14 This brief sketch has highlighted only the most rudimentary concepts which underlie the
analysis implemented in the present study: 1 Descriptive, with a conceptual basis shaped by Tagmemics
2 Functional in its commitment to the study of language use in context; and 3 Cognitive in its attention to the interpretive processes involved in
understanding communication.
2.3 Historical Overview of the Study of Biblical Hebrew
The approach one has to the study of language in general will directly impact analysis of a language like biblical Hebrew and, consequently, the basic framework
employed for the analysis of biblical Hebrew will directly impact the description of .
This may seem patently obvious, but it is crucial to recognize two guiding principles that are derived from the preceding statement: 1 the basic theoretical linguistic mindset of an
era of scholarship shapes the analysis and description of language carried out during that era, and 2 the analysis from a particular era of scholarship cannot be expected to reflect
the theoretical linguistic mindset of a later era of scholarship. This does not mean that the mere publication of a new analytical concept immediately shapes all research in the
field, but characteristic contours and transition points are recognizable as one reviews the development of linguistic methodology. Certain “paradigm shifts” in the Kuhnian sense
Kuhn 1996 are also seen; for example, the rise of the Descriptive Linguistic approach in American Linguistics and the more recent shift toward models of language use in
response to the theoretical restrictions imposed by Chomskyan sentence grammar. The study of biblical Hebrew has typically been somewhat removed from the main currents of
15 modern Linguistics, but the analytical trends and approaches eventually find their way
into the methodologies employed by biblical Hebrew scholars. Also, it is common for vestiges of previous eras to be found in the research of a later era, especially in the period
of time prior to the more complete “paradigm shift.” It is important to recognize that the early publications on biblical Hebrew
represent an early formative period of grammatical studies. This does not invalidate the insights found in these publications, but rather is a reminder that the awareness of explicit
grammatical elements of biblical Hebrew has a long history. Khan, in his contribution to the volume Hebrew Study from Ezra to Ben-Yehuda, makes the following pertinent
comment: It can be said … that grammatical elements are found in the early
masoretic tradition, which may go back as far as the Talmudic period. It is important to notice, however, that the existence of these elements of
grammatical thought should not lead us to define the general activity of the Masoretes of this period as ‘grammar’. The main purpose of their work
was still to preserve the text of Scripture rather than investigate the rules of the language of Scripture. The use of grammatical categories was
ancillary to this purpose. Khan 1999, 193
Just as one can trace linguistic concepts like word classes back to the writings of Aristotle, there is a long history of reflection on Hebrew. What one finds in later periods,
however, is a more conscious implementation of specific methods of analysis and inquiry. Waltke and O’Connor’s helpful chapter on the History of the Study of Hebrew
Grammar, discusses two periods of Hebrew study during which there was an ever- increasing development of the grammatical analysis of Hebrew:
1 Medieval Jewish Studies 11
th
to 16
th
centuries
16 2 Christian Hebrew Studies 16
th
to mid-18
th
centuries Waltke and O’Connor 1990, 31-43
The period of Medieval Jewish Studies has been referred to as “the creative period” during which many issues of Hebrew morphology and grammar were debated
and refined. Scholars from this period typically drew upon knowledge of Arabic to help describe areas of Hebrew grammar Tene 1971, 1358.
The ad fontes drive of the Enlightenment gave rise to a new interest in the classical languages, resulting in increased interest among humanists in the study of
Hebrew. Reuchlin is representative of this era, whose 1506 publication, Rudimenta linguae hebraicae 1506, is representative of the shift, not only from Jewish to Christian
scholars, but also from Arabic to Latin as the language by which Hebrew was evaluated. Reuchlin’s work, as well as the work of subsequent scholars, sets the stage for the
publication of the traditional grammars of biblical Hebrew, of which reprinted and re- edited versions are still in use today. It is no accident that the study of biblical Hebrew in
the 18
th
and 19
th
centuries is characterized by the same kind of diachronic, developmental conceptions that were typical of the study of language in general. As intellectual trends
shifted, so also did the conceptual basis for the study of Hebrew. Subsequent to the periods discussed by Waltke and O’Connor, the more recent
study of biblical Hebrew could be divided into three broad eras:
17
Traditional Descriptive
Textlinguistic
1
Blau Davidson
GKC Joüon-Muraoka
Kimhi Weingreen
Andersen Garrett
Kelley Lambdin
Pratico and Van Pelt Ross
Seow Waltke and O’Connor
Buth Long
Longacre Putnam
Richter Schneider
Talstra van der Merwe
Figure 1: Eras of Hebrew Study
The basic characteristics of these three models are as follows:
2
1.
Traditional: this approach is characterized by a diachronic model of
description and classification that evaluates the language under consideration on the basis of some other language such as Latin.
2.
Descriptive: this is a model in which the primary concern is the synchronic
description of the language under consideration on the basis of its own grammatical system, without the typical evaluative framework common in the
Traditional approach. 3.
Textlinguistic: the primary concept in this model is the focus on how
language is used in its various communicative contexts.
1
These refer to the authors of published grammars and monographs, which are representative of the field in general. Other important monographs are not included in this list
because they do not deal with areas of analysis pertinent to the current study of .
2
One approach to Hebrew studies that is not explicitly mentioned here is the Comparative-Historical method which focuses on the reconstruction of earlier stages of the
Semitic languages. The main period of use of Comparative-Historical methods in biblical Hebrew coincides with the Traditional and Descriptive eras described here, and definite influences and
perspectives are currently operative. A Textlinguistic approach does not necessarily conflict with the principles or findings of comparative Semitics, but the synchronic focus characteristic of
Textlinguistic approaches would see Comparative-Historical considerations as part of the process by which the language used in the text came into being. Once the text has been produced, the
diachronic processes are no longer in the purview of the analyst whose focus is on the final form of the text.
18 The boundaries between these models are fuzzy in the sense that there is a
continuity and overlap of research that links them to each other. The shift from the Traditional model to the Descriptive did not discard all previous research and start over;
in similar fashion, the Textlinguistic model does not ignore previous analysis, but rather grows out of it. But the very nature of scientific revolutions is such that a shift in
paradigm implies that certain elements and perspectives from previous eras will not necessarily be carried over. One of the motivations for paradigm shifts is an increasing
dissatisfaction with the prevailing model of research, which eventually leads to a major shift.
The current state of affairs in the study of biblical Hebrew finds most scholars employing the Descriptive approach, with strong conceptual connections to the
Traditional era. There are a number of scholars who employ textlinguistic insights or terminology, but the core conceptual framework of their research is still within the
Descriptive model. An increasing number of scholars work within the Textlinguistic approach, but a complete paradigm shift has not yet happened for the field of biblical
Hebrew studies in general. It is time, however, to declare an end to the period of “infancy” referred to by
Waltke and O’Connor 1990, 55. The flood of recent publications is indicative of the maturing status of Textlinguistic or discourse studies of biblical Hebrew.
19
CHAPTER 3
SURVEY OF SCHOLARSHIP ON
3.1 Introduction
