Jacques E . J . Boulet | Farel Institut de Théologie Réformée (original) (raw)
Articles by Jacques E . J . Boulet
![Research paper thumbnail of Worse Than a Curse: The Meaning and Syntax of ḥērem in Malachi 3:24 [4:6]](https://attachments.academia-assets.com/119357012/thumbnails/1.jpg)
](Journal for Semitics, 2023
In the history of the interpretation of Malachi, the word ḥērem which closes the book has been an... more In the history of the interpretation of Malachi, the word ḥērem which closes the book has been analysed in four different ways by translators and commentators, namely as a second object, an adverbial of means, an adverbial intensive, and a resultative secondary predicate. This article examines the four options and proposes the resultative analysis, hitherto only unambiguously attested in the Peshitta OT, as the best interpretation. This leads to the conclusion that ḥērem is something which the land becomes as a result of God’s action against it. I support the resultative analysis with data from Biblical Hebrew and maintain that this analysis best fits the consensus on the meaning of the word ḥērem, proposing a minimal understanding of the word in Malachi 3:24 [4:6] as “something unusable because it is under divine sanction.” Under this interpretation, the threat made by God in Malachi 3:24 is both more specific and more serious than what is communicated by most translations. In its final verse, Malachi issues an ultimatum against the people which throws into question the ongoing role of the land in the divine plan. For the final portion of the verse, I propose the translation “lest I come and strike the land, leaving it profaned.”
Linguistic Studies on Biblical Hebrew, 2021
Journal for Semitics, 2020
The Biblical Hebrew preposition בְּ has many functions, including one traditionally called the be... more The Biblical Hebrew preposition בְּ has many functions, including one traditionally called the beth essentiae. The standard example is Exod 18:4: כִּֽי־אֱלֹהֵ֤י אָבִי֙ בְּעֶזְרִ֔י “for the God of my father (is) my help.” Most scholars agree that this usage of beth marks an equivalence or predication, the notable exception being Whitley (1972). The goal of this paper is to provide a generative syntactic analysis that supports the majority view and to respond to Whitley’s two most important counterarguments, namely that beth is unnecessary as marker of predication, since Biblical Hebrew allows null copula clauses, and that the occurrence of beth with the verb היה shows that beth must have some other function or else be pleonastic. I propose that the beth essentiae is an (optional) overt marker of predication and that it is the overt realisation of the functional predication head Pr. This syntactic argument is supported by cross-linguistic data.
Conference Presentations by Jacques E . J . Boulet
In her book The Self as Symbolic Space, Carol Newsom asks the question “What do Hodayot do?” She ... more In her book The Self as Symbolic Space, Carol Newsom asks the question “What do Hodayot do?” She argues persuasively that the Hodayot scroll may have played an important role in the overall strategy of the Qumran community to form community members according to a sectarian identity. In this paper I ask a related question: How do hodayot do what they do? I approach this question from the viewpoint of genre and poetics, seeking to discover what formal features of the hodayot prayer-poems might lend themselves to identity formation. To the extent that the hodayot can be shown to possess such devices, Newsom’s proposal may prove all the more plausible.
I argue that texts are not all equal in their potential to foster formation. The hodayot are particularly well suited for personal formation because they share important features identified by literary critics. The formative potential of any one hodayah depends on its balance of certain features: underdeter- mined language, the lyric ‘I,’ and the lyric present. Together these three features of the text provide the space for a reader or reciter to accept the invitation of the text and identify with the sectarian identity sponsored by the community.
In this study I analyze 1QHa 10:22-32; 11:20-37; and 15:29-36 as representa- tive examples of the hodayot compositions. I show that all the poems contain features connected with ‘lyric’ poetry, but that their formative potential dif- fers based on the balance of the above listed features. Of the three hodayot, 1QHa 10:22-32 is deemed to have the highest formative potential owing to the overall balance of the three features and, especially, to the persistent use of the lyric ‘I’ from beginning to end.
Secondary predicates are non-finite predicates occurring under the scope of a primary predicate. ... more Secondary predicates are non-finite predicates occurring under the scope of a primary predicate. Adapting the unified approach to predication of Bowers (1993, 2001), I have described several subtypes of secondary predication occur- ring in Biblical Hebrew (BH), some of which are adjuncts and some of which are complements. The goal of the present paper is to see whether Dead Sea Scroll (DSS) Hebrew attests the same range of subtypes and, in particular, to determine whether any diachronic change is evident in the basic construction of secondary predicates. In BH, assuming a Predication Phrase (PrP) struc- ture, I have observed that the particles ב and ל may optionally realize the predication head Pr. Data from the Dead Sea Scrolls may allow us to deter- mine whether Hebrew was moving toward or away from explicit realization of the predication head.
This study represents an initial foray into DSS Hebrew. The DSS corpus consists of 1QM, 1QS, and 11Q19, three of the larger non-biblical scrolls. This corpus attests four out of the five types of argument sharing secondary predicate identified in the Pentateuch: depictives, resultatives, explicit creation productives, and capacitives. Of these, only capacitives occur in large enough numbers to compare meaningfully with the biblical corpus. From this corpus alone there is no discernible shift toward or away from explicit marking of capacitives.
In this presentation I assume ongoing work which argues that the traditional Biblical Hebrew accu... more In this presentation I assume ongoing work which argues that the traditional Biblical Hebrew accusative must be broken down into three categories: arguments, modifiers, and secondary predicates. On the basis of my data from the Pentateuch, I challenge common assumptions about secondary predicates, defining a secondary predicate as any non-finite predicate that occurs under the scope of a primary predication of any kind, whether by adjunction or as a complement. Here I focus on the subset of adjoined secondary predicates in which the secondary predicate shares its subject argument with an argument of the primary predication, either the subject or the object. I describe five kinds of argument sharing secondary predicate in Biblical Hebrew: de-pictives, circumstantials, transitive resultatives, explicit creation productives, and capacitives. For each of these types I use an informal semantic representation to distinguish its particular semantics. Then, using Hebrew examples, I demonstrate that four of the five types may be optionally marked by one of the particles ְ or ְ,ל with the particle contributing little or nothing to the meaning. I suggest that this optionality of the particles supports the generalized theory of predication advanced by Bowers (1993, 2001), where every predication is assumed to have a Predication (Pr) head, and where this head may be overt or phonologically null. In this Predication Phrase (PrP) structure, ְ and ְל are assumed to be realizations of the Pr head when they mark a predicate. Finally, I point out that since some argument sharing secondary predicates are subject-oriented and some are object-oriented, only the object-oriented ones are actually accusatives.
In this presentation I take some first steps toward a full description of secondary predicates in... more In this presentation I take some first steps toward a full description of secondary predicates in Biblical Hebrew. Secondary predicates are phrases occurring under the scope of a main verb that share an argument with the verb and predicate something about that argument, either the subject or the object. I identify three kinds of secondary predicate in Biblical Hebrew: depictives, resultatives, and what I provisionally call 'purposives.' Depictives and resultatives may be from any non-finite word class, whereas purposives appear to be strictly nominal. Each type of secondary predicate should receive a distinct semantic representation. However, all three types share the same subject- and object-oriented syntactic structures. For syntactic structure I follow the unified approach to predication of Bowers (1993, 2001) to the effect that every kind of predication involves a Predication Phrase (PrP) structure. The head Pr may be phonologically null or it may be overt. In Biblical Hebrew the proclitic particles bēth and lamed may optionally realize Pr. Bēth is used to mark nominal predicates in copular clauses and in depictive and resultative secondary predicates. Lamed may mark resultative and purposive secondary predicates.
The Biblical Hebrew (BH) preposition beth is used with a surprising range of meanings. One famili... more The Biblical Hebrew (BH) preposition beth is used with a surprising range of meanings. One familiar use of the preposition is traditionally called the beth essentiae. The standard example is Exod 18:4: כִּֽי־אֱלֹהֵ֤י אָבִי֙ בְּעֶזְרִ֔י 'for the God of my father (is) my help.' Most scholars agree that this usage of beth marks an equivalence or predication, the notable exception being Whitley (1972). The goal of this paper is to provide a syntactic analysis that supports the majority view and to respond to Whitley’s two most important counterarguments, namely that beth is unnecessary as marker of predication since BH allows null copula clauses and that the cooccurrence of beth with the verb היה shows that beth must have some other function or else be pleonastic. Working within the framework of generative minimalism, I propose that the beth essentiae is an (optional) overt marker of predication, both in copular clauses and in secondary predicates (see Jenni 1997; cf. Joüon 1947). Following Bowers (1993; 2001), I present my case using a unified approach to predication. Every predication, whether a main verb, a null copula, or a secondary predicate, can be represented using a functional predication projection PrP. In this model, beth is the overt realization of the functional head Pr. This syntactic argument is supported by cross-linguistic data from Arabic, Egyptian, and Scottish Gaelic, all of which use the preposition 'in' to mark a predication in specific constructions.
Biblical Hebrew (BH), like English, employs noun phrases (NPs) in certain kinds of adverbials (e.... more Biblical Hebrew (BH), like English, employs noun phrases (NPs) in certain kinds of adverbials (e.g. I will arrive [next week]). However, it appears that BH allows a wider range of adverbial NPs than English does even though most adverbials in BH are prepositional phrases. And yet, if an NP is neither the subject nor an object of the verb, is it necessarily an adverbial? The basis for this paper is a comprehensive study of Genesis through Deuteronomy which has yielded several hundred examples. Until now the NPs catalogued in this study have tended to be merely listed in taxonomies of ‘adverbial accusatives.’ But such treatment obscures the fact that some of these NPs have quite different syntactic functions. This paper is meant to offer some first steps toward determining which NPs are adverbial and how their syntax differs from those that are not. 'Adverbial' NPs should first of all be distinguished from arguments and secondary predicates. It also turns out that 'modifier' is a better term for what remains. What have traditionally been called adverbials can be broken down into event-external modifiers, event-internal modifiers, and frame-setting modifiers by assuming an event semantics approach. The benefit of this subdivision is that it allows straightforward analysis of some of the more puzzling 'accusatives.'
Book Reviews by Jacques E . J . Boulet
8: A Handbook on the Hebrew Text (Baylor Handbook on the Hebrew Bible). Baylor University Press, ... more 8: A Handbook on the Hebrew Text (Baylor Handbook on the Hebrew Bible). Baylor University Press, Waco 2016. Pp. xii + 250. Price: $29:95 paperback. ISBN: 978-1-60258-674-1. This recent addition to Baylor's philological commentary series is the latest publication on Hebrew and Semitic Languages by Max Roglund, Associate Professor of Old Testament at Erskine Theological Seminary. According to the Baylor University Press website, the purpose of the series is to lay a foundation of linguistic and philological analysis for the Hebrew texts of the Bible upon which theological and exegetical studies may build. Although this book may serve that function, Roglund has expressly written his commentary with intermediate and advanced students of Hebrew in mind, entailing at least two things: at minimum, Roglund assumes a basic knowledge of Biblical Hebrew (BH) and of key terminology; at maximum, the commentary generally stays within the bounds of the traditional analyses offered by the standard reference works. Following the acknowledgments, the book includes a list of abbreviations (pp. xi-xii), an introduction to the approach taken and to recurring themes (pp. 1-11), the commentary on Haggai (pp. 13-59), the commentary on Zechariah 1-8 (pp. 60-215), an appendix concerning the three prophetic formulae used in the two books (pp. 217-225), a short glossary of linguistic terms (pp. 227-228), a works cited (pp. 229-243), and three indices arranged by subject (pp. 245-246), Hebrew words (p. 247), and names of scholars (pp. 248-250). The commentary portions are organized as follows: each main section is briefly introduced, followed by an English translation, and then by verse by verse commentary on the Hebrew text. All verbs are parsed (e.g. ֵעֹור נ in Zech. 2:17 is parsed 'Nifal qatal 3 m s 'עור√ [p. 111]). In addition to sketching the structures of Haggai and Zechariah 1-8, Roglund uses the Introduction to discuss three issues which recur throughout the commentary. First, referencing the ongoing debate on the subject of diachronic language variation in BH, Roglund follows the traditional position which explains the variation as the development of the Hebrew language through time from Standard Biblical Hebrew (SBH) in the pre-exilic period to Late Biblical Hebrew (LBH) in the post-exilic period. In keeping with this position, Roglund takes every opportunity throughout the commentary to highlight LBH features within the text of Haggai and Zechariah which, it is argued, generally belong to the LBH profile which later developed further into the Hebrew attested in the Dead Sea Scrolls and in Rabbinic literature. Second, Roglund discusses the nature of the text of Haggai, whether it is to be classified as prose or poetry. Making use of Wilfred Watson's poetic criteria as a guide, he concludes that
Dissertation by Jacques E . J . Boulet
This study applies generative linguistics to the Biblical Hebrew (BH) accusative. The standard BH... more This study applies generative linguistics to the Biblical Hebrew (BH) accusative. The standard BH grammars have treated accusative noun phrases under two broad categories, roughly object/complement and adverbial/adjunct. Not only do they disagree about which are objects and which are adverbial, but they have also tended to define subcategories without a clear methodology, usually based on lexical semantics. By contrast, my approach emphasizes syntactic definitions for the major categories, which I argue are three: secondary predicates, arguments, and modifiers. The syntactic and semantic framework of this study depends on the unified approach to predication of Bowers. Under that framework every predicate, whether primary or secondary, is assumed to have a predication phrase (PrP) structure. Secondary predicates are therefore defined very basically to be PrP structures which are somehow subordinate to a primary predication, and thus they may be adjuncts or they may be complements of the verb. Arguments are constituents which are selected by the verb according to one of its recognized valency patterns. There is a limited number of specific syntactic positions for arguments, and the underlying syntax of a verb’s arguments depends on its semantics. In particular, I aim to show that there are four different trivalent structures in BH: prepositional ditransitives, double object constructions, causatives, and complementatives. Modifiers, since they are adjoined, may exist in any number. I assume that modifiers are predicates of one of four conceptual primitives (propositions, situations, events, and manners) and that modifiers attach in the domain which corresponds to the appropriate primitive (CP, TP, PrP, and vP respectively). This study also treats cognate accusatives, where the head noun is formed from the same root as the verb. I argue here that cognateness is not itself relevant for syntax, but rather cognate accusatives may function as arguments, modifiers, or secondary predicates. The analysis of cognate accusatives depends on the transitivity of the verb. This study treats the above categories in turn, providing ample examples from the biblical corpus (Genesis-Deuteronomy). The text of the dissertation is supplemented by a digital appendix of analysed examples from the corpus.
Journal for Semitics, 2023
In the history of the interpretation of Malachi, the word ḥērem which closes the book has been an... more In the history of the interpretation of Malachi, the word ḥērem which closes the book has been analysed in four different ways by translators and commentators, namely as a second object, an adverbial of means, an adverbial intensive, and a resultative secondary predicate. This article examines the four options and proposes the resultative analysis, hitherto only unambiguously attested in the Peshitta OT, as the best interpretation. This leads to the conclusion that ḥērem is something which the land becomes as a result of God’s action against it. I support the resultative analysis with data from Biblical Hebrew and maintain that this analysis best fits the consensus on the meaning of the word ḥērem, proposing a minimal understanding of the word in Malachi 3:24 [4:6] as “something unusable because it is under divine sanction.” Under this interpretation, the threat made by God in Malachi 3:24 is both more specific and more serious than what is communicated by most translations. In its final verse, Malachi issues an ultimatum against the people which throws into question the ongoing role of the land in the divine plan. For the final portion of the verse, I propose the translation “lest I come and strike the land, leaving it profaned.”
Linguistic Studies on Biblical Hebrew, 2021
Journal for Semitics, 2020
The Biblical Hebrew preposition בְּ has many functions, including one traditionally called the be... more The Biblical Hebrew preposition בְּ has many functions, including one traditionally called the beth essentiae. The standard example is Exod 18:4: כִּֽי־אֱלֹהֵ֤י אָבִי֙ בְּעֶזְרִ֔י “for the God of my father (is) my help.” Most scholars agree that this usage of beth marks an equivalence or predication, the notable exception being Whitley (1972). The goal of this paper is to provide a generative syntactic analysis that supports the majority view and to respond to Whitley’s two most important counterarguments, namely that beth is unnecessary as marker of predication, since Biblical Hebrew allows null copula clauses, and that the occurrence of beth with the verb היה shows that beth must have some other function or else be pleonastic. I propose that the beth essentiae is an (optional) overt marker of predication and that it is the overt realisation of the functional predication head Pr. This syntactic argument is supported by cross-linguistic data.
In her book The Self as Symbolic Space, Carol Newsom asks the question “What do Hodayot do?” She ... more In her book The Self as Symbolic Space, Carol Newsom asks the question “What do Hodayot do?” She argues persuasively that the Hodayot scroll may have played an important role in the overall strategy of the Qumran community to form community members according to a sectarian identity. In this paper I ask a related question: How do hodayot do what they do? I approach this question from the viewpoint of genre and poetics, seeking to discover what formal features of the hodayot prayer-poems might lend themselves to identity formation. To the extent that the hodayot can be shown to possess such devices, Newsom’s proposal may prove all the more plausible.
I argue that texts are not all equal in their potential to foster formation. The hodayot are particularly well suited for personal formation because they share important features identified by literary critics. The formative potential of any one hodayah depends on its balance of certain features: underdeter- mined language, the lyric ‘I,’ and the lyric present. Together these three features of the text provide the space for a reader or reciter to accept the invitation of the text and identify with the sectarian identity sponsored by the community.
In this study I analyze 1QHa 10:22-32; 11:20-37; and 15:29-36 as representa- tive examples of the hodayot compositions. I show that all the poems contain features connected with ‘lyric’ poetry, but that their formative potential dif- fers based on the balance of the above listed features. Of the three hodayot, 1QHa 10:22-32 is deemed to have the highest formative potential owing to the overall balance of the three features and, especially, to the persistent use of the lyric ‘I’ from beginning to end.
Secondary predicates are non-finite predicates occurring under the scope of a primary predicate. ... more Secondary predicates are non-finite predicates occurring under the scope of a primary predicate. Adapting the unified approach to predication of Bowers (1993, 2001), I have described several subtypes of secondary predication occur- ring in Biblical Hebrew (BH), some of which are adjuncts and some of which are complements. The goal of the present paper is to see whether Dead Sea Scroll (DSS) Hebrew attests the same range of subtypes and, in particular, to determine whether any diachronic change is evident in the basic construction of secondary predicates. In BH, assuming a Predication Phrase (PrP) struc- ture, I have observed that the particles ב and ל may optionally realize the predication head Pr. Data from the Dead Sea Scrolls may allow us to deter- mine whether Hebrew was moving toward or away from explicit realization of the predication head.
This study represents an initial foray into DSS Hebrew. The DSS corpus consists of 1QM, 1QS, and 11Q19, three of the larger non-biblical scrolls. This corpus attests four out of the five types of argument sharing secondary predicate identified in the Pentateuch: depictives, resultatives, explicit creation productives, and capacitives. Of these, only capacitives occur in large enough numbers to compare meaningfully with the biblical corpus. From this corpus alone there is no discernible shift toward or away from explicit marking of capacitives.
In this presentation I assume ongoing work which argues that the traditional Biblical Hebrew accu... more In this presentation I assume ongoing work which argues that the traditional Biblical Hebrew accusative must be broken down into three categories: arguments, modifiers, and secondary predicates. On the basis of my data from the Pentateuch, I challenge common assumptions about secondary predicates, defining a secondary predicate as any non-finite predicate that occurs under the scope of a primary predication of any kind, whether by adjunction or as a complement. Here I focus on the subset of adjoined secondary predicates in which the secondary predicate shares its subject argument with an argument of the primary predication, either the subject or the object. I describe five kinds of argument sharing secondary predicate in Biblical Hebrew: de-pictives, circumstantials, transitive resultatives, explicit creation productives, and capacitives. For each of these types I use an informal semantic representation to distinguish its particular semantics. Then, using Hebrew examples, I demonstrate that four of the five types may be optionally marked by one of the particles ְ or ְ,ל with the particle contributing little or nothing to the meaning. I suggest that this optionality of the particles supports the generalized theory of predication advanced by Bowers (1993, 2001), where every predication is assumed to have a Predication (Pr) head, and where this head may be overt or phonologically null. In this Predication Phrase (PrP) structure, ְ and ְל are assumed to be realizations of the Pr head when they mark a predicate. Finally, I point out that since some argument sharing secondary predicates are subject-oriented and some are object-oriented, only the object-oriented ones are actually accusatives.
In this presentation I take some first steps toward a full description of secondary predicates in... more In this presentation I take some first steps toward a full description of secondary predicates in Biblical Hebrew. Secondary predicates are phrases occurring under the scope of a main verb that share an argument with the verb and predicate something about that argument, either the subject or the object. I identify three kinds of secondary predicate in Biblical Hebrew: depictives, resultatives, and what I provisionally call 'purposives.' Depictives and resultatives may be from any non-finite word class, whereas purposives appear to be strictly nominal. Each type of secondary predicate should receive a distinct semantic representation. However, all three types share the same subject- and object-oriented syntactic structures. For syntactic structure I follow the unified approach to predication of Bowers (1993, 2001) to the effect that every kind of predication involves a Predication Phrase (PrP) structure. The head Pr may be phonologically null or it may be overt. In Biblical Hebrew the proclitic particles bēth and lamed may optionally realize Pr. Bēth is used to mark nominal predicates in copular clauses and in depictive and resultative secondary predicates. Lamed may mark resultative and purposive secondary predicates.
The Biblical Hebrew (BH) preposition beth is used with a surprising range of meanings. One famili... more The Biblical Hebrew (BH) preposition beth is used with a surprising range of meanings. One familiar use of the preposition is traditionally called the beth essentiae. The standard example is Exod 18:4: כִּֽי־אֱלֹהֵ֤י אָבִי֙ בְּעֶזְרִ֔י 'for the God of my father (is) my help.' Most scholars agree that this usage of beth marks an equivalence or predication, the notable exception being Whitley (1972). The goal of this paper is to provide a syntactic analysis that supports the majority view and to respond to Whitley’s two most important counterarguments, namely that beth is unnecessary as marker of predication since BH allows null copula clauses and that the cooccurrence of beth with the verb היה shows that beth must have some other function or else be pleonastic. Working within the framework of generative minimalism, I propose that the beth essentiae is an (optional) overt marker of predication, both in copular clauses and in secondary predicates (see Jenni 1997; cf. Joüon 1947). Following Bowers (1993; 2001), I present my case using a unified approach to predication. Every predication, whether a main verb, a null copula, or a secondary predicate, can be represented using a functional predication projection PrP. In this model, beth is the overt realization of the functional head Pr. This syntactic argument is supported by cross-linguistic data from Arabic, Egyptian, and Scottish Gaelic, all of which use the preposition 'in' to mark a predication in specific constructions.
Biblical Hebrew (BH), like English, employs noun phrases (NPs) in certain kinds of adverbials (e.... more Biblical Hebrew (BH), like English, employs noun phrases (NPs) in certain kinds of adverbials (e.g. I will arrive [next week]). However, it appears that BH allows a wider range of adverbial NPs than English does even though most adverbials in BH are prepositional phrases. And yet, if an NP is neither the subject nor an object of the verb, is it necessarily an adverbial? The basis for this paper is a comprehensive study of Genesis through Deuteronomy which has yielded several hundred examples. Until now the NPs catalogued in this study have tended to be merely listed in taxonomies of ‘adverbial accusatives.’ But such treatment obscures the fact that some of these NPs have quite different syntactic functions. This paper is meant to offer some first steps toward determining which NPs are adverbial and how their syntax differs from those that are not. 'Adverbial' NPs should first of all be distinguished from arguments and secondary predicates. It also turns out that 'modifier' is a better term for what remains. What have traditionally been called adverbials can be broken down into event-external modifiers, event-internal modifiers, and frame-setting modifiers by assuming an event semantics approach. The benefit of this subdivision is that it allows straightforward analysis of some of the more puzzling 'accusatives.'
8: A Handbook on the Hebrew Text (Baylor Handbook on the Hebrew Bible). Baylor University Press, ... more 8: A Handbook on the Hebrew Text (Baylor Handbook on the Hebrew Bible). Baylor University Press, Waco 2016. Pp. xii + 250. Price: $29:95 paperback. ISBN: 978-1-60258-674-1. This recent addition to Baylor's philological commentary series is the latest publication on Hebrew and Semitic Languages by Max Roglund, Associate Professor of Old Testament at Erskine Theological Seminary. According to the Baylor University Press website, the purpose of the series is to lay a foundation of linguistic and philological analysis for the Hebrew texts of the Bible upon which theological and exegetical studies may build. Although this book may serve that function, Roglund has expressly written his commentary with intermediate and advanced students of Hebrew in mind, entailing at least two things: at minimum, Roglund assumes a basic knowledge of Biblical Hebrew (BH) and of key terminology; at maximum, the commentary generally stays within the bounds of the traditional analyses offered by the standard reference works. Following the acknowledgments, the book includes a list of abbreviations (pp. xi-xii), an introduction to the approach taken and to recurring themes (pp. 1-11), the commentary on Haggai (pp. 13-59), the commentary on Zechariah 1-8 (pp. 60-215), an appendix concerning the three prophetic formulae used in the two books (pp. 217-225), a short glossary of linguistic terms (pp. 227-228), a works cited (pp. 229-243), and three indices arranged by subject (pp. 245-246), Hebrew words (p. 247), and names of scholars (pp. 248-250). The commentary portions are organized as follows: each main section is briefly introduced, followed by an English translation, and then by verse by verse commentary on the Hebrew text. All verbs are parsed (e.g. ֵעֹור נ in Zech. 2:17 is parsed 'Nifal qatal 3 m s 'עור√ [p. 111]). In addition to sketching the structures of Haggai and Zechariah 1-8, Roglund uses the Introduction to discuss three issues which recur throughout the commentary. First, referencing the ongoing debate on the subject of diachronic language variation in BH, Roglund follows the traditional position which explains the variation as the development of the Hebrew language through time from Standard Biblical Hebrew (SBH) in the pre-exilic period to Late Biblical Hebrew (LBH) in the post-exilic period. In keeping with this position, Roglund takes every opportunity throughout the commentary to highlight LBH features within the text of Haggai and Zechariah which, it is argued, generally belong to the LBH profile which later developed further into the Hebrew attested in the Dead Sea Scrolls and in Rabbinic literature. Second, Roglund discusses the nature of the text of Haggai, whether it is to be classified as prose or poetry. Making use of Wilfred Watson's poetic criteria as a guide, he concludes that
This study applies generative linguistics to the Biblical Hebrew (BH) accusative. The standard BH... more This study applies generative linguistics to the Biblical Hebrew (BH) accusative. The standard BH grammars have treated accusative noun phrases under two broad categories, roughly object/complement and adverbial/adjunct. Not only do they disagree about which are objects and which are adverbial, but they have also tended to define subcategories without a clear methodology, usually based on lexical semantics. By contrast, my approach emphasizes syntactic definitions for the major categories, which I argue are three: secondary predicates, arguments, and modifiers. The syntactic and semantic framework of this study depends on the unified approach to predication of Bowers. Under that framework every predicate, whether primary or secondary, is assumed to have a predication phrase (PrP) structure. Secondary predicates are therefore defined very basically to be PrP structures which are somehow subordinate to a primary predication, and thus they may be adjuncts or they may be complements of the verb. Arguments are constituents which are selected by the verb according to one of its recognized valency patterns. There is a limited number of specific syntactic positions for arguments, and the underlying syntax of a verb’s arguments depends on its semantics. In particular, I aim to show that there are four different trivalent structures in BH: prepositional ditransitives, double object constructions, causatives, and complementatives. Modifiers, since they are adjoined, may exist in any number. I assume that modifiers are predicates of one of four conceptual primitives (propositions, situations, events, and manners) and that modifiers attach in the domain which corresponds to the appropriate primitive (CP, TP, PrP, and vP respectively). This study also treats cognate accusatives, where the head noun is formed from the same root as the verb. I argue here that cognateness is not itself relevant for syntax, but rather cognate accusatives may function as arguments, modifiers, or secondary predicates. The analysis of cognate accusatives depends on the transitivity of the verb. This study treats the above categories in turn, providing ample examples from the biblical corpus (Genesis-Deuteronomy). The text of the dissertation is supplemented by a digital appendix of analysed examples from the corpus.