THE STUDY OF THE HEBREW LANGUAGE.
ATTENTION may next be bestowed upon the language in which for critical purposes the Old Testament has to be studied ; upon the manuscripts and the editions in which it has come down to us, together with the traditional accompaniments to the Text which we owe to the vigilance, whether always well directed or not, of learned men among the Jews.
§ 1. History of the Language.
The history of the Hebrew language may be studied in Renan's Histoire,' pp. 105-178. We may repeat that, looking at the remains we possess of the Phoenician, the language of the Old Testament writings appears to have been that of the peoples of Canaan. It closely resembles the Punic inscriptions of a people that traced their origin to Tyre and Sidon, the Inscriptions of Siloam and Sinai, and the language of the Moabite Stone.' Information as to these antiquities must be sought elsewhere. Cf. Euting's Table of Semitic characters in Bickell's Hebrew Grammar. That the Phoenician alphabet was a modification of the Egyptian hieroglyphics seems highly probable : see Rouge's Memoire ' (1874). We meet with it under the name of Jewish' in 2 Kings 18:26, Neh. 3:23. Arabic is the leading type of the languages to which the Hebrew is related. The Aramaic dialects, including Syriac, belong to the same group.
As written from the earliest Christian times, what is called the ` Assyrian ' or square' character is employed for it. This must have been used as early as days of our Lord's ministry, as it is only in the `square character that the letter Yod (jot) is so small. The Maccabean coins seem to prove that one character was used in literature, another in every-day life.
The characteristics of the Hebrew of different Books can alone be learned from close study of the original.
Scholars of rationalistic tendencies have attempted to assign dates to some Books according to the kind of Hebrew in which they are written: this is always a precarious test. The fact that some Books of the Old Testament contain even many Aramaisms, is no proof of their late composition; because the writer may have been accustomed (as Jonah, for instance, in Galilee) to provincialism, or may himself have been one speaking the language of the lower orders. Every country or nation presents examples of such variation.
It is recognized by Ewald (Lehrbuch, § 2), who refers to Amos. Isaiah and Micah were contemporaries, but the individuality of their style is easily seen. Dialects also must be taken into account. We have mention of one, the Ephraimitic, at an early period (Judg. 12:6). But probably the importance of dialects in the history of the language was not great, from the narrow geographical limits of Palestine. For discrimination of this kind direct acquaintance with the Hebrew must be obtained.
§ 2. Direct Study of Hebrew.
Here we would urge upon every earnest student of Scripture the importance of possessing some, perhaps only elementary, knowledge of the sacred language.' Let not any be deterred by the difficulties attending self-tuition; all should be encouraged by the case of no less a man than Erasmus, who, as regards Greek, speaks of himself as αὐτοτδίδακτος, self-taught. His contemporary, the great Reformer, with the little knowledge of Hebrew' of which he somewhere speaks, set about translating the Old Testament into his mother-tongue for national use. Many are the inaccuracies in detail of Luther's version; but no one who examines it from beginning to end can fail to be impressed with the happy way in which he caught the genius of the Hebrew.
He never acquired a profound knowledge of the language; his energies were called forth in controversy rather than in study. We know what Erasmus did for the New Testament, for which a knowledge of Greek is necessary if one would properly understand certain passages. We may compare in the Greek Testament Acts 9:7, and 22:9. To the English reader there seems to be a discrepancy: as he cannot turn to the Greek, he must depend upon a Commentary. A glance at the original removes all doubt; but any translation fails sufficiently to bring out the fact that the two passages only say the same thing in different ways. In the first the genitive or partitive case of voice' is employed; in the second we have the accusative. In ch. 9. Paul's companions are represented as hearing the voice only in a measure; in chap. 22. the meaning is, they might as well not have heard it at all, because they did not understand it, did not catch what was said. Bengel's comment as usual is good. They saw therefore a light (cf. 26:13 sq.) but not Jesus himself; they heard a mere voice, not a voice with the words,' and we are referred to John 12:29 for a parallel case.
A knowledge of the Greek would render reference to a commentary unnecessary, to say nothing of new translations, where disappointment would await the reader. With respect to the Old Testament, it does not take many verses of Genesis for the reader to find out that a little knowledge of Hebrew' is desirable. How much depends upon one's knowledge of the emphatic word in a sentence of Scripture! It is a common mistake to take `me' in Isa. 6:8 as the word upon which to lay stress, but, if anything, send ' is the word to fix upon: cf. Rom. 10:15. Me' in this verse of Isaiah is only a verbal suffix.'
Again, the order of words is of importance: an idiomatic translation fails often to preserve this. The beauties that are alone within the cognizance of the student of Hebrew it would take volumes to particularize.
(a) Grammars.
A knowledge of Biblical Hebrew may by an English student be sufficiently well acquired in Tregelles" Heads of Hebrew Grammar,' and Ewald's Introductory Grammar' (3rd English edition, 1870), with some general reference to Gesenius' smaller Grammar (now in its 23rd edition) for the Accidence, or Forms. In the Syntax, Driver's Hebrew Tenses' (by a member of the Old Testament Revision company) would be found specially helpful; as for these there have been no rules quite satisfactory, and yet the subject demands particular study. The old doctrine of ‘Vav conversive ' some refuse altogether; others, as Ewald, accept it in a modified sense, calling it Vav consecutive': cf. G. V. Wigram, Memorials,' vol. ii. pp. 103-107, 163-167, with Ewald, pp. 163-168, 2 29-2 31, or Driver, pp. 86-88. Perfect and Imperfect' will perhaps be found more convenient designations for these so-called Tenses than Perfect and Future,' because what used to be called by all the Future has to combine both Present and Future.
For practice in the forms, an Oxford Professor recommends A. B. Davidson's Introductory Grammar'; a leading Cambridge scholar bestows his preference on Mason's Exercise Book. But we think many of our readers would derive most satisfaction from the use of the following Book: Hebrew Grammar, with Exercises selected from the Bible, by Ada S. Ballin and F. L. Ballin' (1881). This guide to Hebrew is both scientific and practical. The examples are accompanied by references to the Hebrew Bible, according to the numbering of the verses there. The Misses Ballin call the two tenses by, we think, their right names, which cannot be said of some more pretentious writers. These authoresses also give both the Portuguese (received) Jewish, and the German Jewish pronunciation of words.
Bickell's Outlines of Hebrew Grammar' by Curtiss, already referred to, contains some useful sections on Punctuation and the Accents, contributed by Delitzsch.
To the above grammars of Hebrew should be added one of Biblical Chaldee Bagster's Chaldee Reading Lessons' are useful, as also the Paradigms in Baer's edition of the Texts of Ezra and Daniel.'
(β) Lexicons.
For the vocabulary of Biblical Hebrew and Chaldee the best Lexicon in English is Tregelles' edition of Gesenius; those acquainted with German should use Gesenius; "Handwörterbuch; 8th edition by Muhlau and Volck (1878). Gesenius' `Thesaurus' (in Latin) is a κτῆμα ἐς ἀεί. As to pronunciation, we may rest content with the Masoretic, which, to use Ewald's words, is in general the finest and most correct' (p. 39, English edition). The Spanish and Portuguese Jews are supposed to have preserved this best. The Hellenistic is regarded by Gesenius as a dialectic difference.'
(γ) Concordances.
In connection with the Vocabulary comes the Concordance. The Englishman's Hebrew and Chaldee Concordance of the Old Testament,' edited by the late G. V. Wigram, would supply the student with much that he needs; but B. Davidson's Concordance' (Bagster) is another most useful work to a learner of Hebrew; and for synonyms, the consideration of which determines the comparative power of words, Wilson's English, Hebrew, and Chaldee Concordance' is another primary help to the study of Biblical Hebrew. It contains in an appendix a list of so-called paronomasias, examples of a rhetorical figure in which Hebrew is rich. Dr. Wilson was justified in his belief that his work is the nearest approach to a complete Concordance of every word in the original that has yet been made.' He also says in his Preface: The knowledge of the Hebrew language is not absolutely necessary to the profitable use of this work; and it is believed that many devout and accurate students of the Bible, entirely unacquainted with it, will derive great advantage from frequent reference to these pages.... The present undertaking has been pursued under the growing conviction of the plenary inspiration of the language of the sacred Scriptures.... There may be some who speak with contempt of the letter of the Old Testament; but those who have examined it most closely will not fail to discover rays of light, which will, in "the glory of the days of Jesus," burst forth with a refulgence which will disclose to us yet hidden treasures in the Scriptures.... At a time when the authority and character of the Sacred Record is sadly assailed on various grounds; when devout attention is denounced as Bibliolatry, and other standards of opinion referred to, it is a paramount duty in all that cleave to the Word of God, to "search the Scriptures" more intelligently. And it is believed that a more reverent attention to the Old Testament would be the means of reviving a more spiritual apprehension of many great and overwhelming truths, in the present day too much lost sight of.' The student may well trust himself to such a guide.