• Jared S. Klein




Rezetko and Young’s Historical linguistics and Biblical Hebrew: steps toward an integrated approach brings variation analysis to bear on the question of the periodisation of Biblical Hebrew. However, this methodology is at best microdiachronic, dealing with variation in synchronic terms. In order to answer the question they pose, a language with a history as long as Biblical Hebrew requires macrodiachronic techniques which look at real linguistic processes. Several such processes are discussed in this paper, and though they collectively converge in pointing to a late date for Qoheleth, they are insufficient to establish a linguistically-based entity “Late Biblical Hebrewâ€. At the present time, one can at best apply this term in a non-linguistic sense to the Hebrew of those books known on extra-linguistic grounds to have been chronologically late.


Metrics Loading ...


Anttila, R 1972. An introduction to historical and comparative linguistics. New York: MacMillan.

Arnold, E V 1905. Vedic metre in its historical development. Cambridge: University Press. Fassberg, S E and Hurvitz, A (eds) 2006. Biblical Hebrew in its Northwest Semitic setting: typological and historical perspectives. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns.

Hoffmann, K and Forssman, B 2004. Avestische Laut- und Flexionslehre. 2., durchgesehene und erweiterte Auflage. Innsbruck: Institut für Sprachen und Literaturen der Universität.

Holmstedt, R D 2012. Historical linguistics and Biblical Hebrew, in Miller-Naudé and Zevit 2012:97–124. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/9781575066837-008

Huehnergard, J 2006. On the etymology of the Hebrew relative šɛ-, in Fassberg and Hurvitz 2006:103–125.

Joos, M 1961. The five clocks. A linguistic excursion into the five styles of English usage. New York: Harcourt Brace & World, Inc..

Kirk, G S 1960. Objective dating criteria in Homer, Museum Helveticum 17:189–205.

Klein, J S 1978. The particle u in the Rigveda. A synchronic and diachronic study. (Ergänzungshefte zur Zeitschrift für vergleichende Sprachforschung, 27.) Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht.

_______ 1988. Homeric Greek aũ: A synchronic, diachronic, and comparative study, Historische Sprachforschung 101:249–288.

_______ 1996. On personal deixis in Classical Armenian. A study of the syntax and semantics of the n-, s- and d- demonstratives in manuscripts E and M of the Old Armenian

Gospels. (Münchener Studien zur Sprachwissenschaft, Beiheft 17, Neue Folge). Dettelbach: Röll.

_______ 1999. Theory vs practice in diachronic linguistics. Review of Roger Lass, 1997. “Historical linguistics and language changeâ€, Language Sciences 21:87–104.

Klein, J S and Condon, N L 1993. Gothic -(u)h: a synchronic and comparative study, Transactions of the Philological Society 91:1–62. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-968X.1993.tb01064.x

Kouwenberg, N J C 2012. Diachrony in Akkadian and the dating of literary texts, in MillerNaudé and Zevit 2012:433–451. DOI: https://doi.org/10.5325/j.ctv18r6r7n.26

Miller-Naudé, C and Zevit, Z (eds.) 2012. Diachrony in Biblical Hebrew. (Linguistic Studies in Ancient West Semitic, 8.) Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbauns. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/9781575066837

Pat-El, N 2012. Syntactic Aramaisms as a tool for the internal chronology of Biblical Hebrew, in Miller-Naudé and Zevit 2012:245–263. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/9781575066837-015

Rezetko, R and Young, I 2014. Historical linguistics & Biblical Hebrew. Steps toward an integrated approach. (Ancient Near East Monographs, 9.) Atlanta: SBL Press. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2307/j.ctt14bs6gc

Sapir, E 1921. Language. New York: Harcourt, Brace & World, Inc.

Tichy, E 2010. Alter als der Hexameter? Schiffskatalog, Troerkatalog und vier Einzelszenen der Ilias. Bremen: Hempen




How to Cite

Klein, Jared S. 2016. “HISTORICAL LINGUISTICS AND BIBLICAL HEBREW: AN INDO-EUROPEANIST’S VIEW”. Journal for Semitics 25 (2):865-80. https://doi.org/10.25159/1013-8471/2559.



Back Isssues