This volume explores an underappreciated feature of the standard Tiberian Masoretic tradition of Biblical Hebrew, namely its composite nature. Focusing on cases of dissonance between the tradition’s written (consonantal) and reading (vocalic) components, the study shows that the Tiberian spelling and pronunciation traditions, though related, interdependent, and largely in harmony, at numerous points reflect distinct oral realisations of the biblical text. Where the extant vocalisation differs from the apparently pre-exilic pronunciation presupposed by the written tradition, the former often exhibits conspicuous affinity with post-exilic linguistic conventions as seen in representative Second Temple material, such as the core Late Biblical Hebrew books, the Dead Sea Scrolls, Ben Sira, rabbinic literature, the Samaritan Pentateuch, and contemporary Aramaic and Syriac material. On the one hand, such instances of written-reading disharmony clearly entail a degree of anachronism in the vocalisation of Classical Biblical Hebrew compositions. On the other, since many of the innovative and secondary features in the Tiberian vocalisation tradition are typical of sources from the Second Temple Period and, in some cases, are documented as minority alternatives in even earlier material, the Masoretic reading tradition is justifiably characterised as a linguistic artefact of profound historical depth.
In Ancient Hebrew Periodization and the Language of the Book of Jeremiah, Aaron Hornkohl defends the diachronic approach to Biblical Hebrew and the linguistic dating of biblical texts. Applying the standard methodologies to the Masoretic version of the biblical book of Jeremiah, he seeks to date the work on the basis of its linguistic profile, determining that, though composite, Jeremiah is likely a product of the transitional time between the First and Second Temple Periods. Hornkohl also contributes to unraveling Jeremiah’s complicated literary development, arguing on the basis of language that its 'short edition', as reflected in the book’s Old Greek translation, predates that 'supplementary material' preserved in the Masoretic edition but unparalleled in the Greek. Nevertheless, he concludes that neither is written in Late Biblical Hebrew proper.
In Ancient Hebrew Periodization and the Language of the Book of Jeremiah, Aaron Hornkohl defends the diachronic approach to Biblical Hebrew and the linguistic dating of biblical texts. Applying the standard methodologies to the Masoretic version of the biblical book of Jeremiah, he seeks to date the work on the basis of its linguistic profile, determining that, though composite, Jeremiah is likely a product of the transitional time between the First and Second Temple Periods. Hornkohl also contributes to unraveling Jeremiah’s complicated literary development, arguing on the basis of language that its 'short edition', as reflected in the book’s Old Greek translation, predates that 'supplementary material' preserved in the Masoretic edition but unparalleled in the Greek. Nevertheless, he concludes that neither is written in Late Biblical Hebrew proper.
This volume explores an underappreciated feature of the standard Tiberian Masoretic tradition of Biblical Hebrew, namely its composite nature. Focusing on cases of dissonance between the tradition’s written (consonantal) and reading (vocalic) components, the study shows that the Tiberian spelling and pronunciation traditions, though related, interdependent, and largely in harmony, at numerous points reflect distinct oral realisations of the biblical text. Where the extant vocalisation differs from the apparently pre-exilic pronunciation presupposed by the written tradition, the former often exhibits conspicuous affinity with post-exilic linguistic conventions as seen in representative Second Temple material, such as the core Late Biblical Hebrew books, the Dead Sea Scrolls, Ben Sira, rabbinic literature, the Samaritan Pentateuch, and contemporary Aramaic and Syriac material. On the one hand, such instances of written-reading disharmony clearly entail a degree of anachronism in the vocalisation of Classical Biblical Hebrew compositions. On the other, since many of the innovative and secondary features in the Tiberian vocalisation tradition are typical of sources from the Second Temple Period and, in some cases, are documented as minority alternatives in even earlier material, the Masoretic reading tradition is justifiably characterised as a linguistic artefact of profound historical depth.
This will help us customize your experience to showcase the most relevant content to your age group
Please select from below
Login
Not registered?
Sign up
Already registered?
Success – Your message will goes here
We'd love to hear from you!
Thank you for visiting our website. Would you like to provide feedback on how we could improve your experience?
This site does not use any third party cookies with one exception — it uses cookies from Google to deliver its services and to analyze traffic.Learn More.