In discussing the history of the Hebrew language, a distinction must be made between its history as a linguistic system and the history of its written forms. The former assumes an idealized periodization of the language and distinguishes between Early Hebrew (EH) and Late Hebrew (LH). The latter bases the division on corpora, resulting in the traditional classification into Biblical Hebrew, Qumranic Hebrew and Mishnaic Hebrew, with further sub-divisions such as early vs. late Biblical Hebrew, Early vs. Late Mishnaic Hebrew, Babylonian vs. Palestinian Talmudic Hebrew, etc. Although these two perspectives are fundamentally different, they are clearly interrelated: on the one hand, our knowledge about the history of the structure(s) of the language is based on data gathered from the Hebrew corpora and on the historical setting of these texts; on the other hand, the analysis of the linguistic information in the corpora is a de facto description of how the different linguistic systems were used in each corpus. This paper aims to examine the language of the Mishnah from these two perspectives and explore the conceptual distinction between the two categories with which it is associated, namely Late Hebrew and Mishnaic Hebrew. I will outline what it means to provide a description of Late Hebrew as a linguistic system, and what it means to examine Mishnaic Hebrew as the language of a written corpus. Accordingly, this paper has a twofold goal: 1) to explain the difference between the two perspectives as relevant to the language of the Mishnah. 2) to demonstrate the advantages of keeping them separate.

In the scholarship, the discussions of the semantics of Aramaic אלמלי/אלמלא אילולי/אילולא throughout the history of Hebrew have focused on the function of these expressions as sometimes simply marking the head of a counterfactual con

In the scholarship, the discussions of the semantics of Aramaic אלמלי/אלמלא אילולי/אילולא  throughout the history of Hebrew have focused on the function of these expressions as sometimes simply marking the head of a counterfactual condition, but at other times denoting "if not." This paper is divided into two, separately published parts. The first part follows the tradition that the answer to this puzzle lies in historical changes and dialectal variations. The second part  examines various alterations that occurred during the transmission of the texts in which these forms appear. This type of study has the ability to shed light on the semantic interpretations of these expressions and, at the same time, on the linguistic knowledge of those who transmitted these texts. Thus, this paper aims to contribute to the linguistic analysis of these expressions and to our understanding of the ways in which talmudic texts were transmitted, namely, the phenomena that could affect their content.

 

In the scholarship, the discussions of the semantics of Aramaic אלמלי/אלמלא אילולי/אילולא throughout the history of Hebrew have focused on the function of these expressions as sometimes simply marking the head of a counterfactual con

In the scholarship, the discussions of the semantics of Aramaic אלמלי/אלמלא אילולי/אילולא  throughout the history of Hebrew have focused on the function of these expressions as sometimes simply marking the head of a counterfactual condition, but at other times denoting "if not." This paper is divided into two, separately published parts. The first part follows the tradition that the answer to this puzzle lies in historical changes and dialectal variations. The second part  examines various alterations that occurred during the transmission of the texts in which these forms appear. This type of study has the ability to shed light on the semantic interpretations of these expressions and, at the same time, on the linguistic knowledge of those who transmitted these texts. Thus, this paper aims to contribute to the linguistic analysis of these expressions and to our understanding of the ways in which talmudic texts were transmitted, namely, the phenomena that could affect their content.

 

In the scholarship, the discussions of the semantics of Aramaic אלמלי/אלמלא אילולי/אילולא throughout the history of Hebrew have focused on the function of these expressions as sometimes simply marking the head of a counterfactual con

In the scholarship, the discussions of the semantics of Aramaic אלמלי/אלמלא אילולי/אילולא  throughout the history of Hebrew have focused on the function of these expressions as sometimes simply marking the head of a counterfactual condition, but at other times denoting "if not." This paper is divided into two, separately published parts. The first part follows the tradition that the answer to this puzzle lies in historical changes and dialectal variations. The second part  examines various alterations that occurred during the transmission of the texts in which these forms appear. This type of study has the ability to shed light on the semantic interpretations of these expressions and, at the same time, on the linguistic knowledge of those who transmitted these texts. Thus, this paper aims to contribute to the linguistic analysis of these expressions and to our understanding of the ways in which talmudic texts were transmitted, namely, the phenomena that could affect their content.

 

In the scholarship, the discussions of the semantics of Aramaic אלמלי/אלמלא אילולי/אילולא throughout the history of Hebrew have focused on the function of these expressions as sometimes simply marking the head of a counterfactual con

In the scholarship, the discussions of the semantics of Aramaic אלמלי/אלמלא אילולי/אילולא  throughout the history of Hebrew have focused on the function of these expressions as sometimes simply marking the head of a counterfactual condition, but at other times denoting "if not." This paper is divided into two, separately published parts. The first part follows the tradition that the answer to this puzzle lies in historical changes and dialectal variations. The second part  examines various alterations that occurred during the transmission of the texts in which these forms appear. This type of study has the ability to shed light on the semantic interpretations of these expressions and, at the same time, on the linguistic knowledge of those who transmitted these texts. Thus, this paper aims to contribute to the linguistic analysis of these expressions and to our understanding of the ways in which talmudic texts were transmitted, namely, the phenomena that could affect their content.

 

 

 

 

Dieser Artikel schlägt vor, den Fokus für das Gesamtargument in Gal 4:21–31 auf Jes 54,1 zu legen. Der Gedankengang des Paulus wird offenbar klarer, wenn das Wort בעולה aus Jesaja in seiner späthebräischen Bedeutung als „nicht jungfräulich“ interpretiert wird statt in seiner gewöhnlichen biblischen Bedeutung als „die, die den Mann hat“, die sich auch in der Formulierung der Septuaginta (τῆς ἐχούσης τὸν ἄνδρα) wiederfindet. Die vorgeschlagene Lesart löst einige interpretative Probleme, auf die manche Leser der Galaterpassage bereits hingewiesen haben, und erklärt insbesondere die argumentative Funktion des Jesajaverses. Die Annahme der
späthebräischen Bedeutung stimmt außerdem mit weiteren Verwendungen midraschisch und semitisch basierter Tradition überein, die an anderen Stellen in Gal 4 zu finden sind. Die resultierende Lesart wird auf ähnliche Weise gestützt durch die
etwa gleichzeitig entstandenen Schriften Philos von Alexandrien und gibt Aufschluss über die Existenz hebräischer Traditionen in der jüdisch-hellenistischen Welt.

The incomplete phrase ] פרשנו מרוב הע [ from 4QMMT is often read as
פרשנו מרוב העם . Translated as “we have separated ourselves from the multitude/
majority of the people,” this line stands at the heart of many discussions
concerning the composition of 4QMMT and is allegedly the Qumran community’s
self-perception of their relationship with the other Jewish fractions,
specifically referring to their schism with the rest of the nation.
Based on a philological study of the components of this line I propose
the following alternative reading: פרשנו מרוב הע[מים [. I argue that considering
the intertextual relationships between 4QMMT with the relevant passages
from Deuteronomy and Ezra, and examining the uses of the root פרש in the
relevant contexts in the Targumin and in rabbinic texts that this alternative
reading should be the default one, or at least as plausible as the common one.
Consequently, I examine how this reading should influence our understanding
of the nature of 4QMMT.