Search

Both the Tiberian and Samaritan biblical traditions are composite in nature. In the Tiberian tradition this manifests most clearly in the phenomenon of ketiv-qere. Against the backdrop of the normally harmonious relationship between the written (i.e., consonantal, orthographic) and pronunciation (i.e., vocalisation, recitation) components of the Tiberian biblical tradition, ketiv-qere instances are a clear indication of divergence between what is written and what is read—divergence which, it should be emphasised, exceeds acknowledged cases of ketiv-qere. A similar relationship obtains between the Samaritan written tradition and its oral recitation, with the latter regularly deviating from what was evidently intended by the former. Both the Tiberian and Samaritan reading traditions are commonly characterised as later than their respective written traditions. The present study examines a series of ketiv-qere cases in the Pentateuch, seeking to explain the various forms reflected by the Tiberian and Samaritan written and reading traditions and to assess the relative antiquity of each.

The most authentic portrait of Second Temple Hebrew is afforded by the Dead Sea Scrolls, especially by those texts actually composed in Hellenistic and Roman times. On salient linguistic points Dead Sea Scrolls Hebrew agrees with the vocalization of the Tiberian reading tradition against the testimony of the written, i.e., consonantal, tradition of Masoretic Classical Biblical Hebrew material. This article presents a case study. On the one hand, these Dead Sea-Tiberian vocalization affinities are evidence of the relatively late character of their respective linguistic traditions and of the secondary character of the developments in the Tiberian reading tradition vis-à-vis the classical biblical written tradition. On the other hand, these same affinities demonstrate that the Tiberian pronunciation tradition is plausibly regarded as one that crystallized in the Second Temple Period, rather than in Byzantine or medieval times. Lastly, since joint Dead Sea-Tiberian reading departures from the classical biblical consonantal tradition constitute a tiny minority of their relevant linguistic data, most of which are characterized by historical continuity and/or linguistic heterogeneity of comparable historical depth, it is clear that the Second Temple crystallization of Dead Sea Scrolls Hebrew and the Tiberian reading tradition in no way preclude their routine preservation of authentic Iron Age features.

This chapter is a linguistic examination of the book of Jeremiah which contributes to understanding both the development of ancient Hebrew and the place of the book in that history. Since the inception of critical study of the Hebrew Bible, scholars have engaged in the linguistic periodization of its constituent texts. According to the regnant paradigm, Biblical Hebrew divides into pre-exilic Classical Biblical Hebrew (CBH) and post-exilic Late Biblical Hebrew (LBH). Scholars employ control samples and rigorous methods to identify linguistic features characteristic of particular chronolects and to periodize texts based on concentrations of characteristic features, all the while taking into account the “noise” caused by other sources of linguistic diversity, textual fluidity, and literary development. The present chapter focuses on linguistic diachrony and the book of Jeremiah. It examines where the book fits into the history of ancient Hebrew—arguing that it represents a transitional Hebrew between CBH and LBH; how diachronic sensitivity supports or contradicts theories concerning the book’s formation and development (including the theory of short and long versions and other notions of a composite text); and how the awareness of chronolects can contribute to the exegesis of interpretive cruxes.

Aaron Hornkohl examines two features in the Tiberian reading tradition of Biblical Hebrew, namely the qal construct infinitive and the 3ms possessive suffix that is attached to plural nouns and some prepositions. The article argues that although the vocalisation in both cases is secondary relative to what is represented by the consonantal text, it is not artificial and post-biblical, but rather a relatively ancient product of the real language situation of an earlier period, namely, the Second Temple Period, if not earlier. The view that the vocalisation has such historical depth and is the result of natural linguistic development is often dismissed by biblical scholars. By examining the distribution of forms within the Tiberian Masoretic version of the Hebrew Bible and in extra-biblical sources, especially the Dead Sea Scrolls and First Temple period epigraphy, Hornkohl convincingly demonstrates that the incongruity between the vocalisation and the consonantal text is earlier than Rabbinic Hebrew (second–third centuries CE).

The Masoretic version of the book of Samuel is notoriously difficult from a text-critical perspective. Scholars have long suspected that this situation reflects a particularly corrupt scribal tradition. Comparison with ancient textual witnesses, especially the Greek and the relevant Hebrew manuscripts among the Dead Sea Scrolls (particularly 4Q51), has generally served to reinforce this view. Several global explanations for differences between the various textual witnesses to Samuel have been proposed. These general approaches, highlighting either accidental or tendentious changes, can illuminate the development of difficult passages. However, many problem passages are given to more than one possible solution. For this reason and others, difficult sections in the text must be dealt with individually, on a case-by-case basis. The present article offers a detailed treatment of attempts to uncover the primary reading of an oft-discussed crux in 1 Sam 1:23, ultimately explaining and arguing for the superiority of the Masoretic testimony while accounting for the interpretive and ideological factors that may have led to the alternative renditions.

The article summarizes and critiques the two dominant approaches to the exegetical crux of Judges 7:5b-7, namely the harmonizing approach and the text-critical approach, arguing that neither satisfactorily resolves the issues. It then reproposes an all but totally ignored reading known among the medieval rabbis, further supporting it with the recognition of a known syntactical feature of Hebrew grammar. The reading proposed in the article is superior to the dominant approaches because it avoids forced harmonization, on the one hand, and unwarranted textual emendation, on the other.

This chapter situates the language of the book of Jeremiah within the broader history of the Hebrew language. For the most part, the language of the book of Jeremiah exhibits a classical aspect. The book's language does, present a considerable number of cases of late Aramaic influence together with features especially characteristic of the latest phases of ancient Hebrew, such as Late Biblical Hebrew (LBH), Dead Sea Scrolls (DSS) Hebrew, and Rabbinic Hebrew (RH). The majority of Jeremiah's linguistic elements, especially characteristic of post-exilic Hebrew, are found both in the LBH corpus proper and in non- Masoretic and post-biblical sources. The language of Jeremiah is characterized by a number of traits that indicate its status as a transitional phase between Classical Biblical Hebrew (CBH) and LBH. According to the results of this study, Jeremiah contains no non-standard linguistic element that can be securely classified as dialectal.Keywords: Book of Jeremiah; classical Biblical Hebrew (CBH); Dead Sea Scrolls (DSS) Hebrew; late Biblical Hebrew (LBH); Rabbinic Hebrew (RH)

This index presents a list of transliterated words and phrases that occur in the book Ancient Hebrew Periodization and the Language of the Book of Jeremiah. The words and phrases are arranged according to Latin alphabetical order. In the book, Aaron Hornkohl defends the diachronic approach to Biblical Hebrew and the linguistic dating of biblical texts. Applying the standard methodologies to the Masoretic version of the biblical book of Jeremiah, he seeks to date the work on the basis of its linguistic profile, determining that, though composite, Jeremiah is likely a product of the transitional time between the First and Second Temple Periods. Hornkohl also contributes to unraveling Jeremiah's complicated literary development, arguing on the basis of language that its 'short edition', as reflected in the book's Old Greek translation, predates that 'supplementary material' preserved in the Masoretic edition but unparalleled in the Greek.Keywords: Book of Jeremiah; Greek; Hebrew; Masoretic edition

The marked disparity between the Masoretic and Old Greek versions of the book of Jeremiah has long interested scholars. The two versions differ in terms of both the order and amount of material they present, the Hebrew version being significantly longer than the Greek. This work is the product of a more comprehensive investigation of the language of Jeremiah, principally from a diachronic perspective. In the course of the research for this monograph an effort has been made to compare the language of the short edition to that of the supplementary material and to discern any special correlation between the linguistic profile of the supplementary layer and the Hebrew characteristic of indisputably late material from the Bible and extra-biblical sources. In light of the linguistic disparity between the short edition of Jeremiah and the supplementary material, the latter's independent, secondary, and relatively late character can be discerned.Keywords: Bible; book of Jeremiah; linguistic disparity; Old Greek versions

The relevance of spelling for the dating of biblical texts is a much-debated issue. It is widely agreed that ancient Hebrew orthography became more plene with time, so that later texts may be expected to exhibit more extensive usage of matres lectionis, especially in the marking of medial vowels, than earlier texts. Jeremiah exhibits a few non-standard spellings of the o vowel, though in most of these cases no discernible diachronic pattern emerges. The pre- and post-exilic extra-biblical sources present a very clear picture of the classical use of the theophoric ending יהו- and of its post-classical replacement with יה-. The Neo-Babylonian king Nebuchadnezzar is known from both biblical and extra-biblical sources. It is true that some Masoretic, non-Masoretic, and extra-biblical forms may be explained merely as phonetic spellings, which have no real significance regarding morphological derivation.Keywords: ancient Hebrew orthography; biblical texts; Jeremiah; Masoretic biblical forms; Nebuchadnezzar

Of the two forms of the 1CS independent subject pronoun in Biblical Hebrew (BH), אנכי and אני both 'I', the latter, shorter form is the more common, with 874 occurrences, compared to 359 of its longer counterpart. Ancient cognate languages use either only a cognate of אני, only a cognate of אנכי or cognates of both. In Jeremiah cases of אנכי outnumber those of אני by a ratio of 54:37, each form coming in a variety of genres throughout the book's various apparent component parts. In early Hebrew epigraphic sources there is a single relevant case, הית in the Siloam Tunnel inscription. The Greek presents an independent pronoun parallel to אנו/אנחנו in Jer 42.6, but it is obviously impossible to determine which form the translator(s) had before him. In BH the dominant forms of the proximal singular demonstrative pronouns are ms זה and fs זאת.Keywords: Biblical Hebrew (BH); Jeremiah; Siloam Tunnel inscription

Among the many substantives in Hebrew with the qaṭol pattern, one group that stands out semantically, morphologically, and phonologically is the nominal template qaṭol for marking the nomen agentis. Morphologically, the plural forms of nouns in this pattern take ות- rather than ם ◌-, even in the masculine. The nominal pattern in question is evidently rare in the Dead Sea Scrolls (DSS), but fairly common in Rabbinic Hebrew (RH), where its increased employment is often chalked up to the influence of Aramaic, in some dialects of which the cognate nominal template is a standard means of denoting the nomen agentis. Jeremiah contains a total of six nomen agentis qaṭol forms accounting for eight occurrences between them. The biblical distribution of the qeṭal nominal pattern points unambiguously to its status as a linguistic feature especially characteristic of the Second Temple Period.Keywords: Aramaic; Hebrew; Jeremiah; nomen agentis; qaṭol pattern; qeṭal pattern; Second Temple Period

There is widespread agreement among scholars that the various Biblical Hebrew (BH) yiqṭol patterns, despite identical forms in the case of many verbs, developed from more than one Proto-Semitic template. Conversely, the yiqṭol form that appears in the wayyiqṭol and the jussive apparently developed from consonant-final yaqṭul. Ostensibly deriving from Proto-Semitic yaqṭul, it serves almost exclusively in 1st person forms, especially for marking volition, as well as in wayyiqṭol forms. There are no 1st person wayyiqṭol forms in the admittedly limited corpus of First Temple Hebrew inscriptional evidence. The late non-Masoretic Hebrew and extra-biblical material also furnishes corroborative testimony for the characteristically late distribution of the lengthened 1st person wayyiqṭol seen in the Masoretic Text (MT). At the risk of oversimplifying scholarly treatment of the issue, there are three principal approaches to the use of the full pattern in the 2ms, 3ms, and 3fs yyiqṭol.Keywords: Biblical Hebrew (BH); Masoretic Text (MT); Proto-Semitic template; wayyiqṭol; yaqṭul; yiqṭol