KJC Korea
Journal Central

The present study explores language variation in Biblical Hebrew from a sociolinguistic perspective. Language variation refers to the situation in which the same linguistic or grammatical meaning is realized by two or more forms (e.g., both mamlākāh and malkût in Biblical Hebrew mean “kingdom” or “reign”). So far, language variation in Biblical Hebrew has been studied mainly in the context of the Documentary Hypothesis of the Pentateuch. However, a field that focuses primarily on this phenomenon is sociolinguistics. Thus, upon defining language variation, the study surveys how linguists of the past regarded it as unimportant and arbitrary and how contemporary sociolinguists consider it foundational in understanding language. Language variation includes historical (or chronological) variation, regional variation, and social variation. The study examines the cases in Biblical Hebrew which represent these three kinds of language variation. First, mamlākāh and malkût (“kingdom”, “reign”) are an exemplar of historical variation, the choice of which in the Hebrew Bible is best explained by chronology. Second, the two relativizers ’ăšer and še- and the near homonyms šibbolet and sibbolet each illustrate regional variation. The first pair shows the contrast between the southern Judahite Hebrew and the northern Israelian Hebrew. The second pair discloses the difference of the consonant repertoire between the Gileadites and the Ephraimites. Last, in referring to oneself, the Biblical Hebrew speaker could choose from the first person singular pronoun and ‘abdĕkā/’ămātĕkā/šipḥātĕkā (“your servant”). The choice is conditioned by factors such as situation and the social statuses of the speaker and the addressee. Through studying language variation from a sociolinguistic perspective, we will have a deeper understanding of the language of Biblical Hebrew, the literary strategies of biblical writers, and the world of the Hebrew Bible.

Several childless couples appear in the Old Testament: Abraham and Sarah(Gen. 11:27-21:5), Isaac and Rebekah(Gen. 25:21-26), Jacob and Rachel(Gen. 29:31-30:24), Manoah and his wife(Judg. 13:2-24), Elkanah and Hannah(1 Sam. 1:2~20), Shunem woman and her husband(2 Kgs. 4:8-17). These couples have various problems. They face the misery of having no children to take care of in their old age, no children to inherit, and no children to carry the paternal name in Israel. What methods did childless couples use to work through their infertility? Until now, research has been conducted on infertility in the Old Testament with a major interest in the social reality of infertile women and God’s role in the stories. However, childless couples’ attempts to solve this problem have not received much attention. This paper highlights an underexplored part of ancient Israelites’ lives using Abraham and Sarah as a case study in addressing the problem of childlessness(Gen. 11:27-25:11). This story best depicts the problems and solutions to childlessness in the Old Testament. As believers, Abraham and Sarah trust and wait for God’s promises, while attempting to solve problems through the societal methods of the time. In the story of Abraham, God's promise begins with the promise of a great nation(Gen. 12:2), the promise of Abraham's descendants(Gen. 12:7), the promise of descendants to be born in Abraham's body(Gen. 15:4), the promise of Sarah's son(Gen. 17:15-19), and the time Sarah gave birth(Gen. 18:10). As God’s promise concretizes, Abraham and Sarah try to conceive through institutions and customs available at the time. This paper suggests Abraham and Sarah used social methods such as adoption (relative adoption, alien adoption), the concubine system, and an inheritance decision in conjunction with religious methods of trusting God to solve their problem. This case study reveals that ancient Israelites used both social and religious methods to solve childless couples’ problem.

Dieser Artikel untersucht die Subjektzuschreibung des Ausdrucks “Hier bin ich” (הִנֵּנִי) in der Berufungsgeschichte Mose durch linguistische Analyse. Die Formulierung gilt oft als die rasche Antwort des Mose auf den Anruf Gottes. Exemplarisch ist die Übersetzung der “New Korean Revised Version”, hier folgt auf den göttlichen Anruf “Mose, Mose” dessen Antwort, da das “Hier bin ich” (הִנֵּנִי) Mose zugeschrieben wird. Seine Antwort gilt als Höflichkeitsgeste, wodurch Mose als ihr Subjekt verstanden ist. Diesem Verständnis folgen viele Bibelübersetzungenn (“New Standard Version”, “Korean Catholic Bible”, “Korean New Revised Version”, LUT, ELB), gelegentlich taucht zudem zur Betonung der Personennamen “Mose” auf, wodurch die Übersetzer zeigen, dass Mose Subjekt von הִנֵּנִי ist. Der Ausdruck וַיֹּאמֶר in Ex 3:4 ist sehr auffällig. Er ist eine Narrativ-Form als PKו und erscheint in der Passage viermal. Mit Ausnahme des strittigen zweiten Belegs ist Gott immer dessen Subjekt. Theoretisch wäre es möglich, dass sowohl Mose als auch Gott als Subjekt dieser Stelle zu verstehen ist, da die Verbform 3. m. sg. beide Zuschreibungen ermöglicht. Allerdings findet sich im Kontext jedoch kein Hinweis über einen Subjektwechsel, weswegen Gott auch hier Subjekt des Verbs sein müsste. Aus diesem Grund ist Ex 3,4-6 anders als bisher zu interpretieren. Ex 3,4-6 ist eben kein Dialog zwischen Gott und Mose, sondern einzig Wiedergabe der Selbstoffenbarung Gottes. Diese Auslegung ergibt sich sowohl aus der Textlogik als auch aus dem Stil ähnlicher Texten wie z.B. Gen 22; 46.