Writing and the Art of Writing, Hebrew

WRITING AND THE ART OF WRITING, HEBREW.

I. The Biblical Statements.: Statements Implying Early Use of Writing (§ 1).; The Materials Employed (§ 2).
II. Information from Other Sources.
III. The North Semitic and Early Hebrew Script.: North Semitic Script (§ 1).; Development of the Alphabet (§ 2).
IV. Aramaic Varieties of Writing and the Hebrew Square Character: The Older Forms (§ 1).; Development of the Square Characters (§ 2).; Sacredness of the Square Character (§ 3).; Documentary Testimony to Hebrew Script (§ 4).; Printed Documents (§ 5).

I. The Biblical Statements

1 Statements Implying Early Use of Writing.

For an acquaintance of the Hebrews with the art of writing in the period before Moses there are no direct testimonies. Though on the signet of Judah (Gen. xxxviii. 18) was engraved probably some pictorial representation, the account in Gen. xxiii. of the transaction before witnesses between Abraham and Ephron can only by employing the argument from silence be used against the idea of the possession by the Hebrews of the knowledge of writing. The old name of the city of Debir was Kirjath-sepher (Josh. xv. 15-16; Judges i. 11-12; Septuagint, Kariassophar, Egyptian Bait tupar [the rendering of this is disputed: it has been interpreted "Book-town," and the claim founded thereupon that writing was widely diffused in Palestine and that books were numerous; the Septuagint suggests rather the rendering "town of the scribe," and this conveys a directly opposite meaning]). The "officers" of the Hebrews in Egypt (Ex. v. 6) are called in Hebrew shotarim; in Assyrian and Arabic the root of this word has the meaning "to write," and the corresponding noun in Aramaic carries the meaning "document." But does this involve anything regarding the employment of this art among the Hebrews of that period? At any rate, if writing was diffused as an art among the Hebrews of the time of Moses, it can not be reckoned a new invention. Moses wrote matter that was legal (Ex. xxiv. 4; 7 [in the E record], xxxiv. 27; Deut. xxxi. 9, 24), and historical (Ex. xvii. 24 [E]; Numbers xxxiii. 2 [P]); the Song of Moses (Deut. xxxi. 22; cf. also Num. xvii. 2). The priests wrote (Num. v. 23 [P]) the imprecation in the water of Ordeal (q.v., § 7); and according to Deuteronomy (vi. 9, xi. 20, xxiv. 1, 3) others wrote. The engraving of names and other words on stone and metal is mentioned ( [P]). Joshua is recorded as having written the law of Moses (Josh. viii. 32), as having the land of Canaan described in a book for purposes of allotment (xviii. 6, 8, 9), and himself as writing certain matters in the book of the law of God at the assembly of the people at Shechem (xxiv. 26). In the period of the Judges the ability to use writing must have been common, for a youth caught by chance was able to give in writing to Gideon the names of seventy-seven of the princes and elders of the city (scripRef passage="Judges viii. 14" parsed="Judges|8|14|0|">Judges viii. 14, margin). According to I Sam. x. 25 Samuel wrote down the "law of the kingdom." Poems like those in Num. xxi. and Judges v. were certainly set down in writing at an early period; in Num. xxi. 14 are some lines of a poem cited from "the book of the wars of the Lord"; citations are made from "the book of Jasher" in Josh. x. 13; II Sam. i.18, 19; and I Kings viii. 53 (according to the Septuagint-cf. J. C. Matthes in ZATW, 1903, p. 121, who would read in all three passages "book of the ode" instead of "book of Jasher," the difference being in the transposition of two letters). Consequently the assertion of T. T. Hartmann, W. Vatke, and P. von Bohlen is not defensible that not until shortly before Solomon, or even later, was the art of writing an accomplishment of the Hebrews. From the regal period there are numerous testimonies to the application of writing both in public and in private life; such are the letter concerning Uriah (II Sam, xi. 14), the letters of Jezebel concerning Naboth (I Kings xxi. 8, 11); the letters of commendation for Naaman to the king of Israel (1 sqq.); the roll of Isaiah in Isa. viii. 1 sqq.; the letter from the Assyrian to Hezekiah (Isa. xxxvii. 14), and of Merodach-baladan to the same (Isa. xxxix. 1); that from Huram of Tyre to Solomon (II Chron. ii. 11); witness of the purchase of a piece of land (Jer. xxxii. 10); and the recording of accusations (Job xiii. 26, xxxi. 35). Not altogether clear is the activity of the royal officers called scribes, as under David (II Sam. viii. 17), Solomon (I Kings iv. 3), Hezekiah (II Kings xxii. 3); apparently their duty was to keep the archives and prepare the correspondence of the king; while according to II Kings xii. 11 the scribe had the overnight of the money applied to the restoration of the temple. From Isa. x. 19 it appears that in the time of that prophet a child could write.

2. The Materials Employed.

The material upon which men generally wrote was probably papyrus (II John 12). To be sure, this is not affirmed in the Old Testament; but just as little testimony exists to the employment (assumed by many) of dressed skins. Certainly the Septuagint is right in so translating chartion and chartēs in Jer. xxxvi. (Septuagint xliii.), for it has been

447

correctly remarked by Schlottmann that the king would hardly have cast whole pieces of leather upon the open firebox of the orient; and so far as Num. v. 23 is concerned, one can easily wash fresh ink from papyrus. Papyrus (q.v.) still grows in Palestine at various places, as in the marshes on the coast, at Lake Huleh, at the Sea of Tiberias, and lower down on the Jordan to the Dead Sea (cf. L. Fonek, Streifzüge durch die biblische Flora, pp. 36 sqq., Freiburg, 1900). Import of papyrus from Egypt to Phenicia is authenticated for the eleventh century B.C. Nevertheless, the use of rolls of leather was so common in antiquity, that its use among the Israelites can well be assumed. The later discovery of parchment (Eumenes II. of Pergamon, 197-158 B.C.) has bearing only on the New Testament (II Tim. iv. 13). The books were in the form of rolls (Jer. xxxvi.; Ezek. ii. 9, iii. 1 sqq.; Ps. xl. 7; Zech. v. 1 sqq.). The writing-instrument was a stylus (Hebr. `et; Ps. xlv. 1; Jer. viii. 8; kalamos, III John 13) which was brought to a point by the use of the scribe's knife (Jer. xxxvi. 23) and was dipped in ink (Hebr. dyp, Jer. xxxvi. 18; Gk. melan, II Cor. iii. 3; II John 12; III John 13). The inkhorn was called keseth hassopher (Ezek. ix. 2, 3, 11). The writer's equipment was carried in his girdle (Ezek. ix.). For engraving upon metal or stone there was in use the iron stylus ('et barzel, Jer. xvii. 1; Job xix. 24); the term used in Isa. viii. 1 is ,heret, from a root meaning to incise or engrave.

II. Information from Other Sources

The discoveries in the winter of 1887-88 at Tell el-Amarna (see AMARNA TABLETS) and the more recent discoveries at Taanach have in surprising fashion shown that in Palestine about 1400 B.C., there were in use the Babylonian script and the Babylonian language, this being employed not only on the part of Egyptians and official Palestinians in reports and petitions to the pharaohs Amenophis III. and IV., but also in communications from the upper-class Palestinians to the people of the land. It is concluded from these facts that in that period a script better suited to Canaanitic needs was either not yet available or was not widely diffused (H. Winckler in Keilinschriftliche Bibliothek, vol. v., Berlin, 1896; also in Schrader, KAT; E. Sellin, Tel Ta'annek, Vienna, 1904). It is unknown at which point of contact of Babylonia with Palestine the use of the Babylonian script became common. If the theory of J. Halévy (Revue sémitique, 1904, pp. 240-248) becomes established, this being that the Habiri of the Amarna Tablets were descendants of Casshite military colonies, it will be necessary to think of the seventeenth or the sixteenth century before Christ as the period. That the Israelites after the conquest of Canaan in any great measure made use of the cuneiform writing has no support in actual evidence. With this would fall the supposition of some Englishmen and of H. Winckler that the Decalogue was first written in the cuneiform script. So far as it is possible to trace back the course of events, the Israelites seem to have used the same form of writing as that discovered in June, 1880, in the Siloam Inscription (q.v.), which apparently belongs to the time of Hesekiah. This is the form which appears on the seal found in 1904 at Tell el-Mutasilim (Megiddo), which reads: "(seal) of Shema', servant of Jeroboam" (i.e., of Jeroboam II.)-cf. E. Kautzsch, in Mittheilungen und Nachrichten des deutschen Palästina-Vereins, 1904, pp. 1-14.

III. The North Semitic and Early Hebrew Script

1. North Semitic Script.

The writing just mentioned is essentially that of the Moabite Stone (q.v.), the Sendjirli inscription, and the inscriptions of Phenicia. These are called North Semitic in distinction from the South Semitic, which include the Sabean, Minæan, Safaite, and proto-Arabic. The South Semitic, toward the deciphering of which J. Halé&vy has contributed a great deal, is derived from the North Semitic (cf. the convincing discussions of M. Lidzbarski in his Ephemeris für semitische Epigraphik, i. 109-123, Giessen, 1901). And yet some of these forms of writing show an older type of writing, standing nearer the Old Canaanitic than does the Sabean (cf. F. Prætorius, in ZDMG, 1902, 676-680, 1904, pp. 715-726). With respect to the age of the North Semitic all that can be said is that comparison with the Greek alphabet, which depends upon it, shows that this most significant of all inventions was made some considerable period before the end of the second century B.C., possibly several centuries before that end. This script is found in use by a West Semitic (Aramaic, possibly Canaanitic) people which stood in close contact with Egypt. For the close connection with the Egyptian Emmanuel de Rougé was the first sponsor, alleging the writing from right to left, the principle of acrophony (i.e., each letter formed after the figure of some thing the name of which began with the sound of that letter), and the writing of the consonants only. This would make the writing of the Old Canaanitic script common with that of the Old Egyptians. But comparison with both the hieroglyphic and the hieratic writing seems to make derivation from the Egyptian an untenable supposition. Also to be rejected are the hypotheses which derive the North Semitic script from the Babylonian-Assyrian cuneiform writing (Deecke, in ZDMG, 1877, pp. 102 sqq.; F. Delitzseh, Entstehung des ältesten Schriftsystems oder der Ursprung der Keilschriftzeichen, pp. 221-231, Leipsic, 1896). Delitzsch, to be sure, does not derive the Canaanitic writing from the cuneiform of the period of the invention, but from the much older pictorial forms known only to the learned of the time.

2. Development of the Alphabet.

The names of the letters are in great part taken from the names of the things which were used to figure forth the oldest forms. Thus Ayin means "eye," and Resh means "head." In Codex Vaticanus of the Septuagint (in the Lamentations of Jeremiah) the names of the Greek forms are given as Aleph, Bēth, Gimel, Daleth, Ē, Ouau, Zain, Hēth, Tēth, Iōth, Chaph, Lamed, Mēm, Noun, Samch, Ain, Phē, Tiadē, Kōph, Rēchs, Chsen, Thau. The Greek-Latin Psalter in Verona has in Psalm cxix. a few variant forms, viz., Zai, Labd, Nun, Samech, Sade, Res, Sen.

With respect to the history of the North Semitic alphabet it may be said that some of the letters arose through differentiation from others (M. A. Levy,

448
Phōnizische Studien, i. 49 sqq., Leipsic, 1856; J. Halévy, Mélanges d'épigraphie et d'archéologie orientale, p. 179, Paris, 1874). It may be taken as certain that h developed from h, s (samekh) from z, t from t. It is improbable that z developed from s if it be true that the meaning as signed to the name of the former is correct. It is also held in some quarters that z and k developed later. This would leave sixteen letters which the Greeks, according to the statements of their grammarians, first received from the Phenicians, viz., a, b, g, d, e, i, k, l, m, n, o, p, r, s, t, u. But the remark is in place here that there is no proof that the North Semitic alphabet ever had less than twenty-two letters, to which may be added that the letters which appear in the South Semitic alphabet and not in the North Semitic might easily be represented from the existing letters by means of diacritical signs (D. H. Müller, Epigraphische Denkmäler aus Arabien, p. 19, Vienna, 1889; F. Prætorius, in ZDMG, 1904, 720 sqq.). The arrangement of the letters in the alphabet is witnessed by the alphabetical arrangement in certain poetical pieces, Ps. cxi., cxii., cxix.; Prov. xxxi. 10 sqq.; Lam. i., as well as by the numerical equivalents assigned to them (Aleph to Tēth [Alpha to Theta] = 1-9, Yodh to Pe [Iota to Pi] = 10-80, etc.). Variations which appear in the numerical equivalents are easily explicable, while the variations in Arabic and Ethiopic are secondary. The oldest known document in North Semitic is the Moabite Stone (q.v.), and belongs to the ninth century B.C. (cf. 1 4 sqq.); it contains essentially the same forms of writing as appear on early Hebrew seals and gems after the eighth century (M. A. Levy, Siegel und Gemmen mit aramäischen, phönizischen, althebräischen . . . Inschriften, Breslau, 1869; G. A. Cooke, Text-Book of North-Semitic Inscriptions, p. 362, London, 1903). The eight fragments found in Limassol and Cyprus mentioned in G. A. Cooke (ut sup., pp. 52-54) and Lidzbarski (Nordsemitische Epigraphik, p. 419) are probably of the eighth century. Of other Phenician inscriptions that of Yehawmilk, king of Byblos, belongs to the fifth or fourth century B.C., and that of Tabnith, priest of Ashtoreth and king of the Sidonians, belongs about 300 B.C.

IV. Aramaic Varieties of Writing and the Hebrew Square Character

1. The Older Forms.

From the common North Semitic script there issued not only the South Semitic writing and the Greek alphabet, but also the Aramaic character. The most important changes which took place here are the opening of the closed tops of the letters and a rounding off of many angular forms. But the oldest of the forms now under consideration differ either not at all or very slightly from those previously considered, as is shown by the early Aramaic seals and the three Sendjirli inscriptions. Of the latter, which were discovered in 1888-91 at Sendjirli in North Syria, only one is pure Aramaic-the inscription of Barrekhubh, which dates from the period of Tiglath-Pileser III.; both the others (the Panammu inscription, dedicated to Panammu by his son Barrekhubh, and the rather older Hadad inscription) are in the dialect spoken in the region. To the seventh or the sixth century belong the inscriptions discovered in 1891 in Nerab, southeast of Aleppo. There is a fifth-century inscription of the priest Zalm-Shezeb from Teimaa, Arabia. In Egypt were composed the stele of Zakkara, of the fourth year of Xerxes (482 B.C.), now in Berlin, and that of Taba, of the fifth or fourth pre-Christian century, now in Carpentras. There are besides numerous Aramaic papyri written in Egypt, during the Persian period, of which especial note may be taken of one of the year 411-410, published by Euting in Mémoires . . . de l'académie (Paris, 1903; cf. G. A. Cooke, Text-Book, ut sup., pp. 206-213). There are others acquired for England by A. H. Sayce and published by Cowley [cf. also A. H. Sayce,Aramaic Papyri Discovered at Assouan, London, 1906]. There are also coins from Tarsus of the fourth century, while from Ptolemaic and Roman times there are numerous inscribed bits of papyri and potsherds. The same development is observable in the lands east of the Jordan and in Palestine. The inscription of Arak al-Emir (half-way between Rabbath Ammon and Jericho), dating probably from the first third of the second century B.C., has the early form of Ayin, the letters Resh and Beth are open at the top, the Yodh has lost a stroke, and He is practically a square letter. The inscription of the priestly family, the Beni Hzyr (cf. I Chron. xxiv. 15) at the "tomb of Jacob" in the valley of the Kedron, of the first century B.C. (earlier according to E. Meyer, Entstehung des Judenthums, p. 143, Halle, 1896), has in four of the six letters the later form. The dated Palmyrene inscriptions range from 9 B.C. to 271 A.D., and the rounded and free forms give the impression of ornament. Entitled to mention here because of its extent and content is the Palmyrene and Greek tariff of imposts and taxes of the year 137 A.D. (cf. S. Reckendorf, in ZDMG, 1888; Lidzbarski, in Nordsemitische Epigraphik, pp. 463-473; and Cooke, ut sup., pp. 313-340). The Nabat&aelib;ans (q.v.), though Arabs, used the Aramaic script and language (cf. J. Euting, Nabatäische Inschriften aus Arabien, Berlin, 1885, and Sinaitische Inschriften, ib. 1891). The Nabat&aelib;an script was the parent of the Arabic.

2. Development of the Square Characters.

The Hebrew "square character" arose from the Aramaic type of writing in part through distinct calligraphic effort. In Palestine, as already seen, the types existed beside each other in actual use. General acquaintance with the type due to Aramaic development the Square receives testimony from the time of Jesus by his words in 1, where the early Canaanitic form of the Yodh can not be in mind. On the other side, it must be accepted that the Canaanitic script remained fully known in the second Christian century, for the coins of Bar Kokba (q.v.) have their inscriptions in this writing. Bar Kokba, who appealed to the national feeling of the Jews, would certainly not have had recourse to a forgotten script in order to make an appeal to patriotism, especially when that script was essentially the same as what was used by the hated Samaritans. Testimony to the employment of the old form in the second century appears in the

449

Mishna tract Yadayim, iv. 5, where the statement is that the Aramaic in Ezra and Daniel is sacred; but Aramaic which is written in Hebrew speech (script) and Hebrew which is written in Hebrew, and what is written [de novo] in Hebrew is not sacred. The Hebrew text (of the Old Testament) is sacred only when it is written in the square character with ink on the skins of beasts. Origen also gives testimony to the continuance in use of the old character in his remark on 1 (in Montfaucon, Hexaplorum Origenis quœ supersunt, i. 86, Paris, 1713; in the Benedictine edition, ii. 39; and in Lommatzsch's edition, xi. 396, 25 vols., Berlin, 1831-48), also in his Prologus galeatus (q.v.), where he says that the name of God is in some Greek manuscripts "up to this day" written in the old characters. Fragments of the translation of Aquila from I Kings xx.; II Kings xxiii.; and several of the Psalms are known in which the name of deity (the tetragrammaton Yhwh) is written in the early character, but evidently copied mechanically by a scribe who did not understand it (cf. F. C. Burkitt, Fragments of the Books of Kings according to the Translation of Aquila, Cambridge,1897; and C. Taylor, Hebrew-Greek Cairo Genizah Palimpsests, ib., 1900). But this is the last trace of the use of the old forms of letters. The fact, so far as it is obtainable, seems to be that after the quelling of the revolt of Bar Kokba the ancient script went out of use among the people, and ceased altogether to exist as a means of writing after the fourth Christian century.

3. Sacredness of the Square Character.

So that some centuries before Christ the Aramaic forms began to make their way into Palestine, and by the end of the second century the Old Hebrew script was discarded by the Jews. The explanation of this complete disappearance may possibly lie in an early conception that the Aramaic was sacred and the old Hebrew secular. The passage already cited above from the Mishna and other passages indicate that Biblical codices were regarded as sacred only when they were written in the square character with ink upon leather, and were not sacred if in the old Hebrew forms. But why was this script considered to be sacred? Testimony from the second century is important in this matter, it being to the effect that Ezra brought the square character from Assyria (Palestinian Talmud, Megilla, i. 71b, lines 56 sqq.; Babylonian Talmud, Sanhedrin, 21b), to which there may be added the statement of Epiphanius (De XII gemmis, § 63) to the effect that Ezra did this to distinguish the Israelites from the other peoples, while Jerome, in the Prologus galeatus, says that "it is certain that Ezra found in use characters others than those now in use." To be sure, this tradition is not historical, since the Aramaic forms came in with the Aramaic language; but it is highly probable that after Ezra's time that form of writing was used in making copies of the law. The opposition to the Samaritans was such as to facilitate the introduction of a style of writing different from theirs. From various expressions in the Talmud (e.g., Sabbath, 103-104) it appears that the square character had long before reached its full development, while the forms as seen in the manuscripts and in print are essentially the same (A. Berliner, Beiträge zur hebräischen Grammatik, pp. 15-26, Berlin, 1879). This stability is explained by the unique estimate placed upon the law which was written in these characters. Yet, without prejudice to the uniformity just asserted, from the peculiarities evident in the Biblical codices it is often possible to decide from which region a manuscript came and in some cases to tell those which are by the same scribe (it is easy to discriminate, for instance, between Spanish and German Biblical manuscripts). To a far lesser degreeb can one safely assert the age of a codex.

4. Documentary Testimony to Hebrew Script.

Early witnesses to the nature of the Hebrew script in early times are (a) inscriptions. There are the sarcophagus of Queen Zaddah (Queen Helena of Adiabene?); the words thm gzr found in five places near Gezer to indicate the Sabbath limits; two small inscriptions on sarcophagi from the period before 135 A.D. (in Lidzbarski, Nordsemitische Epigraphik, ut sup., table 43); there are inscriptions on three stone sarcophagi found in 1905 on the site of the Syrian orphan asylum at Jerusalem, on one of the smaller sides appear Papias in Greek and Hebrew, Hanyn and 'byh, before each of which is prefixed the adjective Hbsny, written defectively and meaning "who belonged to Beth Shean" (i.e., Scythopolis), indicating that they are of a period prior to the fall of Jerusalem, since it is hardly likely that after that event people would remove from Beth Shean to settle at Jerusalem. The script on these last is very like that given in Lidzbarski (Nordsemitische Epigraphik, table xliii., no. 6); the Yodh is the smallest letter, and parts have so fallen away that it is not unlike the Resh of the early writing. The inscription over the door of the synagogue at Kefr Bir'im was written in the third Christian century (also in Lidzbaxski, ut sup). To the same period belong the synagogue inscriptions found in Palmyra containing the Shema' (cf. P. Berger, Hist. de l'écriture dans l'antiquité, 2d ed., p. 259, Paris, 1892); Jewish catacomb inscriptions from Rome and Venosa should be dated in the third to the sixth centuries according to Ascoli, while ten dated inscriptions from Venosa, Lavelle, and Brindisi are of the period 810-846 A.D. (G. J. Ascoli, Iscrizione inedite o mal note greghe, latine ebraiche, di antichi sepolchri giudaiche del Napolitano, Turin, 1880).

5. Printed Documents.

There does not come into aecounb here the epitaph found in Aden (given in The Palæographical Society. Facsimiles of Ancient Manuscripts, Oriental Series, ed. W. Wright, London, 1875-83, part i., p. 29), for to the apparent date 29 of the Seleucid must be prefixed the numerals making it read 1029 (=717 A.D.); nor very many " finds " of the year 1874 at Chufut-Kale in the Crimea by A. Firkovitch, published by Firkovitch in Hebrew at Vilna, 1872 [cf. for the story JE, v. 393-394].

The Oriental Series of the Palæographical Society (ut sup.) contain facsimiles of many Hebrew manuscripts: i. 13, a page from a Hebrew dictionary by Menahem ben Saruk of the year 1091; i. 14, the same from the year 1189; i. 15, from Rashi's commentary on the Talmud, of the year 1190; ii. 30 has a sheet from a work by Moses ben Shem Tob of the year 1363-64; iii. 40-41, and iv. 54 contain facsimiles of Biblical manuscripts; iv. 55, a sheet from Al-Harizi, year 1282; iv. 56, one from the Babylonian Talmud of the year 1288-89; v. 68 has a selection from Isaac ben Joseph, of 1401; vii. 79, a piece copied by

450
Eleazar of Worms from Elias Levita, 1515. S. Landauer, Katalog der hebräischen Handschriften der königlichen Bibliothek, Strassburg, Strasburg, 1881; A. Neubauer has published Catalogue of the Hebrew Manuscripts in the Bodleian Library (Oxford, 1886); C. D. Ginsburg, A Series of Fifteen Facsimiles from Manuscript Pages of the Hebrew Bible with a Letterpress Description (London, 1897); idem, 18 Facsimiles of Manuscripts of the Hebrew Bible (1898); G. Margoliouth, Catalogue of the Hebrew and Samaritan Manuscripts in the British Museum (London, 1899); cf. 'his Descriptive List of Hebrew and Samaritan Manuscripts (1893). Other material is furnished in H. Strack's Prophetarum posteriorum codex Babylonicus Petropolitanus (St. Petersburg and Leipsic, 1876); R. Hoerning, British Museum Karaite Manuscripts. Description and Collation of six Karaite Manuscripts of Portions of the Hebrew Bible in Arabic Characters (London, 1989); Facsimiles of the Fragments hitherto Recovered of the Book of Ecclesiasticus in Hebrew (London, 1901); M. Steinschneider, Catalogus codicum Hebrœorum bibliothecœ Lugduno-Batavœ (Leyden, 1858); idem, Die Handschriftenverzeichnisse der königlichen Bibliothek zu Berlin, vol. ii., Verzeichnis der hebr&#auml;ischen Handschriften (Berlin, 1878); idem, Die hebraischen Handschriften der königlichen Hof- und Staatsbibliothek in München (Munich, 1875, 2d ed., 1895); D. A. Chwolson, Corpus inscriptionum Hebraicarum (St. Petersburg, 1882) contains numerous reproductions of Hebrew manuscripts; B. Stade gives as appendices to his Geschichte des Volkes Israel, vol. i. (Berlin, 1887), a number of examples of codices; W. Wickes, Treatise on the Accentuation of the Twenty-one so-called Prose Books of the Old Testament (Oxford, 1887) furnishes a facsimile of a noted Biblical manuscript by Moses ben Asher; A. Neubauer, Studia Biblica et ecclesiastica, vol. iii., gives a number of examples; and Facsimiles of Biblical Manuscripts in the British Museum, ed. F. G. Kenyon (London, 1900). A number of important examples of Hebrew writing are furnished in JQR, as follows: 1899, pp. 533, 643; 1902, pp. 44-45, 51; 1903, pp. 177 sqq., 392, 678 sqq.; 1904, 1 sqq., 560; 1905, 123 sqq., 428, 609 sqq.

(H. L. STRACK.)

BIBLIOGRAPHY: In general on the invention and early-use of writing consult: J. L. Hug, Die Erfindung der Buchstabenschrift, ihr Zustand und frühester Gebrauch im Alterthume, Ulm, 1801; U. F. Kopp, Bilder und Schriften der Vorzeit, 2 vole., Mannheim, 1819-21; J. Olshausen, Ueber den Ursprung des Alphabets, in Kieler philologischen Studien, 1841, pp. 4 sqq.; H. Steinthal, Die Entwicklung der Schrift, Berlin, 1852; H. Brugsch, Ueber Bildung und Entwicklung der Schrift, ib. 1868; H. Wuttke, Geschiehte der Schrift, vol. i., Leipsic, 1872; idem, Abbildungen zur Geschichte der Schrift, part 1, ib. 1873; A. J. Evans, On the Alphabet and its Origin, London, 1872; idem, in American Antiquary and Orient, 1903, pp. 183-184; idem, in Biblia, xvi (1903), 263-272; E. von Drival, De l'origine de l'écriture, 3d ed., Paris, 1879; J. C. C. Clarke, The Semitic Alphabet, Chicago, 1884; A. Maury, La Invencion de la Escritura, Madrid, 1891; P. Berger, Hist. de l'écriture dans l'antiquité, Paris, 1892; A. É. J. B. Terrier de Lacouperie, Beginnings of Writing in Central and Eastern Asia, London, 1894; S. A. Fries, in ZDPV, 1899, pp. 263-272; I. Taylor, The History of the Alphabet, 2 vols., London, 1899. More special inquiries are set forth in: F. Delitzsch, Der Ursprung der Keilschriftzeichen. Lösung der Frage nach der Entstehung des ältesten Schriftsystems, Leipsic, 1896; ideas, in Berichte der königlichen sächsischen Gesellschaft der Wissenschaften, July 13, 1896, pp. 167-198; H. Zimmern, in ZDMG, 1896, pp. 667-670; F. Thureau-Dangin, Récherches sur l'origine de l'écriture cunéiforme, vol. i., Paris, 1899; I. M. Price, in American Journal of Semitic Languages, xv (1898-92), 145-156. On the Phenician alphabet of. E. de Rougé, Mémoire sur l'origine égyptienne de l'alphabet phénicien, publié par J. de RougUE233;, Paris, 1874; F. Lenormant, Essai sur la propagation de l',alphabet phénicien dans i'ancien monde, 2 vols., ib., 2d ed., 1875. On the Greek: A. Kirchhoff, Studien zur Geschichte des griechischen Alphabets, 4th ed., Gütersloh, 1887. On the Hebrew: G. Biekell, Outlines of Hebrew Grammar, Leipsic, 1876; the Paleographical Society's Publications, ut sup., vii. 87 sqq., London, 1882; and Chwolson, Corpus, ut inf. On Semitic epigraphy: Revue sémitique d'éyigraghie et d'hist. ancienne, ed. J. Halévy, Paris, 1890 sqq.; M. Lidzbaski, Handbuch der nordsemitischen Epigraphik nebst ausgewählten Inschriften, Weimar, 1898; idem, Ephemeris für semitische Epigraphik, vol. i., Giessen, 1902; Répertoire d'épigraphie sémitique, ed. C. Clermont-Ganneau, Paris, 1900 sqq.; Répertoire d'épigraphie sémitique publié par la commission du Corpus inscriptionum Semiticarum, ib. 1904 sqq.; G. A. Cooke, A Text-Book of North Semitic Inscriptions, Oxford, 1903, cf. JQR, 1904, 258-259; note also D. von Muralt, Beiträge zur hebräischen Paläographie, in TSK, 1874. With especial relation to Hebrew writing and the Bible it is to be noted that many of the works named in and under BIBLICAL INTRODUCTION (cf. ii. 99 of this work) contain matter of interest and value. Consult further: W. Gesenius, Geschichte der hebräischen Sprache und Schrift, pp. 137 sqq., Leipsic, 1815; J. G. Eichhorn, Einleitung in das A. T., vols., i. ii., §§ 63-78, 342-377, 4th ed., Göttingen, 1823; H. Hupfeld, in TSK, 1830, parts 2-4, 1837, part 3; idem, Ausführliche hebräische Grammatik, pp. 7 sqq.; B. Stade, Lehrbuch der hebräischen Grammatik, i. 22-44, Leipsic, 1879; G. Hoffmann, in ZATW, 1881, pp. 334-338; G. E. Merrill, Story of the Manuscripts of the Bible, Boston, 1881; D. Chwolson, Corpus inscriptionarum Hebraicarum, St. Petersburg, 1882; S. B. Driver, Notes on the Hebrew Test of the Books of Samuel, pp. ix., xxix., Oxford, 1890; A. Neubauer, in Studia Biblica et ecclesiastica, iii. 1-36, Oxford, 1891; L. Blau, Zur Einführung in die heilige Schrift, pp. 48-80, Strasburg, 1894; ideas, in Gedenkbuch zur Erinnerung an David Kaufmann, pp. 44-57, Breslau, 1900; W. A. Copinger, The Bible and its Transmission,London, 1897; C. D. Ginsburg, Introduction to the Massoretico-Critical Edition of the Hebrew Bible, ib. 1897; F. G. Kenyon, Our Bible and the Ancient Manuscripts, ib. 1898; T. H. Weir, Short Hist. of the Hebrew Text of the O. T., ib. 1899; E. N. Adler, About Hebrew Manuscripts, ib. 1905; JE, i. 439-454. Further illustrative matter is to be found in L. Löw, Graphische Requisiten und Erzeugnisse bei den Juden, 2 vole., Leipsic, 1870-71; T. Birt, Das antike Buchwesen in seinem Verhältniss zur Litteratur, Berlin, 1882; M. Steinschneider, Vorlesungen über die Kunde hebräischer Handachriften, deren Sammlungen und Verzeichnisse, Leipsic, 1897; K. Dziatzko, Untersuchungen über ausgewählte Kapilel des antiken Buchwesens, ib. 1900; L. Blau, Studien zum althebräischen Buchwesen und zur biblischen Litteraturgeschichte, Strasburg, 1902; idem, Ueber den Einfluas des althebräischen Buchwesena auf die Originale und auf die ältesten Handschriften der Septuaginta, des Neuen Testaments und der Hexapla, in Festchrift für A. Berliner, Frankfort, 1903. For the coins and their inscriptions see under MONEY. On the Sendjirli inscriptions consult: Ausgrabungen in Sendschirli ausgeführt, Berlin, 1893; D. H. Müller, in Wiener Zeitschrift für die Kunde des Morgenlandes, 1893, pp. 33-70, 113-140, and 1896, 193, 197; J. Halévy, in Revue sémitique, 1893, pp. 138-167, 217-258, 319-336, 1894, pp. 25-60, 394-395, 1896, pp. 185-187, 1897, pp. 84-91; Lidzbarski, Nordsemitische Epigraphik, ut sup., pp. 440 sqq.;and Cooke, ut sup., 159-185; E. Sachau, in SBA, Oct. 22, 1856, p. 1051.