Page:Encyclopædia Britannica, Ninth Edition, v. 11.djvu/631

Rh least as written, differs but little from Biblical Hebrew. This observation has been used in support of the very old idea that the Hebrews originally spoke Aramaic, and changed their language in Canaan. But an exacter study of the Phoenician inscriptions shows differences from Hebrew which suffice to constitute a distinct dialect, and combine with other indications to favour the view that the descend ants of Abraham brought their Hebrew idiom with them from Haran. And in this connexion it is important to observe that the old Assyrian, which preceded Aramaic in regions with which the book of Genesis connects the origins of Abraham, is in many respects closely akin to Hebrew. 1 As the origin of Hebrew is lost in the obscurity that hangs over the early movements of the Semitic tribes, so we know very little of the changes which the language underwent in Canaan. The existence of local differences of sp3ech is proved by Judges xii. 6; but the attempt to make out in the Old Testament records a northern and a Judaean dialect, or even besides these a third dialect for the Simeonites of the extreme south, 2 has led to no certain re sults. In general it may be said that the Biblical text supplies inadequate data for studying the history of the language. Semitic writing, especially a purely consonantal text such as the Old Testament originally was, gives an imperfect picture of the very grammatical and phonetic details most likely to vary dialectically or in course of time. The later punctuation (including the notation of vowels), and even many things in the present consonantal text, re present the formal pronunciation of the Synagogue as it took shape after Hebrew became a dead language for even the Septuagint has often a more primitive pronunciation of proper names. This modern system being applied to all pirts of tha Old Testament alike, many archaisms were obliterated or disguised, and the earlier and later writings present in the received text a grammatical uniformity which is certainly not original. It is true that occasional conso nantal forms inconsistent with the accompanying vowels have survived especially in the books least read by the Jews and appear in the light of comparative grammar as indications of more primitive forms. These sporadic sur vivals show that the correction of obsolete forms was not carried through with perfect consistency ; but we are never safe to argue as if we possessed the original form of the texts. In the Pentateuch, for example, the form NIPl stands not only for K-1H (3d personal pron. masc.) but for N^n (the feminine). And heuce a favourite argument was drawn for the superior antiquity of this part of the Old Testament. But the same thing is found else where (Frensdorff, Mass. IVorterb., p. 233), especially in Babylonian codices of the prophets (Geiger, Urschrift, p. 236 ; Z. D. M. G., xxviii. 676). The feminine can never by any possibility have been pronounced hu, but the old orthography was probably Nil for hu and hi alike (Noldeke in Bibcl-Lcxikon, ut supra, after Levy). The chief historical changes in the Hebrew language which we can still trace are due to Aramaic influence. The Northern Israelites were in immediate contact with Aramaean populations and some Aramaic loan-words were used, at least in Northern Israel, from a very early date. At the time of Hezekiah Aramaic seems to have been the usual language of diplomacy spoken by the statesmen of Judah and Assyria alike (2 Kings xviii. 26). After the fall of Samaria the Hebrew population of Northern Israel was partly deported, their place being taken by new colon ists most of whom probably had Aramaic as their mother- tongue. It is not therefore surprising that even in the language of Judea increasing signs of Aramaic influence See Stade s essay on the relation of Phoenician and Hebrew, Morr/enUindtsche Forschungen (1875), with. Ndldeke s criticism, Z. D. ^f. G., xxix. 325; also the latter s article, &quot;Sprache, hebriiische,&quot; in Bihel-Lfxikon, v. 362 srq. 2 Bottcher, Lehrb. d. Heir. Sprache (1866), i. 13 seq. 597 appear before the Exile. 3 The fall of the Jewish kingdom accelerated the decay of Hebrew as a spoken language. Not indeed that the captives forgot their own tongue in Babylon, as older scholars supposed on the basis of Jewish tradition. The Exilic and post-Exile prophets do not write in a lifeless tongue, and Hebrew was still the language of Jerusalem in the time of Nehemiah (ch. xiii.) in the middle of the 5th century B.C. 4 But after the Exile the petty people of the Jews were in daily intercourse with a surrounding Aramaean population, and the Aramaic .tongue, which was the official language of the western provinces of the Persian empire, began to take rank as the recognized medium of polite intercourse and letters even among tribes of Arabic blood the Nabataeans whose inscriptions in the Hauran are written in Aramaic. Thus Hebrew as a spoken language gradually yielded to its more powerful neighbour, and the style of the latest Old Testament writers is not only full of Aramaic words and forms but largely coloured with Aramaic idioms, while their Hebrew has lost the force and freedom of a living tongue (Ecclesiastes, Esther, some Psalms, Daniel). The Chronicler no longer thoroughly understood the Old Heb rew sources from which he worked, while tor the latest part of his history he used a Jewish Aramaic document, part of which he incorporated in the book of Ezra. Long before the time of Christ Hebrew was the exclusive pro perty of scholars, and its further history is that of a merely literary language. The Literary Development of Hebrew^ The Semiiid peoples possessed the art of writing and an alphabetical character from a date so remote as to be lost in the mists of antiquity. This character was formerly known as Pho2iiician, its invention being ascribed to that people (Tac., Ann., xi. 14). In reality it was the common property of all Semitic nations between Assyria and Egypt an alphabetic character in contact on the east and on the west with more complicated syllabic or hieroglyphic systems, from one or other of which it may possibly have been derived. De Rouge s theory that the alphabet was derived by the Phoeni cians from the Egyptian hieratic writing obtained much currency a few years ago (see ALPHABET), but has rather lost ground since the appearance in 1874 of the long expected Memoire sur Voricjine Egypticnne de Valphabet Phenicien. See the criticism in Lagarde s Symmida, p. 113 scq. A newer theory by Deecke (Z. D, M. G. t xxxi. 102 scq.) derives the alphabet from the cuneiform characters, and makes the Aramaeans its authors, for which there is ancient tradition in Pliny, Diodorus, and Clemens Alexandrinus. Deecke dates the invention from the 9th century B. c., when the Assyrians first established themselves in Aram. This is certainly wrong, for, apart from other arguments, the stone of Mesha is not a product of the first days of alphabetic writing. Against the derivation of the Semitic alphabet from any hieroglyphic system, see Levy, Phonizische Studicn, i. 49 scq. The best comparative table of Semitic alphabets is that by Euting in the English translation of Bickell s Outlines of Hcb. Gram. (Leipsic, 1877). On the history of Hebrew writing, especially in its bearing on the history of the Biblical text, see Wellhausen in Bleek s Einleitung, 4th ed. (1878), with Noldeke s remarks, Z. D. M. G., xxxii. 591 scq. This ancient alphabet consists of twenty-two consonants, of which one at least (y) stood in Hebrew for two distinct sounds, still separated in the Septuagint pronunciation. The vowels were supplied by the reader which is not so diffi cult in Semitic languages, where vocalization constitutes no difference of root. In certain cases the weaker consonants served as matres lectionis to indicate cognate vowel sounds and preclude ambiguity of pronunciation ; but in the old 3 Details in Ryssel, De Elohistce Pentateuchi Sermone, (Leipsic, 1878), the most important collection of materials since Gesenurs, Geschichte der hebr. Spr. und Schrift (1815). 4 An argument to the contrary drawn by Jewish interpreters from Neh. viii. 8 rests on false exegesis. 5 As we possess no books in classical Hebrew except the Old Testa ment, the reader is referred for several aspects of tliis topic to the sketcb of the Old Testament literature in the article BIBLE.