| Summary: | Several words and expressions turn up in ancient Hebrew texts with two sets of meanings: one old, genuine, and more often than not paralleled in cognate languages, and one late and secondary, with echoes in the ancient versions and exegetical writings. To all appearances, these are words that were reused in a meaning based on scriptural exegesis after their original meaning was forgotten. Pseudo-classicisms show that scriptural interpretation had become an institution at the time of the late biblical books. They also show that interpretation led to re-appropriation, with later authors making a strong claim to continuity with earlier writings that had become authoritative. They provide strong evidence of diachronic evolution in ancient Hebrew. CBH and LBH are not the same language, nor even contiguous chronolects: they are separated by a period of time long enough to allow for the forgetting of many expressions, their reinterpretation in an unrelated way, and their revivification with the new meaning.
|
|---|