The Recent Debate on Late Biblical Hebrew: Solid Data, Experts' Opinions, and Inconclusive Arguments
It is widely recognized that the sixth century B.C.E. marks a significant turning point in the history of Biblical Hebrew. The books written after this point reveal new linguistic features whose appearance reflects far-reaching modifications in the structure of the language. These neologisms, attest...
| Main Author: | |
|---|---|
| Format: | Electronic Article |
| Language: | English |
| Check availability: | HBZ Gateway |
| Journals Online & Print: | Drawer...
|
| Fernleihe: | Fernleihe für die Fachinformationsdienste |
| Published: |
2006
|
| In: |
Hebrew studies
Year: 2006, Volume: 47, Issue: 1, Pages: 191-210 |
| Online Access: |
Volltext (JSTOR) Volltext (lizenzpflichtig) Volltext (lizenzpflichtig) |
| Summary: | It is widely recognized that the sixth century B.C.E. marks a significant turning point in the history of Biblical Hebrew. The books written after this point reveal new linguistic features whose appearance reflects far-reaching modifications in the structure of the language. These neologisms, attested in grammar, lexicon, and syntax, are entirely lacking in Standard Biblical Hebrew, but are common in Post-Biblical Hebrew sources (Dead Sea Scrolls, Ben-Sira, Rabbinic Literature) and in the Aramaic dialects of the post-exilic period (Imperial Aramaic, Nabatean, etc.). Consequently, the dominant view prevailing among biblical philologists and Hebrew linguists specializing in the history of Biblical Hebrew is to classify them as post-classical features. In recent years, however, a dissenting thesis against this diachronic research has been voiced, minimizing—if not denying altogether—the existence of a chronological factor in the history of Biblical Hebrew. This paper seeks to examine the validity of the said non-diachronic approach. |
|---|---|
| ISSN: | 2158-1681 |
| Contains: | Enthalten in: Hebrew studies
|
| Persistent identifiers: | DOI: 10.1353/hbr.2006.0005 |