12 December 2011
Biblical
Hebrew Poetry
and Word Play
Reconstructing the Original Oral, Aural and Visual
Experience
By David
Steinberg
David.Steinberg@houseofdavid.ca
Home page http://www.houseofdavid.ca/
VI Reconstruction
of Pre-Exilic Biblical Hebrew (EBHP)
1.
Aims in Reconstructing EBHP
Box 9 - Can Biblical Texts be Linguistically Dated?
2. Changes in the Pronunciation Tradition of Biblical
Hebrew Between EBHP and that Recorded in the Tiberian Masoretic Tradition
(early 10th century CE)
Box 10 - Justification of
Proposals for EBHP
3.
Guidelines I Have Used
in Reconstructing EBHP
4.
Examples of
the EBHP Vocalization of Biblical Hebrew Texts
a. Archaic or Archaizing Poetic Texts
i)
Blessing of
Jacob (Genesis 49:1-27)
ii)
Song of the
Sea (Exodus 15:1b-18)
iii)
The Oracles of
Balaam (poetic portions of Numbers 23:7-24:24)
iv)
Haʾazinu (Deuteronomy
32:1-43)
v)
Blessing of
Moses (Deuteronomy 33)
vi)
Song of Deborah
(Judges 5)
b.
Various
Short Poems: Genesis 2:23; Genesis 3:14-19; Genesis 4:6-7; Genesis 4:23b-24;
Genesis 8:22; Genesis 9:6; Genesis 9:25-27; Genesis 12:2-3; Genesis 14:19-20;
Genesis 16:10-12; Genesis 24:60; Genesis 25:23; Genesis 27:28-29; Genesis
27:39-40; Genesis 35:10-12; Genesis 48:15-16; Genesis 48:20; Exodus 32:18;
Numbers 6:24-26; Numbers 10:35-36; Numbers 12:6b-8a; Numbers 21:14,15,17-18;
Numbers 21:27-30; Joshua 10:12-13 (poetic portion); Judges 9:8-15; Judges
14:14, 18; Judges 15:16 (poetic portion); Judges 16:23-24 (poetic portion); 1
Samuel 15:22b-23; 1 Samuel 18:7 (poetic portion); 2 Samuel 3:33-34 (poetic
portions); 2 Samuel 20:1 (poetic portion); 1 Kings 8:12-13; 1 Kings 12:16
(poetic portion); 2 Kings 19:21b-28; 2 Kings 19:31; 2 Kings 19:32b-34.
i)
II Samuel
Chapt. 22 (Second version Psalm 18) -
ii)
Psalm 23
iii)
Psalm 114
iv)
Psalm 121
v)
Psalm 122
vi)
Psalm 130
d. Lamentations
i) Lament of
David (II Samuel 1:19-27)
ii) Lamentations 3:1-15 ("Qinah meter")
e. Poetry of Song of Songs - Song 2:1-17
f. Poetry of Job - Job 3:3-10
i)
Jer. 1: 11-12;
Jer. 1: 18-19; Jer. 19:14-15; Zeph. 3:1-2; Deut
15:1,4
ii) Amos 3:3-6;
3:8; 5:5-7; 5:10-12; 5:16b-17; 6:12; 8:7-10;
9:5-6; 9:13
h.
Prose Texts
ii) Genesis
4:1-3; Genesis 13:4-14; Joshua 7:1-3
iii)
Siloam
Inscription
VI Reconstruction of EBHP
1. Introduction
It goes without saying that the pronunciation of pre-exilic Biblical Hebrew (c. 1000-600 BCE) varied with "...socio-economic
class, professional standing, degree and type of education, religious
affiliation, ethnic origin, generation, and even sex."[1] We should aim at recovering, as closely as possible,
the pronunciation that a scribe in Jerusalem 700-600 BCE would have used in
reading poetry to upper class Judeans or members of the king’s court ([EBHP]). For poems of northern origin this might have included
some features of northern pronunciation which would share some of the phonetic features of Phoenician and Aramaic such as the
contraction of diphthongs. The clearest example of such a poem is
the Song of Deborah.
Scribes
trained in Jerusalem 700-600 BCE were likely the authors of the bulk of surviving JEH e.g. Siloam Inscription, Lachish
ostraca, Arad ostraca etc. The same
circles were likely the composers and/or transmitters of most of the pre-exilic
biblical texts. JEH documents have been preserved in their original language
and orthography and, within limits, can serve as
a guide to pronunciation. Except for archaisms used in poetry, the pre-exilic
biblical texts would very likely have conformed to the norms of JEH.
I aim to do the following listed in rough order of importance:
(1) Distinguish the consonantal and vowel phonemes and indicate their likely pronunciation. This will
require, among other things, differentiating between:
Ø long (geminated)[2] and short consonants;
Ø different
qualities of vowels with
emphasis on qualitative differences that are phonemic; and,
Ø between
diphthongs, long vowels (phonological
or phonetic[3]), short
vowels and the absence of vowels.
(2)
Establish the number of syllables and their boundaries and syllable length; and,
(3) Establish the syllable carrying the word stress (primary or secondary).
This
will require an understanding of:
i)
Pronunciation – the main differences between:
Ø the probable phonology and
use of vowel letters
of Biblical Hebrew at time of writing;
Ø the pronunciation tradition embodied
in the Tiberian vocalization;
and,
Ø Hebrew as it is pronounced
in modern Israel.
ii)
Script and Orthography:
Ø the
appearance of the text in different historical periods and the latitude this
provided for mistakenly replacing one letter by another; and,
Ø
the development of
orthography and its impact on the range of meanings and pronunciations that
could be attributed to the original consonantal skeleton.
Can Biblical
Texts be Linguistically Dated?[4]
After
almost three centuries of modern study of the Hebrew Bible, it is clear that
internal analysis of the text cannot convincingly disclose the periods of
composition of the components that were finally redacted into the text that
has come down to us. For this reason, the dating of textual units on
objective linguistic grounds, if it can be shown to be feasible, would prove
invaluable to the study of the Hebrew Bible and Israelite/Jewish history. For
decades, Biblical Hebrew texts have been roughly divided into three
chronological strata based on linguistic criteria – Archaic Biblical Hebrew
(c. late second to early first millennia BCE), Classical or Early Biblical
Hebrew (c. ninth to early sixth century BCE), and Late Biblical Hebrew (c.
after the sixth century BCE). The most
important research supporting this structure was done by Avi Hurvitz[5].
In
the last decade this structure has been attacked by a number of scholars who
maintain that the dating of Biblical Hebrew texts on the basis of language is
effectively impossible. The most important books making this case are -
Linguistic Dating of Biblical Texts by Ian Young, Robert Rezetko and Martin
Ehrensvärd and Dating Archaic Biblical Hebrew Poetry: A Critique of the
Linguistic Arguments by Robyn C. Vern. In
my view, the essays in Diachrony in Biblical Hebrew (Diachrony in Biblical
Hebrew (ed. Miller-Naudé and Zevit) successfully
answer the arguments of Young et al showing that it is indeed probable that
the observable linguistic differences between Classical and Late Biblical
Hebrew are due to their date of composition. On the other hand, despite a
hyper-critical review by Pat-El and Wilson-Wright (Features of Archaic
Biblical Hebrew and the Linguistic Dating Debate), it is quite possible that
the conclusion of Vern (quoted below) will be sustained - No
archaic linguistic feature, either singly or in combination across the range
of forms, provides evidence relevant for dating the archaic poetry of the
Hebrew Bible…. The presence of archaisms in the Archaic Biblical Hebrew
corpus indicates a poetic style which uses linguistic forms from another
period, a common feature of poetry in many cultures. The
ABH poetic corpus is typologically more representative of first millennium
sources than second millennium sources. This does not imply that an individual
poem cannot be of late second millennium provenance. Up until perhaps 15
years ago it was routinely stated that Biblical Hebrew could be roughly
divide into three chronological levels – Archaic Poetic (late second to early
first millennium BCE), Classical/Early (10th – 6th c
BCE) and Late (after 6th c BCE) . It is now clear that much additional work
must be done before the usefulness of language analysis in dating biblical
passages can be reassessed. This is well described in the last paragraphs of Zevit 2004. |
2. Changes in the Pronunciation Tradition of Biblical Hebrew
Between EBHP and that Recorded in the Tiberian Masoretic Tradition (early 10th
century CE)
Justification
of Proposals for Early Biblical Hebrew Pronunciation
A written
language has no sounds. It does not speak, in a conventional sense, but
communicates non-verbally. Language is abstracted into a series of signs that
themselves relate information. In writing, language becomes a series of
signs. If we
assume that the Tiberian Masoretes simply encoded a
traditional pronunciation, it is reasonable to insist that any proposals
regarding the grammar and pronunciation of EBHP and JEH
must be supported by a reconstruction of how the
form could have developed into the attested TH given our
understanding of the linguistic changes that took place between EBHP/JEH andTH. (Of course, the same requirement separately
exists for BHQum, BHPal, and BHGk-Lat)[7]. |
a) The process whereby the place
of stress replaced
vowel and consonant length as phonemic went
to completion[9]. The
Tiberian vocalization system (/TH/+) marked:
Ø all
the phonemes in their reading tradition;
Ø such
allophones (eg. פ = p [f] and gemination) as
were required for “correct” reading of the biblical text according to the
Tiberian reading tradition.
The Tiberian system did not explicitly mark vowel length - see Were there Long and Short
Vowels in Tiberian
Hebrew (TH)?
b) Disappearance of intervocalic
/h/.
Ø This had been well advanced in the pre-exilic period[10]. E.g.
*/lạhasˈsuːs/
> /lasˈsuːs/ לסוס <lsws> “for the horse”[11];
*/yahašˈmiːd/
or */yəhašˈmiːd/
> /yašˈmiːd/ ישׁמיד <yšmys> "he
will destroy".
Ø In
a few cases it is unknown when the intervocalic /h/ disappeared.
The most important case is that of the third person
masculine pronominal suffix.
Ø In
the post-exilic period this went further – e.g. /lahašˈmiːd/
(/EBHP/); /ləhašˈmid/
(/TH/+);
/lašˈmiːd/ לשׁמיד <lhšmyd>
(MH
) “to
destroy”[12]
c) Elision of
syllable-or word-final
glottal stop (/’/[ʔ])
and /y/ – usually with a lengthening of the preceding vowel
d)
<שׂ> /ś/ [ɬ] > <שׂ, ס> /s/ [s] this commenced before the
finalization of the consonantal text of the Hebrew Bible as is shown by a
number of cases where original שׂ ś is
written ס s. E.g.
ספק =
שׂפק = “to be sufficient etc.”.
e) The insertion
of a short
vowel into non word-final
diphthongs
e.g. בית */ˈbayt/
(/EBHP/) → בַּיִת /ˈbayit/
(/TH/+); מות /ˈmawt/
(/EBHP/) → /ˈmåwɛt/
[ˈmɔːwɛθ] (TH) מָוֶת.[13]
i) Spirantization of the bgdkpt Consonants
j) Neutralization of velar and pharyngeal phonemes (/ḫ/>/ḥ/, /ġ/>/c/)[15] . This
resulted in the elimination of the phonemic distinction between some words. (See Lexicon of Unmarked Consonantal Phonemes in Biblical Hebrew /ġ/[ɣ] AND Lexicon of Unmarked Consonantal Phonemes in Biblical Hebrew /ḫ/ [x])
E.gs.
Ø עד = “as far as” - */cad/ (/EBHP/) > /cad/
(/TH/+)
Ø עד = “permanently, forever” - */ˈġad/ (/EBHP/+) > /ˈcad/
/TH/+
Ø חלשׁ <ḥlš>.
Two distinct roots are found in EBHP which
merge when /ḫ/>/ḥ/
§
√ḥlš
'"to be weak"
§
*√ḫlš '"to defeat"
l) Reduction of
certain vowels to shewa (*/yidˈrušū/
(/EBHP/+) → /yidrәˈšu/ (/TH/+) *[yiðrəˈʃuː] ([TH]) יִדְרְשׁוּ “they sought etc.”) or, in
the environment of a laryngeal consonant, to another ultra-short vowel
(e.g. */yimˈcaṭuː/ →
Tiberian /yimcăˈṭu/ (/TH/+)
יִמְעֲטוּ)
m)
Weakening of the pharyngeal
and laryngeal
consonants[16]
which resulted in:
Ø The
loss of the ability of these consonants to geminate[17]
which in turn often caused a lengthening of the preceding vowel[18].
E.g. ברך = “he was blessed” */burˈrak/
(/EBHP/)
→
/boˈrak/ (/TH/+) *[boːˈrɐːx] ([TH]).
Ø Vowel
changes before gutturals (laryngeals)E.gs.
·
שמע “hearer,
hears” (ms. qal a.p.)
*/šōˈmeːc/
(/EBHP/+)
→
/šoˈmẹac/[19]
*[
ʃoːˈmẹːɐc] (TH).
Cf. to the parallel forms in a root
identical except that it does not have a guttural - שמע = “hearer, hears” (ms. qal ap.)
*/šōˈmeːr/
(/EBHP/+)
→
/šomẹr/ *[ʃoːmẹːr] (TH).
·
שמעת “hearer,
hears” (fs. qal ap.) */šōˈmact/
(/EBHP/+)
→
/šoˈma.act/ *[ʃoːˈmɐː.ɐcθ] (TH).
Cf. to the parallel forms in a root identical except that it does not have a
guttural - שמר “guard,
guarding” (ms. qal ap.)
*/šōˈmart/
(/EBHP/+)
→
/šoˈmɛrɛt/
*[
ʃoːˈmɛːrɛθ] (TH).
·
At times
these changes eliminate important distinctions maintained in pre-exilic Hebrew
- e.g. TH qal and hiphil PC 3ms.
is יַעֲלֶה while the EBHP would have been - qal */yicˈlê/ ; hiphil */yacˈlê/.
3. Guidelines
I Have Used in Reconstructing the EBHP Vocalization of the First
Temple Period Hebrew
(1) Syllables
a.
Syllabic Structure [20]
Every syllable in EBHP had one of the
following patterns[21] which are similar to some varieties
of spoken Arabic[22]:
Ø CV = consonant – short vowel e.g. */lạ/
"to, for" TH
/lə/לְ ;
Ø CVV = consonant – long vowel e.g. /šō/, the first syllable of TH שׁוֹמֵר
(*/šōˈmeːr/ (/EBHP/+) );
Ø CVC = consonant – short vowel –
consonant e.g. /yim/ in יִמְעֲטוּ
pre-exilic */yimˈcaṭū/ > /yimcăˈṭu/ [yimʕăˈtˁuː] (TH);
Ø CVVC = consonant – long vowel OR diphthong – consonant e.g. (/EBHP/+)
/ˈsūs/ "horse"; */ˈbayt/ "house"
Ø CVCC = consonant – short vowel –
consonant – consonant e.g.
*/ˈmalk/ (/EBHP/) > /ˈmɛˈlɛk/ [ˈmɛːˈlɛx] (TH). (In TH these mostly developed later into segolates (see http://www.houseofdavid.ca/problem5.pdf) though some final consonantal
clusters remain e.g.
וַˈיֵּבְךְ
).
From
the point of view of syllable length
these can be divided into 3 quantities;
Ø Short Syllables - i.e. CV = consonant – short
vowel;
Ø Medium Length Syllables - i.e. CVV = consonant – long
vowel OR diphthong; or CVC
= consonant – short vowel – consonant;
Ø Long Syllables - i.e. CVVC = consonant – long
vowel – consonant; or CVCC
= consonant – short vowel – consonant – consonant .
Words Significantly
Different in Pronunciation
in EBHP
c.
Background
to Syllabic Stress - (See excursus Evolution
of Pronunciation and Stress Patterns )
d.
Marking
of Syllabic
Stress
Ø I will assume that primary word stress
in BH was limited to: (a) verbs and,
(b) nouns (substantives, adjectives, numbers, and
pronouns[23]) in the absolute
case. In the transcriptions, the syllable carrying primary word stress are generally
in bold with the IPA symbol ˈ preceding the primary
stressed syllable;
Ø
All
other words (nouns in the construct case and particles[24] - adverbs
(including negatives), prepositions, conjunctions etc.)[25] other than mmonosyllabic
prepositions and conjunctions (see below) are assumed to carry a secondary
stress which I indicate by the IPA symbol ˌ preceding the syllable carrying
the secondary
stress;
Ø
Mono-syllabic
prepositions and
conjunctions, almost always connected to the following word in the MT by a maqqeph/makef
(מקף) clearly stand midway between
inseparable prepositions, which are never stressed, and ordinary nouns in the
construct (See Gesenius Hebrew Grammar 16.1) which carry secondary
stress. I have assumed that the following, except
when they have become independent forms by being combined with prefixes
(other than wa- ), carry no stress. In the transcriptions I have
replaced the makef by a hyphen.
Table 10
Mono-syllabic Prepositions and Conjunctions Usually Linked to the Following Word in the MT by a maqqeph/makef (מקף)
Meaning |
||
אֶל־ |
/ʾil/ [ʔɛl-] |
to |
אַל־ |
/ʾal/ [ʔɐl-] |
don’t |
אִם־ |
/ʾim/ [ʔɪm-] |
if |
אֶת־ |
/ʾat/ or /ʾit/[28] either
possibly pronounced [ʔɛt-] |
(sign of direct object of verb) |
כָּל־ |
all of |
|
מִן־ |
/min/
[mɪn-] |
from |
עַד־ |
/cad/ [ʕɐd-] |
up to |
עַל־ |
/cal/ [ʕɐl-] |
upon |
פֶּן־ |
/pan/
or /pin/ either possibly pronounced [pɛn-] |
lest |
(2)
Phones and Phonemes (see excursus Phonemic
Structure of Pre-Exilic, Tiberian and Israeli Hebrew Contrasted; box Phones and Phonemes)
It
must be always remembered that:
·
phonemic reconstructions, in our case /EBHP/,
show the functional structure of the language's sound system while phonetic
reconstructions, in our case [EBHP], attempt to represent how it may have sounded;
·
the reconstruction of [EBHP] must
be largely based on Tiberian pointing,
which is mainly phonemic[29],
the consonantal (PMT) text, which is phonemic and
comparative Semitic linguistics. This necessitates the reconstruction of /EBHP/
which then serves as the base for the reconstruction of [EBHP];
·
phonemic reconstructions
will always be more certain than phonetic
reconstructions. In our case [EBHP] represents
one, out of many, possible reconstructions of how /EBHP/ may have sounded.
The most important guide in delineating the range of phonetic variation
associated with the vowel phonemes are their ranges of values in modern
varieties of Arabic (see Aramaic and Arabic as Guides to
Reconstructing EBHP ).
a.
Consonants
i. Table - Consonantal Phonemes in Biblical,
Tiberian Masoretic and Israeli Hebrew