Linguistic Analysis of Biblical Hebrew (review)

Hebrew Studies 45 (2004) 292 Reviews similar set of differences distinguishes these two strata, in both of these languages, on the lexical level as well. Dennis Pardee University of Chicago Chicago IL 60637 d-pardee@uchicago.edu LINGUISTIC ANALYSIS OF BIBLICAL HEBREW. By Susan Anne Groom. Pp. xxvi + 207. Waynesboro, Ga.: Paternoster Press, 2003. Paper, $29.99. This book aims at presenting linguistic theories and methods used for the analysis of Biblical Hebrew. An introduction deals with (1) the basic hermeneutical model and (2) linguistic theories and Classical Hebrew data (pp. xvii–xxvi). It is followed by three main parts. The first deals with preliminary issues of data, the Masoretic text, and the nature of Biblical Hebrew (pp. 3–42). The second part concerns form and meaning, and includes surveys of comparative philology and ancient versions of the Bible, namely, the Septuagint , the Targums (i.e., Aramaic versions), the Peshitta, and the Latin translations (pp. 45–100). The third part treats modern linguistic methods and concentrates on lexical semantics and text linguistics (pp. 103–160). A short review of the principal ideas of part one is offered at its end (p. 42), but no reviews are given at the ends of parts two and three. A general conclusion is presented on pp. 161–173, and a detailed bibliography on pp. 177–207. The following are more specific remarks regarding various topics discussed in the book. The first chapter of the first part examines the boundaries of the corpus of Classical Hebrew according to several scholars, and questions whether it should include only the Hebrew of the Bible or whether it should contain any of the Hebrew of biblical inscriptions, the language of Ben Sira, Qumran, and early stages of Mishnaic Hebrew as well. The author concludes that the term Classical Hebrew should apply to all Hebrew prior to 200 C.E. (pp. 3–5). From the difference between the author’s definition of Classical Hebrew and the title and contents of the book, which refer to Biblical Hebrew, one learns that the book itself is restricted to the language of the Bible, but this is not explicitly stated. Moreover, the author’s proposal to include under Classical Hebrew all Hebrew forms employed until 200 C.E. including the Dead Sea Scrolls and Mishnaic Hebrew, of whose diversity the author is aware (pp. 5, 15), is controversial. Discrepancies between title and following contents appear elsewhere in the book, as well as in its general title. A potential reader might expect that a Hebrew Studies 45 (2004) 293 Reviews book entitled Linguistic Analysis of Biblical Hebrew will mostly deal with language data and its analysis. In fact, he or she will mainly find a general introduction to the study of textual criticism of the Bible, external sources for the study of Biblical Hebrew, and certain linguistic theories employed in Biblical Hebrew research regarding limited linguistic issues. The book presents the boundaries of the corpus, editions and editorial questions, language variation, comparative philology approaches, Bible translations, etc. (pp. 3–100), and only in the third and last part does it engage in a treatment of linguistic issues. This too is notably deficient. It discusses lexical semantics and text linguistics (pp. 103–160), while other major linguistic areas of research, such as phonology , morphology, and syntax, which have enjoyed much progress in recent decades and whose study began in early medieval times, are not discussed in this section at all. Another instance of a somewhat misleading title is that of part one, chapter 3 (pp. 28–41), “The Nature of Biblical Hebrew.” While one might expect to find under such a title a short survey of linguistic issues, the chapter actually deals with language variation, that is, diglossia, diachronic variation, dialect variation, and dialect geography. Regarding the discussion of the Masoretic text, it would have been useful to mention that the variation of vowel employment revealed in the spelling of Biblical Hebrew (discussed on pp. 22–23) derived from a decision to preserve the holy text without any alteration, while the process of admitting vowels into the spelling had not yet been completed. The author also mentions (pp. 22–23) that the inconsistency of...