Search Results

Michael Carasik

fundamental to the book’s message” (131). Others have subsequently pointed out that poetry in general is essential to the meaning of the book. 18 Approaching the book from a strictly linguistic perspective, Avi Hurvitz has demonstrated that the prologue has numerous instances of Late Biblical Hebrew usage

Early Biblical Hebrew, Late Biblical Hebrew, and Linguistic Variability

A Sociolinguistic Evaluation of the Linguistic Dating of Biblical Texts

Series:

Dong-Hyuk Kim

In Early Biblical Hebrew, Late Biblical Hebrew, and Linguistic Variability, Dong-Hyuk Kim attempts to adjudicate between the two seemingly irreconcilable views over the linguistic dating of biblical texts. Whereas the traditional opinion, represented by Avi Hurvitz, believes that Late Biblical Hebrew was distinct from Early Biblical Hebrew and thus one can date biblical texts on linguistic grounds, the more recent view argues that Early and Late Biblical Hebrew were merely stylistic choices through the entire biblical period. Using the variationist approach of (historical) sociolinguistics and on the basis of the sociolinguistic concepts of linguistic variation and different types of language change, Kim convincingly argues that there is a third way of looking at the issue.

Ian Young

implications, however, since EBH and LBH represent not two chronological phases but co-ex- isting styles of Hebrew in the post-exilic and quite possibly pre-exilic periods. Keywords Job, Late Biblical Hebrew 1. Introduction In 1974, Avi Hurvitz, the leading scholar in the study of “Late Biblical Hebrew” (LBH

A Concise Lexicon of Late Biblical Hebrew

Linguistic Innovations in the Writings of the Second Temple Period

Avi Hurvitz

The Hebrew language may be divided into the Biblical, Mishnaic, Medieval, and Modern ‎periods. Biblical Hebrew has its own distinct linguistic profile, exhibiting a diversity of styles ‎and linguistic traditions extending over some one thousand years as well as tangible diachronic ‎developments that may serve as chronological milestones in tracing the linguistic history of ‎Biblical Hebrew. Unlike standard dictionaries, whose scope and extent are dictated by the contents of the ‎Biblical concordance, this lexicon includes only 80 lexical entries, chosen specifically for a ‎diachronic investigation of Late Biblical Hebrew. Selected primarily to illustrate the fifth-century ‘watershed’ separating Classical from ‎post-Classical Biblical Hebrew, emphasis is placed on ‘linguistic contrasts’ illuminated by a rich collection ‎of examples contrasting Classical Biblical Hebrew with Late Biblical Hebrew, Biblical Hebrew with Rabbinic Hebrew, and Hebrew with Aramaic.‎

A Concise Lexicon of Late Biblical Hebrew

Linguistic Innovations in the Writings of the Second Temple Period

Series:

Avi Hurvitz

The Hebrew language may be divided into the Biblical, Mishnaic, Medieval, and Modern ‎periods. Biblical Hebrew has its own distinct linguistic profile, exhibiting a diversity of styles ‎and linguistic traditions extending over some one thousand years as well as tangible diachronic ‎developments that may serve as chronological milestones in tracing the linguistic history of ‎Biblical Hebrew. Unlike standard dictionaries, whose scope and extent are dictated by the contents of the ‎Biblical concordance, this lexicon includes only 80 lexical entries, chosen specifically for a ‎diachronic investigation of Late Biblical Hebrew. Selected primarily to illustrate the fifth-century ‘watershed’ separating Classical from ‎post-Classical Biblical Hebrew, emphasis is placed on ‘linguistic contrasts’ illuminated by a rich collection ‎of examples contrasting Classical Biblical Hebrew with Late Biblical Hebrew, Biblical Hebrew with Rabbinic Hebrew, and Hebrew with Aramaic.‎

Lena-Sofia Tiemeyer

with the former, Flynn follows scholars such as Avi Hurvitz and Dong-Hyuk Kim who maintain the possibility of differentiating between different stages in the development of the Hebrew language. Texts that contain those characteristics that are normally associated with early Hebrew are thus to be

Hebrew in the Second Temple Period

The Hebrew of the Dead Sea Scrolls and of Other Contemporary Sources.

Series:

Edited by Steven Fassberg, Moshe Bar-Asher and Ruth Clements

The Hebrew of the Dead Sea Scrolls and the book of Ben Sira can be properly understood only in the light of all contemporary Second Temple period sources. With this in mind, 20 experts from Israel, Europe, and the United States convened in Jerusalem in December 2008. These proceedings of the Twelfth Orion Symposium and Fifth International Symposium on the Hebrew of the Dead Sea Scrolls and Ben Sira examine the Hebrew of the Second Temple period as reflected primarily in the Dead Sea Scrolls, the book of Ben Sira, Late Biblical Hebrew, and Mishnaic Hebrew. Additional contemporaneous sources—inscriptions, Greek and Latin transcriptions, and the Samaritan oral and reading traditions of the Pentateuch—are also noted.

Lisa Michele Wolfe

appropriately provides her assumptions about Pentateuchal source criticism, which are especially important since she spends the first two chapters examining ndh in the Priestly material and the Holiness Code. Jacob Milgrom, Avi Hurvitz, and Israel Knohl influence Goldstein’s dating scheme for the sources (p

Matthew Morgenstern

(Religions in the Graeco-Roman World, 136; Leiden: Brill, 2001), e.g. p. 78. 4 See Avi Hurvitz, ‘‮קברות‬ ‮בית‬ and ‮בית עולמ‬: Two Funerary Terms in Biblical Literature and their Linguistic Background’, Maarav 8 (1993), pp. 59–68. 5 E.Y. Kutscher, ‘The Language of the Genesis Apocryphon