In his 2021 monograph The Valediction of Moses, Idan Dershowitz argues that the manuscripts offered for sale by Moses Wilhelm Shapira in 1883, generally considered to have been forged, were genuine... Show moreIn his 2021 monograph The Valediction of Moses, Idan Dershowitz argues that the manuscripts offered for sale by Moses Wilhelm Shapira in 1883, generally considered to have been forged, were genuine and contained a pre-exilic source text of Deuteronomy he refers to as V. Based on Dershowitz’s new critical edition of the text, this paper examines the historical and philological evidence for this thesis. V’s literary dependence on the Masoretic Text can be demonstrated on text-critical and linguistic grounds, which makes a pre-exilic date of composition highly unlikely. An analysis of the historical, literary, and linguistic arguments presented by Dershowitz moreover shows that nothing in V proves its authenticity, while the orthography and certain linguistic features strongly support the identification of this text as a forgery produced between 1870 and 1880. Show less
In both Biblical Hebrew and Biblical Aramaic, there is a construction formed by the existential marker followed by a non-verbal clause. This construction is used to mark polarity contrasts, i.e.,... Show moreIn both Biblical Hebrew and Biblical Aramaic, there is a construction formed by the existential marker followed by a non-verbal clause. This construction is used to mark polarity contrasts, i.e., to contrast a non-negated sentence with its negated counterpart or vice versa. If the subject of the non-verbal clause is a personal pronoun, this is incorporated in the existential marker as a pronominal suffix, but the presence of such a suffix is not an essential feature of the construction. Show less
Several verbal forms reconstructed for proto-Semitic strongly resemble reconstructed forms in proto-Berber: compare Semitic yV-PaRRaS to Berber y-əFăRRăS, Semitic yV-PRaS to Berber y-əFRăS, and... Show moreSeveral verbal forms reconstructed for proto-Semitic strongly resemble reconstructed forms in proto-Berber: compare Semitic yV-PaRRaS to Berber y-əFăRRăS, Semitic yV-PRaS to Berber y-əFRăS, and Semitic yV-PRuS and yV-PRiS to Berber y-ăFRəS. We suggest that these forms are historically related and sketch a line of development from the reconstructed meanings to their attested uses. yVPaRRaS, originally imperfective, retains that value in both Berber and Semitic. yVPRas, originally stative, gained a perfective meaning in Berber and Semitic; the stative meaning is retained in Berber, but was largely lost in Semitic. yVPRus/yVPRiS, originally perfective, retained that meaning in Semitic, merging with the newly perfective yVPRas forms; in Berber, yVPRaS completely replaced perfective yVPRuS/yVPRiS, relegating the latter to non-aspectual uses. We conclude by considering the quality of the first vowel; the alternation seen in Berber y-əFRăS and y-ăFRəS supports reconstructions as yiPRaS and yaPRuS/yaPRiS, conforming to the Barth–Ginsberg Law of Semitic. Show less
The Modern South Arabian third person feminine pronouns show an unexpected reflex sfor Proto-Semitic *s1. This s is argued to be the regular outcome of *s3 = *ts, which replaced *s1 = *s in these... Show moreThe Modern South Arabian third person feminine pronouns show an unexpected reflex sfor Proto-Semitic *s1. This s is argued to be the regular outcome of *s3 = *ts, which replaced *s1 = *s in these forms due to phonological reanalysis in constructions like *malkat sī’ ‘she is a queen’ → *malkat tsī’. In Ḥaḍramitic, these feminine pronouns also reflect *s3, but their relation to the Modern South Arabian forms remains unclear. Show less
In historical linguistics, the prevailing view is that sound change is phonetically regular: within one language variety, the same sound in the same phonetic environment always undergoes the same... Show moreIn historical linguistics, the prevailing view is that sound change is phonetically regular: within one language variety, the same sound in the same phonetic environment always undergoes the same sound changes, regardless of other factors like word meaning or part of speech. Many of the sound changes previously identified for Biblical Hebrew, however, seem to operate irregularly or only affect certain categories of words. Earlier attempts to make sense of these processes are either hindered by outdated assumptions about the nature of Hebrew, rely on implausible appeals to analogy, or offer explanations that are contradicted by other Hebrew data. This dissertation takes a fresh, holistic look at the sound changes affecting the vowels of Biblical Hebrew, starting from the reconstructed Proto-Northwest-Semitic stage. The sound changes investigated include the Canaanite Shift (*ā > *ō), the contraction of diphthongs and triphthongs, (pre-)tonic and pausal lengthening, changes of *i > *a and *a > *i, and the loss of word-final vowels. Additionally, the interaction of these sound laws with various morphological changes is examined in a concise historical morphology of Biblical Hebrew. The conclusion is that purely phonetic conditions can indeed be established for practically all sound changes affecting the Biblical Hebrew vowels. Show less
Evidence from various Semitic languages suggests that 'hollow' verbs should not be reconstructed with a vowel as their middle radical, but with three radical consonants, the middle one being *w or ... Show moreEvidence from various Semitic languages suggests that 'hollow' verbs should not be reconstructed with a vowel as their middle radical, but with three radical consonants, the middle one being *w or *y. In the past, forms from Biblical Hebrew have been cited as being incompatible with such a reconstruction. This paper shows that almost all parts of the Hebrew hollow paradigm can easily be derived from their strong counterparts, leaving only the nip̄ʿal imperfect and the hip̄ʿil participle as anomalies. These two forms are then investigated in more detail. The nip̄ʿal imperfect, yikkon, is argued to be an analogical extension of the stem found in the perfect, nåk̠on, based on the model of the geminate roots. The hip̄ʿil participle, mešib̠ , is shown to be the regular outcome of earlier *mihatīb-, a reconstruction which is supported by cuneiform transcriptions. Show less
