Ancient Hebrew Periodization and the Language of the Book of Jeremiah

Hornkohl, Aaron D.

doi:10.1163/9789004269651

Cited by 34 publications

(6 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The traditional method for distinguishing linguistic layers of Hebrew involves four criteria: (a) distribution, (b) extra-biblical attestation, (c) opposition, and (d) accumulation. These criteria were established in Avi Hurvitz's early studies on the history of Hebrew, largely to investigate Late Biblical Hebrew (LBH), and they have been applied by a variety of scholars over several decades (e.g., Hornkohl, 2014;Hurvitz, 1972;Polzin, 1976;Rooker, 1990). The method has largely isolated lexical items, and only to a lesser extent syntax.…”

Section: Methodological Debate and Reflectionsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…To be sure, scholars recognize considerable overlap in the Hebrew of different periods, and some scholars even argue that the overlap becomes so great that the categories themselves begin to collapse (e.g., Rezetko & Young, 2014). Other scholars argue that sophisticated linguistic analyses can even detect transitional phases in the history of Hebrew like the Hebrew of Babylonian exile (sixth century BCE), which has been termed Transitional Hebrew (e.g., Hornkohl, 2014). Although these examples of old poetry suffer through scribal transmission and also undergo linguistic updating (see Hurvitz, 1985), aspects of the older linguistic layer do get preserved.…”

Section: Standard Historical Divisionsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…40-66). A few scholars have teased out some of the features of this language (e.g., Hornkohl, 2014;Rooker;Paul, 2012), but Transitional Hebrew represents language variability-that is, a language in transitionthat is difficult to isolate linguistically (see Schmid, 2018). Indeed, it represents language after standardizing forcesinstitutions like the palace, the temple, and their economies-are no longing flourishing (Schniedewind, 2006).…”

Section: Standard Historical Divisionsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

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

Schniedewind

2019

Religion Compass

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

A lively debate has engulfed the study of the early history of the Hebrew language in the past two decades. Traditionally, scholars classified the language of the Hebrew Bible into three categories: Archaic, Standard, and Late Biblical Hebrew. But recent trends in biblical criticism have tended to date biblical literature much later, and some scholars date almost all of biblical literature to the Persian and Hellenistic periods. This trend undoes traditional linguistic categories for biblical Hebrew and questions the validity of the linguistic dating of biblical literature. In spite of the challenges, a modified and more complex model for the history of Classical Hebrew remains the working consensus model. A lively debate has engulfed the study of the early history of the Hebrew language in the past two decades, especially advanced by the work of Ian Young and Robert Rezetko (e.g., Young & Rezetko, ). Conferences have been organized to address this issue (e.g., Miller‐Naudé & Zevit, ). Young and Rezetko have continued to advocate for their approach in spite of critical reviews (e.g., Joosten, ). Traditionally, scholars have classified the language of the Hebrew Bible into three categories: Archaic Biblical Hebrew (that is, early biblical poems), Standard Biblical Hebrew (the major part of biblical literature), and Late Biblical Hebrew (comprising compositions from the Persian and Hellenistic periods). But trends in biblical criticism over the past several decades have tended to date biblical literature later and later. Now, one can find some prominent scholars who date almost all of biblical literature—and particularly Pentateuchal literature (Sommer, )—to the Persian and Hellenistic periods. This trend raises serious questions about the validity of the traditional linguistic dating of biblical literature. Although some have ignored this linguistic problem, others have offered a variety of rationales justifying the dismissal of linguistic dating. These divergent trends have resulted in continuing debate regarding the historical linguistics of Biblical Hebrew that is addressed in Ronald Hendel and Jan Joosten's recent book, How Old is the Hebrew Bible? (2018).

show abstract

Section: Methodological Debate and Reflectionsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Standard Historical Divisionsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Standard Historical Divisionsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

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

Schniedewind

2019

Religion Compass

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…249 Third, Hornkohl undertakes to illustrate his criticisms with concrete examples, but in many cases he appears to hold us to a stricter standard than others. For example, he comments that "it is not the mere presence of the feature that indicates late linguistic tendencies-as these are in fact documented in texts thought to be classical-but their increased or frequent use," 250 and one of the illustrations he cites is ‫רצה‬ ("to want"), but it is arguable that if the occurrence in (our) Arad 40:6-7 251 is to be excluded, then the instance of the semantically similar ‫צֹון‬ ָ ‫ר‬ ("want") in (Hurvitz's) Ps 145:19 252 should be excluded too. Fourth, such details could be debated, but it is not debatable whether Hornkohl and Forbes use our tables of linguistic features 253 in a different way than we expressly intended them -they do.…”

Section: Accumulation Of "Late" Languagementioning

confidence: 99%

“…One, two, five, ten, twenty? Hornkohl commends us for "[t]he aim of establishing objectively quantifiable accumulation benchmarks," 269 for having "pressed for greater quantitative precision (e.g., how should one define 'accumulation'? )," 270 for [t]he call for more objective quantification...and the attempt to develop and apply just such a methodology," 271 and he acknowledges that "we are still in need of a nuanced and finely-tuned method for quantifying accumulation."…”

Section: Accumulation Of "Late" Languagementioning

confidence: 99%

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

Rezetko,

Young

2019

hiphil

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

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

show abstract

Incidental Loaning and the Babylonian Context of Second Isaiah

Boyd

Stackert

2021

Vetus Testam.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The social location of Second Isaiah has been an issue of renewed scholarly debate in the past decade. In this debate, H. G. M. Williamson has called attention to the role of terminology in identifying the probable geographical provenance of this portion of Isaiah. In this article, we examine an instance of language contact in Isa 47:2 and argue that the hapax legomenon שׁבל is a loan from the Akkadian root špl, perhaps the specific lexeme šaplû or šapiltu, referring to the “lower part (of the body).” In doing so, we propose that this term is an incidental loan, namely, a borrowing that evinces general contact with the author’s Babylonian surroundings but exhibits no polemic against the empire. That this borrowing was not ideologically motivated is significant, we suggest, for it increases the likelihood that the loan occurred in a Babylonian locale. The argument for Babylonian provenance is buttressed further by parallels observed in Ezek 16, another prophetic text that apparently originated in Babylon and that contains phrasing, literary conventions, and evidence of language contact similar to that in Isa 47. These features, we suggest, are part of an evolving rhetoric within an identifiable segment of exilic and post-exilic biblical prophecy.

show abstract

Ancient Hebrew Periodization and the Language of the Book of Jeremiah

Cited by 34 publications

References 0 publications

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

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

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

Incidental Loaning and the Babylonian Context of Second Isaiah

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About