The contribution of Qumran to historical Hebrew linguistics: Evidence from the syntax of participial negation

In this article we examine how Qumran Hebrew can contribute to our knowledge of historical Hebrew linguistics. 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. Evidence from the syntax of participial negation at Qumran as opposed to Biblical Hebrew provides evidence for this claim

Editorial theory and the range of translations for ‘cedars of Lebanon’ in the Septuagint

Although the Hebrew source text term אֶרֶז [cedar] is translated in the majority of cases as κέδρος [cedar] or its adjective κέδρινος in the Septuagint, there are cases where the following translations and strategies are used: (1) κυπάρισσος [cypress] or the related adjective κυπαρίσσινος, (2) ξύλον [wood, tree] and (3) non-translation and deletion of the source text item. This article focuses on these range of translations. Using a complexity theoretical approach in the context of editorial theory (the new science of exploring texts in their manuscript contexts), this article seeks to provide explanations for the various translation choices (other than κέδρος and κέδρινος). It further aims to determine which cultural values of the translators have influenced those choices and how they shape the metaphorical and symbolic meaning of plants as determined by Biblical Plant Hermeneutics, which has placed the taxonomy of flora on a strong ethnological and ethnobotanical basis

Is the adjective distinct from the noun as a grammatical category in biblical Hebrew?

The adjective is a beleaguered category in biblical Hebrew grammar with many grammars of biblical Hebrew denying that the adjective is a category distinct from substantives. Within a variety of linguistic theories, the status of the adjective as a grammatical category is also debated. Cross-linguistically adjectives exhibit extraordinary variety: in some languages showing similarities to nouns, in others to verbs and in still others to both nouns and verbs. The debate concerning the status of the adjective is mirrored by the broader debate within contemporary linguistics concerning how the issue of grammatical categorisation ought to be approached. In this article, we re-examine the question of whether or not the adjective is a distinct grammatical category from the noun in biblical Hebrew. We approach the question of the status of the adjective as a grammatical category from two perspectives: morphology and syntax

Theoretical Approaches to Anaphora and Pronouns in Biblical Hebrew : “Theoretical Approaches to Anaphora and Pronouns in Biblical Hebrew”: Papers forming part of the 2017 SBL Linguistics and Biblical Hebrew Seminar (Boston, USA)

Apollonius Dyscolus (second century C.E.) defined the pronoun not merely as a noun substitute but implied that a pronoun may refer to nouns anaphorically. The study of Latin scarcely improved the knowledge of anaphora and pronouns and, for centuries, thinking about anaphora and pronouns was essentially limited to the activity of compiling inventories of grammatical categories and virtually no attention was given to the role of anaphora and pronouns in syntax and discourse as such. New insights into the description and explanation of the distribution of anaphora and pronouns in human language came in the late twentieth century with the advent of Chomsky’s generative linguistics. This paper presents the current state of knowledge regarding anaphora and pronouns in Biblical Hebrew as well as the unresolved issues and questions open for further research

At the interface of syntax and prosody: Differentiating left dislocated and tripartite verbless clauses in Biblical Hebrew

The so-called tripartite verbless clause in Biblical Hebrew consists of two nominal phrases and a pronominal element. Three analyses of the pronominal element have been advanced, each with implications for understanding the structure of the sentence. A first approach has been to view the pronominal element as a copular constituent, which serves only to link the two nominal constituents in a predication (Albrecht 1887, 1888; Brockelman 1956; and Kummerouw 2013). A second approach has been to view the pronominal element as the resumptive element of a dislocated constituent (Gesenius, Kautzsch and Cowley 1910; Andersen 1970; Zewi 1996, 1999, 2000; Joüon-Muraoka 2006). A third approach combines the first and second approaches and is represented by the work of Khan (1988, 2006) and Holmstedt and Jones (2014). A fourth approach views the pronominal element as a “last resort” syntactic strategy—the pronominal element is a pronominal clitic, which provides agreement features for the subject (Naudé 1990, 1993, 1994, 1999, 2002). The pronominal element is obligatory when the nominal predicate is a referring noun phrase—the pronominal clitic is used to prevent ambiguity in the assignment of subject and predicate (see Doron 1986; Borer 1983).As is well-known in the linguistics literature, cross-linguistically left dislocation involves a “gap” at the boundary between the dislocated constituent and the matrix sentence. In spoken language, this gap may be realized by a small pause or an interjection (Berman and Grosu 1976). In this paper we consider the prosodic evidence that is available from the Masoretic accentual tradition. The Masoretes were Jewish scribes who attempted to preserve the precise reading  tradition of the biblical text through the addition of a complex system of “accents” which were superimposed on the traditional Hebrew text between the sixth and the tenth centuries CE. Although the accentual system also was used for cantillation purposes, its complex system of conjunctive and disjunctive accents provides important evidence for prosodic phrasing, which can be utilized for differentiating the role of the pronoun in these two types of sentences which are otherwise structurally identical.Keywords: Biblical Hebrew, left dislocation, tripartite nominal clause, copula, Masoretic accents, prosody, synta

A Programmatic Proposal for the Study of Biblical Hebrew as a Language: Linguistic and Philological Perspectives: Papers forming part of the 2017 and 2018 SBL Linguistics and Biblical Hebrew Seminar

The way in which the academic study of Biblical Hebrew as a language should be conducted is contested. In light of the current debate and the engagement in this question of some of the articles in this issue (viz. Naudé & Miller-Naudé, Holmstedt, Robar, Hardy, Ehrensvärd, Rezetko, and Young, and Noonan), we provide in this article a summary of the status of the debate and a programmatic proposal for the academic study of Biblical Hebrew as a language to move the debate forward. We argue that considering the study of Biblical Hebrew as a language from the vantage point of Complexity Theory is a fruitful approach. Biblical Hebrew as a language can then be analysed as a complex phenomenon whose component systems display interconnectedness, dynamism and emergence

Colonial and postcolonial encounters with the indigenous: The case of religious translation in Africa

Translation in the African context is mainly associated with religious translation, especially the Bible but also the Qur’ān. In this paper, selected aspects of the translation of the Bible and the Qur’ān, each a vast field in itself, are used to illustrate the colonial and postcolonial encounters with the indigenous. Religious translation practice tends to focus on the actual source text although many diverse, yet interrelated, contextual factors may also interfere. This article illustrates some of these situational variables and potential influences.Southern African Linguistics and Applied Language Studies 2011, 29(3): 313–32

The translation of <i>biblion</i> and <i>biblos</i> in the light of oral and scribal practice

The Bible was composed both by way of oral tradition and by scribal activity. Various descriptions exist of the development and relationship of the dominant forms of orality and scribal tradition throughout the history of media culture. Utilising the insights of, and debate on, the field of Biblical Performance Criticism, this article argues for an articulated description of the interrelationship of oral and written. The article argues that these two aspects cannot be absolutely separated, either chronologically or in terms of importance, neither can they be ignored as part of a coherent model to depict the media history of the Bible. In the light of this model the article discusses the interpretation and translation of the words βιβλίον and βίβλος, which are sometimes misunderstood and mistranslated, because of a failure to understand the process of committing the oral biblical tradition to a preferred writing medium