Reviewed by: The Story of Hebrew by Lewis Glinert Gary A. Rendsburg Lewis Glinert. The Story of Hebrew. Library of Jewish Ideas. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2017. xii + 281 pp. To write the three-thousand-year history of anything in 250 pages is no easy task. The challenge is even greater when the subject matter is a language. Yet Lewis Glinert achieves a readable and engaging history—or rather story—of the Hebrew language. That story, however, is much better told as the book progresses through the three-thousand-year history of the Hebrew language and, alongside it, the three-thousand-year history of the Jewish people. Which is to say, the narrative is much stronger and livelier when it treats the medieval and modern periods, no surprise given Glinert’s own interests and specialization. Throughout the book, Glinert weaves into the narrative a host of important information in a compact manner, with ample illustrations (both of texts, often in Glinert’s own translations, and of manuscripts and documents) serving to illuminate his points. Well-known figures such as Sa‘adiah Gaon, Jonah ibn Janah. , and Maimonides appear alongside more obscure figures such as Saʿid ibn Babshad, Joseph ibn Zabara, and Shabbatai Donnolo. In like fashion, most readers will learn here for the first time of the existence of Melekh ’Artus, a Hebrew Arthurian romance from 1279, “with the Holy Grail judiciously changed to a tamḥuy” (98). Glinert’s fluid prose and his ability to capture the essence of the Hebrew style of a particular writer create a very readable book. Authors ranging from Judah Halevi, Maimonides, and Judah al-Ḥarizi to Eliezer Ben-Yehuda, Ḥayim Naḥman Bialik, and Saul Tchernichovksy come alive in Glinert’s apt characterizations: for example, al-Ḥarizi’s “playful allusions to biblical imagery” (93), Bialik’s “poems of wrath” (192), Tchernichovksy’s “poems of Hellenic and Canaanite beauty” (192). Two fine chapters are devoted to Christian Hebraists, from Jerome through the Reformation, and indeed through the American colonial period. Among the gems to be mined in this book is Glinert’s treatment of the thirteenth-century Ramsey Dictionary (England), whose “verb section lists 1,392 Hebrew verbs, many with several subentries, and all listed (for the most part correctly) in the imperative form—a feat of organization and grammatical analysis by itself since in the Bible only one in ten of these verbs occurs in the imperative” (135). To allow the reader a glimpse of the Ramsey Dictionary, one folio of the manuscript is reproduced on the facing page (134). [End Page 243] For the modern period, Glinert covers an array of topics in fine fashion, ranging from the revival of Hebrew to the Canaanite movement to the work of the Academy of the Hebrew Language. Another gem is the reproduction of an Israeli Ministry of Education poster from the 1950s, which was displayed in medical clinics (221). Body parts and medical equipment are labeled in Hebrew, thereby providing both patient and practitioner the ability both to learn and to converse. Best of all is the heading on the poster: “At the clinic speak Hebrew and be healed”! As intimated above, the early portions of this book are weaker, often representing older scholarship. It is not clear that “the rabbinic sages” are responsible for the biblical canon (17). I do not know on what grounds Glinert claims that “more recent evidence” would group Hebrew more closely with Aramaic rather than with Canaanite dialects (Phoenician, Moabite, etc.) (19). The reason for the use of Aramaic in “Ezra’s historical records” is not “obscure” (25), but rather reflects the use of the language in imperial Persian documents. The sects would not perish after the Great Revolt, leaving only rabbinic Judaism and the new religion of Christianity to continue (39), for there is a considerable evidence that speaks to the persistence of a nonrabbinic stream of Judaism (Ein Gedi synagogue inscription, Damascus Document, etc.). Antioch is in modern-day Turkey, not modern-day Syria (126). Within the context of tannaitic literature, Glinert refers to the ten words of the ham-mos.iʾ blessing as “symbolically [paralleling] the ten ordinances governing production of bread (such...
Journal Article M oshe B ar -A sher , Studies in Classical Hebrew Get access Moshe Bar-Asher , Studies in Classical Hebrew (Studia Judaica 71). Walter de Gruyter , Berlin 2013 . Pp. xiv + 450 . Price: €129.95 hardback. ISBN: 978-3-11-030039-0 . Gary A. Rendsburg Gary A. Rendsburg Rutgers University Search for other works by this author on: Oxford Academic Google Scholar Journal of Semitic Studies, Volume 61, Issue 2, Autumn 2016, Pages 528–532, https://doi.org/10.1093/jss/fgw018 Published: 27 August 2016
Exodus 1-15 repeatedly shows familiarity with Egyptian traditions: the biblical motifs of the hidden divine name, turning an inanimate object into a reptile, the conversion of water to blood, a spell of 3 days of darkness, the death of the firstborn, the parting of waters, and death by drowning are all paralleled in Egyptian texts, and, for the most part, nowhere else.
A HISTORY OF THE JEWS - (S.) Schwartz The Ancient Jews from Alexander to Muhammad. Pp. xii + 190. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2014. Paper, £17.99, US75). ISBN: 978-1-107-66929-1 (978-1-107-04127-1 hbk). - Volume 65 Issue 2
This chapter discusses the question: to what extent does the fact that 80% of our documents are composed in Hebrew reflect the linguistic reality of the Qumran community? Or to put it in simpler terms: did they speak Hebrew?-as opposed to Aramaic, for example, or to Greek. It analyses the survey of the various understandings of Qumran Hebrew (QH) by returning to the 1950s, when the first studies of the language were produced, mainly by scholars from the Hebrew University, including Hanoch Yalon, Chaim Rabin, E. Y. Kutscher, Moshe Goshen-Gottstein, and Ze'ev Ben-Hayyim. The chapter discusses the examples from the major documents, such as 1QS, 1QM, 1QH, and 11QT, with a special emphasis on 1QS. Keywords: 1QS; Greek; Qumran Hebrew (QH)
Previous articleNext article No AccessBook ReviewsEchoes from the Past: Hebrew and Cognate Inscriptions from the Biblical Period. Shmuel Ahituv and Anson F. Rainey.Gary A. RendsburgGary A. Rendsburg Search for more articles by this author PDFPDF PLUS Add to favoritesDownload CitationTrack CitationsPermissionsReprints Share onFacebookTwitterLinkedInRedditEmail SectionsMoreDetailsFiguresReferencesCited by Bulletin of the American Society of Overseas Research Volume 358May 2010 A journal of the American Schools of Oriental Research Article DOIhttps://doi.org/10.1086/BASOR25741819 Views: 11Total views on this site Journal History This article was published in the Bulletin of the American School of Oriental Research (1921-2021), which is continued by the Bulletin of the American Schools of Overseas Research (2022-present). Copyright © 2010 American Schools of Oriental ResearchPDF download Crossref reports no articles citing this article.
The field of Aramaic studies has witnessed a steady stream of major developments in recent years. Important new volumes include M. Sokoloff, A Dictionary of Palestinian Jewish Aramaic (Ramat-Gan: Bar Ilan University Press, 1990); J. Hoftijzer and K. Jongeling, Dictionary of the North-West Semitic Inscriptions, 2 vols. (Leiden: Brill, 1995); and T. Muraoka and B. Porten, A Grammar of Egyptian Aramaic (Leiden: Brill, 1998).1 Two classics have been reprinted by Eisenbrauns: J. Payne Smith, A Compendious Syriac Dictionary (Oxford, 1903; repr. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1998); and T. Nöldeke, Compendious Syriac Grammar (London, 1904; repr. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2001). In addition, the Comprehensive Aramaic Lexicon web site has been launched (http://cal1.cn.huc.edu/index.html), with various databases currently available and with the promise for more online resources.
Introduction During the past 15 years I have published a number of studies on the subject of the northern dialect of ancient Hebrew, more properly termed “Israelian Hebrew” (IH). Israelian Hebrew stands in contrast to the standard dialect in which most of the Bible was written, namely, the dialect of Judah in general or of Jerusalem in particular. This latter dialect should be called Judahite Hebrew (JH), which in turn equals Standard Biblical Hebrew (SBH). Most likely IH is an umbrella term, for within IH there probably were several main subdialects, such as Ephraimite, Galilean, and Gileadite, not to mention other local varieties (see the very end of this article for further thoughts in this direction). My publications on IH include two monographs and 14 articles. The monographs include appendices in which may be found a classified listing of the various IH features identified, but no such appendices or indices appear in the published articles (or in two forthcoming articles, items A15 and A16 listed below under references). In addition, I have supervised two doctoral dissertations on the subject, one by Yoon Jong Yoo devoted to IH features in Hosea (Yoo 1999), the other by Yiyi Chen devoted to IH features in Proverbs (Chen 2000); these works also include appendices allowing for easy reference. Furthermore, in collaboration with Scott Noegel I have completed a lengthy study of IH elements in Song of Songs, to be published in a planned volume authored by the two of us tentatively entitled rather plainly and prosaically Studies in Song of Songs (item A17 listed below). Noegel also wrote an article on dialect issues in Isaiah 24-27 (Noegel 1994). There are other IH sources in the Bible not yet treated in detailed fashion by myself or by my students (or by other scholars), such as Deuteronomy 32, the blessings to the northern tribes in Deuteronomy 33, Judges 5, and the book of Qohelet, though occasional references to these compositions may be found in the oeuvre already in print or listed as forthcoming. Other individuals, outside of my own personal scholarly orbit,
Previous Research As indicated in my article "A Comprehensive Guide to Israelian Hebrew: Grammar and Lexicon," in the preceding pages in this journal (Rendsburg 2003), I began my research into the question of regional dialects of ancient Hebrew in 1987. Almost immediately I noticed that many grammatical and lexical features of Israelian Hebrew (IH) appear in Mishnaic Hebrew (MH) as well. The reason for this became clear to me at once: the Mishna and related texts (Tosefta, Tannaitic midrashim, etc.) were edited and compiled, if not authored, in Sepphoris and Tiberias, the two major Galilean cities of Roman- period Palestine.' The text for which we have the most specific information, of course, is the Mishna, the work of Rabbi Judah ha-Nasi, edited in Sepphoris c. 200 C.E. One may assume that the Tosefta also was produced at Sepphoris (regardless of which view we accept, the regnant position that the Tosefta postdates the Mishna, or the alternative position that the Tosefta predates the Mishna2). There is less information on the redaction of the Tannaitic midrashim, but presumably they come from a slightly later period and thus we may assume that they achieved their final version in Tiberias. I was eager to present my initial findings on the relationship between IH and MH, especially after I received an invitation to participate in the First International Conference on Galilean Studies in Late Antiquity, held most appropriately at Kibbutz Hanaton, not far from Sepphoris, in August 1989. The proceedings of that conference were published three years later in a volume entitled The Galilee in Late Antiquity, under the editorship of L. I. Levine. My contribution to this volume, "The Galilean Background of Mishnaic Hebrew" (Rendsburg 1992), paralleling my presentation to the conference, focused on grammatical issues mainly, with a special eye to those MH grammatical features with analogs in Ugaritic, Phoenician, and IH.
Four separate studies are presented, along with an addendum to a previous article in this series. 1) The unique word מַהְלְכִים in Zech 3:7 means "sacrifices," cognate to Phoenician מלן 2) Contrary to three recent proposals, the final words in Psalm 22:17 כּאֲרִי יָדַי וְרַגְלָי "like a lion, my hands and my feet" are not to be emended. Instead, the absence of a verb in this stich is indicative of the suddenness of the evildoers' attack against the psalmist. 3) The numeral "75" was expressed in a unique fashion in ancient Hebrew: it appears always as חַמִשָה ושבעים or חמש ושבעים, and never in the expected reverse order שבעים וחמש or שבעים וחמשה 4) The numeral מאתים שנים ושלשים "two hundred two and thirty" in 1 Kgs 20:15 is an exceptional formulation, expressed as hundreds + units + tens, contrary to either the usual descending order of hundreds + tens + units or the occasional ascending order of units + tens + hundreds. Apparently this formulation was used to distinguish this numeral from the form שלשי ושנים "thirty and two" which occurs in the same chapter (1 Kgs 20:1, 16). 5) E. A. Knauf suggested that the personal name רוּת "Ruth" is related to the Moabite word רית "offering" in Mesha Stele line 12. I responded to this proposal in HS 40 (1999): 27-28. Here I note further that the reading רית has been superceded by Andre Lemaire's reading הית from the verb "to be," thus greatly weakening Knauf's argument.
Twenty years ago I proposed that the numerous cases of the pronouns 'tm, hm, -km and -hm with feminine dual antecedents, as well as the use of masculine verbs with feminine dual subjects, are evidence of the vestigial use of dual pronouns and verbs in Biblical Hebrew. In addition, I argued that the large concentration of such forms in P can be used as evidence for the early date of the Priestly source. Joshua Blau responded with an article arguing that these examples are not evidence for the dual, but rather are part of the larger picture of the drift for the masculine to replace the feminine in Hebrew and in other Semitic languages. More recently, Joseph Blenkinsopp wrote an article challenging my use of these dual forms for dating the Priestly source. The present article responds to both Blau and Blenkinsopp, adding the evidence of computer-aided analysis of Biblical Hebrew and presenting afresh the position that P is indeed pre-exilic.
THE JEWISH QUARTERLYREVIEW,XCII,Nos. 1-2 (July-October, 2001) 137-143 CYRUS H. GORDON (1908-2001): A GIANT AMONGSCHOLARS GARYA. RENDSBURG, Cornell University Cyrus H. Gordon,one of the true giants in the fields of biblical studies and ancientNear Easternstudies, died on March30, 2001, at the age of 92, at his home in Brookline, Mass. Gordon'scareerwas intimately connected to the city in which this journal is published and to the two institutions which underlie its history. Gordon was born in Philadelphia;he took his three degrees from the University of Pennsylvania, all the while taking courses at Dropsie College as well; and later he returnedto the latter as a faculty member (see below for details). Accordingly, it is most gratifying for me to publish this tributeto my beloved teacherin the Jewish Quarterly Review. With Gordon'spassing, the world of scholarshiphas lost not only a brilliantintellectual ,butalso thelast linkto a distantpast.I refernotto antiquity, but ratherto the period of the 1920s and 1930s, when academic Nephilim walked the earth,when the NearEast still was untouchedby modernity,and when the majordiscoveries at Nuzi andUgaritwere revolutionizingbiblical studies.Togetherthese elementscreatedanage now romanticizedby younger scholars,one knownonly throughthepublicationsof academicsmostly long dead, yet CyrusGordonwas therefor it all. Gordonbecame involved in the field at a very young age:he publishedhis firstarticle in 1929 at age 21, and he paid his firstvisit to the Near East in 1931 at age 23. Because of this earlystart,Gordonknew personallymanyof the luminariesof theearly20thcentury:his famedteachersJamesMontgomery andMax Margolis,the archaeologistsSirFlindersPetrieandSirLeonard Woolley,theAssyriologistF Thureau-Dangin, thebiblicistPereMarie-Joseph Lagrange of the E1coleBiblique, the great modern Hebrew poet Hayyim NahmanBialik, the talmudistYaakovNahumEpstein, andmany similarindividuals .A storythatGordonrelatedto me only a year or so ago illustrates thepointwell: at a recentinformalgatheringin Boston, Gordonwas describing his early fieldwork to a young archaeologist from Harvard,when the young man turned to Gordon and said with amazement, "You dug with Woolley at Ur andyou'restill alive?" During the four years of 1931-1935, Gordon experienced a traditional Near Easternlifestyle thatis rapidlydisappearingfrom this world. The majority of this time was spent in Iraq,in small villages, living among Arabs, Kurds,Yezidis, Mandeans,andAramaic-speakingJews andChristians.But 138 THEJEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW he also dug with W. F Albright at Tell Beit Mirsim, and he accompanied Nelson Glueck on his famed explorationof Transjordan.Gordonconstantlypepperedhis classes andhis publicationswith firsthandobservations of the Near East gained duringthese years, often illuminatingbiblical passages through parallels across time. He delighted to relate his life story, both orally, to anyone who was interestedin hearinghis recollections, and in print,as he did on a numberof occasions. The most detailedof these versions appearedin his autobiographyA Scholar's Odyssey,publishedin 2000 by the Society of Biblical Literature. Gordonwas born in Philadelphiaon June 29, 1908, to a Jewish family that greatly valued education, both modern scientific learning and traditional Jewish learning.In Gordon'swords, "I grew up in a home where ancienttexts andmodernenlightenmentwereharmoniouslyintertwinedwithout theneedless extremismof eitherthe WilliamJenningsBryanorthe Clarence Darrow variety."As was typical in Jewish homes of that time, Gordon's father obtained the services of a melammed,or personal teacher, to teach the young inquisitive Cyrus, startingat the age of five. Gordonshowed a clear proclivity for languages, and duringhis teen years startedmastering not only Hebrew,but also Aramaic,Latin, and German.He enrolled at the University of Pennsylvania,from which he would receive all three of his degrees, B.A. (1927), M.A. (1928), andPh.D. (1930). As an undergraduate, he addedGreek, Arabic, and Swedish throughformal study.But this evergrowing list of languages was not enough for the expanding mind of the young scholar. Gordonrecalled, "One summer I decided to learn French, Italian,Spanish,Portuguese,Dutch,andDano-Norwegianby myself, through studying each one of them one hourper day duringthe three-monthvacation ." And, of course, there are the various Near Eastern languages that Gordon studied at Penn, namely, Sumerian, Akkadian, Syriac, Mandaic, Ethiopic, SouthArabic,Egyptian, Coptic, Hittite,Hurrian,andOld Persian. His main teachersof this panoply of subjectswere MontgomeryandE. A. Speiser. During the years that he studied at Penn, Gordon simultaneously auditedcourses at nearbyDropsie College, underthe tutelage of Margolis, arguablythe greatestscholarof Biblical Hebrewthatever lived. LaterGordon turnedhis attentionto Minoan and more recently to Eblaite. With this education, it is no surprisethat Gordonwas destined to make...
This article presents four separate notes on lexical items characteristic of Israelian Hebrew. The items studied are 1) the phrase שגר אלפיך ועשתרות צאנך "the offspring of your cattle and the fertility of your flock"; 2) the noun עיר "donkey"; 3) the unique form עיריס "villages" appearing in Judg 10:4; and the noun טנא "basket".
S. David Sperling. The Original Torah: The Political Intent of the Bible's Writer. Reappraisals in Jewish Social and Intellectual History. New York: New York University Press, 1998. xiv, 185 pp. - Volume 24 Issue 2
Anson F. Rainey. Canaanite in the Amarna Tablets: A Linguistic Analysis of the Mixed Dialect Used by Scribes from Canaan. 4 vols. Handbuch der Orientalistik, Erste Abteilung: Der Nahe und Mittlere Osten, vol. 25. Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1996. xxiv, 204 xx, 415; xiv, 280; viii, 198 pp. - Volume 23 Issue 2
L'article est consacre a l'histoire du jugement de Salomon en I Rois 3,16-28, plus precisement a discerner la partie coupable dans cette histoire. L'A. s'oppose a l'opinion d'Ellen van Wolde et d'autres interpretes, estimant pour sa part que le texte dont il etudie la structure permet d'identifier laquelle des deux femmes est coupable.
