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

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 d...

Description complète

Enregistré dans:  
Détails bibliographiques
Publié dans:Religion compass
Auteur principal: Schniedewind, William M. 1962- (Auteur)
Type de support: Électronique Article
Langue:Anglais
Vérifier la disponibilité: HBZ Gateway
Journals Online & Print:
En cours de chargement...
Fernleihe:Fernleihe für die Fachinformationsdienste
Publié: Wiley-Blackwell [2019]
Dans: Religion compass
Année: 2019, Volume: 13, Numéro: 4, Pages: 1-12
Sujets / Chaînes de mots-clés standardisés:B Hébreu / Langage / Écriture / Histoire
Classifications IxTheo:AA Sciences des religions
BH Judaïsme
Accès en ligne: Volltext (Resolving-System)
Volltext (doi)
Description
Résumé: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).
ISSN:1749-8171
Contient:Enthalten in: Religion compass
Persistent identifiers:DOI: 10.1111/rec3.12299