The premise of this paper is that Qumran Hebrew reflects a distinct stage in the development of Hebrew which sets it apart from Biblical Hebrew.It is further assumed that these unique features are able to assist us to understand the nature of the development of Biblical Hebrew in a more precise way.The communis opinio is that there were two major types of Hebrew, namely classical Biblical Hebrew and Mishnaic Hebrew, whilst all other variations (such as Qumran Hebrew) were hybrids of these two.In this view, the authors of the Qumran texts endeavoured to write Biblical Hebrew, but under the influence of the spoken language a type of Mishnaic Hebrew emerged, or alternatively, texts which were originally written in Mishnaic Hebrew were altered so as to render them more in accord with Biblical Hebrew.Young and Rezetko’s 2008 , for instance, is briefly cited twice, but quickly dismissed by an appeal to Jan Joosten’s review of the volume.The traditional notions of Standard Biblical Hebrew (SBH) and Late Biblical Hebrew (LBH) are presupposed with little treatment of the challenges that have been raised.This entry was posted on Tuesday, December 2nd, 2014 at pm and tagged with A Social History of Hebrew, Linguistic Dating, Schniedewind and posted in Uncategorized.You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.
After hellenisation, Greek played a central role in administration and politics, whilst, under the Romans, Latin was also utilised.
It is ostensibly an ambitious sociolinguistic examination of the history of the Hebrew language as it was employed within the cultures of Israel and Judah from the second millennium BCE into to the early centuries of the Common Era, but it touches on some important debates currently ongoing in the study of Biblical Hebrew and the Hebrew Bible with only brief acknowledgment of those debates and the clear ground staked out by his discussion.
Perhaps most conspicuously, Schniedewind largely ignores the concerns raised in recent years by a number of scholars regarding the ability to date—even relatively—biblical texts on linguistic grounds.
To determine which one of these claims is the most plausible, the specific focus will be an investigation on the nature of negated participle clauses in Qumran Hebrew in comparison to Biblical Hebrew.
The main aim of this paper is to show how Qumran Hebrew can contribute to the understanding of specific constructions and thus to our knowledge of Hebrew grammar.