User:Ubufox/1
of six lines (probably of the eighth century B.C.[1]) discovered in June, 1880, in the tunnel between the Virgin’s Spring and the Pool of Siloam at Jerusalem; (3) about forty engraved seal-stones, some of them pre-exilic but bearing little except proper names[2]; (4) coins of the Maccabaean prince Simon (from ‘the 2nd year of deliverance’, 140 and 139 B.C.) and his successors,[3] and the coinage of the revolts in the times of Vespasian and Hadrian.
e 3. In the whole series of the ancient Hebrew writings, as found in the Old Testament and also in non-biblical monuments (see above, d), the language (to judge from its consonantal formation) remains, as regards its general character, and apart from slight changes in form and differences of style (see k to w), at about the same stage of development. In this form, it may at an early time have been fixed as a literary language, and the fact that the books contained in the Old Testament were handed down as sacred writings, must have contributed to this constant uniformity.
f To this old Hebrew, the language of the Canaanitish or Phoenician[4] stocks came the nearest of all the Semitic languages, as is evident partly from the many Canaanitish names of persons and places with a Hebrew form and meaning which occur in the Old Testament (e.g. מַלְכִּי־צֶדֶק, קִרְיַת סֵפֶר, &c.; on ‘Canaanite glosses’[5] to Assyrian words in the cuneiform tablets of Tell-el-Amarna [about 1400 B.C.] cf. H. Winckler, ‘Die Thontafeln von Tell-el-Amarna,’ in Keilinschr. Bibliothek, vol. v, Berlin, 1896 f. [transcription and translation]; J. A. Knudtzon, Die El-Amarna-Tafeln, Lpz. 1907 f.; H. Zimmern, ZA. 1891, p. 154 ff. and KAT.3, p. 651 ff.), and partly from the numerous remains of the Phoenician and Punic languages.
The latter we find in their peculiar writing (§ 1 k, l) in a great number of inscriptions and on coins, copies of which have been collected by Gesenius, Judas, Bourgade, Davis, de Vogüé, Levy, P. Schröder, v. Maltzan, Euting, but especially in Part I of the Corpus Inscriptionum Semiticarum, Paris, 1881 ff. Among the inscriptions but few public documents are found, e.g. two lists of fees for sacrifices; by far the most are epitaphs or votive tablets. Of special importance is the inscription on the sarcophagus of King Ešmûnazar of Sidon, found in 1855, now in the Louvre; see the bibliography in Lidzbarski, Nordsem. Epigr., i. 23 ff.; on the inscription, i. 97 ff., 141 f., 417, ii. plate iv, 2; [Cooke, p. 30 ff.]. To these may be added isolated words in Greek and Latin authors, and the Punic texts in Plautus, Poenulus 5, 1–3 (best treated by Gildemeister in Ritschl’s edition of Plautus, Lips. 1884, tom. ii, fasc. 5). From the monuments we learn the native orthography, from the Greek and Latin transcriptions the pronunciation and vocalization; the two together give a tolerably distinct idea of the language and its relation to Hebrew.
g Phoenician (Punic) words occurring in inscriptions are, e.g. אל God, אדם man, בן son, בת daughter, מלך king, עבד servant, בהן priest, זבח sacrifice, בעל lord, שמש sun, ארץ land, ים sea, אבן stone, כסף silver, ברזל iron, שמן oil, עת time, קבר grave, מצבת monument, מקם place, משכב bed, כל all, אחד one, שנים two, שלש three, ארבע four, חמש five, שש six, שבע seven, עשר ten, כן (=Hebr. היה) to be, שמע to hear, פתח to open, נדר to vow, ברך to bless, בקש to seek, &c. Proper names: צדן Sidon, צר Tyre, חנא Hanno, חנבעל Hannibal, &c. See the complete vocabulary in Lidzbarski, Nordsem. Epigr., i. 204 ff.
h Variations from Hebrew in Phoenician orthography and inflection are, e.g. the almost invariable omission of the vowel letters (§ 7 b), as בת for בית house, קל for קוֹל voice, צדן for צִידוֹן, כהנם for כֹּֽהֲנִים priests, אלנם (in Plaut. alonim) gods ; the fem., even in the absolute state, ending in ת (ath) (§ 80 b) as well as א (ô), the relative אש (Hebr. אֲשֶׁר), &c. The differences in pronunciation are more remarkable, especially in Punic, where the וֹ was regularly pronounced as û, e.g. שֹׁפֵט sûfēṭ (judge), שָׁלשׁ sālûs (three), רש rûs = רֹאשׁ head; i and e often as the obscure dull sound of y, e.g. הִנֶּנּוּ ynnynnu ('ecce eum'), אֵת (אית) yth; the ע as o, e.g. מעקר Mocar (cf. מַֽעֲכָה LXX, Gn 22 Μωχά). See the collection of the grammatical peculiarities in Gesenius, Monuments Phoenicia, p. 430 ff.; Paul Schröder, Die phöniz. Sprache, Halle, 1869; B. Stade, ‘Erneute Pröfung des zwischen dem Phönic. und Hebr. bestehenden Verwandtschaftsgrades,’ in the Morgenländ. Forschungen, Lpz. 1875, p. 169 ff.
i 4. As the Hebrew writing on monuments and coins mentioned in d consists only of consonants, so also the writers of the Old Testament books used merely the consonant-signs (§ 1 k), and even now the written scrolls of the Law used in the synagogues must not, according to ancient custom, contain anything more. The present pronunciation of this consonantal text, its vocalization and accentuation, rest on the tradition of the Jewish schools, as it was finally fixed by the system of punctuation (§ 7 h) introduced by Jewish scholars about the seventh century A.D.; cf. § 3 b.
k An earlier stage in the development of the Canaanitish-Hebrew language, i.e. a form of it anterior to the written documents now extant, when it must have stood nearer to the common language of the united Semitic family, can still be discerned in its principal features:—(1) from many archaisms preserved in the traditional texts, especially in the names of persons and places dating from earlier times, as well as in isolated forms chiefly occurring in poetic style; (2) in general by an a posteriori conclusion from traditional forms, so far as according to the laws and analogies of phonetic change they clearly point to an older phase of the language; and (3) by comparison with the kindred languages, especially Arabic, in which this earlier stage of the language has been frequently preserved even down to later times (§ 1 m, n). In numerous instances in examining linguistic phenomena, the same—and consequently so much the more certain—result is attained by each of these three methods.
Although the systematic investigation of the linguistic development indicated above belongs to comparative Semitic philology, it is nevertheless indispensable for the scientific treatment of Hebrew to refer to the ground-forms[6] so far as they can be ascertained and to compare the corresponding forms in Arabic. Even elementary grammar which treats of the forms of the language occurring in the Old Testament frequently requires, for their explanation, a reference to these ground-forms.
l 5. Even in the language of the Old Testament, notwithstanding its general uniformity, there is noticeable a certain progress from an earlier to a later stage. Two periods, though with some reservations, may be distinguished: the first, down to the end of the Babylonian exile; and the second, after the exile.
m To the former belongs, apart from isolated traces of a later revision, the larger half of the Old Testament books, viz. (a) of the prose and historical writings, a large part of the Pentateuch and of Joshua, Judges, Samuel, and Kings; (b) of the poetical, perhaps a part of the Psalms and Proverbs; (c) the writings of the earlier prophets (apart from various later additions) in the following chronological order: Amos, Hosea, Isaiah I, Micah, Nahum, Zephaniah, Habakkuk, Obadiah (?), Jeremiah, Ezekiel, Isaiah II (ch. 40–55).
n The beginning of this period, and consequently of Hebrew literature generally, is undoubtedly to be placed as early as the time of Moses, although the Pentateuch in its present form, in which very different strata may be still clearly recognized, is to be regarded as a gradual production of the centuries after Moses. Certain linguistic peculiarities of the Pentateuch, which it was once customary to regard as archaisms, such as the epicene use of נַעַר boy, youth, for נַֽעֲרָה girl, and הוא for היא, are merely to be attributed to a later redactor; cf. § 17 c.
o The linguistic character of the various strata of the Pentateuch has been examined by Ryssel, De Elohistae Pentateuchici sermone, Lpz. 1878; König, De criticae sacrae argumento e linguae legibus repetito, Lpz. 1879 (analysis of Gn 1[[:he:בראשית א |]]–11[[:he:בראשית יא |]]); F. Giesebrecht, ‘Der Sprachgebr. des hexateuchischen Elohisten,’ in ZAW. 1881, p. 177 ff., partly modified by Driver in the Journal of Philology, vol. xi. p. 201 ff.; Kräutlein, Die sprachl. Verschiedenheiten in den Hexateuchquellen, Lpz. 1908.—Abundant matter is afforded also by Holzinger, Einleitung in den Hexateuct, Freib. 1893; Driver, Introduction to the Literature of the Old Testament8, Edinburgh, 1908; Strack, Einleitung ins A.T.6, Munich, 1906; König, Einleitung in das A.T., Bonn, 1893.
p 6. Even in the writings of this first period, which embraces about 600 years, we meet, as might be expected, with considerable differences in linguistic form and style, which are due partly to differences in the time and place of composition, and partly to the individuality and talent of the authors. Thus Isaiah, for example, writes quite differently from the later Jeremiah, but also differently from his contemporary Micah. Amongst the historical books of this period, the texts borrowed from earlier sources have a linguistic colouring perceptibly different from those derived from later sources, or passages which belong to the latest redactor himself. Yet the structure of the language, and, apart from isolated cases, even the vocabulary and phraseology, are on the whole the same, especially in the prose books.
q But the poetic language is in many ways distinguished from prose, not only by a rhythm due to more strictly balanced (parallel) members and definite metres (see r), but also by peculiar words and meanings, inflexions and syntactical constructions which it uses in addition to those usual in prose. This distinction, however, does not go far as, for example, in Greek. Many of these poetic peculiarities occur in the kindred languages, especially in Aramaic, as the ordinary modes of expression, and probably are to be regarded largely as archaisms which poetry retained. Some perhaps, also, are embellishments which the Hebrew poets who knew Aramaic adopted into their language.[7]
The prophets, at least the earlier, in language and rhythm are to be regarded almost entirely as poets, except that with them the sentences are often more extended, and the parallelism is less regular and balanced than is the case with the poets properly so called. The language of the later prophets, on the contrary, approaches nearer to prose.
r On the rhythm of Hebrew poetry, see besides the Commentaries on the poetical books and Introductions to the O.T., J. Ley, Grundzüge des Rhythmus, &c., Halle, 1875; Leitfaden der Metrik der hebr. Poesie, Halle, 1887; ‘Die metr. Beschaffenheit des B. Hiob,’ in Theol. Stud. u. Krit., 1895, iv, 1897, i; Grimme, ‘Abriss der bibl.-hebr. Metrik,’ ZDMG. 1896, p. 529 ff., 1897, p. 683 ff.; Psalmenprobleme &c., Freiburg (Switzerland), 1902 (on which see Beer in ThLZ. 1903, no. 11); ‘Gedanken über hebr. Metrik,’ in Altschüler’s Vierteljahrschrift, i (1903), 1 ff.; Döller, Rhythmus, Metrik u. Strophik in d. bibl.-hebr. Poesie, Paderborn, 1899; Schloegl, De re metrics veterum Hebraeorum disputatio, Vindobonae, 1899 (on the same lines as Grimme); but especially Ed. Sievers, Metrische Studien : i Studien zur hebr. Metrik, pt. 1 Untersuchungen, pt. 2 Textproben, Lpz. 1901: ii Die hebr. Genesis, 1 Texte, 2 Zur Quellenscheidung u. Textkritik, Lpz. 1904 f.: iii Samuel, Lpz. 1907; Amos metrisch bearbeitet (with H. Guthe), Lpz. 1907; and his Alttest. Miszellen (1 Is 24–27, 2 Jena, 3 Deutero-Zechariah, 4 Malachi, 5 Hosea, 6 Joel, 7 Obadiah, 8 Zephaniah, 9 Haggai, 10 Micah), Lpz. 1904–7.—As a guide to Sievers’ system (with some criticism of his principles) see Baumann, ‘Die Metrik u. das A.T.;,’ in the Theol. Rundschau, viii (1905), 41 ff.; W. H. Cobb, A criticism of systems of Hebrew Metre, Oxford, 1905; Cornill, Einleitung ins A.T.5, Tübingen, 1905, p. 11 ff.; Rothstein, Zeitschr. für d. ev. Rel.-Unterricht, 1907, p. 188 ff. and his Grundzüge des hebr. Rhythmus, Lpz. 1909 (also separately Psalmentexte u. der Text des Hohen Liedes, Lpz. 1909); W. R. Arnold, ‘The rhythms of the ancient Heb.,’ in O.T. and Semitic Studies in memory of W. R. Harper, i. 165 ff., Chicago, 1907, according to whom the number of syllables between the beats is only limited by the physiological possibilities of phonetics; C.v. Orelli, ‘Zur Metrik der alttest. Prophetenschriften,’ in his Kommentar zu den kl. Propheten3, p. 236 ff., Munich, 1908.—In full agreement with Sievers is Baethgen, Psalmen3, p. xxvi ff., Göttingen, 1904. [Cf. Budde in DB. iv. 3 ff.; Duhm in EB. iii. 3793 ff.]
Of all views of this matter, the only one generally accepted as sound was at first Ley’s and Budde’s discovery of the Qina- or Lamentation-Verse (ZAW. 1882, 5 ff.; 1891, 234 ff.; 1892, 31 ff.). On their predecessors, Lowth, de Wette, Ewald, see Löhr, Klagelied2, p. 9. This verse, called by Duhm ‘long verse’, by Sievers simply ‘five-syllabled’ (Fünfer), consists of two members, the second at least one beat shorter than the other. That a regular repetition of an equal number of syllables in arsis and thesis was observed by other poets, had been established by Ley, Duhm, Gunkel, Grimme, and others, especially Zimmern, who cites a Babylonian hymn in which the members are actually marked (ZA. x. 1 ff., xii. 382 ff.; cf. also Delitzsch, Das babyl. Weltschöpfungsepos, Lpz. 1896, pp. 60 ff.). Recently, however, E. Sievers, the recognized authority on metre in other branches of literature, has indicated, in the works mentioned above, a number of fresh facts and views, which have frequently been confirmed by the conclusions of Ley and others. The most important are as follows:—
Hebrew poetry, as distinguished from the quantitative Classical and Arabic and the syllabic Syriac verse, is accentual. The number of unstressed syllables between the beats (ictus) is, however, not arbitrary, but the scheme of the verse is based on an irregular anapaest which may undergo rhythmical modifications (e.g. resolving the ictus into two syllables, or lengthening the arsis so as to give a double accent) and contraction, e.g. of the first two syllables. The foot always concludes with the ictus, so that toneless endings, due to change of pronunciation or corruption of the text, are to be disregarded, although as a rule the ictus coincides with the Hebrew word-accent. The metrical scheme consists of combinations of feet in series (of 2, 3 or 4), and of these again in periods—double threes, very frequently, double fours in narrative, fives in Lamentations (see above) and very often elsewhere, and sevens. Sievers regards the last two metres as catalectic double threes and fours. Connected sections do not always maintain the same metre throughout, but often exhibit a mixture of metres.
It can no longer be doubted that in the analysis of purely poetical passages, this system often finds ready confirmation and leads to textual and literary results, such as the elimination of glosses. There are, however, various difficulties in carrying out the scheme consistently and extending it to the prophetical writings and still more to narrative: (1) not infrequently the required number of feet is only obtained by sacrificing the clearly marked parallelism, or the grammatical connexion (e.g. of the construct state with its genitive), and sometimes even by means of doubtful emendations; (2) the whole system assumes a correct transmission of the text and its pronunciation, for neither of which is there the least guarantee. To sum up, our conclusion at present is that for poetry proper some assured and final results have been already obtained, and others may be expected, from the principles laid down by Sievers, although, considering the way in which the text has been transmitted, a faultless arrangement of metres cannot be expected. Convincing proof of the consistent use of the same metrical schemes in the prophets, and a fortiori in narrative, can hardly be brought forward.
The great work of D. H. Müller, Die Propheten in ihrer ursprüngl. Form (2 vols., Vienna, 1896; cf. his Strophenbau u. Respension, ibid. 1898, and Komposition u. Strophenbau, ibid. 1907), is a study of the most important monuments of early Semitic poetry from the point of view of strophic structure and the use of the refrain, i.e. the repetition of the same or similar phrases or words in corresponding positions in different strophes.
The arrangement of certain poetical passages in verse-form required by early scribal rules (Ex 15; Dt 32; Ju 5[[:he:שופטים ה |]]; 1 S 2; 2 S 22[[:he:שמואל ב כב |]], 23; ψ 18[[:he:תהלים יח |]], 136[[:he:תהלים קלו |]]; Pr 31; 1 Ch 16: cf. also Jo 12; Ec 3; Est 9) has nothing to do with the question of metre in the above sense.
s Words are used in poetry, for which others are customary in prose, e.g. אֱנוֹשׁ man = אָדָם; אֹרַח path = דֶּרֶךְ; מִלָּה word = דָּבָר; חָזָה to see = רָאָה; אָתָה to come = בּוֹא.
To the poetic meanings of words belongs the use of certain poetic epithets as substantives; thus, for example, אביר (only in constr, st. אֲבִיר) the strong one for God; אַבִּיר the strong one for bull, horse; לְבָנָה alba for luna; צַר enemy for אֹיֵב.
Of word-forms, we may note, e.g. the longer forms of prepositions of place (§ 103 n) עֲלֵי = עַל, אֱלֵי = אֶל, עֲדֵי = עַד; the endings ־ִי, וֹ in the noun (§ 90); the pronominal suffixes מוֹ, ־ָ֫מוֹ, ־ֵ֫מוֹ for ם, ־ָם, ־ֵם (§ 58); the plural ending ־ִין for ־ִים (§ 87 e). To the syntax belongs the far more sparing use of the article, of the relative pronoun, of the accusative particle אֵת; the construct state even before prepositions; the shortened imperfect with the same meaning as the ordinary form (§ 109 i); the wider governing power of prepositions; and in general a forcible brevity of expression.
t 7. The second period of the Hebrew language and literature, after the return from the exile until the Maccabees (about 160 B.C.), is chiefly distinguished by a constantly closer approximation of the language to the kindred western Aramaic dialect. This is due to the influence of the Aramaeans, who lived in close contact with the recent and thinly-populated colony in Jerusalem, and whose dialect was already of importance as being the official language of the western half of the Persian empire. Nevertheless the supplanting of Hebrew by Aramaic proceeded only very gradually. Writings intended for popular use, such as the Hebrew original of Jesus the son of Sirach and the book of Daniel, not only show that Hebrew about 170 B.C. was still in use as a literary language, but also that it was still at least understood by the people.[8] When it had finally ceased to exist as a living language, it was still preserved as the language of the Schools—not to mention the numerous Hebraisms introduced into the Aramaic spoken by the Jews.
For particulars, see Kautzsch, Gramm. des Bibl.-Aram., pp. 1–6. We may conveniently regard the relation of the languages which co-existed in this later period as similar to that of the High and Low German in North Germany, or to that of the High German and the common dialects in the south and in Switzerland. Even amongst the more educated, the common dialect prevails orally, whilst the High German serves essentially as the literary and cultured language, and is at least understood by all classes of the people. Wholly untenable is the notion, based on an erroneous interpretation of Neh 8, that the Jews immediately after the exile had completely forgotten the Hebrew language, and therefore needed a translation of the Holy Scriptures.
u The Old Testament writings belonging to this second period, in all of which the Aramaic colouring appears in various degrees, are: certain parts of the Pentateuch and of Joshua, Ruth, the books of Ezra, Nehemiah, Chronicles, Esther; the prophetical books of Haggai, Zechariah, Isaiah III (56–66), Malachi, Joel, Jonah, Daniel; of the poetical books, a large part of Proverbs, Job, Song of Songs, Ecclesiastes, and most of the Psalms. As literary compositions, these books are sometimes far inferior to those of the first period, although work was still produced which in purity of language and aesthetic value falls little short of the writings of the golden age.
v Later words (Aramaisms) are, e.g. אַחְוָה declaration, אָנַס compel, בַּר son, גִּיר chalk, זְמָן = עֵת time, זָקַף raise up, חסד Pi. reproach, טלל Pi. roof over, טָעָה stray, כֵּף rock, מלך advise, סוֹף = קֵץ end, קִבֵּל = לָקַח take, רָעַע = רָצַץ break, שָׂגָא be many, שָׁלַט = מָלַךְ rule, תָּקֵף = אָמֵץ be strong.—Later meanings are, e.g. אָמַר (to say) to command; עָנָה (to answer) to begin speaking.—Orthographical and grammatical peculiarities are, the frequent scriptio plena of וֹ and ־ִי, e.g. דָּוִיד[9] (elsewhere דָּוִד), even קוֹדֶש for קֹדֶש, רוֹב for רֹב; the interchange of ־ָה and ־ָא final; the more frequent use of substantives in וֹן, ־ָן, וּת &c. Cf. Dav. Strauss, Sprachl. Studien zu d. hebr. Sirachfragmenten, Zürich, 1900, p. 19 ff.; for the Psalms Cheyne, Origin of the Psalter, p. 461 ff., and especially Giesebrecht in ZAW. 1881, p. 276 ff.; in general, Kautzsch, Die Aramaismen im A.T. (i, Lexikal. Teil), Halle, 1902.
But all the peculiarities of these later writers are not Aramaisms. Several do not occur in Aramaic and must have belonged at an earlier period to the Hebrew vernacular, especially it would seem in northern Palestine. There certain parts of Judges, amongst others, may have originated, as is indicated, e.g. by שֶּׁ, a common form in Phoenician (as well as אשׁ), for אֲשֶׁר (§ 36), which afterwards recurs in Jonah, Lamentations, the Song of Songs, the later Psalms, and Ecclesiastes.
w Rem. I. Of dialectical varieties in the old Hebrew language, only one express mention occurs in the O.T. (Ju 12), according to which the Ephraimites in certain cases pronounced the שׁ as ס. (Cf. Marquart in ZAW. 1888, p. 151 ff.) Whether in Neh 13 by the speech of Ashdod a Hebrew, or a (wholly different) Philistine dialect is intended, cannot be determined. On the other hand, many peculiarities in the North Palestinian books (Judges and Hosea) are probably to be regarded as differences in dialect, and so also some anomalies in the Moabite inscription of Mêšaʿ (see above, d). On later developments see L. Metman, Die hebr. Sprache, ihre Geschichte u. lexikal. Enticickelung seit Abschluss des Kanons u. ihr Bau in d. Gegenwart, Jerusalem, 1906.
2. It is evident that, in the extant remains of old Hebrew literature,[10] the entire store of the ancient language is not preserved. The canonical books of the Old Testament formed certainly only a fraction of the whole Hebrew national literature.
Gesenius, Gesch. der hebr. Sprache, §§ 19-39; Oehler's article, 'Hebr. Sprache,' in Schmid's Encykl. des ges. Erziehungs- u. Unterrichtswesens, vol. iii. p. 346 ff. (in the 2nd ed. revised by Nestle, p. 314 ff.). Cf. also the literature cited above in the headings of §§ 1 and 2; also Böttcher, Lehrb. der hebr. Spr., i. Lpz. 1866, p. 30 ff.; L. Geiger, Das Studium der Hebr. Spr. in Deutschl. vom Ende des XV. bis zur Mitte des XVI. Jahrh., Breslau, 1870; B. Pick, 'The Study of the Hebrew Language among Jews and Christians,' in Bibliotheca Sacra, 1884, p. 450 ff., and 1885, p. 470 ff.; W. Bacher, article 'Grammar' in the Jew. Encyclopaedia, vol. vi, New York and London, 1904. Cf. also the note on d.
a 1. At the time when the old Hebrew language was gradually becoming extinct, and the formation of the O.T. canon was
approaching completion, the Jews began to explain and critically revise their sacred text, and sometimes to translate it into the vernacular languages which in various countries had become current among them. The oldest translation is the Greek of the Seventy (more correctly Seventy-two) Interpreters (LXX), which was begun with the Pentateuch at Alexandria under Ptolemy Philadelphus, but only completed later. It was the work of various authors, some of whom had a living knowledge of the original, and was intended for the use of Greek-speaking Jews, especially in Alexandria. Somewhat later the Aramaic translations, or Targums (תַּרְגּוּמִים i.e. interpretations), were formed by successive recensions made in Palestine and Babylonia. The explanations, derived in part from alleged tradition, refer almost exclusively to civil and ritual law and dogmatic theology, and are no more scientific in character than much of the textual tradition of that period. Both kinds of tradition are preserved in the Talmud, the first part of which, the Mišna, was finally brought to its present form towards the end of the second century; of the remainder, the Gemāra, one recension (the Jerusalem or Palestinian Gem.) about the middle of the fourth century, the other (the Babylonian Gem.) about the middle of the sixth century A.D. The Mišna forms the beginning of the New-Hebrew literature; the language of the Gemaras is for the most part Aramaic.
b 2. To the interval between the completion of the Talmud and the earliest grammatical writers, belong mainly the vocalization and accentuation of the hitherto unpointed text of the O.T., according to the pronunciation traditional in the Synagogues and Schools (§ 7 h, i), as well as the greater part of the collection of critical notes which bears the name of Masōra (מָֽסוֹרָה traditio?).[11] From this the text which has since been transmitted with rigid uniformity by the MSS., and is still the received text of the O.T., has obtained the name of the Masoretic Text.
c E. F. K. Rosenmüller already (Handbuch für d. Liter. der bibl. Kritik u. Exegese, 1797, i. 247; Vorrede zur Stereotyp-Ausg. des A.T., Lpz. 1834) maintained that our O.T. text was derived from Codices belonging to a single recension. J. G. Sommer (cf. Cornill, ZAW. 1892, p. 309), Olshausen (since 1853), and especially De Lagarde (Proverbien, 1863, p. 1 ff.), have even made it probable that the original Masoretic text was derived from a single standard manuscript. Cf., however, E. König in Ztschr. f. kirchl. Wiss., 1887, p. 279 f., and especially his Einleitung ins A.T., p. 88 ff. Moreover a great many facts, which will be noticed in their proper places, indicate that the Masora itself is by no means uniform but shows clear traces of different schools and opinions; cf. H. Strack in Semitic Studies in memory of... Kohut, Berlin, 1897, p. 563 ff. An excellent foundation for the history of the Masora and the settlement of the masoretic tradition was laid by Joh. Buxtorf in his Tiberias seu Commentarius Masorethicus, first published at Basel in 1620 as an appendix to the Rabbinical Bible of 1618 f. For more recent work see Geiger, Jüdische Ztschr., iii. 78 ff., followed by Harris in JQR. i. 128 ff., 243 ff.; S. Frensdorff. Ochla W’ochla, Hanover, 1864; and his Massor. Wörterb., part i, Hanover and Lpz. 1876; and Ch. D. Ginsburg, The Massora compiled from Manuscripts, &c., 3 vols., Lond. 1880 ff., and Introduction to the Massoretico-critical edition of the Hebr. Bible, Lond. 1897 (his text, reprinted from that of Jacob b. Ḥayyîm [Venice, 1524–5] with variants from MSS. and the earliest editions, was published in 2 vols. at London in 1894, 2nd ed. 1906; a revised edition is in progress); H. Hyvernat, ‘La langue et le langage de la Massore’ (as a mixture of New-Hebrew and Aramaic), in the Revue biblique, Oct. 1903, p. 529 ff. and B: ‘Lexique massorétique,’ ibid., Oct. 1904, p. 521 ff., 1905, p. 481 ff., and p. 515 ff. In the use of the Massora for the critical construction of the Text, useful work has been done especially by S. Baer, in the editions of the several books (only Exod.-Deut. have still to appear), edited from 1869 conjointly with Fr. Delitzsch, and since 1891 by Baer alone. Cf. also § 7 h.
The various readings of the Qerê (see § 17) form one of the oldest and most important parts of the Masora. The punctuation of the Text, however, is not to be confounded with the compilation of the Masora. The former was settled at an earlier period, and is the result of a much more exhaustive labour than the Masora, which was not completed till a considerably later time.
d 3. It was not until about the beginning of the tenth century that the Jews, following the example of the Arabs, began their grammatical compilations. Of the numerous grammatical and lexicographical works of R. Saʿadya,[12] beyond fragments in the commentary on the Sepher Yeṣira (ed. Mayer-Lambert, pp. 42, 47, 75, &c.), only the explanation in Arabic of the seventy (more correctly ninety) hapax legomena in the O.T. has been preserved. Written likewise in Arabic, but frequently translated into Hebrew, were the still extant works of the grammarians R. Yehuda Ḥayyûǵ (also called Abu Zakarya Yaḥya, about the year 1000) and R. Yona (Ahu ʾl-Walîd Merwân ibn Ǵanâḥ, about 1030). By the aid of these earlier labours, Abraham ben Ezra (commonly called Aben Ezra, ob. 1167) and R. David Qimḥi (ob. c. 1235) especially gained a classical reputation by their Hebrew grammatical writings.
From these earliest grammarians are derived many principles of arrangement and technical terms, some of which are still retained, e.g. the naming of the conjugations and weak verbs according to the paradigm of פעל, certain voces memoriales, as בְּגַדְכְּפַת and the like.[13]
e 4. The father of Hebrew philology among Christians was John Reuchlin (ob. 1522),[14] to whom Greek literature also is so much indebted. Like the grammarians who succeeded him, till the time of John Buxtorf the elder (ob. 1629), he still adhered almost entirely to Jewish tradition. From the middle of the seventeenth century the field of investigation gradually widened, and the study of the kindred languages, chiefly through the leaders of the Dutch school, Albert Schultens (ob. 1750) and N. W. Schröder (ob. 1798), became of fruitful service to Hebrew grammar.
f 5. In the nineteenth century[15] the advances in Hebrew philology are especially connected with the names of W. Gesenius (born at Nordhausen, Feb. 3, 1786; from the year 1810 Professor at Halle, where he died Oct. 23, 1842), who above all things aimed at the comprehensive observation and lucid presentation of the actually occurring linguistic phenomena; H. Ewald (ob. 1875, at Göttingen; Krit. Gramm. der Hebr. Spr., Lpz. 1827; Ausführl. Lehrb. d. hebr. Spr., 8th ed., Gött. 1870), who chiefly aimed at referring linguistic forms to general laws and rationally explaining the latter; J. Olshausen (ob. 1882, at Berlin; Lehrb. der hebr. Sprache, Brunswick, 1861) who attempted a consistent explanation of the existing condition of the language, from the presupposed primitive Semitic forms, preserved according to him notably in old Arabic. F. Böttcher (Ausführl. Lehrb. d. hebr. Spr. ed. by F.Mühlau, 2 vols., Lpz. 1866–8) endeavoured to present an exhaustive synopsis of the linguistic phenomena, as well as to give an explanation of them from the sphere of Hebrew alone. B. Stade, on the other hand (Lehrb. der hebr. Gr., pt. i. Lpz. 1879), adopted a strictly scientific method in endeavouring to reduce the systems of Ewald and Olshausen to a more fundamental unity. E. König[16] in his very thorough researches into the phonology and accidence starts generally from the position reached by the early Jewish grammarians (in his second part ‘with comparative reference to the Semitic languages in general’) and instead of adopting the usual dogmatic method, takes pains to re-open the discussion of disputed grammatical questions. The syntax König has ‘endeavoured to treat in several respects in such a way as to show its affinity to the common Semitic syntax’.—Among the works of Jewish scholars, special attention may be called to the grammar by S. D. Luzzatto written in Italian (Padua, 1853–69).
The chief requirements for one who is treating the grammar of an ancient language are—(1) that he should observe as fully and accurately as possible the existing linguistic phenomena and describe them, after showing their organic connexion (the empirical and historico-critical element); (2) that he should try to explain these facts, partly by comparing them with one another and by the analogy of the sister languages, partly from the general laws of philology (the logical element).
g Such observation has more and more led to the belief that the original text of the O.T. has suffered to a much greater extent than former scholars were inclined to admit, in spite of the number of variants in parallel passages: Is 2 = Mi 4, Is 36[[:he:ישעיהו לו |]]-39[[:he:ישעיהו לט |]] = 2 K 18–20, Jer 52[[:he:ירמיהו נב |]] = 2 K 24–25, 2 S 22[[:he:שמואל ב כב |]] = ψ 18[[:he:תהלים יח |]], ψ 14[[:he:תהלים יד |]] = ψ 53[[:he:תהלים נג |]], ψ 40 = ψ 70[[:he:תהלים ע |]], ψ 108[[:he:תהלים קח |]] = ψ 57 and 60. Cf. also the parallels between the Chronicles and the older historical books, and F. Vodel, Die konsonant. Varianten in den doppelt überlief. poet. Stücken d. masoret. Textes, Lpz. 1905. As to the extent and causes of the corruption of the Masoretic text, the newly discovered fragments of the Hebrew Ecclesiasticus are very instructive; cf. Smend, Gött. gel. Anz., 1906, p. 763.
The causes of unintentional corruption in the great majority of cases are:—Interchange of similar letters, which has sometimes taken place in the early ‘Phoenician’ writing; transposition or omission of single letters, words, or even whole sentences, which are then often added in the margin and thence brought back into the text in the wrong place; such omission is generally due to homoioteleuton (cf. Ginsburg, Introd., p. 171 ff.), i.e. the scribe’s eye wanders from the place to a subsequent word of the same or similar form. Other causes are dittography, i.e. erroneous repetition of letters, words, and even sentences; its opposite, haplography; and lastly wrong division of words (cf. Ginsburg, Introd., p. 158 ff.), since at a certain period in the transmission of the text the words were not separated.[17]—Intentional changes are due to corrections for the sake of decency or of dogma, and to the insertion of glosses, some of them very early.
Advance in grammar is therefore closely dependent on progress in textual criticism. The systematic pursuit of the latter has only begun in recent years: cf. especially Doorninck on Ju 1[[:he:שופטים א |]]–16[[:he:שופטים טז |]], Leid. 1879; Wellhausen, Text der Bb. Sam., Gött. 1871; Cornill, Ezechiel, Lpz. 1886; Klostermann, Bb. Sam. u. d. Kön., Nördl. 1887; Driver, Notes on the Hebr. text of the Books of Sam., Oxf. 1890; Klostermann, Deuterojesaja, Munich, 1893; Oort, Textus hebr. emendationes, Lugd. 1900; Burney on Kings, Oxf. 1903; the commentaries of Marti and Nowack; the Internat. Crit. Comm.; Kautzsch, Die heil. Schriften des A.T.2, 1909–10. A critical edition of the O.T. with full textual notes, and indicating the different documents by colours, is being published in a handsome form by P. Haupt in The Sacred Books of the Old Test., Lpz. and Baltimore, 1893 ff. (sixteen parts have appeared: Exod., Deut., Minor Prophets, and Megilloth are still to come); Kittel, Biblia hebraica2, 1909, Masoretic text from Jacob b. Ḥayyim (see c), with a valuable selection of variants from the versions, and emendations.
The division and arrangement of Hebrew grammar follow the three constituent parts of every language, viz. (1) articulate sounds represented by letters, and united to form syllables, (2) words, and (3) sentences.
The first part (the elements) comprises accordingly the treatment of sounds and their representation in writing. It describes the nature and relations of the sounds of the language, teaches the pronunciation of the written signs (orthoepy), and the established mode of writing (orthography). It then treats of the sounds as combined in syllables and words, and specifies the laws and conditions under which this combination takes place.
The second part (etymology) treats of words in their character as parts of speech, and comprises: (1) the principles of the formation of words, or of the derivation of the different parts of speech from the roots or from one another; (2) the principles of inflexion, i.e. of the various forms which the words assume according to their relation to other words and to the sentence.
The third part (syntax, or the arrangement of words): (1) shows how the word-formations and inflexions occurring in the language are used to express different shades of ideas, and how other ideas, for which the language has not coined any forms, are expressed by periphrasis; (2) states the laws according to which the parts of speech are combined in sentences (the principles of the sentence, or syntax in the stricter sense of the term).
ELEMENTARY PRINCIPLES OR THE SOUNDS AND CHARACTERS
CHAPTER I
THE INDIVIDUAL SOUNDS AND CHARACTERSAmong the abundant literature on the subject, special attention is directed to: A. Berliner, Beitrage zurhebr. Gramm., Berlin, 1879, p. 15 ff., on the names, forms, and pronunciation of the consonants in Talmud and Midrash; H. Strack, Schreibkunst u. Schrift bei d. Hebräern, PRE.3, Lpz. 1906, p. 766 ff.; Benzinger, Hebr. Archäologie2, Tübingen, 1907, p. 172 ff.; Nowack, Lehrbicch d. hebr. Archäologie2, Freiburg, 1894, i. 279 ff.; Lidzbarski, Handbuch d. nordsem. Epigraphik, Weimar, 1898, i. I73ff.; also his art. 'Hebrew Alphabet,' in the Jewish Encyclopaedia, i, 1901, p. 439 ff. (cf. his Ephemeris, i. 316 ff.); and 'Die Namen der Alphabetbuchstaben', in Ephemeris, ii. 125 ff.; Kenyon, art. 'Writing,' in the Dictionary of the Bible, iv. Edinb. 1902, p. 944 ff.; Nöldeke, 'Die semit. Buchstabennamen,' in Beitr. sur semit. Sprachwiss., Strassb. 1904, p. 124 ff.; F. Praetorius, Ueber den Ursprung des kanaan. Alphabets, Berlin, 1906; H. Grimme, 'Zur Genesis des semit. Alphabets,' in ZA. xx. 1907, p. 49 ff.; R. Stübe, Grundlinien su einer Entwickelungsgesch, d. Schrift, Munich, 1907; Jermain, In the path of the Alphabet, Fort Wayne, 1907.—L. Blau, Studien zum althebr. Buchwesen, &c., Strassb. 1902; and his 'Ueber d. Einfluss d. althebr. Buchwesens auf d. Originale', &c., in Festschr. zu Ehren A. Berliners, Frkf. 1903.
The best tables of alphabets are those of J. Euting in G. Bickell's Outlines of Heb. Gram., transl. by S. I. Curtiss, Lpz. 1877; in Pt. vii of the Oriental Series of the Palaeographical Soc., London, 1882; and, the fullest of all, in Chwolson's Corpus inscr. Hebr., Petersburg, 1882; also Lidzbarski's in the Jewish Encycl., see above.
a 1. The Hebrew letters now in use, in which both the manuscripts of the O.T. are written and our editions of the Bible are printed, commonly called the square character (כְּתָב מְרֻבָּע), also the Assyrian character (כְּ׳ אַשּׁוּרִי),[18] are not those originally employed.
Old Hebrew (or Old Canaanitish[19]) writing, as it was used on public monuments in the beginning of the ninth and in the second half of the eighth century B.C., is to be seen in the inscription of Mêšaʿ, as well as in that of Siloam. The characters on the Maccabaean coins of the second century B.C., and also on ancient gems, still bear much resemblance to this (cf. § 2 d). With the Old Hebrew writing the Phoenician is nearly identical (see § 1 k, § 2 f, and the Table of Alphabets). From the analogy of the history of other kinds of writing, it may be assumed that out of and along with this monumental character, a less antique and in some ways more convenient, rounded style was early developed, for use on softer materials, skins, bark, papyrus, and the like. This the Samaritans retained after their separation from the Jews, while the Jews gradually[20] (between the sixth and the fourth century) exchanged it for an Aramaic character. From this gradually arose (from about the fourth to the middle of the third century) what is called the square character, which consequently bears great resemblance to the extant forms of Aramaic writing, such as the Egyptian-Aramaic, the Nabatean and especially the Palmyrene. Of Hebrew inscriptions in the older square character, that of ʿArâq al-Emîr (15½ miles north-east of the mouth of the Jordan) probably belongs to 183 B.C.[21]
The Jewish sarcophagus-inscriptions of the time of Christ, found in Jerusalem in 1905, almost without exception exhibit a pure square character. This altered little in the course of centuries, so that the age of a Hebrew MS. cannot easily be determined from the style of the writing. The oldest known biblical fragment is the Nash papyrus (found in 1902), containing the ten commandments and the beginning of Dt 6, of the end of the first or beginning of the second century A.D.; cf. N. Peters, Die älteste Abschr. der 10 Gebote, Freibg. i. B. 1905. Of actual MSS. of the Bible the oldest is probably one of 820–850 A.D. described by Ginsburg, Introd., p. 469 ff., at the head of his sixty principal MSS.; next in age is the codex of Moses ben Asher at Cairo (897 A.D., cf. the art. ‘Scribes’ in the Jew. Encycl. xi and Gottheil in JQR. 1905, p. 32). The date (916 A.D.) of the Codex prophetarum Babylon. Petropol. (see § 8 g, note) is quite certain.—In the synagogue-rolls a distinction is drawn between the Tam-character (said to be so called from Rabbi Tam, grandson of R. Yiṣḥāqî, in the twelfth century) with its straight strokes, square corners and ‘tittles’ (tāgîn), in German and Polish MSS., and the foreign character with rounded letters and tittles in Spanish MSS. See further E. König, Einl. in das A.T., Bonn, 1893, p. 16 ff.
b 2. The Alphabet consists, like all Semitic alphabets, solely of consonants, twenty-two in number, some of which, however, have also a kind of vocalic power (§ 7 b). The following Table shows their form, names, pronunciation, and numerical value (see k):—
| FORM. | NAME. | PRONUNCIATION. | NUMERICAL VALUE. |
|---|---|---|---|
| א | ʾĀlĕph | ʾ spiritus lenis | 1
|
| ב | Bêth | b (bh, but see § 6 n) | 2
|
| ג | Gimĕl (Giml) | g (gh, but see § 6 n) | 3
|
| ד | Dālĕth | d (dh, but see § 6 n) | 4
|
| ה | Hē | h | 5
|
| ו | Wāw (Wāu) | w (u)[22] | 6
|
| ז | Záyĭn | z, as in English (soft s) | 7
|
| ח | Ḥêth | ḥ, a strong guttural | 8
|
| ט | Ṭêth | ṭ, emphatic t | 9
|
| י | Yôd | y (i)[22] | 10
|
| כ, final ך | Kaph | k (kh, but see § 6 n) | 20
|
| ל | Lāmĕd | l | 30
|
| מ, final ם | Mêm | m | 40
|
| נ, final ן | Nûn | n | 50
|
| ס | Sāmĕkh | s | 60
|
| ע | ʿÁyĭn | ʿ a peculiar guttural (see below) | 70
|
| פ, final ף | Pê | p (f, see § 6 n) | 80
|
| צ, final ץ | Ṣādê | ṣ, emphatic s | 90
|
| ק | Qôf | q, a strong k[23] formed at the back of the palate | 100
|
| ר | Rêš | r | 200
|
| שׂ | Śîn | ś | 300
|
| שׁ | Šîn[24] | š, pronounced sh | 300
|
| ת | Tāw (Tāu) | t (th, buy see § 6 n) | 400
|
c 3. As the Table shows, five letters have a special form at the end of the word. They are called final letters, and were combined by the Jewish grammarians in the mnemonic word כַּמְנֶפֶץ Kamnèphäṣ, or better, with A. Müller and Stade, כַּמְנַפֵּץ i.e. as the breaker in pieces.[25] Of these, ך, ן, ף, ץ are distinguished from the common form by the shaft being drawn straight down, while in the usual form it is bent round towards the left.[26] In the case of ם the letter is completely closed.
d 4. Hebrew is read and written from right to left.[27] Words must not be divided at the end of the lines;[28] but, in order that no empty space may be left, in MSS. and printed texts, certain letters suitable for the purpose are dilated at the end or in the middle of the line. In our printed texts these literae dilatabiles are the five following: ﬡ ﬣ ﬥ ﬨ ﬦ (mnemonic word אֲהַלְתֶּם ʾahaltèm). In some MSS. other letters suitable for the purpose are also employed in this way, as ד, כ, ר; cf. Strack in the Theol. Lehrb., 1882, No. 22; Nestle, ZAW. 1906, p. 170 f.
e Rem. 1. The forms of the letters originally represent the rude outlines of perceptible objects, the names of which, respectively, begin with the consonant represented (akrophony). Thus Yôd, in the earlier alphabets the rude picture of a hand, properly denotes hand (Heb. יָד), but as a letter simply the sound י (y), with which this word begins; ʿAyĭn, originally a circle, properly an eye (עַ֫ין), stands for the consonant ע. In the Phoenician alphabet, especially, the resemblance of the forms to the objects denoted by the name is still for the most part recognizable (see the Table). In some letters (ג, ו, ז, ט, ש) the similarity is still preserved in the square character.
It is another question whether the present names are all original. They may be merely due to a later, and not always accurate, interpretation of the forms. Moreover, it is possible that in the period from about 1500 to 1000 B.C. the original forms underwent considerable change.
f The usual explanation of the present names of the letters[29] is: אָלֶף ox, בֵּית house, גִּמֶל camel (according to Lidzbarski, see below, perhaps originally גַּרְזֶן axe or pick-axe), דָּלֶת door (properly folding door; according to Lidzbarski, perhaps דַּד the female breast), הֵא air-hole (?), lattice-window (?), וָו hook, nail, זַיִן weapon (according to Nestle, comparing the Greek ζῆτα, rather זַיִת olive-tree, חֵית fence, barrier (but perhaps only differentiated from ה by the left-hand stroke), טֵית a winding (?), according to others a leather bottle or a snake (but perhaps only differentiated from ת by a circle round it), יוֹד hand, כַּף bent hand, לָמֶד ox-goad, מַיִם water, נוּן fish (Lidzbarski, ‘perhaps originally נָחָשׁ snake,’ as in Ethiopic), סָמֶךְ prop (perhaps a modification of ז), עַיִן eye, פֵּא (also פֵּי mouth), צָדֵי fish-hook (?), קוֹף eye of a needle, according to others back of the head (Lidzb., ‘perhaps קֶשֶׁת bow’), רֵישׁ head, שִׁין tooth, תָּו sign, cross.
g With regard to the origin of this alphabet, it may be taken as proved that it is not earlier (or very little earlier) than the fifteenth century B.C., since otherwise the el-Amarna tablets (§ 2 f) would not have been written exclusively in cuneiform.[30] It seems equally certain on various grounds, that it originated on Canaanitish soil. It is, however, still an open question whether the inventors of it borrowed
(a) From the Egyptian system—not, as was formerly supposed, by direct adoption of hieroglyphic signs (an explanation of twelve or thirteen characters was revived by J. Halévy in Rev. Sémit. 1901, p. 356 ff., 1902, p. 331 ff., and in the Verhandlungen des xiii. ... Orient.-Kongr. zu Hamb., Leiden, 1904, p. 199 ff.; but cf. Lidzbarski, Ephemeris, i. 261 ff.), or of hieratic characters derived from them (so E. de Rougé), but by the adoption of the acrophonic principle (see e) by which e.g. the hand, in Egyptian tot, represents the letter t, the lion = laboi, the letter l. This view still seems the most probable. It is now accepted by Lidzbarski (‘Der Ursprung d. nord- u. südsemit. Schrift’ in Ephemeris, i (1900), 109 ff., cf. pp. 134 and 261 ff.), though in his Nordsem. Epigr. (1898) p. 173 ff. he was still undecided.
(b) From the Babylonian (cuneiform) system. Wuttke’s and W. Deecke’s derivation of the old-Semitic alphabet from new-Assyrian cuneiform is impossible for chronological reasons. More recently Peters and Hommel have sought to derive it from the old-Babylonian, and Ball from the archaic Assyrian cuneiform. A vigorous discussion has been aroused by the theory of Frdr. Delitzsch (in Die Entstehung des ält. Schriftsystems od. der Urspr. der Keilschriftzeichen dargel., Lpz. 1897; and with the same title ‘Ein Nachwort’, Lpz. 1898, preceded by a very clear outline of the theory) that the old-Semitic alphabet arose in Canaan under the influence both of the Egyptian system (whence the acrophonic principle) and of the old-Babylonian, whence the principle of the graphic representation of objects and ideas by means of simple, and mostly rectilinear, signs. He holds that the choice of the objects was probably (in about fifteen cases) influenced by the Babylonian system. The correspondence of names had all the more effect since, according to Zimmern (ZDMG. 1896, p. 667 ff.), out of twelve names which are certainly identical, eight appear in the same order in the Babylonian arrangement of signs. But it must first be shown that the present names of the ‘Phoenician’ letters really denote the original picture. The identity of the objects may perhaps be due simply to the choice of the commonest things (animals, implements, limbs) in both systems.
The derivation of the Semitic alphabet from the signs of the Zodiac and their names, first attempted by Seyffarth in 1834, has been revived by Winckler, who refers twelve fundamental sounds to the Babylonian Zodiac. Hommel connects the original alphabet with the moon and its phases, and certain constellations; cf. Lidzbarski, Ephemeris, i. 269 ff., and in complete agreement with him, Benzinger, Hebr. Archäologie2, p. 173 ff. This theory is by no means convincing.
(c) From the hieroglyphic system of writing discovered in 1894 by A. J. Evans in inscriptions in Crete (esp. at Cnossus) and elsewhere. According to Kluge (1897) and others, this represents the ‘Mycenaean script’ used about 3000–1000 B.C., and according to Fries (‘Die neuesten Forschungen über d. Urspr. des phöniz. Alph.’ in ZDPV. xxii. 118 ff.) really supplies the original forms of the Phoenician alphabet as brought to Palestine by the Philistines about 1100 B.C., but ‘the Phoenician-Canaanite-Hebrews gave to the Mycenaean signs names derived from the earlier cuneiform signs’. The hypothesis of Fries is thus connected With that of Delitzsch. But although the derivation of the Phoenician forms from ‘Mycenaean’ types appears in some cases very plausible, in others there are grave difficulties, and moreover the date, 1100 B.C., assigned for the introduction of the alphabet is clearly too late. [See Evans, Scripta Minoa, Oxf. 1909, p. 80 ff.]
(d) From a system, derived from Asia Minor, closely related to the Cypriote syllabary (Praetorius, Der Urspr. des kanaan. Alphabets, Berlin, 1906). On this theory the Canaanites transformed the syllabic into an apparently alphabetic writing. In reality, however, they merely retained a single sign for the various syllables, so that e.g. ק is not really q, but qa, qe, qi, &c. Of the five Cypriote vowels also they retained only the star (in Cypriote = a) simplified into an ʾālef (see alphabetical table) to express the vowels at the beginning of syllables, and i and u as Yod and Waw. Praetorius claims to explain about half the twenty-two Canaanite letters in this way, but there are various objections to his ingenious hypothesis.
h 2. As to the order of the letters, we possess early evidence in the alphabetic[31] poems: ψ 9[[:he:תהלים ט |]] (א–כ, cf. ψ 10 ל, and vv. ק–ת; cf. Gray in the Expositor, 1906, p. 233 ff., and Rosenthal, ZAW. 1896, p. 40, who shows that ψ 9 כ, ל, נ, exactly fit in between ח, ט, י, and that ψ 10 therefore has the reverse order ל, ך, י); also ψψ 25[[:he:תהלים כה |]] and 34[[:he:תהלים לד |]] (both without a separate ו-verse and with פ repeated at the end[32]); 37[[:he:תהלים לז |]], 111[[:he:תהלים קיא |]], 112[[:he:תהלים קיב |]], 119[[:he:תהלים קיט |]] (in which every eight verses begin with the same letter, each strophe, as discovered by D. H. Müller of Vienna, containing the eight leading words of ψ 19, tôrā, ʿedûth, &c.); La 1[[:he:איכה א |]]–4[[:he:איכה ד |]] (in 2[[:he:איכה ב |]]–4[[:he:איכה ד |]] פ before ע[33], in chap. 3[[:he:איכה ג |]] every three verses with the same initial, see Löhr, ZAW. 1904, p. 1 ff., in chap. 3[[:he:איכה ג |]] at any rate as many verses as letters in the alphabet); Pr 24, 24 (in the LXX with פ before ע[33]); also in Na 1 Pastor Frohnmeyer of Württemberg (ob. 1880) detected traces of an alphabetic arrangement, but the attempt of Gunkel, Bickell, Arnold (ZAW. 1901,
p. 225 ff.), Happel (Der Ps. Nah, Würzb. 1900) to discover further traces, has not been successful. [Cf. Gray in Expositor, 1898, p. 207 ff.; Driver, in the Century Bible, Nahum, p. 26.]—Bickell, Ztschr f. Kath. Theol., 1882, p. 319 ff., had already deduced from the versions the alphabetical character of Ecclus 51, with the omission of the ו-verse and with פ[34] at the end. His conjectures have been brilliantly confirmed by the discovery of the Hebrew original, although the order from ג to ל is partly disturbed or obscured. If ו before צ is deleted, ten letters are in their right positions, and seven can be restored to their places with certainty. Cf. N. Schlögl, ZDMG. 53, 669 ff.; C. Taylor in the appendix to Schechter and Taylor, The Wisdom of Ben Sira, Cambr. 1899, p. lxxvi ff., and in the Journ. of Philol., xxx (1906), p. 95 ff.; JQR. 1905, p. 238 ff.; Löhr, ZAW. 1905, p. 183 ff.; I. Lévy, REJ. 1907, p. 62 ff.
The sequence of the three softest labial, palatal, and dental sounds ב, ג, ד, and of the three liquids ל, מ, נ, indicates an attempt at classification. At the same time other considerations also appear to have had influence. Thus it is certainly not accidental, that two letters, representing a hand (Yôd, Kaph), as also two (if Qôph = back of the head) which represent the head, and in general several forms denoting objects naturally connected (Mêm and Nûn, ʿAyĭn and Pê), stand next to one another.
i The order, names, and numerical values of the letters have passed over from the Phoenicians to the Greeks, in whose alphabet the letters Α to Υ are borrowed from the Old Semitic. So also the Old Italic alphabets as well as the Roman, and consequently all alphabets derived either from this or from the Greek, are directly or indirectly dependent on the Phoenician.
k 3. a. In default of special arithmetical figures, the consonants were used also as numerical signs; cf. G. Gundermann, Die Zahlzeichen, Giessen, 1899, p. 6 f., and Lidzbarski, Ephemeris, i. 106 ff. The earliest traces of this usage are, however, first found on the Maccabean coins (see above, § 2 d, end). These numerical letters were afterwards commonly employed, e.g. for marking the numbers of chapters and verses in the editions of the Bible. The units are denoted by א–ט, the tens by י–צ, 100–400 by ק–ת, the numbers from 500–900 by ת (=400), with the addition of the remaining hundreds, e.g. תק 500. In compound numbers the greater precedes (on the right), thus יא 11, קכא 121. But 15 is expressed by טו 9+6, not יה (which is a form of the divine name, being the first two consonants of יהוה).[35] For a similar reason טז is also mostly written for 16, instead of יו, which in compound proper names, like יוֹאֵל, also represents the name of God, יהוה.
The thousands are sometimes denoted by the units with two dots placed above, e.g. אׄׄ 1000.
l b. The reckoning of the years in Jewish writings (generally ליצירה after the creation) follows either the full chronology (לִפְרָט גָּדוֹל or לפ׳ ג׳), with the addition of the thousands, or the abridged chronology (לפ׳ קָטוֹן), in which they are omitted. In the dates of the first thousand years after Christ, the Christian era is obtained by the addition of 240, in the second thousand years by the addition of 1240 (i.e. if the date falls between Jan. 1 and the Jewish new year; otherwise add 1239), the thousands of the Creation era being omitted.
m 4. Abbreviations of words are not found in the text of the O.T., but they occur on coins, and their use is extremely frequent amongst the later Jews.[36] A point, or later an oblique stroke, serves as the sign of abridgement in old MSS. and editions, e.g. ישׂ׳ for יִשְׂרָאֵל, פ׳ for פְּלֹנִי aliquis, ד׳ for דָּבָר aliquid, וגו׳ for וְגוֹמַר et complens, i.e. and so on. Also in the middle of what is apparently a word, such strokes indicate that it is an abbreviation or a vox memorialis (cf. e.g. § 15 d תא״ם). Two such strokes are employed, from § 41 d onward, to mark the different classes of weak verbs.—Note also יְיָ or יָי (also ה׳) for יְהֹוָה.
n 5. Peculiarities in the tradition of the O.T. text, which are already mentioned in the Talmud, are—(1) The 15 puncta extraordinaria, about which the tradition (from Siphri on Nu 9 onwards) differs considerably, even as to their number; on particular consonants, Gn 16, 18, 19, Nu 9; or on whole words, Gn 33, 37, Nu 3, 21, 29, Dt 29, 2 S 19, Is 44, Ez 41, 46, ψ 27, —all no doubt critical marks; cf. Strack, Prolegomena Critica, p. 88 ff.; L. Blau, Masoretische Untersuchungen, Strassburg, 1891, p. 6 ff., and Einleitung in die hl. Schrift, Budapest, 1894; Königsberger, Jüd. Lit.-Blatt, 1891, nos. 29–31, and Aus Masorah u. Talmudkritik, Berlin, 1892, p. 6 ff.; Mayer-Lambert, REJ. 30 (1895), no. 59; and especially Ginsburg, Introd., p. 318 ff.; also on the ten points found in the Pentateuch, see Butin (Baltimore, 1906), who considers that they are as old as the Christian era and probably mark a letter, &c., to be deleted. (2) The literae majusculae (e.g. ב Gn 1, ו Lv 11 as the middle consonant of the Pentateuch, י Nu 14), and minusculae (e.g. ה Gn 2). (3) The literae suspensae (Ginsburg, Introd., p. 334 ff.) נ Ju 18 (which points to the reading משֶׁה for מְנַשֶּׁה, ע ψ 80 (the middle of the Psalms[37]) and Jb 38. (4) The ‘mutilated’ Wāw in שלום Nu 25, and ק Ex 32 (בקמיהם), and Nu 7 (הפקודים). (5) Mêm clausum in לםרבה Is 9, and Mêm apertum in המ פרוצים Neh 2. (6) Nûn inversum before Nu 10, and after ver. 36, as also before ψ 107 and 40; according to Ginsburg, Introd., p. 341 ff., a sort of bracket to indicate that the verses are out of place; cf. Krauss, ZAW. 1902, p. 57 ff., who regards the inverted Nûns as an imitation of the Greek obelus.
P. Haupt, ‘Die Semit. Sprachlaute u. ihre Umschrift,’ in Beiträge zur Assyriologie u. vergleich. semit. Sprachwissenschaft, by Delitzsch and Haupt, i, Lpz. 1889, 249 ff.; E. Sievers, Metrische Studien, i, Lpz. 1901, p. 14 ff.
a 1. An accurate knowledge of the original phonetic value of each consonant is of the greatest importance, since very many grammatical peculiarities and changes (§ 18 ff.) only become intelligible from the nature and pronunciation of the sounds. This knowledge is obtained partly from the pronunciation of the kindred dialects, especially the still living Arabic, partly by observing the affinity and interchange of sounds on Hebrew itself (§ 19), and partly from the tradition of the Jews.[38]
The pronunciation of Hebrew by the modern German Jews, which partly resembles the Syriac and is generally called ‘Polish’, differs considerably from that of the Spanish and Portuguese Jews, which approaches nearer to the Arabic. The pronunciation of Hebrew by Christians follows the latter (after the example of Reuchlin), in almost all cases.
b The oldest tradition is presented in the transcription of Hebrew names in Assyrian cuneiform; a later, but yet in its way very important system is seen in the manner in which the LXX transcribe Hebrew names with Greek letters.[39] As, however, corresponding signs for several sounds (ט, ע, צ, ק, שׁ) are wanting in the Greek alphabet, only an approximate representation was possible in these cases. The same applies to the Latin transcription of Hebrew words by Jerome, according to the Jewish pronunciation of his time.[40]
On the pronunciation of the modern Jews in North Africa, see Bargès in the Journ. Asiat., Nov. 1848; on that of the South Arabian Jews, J. Dérenbourg, Manuel du lecteur, &c. (from a Yemen MS. of the year 1390), Paris, 1871 (extrait 6 du Journ. Asiat. 1870).
c 2. With regard to the pronunciation of the several gutturals and sibilants, and of ט and ק, it may be remarked:—
1. Among the gutturals, the glottal stop א is the lightest, corresponding to the spiritus lenis of the Greeks. It may stand either at the beginning or end of a syllable, e.g. אָמַר ʾāmár, יֶאְשַׁם yäʾšám. Even before a vowel א is almost lost to our ear, like the h in hour and in the French habit, homme. After a vowel א generally (and at the end of a word, always) coalesces with it, e.g. קָרָא qārā for an original qārăʾ, Arab. qărăʾä; see further, § 23 a, 27 g.
d ה before a vowel corresponds exactly to our h (spiritus asper); after a vowel it is either a guttural (so always at the end of a syllable which is not final, e.g. נֶהְפַּךְ nähpakh; at the end of a word the consonantal ה has a point—Mappîq—in it, see § 14), or it stands inaudible at the end of a word, generally as a mere orthographic indication of a preceding vowel, e.g. גָּלָה gālā; cf. §§ 7 b and 75 a.
e ע is related to א, but is a much stronger guttural. Its strongest sound is a rattled, guttural g, cf. e.g. עַזָּה, LXX Γάζα, עֲמֹרָה Γόμοῤῥα; elsewhere, a weaker sound of the same kind, which the LXX reproduce by a spiritus (lenis or asper), e.g. עֵלִי Ἡλί, עֲמָלֵק Ἀμαλέκ.[41] In the mouth of the Arabs one hears in the former case a sort of guttural r, in the latter a sound peculiar to themselves formed in the back of the throat.—It is as incorrect to omit the ע entirely, in reading and transcribing words (עֵלִי Eli, עֲמָלֵק Amalek), as to pronounce it exactly like g or like a nasal ng. The stronger sound might be approximately transcribed by gh or rg; but since in Hebrew the softer sound was the more common, it is sufficient to represent it by the sign ʿ, as אַרְבַּע ʾarbaʿ, עַד ʿad.
f ח is the strongest guttural sound, a deep guttural ch, as heard generally in Swiss German, somewhat as in the German Achat, Macht, Sache, Docht, Zucht (not as in Licht, Knecht), and similar to the Spanish j. Like ע it was, however, pronounced in many words feebly, in others strongly.
g As regards ר, its pronunciation as a palatal (with a vibrating uvula) seems to have been the prevailing one. Hence in some respects it is also classed with the gutturals (§ 22 q, r). On the lingual ר, cf. o.
h 2. The Hebrew language is unusually rich in sibilants. These have, at any rate in some cases, arisen from dentals which are retained as such in Aramaic and Arabic (see in the Lexicon the letters ז, צ and שׁ).
i שׁ and שׂ were originally represented (as is still the case in the unpointed texts) by only one form ש; but that the use of this one form to express two different sounds (at least in Hebrew) was due only to the poverty of the alphabet, is clear from the fact that they are differentiated in Arabic and Ethiopic (cf. Nöldeke in Ztschr. f. wissensch. Theol., 1873, p. 121; Brockelmann, Grundriss, i. 133). In the Masoretic punctuation they were distinguished by means of the diacritical point as שׁ (sh) and שׂ (ś).[42]
k The original difference between the sounds שׂ and ס[43] sometimes marks a distinction in meaning, e.g. סָכַר to close, שָׂכַר to hire, סָכַל to be foolish, שָׂכַל to be prudent, to be wise. Syriac always represents both sounds by ס, and in Hebrew also they are sometimes interchanged; as סָכַר for שָׂכַר to hire, Ezr 4; שִׂכְלוּת for סִכְלוּת folly, Ec 1.
l ז (transcribed ζ by the LXX) is a soft whizzing s, the French and English z, altogether different from the German z (ts).
m 3. ט, ק, and probably צ are pronounced with a strong articulation and with a compression of the larynx. The first two are thus essentially different from ת and ך, which correspond to our t and k and also are often aspirated (see below, n). צ is distinguished from every other s by its peculiar articulation, and in no way corresponds to the German z or ts; we transcribe it by ṣ; cf. G. Hüsing, ‘Zum Lautwerte des צ,’ in OLZ. x. 467 ff.
n 3. Six consonants, the weak and middle hard Palatals, Dentals, and Labials
ב ג ד כ פ ת (בְּגַדְכְּפַת)
have a twofold pronunciation, (1) a harder sound, as mutes, like k, p, t, or initial b, g (hard), d; and (2) a softer sound as spirantes.[44] The harder sound is the original. It is retained at the beginning of syllables, when there is no vowel immediately preceding to influence the pronunciation, and is denoted by a point, Dageš lene (§ 13), placed in the consonants, viz. בּ b, גּ g, דּ d, כּ k, פּ p, תּ t. The weaker pronunciation appears as soon as a vowel sound immediately precedes. It is occasionally denoted, esp. in mss., by Rāphè (§ 14 e), but in printed texts usually by the mere absence of the Dageš. In the case of ב, כ, פ, ת, the two sounds are clearly distinguishable even to our ear as b and v, k and German (weak) ch, p and ph, t and th (in thin). The Greeks too express this twofold pronunciation by special characters: ךּ κ, כ χ; פּ π, פ φ; תּ τ, ת θ. In the same way ג should be pronounced like the North German g in Tage, Wagen, and ד like th in the, as distinguished from גּ and דּ.
For more precise information on the cases in which the one or the other pronunciation takes place, see § 21. The modern Jews pronounce the aspirated ב as v, the aspirated ת as s, e.g. רַב rav (or even raf), בַּיִת bais. The customary transcription (used also in this Grammar) of the spirants ב, כ, ת by bh, kh, th is only an unsatisfactory makeshift, since it may lead (esp. in the case of bh and kh) to an erroneous conception of the sounds as real aspirates, b–h, k–h.
o 4. According to their special character the consonants are divided into—
| (a) Gutturals | א ה ע ח; | ||
| (b) Palatals | ג כ ק; | ||
| (c) Dentals | ד ט ת; | ||
| (d) Labials | ב פ; | ||
| (e) Sibilants | ז שׁ שׂ ס צ; | ||
| (f) Sonants | ו י, ר ל, נ מ. |
In the case of ר its hardest pronunciation as a palatal (see above, g, end) is to be distinguished from its more unusual sound as a lingual, pronounced in the front of the mouth.
On the twofold pronunciation of r in Tiberias, cf. Delitzsch, Physiol. und Musik, Lpz. 1868, p. 10 ff.; Baer and Struck, Dikduke ha-teamim, Lpz. 1879, p. 5, note a, and § 7 of the Hebrew text, as well as p. 82.
p In accordance with E. Sievers, Metrische Studien, i. 14, the following scheme of the Hebrew phonetic system is substituted for the table formerly given in this grammar:—
i. Throat sounds (Gutturals): ח ע ה א.
| ii. Mouth-sounds: | w. |
m. |
e. |
w. |
m. | |
| 1. Mutes and Spirants: | Palatal | גּ |
כּ |
ק |
ג |
כ |
| Dental | דּ |
תּ |
ט |
ד |
ת | |
| Labial | בּ |
פּ |
— |
ב |
פ | |
| 2. Sibilants: | ... |
ז |
שׁ שׂ ס |
צ |
||
| 3. Sonants: | ... |
ו י |
ר ל |
נ מ |
q Rem. 1. The meaning of the letters at the top is, w. = weak, m. = middle hard, e. = emphatic. Consonants which are produced by the same organ of speech are called homorganic (e.g. ג and כ as palatals), consonants whose sound is of the same nature homogeneous (e.g. ו and י as semi-vowels). On their homorganic character and homogeneity depends the possibility of interchange, whether within Hebrew itself or with the kindred dialects. In such cases the soft sound generally interchanges with the soft, the hard with the hard, &c. (e.g. ד = ז, ת = שׁ, ט = צ). Further transitions are not, however, excluded, as e.g. the interchange of ת and ק (ת = כ = ק). Here it is of importance to observe whether the change takes place in an initial, medial, or final letter; since e.g. the change in a letter when medial does not always prove the possibility of the change when initial. That in certain cases the character of the consonantal sound also influences the preceding or following vowel will be noticed in the accidence as the instances occur.
r Rem. 2. Very probably in course of time certain nicer distinctions of pronunciation became more and more neglected and finally were lost. Thus e.g. the stronger ע rg, which was known to the LXX (see above, e), became in many cases altogether lost to the later Jews; by the Samaritans and Galileans ע and ח were pronounced merely as א, and so in Ethiopic, ע like א, ח like h, ש like s.
s Rem. 3. The consonants which it is usual to describe especially as weak, are those which readily coalesce with a preceding vowel to form a long vowel, viz. א, ו, י (as to ה, cf. § 23 k), or those which are most frequently affected by the changes described in § 19 b–l, as again א, ו, י, and ן, and in certain cases ה and ל; finally the gutturals and ר for the reason given in § 22 b and q.
a 1. The original vowels in Hebrew, as in the other Semitic tongues, are a, i, u. E and o always arise from an obscuring or contraction of these three pure sounds, viz. ĕ by modification from ĭ or ă; short ŏ from ŭ; ê by contraction from ai (properly ay); and ô sometimes by modification (obscuring) from â, sometimes by contraction from au (properly aw).[45]
In Arabic writing there are vowel signs only for a, i, u; the combined sounds ay and aw are therefore retained uncontracted and pronounced as diphthongs (ai and au), e.g. שׁוֹט Arab. sauṭ, and עֵינַ֫יִם Arab. ‛ainain. It was
only in later Arabic that they became in pronunciation ê and ô, at least after weaker or softer consonants; cf. בֵּין Arab. bain, bên, יוֹם Arab. yaum, yôm. The same contraction appears also in other languages, e.g. in Greek and Latin (θαῦμα, Ionic θῶμα; plaustrum = polostrum), in the French pronunciation of ai and au, and likewise in the German popular dialects (Oge for Auge, &c.). Similarly, the obscuring of the vowels plays a part in various languages (cf. e.g. the a in modern Persian, Swedish, English, &c.).[46]
b 2. The partial expression of the vowels by certain consonants (ה, ו, י; א), which sufficed during the lifetime of the language, and for a still longer period afterwards (cf. § 1 k), must in the main have passed through the following stages[47]:—
(a) The need of a written indication of the vowel first made itself felt in cases where, after the rejection of a consonant, or of an entire syllable, a long vowel formed the final sound of the word. The first step in such a case was to retain the original final consonant, at least as a vowel letter, i.e. merely as an indication of a final vowel. In point of fact we find even in the Old Testament, as already in the Mêšaʿ inscription, a ה employed in this way (see below) as an indication of a final o. From this it was only a step to the employment of the same consonant to indicate also other vowels when final (thus, e.g. in the inflection of the verbs ל״ה, the vowels ā,[48] ē, è). After the employment of ו as a vowel letter for ô and û, and of י for ê and î, had been established (see below, e) these consonants were also employed—although not consistently—for the same vowels at the end of a word.
c According to § 91 b and d, the suffix of the 3rd sing. masc. in the noun (as in the verb) was originally pronounced הוּ. But in the places where this הוּ with a preceding a is contracted into ô (after the rejection of the ה), we find the ה still frequently retained as a vowel letter, e.g. עִירֹה, סוּתֹה Gn 49, cf. § 91 e; so throughout the Mêšaʿ inscription אַרְצֹה, בֵּיתֹה (also בֵּתֹה), בְּנֹה, בֹּה, לֹה, הִלְתַּֽחֲמֹה; on the other hand already in the Siloam inscription רֵעוֹ.[49] ימה Mêšaʿ, l. 8 = יָמָיו his days is unusual, as also רשה l. 20 if it is for ראשיו his chiefs. The verbal forms with ה suffixed are to be read וַיַּלְפֵהֻ (l. 6), וָֽאֶסְחָבֵהֻ (l. 12f.) and וַיְגָֽרְשֵׁהֻ (l. 19).
d As an example of the original consonant being retained, we might also include the י of the constr. state plur. masc. if its ê (according to § 89 d) is contracted from an original ay. Against this, however, it may be urged that the Phoenician inscriptions do not usually express this ê, nor any other final vowel.[50]
e (b) The employment of ו to denote ô, û, and of י to denote ê, î, may have resulted from those cases in which a ו with a preceding a was contracted into au and further to ô, or with a preceding u coalesced into û, and where י with a has been contracted into ai and further to ê, or with a preceding i into î (cf. § 24). In this case the previously existing consonants were retained as vowel letters and were further applied at the end of the word to denote the respective long vowels. Finally א also will in the first instance have established itself as a vowel letter only where a consonantal א with a preceding a had coalesced into â or ā.
f The orthography of the Siloam inscription corresponds almost exactly with the above assumptions. Here (as in the Mêšaʿ inscr.) we find all the long vowels, which have not arisen from original diphthongs, without vowel letters, thus אִשׁ, חֹצְבִם, מִימִן (or מִיָּמִן); אַמֹּת, קֹל, שְׁלשׁ, צֻר. On the other hand מוֹצָא (from mauṣaʾ), עוֹד (from ʿaud); מימן also, if it is to be read מִימִן, is an instance of the retention of a י which has coalesced with i into î. Instances of the retention of an originally consonantal א as a vowel letter are מָאתַ֫יִם, מוֹצָא, and קָרָא, as also רֹאשׁ. Otherwise final ā is always represented by ה: אַמָּה, הָיָה, זרה, נקבה. To this יֹם alone would form an exception (cf. however the note on יוֹם, § 96), instead of יוֹם (Arab. yaum) day, which one would expect. If the reading be correct, this is to be regarded as an argument that a consciousness of the origin of many long vowels was lost at an early period, so that (at least in the middle of the word) the vowel letters were omitted in places where they should stand, according to what has been stated above, and added where there was no case of contraction. This view is in a great measure confirmed by the orthography of the Mêšaʿ inscription. There we find, as might be expected, דיבן (= Daibōn, as the Δαιβών of the LXX proves), חוֹרֹנָן (ô from au), and בֵּיתֹה (ê from ai), but also even הֽשִׁעַנִי[51] instead of הֽוֹשִׁעַנִי (from hauš-), ואשב = וָֽאוֹשִׁיב, בֵּת four times, בֵּתֹה once, for בֵּית and בֵּיתֹה (from bait); ללה = לַיְלָה, אן = אַ֫יִן or אֵין.
g
(c) In the present state of Old Testament vocalization as it appears in the Masoretic text, the striving after a certain uniformity cannot be mistaken, in spite of the inconsistencies which have crept in. Thus the final long vowel is, with very few exceptions (cf. § 9 d, and the very doubtful cases in § 8 k), indicated by a vowel letter—and almost always by the same letter in certain nominal and verbal endings. In many cases the use of ו to mark an ô or û, arising from contraction, and of י for ê or î, is by far the more common, while we seldom find an originally consonantal א rejected, and the simple phonetic principle taking the place of the historical orthography. On the other hand the number of exceptions is very great. In many cases (as e.g. in the plural endings ־ִים and וֹת) the vowel letters are habitually employed to express long vowels which do not arise through contraction, and we even find short vowels indicated. The conclusion is, that if there ever was a period of Hebrew writing when the application of fixed laws to all cases was intended, either these laws were not consistently carried out in the further transmission of the text, or errors and confusion afterwards crept into it. Moreover much remained uncertain even in texts which were plentifully provided with vowel letters. For, although in most cases the context was a guide to the correct reading, yet there were also cases where, of the many possible ways of pronouncing a word, more than one appeared admissible.[52]
h 3. When the language had died out, the ambiguity of such a writing must have been found continually more troublesome; and as there was thus a danger that the correct pronunciation might be finally lost, the vowel signs or vowel points were invented in order to fix it. By means of these points everything hitherto left uncertain was most accurately settled. It is true that there is no historical account of the date of this vocalization of the O.T. text, yet we may at least infer, from a comparison of other historical facts, that it was gradually developed by Jewish grammarians in the sixth and seventh centuries A.D. under the influence of different Schools, traces of which have been preserved to the present time in various differences of tradition.[53] They mainly followed, though with independent regard to the peculiar nature of the Hebrew, the example and pattern of the older Syrian punctuation.[54]
i 4. To complete the historical vocalization of the consonantal text a phonetic system was devised, so exact as to show all vowel-changes occasioned by lengthening of words, by the tone, by gutturals, &c., which in other languages are seldom indicated in writing. The pronunciation followed is in the main that of the Palestinian Jews of about the sixth century A.D., as observed in the solemn reading of the sacred writings in synagogue and school, but based on a much older tradition. That the real pronunciation of early Hebrew is consistently preserved by this tradition, has recently been seriously questioned on good grounds, especially in view of the transcription of proper names in the LXX. Nevertheless in many cases, internal reasons, as well as the analogy of the kindred languages, testify in a high degree to the faithfulness of the tradition. At the same recension of the text, or soon after, the various other signs for reading (§§ 11–14, 16) were added, and the accents (§ 15).
Preliminary Remark.
The next two sections (§§ 8 and 9) have been severely criticized (Philippi, ThLZ. 1897, no. 2) for assigning a definite quantity to each of the several vowels, whereas in reality ־ֶ, ־ֵ, ־ׄ are merely signs for ä, e, o: ‘whether these are long or short is not shown by the signs themselves but must be inferred from the rules for the pause which marks the breaks in continuous narrative, or from other circumstances.’ But in the twenty-fourth and subsequent German editions of this Grammar, in the last note on § 8 a [English ed. p. 38, note 4], it was stated: ‘it must be mentioned that the Masoretes are not concerned with any distinction between long and short vowels, or in general with any question of quantity. Their efforts are directed to fixing the received pronunciation as faithfully as possible, by means of writing. For a long time only שִבְעָה מְלָכִים seven kings were reckoned (vox memor. in Elias Levita וַיּאֹמֶר אֵלִיָּהוּ), Šureq and Qibbuṣ being counted as one vowel. The division of the vowels in respect of quantity is a later attempt at a scientific conception of the phonetic system, which was not invented but only represented by the Masoretes (Qimchi; Mikhlol, ed. Rittenb. 136 a, distinguishes the five long as mothers from their five daughters).’
I have therefore long shared the opinion that ‘the vowel-system represented by the ordinary punctuation (of Tiberias) was primarily intended to mark only differences of quality’ (Sievers, Metrische Studien, i. 17). There is, however, of course a further question how far these ‘later’ grammarians were mistaken in assigning a particular quantity to the vowels represented by particular signs. In Philippi’s opinion they were mistaken (excluding of course î, ê, ô when written plene) in a very great number of cases, since not only does ־ָ stand, according to circumstances, for å̄ or å̆, and ־ֶ for ǟ or ä̆, but also ־ֵ for ē or ĕ, and ־ׄ for ō or ŏ, e.g. כָּבֵד and קָטֹן, out of pause kå̄bĕ́d, qå̄ṭŏ́n (form קָטַל), but in pause kå̄bḗd, qå̄ṭṓn.
I readily admit, with regard to Qameṣ and Segol, that the account formerly given in § 8 f. was open to misconstruction. With regard to Ṣere and Ḥolem, however, I can only follow Philippi so long as his view does not conflict with the (to me inviolable) law of a long vowel in an open syllable before the tone and (except Pathaḥ) in a final syllable with the tone. To me כָּבֵד = kå̄bĕ́d, &c., is as impossible as e.g. עֵנָב = ʿĕnab or בֹּרַךְ = bŏrakh, in spite of the analogy cited by Sievers (p. 18, note 1) that ‘in old German e.g. original ĭ and ŭ often pass into ĕ and ŏ dialectically, while remaining in a closed syllable.
a 1. The full vowels (in contrast to the half-vowels or vowel trills, § 10 a–f), classified according to the three principal vowel sounds (§ 7 a), are as follows:—
First Class. A-sound.
| A | 1. | ־ָ[55] | Qāmĕṣ denotes either ā, â, more strictly å̄ (the obscure Swedish å) and å̂,[56] as יָד yå̄d (hand), רָאשִׁים rā’šîm (heads), or å̆ (in future transcribed as ŏ), called Qāmeṣ ḥāṭûph, i.e. hurried Qameṣ. The latter occurs almost exclusively as a modification of ŭ; cf. c and § 9 u. |
| 2. | ־ַ | Páthăḥ, ă, בַּת băth (daughter). |
Also 3. ־ֶ Segôl, an open e, è (ǟ or ä̆), as a modification of ă,[57] either in an untoned closed syllable, as in the first syllable of יֶדְכֶם yädkhèm (your hand) from yădkhèm—or in a tone-syllable as in פֶּ֫סַח pĕsaḥ; cf. πάσχα, and on the really monosyllabic character of such formations, see § 28 e. But Segôl in an open tone-syllable with a following י, as in גְּלֶ֫ינָה gelènā (cf. § 75 f), יָדֶ֫יךָ yādèkhā (cf. § 91 i), is due to contraction from ay.
Second Class. I- and E-sounds.
| I | 1. ־ִי Ḥîrĕq with yod, almost always î, as צַדִּיק ṣaddîq (righteous).
2. ־ִ either î (see below, i), as צַדִּקִים ṣaddîqîm, only orthographically different from צדיקים (צדיקם),—or ĭ, as צִדְקוֹ ṣĭdqô (his righteousness). |
| E | 3. ־ֵי Ṣerî or Ṣērê with yod=ê, e.g. בֵּיתוֹ bêthô (his house).
־ֵ either ê, but rarely (see below, i), or ē as שֵׁם šēm (name). Ṣere can only be ĕ, in my opinion, in few cases, such as those mentioned in § 29 f. 4. ־ֶ Segôl, ä̆, a modification of ĭ, e.g. חֶפְצִי ḥäfṣî (ground-form ḥĭfṣ); שֶׁן־ šän (ground-form šĭn). |
Third Class. U- and O-sounds.
| U | 1. וּ Šûrĕq, usually û, מוּת mûth (to die), rarely ŭ.
2. ־ֻ Qibbûṣ, either ŭ, e.g. סֻלָּם sŭllām (ladder): or û, e.g. קֻ֫מוּ qūmū (rise up), instead of the usual ק֫וּמוּ. |
| O | 3. וֹ and ־ֹ Ḥōlĕm, ô and ō, קוֹל qôl (voice), רֹב rōbh (multitude). Often also a defective ־ֹ for ô; rarely וֹ for ō.
On the question whether ־ֹ under some circumstances represents ŏ, see § 93 r. 4. ־ָ On Qāmĕṣ ḥāṭûph=ŏ, generally modified from ŭ, as חָק־ ḥŏq (statute), see above, a. |
d The names of the vowels are mostly taken from the form and action of the mouth in producing the various sounds, as פַּ֫תַח opening; צֵ֫רֵי a wide parting (of the mouth), also שֶׁ֫בֶר (=ĭ) breaking, parting (cf. the Arab, kasr); חִ֫ירֶק (also חִרֶק) narrow opening; ח֫וֹלֶם closing, according to others fullness, i.e. of the mouth (also מְלֹא פּוּם[58] fullness of the mouth). קָ֫מֶץ[59] also denotes a slighter, as שׁוּרֶק and קִבּוּץ (also קבוץ פּוּם) a firmer, compression or contraction of the mouth. Segôl (סְגוֹל bunch of grapes) takes its name from its form. So שָׁלֹשׁ נְקֻדּוֹת (three points) is another name for Qibbûṣ.
e Moreover the names were mostly so formed (but only later), that the sound of each vowel is heard in the first syllable (קָמֶץ for קֹמֶץ, פַּתַח for פֶּתַח, צֵרִי for צְרִי); in order to carry this out consistently some even write Sägôl, Qomeṣ-ḥatûf, Qübbûṣ.
f 2. As the above examples show, the vowel sign stands regularly under the consonant, after which it is to be pronounced, רָ rā, רַ ră, רֵ rē, רֻ rŭ, &c. The Pathaḥ called furtivum (§ 22 f) alone forms an exception to this rule, being pronounced before the consonant, רוּחַ rûaḥ (wind, spirit). The Ḥōlĕm (without wāw) stands on the left above the consonant; רֹ rō (but לֹ lō). If א, as a vowel letter, follows a consonant which is to be pronounced with ō, the point is placed over its right arm, thus בֹא, רֹאשׁ; but e.g. בֹאָם, since א here begins a syllable.
g No dot is used for the Ḥolem when ō (of course without wāw) is pronounced after śîn or before šîn. Hence שׂנֵא śônē (hating), נְשׂא neśō (to bear), משֶׁה môšè (not מֹשֶׁה); but שֹׁמֵר šômēr (a watchman). When ō precedes the śîn, the dot is placed over its right arm, e.g. יִרְפּשֹׁ yirpōś (he treads with the feet), הַנּֽשְֹׁאִים (those who carry).
In the sign וֹ, the ו may also be a consonant. The וֹ is then either to be read ōw (necessarily so when a consonant otherwise without a vowel precedes, e.g. לֹוֶה lôwè, lending) or wō, when a vowel already precedes the ו, e.g. עָוֹן ʿāwôn (iniquity) for עָווֹן. In more exact printing, a distinction is at least made between וֹ wo and וֹ (i.e. either ô or, when another vowel follows the wāw, ôw[60]).
- ↑ Of this inscription—unfortunately not dated, but linguistically and palaeographically very important—referring to the boring of the tunnel, a facsimile is given at the beginning of this grammar. See also Lidzbarski, Nordsemitische Epigraphik, i. 105, 163, 439 (bibliography, p. 56 ff.; facsimile, vol. ii, plate xxi, 1); on the new drawing of it by Socin (ZDPV. xxii. p. 61 ff. and separately published at Freiburg i. B. 1899), see Lidzbarski, Ephemeris, i. 53 ff. and 310 f. (text in Altsemit. Texte, p. 9 f.). Against the view of A. Fischer (ZDMG. 1902, p. 800 f.) that the six lines are the continuation of an inscription which was never executed, see Lidzbarski, Ephemeris, ii. 71. The inscription was removed in 1890, and broken into six or seven pieces in the process. It has since been well restored, and is now in the Imperial Museum at Constantinople. If, as can hardly be doubted, the name שִׁלֹּחַ (i.e. emissio) Is 8 refers to the discharge of water from the Virgin’s Spring, through the tunnel (so Stade, Gesch. Isr. i. 594), then the latter, and consequently the inscription, was already in existence about 736 B.C. [Cf. Cooke, op. cit., p. 15 ff.]
- ↑ M. A. Levy, Siegel u. Gemmen, &c., Bresl. 1869, p. 33 ff.; Stade, ZAW. 1897, p. 501 ff. (four old-Semitic seals published in 1896); Lidzbarski, Handbuch, i. 169 f.; Ephemeris, i. 10 ff.; W. Nowack, Lehrb. d. hebr. Archäol. (Freib. 1894), i. 262 f.; I. Benzinger, Hebr. Archäol.2 (Tübingen, 1907), pp. 80, 225 ff., which includes the beautiful seal inscribed לשמע עבד ירבעם from the castle-hill of Megiddo, found in 1904; [Cooke, p. 362].
- ↑ De Saulcy, Numismatique de la Terre Sainte, Par. 1874; M. A. Levy, Gesch. der jüd. Münzen, Breslau, 1862; Madden, The Coins of the Jews, Lond. 1881; Reinach, Les monnaies juives, Paris, 1888.—Cf. the literature in Schörer’s Gesch. des jüd.Volkes im Zeitalter J. C.3, Lpz. 1901, i. p. 20 ff.; [Cooke, p. 352 ff.].
- ↑ כְּנַעַן, כְּנַֽעֲנִי is the native name, common both to the Canaanitish tribes in Palestine and to those which dwelt at the foot of the Lebanon and on the Syrian coast, whom we call Phoenicians, while they called themselves כנען on their coins. The people of Carthage also called themselves so.
- ↑ Cf. inter alia: aparu, also ḫaparu (Assyr. epru, ipru) = עָפָר; ḫullu = עֹל (with hard ע; cf. § 6 c, and Assyr. ḫumri = עָמְרִי, ḫazzatu = עֶזָּה); iazkur = יִזְכֹּר, zuruḫu = זרוֹעַ, abadat = אָֽבְדָה, šaḫri = שַעַר, gate; baṭnu = בֶּטֶן, belly; kilūbi = כְּלוּב, net; ṣaduk = צָדֹק (צַדִּיק), &c. [Cf. Böhl, Die Sprache d. Amarnabriefe, Lpz. 1909.]
- ↑ Whether these can be described simply as ‘primitive Semitic’ is a question which may be left undecided here.
- ↑ That already in Isaiah’s time (second half of the eighth century B.C.) educated Hebrews, or at least officers of state, understood Aramaic, while the common people in Jerusalem did not, is evident from 2 K 18 (Is 36).
- ↑ The extensive use of Hebrew in the popular religious literature which is partly preserved to us in the Midrašim, the Mišna, and the Liturgy, indicates, moreover, that Hebrew was widely understood much later than this. Cf. M. H. Segal, ‘Mišnaic Hebrew and its relations to Biblical Hebrew and Aramaic,’ in J.Q.R., 1908, p. 647 ff. (also separately).
- ↑ דָּוִיד in the Minor Prophets throughout (Ho 3, &c.) is due merely to a caprice of the Masoretes.
- ↑ According to the calculation of the Dutch scholar Leusden, the O.T. contains 5,642 different Hebrew and Aramaic words; according to rabbinical calculations, 79,856 altogether in the Pentateuch. Cf. also E. Nestle, ZAW, 1906, p. 283; H. Strack, ZAW. 1907, p. 69 ff.; Blau, 'Neue masoret. Studien,' in JQR. xvi. 357 ff., treats of the number of letters and words, and the ve se- division in the O.T.
- ↑ On the name Masora (or Massora, as e.g. E. König, Einleitung in das A.T., p. 38 ff.; Lehrgeb. d. hebr. Sprache, ii. 358 ff.), and the great difficulty of satisfactorily explaining it, cf. De Lagarde, Mitleilungen, i. 91 ff. W. Bacher's derivation of the expression (in JQR. 1891, p. 785 ff.; so also C. Levias in the Hebrew Union College Annual, Cincinnati, 1904, p. 147 ff.) from Ez 20 (מָסֹרֶת הַבְּרִית; מסרה, i.e. מֽוֹסֵרָה, being an equally legitimate form) is rightly rejected by König, l. c. The correctness of the form מָֽסֹרָה (by the side of the equally well-attested form מַסֹּרֶת) does not seem to us to be invalidated by his arguments, nor by Blau's proposal to read מְסוֹרֶת (JQR. xii. 241). The remark of Levias (l.c.) deserves notice, that with the earlier Masoretes מסורת is equivalent to orthography, i.e. plene- and defective writing, and only later came to mean traditio.—G. Wildboer, in (ZAW. 1909, p. 74, contends that as מסר to hand on is not found in the O.T., it must be a late denominative in this sense.
- ↑ On his independent attitude towards the Masoretic punctuation, see Delitzsch, Comm. zu den Psalmen4, p. 39.
- ↑ On the oldest Hebrew grammarians, see Strack and Siegfried, Lehrb. d. neuhebr. Spr. u. Liter., Carlsr. 1884, p. 107 ff., and the prefaces to the Hebrew Lexicons of Gesenius and Fürst; Berliner, Beiträge zur hebr. Gramm. im Talmud u. Midrasch, Berlin, 1879; Baer and Strack, Die Dikduke ha-teamim des Ahron ben Moscheh ben Ascher u. andere alte grammatisch-massorethische Lehrstücke, Lpz. 1879, and P. Kahle’s criticisms in ZDMG. lv. 170, n. 2; Ewald and Dukes, Beiträge z. Gesch. der ältesten Auslegung u. Spracherklärung des A.T., Stuttg. 1844, 3 vols.; Hupfeld, De rei grammaticae apud Judaeos initiis antiquissimisque scriptoribus, Hal. 1846; W. Bacher, ‘Die Anfänge der hebr. Gr.,’ in ZDMG. 1895, 1 ff. and 335 ff.; and Die hebr. Sprachwissenschaft vom 10. bis zum 16. Jahrh., Trier, 1892.
- ↑ A strong impulse was naturally given to these studies by the introduction of printing—the Psalter in 1477, the Bologna Pentateuch in 1482, the Soncino O.T. complete in 1488: see the description of the twenty-four earliest editions (down to 1528) in Ginsburg’s Introduction, p. 779 ff.
- ↑ Of the literature or the subject down to the year 1850, see a tolerably full account in Steinschneider’s Bibliogr. Handb. f. hebr. Sprachkunde, Lpz. 1859.
- ↑ Historisch-krit. Lehrgeb. der hebr. Sprache mit steter Beziehung auf Qimchi und die anderen Autoritäten: I, ‘Lehre von der Schrift, der Aussprache, dem Pron. u. dem Verbum,’ Lpz. 1881; II. 1, ‘Abschluss der speziellen Formenlehre u. generelle Formenl.,’ 1895; ii. 2, ‘Historisch-kompar. Syntax d. hebr. Spr.,’ 1897.
- ↑ This scriptio continua is also found in Phoenician inscriptions. The inscription of Mêšaʿ always divides the words by a point (and so the Siloam inscription; see the facsimile at the beginning of this grammar), and frequently marks the close of a sentence by a stroke.
- ↑ The name אַשּׁוּר (Assyria) is here used in the widest sense, to include the countries on the Mediterranean inhabited by Aramaean; cf. Stade in ZAW. 1882, p. 292 f. On some other names for Old Hebrew writing, cf. G. Hoffmann, ibid. 1881, p. 334 ff.; Buhl, Canon and Text of the O.T. (transl. by J. Macpherson), Edinb. 1893, p. 200.
- ↑ It is tacitly assumed here that this was the mother of all Semitic alphabets. In ZDMG. 1909, p. 189 ff., however, Prätorius has shown good grounds for believing that the South Semitic alphabet is derived not from the Mêšaʿ character, or from some kindred and hardly older script, but from some unknown and much earlier form of writing.
- ↑ On the effect of the transitional mixture of earlier and later forms on the constitution of the text, see R. Kittel, Ueber d. Notwendigk. d. Herausg. einer neuen hebr. Bibel, Lpz. 1901, p. 20 ff.—L. Blau, ‘Wie lange stand die althebr. Schrift bet den Juden im Gebrauch?’ in Kaufmanngedenkbuch, Breslau, 1900, p. 44 ff.
- ↑ Not 176, as formerly held. Driver and Lidzbarski now read ערביה, correctly, not טוביה.
- ↑ 22.0 22.1 Philippi, ‘Die Aussprache der semit. Consonanten ו und י,’ in ZDMG. 1886, p. 639 ff., 1897, p. 66 ff., adduces reasons in detail for the opinion that ‘the Semitic ו and י are certainly by usage consonants, although by nature they are vowels, viz. u and i, and consequently are consonantal vowels’; cf. § 8 m.
- ↑ As a representation of this sound the Latin q is very suitable, since it occupies in the alphabet the place of the Semitic ק (Greek κόππα).
- ↑ Nestle (Actes du onzième Congrès... des Orientalistes, 1897, iv. 113 ff.) has shown that the original order was שׁ, שׂ.
- ↑ In the Talmud, disregarding the alphabetical order, מִן־צֹֽפְךָ of thy watcher, i.e. prophet. See the discussions of this mnemonic word by Nestle, ZAW. 1907, p. 119 ff., König, Bacher (who would read מִן־צֹפַיִךְ = proceeding from thy prophets, Is 52), Krauss, Marmorstein, ibid. p. 278 ff. All the twenty-two letters, together with the five final forms, occur in Zp 3.
- ↑ Chwolson, Corpus Inscr. Hebr., col. 68, rightly observes that the more original forms of these letters are preserved in the literae finales. Instances of them go back to the time of Christ.
- ↑ The same was originally the practice in Greek, which only adopted the opposite direction exclusively about 400 B.C. On the boustrophēdon writing (alternately in each direction) in early Greek, early Sabaean, and in the Safa-inscriptions of the first three centuries A.D., cf. Lidzbarski, Ephemeris, i. 116 f.
- ↑ This does not apply to early inscriptions or seals. Cf. Mêšaʿ, II. 1–5, 7, 8, &c., Siloam 2, 3, 5, where the division of words appears to be customary.
- ↑ We possess Greek transcriptions of the Hebrew names, dating from the fifth century B.C. The LXX give them (in almost the same form as Eusebius, Praep. Evang. 10. 5) in La 1[[:he:איכה א |]]–4[[:he:איכה ד |]], as do also many Codices of the Vulgate (e.g. the Cod. Amiatinus) in ψψ 111[[:he:תהלים קיא |]], 112[[:he:תהלים קיב |]], 119[[:he:תהלים קיט |]], but with many variations from the customary forms, which rest on the traditional Jewish pronunciation. The forms Deleth (and delth), Zai, Sen (LXX also χσεν, cf. Hebr. שֵׁן tooth) are to be noticed, amongst others, for Daleth, Zain, Šîn. Cf. the tables in Nöldeke, Beiträge zur sem. Sprachwiss., p. 126 f. In his opinion (and so Lidzbarski, Ephemeris, i. 134) the form and meaning of the names point to Phoenicia as the original home of the alphabet, since alf, bêt, dalt, wāw, tāw, pei = pê, pî, mouth, and the vowel of ῥῶ = rōš, head, are all Hebraeo-Phoenician.
- ↑ In the excavations at Jericho in April, 1907, E. Sellin found a jar-handle with the Canaanite characters יה which he dates (probably too early) about 1500 B.C.
- ↑ On the supposed connexion of this artificial arrangement with magical formulae (‘the order of the letters was believed to have a sort of magic power’) cf. Löhr, ZAW. 1905, p. 173 ff., and Klagelieder2, Gött. 1907, p. vii ff.
- ↑ On this superfluous פ cf. Grimme, Euphemistic liturgical appendices, Lpz. 1901, p. 8 ff., and Nestle, ZAW. 1903, p. 340 f., who considers it an appendage to the Greek alphabet.
- ↑ 33.0 33.1 [Perhaps also originally in Ps 34.] פ before ע is probably due to a magic alphabet, see above, n. 1. According to Böhmer, ZAW. 1908, p. 53 ff., the combinations אב, גד, הו, &c., were used in magical texts; עס was excluded, but by a rearrangement we get סף and עץ.
- ↑ See note 3 on p. 29.
- ↑ On the rise of this custom (יה having been originally used and afterwards הי), cf. Nestle in ZAW. 1884, p. 250, where a trace of this method of writing occurring as early as Origen is noted.
- ↑ Cf. Jo. Buxtorf, De abbreviaturis Hebr., Basel, 1613, &c.; Pietro Perreau.
- ↑ According to Blau, Studien zum althebr. Buchwesen, Strassburg, 1902, p. 167, properly a large ע, called telûyā because suspended between the two halves of the Psalter, and then incorrectly taken for a littera suspensa.
- ↑ Cf. C. Meinhof, ‘Die Aussprache des Hebr.,’ in Neue Jahrb. f. Philol. u. Pädag., 1885, Bd. 132, p. 146 ff.; M. Schreiner, ‘Zur Gesch. der Ausspr. des Hebr.,’ in ZAW. 1886, p. 213 ff.
- ↑ Cf. Frankel, Vorstudien zu der Septuag., Lpz. 1841, p. 90 ff.; C. Könneke, ‘Gymn.-Progr.,’ Stargard, 1885. On the transcription of eleven Psalms in a palimpsest fragment of the Hexapla at Milan, see Mercati, Atti della R. Accad., xxxi, Turin, 1896. [Cf. Burkitt, Fragments of... Aquila, Cambr. 1897, p. 13.]
- ↑ Numerous examples occur in Hieronymi quaestiones hebraicae in libro geneseos, edited by P. de Lagarde, Lpz. 1868; cf. the exhaustive and systematic discussion by Siegfried, ‘Die Aussprache des Hebr. bei Hieronymus,’ in ZAW. 1884, pp. 34–83.
- ↑ It is, however, doubtful if the LXX always consciously aimed at reproducing the actual differences of sound.
- ↑ The modern Samaritans, however, in reading their Hebrew Pentateuch pronounce שׂ invariably as שׁ.
- ↑ The original value of ס, and its relation to the original value of שׂ and שׁ, is still undetermined, despite the valuable investigations of P. Haupt, ZDMG. 1880, p. 762 f.; D. H. Müller, ‘Zur Geschichte der semit. Zischlaute,’ in the Verhandlungen des Wiener Orient. Congresses, Vienna, 1888, Semitic section, p. 229 ff.; De Lagarde, ‘Samech,’ in the NGGW. 1891, no. 5, esp. p. 173; Aug. Müller, ZAW. 1891, p. 267 ff.; Nöldeke, ZDMG. 1893, p. 100 f.; E. Glaser, Zwei Wiener Publicationen über Habaschitisch-punische Dialekte in Südarabien, Munich, 1902, pp. 19 ff.—On the phonetic value of צ see G. Hüsing, OLZ. 1907, p. 467 ff.
- ↑ So at any rate at the time when the present punctuation arose.
- ↑ In proper names the LXX often use the diphthongs αἰ and αὐ where the Hebrew form has ê or ô. It is, however, very doubtful whether the αἰ and αὐ of the LXX really represent the true pronunciation of Hebrew of that time; see the instructive statistics given by Kittel in Haupt’s SBOT., on 1 Ch 1, 20.
- ↑ In Sanskrit, in the Old Persian cuneiform, and in Ethiopic, short a alone of all the vowels is not represented, but the consonant by itself is pronounced with short a.
- ↑ Cf. especially Stade, Lehrb. der hebr. Gr., p. 34 ff.
- ↑ According to Stade, the employment of ה for ā probably took place first in the case of the locative accusatives which originally ended in ־ָה, as אַ֫רְצָה, קָדִ֫ימָה.
- ↑ The form רעו contradicts the view of Oort, Theol. Tijds., 1902, p. 374, that the above instances from the Mêšaʿ-inscription are to be read benhu, bahu, lahu, which were afterwards vocalized as beno, bo, lo.
- ↑ Thus there occurs, e.g. in Melit. 1, l. 3 שנבן = שְׁנֵי בְנֵי the two sons; elsewhere כ for כִּי (but כי in the Mêšaʿ) and Siloam inscrr.), ז for זֶה (the latter in the Siloam inscr.), בנת = בָּנִתִי (so Mêšaʿ) or בָּנִיתִי, &c. Cf. on the other hand in Mêšaʿ, אנכ = אנכי (unless it was actually pronounced ʾanôkh by the Moabites!). As final ā is represented by ה and א and final î by י, so final û is almost everywhere expressed by ו in Mêšaʿ, and always in the Siloam inscription. It is indeed not impossible that Hebrew orthography also once passed through a period in which the final vowels were left always or sometimes undenoted, and that not a few strange forms in the present text of the Bible are to be explained from the fact that subsequently the vowel letters (especially ו and י) were not added in all cases. So Chwolson, ‘Die Quiescentia הוי in der althebr. Orthogr.,’ in Travaux du Congrès... des Orientalistes, Petersb. 1876; cf. numerous instances in Ginsburg, Introd., p. 146 ff.
- ↑ השעני is the more strange since the name of king הוֹשֵׁעָ is represented as A-u siʾ in cuneiform as late as 728 B.C.
- ↑ Thus e.g. קטל can be read qāṭal, qāṭāl, qāṭôl, qeṭōl, qôṭēl, qiṭṭēl, qaṭṭēl, quṭṭal, qèṭel, and several of these forms have also different senses.
- ↑ The most important of these differences are, (a) those between the Orientals, i.e. the scholars of the Babylonian Schools, and the Occidentals, i.e. the scholars of Palestine (Tiberias, &c.); cf. Ginsburg, Introd., p. 197 ff.; (b) amongst the Occidentals, between Ben-Naphtali and Ben-Asher, who flourished in the first half of the tenth century at Tiberias; cf. Ginsburg, Introd., p. 241 ff. Both sets of variants are given by Baer in the appendices to his critical editions. Our printed editions present uniformly the text of Ben-Asher, with the exception of a few isolated readings of Ben-Naphtali, and of numerous later corruptions.
- ↑ See Geiger, ‘Massorah bei d. Syrern,’ in ZDMG. 1873, p. 148 ff.; J. P. Martin, Hist. de la ponctuation ou de la Massore chez les Syriens, Par. 1875; E. Nestle, in ZDMG. 1876, p. 525 ff.; Weingarten, Die syr. Massora nach Bar Hebraeus, Halle, 1887.
- ↑ In early MSS. the sign for Qameṣ is a stroke with a point underneath, i.e. according to Nestle’s discovery (ZDMG. 1892, p. 411 f.), Pathaḥ with Ḥolem, the latter suggesting the obscure pronunciation of Qameṣ as å. Cf. also Ginsburg, Introd., p. 609.
- ↑ Instead of the no doubt more accurate transcription å̄, å̂ we have retained ā, â in this grammar, as being typographically simpler and not liable to any misunderstanding. For Qameṣ ḥaṭuph, in the previous German edition expressed by å̆, we have, after careful consideration, returned to ŏ The use of the same sign ־ָ for å̄ (å̂) and å̆, shows that the Massoretes did not intend to draw a sharp distinction between them. We must not, however, regard the Jewish grammarians as making a merely idle distinction between Qāmeṣ rāḥāb, or broad Qameṣ, and Qāmeṣ hatûph, or light Qameṣ. It is quite impossible that in the living language an ā lengthened from ă, as in dābār, should have been indistinguishable from e.g. the last vowel in וַיָּשָׁב or the first in קָֽדָשִׁים.—The notation â, ê, ô expresses here the vowels essentially long, either naturally or by contraction; the notation ā, ē, ō those lengthened only by the tone, and therefore changeable; ă, ĕ, ŏ the short vowels. As regards the others, the distinction into î and ĭ, û and ŭ is sufficient; see § 9.—The mark ֫ stands in the following pages over the tone-syllable, whenever this is not the last, as is usual, but the penultimate syllable of the word, e.g. יֵ֫שֶׁב.
- ↑ These Segôls, modified from ă, are very frequent in the language. The Babylonian punctuation (see § 8 g, note 3) has only one sign for it and tone-bearing Pathah.; see also Gaster, ‘Die Unterschiedslosigkeit zwischen Pathach u. Segol,’ in ZAW. 1894, p. 60 ff.
- ↑ On the erroneous use of the term melo pum, only in Germany, for šûreq (hence also pronounced melu pum to indicate û), see E. Nestle, ZDMG. 1904, p. 597 ff.; Bacher, ibid., p. 799 ff., Melopum; Simonsen, ibid., p. 807 ff.
- ↑ The usual spelling קָמֶץ and פַּתַח takes the words certainly rightly as Hebrew substantives; according to De Lagarde (Gött. gel. Anz. 1886, p. 873, and so previously Luzzatto), קָמֵץ and פָתַח are rather Aram. participles, like Dageš, &c., and consequently to be transliterated Qâmeṣ and Pâthaḥ.
- ↑ Since 1846 we have become acquainted with a system of vocalization different in many respects from the common method. The vowel signs, all except וּ, are there placed above the consonants, and differ almost throughout in form, and some even as regards the sound which they denote: {Babylonian â/ā mark} = â, ā, {Babylonian ă/è mark} = tone-bearing ă and è, {Babylonian ê/ē mark} = ê, ē, {Babylonian î mark} = î, {Babylonian ô/ō mark} = ô, ō, {Babylonian û mark} = û. In an unsharpened syllable {Babylonian toneless ă/è mark} = toneless ă and è, and also Ḥaṭeph Pathaḥ; {Babylonian toneless ĕ mark} = toneless ĕ and Ḥaṭeph Seghôl; {Babylonian ĭ mark} = ĭ, {Babylonian ŭ mark} = ŭ, {Babylonian ŏ mark} = ŏ, and Ḥaṭeph Qameṣ. Lastly in toneless syllables before Dageš, {Babylonian ă mark} = ă, {Babylonian ĕ mark} = ĕ, {Babylonian i mark} = i, {Babylonian ŭ mark} = ŭ, {Babylonian å̆ mark} = å̆. Šewâ is {Babylonian Šewâ mark}. The accents differ less and stand in some cases under the line of the consonants. Besides this complicated system of the Codex Babylonicus (see below) and other MSS., there is a simpler one, used in Targums. It is still uncertain whether the latter is the foundation of the former (as Merx, Chrest. Targ. xi, and Bacher, ZDMG. 1895, p. 15 ff.), or is a later development of it among the Jews of South Arabia (as Praetorius, ZDMG. 1899, p. 181 ff.). For the older literature on this Babylonian punctuation (נִקּוּד בַּבְלִי), as it is called, see A. Harkavy and H. L. Strack, Katalog der hebr. Bibelhandschr. der Kaiserl. öffentl. Bibliothek zu St. Petersb., St. Petersb. and Lpz., 1875, parts i and ii, p. 223 ff. A more thorough study of the system was made possible by H. Strack’s facsimile edition of the Prophetarum posteriorum codex Babylonicus Petropolitanus (St. Petersb., 1876, la. fol.) of the year 916, which Firkowitsch discovered in 1839, in the synagogue at Tschufutkale in the Crimea. The MS. has been shown by Ginsburg (Recueil des travaux rédigés en mémoire... de Chwolson, Berlin, 1899, p. 149, and Introd., pp. 216 ff., 475 f.) to contain a recension of the Biblical text partly Babylonian and partly Palestinian; cf. also Barnstein, The Targum of Onkelos to Genesis, London, 1896, p. 6 f. Strack edited a fragment of it in Hosea et Joel prophetae ad fidem cod. Babylon. Petrop., St. Petersb. 1875. Cf. also the publication by A. Merx, quoted above, § 7 h, and his Chrestomathia Targumica, Berlin, 1888; G. Margoliouth, in the PSBA. xv. 4, and M. Gaster, ibid.; P. Kahle, Der masoret. Text des A.T. nach d. Überlief. der babyl. Juden, Lpz. 1902, with the valuable review by Rahlfs in GGA. 1903, no. 5; Nestle, ZDMG. 1905, p. 719 (Babylonian {Babylonian ă/è mark} = ע. According to the opinion formerly prevailing, this Babylonian punctuation exhibits the system which was developed in the Eastern schools, corresponding to and contemporaneous with the Western or Tiberian system, although a higher degree of originality, or approximation to the original of both systems of punctuation, was generally conceded to the latter. Recently, however, Wickes, Accents of the Twenty-one Books, Oxford, 1887, p. 142 ff, has endeavoured to show, from the accents, that the ‘Babylonian’ punctuation may certainly be an Oriental, but is by no means the Oriental system. It is rather to be regarded, according to him, as a later and not altogether successful attempt to modify, and thus to simplify, the system common to all the Schools in the East and West. Strack, Wiss. Jahresb. der ZDMG. 1879, p. 124, established the probability that the vowels of the superlinear punctuation arose under Arab influence from the vowel letters יוא (so previously Pinsker and Graetz), while the Tiberian system shows Syrian influence.
A third, widely different system (Palestinian), probably the basis of the other two, is described by A. Neubauer, JQR. vii. 1895, p. 361 ff., and Friedländer, ibid., p. 564 ff., and PSBA. 1896, p. 86 ff.; C. Levias, Journ. of Sem. Lang. and Lit., xv. p. 157 ff.; and esp. P. Kahle, ‘Beitr. zu der Gesch. der hebr. Punktation,’ and in ZAW. 1901, p. 273 ff. and in Der masoret. Text des A.T. (see above), chiefly dealing with the Berlin MS. Or. qu. 680, which contains a number of variants on the biblical text, and frequently agrees with the transcriptions of the LXX and Jerome.