Hebrew Language

Hebrew Language

the language of the Hebrew people, and of the Old-Testament Scriptures, with the exception of the few chapters written in Chaldee. SEE CHALDEE LANGUAGE. The importance of this subject in a religious and especially an exegetical aspect justifies a somewhat copious treatment of it here. (See Ewald’s Hebrew Grammar, 1-18, 135-160.) In the Bible this language is nowhere designated by the name Hebrew, but this is not surprising when we consider how rarely that name is employed to designate the nation. SEE HEBREW. If we except the terms lip of Canaan ( ) in Isa 19:18 -where the diction is of an elevated character, and is so far no evidence that this designation was the one commonly employed-the only name by which the Hebrew language is mentioned in the Old Testament is Jewish ( used adverbially, Judaiae, in Jewish, 2Ki 18:26; 2Ki 18:28; Isa 36:11; Isa 36:13; 2Ch 32:18 [in Neh 13:24, perhaps the Aramaic is meant]), where the feminine may be explained as an abstract of the last formation, according to Ewald’s Hebrews Gram. 344,457, or as referring to the usual gender of understood. In a strict sense, however, Jewish denotes the idiom of the kingdom of Judah, which became the predominant one after the deportation of the ten tribes. It is in the Greek writings of the later Jews that Hebrew is first applied to the language, as in the of the prologue to Ecclesiasticus, and in the of Josephus. (The v of the New Testament. is used in contradistinction to the idiom of the Hellenist Jews, and does not mean the ancient Hebrew language, but the then vernacular Aramaic dialect of Palestine.) Our title to use the designation Hebrew language is therefore founded on the fact that the nation which spoke this idiom was properly distinguished by the ethnographical name of Hebrews.

The Hebrew language belongs to the class of languages called Shemitic-so called because spoken chiefly by nations enumerated in Scripture among the descendants of Shem. The Sanskrit, Persian, Greek, Latin, with the Germanic and Celtic languages, are the principal members of another large class or group of languages, to which have been affixed the various names of Japhetic, Indo-European, Indo-Germanic, and Aryan. This latter class embraces most of the languages of Europe, including of course our own. The student, therefore, who, besides mastering his own language, has passed through a course of Greek, Latin, French, and German (and few of our students, except with a professional view, extend their linguistic studies farther), has not, after all his labor, got beyond the limits of the same class of languages to which his mother tongue belongs, and of which it forms one of the most important members. But when he passes to the study of the Hebrew language he enters a new field, he observes new phenomena, he traces the operation of new laws. I. Characteristics of the Shemitic Languages, and in particular of the Hebrew.

1. With respect to sounds, the chief peculiarities are the four following:

(1.) The predominance of guttural sounds. The Hebrew has four or (we may say) five guttural sounds, descending from the slender and scarcely perceptible throat breathing represented by the first letter of the alphabet () through the decided aspirate , to the strong and gurgling . To these we must add which partakes largely of the guttural character. Nor were these sounds sparingly employed; on the contrary, they were in more frequent use than any other class of letters. In the Hebrew dictionary the four gutturals occupy considerably more than a fourth part of the whole volume, the remaining eighteen letters occupying considerably less than three fourths. This predominance of guttural sounds must have given a very marked character to the ancient Hebrew, as it does still to the modem Arabic.

(2.) The use of the very strong letters , , , which may be represented by tt or ts, q, in pronouncing which the organ is more compressed and the sound given forth with greater vehemence. These letters, especially the last two, are also in frequent use.

When the Greeks borrowed their alphabet from the Phoenicians, they softened or dropped these strong letters ( being softened into , and , being dropped except as marks of number), and changed the guttural letters into the vowels , , ,

(3.) The Shemitic languages do not admit, like the Indo-European, of an accumulation or grouping of consonants around a single vowel sound. In such words as craft, crush, grind, strong, stretch, we find four, five, and six consonants clustering around a single vowel.’ The Shemitic languages reject such groupings, usually interposing a vowel sound more or less distinct after each consonant. It is only at the end of a word that two consonants may stand together without any intermediate vowel sound; and even in that case various expedients are employed to dispense with a combination which is evidently not in accordance with the genius of the language.

(4.) The vowels, although thus copiously introduced, are nevertheless kept in strict subordination to the consonants; so much so that it is only in rare and exceptional cases that any word or syllable begins with a vowel. In Hebrew we have no such syllables as ab, ag, ad, in which the initial sound is a pure vowel; but only ba, ga, da. If Sir H. Rawlinson is correct, it would appear that the Assyrian language differed from the other Shemitic languages in this particular. In his syllabic alphabet a considerable number of the syllables begin with a vowel.

If we endeavor to calculate the effect of the foregoing peculiarities on the character of the language, we cannot avoid the conclusion that the Shemitic languages are of a more primitive type than the European-much less matured, polished, compacted-the natural utterance of a mind vehement and passionate, impulsive rather than calmly deliberative.

2. With respect to roots and words, the Shemitic languages are distinguished in a very marked manner:

(1.) By the three-letter root. This is one of the most striking characteristics of these languages, as it does not appear that there is any language not belonging to this class in the formation of whose roots the same law has been at work. It is very difficult to ascertain the origin of this singular phenomenon. It may possibly be regarded as a kind of equivalent for the compound roots of other languages (which are altogether wanting in the Shemitic); an original two-letter root being enlarged and expanded into a greater or less number of three-letter roots, for the purpose of giving expression to the various modifications and shades of the primitive root idea. The attempt has indeed been made, and with no small measure of success, to point out and specify the two-letter roots from which the existing three-letter roots have been derived; but it has been properly remarked that such an investigation carries us quite away from the Shemitic province. When we reach the two letter root we have left behind us the Shemitic languages altogether, and drawn forth a new language, which might be regarded, did we not know that the most ancient is not always the most simple, as the one primeval language of mankind. By three-letter roots We mean those having three consonants forming a dissyllable, and we must except from our remarks those containing the so- called weak letters, which assimilate themselves very strongly to the monosyllabic roots of primitive verbs in the Indo-European group of languages. See PHILOLOGY, COMPARATIVE.

(2.) The consideration of the Hebrew three-letter root, and its possible growth out of a more original two-letter root, leads on to the notice of another prominent feature of the Shemitic languages, viz. the further growth and expansion of the three-letter root itself into a variety of what are called conjugational forms, expressing intensity, reflexiveness, causation, etc. A similar formation may be traced in all languages; in some non-Shemitic languages, as the Turkish, it is very largely and regularly developed (Max Miller, Lectures on Science of Language, p. 318, etc.). In English we have examples in such verbs as sit and set, lie and lay, set being the causative of sit, lay of lie; or we may say sit is the reflexive of set, and lie of lay. So in Latin sedo and sedeo, jacio andja. ceo, etc., in which latter root the conjugational formation is still farther developed into jacto and jactito. But what in these languages is fragmentary and occasional, in Hebrew and the cognate languages is carried out and expanded with fullness and regularity, and consequently occupies a large space in the Shemitic grammar. The conjugations are of three sorts:

(a) Those expressing intensity, repetition, etc., which are usually distinguished by some change within the root;

(b) those expressing reflexiveness, causation, etc., which are usually distinguished by some addition to the root;

(c) the passives, distinguished by the presence of the u or o sound in the first syllable.

(3.) Another prominent distinction of the Shemitic languages is the extent to which modifications of the root idea are indicated, not by additions to the root, but by changes within the root. The Shemitic roots, says Bopp (Comparative Grammar of the Indo European Tongues, i, 99), on account of their construction, possess the most surprising capacity for indicating the secondary ideas of grammar by the mere internal molding of the root, while the Sanskrit roots at the first grammatical movement are compelled to assume external additions. These internal changes are principally of two sorts:

(a) Vowel changes. Nothing is more remarkable in the Shemitic languages than the significance of their vowel sounds; the sharp a sound, formed by opening the mouth wide, being associated as a symbol with the idea of activity, while the e and o sounds are the symbols of rest and passiveness. In the Arabic verb this characteristic is very marked, many of the roots appearing under three forms, each having a different vowel, and the signification being modified in accordance with the nature of that vowel. The same law appears in the formation of the passives. Thus katala-pass. kutela.

(b) Doubling of consonants, usually of the middle letter of the root. By means of this most simple and natural device, the Shemitic languages express intensity or repetition of action, and also such qualities as prompt to repeated action, as righteous, merciful, etc. By comparing this usage with the expression of the corresponding ideas in our own language, we observe at once the difference in the genius of the two languages. We say merciful, sinful, i.e. full of mercy, full of sin. Not so the Shemitic. What we express formally by means of an added root, the Shemitic indicates by a sign, by simply laying additional stress on one of the root letters. And thus again the observation made under the head sound recurs, viz. that in the formation of the Shemitic languages the dominant influence was that of instinctive feeling, passion, imagination- the hand of nature appearing everywhere, the voice of nature heard in every utterance: in this, how widely separated from the artificial and highly organized languages of the Indo-European family (Adelung, Mithridates, 1, 361).

(4.) The influence of the imagination on the structure of the Shemitic languages is further disclosed in the view which they present of nature and of time. To these languages a neuter gender is unknown. All nature viewed by the Shemitic eye appears instinct with life. The heavens declare God’s glory; the earth showeth his handiwork. The trees of the field clap their hands and sing for joy. This, though the impassioned utterance of the Hebrew poet, expresses a common national feeling, which finds embodiment even in the structure of the national language. Of inanimate nature the Hebrew knows nothing: he sees life everywhere. His language therefore rejects the neuter gender, and classes all objects, even those which we regard as inanimate, as masculine or feminine, according as they appear to his imagination to be endowed with male or female attributes. As his imagination thus endowed the lower forms of nature with living properties, so, on the other hand, under the same influence, he clothed with material and sensible form the abstract, the spiritual, even the divine. In Hebrew the abstract is constantly expressed by the concrete-the mental quality by the bodily member which was regarded as its fittest representative. Thus hand or arm stands for strength; , nostril, means also anger; the shining of the face stands for favor and acceptance, the falling of the face for displeasure. So also to say often means to think; to speak with one mouth stands for to be of the same sentiment.

The verb to go is employed to describe mental as well as bodily progress. One’s course of life is his way, the path of his feet. Nor only in its description of nature, but also in its mode of indicating time, do we observe the same predominant influence. The Shemitic tense system, especially as it appears in Hebrew, is extremely simple and primitive. It is not threefold like ours, distributing time into past, present, and future, but twofold. The two so- called tenses or rather states of the verb correspond to the division of nouns into abstract and concrete. The verbal idea is conceived of either in its realization or in its non-realization, whether actual or ideal. That which lies before the mind as realized, whether in the actual past, present, or future, the Hebrew describes by means of the so-called preterit tense; that which he conceives of as yet to be realized or in process of realization, whether in the actual past, present, or future, he describes by means of the so-called future tense. Hence the use of the future in certain combinations as a historical tense, and of the so-called preterit in certain combinations as a prophetic tense. Into the details of the tense usages which branch out from this primitive idea we cannot now enter. It is in the structural laws of the Hebrew language that its influence is most strongly marked: in the Aramsean it is almost lost. (See Ewald, Lehrbuch, 134 a; Journal of Sacred Literature for Oct. 1849.)

(5.) The influence of the imagination upon the structure of the Shemitic languages may also be traced in the absence of not a few grammatical forms which we find in other languages. Much that is definitely expressed in more highly developed languages is left in the Shemitic languages, and especially in the Hebrew, to be caught up by the hearer or reader. In this respect there is an analogy between the language itself and the mode in which it was originally represented in writing. Of the language as written, the vowel sounds formed no part. The reader must supply these mentally as he goes along. So with the language itself. It has not a separate and distinct expression for every shade and turn of thought. Much is left to be filled in by the hearer or the reader, and this usually without occasioning any serious inconvenience or difficulty. The Shemitic languages, however, do not all stand on the same level in this respect. In the Syriac, and still more in the Arabic, the expression of thought is usually more complete and precise than in Hebrew, though often for that very reason less animated and impressive. A principal defect in these languages, and especially in the Hebrew, is the fewness of the particles. The extreme simplicity of the verbal formation also occasions to the European student difficulties which can be surmounted only by a very careful study of the principles by which the verb-usages are governed.

In this respect the Hebrew occupies a middle position between those languages which consist almost entirely of roots with a very scanty grammatical development, and the Indo-European class of languages in which the attempt is made to give definite expression even to the most delicate shades of thought. The Greek, says Paul, seeks after wisdom: he reasons, compares, analyzes. The Jew requires a sign-something to strike the imagination and carry conviction to the heart at once without any formal and lengthened argument. The Greek language, therefore, in its most perfect form, was the offspring of reason and taste; the Hebrew, of imagination and intuition. The Shemites have been the quarriers whose great rough blocks the Japhethites have cut, and polished, and fitted one to another. The former, therefore, are the teachers of the world in religion, the latter in philosophy. This peculiar character of the Shemitic mind is very strongly impressed upon the language.

A national language being an embodiment and picture of the national mind, there is thus thrown around the otherwise laborious and uninteresting study of grammar, even in its earliest stages, an attractive power and value which would not otherwise belong to it. It was the same mind that found expression in the Hebrew language, which gave birth, under the influence of divine inspiration, to the sublime revelations of the Old Testament Scriptures. And it would be easy to trace an analogy between these revelations and the language in which they have been conveyed to us. It is curious to find that even the divinest thoughts and names of the Old Testament connect themselves with questions in Hebrew grammar. Thus, when we investigate the nature and use of the Hebrew plural, and discover from a multitude of examples that it is employed not only to denote plurality, but likewise extension, whether in space or time, as in the Hebrew words for life, youth, old age, etc., and also whatever seems bulky before the mind, we are unwittingly led on to one of the most important questions in the criticism of the Old Testament, viz. the origin of the plural form of the divine name (Elohim), in our version rendered God. Or, again, when we study the difficult question of the tenses, and endeavor to determine the exact import and force of each, we speedily discover that the grammatical investigation we are pursuing is one of unspeakable moment, for it involves the right apprehension of that most sacred name of God which the Jew still refuses to take upon his lips, the four-letter name , Jehovah (q.v.).

3. In the syntax and general structure of the Shemitic languages and writings we trace the operation of the same principles, the same tendencies of mind which manifest themselves in the structure of words. In this respect the Hebrew language exhibits a more simple and primitive type than any of the sister tongues. The simplicity of the Hebrew composition is very obvious even to the reader of the English Bible, or to the scholar who compares the Greek Testament, the style of which is formed on the model of the Old Testament, with the classical Greek writers. We observe at once that there is no such thing as the building up of a lengthened period, consisting of several propositions duly subordinated and compacted so as to form a harmonious and impressive whole. Hebrew composition consists rather of a succession of co-ordinate propositions, each of which is for the moment uppermost in the view of the speaker or writer, until it is superseded by that which follows. This results at once from the character of the Shemitic mind, which was more remarkable for rapid movements and vivid glances than for large and comprehensive grasp. Such a mind would give forth its thoughts in a rapid succession of independent utterances rather than in sustained and elaborated composition. It is a consequence of the same mental peculiarity that the highest poetry of the Shemitic nations is lyrical.

The Hebrew composition is also extremely pictorial in its character-not the poetry only, but also the prose. In the history the past is not described, it is painted. It is not the ear that hears, it is rather the eye that sees. The course of events is made to pass before the eye; the transactions are all acted over again. The past is not a fixed landscape, but a moving panorama. The reader of the English Bible must have remarked the constant use of the word behold, which indicates that the writer is himself, and wishes to make his reader also, a spectator of the transactions he describes. The use of the tenses in the Hebrew historical writings is especially remarkable. To the young student of Hebrew the constant use of the future tense in the description of the past appears perhaps the most striking peculiarity of the language. But the singular phenomenon admits of an easy explanation. It was because the Hebrew viewed and described the transactions of the past, not as all past and done, but as in actual process and progress of evolvement, that he makes such frequent use of the so-called future. In imagination he quits his own point of time, and lives over the past. With his reader he sails down the stream of time, and traces with open eye the winding course of history. It is impossible always to reproduce exactly in English this peculiarity of the Hebrew Bible.

Further, in writing even of the commonest actions, as that one went, spoke, saw, etc., the Hebrew is not usually satisfied with the simple statement that the thing was done, he must describe also the process of doing. We are so familiar with the style of our English Bibles that we do not at once perceive the pictorial character of such expressions as these, recurring in every page: he arose and went; he opened his lips and spake; he put forth his hand and took; he lifted up his eyes and saw; he lifted up his voice and wept. But what we do not consciously perceive we often unconsciously feel; and doubtless it is this painting of events which is the source of part at least of the charm with which the Scripture narrative is invested to all pure and simple minds.

The same effect is also produced by the symbolical way of representing mental states and processes which distinguishes the Hebrew writers. Such expressions as to bend or incline the ear for to hear attentively, to stiffen the neck for to be stubborn and rebellious, to uncover the ear for to reveal, are in frequent use. Even the acts of the Divine Mind are depicted in a similar way. In the study especially of the Old Testament we must keep this point carefully in view, lest we should err by giving to a symbolical expression a literal interpretation. Thus, when we read (Exo 33:11) that the Lord spake unto Moses face to face as a man speaketh unto his friend, we must remember that it was a Hebrew who wrote these words, one who was accustomed to depict to himself and others the spiritual under material symbols, and thus we shall be guarded against irreverently attaching to them a meaning which they were never intended to bear. But, though such modes of expression are open to misapprehension by us whose minds are formed in so very different a mould, nevertheless, when rightly understood, they have the effect of giving us a more clear and vivid impression of the spiritual ideas which they embody than could be conveyed to us by any other mode of representation or expression.

The simplicity and naturalness of the language further appears in the prominence which is constantly given to the word or words embodying the leading idea in a sentence or period. Thus the noun stands before the adjective, the predicate stands before the subject, unless the latter be especially emphatic, in which case it is not only put first, but may stand by itself as a nominative absolute without any syntactical connection with the rest of the sentence.

The constant use of the oratio directa is also to be specially noted, as an indication of the primitive character of the language. The Hebrew historian does not usually inform us that such and such a person said such and such things; he actually, as it were, produces the parties and makes them speak for themselves. To this device (if it may be so called) the Bible history owes much of its freshness and power of exciting and sustaining the interest of its readers. No other history could be so often read without losing its power to interest and charm.

Lastly, in a primitive language, formed under the predominating influence of imagination and emotion, we may expect to meet with many elliptical expressions, and also with many redundancies. Not a little which we think it necessary formally to express in words, the Hebrew allowed to be gathered from the context; and, conversely, the Hebrew gave expression to not a little which we omit. For example, nothing is more common in Hebrew than the omission of the verb to be in its various forms; and, on the other hand, a very striking characteristic of the Hebrew style is the constant use of the forms , and it came to pass and it shall come to pass, which, in translating into English, may be altogether omitted without any serious loss. In the Hebrew prose, also, we often meet with traces of that echoing of thought and expression which forms one of the principal characteristics of the poetic style; as in Gen 6:22, And Noah did according to all that God commanded him-so did he; and similar passages, in which we seem to have two different forms of recording the same fact combined into one, thus: And Noah did according to all that God commanded him; According to all that the Lord commanded him, so did he.

II. History of the Hebrew Language.

1. Its Origin. The extant historical notices on this point carry us back to the age of Abraham, but no further. The best evidences which we possess as to the form of the Hebrew language prior to its first historical period tend to show that Abraham, on his entrance into Canaan, found the language then prevailing among almost all the different tribes inhabiting that country to be in at least dialectical affinity with his own. This is gathered from the following facts: that nearly all the names of places and persons relating to those tribes admit of Hebrew etymologies; that, amid all the accounts of the intercourse of the Hebrews with the nations of Canaan, we find no hint of a diversity of idiom; and that even the comparatively recent remains of the Phoenician and Punic languages bear a manifest affinity to the Hebrew. But whether the Hebrew language, as seen in the earliest books of the Old Test., is the very dialect which Abraham brought with him into Canaan, or whether it was the common tongue of the Canaanitish nations, which Abraham only adopted from them, and which was afterwards developed to greater fullness under the peculiar moral and political influences to which his posterity were exposed, are questions which, in the absence of conclusive arguments, are generally discussed with some dogmatical prepossessions. Almost all those who support the first view contend also that Hebrew was the primitive language of mankind. S. Morinus (Ling. Princaev.) and Loscher (De Causis Ling. Hebr.) are among the best champions of this opinion; but Havernick has more recently advocated it with such modifications as make it more acceptable (Einleit. in das Alte Test. 1, 1, 148 sq.). The principal argument on which they depend is that, as the most important proper names in the first part of Genesis (as Cain, Seth, and others) are evidently founded on Hebrew etymologies, the essential connection of these names with their etymological origins involves the historical credibility of the records themselves, and leaves no room for any other conclusion than that the Hebrew language is coeval with the earliest history of man. The evidence on the other side is scanty, but not without weight.

(1.) In Deu 26:5, Abraham is called a Syrian or Aramean (), from which we naturally conclude that Syriac was his mother tongue, especially when we find,

(2.) from Gen 31:47, that Syriac or Chaldee was the language spoken by Laban, the grandson of Nahor, Abraham’s brother. Moreover, it has been remarked

(3.) that in Isa 19:18, the Hebrew is actually called the language of Canaan; and

(4.) that the language itself furnishes internal evidence of its Palestinian origin in the word , sea, which’ means also the west, and has this meaning in the very earliest documents.

(5.) Finally, Jewish tradition, whatever weight may be attached to it, points to the same conclusion (Gesenius, Geschichte, sect. 6:4).

If we inquire further how it was that the Canaanites, of the race of Ham, spoke a language so closely allied to the languages spoken by the principal members of the Shemitic family of nations, we shall soon discover that the solution of this difficulty is impossible with our present means of information; it lies beyond the historic period. It may be that long before the migration of Abraham a Shemitic race occupied Palestine; and that, as Abraham adopted the language of the Canaanites, so the Canaanites themselves had in like manner adopted the language of that earlier race whom they gradually dispossessed, and eventually extirpated or absorbed. However this may be, leaving speculation for fact, is it not possible to discover a wise purpose in the selection of the language of Tyre and Sidon the great commercial cities of antiquity as the language in which was to be embodied the most wonderful revelation of himself and of his law which God made to the ancient world? When we remember the constant intercourse which was maintained by the Phoenicians with the most distant regions both of the East and of the West, it is impossible to doubt that the sacred books of the Hebrews, written in a language almost identical with the Phoenician, must have exercised a more important influence on the Gentile world than is usually acknowledged.

Of course the Canaanitish language, when adopted by the Hebrews, did not remain unchanged. Having become the instrument of the Hebrew mind, and being employed in the expression of new and very peculiar ideas, it must have been modified considerably thereby. How far may possibly be yet ascertained, should accident or the successful zeal of some explorer bring to light the more ancient monuments of the Phoenician nation, which may still have survived the entombment of centuries.

2. Influences modifying the Form of the Hebrew Language, and the Style of the Hebrew Writings.

(1.) Time.

The history of the Hebrew language, as far as we can trace its course by the changes in the diction of the documents in which it is preserved, may here be conveniently divided into that of the period preceding and that of the period succeeding the Exile. If it be a matter of surprise that the thousand years which intervened between Moses and the Captivity should not have produced sufficient change in the language to warrant its history during that time being distributed into subordinate divisions, the following considerations may excuse this arrangement. It is one of the signal characteristics of the Hebrew language, as seen in all the books prior to the Exile, that, notwithstanding the existence of some isolated but important archaisms, such as in the form of the pronoun, etc. (the best collection of which may be seen in Havernick, c. p. 183 sq.), it preserves an unparalleled general uniformity of structure.

The extent to which this uniformity prevails may be estimated either by the fact that it has furnished many modern scholars, who reason from the analogies discovered in the changes in other languages in a given period, with an argument to show that the Pentateuch could not have been written at so remote a date as is generally believed (Gesenius, Gesch. der Hebr. Sprache, 8), or by the conclusion, a fortiori, which Havernick, whose express object is to vindicate its received antiquity, candidly concedes, that the books of Chronicles, Ezra, and Nehemiah are the earliest in which the language differs sensibly from that in the historical portions of the Pentateuch (Einleit. 1, 180). Even those critics who endeavor to bring down the Pentateuch as a whole to a comparatively late date allow that a portion at least of its contents is to be assigned to the age of Moses (Ewald, Lehrbuch, sec. 2, c): and thus, unless it can be shown that this most ancient portion bears in its language and style the stamp of high antiquity, and is distinguished in a very marked manner from the other portions of the Pentateuch (which has not been shown), the phenomenon still remains un-explained. But, indeed, the phenomenon is by no means unexampled. It does not stand alone. It is said, for example, that the Chinese language displays the same tenacity and aversion to change still more decidedly, the books of the great teacher Confucius being written in language not essentially different from that of his commentators fifteen hundred years later. So we are informed by a writer of the 15th century that the Greeks, at least the more cultivated class, even in his day spoke the language of Aristophanes and Euripides, maintaining the ancient standard of elegance and purity (Gibbon, 8:106).

Or, to take another example more closely related to the Hebrew, it is well known that the written Arabic of the present day does not differ greatly from that of the first centuries after Mohammed. In each of the cases just mentioned, it is probable that the language was as it were stereotyped by becoming the language of books held in highest esteem and reverence, diligently studied by the learned, frequently committed to memory, and adopted as a model of style by succeeding writers. Now, may not the sacred writings of the Mosaic age have had a similar influence on the written Hebrew of the following ages, which continued undisturbed till the Captivity, or even later? We know how greatly the translations of the Bible into English and German have affected the language and literature of England and Germany ever since they were given to the world. But among a people like the ancient Hebrews, living to a certain extent apart from other nations, with a literature of no great extent, and a learned class specially engaged in the study and transcription of the sacred writings, we may well suppose that the influence of these writings upon the form of the national language must have been much more decided and permanent. The learned men would naturally adopt in their compositions the language of the books which had been their study from youth, and large portions of which they were probably able to repeat from memory. Thus the language of these old books, though it might differ in some respects from that spoken by the common people, would naturally become the language of the learned and of books, especially of those books on sacred subjects, such as have alone come down to us from ancient Israel. In explanation of the fact under discussion, appeal has also been made (a) to the permanence of Eastern customs, and (b) to the simple structure of the Hebrew language, which rendered it less liable to change than other more largely developed languages (see Ewald, Heb. Gram. 7). It has also been remarked that some of the peculiarities of the early writings may be concealed from view by the uniformity of the system of punctuation adopted and applied to the Scriptures by the Hebrew grammarians.

In the canonical books belonging to the first period the Hebrew language thus appears in a state of mature development. Although it still preserves the charms of freshness and simplicity, yet it has attained great regularity of formation, and such a precision of syntactical arrangement as insures both energy and distinctness. Some common notions of its laxity and indefiniteness have no other foundation than the very inadequate scholarship of the persons who form them. A clearer insight into the organism of language absolutely, joined to such a study of the cognate Syro-Arabian idioms as would reveal the secret, but no less certain, laws of its syntactical coherence, would show them to what degree the simplicity of Hebrew is compatible with grammatical precision. One of the most remarkable features in the language of this period is the difference which distinguishes the diction of poetry from that of prose. This difference consists in the use of unusual words and flexions (many of which are considered to be Aramaisms or archaisms, although in this case these terms are nearly identical), and in a harmonic arrangement of thoughts, as seen both in the parallelism of members in a single verse, and in the strophic order of larger portions, the delicate art of which Ewald has traced with pre-eminent success in his Poetische Biicher des Alte Bundes, vol. 1.

The Babylonian Captivity is assigned as the commencement of that decline and corruption which mark the second period in the history of the Hebrew language; but the Assyrian deportation of the ten tribes, in the year B.C. 720, was probably the first means of bringing the Aramaic idiom into injurious proximity with it. The Exile, however, forms the epoch at which the language shows evident signs of that encroachment of the Aramaic on its integrity, which afterwards ended in its complete extinction. The diction of the different books of this period discovers various grades of this Aramaic influence, and in some cases approaches so nearly to the type of the first period that it has been ascribed to mere imitation.

The writings which belong to the second age-that subsequent to the Babylonian Captivity-accordingly differ very considerably from those which belong to the first; the influence of the Chaldee language, acquired by the Jewish exiles in the land of their captivity, having gradually corrupted the national tongue. The historical books belonging to this age are the books of Chronicles, Ezra, Nehemiah, and Esther. In the prophets who prophesied during and after the Captivity, with the exception of Daniel, the Chaldee impress is by no means so strong as we might anticipate, they having evidently formed their style on that of the older prophets. It is important, however, to observe that the presence of what appears to be a Chaldaism is not always the indication of a later age. Chaldee words and forms occasionally appear even in the most ancient Hebrew compositions, especially the poetical, the poet delighting in archaic and rare words, and substituting these for the more usual and commonplace. But between the Chaldaic archaisms and the Chaldeisms of the later Scriptures there is this marked distinction, that the former are only occasional, and lie scattered on the surface; the latter are frequent, and give a peculiar color and character to the whole language.

A still more corrupt form of the language appears in the Mishna and other later Jewish writings, in which the foreign element is much more decided and prominent.

(2.) Place. Under this head is embraced the question as to the existence of different dialects of the ancient Hebrew. Was the Hebrew language, as spoken by the several tribes of Israel, of uniform mould and character? or did it branch out into various dialects corresponding to the leading divisions of the nation? In attempting to answer this question, there is no direct historical testimony of which we can avail ourselves. From Neh 13:23-24, we learn nothing more than that the language of Ashdod differed from that of the Jews after their return from captivity, which is only what we might have anticipated. The notices in Jdg 12:6; Jdg 18:3, which are more to the purpose, refer rather to a difference in pronunciation than in the form of the language. Notwithstanding it seems primafacie probable (a) that the language of the trans-Jordanic tribes was in course of time modified to a greater or less extent by the close contact of these tribes with the Syrians of the north and the Arab tribes of the great eastern desert; and (b) that a similar dialectic difference would gradually be developed in the language of Ephraim and the other northern tribes to the west of the Jordan, especially after the political separation of these tribes from the tribe of Judah and the family of David. Possibly in the Jewish language of 2Ki 18:28 we may discover the trace of some such difference of dialect; for we can scarcely suppose the name Jewish to have been introduced in the very brief period which intervened between the taking of Samaria and the transaction in the record of which it occurs; and, if in use before the taking of Samaria and the captivity of the ten tribes, it must have been restricted to the form of the Hebrew language prevailing in Judea, which, being thus distinguished in name from the language of the northern tribes, was probably distinguished in other respects also. It is not improbable that some of the linguistic peculiarities of the separate books of Scripture are to be accounted for on this hypothesis.

3. When the Hebrew Language ceased to be a living Language. The Jewish tradition, credited by Kimchi,. is to the effect that the Hebrew language ceased to be spoken by the body of the people during their captivity in Babylon; and this is the opinion of many Christian scholars also, among whom are Buxtorf and Walton.. Others, as Pfeiffer and Loscher, argue that it is quite unreasonable, considering the duration and other circumstances of the Exile, to suppose that the Jews did not retain the partial use of their native tongue for some time after their return to Palestine, and lose it by slow degrees at last. There can be no doubt that the Hebrew was never spoken in its purity after the return from captivity; but that it ceased altogether to be the language of the people after that period, and was retained only as the language of books and of the learned, has not been established. The principal evidence relied on by those who hold this opinion is derived from Neh 8:8 : So they read in the book, in the law of God, distinctly, and gave the sense, and caused them to understand the reading. Distinctly, , i.e. says Hengstenberg, with the addition of a translation (Genuineness of Daniel, ch. 3, sec. 5). But, though this gloss has some support in Jewish tradition, it is at variance both with Hebrew and with Chaldee usage means made clear or distinct, as is evident from Num 15:34 (the meaning of , in Ezr 4:18, is disputed); and it can scarcely be otherwise rendered than they real distinctly (see the Lexicons of Cocceius, Gesenius, and Furst; Buxtorf and Gussetius render by explanate, explicate). This, indeed, is evident from the context; for if we should render with Hengstenberg, They read it with the addition of a translation, to what purpose the clause which follows, and gave the sense, etc? At the same time, though this passage does not furnish sufficient evidence to prove that in the time of Nehemiah Hebrew had ceased to be the language of every-day life, it does seem to point to the conclusion that at that time it had considerably degenerated from its ancient purity, so that the common people had some difficulty in understanding the language of their ancient sacred books. Still we believe that the Hebrew element predominated, and, instead of describing, with Walton (Prolegomena 3, sec. 24), the language of the Jews on their return from exile as Chaldee with a certain admixture of Hebrew, we should rather describe it as Hebrew with a large admixture of Chaldee. Only on this hypothesis does it appear possible satisfactorily to account for the fact that Hebrew continued even after this period to be the language of prophets and preachers, historians and poets, while there is no trace of any similar use of the Chaldee among the Jews of Palestine (compare also Neh 13:24).

At what time Chaldee became the dominant element in the national language it is impossible to determine. All political influences favored its ascendency, and with these concurred the influence of that large portion of the nation still resident in the East, and maintaining constant intercourse with a Chaldee-speaking population. To these influences we cannot wonder that the Hebrew, notwithstanding the sacred associations connected with it, by-and-by succumbed. On the coins of the Maccabees, indeed, the ancient language still appears; but we cannot conclude from this circumstance that it maintained its position as a living language down to the Maccabean period (Ronan, Langues Semitiques, p. 137). The fragments of the popular language which we find in the New Testament are all Aramaean, and ever since the Hebrew has been preserved and cultivated as the language of the learned and of books, and not of common life. On the history of the post-Biblical Hebrew we do not now enter.

III. Of the Written Hebrew. The Shemitic nations: have been the teachers of the world in religion; by the invention of the alphabet they may likewise lay claim to the honor of having laid the foundation of the world’s literature. The Shemitic alphabet, as is well known, has no signs for the pure vowel sounds. All the letters are consonants; some, however, are so weak as easily to pass into vowels, and these letters we accordingly find in use, especially in the later Scriptures, as vowel marks. Two interesting questions here present themselves: 1. As to the age and origin of the characters or letters which appear in all extant Hebrew MSS. and in our printed Hebrew Bibles; and, 2. As to the origin and authority of the punctuation by which the vowel sounds are indicated.

1. On the former of these questions there are two conclusions which may be relied on as certain:

(1.) That the present square characters were not in use among the Jews previous to the Babylonian Captivity. The Jewish tradition is that they were introduced or reintroduced by Ezra (Gesenius, Geschichte, p. 150; Lightfoot, Horae Hebraicae, Mat 5:18).

(2.) That the square characters have been in use since the beginning of our era (Hupfeld in Stud. und Krit. for 1830, p. 288). But between these two limits several centuries intervene; is it mot possible to approximate more closely to the date of their introduction? The only fact to which appeal can be made with this view is- this, that on the coins of the Maccabees the square characters do not appear; but whether we are entitled to conclude from this that these characters had not then come into use in Judaea is very doubtful (Gesenius, Geschichte, sect. 43, 3). The probability is that the introduction of these characters, called by the Jewish doctors Assyrian, and generally admitted to be of Aramaean origin, had some connection with the introduction of the Aramaean language, and that the change from the ancient written characters, like that from the ancient language, was not accomplished at once, but gradually. It is possible that in the intensity of national feeling awakened during the Maccabean struggle, there was a reaction in favor of the ancient language and writing.

The earliest monuments of Hebrew writing which we possess are these genuine coins of the Maccabees, which date from the year B.C. 143. The character in which their inscriptions are expressed bears a very near resemblance to the Samaritan alphabet, and both are evidently derived from the Phoenician alphabet. The Talmud also, and Origen and Jerome, both attest the fact that an ancient Hebrew character had fallen into disuse; and by stating that the Samaritans employed it, and by giving some descriptions of its form, they distinctly prove that the ancient character spoken of was essentially the same as that on the Armenian coins. It is therefore considered to be established beyond a doubt that, before the exile, the Hebrews used this ancient character (the Talmud even calls it the Hebrew). The Talmud, and Origen, and Jerome ascribe the change to Ezra; and those who, like Gesenius, admit this tradition to be true in a limited sense, reconcile it with the late use of the ancient letters on the coins, by appealing to the parallel use of the Kufic characters on the Mohammedan coins, for several centuries after the Nishi was employed for writing, or by supposing that the Maccabees had a mercantile interest in imitating the coinage of the Phoenicians. The other opinion is that, as the square Hebrew character has not, to all appearance, been developed directly out of the ancient stiff Phoenician type, but out of an alphabet bearing near affinity to that found in the Palmyrene inscriptions, a combination of this palaeographical fact with the intercourse which took place between the Jews and the Syrians under the Seleucidae, renders it probable that the square character was first adopted at some inconsiderable but indefinable time before the Christian sera. Either of these theories is compatible with the supposition that the square character underwent many successive modifications in the next centuries, before it attained its full calligraphical perfection. The passage in Mat 5:18 is considered to prove that the copies of the law were already written in the square character, as the yod of the ancient alphabet is as large a letter as the aleph; and the Talmud and Jerome speak as if the Hebrew MSS. of the Old Testament were, in their time, already provided with the final letters, the Taggin, the point on the broken horizontal stroke of , and other calligraphical minutia. The characters in use before the Babylonian exile have been preserved by the Samaritans even to the present day without material change (Gesenius, Monum. Phoen. sect. 51, 1; comp. on this subject also Kopp, Bilder und Schriftemz, 2, sect. 165-167; Ewald, Lehibuich, sect. 77; Gesenius, Geschichte der Hebrsischen Sprache . Schrift, sect. 41-43).

2. As to the origin and authority of the punctuation, the controversy which raged so fiercely in the 17th century may be said now to have ceased; and the views of Ludovicus Cappellus, from the adoption of which the Buxtorfs anticipated the most dangerous consequences now meet with almost universal acquiescence. The two following conclusions may now be regarded as established:

(1.) That the present punctuation did not form an original part of the inspired record, but was introduced by the Jewish doctors long after that record had been closed, for the purpose of preserving, as far as possible, the true pronunciation of the language; and

(2.) That the present pointed text, notwithstanding its comparative regency, presents us with the closest possible approximation to the language which the sacred writers actually used. It would be tedious to go over the evidence by which these positions are established. Those who wish to do so will find the fullest information in the great work of Ludovicus. Cappellus, entitled Arcanum Punctationis Revelatum, with the reply of the younger Buxtorf. Keeping these conclusions in view in interpreting the Hebrew Scriptures, we shall be careful neither, on the one hand, to neglect the traditional text, nor, on the other hand, servilely to adhere to it when a change of the points would give a better sense to any passage.

The origin of the vowel points is to be ascribed to the effort which the Jewish learned men made to preserve the pronunciation of their sacred language at a time when its extinction as a living tongue endangered the loss of the traditional memory of its sound. Every kind of evidence renders it probable that these signs for the pronunciation were first introduced about the 7th century of the Christian era, that is, after the completion of the Talmud, and that the minute and complex system which we possess was gradually developed from a few indispensable signs to its present elaborateness. The existence of the present complete system can, however, be traced back to the 11th century. The skilful investigation of Hupfeld (in the Studien und Kritiken for 1830, p. 549 sq.) has proved that the vowel- points were unknown to Jerome and the Talmud; but, as far as regards the former, we are able to make a high estimate of the degree to which the traditionary pronunciation, prior to the use of the points, accorded with our Masoretic signs; for Jerome describes a pronunciation which agrees wonderfully well with our own vocalization. We are thus called on to avail ourselves thankfully of the Masoretic punctuation, on the double ground that it represents the Jewish traditional pronunciation, and that the Hebrew language, unless when read according to its laws, does not enter into its full dialectical harmony with its Syro-Arabian sisters. SEE MASSORAH.

Although it may be superfluous to enforce the general advantages, not to say indispensable necessity, of a sound scholar-like study of the Hebrew language to the theological student, yet it may be allowable to enumerate some of those particular reasons, incident to the present time, which urgently demand an increased attention to this study. First, the English- speaking race have an ancient honorable name to retain. Selden, Castell, Lightfoot, Pocock, Walton, Spencer, and Hyde, were once contemporary ornaments of its literature. We daily see their names mentioned with deference in the writings of German scholars; but we are forcibly struck with the fact that, since that period, Great Britain has hardly, with the exception of Lowth and Kennicott, produced a single Syro-Arabian scholar whose labors have signally advanced Biblical philology; while America, although possessing some well-qualified teachers, has produced but little that is original in this direction. Secondly, the bold inquiries of the German theologians will force themselves on our notice. It is impossible for us to ignore their existence, for the works containing them are now speedily circulated among us in an English dress. These investigations are conducted in a split of philological and historical criticism which has never yet been brought to bear, with such force, on the most important Biblical questions. The wounds which they deal to the ancient traditions cannot be healed by reference to commentators whose generation knew nothing of our doubts and difficulties. The cure must be sympathetic; it must be effected by the same weapon that caused the wound. If the monstrous disproportion which books relating to ecclesiastical antiquity bear, in almost every theological bookseller’s catalogue, over those relating to Biblical philology, be an evidence of the degree to which these studies have fallen into neglect, and if the few books in which an acquaintance with Hebrew is necessary, which do appear, are a fair proof of our present ability to meet the Germans with their own weapons, then there is indeed an urgent necessity that theological students should prepare for the increased demands of the future.

III. History of Hebrew Learning. It is not till the closing part of the 9th century that we find, even among the Jews themselves, any attempts at the formal study of their ancient tongue. In the Talmudic writings, indeed, grammatical remarks frequently occur, and of these some indicate an acute and accurate perception of the usages of the language; but they are introduced incidentally, and are to be traced rather to a sort of living sense of the language than to any scientific study of its structure or laws. What the Jews of the Talmudic period knew themselves of the Hebrew they communicated to Origen and Jerome, both of whom devoted themselves with much zeal to the study of that language, and the latter of whom especially became proficient in all that his masters could teach him concerning both its vocabulary and its grammar (Eusebius, Hist. Eccles.; Jerome, Adv. Rufin. 1, 363; Epist. ad Damas.; Praef ad Jobun, ad Paralipom. etc.; Carpzov, Crit. Sac. 6 2). As represented by Jerome, the Church was quite on a par with the synagogue in acquaintance with the language of the ancient Scriptures; but how imperfect that was in many respects may be seen from the strange etymologies, which even Jerome adduces as explanatory of words, and from his statement that from the want of vowels in Hebrew the Jews pronounce the same words with different sounds and accents, pro voluntate lectorun ac varietate regionum (Ep. ad Evangelums).

Stimulated by the example of the Arabians, the Jews began, towards the end of the 9th century, to bestow careful study on the grammar of their ancient tongue; and with this advantage over the Arabian grammarians, that they did not, like them, confine their attention to one language, but took into account the whole of the Shemitic tongues. An African Jew, Jehuda ben-Karish, who lived about A.D. 880, led the way in this direction; but it was reserved for Saadia ben-Joseph of Fayum, gaon (or spiritual head) of the Jews at Sora in Babylonia, and who died A.D. 942, to compose the first formal treatise on points of Hebrew grammar and philology. To him we are indebted for the Arabic version of the O.T., of which portions are still extant, SEE ARABIC VERSIONS; and though his other works, his commentaries on the O.T., and his grammatical works, have not come down to us, we know of their existence from, and have still some of their contents in, the citations of later writers. He was followed by R. Jehuda ben-David Chajug, a native of Fez, who flourished in the 11th century, whose services have procured for him the honorable designation of chief of grammarians. From him the succession of Jewish grammarians embraces the following names [for details, see separate articles].

Re Salomo Isaaki (, Rashi), a native of Troyes in France, d. ab. 1105; Abu’l Walid Mervan ibn-Ganach, a. physician at Cordova, d. 1120; Moses Gikatilla, ab. 1100: Ibll-Esra, d. 1194; the Kimchis, especially Moses and: David, who flourished in the 13th century; Isaak benMose (Ephodaeus, so called from the title of his work ); Solomon Jarchi wrote a grammar, in which he sets forth the seven conjugations of verbs as: now usually given; Abraham de Balmez of Lecci; and Elias Levita (1472-1549). The earliest efforts in Hebrew lexicography with which we are acquainted is the little work of Saadia Gaon, in which he explains seventy Hebrew words; a codex containing this is in the Bodleian library at Oxford, from which it has been printed by Dukes in the Zeitschrift fr die Kunde des Morgenlnder, 5, 1, 115 sq. In the same codex is another small lexicographical work by Jehuda ben-Karish, in which Hebrew words are explained from the Talmud, the Arabic, and other languages; excerpts from this are given in Eichhorn’s Biblioth. der Bibl. Litt. 3, 951-980. More copious works are those of Ben-Ganach, where the: Hebrew words are explained in Arabic; of R. Menahem. ibn-Saruk, whose work has been printed with an English translation by Herschell Philipowski (Lond. 1854); of R. Salomo Parchon (about 1160), specimens of whose work have been given by De Rossi in his collection of Various Readings, and in a separate work entitled Lexicon Heb. select, quo ex antiquo et inedito R. Parchonis Lexico novas et diversas rariorum et difficiliorum vocum. significationes sistit, J. B. De Rossi (Parm. 1805); of David Kimchi, in the second part of his Michlol, entitled: . (often printed; best edition by Biesen-thal and Leberecht, 2 vols. Berl. 1838-47); and of Elias. Levita (Tishbi, Bas. 1527, and with a Latin translation by Fagius, 4to, 1541). The Concordance of Isaac Nathan (1437) also belongs to this period.

The study of the Hebrew language among Christians, which had only casually and at intervals occupied the attention of ecclesiastics during the Middle Ages, received an impulse from the revived interest in Biblical exegesis produced by the Reformation. Something had: been done to facilitate the study of Oriental literature and to call attention to it by the MSS., Hebrew and Arabic, which the emperor Frederick II brought into Europe after the fourth crusade in 1228 (Cuspinian, De Caesaribus, p. 419; Boxhorn, Hist. Univ. p. 779); and a few men-such as Raymund Martini, a native of Catalonia (born 1236), Paulus Bugensis, Libertas Cominetus, who is said to have known and used fourteen languages,. etc. appeared as lights in the otherwise beclouded firmament of Biblical learning. But it was not until the beginning of the 16th century that any general interest was awakened in the Christian Church for the study of Hebrew literature. In 1506 appeared the grammar and lexicon of Reuchlin, which may be regarded as the first successful attempt to open the gate of Hebrew learning to the Christian world; for though the work of Conrad. Pellican, Del odo legendi et intelligendi Hebraea (Basel, 1503), had the precedence in point of time, it was too imperfect to exert much influence in favor of Hebrews studies. A few years later, Santes Pagnini, a Dominican of Lucca, issued his Institutionum Hebraicarun. Libb. 4 (Lyons, 1526), and his Thesaurus Ling. Sanct. (ibid.. 1529); but the former of these works is inferior to the Grammar of Reuchlin, and the latter is a mere collection of excerpts from David Kimchi’s Book of Roots, often erroneously understood. No name of any importance occurs in the history of Hebrew philology after this till we come to those of Sebastian Mnster and the Buxtorfs. The former translated the grammatical works of Elias Levita, and from these chiefly he constructed his own Dictionarum Hebr., adj. Chald. vocabulis (Basel, 1523), and his Opus Grammaticum ex variis Elianis libris concinnatum (Bas. 1542). The latter rendered most important service to the cause of Hebrew learning. SEE BUXTORF.

The grammars and lexicons of the older Buxtorf were for many years the principal helps to the study of Hebrew in the Christian Church, and one of them, his Lexicon Chald. Talmud. et Rabbinicum (Basel, 1640), is still indispensable to the student who would thoroughly explore the Hebrew language and literature. The names also of Forster and Schindler may be mentioned as marking an epoch in the history of these studies. Previous to them scholars had followed almost slavishly in the track of rabbinical teaching. By them, however, an attempt was made to gather materials from a wider field. Firster, in his Dict. Hebr. Nov. (Basel, 1557), sought to determine the meaning of the words from the comparison of the different passages of Scripture in which they occur, and of allied words, words having two consonants in common, or two consonants of the same organ. Schindler added to this the comparison of different Shemitic dialects for the illustration of the Hebrew in his Lex. Pentaglotton (Han. 1612). The example thus set was carried forward by Samuel Bohle, a Rostock professor (Dissertt. pro formali Signif. S. S. eruenda, 1637), though by his fondness for metaphysical methods and conceits he was often betrayed into mere trifling; by Christian Nolde, professor at Copenhagen (Concordant. particularum Ebraeo. Chald. V. T. Hamb. 1679); by Joh. Cocceius (Coch), professor at Leyden (Lex. et Comment. serm. Hebr. Lond. 1669); by Castell (Lex. Heptaglot. Lond. 1669); by De Dieu in his commentaries on the O.Test.; and by Hottinger in his Etymologicuma Orient. sive Lex harmonicum heptaglot. (Frankf. 1661). Sol. Glass also, in his Philologia Sacra, 1636, rendered important service to Hebrew learning and O. T. exegesis.

Meanwhile a new school of Hebrew philology had arisen under the leading of Jakob Alting and Johann Andr. Danz. The former in his Fundamenta punctationis linguae sanctae sive Grammat. Hebr. (Gron. 1654), and the latter in his Nucifrangibulum (Jena, 1686), and other works, endeavored to show that the phenomena which the Hebrew exhibited in a grammatical respect, the flexions, etc., had their basis in essential properties of the language, and could be rationally evolved from principles. Peculiar to them is the systema morarum, a highly artificial method of determining the placing of long or short vowels, according to the number of norae appertaining to each or to the consonant following, a method which led to endless niceties, and no small amount of learned trifling. The fundamental principle, however, which Alting and Danz asserted is a true one, and their assertion of it was not without fruits. Nearly contemporary with them was Jacques Gousset, professor at Grningen, who devoted much time and labor to the preparation of a work entitled Commentarii Ling. Heb. (Amst. 1702), in which he follows strictly the method of deducing the meanings of the Hebrew words from the Hebrew itself, rejecting all aid from rabbins, versions, or dialects. The chief merit of Gousset and his followers, of whom the principal is Chr. Stock (Clavis Ling. Sanct. V. et N. Ti. Lips. 1725), consists in the close attention they paid to the usus loquendi of Scripture, and Havernick thinks that adequate justice has not been done to Gousset’s services in this respect (Introd. to O.T. p. 221. Eng. trans.).

Hitherto not much attention had been paid to etymology as a source for determining the meaning of Hebrew words. This defect was in part remedied by Caspar Neumann and Valentin Loscher, the former of whom in different treatises, the latter in his treatise De Causis Ling. Heb. (Frankf. and Leipsic, 1706), set forth the principle that the Hebrew roots are biliterae, that these are the characteres significationis, as Neumann called them, or the semina vocum, as they were designated by Loscher, and that from them the triliterals, of which the Hebrew is chiefly composed, were formed. They contended also that the fundamental meaning of the biliterals is to be ascertained from the meaning of the letters composing each, and for this purpose they assigned to each letter what the former called significatio hieroglyphica, and the latter valor logicus. This last is the most dubious part of their system; but, as a whole, their views are worthy of respect and consideration (see Hupfeld, De emendanda lexicog. Semlit. ratione, p. 3).

A great advance was made in the beginning of the 18th century by the rise almost simultaneously of two rival schools of Hebrew philology-the Dutch school, headed by Albert Schultens, and the school of Halle, founded by the Michaelis family. In the former the predominating tendency was towards the almost exclusive use of the Arabic for the illustration of Hebrew grammar and lexicography. Schultens himself was a thorough Arabic scholar, and he carried his principle of appealing to that source for the elucidation of the Hebrew to an extent which betrayed him into many mistakes and extravagances; nevertheless, to his labors Hebrew philology owes an imperishable debt of obligation. Besides his commentaries on Job and Proverbs, which are full of grammatical and lexicographical disquisition, he wrote Origines Hebraeae seu Heb. Ling. antiquissima natura et indoles ex Arabiae penetralibus revocata (Frankfort, 1723), and Institutiones adfundamenta Ling. Heb. (Leyd. 1737). To this school belongs Schroder, professor at Grningen, who published in 1776 a Hebrew grammar of great excellence, and which has passed through many editions, under the same title as the second of the works of Schultens above noted; and Robertson, professor at Edinburgh (Grammatica Hebr. Edinb. 1783, 2nd ed.). Both these works excel that of Schultens in clearness and simplicity, and in neither is the Arabic theory so exclusively adhered to. Venema, as a commentator, was also one of the luminaries of this school.

The school of Halle was founded by Johann Heinrich and Christian Benedikt Michaelis, but its principal ornament in its earlier stage was the son of the latter, John David, professor at Gttingen. SEE MICHAELIS.

The principle of this school was to combine the use of all the sources of elucidation for the Hebrew-the cognate dialects, especially the Aramaic, the versions, the rabbinical writings, etymology, and the Hebrew itself as exhibited in the sacred writings. The valuable edition of the Hebrew Bible, with exegetical notes, the conjoint work of J. H. and Christ. B. Michaelis, some grammatical essays by the latter, and the Hebrische Grammatik (Halle, 1744), the Supplementa ad lexica Hebraica (6 parts, Gtt. 1785- 92), and several smaller essays of John David, comprise the principal contributions of this illustrious family to Hebrew learning. To their school belong the majority of more recent German Hebraists Moser (Lex. Man. Heb. et Chald. Ulm, 1795),Vater (Heb. Sprachlehre, Lpz. 1797), Hartmann (Anfangsgriinde der Heb. Sprache, Marburg, 1798), Jahn (Grammatica Ling. Heb. 1809), and the facile princeps of the whole, Gesenius (Hebr. Deutsches Handwrterbuch, Lpz. 1810-12, and later; Heb. Grammatik, Halle, 1813, and often since; Geschichte der Heb. Spr. und Schrift, 1815, and since; Ausfhrliches Gram. Krit. Lehrgebaude der Heb. Spr. 1817; Lexicon Manuale, 1833, and later; Thesaurus Phil. Crit. Ling. Hebr. et Chald. Lpz. 1835-1858). SEE GESENIUS.

Gesenius has been followed closely by Moses Stuart in his Grammar of the Hebrew Language, of which many editions have appeared. Under the Halle school may also be ranked Joh. Simonis (Onomast. Vet. Test. Halle, 1741; Lexicon Man. Heb. et Chald. 1756; re-edited by Eichhorn in 1793, and with valuable improvements by Winer in 1828); but, though a pupil of Michaelis, Simonis shows a strong leaning towards the school of Schultens.

Among recent Hebraists the name of Lee (Grammai of the Heb. Lang. in a Series of Lectures, Lond. 3rd edit. 1844; Lexicon Heb. Chald. and Engl. 1840), Ewald (Krit. Gramm. der Heb. Spr. Ausfuhrlich bearbeitet, Lpz. 1827; 7th ed. 1863, under the title of Ausfhrliches Lehrb. der Heb. Spr. des A. B.), and Hupfeld (Exercitationes Ethiopiae, 1825; De emend. Lexicogr. Sem. ratione Comment 1827; Ueber Theorie der Heb. Gr. in the Theol. Studien und Kritiken for 1828; Aus: Hebr. Gram. 1841), are the most prominent. Each of these pursues an independent course, but all of them incline more or less to the school of Alting and Danz. Lee avows that the aim of his grammatical investigations is to study the language as it is, that is, as its own analogy collected from itself and its cognate dialects exhibits it (Grammar, Pref. p. 4, new ed. 1844). Ewald has combined with his philosophical analysis of the language, as it exists in its own documents, a more extended use of the cognate dialects; he contends that, to do justice to the Hebrew, one must first be at home in all the branches of Shemitic literature, and that it is by combining these with the old Hebrew that the latter is to be called from the dead, and piece by piece endowed with life (Grammatik, Pref. p. 9). Hupfeld’s method is eclectic, and does not differ from that of Gesenius, except that it assigns a larger influence to the philosophic element, and aims more at basing the grammar of the language on first principles analytically determined; by him also the Japhetic languages have been called in to cast light on the Shemitic, a course to which Gesenius too, after formally repudiating it, came in his later works to incline.

Among the Jews, the study of Hebrew literature has been much fettered by rabbinical and traditional prejudices. Many able grammarians, however, of this school have appeared since the beginning of the 16th century, among whom the names of the brothers David and Moses Provengale, Lonzano Norzi, Ben-Melech, Ssskind, and Lombroso are especially to be mentioned. A more liberal impulse was communicated by Solomon Cohen (1709-62), but Mendelssohn was the first to introduce the results and methods of Christian research among his nation. First (Lehrgeb. d. Aram. Idiome mit Bezug auf’ die Indo-Germ. Spr. I. Chald. Gram. 1835; Charuze Peninim, 1836; Concordantice Libr. Vet. Test. 1840; Hebr. and Chald. Handworterbuch ber der A. T. 2 vols. 1857) seeks to combine the historical with the analytical method, taking note of all the phenomena of the Hebrew itself, illustrating these from the cognate tongues, and those of the Indo-Germanic class, and at the same time endeavoring on philosophic grounds to separate the accidental from the necessary, the radical from the ramified, the germ from the stem, the stem from the branches, so as to arrive at the laws which actually rule the language. All his works are of the highest value. Mr. Horwitz has also published an excellent Heb. Grammar (Lond. 1835). We especially notice the philosophical method pursued by Nordheimer (Heb. Grammar, N. Y. 1838-42, 2 vols. 8vo). The latest Jewish production in English is Kalisch’s Hebrew Gramm. (Lond. 1863, 8vo).

See generally Wolf, Biblioth. Hebr. (1715-53); Loscher, De Causis Ling. Ebr. (1706); Hezel, Gesch. der Hebr. Spr. and Litter. (1776); Gesenius, Gesch. d. Hebr. Spr. (1815); Delitzsch, Jeshurun, Isagoge in Gramm. et Lexicogr. linguce Hebr. (1838); Fiirst, Biblioth. Judaica, passim; also his appendix on Jewish Lexicography to his Lex. Hebr. Steinschneider, Jewish Literature, per. 2, 16; per. 3: 27; Bibliograph. Handbuchfr Hebr. Sprachk. (Lpz. 1859, 8vo). SEE SHEMITIC LANGUAGES.

Hebrew Language (ADDENDUM FROM VOLUME 12):

The central position which this “sacred tongue” occupies in Biblical literature justifies us in supplementing the article in volume 4 by a somewhat detailed exposition of some of its leading lexical and’ grammatical peculiarities, and in doing so we take the occasion to call attention to some features and linguistic principles not usually apprehended. ‘These illustrate the natural simplicity no less than the profound philosophy of the language.

I. Root Meanings.

1. It has generally been assumed that verbs are the only primitives in Hebrew, and hence the lexicons have constantly referred all words, to some verbal root. But it seems more reasonable to analogy and more consonant with fact to admit a few primitive nouns, such as ,father; , brother; , water, etc. Accordingly we find scarcely used, except in Hiph. as a denominative from , hand, in the sense of stretching out the hand, e.g. in prayer or praise.

2. A more important fact, admitted by most lexicographers, and denied of late by only a few scholars,* is that all the roots primarily seem to designate some physical act, or condition, appreciable by the senses. This may be true of other languages, in the primitive forms, but it is eminently characteristic of the Hebrew. Not only were the people who used it a constitutionally poetic race, affected by and reflecting every shadow of the imagination, but their originally nomadic habits made them keenly sensitive to every accident and influence of Bedawin life. They had specific terms for pitching and striking their tents and , respectively), for turning out of the road to stop at a house (), and lodging over night (), etc. They were on the constant lookout for an enemy (), and they had a term for one of a hostile tribe ( as opposed to ), in distinction from personal enmity () or individual opposition (). The nice shades of climactic signification, which are very imperfectly developed even in the best Hebrew lexicons, are shown with graphic clearness in terms for anger: , to breathe hard with the first excitement; , to glow with the rising passion; , the flush of the hot blood; , to froth with intense fury, etc. Attention to the ostensible sign of a root will enable us to note the steps of transition from a primitive to a derivative signification e.g. , to mutter to one’s self in a brown study; hence to murmur in grudge, or meditate with pleasure. The constant usage of terms in a figurative sense, with an eye to their literal import, makes every word and phrase a picture, and renders even the prosiest utterances highly poetical.

*We look with some distrust upon the fashion, prevalent in certain quarters, of seeking Hebrew etymous. in the radicals found among the cuneiform disclosures. The dialects of the Assyrian, “Accadian,” and early Babylonian are yet in too crude a state of classification and investigation to bear out much reliance upon them for such purposes, and it is doubtful if they ever will be largely available for trustworthy comparison, except in a very general manner, and for obscure roots.

3. Hebrew synonyms, as thus appears, have received less attention than they deserve. The lexicographers, especially Gesenius, have occasionally traced distinctions in the use of words, and have freely compared many cognate roots, resolving most of them to certain supposed essential ideas, but this last has helped very little towards a practical discrimination of their real meaning and prevalent application, and no general system of comparing verbs closely resembling each other has been instituted. Yet it is certain that in Hebrew, as in all other primitive languages, real synonyms are very rare, and in no other tongue, perhaps, are terms more distinctively employed, especially in the physical relations of life, however vaguely they may often have to be construed in their figurative and metaphysical applications. For example, the words relating to the senses are nicely correlated to each other, and finely shaded off in comparative strength. Thus is to hear simply, the sound entering one’s ears whether he will or not. But is to pay attention to what is heard, as by look or gesture; hence to answer, as expected of one giving heed to another; and finally to speak, i.e., in reply to words or thoughts merely implied. Still advancing,

, a denominative from , the ear (probably a primitive, for the root does not occur), is to give ear, i.e., turn the ear in the direction of the sound, or listen, but not very intently. Finally, is to prick up the ears, i.e., use the hand for increasing the volume of sound, or hearken earnestly. So likewise is to see simply, without any special effort, ; but is to behold, or gaze intently at some striking object, as in a vision, or ; and is to look at closely, for the purpose of scrutiny or discovery, ; while other terms are of special and narrow import, as , to view, i.e., bring into the field of vision; , to peep, as from a lurking-place; , to watch, as an enemy. In addressing, is simply to call out the name of a person spoken to or of; while is to say something, the words being added; and s to speak, the language not being given; but is to halloo, or cry out for help; (less strongly, ) to shriek from distress or danger; to groan in pain or sorrow; and merely to talk loud, out of folly or (Piel) in praise. Among pleasant emotions is to be glad simply, as evinced bv a quiet and satisfied demeanor; but or is to exult with demonstrative expressions; and to triumph with shouts of joy. Among unpleasant emotions is to fear, simply in a general sense; but is to palpitate with sudden alarm (Niph. to’ be panic-stricken); is to be frightened by some object of terror; is to dread an impending cause of anxiety; to shudder on the surface; to quake in the interior; while and are merely to spin round under the influence of any violent feeling, whether cringing through fear, writhing in pain, or jumping for joy (especially the former word). is to be weak in the ankles, hence, to totter, stumble, etc.; but is to bend the knees, hence, to bow or fall; while is to crouch on the haunches, like an animal in repose. For terms denoting forever, there is , the vanishing point, whether forward or backward; hence time out of mind, everlastingly; , the terminus, a fixed point beyond which one cannot pass; and , the goal or shining mark set up as far ahead as one can well see; while simply denotes continuity Of negatives there is , not, the direct denial, , far from it, the softer or deprecative disclaimer, ; , by no means, the peremptory exclusive; and , not at all, the absolute contradiction, , omnino. So in meteorology, is a misty scud- cloud, so called from obscuring the landscape; is a black thunder- cloud, so called from veiling the heavens; and is a light fleece-cloud, so called from its resemblance to dust diffused in the sky. In brigandage is an ambush for a surprise; while is a covert for security; a hiding-place for secrecy; and or . merely a lair of wild beast, as screened by interlaced twigs. In orography and geography generally, Hebrew words are used with great precision. SEE TOPOGRAPHICAL TERMS.

II. Vocalization. Syllabification is very simple in Hebrew, as the letters (all regarded as consonants) are the basis of articulation, and each (with the frequent exception of the qumiescents) has its own vowel (expressed or implied) following. The pronunciation, indeed, is not certain, as Hebrew ceased to be a living tongue after the Babylonian exile; but the sounds of the letters probably survive in the cognate Oriental languages, especially the Arabic, and the vowels supplied by the Masoretes doubtless represent those traditionally handed down to their own times. The latter form an ingenious and apparently complicated but really simple and natural series, of which the written signs are sufficiently distinct and philosophical. The intricate chain of vowel-changes arising in declension is remarkable for its strict conformity to the laws of the vocal organs, and euphony is its fundamental principle. The tone usually rests on the final syllable, as being in general the most significant of grammatical relations, and hence an increment, as carrying the accent, has a constant tendency to shorten the preceding part of the word. The oblique forms of nouns and verbs, including the suffixed pronouns, are thus literally constructed, and the balance is preserved by abbreviating the beginning. In this system two features are of prime and universal influence, namely, the sernivocal character of the gutturals (inducing a series of peculiarities in their pointing), and the necessity of the tone for either a long closed or a short open syllable. By observing the effect of these principles and a few conventional form-signs, the grammar is wonderfully simplified and clarified.

III. Doctrine of the so-called “Tenses.”

1. The “Praeter” and the “Future.” These are now well understood not to denote primarily time, but some other less palpable relation. The absence of a present tense is, we may remark in passing, really logical, for the present moment is but the dividing line between the past and the future, and shifts its position every instant. Ewald suggested the names “Perfect” and “Imperfect” in lieu of Praeter and Future, maintaining that the former denotes a completed act, and the latter an inchoate; and some later grammarians, including Driver, in his ingenious monograph on the subject, have hastily adopted this nomenclature. But besides the inexactness of these terms in themselves, and the liability of confounding such a use with that of the corresponding tenses in English, and still more in Greek and Latin, they will be found to be essentially erroneous. As a matter of fact, in most cases, these two verb-forms indisputably designate the two relations of time anterior and posterior; and the consummation or incipiency of the act or state is comparatively rare as an important shade of the thought. In very many, indeed, a majority of cases, such a rendering would be absurd. For example, that remarkable and pregnant announcement by Jehovah of his divine self-existence, , I will be what I will be (A.V. “I am that I am,” Exo 3:14), becomes the flattest nonsense if translated “I begin to be what I begin to be.” Surely this cannot be the essential conception of the tense-form in question.

The true distinction is rather. that the Pr-ster marks an actor state as a matter of fact, or something intended to be stated as such, while the Future denotes a conception, or something meant to be so stated. They are respectively the objective and the subjective points of view, the actual and the imaginary, the absolute and the conditional, the indicative and the subjunctive, the independent and the relative. Out of this fundamental distinction grow all the subordinate ones, especially the past, as representing the only real facts, and the future, as being yet but a fancy. A completed act or state, as unfait accompli. of course thus comes in naturally under the Praeter, and an inchoate one, as yet conceptual in part, falls appropriately under the Future. The use of either as “a customary Present”‘ is but a device of grammarians in order to bring them into accord with the vague signification of that tense in other languages, especially the English. Continued or permanent action or condition is expressed in Hebrew by the participle, which is in itself always timeless. When a prophet expresses his vaticinations in the Praeter (as notably in Isaiah 53), his conceptions become to him realities. and he states the future as if it were already a fact. When, on the other hand, a historian uses the Future for his narration is (which less frequently occurs), he means thereby to mark the events as viewed in a subordinate relation. either’ to his own mind (optative) or to some other events (subjunctive). The term , therefore, in the above passage, indicates God’s revealed attributes and character as a theme of human apprehension, while signifies his simple self-existence. The repetition “I conceive myself to be what I conceive myself to be,” or “I am conceived to be what I am conceived to be,” would then, like Pilate’s phrase, “What I have written I have written,” express the permanence and truthfulness of that conception. God’s absolute essence is objectively incommunicable.

It would be easy to exemplify the distinction of the independent and the qualified, as represented by the two so-called” tenses” respectively, Thus, to take the first instances in Genesis: (Gen 1:2) is not the mere copula, but emphasizes the fact of a change having taken place in the earth; whereas and (Gen 2:5), express the idea that no growth had yet been visible or observed; and and (Gen 2:6) denote the appearance of a mist, which answered these purposes. So we may render (Gen 2:10), “was divided as it were, so as to form; (Gen 2:25), “felt no shame of themselves mutually.” Very often in poetry the same thought is expressed in the successive hemistichs in these two forms successively, for the sake of variety; first objectively or absolutely, and then subjectively or relatively; or vice versa. The convenient subterfuge of employing the present tense in English to render these obliterates the nice shade of meaning conveyed by the original, and largely destroys its beauty and effect. A slight paraphrase is needed to bring out the delicate turn of thought. Generally some form of the Subjunctive or Potential will suffice to reproduce the graphic power of the Future. But in many (if not most) cases a real difference is intended. Thus (Psa 1:2) denotes an interior characteristic of the saint, whereas the preceding Prieters refer to his outward deportment. So even in Psa 2:1-2, and state the violence of the wicked as an act, and the parallel Futures as of purpose.

2. “Paragogic” and “Apocopate” Forms. The most important of the additions included under the former of these terms is the appended to verbs (sometimes likewise to nouns) for the purpose of prolonging their sound, and thus naturally increasing their emphasis. With the Praeter this is chiefly limited to the third person, as this alone is truly objective. With the Future, on the contrary, it is more appropriate in the first and second persons, giving the former an earnest or thorough significance, and softening the latter into a beseeching tone, an effect likewise produced when used with the Imperative.

Apocopation consists in throwing off in the Future and Imperative the loosely cemented final of verbs, and in dropping out the characteristic of Hiphil. It imparts a curt or peremptory stress to the shortened form, and thus serves to distinguish the jussive from the predictive use of the third person Future. The tendency to apocopation with “vav conversive” in the Future arises from it bringing the tone forward, in consequence of the close connection with the preceding context, and especially, it would seem, on account of the particle, which (as we shall see presently) that form appears to have originally included.

3. “Vav Conversive.” This peculiarity, which the Hebrew alone of all the Shemitic tongues exhibits, has been a sore puzzle to linguists, and only in recent times has received an intelligible explanation. It will serve as a crucial test of the foregoing theory of the tense meanings. Its most usual and decided form, namely, with the Future, demands our first attention. The fact that in this case the vav is pointed with Pattach and the Dagesh shows the assimilation of some older consonant; in fact, there seems to have been originally some particle like an adverb more closely pointing the sequence than the simple “vav conjunctive” would have done, very much like the puerile phrase of simple story-tellers, who string each incident to the preceding by “and then.” The Hebrew historian sets out with a genuine Praeter (either expressed or implied), to indicate that he is stating matters of fact, but he continues his narrative with “vav conversive ” and a Future to denote a consecutive series,: the latter member members of which he conceives and represents as depending upon the others. It is this dependent and conceptual relation that requires a Future. The incidents are all facts (as the particle implied in the pointing intimates), but not isolated or independent tacts. They may or they may not be logically or causally connected, but they are viewed by the writer as historically following each other, and he designedly overlooks anything between them. After completing such a series, more or less extended, the writer begins a fresh series with another Praeter, and continues it for awhile with “vav conversive” again. The whole history is thus divided off in a kind of paragraph style, and the close continuity of the subordinate statements is maintained in each paragraph. If he had used Praeters with or without “vav connective” throughout, the incidents would have been merely the disjecta membra of history, without any positive bond of unity. The style would have been, as we say, comparatively incoherent. The explanation of “vav conversive” with the Praeter is more difficult. From the absence of any special pointing, and the less frequency of its use, we are entitled to infer its comparative unimportance. In fact, it seems to be a kind of imitation, by way of converse, of the “vav conversive” of the Future. A writer sets out with a Future (in form or effect), and continues the conceptual series by the Preeter; to indicate that he has now mentally transported himself into the region of fancy, and is describing things from that vivid impression. It thus resembles the “historic present of many languages, in which a narrator views the scenes recounted as if actually taking place under his eye.

It can now be readily seen, in the light of the above explanation of these two “tenses how in poetical passages (and all, Hebrew is more or less poetical), the Praeter and the Future (either simple or transformed by vav) may often be beautifully interchanged, according as the writer, for variety’s sake, wishes to represent the same scene in adjoining hemistichs as either actual or conceptual; and this closer or more loose method of consecution, by means of simple vav or vav conversive, gives him a wider and nicer play of conception and expression. These are among the delicate shades of meaning which it is almost impossible to transfer to a version. For example, David says (Psa 3:6), “To Jehovah should I call () [as I often have done], then he has heard me () ;” i.e., in plain prose, Whenever I call he hears me, but in poetic fervor, When I think of myself as calling, I immediately know myself as heard.

IV. Agglutinative Modes of Declension and Construction.

1. By Prefixes. Of these , , , , and are strictly inseparable, but like and , they probably represent original particles, as the Arabic article el-(which assimilates, as by a Dagesh, with the “solar letters”) indicates. Whether the characteristic of Niphal, and the of its infinitive as well as of Hiphil, Hophal, etc., had a similar origin is difficult to decide. The preformatives of the Future may be more readily traced to the full forms of the personal pronouns.

2. By Sufformatives and Affixes. The personal endings of the tenses, as well as the suffixes, are clearly fragments, somewhat modified, of the pronouns which they represent. The directive is probably an enclitic fragment of the article as a demonstrative. The feminine ending was a softened form, like paragogic. The old constructive termination of masculine nouns was for both numbers, and the dual and plural absolute were intensive additions, like the decimal increase of the cardinal numbers. The frequent interchange of gender in the plural (notably in , , etc.) proves that this was a later or comparatively unimportant variation. The feminine, as the weaker, takes the place of the neuter in Greek and Latin to express the abstract.

3. By Juxtaposition. Here we may enumerate three classes of amalgamation:

(a) compounds, which are rare in Hebrew, except: in proper names, and in cases of union by Makkeph (corresponding to our hyphen only in removing the principal tone);

(b) ellipsis, by which connecting particles are dropped as unnecessary, especially in the terse style of poetry; and

(c) interchange of the various parts of speech, which, as in English, allows nouns, particles, etc., to be freely used as adjectives, adverbs, etc., and conversely.

V. Emphatic Position of Words. Here the natural order, in contradistinction from the artificial arrangement of the Latin, and the purely grammatical of the English prevails. As with foreigners and children speaking a new language, the most important words come first (of course, after connectives, negatives, interrogatives, etc., which qualify the whole clause). Hence the predicate, as being of greater extension, precedes, and the subject or the adjective, which are but an accident of the verb or the noun, follows; except when special emphasis requires a different position, or when poetry in the parallel hemistichs calls for a pleasing variety. In this respect the Hebrew more closely resembles the Greek, which often resorts to the same expedient of emphasizing by a position near the head of the clause, like our “nominative independent.” These nice shades of emphasis are difficult to render smoothly and adequately, but it might be done far more accurately than in our Authorized Version, which is habitually negligent in this respect. For the prosodiac arrangement, SEE POETRY, HEBREW.

Fuente: Cyclopedia of Biblical, Theological and Ecclesiastical Literature

Hebrew language

the language of the Hebrew nation, and that in which the Old Testament is written, with the exception of a few portions in Chaldee. In the Old Testament it is only spoken of as “Jewish” (2 Kings 18:26, 28; Isa. 36:11, 13; 2 Chr 32:18). This name is first used by the Jews in times subsequent to the close of the Old Testament.

It is one of the class of languages called Semitic, because they were chiefly spoken among the descendants of Shem.

When Abraham entered Canaan it is obvious that he found the language of its inhabitants closely allied to his own. Isaiah (19:18) calls it “the language of Canaan.” Whether this language, as See n in the earliest books of the Old Testament, was the very dialect which Abraham brought with him into Canaan, or whether it was the common tongue of the Canaanitish nations which he only adopted, is uncertain; probably the latter opinion is the correct one. For the thousand years between Moses and the Babylonian exile the Hebrew language underwent little or no modification. It preserves all through a remarkable uniformity of structure. From the first it appears in its full maturity of development. But through intercourse with Damascus, Assyria, and Babylon, from the time of David, and more particularly from the period of the Exile, it comes under the influence of the Aramaic idiom, and this is See n in the writings which date from this period. It was never spoken in its purity by the Jews after their return from Babylon. They now spoke Hebrew with a large admixture of Aramaic or Chaldee, which latterly became the predominant element in the national language.

The Hebrew of the Old Testament has only about six thousand words, all derived from about five hundred roots. Hence the same word has sometimes a great variety of meanings. So long as it was a living language, and for ages after, only the consonants of the words were written. This also has been a source of difficulty in interpreting certain words, for the meaning varies according to the vowels which may be supplied. The Hebrew is one of the oldest languages of which we have any knowledge. It is essentially identical with the Phoenician language. (See MOABITE STONE) The Semitic languages, to which class the Hebrew and Phoenician belonged, were spoken over a very wide area: in Babylonia, Mesopotamia, Syria, Palestine and Arabia, in all the countries from the Mediterranean to the borders of Assyria, and from the mountains of Armenia to the Indian Ocean. The rounded form of the letters, as See n in the Moabite stone, was probably that in which the ancient Hebrew was written down to the time of the Exile, when the present square or Chaldean form was adopted.

Fuente: Easton’s Bible Dictionary

Hebrew Language

Called “the language of Canaan” (Isa 19:18), as distinguished from that of Egypt; “the Jewish” as distinguished from Aramean (2Ki 18:26; 2Ki 18:28). (See HEBREW above.) Internal evidence also favors its Palestinian origin; as yam “the sea,” in oldest documents used for the west. It is Semitic, as distinguished from the Indo-Germanic, Indo-European, Aryan, or Japhetic languages. The Semitic includes Aramaean or Chaldee and Syriac on the N.E., the Arabic on the S., the Ethiopic between the Hebrew and Arabic, the Hebrew, and kindred Phoenician or Canaanite. In Hebrew and the other Semitic languages gutturals preponderate. Consonants are not grouped round one vowel, yet a consonant always begins a syllable. The Semitic languages are less matured and polished, and more impulsive than deliberative. The roots have three letters. The conjugations of verbs are threefold:

1. Expressing intensity or repetition by a change within the root.

2. Reflexiveness or causation by addition to the root.

3. Passives by “u” or “a” in the first syllable. Modifications of the root idea are marked by changes within the root, not by additions. The a sound marks activity; the “e” and “o” sounds rest or passiveness. Intensity and repeated action are expressed by doubling the consonant. The neuter gender is unknown, because Semitic imagination endows with life every object in nature and makes it male or female. Mental qualities are represented by physical members: strength by the “hand” or “arm”; anger by the “nostril” (aph); favor by the “shining face”; displeasure by the “falling of the countenance.” Go, way, walk, course express spiritual motion. Tenses or times of verbs are twofold (not three as with us, past, present, future).

What the mind realizes is put in the past, even though it may be future; what the mind regards as about to be, or being, realized is put in the future; so that the future may be used of the historic past, and the preterite of the prophetic future. The vowels were not originally written; latterly they were put as points under the consonants, which are read from right to left. The particles are few; hence subtle reasonings cannot be expressed. The Greek is the language of philosophy; the Hebrew of imagination and intuition. The sentences are a succession of coordinate propositions, not of propositions molded by interdependence and mutual subordination into complete periods. The style is pictorial: “Behold!” is of frequent occurrence; and the process of doing, as well as the act, is stated, as “he arose and went,” “he put forth his hand and took,” “he lifted up his voice and wept.”

Symbolical phrases are frequent: “incline the ear”; “stiffen the neck,” i.e. to be perverse; “to uncover the ear,” i.e. to reveal. Adam, Eve, Abel, etc., are pictorial names, possibly Hebrew equivalents for the original names. The fall has among its evil effects caused a severance between names and things. The Bible retains some of the original connection, all the ancient names being significant of things. The choice of essentially the same language as that of commercial Sidon and Tyre for the divine revelation was a providential arrangement for diffusing the knowledge of His law widely among the Gentiles. There may be a Hamitic element in Hebrew, considering that the Canaanites who spoke it when Abram entered Canaan were Hamites; even though they probably acquired it from earlier Semitic occupants of Canaan, they would infuse a Hamitic element themselves.

The vocabulary of the oldest Babel monuments is Hamitic. The Aramaic is decidedly Semitic, and was Abraham’s original tongue. The Hamites and Nimrod took the lead in building Babel, which entailed the confusion of tongues; their tongue accordingly is found more confounded into endless varieties of dialect than the Semitic and Japhetic, whose dialects bear a nearer resemblance among themselves than the Turanian and other Hamitic dialects. As Hebrew sprang from the confusion of Babel, it cannot have been the language of Adam and the whole earth when there was but one speech; still, though an offshoot like the rest, it may retain most of the primitive type, a view which the Hebrew Bible names favor, though these be modified from the original form.

The Shemites and Japhetites have had a higher moral civilization, and so a purer language. The Hebrew terms for SIN; ATONEMENT; GOD; JEHOVAH , and many such theological ideas, must have conveyed to the Gentiles, wherever fragments of the Hob. revelation reached, many fruitful germs of divine truth. The sacred books of Moses gave a fixity to the language, so that no essential change of language is observable in the books of different ages until the Babylonian captivity; thenceforward Chaldee became largely mixed with Hebrew (See Neh 8:8.)

Fuente: Fausset’s Bible Dictionary

Hebrew Language

See LANGUAGES OF THE OLD TESTAMENT; ARAMAIC.

Fuente: International Standard Bible Encyclopedia

Hebrew Language

[He’brew] See ARAMAIC.

Fuente: Concise Bible Dictionary

Hebrew Language

He’brew Language. The books of the Old Testament are written, almost entirely, in the Hebrew language. It is a branch of the Shemitic language, one of the three great divisions into which all languages have been reduced. It is one of the earliest of known languages, and some suppose that, it was the original language of man.

Fuente: Smith’s Bible Dictionary

HEBREW, LANGUAGE

2Ki18:26; Neh 13:24; Joh 5:2; Joh 19:20; Act 21:40; Act 22:2; Act 26:14

–Festivals. SEE 1257-1261, 1257|

Fuente: Thompson Chain-Reference Bible

Hebrew Language

called also absolutely Hebrew, is the language spoken by the Hebrews, and in which all the books of the Old Testament are written; whence it is also called the holy or sacred language. It is said to have been preserved in the midst of the confusion at Babel, in the family of Heber, or Eber, who, as it is alleged, was not concerned in the building of Babel, and, consequently, did not share in the punishment inflicted on the actual transgressors. The Jews, in general, have been of opinion, that the Hebrew was the language of Heber’s family, from whom Abraham sprung. On the other hand, it has been maintained that Heber’s family, in the fourth generation after the dispersion, lived in Chaldea, where Abraham was born, Gen 11:27-28, and that there is no reason to think they used a different language from their neighbours around them. It appears, moreover, that the Chaldee, and not the Hebrew, was the language of Abraham’s country, and of his kindred, Gen 24:4; Gen 31:46-47; and it is probable that Abraham’s native language was Chaldee, and that the Hebrew was the language of the Canaanites, which Abraham and his posterity learned by travelling among them. It is surprising that this adoption of the Phenician language by the patriarchs should have escaped the notice of several intelligent readers of the Bible. Jacob and Laban, it is clear, by the names they gave to the cairn, or memorial of stones, spoke two different dialects; and it is nearly equally evident, that the language of Laban was the dialect of Ur of the Chaldees, the original speech of the Hebrew race. As the patriarchs disused the true Hebrew dialect, it is manifest that they had conformed to the speech of Canaan; and that this conformity was complete, is proved by the identity between all the remains of Canaanitish names. At the same time, it must be remarked, that the Phenician and the Chaldean were merely different dialects of the same primitive language which had been spoken by the first ancestors of mankind.

2. There is no work in all antiquity written in pure Hebrew, beside the books of the Old Testament; and even some parts of those are in Chaldee. The Hebrew appears to be the most ancient of all the languages in the world; at least it is so with regard to us, who know of no older. Dr. Sharpe adopts the opinion, that the Hebrew was the original language; not indeed that the Hebrew is the unvaried language of our first parents, but that it was the general language of men at the dispersion; and, however it might have been improved and altered from the first speech of our first parents, it was the original of all the languages, or almost all the languages, rather dialects, that have since arisen in the world. Arguments have also been deduced from the nature and genius of the Hebrew language, in order to prove that it was the original language, neither improved nor debased by foreign idioms. The words of which it is composed are short, and admit of very little flexion. The names of places are descriptive of their nature, situation, accidental circumstances, &c. The compounds are few, and inartificially conjoined; and it is less burdened with those artificial affixes which distinguish other cognate dialects, such as the Chaldean, Syrian, Arabian, Phenician, &c.

The period, from the age of Moses to that of David, has been considered the golden age of the Hebrew language, which declined in purity from that time to the reign of Hezekiah or Manasseh, having received several foreign words, particularly Aramean, from the commercial and political intercourse of the Jews and Israelites with the Assyrians and Babylonians. This period has been termed the silver age of the Hebrew language. In the interval between the reign of Hezekiah and the Babylonish captivity, the purity of the language was neglected, and so many foreign words were introduced into it, that this period has not ineptly been designated its iron age. During the seventy years’ captivity, though it does not appear that the Hebrews entirely lost their native tongue, yet it underwent so considerable a change from their adoption of the vernacular languages of the countries where they had resided, that afterward, on their return from exile, they spoke a dialect of Chaldee mixed with Hebrew words. On this account it was, that, when the Scriptures were read, it was found necessary to interpret them to the people in the Chaldean language; as, when Ezra the scribe brought the book of the law of Moses before the congregation, the Levites are said to have caused the people to understand the law, because they read in the book, in the law of God, distinctly, and gave the sense, and caused them to understand the reading, Nehem. Gen 8:8. Some time after the return from the great captivity, Hebrew ceased to be spoken altogether; though it continued to be cultivated and studied by the priests and Levites, as a learned language, that they might be enabled to expound the law and the prophets to the people, who, it appears from the New Testament, were well acquainted with their general contents and tenor: this last mentioned period has been called the leaden age of the language.

The present Hebrew characters, or letters, are twenty-two in number, and of a square form; but the antiquity of these letters is a point that has been most severely contested by many learned men. From a passage in Eusebius’s Chronicle, and another in St. Jerom, it was inferred by Joseph Scaliger, that Ezra, when he reformed the Jewish church, transcribed the ancient characters of the Hebrews into the square letters of the Chaldeans; and that this was done for the use of those Jews who, being born during the captivity, knew no other alphabet than that of the people among whom they had been educated. Consequently, the old character, which we call the Samaritan, fell into total disuse. This opinion Scaliger supported by passages from both the Talmuds, as well as from rabbinical writers, in which it is expressly affirmed that such characters were adopted by Ezra. But the most decisive confirmation of this point is to be found in the ancient Hebrew coins, which were struck before the captivity, and even previously to the revolt of the ten tribes. The characters engraven on all of them are manifestly the same with the modern Samaritan, though with some trifling variations in their forms, occasioned by the depredations of time.

Fuente: Biblical and Theological Dictionary