B.H. Carroll’s Pastoral Theology
Southwestern Journal of Theology
Volume 58, No. 2 – Spring 2016
Managing Editor: W. Madison Grace II
By Avi Hurvitz in collaboration with Leeor Gottlieb, Aaron Hornkohl and Emmanuel Mastéy. Leiden, Boston: Brill, 2014. Supplements to Vetus Testamentum, no. 160. 270 pages. Hardcover, $128.00.
The language of the Old Testament is widely known as Biblical Hebrew (BH), but this single designation for the entire literary corpus conceals its actual diversity in linguistic usage. Past research explained some of this diversity through chronological developments; that is, Biblical Hebrew reflects three different chronological phases: Archaic Biblical Hebrew (ABH), Standard Biblical Hebrew (SBH), and Late Biblical Hebrew (LBH).1 Avi Hurvitz has been a leading voice in the diachronic study of BH for decades. He has been particularly involved in the development of the theoretical guidelines for discerning and analyzing LBH and their application to various texts of the Old Testament. This concise lexicon picks up and carries forward much of that work, especially relating to the Old Testament’s vocabulary.
In the introduction to the lexicon, Hurvitz describes the historical and social developments that took place during the Persian period, the period in which LBH developed. He points out how the exile and return disrupted the normal, gradual development of BH and how Imperial Aramaic exercised a tremendous influence on the development of the language during that period. Then he places LBH in the context of all Biblical Hebrew, in particular, its relation to SBH. He discusses origins for the characteristic features of LBH, most of which are related to the historical and social circumstances of the Persian period: 1) Persian loanwords, 2) late Aramaic influence, 3) elements of BH that are absent from SBH but are characteristic of Rabbinic Hebrew, and 4) internal BH developments, which really is a category of features that cannot be explained, at this time, by the other factors, but nevertheless appears to represent LBH. The historical and social circumstances situate LBH between three different poles: SBH stands before it, Rabbinic Hebrew stands after it, and Imperial Aramaic stands beside it. Looking to each of these poles provides the basis for identifying and isolating LBH features.
Each entry of the lexicon reflects the guidelines that Hurvitz has developed for identifying a linguistic feature as LBH, based on the historical and social situation of the Second Temple Period. His first criterion for identifying a linguistic feature as LBH is that the feature must occur exclusively or, at least, predominately in clearly late texts. Therefore, each entry begins with grammatical information regarding the lemma, its English definition, and its occurrences in clearly late biblical texts (e.g. Esther, Daniel, Ezra, Nehemiah, Chronicles). The occurrences are not necessarily all the occurrences of the particular lemma in the Old Testament, but only those occurrences that reflect the usage of the lemma in LBH. For instance, the root דרשׁ occurs 165 times in the Old Testament, but Hurvitz records only six occurrences. These occurrences include those from Chronicles and Ezra, clearly late writings.
His second criterion is that the linguistic feature must have an alternative feature in SBH. He lists SBH alternatives and if available, parallel passages which clearly show the distinctive usage of SBH and LBH. A good example of such cases occurs in the entry for מְַלְכּוּת. In that entry he lists several parallels (2 Sam 7:12//1 Chr 17:11; 2 Sam 7:13//1 Chr 22:10; 2 Sam 7:16//1 Chr 17:14; 1 Kgs 9:5//2 Chr 7:18; etc.). The listing of such parallels helps clarify the distinctive usages of the terms in SBH over against LBH even if it does not provide a complete picture.
His third criterion is that extra-biblical texts from the Second Temple Period to the end of the Talmudic period should attest to the same linguistic feature. Therefore, he lists these passages organizing them into two categories: 1) renderings, glosses, or paraphrases of biblical texts and 2) texts which are not directly dependent upon a particular biblical passage. It should be noted that these passages are listed without any English translation, so those unfamiliar with the Dead Sea Scrolls texts, Aramaic Targummim, and early rabbinic writings may find it difficult to decipher the significance of the passages cited. Furthermore, in order to suggest possible lines of Aramaic influence on LBH, he lists the Biblical Aramaic cognate, when such exists.
After providing the evidence for each linguistic feature as LBH, each entry contains a number of comments, generally more comprehensive than those included in most lexica, mostly which address issues that would be of concern for the diachronic study of BH. For instance, some comments address passages in which the lemma may possibly preserve a LBH usage; some, possible origins; others, other comparative information with other Semitic languages; etc. Often, these comments are quotations from the scholarly literature regarding the particular linguistic feature. Finally, each entry closes with a bibliography for further research.
A lexicon such as this is a tremendous resource for philological study. Its appearance comes at a time in which the diachronic study of the Old Testament is in a state of flux. In the past decade, some scholars, notably Young, Rezetko, and Ehrensvärd, have challenged the idea that chronological factors account for the diversity of BH reflected in the Old Testament. Hurvitz acknowledges this situation in the introduction to the lexicon; however, as he states that since “the gulf between the two opposing parties is hardly bridgeable,” he decided “to refrain from futile polemics” (13). Therefore, the lexicon does not intend to be a defense of Hurvitz’s diachronic study of BH: it is a summary of it. At the same time, the lexicon presents, at least for many of the lemmas, a compelling case for a diachronic explanation of the data.
Finally, the greatest benefit of the lexicon for most exegetes will be the greater detail that it offers for individual terms that other lexica do not offer. Since other BH lexica, such as HALOT, treat each lemma exhaustively in the Old Testament literature, it is difficult for them to draw out the development of the lemma’s meaning and how such development fits within the development of BH as a whole.2 This lexicon accomplishes this task well.
This lexicon is a valuable resource for exegetes working with LBH texts and for those interested in the diachronic study of BH.
- Other designations for these classifications are also used in scholarly literature, e.g. Standard Biblical Hebrew is also called Early Biblical Hebrew or Classical Biblical Hebrew (not to be confused with Classical Hebrew, another designation for Biblical Hebrew). ↩︎
- Thanks go to my colleague Paul Hoskins for pointing out the value of the lexicon in these terms. ↩︎
