, trans. by M. C. Easton. between the Priestly Source and the book of Eze-
Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark. kiel: A new approach to an old problem (Cahiers
Driver, Samuel Rolles. 1882. “On some alleged lin- de la Revue Biblique 20). Paris: Gabalda.
guistic affinities of the Elohist”. Journal of Philol- ——. 1985. “Originals and imitations in biblical
ogy 11:201–36. poetry: A comparative examination of 1 Sam
——. 1898. An introduction to the literature of 2:1–10 and Ps 113:5–9”. Biblical and related stud-
the Old Testament, 7th ed. Edinburgh: T. & T. ies presented to Samuel Iwry, ed. by Ann Kort
Clark. and Scott Morschauser. Winona Lake, Indiana:
Dobbs-Allsopp, F. W. 1998. “Linguistic evidence for Eisenbrauns, 115–121.
the date of Lamentations”. Journal of the Ancient ——. 1988. “Dating the Priestly Source in light of the
Near Eastern Society 26:1–36. historical study of Biblical Hebrew: A century after
——. 2005. “Late linguistic features in the Song of Wellhausen”. Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche
Songs”. Perspectives on the Song of Songs, ed. by Wissenschaft 100 Supplement, 88–100.
Anselm C. Hagedorn, 27–77. Berlin: de Gruyter. ——. 1990. Review of Fredericks 1988. Hebrew
Ehrensvärd, Martin. 2003. “Linguistic dating of bib- Studies 31:144–154.
lical texts”. Young 2003a, 164–188. ——. 1998. “Can biblical texts be dated linguisti-
Eskhult, Mats. 2003. “The importance of loanwords cally? Chronological perspectives in the historical
for dating Biblical Hebrew texts”. Young 2003a, study of Biblical Hebrew”. Vetus Testamentum
8–23. Supplements 80 (Congress Volume Oslo 1998),
Ewald, Heinrich. 1844. Ausführliches Lehrbuch der ed. by A. Lemaire and M. Saebo, pp. 143–160.
hebräischen Sprache des Alten Bundes, 5th ed. Leiden: Brill, 2000.
Leipzig: Hahn. ——. 1999. “The relevance of Biblical Hebrew lin-
Fredericks, Daniel C. 1988. Qoheleth’s language: guistics for the historical study of ancient Israel”.
Re-evaluating its nature and date. Lewiston, New Proceedings of the Twelfth World Congress of
York: Mellen. Jewish Studies—Division A: The Bible and Its
Gesenius, Wilhelm. 1815. Geschichte der hebräis- World, 21*–33*.
chen Sprache und Schrift. Vogel; repr. Hildesheim: ——. 2000. “Once again: The linguistic profile of
Olms, 1973. the priestly material in the Pentateuch and its
Giesebrecht, Friedrich. 1881. “Zur Hexateuchkritik: historical age: A response to J. Blenkinsopp.”
Der Sprachgebrauch des hexateuchischen Elohis- Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft
ten”. Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissen- 112:180–191.
schaft 1:177–276. ——. 2003. “Hebrew and Aramaic in the Biblical
Grotius, Hugo. 1644. Annotationes in Vetus Tes- Period”. Young 2003a, 24–27.
tamentum, ed. by G. Vogel. Halle: Curt, 1875– ——. 2007. “The language of Qoheleth and its
1876. historical setting within Biblical Hebrew”. The
Hadas-Lebel, Mireille. 1995. Histoire de la langue language of Qoheleth in its context: Essays in
hébraïque: Des origins à l’époque de la mishna. honour of Prof. A. Schoors on the occasion of his
Paris / Leuven: Peeters.

Hornkohl, A._Periodization.indd 9 11/22/2011 10:08:58 AM

 10 biblical hebrew: periodization
seventieth birthday, ed. by A. Berlejung and P. Van ——. 2002a. “Some false leads in the identification
Hecke, 23–34. Leuven: Peeters. of Late Biblical Hebrew texts: The cases of Genesis
Joüon, Paul. 1923. Grammaire de l’hebreu biblique. 24 and 1 Samuel 2:27–36”. Journal of Biblical
Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute. Literature 121:23–46.
Joüon, Paul and Takamitsu Muraoka. 2006. A gram- ——. 2002b. Israelian Hebrew in the book of Kings.
mar of Biblical Hebrew. Rome: Pontifical Biblical Bethesda, Maryland: CDL Press.
Institute Press. Rezetko, Robert. 2003. “Dating Biblical Hebrew:
Kaufman, Steven A. 1988. “The classification of the Evidence from Samuel–Kings and Chronicles”.
North West Semitic dialects of the biblical period Young 2003a, 215–250.
and some implications thereof”. Proceedings of ——. 2007. “ ‘Late’ common nouns in the book of
the Ninth World Congress of Jewish Studies— Chronicles”. Reflection and refraction: Studies in
Panel Sessions: Hebrew and Aramaic, 41–57. biblical historiography in honour of A. Graeme
Kautzsch, Emil. 1902. Die Aramaismen im Alten Auld, ed. by Robert Rezetko, Timothy H. Lim,
Testament. Halle: Niemeyer. and W. Brian Aucker, 379–417. Leiden: Brill.
Kropat, Arno. 1909. Die Syntax des Autors der Robertson, David A. 1972. Linguistic evidence in
Chronik. Giessen: Töpelmann. dating early Hebrew poetry. Missoula, Montana:
Kutscher, Eduard Y. 1959. The language and lin- Scholars Press.
guistic background of the Isaiah Scroll (1QIsa) (in Rooker, Mark F. 1988. “The diachronic study of
Hebrew). Jerusalem: Magnes. Biblical Hebrew”. Journal of Northwest Semitic
——. 1974. The language and linguistic background Languages 14:199–214.
of the Isaiah Scroll (1QIsa). Leiden: Brill. ——. 1990. Biblical Hebrew in transition: The lan-
——. 1982. A history of the Hebrew language, ed. by guage of the book of Ezekiel. Sheffield: JSOT
Rafael Kutscher. Jerusalem: Magnes. Press.
Landes, George M. 1982. “Linguistic criteria and ——. 1996. “Dating Isaiah 40–66: What does the
the date of the book of Jonah”. Eretz Israel linguistic evidence say?”. Westminster Theological
16:147*–170*. Journal 58:303–312.
——. 1990. “A case for the sixth-century BCE dat- Schniedewind, William M. and Daniel Sivan. 1997.
ing for the book of Jonah”. Realia Dei: Essays in “The Elijah–Elisha narratives: A test case for the
archaeology and biblical interpretation in honor of northern dialect of Hebrew”. Jewish Quarterly
Edward F. Campbell, Jr. at his retirement, ed. by Review 37:303–37.
Prescott H. Williams, Jr. and Theodore Hiebert, Schoors, Antoon. 1992–2004. The preacher sought
100–116. to find pleasing words: A study of the language of
Levine, Baruch A. “Late language in the Priestly Qoheleth. 2 vols. Leuven: Peeters.
Source: Some literary and historical observations”. Segal, Moshe H. 1927. A grammar of Mishnaic
Proceedings of the Eighth World Congress of Jew- Hebrew. Oxford: Clarendon.
ish Studies—Panel Sessions: Hebrew and Aramaic, Seow, Choon L. 1996. “Linguistic evidence and the
69–82. dating of Qohelet.” Journal of Biblical Literature
MacDonald, John A. 1975. “Some distinctive char- 115: 643–66.
acteristics of Israelite spoken Hebrew”. Biblio- Shin, Seoungyun. 2007. “A lexical study on the lan-
theca Orientalis 32:162–175. guage of Haggai–Zechariah–Malachi and its place
Nöldeke, Theodor. 1903. Review of Kautzsch 1902. in the history of Biblical Hebrew”. PhD disserta-
Zeitschrift der Deutschen Morgenländischen Gesell- tion, The Hebrew University of Jerusalem.
schaft 57:412–20. Smith, Colin J. 2003. “‘With an iron pen and a dia-
Polzin, Robert. “Notes on the dating of the non- mond tip’: Linguistic peculiarities of the book of
massoretic Psalms of 11QPsa”. Harvard Theologi- Jeremiah”. PhD dissertation, Cornell University.
cal Review 60:468–76. Tur-Sinai, Naphtali H. 1965. “Hašpa≠at ha-̣±aramit
——. 1976. Late Biblical Hebrew: Toward an histor- ≠al ha-≠ivrit šel ha-miqra” (in Hebrew). Encyclope-
ical typology of Biblical Hebrew prose. Missoula, dia biblica (±Enßiqlopedya mikrạ±it) 1:593–595.
Montana: Scholars Press. Wagner, Max. 1966. Die lexikalischen und gram-
Qimron, Elisha. 1980. “The language of the book of matikalischen Aramaismen im alttestamentllichen
Jonah as an indicator for fixing the time of its com- Hebräisch. Berlin: Töppelmann.
position” (in Hebrew). Bet Miqra 81:180–183. Wellhausen, Julius. 1885. Prolegomena to the His-
——. 1986. The Hebrew of the Dead Sea Scrolls. tory of Ancient Israel. Edinburgh: A. & C. Black.
Atlanta, Georgia: Scholars Press. Wright, Richard. 2003. “Further evidence for the
Rabin, Chaim. 1967. “An Arabic phrase in Isaiah”. north Israelite contributions to Late Biblical
Studi sull’Oriente e la Bibbia, 303–309. Genoa: Hebrew”. Young 2003a, 129–148.
Studio e Vita. ——. 2005. Linguistic evidence for the pre-exilic date
Rendsburg, Gary A. 1980. “Late Biblical Hebrew of the Yahwistic Source. London: T. & T. Clark
and the date of ‘P’ ”. Journal of the Ancient Near International.
Eastern Society 12:65–80. Yoder, Christine R. 2001. Wisdom as a woman of
——. 1990. Diglossia in ancient Hebrew. New substance: A socioeconomic reading of Proverbs
Haven: Yale University Press. 1–9 and 31:10–31. Berlin: de Gruyter.
——. 1995. “Linguistic variation and the ‘foreign’ Young, Ian. 1993. Diversity in pre-exilic Hebrew.
factor in the Hebrew Bible”. Israel Oriental Soci- Tübingen: Mohr (Paul Siebeck).
ety 15:177–90.

Hornkohl, A._Periodization.indd 10 11/22/2011 10:08:58 AM

 biblical hebrew: periodization 11
——. 1995. “The ‘northernisms’ of the Israelite
narratives in Kings”. Zeitschrift für Althebraistik
8:63–70.
——. (ed.) 2003a. Biblical Hebrew: Studies in
typology and chronology. London / New York:
T. & T. Clark.
——. 2003b. “Late Biblical Hebrew and Hebrew
inscriptions”. Young 2003a, 276–311.
——. 2003c. “Biblical texts cannot be dated linguisti-
cally”. Young 2003a, 341–351.
——. 2009. “Is the prose tale of Job in Late Biblical
Hebrew?”. Vetus Testamentum 59:606–629.
Young, Ian, Robert Rezetko and Martin Ehrensvärd.
2008. Linguistic dating of biblical texts. 2 vols.
London: Equinox.

Aaron Hornkohl
(The Hebrew University of Jerusalem)

Hornkohl, A._Periodization.indd 11 11/22/2011 10:08:58 AM