Early Study of Hebrew

5. Development of the Hebrew Language

Since the Canaanitic existed in different dialects spoken bypeoples living under different conditions, it might be expected that differences would appear in the Old Testament. of Moreover, since a period of 1,000 years the is covered by Hebrew literature, a dif Hebrew ference would be looked for between the Language. earliest and the latest writings. While this can be shown in only a limited degree, the reason is partly that only consonantal representation of these writings exists, and partly that later recension obliterated differences. The vocalized text represents only the late tradition of a pronunciation which had lost many of the peculiarities of the early speech, as is proved by the Canaanitic glosses to the Amarna Tablets, above referred to. Differences of dialect are proven by such passages as Judges xii. 6, xviii. 3, in the latter of which passages "voice" possibly means method of speech, dialect. When differences caused by time are considered, it is evident that the differences between the language of the Song of Deborah and Daniel are less than those between the "English" of the ninth and of the nineteenth century; yet it is seen that there was a history of the Hebrew language. This is well illustrated by the language of Ecclesiastes. Further development was checked by the imitation by later writers of the early models. even to the reintroduction of archaic and disused forms. But even between the earlier and the later prophets there appear indications of a development toward a more flexible form of expression. The introduction of Aramaisms, preferences for one or another form of the personal pronouns, and other peculiarities mark periods in the language.

6. Early Study of Hebrew

The history of the study of the Hebrew language began really at the time when it ceased to be a vernacular, and naturally with the Jews of the dispersion, by whom Hebrew had been forgotten. The Septuagint gives insight into the knowledge of Hebrew and the understanding of the text of those who made it, and the translation differs greatly in the different parts. Even in the case of Ecclesiasticus the grandson misunderstood the writing of the grandfather, a fact due in part to an un pointed text. Further testimony of this character is derived from the explanations of personal and place names as exhibited in the various Onomastica sacra. Meanwhile in Palestine also Hebrew had become a language which had to be learned, as is shown by the Aramaic paraphrases of Scripture in the syna gogues, the development of which the Targums were, and these show in general an excellent under standing of the Hebrew. Similar testimony is borne by the Syriac version, by the versions of Aquila and Symmachus, and by the knowledge of Hebrew of Jerome, who was taught by a Jew. For close grammatical study, however, the Masoretic works were the cradle, since they collected and remarked upon word-forms and grammatical con structions. This sprang, not from interest in lin guistic study, but from desire for preservation of the true text, and one result of this work was a system atic vocalization of the text. Real grammatical study began with the contact of Jews with Arabic grammarians (eighth century), and issued in Aaron ben Moses ben Asher's Dikduke harte'amim of the tenth century, which contains much grammatical material. The first grammarian was Saadia Gaon (d. 942), of whose works on linguistics only a small part is extant. He was under the influence of Arabic linguistics, and laid stress upon comparison of Arabic and Hebrew. Even more strongly was this emphasized by Judah ben Kuraish in North Africa, who used both Arabic and Aramaic in lexical and grammatical comparisons. About the middle of the tenth century the Spanish Jew Menahem ben Saruk compiled a Hebrew lexicon with grammatical introduction, in which he sought to free Hebrew lexicography from its Arabic bonds. His great scholar, Judah Hayyuj ben David, about the year 1000, made special contributions to knowledge of the weak verbs. Beside the Spanish Abraham ibn Ezra (d. 1167) must be named the great David Kimhi (d. 1235), whose grammatical-lexicographic Miklol is still of value. Kimhi's father, Joseph, and his brother Moses were noted grammarians. Worthy of mention also are Profiat Duran (Isaac ben Moses Duran), at the end of the fourteenth

185
century, and Elias Levita (d. 1549). At this time the humanists began to busy themselves with Hebrew. The way was broken by the preachermonk Peter Nigri (1477), the priest Johannes B6hm (1490), Konrad Pellican (1501-04), and Reuchlin (1506). The lexical and grammatical works of the elder Buxtorf (d. 1629) closed this period, in which the Christian world sought to reproduce Jewish learning.