[1] There were several journals of this name, the best known of the
others being that edited by Lemaire.
HEBREW LANGUAGE. The name "Hebrew" is derived, through the Greek [Greek:
Hebraios], from _'ibhray_, the Aramaic equivalent of the Old Testament
word _'ibhri_, denoting the people who commonly spoke of themselves as
Israel or Children of Israel from the name of their common ancestor (see
JEWS). The later derivative _Yisra'eli_, Israelite, from Yisra'el, is
not found in the Old Testament.[1] Other names used for the language of
Israel are _speech of Canaan_ (Isa. xix. 18) and _Yehudhith_, Jewish, (2
Kings xviii. 26). In later times it was called the _holy tongue_. The
real meaning of the word _'ibhri_ must ultimately be sought in the root
_'abhar_, to pass across, to go beyond, from which is derived the noun
_'ebher_, meaning the "farther bank" of a river. The usual explanation
of the term is that of Jewish tradition that _'ibhri_ means the man
"from the other side," i.e. either of the Euphrates or the Jordan. Hence
the Septuagint in Gen. xiv. 13 render Abram _ha-'ibhri_ by [Greek: ho
perates], the "crosser," and Aquila, following the same tradition, has
[Greek: ho peraites], the man "from beyond." This view of course implies
that the term was originally applied to Abram or his descendants by a
people living on the west of the Euphrates or of the Jordan. It has been
suggested that the root _'abhar_ is to be taken in the sense of
"travelling," and that Abram the wandering Aramaean (Deut. xxvi. 5) was
called _ha-'ibhri_ because he travelled about for trading purposes, his
language, _'ibhri_, being the _lingua franca_ of Eastern trade. The use
of the term [Greek: hebraisti] for biblical Hebrew is first found in the
Greek prologue to Ecclesiasticus (c. 130 B.C.). In the New Testament it
denotes the native language of Palestine (Aramaic and Hebrew being
popularly confused) as opposed to Greek. In modern usage the name Hebrew
is applied to that branch of the northern part of the Semitic family of
languages which was used by the Israelites during most of the time of
their national existence in Palestine, and in which nearly all their
sacred writings are composed. As to its characteristics and relation to
other languages of the same stock, see SEMITIC LANGUAGES. It also
includes the later forms of the same language as used by Jewish writers
after the close of the Canon throughout the middle ages (Rabbinical
Hebrew) and to the present day (New Hebrew).
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.)