Part 19

Before the rise of comparative philology it was a popular opinion that Hebrew was the original speech of mankind, from which all others were descended. This belief, derived from the Jews (cf. Pal. Targ. Gen. xi. 1), was supported by the etymologies and other data supplied by the early chapters of Genesis. But though Hebrew possesses a very old literature, it is not, as we know it, structurally as early as, e.g. Arabic, or, in other words, it does not come so near to that primitive Semitic speech which may be pre-supposed as the common parent of all the Semitic languages. Owing to the imperfection of the Hebrew alphabet, which, like that of most Semitic languages, has no means of expressing vowel-sounds, it is only partly possible to trace the development of the language. In its earliest form it was no doubt most closely allied to the Canaanite or Phoenician stock, to the language of Moab, as revealed by the stele of Mesha (c. 850 B.C.), and to Edomite. The vocalization of Canaanite, as far as it is known to us, e.g. from glosses in the Tell-el-Amarna tablets (15th century B.C.)[2] and much later from the Punic passages in the _Poenulus_ of Plautus, differs in many respects from that of the Hebrew of the Old Testament, as also does the Septuagint transcription of proper names. The uniformity, however, of the Old Testament text is due to the labours of successive schools of grammarians who elaborated the Massorah (see HEBREW LITERATURE), thereby obliterating local or dialectic differences, which undoubtedly existed, and establishing the pronunciation current in the synagogues about the 7th century A.D. The only mention of such differences in the Old Testament is in Judges xii. 6, where it is stated that the Ephraimites pronounced [Hebrew: sh] (sh) as [Hebrew: s] or [Hebrew: s] (s). In Neh. xiii. 24, the "speech of Ashdod" is more probably a distinct (Philistine) language. Certain peculiarities in the language of the Pentateuch ([Hebrew: hu] for [Hebrew: hi], [Hebrew: naar] for [Hebrew: naara]), which used to be regarded as archaisms, are to be explained as purely orthographical.[3] In a series of writings, however, extending over so long a period as those of the Old Testament, some variation or development in language is to be expected apart from the natural differences between the poetic (or prophetic) and prose styles. The consonantal text sometimes betrays these in spite of the Massorah. In general, the later books of the Old Testament show, roughly speaking, a greater simplicity and uniformity of style, as well as a tendency to Aramaisms. For some centuries after the Exile, the people of Palestine must have been bilingual, speaking Aramaic for ordinary purposes, but still at least understanding Hebrew. Not that they forgot their own tongue in the Captivity and learnt Aramaic in Babylon, as used to be supposed. In the western provinces of the Persian empire Aramaic was the official language, spoken not only in Palestine but in all the surrounding countries, even in Egypt and among Arab tribes such as the Nabateans. It is natural, therefore, that it should influence and finally supplant Hebrew in popular use, so that translations even of the Old Testament eventually appear in it (TARGUMS). Meanwhile Hebrew did not become a dead language--indeed it can hardly be said ever to have died, since it has continued in use till the present day for the purposes of ordinary life among educated Jews in all parts of the world. It gradually became a literary rather than a popular tongue, as appears from the style of the later books of the Old Testament (Chron., Dan., Eccles.), and from the Hebrew text of Ecclesiasticus (c. 170 B.C.). During the 1st century B.C. and the 1st century A.D. we have no direct evidence of its characteristics. After that period there is a great development in the language of the Mishna. It was still living Hebrew, although mainly confined to the schools, with very clear differences from the biblical language. In the Old Testament the range of subjects was limited. In the Mishna it was very much extended. Matters relating to daily life had to be discussed, and words and phrases were adopted from what was no doubt the popular language of an earlier period. A great many foreign words were also introduced. The language being no longer familiar in the same sense as formerly, greater definiteness of expression became necessary in the written style. In order to avoid the uncertainty arising from the lack of vowels to distinguish forms consisting of the same consonants (for the vowel-points were not yet invented), the aramaising use of the reflexive conjugations (Hithpa'el, Nithpa'el) for the internal passives (Pu'al, Hoph'al) became common;

## particles were used to express the genitive and other relations, and in

general there was an endeavour to avoid the obscurities of a purely consonantal writing. What is practically Mishnic Hebrew continued to be used in Midrash for some centuries. The language of both Talmuds, which, roughly speaking, were growing contemporaneously with Midrash, is a mixture of Hebrew and Aramaic (Eastern Aram. in the Babylonian, Western in the Jerusalem Talmud), as was also that of the earlier commentators. As the popular use of Aramaic was gradually restricted by the spread of Arabic as the vernacular (from the 7th century onwards), while the dispersion of the Jews became wider, biblical Hebrew again came to be the natural standard both of East and West. The cultivation of it is shown and was no doubt promoted by the many philological works (grammars, lexicons and masorah) which are extant from the 10th century onward. In Spain, under Moorish dominion, most of the important works of that period were composed in Arabic, and the influence of Arabic writers both on language and method may be seen in contemporaneous Hebrew compositions. No other vernacular (except, of course, Aramaic) ever had the same influence upon Hebrew, largely because no other bears so close a relation to it. At the present day in the East, and among learned Jews elsewhere, Hebrew is still cultivated conversationally, and it is widely used for literary purposes. Numerous works on all kinds of subjects are produced in various countries, periodicals flourish, and Hebrew is the vehicle of correspondence between Jews in all parts of the world. Naturally its quality varies with the ability and education of the writer. In the modern _pronunciation_ the principal differences are between the Ashkenazim (German and Polish Jews) and the Sephardim (Spanish and Portuguese Jews), and concern not only the vowels but also certain consonants, and in some cases probably go back to early times. As regards _writing_, it is most likely that the oldest Hebrew records were preserved in some form of cuneiform script. The alphabet (see WRITING) subsequently adopted is seen in its earliest form on the stele of Mesha, and has been retained, with modifications, by the Samaritans. According to Jewish tradition Ezra introduced the Assyrian character ([Hebrew: ktav ashuri]), a much-debated statement which no doubt means that the Aramaic hand in use in Babylonia was adopted by the Jews about the 5th century B.C. Another form of the same hand, allowing for differences of material, is found in Egyptian Aramaic papyri of the 5th and 4th centuries B.C. From this were developed (a) the _square_ character used in MSS. of the Bible or important texts, and in most printed books, (b) the _Rabbinic_ (or Rashi) character, used in commentaries and treatises of all kinds, both in MS. and in printed books, (c) the _Cursive_ character, used in letters and for informal purposes, not as a rule printed. In the present state of Hebrew palaeography it is not possible to determine accurately the date of a MS., but it is easy to recognize the country in which it was written. The most clearly marked distinctions are between Spanish, French, German, Italian, Maghrebi, Greek, Syrian (including Egyptian), Yemenite, Persian and Qaraite hands. It is in the Rabbinic and Cursive characters that the differences are most noticeable. The Hebrew alphabet is also used, generally with the addition of some diacritical marks, by Jews to write other languages, chiefly Arabic, Spanish, Persian, Greek, Tatar (by Qaraites) and in later times German.

The philological study of Hebrew among the Jews is described below, under Hebrew Literature, of which it formed an integral part. Among Christian scholars there was no independent school of Hebraists before the revival of learning. In the Greek and Latin Church the few fathers who, like Origen and Jerome, knew something of the language, were wholly dependent on their Jewish teachers, and their chief value for us is as depositaries of Jewish tradition. Similarly in the East, the Syriac version of the Old Testament is largely under the influence of the synagogue, and the homilies of Aphraates are a mine of Rabbinic lore. In the middle ages some knowledge of Hebrew was preserved in the Church by converted Jews and even by non-Jewish scholars, of whom the most notable were the Dominican controversialist Raymundus Martini (in his _Pugio fidei_) and the Franciscan Nicolaus of Lyra, on whom Luther drew largely in his interpretation of Scripture. But there was no tradition of Hebrew study apart from the Jews, and in the 15th century when an interest in the subject was awakened, only the most ardent zeal could conquer the obstacles that lay in the way. Orthodox Jews refused to teach those who were not of their faith, and on the other hand many churchmen conscientiously believed in the duty of entirely suppressing Jewish learning. Even books were to be had only with the greatest difficulty, at least north of the Alps. In Italy things were somewhat better. Jews expelled from Spain received favour from the popes. Study was facilitated by the use of the printing-press, and some of the earliest books printed were in Hebrew. The father of Hebrew study among Christians was the humanist Johann Reuchlin (1455-1522), the author of the _Rudimenta Hebraica_ (Pforzheim, 1506), whose contest with the converted Jew Pfefferkorn and the Cologne obscurantists, established the claim of the new study to recognition by the Church. Interest in the subject spread rapidly. Among Reuchlin's own pupils were Melanchthon, Oecolampadius and Cellarius, while Sebastian Munster in Heidelberg (afterwards professor at Basel), and Buchlein (Fagius) at Isny, Strasburg and Cambridge, were pupils of the liberal Jewish scholar Elias Levita. France drew teachers from Italy. Santes Pagninus of Lucca was at Lyons; and the trilingual college of Francis I. at Paris, with Vatablus and le Mercier, attracted, among other foreigners, Giustiniani, bishop of Nebbio, the editor of the Genoa psalter of 1516. In Rome the converted Jew Felix Pratensis taught under the patronage of Leo X., and did useful work in connexion with the great Bomberg Bibles. In Spain Hebrew learning was promoted by Cardinal Ximenes, the patron of the Complutensian Polyglot. The printers, as J. Froben at Basel and Etienne at Paris, also produced Hebrew books. For a time Christian scholars still leaned mainly on the Rabbis. But a more independent spirit soon arose, of which le Mercier in the 16th, and Drusius early in the 17th century, may be taken as representatives. In the 17th century too the cognate languages were studied by J. Selden, E. Castell (Heptaglott lexicon) and E. Pococke (Arabic) in England, Ludovicus de Dieu in Holland, S. Bochart in France, J. Ludolf (Ethiopic) and J. H. Hottinger (Syriac) in Germany, with advantage to the Hebrew grammar and lexicon. Rabbinic learning moreover was cultivated at Basel by the elder Buxtorf who was the author of grammatical works and a lexicon. With the rise of criticism Hebrew philology soon became a necessary department of theology. Cappellus (d. 1658) followed Levita in maintaining, against Buxtorf, the late introduction of the vowel-points, a controversy in which the authority of the massoretic text was concerned. He was supported by J. Morin and R. Simon in France. In the 18th century in Holland A. Schultens and N. W. Schroeder used the comparative method, with great success, relying mainly on Arabic. In Germany there was the meritorious J. D. Michaelis and in France the brilliant S. de Sacy. In the 19th century the greatest name among Hebraists is that of Gesenius, at Halle, whose shorter grammar (of Biblical Hebrew) first published in 1813, is still the standard work, thanks to the ability with which his pupil E. Rodiger and recently E. Kautzsch have revised and enlarged it. Important work was also done by G. H. A. Ewald, J. Olshausen and P. A. de Lagarde, not to mention later scholars who have utilized the valuable results of Assyriological research.

BIBLIOGRAPHY.--Among the numerous works dealing with the study of Hebrew, the following are some of the most practically useful.

Grammars, Introductory.--Davidson, _Introductory Hebrew Grammar_ (9th ed., Edinburgh, 1888); and _Syntax_ (Edinburgh, 1894). Advanced: Gesenius's _Hebraische Grammatik_, ed. Kautzsch (28th ed., Leipzig, 1909; Eng. trans., Oxford, 1910); also Driver, _Treatise on the Use of the Tenses in Hebrew_ (3rd ed., Oxford, 1892). For post-biblical Hebrew, Strack and Siegfried, _Lehrbuch d. neuhebraischen Sprache_ (Leipzig, 1884).

Comparative Grammar.--Wright, _Lectures on the Comp. Grammar of the Sem. Lang._ (Cambridge, 1890); Brockelmann, _Grundriss der vergleichenden Grammatik_ (Berlin, 1907, &c.).

Lexicons.--Gesenius's _Thesaurus philologicus_ (Leipzig, 1829-1858), and his _Hebraisches Handworterbuch_ (15th ed. by Zimmern and Buhl, Leipzig, 1910); Brown, Briggs and Driver, _Hebrew and Eng. Lexicon_ (Oxford, 1892-1906). For later Hebrew: Levy, _Neuhebraisches Worterbuch_ (Leipzig, 1876-1889); Jastrow, Dictionary of the Targumi, &c. (New York, 1886, &c.); Dalman, _Aramaisches neuhebraisches Worterbuch_ (Frankfort a. M., 1897); Kohut, _Aruch completum_ (Vienna, 1878-1890) (in Hebrew) is valuable for the language of the Talmud. (A. Cy.)

FOOTNOTES:

[1] In 2 Sam. xvii. 25 _Israelite_ should be _Ishmaelite_, as in the parallel passage 1 Chron. ii. 17.

[2] See Zimmern, in _Ztsch. fur Assyriol._ (1891), p. 154.

[3] See Gesenius-Kautzsch, _Hebr. Gram._ S 17 c.

HEBREW LITERATURE. Properly speaking, "Hebrew Literature" denotes all works written in the Hebrew language. In catalogues and bibliographies, however, the expression is now generally used, conveniently if incorrectly, as synonymous with Jewish literature, including all works written by Jews in Hebrew characters, whether the language be Aramaic, Arabic or even some vernacular not related to Hebrew.

Old Testament-Scriptures.

The literature begins with, as it is almost entirely based upon, the Old Testament. There were no doubt in the earliest times popular songs orally transmitted and perhaps books of annals and laws, but except in so far as remnants of them are embedded in the biblical books, they have entirely disappeared. Thus the Book of the Wars of the Lord is mentioned in Num. xxi. 14; the Book of Jashar in Josh. x. 13, 2. Sam. i. 18; the Song of the Well is quoted in Num. xxi. 17, 18, and the song of Sihon and Moab, ib. 27-30; of Lamech, Gen. iv. 23, 24; of Moses, Exod. xv. As in other literatures, these popular elements form the foundation on which greater works are gradually built, and it is one function of literary criticism to show the way in which the component parts were welded into a uniform whole. The traditional view that Moses was the author of the Pentateuch in its present form, would make this the earliest monument of Hebrew literature. Modern inquiry, however, has arrived at other conclusions (see BIBLE, _Old Testament_), which may be briefly summarized as follows: the Pentateuch is compiled from various documents, the earliest of which is denoted by J (beginning at Gen. ii. 4) from the fact that its author regularly uses the divine name Jehovah (Yahweh). Its date is now usually given as about 800 B.C.[1] In the next century the document E was composed, so called from its using Elohim (God) instead of Yahweh. Both these documents are considered to have originated in the Northern kingdom, Israel, where also in the 8th century appeared the prophets Amos and Hosea. To the same period belong the book of Micah, the earlier parts of the books of Samuel, of Isaiah and of Proverbs, and perhaps some Psalms. In 722 B.C. Samaria was taken and the Northern kingdom ceased to exist. Judah suffered also, and it is not until a century later that any important literary activity is again manifested. The main part of the book of Deuteronomy was "found" shortly before 621 B.C. and about the same time appeared the prophets Jeremiah and Zephaniah, and perhaps the book of Ruth. A few years later (about 600) the two Pentateuchal documents J and E were woven together, the books of Kings were compiled, the book of Habakkuk and parts of the Proverbs were written. Early in the next century Jerusalem was taken by Nebuchadrezzar, and the prophet Ezekiel was among the exiles with Jehoiachin. Somewhat later (c. 550) the combined document JE was edited by a writer under the influence of Deuteronomy, the later parts of the books of Samuel were written, parts of Isaiah, the books of Obadiah, Haggai, Zechariah and perhaps the later Proverbs. In the exile, but probably after 500 B.C., an important section of the Hexateuch, usually called the Priest's Code (P), was drawn up. At various times in the same century are to be placed the book of Job, the post-exilic parts of Isaiah, the books of Joel, Jonah, Malachi and the Song of Songs. The Pentateuch (or Hexateuch) was finally completed in its present form at some time before 400 B.C. The latest parts of the Old Testament are the books of Chronicles, Ezra and Nehemiah (c. 330 B.C.), Ecclesiastes and Esther (3rd century) and Daniel, composed either in the 3rd century or according to some views as late as the time of Antiochus Epiphanes (c. 168 B.C.). With regard to the date of the Psalms, internal evidence, from the nature of the case, leads to few results which are convincing. The most reasonable view seems to be that the collection was formed gradually and that the process was going on during most of the period sketched above.

Apocryphal literature.

Targum.

It is not to be supposed that all the contents of the Old Testament were immediately accepted as sacred, or that they were ever all regarded as being on the same level. The Torah, the Law delivered to Moses, held among the Jews of the 4th century B.C. as it holds now, a pre-eminent position. The inclusion of other books in the Canon was gradual, and was effected only after centuries of debate. The Jews have always been, however, an intensely literary people, and the books ultimately accepted as canonical were only a selection from the literature in existence at the beginning of the Christian era. The rejected books receiving little attention have mostly either been altogether lost or have survived only in translations, as in the case of the Apocrypha. Hence from the composition of the latest canonical books to the redaction of the Mishna (see below) in the 2nd century A.D., the remains of Hebrew literature are very scanty. Of books of this period which are known to have existed in Hebrew or Aramaic up to the time of Jerome (and even later) we now possess most of the original Hebrew text of Ben Sira (Ecclesiasticus) in a somewhat corrupt form, and fragments of an Aramaic text of a recension of the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs, both discovered within recent years. Besides definite works of this kind, there was also being formed during this period a large body of exegetical and legal material, for the most part orally transmitted, which only received its literary form much later. As Hebrew became less familiar to the people, a system of translating the text of the Law into the Aramaic vernacular verse by verse, was adopted in the synagogue. The beginnings of it are supposed to be indicated in Neh. viii. 8. The translation was no doubt originally extemporary, and varied with the individual translators, but its form gradually became fixed and was ultimately written down. It was called _Targum_, from the Aramaic _targem_, to translate. The earliest to be thus edited was the Targum of Onkelos (Onqelos), the proselyte, on the Law. It received its final form in Babylonia probably in the 3rd century A.D. The Samaritan Targum, of about the same date, clearly rests on the same tradition. Parallel to Onkelos was another Targum on the Law, generally called pseudo-Jonathan, which was edited in the 7th century in Palestine, and is based on the same system of interpretation but is fuller and closer to the original tradition. There is also a fragmentary Targum (Palestinian) the relation of which to the others is obscure. It may be only a series of disconnected glosses on Onkelos. For the other books, the recognized Targum on the Prophets is that ascribed to Jonathan ben Uzziel (4th century?), which originated in Palestine, but was edited in Babylonia, so that it has the same history and linguistic character as Onkelos. Just as there is a Palestinian Targum on the Law parallel to the Babylonian Onkelos, so there is a Palestinian Targum (called _Yerushalmi_) on the Prophets parallel to that of Ben Uzziel, but of later date and incomplete. The Law and the Prophets being alone used in the services of the synagogue, there was no authorized version of the rest of the Canon. There are, however, Targumim on the Psalms and Job, composed in the 5th century, on Proverbs, resembling the Peshitta version, on the five Meghilloth, paraphrastic and agadic (see below) in character, and on Chronicles--all Palestinian. There is also a second Targum on Esther. There is none on Daniel, Ezra and Nehemiah.

Halakhah.

We must now return to the 2nd century. During the period which followed the later canonical books, not only was translation, and therefore exegesis, cultivated, but even more the amplification of the Law. According to Jewish teaching (e.g. Abhoth i. 1) Moses received on Mount Sinai not only the written Law as set down in the Pentateuch, but also the Oral Law, which he communicated personally to the 70 elders and through them by a "chain of tradition" to succeeding ages. The application of this oral law is called _Halakhah_, the rules by which a man's daily "walk" is regulated. The halakhah was by no means inferior in prestige to the written Law. Indeed some teachers even went so far as to ascribe a higher value to it, since it comes into closer relation with the details of everyday life. It was not independent of the written Law, still less could it be in opposition to it. Rather it was implicitly contained in the Torah, and the duty of the teacher was to show this. It was therefore of the first importance that the chain of tradition should be continuous and trustworthy. The line is traced through biblical teachers to Ezra, the first of the Sopherim or scribes, who handed on the charge to the "men of the Great Synagogue," a much-discussed term for a body or succession of teachers inaugurated by Ezra. The last member of it, Simon the Just (either Simon I., who died about 300 B.C., or Simon II., who died about 200 B.C.), was the first of the next series, called Elders, represented in the tradition by _pairs_ of teachers, ending with Hillel and Shammai about the beginning of the Christian era. Their pupils form the starting-point of the next series, the Tannaim (from Aram. _tena_ to teach), who occupy the first two centuries A.D.

Mishnah.