ENCYCLOPEDIA OF AND LINGUISTICS Volume 1 A–F

General Editor Geoffrey Khan

Associate Editors Shmuel Bolokzy Steven . Fassberg Gary A. Rendsburg Aaron D. Rubin Ora . Schwarzwald Tamar Zewi

LEIDEN • BOSTON 2013 © 2013 Koninklijke Brill NV ISBN 978-90-04-17642-3 Table of Contents

Volume One

Introduction ...... vii List of Contributors ...... ix Transcription Tables ...... xiii Articles A-F ...... 1

Volume Two

Transcription Tables ...... vii Articles G-O ...... 1

Volume Three

Transcription Tables ...... vii Articles P-Z ...... 1

Volume Four

Transcription Tables ...... vii Index ...... 1

© 2013 Koninklijke Brill NV ISBN 978-90-04-17642-3 338 : dialects and linguistic variation ——. 1970. “”. Current trends in linguis- , Seoung-Yun. “A lexical study on the language tics, ed. by Thomas Sebeok, vol. 6, 347–412. The of Haggai–Zechariah–Malachi and its place in the Hague: Mouton. history of Biblical Hebrew” (in Hebrew). PhD dis- ——. 1982. A history of the Hebrew language. Jeru- sertation, The Hebrew University of . salem: Magnes and Leiden: Brill. Tur-Sinai, Naphtali H. 1954. Sefer ±Iyov: ≠Im peruš Levine, Baruch A. 1983. “Late language in the ≤adaš. Jerusalem: Yavne. Priestly Source: Some literary and historical obser- ——. 1965. “Hašpa≠at ha-±aramit ≠al ha-≠Ivrit šel ha- vations”. Proceedings of the Eighth World Con- miqra”. Encyclopaedia Biblica, vol. 1, 593–595. gress of Jewish Studies, Jerusalem, August 16–21, Jerusalem: Bialik Institute. 1981: Panel Sessions: Studies and Hebrew Von Soden, Wolfram. 1966. “Aramäische Wörter im Language, 69–82. Jerusalem: World Union of Jew- neuassyrischen und neu- und spätbabylonischen Tex- ish Studies. ten. Ein Vorbericht. I”. Orientalia (N.S.) 35:1–20. Morag, Shelomo. 1972. Review of Wagner 1966. ——. 1968. “Aramäische Wörter im neuassyrischen Journal of the American Oriental Society 92:298– und neu- und spätbabylonischen Texten. Ein 300. Vorbericht. II”. Orientalia (N.S.) 37:261–271. Nöldeke, Theodor. 1903. Review of Kautzsch 1902. ——. 1977. “Aramäische Wörter in neuassyrischen Zeitschrift der Deutschen Morgenländischen und neu- and spätbabylonischen Texten. Ein Gesellschaft 57:412–420. Vorbericht. III”. Orientalia (N.S.) 46:183–197. ——. 1910. “Hebräische und aramäische Wörter Wagner, Max. 1966. Die lexikalischen und gram- im Äthiopischen”. Neue Beiträge zur semitischen matikalischen Aramaismen im Alttestamentlichen Sprachwissenschaft, 32–46. Strassbourg: Trübner. Hebräisch. Berlin: Töpelmann. Polotsky, Hans Jakob. 1964. “Aramaic, Syriac, and Young, Ian, Robert Rezetko, and Martin Ehrensvärd. Ge≠ez”. Journal of Semitic Studies 9:1–10. 2008. Linguistic dating of biblical texts. 2 vols. Polzin, Robert. 1976. Late Biblical Hebrew: Toward London / Oakville, Connecticut: Equinox. an historical typology of Biblical Hebrew prose (Harvard Semitic Monographs 12). Missoula, Avi Hurvitz Montana: Scholars Press. (The Hebrew University of Jerusalem) Qimron, Elisha. 1978. “The language of the second temple in the book of Psalms” (in Hebrew). Beit Mikra 23:139–150. ——. 1986. The Hebrew of the Dead Sea Scrolls. Biblical Hebrew: Dialects and Atlanta: Scholars Press. Linguistic Variation Rabin, Chaim. 1958. “The historical background of Qumran Hebrew”. Aspects of the Dead Sea Scrolls (Scripta Hierosolymitana 4), ed. by Chaim Rabin During much of the late 19th and early 20th and Yigael Yadin, 144–161. Jerusalem: Magnes. centuries, scholars theorized the existence of dif- ——. 1970. “Hebrew”. Current trends in linguistics, ferent Hebrew dialects in ancient (cf., e.g., ed. by Thomas A. Sebeok, vol. 6, 304–346. The GKC §2w), though only Burney made a seri- Hague: Mouton. ——. 1971. “≠Ivrit”. Encyclopaedia Biblica, vol. 6, ous attempt to identify specific evidence. In his 51–73. Jerusalem: Bialik Institute. commentary on Judges (1918:171–176), Burney Rendsburg, Gary A. Diglossia in Ancient Hebrew isolated various northern features in the Song of (American Oriental Series 72). New Haven, Con- necticut: American Oriental Society. Deborah (Judg. 5); while in his commentary on Rezetko, Robert. 2010. “The spelling of ‘’ Kings (1903:208–209) performed the same and the linguistic dating of biblical texts”. Scan- task with regard to the Elijah and Elisha narra- dinavian Journal of the 24:110– tives (most of 1 Kgs 17–2 Kgs 13). 128. Rooker, Mark F. 1990. Biblical Hebrew in transi- Nonetheless, these early efforts were suf- tion: The language of the book of Ezekiel (Journal ficient to establish the basic picture. Since so for the Study of the Old Testament Supplement much of the Bible emanates from in gen- Series 90). Sheffield: Journal for the Study of the eral and Jerusalem in particular (or was written Old Testament Press. Sáenz-Badillos, . 1993. A history of the Hebrew by exiles from Judah/Jerusalem, e.g., Ezekiel, language. Trans. by John Elwolde. Cambridge: Second Isaiah, etc.), the working assumption is Cambridge University Press. that Standard Biblical Hebrew (SBH) represents Schoors, Anton. 1992–2004. The preacher sought the dialect of Judah/Jerusalem (Rabin 1979). to find pleasing words: A study in the language of Qoheleth. 2 vols. (Orientalia Lovaniensia Analecta But since a significant proportion of the bibli- 41; 143). Leuven: Departement Oriëntalistiek. cal canon stems from northern Israel, and since Segal, Moshe H. 1927. A grammar of Mishnaic these texts reflect atypical grammatical and Hebrew. Oxford: Clarendon. lexical traits—atypical, that is, from the van- Seow, Choon . 1996. “Linguistic evidence and the dating of Qohelet”. Journal of Biblical Literature tage point of SBH—one can assume a distinct 115:643–666. dialect for northern Israel. Building on Burney,

© 2013 Koninklijke Brill NV ISBN 978-90-04-17642-3 biblical hebrew: dialects and linguistic variation 339 such works would include not only the Song point which has led to some scholarly disagree- of Deborah, but other material in the book of ment (cf., e.g., Young 1995; Schniedewind and Judges geographically situated in the north (e.g., Sivan 1997). Notwithstanding these difficul- the Gideon cycle, i.e., Judg. 6–8); along with ties, however, a reasonable picture of IH has all the portions of the book of Kings concerning emerged in the last few decades. Fortunately, the northern kingdom, beyond the chapters additional assistance is provided by Mishnaic concerning Elijah and Elisha expressly. In addi- Hebrew (MH), since frequently an IH feature tion, one may look to the book of Hosea, and surfaces a millennium later in rabbinic sources, perhaps Amos, too, as northern compositions a phenomenon to be explained by the fact that with linguistic elements representative of the the Mishna and related texts were written and northern dialect (Rabin 1981). compiled in the Galilean centers of Sepphoris The result is the recognition of two main dia- and Tiberias. lects of ancient Hebrew: (a) Judahite Hebrew Space allows for only a limited number of (JH), essentially the same as SBH (see above), examples of IH features, identified via the though there may have been some dialectal above methodology. Distinctive IH grammati- variations in certain villages and sub-regions cal features (extracted from the convenient of Judah; and (b) (IH), which list in Rendsburg 2003a) include (a) special final) ל"י serves as an umbrella term for a host of sub- forms for the infinitive construct of lëhèrå< ±ò ְל ֵהָר ֖ ֹאה ,.dialects (Samarian, Galilean, Transjordanian), yod) verbs (cf. ), e.g even if in most cases we lack the evidence and ‘to appear’ (nif≠al) (Judg. 13.21 [Samson]), ,([šå< μò ‘to drink’ (qal) (1 Sam. 1.9 [Shiloh ָשׁ ֑ ֹתה -hence the finesse to say more about these sub lëhèrå< ±ò ‘to appear’ (nif≠al) (1 Sam. 3.21 ְל ֵהָר ֣ ֹאה dialects. The most active researcher into these kallè ‘to complete’ (pi≠el) (2 Kgs ַכּ ֵ ֽלּה ,([regional dialects has been Rendsburg, who in a [Shiloh ’u-úë-™akkè ‘to wait ְוּכ ַח ֵ֨כּי ,([series of studies devoted to specific books and 13.17 [Elisha chapters has uncovered scores of grammatical (pi≠el) (Hos. 6.9 [northern prophet]); (b) the ,(qå< ∫ål ‘before’ (cf. Aramaic ָ ֽק ָבל and lexical features which together give us an preposition ’qå< ∫ål-≠åm< ‘before the people ָ ֽק ָב ְל ָ ֖־ﬠם ,.excellent picture of IH. The main studies are e.g Rendsburg 1990 (on selected psalms), Rends- (2 Kgs 15.10 [Shallum]); (c) indefinite noun + burg 2002 (concerning the northern material in indefinite demonstrative pronoun construction ’ål< ì zÆ ‘this illness©™ ֳח ִ֥לי ֶ ֽזה ,.the book of Kings), and Noegel and Rendsburg (cf. Phoenician), e.g ֥יוֹם ֙הוּא ;([regarding the ). For (2 Kgs 1.2 [Ahaziah]; 8.9 [Ben-Hadad) 62–2009:3 a comprehensive summary covering the entire yòm hù ‘that day’ (Mic. 7.12 [northern section .gƃÆn zòμ ‘this vine’ (Ps ֶ ֣גּ ֶפן ֽז ֹאת ;([biblical canon, with the information presented of Micah mainly in outline form, see Rendsburg 2003a. 80.15 [IH psalm]). The basis for identifying IH elements is three- Examples of IH lexical items (three nouns fold. First, the feature must occur exclusively, and one verb; for further examples, again, elÆq™ ֵח ֶלק (almost exclusively, or disproportionately in see Rendsburg 2003a) include (a northern texts. Second, the feature should have ‘field’ (cf. Aramaic) (2 Kgs 9.10, 36, 37; Hos. ,ka≈ ‘jug’ (cf. Ugaritic ַכּד (a cognate in a language or dialect spoken to the 5.7; Amos 7.4); (b north of Israel, such as Ugaritic, Phoenician, Phoenician, Aramaic) (1 Kgs 17.12, 14, 16; and/or Aramaic (or, in the case of the Trans- 18.34 [Elijah]; Judg. 7 [4x; Gideon]; Qoh. 12.6 ֶשׁ ַפע (jor danian variety of IH, in a dialect spoken in (IH), Gen. 24 [9x]) ( Style-Switching); (c .šiƒ≠å< ‘abundance, multitude’ (cf ִשׁ ְפ ָﬠה / ≠that region, such as Deir ≠Alla, Ammonite, and/ šÆƒa or Moabite). Third, the feature should stand Phoenician, Aramaic) (Deut. 33.19 [Issachar- in contrast to the equivalent JH trait. Unfortu- Zebulun]; 2 Kgs 9.17 [2x]; Ezek. 26.10 [Tyre]; nately, due to the lack of evidence—after all, Job 22.11; 38.34 [elsewhere only Isa. 60.6]); (r-b ‘offer, sacrifice’ (cf. Phoenician-≠ ער"ב (the Israelian material in the Bible remains the (d minority, while the evidence for the neighbor- (Hos. 9.4). ing Canaanite dialects is even more limited— As noted above, MH plays a role in the iden- one cannot always invoke all three of the above tification of still other IH features (Rendsburg points. At times, accordingly, the scholar must 2003b). Thus, for example, the following four be subjective in the treatment of the evidence, a hapax legomena (two nouns, two verbs) in

© 2013 Koninklijke Brill NV ISBN 978-90-04-17642-3 340 biblical hebrew: dialects and linguistic variation ;[ßëlò™ìμ ‘dish’ (2 Kgs 2.20 of the Shunammite woman]; 8.1 ketiv [Elisha ְצ ִ ֹ֣לחית (the Bible: (a .Jer. 4.30 ketiv [Benjaminite? Aramaism?]; Ezek ַהַ ֥קּב (Elisha] + 58x in Tannaitic sources); (b] haq-qa∫ ‘qab’ (unit of measurement) (2 Kgs 36.13 ketiv [Aramaism?]). 6.25 [Elisha] + 189x in Tannaitic sources); Finally, at least one famous narrative, the n-p ‘soil, make dirty’ (Song 5.3 Shibboleth incident of Judg. 12.6, allows us-† טנ"ף (c) [northern book] + 14x in Tannaitic sources); to reconstruct a phonological trait that distin- ß-n-n ‘be cold’ (Prov. 25.13 [northern guishes Gileadite Hebrew from Cisjordanian צנ"ן (d) book]) + 71x in Tannaitic sources; cf. also Hebrew ( Shibboleth). ßinnå< ‘cold’ 13x in Tannaitic ִצ ָנּה the noun sources). References In addition to the internal biblical evidence Ben-£ayyim, Ze±ev. 2000. A grammar of Samaritan (garnered via the assistance of cognate dia- Hebrew. Winona Lake, Indiana: Eisenbrauns. lects, Aramaic, and MH), Hebrew inscriptions Burney, Charles F. 1903. Notes on the Hebrew text of the . Oxford: Clarendon. from the Iron Age permit us to identify still ——. 1918. The book of Judges. London: other distinctions between JH and IH. For Rivingtons. example, both the Gezer Calendar and the Davila, James R. 1990. “Qoheleth and Northern Samaria Ostraca, from northern Israel, attest Hebrew”. Maarav 5–6 (Stanislav Segert Festschrift): 69–87. to the monophthongization of ay > è, even in Ginsberg, Harold L. 1982. The Israelian heri- qß = qèß ‘summer tage of Judaism. New York: Jewish Theological קץ .accented syllables (cf .yn = yèn ‘wine’ in Seminary ין fruit’ in the former, and GKC = Kautzsch, Emil (ed.). 1910. Gesenius’ Hebrew the latter) ( Gezer Calendar; Samaria Ost- grammar, ed. by Arthur E. Cowley. Oxford: Clar- raca). We possess more texts from the region endon. of Judah, with the two largest corpora provided Halpern, Baruch. “Dialect distribution in Canaan by the Arad letters and the Lachish letters. The and the Deir Alla Inscriptions”. “Working with no data”: Semitic and Egyptian studies presented language of these texts almost always conforms to Thomas O. Lambdin, ed. by David M. Golomb -yyn = and Susan T. Hollis, 119–139. Winona Lake, Indi יין to SBH; thus, for example, one finds yayin (Arad 3.2), with the diphthong preserved ana: Eisenbrauns. ( Arad Letters; Lachish Letters). Strikingly, Kaufman, Stephen A. 1988. “The classification of the North West Semitic dialects of the biblical period one of the features identified above as an IH and some implications thereof”. Proceedings of ka≈ ‘jug’, occurs in a short the Ninth World Congress of Jewish Studies: Panel ַכּד ,.lexical trait, viz epigraph inscribed on a pottery fragment from Sessions: Hebrew and Aramaic Languages, 41–57. .kd Jerusalem: World Congress of Jewish Studies כד השער :Tel Kinneret in northern Israel Noegel, Scott B. and Gary A. Rendsburg. 2009. h-š≠r ‘jug of the gate’. Solomon’s vineyard: Literary and linguistic studies Yet another source for the northern dialect in the Song of Songs. Atlanta: Society of Biblical of ancient Hebrew is (SH). Literature. On the one hand, since the basic text for SH is Rabin, Chaim. 1979. “The emergence of Classical Hebrew”. The age of the monarchies: Culture essentially the same Torah as that possessed by and society (World History of the Jewish People the , the number of potential items to distin- 1st series, Ancient Times 4), ed. by Abraham guish SH (as part of the IH umbrella) from JH is, Malamat and Israel Eph≠al, 71–78, 293–295. Jeru- salem: Masada. in theory at least, somewhat limited. On the other ——. 1981. “The language of Amos and Hosea” (in hand, the Samaritan Torah reflects hundreds of Hebrew). ≠Iyyunim be-sefer tre-≠a«ar, ed. by Ben- differences from the Jewish Torah ( Samari- Zion Luria, 117–136. Jerusalem: Kiryat Sefer. tan Pentateuch), while the Samaritan pronuncia- Rendsburg, Gary A. 1990. Linguistic evidence for the northern origin of selected Psalms. Atlanta: tion of Hebrew reveals still more ( Samaritan Scholars Press. Hebrew: Biblical). Thus, for example, we note ——. 2002. Israelian Hebrew in the book of Kings that the 2fs personal pronoun is always written Bethesda, Maryland: CDL. ty, pronounced ——. 2003a. “A comprehensive guide to Israelian אתי ,.with yod on the end, viz ± Hebrew: Grammar and lexicon”. Orient 38:5–35. /åtti/ (Ben-£ayyim 2000:226). This form is also ——. 2003b. “The geographical and historical back- known from Aramaic, and it appears 7× in the ground of the lexicon”. Orient Bible, always as the ketiv, with a distribution 38:105–115. that points to a northern home (Judg. 17.2 ketiv Schniedewind, William and Daniel Sivan. 1997. “The Elijah-Elisha narratives: A test case for the [Micah of Ephraim]; 1 Kgs 14.2 ketiv [Jeroboam Northern dialect of Hebrew”. Jewish Quarterly I]; 2 Kgs 4.16 ketiv [Elisha], 23 ketiv [husband Review 87:303–337.

© 2013 Koninklijke Brill NV ISBN 978-90-04-17642-3 biblical hebrew: pronunciation traditions 341 Young, Ian. 1995. “The ‘Northernisms’ of the Isra- in Tiberian biblical reading, on the grounds elite narratives in Kings”. Zeitschrift für Althebra- that the Hebrew resh could still be heard in the istik 8:63–70. local speech of the (Jewish) inhabitants of Tibe- Gary A. Rendsburg rias ( Masoretic Treaties). It should be noted, (Rutgers University) however, that these references are unlikely to refer to vernacular speech. Hebrew contin- ued to be used as a form of learned discourse Biblical Hebrew: Pronunciation among scholars after it had ceased to serve as Traditions a vernacular. It was, moreover, promoted as a language of everyday speech by the Karaite Hebrew is generally thought to have ceased to scholar Benjamin al-Nahàwendì (mid-9th cen- be a spoken vernacular around the beginning tury C.E.) on ideological grounds (Qirqisànì of the 3rd century C.E. This coincides with the 1939:VI 25.3; Khan 1992:157). Hebrew words end of the Tannaitic period in rabbinic tradi- and phrases as well as Biblical Hebrew quota- tion. The surviving Hebrew texts that are dat- tions continued in the so-called ‘Hebrew com- able to before this date would, therefore, have ponent’ of the vernacular languages spoken been written when Hebrew was still spoken. by the Jews down to modern times, which, it This includes the books of the , seems, is what ≠Eli ben Yehudah ha-Nazir was Qumran literature, Tannaitic rabbinic litera- listening to on the streets of medieval Tiberias. ture, documents, and epigraphy. There are ref- A particularly large Hebrew component existed erences to the use of Hebrew as a vernacular in in Jewish secret languages, spoken especially by the 2nd century C.E., for example, the anecdote merchants ( Secret Languages, Hebrew in). of the maidservant of Judah ha-Nasi When Hebrew was a spoken vernacular lan- who is said to have known the meanings of guage before the 3rd century C.E. it existed in a some Hebrew words with which the scholars of diversity of dialects that differed on various lin- the time were not familiar (Babylonian Talmud guistic levels ( Biblical Hebrew: Dialects and Megilla 18a; Palestinian Talmud Megilla 2.2, Linguistic Variation). This dialectal diversity 73a). The Bar Kochba Documents from the existed synchronically at particular periods and first half of the 2nd century C.E. also contain there was also diachronic change in the various a number of features that appear to reflect spoken forms of the language. Both the syn- the spoken language (e.g., the object marker chronic and diachronic differences in the spo- t). ken language were disguised to a large extent± את > t ת Although use of Hebrew as a vernacular by the written form of the language, which language is thought to have ceased by the 3rd was considerably standardized in its orthogra- century C.E., it remained alive in later periods phy and linguistic form ( Diglossia: Biblical in oral as well as written form. The oral recita- Hebrew). Several differences are, nevertheless, tion of the Hebrew Bible has continued in a identifiable from the surviving written evidence. variety of traditions down to modern times. On the level of pronunciation, which is the The Hebrew rabbinic material of not only principle concern of this entry, some regional the Tannaitic period but also of the Amoraic differences can be detected. We know from period (220–500 C.E.) was composed orally. epigraphic evidence from the biblical period Furthermore, after rabbinic literature was com- that diphthongs tended to be contracted in mitted to writing, the oral dimension continued the northern (Israelian) dialects, whereas they in reading traditions that have survived down tended to be preserved uncontracted in the to the present. There is a reference also to the southern (Judahite) form of Hebrew, which is ivri le- the basis of the standardized Biblical Hebrew≠ עברי לדיבור) use of Hebrew for speech dibbur) in a saying attributed to R. Yonathan language. In the Samaria ostraca, for example, yn ‘wine’, reflecting ין of -Guvrin (Palestine, 3rd century C.E.) one finds the orthography (Palestinian Talmud Megilla 71.2) ( Amoraic the pronunciation yèn, whereas the Arad ost- Hebrew). Even as late as the 10th century one raca from the south have the orthography yyn, corresponding to Masoretic Hebrew יין finds in a Masoretic treatise attributed to ≠Eli yayin ( Diphthongs: Pre-Modern ַי ִין ben Yehudah ha-Nazir (Allony 1973) a descrip- form tion of how the author undertook fieldwork in Hebrew). The shibboleth incident described in the streets of Tiberias to verify his analysis of the Judg. 12.1–6 is clear evidence of differences in © 2013 Koninklijke Brill NV ISBN 978-90-04-17642-3