Determining the Significance of Lexical Features as Indicative of CBH and LBH: Insights from the Tiberias Stylistic Classifier for the Hebrew Bible

SBL Annual Meeting 2020 Linguistics and Biblical Hebrew Seminar: Syntax of Late Biblical Hebrew

Authors

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.25159/2663-6573/9302

Keywords:

diachronic linguistics, Genesis 24, machine learning, computational linguistics

Abstract

Since the time of Gesenius, scholars have rightly grounded their determinations of linguistic dating of the biblical texts on the comparison of pairs of features that can be contrasted as early and late. However, at times Hebraists also identify terms as indicative of either Classical Biblical Hebrew (CBH) or Late Biblical Hebrew (LBH) on account of their relatively exclusive occurrence in either one corpus or the other. In this study I demonstrate the propensity of scholars to identify such terms in an impressionistic manner and unwittingly fall victim to a probability illusion long known by cognitive psychologists as the small sample fallacy. Conversely, I will show that in seeking lexical terms that are indicative of CBH and LBH respectively, they overlook other terms that are far more indicative and significant from a statistical perspective. To arrive at these conclusions, I employ data generated by the recently launched Tiberias Stylistic Classifier for the Hebrew Bible. Tiberias marshals cutting edge advances in the field of machine learning and computational linguistics to empower users to easily conduct their own experiments analysing and classifying the texts of the Hebrew Bible through the measurable features of linguistic data, and providing them with verifiable results. As an illustration of what is at stake, I reference the debate surrounding the linguistic profile of Genesis 24.

Metrics

Metrics Loading ...

References

Bompiani, Brian. 2014. “Style Switching in the Jacob and Laban Narratives.” Hebrew Studies 55: 43–57. https://doi.org/10.1353/hbr.2014.0007 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1353/hbr.2014.0007

Dershowitz, Idan, Navot Akiva, Moshe Koppel, and Nachum Dershowitz. 2015. “Computerized Source Criticism of Biblical Texts.” Journal of Biblical Literature 134 (2): 253–71. https://doi.org/10.1353/jbl.2015.0016 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1353/jbl.2015.0016

Hendel, Ronald and Jan Joosten. 2018. How Old Is the Hebrew Bible?: A Linguistic, Textual, and Historical Study. New Haven: Yale University Press. https://doi.org/10.2307/j.ctv7cjvjc DOI: https://doi.org/10.12987/9780300240382

Kahneman, Daniel. 2010. Thinking Fast and Slow. New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux.

Kaufman, S. A. 1988. “The Classification of the North West Semitic Dialects of the Biblical Period and Some Implications Thereof.” In Proceedings of the Ninth World Congress of Jewish Studies (Panel Sessions: Hebrew and Aramaic Languages). Jerusalem: World Union of Jewish Studies.

Rendsburg, Gary A. 2002. “Some False Leads in the Identification of Late Biblical Hebrew Texts: The Cases of Genesis 24 and 1 Samuel 2:27–36.” Journal of Biblical Literature 121 (1): 23–46. https://doi.org/10.2307/3268329 DOI: https://doi.org/10.2307/3268329

Rofé, Alexander. 1990. “An Enquiry into the Betrothal of Rebekah.” In Die Hebräische Bibel und ihre zweifache Nachgeschichte: Festschrift für Rolf Rendtorff zum 65. Geburtstag, edited by Erhard Blum, Christian Macholz, and Ekkehard W. Stegemann, 27–39. Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag.

Published

2022-01-27

How to Cite

Berman, Joshua. 2021. “Determining the Significance of Lexical Features As Indicative of CBH and LBH: Insights from the Tiberias Stylistic Classifier for the Hebrew Bible: SBL Annual Meeting 2020 Linguistics and Biblical Hebrew Seminar: Syntax of Late Biblical Hebrew”. Journal for Semitics 30 (2):11 pages. https://doi.org/10.25159/2663-6573/9302.

Issue

Section

Articles
Received 2021-03-29
Accepted 2021-08-25
Published 2022-01-27