The Verb שָׁאַף in Biblical Hebrew

Biblical Hebrew lexicons unanimously present the basic meaning of the verb שׁאף as “pant, snuff.” Absent etymological evidence, however, the lexical value of the verb hangs on the contextual interpretation of three attestations where the verb has not undergone semantic expansion: Isa 42:14; Jer 2:24; 14:6. Fresh analysis of the philological evidence garners support for an alternate interpretation of שׁאף רוח in Jer 2:24; 14:6 as “bray, cry out” and suggests that ואשׁאף in Isa 42:14 constitutes an elliptical form of the phrase with the same meaning. This new semantic understanding in turn allows for a reanalysis of derived meanings, furnishing a revised understanding of the verb שׁאף.

Amen to daat: on the foundations of Jewish epistemology

I argue that the Hebrew Bible adopts a non-doxastic account of propositional faith. In coming to this conclusion, we shall discover that Biblical Hebrew has no word for belief. What ramifications might this have had for biblical and Jewish epistemology? I begin to trace the sort of epistemic norms that might emerge from an epistemology that approaches knowledge by thinking about faith, rather than belief.

Traditions of Translation in Hebrew Literature

The centrality of translation in the history of Hebrew literature cannot be overstated. Scholars of Hebrew translation history often attribute the fact that Hebrew writers have steadily relied on translation for enriching and sustaining the Hebrew literary canon to Hebrew’s long-standing existence in a state of diglossia or multiglossia: a condition in which a community habitually uses two or more languages or several forms of the same language for different purposes. Jewish communities from antiquity to the present have generally used Hebrew alongside other tongues, even after Hebrew’s reinvention as a modern vernacular, its so-called revival, in the 20th century. It is possible that Hebrew served as a vernacular in antiquity, but sufficient proof of this possibility has never surfaced. Nevertheless, in late-19th-century Eastern Europe, Jewish thinkers and lexicographers began promoting the idea of resuscitating Hebrew. They often articulated this goal through the metaphor and practice of translation, borrowing from European cultures the notion that every modern nation is defined by a shared vernacular, while also translating into Hebrew a cornucopia of texts—scientific, poetic, journalistic, and philosophical. This enabled those late-19th- and early-20th-century Jewish thinkers to enrich, expand, and test the limits of Hebrew in a modern context. If the modern Hebrew literary canon includes the Hebrew Bible, as many Hebrew writers and scholars believe, then it consists of the most frequently translated and widely circulated text in the world. Yet Biblical Hebrew differs from later formations of the language, and traditions of biblical translation in and outside the Jewish world call for separate bibliographies. The following bibliography focuses on central theoretical questions relating to traditions of translation in Hebrew literature, foregrounding the intensifying debates on Hebrew’s spiritual and national status from the 19th century onward. Translation has often served as a unique arena for such debates, acting as a vehicle for transforming Hebrew literature from within, while allowing for its venturing out. It has frequently allowed its practitioners to define the imaginary boundaries of Hebrew literature and delineate the contours of Hebrew culture as primarily Jewish-national.

The Development of Hebrew and the Book of Jeremiah

This chapter is a linguistic examination of the book of Jeremiah which contributes to understanding both the development of ancient Hebrew and the place of the book in that history. Since the inception of critical study of the Hebrew Bible, scholars have engaged in the linguistic periodization of its constituent texts. According to the regnant paradigm, Biblical Hebrew divides into pre-exilic Classical Biblical Hebrew (CBH) and post-exilic Late Biblical Hebrew (LBH). Scholars employ control samples and rigorous methods to identify linguistic features characteristic of particular chronolects and to periodize texts based on concentrations of characteristic features, all the while taking into account the “noise” caused by other sources of linguistic diversity, textual fluidity, and literary development. The present chapter focuses on linguistic diachrony and the book of Jeremiah. It examines where the book fits into the history of ancient Hebrew—arguing that it represents a transitional Hebrew between CBH and LBH; how diachronic sensitivity supports or contradicts theories concerning the book’s formation and development (including the theory of short and long versions and other notions of a composite text); and how the awareness of chronolects can contribute to the exegesis of interpretive cruxes.

‘Between’ constructions in Biblical Hebrew

Unlike its English counterpart between, the Biblical Hebrew (BH) preposition bên does not allow a conjoined object (between A and B), but it uses additional prepositions in two typologically unusual patterns: bên A wə-bên B ‘between A and-between B’ and bên A lə-B ‘between A to-B’. This article shows that these two patterns, and their equivalence with the English one, can be accounted for semantically, on the basis of the underlying filter behaviour of the ‘betweenness’ meaning.

Translating linguistic time

If Sartre is right and the tense of a text holds the key to its special strangeness (1947), how does this strangeness fare in translation? What can we learn from looking at the translation of grammatical tense and aspect in narrative texts in different languages? It is often simply assumed that translating grammatical cate gories of time in languages - because it has to do with what is considered the hard core of language, i.e. the grammar as opposed to the lexicon of the language - mainly involves mere linguistic constraints. Jakobson ’s famous motto (1987: 433) - “languages differ essentially in what they must convey and not in what they can convey”- would therefore suffice to tell the whole story about the way in which linguistic time is translated. This paper argues, however, that this is not the whole story: it argues that the choice of tense in translation is more than just a grammatical agenda, and may actually reflect a number of different commitments. Section 2 examines some intriguing tense changes in the translation of children ’s literature: it discusses the motivations behind these changes and shows that by changing the ‘how’ of the original story through the tense choice the entire subjective perspective of the text is altered. Section 3 identifies a few patterns in the translation of past distinctions in Modern Hebrew. It suggests that in contrast to the more diversified means of translating aspectual meanings in previous decades, a major trend in the last decade or so has been to reduce all past sphere distinctions essentially to one single form, i.e. the simple past tense. Finally section 4 deals with the classical problem regarding the Biblical Hebrew tenses and their translation; it shows that the translation of the biblical verbs may be strongly determined by the different linguistic ideas (and even systematic theories) the translators adopt regarding the Biblical Hebrew tenses. In all these cases then, we observe that the translation of temporal meanings involves not only a commitment to specific temporal interpretations but also a commitment to more subtle conceptions of subjectivity in translation, of literary conventions and linguistic ideas.