Ian Young Biblical Hebrew Studies in Chronology and Typology JSOT Supplement 2003 PDF

JOURNAL FOR THE STUDY OF THE OLD TESTAMENT
SUPPLEMENT SERIES
369
Editors
David J.A. Clines
Philip R Davies
Executive Editor
Andrew Mein
Editorial Board
Richard J. Coggins, Alan Cooper, J. Cheryl Exum,
John Goldingay, Robert P. Gordon, Norman K. Gottwald,
John Jarick, Andrew D.H. Mayes, Carol Meyers,
Patrick D. Miller
This page intentionally left blank
Biblical Hebrew
Studies in Chronology
and Typology
edited by
Ian Young
t & t clark
Copyright 2003 T&T Clark International

A Continuum imprint
Published by T&T Clark International
The Tower Building, 11 York Road, London SE1 7NX
80 Maiden Lane, Suite 704, New York, NY 10038
www.continuumbooks.com
Reprinted 2004
All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced or transmitted in
any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying,
recording or any information storage or retrieval system, without permission in
writing from the publishers.
British Library Cataloguing-in-Publication Data
A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library
Typeset and edited for Continuum by Forthcoming Publications Ltd
www.forthcomingpublications.com
Printed on acid-free paper in Great Britain by Antony Rowe Ltd, Chippenham, Wiltshire
ISBN 0-8264-6841-1
CONTENTS
Abbreviations
List of Contributors
vii
xi
IAN YOUNG
Introduction: The Origin of the Problem
Parti
STUDIES WITHIN THE CHRONOLOGICAL FRAMEWORK:

PRE-EXILIC STANDARD BIBLICAL HEBREW
AND POST-EXILIC LATE BIBLICAL HEBREW
MATS ESKHULT
The Importance of Loanwords
for Dating Biblical Hebrew Texts
AVI HURVITZ
Hebrew and Aramaic in the Biblical Period:
The Problem of 'Aramaisms' in Linguistic Research
on the Hebrew Bible
24
FRANK POLAK
Style is More than the Person: Sociolinguistics,
Literary Culture, and the Distinction between Written
and Oral Narrative
38
GARY A. RENDSBURG
Hurvitz Redux: On the Continued Scholarly Inattention

to a Simple Principle of Hebrew Philology
104
RICHARD M. WRIGHT
Further Evidence for North Israelite Contributions

to Late Biblical Hebrew
129
Biblical Hebrew
vi
Part II
CHALLENGES TO THE CHRONOLOGICAL MODEL
PHILIP R. DA VIES
Biblical Hebrew and the History of Ancient Judah:
Typology, Chronology and Common Sense
150
MARTIN EHRENSVARD
Linguistic Dating of Biblical Texts
164
JACOBUS A. NAUDE
The Transitions of Biblical Hebrew in the Perspective
of Language Change and Diffusion
189
ROBERT REZETKO
Dating Biblical Hebrew: Evidence from Samuel-Kings
and Chronicles
215
DAVID TALSHIR
The Habitat and History of Hebrew
during the Second Temple Period
251
IAN YOUNG
Late Biblical Hebrew and Hebrew Inscriptions
276
IAN YOUNG
Concluding Reflections
312
Bibliography
Index of References
Index of Authors
318
367
383
ABBREVIATIONS
1. Bibliographical Abbreviations
AB
ABD
AbrN
AbrNSup
AcOr
AJBA
AJSL
ALASP
AnBib
ANES
AnOr
AOAT
AOS
BASOR
BBB
BDB
BETL
BHS
Bib
Biblnt
BibOr
BKAT
BIOSCS
BO
BR
BSOAS
BZAW
CAD
Anchor Bible
David Noel Freedman (ed.), The Anchor Bible Dictionary
(New York: Doubleday, 1992)
Abr-Nahrain
Abr-Nahrain, Supplements
Acta orientalia
Australian Journal of Biblical Archaeology
American Journal of Semitic Languages and Literatures
Abhandlungen zur Literatur Alt-Syrien-Palastinas
Analecta biblica
Ancient Near Eastern Studies
Analecta orientalia
Alter Orient und Altes Testament
American Oriental Series
Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research
Bonner biblische Beitrage
Francis Brown, S.R. Driver and Charles A. Briggs,
A Hebrew and English Lexicon of the Old Testament (Oxford:
Clarendon Press, 1907)
Bibliotheca ephemeridum theologicarum lovaniensium
Biblia hebraica stuttgartensia
Biblica
Biblical Interpretation: A Journal of Contemporary
Approaches
Biblica et orientalia
Biblischer Kommentar: Altes Testament
Bulletin of the International Organization for Septuagint and
Cognate Studies
Bibliotheca orientalis
Bible Review
Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies
BeiheftezurZ^^
The Assyrian Dictionary of the Oriental Institute of the
University of Chicago (Chicago: The Institute, 1956-)
viii
CAP
CBQ
DCH
DISO
DJD
Erlsr
ETL
ETR
FAT
FRLANT
GKC
HALA T
HAR
HDHL
HdO
HKAT
HSM
HSS
HTR
HUCA
IB
ICC
IEJ
IOS
JANESCU
JAOS
JBL
JCS
JJS
JM
JNES
JNSL
JQR
JSNTSup
Biblical Hebrew
A.E. Cowley, Aramaic Papyri of the Fifth Century B. C.
(Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1923)
Catholic Biblical Quarterly
D.J. A. Clines (ed.), Dictionary of Classical Hebrew
(Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1993-)
C.F. Jean and J. Hoftijzer (eds.), Dictionnaire des inscriptions
semitiques de I'ouest (Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1965)
Discoveries in the Judaean Desert
Eretz-Israel
Ephemerides theologicae lovanienses
Etudes theologiques et religieuses
Forschungen zum Alien Testament
Forschungen zur Religion und Literatur des Alten und Neuen
Testaments
Gesenius' Hebrew Grammar (ed. E. Kautzsch, revised and
trans. A.E. Cowley; Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1910)
Ludwig Koehler et al. (eds.), The Hebrew and Aramaic
Lexicon of the Old Testament (5 vols.; Leiden: E.J. Brill,
1994-)
Hebrew Annual Review
Historical Dictionary of the Hebrew Language
Handbuch der Orientalistik
Handkommentar zum Alten Testament
Harvard Semitic Monographs
Harvard Semitic Studies
Harvard Theological Review
Hebrew Union College Annual
Interpreter's Bible
International Critical Commentary
Israel Exploration Journal
Israel Oriental Society
Journal of the Ancient Near Eastern Society of Columbia
University
Journal of the American Oriental Society
Journal of Biblical Literature
Journal of Cuneiform Studies
Journal of Jewish Studies
P. Joiion and T. Muraoka, A Grammar of Biblical Hebrew
(Subsidia Biblica, 14; 2 vols.; Rome: Pontificio Istituto
Biblico, 1991)
Journal of Near Eastern Studies
Journal of Northwest Semitic Languages
Jewish Quarterly Review
Journal for the Study of the New Testament, Supplement
Series
Abbreviations
JSOT
JSOTSup
JSP
JSS
JTS
KAI
KAT
KB
KTU
LUA
NCB
NBA
NICOT
OBO
OLA
OLP
OIL
OTS
PEQ
RA
RB
RevQ
SBA
SBL
SBLDS
SBLMS
SBLSS
SEA
SH
SJOT
STDJ
TLOT
TOTC
TZ
UF
VT
VTSup
WBC
WTJ
ZA
IX
Journal for the Study of the Old Testament

Journal for the Study of the Old Testament, Supplement Series
Journal for the Study of the Pseudepigrapha
Journal of Semitic Studies
Journal of Theological Studies
H. Donner and W. Rollig, Kanaandische und aramdische
Inschriften (3 vols.; Wiesbaden: Otto Harrassowitz, 1962-64)
Kommentar zum Alten Testament
Ludwig Koehler and Walter Baumgartner (eds.), Lexicon in
Veteris Testament! libros (Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1953)
M. Dietrich, O. Loretz and J. Sanmartin, The Cuneiform
Alphabetic Texts from Ugarit, Ras Shamra Ibn Hani and
Other Places (ALASP, 8; Munster: Ugarit-Verlag, 1995)
Lunds universitets arsskrift
New Century Bible
Near Eastern Archaeology
New International Commentary on the Old Testament
Orbis biblicus et orientalis
Orientalia lovaniensia analecta
Orientalia lovaniensia periodica
Old Testament Library
Oudtestamentische Studien
Palestine Exploration Quarterly
Revue d'assyriologie et d'archeologie orientale
Revue biblique
Revue de Qumran
Studies in Biblical Archaeology
Society of Biblical Literature
SBL Dissertation Series
SBL Monograph Series
SBL Semeia Studies
Svensk exegetisk arsbok
Scripta hierosolymitana
Scandinavian Journal of the Old Testament
Studies on the Texts of the Desert of Judah
E. Jenni (ed.), Theological Lexicon of the Old Testament (3
vols.; trans. M.E. Biddle; Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1997)
Tyndale Old Testament Commentaries
Theologische Zeitschrift
Vgarit-Forschungen
Vetus Testamentum
Vetus Testamentum, Supplements
Word Biblical Commentary
Westminster Theological Journal
Zeitschrift filr Assyriologie
Biblical Hebrew
x
ZAH
ZA W
ZDMG
ZDPV
Zeitschrift
Zeitschrift
Zeitschrift
Zeitschrift
fur Althebraistik
fur die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft
der deutschen morgenldndischen Gesellschaft
des deutschen Paldstina-Vereins
2. Hebrew Abbreviations
ABH
BH
CBH
EBH
IH
JH
LBH
MH
QH
RH
SBH
TH
Archaic Biblical Hebrew

Biblical Hebrew
Classical Biblical Hebrew
Early Biblical Hebrew
Israelian Hebrew
Judahite Hebrew
Late Biblical Hebrew
Mishnaic Hebrew
Qumran Hebrew
Rabbinic Hebrew
Standard Biblical Hebrew
Tannaitic Hebrew
LIST OF CONTRIBUTORS
Philip R. Davies
Department of Biblical Studies, University of Sheffield, Sheffield, England
Martin Ehrensvard
Faculty of Theology, University of Aarhus, Aarhus, Denmark
Mats Eskhult
Department of Asian and African Languages, Uppsala University, Uppsala,
Sweden
Avi Hurvitz
Departments of Bible and Hebrew Language, The Hebrew University,
Jerusalem, Israel
Jacobus A. Naude
Department of Near Eastern Studies, University of the Free State, Bloemfontein, South Africa
Frank Polak
Bible Department, Tel Aviv University, Tel Aviv, Israel
Gary A. Rendsburg
Department of Near Eastern Studies, Cornell University, Ithaca, NY, USA
Robert Rezetko
The School of Divinity, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, Scotland
David Talshir
Hebrew Language Department, Ben-Gurion University of the Negev, Beer
Sheva, Israel
xii
Biblical Hebrew
Richard M. Wright
University Baptist Church, Baton Rouge, LA, USA
Ian Young
Department of Hebrew, Biblical, and Jewish Studies, University of
Sydney, Sydney, NSW, Australia
INTRODUCTION: THE ORIGIN OF THE PROBLEM

Ian Young
For the past 200 years, scholars have discussed the linguistic variety in
Biblical Hebrew (BH) in terms of chronological development (see the
history of scholarship in Rooker 1988b; 1990a: 23-33; Naude 2000c:
47-52). The language of books dated 'later' was contrasted with those
dated 'earlier'. From this starting point, language has commonly been used
as an argument in fixing the date of problematic texts. As an example, it is
fair to say that language is the primary argument for the 'late' dating of
the Song of Songs (e.g. A. Brenner 1989: 57-62). One also recalls Franz
Delitzsch's famous statement: 'If the Book of Qoheleth was OldSolomonic, there would be no history of the Hebrew language'.1
In recent decades, the contribution of Avi Hurvitz to this field has
outweighed all his contemporaries. In numerous books and articles (see
the bibliography) he has advanced and, indeed, shaped the current
discourse on the topic of diachronic variation in BH.
The dilemma facing language scholarship in the last decade, however, is
brought out by comparison of Hurvitz's early work with his more recent.
In his masterful The Transition Period in Biblical Hebrew,2 Hurvitz gives
a clear exposition of his methodology. After a preliminary discussion of
some problems in deciding what are 'early' and 'late' linguistic features,
Hurvitz then turns to discussing how language variations between the
books of Samuel and Kings on the one hand, and the book of Chronicles
on the other provide a solid base for establishing linguistic oppositions
between early Hebrew (Samuel-Kings) and late Hebrew (Chronicles;
Hurvitz 1972a: 15-16).
1. ' Wenn das B. Koheleth altsolomonisch ware, so gabe es keine Geschichte der
hebraischen Sprache'see the survey of scholarship on Qoheleth in Bianchi 1993.
2. Hebrew pvh1) "[IK/? fOr Hurvitz 1972a, regrettably still not accessible in an
English version.
Biblical Hebrew
Hurvitz points out the scholarly consensus on the dating of Chronicles

to the post-exilic period. This is based on such evidence as the mention of
post-exilic characters (e.g. Zerubbabel) and the presence in the language
of Persian words (Hurvitz 1972a: 16). He then turns to substantiate the
existence of a linguistic opposition to the parallel material in the books of
Samuel and Kings. Here again he could point to a scholarly consensus that
these books are closer in time than Chronicles to the events they are
portraying. In other words, continues Hurvitz, they can be seen as generally representing compositions of the First Temple period. Furthermore,
Hurvitz could point to the scholarly consensus that Chronicles used
Samuel-Kings as its source for the passages they share (Hurvitz 1972a:
15). Thus the linguistic opposition between Samuel-Kings on the one
hand, and Chronicles on the other, concludes Hurvitz, gives us a firm
grasp of the differences between pre-exilic and post-exilic Hebrew.
In recent years, however, the old consensus, that the books of Samuel
and Kings (as well as other substantial portions of the Hebrew Bible such
as [much of] the Pentateuch and Psalms, and the pre-exilic prophets)
represent pre-exilic sources, has been challenged. Indeed, it has been
claimed that all of the biblical literature has its origins in the Persian or
later eras.3 Hurvitz has found himself at the forefront of those defending
the consensus (Hurvitz 1997a; 1999; 2000a; 2001). Now, however, the
basis of the argument has changed utterly. If Samuel-Kings are older than
Chronicles then it is obviously most likely that linguistic contrasts between
them reflect that chronological difference. However, can the argument be
reversed, and the linguistic contrasts be used to show that Samuel and
Kings are in fact older than Chronicles?
Hurvitz has argued that this is in fact possible. His argument rests on the
correlation between linguistic typology and chronology. 'Typology' in this
context refers to the idea that there are different types of Hebrew language
in different biblical sources. Some of these are 'typologically older', that
is, they represent an older form within the historical development of the
language. An easy English analogy is the recognition that the pronoun
'thou' for 'you' represents an older type of language than modern standard
English. Within BH it is generally considered that the language of
Samuel-Kings represents a typologically older sort of Hebrew than the
language of Chronicles. However, it is possible for typologically older and
younger sorts of language to co-exist in the same chronological period. To
3. Good introductions to the debate are P.R. Davies 1992; and the volumes of
essays edited by Grabbe (1997; 1998; 2001).
YOUNG Introduction
demonstrate that the typological difference reflects a genuine chronological difference Hurvitz relies heavily on externally dated evidence for the
Hebrew language. The language of the pre-exilic inscriptions demonstrates
that Samuel-Kings (and texts in similar Hebrew) are pre-exilic; texts such
as the Qumran scrolls show that Chronicles (and texts in similar Hebrew)
are post-exilic.
It should be emphasized that the argument is not 'Hurvitz against the
rest'. I have merely concentrated on Hurvitz here because he is the most
prominent scholar of Late Biblical Hebrew. His influence is due not only
to the breadth of his research and his publications, but also to the encouragement and guidance he has given to other scholars working in the
field, myself included. It is in fact the case that a substantial number of
scholars believe that the linguistic evidence is the most serious obstacle in
the way of any attempt to date the bulk of biblical literature to the Persian
or later eras (e.g. Barr 2000: 100 n. 107; Becking 2001: 87-88; Halpern
1993:4.8; Hendel 2001: 8; Japhet 1998:225-26; Rendsburg 2001:33,46).
Nor is the argument about whether Hurvitz is 'wrong' or 'right'. Hurvitz's
substantial contributions to scholarship include bringing the task of
delineating LBH as a distinct linguistic corpus to a new level, and the
identification of new links with the corpus, such as the recognition that the
language of Ezekiel has significant links with LBH. The relative redating
of the SBH corpus would not diminish these achievements.
At this point, a word about terminology is in order. Typically, scholars
follow Kutscher's tripartite division of Biblical Hebrew into Archaic
Biblical Hebrew (ABH), Standard Biblical Hebrew (SBH) and Late Biblical Hebrew (LBH). According to Kutscher's original definitions, ABH
'is represented mainly by the poetry of the Pentateuch and the Early
Prophets', SBH 'represents] Biblical prose', and LBH 'appears in the
Chronicles and other Books' (Kutscher 1982: 12).
In practice, SBH has been expanded to include more than just prose
texts, of which the chief representatives are the books of the Primary
History, stretching from Genesis to 2 Kings. One may speak of the majority of Psalms as SBH (Hurvitz 1972a), as well as the pre-exilic prophets
(cf. Hurvitz 1982). Within the Pentateuch, Polzin (1976) has argued for
links between the P source and LBH, whereas Hurvitz (1967; 1974b;
1982; 1983a; 1988; 2000c) has argued for its SBH status. SBH is considered to be 'early' Hebrew, that is, Hebrew from the monarchic, or preexilic period, thus earlier than c. 586 BCE. Hence another term, which
covers both SBH and ABH is Early Biblical Hebrew (EBH). Finally, SBH
Biblical Hebrew
can be described as 'classical (biblical) Hebrew' (CBH) as opposed to

LBH, which is a representative of post-classical Hebrew' (Hurvitz 1982:
157).
LBH initially comprises those books whose contents show them to be
written during the Second Temple period (after c. 515 BCE). Chronicles,
Esther, Ezra, Nehemiah and Daniel would be a starting list. To these
books, others have been added which share linguistic features with them,
such as the book of Qoheleth, or a number of Psalms (Hurvitz 1972a).
Hurvitz (1982) and Rooker (1990a) have argued that the language of the
exilic prophet Ezekiel represents a transition between SBH and LBH, as it
exhibits a significant LBH component.
The eleven articles in this volume are organized under two broad headings.
Part I contains 'Studies within the Chronological Framework: Pre-Exilic
Standard Biblical Hebrew and Post-Exilic Late Biblical Hebrew'.
Mats Eskhult, in 'The Importance of Loanwords for Dating Biblical
Hebrew Texts', discusses Aramaic, Egyptian, Akkadian, and Persian loanwords in the biblical texts. He concludes that these loanwords are found in
the places they may be predicted to turn up according to the standard
chronology of BH. In particular, Persian words are not found in works
generally considered to have been composed before the Persian period.
Avi Hurvitz, in 'Hebrew and Aramaic in the Biblical Period: The
Problem of "Aramaisms" in Linguistic Research on the Hebrew Bible',
describes the various ways in which Hebrew interacted with Aramaic
throughout the biblical period. He argues that the sixth century BCE marks
the decisive turning point in the relationship between the two languages.
BH after this point is characterized by linguistic 'neologisms', heavily
influenced by Aramaic.
Frank Polak, in 'Style is More than the PersonSociolinguistics, Literary Culture, and the Distinction between Written and Oral Narrative',
differentiates two styles of narrative in the Hebrew Bible. The 'rhythmicverbal' style bears characteristic features of speech, and hence is related to
oral narrative. The 'complex-nominal' style reflects the written style of
the professional scribe. Polak argues that these two styles were employed
in different cultural contexts. The rise of literacy saw the gradual demise
of the rhythmic-verbal style at the expense of the complex-nominal style.
Hence the differences of style between biblical narratives are related to
chronology. The complex-nominal style comes to full fruition in post-
YOUNG Introduction
exilic, LBH works like Esther. The pure rhythmic-verbal style is restricted
to the early pre-exilic period. The later pre-exilic period saw the gradual
encroachment of features of the complex-nominal style. Thus, Polak's
argument harmonizes with the standard model of the chronology of BH,
with a pre-exilic SBH and a post-exilic LBH.
Gary A. Rendsburg, in 'Hurvitz Redux: On the Continued Scholarly
Inattention to a Simple Principle of Hebrew Philology', argues against
some recent attempts to date works generally considered pre-exilic to the
post-exilic period on linguistic grounds. In particular he focusses on the
argument regarding Aramaisms. He argues that one should distinguish
between early, dialectal Aramaisms used in Israelian Hebrew, and the sort
of late Aramaisms characteristic of LBH.
Richard M. Wright, in 'Further Evidence for North Israelite Contributions to Late Biblical Hebrew', discusses the sporadic appearance of LBH
linguistic forms in early, Israelian Hebrew texts. He first gives a succinct
summary of the methods used by Avi Hurvitz to isolate LBH features, and
by Gary Rendsburg to isolate Israelian Hebrew forms. Then he analyses
six LBH linguistic forms which he argues were already present in preexilic Israelian Hebrew.
Part II contains 'Challenges to the Chronological Model'.
Philip R. Davies, in 'Biblical Hebrew and the History of Ancient Judah:
Typology, Chronology and Common Sense', defends his dating of texts
written in SBH to the Persian period, against Avi Hurvitz's claim that such
a dating is linguistically impossible. He argues on the contrary that it is not
impossible that various sorts of Hebrew were written by Persian-period
scribes, or that classical Hebrew was one such variety.
Martin Ehrensvard, in 'Linguistic Dating of Biblical Texts', argues that
LBH differs from SBH only in a relative degree. He argues that SBH was
demonstrably being written in the post-exilic period, giving a detailed
analysis of Isaiah 40-66, Joel, Haggai, Zechariah, and Malachi. In view of
this, a post-exilic date for the final linguistic form of all the biblical texts is
likely, in his opinion.
Jacobus A. Naude, in 'The Transitions of Biblical Hebrew in the Perspective of Language Change and Diffusion', argues that a correct view of
the linguistic concepts 'change' and 'diffusion' shows that the distinction
EBH vs. LBH does not reflect the reality of linguistic variation in BH as
reflected in styles, registers, idiolects, dialects, and so on. The idea of a
uniform kind of Hebrew in any one period is therefore not sound.
Biblical Hebrew
Robert Rezetko, in 'Dating Biblical Hebrew: Evidence from SamuelKings and Chronicles', challenges some of the fundamental bases of the
conventional chronology of BH. He questions the consensus that Chronicles used Samuel-Kings as sources. He discusses a series of supposedly
'late' Hebrew featues for which, he argues, a diachronic explanation is
inadequate. Finally, he questions the methodology underlying the chronological theory.
David Talshir, in 'The Habitat and History of Hebrew during the
Second Temple Period', proposes a new theory on the origins of LBH and
Mishnaic Hebrew. He argues that SBH continued to be the language of
Yehud until the time of Ezra in the middle of the fifth century BCE, when a
large, dominant group of Babylonian exiles returned. LBH had developed
in Babylon under Aramaic influence, and was brought by these returnees.
Subsequently, during the course of the Second Temple period, political
separation saw the development of a separate dialect, Tannaitic (Mishnaic)
Hebrew in the lowlands, while in Yehud proper, (LBH and Qumran)
Hebrew remained more conservative.
In my article, 'Late Biblical Hebrew and Hebrew Inscriptions', I discuss
the argument that since SBH is identical with the language of the Hebrew
inscriptions of the monarchic period, it cannot be dated to the Persian or
later periods. In response, I first argue that even if SBH is identical to
inscriptional Hebrew this does not prove that SBH was not also used, say,
in the Persian period. Then I investigate the inscriptions and conclude
that in fact they represent an independent linguistic corpus (or more than
one) rather than being identical with SBH.
Parti
STUDIES WITHIN THE CHRONOLOGICAL FRAMEWORK:
PRE-EXILIC STANDARD BIBLICAL HEBREW
AND POST-EXILIC LATE BIBLICAL HEBREW
THE IMPORTANCE OF LOANWORDS

FOR DATING BIBLICAL HEBREW TEXTS
Mats Eskhult
In recent decades it has been questioned whether all the texts of the
Hebrew Bible in its present form date from Persian-Hellenistic times.
Linguistically, this suggestion has been corroborated by the statement that
we cannot date any biblical books on linguistic grounds, and that BH was
not one language, but rather a conglomerate of languages, so that early and
late features cannot be singled out. Allegedly, the Hebrew known from the
Bible was, then, created in learned priestly circles of post-exilic Judaea. A
number of more or less provocative approaches have deprived BH from
being a once fully spoken language. As early as 1971, E. Ullendorff, in his
essay 'Is Biblical Hebrew a Language?' (Ullendorff 1977), rightly pointed
out that the language contained in the Hebrew Bible is clearly no more
than a linguistic fragment; to be sure, he says, a very important and indeed
far-reaching fragment, but scarcely a fully integrated spoken language. In
the vein of M.H. Segal, he suggested that there is a strong case for looking
upon MH as a developed co-existing colloquial counterpart to the predominantly formal and elevated diction of BH. In 1990, E.A. Knauf, in his
article 'War "Biblisch-Hebraisch" eine Sprache?' (Knauf 1990), declared
that BH is an artificial Bildungssprache, made up of several earlier dialects,
none of which was standard. To prove this point he makes the most of the
differences between the epigraphic materialincluding the mixed dialect
of Deir 'Aliaand BH. In 1992, P.R. Davies, in his In Search of 'Ancient
Israel' (Davies 1992) attacked the established way of looking at BH in
terms of early and latea pre-exilic standard language, succeeded by a
post-exilic vernacular, which did not reach the same original and innovative heights. From a literary and politico-economic point of view, he
asserted that BH is merely an artificial product of an elite of scribes,
whoby their use of earlier literaturecreated 'the glorious past of
Ancient Israel'. More recently, R. North, in his article 'Could Hebrew
ESKHULT The Importance of Loanwords
Have Been a Cultic Esperanto?' (North 1999), points out that most
exegetes hold the view that it was only the Ezra era that saw the actual
formation of the Pentateuch through Kings. Elaborating on Davies' contention, he suggests that the coming into being of BH in the Ezra era might
have been similar to the creation of Esperanto.
Certainly, MH supplies the general Hebrew lexicon with a good many
senses and nuances, and even words, that are not found in the Bible, but
may very well have existed in Ancient Hebrew. One cannot simply put BH
on a par with Ancient Hebrew. The word stock preserved in the books of
the Bible is not large enough to meet the needs of a living language. However, its fragmentary character per se does not mean that it is unlikely to
represent the living language of Israelite society. Also, the circumstance
that a word is used infrequently in the Bible does not mean that it was not
common and well known in the society of Ancient Israel.1
In many respects BH is a riddle. As early as in the beginning of the
twentieth century, Hans Bauer and G.R. Driver held BH to be a mixture of
an early Canaanite layer that was close to Akkadian, and a later layer closer
to Aramaic. In view of the differences between the epigraphic material and
the biblical text, it should be borne in mind that even the Aramaic of the
Achaemenid period, though generally considered very homogeneous,
actually shows a considerable linguistic variation. M. Folmer's important
investigation on linguistic variation in the Aramaic of the Achaemenid
period shows, for example, that the word for 'wool' may be spelt "IQp or
""IQU, the word for 'land' may be spelt p~IN or 1T)K, and a doubled consonant may be dissolved by nun plus a consonant, whether nun is etymological or not, and the pael and aphel infinitive may be formed with or without
a preformative mem. Such variations are to be attributed to the factors of
area, time, individual scribe, or genre. Nevertheless, these variants were
apparently accepted within the highly standardized Aramaic language of
the Achaemenid period and obviously caused no problems in communication. What is more, S.L. Gogel, in her conclusion to the chapter on syntax
in her A Grammar of Epigraphic Hebrew (Gogel 1998: 292) says: 'The
syntax of epigraphic Hebrew sentences and selected phrases discussed in
1. Mankowski, in his Akkadian Loanwords in Biblical Hebrew (Mankowski 2000:
114-46), informs us that the hapax o'pD ('ladder'), Gen. 28.12, tallies with Arabic
sullam14", Jewish Aramaic KQ^D and (perhaps) Phoenician PQ^D. Due to metathesis, the
formation in Akkadian is simmiltu and in Syriac sebbelta. In spite of the metathesis,
D^D may be the correlative of Akkadian simmelat Samani ('stairway of heaven'), but
this suggestion, made by Cohen (1978: 34) remains uncertain.
10
Biblical Hebrew
this chapter is, in most cases, strikingly similar to those of the Bible...'
From a general point of view, one can say that words and spelling of
words may differ, but if the syntax is strange, there is a problem in mutual
understanding.2
What is most important to stress, is that //BH is an artificial language,
created only in post-exilic times, then its loanwordswhether Akkadian,
Egyptian, Aramaic or Persianought to be fairly equally distributed
throughout the various biblical books, and the literary genres contained in
them, such as law, history and poetry.
Daviesin the opinion of the present writerrightly criticizes Old Testament exegetics, inter alia, for attaching too much confidence in the Exile
as the most creative period in biblical times, an idea he finds romantic.
What is important in connection with the subject treated here, is, however,
his contention that no biblical books can be properly dated, and thus serve
as point of departure for estimating a development of the Hebrew language
within the Bible (P.R. Davies 1992: 102). Why cannot biblical texts be
dated on linguistic grounds? After all, the Mesha inscription shows us
what pre-exilic prose looks like. We can compare its style and diction with
the incontestably late prose writings: Chronicles, Ezra-Nehemiah and
Esther, and with biblical historiographic narrative prose in general. Thus,
it may be established in what ways the aforementioned books differ
linguistically from the bulk of biblical narrative prose and in what details.
As the next step one may decide whether or not the various differences are
chronologically conditioned. This is made by comparing the portions that
are paralleled in Chronicles and Samuel-Kings in order to find a pattern in
the alterations that matches what we know about the development of
Hebrew from BH to the language found in Ben Sira, Qumran and the
Mishnah.3
However, it must be admitted that this method covers only the plain
prose. The situation appears different in the biblical literature that is
composed in a poetic genre. In fact, G.R. Driver as early as 1953, in his
2. Her conclusion is corroborated by A. Schiile, who in his Die Syntax der althebraischen Inschriften (Schiile 2000: 188), concerning the Yavne-Yam ostracon and
precisely on the issue of whether Hebrew was a spoken language, says: 'All that can be
said is that the textual form of a petition, made by a certainly non-educated person, is
put in a form analogous to what is otherwise encountered in literary style, whether
inscriptions or (literally) corresponding Old Testament texts'.
3. Cf. Saenz-Badillos (1993: 115-16) and Eskhult (1990). See also several articles
by A. Hurvitz, e.g., 2000a.
11
influential study on early Hebrew poetic diction (G.R. Driver 1953),

showed that Hebrew poetry abounds with verbal roots and verbal forms
that are otherwise the normal equivalents of Hebrew expressions in
Aramaic. Of course, appealing to a general lateness of Hebrew poetry
cannot solve this lexicographic phenomenon. On the contrary, a number of
poems are held to be the oldest samples of Hebrew, both on cultural and
linguistic grounds.4 This state of affairs cannot be explained, unless one
supposes a common word stock that, in distribution, is employed differently in the two languages. One also has to assume that a special poetic
style may account for a good many features that otherwise are taken as
evidence of late language. Accordingly, the Aramaisms of Job and Proverbs
may derive from Old Aramaic (cf. Saenz-Badillos 1993: 114). Nevertheless, the Aramaic influence increased in the post-exilic period, so that, in
general, there is a connection between late date and many Aramaisms.
This observation can easily be confirmed by a look at the synopsis of M.
Wagner's investigation of the lexical and grammatical Aramaisms in the
Hebrew Bible (Wagner 1966: 139-43). The problem in the particular cases
is to discern between early and late, that is, to estimate approximately
when Hebrew picked up an Aramaic word or usage.
It stands to reason that the lexicon of a language tells a lot about various
cultural influences that this language has been exposed to throughout the
centuries. The problem with Aramaic is that it is so close to Hebrew as to
render suspected loans hard to prove. Also, Aramaic was in the position of
being able to influence Hebrew during the entire monarchical period, and
not only in the exilic and post-exilic periods. Words borrowed from a
language, not as close to Hebrew as Aramaic, are easier to discern as
foreign. In the case of Akkadian the donor language is so well investigated
that one can form an opinion about the period in which a certain loanword
passed into Hebrew. Persian words are in most cases readily recognized
and the direct influence of this language is, in all probability, limited to the
Achaemenid era.
BH has loanwords from four languages in particular: Akkadian, Aramaic,
Persian and Egyptian.5 Akkadian exerted an influence on Northwest
4. See D. A. Robertson's (1972) monograph on linguistic evidence in dating early

Hebrew poetry.
5. Recently, two books have succeeded Ellenbogen' s (1962) investigation of the
foreign words in the Hebrew Bible and Wagner's collection of its alleged Aramaisms
namely, Mankowski's (2000) book on Akkadian loanwords in BH, and Muchiki's
(1999) study of Egyptian proper names and loanwords in Northwest Semitic.
12
Biblical Hebrew
Semitic in the Late Bronze Age, since at that time it was then the lingua
franca of the Ancient Middle East, attested in the Tell Amarna correspondence. Some Akkadian words may have entered Canaanite, and
subsequently Hebrew, in this period. Others entered Hebrew during the
monarchical period, but most of them belong to the exilic/post-exilic
period. Egyptian loanwords are fewer and more elusive in terms of time of
entrance. Persian loanwords, however, almost unequivocally point to the
Persian era, and have mostly entered Hebrew via Aramaic.
On the matter of dating biblical texts, the issue may, accordingly, be
discussed from three angles. First, is it at all possible to date biblical texts
linguistically? Second, is the scholarly discussion of Aramaisms influenced by preconceived ideas on the date of problematic biblical texts?
Third, what can loanwords tell us concerning the historical study of BH?
I
A look at the evidence as embodied in what are certainly late compositions
makes it easier to comprehend how and why loanwords are used. In the
case of Esther, the flavour of the Persian era is strongly felt in the foreign
words of Persian origin, or otherwise late words of Akkadian origin:
D^Slie ('satraps', 3.12; 8.9; 9.3); D'DmS ('nobles', 1.3; 6.9; also in
Dan. 1.3); DS"O ('fine woven fabric', 1.6); m ('law', 1.8 et passim);
DTIB ('decree', 1.20); D^TDJ ('treasury', 3.9; 4.7); plBTIB ('copy', 3.14;
4.8; 8.13); andD^nnEH^ ('royal horses', 8.14), which are all ultimately
Persian. Late words of Akkadian origin are ]mi ('palace', 1.5); ]QT
('time', 9.27,31); and ITm&('sceptre', 4.11; 5.2; 8.4). Daniel and EzraNehemiah, too, show a number of new words, many of them Persian
loanwords: IDflS ('delicacies', Dan. 1.5, 8, 13, 15, 16; 11.26); pa
('palace', Dan. 11.45); ]1QD1T (Ezra 2.69; Neh. 7.69-71) mirrors Greek,
genitive plural SpaxM^v, ultimately of the same origin as pTTK
('drachma', 1 Chron. 29.7 [< Persian darika-, 'golden']) and J1TO
('letter', Ezra 4.7; 7.11). Accordingly, the excess of Akkadian and Persian
loanwords is a clear characteristic of the later language.6
It might be remarked that these words are all employed in order to give
a cultural flavour to the presentation, and do not point to any characteristic
6. Cf. the eighth characteristic of the Eastern type of Official Aramaic in Kutscher
1970: 362.
13
of later Hebrew as a language. Interestingly enough, however, it turns out

that the Chronicler, too, employs words of Persian origin and words of
Akkadian originin both cases words that have entered Hebrew through
Aramaic. What is more, the Chronicler employs these new words even in
cases where they are out of place, as being entirely anachronistic, He does
not use them because of the lack of possible synonyms; on the contrary,
these new words replace obvious synonyms that are found in similar
situations in the texts from which he otherwise draws much of his material. There are several such instances.
In 1 Chron. 21.27, the destroying angel on Oman's threshing-floor put
his sword back, not into the "1170, but into the |"I] ('sheath', < Persian
*nidani, cf. KB s.v., and Wagner 1966: no. 183). 1 Chronicles 28.11
employs "JTD3 ('treasure chamber', < Persianganza- plus ending -k\ and
not "IH'IN, in the account of how David provides Solomon with a design
for the temple. Moreover, in 1 Chron. 29.1,19, the late word HTD (< Akkadian birtu, 'palace'), not the expected ^3Tf or IVD, is used in David's
address to the people gathered before him; and in 1 Chron. 29.7 "pTlN is
used about David's raising money for the building of the temple. In
2 Chron. 2.6 fUl^ ('purple') is used in its Aramaic shape with -w-, not
]D3"1^ with -m-. Also, in the same verse 1TQ"G ('crimson', < Persian
kirmis), and not "'Dtp, is used in Solomon's correspondence with King
Hiram of Tyre. In 2 Chron. 16.14 the word |T (' kind ',< Persian zana\ and
not "pO, is used in the expression 'spices of various kinds' in connection
with King Asa's burial. According to 2 Chron. 30.6 each of King Hezekiah's messengers, who were sent to invite people to his Passover festival,
have an fTDN7 ('letter', < Akkadian egirtu) with them, not a "ISO. Finally
the Chronicler in 1 Chron. 15.27 uses ^DIDQ ('clothed'), in the phrase
j"D lTI7Cn ^T~QQ, playing on an trans-Aramaic Persian word for 'a part
of Persian dress' (Rosenthal 1961: 63,onK L ?3~O in Dan. 3.21), when he
'corrects' the account in 2 Sam. 6.14 (Tl? ^m "a"OQ Tin, 'David
danced with all his might'). The change seems to be made on purpose and
with the intention of keeping the rhythm of the Vorlage?
1. In Aramaic this Akkadian loanword appears for the first time in the Assur
ostracon, from c. 650 BCE (KAI233) and is to be found particularly in official letters of
the Achaemenid period. It survived in most Aramaic dialects. See Folmer 1995: 712.
8. C. Rabin, in his discussion of probable Hittite words in Hebrew (1963:123-24),
discerns a Hittite loan in ^""QQnamely, kariulli-, which denotes a hood-like female
garment.
14
Biblical Hebrew
As can be seen, the Chronicler reveals his setting in the Persian era,
even when he describes events in the days of David, Solomon and Hezekiah.9 He simply slipped into an employment of words that should have
been avoided, had he thought that his credibility lay in a using a Hebrew
vocabulary that matches the alleged age of his sources. In this case, there
is a general opposition between the work of the Chronicler and what can
be read in Samuel-Kings, which in all probability served as his Vorlage.
Such anachronisms as in Chronicles are not to be found in Samuel-Kings,
which accordingly suggests that they came into being in an earlier period.10
II
Aramaisms may be phonemic, in which case one can see that the word is
not Hebrew in form. Alternatively, a word may be judged an Aramaism
when it is uncommon in Hebrew, but frequent in Aramaic, and the idea
could well have been expressed by the usual Hebrew word. Among the
examples can be mentioned T^CD ('cover with a roof, Neh. 3.15; Wagner
1966: no. 114). The root is b^H in Hebrew and zll in Arabic, and the
Aramaic pael is used for 'cover with roof. Another example is CD^CTin
('holdout', Esth. 4.11; 5.2; 8.4; Sir. 7.32; Wagner 1966: no. 122), which is
used in the aphel in Aramaic in the sense of 'hold out' and has as Hebrew
synonym 2T1S which occurs in similar contexts. A third example is DtHTl
('write', Dan. 10.21; Wagner 1966: no. 291). It is attested as early as in
Old Aramaic (Sefire) and is widespread in Aramaic and has its natural
synonym in DfG. More doubtful is "IpD ('inquire, investigate, often in
connection with sacrifice', Lev. 13.26; 27.33; 2 Kgs 16.15; Ezek. 34.11,
12; Ps. 27.4; Prov. 20.25; Wagner 1966: no. 45). It can hardly be concluded
that the similar usage in Aramaic dialects provides enough evidence to
consider the verb as an Aramaism, the less so, as the alleged synonym
KTll has no sacrificial connotations.
As can be seen, a phonetic Aramaism is easily discernible; and the
evidence is fairly conclusive as to words that are found in the Bible only a
few times and in a single source, while they are widely used in Aramaic. It
is, however, not that natural to suppose an Aramaism in cases where the
9. It seems that Blenkinsopp (1996: 511 n. 38), is far from right when he says
concerning Persian loanwords: 'Such borrowings are relatively rare and restricted to
contexts involving dealings with Persian imperial authorities'.
10. THE) ('anterior court[?]') in 2 Kgs 23.11 is an exception. However, 2 Kgs 23
exhibits a typologically late verbal syntax (cf. Eskhult 1990: 111).
15
proposed genuine Hebrew synonym does not quite cover the word in
question. What is more, the date of the sources in which the supposed
Aramaism is contained, definitely plays a role in one's final judgment, and
here a circulus vitiosus lies near at hand. Consequently, a supposed influence of Aramaic, as a tool to determine age, is difficult to handle when it
comes to biblical texts whose date is uncertain. Also, it is hard to discern
between Aramaisms and Mishnaisms, since the symbiosis between the two
of them facilitated adaptations in both directions; and Mishnaic words are
by no means always new coinages. Accordingly, it can be questioned
whether lexicographic studies are of any use at all when it comes to the
date of a work whose time of origin is not incontestably established. 'What
the following study shows is that style and vocabulary (lexicographic
analysis) is almost useless in establishing the chronological status of P',
R. Polzin states in the introduction to his study of the typology of LBH
(Polzin 1976:16). What is true for the priestly material ought to be true for
any other group of texts, too, in establishing the characteristics of the
various stages of BH; but why should the evidence from the use and nonuse of late words not be trusted? A didactic problem is, however, that the
notion of 'Aramaism' is still employed in an indistinct manner to underpin
the argument for dating biblical books, as if an Aramaism per se inherently points to a late date (cf. Hurvitz 1983a: 85-86).
An example of this didactic problem is the book of Ruth. Eissfeldt, in
his Einleitung in das Alte Testament (Eissfeldt 1964: 654), says that the
many Aramaisms favour a post-exilic date for this booka contention
echoed in a good many Old Testament isagogics (unexpectedly even in
Saenz-Badillos 1993: 125). In fact, the alleged Aramaisms are: ]H7
('therefore'); ~Q> (piel, 'wait, hope') and p# (niphal, 'restrain from marriage'), all in 1.13, plus D n p^ ('establish', 4.7), while HER K2 ('marry',
1.4), is considered a neologism for H^ Hp 7. Jouon in his commentary
(Joiion 1993: 40) says: 'lahen, which exists in Aramaic, does not mean
"therefore", but "only"'. Also, Wagner dropped the word ] H7.'' Moreover,
the verb "QCJ (piel, 'wait, hope') is rare and poetic in Hebrew, and common
in Aramaic (pael, 'hope'), but two of the biblical passages, Ps. 104.27 and
Isa. 38.18, cannot simply be given a post-exilic date. Also, it is of interest
to note that the verb pu means 'enclose, tie' in MH and Aramaic, as well
as Arabic (stem iv). The restricted sense 'restrain from marriage' derives
11. DISO: 135, informs that Ihn is used as the equivalent of (1) strictly adversative
'but'; (2) less adversative 'to introduce a new subject'; (3) with a prepositional function(a) 'except', (b) 'besides'.
16
Biblical Hebrew
from its technical employment in marriage laws. There remains nttfN N2E
('marry'), which indeed points to a later usage (seven times in EzraNehemiah and Chronicles). However, Ht^ NQ in Judg. 21.23 does not fit
in. Either the construction is not late after all, or it had the sense of abduct'
in earlier usage. S.R. Driver in his An Introduction to the Literature of the
Old Testament (S.R. Driver 1913a: 426-27), says that of these items, only
D^p1? (for the expected DDIpb) cannot be defended as being early Hebrew,
and adds that maybe 4.7 is a later gloss. In conclusion, it is clear that the
idea of 'the many Aramaisms' in Ruth is ill-founded, and still worse is
the conclusion that these alleged Aramaisms point to a late date.
As is well known in Hebrew lexicography, philological suggestions on
the basis of corresponding meanings in Arabic may help to clarify shades
of meanings in a Hebrew word. The same may be true for corresponding
meanings in Aramaic, which consequently means that the sense, drawn
from the Aramaic word, in these cases is not borrowed, but inherent in the
Hebrew word. Besides, if borrowed, the word may have entered Hebrew
from Old Aramaic, and the fragmentary character of the Bible as evidence
for Ancient Hebrew makes all conclusions tentative. The problem may be
illustrated by a closer look at five suggested late Aramaisms in Wagner's
investigation. (1) ]T"OT ('memorial, remembrance'), due to semantic considerations, is judged to be an Aramaism in three passagesnamely,
Exod. 17.14;12 Mai. 6.16; Esth. 6.1that is, a caique of Aramaic ]"Q"1
('protocol'). However, one can just as well argue that there is room for the
meaning 'protocol' even within the genuine Hebrew usage. (2) DIDO ('tax',
Num. 31.28,37-41)with secondary formation HDDQ ('reckoning', Exod.
12.4; Lev. 27.23)is held to be a probable trans-Aramaic loan from
Akkadian. The word is borrowed from the Akkadian miksu, which is
attested already in the Akkadian texts from Ugarit, and whose way into
Hebrew remains uncertain. It can very well have entered Hebrew during
the Amarna age (cf. Hurvitz 1983a: 92). Furthermore, the 'biblical attestations do not point to a special Aramaic influence, nor are the forms phonologically Aramaicized' (Mankowski 2000: 93). (3) The root "IKD ('be
proper', Esth. 8.5; Qoh. 10.10; 11.6), and the noun ]1"IEB ('profit, success',
Qoh. 2.21; 4.4; 5.10), corresponds to Akkadian kaSaru ('restore; have
success'). Owing to the Ugaritic equivalent ktrwhich would produce
*ktr in Aramaic"IKD ('be proper'), is held to be an Akkadian, or a
12. Eissfeldt in his Hexateuch-Synopse (Eissfeldt 1922: 143*) considers Exod.
17.14 to be a gloss.
17
Canaanite, borrowing in Aramaic.13 If Canaanite in origin, the word may

very well be genuine Hebrew. (4) In the case of B^C? ('ruler', Qoh. 7.19;
8.8; 10.5; cf. Ezek. 16.30), the occurrence in Gen. 42.6 is disturbing.14 It
caused BDB to note: 'prob. late substitution for original word of E'. The
occurrence of Ugaritic Slyf ('powerful') makes Wagner conclude: 'In
Hebrew the root subsequently was replaced by synonyms and was reintroduced only due to Aramaic influence' (Wagner 1966: no. 309). This
suggestion can by no means be ruled out, but the quotation shows that
somehow BH is considered as if it were equal to Ancient Hebrew, albeit
the latter is only partly known through the former.15 (5) The root "ITO ('be
black') is discussed as late, only due to its occurrence in Lev. 13.31, 37;
Zech. 6.2,6; Cant. 1.5,6; 5.11; Job 30.30; Lam. 4.8(7); and Qoh. 11.10
in spite of the fact that Hebrew could not possibly have managed without
it in earlier periods. Also, the only synonym to present itself is 'mm II ('to
darken', Lam. 4.1).
It should be pointed out, though, that Wagner readily acknowledges that
many of the passages treated are pre-exilic. In the first place, passages that
contain old poetic synonyms to ordinary prose words are reckoned, such
as ^TK ('go'), nn ('come'), 2BK ('man'), HTH ('see'), H^Q ('word').
Also, there are some realand yetearly loanwords that are regarded as
pre-exilic, such as nr"TD ('province') and partly TFID ('price').16 However, one cannot avoid the conclusion that the examples discussed above
reveal the prejudice that texts, already considered late, also should contain
late Aramaisms.
Besides, one cannot disregard the general observationnot made by
Wagnerthat in some cases there is obviously a semantic distinction
between the Hebrew and the more Aramaic shape of a root. This distinction seems to be inherited from oldest times. Thus, ~"li] is 'watch,
guard, keep', while "ICO] (qal)except for Cant. 1.6; 8.11-12is 'bear
13. See KB s.v.
14. Also the occurrence in Akkadian is problematic. The fact that the root Sit is
more common in Aramaic than Akkadian, Salatu ('be in authority'), makes Kaufman
(1974: 98-99) conclude that its usage in Neo-Babylonian and Late Babylonian is
modelled after Aramaic usage, and not the reverse.
15. For a partly different view concerning CD7t, see Hurvitz 1968: 239.
16. The word TOO ('price, hire', inter alia Deut. 23.19; Mic. 3.11; Dan. 11.39),
certainly connects to Akkadian mahiru ('market, rate of exchange'attested from the
oldest periods). Due to reduction in pretonic open syllable, the word in its present form
seems to have entered Hebrew via Aramaic (cf. Mankowski 2000: 92).
18
Biblical Hebrew
grudge against someone', and f*D"1 is 'lie down', whereas IO"I (qal)
except for Ps. 139.3is 'to lay down for copulation'. In these cases it
actually seems that only the passages in Canticles and Psalms reveal
themselves as Aramaisms in a more restricted sense. If this is true, the
attestations of Hft] ('bear grudge against someone') and IOT ('to lay
down for copulation') are not a priori to be judged as affected by Aramaic
usage in a period when Aramaic was about to surpass Hebrew.
Ill
In the introduction to his above-mentioned study on the typology of LBH,

Polzin mentions that Giesebrecht, in an article on Hexateuch criticism
(Giesebrecht 1881), presents lexical evidence to prove the late date of the
priestly material in Genesis-Joshua. Driver, in his review article, 'On
Some Alleged Linguistic Affinities of the Elohist' (S.R. Driver 1882),
'challenges successfully'in Polzin's wordsmost of Giesebrecht's
evidence. His dismissal of faulty evidence 'was made all the easier by
emphasis on lexical features of P, a choice in methodology which weakened considerably Giesebrecht's chances of proving his case' (Polzin
1976: 17).'7 Certainly, the priestly material is special, but why should not
observations regarding lexical features bear on the age of this material?
The examples of anachronistic words in Chronicles discussed above show
that the vocabulary reveals the approximate date of some sources referred
to. The Chronicler was scarcely drawing on an old source when he
accounted for the correspondence between Solomon and King Hiram of
Tyre, or, he chose to rework it.
At the same time, a closer look at Wagner's discussion of some of his
entries drew attention to the assumed date of a text as an important component in the discussion of Aramaisms. It seems that scholars in general
do not leave enough room for the idea of linguistic diversity in earlier
17. For a critical assessment of Polzin's investigation, see Zevit 1982: 494-501.
The aim of Polzin's investigation was a fairly exact outline of the typological
development of BH, in order to solve his main problemnamely, the relative date of
the so-called Priestly Code. Polzin apparently endeavoured to find connecting links
between the Priestly samples and his 19 isolated features of LBH, and thus promoted
12 of them to key features, namely, those by which the JE samples stand in marked
contrast to the profile of LBH as demonstrated in Chronicles. As a result, Esther and
the Nehemiah memoirs do not share the majority of these features. To put these
sources off as archaizing, as Polzin does, seems unwise, in view of the fact that they
are compositions of the Persian era and not based on earlier material.
19
periods of Hebrew. Consequently texts which contain features that were

prevalent in a later period are more or less a priori dated to that later
period.18
There are many factors to be reckoned with, and little can be said with
certainty. However, it can hardly be contested that alleged loanwords of
purely Aramaic origin have less value as evidence for a late date than
loanwords that entered Hebrew via Aramaic from Akkadian and Persian.
Put another way, loanwords that could not possibly have entered Hebrew
before a certain time in history present themselves as stronger criteria
when judging the date of certain texts than loanwords that may have
passed into Hebrew at an earlier period.
Mesopotamian culture from very early times influenced the Levant. Several
old Eastern culture words entered Northwest Semitic at such an early stage
that they are found in Ugaritic, that is, before about 1200 BCE. Concerning
a number of old culture words, Akkadian derivation is, however, nowadays seriously questioned. Drawing chiefly from the respective word
entries appearing in Mankowski' s A kkadian Loanwords in Biblical Hebrew
(Mankowski 2000), the following deserves to be pointed out: Hebrew
1Q31K or "piriN ('purple', 2 Chron. 2.6), occurs first in the West during the
Late Bronze Age, and only later in Mesopotamia. It has Luwian and
Hittite counterparts, and correlates to Akkadian argamannu ('tribute,
purple thread or cloth'), and is also found in Ugaritic 'rgmn ('tribute').
The common Aramaic form is 'rgwn. This word made two entrances into
18. I. Young in his (1993) dissertation on evidence for linguistic diversity in preexilic Hebrew, suggests that Hebrew owes its diversity to its very origin, when the
heterogeneous Israelite tribes took over Hebrew as the super-tribal, prestige language,
used in the Canaanite area. In the beginning of the first millennium this old fashioned
language began to lose its hold on the area. Hebrew, supported by a new centralized
monarchy, developed its genres in such a way that poetry and wisdom literature kept
an old inherited Aramaic flavour. He remarks that S.R. Driver, in his commentary on
Deut. 32, on the basis of lexical features argues for a late date, something that shows
how inclusive such a reasoning may beif the presumptions are wrong.
One difference between BH and epigraphic Hebrew, is that the 3rd masc. sg. suffix
is almost always written with waw in BH, but with he in the inscriptions. Possibly, one
can point to an analogy in Arabic ta' marbuta, which is a compromise between ordinary -at (Hebrew -at, ~ef), the old pausal -a, and the modern -a (Hebrew -a), in
which the he is silent. By analogy, then, the scribes in Ancient Israel did perhaps not
intend an 'ordinary waw' by the 3rd masc. sg. suffix waw but rather a kind of compromise between waw and he.
20
Biblical Hebrew
Hebrew. The form ]Q;HN is on a par with common Akkadian and Ugaritic,
whereas the variant ]infc is an Aramaism and mirrors the Babylonian
intervocalic change [m] > [w] (see further Kaufmann 1974: 35-36).
Another culture word is NDD ('chair, throne'). It corresponds to Ugaritic
ks', with retained aleph. If it is a loanword from Akkadian, it must accordingly be very early. In addition, the Aramaic form of this word, krs',
shows a dissimilation of original -ss- to -rs-.Moreover, ;>T"Q ('iron')
certainly goes back to Akkadianparzillu, but Ugaritic brdl, with initial bindicates some intermediary language. It deserves to be pointed out that
Phoenician/Punic has brzl, but Aramaicprzl'. Interestingly enough, 7TH
('palace, temple') corresponds better to Ugaritic hkl, with an initial /?-,
than to Akkadian ekallu, although the word is ultimately derived from
Sumerian E.GAL.
BH, accordingly, exhibits a number of ancient culture words, whose
spellings reflect the situation in the West, rather than the situation in the
East. This means that BH is firmly rooted in the literary tradition in the
Canaanite area.
In addition, the word D"TH ('footstool'considered late in BDB) has no
Semitic etymology, but the existence of Ugaritic hdm, and the fact that
Egyptian hdm.w is not found before c. 1500 BCE, suggests an East Mediterranean origin (Muchiki 1999: 242-43).
If a word is not adapted to the Hebrew language, but stands out as being
foreign in form, it may have the precise function of distinguishing a foreign
phenomenon. A characteristic of a number of such words that have entered
Hebrew from Akkadian is that they retain an (often) Assyrian form. Three
words signify military officersnamely, npiZDI, ]P"in and "IDSE. Of
these, npEm is a high official (etymological!^ 'chief cup-bearer', 2 Kgs
18; Isa. 36passim), and]n~lP (2 Kgs 18.17, Isa. 20.1, < Akkadian tartanu
< Human tartanu) is 'field marshal'. The early versions apparently
understood both of them to be proper names. It should be mentioned that
the absence of a definite article suggests that ]mn was not fully assimilated as a common noun in BH (Mankowski 2000: 152). The third, "1DBB
('marshal', < Akkadian tupSarru, 'scribe', with Assyrian [s] > [s]), occurs
in Jer. 51.27; Nah. 3.17. Both passages suggest that the connection between
scribe and officer is not far-fetched. The word seems to have been generally misunderstood by the early translators, which suggests that it fell out
of use in later periods (see Mankowski 2000: 61 for an overview). The
fourth word is an administrative title, namely, "pD ('governor, prefect',
< Akkadian Saknu 'governor', with Assyrian [s] > [s]). The word is used
for prefects of Assur and Babel, and for officials in post-exilic Judah.
21
A word may be so closely connected to a certain context as to suggest a

foreign practice. An example is the hapax legomenon !T]"[] of Ezek.
16.33, borrowed from Akkadian nuladannu, which can be understood to
mean 'dowry', or, better (with CAD): 'a gift made by a husband to his
wife to ensure her livelihood after his death'. The proper legal sense highlights the special piquancy of the verse, something that demands that
author and audience share the same connotations. Another example is the
verb *pN, which in the story about Naaman's leprosy in 2 Kings 5 obviously means, 'heal by exorcism'. The special meaning of the verb in this
chapter seems to be borrowed from Akkadian dsapu, which in the D stem
means 'cure by exorcism' (the G stem is not attested)however with
Assyrian pronunciation of [s] (Mankowski 2000:43-45; 85). Perhaps, the
occurrence of the verb in 2 Kings 5 reflects a usage that was current in
contemporary Aramaic.
The word D ('linen', Gen. 41.42; Exod. 25.4; 26.1, et passim) derives
from Egyptian ss, found since the Middle Kingdom. As Hurvitz (1967) has
demonstrated, V) in post-exilic times was replaced by j"O; there is no
instance of this word before c. 850 BCE (Muchiki 1999:240). From words
that relate to specific Egyptian phenomena, the following may be adduced.
The exclamation "]"QN (Gen. 41.43, < Egyptian 'b-r.k, 'attention'), and
the loanword DtDHH ('magician', Gen. 41.8, 24; Exod. 7.11, 22; 8.3, 14,
15; 9.11, < Egyptian hr\y]-tp, 'chief), both point to an Egyptian setting.
Also, the Egyptian borrowing ^p ('ape') and D^riDIE ('ivory', < [sen] +
3b{w\)both in 1 Kgs 10.22 and 2 Chron. 9.21are related among the
cargo brought home by Solomon's fleet. In addition, these two passages
also mention D^DH ('peacocks'), by Ch. Rabin considered a Tamil loan
19
(in Pope 1977:27-33).
In conclusion, it may be said that the Akkadian and Egyptian loanwords
by and large show a clear concordance between the story related and the
terminology used. This circumstance corroborates the idea that their employment in BH reflects a usage in the contemporary language used in
Ancient Israel.
Whereas Akkadian and Egyptian culturally and politically could influence
Hebrew from the oldest time, Persian had little possibility to do so before
the sixth century BCE. Persian influence on vocabulary was transmitted via
Aramaic, in the form of Imperial Aramaic, the lingua franca of the Persian
19. See Muchiki 1999: 236 for fDR, 245 for GQin, 254 for *p, 257 forD'Sim
22
Biblical Hebrew
empire. However, in the Aramaizing culture of the Achaemenid period,

several Akkadian loanwords, too, entered Hebrew via Aramaic. The late
Akkadian loans can, for one thing, be distinguished from earlier ones by
not being found in Ugaritic. On the whole, the abundance of new words in
incontestably late narrative prose writings strongly suggests that they form
a true characteristic of later biblical usage. Adding to the evidence of the
words referred to in the discussion above, there are in the post-exilic
period two trans-Aramaic loans that compete with the old "ISO ('book,
letter'), namely, DUN and JintEQ (Ezra 4.7; 7.11, < Persian *ni$tavan,
'written order'; cf. Rosenthal 1961: 63). Ezra 4.7 stands in the transition
from the Hebrew to the Aramaic part of the book. This may explain why
in addition to ]ini?3the word H3D ('associate', < Akkadian kinatu) is
used in this verse, although Hebrew already offers in and "OH as synonyms. Other new words are HTD (< Akkadian birtu, 'citadel') and fiTD
(< Akkadian bitanu, 'inner part of palace'). Both of them replace fVD
"f^Qil and ^DTT in the meaning 'palace'. Moreover, m ('decree, law',
< Persian data) competes with the old words rmn, pl"I, and so on, and ]DT
('appointed time', probably < Akkadian simanu, via Old Persian; cf.
Mankowski 2000: 54-55) competes with 117113. Finally, in 2 Chron. 2.6,
13; 3.14, the Persian borrowing 'TQID ('purple') is used instead of 327 or
32? niîn.
Words, which did not pass into Hebrew through Aramaic, are ~[ 7S
('district', Neh. 3 [eight times]) deriving from Akkadian pilku, with the
same meaning, and ")H A3 ('guardian', Dan. 1.11, 16, probably < Akkadian massaru\ and ^DK ('annex', 1 Chron. 26.15, 17; Neh. 12.25, < Akkadian asuppu, 'outbuilding, annex'), as well as !"I1Q ('tax', Neh. 5.4
< Akkadian madattu).^
It would thus seem that the new loans that entered Hebrew in the postexilic period reflect the linguistic reality of that time, a reality that stands
in sharp contrast to earlier periods of the Hebrew language.
Conclusions
The enrichment of the BH vocabulary follows a pattern that by and large
fits into the political history of Ancient Israel, as described in the biblical
texts. The literature contained in the Hebrew Bibleas regards the distribution of loanwordsindicates that Ancient Hebrew enriched its vocabu-
20. See Mankowski 2000:129-30 Q^D); 95-97 (IIÎD); 36-38 (*)DK) and 84 (HID).
23
lary subsequently throughout the biblical period and in close connection to

its political history. Some Akkadian loanwords have entered Hebrew via
Aramaic during the heyday of Assyrian supremacy. Some reflect the
Aramaizing culture that prevailed in Mesopotamia in the Persian period.
Others give the impression of being foreign words that are not assimilated
into common usage. In a language, artificially constructed long after the
historical events took place, one would scarcely find such a close connection between words and contents. Also, there is a concurrence between the
time factor and the borrowings, so that late words occur in those texts
where they are, so to speak, supposed to be found. Quite exceptional is the
Chronicler in his account of events in early monarchical history.
The Aramaic element in BH remains a riddle. There seem to be distinctive pairs of the same root, where the 'Aramaic' form has one sense, the
'Hebrew' another. When employing Aramaisms as an instrument for
dating biblical texts, one has to be aware of various factors, as possible
borrowings from Old Aramaic, foremost in poetry, as well as dialectal
differences within Ancient Hebrew. Most of all, one must be aware of the
fact that the assumed (late) date of a certain text affects the discussion
concerning possible Aramaisms.
Persian loanwords abound in the incontestably late prose writingsplus
occasional occurrences in Qoheleth and Canticles. Whereas Chronicles,
Ezra-Nehemiah and Esther exhibit a mixed style with many neologisms
and numerous loanwords from Persian, this is not the case concerning the
priestly material (cf. Hurvitz 2000c: 191). What deserves to be stressed is
that Persian words are not to be found in the Pentateuch at all! If loanwords of Persian origin are considered a strong argument when dating
biblical texts, then the lack of every vestige of such loanwords ought to be
considered as an important evidence for a date of origin prior to the
Persian era.
To the questions posed above, the following answers may be given: it is
possible to date biblical texts on linguistic grounds, though the notion
' Aramaism' demands a special methodological awareness, and the surest
lexicographic results are to be gained from languages not as close to
Hebrew as Aramaic. Trans-Aramaic Akkadian, and especially Persian
loanwords, are good guidelines for establishing an approximate date for
biblical texts.
HEBREW AND ARAMAIC IN THE BIBLICAL PERIOD: THE PROBLEM

OF 'ARAMAISMS' IN LINGUISTIC RESEARCH ON THE HEBREW BIBLE*
Avi Hurvitz
One of the most interesting chapters in the linguistic history of Ancient

Israel is that of the inter-relationship between BH and Aramaic, as known
to us from the various dialects current in and around Palestine. For almost
2000 years the two languages were in use side by side; and, naturally, this
situation engendered mutual influences which affected their history and
development. The implications of this linguistic situationa classical case
of 'languages in contact'1for the study of 'Aramaisms' in BH is the
subject of this article.
1. The Relationship of Hebrew and Aramaic
According to the Biblical Descriptions
The biblical tradition, as preserved in both narrative and historiographical
compositions, points to a continuous contact between the two languages
throughout the entire erafrom 'the Patriarchal Period' (whose historicity
and chronological background are, of course, a matter of debate) through
to the Restoration and the establishment of the Second Temple. While
much detail pertaining to these contacts remains unclear, especially in the
* This article originally appeared in Hebrew in Bar-Asher (ed.) 1996:79-94. For

the suggestion to translate it, and the translation itself, I am grateful to Dr Michael
Rosenbaum, who lectures in the Near Eastern Languages and Cultures Department at
UCLA. A few references to studies which appeared after the article was submitted for
publication in the Morag Volume are incorporated in the footnotes in angle brackets.
The English translations of the Old Testament are taken from Tanakh: A New Translation of the Holy Scriptures According to the Traditional Hebrew Text (Philadelphia:
Jewish Publication Society of America, 1985). It should be noted that some of the
basic issues discussed in the present article were already dealt with in Hurvitz 1968.
1. One of the classic works on the subject is Weinreich 1953.
HURVITZ Hebrew and Aramaic in the Biblical Period
25
earlier periods, sufficient information appears in the biblical texts to enable

us to sketch the linguistic picture in general outline.
a. Genesis 31.46-47
And Jacob said to his kinsmen, 'Gather stones'. So they took stones and
made a mound... Laban named it Yegar-sahadutha, but Jacob named it
Gal-ed.
The tradition preserved in the book of Genesis presents two branches of

the patriarchal family, one using Hebrew and the other Aramaic. This
tradition even puts two words into the mouth of Laban the Aramean which
are recognizable as words in regular use in the Aramaic language"IP
Nrvnntt? (as against the Hebrew words ;3 and 1I7).2
b. 2 Kings 18.26-27 (Isaiah 36.11-12)
Eliakim son of Hilkiah, Shebna, and Joah replied to the Rabshakeh, 'Please,
speak to your servants in Aramaic, for we understand it; do not speak to us
in Judean in the hearing of the people on the wall'. But the Rabshakeh
answered them, 'Was it to your master and to you that my master sent me to
speak those words? It was precisely to the men who are sitting on the
wall...'
This passage describes the rather naive attempt by three Judean high
officials to persuade the Assyrian Rabshakeh to speak Aramaic with them
instead of Hebrew (milT), so that the common soldiers stationed on the
wall of the city could not understand his threats. The story is significant in
that it reflects the linguistic situation prevailing in Judah around 700 BCE.
The episode narrated here indicates that Aramaic, which functioned as a
lingua franca in the Assyrian Empire west of the Euphrates (Cogan and
Tadmor 1988: 232), was indeed known in the land of Judah in the days of
Hezekiah, though only to the educated, not to the common people.3
2. See recently Morag 1985: 181. Here some fundamental questions arise concerning the historical-linguistic value of the episode recorded in the book of Genesis.
For example: To what extent is the distinction between Canaanite and Aramaic in the
first millennium BCE valid for the second millennium? See Kaufman 1988, and, for a
different view, Huehnergard 1991: 286 n. 12.
3. On this there is broad scholarly consensus. See, e.g., Kutscher 1961: 52; Rosenthai 1961: 6; Naveh and Greenfield 1984: 118-19; Lemaire 1988: 12.
Biblical Hebrew
26
c. Ezra 4.6-7
And in the reign of Ahasuerus...they drew up an accusation against the

inhabitants of Judah and Jerusalem. And in the time of Artaxerxes, Bishlam, Mithredath, Tabeel, and the rest of their colleagues wrote to King
Artaxerxes of Persia, a letter fTGnVf Orm H-BIR D1H3.
Although the last sentence is problematic (see the commentaries), the basic
meaning is clear: the document (or the accompanying letter) sent to the
Persian king was written in Aramaic. This agrees with the biblical (Ezra
4-7; Dan. 2-7) and extra-biblical (Elephantine letters, etc.) evidence concerning the special status of Aramaic in this period. It is the 'Imperial
Aramaic' used by the imperial bureaucracy throughout the Persian empireincluding, of course, Ezra and Nehemiah (and their contemporaries),
who were active in the province of Judah under Persian rule.4
d. Nehemiah 13.23-24
Also at that time, I saw that Jews had married Ashdodite, Ammonite, and
Moabite women; a good number of their children spoke the language of
Ashdod.. .and did not know how to speak Judean.
The exact nature of the language entitled 'Ashdodite' remains uncertain. It

may have been a local dialect (perhaps Philistine or Canaanite?) spoken in
the vicinity of the city of Ashdod. It is also possible that 'Ashdodite' is not
a term denoting a specific language but, rather, a general reference to 'the
language used by the people of Ashdod' (Rabin and Fassberg 1991:46)
which might have been, for instance, Aramaic.5 Whatever the case, the
reality reflected in these verses clearly testifies to a linguistic situation
quite different from the one portrayed in 2 Kings 18. By the time of the
Restoration, knowledge of Hebrew was becoming increasingly weaker
among the 'Jews' (see Neh. 13.24, above) due to the growing influence of
languages such as 'Aramaic' and 'Ashdodite'.
4. Cf. Naveh and Greenfield 1984: 121. The interpolation of a complete verse in
Aramaic in Jer. 10.11 (though indeed it is a 'stray' sentence [Rosenthal 1961: 5]) testifies to the growing influence of Aramaic already at the end of the First Temple period.
See on this matter Morag 1971: 140-41; 1972: 300. On the special status of the book of
Jeremiah as one of the 'forerunners' of the age of LBH see also Bar-Asher 1985:93-94,
95 n. 84.
5. Cf. KB, 1:93. Recently, D. Talshir has suggested that 'Ashdodite' is the 'ProtoTannaitic' language, that is, the language 'from which the language of the earlier sages
from Gimzo, Lod, Emmaus, and Yavneh developed' (D. Talshir 1993:295,298). This
suggestion is highly questionable.
27
The picture which emerges from the biblical descriptions cited above is
evidently partial and fragmentary. Many details are lacking and many
questions remain unanswered. Nevertheless, we are in a position to establish the general framework in which the various linguistic forces operated;
it is even possible to set up several historical milestones which make a
chronological orientation possible (see Lemaire 1988: 10-13):
1. The first contacts between Hebrew and Aramaic are found at the
dawn of the history of the people of Israel, a period represented
in the biblical tradition by 'the patriarchal stories' in the book of
Genesis.
2. At the time of Sennacherib's siege of Jerusalem (700 BCE) the
knowledge of Aramaic in Judah was limited to the upper classes.
The common people, it would seem, neither spoke nor wrote
Aramaic.
3. In the period of the Restoration, when Aramaic became the
dominant language throughout the Persian empire, the status of
Hebrew was undermined. According to the testimony of the book
of Nehemiah, already at that time certain sectors of the Jewish
population were unable to speak proper Hebrew.
This, then, is the linguistic background that emerges from the descriptions
found in the biblical literary tradition. As we shall see in what follows,
this is also the basic picture that emerges from the linguistic testimony of
BH.
2. 'Aramaisms' in Earlier Research
One of the favorite topics in nineteenth- and early twentieth-century biblical scholarship was the attempt to uncover 'Aramaisms'; that is, linguistic
elements whose appearance in the Hebrew Bible could be attributed to the
influence of (late) Aramaic. This issue, which was frequently discussed in
the scholarly literature, became the specific topic of a monograph by
E. Kautzsch (1902). By and large, Kautzsch's work constitutes a summary
statement of the opinions and viewpoints which were commonly held on
this subject in the research of the time.
The pioneering work of these earlier scholars contributed greatly to the
recognition that the general phenomenon of 'Aramaisms' within BH is
an undeniable fact. Moreover, it should be stated that a substantial portion of their specific findings, especially regarding LBH, are still firmly
28
Biblical Hebrew
established, successfully withstanding the strictures of present-day scholarship.6 At the same time, in light of recent developments in the field of
Hebrew linguistics, it is clear that we must re-examine many of the working hypotheses which were once widely accepted by biblical scholars. This
re-evaluation is essential for two reasons. First, we have at our disposal
today an abundance of linguistic sources which were unknown in the past.
Second, methods of research and procedures of analysis have improved
significantly due to the advances in the discipline of linguistics. This new
perspective makes it possible to highlight points of weakness in the work
of earlier scholars, especially in the matter of methodology which was
quite often not given proper attention. In order not to distort the historical
record, it should be kept in mind that many of the flaws in the works of the
'Old School' were competently criticized at the time of publication. Two
authorities in particular should be mentioned in this connection: Th.
Noldeke, who wrote a review of Kautzsch's monograph (Noldeke 1903),
and S.R. Driver, who published a detailed critique (S.R. Driver 1882) of
F. Giesebrecht's study on 'Aramaisms' in the language of the Priestly
Source (Giesebrecht 1881). Unfortunately, however, by and large their
comments were like a voice crying in the wilderness. The impact of their
criticisms on the overall direction of BH research was hardly noticeable. A
real change in approach to the problem of 'Aramaisms' has manifested
itself only lately.7 This development is mainly a by-product of the progress
made recently in research on Northwest Semitic in general; progress which
makes it possible to examine the whole issue here under consideration
from a vantage point that was inaccessible to earlier scholars.
3. 'Aramaisms' in Recent Research
a. 'Aramaisms' Devoid of Chronological Implications
The study of Aramaic has achieved impressive results in the last few
decades. The discovery of new texts, reflecting previously undocumented
6. See, e.g., Gesenius 1815. S.R. Driver's classic introduction (Driver 1913a)
should also be mentioned here; it contains detailed and carefully sifted lists of'Aramaisms' whose use is characteristic of the later books of the Old Testament (Esther,
Daniel, Ezra-Nehemiah, etc.).
7. From this perspective, the comparatively recent book of M. Wagner (1966)
represents 'a retrogressive step' (Rabin 1970: 323). Recent linguistic work on the topic
is not adequately reflected in Wagner's monograph; see the reviews by Greenfield
1968; Hurvitz 1969b; Morag 1972.
29
stages in the history of Aramaic, has paved the way for a more profound
knowledge of the Aramaic dialects and their linguistic history. Naturally,
this development directly illuminates the issue of'Aramaisms' within BH
(cf. Kutscher 1970: 358). For our purposes, it is particularly important to
note here the discovery of Aramaic inscriptions dated as early as the
beginning of the first millennium BCEthat is, the First Temple period.
Such findings have completely overturned the older view that every
' Aramaism' is necessarily indicative of the late biblical era. This mistaken
view, whichas already notedwas especially common among nineteenth-century scholars,8 was fostered by the absence of writen sources
testifying to the vitality of Aramaic in the early biblical period. However,
since it has become clear from these new sources that Aramaic was
widespread and enjoyed high prestige already in the pre-exilic period, it
could no longer be maintained that the 'Aramaisms' encountered in BH
must reflect later linguistic usage.
One group of so-called 'Aramaisms' that should not necessarily be
categorized as late are lexical items and grammatical forms which appear
in poems contained in the Pentateuch and the Former Prophetspoems
which are widely assigned to the earliest biblical period because of their
strong ties with the Ugaritic writings (see, for instance, Morag 1981: 1).
It is possible, then, that these supposed 'Aramaisms' are not taken over
from Aramaic but, rather, 'Archaisms'that is, ancient linguistic elements
which in antiquity were part of the common legacy of Hebrew and
Aramaic, except that in Hebrew (as opposed to Aramaic) these 'Archaisms' simply disappeared from regular usage and survived only in the
conservative language of biblical poetry.9 For example, in the Song of the
Sea the root *rmh is found in the passage D/'D HO"! "OD^n DID ('Horse
and driver he has hurled into the sea', Exod. 15.1). This root, which is rare
in BH, is common in Aramaic. Accordingly, A. Bender, in an article on
the Song of the Sea published a century ago (Bender 1903: 11), did not
hesitate to declare *rmh an 'Aramaism' reflecting post-exilic times. However, in light of the considerations mentioned above, it is extremely doubtful whether this judgment can withstand critical examination today. The
assumption underlying such a viewpoint is questionable for two reasons:
8. Though present-day scholarship may fall into the same error; cf. the end of
n. 21, below.
9. See G.R. Driver 1953; Kutscher 1961: 50; Hurvitz 1972a: 27-28; Rabin and
Fassberg 1991: 100 <also I. Young 1993: 61>.
30
Biblical Hebrew
(1) it may well be that *rmh should be classified as an 'Archaism' and not
as an 'Aramaism' (Cross and Freedman 1955: 238) since it is attested
(KB, III: 1239) in both Arabic and Akkadian (and perhaps even in Ugaritic!), yet in neither of these languages is it interpreted as an 'Aramaism';
and (2) even if *rmh is indeed an 'Aramaism' which Hebrew borrowed
from outside, there is no evidence whatsoever indicating the time of such a
supposed borrowing. Perhaps, then, *rmh is an early 'Aramaism' and not a
late one? (Cf. Hurvitz 1982: 159-60 n. 6 <I. Young 1993: 63>.) At all
events, whatever stand we take on this matter, one basic fact remains
unchanged: the linguistic phenomena commonly called 'Aramaisms',
when found in the poetic stratum of biblical literature, cannot be accepted
indiscriminately as markers of a later period (cf. above, n. 9).
A second group of 'Aramaisms' which should not be attributed uncritically to the period of LBH is found in texts believed to have preserved
dialectical usages. These are linguistic elements which were apparently
current, perhaps only in popular speech or in local idioms within restricted
geographical districts of Palestine alongside the SBH of the First Temple
period.10 Indeed, the available data testify that BH was the standard
language used (at least in writing) in Jerusalem and the land of Judah, but
not necessarily in the Northern Kingdom. This fact is obvious from the
evidence of the epigraphic material at our disposal (see, e.g., Sarfatti 1982;
Garr 1985: 227, 234). On the one hand, we find a far-reaching correlation
between CBH and the language employed in the Hebrew inscriptions
dated to the First Temple periodall of which have been uncovered in the
area of Judah (Siloam Tunnel, Royal Steward, Yavneh-Yam, Arad Letters,
Lachish Ostraca). On the other hand, from the Samaria Ostraca we learn
about the existence of a local dialect in the Northern Kingdom which
deviates in some significant features from 'the Jerusalem standard' (p
instead of ]", P2? instead of FTO). In addition to this epigraphic data, there
are some indications in the Bible which suggest a certain measure of
heterogeneity in both the pronunciation of Hebrew1] and its vocabulary.12
10. Such a linguistic situation is known as 'diglossia'. See recently Rendsburg
1990a.
11. The famous episode in Judg. 12.6 which tells how the Ephraimites had difficulty in enunciating the word n^32J, attests that the first consonant of this word was
pronounced differently in different parts of the country (the exact nature of the protoSemitic phoneme which is represented in the story by a or a D is still at issue; see,
e.g., Rendsburg 1992e).
12. One of the classic examples customarily mentioned in this connection is the
relative pronoun >, whose earliest occurrences in the Bible are specifically associated
31
Due to the geographic proximity of the northern tribes to the land of the
Arameans, we may decidedly expect to find isoglosses between Aramaic
and 'northern Hebrew' even before the Babylonian exileisoglosses
which are not documented in the standard 'Jerusalemite' language.13 Consequently, if in a book like Song of Songs, which is widely believed to
have been composed (in whole or in part) in northern Israel,' Aramaisms'
(and/or 'Mishnaisms'14) are found in abundance, they may well be interpreted as (early) vestiges of the northern dialect and not necessarily as
(late) traces of post-exilic BH.15 In other words, 'Aramaisms' do not have
to be taken as compelling proof of chronological lateness in biblical writings which may have originated in northern Israel.16
A third group of 'Aramaisms', to whose appearance in the Hebrew
Bible no chronological dimension need necessarily be attributed, is documented in texts describing foreign characters and/or events connected to a
with the Northern Kingdom (see, e.g., S.R. Driver 1913a: 449 n.*; Kutscher 1982:32).
As is well-known, this KJ later replaced biblical "1KJN in Rabbinic literature. This is one
of the linguistic phenomena which scholars rely on when they suggest northern Palestine as the place where MH originated; see, for instance, recently Rendsburg 1992b.
13. See, e.g., Morag 1972: 299; Kaufman 1988: 45; Lemaire 1988: 11, 13. <The
issue of'Northern Hebrew' has attracted much attention in recent years; note in particular I. Young 1995; Schniedewind and Sivan 1997; Rendsburg 2002a.>
14. See n. 12 above and also Rabin 1970: 322-23.
15. Indeed, scholars are divided on this issue. The controversy may be illustrated
by comparing the opposing views of H.L. Ginsberg and A. Bendavidboth of whom
are acknowledged experts in BH, MH, and the various dialects of Aramaic. Ginsberg,
for instance, interprets HO^tC1 (Song 1.7) and the syntactic structure underlying the
phrase nb^tp^lp 1HI2Q (Song 3.7) as an 'imitation of Aramaic language patterns' (Ginsberg 1970: 114). These 'Aramaisms' are part of the data which bring Ginsberg to the
conclusion that 'the linguistic character of Canticles is pronouncedly later than that of
Esther' (p. 112). In contrast, Bendavid refers to the language of Song of Songsincluding the 'Aramaisms' appearing in itas a 'popular dialect which has been elevated to
serve in the temple of poetry' (Bendavid 1967-71: 76). However, he goes on to say,
'when we define the language of Song of Songs as 'popular', it does not mean that this
is the actual language of the Mishnah; rather, it is a link with '^prototype. After all, it
is an ancient scroll...' (p. 76, my emphasis). The whole point of this disagreement is
eliminated if we adopt the 'compromise position' (Rendsburg 1992b: 238) which
classifies Song of Songs (from the perspective of its place of origin) as a northern
composition, and associates it (from the perspective of time) with the late biblical
period; underlying this view, of course, is the assumption (p. 238) that the northern
language did not disappear altogether after the destruction of Samaria.
16. Cf. S.R. Driver 1913a: 448-49; Hurvitz 1972a: 31,35; 1983c: 217-18 <I. Young
1993: 61>.
32
Biblical Hebrew
non-Israelite background. The use of 'Aramaisms' in such contexts is a

well-known literary device, meant to impart an authentic atmosphere to
the narrative by introducing unconventional modes of expression into BH;
in so doing, the ancient author deliberately attempts to employ a style
which will suit the foreign scene of his story.This is exemplified in 2 Kgs
6.8-19, in the account of the wars between Aram and Israel:
While the king of Aram was waging war against Israel, he took counsel
with his officers and said, 'I will encamp in such and such a place'. But the
man of God sent word to the king of Israel, 'Take care not to pass through
that place, for the Arameans are encamped there'... Greatly agitated about
this matter, the king of Aram summoned his officers and said to them, 'Tell
me! Who of us is on the side of the king of Israel?' 'No one, my lord king',
said one of the officers. 'Elisha, that prophet in Israel, tells the king of Israel
the very words you speak in your bedroom'. 'Go find out where he is', he
said, 'so that I can have him seized'... Elisha said to them, This is not the
road, and that is not the town...'
D n nm ('encamped', v. 9), 1]^Q ('of us', v. 11), HITS ('where', v. 13)

and nt ('that', v. 19 [instead of DNT]) are usages which are not a part of
standard biblical language. Their concentration in these verses suggests
that the author of the passage intentionally chose 'words with an Aramaic
flavor'17 for the purpose of the story because the episode described here
deals with Arameans.18
Finally, there is a fourth group of'Aramaisms', connected with Wisdom
Literature. 'The wisdom of the men of the East' was quite famous in antiquity and so it is not a coincidence that this is the standard by which the
wisdom of Solomon is measured in the biblical tradition (1 Kgs 5.10:
Dip "]D ^D STOnO nzb nann mm). According to the prevailing
view, these 'men of the East' dwelt in northern Transjordan (cf. Num. 23.7:
Dip mnD nfcin f^n p^ "Unr DIN p)that is, in a distinctively
17. Kutscher 1961: 50. (Can the unique form "fl inn [v. 8] also be interpreted in this
way?) See also Hurvitz 1972a: 31, 35; Greenfield 1981: 129-30 <I. Young 1993: 60;
Rendsburg 2002a: 98-106>.
18. C.F. Burney (1903: 208-209) dealt with this in detail over a century ago. On
nm, PITH and HI, see also Kutscher 1961: 50-51; 1982: 31; and on IÔD, Montgomery 1951: 383 ('this good N[orth] Israelite particle is appropriate in citation of a
Syrian'). As for DTITO, it should be noted that according to Yalon 1971: 9, 10, Tin] is
just a secondary form of mn' and 'its meaning is "go down, descend"'. Kaufman
(1988: 55-56) has also discussed this phenomenon (he calls it 'style switching'), though
without mentioning the scholars who preceded him (see above, in this and the previous
note). <Cf. also Rendsburg 1995; 2002a: 98-106.>
33
Aramaic environmentand therefore we may assume that their language

was Aramaic or some dialect closely related to it.19 In any event, we possess
a wisdom work written in Aramaic, The Proverbs ofAhiqar, which
along with its languageobviously 'belong to the Aramaic wisdom literature of North Syria' (Greenfield 1964: 312; see also Lemaire 1988: 16
n. 31). Consequently, it is legitimate to assume that certain compositions
within biblical Wisdom Literature (Job, Proverbs) may have absorbed
words and forms from Wisdom Literature whose language was ancient
Aramaic. In other words, here again the existence of' Aramaisms'20 is not
in itself proof of lateness.21
Having surveyed the types of 'Aramaisms' which should not be classified
as 'Late Aramaisms', we may now proceed to those linguistic constituents
for which this label is appropriate; that is, those 'Aramaisms' which in
light of the data in our possession may legitimately be assigned to the late
biblical period.
b. Late 'Aramaisms'
(1) General background?-2 The sixth century BCE marks a significant turning point in the history of BH. 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 absent from the earlier Hebrew sources
but are common in the Aramaic dialects of the post-exilic period. Consequently, the tendency prevailing among scholars is to classify them as late
'Aramaisms' (cf. above, n. 6).
This linguistic development is determined by two political events which
decisively shaped the history of the people of Israel in this period: the
Babylonian exile and the return to Zion. The deportation from the land of
19. Somewhat like the dialect of Deir 'Alia, concerning whose linguistic classification and exact relation to Aramaic opinions are divided. See, e.g., Garr 1985:2,229;
Kaufman 1988; Lemaire 1988: 14; Huehnergard 1991.
20. Such as HS (instead of p), j'D^Q (instead of D'D^Q) in Prov. 31.2-3; ^ "IFD
-pnm TUT in Job 36.2 (Rashi: N1H "OIK []1Kfr =] *? IÎD [= 'all of it is Aramaic']).
21. See Kutscher 1961: 51; Hurvitz 1972a: 30-31, 35; 1983c: 216-17 <I. Young
1993:62-63>. Y. Hoffman's statement that 'Proverbs 31.4,6 are part of an oracle containing a number of Aramaisms, so it is reasonable to assume that it is among the latest
layers in this book' (Hoffman 1986: 17, my emphasis) is therefore surprising (the personal name ^NIQ1? should be omitted from the 'Aramaisms' mentioned there [n. 16]).
22. Cf. Hurvitz 1983c: 210.
34
Biblical Hebrew
Israel, which separated the exiles from the natural habitat of their language,
resulted in a severe break in the linguistic history of Hebrew; while the
return from Babylon brought back a Jewish population which for 70 or so
years had been exposed to the eroding influence of Aramaic, both in
speaking and in writing. Moreover, the close contact between Hebrew and
Aramaic, which became so strong during the Babylonian exile, did not
cease with the repatriation of the exiles. In the Restoration period Aramaic
was at the peak of its expansion and its dominance encompassed the land
of Israel as well. Indeed, under its impact distinctively late biblical works
such as Esther, Ezra-Nehemiah and Chronicles were composed, abounding in linguistic innovations widely attributed to the 'extensive Aramaic
influence'23 dominating the writings of the period.
The paramount position of Aramaic in the days of the Persian empire
greatly affected the local languages of the entire area. Its traces are recognizable not only in Hebrew but also in Akkadian, Arabic, Ethiopic, and
even the Persian script which adopted Aramaic ideograms. This is why the
'watershed' in the linguistic history of BH is so strongly linked with the
history of Aramaic. It is also the reason why the critical meeting point of
these two languages is assigned to the sixth century BCE, even though
some sporadic contacts are documented in the biblical tradition prior to
this date.
(2) Procedures for identifying late 'Aramaisms'. In view of the data and
conclusions peresented above, the following question arises: What philological procedure should we follow in order to identify specific late 'Aramaisms' which may have penetrated into biblical literature? In other words:
What are the linguistic considerations and methodological criteria that will
enable us to detect these 'Aramaisms'? E.Y. Kutscher, who has enlightened us on so many subjects connected with the linguistic milieu of the
Second Temple period, has contributed to the resolution of this problem as
well. In his programmatic essay 'Aramaic Caique in Hebrew', he offered
the following 'formula':
23. Naveh and Greenfield 1984: 121. See also Bendavid 1967-71,1: 64-74; Fitzmyer 1970: 501-502; Kutscher 1982: 81-84 ('LBH was shaped to a very great extent
by Aramaic influence' [p. 81]); Hurvitz 1983c: 219-20. The extensive influence of
Aramaic on late biblical literature has even prompted theories that the books of Daniel,
Qohelet and Chronicles were originally written in Aramaic; see Rabin 1970: 317;
Lemaire 1988: 24 and n. 75. R. Polzin, on the other hand, endeavors to drastically
reduce the part played by Aramaic in the formation of the book of Chronicles; see
Polzin 1976: 14,69, 160.
35
If one finds a lexeme which appears in biblical sources considered to be

early and also in those considered to be late, but in the late sources a change
occurs in its meaning, 'behavior', etc.then one should check the Aramaic.
If a parallel to this phenomenon may be shown to exist in Aramaic, there is
ground to suspect that Aramaic is the cause [for the change attested in the
Hebrew]. (Kutscher 1964: 119)
Indeed, this formulation delineates the three basic conditions required for
determining the lateness of an 'Aramaism': (1) the biblical documentation
of the 'Aramaism' must be characteristic of distinctively late biblical texts;
(2) it must be demonstrated that the 'Aramaism' deviates from standard
language usage in the earlier books of the Old Testament; and (3) the
'Aramaism' must be shown to have enjoyed widespread usage and vitality
in the Aramaic dialects in which it presumably originated.24
By way of example (see Bergey 1983: 148-49 <also Hurvitz 1997a:
311-13>): (1) the word n"UN ('letter') appears ten times in the Hebrew
Bibleall of them in distinctively Second Temple compositions (Esther,
Nehemiah, Chronicles); (2) the use ofn"UN represents a deviation from
the norm of CBH, which ordinarily has "ISO to denote 'letter'; and (3) the
word Krn3K/rn3N is very common in the various dialects of Aramaic,
including Imperial Aramaic of the Persian period which is contemporary
with LBH (and also in Targumic Aramaic, which uses this word as the
standard translation of the biblical ~ISD when it means 'letter'). Consequently, there is clear justification to categorize Pl^K as a late 'Aramaism'
within BH (thus, e.g., Bendavid 1967-71,1: 64) which encroached on the
CBH word ~1SD ('letter') in the Second Temple period.25
(3) Borderline cases. In this section, I would like to touch on two compositionsJonah and Qoheletwhich, again, illustrate the chronologically
problematic character of 'Aramaisms' in the Hebrew Bible. For many
24. In other words, the three criteria upon which we can rely for establishing the
lateness of an 'Aramaism' are: biblical distribution, linguistic contrast, and external
sources; cf. Hurvitz 1983c: 222 <also I. Young 1993: 63; Rendsburg 2002a: 98-106>.
For similar methodological procedures, discussed in the context of identifying 'Hebraisms' in Aramaic, see Fassberg 1992; and for the entire problem dealt with here cf.
also Gluska 1987.
25. To be sure, many are of the opinion that the word is originally Akkadian and
not Aramaic. See Kaufman 1974:48 (cf. also Kutscher 1970: 386; and also the detailed
bibliography in Wagner 1966: 19). Nevertheless, m3K certainly entered BH through
Aramaic, and from this perspective we are entitled to call it an 'Aramaism' (on this
matter see Kutscher 1954: 246-47).
36
Biblical Hebrew
years these two books were considered to be indisputable examples of late

works composed during the days of the Second Temple. Recently, however, several scholars have suggested moving back their date; and, necessarily, re-evaluating the precise nature of the 'Aramaisms' which appear in
them.
In Jonah we are confronted with several 'Aramaisms' (some of which
are also 'Mishnaisms' [cf. above n. 14]) such as H^fin (Jon. 1.6), ''p'pECl
(1.7), pntj (1.11-12), H3Q (2.1; 4.6,7,8). These 'Aramaisms' were almost
universally interpreted as indications of lateness, an opinion still widely
common in present-day scholarship.26 However, the proposition has been
voiced that the linguistic peculiaritiesparticularly the 'Aramaisms'
encountered in the book of Jonah are not necessarily indicative of LBH
but, rather, are intended to reflect the northern, or non-Israelite, background
of the story.27 In other words, according to this interpretation, the book of
Jonah and its 'Aramaisms' should be grouped with writings like Song of
Songs (a possibly North Israelite composition) or 2 Kings 6 (a text dealing
with non-Israelite characters) and thus excluded from the corpus of late
biblical literature.
Qohelet too is generally considered, by earlier as well as recent commentators, to be a late biblical work, one of the decisive considerations
supporting this conclusion being its language. F. Delitzsch even declared
that 'If the Book of Koheleth were of old Solomonic origin, then there
is no history of the Hebrew language' (Delitzsch 1877: 190). Notwithstanding this opinion, it has been proposed that the 'Aramaisms' and/or
'Mishnaisms' found in the book may be interpreted either as vestiges of an
ancient dialect (Phoenician/Northern Hebrew) or as features of the particular literary genre of the composition (Wisdom-philosophical). Thus,
according to this view, there is no compelling evidence to date Qohelet to
the end of the biblical period.28
I mention these two examples not because I am convinced of their correctness (it seems to me that the theory referring to Qohelet is particularly
doubtful29), but because they point to the necessity of regularly reviewing
26. See, e.g., A. Brenner 1979; Qimron 1980b: 181-82; Naveh and Greenfield
1984: 121; Allen 1976: 186-88.
27. See especially Landes 1982. And compare also the note in Qimron 1980b: 182.
28. See the survey of Schoors 1992: 1-16. Schoors himself does not endorse this
opinion; see his summary, on pp. 221-24.
29. See Hurvitz 1983c: 214; 1990.
37
and re-evaluating accepted views and positions, even in cases where they
for many years have been considered the assured results of scholarly
research (cf. section 2, above).
4. Concluding Remarks
It clearly emerges, then, from the discussion presented above, that the term
'Aramaism' is polysemous and associated with a variety of phenomena,
each of which constitutes a matter unto itself. Obviously, the term was
coined to designate a non-Hebrew linguistic feature which was understood
to have entered the language due to the (direct or indirect) influence of
Aramaican influence invariably associated with the late biblical period.
However, this definition is no longer valid. The term 'Aramaism', which
we continue to use to this day, 'is rather a philological convenience than a
demonstrable fact' (G.R. Driver 1953: 38). Consequently, we have to
recognize that the linguistic nature of an 'Aramaism' is determined by the
character of the texts in which it is used, and its appearance in different
writings is contingent on several factors: on the one hand, literary genre
(ancient poetry, Wisdom sayings) and literary technique (deliberate imitation of a particular style); and, on the other, regional-dialectical differences
(north/ south) and diachronic developments (early/late).
STYLE is MORE THAN THE PERSON: SOCIOLINGUISTICS,

LITERARY CULTURE AND THE DISTINCTION BETWEEN
WRITTEN AND ORAL NARRATIVE*
Frank H. Polak
The main thesis of this paper is that large sections of biblical narrative are
based on a substratum of oral literature. Although biblical narrative has
been committed to writing, it is possible to recover considerable traces of
its oral substratum by means of syntactic and stylistic analysis.1 The
existence of oral narrative is represented as a matter of course in the tale
about Gehazi who recounted 'the great things that Elisha has done', and
told how the prophet 'had revived a dead person' (2 Kgs 8.4-5). But
Gehazi's story is only referred to, and is not introduced as it was told.
How then to characterize oral narrative in ancient Israel? In which respect
does it differ from a story that was composed from the outset in writing?
And what kind of literary culture does it represent?2
It is possible to answer these questions with the help of some basic
features of spoken and written language that have been established in
sociolinguistic research in the last 20 years (Miller and Weinert 1998;
Chafe 1982; 1985; 1994: 41-50; Halliday 1989). Some of these distinctions, as far as they fit ancient Hebrew, indicate that biblical narrative
harbors two kinds of style. Many narratives, such as those found in large
sections of the books of Kings, Chronicles, Ezra-Nehemiah and Esther,
tend to prefer intricate sentence constructions, long noun groups, and
* I am grateful to Ms Cynthia Edenburg who improved my English and suggested some important clarifications.
1. The present paper reports on some of the findings of a larger research project
that attempts to develop criteria of this kind for BH, for which see Polak 1997-98;
1998; 2001b; 2002; Ehrensvard 1997:34-36; Rendsburg2002b: 32-35; Na'aman 2002:
37-39; Greenstein 2002: 176-77.
2. In the present study the term 'literature' will include 'oral literature', as customary in ethnopoetic research, e.g., Finnegan 1970.
Polak Style is More than the Person
39
subordinated clauses. Since these features involve planning, rereading and

correction (Stubbs 1980:15-18,29-42,97-115;Ochs 1979;Halliday 1989:
96-97; Chafe 1994: 42-45, 224-300), narratives in this style probably are
at home in the scribal chancery. Other narratives, among them the tales of
the patriarchs, the Saul-David narratives and many prophetic legends,
reveal a marked proclivity to short, simple clauses in parataxis. Such
diction demands far less planning, and therefore narratives in this style are
probably close to spontaneous spoken language (Miller and Weinert 1998;
Chafe 1985; 1994:42-70,108-69; Halliday 1989:92-93), and thus to oral
narrative.
The sociolinguistic approach is able to overcome some of the sceptical
objections, such as the declaration that 'it is not possible to prove that any
biblical work was orally composed' (Niditch 1993: 7), or the thesis that
'virtually everything that one can identify as a feature of oral composition
can also be found in written composition' (Van Seters 2000: 84), considering the 'interplay between the oral and the written in traditional cultures'
(Niditch 1996: 4, 107; Widengren 1959: 261). The latter view is largely
based on aspects of literary design, such as repetition, formulaic language,3
and narrative patterns (Niditch 1996: 10-21; Ben Zvi 2000:17-18,21-23).
Although these patterns seem ultimately rooted in the oral performance,
they are ubiquitous in ancient literature, and thus could hardly serve as
criteria for the mode of composition, even when they can be indicative of
the oral roots of ancient literature ('Oral-derived literature', according to
Foley 1995: 137-43; Culley 2000: 55-56).
In the present study, analysis of some of the features of oral and written
prose ('the sociolinguistics of language', Fasold 1990) and their social and
cultural background ('the sociolinguistics of society', Fasold 1987) will be
buttressed by a comparative examination of the diction in various tales
about the Sinaitic covenant and the appointment of the elders, in Exodus,
Numbers and Deuteronomy, in order to determine the relationship between
the style of the Deuteronomic versions of these narrative events, and that
of the non-Deuteronomic versions. Finally, I will consider the possibility
that the stylistic profile of these tales derives from stylistic imitation or
literary preference rather than from a distinct social and cultural background.
3. On formulaic language in biblical narrative see Cassuto 1973: 7-16; 1975:
16-26,69-71,74-80; Cross 1983; the frequency of the epic formulae has been analyzed
by Polak 1989; 1991. For a definition of'epic formula' seeReichl 1989: 46-49; Polak
1989:438-41.
40
Biblical Hebrew
1. The Wise Woman from Tekoa and the Scribe
A comparison between a number of short texts will suffice to indicate a

few basic differences between the written and the oral. The wise woman
from Tekoa is introduced as telling her story to David in order to convince
him to treat Absalom leniently (2 Sam. 14.5b-7a).4 Hence her tale is a ploy
for convincing the king, rather than a narrator's yarn. Nevertheless her
case must be heard. The text is quoted clause by clause, as indicated by the
clause markers (forward stroke V is used to separate independent clauses,
underlining is used for subordinate clauses, noun groups are opened and
closed by angle brackets, e.g., '<TDn TN>'):5
/ mra DmtD iun / <TD3 ^^> f nnstî (v. 5b)

/ IPR no11! / in^n n
inn isn / Dmra.^D ]î
/ 'KTR nani / ']& <n]Q^ TON> ^N (v. 6)
/ TOTI /"jnnsK? b:? <nnsoDn bn> nap n:m (v. 7a)
/ <m.i2M vn 2ja> innaii / vrm HDD n ^n
enrn PIN DJ nTotrai
Alas, I am a widow-woman, my husband is dead, and your servant had two
sons. The two-of-them came-to-blows in the field, and there was none tostop them, and the one struck the other and killed him. Then the whole clan
confronted your-servant and said, 'Hand over the one-who-killed hisbrother, that [we] may kill him for the life of his-brother, and destroy the
heir also'.
This short tale (15 clauses) stands out by its predilection for a crisp,
rhythmic sequence of short clauses, and a high number of verbal forms.
Hence, this particular style is best characterized as 'rhythmic-verbal'. In
order to make this impression explicit, I will use the term 'argument' to
refer to those parts of speech that are directly related to the predicate
(explicit subject, object, modifier, etc.).61 will also count the noun groups
4. The high adroitness with which the wise woman from Tekoa succeeds in
persuading the king is described by Fokkelman 1981: 128-42; Hoftijzer 1970:428-31,
442-44; Greenstein 1999: 157-59. In the terms of Conversation Analysis, the Tekoite
initiates a transaction which is concluded to her full satisfaction.
5. In the translation words that are needed for the English but are expressed in
Hebrew by bound morphemes (the implicit subject of the verbal predicate, indicated by
prefix and affix conjugation) are marked by square brackets (e.g. '[we]'). When two
words are needed to render one word in the Hebrew, their connection is indicated by
the hyphen (e.g. two-of-them came-to-blows).
6. This definition does not cover the object suffix (nor any other suffix), but the
particle with suffix is counted as (pronominal) argument, for example, DflN, ~\b. In the
nominal clause the subject is counted as argument, but the predicate is not, even if it
41
(e.g. nouns with attribute, including construct state, or in junction with

additional nouns, for instance, D^m ilKQn) and the subordinate clauses
(hypotaxis).
1. The present tale contains a relatively large number of independent clauses that consist of a predicate with one argumentfor
example, ""DK nDQ^N !T2?Nor even of a predicate only"HOtTl
(altogether nine short clauses out of 15 [60%]). The introductory
clause "HEN1'! is continued by a sequence of four clauses
with one argumentTTI& mD inTOl / Vrm rQDriK "in
cnrn n DJ HTOTI / rin -\m (apartfromrin i^), covering more than a quarter of this pericope. The preference for
sequences of short clauses ('verbal sequences') is characteristic
for this style.
2. Only three clauses include more than one argument.
3. Some short clauses are dependent on the main clause, such as the
relative clause 31H "1K7N (three clauses [20%]; participles and
infinitives construct count as subordinated);
4. This excerpt contains no more than a few noun groups (!"I2?K
nDQ^N). 7 Reference is often by pronoun or by pronominal suffix
with particle (inN).8
The typology of this pericope is indicated by Table 1 (see next page), in
which the illustratory quotes do not represent all instances of the indicated
class.
Since the woman is characterized as wise, the crisp, rhythmic style of
her tale must be recognized as competent, all the more so as the narrator
makes her deliver the best speech possible.9
has the form of an indication of place (mo) or time. Additional complements are of
course counted as argument.
7. The style of the following peroration (v. 7b) is far more intricate, since it
includes a metaphor, which also is a clause that includes a relative clause (E"IK 13D1
mwra "IftN 'nbm) and a long infinitive clause:'JS Û n'-ftttn DK? Wvb Dlft *rb&
nQ~!K!"[. The peroration embodies the rhetoric of public discourse rather than narrative.
On the use of cultivated language in public discourse see Polak 2002b: 81-94; 2001c:
87-95.
8. For this purpose the object suffixes have not been taken into account, since
their stylistic status has not as yet been sufficiently established.
9. The relatively high percentage of clauses in hypotaxis (20%) could be considered problematic, but in fact this percentage is marginal, all the more as the clause
3~irt ~IK)N is quite simple. Moreover, the slightly more complex style suits the diction of
public discourse (see n. 7, above).
Biblical Hebrew
42
Table 1. The Tale of the Wise Woman

Selected Samples from the Text
0 Arguments
1 Argument
Ton
'] n:cb& ne
'2r non
Total Cases
in Text
6.67
53.33
9
3
60.00
20.00
20.00
26.67
1HN nO'l
TTTK DSJZl 1HHQ31
Total 0-1 Arguments

2+ Arguments
Simple Subordination
Complex Subordination
Short Noun Groups
enrn n DJ m-oron
men or liJn
iriNn n in^n im
jnnsty bu nnsran ^D nap
Drrrn b-ao
rnK HDQ
:nn -IE
HDO^ ntz
D^3 'D2J
Long Noun Groups
nnEjron ^D
vn &sn
By contrast, many narratives are characterized by the use of long,

intricate clauses, hypotaxis, and long noun groups, such as, for example,
the Deuteronomic version of Moses' stay at Mt Horeb (Deut. 9.8-11).10
Some subordinate clauses are dependent on a clause in hypotaxis. This
configuration ('complex subordination') will be indicated by the equals
sign ('=') A system of brackets will be used to distinguish the component
parts of noun groups that contain additional, embedded subgroups. For
example, in the noun group [<Hirb DTD11> <DV DTn"l> |*pl3],
square brackets mark the extent of the entire group, while embedded
subgroups are distinguished using angle brackets:
DSHfc TDfflCT^Dja n ^jwri / n n onsapn mrm (v. 8
= <nnnn nmb> <p^3Kn nm^>] nnpls = nnnn ^n'aa (v. 9
/[D3Qr_7lJinD1M
/ ^rbi* vfo nnV [<b<b D-u3ni> <DV D-i;3"i>] "inn nei

/ nn^n!y vfo DÎ
10. Lohfink (1963:208-15) considers various proposals for redaction-critical analysis of this section, only to reject them on the basis of the narrative use of various
formulae.
43
<n']2Nn nm? *w>]n ^ n ]m (v. 10
D'"Qin b:a>] nrrhJin / [^rn^K matQ> p^ro

/ [<bnpn Di"n> <&Kn -pno> <nrp DHQU 'n -pi IEM
/ [<n^b D-wii> <nv p'lman fpQ>] TH (v. 11)
[<r?-an mnb> <o"Dnn nnb ]& n>] -b n ]ro
At Horeb [you] provoked the Lord / and the Lord was so angry (enough)
with you to have destroyed you. When [I had] ascended the mountain, to
receive the tablets of stone, the Tablets of the Covenant, that the Lord had
made with you. / And [I] stayed on the mountain 40 days and 40 nights / [I
did] not eat bread / nor drink water. / And the Lord gave me the two tablets
of stone, inscribed by the finger of God, and on them the exact words that
the Lord had addressed to you on the mountain out of the fire on the day of
the Assembly. / At the end of those 40 days and 40 nights, the Lord gave
me the two tablets of stone, the Tablets of the Covenant.
Like the brief tale of the wise woman, this pericope contains 15 clauses.
But the style is different.11 Only four clauses (26.61%) contain one argument. Three clauses (20%) contain three arguments (e.g. DID 71 ^pNm
D3HK TDETI1?). Five clauses (33.33%) are dependent on the main clause
(e.g.DDnN TGEFl1?),12 or on subordinate clauses (CmiKn nm1? HHpb,
DIDQtf 'H HID 1KJ rvnn nm1?). Noun groups stand out by their length:
rr-nn nmb D'lnKn nm^ ^ (twice).13 The noun group D-imn bm
is expanded by an intricate relative clause, that contains six arguments:
(i)"i^(iDi),(2)'n,(3)DDQi:,(4)-inn,(5)^n-]inQ,(6)bnpnDrn.
The stylistic profile of this pericope is demonstrated by the Table 2 (see
next page), in which the samples are illustrative rather than exhaustive.
In all respects, then, the style of this pericope is the opposite of that of
the wise woman from Tekoa. If the wise woman uses short, simple clauselets, the Deuteronomic tale is couched in long, intricate clauses. If the
wise woman employs few subordinate clauses, these are abundant in the
Deuteronomic tale, and what is even more significant, two clauses are
dependent on hypotactic clauses. As against the low number of noun
groups in the tale of the Tekoite, one notes the high number of such groups
in the Deuteronomic narrative, as well as their length.
11. Note that the excerpt from the tale of the wise woman contains 41 words, as
against 69 words in the excerpt from Deut. 9.
12. S.R. Driver (1895: 113) points to the possibility that v. 9 is dependent on v. 8,
but prefers to construe it as the protasis to v. 10 ('^N 71 ]m), paralleled by, e.g., Gen.
22.4; Isa. 6.1. However, in this case the transition from v. 1 to the main body of the
retrospection seems too harsh.
13. Five noun groups with three to five nouns, three with two nouns; in the mean
73% of all clauses contains a noun group.
Biblical Hebrew
44
Table 2. Moses' Stay at Mount Horeb
0 Arguments
1 Argument
7b/a/ C<7565
w Tex/
26.67
33.33
26.67
13.33
6
4
40.00
26.67
33.33
60.00
'n^DN vb Drib
Tvniz? b D"m
DT31M DV DT31 fpQ TH
n^
D'13TJ ^33 Dn'în

2+ Arguments
'n n nnsHpn 31021

D'lniKI DV D'1731N 103 3KM
n^
1
D3n Taen
?
DDD
n
^n-i
D^DNH nm1? -DE?
n ^ n ]m
D'Dswn nn^ S3e? n 'bn n jra
D3n i omb
ninn nte
1H3 DD13I? 'H 131 12
D^nb J73S3 D"3nD
D']3n nmb nnp^

DDOU 71 H13 12
Total Subordination
Short Noun Groups
n^nb unyn
D-13in ^DD
Long Noun Groups
En f ino
^npn
DV3
rvi3n nm1? D"D3n nm1?
nb^ D"17311 DV D^SIW
D"nn nm1? "^
H^b D^21l DV D"r31 fpQ
nînn mnb nn]3n nnb îz?
Total Noun Groups
In view of the preference for intricate syntactic structures and complicated

noun phrases, this style may be characterized as 'complex-nominal'. On a
formal level, this style stands out by:
(a) The low frequency of short clauses (10-30% of all clauses).
(b) The high frequency of clauses containing from two to five
arguments (35-50%).14
14. Seven distinct arguments are found in Num. 1 . 1 , six in Lev. 23.20; Num. 9.1;
18.6.

(c)
(d)
45
The high frequency of subordinated clauses (25-50%), and, specifically, of clauses in complex subordination, and of subordinate
clauses that contain multiple arguments or long noun groups
(10-20%).
The high frequency of long, intricate noun groups.
By contrast, the rhythmic-verbal style is characterized by:

(a) The high frequency of verbal sequences and short clauses with
only a predicate, or a predicate with one argument/pronominal
arguments (50-70%).
(b) The low frequency of clauses with two arguments or more
(around 20%).
(c) The low frequency of hypotactic clauses (5-15%, mostly short).
(d) the low frequency of noun groups in general (mostly in 10-30%
of all clauses), and long noun groups in particular.
The contrasting profiles of the two styles are summarized in the following
table:
Table 3. Rhythmic-Verbal vs. Complex-Nominal Style
0-1 Arguments
2+ Arguments
Simple
Subordination
Complex
Subordination
Short Noun
Groups
Long Noun
Groups
Rhythmic- Verbal
Frequent: 50-70%
Infrequent: mostly 15-30%
Complex-Nominal
Infrequent: 10-30%
Frequent: mostly 35-50%
Less frequent: mostly 10-30% Highly frequent: mostly 60-100%

Rarely found
Frequently found
The above profiles describe probabilistic tendencies. Texts in which the

complex-nominal style prevails may nevertheless contain some crisp
rhythmic clauses. However, in the long run and in most passages such
clauses are the minority, and mostly fulfill particular purposes, whereas
the basic preference is the more complex clause. By the same token, passages in the verbal style may contain some complex clauses, but most
clauses met are short, crisp and rhythmic. Longer and more intricate clauses
generally fulfill some particular purpose (exposition, legal discourse,
narrator's comment, climaxsee Labov 1972: 360-70,393-96; Longacre
1989: 18-19,30-39; 1996:37-45).
46
Biblical Hebrew
Why does the one tale prefer the complex-nominal style, and the other
one the rhythmic-verbal style? Previous research suggests that the difference is related to the distinction between written and spontaneous
spoken language. Hence it would not be a matter of chance that the
rhythmic-verbal diction prevails in a narrative in the mouth of a speaking
person such as the wise woman from Tekoa. By contrast, the complexnominal style seems related to written language, a connection which is
underscored by the fact that this style prevails in a text from Deuteronomy,
in which the central mode of communication is writing (Weinfeld 1972:
158-66), in spite of its pretended origin in spoken discourse.
Thus, the following section will deal with the sociolinguistic characteristics of the rhythmic-verbal and the complex-nominal style.
2. The Sociolinguistics of Language
a. What Writers Know
A characteristic example of the complex-nominal style is provided by the
Aramaic documents of the Persian era, for instance in the report by the
scribe Ma'uziyah:
<-ni û>] <noK BI;M!? soD_[<K7n_3")> JHT.UJLTD nim
/ [<K-to_T3>jrj;i. TD3en .!i <pst p>
<"Bmm H-m DU> mntw [<*33i? ^wby> <mm nu>]

pn *?i7
t
/ !Ji3TC_ni? [<vwyn n ?> ^to]
And now, when Vidranga the garrison commander arrived at Abydushe

imprisoned me on account of one dyer's stone, which one had found stolen
in the hands of the merchants. / Finally Seha and Hor, servants of Anani,
intervened with Vidranga and Hornufi with the help of the God of Heaven,
until they set me free. (CAP 38,11. 3-5; Porten and Yardeni 1986: 58; see
also Lindenberger 1994: 58-59)
In both these sentences the number of arguments is high. In the first

sentence one notes the indications of (1) time ('when Vidranga...'), (2)
place ('at Abydus'); and (3) cause ('on account of one dyer's stone'). In
addition this sentence includes a subordinated time clause ('when Vidranga arrived...'), and an intricate relative clause ('which one had found
stolen in the hands of the merchants'). The second sentence contains no
less than five arguments: long, intricate noun groups serve as subject
(Seha and Hor, servants of Anani), as indirect object (Vidranga and
Hornufi) and as complement (with the help of the God of heaven). Only
the indication of time ('finally'/]"1H^ 717) contains no more than one
noun. In addition one notes the hypotactic time clause f313T27117).
47
The scribal context is clear in the case of the Egyptian Aramaic Ahiqar
narrative, in which the preference for complex noun groups is more than
striking. For instance, Sennacherib is styled HDT ]lNmDK ^T TTOK
NDbQ (1. 47);Esarhaddonisnamed~nn"f^ ]1mD (11. 10, 11,20,
32). Ahiqar's title is nnpTI? miJtt mDK CDJT ('counsellor of Assyria and
its seal holder', 11. 2-3).15 He is also called
mbai nnDU bjjp mn p-ns -ma] -T NTOB wnos brm Q"Dn tnsp]
N^D "iin mn
wise scribe and good counsellor, who [was a just man and] whose advise
and decisions were relied upon by all Assyria (11. 42-43)
as well as
[Tin n^D] Tins ^m >ia znaruD nnc:r bu ^ n^D Tina -T man

thepraeceps of all Assyria, on whose advise Sennacherib the king and [all]
the Assyrian army [were relying]. (11. 55-56; so also 11. 60-61)
The predilection for long noun groups and precise identification seems
related to the language habits of the official scribal chancery, as witnessed
by the Egyptian Aramaic contracts from Elephantine. The characteristic
features of this style are found in all Aramaic prose from the Persian
period, whether in narrative, in written report or in legal contract.
The intricate style also prevails, though to a lesser extent, in the ancient
Hebrew epigraphic remains of the Judean monarchy. The narrative genre
is represented by the Siloam inscription which mainly consists of intricate
clauses (S.B. Parker 1997: 37-38):
/h>[KDi0]oi p-a nun mi irn 'D...

/ ]na bu |n: im mp1? e caijnn isn nnp]n nvm
/ now "f?i CTW33 naian bx Kinan }a iran inî
.. .for there was an upsurge in the rock to the right and the l[ef]t. Now, on
the day of the breakthrough the stone masons struck one to another, axe on
axe. And the water streamed from the source to the pond in 1200 cubits.
The last clause contains one predicate with five arguments; its subject
consists of a participle clause (DDHnn).16 Although the diction of the letter
from Yavneh Yam is far less intricate (S.B. Parker 1997: 16-17), we still
15. See also 11. 12, 18-19, 35-36, and see Polak 1996: 83.
16. The fronted time indication is not marked by "n"l, and is followed by simple
qatai. C3inn 1DH rnpDH DV21. The only wayyiqtol form is 1!Dln. See also Rainey
2000: 78-79.
48
Biblical Hebrew
note a number of features of the complex-nominal style, in particular in

the account of the matter, for example:
/ HUD ^]Sb CQ'D DDK! / ^D"l / ~p3U ISp'!
/ '3K? p irniOT am BQ'D DDK! nap n îsp ^pjiiaw

/ -[-m? in n np1? DJT .ni..iisp n. rba IBKD. / "p30 nn n np"i
And your servant reaped and measured17 and stored-away for the days
(agreed)18 before Shabbath.19 After your servant had measured the harvest,20 and stored-away as agreed for the days, along-came Hashabiah son
of Shobai, and took your servant's garment. After I had measured my
harvest as agreed for the days, he took your servant's garment.
Reflecting a commoner's petition, this account contains a number of short

clauses (e.g. bD"1 / "[T3U "l^Tl, "["QI? TD HN HjTI), but also more
intricate clauses (e.g. yni? TO D npb DDVm_.i|"13ip.n.nl?3.."lS8D,
with a long hypotactic clause).21 Thus in spite of the popular tone, the
narration is drawn in the complex-nominal style, as is only to be expected
in an official petition. Complicated syntactic structures are also encountered in plain letters, as in, for instance, Lachish 4.10-13:
/ '3"w_jni_iB8 =_nnn ^ZOJHDB urn ycb. nm^.:3 irn
npiu n niD vb ^
And may (he) know that we are tending the fire-signals from Lachish
according to all the codes which my lord has given, for we cannot see
Azekah.22
17. So following Gibson 1971: 29, and of late, Rainey 2000: 76-77.
18. Following Gibson 1971: 29.
19. Following Rainey 2000: 78; 1327 could be construed as an infinitive ('ceasing
work'), as assumed by many scholars (Gibson 1971:29; S.B. Parker 1997:15), but this
construction seems forced.
20. For the use of FIN before an indefinite common noun see, e.g., Exod. 21.2
Lev. 26.5; Deut. 14.14; Judg. 7.22; 2 Sam. 4.11; 5.24; 15.16; 18.18; 20.3; Isa. 34.14;
41.7; Prov. 3.12; 13.21; 23.6.
21. Hence four clauses out of nine are short (44.45%), but two contain two
arguments, e.g., HUtE1 ^sb GiTD QDN1 (22.22%). Three clauses occur in hypotaxis
(33.33%), e.g., DtTD DDN1 lUp HR "\"n[0 ^p HtftO. This clause is continued b
n
D> p 11TI1O1 NiTI, as main clause opened by an apodotic waw, which is a rare construction after ~\W3 (Exod. 17.11; 2 Sam. 20.12).
22. KAI194; according to Lindenberger (1994:112-13) this clause is the apodosis
of the previous protasis (...1p3n fQDrQ DN ""D). In his view the predicate of this
clause is [Np[n].
49
This excerpt contains a long object clause (nnNI"L. .flNKD btt ''D), that
includes three arguments (two noun groups, ED1? flNOS ^N, DDK!! ^DD;
one pronoun, IDFI]), and a relative clause OHK ]H] "IID^; complex subordination). Hence, in Judean inscriptions from the late monarchy (c. 700-586)
the complex-nominal style is found in narrative sections and in plain
letters (Polak 1998:103-104). These findings justify the inference that the
complex-nominal style represents scribal language.
Further, this inference is in keeping with the findings of cross-cultural
linguistic analysis. A number of linguistic features that are the hallmarks
of the complex-nominal style are characteristic of written discourse in
general:
(a) The long noun groupChafe (1982:39,42; 1985:108-10)points
to the frequent use of syndetic noun pairs, long noun strings and
attributes;23
(b) The use of two arguments and moreChafe (1982: 39; 1985:
109-10) indicates the frequency of prepositional phrases, that is,
the use of indirect object and modifiers in addition to subject,
object and predicate;24
(c) The predilection for subordinationChafe (1982: 40-41; 1985:
109-10) points to the increased use of present participles, and
participle clauses, object clauses (either as that-clause or in the
form of an infinitive), and indirect discourse;25
23. See also Miller and Weinert 1998: 133-39; Halliday 1989: 69-73.
24. See also Biber and Conrad 2001: 185.
25. See also Miller and Weinert 1998: 80-94; Halliday 1989:72-73. Factors a-c are
discussed by Beaman 1984: 46-50; Kim and Biber 1994: 164-69; Biber and Hared
1994: 186-92, 192-203. It is to be noted that (1) some subordination occurs in all discourse (and in some forms is even more frequent: Beaman 1984: 56-70; Schleppegrell
1992) and (2) in particular that relative clauses are not infrequent in spoken discourse
(Beaman 1984: 66-70). Hence the decisive factor is not the occurrence of hypotactic
constructions, but the frequency of particular constructions, and in particular their
complexity (Beaman 1984:75-80). Not all data, however, are comparable. For instance,
Beaman finds that in spoken narrative relative clauses are more frequent whereas in
written narrative participle clauses are found more often (see also Schleppegrell 1992;
Thompson 1987). However, this observation is based on a Californian student public
(Tannen 1984b: 22 n. 1), and thus hardly representative of authentic oral narrative
(Labov 1972: 213-22). On the importance of the type of speakers chosen for sampling
see Miller and Weinert 1998: 19-21. See also n. 46, below.
Biblical Hebrew
50
(d)
Complex subordinationBeaman (1984: 75-80) highlights this

feature as a specific trait of written language.26
Thus modern linguistic research recognizes a cross-cultural profile of

written language. The characteristic features of the complex-nominal style
fit this profile exactly. Halliday (1989: 61-75, 87, 92-93) subsumes the
characteristic features of written language under the heading 'lexical density', meaning the high number of content words per clause, and thereby
the high number of arguments and long noun groups. In my view, in BH
narrative all characteristics of the complex-nominal style pertain to density
in this sense. The phenomenon that in written language these features
occur together is related to cultural and technical factors alike. The technique of writing enables the scribe to reread what he has written; to correct
it (if necessary); to add what he has forgotten at the correct place; to
remove whatever seems, in hindsight, redundant (Chafe 1985:105; Miller
and Weinert 1998: 22); and thus to build well-formed, intricate sentences
(Halliday 1989: 73-75, 87). In this regard spoken discourse, which is
produced instantaneously, does not offer the same technical possibilities
(Biber 1995: 2-4),27 while the limitations on the production of sentences,
such as breathing, intonation, and short-term memory, are far more evident
(Miller and Weinert 1998: 22; Chafe 1980: 33-49; 1994: 45-48, 53-70,
108-19).28
Moreover, from a cultural point of view, in a written text the integration
is realized by diverse intricate syntactic constructions, for example, causal,
temporal and final clauses in hypotaxis, which enable the writer to join
various aspects of the subject matter into one interlocked discourse (Halliday 1989: 87,93-96; Notopoulos 1949: 1-8; Winter 1994).29 Texts of this
kind demand a reader who is able to decode such intricate structures. Thus
the density of written discourse is a cultural rather than an exclusively
26. See also Halliday 1989: 87. When Halliday describes a series of highly intricate
clauses as 'simple', he does not mean syntactic structure but the opposition to the
dynamic complexity of spoken discourse.
27. On speaking as an instantaneous activity see pp. 55-59, below.
28. This is not the place to discuss involvement and formality as stylistic factors
(Tannen 1984b; 1985; Beaman 1984). A variety of different parameters is analyzed by
Biber 1995: 18-37, 95-111,270-79, 318-20, 359-61; Kim and Biber 1994: 179; Biber
andHared 1994: 191-211.
29. On the integration of idea units in written texts see also, e.g., Chafe 1982: 39,
52-53; 1994:42,44-45,278-300; Gumperz, Kaltman and O'Connor 1984: 7-9,13-15;
Stubbs 1982; Tannen 1985: 130-31; Biber 1995: 274.
51
stylistic phenomenon (Biber and Conrad 2001: 186-87; Winter 1994:

47-50, 66-68).
b. The Cultural Setting of the Complex-Nominal Style
These circumstances suggest a strong connection between the knowledge
of writing and the use of the complex-nominal style.30 Indeed, the Aramaic
documents of Persian times were written by professionals, as shown by the
subscripts of some of the contracts, for example: ]H] "D iTD!"lQ DPQ
UEJin "1H !T]T DBS ('Mahseyah son of Nathan wrote [this] according to
the speaking of Yedanyah son of Hosea", CAP 25,1. 17; Porten and Yardeni 1989: 48).
Small wonder, then, that in biblical narrative the characteristics of the
complex-nominal style stand out in texts from the Persian era, for example,
Esth. 3.12:
/ <n m- IE?!? niZ76en> <pKrn enrn> <-[ôn nso> itnpî

<f?an '3STren b>] <]an niH ~\m ^3D> nnm
/ <H3HD1 nnO Si? 1^> <mnSH ^1>
/ iDiKfcD <om D:JI> / mrou [nrioi nna> <DÎ DU> n^> î

<qôn n^nc33> nnnDi / DHDD [<tznioi iân> DBD]
On the thirteenth day of the first month the king's scribes were summoned
and a decree was issued, as Haman ordered, to the king's satraps, to the
governors of every province, and to the officials of every people, to every
province in its own script and to every people in its own language. The
orders were issued in the name of King Ahasuerus and sealed with the
king's signet.
And also 2 Chron. 30.1:
/ [<rmm t?iKT> ^n ^] irrpirr r6izH

<nOQi DÎSR bi?> linn ni"ia D:I
[<*?Kigr ^n^^> rb>} nos mai?1? = [<D*?cnTn <TI n^b>] wa1?
Hezekiah sent word to all Israel and Judah; he also wrote letters to Ephraim
and Manasseh, to come to the House of the Lord in Jerusalem, to keep the
Passover for the Lord God of Israel.
Accordingly, the use of the complex-nominal style is not only a matter of

typology, but also of setting. This style is at home in the scribal chancery.
30. This inference is underscored by the use of the complex-nominal style in a
number of writtern texts, for example, Deut. 17.18-19; 31.19, 22, 24-25; Josh. 18.8;
Jer. 36.6. On Deut. 27.3, Josh. 8.32 and Exod. 31.18 see Polak 2001b: 57-58; 2002:
264-65.
52
Biblical Hebrew
Its rules and norms are set by the professional scribe, who knows how to
plan the discourse, and to formulate intricate sentences, who is able to
reread them and to insert corrections wherever necessary. That is to say,
the technical and cultural knowledge involved in the use of the complexnominal style presupposes a well-developed, professional bureaucracy as
provided most readily by the royal administration.31
In biblical narrative, the characteristics of the complex-nominal style are
demonstrated by the redaction of the book of Kings, since the chronological framework refers to written records concerning the deeds of the
kings, for example:
[<"U2p.!)2& 1iepl> HQT -"Ql> TH>]
[bHKT 'ZbEb> <IT!yn H3"T ISO by] DÎHD DH N^H
Now the rest of the acts of Zimri, and the treason which he committed, are
they not written in the book of the chronicles of the kings of Israel? (1 Kgs
16.20)
[<on!?3_"3E3B.i TOP ~\m inTnn> BSKnrr '"m> -irn>]

[rmrr 'DbDb> <n^n nm nso by] D'mra on sbn
Now the rest of the acts of Jehoshaphat, and his might that [he] showed, and
how [he] warred, are they not written in the book of the chronicles of the
kings of Judah? (1 Kgs 22.46)
The concept of writing, then, is basic to the redactional framework of the

book of Kings. The administrative background of the complex-nominal
style is demonstrated by the complex sentences that indicate the beginning
and length of the the king's period of rule, for example:
[<rnK p> man] ~jba [nin- "jbo> NDNb> <&bc ratn>

< ymai nne?y> nmnn <b-ier bD by>
In the third year of King Asa of Judah, Baasha son of Ahijah became king
in Tirzah over all Israel for 24 years. (1 Kgs 15.33)
31. Crenshaw 1998: 29-49, 87-113; Erman 1966: Iv-li, 185-88; Weinfeld 1972:
158-66; I. Young 1998a: 419-20. The assumption of a royal chancery (including a
school) is necessitated by the existence of a rather unified orthographic standard,
differing from that of Phoenician and Aramaic, but similar in the Mesha stele and the
inscriptions from Samaria and Judah (e.g. the use of// as mater lectionis indicating the
vowel /o/ at the end of the word), and the commonalities of epistolographic formulation, for example, the use of fin introducing the operative paragraph. The existence
of a system of this type over three centuries and in a number of different centers
presupposes some centralization (Puech 1988: 201), and an expertise which could
hardly be provided by private instruction only.
53
nmm û ~f?tt [<NDN p> BBtmm]
[6tnizr 'pQ> 3n^> <w"i& n]tra>]

islaa [<n]e? ram D-cbto p] cssenm
[^nbc nn> mill?] <IQN Dtm>/D<iSE7iT3 ~p& <n3to ram D'-i&n>

Now Jehoshaphat son of Asa bad-become king of Judah in the fourth year
of King Ahab of Israel. Now Jehoshaphat [was] 35 years old when hebecame-king, and for 25 years he reigned in Jerusalem. Now his mother's
name was Azubah daughter of Shilhi. (1 Kgs 22.41-42)
These sentences contain an abundance of administrative detail that is

specified in a clause with no less than five arguments (1 Kgs 15.33), comprising an indication of time ('in the third year of King Asa of Judah'), a
subject ('Baasha son of Ahijah'), a local modifier ('in Tirzah'), an indirect
object ('over all Israel'), and an indication of duration ('for 24 years').
One also notes long noun groups, for example, 'in the fourth year of King
Ahab of Israel', and an infinitive clause CO7EQ). Thus the redaction of
the book of Kings is couched in the complex-nominal style,32 and presupposes the royal administration and the scribal desk.
Moreover, scribal expertise fulfills a central role in the tale of the discovery of the Torah during the temple restoration, since it was Shaphan the
sopher, who read the scroll to the king.33 This pericope (2 Kgs 22.8-11)
and the royal solemnization of the covenant (23.1-3) are couched in the
complex-nominal style. In Deuteronomy the idea of writing the law stands
at the center of the ceremonies mentioned in chs. 27 and 31 (Niditch 1996:
79-80, 86-8S),34 and these accounts themselves are formulated in the
complex-nominal style.35
32. Also note the indication of the royal sins (15.26ba noun phrase with three
nouns and an attributive clause). For the following texts see Polak 1998 (relevant page
numbers supplied in brackets): 1 Kgs 10.1-7 (67-68, and Polak 2001b: 71-72); 2 Kgs
11.3-20 (92-94); 16.5-9; 22.3-11 (67-68).
33. In fact, Lohfink (1991: 75-79) finds a connection between some of the
biographical narratives in the book of Jeremiah (Jer. 26; 36; and parts of Jer. 37-43) to
members of the Shaphan family, who also seem very conscious of the tale of the
discovery of the Deuteronomy scroll (2 Kgs 22-23).
34. Deut. 27.3,8; 31.9,24; and in legal context: Deut. 17.8; 24.1,3. After teaching
the 'Song of Moses' (Deut. 31.19ab), it is also to be written down as witness (31.19b,
2la). Note also 11.20.
35. Characteristically, the case of divorce quoted in the Deuteronomic law involve
the writing of a contract (niT"O "ISO il1? Hfm, Deut. 24.3) which is not mentioned in
the prophetic allusion to this or a similar case (Jer. 3.1). The 'bill of divorce' is
mentioned in the prosaic homily (Jer. 3.8), and in Isa. 50.1 (in Isa. 40-66 the root DPQ
occurs in 44.5; 65.6).
54
Biblical Hebrew
In the Jeremiah Vita one notes the tale of the redemption of the field of
the prophet's uncle, Hanamel, for which a written deed is drawn (Jer
32.12), a document that is to be preserved in a (2Tin ^D ('an earthen jar',
32.14).36 The Jeremiah tales also mention technical terms such as "ISO
mpan (32.11), "ISO fte (36.2), "1SDH POT1? (36.12), "ISDn "ll?n
(36.23). A clear indication of the administrative expertise is provided by
the elaborate system of dating, for example, 'in the ninth month of the fifth
year of King Jehoiakim' (Jer. 36.9; similarly 28.1).37 Baruch is servin
Jeremiah in a private capacity (36.4; 32.13), but in these chapters, the role
of the royal bureaucracy and the royal scribe also is very much in evidence
(Jer. 36.10, 12,20-21, 23-26; 37.15,20).
These circumstances imply more than just scribal know-how. Legal
formulation presupposes a polished linguistic culture. The cultural implications of the development of the royal bureaucracy are clarified by the
tale of the confrontation between Rabshakeh and Hezekiah's ministers:
npra n~i ^N rwn

nncn irrpbn p a'p^w "iotn
iDnjN D11 BOB -a rra~iN -j'lafl b ND ~ai
nonn *? -\m nun ^JTNII mirr iDQfl imn î
Then Eliakim son of Hilkiah, Shebna, and Joah replied to the Rabshakeh,
'Speak now to your servants in Aramaic, for we understand that; but do not
speak to us in Judean in the hearing of the people on the wall'. (2 Kgs 18.26)
According to this verse, which itself exemplifies the complex-nominal

style,38 the king's ministers take it for granted that the soldiers and civilians
36. Writing is mentioned in Jer. 32.10, 12, 44; 36.2, 4, 6, 17, 27, 28, 32; 45.1
51.60. And in a purely prophetic context: 17.1, 13; 22.30; 25.13; 30.2; 31.33. This is
more than in any other book of the Major Prophets (Isa. 1-36, six cases; 40-66, two
instances; Ezek. 1-39, seven examples; 40-48, one case). 'Written documents' (~ISD)
are mentioned in 24 passages in Jeremiah (e.g. 3.8; 25.13; 29.1,29; 30.2; 32.10-16,44;
36.2-18; 45.1; 51.60, 63); while 'scribes' (ISO) are mentioned in 12 (e.g. 8.8; 36.21
26,32; 37.15,20; 52.25). The noun HDD is found once in Ezekiel (13.9); nine times in
Esther (e.g. 3.12; 4.8); once in Hebrew Daniel (10.21) and in Ezra 2.61 (//Neh. 7.64);
also note 1 Chron. 28.19; 2 Chron 2.10 (no parallel in 1 Kgs 5.20-21); 35.4. In
Aramaic, note Ezra 4.7; 6.18; 7.22; Dan. 5.7,8,15-17,24-25; 6.9-11 (ten cases in Dan.
5-6). See also n. 40, below.
37. So also 32.1; 36.1; 40.1; 41.1; and less elaborated: 34.1, 8; 35.1; 37.1. Als
note the elaborate list of addresses in 29.1; 44.1. In the LXX the text of these verses
largely reflects that of the MT, unlike 27.1 (not represented by the Greek). In 26.1; 36.9
(33.1; 43.9) the LXX offers a shorter version of the royal titles.
38. One notes the long nominal group in the first and the third clause (five and three
nouns respectively), and the high number of arguments per clause (2-2-1-3).
55
on the walls would not be able to understand a formal address in Aramaic.

Only people with extensive education and governmental experience would
have the required expertise. Hence the social context in which this style
was esteemed and cultivated was that of the developed monarchy, and its
bureaucratic framework. The cultural context, then, of the complex-nominal
style is that of a society in which scribes, scribal technology, and scribal
administration occupy a central place.
Thus the scribal desk and the royal bureaucracy provide the social background against which to view the narrative sections in the book of Deuteronomy (chs. 1-6; 9-10; 31-34); many sections in the book of Kings (e.g.
1 Kgs 3; 15-16; 2 Kgs 11-12; 14-25); parts of the books of Joshua (chs.
3-8; 22-24)39 and Jeremiah (chs. 26-28; 32; 36-43; 52). From a chronological point of view the most plausible candidate for a historical context of
this style is the late Judean monarchy, under which the royal bureaucracy
was becoming more and more important, and the period of Babylonian
and Persian domination.40 (Additional aspects of this issue will be treated
later, in the discussion of the societal aspects of stylistics.)
c. The Wisdom of Speech
In contrast, many signs indicate that the rhythmic-verbal style has its
roots in spoken language, and thus in oral narrative (Chafe 1987: 22-24,
38-40; Miller and Weinert 1998: 14-22). According to a number of crosscultural linguistic studies, concerning, inter alia, English (from different
regions and strata),41 German, Russian, Modern Greek, Japanese, Korean,
39. In the book of Joshua the complex-nominal style is the prevailing one. On Josh.
9; 22; 24, see Polak 1998: 91, 95-96. Writing is mentioned in covenantal and administrative contexts (Josh. 1.8; 8.31-34; 24.26; 18.4-9, respectively).
40. The verb HfO (not including the passive participle) has 120 instances in the
Hebrew Bible, including the Aramaic parts. It is highly frequent in the books reflecting
the Persian period (Esther = 15 cases [34.97% of all verbs in qal]; Ezra = seven cases
[35.90%]; Nehemiah - eight cases [12.60%]; Daniel = four cases [11.08%]), but it
does not occur in Genesis, Ruth, 1 Kgs 1-20 and Leviticus (these points have been
duly noted by Wahl 1997: 113-15). In Judges it is found only once (8.14); in Samuel it
occurs three times in narrative context (1 Sam. 10.25; 2 Sam. 11.14-15). For Chronicles the situation is similar (1 Chron. 24.6; 2 Chron. 26.22; 30.1; 32.17). ~ISD ('written
documents') occurs in 191 cases, only one of them in a heading in Genesis (5.1); see
also n. 36, above.
41. The discussions based on the English Pear stories (Chafe, Tannen, Beaman and
Clancy) reflect a Californian student public (Tannen 1984b: 22 n. 1); Biber's spoken
language data (1995: 42-43) reflect a group of middle-class, male academics (Miller
56
Biblical Hebrew
Nukulaelae Tuvaluan (spoken on an atoll in the Central Pacific Tuvaluan

group), Somali, Tamil and Turkish, spoken language is characterized by a
number of different phenomena (Chafe 1985).42
(a) Fragmented syntaxMiller and Weinert (1998: 22) assert that
'the syntax of spontaneous spoken language is in general fragmented and unintegrated'.43
(b) Frequent use of short clausesMiller and Weinert (1998: 22)
find that in spontaneous spoken language 'the clausal constructions are less complex' than in written language.44
(c) Pronominal referenceaccording to Miller and Weinert (1998:
22) in spontaneous spoken language 'deictics' play 'a central
role in signalling relationships between chunks of syntax'.45
(d) Disinclination to various kinds of subordination46Miller and
Weinert (1998:22) conclude that 'spontaneous spoken language
typically has far less grammatical subordination than written
language and much more coordination or simple parataxis'.47
and Weinert 1998: 13). Miller and Weinert (pp. 7-9) use texts from various different
regions in Scotland and representing different social strata.
42. See also B. Fox 1987: 137-39; Biber and Hared 1994: 187-92, 200-203,
206-209; Biber 1995: 105-11, 238-42, 270-79 (and nn. 24 and 25, above); Biber and
Conrad 2001: 184-91; Miller and Weinert 1998: 14-22.
43. Miller and Weinert 1998: 23-26, 58-71. Eggins and Slade (1997: 89-95) mention elliptical and minor clauses (having no syntactic structuralization). In Halliday's
approach this is the complexity of spoken language (1989: 76-91).
44. See also Eggins and Slade 1997: 75-89, 111-15; Miller and Weinert 1998:
15-16, 46-49. Due to the emphasis on tagging for computerized analysis, Biber does
not present a syntactic analysis, but indicates various measures of 'elaboration'
characteristic of written language (Biber 1995: 334-35).
45. See also Crystal and Davy 1969: 102-103,112; Clancy 1980: 127-33,167-75,
197-98 (discussing English and Japanese); Hausendorf 1995; Miller and Weinert 1998:
267-306; Biber and Conrad 2001: 185. B. Fox (1987:137-38,140-48) finds deep-lying
differences in the syntactic use of pronominal reference in spoken (pp. 16-76) and
written English (pp. 93-136).
46. See Miller and Weinert 1998: 72-79, 94-99, 142-44. But Miller and Weinert
(1998: 79-94) show that 'topical adverbial clauses' and various kinds of relative
clauses are not infrequent in spontaneous spoken discourse, although their structure
differs from that of similar clauses in written language (1998: 100-32; see also n. 25,
above).
47. For this research, 'parataxis' is defined as the connection between clauses by
the copula, in a variety of functions, for example, as waw consecutive or waw conjunctive, or by asyndetic junction. Thus the logical relation between the clauses is

(e)
57
Disinclination to long nominal groupsMiller and Weinert

(1998: 22) assert that in spontaneous spoken language 'a small
quantity of information' is 'assigned to each phrase and clause';
'phrases are less complex than phrases of written language'.48
Thus modern linguistic research recognizes a cross-cultural profile of

spoken language. The characteristic features of the rhythmic-verbal style
fit this profile exactly. On a more general level Halliday (1989: 72-86)
characterizes spoken discourse by (1) its lexical sparsity (i.e. the low
amount of content words per clause), and (2) the free connection between
the clauses in a clause complex rather than in a well-formed sentence.49
Thus the opposition between spoken and written language is that between
two different overall structures, between sparsity and density, between
freely connected clause complex and well-formed sentence.
Let me illustrate this thesis with the help of a piece of transcribed
English dialogue: 'Look. See that guy. He plays the double-bass.' 'Does
he?' 'In the orchestra. He is a funny bastard, and his wife is German and
he is insane' (Eggins and Slade 1997: 67).50 The short staccato clauses in
this conversation illustrate the typical form of casual, spontaneous spoken
language.51 Even when public occasions cause the speaker to use more
formal language, his discourse use still differs from that of written
language.52 The reason for this tendency is obvious: spoken language is
produced on the spot in face-to-face interaction (Chafe 1994: 41-44;
implied by the context (Rynell 1952: 31-36). At the time Eduard Nielsen (1954: 36)
suggested defining oral composition in the Hebrew Bible, inter alia, by means of the
paratactic style. However, Nielsen does not indicate which text will count as paratactic
and which will not.
48. See also Miller and Weinert 1998: 132-33, 139-82.
49. With regard to the status of clause and sentence Halliday's approach is significantly supported by the extensive discussions of Miller and Weinert 1998: 28-49,
72-81.
50. See also the narratives analyzed by Eggins and Slade 1997: 227-72; Biber
1995: 329-33; Miller and Weinert 1998: 15, 23-24, 29, and excerpts on pp. 146-49.
51. For the present argument the term 'spontaneous spoken language' (Miller and
Weinert 1998: 14-15, 23) is of critical importance, since spoken formal language can
be intricate when used by persons who have learned how to use formal language, such
as clergymen, jurists, and other academics (p. 38).
52. Different dimensions of spoken discourse are analyzed by Miller and Weinert
(1998: 14-22), on the basis of samples designed to be large enough so as to be representative (pp. 6-14), and differentiated enough so as to reflect diverse types of speakers
(PP. 19-21).
58
Biblical Hebrew
Miller and Weinert 1998: 22).53 Self-correction ('self-repair') is possible

(Hutchby and Wooffitt 1998: 57-69), but interrupts the flow of information, and thus contributes toward the typical fragmented character of
spoken discourse. In written texts, on the other hand, correction does not
leave its imprint on syntactic structure. The kind of planning involved in
the process of composing written texts (Ochs 1979; Stubbs 1980; Chafe
1982; 1994:41-50), is inconceivable in spoken discourse. Hence, the intricate syntactic structures and stylistic patterns found frequently in written
texts are hardly compatible with the context of spoken language. In contrast, oral discourse attains the connection between various themes by
means of the complex interaction of a succession of clauses, intonation,
rhythm, and body language (Halliday 1989: 46-60, 82-86), and the involvement of the addressee in the reception of the message (Tannen 1989:
169-95).54 The audience that is being addressed by narrators using this
style, must be able to appreciate its particular subtleties, that are quite different from the qualities of written texts. Thus the cultural conditions
presupposed by orally communicated narrative (and other texts) are totally
different from those ingrained in written discourse.
The characteristic style of oral narratives has been discussed extensively
in cross-cultural linguistic research (Chafe 1980; 1985; Tannen 1982;
Ervin-Tripp and Kuntay 1997). Excellent examples are found in some
tales such as those recorded and collected by Dorson (1960; 1964).55 For
instance:
Jack says, 'Give me a tomahawk'. (That's a thing like a hatchet 'cept it has
two heads to hit. They used hit in olden times. Indians used to use hit to
scalp with.) 'And I may be in for dinner, and hit may be night when I get
in'. So they give him a tomahawk and he went over in the forest and climb
a great, long pine. (Dorson 1964: 169)
53. Halliday (1989: 78) describes spoken discourse as a 'medium in which text is a
process (and becomes a product only by translationbeing "written down")'. See also
Chafe 1982: 38; 1985: 105; Biber 1995: 2-4, 238; Hutchby and Wooffitt 1998: 54-92,
149-54; Biber and Conrad 2001: 191.
54. On involvement of addressee and audience see also, e.g., Eggins and Slade
1997: 116-68; Notopoulos 1949: 17-21; Chafe 1982: 52; Tannen 1984a: 54-129,
144-53; 1989: 9-35.
55. Wahl (1997: 126-32) points to the simple sentences, the verbal style, and the
short noun phrases (at most one apposition) in some oral narratives, but does not check
these aspects of the Jacob narrative (pp. 245-67). On the other hand, he highlights
colloquial language (Polak 200Ib: 59-74) and couleur locale (I. Young 1995).
59
The non-standard pronunciation 'hit' for standard 'it' indicates the regional
language. One notes the short clauses and the restricted use of noun groups
('two heads', 'olden times', 'a great, log pine'), the paratactic clause connections ('And I may be...and hit may be', 'and he went...and climb').
Hypotaxis, however, is found more than in biblical narrative (four clauses
out of 13). Another tale concerns a strong-man (Dorson 1964: 41):
Broke his neck. Broke the horse's neck because he didn't like the policeman. He said something to him, and he was in Portland. And that's when
the police were on horses. And he hauled off and thumped the horse and
broke his neckkilled by him right in the street.56
This fragment contains even less hypotactic clauses and complex noun
phrases than the previous excerpt. In general, then, the characteristic style
of oral narrative is close to casual, spontaneous spoken language.
Since this style is also displayed by the rhythmic-verbal diction in
biblical narrative, it seems that the sources of this diction are to be found
in oral narrative. This inference is supported by the rich evidence for the
rhythmic-verbal style in the folktales found in the midrashic Aggadah,
which reflects the preacher's speaking voice (such as Vayyiqra Kabbah,
Eichah Kabbah; Alexander 1991; Stemberger 1992: 241-44). In addition,
it is possible to point to the language used by biblical stories that are by
consensus considered close to the ancient folktale, for example, the tales
of Samson (Judg. 14-15), and Elisha (2 Kgs 4; 6-8).57
Linguistic analysis shows that the biblical rhythmic-verbal narrative
style resembles that of quoted speech (direct discourse; Polak 2001b:
59-65; 200Ic: 53-65). More than a few signs suggest that the ancient
Israelite narrators were aware that the language used for speaking has its
own characteristics that set it apart from written language. The style of the
Ezra memoirs in general is 'complex-nominal'par excellence, but casual
language is used when the narrator has to introduce a person as speaking
(Polak 2001b: 65-72; 2001c: 57-60), for example,
56. Also note Labov's analysis of (pre-)adolescent tales in the South Central
Harlem (1972: xviii-xxii), in particular his stylistic characterizations (pp. 359-95 [esp.
p. 380]).
57. Polak 1998: 78-81; 200Ib: 65-73; 200Ic: 63-77. For the Samson tales see
Niditch 1990. On the Elisha tales see Rofe 1988a: 13-18; S.D. Hill 1992; Hoover
Renteria 1992; Todd 1992:4-8. Na'aman(1997b: 160-72) highlights the way in which
the Dtr redaction of Kings uses the prophetic narratives and battle accounts as 'historical' sources.
60
Biblical Hebrew
m / pm / -pa umKi / nmn j^r ^ / Dip
Take-action, for the responsibility is yours, and we are with-you. Be strong,
and act. (Ezra 10.4)
By the same token, the historiographic anecdote in the book of Kings has
Joash address the Judean king, Amaziah, in casual language:
ipy rmm nn nn^BDi / nim mnn naî / ~\rm nen / lion
Enjoy-your-glory but stay home. For why provoke-disaster, and fall, you
and Judah with-you? (2 Kgs 14.10)
Thus, even narrators who use the complex-nominal style are aware of the
special nature of spoken language.58
For a better appreciation of this similarity it is important to note that
the linguistic profile of spontaneous spoken language is for a large part
dependent on face-to-face interaction (Miller and Weinert 1998: 140-41,
194,267-68; Hausendorf 1995). When the speakers face one another they
share a common background, and can ask for clarification. In such a
context ellipsis and reference by deictics and pronouns are self-evident.
Hence the preference for deixis and the tacit changes of subject (implicit
turn taking), such as found in the tale of Elisha and Hazael:59
m *? R3-1 /ircr^K nQ -p^ (v. 14)
rrnn rrn / ^ IQR / -on / ovrbm "p IQ nos/ -\b "ovi
/ r3s bo p~isn / D"E3 ^ncri / i:Dan npM / ninoo m (v. is)
vnnn ^nin "pn^ I non
And he (= Hazael) left Elisha / and returned to his master / and he (= BenHadad) asked him, 'What did Elisha say to you?' And he (= Hazael) said,
'He (= Elisha) told me "(you) will recover'". / And jît] was the next day,
and he (= Hazael) took a-piece-of-netting, dipped [it] in water, and spread
[it] over his face. So he (= Ben-Hadad) died, and Hazael became-king
instead.
A recent translation of v. 15 introduces explicit indications of the subject:

The next day, Hazael took a piece of netting, dipped it in water, and spread
it over his face. So Ben-Hadad died. (2 Kgs 8.14-15 NJPS)
In the Hebrew, however, the identification of the two participants is

dependent on the understanding of their role in the context at hand, as
58. The corollary is that dialogue is only partially indicative of the rhythmic-verbal
style. The main characteristics must be detected on the level of the narrative sequence
in the narrator's voice (Polak 200Ib: 64-65).
59. On these subjects see de Regt 1999: 13-19, 28-31; Polak 200la: 208-18.
61
customary in face-to-face interaction. In this respect, then, the rhythmicverbal style reflects the nature of oral discourse: in written texts complete,
explicit reference is required.
All characteristics of oral narrative are found in the tale of the wild vine
(2 Kgs 4.38-41):
/ VDS1? D-aizr D^nari ^m / pan amm / rtoan 30 svrbw (v. 38
/ D'K'aDn -331? TTD êm / n^nan TDH ns& / nujb -om
uan cap^-i / me? ]s: KHITI / niNjsp1^ men *? in Km (v. 39
/ IUT b '3 / TTDH TO ^K rrba'i / NTI / 1133 N^n mto nups
/ ipuu nnm / TTDHD nbriND TH / ITDI? D'traK1? pin (v. 40)
/ ^73^ l^T ^l / D'n^KH tT TDD HID / TOn
/ i^3î / DU^ pu / -iD-i / TDH ^ "jben / nop inpi / -iiatn (v. 41

TDD y"i -QI n^n bi
Elisha returned to-Gilgal. [There was a] famine in-the-land, and thedisciples-of the-prophets were-sitting before-him. [He] said to-his-servant,
'Set the-large-pot, and cook a-stew for-the-prophets'-disciples'. So one [of
them] went out into the fields to gather sprouts, and came-across a wild vine
and picked from it wild gourds his garment full, and came-back and sliced
[them] into the pot of stew, for [they] did not know, and [they] served [it]
for the people to eat. While they were eating of the stew, they cried-out and
said: 'Death in the pot, man of God!' And [they] could not eat [it]. But [he]
said: 'Fetch [some] flour'. [He] threw [it] into the pot and said, 'Serve [it] to
the people and [let them] eat'. And [there was] nothing harmful in the pot.
This tale represents the worries of the common people,60 and their solution
by the prophet's magical arts (S.D. Hill 1992: 39-45; Hoover Renteria
1992: 92-113, 116). Hence it obviously originates in popular culture.61
This surmise suits the rhythmic-verbal style of the narrative, as shown by
the extended verbal sequences in vv. 39b-41:62
60. The assumption of a farmer-based, anti-establishment background for the
tales of Elijah and Elisha is strengthened considerably by the archeological discovery
of a farmer stratum under the building strata of Jezre'el (Zimhoni 1997: 83-84, 87;
Na'aman 1997a: 124-25).
61. The generic definition of Gressmann (1914:24; 1921:269-70) is supported by
comparison to the popular French and English-Scottish literature of the sixteentheighteenth centuries: Mandrou 1999: 20-25, 44-49; Bolleme 1971: 18-20. Spufford
(1981: 3-9, 50-65, 227, 231) comments on the connection between the chapbook and
oral literature, and highlights popular religious literature ('Small godly books',
pp. 194-213), and folk heroes (pp. 222, 229-32).
62. The construction of TH with infinitive construct, for example, Q^DKD TH, is
analyzed as an indication of setting in the opening of a narrative sequence (Polak 1998:
73). Because of its direct connection to the narrative sequence, a clause of this type is
Biblical Hebrew
62
I TT3HD D^3N3 TPI / 1ITT N1? '3 / TT3i1 TD ^N nl?B<l1 / N3'1
natri / ipuii nom

i*73tn / nr^ pn / -on / Ton h> f ben / nap inpi / -intn
Clauses with multiple arguments are rare, but do occur in the exposition.63
V]Sb D'ner D-tran -m/n^n 3271?^^. The few noun groups
consist of two words only (e.g. H^llJin TDH, m2? ]SH). The resulting
picture is clarified by the following table:
Table 4. Elisha and the Wild Vine
Km
0 Arguments
1 Argument
Total Cases
in Text
5
17.86
13
46.43
18
7
64.29
25.00
10.71
32.14
1UT Vh "D
TON1!
TDtn
ibnni
p3 Duim
n^nan TDH nsD
TDH b i^î
mto ]B3 Kao11!
TT3H TO ^ n^S1!
Total 0-1 Arguments

2+ Arguments
n^^ pu
T'DD un -m n-'n î
n^;^n ne; rerbw

VDB1? D"3er D^-DDH "331
Dsn^Kn Kr Ton ma
1133 ^Q niKJ Hi?pB 1DQQ Dp^l

1
rnuBpli men *? in KH !
^138?? D-KWh) ipu-l
^D^b l^D' ^1
Short Noun Groups
D^^DH '331
rrbnj Ton
mra ]33
1133 ^Q
TT3H TO
not dependent on the following clause (with a wow consecutive). See also Eskhult
1990: 30-31; Niccacci 1990: 152, 156-61.
63. On the stylistic character of the exposition see Polak 2001b: 64-65; 2001c: 65,
77.

I Long Noun Groups
63
-
This tale, then, has all characteristics of the rhythmic-verbal style. The
story Gehazi told the king was probably couched in a similar style, for the
cycle of the Northern prophets contains many examples of this diction.
d. The Cultural Setting of the Rhythmic-Verbal Style
The importance of this stylistic characterization is underscored by the
cultural aspects. The tale of the wild vine is dominated by the theme of the
prophet's magical power, a theme also frequent in other tales of Elisha
(Rofe 1988a: 14-15). In this respect the Elisha cycle is close to a number
of narratives, all in the rhythmic-verbal style, that contain residues of
ancient, possibly animistic and dynamistic conceptions, such as the tale of
Jacob's wrestling with the Angel (Gen. 32.25-33; Ringgren 1968: 73;
Geller 1982: 37-38, 44-55),64 and the tale of the divine assault on Moses
(Exod. 4.24-26; Avishur 1999: 137-72; Geller 1982: 57-58). The Moses
tale contains a relatively large number of short clauses,65 two clauses with
two arguments ("liJ HlSiJ npm, ^ nnK D'CTf JDH n D), and only one
case of hypotaxis (irPQil p!IH). The exposition of the Jacob tale and the
etiological note contain some long clauses (v. 33: ''ID I^D^1' $b p br
nin Dvn 11? "pri =p ^ -\m mri T: n ^trrcr) and some cases of
hypotaxis (v. 26: "intOT Hlbu "TI? 1EU ET pHtTl; v. 32: tODKTI 1^ mn
b^l]S DN "QU "123KD). But most clauses include no more than a predicate
with one argument (v. 29: ÎPl Dn^] Din DTrbK DU me? ^).66
These episodes, then, are excellent examples for the rhythmic-verbal style,
which also prevails in the tale of the three mysterious wayfarers at the
terebinths of Mamre with its well-known mythical background (Gen.
18.1-15; Avishur 1999: 57-74; Polak 2001b: 62-64, 73; 2001c: 53-54).
64. Geller (1982: 38-39, 52-57) focuses on the exegetical import of the duality
implied by the combination of the ancient relics with the national level of pentateuchal
narrative.
65. The Moses tale contains nine short clauses out of 12 (75%), with predicate only
("lIDKm) or with one argument (71 inraS'l, rbrb Wm), sometimes in the form of a
pronoun/adverb (1DDD ^Tl, mQN IN). Noun groups include one apposition ("p"Q
]1^Q3), and a few construct states (T1D3 rblU, D'Ql ]Pin [33%]). The three intricate
clauses cover 25% of all clauses.
66. The tale of Gen. 32.25-33 includes 37 clauses, 21 of which contain at most one
argument (56.76%), ten contain between two and four arguments (27.03%), and five
occur in hypotaxis (13.51%). Long noun groups occur in 29.73% of the clauses. One
has to note that the motif of the Jacob tale is used and attenuated in the prophecy of
Hos. 12.
64
Biblical Hebrew
The fact that tales embodying such ancient and popular beliefs and
mythic residues67 are couched in the rhythmic-verbal style is consistent
with the thesis that this style reflects the diction of ancient Israelite oral
narrative, with roots in the archaic culture of village, small townlet, and
encampment.68
This inference is corroborated by the fact that writing is not mentioned
anywhere in patriarchal narrative (Gandz 1935: 249-50; Demsky 1988:
18).69 Although negative evidence in general cannot be regarded as
affirmative proof to the contrary (Fischer 1970: 47-49), one can hardly
disregard the fact that none of the agreements recounted in these narratives
is represented as backed up by a written document. The quasi-political
covenant ceremony of Laban and Jacob includes the putting up of pillars
and a solemn declaration, but not the inscription of any written enumeration of obligations and witnesses. Nor are messages of Jacob and Esau
accompanied by written missives, unlike Sennacherib's 'letter' to Hezekiah (2 Kgs 19.14: DHSDil/^/7/r/w).70 Thus, even though these agreements
andmessages are concerned with regulating the relationship with Arameans and Edomites, they do not involve a written text. The acquisition of
real estate by Abraham and Isaac was formalized in the narrative by oral
agreement, not by written contract (Gen. 21.22-32; 23.6-18; 26.28-30),
even though the narrative is most interested in the validity of the witnesses' testimony (23.18) and the presents given on the occasion (21.2830; Pedersen 1914: 24-25, 52-54). We are hardly allowed to surmise that
these tales represent the same kind of culture as the narratives in which the
royal administration necessitates writing even for purposes of far less
67. Not all narratives embodying such ancient beliefs are couched in the rhythmicverbal style. The late classical style is found in Gen. 2-A and in Judg. 13.15-23. But in
these tales the numinous element is less vehement than in the tales of Jacob and Moses
quoted above. Even in the Adam narrative, the concrete divine presence is indicated by
hearing and speaking, whereas even the Abraham tale alludes to divine dining.
68. See Otto 1996; 1999:366.
69. The emphasis on Jabbok, Mahanaim, and Penuel in the Jacob narrative favors
the conclusion that these tales precede the Assyrian conquest of Gilead (734 BCE).
Even if one assumes that the narrative was composed only after this conquest, one has
to admit (1) that the narrator is familiar with the data by virtue of a living tradition, and
(2) that he presumes that his public is also acquainted with the situation.
70. In contrast, the well-known statement concerning the correspondence between
the spoken proclamation by the messenger and the written text on the tablet (the
Muwatalli-SunaSsara treaty IV, 11.32-39), implies that written messages were standard
(Weidner 1923: 108).
65
importance. Would the scribal milieu on its own initiative create an ancestor who is implicitly represented as either unable to formulate a legal
obligation in writing, or not interested in jotting it down? The reluctance
to ascribe writing to the patriarchs requires explanation, particularly in
view of the self-conscious ideology of the masters of the scribal arts (Ps.
45.2).71 And indeed, according is Jubilees 'Jacob learned to write', which
for Abraham is a good reason to prefer him to Esau (Jub. 19.14-15).72 But
this motive contrasts sharply with the absence of any such allusion in the
biblical Jacob cycle. In patriarchal narrative, then, the rhythmic-verbal
style fits the archaic cultural horizon implied for the narrated world.73
In the narratives of the savior-judges and the first kings the situation is
slightly different, for here writing is occasionally mentioned. The case of
the na'ar (probably an official [I. Young 1998a: 250]) who wrote down
the names of the magnates of Sukkoth (Judg. 8.14), shows that some
townspeople knew reading and writing for administrative purposes (Haran
1988: 84). By contrast, Jotam is represented as proclaiming his riddles
from the mountain before he flees to an unknown destination, when he
might have remained at a safe distance and addressed the Shechemites by
letter. Hence, the public literary culture of the town was popular and oral
(Burke 1988: 24-31).74 By the same token, writing is mentioned in the
book of Samuel in two cases only: recording the 'manner of the kingdom'
(1 Sam. 10.25), and David's letter to Joab concerning Uriah (2 Sam.
11.14-15). The mention of writing in the latter case fulfills a narrative
function: since Uriah himself is the messenger, an oral message would be
impracticable.75 This tale presumes a limited amount of literacy. A scribe
71. See Pearce 1995: 2265-66; Lichtheim 1976: 168-75; and cf. Prov. 22.29.
72. This is the rendering of Charles 1902: 126 n. 14. The text of the Latin Parva
Genesis is 'et didicit Jacob litteras' (Ronsch 1874: 24); see also Greenfield 2001:
941-44.
73. In the narratives concerning the revelation at Mt Sinai writing is mentioned as a
divine act, or as a human act in the presence of the divine. Thus the problems posed by
these pericopes are not related to human communication in patriarchal narrative.
74. The style of the Gideon narrative is characteristic of the transition to the late
classical style (Polak 200 Ic: 78-86).
75. Joab is not represented as sending David any written message, but he'supplied
the king ("f^DH ^..."[m) with the number of the people that had been recorded in
Israel' (D^H IpSQ HSOE flN, 2 Sam. 24.6; the NJPS has 'reported to the king'). Note
that in reporting Uriah's death a tactician like Joab might well have preferred a written
message in view of its secrecy and the high subtlety of formulation (2 Sam. 11.19-24).
66
Biblical Hebrew
is found at the court,76 and Joab (or some people in his staff) can read, but
writing is not common enough to be perceived as a prerequisite for participation in the public culture of the narrated world.
Thus, the stories of Samuel, Saul and David presuppose a society in
which writing was an exceptional activity.77 This cultural horizon fits the
style of most of the narratives concerning the Patriarchs and the early
monarchy.78 A society in which a few people know to write, but the great
culture is in the main oral (S.B. Parker 1997: 9), provides an adequate
and consistent explanation for the presence of written texts that are formulated in the rhythmic-verbal style, and in which writing is mentioned at
best sparingly. In this sense it is possible to describe the rhythmic-verbal
style as the classical style of BH narrative, dominating large sections
in Genesis 12-35; Exodus 2-24; Numbers 11-12; 22-24; 1 Samuel 11 Kings 2; 1 Kings 17-2 Kings 10. An intermediate style, that is slightly
more intricate than the classical rhythmic-verbal style, but not as complicated as the complex-nominal style, is found in, for example, parts of the
tales of Joseph (Gen. 40.4-21; Polak 1998: 8S-92),79 and Gideon (Polak
2001 c: 78-85), and the Mesha inscription.
76. The assumption of a relationship between the Egyptian terminology for scribes
and other court officials and the titles of David's officials, such as his sopher (ND1C1/
N"1^), has been rejected by Kitchen (1988: 110-13) on compelling linguistic grounds.
Kitchen is able to point to Egyptian names that could serve to explain the Hebrew
name, but envisions Human prototypes as well.
77. Even the eulogy of Solomon represents the king as a sage who 'spoke 3000
proverbs' (*?ED D'B^R PtD^K? "DTI, 1 Kgs 5.12). In contrast, Qoheleth sought to find
out (according to the ASV translation) 'acceptable words, and that which was written
uprightly, words of truth' (TDK "131 HET 3irai |*sn nm.Eccl. 12.10). The culture
presumed in the latter verse is literate, whereas the former verse presupposes a mainly
oral culture.
78. The scribal society described by Lipihski (1988) belongs to a later period.
79. This stratum also includes the tales of Adam and Eve and Cain and Abel, which
in source criticism are attributed to 'J'. From a stylistic point of view, however, these
tales are hardly comparable with most sections in the cycles of Abraham and Jacob,
which mostly adhere to the classical rhythmic-verbal style (Polak 1998: 81 -85). Thus,
it seems counterintuitive to maintain the unity of the presumed 'J' source (or subsources). Within the tales of Abraham and Jacob no stylistic differences are observable
between the hypothetical 'J' and 'E' sources, whereas they are minimal in. for
example, Gen. 37 (see Polak 2002: 266-68). Hence systematic stylistic analysis does
not support the source-critical distinctions within the non-Deuteronomic/non-Priestly
narrative texts.
67
3. Two Versions, Two Styles

The ancient animistic, dynamistic and mythical conceptions found in the
episodes concerning Moses and Jacob are also conspicuous in the tales of
the revelation at Mt Sinai and the appointment of the elders in the nonDeuteronomic/non-Priestly sections in Exodus 19-20 and Numbers 11,
with their highly concretized sacral sphere that is very near to the human
sphere. On the other hand, the Deuteronomic homiletic versions of these
tales(Deut. 1; 4-5) stand out by their preference for attenuated, rationalized
interpretations, in which the sacral sphere is less concrete and more remote
(Weinfeld 1972: 244; 1973; 1991: 55-57; Milgrom 1989: 105-106).80
These differences in worldview are coincident with the stylistic difference,
as the Deuteronomic homily employs the complex-nominal diction, in
sharp contrast with the rhythmic-verbal style of the correspondent tales in
Exodus 19-20 and Numbers 11. The convergence between these linguistic
and ideational aspects is the subject of the present section.
a. The Appointment of the Elders in the Rhythmic-Verbal Style
The tale of the appointment of the elders (Num. 11.16-17,24-30) upholds
the sacral (or maybe rather magical) view of the leader's divine inspiration
and its spread by means of the actual transfer of the im that was on Moses
to the elders, thus impelling them to ecstatic behavior (v. 25; Levine 1993:
338-41; Ringgren 1968: 248-53; Blum 1990: 79-80, 194; Zevit 2001:
499-500). This pericope is dominated by short clauses,81 for example v. 16:
~[QU D> "OlTnrn. Only the description of the persons to be chosen is
more intricate: Dn_i|3_= PITT "mbtrilZr ^pTQ ETK D"jntZ? 'b HSDK
in2n.DI?n_!!3pl (v. 16): main clause (two arguments)-relative clauseobject clause/complex hypotaxis. This description includes two long
nominal groups (btriKT ^pTD 2TK DTnflandVIKTl Din n ]pT),andtwo
subordinate clauses in complex hypotaxis (Dm ^DpT DH S3 PUT "l&K
VW1).
80. The particular way in which the Deuteronomic law-giver overhauls the law of
Exodus and adapts it to his needs and vision is discussed by Levinson 1997: 3-20,
54-64, 93-97, 144-57.
81. Four clauses contain deictic arguments; see, for instance, D5) ~|QU TTQTI
(Num. 11.17). Half of all clauses (21 out of 42) contain one argument (DHÛ ^nOEJl,
v. 17; nti?Q Km, v. 24; "On / HKttb TH / lUDH p1"!, v. 27) or consist of predicate
only (e.g. TUTl, v. 17; ~I!3K'1, vv. 27, 28).
68
Biblical Hebrew
On the other hand, the description of the transfer of the spirit and the
prophesying of Eldad and Medad is formulated in short, plain clauses. In
the divine instructions one notes the verbal sequence (v. 17):
nn^y TOOT I TÛ ~o* rmn p sn^Hi / uv -|ou Tr-mi / "rn-n

I will come down and speak with you there, and I will draw upon the spirit
that is on you and put it upon them.
The description of the action itself is dominated by two verbal sequences

(v. 25):
/ vh>0 -\m rmn ]Q bum / V^K "QTI / pm n TVI

/ iKnsrn / rrnn nnû m:n TH / D-Dpin tjr D-mra û jrn
ISO1 K1?!
And the Lord came down in a cloud, and spoke to him, and drew-upon the
spirit that (was) on him, and put it upon the seventy elders. And when the
spirit rested upon them, they acted-in-ecstasy, but did not continue.
Short clauses also stand out in the account of Eldad and Medad, and the
bystanders' reaction (vv. 26-27a).82
/ rmn DITÎ? mm /... / mnon D^N *w nen (v. 26)

/ nbnn IRJT NÎ / D^:D:I nom / ninan i3Dmi
rman Dn33na ITQI n^ / IDK-I / nra^ in / iwn yn-i (v. 2?

And two men, one named Eldad and the other Medad, had remained in
camp; yet the spirit rested upon themthey [were] among-those-recorded,83
but had-not gone-out to the Tentand they spoke-in-ecstasy in the camp. A
youth ran out and told Moses, saying, 'Eldad and Medad are-acting-theprophet in the camp!'
Thus the parts with the highest numinous content are also those passages
in which the rhythmic-verbal style is most prominent.
b. The Appointment of the Elders in the Complex-Nominal Style
The style of the Deuteronomic version of this episode (Deut. 1.9-17
[30 clauses]) is of quite a different nature. In this version short clauses
cover one third of all clauses only; for instance, lID^ni TIN 1DI7m (1.14).
82. Two longer clauses in the opening (pin 71 Tri) and within the sequence
(rmn DnÛ m3D ''n1''!) do not change the picture since they do not contain any noun
groups.
83. The phrase DTHIDD nom refers to administrative writing (composition of lists)
just like in Judg. 8.14.
69
Clauses with multiple argument are frequent; such as, ""DD1DD DVil DDDHI
m1? D^D^H (v. 10).84 The appointment of the judges is described in a
clause with four arguments and a complex noun phrase (v. 15):
rnwu ntm c-oan ntm HIND nen D-B^K -"IBJ D3"bu D*izri DHK ]nw
DD-tDDtD^ DnCDlCT
...and I appointed them heads over you: chiefs of thousands, chiefs of

hundreds, chiefs of fifties, and chiefs of tens, and officials for your tribes.
In this respect the Deuteronomic version goes far beyond the episode in
Numbers (Num. 11.16; but this verse contains a case of complex hypotaxis). Indeed, Moses' complaint in the latter tale contains three arguments
andan infinitive clause (Num. 11.14: ^D HK tmh *izfr'DDK SlDIK*b
nil"! DIH), and thus seems comparable to the complex-nominal style. But
this complaint continues with a short clause, as is normal in the rhythmicverbal style ODQD "Q3 ^3). The Deuteronomic parallel, by contrast, is
carried on by a series of clauses with two, three and four arguments:
D3HK nnin D3-r6 n (v. lOa)
3-6 D'nm '33133 nvn D3Dm (v. iob)
D^QUS *)^ DDD DT^r ^D1 DD^niD^ ^n^ Tl (v. 1 la)
D3^ 131 1^3 DDH 113-1 (v. 1 Ib
This sequence is continued by a long rhetorical question:

DDT")! D3KOD1 DDniB H3b KBR HD-W (v. 12)
Only the concluding phrase of v. 13 consists of a short clauseDQ'Wl

DD^t^nH (v. 13)matching the parallel account in Num. 11.17TID&H
DiTÎ?. The resemblance to the tale in Numbers is even more obvious in
the lexical choice of Moses' complaint itself.85 Compare Num. 11.14:
nm nun ^D n rmvh 'i^b
"DDK
^3i *b
I am not able to bear all this people alone (ASV)

with Deut. 1.9b:
D3n ne? H3b
^3i y>b
I am not able to bear you myself alone (ASV).

84. Clauses with 0-1 argument are found in ten cases out of 30 (33.33%). 14
clauses (47%) contain two or more arguments; for example: ^D" DDfYnN TI^N 'n
D'OUS sf^N DD3 DT^JJ (v. 11).
85. Weinfeld 1972: 244-45. The difference between the two verses lies in (1) the
highlighting oP33K in Num. 11; (2) the mention of PITH DIT! ^3 n.
70
Biblical Hebrew
The narrative formula HOSHl Tl 13IHT] (Deut. 1.14) is found in the

Eldad and Medad scene (Num. 11.28: natri...]l] p 2271 iT fin).86 Thus,
with respect to style and lexical choice the tale in Numbers resembles the
Deuteronomic version. Nevertheless, decisive differences set the complexnominal style of the episode in Deuteronomy apart from the rhythmicverbal style of the tale in Numbers. Thus even though the Deuteronomic
version treats of the same theme as the tale in Numbers, and uses similar
lexical and stylistic means, it still employs a different type of discourse.
Moreover, in the Deuteronomic version the numinous aspect is not as
important as judicial discernment. Not inspiration by the spirit is what
counts, but understanding how to judge. In this respect the Deuteronomic
version seems rather rationalistic, whereas the tale in Numbers represents
the sacral view of an almost concrete transfer of the m~l from one person
to another (Weinfeld 1972: 244).87 Thus, we note a double convergence:
the sacral vision converges with the rhythmic-verbal, and the rationalistic
version with the complex-nominal style.
The complex-nominal style, however, hardly is the privilege of the Deuteronomic school. For instance, features that are characteristic of this style
are also found in the Jethro tale (Exod. 18.13-27). A clause network that
opens with the introductory indication of time in an independent clause
(PnnOQ TH, v. 13), continues with two intricate clauses: HKD 32T1
DUn DK tOS^S (with an infinitive clause) and jD HO3 bv DUPI TDm
2"II?n 11} "IpDJl (three arguments). The continuation is hardly less complex: DDb n&U K1H -IBB* ^ n& nt0Q ]nn NT! (clause with two arguments, followed by a relative clause). Jethro's proposals and Moses'
explanations are couched in the cultivated style, as often found in the
discourse of prominent individuals, who are thereby characterized as
leaders.88 The polished style, however, is also found in the narrative
sequence. The description of the appointment (Exod. 18.25) contains a
series of clauses with three arguments:
86. In Deuteronomy this formula is found as wayyiqtol in 1.41, and as weqatal in

the legal formulation of 21.7; 25.9; 26.5; 27.14, 15.
87. The same opposition dominates the relationship between the rational representation of Joshua's stature as Moses' successor ('And Joshua the son of Nun
was full of the spirit of wisdom', Deut. 34.9) and the reflection on the requirements of
his function ('Take thee Joshua the son of Nun, a man in whom is the spirit', Num.
27.16-18 KJV); see Weinfeld 1972: 181 n. 3.
88. See Greenstein 1999; Polak 2001b: 82-89; 2001c: 89-95.
11
btnur ^na "m *wx nra -irai (v. 25a

D'lDon niz? mo nto D-B^K -no nun û D-WI cn ]rn (v. 25b
mew ien
The closure is seemingly formulated in simple clauses lacking noun groups,
but even they contain two arguments:bfc lb "j^TT /1]nn PK H^Q nblD-l
1ilN (v. 27). Thus the Jethro narrative reveals all features of the complexnominal style.
Nevertheless, one notes remarkable differences between these narratives
and the Deuteronomic version. In the latter the description of difficult cases
is formulated by means of a relative clause QlDIpP DDE i"ll2)p- 12JK
-IN, Deut. 1.17), where the Jethro tale has a short noun group as object
q-b IK-IT bin imn b:D n-m, Exod. 18.22). Second, the Deuteronomic description of the appointment includes, besides the complex noun
phrase, D-lCDttfl niCK? -12TI D'2OT -1271 HIKE -1271 D-S^K -12}, an
additional function, DTI2!32}b (Deut. 1.15). Thus the Deuteronomic style
is more intricate than that of the Jethro tale in Exodus. However, both
reflect a rational view of the judge's office, although in the Exodus version
the qualities required are moral, whereas in Deuteronomy they incline to
the intellectual side (Weinfeld 1972: 245). Both tales, then, seem to
embody the administrator's view of society rather than the sacral view
implied by the tale in Numbers. The plausible inference is that the latter
mirrors the archaic culture and oral narrative, whereas the two other versions reflect the scribal desk, even though in the Jethro tale some features
seem slightly less intricate than in the Deuteronomic tale.
c. The Sinaitic Covenant in the Rhythmic-Verbal Style
The tale of the appointment of the elders in Numbers is in many respects
similar to the narrative of the Sinai covenant in Exodus 19-20 (19.3-8,
10-19; 20.18-21).
The account of the preparations for the theophany consists for the main
part of short independent clauses,89 although clauses with two arguments
are not infrequent, for example (Exod. 19.7-8):
89. In the tale of Exod. 19.3-8, 10-19; 20.18-21, 45% of the clauses contain 0-1
arguments (38 out of 84). Clauses with two arguments are found in 19 clauses out of
84 (22%), whereas three arguments or more are found in nine clauses (10.71%). The
narrative contains 19 embedded clauses (22.62%).
72
Biblical Hebrew
nninn ^n n ams1? oizn / Di;n ^pih> -ip-i /TOONTI (v. 7
TLinia -o* n^Nn
/ HEW 71.TH.3BN ^3 / TOn /IIFT DI?n ^3 Wl (v. 8
n b Dun n~m nTOOsen
And Moses came and summoned the elders of the people and put before
them all those things that the Lord had commanded him. And all the people
answered as one, and said, 'All that the Lord has spoken we will do!' And
Moses reported the people's words to the Lord.
This passage contains two verbal sequences of two clauses each (/ "nON"!
DUn ^plh KIjTI /nO3 T1;n^]...bD), two simple relative clauses
(TI IITIU "12^,71 "Q"7 "12^), and two clauses with two or three arguments
(n^Kn cnrnn ^D n arnsb DKH, rr ^ nun -im n nra nen).

Thus the preference for short, simple clauses is balanced by some slightly
more intricate constructions.90 A similar tendency may be detected in the
divine instructions to Moses (vv. 10-11):
10:01 / ~inai nvn onîpi / Di?n *? -f> / nra b n no^î (v. 10)
anba^
nun ^3 ^^^ 'n IT 'Erbton nvn ^D / -er^Kn m-1? DS]D] vm (v. ii)
TO nn ^r
And the Lord said to Moses, 'Go to the people and and sanctify them today
and tomorrow, and let them wash their clothes. And let them be ready for
the third day; for on the third day the Lord will come down, before the eyes
of all the people, on Mount Sinai.
This sequence contains six clauses, four of them short (one argument, e.g.:
Dm ^8 "f1^), and two long (two arguments: i"TO2 bft 71 "IQ^1!; four arguments: TO in Û Din ^D TD^ 'H TH1 -KTÊn DVD -D). One notes
five noun groups (inQl DTil, "ÊH Dl"^, s2T^2n DVD, ^D TV*?
DUn, ^''D "in 7U), which, however, contain hardly more than two nouns
(Dm 7D TJJ7). These clauses are all independent, but in the following
sequence we meet a number of cases of hypotaxis (vv. 12-15):
ina_m^j? DD^ iiDrn / ID^ n-no nun n nbnam (v. 12
nor ma 103 pain ^D / innpaimi

/ nann D / n-r HT i / ^po- îpo -3 / T 13 ran b (v. 13
nnn û- nan 'za-n "f^Q2 / n^rr b / ET DK

nnâe? 1033-1 / D^n n enp-i / c^n *:> inn p nra ITI (v. 14
new ^ iran ^ / o-o11 neê/5 0^33 rn / ni;n ^ naî (v. 15)
90. The pericope of vv. 20-25 displays a similar profile.
73
'And you shall set bounds for the people round about, saying, "Beware of
going up the mountain or touching the border of it. Whoever touches the
mountain shall be surely put to death. No hand shall touch him, but he shall
surely be stoned or shot; beast or man, he shall not live." When the ram's
horn sounds a long blast, they may go up on the mountain.' And Moses
went down from the mountain to the people and sanctified the people, and
they washed their clothes. And he said to the people, 'Be ready for the third
day: do not go near a woman'.
This section contains a number of short clauses in hypotaxis, such as

"10^, TO mbi;, "inn Umn, ^Tn -[Em, and three clauses with three
arguments, 10Kb TDD DUH DK ftejm, TO IÎT HDH ^n^CDD,
DIJn ^8 "inn ]D nO2 TVI. Short clauses, however, are still predominant, for example, Dm HN enp1'1!, DnbQft IDHin, TIT *&, îpo "D
nn" HT iN/bpo1,^'' nvhvh D'DDD vn,ntz ^ i^:n b.
In the section on the theophany itself the findings are similar. The opening picture is extremely terse. It consists of a number of short clauses,91
introduced by a unique circumstantial clause, in which the narrative tag
Tfl marks both the time indication ''ET 72TT DV3 and the infinitive clause
92
ipnn irnn (v. i6):
/ inn û i3D pin / o-pim rbp sn"i / ipan nnn3 ^ên DVD î
ninon ie c^n ^D innî /1^0 pin ns& ^pi
Now it was on the third day, when it was daybreak, there was thunder, and
lightning, and a dense cloud upon the mountain, and a very loud blast of the
horn; and all the people who were in the camp trembled.
The continuation of this scene leads gradually to a climax (vv. 17-19):

airm / n]nan p D^n^n ntnp1? own n ntô nri (v. 17)
inn rrnnra
/ mi 7ui!!2i? .Tr_"iffi.'JBQ 1^3 ]e?r SD'D -im (v. 18)
io nnn ^D -nm / ]2nan ]K?BD i32:u ûni
1
IDDW a-n^m / nm nos / IQ pirn "(bin isiran îp -n-i (v. 19
bipn
So Moses led the people out of the camp toward God, and they stationed
themselves at the foot of the mountain. And Mount Sinai smoked all over,
for the Lord had come down upon it in fire; its smoke rose like the smoke of
91. In the clause D^plDl fl^p Tl^, existential HTI is to be regarded as a normal
predicate rather than as a copula. The phrase "inn Û 13D ]]U1 is counted as a compound subject.
92. See n. 62, above.
74
Biblical Hebrew
a kiln, and the whole mountain trembled violently. And the blare of the
horn was growing louder and louder. Moses spoke, and God answered him
by sound.
This scene contains a number of short clauses, "inn PTinrQ "QHTn,

-QT iTO3, or, less obviously, 1KD pim -[Vin ISIIOT îp -m. But
most clauses are longer, for example, with two arguments, 13271? ÎTI
jemn |K7i?D,iD nnn ^D nmîpn i]]ir D^n^m. This configuration marks the theophany scene as the apogee of the narrative, distinguished from its surroundings by its exceptional stylization (Longacre
1989: 18-19, 30-39; 1996: 37-45).
Thus the account of the Sinai covenant can in general be described as
close to the rhythmic-verbal style, with a slight inclination toward more
complex constructions. This characterization seems also to hold true of the
style of the divine invitation to the covenant (19.3b-5).93 This section
consists of a series of mainly short paratactic clauses:
bner 'nb -nm / apir rrn1? -on HD (v. 3b

/ n-itra 'BDD bu D3n ei / vnxEb-TFM ~\m nrrto DPN (v. 4)
^ DDnN N3N1
/ 'rr-n n DP-OBI / ^p3 i^Qtyn

UIDID D nnn (v. 5)
f in *?D ^ -D / Dnorn ^DD n^;o ^ orr m
Thus shall-you-say to the house of Jacob and tell the children of Israel:
'You have-seen what [I] did to the Egyptians, how [I] bore you on eagles'
wings and brought you to-me. Now then, if [you] will obey me faithfully
and keep my covenant, [you] shall be my own-treasure among all the
peoples: for mine is all the earth.'
The historical retrospection contains one clause with two arguments: N>N1
D"H0 ""SJD b^ DDPIN. But its continuation is based on pronominal reference: ^K DDnN N3K1. This excerpt does not contain any clause with three
arguments; the object clause DHiJQ1? TP27I7 "I27N is simple. Two clauses,
each with one argument, form the protasis ("vpD irQ^fl UIQK' DN and
TP"D fl^ Dn"lDE71). The apodosis is introduced by the conjunction waw
(D'Q^n ^DQ nb^D ^ nn"m), which turns apodosis and protasis into
two independent clauses.
93. The parallelistic construction in this pericope is readily explained by the poetic
background of the Exodus tradition, as maintained by Cross 1983: 20-22, 25-27;
Cassuto 1973: 7-16. On the poetic nature of the theophany theme see Loewenstamm
1980 and cf. Ps. 18.8-16//2 Sam. 22.8-16. The use of Tin in Exod. 19.18 is matched
by such poetic passages as, e.g., Isa. 10.29; Job 37.1; in prose, note 1 Sam. 14.15 (with
the parallels pn mm andDTI^N HTinb).
75
Complex hypotaxis, however, is found in Moses' explanation to the

frightened Israelites (Exod. 20.20):
/ n-n^n n DDD niormnia1? '3 / itrrn ^N
itMsnn xhsb =.02:35 ^n&T-mnn imsi
'Be not afraid. For it-is-to-test you that God has come, to [have] awe-ofhim be upon you, so that [you] will-not-sin'.
The clause INftPin Th^h is dependent on the final clause ...TOim

DD^S. This final clause is coordinate with the previous final clause
DSnK HID] liningwhich in turn is formally dependent on the clause
DTlb^n N3. This intricate construction, however, is balanced by a long
verbal sequence consisting of six short clauses (vv. 18b-19a):94
/ 13DU nns HDI / noa b i"on / prno main / luri / nun NTI
nuiaizm
And the people saw [it], and faltered and stood far-off, and said to Moses
'You speak to us, and [we] will-obey'.
We conclude, then, that the Sinai account in Exodus is mainly couched in

the rhythmic-verbal style, even though its diction is slightly more intricate
than customary in narratives in this style. These slight deviations from the
rhythmic-verbal diction could be explained as influence of a more formal
style (possibly the 'late classical style', as witnessed above).95 However, in
spite of these deviations, the style of this account is a far cry from the
complex-nominal style.
d. The Sinaitic Covenant in the Complex-Nominal Style
The introduction to Deuteronomy contains three versions of the revelation
at Mt Sinai (or Horeb)Deut. 4.9-24, 25-40; 5.1-5, and the inclusio of
5.22-33.% These pericopes have a number of features in common.
94. The continuation of v. 20, P1Q] ]B D'H^N 1DQU -QT ^1 ('but [let] not God
speak to us, lest [we] die'), contains a clause with three arguments and a short subordinate clause. This intricate structure, which parallels the previous sequence nflN ~O1
nUQCQl 13QU (v. 19a), fits the nature of cultivated spoken discourse, as found often in
dialogue in narratives in the rhythmic-verbal style (Polak 2001b: 74-87; 2001c: 87-93).
Hence intricate constructions of this kind do not impair the rhythmic-verbal typology if
they are found sparingly in dialogue. If they occur frequently in the narrative sequence,
that is a different matter.
95. See p. 84, below. For a stylistic comparison with Num. 11 see p. 79, below.
96. On the nature of these pericopes see Lohfink 1963: 139-52, 271-76.
76
Biblical Hebrew
First, sequences of short, simple clauses, such as found in the Exodus

tale, are extremely rare in the Deuteronomic version. The account of the
theophany (Deut. 4.11-13), which is the climax of the homiletic retrospection, opens and closes with some short clauses (/]TH"lpni..."l^ DV
97
inn nnn pnram, w. iOa, iia;D^n rnnb ^ 7V Dnn:n,v. is),
but even in this pericope most clauses are longer.

Second, one notes the long clauses in this pericope: >KD 1IH mm
D'Dtzn nb ID (v. lib); L^n -pno nyb& 'n urn (v. 12); DD^ in
Dnmn ni2?U...>irri:: n (v. 13).98 The opening call makes use of the
phrase: ...ratTI )> 1NQ "[27S3 10271 (v. 9).
Third, the number of long noun groups stands out: D'HDin nit&U,
D'HK nin^ -<w (v. 13); mp: IK IDT msn ÊD ^D roion ^DS
(v. 16); sp nsa ^3 mnn p^n IK nann ^D rran (v. i?);n^n
Dên nn ^D nD^DiDn ni HTPI nî iron n (v. i9a); ^D^
D'Q&n ^D nnn n OI7n (v. 19b). In the excerpt from Deuteronomy 4

(11 clauses) the majority of the clauses contains a noun group (63%).
Fourth, an additional factor to be taken into account is the surprisingly
high number of intricate subordinate clauses. The first reminiscence of the
theophany opens with two short clauses, but the main information is
presented in a series of hypotactic clauses in which additional clauses are
embedded. The resulting hierarchy includes three levels of subordination
(4.9-10):
D"i3in HK nufln
]s io f CDSD ioen / -p la^n pi (v. 9
/ "["'n ntr bn "[33?a imp1 ]ai /1'*]1'!? 1^1 ~\m =
/ TDD ^3^1 jinb Dnimm
/ ^ rr -ia^3 = 3im jn^ TI ^357 moi? ig = DV (v. 1
nil n Di7DtDi / nun
n ^ bnpn
1
/ naiKn br G^n an -ICH = n^n ^j 'n^ n^T ? = pia'r "ie
p:iDl2iDma_n8i
But take utmost care and watch yourselves scrupulously, so that [you do]
not forget the things that [you] saw with your-own eyes, and so that [they
do] not fade from your mind all days of your life. And make them known to
your children and to your children's children. The day you stood before the
97. Note also the verbal sequence in v. 19: DrTDJJI Dr6 mnnizm JYrm However, this sequence is found in a context of subordinated clauses.
98. In the sequence Deut. 4.11-13 (11 clauses) one notes four short independent
clauses (36%), as against two cases of complex hypotaxis (18%), and three clauses
with three arguments (27%).
77
Lord your God at Horeb, when the Lord said to me, 'Gather the people to
me that I may let them hear my words, in order that they may learn to
revere me as long as they live on earth, and may so teach their children'.
The allusion to the divine instruction opens with a command in two short
independent clauses: '"m DN DUDEKI/DUn DN ^ bnpn. This order is
continued by a final clauseD'DTT ^D TIK nKT1? "p-frfr ~\m (first
level of subordination)which includes an embedded object clause
TIN n NT ^ (second level of subordination) with two arguments, ^3 TIN
D^tm, that are expanded by a relative clause"IQINH Û D"F1 DH ""l>N
(third level of subordination).99
The reminiscence of the situation of the people is presented in a relative
clause that is dependent on DV (v. 10). This clause contains four arguments, including a temporal clause:
- pBtc) (4) mm (3) pnbfc 'n *i*b (2) mou ~\m (i) - DV
(nun n ^ ^npn) ^ 'n -iota
(the day) (1) on which [you] stood (2) before the Lord your God (3) at
Horeb (4) (when the Lord said to me, 'Gather the people to me...')
This clause contains besides the relative particle and the predicate with implicit subject (mQJJ) two locative modifiers CjnbN 7P]B^ and 3"im),
and a temporal clause (.. ."IQND).100 In addition, the entire clause is dependent on the antecedent QV, which itself is part of an embedded clause.101
Hence the Deuteronomic homily reveals a definite preference for syntactic
subordination.102
In this respect the style of this homily greatly resembles that of the
rhetorical retrospection in Deuteronomy 5, in part the exact parallel of the
covenant scene at Mt Sinai in Exodus 19-20 (Blum 1990: 93-95).
First, some clauses in Deuteronomy 5 contain even more constituents
than found in the preceding homily; for example, Deut. 5.4-5:103
99. Such an intricate style is also found in the account of the divine commission
of Moses (v. 14).
100. This (condensed) temporal clause includes in itself subject (71) and addressee
C^K).
101. S.R. Driver (1895: 66) describes the connection of DV to 1KT ~\W. D'~mn
~[TU as 'loose apposition'. In any case, the phrase "pn^N 71 ''DSb fllQi? "ItDN Cl"
T"IFQ serves as temporal modifier to "pT 1K~1 "O*.
102. One notes the cases of subordination in Deut. 4.12-13, 15-18, 19-20
(23 clauses out of 48 [49%]). Note also such verses as Deut. 4.33-35, 38.
103. Since v. 5a constitutes a parenthetical clause (S.R. Driver 1895: 83), its ending, "10N1?, relates to v. 4.
78
Biblical Hebrew
1DN1?.. .Bun "pro Tin DDQU n -m D^DSD DS]S
Face to face the Lord spoke to you on the mountain out of the fire.. .saying...
This clause includes six arguments: (1) a subject (71), (2) an addressee
(DDQ17), (3) a locative adverb (Hi"Q), (4) an indication of source ("JinQ
2Wi"I), (5) a circumstantial modifier (D^DSD D^S), (6) an infinitive clause,
which is found in v. 5 ("1QK7). The circumstantial clause within v. 5 contains four arguments and a subordinate clause with two arguments:
Tiâiimcs^s1? Ninn nm wrm n j'n IBS; 'DDK

(1)1 stood (2) between the Lord and you (3) at that time, (4) to convey the
Lord's words to you.
Six arguments are found in the narrative summary (v. 22a):

^snum pun mr\ -jina -im DD^np û ^ n -QI nbn n-imn n
^n: Vip
(1) These words (2) the Lord spoke (3) unto all your assembly (4) in the
mount (5) out of the midst of the fire, of the cloud, and of the thick
darkness, (6) with a great voice.
Second, the phrase bs~lUrn ]]I?n C^H "]1DD contains no less than four
nouns. Other long noun groups include the phrase D^pnm illHQn ^D
D'CDBtDQm (v. 31).
Third, complex subordination is only slightly less frequent than in the
preceding chapter.104 Thus one notes the reassurance (v. 26):
pan finia HJIQ = p^n nnn^ *?ip i:^ "ita^ nen ^3 ^D ^
^nn 1323
For what mortal ever heard the voice of the living God speak out of the fire,
as we did, and lived?
The relative clause (IDOa mn "JinQ nniQ=D"n DTT^K ^lp ^DK? "12)
contains an embedded circumstantial clause in complex subordination
(IBNil "]1HQ ~Q"7Q), and is itself continued by a coordinate clause (TV)).
The divine instruction to Moses opens with a short clause, 112 nDNl
HQI^ 1DI?, but is continued by a highly intricate construction (5.31):105
104. In the peroration of 5.32-33 (ten clauses) we find three independent clauses
and seven clauses in complex hypotaxis.
105. For the perfect consecutive |""I$O 1&U1 following the relative clause "lEN
Q-TQ^n, cf. 2.25 andGKC 112p.
79
Discern nrpnm mnian ^D n 7^8 n-mi

nn_2n!2.= on1? ]n]_^m^_=Lp_^31^1 o-ra^n n^
And \ will speak to you all the commandment, and the laws and the rules,
which you will teach them, that they may observe them in the land which I
give them to possess.
The long noun group serving as object, D^SOTn D^pnm iTIiSQn ^D, is
expanded by a relative clause (DTQ^n "ItftN). The latter clause is continued by a coordinate clause|*"1N3 12JI71which in its turn is once again
expanded by a relative clauseUTO ]fl] ''DDK "12^ (second level of
subordination)in which a final clause is embedded"inKTP (third level
of subordination).
Thus we note a systematic, radical contrast between the theophany
account in Exodus and the sections from Deuteronomy 4-5, a result that
seems all the more significant as the latter sections treat the same subject
matter as the Exodus narrative.
On the other hand, one notes a striking similarity between the Exodus
tale (19.3-8,10-19; 20.18-21) and the tale in Numbers (11.16-17,24-30),
both manifesting the rhythmic-verbal style, even though the diction of the
Exodus narrative is slightly more intricate. By contrast, the complexnominal style is very much in evidence in all Deuteronomic episodes
which have been analyzed, whether they relate to the theme of the
appointment of the elders or to the covenant scene; whether they embody
narrative (Deut. 1.9-17; 5.1-5, 22-33; and see also Exod. 18.13-27) or
homiletic discourse (Deut. 4.9-14,25-40). Hence theme and genre fail to
provide an explanation for the differences in style.
Moreover, in the Deuteronomic sections (and the Jethro tale in Exod.
18.13-27) the sacral aspects are significantly attenuated and reduced, in
comparison with the highly numinous nature of the sections from Exodus
19-20 and Numbers 11.
Thus, the distinction between the complex-nominal and the rhythmicverbal style is related to cultural aspects of far wider nature, and cannot be
explained by personal stylistic preference.
4. Societal Aspects of Narrative Style
Thus far I have noted a number of arguments in favor of the thesis that the
use of the complex-nominal and the rhythmic-verbal style is rooted in
societal and cultural milieu:
Biblical Hebrew
80
(a)
(b)
(c)
(d)
(e)
The basic features of the complex-nominal style are characteristic of written language in general. More precisely, the proclivity
to intricate clauses, subordination and long noun chains fits the
cross-cultural profile of written language.
The complex-nominal style reflects the language skills of the
professional and experienced scribe, the sopher in the widest
sense of the word.
Many features of the complex-nominal style fit the Hebrew inscriptions from the late Judean kingdom (including narrative
texts), and the Aramaic documents from the Persian era (includeing the story ofAhiqar).
References to writing and written documents figure prominently
in sections in the complex-nominal style, but are rare or nonextant in sections in the rhythmic-verbal style.
The complex-nominal style prevails in many units that fit the late
pre-exilic or the exilic period, and in particular the narrative
sections of Deuteronomy (ch. 1-5; 9-10; 34), large sections in
the book of Kings (from 1 Kgs 3 onwards) and the Jeremiah Vita
(Jer. 26-28; 32; 36.1^13.7). The complex-nominal style is even
more in evidence in literature from the Persian era, such as the
Esther scroll, the book of Chronicles, and the books of Ezra and
Nehemiah.106
In addition, I have noted a number of arguments in favor of the thesis that

the rhythmic-verbal style was used by narrators who were close to oral
narrative:
(a) The conspicuous preference for short clauses, ellipsis and pronominal reference, and the tendency to refrain from subordination
and long noun chains is characteristic of instantaneous spoken
language, and fits the cross-cultural profile of spoken language.
(b) The rhythmic-verbal style is similar to the style of quoted speech
(direct discourse) in biblical narrative (Polak: 200Ib: 59-65,
73-79; 2001c: 53-65).
106. The reference to the book of Nehemiah needs to be qualified. The sections of
the memoir in which Nehemiah describes his own personal actions generally contain
fewer arguments, since the agent is referred to by the verb in the first person (PN N>K1
"[^Q1? H3PN1 j^n, Neh. 2.1). But when another subject is mentioned, the number of
arguments is higher (e.g. 2.7-8, 10). One notes the differentiation in 2.4: "^ ~IQN''1
D'oen 'n^N ^K ^SPNI / cypno HPK ni no bo I -rban.

(c)
(d)
81
The rhythmic-verbal style is well-attested in oral narrative in

general,107 and is especially prominent in biblical tales that are by
consensus considered close to the ancient folktale, such as the
Samson tales in Judges 14-15, the Elisha narratives in 2 Kings 4;
6-7,108 and folktales included in midrashic Aggadah.
This style is frequent in tales that embody numinous, animistic,
dynamistic, magical and overtly sacral themes, in sharp contrast
with the rationalization and attenuation of these themes in Deuteronomic, chronistic and other post-exilic literature, such as the
Esther scroll (Esth. 4.14).
An examination of the societal background of the stylistic distinctions will

help us to place the social and cultural setting in historical perspective.
a. Oral Society and Literary Culture
The rhythmic-verbal style, then, hails from oral narrative and the art of the
storyteller. Accordingly, the scribes who formulated narratives in this style
were aware of the art of oral narrative, ready to honor this art and able to
apply its rules and norms to their narrative, in spite of the decisive difference between the oral and the scribal style. By implication, then, these
tales were written down in a period in which the art of oral narrative was
still very much alive, and even occupied a position of honor in society.
In other words, the society in which the narratives in the rhythmicverbal style were written down was dominated by oral culture. This term
applies to the culture of a society in which scribal learning is not the norm.
Thus it is characteristic not only of the the 'lower strata', for instance,
peasant farmers and poor townspeople,109 but also of the higher echelons
of society, that is to say, the prominent officials, royal officials and courtiers,110 the higher army commanders, and the well-to-do farmers, merchants and owners of large workshops (I. Young 1998a: 245-49,412-20;
107. One also notes the oral style in narratives such as those recorded and collected
byDorson 1960; 1964.
108. These cycles contain many epic formulae (see n. 3, above), that are especially
frequent in narratives in the rhythmic-verbal style, while their use strongly decreases in
texts in the complex-nominal style (Polak 1989; 1991).
109. On the jealously preserved subculture of the 'lower classes' in early modern
Western society see Burke 1988: 21-22, 29-36.
110. Parpola (1997) discusses a neo-Assyrian letter by a governor who had no
scribe at his disposal. Not being a professional scribe himself, he used a reduced
syllabary of the same kind as found in the ancient Assyrian Ktiltepe letters.
82
Biblical Hebrew
Burke 1988: 23-29, 58-64), who thus form the natural audience of storyteller and singer of tales. That is to say, even if members of the higher
classes were able to write and used writing in everyday life, they still
would not necessarily be able to read literary texts. And even if they were
able to read such texts, we can hardly assume that they had many literary
manuscripts at their disposal, for the promulgation of literary texts presupposes a large economic and professional apparatus for copying and distribution, which in antiquity cannot be taken for granted (Hall 1968:
10-11).111 In a society of this type, then, the great literary tradition is preeminently that of oral literature (Burke 1988:21 -58). Its bearers, the promulgators of the epic, of panegyric, religious poetry and of narrative, are
first and foremost the masters of oral narrative and poetry.
That the knowledge of reading and writing is a problematic matter in
ancient Israel is indicated by the famous Lachish letter from the time of
the Babylonian invasion into Judah, in which a commanding officer
protests against the insinuation that he doesn't read his letters himself
(I. Young 1998a: 410-12). In the early monarchial era (until the period of
Jeroboam II) the high officials needed seals with pictures in order to
identify the owner, in addition to the name itself. The seal of Jeroboam's
official, Sammua' ('bdyrb'm)dating from around 750 BCEwould
mostly be recognized by the lion, rather than by name and title (Demsky
1985: 351). Accordingly, the rhythmic-verbal style reflects the preferences
and interests of Israelite culture before the full development of the royal
bureaucracy. It seems reasonable, then, to attribute this style to the
premonarchic and early monarchial era, until the beginning of the eighth
century BCE (the classical style). The rhythmic-verbal style of classical
biblical narrative is rooted in the archaic great culture of ancient Israel.112
111. Even at the zenith of the Athenian culture (490-350 BCE), for which man
data indicate the existence of a distinct class of literati (Marrou 1956: 80-94;
W.V.Harris 1989: 49, 62-63, 93-95, 101-102) and wide-spread minimal literacy
including craftsmen (Marrou 1956: 72), literary texts were promulgated by declamation. The written text, mostly the product of private copying, often served as an 'aid
for memory' (uTr6|Jvr||ja). Prose texts were designated as 'word' (Xoyos, not unlike
Hebrew ~Q"I; Hall 1968: 25-28). Herodotus is said to have received a prize from the
Athenian council after reading his scrolls to them (Eiravayvous auroTs xas
|3i(3Aous; Jacoby 1956: 17-18, quoting Eusebius, Chron. Can. 1572). Marrou (1956:
159-63, 201-22; so also W.V. Harris 1989: 96-98) assigns the foundation of a wider
educational system to the Hellenistic age.
112. This is not the place to describe the basic features of biblical narrative in its
syntactic, stylistic and discourse aspects. Although the foundations for a better
83
In a society in which the great literature primarily consists of oral

narrative and poetry, the oral literary style will also dominate the literary
scene in general, including written literature.113 In such a cultural context,114 scribal authors may create texts that employ the style of oral
narrative,115 even when they lacked a specific oral source.116 This may be
seen from the example of the ninth century Anglo-Saxon monks who were
able to employ the formulaic register of oral poetry in translations from
Latin (Foley 1985: 42; 1995: 185-207; Reichl 1989: 44-46). The culture
of oral ballads, which in early modern times were also promulgated in
chapbooks,117 was common to both lower classes and upper classes (landowners, merchants, owners of large workshops, and clergy), to both illiterate and literate (Buchan 1972:62-73, and 17-27,35-49,274-75). On the
other hand, Greek inscriptions from the eighth century BCE show that even
in a society in which the large majority of the population was illiterate
(W.V. Harris 1989: 7-9, 21-32, 52-55), some wealthy aristocrats were
literate enough to appreciate inscriptions in verse on bowls and goblets,
inspired by themes and phrases of Homeric literature (Robb 1994: 23-32,
understanding of these subtleties has been provided by a number of studies (Niccacci

1990; Longacre 1989; Eskhult 1990; de Regt 1999), we are still far from a full
comprehension of the system. The organization of the dialogue is discussed by Polak
200 la.
113. Or in a strict formulation, in such a social context the language of oral literature is prestige language, and thus also sets the standard for literary performance in
general.
114. The dynamic of the written composition of texts originating in oral composition and performance (oral-derived texts) is studied by Foley 1995, who emphasizes
the use of a 'traditional, performance-derived register' and the continuity of reception
from the performance-end to the book-end, and highlights the need of syncretic
poetics.
115. I. Young (1998a: 252-53) points to the possibility that oral narratives of prophetic circles 'became useful to the literate circles of the royal court'. For the present
argument it is important to note that the Elisha tales scrupulously preserve the forms of
oral narrative. In the Elijah narratives the style seems slightly more formal. On the
linguistic character of these tales see Rendsburg 1992a; I. Young 1995; Schniedewind
andSivan 1997.
116. In seventeenth-century England chapbooks were even sold to inn-keepers
interested in broadening their clientele by enriching their repertoire of yarns (Spufford
1981: 65-67). Thus, an oral culture can adopt and encompass written and printed texts.
117. Even cheap chapbooks and 'livresbleus' were also read by the higher classes.
See Mandrou 1999: 27; Bolleme 1971: 20-22; Spufford 1981: 72.
84
Biblical Hebrew
45-48; Jeffery 1961:236-39). Thus, the biblical narratives in the rhythmicverbal style, though transmitted in writing, basically and for the most part,
represent a society in which the oral culture is the great culture.
Partial external confirmation for this thesis is provided by the Mesha
stele (composed after 850 BCE) in which the number of noun groups and
subordinate clauses is extremely low (similar to some of the Jacob tales),
although the frequency of short clauses (0-1 argument) is lower than in the
rhythmic-verbal style of BH narrative (40% in the stele as against the
frequent percentage of 50-70%; Polak 1998: 104-105). Hence this inscription probably marks the inception of the transition to more complex
styles.118 In this respect the style of the Mesha stele may be compared with
some biblical naratives in which some characteristics of the verbal style
are less developed, whereas features of the nominal style are slightly more
prominent, such as the Paradise Narrative and the Cain Tale, part of the
Joseph Narrative; Polak 1998: 88-92,104; 200 Ic: 77-86). If the rhythmicverbal style is characterized as 'classical', the more developed style could
be characterized as 'intricate classical' or 'late classical' (attributable to
the ninth and eighth century BCE).
b. Royal Administration and Literary Culture
The cultural horizon of the late monarchy and the exilic period is quite
different from that of the earlier period which was mostly characterized by
the low extent of literacy, even among high royal officials and army
commanders. During the late monarchy the royal bureaucracy became
more and more important, as indicated by the epigraphic finds from this
period and the increased use of seals with no additional indication of the
owner, apart from the name (E. Stern 2001: 170-71,178-85). If seals from
the ninth-eighth century BCE contain iconography in addition to the owner's
name, in the seventh century the personal name with patronymic is
assumed to provide sufficient identification.119 It may be inferred that more
people could read by this time (e.g. Hezekiah in 2 Kgs 19.14), and that an
illiterate person could find a reader without difficulty (Demsky 1985:351;
Millard 2001: 84).120 This conclusion is supported by the many bullae of
118. S.B. Parker (1997: 56) points out the naivety of the disposition in the Mesha
inscription, in comparison with the sophistication of the Assyrian annals and Babylonian chronicles.
119. However, E. Stern (2001: 185-88) also points to ornamented seals with no
name inscribed. Maybe these were meant for identification by illiterate persons.
120. Historical research indicates that in the seventeenth century, in the England of
the Reformation (and the ensuing restoration), even sons and daughters of agricultural
85
private documents, found in the 'House of the Bullae' where the documents were kept (mid-seventh until beginning sixth century BCE; Shoham
2000: 30). At this juncture many members of the higher echelons of
society (meaning royal officials, army commanders,121 merchants and the
well-to-do farmers) were literate enough to keep written deeds. I have
already pointed to the central role of writing in the Jeremiah Vita, in
connection with a real estate transaction as well as in religious context. In
addition, the knowledge of reading and writing is presupposed in many
stories about Hezekiah, Josiah and Jehoiakim.
The full weight of these data for the literary culture of this period is only
realized when one recalls that literacy implies education. For legal formulation and the writing of contracts one needs to master a complex,
sophisticated style. When this knowledge becomes a dominating factor in
the culture of the upper classes, written language turns into prestige
language, as indicated very clearly in the Judean inscriptions which I have
already referred to (I. Young 1993: 104-11, 120-21, 168; Polak 1998:
103-104) and in such biblical texts such as, for example, Deuteronomic
and Priestly writings (Polak 2002: 270-79).122
Can we surmise a priori that in such a context the gifted scribes know to
formulate narratives in both styles (Ben Zvi 2000:21; Na'aman 2002: 38)?
This assumption seems unlikely. The large corpora in the complexnominal style do not contain a free mixture of pericopes in both styles.123
laborers could learn to read if their parents, or the children themselves, insisted
(Spufford 1981: 3, 19-27). The figures for the sale of chapbooks suggest that large
segments of the population knew how to read, even though full literacy was less widespread. Thus, 'yeomen, as we know, were 65 per cent literate in East Anglia' (p. 46).
According to Spufford (pp. 26-290) even children of poor parents could learn to read,
since this was taught at an early age, before the children joined the labor force. But
children of parents with the necessary means, would be taught writing at a later age,
when the poorest children would already be working. Therefore, a socially significant
difference exists between the knowledge of reading and writing.
121. The officer in command who sent the famous letter from Lachish (see p. 82,
above) is incensed at the insinuation that he needs a scribe for reading. By implication,
then, illiteracy is an insult for an army commander.
122. It is important to note that in the Siloam inscription the fronted time indication
occurs without the TH marker, and is followed by simple qatal: "OH rnp]H DVD1
DUlinn. The only wayyiqtol form is "OV1!.
123. On Josh. 9.2-15 (intricate classical with signs of transition to the complexnominal style) see Polak 1998:91-92; on the complex-nominal style in chs. 22-24 see
pp. 95-96.
86
Biblical Hebrew
Actually, the predominance of the scribal style implies a retreat of the

diction of oral narrative, because of social and cultural factors.
(1) The stylistic profile of traditional oral narrative is diametrically
opposed to that of scribal language, with its proclivity to official administrative exactitude. I refer, for example, to the long noun groups used for
recurring role definition in the Aramaic Ahiqar tale, and the complex style
of the chronological notes in the book of Kings and the Jeremiah Vita. As I
argued above, these stylistic features reflect the needs of the scribal
administration and entail the cultural knowledge required for the formulation and comprehension of intricate sentences.
By contrast, in narratives in the rhythmic-verbal style the identification
of the participants is for the most part dependent on face-to-face communication and tacit presupposition. Such elliptic references as found, for
example, in the tale of Elisha and Hazael (2 Kgs 8; see above, pp. 60-61)
imply a cultural attitude that is totally different from that of the scribal
administrator who is trained to spell out unequivocally participants and
circumstances. Thus, the rhythmic-verbal and the complex-nominal style
are not only totally different from a linguistic point of view, but they also
imply totally different cultural knowledge, and diametrically opposed
cultural attitudes. In view of these considerations, it is extremely difficult
to imagine a scribe who has attained the cultural knowledge of his metier,
formulating the short, simple, and often elliptic clauses that are characteristic of the rhythmic-verbal style.
(2) From a literary point of view one has to note that narratives in the
rhythmic-verbal style reach their goals by means of exceedingly simple
syntactic structures and a scant lexical register. The most elevated tales
and the most complex psychological effects are founded on an extremely
restricted repertoire of linguistic means.124 In this respect a notable contrast exists between biblical narrative and poetry, for the latter domain is
characterized by the richness of its lexical and grammatical register. The
highly developed art of the limited repertoire is easily explained on the
background of the oral art of narrative, since the popular audience cannot
always be assumed to be familiar with the poetic diction. Moreover, in the
oral setting narrative is embodied by performance. The narrator's active
interaction with the audience in face-to-face communication enables him
to enrich his discourse by means of gesture and intonation (Finnegan
124. Thus even a short inscription like the Siloam text may contain a lexeme not
known from BH (mi).
87
1970:373-77). Thus the complex and elevated art of the limited repertoire
contrasts sharply with the sophistication of the educated scribe. As long as
the literary scene is dominated by oral poetry and narrative, the writing
author may be assumed to adopt the oral diction at least partially. But
when scribal expertise and education start to occupy a central position in
society, the adoption of non-scribal norms becomes less likely.
(3) An additional factor is the societal difference. The social context of
written language is the bureaucracy of the chancery and the professional
scribe. In a society in which literacy is the norm for the higher classes,
public life is dominated by scribal language, whereas spoken language is
relegated to informal communication in the household, the circle of
friends, and lower-class professional life. This context entails a change in
the status of oral narrative, which no longer represents the great literary
tradition, since the majority of the upper classes are no longer illiterate. By
now it is scribal culture that embodies the literary tradition, whereas oral
narrative becomes a lower-class endeavor (or, in another perspective,
Gesunkenes Kulturgut; Burke 1988: 58-61). Even though the interaction
between the different echelons of society facilitates the acceptance of
lower-class cultural forms by the upper strata (Burke 1988: 61-63), it is
difficult to envision the possibility that the gifted scribes would not
transform the oral style into a more intricate diction.125 Even if one expects
that religious practice would preserve the rhythmic-verbal style as prestige
language for religious purposes (Samarin 1976: 4-6, 10-11), the ancient
style would hardly be maintained in its original state. Indeed, in the
Priestly writings the prevailing style is complex-nominal, even if here and
there one encounters rhythmic phrasing, such as the opening of the revelation to Abram in Gen. 17.1b-2, 4:
c'on n-m /-asb f^nnn / -ira ^K UN (v. ib)

...-TKD iwan fm m"w /"pun u'3 TP-O ninai (v. 2
v. 4
ITU pan mb rrm / f n 'rr-a run UN (v. 4
'I am El Shaddai. Walk in my ways and be blameless. And [I] will-establish
my covenant between me and you, and [I] will-make you exceedingly
numerous'... 'As-for-me, here, my covenant [is] with you: [You] shall-be
the father of a multitude of nations'.
But the continuation is phrased in the nominal style:
125. When poet or composer is influenced by rural poetry, music or dance (Burke
1988: 61-62), he is not supposed to merely reproduce popular art.
88
Biblical Hebrew
D13N -|DE) n 111? K~lpn N^l
s
Dîu rvab urrrh -p-irm "[ini pi -[3-21 T3 n-a nn 'nopm

"pna -[irrrbi DTI^ -[^ nrnb
'Thus your name shall no longer be called Abram... [I] establish my

covenant between me and you, and your offspring to come, as an everlasting covenant throughout the ages, to be God to you and to your offspring to
come', (vv. 5,1)
Thus the complex-nominal style is the predominant one, whereas the rhythmic style is limited to a conservative reminiscence in the opening.126
(4) In this regard a distinction must be made between the period of the
Judean monarchy (the late pre-exilic period), and that of the Babylonian
and Persian domination (the exilic and post-exilic period). Under the
Judean monarchy, Hebrew was the spoken and the official written language of Judah. Oral and written literature, then, although mostly representing different social settings, still belonged to one continuum. If Baruch
wrote down Jeremiah's spoken discourse, he was acquainted with the
register of oral literature. Thus, within the boundaries of a tale in the
complex-nominal style one may detect a few verbal sequences, characteristic of the rhythmic-verbal style even in the narrative sequence proper.
For example, 26.21:127
/ v~m n D-im biDi vnn: bm D'p'irr -jôn UDEH
DiUD Km / rnm / KTI / imiN yiaen / iiran -rân rapm
And King Jehoiakim and all his warriors and all the officials heard his
address, and the king wanted to put him to death. Uriah heard (of this), and
feared and fled, and came to Egypt.
Verbal sequences of this type are very infrequent in the Jeremiah Vita and
thus are to be viewed as residues of the rhythmic-verbal style. The
126. In the revelation of Exod. 6.1-4 one notes a similar transition from verbal to
nominal style. On the gradual evolution of the Priestly style from close-to-oral in H
(see also Joosten 1996: 154-58, 160-61) to highly scribal in the end of Numbers see
Polak 2002: 276-79.
127. The LXX (6 (3aaiAe\Js ICOCXKIM KCU TTOCVTES 01 apxovTE?) represents a shorter
text, for example, D'HtOT ^Dl D^T'IT "[^QH. In this case the variance hardly affects
the stylistic constellation. However, in a few cases the LXX represents a different style
altogether, for example, KCU cxrreSavEV EV TCO priv'i TOO E^Sopco (Jer. 28.17 [LXX
35.17]); this short clause alternates with the intricate clause in MT: tVDDH ITDDn run
''irntOT tZTirn NTin nitiD. However, the variance between the LXX of Jeremiah and the
MT is only rarely that decisive.
89
presence of such features indicates that under the monarchy the rupture
between the oral and the scribal milieu is not a total one.128 Although the
literary scene is now dominated by the scribal milieu, the scribal and the
oral style still are coexistent.
c. The Provincial Chancery of the Empire and Literary Culture
The nature of Hebrew literary culture changes under Babylonian and Persian rule. The imperial language in Western Asia was Official Aramaic.
Thus, more is at stake than the position of the Judeans in Babylonia and
the returning exiles, to whom Aramaic as the lingua franca of the empire
would be the preferred language for all public discourse. The language
problem also pertains to the Judeans who had remained in their homeland.
As Judah is swallowed by the empire, the former kingdom turns into a
small governmental province (WinD "FIT, Ezra 5.8) which was part of
the satrapy of Western Asia (milD "DU, Ezra 4.10; 5.3; 6.6; 7.21; E. Stern
2001: 370-71, 431-38), and which extended as far south as Beth Zur
(c. 6 km to the north of Hebron, which belonged to Edom; E. Stern 2001:
443-47). Thus the Judean royal chancery is replaced by a local Aramaic
chancery serving the administrative needs of the empire and the province
of Yehud (as illustrated by the Aramaic papyri from Elephantine).
In this situation the Judean scribe would be formally instructed in
Official Aramaic, and thus always remain bilingual. This situation brings
with it an increasing cultural split between written and spoken language,
and thus also between scribal and oral culture. As long as the chancery
was occupied by scribes who had received their education under the
Judean monarchy, the new constellation probably did not have a strong
effect on the use of Hebrew.129 Indeed, changes in the Hebrew style must
128. In seventeenth-century England Burke (1988: 274) notes 'the growing split
between learned and popular culture' in Western Europe, which comes to expression in
religious culture (pp. 273-75), language culture and the adoption of court language
(pp. 276-77), and the abandonment of trivial' literature, such as the romance of chivalry, to the lower classes. In Scotland and Eastern Europe this split occurred far later
(1988:278-81). Even in England, however, this split was not complete. Educated readers were well acquainted with chapbooks, partly because of the mediation by schoolboy
readership, including such prominent lettres as Samuel Johnson, Bunyan and Burke
(Spufford 1981:7-9, 72-75).
129. E. Stern (2001: 307-16, 321-26) points to the stability and relative welfare
of Judah under the Babylonians. The impoverishment of the region to the North of
Jerusalem is attributed to the period of 480 (pp. 322-23). The latter date could suggest
some connection with the suppression of the Babylonian rebellion.
90
Biblical Hebrew
have been gradual. A scribe who was educated in the chancery of the
Judean monarchy would probably absorb Aramaic influence gradually, all
the more so as Aramaic was now the language of the authorities, and thus
prestige language.130 By the next generation, Aramaic would already have
been the main language. Real estate contracts, for instance, would be
written in Aramaic, just as they were at Elephantine.
According to the logic of'languages in contact' other social strata were
also affected by the influence of Aramaic. In administrative and commercial contexts Aramaic would be the preferred language for all persons
having business with the government, that is to say, the entire propertyowning and professional part of the population (witness the real estate
contracts from Elephantine). Thus Aramaic turns into the prestige language for all public purposes.131 Moreover, many of the daily commercial
contacts of the tiny Judean community (E. Stern 2001: 366-72, 428-45)
would have been inter-regional, if not international. In such circumstances
negotiations would have been conducted in Aramaic rather than in
Hebrew. Buying fish from the 'Tyrians' (Neh. 13.16) on the market would
necessitate the use of a 'northern' dialect, even if the sellers came from Dor
or Jafo, which at the time belonged to the king of Sidon (KAI14.1819;
Elayi 1980: 14-17, 24; 1982: 97-104; E. Stern 2001: 385-89, 392-412,
417-22).
This does not imply that Hebrew disappeared as a spoken language.
Instead it ceased functioning as the official scribal language of the royal
bureaucracy. Because public life became dominated by Aramaic, the use
of Hebrew as a prestige language became now restricted to religious
discourse, and thereby far removed from the sphere of daily public life.
Literary Hebrew was no longer fostered by a central royal chancery, and
had to be acquired through study of classical prototypes (Joosten 1999)
rather than from living usage. Since letters, contracts and other official
documents were written in Official Aramaic, Hebrew epistolography was
130. On the position of Lamentations between pre-exilic and post-exilic language

see Dobbs-Allsopp 1998. The transitional position of Ezekiel has been studied by
Rooker (1990a), who is criticized by E. Ben Zvi in his recension (Ben Zvi 1992).
131. We must distinguish carefully between this situation and the sporadic knowledge of Aramaic by Hezekiah's ministers. If these officials could urge the Rab-shakeh
to speak Aramaic in order to prevent the common people from understanding his
intentions (2 Kgs 18.26), such an effect would have been surprising and even counterintuitive in the Persian era.
91
taught no longer. Thus writing Hebrew became the occupation of the most
learned of scribes, who would use a learned, complex style, as attested in
the texts from the Judean desert.132
The status of spoken Hebrew is no less problematic. Disappearing from
public life, Hebrew became primarily a low status language for the household,133 the circle of friends, and informal conversation on more or less
private subjects (Fishman 1971: 236-39, 250-59, 288-93; 1972: 16-23;
Fasold 1987: 34-52).134 Qimron (2000: 233-36), who postulates a Jerusalem local language, points to Nehemiah's complaint of the many
Judeans who married 'Ashdodite, Ammonite, and Moabite women' (Neh.
13.23), and hence 'a good number of their children spoke the language of
Ashdod...and did not know how to speak Judean' (v. 24 NJPS). Thus
Judean Hebrew was a spoken language with its own distinct identity.135
But one should note the nature of the Judean Hebrew referred to in this
case. Nehemiah complains that IT 11 !T "131^ D^TDD DiTKl ('and did not
know how to speak Judean'). This use of TD!1 (in CBH equivalent with
'being acquainted with someone, something', 'recognizing'; German
'kennen', Latin cognoscere) to indicate practical ability (German 'konnen',
Latin posse) is utterly non-Classical. It replaces the construction of I7T
132. One has to take into account that the Qumran scrolls also include a number of
biblical texts in paleo-Hebrew script, which, accordingly, was still in use under the
imperial occupation. Thus, not only the texts from Ketef Hinnom were in the ancient
script.
133. Note that Nehemiah's complaint about the lack of knowledge of 'Judahite'
would be rather improbable, if commercial and administrative business would require
the use of Hebrew.
134. One might compare the (former) situation of Brussels Flemish vis-a-vis
French (Louckx 1978:54-57); and see in general Thomason and Kaufman 1988:19-20,
91-119. The findings of Einar Haugen amid Norwegian communities in English
speaking Minnesota (Haugen 1972: 1-36, 110-32), provide a perfect model for the
adoption of more and more Aramaic features of all kinds by the Hebrew vernacular.
135. In consequence, Rabin (1958:152)andSchaper(1999: 16) classify the Judean
community as trilingual. It would be preferable to describe it as bilingual (with Hebrew
and Aramaic spoken and written) and diglossic, as the Hebrew vernacular is opposed
to (1) Official Aramaic, and (2) Hebrew as the preferred language for religious
purposes. It seems to me that Qimron is right in his rebuttal of the assumption that at
this stage the Hebrew vernacular already was altogether distinct from the literary
language. His analysis of the lexicon of QH (Qimron 1986: 86-97,105-18) and Smith's
analysis of the use of the wayyiqtolform (M.S. Smith 199 la: 59-63) indicate a large
measure of continuity from CBH through LBH until QH and MH.
92
Biblical Hebrew
with infinitive, for example, "Ql TIITr ^ (Jer. 1.6; also Job 34.33);136
the substitution of ITP by TDH is also found in QH(4Q398fr. 11-13,1.3;
DJD, X: 36).
This verse, then illustrates the marked difference between CBH and the
language spoken at Jerusalem during the fifth century BCE.137 This vernacular displays a marked Aramaic influence as seen in features, such as
UD^ in the niphal with b as indication of the agent (Neh. 6.1):
"m:i -D irTK "irr'n ^nnun DÎ rrTiBi zbiio1? awn -IED -m
noinn n
When word reached Sanballat, Tobiah, Geshem the Arab, and the rest of
our enemies that I had rebuilt the wall.
According to Kutscher (1977: 73-79) this construction reflects a Persian

syntagm, and is characteristic of Egyptian Aramaic and other Aramaic
languages.138 Lexical Aramaisms in Nehemiah include l^bl^l ('he
roofed it over', 3.15);139 m, in the sense 'to lock' (ITPIKI nin^Tl 1ST,
'let the doors be closed and barred', 7.2 NJPS; Kutscher 1977: cccxcviii);
pT (2.6);140 and the phrases PHOTO DTTO (13.31) and D^QTD DTIU1?
(Ezra 10.14; Neh. 10.35). Accordingly, LBH is to be regarded as a
language state sui generis (Saenz-Badillos 1993: 112-29).
Indeed, the first and most obvious result of the high status of Aramaic is
the adoption of Aramaic language features (e.g. Aramaic lexemes), and
the decline of corresponding terms of BH, first of all in the field of govern136. So also Exod. 36.1; 1 Sam. 16.18; 1 Kgs 3.7; 5.20; Isa. 7.15; 8.4; 56.11; Amos
3.10; and in LBH, Eccl. 4.17; 6.8; 10.15; 2 Chron. 2.13.
137. These circumstances hardly favor Qimron's thesis that QH was a later descendent of the Jerusalem local language (Qimron 2000: 233), although the existence of a
number of regional and local languages in Judea is not to be cast in doubt (Hurvitz
2000b: 112). From a sociolinguistic point of view one could envision the emergence of
a higher class, priestly oriented Jerusalem language that contained (a) features of the
local vernacular, and (b) CBH features.
138. Soalsor6n Dnma ~f?EbJOT nnjn ('now, the king will hear of it', Neh.
6.7); and probably also ^ 1ttfU] ('had I prepared' rather than 'were prepared for me',
which does not necessarily involve Nehemiah's account: Neh. 5.18).
139. As against Hebrew imip (Neh. 3.3,6); in Biblical Aramaic note aphel ^Dfl
('finding shadow', Dan. 4.9, which is comparable with Neh. 13.19). On the additional
Aramaism, DIDD1? (Neh. 12.44; and similarly 1 Chron. 22.2; Eccl. 3.5; Esth. 4.16; Ps.
147.2, as against CBH ^DN and pp) see Hurvitz 1972a: 175 n. 308.
140. For the Persian origin of this noun see BOB: 1091. In BH, cf. Eccl. 3.1; Esth.
9.27, 31; and in Biblical Aramaic, Dan. 2.9, 16; 7.12, and passim; Ezra 5.3. For the
verb see also Dan. 2.9.
93
ment and administration (Kutscher 1982: 52, 75-76; Rosenthal 1961

57-59; Schirmer 1926:19,39-43; Strang 1970:122-23,184-85,252,254,
367,389). The adoption of HID^Q (for CBH nm^D, rOÔD) probably is
dependent on its use in official documents. Thus one also notes LBH
D'TlpS ('orders', or 'commandments', Pss. 103.18; 119.4).141 The retreat
of "ISO ('written document' and in particular 'letter') for m3R andpOHS
(Hurvitz 1999) belongs to this domain, as well as the introduction of
D'Dm (Josh. 22.8; Eccl. 5.18; 6.2; 2 Chron. 1.11-12; Hurvitz 1972a:
24-26) as term for property (in Aramaic, Ezra 6.28; 7.26), along with the
Hebrew terms CÔT and rnpft. This field also comprises such terms as
]3D, nns, rmft and all the Persian terms for treasury and archives (T3H).
A second field of lexical borrowing is technology,142 for instance, the
textile term pD (Hurvitz 1967), replacing WD (of Egyptian descent, and
thus at home in Egyptian-Israelite commerce). The field of commerce
includes such terms as *7Dp ('to receive'; Hurvitz 2000c: 181 -85) replacing
Hebrew Plpb. To the same field belongs the meaning 'to buy', assumed by
npb (Neh. 5.1-3; Kutscher 1982: 83).
A second phenomenon is that Hebrew words adopt the function of the
Aramaic correspondent term. Thus the Hebrew relative particle pN)
assumes the tasks of Aramaic 'H, which serves both as introduction to the
relative clause and to the object clause (like Akkadian So).
With regard to syntactic structure one notes some cases in which the
object of the infinitive clause precedes the predicate (as in Aramaic and
Akkadian; Kropat 1909: 59-60), for example, mÎTn DV3 DV "mm
HOD niHQlD ('What was due for each day he sacrificed according to the
commandment of Moses', 2 Chron. 8.13); DPS D^KTITI mi IT ^D
D^b rnnS2/7l anni^ Eni6 DnaN ('Do you now intend to subjugate
the men and women of Judah and Jerusalem to be your slaves?', 28.10);143
141. See also Pss. 19.9; 103.18; 111.7; 119.15, 56, 134, 159, 168, etc. For t
Aramaic equivalents see Hurvitz 1972a: 126-29; Ezra 1.2; 4Q196 (4QTobaar) 14.8,
ppS H -J-QK Hl[p2...] (Tob 6.16; DID, XIX: 20); 4Q198 (4QTobcar)1.2, mpBI
[H]b HQK1 (DID, XIX: 57).
142. Kutscher (1982: 48, 50-53) refers to the fields of government, warfare,
merchandise and technology (of Human descent, IDIp/D and ]'H2?; of Indo-Iranian
descent, DID). On the Human origin of 2TIB see Loretz and Mayer 1980. On the
Roman origin of many agricultural terms in German see Schirmer 1926: 41-42. For
West Semitic languages this field includes the culture termyyn.
143. The two other examples given by Kropat (1909: 60)2 Chron. 29.16;
30.17are dubitable at best. For the Aramaic usage, which is rooted in Akkadian
syntax, see Dan. 2.18; 3.16; 5.8, 16; 6.5; Ezra 4.22.
94
Biblical Hebrew
rn nKin nman rriJK n D^pb pn ^D nK..."inoK nrarn ('And

Esther.. .wrote a second letter of Purim for the purpose of confirming the
authority', Esth. 9.29); TKB "102/7 ~HPS nrra HH ('You have commanded to keep your precepts diligently', Ps. 119.4).144 Probably this
phenomenon also pertains to the field of administration, since these constructions are in wide use in official documents, as demonstrated by the
texts from Elephantine.
In addition, both the prestige language and the less preferred language
lose many of their subtleties.145 In the Hebrew of this period, as well as in
QH, one notes the disappearance of the internal passive of the qal (Fassberg 2001: 252-55), and the fading away of the paronymous infinitive,
which is rare in the language of the Chronist (1 Chron. 4.10),146 and not
found in Ezra-Nehemiah (including the memoirs).147 The wayyiqtol narrative tense forfeits its characteristic short forms, which were exceptional
in that they occurred only with special verb classes (final 1*1; middle V),
and thus turned into a full yiqtol with waw consecutive (Kutscher 1974:
354-55; Eskhult 2000: 91-92). In MH these forms are no longer attested
(Muraoka 2000). The extended 'eqteld form which in CBH indicates the
cohortative, can now be used with waw consecutive for the narrative tense
(e.g. mnfcl, Eccl. 1.17; Neh. 2.1,9, etc.; HHW1, Ezra 9.3). Although this
form apparently has existed in Judean speech of the post-exilic community
(Qimron 2000: 237), the use itself could hardly have come into being as
long as Hebrew was the official language of the scribal chancery.148
144. This verse also contains the LBH lexeme D'HIpS ('commandments'), for
which see n. 141, above.
145. For the process of simplification of Middle English under the influence of the
Scandinavian languages (the Danelaw) see Thomason and Kaufman 1988: 328-30.
146. 2 Chron. 32.13, and, following the source text in Samuel and Kings, 1 Chron.
21.24//2 Sam. 24.24; 2 Chron. 18.277/2 Kgs 22.28; 1 Chron. 21.17 Ommn mm for
THinn Hinn "DDK); in Esther there are two cases to be noted: Esth. 4.14; 6.13. See
also Zech. 6.15; 7.5; 8.21; 11.17,17; 12.3; Dan. 11.10,13.
147. However, this is not a matter of straightforward Aramaic influence, since the
paronymous infinitive does exist in Syriac, as shown by Noldeke 1880: 206-209.
148. This LBH innovation probably represents a hypercorrection (according to
Kutscher 1974: 326-27, by analogy with the use of forms that are similar to the jussive
for the narrative tense). Fishman (1971:266; following Labov 1971:193-95,197-204)
attributes the innovative role of hypercorrection mainly to members of the lower
middle class, that is to say to people who have some education but not more than that.
We may assume that in a diglossic, bilingual community similar tensions exist between
the practical knowledge of people without scribal education and their lack of linguistic
expertise.
95
The general situation, then, is that in the exilic/post-exilic period the

scribal education is oriented more towards Official Aramaic than to spoken
Hebrew. Moreover, the small province (or rather district) of Judah is open
to strong foreign influences in almost all spheres of public life. Could
these social and linguistic conditions permit the composition of entire
books in CBH, a language which in many respects is totally different from
the Hebrew vernacular and the official Aramaic government language?
Since the ancient Indian scholars went so far as to build a model linguistics (culminating in Panini's linguistic analysis, Cardona 1994: 33-46) in
order to preserve the purity of Sanskrit as a liturgical language (pp. 25-33),
one might assume that the use of Hebrew as sacred language could have
brought with it a tendency to preserve specific features of CBH in a similar
way (Loewe 1994:114), all the more so as some phenomena could suggest
a certain continuity between Masoretic and Karaite linguistics and early
language traditions (Khan 1999: 191-99; Dotan 1991). Thus the assumption seems justified that these approaches to language study harken back to
the Second Commonwealth.149 A high level of language consciousness
may be assumed for the circles around Sirach (as witnessed by the translation prepared by his grandson) and the Qumran community. But still we
have to distinguish between language consciousness and the creation of a
full-fledged linguistic model (even though the existence of a rudimentary
model seems plausible). Only a complete linguistic model would enable
the perfect distinction between LBH and CBH indicators. Actually, one
wonders whether the poor circumstances of the tiny province of Yehud
may be assumed to create the institutions in which the classical language
would be fostered in a systematic way.150 The poetry of Sirach and the
Qumran texts also include a large number of non-classical features
(Muraoka 2000; Kutscher 1974: 8-45). In fact, QH has its own flavor,
morphology, and lexical register (Qimron 1986).151
The presence of these features is not affected by the impact of CBH
texts. In fact, most non-classical features have been detected in texts that
149. I thank my friends and colleagues, Dr Meira Polliack and Dr Chaim Cohen for
some stimulating remarks on this matter, although I assume all responsibility for the
conclusions drawn.
150. On the role of education and ideology in language maintenance see Weinreich
1963: 99-103, 108-109; Fishman 1971: 330-36, objecting to earlier generalizations
(pp. 312-19).
151. Even if one adopts the position that the 'Jerusalem dialect' of the period was
closer to CBH than to MH (Qimron 2000), one cannot but admit that this local
language was significantly different from the language of the Judean monarchy.
96
Biblical Hebrew
are strongly influenced by classical models. The Chronist copies texts

from the books of Samuel and Kings, and presents his reader with a list of
the generations from Genesis. In consequence he is immersed in classical
reading, and highly proficient in the classical language. But in spite of the
theologically motivated deviations from his sources, most synoptic
material reflects his sources meticulously. The characteristic phenomena
of LBH are far more frequent in non-synoptic material than in the parallels
to Samuel and Kings (Verheij 1990: 32-33,36). Nevertheless, the book of
Chronicles provides the principal starting point for a discussion of LBH
(Kropat 1909). The Esther scroll contains many of the motifs originating
in CBH tales, such as the Joseph tale, and the Saul-David narrative. Some
'classical' flavor is evident in the use of the paronymous infinitive (qatol
yiqtoh Esth. 4.14; 6.13). Nevertheless this book contains a high number of
non-classical features, besides those phenomena that can be ascribed to the
need to imitate the Persian milieu (Bergey 1984). For instance, on two
occasions the narrator uses TH to mark the modifier that opens a new
action sequence (Esth. 1.1; 2.8; 3.4; 5.1,2), as found in CBH.152 Thus he is
conscious of the classical option. On the other hand, in many sentences he
brings the infinitive clause without 'H1! (1.2, 4, 5, 10; 2.1, 8, 12, 15, 19;
9.25), as found often in Chronicles and Ezra-Nehemiah. These phenomena
indicate the retreat of the classical style and syntax, and thus the influence
of the colloquial.
It is difficult to imagine that the language of religion would not be
affected by these processes.153 Indeed, non-classical features stand out in
the doxologies marking the closure of the subcollections in Psalms, for
example,154 D^n lin D^HD andnnrWlb 155 in Ps. 41.14:
nbiin lui nbiuno bvrvtr TI^K n 7113
152. Note, however, that this construction is followed by a qatal clause (1.3; 3.4;
5.2). The continuation with narrative preterite is found in 2.8; 5.1.
153. Even though in Jerusalem the notion of 'correct Hebrew' could hardly have
been less vital than that of 'correct Norwegian' in the mouth of a Norwegian pastor in
Wisconsin, who also was affected by English (Haugen 1972: 114-15).
154. SoalsoPss. 28.9 (concluding verse) and 106.48 (doxology). Hurvitz(1972a:
158-59) points to the biblical parallels in 1 Cnron. 17.14 as against 2 Sam. 7.16
(DÎU 117); Neh. 9.4; Dan. 2.20; 7.18 (NQÛ 1U), as against Gen. 13.15 (D^ltf 1U).
155. For the verb me? see Hurvitz 1972a: 88-91, 158,andcf.,e.g.,Pss. 145.2 (on
which see Hurvitz 1972a: 70-107); 147.12, Sirach 51.12; Targ. Onq. on Gen. 15.15;
Exod. 15.1 (but note its occurrences as poetic Aramaism in Pss. 63.4; 79.13; 117.1).
97
and Ps. 106.47:
jrbnrn nnn^nb "jtznp nek nnn?...irn?N n iDir-rain

Scrutiny of Psalm 137, the speaker of which introduces himself as a temple singer (vv. 1-2) contains a number of non-classical features: the suffix
of-D"IDT (v. 6) and the particle 27 in vb rbftW "[^ DÊTE "O* (v. 8)
and TrW2? "HtOR (v. 9). The other song that possibly reflects the thinking
of the exiles, Psalm 126, contains the nouns HT2? (v. 1), a noun pattern
found in Ezekiel and Lamentations,156 and ITOI2? (v. 4, gere fTD^), a rare
noun pattern in CBH, that is very active in Aramaic, in Qumran texts and
in MH (Hurvitz 1972a: 79-86).157
The singer guilds may have clung to classical poetry, but they did not
succeed in maintaining morphology, syntax and lexical register of the
classical language.158 And why wonder? After all, the Temple hierarchy
was not less exposed to outside influences than their lay countrymen. The
Temple was not the institution that it was under the Judean monarchy, for
it was no longer sustained by the Judean monarchy, but either by the empire
(Ezra 6.6-10; Weinberg 1992: 111-12, 116-17) or the local community,
according to the agreement attributed to Nehemiah (Neh. 10.33-40; 13.4-9,
10-13, 28). As Darius I had made the administration responsible for the
economy of Temple and priesthood (Ezra 6.8-9), the priests would have
had far more significant contact with the administration than commoners.
The socio-economic position of the priesthood is illustrated by the extent
of their participation in the reconstruction of the town walls (Neh. 3.1,4,
20-22, 28-29), while their role in public life is sufficiently indicated by
their connections with the Tobiad party (Neh. 13.4-7; Ezra 2.60-63).159
The priests, then, did not constitute an isolated community. Even if one
156. nam (Ezek. 8.5); nnirpl (Lam. 3.63); see Hurvitz 1972a: 174 n. 305;
Dobbs-Allsopp 1998: 16.
157. On the late elements in the archaistic Ps. 113 see Hurvitz 1985.
158. The book of Lamentations exemplifies intricate concatenation and symmetry
patterns and contains many archaic phenomena, but the linguist registers a significant
number of LBH indicators (Dobbs-Allsopp 1998).
159. Moreover, since the priests were an extremely significant stratum from the
economic point of view, they probably were also involved in commercial projects, and
by implication had more foreign contacts, as noted by Bickerman (1937: 56-58,
126-31) with regard to the Hellenistic era. On the other hand, even the good fortune of
this hierarchy was subject to the many vicissitudes of fate and the economic plight
of the Judean community (Neh. 13.10).
98
Biblical Hebrew
admits that they had their own subculture, they entertained intensive contact with the authorities and leading families. Hence we are hardly allowed
to suppose that they would have been able to preserve the language of the
pre-exilic period in general.
In conclusion, then, we see that the special status of LBH is conditioned
by the political, social and cultural situation in Judea after the fall of the
Judean kingdom and the subsequent disappearance of the central royal
chancery. The predominance of the Aramaic administrative and legal usage
brings with it large-scale Aramaic influence on the syntax and lexical
register of the Hebrew of this period, and strongly affects the style of literary Hebrew, which now tends even more to the complex-nominal style
than in the era of the late Judean kingdom. A total rupture separates the
scribal culture of this period from the low-ranking oral culture of the
Hebrew vernacular.
6. Discussion: Alternative Possibilities
Could one envision alternative theories? Are there other ways to explain
the language variation in biblical prose? Some possibilities have been
considered by Cratylus and his friends Hermogenes and Philo. Happening
to pass by, Phaedrus jotted down some parts of the discussion. Unfortunately, he didn't know how it started.
Cratylus: Let us assume for a moment that the Hebrew of the Second
Commonwealth differs from that of the Israelite and Judean monarchy.
Then we have still to take into account that the rhythmic-verbal style could
also be cultivated by authors from the Persian and Hellenistic era, for
whom this style represented the norms of semi-canonized literature.
Philo: This hypothesis raises the grave question of which economic milieu
could have given those authors the opportunity to immerse themselves in
these norms. However, even if it be admitted that successful imitation is
possible, the hypothesis of systematic imitation is undermined by the
assumptions on which it is based.
And, second, wholesale imitation of a certain style presumes the
adoption of a large number of stylistic and syntactic patterns, attending the
many delicacies of the Hebrew verbal system. And, what is more, in order
to be faithful to the norm, the scribe has to be gifted enough to remove all
interference from the scribal patterns and norms he is accustomed to by
99
virtue of a long and systematic education. And that means, first of all, the
patterns of Aramaic epistolography and legal writing.
Cratylus: Don't you agree, then, that the scribes of the Persian era were
gifted narrators and poets?
Philo: I certainly do agree. Their narrative is extremely lively, their poetry
excellent. But their language is not 100 per cent Classical Biblical
Hebrew. The Temple scroll, the book of Jubilees, Sirach, Hebrew Tobit,
the great compositions of the Dead Sea Scrolls, the books of Job and
Chronicles, none escapes the regularity imposed by the language of the
post-exilic community. In order to write perfect Classical Biblical Hebrew,
the scribes would have had to acquire norms that were strange to their
milieu, just from reading and rereading. If you assume that complete
imitation is possible, you must assume linguistic analysis and knowledge
on a level that are hardly imaginable. What is more, their lively language
indicates that they had regard for the living vernacular. Thus they would
hardly be able to represent the classical language in its purity.
Hermogenes: And what about a poetic genius, someone like James Joyce?
Philo: Granted. But would you compare Joyce's schooling with the
education of the ancient scribe?
Cratylus: Maybe. But what about those hidden assumptions you forgot to
specify?
Philo: First of all, the hypothesis of perfect imitation takes for granted that
the rhythmic-verbal style was recognized as literary norm by a certain
number of scribes. Accordingly, one has also to presume that these scribes
were aware of certain narratives in this style, for otherwise there would be
no norm to appreciate or imitate. If prophetic narrative does not suggest a
certain style, the narrator of a given narrative J is unable to imitate that
diction.
Hermogenes: But you don't have to assume a complete corpus in order to
justify that argument.
100
Biblical Hebrew
Philo: The number of normative, 'semi-canonized' literary works cannot

be presumed to be too small. In order to absorb the implicit norms of a
certain literature by experience, the scholarly imitator must be able to
become well-versed in such literature. If one wants to argue that a given
narrative R imitates the style of the narratives on the patriarchs and the
first kings, the narrator must have quite a number of such tales at his
disposal. If the corpus of tales in this style is too small, it would hardly be
recognizable as normative. Accordingly, the imitation hypothesis must
assume a considerable corpus serving as prototype. And then, take into
account that language norms basically are unconscious. Even if you can
successfully adhere to a set of rules when awake and clear-headed, it is a
different matter when you are tired and worn-out, and writing by candle
light.
Cratylus: I think I have to question you on two points. First of all, do you
think that this corpus has been preserved after all those centuries?
Philo: If you presume that the corpus in the rhythmic-verbal style was
regarded as normative in a given religious, cultural and literary climate,
you must be ready to admit that this culture preserved at least significant
parts of it. Or would you rather argue that the scholarly authors who
adopted this corpus as exemplary and imbibed its style also failed to
preserve their hallowed examples? As I see it, the argument that all (or
most) narrative in the rhythmic-verbal style represents no more than late
imitation, entails three assumptions to the contrary.
Cratylus: But you have to explain how this presumed corpus could have
been transmitted over the centuries.
Philo: Written transmission must have begun somewhere on the time line,
but when the oral tradition was still very much alive. Albert Lord has
discovered some moments of this nature in the Serbo-Croation tradition.
He points to a prince who was an oral poet, but was literate as well. The
first scholar to record Serbo-Croation epic songs in writing, Vuk Karadzic,
was a school teacher, and the son of an oral poet. Thus the transition from
oral to written narrative (and law) is not contrary to the laws of nature.160
The nature of this transmission is not too problematic. In Egypt many texts
160. For convenient summaries see Lord 1991: 26-27, 170-85; Drerup 1915: 25.
The transition from oral to written law is discussed by Otto 1996 (Phaedrus' note).
101
have been written on leather, such as the copy of the building inscription
of Sesostris I. The monumental account of Thutmoses' battle at Megiddo
mentions the record 'on a roll of leather at in the Temple of Amun'. Thus
the technology of writing on leather was known in Egypt. So why reject
this possibility for Canaan and Israel? Since ink was employed for writing
on ostraca and papyrus, it could also be used to write on leather, as it
was in Egypt (but in Mesopotamia ink was not used for writing on clay
and wood). Thus there is no reason at all why Israelite scribes would not
have written on leather. If it is admitted that Deuteronomy could have
been written on leather,161 why not the tales of the patriarchs? Or the tales
of the inception of the monarchy? Or the Exodus account?
Hermogenes: Even if we take that for granted, we still have to deal with
the second point. You have still not explained why a given style should be
scribal and another style oral. Could we not assume that the extensive
narratives in which you detect the scribal style represent exceptional
developments? Are these exceptional narratives not best explained by the
assumption that for special reasons these narrators did not want to reflect
the highly regarded style? Would it be absurd to view the particular style
of the Esther narrative as representative of the royal Persian court rather
than the style of the period? May the Chronist not have used his-own style
in order to profilize his particular ideology as against the books of Samuel
and Kings? And why would the histories of the Judean court in the book
of Kings not use the scribal style because of the link to the monarchy?
Philo: Although these arguments taken together look suspiciously like
special pleading, they could seem plausible. But one still would have to
explain why the presumedly normative David narrative is linked to the
commoners rather than to the magnates. Why would the highly revered
Genesis tales adopt analphabetism as the norm? And why is analphabetism
almost the norm in the stories about the emergence the monarchy, the
stories that are viewed as paradigmatic for kingship, namely, the tales of
Samuel, Saul, David and Solomon? What is the difference between the
implied culture of these tales and the explicitly scribal culture reflected by
the chronicles concerning Hezekiah and Josiah?
161. These remarks could refer to Lichtheim 1975:115 (copy from the time of the
Eighteenth Dynasty); 1976: 33; Janssen 1962: 44-45; Milik 1961: 93-96; DupontSommer 1948: 43-44, 62-65; Haran 1982: 166-67 (Phaedrus' note).
102
Biblical Hebrew
Cratylus: Could we not explain the difference between the rhythmicverbal and the complex-nominal style as a matter of theme and genre?
Philo: These suggestions fail to exhaust the matter. Excerpts in both styles
represent a variety of different genres. The rhythmic-verbal style is represented by a tale in character speech (the tale of the Tekoite), prophetic
legend, and patriarchal narrative, whereas the complex-nominal style is
found in historical narrative, and in Deuteronomic narrative retrospections.
Narrative as such, then, can embody both styles. Moreover, both the book
of Samuel, which is represented by an excerpt in the rhythmic-verbal style,
and the book of Kings, from which an excerpt in the complex-nominal
style was adduced, represent historical narrative. If one argues that the tale
of the Tekoite is historical narrative rather than historiography proper, as,
for example, the tale of Baasha and Asa, one must also bear in mind that
the Jeremiah Vita certainly represents narrative, but is dominated by the
complex-nominal style. Hence, this style fits narrative and historiography
alike. The difference between the two styles, then, is not merely a matter
of genre.
Hermogenes: And why not simply a matter of personal preference?
Philo: Then you risk disregarding differences of implied cultural background. The Esther scroll mentions writing and written orders on several
occasions, whereas this theme is hardly mentioned in the David tales. This
datum suggests that the particular style of the Esther novella is a manifestation of the cultural inclination of a society where writing is the basic
technique of the bureaucracy. If the use of this style would be a matter of
choice, it would be difficult to explain the stylistic similarity between a
historiographic work like Chronicles and a. fictional narrative like the
Esther scroll. By the same token one may ask whether the use of the
rhythmic-verbal style in the books of Genesis and Samuel is a matter of
personal preference. Isn't it disturbing to think of the similarity between
the historical tales of the latter book, part of which recounts wars and
court occurrences, and the private history of the patriarchs which focus on
the tent, the fields around it, and the herds? And how are we to explain the
difference between the Joseph tales and the Esther novella, in spite of the
similarity in themes? And why is this historiography so different from the
Chronistic work? It seems to me that the fundamental point is that
Chronicles and Esther reflect the same basic scribal culture, whereas most
103
narratives in the rhythmic-verbal style reflect the stylistic norms of the

archaic great culture in which oral composition and delivery was the main
mode of literary life, only gradually to be replaced by writing. As the royal
bureaucracy gradually starts to dominate the higher echelons of society,
oral narrative turns into a lower class endeavor, fit for the commoners and
for private communication, but not for public life and literature.
HURVITZ REDUX: ON THE CONTINUED SCHOLARLY INATTENTION

TO A SIMPLE PRINCIPLE OF HEBREW PHILOLOGY
Gary A. Rendsburg
1. Introduction
In 1968 Avi Hurvitz wrote a programmatic article on the subject of
Aramaisms in BH (Hurvitz 1968). Therein he noted that not every form or
lexeme which at first glance looks like an Aramaism can automatically be
used to date a specific biblical text to the Persian period and beyond.
Clearly, as Hurvitz noted, there is a great increase in the number of Aramaic features in BH during the Persian period (late sixth through to late
fourth centuries BCE), as even a surface reading of such books as Esther,
Ezra-Nehemiah, and Chronicles demonstrates. But as he also noted,
Aramaic (or perhaps better, Aramaic-like) features 'appear sporadically in
earlier texts of the Bible as well' (Hurvitz 1968: 234).
Such Aramaic-like features (I shall use this term when referring to
elements in texts which I deem to be pre-exilic, while reserving the term
'Aramaism' for traits which entered Hebrew from Aramaic in the postexilic period) are to be found in specific settings. These include:
(a) Words that are part of Hebrew poetic diction, present in poetry
'because poets normally employ an extensive and recondite vocabulary which naturally makes considerable use of archaisms'
(G.R. Driver 1953:36).
(b) Words which appear in certain Wisdom texts such as Job and
Proverbs, which may have circulated throughout the West
Semitic world in Aramaic guise before being adapted by Hebrew
writers.
(c) Words which appear in books or narratives set in northern Israel,
whose dialect included features forming isoglosses with Aramaic
to the northeast but not with JH to the south.
(d) Words which occur in stories in which Arameans play a prominent role, and which therefore were employed by the authors for
RENDSBURG Hurvitz Redux
105
specific stylistic purposes (see Kaufman 1988:54-55; Greenfield

1981: 129-30).
We may illustrate each of these with the following examples:
(a) The roots V?D ('speak'), HHK ('come'), ^TK ('go'), nm ('go
down'), HTn ('see'), and so on, forming the basic vocabulary of
all Aramaic dialects, occur in the Bible almost without exception
in poetry.
(b) The best instance of proverbial material with Aramaic-like features is Prov. 31.1-9, with forms such as "D ('son', v. 2) and
I'lte ('kings', v. 4).
(c) 2 Kings 15, detailing the reigns of the kings of Israel from
Zechariah through Pekah, includes the following features attested
more commonly in Aramaic: blip ('before', v. 10), D^lTD"! ""H
('those of the fourth generation', v. 12), HT ('month', v. 13),
PlNtD!! |D ('from the sins', v. 28with unassimilated nun).1
(d) The oracles of Balaam, the prophet from Aram, are filled with
Aramaic-like features, for example, D"1K ]Q ('from Aram', Num.
23.7again, with unassimilated nun), 3O"IT ('accounted', v. 9)
(one expects the niphal here, but since Aramaic lacks this conjugation and utilizes T-stem forms instead, the author places this
formthe only hithpael of the root DO"I in the Biblein the
mouth of Balaam), m~l ('dust-cloud', v. 10), VD3 ('stretch out',
24.6with retention of theyod), ITD^D ('kingdom', v. 7), etc.
There is, of course, overlap between these categories. Thus, since the proverbial material is poetic, an Aramaic-like feature in a particular Wisdom
saying belongs to both category (a) and (b). Or, because Arameans frequently interact with Israelians (= members of the kingdom of Israel) in
the material recorded in Kings, an Aramaic-like feature in such a setting,
such as the word DTIPI] ('descend' > 'encamp') in 2 Kgs 6.9, may belong
to both category (c) and (d).2 Furthermore, the book of Job presents points
in common with three categories: (a), (b), and (d). That is to say, Job is
poetry, it is a Wisdom book, and because its geographical setting is the
1. For detailed discussion of these features, see Rendsburg 2002a: 126-28, 132.
2. Schniedewind and Sivan (1997: 325) considered this example as belonging to
category (c). I. Young (1995) most likely would concur, though his study is limited to
examples of unusual linguistic items occurring in speech, whereas DTIFO in 2 Kgs 6.9
occurs in third-person narration. Finally, in Rendsburg (2002a: 101-103) I treated this
example as belonging to category (d), though I also stated (p. 146) that I am quite
willing to see an example such as this as more appropriate for category (c).
106
Biblical Hebrew
Transjordanian desert fringe, its characters speak a language on the boundary between Canaanite and Aramaic (and Arabian too),3 though of these I
see category (d) as most operative.
In addition to Hurvitz's four categories, I would posit the following
additional three contexts in which Aramaic-like features may appear:
(e) In addition to the 'obvious' cases in category (c) above, sometimes we encounter a cluster of Aramaic-like features in compositions which do not disclose a northern setting per se, but which
are to be explained as IH texts nonetheless. Such texts usually
exhibit other IH features unrelated to Aramaic, to wit, lexical
and/or grammatical traits better known from Phoenician and/or
Ugaritic. Moreover, with no overriding Persian-period evidence
in such texts, one should assume a pre-exilic date for these compositions. Prime examples of such texts include the various
psalms treated in my book Linguistic Evidence for the Northern
Origin of Selected Psalms (Rendsburg 1990b), among them
Psalm 116 to be discussed further below.
(f) Occurrences of addressee-switching, that is to say, prophetic
speeches to the foreign nations, especially those which spoke
Aramaic, which in classical prophetic times, the eighth-sixth
centuries BCE, included not only Aram, but also Assyria and
Babylonia. This phenomenon, which is closely related to category (d) above, will explain the presence of such forms as jTQiT
('they roar', with retention of the yod) and D^TIQ ('great,
strong, mighty'), both in Isa. 17.12 within the pronouncement
addressed to Damascus and with possible or probable reference
to Assyria.4
(g) Occasional instances in which lexemes more characteristic of
Aramaic than of Hebrew are invoked by authors for the purposes
of alliteration, especially in prose textsfor in poetic texts we
might have merely another case of category (a) above. An
excellent example is the use of the root b^Q ('speak') in Gen.
21.7, the only instance of this vocable in a BH prose text,
3. If one accedes to the view of Freedman (1969) that the dominant defectiva
spelling in the book of Job demonstrates Phoenician influence over a northern Israelite
writer, then category (c) would be operative as well. I, for one, am not convinced by
Freedman's proposal.
4. For a brief comment on the former, see Rendsburg 1990b: 42. For a treatment
of the latter, along with other uses of TDD in the Bible, see Rendsburg 1992d.
107
invoked by the author to produce the sound effect with the root
'DO ('circumcise') in v. 4 and the root ^Q3 ('wean') in v. 8
(twice).5 Similarly, the noun DTfT ('months') is employed in
Exod. 2.2, instead of the much more common and indeed SBH
synonym DÊTTI"!, to enhance the aural nexus with "lOPD mftnm
('and she smeared it with pitch') in v. 3, with a further echo
heard in ^Qnm ('and she took pity') in v. 6.
The first four settings delineated abovelaid out in the aforecited Hurvitz
article (Hurvitz 1968), developed by several scholars since 1968 (e.g.
Kaufman 1988), and reiterated by Hurvitz on several occasions during the
intervening 35 years (e.g. Hurvitz 1996a6)along with the additional
three settings that I have described, together create a comprehensive
picture of the inter-relationship between Hebrew and Aramaic. One would
expect that all scholars would recognize and accept this picture, especially
the four categories presented by Hurvitz, since his article has become a
classic over the years. Such, however, is not the case. Instead, as the
following will illustrate, one is surprised to find how often this simple
principle of Hebrew philology embodied by Hurvitz's approach (with or
without my contributions) is ignored.
2. The Rush to Late-Dating
In the recent decades, as is well known, there has been a rush among
scholars to date virtually the entire biblical canon to the Persian period.
The ideological underpinnings of this movement are manifest.7 In my reading of this literaturefrom the pens of such people as Niels Peter Lemche,
Thomas L. Thompson, and Keith W. WhitelamI have been struck as to
how infrequently, if ever, these individuals invoke the evidence of language.8 The reasons for this are clear: the linguistic evidence, in line with
5. The oddity of the root ^G ('speak') in Gen. 21.7 triggered the attention of
rabbinic commentators as well (Ber. R. 53.9; Rashi) though naturally they offered a
totally different explanation: the gematria of ^Q is 100, equaling Abraham's age at
this point in the story. My thanks to my son David E. Rendsburg for bringing this
comment by Rashi to my attention.
6. An English version of this article appears in the present volume.
7. See the convenient summary and critique of the movement by Dever (1998). A
more recent and more comprehensive treatment is Dever (2001).
8. Philip R. Davies typically is mentioned in the same breath as Thompson,
Lemche and Whitelam; but Davies at least has tried to deal with the linguistic evidence
108
Biblical Hebrew
the above outline, contradicts the effort to shift the date of clearly preexilic compositions to the post-exilic period. Accordingly, those involved
in this movement simply ignore the evidence. This is true not only of the
aforementioned individuals, who are the most public figures in the minimalist movement, but also of others who have followed suit.9
One can respond to these studies in general terms, as Hurvitz has done
recently (Hurvitz 1997a; 1999; 2000a; 2001),10 but (1) it is difficult to
present linguistic facts to dispute a case which does not utilize linguistic
evidence, and (2) it is unlikely that those who ignore linguistic evidence
will be convinced by an argument that utilizes the testimony of language.
Accordingly, the present article will not respond to the silent approach
invoked by Lemche et al., but instead will offer a response to selected
other essays which have utilized linguistic data in their work. In general,
these essays are devoid of the kind of ideological argumentation at the
heart of the minimalist movement, though their ultimate conclusions are
similar. That is to say, they too attempt to shift the date of texts traditionally assigned by the majority of scholars to the pre-exilic period to the
period of Persian rule.
I already have treated two such attempts in a recent article entitled
'Some False Leads in the Identification of Late Biblical Hebrew Texts:
The Cases of Genesis 24 and 1 Samuel 2.27-36' (Rendsburg 2002b). The
first part of this article responded to an attempt by Alexander Rofe to view
the many Aramaic-like features in Genesis 24 as evidence of the late date
of that chapter.11 Rofe was absolutely correct to identify and isolate these
features, but whereas he viewed them as true Aramaisms, that is, the result
(P.R. Davies 1992: 102-105; see also his contribution to the present volume), even if I
disagree with his approach and assumptions.
9. For example, in his monograph on Exod. 15, considered by most scholars to be
the oldest piece of Hebrew literature in our possession, M.L. Brenner (1991) argued for
a Persian-period dating of this poem, but with no real linguistic argument to support his
claim. Brenner referred to the work of earlier scholars (e.g. A. Bender and F. Foresti)
who claimed to have identified 'a series of Aramaisms' in Exod. 15 (M.L. Brenner
1991: 3), but he did not provide the evidence in detail. Furthermore, when Brenner
attempted to rely on linguistic evidence, the analysis was quite weak. For example, he
asserted that n^llSQ ('depths') in v. 5 is a LBH feature, because it appears ' 11 times
outside the Song and never before the exile' (p. 95), thereby asking the reader to accept
at face value that texts such as Mic. 7.19, Pss. 68.23(1); 69.3, 16; 88.7, are late.
10. See also Wright 1998.
11. Rofe's treatment appeared in three versions, in Hebrew (Rofe 1976), in Italian
(Rofe 1981), and in English (Rofe 1990).
109
of linguistic influence during the Persian period, I explained them, to use

the term above, as Aramaic-like features employed by the author of Genesis 24 to provide an Aramaic coloring for a story set in Aram. Among the
relevant traits in this chapter, note the expression D^DIZn TI^N ('God of
Heaven', vv. 3, 7), well known from Aramaic sources; PIpP $h ~1>K
('that you not take', v. 3), as a caique on a postulated Aramaic DDD NTT
(indeed, this is the rendering of Targum Onqelos); and $b EN ('but
rather', v. 38), modeled after Aramaic $h ]H (= later Aramaic $b ]K). In
other words, my analysis is guided by category (d) above.
The second part of my article responded to an attempt by Marc Brettler
to view 1 Sam. 2.27-36 as an exilic addition to the story of Eli in order to
serve as a legitimation of the house of Zadok. Brettler posited three linguistic markers of LBH in these ten verses in support of his position. Only
one of these items is due to Aramaic influence, namely, the verbal root
K~Q ('make fat, make well, strengthen', v. 29), so we will limit the discussion to this single feature. Apart from the problems inherent in demonstrating that a particular verse or set of verses is a late addition to a text, in
the present instance we are not dealing with a true Aramaism in an exilic
Judahite text, but rather with an IH feature in a section of the Bible replete
with other northern traits, for example, the noun 11"! ('pot, kettle, vessel')
in 1 Sam. 2.14 (for details, see Rendsburg 2002b: 42). The heroes of
1 Samuel 1-2 are from the territory of Ephraim and the action centers on
Shiloh in Ephraim, so it is not surprising to find IH elements in the author's
prose. In other words, in this case I am invoking category (c) above. If this
were a section of the Bible focused on events in Judah, then Brettler's
argument would be strengthened. But since the setting is Ephraim, one
should regard the presence of Aramaic-like features in the story as evidence for northern composition. In addition, 1 Samuel 1-2 evinces IH
features with no connection to Aramaic whatsoever, for example, the
unusual infinitive construct form nh) ('drinking') in 1.9, paralleled elsewhere only in Judg. 13.21 (with a Danite setting) and 1 Sam. 3.21 (again
with a setting at Shiloh). Such IH features, I would argue, act as a control
against explaining usages such as K"Q and TH as Aramaisms which
penetrated Hebrew after 586 BCE.12
12. Notwithstanding the fact that IH features occur sporadically in LBH as well,
apparently due to the reunion of Israelian and Judahite exiles during the sixth century
BCE. See Gordon 1955a.
110
Biblical Hebrew
3. The Case of Psalm 116
There is no need, of course, to rehearse all the material presented in my

recent article. Instead, I would like to discuss three additional articles that
have appeared in the secondary literature. The first of these is not an article devoted expressly to promoting a late date for a specific biblical composition, but en passant remarks within the essay provide fodder for the
current study. I refer to an article by Michael Barre on Psalm 116 entitled
'Psalm 116: Its Structure and Its Enigmas' in which the author treats a
series of issues towards the elucidation of this poem (Barre 1990). As I
just indicated, the date of this composition was not the main thrust of
Barre's article, yet it figured in his treatment in the following way. Barre
rejected the Masoretic reading of HniQil ('death'this meaning is
recognizable notwithstanding the atypical form) in v. 15, and instead posited an original HfllDQil ('faith, trust') from the root JEN, with the quiescent aleph not represented as common in Aramaic orthography (Barre
1990: 72). Barre further explained: 'As for the proposed hm<n>\vth itself,
during much of the history of the Hebrew alphabet the letters mem and nun
were similar in appearance. The scribal omission of a nun after a mem is
an understandable error' (Barre 1990: 72). And still further:
But why did the poet employ an Aramaic word here? The other Aramaisms
in Psalm 116 consist of Aramaic pronominal suffixesImnwhyky, 'lyky
(v. 7), and tgmwlwhy (v. 12). But in the case of hm<n>wth we have a
purely Aramaic vocable. The author may have chosen this particular word,
rather than some other noun based on the root '-m-n, because it corresponds
most closely to h'mnty ['1 trust' in v. 10], being derived from the hiphil
form of the Hebrew verb. Moreover, this word establishes the closest sonant
connection to h 'mnty, both words beginning /heman-l. (Barre 1990: 73)
At this point, Barre added a footnote with the following: 'Given the probability of a late date for Psalm 116, indicated especially by the undeniable
presence of Aramaisms, I am assuming that the aleph in h 'mnty is quiescent' (Barre 1990: 73 n. 47).
How are we to judge this suggestion? First of all, as the reader familiar
with my publications will recognize, I am a strong proponent of working
with MT, difficult as it may be in many places (see, e.g., Rendsburg 1999b).
Accordingly, I am unsympathetic to the entire procedure worked out by
Barre. MT nniQil is a difficult form, and all of v. 15 is a difficult verse, but
Barre's string of emendations and reconstructions certainly takes us
RENDSBURG HurvitzRedux
111
further from the poet's intent than does it bring us closer.13 Furthermore,
the notion that the aleph in n n]ftNn was originally quiescent in Aramaiclike fashion and that somehow the ancient Jewish tradents in time read the
form in Hebrew-like fashion (not stated explicitly by Barre, but implied of
course) is without foundation.
But more to the point of the present article: Barre assumed that the
'Aramaisms' in Psalm 116 are evidence of a late date for the poem, and
this opened the door for him to propose reading still another Aramaic feature in this psalm. But I question whether these featuresthe pronominal
suffixes in particularare to be seen as true Aramaisms. In my book
devoted to Israelian material in the book of Psalms, I analyzed these items
as IH features (Rendsburg 1990b: 83-86). To be fair, of course, they could
be seen as either. Unusual grammatical and lexical features in Hebrew
which are better attested in Aramaic, as suggested above, can be seen
equally as either evidence for IH, in which case we should posit a preexilic date, or as true Aramaisms, in which case we should posit a postexilic date. Or to put this in other terms: the question is: Where does the
default lie? For most scholars, almost in knee-jerk fashion, and contrary to
Hurvitz's approach, the default is to assign a late date to any composition
with Aramaic features. For me, with no overriding Persian-period evidence (such as the setting of a particular book such as Haggai, the presence
of Persian loanwords as in Qohelet and Song of Songs, and so on), the
default is to assume a pre-exilic date.
In the case of the specific items under discussionexcluding Barre's
posited nniDQil ('faith, trust') in v. 15, which must remain hypothetical in
the extremeobviously the 3rd masc. sg. pronominal suffix on TIl^lQ^n
('his good-deeds') in v. 12 is unique in BH. It occurs, however, in the
eighth-seventh century Deir 'Alia inscription (Hackett 1980: 115-16),
which should be viewed as a Canaanite dialect (Rendsburg 1993), and it
may occur in Moabite as well (Naveh 1979: 136; Greenfield 1980: 250;
Garr 1985: 108). There is, therefore, no reason to exclude the possibility,
even the probability, that some regional dialect of ancient Hebrew, presumably a Gileadite one, included this feature. As for the 2nd fem. sg.
pronominal suffix SD-, attested three times in the psalm (w. 7 [twice], 19),
note that this form occurs four times in the kethib in 2 Kings 4 (vv. 2,3,7
[twice]), all in the mouth of Elisha, who most likely hailed from Gilead
(see Rendsburg 1981: 71). And while scholars typically associate this
13. In my opinion, the best solution to Ps. 116.15 is that of Emerton (1983).
112
Biblical Hebrew
feature automatically with Aramaic, one should recall that it also occurs in
Punic (Segert 1976: 96), suggesting that it was a Phoenician trait throughout the first millennium BCE, even though one could never demonstrate the
point since Phoenician orthography excluded all matres lectionis, including final ones. Other BH examples of the 2nd fern. sg. pronominal suffix
'D- appear in Jer. 11.15;Pss. 103.3 (twice), 4 (twice), 5; 135.9; 137.6. The
first of these occurrences may be a true Aramaism c. 600 BCE, or this may
reflect the Benjaminite dialect of the prophet from Anathoth, while the
examples from Psalms 103, 135, and 137 clearly are Aramaisms. I make
this latter statement not on the basis of this feature alone, or even the presence of other linguistic features in these psalms with analogs in Aramaic
(e.g. the verb D!T"1 governing the preposition Û in Ps. 103.13, on which
see Hurvitz 1972a: 107-109), but on the cumulative evidence. The lateness
of Psalm 103 is evident from crucial non-linguistic testimony, namely, the
appeal to God's heavenly angels, hosts, and ministers in w. 20-21, reflecting a well-recognized late theological development (pp. 122-26), and a bit
of a quasi-linguistic testimony, namely, the replacement of "pQ ('king')
with mD7Q ('kingdom') as witnessed in v. 19, reflecting an increased
abstraction in the concept of God as divine king, paralleling a similar abstraction in the understanding of the human king (Hurvitz 1972a: 110-13).14
Once the lateness of Psalm 103 is established on these grounds, then, yes,
2nd fern. sg. "l<3- and other elements are to be seen as LBH traits and/or
true Aramaisms (for a full survey of such features see Hurvitz 1972a:
107-30). Similarly, with Psalm 135, which is a pastiche of passages from
other biblical books, including Jeremiah (see Ps. 135.7 quoting Jer. 10.13;
51.16 [with variation]), and which therefore must be a sixth-century
composition at the earliest; and of course likewise with Psalm 137 whose
setting is clearly an exilic one. But without hints of lateness from nonlinguistic testimony, I submit that there is no reason to date Psalm 116 to
the post-exilic period, just as there is no suggestion that 2 Kings 4 should
be assigned to the Persian epoch.
There are other linguistic traits in Psalm 116 relevant to our discussion.
Two grammatical items are (1) the form IT 271 IT ('saves') in v. 6, with
retention of the he of the hiphil prefix-conjugation (PC); and (2) the use of
lamedas the direct object marker, clearly present in HDIQ1? nnns ('you
14. I do not refer to the form of the word HID^D ('kingdom'), which, once the
lateness of this psalm is established, can be deemed an Aramaism, but rather to the
concept involved, the use of the abstract form 'kingdom' (in any morphological shape)
as opposed to the more concrete idea of 'king'.
113
released my bonds') in v. 16 (as noted by Barre 1990: 61 n. 1), and most

likely to be seen in 1DI7 hlfrKD HTl] ('lead now my people') in vv. 14,
18 (for this interpretation, see Fokkelman and Rendsburg forthcoming).
Lexical features include (1) the root ~Q~1 ('carry off, pursue') in v. 10
(G.R. Driver 1934: 382); (2) the word "Ip"1 meaning 'grievous' in v. 15 (as
opposed to its usual connotations 'precious, costly, expensive'; Emerton
1983); and (3) the root ~HJ in the qal meaning 'lead' in vv. 14, 18 (see
above, and again see Fokkelman and Rendsburg forthcoming). All of these
features have strong parallels in Aramaic, but I repeat: their presence in
Psalm 116, with no other evidence in support of such a conclusion, should
not a priori lead one to conclude that we are dealing with a Persian-period
composition. As parallels, note that grammatical item (1) above, the
retention of the he in the hiphil PC, occurs in Ps. 45.18, in a poem dated
by almost all scholars to the period of the Israelian monarchy (see Rendsburg 1990b: 48-49 for discussion of this feature); and that grammatical
item (2) above, the use of lamed to mark the direct object, occurs in Exod.
32.13 (three times), in a chapter with well-known links to the cult established by Jeroboam I in northern Israel, even if there is no agreement
among scholars as to the exact nature and consequences of these links.15
With the exception of the radical minimalists, however, there is no rush to
date these texts to the Persian period, a policy which should govern our
judgment of Psalm 116 as well. In short, given the neutral evidence, my
preference is to date Psalm 116 to the pre-exilic period and to assume that
it was authored by someone who hailed from the Northern Kingdom of
Israel (or, if written some time after 721 BCE, then from the territory of the
former kingdom of Israel).
There is an additional grammatical feature in Psalm 116 which is germane to the present discussion. The 'double plural' construct chain mint*
D^nn (lit. 'lands of the living' > 'land of the living'), that occurs in v. 9.
The term 'double plural' construct chain refers to those cases in which
both nomen regens and nomen rectum appear in the plural, though logicallyand, according to the norms of Hebrew grammar, that is, those of
SBH = JH, also grammaticallyone or the other should be in the singular.
In the present example, we may point to the well-known biblical expression D"n(n) |HK ('land of the living'), attested 14 times in the corpus, as
witness to the typical formulation. Such double plural constructions are
15. The use of the name 'Israel' as the name of the third patriarch in this passage
(thus the MT; the Samaritan Pentateuch reads 'Jacob') may suggest a northern nexus as
well.
114
Biblical Hebrew
known from Ugaritic and Phoenician, they occur in IH compositions of the

pre-exilic period, they then become common in LBH texts emanating from
Judah in the main, and finally they become a standard feature of MH.
Based on this evidence, I reconstruct the following history of this syntagma
(see Rendsburg 2002a: 130-31 for further details). The double plural construction originally was at home in northern Canaanite dialects, represented by Ugaritic, Phoenician, and IH. With the reunion of Israelian and
Judahite exiles in the sixth century (on which see Gordon 195 5a), this
feature penetrated JH as well, and thus it occurs frequently in LBH,
especially in Chronicles (see further Polzin 1976: 42; Gevirtz 1986). I
would explain its regular presence in MH on the grounds that this dialect
of Hebrew represents the speech of the Galilee during the Roman period
(Rendsburg 1992b), while others would be inclined to see here a chronological continuity from LBH to MH (though in my opinion the relative
absence of this grammatical trait from QH makes this less likely). This is a
totally inner-Hebrew development, I hasten to add, with, unlike the elements treated above, no connection to Aramaic. To cite just two of the
many examples of the double plural construction in IH texts, note the following: (l)D'"Ti:^ "13 (lit. 'sonsoftheGileadites',thatis, 'Gileadites'),
in 2 Kgs 15.25, in the course of relating the history of the kingdom of
Israel (see my illustrations of category [c] above from the same chapter)
this atypical usage is even more striking because the nomen rectum is a
toponym in this case and we expect "Tin 3 "13* of course (cf. miiT ""in,
]1 "13, nn "13, etc.); and (2) D"OU "3"11 (lit. 'princes of the peoples' =
'princes of the people') in Ps. 47.10, part of the Korah collection in which
a northern setting has been detected (Goulder 1982) and in which
numerous IH features may be found (Rendsburg 1990b: 51-60); here we
may contrast the expected form DI? "3" "II found in Num. 21.18 and Ps.
113.8 (the former with the definite article, the latter with a pronominal
suffix). In the case of D""nn miMN, the nomen rectum must be plural
(because of the nature of the word D""H), and this has caused the nomen
regens to shift from its usual singular form to a plural form. In most
'double plural' construct chains, as in my two additional examples above,
the nomen regens must be plural (for the sense of the expression), and this
has caused the nomen rectum to shift from its usual singular form to a
plural form. Either way, the creation of this syntagma is a characteristic of
IH in pre-exilic times, forming an isogloss with the contemporary Phoenician dialect of Canaanite and with the older Ugaritic dialect. Once more,
to be fair, this evidence from Psalm 116 is neutral. It could be viewed as
115
evidence for the northern provenance of the poem, or it could be viewed

as evidence for the LBH nature of the psalm. But again, to reiterate what I
stated above, with no a priori reason to date this composition to the Persian period, a pre-exilic date should be assumed.
As an aside, I note that Barre treated the expression D" fin miPlN in Ps.
116.9 in a separate article devoted to the widespread use of D"l"I(n) jHN
throughout the Bible (Barre 1988). His main proposal, that the expression
'land of the living' or 'land of life' refers to the Jerusalem Temple in
certain passages (e.g. Pss. 27.13; 52.7, as well as 116.9), is plausible. More
pertinent is his suggestion that D"nn miPN in Ps. 116.9 is intentionally
worded in this fashion to create a long-range paronomasia with mHUn
HUT rPD ('courts of the house of YHWH') in v. 19, especially since the
latter clearly refers to the Temple. I am happy to accept this suggestion, but
I would emphasize that it is specifically someone writing in the Israelian
dialect who would have this option in his store of linguistic usages.
The final point to make about the language of Psalm 116 stems from
another comment by Barre:
A word is in order here about the verbs in Psalm 116. It is difficult to see
any logic to the author's use of qtl andyqtl forms. Perhaps in this relatively
late (postexilic) poem he is attempting to imitate classical Hebrew poetry,
without much success. Thus, I would translate the verbs in the indicative
mood (qtlandyqtl) as follows: (\)past: those in vv. 2-8, 11, 16c, plusySm'
in v. la and 'dbr in v. lOa; (2)present: 'hbty in v. la and h 'mnty in v. 1 Oa
(3) future: those in vv. 9, 12-18. (Barre 1990: 76-77 n. 60)
I do not quite follow Barre's logic here, but it is possible that we have
different ideas about the verbal system in CBH poetry. In my view, what
he describes is absolutely typical of verbal usage in CBH poetry, with
poets shifting naturally between qtl forms andyqtl forms, irrespective of
tense concerns. Or to put this in other words, qtl forms can indicate past,
present, and future, and yqtl forms also can indicate past, present, and
future. That is to say, in poetry these forms serve more as universal tenses.
The proof would be those cases in Hebrew poetry in which qtl and yqtl
forms of the same verb (or even of different verbs) stand in parallelism,
for example, Ps. 38.12 and Isa. 60.16 (Berlin 1985: 35-36; Watson 1986:
279-80). In the words of Adele Berlin, 'It is important to emphasize that
the qtl-yqtl shift, of which we have given only a few examples, occurs not
for semantic reasons (it does not indicate a real temporal sequence), but
for what have been considered stylistic reasons' (Berlin 1985: 36). In
short, I am a bit puzzled by Barre's aforecited statement, though to repeat
116
Biblical Hebrew
what I said above, it is possible that we have different understandings of

the verbal system in CBH poetry.
After this lengthy discussion about various linguistic issues in Psalm
116, the bottom line is: I see no reason to ascribe this poem to the postexilic period. The psalm evinces no theological or social setting that would
situate it in the Persian period; the so-called Aramaisms are better seen as
Aramaic-like features typical of the northern dialect of ancient Hebrew;
the 'double plural' construction D n Tin niH"IN is another trait of IH attested
in pre-exilic northern texts; and the verbal system is consonant with that of
CBH poetry. I hasten to add that Barre is not alone in ascribing Psalm 116
to the post-exilic period, as a glance at various standard commentaries
indicates (see, e.g., Kraus 1960: 794; Anderson 1972: 790). If I have focused on his article, it is because Barre has dealt with the language issues
in a more appropriate way than most scholars, even though, as I stated
above, the date of Psalm 116 was not the main focus of his treatment.16
4. The Case of 1 Kings 21
The next article to be discussed is another essay by Alexander Rofe, this
time devoted to 1 Kgs 21.1-20 entitled 'The Vineyard of Naboth: The
Origin and Message of the Story' (Rofe 1988b). According to Rofe, the
story dates to the Persian period and thus it allies with 'the complaint of
the oppressed against the upper class, elsewhere vented by Nehemiah,
Malachi and Trito-Isaiah[,] as well as the protest against intermarriage as
broached by Malachi, Ezra and Nehemiah' (p. 102). That is to say, Ahab
the king takes advantage of Naboth of lower status in order to obtain his
vineyard, all the while driven onward by his foreign wife Jezebel. Once
more Rofe is to be distinguished from the radical minimalists who make
similar assertions but who do not support their claims with linguistic
evidence. In this article, Rofe put forward six items of a linguistic nature
to bolster his interpretation of the story. Only one of these features (the
fifth one to be discussed below) is linked to Aramaic per se, so to some
extent Rofe's treatment of 1 Kings 21 is not totally germane to the present
article. But as it attempts to use linguistic evidence to date a chapter of the
16. To return to the point which served as the springboard for this discussion, while
I do not accept Barre's proposal to read an original nmDQH ('faith, trust') in v. 15, if
this reconstruction were accepted it could be seen as simply another Aramaic-like
feature in a poem composed in IH, and not a true Aramaism borrowed during the postexilic period.
117
Bible to the post-exilic period, it is relevant to the larger picture being

painted in the present enterprise. I will not review the six linguistic items
isolated by Rofe in 1 Kings 21 with the same detail as I examined his work
on Genesis 24 (Rendsburg 2002b: 24-30), but instead I will discuss them
more schematically. My conclusion is predictable: as with my analysis of
Brettler's effort to date 1 Sam. 2.27-36 (Rendsburg 2002b: 35-45), and as
with my approach to Psalm 116 above, I view the linguistic data put forward by Rofe as fodder for the IH dialect in which the Israelian material in
Kings was composed (see Rendsburg 2002a).
Rofe's six items (delineated in Rofe 1988b: 97-100), along with my
comments, are as follows:
(l)]rOtf 1^Q('king of Samaria') in 1 Kgs21.1 (seealso2Kgs 1.3). I
think even Rofe would admit that this is not a major piece of evidence. As
he himself noted, analogs exist in Assyrian texts, in which both Joash and
Menahem are referred to as Samerindya (Cogan and Tadmor 1988: 26).
Furthermore, note that in both cases, 'king of Samaria' is used by the
author(s) of Kings specifically when the monarch (or his messengers) is/are
away from the capital city. In 2 Kgs 1.3, Ahaziah sends his messengers to
inquire of Baal-zebub of Eqron, while in 1 Kgs 21.1 Ahab is in Jezreel.
Yair Zakovitch recognized the literary effect of the latter usage:
the Hebrew refers to Ahab as 'King of Samaria'.. .in order to remind us that
Samaria, not Jezreel, is Ahab's royal city. The latter is a sort of royal retreat,
an extra home. The contrast is clear: against the simple villager Naboth,
whose one inherited piece of property is in his own ancestral home, stands
the king from Samaria, who has an additional palace in Jezreel, and yet
covets the villager's land. (Zakovitch 1984: 384)
(2) The verb ""Q"7 ('speak') not followed by HQN1? ('saying'), or any
other form of the verb "IQN ('say'), in vv. 5, 6. As Rofe noted in another
treatment (Rofe 1988a: 37 n. 23), this usage occurs in scattered passages
throughout the Bible: Gen. 41.17; Exod. 32.7, 13; Lev. 10.12, 19; Num.
18.8; Josh. 22.21; 1 Sam. 4.20; 1 Kgs 13.7,12,22; 2 Kgs 1.3; Ezek. 40.4,
45; 41.22; Ps. 116.10; Dan. 2.4 (and in Aramaic in Dan. 6.22). One can
hardly assume on the basis of this evidence that we are dealing here with a
late feature, nor would I press the case for a northernism, notwithstanding
the appearance of a goodly number of these examples in northern texts
(e.g. 1 Kgs 13 and 21,2 Kgs 1, all of which deal with kings of the Northern Kingdom of Israel).
(3) The syntax of DUPI mm nU3 DK ITtOim D1H INlp ('they proclaimed a fast, and they seated Naboth at the head of the people'), in v. 12,
118
Biblical Hebrew
with two suffix-conjugation (SC) forms, as opposed to the expected

wayyiqtol. Rofe correctly noted that this is more typical of MH. But given
the many links between IH and MH which I have established in previous
research (most importantly in Rendsburg 1992b, but in scattered comments elsewhere as well, e.g., Rendsburg 2002a: 69), a nexus with MH
does not automatically permit one to date 1 Kings 21 to the late biblical
period. Moreover, again we may have to reckon with a literary factor. The
author of this pericope wished to show that the men of the city carried out
Jezebel's instructions exactly (note the striking similarity between her
words in v. 9 and the above third-person narration in v. 12) up to this point,
in contrast to what is related in the next verse. In v. 10 Jezebel directed
that the scoundrels should address Naboth in second person'you have
cursed God and king'but when push comes to shove in v. 13 they are
unable to face the accused directly and therefore state in third person
'Naboth has cursed God and king'.
(4) The use of 7iN 31 "lp ('near') in v. 2. Rofe astutely noticed that this
compound preposition is a hapax legomenon in the Bible, but that it has a
very similar parallel in the Mishnah: POTOn ^HN 31"lpn ]H3 ('a priest
who is near to the altar') in m. Pes. 5.6.17 Again, we must consider that
IH-MH links are part of the larger picture of northern Canaanite regional
dialects; accordingly this usage is not necessarily evidence for lateness.
Once more, we also may need to reckon with a literary purpose. The
inclusion of the word 31 "lp serves to produce an alliteration with the key
word D~13 ('vineyard') in the same verse (twice), the sounds of which are
echoed later in the chapter with the rare verb ""QQnn ('take counsel') in
vv. 20, 25.18
(5) The word D^lin ('nobles, freemen') in vv. 8, 11. Rofe stated that
'this is a loan-word from Aramaic, Imperial Aramaic to be sure' (Rofe
1988b: 98). True, our earliest attestations of the word come from the Persian imperial period (Elephantine, Behistun, Ahiqar-see Hoftijzer and
Jongeling 1995: 401), but there is no reason not to assume the existence of
this lexeme in Aramaic centuries earlier. This is especially so given the
fact that newly discovered Old Aramaic inscriptions frequently provide for
us the attestation of a particular Aramaic word known previously only
from later sources, whether it be Imperial Aramaic or even Middle
Aramaic. And if D'Hin existed in Aramaic of, let us say, the ninth century
17. Quoting from the Kaufman Ms; some textual witnesses read 3~lpH.
18. I also owe the recognition of the alliteration between D~Q and "QQfin to my
son, David E. Rendsburg.
119
BCE, there is no reason not to assume its existence in Hebrew guise during
the same period in the Israelian dialect. My studies into IH have shown
that time and again we may trace isoglosses between IH and Aramaic to
the exclusion of JH. To my mind, the important word D'Hin is a stellar
example of this phenomenon (see already Rendsburg 2002a: 72-73).
Eventually, under the overwhelming influence of Aramaic throughout the
Persian empire, the word entered JH as well; thus one finds D'Hin seven
times in Nehemiah, for example.
(6) The verb TI7H in the sense of 'testify' (as opposed to 'warn' or
'cause someone to testify') in vv. 10,13. As Rofe himself recognized, this
is 'the best piece of evidence for the late date of our story' (Rofe 1988b:
99). Apart from 1 Kgs 21.10, 13, this usage occurs only in Mai. 2.14 and
Job 29.11, after which it is attested at Ben Sira 46.19 (the occurrence in
Ben Sira 4.11 means 'warn, admonish'), three times in the Dead Sea
Scrolls (IQSa 1.11; CD A 9.20; CD B 19.30), twice in the Murabba'at
letters (42.13; 43.3), and then several hundred times in Tannaitic texts.191
have no counter to Rofe's argument here, which is indeed quite convincing, except to suggest that the nexus between IH and MH would explain
the use of TUH ('testify') in both 1 Kgs 21.10,13, and Tannaitic sources,
though I admit that this would leave unexplained the other two biblical
attestations and the handful of post-biblical occurrences.
How are we to evaluate this evidence? As I hope to have shown, of the
six features put forward by Rofe, only the last of these items points to a
late date for 1 Kings 21. In my estimation, items (1) and (2) are not relevant, while items (3) and (4) point to an IH-MH continuum, but do not
bear on the dating of the chapter. Most germane for the present study is
item (5), which is not to be viewed as an Aramaism per se, but as an
Aramaic-like feature appearing in a northern source, and therefore belonging to category (c) denoted at the outset. The presence of D"1 Tin ('nobles,
freemen') in vv. 8,11 should in no way be utilized to establish the date of
this story. The question, then, is: Is the use of one linguistic trait, item (6),
Ti?n in the sense of'testify' in vv. 10 and 13, sufficient grounds to affix a
Persian-period date to the story of Naboth's vineyard? Were there no
19. These figures are based on the database of Ma 'agarim: The Hebrew Language
Historical Dictionary Project,CD-ROM version of the Academy of the Hebrew
Language (Jerusalem, 1998). The verb TI?n occurs a total of 335 times in Tannaitic
texts, but Ma 'agarim does not differentiate between the two meanings 'warn, admonish' and 'testify'. I have not done an exhaustive study of these attestations, but a quick
glance suggests that in the majority of them the connotation 'testify' is present.
Biblical Hebrew
120
evidence to the contrary, I would be the first to answer this question in the
affirmative. There is, however, evidence to the contrary, which I now
present.
I refer to the methodology recently introduced into the study of biblical
narrative by Frank Polak (1997-98; 1998). This approach pays attention to
(1) the ratio of nouns to verbs (NV ratio) in biblical prose, and (2) among
verbs, the ratio of finite to non-finite verbs (NF ratio). According to Polak,
the lower the ratio, for both sets of data, the earlier the date of composition. A thorough survey of the biblical narrative corpus reveals that the
Elijah cycle belongs solidly to the classical stratum, in sharp contrast to
those sections which are to be dated to the late pre-exilic/exilic period and
to the Persian period. In fact, the .600 NV ratio for the Elijah cycle is the
third lowest NV ratio among the different sections analyzed, and the . 133
NF ratio is the second-lowest NF ratio. Or to put it differently, even within
the classical stratum of biblical prose, with its mean ratios of .612 and .154
respectively, the Elijah cycle is decidedly on the low end of the spectrum
(Polak 1998: 70; see also Polak 1997-98: 156-57 for percentages as opposed to ratios).
An analysis of the specific pericope under discussion reveals the following figures, presented here in three sets of numbers: (1) for 1 Kgs 21.1 -20,
that is, the limits of Rofe's study; (2) for the final nine verses (vv. 21-29)
of the chapter, especially since some scholars view these verses as a later
addition; and (3) for the chapter as a whole.20 Below these figures appear
Polak's mean ratios for the three major groupings of biblical narrative.
1 Kgs 21. 1 -20
1 Kgs 21.21-29
1 Kgs 2 1.1-29
Classical Stratum
Late Pre-Exilic/Exilic
Persian Era
Noun
147
59
206
Verb
107
36
143
NV ratio
.579
.621
.590
.612
.724
.739
Finite
86
27
113
Nominal NF ratio
21
.196
9
.250
30
.209
.154
.207
.326
If we focus on the NV ratio of .579 for 1 Kgs 21.1-20, we note that this
pericope ranks as the lowest unit in Polak's entire database, even lower
than the Samson cycle with anNV ratio of .581 (Polak 1998: 70). The NF
ratio of. 196 is a bit higher than might be expected, placing the material in
20. I am indebted to Professor Frank Polak of Tel-Aviv University for an e-mail
exchange in June 2002 in which we discussed the various figures for the story of
Naboth's vineyard.
121
between the classical stratum and the late pre-exilic/exilic grouping, but
clearly this figure points to a pre-exilic date nonetheless. The figures for
the last nine verses of the chapter suggest a somewhat later date, but the
.621 NV ratio, the more crucial of the two discriminants under consideration here, is still squarely within the classical stratum. In addition, one
must keep in mind that the more limited the databasein this case only
nine versesthe greater the chance for skewed figures. When the two sets
of data are incorporated into one set of figures for the chapter as a whole,
the .590 NV ratio is, as expected, among the lowest in the corpus, though
once more the .209 NF ratio suggests a slightly later date. In no way,
however, do any of these ratios point to the Persian period as the time of
composition for 1 Kings 21.
I admit that the NF ratios for this chapter provide potential support for a
later dating of this story than I would countenance. Accordingly, the following point is worth emphasizing. As intimated above, when the NV
ratio and the NF ratio do not correspond exactly as one would expect in a
given narrative section, it is clear from Polak's research that the former
deserves pride of place. Accordingly, I would argue that the extremely low
NV ratio for the story of Naboth's vineyard far outweighs any other data
that could be presented in assisting us in our quest to date this chapter.
In other words, given the choice of relying on the NV ratio calculated
using Polak's methodology, on the one hand, and the presence of one
apparent LBH feature, namely, T^H ('testify'), even with the support of
the NF ratio computed via Polak's method, on the other hand, I would rely
strongly on the former as a guide to establishing the date of the text, and
therefore seek a different explanation for the latter. As noted above, TUH
could be an IH feature; or it simply could be an early attestation of a feature which becomes more common in late biblical and post-biblical times.
At this point, I hasten to add that there are, not surprisingly, additional
IH features in 1 Kings 21 which impact upon our discussion. These are (1)
the use of ^DTI in v. 1 with the sense of'palace' (as opposed to 'temple'),
a usage found in other northern texts (Ps. 45.9, 16; Hos. 8.14; Amos 8.3)
as well as in Ugaritic and Aramaic; (2) the syntagma ITDD b# "OTN "TD
('because I spoke to Naboth') in v. 6, with the preterite use of the PC,
especially in a clause introduced by n!D, exactly as in Mesha Stele 11. 5nH"lND O2D r]]^<1 ''D ('because Kemosh was angry with his land'the
parallel between these two lines was first noted by Gibson 1971: 78); and
(3) the verb "Oftfin ('take counsel'), to be related to the verb "[^Q ('advise, counsel'), known from Aramaic and MH (as well as Akkadian),
122
Biblical Hebrew
notwithstanding the fact that this relationship involves 'both a metathesis

and an interchange of consonants' (Greenfield 1993: 33 n. 36for thorough discussion of these three features, see Rendsburg 2002a: 70-74).
Now, these IH features in 1 Kings 21 do not preclude the possibility that
1 Kings 21 was written in the Persian periodfor a text may be both late
and northern (see, e.g., Rendsburg 199la on Neh. 9). But a far preferable
approach is to conclude that this story, like the other stories about Elijah
and Elisha, along with the annalistic material about the kings of the Northern Kingdom in the book of Kings, was composed while the kingdom of
Israel still existed.
The total picture, according to the above analysis, reveals a story which
is written in pre-exilic northern Hebrew. Polak's work demonstrates that
1 Kings 21, consonant with the Elijah narratives as a whole, belongs to the
classical stratum of biblical narrative prose; while my linguistic research
yields a series of lexical and grammatical traits characteristic of IH, suggesting a composition during the time of the kingdom of Israel's existence.
Aramaic-like features in 1 Kings 21, such as the word D'Hin ('nobles,
freemen'), reflect the fact that Aramaic and IH shared linguistic features
that straddled both sides of the Aramaic-Canaanite divide within Iron Age
West Semitic.
5. The Case of Judges 5
The final case that we will investigate is the recent attempt by Michael
Waltisberg to date the Song of Deborah in Judges 5 to the Persian period
(Waltisberg 1999). The author understood a series of unusual linguistic
features as Aramaisms, which to his mind leads to the conclusion that the
poem was composed in the Persian period. As the reader can predict by
now, I take a different tack: these elements are to be viewed as Aramaiclike features which were part of the Israelian dialect; they are not evidence
of late date, but rather are further examples of traits shared by IH and
Aramaic. As most scholars have concluded, the Song of Deborah is to be
viewed as one of the oldest pieces of Hebrew poetry in our possession,
albeit one composed in the northern part of the country, as one would
expect from a poem which lauds the heroics of brave individuals from the
general region of the Jezreel Valley and the Lower Galilee.
The features that Waltisberg isolated (1999: 218-26), along with my
comments, are the following:
123
(i) The 2nd fern. sg. SC marker Tl- in TIDp ('you arose') in v. 7. True,
this feature is representative of Aramaic (see, e.g., Muraoka and Porten
1998: 97-98), but most likely it was a feature of the majority of Canaanite
dialects as well, though not of JH. Unfortunately, we have no way of
demonstrating the point, first, because the strictly consonantal orthography
of Ugaritic and Phoenician is not helpful in this regard,21 and second,
because our meager remains from the other dialects which do represent
final vowels by means of a mater lectionis, for example, Moabite, do not
attest to any 2nd fem. sg. SC verbs (nor is Amarna helpful; see Rainey
1996, II: 287). But with no evidence to the contrary, especially since this
feature is a trait of proto-Semitic (Lipinski 1997:360-62), one will assume
that its presence in Judg. 5.7 is indicative of ABH and/or IH with a link to
Aramaic. Its occurrence in later books such as Jeremiah and Ezekiel, on
the other hand, is probably the result of true Aramaic influence, unless the
Jeremiah examples attest to the presence of this feature in the Benjaminite
dialect. The occurrences in Ruth 3.3-4 (both in kethib) may serve a literary
function: these are archaisms placed in the mouth of Naomi, representing
the older generation, in contrast to the youthful (nubile?) Ruth (Campbell
1975: 25; see also I. Young 1997: 10).
(ii) The masculine plural nominal ending ] n - in j'HQ ('blankets[?]') in
v. 10. This ending is clearly identified with Aramaic in all its dialects. The
evidence from BH is complicated. Some examples occur in decidedly
Judahite texts, for example, 2 Kgs 11.13, for which I have no ready explanation. An example such as "pDÊ ('kings') in Prov. 31.4 was referenced
above as an illustration of category (b). The 13 cases of "pÔ ('words') in
Job belong to category (d) above. A true Aramaism would be ]^ff ('days')
in Dan. 12.13. But the best explanation of this feature in Judg. 5.10 is to
assume a regional dialectal trait, in line not only with Aramaic but also
with Moabite and Deir 'Alia (see Garr 1985: 89).
(iii) Reduplicatory plural of a noun based on a geminate stem, occurring
twice, in "pQQU ('your people') in v. 14, and in "ppH ('decisions [ofj[?]')
in v. 15. This too is a feature of Aramaic, but its distribution in various
Israelian texts in the Bible, for example, Ps. 36.7, reveals it to be an element of IH as well (see Rendsburg 199 la: 356-58).
(iv) The root H3H ('praise, relate') in v. 11. Once more Waltisberg is
correct to note the affiliation between this usage and Aramaic. ProtoSemitic I\J shifts to // in Hebrew but to /t/ in Aramaic. Thus SBH yields
21. Punic frequently aids us in reconstructing the vowels of Phoenician, but in this
case there is no evidence (Segert 1976: 131).
124
Biblical Hebrew
the root !"[]), but Aramaic produces the root HDPl. But one should not a
priori conclude that ilDfl in Judg. 5.11 is therefore an Aramaism.22 The
verb occurs again in Judg. 11.40 in the story of Jephthah's daughter set in
Gilead, suggesting that we are dealing once more with a regional dialectal
feature. Note that the same phonological shift is attested in DT!1~Q
('cypresses') in Song 1.17 in a book replete with IH features.23
(v) The nounfriilÊ) ('divisions') in w. 15-16. The same noun occurs in
Job 20.17 with the meaning 'stream'. A byform Pri^S occurs in 2 Chron.
35.5. The root is clearly to be associated with Aramaic. Waltisberg (1999:
222) pointed to jinnies ('their divisions') in Ezra 6.18; plus the word is
well attested in later Aramaic dialects (see, e.g., Sokoloff 1990:434). But
one should note that the root pig ('divide'), along with the noun form pig
('stream'), occurs in Ugaritic (del Olmo Lete and Sanmartin 1996-2000:
349). In addition, 372 occurs in the Phoenician Umm el-Awamid inscription (KAI 18.3), and although there is some uncertainty regarding its
meaning, probably it means 'district', clearly related to the meaning 'division' (Hoftijzer and Jongeling 1995, II: 913). This Ugaritic-Phoenician
evidence indicates that the root 3^2 'divide' and nouns derived therefrom
was part of the Canaanite lexis as well, even if this root were not standard
in the JH lexicon. Its scattered occurrences in the Bible are restricted to
poetic texts, suggesting that it was part of Hebrew poetic diction, including
22. I desist from a detailed discussion of the complicated question of the actual
realization and graphic representation of Proto-Semitic /t/ in both Aramaic and IH at
the time of composition of Judg. 5, let us say, c. 1100 BCE. But the following brief
comments are in order. Our earliest Aramaic inscriptions use the letter U) to represent /t/
and only later do we encounter the letter fl to represent /t/ (I exclude here the evidence
of the Tell Fakhariye inscription, which uses D to represent /t/). This evidence suggests
that in Early Aramaic /t/ was still pronounced as [t], though represented by !D, and only
later did the shift of/t/ > /t/ occur, with D quite naturally used to represent this sound.
Accordingly, we have two options for explaining the root Hin in Judg. 5.11. One
option is to assume that also in IH, or at least in the subdialect reflected in the Song
of Deborah, the phoneme /t/ was retained, that is, realized as [t], but that scribal
convention among the Israelians called for the letter fl to graphically represent this
sound. The second option is to assume that in IH the shift of/t/ > /t/ occurred earlier
than in Aramaic, with Judg. 5.11 as testimony thereto (thus Rabin 1973: 27, citing
E.Y. Kutscher, though I have not been able to locate the specific reference; see also
I. Young 1993: 60).
23. I have presented the evidence from Song of Songs in several public lectures,
most recently at the Institute for Advanced Studies of the Hebrew University in Jerusalem in December 2001. The published version will be included in a co-authored
book with Scott Noegel tentatively entitled Studies in Song of Songs.
125
JH poetic dictioncategory (a) abovebut not in everyday use in JH.

The totality of the evidence yields the conclusion that m^S ('divisions')
in Judg. 5.15-16 is a lexical trait of IH.
(vi) The root pPID ('strike') in v. 26. As Waltisberg correctly noted, the
picture concerning this root is complicated (Waltisberg 1999: 222-24).
This verb could derive from proto-Semitic mhq, in which case it is not particularly relevant to our discussion. The meaning of this root, as attested in
Aramaic, for example, is 'blot out, wipe out, erase' (see, e.g., Sokoloff
1990: 301), a slightly different connotation from 'strike' and one which
does not quite fit the context of Judg. 5.26.1 therefore prefer the alternative approach, to derive pffQ in v. 26 from the proto-Semitic root mhd,
which in Hebrew appears as ^RQ, but which in Old Aramaic would appear
first as pl"!ft and then as I?nQ, though neither of these is attested, since
only the later form NTO/nflE, reflecting dissimilation ofhet-ayin to hetaleph, occurs (see, e.g., Sokoloff 1990: 299). Of course, in v. 26 the expected Hebrew form jTIQ occurs adjacent to pHO, but this is typical in the
Bible, with standard and non-standard forms occurring side-by-side (as a
parallel note that Job includes not only the aforementioned 13 cases of
f v f t , but also ten cases of D n 7D; and see the discussion in I. Young 1992b;
1993: 124). In any case, I analyze pTO as an Aramaic-like feature in the
Song of Deborah due to its northern provenance. The shift of/d/ > /q/, I
should note, occurs in Deir 'Alia as well (Hackett 1980: 1II). 24
In addition to these six items, Waltisberg also treated the verbal system,
though I must confess that I do not fully follow him here (Waltisberg
1999: 224-26). He appears to admit that the verbal system in Judges 5 is
archaic in nature, in line with most scholars who point to the repeated use
of the PC to express the preterite; but since he wishes to date the poem to
the late period, he simply concludes that during the Persian and Hellenistic
epochs it was possible for Hebrew poets to write poetry in an archaizing
style. I agree that this is possible, but it seems much more preferable
simply to conclude that the Song of Deborah is ancient.
From all of the above, it is obvious, to me and to many previous scholars
(indeed as early as Burney 1903:172-73), that Judges 5 is an ancient poem
24. The discussion in n. 22 vis-a-vis the phoneme /t/ is relevant here as well for
the phoneme /d/. That is to say, the use of the letter p to represent this sound may
reflect an actual phonetic shift of/d/ > /q/, or it simply may be a scribal convention to
graphically represent the sound /d/, that is, [d], which still was pronounced at this time
in Aramaic, in the Deir 'Alia dialect, and in at least the subdialect of IH represented in
Judg. 5.
126
Biblical Hebrew
written in the northern dialect of ancient Hebrew. The features which

Waltisberg considered to be Aramaisms are instead to be understood as
Aramaic-like features, lexical and grammatical traits shared by IH and
Aramaic. There are, in fact, many other IH features in the poem, including
items with parallels in Aramaic and items with parallels in UgariticPhoenician. These include (I continue the numbering system from above):
(vii) The use of the relative pronoun -> in v. 7 (twice), to be correlated
with the same or similar (JDK)form in Phoenician, Ammonite, and MH
(see Rendsburg 2002a: 103).
(viii) The 3rd masc. sg. SC "IT ('went down') in v. 13 (twice), with a
vocalization reflecting that of Aramaic.
(ix) The presence of ]Q before an anarthrous noun, as in D"1^ ]D ('from
the heavens') in v. 20 (see other examples in categories (c) and (d) at the
outset; and see Rendsburg 2002a: 132).
(x) The noun 7SD ('bowl') in v. 25, attested elsewhere in the Bible only
in Judg. 6.38 in the Gideon cycle, twice in Ugaritic and more than 20
times in MH (see Rendsburg 1999a: 257-58).
(xi) The root ZQ"1 ('whine, shrill') in v. 28, a hapax legomenon in the
Bible, but slightly better attested in MH (one occurrence in a Tannaitic
source [m. Ros Has. 4.9] and one occurrence in an Amoraic source \y. Yeb.
15.4]) and in Aramaic.
(xii) The fem. sg. nominal ending -6t in niQ3n ('wise woman') in v.
29, as in Phoenician (see Rendsburg 2002a: 99-101).
This long list of itemstwelve in number if item (i) is seen as evidence
of IH, eleven in total if this item is simply a feature of ABHin toto
demonstrate that Judges 5 is to be seen as an Israelian composition. As to
the antiquity of the poem, we may point to item (i) noted above, that is, the
2nd fem. sg. SC marker TV, along with two other features: the use of HT
as a relative marker TO HT ('the one of Sinai') in v. 5 (see Robertson
1972: 62-65), and the use of the 3rd fem. sg. PC with energic -na in
rnrrbtzm ('she sent') in v. 26 (see pp. 116-17 for discussion25).
In short, the Song of Deborah in Judges 5 is representative of both ABH
and IH, with several markers of the former and numerous markers of the
latter.26
25. I disagree, however, with Robertson's comment, 'It is, of course, obvious that
the MT is in error'. The energic ending can take different forms; see JM: 172-73.
26. The conclusion that Judg. 5 is representative of ABH (in addition to its being a
hallmark of IH) is not dependent on how one defines ABH. For a general discussion,
see I. Young 1992b; 1993: 122-30.
127
6. Conclusion
Thirty-five years after it was published, Hurvitz's classic study of Aramaisms and Aramaic-like features in BH (Hurvitz 1968) stands as a solid
statement. It presents in very concise terms a simple principle of Hebrew
philology. Some additional work in the intervening years has enlarged and
enhanced the picture, but nothing has contradicted the basic outline
described by Hurvitz.
It is unfortunate that various scholars totally ignore linguistic evidence
in their rush to date a panoply of biblical texts to the Persian period and
even to the Hellenistic period. Notwithstanding some recent attempts by
Hurvitz, there is little that the serious scholar of Hebrew philology can
do to combat an argument that consciously disregards the testimony of
language.
Far more praiseworthy are those scholars who realize that efforts to date
texts to the late period need to be supported by linguistic evidence. Foremost among these individuals in his attention to such details has been
Alexander Rofe. But a closer examination of five such attempts reveals
(1) that in one case we are dealing with the intentional use of Aramaic-like
features for stylistic purposes, because the story is set in Aram (Gen. 24);
(2) that in three cases we must keep in mind that the geographical setting
is in northern Israel, with the resultant conclusion that the linguistic evidence bespeaks the Israelian dialect of ancient Hebrew (1 Sam. 1-2; 1 Kgs
21; Judg. 5); and (3) that in one additional case, even when there is no
clear connection to northern Israel, the evidence of language nevertheless
points to that region as the place of composition (Ps. 116).
I have written this article as a call to the authors of the studies treated
above, and to all other scholars who wish to date sections of the Bible to
the late period, to consider the totality of the linguistic evidence. I congratulate the individuals whose work I have critiqued herein for realizing
unlike too many other scholarsthat research of this ilk needs to incorporate the evidence of language. But in their rush to identify Aramaisms in
these texts, these authors have neglected the guidelines so excellently
drafted by Hurvitz. Due consideration of the whole picture reveals that
even a conglomeration of so-called Aramaisms in a particular text is
insufficient grounds to assign a Persian-period date to the section of the
Bible under study.
I wish to conclude with a personal statement. Over the years I have
enjoyed warm relationships with both Marc Brettler and Alex Rofe (with
128
Biblical Hebrew
the latter notwithstanding the distance of 6000 miles which separates us).
Their erudition is obvious to all, and I have learned much from their
numerous excellent publications. In like spirit, I have benefited from the
many writings of Michael Barre on Hebrew poetry and on Phoenician
inscriptions, though I do not know this scholar personally. (I cannot say
more about Michael Waltisberg, because his treatment of Judg. 5 is the
first of his writings that I have encountered.) My critical assessment of
these individuals' work contained herein should be viewed solely as an
indication of how seriously I take their scholarship.
FURTHER EVIDENCE FOR NORTH ISRAELITE CONTRIBUTIONS

TO LATE BIBLICAL HEBREW*
Richard M. Wright
1. Introduction
'The North Israelite contributions to post-exilic Hebrew prose (and indirectly even to post-exilic Hebrew literature in general) remain to be
worked out in detail', Cyrus Gordon wrote in a short article that appeared
in 1955 (Gordon 1955a: 88). Scholars since then have made significant
progress in their study of both dialectal variation within and the chronological development of BH. But few studies have attempted to bring
together these two distinct but similar areas of research. The purpose of
this article is to pursue further the hypothesis laid out by Gordon in 1955
Is there more evidence for a relationship between IH (here, pre-exilic, nonJH) and LBH?
Most Hebraicists today agree that BH can be divided into three main
stages (Kutscher 1982: 12, 77-85; Saenz-Badillos 1993: 30-160): ABH
found in a small number of biblical texts which pre-date the DavidicSolomonic monarchy (see especially Robertson 1972); SBH, the stage of
the language to which most pre-exilic texts belong; and LBH, commonly
understood to be BH in the post-exilic period. This schema does not
exclude the possibility that these stages can be divided into sub-categories
(see S.R. Driver 1913a: 504-505; Wright 1998: 190-93,258-59 and refer
ences). Hurvitz (1982) has demonstrated that LBH features began to
appear in BH during the exilic periodand so exilic texts such as Ezekiel
and possibly Isaiah 40-66 represent a transitional (sub-)stage between
SBH and LBH.
*
This article is dedicated in memory of Richard 'Dick' Wright, Sr. 1]1~OT TT1
HD"!^. I would like to express my appreciation to Dr Gary Rendsburg and Dr Ian
Young for their invaluable assistance in the preparation of this article. Both provided
several of the bibliographic references used herein and commented on an earlier version.
130
Biblical Hebrew
Although previous scholars certainly had observed that certain features

of BHmorphological, lexical, grammatical, even phonologicalwere
characteristic of LBH, it was Avi Hurvitz who in 1972 established a sound
and consistent methodology for identifying certain features as late (Hurvitz
1972a: 15-26; see also Hurvitz 1973).1 First, the linguistic feature in question must occur exclusively or predominantly in biblical texts which are
undisputedly post-exilic in date; this is known as 'linguistic distribution' ?
This criterion is the first indication that a given linguistic item is potentially a feature of LBH and ensures that the item is present in post-exilic
Hebrew. Second, there must be expressions in earlier biblical texts which
convey the same meaning as the linguistic item in question and are
employed in similar contexts; this is known as 'linguistic contrast'. One
must demonstrate that the item which is potentially late is equivalent to
and used in place of an earlier expression. This helps ensure that the item
in question is not simply an expression that earlier books had no cause or
opportunity to employ. Third, the linguistic item in question must appear
in post-exilic sources other than the Hebrew Bible, such as Ben Sira,
Qumran Hebrew (the Dead Sea Scrolls), and Tannaitic Hebrew; this is
known as 'extra-biblical attestation'.3 This third criterion helps ensure that
the late expression is not a peculiarity of the biblical writer's style and
reflects the larger linguistic situation in the post-exilic period. To these
three we can add a fourth consideration to determine whether a particular
biblical text is late. A text should not be considered late on linguistic
grounds unless it displays multiple expressions which are characteristic of
LBH; this is known as ' linguistic concentration'. Occasionally the presence
of late expressions may be explained by something other than a post-exilic
date for the text in question. Hurvitz has shown that recent challenges to
this methodology are unpersuasive (1997a; 2000a).
Although several scholars before him had observed and described
dialectal variation in BH, it has been Gary Rendsburg who during the past
15 years has contributed the most to this topic within Hebrew studies.4
1. For a more detailed presentation of the methodology and the various issues involved, see also Bergey 1983: 1-11; Rooker 1988b; Wright 1998:4-28 and references.
2. The primary sources for post-exilic BH are: Isa. 56-66, Jonah, Haggai, Zechariah, Malachi, 1-2 Chronicles, Ezra, Nehemiah, Daniel, Esther, and Qohelet. For a
survey of the literature reflecting the consensus of scholars on these texts, see Wright
1998: 15-18 and references.
3. For a more detailed discussion of what constitutes extra-biblical attestation (of
a LBH feature), see Bergey 1983: 1-11; Wright 1998: 22-28 and references.
4. See also Rofe 1992; I. Young 1993; 1995 and references.
WRIGHT Further Evidence for North Israelite Contributions 131

Rendsburg has adapted the methodology established by Hurvitz for the
study of LBH to the study of dialectal variation within BHwhich normally means linguistic items which do not reflect the standard literary
dialect of pre-exilic Jerusalem and Judah (Rendsburg 1990b: 15-16; 2002a:
18-19). The phrase 'Israelian Hebrew' (here abbreviated to IH) normally
describes such items, although this does not necessarily assume that all
such dialectal variants were employed in the Hebrew of the Northern Kingdom of Israel (see Rendsburg 1991b; 1996). First, a linguistic item which
may represent non-JH must appear exclusively or primarily in texts which
most scholars regard as 'northern' or non-Judahite; this is the same as
'distribution' described above. Second, one should be able to show a contrast between the alleged IH feature and a corresponding feature within
SBH (or JH; see Rendsburg 2002a: 17). Third, the item in question should
have a cognate in one of the languages used outside Judah and Israel, such
as Ugaritic, Phoenician, Aramaic, or one of the Transjordanian dialects;
this is analogous to 'extra-biblical attestation' described above. Finally, a
text should be regarded as 'northern' or non-Judahite only if it contains a
concentration of IH features.
In his article 'The Strata of Biblical Hebrew' which appeared in 1991,
Rendsburg made some important observations regarding the nature and
function of dialectal variation in the Hebrew Bible. First, some non-standard forms may represent the spoken dialect of the language; this category
is normally labeled 'diglossia' (Rendsburg 1991b: 83-84). Second, IH
features in a particular text may reflect the regional dialect of the writer(s)
(pp. 87-92). Third, in some cases IH features may represent an effort on
the part of a Judahite writer to represent non-Judahite dialect; this is
known as 'style-switching' (pp. 92-95). Finally, in some cases a Judahite
writer attempted to reproduce the speech patterns of a non-Judahite person
or group to whom a text is addressed. This last category is especially common in prophetic textswherein prophetic oracles often are addressed
to Israel's neighborsand is labeled 'addressee-switching' (pp. 96-97).
This more nuanced approach to IH items is important because it is
possible a particular feature of IH was not in fact used by Israelianslet
alone Judahitesbut only appears in BH because of style-switching or
addressee-switching.
The method I employ in this study is to present six examples of linguistic items that are characteristic of LBH but which also occur sporadically
in early texts. Moreover all or most of the early texts in which these items
appear also display characteristics of IH as identified by other scholars.
Biblical Hebrew
132
a. D^DTll? ('Everlastingness, Eternity')

Although the singular noun Q1?"!!? occurs commonly throughout the
Hebrew Bible (KB, II: 798-99), the plural forniD'Dîr appears much less
frequently.5 BOB distinguishes between D^DTUtf (1) with the sense 'years
of ancient times, of olden times' (BDB: 762a), and (2) as a plural intensive
of DÎI? with the sense 'everlastingness, eternity' (BDB: 762b):
(1) Isa. 51.9:
Ps. 77.6:
Qoh. i.io:
(2) !Kgs8.13(=2Chron. 6.2):
Isa. 26.4:
Isa. 45.17:
Ps. 61.5:
PS. 77.8:
Ps. 145.13:
Dan. 9.24:
D'Obli) mil Dip

D'Obll? HUttf DlpD
n^zbyb rrn
D-Q^ll? ~[mvh )1DD

D-QblU IIH miT
1U 'Dl7lini7...Dl'Dl7IIJ nui&n
DÎU "[briND mm
n
]iK mr Dîu^n
D^blT^n HID^Q ^niD^D
D'DÛ plJJ trnn1?!
Note that with either meaning the plural form D^DT1U appears primarily in
texts which most scholars agree are exilic or post-exilic: Isa. 45.17; 51.9;6
Qoh. 1.10; Dan. 9.24. Psalm 145 displays several characteristics of LBH
including the LBH expression D'DîrSrD (Hurvitz 1972a: 100-104)and
is clearly a post-exilic text.
That the plural form D^Dîr began increasingly to displace 0^117 in
similar contexts can be seen from its distribution in post-biblical literature.
The term D^DÎI^ appears frequently in the Hebrew of the DSS. Note the
following examples (HDHL:plates 14486-91):
1QS 4.22:
(Compare 2 Sam. 23.5:
IQS 4.7-8:
(Compare Isa. 35.10:
and Isa. 60.19, 20:
1QM 13.7:
(Compare LBH Ps. 145.1:
D'Bbli? m> b 103 D3 K'D

D^ltf tT-Q)
D^îr nwa..^^1?!!: nnatî 11? niDin

0^1^ nnati;
DÎU -n)
OÎU1? HD"Q] nDDty
101 DÎU^ "[027 HD13W)
5. See also Wright 1998: 112-18 and references.

6. Rooker (1996) has attempted to demonstrate that the language of Isa. 40-66
which most scholars date to the exilic or post-exilic periodreflects a pre-exilic rather
than exilic or post-exilic linguistic background. Although he showed successfully that
in several instances the exilic book of Ezekiel displays LBH characteristics where Isa.
40-66 employs SBH features, Rooker did not include D'OblU in his analysis.

It also occurs in rabbinic literature, especially in the compound phrase
Ds/ni7 IT3, literally 'house of eternity' (= 'grave'; Hurvitz 1992; HDHL:
plates 14491-521):
m. Tarn. 7.4:
t. Ber. 3.24:
GÎIT! "H^
ITD^m ITDD
We may observe further how frequently the Targumim rendered Hebrew

0^117as well as the expressions PIH3 and "TI7with Aramaic "pQÛ:
Targ. Onq. Exod.15.18:
(Note MT:
Targ. Ctoa. Dew/. 32.40:
(Note MT:
Targ. Isa. 25.8:
(Note MT:
Wtblfa WcfrzhiTTTabB
in Dû1? ~pw mrr)
'pabub KD D"p mDKI

0*71 JJ1? "3DK Tr TniDKI)
j^tf1? KJTIID ptBJrr
HUD^ man 1^3)
Targ. Me. 7.18:

(Note MT:
man lâbr^ "[mo b

1S 1^^ |TTnn b)
Targ. Ps. 104.5:

(Note MT:
j^Dbi; "'Ob^ UlTn bl

1U1 D^l^ l21Qnn-^3)
The LBH pleonastic expression D*10^117 ^Dmentioned earlieralso is

well attested in post-biblical sources. It appears occasionally in the Dead
Sea Scrolls:
IQapGen 20.13-14:7
D'Cbs ^1D^ no ]VÛ b HH] 713
The Greek equivalent of D^D^li? ^D appears once in the New Testament:

Jude 1.25:
sis TTOVTCCS TOUS cucivas
It also appears several times in apocryphal literature:

Dan. 3.52 (Lxx):8
si? rravTocs TOUS aiobuas
We can confirm that the Hebrew plural form D^ttblU is a characteristic

feature of LBH on the basis of its appearance primarily in exilic and postexilic biblical texts; its contrast with earlier equivalent expressions such as
D*7117, FliJD, and 117; and its widespread attestation in post-BH literature
as well as the vitality of the Aramaic and Greek equivalents of the pleonastic construction D^ÎI? 73 in the Targumim, in apocryphal literature,
and in the New Testament.
7.
8.
See also IQapGen 21.10, 12.

See also Tob. (B, A) 8.15; 13.4, 18; (S) 8.5, 15; 11.14; 13.4, 7.
134
Biblical Hebrew
What remains is for us to consider examples of D"107*117 in texts which

are not clearly exilic or post-exilic: 1 Kgs 8.13 (= 2 Chron. 6.2); Isa. 26.4;
Pss. 61.5; 77.6, 8.
Psalm 77, one of the Asaph psalms, contains features which are characteristic of IH (Rendsburg 1990b: 75, 78): the double plural construction
D^QTli? HID^ ('years of eternities') in 77.6; and the reduplicatory plural
form "jiJHn ('your arrows') in 77.18. Indeed the Asaph collection as a
whole reflects the northern dialect (IH; Rendsburg 1990b: 73-81).
1 Kings 8.13 appears in a narrative that contains other possible features
of IH (such as kethib PHD, 'you [masc. sg.] built' [qere TTDQ, 'I (c. sg.)
built'] in 1 Kgs 8.48, where context clearly requires us to read rn!H as 7
built'; see Rendsburg 1990b: 29).
Rendsburg commented:
Based on the use of the Phoenician month names Ziv, Bui, and Ethanim in
1 Kgs 6.1,6.37-38,8.2, it is most likely that the description of the construction and dedication of Solomon's Temple is the product of Phoenician
scribes. In other words, not only did Phoenician architects and craftsmen
build the Temple, their scribes also recorded the activity. (Rendsburg 1990b:
29-30)
S. Noegel has demonstrated that Isaiah 26, part of the 'Isaiah apocalypse' (Isa. 24-27), displays a high concentration of IH features (1994:
183-87 and references): 711 meaning 'rampart' instead of the more common 'strength' in 26.1; 117 "117 ('forever and ever') in 26.4; mp ('city')
in26.5;DI7S ('foot') in 26.6; the double plural construction D^l ""QUS in
26.6; CD^S ('weigh, trample down') in 26.7; 1FIC7 ('seek early, search
diligently') in 26.9; the negative particle bn in 26.10; the 'virtual
doubling' ofH in] TV in 26.10; the retention of yo din the imperfect of Illy
C"7) verbs as seen in ]VTTV in 26.11; b^S ('do, make, work') in 26.12;
CTKSri ('shades [inhabitants of the underworld]') in 26.14, 19; the
retention of waw in Illy nouns in construct as seen in Vip in 26.15; ]lpi
('they poured out') in 26.16; the word pair IT"* || ^"ITl ('have labor pangs ||
bear, give birth') in 26.17, 18; milK ('herbs' and not 'lights') in 26.19.
Indeed the entire 'Isaiah apocalypse' (Isa. 24-27)as well as Isaiah 28
(Noegel 1994: 191)contains numerous IH grammatical, syntactical, and
lexical features (Noegel 1994).
The date of Isaiah 26 however is debated by scholars. Some scholars
see it as an integral part of First Isaiah (Kissane 1960: 276, 303). Others
view it as belonging to the exilic period. Noegel did not attempt to date

Isaiah 24-27 in his study, but appeared to associate these prophecies with
First Isaiah (1994: 192).9 W. Millar commented: 'The author [of Isa.
24-27] emerges as one.. .who shared in Second Isaiah's vision for the reconstruction of Israel. For that reason, we label the genre of Isaiah 24-27
proto-apocalyptic. A 6th century date is not unreasonable' (1992:489; see
also Millar 1976). The issue of the date of Isaiah 26 is far from settled, but
the strong possibility that it is an exilic text must be considered. But
whether Isaiah 26 is early or late, what is important to note is that the LBH
plural form D^Qîr occurs in a text which displays numerous IH characteristics.
We can compare the above examples of D^QblU in early(?) non-Judahite texts to evidence from cognate languages. Ugaritic attests one example
of the plural of 7m ('Imt) (see Gordon 1965, III: 456, 19.1858). Note also
the Aramaic isogloss "pQvU in Dan. 2.4 etpassim. The plural of u~?D
appears in Northwest Semitic only in Imperial Aramaic and Nabatean
(DISO: 213).
The presence of the plural form D^CPI!? in texts which contain other
examples of non-JH (Ps. 77 and 1 Kgs 8) and in a possibly early exilic text
with a high concentration of IH features (Isa. 26) may indicate that D^fcjTlIJ
originated in IH and became more common in JH after the Exile. I suggest
that D^ltf represents (1) IH in 1 Kgs 8.13, Ps. 77.6, 8, and perhaps in
Isa. 26.13; (2) the transition from SBH to LBH in the exilic texts Isa.
45.17; 51.19, and perhaps 26.13; and (3) LBH in Qoh. 1.10 and Dan. 9.24.
I am at present unable to explain the presence of D"10*711? as IH or LBH in
Ps. 61.5.n
9. Noegel (1994: 191-92) suggested that the IH features in Isa. 24-27 represent
addressee-switching: the author is attempting to represent the speech patterns of northerners (inhabitants of the Northern Kingdom of Israel). Noegel then drew the conclusion that the purpose for the switch in dialect was political: 'P. Machinist has examined
the prophecies of the first Isaiah [sic] and has found the prophet to possess a remarkable
flare for Neo-Assyrian rhetoric, especially in those prophecies which are aimed at
Assyria... By spicing his prophecy with IH dialectical features, Isaiah is able to appeal
to northern sensitivities and, hence, convey a sense of solidarity [with Judah]' (p. 192).
See especially the reference to 'Isaiah of Jerusalem' in n. 110 on p. 192.
10. See also Dan. 2.44; 3.9; 5.10; 6.6, 21, 26; 7.18.
11. Rendsburg (in a 2002 personal communication) suggested D'OÎI? rather than
DÎU in Ps. 61.5 perhaps enhances the alliteration with "]17D_!D_''_ *TLU in Ps. 61.7. The
form DÎI? in Ps. 61.5 alone would alliterate, but the extra mem in D^VlI? strengthens
the connection between the two halves of the psalm.
Biblical Hebrew
136
b. X-1 Xb^ ('EveryX')

The syntagma X-l X 73 ('every X') appears 14 times in the Hebrew
Bible.12 It occurs primarily in texts which are clearly post-exilic:
Esth. 2.11:
Esth. 3.14; 4.3; 8.13, 17:
Esth. 8.11, 17:
Esth. 9.21, 27:
Esth. 9.28:
2 Chron. 28.25:
2 Chron. 32.28:
DV1 DT ÎDl
nriBI HDHO ^33
T171 T17 ^D
ilDtm HDSD ^33
mil in ^1D3
Tin Tl> ^331
norm nQHD ^D1?
It arises once in a text which contains a concentration of LBH features and

is therefore post-exilic (Hurvitz 1972a: 67-73):
Ps. 145.13:
Tin in ^DD
It also occurs once in a text of uncertain date, though almost undoubtedly

pre-exilic:
PS. 45.18:
TTmte
In each of these examples, the idea of totality is expressed by TO followed

by a repeated singular noun joined by 1 (GKC: 395, 123c;BDB:481b).13
This construction does not occur in earlier books of the Hebrew Bible.
SBH employed either (1) an asyndetic construction in which a singular
noun is repeatedalso known as the quivis constructionwithout an intervening waw, or (2) a syndetic construction in which a repeated singular
noun is joined by waw. Contrary to Polzin (1976: 49-51) and Qimron
(1986: 81, 400), there is no semantic distinction between the syndetic and
asyndetic quivis constructions. Rendsburg called this 'a distinction without
a difference' (Rendsburg 1980a: 68). Although Polzin was incorrect to
argue that the syndetic construction is distinctively post-exilicGevirtz
(1986: 26-27) has shown that syndetic constructions occur in early biblical
(and extra-biblical) contextshe was correct insofar that the asyndetic
construction is more archaic. Rendsburg (1980a: 69; see also Rendsburg
1991b: 82-83) summarized the development of the construction well:
12. See also Hurvitz 1972a: 70; Bergey 1983: 68-69; most recently Wright 1998
77-84 and references.
13. See also JM: 499, 135d: 'Certain ideas analogous to the idea of plurality are
expressed by the repetition of the singular noun: the idea of each, every... with the
addition of ^3 and Waw as in LBH, QH, and MH'.
WRIGHT Further Evidence for North Israelite Contributions
137
I would conclude by positing the following chronological development. The

asyndeta dor dor, yom yom, etc., were used first, as in the Ugaritic texts and
commonly in the Pentateuch (as well as in Ps. 68). The syndeta dor vfdor,
yom weyom, etc., developed next, gradually replacing the earlier formulation
(but note that yom yom occurs still in Prov. 8.34).
So although the asyndetic construction is older, both it and the syndetic

formulation are characteristic of SBH.
However the syntagma X-l X TO appears commonly in post-BH. The
syndetic construction with preceding ^D is well attested in the Dead Sea
Scrolls and in materials from Murabba'at (HDHL:plates 10398-424;
Qimron 1986: 81, 440.15; Hurvitz 1972a: 72-73; Bergey 1983: 69):14
11QT15.1:
Murabba'at 24, Bl6; C18:
DVIDVÎD
rrJIOT n32? blD
The feature also appears in rabbinic writings from the Tannaitic period
(HDHL:plates 10244-605; Hurvitz 1972a: 72; Bergey 1983: 70):15
m. Ab. 6.2:
/. Ber. 6.7:
DV1 DV ^D
KJB31 KB] *?D
Qimron (1986:81, 440.15) commented: 'The construction "X-l X ^Dp)",

meaning "every X", is only attested in the Hebrew of the Second Temple
period and thereafter; it is common in late biblical, Mishnaic, and Aramaic
usage'. In summary, the distribution of the syndetic construction with
preceding ^3 in post-exilic biblical texts, its contrast with the SBH
syndetic and asyndetic constructions without preceding ;O, and its widespread appearance in post-BH demonstrate convincingly that the syntagma
X-l X ^D is characteristic of LBH.
What remains is for us to consider the one example of X-l X ^D in a
text which probably is pre-exilic: Ps. 45.18. This psalm contains a large
number of IH features (Rendsburg 1990b: 45-50): the feminine singular
nominal ending -ot in v. 11 and v. 16; the verb Oil ('astir') in v. 2; the
term THE ('skillful') in v. 2; the word ITD^D ('kingdom') in v. 7; the
noun 7DTT as 'palace' instead of 'temple' in v. 9 and v. 16; the double
plural syntagma D^D^Q ni33 ('daughters of kings') in v. 10; the nonelision of he in the hophal imperfect "]1"I1!T ('[peoples] shall praise you')
in v. 18. Note also the reference to "lliJ fin ('daughter of Tyre') in v. 13.
14. See also 3Q15 12.12-13; 11QT 22.12; 23.7; 40.8; 42.13; 48.14.
15. A representative list of examples might include m. Sot. 5.4; m. Suk. 5.4; m. Ber.
6.6; m. Seq. 6.5; Sifrct Hovah 9.2; Mek. Bahodesh 5.
Biblical Hebrew
138
Further evidence for the dialectalnon-Judahitenature of this expression comes from an Eteocretan inscription from the sixth century BCE,
where we read KX ES u ES (analogous to BH KTK1 2TK ^D) (Rendsburg
1980a: 69; Gordon 1966: 10). Although it would strengthen our case if we
had more examples of the syndetic quivis construction with preceding ^D
in Northwest Semitic inscriptions (DISO: 119-20), we can conclude that
the syntagma X-l X ^D was present in IH and became more frequent in
BH after the Exile.
c. ODD
The verb D3D in the piel and qal conjugations occurs eight times in exilic
and post-exilic texts (Ezek. 22.21; 39.28; Qoh. 2.8, 26; 3.5; Esth. 4.16;
Neh. 12.44; 1 Chron. 22.2; BDB: 488b; KB, II: 484),16 and twice in texts
of uncertain date (Pss. 33.7; 147.2). It appears several times also in
Aramaic portions of the Bible (= EflD, 'assemble'; BDB: 1097a). In the
examples cited above the verb ODD is used to describe gathering crops
(Nehemiah), people (Ezekiel, Chronicles), and raw materials (Qohelet).
The piel and qal of DID do not appear in undisputably early books of the
Bible, which instead employ ^jDK or j*Dp with the same meaning of
'gather (people or crops)' (BDB: 62a, 867b; KB, I: 74-75; III: 1062-64). It
should, however, be noted that both verbs continue to appear in exilic and
post-exilic texts.17 The book of Ezekiel uses both earlier ^DN and j*Dp as
well as later ODD to describe the gathering of the exiles:
Ezek. 11.17:
mjnKrT'JD DDHN ^HSDNl... DDHK nnH3pl
Compare:
Ezek. 39.28:
DnOTtrblJ DTO3D1
But DDD in the piel and qal conjugations is attested in post-biblical

literature. It occurs occasionally in the Dead Sea Scrolls (HDHL: plates
10694-723):
4QOrd 2.4
^ DDD1 n^DlNl
i IQT 34.7
mpiTcn [mn n] D^DDID rm
And also in Tannaitic literature:

16. For a fuller discussion see Bergey 1983: 129-30; Hurvitz 1982:123-25; Wright
1998: 156-60 and references.
17. For examples of ]OK see Jer. 16.5; Ezek. 11.7; Dan. 11.10; Ezra 3.1; Neh. 8.13;
1 Chron. 5.14. For examples ofpp see Jer. 29.14; Ezek. 22.20; Esth. 2.3, 8,19; Ezra
7.28; Neh. 4.14; 2 Chron. 15.19.
WRIGHT Further Evidence for North Israelite Contributions

m. B. Bat. 3.1:
/w. Toh. 9.13:
m. Sebu. 4.8:
139
ISf] (l)p P ODD maiim HN D3D

]1|DDD ^31^ ]DD'D
1JTD flP^ DD1D ertan
Thus the evidence suggests strongly that LBH 033 in the qal and piel
appeared alongside and began to replace SBH spN and |*3p in the exilic
and post-exilic periods, although all three roots continued to be used in
post-BH.
That leaves three examples of the verb 03 D in texts which are of uncertain date. In Psalm 147 the verb 033 appears in a verse (v. 2) which
describes the rebuilding of Jerusalem and the gathering of the 'exiles of
Israel' (033^ ^"lET TT1]). Either the verse or the psalm as a whole is
clearly post-exilic, and so 033 here reflects LBH. I am unable to explain
the appearance of ODD in Ps. 33.7.
In addition to the distribution of 033 in the qal and piel conjugations as
described above, the hithpael of ODD ('gather oneself) occurs once in Isa.
28.20: D33nn3 HIH HDDDm ('and the cover too narrow for curling up
[or "gathering oneself up, pulling one's limbs together"]', JPS). Hurvitz
(1982:124) commented: 'DOT!, which is found in Is. XXVIII, 20, should
be excluded from discussion since (semantically) its exact meaning is
unclear and (morphologically) it belongs to a different conjugation'. However the meaning in this context is not so unclear as Hurvitz maintained.
And although we should exercise caution in including this example
because it is in the hithpael rather than in the piel or qal conjugations still
we can observe that the verbal root 033which does not appear in the
hithpael anywhere elseappears in a text of uncertain date which displays
significant number of IH features (Noegel 1994:189-91): D^n ('strike') in
v. 1; D-T33 ('great, mighty') in v. 2; 3Bp ('cut off) in v. 2; POT ('go
astray') in v. 7; plS ('totter') in v. 7; pTU7 ('old, advanced in years') in
v. 9; ]li6 ('scorn') in v. 14 and v. 22; 11\D ('harrow') in v. 24; miE?
('rows' or 'grain') in v. 25; ]QD3 ('appointed place, marked place') in
v. 25; 2T1K ('silent') in v. 28; rPKTin ('wisdom') in v. 29. The root 033
appears also in Aramaic (= 2?33) and in Punic, Imperial Aramaic, and
Palmyran inscriptions (DISO: 123). Its appearance in Isaiah 28even if in
the hithpael conjugationmight be an example of addressee-switching in
a prophecy addressed to the tribe of Ephraim (Noegel 1994: 189, 192;
Rendsburg 1991b: 96-97).18
18. Biblical passages set in Ephraimite contexts often display non-standard forms
and vocabulary. Regarding such evidence for a distinctive Ephraimite dialect of ancient
Hebrew, see Rendsburg 1990b: 7,14,20,22,24-25,70 and references. Since the tribes
Biblical Hebrew
140
Recently, however, Joseph Naveh has published what may be attestation

of the verb ODD in a pre-exilic text from Jerusalem (Naveh 2000).19 The
text in question is a jar inscription that is dated paleographically to the
First Temple period (Naveh 2000: 1, 2-3). The second and third lines of
the three line inscription read:
[.^pD.mDn.innDn.p.inn
[].D]Dmn'in[\p.]irr[]
Naveh has suggested the translation: 'PN son of PN2 who gathers silver
[and gold].. .PN3 son of PN4 who gathers [silver and gold]' (Naveh 2000:
2). If the date, provenance, and reading of the text are correct, then the
verb DD3 was present in pre-exilic Jerusalemite Hebrew and therefore is
not a feature of either LBH or IH. I would suggest this evidence is too
recent to draw any firm conclusions. Note also the unusual form ETlDn in
1. 1if this stands for B"I2? (> CD1D in later Hebrew; see Naveh 2000: 3)
then the text may come from outside of Jerusalem.
The use of the verb ODDwhich in the piel and qal conjugations is
characteristic of LBHin a text which contains other IH features and is
addressed to the tribe of Ephraim suggests that ODD may have been present
in non-JH and then became more frequently used in the exilic and postexilic periods. But because D3D occurs in Isaiah 28 in the hithpael rather
than piel or qal conjugation, because the date of Isaiah 28 is disputed, and
because of DD3 in a pre-exilic Hebrew inscription recently found in Jerusalem, this conclusion is tentative.
d. ^np ('Receive, Take')
The piel of bnp 'receive, take' (BDB: 867a; KB, III: 1061-62) appears
eight times in the Hebrew Bible:20
Prov. 19.20:
Job 2.10 (twice):

Esth. 9.23:
Esth. 9.27:
1D1Q ^pl HHU UBK?
vb mrrrwi D-n^n na bapD men-fin D:

*73p]
nitDUb l^nnI10TIK D'Tin^n Ûpl
DHÛ Q-Tin'n ^3pl
of Ephraim and Manasseh are associated with Joseph, note the presence of IH features
in the blessing of Joseph in Gen. 49 (Rendsburg 1992c: 167-69).
19. I would like to thank Ian Young and Gary Rendsburg for bringing this item to
my attention.
20. See Hurvitz 1974a: 20-23; 1982: 22; Bergey 1983: 145-47; Polzin 1976: 150;
Wright 1998: 174-78 and references. This discussion does not include the hiphil of
^Dp ('correspond'), which appears in early texts (Exod. 26.5; 36.12).

1 Chron. 12.19:
1 Chron. 21.11:
2 Chron. 29.16:
Til D^Tl
l^'^P nin ' ^N'^D
train1? D'lbn ib^Tl
Note that piel ^3p ('receive, take') occurs primarily in texts which most
scholars accept as post-exilic: Esth. 9.23, 27; 1 Chron. 12.19; 21.11;
2 Chron. 29.16. The two examples of piel 7Dp in Job 2.10 occur in the
prose portions of Job, which Hurvitz (1974a) has shown exhibits several
features of LBH and on linguistic grounds can be dated to the post-exilic
period.
The piel of ^3p occurswith one possible exceptionnowhere in
early books of the Hebrew Bible. Instead we see the common lexeme Hp7
('take') employed in a manner similar to piel 7Dp in later texts:
Gen. 33.10-11:
(Compare Esth. 4.4:
njT1...Tima Tinpl7l...]n TIKUD K3 Dtt

*73p N71.. .'DUD HN ET^H1? D'TQ nÔn)
Exod. 24.6:
np'l POTOn Û plT Din ' Jjm.. .D1H 'SPl nO2
(Compare 2 Chron. 29.22:
nmTOn ipin Din~n D"3nDn I^Dp-l)
Although npb continued to appear frequently in post-exilic texts, the

evidence indicates clearly that the piel of TQp began to be used alongside
early np1? in similar contexts (Even-Shoshan 1990: 607; Hurvitz 1974a
22; several other examples in Wright 1998: 175-76).
The piel of bnp was employed even more frequently in post-biblical
literature. Note the following examples (HDHL:plates 15868-83):
Ben Sira 15.2:
iQSai.il:
4QpPsaa 171 2.9
ID^pn DHIW TOBD
v^yTun 1 ? bnpn
munn II:IQ n iâp
And from Tannaitic literature:
m. Ber. 2.2: ^np1 p ini n^-nn ... v^r âp-e? HD b

5/^-e Dent. 54 (122):
"niTTJ 1^3p TrO^D DH^^p
Concerning the evidence summarized above, Bergey concluded (1983:

146-47):
np1? remains the preferred form throughout LBH, including Esther where it
appears twice as often as ^3p. Also np1? is the more frequently used term
of the two [npb and ^Hp] in the DSS. So from the literary evidence, it
appears that ^Dp never thoroughly permeated the language until Tannaitic
times. Nevertheless, its appearance in Esther, Ezra, and Chronicles is the
earliest indication of this lexeme's penetration into the Hebrew literary
sources, an entrance which was the harbinger of its gradually increased use
as is evidenced especially in the Mishnah.
142
Biblical Hebrew
The piel of ^3peven though it occurs alongside and less frequently

than SBH Hp^can confidently be regarded as a characteristic feature of
LBH.
What remains is for us to consider the one instance of piel ^Dp in a text
of uncertain but probably pre-exilic date: Prov. 19.20. Other scholars have
observed and discussed IH features throughout Proverbs (Albright 1960:
1-15; Ginsberg 1982: 36; Rendsburg 1990b: 10 nn. 39-40). In a recent
doctoral dissertation Y. Chen (2000) conducted an extensive study of the
language of book of Proverbs. He confirmed that Proverbs contains a multitude of IH features, including several within Proverbs 19 alone (Chen
2000: 149-54 and references): the -Tl prefixed noun-form 31Dl?n based
on a strong root in 19.10; ]11D ('strife, contention') in 19.13; the phrase
"HE ff|irn ('continuous dripping') in 19.13; and the negative particle ^3
in 19.23.21
The non-Judahite character of piel blip ('receive, take') can be seen
further in how it is distributed in (an)other Semitic language(s). The verb
TQp ('take, receive') is very common in Aramaic sources (DISO: 248-49).
Chen (2000: 152) suggested persuasively that bmp is an 'IH vocable that
is shared between IH and Aramaic'. Albright (1943: 31) interpreted the
Canaanite gloss ti-ka-bi-lu in (Amarna text) EA 252 as the equivalent of
Hebrew bnp (see also Gordis 1965: 163-64,345 n. 32; Hurvitz 1974a: 22
n. 21), but this interpretation has been disputed persuasively by Moran
(1975: 148)andRainey(1996,II: 148).22 Based on the occurrence of LBH
piel TOp in a pre-exilic text with numerous IH features, we can conclude
that this form represents another IH isogloss with Aramaic which became
part of the literary dialect during the post-exilic period.23
e. nn^n ('West')
The termini^ ('west'; BDB: 788a; KB, II: 615) appears 13 times in the
Hebrew Bible: Isa. 43.5; 45.6; 59.19; Pss. 75.7; 103.12; 107.2; 1 Chron.
7.28; 12.16; 26.16,18,30; 2 Chron. 32.30; 33.14.24 Ten of these examples
21. Chen (2000: 149-54) provided several other examples of IH features in Prov.
19, but these were less persuasive than the examples I cite above.
22. Moran interpreted the gloss as qubbulu ('to fight', CAD Q, 292b), whereas
Rainey has suggested instead kapalulqapalu ('curl up', CAD K, 174-75; Rainey 1996,
II: 148). I would like to thank Ian Young for bringing this information to my attention.
23. Note also BDB: 867a: '(late) Aram, loan word'; and KB, III: 1061: 'an old
Heb. verb, which was replaced by np1?, but under Arm. influence was later revived...'
24. For fuller discussion see Hurvitz 1972a: 113-16; Wright 1998: 164-68.

are in texts which are clearly exilic or post-exilic: Isa. 43.5; 45.6; 59.19;25
1 Chron. 7.28; 12.16; 26.16,18,30; 2 Chron. 32.30; 33.14. Psalm 103 contains sufficient LBH elements for us to conclude that it is a post-exilic text
(Hurvitz 1972a: 107-30). Note that in several of the verses cited above
D"1UQ ('sunset, the West') appears in conjunction with PIHTQ 'rising (of
the sun), the East'.
Earlier texts in the Hebrew Bible by contrast employ (1) Dn ('seafward],
the West'; BDB: 41 la; KB, II: 414) or (2) KinQ ('entry [of the sun into
the horizon], the West'; BDB: lOOb) to express the same idea:
(a) Josh. 11.3:
Josh. 12.7:
(Compare 1 Chron. 26.30:
Isa. 11.14:
(b) Deut. 11.30 etpassim26
D^Ql mTQD '3IttDn

HQ" ]TVn -DID
m"IUD JTTH -QUO)
HIT DTIKkB "pm 1SU1
IDOen K13Q f 11 nn JTVn H3U3
Although both expressions do continue to appear in late texts,27 the distribution of D~IUQ suggests that it began to displace earlier (1) D"1 and
(2) NIDQ in the exilic and post-exilic periods.
We can confirm the late nature of D"1UQ by observing how frequently it
is employed in post-biblical literature such as the Dead Sea Scrolls, the
Bar Kokhba letters, and Tannaitic literature (HDHL: plates 14765-68;
Hurvitz 1972a: 114-16):
11QT 10.35:
IIQT 13.31:
Bar Kokhba 15:
m. Ma'as. S. 3.5:
/. 'Erub. 4.6:
SifreNum. 73:
^DTFn n"\SKb DIpD HP-Din
n-iBana psunai nitons

mrana I^BIZ?
mtfQ )D 1H
2"II?D1 niTD 1H HT
mUQÎ }12l6 TplP
Thus there is little question that D"1UQ ('west') represents a late expression
which began to replace SBH D* and N1HE in similar contexts.
So what of the two texts of uncertain date wherein LBH D"~lUQ appears?
Although Hurvitz was unwilling to conclude on linguistic grounds that
Psalm 107 was late (1972a: 173-76 esp. 173 and n. 308), internal evidence
suggests a post-exilic date. Psalm 107.2-3 clearly refers to the return of the
25. Rooker (1996) ommitted 31UQ from his analysis of the linguistic background
of Isa. 40-66.
26. Note examples also in Josh. 1.4; 23.4; Pss. 50.1; 104.19; 113.3.
27. ForD1 seeZech. 14.4 and Even-Shoshan 1990:470-72. For 8130 see also Zech.
8.7; Mai. 1.11; and Even-Shoshan 1990: 617.
Biblical Hebrew
144
exiles to Jerusalem following the decree of Cyrus in 538 BCE: 'Thus let the
redeemed of the LORD say, those He redeemed from adversity, whom He
gathered in from the lands, from east and west, from the north and from
the sea' (JPS). Even if the rest of the psalm were composed earlier, D"11?Q
in Ps. 107.2 represents LBH.
Psalm 75 is one of the Asaph psalms, and I have noted earlier how the
Asaph collection as a whole reflects northern (IH) dialect (Rendsburg
1990b: 73-81). Psalm 75 displays two other characteristics of IH: "ion
('wine') in 75.9, and ~JDQ ('mixed wine') in 75.9.
The non-Judahite character of 3~II?Q can be seen in its distribution in
other Semitic languages. Ugaritic displays m 'rb ('sunset'), but it is unclear
whether the term can also mean 'west' (Gordon 1965, III: 461, 1915).
Observe the use of D1JJQ in a Samalian inscription from Zenjirli (Gibson
1975: 76-78; KAI, 11:31-34):
Panammu 13:
DIED lin EOT KplQ )ID
The word was also common in Imperial and Judean Aramaic (DISO:162).
Sabean also exhibits DT")UQ/''3"IUQ ('west, western'). The Semitic root
'rb ('enter, go in') and its extended meaning of'west'in the sense of the
direction where the sun 'enters' the horizon at sunsetmay be reflected
in Greek Eupoira and the myths which surround her (Bernal 1991: 93,
497-98 and references).
The presence of LBH H1UQ ('west') in a text which displays other characteristics of IH (Ps. 75) and its attestation in Sabean and early Aramaic
inscriptions and possibly in Ugaritic together may indicate that D~lUft
originated or was present in IH and became more common in JH during
and after the exile. We can conclude that 3~II?E represents IH in Ps. 75.7;
the transition from SBH to LBH in Isa. 43.5; 45.6; 59.19; and LBH in
those biblical texts which are clearly post-exilic.
6. bn3 ('Hasten')
In BH the verb ^rD has two distinct meanings: (1) 'disturb, terrify' and
(2) 'hasten' (BOB: 96a; KB, I: 111).28 The verb with the former meaning
of 'disturb, terrify' can be found throughout the Hebrew Bible, but brn
with the sense of 'hasten' occurs only seven times:
28. For a fuller discussion see Bergey 1983: 111-12; Polzin 1976: 129; Wright
1998: 138-41. In my 1998 study (Wright 1998: 138n. 372) I incorrectly cited'Bergey,
"Esther", 11-112' instead of Bergey 1983: 777-12.
PS. 48.6:
Prov. 20.21:
Esth. 2.9:
Esth. 6.14:
Esth. 8.14:
2 Chron. 26.20:
2 Chron. 35.21:
iisra ibmD man ito nan

nDtara (Q)r6mB I1?
nb nrb nm3DTii rrpi-iDrrnR ^rann
]arrn R-nnb i^n3 i
"f^DH 1313 D'BiriTI D^mB 1KJT
Dm imVa''!
^brcb ~1Q DT6&1
Five of these examples are clearly post-exilic texts: Esth. 2.9; 6.14; 8.14;
2 Chron. 26.20; 35.21. Note also that h>i"Q in the hithpaal occurs three
times in Biblical Aramaic: Dan. 2.25; 3.24; 6.20 (BDB: 1084a).
This later usage of 7i~Q does notwith the exceptions of Ps. 48.6 and
Prov. 20.21occur in earlier books of the Bible which instead employ
"HO or ISO in similar contexts (BDB: 342a, 554b; KB, 1:339; II: 553-54).
For example (Bergey 1983: 112):
Gen. 27.20:
^3 Nuab rnno nrno
Exod. 2.18:
(Compare Esth. 6.14:
DTT! 83 jima W7Q

pn~n VT3rb lbn3 n l)
Josh. 8.14:
(Compare Esth. 8.14:
Tll?n~<lEJ] IKU"1!.. .linCJ''!

"fôn 1313 D'Simi G^n3Q 1a")
1 Sam. 23.26:
b^V "DDD FCb1? TSTO lin 'Tl
Note that "1HD continued to appear in later texts. Although the verb TTO
was employed in BH during the pre-exilic period, it was not until the postexilic period that it became more widespread and began to replace "1HQ
and TSH in similar contexts.
Evidence for ^HD meaning 'hasten, hurry' instead of'disturb, terrify' in
post-biblical literature is scarce (HDHL: plate 5310). We find one example
in Tannaitic literature:
m. Ab. 5.7
3ntOTb ^n3] 11T81
Despite this slight evidence, Bergey (1983: 112) concluded:

The evidence gathered from the Hebrew literary sources points to the
semantic development of "">n3 'hasten' in post-exilic times, resulting in its
extension to the semantic sphere of two others lexemes occurring in EBH
[SBH]"inQ and TSn. This development, no doubt, contributed to the
decline of TSn, which nowhere occurs in LBH prose.
Nevertheless the distribution within the Hebrew Bible of ^rn with the
meaning 'hasten, hurry' is such that we safely can regard brQ ('hasten,
hurry') as a characteristic feature of LBH.
146
Biblical Hebrew
We can then consider the two examples of îin ('hasten, hurry') in texts
of uncertain but probably pre-exilic date: Ps. 48.6 and Prov. 20.21. Psalm
48, one of the Korah psalms, contains three IH features (Rendsburg 1990b:
51-60): the verb NT governing the preposition D in 46.3; the plural construct form n}3C)p ('tabernacles') in 46.5; the negative particle ;Q in 46.6.
The probable allusions to Carmel and Rosh Haniqra in the north of EretzYisrael and to the coastal plain along the Mediterranean Sea in the south
further attest to a northern (non-Judahite) origin for this psalm (pp. 52).
The Korah collection of psalms as a whole displays numerous IH features
and likely was composed in the Northern Kingdom of Israel (pp. 51-60
esp. 51).
The book of Proverbs, as noted above, contains a multitude of IH features, including many within Proverbs 20 (Chen 2000: 155-59).29 b#S
('do, make, work') in v. 11; ^TN ('go [away]') in v. 14; the retention of
initial ^ in the imperative form of Plpb in v. 16; and the verb H~l^ ('be
sweet, pleasing') in v. 17.30
The verb ^PQ with the meaning 'hasten, hurry' instead of the more
common 'disturb, terrify' appears to be a characteristic of LBH. The two
examples of LBH 7!"Q ('hasten, hurry') in early texts which reflect a
northern (non-Judahite) linguistic background suggest that 7i~Q as 'hasten,
hurry' was already present in IH and thenperhaps due to the influence of
Aramaicbecame more widespread in JH following the Babylonian
Exile.
Conclusions
Many of the characteristic features of LBH identified by Hurvitz and other
scholars occur sporadically in earlier texts.31 This does not automatically
disqualify these items as late:
It was not until the post-exilic period that such competing [LBH] forms
were used increasingly at the expense of the earlier expression or replaced
the earlier form altogether. In such cases it is the increased or predominant
use of the language element in post-exilic texts which marks that element as
29. Chen (2000: 155-59) did not discuss ^rn in his analysis of dialectal features in
Prov. 20perhaps because it appears only as a qere reading.
30. Chen (2000: 155-59) discussed several other possible IH features in Prov. 20,
but 1 have cited above only the most persuasive examples.
31. See examples in Hurvitz 1972a; 1974a; 1982; Polzin 1976; Bergey 1983;
Wright 1998 especially Tables la-Id (pp. 250-53).

characteristically late. (Wright 1998: 257; see also Bergey 1983: 173-74;
Hurvitz 1982: 24-27 esp. 25 n. 9)
What is of interest for the purposes of this study is when an LBH feature
appears in early texts all or most of which display characteristics of IH.
So far we have looked at six examples of LBH features which appear
also in early, non-Judahite texts: (1) the plural formD^D^l^ ('everlastingness, eternity') which occurs also in 1 Kgs 8.13, Isa. 26.4, Pss. 77.6, 8;
(2) the syntagma X-l X ^D ('every X') which appears also in Ps. 45.18;
(3) the root ODD ('gather, collect') which we find also in Isa. 28.20; (4) the
piel form of the verb 7Dp ('receive, take') which appears also in Prov.
19.20; (5) the term 3"II?!3 ('west') which occurs also in Ps. 75.7; and
(6) *TQ with the meaning 'hasten, hurry', which occurs in Ps. 48.6 and
Prov. 20.21. These examples of linguistic items that occur rarely in preexilic, non-Judahite texts and later become characteristic features of LBH
appear to support the hypothesis offered by Gordon (1955a) and others
(see most recently Chen 2000: 5, 9-11; Rendsburg 2002a: 21) that the
'northern' dialect(s) influenced post-exilic Hebrew. Even if we exclude
DÎU in Isa. 26.4 and the hithpael of ODD in Isa. 28.20 because of the
problems in dating Isaiah 24-28and because D3ID appears in a pre-exilic
Hebrew inscription from Jerusalemthat still leaves five examples within
this study alone. A full analysis of LBH items which appear occasionally
in early texts and of whether those texts exhibit IH is still forthcoming.32
But a possible relationship between IH (that is, early, non-JH) and LBH
raises two sets of related questions. First: What isor perhaps, what are
the precise relationship(s) between non-JH in the pre-exilic period and
post-exilic Hebrew? How does the apparent influence of IH on LBH
compare with other sources of influence? What are the mechanisms and
processes by which IH features penetrated the literary idiom in the postexilic period?
Out of 44 characteristic features of LBH, I found six items that appear
only or mostly in texts that reflect a non-Judahite linguistic background.
Although with a larger corpus of non-Judahite texts we might find more
such examples, it appears that IH is one stream that flows into the river we
call LBH. Gordon emphasized the reunion in Babylon and Persia between
32. For this study I began with the 44 features of LBH which I discussed in my
doctoral dissertation 'Linguistic Evidence for the Pre-Exilic Date of the Yahwist Source
of the Pentateuch' (1998). So far that is six out of 44 LBH features that appear in early,
non-Judahite texts. There are numerous other LBH items that I have not yet analyzed
to see if they occur in Israelian Hebrew.
148
Biblical Hebrew
Israelians who had been taken into exile during the eighth century BCE and
newly arrived Judahites (1955a: 86-87). The Hebrew dialect(s) ofthe North
Israelite tribes thereby influenced the dialect of the exiles from Judah.
Chen (2000: 5) and Rendsburg (2002a: 21) have cited this 'reunion' view,
although Rendsburg also warned: 'One must exercise caution and not rely
on this explanation [for the influence of IH on LBH] too frequently, lest it
become a "crutch"' (2002a: 21). Indeed Gordon was careful to note: 'This
is not to deny other factors, such as the Aramaization of the whole Near
East, and Babylonian and Persian influence' (1955a: 87). Although it is
not the purpose of this study to offer a detailed scenario for how IH
influenced(?) LBH, I mention briefly C. Rabin's theory that the central
government in Jerusalem attempted to create a standard literary dialect of
ancient Hebrew (Rabin 1979: 71-78,293-95). Because ofthe inscriptional
evidence from Lachish and Arad I am not fully persuaded by this theory.
But it may lead us to consider the linguistic consequences of the widespread social and political upheaval following the destruction of the
Northern Kingdom of Israel in 723/722 BCE and the exile ofthe political
and social elite of Jerusalem in 603 and 586 BCE. It is possible that without
the old intelligentsia of Jerusalem, regional and colloquial dialects in and
around Judah began to assert themselves more strongly. Further studies
may help us understand better the various processes by which SBH became
or gave way to LBH.
Finally, if there is a relationship between IH and LBH, then how can we
distinguish between the two? How do we know if an 'early' text with IH
features displays a LBH item because it is in fact late? Similarly, when an
IH item appears in post-exilic texts, how do we know if in those texts that
linguistic feature represents IH or LBH?33 Although Hurvitz began to
address these issues when he attempted to distinguish between 'Aramaisms' as dialectal variation vs. 'Aramaisms' as a characteristic of LBH
(1968: 234-40), further work is needed in order to refine our methodologies for identifying ABH, SBH, early IH, LBH, and late IH.
33. Shortly before this article was completed, Gary Rendsburg kindly provided me
with a copy of the page proofs for his book Israelian Hebrew in the Book of Kings
(2002a). Among the numerous IH features which he identified in 1-2 Kings, I found at
least 18 examples of IH features which occur also in late (northern or Judahite) texts. I
hope to discuss these linguistic items in a later study.
Part II
CHALLENGES TO THE CHRONOLOGICAL MODEL
BIBLICAL HEBREW AND THE HISTORY OF ANCIENT JUDAH:

TYPOLOGY, CHRONOLOGY AND COMMON SENSE
Philip R. Davies
Since the beginnings of modern biblical scholarship the dating of its various sources has been based almost entirely on literary criteria: stylistic,
structural, ideological. This is how the Pentateuch, the three parts of the
book of Isaiah and the Deuteronomistic strands of Jeremiah, for example,
were distinguished and related to each other. Most biblical scholars continue with such methods, myself included.
In recent years a new method has emerged, which may be called typological. It claims to be more scientific and less subjective than the literary
method, and holds that through statistical evaluation of a set of criteria a
precise typology of the language of any text can be constructed. The
method itself, and undoubtedly much of its appeal, is drawn from the role
of ceramic typology in establishing archaeological correlation. It has also
been applied, notably in the case of the Qumran texts, to palaeography.
Typological analysis is primarily useful for understanding the mechanics
of social activity: pottery manufacture and use, or the conventions of
writing, social and material. But in the area of biblical studies, the greatest
impact of typological analysis is its potential for conversion into chronology.
Hurvitz (1997a: 308) comments that 'there is a far-reaching linguistic
uniformity underlying both the pre-exilic inscriptions and the literary biblical texts written in Classical BH'. He continues: 'We have, therefore, to
conclude that "Classical BH" is a well-defined linguistic stratum, indicative of a [typologically] distinctive phase within biblical literature and
a [chronologically] datable time-span within biblical history'. He thus
refers in his work to CBH as 'early' and post-CBH as 'late': and the equation of typology with chronology is now virtually automatic. (In fact, as,
e.g., Knauf 1990 and I. Young 1993 have demonstrated, the inscriptions
themselves do not constitute a clear 'linguistic uniformity' either among
themselves or with 'Classical Hebrew'.)
DAVIES Biblical Hebrew and the History of Ancient Judah
151
The attraction of this method is that, unlike the increasingly centrifugal

conclusions of literary-critical analyses, it offers criteria that are based on
a set of very simple premises, and are quantifiable. Potentially, such a
method provides a secure foundation for the sequencing of biblical books,
and its attraction to a number of biblical scholars is hardly surprising.
Can such a solution to centuries of literary-historical criticism really
exist? At the outset, it must be very clearly borne in mind that typology
does not automatically imply chronological sequence. To create a chronology out of typology in this case, then, two provisions are essential. One is
that a number of individual samples of BH need to be independently dated.
The other is that the BH must represent a single linguistic tradition. If
more than one tradition or usage is present, so that typologies represent
distinct lines of evolution, then these must be separated and individual
chronologies for each must be constructed from the relevant typologies. If
either of these criteria are ignored, then no correlation between typology
and chronology can be relied upon.
A simple application of the method allows the linguistic profile of biblical texts (or at least passages) of unknown date to be compared with that
of dated texts and assigned a chronology relative to those texts. Further
development of the method is also tempting: the creation of a chronological table of linguistic development that permits relative dates to be turned
into absolute ones.
Hurvitz is the leading advocate of this new method of dating, and has
made this agenda his life's work; his writings offer the best source for a
presentation and analysis of the 'linguistic dating method' (though several
other scholars tacitly accept such a scheme). As I understand his thesis, it
begins from the observation that a clear distinction can be seen between
'Classical' and 'post-Classical' BH. CBH, he notes, is the language in
which Iron Age Judaean documents are written, and post-Classical the
language of indisputably 'late' (Persian period onwards) texts, such as
Chronicles, Ezra and Nehemiah. Biblical texts are either similar to one or
other of these kinds of Hebrew, or they mix features of the two, in which
case they belong to a period of transition. Hurvitz regards the change from
one kind of Hebrew to another as fairly swift, and dates it to the early postexilic period. He offers an explanation for this change, namely, the influence of Aramaic, to which, he suggests, Judaean Hebrew was directly
exposed only from the sixth century onwards. Hence, for example, proposals to date 'Classical' BH (e.g. the Pentateuch) to the Persian period or
later can be refuted. Since I am one of those proposing such a dating for
many 'Classical Hebrew' texts, it is my obligation either to make a defence
152
Biblical Hebrew
or to concede defeat. I shall try and make a defence of my views, not by

trying to assert that Hurvitz is wrong but that he is incorrect to insist that
he must be right.
For there is a lack of balance in the debate that has recently begun (see
Hurvitz 1991 a). While he insists that he is right and that I (and an increasing number of scholars) are definitely wrong, I am not able to make a similar counter-charge, because his method cannot be falsified. This does not
mean, of course, that he is right, rather that he is wrong in thinking he has
to be right. What I can do is show that his thesis is far from sound and in
fact is in several respects implausible. And although in this brief space I
cannot elaborate an alternative understanding of the data he cites in his
support, I can, I think, suggest that other theories are available that require
to be rejected before any claims to have discovered the truth can be
entertained.
The difference between Hurvitz's approach and mine lies, in fact, not
over the basic facts, but over the way in which they can be explained.
There is no disagreement over the fact that two kinds of Hebrew can be
distinguished by vocabulary and syntax. Their differences were some
while ago spelled out by Polzin (1976);1 Hurvitz has published a great deal
of material (see Bibliography) illustrating this difference; though the differences are little disputed by most scholars of BH. Furthermore, that there
is a chronological relationship between the two is also widely agreed:
'Classical' BH is closer to Iron Age Judaean inscriptions than 'postClassical Hebrew'/'Late Biblical Hebrew'. And post-CBH is not found in
any text that we can securely date to the Iron Age. The difference between
Hurvitz and me does not lie in accepting these facts, but in how they are to
be best interpreted.
1. Polzin lists the following characteristics of LBH: reduced use of HN with the
pronominal suffix; increased use of HN before nominative (emphatic); possession
indicated by prospective suffix or bl0; collectives treated as plurals; preference for
plural forms where classical Hebrew uses the singular; reduced use of infinitive
absolute plus finite verb of the same stem; or as command; reduced use of the infinitive
construct with 3 and 3; repetition of singular word to express distributive; merging of
3rd masc. plur. with 3rd fem. plur.; 1st sg. impf. with H hardly used; TH used less in
appositional relationship; preference for substantive before numeral, and this usage
always in plural; increased use of infinitive construct with preposition b. Features
caused by the influence of Aramaic are given as: citing material and weight or measure
as material + weight + number; ^ introducing an accusative; ]D not always assimilated
before an anarthrous noun; ^ before the last element of a list; CT3"! sometimes placed
before the substantive; the use of b 11? to mean 'until'.
DA VIES Biblical Hebrew and the History of Ancient Judah
153
As far as I can tell from his writings (and from private conversation)
Hurvitz rests his case at this point, content with the conclusion that one
kind of Hebrew replaced the other within a fairly short space of time. He
proceeds to offer a reason why, if this were the case, it may have happened.
But this is an assumption, and there are other hidden assumptions about
ancient Hebrew that Hurvitz is concealing and which need to be exposed
to examination. The most fundamental is that there is only one kind of
Hebrew language being used at any one time, and hence that the spoken
and written language were always identical. These assumptions and explanations are not facts, and not argued or discussed, even though his
hypothesis depends as much upon them as upon the agreed data.
The hypothesis also suffers from logical defects: the automatic conversion of typology into chronology without any external controls in the form
of independently dated biblical texts in 'Classical Hebrew' and the resulting circularity of his entire argument. The crucial weaknesses of Hurvitz's
case, however, are not that it is open to counter-assumptions (which is
true), but that these alternative assumptions, unlike his, can be supported
by evidence. In the following essay I shall first expose and examine the
hidden assumptions, then discuss the significance of a typological classification of BH, the problem of dialect, and, finally, suggest the outline of an
alternative account of the development of BH that accommodates a wider
range of data.
Confronting Some Hidden Assumptions
I begin by identifying and challenging four basic assumptions in Hurvitz's
hypothesis: that a single homogeneous Hebrew was spoken and written at
any one time; that scribes trained to read and copy texts in a classical
language lose the ability to reproduce that language correctly; that the
influence of Aramaic on JH adequately accounts for a supposedly sudden
change in BH; and that there is no distinction necessary between written
and spoken languages.
The first assumption, then, is that we are dealing with a monolithic
Hebrew language, in which dialectal differences and, more importantly,
differences between literary and spoken forms are not admitted into the
equation. Put another way, Hurvitz assumes that the scribal communities
responsible for the biblical texts, at any given time, all wrote and spoke an
identical Hebrew, and that differences are thus to be accounted for by
chronological distance.
154
Biblical Hebrew
We have clear counter-evidence, however, in a datable archive of manuscripts exhibiting different forms of Hebrew written at the same time (many
perhaps even written in the same community): the Qumran scrolls. Here
we encounter CBH (25% of the texts are of scriptural books), 'Qumran
Hebrew' (e.g. the Community Rule, the War Scroll), proto-TH (4QMMT,
the Copper Scroll), and texts that are very close to CBH (such as the
Damascus Document). The range of linguistic types confounds any theory
that at a given time scribes will write the same kind of Hebrew. It also,
more concretely, demonstrates that in the Graeco-Roman period there was
no uniform Hebrew language usage, thus raising serious doubts about any
preceding uniform usage, such as 'Late Biblical Hebrew', and thus about
Hurvitz's typological analysis which requires chronology to be the only
index of variation.
The second assumption of Hurvitz concerns scribal behaviour. He
assumes that the scribes of the early Second Temple period quickly forgot
how to write CBH and were thereafter incapable of reproducing it without
making mistakes. There are Hebrew texts generally dated to the post-exilic
period that appear to reproduce CBH but display examples of 'incorrect'
usage. Hurvitz uses these as evidence that in the Persian period some
scribes tried to write in CBH, and did not succeed completely in so doing.
One example of such a failure is the book of Jonah.
There are numerous problems with this assumption. First: Even if it
were the case that the writer of Jonah, for instance, tried, yet was incapable of accurately reproducing CBH (and it is not certain that this was the
intention), how does it follow that every other scribe was also incompetent, or did not bother to try but wrote 'post-Classical' Hebrew instead?
How does it follow that there are no examples of CBH from this period?
Hurvitz's method does not allow such a suggestion to be tested, because
he concludes that any such texts will be 'pre-exilic'. Since Judaean scribes
of the Persian period cannot have written CBHergo they didn't: the
theory is driving the data, and the argument is completely circular; it is a
version of the absurd claim that we can always detect a forgery because
forgers always make mistakes!
But there is a range of CBH texts with a terminus a quo in the sixth
century. Leviticus 26, 1 Kings 8 (or at least vv. 46-53), 2 Kings 25 (or at
least w. 27-30) are clear examples. Scholars conventionally date these
references to the exile itself, but without any convincing reasons against a
later date. Haggai and Zechariah, also written in CBH, bring the dating of
this linguistic stratum to at least the late sixth century.
15 5
To explain a sudden and rather complete linguistic change between the

writing of Haggai and the writing of Nehemiah (if the book comes from
Nehemiah) Hurvitz offers one explanation only (see below). But did
Judaean scribes really forget, within two generations, how to write CBH?
These scribes did, after all, continue to copy, and even to edit and expand,
texts in CBH up to the time in which the Qumran biblical manuscripts
were copied (Talmon 1975; Ulrich 1992). Yet Hurvitz requires, for his
theory, that they were incompetent at writing it for themselveseven
though modern biblical scholars and students believe themselves quite
capable of doing it. It is an implausible suggestion, but not impossible.
However, it is not dictated or even suggested by evidence, only by the requirements of a theory. (There is abundant evidence that ancient scribes
preserved classical literary languages long after these languages ceased to
be spoken. But in order to disregard this evidence, Hurvitz requires another
unlikely hypothesis: that written and spoken Hebrew were not different in
the Persian period; again, not supported by evidence, but asserted as a
necessary explanation for an unlikely hypothesis; on this see below.)
Hurvitz has a single explanation for the change from a uniform 'Classical' Hebrew to a uniform 'post-Classical' or 'Late Biblical' Hebrew: only
in the sixth and fifth centuries did Aramaic seriously influence Judaean
Hebrew, and then dramatically so. Aramaic was a language long spoken
and written in Syria and Palestine, and was indeed the lingua franca of
most of the Levant during the entire first millennium BCE as well as the
diplomatic language of the Assyrian empire. It was thus known and
frequently written by the scribes of both Samaria and Judah. But, Hurvitz
suggests, while the spoken language of Israel was influenced by Aramaic
from the eighth century, that of Judah was not affected until the late sixth
century. Again, we must note that this is not a conclusion independently
argued from evidence, but a manufactured explanation in defence of a
hypothesis. How plausible is it? Certainly, the Assyrians did not make
Jerusalem a province, as they did Samaria. But here Hurvitz fatally contradicts another of his assumptions: linguistic uniformity. The Hebrew of,
say, Shiloh and that of Jerusalem differed noticeably in its accommodation
of Aramaic. So within a space of a few kilometres, at the same time, exist
two kinds of Hebrew, one influenced by Aramaic, the other not? If such
variety is possible here, why not at other times? According to all the evidence and theory that we have about language use, the linguistic profile of
Palestine even in the Iron Age must have been a little more complicated.
Language use does not conform so simply to political boundaries; indeed,
15 6
Biblical Hebrew
linguistic use can vary from one village to another (even in modern industrial and urban Britain, we find significant differences between the north
and south of England, and between England and Scotland). No doubt the
language of Dan differed a good deal from that of Beersheba, and was (if
this language is in fact attested in the recently-discovered Tel Dan inscription) classifiable as Aramaic rather than Hebrew, whether or not the
inscription was composed for the king of Damascus. Aramaic, then, as
an influence on CBH, can also be an index of geography as well as date.
Hurvitz's theory must assume that in the Hebrew Bible we have only
Judaean (or perhaps only Jerusalem) texts, and that these were uninfluenced by the large influx of population to Jerusalem in the early seventh
century. Although I happen to agree we have only Judaean texts, I do so
for different reasons (and non-linguistic ones).
While, then, it cannot be denied that LBH reflects a larger influence of
Aramaic than CBH, such influence cannot be made the sole explanation
for a sudden change in written Hebrew in the sixth and fifth centuries BCE
that in fact we do not know even happened.
The final assumption of Hurvitz that I wish to consider is that there is no
distinction between a literary and a spoken Hebrew. I do not challenge his
assertion that CBH was a spoken as well as a written language in Iron Age
Judah. But he also assumes-whether or not he actually states thisthat
LBH was also the only written as well as spoken Hebrew of PersianHellenistic Judah. This is, yet again, not the result of a careful examination
of the evidence for the linguistic profile at the time, but a necessary claim
to bolster a hypothesis. In fact, so great is our ignorance on this matter that
we do not at present agree whether the predominantly spoken language of
Judah in the Persian period was Aramaic or Hebrew! The indications are
that it was highly varied (see below). In this situation, could CBH survive
in Persian and Hellenistic Judah as a literary language? The crucial
question is not whether it did, but whether it could have, because Hurvitz's
theory cannot accommodate even the possibility. Again, in confronting
this assumption we can appeal to actual evidence, though it has, obviously,
to be comparative.
The phenomenon of a literary language outliving its oral stage and
persisting is well attested: Akkadian, Greek, Latin and Arabic. These examples show us that the phenomenon of a preserved literary language
different from the vernacular takes many forms, depending on the circumstances. But they all illustrate that classical languages persist beyond the
stage that they cease to be vernacular. Often there is over time a gradual
157
change in this literary language, and sometimes it will be superseded

entirely and become a totally dead language. But it usually becomes dead
for social and political reasons rather than linguistic ones. And the process
is considerably longer than a century. Thus, if the Hebrew scriptures
originated in the Judaean scribal class, and if these scribes were taught,
whether or not in schools, the classical language of their profession, how
and why would they cease to use it in their literary output? Hurvitz simply
says that they forgot. But how exactly did they forget, and why? We must
remember that most Judaeans did not go to Babylonia and come back
Aramaized. Most remained in Judah, and these scribes continued to
function as before. Why would the formal training of scribes in CBH be
abandoned, whatever kind of Hebrew they may have heard or spoken?
Indeed, since they continued to copy (and expand) texts in CBH, we can
be sure they did write the language.
It is indeed true that CBH disappeared at some point; there is no
example of a new Qumran text for example, written in perfect CBH (it
would nevertheless be interesting to recover the Semitic original of 1 Maccabees). But the timing and the reasons for this change are not at all clear
to us yet. We cannot decree that CBH disappeared early in the Persian
period as a literary language. Even the use of LBH does not entail that
CBH was no longer written; if LBH reflects the spoken Hebrew of the
time, then the reasons for the decision to employ it as a literary language
need investigating.
I have tried to show so far that Hurvitz's case is based on a dubious and
unargued interpretation of agreed data, made possible by a number of
assumptions that are at best implausible and at worst contradicted by
evidence. His theory cannot be disproved, but his claim that CBH cannot
have been written in fifth-century Judah is entirely specious. Far from
providing a sound and quasi-scientific basis for dating Hebrew texts, his
work begs more questions than it claims to answer.
The Central Issue: From Typology to Chronology
Once it is agreed that CBH is typologically older than LBH, and once
Hurvitz's assumptions are exposed, we are left with one very huge (though
superficially attractive) assumption at the core: the conversion of typology
to chronology.
The link between typology and chronology is common in ceramic dating
and palaeography, and the mistakes and difficulties in both cases are well
158
Biblical Hebrew
known. Typological analysis is scientifically based and valid, if enough

comparative material is available. And broadly speaking it does correspond
with chronology. But the correspondence is never so precise as to permit a
mathematical conversion, because the making of pots and handwriting,
like language, are subject to cultural and geographical variation within a
broad overall development. Human knowledge and behaviour changes
through a complex system of interaction, not according to some law of
regular universal change.
Typology is always relative and never absolute. Typology allows one to
say that one form of vessel, or writing, or language, is typologically earlier
than another. To establish a chronological relationship, further steps are
necessary. In particular, wherever there is more than one system or tradition, separate typologies have to be constructed for each (scribal school,
cultural region, linguistic group), and comparison between these different
systems is possible only when we have an independently-derived fixed
point.
Hurvitz's scheme is possible only if he can claim a single system, a
single typology. He therefore denies the possibility of two important kinds
of variable: written/spoken, and dialect. Both of these have been explored
in some detail by other scholars (e.g. Polak 1989,1996, 1998; Rendsburg
1980b, 1986,1990a, 1990b). But such a denial flouts all probability and a
good deal of evidence. Classical Arabic is typologically older than the
vernacular Arabics of Palestine, Egypt or Libya, but it is still the language
of the official media in these countries. We can investigate how far the
Arabic of the daily newspapers or the radio is really Quranic after a millennium of use. But the point is not how close the modern classical is to the
modern spoken forms, but that two different forms, each with its own
typologies are contemporary. The case of Latin is similar; it was preserved
as a lingua franca and as a literary medium through the Middle Ages,
while vernacular forms of Latin, influenced by other languages used by the
speakers, continued to develop. Spoken language affected literary language. But it did not replace it. Both the spoken and written evolved,
gradually. And when, how and why did these emerge as literary languages,
replacing Latin? Very gradually, and for a variety of reasons. Latin faded
from use as a linguafranca,but as a literary medium it did not die out until
the twentieth century (read the Introduction to BHS\).
There is an example closer to CBH. The earliest Mesopotamian texts we
possess were composed in Sumerian, and Sumerian continued to be written, and even to develop, until about the end of the second millennium, as
159
a scribal language (Foster 1993). Alongside Sumerian, however, the scribes

of the Old Babylonian period (2000-1500 BCE) also composed literary
texts in an Akkadian which, unlike documentary texts such as letters or
administrative records, represented a distinct dialect, with its own grammar, vocabulary and even spelling. This may have represented, or evolved
from, an actual ancient dialect (Lambert 1968) or it may have constituted a
'fabricated antique style deemed appropriate for higher expression' (Foster
1993,1: 3). A similar conservatism is evident in the literary dialect known
as 'Standard Babylonian', used for literary works from the middle of the
second millennium; this remained little changed for over a thousand years,
and was then succeeded by an archaizing kind of Akkadian, until the use
of Akkadian died out at about the turn of the era.
Thus, it is demonstrable that scribes can preserve a language they do not
speak for many centuries. Over a millennium or so, changes in this language can usually be detected. But in the case of BH theory, we are not
talking about such a long period. Hurvitz does not accommodate any difference between literary and spoken at all, and certainly not for & gradual
change in the character of a preserved classical language.
But the phenomenon of a classical language persisting alongside a
vernacular that itself gradually becomes a literary vehicle is well enough
known to provide a very plausible basis for a theory of Hebrew in the
Persian period. On such a scheme, typological analysis needs to be managed rather more carefully. It remains true that the 'classical' language is
typologically earlier than the post-classical, but it is not true that one
displaces the other suddenly and that the two cannot exist simultaneously.
A social typology, then, also needs to be employed, with texts written in a
high literary style belong at one end and texts in a vernacular style at the
other. Texts that show a certain mixture of both types are not necessary
transitional in a chronological sense, but only in a typological one, witnessing to the fact that the two styles are influencing each other in differing
degrees with different kinds of scribe.
Lexical Variation
Hurvitz seems generally unaware of the dangers of a purely chronological
account of typology, for, curiously, a good deal of his work is devoted to
illustrating lexical variation between CBH and post-CBH. Lexical variation, however, already has a significant history in biblical scholarship. The
differences in vocabulary between J, E, D and P were listed long ago as
one of the major reasons for differentiating these source-documents, and
160
Biblical Hebrew
any competent student of BH can recognize a typical 'D' piece of Hebrew

prose from a typical 'P' one: the best known examples, apart from the
divine name, are that !T""Q and ^!"[p are characteristic of D, mil? and
mi? of P; and D refers to Horeb, other sources to Sinai. But there is a
respectably long list. The Pentateuch, then, shows that different authors, or
even the same authors, used different words for the same thing if one
believes in the documentary hypothesis (as Hurvitz does); and if one does
not, one must conclude that different vocabulary can exist together at the
same time and be used by the same people.
Hurvitz appears unwilling or unable to apply his chronological explanation of lexical variation to what he regards as 'classical' and pre-exilic
biblical literature (in a private conversation he had told me that he does not
believe that classical Hebrew <afc/significantly evolve in the Iron Age). If
that is indeed his opinion, he accepts that lexical difference without
linguistic evolution is evidenced in the Hebrew Bible, and thus damages
his own case further.
Dialects
Lexical variation is, of course, a significant index of dialectal variation,
and given that such variation forms a major part of Hurvitz's case, it is
unfortunate that he does not build dialect into his scheme. But this would
entail a much more sophisticated typology.
Other scholars, however, have demonstrated precisely the existence of
dialectal indicators in the corpus of BH, including Knauf (1990), Rendsburg (1990b) and Ian Young (1993, 1997). Hurvitz himself, as noted
above, implicitly agrees with this conclusion in asserting that the Hebrew
of Samaria was Aramaized well before that of Judah. There is, of course, a
danger in making dialect the sole index of linguistic variation, and Rendsburg in recent years has been increasing the amount of'Israelian' material
in the Hebrew Bible that he claims on grounds of dialect cannot have
originated in Judah to the point where such literature comprises the majority of texts! (see, e.g., 2 Sam. 23.1 -7 [Rendsburg 1988], Neh. 9 [Rendsburg
1991 a] and Gen. 49 [Rendsburg 1992c], in addition to his work on Psalms
[Rendsburg 1990b; cf. Hurvitz 1972a for his different explanation of such
phenomena]). When this improbable stage is reached (for a detailed critique of the procedure, see I. Young 1997), it may seem saner to conclude
that what Rendsburg identifies as features of'Israelian' or 'northern' dialect were actually present within Judah itself (and given the linguistically
mixed population of the province [see below], this is entirely probable).
161
But the linguistic situation in monarchic Judah, oversimplified by Hurvitz like everything else, is not the chief concern here; the issue is the
Persian. Here the case for dialectal variation is overwhelming. In the late
fifth- and early fourth-century Judah's population consisted of several
elements: native Judaeans, who no doubt still spoke Hebrew (not necessarily without dialects; were the dialects of Jerusalem and Mizpeh identical?); immigrants from Mesopotamia, encouraged to return by the Persians,
claiming Judaean descent but speaking Aramaic as a first language (and
possibly without any Hebrew); and those from neighbouring territories
(Ammon, Edom) who had immigrated to Judah during the sixth century,
and who probably spoke a Hebrew influenced by their own language
(probably close to Hebrew). In this variegated linguistic climate, no doubt
a large number of the population were bilingual, but the likelihood that
they all spoke an identical form of Hebrew, or that these forms of Hebrew
registered an equal and measurable increase in Aramaic influence, is
implausible if not absurd. It is likely that at this time a number of Aramaic
speakers learned Hebrew, the language of the land they were settling in,
and that their Hebrew contained a number of Aramaic features. But this
was hardly the Hebrew of the indigenous Judaeans; and there was no standard Judaean Hebrew spoken.
More than this, however, we have to confess we do not know: even now
those expert in the history of the Hebrew language cannot agree whether
the common spoken language of Judah in the Persian period was Hebrew
or Aramaic, probably because both were in common use, and used in different ratios by different sectors of the population. We can say, however,
that even in the Graeco-Roman period there is still no evidence of uniformity in written Hebrew: the Qumran texts make this quite clear.
And what of the literary languages? Were they identical to the spoken
ones, as Hurvitz's scheme requires? Certainly both Hebrew and Aramaic
were used for literary compositions, though among those preserved in the
Jewish canon, little Aramaic survives. Some of this literature is written in
a form of Hebrew that probably was spoken or at least highly influenced
by the spoken language (LBH); hence the differences between this and
classical Hebrew. But was classical Hebrew also preserved in the scribal
literary tradition, as the book of Haggai suggests, or as parts of Leviticus,
Jeremiah and Kings, all reflecting upon the exile, may also suggest? Was
there a sudden shift in the 80 years between (taking the conventional
dates) Haggai and Nehemiah? Or is the difference accounted for by the
fact that Haggai was probably written by a native Judaean while the author
162
Biblical Hebrew
of Nehemiah was not? Would one in fact expect the two writers to display
the same literary Hebrew? But is the difference really a matter of chronology? Not in this case. There is not a single piece of concrete evidence to
suggest that by the mid-fifth century there were no more 'Haggais' to
write classical Hebrew, even though there were obviously many 'Haggais'
continuing to copy, edit and expand classical Hebrew texts.
That classical Hebrew died out during the Second Temple period is probable: it is not widely represented in the sectarian writings from Qumran.
However, Hurvitz himself holds that these texts represent a literary language that was not representative of spoken Hebrew at the time (Hurvitz
2000b: supported by Blau 2000 and opposed by Qimron 2000). Perhaps
the same is true of much of the classical Hebrew literature of the Bible?
That Ezra, Nehemiah and Chronicles are probably written in a form of
Hebrew reflecting the spoken language of some Judaeans may have more
to do with the fact that their authors came from the so-called 'golah' population element (in which the 'exiles' are heroes) while other writings, such
as Jeremiah and Kings (perhaps, as Noth [1981] originally supposed, the
'Deuteronomistic' tradition as a whole) came from native scribes. Such
a social explanation of linguistic difference needs to be considered in
deciding whether classical Hebrew should be included in the repertoire of
Persian period Judah. At the very least it would seem to be a significant
factor (see further on this Naude 2000c, largely responding to Rooker's
[1990a] development of Hurvitz's [1982] study of Ezekiel, who examines
the phenomenon of'linguistic change' and suggests social-geographical
explanations for the difference between CBH and LBH).
Conclusion
Hurvitz calls the idea that classical Hebrew could have been written by
Persian period scribes 'non-conformist' and 'far-reaching' (Hurvitz 2000a:
143). But the opposite is the truth. In fact, scholars have been proposing
this for generations, trying to date texts on the basis of non-linguistic criteria such as references to Greeks, re-use of other texts, ideology, or
tradition-historical considerations. It is Hurvitz who is actually nonconformist and his own approach that is 'far-reaching'. A whole tradition
of literary-historical biblical scholarship is, on his agenda, dead, to be
replaced with a kind of linguistic carbon-14 test. If it were successful,
Hurvitz's approach would be revolutionary in terms of the way biblical
studies has been done for two centuries.
163
For future studies to make progress, however, such an agenda must be

recognized as a dead end; instead a range of factors needs to be brought
into the discussion, including stylistic analysis (Polak) and the mapping of
dialectal variation; but also the confusion that can be caused by the habits
of scribal transmission, such as the occasional replacing of older words by
more recent ones, and the revising of orthography. Here the data afforded
by the Qumran scrolls is exceptionally rich. We also need to utilize linguistic theory on a range of factors, especially socio-linguistic and in particular linguistic change and bilingualism. We need at present a broad, not a
narrow, range of approaches, and a good deal more sophistication in our
ideas and our analysis.
I am far from proposing my own solution to the question of the relationship between CBH and LBH. There are too many factors involved, and
our ignorance of the Persian period is too profound. But I protest against
the imposition of a naive explanation of a complicated problem, not simply
because it is inadequate, not even because it has a superficial simplicity
and elegance that apparently attracts a number of followers, and thus impedes a very important and interesting questionthe limits of dating
of biblical literaturebut because in its pseudo-scientific arrogance it
attempts to dismiss other views as inadmissible. I have therefore attempted
here to demonstrate that the issue is wide open and that Hurvitz's hypothesis is fragile; it can continue to contribute to the debate, but only
alongside other avenues of research. And until there are sound arguments
to the contrary, I shall continue to suggest that classical Hebrew can be
dated to the Persian period.
LINGUISTIC DATING OF BIBLICAL TEXTS

Martin Ehrensvard
1. Introduction
For two centuries, scholars have pointed to consistent differences in the
Hebrew of certain biblical texts and interpreted these differences as reflecting the date of composition of the texts.1 Until the 1980s, this was quite
uncontroversial as the linguistic findings largely confirmed the chronology
of the texts established by other means: the Hebrew of Genesis-2 Kings
was judged to be early and that of Esther, Daniel, Ezra, Nehemiah, and
Chronicles to be late. In the current debate where revisionists have questioned the traditional dating, linguistic arguments in the dating of texts
have come more into focus.2 In the following study, I intend to critically
examine some linguistic arguments adduced to support the traditional
position, and reviewing the arguments I will point to weaknesses in the
linguistic dating of EBH texts to pre-exilic times. When viewing the linguistic evidence in isolation it will be clear that a post-exilic date for the
(final linguistic form of the) EBH texts is more likely.
The Israeli scholar Avi Hurvitz is well known for arguing that linguistic
considerations force us to stick to the traditional dating of the texts. He
does not give priority to historical or theological arguments in this dating:
as far as dating texts is concerned.. .it is precisely the evidence of language
which must take precedence over historical and theological arguments.
(Hurvitz 2000a: 144 [emphasis in original])3
1. The German scholar Gesenius started this trend in 1815 with his Geschichte der
hebrdischen Sprache.
2. Studies in favour of the revisionist position include: Knauf 1990; P.R. Davies
1992: 102-105; 2001 b; Cryer 1994; DeCaen 2001; cf. also Elwolde 1997;Schule 1997;
2000: 1-3, 182-86, 192-95. Studies in favour of the traditional position include:
Ehrensvard 1997; Hurvitz 1997a; 1999; 2000a.
3. Further, 'The antiquity of a given corpusin any language, at any period of
timeought to be established, in the first place, by the linguistic profile of its texts',
EHRENSVARD Linguistic Dating of Biblical Texts
165
His argument runs along the following lines. There exist in the biblical
texts at least two (on the surface not very different) types of Hebrew, one
of which is more similar to pre-exilic inscriptions, and one which is more
similar to post-BH. The bulk of the biblical texts are written in the first
type of Hebrew. The latter, being a post-exilic type of Hebrew and in
addition a deteriorated and more Aramaized version of the first type,4
shows that post-exilic writers5 no longer knew how to write pre-exilic
Hebrew. In Hurvitz's words:
...it would be a gross error to assume that the post-exilic authors, whose
writing habits are openly recorded in the LBH corpus, were able to
accurately reproduce the outdated style of Classical/Standard BH without
slips betraying their own linguistic background. (Hurvitz 2000a: 154)6
When this is the case, he argues, EBH texts must have found their final
linguistic form before the exile. Hurvitz's linguistic dating of texts does
not go further than distinguishing between pre- and post-exilic.7
Apart from the weakness inherent in the effort linguistically to date
texts,8 there are two weaknesses in this argument. One is that Hurvitz and
and 'the historical age of the extant biblical texts can only be determined after the
language in which they are written has been properly placed along the linguistic
continuum presented by BH' (Hurvitz 2000a: 144 [italics original]; see also Hurvitz
1999: 22). It would strengthen his case if he could point to other text corpora where
this was an accepted method. I know of none. Other BH scholars also lend credence to
linguistic dating; for example, Rooker (1996: 303): '...the diachronic study of the
Hebrew language which has proven itself to be trustworthy and objective in dating
biblical texts...'
4. If we include Polak's work (1998), we can add that this form of Hebrew is
written in a more literal register as opposed to the more oral register of the first type.
5. When I use the term 'writers', I use it in the sense of whoever is responsible for
the (more or less) final linguistic form of the texts. For the intricate question of the
relationship between writers, scribes, copyists, and texts, see Tov 1992; Ulrich 1992;
Wise 1992; I. Young 1999: 74-76.
6. See also Hurvitz 1999: 32:'.. .the language of the fifth century, which is unmistakably post-exilic', and cf. Hurvitz 1982: 153.
7. Cf. P.R. Davies' observation (1992: 102) that scholars do not use linguistic
arguments in deciding whether J stems from the tenth or the sixth century, but often
use linguistic arguments in deciding whether texts stem from the seventh or the fifth
century. His observation is quoted and more or less confirmed by Hurvitz (1999: 32).
8. It is quite conceivable that later writers would know an earlier form of their
language well enough to produce texts in it (for an example from another time and
place, see Blau 1997: 28: 'there were Arabic authors who wrote in a late period in a
purely classical style and succeeded in avoiding not only neo-Arabic forms, but also
166
Biblical Hebrew
other scholars have not shown that EBH was the standard language that
LBH writers tried to reproduce. In other words we have no clear indications that LBH is a deteriorated form of EBH, and writing LBH may have
been a stylistic choice for biblical writers. But the crucial weakness is that
some prophetic books show that both semi-poetic and narrative EBH was
in use after the exile. Hence, at least some post-exilic writers knew how to
write EBH which, in turn, increases the likelihood of LBH being a stylistic
choice for post-exilic writers. In what follows, I shall elaborate on these
two points.
2. The Differences between the Linguistic Layers of Biblical Hebrew
As mentioned, there are consistent differences in the language of two
groups of biblical books. The question remains how to interpret these differences. Here I shall first sum up briefly the differences, analyze a few
points of interest, and then turn to the question of interpretation.
The differences between (1) the Hebrew of Genesis-2 Kings and other
books, and (2) the Hebrew of Esther, Daniel, Ezra, Nehemiah, Chronicles,
and other books, are small but noticeable and by no account do they seem
to be the result of idiosyncrasies of single writers, as there are features that
are frequent in some or all books belonging to one group that are less
frequent in the other group. In addition, comparison with datable extrabiblical evidence makes it very likely that the first group is reflecting an
earlier type of Hebrew than the second because the pre-exilic inscriptions,
like EBH, have relatively few traits in common with LBH,9 whereas the
post-biblical inscriptions, most notably the Dead Sea Scrolls, have many
traits in common with LBH. Note, however, that just as there are also
differences between QH and LBH, there are differences between the preexilic inscriptions and EBH10even the inscriptions closest to EBH show
differences in orthography," morphology,12 and lexicon.13
post-classical forms'). The likelihood of this going unnoticed is higher the less we
know of the history of a language, and apart from the Hebrew Bible which we are
trying to date, our knowledge of pre-QH must be said to be extremely limited.
9. For an argument, see Ehrensvard 1997, and cf. Torczyner 1938: 17; Hurvitz
1972a: 177-79; 1997a: 307-10; Rabin 1976: 1012.
10. For a presentation and interpretation of the facts, see Rnauf 1990.
11. For example, the 3rd masc. sg. suffix spelt regularly with H- in the inscriptions;
very sparse use of internal matres lectionis in the inscriptions.
12. For example, ITn for 3rd fern. sg. qatal of iTH (Siloam tunnel inscr. 1. 3; there
is a possibility, however, that this only reflects a difference in orthographysee the
EHRENSVARD Linguistic Dating of'Biblical Texts
167
a. Vocabulary
The vocabulary of LBH is characterized by the presence of more Aramaic
loanwords than EBH, and in both groups the Aramaic loanwords are sometimes used side by side with their Hebrew counterparts, in many cases
very probably as free variants. A further difference is that whereas about
15 of the Aramaic loanwords in LBH ultimately are of Persian origin, no
such words are found in EBH. To a certain extent the groups also favour
different prepositions, LBH again showing more Aramaic influence.14
b. Morphology
The higher frequency of a few morphological features shared with Aramaic
sets LBH apart from EBH.15
c. Syntax
More importantly, as syntax tends to be more conservative than vocabulary, there also are differences in the syntax between the two groups, and
with regard to many of these differences, again, LBH is closer to Aramaic.
The nominal syntax shows only a few differences, such as more occurrences of the double plural construction in construct chains (as in "HIIÎ
D^Vri, 'valiant men'), the quivis construction (= the repetition of nouns as
in DTI DT) with prefixed 7D, and uncountables and collectives construed
as plurals.16 More differences are found in the verbal syntax,17 but the
discussion in Ian Young [ 1993: 104-105]) against the predominant BH form HPTI; 17"!
with suffix 1- for 3rd masc. sg. (Siloam tunnel inscr. 1. 3) against the predominant BH
suffix 1H-.
13. For example, the nouns n~!T and rop] (Siloam tunnel inscr. lines 1,3,4) unknown to BH.
14. For the question of Aramaisms, see Wagner 1966; Hurvitz 1968.
15. See previous note.
16. E.g. Kropat 1909: 8-13. Gevirtz (1986) argues that the existence of the double
plural and the quivis construction in early Northwest Semitic literature precludes the
conclusion that it is characteristic of LBH. However, there is a marked difference in
frequency between the two groups and this fact is not changed by Gevirtz's, otherwise
interesting, research.
17. For example, verbal suffixes, compared to the construction of flN + suffix, are
more common. Temporal constructions of the type I^BpDO) are found much more
commonly without introductory TH. Yiqtol is less common in the past. Qatal is more
common in the past and less common in its other functions. Weqatal in the apodosis
after a condition is less common. Periphrastic construction of HTT + participle signifying cursivity is more common. For a discussion of these and other differences, see
Eskhult 1990: 103-20; 2000; see also below.
16 8
Biblical Hebrew
differences in nominal and verbal syntax are all differences in frequency:

the syntactic features of one group are also found in the other, and some of
these features, then, have a significantly higher frequency in one of the
groups.18
d. Style
Scholars have noted in LBH a tendency to use longer sentences with the
verb placed towards the end.19
Scholars have made an additional stylistic observation relevant to the
discussion here. They have noticed a certain kind of uniformity in EBH
texts not shared by LBH texts. From many perspectives one cannot
say that EBH texts are uniform with regard to language use,20 but from
a grammatical point of view there is at least a certain uniformity, the EBH
grammatical features being employed with a certain regularity throughout
EBH texts. As opposed to this, some LBH writers (idiosyncratically?) use
some grammatical EBH features more, and others use other grammatical
EBH features more.21
e. Some Points of Detail
I have come across only two syntactic traits claimed to be characteristic of
one group and not found at all in the other: the participle as a narrative
form exclusive to LBH, and the infinitive absolute as a word of command
exclusive to EBH. In the following I will examine these claims and a few
other points of detail.
18. I have found this important fact explicitly stated only twice in the literature,
Rabin 1971: 70:' [LBH] changed to a certain extent the frequency of the grammatical
and the syntactic forms without adding to them' (my translation); Eskhult (1990)
states: 'It is not so easy to isolate features of late usage. It is almost exclusively a matter
of tendency in some direction (the only exception would be loan-words of Persian
origin)' (p. 14), and'...it is all a matter of tendency in one direction or other' (p. 119).
19. Naveh and Greenfield 1984: 120; Eskhult 1990: 117-18, 120; Polak 1998.
20. See, e.g., S.R Driver 1882 for examples of different language use in the
different sources, or Bendavid 1967-71 for abundant examples of (general) BH
language variation.
21. E.g., the widespread use of the infinitive absolute as a continuance form in
Esther (as evident, e.g., from the examples listed in Eskhult 2000: 90 n. 30), but note
that most LBH features are shared between LBH texts (because this is what constitutes
LBH features). For a thorough argument in favour of EBH texts being of one 'flavour'
and LBH texts being of individually different 'flavours', see Bendavid 1967-71:60-80.
169
(1) Participle as Narrative Form. Mark S. Smith (1991 a: 28; 1999: 307) is
the proponent of the theory of the participle used as a simple narrative
form in LBH, as in Esth. 2.20; 3.2; 8.17; 9.3. He claims that this use is
found in EBH direct discourse but not in narrative. His criterion for seeing
these participles as narrative forms is presumably that the text perfectly
well could have used wayyiqtoh. However, Mats Eskhult (1990: 113-14)
regards Smith's examples as cursive use of the participle,22 and this seems
very likely. None of the examples prevent us from seeing the participle
used in its normal cursive function. It is true that wayyiqtoh would suit the
texts equally well, but it is precisely because the participle is used that we
must see them as cursive. EBH has examples of use of the participle that
could well be regarded as simple narrative use (e.g. 1 Sam. 1.13; 1 Kgs
1.5; 22.10, 12) since they could be meaningfully replaced by wayyiqtols,
but because the participle is used, we regard the verbal actions as having a
cursive character. In order to safely assign a new function to the participle
we would need at least a few unambiguous examples of this use. Until we
have that, it is preferable to remain conservative in this regard.
(2) Infinitive Absolute Used as Command. It is possible that the infinitive
absolute used for command is not found in LBH. Eskhult (2000: 90)
examines a corpus consisting of the non-parallel parts of Chronicles, the
Nehemiah memoirs (1.1-7.5; 12.27-13.31), and Esther, and he does not
find the infinitive absolute used for command at all.23 In undisputed LBH
texts outside of his corpus I have not found it either.24 The use is well
attested in BH: M.S. Smith (2000: 259) counts 48 instances.25 However,
22. Polak (1998: 63 n. 23), however, agrees that the participle is turning into a
narrative tense, but it seems that he does not distinguish between instances where the
use of participle denotes cursivity and the alleged use of the participle as a simple
narrative form.
23. See also Kropat 1909: 23; Polzin 1976: 43; Kutscher 1982: 82; SchatmerRieserl994:200,215-16.
24. But note the ambiguous form 31"lpl in the probable LBH of Qohelet (for a
convincing case of Qohelet being LBH, see Schoors 1992), in 4.17, which might be
considered an infinitive absolute used as imperative, as Fredericks (1988: 85), arguing
for an early date for Qohelet's language, believes; Schoors (1992: 179) hesitantly
prefers other options.
25. AH of these are acceptable to me, except three: DflH and npim, Ezek. 24.10
Smith does not say which two of the four possible choices in this verse he regards as
infinitive absolutes, but if he is gathering data from the Westminster Theological
Seminary Hebrew Morphology and Lemma Database (= WTM, Release 3, 1998-99
170
Biblical Hebrew
one of the examples on Smith's list is taken from an LBH text included in
Eskhult's corpus, TDUm inNeh. 7.3. Gotthelf Bergstrasser (1929: 12m)
reads this form as a continuation of the preceding twoyiqtols, and Eskhult
(2000: 90 n. 30) regards it as replacing a finite verb, but it is easier, with
Smith, to read it simply as a word of command, equivalent of an imperative. In order to read it as continuing theyiqtols, one would have to accept
the change of subject and the presence of an imperative as the immediately
preceding form, the yiqtoh being more at a distance from the infinitive
absolute. While this is not impossible, the other option is easier.
The presence of a conjunction before TDUff should not lead us automatically to assume that it is a continuation/replacement form. There is an
instructive parallel in ]HDl of Ezek. 23.46, the only (other) certain instance
of infinitive absolute used as command preceded by I26whether one
regards the preceding nÛn as imperative or infinitive absolute, the easiest
way to understand the infinitive absolute ]PD1 is as a word of command,
regardless of the conjunction.
Nehemiah 7.3 is important because it is the only candidate for the
infinitive absolute used as an imperative I have found in undisputed LBH
texts.27
[WTM serves as basis for lemmatization in the Bible Works for Windows 4.0 computer
program]) which analyzes these two as infinitive absolutes, and the other two candidates in the verse as imperatives, he is referring to Dfin and np~imand "IBp in
Amos 4.5. For argumentation concerning np~im and "ICDp, see the following note, and
regarding Dm, when there is nothing to-prevent us from seeing it as an imperative, we
should not see it as an infinitive absolute. Goddard (1943: 60-61) counts about 40
instances of infinitive absolute used as command (this work was unavailable to me so I
am relying here on a quote in Eskhult 2000: 90 n. 28).
26. On Smith's list, another two forms are preceded by 1, but these are problematic
and cannot count as further parallels: np~im in Ezek. 24.10 is not an infinitive absolute
but an imperativethe patah in the last syllable shows this (infinitive absolute, as
opposed to the imperative, has a historically long sere which requires patah furtivum
instead of vowel change with third-guttural verbs, see, e.g., Bauer and Leander 1922:
46s and 51q). "ItDpI in Amos 4.5 is more likely an imperative (even though JM:
123x, albeit hesitantly, regards it as an infinitive absolute). The singular form is in
opposition to the six plural imperatives in this and the preceding verse but such
fluctuations are not uncommon in BH. In Amos, for instance, in the following passages
I have found examples of fluctuation of number and/or gender, 4.2-3; 5.22-23; 6.1-7;
9.11.
27. But see n. 24, above. Note that another volitive use is attested in 1 Chron.
15.22, the infinitive absolute there used as equivalent of the injunctive^to/. In Esth.
2.3 and 6.9 the infinitive absolute continues an injunctiveyiqtol.
171
(3) Narrative weqatal. Another syntactic feature believed by some

scholars to characterize LBH and set it apart from EBH, is narrative
weqatal.2^ However, the work on this subject by Hermann Spieckermann
(1982: 120-30) shows that this clearly is a feature found no less in EBH
than in LBH.29
(4) Modal *pN + Infinitive. The use of modal ]^ + infinitive is also
believed to characterize LBH, but, as I have argued elsewhere (Ehrensvard
1999), this is not as certain an LBH feature as usually held.30
(5) !Tn + Participle. A feature characteristic of LBH is the rather frequent
use of the periphrastic construction of HTt + participle,31 but some clarification is needed. Takamitsu Muraoka (1999: 195) has recently argued that
this syntagm is too frequent in EBH to be said to be characteristic of LBH.
This is correct when the occurrences of HTl + participle are counted,32 but
Eskhult (2000: 89) argues that LBH more often shows this syntagm
expressing cursivity and this is correct. In his rather small corpus (the nonparallel parts of Chronicles, the Nehemiah memoirs, and Esther) Eskhult
counts 24 instances that clearly belong in this category, whereas I have
found only 30 clear instances in the much larger corpus of Genesis2 Kings33a significant difference in frequency. Moreover, the construction is quite frequent in QH (Qimron 1986: 400.01).
28. S.R. Driver 1892: 158-59; GKC 112pp; Rabin 1968: 32 ('wepa'alio denote
the past and weyip 'al to denote the future becomes more and more frequent' [my translation]); Garr 1985: 186; Rooker 1990a: 100-102.
29. Note that whereas Spieckermann points to narrative weqatal forms in the
Yavneh Yam ostracon, this is severely questioned by Weippert 1990. Verheij (1990:
97) and Eskhult (2000: 84-85) both find no evidence in support of seeing this construction as belonging chiefly to LBH.
30. Even though the construction is attested a few times in EBH texts, I am more
optimistic now as to whether the construction characterizes LBH, in comparison with
my quite negative conclusions in Ehrensvard 1999: 159-61.
31. S.R. Driver 1892: 170; Morag 1988: 160; Eskhult 1990: 113-14; 2000: 89;
Gibson 1994: 138.
32. Excluding passive participles and participles of stative verbs, Muraoka (1999:
195) counts 124 instances in the biblical texts.
33. Gen. 1.6; 39.22; Deut. 9.7,22,24; 28.29; 31.27; Judg. 1.7; 11.10; 19.1; 1 Sam.
2.11; 2 Sam. 3.17; 4.3; 7.6; 8.15; 13.23; 15.32; 1 Kgs5.1,24; 12.6; 20.40; 2 Kgs 8.21;
9.14; 17.25, 28, 29, 32, 33, 41; 18.4. I am not counting instances where, as Eskhult
(1990: 114; 2000: 89) correctly points out, the form TH seems to be the introductory
TH not forming a syntagm with the participle.
172
Biblical Hebrew
f. Interpretation
What we have, then, are two types of BH, very similar but not indistinguishable. One represents a typologically earlier stage of the language than
the other. As for syntax, we do not find significant traits that are found
exclusively in one groupthe differences are differences in frequency.
Some questions arise at this point. Were LBH writers attempting to
write EBH? Did they think that they were writing EBH when they were in
fact writing LBH? Or was LBH their preferred style of writing? Did LBH
writers more or less consciously use more loanwords (being more open to
foreign influence), or did they not know Hebrew from Aramaic so well?
These are interesting questions and authorities in the field have come up
with differing answers. Generally, LBH writers are looked upon as imitators as opposed to innovators,34 and, as stated above, their Hebrew is seen
as a deteriorating form of EBH. Scholars point especially to deterioration
of the verbal system in this connection,35 and among them Takamitsu
Muraoka (JM: 119za-b) is the most explicit in arguing this point. In the
following I shall discuss his arguments.
He states that 'The later books show clear signs of gradual collapse or
deteriorationof the classical tense system'. He goes on to cite four instances that 'No textual emendation can improve'Neh. 9.7-8; 1 Chron.
17.17;2Chron. 12.10. In Neh. 9.7-8, 1 Chron. 17.17, and 2 Chron. 12.10
we find weqatal where we would expect wayyiqtol, but as mentioned
above, narrative weqatal is no less a feature of EBH. In EBH, in 2 Kgs
34. Polzin 1976: 3, 74; Rabin 1976: 1014; Hurvitz 1983a: 84; 1995: 4; 2000a:
154-57; Naveh and Greenfield 1984: 120-21; Schattner-Rieser 1994: 215; Blau 1997:
21-22; Joosten 1999: 147-48; cf. also the handy collection of quotes in Qimron 1992:
350-52 n. 5. Note that Hurvitz (1997c: 85), does consider the possibility that the postexilic writers were not imitators but innovators.
35. See Kutscher 1982:45; Naveh and Greenfield 1984:120-21; Qimron 1986:81;
Morag 1988: 155; M.S. Smith 1991a: XII-XIII; Saenz-Badillos 1993: 129. Note that I
am referring to scholars who are pointing to the deterioration of the verbal system
other scholars, such as Kropat (1909), Eskhult (1990; 2000), and Verheij (1990), have
studied the LBH verbal system and compared it with EBH, but have remained
descriptive. In this connection, a note should be made of Joosten's interesting research
(1999). Acknowledging the difficulties in establishing that LBH is an attempt to imitate
EBH, he shows how some LBH expressions might be interpreted as if the author was
trying to use an EBH term but misunderstood it and hence used the term or
construction in a wrong way. If many more examples of this were found, this type of
research would prove a better way of establishing the LBH writers as imitators and not
innovators.
173
18.4, we also have an occurrence of a string ofweqatals in a \vayyiqtol

context. In the string in Neh. 9.7-8 in addition to the \veqatah and a wayyiqtol, there is also an infinitive absolute in its function of continuing a
preceding verb. This function is known in EBH even though, in the extant
EBH texts, it is not found precisely in connection with narrative weqatals.
The sequence does seem slightly odd, but it should be noted that it is a
semi-poetic text36 where oddities of verbal usage are more common than
in prose.37
In 1 Chron. 17.10 we find a non-past wayyiqtol, but this is not impossible
in EBH (see, e.g., 1 Sam. 2.29). Muraoka goes on to note the admittedly
odd verbal use in Qohelet.38 He then notes the replacement of (TIT for
rrm. I have found only one LBH example of !T1T that is clause initial
and hence directly could be replaced by HTil4 Chron. 12.18.Here!Tm
certainly would be expected according to EBH usage. But the preceding
clause is an DN clause and therefore the non-use of apodotic waw here is
the rule rather than the exception in LBH.39 Such usage, with asyndetic
yiqtol is not common in EBH, but there are examples, such as Exod. 22.6.
It is correct, however, that iTm is used very infrequently in LBH: of the
almost 400 BH occurrences of the form, only five are found in the undisputed LBH texts.40
Finally Muraoka points to yiqtol and short weyiqtol gradually replacing
weqatal, using Dan. 11.14-17 as example. Short weyiqtol with indicative
meaning is indeed rare in EBH prose, but Elisha Qimron (1986-87:154-55,
158) does count nine certain instances41 (e.g. 1 Sam. 10.5).
Muraoka's examples are examples of differences in frequencies of
verbal usage. None of them need to be interpreted as deterioration. Due to
36. Kittel's edition of the Biblia Hebraica (BHK) does not use poetic lay-out for the
text whereas the BHS does lay it out as poetry.
37. See, e.g., Niccacci 1997:91:'.. .B[iblical]H[ebrew]P[oetry] remains a mystery
from the point of view of the verbal system used while prose shows a substantial
coherence'.
38. This is not necessarily due to its lateness as Isaksson (1987:39-68,190-97) has
argued, an argument, however, that Muraoka (JM: 119za n. 1) does not seem to
accept.
39. See Kropat 1909: 70-71; Qimron 1986: 400.19; Rooker 1990a: 120-22; Van
Peursen 1999a: 313-16, 18; 2000: 218-25; Eskhult 2000: 87-88 with n. 20.
40. Twice in Nehemiah, three times in Chronicles and none in Esther, Daniel, Ezra;
see Polzin 1976: 56; Rendsburg 2002b: 39.
41. Note however that he assumes that this usage was not originally found in EBH
and therefore he believes these nine cases to be errors.
174
Biblical Hebrew
lack of evidence, therefore, it seems preferable to stay descriptive: what

we have are not-so-common EBH syntactic traits that (except for narrative
weqatal) are more common in LBH (or vice versa).42
One possible argument in favour of seeing LBH as a deteriorated form
of EBH might be the fact that LBH contains both EBH traits and neologismswhen many or most EBH forms are preserved instead of being
abandoned in LBH, one explanation may be that writers attempted writing
EBH and failed. Another possible argument may be the relative linguistic
uniformity in EBH texts vs. the relative lack of linguistic uniformity in
LBH texts pointed to aboveone may interpret this as a result of a continuous pre-exilic scribal tradition which was broken off by the exile, this
in turn giving rise to individual post-exilic writers without a strong tradition being unconsciously idiosyncratic and erring in their balance in the
use of EBH forms.
These are quite possible explanations of the situation, but not the only
conceivable ones. It seems clear enough that EBH writers were adhering
to a tradition that LBH writers knew but (for reasons unknown) were not
bound by. LBH writers may have felt free with regard to the EBH tradition
and therefore used those traditional elements that appealed to them and
introduced new elements when it suited them. Interestingly, not all scholars
see all LBH as deteriorated Hebrew. Chaim Rabin (1958: 152) believed
that the Hebrew of Ben Sira, which is close to LBH, and the deviations of
the Chronicler from the (presumed) Vorlage in Samuel-Kings are not
results of deterioration, but rather the result of a changed stylistic taste.43
The problem is our lack of knowledge. The case of, for example, Latin
is different: Latin has served as a written language for two millennia, and
looking at its history we can see writers at times writing very good Latin
and at other times we see Latin deviating from the standard through the
influence of the writers' mother tongue. In this case we know what the
standard is, and we know that the writers knew that there was a standard.
This kind of information is not available to us with regard to BH.44
42. Goldfajn (1998: 136) is of a similar opinion in this regard.
43. Kister (1990: 304-307) is of the same opinion regarding Ben Sira, as is Van
Peursen (1999: 44-46, 51-52).
44. The same goes for QH. We know from the finds at Qumran that at that time
different types of Hebrew existed simultaneouslyQH, as well as a kind of proto-MH,
and, for biblical texts, BH. No new texts were composed in BH so it is quite possible
that the ability to write this language had vanished. But there is nothing that indicates
that they thought they were writing BH when in reality they were writing QH. As
175
The likelihood of LBH being the result of a stylistic choice rather than
imitation increases if at least some LBH and EBH texts could be shown to
stern from roughly the same time, because the imitation hypothesis presupposes that EBH was outdated at the time of the LBH writers.45 From
the point of view of traditional dating this might be said to be the case with
the LBH traits of Ezekiel,46 considered to date from the first half of the
sixth century, a period when knowledge of EBH is considered to be intact
(Hurvitz 1982: 153), but below I will show that EBH was in use even after
the exile, thus increasing the likelihood of a coexistence of EBH and LBH.
1. Post-Exilic EBH
As I stated in my introduction, the second weakness of Hurvitz's argument
is that it is clear that EBH was in use in post-exilic times: most scholars
date the books of Isaiah 40-66,47 Joel, Haggai, Zechariah,48 and Malachi
to (very late exilic/) post-exilic times,49 even though complete consensus
pertains to Haggai and Zechariah 1-8 only. Authorities make the following
statements regarding the language of these books (all translations are
mine);50 on Isaiah 40-66:
...like the language of Haggai and Zechariahand to an even greater
extentthe language of 'second Isaiah' is well anchored in classical
Hebrew and the imprints of late biblical Hebrew are quite scanty. (Hurvitz
1983a:215 = 1997:21)
...almost perfect classical Hebrew. (Rabin 1988: 16)
On Joel:
With regard to language no decisive proof for its lateness has been
adduced... (Hurvitz 1983c: 216)
Naude (2000b: 116) writes: 'Considering the number of texts produced by the Qumran
community as well as their relative coherence, it is hard for anyone to believe that QH
could be an imitation of BH'.
45. See, e.g., Hurvitz's statement quoted above on p. 165.
46. For Ezekiel being partly LBH, see Hurvitz 1982; Rooker 1990a.
47. The question of whether or not one should distinguish between a Second and
Third Isaiah is irrelevant to the discussion here.
48. Even though the consensus is not so strong with regard to Zech. 9-14.
49. See, e.g, the overview in Grabbe 2000: 15-19 and the literature there cited.
50. Even though (understandably) not quite up-to-date, see S.R. Driver's view of
the language of these books (1913a: 505).
Biblical Hebrew
176
On Haggai and Zechariah:
.. .the language of [Haggai and (first) Zechariah] has still not recognizably
moved away from classical biblical Hebrew... It seems that the reason for
this is rooted mainly in the character of the prophetic literature which tends
to be formulated in a semi-poetic language, a language that differs from
prose in its strong adherence to the classical style and in its avoidance of
clear linguistic innovations. But it is also possible that historical-chronological factors brought this about: the date of composition of Haggai and
Zechariah is the beginning of the Persian period; and it is possible that at
this time the language of the Bible was still preserved in its purity to a
greater extent than in the years after that. (Hurvitz 1983c: 215 = 1997b: 20
[emphasis in original])
...in Haggai and Zechariah still no change is observed. (Baumgartner
1940-41:609)51
On Malachi:
With regard to language the clear late biblical Hebrew features are absent in
the booksimilar to what we found in Haggai and Zechariah. (Hurvitz
1983c:215; 1997b:21)52
I will argue that the language of these books is EBH rather than being
close to EBH because:
1. EBH texts contain LBH features, occasionally even clear LBH
features, and
2. no clear LBH features are shown to occur in these books, and the
limited number of LBH features that scholars point to in the
books can at best only tentatively be ascribed to LBH.
Few detailed diachronic analyses of the language the books have appeared.
I know of the works of Andrew Hill (1981; 1982; 1983; 1998: 395-400)
and Mark Rooker (1996), and in addition, Hurvitz has sometimes analyzed
words that appear in these books as LBH (1972a: 49, 104-106, 113-16,
164-65; 1974a: 19-20, 25-26; 1983c: 215; 1994; 1996b: 40-42; 1997b:
20-21).
51. Note that he regards the language of Malachi as belonging with Ezra and
Nehemiah (in agreement with S.R. Driver 1913a: 505), a view which is in opposition
to what I will argue below. Also in opposition to my views is Rendsburg's recent statement about the language of Haggai and Zechariah (among others) clearly dating from
the Persian period (2002b: 23).
52. Also Sznejder (1934-35: 306): '.. .the books of Haggai, Zechariah, and Malachi.. .are in correct biblical language, i.e., there are no traits of the mishnaic language
in them' (my translation).
111
a. Hill
Hill, in his doctoral dissertation, two articles, and a commentary, thoroughly analyzes the language of the books of Haggai, Zechariah, and
Malachi and finds a few imprints of LBH on it. He finds it to be earlier
than the secondary additions to P (Ps), but later than JE, D, and the
groundwork of P (PG). He bases his research on Robert Polzin's typological approach (1976). This approach relies mainly on syntax but allows
for vocabulary to complete the typological picture of a given text. Polzin
(1976: 85-122) developed a list of 19 syntactical and 84 lexicographical
features characteristic of the language of the Chronicler and argued that
these were (more or less) characteristic of LBH in general. He compared
these features to P and concluded that both Ps and PG were influenced by
LBH and hence could be placed between EBH and LBH.
Polzin's 19 syntactical features are quite problematic from the perspective of the dating of the language, and only about five can be shown to
certainly and usefully reflect LBH. Gary Rendsburg (1980a) has shown
this, and his research is corroborated by Ziony Zevit (1982: 493-501)
and Hurvitz (1982: 163-70).53 With regard to the language of P, Hurvitz
(2000c, with references) has consistently shown all strands of it to be
EBH.
However, since Hill's is the only detailed linguistic analysis of these
books, it is worthwhile to take a closer look at the LBH syntactic features
that he finds in one or more of the books of Haggai, (first and second)
Zechariah, and Malachi (1981: 47-75):
(1) Preference for verbal suffixes instead of PK + suffix. This
tendency is found in Zechariah 9-14 and the same tendency is
found in LBH where it is generally somewhat stronger.54 The
tendency continues in QH (Qimron 1986: 400.08).
(2) Increased use of PN in the nominative case. There is one occurrence in Haggai and one in Zechariah 1-8, but, as Rendsburg
53. Note also Hill's critique of some of Polzin's 19 syntactical features (Hill 1982:
114).
54. According to Hill's calculations (1981: 47-51), Chronicles shows a ratio of
c. 10:1 in favour of the verbal suffix, and the non-memoir portions of Nehemiah have
23 verbal suffixes and do not use HN + suffix at all. Zech. 9-14 shows a ratio of c. 5:1
which is similar to that of Ezra and the Nehemiah memoirs, and a little more than Ps,
which has a ratio of c. 4:1. JE and D on the other hand have a ratio of c. 2:1. See also
Striedl 1937: 77; Bergey 1983: 85-89; Fredericks 1988:148-50; Muraoka 1997:97-98;
2000: 202-204; Eskhult 2000: 88.
178
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
Biblical Hebrew
(1980a: 66) shows, this feature probably is found with more or
less the same ratio throughout BH.55
Collectives construed as plurals. Haggai has three collectives
construed as plurals (1.2,12,14) against one construed as singular (1.12) which according to Hill might place it closer to LBH
than EBH. However, all three plural cases involve DI? ('people')
as subject found in the context before the verbs, and as Ian Young
(1999: 53-54) has shown,56 this increases greatly the likelihood
of finding verbs in the plural, in EBH and LBH alike.
Decreased use of the infinitive absolute as command and in paronomastic constructions. These uses of the infinitive absolute are
not found in Haggai and Malachi. The infinitive absolute as command is not found in Zechariah 9-14 either (it is found in 6.10),
but as we have seen above, this use of the infinitive absolute is a
fairly uncommon feature of BH in general.
Decreased use of the infinitive construct with H and ID. As Rendsburg (1980a: 68) points out, Polzin is quite vague about this point,
and to my knowledge no subsequent research has confirmed this
as a trait of LBH.
Decreased use ofTPI. Zechariah 9-14 and Malachi display this
feature (actually Zech. 9-14 does not use TT1 at all). Rendsburg
(1980a: 70) points out that this feature has quite an uneven distribution in EBH texts,57 and Hill (1981: 69) correctly (albeit tentatively) ascribes this feature to what he calls 'the poetic tendencies
of "oracular prose" '.58
55. For a different evaluation, see Kropat 1909: 2, and the literature there cited;
Schoors 1992: 191-92; Schattner-Rieser 1994:216; see also Rooker 1990a: 88-90, but
note that Rooker, even though he quotes Rendsburg, does not address his arguments
(according to Rendsburg, the feature is found 52 times in BH, and among them 28 in
Genesis-2 Kings [albeit partly in clusters], against seven in Chronicles, four in
Nehemiah, and one in Daniel).
56. Note also his critique of Polzin's work on this category, I. Young 1999: 69-70.
57. E.g., it occurs but seven times in the book of Deuteronomy.
58. Hill's hesitation in relying on 'poetic tendencies' in the books is probably due
to his view that they are generally comparable to narrative prose. He argues (1981:4-5)
for the narrative nature of the texts by reference to the research by Hoftijzer (1965) on
FIN and the research of Andersen and Freedman on prose particles in general (1980:
57-66). The frequency of FIN and the other prose particles in the books point to them as
being all narrative prose (except for Zech. 9). Note however that a couple of instances
of verb gapping in the oracles of Malachi, in 1.6 and 3.24, speak against this
M.P. O'Connor (1980: 124-25) argues that this is a trait found in poetry only (even

(7)
179
Increased use of infinitive construct with 7. Haggai and Zechariah 1-8 show a high frequency of this feature, but, as it turns
out, not significantly higher than many EBH texts.59
It turns out that there is very little to go on. Only (1) and (4) point to a
tendency in the direction of LBH, that is, one feature in each of the books
of Haggai, Zechariah 9-14, and Malachi. In the absence of other LBH
grammatical features, this seems most reasonably explained as instances
of personal style.
Subsequently, Hill (1981: 86-108) looks for possible LBH words in the
books by taking a list of 100 candidates for LBH words and checking to
see how many are found in his books. Eighty-four of his candidates are
Polzin's 84 lexicographic features of LBH mentioned above, and 16 are
the LBH words and expressions Hurvitz (1974a; 1974b) lists. He finds the
following LBH lexicographic features:
(1) Non-use of "TDDK.60 Haggai and Zechariah 1-8 use S ]K exclusively.61
(2) Use of pSJT instead of ptfH (Hill 1981: 93). The root pin is used
once in Zech. 6.8, and pUi is not found in the book. Both roots
are found throughout EBH and LBH even though there is a preference for pI?T in LBH writings (see Kutscher 1974: 34, 314).
However, of the 91 BH occurrences of the root, only ten are
found in Esther, Daniel, Ezra, Nehemiah, and Chronicles, and
there are, for example, 15 occurrences in Samuel, 11 in Judges,
and seven in Isaiah 1-39. Usage of the root can therefore not be
said to point in the direction of LBH.
(3) Use of postpositive irh in the sense of 'a lot of.62 This use is
found in Zech. 14.14. It is attested once in Job (26.3)63 and twice
though C.L. Miller 1997 points to examples of this in direct discourse embedded in
narrative texts [e.g., Gen. 42.7; 2 Kgs 6.27]).
59. Polzin (1976: 60) himself admits that the difference in frequency between parts
of his EBH texts and LBH is negligible.
60. Hill 1981: 87-88; see also S.R. Driver 1882: 222; Hurvitz 1982: 169 n. 35;
Fredericks 1988: 141-46; Schoors 1989: 71-72; 1992: 47-48; Schattner-Rieser 1994:
196.
61. Note Hurvitz's remark (1982: 169 n. 35) that in some texts the use of "3N
'represents simply a stylistic peculiarity which does not necessarily reflect LBH
usage...'
62. Hill 1981:95; for an in-depth diachronic semantic analysis of the different uses
of 3-|h>, see Margain 1976: 89-96; cf. also Margain 1974: 37.
63. Note however that the parsing of this verse is ambiguous.
180
(4)
(5)
(6)
Biblical Hebrew
in 1 Kings (1.19, 25), but in Chronicles it is found 19 times.64
Outside of Chronicles, however, it is found but once in Nehemiah
(9.25) and once in QH (11Q14.9), and it is found neither in Ben
Sira nor in the Mishnah. Therefore it seems that this is not an
expression pointing to LBH but attributable, rather, to the personal style of the author of Chronicles.
Use of PpUlQ ('pipe/casting'; Hill 1981: 97). This word is found,
in different meanings, in Zech. 4.2 ('pipe') and 2 Chron. 4.3
('casting')65 only. It is not found in post-BH. No chronological
implications can be ascribed to the use of this word in Zechariah.
Use of ]CD2? with definite article (Hurvitz 1974a: 19-20; Hill 1981:
102, 104). This word is found in Zech. 3.1, 2, and in the pros
tale of Job (passim).66 Arguing for the lateness of the prose-tale
of Job, Hurvitz points out that a definite image of 'the Satan' is a
concept that emerges in later times. If he is right, this would
show the text of Zechariah 1-8 to be late since it refers to this
extra-linguistic concept. It has little bearing on whether or not
the language of the text is late.
Use of *7I7 ZlHTin in the sense of 'present oneself before/take
one's stand on the side of with the preposition governing a
person (or God; Hurvitz 1974a: 25-26; Hill 1981: 105). This is
found in Zech. 6.5; Job 1.6; 2.1 (twice); 2 Chron. 11.13, and i
QH, 1 QSa 1.20. Hurvitz argues that this is a late expression whe
it means to stand next to or before someone. The EBH linguistic
contrast is the more usual combination l'3sb DHTIH (also found
in LBH, Ben Sira, and QH). In the sense of taking one's stand on
the side of something, we do find ^17 DKTin in EBH (Num.
23.3, 15; Hab. 2.1; Ps. 36.5), but the fairly subtle distinctio
between the two uses of ^17 Dimn is correct. However, the
scarcity of ^17 mrnn (pers.) and the fact that in BH it is found
mostly in texts that are otherwise EBH makes it doubtful whether
this is a genuine LBH expression or if it might not have been an
option in EBH.
Again, none of the six features with any confidence point to LBH.
64. 1 Chron. 12.41; 22.3,4, 8; 29.2, 21; 2 Chron. 2.8; 9.1, 9; 14.14; 17.5; 18.1,
24.11,24; 30.13,24; 32.5, 29; note also the very similar uses in 2 Chron. 11.23; 16.8
65. But note that the parallel verse in 1 Kings (7.24) has a different noun, HplT.
66. The noun is found in EBH in the sense of 'adversary'. In the sense of 'accuser',
the word is also found without article in Ps. 109.6 and 1 Chron. 21.1.
181
b. Rooker
In his 1996 study, Rooker, more or less explicitly arguing for an eighthcentury date of the text, analyzes some features of the Hebrew of Isaiah
40-66 and compares them to LBH features of Ezekiel. He points to nine
orthographical, morphological, lexical, and stylistic features (analyzing
four of them) where Isaiah 40-66 consistently shows EBH usage and
where LBH usage is found in Ezekiel. He states in his conclusion that
'.. .Ezekiel, from the exilic period as well as post-exilic Hebrew literature
always indicates later linguistic features than those we find in Isaiah
40-66'(Rooker 1996: 312).
c. Hurvitz
A few times in his writings, Hurvitz points to words and expressions in
Isaiah 40-66, Joel, Haggai, Zechariah, and Malachi that appear to be late. I
have found the following:
(1) Dim ('west') in Isa. 43.5; 45.6; 59.19 (Hurvitz 1972a: 113-16;
1983c: 215 = 1997b: 21). mtfD, instead of the usual D\ is used
once in the Hebrew parts of Daniel and seven times in Chronicles, hinting to the possibility that it is a late word. However, it
occurs six more times in the Bible, three times in Isaiah 40-66,
once in the EBH Psalms 75 and 107, and once in Psalm 103.
Psalm 103 uses some words that point to late language, but it is
not a clear LBH text (Hurvitz 1972a: 107-30). In later Hebrew
the term replaces D"1, and it is found in Aramaic, usually used in
the Targumim for the Hebrew D n . So with eight out of its 14 BH
occurrences found in clear LBH texts and with its continuity in
post-BH, it is possible that the word indicates LBH. However,
with five occurrences in otherwise EBH texts, it is doubtful that
the word was not an option also in EBH.
(2) inD ('together') in Isa. 65.25 (Hurvitz 1983c: 215 = 1997b:
21). As for "iriND, the biblical distribution is more congenial to
an interpretation as a late term: one occurrence in Qohelet, one in
Nehemiah, three in Ezra, and one in Chronicles. The term is
found in Aramaic, R"TfO ('together'), and is used for HIT in the
Targumim, but "t!"!ND it is not found (in the sense of 'together')
in post-BH. Isaiah 40-66 uses the usual term "HIT nine times.
With its seven occurrences in BH and no continuity, it is still
quite possible that this was an LBH word. But the question remains whether its presence in the otherwise EBH of Isaiah 40-66
does not show that the word also was an option in EBH.
182
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
Biblical Hebrew
Snft in Zech. 1.7, and 1*XO in Zech. 7.1 (Hurvitz 1983c: 215
= 1997b: 20). In Zechariah we have these two occurrences of a
Babylonian month name. These are indeed clear indicators of
LBH,67 but Hurvitz correctly does not regard them as important
for the dating of the language of the prophet since they appear
only in superscriptions.68 In the main body of the book, in 7.3,5;
8.19, we find references to a number of months but all are
referred to in the common EBH style.
n^Q ('scroll') inZech. 5.1,2 (Hurvitz 1996b: 40-42). Otherwise
the word occurs in Jeremiah (14 times, all in ch. 36), in Ezekiel
(four times), and Psalm 40 (once). In post-BH it only occurs in
MH. Hurvitz shows how the word enters into Northwest Semitic
languages fairly late (it is not attested in Ugaritic or Canaanite)
and may be a LBH word. The actual Hebrew distribution of it,
lacking in clear LBH texts as well as in QH and Ben Sira makes
this conclusion tentative.
1HlK(n) rP3 ('storehouse/treasure-house') in Mai. 3.10 (Hurvitz
1994). The expression occurs two more times in BH in Neh. 10.39
and Dan. 1.2. The common BH word for 'storehouse/treasurehouse' is "liMN, in the singular or the plural, without JTD. fTD
")iMN(n) is quite possibly attested once at Qumran69 and it is
frequent in MH and in Aramaic, and in the Targumim it serves as
translation of BH ~)H1N. This is possibly a LBH expression, even
though its scarcity in the Hebrew prior to the Mishnah necessitates caution in this pronouncement.
DIPT"!! ]1]n ('gracious and compassionate') in Joel 2.13 (Hurvitz
1972a: 104-106). These two words are combined 11 times in BH,
but three times the order is the opposite]13m Dimin Exodus, Psalms 86 and 103. Outside of Joel, the order D11TT1 JIDH is
found in Jonah, Psalms 111, 112, 145,70 Nehemiah (twice), and
Chronicles. As Hurvitz (1972b) has pointed out with regard to
^DD/DHT and ]Bp/7ITI, LBH seems to prefer a different word
67. See Wagner 1966:20; cf. also Friedberg 2000, but note the critique by Larsson
2002.
68. For the linguistic and other differences between the superscriptions and the
main bodies of prophetic books, see Floyd 1995.
69. In a reconstruction in the 3Q15 (= Copper Scroll) 8.1; see Hurvitz 1994: 81
n. 10 and the literature there cited.
70. These three are acrostic psalms and all three occurrences are in the PI-line, so
there the word order is forced.
(7)
(8)
183
order than EBH. This may also be the case with Dimi "p DPI, but
Hurvitz points to no extra-biblical evidence to substantiate this.
The scarcity of the phrase in EBH and the presence of the order
Dimi ]1!3n in the otherwise EBH of Joel make it uncertain that
both word orders were not an option in EBH.
D'On-D m& ('return graciously') in Zech. 1.16(Hurvitz 1972a:
49). This is the only BH occurrence of D'WQ ('graciously')
in combination with the verb TK#, but once at Qumran, in the
Isaiah scroll, a form of the verb 1W in Isa. 52.8 is supplied with
D^QrnD. This very rare expression may be late, but such a pronouncement can only be made with a high degree of uncertainty.
mT ('corner') in Zech. 9.15 (Hurvitz 1972a: 164-65). Outside of
Zechariah, the word occurs in BH only in Ps. 144.12,71 with a
slightly different meaning, 'cornerstone'. In post-BH it is not
found before MH. Hurvitz shows how in the Targumim the word
is used to translate various Hebrew words for 'corner', 'side',
'end'"IDS, JtfbiJ, DKp, HNS. Again, the scarcity of pre-Mishnaic
occurrences makes it uncertain if it is indicative of lateness.
d. Interpretation
In the otherwise EBH of Isaiah 40-66, Joel, Haggai, Zechariah, and
Malachi we find some features that might be imprints of LBH. How, then,
should we interpret this fact? Our texts taken together are of the same
length as 1 Samuel, so the fairly small number of ambiguous words and
expressions we have found is not impressive. And actually, even clearly
late features are found in EBH texts.72 The most instructive example of
this is the word HID^Q ('kingdom'),73 which is very frequent (about 80 of
its 91 BH occurrences) in Esther, Daniel, Ezra, Nehemiah, and Chronicles
where it to a large extent replaces the earlier terms HD^QD and ilDlbo.
The extra-biblical evidence is equally convincing: it is an Aramaic loanword and is used for HDÊD and rOI^D in the Targumim, and in post-BH
it almost completely replaces these two words. HID vft, however, is found
in EBH texts, for example, once in Numbers, 1 Samuel, and 1 Kings, but
this fact does not make it an EBH word, nor does it make Numbers,
71. This part of Ps. 144 contains some words and expressions that may be late, see
Hurvitz 1972a: 164-69.
72. See Qimron 1992: 350, and the literature there cited.
73. See Hurvitz 1972a: 79-88; Margain 1974: 39; Bergey 1983: 31-35; Rooker
1994: 139-40; Schattner-Rieser 1994: 202-203.
184
Biblical Hebrew
1 Samuel, and 1 Kings LBH textsLBH words are simply sometimes

found in EBH texts. The crucial point is the accumulation of such features,
as is most notable in Esther, Daniel, Ezra, Nehemiah, and Chronicles.74
Close scrutiny of Isaiah 40-66, Joel, Haggai, Zechariah, and Malachi
could very well reveal more items that might be imprints of LBH,75 but I
wonder if this is any different from at least parts of Genesis-2 Kings.76 As
a preliminary test I looked for LBH imprints on the very small corpus of
1 Samuel 1-3.771 found no LBH words there, and in 1 Samuel 3,1 found
no LBH grammatical features. But in 1 Samuel 1 and 2, there are a number
of LBH grammatical features:78
(1) Use of the preposition ^17 instead of 7Nthree occurrences.79
74. Cf. Hurvitz 1995; also Margain's remark, 'A few traits, isolated in a different
context, would prove nothing' (1974:43 [my translation]). Attempts have been made
at defining single chapters of Genesis-2 Kings as reflecting LBH and hence being
latesee, e.g., Rofe 1990 (late-dating Gen. 24)but such attempts have been met with
due criticism; see Qimron 1992: 352 n. 7 (noting Rofe's research): 'I.. .will say.. .tha
if we press the evidence too much we may find many more such "late" chapters in
classical BH and thus destroy the credulity of the whole approach. Hurvitz rightly
emphasized that a text can be considered with confidence as late only if it contains a
substantial number of late features...' Cf. also Rendsburg 2002b: 24-35.
75. S.R. Driver (1898: 24) has a list of items for Joel of which *pD seems the only
likely candidate for an LBH word. Likewise Hill (1981: 108-31) carries out a lexical
study of Malachi and finds a couple of words he regards as being concurrent with LBH
(see his list in 1981: 130 no. 8), of which the root ^83II ('defile') seems to be the only
likely candidate for an LBH feature.
76. Cf. Eskhult's assessment, quoted in n. 18, above, and Qimron's remark in n. 74.
77. Note that Rendsburg (2002b: 37-45) recently has argued that 1 Sam. 1-2 are
northern compositions. Two of Brettler's (1997) three suggestions for LBH features in
2 Sam. 2.27-36the infinitive absolute "Tirm continuing a finite verb in 2.28, and the
possible Aramaism DDlVHSn1? in 2.29have been correctly rebutted by Rendsburg
(2002b: 37-39). As to Brettler's third LBH feature, the non-use of apodotic 1 in 2.36
see n. 83, below.
78. By 'LBH grammatical features' I mean features known to EBH found more
often in LBH.
79. 1 Sam. 1.10,13; 2.11; see Kropat 1909:41-42; Striedl 1937: 77; Wagner 1966:
143 n. la; cf. Goshen-Gottstein 1958: 108; Muraoka 2000: 204; Van Peursen 2000:
226-30. Note, however, that the two prepositions may interchange too much in EBH
(see the opposite substitution in 2.34 and 3.12, and the long list of EBH interchanges in
Sperber [1966: 631-33]) for the substitution of ^17 for ^N to count as an LBH feature;
cf. the hesitation of Fredericks (1988: 151-53) and Schoors (1992: 200-201) in counting the interchange as an LBH feature.

(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
185
Preference for verbal suffixes instead of flft + suffix17 verbal

suffixes80 against no non-forced instances of JIN + suffix.81
Use of the periphrastic construction iTI"! + participle to express
cursivity82one occurrence (2.11).
Non-use of apodotic 1 in front of verbstwo occurrences (2.16,
36).83
r6DpKVpatternone occurrence (2.28).84
Peculiar use of verb forms(at least) three occurrences of frequentative wayyiqtol (1.7; 2.16) and non-past wayyiqtol (2.29).85
Of these, (2)-(5) are clearer LBH features than (1) and (6), but still, this is
a remarkable frequency of LBH grammatical features. With this frequency
of LBH features, 1 Samuel 1-3 is not characteristic of the corpus of EBH
texts as a whole, but it goes to show that EBH texts can contain a number
of LBH features and still count as EBH texts. It seems fair, then, to regard
Isaiah 40-66, Joel, Haggai, Zechariah, and Malachi as EBH texts: they
have their (expected) share of features that may belong to LBH, and no
clear LBH features.
In sum, at least some post-exilic writers knew how to write just as good
EBH as that of Genesis-2 Kings. And it is important to note that these
post-exilic prophetic texts only partly consist of the semi-poetic, oracular
prose. As is usual in prophetic books, parts of the texts are common narrative (see, e.g., Hag. 1.12-14; 2.10-13; Zech. 1.4, 8-13; 2.1-7; 3.1-6; 4.1-5;
4.11-5.3; 5.5-6.11; 6.14-15; 7.11-14).
With the most reliable evidence of post-exilic EBH stemming from
prophetic literature, from the point of view of traditional dating this might
80. 1.6 (twice), 7, 11 (twice), 13, 19, 20, 22, 24 (three times), 28; 2.8, 25, 29; cf.
n. 54, above.
81. The two instances of DK + suffix in 1.23 are forced because the verbs have a
suffix already, and the one in 2.28 is forced because the verb is an infinitive absolute.
82. See above, p. 171.
83. See above, p. 173 and the references there in n. 39. As Rendsburg (2002b: 39)
correctly notes in the case of the non-use of apodotic 1 in 1 Sam. 2.36, this is a feature
also found in other EBH texts, but my point here is that it is a feature more frequently
found in LBH.
84. Kropat 1909: 75; Qimron 1986: 310.122; D. Talshir 1987b; Morag 1988:
154-55; Eskhult 1990: 106; JM: 47d.
85. 1 Sam. 1 uses many different verb forms in ways that might seem peculiar, but
Joosten (1997) has explained them well; see also van der Merwe 1997. For the tendency to use the verb forms in peculiar ways in LBH, see the discussion of JM:
119za-b, above pp. 172-74 and the references quoted there in n. 35.
186
Biblical Hebrew
count simply as a continuation of prophetic jargon. But even if this were

so, and if it were possible to show that EBH was pre-exilic Hebrew, the
fact would remain that the exile did not put an end to the actual ability to
produce this form of Hebrew.
4. Post-Exilic Hebrew
From the end of the exile and until the close of the Qumran corpus, then,
there are attested at least four types of Hebrew, EBH, LBH, general QH,
and a kind of proto-MH (Copper Scroll; MMT). How are we to view
the differences between the extant forms of post-exilic Hebrew? Jackie
Naude's recent publications (2000b; 2000c) have clarified matters. Drawing upon modern linguistic research in language change,86 he first clarifies
the concept 'language' and then the concept 'change' (2000c: 61-65). Language, he explains, is best seen as idiolect, the output of a single speaker,
because language as, for example, a socio-political concept has proved
unfruitful in linguistic research.
Regarding the concept 'change', he stresses the importance of distinguishing between the concept of'change' and the concept of'diffusion'.
'Change', he explains, is the imperfect transmission of language from
parent to child, giving rise to hitherto unknown forms, whereas 'diffusion'
is the spread of such forms.
Within this terminology, within the domain of syntax, it means that no
change has occurred between EBH and LBHwhat has happened is a
diffusion in LBH of changes that had already taken place in EBH. The
actual changes we see are in the domain of vocabulary (e.g. loanwords
ultimately of Persian origin). QH does not show many changes from LBH,
but rather, in Naude's words, 'a large diffusion of forms that changed in
the transition of Hebrew towards Late Biblical Hebrew' (2000b: 128).
As for exilic and post-exilic BH Naude suggests that we might 'proceed
from the presupposition of a coexistence of different styles of writing
somewhere in a continuum between two poles, namely Late Biblical Hebrew and Early Biblical Hebrew' (2000c: 60).87
As for QH, he believes it is 'a situation where different grammars [i.e.
idiolects].. .exist next to each other in the author's/speaker's mind' (2000b:
116).
86. He builds especially on Hale 1997, a work that was unavailable to me.
87. Note that he relies on the traditional dating of EBH texts to pre-exilic/exilic
times.
187
It is not within the scope of Naude's work to explain why there are differences,88 but he provides an elegant descriptive framework of the actual
differences that we see.
We can turn to date linguistically the disputed EBH texts.89 This is quite
simple: Do we have EBH texts that are datable in regard to the distinction
pre-exilic/post-exilic? Yes, as we saw above, at least some EBH texts,
prophetic oracles and common (albeit prophetic) narrative alike, date to
post-exilic times. This means that linguistically we (with due caution)
should date the remaining EBH texts to around the time of the datable
EBH textsthat is, sometime after the exilesince none of the inscriptions are as good matches as, for example, Haggai or Zechariah 1-8 in that
their Hebrew differs from EBH in orthography, morphology, and lexicon.90
'Post-exilic' is still very unspecific, but with our limited knowledge of the
linguistic situation it seems prudent to stay as unspecific as that.
5. Summary
In order to test the conclusions of Avi Hurvitz, I have adopted his approach
of giving linguistic considerations precedence in the dating of BH texts.
This dating only pertains to the final linguistic form of the texts and does
not have a bearing on whether or not it was written earlier and re-worked
later since various old forms of Hebrew are found in all subsequent stages
of the language. This also means that the presence of older forms does not
necessarily show the language of a text to be older, but it is the absence of
newer forms that shows this. On the strength of consistent similarities with
pre-exilic inscriptions, the Hebrew of Genesis-2 Kings and other books
was deemed to be earlier than that of Esther, Daniel, Ezra, Nehemiah, and
88. For opinions in this respect, see Blau (1997: 30 et passim) who operates with
three post-exilic types of Hebrew, LBH, General QH and the language of the MMT.
The presence of these different types of Hebrew side-by-side he explains by analogy
with Middle Arabic where different schools and traditions, according to Blau, resulted
in different types of Middle Arabic existing at the same time. See also P.R. Davies
(1992: 103-105) who believes that the reason may be sociological, the differences
between EBH and LBH being differences in register (for a socio-linguistic study of BH
[from the point of view of a traditional dating of the texts], see Gianto 1996).
89. But note the reservation expressed in n. 8, above, that linguistic dating cannot
take into account the possibility that older looking texts may have been written later by
writers who commanded the older language.
90. Seenn. 10-13, above.
188
Biblical Hebrew
Chronicles, which on the strength of similarities with post-BH was deemed

to be later. The relative dates of the language thus seem indisputable.
Deciding the absolute dates of the language is, however, a different
matter. Due to scarcity of sources for the relevant periods, Hurvitz is content with the distinction of pre- vs. post-exilic, and here there is no question
for him: EBH is pre-exilic and LBH is post-exilic.
However, even though EBH is close to the Hebrew of pre-exilic inscriptions, it does not conform to them entirely, even with the ones closest to it:
for example, the very short Siloam inscription contains a couple of words
and forms unknown to or very rare in BH. Given no alternatives, it would
be quite satisfactory to date EBH to around the time of this form of
Hebrew because different forms of Hebrew at other times have been
known to coexist. But there are texts that EBH does conform to entirely,
even with regard to the presence of occasional LBH features, and these
texts are post-exilic. Therefore, if one gives precedence to linguistic considerations, without ruling out a pre-exilic date one would prefer a postexilic date for the (final linguistic form of the) EBH texts.
In this way EBH comes closer to LBH in time, suggesting that there
may have been a coexistence of these two forms of BH, just as there was a
coexistence of typologically earlier and later types of Hebrew at Qumran.
The discussion of the differences between EBH and LBH concluded that
these differences may have been the result of either a stylistic choice or of
an unsuccesful attempt at imitation. The increased likelihood of a coexistence of EBH and LBH was deemed to diminish the likelihood of LBH
being the result of imitation.
A further conclusion to be drawn from this study regards the choice of
the exile as the great turning point in the history of the Hebrew language.
In light of the evidence presented here, such a choice must from a linguistic viewpoint be said to be an arbitrary one.
THE TRANSITIONS OF BIBLICAL HEBREW

IN THE PERSPECTIVE OF LANGUAGE CHANGE AND DIFFUSION
Jacobus A. Naude
1. Introduction
Hebrew is usually divided into chronological periods corresponding to the
different linguistic corpora, namely pre-exilic or EBH, post-exilic or LBH,
QH, MH, and so on. It serves as a framework for providing a diachronic
view of the language. However, the peculiarities of the language of each
corpus cannot be explained by chronology alone. The concrete example of
the Qumran archive challenges the view that there was a swift and uniform
transition from BH to QH. Different forms of Hebrew can be dated to the
same period and perhaps even to the same community. A uniform kind of
Hebrew at any one period seems not sound (see also P.R. Davies 2001 a,
along with his contribution to the present volume; Naude 2000a; 2000b;
2000c; I. Young 200Ib; 200Id).
This article focuses on some developments in historical linguistics and
illustrates how they contribute to the solving of problems concerning
linguistic reconstruction and language change in Hebrew. The aim of the
study is to outline a constrained theory of language change and diffusion.
It will be shown that the shortcomings in conceptualization and method
which have given rise to misconceptions of language change lie in the
failure to utilize a coherent conception of the nature of language and the
lack of clarity surrounding the notion of change. If the crucial distinction
between change and diffusion events is allowed to be blurred, no meaningful generalizations are likely to be forthcoming. In keeping with the recent
developments in syntactic theory, language changes are in fact not changes
in the syntactic component of the grammar itself, but rather revisions and
differences in features of lexical entries. The loss of the consecutive waw
construction in BH and QH will be used to illustrate the nature of language
change.
t++
+++++++++++++
The present study is organized as follows: Section 2 deals with the

viewpoints on the transition from EBH to LBH as well as the relationship
of BH to QH. The assumptions on language change as well as an outline
of a theory to accommodate these assumptions will be outlined in Section
3. In Sections 4 and 5 some views on the relationship between EBH and
LBH as well as between BH and QH will be evaluated from the perspective of the assumptions on language change and diffusion. The nature of
language change is dealt with in Section 6. The loss of the consecutive
waw construction in Hebrew will be discussed in Section 7.
2. The Transitions of Biblical Hebrew
a. The Relationship between Early and Late Biblical Hebrew
One fundamental tenet of the current view on the history of the Hebrew
language is that BH falls into two successive stages, namely, pre-exilic or
EBH and post-exilic or LBH (Saenz-Badillos 1993; Waltke and O'Connor
1990). The languages of several corpuses (the Priestly work in the Pentateuch [Polzin 1976], Ezekiel [Rooker 1990a], etc.) were proposed to
constitute the link between EBH and LBH.
In the first diachronic study of BH, Geschichte der hebrdischen Sprache
und Schrif++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
the language of the biblical books while frequently drawing attention to
late linguistic features. However, it was S.R. Driver who observed that
BH contained chronologically distinct linguistic layers. Driver (1913a)
observed that books such as Chronicles, Ecclesiastes, Esther, Daniel, Ezra
and Nehemiah were linguistically different from the earlier books of the
Hebrew Bible. Of special interest is his not infrequent manner of describing the language of a late biblical writer as 'New Hebrew'.
Early in the twentieth century this view received a great impetus from
Arno Kropat's landmark study (1909) on the linguistic features of the
Chronicler. His modus operandi was to contrast the books of Chronicles
with the parallel passages in Samuel-Kings. Presupposing that the Chronicler had as his source a Masoretic prototype of Samuel-Kings, Kropat
was able to demonstrate the language of the Chronicler through his
linguistic adjustments. A systematic presentation of the features of the
post-exilic book of Chronicles as opposed to the earlier language of
Samuel-Kings was now available. However, little was done to follow up
Kropat's investigation of the diachronic study of BH. Hebrew grammarians like Bauer and Leander (1922) and Jotion (1923) were aware of the
NAUDE The Transitions of Biblical Hebrew
191
discrepancies between pre-exilic and post-exilic Hebrew but devoted little

attention to the specific features which distinguish these two phases of the
language.
In the 1970s and '80s the diachronic study of Hebrew continued to
flourish in Israel, particularly through the efforts of Avi Hurvitz. Since
the completion and publication of Hurvitz's Hebrew University doctoral
thesis as The Transition Period in Biblical Hebrew: A Study of Post-Exilic
Hebrew and its Implications for the Dating of Psalms in 1972 (Hurvitz
1972a), Hurvitz has been indefatigable in his efforts to bring about a
historical analysis of BH. Hurvitz's approach to the history of BH is in
harmony with the work of Kropat. He insists, as did Kropat before him,
that parallel chapters in the Bible are the most important aids for diachronic research. Just like Kropat, he affirms that the differences between
the parallel texts in Chronicles and Samuel-Kings are due to different
languages rather than due to stylistic tendencies of different authors.
Hurvitz believes that lexicographical differences are sound and reliable
indicators for distinguishing pre-exilic from post-exilic Hebrew, consequently he devotes minute attention to Aramaic words that might be found
in post-exilic Hebrew. In his 1982 work A Linguistic Study of the Relationship between the Priestly Source and the Book ofEzekiel, Hurvitz demonstrated that the morphological and lexical status of the book of Ezekiel
represented language of a later linguistic stratum than language of like
content from the source designated as the Priestly work of the Pentateuch.
Robert Polzin's research (Polzin 1976) based on the selective use he
made of Kropat's work, yielded 19 aspects (on the morpho-syntactical
level) which he subsequently propounded as the distinguishing features of
LBH (1976: 35-36). He managed to prove that the Priestly work of the
Pentateuch displays features from a subsequent period and can therefore
constitute the link between EBH and LBH. Polzin's 19 LBH features are
as follows:
Features of LBH not Attributable to Aramaic Influence
Al Radically reduced use of the object marker with pronominal
suffix.
A2 Increased use of the object marker before nouns in the nominative
case.
A3 Expression of possession by prospective pronominal suffix with
a following noun, or ^ + noun, or *? + noun.
A4 Collectives construed as plurals.
Biblical Hebrew
192
A5
A7
Preference for plural forms of words and phrases which the

earlier language used in the singular.
Less frequent use of the infinitive absolute in immediate connection with a finite verb of the same stem or as a command.
Less frequent use of the construct with 3 and D not preceded by
A8
A9
A10
All
A12
A13
Repetition of a singular word (= Latin quivis).

Merging of the 3rd fern. pi. suffix with the 3rd masc. pi. suffix.
Rare occurrence of lengthened imperfect or cohortative in 1 st sg
Rare use of TH.
Substantive occurs before the numeral and in the plural.
Increased use of the infinitive construct with 7.
A6
(nym.
B1
B2
B3
B4
B5
B6
Features of LBHAttributable to Aramaic Influence

Order of material weighed or measured + its weight or measurement.
7 often used to mark the accusative.
]- in the preposition ]D often not assimilated before a noun without an article.
Use of 7" emphatic before the last element of a list.
Dîn used attributively before the substantive.
Use of 7 117.
Polzin then analyzed pages taken from the Yahwistic and Elohistic passages of the Pentateuch, the Deuteronomic passages, as well as the Court
History of 2 Samuel-1 Kings in light of these criteria. He affirms his ability to demonstrate that the Yahwistic and Elohistic passages of the
Pentateuch (JE), the Deuteronomic passages (Dtr), and the Court History
(CH) contain features of CBH or pre-exilic Hebrew, while the Priestly
work of the Pentateuch (which is divided into the Groundwork of the
Priestly work [PG] and the Alleged Secondary Additions to the Groundwork [Ps]) shows later features and is thus the link between CBH and the
language of the Chronicles (Chr) (Polzin 1976: 113). (All Polzin's LBH
features are extant in Chronicles and absent in material considered as
being EBH. This corroborates the suggestion that these features are in fact
characteristics of LBH.) The following table illustrates the distribution of
Polzin's LBH features (the distribution of LBH features in Ezekiel [Ezek],
Ezra and the non-memoir sections of Nehemiah [N2] is also included):
T++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
++++
Table 1. The Distribution ofPolzin 's LBH Features

LBH Features
JE
CH
Dtr
pG
Ps
Ezek
Ezra
N2
Chr
Al
A2
A4
A5
A6
A7
A8
A9
All
A12
Bl
B2
B3
B5
B6
Methodologically, Polzin (1976:27-28) differs fromHurvitz in two major

areas. First, in his analysis of the Hebrew of Chronicles he shuns synoptic
texts parallel to Samuel-Kings, in the belief that in doing so he will be
able to penetrate to the actual language of the Chronicler. He does so in
order to avoid suspicion that the differences that might exist in the Chronicler's synoptic text might be ascribed to the fact that the Chronicler was
using a text other than the proto-MT of Samuel-Kings. Second, Polzin
maintains that grammatical-syntactical distinctions provide more objective
criteria than lexicographical features and should thus receive more weight
in discussions of the typology of BH. Hurvitz makes no such distinction
and in fact the preponderance of his evidence for post-exilic Hebrew is of
a lexicographical nature. A third distinction arising from Polzin's work,
which is in itself non-methodological but with methodological implications, relates to Polzin's evaluation of Aramaic influence. As indicated
above, Hurvitz argues that many features of post-exilic Hebrew are due to
the influence of Aramaic upon Hebrew. Polzin, on the other hand, minimizes this influence by his insistence on the fact that the changes occurring in BH result from the natural evolution of the language, more than
anything else (Polzin 1976: 11).
Mark F. Rooker (1990a) proposes that the language of Ezekiel is the
best representative of the mediating link between pre-exilic and post-exilic
Hebrew and hence the exemplar of BH in transition. An important subtheme in Rooker's work is that the Priestly work of the Pentateuch does
194
Biblical Hebrew
not represent such a mediating link. Using the criteria propounded by

Polzin as a point of departure, Rooker analyzes the language of Ezekiel to
determine the relative status of the language of Ezekiel in the chronological continuum of BH as this work is virtually ignored in Polzin's study.
His conclusion is that Ezekiel should be considered an exponent of the
transitional link between EBH and LBH, a position Polzin claims is best
filled by the Priestly work of the Pentateuch. (The Priestly work of the
Pentateuch contains five of the 19 LBH features proposed by Polzin and
demonstrates a greater typological affinity with EBH. Ezekiel shares seven
of the 19 LBH characteristics found in Chronicles and appears to be a
superior example/instance of the transition state between EBH and LBH.)
b. The Relationship between Biblical Hebrew and Qumran Hebrew
The subsequent discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls at Qumran vastly
increased the interest in Gesenius' and Kropat's earlier findings. In particular, after the early publications of the literature from Qumran, Abba
Bendavid and Eduard Kutscher resuscitated the diachronic study of the
Bible back in scholarly consciousness. Biblical Hebrew and Mishnaic
Hebrew, a two-volume tome by Abba Bendavid, appeared in 1967 (vol. I)
and 1971 (vol. II) and made full use of the linguistic aspects of the Dead
Sea Scrolls in the discussion of the typologies of BH and MH. Kutscher
made full use of the discoveries from Qumran and his enormous contribution in this field can be seen in his works The Language and Linguistic
Background of the Isaiah Scroll (lQIsaa)(1974) and A History of the
Hebrew Language, published posthumously (1982).
The significance of the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls and the insight
gained merely into the linguistic conditions of the two centuries immediately preceding 68 CE can hardly be exaggerated (Garcia Martinez 1994
XXXII-V). Prior to the discovery of the Dead Sea texts, it was commonly
accepted that at that time Hebrew was already a non-living language that
could only be acquired by the educated classes through study (cf. Goodspeed 1944: 59). This view has now been refuted. The outcome of the
archaeological excavations at Khirbet Qumran relate this textual material
to the same group of users or speech community, labelled the Qumran
Community, who occupied the buildings excavated (de Vaux 1973). This
relationship is further supported by the Groningen hypothesis (Garcia
Martinez 1988), the Sadducean hypothesis (Schiffman 1994), the Christian
origin hypothesis (Eisenman 1983; 1986) and the Local Member of the
Main Jewish Union Movement hypothesis (Stegemann 1992). The theories
195
contradicting such a linkage, for example, including the hypothesis of the

Jerusalem origin of the Qumran texts of Golb (1980; 1995), nevertheless
support a homogenous speech community as users/producers of the textual
material.
These texts were written in Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek. Among other
things, a variant of the Hebrew language, hitherto unknown, became available, enhancing our knowledge of this subject to a remarkable extent. This
language, QH, occupies a position between BH and MH. Emerging from
a linguistic melting pot in which at least three languages and several
dialects were interacting on each other, it provides a unique opportunity
for observing a language in a stage of transition and to assess the impact of
dialectal and other linguistic influences thereon (Fitzmyer 1979: 57-84).
(A study of QH and its concomitant circumstances will fill in the hiatuses
left in our knowledge of spoken and written Hebrew in Palestine during
the Hellenistic and Roman eras.)
Several opinions have been expressed on the classification of QH, which
shows BH forms side by side with MH. The communis opinio is that there
are two major types of Hebrew, namely, CBH and MH, while other varieties like QH are considered to be hybrids of these two. It has been suggested
that the authors of the Qumran texts endeavoured to write BH, but that,
under the influence of the spoken language a type of MH emerged.
Alternatively, texts which were originally written in MH have been altered
so as to bring them more in line with BH. To summarize, some scholars
consider QH as an artificial entity or as a product of an attempt to revive
BH. This implies an archaization process of writing QH in an archaic/oldfashioned style as if it continued the literary style of BH (Segal 1927: 13;
Rabin 1958; 1973: 37;Kutscher 1974: 8-9,12; 1982: 82,99,131). Accordingly, QH has been regarded not as spoken Hebrew, but as an imitation of
BH by speakers of MH. Polzin (1976: 6) underlines the archaic character
of QH which he regards as sometimes closer to that of the Pentateuch than
to that of the Chronicles. In line with such a view Fitzmyer (1979: 44-45)
typifies QH as neo-CBH, a manifestation of the language that is an imitation of BH and that may be only literary. Schniedewind (1999: 235)
views QH as an ideological 'antilanguage' created by conscious linguistic
choices intended to set the speakers and their language apart from others.
However, others view it as a direct continuation of LBH (Hurvitz 1965:
225; I. Young 1993: 83). Recently, the fairly standard scholarly consensus
on the classification was challenged by the view that QH is independent in
character and contains features which could only have evolved in a living
spoken language (Morag 1988; Qimron 1992; Saenz-Badillos 1993: 132;
196
Biblical Hebrew
see also Qimron 1986; Leahy 1960; Kutscher 1982: 57-114; Polzin 1976;
Waltke and O'Connor 1990: 9,11-20). The BH forms which occur in QH
side by side with MH forms are not necessarily archaic forms, but may
well have been part of the living spoken language (Qimron 1992: 356).
The inconsistent usage of constructions could have followed from the fact
that the phenomenon of diglossia is found in the speech community of
QH. Two dialects co-exist: a more formal, literary (the high [H]) dialect
which utilizes a formal variety that resembles BH and an informal, colloquial (the low [L]) dialect or vernacular which lacks some of the constructions of BH (Kesterson 1984: 172; M.S. Smith 1991a; 1991b; 1991c).
Two texts, namely, 3Q15 and 4QMMT, come up for consideration in
the classification of QH. Some classify 3Q15 as belonging to Classical
MH (Sharvit 1967: 135; Wolters 1990). Others claim that it should be
regarded as a distinct Mishnaic dialect: the Mishnaic dialect of the Jordan
(Milik 1962:222-23) or Copper Scroll Hebrew (Morag 1988). Greenfield
(1969) in his recension on Milik (1962) urges caution until more evidence
is preserved. The Hebrew of 4QMMT is classified as Qumran Mishnaic by
Morag (1988). Others are of the opinion that 4QMMT reflects the real
spoken QH (Qimron and Strugnell 1994: 101-108). The consequence of
such a view is that the other texts must then of necessity be imitations of
BH. However, a close look at the data in recent studies (Muchowski 1994;
Qimron and Strugnell 1994: 101-108) shows that the language of 3Q15
and 4QMMT are not so far removed from QH (as reflected in the Qumran
texts) and LBH.
Building directly on the insights of Hale (1997), assumptions on the
notions language and change will be presented in the following section.
3. Assumptions on Syntactic Change
a. The Notion Language
The notion language like many concepts that have widespread pretheoretical distribution can be conceived in a variety of ways. Language as
a socio-political notion is difficult to substantiate in linguistic research.
The speakers of a language typically feel themselves bound to one another
by way of their self-designated identity as, for example, the speakers of
English. There are no empirical tests to assist in determining whether, for
example, Cockney English and South African English are manifestations
of the same entity, or whether a dialect spoken in Denmark and a comparable dialect spoken in Norway represent distinct entities (Danish and
197
Norse). The standard attempts to develop tests designed to establish languagehood (such as mutual intelligibility, shared core vocabulary, etc.)
proved to be not very fruitful (Schiitz 1972). The notion dialect is equally
ill defined, in an empirical sense, just like the notion language, in that both
notions suffer from the same defects.
The notion language must be qualified by reference to idiolects (the
output of a single individual). Idiolect is a term that denotes something
closer to the actual empirical objectthe innate grammarwhich generative linguists recognize as the proper object of study. One could argue that
in purely linguistic terms entities such as the English language and the
dialect of South African English do not exist as well-defined formal objects
of scientific study, but individuals actually do exist and their output can be
studied scientifically. However, it is not the total output of individuals
which forms the basis of study but only the individual grammars present in
the mind of the person in question. Such a concept of language enjoys
widespread acceptance in contemporary synchronic linguistic theory and
is equal to the description of language faculty and I-language of N. Chomsky (1995): it goes under the name grammar (rather than language), and it
is generally recognized as representing the proper object of study of
linguistics as a discipline. Thus, the notion language must be qualified by
reference to the output of a single individual for the purposes of this paper.
If language as the object of linguistic study is to be taken as the equivalent of the modern theoretical concept of the grammar, what then is
language change?
b. The Notion Change
If grammar is the definition of language for the purpose of linguistic study,
then language change in a linguistic sense must be a change in grammars.
Language does not change in the same manner as, for example, geological structures on the surface of the earth. In the latter case, the mutation
occasioned by a variety of physical forces deals essentially with the same
substance over lengthy periods of time. By contrast, in the case of language
change, there is a different object (grammar) with the advent of each generation. The grammar of the parent does not change into the grammar of
the child. The child is engaged in a process of grammar construction by
using the parent's output (in part) as the basis for the construction of the
acquisition target. It is inevitable that this process will give rise to a grammar that differs to a greater or lesser degree from the grammar that the
parent has constructed by analyzing the input he/she received during
198
Biblical Hebrew
his/her lifetime. Thus, the child will eventually end up with a grammar
which is not identical to that of his/her parent in every respect.
Three factors: noise in the channel (induced by the body of the speaker
who is used as basis for the construction of the grammar, the body of the
acquirer or by the environment), the order of data presentation, and the
frequency (and thus salience) of various constructions could, or so it
seems a priori, influence the ultimate shape of the constructed grammar. It
is probable that the inevitability of language change stems from the fact
that perfect grammar transmission is impossible due to the factors mentioned. Consequently it is a foregone conclusion that the child's grammar
will differ from that of the input sources. This difference is called change.
Children go through a process of linguistic maturation that in practice
means the convergence of all the grammars they have used as input
sources. At some point acquirers stop accepting input which diverges from
that on which they are basing their grammar. Instead, if they choose to
adopt the new data into their linguistic behaviour, they start upon the construction of an additional grammar to produce the relevant competence.
Confronted by data from a new (in his or her experience) dialect he/she
will not revise his or her constructed grammar to fit the new data, no matter
how desirable it may be to acquire competence in the new system. Instead,
the acquirer will construct an additional grammar, alternating between
these two under his or her interpretation of the appropriate social context,
for example, in the case of diglossia.
Most speakers have multiple grammars, for example, to generate different linguistic styles or registers, idiolects, local dialects and standard
speech. The output of a single individual may not lead to the construction
of a coherent grammar. In this case, the child has to learn at an early point
in the acquisition process that she or he is receiving evidence for multiple
grammars. If the acquirer mistakenly attributes utterance X to grammar A
(when in fact it could only be generated by grammar B), the acquirer's
version of grammar A will have to differ from that of his/her source of that
grammar. In instances in which multiple source grammars are used for the
construction of a single acquirer's grammar without any of the features
undergoing change (i.e. misanalysis), there may be a new constellation
of features in the grammar, but this new grammar is the result of the
acquirer's accurate analysis of his or her input sources.
The proposed model allows for the distinction of borrowing (e.g. of
words) and an attempt to become a speaker of the newly presented dialect.
Borrowing a few words from the local dialect and constructing a grammar
199
of the local dialect are two vastly different processes. In the former case,
the acquirer finds him- or herself with one grammar containing some loan
words whereas, in the latter, the acquirer acquires two grammars.
Note that this is the transmission of features of the grammar, not of
output strings (such as words}. Forms themselves are not intransmissible:
the grammar does not contain its own output, it generates it. Output forms
are patterns of acoustic events; the grammar consists of mental representations. Change results when transmission is flawed with respect to one or
more features. When transmission is immaculate (with respect to some
feature), no change occurred.
In what way then should statements, rife in both traditional and theoretical works on language changeof the type change X began in the
thirteenth century and was completed only in the sixteenthbe interpreted? The statement presumably means that the change is found in some
grammars as early as the thirteenth century but is not widespread in the
language (socio-politically defined) until much later. It refers to the spread
of change X from some speakers to others, which naturally, does take
time. This instance obviously does not refer to change, as defined above,
but much rather to the diffusion of linguistic variants.
c. The Notion Diffusion
The notion diffusionrefers to the spread (implementation/transmission) of
change W from some speakers to others, which naturally, does take time.
In the case of change, there has been imperfect transmission of some
feature of the grammar. The acquirer's input sources had features X, Y,
and Z, and the acquirer constructed a grammar which had features X, Y,
and W. The difference (W instead of Z) represents a change (Z > W). In
the case of diffusion, the acquirer had input sources with features X, Y, Z,
along with other input source(s) with features X, Y, W, and constructed a
grammar with features X, Y, and W. Note that there is no imperfect
transmission of the relevant features: the child had feature W in his or her
input sources and constructed a grammar with feature W.
Many factors influence the spread of linguistic innovationssocioeconomic status, ethnicity, age, gender, and so onwithout it being necessary to see these various aspects of speaker status and behaviour as the
proper object of an explicit linguistic theory.
Many of the differences between a given acquirer's input sources and
the grammar he or she constructs will never spread to others. They will die
with this acquirer and probably remain absent from the linguistic record
altogether.
200
Biblical Hebrew
Diffusion is a many faceted phenomenon. Diffusion is the spread

throughout a specific population group over a certain length of time and is
temporal by nature. It follows from the very nature of diffusion that
variation should be present during the period of diffusion (those grammars
retaining the original form will continue to coexist for some time side by
side with those grammars in which no innovation is apparent). Much diffusion displays an S-curve. First, spreading is gradual within a limited
population group. When spreading is released among a critical mass of
speakers more and more speakers become involved. Once the number
of speakers from which an innovation can diffuse increases, there is a con
comitant and rapid increase in the number of acquirers prone to the
innovation.
A strict distinction between change and diffusion allows for a segregation of the properties, which must be attributed to two very differently
constrained domains, namely, historical linguistics and socio-linguistics
respectively. While the issues may be seen by some as essentially terminological, it is important to point out that if the crucial distinction between
change and diffusion events are allowed to be blurred, no meaningful
generalizations about either domain are likely to be forthcoming. Lass
(1997: 140) fails to distinguish between change and diffusion. None of the
propositions regarding change cited by Lass are in fact properties of
change: to the extent they are coherent properties of diachronic events at
all, they are uniformly properties of diffusion events. As Lass fails to
distinguish between change and diffusion, the uniform distribution of an
innovation throughout the grammar (e.g. the lexicon) and its uniform
distribution across a (well-defined) subset of the population are not distinguished.
Support for the distinction between change (actuation of a change) and
diffusion (implementation/transmission) of a change follows from the
extensive treatment of the relationship between language variation and
change by Labov (1994: 542). He posits, on the basis of extensive analysis
of much of the primary data and secondary literature on change in
progress (i.e. in the terminology of this paper, diffusion), the following two
types of change:
1. Regular sound change is the result of a gradual transformation of
a single phonetic feature of a phoneme in a continuous phonetic
space. It is characteristic of the initial stages of a change that
develops within a linguistic system, without lexical or grammatical conditioning or any degree of social awareness ('change from
below')for example, vowel shifts in place of articulation.

2.
201
Lexical diffusion is the result of the abrupt substitution of one

phoneme for another in words that contain that phoneme. The
older and newer forms of the word will usually differ by several
phonetic features. This process is most characteristic of the late
stages of an internal change that has been differentiated by lexical and grammatical conditioning, or has developed a high
degree of social awareness or of borrowings from other systems
('change from above')for example, shortening and lengthening
of segments.
Although Labov is normally talking about diffusion events, the basic contrast reflected by the last-mentioned distinction is one between change and
diffusion as indicated by Labov's own labels (though of course he calls
both types change). Like Labov, Kiparsky (1995) sees sound change and
lexical diffusion as the two basic mechanisms of sound change, though the
precise definition of each differs slightly from that advocated by Labov.
To summarize, there are three dimensions by which linguistic variation
comes about and within which it persists: along the dimension of time,
society, and the individual. Along the time dimension languages are constantly, pervasively, and systematically changing. The result is linguistic
variation, different ways of saying the same thing. Language change starts
in an individual and diffuses in a speech community, a group or network
of people whose language is more or less the same because they learn and
influence one another in all sorts of behaviour including language. Speech
communities are based on factors including geography, religion, age, and
gender, and may be more or less cohesive (depending on the level of
standardization), and recognizable by their characteristics of language use.
Speech is also influenced by the speech-situation, which determines the
style and register of utterances (e.g. intimate, casual, consultative, formal
and frozen). Another factor is the differences between speech and writing.
Writing is secondary to speech and employs special forms of language for
its unique purposes, for example, the utilization of devices for the organization of discourse.
Having listed the most important assumptions on language change and
variation, the question of how language variation in Hebrew can be
explained by this model will be investigated next. The traditional views on
the relationship between EBH and LBH as well as the relationship
between BH and QH will be evaluated in the light of the assumptions on
language change and diffusion.
202
Biblical Hebrew
4. An Evaluation of the Views on the Relationship
between Early and Late Biblical Hebrew
a. No Specific Variety of Biblical Hebrew is Biblical Hebrew in Transition

The typology of Hebrew (and the so-called EBH and LBH) is firmly
rooted in the socio-political concept of language and, as stated above,
provides no workable basis for an empirical linguistic research. The concept grammar as explained above, offers far more attractive possibilities.
Correspondingly the socio-political concept LBH consists of different
grammars, namely, the language of the Priestly work of the Pentateuch,
Ezekiel, Ezra, and so on. It is assumed that each grammar reflects the
grammatical sentences of that specific language, that is, they conform to
the rules of the grammar of the idiolect the final speaker/author/redactor
has in mind. Hence the typology of Ezekiel's language can be generalized
as follows: a speaker of Ezekiel's language has acquired at least a grammar that shows, according to Polzin's analysis, four language changes (A4,
A5, Bl, B2 [listed above]if assumed that the grammar of the parent is
represented by a language resembling the language of the Priestly work of
the Pentateuch) and the diffusion of three of the five changes that
happened when the parent had acquired his/her language (A2, A7, A9).
The diffusion of two others is reflected in the language of Ezra (A6, All).
The language of Ezra reflects four changes (Al, A8, A12, B6) and the
diffusion of three of the changes in Ezekiel (A4, A5, B2). Furthermore, if
change is an unconscious and imperfect transmission of the architecture of
language, a close comparison of the grammars traditionally labelled as
LBH will show that only a few changes can be detected in each grammar
(according to Polzin's criteria): five in the language of the Priestly work of
the Pentateuch (A2, A6, A7, A9, Al 1), four in the language of Ezekiel
(A4, A5, Bl, B2), four in the language of Ezra (Al, A8, A12, B6), one in
the non-memoir sections of Nehemiah (B5) and one in Chronicles (B3).
Viewing Polzin's data from a historical linguistic viewpoint, any conclusion to the effect that any variety of BH is BH in transition is hardly
justifiable. The accumulated effect of diffusion appears to be substantial if
viewed only from the viewpoint of Chronicles, but in actual fact little
diffusion of the changed forms took place if each grammar is looked at
separately. Hence it is clear therefore that the language of any variety
cannot be assessed adequate by comparing it to two sets of linguistic features, but only by way of a thorough comparison of the different grammars
ofBH.
203
b. The Grammars of Late Biblical Hebrew are a Direct Continuation of

the Grammars of Early Biblical Hebrew
Hebrew never ceased to be spoken. It is true that the grammars of LBH
differ from the grammars of EBH but nevertheless, they also continue the
grammars of EBH. Grammar is transmitted from parent to child by the
process of acquisition as described above. Since a slightly different grammar comes with every generation, it is inevitable that this process will give
rise to the grammar of the child, which differs, to a greater or lesser extent
from the grammar of the parent. Some of these changes became diffused.
Therefore the grammars of LBH in particular contain in addition new
elements/innovations and variant forms as the continuation of EBH.
It is possible that these new elements/innovations in the grammars of
LBH may show features which survive in other traditions of Hebrew, but
not in the tradition of EBH. It is a priori likely that they reflect the later
Hebrew that was actually spoken more than anything else.
c. Variation is Not a Mechanism of Language Change
Language variation is not the mechanism of language change but the result
of change, that is, an indication of how far a change has diffused. In actual
fact, Rooker's assumptions on variation as a mechanism of language
change deal with diffusion.
Rendsburg (1990a) demonstrates that in BH two separate varieties of
Hebrew could already be distinguisheda written dialect used for literary
composition and for formal orations, and a spoken language used for everyday communication, a situation which can be termed diglossia. Diglossia,
as originally defined, denotes a linguistic situation in which one language
variety, usually an older, archaizing one serves as the vehicle of educated
intercourse, especially in writing, while another variety is used as a spoken
colloquial. Typically, one member of the diglossia (the high dialect) is
static, resisting the changes that affect the vernacular variety (the low
dialect; Ferguson 1959). However, note that diglossia is a term normally
used for distinguishing between two different kinds of speech in any
speech community and does not apply to any single grammar. It is prone
to the same shortcomings as the notion of language or dialect. Although
Rendsburg's view is correct in the sense of allowing two grammars to
exist side by side, he excludes the possibility of more than two grammars
and further complicates the explanation of interrelationship between
change and diffusion.
204
Biblical Hebrew
d. Aramaic Influence is Not a Cause of Language Change

Aramaic influence is not representative of linguistic change in the grammars of LBH. One of the input sources for the grammars of LBH was
Aramaic and grammars with features already present in Aramaic are
constructed. For example, of the possible seven LBH features indicated by
Polzin only two represent diffusion into the language of Ezekiel, namely,
the increased use of the piel stem and the use of the copula HTf with the
participle. The remaining five were already diffused into other grammars
of LBH, namely: the use of the proleptic pronominal suffix; 7 + direct
object; the diminished employment of the use of the waw consecutive
tense; the placement of the measurement dimension; and the asyndetic
instead of the syndetic use of the apodosis of the conditional sentence. The
diffusion of Aramaic loan forms is due to the prestige factor of speaking
Aramaic by the educated classes.
e. Analogical Mechanism is Not a Mechanism of Language Change
The analogical mechanism together with several other attributes are widely
believed to hold of change proper. Within structuralism they are, among
other things, gap-filling, drag-chains, push-chainsand simplification.
The evidence adduced to show that these factors are relevant is no better
than the evidence that precisely the opposite factors (i.e. gap-creating,
merger, complexification) are relevant. If change both simplifies and complicates, then change is no longer simplification. If gaps are both created
and filled, then gap-filling is not a privileged process deserving of special
attention. Within functionalism it is speaker-oriented (ease of articulation)
or hearer-oriented (maintaining contrasts). Regarding the functionalist
processes a critical problem arises: Where and how are these regulations
enforced?
f. Idiolects of Biblical Hebrew
A close scrutiny of the verb DDD contained in Ezek. 44.20 reveals that this
term, which is unique to this passage in BH, is apparently synonymous
with the verb TT3, which occurs almost exclusively in EBH. It would seem
that DDD is a lexical replacement of the earlier TT1 The occurrence of DDD
is unique to the book of Ezekiel. This text reflects a specific language
change, which occurred without diffusion. The grammars of the speakers
of the language of Ezekiel show some difference from the grammars of the
speakers of the languages of the other LBH texts.
205
To conclude, from the viewpoint of the socio-political notion of language, the classifications EBH and LBH may be practical terms to designate the language of a certain linguistic corpus of the Hebrew Bible to a
certain time dimension, but from the viewpoint of language change and
diffusion this distinction does not reflect the reality of the language variation of the various grammars of BH as reflected in styles, registers, idiolects, dialects, and so on. Each grammar must be looked at separately. The
differences among the varieties of Hebrew actually show to what extent a
certain language change of a certain EBH/LBH speaker had already
become diffused. The process of change and diffusion is a continuous
process. Thus, the language changes reflected by none of the varieties of
BH can be viewed exclusively as BH in transition. Each variety is a continuation of the grammars of EBH, but is in certain respects distinct from
the other grammars of LBH. Only a few (syntactic) changes are expected
in these varieties (if change is imperfect transmission of the architecture
of language). However, these varieties already show a large diffusion of
forms that changed in the transmission of Hebrew from parent to child.
The variation in a specific variety can be explained as the existence
of more than one or different grammars in the speakers of the language of
that variety.
5. An Evaluation of the Views on the Language Classification
ofQumran Hebrew
a. Qumran Hebrew Consists of Various Grammars
Although, logically speaking, QH as a living spoken language should
reflect more generally prevailing linguistic phenomena of its time, the
sociological and historic contexts in which it existed should be taken into
account. On the one hand it has to be borne in mind that QH existed over a
considerable period of time, more than 200 years in fact, and as one would
expect it shows some linguistic diversity. On the other hand it would be
incorrect to assume that the linguistic features of QH are typical of all the
written and spoken Hebrew at the time. QH much rather forms an
exponent of a dialectal continuum of Hebrew (see Garr 1985). It is therefore essential, as far as possible, to accommodate the linguistic varieties of
QH theoretically when presenting grammatical descriptions and explanations of problematic data. Goshen-Gottstein (1958) provides informative
observations on the differences displayed by the major texts from Qumran
in their most significant linguistic features. In view of these observations
206
Biblical Hebrew
one should refrain from any attempt to incorporate into the overall description of the language the idiosyncrasies of a given text as typical of QH, no
matter how important that text may appear to be (e.g. 3Q15 and 4QMMT).
The same pertains when QH is compared to BH. BH consists of various
grammars, so that any attempt to locate the language of a given document
merely on the basis of the BH tradition is not compatible with the linguistic reality. BH reflects sporadic representations of the language, from
different places and times, and does not represent a single language which
developed over time; BH reflects different dialects that existed together
and fought for hegemony. In the First Temple period the dialect in Jerusalem prevailed. It was in the post-exilic period that the struggle between
the dialects was fiercest, traces of which survived in contemporaneous
texts. BH thus does not represent a rectilinear historical development.
The typologies of QH are based on the socio-political notion of language and it is argued above that such a view does not provide a useful
basis for empirical linguistic research and it is better to operate with the
concept grammar as explained. All the different viewpoints on the classification of QH can be generalized as follows: like BH, QH consists of
various grammars. If change is an imperfect transmission of the architecture of language, a close comparison of the grammars of QH with the
grammars of LBH will show that only a few changes can be detected.
However, the grammars of QH show a large diffusion (and loss) of forms
that changed in the various grammars of BH.
b. Qumran Hebrew is Not an Artificial Entity
Considering the amount of texts produced by the Qumran Community and
their relative coherency makes it hard for anyone to believe that QH could
be an imitation of BH. Second, the discovery of the Bar Kochba letters has
brought clarity to the debate by demonstrating that Hebrew was indeed
used as a means of daily communication and was not a mere creation by
the rabbis. It is rather a situation where different grammars (Gl, G2, etc.)
exist next to each other in the author's/speaker's mind. The religious texts
from Qumran reflects G2, whereas Gl must be the grammar that a speaker
utilizes in everyday life.
c. Qumran Hebrew is a Direct Continuation of Late Biblical Hebrew
Hebrew did not cease to be spoken before the period of the Qumran Community. (Compare, for example, the date of the composition of the books
of Daniel, Esther as well as the abovementioned views of Segal.) Although
207
it is true that the grammars of QH continue the grammars of LBH directly,

they also differ from each other. Grammar is transmitted from parent to
child by the process of acquisition as described above. Since a slightly
different grammar comes with every generation, it is inevitable that this
process will give rise to a grammar of the child which differs to a greater
or lesser extent from the grammar of the parent. Some of these changes
diffused. Thus QH in particular contains also new elements.
Although it is possible that these new elements in QH may represent
some features which survived in other traditions of Hebrew, it is a priori
likely that they rather reflect the later Hebrew that was actually spoken at
Qumran.
d. Diglossia Does Not Explain Change and Diffusion of the Grammars of
Qumran Hebrew
It is shown by Rendsburg (1990a) that already in BH two separate
varieties of Hebrew could be distinguished: a written and a spoken dialect.
However, note that diglossia is a term normally used for distinguishing
between two different kinds of speech in a speech community and does
not apply to a single grammar. As indicated above, it is prone to the same
shortcomings as the notion language. Although Rendsburg's view is
correct in the sense of allowing two grammars to exist side by side, his
view excludes the possibility of more than two grammars and complicates
the explanation of inter-relation between innovation and diffusion in QH.
e. 3Q15 and 4QMMT Reflect Idiolects of Qumran Hebrew Speakers
A close scrutiny of the grammatical phenomena contained in 3Q15 and
4QMMT reveal that they are different from MH. These two texts reflect
specific language changes that occurred without diffusion. The grammars/
idiolects of the QH speakers responsible for these two texts show some
differences from the grammars of the QH speakers which are responsible
for the other Qumran texts.
To summarize, from the viewpoint of the socio-political notion of
language, QH is a practical term to designate the language of the linguistic
corpus of Qumran in general, but from the viewpoint of language change
and diffusion this distinction does not reflect the reality of the language
variation of the various grammars of QH as reflected in styles, registers,
idiolects, dialects, and so on. Each grammar of QH must be looked at
separately. The differences among the varieties of Hebrew actually show
to what extent a certain language change of a certain QH speaker had
208
Biblical Hebrew
already become diffused. The language changes reflected by 3Q15 and

4QMMT had not yet spread and reflect a certain idiolect. In view of language change and diffusion as outlined above, QH is a continuation of
(L)BH, but is in certain aspects distinct from (L)BH. The variation in texts
themselves can be explained by the existence of more than one or different
grammars in QH speakers.
Some theoretical considerations, which will contribute to the understanding of the nature of syntactic change in a non-living language like
BH or QH, will be proposed in the next section.
6. The Nature of Language Change
Historical syntax lay, like the Sleeping Beauty, in a deathlike coma for the
first half of the twentieth century, since there was remarkably little work
on historical syntax before the 1960s (Aitchison 1980: 137).
It was not until after the establishment of generative syntax that substantial research on syntactic change was carried out (N. Chomsky 1957).
Large numbers of linguists realized the importance of the subject, and
attempted to hack their way through the thorns encircling the Sleeping
Beauty's castle and into the central issues of the topic. In early generative
diachronic syntax, the Generativists compared successive grammars and
attempted to show that any surface changes were due to changes in the
syntactic rules. These could be added or lost, their form of order could
alter, and children could construct a different, simpler grammar from their
parents (Klima 1964; Traugott 1972).
However, David Lightfoot may be viewed as the Prince who woke
the Sleeping Beauty from her long sleep. Lightfoot's 1979 work is set
within the Extended Standard Theory. The comparative lack of transformations within this model means that syntactic change could no longer
be described solely or predominantly in terms of changes in these rules.
Lightfoot's response to these innovations is a new approach to syntactic
change. One of Lightfoot's most important contributions is his suggestion
that part of the theory of grammar is a 'Transparency Principle' which
controls the amount of exceptionality that can be tolerated in a grammar
(Lightfoot 1979:121). Lightfoot proposes that complexity or exceptionality may build up in a grammar across time, perhaps through such factors
as foreign influence or speakers' attempts to be expressive. Eventually,
exceptionality increases to the point where it violates the Transparency
Principle by passing the permitted level of complexity, and at this stage
209
the Transparency Principle requires a catastrophic change or radical reanalysis in the grammar, making underlying forms conform more closely
to surface structures. This deep change in the grammar will manifest on
the surface by the emergence of a whole series of simultaneous changes.
Lightfoot tells us that too much complexity will violate the Transparency
Principle, but does not formulate the principle explicitly or give a measure
of the exceptionality required to trigger it.
Lightfoot (1991) claims significant advances in the recasting of the
Transparency Principle. Lightfoot is now working with its successor, the
Government and Binding or Principles and Parameter model (N. Chomsky
1981; 1986a; 1986b). The transformational component has been reduced
even further in this model, and it is argued that the grammar is divided into
a set of interacting modules. Each module has its own principles. Furthermore, the child is equipped with various innate parameters, which are set
with reference to incoming language data. As an example of parameter
setting, consider the fact that many languages are either head-initial or
head-final. Lightfoot's work is pioneering in its attempt to explicate
the mechanism whereby the proposed parameters might actually be set.
However, it is a disappointment that no explicit formulation of specific
parameters are provided. This is not a trivial omission: parameters are
taken by Lightfoot, as others working in this framework, to be quite
abstract, formal and general. A precise statement of the parameter involved
in each case would allow the reader to deduce what further implications
follow from a change in the setting for that parameter. In fact, this is part
of the general failure of the Principles and Parameters framework to
effectively articulate a useful set of possible parametersa failure which
has led to the abandonment of the enterprise and its replacement by the
Minimalist Program. Syntactic changes are in fact not changes in the
syntactic component of the grammar itself, but rather revisions and differences in features of lexical items in the lexicon. Consequently, there is
nothing that varies across languages in the syntactic component itself.
Cross-linguistic variation is triggered off by differences in the lexicon. The
only difference among languages being the inventory of words/morphemes.
7. The Loss of the Consecutive Waw Construction in Hebrew
In addition to the co-ordinate waw construction, BH also has a consecutive
waw construction. The waw is then a subordinating conjunction. The
210
Biblical Hebrew
perfective and imperfective verb forms that are used in the consecutive
waw construction not only express the relevant aspect, but also serve to
present one situation as subordinate to another. It is important to note that
the aspect that is conventionally associated with these verb forms is
reversed in the consecutive waw construction. The perfective verb form in
the consecutive waw construction expresses the non-perfective aspect
whereas the imperfective verb form expresses the perfective aspect in this
construction. The perfective verb forms that are used with a co-ordinate
waw are distinguished from the perfective verb forms that occur with a
consecutive waw by stress (in 1st sing, and 2nd masc. sg.) and by their
meaning. The imperfective verb forms with co-ordinate waw are also
morphologically distinguished by vocalization from the imperfective verb
forms with consecutive waw construction.
It is not altogether certain whether QH has the consecutive waw construction. QH lacks both vowel points and accents, which in BH often help
to distinguish the co-ordinate waw from the consecutive waw (Abegg
1998, I: 337). It has been claimed in various studies of the QH verbal
system that QH, like MH, lost the consecutive waw construction in the
course of language change (Reider 1950-51: 67; G.R. Driver 1965: 437;
Rubinstein 1955: 180,186; Kutscher 1974:41-42,351-58,427-28). Such
a process of language change is never fully executed, which explains the
existence of some remaining forms of the consecutive waw in QH. Another
view is that the consecutive waw is used as part of an archaizing process of
writing QH in an old-fashioned style (Kutscher 1982: 82, 99, 131) or
alternatively, of replacing the consecutive waw with forms used in colloquial speech as part of a process of modernizing). Often archaizing betrays
itself by using older forms or constructions in an incorrect way, which
might explain the inconsistent usage of the consecutive waw. It has
recently been claimed that the inconsistencies in the QH tense system
should be related to the phenomenon of diglossia. The idea is that two
variants co-existed: a more formal, literary (the high [H]) variant which
utilizes the consecutive waw and an informal, colloquial (the low [L]
dialect) variant which lacks the consecutive waw construction (Kesterson
1984: 172; M.S. Smith 1991a; 1991b; 1991c). The usage of tenses in the
L-variant might eventually have superseded the formal usage of the consecutive waw.
In certain grammars of QH the consecutive waw construction with
perfective verb forms seems to have been replaced with the co-ordinate
waw construction. Furthermore, the consecutive waw with imperfective
211
verb forms has apparently been replaced by perfective verb forms, or

perfective verb forms with the co-ordinate waw. These changes are supported by a variety of evidence. Compare the following BH and QH
quotations. Note that the consecutive waw with the perfective verb form in
BH CîSpnm) is replaced by an imperfective verb form in QH (^SprT):
isa. 8.21:
ppnm 3UT '3 rrm
1 QIsaa 8.15:
|Spn<l nUT Ks 3 T m
the translation of these two forms being:

.. .and it will turn out that when they are hungry, they will be enraged...
Compare also the following example of a BH temporal clause with the

QH equivalent. Here, the consecutive waw construction with the perfective
verb form in BH ("pnnni) is replaced by an imperfective verb form in
QHCl-nrr):
Deut. 29.18:
1QS 2.12-13:
133^3 -j-Onm HKTn H^H "121 HN 11)0^3 THl

133^3 -p3IT PITH mDn '131 n lUClED Till
Once again, there is no difference in translation:

And it shall be when he hears the words of this curse, that he will bless
himself in his heart...
Kesterson (1984) mentions several other aspects of the verbal system in

QH that cannot be paralleled with or explained in terms of BH:
1. The perfective verb form has supplanted the imperfective verb
form for the expression of past activity after the conjunction
DIE (pp. 7-8).
2. The positive volitive construction (simple waw plus volitive after
volitive, question, etc.) is in demise and is replaced by an infinitive (p. 10).
3. In 1QS the co-ordinate waw construction with the imperfective
verb form often appears where BH would employ the consecutive waw construction with the perfective form, which points to
some breakdown in the usage of the consecutive waw in QH
(pp. 10-11).
4. Introductory TH is absent (p. 11).
5. In contrast with BH, the predicative participle without HTI can
manifest the modal nuance must/should (p. 12).
MH utilizes only the co-ordinate waw construction. In the MH example
that follows the co-ordinate waw construction with perfective verb forms
212
Biblical Hebrew
is used instead of the consecutive waw construction with imperfective verb

forms that is found in BH:
TDD DHDI raton n 12:31 D^DNH n wun
]DlpD3 13^1 1N31 D^33Kn PIN 1^31 DH^r 13HD1
They brought the stones, and built the altar, and plastered them with plaster,
and wrote on them and took the stones, and came and lodged it in their
place... (m. Sot. 7.5)
Since the consecutive waw construction enters into subordination, it is

assumed that the waw of such a construction occupies a position in the
complementizer position of the sentence. Furthermore, since the consecutive waw construction causes a reversing of verb forms with reference to
aspect, it is assumed that the verb must be raised to the complementizer
position.
Changes in lexical features of the waw (from strong to weak) will not
cause the raising of the verb to the complementizer position and will imply
the disappearance of the wavv-consecutive phenomena. It will also imply a
change in word order concerning independent personal pronouns. In BH
the independent personal pronouns appear after verbs in the perfective and
imperfective with the waw consecutive. This distribution is not detected in
QH. In an earlier study (Naude 1996) I have shown that the verb-features
of the wmv-consecutive which is used as a complementizer is weak in QH.
The strong features of the waw in BH forces a verb in the complementizer
position, which is prior to the topic position of independent personal pronouns. The verb is thus in a position in front of independent pronouns:
D'3rTD2 Kin Win
.. .and he fell upon the priests... (1 Sam. 22.18)
In certain grammars of QH the verb-feature in the complemetizer position

is weak and the verb does not appear in the complementizer position:
"p3 Dl HR 1J73n nnKI
Thus you will eradicate the blood of innocents. (1 lQTa 63.7)
The independent personal pronouns in QH are used as topics with perfective and imperfective verb forms and are in the topic position, a position
prior to the perfective and imperfective verb. The verb cannot be present
in the complementizer position and is in a position after the independent
personal pronoun. The change in the verbal features of the vraw-consecutive construction leads to a change in word order. In line with the data
213
presented by Rendsburg and Smith this change must have happened in BH

and has diffused in QH. In MH the diffusion is completed and no grammar
of MH exhibits any form of the consecutive waw construction.
8. Conclusion
In order to develop a constrained theory of language change, one has to
distinguish carefully between change and diffusion. The most important
way in which a language may change is with regard to the lexical entries
in the grammar of a language. Changes which traditional historical linguistics analyze as phonological, morphological and syntactic are in fact
not changes in these components of the grammar, but rather revisions in
features of lexical entries (or creation/destruction of lexical entries like the
innovation of new words or loss of words in disuse).
There are three dimensions by which linguistic variation comes about
and within which it persists: the dimensions of time, society, and the
individual. Along the time dimension languages are constantly, pervasively,
and systematically changing. The result is linguistic variation, different
ways of saying the same thing. Language change starts in an individual
and diffuses in a speech community, a group or network of people whose
language is more or less the same because they learn and influence one
another in all sorts of behaviour including language. Speech communities
are based on factors including geography, religion, age and gender, and
may be more or less cohesive (depending on the level of standardization),
and recognizable by their characteristics of language use. Speech is also
influenced by the speech-situation, which determines the style and register
of utterances (e.g. intimate, casual, consultative, formal, and frozen).
Another factor is the differences between speech and writing. Writing is
secondary to speech and employs special forms of language for its unique
purposes (e.g. the utilization of devices for the organization of discourse).
From the viewpoint of the socio-political notion of language, BH, QH,
MH may be practical terms to designate the language of a certain linguistic
corpus of Hebrew to a certain time dimension, but from the viewpoint of
language change and diffusion these distinctions do not reflect the reality
of the existence of multiple grammars of Hebrew or the language variation
of the various grammars of Hebrew as reflected in styles, idiolects,
dialects, and so on. Only a few (syntactic) changes are expected in each
grammar of Hebrew (if change is imperfect transmission of the architecture
of language). However, each grammar of Hebrew shows a large diffusion
214
Biblical Hebrew
of forms that have changed. The process of change and diffusion is a

continuous process. Consequently, no variety of BH can be viewed exclusively as a Hebrew in transition. Each variety is a continuation of earlier
grammars of Hebrew, but is in certain respects distinct from other contemporary grammars. The language variation as reflected in a specific
variety is rather due to a situation where different grammars exist next to
each other in the author's/speaker's mind.
DATING BIBLICAL HEBREW:

EVIDENCE FROM SAMUEL-KINGS AND CHRONICLES*
Robert Rezetko
The consensus regarding the main sources employed by the author(s) of

the book of Chronicles is that they were the canonical books of Samuel
and Kings, but that the text-forms of these books, especially of Samuel,
were not identical to the Masoretic version.1 A.G. Auld, however, has
recently re-argued the view that the books of Samuel and Kings on the one
hand, and the book of Chronicles on the other, each represents a substantial
revision of a common source,2 which he entitles 'The Book of Two
* I thank Graeme Auld, Joe Fantin, Alan Lenzi, Tim Lim, David Reimer, Rick
Taylor and Ian Young for their corrections and suggestions. Any errors and opinions
are mine alone.
1. Brief summaries of issues related to the sources underlying the book of Chronicles are Japhet 1993: 14-23, 28-30; R.W. Klein 1992: 995-97; Williamson 1982:
17-23. A lengthier overview of these and other related issues is Peltonen 1996, II:
742-95 (' "Not a Closed Case": Caveats of the Consensus'). For detailed discussion and
up-to-date bibliography also see Graham and McKenzie 1999.
2. This thesis, of course, is not original to Auld. Eichhorn (1780) argued for a
common source underlying the synoptic stories in Samuel-Kings and Chronicles, and
in so doing he was upholding what was already the standard view. Several decades
later, de Wette (1806; 1817) argued that Samuel-Kings was the Vorlage upon which
Chronicles was based. Torrey is perhaps the most influential figure to oppose the view
that the Chronicler had any source other than the canonical books of the Bible. For
example, he says, 'It is time that scholars were done with this phantom "source," of
which the internal evidence is absolutely lacking, and the external evidence is limited
to the Chronicler's transparent parading of "authorities;" while the evidence against it
is overwhelming' (1909: 195). Dissenting voices have been few and far between. Keil
(1878: 38, cf. 28-38) was an early nonconformist: 'But our canonical books of Samuel
and Kings are by no means to be reckoned among the sources possibly used besides the
writings which are quoted. It cannot well be denied that the author of the Chronicle
knew these books; but that he has used them as authorities, as de Wette, Movers,
Ewald, and others think, we must, with Bertheau [1854] and Dillmann [1878], deny.'
Also see Keil 1833 and 1859. More recently, the following scholars argue, or at least
216
Biblical Hebrew
Houses', and which itself does not originate prior to the period of the
exile.3 His thesis has elicited a range of reactions, including statements
concerning the relationship of the date and language of Samuel-Kings to
those of Chronicles. Thus, on the one hand, Barr (2000: 86-87) cautiously
endorses Auld's thesis, saying,
it means that Chronicles and Samuel/Kings can be closer to one another
in type, in procedure, and possibly in datethan previous assessments
would have suggested. This leaves open the date when the Shared Text was
composed, of course; but it certainly damages the impression that Samuel/
Kings comes directly from some near-contemporary source. Or, in other
words, if Chronicles is still thought of as 'a late book', it provides a kind of
parallel in general genre for the idea that Samuel/Kings was 'a late book'
too, at least in some degree.
On the other hand, Z. Talshir (2000: 248 n. 31) rejects Auld's thesis,
claiming he 'discards, with no tenable explanation, the proof from the diachronic nature of the language of the Old Testament, Chronicles being an
obvious witness of late Biblical Hebrew'. She also maintains that 'In the
eyes of a philologist, the relationship between Samuel-Kings and Chronicles, no matter how one looks at it, is of a diachronical nature...'
(Z. Talshir 1999:248, cf. 248-51 ).4 Auld has not yet given a detailed reply
are sympathetic toward the view, that the composers of Samuel and Kings on the one
hand, and those of Chronicles on the other, relied in part or in whole upon a common
source: Edelman 2000; Friedman 1987:211-13; Halpern 1981; Harrison 1969:1159-63;
Ho 1994; 1995;Macy 1975;Rainey 1997; Rothstein and Hanel 1927; van den Bussche
1948; E.J. Young 1960: 415-17; Zawiszewski 1968.
3. See Auld 1994, although Auld does not call the common source 'The Book of
Two Houses' in this book. Auld's view first surfaced in Auld 1983, and shortly before
the publication of his monograph examples of his argumentation appeared in Auld
1992; 1993. Auld has since responded to his critics and advanced his thesis in Auld
1995; 1996; 1998a; 1999a; 1999b; 1999c;2000a;2000b;2000c;2000d;2000e;2001;
2002a; 2002b; 2002c; forthcoming. Also see Auld and Ho 1992.
4. Knoppers (1995) raises a similar concern, but other reviews of Auld's work do
not mention this issue, focusing rather on methodological, socio-historical and literary
matters. Scholars mainly disagree with Auld over (1) the motivation for the author(s)/
redactor(s) of Kings, working in the context of the exilic or post-exilic period, to include so much material about the northern kingdom (e.g. the Elijah and Elisha stories);
(2) the awareness the author(s)/redactor(s) of Chronicles may show for supplemental
material in Samuel and Kings, which was not part of the common source used by these
books (e.g. the Succession Narrative/Court History); and (3) the suitability of a shared
story beginning with the death of Saul (1 Sam. 31//I Chron. 10). It is unfeasible to
address these issues in this essay.
REZETKO Dating Biblical Hebrew
217
to this criticism (cf. Auld 1994: 9-10), but I hope to show that more work
must be done on the language of these books before scholars can confidently affirm Talshir's evaluation. To accomplish this I shall (1) set the
study of the language of Samuel-Kings and Chronicles in the context of
contemporary debates on the language and composition of the Hebrew
Bible; (2) highlight some 'late' BH features for which the conventional
diachronic explanation is inadequate; and (3) appeal for the recognition of
frequently overlooked presuppositions and for the application of more
rigorous methodology in the study of the language of these books.
1. Framework
The debate over the 'Tenth Century', concerning the history and historicity of Davidic and Solomonic monarchies, and the debate over the dates of
origin of biblical literature, whether of the Iron Age onward or of predominately or even exclusively the Persian and/or Hellenistic periods,5
have included surprisingly few first-hand treatments of the linguistic
issues. One noteworthy exception is the related stream of publications on
the Siloam and Tel Dan inscriptions, but by and large most discussions
simply make reference to the well-known Hebrew reference grammars and
to the relatively few monographs on the history of BH, and then to the more
recent contributions made by Knauf (1990), P.R. Davies (1995: 97-101
[section entitled 'Biblical Hebrew']) and Cryer (1994), and to the responses
by Ehrensvard (1997)6 and Hurvitz.71 could now proceed to document the
names and opinions of scholars who range from 'maximalists' to 'mini5. For recent discussion and bibliography see Dever 2001, Finkelstein and Silberman 2001, and the three published volumes of the 'European Seminar in Historical
Methodology' (Grabbe 1997; 1998; 2001). The history and historicity of biblical persons and events and the dates of origin of biblical literature should not necessarily
receive treatment together. It seems to me that scholars frequently confuse the realia
of ancient Israel with their historiographic portrayal in the Bible, and wrongly assert
that the closer a text is to the events it relates the more credible it is (cf. Danto 1965:
149-51).
6. However, Ehrensvard no longer holds the view that he expressed in this essay,
which is the first chapter of his doctoral project (2000). Ehrensvard 1999 is the third
chapter of this work. In his fourth chapter, 'Taking the "Late" out of Late Biblical
Hebrew' (2000: 59-68), Ehrensvard argues that there is not necessarily a difference
in time between the BH linguistic layers. See also Ehrensvard's contribution to this
volume.
7. Scholars frequently cite his earlier monographs, especially Hurvitz 1972a and
1982, but see most recently Hurvitz 1997a; 1999; 2000a.
218
Biblical Hebrew
malists' and from 'early daters' to 'late daters', but in the end this would
not change the fact that relatively few of these have published first-hand
studies of the linguistic issues. Instead, I prefer to draw attention to some
scattered statements of doubt concerning the linguistic datability of biblical
literature, that are made by scholars who are not entangled in the current
debates. For example, Murphy (1992: 150) on the book of Song of Songs:
By the same token the date of the work cannot be ascertained. Dates before
and after the Exile have been proposed, but none has established itself. As
M. Pope [ 1977:27] has remarked, 'The dating game as played with biblical
books like Job and the Song of Songs, as well as with many of the Psalms,
remains imprecise and the score is difficult to compute. There are grounds
for both the oldest and the youngest estimates'. The tendency of modern
scholarship has been to assign a postexilic date. But the arguments, based
primarily on language, are fragile.
V. Sasson (1979: 244) on the book of Ruth:

Thus, it is our opinion that, despite an enormous literature on the subject,
dating a Hebrew text on literary and linguistic bases will continue to be a
most unreliable approach as long as our extra-biblical corpus of Hebrew
vocabulary remains as sparse as it is presently.
Rosenberg (1986: 101-102) on Samuel's Succession Narrative/Court

History:
We should note that such studies often rely heavily on linguistic and lexical
criteria. Yet to affirm the linguistic datability of sources may create more
problems than it solves. Linguistic history itself, for better or for worse, is
partly based on accepted views of literary history and is sharply circumscribed by the sparseness of the texts themselves. We simply know too little
about biblical Hebrew to use linguistic criteria with any confidence.
Edelman (2000: 67) on the books of Samuel-Kings and Chronicles:

Since neither narrative can be dated with any type of precision, chronological order is not a possible criterion upon which to base a choice. There
seems to be a general acceptance that Chronicles is written later than
Samuel and Kings and that its Hebrew reflects a later stage of development,
but this impression is not supportable by clear documentation. There are not
enough extrabiblical writing samples currently available to allow the dating
of changes in the Hebrew language with confidence. An argument that the
two could have been roughly contemporaneous in their composition does
not seem impossible, based on our current, limited knowledge.
Olafsson (1992: 140 [emphasis in original]) in general and on the books of

Samuel-Kings and Chronicles:
219
But as you might have guessed already, the key-word in all these studies is
not 'Late Biblical Hebrew', 'the evolution of Hebrew' or the like, but
datingl Now I would be the last person to suggest that dating is unimportant. But it seems a little premature to use linguistic typology or linguistic
arguments in general for the date of composition of an Old Testament book
or a part of a book, when the ground on which they stand is itself insecure.
The differences in language between two books in the Old Testament may
be due to other than chronological factors... Simply to assume, that Chronicles is the best representative of Late Biblical Hebrew in its 'purest' form,
seems to me too easy; the differences between Chronicles and its sources
must first be explained, and if they prove to be chronological, then, and
only then, can Chronicles be said to be written in, or affected by, a clearly
defined state of the Hebrew language called 'Late Biblical Hebrew'.
Garbini (1988: xv [emphasis in original]), a pre-eminent expert in Northwest Semitic languages and epigraphy, in general:
The order in which the various chapters follow one another does, however,
show how such a history could have been written: David before Abraham
and Moses, Joshua after Darius, Ezra after Simon the Just; whereas it is no
coincidence that only for the period before the exile can one talk of historical problems in the strict (or, if you like, traditional) sense. It is obvious that
the dating of the biblical texts followed here is later than what one generally
finds: sometimes it is discussed explicitly; at other times it is presupposed.
It would not be inappropriate to remind anyone who is surprised at this that
so far there is no evidence to provide a basis for the usual datings (those
which can be found in the textbooks); they are only chronological hypotheses, when they are not merely wishful thinking.
The significance of these statements of doubt concerning the linguistic

datability of biblical literature is amplified by the diverse opinions that
scholars hold on particular portions and books of the Bible. Unfortunately,
however, this diversity is frequently eclipsed by scholars' confident assertions of this or that view, and it is often 'overlooked' even in authoritative
treatments of the history of BH.9 Again, I could multiply examples and
deal with the 'Priestly Code' (P) and Jonah and the Song of Songs and
Qoheleth and other portions and books of the Bible, but the following
examples will suffice. According to Saenz-Badillos (1993:125) 'anumber
of factors' support a late date for the book of Ruth, although scholars'
8. Olafsson (1992: 142-46) believes 'Late Biblical Hebrew' must be defined and
described more strictly, and he gives some suggestions about how to proceed.
9. See, e.g., the third and fifth chapters of the significant contribution by SaenzBadillos (1993).
220
Biblical Hebrew
allotments of dates ranging from the tenth to the second century reflect
broad disagreement. For example, the book is pre-exilic according to
Campbell, Driver, Gerleman, Hubbard, Nielsen and Weinfeld, and postexilic according to Bush, Gordis, Joiion, Lacocque and Wellhausen. Again,
according to Saenz-Badillos (1993: 125-26) the book of Esther is 'one of
the latest biblical writings', but scholars' assessments of the character and
date of this book also diverge widely. The book's language has been
viewed as imitative of CBH (Driver, Polzin), LBH, that is, not archaistic
(Moore), and proximate to MH (Bergey, Rabin), and the dates assigned to
the book range from the early Persian (Friedberg, Talmon, Yamauchi) to
the late Persian (Bergey, Berlin, Levenson, Mooremost contemporary
scholars) to the Hellenistic (Striedlmost earlier scholars) periods.
Turning to the Former Prophets, it is remarkable that there is clear
disagreement over foundational issues in spite of wide consensus since
Noth's Uberlieferungsgeschichtliche Studien (1943) over the concept of a
Deuteronomistic History.10 Was the History first composed in the preexilic period (Boling, Cross, Friedman, Knoppers, Levenson, Mayes,
Nelson, O'Brien, Provan, Weippertespecially the 'Harvard school') or
in the exilic period (Dietrich, Hoffmann, Klein, McKenzie, Noth, Peckham, Smend, Van Seters, Veijola, Wurthweinespecially the 'Gottingen
school')? And what are the scope and character of the (pre-Deuteronomistic) sources and of the (Deuteronomistic and post-Deuteronomistic)
supplements to the original composition? For example, the extent and
intention of the so-called Succession Narrative/Court History (2 Sam.
9-20; 1 Kgs 1-2) are hotly debated issues.1] In addition, most scholars on
the one hand give a pre-exilic date to this pre-Deuteronomistic source
(Blum, Brueggemann, Dietrich, Eissfeldt, Gunn, Kaiser, Keys, Naumann,
Noth, Rost, Seiler, von Rad, Whybray), although there is considerable dis
agreement between these scholars concerning the century to which it
belongs; but on the other hand, Auld, McKenzie and Van Seters give an
exilic or post-exilic date to this composition.12
10. This disagreement is helpfully documented in (and by the titles[!] of a few of) a
number of recently published collections of essays: McKenzie and Graham 1994;
de Pury, Romer and Macchi 1996; 2000; Schearing and McKenzie 1999; de Moor and
van Rooy 2000; Knoppers and McConville 2000; Romer 2000.
11. See the essays by Blum, Dietrich, Kaiser, McKenzie, Naumann and Van Seters
in de Pury and Romer 2000. Also see Frolov 2002.
12. Also note Linville 1998 which offers a Persian-period reading of Kings.
221
Most scholars in previous generations, and some scholars still today,

assign the book of Chronicles to the Hellenistic era (333-175 BCE: e.g.
Albertz, Benzinger, Bertheau, Curtis and Madsen, Driver, Michaeli, Noth,
Peltonen, Wellhausen, de Wette, Willi), but today most assign it to a late
Persian setting (400-333 BCE: e.g. Ackroyd, Albright, de Vaux, Japhet,
Kalimi, Kittel, Klein, Kleinig, Myers, Rudolph, Williamson), although
many also give the book an early Persian date (550-400 BCE: e.g. Braun,
Craigie, Cross, Freedman, Halpern, Keil/Delitzsch, McKenzie, Newsome,
Polzin, Rendsburg). Relative to the Former Prophets I note that 2 Kings
closes with the thirty-seventh year of the exile, in the year Evil-Merodach
became king of Babylon, 562 BCE (2 Kgs 25.27), and 2 Chronicles concludes with the first year of the rule of Cyrus of Persia, 539 BCE (2 Chron.
36.22), and thus slightly more than two decades separate the literary/
historical 'ends' of Kings and Chronicles. I also note that the common
source which Auld has discerned concludes with 2 Kgs 24.20//2 Chron.
36.13, that is, with Zedekiah's rebellion against the king of Babylon,
c. 589-588 BCE. Therefore, the terminus a quo for Auld's shared source is
the early exilic period, and in theory it was supplemented by individuals or
groups with very different agendas over the following decades and centuries. Further along I shall return to the evidence that scholars typically
cite for dating the composition of the book of Chronicles.
2. Examples
There are clear differences in language between the books of SamuelKings and Chronicles, and of course the language of Chronicles is also
different from that used in other books of the Bible. The distinctive
linguistic features of Chronicles and other 'late' BH compositions are
highlighted in BDB, KB and GKC (e.g. 21-v), catalogued in commentaries (e.g. Curtis and Madsen 1910: 28-36), introductions (e.g. Davidson
1862, II: 85-86; S.R. Driver 1913a: 535-40;13 T. Parker 1843, II: 266-67,
445-4714) and dictionary articles (Brown 1898), and discussed in monographs such as those by Gesenius (1815), Kropat (1909), Polzin (1976),
Kutscher (1982) and Saenz-Badillos (1993). It is noteworthy that these
contributions characterize the differences between 'early' and 'late' BH as
13. Also see S.R. Driver 1913a: 448-50 (Song of Songs), 454-56 (Ruth), 473-76
(Qoheleth), 484-85 (Esther), 501-508 (Daniel), 545 and 553 (Ezra-Nehemiah).
14. Unfortunately, I have not yet seen de Wette 1817.
222
Biblical Hebrew
primarily lexicographical (e.g. Aramaisms, Mishnaisms, word replacements, semantic developments), then orthographical (z.g.plene spelling)
and morphological (e.g. noun patterns), but rarely syntactical (e.g. verb
syntax). It may also be added that Chronicles' differences in syntax mostly
relate to matters of accusative, possessive, relative and infinitive expression.15
In contrast to the publications just given, I hold the view that many
distinctive linguistic features of Chronicles and other 'late' BH compositions are stylistic idiosyncrasies devoid of any diachronic value or are
explicable by (strictly speaking) non-chronological factors such as dialect,
diglossia, and editorial and scribal activity. I shall return to these and other
significant methodological issues in the third section of this essay. At this
point I wish to highlight 16 features of 'late' BH for which the conventional diachronic explanation is inadequate.16 The data related to these
features are abundant and complex, and their representation in biblical and
non-biblical texts written in Hebrew and cognate languages should be
examined in terms of distribution ([non-]occurrence and frequency) and
function, and in view of 'replacement' in synoptic biblical passages and
'modernization' in later versions of the Bible (e.g. Samaritan Pentateuch
Aramaic Targums). Consequently, I shall make available elsewhere the
full extent of the data and thorough treatments of these issues, but my
comments in this context are necessarily brief, restricted to the biblical
phenomena, and mostly related to distribution.17 In a few cases I shall only
cite one or more significant publications by other scholars, and at the
outset I wish to make special mention of the perceptive third chapter of
R.D. Wilson's A Scientific Investigation of the Old Testament (1926), and
of Rendsburg's (1980a) review of Polzin's Late Biblical Hebrew (1976),
in which Rendsburg accepts only four of Polzin's 19 features as 'LBH'.18
15. In contrast, JM (3a, citing Kropat, Polzin and Hurvitz) says 'The variations in
syntax are in general the least significant. Nevertheless, the differences appear quite
noticeable when one compares texts separated by a long period of time. Thus the
syntax of the post-exilic historical books such as Ezra, Nehemiah, and Chroniclesdiffers appreciably from that of Samuel and Kings' (my emphasis). I believe the evidence
opposes this view.
16. In another context I plan to discuss the predicative participle construction.
17. I am well aware of the frequently cited comment in S.R. Driver 1882:203, 'they
number words instead of weighing them', but I cannot give a thorough presentation of
my research in this context.
18. He accepts Polzin's Al ('radically reduced use of 'et with pronominal suffix'),
A5 ('the Chronicler exhibits a preference for plural forms of words and phrases which
223
a. Defective and Plene Spelling

Barr has shown that variety of spelling is everywhere in the Bible, in every
book, passage, and source, and concludes that defective andplene spellings
do not attest the date or provenance of biblical works.19 Similarly, Young
has argued that the language of biblical texts, including orthography, bears
the marks of scribal intervention in its transmission.20 Sometimes this scribal intervention results in astonishing uniformity. For example, Kutscher
(1982: 81) says 'Spelling in the later books of the Bible tends to be more
plene than in SBH' and he cites as evidence the cases of the very common
proper names 'David' and 'Jerusalem'.21 These two test-cases merit a
number of observations, but I restrict my comments to the few that follow.
On the one hand, it may not be surprising that the books of Joshua, Judges,
Samuel and Kings have the defective spellings of these names almost
exclusively (806 times, with three exceptions: TIT in 1 Kgs 3.14; 11.4,
36), but it is also interesting that the same is true for First and Second
Isaiah, Jeremiah and Ezekiel (210 times, with two exceptions: DvCTIT in
Jer. 26.18; Til in Ezek. 34.23). On the other hand, whereas Ezra (three
times), Nehemiah (eight times) and Chronicles (261 times) have Til
only, Ezra (48 times) and Nehemiah (38 times) have D^CTIT only, and
Chronicles has D7K71T almost exclusively (148 times, with three exceptions: D^KTn- in 1 Chron. 3.5; 2 Chron. 25.1; 32.9). The conflicting
trends in the spellings of 'David' and 'Jerusalem' in these three books, and
the trends hold true for both the synoptic and non-synoptic portions of
Chronicles, are difficult to explain in terms of historical development.22
the earlier language uses in the singular'), B2 ('le is used very often as mark of the
accusative') and B3 ('Mm: "from": the nun is often not assimilated before a noun without an article').
19. Barr 1985: esp. 29-33; 1988: esp. 125; 1989: e.g. 199. Barr's view contrasts
with that of Kutscher 1982: 81; Saenz-Badillos 1993: 116; Andersen and Forbes 1986,
and so on.
20. I. Young 1993: 86-87; and especially I. Young 1992b; 1998b; 1999; 2001a;
200 Ib, 200 Ic.
21. Similarly, see GKC: 2v,andn. l;Freedman 1983; Saenz-Badillos 1993: 116.
These two proper names rank third and seventh in the Bible in number of occurrences:
mrr, *7mer, invi, mirr, nco, DISQ, onîT.

22. Likewise, Barr 1989: 161, 165-66, and note his comment on p. 158, 'That
Chronicles, in particular, was capable of a strong standardization, and one strikingly
contrary to the use of other books, is made plain also by the case of the personal name
"David"'. Rooker (1996) uses the spelling of 'David' as one of four examples to argue
that Second Isaiah is a pre-exilic composition. Also see Rooker 1990a: 68-71. Halpem
224
Biblical Hebrew
b. Noun Afformative fl-1According to Kutscher (1982:43, cf. 81,84) 'Scholars have not yet drawn
a clear historical picture of the development of the different nominal types,
but the history of the nominal type built with the derivational suffix [-u:t],
e.g. niD^D "kingdom", seems to be clear enough. It is rare in ABH and
SBH, but becomes more common in LBH (Chronicles, Daniel, etc.)'.23
The comparative evidence for this abstract formation merits additional
discussion, but again I must limit my observations to the following points.
I am aware of 71 unique common nouns of this type in the Bible with a
total of 380 occurrences. All but a third of these nouns occur only once in
the Bible and very few can be contrasted with a non-Dl noun having a
comparable meaning. The number of unique nouns of this formation is
highest in Psalms (17), Jeremiah (16), Isaiah (15), Ezekiel (9), Proverbs (9)
and Qoheleth (7), whereas, for example, the number is less for Samuel (5),
Kings (4), Chronicles (4), Nehemiah (3) and Ezra (2). This distribution
seems contrary to what is normally held to be true, and I suggest that topic
and genre, and perhaps to some extent also dialect, are more significant
than chronology for explaining it. Furthermore, the four nouns of this type
that occur in Chronicles are rTOÊ (28 times), fllli? (four times), miDT
(once) and ni^SPf (once), and I think scholars' focus on miD^Qthe most
frequent noun of this type in the Bible with 91 occurrencesover against
riDÊE (and DID^DQ is a third related noun) is mostly to blame for the
misjudgment of the situation in the Bible. A detailed look at all occurrences
of these three nouns in Samuel-Kings and Chronicles is most instructive,
and I emphasize the nearly equal number of occurrences of HID^D and
PD^QQ in non-synoptic portions of Chronicles, but I shall take up this
study elsewhere.
(2001: 59-64, cf. 57-72) argues in the chapter 'Dating 2 Samuel' in his recent monograph that most of David's story was written during Solomon's reign, and his linguistic
evidence is limited to orthography, although he does call for a full-scale investigation
of the 'syntax and grammar' of the book.
23. Similarly, see GKC: 86k, 95t; Qimron 1986:66; Saenz-Badillos 1993:116-17.
Rooker (1990a: 56-57), uses the distribution of the terms nD^QO/mDÔ as a 'classic
illustration' of the methodological 'controls for demonstrating a diachronic shift'. In
contrast to these scholars, a corrective statement is given in JM: 88Mj. Martin (1965:
28) and Cohen (1978: 80) also offer helpful comments related to mil?.
225
c. First Person Personal Pronouns "'DK am^DDK

According to Kutscher (1982: 30; cf. 81, 82):
One of the most striking features of BH is the use of two forms for the first
person sing.: ""DN and TD3N. They are not used side by side in all the strata of
BH. The early and poetical sections of BH prefer "DJK, while in later BH
11
DN has displaced *1N!$ almost entirely. The trend is especially conspicuou
in Chronicles which includes a large amount of material that parallels the
Second Book of Samuel and both Books of Kings which were apparently
among its sources. Wherever the writer of Chronicles finds "DDK in these
sources, he substitutesS]K; compare, for example, I Chron. 21,10, 17 with
II Sam. 24, 12, 17.24
The percentages of 'early' ''DDK forms and 'late' ""3K forms may be characterized this way: "QDN predominates in Amos, Deuteronomy, Ruth,
Joshua (69% to 31%), Judges (59% to 41%) and Genesis; -33H and n 3K
occur an equal number of times in Samuel and almost equally in Hosea;
and "'DK dominates in Kings (84% to 16%), in the remaining books of the
Pentateuch (especially in the portions considered 'P') and the Latter
Prophets, and in the Writings (except for Ruthbut almost exclusively in
Song of Songs through to Chronicles). Both forms have an equal claim to
antiquity (del Olmo Lete 1999: 104-107), and although the preference for
''DN in the Writings, and then also in post-BH, give the impression that
chronology is the dominant factor, I am not persuaded that the situation is
so straightforward for biblical literature. Consideration should be given
to explanations related to literary (genre, rhythm, emphasis, character
status), linguistic (dialect, diglossia) and scribal (standardization) factors.25
Furthermore, it is misleading to claim that ""DDK in Samuel and Kings
is 'systematically' replaced by"" 3 K in Chronicles 'wherever' the former is
found. In fact, if one considers synoptic passages, ''DDK occurs in both
Samuel and Chronicles on a single occasion;26 n 3N occurs in both SamuelKings and Chronicles on eight occasions;27 "^N occurs in Samuel-Kings
24. Similarly, see GKC: 32c; JM: 39a; Kropat 1909: 75; Polzin 1976: 126-27;
Rooker 1990a: 72-74; Saenz-Badillos 1993: 123, 125; Waltke and O'Connor 1990:
16.3 ("'Ditjt [in Samuel and Kings]...is systematically replaced by "3K [in Chronicles]').
25. Helpful treatments of biblical usage are S.R. Driver 1882:222-27; Revell 1995;
Rosen 1984; Schoors 1989: 71-72.
26. 2 Sam. 7.2//1 Chron. 17.1.
27. 2 Sam. 7.8//1 Chron. 17.7; 2 Sam. 7.14//1 Chron. 17.13; 1 Kgs 12.11//2 Chron.
10.11; 1 Kgs 12.14//2Chron. 10.14; 1 Kgs 22.87/2 Chron. 18.7; 1 Kgs 22.16//2 Chron.
18.15; 1 Kgs 22.21//2 Chron. 18.20; 2 Kgs 22.20//2 Chron. 34.28.
226
Biblical Hebrew
and n ]N occurs in Chronicles on only four occasions.28 Interestingly, all

three situations appear in 2 Samuel 7//1 Chronicles 17. Finally, in the
Bible as a whole I am aware of 14 occasions on which both forms occur
side by side in the same verse.29
d. Preposition "2 + 3rd Masculine Plural Suffix
JM (103f) says 'Drill is appreciably more common in LBH than D3. In
MH the former far outnumbers the latter.'30 Is there a clear trajectory
within biblical literature? Looking broadly, and citing only books with ten
or more occurrences for the sake of brevity: Deuteronomy, Jeremiah and
Isaiah prefer the 'earlier' DD; Samuel (11 vs. 3), Nehemiah and Exodus
prefer the 'later' D!"Q; and nearly equivalent instances of DH and D!"Q
occur in Judges, Psalms, Ezekiel, Kings (6 vs. 7, respectively), Numbers,
Leviticus and Chronicles (8 vs. 11, respectively). The book of Chronicles
does not have a clear preference for either form. Furthermore, in synoptic
passages, Kings and Chronicles share 03 once (1 Kgs 8.46/72 Chron.
6.36), and once Kings has DD and Chronicles has Di"D (1 Kgs 15.22//
2 Chron. 16.6).31 Finally, both forms are used side by side in seven verses.32
It is not obvious that a clear development in usage occurs within the books
of the Bible, and I cannot see how a consideration of literary layers within
books would affect this conclusion.
e. Theophoric Names Ending with IT- and 1!TAccording to Japhet (1968:338-41) the long ending liT- is pre-exilic and
the short ending iT- is post-exilic, the result of Aramaic influence.33 How28. 2 Sam. 7.18//1 Chron. 17.16; 2 Sam. 24.12//1 Chron. 21.10; 2 Sam. 24. Ill I
1 Chron. 21.17; 2 Kgs 22.19//2 Chron. 34.27. Van den Bussche (1948: 374 n. 39)
concludes that Chronicles' "^N in 1 Chron. 17.16 is authentic, and that Samuel's ''DDN
in 2 Sam. 7.18 is an archaism.
29. Exod. 7.17; Judg. 19.18; 1 Sam. 4.16; 2 Sam. 3.13; 20.17; Isa. 43.12; 45.12;
Jer. 24.7; 25.29; Hos. 5.14; Jon. 1.9; Job 13.2; 33.9; Neh. 1.6. Of course, this phenomenon is even more frequent within a single discourse or passage.
30. Also see GKC: 103g.
31. The correspondence of ]!"Q in 1 Sam. 31.7 and CHD in 1 Chron. 10.7 is an
interesting case which I cannot take up here. For now see GKC: 135o; Kropat 1909:
vi, 61-62, 74; Polzin 1976: 52-54,99,103-104; Rooker 1990a: 78-81; Saenz-Badillos
1993: 119. However, contrast the view of Hurvitz 1982: 168-69.
32. Exod. 29.29; Lev. 11.43; 22.25; Qoh. 10.9; Neh. 9.29; 2 Chron. 4.6; 24.19.
33. Similarly, see G.R. Driver 1928; Kutscher 1974: 104; Saenz-Badillos 1993:
121; Torczyner 1938: 24-25. The evidence for dialectal variation cannot be taken up
here.
227
ever, Ezra and Nehemiah unequivocally have IT-, whereas Chronicles

generally has "!!T-, in independent material and in synoptic parallels
where Kings has IT-. Japhet is forced to assert that in"1- in Chronicles is
an archaism, but I agree with Watson (1972: 191) that her conclusion
is tenuous.
f. Paragogic He (71
This afformative may appear on masculine singular qtol forms of non-H "^
verbs without suffix, and on 1 st sg. and plur. yiqtol and wayyiqtol forms of
non-iT'7 verbs without suffix. Some confusion persists concerning the
distribution and significance of these verb forms in spite of many discussions.34 A frequent error is the failure to distinguish between the three
types, but in this context the lengthened wayyiqtol form or H 7t3pKl should
be the main object of debate. Scholars generally consider this verb form to
be 'late' BH based on its occurrences in Daniel, Ezra and Nehemiah, its
nearly exclusive usage instead of 7DpN1 in QH, and its frequent appearance in the Samaritan Pentateuch. In the Bible the phenomenon occurs
erratically on about 100 occasions, in 4% of all possible instances in
the Pentateuch,35 20% in the Former Prophets,36 5% in the Latter Prophets,37 and 62% in the books of Qoheleth, Psalms, Job, Daniel, Ezra and
Nehemiah in the Writings.38 The absence of the form from Chronicles has
34. GKC: 48c, d, i, 49e; JM: 45a, 47d, 48d; Bergstrasser 1918, II: 22-23; Blau
1971: 133-34; DeCaen 2001; S.R. Driver 1892: 74-75; Finley 1981: 243,260; Japhet
1968: 337-38; Kropat 1909: 75; Kutscher 1974: 326-27; 1982: 81; McFall 1982:
211-14; Morag 1988:154-55; Polzin 1976: 54-55; Qimron 1986:44-47; 1986-87:161;
Revell 1988; 1991; Rendsburg 2002b: 32; Saenz-Badillos 1993: 121; Schoors 1992:
87-88; Sperber 1939:228-33;Throntveit 1982:202,204; Verheij 1990:85-86,100-103;
Waltke and O'Connor 1990: 33.1.1c, 34.5.3b ('pseudo-cohortative'); Wright 1998:9,
34-40 (cf. his comments regarding H^tDpNl and spoken language).
35. Four times in total: Gen. 32.6; 41.11 (1st c. plur.); 43.21 (1st c. plur.); Num.
8.19.
36. Thirteen times in total: Josh. 24.8; Judg. 6.9, 10; 10.12; 12.3 (twice); 1 Sam.
2.28; 28.15(?) (cf. GKC: 48d); 2 Sam. 4.10; 7.9; 12.8 (twice); 22.24.
37. Seven times in total: Jer. 11.18; 32.9; Ezek. 3.3; 9.8; 16.11; 23.20 (3rd fern.
sg.!?);Zech. 11.13.
38. Seventy-seven times in total: Qoh. 1.17; Pss. 3.6; 7.5; 69.12,21; 73.16; 90.10;
119.55,59,131,147,158;Jobl.l5,16,17,19; 19.20; 29.17; 30.26; Dan. 8.13,15,17;
9.3,4 (twice); 10.16 (twice), 19; 12.8; Ezra 7.28; 8.15,16,17 (twice), 23 (twice, Istc.
plur.), 24, 25,26, 28, 31 (1st c. plur.); 9.3 (twice), 5 (twice), 6; Neh. 1.4; 2.1, 6,9,13;
5.7 (twice), 8, 13; 6.3, 8, 11, 12; 7.5; 12.31; 13.7, 8, 9 (twice), 10, 11 (twice), 13, 17
(twice), 19 (twice), 21 (twice), 22, 30.
228
Biblical Hebrew
figured often in discussions of the (common?) authorship of EzraNehemiah and Chronicles, and scholars have also debated which of these
books reflects the 'real' linguistic situation (i.e.: Is the absence of the form
from Chronicles an archaism?). It is rarely pointed out that the lengthened
wayyiqtolform occurs in 1 of 15 possible instances in Joshua; 5 of 12 in
Judges; 7 of 19 in Samuel; 0 of 14 in Kings;39 and 0 of 7 in Chronicles. It
is often overlooked as well that the form occurs in 2 Sam. 7.9 (i~in~ON1l)
but not in the parallel 1 Chron. 17.8 (TTHDK1). I concur with Schoors
(1992: 87) that 'The total absence of this feature from Chrfonicles] is
astonishing...'
g. Syntax of Numerals
Weitzman argued convincingly that postnominal syntax is a free variant
rather than a diachronic shift from prenominal syntax.40 Nevertheless, on
the basis of'substitutions' Weitzman (1996: 180) says 'Chronicles does
indeed exhibit an inclination to place the numeral after the noun', but he
misunderstands the actual situation in Chronicles. He says Herner notes
'several passages' where the Chronicler has switched the position of the
numeral, and then on the next page he says the Chronicler 'frequently'
changes the word order (Weitzman 1996: 178-79). In fact, Herner (1893:
69-70) cites less than a dozen synoptic verses, including Josh. 21.33//
1 Chron. 6.47, and the remainder are all in 1 Kgs 5.25-7.38/72 Chron.
2.9-4.6.41 The material in Joshua 21//1 Chronicles 6 is fraught with textual
and literary difficulties, and Joshua is almost certainly the later edition.42
Indeed, Josh. 21.33 ("IT mÎ? K/?K?) is secondary in this context (cf.
Josh. 21.6/11 Chron. 6.47both with mtBl? K/72? DHtf),and significantly
LXX Josh. 21.33 has TroAeis SEKO: rpeTs, and the Greek version's consistent translation technique throughout this chapter underscores MT Josh.
21.33's tendentious reading. I must pass by additional comments on this
passage to highlight briefly the concentration of the remaining occurrences
39. The preceding numbers differ slightly from those given by Revell and Verheij,
which appear wrong on both the total occurrences and the total possible occurrences.
40. Weitzman 1996. For the standard view see GKC: 134; JM: 142d; Kropat
1909: vi, 50-53; Polzin 1976: 58-60,94-95,97,105-109; Qimron 1986:85-86; Waltke
and O'Connor 1990: 15.2.2b. 'P' uses the 'later' postnominal syntax, like Chronicles,
thus Hurvitz (1982: 167-68) assents to a non-chronological interpretation.
41. Herner (1893: 135-39) also discusses other differences in parallel material.
42. See the essays on these chapters, and on the relationship between Joshua and
Chronicles, in Auld 1998b.
229
in the description of Solomon's temple construction project43a very

suspicious concentration of Chronicles' so-called tendency to alter the
??????? ???? ?????????? ?? ??????????? ??????? ? ??????? ???? ? ???????
textual and literary analysis of the usage in this material will show that
Chronicles' 'mixed' usage is antecedent to revision in Kings.44
h. ZYX-pnri vs. -[bon ZYX

GKC ( 131 g) and JM ( 131 k) correctly note that the appositional phrase
""[bftn ZYX', rather than 'ZYX "j^QH', represents the dominant Aramaic
syntax (e.g. KD^D lyTTf), but is it really 'late' BH as they suggest?45 The
ratio of instances of 'ZYX^QH' to '"[^ttn ZYX' outside Samuel-Kings
and Chronicles46 is five to one, and noteworthy among many relevant
observations are Song of Songs' use of the 'early' phrase twice and
Esther's use of it 25 times, but neither book has the 'late' phrase. The
phrase 'ZYX "f^DH' prevails in Samuel and Kings, occurring on 16 of 19
occasions in the former and on 83 of 86 in the latter.47 Chronicles has a
nearly equal number of both expressions in non-synoptic texts: "j^Qn
ZYX' appears 41 times, including 18 times in non-synoptic texts, and
'"j^ftn ZYX' appears 21 times, including 19 times in non-synoptic texts.
Synoptic texts share 'ZYX "f^ftH' in 23 of 25 cases, and twice the book of
Chronicles has '"[^DH ZYX' where Kings has 'ZYX fjori' (1 Kgs
11.1//2 Chron. 10.2; 1 Kgs 15.22//2 Chron. 16.6). In another context I
shall argue on the bases of textual variation and a discernible literary
polemic, which advocates 'King David' over '[King] Saul', that the phrase
"111 "jbftn was standardised in a later version of the book of Samuel, thus
43. 1 Kgs 5.257/2 Chron. 2.9 (two cases); 1 Kgs 6.2/72 Chron. 3.3 (two cases);
1 Kgs 6.3/72 Chron. 3.4; 1 Kgs 6.207/2 Chron. 3.8 (two cases); 1 Kgs 6.237/2 Chron.
3.10; 1 Kgs 6.247/2 Chron. 3.11 (two cases); 1 Kgs 7.15-16/72 Chron. 3.15 (three
cases); 1 Kgs 7.267/2 Chron. 4.5; 1 Kgs 7.38/72 Chron. 4.6.
44. Note, for example, the prenominal syntax in 2 Chron. 2.1 (two cases); 1 Kgs
5.29-30//2 Chron. 2.17 (three cases); 2 Chron. 3.9; 2 Chron. 4.1 (three cases); 1 Kgs
7.247/2 Chron. 4.3.
45. Also see Kropat 1909:74. Other designations show remarkable consistency in
all supposed strata of biblical literature: TQÔ ZYX' (18 times) vs. 'ZYX HD^Q'
(twice, Esth. 1.12, 15); 'tra ZYX' (91 times) vs. 'ZYX K'nr (once, 2 Chron. 13.22
[//I Kgs 15.7]); TW2D ZYX' (four times); '|H3 ZYX' (140 times); "ISO ZYX' (29
times); "" ZYX' (ten times), etc.
46. Isaiah-Ezekiel, Haggai, Zechariah, Song of Songs, Esther-Nehemiah.
47. The exceptions are 1 Sam. 18.6; 2 Sam. 13.39; 24.23; 1 Kgs 2.17; 2 Kgs 8.29;
9.15.
230
Biblical Hebrew
levelling what was a mixed state of affairs in an earlier version of this

book.
i. Assimilation and Non-Assimilation of Nun in ]Q
Among many scholars both Polzin (1976: 66) and Qimron (1986: 30-31)
consider the non-assimilation of nun as in !TT"fQ to be a LBH variant of
rP3Q, and they relate the 'later' phenomenon to Aramaic influence.48 The
preposition ]Q occurs c. 7700 times in the Bible,49 which number includes
both Hebrew and Aramaic portions, as well as the long variants ^0 and
-]QQ. Before the article, this preposition regularly has its full form ]Q, and
is assimilated much less frequently, but in the absence of the article, the
nun normally assimilates to the following consonant, thus resulting in -Q
and -ft with dageshforte or 'virtual doubling' in the following consonant.
I shall restrict my observations to the following points concerning )ft preceding an anarthrous noun. (I) Nun is assimilated in more than 95% of all
occurrences of this construction in the Hebrew portions of the Bible, and
contrary to what may be expected, only the 'early' assimilated construction is used in Ezekiel, Jonah, Haggai-Malachi, Ruth, Qoheleth and Esther,
for example, and the 'early' assimilated construction with a single exception in each book is used in Proverbs, Song of Songs and Nehemiah, for
example. In other words, there are more than 600 instances of the 'early'
assimilated construction in these books but only several instances of the
'late' unassimilated construction. (2) Daniel and Ezra prefer the 'early'
assimilated construction, and Ezra does so exclusively, in spite of nearly
60 examples of the 'late' unassimilated form in their Aramaic sections.
(3) 60% of Chronicles' assimilated nun constructions are in non-synoptic
texts. Also, this unassimilated construction in Chronicles is parallel to the
assimilated construction in Samuel and Kings on only four occasions,50
48. Additionally, see BDB: 577; GKC: 102a-b; JM: 103d; Bauer and Leander
1922: 198, 642-44; Bergstrasser 1918,1: 108; Konig 1881: Part 1 of vol. II, 287-94;
Kutscher 1974: 214; Saenz-Badillos 1993: 119; Sperber 1966: 3-5, 284; Waltke and
O'Connor 1990: 11.2.11.
49. Bible Windows 7.0 (Cedar Hills, TX: Silver Mountain Software, 2002) finds
7717; DCH, V: 337, gives 7717; GRAMCORDfor Windows 2.4 (Vancouver, WA: The
GRAMCORD Institute, 1999) finds 7688, 7569 in Hebrew and 119 in Aramaic portions of the Bible; Bible Works for Windows 5.0 (Norfolk, VA: Bible Works, 2001) finds
7563 in Hebrew; TLOT, III: 1436, gives 7550 for the Hebrew portions of the Bible.
50. 2 Sam. 6.12//1 Chron. 15.25; 2 Sam. 23.20//1 Chron. 11.22; 1 Kgs 9.22/7
2 Chron. 8.9; 2 Kgs 15.2//2 Chron. 26.3.
231
whereas the opposite phenomenon appears in 2 Kgs 14.2 (D^nT~jft)//

2 Chron. 25.1 (D'^KJITQ). In addition, Chronicles has both constructions
side by side in two non-synoptic texts (1 Chron. 13.5; 19.6). Finally,
Chronicles has the assimilated construction on 272 occasions and the
unassimilated construction on 54 occasions, which is far more frequent
than in any other portion of the Hebrew Bible, but is it (phonologically?)
significant that ]Q precedes "'DD in 38 of the 54 instances, ]Q"'DI1 in two,
HIDD in one, and a word beginning with N/n/n/~l in eight?51 To conclude,
Polzin (1976: 83 n. 110) says in an endnote(!) that 'Roughly one-third of
its occurrences are in pre-exilic or chronologically questionable texts', and
Sperber (1966: 284, cf. 3-5) wishes to relate the different constructions to
two diverse dialects of Hebrew. Polzin's confession and Sperber's explanation call for additional reflection, but I suggest that the factor of standardization (and phonology?) has received insufficient consideration in the
analysis of this feature.
j. "pR Negating the Infinitive
Ehrensvard (1999) recently argued that the frequency and usage of this
construction do not uphold the common view that it is a trait of LBH.52
k. Collective Nouns Construed as Plurals
The construal of collective nouns as plurals is frequently considered a
'late' feature of BH,53 but Young (1999; 2001 a) has investigated GU, mi?
and bnp, concluding that collective nouns should not be treated as an
undifferentiated group, and that current patterns of grammatical concord
may be due to non-chronological factors.
1 and m. The Quivis Construction and the Double Plural Construct-Chain
Formation
Gevirtz (1986: 29) has shown that 'neither is peculiar to the idiom of
LBH, but each finds precise counterparts in "Old Canaanite" dialects. The
evidence furthermore suggests.. .that each of these features constitutes no
51. The situation is similar in about half of the other occurrences of the unassimilated construction in the Hebrew Bible, but mostly preceding a word beginning with
N/n/nn.
52. For the standard view see e.g. Waltke and O'Connor 1990: 36.2.1g.
53. GKC: 145b-g, 146c; JM: 150e,p; Kropat 1909:28-30,72,74;Kutscher 1974:
399; Polzin 1976: 40-42,94-95, 103; Qimron 1986: 83; Rooker 1990a: 94-96; SaenzBadillos 1993: 118, 126.
Biblical Hebrew
232
more than a free variant of what has come to be regarded as the standard
syntactical construction'.54 Some books, however, do display a general
pluralizing tendency, of which the assimilation of a singular nomen rectum
to a plural nomen regens is an example.55 A case that scholars often cite,
which is also one of the most recurrent cases in the Bible, is [D^pTI[n]
('able, capable, efficient, strong') as the second member in a construct
formation. For the present discussion I leave aside the cases in which both
the nomen regens and nomen rectum are singular, as well as the cases in
which the nomen regens is "HK? or mpS, since in these latter instances the
following [D'']lTn[77] is best understood as 'army' or 'armies'. The relevant possibilities are:
VTI[n]
'EN
Dentil]
Vnp]
'KBR
m3J
D-^-ntn]
bTT[n]
mm
']3
D-'rnfn]
^3
Gen. 47.6; Exod. 18.21, 25; Judg. 20.44, 46; 2 Sam.

11.16; 2 Kgs 24.16; Isa. 5.22; Jer. 48.14; Nah. 2.4; Ps.
76.6; Qoh. 12.3; Neh. 11.6.
Josh. 1.14; 6.2; 8.3; 10.7; 2 Kgs 15.20; 24.14; Dan

3.20 (Aramaic); Neh. 11.14; 1 Chron. 5.24; 7.2, 9;
8.40; 9.13; 12.9, 22, 26, 31; 26.6, 31; 2 Chron. 14.7;
17.13, 14; 26.12.
1 Chron. 7.5, 7, 11, 40; 11.26 ('armies'?).
Deut. 3.18; Judg. 18.2; 21.10; 2 Sam. 2.7; 13.28;
17.10; 2 Kgs 2.16; 1 Chron. 5.18; 26.7, 9, 30, 32;
2 Chron. 26.17; 28.6.
The preponderance of the unassimilated construction in Chronicles, and its

exclusive occurrence elsewhere, are facts that seem in disagreement with
the standard view concerning the chronology of the construction, as
Gevirtz also argues. In addition, the alternation between the singular and
plural forms of the nomen rectum in 1 Chronicles 7, as well as, for example, rrra 'tZBK alongside VTT mm in both 1 Chron. 5.24 and 12.31,
or rmDDD nr in 2 Chron. 17.12 immediately prior to ^n mm in
2 Chron. 17.13,14,orD^p "IDN in 2 Chron. 26.14 just after ^H mm
in 2 Chron. 26.12, are facts that suggest that the attraction of a singular
54. On the quivis construction see GKC: 123c; JM: 136d; Kropat 1909: 13
Kutscher 1982: 82; Polzin 1976: 47-51, 94-95, 98-99, 103, 112; Qimron 1986: 81-82
Saenz-Badillos 1993: 118.
55. For the standard diachronic view see GKC: 124q; JM: 136o; Kropat 1909:
8-11; Kutscher 1982: 82; Polzin 1976: 42-43, 112; Rooker 1990a: 75-77; Saen
Badillos 1993: 117-18, 12
233
nomen rectum to a plural nomen regens in BH should be explained as free

variation rather than chronological development. I shall offer a detailed
study of these matters elsewhere.
n. Wayyiqtol and Posf-Weqatal
Scholars frequently affirm the gradual 'breakdown' of the 'Classical' verb
system in 'late' BH narrative which 'heralds the future Mishnaic Hebrew'.
In a lengthy investigation of this topic I have catalogued more than 30
recent statements describing (1) an increased frequency of past-vi^gata/
and a decrease ofwayyiqtol forms; (2) a routine replacement ofwayyiqtol
by past-weqatal (and also 0-qatal) forms in synoptic passages; and (3) an
elimination/reduction of the iterative/durative function of past-weqatal
forms.561 shall briefly respond to these statements in reverse order.57 The
third issue is beyond the scope of this essay, but even if one grants that
such a function should be assigned to the verb form itself, rather than to
the compositional situation as a whole, the occurrence of past-weqatal as a
component of an iterative/durative situation is equally apparent among the
65 examples of past-weqatal in the Hebrew portions of Esther-Chronicles
as it is among the 246 examples in the Former Prophets.58 The second
point is shown to be false in passages shared by Samuel-Kings and Chronicles.59 On 658 occasions Samuel-Kings and Chronicles each has a wayyiqtol form. On 17 occasions Samuel-Kings has a wayyiqtol form and
Chronicles has a 0-qatal form, and similarly on 17 occasions Chronicles
has a wayyiqtol form and Samuel-Kings has a 0-qatal form. On only two
occasions does Chronicles have a past-weqatal form that is parallel to a
56. See, e.g., Kropat 1909: 17-23; Kutscher 1982: 44-45, 75; Rooker 1990a:
100-102; Saenz-Badillos 1993: 120, 129.
57. For brief statements supportive of one or more of my responses see Dempster
1985: 266; Eskhult 1990:110-12,119; 2000: 84-85,92; Goldfajn 1998:136; Guenther
1977: 53, 196; Hughes 1970: 14, 23; Li 1999: 221; Loretz 1961; van Keulen 1996:
162-67; Van Peursen 1999: 137; Verheij 1990:92-120. The important contributions of
Rudolf Meyer are cited throughout these works.
5 8. Actually, a significant problem with many publications on past-weqatal is their
focus on usage in 1 Samuel, where the situation in which the verb form occurs could be
construed as iterative/durative in about 41 of 51 cases. However, the state of affairs is
very different in, for example, Judges and 2 Samuel, where only about half of the pastweqatal forms in each book occurs in a situation that could possibly be construed as
iterative/durative (8 of 16, and 13 of 27, respectively).
59. For a diagram showing the numbers of all parallel verb forms in Samuel-Kings
and Chronicles see Verheij 1990: 41.
234
Biblical Hebrew
wayyiqtol form in Samuel-Kings,60 but on six occasions Samuel-Kings

has a past-weqatal form that is parallel to a wayyiqtol form in Chronicles!61
The following points are a digested response to the first statement concerning frequency. (1) The total number ofpast-weqata++++++++++++
in Joshua (91), Samuel (78), Kings (61), Ezekiel (37), Jeremiah (36),
Exodus (33) and Chronicles (32).62 (2) The total number of wayyiqtol
forms is greatest in Samuel (2372), Kings (2254), Genesis (2103) and
Chronicles (1453).63 (3) As the following table shows,64 approximately
seven to eight of every ten finite verbs in narrative in Samuel are wayyiqtol
forms, and approximately six to seven of every ten finite verbs in narrative
in Kings and Chronicles are wayyiqtol forms, and the difference in number
is hardly significant. In discourse, however, Chronicles has a slightly
greater percentage of wayyiqtol forms than either Samuel or Kings, but
again the difference is insignificant. Finally, I shall argue elsewhere that
the synchronic factor of diglossia, especially the associated notion of'code
switching', accounts best for the sporadic emergence and functions of the
past-weqatal form in the Bible.
60. 2 Kgs 12.11//2 Chron. 24.11; 2 Kgs 23.6/72 Chron. 34.4.
61. 2 Sam. 6.16//1 Chron. 15.29; 2 Sam. 7.11//1 Chron. 17.10; 1 Kgs 3.11//2 Chron.
1.11; 2 Kgs 12.12//2 Chron. 24.12; 2 Kgs 18.4//2 Chron. 31.1 (twice).
62. I have located 610 past-weqatal forms in the Hebrew Bible, which make up
approximately 2% of all finite verb forms used for past time reference.
63. The smaller number of wayyiqtol forms in Chronicles is accounted for by
(1) the significant amount of lists/genealogies in 1 Chron. 1-9, 23-27, and (2) the
fewer number of finite verbs in 1 Chron. 10-22, 28-29; 2 Chron. 1-36. See Driver's
comment on 'heavy combined sentences' (S.R. Driver 1913a: 539) and Verheij's discussion of Chronicles' greater average number of words per clause (Verheij 1990:
33-37,42, 119).
64. My presentation corrects two flaws in Verheij's otherwise helpful monograph. I
give wayyiqtol forms as a percentage of all suffix, prefix and preterite verb forms, rather
than as a percentage of all finite and non-finite verb forms, and I distinguish between
narration (1 Chron. 10-22,28-29; 2 Chron. 1-36) and lists/genealogies (1 Chron. 1-9,
23-27) in the narrative portions of Chronicles. (I have counted the entirety of 1 Chron.
1-9, 23-27 as narrative, although 12 verses in these 14 chapters contain discourse:
4.9-10; 23.4-6,25-26,28-32. Also, note that in all of Samuel-Kings, only 1 Kgs 4 has
list material comparable to the 14 chapters of this nature in Chronicles, but this chapter
is 'verbally' insignificant since it has only five finite verb forms altogether.) Indeed,
Verheij warns that 'the lists will therefore probably distort the picture of the use of
verbs in general in Chronicles', but unfortunately he does not appear to have considered
this factor in the chapter of his book on the issues discussed here. See Verheij 1990
16, and note the absence of his sigla 1C* and C* in Chapter 8.1 shall take up these and
other related issues in another context.
235
Table 1. The Proportion o/Wayyiqtol Verb Forms

in Narrative and Discourse Settings
Narrative
Discourse
Total
Narrative
Discourse
Total
Narrative Synoptic
List
Narrative Synoptic
Non-List
Narrative NonSynoptic List
Narrative NonSynoptic Non-List
Discourse Synoptic
Discourse NonSynoptic
Total
Wayyiqtol
Forms
2204
168
2372
Wayyiqtol
Forms
2139
115
2254
Wayyiqtol
Forms
25
Samuel
All Finite
Forms
2795
1851
4646
Kings
All Finite
Forms
3026
1488
4514
Wayyiqtol Forms as a Percentage

of All Finite Forms
78.9
9.1
51.1
Wayyiqtol Forms as a Percentage
of All Finite Forms
70.7
7.7
49.9
Chronicles
All Finite Wayyiqtol Forms as a Percentage
Forms
of All Finite Forms
56
44.6
630
911
69.2
97
269
36.1
624
950
65.7
46
31
462
316
10.0
1453
2964
49.0
o. TT1 and Temporal Sequences
Scholars believe that in 'late' BH TH declined in frequency as part of a

decreasing use ofwayyiqtol, and that consequently the syntagm's role as
an introductory or preparatory formula preceding temporal constructions
expressed by D/D + infinitive construct was diminished. The evidence
cited for this view is generally threefold:65 (1) TP Vs frequent appearance
65. See, e.g., S.R. Driver 1892: 89-90,156-57,187; Eskhult 2000: 91-93; Hurvitz
1974a: 28-30; Kropat 1909: 22-23,73-75; Polzin 1976: 3,45-46,56-58,60-61,94-97,
104-105; Rooker 1990a: 103-105; Saenz-Badillos 1993: 119; Wright 1998: 66-72.
236
Biblical Hebrew
in certain 'earlier' books of the Bible is contrasted with its decreased frequency, or complete absence, in certain 'later' books of the Bible; (2) TH
CT in the 'earlier' language (Judg. 13.2; 17.1; 19.1; 1 Sam. 1.1; 9.1;
2 Sam. 21.20 [//I Chron. 20.6]) is contrasted with ITi! 2T in the 'later'
language (Job 1.1; Esth. 2.5); and (3) TH 's presence in temporal sequence
in the 'earlier' language is contrasted with its absence in parallel passages
written in the 'later' language (1 Kgs 8.547/2 Chron. 7.1; 2 Kgs 12.11//
2 Chron. 24.11; 2 Kgs 22.37/2 Chron. 34.8). I shall briefly respond to
several facets of these statements in reverse order.
(1) A close look at the three synoptic passages routinely cited in the
literature and at a fourth synoptic passage that is neglected shows that a
trend of 'replacement' does not occur in Chronicles.
1 Kgs 8.54:
2 Chron. 7.1:
mbm
m^mi
TH
2 Kgs 12.11:
DmK"O
TH
2 Chron. 24.11: DPIR-DI D'lbn T3 "[^QH mpB'^R jTWiTTIR N'T DID n m
Chronicles' reading lies within an expansion that in fact does begin with
TTI.
2 Kgs 22.3:
2 Chron. 34.8:
IH1^1 "p^b rt mtOI? riDDED

'm
IDâb
mt0I7 HDID^ ri3Km
Ironically, the construction with D + HDC? + numeral (not exclusively in this

order) but without the verb, as in Chronicles' passage, dominates in the
book of Kings 27 to 10(1).
2 Kgs 10.13:
2 Chron. 22.8:
NSQ
Rim
1
RJttri DNHK {V3~DI7 N1H BSBra 'm
This counter example to the supposed 'trend' seems virtually unknown.

This is the full extent of the synoptic 'evidence' for variation between
Samuel-Kings and Chronicles regarding TH in temporal sequences.
(2) On the one hand, it is impossible to address fully 2TK TTl in Judges
and Samuel without looking at textual variation, the typology and stylization of biblical book beginnings, the relationships and divisions between
biblical books, and the linguistic and literary relationships between biblical stories. On the other hand, TV! is used in the immediate context
of Job 1.1 and Esth. 2.5,66 and a compelling case can be made that the
(disjunctive) wording in each passage is related to the rhetoric of the
66. Job 1.3, 5, 6, 13; 2.1; 30.31; 42.7, 12, 13; Esth. 1.1; 2.7, 8; 3.4; 5.1,
237
introductions of Job and Mordecai, and this has absolutely nothing to do

with historical grammar.67
(3) I shall make available elsewhere a lengthy study that I have prepared
on ''m and on temporal sequences with and without this syntagm. In that
study I have thoroughly documented issues related to statistics, semantics,
stylistics, literary genre, first vs. third person perspective, discourse vs.
narrative, synoptic vs. non-synoptic usage, translation technique, textual
variation, editorial activity, other expressions of temporality in the Bible,
and the evidence provided by extra-BH of the First and Second Temple
Periods and by other Northwest Semitic languages. The results of my
analysis are that (a) there is strong evidence for vernacular versus literary
expressions of temporality in ancient Hebrew, and this variation is uniquely
reflected in different portions of the Bible, and that (b) 'late' composers
and editors ably created Hebrew texts using TH, and also in temporal
constructions that were supposedly not in the repertoire of post-exilic
Hebrew writers. For the moment I can confirm the gist of Rendsburg's
(1980a: 70) critique of Polzin: 'The figures presented by Polzin do not
show a tremendous decrease in the use of wayhi... That Chronicles uses
wayhi less than Kings is still correct, but the difference is not as great as
Polzin's statistics suggest.'
p. Chronicles' Vocabulary
I recently completed a preliminary study of common nouns68 in the book
of Chronicles for the purpose of judging the methodological reasonableness of certain lexicographical research procedures, especially the notions
of distribution and opposition/contrast, as advocated by Hurvitz and
others. The relevant issues are numerous, calling for extensive commentary, but the following brief remarks must suffice in this context. The book
of Chronicles makes up about 8% of the Bible and uses about 18% of the
67. On Esth. 2.5 see Anderson and Lichtenberger 1954: 840; Baldwin 1984: 65;
Clines 1984:286-87; Crawford 1999: 886; M.J. Fox 1991:29,185-86; Levenson 1997:
55-57; Moore 1971: 19-20; Paton 1992: 166-68. On Job 1.1 see Alden 1993: 43;
Andersen 1976: 78; Clines 1989: 9-10; Driver and Gray 1921: Part 2 ('Philological
Notes'), 1; Habel 1985: 71,85-86; Hartley 1988:65;K6nig 1897: 511;McCarter 1980:
51; Pope 1965: 3; Rowley 1978: 28; M. Weiss 1983: 17-20.
68. Nouns represent the largest class of words in Chronicles, as one expects, and
consequently they are most valuable for statistical and comparative analysis. There are
approximately 1850 noun lexemes, 400 verb lexemes, and 100 adjective lexemes (including numerals) in the book of Chronicles. The noun lexemes include approximately
1180 proper nouns and 670 common nouns.
238
Biblical Hebrew
Bible's common noun lexemes. Ninety of Chronicles' 670 common noun

lexemes do not occur in the books of Genesis-Kings.69 The most frequent
of these are DTl^HQ ('cymbal', 11 times), IHIJE ('west', seven times),
"USD ('bowl', six times), rniiSQ ('rampart', six times), fD ('byssus', five
times), nQ"l# ('heap', five times), PIT3 ('castle', four times) and "1K2?
('rest', four times). Of the remaining 82, seven occur on three occasions,
14 on two occasions, and 61 only once. Regarding the entire group of 90:
about one-third are labelled 'late' or 'later' in BDB, but the basis for these
labels is seemingly their occurrence in Chronicles as opposed to GenesisKings; about one-quarter may meet the criterion of opposition/contrast
with respect to another common noun lexeme in Genesis-Kings; about
one-third may have entered Hebrew from or through Aramaic; at least a
dozen are attested in Ugaritic; and not surprisingly, the usage domains are
mostly the legal-administrative sphere and cultic-religious sphere. In the
majority of cases it is uncertain what other term a writer of'Classical' BH
would have chosen to use if the need had presented itself. Thus far my
exploration of Chronicles' common noun lexemes has persuaded me that
lexicographical data must be used with much caution in investigations and
delimitations of diachronic strata in BH, and I shall deal with this issue in
the final section of this essay, to which I turn now.
3. Method
In the final part of this essay I wish to address five issues related to
research on the history of biblical language, and in particular on the
language of Samuel-Kings and Chronicles. My principal concerns are the
recognition of frequently overlooked presuppositions and the application
of more rigorous methodology.
(1) The study of the language of Samuel-Kings and Chronicles should
involve a comprehensive and unbiased investigation of features within
these books as well as throughout the Hebrew Bible. It is commonplace to
point out a single or several cases of 'replacement' in Chronicles vis-a-vis
Samuel-Kings and to develop from this observation a generalized'impression or statement concerning the historical development of a particular
linguistic feature of BH. In actual fact, however, the distribution and usage
69. In contrast, less than 30 of Chronicles' verb and adjective lexemes do not occur
in Genesis-Kings. The choice of Genesis-Kings may seem arbitrary, but it is a fact
that most scholars consider the majority of the material in these books to be pre-exilic.
Of course, opinions vary concerning 'P'.
239
of this or that feature throughout the entire Bible very often does not
sustain the view concerning chronological development that they are held
to substantiate. In addition, the investigation of the language of these
books should take account of both discontinuities and continuities. Discussions of the history of BH routinely take their point of departure from
the 'Classical' compositions. At the outset, forms and functions in these
materials are classified, and then a move is made to contrast the corresponding 'non-Classical' features. This procedure usually results in lists of
'departures' from the 'Classical' norm, many of which are then labelled
pejoratively as 'non-Classical', 'degenerate', 'uncouth', 'peculiarities', and
so on.70 In my view, this process is unsound, and in the end it prejudices
further investigation and exaggerates the differences between the two
corpora under investigation.
be liberated from assumptions concerning the literary composition and
development of these books, which assumptions also underlie most published studies of diachronic strata in BH. Very many views regarding
developments in BH are based on the assumptions that Chronicles postdates (by a substantial lapse in time), utilized and changed Samuel-Kings.
It is necessary to draw attention to four related issues, (a) This approach is
rooted more deeply in the appraisal of Chronicles' ideology and historical
reliability than of the book's language. In fact, Gesenius (1815) provided
the detailed philological support for the conclusions concerning the book
of Chronicles and the history of Israelite religion which de Wette (1806)
had argued a decade earlier.71 (b) Kropat's 'pioneering' and 'landmark'
Syntax (1909) is a cornerstone for the modern study of historical Hebrew
grammar,72 and is routinely cited by Hebraists and biblicists, but Kropat's
assumption was that the Chronicler used a proto-Masoretic text of SamuelKings, and consequently his modus operandi was to contrast the linguistic
features of synoptic passages, (c) I noted earlier that most scholars in
previous generations, and some scholars still today, assign the book of
Chronicles to the Hellenistic era (333-175 BCE), but today most assign it
to a late Persian setting (400-333 BCE), although many also give the book
70. For examples see the works that I cited at the beginning of the second section
this essay.
71. For de Wette's views on Chronicles see Graham 1990: 9-34 (34-36 on Gesenius); Peltonen 1996,1: 69-82 (83 on Gesenius); Rogerson 1985: 29-33 (52 on Gesenius); 1992: 55-57.
72. Japhet 1993: 41; Rooker 1988b: 207; 1990a: 28-29; 1990b: 134; 1994: 136.
240
Biblical Hebrew
an early Persian date (550-400 BCE). Hence the stretch from the earliest to
the latest dates suggested for the composition of the book covers a period
of nearly 400 years. More than four decades ago Freedman (1961: 436)
rightly declared concerning Chronicles that 'The scope, purpose, date, and
historical value of this work are all subject to violent debate... bordering
on chaos'. I would add that scholarly evaluations of the book's date are
based primarily on historical, ideological and literary issues rather than on
language.73 (d) I agree with Hurvitz that language should be given primary
consideration for the dating of biblical texts, but I do not share his confidence that the dating enterprise has in fact been carried out effectively on
this basis owing to literary-linguistic circularity. Hurvitz correctly asserts
that certain books of the Bible were written during the (exilic or) postexilic period (e.g. Chronicles), but he assumes that others were not written
then (e.g. Samuel). Or to rephrase this, he correctly asserts that certain
books of the Bible are 'non-chronologically problematic texts' (e.g. Chronicles is not pre-exilic), but he assumes as well that other books are also
'non-chronologically problematic texts' (e.g. Samuel is pre-exilic). I hope
to document Hurvitz' reasoning elsewhere,74 but the fact that other scholars
have arrived at a similar conclusion concerning literary-linguistic circularity reassures me that I have not misconstrued the issue.75
73. This is a significant issue which I shall document elsewhere. The prevailing
factors in most discussions are the literary relationship of Chronicles to Samuel-Kings,
and the literary unity of the book of Chronicles, especially the discernment of primary
and secondary literary features, with respect to 1 Chron. 1-9; 23-27; 29.7; 2 Chron.
8.3-4; 16.9; 26.15; 36.22-23that is, 14 non-synoptic chapters in 1 Chronicles, and the
words and/or contents of seven other verses. The evidence that is usually cited for the
date of the book can be arranged according to tradition and canon; citation and documentation; history and ideology; composition; and language. The linguistic issues are
the absence of Greek words; D']DTTK in 1 Chron. 29.7; mnoi in 2 Chron. 26.15; and
generalizations concerning orthographical, morphological, syntactical, and lexicographical features, especially so-called Aramaic and Mishnaic elements, and most
frequently with reference to the lists of features given in the contributions cited at the
beginning of the second section of this essay. For detailed discussions of opinions
concerning the dating of the book of Chronicles see Kalimi 1993; Peltonen 2001;
Steins 1995:52-59,491-99.
74. A start can be made by a careful reading of Hurvitz 1973: 74-76; 1974b: 25;
1983a: 93; 1995: 3-4; 2000a: 144-48.
75. See the words of Edelman, Garbini, Olafsson and Rosenberg, which are cited at
the beginning of this essay, and also Auld 1994: 9-10; Blenkinsopp 1996: 509-10;
Cryer 1994: 198; P.R. Davies 1995: 101; Ehrensvard 2000: 61; Verheij 1990: 5-6;
Wesselius 1999: 341.
241

make more space for the socio-linguistic factors of dialect and diglossia,
both of which at times have proven to account for linguistic diversity more
adequately than does the notion of chronological stratification.76 A handful
of scholars have called attention to northern and/or colloquial elements in
Chronicles and in other compositions traditionally identified as 'late'.
Gordon (1955a; 1955b) pointed out Ugaritic parallels to the Bible that are
limited to post-exilic prose, and argued that the language of (northern)
Israel influenced the Hebrew of post-exilic books such as Qoheleth, Esther
and Chronicles. Watson (1972) developed Gordon's brief remarks into a
14-page list of close parallels in vocabulary, grammar and style between
the language of the book of Chronicles and Northwest Semitic texts,
notably those from Ras Shamra. Hurvitz (1967) concluded that the 'shift'
from WD to y"Q in Chronicles reflects increased post-exilic contact with
the Northeast and the Aramaic language spoken there. Rabin (1958: 152)
said Chronicles' deviations from the SBH of its Vorlage are 'evidence of
changed stylistic taste' towards Imperial Aramaic. Adams (1987: 22)
suggested that the linguistic differences between Samuel-Kings and
Chronicles could represent diverse synchronic dialects of Hebrew, and
Sperber (1966: 229-34, 501-503) actually argued this view. P.R. Davies
(200 Ib) recently suggested that the difference in 'the two kinds of biblical
Hebrew' is related to the diverse socio-linguistic situations of Palestinian
and Babylonian scribes. Finally, Verheij (1990:29) discarded the consideration of dialectal differences and other paradigms in his monograph on
the frequency of verb forms in Samuel-Kings and Chronicles, but in a
subsequent reply to Cryer he admitted that historical development does not
necessarily follow from his conclusions, and that he adopted this position
because it emerged as a rather obvious one from the scholarly discussion
(Verheij 1997: 42). I noted above that at least a dozen of Chronicles' 90
'unique' noun lexemes are attested in Ugaritic, including DTlÛQ, which
is the most frequent of these, and which according to BOB and Polzin is a
76. For bibliography and summaries of work on dialect see Chen 2000; Rendsburg
2002a; O.K. Wilson 1996; Yoo 1999. On diglossia see Rendsburg 2002a; I. Young
1993. In several recent articles Fredericks (1996) and I. Young (1995; 1997) have
convincingly argued on the bases of distribution and function that a number of linguistic features heretofore considered regional/dialectal variations must rather be
attributed to colloquial language varieties. Fredericks' (1996:20) suggestion that 'What
is northern about North Israelite texts is perhaps an attitude toward colloquialisms in
transcribing that literature which is not matched by Judean scribal peers' merits considerable attention.
242
Biblical Hebrew
'later' equivalent of D^H^H. I also suggested earlier in this essay, and

shall argue in detail elsewhere, that the factor of diglossia best explains the
distribution and function of past-^qatal and temporal sequences without
TH in these books and elsewhere.
consistently consider explanations related to editorial and scribal practices11 for similarities and differences between these books, and this is
especially true for synoptic material. My doctoral project is a textual, stylistic and literary analysis of portions of (mainly) the Hebrew and Greek
versions of Samuel and Chronicles, in which I employ a textual-exegetical
methodology for explaining the relationships and redactional developments of the accounts.78 As the project has advanced I have come to doubt
more and more that the elucidation of chronological developments in BH
can be undertaken apart from the consideration of 'higher critical' issues,
and that it can be based exclusively on the MT.791 concur with W. Chomsky
(1957: 30) that 'The literary control on linguistic change is particularly
marked when, as in the case of the Hebrew language, the common literature is integrated with the religious traditions and experiences of
the people'.80 Archaism, modernization, and especially uniformatization
77. See especially I. Young 1992b; 1998b; 1999; 200la; 200Ib; 200Ic. Also see
Auld 1994: 9-10.
78. The twentieth-century breakdown of the 'textual-exegetical' endeavour is
chronicled by Goshen-Gottstein (1983), but has undergone a resurgence in recent
decades in the writings of a few scholars, most notably J.C. Trebolle Barrera (1980;
1984b; 1989; and 1982; 1984a for briefer studies in English). I discuss the work of
other scholars in my doctoral project.
79. Hurvitz (1973: 74) is predictably cited in support of both these views. In
another context I shall address Hurvitz' methodology in conjunction with his analysis
of 1 Sam. 2.1-10//Ps. 113.5-9, in which he argues (contra Freedman 1978) that the
former is the 'original' and the latter is an 'imitation' (Hurvitz 1985). My question for
Hurvitz is this: In what sense is the 'text' or 'composition' of MT 1 Sam. 2.1-10 'preexilic' or 'original' in view of the clear evidence of the late stage of development in the
MT Samuel version of the Song of Hannah? Among many publications on the Song,
see especially Tov 1997.
80. His words resonate in the writings of many scholars, e.g., Bauer and Leander
1922:25-26; Bergstrasser 1918,1:11; Waltke and O'Connor 1990: 1.4.1. Ullendorff s
comments concerning biblical Hebrew as a 'linguistic fragment' are pertinent (Ullendorff 1977). It would be helpful to review scholars' depictions of BH as relatively
uniform or diverse, and to discuss the notions of Mischsprache and Bildungssprache. I
think contradictory appraisals, or at least very different emphases, are related to the
extent that a particular scholar interprets the data either through diachronic lenses or
with a view to dialect, diglossia, and editorial and scribal factors.
243
('levelling, smoothing, standardizing') are significant issues. In addition,

specialized ('standard, formal, high') literary language would have stimulated linguistic uniformity, the 'Classical' norm, whereas sporadic or
sustained recourse to colloquial or dialectal language varieties related to
genre or rhetoric would have given rise to linguistic diversity, or divergence from the 'Classical' form.81 I wish to highlight three significant
related issues, (a) I am not certain that Chronicles' principal Vorlage was
Samuel-Kings, but given that this is the scholarly consensus, it is
necessary to keep in mind that Chronicles' Vorlage was not the proto-MT
of Samuel-Kings. Earlier scholars, and some scholars still today, assumed
that the Chronicler used a text much like that reflected in MT SamuelKings, and attributed the differences between the two to the composer's
rewriting. A dramatic change in thought has come about in the past half
century. Many recent commentaries on Chronicles acknowledge that the
Vorlage of Chronicles was not identical to the text of MT Samuel-Kings.
This view was forcefully championed from the early 1950s by Cross on
the heels of the Qumran discoveries,82 and three subsequent Harvard
dissertations on Chronicles (Letnke 1964; R.W. Klein 1966; McKenzie
1984) and two on Samuel (Ulrich 1979; Nysse 1984) have supported his
thesis. In recent years others have offered corroborative evidence, and the
cumulative result of these studies is that it is unacceptable to 'discredit'
the Chronicler with many tendentious deviations from his Vorlage. (b) I
argue in my doctoral project that many details related to the content and
shape of MT Samuel, and especially that version's distinctive readings in
synoptic passages shared with Chronicles, are late editorial developments
that constitute a literary layer with a specific revisionary target. This conclusion should not necessarily come as a surprise since the book of Chronicles has held an inferior position in the annals of Jewish and Christian
scholarly activity from the earliest times to the present day (Ben Zvi 1988;
Japhet 1999; Kalimi 1998).83 This marginalized doublet was/is considered
a contradictory repetition and/or supplement marked by less importance,
reliability and authority, and worthy of less attention and use, than its
counterparts in the Former Prophets. The evidence indicates that the book
81. Linguistic diversity related to rhetoric is mentioned or discussed in Baumgartner 1959: 228; Clendenen 1987: 405-408; Gianto 1996; Hurvitz 1983b; Kaufman
1988: 54-56; Rendsburg 1991b: 92-97; 1996; 1998; 2002b; I. Young 1992a; 1995.
82. See, for example, his reprinted articles in Cross and Talmon 1975. Of course,
on the basis of the versions (esp. Greek) some scholars had suggested that this was the
case more than a century before the discovery of the Qumran scrolls.
83. Also see Trebolle Barrera 2000.
244
Biblical Hebrew
was studied, revised, transmitted, and copied differently and less frequently than the books of Samuel and Kings. Consequently, the textual
fluidity and multiformity that are evident in the early versions of Samuel
and Kings are not characteristic of the early versions of Chronicles. The
effect of all this is that many details in synoptic passages are more primitive texrually in Chronicles but are (ironically) more 'Classical' linguistically in Samuel-Kings.84 (c) The risk involved in 'blindly' comparing
details in Samuel-Kings and Chronicles for the purpose of elucidating
historical developments in the language of BH is amplified by several
other limitations.85 (i) A common view is that the post-exilic corpus of
biblical writings is mostly comprised of the books of Jonah, HaggaiMalachi, Ruth-Qoheleth and Esther-Chronicles,86 yet altogether these
books make up less than one-fifth of the Bible, and Chronicles represents
nearly one-half of the corpus.87 In my view these facts make it somewhat
precarious to speak with absolute confidence about the stages of BH.
84. This is a fascinating topic that should be addressed along with the issues of
mixed language and 'archaisms' in Chronicles, on which see the dissimilar views of
Polzin 1976: 10,159;Hurvitz 1982:26-27 (and nn. 11-13), 80-81 (and n. 83), 108, and
more recently 2000c: 185-88 ('The Methodological Aspect: The Merger of Old and
New in LBH'). In an essay largely dealing with the views of Gerleman (1948), Talmon
(1951: 146) says the book of Chronicles 'has long been recognised as embodying a
systematised text. In this very book, more than in others, including Sam.-Kings, scholars have discovered emendations of late editors who intended to produce a linguistically
and exegetically straightforward text'. On the contrary, in some ways MT SamuelKings are more 'polished' whereas MT Chronicles is more 'erratic', and this situation is
probably due to later revisers' interest in the former books but not the latter, as Gerleman also argues.
85. Hurvitz' comments regarding synoptic material are also germane, although I do
not think he would wish to apply them to the parallel passages in Samuel-Kings and
Chronicles. In any case, he addresses the problems of a possible common source, difficulty in deciding direction of influence, and late editorial activity which could archaise
or use material from earlier sources (Hurvitz 1982: 13-18). Polzin objects to the
comparison of synoptic material, although curiously he sometimes uses differences in
parallel texts for specifying late language (Polzin 1976:41,46,53,58,62). Some other
scholars agree with Polzin in excluding duplicate passages, e.g., Rendsburg 1980a: 66;
Throntveit 1982: 207.
86. Of course, the debate over some of these books, and also over 'P' and certain
(portions of) other books in the Latter Prophets and Writings, is well known.
87. The problem is complicated further by the fact that Haggai-Malachi and Ruth
show no clear signs of lateness: 'if the language of these texts can be post-exilic, it
follows that all texts of this group can be post-exilic too, including Gen-2Kgs'
(Ehrensvard 2000: 67; cf. 65-67).
245
(ii) The synoptic material makes up about 40% of the book of Chronicles,
but only about 5% of Samuel and 15% of Kings (Polzin 1976: 27-28;
Verheij 1990: 31). The comparison of this synoptic material is a standard
modus operandi for defining the content and shape of LBH, since 'from a
methodological perspective, it is easier to begin by using Kropat's technique' (Saenz-Badillos 1993: 116 n. 11). However, in my view the methodological 'ease' is outweighed by the limited scope of the material, as
well as by the other complexities I have discussed.
concentrate on grammar (morphology and syntax) rather than lexicography, and this focus is methodologically proper for investigating diachronic
developments in BH in general.88 The balance of Hurvitz' evidence for
LBH, and to a lesser extent the evidence adduced by Bergey and Rooker,89
is lexicographical. As far as I am aware, only Rooker (1990a: 58-59, cf.
31-32) has sought to defend this methodology against criticisms, saying,
Indeed, no such hierarchical bifurcation of criteria exists in linguistic
literature... Since this distinction is without foundation we believe lexicographical change should be recognized as being on equal footing with
grammatical-syntactical developments in attempts to describe language
change.
Rooker's remarks are unfounded. Research should focus on grammar for

the following reasons, (a) Rooker's denial of a 'hierarchical bifurcation of
criteria' is contradicted by general linguistic theory, and more specifically,
by the concepts of complexity in language and synchronic variation in
language. Language is complex (Crystal 1997: 83,95), and consequently it
is customary to study it using models of language structure which may
vary in their number of levels. The four-level model is among the most
widely used: phonetics, phonology, grammar (morphology and syntax)
and semantics (lexicon and discourse). On the one hand, these linguistic
levels are interrelated, and therefore to some extent their demarcation is
88. Biblical scholars have effectively neglected the study of grammar, especially
syntax, in diachronic investigations of BH. I shall not list the major exceptions here.
For statements advocating the need to develop and focus on this area of research see
Adams 1987: 7-8,14; Blenkinsopp 1996: 506,509-12; W. Chomsky 1957: 160; Cryer
1994:198; Eskhult 1990: 14-15,199; Fredericks 1988: 27-28,256; A.E. Hill 1981:45,
84-86; Isaksson 1987: 192-93; Levine 1981: 70; Nicholson 1998:220; Polzin 1976:2,
5-7, 15-18, 123-24, 159-60; Qimron 1992: 353 n. 10; Rendsburg 1980a: 80; Schoors
1992: 41, 221; Throntveit 1982: 208; Verheij 1990: 3; Zevit 1982: 494.
89. Bergey's (1983) and Rooker's (1988a) doctoral projects were completed under
the influence of Hurvitz.
246
Biblical Hebrew
artificial, but on the other hand, the notion of levels seems to have empirical validity in psychological and neurological contexts. The widely used
five-rank hierarchy of syntactic investigation is equally illustrative: morpheme, word, phrase, clause and sentence, with the morpheme at the lower
limit and the sentence at the upper limit of grammatical enquiry; and
beyond this the investigation focuses on discourse. Finally, language
complexity may also be illustrated by discussions of child language acquisition, second language acquisition, and studies in aphasia. Turning to
synchronic variation,90 it is simple to illustrate the orderliness of language
in the realm of grammar as opposed to variability in the lexicon. For
example, consider Noam Chomsky's 'Colorless green ideas sleep furiously', or a simple sentence such as 'I went to the home' with 'house' or
'residence' or 'dwelling' etc. instead of 'home', but not as *'Me goed to
the home', and so on. The bottom line is this: grammar is more complex
and invariable than the occurrence or non-occurrence of particular words,
(b) Rooker's denial of a 'hierarchical bifurcation of criteria' is contradicted by the perspectives and procedures followed by scholars in the field
of historical linguistics:91
Vocabulary items tend to be added, replaced, or changed in meaning more
rapidly than any other aspect of language. (Aitchison 1994: 16)
Words can be taken very freely from one language into another, with very
little, if any, effect on the rest of the grammar or lexicon of the borrowing
language. The vocabulary or lexicon is the most unstable part of any language, and words may be picked up or discarded as a given community
feels the need. (Arlotto 1981: 184)92
Change in the lexicon can be largely accounted for by simple addition of
items and relationships, or, less frequently, by the desuetude and loss of
particular words: by hypothesis no examples of loss should spring to mind,
but words like skylon,frut or teenage slang of the 30s might be candidates.
The issue is not so clear-cut, however, with syntactic or morphological
change. (Smith and Wilson 1980: 209)
90. See, e.g, Bloomfield 1933: 207; Hopper and Traugott 1993: 1-2; Trask 1999:
53-54.
91. In addition to the material cited here, further statements and illustrations are
available in Bynon 1996:216,231; Crystal 1997: 330; Hock and Joseph 1996:215-16;
Lehman 1962: 212; Liles 1975: 286, 293; Trask 1994: 72; 1996: 17, 309.
92. Common nouns are by far the most frequently borrowed class of words (Arlotto
1981: 187).
247
It is often said that there is less resistance to change in the semantics than in
other areas of the grammar... so that meaning changes relatively quickly
and easily. Most native speakers will thus be aware of semantic changes
which have taken place within their lifetime: for instance, the English word
gay meant 'bright, cheerful' before the 1960s, and now generally means
'homosexual', while ongoing changes in English might include the movement of the sense of flaunt towards that of flout, as in recent press allegations that businessmen have flaunted the laws on share dealing... According
to Winter...'no component of a natural language is totally immune to
change under the impression of outside languages. However, not all components appear to be equally susceptible to such changes'. In general, the
lexicon is more easily and radically affected, followed by the phonology,
morphology and finally the syntax. (McMahon 1994: 174-75, 209)
These statements affirm and illustrate historical linguists' view about

stability in grammar vs. flexibility in lexicon. Languages are very tolerant
of synchronic and diachronic change in the realm of the lexicon, and
consequently historical linguists greatly prefer to deal with the more
'orderly' structure of language, (c) The lexical stock of the Bible is very
restricted such that the approximately 8000 lexemes it contains must
represent a somewhat limited portion of the vocabulary in regular use in
spoken and written ancient Hebrew.93 This is also indicated to some extent
by the absence, or the occurrence with a different meaning, in BH of
lexical items which occur in Hebrew inscriptions94 or which are shared by
Ugaritic and 'late' or post-BH.95 In contrast, the grammatical stock of the
Bible does not suffer this limitation, (d) The vocabulary of'late' BH is not
markedly different to that of the rest of the Bible, as indicated already in
my brief comments on common noun lexemes in Chronicles and GenesisKings. Elwolde investigated developments in Hebrew vocabulary between
Bible and Mishnah and concluded:
This leads us into the issue of'LBH' ('Late Biblical Hebrew'). As before, if
'LBH' is nothing more than a terminological convenience for the Hebrew
of the books written in the post-exilic period, it is innocuous. And if it
simply stands for the 'three percent' of new words in those writings, it is
both innocuous and trivial (unless of course the proportion of new words to
old is much greater than one in thirty-three, which I doubt). But if it stands
93. Barr 1968: 224-27; Burney 1918: 171; North 1999: 204-207; Saenz-Badillos
1993: 74-75; Ullendorff 1977: 9; I. Young 1993: 170-71. Figures for each part of
speech in the Bible are given in, e.g., TLOT, III: 1447.
94. For some examples see Sarfatti 1982: 73-80.
95. For detailed discussion of several examples see Levine 1962.
248
Biblical Hebrew
for a discrete phase of the Hebrew language that is significantly different
from preceding and succeeding phases, then, from a lexical perspective, it is
unsound... (Elwolde 1997: 51-52, cf. 4S-55)96
(e) Changeability or unevenness in the lexicon of a language may be

explained by many factors. Where do new words come from? Borrowing
(i.e. language contact), creation, and modification (i.e. semantic change).
What factors may account for the presence and absence of lexical items?
Exact synonymy; gain or loss of objects, concepts and activities; social
prestige or luxury loans; negative evaluation (i.e. to be derogatory); taboo,
and so on. Consideration must also be given to a writer's level of learning;
desire to archaize or innovate; aesthetic preference; style of writing; purpose in writing; subject matter; literary genre; and environment, including
geographic location and association with a particular group or profession.
Another significant factor is randomness of attestation.97 Dialect and
diglossia may also explain variation in terminology. More specifically,
northern (Israelian) and southern (Judean) dialects of Hebrew were
unquestionably distinctive throughout the first millennium BCE due to
regional necessities and influences and perhaps also to ideological differences and traditions. The notion of diglossia opens the door to viewing
certain lexical items as characteristic of either the colloquial or literary
realm of ancient Hebrew, and perhaps related to official vs. non-official
communication, lower vs. upper class speech patterns, or Aramaized vs.
non-Aramaized linguistic strata.98 In addition, the notion of diglossia also
96. Van Peursen's (1999: 356-57) analysis of the verb system in Ben Sira supports
Elwolde's conclusion that Ben Sira is one of four 'Classical' Hebrew corpora, the other
three being the Hebrew Bible, the Dead Sea Scrolls and the Hebrew epigraphic material: the verb system of Ben Sira 'conforms to a large extent to the verbal system of
CH'.
97. This is true even for a language as well known as Akkadian: 'It is important to
emphasize that these chronological and geographical categories cannot reflect the real
distribution of each word's usage, only its attestations. The periods listed refer only to
the texts from which the word is known to us, not to the periods in which the word may
really have been used. In the course of preparing the CDA one of the commonest
changes from AHw [Wolfram von Soden's Akkadisches Handworterbuch] has been
the addition of new period attestations, and we can be confident that as new texts are
found many of our words will turn up outside their presently known range of dialect
and time' (Black, George and Postgate 2000: xiii [emphasis in original]). I thank Alan
Lenzi for bringing this quote to my attention.
98. On difficulties in dealing with Aramaisms in BH, both identifying and dating
them, see I. Young 1993: 54-63, 66-72, 73-96 (esp. 85-86,93). Views on a number of
249
opens the door to explaining some occurrences as intentional code switches

for the purpose of emphasis, focus and the like. Finally, editorial and
scribal practices may account for variation in terminology. The books of
the Bible were formed and collected over a substantial period of time.
Hence it is important to recognize that vocabulary is salient (i.e. prominent, as on the surface of a text), and as a result can be readily changed by
later hands. The Bible is neither a unitary nor uniform composition, thus
the process of formation of the biblical canon, stylizing and standardizing
trends, urges to assimilate and dissimilate, and inner-biblical exegesis and
polemic, may each have a part to play in explaining occurrences and nonoccurrences of particular lexical items. Therefore, the study of the language
of Samuel-Kings and Chronicles should concentrate on grammatical features, which provide a more reliable and efficient basis for chronological
analysis than do lexicographical features."
4. Conclusion
One aim of this essay is to prompt scholars to (re-)ask certain questions: Is
it possible to date biblical texts apart from historical and literary assumptions? Can biblical texts be dated on the basis of linguistic criteria? Should
the language of Chronicles be considered the benchmark of LBH? Is there
a linguistic basis for a chronological distinction between the language of
Chronicles and the language of Samuel-Kings? The answers offered for
these questions now appear inadequate in view of more thorough descriptions of the evidence and more frequent recourse to non-chronological
explanations such as dialect, diglossia, and editorial and scribal activities.
Another aim of this essay is to encourage a re-evaluation of the methods
and conclusions of de Wette and Kropat, the two most pivotal figures for
the literary and linguistic study of the book of Chronicles. Auld's thesis
has caused some scholars to look again at some questions and answers
regarding the language and composition of Samuel-Kings and Chronicles.
lexical items are reviewed in Walker 1986. Hurvitz 1968 is a very important contribution.
99. Polzin 1976: 123-24. Other topics which I would like to discuss are semantic
change in addition to lexical replacement; the definition, rate and mechanisms of language change; the inter-relationship of changes in different linguistic levels; transitional
language with reference to Rooker's (1990a) analysis of Ezekiel; and mixed language
and 'archaisms' with reference to Polzin's and Hurvitz' views, mentioned above. See
Naude (2000c) for a helpful critique of Rooker's book.
250
Biblical Hebrew
I believe the best starting point for comprehending the relationship(s)

between these books is a meticulous, comprehensive and dispassionate
textual, stylistic and literary analysis of their content and shape. I also
believe it will remain unsafe to label the book of Chronicles 'an obvious
witness of late Biblical Hebrew' until such an analysis has been completed.
THE HABITAT AND HISTORY OF HEBREW

DURING THE SECOND TEMPLE PERIOD*
David Talshir
An intriguing and frequently discussed development in the history of postBH is the co-existenceduring a short period at the end of the first
millenium BCE, within the small area of Jerusalem and its environsof
two distinct varieties of the language: LBH, including QH, and proto-TH
(TH being the Mishnaic Hebrew of the Tanna'im).
The present paper addresses this phenomenon once again and attempts
to provide an explanation in historical perspective.
1. Biblical Hebrew in Second Temple Times
Scholars usually tend to minimize the autonomous status of LBH. Many
view it as RH in CBH garb;1 however, a thorough study of the latest biblical booksKoheleth, Esther, Daniel, Ezra-Nehemiah, and Chronicles2
reveals that their language differs from both CBH and RH,3 in grammar
and syntax. As for the vocabulary, more than two thirds of new forms and
phrases occuring in the late biblical books (compared with CBH) are
absent from the literature of the Tanna'im.4
The contemporary prophets underscore the difficult conditions obtaining
at that time and hindering genuine change or progress: 'You have sowed
* For a previous Hebrew version of this study, see D. Talshir 1993.
1. Segal (1936:12) evaluates the language of the late biblical books in the following terms: 'There is no doubt that Biblical Hebrew was no longer the spoken tongue of
their authors, but rather a literary language. They learned it and endeavoured to use it
artificially.' Rabin (1970: 316) repeats this almost verbatim in his synoptic article on
Hebrew. Kutscher (1982: 48) maintains: 'Most of the new verbs and forms that show
up in LBH are common in MH.' See also Hurvitz 1997b: 24-25.
2. Except for Koheleth, these books reflect some connection to Babylon.
3. See, e.g., D. Talshir 1986; 1987a.
4. See, in the meantime, D. Talshir 1987a: 163-64.
252
Biblical Hebrew
much and brought in little... That is why the skies above you have withheld
moisture and the earth has withheld its yield' (Hag. 1.6-10). Zechariah too
speaks of'a day of small beginnings' (4.10). This situation persisted even
decades later, as reported by Hananiah, Nehemiah's brother: 'The survivors who survived the captivity there in the province are in dire trouble
and disgrace' (Neh. 1.3). Perhaps one of the reasons for this was the limited quantity of the first returning exiles in the sixth century BCE.
Archeological evidence shows that the land of Judah was thinly populated throughout the whole of the sixth century BCE,5 and the first returnees
of the last third of the sixth century did not leave their mark on local
cultural patterns (E. Stern 1977).
In contrast, the return migration of the fifth century BCE in Ezra's time
entailed real change in many respects. The archeological evidence shows a
large building boom with accelerated settlement in already existing population centers beside the establishment of new centers.6 The difference
between the previous situation and the new one can be clearly observed in
the realm of material culture. From the fifth century onward, architectonic
innovations in building methods may also be noted. New and diversified
tools and vessels made of metal and clay increase. Tools for arts and crafts
emerge,7 as do new implements of worship, coins of various kinds, and a
variegated system of weights. Changes in the political field are attested by
stamp seals and by coins with a unique style (see E. Stern 1983), and by a
system of fortifications set up along the border on the south and west of
the Province of Yehud which attest to the existence of a strong political
leadership which had arisen in Yehud in the middle of the fifth century
BCE.8
The books of Ezra-Nehemiah also testify to a substantial change in

Yehud in this period. The leadersEzra and Nehemiahare described as
active in both building and settlement, as well as in social and religious
reforms.9 The returnees seem to have been the majority of the Judean
5. E. Stern 1984: 82-83. He is inclined to accept Alt's view that Yehud was not an
independent administrative unit from the time of Zerubbabel until the time of Nehemiah. See also Weinberg 2000: 308.
6. As detailed in E. Stern 1977.
7. E. Stern (1982: 4) indicates that even with respect to the models of winedrinking vessels, the Persian period is divided into two sub-periods. The dividing line
comes towards the end of the fifth century BCE.
8. See E. Stern 1977: 22-23; Kallai 1983: 78.
9. Such as the expulsion of non-Judean wives (Ezra 10; Neh. 13) and making the
pledge (Neh. 10.1). Baer (1964: 310) points out that the sanctified custom of making
TALSHIR The Habitat and History of Hebrew
253
population, since the people is referred to as KTIpH IT1T ('the holy seed',
Ezra 9.2), HÛ bnp ('the congregation of the returning exiles', Ezra 10.8),
and ^tniZT IT1T ('the stock of Israel', Neh. 9.2).10
A significant national awakening took place in the middle of the fifth
century BCE in the Judean communities still in exile. Bickermann (1978)
shows that the long-standing Judean inhabitants of Nippur, most of whom
had clearly non-Judean names (chiefly Babylonian), suddenlyaround the
middle of the fifth centuiybegin giving their children Judean theophoric
names.1' This bears witness to a trend against syncretism and to an intensified national consciousness.12 The national awakening was probably
encouraged by Artaxerxes I who wanted to settle loyal Judeans in Yehud
after the pact with Greece in 460 BCE (Tadmor 1969:165; M. Smith 1971:
127). Thus, both biblical and archeological evidence suggests that the first
groups of returnees at the beginning of the Persian period did not bring
about a substantial change in the Judean way of life. Despite the encouragement of the Second Temple prophets and the great hopes entertained
around the rebuilding of the Temple, no large groups of returnees from
Babylon reached Yehud, and hence no noticeable change materialized.
Only several generations later, in the middle of the fifth century BCE, did a
great national awakening occur among the Judean exiles of Babylonia.
Now, under the auspices of a firm leadership, thousands of returnees suffused with great enthusiasm arrived and brought about a change in the way
the wood-offering was accepted in the time of Nehemiah (Neh. 10.35), and was in
effect until the time of the destruction of the Temple. Mantel (1983: 46, 224) claims
that among the innovations of Ezra was the application of the law of the priests to
every man in Israel. Hence the ban on marrying non-Judean women.
10. Talmon (1983: 36) argues that since the returnees called themselves 'Sons of
the Exile', the term 'exile', which is negative in nature, gained a positive meaning. It
was now viewed as a kind of honorific title separating those who had merited making a
new covenant with their God from the inhabitants that did not have a part in the
Covenant.
11. For example, Bekuballit calls his son by the name of Nathania. Accordingly,
names such as Zerubbabel and Sheshbazzar characterize the period prior to the turnabout, while no pagan names appear among those who returned with Ezra, several
generations later. See Bickermann 1984: 356.
12. M. Smith (1971) argues that, in the period of the Return, the people were divided into two parties: the local inhabitantsmu~l^n "013 ('the people of the land')
who did not go into captivity and were syncretistic, and the returnees~h"\yn ""3D
('sons of the exile')who belonged to the 'Yahweh alone' party. Eventually, at the
time of Nehemiah, the influence of the 'sons of the exile' increased and they pushed
their opponents aside.
254
Biblical Hebrew
of life in the country by settling in large numbers throughout all parts of

Yehud and by a real cultural and social revolution.13
Linguistic evidence would also seem to support a turning point towards
the middle of the fifth century rather than during the first waves of return.
The prevalent opinion among scholars is that the borderline dividing CBH,
that is 'Golden Age' Hebrew, from LBH, that is 'Silver Age' Hebrew, is
the period of the first wave of returning exiles. In Hurvitz' words:
In the sixth century BCE a very significant turn took place in the history of
the Hebrew language; in texts that were written thereafter, clearly distinctive linguistic traits show up that cannot be found in the earlier Hebrew
sources.14
However, it is difficult to detect a substantial linguistic change in the

texts attributed to the sixth century BCE. The language of books written
during the exile and at the beginning of the Second Temple period does
not differ significantly from CBH. While several late traits appear in books
such as Haggai, Zechariah, or deutero-Isaiah, their language does not really
diverge from CBH. S.R. Driver made this point clear:
The real change in Hebrew style does not begin till a later age altogether;
many parts of Ezek. (e.g. c[hapter] 20) and even Haggai and Zechariah, do
not show more substantial signs of lateness than P. The change is beginning
(c. 450) in the memoirs of Nehemiah and in Malachi; but Aramaisms and
other marks of lateness (esp. in syntax) are abundant only in works written
after this dateEsther, Chron., Eccl., etc.15
CBH continued to be the language of Yehud throughout the exile and, in

fact, until the return of Ezra in the middle of the fifth century. The turning
13. The number of returning exiles in the biblical lists of returnees surpasses
40,000, a number that probably comprises various groups of returning exiles. See
Talmon 1983: 35. Bright (1960: 344) assumes that the list of returnees in Ezra 2
(= Neh. 7) actually refers to the exiles who returned with Ezra. Since the archeological
evidence shows a far-reaching change in material culture that began in the middle of
the fifth century BCE, and especially the great expansion of the Judean population in
this period, there are grounds to assume that the lion's share of the returnees mentioned
in the genealogical lists were from the time of Ezra and Nehemiah, and that their
numbers in relation to the number of local inhabitants of Judah in that period were
relatively large.
14. Hurvitz 1983c: 210. Ben Yehuda (1948: 83) observes: 'The destruction of the
kingdom of Judah, which was a political break of the nation, was likewise a linguistic
break'.
15. S.R. Driver 1913a: 156; Ben Yehuda 1948: 90-95; Torrey 1930: 85.
255
point in the linguistic development of Hebrew did not come about with the
returnees during the reigns of Cyrus or Darius, but rather about four generations after Zerubbabel, in the reign of Artaxerxes I, as a large and dominant group of exiles made their way from Babylonia. The exiles in the
time of Jehoiachin, Zedekiah and 'Second Isaiah' adhered to CBH, but
their languagecut off from its source of growthgradually developed in
Babylonia, imbibing its unique traits from the Aramaic speaking environment.
The first contact between the language of the exiles and that of the local
inhabitants of Judah, after only some 50 years of exile, did not occasion
significant linguistic changes. After all: 'Many of the.. .old men who had
seen the first house' were present at 'the founding of this house' (Ezra
3.12). Things were different in the second encounterin the fifth centurybetween the local Hebrew and the language of the returnees: after
almost a century in Babylonia, the changes in the former were many and
significant.
We may say by way of conjecture: the returnees in Ezra's time, whose
parents had had time to grow accustomed over the years to the way of life
in Babylonia, abandoned their places of residence in masses, not for
economic reasons, but for ideological ones. Once given the opportunity,
they preferred to live once again in their own homeland and close to the
Lord's Temple. As already mentioned, their national awakening and their
religious zeal are attested, both by their return to Judean theophoric names
in exile and by extreme socio-religious reforms. This may indicate that the
returnees were active in Judah, and even if they did not carry the local
inhabitants along in their enthusiasm, they were able to impose their will
on them.16 The activities of the returnees from Babylonia were a combination of extreme conservatism and far-reaching innovations (E. Stern
1977: 24). Apparently, this was also the gist of their language. They
retained the structure of the language, patterns, modes of expression, but at
the same time produced variegated grammatical and lexical innovations.
It seems that the Babylonian exiles played a considerable role in the
development of LBH; without their energetic influence, Hebrew would
have developed differently.
16. Grintz (1969: 36) rightly pointed out that all the great leaders from the time of
the Return to Zion until the time of Nehemiah were Babylonian exiles rather than local
inhabitants.
256
Biblical Hebrew
2. The Borders of the Province ofYehud
What is the origin of TH, and how did the substantial gap between LBH
and THin both grammar and vocabularycome about? Two traits stand
out among the characteristics of TH: its suitability to the everyday needs
of a spoken language and its being a systematic, homogenous language. In
order for such an organized and structured language to be created, a period
of hundreds of years of crystallization is required. The only reasonable
explanation would be that TH and LBH existed side by side for hundreds
of years.
a. The Separation of the Lowlands ofJudahfrom Yehud
There are several pieces of evidence indicating that from the Persian to the
Hasmonean period the western borderline of the Province ofYehud was
located on the slopes of'the mountain country' of Judah, while to the west
of it, between the Yarkon on the north and Nahal Sorek on the south, the
land belonged to another province (Avi-Yonah 1984: 22).
This political separation was probably based on the natural border that
divides 'the mountain country' ("inn) from 'the lowlands' (n^SO!).17
Archeological evidence of the Persian period clearly shows that, as Stern
puts it: 'a great distinction existed at that time between the material culture
of the Judean mountain country and that of the lowlands, where a completely different international culture was found' (E. Stern 1977:24). And
more emphatically, 'the boundary between these two cultural regions is
often very sharp, almost like the boundary between two countries. Without
understanding this division of Eretz Israel into two parts, it is almost
impossible to understand the internal development of the culture of the
[Persian] period' (E. Stern 1983: 136).
In recent years coins from the Persian period have been discovered
bearing the name TTCE'N.18 Just as 1!T coins19 and fHOft1 coins20 were the
official coins of the governor of the province, Ashdod coins attest to the
existence of a province by the name of Ashdod in the Persian period. In
17. See Finkelstein 1980:341; Finkelstein and Silberman 2001:354-55; Rosenfeld
1984: 372-76; Rainey 1983: 2, 18-19.
18. See Meshorer 1976; 1989. Meshorer has kindly informed me that further coins
of the same kind from the Persian period have been found bearing the abbreviated
name I2?N (= Ashdod).
19. Later 11H1, or mrr. See Kindler 1974; Rappaport 1980; Kochman 1982.
20. See Meshorer and Kedar 1991: 13-14. Gaza and Ashkelon had a special status
at that period, and this is reflected in their coins as well.
257
the year 711 BCE, the Assyrian king Sargon conquered Philistia and made
it into 'the province of Ashdod' (since, at that time, this city had hegemony over Philistia).21 However, later on in the Assyrian period, and afterwards in the Babylonian period, there was a semi-independent government
in Philistia (see Tadmor 1973: 72) although the Hebrew 'Mesad Hashavyahu ostracon' found in Yavne-Yam suggests that at least part of the
territory was under the rule of Judah, at the end of the seventh century BCE.
After Judah lost its independence, inhabitants of Philistia settled in the
Shephelah, west of Judah (see Liver and Stem 1961: 5-11) and later expanded eastwards, taking over the northern Shephelah of Judah, referred to
in the Mishnah as Th nb'SID ('the lowlands of Lod', m. Sebu. 9.2).22
This situation went on in the Persian period. Ashdod was a province next
to the province of Yehud (and that of Samaria),23 and its inhabitants were
mainly the autochthonous population (Canaanite-Judean) along with Phoenicians24 and foreigners.25 The line of fortresses from the fifth century BCE,
which protected the province of Yehud from Philistia in the west and
Edom in the south (Beth Zur, Adullam, Azekah, and Jarmuth), and the
distribution of Yehud stamp seals and coins over this area, indicate that the
western border of Yehud passed along the juncture of the mountain
country of Judah with its lowlands (Avi-Yonah 1984: 22).
21. See Forrer 1920: 63; Alt 1931: 72.

22. Klausner (1949: 183) suggests that there are hints of the expansion of the
Philistines at that time in Ezekiel's prophecy: 'Because the Philistines.. .acted vengefully... I will stretch out my hand against the Philistines and cut off the Cherethites and
wipe out the last survivors of the seacoast' (25.15-16). In any event, there is no
archeological evidence of destruction and uprooting of the population living in Philistia
in the Persian period. See Bar-Kochva 1980: 171-72.
23. Negev (1972: 33) argues that, in the Persian period, Ashdod served as the
capital of a province that included Judah and Philistia. In his view the tenth century
BCE in Ashdod was a period of transition from Philistine culture and language to a
Semitic dialect and Canaanite culture.
24. The Eshmunazar inscription from the fifth century BCE attests to the Phoenician
expansion southwards to Joppa. The area is described as 'the great grain districts',
probably referring to the economic hinterland at the disposal of the coastal cities Dor
and Joppa. See Schwartz 1986: 34. Phoenician inscriptions from the Hellenistic period
discovered at Maresha suggest a trend of Phoenician expansion eastwards.
25. Avi-Yonah (1984:222) points out that the metropolis of the district of Ashdod
in the Ptolemaic period was Jabneh. Schwartz (1989: 11-12) suggests that the area of
Lod was exterritorial in the Persian period.
258
Biblical Hebrew
b. The Lists of Returning Exiles

The lists of returning exiles and Judean settlers in Ezra-Nehemiah are not
uniform. The inconsistencies, however, are understandable considering
that there was no perfect match between the area of Judean settlement in
general and the area that was subject to the control of the province of
Yehud, that is, the Judean settlement exceeded the borders of the administrative unit.
The list of builders of the city wall in Nehemiah 3 seems to be an
authentic list that reflects its time; it is based on an administrative division
of Yehud into districts (and half districts) and includes solely the mountain
country of Judah.26 The settlements mentioned in Neh. 11.25-30 are partly
outside the bounds of Yehud: places such as Beer-sheba, Kiriath-arba,
Dibon, and Ziqlag pertain to the region of Idumea, as proven by archeological evidence.27 Nehemiah 11.30-36, which details the settlements in
Benjamin's tribal territory, likewise includes settlementsLod, Hadid,
and Onothat were populated by Benjaminites but were outside the
bounds of Yehud. Zechariah seems to allude to the previous situation:
'Look, this is the message that the Lord proclaimed through the earlier
prophets, when Jerusalem and the towns about her were peopled and
tranquil, when the Negeb and the Shephelah were peopled' (Zech. 7.7). In
other words, in contrast to the wretched situation of Judah in Zechariah's
time, the Negev and the Shephelah had once been populated by Judeans.
However, the lists of returning exiles in Ezra 2.30 (= Neh. 7.37; see Clines
1984:25) and the list of Judean settlements in Neh. 11.33-35 show that the
exiles returned from Babylonia to their homesteads in the lowlands of Lod
as well, although they were outside the political borders of Yehud.28
c. Evidence from the Hellenistic Period
The lowlands were apparently separated from Yehud administratively and

politically until Hasmonean times. Ben Sira may already allude to the
invasion of the inhabitants of Philistia into the northern lowlands of Judah,
together with the Edomite expansion northwards and westwards: 'With
26. Contra Kallai, who greatly expands the western borders of the districts of
Mizpeh and Beth-haCherem. See Kallai 1960: 87-94.
27. Avi-Yonah 1984: 19-20. E. Stern (1984: 85) claims that the list reflects the
wishful thinking on the part of the author and that it does not reflect reality.
28. Neh. 4.1-6 also implies that Judeans lived within a non-Judean population:
'When Sanballat and Tobiah, and the Arabs, the Ammonites, and the Ashdodites
heard...; When the Judeans living among them would arrive.'
259
two nations my soul is vexed, and the third is not even a people: those who
live in Seir and Philistia and the rascally people that lives in Shechem'
(Ben Sira 50.25-26). More explicit evidence regarding the status of the
lowlands of Lod is found in 1 Mace. 9.49-51, where we read that after the
defeat of Bacchides by Jonathan, the Syrian governor built around Judea
a series of fortresses, whose layout reflected a well-defined territory:
between the Jordan in the east and the western slopes of the Judean mountain country,29 and between Bethel in the north and Tekoa in the south. The
most overwhelming proof that the region of Lod did not belong to Judea
before the time of Jonathan the Hasmonean is the repeated report that cites
the letter of the Syrian king to Jonathan:
King Demetrius unto (his) brother Jonathan and unto the nation of the
Judeans, greeting...we have confirmed unto them, therefore, the districts
of Judea, and the three governments of Aphairema, and Lydda, and
Ramathaim(these) were added unto Judea from the country of Samaria.
(IMacc. 11.30-34)30
It thus becomes completely clear that the Land of Benjamin and the
lowlands of Lod were not part of the province of louSaia before Hasmonean times (see now Lifshitz 1999).
The Land of Israel had long been divided into small administrative units
determined according to their physical configuration and the make-up of
the population. Such an administrative unit of no more than tens of square
kilometers was liable to be annexed to one province or another, but
essentially the province remained unchanged (cf. Safrai 1980: 5-7). The
in-between regions of Aphairema, Lydda, and Ramathaim could, accordingly, change hands, since no natural border separated Judea from Samaria
(Safrai 1980: 56). Demetrius would not have agreed to transfer these
29. The assumption that the Ayalon Valley was not included in Yehud in the
Persian period is not unanimously accepted. Kallai and Stern, in their above-mentioned
studies, rather maintain that the Ayalon Valley together with the lowlands of Lod, were
part of the province of Yehud. Especially strong is the evidence based on the stamp
impressions from Gezer, bearing the names Yehud and Jerusalem in the ancient
Hebrew script. See also J. Klein 1939: 30. The fact is, however, that in the Hasmonean
period Gezer became part of independent Judea only in the time of Simon son of
Mattathias (1 Mace. 9.52; 13.43). Strabo, too, testifies to the special status of Gezer
since he classifies it as an independent district. See Safrai 1980: 71. Even if Gezer was
included in Yehud in the Persian period, this does not mean that the lowlands of Lod
north of it belonged to the same province.
30. Note also I Mace. 10.38; Josephus, Ant. 13.125-27.
260
Biblical Hebrew
districts to the rule of Judea unless they were populated mainly by Judeans.
He was merely giving official approval to the existing situation. Josephus
citing Hecataeus of Abderarecounts that Alexander the Great attached
Samaria to Judea (Apion 2.4). He was surely referring, as argued by Graetz
(1857: 51-52), to the transfer of these border areas between Judea and
Samaria to the authority of Judea.
Thus it seems that the Land of Benjamin and its lowland areas, that is,
the northern lowlands of Lod, constituted a bone of contention between
the provinces of Samaria and Judea. The chief governor who resided in
Samaria must have seen to it that these districts belonged under his jurisdiction. However, since this area was populated by Judeans, there was
some legitimacy to Judea's demand to obtain possession of those districts.
About 20 years after the outbreak of the Hasmonean revolt, the partitions
between the province of Judea and the lowlands were removed and the
'mixture of cultures' began (M. Stern 1968: 100).
d. Evidence from Rabbinic Literature
The Mishnah clearly echoes the situation in which the lowlands of Lod
were not included in the borders of the province of Judea until the Hasmonean period. The borders of the sanctity of the land are defined as
follows: 'From Modi'in and inwards, people are deemed trustworthy in
regard to the status of clay utensils. From Modi'in and outwards, they are
not deemed trustworthy' (m. Hag. 3.5).31 This Mishnah reflects far-off
days when Modi'in lay on the boundary of Judea, before the annexation of
the lowlands of Lod.32 In the words of Avi-Yonah: 'At the time of the
revolt, Modi'in lay outside the jurisdiction of Judea, as.. .delimited in the
Seleucid state'.33
The Mishnah in Sebu. 9.2 also attestsas J. Klein (1923: 24-41) well
made clearthat the lowlands of Judah were not a part of the province of
Judea and were annexed to it at a late stage:
Three regions [are delineated] with respect to [the laws of] removal: Judah
and Transjordan and Galilee. And each of these [is divided] into three
regions... And with Judah [the three subregions are]: the mountains, the
lowlands, and the valley. And the lowlands of Lod [are deemed part of] the
31. See Baer 1964: 309. The Hebrew text reads: mmon.
32. The same matter underlies m. Pes. 9.2. See Safrai 1980: 72.
33. Avi-Yonah in Schalit 1972: 148; see the map (prepared by M. Stern) of the
Hasmonean Kingdom, in Ben-Sasson 1969: 227. J. Klein (1939: 57-60) discusses the
origin of the name.
261
southern lowlands. And its mountains [those near the lowlands of Lod are
deemed part of] the King's Mountain country. The territory from Beth
Horon34 to the sea [is deemed to be] a single region.
This Mishnah is composed of two layers. The first speaks of three regions:
Judah, Transjordan, and the Galilee, while in the second a fourth region is
added.35 'from Beth Horon to the sea', that is, the region of Lod. The
Palestinian Talmud (y. Sebu. 38d) cites this passage in reference to four
regions: 'Another region exists that contains mountain and lowland and
valley: from Beth Horon to Emmausmountain, from Emmaus to Lod
lowland, from Lod to the seavalley'. J. Klein (1939: 27) concludes as
following: 'And we have before us an ancient Mishnah the beginning of
which is from the time before Jonathan the Hasmoneanwhen Judea had
only three regionsand its last paragraph dates from the time when
another, a fourth part, had already been added to Judea proper: the region
of Lod'. If this is indeed how this Mishnah developed, its original section
must go back to pre-Hasmonean times; such ancient Mishnaic evidence is
very rare.36 It suggests that as early as the second century BCE, halakhot
were formulated in TH (or in a language very close to it).
In the Persian and Hellenistic periods the area of the province of Yehud/
Judea did not exceed 1600 square kilometers (Avi-Yonah 1984: 20). The
boundaries of this small mountain-country province were limited to the
area from the Jordan and the Dead Sea in the east, to the western slopes
of the mountain of Judah and Benjamin in the west, and from Beth Zur in
the south to Bethel in the north.37 In the lowlands west of Yehud there was
a small province centered on Lod and called at various times D^SJ
(= Philistia) or TnKJN, among other names. The size of this province and
34. Several manuscripts read a conjunctive waw ('And from Beth Horon...'). See
Melammed 1974:410.
35. J. Klein (1939: 26-27) rightly observes that the use of nriQ instead of pfc
indicates that this part is an addition.
36. On ancient Mishnah passages, see, e.g., Ben Yehuda 1948: 57-58; Melammed
1973: 58-63. Despite the objections raised by Safrai (1980: 82-83), Klein's remarks
remain valid: the mention of the Galilee and Transjordan in a text that deals with the
regions of Judah is not necessarily indicative regarding the time of the passage. The
parallel text in t. Sebu. 7.10 reads: 'They did not speak of three regions, except in
Judea, while the rest of all the regions...' The version offered subsequently in the
Tosefta already reflects a later stage in which 'Shephelat Lod' includes the lowlands of
the south: 'In the lowlandsthat is, the lowlands of Lod and the lowlands of the
South' (Sifre Dent, pisqa 6). See also Lieberman 1955: 574-75.
37. Thus for instance: Avi-Yonah 1966: 13 (map 7).
262
Biblical Hebrew
the extent of its subordination to its northern neighbor, Samaria, changed

from time to time (Avi-Yonah 1984: 30-35). Indeed, Judeans had been
living continuously in the lowlands since First Temple times, but the
northern lowlands of Judah were outside the territorial bounds of Yehud/
Judea during the second Temple period until the Hasmonean period. This
distinction between the land of Yehud/Judea and the lowlands38 was not
merely a formal, political distinction. While the Judeans were isolated in
their mountainous land far from international thoroughfares (Klausner
1949: 202), the lowlandsconnected to the rest of the world by the via
manswere subject to foreign material and cultural influences. It turns
out that despite the fact that Judeans had lived continuously in the lowlands since First Temple times, political and cultural separation between
the mountain country and the lowlands over a period of hundreds of years
gradually caused significant cultural differences between the Judean
inhabitants of the two regions, including different dialects.
3. The Origin of Rabbinic Hebrew
The language of the mountain country and the language of the lowlands
had, essentially, one and the same origin: CBH. Its development, however,
took different courses. While in Yehud the language developed only to a
limited extent, probably because of the conservative influence of the
returned exiles returning from Babylonia, their influence did not reach the
lowlands and the language could develop freely.39 Gradually, two separate
dialects developed in the politically and culturally separated provinces. In
the lowlands, CBH changed its appearance, as expected of a living spoken
language, and was gradually transformed into proto-TH. In the province of
Yehud, on the other hand, the language changed at a much slower pace
and along more moderate tendencies although it too developed its own
unique traits.40
38. In the Persian period, the medina of Yehud as oppposed to the medina of
Ashdod; in the Hellenistic period, the merides of Judea as opposed to the toparchy (or
nomos) of Lydda.
39. Although there were Judeans who returned to their places of residence in the
lowlands, they were absorbed by the local population.
40. It is possible, however, that the beginnings of the language of the lowlands and
of the land of Benjamin appear as early as the end of the First Temple period. BarAsher (1985: 93-94) traced phenomena common to the book of Jeremiah and RH that
do not occur in the books of the Bible later than Jeremiah. Such is the pronoun 1DN
which turns up once in a kethib form (42.6), and the use ofqatolas nomen agentis,
263
The dialect of the lowlands is possibly mentioned by Nehemiah in his

accusation against the Judeans who married foreign wives: 'A good number of their children spoke the language of Ashdod and the language of
those various peoples, and did not know how to speak Judean' (Neh.
13.24). By Ashdodite (= the language of Ashdod) he may well mean the
language of the inhabitants of the lowlands, a dialect that later became
the language of the early sages who lived in the very same area: Gimzo,
Lod, Emmaus, and Yavneh (see Schwartz 1986: 207-208), compared with
Judean that was spoken in Jerusalem and its surroundings.41
It would seem, then, that for hundreds of yearsthrough the Babylonian
and Persian periods until the beginning of the Hellenistic periodthe
province of Yehud was living in 'splendid isolation', cut off from its neighbors. But in the Persian period the borders of Yehud became too narrow to
contain the constantly growing number of inhabitants and a process of
migration began to the three southern districts of the province of Samaria
(Aphairema, Lydda and Ramathaim). This would explain why, throughout
the Hellenistic period, Judea repeatedly demanded the annexation of these
districts. The new migrants from Judea, especially to the lowlands, learned
the local dialectthe pre-THand may have formed a bridgehead for
spreading 'Ashdodite' in Judea in the Hasmonean period. However, the
turning point in the political and cultural history of Judea, entailing a
substantial change in its linguistic history, occurred at the end of the Hellenistic period. The Hasmoneans, themselves inhabitants of Modi'in in the
lowlands, lived outside the territorial boundaries of Judea. After having
annexed the lowlands area to Judea and consolidating their rule over the
e.g., pittto (Jer. 22.3), Hlin (3.7, 10). Note, however, the form pan in Isa. 1.1
whichif meant as 'oppressor'may belong to the same pattern. It would be difficult
to explain why common TH forms that go back to the end of the First Temple period
did not leave traces in late biblical literature, especially in books not too far in time
from Tannaitic literature. However, if we assume that such forms emerged in the land
of Benjamin and the lowlandsnotably, Judah spread to the north and the west in the
time of Josiahit would be possible to consider them the harbingers of TH, and, it
would also be understandable why they do not occur in LBH, which was limited to
Judah alone.
41. Several texts from that period have been found in Ashdod and its environs, but
they do not tell us much about Ashdodite 1T~QT Q""Q ('Zebadiah's vineyard'; Hestrin
1972: 158), and IHS ('potter'; Dothan 1967: 84) which may be Aramaic. The Phoenician name lUîn appears on an Aramaic pottery shard from Nebi Yunis (Cross
1964). The famous Hebrew inscription of Mesad Hashavyahu is also from this area.
264
Biblical Hebrew
expanded Judea, their language, too, spread throughout the land. Being the
'higher language' of the prestigious heroes, and, at the same time, a convenient and simple spoken tongue, this dialect encroached on LBH and
eventually replaced it.
4. The Status ofQumran Hebrew
Many believe that the living language spoken by the members of the Qumran community was in fact the contemporary RH, which was, however,
defaced by the scribes in Qumran in an attempt to imitate CBH.42 Morag
rather sees in QH a dialect in its own right, distinguished by linguistic
traits that are not found in LBH.43
Indeed, a number of unique phonological and morphological peculiarities exist in QH that are not found in LBH. However, most of these peculiarities are such that spelling alone can conceal or reveal and therefore do
not necessarily reflect genuinely different forms: pausal forms occurring in
juncture; contraction of the diphthong [aw] > [o] at the end of a word; the
pronominal suffixation in verbs, l^lBpVl^ftljT; the lengthened pronouns (e.g. HQD-, nODN), among other things. The spelling system in use
at Qumran suggests pronunciation norms that differ from the Tiberian
tradition. There is, however, a substantial gap of time between the defective spelling, preserved by the ancient scribes, and the vocalization applied
to it at a much later time. While the vocalization may well be the product
of later development, the text proper may conceal a pronunciation that did
not differ very much from that in vogue at Qumran. In other words, the
same text may have been used by both the copyists at Qumran and the
Tiberian Masoretes but, while the former were not afraid to adjust it to
their pronunciation, the latter were cautious not to alter the consonantal
text. Likewise, it is impossible to figure out the Samaritan pronunciation
from the Samaritan Pentateuch. For example, the spelling of the personal
pronouns PN, for the second person feminine, and ]il, DPI, DHK, does not
show that they were actually pronounced: atti, attima, imma, inna respectively (Ben-Hayyim 1979). It would seem, therefore, that the spelling
differences attesting to a different pronunciation do not necessarily reflect
a different dialect.
42. See the references in n. 1 above. The independence of QH is further supported

by Qimron's important studies (1992; 2000).
43. Morag 1988. See also Blau 1997.
265
While the patterns of formation and pronunciation during the Hellenistic

and Hasmonean periods remain obscure, an examination of the syntax and
vocabulary of QH compared with the language of the late biblical books
especially since the consonantal text remained, in the main, untouchedis
indicative regarding the relationship between the two.
The syntagms which distinguish QH from CBH are almost all shared
with LBH, and many of them are not found in TH. Such are the use of the
infinitive as afinite verb (Leahy 1960: 137-43); the use ofpfc/K1? + infinitive to express prohibition or inability; the syntagm "pN/ts? + abstract
noun (or infinitive; Qimron 1986:77-79), the distributive syntagm 'XI X',
for example, Dl"! DV (instead of 'X X'e.g. DV DV; Polzin 1976:
47-51), the substantive preceding the numeral, for example, O2F! H1QK
(replacing PION O2F1; Polzin 1976: 58-60) and others. Not one outstanding
syntactic trait was found that distinguishes QH from LBH. Examination
of the vocabulary in Qumran literature shows that a considerable part of
the innovations in QH compared with CBH already occur in LBH. Interestingly, many of these linguistic innovations do not occur in the Tannaitic
literature, and many others are peculiar to Qumran (1976:292-304). There
remains little doubt that QH and LBH are closely affiliated. More precisely, it would seem that QH is the natural continuation of LBH, although
the exact relationship between them is hard to determine.
QH must have been a living language rather than an artificial creation of
a number of dedicated scribes. This is proven by the recurring and consistent use of linguistic patterns. Such are the first person inversive lengthened imperfect (H7tOp31/i"PDpfcVl); the lengthened personal pronouns
(HQriN, n^lil); the construct forms of 71CDp compared with the absolute
state forms ^tDlp of the segholate nouns, and many other traits. QH was
the language of the local inhabitants, and possibly also that of Judea in the
(Persian and) Hellenistic period until the Hasmonean revolt. Following
their success, the Hasmoneans moved from the Shephelah to the metropolis, Jerusalem. They brought with them their dialect and the Judeans easily
adopted this prestigious 'higher language'. Those who, for various reasons,
opposed the new situation, were compelled to flee from the assertive Hasmoneans and chose the desert as a hiding place where they could retain
their way of life and culture, including their language.
Once this explanation is accepted, the difficult assumption that QH was
created by few dissidents and over a short period of time becomes unnecessary. This agrees with Ben-Hayyim's (1958: 231) evaluation: 'A
language is the property of a society in a given time and place. It is not the
property of a sect or a dissident group'.
266
Biblical Hebrew
The Qumran writers repeatedly use pejorative terms in reference to the

language of their rivals: (mnN ]Wb) nS> ^1~1I7 ('an uncircumcised
tongue', 1QH 2.18 [= 10.18]), (TnnK ]1K/7I) HS& ;n^ ('a halting language', 1QH 4.16 [= 12.16]), D'STU \wb ('a tongue of blasphemies',
4QD 5.11-12; Rabin 1958: 146). These denominations may well coincide
with Nehemiah's Ashdodite, namely proto-TH, later adopted in Judea.
5. Connections between Tannaitic and Classical Hebrew
That Are Not Attested in Either Late Biblical Hebrew
or Qumran Hebrew
As argued above, TH did not descend directly from LBH, but rather developed autonomously from CBH. The following are some of the linguistic
forms and phenomena setting CBH and TH apart from LBH and QH.
From the field of general vocabulary we may consider, for example, the
verb pI7T. Kutscher44 has already shown that the distribution of pI7T
greatly increases in LBH (in the wake of Aramaic), and that this verb
encroaches on the Classical pJJU. In QH too (in both the biblical and the
non-biblical scrolls) the verb pi?T clearly dominates. But in TH p!?H is the
dominant verb.45 Another example is the form i"D2?3 which is no more
than an allomorph ofTDIZ/? ('chamber'), normal in all the strata of the
Bible. This allomorph shows up in the book of Nehemiah, as well as in the
Temple Scroll (Qimron 1980a: 249), apparently influenced by Aramaic
(Milik 1958-59: 331-39). Tannaitic literature never uses i"Q0, whereas
T13Vh is very widespread. Likewise, the plural of 1TQ> ('seven years')46 is
miM3E? in both CBH and TH. On the other hand, the form in the book of
Daniel as well as in the Rule of the Community (10.7-8) is DTIÊ?,47
probably under the influence of the Aramaic form JT'OIZ? (see Hurvitz
1972a: 170).
A number of special idioms point in the same direction. Hurvitz (1972b:
248-51) detected the phenomenon of'diachronic chiasm', namely, phrases
whose constituents are used in reverse order in a later period. Thus, the
Classical phrase 31111 ^jDD ('silver and gold'), changed into ^DDl Dili in
late biblical literature, as well as in Qumran literature. Tannaitic literature,
44. Kutscher 1974: 34; followed by R. Weiss 1981: 128-29.
45. According to HDHL, the verb plUU1? appears in the Tannaitic literature 55
times compared with only seven times of plUlb.
46. For instance, my. Sebu. 37c.
47. To be precise, the Rule of the Community reads: D!TI7'OI2).
TALSHIR The Habitat and Histojy of Hebrew
267
however, exclusively uses the Classical form of the phrase.48 Similarly, the
title Wl(i"[) ]rQ ('the chief priest'), is frequent in the book of Chronicles
and in the War Scroll, but does not appear in Tannaitic literature, that
frequently makes use of the equivalent Classical phrase VnXH) ]i"O(n).49
In the domain of spelling we note the pattern -"'Nf)-, used to designate
a long T, or a split / (-f/-), in Chronicles (D<lN'O"~lI?, D''N<H3n), and commonly in Qumran literature (D^HBD, CPKnDD; Qimron 1987: 262-65),
whereas in the Classical and Tannaitic literature, the plural form of a gentilic noun is spelled DT)-- The spelling U1CF is the only form of this
proper name in late biblical literature, in epigraphy from Hasmonean and
Tannaitic times, and is the usual form in the literature of Qumran as well.
In the Tannaitic literature, however, the original form UttDiT, the only form
used in CBH, is resumed.50 The same is true about the orthography of other
proper nouns like TH (instead of Til) andD^ttJIT (instead of DÊTTT).
The nominal pattern qittalon is a good example from the field of morphology. This pattern, frequent in CBH, was ousted by its counterpart qitlon
in the late biblical books (particularly Koheleth), under the influence of the
construct and pronominal forms shared by both patterns.51 One might have
expected the simple bi-syllabic pattern to become frequent in TH as well.
The fact is, however, that TH never creates new words on the qitlon pattern,
but rather on qittalon, e.g., "pSiTp ('anger', Sifra, Shemini 1.3), ]VD''S3
('spreading', m. Neg. 1.3),]VW"1 ('the appearance offering \m. Pe'ah 1.1)
and others.52
From the domain of syntax we adduce the pattern used for numerals. In
CBH as well as in TH, the number ordinarily precedes the quantified substantive (except in lists). For instance, D"1]^ VDW ('three years', e.g. Deut.
14.28), whereas in LBH and in QH (as well as in Aramaic) the quantified
substantive is placed before the number: ^H1?^ D n ]^ (e.g. Dan. 1.5
The same is true for expressions specifying quantity or measurements. The
order in CBH as well as in TH is: number + weight or measure + material
48. Sarfatti (1985) showed that Tannaitic literature tends to keep the order of
components in a phrase.
49. Japhet 1968: 343-44; D. Talshir 1988: 177; Sarfatti 1989 esp. 158.
50. Discussed in detail in D. Talshir 1998.
51. Hurvitz 1969a. The pattern qitlon (besides qutlari) is used in Aramaic (includeing Syriac).
52. )1SJJp occurs in Ben Sira 30.23, but its pattern remains unknown. See Gross
1993; Yeivin 1985: l041-42.Ben-Hayyim(1967: 118-19) had already pointed out that
most of the words in this pattern belong to the ""'^ roots. See also 1967: 134.
268
Biblical Hebrew
or dimension, for example, rnrn "p HEN DINO 2/727 ('300 cubits is the
length of the ark', Gen. 6.15); ^DD ^ D^tODO ('50 shekels of silver',
m. 'Arak. 3.2). However, LBH and QH feature the reversed order: "pIN
nDK mi0i? im ('14 cubits long', IQM 4.15); D^ma tr^pra ^DD
('40 shekels of silver', Neh. 5.15; Qimron 1986: 85-86; Bergey 1984:
66-78).
Such characteristically Classical linguistic traits that assumed a new
form in LBH and in QH, but were preserved in TH, may indicate that TH
originated in CBH.
It would seem that only the assumption of two separate locations can
explain the origin of TH. In his study on 'The Origin of Mishnaic Hebrew',
Klausner (1924) suggested that the heyday of MH began in the Hasmonean
period. In his view, however, the Hasmoneans tried to revive the ancient
language in an attempt to emulate the language of the Holy Scriptures as
closely as possible. The Hasmoneans, he argued, were forced to create
through their courtsa lucid, precise language, concise, transparent and
clear. This language evolved into MH, and eventually yielded RH. Attractive as this explanation may seem, it is difficult to imagine that RH was an
artificial and purely imitative language dictated by the Hasmonean institutions.
Segal responded to Klausner's suggestion in a well-known article:
'Mishnaic Hebrew: Its Origin and History'.53 In his opinion, the beginning
of MH occurred at the end of Persian rule and the start of Greek rule in the
land of Israel (Segal 1936: 39). MH, he argues, is the continuation of
the popular spoken language in biblical times (p. 37). Even if we modify
his proposal and assume that TH began to develop at the beginning of the
Persian period, this still would not explain the essential differences
between the dialects spoken by the very same speakers in the very same
circumscribed territory.
According to Rabin (1976:1015), the polarization between the party of
Pharisees and the members of the Qumran sect played a decisive role in
the formation of RH. The intense tendencies towards separatism caused
the Pharisees to adopt the spoken language as their literary language as
well. Rabin's explanation, too, does not supply a reason for the radical
differences in grammar and vocabulary between LBH (including QH) and
RH, that are said to have lived contemporarily in the same small region.
53. Segal 1926: 44. The text is repeated almost verbatim in Segal 1936: 12.
269
It is equally difficult to accept Rendsburg's assumption that MH descended from the Galilean dialect of the First Temple period, since a
considerable political and geographical distance existed between the
Galilee and the cultural center of Israel in the second century BCE (starting
with the time of Shimeon the Righteous). Besides, it is difficult to make
such sweeping assumptions given the small amount of data available in
relation to the character of the northern dialect. The majority of forms
adduced by Rendsburg as isoglosses shared by the alleged northern dialect
and MH are not isoglosses at all, but rather a set of diverse Judean
features.54
In contrast, our proposal to anchor the essential differences between the
two contemporary dialects in different and separate regions, offers a
straightforward sociolinguistic explanation of these problems. Moored in
the lowlands, TH could have gradually developed its own linguistic patterns freely over a long time span. In addition, according to this solution
LBH does not have to be viewed as an artificial language or a language in
disguise. Finally, the cultural and linguistic separation between the regions
is further substantiated by archeological and historical evidence. Against
this background, long-standing queries suddenly fall into place. One
famous example is the twofold formation of long and short pronominal
suffixes in the 2nd person singular (i.e. [Hp-, [n]fl~), over which Kahle
and Ben-Hayyim differed, and which Kutscher correctly explained as two
types of Hebrew that existed side by side in ancient Jewish communities
(Kutscher 1974: 46). Such linguistic variety demonstrates the struggle
between the mountain country tradition, including Qumran (naturally, part
of Judea), and the lowlands tradition from which TH emerged.
Just as the mountain line dichotomized the culture of the mountain
country and that of the lowlands, it also set the language of the mountain
apart from the language of the lowlands, until the Hasmonean period,
since language is, naturally, one of the outstanding components of human
culture. This is, in my view, the explanation of the prominent difference
between LBH and RH.
54. See the Excursus below.
270
Biblical Hebrew
EXCURSUS: THE SUPPOSED GALILEAN ORIGIN OF MISHNAIC HEBREW

Some 30 years ago, Rabin advanced the interesting idea that the parent dialect of MH
was of northern origin (Rabin 1970: 322-23). Recently, Rendsburg adopted this idea
and adduced evidence in its support: 'I propose that MH is more specifically the colloquial dialect of the northern regions of Eretz-Israel, i.e. the Galilee' (Rendsburg 1992b:
226). He presented 12 linguistic features and lexical items shared by MH and those
parts of the Bible that he had earlier established as northern literature,55 in comparison
with JH that does not attest these forms. These allegedly northern features constitute
the basis for his suggestion that MH originated in the Galilee.
I shall not elaborate on the way Rendsburg characterized the northern dialect, on the
method he employed in its description,56 or the significance of the substantial distanc
between the Galilee and the center of the Tana'im's cultural activity in the last
centuries BCE. I shall rather examine the alleged northern provenance of the isoglosses
that supposedly show a clear affinity between Galilean and MH.57
1. The Relative Pronoun -ID
The relative pronoun -2? replaces Classical 1K7N. This form is usually assumed to be
northern, akin to Accadian sa and Phoenician/Ammonite JN. It should be remembered,
however, that little evidence has been produced of the incidence of-J in Northwestern
Semitic epigraphy. This assumption is further weakened by the use of "IttfN, rather than
ID, in an eighth-century inscription on a stele from Samaria.58 While relative shin is
indeed mainly used in 'northern' texts as well as in definitely late biblical texts (such as
Koheleth,59 Ezra and Chronicles, whose northern origin is dubious), it also occurs in
texts whose origin is certainly not northern: it is possibly embedded in DJKD (Gen. 6.3)
and occurs 12 times in non-northern psalms, as Rendsburg himself admits. Further55. He applied four criteria used by Hurvitz 1973 for dating textsdistribution,
linguistic contrast, external sources, and concentrationto a series of texts in an
attempt to prove their northern origin. This process yielded lists of 'northern forms'
attested in the Bible. In his opinion, a text displaying abundant northern forms and
whose narrative takes place north of Judah, or involves someone that is not Judean,
must be a northern text.
56. For a radical and convincing criticism of this, see Fredericks 1996; Schniedewind and Sivan 1997; I. Young 1997.
57. I. Young (1997:20) criticized the nature of these alleged isoglosses in general,
but did not go into detail.
58. G.I. Davies 1991: 65; Davila 1990: 82; Schniedewind and Sivan 1997:328-29.
59. Gordis (1955), and Davila 1990: 69-76, raised convincing arguments against
the Phoenician provenance of Qoheleth. Similarly, there is scarcely any evidence
whatsoever for a northern provenance of Qoheleth, in spite of the interesting suggestions advanced by Davila 1990: 87.
60. Rendsburg 1990b. These are: Pss. 122 (twice); 123; 124; 129; 135 (three times);
136; 137; 144; 146.
271
more, it is attested three times in the book of Jonah, that is likewise not assigned a
northern origin, and about ten times in Ben Sira (Barthelemy and Rickenbacher 1973
s.v.). These data show that relative shin is not distinctively northern.
2. The Feminine Demonstrative Pronoun iT/fit
The northern origin of the feminine demonstrative pronoun IT is postulated on the basis
of its occurrence in two northern sources (2 Kgs 6.19; Hos. 7.16).61 The rest of the
examples, however, are later and hardly northern: it occurs once in Ezek. 40.45 and six
times in Qoheleth. Also worth mentioning is the phrase riTin HID that occurs three
times in the Former Prophets, of which at least 2 Sam. 11.25 is not of northern origin.
The first epigraphic evidence in Hebrew of this form occurs in documents from the Bar
Kokhva period, where it is used as a definite adjective: (N)1Tn. It may have been,
therefore, a living formpossibly a low register formin Judah as well.
3. The Plural Demonstrative Pronoun 1^8
The form 1^8common in RH (replacing H^N)is not attested in any other language.
In Phoenician and Punic the plural demonstrative pronoun is ^K. In late Punic the form
is $b$, and Plautus' Latin transliteration reads Illii/Ily. The form suggested by these
data is *'//(/)? (Friedrich and Rollig 1999:69-70), namely, Tl'pK, rather than ^. This
is corroborated by Hebrew epigraphical evidence from the second century CE: texts
from Murabba'at and Nahal Hever attest the form H^N. The first occurrence of 1^8
shows up in Inscription 17 from Bet She'arim from the beginning of the third century
CE.62 These data hardly bear out the notion that the origin of "I'T'N harks back to the
Galilee of First Temple times.
4. Nomen actionis qet!la
Rendsburg mentions some examples of qetlla pattern nouns in 'northern' sources
(including Job, Qoheleth and Chronicles). However, other biblical texts, recognized
even by Rendsburg as being of non-northern origin, offer further examples of the same
pattern: mii (Num. 35.20); nnt0 (Deut. 28.37); 7\*WD (Isa. 24.12); ITDl (15 times:
once in Hosea and all the rest in Jeremiah, Micah, non-northern Psalms, Job and
Proverbs); ntmp (Jon. 3.2); HD^H (Nah. 2.6); rm3 (Ps. 61.1); n-EJD (Ps. 88.13
nn-ô (Ps.130.4).
61. Rendsburg adduces a third supposedly northern exampleDlQb'N IT Tnui

(Ps. 132.12)but here IT functions as a relative pronoun, like IT, and is not a demonstrative pronoun.
62. See the data ofHDHL, sub H^K and lh>K.
272
Biblical Hebrew
5. 3rd Feminine Singular Perfect of'*"} Verbs in -at
3rd fem. sg. perfect of "^ verbs ending in -at occur ten times in the Bible, twice in
non ""'b verbs: P^TN (Deut. 32.36), fQE1 (Ezek. 46.17), and once in the Siloam inscriptionJTn. Only one of the ten examples of this archaic ending occurs in a northern
text: the kethib form PITT in 2 Kgs 9.37. The rest come from Classical Judean literature
and include HRCm (Exod. 5.16);63 ntDlfl (Lev. 25.21); nmm (26.34); n1p (Deut.
31.29; Jer. 44.23); rbm (Jer. 13.19, twice); andnN^n (Ezek. 24.12).64
How can these data substantiate a northern origin of the ending -at in RH?
6. The 'Double Plural' Construction65
As a rule, BH forms the plural of construct state phrases by turning the nomen rectum
alone into plural, for example, N3U "IE? and pR m1? become R3iJ '"IK? and pR mm1?.
However, there is a natural tendency to pluralize the nomen regens as well. Thus, we
find in CBH beside pR mm1? the double plural D'HR mm1? and HlNDli ne? instead
of NDiJ "HE?. There is no need to go as far as Ugarit, El-Amarna and Phoenicia in search
for these doubly marked plural attributive constructs, since CBH literaturenoticeably
non-northern parts of itabounds with them. Some examples from the Pentateuch
follow: D'DQ ntD ('taskmasters', Exod. 1.11); D'BtB "UI7 ('acacia wood', e.g., Exod.
25.5); mUO n|TpT ('unleavened wafers', Exod. 29.2); Dn]3N mm1? ('stone tablets',
Exod. 34.1) compared with p HO1? (Exod. 31.18); mim m*?n ('unleavened cakes',
Lev. 2.4); DD'Bnn ntftO ('new moon days', Num. 10.10; 28.11); m"") "131 ('matters
of dispute', Deut. 17.8); mtdH "He? ('army commanders', Deut. 27.9). This natural
development is not necessarily northern but rather a Classical feature that persisted and
possibly intensified in LBH, in QH, and in RH.
The supposedly 'northern' examples for this pattern adduced by Rendsburg are
scarce and mostly inappropriate since in these cases the plural of the nomen regens is
not the result of attraction but is meant as a real plural. For example, the meaning of
the construct D^S^ft miO (Ps. 45.10) is probably 'daughters of different kings', not of
'one king'. Similarly, D^R ^D (Ps. 29.1) means, literally, 'sons of different gods';66
D'OI? TTl] (Ps. 47.10) are 'the great men of the peoples' rather than of 'a people';
63. See DC//, III: 194.

64. Blau (1996) argues that the origin of a form such as DTI in RH does not hark
back to ancient times, but is rather the pausal form nmn that lost its last vowel in a late
stage of the development of the language.
65. It is preferable to name this phenomenon: the doubly-marked plural of attributive constructs, as suggested by Qimron 1986: 400.06.
66. Rendsburg fails to mention the same phrase occuring in Ps. 89.7, a nonnorthern psalm in his view. The phrase further occurs in Ugaritic (bn Urn, KTU
1.4.111.14) and Phoenician (bn 7m, AL4/26.A.III.19). Its meaning there, too, is literal:
'sons of gods'. See, e.g., Dahood 1965: 175-76.
273
DTDH <lti)^"l (Ps. 74.13) are 'the heads of the monsters', rather than of a monster'; and,
finally, D"^~l ""DR^Q (Ps. 78.49) whose nomen regens is hardly a noun.67
It would seem, then, that Rendsburg's supposedly northern psalms do not present
examples of the 'double plural' construction at all, on the one hand, and on the other,
such examples are common in non-northern texts. Consequently, this phenomenon
could not have been inherited by RH from an alleged northern language.
T./Zoo/ÛS
Rendsburg argues that RH root ÛB stems from 'northern' Hebrew. However, the verb
ÎJS and the noun ÎJS appear about a 100 times throughout the Bible. The Tannaitic
literature, on the other hand, does not use the verb at all and attests only two nominal
forms: (1) buiB, common for 'worker', used in the Bible as a participle ('making',
'creating');68 and (2) HÛS, meaning 'work' (and 'wage'), used both in the Bible
never in 'northern' textsand in Rabbinic literature.69
Root ÛS must have been used in ancient Hebrew, but gradually the synonyms HDp,
~liT, ^173, and so on, were differentiated so that RH kept only nominal forms of bl?S.
It is difficult to discern in this process any affinity with a supposedly northern language.
8. Root "jilt
While there is no evidence of the root "]~IJS in Canaanite, etymological considerations
may suggest that it is of Canaanite origin, since the Arabic counterpart of "^"Hifdank
('poor') shows that the root ""IJJ originates in d.70 Both Judean Hebrew and Aramaic
(including the eastern branch) may have borrowed it from Canaanite. However, the
only occurrence of the root in the Bible is in 2 Chron. 2.15 "p~IU, that replaces the
ancient reading "JiJSn in the parallel text of 1 Kgs 5.22. This would suggest that "|D"1U
in Chronicles is not necessarily a northern variant but rather a late form borrowed from
Aramaic (that in turn may have borrowed it from Canaanite). The use of root "]~l!i
naturally continues in Ben Sira and MH.
9. rrn + Participle
Were this syntactic pattern characteristic of the 'northern' dialect, we would have
expected to find a good number of it in 'northern' texts. The fact is, however, that it
67. It is rather an adjective that assumed the form of a nomen regens; see GKC:
128w.
68. It would seem that Punic inscriptions do attest this use of ÛS; see Slouschz
1942: 282-83. It occurs as early as Ben Sira 37.11: T3E? ÛIB ('hired hand').
69. E.g. ÛB 1DBJ "p nbKT & irQK^Q bin in ]&W1 ('And your employer can
be depended upon to pay your wages for what you do').
70. Brockelmann 1908: 46e, believes that it is a phonological feature: Aramaic
attests the Canaanite shift [d] > [s] before [r].
274
Biblical Hebrew
occurs only rarely in texts of allegedly northern provenance. Rendsburg found seven
examples in Samuel and Kings (and Chronicles).71 In contrast, the book of Genesis
alone, which is not thought to be 'northern', has a similar number of texts using this
very same syntactic pattern: DnQ^ pa *7Haa n m (Gen. 1.6);]npl ]KH HIT! ^3H -m
nzn iai? rrn (4.2); pto 131 IH Trm (4.i4);Ti? ma sn^ (4.17); n nm rrm
]aa vn (37.2); nci? n n n Kin (39.22); D-bnD ir-n b (42.31). The other books,
too, abound with examples of this pattern; hence, there is no ground whatsoever to
assume that im + participle in MH necessarily descends from a northern dialect.
10. Root cm
Rendsburg argues that RH root D13 descends from BH D1N3, and since the non-divine
predicated Q1N3 is used only in northern texts, one must conclude that the verb was
imbibed into RH from the Galilee. This is an injudicious suggestion. Even if we accept
the dubious assumption that the texts in question are northern (the Balaam pericope,
the last words of David, Ps. 36 and Prov. 30), it is still difficult to understand how
Mishnaic D131? ('to speak') developed from D1N3.72 D1N3 does not occur in RH. On the
other hand, were D13 a northern root, it should have occurred in the allegedly northern
texts or at least in the neighbouring Northwestern Semitic languages. The fact is, however, that the verb occurs only once in the Bible, and in a text that is not necessarily
northern: DN31QK3"! Q31E/? DTlp^rT miT DN3 D*V33n bu "33H (Jer. 23.31). In addition, the relation between RH root D13 and BH root DN3 is not at all evident. The
semantic gap between D1N3 DN3'j'j1? ('to make an oracular utterance')
and mi^^/D^1?
i
('tell') remains unaccountable. Whether it is a V'S or a 1"7 verb, it is difficult to
imagine how it might attest a northern usage, seeing that there is no shred of evidence
for root "03/013 in any northern language.
I I . The Plural Construct mO"
miT (alongside "D11)the plural nomen rectum of DVis attested in Ben Sira, RH,
Aramaic COT, -TOT) and Phoenician. It occurs twice in biblical poetic texts: Deut.
71. Phoenician does not attest such usage.

72. If the relation between Q1K3 and D3 is analogical to that between "131 and 131
or between il'pp and b'ppit is not important whether the verb is divine or human
predicated.
73. This verb is structured in Talmudic literature both as VI? e.g., 1^ TO3 (/. Yeb.
12.11), and as" "^ piel, e.g., Dlb TPO] (/. Ohol. 5.12), or rather "JTQ13 (m. Yeb. 16.7),
the first vowel having shifted to [u] because of the labial mem. In Arabic, nama ila
means 'to be told', 'to be reported'. Accordingly, Guillaume 1957: 40-41, suggested
reading nft!3n in IQIsa3 41.27 as npi3n, that is, 'the speaker'. This is Kutscher's
explanation: 'It seems that this root [namely, root "03], which was unfamiliar to the
copyists was therefore emended by them in most cases to an 1 "17 root under the influence of the BH D3 (D13)' (Kutscher 1974: 451).
275
32.7 and Ps. 90.15. While the Song of Moses takes a place of pride among Rendsburg's northern sources, Psalm 90 is not mentioned among his northern psalms. The
evidence from the non-northern psalm suggests that it existedpossibly as a dialectical
formin Ancient Judean Hebrew.'74
12. Hithpael in Passive Sense
Phoenician is evidently not involved in this case, since it does not have the hithpael
scheme.75 Rendsburg adduces three cases of hithpael in passive sense and argues that
two of them are northern. The fact is, however, that there are other examples of this use
and that they are not necessarily northern: ^JJPm ('and be oppressed', Gen. 16.9);
1B331 ('and they will be absolved', Deut. 21.8); ISDPr ('be expiated', 1 Sam. 3.14);
"Iran" ('be informed', 2 Sam. 18.31); 1KDTH ('be oppressed', Job 5.4; 34.25).
Since most of the examples for hithpael in a passive sense do not occur in texts of
northern provenance, there is scarcely any basis to the assumption that it is characteristic of northern Hebrew.
My survey of Rendsburg's twelve allegedly northern isoglosses in RH shows that most
of them are not at all northern. Some of them are not attested in any northern dialect,
others are by far more common in Judean literature than in northern literature. Even the
two cases that are believed to be northernID and ITare not exclusively northern,
since there is unequivocal evidence of their use in Judean literature as well.
The final redaction of the biblical books being Judean, it is understandable that some
Judean forms could have penetrated northern texts; the opposite possibility, namely,
that random northern forms would end up in Judean texts that have no northern context
is difficult to defend. Therefore, unusual forms that occur in non-northern texts should
preferably be treated as dialectal forms that were current in Judah and surfaced in literary texts.76 Even if some of these forms were originally northern, it is their Judean use
that may well have influenced MH.
In sum, since all the adduced 'northern' morphemes and syntagms are attested in
non-northern texts as well, the origin of MH should not be placed in the Galilee. The
assumption regarding the northern origin of RH still awaits demonstration based on
real evidence.
74. Kutscher 1982: 134, believes that this archaic form was renewed under the
influence of Aramaic -TlOi\
75. Friedrich and Rollig 1999: 94, note that only two verbs in hithpael, possibly
loan words, occur in late Punic.
76. Young's book of 1993 is devoted to this phenomenon; see also I. Young 1997:
20.
LATE BIBLICAL HEBREW AND HEBREW INSCRIPTIONS*

Ian Young
1. The Hebrew Inscriptions in Recent Debate
The corpus of Hebrew inscriptions from the biblical period1 has recently
had a pivotal role in discussions of the history of the Hebrew language and
its relevance for the origins of the Bible. The linguistic evidence has been
used to argue against attempts to date the origin of all the biblical literature
in the Persian or later eras (e.g. by P.R. Davies 1992). Two of the most
authoritative statements of this position are by Avi Hurvitz and Martin
Ehrensvard (Hurvitz 1997a; 1999; 2000a; 2001; Ehrensvard 1997).2I will
first of all investigate the role which these scholars ascribe to the Hebrew
inscriptions in their discussions. I shall then re-examine these claims in the
light of the Hebrew inscriptional corpus.
Hurvitz emphasises that 'non-biblical sources... pro vide us with the
external control required in any attempt to detect and identify diachronic
developments within BH' (Hurvitz 1997a: 307). He concludes 'that, by
and large, there is a far-reaching linguistic uniformity underlying both the
pre-exilic inscriptions and the literary biblical texts written in Classical
BH' (p. 308). 'We have, therefore, to conclude that "Classical BH" is a
well-defined linguistic statum, indicative of a (typologically) datable timespan within biblical literature and a (chronologically) datable time-span
* Thanks are due to Victor Sasson and Andreas Schiile who commented on and
improved earlier drafts of this paper. All opinions and errors are of course my responsibility.
1. The corpus has been presented most recently in Renz and Rollig 1995 and
Gogel 1998. When naming the inscriptions I have generally followed Gogel's simplified system. I also refer to the texts published by Beit-Arieh (1993), Deutsch and
Heltzer (1994; 1995), and Naveh (2000). Schttle (2000) is a recent comprehensive linguistic analysis.
2. For Ehrensvard's revised position see his article above.
YOUNG Late Biblical Hebrew and Hebrew Inscriptions
277
within biblical history' (p. 309). The chronological distinction between a

pre-exilic 'CBH' and a post-exilic 'LBH'
is based, by and large, on two important corpora of extra-biblical sources...
on the one hand, the Dead Sea Scrollsdated to the end of the biblical
periodwhich betray numerous isoglosses specifically with Late BH; and
on the other hand, an increasing number of Hebrew epigraphical inscriptionsdated to the pre-exilic periodwhich largely conform to the
linguistic profile of Classical BH. (Hurvitz 1999: 30* J3
Ehrensvard also strasses the importance of the extra-bibHcal linguistic

evidence. He is aware that for example, 'One could argue that the differences [within BH] are simply due to differences in the proficiency of Standard Biblical Hebrew of two groups of contemporary writers' (Ehrensvard
1997- 36) However, the extra-biblical evidence
strongly suggests a difference in time between the language of the two
groups [SBH and LBH]; the linguistic features proper toLBHare net found
in the (admittedly rather limited corpus of) pre-exilic inscriptions, but by
and large they are prevalent in post-Biblical Hebrew In the pre-exilic
inscriptions .there are found, on the contrary, distinctive features indicative of SBH. (Hurvitz 1999: 36-37)
The main points raised by Harvitz and Ehrensvard are the following.
The CBH or SBH of, say, Genesis-2 Kings is practically identical with the
Hebrew of the inscriptions from the monarchic period. That, they say,
establishes the pre-exilic date of composition of those biblical books. In
contrast, the LBH of, say, Chronicles, has definite links with late sources
such as the Dead Sea Scrolls. There are linguistic features found in the
early inscriptions which are not found in LBH sources. Nor are distinetirely LBH features found in the inscriptions. The extra-biblica! sources
establish that SBH is contemporary with the Hebrew inscriptions of the
3. Hurvitz often also includes 'the Canaanite inscriptions of the first half of the
first milieniumB.C.E.', as well as Ugaritic evidence (Hurvitz 1997a: 308 n. 18) alongside Hebrew epigraphical evidence (see, e.g., Hurvitz 1982: 80 n. 82). However he
stresses that it is strictly the Hebrew evidence that is of greatest importance (Hurvitz
1997a: 307-308 n. 16). In accordance with this, Hurvitz discounts the significance of
non-Hebrew evidence when it appears to contradict the chronological development in
Hebrew (e.g. f"13 ['fine linen'] in the ninth-century Kilamuwa inscription [Hurvitz
1967 and see below]; cbu IV 3 ['tomb'] in the eighth-century Deir 'Alia inscription
[Hurvitz 1992: 66 n. 25]; cf. the discussion of *73p in Hurvitz 1974b: 44 n. 36 now
superceded by developments in Amarna philology; and of the form "jVlR in Mesha
14-15: Hurvitz 1982: 50 n. 76).
278
Biblical Hebrew
monarchic period, and that LBH is later, that is, post-exilic. The conclusion is drawn that there is thus no way linguistically that the SBH sources
could in fact have been composed after the exile.
2. The Inscriptions as a Chronological Fixed Point
I will first discuss the idea that the language of the inscriptions proves that
works composed in SBH are pre-exilic. In its simplest form the argument
is that the Hebrew inscriptions show us what pre-exilic Hebrew looked
like, while sources like the Dead Sea Scrolls show us what post-exilic
Hebrew looked like. I will for the moment take for granted that the inscriptions have a close link with SBH, a claim which we will investigate in
the third section of this study.
Is it implausible that SBH could be post-exilic? The answer to this must
be 'No'. It is quite possible that there were several different contemporary
styles of literary Hebrew in the post-exilic period. Just because, in general,
LBH represents a typologically later form of Hebrew, does not mean that
it could not have been used contemporarily with the typologically older
SBH. Furthermore, the post-exilic period was long enough for diachronic
developments to occur. It is possible, for example, to imagine diachronic
developments that might mark Hellenistic period Hebrew as different from
earlier Persian period Hebrew.
Since it is not a priori impossible that the various varieties of BH all
had their roots in the post-exilic period, we have seen the external sources
invoked in order to prove that SBH really is from a chronologically earlier
period. However, even if we take for granted that the Hebrew inscriptions
have a closer relationship with SBH than with LBH, does this fact prove
that SBH cannot be post-exilic?
The major problem with using external sources in the current debate is
the large gap in the middle of the period under discussion. The Hebrew
inscriptions date almost exclusively to the monarchic period, in particular
the eighth-early sixth centuries BCE. None of the Dead Sea Scrolls manuscripts is considered to be older than the third century BCE (Cross 1998
387). The other Hebrew sources mentioned by Hurvitz as 'External controls
for the post-classical phase of BH'Ben Sira, the Bar Kochba letters, and
MH (Hurvitz 1997a: 310)are even later. For the period stretching from
the sixth to the third centuries BCE, which includes the whole Persian
period, we have almost no extra-biblical evidence for Hebrew at all (Naveh
and Greenfield 1984: 122). Since we have almost no idea, on the basis of
external sources, what any sort of Hebrew in the Persian period looked
279
like, we cannot exclude the possibility that the sort of Hebrew being
used in the inscriptions from the monarchic period continued to be used at
least for a while after the exile. This was the view, for example, of S.R.
Driver. For him, 'the great turning-point in Hebrew style falls in the age of
Nehemiah\ He adds in a footnote: 'And not, as is sometimes supposed, the
Captivity. This appears with especial clearness from Zech., the style of
which, even in the parts which are certainly post-exilic, is singularly pure'
(S.R. Driver 1913a: 505 with n. 1).
To fill in the gap created by the absence of extra-biblical evidence of
Hebrew from the Persian period, Hurvitz lays stress on the much better
represented Aramaic evidence. In particular he mentions the fifth-century
BCE Elephantine papyri, which he notes 'display numerous linguistic
features which, within BH, are exclusively attested in..."Late Biblical
Hebrew"' (Hurvitz 1999: 27*). It is certainly valid to refer to the Aramaic
evidence given not only its Jewish context, but also the strong interrelationship between Aramaic and Hebrew. The Aramaic texts show the
strong impact which the Aramaic lingua franca had on the language of a
book such as Chronicles (Bendavid 1967-71, I: 71-72). However, the
issue at present is whether the absence of such Aramaic influence proves
that a BH work cannot have been written during the Persian period. The
answer must be 'No'. We cannot demonstrate that the Aramaic forms had
already penetrated Hebrew at the time when they are attested in Aramaic.
Indeed it is hard to find examples in the literature on LBH where it is even
argued that the Aramaism in question is late within Aramaic.4 Nor can we
demonstrate that such Aramaisms penetrated all varieties of literary
Hebrew in the Persian period. Some scribes or scribal schools may have
been more open or exposed to Aramaic influence than others. Thus, while
4. One of the exceptions is Landes' discussion of Aramaisms in Jonah (Landes
1982: 147-57). C.L. Seow has recently attempted to date Qoheleth to the fifth century,
partly on the basis 'that a number of the terms are found in Official Aramaic but not in
earlier inscriptions (Old Aramaic). Significantly, there is a significant cluster of terms,
particularly economic expressions, all occurring in fifth- and fourth-century documents' (Seow 1996:654). However, his discussion, while erudite, seems to be methodologically flawed. Seow provides no example of a linguistic contrast with an Old
Aramaic term, nor does he make a case that Old Aramaic would have had opportunity
to use any of the terms he discusses. In regard to the economic terms he focusses on, it
is more likely that these terms are first attested in Aramaic in fifth- and fourth-century
texts simply because that is the first time that we have a significant number of
economic texts in Aramaic, in contrast to the earlier period. Nor, for that matter do we
have pre-exilic Hebrew economic texts.
280
Biblical Hebrew
the Aramaic sources are valuable, they do not give us direct evidence of
any contemporary variety of Hebrew.5
Finally, we should note an inherent weakness of the whole enterprise of
dating language. Even if one sort of Hebrew is well attested in external
sources from any particular period, that does not prove that that was the
only sort of Hebrew in existence at the time. All it proves is that that was
the chosen style for that sort of writing. The more genres of writing that
are attested, the more we can claim to know about styles of writing in a
particular period. Thus, we are relatively well informed about the Hellenistic era due to the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls. The scrolls from
cave 1 at Qumran present a larger corpus of Hebrew than all the epigraphic
material from the preceding eras. On the basis of that knowledge we could
feel confident to declare that we know what written Hebrew of that period
looked like. But we would be wrong, since we would be unprepared for
the distinctively different features of Copper Scroll Hebrew (from cave 3)
or4QMMT Hebrew (from cave 4). Linguistic dating deals with probabilities, not certainties.
The idea of a pre-exilic SBH and a post-exilic LBH arose naturally out
of the critical consensus on the dating of many of the biblical books. It is,
however, quite a different question to ask whether the linguistic evidence
can exclude other datings of the biblical literature. Likewise, the Hebrew
inscriptions demonstrate that it is plausible, by and large, that the language
of the Bible was formulated in the monarchic period. They cannot, however, prove that any of the biblical books must have been written in the
pre-exilic period.
5. Hurvitz has pointed out the pitfalls of using the Elephantine texts to argue about
the chronology of Hebrew words: 'we must always bear in mind that although the
Elephantine papyri were written down in the fifth century B.C.E., the language
employed in these texts was not created suddenly in the Persian period... It is, therefore, perfectly clear that Elephantine Aramaic on the one hand and Biblical Hebrew on
the other, even when exhibiting similar (or identical) linguistic usages, could have
drawn, independently and at different times, on a common third source, earlier than
them both' (Hurvitz 1983a: 92). He is arguing against Levine(1982: 127-29) who used
the Elephantine evidence to argue that the P word ^"7 ('military unit') is no earlier
than the Persian period. Note also other problems caused by the Elephantine evidence.
For example, while it is claimed that the term iTTU for 'congregation' is not used in
Persian period Hebrew, for instance Chronicles (Hurvitz 1970-71), it is attested a
number of times in Elephantine texts (Hoftijzer and Jongeling 1995, II: 828). A full
study seems called for. Note also the remarks of Rendsburg, above, against using the
Aramaic sources to date Hebrew texts, and the comments below in n. 15, and sections
3.4.1.8 and 3.4.1.35.
281
3. The Inscriptions, Standard Biblical Hebrew

and Late Biblical Hebrew
3.1. Methodological Issues
We have seen the scholars discussed above draw conclusions from the
assumption that the language of the inscriptions from the monarchic
period has strong and unmistakable links with SBH. However, I am not
aware of any attempts to substantiate this assumption in detail. Often the
relationship of SBH with the inscriptions is taken as self-evident. One of
the most important statements is in Torczyner's publication of the Lachish
letters. Torczyner states that the language of the letters is 'pure Biblical
Hebrew, bearing a striking resemblance to the language of the books of
Kings and Jeremiah' (Torczyner 1938: 17; cf. Albright 1939: 20-21).
However, Torczyner does not attempt to substantiate this claim. Instead he
immediately turns to describing the ways in which the language of the
texts differs from what is known from the Bible. Torczyner's statement is,
however, understandable for 1938. As he himself states (Torczyner 1938:
15), the Lachish letters were the first substantial find of a clearly biblicaltype Hebrew in an inscription. Previously, apart from the Siloam Tunnel
inscription, discovered in 1880 (which has a number of non-SBH forms,
see below), scholars had been faced with the peculiarities of the Gezer
Calendar (found in 1908) or of the Samaria Ostraca (found in 1910). From
that point of view, it is understandable that Torczyner stressed the biblical
nature of the language. He was not, however, concerned with the specific
affiliations of the language within BH. His mention of Kings and Jeremiah
seems to be merely a reference to the biblical sources most contemporary
with the Lachish letters. In effect, Torczyner was simply stating the fact
that the Lachish letters were generally in the same sort of Hebrew as the
Bible.
There are, in fact, several major problems in trying to establish the
relationship of the inscriptions to SBH and LBH. Three problems arise due
to the nature of the inscriptional corpus.
First, the inscriptions present a limited corpus in several ways. While
we have a reasonable number of short inscriptions, these present a total
amount of linguistic material that amounts to less than one percent of the
size of the Hebrew Bible, according to one estimate (DC//, I: 28). The inscriptions, furthermore, have a focus on issues, such as supply of daily
rations, which are not prominent in the biblical material. Thus for the majority of the suggested linguistic contrasts, SBH vs. LBH, the inscriptions
282
Biblical Hebrew
provide no evidence at all. Even such a common linguistic item as the 1st
sg. independent pronoun, where the form n 3DN is said to die out in LBH
in favour of 'DK (Rooker 1990a: 72-74; cf. Wright 1998: 132-37), is only
clearly attested in the inscriptional corpus once (''IN, Arad 88.1; Gogel
1998: 153).
Second, there is the problem that the majority of our inscriptions of
any length are dated to the last half century of the kingdom of Judah,
c. 625-586 BCE. Into this category fall the ostraca from Mesad Hashavyahu, Arad (largely), and Lachish, which represent the bulk of our knowledge of inscriptional Hebrew in extended contexts. Earlier dated texts of
significant linguistic scope include the Gezer Calendar, Siloam Tunnel,
Siloam Tomb, and the Khirbet el-Qom and Kuntillet' Ajrud texts. Yet this
group of texts cannot rival the size and linguistic variety of the later texts.
While bulky, the Samaria Ostraca do not generally provide a significant
amount of linguistic material. Within the context of the biblical texts,
therefore, the largest part of inscriptional material is from the period of
Jeremiah (c. 627-586 BCE) and Ezekiel (beginning c. 593 BCE). Jeremiah
is usually considered an example of SBH. However, it is noteworthy that
within the language of Jeremiah, there are what might be called the early
signs of the appearance of LBH (cf. Wright 1998: 258, 270). Even more
importantly, Ezekiel is commonly described as exhibiting a transitional
form of language from SBH to LBH (Hurvitz 1982; Rooker 1990a). In
other words, an important part of the inscriptional corpus comes from a
period when, even according to a traditional reading of the sources, LBH
was already beginning to appear. Polzin (1976: 4), in fact, refers to the
Lachish and Arad ostraca as 'late Hebrew'. On the basis of the biblical
evidence, therefore, we might expect these inscriptions to exhibit a mixture of LBH elements among the SBH elements. The evidence from texts
such as the Lachish and Arad ostraca is thus somewhat ambiguous if one
is trying to demonstrate the close links of the inscriptions with SBH.
Third, it is reasonable to ask in what way the inscriptions are relevant, if
at all, to the discussion. It is widely acknowledged that the inscriptions
generally represent different genres to those preserved in the biblical literature. In a previous study I dubbed the inscriptions as 'Official Hebrew'
as opposed to the 'Literary Hebrew' of the Bible (I. Young 1993:103-13).
If we are indeed dealing with a different variety of Hebrew, various alternative possibilities present themselves. Did LBH forms perhaps appear in
Official Hebrew earlier than Literary Hebrew? Or was Literary Hebrew
more open to linguistic variety than the more mundane style? In other
283
words, we may not be able to make a simple equation of inscriptional

Hebrew with BH.
Another important problem relates to the nature of the LBH corpus.
Very seldom is it the case that linguistic form X is confined to SBH, while
in LBH it is completely replaced by form Y. This would be the easiest sort
of case when arguing that the inscriptions have a close relationship with
SBH, since the mere appearance of X, not Y, would constitute strong
evidence. The reality and the complexity of the situation is illustrated by
the well-regarded book by Rooker on Ezekiel (Rooker 1990a). Rooker is
an especially good representative since he builds on the insights of both
Avi Hurvitz and Robert Polzin (Polzin 1976). Rooker presents 37
linguistic items (20 grammatical and 17 lexical) as characteristic of LBH.
Of these, only two (lexical) cases arguably represent the situation where
the SBH form X is totally replaced by form Y in LBH. One of these is the
replacement of SBH WD by LBH j*"O for 'fine linen'. Hesitation is caused
in this case by the appearance of the SBH form in the poem about the good
wife in Prov. 31.22, which is often considered 'late' on other grounds (cf.
Wolters 1985: 585-86), and the appearance of the LBH form in the Phoenician Kilamuwa inscription (1.12/13), securely dated to the ninth century
BCE (cf. Hawkins 1982: 395-98). The second case, SBH PpHp/nSHlQ vs.
LBH nsin ('pavement') involves a total of 16 occurrences for all three
words combined, 11 of which are found in Ezekiel (five cases of HSH"!)
and 1 Kings 6-7 (six instances of JJp"lp).
Ten of the remaining linguistic forms in Rooker's discussion involve
the case where linguistic item X continues into LBH, but is joined by a
new synonym Y. When investigating the relationship of SBH to the inscriptions, what are we to make of a case when X is found in a Hebrew
inscription? Do we stress the fact that it is not Y? Or simply note that X is
attested in all strata of Hebrew, and therefore its appearance in the
inscriptions has no significance at all? In contrast, the attestation of form
Y in the inscriptions would be more significant.
The remaining 25 of Rooker's 37 LBH forms are cases where both linguistic forms X and Y are attested in SBH texts, but form Y becomes
proportionately much more significant in LBH. Since both X and Y are
attested in all strata, can we see any significance in the appearance of X in
the inscriptions? With a small corpus, can we meaningfully discuss issues
relating to the relative proportions of linguistic forms?
With these difficulties in mind, I can now turn to a detailed discussion
of the inscriptional corpus. The aim is to be comprehensive, but I am under
284
Biblical Hebrew
no illusions that I have covered all relevant forms. Hopefully at least, the
following lists can serve as the basis for future research.
3.2. Links with SBH
Here I discuss linguistic forms found in the inscriptions which have been
suggested to be links with SBH. I have added other forms that have interesting patterns of distribution within BH. I have, however, avoided cases
not suggested in the literature where it is clear that there is no linguistic
opposition with a LBH form (see, e.g., Hurvitz 1973: 76). Thus, for example, the word EJDR ('yesterday') is found in Lachish letter 3.6. The
word is not found in LBH. However, this is best explained by the fact that
'yesterday' happens not to be expressed in the LBH corpus. In this case
there is no linguistic opposition between the SBH term and another term
which fills the same linguistic slot in LBH. Absence of linguistic opposition rules out other links between the inscriptions and SBH. Thus the word
^D] ('jar, bottle') as a wine container is common in the Samaria Ostraca
and SBH. However, no wine containers seem to be referred to in core
LBH texts. ]TT1 ('axe, pick[?]') is used in Siloam Tunnel 11. 2 and 4, an
four times in SBH, but not in LBH. However, such a tool does not seem to
be mentioned at all in LBH.
The organization of this and the following sections is roughly alphabetical according to (1) the name of the inscription or (2) the title of the
general discussion.
3.2.1. Absence of Persian Loanwords. Although the classification 01 a
Persian loanword is sometimes difficult (I. Young 1993: 69-71), it is indisputable that a concentration of suspected Persian loanwords is found in
works which deal explicitly with the Persian period such as Esther.
However, not all LBH works have a concentration of suspected Persian
words. In regard to the large book of Chronicles, for example, ii has
recently been noted that 'there are very few Persian words in the entire
work' (Peltonen 2001:239). There are, moreover, no Persian words in tiie
post-exilic books of Haggai, Zechariah, and Malachi (Seow 1996: 649).
Persian words are not an inevitability in Persian period texts therefore.
More surprisingly, Persian loanwords can be suggested in SBH texts, such
as D'THa ('precincts [?]') in 2 Kgs 23.11 (Ellenbogen 1962:137-38; KB,
III: 962), or HTT^S ('steel') in Nah. 2.4 (KB, III: 929). One wonders if
more might be suggested if it was not presupposed that EBH is pre-Persian
era? Note the attitude expressed in Driver's comment on Deut. 33.2: 'But
m 'law" is a Persian word.. .it is next to impossible that it can have been
285
used in Heb[rew] when this Blessing was written' (S.R. Driver 1895: 393
[emphasis in original]).6
The appearance of Persian loanwords in a text has usually been taken as
strong evidence for dating that text. On the basis of the Persian words in
Kings and Nahum, therefore, one could argue that the linguistic evidence
points to a date of composition for the Primary History and (at least some
of) the 'pre-exilic' Latter Prophets in the Persian period. However, it seems
more sensible at present to stress that even granting that all the suggested
Persian words are indeed Persian, this does not lead inevitably to the
conclusion that the works containing them were thus first composed in the
Persian period. First of all, the language of the biblical texts has been
updated during scribal transmission. At the very least, individual late
words might have been introduced by later scribes (cf. I. Young 2001b:
130). Second, the idea that Persian words could only have come into
Hebrew in the Persian or later periods is questionable. Assyrian deportations had quite likely settled Iranians in the vicinity of the kingdom of
Judah by the late eighth century BCE, for example in Ashdod (Na'aman
and Zadok 1988; Na'aman 1993: 108-10; cf. I. Young 2001b: 130 n. 50).
Is this the origin of the use of' Ashdodite' as a term for 'foreign language'
in Neh. 13.24? Interaction with Iranians would explain how a few Persian
loanwords can be found even in supposedly pre-exilic texts like Kings,
Nahum (and, perhaps, Qoheleth; cf. I. Young 1993:140-57). A heavy concentration of Persian words would be a feature of those works which deal
intimately with Persian affairs, above all Esther. Other books, including
post-exilic books like Haggai, Zechariah, and Malachi, avoided using
them completely. Thus the failure to find Persian words in the inscriptions
does not link them exclusively to SBH works of supposed pre-exilic origin.
3.2.2. b vs. br. Rooker (1990a: 127-31) argues that the preposition ^1?
became more prominent in LBH at the expense of ^N ('to'). He points to
the Lachish letters as illustrating the EBH situation (Rooker 1990a: 131
n. 21). In general the inscriptional corpus has a predominance of ^K (46
times, as against 14 cases of bl?). Note, however, that Gogel discusses a
6. As another example, note Seow's useful discussion of Persian words in
Qoheleth, and BH in general. While he goes to lengths to cast doubt on the Persian
origin of D'HUB and mi^S (Seow 1996: 648), presumably because they are in preexilic texts, he says that 'there can be no question that the word D1~1S is ultimately of
Persian origin' (p. 649), presumably because it only occurs in what to him are postexilic texts, even though 'we should expect Old Persian d to appear as Hebrew z or d\
Hebrew s should go back to Old Persian s, not d' (p. 649 n. 38).
286
Biblical Hebrew
couple of cases (Arad 3.3-5; 24.14-16) where 7U may appear in place of

b (Gogel 1998: 213-14; cf. Layton 1990: 634 n. 2), that is, the LBH
situation (cf. below 3.3.1.16). In this case do we emphasize that SBH
sometimes also has Û for btt? Or do we claim a link with LBH? Rooker
notes that Û for ^K is quite noticeable in Jeremiah, whose setting is contemporary with the Arad letters (Rooker 1990a: 131), and even more
noticeable in their other contemporary, Ezekiel (Rooker 1990a: 131). In a
case such as this, can the inscriptions be even expected to agree closely
with SBH?
3.2.3. ]H3 ('give')Arad 1.2; 2.1; 7.2; 11.2. The infinitive absolute used
as a command is not attested in LBH according to Eskhult (2000: 90).
However, it may be found in Neh. 7.3 according to Ehrensvard (in his contribution to the present volume, pp. 169-70). It also occurs at least once in
Ben Sira (Van Peursen 2000: 225-26). More importantly, several scholars
have suggested that the Arad form is actually an irregular, non-BH form of
the imperative, which normally in BH drops the initial nun (Sarfatti 1982:
71; Gai 1996: 530-31; cf. below 3.4.1.2).
3.2.4. nn]1...DN ('if...then you will give')Arad 2.7. Rooker (1990a:
120-23) notes a tendency in LBH for the apodosis of a conditional sentence to be expressed by an imperfect verb, as opposed to the waw consecutive plus perfect in EBH. Further, Rooker argues that 'the apodosis in
LBH tends to be asyndetic [i.e. without waw]in contrast with the syndetic
apodosis in EBH' (p. 120). However, Rooker makes no claim to exhaustive
treatment of the topic, nor does he claim that this sequence was exclusive
to EBH. Van Peursen (2000: 222-24) suggests some important modifications to Rooker's statement, and notes the use of the imperfect in the
apodosis in some EBH texts. In contrast to the Arad example, note perhaps
the sequence in Lachish 3.11-12: 'If (DK) I read it, afterwards (")[nN]no
waw)I could repeat(?) it (in^nK)' (Renz and Rollig 1995, I: 418; cf.
I. Young 1998a: 412 n. 10). However, Van Peursen (2000:223) notes that
'in SBH syndesis is only the rule when the apodosis has a consecutive
verb form'. Therefore, the absence of waw on "IflN is not a specific LBH
feature, contra Rooker's argument.
3.2.5. D~IDD ('before')Arad5.12. This word never occurs in the core
LBH works such as Chronicles. However, it does appear, for example in
Ezekiel. Furthermore, what is the LBH equivalent? ^S^5 ('before') used in
287
a temporal sense is rare in LBH sources, being more common in SBH.

There are no relevant parallel passages in Samuel-Kings//Chronicles, and
the Targumic translation tifr "TU is rare in the Bible, and not found in the
core LBH texts (Isa. 47.7; Prov. 8.26).
3.2.6. rnnQ ('quickly')Arad 12.3; 17.5. This word does not occur in the
core LBH books, and in books suspected of being LBH it occurs only in
Qoh. 4.12; 8.11; Joel 4.4. LBH uses the verb, but alongside it uses the root
brQ (Wright 1998: 138-41).
3.2.7. m!T JVD ('house of the Lord')Arad 18.9; Moussaieff Ostracon
1.4. Dobbs-Allsopp (1998: 22) cites these two inscriptions while arguing that 'house of the Lord' represents the SBH equivalent of LBH fTD
DTI^Nn ('house of God'). However, 'house of the Lord' is well attested
also in LBH sources, and thus should be seen as a 'common Hebrew'
feature, not a specific marker of SBH.
3.2.8. JS ('lest')Arad 24.16, 20. Rooker (1990a: 172-73; cf. Hurvitz
1972a: 147-48; Wright 1998: 86-90) suggests that in LBH the expression
N 7 | Da~) appeared in the semantic range of a number of SBH expressions,
including ]S. It is noteworthy that ]S is very rare in LBH books, occurring
only once in Chronicles (1 Chron. 10.4//1 Sam. 31.4) and not at all in Ezra,
Nehemiah, Esther, or Daniel, nor in Qoheleth, Song of Songs or Ezekiel.
However, the picture is complicated by other considerations. Thus ]S is
almost as rare in the SBH Kings as it is in the LBH Chronicles, appearing
only twice (2 Kgs 2.16; 10.23). Note the parallel passage 2 Kgs 18.32/7
Isa. 36.18 where Kings has n!D in place of the Isaiah text's ]S. Further, |S3
is very common in the LBH of Ben Sira (Van Peursen 1999b: 230-31)
which may be related to its common use in Proverbs. Finally, we note the
occurrence in the post-exilic (but not heavily LBH) Malachi in a verse
which has been seen as part of a canon-conscious (hence late-editorial?)
'ending' of the prophetic canon (Mai. 3.24; Chapman 2000: 112).
3.2.9. HO ('in this place')Deutsch andHeltzer 1994: 29. The locative
sense of HID and HTD is not attested in LBH (Hurvitz 1982: 89-90). It is
likely we have an example of HTQ ('from this place [from there]') in
Lachish 3.18 (Torczyner 1938: 59). However, other readings and translations have been proposed (cf. Renz and Rollig 1995,1: 418).
288
Biblical Hebrew
3.2.10. PIT ('month')^Gezer Calendar,1 passim; Arad 20.2(?).s The

word is not used in core LBH, which prefers the common biblical word
2nn. However, note Zech. 11.8; Job 3.6; 7.3; 29.2; 39.2, and, in Biblical
Aramaic: Dan. 4.26; Ezra 6.15.
3.2.11. ISO ('letter')Lachish, passim. Rooker(1990a: 139-41; cf. Hurvitz
1972a: 58-59) suggests that in LBH a new word for 'written document',
DPO, joined the EBH words "ISO and DfQQ (which was rare). He says
further: 'Consistent with this diachronic distribution is the lexical preference of the Lachish letters of the early sixth century. In these letters the
early term "ISO occurs repeatedly, while the late term HHD is not attested'.
Interestingly Rooker is contrasting the linguistic usage of the Lachish
letters with that of Ezekiel, whose career overlaps with the time when the
Lachish letters were written. In any case, note that "ISO remains in common use in LBH. In the inscriptional corpus "ISO is found 13 times, only
in the Lachish letters. Outside of Lachish, it is not out of the question that
the LBH noun DfO does in fact appear in Khirbet el-Qom 1.1 (Zevit 1984:
43-44; I. Young 1993: 109; cf. below 3.3.1.7).
3.2.12. nrn ('the time')Lachish 6.2. Polzin (1976:42-43) notes that the
pluralization of certain nouns is a feature of LBH. The word DTIU is one
of these. The plural is only found in EBH once, with a suffix (Isa. 33.6).
D,y is found in the singular in Lachish, like the usual EBH form. However,
since PU is often singular in LBH too, this is not an exclusive marker of
SBH, but rather a feature of 'common Hebrew'.
3.2.13. R] ('please')Lachish 3.5(?),9 6.5. Polzin (1976: 145; cf. Bendavid 1967-71: 67; Dobbs-Allsopp 1998: 24) points out that K3 is rare in
LBH. However, it does occur eight times in Chronicles, seven in Ezra and
7. The relevance of the Gezer Calendar is debatable. While some view it as
Judahite (Diringer and Brock 1968: 39), others view it as representing another southern
dialect (Gibson 1973: 1), a northern dialect (Cross and Freedman 1952:47), or wonder
whether it is non-Israelite (e.g. Kutscher 1982: 67; Schtile 2000: 26 n. 2). While my
study (I. Young 1992b) demonstrated its links with ABH, it did not prove that such a
style was exclusive to Israel. We remain largely ignorant of Phoenician literature, for
example.
8. Gibson (1973: 51) and (Aharoni 1981: 40) read the word in the Arad text, but
recently Renz and Rollig (1995,1: 386) do not. Gogel (1998: 391) notes both readings.
9. The reading in Lachish 3.5 is considered 'most likely' by Renz and Rollig
(1995,1: 417), but other readings have been proposed.
289
Nehemiah, and two in Daniel. Note also nine occurrences total in Ezekiel,
Lamentations, Song of Songs and Qoheleth. Furthermore, one might ask
whether one (or two) occurrences only in the inscriptional corpus is evidence of a link with SBH, or with the rarity of the form in LBH.
3.2.14. lap ('arise ')Lachish 73.7.Rooker(1990a: 149-52) notes that in
LBH 1I? begins to intrude into the semantic field of Dip. He suggests
that it is significant that 'The later parallel ~QU however, does not occur in
these [Lachish] letters from the early sixth century' (Rooker 1990a: 149
n. 83). Again one notes the peculiarity of such use of the Lachish letters in
a work on LBH features in the language of their contemporary Ezekiel. In
any case, since Dip remains common in LBH the question arises again
whether its appearance in the inscription ("TftU is not attested) is a link
with SBH or just an insignificant feature of 'common Hebrew'.
3.2.15. npb vs. 'Un. Polak (1997-98: 142-44) notes that npb ('take') is
relatively rare in LBH. He argues that its main replacement is 31. In the
inscriptions Pip1? is found eight times (G.I. Davies 1991:418) while neither
????? ??? ??? ?? ??? ????? ??????????? ??? ????? ??? ?????? ????????????
none of the occurrences of Flpb need have the additional LBH sense of
'buy', although 'buy' has in fact been suggested (Albright 1941: 20, on
Lachish 3.18). Nevertheless, PIp7 ('take') is found in all types of Hebrew,
so this is not an exclusive link with SBH.
3.2.16. "JO ('from '). Polzin (1976: 66) notes the tendency of Chronicles to
leave ]Q unassimilated before a noun without an article. The inscriptions
present 78 cases of assimilated nun in this environment (57 in the Samaria
Ostraca), with only two exceptions, both uncertain readings: Arad 26.2;
Beersheba 1.2. However, among the Masoretic Text of the Hebrew Bible
(MT) forms of the biblical books it is actually only Chronicles and to a
lesser extent Job and Daniel which have a significant proportion of unassimilated ]Q (cf. Rezetko's contribution to the present volume, pp. 230-31).
??????? ?? ??? ??? ??? ?????? ??????? ?????????? ?? ??? ???? ?? ?????
also exhibits this feature very strongly (I. Young 200Ib: 122-23). Esther,
on the contrary, has no examples of unassimilated nun in 29 occurrences.
Further, sporadic occurrences are found in almost all EBH books. It is thus
doubtful whether unassimilated nun is a general feature of LBH.
3.2.17. nnb> rhv ('I have indeed sent')papMurabba'at 17a.l. Polzin
(1976: 43-44) claimed that the infinitive absolute used with a finite verb
290
Biblical Hebrew
was almost missing from Chronicles. However, Rendsburg (1980a: 67-68)

has pointed out that it is common in the core LBH book of Esther and that
its absence should thus not be considered a feature of LBH in general.
3.2.18. mpDH "D1 rrn 7\l*\SUoam Tunnel 1. Ehrensvrd (1997: 37)
points out that this sort of introduction (lit.: 'now this was the manner of
the tunnel') is found three times in SBH, but not in LBH, as part of his
argument that the inscriptions are close to SBH. However, he provides no
LBH equivalent nor any reference to a place where such an introduction
would have been appropriate in LBH. Further, all the SBH examples he
cites are lacking T1 even when the reference is clearly to a past event
(e.g. 1 Kgs 9.15). Hence this may be better classed as a form independent
of BH (cf. below 3.4.1.43).
3.2.19. Him ('whilestill')Siloam Tunnel2. Ehrensvrd(1997:37)also
cites this form and notes its absence from LBH. LBH would seem to prefer
simple 1117(1), which is, of course, common in SBH also.
3.2.20. ID^TI ('and they flowed [went] ')Siloam Tunnel 4. Hurvitz (1982:
48-52) argues that the piel of the verb "Jîl, as opposed to the regular
qal form, is late. He points out that the Siloam Tunnel evidences the qal
(Hurvitz 1982: 50; the only occurrence of "f^l in the inscriptionssee
3.3.1.4). However, as Hurvitz points out: 'The root hlk in the Qal
conjugation occurs frequently (over 1000 times) throughout all of biblical
literature: ancient and late...' (Hurvitz 1982: 49). Therefore this is not a
special link with SBH.
3.2.21. rrnn 7U IIZ^ ('who was over the house ')Silwan Tomb 2.1. This
title of a high official is also found on several seals (Layton 1990:637-41;
Gogel 1998:462,487,492). Ehrensvrd (1997: 38) notes its absence from
LBH. However, note that the full title is only found in the books of Kings
and Isaiah. Most of these references are in the parallel texts about Sennacherib, King of Assyria's attack on Hezekiah of Judah (2 Kgs 18.18,37;
19.2//Isa. 36.3,22; 37.2). The other two references are to Arza, at the end
of Elah's reign over Israel (1 Kgs 16.9), and Shebna, also in Hezekiah's
reign (Isa. 22.15).10 It is important to note that none of the passages has a
10. A relationship between Shebna and the Siloam Tomb has often been suggested
(cf. I. Young 1998a: 422 n. 29).
291
parallel in Chronicles. Hence the question arises whether Chronicles (or

LBH in general) ever had the opportunity to use this form of the title.
A shorter version of the title seems to be PPDn 715, which occurs in the
Joseph story in Genesis 3 7-50 and in Kings (1 Kgs4.6;2Kgs 15.5;Layton
1990: 633-37). 2 Kings 15.5 has a parallel in 2 Chron. 26.21, where
instead of Kings' 'Jotham the king's son was over the house (FTOn 715)'
we have 'Jotham his son was over the house of the king ("]7Q!"[ fTD 715)'.
If these are to be considered variations on rPDH 715 "12JK we must note for
our current discussion that neither Pf DH 715 nor "[7H JT!} 715 occurs in
the inscriptions.
3.2.22. nnn *pD ('silver and gold')Silwan Tomb 2.1. Ehrensvrd
(1997: 37-38) argues that while SBH prefers the order 'silver and gold',
LBH prefers 'gold and silver'. However, there is no absolute distinction,
only a question of proportions. 'Gold and silver' is not uncommon in EBH
texts. LBH also uses both. Thus Chronicles has eight 'silver and gold'
alongside its ten 'gold and silver' (Rooker 1990a: 174-75).
3.2.23. nnQK ('his maidservant')Silwan Tomb2.2. HQK ('maidservant')
is almost completely missing from LBH, appearing only, in the plural, in
Ezra 2.65//Neh. 7.67. However, its possible parallel nrtS^ is also rare
(Esth. 7.4; 2 Chron. 28.10; cf. Joel 3.2; Qoh. 2.7) and thus it is unclear
whether one should see any significance in this.
3.2.24. Summary. The overall impression left by the preceding discussion
is just how weak is the case for a clear and close link of SBH with the
Hebrew inscriptions. Very few strong points have been made. Points 3.2.3
(]D3 as infinitive absolute), 3.2.9 (locative HT), and 3.2.19 (T1I7D1) seem to
be the strongest. In these three, a form unattested or very rare in LBH
(which uses a different linguistic form) is found in the inscriptions.
More often the argument is based on the absence of a rare LBH feature
from the inscriptions in preference for the common (SBH and LBH)
Hebrew form. Examples of this nature could be multiplied beyond those
mentioned by other scholars and discussed above. We recall that LBH is
basically identical to SBH with additional, special features. Thus while
arguments about the absence of special LBH features indicate in what
ways the inscriptions are not related to LBH, they do not provide a positive argument that the inscriptions are related in a special way to SBH. A
more convincing interpretation of such features is that the inscriptions
292
Biblical Hebrew
simply share the pool of common biblical' features with SBH, LBH, and
other types of BH such as ABH and QH. This is not an argument for a
special link with any of them.
At other times the forms suggested to be distinctively SBH or LBH were
found to be not clearly characteristic of one variety of Hebrew. Finally,
sometimes SBH forms absent from LBH lacked clear LBH linguistic
oppositions.
Thus, while there are some special links between the inscriptions and
SBH, these are not strong enough to argue a self-evident identity between
the two corpora.
3.3. Links with Late Biblical Hebrew
I now turn to those linguistic features found in Hebrew inscriptions which
might be suggested to be characteristic of LBH. I organize this section into
two parts. The first gives those features which have a suggested linguistic
opposition against a parallel SBH feature. The second gives those forms
which, while found in LBH and not SBH, do not have a demonstrable
opposition to a SBH form.
3.3.1. Late Biblical Hebrew Links with Linguistic Oppositions to Standard
Biblical Hebrew
3.3.1.1. HO ]" ('wine: 3Bath')Arad 1.3; 16.5. Polzin(1976: 58-60)
argues that LBH has a tendency to place the substantive before the numeral
in apposition, where SBH uses the opposite word order. Weitzman (1996;
cf. Hurvitz 1982: 167-68) has pointed out not only that the LBH word
order is used in EBH, but also (p. 180) has discussed the inscriptional
evidence.
3.3.1.2. T bv ('under the command of )Arad 24.15. Polzin (1976:
148; cf. Dobbs-Allsopp 1998: 22) notes that the idiom T ^V is only found
in Chronicles, Ezra, and twice in Jeremiah, as well as in MH. He suggests
that it perhaps replaces the EBH TD. Note again how Jeremiah, set contemporary with this Arad ostracon, shares a form otherwise LBH.
3.3.1.3. nun] ('he wanted')Arad40.7. Hurvitz (1972a: 73-78; cf.
Wright 1998: 124-28) points out that the word HiT) in SBH has such
meanings as 'take pleasure in, be favourable to' (cf. KB, III: 1281). In MH
the root develops the sense 'to want', which in BH is expressed by j*Sl"l.
Hurvitz suggests that the semantic shift occured under the influence of
Aramaic niTl. Although it does not preserve any cases of the verb !"Iin
('to want'), LBH does evidence the noun "piP ('will'), especially in the
293
phrase |1H1P) TOI^ ('to do the will of... '). Although the word is partially reconstructed, all recent commentators find the 'late Aramaism' nK"l
('to want') in Arad 40.7, dated to the late eighth century BCE (Aharon
1981: 71; Ahituv 1992: 88; Renz and Rllig 1995,1: 147; Gogel 1998:
396).
3.3.1.4. N"Q vs. ~[bn. Polak points out that the verb "|bn ('go') is relatively rare in LBH, corresponding to a proportionate rise in the frequency
of ID ('come'; Polak 1997-98:144-48). Polak also notes that ~[bn is rare
in the inscriptions, occuring in fact only once (Siloam Tunnel 1. 4) as
against nine occurrences of ID (G.I. Davies 1991: 301) corresponding
thus with LBH rather than SBH (Polak 1997-98: 147).
3.3.1.5. DDDil ('the one who gathers')City of David 2.2, 3 (Naveh
2000: 2-3). Rooker (1990a: 156-58; cf. Hurvitz 1982: 123-25; Wright
1998: 156-60) states that '[t]he verb ODD, in the Qal and Piel stems is
restricted to LBH passages with the connotation "gather, collect'". Despite
Rooker's strong formulation, one notes the qal participle in Ps. 33.7, a
psalm one might consider to represent SBH, as well as the hithpael in Isa.
28.20. Note further the use of the root in Deut. 32.34 in the Samaritan
Pentateuch in place of the MT's hapax DQ3. The SBH oppositions to ODD,
j*3p and ^DN (cf. Gezer Calendar 1), continue to be used in LBH as well.
3.3.1.6. 1HT ('his months[?] ')Gezer Calendar 1 (twice), 2, 6. Rooker
(1990a: 91-93; cf. Polzin 1976: 38-40) states: 'The use of the proleptic
pronominal suffix increased in frequency in the history of BH and can be
seen as a characteristic of LBH'. However, Rendsburg (1980a: 69) objects
that this construction is common in EBH as well. Further, the interpretation of the Gezer form is open to dispute (I. Young 1992b: 363-66; recent
discussion in Emerton 1999b).
3.3.1.7. mPD ('his inscription ')Khirbetel-Qom 3.1. Rooker(1990a:
139-41) states that 'The noun DPD...is restricted to Ezekiel, Esther,
Daniel, Ezra, Nehemiah, and Chronicles'. Zevit (1984:43-44; cf. I. Young
1993: 109) has suggested that the noun is found in this eighth-century
Khirbet el-Qom tomb inscription. Note, however, that the reading of a
verb with an object suffix 'he wrote it' is preferred by most scholars.
3.3.1.8. HTH Pin ('in this season ')Lachish 6.2. The noun PU is generally feminine in BH. Torczyner (1938: 106-107) discusses possible cases
in the biblical text where PI? seems to be masculine. The majority of these
(including all those which Torczyner, who believed PU was always feminine, could not explain away as anything but a scribal error) are found in
books with LBH links: Ezekiel, Song of Songs, and Qoheleth. Furthermore,
294
Biblical Hebrew
nu is taken as masculine in LBH when it is expressed as the plural DTIIJ

(cf. 3.2.12), which can be found with masculine adjectives, see Ezra 10.14
(cf. BDB: 773).
3.3.1.9. nS"l^ ('to cause to be slack')Lachish 6.6. The normal SBH
causative for the root 1S") is the hiphil stem. The piel may reflect the
Aramaic use of the pael stem. Within BH the distribution of the piel is
'late' (Ezra 4.4; Ezek. 1.24, 25; Jer. 38.4; cf. Job 12.21). However, the
occurences in Jeremiah and Ezekiel, while both works reflecting LBH
influence, are from texts which date themselves contemporary with the
Lachish letters.
3.3.1.10. DON! ('andstored')MesadHashavyahu111.5, 6-7. The verb
DDK ('to store') is not found in BH. The cognate noun 'storehouse' is
attested in Prov. 3.10 and 4Q416 2.2 from Qumran (DCH,I: 346). Since
there is a linguistic opposition to SBH "1UN ('storehouse') a case could be
made that this is a feature of LBH.
3.3.1.11. DDK! ('and stored')Mesad Hashavyahu 1.5, 6-7. Rooker
(1990a: 100-102) argues that 'a distinctive feature of LBH is the diminished employment of the waw consecutive tense... Accompanying the
tendency to avoid the consecutive tense in LBH is the increase in the use
of the simple tense with waw conjunction. ' Scholars have long noted what
Rooker calls 'the reluctance to use the waw consecutive tense' in the Hebrew inscriptions, particularly the Lachish letters (Albright 1939:21 ; Baumgartner 1940-41: 609; Rooker 1990: 100 n. 123). It is notable that while
the waw consecutive plus perfect is used eight times in the Arad letters,
and waw consecutive plus imperfect is common in the Mesad Hashavyahu
ostracon, waw conscutives are very rare elsewhere.12 Nevertheless, it is
hard to find examples where simple waw with a verb is found where waw
consecutive might be expected.13 One might explain this as due to the
11. The relevance of the Mesad Hashavyahu material for JH might be questioned,
since neither Judahite political control of the region, nor a background of biblical law
for the case discussed can be taken as certain (see recently Hubner 1997). Although we
know little about the neighbouring languages, it is clear that all the inscriptions written
in Canaanite (including Philistine, see the Ekron text) were in a language very similar
to each other and to BH, and hence it is difficult to be sure we have 'Hebrew' here.
12. I found waw consecutive plus perfect at Arad 2.7-8; 3.5, 8; 7.5-6 (waw
reconstructed); 16.4; 17.3-4; 24.13 (probably), 14-15(orimperative?);Moussaieff2.3,
4; and waw consecutive plus imperfect at Lachish 4.6-7; Mesad Hashavyahu 1.4, 5,7,
8; Siloam Tunnel 1. 4.
13. Apart from the current form, only the dubious case of waw plus imperfect in
Kuntillet 'Ajrud 8.1 (context unclear; Phoenician?)
295
nature of the textsvery seldom are two 'consecutive' actions described.

However, Isserlin has suggested that an important factor is the predominance of inverted sentence structures in the inscriptions, that is, an
avoidance of placing the verb in sentence initial position where the waw
consecutive appears (Isserlin 1972: 200-202; cf. I. Young 1993: 104). In
any case, there are numerous cases of simple waw plus perfect in EBH
(see Rezetko's contribution to the present volume, pp. 233-35), and the
converted tenses are used regularly in LBH. Also, 'The decline of wayyiqtol in [LBH] is significant, but.. .there is no indication that it declines in
usage in favour ofweqatar (Eskhult 2000: 84). Note also, that an alternative interpretation of the Mesad Hashavyahu form is as an infinitive
absolute (e.g. Diringer and Brock 1968: 42; cf. Gogel 1998: 267 n. 30).
The infinitive absolute in place of a finite verb is slightly more common in
LBH than SBH (Eskhult 2000: 90), but still well attested in EBH (Rendsburg 2002b: 37-38). Schule (2000: 133-34) has recently argued against
seeing DDK"! as an infinitive.14
3.3.1.12. !Tn IHp ('he was harvesting')Mesad Hashavyahu 1.3.
Rooker(1990a: 108-109) states: 'The use of the copula PIT! with the participle, a common feature of MH [cf. Sarfatti 1992: 56-57], enjoyed an
increased frequency in the literature of LBH'. However, the issue is merely
increased frequency, not absence of this feature from SBH. Muraoka
(1999: 194-201) has in fact argued that it is not uncommon in SBH, so
much so that 'it is hardly the case that the syntagm is characteristic of Late
Biblical Hebrew' (p. 195). Ehrensvrd (in his contribution to this volume:
p. 171) disputes this last claim, but does not dispute that there are a significant number of SBH occurrences.15 Finally, we should note the alternative
reading of the inscription: 'Your servant is a harvester piJp ~j"QU). Your
servant was...("["ai7 iTH)' (cf. Renz and Rllig 1995,1: 324).
3.3.1.13. | Q (from ') unassimilated. As noted above (3.2.16) there area
couple of suggested places where the preposition ]Q ('from') is unassimilated before a noun without a definite article, a supposed tendency of
LBH. However, the readings are dubious.
14. Schule (2000: 133-42) proposes that the so-called 'perfect consecutive' in fact
represents a stative form used for circumstantial clauses.
15. Dobbs-Allsopp (1998: 30-31) points out that rrn plus participle is not attested
in Aramaic before the Hermopolis letters (c. 500 BCE). This shows commendable
attention to the inner chronology of Aramaic (cf. n. 4, above). However, what are we to
make of this? Is it evidence that SBH is post-exilic? Or that Aramaic evidence must be
handled very cautiously when talking about the chronology of Hebrew?
296
Biblical Hebrew
3.3.1.14. "f^QH irn^N ('Ashiyahu the king')Moussaieff Ostmcon

1.1-2.16 The word order 'X the king' is suggested to be LBH, in contrast to
the SBH 'the king X' (Kropat 1909: 74; D. Talshir 1992: 280). However,
as Rezetko points out (see his article in the present volume, pp. 229-30)
the 'LBH' order is found in EBH texts, while some LBH books like Esther
use the 'SBH' order completely.
3.3.1.15. Afowma/s/y/e. Frank Polak( 1997-98; 1998; 2002a; and in his
contribution to the present volume, pp. 47-49) has argued that a 'nominal'
style, that is, a high proportion of nouns to verbs, is a characteristic of
LBH. Polak (e.g. 1997-98:51 -52) also points out the highly nominal style
of Hebrew inscriptions: of course, there are no verbs in many administrative documents like the Samaria Ostraca. Polak himself sees this as due to
the genre, and would suggest that his findings are relevant for the chronology of literary Hebrew only. The later strata of SBH, like the Jeremiah
Vita, and LBH, are increasingly under the influence of the scribal style of
administrative Hebrew, whereas the earlier narratives, like the Samson
narrative, are under the influence of oral literary style.
In any case, one may question whether Polak's data require a chronological interpretation. He points out that the verbal style, that is with a high
proportion of verbs to nouns, which he sees as a feature of early narratives,
is also found in late sources such as the later Midrashim and some
medieval narratives (Polak 2002a; see also his contribution to the present
volume, pp. 59, 81). The operative factor then is not date but nature of
source. Works using oral traditions as their source tend to preserve some
features of oral style; works using written sources, or heavily reworked by
their scribes, reflect a more scribal style. Polak has thus discovered
important information relating to the origins of biblical traditions, but it is
not relevant to the question of chronology.
3.3.1.16. 71? for vN. As noted above (3.2.2) several cases of the supposed LBH tendency to use 7U in place of the preposition ^N ('to') have
been suggested.
3.3.1.17. HON *f?Nl D^HNan ('for 200 and WOO [i.e. 1200] cubits')
Siloam Tunnel 5. S.R. Driver (1913b: x) points out that the order of the
numerals, with the smaller first, is rare in the Hebrew Bible, except in P,
16. There is debate regarding the authenticity of the Moussaieff Ostraca, see:
Berlejung and Schttle 1998; C.A. Rollston (1998 [a section that appears within
Bordreuil, Israel and Pardee 1998]); Eph'al and Naveh 1998. Part of the case against
the ostraca has rested on the presence of 'late' Hebrew elements in them. In view of the
discussion in this section, we can see that such an argument cannot be decisive.
297
Ezekiel and Chronicles. However, as is usual with LBH features, the

construction is also attested in EBH sources (e.g. 1 Kgs 5.12).
3.3.1.18. HQK PINO ('100 cubits')Siloam Tunnel 5-6. S.R. Driver
( 1913b: x) further notes that the use of the number ' 100' in the form HKQ
is common in the P source, which has been argued to have links with LBH
(Polzin 1976). Outside of the Pentateuch HNQ is only found in books with
a concentration of LBH features: Qoh. 8.12; Esth. 1.4; Neh. 5.11 ; 2 Chron.
25.9.
3.3.1.19. IS 3HT ('goldof Ophir')Tell Qasile 2.1. The expression
'gold of Ophir' occurs four times in the Hebrew Bible. Three times (Isa.
13.12; Ps. 45.10; Job 28.16) the word 'gold' is expressed by the rare word
DfD. Only in the LBH of Chronicles (1 Chron. 29.4), and in this inscription, is the common word DHT used (Sarfatti 1982: 77). Note that DPD
occurs in LBH in Dan. 10.5, although its distribution hardly favours the
idea that it is characteristic specifically of LBH (contra Dobbs-Allsopp
1998: 14).
3.3.1.20. Theophoric element IT- Kutscher (1974: 4-5, 122-23) suggested that the use of the theophoric element 1T- in personal names in
the MT of Isaiah reflected a linguistic background in the pre-exilic period.
In contrast, the use of the short form !T- marked lQIsaa's linguistic
background as from the Second Temple period. This idea is based on
Torczyner's work on the Lachish letters where, it should be noted, he went
to great lengths to explain away pre-exilic evidence of the co-existence of
the short ending (Torczyner 1938: 24-25). While the long form certainly
predominates in the inscriptions, I found the short form 14 times.17 No
clear chronology emerges from the biblical evidence. Note especially the
tendency of the LBH Chronicles to have long endings where the SBH
Kings has short (Japhet 1968: 339).
3.3.1.21. Use of the infinitive construct. Polzin (1976: 45-46; cf. Wright
1998: 67-72) argues that LBH shows a less frequent use of the infinitive
construct with 3 and D (typically 'when'), and that even when LBH uses
these they are found without introductory TH. He further argues that
LBH shows an increased use of the infinitive construct with 7 ('to'; Polzin
1976: 56-58). The Hebrew inscriptions present 19 forms identified as
infinitive constructs with a preposition,18 17 of them with ;> and only one
17. Gezer Calendar left margin and reverse; Tell Jemmeh ostracon 2.3,4; for the
seals see Gogel 1998: 485, 486, 489, 490, 493; Deutsch and Heltzer 1995: 47.
18. With^: Arad 1.8; 24.18; 40.14; 111.7; Lachish 3.1-2, 10, 14,15,18, 20 (note
the number in Lachish 3!); 6.6; 13.1; Mesad Hashavyahu 1.12-13; Moussaieff 1.2;
298
Biblical Hebrew
each with 11 and D. Neither of these latter two cases appears with TP1
Gogel (1998:289-90) notes that no example of TH appears in the inscriptions. Schule (2000: 182-86) argues that this is evidence that TH is a late
redactional element in BH. Instead, in the inscriptions circumstantial
clauses have a prepositional/adverbial phrase in first position. Although
the inscriptions link in with what might be expected of LBH in these
cases, note for example that there are EBH cases of infinitives without
TH (Polzin 1976: 46) and LBH cases with TPl (Rooker 1990a: 103).
3.3.2. Other Links with LBH. In this section I present forms which have
connections with LBH sources but for which linguistic oppositions with
SBH have not been found.
3.3.2.1. "D"lp^l ('andto the Qerosite')Aradl8.5. The Qerosites are
only attested, as a family of temple servants, in Ezra 2.44//Neh. 7.47.
3.3.2.2. flN m|T ('somethinghappen to ')Arad24.16. The imperfect
of mp with DN as the object marker only occurs in Qoh. 2.14; 9.11.
However, note the participle with DK in Gen. 42.29.
3.3.2.3. "pun "131 ('an order from the king ')Arad24.17. The expression is very common in Chronicles and Esther, but for EBH note 1 Sam.
21.9.
3.3.2.4. "1TQD a type ofwine(?) Hazor 7. This word is otherwise only
attested in S ong 2.13, 15;7.13, meaning 'flowerbuds of the vine ' (KB, II :
759).
3.3.2.5.Dn]3 N7 ('withoutsons')Moussaieff Ostracon 2.3. This expression is found only in 1 Chron. 2.30, 32 (Berlejung and Schle 1998:
69), as well as Rabbinic sources and Aramaic (Qimron 1998: 181-82).
However, the use of tib in similar syntagms to indicate non-existence or
non-presence is attested in all strata of Hebrew, albeit only in poetry in BH
outside of Chronicles (Van Peursen 1999: 226).
3.3.2.6. ^QI? "]T IT m ('let your hand be with me')Moussaieff Ostracon 2.3-4. This expression is only found in 1 Chron. 4.10 (Berlejung and
Schule 1998: 70; cf. Qimron 1998: 184).
3.3.3. Conclusion. It is initially quite surprising to see how many links can
be suggested between the inscriptions and LBH. One might have expected
these to be rarer, or indeed non-existent, as has sometimes been claimed
in the literature (cf. Albright 1939: 20-21; Ehrensvrd 1997: 36-37). On
Ophel 1.3; Siloam Tunnel 2, 4. With 3: Kuntillet 'Ajrud 8.1 (Phoenician?). With D:
Arad 16.3.
299
reflection, however, this discovery can be seen in harmony with the biblical evidence. Scholars of LBH have always admitted that LBH forms
could be found in EBH works. It is only the accumulation of such features
which marks a work as LBH (see, e.g., Hurvitz 1973: 76).
LBH features are found occasionally in pre-exilic texts, a fact demonstrated by the inscriptions. Thus (at least some of) the features of LBH
were in existence in this period (remember that very few LBH features are
unattested in EBH sources). Occasionally these LBH forms made their
way into SBH compositions. An issue which has received inadequate
attention is the logical argument: if pre-exilic authors could occasionally
choose to use LBH forms, why could a pre-exilic author not choose to
write in a style with a heavy concentration of LBH features (cf. my argument regarding Qoheleth in I. Young 1993: 140-57)? If the LBH features
existed in pre-exilic times, yet authors chose to avoid them, can we prove
that post-exilic authors could not likewise have been able to avoid such
forms and write SBH?
The accumulation of LBH forms discussed in this section do not, in my
judgment, indicate a special relationship between the inscriptions and
LBH. For one thing, too few 'LBH' forms are completely unattested in
SBH sources. Also, one does not find a concentration of LBH features in
one inscription comparable with the core LBH texts. In this sense the arguments of Hurvitz and Ehrensvrd cited above are correct: the inscriptions
are like SBH in that they avoid a heavy concentration of LBH features.
However, this is not a strong argument that therefore SBH and the inscriptions must be closely related. Indeed, we did not find strong evidence
of a special relationship between the inscriptions and SBH. Instead, the
inscriptions share much that is common to both SBH and LBH. Occasionally they share special features of SBH and LBH. Quite a number of times
inscriptional Hebrew is indpendant of both types of Hebrew (cf. I. Young
1997: 8-9). It is to these independent features that we now turn.
3.4. Inscriptional Forms Unattested or Rare in the MT
3.4.1. Unattested in the MT. Forms are unattested in the Bible for a number
of reasons. Sometimes it is due to accident: no context for mentioning that
word occurs in the Hebrew Bible. At other times other words are preferred
in BH to express the meaning of the inscriptional word.
3.4.1.1. Abbreviations. The inscriptions use abbreviations such as > for
'shekel' (e.g. Arad 16.5; see G.I. Davies 1991:488) or 3 for 'Bath (measure)' (e.g. Arad 1.3; see G.I. Davies 1991: 512-13). Although strongly
suspected to have been used at some stage of the history of the text (Tov
300
Biblical Hebrew
1992: 256-58), no abbreviations are attested in existing biblical manuscripts.

3.4.1.2. ]HD ('give! ')Arad 1.2; 2.1; 7.2; 11.2. Several scholars have
suggested that this is the qal imperative of the root ]H], which in BH
always drops the initial nun (Sarfatti 1982: 71; Gai 1996: 530-31) instead
of an infinitive absolute used as a command (see 3.2.3).
3.4.1.3. D"1 ('day')Arad 1.4 etc. The consistent defective spelling of
this word in contrast to BH DV has been interpreted as indicating that the
inscriptional form was pronounced *yam (Cross and Freedman 1952: 50,
53; Schule2000:52), the unattested singular to the MT plural D'tf('days').
However, it cannot be excluded that we have merely a case of non-MT
orthography (cf. below, section 4).
3.4.1.4.11D ('remainder')Arad 1.5; 5.3. The noun Til? ('remainder')
is unattested in BH, which uses a range of other words for this meaning:
"WEI, "irm, "IKK?, irr (V. Sasson 1979: 17-26; cf. I. Young 1993: 113).
Ahituv (1995:379-80) notes the occurrence of TO in MH. Sarfatti (1992:
60-61) argues that the use of 111? as a noun, rather than an adverb 'still,
yet, again (etc.)', represents a typologically more ancient linguistic usage
in the inscriptions as opposed to BH.
3.4.1.5. ]10TT Hup ('the first flour')Arad 1.5-6; cf. 5.3-4. Although
various sorts of flour are mentioned in BH, this designation is not used.
3.4.1.6. D!D~in ('you shall loadf?] ')Arad 1.6-7. The interpretation of
this word is disputed, but it is generally thought to be used in a sense not
attested in the Bible, such as 'load onto a donkey' (Ahituv 1995: 380-81)
or 'grind' (Gibson 1973: 52; V. Sasson 1979: 7-16; for other suggestions
seeAharoni 1981: 13; Renz and Rllig 1995,1: 355-56; Schiile 2000: 115
n.2).
3.4.1.7. "]Q^2/7 ^RET ('may [the Lord] ask for your wellbeing')
Arad 18.2-3. In BH the corresponding phrase attaches the pronoun to an
additional preposition ^, not onto the noun D"!1?^ (e.g. DH^ I^NIZH
DlW?, Gen. 43.27). Parallels to the Arad form are found in pre-Israelite
Canaan in the Canaanite-Akkadian of the Ta'anach and Amarna letters (cf.
Hani lisalu sulumka, 'may the gods ask after your wellbeing', Ta'anach
1.5-6; Rainey 1971: 14-15; Loewenstamm 1972: 70). Gibson (1973: 53;
cf. Loewenstamm 1972:70) notes further that the expression is not used in
the Bible with God as the subject. In Deut. 23.7 we find the expression
DD^C^ Bmn $h ('you shall not seek their peace'), with the suffix on the
noun, albeit with a different verbal root.
301
3.4.1.8.-^ "|ru"Q ('1have blessedyou by [theLord]")~Arad 16.2 etc.

The preposition 7 used to express agency with the verb ~["Q is only
attested in inscriptional Hebrew, at Arad, and Kuntillet ' Ajrud. The Sheffield Dictionary (DC//, II: 270) also cites 1 Chron. 29.20. However, here
the *7 seems to be simply indicating the object. Contrast, for example, Gen.
27.7: '1 will bless you before (^S^1) the Lord'. Sarfatti notes, however, the
use of the passive participle ...^ ~p""Q in, for instance, Judg. 17.2. The
parallels to the inscription form in the Aramaic of the Hermopolis papyri
trom c. 500 BCE (Hermopolis 1.2 etc.; cf. Hoftijzer and Jongeling 1995,1:
201 ) show the dangers of using Aramaic sources to establish the chronology of Hebrew.
3.4.1.9. ""QTn ('Andconcerning the matter... ')Arad 18.6-7. For 'concerning', BH prefers constructions with other prepositions, particularly 7U
(see, e.g., Gen. 43.18).
3.4.1.10. mrrn ('as the Lord lives ')Lachish 3.9; Arad 21.5(7) (cf
Renz andRllig 1995, I: 387; Gogel 1998: 391). BH always spells thi
expression as two words (cf. Lachish 6.12; 12.3). While we may just
be dealing with a non-MT spelling (cf. section 4), it is likely that the
spelling reflects a colloquial pronunciation of the idiom (cf. Schniedewind
2000:160-61 ). Rooker cites this form as evidence of the SBH morphology
of the perfect of the verb !Tn (Rooker 1990a: 82 n. 55). However the
expression is not normally considered to contain a verb (BDB: 311-12;
KB. I: 307-308).
3.4.1.11. DTpnm ('and hand them over)Arad 24.14-15; DDmD
( on your life ')Arad 24.18. The Ii/S interchange in these words OpD for
BH IpS and EDD for BH 2ED3 ) has received much discussion (cf. Sarfatti
1982: 69-71; 1992: 43-44; 1. oune J993: 112-13). Whatever the explanation, we clearly have two non-biblical forms here.
3.4.1.12. D"1 Tip] ('[before] the sun sets')Arad 40.10-11. The reading and interpretation of this section present some difficulties (cf. Renz
and Rllig 1995,1: 148) but most commentators read as above. The only
possible biblical parallel where the day 'goes down' (~IT) rather than
'enters' (NIHl) is found in Judg. 19.11, which is, however, a very difficult
text (cf. BDB: 433).
3.4.1.13. rfrvhD^T 133[*]('we are not able to send')Arad
40.13-14. The participle of blT is not attested in BH, but is typical of MH
(Perez Fernandez 1999: 114). Similarly, the negation of the participle b
] is typical of MH (Segal 1927: 162-63). Eskhult (2000: 88) notes th
parallel verses 1 Kgs 22.8/72 Chron. 18.7 where Kings has $fo + imperfect,
302
Biblical Hebrew
whereas the LBH Chronicles has ] n N + participle. In BH we would normally expect ^DID $h instead of the Arad form (Aharoni 1981: 73; cf.
Sarfatti 1992: 55-56). If one wished to equate MH with 'lateness', this
form would thus qualify as LBH.
3.4.1.14. ^TID ]" ('dark wine >l9)Avigad Wine Decanter 1. Although
many sorts of wine are referred to in the Hebrew Bible (Jordan 2002), this
variety is not mentioned. This is either by accident or because BH refers to
this sort of wine using a different name. Rabbinic sources refer to dark
wine using the adjective 11112? (Demsky 1972: 234).
3.4.1.15. DID ('write[?]')City of David 2.1 (Naveh 2000: 2-3). The
root E~1D is not attested in the Hebrew Bible. Naveh (2000: 3) wonders
whether 'it stands for u"12? (> CD"ID in later Hebrew), meaning "to incise, to
scratch, to make marks, to make incisions in the body, to wound"'.
3.4.1.16. 11T ('months[?] ')Gezer Calendar 1 (twice), 2, 6. If this
form is to be understood as terminating in a masculine plural construct
case ending (I. Young 1992b: 363-66), rather than a proleptic suffix (see
3.3.1.6), it represents a form unattested in the Bible.
3.4.1.17. IHr ('harvesting[?] [flax] ')Gezer Calendar 3. Although the
tool named "TUI7D is attested in the Hebrew Bible (KB, II: 615) the verb
is unattested. Since the exact translation is uncertain we cannot be sure
whether there is a linguistic opposition to a biblical word such as "IHp
('harvest').
3.4.1.18. |*p ('summerfruit')Gezer Calendar 7. BH only attests the
form pp. The absence of the medial yod has suggested to scholars that
the Gezer form had a reduced diphthong (qs), contrary to the biblical evidence (Gibson 1973:4). It is possible, however, that we merely have here
an orthographic difference (cf. section 4).
3.4.1.19. -]~n ('walled plot[?]')Gibeon 1 etc. BH only attests the
sense 'wall', whereas some scholars take this word in the inscriptions to
refer to a walled plot or a vineyard (Gogel 1998: 315; cf. DCH, II: 327).
However, other scholars see the form as a proper noun (Gibson 1973: 56).
3.4.1.20. Hieratic numerals. Our biblical texts spell numbers in full.
This is found in some inscriptions (e.g. the 'year 9' and 'year 10' Samaria
ostraca), but not in others (e.g. the 'year 15' Samaria ostraca, or commonly
19. Since all wine in this period was probably red (Jordan 2002), the precise sense
of dark wine' is questionable. Demsky's references might suggest a darker variety of
red wine (Demsky 1972: 234), whereas Avigad suggested that the wine was not named
after a characteristic but was named after a locality briD (Avigad 1972: 4-5). In both
cases we are still talking about the name of a variety of wine.
303
in the Arad ostraca), where hieratic numerals of Egyptian origin are used
(see Millard 1995).
3.4.1.21. Dp^S ('dividers[?] ')Horvat 'Uza Jar 8 (Beit-Arieh 1993:
34-40). The root p^S is not attested in BH. Beit-Arieh suggests a connection with the root ^S ('divide'), and hence a 3/p interchange (Beit-Arieh
1993: 38).
3.4.1.22. Tin ('tomb chamber')Khirbet el-Qom 1; Siloam Tomb 2.
BH attests the sense of 'inner room'. The reference to a tomb chamber is
only attested in the inscriptions (DCH, III: 163-64).
3.4.1.23. T"litt3 ('from his enemies ')Khirbet el-Qom 3.3. The suffix
IT- ('his') is possibly related to the suffix attested in Hab. 3.10 liTT and
Job 24.23 irTTJ? (see Gogel 1998: 157-58 n. 182).
3.4.1.24. Divine element V- Kuntillet 'Ajrud; Samaria Ostraca etc. BH
employs the divine elements "1T- and !T- at the end of names, whereas
inscriptions relating both to the Northern Kingdom and the Southern Kingdom (I. Young 1993: 114-15) have a form without the he, namely, V-. In
general the V- names are northern, whereas most southern names agree
with the biblical 1T-/IT- (see 3.3.1.20). Nevertheless, despite hints of a
different situation (Diringer and Brock 1968:41 ; Briquel-Chatonnet 1992:
104-105) it is significant that our current texts do not mention northerners
with the V- theophoric element.
3.4.1.25. ""QIT ('may he give first knowledge ')Lachish 2.5. This sense
is unattested in BH (cf. Emerton 2001: 12).
3.4.1.26. VC^h ('ever')Lachish 3.10. The expression mj]b is never
used in BH with reference to past time (Torczyner 1938: 17, 56; Gibson
1973: 40).
3.4.1.27. D-D nr ('even today')Lachish 2.3; 4.1; 5.5; 8.2. This collocation is unattested in BH.
3.4.1.28. rQDfQ ('in the turning of)Lachish 4.9. This noun is unattested in BH. Its specific nuance is debated; one suggestion is 'inspection
tour' (cf. V. Sasson 1979: 27-36; 1982a; Renz and Rllig 1995,1: 422).
3.4.1.29. ]KJI? I" ('strong wine')Lachish 25.1. This designation for
wine is unattested in BH.
3.4.1.30. TQ ('extract')Lachish30.1. Lemaire(1980: 92-93)suggests
that this is a designation of a type of wine, unattested in the Hebrew Bible,
and suggests reading it in a Hazor inscription also (Hazor 7; cf. Renz and
Rllig 1995,1: 128).
3.4.1.31. n"TO npOH ('black raisins ')Lachish 30.1. In BH, 'raisins'
are masculine ( 1 Sam. 30.12); whereas here the adjective indicates them to
be feminine (Lemaire 1980: 94).
304
Biblical Hebrew
3.4.1.32. DDK! ('andstored')Mesad Hashavyahu 1.5, 6-7. As pointed

out above (3.3.1.10) the noun 'storehouse' is rare in BH. The verb is unattested. BH uses other words for 'storing', for example, ""IUN (V. Sasson
1979:46-55).
3.4.1.33. DQ^D ('according to the agreed days[?]')Mesad Hashavyahu 1.5, 7. Whether understood as DîT-D ('as usual') or DD'Tlp ('as every
day'; cf. Renz and Rllig 1995,1: 325), the nuance is not attested in BH.
3.4.1.34. ^ IJiT ('they will testify for me ')Mesad Hashavyahu 1.10,
11. BH only attests -3 if]I7 ('testify against').
3.4.1.35. DbttfnN r\rhv ('I have sent peace')papMurabba'at 17a.l.
The greeting 'send peace' is not attested in BH. Normally one asks (^NE?)
about the wellbeing (DI^K/?) of someone. Sarfatti (1982:80) notes that the
related expression at Arad ( 16.1 -2; 21.1 -2; 40.2-3), tfrvh rte, is also not
attested in BH. He notes an occurrence of D^C? n^t? at Elephantine (CAP
41.3), which is another example of the difficulties of guessing what is in
contemporary Hebrew on the basis of Aramaic sources.
3.4.1.36. ^rf] ('guide ')Neriyahu Seal (Deutsch and Heltzer 1994:
54-55). The verbal root îl] (piel) is 'to guide' and is well known in BH;
but the noun is unattested. However, since it is hard to think of a BH equivalent (there is no noun form of JH3 ['lead'] attested either) this is probably
chance.
3.4.1.37. *]!] weights. The weight name ff]^] is not mentioned in the
Hebrew Bible. Other weight names such as UpD and D^S are also poorly
attested, so this may simply be chance (Diringer and Brock 1968:40; Scott
1970).
3.4.1.38. r\\D ('year')Samaria Ostraca 1.1 etc. Even in texts which
might be considered to have links with the Northern Kingdom, for example, narratives about northern kings, or the prophecy of Amos, the word
for year is HJ^, construct DJE?. The word 'year' is not attested in southern
inscriptions.
3.4.1.39. "p ( 'wine ')Samaria Ostraca 5.3 etc. The spelling without the
medial yod has suggested to scholars that the word was pronounced with a
reduced diphthong (Cross and Freedman 1952: 49). Southern Hebrew
attests]'" (e.g. Arad 1.3), which links up with BH]". However, note that
the form p"1 is found even in parts of the Bible where a northern link might
be expected, such as narratives dealing with northerners, or the prophets
Hosea and Amos. It is, of course, possible that the difference is merely one
of spelling, rather than pronunciation (cf. section 4).
305
3.4.1.40. |ET "p ('oldwine ')Samaria Ostraca 5.3 etc. This designation
of wine is never found in the Bible, but is attested in MH (Sarfatti 1982:
76).
3.4.1.41. y m ]QC? ('purifiedoil ')Samaria Ostraca 16.3 etc. The term
seems to be parallel to various BH (and southern?) words describing oil,
such as fT ('clear, pure'; V. Sasson 1979:65-75; 1981; Ahituv 1992: 176),
but note the alternative translation: 'oil for washing' (cf. Renz and Rllig
1995,1:83).
3.4.1.42. mp] ('tunnel')SiloamTunnel 1. V. Sasson (1982b: 116; cf.
1979: 105) contrasts this noun with BH HÛfl. Other scholars suggest
reading a verbal form (Renz and Rllig 1995, I: 183-84). Note that the
verb Dpj is never used in BH referring to anything but a small hole
(V. Sasson 1979: 99; 1982b: 114).
3.4.1.43. -H "Ql (TH nilSiloam Tunnel 1. As discussed above
(3.2.18), the parallel BH expressions all lack iTTI.
3.4.1.44. HIT Cfissure[?] ')Siloam Tunnel 3. This word is unattested
in BH, although its exact meaning is debated (Renz and Rllig 1995,1:
184-85)
3.4.1.45. rrh ('towards ')Siloam Tunnel 4. BH always derives this
construction from the root Nlpn. The Siloam form seems to be from the
parallel root Hip (Renz and Rllig 1995,1: 188), unless the aleph has
been dropped (cf. Gibson 1973: 23; Gogel 1998: 211 n. 274).
3.4.1.46. D'HNQD ('for [one thousand] 200 ')Siloam Tunnel 5. Gibson
(1973: 23) notes regarding the initial preposition: 'There are no very clear
parallels to the use of [b]...'
3.4.1.47. "IIBN D1NH 1118 ('cursedbe the man [one] who... ')Silwan
Tomb 2.2. Sarfatti (1992: 58-60; cf. 1982: 74-75) points out the contrast
between this expression and the common biblical expression IZTNil "THN.
He notes that this is related to a more general phenomenon. BH rarely uses
D~fN as an indefinite pronoun, 'someone, anyone', preferring instead to
use the other word for 'man', CTN. He notes that MH, in contrast, uses
only DIN for this function. Further, Sarfatti notes the use of DIN in the
inscriptions as an indefinite pronoun in Lachish 4.5-6, DIN D) pN ('there
is no-one there')contrast 2 Kgs 7.10: KTN DC? pN, although DIN is also
used in the context. His third example, from Lachish 3.4-5 rests on a
dubious reading (cf. Renz and Rllig 1995,1: 417). Sarfatti notes that the
more common BH usage of CTN as an indefinite pronoun also occurs in
the inscriptions from Arad (40.8) and Lachish (3.9-10), and three times
in the expression 'a man to his fellow' in the Siloam Tunnel inscription.
With a small corpus one cannot meaningfully talk about the relative
306
Biblical Hebrew
proportions of DIN vs. CTN in the inscriptions vs. BH, but the contrast in
the specific case of the curse expression is instructive.
3.4.1.48. Theophoric element -IPT. D. Talshir (1998) demonstrates
systematic differences between the epigraphic evidence and the MT in the
question of the theophoric prefixes -1T and -T. Thus, for example, the
name 3NV ('Joab') is found 146 times in the Bible with no trace of DN1T.
The long form, however, is the one which prevails in the epigraphic evidence (D. Talshir 1998: 368 n. 19).
3.4.2. Rare Forms in the MT
3.4.2.1. fir ('now')-Arad 1.2 etc. The MT normally attests the lon
form mi?. However, the form without the he is attested as the kethib in
Ezek. 23.43 and Ps. 74.6. The inscriptional form either reflects a linguistic
variation (Cross and Freedman 1952: 52-53; Andersen 1999: 9-10) or
simply a variation of spelling practice (cf. section 4 below).
3.4.2.2. "QJ? ('produce ')AradSl. 10. The word l'Or only appears in
Josh. 5.11-12, where it appears with (is explained by?) the more common
wordnN-Dn (Aharoni 1981: 58).
3.4.2.3. rano ('rags[?] ')City of David 2.1 (Naveh 2000: 2-3). The
word rVOnD is only attested in Jer. 38.11-12.
3.4.2.4. 73 ('measuring')Gezer5; Mesad Hashavyahu 1.5, 6, 8. The
qal verb 'TD/b'O ('measure') is found in BH only at Isa. 40.12 (Diringer
and Brock 1968:41-42). A derivation from H^D ('finish') is less likely (cf.
V. Sasson 1979: 56-64; Renz and Rllig 1995,1: 325-26). The general BH
word for 'measuring' is "T1D.
3.4.2.5. HDin ('Iblessed')Kuntillet 'Ajrud l;rbl ('I measured')-
Mesad Hashavyahu 1.8; finb^ ('I sent ')papMurabba 'at 17a.l. The first
person perfect without a final yod is attested five times in the MT (GKC
44i). The inscription forms may be interpreted as either a variant short
form of the suffix (Gibson 1973: 30; Andersen 1999: 10) or as simply a
spelling variation (cf. below section 4).
3.4.2.6. nmiBN ('hisAsherah ')Kuntillet 'Ajrud8.2 etc. It is debatable
whether any examples of suffixes on proper nouns appear in BH. However, it is also possible that the word 'asherah' here is the designation for
an object, not a personal name (e.g. Emerton 1999a).
3.4.2.7. 'K ('there is not')~Lachish 2.5-6. Gibson (1973: 37-38) suggests reading the negative "'N in this place, which only occurs in Job 22.30
in the MT. It is common in RH. However, more commonly scholars suggest
two letters are missing, giving the reading ** [3"T]N ('my lord')Renz and
Rllig 1995,1: 412.
307
3.4.2.8. imDHK ('I would give him[?] ')Lachish 3.12. All of the various suggested interpretations involve forms rare or unattested in BH. As
]n3 ('give') the suffix with extra nun is rare and poetic in BH. The verb
rnn ('repeat') is a rare dialect form of SBH HD27. The verb ]3P ('pay') is
unattested in BH (cf. I. Young 1998a: 412 n. 10; Schniedewind 2000:161).
3.4.2.9.l]"|] ('we')Lachish 4.10-11. This form occurs four times in
the MT Pentateuch (Gen. 42.11; Exod. 16.7, 8; Num. 32.32, all in quoted
speech) and once in Lamentations (Lam. 3.42, in an acrostic). The Samaritan Pentateuch has the standard forml]n]K throughout (Tal 1994). 1DP1] is
the only 1st c. pi. independent pronoun attested in the inscriptions (Gogel
1998: 154). On the basis of its distribution, Dobbs-Allsopp (1998: 24-25)
argues that it is an 'early' linguistic feature. However, it is hardly characteristic of SBH, but rather a minority form. It is to be noted that the
inscriptional form is considered typologically older than the regular BH
form (Dobbs-Allsopp 1998: 24).
3.4.2.10. PITH niO ('in this season ')Lachish 6.2. As pointed out above
(3.3.1.8) Hi? is normally feminine in BH. LBH attests the masculine plural
DTII7, and PU as singular masculine is very rarely attested in the MT.
3.4.2.11. "ln ('wine ')Ras ez-Ztn 1. The word "lUPf ('wine') is rare
in BH (Deut. 32.14 cf. Isa. 27.2). It is possible, however, that this inscription is Phoenician (Renz and Rollig 1995,1: 37).
3.4.2.12.1IT1 ('hisfellow')Siloam Tunnel 2, 3, 4. BH attests 'his fellow' as inS7~l 117 times, and only once as 1171 (Jer. 6.21). Most likely
underlying the Siloam form is a quite different morphology than is represented in the Tiberian Hebrew vocalization of Jer. 6.21 (e.g. r'w: Renz
and Rllig 1995,1: 187; cf. below with n. 20). Alternatively, one could
simply take the suffix as plural (Schiile 2000: 37), bringing it in line with
normal orthographic practice in the inscriptions. In this case, we would
have a contrast to the regular use of the singular in the equivalent biblical
phrase.
3.4.2.13. HT! ('she was ')Siloam Tunnel 3. It is generally assumed that
the 3rd fern. sg. perfect of Ill-he (il'v) verbs developed hayt>hyt with
an additional feminine suffix (Z.S. Harris 1939: 75-76). Traces of the older
ending are found in BH (e.g. Lev. 25.21 ; cf. 2 Kgs 9.37 [GKC: 75m]), and
it is common in MH (Sarfatti 1992: 64-65). This makes it more likely that
we have a variant morphology from SBH than that the difference is merely
a question of orthography. The Siloam form is the only 3rd fern. sg. perfect
in the inscriptions (Gogel 1998: 89-90). Harris considered the form as evidence that the language of the inscriptions represented an older type of
Hebrew than that eventually fixed in the biblical text (Z.S. Harris 1939:76).
308
Biblical Hebrew
3.4.3. Conclusion. There is a significant amount of variation from BH in

the inscriptions. Most important are the numerous cases discussed where
the inscriptions use forms of language which contrast with what is attested
or regular in BH.
The non-biblical forms, coupled with the links with LBH, call into question an easy equation of mscriptional Hebrew with SBH. There are undeniably cases where the inscriptions link with SBH, against LBH, tor
instance. However, these were found to be uncommon, making the case
for a special link between the inscriptions and SBH appear quite weak.
Inscriptional Hebrew is best seen as an independent corpus within
ancient Hebrew, rather than as a mere adjunct of SBH. As an independent
corpus it has links sometimes with SBH, sometimes with LBH. and sometimes with other types of Hebrew such as ABH (I. Young 1992b) and MH
(Sarfatti 1992). Sometimes it displays forms independent of all of them. In
my judgment the links with SBH are closer than with LBH or the others
However, the links are not strong enough to posit an identity, chronological or otherwise, between SBH and the inscriptions.
4. Orthography
SBHindeed, every Bible text in our possessionshows a systematic
difference from the Hebrew inscriptions in orthography. This is in two
main categories. First, the 3rd masc. sg. pronominal suffixes. Second, the
extent of use of medial matres lectionis. A third category would include
the other anomalies above which I noted could be explained as spelling
variations rather than, say, morphological variations (e.g. Hi? for HPU,
["now'] in 3.4.2.1, orCT ['day'] in 3.4.1.3).
The 3rd masc. sg. suffix on a singular noun is IT- in the inscriptions.
With the exception of some 55 cases (see I. Young 200 le), in our biblical
manuscripts it is 1-. No clear case of 1- in the inscriptions is attested. The
one possible candidate 1IH in the Siloam Tunnel is anomalous and is at
present best explained on other grounds.20
20. Several proposals are discussed by Gogel 1998:156-57 n. 181. In addition note
the attractive suggestion of Andersen and Forbes who note that there is evidence that
the retention of the original lll-yod0"^) can lead to the attachment to the singular of
suffixes more typical of plural nouns, hence 1IH (Andersen and Forbes 1986:41 ). On
this phenomenon see GKC: 273-74 93ss. Alternatively, a straightforward reading of
the form as plural solves the orthographic problem (see 3.4.2.12).
309
The 3rd masc. sg. suffix on plural nouns is -w (1) in the inscriptions.
With, again, a significant minority of exceptions, in our biblical texts the
form is V-. The only possible example of the latter form in the inscriptions, VDB in Ketef Hinnom Amulet 2.9, is problematic.21
Even granting all the possible exceptions, a clear contrast in the spelling
of these suffixes emerges between the inscriptional corpus and the biblical
manuscripts. The contrast has usually been explained as a historical development. The older spelling is that of the inscriptions. At some stage before
our first attested biblical manuscripts in the third century BCE, probably in
the Persian period, a thorough spelling reform was undertaken. The exceptional forms in our biblical manuscripts are the remnants of the older
spelling of the biblical texts. It is clear from many examples that ancient
scribes were capable of leaving such remnants.22
A discernable process in the inscriptions is the growth in the use of waw
and>Wto mark vowels in the middle of words. Thus "THN in Siloam
Tomb 1. 2 stands for the qal passive participle 'cursed' (""!!" in the MT).
Nevertheless, it is clear that these matres lectionis are not used with the
same frequency as in our biblical manuscripts, even in the latest dated
inscriptions. Thus, for example, while the word 'prophet' in the MT is
always H] (167 times) with a yod, Lachish 3.20, from the last days of
the monarchy, spells the word K33. In this feature also, therefore, the
orthography of our Bibles is of a type later than that of the inscriptions.
5. Concluding Remarks
The generally close link between the language of the Bible and that of the
inscriptions shows that it is plausible that something similar to SBH was
the language of the monarchic period. The inscriptional evidence is not
drastically inconsistent with a pre-exilic origin of those biblical books
whose contents suggest such a dating.
The link with the inscriptions does not, however, prove that SBH could
not have been written in the post-exilic period. Haggai and Zechariah,
which date themselves to the early post-exilic period, are considered to
contain few, if any, traces of LBH (see Ehrensvrd's contribution to the
21. Several proposals are discussed by Gogel 1998: 159-60 n. 188. The texts are
dated to the third century BCE by Renz and Rllig 1995,1: 447-56.
22. See, e.g., the comments of I. Young 1998b: 82 with n. 38. For a study of the
distribution of the il- suffix and other theories about their significance see I. Young
2001c.
310
Biblical Hebrew
present volume). We have no other direct extra-biblical evidence of Hebrew before the third century BCE. We cannot deny the possibility that a
form of language linked to the pre-exilic inscriptions continued in the
post-exilic period. The fact that LBH features co-existed with SBH is
already acknowledged in that the language of Ezekiel, dated earlier than,
for example, Haggai and Zechariah, has many LBH features. The only
question is how long the two styles co-existed.
The language of the inscriptions is not identical with SBH. Instead, the
language of the inscriptions must first of all be seen as independent of
other types of BH, with links to all of them. The identity of SBH with
inscriptional Hebrew cannot be taken for granted and used as a secure base
on which to argue to conclusions about the nature and date of SBH.
The orthography of all known biblical manuscripts would seem to indicate that no manuscript in our possession could possibly date back
unchanged earlier than the Persian period. We should not, of course, dogmatically assert that the inscriptions give us the full range of possible early
Hebrews. Nevertheless, the best reading of the evidence at hand would
place the Bible in its current form no earlier than the Persian period.
One need not conclude that the biblical texts were composed in the
Persian period. However, the commonly assumed alternative scenario, that
pre-Persian period texts were edited to change their orthography in the
Persian period, raises important questions. Did scribal intervention merely
limit itself to spelling? Or was there more widespread editing of the
language? The vastly different editions of biblical books which were produced by scribal reworking (Ulrich 1999:passim) raise the likelihood that
all features of the biblical text were subject to extensive editorial revision
during the Second Temple period (cf. Knauf 1990: 22) The language of
the pre-exilic inscriptions is close enough to that of BH to suggest that it
is unnecessary and unlikely that the fundamental linguistic structure of
pre-exilic compositions would have been altered. There is a stable core to
BH in all its forms, what I have referred to as 'Common Hebrew'. However, in the study of LBH it is often the details that make all the difference,
such as whether JQ ('from') is attached to or separate from a following
noun without the definite article (cf. Polzin 1976: 66). These are the very
details which are found to change in scribal transmission (I. Young 200 Ib:
122-23).
In this connection it is interesting that the few distinctive linguistic
forms we know from northern inscriptions, in particular HE? ('year') and
the theophoric ending of names V-, do not appear in the Hebrew biblical
311
texts in our possession. If northern sources lie behind say, the accounts of
the kings of Israel or the words of the prophet Hosea, this may indicate
that the distinctive features of the language have been radically altered
during their transmission. Such a radical treatment of the language would
raise doubts about our ability to discern northern dialect features in the
current biblical texts, such as have been suggested by, among others,
Rendsburg (1990b etc.), Wright (1998), and I. Young (1993).
The Hebrew inscriptions may thus be used in quite different reconstructions of the history of the Hebrew language. A strictly linear reading of the
evidence discussed above might lead to a Persian period dating for BH.
However, one should hesitate to draw far reaching conclusions on the
basis of such meagre evidence.
CONCLUDING REFLECTIONS
Ian Young
1. The Text-Language Problem
The attempt to date books on the basis of their language proceeds, whether
knowingly or not, from a text-critical assumption. This is that the language
of the text under consideration has a relationship with the language used at
the time of the composition of that text.
However, I have written elsewhere that
the linguistic profiles of the attested copies of biblical books cannot simply
be assumed to represent the form of language used by the 'original author'.
Instead, language, as with all other features of the emergent biblical text,
was subject to constant revision at the hands of the scribes who passed the
material down through the generations. (Young 200Ib: 130)
Furthermore, as I also argued in my contribution to this volume, 'external

sources indicate the likelihood that no biblical text in our possession has
escaped widespread scribal revision' (Young 200Ib: 130 n. 47).
The text-critical dimension of language study has too often been ignored
in biblical scholarship. Yet it is, logically, an issue that must be discussed
before any conclusions are drawn from the extant texts.
2. Persian
It would be well for students of Hebrew, especially of LBH, to heed the
recent comments of James Barr. Barr points out that whereas there is a
great stress on the Persian period in some recent scholarship, 'extremely
little attempt has been made to learn Old Persian or encourage the study
of this language among students' (Barr 2000: 88). The article by Mats
Eskhult on loanwords demonstrates the potential importance of this study,
while my article (section 3.2.1) proposes a new understanding of the significance of Persian loanwords in BH.
YOUNG Concluding Reflections
313
3. Questions for Future Scholarship

The articles in this book are organized into two opposing camps: those
working within the chronological framework, and those questioning that
framework. This is of course overly simple. One may, for example, be
sympathetic to the chronological interpretation, yet admit some difficulties
in substantiating it. Yet, if I may be permitted to continue to talk of two
opposing research programmes, I see different questions arising from the
book for the different approaches.
a. Questions Regarding the Chronological Framework
In his article, Gary Rendsburg noted that 'it is difficult to present linguistic
facts to dispute a case which does not utilize linguistic evidence' (above,
p. 108) when discussing the move to late dating of biblical literature.
Hopefully this volume will provide plenty of linguistic evidence to respond
to. Some important questions have been asked of the chronological
approach to BH, the most important being: Why couldn't SBH be written
after the exile? The articles by Davies, Ehrensvrd and Talshir all argue
that SBH was in fact written in Second Temple times.
Given the attestation of LBH features in pre-exilic inscriptions, my
article also raised another question, less important for the current debate:
Why couldn't a work with a concentration of LBH elements be written
before the exile?
The two questions together, however, lead to a greater question: If SBH
could be used after the exile, and LBH before the exile, is it at all possible,
given the current state of our knowledge of ancient Hebrew, to date the
language of any part of biblical literature?
b. Questions Regarding a Non-Chronological Approach
Without chronological presuppositions, does LBH really exist as a distinct
entity within BH? The LBH books were grouped together first of all on the
basis that they were the ones known to be post-exilic (as opposed to other
clearly earlier books). However, purely on linguistic grounds, are the links
between Esther, Ezra, Nehemiah, Chronicles and Daniel strong enough to
single this group of books out from BH in general? Or does every book of
the Hebrew Bible simply have its own linguistic profile?
If LBH really is a distinct entity, do the linguistic variations reflect
social realities? If the differences between SBH and LBH are not to be explained chronologically, what sociolinguistic factors led to the co-existence
314
Biblical Hebrew
of these varieties of Hebrew? If LBH is not in fact 'late' BH, is there a

need to invent a new term to describe it?
c. The Problem ofEzekiel
In different ways, both Philip Davies and David Talshir raised the possibility of connecting LBH with the eastern diaspora. In light of this suggestion, and as an example of an alternative, non-chronological approach to
LBH, one might consider what I call 'the problem ofEzekiel' (cf. Young
200 Id).
One of the major achievements of the scholarship of Avi Hurvitz has
been to demonstrate the special link between the language of the book
ofEzekiel and the core books of LBH, namely, Chronicles, Ezra, Nehemiah, Daniel, Esther (Hurvitz 1982). His insight has been followed by
M.F. Rooker's monograph (Rooker 1990a), as well as other smaller scale
studies. Thus in my previous discussion of DU (Young 1999) I found that
the books that show a near consistent tendency to construe this collective
noun as plural were Chronicles, Ezra, Nehemiah and Ezekiel.
Hurvitz and Rooker explain the special relationship of Ezekiel with
LBH in terms of transition. Ezekiel dates itself in the first half of the sixth
century BCE, that is, the (early) exilic period. The exile is taken as the
decisive socio-linguistic event that triggered the transition from EBH to
LBH. Ezekiel, dating from the exile itself, shows the first major signs of
this transition. Thus, to give one example, while BH uses the word D for
'fine linen', LBH uses |*1D. However, Ezekiel shows its transitional status
by using both (Hurvitz 1967; Rooker 1990a: 159-61).
Certain considerations, however, indicate that the peculiarities of Ezekiel's language cannot be explained by chronology alone. As mentioned
above, Ezekiel dates itself to the first half of the sixth century BCE. Other
books either date themselves or are dated by scholarly consensus to the
same period or later, but do not show significant traces of LBH. Thus, the
final redaction of the book of Kings cannot be any earlier than the last
event in it (c. 560 BCE). Deutero-Isaiah (Isa. 40-55) refers to events c. 540
BCE. Most significantly, Haggai and Zechariah (chs. 1-8) date themselves
to the early post-exilic period (c. 520 BCE). These facts led S.R. Driver to
see the decisive moment in the transition from EBH to LBH as only happening in the fifth century BCE (Driver 1913a: 505). In contrast, Hurvitz's
position that the exile was the decisive event is clearly influenced by his
discoveries relating to the language ofEzekiel.
315
There are other ways to explain Ezekiel's language than as a symptom

of a transition from EBH to LBH during the course of the sixth century
BCE. The most radical would be to cast doubt on the claim of Ezekiel to be
a genuine product of the sixth century BCE. For example, Davies challenges
the presumption that the biblical dating of Ezekiel is accurate (P.R. Davies
1995: 98).
It is a commonly accepted scholarly position that the original core of the
prophetic books was reworked by later redactors. It could thus be suggested that Ezekiel's language is a mixture of early and late because it
reflects the late language of a redactor who reworked the early language of
the original prophet Ezekiel. It is clear that the language of the biblical
books has undergone scribal modification so that no available copy of a
biblical book simply reflects the original language of that book (Young
1998b; 1999; 2001b; 2001c). Nevertheless, this theory does not really explain the peculiar nature of the language of Ezekiel. Scholars presume all
the prophetic books underwent some redaction. Why does Ezekiel reflect a
significant LBH element whereas Deutero-Isaiah, Haggai, Zechariah, and
so on, do not?
Perhaps, then, the link between Ezekiel and LBH can be explained by
the circles that treasured and transmitted them. Ezekiel is conspicuous
by clearly setting its hero in the eastern diaspora. In contrast, whereas
Deutero-Isaiah is considered by many to have been based in Babylon, this
is by no means obvious by the contents of these chapters. It is important to
note that whatever their prehistory, Isaiah 40-55 are presented as part of
the book of Isaiah of Jerusalem.
When one turns to the core books of LBH, one finds another important
link with Ezekiel: among them are the only other books in the Hebrew
Bible with heroes who operate in the eastern diaspora. Thus both Esther
and Daniel are set entirely in the eastern diaspora. Ezra and Nehemiah deal
with events in Palestine, but they are books about residents of the eastern
diaspora and we hear also of their activities in the east as well as the west.
This leaves Chronicles, about whose authorship little is known. Could it
represent the eastern version of the primary history represented in Samuel
and Kings?
It could be objected that Haggai and Zechariah parallel the situation in
Ezra and Nehemiah. They too would presumably reflect the words and
activities of easterners who deal primarily with the situation in the homeland. However, it is striking how little the eastern diaspora perspective
comes through in these books. There is virtually no reference other Jewish
316
Biblical Hebrew
communities. The focus is firmly western, not eastern. The lack of interest
in the eastern diaspora in Haggai and Zechariah as opposed to the situation
in Ezra and Nehemiah probably is related not just to the outlook of the original authors of these works but also to the groups who nurtured the original traditions.
A very serious objection to the theory suggested here is raised by the
clear links between LBH and later Palestinian sources. In particular I refer
to QH and MH. Although neither of these sources is identical to LBH,
there are important isoglosses which they share with LBH in opposition to
EBH. This could be taken as indicating that LBH is indeed late, and that
there is no reason why it should be eastern. However, one could explain
the later situation as due to migration from the eastern diaspora to Judea.
Talshir's article points to the return under Ezra in the middle of the fifth
century BCE as a significant socio-linguistic event. Thus, he notes, Persian
period works dated earlier than this (Haggai, Zechariah, Malachi) reflect
SBH, while later works reflect LBH.
There are large gaps in our knowledge of the history of the fifth to third
centuries BCE. Most scholars assume that Daniel and Esther were eastern
diaspora works in whole or in part. It is, however, suggested that important
migrations happened somewhere in his period, and that this explains, for
example, the presence of the Daniel group in Palestine by the second century BCE (e.g. Collins 1975: 232-33). We should also recall that the origins
of an important contributing group to the Qumran Scrolls have been suggested to be in the eastern diaspora (Murphy-O'Connor 1974; P.R. Davies
1990).
Thus, even taking a conservative view of the dating of biblical books,
and an optimistic evaluation of the relationship between the language of
the current texts and that of the original authors, we can arrive at a different synthesis of the history of LBH.
The inscriptions show us that at least some LBH forms already existed
in varieties of monarchic era Hebrew. This is the same impression given
by a pre-exilic dating of the SBH texts, which contain a notable sprinkling
of LBH forms. Thus, beneath the surface of pre-exilic SBH we may suspect the existence of dialects (Young 1993 ; 1997) characterized by 'protoLBH' linguistic features. This is the context in which the language of
Qoheleth, if pre-exilic (Young 1993: 140-57), can be understood.
These proto-LBH features first began to make their presence felt strongly
in literary Hebrew in sources linked to the exiles in the eastern diaspora
(Ezekiel being the earliest example). SBH did not end, however, but con-
317
tinued to be used as a literary medium in the Persian period, especially in

those sources without an eastern focus, such as Haggai and Zechariah.
Over time the two streams of Hebrew (each themselves marked by significant diversity) mixed and converged due to such factors as migration
between the various centres of Jewish population. Hence by the later part
of the Second Temple period, many LBH features had become normal in
all attested varieties of literary Hebrew.
4. The Next Stage
The theory sketched above, whatever its individual merits, illustrates the
new possibilities available to those investigating the nexus between
linguistic typology and the origin of the Bible. It is clear that the debate
has moved to a new stage. It is to be hoped that the articles in this book
will help set the agenda for the next stage of the discussion.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Abegg, M.G.
1998
Adams, W.J.
1987
Aharoni, Y.
1981
Ahituv, S.
1992
1995
Aitchison, J.
1980
1994
Albright, W.F.
1939
1941
1943
1960
'The Hebrew of the Dead Sea Scrolls', in Flint and VanderKam (eds.) 1998,
I: 325-58.
'An Investigation into the Diachronic Distribution of Morphological Forms
and Semantic Features of Extra-Biblical Hebrew Sources' (PhD dissertation,
University of Utah).
AradInscriptions (Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society).
Handbook of Ancient Hebrew Inscriptions (Jerusalem: Bialik Institute
[Hebrew]).
'Flour and Dough: Gleanings from the Arad Letters', in Z. Zevit, S. Gitin
and M. Sokoloff (eds.), Solving Riddles and Untying Knots: Biblical, Epigraphic, and Semitic Studies in Honor of Jonas C. Greenfield (WinonaLake,
IN: Eisenbrauns): 379-83.
Review of Lightfoot 1979, Linguistics 18: 137-46.
Language Change: Progress or Decay? (Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press, 2nd edn).
'A Reexamination of the Lachish Letters', BASOR 73: 16-21.
'The Lachish Letters after Five Years', BASOR 82: 18-24.
'An Archaic Hebrew Proverb in an Amarna Letter from Central Palestine',
BASOR 89: 29-32.
'Some Canaanite-Phoenician Sources of Hebrew Wisdom', in M. Noth and
D.W. Thomas (eds.), Wisdom in Israel and in the Ancient Near East (VTSup,
3; Leiden: EJ. Brill).
Alden, R.L.
Job (New American Commentary, 11 ; Nashville: Broadman & Holman).
1993
Alexander, P.S.
1991
'Orality in Pharisaic-Rabbinic Judaism at the Turn of the Eras', in H. Wansbrough (d.), Jesus and the Oral Gospel Tradition (JSNTSup, 64; Sheffield:
JSOT Press): 159-84.
Allen, L.C.
The Books of Joel, Obadiah, Jonah and Micah (NICOT; Grand Rapids:
1976
Eerdmans).
Bibliography
Alt, A.
1931
Andersen, F.I.
1976
319
'Judas Nachbam zur Zeit Nehemias', ZDPV21: 66-74.
Job: An Introduction and Commentary (TOTC; Leicester: Inter-Varsity

Press).
1999
'Orthography in Ancient Hebrew Inscriptions', ANES 36: 5-35.
Andersen, F.I., and A.D. Forbes
1986
Spelling in the Hebrew Bible: Dahood Memorial Lecture (BibOr, 41 ; Rome:
Biblical Institute Press).
Andersen, F.I., and D.N. Freedman
1980
Hosea (AB, 24; New York: Doubleday).
Anderson, A.A.
1972
The Book of Psalms, II (NCB; 2 vols.; Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans).
Anderson, B.W., and A.C. Lichtenberger
1954
'The Book of Esther', in IB: 821 -74.
Arlotto, A.
1981
Introduction to Historical Linguistics (Lanham, MD: University Press of
America).
Auld, A.G.
1983
'Prophets Through the Looking Glass: Between Writings and Moses', JSOT
27: 3-23 (repr. in R.P. Gordon [d.], The Place is Too Small for Us: The
Israelite Prophets in Recent Scholarship [Sources for Biblical and Theological Study, 5; Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1995]: 289-307).
1992
'Salomo und die Deuteronomisteneine Zukunftsvision?', 7Z48: 343-55.
1993
'Solomon at Gibeon: History Glimpsed', Erlsr 24: 1 *-7*.
1994
Kings without Privilege: David and Moses in the Story of the Bible's Kings
(Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark).
1995
'Reading Joshua after Kings', in W.G.E. Watson, J. Davies and G. Harvey
(eds.), Words Remembered, Texts Renewed: Essays in Honour of John F.A.
Sawyer (JSOTSup, 195; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press): 167-81.
1996
'Re-Reading Samuel (Historically): "Etwas mehrNichtwissen"', in V. Fritz
and P.R. Davies (eds.), The Origins of the Ancient Israelite States (JSOTSup,
228; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press): 160-69.
1998a
'The Former Prophets: Joshua, Judges, 1-2 Samuel, 1-2 Kings', in S.L.
McKenzie and M.P. Graham (eds.), The Hebrew Bible Today: An Introduction to Critical Issues (Louisville, KY: Westminster/John Knox Press):
53-68.
1998b
Joshua Retold: Synoptic Perspectives (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark).
1999a
The Deuteronomists and the Former Prophets, or What Makes the Former
Prophets Deuteronomistic?', in Schearing and McKenzie (eds.) 1999:
118-28.
1999b
'Rponse d'A.G. Auld', ETR 3: 422-26.
1999c
'What was the Main Source of the Books of Chronicles', in Graham and
McKenzie (eds.) 1999: 91-99.
2000a
' The Deuteronomists between History and Theology', in Lemaire and Saeb0
(eds.) 2000: 353-67.
2000b
'Prophets Sharedbut Recycled', in Romer (ed.) 2000: 19-28.
Biblical Hebrew
320
2000c
'Samuel and Genesis: Some Questions of John Van Seters's "Yahwist"', in

S.L. McKenzie, T. Rorner and H.H. Schmid (eds.), Rethinking the Foundations: Historiography in the Ancient World and in the Bible: Essays in
Honour of John Van Seters (BZAW, 294; Berlin: W. de Gruyter): 23-32.
2000d
'Tamar Between David, Judah and Joseph', SEA 65: 93-106.
2000e
'What if the Chronicler Did Use the Deuteronomistic History?', Biblnt 8:
137-50.
2001
'From King to Prophet in Samuel and Kings', in J.C. de Moor (d.), The
Elusive Prophet: The Prophet as a Historical Person, Literary Character
and Anonymous Artist (OTS, 45; Leiden: E.J. Brill): 31-44.
2002a
'Bearing the Burden of David's Guilt', in C. Bultmann, W. Dietrich and
C. Levin (eds.), Vergegenwrtigung des Alten Testaments: Beitrgezurbiblischen Hermeneutikfiir Rudolf Smendzum 70. Geburtstag(Gottingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht): 69-81.
2002b
'Counting Sheep, Sins, and Sour Grapes: The Primacy of the Primary
History?', in A. Hunter and P.R. Davies (eds.), Sense and Sensitivity: Essays
on Reading the Bible in Memory of Robert Carroll (JSOTSup, 348; Sheffield:
Sheffield Academic Press): 63-72.
2002c
'Samuel, Numbers, and the Yahwist-Question', in J.C. Gertz, K. Schmid and
M. Witte (eds.), Abschied vom Jahwisten: Die Komposition des Hexateuch
in derjungstenDiskussion (BZAW, 315; Berlin: W. de Gruyter): 233-46.
forthcoming
'What was a Biblical Prophet? Why does it Matter?', in J.C. Exum and
H.G.M. Williamson (eds.), Reading from Right to Left: Essays on the Hebrew Bible in Honour of David J. A. Clines (JSOTSup, 373; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press).
Auld, A.G., and C.Y.S. Ho
1992
The Making of David and Goliath', J'SOT 56: 19-39.
Avigad, N.
1972
'Two Hebrew Inscriptions on Wine Jars', IEJ22: 1-9.
Aviram, J., et al. (eds.)
1985
Biblical Archeology Today: Proceedings of the International Congress on
Biblical Archeology; Jerusalem, April 1984 (Jerusalem: Israel Exploration
Society and The Israel Academy of Sciences and Humanities, in Cooperation
with the American Schools of Oriental Research).
Avishur, Y.
1999
Studies in Biblical Narrative (Tel Aviv/Jaffa: Archeological Center).
Avishur, Y., and R. Deutsch (eds.)
1999
Michael: Historical, Epigraphical and Biblical Studies in Honor of Professor Michael Heltzer (Tel Aviv/Jaffa: Archaeological Center).
Avi-Yonah, M.
1966
Carlo's Atlas of the Period of the Second Temple, the Mishnah, and the
Talmud (Jerusalem: Carta [Hebrew]).
1984
Historical Geography of Palestine (Jerusalem: Bialik Institute, 2nd edn
[Hebrew]).
Baer, Y.
1964
The Mishna and History', Molad2\: 308-23 (Hebrew).
Baldwin, J.G.
1984
Esther: An Introduction and Commentary (TOTC; Leicester: Inter-Varsity
Press).
Bibliography
Bar-Asher, M.
1985
321
'The Historical Unity of Hebrew and Mishnaic Hebrew Research', in BarAsher (ed.) 1985:75-100.
Bar-Asher, M. (ed.)
1985
Language Studies, 1 (Jerusalem: The Hebrew University of Jerusalem
[Hebrew]).
1986
Proceedings of the Ninth World Congress of Jewish Studies, Jerusalem,
August 4-12, 1985: Panel Sessions: Hebrew and Aramaic (Jerusalem: World
Union of Jewish Studies/Magnes Press).
1996
Studies in Hebrew and Jewish Languages Presented to Shelomo Morag
(Jerusalem: The Hebrew University/Bialik Institute).
Bar-Kochva, B.
1980
The Battles of the Hasmonaeans: The Times of Judas the Maccabaeus (Jerusalem: Yad Ben-Zvi [Hebrew]).
Barr, J.
1968
Comparative Philology and the Text of the Old Testament (Oxford: Clarendon Press).
1985
'Hebrew Orthography and the Book of Job', JSS 30: 1 -33.
1988
Review of Spelling in the Hebrew Bible by F.I. Andersen and A.D. Forbes,
JSS 33: 122-31.
1989
The Variable Spellings of the Hebrew Bible (Oxford: Oxford University
Press).
2000
History and Ideology in the Old Testament: Biblical Studies at the End of a
Millennium: The Hens ley Hanson Lectures for 1997 Delivered to the University of Oxford (Oxford: Oxford University Press).
Barr, M.L.
1988 ' 'rs (h)hyym~The Land of the Living?', JSOT 41: 40-59.
1990
'Psalm 116: Its Structure and Its Enigmas', JBL 109: 61-79.
Barthlmy, D., and O. Rickenbacher
1973
Konkordanz zum hebrischen Sirach (Gttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht).
Bauer, H., and P. Leander
1922
Historische Grammatik der hebrischen Sprache des Alien Testamentes
(Hildesheim: Georg Olms [repr. 1991]).
Baumgartner, W.
1940-41
'Was wir heute von der hebrischen Sprache und ihrer Geschichte wissen',
Anthropos 35/36: 593-616.
1959
Zum Alien Testament und seiner Umwelt (Leiden: E.J. Brill).
Beaman, K.
1984
'Coordination and Subordination Revisited: Syntactic Complexity in Spoken
and Written Narrative Discourse', in Tannen (ed.) 1984: 45-80.
Becking, B.
2001
'The Hellenistic Period and Ancient Israel: Three Preliminary Statements',
in Grabbe(ed.) 2001:78-90.
Beit-Arieh, I.
1993 'An Inscribed Jar From Horvat 'Uza', ErJsr 24: 34-40 (Hebrew).
Ben Amos, D.
1990
'Response to Robert C. Culley', in Niditch (ed.) 1990: 35-45.
Bendavid, A.
1967-71
Biblical Hebrew and Mishnaic Hebrew (2 vols.; Tel Aviv: Dvir [Hebrew]).
322
Biblical Hebrew
Bender, A.
1903
'Das Lied Exodus XV, ZAW23: 1-48.
Ben-Hayyim, Z.
1958
'Masoret ha-Shomronim', Leshonenu 22: 223-45.
1967
The Literary and Oral Tradition of Hebrew and Aramaic amongst the
Samaritans (Jerusalem: The Academy of the Hebrew Language [Hebrew]),
III.2.
1979
The Literary and Oral Tradition of Hebrew and Aramaic amongst the
Samaritans (Jerusalem: The Academy of the Hebrew Language [Hebrew]),
V.
Ben-Sasson, H.H. (ed.)
1969
A History of the Jewish People (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press).
Ben Yehuda, E.
1948
A Complete Dictionary of Ancient and Modern HebrewProlegomena
Volume (Jerusalem: La'am [Hebrew]).
Ben Zvi, E.
1988
'The Authority of 1 -2 Chronicles in the Late Second Temple Period', JSP 3:
59-88.
1992
Review of Rooker 1990a, CBQ 54: 540-42.
1997
'The Urban Center of Jerusalem and the Development of the Literature of
the Hebrew Bible', in W.E. Aufrecht, N.A. Mirau and S.W. Gauley (eds.),
Urbanism in Antiquity from Mesopotamia to Crete (JSOTSup, 244; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press): 194-209.
2000
'Introduction; Writings, Speeches, and the Prophetic BooksSetting an
Agenda', in Ben Zvi and Floyd (eds.) 2000: 1-29.
Ben Zvi, E., and M.H. Floyd (eds.)
2000
Writings and Speech in Israelite and Ancient Near Eastern Prophecy (SBL
Symposium Series, 10; Atlanta, GA: SBL).
Bergey, R.
1983
'The Book of Esther: Its Place in the Linguistic Milieu of Post-Exilic
Biblical Hebrew Prose: A Study in Late Biblical Hebrew' (PhD dissertation,
Dropsie College for Hebrew and Cognate Learning [available from University Microfilms International, Ann Arbor, MI]).
1984
'Late Linguistic Features in Esther', JQR 75: 66-78.
Bergstrasser, G.
1918
Hebrische Grammatik, \ (Hildesheim: Georg Olms [repr. 1962]).
1929
Hebrische Grammatik, II (Hildesheim: Georg Olms [repr. 1962]).
Berlejung, A., and A. Schiile
1998
'Erwgungen zu den neuen Ostraka aus der Sammlung Moussaeff, ZAH
11:68-73.
Berlin, A.
1985
The Dynamics of Biblical Parallelism (Bloomington: Indiana University
Press).
Berlinerblau, J.
1993
'The "Popular Religion" Paradigm in Old Testament Research: A Sociological Critique', JSOT60: 3-26.
Bernai, M.
1991
Black Athena, II (2 vols.; New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press).
Bibliography
Bertheau, E.
1854
Bianchi, F.
1993
Biber, D.
1995
323
Die Bcher der Chronik (Kurzgefasstes exegetisches Handbuch zum Alten

Testament, 15; Leipzig: S. Hirzel).
'The Language of Qohelet: A Bibliographical Survey', ZAW 105: 210-23.
Dimensions of Register Variation: A Cross-Linguistic Comparison (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press).

Biber, D., and S. Conrad
2001
'Register Variation: A Corpus Approach', in D. Schiffrin, D. Tannen and
H.E. Hamilton (eds.), The Handbook of Discourse Analysis (Oxford: Basil
Blackwell): 175-96.
Biber, D., and E. Finegan (eds.)
1994
Sociolinguistic Perspectives on Register (New York: Oxford University
Press).
Biber, D., and M. Hared
1994
'Linguistic Correlates of the Transition to Literacy in Somali: Language
Adaptation in Six Press Registers', in Biber and Finegan (eds.) 1994:
182-216.
Bickermann, E.J.
1937
Der Gott der Makkaber Untersuchungen ilber Sinn und Ursprung der
Makkabischen Erhebung (Berlin: Schocken Verlag/Jtidischer Buchverlag).
1978
'The Generation of Ezra and Nehemiah', Proceedings of the American
Academy for Jewish Research 45: 1-28.
1984
'The Babylonian Captivity', in Davies and Finkelstein (eds.) 1984,1: 342-57.
Black, J., A. George and N. Postgate (eds.)
2000
A Concise Dictionary of Akkadian (Wiesbaden: Otto Harrassowitz, 2nd
corrected edn).
Blau, J.
1971
'Studies in Hebrew Verb Formation', HUCA 42: 133-58.
1996
'Are Rabbinical Hebrew Forms like hayat Archaic?', in J. Blau, Studies in
Hebrew Linguistics (Jerusalem: Magnes Press): 250-55 (Hebrew).
1997
The Structure of Biblical and Dead Sea Scrolls Hebrew in Light of Arabic
Diglossia and Middle Arabic', Leshonenu 60: 21-32 (Hebrew).
2000
'A Conservative View of the Language of the Dead Sea Scrolls', in Muraoka
and Elwolde (eds.) 2000: 20-25.
Blenkinsopp, J.
1996
'An Assessment of the Alleged Pre-Exilic Date of the Priestly Material in the
Pentateuch', ZAW\08: 495-518.
Bloomfield, L.
1933
Language (New York: H. Holt).
Blum, E.
1990
Studien zur Komposition des Pentateuch (BZAW, 189; Berlin: W. de
Gruyter).
Blum, E., C. Macholz and E.W. Stegemann (eds.)
1990
Die Hebrische Bibel und ihre zweifache Nachgeschichte: Festschrift
fur Rolf Rendtorff zum 65. Geburtstag (Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener
Verlag).
324
Bollme, G.
1971
Biblical Hebrew
La Bibliothque bleue. Littrature populaire en France du XVIIe au XIXe

sicle (Paris: Gallimard/Julliard).
Bordreuil, P., F. Israel and D. Pardee
1998
'King's Command and Widow's Plea Two Hebrew Ostraca of the Biblical
Period',NEA6\: 2-13.
Bottigheimer, R.B.
1993
'Bible Reading, "Bibles" and the Bible for Children in Early Modem Germany', Past and Present 139: 66-89.
Brenner, A.
1979
'The Language of the Book of Jonah as a Means of Establishing the Date of
its Composition', Beth Mikra 79: 396-405 (Hebrew).
1989
The Song of Songs (Old Testament Guides; Sheffield: JSOT Press).
Brenner, M.L.
1991
The Song of the Sea: Ex 15.1-21 (BZAW, 195; Berlin: W. de Gruyter).
Brettler, M.
1997
The Composition of 1 Samuel \-2\JBL 116: 601-12.
Breuer, Y.
1998
'On the Hebrew Dialect of the 'Amora'im in the Babylonian Talmud', SH
37: 129-50.
Bright, J.
1960
A History of Israel (London : SCM Press).
Briquel-Chatonnet, F.
1992
'Hbreu du Nord et Phnicien: tude Compare de Deux Dialectes Cananens', OLP 23: 89-126.
1996
Mosaque de Langues Mosaque Culturel: Le Bilinguisme dans le ProcheOrient Ancien (Paris: Maisonneuve).
Brockelmann, C.
1908
Grundriss der vergleichenden Grammatik der semitischen Sprachen, I (Berlin: Reuther & Reichard).
Brown, F.
1898
'Chronicles, I. and II. ', in J. Hastings (d.), A Dictionary of the Bible (5 vols.;
Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark), I: 389-92.
Buchan, D.
1972
The Ballad and the Folk (London: Routledge & Kegan Paul).
Burke, P.
1988
Popular Culture in Early Modem Europe (Aldershot: Wildwood House, 2nd
edn [1978]).
Burney, C.F.
1903
Notes on the Hebrew Text of the Books of Kings (Oxford: Oxford University
Press).
1918
The Book of Judges: With Introduction and Notes (London: Rivingtons).
Bynon, T.
1996
Historical Linguistics (Cambridge Textbooks in Linguistics; Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press).
Campbell, E.F.
1975
Ruth (AB, 7; Garden City, NY: Doubleday).
Cardona, G.
1994
'Indian Linguistics', in Lepschy (ed.) 1994: 25-59.
Bibliography
Cassuto, U.M.
1973
1975
Chafe, W.L.
1979
325
Biblical and Oriental Studies. I. Bible (trans. I. Abrahams; Jerusalem: Magnes Press).
Biblical and Oriental Studies. II. Bible and Ancient Near Eastern Texts
(trans. I. Abrahams; Jerusalem: Magnes Press).
'The Flow of Thought and the Flow of Language', in Given (ed.) 1979:
159-81.
'The Deployment of Consciousness in the Production of a Narrative', in
1980
Chafe (ed.) 1980:7-51.
'Integration and Involvement in Speaking, Writing and Oral Literature', in
1982
Tannen(ed.) 1982:35-53.
'Linguistic Differences Produced by Differences between Speaking and
1985
Writing', in Olson et al (eds.) 1985: 105-23.
1987
'Cognitive Constraints on Information Flow', in Tomlin (ed.) 1987: 21-51.
1992
'The Flow of Ideas in a Sample of Written Language', in W.C. Mann and
S.A. Thompson (eds.), Discourse Description: Diverse Linguistic Analyses
of a Fund-Raising Text (Amsterdam: Benjamins): 167-94.
1994
Discourse, Consciousness and Time: The Flow and Displacement of Conscious Experience in Speaking and Writing (Chicago: University of Chicago
Press).
Chafe, W.L. (ed..)
1980
The Pear Stories: Cognitive, Cultural and Linguistic Aspects of Narrative
Production (Norwood, NJ: Ablex).
Chapman, S.B.
The Law and the Prophets: A Study in Old Testament Canon Formation
2000
(FAT, 27; Tubingen: J.C.B. Mohr [Paul Siebeck]).
Charles, R.H.
The Book of Jubilees or The Little Genesis (London: A. & C. Black).
1902
Chen, Y.
'Israelian Hebrew in the Book of Proverbs' (PhD dissertation, Cornell
2000
University).
Chomsky, N.
1957
Syntactic Structures (The Hague: Mouton).
Lectures on Government and Binding (Dordrecht: Foris).
1981
Knowledge of Language: Its Nature, Origin and Use (New York: Praeger).
1986a
Barriers (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press).
1986b
The Minimalist Program (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press).
1995
Chomsky, W.
Hebrew: The Eternal Language (Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society of
1957
America).
Clancy, P.M.
'Referential Choice in English and Japanese Narrative Discourse', in Chafe
1980
(ed.)1980: 127-201.
Clendenen, E.R.
'Discourse Strategies in Jeremiah 10.1-16', JBL 106: 401-408.
1987
Clines, D.J.A.
Ezra, Nehemiah, Esther (NCB; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans; London: Marshall,
1984
Morgan & Scott).
326
Biblical Hebrew
1989
Job 1-20 (WBC, 17; Dallas: Word Books).
Cogan, M., and H. Tadmor
1988
// Kings (AB, 11 ; New York: Doubleday).
Cohen, H.R.
1978
Biblical Hapax Legomena in the Light of Akkadian and Ugaritic (SBLDS,
37; Missoula, MT: Scholars Press).
Collins, J.J.
1975
'The Court Tales in Daniel and the Development of Apocalyptic', JBL 94:
218-34.
Coote, R.B. (ed.)
1992
Elijah and Elisha in Socioliterary Perspective (SBLSS; Atlanta: Scholars
Press).
Coss, P.R.
1985
'Aspects of Cultural Diffusion in Medieval England: The Early Romances,
Local Society and Robin Hood', Past and Present 108: 35-79.
Coulthard, M.
1985
An Introduction to Discourse Analysis (London: Longman, 2nd edn).
Coulthard, M. (ed.)
1992
Advances in Spoken Discourse Analysis (London: Routledge & Kegan Paul).
1994
Advances in Written Discourse Analysis (London: Routledge & Kegan Paul).
Cowley, A.E.
1910
Gesenius ' Hebrew Grammar as Edited and Enlarged by the Late E. Kautzsch
(Oxford: Clarendon Press).
Crawford, S.W.
1999
'The Book of Esther: Introduction, Commentary, and Reflections', in
L.E. Keck (d.), The New Interpreter's Bible (Nashville: Abingdon Press):
111,853-941.
Crenshaw, J.L.
1998
Education in Ancient Israel: Across the Deadening Silence (New York:
Doubleday).
Cross P.M.
1964
'An Ostracon from Nebi Yunis', IEJ 14: 185-86.
1983
The Epic Traditions of Ancient Israel: Epic Narrative and the Reconstruction of Early Israelite Institutions', inR.E. Friedman (d.), The Poet and the
Historian: Essays in Literary and Historical Biblical Criticism (HSS, 26;
Chico, CA: Scholars Press): 13-39.
1985
'A Literate SoldierLachish Letter III', in Kort and Morschauser (eds.)
1985:41-47.
1998
'Paleography and the Dead Sea Scrolls', in Flint and VanderKam (eds.)
1998,1:379-402.
Cross, P.M., and D.N. Freedman
1952
Early Hebrew Orthography: A Study of the Epigraphic Evidence (AOS, 36;
New Haven: American Oriental Society).
1955 'The Song of Miriam', JNES 14: 237-50.
Cross, P.M., and S. Talmon (eds.)
1975
Qumran and the History of Biblical Text (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press).
Bibliography
Cryer, F.H.
1994
Crystal, D.
1997
327
'The Problem of Dating Biblical Hebrew and the Hebrew of Daniel', in

K. Jeppesen, K. Nielsen and B. Rosendal (eds.), In the Last Days: On Jewish
and Christian Apocalyptic and its Period(Aarhus: Aarhus University Press):
185-98.
The Cambridge Encyclopedia of Language (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2nd edn).
Crystal, D., and D. Davy
1969
Investigating English Style (London: Longman).
Culley, R.C.
2000
'Orality and Writtenness', in Ben Zvi and Floyd (eds.) 2000: 45-64.
Curtis, E.L., and A.A. Madsen
A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Books of Chronicles (ICC;
1910
Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark).
Dahood, M.
Psalms 1-50 (AB, 16; New York: Doubleday).
1965
Danto, A.
Analytical Philosophy of History (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press).
1965
Davidson, S.
An Introduction to the Old Testament (2 vols.; Edinburgh: Williams & Nor1862
gate).
Davies, G.I.
Ancient Hebrew Inscriptions Corpus and Concordance (Cambridge: Cam1991
bridge University Press).
Davies, P.R.
'The Birthplace of the Essenes: Where is Damascus?', RevQ 14: 503-20.
1990
In Search of 'Ancient Israel ' (JSOTSup, 148; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic
1992
Press).
1995
In Search of'AncientIsrael'(JSOTSup, 148; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic
Press, 2nd edn).
1998
Scribes and Schools: The Canonization of Hebrew Scripture (Library of
Ancient Israel; Louisville, KY: Westminster/John Knox Press).
2001a
'Biblical Hebrew and the History of Ancient Judah: Challenging Some Simplistic Scholarship' (unpublished paper, University of Sheffield).
2001 b
'Linguistic Analysis versus Social History: Assumption, Contradiction and
Circularity' (unpublished paper presented at the 2001 SBL International
Meeting in Rome).
Davies, W.D., and L. Finkelstein (eds.)
The Cambridge History of Judaism (Cambridge: Cambridge University
1984
Press).
Davila, J.R.
'Qoheleth and Northern Hebrew', Maarav 5-6: 69-87.
1990
DeCaen, V.
'Hebrew Linguistics and Biblical Criticism: A Minimalist Approach',
2001
Journal of Hebrew Scriptures 3, article 6 (available online at <www.purl.
org/jhs/>).
328
Delitzsch, F.
1877
Biblical Hebrew
Commentary on the Song of Songs and Ecclesiastes (Edinburgh: T. & T.
Clark).
Dempster, S.G.
'Linguistic Features of Hebrew Narrative: A Discourse Analysis of Narrative
1985
from the Classical Period' (PhD dissertation, University of Toronto).
Demsky, A.
1972
' "Dark Wine" from Judah', IEJ 22: 233-34.
'On the Extent of Literacy in Ancient Israel', in Aviram et al. (eds.) 1985:
1985
349-53.
1988
'Writing in Ancient Israel. Part One: The Biblical Period', in M.J. Mulder
(d.), Mikra: Text, Reading and Interpretation of the Hebrew Bible in Ancient
Judaism and Early Christianity (Assen: Van Gorcum; Philadelphia: Fortress
Press): 2-20.
Deutsch, R., and M. Heltzer
1994
Forty New Ancient West Semitic Inscriptions (Tel Aviv/Jaffa: Archaeological Center).
1995
New Epigraphic Evidence from the Biblical Period'(Tel Aviv/Jaffa: Archaeological Center).
De Vaux, R.
1973
Archaeology and the Dead Sea Scrolls (London: Oxford University Press).
Dever, W.G.
1998
'Archaeology, Ideology, and the Quest for an "Ancient" or "Biblical" Israel',
#461:39-52.
2001
What Did the Biblical Writers Know and When Did They Know It? What
Archaeology Can Tell Us about the Reality of Ancient Israel (Grand Rapids,
MI: Eerdmans).
Dillmann, A.
1878
'Chronik', in J.J. Herzog and D.G.L. Plitt (eds.), Real-Encyklopadie fur
protestantische Thologie undKirche (24 vols.; Leipzig: J.C. Hinrichs), III:
219-24.
Diringer, D., and S.P. Brock
1968
'Words and Meanings in Early Hebrew Inscriptions', in P.R. Ackroyd and
B. Lindars (eds.), Words and Meanings: Essays Presented to David Win ton
Thomas on his Retirement from the Regius Professorship of Hebrew in
the University of Cambridge 1968 (London: Cambridge University Press):
39-45.
Dobbs-Allsop, F.W.
1998
'Linguistic Evidence for the Date of Lamentations', JANESCU26: 1-36.
Donner, H., and W. Rllig
1966
Kanaanische und aramische Inschriften (2 vols.; Wiesbaden: Otto Harrassowitz).
Dorson, R.M.
1960
'Jewish-American Dialect Stories on Tape', in R. Patay, F.L. Utley and
D. Noy (eds.), Studies in Biblical and Jewish Folklore (Bloomington:
Indiana University Press): 109-74.
1964
Buying the Wind: Regional Folklore in the United States (Chicago: University of Chicago Press).
Bibliography
Dotan, A.
1991
Dothan, M.
1967
Drerup, E.
1915
Driver, G.R.
1928
1934
1953
1965
329
'From Masora to Grammar: The Beginnings of Grammatical Thought in

Hebrew', Leshonenu 54: 155-68 (Hebrew, with English Summary).
'Excavations of Ashdod 1962', 'Atiqotl.
Homer (Mainz: Kirchheim).
'The Original Form of the Name "Yahweh": Evidence and Conclusions',
ZA W46: 1-25.
'Studies on the Vocabulary of the Old Testament. VIF, JTS 35: 380-93.
'Hebrew Poetic Diction', in G.W. Anderson (d.), Congress Volume, Copenhagen 1953 (VTSup, 1; Leiden: E.J. Brill): 26-39.
The Judaean Scrolls: The Problem and a Solution (Oxford: Basil Blackwell).
Driver, S.R.
'On Some Alleged Linguistic Affinities of the Elohist', The Journal of
Philology \ 1:201-36.
1892
A Treatise on the Use of the Tenses in Hebrew and Some Other Syntactical
Questions (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans; Livonia, MI: Dove [repr. 1998]).
1895
A Critical andExegetical Commentary on Deuteronomy (Edinburgh: T. & T.
Clark).
1898
The Books of Joel and Amos: With Introduction and Notes (Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press).
1913a
An Introduction to the Literature of the Old Testament (Oxford: Clarendon
Press, 9th edn).
1913b
Notes on the Hebrew Text and the Topography of the Books of Samuel
Driver, S.R., and G.B. Gray
1921
A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Book of Job (ICC; Edinburgh:
T. & T. Clark).
Dupont-Sommer, A.
'Un Papyrus Aramen d'poque Sate Dcouvert Saqqarah', Sem 1:43-68.
1948
Duval, R.
1969
Trait de Grammaire Syriaque (Amsterdam; Philo Press [first published
1881]).
Edelman, D.
2000
'The Deuteronomist's David and the Chronicler's David: Competing or
Contrasting Ideologies?', in Rmer (d.) 2000: 67-83.
Edmondson, W.
1981
Spoken Discourse: A Model for Analysis (London: Longman).
Eggins, S., and D. Slade
1997
Analysing Casual Conversation (London: Cassell).
Ehrensvrd, M.
1997
'Once Again: The Problem of Dating Biblical Hebrew', SJOT 11: 29-40.
1999
'Negating the Infinitive in Biblical Hebrew', ZAH 12: 146-64.
2000
'Studies in the Syntax and the Dating of Biblical Hebrew' (PhD dissertation,
University of Aarhus).
1882
330
Biblical Hebrew
Eichhorn, J.G.
1780
Einleitung in das Alte Testament (Leipzig: Weidmann).
Eisenman, R.H.
1983
Maccabees, Zadokites, Christians and Qumran: A New Hypothesis ofQumran Origins (Leiden: EJ. Brill).
1986
James the Just in the Habakkuk Pesher (Leiden: E.J. Brill).
Eissfeldt, O.
1922 Hexateuch-Synopse (Leipzig: J.C. Hinrichs).
1964
Einleitung in das Alte Testament (Tubingen: J.C.B. Mohr, 3rd edn).
Elayi, J.
1980
The Phoenician Cities in the Persian Period', JANESCU 12: 13-28.
1982
'Studies in Phoenician Geography during the Persian Period', JNES 41:
83-110.
Ellenbogen, M.
1962
Foreign Words in the Old Testament: Their Origin and Etymology (London:
Luzac & Company).
Elman, Y.
1999
'Orality and the Redaction of the Babylonian Talmud', Oral Tradition 14:
52-99.
Elwolde, J.F.
1997
'Developments in Hebrew Vocabulary Between Bible and Mishnah', in
Muraoka and Elwolde (eds.) 1997: 17-55.
Emerton, J.A.
1983
'How Does the Lord Regard the Death of His Saints in Psalm cxvi 15T,JTS
34: 146-56.
1999a
' "Yahweh and his Asherah": The Goddess or her Symbol?', VT49: 315-37.
1999b
'How Many Months are Mentioned in the Gezer Calendar?', PEQ 131:
20-23.
2001
'Were the Lachish Letters Sent To or From Lachish?', PEQ 133: 2-15.
Emerton, J.A. (ed)
1981
Congress Volume, Vienna 1980 (VTSup, 32; Leiden: E.J. Brill).
1988
Congress Volume, Jerusalem 1986 (VTSup, 40; Leiden: E.J. Brill)
Eph'al, I., and J. Naveh
1998
'Remarks on the Recently Published Moussaieff Ostraca', IEJ4S: 269-73.
Erman, A.
1966
The Ancient Egyptians: A Sourcebook of their Writings (trans. A.M. Blackman; Introduction by W.K. Simpson; New York: Harper & Row).
Ervin-Tripp, S.M.
1971
'Sociolinguistics', in Fishman (ed.) 1971: 15-91.
Ervin-Tripp, S.M., and A. Kuntay
1997
'The Occasioning and Structuring of Conversational Stories', in T. Given
(d.), Conversation: Cognitive, Communicative, and Social Perspectives
(Typological Studies in Language, 34; Amsterdam: Benjamins): 133-66.
Eskhult, M.
1990
Studies in Verbal Aspect and Narrative Technique in Biblical Hebrew Prose
(Acta Universitatis Upsaliensis: Studia Semitica Upsaliensia, 12; Uppsala:
Almqvist & Wiksell).
2000
'Verbal Syntax in Late Biblical Hebrew', in Muraoka and Elwolde (eds.)
2000: 84-93.
Bibliography
331
Even-Shoshan, A.
1990
A New Concordance of the Old Testament (Jerusalem: Kiryat Sefer).
Fasold, R.
1987
The Sociolinguistics of Society (Oxford: Basil Blackwell).
1990
The Sociolinguistics of Language (Oxford: Basil Blackwell).
Fassberg, S.
1992
'Hebraisms in the Aramaic Documents from Qumran', in Muraoka (ed.)
1992:48-69.
2001
'The Movement of Qal to Pi 'el in Hebrew and the Disappearance of the Qal
Internal Passive', Hebrew Studies 42: 243-55.
Ferguson, C.A.
1959
'Diglossia', Word 15: 325-40.
Finkelstein, I.
1980
'Shephelat Isra'el', Beit Miqra 25: 341-45 (Hebrew).
Finkelstein, I., and N.A. Silberman
2001
The Bible Unearthed: Archaeology's New Vision of Ancient Israel and the
Origin of its Sacred Texts (New York: Free Press).
Finley, T.J.
1981
'The WAW-Consecutive with "Imperfect" in Biblical Hebrew: Theoretical
Studies and its Use in Amos', in J.S. Feinberg and P.O. Feinberg (eds.),
Tradition and Testament: Essays in Honor of Charles Lee Feinberg (Chicago: Moody Press): 241-62.
Finnegan, R.
1970 Oral Literature in Africa (Oxford: Clarendon Press).
Fischer, D.H.
1970
Historians ' Fallacies: Toward a Logic of Historical Thought (New York:
Harper & Row).
Fishbane, M.
1985
Biblical Interpretation in Ancient Israel (Oxford: Clarendon Press).
Fishman, J.A.
1971
'The Sociology of Language: An Interdisciplinary Social Science Approach
to Language in Society', in idem (ed.) 1971: 217-404.
1972
'The Relationship between Micro- and Macro-Sociolinguistics in J.B. Pride
and J. Holmes (eds.), Sociolinguistics (Harmondsworth: Penguin Books):
15-32.
Fishman, J.A. (ed.)
1971
Advances in the Sociology of Language. I. Basic Concepts, Theories and
Problems; Alternative Approaches (The Hague: Mouton).
Fitzmyer, J.A.
1970
'The Languages of Palestine in the First Century A.D.', CBQ 32: 501-31.
1979
A Wander ing Aramean: Collected Aramaic Essays (Missoula, MT: Scholars
Press).
Fleisch, H.
1994
'Arabic Linguistics', in Lepschy (ed.) 1994: 164-84.
Flint, P.W., and J.C. VanderKam (eds.)
1998
The Dead Sea Scrolls After Fifty Years: A Comprehensive Assessment
(2 vols.; Leiden: E.J. Brill).
332
Floyd, M.H.
1995
2000
Biblical Hebrew
'The Nature of the Narrative and the Evidence of Redaction in Haggai', VT
45: 470-90.
' "Write the Revelation!" (Hab. 2.2): Re-imagining the Cultural History of
Prophecy', in Ben Zvi and Floyd (eds.) 2000: 103-43.
Fokkelman, J.P.
1981
Narrative Art and Poetry in the Books of Samuel. I. King David (II Sam. 9-20
and 1 Kings 1-2) (2 vols.; Assen: Van Gorcum).
Fokkelman, J.P., and G.A. Rendsburg
forthcoming '101? b^b 3 mH (Psalm cxvi 14, 18)', VT53.3.
Foley, J.M.
1985
Oral-Formulaic Theory and Research: An Introduction and Annotated Bibliography (New York: Garland).
1990
Traditional-Oral Epic: The Odyssey, Beowulfand the Serbo-Croation Return
Song (Berkeley: University of California Press).
1995 The Singer of Tales in Performance (Bloomington, IN: Indiana University
Press).
Folmer, M.
1995
The Aramaic Language in the Achaemenid Period: A Study in Linguistic
Variation (Leuven: Peeters).
Forrer, E.
1920
Die Provinzeinteilung des assyrischen Reiches (Leipzig: J.C. Hinrichs).
Foster, B.
1993
Before the Muses: An Anthology of Akkadian Literature (Bethesda, MA:
CDL Press).
Fox, B.
1987
Discourse Structure and Anaphora: Written and Conversational English
(Cambridge: Cambridge University Press).
Fox, M.J.
1991
Character and Ideology in the Book of Esther (Studies on Personalities of
the Old Testament; Columbia: University of South Carolina Press).
Fredericks, D.C.
1988
Qoheleth 's Language: Re-Evaluating its Nature and Date (Ancient Near
Eastern Texts and Studies, 3; Lewiston, NY: Edwin Mellen Press).
1996
'A North Israelite Dialect in the Hebrew Bible? Questions of Methodology',
Hebrew Studies 37: 7-20.
Freedman, D.N.
1961
The Chronicler's Purpose', CBQ 23: 436-42.
1969
'Orthographic Peculiarities in the Book of Job', Erlsr 9 (= W.F. Albright
Volume)'. 35-44.
1978
'Psalm 113 and the Song of Hannah', Erlsr 14: 56-69 (repr. in D.N. Freedman, Pottery, Poetry, and Prophecy: Studies in Early Hebrew Poetry [Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1980]: 243-61).
1983
'The Spelling of the Name "David" in the Hebrew Bible', BAR 7: 89-104.
Friedberg, A.D.
2000
'A New Clue in the Dating of the Composition of the Book of Esther', VT
50:561-63.
Bibliography
333
Friedman, R.E.
1987
Who Wrote the Bible? (London: Jonathan Cape).
Friedrich, J., and W. Rllig
1999
Phnizisch-Punische Grammatik (Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute, 3rd
edn).
Frolov, S.
2002
'Succession Narrative: A "Document" or a Phantom?', JBL 121: 81-104.
Gai, A.
'Linguistic Remarks on Hebrew Inscriptions', Tarbiz 65: 529-33 (Hebrew).
1996
Gandz, S.
1935
'Oral Tradition in the Bible', in S.W. Baron and A. Marx (eds.), Jewish
Studies in Memory of George A. Kohut (New York: The Alexander Kohut
Memorial Foundation): 249-69.
Garbini, G.
1988
History and Ideology in Ancient Israel (London: SCM Press).
Garcia Martinez, F.
1988
'Qumran Origins and Early History: A Groningen Hypothesis', Folia Orientalia2S: 113-36.
1994
The Dead Sea Scrolls Translated: The Qumran Texts in English (Leiden:
E.J. Brill).
Garr, W.R.
1985
Dialect Geography of Syria-Palestine, 1000-586 B.C.E. (Philadelphia:
University of Pennsylvania Press).
Gawthrop, R.
1984
'Protestantism and Literacy in Early Modern Germany', Past and Present
104:31-55.
Geller, S.A.
1982
'The Struggle at the Jabbok', JANESCU 14: 37-60.
Gerleman, G.
1948
Synoptic Studies in the Old Testament (LU, NS 44; Lund: C. W.K. Gleerup).
Gesenius, W.
1815
Geschichte der hebrischen Sprache und Schrift: Eine philologisch-historische Einleitung in die Sprachlehren und Wrterbcher der hebrischen
Sprache (Leipzig: F.C.W. Vogel).
1909
Hebrische Grammatik, vllig umgearbeitet von E. Kautzsch (Leipzig:
F.C.W. Vogel, 28th edn).
Gevirtz, S.
1986
'Of Syntax and Style in the "Late Biblical Hebrew""Old Canaanite"
Connection', JANESCU 18: 25-29.
'Asher in the Blessing of Jacob (Gen 49.20)', VT31: 154-63.
1987
Gianto, A.
1996
'Variations in Biblical Hebrew', Bib 77: 493-508.
Gibson, J.C.L.
1971
Textbook of Syrian Semitic Inscriptions. I. Hebrew andMoabite Inscriptions
1973
Textbook of Syrian Semitic Inscriptions. I. Hebrew andMoabite Inscriptions
(Oxford: Clarendon Press, rev. edn).
Biblical Hebrew
334
1975
1994
Textbook of Syrian Semitic Inscriptions. II. Aramaic Inscriptions Including

Inscriptions in the Dialect ofZenjirli(Oxford: Clarendon Press).
Davidson's Introductory Hebrew Grammar: Syntax (Edinburgh: T. & T.
Clark).
Giesebrecht, F.
'Zur Hexateuchkritik. Der Sprachgebrauch des hexateuchischen Elohisten',
1881
ZAW2: 177-276.
Ginsberg, H.L.
'The Northwest Semitic Languages', in B. Mazar (d.), The World History of
1970
the Jewish People: Patriarchs (Tel Aviv: Massada): 102-24.
The Israelian Heritage of Judaism (New York: Jewish Theological Society
1982
of America).
Gluska, I.
The Influences of Aramaic on Mishnaic Hebrew' (PhD dissertation, Bar1987
llan University, Ramat-Gan).
Goddard, B.L.
'The Origin of the Hebrew Infinitive Absolute in the Light of Infinitive Uses
1943
in Related Languages and its Use in the Old Testament' (PhD dissertation
Harvard Divinity School).
Gogel, S.L.
A Grammar ofEpigraphic Hebrew (SBL Resources for Biblical Study, 23;
1998
Atlanta: Scholars Press).
Golb, N.
'The Problem of Origin and Identification of the Dead Sea Scrolls', Proceed1980
ings of the American Philosophical Society 124.1: 1 -24.
1995
Who Wrote the Dead Sea Scrolls? The Search for the Secret ofQumran
(New York: Charles Scribner's Sons).
Goldfajn, T.
Word Order and Time in Biblical Hebrew Narrative (Oxford Theological
1998
Monographs; Oxford: Clarendon Press; New York: Oxford University Press).
Goldwasser, O.
'An Egyptian Scribe from Lachish and the Hieratic Tradition of the Hebrew
1991
Kingdoms', Tel Aviv 18: 248-53.
Goodspeed, E.
1944
'The Original Language of the Gospels', in T.S. Kepler (d.), Contemporary
Thinking About Jesus: An Anthology (New York: Abingdon-Cokesbury):
58-63.
Gordis, R.
'Was Koheleth a Phoenician?', JBL 74: 103-14.
1955
1965
The Book of God and Man: A Study of Job (Chicago: University of Chicago
Press).
Gordon, C.H.
1955a
'North Israelite Influence on Postexilic Hebrew', IEJ5: 85-88.
1955b
The Origin of the Jews in Elephantine', JNES 14: 56-58.
1965
Ugaritic Textbook (3 vols.; AnOr, 38; Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute).
1966
Evidence for the Minoan Language (Ventnor, NJ: Ventnor).
Goshen-Gottstein, M.H.
1958
'Linguistic Structure and Tradition in the Qumran Documents', SH 4:
101-37.
Bibliography
1983
335
'The Textual Criticism of the Old Testament: Rise, Decline, Rebirth', JBL
102:365-99.
Goulder, M.D.
1982
The Psalms of the Sons ofKorah (JSOTSup, 20; Sheffield: JSOT Press).
Grabbe, L.L.
Judaic Religion in the Second Temple Period: Belief and Practice from the
2000
Exile to Yavneh (London: Routledge).
Grabbe, L.L. (ed.)
1997
Can a 'History of Israel' be Written? (JSOTSup, 245; Sheffield: Sheffield
Academic Press).
1998
Leading Captivity Captive: 'The Exile ' as History and Ideology (JSOTSup,
278; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press).
2001
Did Moses Speak Attic? Jewish Historiography and Scripture in the Hellenistic Period (JSOTSup, 317; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press).
Graetz, H.
1857
'Simon der Gerechte und seine Zeit', Monatschrift zur Geschichte und Wissenschaft des Judentums 6: 45-56.
Graham, M.P.
1990
The Utilization of I and 2 Chronicles in the Reconstruction of Israelite History in the Nineteenth Century (SBLDS, 116; Atlanta: Scholars Press).
Graham, M.P., and S.L. McKenzie (eds.)
The Chronicler as Author: Studies in Text and Texture (JSOTSup, 263;
1999
Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press).
Greenfield, J.C.
'Linguistic Examinations in the Sefire Inscriptions', Leshonenu 27-28:
1964
303-13 (Hebrew).
Review of Wagner 1966, JBL 87: 232-34.
1968
'The Small Caves of Qurnran', JAOS 89: 128-41.
1969
Review of J. Hoftijzer and G. van der Kooij, Aramaic Texts from Deir 'Alia,
1980
JSS 25: 248-52.
'Aramaic Studies and the Bible', in Emerton (ed) 1981: 110-30.
1981
'Etymological Semantics', ZAH6: 26-37.
1993
' "Because He/She Did Not Know Letters": Remarks on a First Millenium
2001
C.E. Legal Expression', in S.M. Paul, M.E. Stone and A. Pinnick (eds.), 'Al
Kanfei Yonah: Collected Studies of Jonas C. Greenfield on Semitic Philology
(2 vols.; Jerusalem: Magnes Press; Leiden: E.J. Brill), II: 939-45.
Greenstein, E.L.
'Jethro's Wit: An Interpretation of Wordplay in Exodus 18', in S.L. Cook
1999
and S.C. Winter (eds.), On the Way to Nineveh: Studies in Honor of George
M. Landes (Atlanta: Scholars Press): 155-71.
'Some Developments in the Study of Language and Some Implications for
2002
Interpreting Ancient Texts and Cultures', Israel Oriental Studies 20:155-93.
Gressmann, H.
Die Anfnge Israels (Die Schriften des Alten Testaments, 1.2; Gttingen:
1914
Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht).
Die lteste Geschichtsschreibung und Prophtie Israels (Die Schriften des
1921
Alten Testaments, II. 1; Gttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2nd edn).
Grintz, Y.M.
Peraqim be-Toldot ha-Bayit ha-Sheni (Jerusalem: Marcus [Hebrew]).
1969
336
Gross, B.Z.
1993
Biblical Hebrew
The Nominal Patterns ]17.US and pUS in Biblical and Mishnaic Hebrew
(Jerusalem: The Academy of the Hebrew Language [Hebrew]).
Guenther, A.R.
1977
'A Diachronic Study of Biblical Hebrew Prose Syntax: An Analysis of the
Verbal Clause in Jeremiah 37-45 and Esther 1-10' (PhD dissertation, University of Toronto).
Guillaume, A.
'Some Readings in the Dead Sea Scrolls of Isaiah', JBL 76: 40-43.
1957
Gumperz, J.J., H. Kaltman and M.C. O'Connor
'Cohesion in Spoken and Written Discourse: Ethnic Style and the Transition
1984
to Literacy', in Tannen (ed.) 1984: 3-19.
Habel, N.C.
1985
The Book of Job: A Commentary (OTL; Philadelphia: Westminster Press).
Hackett, J.A.
1980
The Balaam Text from Deir 'Alia (HSM, 31 ; Chico, CA: Scholars Press).
Hale, M.
1997
Theory and Method in Historical Linguistics' (unpublished manuscript,
Concordia University).
Hall, F.W.
1968
A Companion to Classical Texts (Hildesheim: Georg Olms [1913]).
Halliday, M.A. K.
1989
Spoken and Written Language (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2nd edn).
Halpern, B.
1981
'Sacred History and Ideology: Chronicles' Thematic StructureIndications
of an Earlier-Source', in R.E. Friedman (d.), The Creation of Sacred
Literature: Composition and Redaction of the Biblical Text (University
of California Publications, Near Eastern Studies, 22; Berkeley: University of
California Press): 35-54.
1987
'Dialect Distribution in Canaan and the Deir Alia Inscriptions', in D.M. Golomb (d.), ' Working With No Data ': Semitic and Egyptian Studies Presented
to Thomas O. Lambdin (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns): 119-39.
1993
Review of Davies 1992, loudaios Review 3.021 (available online at <ftp://
ftp.lehigh.edu/pub/listserv/ioudaios-review73.1993/>).
2001
David's Secret Demons: Messiah, Murderer, Traitor, King (Grand Rapids:
Eerdmans).
Haran, M.
1982
'Book-Scrolls in Israel in Pre-Exilic Times', JJS 33: 161-73.
1988
'On the Diffusion of Literacy and Schools in Ancient Israel', in Emerton
(ed.) 1988: 81-95.
Harris, W.V.
1989
Ancient Literacy (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press).
Harris, Z.S.
1939
Development of the Canaanite Dialects: An Investigation in Linguistic History (New Haven: American Oriental Society).
Harrison, R.K.
1969
Introduction to the Old Testament (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans).
Bibliography
Hartley, J.E.
1988
Hartmann, D.
1995
337
The Book of Job (NICOT; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans).

'Orality in Spoken German Standard and Substandard', in Quasthoff (ed.)
1995: 138-67.
Haugen, E.
1972
The Ecology of Language (d. A.S. Dil; Stanford: Stanford University Press).
Hausendorf, H.
'Deixis and Orality: Explaining Games in Face-to-Face Interaction', in
1995
Quasthoff (ed.) 1995: 181-97.
Hawkins, J.D.
1982
'The Neo-Hittite States in Syria and Anatolia', in J. Boardman et al. (eds.),
Cambridge Ancient History (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press), III. 1
372-441.
Hendel, R.S.
2001
'Of Doubt, Gadflies and Minimalists', BR 17.3: 8.
Herner, S.
Syntax der Zahlwrter im Alten Testament (Lund: Berlingsche Buchdruckerei
1893
& Schriftgiesserei-Actiengesellschaft).
Hestrin, R.
Inscriptions Reveal (Jerusalem: Israel Museum).
1972
Hill,A.E.
'The Book of Malachi: Its Place in Post-Exilic Chronology Linguistically
1981
Considered' (PhD dissertation, University of Michigan).
'Dating Second Zechariah: A Linguistic Reexamination', HAR 6: 105-34.
1982
'Dating the Book of Malachi: A Linguistic Reexamination', in C.L. Meyers
1983
and M. O'Connor (eds.), The Word of the Lord Shall Go Forth: Essays in
Honor of David Noel Freedman in Celebration of his Sixtieth Birthday
(Philadelphia: American Schools of Oriental Research): 77-89.
Malachi: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary (AB, 25D;
1998
New York: Doubleday).
Hill, S.D.
1992
'The Local Hero in Palestine in Comparative Perspective', in Coote (ed.)
1992:37-73.
Ho, C.Y.S.
'The Troubles of David and his House: Textual and Literary Studies of the
1994
Synoptic Stories of Saul and David in Samuel-Kings and Chronicles' (PhD
dissertation, University of Edinburgh).
'Conjectures and Refutations: Is 1 Samuel xxxi 1-13 Really the Source of
1995
1 Chronicles x 1-12?', VT45: 82-106.
Hock, H.H., and B.D.Joseph
Language History, Language Change, and Language Relationship: An Intro1996
duction to Historical and Comparative Linguistics (Berlin: W. de Gruyter).
Hoenigswald, H ,M.
1960
Language Change and Linguistic Reconstruction (Chicago: University of
Chicago Press).
338
Hoffman, Y.
1986
Hoftijzer, J.
1965
Biblical Hebrew
'The Lexicography of the P Document and the Problem Concerning its
Dating', in M.A. Friedman and M. Gil (eds.), Te'udah, IV-Studies in
Judaica (Tel Aviv: Tel Aviv University): 13-22 (Hebrew).
'Remarks Concerning the Use of the Particle '/ in Classical Hebrew', OTS
14: 1-99.
1970
'David and the Tekoite Woman', FT120: 419-44.
Hoftijzer, J., and K. Jongeling
1995
Dictionary of North- West Semitic Inscriptions (HdO, 21.1-2; 2 vols.; Leiden:
E.J. Brill).
Hoover Renteria, T.
1992
'The Elijah/Elisha Stories: A Socio-Cultural Analysis of Prophets and
People in Ninth-Century B.C.E. Israel', in Coote (ed.) 1992: 75-126.
Hopper, P.J., and E.G. Traugott
1993
Grammaticalization (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press).
Horbury, W. (ed.)
1999
Hebrew Study from Ezra to Ben-Yehudah (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark).
Houston, R.
1982
'The Literacy Myth? Illiteracy in Scotland 1630-1760', Past and Present 96:
81-102.
Hiibner, U.
1997
'Bemerkungen zum Pfandrecht: Dasjudische Ostrakon von Mesad Haavyh, alttestamentliches und griechisches Pfandrecht sowie ein Graffito aus
Marissa', f/F 29: 215-25.
Huehnergard, J.
1991
'Remarks on the Classification of the Northwest Semitic Languages', in
J. Hoftijzer and G. van der Kooij (eds.) The Balaam Text from Deir 'Allah
Re-Evaluated: Proceedings of the International Symposium Held at Leiden
21-24 August 1989 (Leiden: E.J. Brill): 282-93.
Hughes, J.A.
1970
'Another Look at the Hebrew Tenses', JNES29: 12-24.
Hurvitz, A.
1965
'Observations on the Language of the Third Apocryphal Psalm from Qumran\RevQ 5.2: 225-32.
1967
'The Usage of ETO and f"Q in the Bible and its Implications for the Date of
P\HTR60: 117-21.
1968
'The Chronological Significance of Aramaisms in Biblical Hebrew', IEJ18:
234-40.
1969a
'Akkaron = Amqar(r)una = fllpl?', Leshonenu 33: 18-24 (Hebrew).
1969b
Review of Wagner 1966, IEJ 19: 182-83.
1970-71
'Linguistic Observations on the Biblical Usage of the Priestly Term "Edah" ',
Torbiz 40: 261-67 (Hebrew).
1972a
The Transition Period in Biblical Hebrew: A Study of Post-Exilic Hebrew
and its Implications for the Dating of Psalms (Jerusalem: Mossad Harev
Kook/Bialik Institute [Hebrew]).
1972b
'"Diachronic Chiasm" in Biblical Hebrew', in B. Uffenheimer (d.), The
Bible and the History of Israel: Studies in Honour of Jacob Levor(Te\ Aviv:
Students Organization of Tel Aviv University): 248-55 (Hebrew).
Bibliography
1973
1974a
1974b
1981
1982
1983b
1983c
1985
1988
1990
1992
1994
1995
1996a
1996b
1997a
1997b
1997c
1999
2000a
339
'Linguistic Criteria for Dating Problematic Biblical Texts', Hebrew Abstracts

14: 74-79.
'The Date of the Prose Tale of Job Linguistically Reconsidered', HTR 67:
17-34.
'The Evidence of Language in Dating the Priestly Code: A Linguistic Study
in Technical Idioms and Terminology', RB 81: 24-56.
'The Language of the Priestly Source and its Historical Setting: The Case for
an Early Date', in Krone (ed.) 1981: 83-94.
A Linguistic Study of the Relationship between the Priestly Source and the
Book ofEzekiel: A New Approach to an Old Problem (Cahiers de la Revue
Biblique, 20; Paris: J. Gabalda).
'Ruth 2.7: "A Midrashic Gloss"?', ZAW95: 121-23.
'The Hebrew Language in the Persian Era', in Tadmor and Eph'al (eds.)
1983: 210-23, 306-309 (Hebrew).
'Originals and Imitations in Biblical Poetry: A Comparative Examination
of 1 Sam. 2.1-10 and Ps. 113.5-9', in Kort and Morschauser (eds.) 1985:
115-21.
'Dating the Priestly Source in Light of the Historical Study of Biblical
Hebrew A Century after Wellhausen', ZA W 100: 88-100.
Review of Fredericks 1988, Hebrew Studies 31:144-54.
'trnnpTPD andD l 7)UTrD: Two Funerary Terms in Biblical Literature and
their Linguistic Background', Maarav 8: 59-68.
'~linN(n)TPnThe History of a Biblical Administrative-Economic Term',
Erlsr 24: 78-82 (Hebrew).
'Continuity and Innovation in Biblical HebrewThe Case of "Semantic
Change" in Post-Exilic Writings', in T. Muraoka (ed.), Studies in Ancient
Hebrew Semantics(AbrNSup, 4; Leuven: Peeters): 1-10.
'Hebrew and Aramaic in the Biblical PeriodThe Problem of "Aramaisms"
in the Linguistic Research of the Hebrew Bible', in M. Bar-Asher (ed.),
Studies in Hebrew and Jewish Languages Presented to Shelomo Morag
(Jerusalem: Bialik Institute): 79-94 (Hebrew).
'The Origins and Development of the Expression ~1SD flb^D: A Study in the
History of Writing-Related Terminology in Biblical Times', in M.V. Fox
et al. (eds.), Texts, Temples, and Traditions: A Tribute to Menahem Haran
(Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns): 37*-46* (Hebrew).
'The Historical Quest for "Ancient Israel" and the Linguistic Evidence of the
Hebrew Bible: Some Methodological Observations', VT41: 301-13.
'Historical Linguistics and Hebrew BibleThe Formation and Emergence
of Late Biblical Hebrew', in M. Bar-Asher (ed.), Hebrew through the Ages
in Memory ofShoshanna Bahat (Studies in Language, 2; Jerusalem: The
Academy of the Hebrew Language): 15-28 (Hebrew).
'The Linguistic Status of Ben Sira as a Link between Biblical and Mishnaic
Hebrew: Lexicographical Aspects', in Muraoka and Elwolde (eds.) 1997:
72-86.
'The Relevance of Biblical Hebrew Linguistics for the Historical Study of
Ancient Israel', in Margolin (ed.) 1999: 21*-33*.
'Can Biblical Texts be Dated Linguistically? Chronological Perspectives in
the Historical Study of Biblical Hebrew', in Lemaire and Saebo (eds.) 2000:
143-60.
Biblical Hebrew
340
2000b
'Was QH a "Spoken" Language? On Some Recent Views and Positions:

Comments', in Muraoka and Elwolde (eds.) 2000: 110-14.
2000c
'Once Again the Linguistic Profile of the Priestly Material in the Pentateuch
and its Historical Age: A Response to J. Blenkinsopp', ZAW60: 180-91.
2001
'The Archaeological-Historical Debate on the Antiquity of the Hebrew Bible
in the Light of Linguistic Research of the Hebrew Language', in I.L. Levine
and A. Mazar (eds.), The Controversy over the Historicity of the Bible (Jerusalem: Yad Ben-Zvi/Dinur Center): 34-46 (Hebrew).
Hutchby, I., and R. Wooffitt
1998
Conversation Analysis (Cambridge: Polity Press).
Ingram, M.
1984
'Ridings, Rough Music and the "Reform of Popular Culture" in Early
Modern England', Past and Present 105: 79-113.
Isaksson, B.
1987
Studies in the Language ofQoheleth with Special Emphasis on the Verbal
System (Studia Semitica Upsaliensia, 10; Stockholm: Almqvist & Wiksell).
Isserlin, B.S.J.
1972
'Epigraphically Attested Judean Hebrew and the Question of "Upper Class"
(Official) and "Popular" Speech Variants in Judea during the 8th-6th
Centuries E.C.\AJBA 2: 197-203.
Jacoby, F.
1956
Griechische Historiker (Stuttgart: Druckenmiiller).
Jamieson-Drake, D.W.
1991
Scribes and Schools in Monarchic Judah: A Socio-Archeological Approach
(JSOTSup, 109; Sheffield: JSOT Press).
Janssen, J.M.A.
1962 Hiesrogliefen. Over Lezen en Schrijven in Oud-Egypte (Leiden: E.J. Brill).
Japhet, S.
1968
'The Supposed Common Authorship of Chronicles and Ezra-Nehemiah,
Investigated Anew', FT 18: 330-71.
1993
/ & II Chronicles (OTL; Louisville, KY: Westminster/John Knox Press).
1998
'In Search of Ancient Israel: Revisionism at All Costs', in D.N. Myers and
D.B. Ruderman (eds.), The Jewish Past Revisited: Reflections on Modern
Jewish Historians (New Haven: Yale University Press): 212-33.
1999
'Chronicles, Books of, in J.H. Hayes (ed.), Dictionary of Biblical Interpretation (2 vols.; Nashville: Abingdon Press), I: 179-87.
Jean, C.-F., and J. Hoftijzer
1965
Dictionnaire des Inscriptions Semitiques de I 'Quest (Leiden: E.J. Brill).
Jeffery, L.H.
1961
The Local Scripts of Archaic Greece: A Study of the Origin of the Greek
Alphabet and its Development from the Eighth to the Fifth Centuries B.C.
Joosten, J.
1996
People and Land in the Holiness Code: An Exegetical Study of the Ideational
Framework of the Law in Leviticus 17-26 (VTSup, 47; Leiden: E.J. Brill).
1997
'Workshop: Meaning and Use of Tenses in I Samuel 1', in van Wolde (ed.)
1997: 72-83.
Bibliography
1999
Jordan, D.J.
2002
Joiion, P.
1923
1993
Kalimi, I.
1993
1998
Kallai, Z.
1960
1983
1986
Kaufman, S, A.
1974
1988
Kautzsch, E.
1902
Keil, C.F.
1833
1859
1878
341
'Pseudo-Classicisms in Late Biblical Hebrew', in Muraoka and Elwolde

(eds.) 1999: 146-59.
'An Offering of Wine: An Introductory Exploration of the Role of Wine in
the Hebrew Bible and Ancient Judaism through the Examination of the
Semantics of Some Keywords' (PhD dissertation, University of Sydney).
Grammaire de I 'Hebreu Biblique (Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute).
Ruth. Commentaire Philologique et Exegetique (Rome: Pontifical Biblical
Institute, 2nd edn [ 1924]).
'Die Abfassungszeit der ChronikForschungsstand und Perspektiven', ZA W
105:223-33.
'History of Interpretation: The Book of Chronicles in Jewish Tradition', RB
105:5-41.
The Northern Boundaries ofJudah (Jerusalem: Magnes Press [Hebrew]).
'Yehud and the Areas of Jewish Population under Persian Rule', in Tadmor
and Eph'al (eds.) 1983: 72-80 (Hebrew).
Historical Geography of the Bible (Jerusalem: Magnes Press).
The Akkadian Influences on Aramaic (Chicago: University of Chicago Press).
'The Classification of the North West Semitic Dialects of the Biblical Period
and Some Implications Thereof, in Bar-Asher (ed.) 1988: 41-57.
Die Aramdismen im Alten Testament (Halle: Max Niemeyer).
Apologetischer Versuch uber die Biicher der Chronik, und iiber die Integritdt des Buches Esra (Berlin: Ludwig Oehmigke).
Lehrbuch der historisch-kritischen Einleitung in die kanonischen undapokryphischen Schriften des Alten Testamentes (Frankfurt: Heyder & Zimmer).
The Books of the Chronicles (trans. A. Harper; Biblical Commentary on the
Old Testament; Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark).
Kesterson, J. C.
1984
'Tense Usage and Verbal Syntax in Selected Qumran Documents' (PhD
dissertation, The Catholic University of America, Washington, DC).
Khan, G.
'The Karaite Tradition of Hebrew Grammatical Thought', in Horbury (ed.)
1999
1999: 186-203.
Kim, Y.-Y. and D. Biber
'A Corpus-Based Analysis of Register Variation in Korean', in Biber and
1994
Finegan (eds.) 1994: 157-81.
Kindler, A.
1974
'Silver Coins Bearing the Name of Judea from the Early Hellenistic Period',
1EJ 24: 73-74.
Kiparsky, P.
1995
'Phonological Basis of Sound Change', in J. Goldsmith (ed.), Handbook of
Phonological Theory (Oxford: Basil Blackwell): 640-70.
342
Biblical Hebrew
Kirshenblatt-Gimblett, B.
'A Parable in Context: A Social Interactional Analysis of Storytelling Perfor1975
mance', in D. Ben Amos and K.R. Goldstein (eds.), Folklore: Performance
and Communication (Approaches to Semiotics, 40; The Hague: Mouton):
105-30.
'The Concept and Varieties of Narrative Performance in East European
1989
Jewish Culture', in R. Bauman and J. Sherzer (eds.), Explorations in the
Ethnography of Speaking (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press [1974]):
283-308.
Kissane, E.
1960
The Book of Isaiah (Dublin: Brown & Nolan, rev. edn).
Kister, M.
1990
'A Contribution to the Interpretation of Ben Sira', Tarbiz 59: 303-78
(Hebrew).
Kitchen, K.A.
1988
'Egypt and Israel during the First Millennium B.C.', in Emerton (ed.) 1988:
107-23.
Klausner, J.
1924
'The Origin of Mishnaic Hebrew', Qedem we-Yahadut 1.10: 1-8 (Hebrew).
1939
Historya shel ha-Bayit ha-Sheni, I (Jerusalem: Achi'asaph [Hebrew]).
1950
Historya shel ha-Bayit ha-Sheni, II (Jerusalem: Achi'asaph [Hebrew]).
Klein, R.W.
1966
'Studies in the Greek Text of the Chronicler' (PhD dissertation, Harvard
University).
1992
'Chronicles, Book of 1-2', in ABD, I: 992-1002.
Klein, S.
1923
'The Division of Judah and Galilee', in A. Zifroni et al. (ed.), Sefer haShana shel Eretz Isra 'el (Tel Aviv: Agudat ha-Sofrim ha-Ivrim be-Yisrael),
1:24-41 (Hebrew).
1939
Eretz Yehuda (Tel Aviv: Dvir [Hebrew]).
Klima, E.S.
1964
'Relatedness Between Grammatical Systems', Language 40: 1-20.
Knauf, E.A.
1990
'War "Biblisch-Hebraisch" eine Sprache?', ZAH3: 11-23.
Knoppers, G.N.
1995
Review of Kings without Privilege by A.G. Auld, Ashland Theological
Journal 27: 118-21.
Knoppers, G.N, and J.G. McConville (eds.)
2000
Reconsidering Israel and Judah: Recent Studies on the Deuteronomistic
History (Sources for Biblical and Theological Study, 8; Winona Lake, IN:
Eisenbrauns).
Kochman, M.
1982
' Yehud Medinta' in the Light of the Seal Impressions: Nina-Tin*', Cathedra
24: 3-30 (Hebrew).
Konig, E.
1881
Historisch-Kritisches Lehrgebaude der Hebraischen Sprache (2 vols. in 3;
Leipzig: J.C. Hinrichs, 1881-97).
Bibliography
343
Historisch-Comparative Syntax der Hebrdischen Sprache: Schlusstheil des

historisch-kritischenLehrgebdudes des Hebrdischen (Leipzig: J.C. Hinrichs).
Kort, A., and S. Morschauser (eds.)
1985
Biblical and Related Studies Presented to Samuel Iwry (Winona Lake, IN:
Eisenbrauns).
Kraeling, E.G.
1953
The Brooklyn Museum Aramaic Papyri (New Haven: Yale University Press).
Kraus, H.-J.
1960
Psalmen, II (BKAT, 15.2; 2 vols.; Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag).
Krispenz, J.
2001
Literarkritik undStilstatistik im Alien Testament. Fine Studie zur literarkritischen Methode, durchgefuhrt an Texten aus den Biichern Jeremia, Ezechiel
und I Konige (BZAW, 307; Berlin: W. de Gruyter).
Krone, D. (ed.)
1981
Proceedings of the Eighth World Congress of Jewish Studies, Jerusalem,
August 16-21, 1981: Division A: The Period of the Bible (Jerusalem: World
Union of Jewish Studies).
Kropat, A.
1909
Die Syntax des Autors der Chronik verglichen mit der seiner Quellen
(BZAW, 16; Giessen: Alfred Topelmann).
Kutscher, E.Y.
1954
Review of Kraeling \953,JAOS14: 233-48.
1961
Words and their History (Jerusalem: Kiriath Sepher [Hebrew]).
1964
'Aramaic Caique in Hebrew', Tarbiz 33: 118-30 (Hebrew).
1970
'Aramaic', in T.A. Seboek (ed.), Current Trends in Linguistics 6: 347-412.
1974
The Language and Linguistic Background of the Isaiah Scroll (IQIsa0)
(STDJ, 6; Leiden: E.J. Brill).
1977
Hebrew and Aramaic Studies (ed. Z. Ben-Hayyim, A. Dotan and G. Sarfatti;
Jerusalem: Magnes Press).
1982
A History of the Hebrew Language (ed. R. Kutscher; Jerusalem: Magnes
Press; Leiden: E.J. Brill).
Labov, W.
1971
'The Study of Language in its Social Context', in Fishman (ed.) 1971:
152-216.
1972
Language in the Inner City: Studies in the Black English Vernacular (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press).
1994
Principles of Linguistic Change. I. Internal Factors (Language in Society,
20; 2 vols.; Oxford: Basil Blackwell).
Lambert, W.G.
1968
'Literary Style in First Millennium Mesopotamia', in E. Bender (ed.), Essays
in Memory of E.A. Speiser (American Oriental Series, 53; New Haven:
American Oriental Society): 123-32.
Landes, G.M.
1982
'Linguistic Criteria and the Date of the Book of Jonah', Erlsr 16 (Harry M.
Orlinsky Volume}: 147*-70*.
Larsson, G.
2002
'Is the Book of Esther Older than has been Believed?', VT52: 130-31.
1897
344
Lass, R.
1997
Layton, S.C.
1990
Biblical Hebrew
Historical Linguistics and Language Change (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press).
'The Steward in Ancient Israel: A Study of Hebrew ('ASER) 'ALHABBAYIT in its Near Eastern Setting', JBL 109: 633-49.
Leahy, T.
1960
'Studies in the Syntax of 1QS', Bib 41: 135-57.
Lehman, W.P.
1962 Historical Linguistics: An Introduction (New York: Holt, Rinehart &
Winston).
Lemaire, A.
1980
'A Note on Inscription XXX From Lachish', Tel Aviv 1: 92-94.
1988
'Aramaic Literature and Hebrew Literature', in Bar-Asher (ed.) 1988: 9-24.
Lemaire, A., and M. Saeb0 (eds.)
2000
Congress Volume, Oslo 1998 (VTSup, 80; Leiden: E.J. Brill).
Lemke, W.E.
1964
'Synoptic Studies in the Chronicler's History' (PhD dissertation, Harvard
University).
1965
The Synoptic Problem in the Chronicler's History', HTR 58: 349-63.
Lepschy, G. (ed.)
1994
History of Linguistics. I. The Eastern Traditions (2 vols.; London: Longman).
Levenson, J.D.
1997
Esther A Commentary (OIL; Louisville, KY: Westminster/John Knox
Press).
Levine, B.A.
1962
'Survivals of Ancient Canaanite in the Mishnah' (PhD dissertation, Brandeis
University).
1981
'Late Language in the Priestly Source: Some Literary and Historical
Observations', in Krone (ed.) 1981: 69-82.
1982
'Research in the Priestly Source: the Linguistic Factor', Erlsr 16: 124-31
(Hebrew).
1993
Numbers 1-20 (AB, 4; New York: Doubleday).
Levinson, B.
1997
Deuteronomy and the Hermeneutics of Legal Innovation (Oxford: Oxford
University Press).
Li,T.
1999
'The Expression of Sequence and Non-Sequence in Northwest Semitic
Narrative Prose' (PhD dissertation, Hebrew Union College-Jewish Institute
of Religion).
Lichtheim, M.
1975
Ancient Egyptian Literature. I. The Old and Middle Kingdoms (Berkeley:
University of California Press).
1976
Ancient Egyptian Literature. II. New Kingdom (Berkeley: University of
California Press).
Lieberman, S.
1955
Tosefta ki-Fshutah, Order Zera'im (New York: Jewish Theological Seminary of America [Hebrew]).
Bibliography
Lifshitz, O.
1999
Lightfoot, D.
1979
1991
345
'Formation of the Babylonian Yehud Provinces', in Margolin (ed.) 1999:

115-23.
Principles ofDiachronic Syntax. (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press).
How to Set Parameters: Arguments from Language Change (Cambridge,
MA: MIT Press).
Liles, B.L.
1975
An Introduction to Linguistics (Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall).
Lindenberger, J.M.
1994
Ancient Aramaic and Hebrew Letters (SBL Writings from the Ancient
World Series; Atlanta, GA: Scholars Press).
Linville, J.R.
1998
Israel in the Book of Kings: The Past as a Project of Social Identity
(JSOTSup, 272; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press).
Lipinski, E.
1988
'Royal and State Scribes in Ancient Jerusalem', in Emerton (ed.) 1988:
157-64.
1997
Semitic Languages: Outline of a Comparative Grammar (OLA, 80; Leuven:
Peeters).
Liver, J., and M. Stern
1961
Miggalut Bavel 'ad Mered ha-Hashmona 'im (Tel Aviv: Matkal [Hebrew]).
Loewe, R.
1994
'Hebrew Linguistics', in Lepschy (ed.) 1994: 97-163.
Loewenstamm, S.E.
1972
'Reply to A.F. Rainey', Leshonenu 36: 67-70.
1980
'The Trembling of Nature during the Theophany', in idem, Comparative
Studies in Biblical and Ancient Oriental Literatures (AOAT, 204; Kevelaer:
Butzon & Bercker; Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag): 173-89.
Lohfink, N.
1963
Das Hauptgebot. Eine Untersuchung literarischer Einleitungsfragen zu Dtn.
5-11 (AnBib, 20; Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute).
1991
'Die Gattung der Historischen Kurzgeschichte in den letzten Jahren von Juda
und in der Zeit des Babylonischen Exils', in idem, Studien zum Deuteronomium undzur deuteronomistischen Literatur (Stuttgarter biblische Aufsatzbande, 12; 3 vols.; Stuttgart: Verlag Katholisches Bibelwerk), II: 55-86.
Longacre, R.E.
1989
Joseph: A Story of Divine Providence: A Text Theoretical and Textlinguistic
Analysis of Genesis 37 and 39-48 (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns).
1996
The Grammar of Discourse Second Edition (New York: Plenum Press).
Lord, A.B.
1991
Epic Singers and Oral Tradition (Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press).
Loretz, O.
1961
'The Perfectum Copulativum in 2 Sam 7,9-11', CBQ 23: 294-96.
Loretz, O., and W. Mayer,
1980.
'Hurrischparass "trainiertes Pferd"', ZA 69: 188-91.
Louckx, F.
1978
'Linguistic Ambivalence of the Brussels Indigenous Population', International Journal of the Sociology of Language 15: 53-60.
346
Biblical Hebrew
MacDonald, P.J.
1992
'Discourse Analysis and Biblical Interpretation', in Bodine (ed.) 1992:
153-75.
Macy, H.
1975
'The Sources of the Books of Chronicles: A Reassessment' (PhD dissertation, Harvard University).
Mankowski, P.V.
2000
Akkadian Loanwords in Biblical Hebrew (HSS, 47; Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns).
Mandrou, R.
1999
De la Culture Populaire aux 17e et I8e siecle. La Bibliotheque bleue de
Troyes (Paris: Imago [first published 1974]).
Mantel, H.D.
1983
The Men of the Great Synagogue (Tel Aviv: Dvir [Hebrew]).
Margain, J.
1974
'Observations sur 1 Chroniques 22. A propos des anachronismes linguistiques dans la Bible', Sem 24: 35-43.
1976
Essais de semantiques sur I'hebreu ancien. Monemes fonctionnels et
autonomes. Modalites (Comptes rendus du Groupe Linguistique d'etudes
chamito-semitiques supplement, 4; Paris: Geuthner).
Margolin, R. (ed.)
1999
Proceedings of the Twelfth World Congress of Jewish Studies, Jerusalem,
July 29-August 5, 1997: Division A: The Bible and its World (Jerusalem:
World Union of Jewish Studies).
Marrou, H.I.
1956
A History of Education in Antiquity (New York: Sheed & Ward).
Martin, W.J.
1965
'The Hebrew of Daniel', in D.J. Wiseman et al. (eds.), Notes on Some Problems in the Book of Daniel (London: Tyndale Press): 28-30.
McCarter, P.K., Jr
1980
/ Samuel: A New Translation with Introduction, Notes and Commentary
(AB, 8; New York: Doubleday).
McFall, L.
1982
The Enigma of the Hebrew Verbal System: Solutions from Ewald to the
Present Day (Hebrew Texts and Interpreters in Biblical Scholarship, 2; Sheffield: Almond Press).
McKenzie, S.L.
1984
The Chronicler's Use of the Deuteronomistic History (HSM, 33; Atlanta:
Scholars Press).
McKenzie, S.L., and M.P. Graham (eds.)
1994
The History of Israel's Traditions: The Heritage of Martin Noth (JSOTSup,
182; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press).
McMahon, A.M.S.
1994
Understanding Language Change (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press).
Melammed, E.Z.
1973
An Introduction to Talmudic Literature (Jerusalem: Sha'are Rahamim [Hebrew]).
Bibliography
347
'Tractate Shevi'ith', in E.Y. Kutscher et al. (eds.), Henoch Yalon Memorial

Volume (Ramat-Gan: Bar-Han University Press [Hebrew]): 385-417.
Merwe, C.H.J. van der
1997
'Workshop: Text Linguistics and the Structure of I Samuel 1', in van Wolde
(ed.) 1997: 157-65.
Meshorer, Y.
1976
'Means of Payment before the Appearance of Coins, and the First Coinages',
Qadmoniyot 9: 56-58 (Hebrew).
1989
'The Mints of Ashdod and Ashqelon during the Late Persian Period', Erlsr
20:287-91 (Hebrew).
Meshorer, Y., and Sh. Kedar
1991
The Coinage of Samaria in the Fourth Century BCE (Jerusalem: Numismatic
Fine Arts International)
Milgrom, J.
1989
'Rationale for Cultic Law: The Case of Impurity', in D. Patrick (ed.), Thinking Biblical Law (Semeia, 45; Atlanta: Scholars Press): 103-109.
Milik, J.T.
1958-59
'Nouvelles inscriptions semitiques et grecques du pays de Moab', Liber
Annus 9: 330-58.
1961
'Textes Hebreux et Arameens', in P. Benoit, J.T. Milik and R. de Vaux
(eds.), Les Grottes de Murabba'dt (DJD, 2; Oxford: Clarendon Press):
93-100.
'Le rouleau de cuivre provenant de la grotte 3Q (3Q15). Commentaire et
1962
texte', in M. Baillet, J.T. Milik and R. de Vaux (eds.), Les 'Petites Grottes'
de Qumran (DJD, 3; Oxford: Clarendon Press): 211-302.
Millar, W.
Isaiah 24-27 and the Origin of Apocalyptic (HSM,1; Missoula, MT:
1976
Scholars Press).
'Isaiah, Book of (Chaps. 24-27)', inABD, III: 488-90.
1992
Millard, A.R.
'An Assessment of the Evidence for Writing in Ancient Israel', in Aviram et
1985
al. (eds.) 1985:301-12.
'Strangers From Egypt and Greece: The Signs for Numbers in Early
1995
Hebrew', in K. van Lerberghe and A. Schoors (eds.), Immigration and Emigration within the Ancient Near East Festschrift E. Lipinski (OLA, 65;
Leuven: Peeters Press): 189-94.
2001
'The Corpus of West-Semitic Stamp Seals: Review Article', IEJ 51: 76-87.
Miller, C.L.
'Patterns of Ellipsis in Prose and Verse' (unpublished paper read to the
1997
Linguistics and Biblical Hebrew Section of the 1997 annual meeting of the
SBL).
Miller, J., and R. Weinert
1998
Spontaneous Spoken Language: Syntax and Discourse (Oxford: Clarendon
Press).
Montgomery, J.A.
1951
The Books of Kings (ICC; Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark).
Moor, J.C. de, and H.F van Rooy (eds.)
2000
Past, Present, Future: The Deuteronomistic History and the Prophets (OTS,
44; Leiden: E.J. Brill).
1974
Biblical Hebrew
348
Moore, C.A.
1971
Morag, S.
1971
1972
1981
1985
1988
Moran, W.L.
1975
Muchiki, Y.
1999
Muchowski, P.
1994
Muraoka, T.
1997
Esther: Introduction, Translation, and Notes (AB, 7B; New York: Doubleday).
'The Tiberian Tradition of Biblical HebrewHomogeneous and Heterogeneous Features', P'raqim 2: 105-44 (Hebrew).
Review of Wagner 1966, JAOS 92: 298-300.
' "Layers of Antiquity"Some Linguistic Observations on the Oracles of
Balaam', Tarbiz 50: 1-24 (Hebrew).
'The Beginnings of Hebrew: Some Semantic Considerations', in Bar-Asher
(ed.)1985: 177-96.
'Qumran Hebrew: Some Typological Observations', FT38: 148-64.
'Amarna Glosses', RA 69: 147-58.
Egyptian Proper Names and Loanwords in North-West Semitic (SBLDS,
173; Atlanta: SBL).
'Language of the Copper Scroll in the Light of the Phrases Denoting the
Directions of the World', in M.O. Wise, J.J. Collins and D.G. Pardee (eds.),
Methods of Investigation of the Dead Sea Scrolls and the Khirbet Qumran
Site Present Realities and Future Prospects (New York: The New York
Academy of Sciences): 319-27.
'Verb Complementation in Qumran Hebrew', in Muraoka and Elwolde

(eds.) 1997: 92-149.
1999
'The Participle in Qumran Hebrew with Special Reference to its Periphrastic
Use', in Muraoka and Elwolde (eds.) 1999: 188-204.
2000
'An Approach to the Morphosyntax and Syntax of Qumran Hebrew', in
Muraoka, T. (ed.)
1992
Studies in Qumran Aramaic (AbrNSup, 3; Leuven: Peeters).
Muraoka, T., and J.F. Elwolde (eds.)
1997
The Hebrew of the Dead Sea Scrolls and Ben Sira: Proceedings of a Symposium Held at Leiden University, 11-14 December 1995 (STDJ, 26; Leiden:
E.J. Brill).
1999
Sirach, Scrolls and Sages Proceedings of a Second International Symposium
on the Hebrew of the Dead Sea Scrolls and Ben Sira (STDJ, 33; Leiden: E.J.
Brill).
2000
Diggers at the Well: Proceedings of a Third International Symposium on the
Hebrew of the Dead Sea Scrolls and Ben Sira (STDJ, 36; Leiden: E.J. Brill).
Muraoka, T., and B. Porten
1998
A Grammar of Egyptian Aramaic (HdO, 32; Leiden: E.J. Brill).
Murphy, R.E.
1992
'Song of Songs, Book of, inABD, VI: 150-55.
Murphy-O'Connor, J.
1974
'The Essenes and their History', RB 81: 215-44.
Bibliography
Na'aman, N.
1993
349
'Population Changes in Palestine Following Assyrian Deportations', Tel

Aviv 20: 104-24.
1997a
'Historical and Literary Notes on the Excavation of Tel Jezreel', Tel Aviv 24:
122-28.
1997b
'Prophetic Stories as Sources for the Histories of Jehoshaphat and the
Omrides',5/678: 153-73.
2002
The Past That Shapes the Present: The Creation of Biblical Historiography
at the End of the First Temple Period and After the Destruction (Yeriot, 3;
Jerusalem: Orna Hess [Hebrew]).
Na'aman, N., and R. Zadok
1988
'Sargon H's Deportations to Israel and Philistia (716-708 B.C.)', JCS 40:
36-46.
Naude, J.A.
1996
'Independent Personal Pronouns in Qumran Hebrew Syntax: A Minimalist
Approach' (DLit dissertation, University of the Free State, Bloemfontein).
2000a
'Diachronic Syntax and Language Change: The Case of Qumran Hebrew',
Southern African Linguistics and Applied Language Studies 18: 1-14.
2000b
'Qumran Hebrew Syntax in the Perspective of a Theory of Language Change
and Diffusion', JNSL 26.1: 105-32.
2000c
'The Language of the Book of Ezekiel: Biblical Hebrew in Transition?', Old
Testament Essays 13: 46-71.
Naveh, J.
1979
Review of J. Hoftijzer and G. van der Kooij, Aramaic Texts from Deir 'Alia,
IEJ29: 133-36.
2000
'Hebrew and Aramaic Inscriptions', in D.T. Ariel (ed.), Excavations at the
City of David J 9 78-1985 Directed by Yigal Shiloh. VI. Inscriptions (Qedem,
41; Jerusalem: Hebrew University): 1-14.
Naveh, J., and J.C. Greenfield
1984
'Hebrew and Aramaic in the Persian Period', in Davies and Finkelstein
(eds.) 1984,1: 115-29.
Negev, A.
1972
A re heological Lexicon of the Land of Israel (Jerusalem: Akademon [Hebrew]).
Niccacci, A.
The Syntax of the Verb in Classical Hebrew Prose (JSOTSup, 86; Sheffield:
1990
Sheffield Academic Press).
'Analysing Biblical Hebrew Poetry', JSOT74: 77-93.
1997
Nicholson, E.
1998
The Pentateuch in the Twentieth Century: The Legacy of Julius Wellhausen
(Oxford: Oxford University Press).
Niditch, S.
1990
'Samson as Culture Hero, Trickster and Bandit: The Empowerment of the
Weak', CBQ 52: 608-24.
1993
Folklore and the Hebrew Bible (Minneapolis: Augsburg/Fortress Press).
1996
Oral World and Written Word: Ancient Israelite Literature (Louisville, KY:
John Knox Press).
350
Biblical Hebrew
Niditch, S. (ed.)
Text and Tradition: The Hebrew Bible and Folklore (Semeia Studies;
1990
Atlanta: Scholars Press).
Nielsen, E.
Oral Tradition: A Modern Problem in Old Testament Introduction (London:
1954
SCM Press).
Noegel, S.
'Dialect and Politics in Isaiah 24-27', Aula Orientalis 12: 177-92.
1994
Noldeke, Th.
Kurzgefasste Syrische Grammatik (Leipzig: Weigel).
1880
Review of Kautzsch 1902, ZDMG 57: 412-20.
1903
North, R.
'Could Hebrew Have Been a Cultic Esperanto?', ZAH12: 202-17.
1999
Noth, M.
Uberlieferungsgeschichtliche Studien: Die sammelnden und bearbeitenden
1943
Geschichtswerke im Alien Testament (Schriften der Konigsberger Gelehrten
Gesellschaft, Geisteswissenschaftliche Klasse, 18.2; Halle: Max Niemeyer).
The Deuteronomistic History (trans. H.G.M. Williamson; JSOTSup, 15;
1981
Sheffield: JSOT Press [first published 1943]).
Notopoulos, J.
'Parataxis in Homer: A New Approach to Homeric Literary Criticism',
1949
Transactions of the American Philological Association 80: 1-23.
Nysse, R.W.
1984
'A Study of Relationships Between Greek and Hebrew Witnesses to the Text
of 2 Samuel 1-9' (PhD dissertation, Harvard University).
Ochs, E.
1979
'Planned and Unplanned Discourse', in Givon (ed.) 1979: 51-80.
O'Connor, M.P
1980
Hebrew Verse Structure (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns).
Olafsson, S.
'Late Biblical Hebrew: Fact or Fiction?', in Z.J. Kapera (ed.), Intertesta1992
mental Essays in Honour ofJozefTadeusz Milik (Qumranica Mogilanensia,
6; Cracow: Enigma): 135-47.
Olmo Lete, G. del
1999
'The Semitic Personal Pronouns: A Preliminary Etymological Approach', in
Avishur and Deutsch (eds.) 1999: 99-120.
Olmo Lete, G., del, and J. Sanmartin
1996-2000
Diccionario de la lengua ugaritica (2 vols.; Barcelona: AUSA).
Olson, D.R., et al. (eds.)
1985
Literacy, Language and Learning: The Nature and Consequences of Writing
and Reading (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press).
Otto, E.
1996
'Town and Rural Countryside in Ancient Israelite Law: Reception and
Redaction in Cuneiform and Israelite Law', in J.W. Rogerson (ed.), The
Pentateuch (The Biblical Seminar, 39; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press):
203-21.
1999
Das Deuteronomium. Politische Theologie und Rechtsreform in Juda und
Assyrien (BZAW, 284; Berlin: W. de Gruyter).
Bibliography
Parker, S.B.
1997
Parker, T.
1843
Parpola, S.
1997
351
Stories in Scripture and Inscriptions: Comparative Studies on Narratives in

Northwest Semitic Inscriptions and the Hebrew Bible (Oxford: Oxford University Press).
A Critical and Historical Introduction to the Canonical Scriptures of the Old
Testament from the German ofWilhelm Martin Leberecht de Wette (2 vols.;
Boston: Little, Brown & Co.).
'The Man Without a Scribe and the Question of Literacy in the Assyrian
Empire', in B. Pongratz-Leisten, H. Kiihne and P. Xella (eds.), Ana sadi
Labnani lit allik. Beitra'ge zu altorientalischen und mittelmeerischen Kulturen. Festschrftfur W. Rollig (AOAT, 247; Kevelaer: Butzon & Bercker;
Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag): 315-23.
Parret, H., and J Verschueren (eds.)
1992
Searle on Conversation (Pragmatics and Beyond, 21; Amsterdam: Benjamins).
Paton, L.B.
1992
A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Book of Esther (ICC; Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark [1908]).
Pearce, L.E.
1995
'The Scribes and Scholars of Ancient Mesopotamia', in Sasson (ed.) 1995:
2265-78.
Pedersen, J.
1914
Der Eid bei den Semiten in seinem Verhdltnis zu verwandten Erscheinungen
sowie die Stellung des Eides im Islam (Studien zur Geschichte und Kultur
des islamischen Orients, 3; Strassburg: Triibner).
Peltonen, K.
1996
History Debated: The Historical Reliability of Chronicles in Pre-Critical
and Critical Research (Publications of the Finnish Exegetical Society, 64;
2 vols.; Gottingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht).
'A Jigsaw without a Model? The Dating of Chronicles', in Grabbe (ed.)
2001
2001:225-71.
Perez-Fernandez ,M.
An Introductory Grammar of Rabbinic Hebrew (trans. J. Elwolde; Leiden:
1999
E.J. Brill).
Polak, F.H.
'Epic Formulas in Biblical Narrative', in R.F. Poswick et al. (eds.), Actes du
1989
Second Colloque International Bible et Informatique: Methodes, Outils,
Resulats (Jerusalem, 9-13 Juin 1988) (Paris: Champion): 282-312.
'Epic Formulae in Biblical Narrative and the Origins of Ancient Hebrew
1991
Prose', Te'udah 1: 9-53 (Hebrew with English Summary).
Biblical Narrative: Aspects of Art and Design (Jerusalem: Mossad Harev
1994
Kook /Bialik Institute [Hebrew]).
'New Means... New Ends: Biblical Scholarship and Computer Data', in
1995
Poswick (ed.) 1995: 282-312.
'Prose and Poetry in the Book of Job', JANESCU24: 61-97.
1996
' Development and Periodization of Biblical Prose Narrative', Beit Mikra 43:
1997-98
30-52, 142-60 (Hebrew with English Summary).
Biblical Hebrew
352
1998
2001a
200Ib
200 Ic
2002
Polzin, R.
1976
Pope, M.H.
1965
1977
Porten, B.
1968
The Oral and the Written: Syntax, Stylistics and the Development of Biblical Prose Narrative', JANESCU 26: 59-105.
'On Dialogue and Speaker Status in the Scroll of Ruth', Beit Mikra 46:
193-218 (Hebrew with English Summary).
The Style of the Dialogue in Biblical Prose Narrative', JANESCU 28:
53-95.
The Style of the Dialogue in Biblical Narrative', Te'udah 16-17: 47-102
(Hebrew with English Summary).
'Parameters for Stylistic Analysis of Biblical Hebrew Prose Texts', in
J. Cook (ed.), Bible and ComputerThe Stellenbosch AIBI-6 Conference:
Proceedings of the Association Internationale Bible et Informatique: 'From
Alpha to Byte' University of Stellenbosch 17-21 July, 2000 (Leiden: E.J.
Brill): 261-84.
Late Biblical Hebrew: Toward an Historical Typology of Biblical Hebrew
Prose (HSM, 12; Missoula, MT: Scholars Press).
Job: Introduction, Translation, and Notes (AB, 15; New York: Doubleday).
Song of Songs: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary (AB,
27C; New York: Doubleday).
Archives from Elephantine: The Life of an Ancient Jewish Military Colony

(Berkeley: University of California Press).
Porten, B., and A. Yardeni (eds.)
1986
Textbook of Aramaic Documents from Ancient Egypt, Newly Copied, Edited
and Translated into Hebrew and English. I. Letters (Jerusalem: The Hebrew
University, Department of the History of the Jewish People).
1989
Textbook of Aramaic Documents from Ancient Egypt, Newly Copied, Edited
and Translated into Hebrew and English. II. Contracts (Jerusalem: The
Hebrew University, Department of the History of the Jewish People).
Poswick, R.F. (ed.)
1995
Proceedings of the Fourth International Colloquium on Bible and Computer: Desk and DisciplineThe Impact of Computers on Bible Studies
(Amsterdam 15-18 August, 1994) (Paris: Champion).
Puech, E.
1988
'Les Ecoles dans 1'Israel Preexilique: Donnees Epigraphiques', in Emerton
(ed.) 1988: 189-203.
Pury, A. de, and T. Romer (eds.)
2000
Die Sogenannte Thronfolgegeschichte Davids: Neue Einsichten und Anfragen (OBO, 176; Freiburg: Universitatsverlag; Gottingen: Vandenhoeck&
Ruprecht).
Pury, A. de, T. Romer and J.-D. Macchi (eds.)
1996
Israel construit son histoire: L 'historiographie deuteronomiste a la lumiere
des recherches recentes (Le monde de la Bible, 34; Geneva: Labor et Fides).
2000
Israel Constructs its History: Deuteronomistic Historiography in Recent
Research (JSOTSup, 306; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press).
Qimron, E.
1976
'Grammar of the Hebrew Language of the Dead Sea Scrolls' (PhD dissertation, Hebrew University, Jerusalem [Hebrew]).
Bibliography
353
'The Vocabulary of the Temple Scroll', ShnatonAn Annual for Biblical

and Ancient Near Eastern Studies 4: 239-62 (Hebrew).
1980b
'The Language of the Book of Jonah as an Indicator for Fixing the Time of
its Composition', Beth Mikra 81: 180-83 (Hebrew).
1986
The Hebrew of the Dead Sea Scrolls (HSM; Atlanta, GA: Scholars Press).
1986-87
'Consecutive and Conjunctive Imperfect: The Form of the Imperfect with
Waw in Biblical Hebrew', JQR 77: 149-61.
1987
'Diphthongs and Glides in the Dead Sea Scrolls', Language Studies 2-3
(Abba Bendavid Volume): 259-78 (Hebrew).
1992
'Observations on the History of Early Hebrew (1000 B.C.E.-200 C.E.) in the
Light of the Dead Sea Documents', in D. Dimant and U. Rappaport (eds.),
The Dead Sea Scrolls: Forty Years of Research (STDJ, 10; Leiden: E.J.
Brill; Jerusalem: Magnes Press/The Hebrew University): 349-61.
1998
'New Hebrew Inscriptions: Their Linguistic Contribution', Leshonenu 61:
181-85 (Hebrew).
2000
'The Nature of DSS Hebrew and its Relation to BH and MH', in Muraoka
and Elwolde (eds.) 2000: 232-44.
Qimron, E., and J. Strugnell
1994
Qumran Cave 4. V. Miqsat Ma 'ase Ha-Torah (DJD, 10; Oxford: Clarendon
Press).
Quasthoff, U.M. (ed.)
1995
Aspects of Oral Communication (Research in Text Theory, 21; Berlin: W. de
Gruyter).
Rabin, C.
1958
'The Historical Background of Qumran Hebrew', in C. Rabin and Y. Yadin
(eds.), Aspects of the Dead Sea Scrolls (SH, 4; Jerusalem: Magnes Press):
144-61.
1963
'Hittite Words in Hebrew', Or NS 32: 113-39.
1968
Syntax of Biblical Hebrew (Jerusalem: Academon [Hebrew]).
1970
'Hebrew', in T.A. Sebeok (ed.), Current Trends in Linguistics. VI. Soviet
and East European Linguistics (22 vols.; The Hague: Mouton): 304-46.
1971
TTHDiJ', in Encyclopaedia Biblica (9 vols.; Jerusalem: Bialik Institute), VI:
51-73 (Hebrew).
1973
A Short History of the Hebrew Language (Jerusalem: Jewish Agency).
1976
'Hebrew and Aramaic in the First Century', in S. Safrai et al. (eds.), Compendia Rerum ludaicarum adNovum Testamentum (Assen: Van Gorcum),
II: 1007-39.
1979
'The Emergence of Classical Hebrew', in A. Malamat (ed.), The World
History of the Jewish People: The Age of the Monarchies: Culture and
Society (Jerusalem: Massada): 71-78, 293-95.
1988
Die Entwicklung der hebrdischen Sprache (Veroffentlichungen der Hochschule fur jiidische Studien Heidelberg, 2; Wiesbaden: Reichert).
Rabin, C., and S. Fassberg
1991
Semitic LanguagesAn Introduction (Jerusalem: Bialik Institute [Hebrew]).
Rainey, A.F.
1971
'Linguistic MethodMay They Preserve It', Leshonenu 35: 11-15.
1983
'The Biblical Shephelah of Judah', BASOR 251: 1-22.
1996
Canaanite in theAmarna Tablets: A Linguistic Analysis of the Mixed Dialect
Used by Scribes from Canaan (HdO, 25; 4 vols.; Leiden: E.J. Brill).
1980a
Biblical Hebrew
354
1997
2000
'The Chronicler and his SourcesHistorical and Geographical', in

M.P. Graham, K.G. Hoglund and S.L. McKenzie (eds.), The Chronicler as
Historian (JSOTSup, 238; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press): 30-72.
'Syntax and Rhetorical Analysis in the Hashavyahu Ostracon', JANESCU
27: 75-79.
Rappaport, A.
1980
Redford, D.B.
2000
Regt, L.J. de
1999
'The Coins of Judea at the End of the Persian Rule and the Beginning of the
Hellenistic Period', in A. Oppenheimer et al. (eds.), Jerusalem in the Second
Temple PeriodAbraham Schalit Memorial Volume (Jerusalem: Yad BenZvi):7-21 (Hebrew).
'Scribe and Speaker', in Ben Zvi and Floyd (eds.) 2000: 145-218.
Participants in Old Testament Texts and the Translator: Reference Devices
and their Rhetorical Impact (Studia Semitica Neerlandica; Assen: Van
Gorcum).
Reichl, K.
1989
Reider, I.
1950-51
Rendsburg, G.
1980a
1980b
1981
1986
1988
1989
1990a
1990b
1991a
1991b
1992a
1992b
1992c
1992d
1992e
1993
'Old English: Formulaic Diction in Old English Epic Poetry', in A.T. Hatto
(ed.), Traditions of Heroic and Epic Poetry. II. Characteristics and Techniques (London: The Modern Humanities Research Association): 42-70.
'The Dead Sea Scrolls', JQR 41: 59-70.
'Late Biblical Hebrew and the Date of "P"', JANESCU 12: 65-80.
'Evidence for a Spoken Hebrew in Biblical Times' (PhD dissertation, New
York University).
'A Reconstruction of Moabite-Israelite History', JANESCU 13: 67-73.
The Redaction of Genesis (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns).
The Northern Origin of the "Last Words of David" (2 Sam 23.1 -7)', 5/6 69:
113-21.
'Additional Notes on the "Last Words of David" (2 Sam 23.1-7)', Bib 70:
403-408.
Diglossia in Ancient Hebrew (AOS, 72; New Haven: American Oriental
Society).
Linguistic Evidence for the Northern Origin of Selected Psalms (SBLMS,
43; Atlanta: Scholars Press).
'The Northern Origin of Nehemiah 9', Bib 72: 348-66.
'The Strata of Biblical Hebrew', JNSL 17: 81-99.
'Morphological Evidence for Regional Dialects in Ancient Hebrew', in
Bodine(ed.) 1992:65-88.
'The Galilean Background of Mishnaic Hebrew', in L.I. Levine (ed.), The
Galilee in Late Antiquity (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press):
225-40.
'Israelian Hebrew Features in Genesis 49', Maarav 8: 161-70.
'Kabbir in Biblical Hebrew', JAOS 112: 649-51.
'Shibboleth', inABD, V: 1210-12.
'The Dialect of the Deir 'Alia Inscription', BO 50: 309-29.
Bibliography
355
'Linguistic Variation and the "Foreign" Factor in the Hebrew Bible', IOS 15:
177-90.
1998
'Confused Language as a Deliberate Literary Device in Biblical Hebrew
Narrative', Journal of Hebrew Scriptures 2, article 6 (available online at
<www.purl.org/jhs>).
1999a
'Notes on Israelian Hebrew (1)', in AvishurandDeutsch(eds.) 1999:255-58.
1999b
'Psalm ex 3b', VT49: 548-53.
2001
'Reading David in Genesis', BR 17.1: 20-33, 46.
2002a
Israelian Hebrew in the Book of Kings (Occasional Publications of the
Department of Near Eastern Studies and the Program of Jewish Studies,
Cornell University, 5; Bethesda, MD: CDL Press).
2002b
'Some False Leads in the Identification of Late Biblical Hebrew Texts: The
Cases of Genesis 24 and 1 Samuel 2.27-36', JBL 121: 23-46.
Renz, J., and W. Rollig
1995 HandbuchderAlthebra'ischenEpigraphik(3 vols.; Darmstadt: Wissenschafttliche Buchgesellschaft).
Revell, E.J.
1988
'First Person Imperfect Forms with Waw Consecutive', F738: 419-26.
1991
'First Person Imperfect Forms with Waw ConsecutiveAddenda', VT4\:
127-28.
1995
'The Two Forms of First Person Singular Pronoun in Biblical Hebrew:
Redundancy or Expressive Contrast?', JSS 40: 199-217.
Ringgren, H.
1968
Israelite Religion (London: SPCK).
Robb, K.
1994
Literacy and Paideia in Ancient Greece (Oxford: Clarendon Press).
Robertson, D.A.
1972
Linguistic Evidence in Dating Early Hebrew Poetry (SBLDS, 3; Missoula,
MT: SBL).
Rofe, A.
1976
'Sippur 'Erusei Rivqa (Bereshit 24): Mehqar Sifruti-Histori', Eshel BeerSheva 1: 42-67 (Hebrew).
1981
'La Composizione di Gen. 24', Bibbia e Oriente 23: 161-65.
1988a
The Prophetical Stories (Jerusalem: Magnes Press).
1988b
'The Vineyard of Naboth: The Origin and Message of the Story', VT 38:
89-104.
1990
'An Enquiry into the Betrothal of Rebekah', in Blum, Macholz and Stegemann(eds.) 1990:27-39.
1992
'Ephraimite Versus Deuteronomistic History', in D. Garrone and F. Israel
(eds.), Storia e tradizioni di Israele: Scritti in onore di J. Alberto Soggin
(Brescia: Paideia): 221-35.
Rogerson, J.W.
1985
Old Testament Criticism in the Nineteenth Century: England and Germany
(London: Fortress Press).
1992
W.M.L. de Wette: Founder of Modern Biblical Criticism: An Intellectual
Biography (JSOTSup, 126; Sheffield: JSOT Press).
Rollston, C.A.
1998
'Are They Genuine?', NBA 61: 8-9.
1995
356
Biblical Hebrew
Romer, T. (ed.)
2000
The Future of the Deuteronomistic History (BETL, 147; Leuven: Leuven
University Press).
Ronsch, H.
1874
Das Buch der Jubilden oder die kleine Genesis (Leipzig: Fues; repr.
Amsterdam: Rodopi, 1970).
Rooker, M.F.
1988a
'Biblical Hebrew in Transition: The Language of the Book of Ezekiel' (PhD
dissertation, Brandeis University).
1988b
The Diachronic Study of Biblical Hebrew', JNSL 14: 199-214.
1990a
Biblical Hebrew in Transition: The Language of the Book of Ezekiel
(JSOTSup, 90; Sheffield: JSOT Press).
1990b
'Ezekiel and the Typology of Biblical Hebrew', HAR 12: 133-55.
1994
'Diachronic Analysis and the Features of Late Biblical Hebrew', Bulletin for
Biblical Research 4: 135-44.
1996
'Dating Isaiah 40-66: What Does the Linguistic Evidence Say?', WTJ 58:
303-12.
Rosen, H.B.
1984
""I3DN et S ]N: Essai de grammaire, interpretation et traduction', in idem, East
and West: Selected Writings in Linguistics. II. Hebrew and Semitic Linguistics (2 vols.; Munich: W. Fink): 262-81.
Rosenberg, J.
1986
King and Kin: Political Allegory in the Hebrew Bible (Indiana Studies in
Biblical Literature; Bloomington: Indiana University Press).
Rosenfeld, B.Z.
1984
'Tehume ha-Shephela mime ha-Miqra we-'ad Hazal', Beit Miqra 29:367-76
(Hebrew).
Rosenthal, F.
1961
A Grammar of Biblical Aramaic (Wiesbaden: Otto Harassowitz).
Rothstein, J.W., and J. Hanel
1927
Kommentarzum erstenBuch der Chronik(KAT, 18; Leipzig: A. Deichert).
Rowley, H.H.
1978
Job (NCB; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans; London: Marshall, Morgan & Scott,
repr. of the 2nd edn).
Rubinstein, A.
1955
'Singularities in Consecutive-Tense Constructions in the Isaiah Scroll', VT5:
180-88.
Rynell, A.
1952
Parataxis and Hypotaxis as a Criterion of Syntax and Style, Especially in
Old English Poetry (Lunds Universitets Arsskrift, NF Avd. 1. Bd. 48.3; Lund:
C.W.K. Gleerup).
Saenz-Badillos, A.
1993
A History of the Hebrew Language (trans. J. Elwolde; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press).
Safrai, Z.
1980
Gevulot we-Shilton be-'Eretz-Yisra'el biTqufat ha-Mishna we-ha-Talmud
(Tel Aviv: Hakkibutz Hameuchad [Hebrew]).
Bibliography
Samarin, WJ.
1976
Sarfatti, G.B.
1982
1985
1989
1992
Sasson, J.M.
1979
357
'The Language of Religion', in idem (ed.), Language in Religious Practice

(Rowley, MA: Newbury House): 3-13.
'Hebrew Inscriptions of the First Temple Period: A Survey and Some
Linguistic Comments', Maarav 3: 55-83.
"Al Seder ha-Millim ba-TZmadim ha-Miqra'iyyim we-ha-'Ugaritiyyim', in
B.Z. Luria(ed.), Sefer 'Avraham 'Even-Shoshan (Jerusalem: Kiryath Sepher):
301-13 (Hebrew).
'Definiteness in Noun-Adjective Phrases in Rabbinic Hebrew', in M.Z. Kaddari and S. Sharvit (eds.), Studies in the Hebrew Language and the Talmudic
Literature, Dedicated to the Memory of Dr. M. Moreshet (Ramat-Gan: Barllan University): 153-68 (Hebrew).
'The Inscriptions of the Biblical Period and Mishnaic Hebrew', Language
Studies 5-6: 41-65 (Hebrew).
Ruth: A New Translation with a Philological Commentary and a FormalistFolklorist Interpretation (The Johns Hopkins Near Eastern Studies, 11;
Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press).
Sasson, J.M. (ed.)
1995
Civilisations of the Ancient Near East. IV.9. Language, Writing and Literature (New York: Simon & Schuster/Prentice-Hall).
Sasson, V.
1979
' Studies in the Lexicon and Linguistic Usage of Early Hebrew Inscriptions'
(PhD dissertation, New York University).
1981
'SMN RHS in the Samaria Ostraca', JSS 26: 1-5.
1982a 'The Meaning ofwhsbt in the Arad Inscription', ZAW94: 105-11.
1982b
'The Siloam Tunnel Inscription', PEQ 114: 111-17.
Schalit, A. (ed.)
1972
The World History of the Jewish People: The Hellenistic Age: Political History of Jewish Palestine from 332 B.C.E. to 67 B.C.E. (New Brunswick, NJ:
Rutgers University Press; Jerusalem: Massada).
Schaper, J.
1999
'Hebrew and its Study in the Persian Period', in Horbury (ed.) 1999: 3-13.
Schattner-Rieser, U.
1994
'L'hebreu postexilique', in E.-M. Laperrousaz and A. Lemaire (eds.), La
Palestine a I'epoqueperse (Paris: Editions du Cerf): 189-224.
Schearing, L.S., and S.L. McKenzie (eds.)
1999
Those Elusive Deuteronomists: The Phenomenon of Pan-Deuteronomism
(JSOTSup, 268; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press).
Schiffman, L.H.
1994
Reclaiming the Dead Sea Scrolls (Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society
of America).
Schirmer, A.
1926
Deutsche Wortkunde. Erne Kulturgeschichte des deutschen Wortschatzes
(Berlin: W. de Gruyter).
Schleppegrell, M.J.
1992
'Subordinaton and Linguistic Complexity', Discourse Processes 15:117-31.
358
Biblical Hebrew
Schniedewind, W.M.
'Qumran Hebrew as an Antilanguage', JBL 118: 235-52.
1999
'Sociolinguistic Reflections on the Letter of a "Literate" Soldier (Lachish
2000
3)',Z4//13: 157-67.
Schniedewind, W.M., and D. Sivan
'The Elijah-Elisha Narratives: A Test Case for the Northern Dialect of
1997
Hebrew', J0tf 37: 303-37.
Schoors, A.
'The Pronouns in Qoheleth', Hebrew Studies 30: 71-87.
1989
1992
The Preacher Sought to Find Pleasing Words: A Study of the Language of
Qoheleth (OLA, 41; Leuven: Peelers Press).
Schiile, A.
'Zur Bedeutung der Formel wajjehi im Ubergang zum mittelhebraischen
1997
Tempussystem', in A. Wagner (ed.), Studien zur hebrdischen Grammatik
(OBO, 156; Freiburg: Universitatsverlag; Gottingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht): 115-25.
Die Syntax der althebrdischen Inschriften. Ein Beitrag zur historischen
2000
Grammatik des Hebrdischen (Miinster: Ugarit-Verlag).
Schutz, A.J.
Language of Fiji (Oxford: Clarendon Press).
1972
Schwartz, J.
Jewish Settlement in Judaea (Jerusalem: Magnes Press [Hebrew]).
1986
'On Lod in the Persian Period', Cathedra 49: 3-11 (Hebrew).
1989
Scott, R.B.Y.
1970
'The N-S-P Weights from Judah', BASOR 200: 62-66.
Segal, M.H.
Madda'e ha-Yahadut (Jerusalem: n.p.), I: 30-44 (Hebrew).
1926
1927
A Grammar ofMishnaic Hebrew (Oxford: Clarendon Press [repr. 1970]).
1936
Diqduq Leshon ha-Mishna (Tel Aviv: Dvir [Hebrew]).
Segert, S.
1976
A Grammar of Phoenician and Punic (Munich: Beck).
Seow, C.L.
1996
'Linguistic Evidence and the Dating of Qoheleth', JBL 115: 643-66.
Sharvit, S.
1967
'Investigations Concerning the Lexicon of the Copper Scroll', Beth Mikra
31: 127-35 (Hebrew).
Shoham, Y.
2000
'Hebrew Bullae', in D.T. Ariel (ed.), Excavations of the City of David
1978-1985 Directed by Yigal Shiloh. VI. Inscriptions (Qedem, 41; Jerusalem: The Institute of Archeology/The Hebrew University of Jerusalem):
29-57.
Slouschz, N.
Thesaurus of Phoenician Inscriptions (Tel Aviv: Dvir [Hebrew]).
1942
Smith, M.
1971
Palestinian Parties and Politics that Shaped the Old Testament (New York:
Columbia University Press).
Smith, M.S.
1991a
The Origins and Development of the Waw-Consecutive: Northwest Semitic
Evidence from Ugarit to Qumran (HSS, 39; Atlanta: Scholars Press).
Bibliography
1991 b
359
'Converted and Unconverted Perfect and Imperfect Forms in the Literature

of Qumran', BASOR2M: 1-16.
1991 c
'The Waw-Consecutive at Qumran', ZAH 3: 161 -64.
1999
'Grammatically Speaking: The Participle as a Main Verb of Clauses
(Predicative Participle) in Direct Discourse and Narrative in Pre-Mishnaic
Hebrew', in Muraoka and Elwolde (eds.) 1999: 278-332.
2000
'The Infinitive Absolute as Predicative Verb in Ben Sira and the Dead Sea
Scrolls: A Preliminary Survey', in Muraoka and Elwolde (eds.) 2000:
256-67.
Smith, N., and D. Wilson
1980
Modern Linguistics: The Results of Chomsky's Revolution (Bloomington:
Indiana University).
Sokoloff, M.
1990
A Dictionary of Jewish Palestinian Aramaic (Ramat-Gan: Bar-Han University Press).
Sperber, A.
1939
'Hebrew Based upon Biblical Passages in Parallel Transmission', HUCA 14:
153-249.
1966
A Historical Grammar of Biblical Hebrew: A Presentation of Problems with
Suggestions to Their Solution (Leiden: EJ. Brill).
Spieckermann, H.
1982
Juda unterAssur in der Sargonidenzeit (FRLANT, 129; Gottingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht).
Spufford, M.
Small Books and Pleasant Histories: Popular Fiction and its Readership in
1981
Seventeenth-Century England (London: Methuen).
Stegemann, H.
1992
'The Qumran EssenesLocal Members of the Main Jewish Union in Late
Second Temple Times', in J. Trebolle Barrerra and L. Vegas Montaner
(eds.), The Madrid Qumran Congress: Proceedings of the International
Congress on the Dead Sea Scrolls. Madrid 18-21 March, 1991 (Leiden: E.J.
Brill): 83-166.
Steins, G.
Die Chronik als kanonisches Abschluflphanomen: Studien zur Entstehung
1995
und Theologie von 1/2 Chronik (EBB, 93; Weinheim: Beltz Athenaum).
Stemberger, G.
1992
Einleitung in Talmud undMidrasch. Achte, neubearbeitete Auflage (Munich:
Beck).
Stern, E.
'Yehud in Vision and Reality', Cathedra 4: 13-25 (Hebrew).
1977
'Clay Wine Drinking Vessels in the Achaemenid Style from Eretz Israel', in
1982
Sh. Shaked (ed.), Irano-Judaica (Jerusalem: Ben-Zvi Institute): 1-5, 10
(Hebrew).
'Material Culture and Economic Life in Eretz Israel in the Persian Period', in
1983
Tadmor and Eph'al (eds.) 1983: 117-38 (Hebrew).
'The Persian Empire and the Political and the Social History of Palestine in
1984
the Persian Period', in Davies and Finkelstein (eds.) 1984,1: 70-87.
Archeology of the Land of the Bible. II. The Assyrian, Babylonian and
2001
Persian Periods (732-332 B.C.E.) (New York: Doubleday).
360
Stern, M.
1968
Biblical Hebrew
'The Hasmonean Revolt and its Place in the History of Jewish Society and
Religion', Cahiers D 'histoire Mondiale 9: 94-102.
Steuernagel, C.
Das Deuteronomium (HKAT, Abt. 1, Bd. 3.1; Gottingen: Vandenhoeck &
1923
Ruprecht; 2nd edn).
Strang, B.M.H.
The History of English (London: Methuen).
1970
Striedl, H.
'Untersuchung zur Syntax und Stilistik des hebraischen Buches Esther',
1937
ZAW55: 73-108.
Stubbs, M.
Language and Literacy: The Sociolinguistics of Reading and Writing (Lon1980
don: Routledge & Kegan Paul).
'Written Language and Society: Some Particular Cases and General Obser1982
vations', in M. Nystrand (ed.), What Writers Know: The Language, Structure
and Use of Written Discourse (New York: Academic Press): 31-55.
Sznejder, M.B.
'The Literary Hebrew Language, Part 1', Leshonenu 6: 301-26 ( Hebrew).
1934-35
Tadmor, H.
History of the Jewish People, I (Tel Aviv: Dvir [Hebrew]).
1969
1973
'On the History of Samaria in the Biblical Period', in J. Aviram (ed.), Eretz
Shomron (Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society [Hebrew]): 67-74.
Tadmor, H., and I. Eph'al (eds.)
1983
The World History of the Jewish People: The Return to Zion in the Persian
Era (Tel Aviv: Peli & Am Oved [Hebrew]).
Tal, A.
1994
The Samaritan Pentateuch Edited According to Ms 6(c) of the Shechem
Synagogue (Tel Aviv: Tel Aviv University Press).
Talmon, S.
1951
'The Samaritan Pentateuch', JJS 2: 144-50.
1975
'The Textual Study of the BibleA New Outlook', in P.M. Cross and
S. Talmon (eds.), Qumran and the History of the Biblical Text (Cambridge,
MA: Harvard University Press): 321-400.
1983
'The Beginning of the Return to Zion', in Tadmor and Eph'al (eds.) 1983:
28-39.
Talshir, D.
1986
'On Syntactical Peculiarities in Late Biblical Hebrew', in M. Bar-Asher
(ed.), Proceedings of the Ninth World Congress of Jewish Studies, Jerusalem, August 4-12, 1985: Division D (Jerusalem: World Union of Jewish
Studies/Magnes Press): 5-8.
1987a
'The Autonomic Status of Late Biblical Hebrew', in M. Bar-Asher (ed.),
Language Studies 2-3 (Abba Bendavid Volume): 161-72 (Hebrew).
1987b
'The Development of the Imperfect Consecutive Forms in Relation to the
Modal System', Tarbiz 56: 585-91 (Hebrew).
1988
'A Reinvestigation of the Linguistic Relationship between Chronicles and
Ezra-Nehemiah', VT38: 165-93.
1992
'Y?an jrmrr orjnjliT 1 ~pnn\ Leshonenu 55: 277-80 (Hebrew).
Bibliography
1993
1998
Talshir, Z.
1999
2000
Talstra, E.
1995
Tannen,D.
1984a
1984b
1985
1989
3 61
'The Habitat and History of the Hebrew during the Second Temple Period',
in M. Bar-Asher and D. Rosenthal (eds.), Mehqerei Talmud (Jerusalem:
Magnes Press), II: 284-301 (Hebrew).
'Rabbinic Hebrew as Reflected in Personal Names', 57/37: 365-79.
'Textual and Literary Criticism of the Bible in Post-Modern Times: The
Untimely Demise of Classical Biblical Philology', Henoch 21: 235-52.
'The Reign of Solomon in the Making: Pseudo-Connections Between
3 Kingdoms and Chronicles', FT50: 233-48.
'Desk and DisciplineThe Impact of Computers on Biblical Studies', in
Poswick(ed.) 1995:25-43.
Conversational Style: Analyzing Talk among Friends (Norwood, NJ: Ablex).
'Spoken and Written Narrative in English and Greek', in idem (ed.) 1984:
21-41.
'Relative Focus on Involvement in Oral and Written Discourse', in Olson et
al. (eds.) 1985: 124-47.
Talking Voices: Repetition, Dialogue, and Imagery in Conversational Discourse (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press).
Tannen, D. (ed.)
1984
Coherence in Spoken and Written Discourse (Advances in Discourse Process,
12; Norwood, NJ: Ablex).
Thomas, R.
1992
Literacy and Orality in Ancient Greece (Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press).
Thomason, S.G., and T. Kaufman
1988
Language Contact, Creolization, and Genetic Linguistics (Berkeley: University of California Press).
Thompson, S.A.
1987
'"Subordination" and Narrative Event Structure', in Tomlin (ed.) 1987:
435-54.
Throntveit, M.A.
1982
'Linguistic Analysis and the Question of Authorship in Chronicles, Ezra and
Nehemiah', FT132: 201-16.
Todd, J.A.
1992
'The Pre-Deuteronomistic Elijah Cycle', in Coote (ed.) 1992: 1 -35.
Tomlin, R.S. (ed.)
1987
Coherence and Grounding in Discourse (Typological Studies in Language,
11; Amsterdam: Benjamins).
Torczyner, H. (ed.)
1938
Lachish I (Tell edDuweir): The Lachish Letters (London: Oxford University
Press).
Torrey, C.C.
1909
'The Chronicler as Editor and Independent Narrator', AJSL 25: 188-217
(reprinted in idem, Ezra Studies [Chicago: University of Chicago Press,
1910]: 208-51).
Biblical Hebrew
362
1930
Tov, E.
1992
1997
Trask, R.L.
1994
1996
1999
Traugott, B.C.
Pseudo-Ezekiel and the Original Prophecy (New Haven: Yale University

Press).
Textual Criticism of the Hebrew Bible (Minneapolis: Fortress Press; Assen:
Van Gorcum).
'Different Editions of the Song of Hannah and of its Narrative Framework',
in M. Cogan, B.L. Eicher and J.H. Tigay (eds.), Tehillah le-Moshe: Biblical
and Judaic Studies in Honor ofMoshe Greenberg (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns): 149-70 (reprinted in E. Tov, The Greek and Hebrew Bible:
Collected Essays on the Septuagint [VTSup, 72; Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1999]:
433-55).
Language Change (London: Routledge).
Historical Linguistics (London: Arnold).
Key Concepts in Language and Linguistics (London: Routledge).
'Diachronic Syntax and Generative Grammar', in A.R. Keiler (ed.), A Reader

in Historical and Comparative Linguistics (New York: Holt, Rinehart &
Winston): 201-16.
Trebolle Barrera, J.C.
Salomon y Jeroboan: historia de la recension y redaccion de I Reyes 2-12,
1980
14 (Bibliotheca Salmanticensis Dissertationes, 3; Salamanca: Universidad
Pontificia).
1982
'Redaction, Recension and Midrash in the Books of Kings', BIOSCS 15:
12-35.
1984a
'From the "Old Latin" Through the "Old Greek" to the "Old Hebrew"
(2 Kings 10.23-25)', Textus 11: 17-36.
JehuyJoas: texto y composicion literaria de 2 Reyes 9-11 (Institucion San
1984b
Jeronimo, 17; Valencia: Institucion San Jeronimo).
1989
Centena in libros Samuelis et Regum: variantes textuales y composicion
literaria en los libros de Samuel y Reyes (Textos y estudios 'Cardenal
Cisneros' de la Biblia Poliglota Matritense, Consejo Superior de Investigaciones Cienti'ficas, 47; Madrid: Consejo Superior de Investigaciones Cientificas, Institute de Filologia, Departamento de Filologia Biblica y de Oriente
Antiguo).
2000
'Qumran Evidence for a Biblical Standard Text and for Non Standard and
Parabiblical Texts', in T.H. Lim (ed.), The Dead Sea Scrolls in their Historical Context (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark): 89-106.
Ullendorff, E.
1977
' Is Biblical Hebrew a Language?', in idem, Is Biblical Hebrew a Language?
Studies in Semitic Languages and Civilizations (Wiesbaden: Otto Harrassowitz): 3-17 (first published in BSOAS 34 [1971]: 241-55).
Ulrich, E.
1979
The Qumran Text of Samuel and Josephus (HSM, 19; Missoula, MT: Scholars Press).
1992
The Canonical Process, Textual Criticism, and Latter Stages in the Composition of the Bible', in M. Fishbane and E. Tov (eds.), Sha'arei Talmon:
Studies in the Bible, Qumran and the Ancient Near East presented to Shemaryahu Talmon (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns): 267-91.
1972
Bibliography
363
The Dead Sea Scrolls and the Origins of the Bible (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans).
van den Bussche, H.
1948
'Le Texte de la prophetic de Nathan sur la Dynastic Davidique (II Sam.,
VIII Chron., XVII)', ETL 24: 354-94.
van Keulen, P.S.F.
1996
Manasseh Through the Eyes of the Deuteronomists: The Manasseh Account
(2 Kings 21.1-18) and the Final Chapters of the Deuteronomistic History
(OTS, 38; Leiden: E.J. Brill).
Van Peursen, W.Th.
1999a
'The Verbal System in the Hebrew Text of Ben Sira' (PhD dissertation,
Leiden University).
1999b
'Negation in the Hebrew of Ben Sira', in Muraoka and Elwolde 1999:
223-43.
2000
'Conditional Sentences with DN in the Protasis in Qumran Hebrew', in
Van Seters, J.
2000
'Prophetic Orality in the Context of the Ancient Near East: A Response to
Culley, Crenshaw, Davies', in Ben Zvi and Floyd (eds.) 2000: 83-88.
Vanstiphout, H.
1995
'Memory and Literacy in Ancient Western Asia', in Sasson (ed.) 1995:
2181-96.
Verheij, A.J.C.
1990
Verbs and Numbers: A Study of the Frequencies of the Hebrew Verbal Tense
Forms in the Books of Samuel, Kings, and Chronicles (Studia Semitica
Neerlandica, 28; Assen: Van Gorcum).
1997
'Early? Late? A Reply to F.H. Cryer', SJOT 11: 41-43.
Wagner, M.
1966
Die lexikalishen und grammatikalischen Aramaismen im alttestamentlichen
Hebrdisch (Berlin: Alfred Topelmann).
Wahl, H.M.
1997
Die Jakobserzdhlungen. Studien zu ihren mundlichen Uberliefering, Verschriftung und Historizitat (BZAW, 258; Berlin; W. de Gruyter).
Walker, L.W.
1986
'Notes on Higher Criticism and the Dating of Biblical Hebrew', in
W.C. Kaiser, Jr, and R.F. Youngblood (eds.), A Tribute to Gleason Archer
(Chicago: Moody Press): 35-52.
Waltisberg, M.
1999
'Zum Alter der Sprache des Deboraliedes Ri 5', ZAH 12: 218-32.
Waltke, B.K., and M. O'Connor
1990
An Introduction to Biblical Hebrew Syntax (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns).
Watson, W.G.E.
1972
'Archaic Elements in the Language of Chronicles', Bib 53: 191-207.
1986
Classical Hebrew Poetry: A Guide to Its Techniques (JSOTSup, 26; Sheffield: JSOT Press).
Weidner, E.F.
1923
Politische Dokumente aus Kleinasien; Die Staatsvertrdge in akkadischer
Sprache aus dem Archiv von Boghazkoi (Boghazkoi Studien, 8-9; Leipzig:
J.C. Hinrichs).
1999
364
Weinberg, J.
1992
2000
Weinfeld, M.
1972
1973
1991
Weinreich, U.
1953
Weippert, M.
1990
Weiss, M.
1983
Weiss, R.
1981
Biblical Hebrew
The Citizen-Temple Community (JSOTSup, 151; Sheffield: JSOT Press).
'Jerusalem in the Persian Period', in S. Ahituv and A. Mazar (eds.), The
History of Jerusalem: The Biblical Period (Jerusalem: Yad Ben-Zvi [Hebrew]): 307-26.
Deuteronomy and the Deuteronomic School (Oxford: Clarendon Press).
'On "Demythologization and Secularization" in Deuteronomy', IEJ 23:
230-33.
Deuteronomy l-ll (AB, 5; New York: Doubleday).
Languages in Contact: Findings and Problems (The Hague: Mouton).
'Die Petition eines Erntearbeiters aus Mesad Hasavyahu und die Syntax
althebraischer erzahlender Prosa', in Blum, Macholz and Stegemann (eds.)
1990:449-66.
The Story of Job's Beginning: Job 1-2, A Literary Analysis (Jerusalem:
Magnes Press/The Hebrew University).
Studies in the Text and Language of the Bible (Jerusalem: Magnes Press
[Hebrew]).
Weitzman, S.
1996
'The Shifting Syntax of Numerals in Biblical Hebrew', JNES 55: 177-85.
Wesselius, J.-W.
1999
'The Language of the Hebrew Bible Contrasted with the Language of the
Ben Sira Manuscripts and of the Dead Sea Scrolls', in Muraoka and Elwolde
(eds.) 1999:338-45.
Wette, W.M.L. de
1806
Beitrage zur Einleitung in das Alien Testament. I. Historisch-Kritische
Untersuchung iiber die Bticher der Chronik (2 vols.; Halle: Schimmelpfennig).
1817
Lehrbuch der historisch-kritischen Einleitung in die kanonischen und
apocryphischen Bticher des Alien Testamentes (Berlin: Georg Reimer).
Widengren, G.
1959
'Oral Tradition and Written Literature Among the Hebrews in the Light of
Arabic Evidence, with Special Regard to Prose Narrative', AcOr 23:201-62.
Williamson, H.G.M.
1982
1 and 2 Chronicles (NCB; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans; London: Marshall,
Morgan & Scott).
Wilson, O.K. Jr
1996
'An Investigation into the Linguistic Evidence and Classification of Dialect
Variation in Biblical Hebrew' (PhD dissertation, Mid-America Baptist
Theological Seminary).
Wilson, R.D.
1926
A Scientific Investigation of the Old Testament (London: Marshall Brothers).
Winter, E.
1994
'Clause Relations as Information Structure: Two Basic Text Structures in
English', in Coulthard (ed.) 1994: 46-68.
Bibliography
Wise, M.O.
1992
365
'Accidents and Accidence: A Scribal View of the Linguistic Dating of the

Aramaic Scrolls from Qumran', Muraoka (ed.) 1992: 124-67.
Wolde, E. van (ed.)
1997
Narrative Syntax and the Hebrew Bible: Papers of the Tilburg Conference
1996 (Biblical Interpretation Series, 29; Leiden: E.J. Brill).
Wolters, A.
1985
'SOPIYYA (Prov 31.27) as Hymnic Participle and Play on Sophia', JBL
104: 577-87.
1990
'The Copper Scroll and the Vocabulary of Mishnaic Hebrew', RevQ 14:
483-95.
Wright, R.M.
1998
'Linguistic Evidence for the Pre-Exilic Date of the Yahwist Source of the
Pentateuch' (PhD dissertation, Cornell University).
Yalon, H.
Studies in the Hebrew Language (Jerusalem: Bialik Institute [Hebrew]).
1971
Yeivin, I.
1985
The Hebrew Language Tradition as Reflected in the Babylonian Vocalisation, II (Jerusalem: The Academy of the Hebrew Language [Hebrew]).
Yoo, Y.J.
1999
'Israelian Hebrew in the Book of Hosea' (PhD dissertation, Cornell University).
Young, E.J.
1960
An Introduction to the Old Testament (London: Tyndale Press, 2nd edn).
Young, I.M.
1992a
'The Diphthong *ay in Edomite', JSS 37: 27-30.
'The Style of the Gezer Calendar and some "Archaic Biblical Hebrew"
1992b
Passages', FT42: 362-75.
1993
Diversity in Pre-Exilic Hebrew (FAT, 5; Tubingen: J.C.B. Mohr [Paul Siebeck]).
'The "Northernisms" of the Israelite Narratives in Kings', ZAH 8: 63-70.
1995
'Evidence of Diversity in Pre-Exilic Judahite Hebrew', Hebrew Studies 38:
1997
7-20.
1998a
'Israelite Literacy: Interpreting the Evidence', FT148: 239-53, 408-22.
1998b
'The "Archaic" Poetry of the Pentateuch in the MT, Samaritan Pentateuch,
and4QExod c ',y46r//35: 74-83.
' 'Am Construed as Singular and Plural in Hebrew Biblical Texts: Diachronic
1999
and Textual Perspectives', ZAH 12: 48-82.
200 la
' 'Edah and Qahal as Collective Nouns in Hebrew Biblical Texts', ZAH 14:
68-78.
'Notes on the Language of4QCant b ', JJS 52: 122-31.
200 Ib
'Observations on the Third Person Masculine Singular Pronominal Suffix -H
200 Ic
in Hebrew Biblical Texts', Hebrew Studies 42: 225-42.
'The Problem of Ezekiel: A Discussion Paper' (unpublished paper, Uni200 Id
versity of Sydney).
Zakovitch, Y.
'The Tale of Naboth's Vineyard: 1 Kings 21', Addendum to M. Weiss, The
1984
Bible from Within (Jerusalem: Magnes Press): 379-405.
366
Biblical Hebrew
Zawiszewski, E.
1968
'Ksiegi KronikApologia czy Historia?', Ruch Biblijny I Liturgiczny 21:
233-37.
Zevit, Z.
1982
'Converging Lines of Evidence Bearing on the Date of P', ZA W94:481 -511.
1984
'The Khirbet el-Qom Inscription Mentioning a Goddess', BASOR 255:
39-49.
2001
The Religions of A ncient Israel: A Synthesis ofParallactic Approaches (London/New York: Continuum).
Zimhoni, O.
1997
'Clues from the Enclosure-Fills: Pre-Omride Settlement at Tel Jezreel', Tel
Aviv 24: 83-109.
INDEXES
INDEX OF REFERENCES
BIBLE
Genesis
1.2
1.6
1.14
1.17
2-4
5.1
6.3
6.15
12-35
13.15
15.15
16.9
17.1-2
17.1
17.2
17.4
17.5
17.7
18.1-15
21.4
21.7
21.8
21.22-32
21.28-30
22.4
23.6-18
23.18
24
24.3
24.7
24.38
274
171,274
274
274
64
55
270
268
66
96
96
275
87
87
87
87
88
88
63
107
106, 107
107
64
64
43
64
64
108, 109,
117, 127
184
109
109
109
26.28-30
27.7
27.20
29.12
31.46-47
32.6
32.25-33
33.10-11
37-50
37
37.2
39.22
40.4-21
41.8
41.11
41.17
41.24
41.42
41.43
42.7
42.11
42.29
42.31
43.18
43.21
47.6
49
Exodus
1.11
2-24
2.2
2.3
2.6
64
301
145
9
25
227
63
141
291
66
274
171,274
66
21
227
117
21
21
21
179
307
298
274
301
227
232
140, 160
272
66
107
107
107
2.18
4.24-26
4.26
4.29
4.32
4.33
5.16
6.1-4
7.11
7.17
7.22
8.3
8.14
8.15
9.11
12.4
15
15.1
15.5
15.18
16.7
16.8
17.11
17.14
18.13-27
18.13
18.21
18.22
18.25
18.27
19-20
19.3-8
145
63
63
63
63
63
272
88
21
226
21
21
21
21
21
16
108
96
108
133
307
307
48
16
70,79
70
232
71
70,71,
232
71
67,71,77,
79
71,79
Biblical Hebrew
368
Exodus (cont.)
19.3-5
74
74
19.3
19.4
74
74
19.5
71
19.7-8
19.7
72
19.8
72
19.10-19
71,79
72
19.10-11
72
19.10
19.11
72
19.12-15
72
19.12
72
19.13
72
19.14
72
19.15
72
19.16
73
73
19.17
19.18
73,74
19.19
73
19.20-25
72
20.18-21
71,79
20.18-19
75
20.19
75
20.20
75
21.28
48
22.6
173
24.6
141
25.4
21
25.5
272
26.1
21
26.5
140
29.2
272
29.29
226
31.18
51,272
32.7
117
32.13
113, 117
34.1
272
36.1
92
36.12
140
Leviticus
2.4
10.12
10.19
11.43
13.26
13.31
272
117
117
226
14
17
13.37
22.25
23.20
25.21
26
26.5
26.34
27.23
27.33
Numbers
1.1
8.19
9.1
10.10
11-12
11
11.14
11.16-17
11.16
11.17
11.24-30
11.25
11.26-27
11.26
11.27
11.28
18.6
18.8
21.18
22-24
23.3
23.7
23.9
23.10
23.15
23.24.6
27.16-18
28.11
31.28
31.37-41
32.32
35.20
17
226
44
272, 307
154
48
272
16
14
44
227
44
272
66
67, 69, 75,
79
69
67,79
67,69
67-69
67,79
67,68
68
68
67,68
67,70
44
117
114
66
180
32, 105
105
105
180
105
70
272
16
16
307
271
Deuteronomy
1-6
55
1-5
80
1
67
.9-17
.9
.10
.11
.12
.13
1.14
1.15
1.17
1.41
2.25
3.18
4-5
4
4.9-24
4.9-14
4.9-10
4.9
4.10
4.11-13
4.11
4.12-13
4.12
4.13
4.14
4.15-18
4.16
4.17
4.19-20
4.19
4.25-40
4.33-35
4.38
5
5.1-5
5.4-5
5.4
5.5
5.22-33
5.22-23
5.22
5.26
5.31
5.32-33
9-10
9
9.7
9.8-11
9.8
68,79
69
69
69
69
69
68,70
69,71
71
70
78
232
67,79
76
75
79
76
76
16,11
76
76
77
76
76
77
77
76
76
77
76
75,79
77
77
77
75,79
77
77
77,78
79
75
78
78
78
78
55,80
43
43, 171
42
42,43
Index of References
9.9
9.10
9.11
9.22
9.24
11.20
11.30
14.14
14.28
17.8
17.18-19
21.7
21.18
23.7
23.19
24.1
24.3
25.9
26.5
27
27.3
27.8
27.9
27.14
27.15
28.29
28.37
29.18
31-34
31
31.9
31.19
31.21
31.22
31.24-25
31.24
31.27
31.29
32
32.7
32.14
32.34
32.36
32.40
33.2
34
34.9
42,43
43
43
171
171
53
143
48
267
53
51
70
275
300
17
53
53
70
70
53
51,53
53
272
70
70
171
271
211
55
53
53
51,53
53
51
51
53
171
272
19
275
307
293
272
133
284
80
70
Joshua
1.4
1.8
1.14
3-8
5.11-12
6.2
8.3
8.14
8.31-34
8.32
9
9.2-15
10.7
11.3
12.7
18.4-9
18.8
21.6
21.33
22-24
22
22.8
22.21
23.4
24
24.8
24.26
143
55
232
55
306
232
232
145
55
51
55
85
232
143
143
55
51
228
228
55,85
55
93
117
143
55
227
55
Judges
1.7
5
5.5
5.7
5.10
5.11
5.15-16
5.26
6.9
6.10
6.38
7.22
8.14
10.12
11.10
11.40
171
122, 12428
126
123
123
124
125
125, 126
227
227
126
48
55,65,68
227
171
124
369
12.3
12.6
13.2
13.15-23
13.21
14-15
17.1
17.2
18.2
19.1
19.11
19.18
20.44
20.46
21.10
21.23
227
30
236
64
109
59,81
236
301
232
171,236
301
226
232
232
232
16
Ruth
1.4
1.13
3.3-4
15
15
123
1 Samuel
1-3
1-2
1
1.1
1.6
1.7
1.9
1.10
1.11
1.13
1.19
1.20
1.22
1.23
1.24
1.28
2
2.1-10
2.8
2.11
184, 185
109, 127,
184
66, 184
185
236
185
185
109
184
185
169, 184
185
185
185
185
185
185
185
184
242
185
171, 184
185
Biblical Hebrew
370
1 Samuel (cont.)
2.14
2.16
2.25
2.27-36
2.28
2.29
2.34
2.36
3
3.12
3.14
3.21
4.16
4.20
9.1
10.5
10.25
14.15
16.18
18.6
21.9
22.18
23.26
28.15
30.12
31
31.4
31.7
109
185
185
108, 109,
117
185,227
109, 173,
185
184
185
184
184
275
109
226
117
236
173
55,65
74
92
229
298
212
145
227
303
216
287
226
2 Samuel
2.7
2.27-36
2.28
2.36
3.13
3.17
4.3
4.10
4.11
5.24
6.12
6.14
6.16
7
7.2
232
184
184
184
226
171
171
227
48
48
230
13
234
226
225
7.6
7.8
7.9
7.11
7.14
7.16
7.18
8.15
9-20
11.14-15
11.16
11.19-24
11.25
12.8
13.23
13.28
13.39
14.5-7
14.5
14.6
14.7
15.16
15.32
17.10
18.18
18.31
20.3
20.12
20.17
21.20
22.8-16
22.24
23.1-7
23.5
23.20
24.6
24.12
24.17
24.23
24.24
171
225
227, 228
234
225
96
226
171
220
55,65
232
65
271
227
171
232
229
40
40
40
40,41
48
171
232
48
275
48
48
226
236
74
227
160
132
230
65
225, 226
225, 226
229
94
/ Kings
1-20
1-2
1.5
1.19
1.25
2
55
220
169
180
180
66
2.17
3
3.7
3.11
3.14
4
4.6
5.1
5.10
5.12
5.20-21
5.20
5.22
5.24
5.25-7.38
5.25
5.29-30
6-7
6.1
6.2
6.3
6.20
6.23
6.24
6.37-38
7.15-16
7.24
7.26
7.38
8
8.2
8.13
8.46-53
8.46
8.48
8.54
9.15
9.22
10.1-7
10.22
11.1
11.4
11.36
12.6
12.11
12.14
13
229
55,80
92
234
223
234
291
171
32
66
54
92
273
171
228
229
229
283
134
229
229
229
229
229
134
229
180,229
229
229
135, 154
134
132, 134,
135, 147
154
226
134
236
290
230
53
21
229
223
223
171
225
225
117
Index of References
13.7
13.12
13.22
15-16
15.7
15.22
15.26
15.33
16.5-9
16.9
16.20
17
20.40
21
21.1-20
21.1
21.2
21.5
21.6
21.7
21.8
21.9
21.10
21.11
21.12
21.13
21.14
21.15-16
21.15
21.20
21.21-29
21.25
21.26
21.28
21.29
22.3-11
22.8
22.10
22.12
22.16
22.21
22.41-42
22.46
35.4
117
117
117
55
229
226, 229
53
52,53
53
290
52
66
171
116-19,
121, 122,
127
116, 120
117, 121
118
117
117, 121
126
118
118
118, 119,
123
118, 123
117, 118
118,119,
126
123
124
116, 123
118, 126
120
118, 126
125
126
126
53
225,301
169
169
225
225
53
52
54
2 Kings
1
1.3
2.16
4
4.2
4.3
4.7
4.38-41
4.38
4.39-41
4.39
4.40
4.41
5
6-8
6-7
6.8-19
6.9
6.13
6.19
6.27
7.10
8
8.4-5
8.14-15
8.21
8.29
9.14
9.15
9.37
10
10.13
10.23
11-12
11.13
12.11
12.12
14-25
14.2
14.10
14.14
14.15
15
15.2
15.5
15.10
117
117
232, 287
59,81,
111, 112
111
111
111
61
61
61
61
61
61
21
59
81
32
32, 105
32
32,271
179
305
86
38
60
171
229
171
229
272, 307
66
236
287
55
123
234, 236
234
55
231
60
60
60
105
230
291
105
3 71
18.17
18.18
18.26-27
18.26
18.32
18.37
19.2
19.14
22-23
22.3
22.8-11
22.19
22.20
22.28
23
23.1-3
23.6
23.11
24.14
24.16
24.20
25
25.27-30
25.27
28.26
105
105
232
114
105
14
171
171
171
171
171
171
26
171, 173
234
20
290
25
90
287
290
290
64,84
53
236
53
226
225
94
14
53
234
14,284
232
232
221
154
154
221
54
1 Chronicles
1-9
2.30
2.32
3.5
4.9-10
4.10
234, 240
298
298
223
234
94, 298
15.12
15.13
15.20
15.25
15.28
16.15
17.25
17.28
17.29
17.32
17.33
17.41
18
18.4
Biblical Hebrew
372
1 Chronicles
5.14
5.18
5.24
6
6.47
7
7.2
7.5
7.7
7.9
7.11
7.28
7.40
8.40
9.13
10-22
10
10.4
10.7
11.22
11.26
12.9
12.16
12.18
12.19
12.22
12.26
12.31
12.41
13.5
15.22
15.25
15.27
15.29
17
17.1
17.7
17.10
17.13
17.14
17.16
17.17
19.6
20.6
21.1
21.10
21.11
(cont.)
138
232
232
228
228
232
232
232
232
232
232
142, 143
232
232
232
234
216
287
226
230
232
232
142, 143
173
141
232
232
232
180
231
170
230
13
234
226
225
225
173,234
225
96
226
172
231
236
180
225, 226
141
21.17
29.199
29.20
29.211
94, 225
226
94
13
92, 138
180
180
180
234, 240
234
234
234
55
232
232
232
22
142, 143
22
142, 143
142, 143,
232
232
232
234
13
54
13
180
297
12, 13,
240
13
301
180
2 Chronicles
1-36
1.11-12
1.11
2.1
2.6
2.8
2.9-4.6
2.9
2.10
2.13
2.15
234
93
234
229
13,19,22
180
228
229
54
22,92
273
21.24
21.27
22.2
22.3
22.4
22.8
23-27
23.4-6
23.25-26
23.28-32
24.6
26.6
26.7
26.9
26.15
26.16
26.17
26.18
26.30
26.311
26.32
28-29
28.11
28.199
29.11
29.2
29.4
29.7
2.17
3.3
3.4
3.8
3.9
3.10
3.11
3.14
3.15
4.1
4.3
4.5
4.6
6.2
6.36
7.1
7.13
7.14
8.3-4
8.9
8.13
9.1
9.9
9.21
10.2
10.11
10.14
11.13
11.23
12.10
13.22
14.7
14.14
15.19
16.6
16.8
16.9
16.14
17.5
17.12
17.13
17.14
18.1
18.2
18.7
18.15
18.20
18.27
229
229
229
229
229
229
229
22
229
229
180,229
229
226, 229
132, 134
226
236
232
232
240
230
93
180
180
21
229
225
225
180
180
172
229
232
180
138
226, 229
180
240
13
180
232
232
232
180
180
225,301
225
225
94
Index of References
22.8
24.11
24.12
24.19
24.24
25.1
25.9
26.3
26.12
26.14
26.15
26.17
26.20
26.21
26.22
26.30
28.6
28.10
28.25
29.16
29.22
30.1
30.6
30.13
30.17
30.24
31.1
32.5
32.9
32.13
32.17
32.28
32.29
32.30
33.14
34.4
34.8
34.27
34.28
35.5
35.21
36.13
36.22-23
36.22
Ezra
1.2
2
236
180,234,
236
234
226
180
223,231
297
230
232
232
240
232
145
291
55
145
232
93,291
136
93, 141
141
51,55
13
180
93
180
234
180
223
94
55
136
180
142, 143
142
234
236
226
225
124
145
221
240
221
93
254
2.30
2.44
2.60-63
2.61
2.65
2.69
3.1
3.12
4-7
4.4
4.6-7
4.7
4.10
4.22
5.3
5.8
6.6-10
6.6
6.8-9
6.15
6.18
6.28
7.11
7.21
7.22
7.26
7.28
8.15
8.16
8.17
8.23
8.24
8.25
8.26
8.28
8.31
9.2
9.3
9.5
9.6
10
10.4
10.8
10.14
258
298
97
54
291
12
138
255
26
294
26
22,54
89
93
89,92
89
97
89
97
288
54, 124
93
22
89
54
93
138,227
227
227
227
227
227
227
227
227
227
253
94, 227
227
227
252
60
253
92, 294
Nehemiah
1.1-7.5
1.3
1.4
169
252
227
373
1.6
2.1
2.4
2.6
2.7-8
2.9
2.10
2.13
3
3.1
3.3
3.4
3.6
3.15
3.20-22
3.28-29
4.1-6
4.14
5.1-3
5.4
5.7
5.8
5.11
5.13
5.15
5.18
6.1
6.3
6.7
6.8
6.11
6.12
7
7.2
7.3
7.5
7.37
7.47
7.64
7.67
7.69-71
8.13
9
9.4
9.7-8
9.25
9.29
10.1
226
80, 94,
227
80
92, 227
80
94, 227
80
227
22, 258
97
92
97
92
92
97
97
258
138
93
22
227
227
297
227
268
92
92
227
92
227
227
227
254
92
170,286
227
258
298
54
291
12
138
122, 160
96
172, 173
180
226
252
Biblical Hebrew
374
Nehemiah (cont.)
10.33-40
10.35
10.39
11.6
11.14
11.25-50
11.30-36
11.33-35
12.25
12.27-13.31
12.31
12.44
13.4-9
13.4-7
13.7
13.8
13.9
13.10-13
13.10
13.11
13.13
13.17
13.19
13.21
13.22
13.23-24
13.23
13.24
13.28
13.30
13.31
23
97
92, 253
182
232
232
258
258
258
22
169
227
92, 138
97
97
227
227
227
97
97, 227
227
221
227
92, 227
227
227
26
91
26,91,
263, 285
97
227
92
252
Esther
1.1
1.2
1.3
1.4
1.5
1.6
1.8
1.10
1.12
1.15
1.20
2.1
2.3
96, 236
96
12,96
96, 297
12,96
12
12
96
229
229
12
96
138, 170
2.5
2.7
2.8
9.28
9.29
9.31
236, 237
236
96, 138,
236
145
136
96
96
96, 138
169
169
96, 236
12,51,54
12, 136
136
141
12
12,54
12, 14
81,94,96
92, 138
96, 236
12, 14,96,
236
16
12, 170
94,96
145
291
12, 14
16
12
136
12, 136
12, 145
136, 169
12, 169
136
140, 141
96
12,92,
136, 140,
141
136
94
12,92
Job
1.1
236, 237
2.9
2.11
2.12
2.15
2.19
2.20
3.2
3.4
3.12
3.14
4.3
4.4
4.7
4.8
4.11
4.14
4.16
5.1
5.2
6.1
6.9
6.13
6.14
7.4
8.4
8.5
8.9
8.11
8.13
8.14
8.17
9.3
9.21
9.23
9.25
9.27
.3
.5
.6
.13
.15
.16
.17
.19
2.1
2.10
3.6
5.4
7.3
12.21
13.2
19.20
20.177
22.30
24.23
26.33
28.166
29.2
29.11
29.17
30.26
30.30
30.311
33.9
34.25
34.33
36.2
37.1
39.2
42.7
42.12
42.13
Psalms
3.6
7.5
18.8-16
19.9
27.4
27.13
28.9
29.1
33.7
33.14
236
236
180,236
236
227
227
227
227
180,236
140, 141
288
275
288
294
226
227
124
306
303
179
297
288
119
227
227
17
236
226
275
92
33
74
288
236
236
236
227
227
74
93
14
115
96
272
138, 139,
293
143
Index of References
36
36.5
36.7
38.12
40
41.14
45.2
45.7
45.9
45.10
45.11
45.13
45.16
45.18
46.3
46.5
47.10
48
48.6
50.1
52.7
61.1
61.5
61.7
63.4
68
68.23
69.3
69.12
69.16
69.21
73.16
74.6
74.13
75
75.7
75.9
76.6
77
77.6
77.8
77.18
78.49
274
180
123
115
182
96
65, 137
137
121, 137
137,272,
297
137
137
137
113, 136
137, 147
146
146
114,272
146
145-47
143
115
271
132, 134,
135
135
96
137
108
108
227
108
227
227
306
273
144, 181
142, 144,
147
144
232
134, 135
132, 134,
135, 147
132, 134,
135, 147
134
273
79.133
86
88.7
88.133
90
90.10
90.155
103
103.3
103.4
103.5
103.12
103.13
103.18
103.19
103.20-21
104.55
104.19
104.27
106.47
106.48
107
107.2
109.6
11.134
11.159
11.168
11.56
111
111.7
112
113
113.3
113.5-9
113.8
116
116.1
116.2-8
116.6
116.7
116.9
116.10
116.11
116.12-18
116.12
96
182
108
271
275
227
275
112, 143,
181, 182
112
112
112
142
112
93
112
112
133
143
15
97
96
143, 181
142, 144
180
93
93
93
93
182
93
182
97
143
242
114
110-14,
116, 117
127
115
115
112
110,111
113,115
110, 113,
115,117
115
115
110, 111
375
116.14
116.15
116.16
116.18
116.19
117.1
119.4
119.131
119.147
119.15
119.158
119.55
119.59
122
123
124
126
126.1
126.4
129
13.6
13.8
13.9
130.4
132.12
135
135.7
135.9
136
137
137.1-2
137.6
139.3
144
144.12
145
145.1
145.2
145.13
146
147
147.2
147.12
113
110, 111,
113
113, 115
113
111, 115
96
93,94
227
227
93
227
227
227
270
270
270
97
97
97
270
97
97
97
271
271
112,270
112
112
270
97,112,
270
97
112
18
183,270
183
132, 182
132
96
132, 136
270
139
92, 138
139
96
Proverbs
3.10
294
Biblical Hebrew
376
Proverbs (cont.)
48
3.12
8.26
287
8.34
137
48
13.21
142
19
142
19.10
142
19.13
19.20
140, 142,
147
19.23
142
146
20
20.11
146
146
20.14
20.16
146
146
20.17
20.21
145-47
20.25
14
22.29
65
48
23.6
274
30
105
31.1-9
31.2-3
33
31.2
105
31.4
105, 123
Ecclesiastes
1.10
1.17
2.7
2.8
2.14
2.21
2.26
3.1
3.5
4.4
4.12
4.17
5.10
5.18
6.2
6.8
7.19
8.8
8.11
8.12
9.11
10.5
132, 135
94, 227
291
138
298
16
138
92
92, 138
16
287
92, 169
16
93
93
92
17
17
287
297
298
17
10.9
10.10
10.15
11.6
11.10
12.3
12.10
226
16
92
16
17
232
66
Song of Songs
1.5
1.6
1.7
1.17
2.13
2.15
3.7
5.11
7.13
8.11-12
17
17
31
124
298
298
31
17
298
17
Isaiah
1-39
1-36
1.17
4-66
5.22
179
54
263
5
232
6.1
7.15
43
92
8.4
8.21
10.29
11.14
13.12
17.12
20.1
22.15
24-28
24-27
24.12
25.8
26
26.1
26.4
92
211
74
143
297
106
20
290
147
134, 135
271
133
134, 135
134
132, 134,
147
134
134
134
134
134
26.5
26.6
26.7
26.9
26.10
26.11
26.12
26.13
26.14
26.15
26.16
26.17
26.18
26.19
27.2
28
28.1
28.2
28.7
28.9
28.14
28.20
28.22
28.24
28.25
28.28
28.29
33.6
34.14
35.10
36.3
36.11-12
36.18
36.22
37.2
38.18
40-66
40-55
40.12
41.7
43.5
43.12
44.5
45.6
45.12
45.17
47.7
134
134
135
134
134
134
134
134
134
307
139
139
139
139
139
139
139, 147
293
139
139
139
139
139
288
48
132
290
25
287
290
290
15
53, 54,
129, 132
143, 175
181, 183
85
314,315
306
48
142-44,
181
226
53
142-44,
181
226
132, 135
287
Index of References
50.1
51.9
51.19
52.8
56-66
56.11
59.19
60.16
60.19
60.20
65.6
65.25
Jeremiah
1.6
3.1
3.7
3.8
3.10
6.21
8.8
10.11
10.13
11.15
11.18
13.19
16.5
17.1
17.13
22.3
22.30
23.31
24.7
25.13
25.29
26-28
26
26.1
26.18
26.21
27.1
28.1
28.17
29.1
29.14
29.29
30.2
53
132
135
183
130
92
142-44,
181
115
132
132
53
181
92
53
263
53,54
263
307
54
26
112
112
227
272
138
54
54
263
54
274
226
54
226
55,80
53
54
223
88
54
54
88
54
138
54
54
31.33
32
32.1
32.9
32.10-16
32.10
32.11
32.12
32.13
32.14
32.44
33.1
34.1
34.8
35.1
36^3
36
36.1-43.7
36.1
36.2-18
36.2
36.4
36.6
36.9
36.10
36.12
36.17
36.20-21
36.21
36.23-26
36.23
36.26
36.27
36.28
36.32
37^3
37.1
37.15
37.20
38.4
38.11-12
40.1
41.1
43.9
44.1
44.23
45.1
48.14
54
55,80
54
227
54
54
54
54
54
54
54
54
54
54
54
55
53, 182
80
54
54
54
54
51,54
54
54
54
54
54
54
54
54
54
54
54
54
53
54
54
54
294
306
54
54
54
54
272
54
232
377
51.16
51.27
51.60
51.63
52
52.25
112
20
54
54
55
54
Lamentations
3.42
3.63
4.1
4.8
307
97
17
17
Ezekiel
1-39
1.24
1.25
3.3
8.5
9.8
11.7
11.17
13.9
16.11
16.30
16.33
22.20
22.21
23.20
23.43
23.46
24.10
24.12
25.15-16
34.11
34.12
34.23
39.28
40^8
40.4
40.45
41.22
44.20
46.17
Daniel
1.2
1.3
54
294
294
227
97
227
138
138
54
227
17
21
138
138
227
306
170
169, 170
272
257
14
14
223
138
54
117
117,271
117
204
272
182
12
378
Daniel (cont.)
12,267
1.5
1.8
12
22
1.11
1.13
12
1.15
12
1.16
12,22
2-7
26
2.4
117,135
92
2.9
2.16
92
2.18
93
2.20
96
2.25
145
2.44
135
3.9
135
3.16
93
3.20
232
3.24
145
3.52
133
4.9
92
4.26
288
5-6
54
5.7
54
5.8
54,93
5.10
135
5.15-17
54
5.16
93
5.24-25
54
6.5
93
6.6
135
6.9-11
54
6.20
145
6.21
135
6.26
135
7.12
92
7.18
96, 135
8.13
227
8.15
227
8.17
227
9.3
227
9.4
227
9.24
132, 135
10.5
297
10.16
227
10.19
227
10.21
14,54
11.10
94, 138
Biblical Hebrew
11.13
11.14-17
11.26
11.39
94
173
12
17
11.45
12.8
12.13
12
227
123
Hosea
5.14
7.16
8.14
12
226
271
121
63
Joel
2.13
3.2
4.4
182
291
287
Amos
3.10
4.2-3
4.5
5.22-23
6.1-7
8.3
9.11
92
170
170
170
170
121
170
Jonah
1.6
1.7
1.9
1.11-12
2.1
3.2
4.6
4.7
4.8
36
36
226
36
36
271
36
36
36
Micah
3.11
7.18
7.19
17
133
108
Nahum
2.4
2.6
232, 284
271
3.17
20
Habakkuk
2.1
3.10
180
303
Haggai
1.2
1.6-10
1.12-14
1.12
1.14
2.10-13
4.10
178
252
185
178
178
185
252
Zechariah
1-8
1.4
1.7
1.8-13
1.16
2.1-7
3.1-6
3.1
3.2
4.1-5
4.11-5.3
4.2
5.1
5.2
5.5-6.11
6.2
6.5
6.6
6.8
6.10
6.14-15
6.15
7.1
7.3
7.5
7.7
7.11-14
8.7
8.19
8.21
175, 179,
180, 187,
314
185
182
185
183
185
185
180
180
185
185
180
182
182
185
17
180
17
179
178
185
94
182
182
94, 182
258
185
143
182
94
Index of References
9-14
9
9.15
11.8
11.13
11.17
175, 177-
79
178
183
288
227
94
12.3
14.4
14.14
94
143
179
Malachi
1.6
1.11
178
143
379
2.14
3.10
3.24
6.16
119
182
178
16
APOCRYPHA/DEUTERO-CANONICAL BOOKS AND PSEUDEPIGRAPHA

Tobit
8.5
8.15
11.14
13.4
13.7
13.18
133
133
133
133
133
133
Ecclesiasticus
4.11
119
7.32
14
15.2
30.23
37.11
46.19
50.25-26
51.12
141
267
273
119
259
96
1 Maccabees
9.49-51
259
9.52
259
10.38
259
11.30-34
13.43
259
259
Jude
1.25
133
Jub.
19.14-15
65
4QOrd
2.4
138
4QpPsaal7l
2.9
141
11Q14
9
180
OTHER ANCIENT SOURCES

Dead Sea Scrolls
IQapGen
20.13-14
133
21.10
133
21.12
133
1QH
2.18
4.16
IQlscf
8.15
41.27
IQM
4.15
13.7
266
266
211
274
268
132
1QS
2.12-13
4.7-8
4.22
211
132
132
IQSa
1.11
1.20
119,141
180
3Q 15 (Copper Scroll)
8.1
182
12.12-13
137
4Q196 (4QTobaar)
14.8
93
4Q416
2.2
294
11QT
10.35
13.31
15.1
22.12
23.7
34.7
40.8
42.13
48.14
4QD
5.11-12
266
11QT
63.7
4Q198 (4QTobcar)
1.2
93
4Q398fr. 11-13
3
92
143
143
137
137
137
138
137
137
137
212
Biblical Hebrew
380
CD
10.7-8
266
CD A
9.20
CD B
19.30
Murabba 'at
24
B16
C18
Targums
Targ. Isa.
25.8
Pe'ah
1.1
267
119
Pes.
5.6
9.2
118
260
119
Ros Has.
4.9
126
Sebu.
4.8
9.2
139
257, 260
137
137
137
Seq.
6.5
Targ. Onq. Exod.

15.18
133
Targ. Onq. Deut.
32.40
133
Suk.
5.4
Mishnah
Ab.
5.7
6.2
Toh.
9.13
145
137
B. Bat.
3.1
268
139
fier
2.2
6.6
141
137
Yeb.
16.7
Talmuds
>>. Sebu.
37
38
274
Midrash
Ber. R.
53.9
107
Mek. Bahodesh
5
137
137
Sifra Shemini
1.3
267
137
212
137
139
133
yiraA:.
3.2
/. Yeb.
12.11
137
r<3/w.
7.4
261
Sifra Hovah
9.2
133
Sot.
5.4
7.5
/. Sebu.
7.10
274
266
261
#.
3.5
260
/. Ber
3.24
6.7
Ma 'as. $.
3.5
143
t. 'Erub.
4.6
143
Afcg.
1.3
267
/. Ohol.
5.12
274
133
137
Sifre Num.
73
143
Sifre Deut.
6
122
54
261
141
141
Josephus
Ant.
13.125-27
259
Apion
2.4
260
Classical
Eusebius
Chron. Can.
1572
82
Inscriptions, Ostraca,
Papyri and Tablets
Ahiqar
2-3
47
10
47
11
47
12
47
18-19
47
Index of References
20
32
35-36
42-43
47
55-56
60-61
Arad
1.2
47
47
47
47
47
47
47
1.4
1.5-6
1.5
1.6-7
1.8
2.1
2.7-8
2.7
3.3-5
3.5
3.8
5.3-4
5.3
5.12
7.2
7.5-6
286, 300,
306
292, 299,
304
300
300
300
300
297
286, 300
294
286
286
294
294
300
300
286
286, 300
294
11.2
12.3
16.1-2
16.2
16.3
16.4
16.5
17.3-4
17.5
18.2-3
18.5
18.6-7
18.9
20.2
21.1-2
21.5
24.13
24.14-16
286, 300
287
304
301
298
294
292, 299
294
287
300
298
301
287
288
304
301
294
286
1.3
24.14-15
24.15
24.16
24.17
24.18
24.20
26.2
31.10
40.2-3
40.7
40.8
40.10-11
40.13-14
40.14
111.7
294, 301
292
287, 298
298
297,301
287
289
306
304
292, 293
305
301
301
297
297
Avigad Wine Decanter

302
1
Bar Kokhba
15
143
Beersheba
1.2
289
CAP
25 17
383-5
41.3
51
46
304
City of David
302, 306
2.1
Gezer Calendar
293, 302
\
293, 302
2
302
3
293, 302
6
302
7
Gibeon
1
302
Hazor
1
298, 303
Horvat 'UzaJar
303
8
381
KAI
14.18-19
18.3
26.A.1II. 19
90
124
272
KetefHinnom Amulet
309
2.9
Khirbet el-Qom
1
303
288
1.1
293
3.1
303
3.3
283
12
283
13
Kuntillet 'Ajrud
294, 298
8.1
306
8.2
Lachish
2.3
2.5-6
2.5
3.1-2
3.4-5
3.5
3.6
3.9-10
3.9
3.10
3.11-12
3.12
3.14
3.15
3.18
3.20
4.1
4.5-6
4.6-7
4.9
4.10-13
4.10-11
5.5
6.2
6.5
6.6
303
306
303
297
305
288
284
305
301
297, 303
286
307
297
297
287, 289,
297
297, 309
303
305
294
303
48
307
303
293, 307
288
294, 297
Biblical Hebrew
382
Lachish (cont.)
6.12
301
8.2
303
12.3
301
13.1
289,297
25.1
303
30.1
303
Mesad Hashavyahu
1.3
295
1.4
294
1.5
294,304,
306
294, 304
.6-7
306
.6
.7
294, 304
.8
294, 306
.10
304
1.11
304
1.12-13
297
Mesha Stele
5-6
121
Moussaieff Ostraca
1.1-2
296
1.2
297
1.4
287
2.3-4
298
2.3
294, 298
2.4
294
Ophel
1.3
298
Silwam Tomb
2.1
290,291
2.2
291,305
Panammu
13
144
Ta 'anach
1.5-6
300
Tell Qasile
2.1
297
papMurabba 'at
17a.l
289, 304,
306
Ras ez-Zetun
1
307
Samaria Ostraca
5.3
304, 305
16.3
305
Siloam Tunnel
1
290, 305
2
284, 290,
298, 303,
307, 309
3
166, 167,
305, 307
4
167,284,
290, 293,
294, 298,
305, 307
5-6
297
5
296, 305
Ugaritic Texts
KTU
1 .4.111. 14
272
INDEX OF AUTHORS
Abegg, M.G. 210
Adams, W.J. 241,245
Aharoni, Y. 288, 293, 300, 302
Ahituv, S. 293,300,305
Aitchison, J. 208,246
Albright, W.F. 142, 281, 289, 294, 298
Alden, R.L. 237
Alexander, P.S. 59
Allen, L.C. 36
Alt, A. 257
Andersen, F.I. 223, 237, 306, 308
Anderson, A.A. 116
Anderson, B.W. 237
Arlotto, A. 246
Auld,A.G. 216,217,228,240
Avi-Yonah, M. 256-58,261,262
Avigad,N. 302
Avishur, Y. 63
Baer, Y. 260
Baldwin, J.G. 237
Bar-Asher, M. 24,26,262
Bar-Kochva, B. 257
Barr,J. 3,216,223,247,312
Barre, M.L. 110, 115
Barthelemy, D. 271
Bauer, H. 170, 190,230,242
Baumgartner, W. 176,243,294
Beaman, K. 49,50
Becking, B. 3
Beit-Arieh, I. 276,303
Ben Yehuda, E. 254,261
BenZvi, W. 39,85,90,243
Ben-Hayyim, Z. 264, 265, 267
Ben-Sasson, H.H. 260
Bendavid, A. 31, 34, 35, 168, 194, 279,
288
Bender, A. 29
Bergey, R. 35, 96, 130, 136-38, 140, 141,

144-47, 170, 177, 183,245,268
Bergstrasser, G. 227, 230, 242
Berlejung, A. 296,298
Berlin, A. 115
Berlinerblau, J. 165
Bernal, M. 144
Bertheau, E. 215
Bianchi, F. 1
Biber, D. 49-51,55-58
Bickermann, E.J. 97,253
Black,!. 248
Blau, J. 162, 172, 187, 227, 264, 272
Blenkinsopp, J. 14, 240, 245
Bloomfield, L. 246
Blum, E. 67, 77
Bolleme, G. 61,83
Bordreuil, P. 296
Brenner, A. 1,36
Brenner, M.L. 108
Brettler, M. 184
Bright, J. 254
Briquel-Chatonnet, F. 303
Brock, S.P. 288, 295, 303, 304, 306
Brockelmann, C. 273
Brown, F. 221
Buchan, D. 83
Burke, P. 65,81,82,87,89
Burney,C.F. 32, 125,247
Bynon, T. 246
Campbell, E.F. 123
Cardona, G. 95
Cassuto, U.M. 39,74
Chafe, W.L. 38, 39, 49, 50, 55-58
Chapman, S.B. 287
Charles, R.H. 65
Chen, Y. 142, 146-48, 241
384
Biblical Hebrew
Chomsky, N. 197,208,209
Chomsky, W. 242,245
Clancy, P.M. 56
Clendenen, E.R. 243
Clines, D.J.A. 237
Cogan, M. 25, 117
Cohen, H.R. 9,224
Collins, J.J. 316
Conrad, S. 49,51,56,58
Crawford, S.W. 237
Crenshaw, J.L. 52
Cross, P.M. 30, 39, 74, 243, 263, 288,
300, 304, 306
Cryer, F.H. 164,217,240,245
Crystal, D. 56,245,246
Culley,R.C. 39
Curtis, E.L. 221
Dahood, M. 272
Danto, A. 217
Davidson, S. 221
Davies, G.I. 270, 289, 293, 299
Davies, P.R. 2, 8, 10, 108, 164, 165, 187,
189,217,240,276,315,316
Davila, J.R. 270
Davy, D. 56
DeCaen, V. 164,227
Delitzsch, F. 36
Dempster, S.G. 233
Demsky,A. 64,82,84,302
Deutsch, R. 276, 287, 297, 304
DeVaux, R. 194
Dever, W.G. 107,217
Dillmann, A. 215
Diringer, D. 288, 295, 303, 304, 306
Dobbs-Allsopp, F.W. 90, 97, 287, 288,
295, 297, 307
Dorson, R.M. 58,59,81
Dotan, A. 95
Dothan, M. 263
Drerup, E. 100
Driver, G.R. 11, 29, 37, 104, 113, 210,
226,235
Driver, S.R. 16, 18, 28, 31, 43, 77, 129,
168, 171, 175, 176, 179, 184, 190,
221, 222, 225, 227, 234, 237, 254,
279,285,296,297,314
Dupont-Sommer, A. 101
Edelman, D. 216,218,240
Eggins, S. 56-58
Ehrensvard, M. 38, 164, 166, 171, 217,
231, 240, 244, 276, 277, 290, 291,
298
Eichhorn, J.G. 215
Eisenman, R.H. 194
Eissfeldt, O. 15
Elayi,J. 90
Ellenbogen, M. 11,284
Elwolde, J.F. 164,248
Emerton, J.A. 111,113, 303, 306
Eph'al, I. 296
Erman, A. 52
Ervin-Tripp, S.M. 58
Eskhult, M. 14, 62, 83, 94, 167-73, 177,
184, 185, 233,235,245,286,295,
301
Even-Shoshan, A. 141,143
Fasold, R. 39,91
Fassberg, S. 26, 29, 35, 94
Ferguson, C.A. 203
Finkelstein, I. 217,256
Finley, T.J. 227
Finnegan, R. 38, 86
Fischer, D.H. 64
Fishman, J.A. 91,94,95
Fitzmyer, J.A. 34, 195
Floyd, M.H. 182
Fokkelman, J.P. 40, 113
Foley, J.M. 39,83
Folmer, M. 13
Forbes, A.D. 223,308
Forrer, E. 257
Foster, B. 159
Fox, B. 56
Fox, MJ. 237
Fredericks, D.C. 169, 177, 179, 184, 241,
245,270
Freedman, D.N. 30, 106, 240, 242, 288,
300, 304, 306
Friedberg, A.D. 182
Friedman, R.E. 216
Friedrich,J. 271,275
Frolov, S. 220
Gai,A. 286,300
Index of Authors
Gandz, S. 64
Garbini, G. 219
Garcia Martinez, F. 194
Garr, W.R. 30,33,111,123,171,205
Geller, S.A. 63
George, A. 248
Gerleman, G. 27,244
Gesenius, W. 28,221,239
Gevirtz, S. 114, 136, 167,231
Gianto, A. 187,243
Gibson, J.C.L. 48, 144, 171,288,300,
302, 303, 305, 306
Giesebrecht, F. 18,28
Ginsberg, H.L. 31, 142
Gluska, I. 35
Goddard, B.L. 170
Gogel, S.L. 9, 276, 282, 286, 288, 290,
293, 295, 297, 298, 301-303, 305,
307-309
Golb,N. 195
Goldfajn,T. 174,233
Goodspeed, E. 194
Gordis, R. 142,270
Gordon, C.H. 109, 114, 129, 135, 138,
144, 147, 148,241
Goshen-Gottstein, M.H. 184, 205, 242
Goulder,M.D. 114
Grabbe,L.L. 2,175,217
Graetz, H. 260
Graham, M.P. 215,220,239
Gray.G.B. 237
Greenfield, J.C. 25, 26, 28, 32-34, 36, 65,
105, 111, 122, 168, 172,278
Greenstein, E.L. 38, 40, 70
Gressmann, H. 61
Grintz, Y.M. 255
Gross, B.Z. 267
Guenther, A.R. 233
Guillaume, A. 274
Gumperz, J.J. 50
Habel,N.C. 237
Hackett, J.A. I l l , 125
Hale, M. 186, 196
Hall, F.W. 82
Halliday, M.A.K. 38, 39, 49, 50, 57, 58
Halpem, B. 3,216,223,224
Hanel, J. 216
385
Haran, M. 65, 101

Hared, M. 49, 50, 56
Harris, W.V. 82,83
Harris, Z.S. 307
Harrison, R.K. 216
Hartley, J.E. 237
Haugen, E. 91,96
Hausendorf, H. 56,60
Hawkins, J.D. 283
Heltzer, M. 276, 287, 297, 304
Hendel, R.S. 3
Herner, S. 228
Hestrin, R. 263
Hill, A.E. 176-80, 184,245
Hill, S.D. 59,61
Ho, C.Y.S. 216
Hock, H.H. 246
Hoffman, Y. 33
Hoftijzer, J. 40, 118, 124, 178, 280, 301
Hoover Renteria, T. 59,61
Hopper, PJ. 246
Hubner, U. 294
Huehnergard, J. 25, 33
Hughes, J.A. 233
Hurvitz, A. 1-4, 10, 15-17, 23, 28, 29, 3136, 92, 93, 96, 97, 104, 107, 108,
112, 127, 129, 130, 132, 133, 13643, 146-48, 150, 152, 160, 162, 16467, 172, 175-77, 179-84, 191, 195,
217, 226, 228, 235, 240-44, 249,
251, 254, 266, 267, 270, 276-80,
282, 284, 287, 290, 292, 293, 299,
314
Hutchby, I. 58
Isaksson, B. 173,245
Israel, F. 296
Isserlin, B.S.J. 295
Jacoby, F. 82
Janssen, J.M.A. 101
Japhet, S. 3, 215, 227, 239, 243, 267, 297
Jeffery, L.H. 84
Jongeling, K. 118, 124,280,301
Joosten, J. 88,90, 172
Jordan, D.J. 302
Joseph, B.D. 246
Joiion, P. 15, 190
386
Biblical Hebrew
Kalimi, I. 240,243
Kallai,Z. 252,258
Kaltman, H. 50
Kaufman, S.A. 17, 20, 25, 31-33, 35, 105,
107,243
Kaufman,!. 91,94
Kautzsch, E. 27
Kedar, Sh. 256
Keil,C.F. 215
Kesterson, J.C. 196,210,211
Khan, G. 95
Kim, Y.-Y. 49, 50
Kindler, A. 256
Kiparsky, P. 201
Kissane, E. 134
Kister, M. 174
Kitchen, K.A. 66
Klausner, J. 257, 262, 268
Klein, J. 259-61
Klein, S. 215,243,260
Klima, E.S. 208
Knauf, E.A. 8, 150, 160, 164, 166, 217,
310
Knoppers, G.N. 216,220
Kochman, M. 256
Konig, E. 230,237
Kraus, H.-J. 116
Kropat, A. 93, 96, 167, 169, 172, 173,
178, 184, 185, 190, 191,221,22529,231-33,235,239,296
Kttntay, A. 58
Kutscher, E.Y. 3, 12, 25, 29, 31-35, 9295, 129, 169, 172, 179, 195, 196,
210, 221, 223-27, 230-33, 251, 266,
269, 274, 275, 288, 297
Labov, W. 45, 49, 59, 94, 200
Lambert, W.G. 159
Landes, G.M. 36,279
Larsson, G. 182
Lass, R. 200
Layton, S.C. 286,290,291
Leahy, T. 196,265
Leander, P. 170, 190, 230, 242
Lehman, W.P. 246
Lemaire, A. 25,31,33,34,303
Lemke, W.E. 243
Levenson, J.D. 237

Levine, B.A. 67, 245, 247, 280
Levinson, B. 67
Li,T. 233
Lichtenberger, A.C. 237
Lichtheim, M. 65, 101
Lieberman, S. 261
Lifshitz, O. 259
Lightfoot, D. 208,209
Liles,B.L. 246
Lindenberger, J.M. 46, 48
Linville, J.R. 220
Lipinski, E. 66, 123
Liver, J. 257
Loewe, R. 95
Loewenstamm, S.E. 74, 300
Lohfink, N. 42, 53, 75
Longacre, R.E. 45, 74, 83
Lord, A.B. 100
Loretz, O. 93,233
Louckx, F. 91
Macchi, J.-D. 220
Macy, H. 216
Madsen, A.A. 221
Mandrou, R. 61,83
Mankowski, P.V. 9, 11, 16, 17, 19-22
Mantel, H.D. 253
Margain, J. 179,183,184
Marrou, H.I. 82
Martin, WJ. 224
Mayer, W. 93
McCarter, P.K., Jr 237
McConville, J.G. 220
McFall, L. 227
McKenzie, S.L. 215,220,243
McMahon, A.M.S. 247
Melammed, E.Z. 261
Merwe, C.H.J. van der 185
Meshorer, Y. 256
Milgrom, J. 67
Milik, J.T. 101, 196,266
Millar, W. 135
Millard, A.R. 84,303
Miller, C.L. 179
Miller, J. 38, 39, 49, 50, 55-58, 60
Montgomery, J.A. 32
Index of Authors
Moor, J.C.de 220
Moore, C.A. 237
Morag, S. 25, 26, 28, 29, 31, 171, 172,
185, 195, 196,227,264
Moran, W.L. 142
Muchiki, Y. 12,20,21
Muchowski, P. 196
Muraoka,T. 94,95, 123, 171, 173, 177,
184,295
Murphy, R.E. 218
Murphy-O'Connor, J. 316
Na'aman,N. 38,59,61,85,285
Naude,J.A. 1, 162, 175, 186, 189,212,
249
Naveh, J. 25, 34, 36, 111, 140, 172, 276,
278, 293, 296, 302, 306
Negev, A. 257
Niccacci, A. 62,83, 173
Nicholson, E. 245
Niditch, S. 39,53,59
Nielsen, E. 57
Noegel, S. 134, 135, 139
Noldeke, Th. 28,94
North, R. 9,247
Noth, M. 162,220
Notopoulos, J. 50, 58
Nysse, R.W. 243
O'Connor, M. 190, 196, 225, 227, 228,
230,231,242
O'Connor, M.C. 50
O'Connor, M.P. 178
Olafsson, S. 218
Ochs, E. 39,58
Olmo Lete, G. del 124,225
Otto, E. 64, 100
Pardee, D. 296
Parker, S.B. 47,48,66,84,221
Parker,!. 221
Parpola, S. 81
Paton, L.B. 237
Perez-Fernandez, M. 301
Pearce, L.E. 65
Pedersen, J. 64
Peltonen, K. 215,239,240,284
387
Polak, F.H. 38, 39, 41, 47, 49, 51, 53, 55,
58-63, 65, 66, 70, 75, 80, 81, 83-85,
88, 120, 158, 165, 168, 169,289,
293, 296
Polzin, R. 3, 15, 18, 34, 114, 136, 140,
144, 146, 152, 169, 172, 173, 17779, 190-93, 195, 196, 221, 222,22528, 230-32, 235, 244, 245, 249, 265,
283, 288, 289, 292, 293, 297, 298,
310
Pope,M.H. 21,218,237
Porten,B. 46, 51, 123
Postgate, N. 248
Puech, E. 52
Pury, A. de 220
Qimron, E. 36, 91, 92, 94, 95, 137,17173, 177, 183-85, 195, 196, 224, 227,
228, 230-32, 245, 264-68, 272, 298
Rabin, C. 13, 26, 28, 29, 31, 34, 91, 148,
166, 168, 171, 172, 174, 175, 195,
241,251,268,270
Rainey, A.F. 47, 48, 123, 142, 216, 256,
300
Rappaport, A. 256
Regt, L.J. de 60, 83
Reichl, K. 39,83
Reider, I. 210
Rendsburg, G. 3, 30-32, 35, 38, 83, 105,
106, 108-11, 113, 114, 117-19, 122,
123, 126, 131, 134-40, 142, 144,
146-48, 158, 160, 173, 176-78, 184,
185, 203, 207, 222, 227, 237, 241,
243-45, 270, 271, 274, 290, 293,
295,311
Renz, J. 276, 286-88, 293, 295, 300, 301,
303-307, 309
Revell, EJ. 225,227
Rickenbacher, O. 271
Ringgren, H. 63, 67
Robb, K. 83,84
Robertson, D.A. 11, 126, 129
Rofe, A. 59,63, 108, 116-19, 130, 184
Rogerson, J.W. 239
Rollig, W. 271, 275, 276, 286-88, 293,
295,300,301,303-307,309
388
Biblical Hebrew
Rollston, C.A. 296

Romer, T. 220
Rdnsch, H. 65
Rooker, M.F. 1,4, 90, 130, 132, 143,
165, 171, 173, 175, 176, 178, 181,
183, 190, 193, 223-26, 231-33, 235,
239, 245, 249, 282, 283, 285-89,
291, 293, 294, 295, 298, 301, 314
Rooy, H.F. van 220
Rosen, H.B. 225
Rosenberg, J. 218
Rosenfeld, B.Z. 256
Rosenthal,F. 13,22,25,26,93
Rothstein, J.W. 216
Rowley, H.H. 237
Rubinstein, A. 210
Rynell, A. 57
Saenz-Badillos, A. 10, 11, 15, 92, 129,
172, 190, 195, 219-21, 223-27, 23033, 235, 245, 247
Safrai,Z. 259-61
Samarin, W.J. 87
Sanmartin, J. 124
Sarfatti, G.B. 30, 247, 267, 286, 295,
297, 300-302, 304, 305, 307, 308
Sasson, V. 218,300,303-306
Schalit,A. 260
Schaper, J. 91
Schattner-Rieser, U. 169, 172, 178, 179,
183
Schearing, L.S. 220
Schiffman, L.H. 194
Schirmer, A. 93
Schleppegrell, M.J. 49
Schniedewind, W.M. 31, 83, 105, 195,
270, 307
Schoors, A. 36, 169, 178, 179, 184, 225,
227, 228, 245
Schiile, A. 10, 164, 276, 288, 295, 296,
298, 300, 307
Schutz,A.J. 197
Schwartz,!. 257,263
Scott, R.B.Y. 304
Segal, M.H. 195,251,268,301
Segert, S. 112, 123
Seow, C.L. 279,284,285
Sharvit, S. 196
Shoham, Y. 85
Silberman, N.A. 217,256
Sivan, D. 31,83, 105,270
Slade, D. 56-58
Slouschz,N. 273
Smith, M. 253
Smith, M.S. 91, 169, 172, 196, 210
Smith, N. 246
Sokoloff,M. 124, 125
Sperber, A. 184,227,230,231,241
Spieckermann, H. 171
Spufford, M. 61,83,85,89
Stegemann, H. 194
Steins, G. 240
Stemberger, G. 59
Stern, E. 84, 89, 90, 252, 255, 256, 258
Stern, M. 257,260
Strang, B.M.H. 93
Striedl,H. 177,184
Strugnell, J. 196
Stubbs, M. 39,50,58
Sznejder, MB. 176
Tadmor, H. 25, 117,253,257
Talmon, S. 155, 243, 244, 253, 254
Talshir, D. 26, 185, 251, 267, 296, 306
Talshir, Z. 216
Tannen, D. 49, 50, 55, 58
Thomason, S.G. 91,94
Thompson, S.A. 49
Throntveit, M.A. 227, 244, 245
Todd, J.A. 59
Torczyner, H. 166,226,281,287,293,
297,303
Torrey, C.C. 215,254
Tov, E. 165,299
Trask, R.L. 246
Traugott, E.G. 208,246
Trebolle Barrera, J.C. 242, 243
Ullendorff, E. 8, 242, 247
Ulrich, E. 155, 165,243,310
van den Bussche, H. 216,226
van Keulen, P.S.F. 233
Van Peursen, W.Th. 173, 174, 184, 233,
248, 286, 287, 298
VanSeters, J. 39
Index of Authors
Verheij, A.J.C. 96, 171, 172, 227, 233,
234,240,241,245
Wagner, M. 11,13, 14, 17, 28, 35, 167,
182,184
Wahl, H.M. 55,58
Walker, L.W. 249
Waltisberg, M. 122,124,125,190
Waltke, B.K. 196,225,227,228,230,
231,242
Watson, W.G.E. 115,227,241
Weidner, E.F. 64
Weinberg,J. 97,252
Weinert, R. 38, 39, 49, 50, 55-58, 60
Weinfeld,M. 46,52,67,69-71
Weinreich, U. 24,95
Weippert, M. 171
Weiss, M. 237
Weiss, R. 266
Weitzman, S. 228,292
Wesselius, J.-W. 240
Wette, W.M.L. de 215, 221, 239
Widengren, G. 39
Williamson, H.G.M. 215
Wilson, D. 246
Wilson, O.K. Jr 241
389
Wilson, R.D. 222

Winter, E. 50, 51
Wise,M.O. 165
Wolters, A. 196,283
Wooffitt, R. 58
Wright, R.M. 108, 129, 130, 132, 136,
138, 140-42, 144, 146, 147,227,
235,282,287,293,297,311
Yalon, H. 32
Yardeni, A. 46,51
Yeivin, I. 267
Yoo, Y.J. 241
Young, E.J. 123,216
Young, I.M. 19, 29-33, 35, 52, 58, 65, 8183,85, 105, 124, 126, 130, 150,
160, 165, 167, 178, 189, 195,223,
231, 241-43, 247, 248, 270, 275,
282, 284-86, 288-90, 293, 295, 299302,307-12,314-16
Zadok, R. 285
Zakovitch, Y. 117
Zawiszewski, E. 216
Zevit, Z. 18, 67, 177, 245, 288, 293
Zimhoni, O. 61
This page intentionally left blank
JOURNAL FOR THE STUDY OF THE OLD TESTAMENT

SUPPLEMENT SERIES
206 M0gens Muller, The First Bible of the Church: A Plea for the Septuagint
207 John W. Rogerson, Margaret Davies and M. Daniel Carroll R. (eds.), The Bible
in Ethics: The Second Sheffield Colloquium
208 Beverly J. Stratton, Out of Eden: Reading, Rhetoric, and Ideology in Genesis 2-3
209 Patricia Dutcher-Walls, Narrative Art, Political Rhetoric: The Case ofAthaliah
andJoash
210 Jacques Berlinerblau, The Vow and the 'Popular Religious Groups' of Ancient
Israel: A Philological and Sociological Inquiry
211 Brian E. Kelly, Retribution and Eschatology in Chronicles
212 Yvonne Sherwood, The Prostitute and the Prophet: Hosea's Marriage in
Literary- Theoretical Perspective
213 Yair Hoffman, A Blemished Perfection: The Book of Job in Context
214 Roy F. Melugin and Marvin A. Sweeney (eds.), New Visions of Isaiah
215 J. Cheryl Exum, Plotted, Shot and Painted: Cultural Representations of Biblical
Women
216 Judith E. McKinlay, Gendering Wisdom the Host: Biblical Invitations to Eat and
Drink
217 Jerome F.D. Creach, Yahweh as Refuge and the Editing of the Hebrew Psalter
218 Harry P. Nasuti, Defining the Sacred Songs: Genre, Tradition, and the PostCritical Interpretation of the Psalms
219 Gerald Morris, Prophecy, Poetry and Hosea
220 Raymond F. Person, Jr, In Conversation with Jonah: Conversation Analysis,
Literary Criticism, and the Book of Jonah
221 Gillian Keys, The Wages of Sin: A Reappraisal of the 'Succession Narrative'
222 R.N. Whybray, Reading the Psalms as a Book
223 Scott B. Noegel, Janus Parallelism in the Book of Job
224 Paul J. Kissling, Reliable Characters in the Primary History: Profiles of Moses,
Joshua, Elijah and Elisha
225 Richard D. Weis and David M. Carr (eds.), A Gift of God in Due Season: Essays
on Scripture and Community in Honor of James A. Sanders
226 Lori L. Rowlett, Joshua and the Rhetoric of Violence: A New Historicist Analysis
227 John F.A. Sawyer (ed.), Reading Leviticus: Responses to Mary Douglas
228 Volkmar Fritz and Philip R. Davies (eds.), The Origins of the Ancient Israelite
States
229 Stephen Breck Reid (ed.), Prophets and Paradigms: Essays in Honor of Gene M.
Tucker
230 Kevin J. Cathcart and Michael Maher (eds.), Targumic and Cognate Studies:
Essays in Honour of Martin McNamara
231 Weston W. Fields, Sodom and Gomorrah: History and Motif in Biblical
Narrative
232 Tilde Binger, Asherah: Goddesses in Ugarit, Israel and the Old Testament
233 Michael D. Goulder, The Psalms ofAsaph and the Pentateuch: Studies in the
Psalter, HI
234 Ken Stone, Sex, Honor, and Power in the Deuteronomistic History
235 James W. Watts and Paul House (eds.), Forming Prophetic Literature: Essays on
Isaiah and the Twelve in Honor of John D. W. Watts
236 Thomas M. Bolin, Freedom beyond Forgiveness: The Book of Jonah Re237 Neil Asher Silberman and David B. Small (eds.), The Archaeology of IsraelConstructing the Past, Interpreting the Present
238 M. Patrick Graham, Kenneth G. Hoglund and Steven L. McKenzie (eds.), The
Chronicler as Historian
239 Mark S. Smith, The Pilgrimage Pattern in Exodus
240 Eugene E. Carpenter (ed.), A Biblical Itinerary: In Search of Method, Form and
Content. Essays in Honor of George W. Coats
241 Robert Karl Gnuse, No Other Gods: Emergent Monotheism in Israel
242 K.L. Noll, The Faces of David
243 Henning Graf Reventlow (ed.), Eschatology in the Bible and in Jewish and
Christian Tradition
244 Walter E. Aufrecht, Neil A. Mirau and Steven W. Gauley (eds.), Urbanism in
Antiquity: From Mesopotamia to Crete
245 Lester L. Grabbe (ed.), Can a 'History of Israel' Be Written?
246 Gillian M. Bediako, Primal Religion and the Bible: William Robertson Smith
and his Heritage
247 Nathan Klaus, Pivot Patterns in the Former Prophets
248 Etienne Nodet, A Search for the Origins of Judaism: From Joshua to the
Mishnah
249 William Paul Griffin, The God of the Prophets: An Analysis of Divine Action
250 Josette Elayi and Jean Sapin, Beyond the River: New Perspectives on Transeuphratene
251 Flemming A. J. Nielsen, The Tragedy in History: Herodotus and the Deuteronomistic History
252 David C. Mitchell, The Message of the Psalter: An Eschatological Programme
in the Book of Psalms
253 William Johnstone, 1 and2 Chronicles, Volume 1:1 Chronicles 1-2 Chronicles
9: Israel's Place among the Nations
254 William Johnstone, 1 and 2 Chronicles, Volume 2: 2 Chronicles 10-36: Guilt
and Atonement
255 Larry L. Lyke, King David with the Wise Woman ofTekoa: The Resonance of
Tradition in Parabolic Narrative
256 Roland Meynet, Rhetorical Analysis: An Introduction to Biblical Rhetoric

257 Philip R. Davies and David J.A. Clines (eds.), The World of Genesis: Persons,
Places, Perspectives
258 Michael D. Goulder, The Psalms of the Return (Book V, Psalms 107-150):
Studies in the Psalter, IV
259 Allen Rosengren Petersen, The Royal God: Enthronement Festivals in Ancient
Israel and Ugarit?
260 A.R. Pete Diamond, Kathleen M. O'Connor and Louis Stulman (eds.), Troubling
Jeremiah
260 A.R. Pete Diamond, Kathleen M. O'Connor and Louis Stulman (eds.), Troubling
Jeremiah
261 Othmar Keel, Goddesses and Trees, New Moon and Yahweh: Ancient Near
Eastern Art and the Hebrew Bible
262 Victor H. Matthews, Bernard M. Levinson and Tikva Frymer-Kensky (eds.),
Gender and Law in the Hebrew Bible and the Ancient Near East
263 M. Patrick Graham and Steven L. McKenzie, The Chronicler as Author: Studies
in Text and Texture
264 Donald F. Murray, Divine Prerogative and Royal Pretension: Pragmatics,
Poetics, and Polemics in a Narrative Sequence about David (2 Samuel 5.! 77.29)
265 John Day, Yahweh and the Gods and Goddesses of Canaan
266 J. Cheryl Exum and Stephen D. Moore (eds.), Biblical Studies/Cultural Studies:
The Third Sheffield Colloquium
267 Patrick D. Miller, Jr, Israelite Religion and Biblical Theology: Collected Essays
268 Linda S. Schearing and Steven L. McKenzie (eds.), Those Elusive Deuteronomists: 'Pandeuteronomism' and Scholarship in the Nineties
269 David J.A. Clines and Stephen D. Moore (eds.), Auguries: The Jubilee Volume of
the Sheffield Department of Biblical Studies
270 John Day (ed.), King and Messiah in Israel and the Ancient Near East: Proceedings of the Oxford Old Testament Seminar
271 Wonsuk Ma, Until the Spirit Comes: The Spirit of God in the Booh of Isaiah
272 James Richard Linville, Israel in the Book of Kings: The Past as a Project of
Social Identity
273 Meir Lubetski, Claire Gottlieb and Sharon Keller (eds.), Boundaries of the
Ancient Near Eastern World: A Tribute to Cyrus H. Gordon
274 Martin J. Buss, Biblical Form Criticism in its Context
275 William Johnstone, Chronicles and Exodus: An Analogy and its Application
276 Raz Kletter, Economic Keystones: The Weight System of the Kingdom ofJudah
277 Augustine Pagolu, The Religion of the Patriarchs
278 Lester L. Grabbe (ed.), Leading Captivity Captive: 'The Exile' as History and
Ideology
279 Kari Latvus, God, Anger and Ideology: The Anger of God in Joshua and Judges
in Relation to Deuteronomy and the Priestly Writings
280 Eric S. Christiansen, A Time to Tell: Narrative Strategies in Ecclesiastes
281 Peter D. Miscall, Isaiah 3435: A Nightmare/A Dream
282 Joan E. Cook, Hannah's Desire, God's Design: Early Interpretations in the
Story of Hannah
283 Kelvin Friebel, Jeremiah's and Ezekiel's Sign-Acts: Rhetorical Nonverbal
Communication
284 M. Patrick Graham, Rick R. Marrs and Steven L. McKenzie (eds.), Worship and
the Hebrew Bible: Essays in Honor of John T, Willis
285 Paolo Sacchi, History of the Second Temple
286 Wesley J. Bergen, Elisha and the End ofProphetism
287 Anne Fitzpatrick-McKinley, The Transformation ofTorahfrom Scribal Advice
to Law
288 Diana Lipton, Revisions of the Night: Politics and Promises in the Patriarchal
Dreams of Genesis
289 Jose Krasovec (ed.), The Interpretation of the Bible: The International Symposium in Slovenia
290 Frederick H. Cryer and Thomas L. Thompson (eds.), Qumran between the Old
and New Testaments
291 Christine Schams, Jewish Scribes in the Second-Temple Period
292 David J. A. Clines, On the Way to the Postmodern: Old Testament Essays, 19671998 Volume 1
293 David J. A. Clines, On the Way to the Postmodern: Old Testament Essays, 1967
1998 Volume 2
294 Charles E. Carter, The Emergence ofYehud in the Persian Period: A Social and
Demographic Study
295 Jean-Marc Heimerdinger, Topic, Focus and Foreground in Ancient Hebrew
Narratives
296 Mark Cameron Love, The Evasive Text: Zechariah 1-8 and the Frustrated
Reader
297 Paul S. Ash, David, Solomon and Egypt: A Reassessment
298 John D. Baildam, Paradisal Love: Johann Gottfried Herder and the Song of
Songs
299 M. Daniel Carroll R., Rethinking Contexts, Rereading Texts: Contributions from
the Social Sciences to Biblical Interpretation
300 Edward Ball (ed.), In Search of True Wisdom: Essays in Old Testament
Interpretation in Honour of Ronald E. Clements
301 Carolyn S. Leeb, Away from the Father's House: The Social Location ofna 'ar
and na 'arah in Ancient Israel
302 Xuan Huong Thi Pham, Mourning in the Ancient Near East and the Hebrew
Bible
303 Ingrid Hjelm, The Samaritans and Early Judaism: A Literary Analysis
304 Wolter H. Rose, Zemah and Zerubabbel: Messianic Expectations in the Early
Postexilic Period
305 Jo Bailey Wells, God's Holy People: A Theme in Biblical Theology
306 Albert de Pury, Thomas Romer and Jean-Daniel Macchi (eds.), Israel Constructs
its History: Deuteronomistic Historiography in Recent Research
307 Robert L. Cole, The Shape and Message of Book III (Psalms 73-89)
308 Yiu-Wing Fung, Victim and Victimizer: Joseph's Interpretation of his Destiny
309 George Aichele (ed.), Culture, Entertainment and the Bible
310 Esther Fuchs, Sexual Politics in the Biblical Narrative: Reading the Hebrew
Bible as a Woman
311 Gregory Glazov, The Bridling of the Tongue and the Opening of the Mouth in
Biblical Prophecy
312 Francis Landy, Beauty and the Enigma: And Other Essays on the Hebrew Bible
313 Martin O'Kane (ed.), Borders, Boundaries and the Bible
314 Bernard S. Jackson, Studies in the Semiotics of Biblical Law
315 Paul R. Williamson, Abraham, Israel and the Nations: The Patriarchal Promise
and its Covenantal Development in Genesis
316 Dominic Rudman, Determinism in the Book of Ecclesiastes
317 Lester L. Grabbe (ed.), Did Moses Speak Attic? Jewish Historiography and
Scripture in the Hellenistic Period
318 David A. Baer, When We All Go Home: Translation and Theology in LXX56-66
319 Henning Graf Reventlow and Yair Hoffman (eds.), Creation in Jewish and
Christian Tradition
320 Claudia V. Camp, Wise, Strange and Holy: The Strange Woman and the Making
of the Bible
321 Varese Layzer, Signs of Weakness: Juxtaposing Irish Tales and the Bible
322 Mignon R. Jacobs, The Conceptual Coherence of the Book ofMicah
323 Martin Ravndal Hauge, The Descent from the Mountain: Narrative Patterns in
Exodus 19-40
324 P.M. Michele Daviau, John W. Wevers and Michael Weigl (eds.), The World of
the Aramaeans: Studies in Honour of Paul-Eugene Dion, Volume 1
327 Gary D. Salyer, Vain Rhetoric: Private Insight and Public Debate in Ecclesiastes
328 James M. Trotter, Reading Hosea in Achaemenid Yehud
329 Wolfgang Bluedorn, Yahweh Verus Baalism: A Theological Reading of the
Gideon-Abimelech Narrative
330 Lester L. Grabbe and Robert D. Haak (eds.), 'Every City shall be Forsaken':
Urbanism and Prophecy in Ancient Israel and the Near East
331 Amihai Mazar (ed.), with the assistance of Ginny Mathias, Studies in the
Archaeology of the Iron Age in Israel and Jordan
332 Robert J.V. Hiebert, Claude E. Cox and Peter J. Gentry (eds.), The Old Greek
Psalter: Studies in Honour of Albert Pietersma
333 Ada Rapoport-Albert and Gillian Greenberg (eds.), Biblical Hebrew, Biblical
Texts: Essays in Memory of Michael P. Weitzman
334 Ken Stone (ed.), Queer Commentary and the Hebrew Bible
335 James K. Bruckner, Implied Law in the Abrahamic Narrative: A Literary and
Theological Analysis
336 Stephen L. Cook, Corrine L. Patton and James W. Watts (eds.), The Whirlwind:
Essays on Job, Hermeneutics and Theology in Memory of Jane Morse
337 Joyce Rilett Wood, Amos in Song and Book Culture
338 Alice A. Keefe, Woman's Body and the Social Body in Hosea 1-2
339 Sarah Nicholson, Three Faces of Saul: An Intertextual Approach to Biblical
Tragedy
340 Philip R. Davies and John M. Halligan (eds.), Second Temple Studies HI: Studies
in Politics, Class and Material Culture
341 Mark W. Chavalas and K. Lawson Younger Jr (eds.), Mesopotamia and the Bible
343 J. Andrew Dearman and M. Patrick Graham (eds.), The Land that I Will Show
You: Essays on the History and Archaeology of the Ancient Near East in
Honor ofJ. Maxwell Miller
345 Jan- Wim Wesselius, The Origin of the History of Israel: Herodotus' Histories as
Blueprint for the First Books of the Bible
346 Johanna Stiebert, The Construction of Shame in the Hebrew Bible: The
Prophetic Contribution
347 Andrew G. Shead. The Open Book and the Sealed Book: Jeremiah 32 in its
Hebrew and Greek Recensions
348 Alastair G. Hunter and Phillip R. Davies, Sense and Sensitivity: Essays on
Reading the Bible in Memory of Robert Carroll
350 David Janzen, Witch-hunts, Purity and Social Boundaries: The Expulsion of the
Foreign Women in Ezra 910
351 Roland Boer (ed.), Tracking the 'Tribes ofYahweh': On the Trail of a Classic
352 William John Lyons, Canon and Exegesis: Canonical Praxis and the Sodom
Narrative
353 Athalya Brenner and Jan Willem van Henten (eds.), Bible Translation on the
Threshold of the Twenty-First Century: Authority, Reception, Culture and
Religion
354 Susan Gillingham, The Image, the Depths and the Surface: Multivalent
Approaches to Biblical Study
356 Carole Fontaine, Smooth Words: Women, Proverbs and Performance in Biblical
Wisdom
357 Carleen Mandolfo, God in the Dock: Dialogic Tension in the Psalms of Lament
359 David M. Gunn and Paula N. McNutt, 'Imagining'Biblical Worlds: Studies in
Spatial, Social and Historical Constructs in Honor of James W. Flanagan
361 Franz V. Greifenhagen,Egypt on the Pentateuch's Ideological Map: Constructing Biblical Israel's Identity
364 Jonathan P. Burnside, The Signs of Sin: Seriousness of Offence in Biblical Law
369 Ian Young (ed.), Biblical Hebrew: Studies in Chronology and Typology
372 Karl Moller, A Prophet in Debate: The Rhetoric of Persuasion in the Book of
Amos
374 Silvia Schroer and Sophia Bietenhard (eds.), Feminist Interpretation of the
Bible and the Hermeneutics of Liberation
379 Mark W. Bartusch, Understanding Dan: An Exegetical Study of a Biblical City,
Tribe and Ancestor

Ian Young Biblical Hebrew Studies in Chronology and Typology JSOT Supplement 2003 PDF

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Ian Young Biblical Hebrew Studies in Chronology and Typology JSOT Supplement 2003 PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

JOURNAL FOR THE STUDY OF THE OLD TESTAMENT

This page intentionally left blank

Copyright 2003 T&T Clark International

Introduction: The Origin of the Problem

STUDIES WITHIN THE CHRONOLOGICAL FRAMEWORK:

Hurvitz Redux: On the Continued Scholarly Inattention

Further Evidence for North Israelite Contributions

Journal for the Study of the Old Testament

Archaic Biblical Hebrew

INTRODUCTION: THE ORIGIN OF THE PROBLEM

Hurvitz points out the scholarly consensus on the dating of Chronicles

can be described as 'classical (biblical) Hebrew' (CBH) as opposed to

THE IMPORTANCE OF LOANWORDS

ESKHULT The Importance of Loanwords

ESKHULT The Importance of Loanwords

influential study on early Hebrew poetic diction (G.R. Driver 1953),

4. See D. A. Robertson's (1972) monograph on linguistic evidence in dating early

ESKHULT The Importance of Loanwords

of later Hebrew as a language. Interestingly enough, however, it turns out

ESKHULT The Importance of Loanwords

ESKHULT The Importance of Loanwords

Canaanite, borrowing in Aramaic.13 If Canaanite in origin, the word may

In the introduction to his above-mentioned study on the typology of LBH,

ESKHULT The Importance of Loanwords

periods of Hebrew. Consequently texts which contain features that were

ESKHULT The Importance of Loanwords

A word may be so closely connected to a certain context as to suggest a

empire. However, in the Aramaizing culture of the Achaemenid period,

ESKHULT The Importance of Loanwords

lary subsequently throughout the biblical period and in close connection to

HEBREW AND ARAMAIC IN THE BIBLICAL PERIOD: THE PROBLEM

One of the most interesting chapters in the linguistic history of Ancient

* This article originally appeared in Hebrew in Bar-Asher (ed.) 1996:79-94. For

HURVITZ Hebrew and Aramaic in the Biblical Period

earlier periods, sufficient information appears in the biblical texts to enable

The tradition preserved in the book of Genesis presents two branches of

And in the reign of Ahasuerus...they drew up an accusation against the

The exact nature of the language entitled 'Ashdodite' remains uncertain. It

HURVITZ Hebrew and Aramaic in the Biblical Period

HURVITZ Hebrew and Aramaic in the Biblical Period

HURVITZ Hebrew and Aramaic in the Biblical Period

non-Israelite background. The use of 'Aramaisms' in such contexts is a

D n nm ('encamped', v. 9), 1]^Q ('of us', v. 11), HITS ('where', v. 13)

HURVITZ Hebrew and Aramaic in the Biblical Period

Aramaic environmentand therefore we may assume that their language

HURVITZ Hebrew and Aramaic in the Biblical Period

If one finds a lexeme which appears in biblical sources considered to be

years these two books were considered to be indisputable examples of late

HURVITZ Hebrew and Aramaic in the Biblical Period

STYLE is MORE THAN THE PERSON: SOCIOLINGUISTICS,

Polak Style is More than the Person

subordinated clauses. Since these features involve planning, rereading and

A comparison between a number of short texts will suffice to indicate a

/ mra DmtD iun / <TD3 ^^> f nnst^i (v. 5b)

Polak Style is More than the Person

(e.g. nouns with attribute, including construct state, or in junction with

Table 1. The Tale of the Wise Woman

Total 0-1 Arguments

Long Noun Groups

By contrast, many narratives are characterized by the use of long,

/ ^rbi* vfo nnV [<b<b D-u3ni> <DV D-i;3"i>] "inn nei

Polak Style is More than the Person

<n']2Nn nm? *w>]n ^ n ]m (v. 10