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.

c. Psalmic Poetry

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

g Prophetic Poetry

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

i) Genesis 2:18-24

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.

Box 9

Can Biblical Texts be Linguistically Dated?[4]

Regrettably the answer must be no[5]. For many years the careful research of Avi Hurvitz[6] seemed to indicate that pre-exilic CBH could be linguistically distinguished from the very similar post-exilic PCBH with the Hebrew of Jeremiah and Ezekiel falling between the two. However, recent scholarship (see Young 1993, Zevit 2004, Zevit 2005, Zevit 2006) has made it clear that what Hurvitz had taken as indicators of chronological change in the language could also have been caused by different degrees of openness to spoken dialects (of which we know almost nothing) and Aramaic forms[7], differences due to genre[8], preferences of different scribal circles, author's idiolect etc. etc.[9]

At the current state of play we can say the following;

· Probably CBH represents a literary dialect current in Jerusalem scribal and ruling circles in the late eighth to early sixth centuries BCE.[10] It was likely the literary register corresponding to the official governmental register - JEH. However, CBH continued to be written into the Persian period. In the pre-exilic period the normal formal speech used by these scribal and ruling circles may or may not have been substantially different from CBH. Nb. all pre-exilic CBH texts would have undergone orthographic modernization and an unknown amount of editing in the Persian period[11].

· Probably PCBH represents a literary dialect current in Jerusalem scribal circles in the Persian period. During this period the spoken languages would have been proto-Mishnaic Hebrew and/or Aramaic and the administrative language was Imperial Aramaic. Both CBH and PCBH would have been so distant from proto-Mishnaic spoken Hebrew that they would have had to be learned virtually as another language form.

· Probably ABH represents a poetic literary register, including stock archaic forms, used for poetry set in the remote past by scribes who would normally write CBH or even PCBH[12].

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 10^th century CE)

Box 10

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.
When a language exists only in written form, the audible sounds that the language contains are not readily apparent. Without the testimony of a native speaker, it may be difficult to match the written sign with specific phones. Discovering the sounds native to a written language, then, is indirect. The internal sound patterns of the language, external transcriptions in other languages and scripts, and notices about speech behaviour recorded by contemporary witnesses can compensate for the lack of direct phonetic data. From these sources, the phonetic base oa a written language may be recovered [13].

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 BH_Qum, BH_Pal, and BH_Gk-La_t)[14].

Tiberian Masoretic Text (MT) has in general satisfactorily preserved the consonantal system of pre-exilic Hebrew. However, it is clear that the vocalization of the MT differs systemically in many ways from the pronunciation of EBHP of over a millennium earlier. These systemic differences, many of which were influenced by Aramaic, can often be identified through comparative grammar. Among the most important changes, mainly phonetic, which can be detected in Hebrew after 600 BCE, are the following. As you will note, some of these changes had already begun to take place before the exile^{^[15]}.

a) The process whereby the place of stress replaced vowel and consonant length as phonemic went to completion[16]. 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[17]. E.g.

*/lạhasˈsuːs/ > /lasˈsuːs/ לסוס <lsws> “for the horse”[18];

*/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”[19]

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.[20]

f) 'Segolation'[21]

g) Philippi's law

h) Law of attenuation

i) Spirantization of the bgdkpt Consonants

j) Neutralization of velar and pharyngeal phonemes (/ḫ/>/ḥ/, /ġ/>/^c/)[22] . 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/⁺) > /ˈ^cad/ /TH/⁺

Ø חלשׁ <ḥlš>. Two distinct roots are found in EBHP which merge when /ḫ/>/ḥ/

§ √ḥlš '"to be weak"

§ *√ḫlš '"to defeat"

k) Pretonic vowel lengthening

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. */yimˈ^caṭuː/ → Tiberian /yim^căˈṭu/ (/TH/⁺) יִמְעֲטוּ)

m) Weakening of the pharyngeal and laryngeal consonants[23] which resulted in:

Ø The loss of the ability of these consonants to geminate[24] which in turn often caused a lengthening of the preceding vowel^{^[25]}. 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.) */šōˈmeː^c/ (/EBHP/⁺) →
/šoˈmẹa^c/[26] *[ ʃoːˈmẹːɐ^c] (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.) */šōˈma^ct/ (/EBHP/⁺) →
/šoˈma.a^ct/ *[ʃoːˈmɐː.ɐ^cθ] (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 */yi^cˈlê/ ; hiphil */ya^cˈlê/.

3. Guidelines I Have Used in Reconstructing the EBHP Vocalization of the First Temple Period Hebrew

(1) Syllables

a. Syllabic Structure [27]

Every syllable in EBHP had one of the following patterns[28] which are similar to some varieties of spoken Arabic[29]:

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 */yimˈ^caṭū/ > /yim^căˈṭu/ [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

Numerals in Pre-Exilic Hebrew

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[30]) 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[31] - adverbs (including negatives), prepositions, conjunctions etc.)[32] 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)

TH	/EBHP/^{^[33]} [EBHP]^{^[34]}	Meaning
אֶל־	/ʾil/ [ʔɛl-]	to
אַל־	/ʾal/ [ʔɐl-]	don’t
אִם־	/ʾim/ [ʔɪm-]	if
אֶת־	/ʾat/ or /ʾit/[35] either possibly pronounced [ʔɛt-]	(sign of direct object of verb)
כָּל־	/kul(l)/ [kʊll-]	all of
מִן־	/min/ [mɪn-]	from
עַד־	/^cad/ [ʕɐd-]	up to
עַל־	/^cal/ [ʕɐl-]	upon
פֶּן־	/pan/ or /pin/ either possibly pronounced [pɛn-]	lest </