Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Proofs Biblical Hebrew Periodization en
Proofs Biblical Hebrew Periodization en
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.,
ָ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’
(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
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
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
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.
Aaron Hornkohl
(The Hebrew University of Jerusalem)