materially alloyed the primitive simplicity and purity of a language, compared with which none may be said to have been so poor, and yet none so rich. But with the period of the captivity there arose an entirely new literature strikingly different from the earlier, and which is to be traced to the influence exerted by the Aramaic tongue upon the Hebrew which had previously been developing itself within restricted limits. This was the introduction to its gradual decay, which did not become fully manifest, however, until the commencement of the Chaldean period. Not only did the intrusion of this powerful Aramaic element greatly tarnish the purity of the Hebrew words and their grammatical formation, older ones having been altered and supplanted by newer ones which are Aramaic for the most part; it also obscured the understanding of the old language,' and it enfeebled its instinctive operations until at length it stifled them. The consequence was that the capacity of observing grammatical niceties in the old pure Hebrew was entirely lost; partly the distinction of prose and poetical diction was forgotten," and finally, as the later writers went back upon the Pentateuch and other older compositions, many elements which had already died out of the language were reproduced as archaisms." §4. Decay of the Hebrew Language. But the great crisis of the language occurs at the time of the captivity of Babylon. There, as a spoken tongue, it became 5 This is especially seen in the coining of new words for abstract ideas by means of prefixed letters or syllables added, as banan for hang (Ps. cxvi. 12); mun for my (Ezek. xvi. 18, 20); (Ezra i. 6; Esth. v. 3. 7, 8), &c. This is shown by the increasing use of the scriptio plena as for ; the interchange of the weak letters and, for instance (1 Chron. xiii. 12) for T (2 Sam. vi. 9); the resolution of the Dagesh forte in sharpened syllables by inserting a vowel, as for 'N (1 Chron. xi. 31), or by inserting a liquid, pp for pepa (1 Chron. xviii. 5, 6). 7 Interchange of n as the sign of the accusative, and as meaning “with,” for instance Jer. i. 16; xix. 10; xx. II, &c.; the use of to mark the accusative instead of the dative (1 Chron. v. 26; xvi. 37; xxix. 20, 22, &c.); the use of by instead of ; the use of Aramaic forms of inflection, as 'n for a (Jer. iv. 30), ņ for ♫ (Jer. ii. 33; iii. 4, 5; iv. 19), &c. Comp. (Piel), "to be afraid" (Ezra iv. 4, elsewhere only the substantive a in poetry);, "to reject with loathing" (1 Chron. xxviii. 9; 2 Chron. xi. 14; xxix. 19, earlier only in poets, and in Hos. viii. 3, 5; Zech. x. 6). 9 E. g. 1, 66 species" (Ezek. xlvii. 10, taken from the Pentateuch); mo, “a measure (1 Chron. xxiii. 29; Ezek. iv. 11, 16, &c., from Lev. xix. 35); 2, "to act cunningly" (Mal. i. 14; Ps. cv. 25 from Gen. xxxvii. 18 or Num. xxv. 18), &c. deeply tinged with the Aramaic. The Biblical Hebrew, abiding in the imperishable writings of the prophets, continued to be the study of the learned; it was heard on the lips of the priest, in the services of religion, and was the vehicle of written instruction; but, as the medium of common conversation, it was extensively affected, and, in the case of multitudes, superseded by the idiom of the nation among whom Providence had cast their lot. So an Aramaized Hebrew, or a Hebraized Aramean continued to be spoken by such of them as re-settled in Palestine under Ezra and Nehemiah; while the yet greater number, who preferred the uninterrupted establishment of their families in Babylonia, fell entirely into the use of Aramaic. This decline of the popular knowledge of pure Hebrew gave occasion to the appointment of an order of interpretersmeturgemanin-in the synagogue for the explication of the Scriptures in this more current dialect, as can be seen from Nehemiah viii. 8, where we read, "They (the priests and Levites) read in the book, in the law of God w, and appended thereto the sense, and caused them to understand the reading," where the word means, "with an explanation subjoined," i. e. with an interpretation added, with an explanation in Chaldee, the vulgar tongue, as appears from the context and by a comparison of Ezra iv. 18, and verse 7. Accordingly the Talmudists have and so מפרש זה תרגום already correctly explained our passage also Clericus, Dathe, &c., &c. But while these changes were taking place in the Vernacular speech, the Hebrew language itself still maintained its existence. It is a great mistake to call Hebrew a dead language. It has never died; it will never die. In the days to which we are now referring, it was still loved and revered by the Jewish people as the "holy tongue" of their patriarchs and prophets. Not only the remaining canonical Scriptures, but the prayers and hymns of the temple and synagogue were for the most part written in it; and even the inscriptions of the coinage retained both the language and the more antique characters, in preference to those more recently introduced by Ezra. $5. Of the written Hebrew. About the time when the language underwent this internal change, it was also changed externally. That we have not the original Hebrew characters in MS. and printed texts of the Bible, is evident from a tradition we have in the Talmud that "at first the law was given to Israel in the Hebrew writing and the holy tongue, and again it was given to them in the days of Ezra in the Assyrian writing and the Syrian tongue. They chose for the Israelites the Assyrian writing and the holy tongue, and left to the Idiota (i.e. the Samaritans) the Hebrew writing and the Syrian tongue. . . . And although the law was not given by Ezra's hand, yet the writing and language were' called the Assyrian" (Sanhedr. fol. xxi. 2; xxii. 1). This Assyrian writing is also called "square writing," yapan, "correct writing," en an, and by the Samaritans "Ezra's writing," We must suppose that the square character, which came into use after the exile, only gradually thrust the elder character aside; for in the Maccabean coinage the ancient Hebrew character was used, and while we may trace back the origin of the new characters nearly to the times of Ezra, certain it is that at a later time it was perfected in its present form, and long before the time of the Talmud, since there we find directions given concerning the writing of the alphabet, and of which we will speak farther on. § 6. Tradition.-Periods of the Hebrew Language. It is chiefly among the Jews of Palestine that we are to seek the preservation of the knowledge of the Hebrew language. Though the Hebrew ceased to be even a written language, yet for practical ends in the usages of worship the study of the old Hebrew documents became for them an indispensable duty, for which the affinity of the language they used, must have offered them peculiar facilities. Hence, as early as the book of Sirach (Ecclesiasticus), which was probably written between 290-280 B.C., mention is made of the study of Scripture as the chief and fairest occupation of the γραμματεύς, the διανοεῖσθαι ἐν νόμῳ ὑψίστου, and σοφίαν πάντων ἀρχαίων ἐκζητήσει, καὶ ἐν προφητείαις áo xoληoñσεтaι (xxxix. 1 ff.) The more erudite study of Hebrew 1 Jerome in Prol. gal.: Certum est, Esdram . . . alias literas reperisse, quibus nunc utimur, cum ad illud usque tempus iidem Samaritanorum et Hebræorum characteres fuerint. Cp. also Orig. in Ez. ix. 4; in Ps. ii. (iii. 539). Scripture was prosecuted in Palestine and Babylonia, from the days of Ezra, not only by individual scribes, but also in formal יְשִׁיבוֹת and בָּתֵּי רַבָּנָן also בָּתֵּי הַמִדְרָשׁ schools and academies, the The which were established there before the time of Christ. chief seat of these at first was principally at Jerusalem; then after the destruction of this city by the Romans, it was transferred to Jamma or Jabneh, under Jochanan ben Zekkai, till under Gamaliel iii. ben Jehudah I. (A.D. 193—220), Tiberias became the seat of learning. Among the teachers of Tiberias, Rabbi Jehudah the Holy or Hak-kodesh,' the compiler of the Mishna, obtained a remarkable reputation in the latter half of the second century. After his death, the seat of this Scriptural erudition was once more transplanted to Babylonia, where, with reference to this, the schools at certain cities on the Euphrates, Sora, Pumpeditha, and Nahardea, attained pre-eminently to high esteem. Still, along with these, the Palestinian schools subsisted uninterruptedly, especially the school at Tiberias, and to the labours of these schools are due in part the Targums, but principally the Talmud and the Masorah. The activity of these schools took different shapes at different periods, and into four of these periods it may be divided:— I. The period of the more ancient Sopherim (scribes, DİN? i) from the close of the Canon to the ruin of the Jewish commonwealth. They settled fixedly the external and internal form of the sacred text (NPP) the correct writing and reading, the arrangement of the books and their sections, the numbering of the verses, words, and letters, &c.; II. The period of the Talmudists from the second to the sixth century of the Christian era; III. The period of the Masoretes from the sixth to the ninth centuries; IV. The period of the Grammarians and Expositors, from the ninth to the sixteenth century. Following the example of the Arabians, they endeavoured to lay a scientific foundation for Hebrew philology and for understanding the text of the Bible, by means of various labours in grammar and lexicography, including the comparison of the Aramaic and Arabic dialects. 2 Comp. that art. in the Cyclop. of McClintock and Strong, s. v. PERIOD I. THE PHILOLOGICAL STUDY OF THE HEBREW LANGUAGE AMONG THE Jews. From A.D. 900—1500. § 1. From Koreish to Kimchi.-A.D. 900-1250. During the first three periods mentioned above, the knowledge of the Hebrew language was propagated mostly by tradition from generation to generation. The scientific treatment of it first began in the fourth period, and the first person who is celebrated for cultivating grammatical subjects is JEHUDAH IBN KOREISH. He was 1. Jehudah Ibn Koreish (p 13 ) flourished about A.D. 870 900, at Tuhart, or Tahort, in Africa. skilled in languages, understood the Berber language, besides the three original Shemitic languages, studied the Mishnah and the Talmud, the Koran, and Arabic poets, and was well fitted to write works upon the Hebrew language and its comparison with others. He wrote, I. a Hebrew dictionary (N) in alphabetical order, but with that peculiar arrangement which all works of this class were subject to at that time, viz. each group of words belonging to a letter was accompanied by introductions, one on those words which have only the letter in question for a radical theme, and another on the changes of that letter. This work seems to have been extensively used, and is quoted by many later writers, as Saadiah, Saruk, Labrat, Ben Gannach, Rashi, Aben Ezra, Kimchi, Tanchum, Hadassi. As a continuation of the dictionary may be considered, 2. Risâlet (50) a letter addressed to the Jewish congregation at Fez. It begins with an energetic exhortation to study the "Targum," or the Chaldee version of the O.T., and then illustrates, in three divisions, by examples alphabetically arranged, the striking affinity between Hebrew on the one hand, and Chaldee and Arabic, the languages of the Mishnah and the Talmud, on the other. His comparison includes, besides, some foreign words of difficult etymology and meaning, probably belonging to the dialect of Barbary, and some other African dialects. This work, quoted by later Jewish |