A Dictionary of the Bible: Dealing with its Language, Literature, and Contents, Including the Biblical Theology 9781463226626

Citation preview

A Dictionary of the Bible

Gorgias Historical Dictionaries

22

The difficulty of locating historical dictionaries has long been a source of frustration for scholars. Gorgias Press seeks to address this difficulty by the introduction of a series of historic dictionaries. The Gorgias Historical Dictionaries series makes available classic sources at affordable prices.

A Dictionary of the Bible

Dealing with its Language, Literature, and Contents, Including the Biblical Theology

Volume 3 Edited by

James Hastings With the Assistance of

John A. Selbie

A

1 gotgias press 2010

Gorgias Press LLC, 954 River Road, Piscataway, NJ, 08854, USA www.gorgiaspress.com Copyright© 2010 by Gorgias Press LLC Originally published in 1898-1909 All rights reserved under International and Pan-American Copyright Conventions. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording, scanning or otherwise without the prior written permission of Gorgias Press LLC.

A l

2010

ISBN 978-1-61719-216-6

ISSN 1935-3189 Reprinted from the 1898-1909 New York edition.

Printed in the United States of America

A

Dictionary of the Bible

PREFACE

THIS DICTIONARY OF THE BIBLE, as s t a t e d in t h e Preface to V o l u m e s I. a n d IT. already

published, is intended as a contribution towards furnishing the Church for the great work of teaching. It is a Dictionary of the Old and New Testaments, together with the Old Testament Apocrypha, according to the Authorized and Revised Versions, with constant reference to the original tongues. Every effort has been used to make the information it contains as full, reliable, and accessible as possible. 1. As to fulness. In a Dictionary of the Bible we expect an explanation of all the words occurring in the Bible which do not explain themselves. The present Dictionary meets that expectation more nearly than any work hitherto published. Articles will be found on all the Persons and Places that are mentioned in the Bible, on its Archaeology and Antiquities, its Ethnology, Geology, and Natural History, its Theology and Ethics, and on such words occurring in the Authorized or Revised Version as are now unintelligible or liable to misapprehension. Much attention has been given to the language, literature, religion, and customs of the nations around Israel. The Versions have been fully treated. Articles have been contributed on the Apocalyptic and other uncanonical writings of the Jews, as well as on such theological or ethical ideas as are believed to be contained in the Bible, though their modern names are not found there. 2. As to reliability. The writers have been chosen out of respect to their scholarship and nothing else. The articles have all been written immediately and solely for this Dictionary, and, except the shortest, they are all signed. Even the shortest, however, have been contributed by writers of recognized ability and authority. In addition to the work upon it of authors and editors, every sheet has passed through the hands of the three eminent scholars whose names are f;und on the title-page. 3. As to accessibility. The subjects are arranged in alphabetical order, and under the most familiar titles. All the modern devices of cross-reference and black-lettering have been freely resorted to, BO that in the very few instances in which allied subjects have been grouped under one heading (such as M E D I C I N E in this volume) the particular subject wanted will be found at once. Proper Names are arranged according to the spelling of the Revised Version, but wherever it seemed advisable the spelling of the Authorized Version is also given, with a crossvii

viil

PREFACE

reference. The Abbreviations, considering the size and scope of the work, will be seen to be few and easily mastered. A list of them, together with a simple scheme for the uniform transliteration of Hebrew and Arabic words, will be found on the following pages. It is with devout thankfulness that the Editor sees this third volume of an arduous though congenial work issued within reasonable limits of time. The fourth volume is in progress, and may be looked for next year. He has pleasure in again expressing his thanks to many friends and fellow-workers, including the authors of the various articles. But especially he desires to thank the members of the editorial staff, the publishers, the printers, and (without mentioning others whose names have already appeared in the Preface to Vols. I. and II.) Mr. G. F. HILL of the Department of Coins and Medals in the British Museum for assistance and advice in 'he preparation of the illustrations to the article on the MUNEY of the Bible.

• . * Messrs. Charles Scribner's Sons, N e w York, have t h e sole nsrht nt publication of thi« O F T H E BIBLB in t h e United State» »ud Canada.

DICTIONARY

SCHEME OF TRANSLITERATION HEBREW.

ARABIC. 5

V !

s

'

b

1)

t

Ò

tli

CJ

a

j

TL

li

h

T

U, M'

kli

t

Z

t

a

j

11

n

dh

¿

t

U

r z s

J

y k

) U"

sil s

T

n T

i D

1

b

m

72

rew. Hel. = fiellenistic. Hex. = Hexateuch. Isr. = Israelite. J = Jalnvist. J " = Jehovah. Jerus. = Jerusalem. Jos. = Josephus.

II.

Old

B O O K S OP T H E

Testament. Ca = Cantioles. Gn = Genesis. Isaiah. Ex = Exodus. J e r = Jeremiah. Lv = Leviticus. La = Lamentations. Nu = Numbers. Ezk = EzekieL Dt = Deuteronomy. Dn ~ Daniel. Jos = Joshua. Hos = Hosea. Jg=,ludges. JUJoel. R u = Ruth. 1 S, 2 S = 1 and 2 Samuel. Am = Amos. 1 K , 2 K = 1 and 2 Kings. Ob = Obadiah. 1 Ch, 2 Ch = 1 and 2 Jon = Jonah. Mic = Mieah. Chronicles. Nah = Nahum. Ezr - Ezra. Hab = Habak kuk. Neh = Nehemiah. Zeph = Zephaniah. Est=Esther. Hag = Haggai. Job. Zec = Zechariah. Ps = Psalms. Mai = Malachi. P r = Proverbs. Ec = Ecclesiastes.

Apocrypha. 1 Es, 2 E s - l and 2 To=Tobit. Esdras.

Jth = Judith.

LXX = Septuagint. MSS = Manuscripts. MT = Massoretic Text, n. = note. N T = New T e s t a m e n t Onk. = Onkelos. 0 T = 01d Testament. P = Priestly Narrative. Pal. = Palestine, Palestinian. Pent. = Pentateuch. Pers. = Persian. Phil. = Philistine. Phcen. = Phoenician. Pr. Bk. = Prayer Book. R = Redactor. liom. = Roman. Sam. = Samaritan. Sem. = Semitic. Sept. = Septuagint. Sin. = Sinaitic. Syrnm. = Symmachua, Syr. = Syriac. Talm. = Talmud. Targ. = T a r g u m . Theod. =Theodotion. T R = Textus Receptus. tr. = translate or translation. VSS = Versions. Vulg. = Vulgate. W H = YVestcott and Hort's text.

BIBLE

Ad. Est = Additions to Esther. W i s = Wisdom. Sir = Simuli or Ecclesiasticus. Bar = Baruch. Three = Song of the Three Children.

Sus = Susanna. Bel = Bel and the Dragon. Pr. Man = Pray ex of Manasse», I Mac, 2 Mac = 1 and 2 Maccabees.

New Testament. Mt = Matthew. I Th, 2 Th = 1 and 2 Thessalonians. Mk = Mark. I Ti, 2 Ti = ] and 2 Lk = Luke. Timothy. J n = John. Tit = Titus. Ac = Acts. Philem= Philemon, lio = Romans. 1 Co, 2 Co = 1 and 2 l i e = Hebrews. J a = -)nnies. Corinthians. Gal = Ualatians. 1 1\ 2 P = 1 and 2 Peter. Eph = Ephesians. 1 J n , 2 J n , 3 J n = L , 2, Pli = Philippians. and 3 J o h n . Col — Coloasians. Jude. Rev = Revelatiou.

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

III.

ENGLISH

Wye. ssWyclif's Bible (NT c. 1380, OT c. 1382, Purvey's Revision 1388). Tind. = Tindale's NT 1526 and 1534, Pent. 1530. Cov. =Coverdale's Bible 1535. Matt, or Rog. »Matthew's (i.e. prob. Rogers*) Bible 1537. Cran, or Great=Cranmer's 'Great' Bible 1539. Tav. = Taverner's Bible 1539. Gen. = Geneva NT 1557, Bible 1560.

IV.

F O R THE

X]

VERSIONS

Bish. = Bishops' Bible 1568. Tom. — Tomson's NT 1576. Rhem. = Rhemish NT 1582. Dou. = Douay OT 1609. AV = Authorized Version 1611. AVm = Authorized Version margin. RV = Revised Version NT 1881, OT 1885. RVm = Revised Version margin. E V ^ A u t h . and Rev. Versions.

LITERATURE

AHT= Ancient Hebrew Tradition. A T = A l t e s Testament. BL = Bampton Lecture. BM— British Museum. ¿?i?.P=Biblical Researches in Palestine. C7"(? = Corpus Inscriptionum Greecarum. CIL = Corpus Inscriptionum Latinarum. CIS—Corpus Inscriptionum Semiticarum. COT= Cuneiform Inscriptions and the OT. DB = Dictionary of the Bible. EH 11= Early History of the Hebrews. GAP—Geographie des alten Palästina. GGA = Göttingische Gelehrte Anzeigen. GGN— Nachrichten der königl. Gesellschaft der Wissenschaften zu Gottingen. GJV= Geschichte des Jüdischen Volkes. GVI— Geschichte des Volkes Israel. HCM= Higher Criticism and the Monuments. HE= Historia Ecclesiastica. HGHL-Historical Geog. of Holy Land. MI— History of Israel. flrt/P = History of the Jewish People. History, Prophecy, and the Monuments. HPN = Hebrew Proper Names. I J G = Israelitische und Jüdische Geschichte. JBL — Journal of Biblical Literature. JZ>TA=Jahrbücher für deutsche Theologie. JQR=Jewish Quarterly Review. JRAS=Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society. JBL = Jewish Religious Life after the Exile. t/TS=Journal of Theological Studies. KAT—Die Keilinschriften und das Alte Test. K I B = Keilin schriftliche Bibliothek. LCBl=Literarisches Centralblatt. LOT= Introd. to the Literature of the Old Test.

NHWB = Neuhebräisches Wörterbuch. NTZG = Neutestamentliche Zeitgeschichte. ( W s O t i u m Norvicense. O P = Origin of the Psalter. OTJC=The Old Test, in the Jewish Church. PB = Polychrome Bible. PEF= Palestine Exploration Fund. PEFSt = Quarterly Statement of the same. PSBA = Proceedings of Soc. of Bibl. Archaeology P.ßi?=Real-Encyclopädie für protest. Theologie und Kirche. QPB = Queen's Printers' Bible. RE J — Revue des Etudes Juives. RP-Records of the Past. R S = Religion of the Semites. SB0T= S;icred Books of Old Test. SK—Studien und Kritiken. SP = Sinai and Palestine. SJVP = Memoirs of the Survey of W. Palestine. ThL or ThLZ=1\ieo\. Literaturzeitung. TAT=Theol. Tijdschrift. TSBA — Transactions of Soc. of Bibl. Archaeology. TU=Texte und Untersuchungen. WAI— Western Asiatic Inscriptions. WZKM= Wiener Zeitschrift für Kunde des Morgenlandes. ZA — Zeitschrift für Assyriologie. ZAW or ZAZeitschrift für die Alttest. Wissenschaft. ZDMG = Ze itsehrift der Deutschen Morgen ländischen Gesellschaft. ZDPV— Zeitschrift des Deutschen Palästina Vereins. ZKSF=Zeitschrift für Keilschriftforschung. Zeitschrift für kirchliche Wissenschaft. A small superior number designates the particular edition of the work referred to, as KA'l\ LOT*.

PLATES AND MAP IN VOLUME III (PLATES) COINS CURKENT IN PALESTINE C. B.C. 5 0 0 - A . D . ( M A P ) S T . P A U L ' S TKAVELS

136

.

between pages 4 2 4 and 4 2 5 F ^ G

PAGE

M I

AUTHORS OF ARTICLES IN VOL. I l l

ISRAEL ABRAHAMS, M . A . , Editor of the Jewish Quarterly Review, and Senior T u t o r of the J e w s ' College, London. Rev. WALTER F . ADENEY, M . A . , Professor of N e w T e s t a m e n t E x e g e s i s in N e w College, London. Ven. A . S. AGLEN, M . A . , St. A n d r e w s .

D . D . , Archdeacon of

R e v , WILLOUGHBY C . ALLEN, M . A . , ChaplainFellow, and Lecturer in T h e o l o g y and Hebrew, E x e t e r College, Oxford.

R e v . ROBERT HENRY CHARLES, D . D . , Professor of Biblical Greek in the University of Dublin. R e v . FREDERIC HENRY CHASE, M . A . , D.D., Christ's College, Principal of the C l e r g y T r a i n i n g School, Cambridge. CLAUDE REIGNIER CONDER, R . E . , M.R.A.S.

Col.

LL.D.,

FRED. C . CONYBEARE, M . A . , formerly Fellow of U n i v e r s i t y College, Oxford. Rev.

Rev. JOHN S. BANKS, Professor of S y s t e m a t i c T h e o l o g y in the H e a d i n g l e y College, "Leeds.

G. A . COOKE, M . A . , formerly M a g d a l e n College, Oxford.

Rev.

R e v . W . EMERY BARNES, M . A . , D . D . , Fellow of Peterhouse, Cambridge.

HENRY COWAN, M . A . , D . D . , Professor of Church H i s t o r y i n the University of Aberdeen.

W.

JAMES VERNON BARTLET, M . A . , Professor of Church H i s t o r y , Mansfield College, Oxford.

E. CRUM, M . A . , of t h e E g y p t Fund.

Rev.

EDWARD LEWIS CURTIS, P h . D . , D.D., Professor of Hebrew L a n g u a g e and Literature in t h e D i v i n i t y School of Y a l e U n i v e r s i t y , New Haven.

Rev. L . W . BATTEN, M . A . , P h . D . , Professor of Hebrew, P r o t e s t a n t Episcopal D i v i n i t y School, Philadelphia. R e v . LLEWELLYN J . M. BEBB, M . A . , Principal of St. David's College, L a m p e t e r ; formerly t e l l o w and T u t o r of Brasenose College, Oxford. R e v . WILLIS JUDSON BEECHER, D . D . , Professor of Hebrew L a n g u a g e and L i t e r a t u r e in A u b u r n Theological S e m i n a r y , N e w Y o r k . P. V . M . BENECKE, M . A . , Fellow a n d T u t o r of M a g d a l e n College, Oxford. R e v . WILLIAM HENRY BENNETT, M . A . , Professor of Old T e s t a m e n t E x e g e s i s in H a c k n e y and N e w Colleges, L o n d o n ; sometime Fellow of S t . John's College, Cambridge.

Fellow

of

Exploration

R e v . T . WITTON DAVIES, H.A., P h . D . , M . R . A . S . , Professor of Hebrew and o l d T e s t a m e n t Literature in the Baptist College, B a n g o r , and Lecturer in Semitic L a n g u a g e s in U n i v e r s i t y College, Bangor. Rev. W . T . DAVISON, M . A . , D . D . , Professor of S y s t e m a t i c T h e o l o g y in the Handsworth Theological College, B i r m i n g h a m . R e v . JAMES DENNEY, M . A . , D . D . , Professor of S y s t e m a t i c T h e o l o g y in the Free Church College, Glasgow. Rev.

W . P. DICKSON, D . D . , L L . D . , Emeritus Professor of D i v i n i t y in the U n i v e r s i t y of Glasgow.

Rev. JOHN HENRY BERNARD, D . D . , Fellow of Trinity College, and A r c h b i s h o p King's Lecturer in D i v i n i t y in the U n i v e r s i t y of Dublin.

E.

FREDERICK J . BLISS, B . A . , P h . D . , Director of t h e Palestine Exploration F u n d in Jerusalem.

R e v . SAMUEL ROLLES DRIVER, D . D . , L i t t . D . , Canon of Christ Church, and R e g i u s Professor of Hebrew in the U n i v e r s i t y of Oxford.

R e v . W. ADAMS BHOWN, M.A., Professor of Systematic Theology in Union Theological Seminary, N e w Y o r k . F . CRAWFORD BURKITT, M . A . , T r i n i t y Cambridge.

College,

Rev. WILLIAM CARSLAW, M . A . , M . D . , of Lebanon Schools, B e y r o u t , S y r i a .

the

R e v . ARTHUR THOMAS CHAPMAN, M . A . , Fellow, T u t o r , and Hebrew Lecturer, Emmanuel College, Cambridge.

VON DOBSCHUTZ, Lie. T h e o l . , T h e o l o g y , Jena, G e r m a n y .

Professor

of

R e v . DAVID EATON, M . A . , D . D . , Glasgow. R e v . WILLIAM EWING, M . A . , m e r l y of Tiberias, Palestine.

Glasgow,

for-

R e v . W . FAIRWEATHER, M . A . , K i r k c a l d y . Rev. GEORGE FERRIES, M . A . , D . D . , C l u n y , Aberdeenshire. Rev.

GEORGE G . FINDLAY, B . A . , Professor of Biblical Literature, H e a d i n g l e y College, Leeds.

AUTHORS OF ARTICLES IN VOL. I l l

xlv

K e v . J O H N GIBB, M . A . , D . D . ,

P r o f e s s o r of

New

JOSEPH

G . BUCHANAN G R A Y , M . A . , P r o f e s s o r of

Hebrew

in Mansfield College, Oxford. LLEWELLYN

GRIFFITH,

M.A.,

HENRY

MELVILL GWATKIN,

M.A.,

D.D.,

Fellow of E m m a n u e l College, and Dixie Professor of Ecclesiastical History in t h e University of Cambridge. Rev.

G.

H A R F O R D - BATTERSBY,

College, O x f o r d ; Liverpool. R e v . ARTHUR

Vicar

M.A.,

of

Mossley

Hill,

M.A.,

B.D.,

EDWARD HULL, M . A . , L L . D . , F . R . S . , F . R . G . S . , l a t e Director of t h e Geological Survey of Ireland, and Professor of Geology in t h e Royal College of Science, Dublin. JAMES,

M.A.,

Litt.D.,

Fellow and D e a n of King's College, and Director of t h e Fitzwilliam M u s e u m , Cambridge. Rev. C. H. W . JOHNS, M . A . , Queens' College, Cambridge. Rev.

ARCHIBALD R . S. K E N N E D Y ,

M.A.,

D.D.,

Professor of H e b r e w and Semitic L a n g u a g e s in t h e U n i v e r s i t y of E d i n b u r g h .

Rev. H . A . A. KENNEDY, M . A . , D.Sc., Callander. R e v . THOMAS B . K I L P A T R I C K , M . A . , D . D . ,

Pro-

fessor of S y s t e m a t i c Theology and Apologetics in M a n i t o b a College, Winnipeg, Canada,

EDUARD

KÖNIG, P h . D . , D . D . , P r o f e s s o r of

Testament Bonn.

Exegesis

in

the

R e v . JOHN LAIDLAW, M . A . ,

WALTER

the

LOCK, M . A . ,

Old

University

D.D.,

S y s t e m a t i c Theology in Edinburgh.

Rev.

Rev.

of

P r o f e s s o r of

New

D.D.,

College,

Warden

of

K e b l e College, and Dean Ireland's Professor of New T e s t a m e n t Exegesis in t h e U n i v e r s i t y of Oxford.

A L E X A N D E R MACALISTER, L L . D . , M . D . ,

F.R.S.,

F . S . A . , Fellow of St. J o h n ' s College, a n d Professor of A n a t o m y in t h e University of Cambridge. R e v . J . A . M'CLYMONT, M . A . , D . D . , A b e r d e e n . R e v . GEORGE M . MACKIE, M . A . , C h a p l a i n t o t h e

GEORGE

Perthshire.

HUGH

MACMILLAN,

M.A.,

D.D.,

LL.D.,

Greenock. Rev. JOHN MACrHERSON, M . A . , Edinburgh. R e v . D . S . MARGOLIOUTH, M . A . , F e l l o w of

New

Principal

WARREN

WILLIAM

gowrie.

MASSIE, M . A . ,

Yates

Professor

of

Caputh,

JOSEPH

MOULTON,

M.A.,

B.D.,

MUIR, M . A . ,

B.D.,

B.L.,

Blair-

W . MAX MÜLLER, P h . D . , L L . D . , Professor of Old T e s t a m e n t L i t e r a t u r e in t h e Reformed Episcopal Church S e m i n a r y , P h i l a d e l p h i a . R e v . J . 0 . F. MURRAY, M . A . , Fellow of E m m a n u e l College, Cambridge. JOHN L. MYRES, M . A . , F . S . A . , F . R . G . S . , S t u d e n t of Christ Church, Oxford. EBERHARD

NESTLE,

Ph.D.,

D.D.,

Professor

at

Professor

of

Maulbronn. Rev.

THOMAS NICOL, M . A . ,

D.D.,

Divinity and Biblical Criticism in t h e University of Aberdeen.

W . NOWACK, P h . D . , Professor of Theology in t h e University of Strassburg. Rev. JAMES ORR, M . A . , D . D . , Professor of Church H i s t o r y in t h e U n i t e d P r e s b y t e r i a n H a l l , Edinburgh. R e v . WILLIAM

PATERSON, M . A . , D . D . ,

Pro-

fessor of S y s t e m a t i c Theology in t h e versity of Aberdeen.

Uni-

P.

R e v . JAMES PATRICK, M . A . , B . D . , B . S c . , E x a m i n e r

for Degrees in D i v i n i t y in t h e University of St. Andrews.

Rev.

JOHN PATRICK,

M.A.,

D.D.,

Professor

of

Biblical Criticism and Biblical A n t i q u i t i e s in t h e University of E d i n b u r g h .

A R T H U R S. P E A K E , M . A . , P r o f e s s o r i n t h e P r i m i -

tive M e t h o d i s t College, Manchester, and Lecturer in Lancashire I n d e p e n d e n t College; sometime Fellow of Mel'ton and L e c t u r e r in Mansfield College, Oxford.

WILLIAM FLINDERS PETRIE, M . A . , D . C . L . ,

fessor of Egyptology in University London. T H E O P H I L U S GOLDRIDGE PINCHES,

Rev.

Pro-

College,

M.R.A.S.,

of

New

T e s t a m e n t Exegesis in Mansiield College, O x f o r d ; formerly Scholar of St. J o h n ' s College, Cambridge.

A L F R E D PLUMMER, M . A . , D . D . , M a s t e r of

University College, D u r h a m . R e v . F R A N K CHAMBERLIN PORTER, M . A . ,

Ph.D.,

D . D . , Professor of Biblical Theology in t h e D i v i n i t y School of Yale U n i v e r s i t y , N e w Haven.

Rei-

gate, Surrey. JOHN

Cumnock.

B.D.,

P h . D . , I n s t r u c t o r in t h e Biblical and Semitic D e p a r t m e n t of Y a l e U n i v e r s i t y , N e w H a v e n .

of t h e B a p t i s t College, Manchester. R e v . GEORGE C U R R I E M A R T I N , M . A . , B . D . ,

M.A.,

t h e E g y p t i a n and Assyrian D e p a r t m e n t in t h e British Museum.

College, a n d L a u d i a n Professor of A r a b i c in t h e U n i v e r s i t y of Oxford. R e v . J O H N T U R N E R MARSHALL, M . A . ,

MILLIGAN,

D i d s b u r y College, M a n c h e s t e r .

Rev.

Church of Scotland a t B e y r o u t , Syria.

Rev.

Litt.D.,

R e v . I t . W A D D Y MOSS, P r o f e s s o r of C l a s s i c s i n t h e

Rev.

CAYLEY HEADLAM,

RHODES

R e v . JAMES MILLAR, M . A . , B . D . , N e w

Balliol

Rector of W e h v y n , H e r t s ; formerly Fellow of All Souls College, Oxford.

MONTAGUE

M.A.,

at Jerusalem.

F.S.A.,

of t h e British Museum ; S u p e r i n t e n d e n t of t h e Archaeological Survey of t h e E g y p t Exploration F u n d .

Kev.

MAYOR,

R e v . SELAH MERRILL, D . D . , L L . D . , U . S . C o n s u l

K e v . A L E X A N D E R GRIEVE, M . A . , P h . D . , F o r f a r . FRANCIS

BICKERSTETH

E m e r i t u s Professor of King's College, London, and Hon. Fellow of St. J o h n ' s College, Cambridge.

T e s t a m e n t Exegesis in W e s t m i n s t e r College, Cambridge.

R e v . HARVEY P O R T E S , B . A . , P h . D . , P r o f e s s o r i n

t h e American College, B e y r o u t , Syria. Rev.

GEORGE POST,

M.D.,

F.L.S.,

P r o f e s s o r in

t h e American College, Beyrout, S y r i a .

A U T H O R S O F A R T I C L E S IN IRA MAURICE PRICE, M . A . , B . D . , P h . D . , P r o f e s s o r

of Semitic Languages and Literatures in the University of Chicago.

R e v . GEORGE T . PUHVFS, D . D . ,

LL.D.,

recently

Professor of New Testament Literature and Exegesis in Princeton Theological Seminary, New Jersey. WILLIAM M. RAMSAY, D.C.L., LL.D., Litt.D., Professor of Humanity in the University of Aberdeen, Honorary Fellow of Exeter and Lincoln Colleges, Oxford.

R e v . HENRY A .

KKOPATH,

M . A . , R e c t o r of

St.

Dunstan's in the East, London.

R e v . ARCHIBALD ROBERTSON, M . A . , D . D . ,

Prin-

cipal of King's College, London, late Fellow of Trinity College, Oxford.

Rev.

STEWART

DINGWALL

FORPYCE

SALMOND,

M . A . , D.D., F.E.I.S., Principal and Professor of Systematic Theology in the Free Church College, Aberdeen.

Rev

ARCHIBALD

HENRY S A Y C E ,

M.A.,

LL.D.,

Fellow of Queen's College, and Professor of Assyriology in the University of Oxford.

Rev. JOHN

A.

SELBIE, M . A . ,

Maryculter,

Kin-

card inesl lire. Rev.

VINCENT

HENRY

STANTON,

M.A.,

D.D.,

Fellow of Trinity College, and Ely Professor of Divinity in the University of Cambridge.

JOHN F . STENNING, M . A . , F e l l o w and

Lecturer

in Hebrew and Theology, Wadham College, Oxford.

W.

B.

STEVENSON,

M.A.,

B.D.,

Professor

of

Hebrew and Old Testament Introduction in the Theological College, Bala.

R e v . ALEXANDER

STEWART, M . A . ,

D.D.,

Prin-

Ill

R e v . A A R O N EMMANUEL SUFFRIN, M . A . ,

Curate

of Sparsholt with Kingstone Lisle, Berks.

Rev.

HENRY

BARCLAY

SWETE,

M.A.,

D.D.,

Litt.D., Regius Professor of Divinity, Cambridge.

R e v . C Y R I L HENRY PRICHARD. M . A . , l a t e C l a s s i c a l

Scholar of Magdalene College, Cambridge, and Lecturer at St. Olave's, Southwark.

VOL.

Rev.

JOHN

TAYLOR,

Winchcombe.

M.A.,

Litt.D.,

HENRY ST. JOHN T H A C K E R A Y , M . A . ,

Vicar

of

Examiner

in the Board of Education, formerly Divinity Lecturer in Selwyn College, Cambridge. Rev. G. W. THATCHER, M.A., B.D., Hebrew Tutor and Lecturer on Old Testament History and Literature in Mansfield College, Oxford. R e v . JOSEPH H E N R Y T H A Y E R , M . A . , D . D . , L i t t . D . ,

Bussey Professor of New Testament Criticism and Interpretation in the Divinity School of Harvard university.

CUTHBERT HAMILTON TURNER, M . A . , F e l l o w of

Magdalen College, Oxford.

L i e u t . - G e n e r a l Sir CHARLES WAHREN. G . C . M . G . ,

K.C.B., F.R S., Royal Engineers. Rev. ADAM

. WELCH, M . A . , B . D . , Helensburgh.

T h e l a t e R e v . H E N R Y ALCOCK WHITE, M . A . , T u t o i

in the U iversity of Durham, and formerly Fellow of New College, Oxford.

R e v . NFWPORT J . D . W H I T E , M . A . , B . D . , L i b r a r i a n

of Archbishop Marsh's Library, and Assistant Lecturer in Divinity and Hebrew in the University of Dublin.

R e v . OWEN C . WTHTEHOUSE, M . A . , P r i n c i p a l and

Professor of liiblical Exegesis and Theology, Cheshunt College, Herts.

M a j o r - G e n e r a l Sir CHARLES W I L L I A M WILSON, R.E., K.C.B., K C.M.G., D.C.L., LL.D.,

F.R.S.

R e v . FRANCIS H E N R Y WOODS, M . A . , B . D . , V i c a i

of Chalfont St. Peter, and late Fellow and Theological Lecturer of St. John's College, Oxford.

cipal of St. Mary's College, and Professor of | Systematic Theology in the University of St. I R e v . JOHN WORTABET, M . A . , Andrews. I Syria.

M.D.,

Beyrout.

DICTIONARY OF THE BIBLE KIR (Tp).—The n a m e of a c o u n t r y a n d nation. stirs u p ]£oa' and Shoa' a g a i n s t t h e m o u n t a i n ' It occurs in t h e following passages:—(1) Am y7 have, however, given up t h e paronomasia and I£il' is t h e land from which Cod b r o u g h t t h e corrected Kir to Koa (yip), a nation mentioned Aramaeans (Syrians), as H e led t h e Israelites from together with Shoa' in Ezk 23 2S ; t h e Kutu or I'-Vjit. etc. I t must, a f t e r this analogy, be a Kti of t h e Assyrian inscriptions, a w a r l i k e country remote from t h e principal seat [i.e. nomadic tribe S.E. of Assyria, chieily on tile Damascus) of t h e Arama>ans in Amos' time. T h e b a n k s of t h e modern rivers Oijfila (the G y n d e s of LXX reads ' d e p t h , ' ' p i t ' (/3idpm, i.e. -ijp). (2) t h e classics) and A d h e m a d j o i n i n g t h e Hutu, i.e. 2 K 169 A f t e r t h e capture of Damascus, t h e A r a - t h e biblical Shoa'. This agrees w i t h Is 22*, where micans were carried captive to I p r b y t h e k i n g Kir is a neighbour of E l a m . I t results t h a t we (Tiglath-pileser n r . ) of Assyria. T h i s would in- h a v e t o t r y t h e same emendation also in t h i s dicate t h a t £ i r was under Assyrian dominion, and, passage (Is 22s), and indeed t h e L X X reads t h e r e again, a t a considerable distance from t h e region consonants which come n e a r e r t o i"p t h a n to *vp, of Damascus near t h e borders of t h e Assyrian likewise in A m 9 (where iyp = original sip). See, empire. But t h e n a m e of t h e country was w a n t i n g f u r t h e r , a r t . KOA, footnote. in t h e L X X originally (B), and inserted later (A, I t is very probable, t h e n , t h a t in all passages t h e etc. Kiip?)»))vSe) from t h e Hebrew t e x t (after Symmachus). Therefore t h i s passage is suspicious ; see same pastoral people Koa' sip, were originally s m e a n t . T h e corruption of one m a y have caused f i e l d , llexnp. pp. xxii, 682. (3) A m I t h r e a t e n s indeed : t h e people of A r a m shall go into captivity t h a t of t h e other places. (For t h e Assyrian and 233; unto Kir ( L X X ' t h e one called as ally,' éwUXiiros, Babylonian t2e x t s see Delitzsch, Paradies, 425). T h e c o u n t r y Gutitim, Guti, Nip'i). B u t t h i s passage also seems to be inter- J Scln-ader, KAT polated from A m 97. If K i r was t h e original home which is mentioned as early a s B.C. 3000 in in7 t h e same a s Ifuti, gutti, scriptions, seems to be of t h e AramfEans (Am 9 ), t h e Assyrians would never have deported t h e m back t o their old country, Ku, which is only t h e l a t e r spelling.* T h e inwhere t h e y would have found remainders of t h e h a b i t a n t s seem to have been a l w a y s Semites, so t h a t original stock of their nation, and would have, t h e i r relationship to t h e Aramaeans, who a p p e a r in by union with them, become strong again and cuneiform inscriptions first in S o u t h e r n Babylonia, dangerous to t h e k i n g of Nineveh. T h e Assyrians, is very plausible. Otherwise, t h e cuneiform inscripas well as o t h e r nations, deported t h e i r captives tions have been searched in vain for a n a t i o n I£ir. a l w a y s to countries where t h e y were strangers, T h e a n c i e n t versions (Aq., Vulg., p a r t l y L X X , separated by language and race from t h e inhabit- T a r g u m ) were guessing w h e n t h e y introduced the a n t s of t h e new country, and therefore forced to L i b y a n Cyrene, which is absurd, t B y those to w h o m rely upon t h e g o v e r n m e n t which had settled t h e m t h e emendation of Kir t o I£oa' seems too bold, t h e there. Consequently, t h e n a m e Kir in t h i s passage conjecture m a y be hazarded t h a t some d a y t h e n a m e is strange, and to be used only with caution. (4) ICir will be discovered in t h e s a m e region E. of t h e I s 22 6 an a t t a c k on J e r u s a l e m is described, evi- Lower and Middle Tigris, w h e r e various nomadie d e n t l y t h a t of t h e Assyrian a r m y under Senna- tribes roamed with t h e rapacious Shoa' a n d Koa'. cherib (cf. 2 K 18) : ' And" Elain bare t h e quiver with B u t t h e emendation seems m o r e plausible. chariots of men * and horsemen, and IJir ( L X X W . MAX MDLLEK. (rwayuyt, cf. mp?) uncovered (.ti;) t h e s h i e l d ' ( i . e . KIR (OF MOAB) (axiD-l-p, rb rcl^os rijs Mwa/3(e)inios, prepared i t for fighting). Consequently, Kir was murus Maab).—One of t h e chief t o w n s of the land a m o n g t h e allies or subjects of t h e Assyrians, and of Moab, coupled w i t h A r of Moab, Is 151. Since was a w a r l i k e nation, (5) Also Is 22 s seems to in t h e M o a b i t e t o n g u e / d r = H e b . 'tr or 'ar, it is belong here : inn"^- gW) ip np-ipo, R V ' a b r e a k i n g conceivable t h a t K i r of M o a b and A r of M o a b a r e down (others, surrounding) of t h e walls (sing. !) and identical. T h e almost universally accepted identia crying to t h e mountains,' L X X dirò fuicpov lm fication of K i r of M o a b w i t h t h e modern Kerak

fieyàXov ~\avlvrai

èri rà Spi], V u l g . ' s c r u t a n s

murum

* Perhaps occurring also in Egyptian texts as Gut, see W. M. e t magnifieus super m o n t e m . ' T h e passage was rendered by Cheyne (following Delitzsch, Paradies, Muller, Asutn, p. 281. modern guesses: the Kvpai or Kiim(, river of Armenia, 236), ' K i r u n d e r m i n e t h , and Shoa is a t t h e m o u n t . ' thet More modern Kur (Michaelis). But this name has k not k, and is K l o s t e r m a n n , B r e d e n k a m p , Cornili, W i n c k l e r too far north. Boehart proposes Koupr^ (Ptol.) in Eastern (Alttest.

Untersuch. 177, w h o c o n j e c t u r e s , * ' Of men ' may be a gloss, see Duhm.

VOL. IH.—I

'who

Media, but this place is obscure and too far east. Furrer suggests the region near Antioch called Kvppoz, Kua^im*«, but this name was given only in later times in imitation of a Macedonian city (see Mannerti.

KIR AMA

KIRIATH

rests upon t h e Targum on Isaiah, where Kir Is rendered by Kerakka (so also apparently A r of Moab). This may have been a native name which has survived, or it may be a rendering of t h a t name which has supplanted it. The modern name of Kerak can be traced back as belonging to the place in early times. Under the form XapaK/xwfia it appears in the acts of the Council of Jerusalem A.d. 536, and in the geographers Ptolemy and Stephanus of Byzantium. The Crusaders discerned the strategic importance of the place as commanding the trade route from Egypt and Arabia into Syria. Under king Fulco of Jerusalem, A.D. 1131, a castle was built there, of which extensive remains may y e t be seen. Saladin in A.D. 1183 unsuccessfully besieged it ; it fell into his hands in A.D. 1188. The contributions which the Chroniclers of the Crusades make to the localizing of the site are full and interesting ; it was then the chief city of Arabia Secunda, or Petracensis ; it is specified as in the Belkà, and distinguished from Moab or Rabbat, and from H o n s Regalis or Montreal. The Crusaders further identified it with Petra, or gave that name to it ; an error which the Greek Church has perpetuated, for the Greek bishop of Petra has his seat at Kerak. It is frequently referred to in writers of the Christian period as Charak-Moba (also Mobu - Charax), corrupted t o Charakóma, Charagmucha, Karachi and Kara. On the question of the identity of Kir of Moab with Kirhareseth or Kir-lieres see art. on these names.

pausal form b i p r p , A V Kir-haresh, L X X r ^ o ? iv€Kalvt C O N D E R . I t seems to have been near Ir of Moab (v.36), and position near Chesalon). may have been a suburb of that city. Tristram (Land of Moab, 305) is inclined to identify it with KIRIATH-SANNAH (n;o nnp, Tro' X ts ypa^drm) Kiriathaim, others {e.g. Knobel, Keil) think it is occurs once (Jos 1549 P) as another and presumably the same as Kerioth. C. R. CONDER. an older name for Debir (wh. see). A third name was Kiriath-sepher (which see for site); and this, * So e.g. Moore and Horamel, the latter of whom identifies not Kiriath-sannah, was the reading of the LXX Kiriath-arba with the Rubnti of the Tel el-Amarna letters (A UT 234 f.), but see Koni^'s art. on the Habiri in Expo;s-. Titnc. their master, as still in the East; the conquered people described in Gn 10 as descended from kissing the conqueror's feet, or the ground he treads Javan, and therefore belonging to the Greek, oi UDon ('licking the dust,' Ps 729, Is 4923, Mic 71718). Grreco-Latin races of the West, occupying terriIaols were kissed by their worshippers, 1 K 19 , tories stretching along the coasts of the MediterHOB 132, to which may be compared the kissing of ranean Sea. Elishah, Tarshish, and llodanim (' Pofooi the Black Stone in the Ka'ba at Mecca; towards in LXX, better than Dodanim of MT), named in the heavenly bodies as27 deities a kiss was thrown that passage alongside of Kittim, are now generwith the hand (Job 31 ).* ally identified respectively with Sicily and Southern 5. In NT and the subsequent usage of the Church Italy, Spain, and Rhodes. As these are all islands or eoastlands in the West, it is natural to look we find the kiss as a token of Christian brotherto20,the same region for the localizing of the Kittim. hood: a12holy kiss28 [) a didactic function (vv. ). The inexhaustible compassion of God is insisted upon, the purposes of grace which He may have in His visitation are suggested, all tending to enforce the call to repentance, (c) In w.52*34 there is a return to the tone of complaint, which65soon passes, however, into joyful confidence69(w. *58) that God will hear and deliver, while vv. *66 breathe a prayer for vengeance on the nation's foes. (As to the interpretation of vv.66ff- and the question of a precative perfect, see Ewald's Heb. Syntax, Kennedy's tr. p. 15 ; Driver's Heb. Tenses3, pp. 14, 25 ; Davidson's Heb. Syntax, p. 63).

f u r t h e r , a r t . POETRY.

From all this it is evident that in poems such as those that make up Lamentations we have no simple spontaneous outburst of grief, but the result of conscious effort and of not a little technical skill. While ch. 5 is not in the ]£inah measure (it is only accidentally that w > 3 » 1 4 conform to it), something of the same effect is produced by the assonances (u, nu, anu, enu, %nu, unu), which recur 44 times (Reuss), and to which there is no parallel in the OT except in Ps 124. I I I . A N A L Y S I S OF THE C O N T E N T S . — E a c h of t h e

five poems is complete in itself, and forms a wellrounded whole, independent alike of its predecessor and its successor. This was admitted even by Eichhorn, who ascribed all the five to Jeremiah, but held that they were composed by the prophet at different times and when in different moods. Attempts have indeed been made to trace a progress either in the historical situation (de Wette), or in the thoughts (Ewald), from one chapter to another. The former failed completely to accomplish his self-imposed task, and the scheme of the latter can be carried through only by discovering in the Lamentations features that are absent and ignoring others that are present. Ewald certainly lays himself open to the sarcastic remark of Thenius, that upon such principles a connexion could be established between the most disparate elements in the world. Let any careful student judge whether it is correct to say with Ewald that chs. 1 and 2 contain the bitterest and, as yet, hopeless complaints; that in ch. 3, which is the turning-point, the poet reaches comfort at least for himself; that in ch. 4 lamentation indeed recurs, but now the people break in with the language of prayer and hope; while in ch. 5 we have^nothing but prayer, offered by the whole community, whose tone is sad indeed, yet composed and hopeful. No doubt Ewald exhibits here an attractive model from which the author or authors might have worked, but they have not done so. Nay, so far from there being any traceable connexion between the different poems, it is no easy matter sometimes to discover connecting links between the verses of the same poem. The truth is that the nature of the subject did not readily admit of logical development, and it may have been partly for this reason and as a mnemonic device that the acrostic scheme was adopted in the first four chapters (its absence in ch. 5 has never been satisfactorily explained). In chs. 2 and 4 the verses have the firmest, in 1 and 5 the loosest connexion. In the li'dit of the foregoing remarks it will be understood that the following scheme of analysis, which is mainly Lohr's, is largely provisional. Ch. 1 contains two divisions—(a) vv. l_Ub spoken by the poet {with the exception of 9c) ; (b) vv.llc"22 spoken by the city (with the exception of "). The ever-recurring themes are the abandonment of the city by her allies, the distress of her inhabitants, the pride of the enemy. In v.8 there is already a confession that Jerusalem has been justly punished for her sins, and llc in 80 already a cry to God, which is repeated in . In vv,12"16, where the city is supposed to speak, we have an appeal to passers-by, to whom under a variety of

21

Ch. 4 closely resembles in structure ch. 3. There are two main divisions, the first of which falls into two subdivisions, (a) Vv.1"11, of which 16 7 11 vv. ' exactly balance vv. * . The fry of the one is parallel to the D-T^ of the other; in both sections there is a description of the sufferings occasioned by famine, and a tracing of these to the anger of J" (v.12, which breaks the connexion, probably owes its origin simply to the necessities of the acrostic scheme). In (6) there are three subdivisions—(1) vv.13*16 treat of the sin and the punishment of the priests and the prophets; (2) vv_ 17.20 0 f s j n a n ( } t] i e punishment of the king i and his courtiers, who looked in vain to Egypt for help ; (3) vv.21-2- address a word of threatening to Edom and of comfort to Israel. Ch. 5, like ch. 1, is wanting in consecutive thought. It opens with a prayer that J" would look upon the reproach of ftis people, which is described from a variety of points of view (vv.2*18). Zion's desolation suggests, by way of contrast, J"'s abiding power, upon the ground of which the poet repeats his appeal for help (vv.-0'22). The last verse being considered one of ill omen, the Jews were accustomed in reading to repeat after it the preceding verse. For a similar reason the same usage was followed in * So Calov, Hupfeld, Beuss, Cheyne, Smend (see esp. ZA TW 1882, p. 62ff.). On the other hand, Budde (Ktagelieder, 92f.j conccnda for the individual sense of the ' I,' by which he supposes the author of the poem to have intended an eve witness (most likely Jeremiah) of the destruction of Jerusalem

22

LAMENTATIONS

LAMENTATIONS

connexion w i t h t h e l a s t verse of Isaiah, Malachi, a n d Ecclesiastes. I V . AUTHORSHIP.—Both in J e w i s h and in Christ i a n circles a t r a d i t i o n has long prevailed t h a t t h e book was w r i t t e n b y J e r e m i a h . W e will examine— {a) The External Evidence. — W h i l e t h e Heb. Bible is silent as to t h e a u t h o r s h i p of L a m e n t a t i o n s , i t is otherwise w i t h t h e Sept., where t h e book opens t h u s : ko.1 ¿yfreTO /¿era r6 atx/xaXwricri9^vat rbv 'lapai^X Kal 'lepovaaXrjfi ¿prj/xudrjuaL ¿Kadurev 'lepe/xias TOVTOV iirl 'lepovuaX^/M Kal 4dp-qvr) R Y ) . — S e e CHAMELEON*. L A N D L A W S . - -See LAW* (in O T ) a n d S A B B A H C A E YEAK. LANDMARK (V.^).—An object, such as a stone, a heap of stones, or a tree with a mark in its bark, intended to fix the limit of a held, a farm, or the property of an individual. In Palestine these landmarks are scrupulously respected ; and in passing along a road or pathwny one may observe from time to time a stone placed by the edge of the field from which a shalluw furrow has been ploughed, marking the limits of cultivation of neighbouring proprietors. In order to perpetuate the observance oi: the rights indicated by landmarks in the Mosaic ritual, a curse is pronounced, against the surreptitious removal of a landmark belonging to one's neighbour ( Dt li)14, for the meaning of which see Driver, iO, JNX, i p i i ' ; see Bottcher, Lehrbuch, i. p. 245). In some other words the letter N is still written without affecting the pronunciation. I t would seem clear that the tribes who migrated from Arabia to Canaan had already found difficulty in pronouncing the consonantal Aleph, which indeed many still regard as the hardest of the Arabic consonants. They pronounced a for a', a pronunciation which indeed the Arabic grammarians tolerate in poetry. But while this a in Arabic was either retained or reduced in the direction of e, the immigrants pronounced it as well as other Arabic a'g(with rare exceptions) aa o. The writing {{te for zon therefore is a case in which an old spelling is retained after it has become doubly unsuitable to represent the correct pronunciation; and in all rases where this letter represents anything but the soft breathing, it must be regarded as a remnant from an earlier language, or due to false analogy. The perpetual interchange which we notice in the OT between roots k"1? and roots .Y'1? shows that the consonantal N could no longer be pronounced at the end of a word. But from etymological orthography of this sort we uan infer with certainty the existence of a literature in which the orthography agreed not onty with etymology, but with the actual pronunciation ; in other words, the existence of written documents in Arabic earlier than the Canaanitish migration.

LANGUAGE OF THE OLD TEST. 27 I in parts of Palestine only one of these sibilants could bs pronounced. (2) Oí the grammatical residues, which are numerous, we need merely notice the variation in the second and third persons plural of the imperfect between the forms ün and ü. AJI distinction in meaning between these forms is clearly l o s t ; at most it can be said that some writers have a predilection for one form rather than the other. Classical Arabic, however, distinguishes them very decidedly : the dropping of the n wilh its vowel is a sign of the subjunctive or jussive mood, and is not an isolated phenomenon, but belongs to a system. What renders the treatment of these forms by the Hebrews peculiarly interesting ia that the vulgar Arabic written by Jews, Christians, and even Mohammedans, exhibits the same phenomenon. Such writers as Jephet Ibn Ali are well acquainted with both forms : only the sense of their proper employment fails them. (3) As a syntactical residue we may instance the treatment of the numerals. Here the Arabic rule is very simple, and its ground can easily be seen. One part of it is that the numbers 11-99 take after them the accusative singular. If the usage of the Hebrew OT be tabulated, the only expression for it seems to be that with words which from their nature are constantly coupled with numerals the Arabic rule is fairly regularly observed; with others the plural is more common, but the singular optional. Thus in Jg ' T h e land rested forty year,' but v.¡M 'Gideon had seventy s o n s ' ; Jg speaks of 'seventy man,' but v.2* 4 the seventy sons of Jerubbaal,' v. 6 8 ' hi* seventy brothers.' In Jos the rule is sometimes observed with the word ' man,' but other variations occur which stamp the language as patois-like and ungramrnatical: the following examples of the syntax of the word ' t w e l v e ' taken from Jos 3 and 4 show how unsettled was the usage in even so ordinary a matter. b>\x T y y 42 d ' ^ j n T y y d ' j ^ , 4* ijpjfn c'J^ •¿••n; 9 .-ng'j,: D'ri^, 48 'a n-ipy " f j . The rule'seems to be similarly observed when numerals precede the word ' a thousand,' owing t o ancient calculations, whereas the old rule about the syntax of words following seems t o b e equally often observed and forgotten. From the practically regular observance of the Arabic syntax in the case of the word ' year,' which from its nature must be constantly coupled with numerals, it seems reasonable to infer the antiquity of the Arabic rules. T h e ordinary style of the OT exhibits therefore in this case, as in the last, a survival from an older language.

A t what time the Canaanitish language first began to be written cannot be determined ; but it seems certain that there can have been no break of any length between the writing of Arabic and the writing of Canaanitish; the etymological remnants would otherwise be inexplicable. Thus the writing of aiment in French for aime must be inherited from a generation who both pronounced and wrote aiment or amant; had French been first written by persons who pronounced the word aime, the nt could never have been introduced. W e cannot know either whether the Canaanitish orthography was gradually formed or became fixed at a definite epoch. The evolu(¿>) Of no less interest as an etymological remnant is the em- tion of Ethiopic from Sabrean, which offers some ployment of the letter .1 at the end of words to represent the striking analogies to that of Canaanitish from lengthening of a vowel, a peculiarity which the Phoenician Arabic, is in favour of the latter supposition. dialects apparently do not share with the Hebrew and Moabitic. Those who made Ethiopic a written language This mode of writing has two obvious sources. In Arabic the pausal form of nouns ending in atun is ah, and in this form the abandoned some of the Sabaean letters and introh is pronounced as a consonant (Heb. n), aa w e learn from its duced others. Those who gave Canaanitish a literatreatment in v e r s e : thus martabah is made to rhyme with ture omitted some six or seven of the letters of the intabah, in which the h is radical (Hariri, ed. 1, p. 64), etc. This old Arabic alphabet, but added none. It is probpausal form has in Hebrew ousted the other. That it is everywhere pronounced a for ah is a phenomenon to be easily illus- able, then, that the double pronunciation of the trated from Hebrew itself (in which the ah of the feminine six letters nsciaa, with which we are familiar in suffix has a tendency to sink into 5), and from many other Hebrew, Phoenician, and Aramaic, was not yet languages. But the Phoenicians did not adopt this pausal form, noticeable. The lost letters are to some extent retaining the t in the absolute as well as in the construct state. Hence one of the sources of this employment of the letter A was the same as those which are no longer pronounced in many of the countries where Arabic is spoken, wanting in their language. The second source of this phenomenon is to be found in the albeit they are still written. In Canaanitish th masculine suffix of the third person. Belies of the Arabic hu coalesces with e>, dh with i, /cha with n, dad and za are not infrequent, but ordinarily (as in modern Arabic locally) with s, ahain with if. This rule holds good ordithat suffix is reduced to d. When modern Arabic is written, the h is retained (see e.g. J£a(a'if al-lataif, Cairo, 1894, p. 51,narily, "but human speech is subject to fluctuaetc.), and the same is the case frequently in Hebrew and in tions, and irregular correspondence (as e.g. Sin Moabitic. ID all these cases, however, it is an etymological Arab, khadhala, ny: Arab, taadhdhara) need nok remnant. always imply independent roots, where the signifi(c) As a third case of etymological writing, we may note the In the case, moreover, employment of the sign v to represent s. This orthography cations are clearly akin. of the other letters the Canaanitish dialect shows is characteristic of the older forms of Hebrew, Phoenician, and Aramaic, falling gradually into disuse in all of them. N o w we considerable deviation from the Arabic, sometimes know that the words which in Hebrew are written with e> in a manner that can be paralleled from dialects almost invariably correspond to Arabic words with sh. Since a the peculiarities of which are noted by Arabic great number of the words which in Arabic have the sibilant Thus it would appear that there that corresponds with D have that letter in Hebrew also, the grammarians. desire to avoid confusion may well have perpetuated the old was a tendency to shift from medice to tenues {e.g. spelling in the cases where a sh had come to be pronounced 8. 1DD, Arab, aio; ina, Arab, i n : ; r¡n, Arab. ; We learn, moreover, from the well-known passage in Jg 126 that

18

LANGUAGE OF THE OLD TEST.

LANGUAGE OF THE OLD TEST.

guages, the meaning in one or other has been so generalized or specialized as to render the introduction of another necessary in orde.: to represent the original meaning. In some cases it is likely that neither language retains the original sense ; but in most it would seem that, in spite of the late date of our Arabic documents, the Arabic signification is prior ; and good service has been done by those acquainted with both languages since the days of the Talmudists in tracking out the development of these significations. A few familiar cases are—(1) the Hebrew for *to say' 10«, in Arab, ' t o command': that ' t o command' is the original sense is shown by occasional relics of that meaning in the OT (2 S l 8 ) Further phenomena which often meet us in and by the derivative TDNDH ' to be proud,' a sanse vulgar dialects are the frequent assimilation of which can scarcely be connected with the Hebrew the nasal n before another consonant (cf. Ital. ' t o say,' but derives very naturally from the mese f o r mensem, m o d . A r m e n . gigni for gingni, Arab. ' to play the prince or commander,' like ' he falls'), and the misplacement of the aspirate. the words *nnB>n (Nu 161;!), aeonn {ib. 163). (2i -?, in Indeed, in Canaanitish as well as in the older Heb. ' t o act insolently,' in Arab, ' t o increase' : Aramaic and in some of the S. Arabian dialects, a relic of the older usage seems to be found in Dt an initial breathing seems regularly to be aspir- 1820 ' t h e prophet who shall add to speak in my ated when it is a grammatical prefix, and some- name words which I have not commanded him' : times when it is radical (so isn for ~|£N); but, on the Latin loquetur ultro would exactly illustrate the other hand, the Hebrew sometimes substitutes the transference of ideas. (3) The Hebrew ^ n the soft breathing for the aspirate (cf. HD^K with ' t o profane,' and Vnn ' t o begin,' seem both traceArab, aa'n), especially in the middle ol a word (so able to the Arab. 'to loosen,' whence both ' a witness' for nny 'one who knows'; cf. Jer ideas flow by a course of reasoning exactly 2 9 a ijn jnv ; in through Tin for im). Where two similar to that illustrated in the evolution of the of these irregular changes occur in the same word, Aramaic TO. In several cases what we have in it often becomes unrecognizable ; and the occa- Canaanitish is apparently an expression current sional transposition of radicals introduces great in the mouths of the vulgar exalted into a difficulty : just as some mod. Armenian dialects classical phrase: the Hebrew words for 'handhave tepur forphethur, so Hebrew has ms for nsn, m1? maid ' ana ' family' would appear to have a very for nh ; cf. osy for Arab. yoj;. The chief grammatical differences between Arabic and Hebrew are obvious etymology in Arabic (cf Koran, iv. 28 ; due (1) to the loss of the final vowels, which in the Romance of Saif, i. 28), which, however, would older language have syntactical value ; (2) to the exclude them at the first from the mouths of the exaggeration of the accent, resulting in the well-bred. A certain number of alterations in strengthening of some vowels and the loss of meaning can be explained by popular misappliothers ; (3) to the tendency to simplify, which cations, e.g. the Canaanites use for ' blind' the explains the loss of whole series of forms in many word which in Arab, means ' one-eyed,' for * deaf' of those languages that have grown out of the the word which in Arab, means 'dumb.' decay of classical idioms. In the opinion of some, It is not in our power to gauge the whilom the language has by these changes gained in vigour what it has lost in finesse—a matter which wealth of the Hebrew language,* and far more of the copious Arabic vocabulary may have been must be left to the individual taste.* retained by the Canaanites than is ordinarily supposed. Most of the books of the OT oiler Of the families of words in use in Canaanitish, examples of hapax legormna that can be satisit would seem that more than half can be identified factorily explained from the Arabic, whether in with roots known to the lexicographers of classical the form of antiquated phrases for which the Arabic; but the waywardness which characterizes ordinary language employs other synonyms \z.g. human speech has not failed to leave its mark on Dt 279 HDOH, Arab, uskut, ' be silent,' in every way the treatment of the old words in respect both of parallel to the herald's ' 0 yez'), or of dialectic Arab, nisab, J g 322), or of words their preservation and the evolution of their words {e.g. significations. Thus Canaanitish and classical which there is no reason to suppose to have been 4 Arabic have the same word for peace,' but dif- rare, but which for one reason or another the ferent words for ' w a r ' ; the same for ' to eat,' but biblical writers have not elsewhere occasion to different for ' t o drink'; the same for 'near,'but employ {e.g. n^'ay * sneezing,' J o b 411§). different for ' f a r ' ; the same for 'low,' but difAraoisms in this sense can be found not only in ferent for ' h i g h 5 ; the same for 'gold,' but dif- the latest biblical writers,! but even in the fragferent for ' silver' ; the same for ' to ride,' but * In the Concordance published at Warsaw, 1883, rootv are different for ' to sit' and ' to stand'; the same for given in large type, verbs (counting each conjugation sepa'ass,' but different for 'horse,' though the same rately) are marked with a circle, and nouns with a siar. for 'horseman.' In several of these cases, and According to computations made for this article, the numbers in numerous others, while the same words or are respectively 2058, 2930, 3937, the same famiiies are retained in both lant So Ec 9 1 ' t o try,' Arab, bara ; in Lisan al'arab. v.

Arab, a t e ; VSB*, Arab, y i v ; us, Arab. VD)? which can be paralleled from what has happened in other languages {e.g. modern Armenian as compared with ancient). The Canaanitish language shows further considerable confusion of the gutturals: besides the tendency to pronounce p for 3 {e.g. npa for "Q3, cpy for aoy, pm for ins), we find n for V (nmp, Arab, njnp), n for n {e.g. ma, Syr. ma, Arab, mo), a for n (nna for Arab, uh), etc. There is also considerable confusion of the sibilants (o for l in yea, o for * in pso, i for s in vyi, etc.), and of the liquids {e.g. ip: for SP^ \en for DBH, N^O for nop); moreover, the letter n is frequently displaced by the emphatic a, e.g. Scsp for bnp, etc., and D by a {e.g. zv: for ana-iy for mcny, jm for jnc).

•Of many of the elegances of Arabic grammar there are faint traces in the OT. The Arab, rubba 'many a,' appears once, Pr 206. Of the broken plural the only real example in the OT appears to be nar plural of "iai; in other cases its meaning is lost, even though its form be present, e.g. Nu 215. In Bottcher's LehrburA the most is made oi these relics as well as of supposed remains of the dual of verbs and pronouns. The syntax of the Book of Joshua seems to show that there was a time when the old rules of the article were in danger of being lost ( 3 " 7 » 33), but this (like Is 368. 16) may be due to corruption of the text. A remarkable relic is in Jer 2218 rftnx 'in, which resembles the ah added in Arabic, u>a Zaidah, 'alas, Zaid ! ' (Vernier, Gram. Arabe, § 565).

several curious passages of old authors are cited in which this word occurs. The etymology is given by Ges. Then., but omitted in the Oxf. Heb. Lex. 22 PN; can scarcely have been thought out by the writer from the biblical yNU, but must represent an old word (Arab, ya'isa). A few striking Arabisms may be collected here. Gn 2S 12 0 ; p ' a stain.use.' Arab, s ullam; 403C n'rt 'white bread,' Arab, huwwdri; 4:r-7 nnFCN 'baggage,' Arab. cunt-Tat, plur. oi matfi (it is c-arioua that Mohammed uses this word in Koran, xii. 25, where tins verse is represented ' when they opened their baggage n ata*ahum\ The change of J? to n is caused by the folV-ving n : in Egypt it is now customary to say nnciy for n nn^l.x for n>3~X [Tuntavy, Gramma!re, p. v.]) ; Ex 5-»

LANGUAGE OF THE OLD TEST.

:

j j I j i j i j ; I j | !

I j ; J |

j

! ; ! ' j

i

LANGUAGE OF THE OLD TEST.

2$

ments of Ben-Sira, and in the New-Hebrew of the Mishna.* A s borrowing from the Arabs is highly improbable, and in many cases shown by the phonetic changes to be impossible, the whole stock of •words common to Canaanitish and Arabic must have constituted the linguistic capital of the former language. The parallelistic style, which is probably earlier than the migration, served to retain in use many synonyms which might otherwise have disappeared; t but without a far greater mass of literature than has come down to us we could not pronounce without hardihood on the original bulk of the Canaanitish vocabulary, or deny any genuine Arabic root a place in it.J 4. Secondary Sources.—Of the roots and words which the Hebrew vocabulary contains, a great number cannot be identified in the Arabic dictionary. Of these, however, some seem to have been current in Arabia before the migration, for we find them in the Ethiopic language, which we know to have sprung from a S. Arabian dialect. § A few more are stamped as Arabic by their occurrence in S. Arabian inscriptions.il But this still leaves a great number unaccounted for. W e have therefore to recognize in Canaanitish a nonArabic element, and must endeavour to account for its origin. According t o the biblical account, t h e patriarchs a n d their families having acquired Hebrew in Canaan, sojourned in E g y p t , b u t retained their own language, which was b r o u g h t back to Canaan. A l t h o u g h t h e seclusion of t h e Israelice* in E g y p t , on which some of the narratives iiusist, would account for their failing to adopt the language of E g y p t , their dependent position t h e r e would lead us t o expect t h a t t h e i r Hebrew would ; ' y e make idle,' Arab, tufrighuna; 2G5 r r A r a b . nvkubUat; Lv 19'^ rc~2, Arab. kltAbat ; Nu 1915

be affected by their long exile f r o m Canaan, and t h a t their l i t e r a t u r e would showtraees of E g y p t i a n , which other Canaanitish m o n u m e n t s would fail to exhibit. This expectation is n o t fulfilled. If t h e hieroglyphic v o c a b u l a r y * be collated with the Hebrew, t h e cases in which t h e y show a n y correspondence are e x t r e m e l y rare, a n d these cases seem to belong to a period prior to t h e separation between t h e E g y p t i a n a n d Semitic r a c e s : in any case, t h e fact t h a t t h e y are mostly Semitic and not specifically H e b r e w words, shows t h a t they were not learned by t h e Israelites in Goshen. The Coptic vocabulary is indeed far more illustrative of H e b r e w ; b u t this is due mainly t o the extensive borrowing of Canaanitish by t h e E g y p t i a n s a t a period t o which reference has been m a d e ; a n d in m a n y cases t h e words a r e Semitic with purely C a n a a n i t i s h forms, a n d words which, while isolated in Coptic, belong t o extensive families in Semitic. The few words in H e b r e w which may be justly regarded as E g y p t i a n are such as may easily have been b r o u g h t by t r a v e l l e r s . ! I t is, however, surprising t h a t the historians of the E g y p t i a n episode in Exodus are acquainted with scarcely a n y of the E g y p t i a n technicalities which we should have expected thein to introduce, e.g. t h e words for t a s k m a s t e r s , m a g i c i a n s , i pyramids, and t h a t one of t h e writers excerpted should suppose t h a t tiie E g y p t i a n s spoke Hebrew (Ex 21U). One of the a u t h o r s copied in Gn is b e t t e r informed on this point (4'2-y), hut even his employm e n t of Egyptian words is inconsiderable. V e r y different is the amount contributed to C a n a a n i t i s h by the language of Assyria. W e learn from t h e Tel el-Amanin tablets t h a t in the loth cent. li.c., while Palestine was under E g y p t i a n suzerainty, t h e oliicial language of communication was Assyrian, albeit the Caua.uiites had a language of their own. The employment of Assyrian as a n ' a c o v e r ' or ' l i d , ' Arab, ¡¡¡mad; 25 s n^p «a cent,' Arab. oiih-iaJ language points, however, to a y e t earlier 7 The language b.dbalt; Dt 6 ' thou shalt teach them,' Arab, sanna ' to period of Assyrian supremacy. 5 7 p r e s c r i b e / w h e n c e ' t h e s u n n a h ' ; IS T*?^, Arab, said; Jos known as Assyrian is indeed Semitic, b u t g r e a t l y mixed with foreign elements, and with the con1;' r e m a i n , ' ' a b i d e , ' Arab, dum; Is 10 1; ' Arab. sonantal system seriously deranged : i t is thereHiinskiir' s a w ' ; 33'-° [ys> ' t o migrate,' Arab, za'ana; :j24 Arab, ' ilj ' b a r b a r o u s ' ; 4120 p 1 ^ ' t r u t h f u l , ' Arab, .yiddik; Jer fore probable, where Canaanitish and Assyrian s l i r'¿'Z'i,Arab, dabu'un ; Ezk 16 rv.^.V ' loud-tongued,' Arab, have words in common which are u n k n o w n to t h e other Semitic languages, t h a t t h e former has salitat. borrowed from the latter. These words have * So aipi>' BUcJcuroth, vi. 1 1 ; lllN ib. vii. 6. f So Job 1G19 ' m y witness ( ^ y ) is in the heavens, and my been the subject of some classical monographs; § parallel to IIN ; P r 22^' and t h e y are such as alloc t the v. hole character of testis in the h e i g h t s ' ; 185 parallel to ; 273 b^i parallel w i t h 123. T h e reten- the syntax, pronouns, conjunctions, prepositions, tion of p i n (Phocu.) and o n s (Egyp.?) as names for ' g o l d ' is perhaps due to poetical necessity. 1 tfome parallels between the expressions of the Arabs and tli«. OT are put together by G. Jacob, Studien m Arabischen L'. ldcrn, iv. (Halle, 1S97), and by E. Nestle, Marginnlien, p. 5Sff. A longer list could be g o t from the commentaries of A. Schultens and F. Ilitzig. Some curious cases an: : ' when their foot s l i p p e t h ' (Dt 32:>= etc.), for ' w h e n misfortune befalls them,' in Arabic zalla 'l-kadam {Koran, xvi. 90); c o m m e n c m " letters with ' a n d n o w ' (2 K 56 1,rix (Cn 412), Hier. a x u , Copt, n y j ; r r ^ (a shrine), Ilier. teber, Copt, tabir, Abel, Kopt. Untrrsocfntin/rn, 422; if the theories expounded in Chat work be correct, it will be diliicult lo deny C I ? (E.v 216 etc.; cf. Copt, kros) a n d a n Egyptian o r i g i n ; and the last has been regarded as Egyptian b y y o o d authorities.' -li'i? of Ou 201* seems to be rightly compared with Copt, shaar, and pp ' a species' with Copt, mini (a native Egyptian word according to Abel, I.e. 28). De Rouge (Chrestom. i. 5(i) suggests that ' i s l a n d ' is E g y p t , aa, and (ib. 40) identifies

snehem with

(Lv 1122).

Ii So, e.g., the preposition T a j ; 5, and nSn (with the same meaning as in Eshmunazar's epitaph) i n the glossary to J Wiedemann, while offering an Egyptian Mordtnunn's article in Mittheilunqcn des K Miiarums zu CS-n, allows that it is probably Hebrew.

frrlin, 180:}.

§ Frd. Delitzsch,

etymology for

Hebrew and Assyrian and Prolegomena.

30

LANGUAGE OF THE OLD TEST.

LANGUAGE OF THE OLD TEST.

numerals, familiar adverbs, as well as political, commercial, legal, and religious terms.* I t is not improbable t h a t one of t h e most characteristic of t h e Hebrew idioms is due to the influence of Assyrian, t T h e study of the Assyrian monarchs' annals and letters also reveals phrases which form p a r t of t h e rhetorical capital of t h e Hebrew authors,X which it is probable were originally imitations of the Assyrian style. T h e Aramaic language has also inherited some of t h e Assyrian wit which t h e Canaanites did not adopt. § There remain, however, a number of Canaanitish words which cannot he identified from any of the sources t h a t have been enumerated. Several of these were probably tribal words of t h e communities t h a t migrated northwards, and, though ancient and Semitic, never formed part of t h e old classical language; while others may have belonged to t h e classical language, though they have become obsolete in all its other descendants. It is likely, moreover, t h a t a considerable number of Canaanitish words were learned from t h e Canaanitish aborigines. A race t h a t m a y be named in this connexion, t h e Hittites, has l e f t monuments t h e decipherment of which has occupied many scholars without as y e t leading to any satisfactory result. A n eminent Assyriologist has recently endeavoured to identify t h e Hittites with t h e Armenians (Jensen, Hittiter und Armenier, 1898); and since t h e H i t t i t e race a t one time played an important part in Palestine, we should expect, if Jensen's conjecture were correct, to find some considerable illustration of the Canaanitish vocabulary in t h e Armenian language. The mixed n a t u r e of t h a t language (of which t h e basis is Inclo-germanic) renders its employment for t h e explanation of Hebrew extremely hazardous; and many tempting identifications of words can be shown to be due to pure accident. || The local names of Palestine, of which t h e Bk. of J o s h u a in particular furnishes a great number, throw less light than might be expected on t h e character of t h e aboriginal languages employed there. The greater number seem very certainly Semitic, albeit they not infrequently, both in vocabulary 1f and

grammatical form,* exhibit traces of an older language t h a n t h a t known to us as Canaanitish. A considerable number of these names can be traced to t h e 15th cent. B.C., and even earlier, in E g y p t i a n and Assyrian records. A n un-Semitie r e m n a n t there is, b u t its linguistic character is diflicult to fix. 5. Progress of the Language. — T h e Tel elA m a r n a tablets represent t h e country as settled in States, somewhat as we find it described in t h e Bk. of Joshua. The States in which C a n a a i i t i s h was spoken m u s t have acquired t h e language either prior to their separation, or posterior to it if t h a t consisted in t h e hegemony of t h e community whose native language it was. Dialectic differences developed as t h e Canaanites began to write, each dialect preserving something which t h e others discarded,f b u t also evolving peculiarities of its own. I t would not, however, appear t h a t t h e Canaanites down to a late period had a n y difficulty in understanding each other. Jeremiah (273) expects his message to be understood by Edomites, Moabites, Ammonites, Tyrians, and Sidonians; and t h e tombstone of Eshmunaza:* contains phrases which seem to imply some acquaintance on t h a t king's p a r t with t h e Hebrew Scriptures. J When David succeeded in welding together an Israelitish empire, it would seem t h a t he took steps to make the language of Israel § (rather t h a n t h a t of Judah) official; and to t h e e x t e n t of t h e elements of grammar such as were t a u g h t in t h e schools t h e Israelitish language was thereafter uniform. These elements would, however, appear to have been exceedingly meagre. T h e scientific spirit would seem to have failed t h e ancient Israelites absolutely ; |i and it is t h e same habit of mind which seeks to codify t h e order of n a t u r e and to ñnd regularity in h u m a n speech. T h e Israelites could indeed distinguish and despise a foreign pronunciation,II and set value on correct speec 1; but it is improbable t h a t their power of j u c g i n g this m a t t e r went beyond questions of intonation and a c c e n t : throughout t h e OT there is scarcely a grammatical t e r m to be found ; and though several of t h e writers have a fondness for etymologizing,++ * In Frd. De)itz9ch's Handwdrterbuch some 160 words and t h e cases in which modern scholars regard their efforts as successful ave rare. T h e result of the roots can be illustrated from Hebrew, b u t not from Arabic. Examples of t h e words referred t o above are eka (Heb. v, w a n t of grammatical training is apparent in even the most classical portions of t h e OT. W h e r e t h e whence, perhaps, ityg), ki-i ('3), ülá (perhaps 'Tin), itti writers have to do with quite ordinary words and (riN), a-a-ka (nrx), a-ta-a (njiy), esh-tS ('nery), ma'd-du (ikp), is-su-ri (~i"n), na-ñ-ku (~DJ). Other examples of common words notions, their language is r e g u l a r ; but eo soon as in which Canaanitish and Assyrian agree against the S. Semitic t h i s region is left, it becomes tentative, and it is group a r e : c i x , o ^ k , nix, i ü k , 3:.n, m x , i n x , -icn ; m r r ; p a r t l y due to the variety of these experiments p? ( d a r t ) ; nD" ; np1? ; e y e , NSD ; I n : , k": (hinder); pwi t h a t t h e Hebrew grammars reach a bulk t h a t is (kiss); Sod (fool); 1DD (mourn); rvay, H]¡; (produce); ins? out of all proportion to t h e l i t e r a t u r e with which (body); -ict? (guard); (maintain). S r n is said to be a they have to deal. Thus, where t h e prophets have Sumerjan word, borrowed first by the Assyrians, and from to address companies of women, we find no certainty t b e m by the Canaanites. a b o u t t h e grammatical terminations ; Isaiah (329"1-) i i.e. the wato conversive. Most of the Assyrian chronicles exhibit only one tense, the Heb. imperfect. It would seem tries three different ways of forming t h e imperative 20 23 possible t h a t the annalistic employment of this term in Hebrew to be employed in such a case; Ezekiel (U» ' ) was a t first an imitation of the Assyrian, which then developed tries three ways of forming t h e pronominal suffix. idiomatically. T h e a t t e m p t s made to form the infinitives of the I So ' t o open t h e e a r ' (K. 95. 15 in S. A. Smith, KT Assurbanipals); 1 to break in pieces like a potter's vessel' (Sargon, conjugation Niphal, and indeed of all t h e derived Other curious passim); 37 210 for • cheerfulness,' DOy 2 2Ü* as an epithet of conjugations, are very varied. the Deity, etc.

Many cases are collected by Karppe in his

articles in the Journal Asiatique, ser. 9, vol. x.

§ The phrase ' i n p Sdk occurs in the Tel el-Amarna tablets. In Budge's notes to ' Rabban Hormizd' some interesting illustrations of this are given. II |3N is Armenian, according to Lagarde (Ges. Abh, p. 8). A word t h a t may possibly be Armenian is jvs 4 a stele' or ' monum e n t ' (2 K 2317, j e r 3121, Ezk 3915), Arm. siwn« a pillar.' This is an old Armenian word = Greck xtú* with the proper changes. Lagarde first t h o u g h t (Hos 105 e tc.) ' a priest,'borrowed from t h e . Arm. khurm, b u t afterwards reversed his judgment. T^n ' a mole' is temptingly like Arm. khlourd ' a mole,' which might seem a derivative of khlem ' to pluck u p , ' ' root o u t ' ; but from Lagarde's Arm. Stud, it appears to have another derivation. H e.g. npn^N Jos 1944, perhaps Arab, iltiká 'battle,' Koran, Hi 11, etc. Perhaps the form J'pj^N has preserved the tanuñn.

2132. * e.g. p s t e t f Jos 1943, t So in a Citian inscription we find the pluperfect formed by apposition of ¡3 kána as in classical Arabic ; Heb. has neither the old substantive verb nor t h e construction. t Compare especially line 12 with Is 3781 n a * nee 1 ? ttn'g> n^ycb ; elsewhere the adverb used with is nn& -»Nit (16.) in the sense o f ' beauty' occurs Is 53*. Efct^n nnn is a favourite phrase with goheleth, who, however, is probably later than the inscription. The commencement bears a curious liken«S3 to Hezekiah's hymn, Is 38lf*.

§ Cf. Winckler's Geschiehte Israels.

II Perhaps an exception should be made in favourof geography. U Is 324 8319. ** Heb. | 3 -13? J g 126. f t Ezk 20 29 is perhaps the most curious.

LANGUAGE OF THE OLD TEST.

LANGUAGE OF THE OLD TEST.

31

specimens of u n c e r t a i n t y as t o t h e r i g h t form a r e to be found in J o s 6 17 - 25 , D t 2 r ° 37, J e r 51» etc. T h e s t a t e in which t h e t e x t of the OT lias come down to u s renders i t difficult to speak positively on this m a t t e r ; b u t perhaps the result of a comparison of the few duplicate t e x t s which we possess is such as t o show t h a t philological considerations did n o t concern the editors a n d copyists who were also the a u t h o r s of the historical texts. The alterations introduced merely through t h e absence of a n y idea of accuracy and w i t h o u t a n y religious or political interest, such as are t o be observed in t h e parallel t e x t s of J o s IS15"1» and J g l u ' 1 5 , Is a n d Mic 41*3, or Is 36-39 a n d 2 K 18-20, suggest t h e impossibility of basing a g r a m m a t i c a l system on books so preserved; for i t is clear t h a t t h e copyist's licence extends so f a r as t h e substitution n o t only of synonyms, at least for ordinary ideas, b u t of w h a t to t h e copyist seemed optional grammatical forms for one another, t h i s latter licence including not only orthography, but w h a t seem t o us most serious syntactical variations, resulting in w h a t to t h e rigid g r a m m a r i a n m i g h t seem grave errors, t h o u g h t h e general sense is not affected. I t is u n f o r t u n a t e t h a t t h e duplicate t e x t s of Ps 1-4 and 53, Ps 18 and 2 S 22, and of t h e oracles common to Nu, Is, and J e r , in which t h e language is from t h e n a t u r e of t h e subject choice and obscure, reveal an a m o u n t of licence on the copyist's p a r t t h a t is f a r greater t h a n w h a t appears where the t e x t s are easy. How much, therefore, t h a t is abnormal in our t e x t is due to t h e original a u t h o r s and how much to t h e hands through which i t has passed, cannot w i t h o u t fresh discovery of MSS be ascertained ; b u t it seems likely t h a t if there h a d been Hebrew g r a m m a r i a n s as well as writing-masters in a n y pre-Christian century, t h e sphere of t h e optional in Hebrew g r a m m a r would have been reduced to narrower limits. There «ire forms in the existing t e x t of t h e O T which might suggest vast surmises as to t h e e x t e n t to which a Palestinian could have observed t h e rules of Arabic g r a m m a r w i t h o u t being unintelligible.*

Gideon, and several in those of E h u d ( J g 315'29) and Samson (Jg 13-16); perhaps some of those in t h e last two narratives are n o t Israelitish a t all, b u t Moabitic and Pliilistian ; a n d indeed in J g 1625 the form pnsr seems clearly intended t o be Philistian, but is certainly n o t exclusively so. I n t h e p a r t s of t h e 2nd Bk. of Kings which t r e a t of t h e n o r t h e r n kingdom, scholars h a v e tried t o detect much local phraseology ; and t h e same has been tried with the prophecies of Hosea, Amos, and others. T h e general u n i f o r m i t y of t h e language renders t h e term ' dialect' inapplicable t o these m i n u t e nuances of style, which for t h e most p a r t m a y be characteristic of individual writers r a t h e r t h a n of regions. The chief characteristics of t h e Israelitish dialect were probably fixed b y the t i m e of t h e consolidation of the united kingdom under D a v i d ; a n d i t is not probable t h a t f r o m t h a t t i m e to t h e first captivity i t altered very seriously. T h e comparatively settled s t a t e of t h e c o u n t r y being favourable t o t h e growth of t h e a r t s and t h e development of professions, a certain n u m b e r of words continued t o accrue f r o m foreign sources, chiefly A s s y r i a * and E g y p t , b u t t o some e x t e n t also India t a n d Greece,^ while old words were utilized to express new ideas, or old roots to form fresh derivatives. In t h e case of t h e sacerdotal profession we can a p p a r e n t l y trace the formation of a terminology on somewhat t h e .same lines as t h a t by which the terminology of M o h a m m e d a n tradition was a f t e r w a r d s formed. T h e inability of t h e language to form compounds somewhat limits t h e resources of the inventors of words ; t h e same form has to do d u t y for ' to c o n t a m i n a t e ' and ' to declare impure,' t h e same for ' to e x p i a t e ' and ' t o offer as an expiatory sacrifice.' Lexicography is slightly more represented in t h e OT t h a n g r a m m a r , albeit i t is curious t h a t in the one case where a technical t e r m is defined at l e n g t h (Dt 15-) t h a t term (na^y) does not recur elsewhere. T h e wealth, however, of t h e old Arabic language seems t o have been so g r e a t t h a t the preservation r a t h e r t h a n t h e invention of words was desira,ble.§

Owing t o the f a c t t h a t t h e language was never fixed by organized study, t h e distinction of dialects and periods is h a z a r d o u s ; a n d t h e very different opinions t h a t excellent scholars have held about t h e time and place t o which portions of t h e OT belong, show t h a t there is little definite to be said a b o u t these matters. W e learn from J g 126 t h a t a n E p h r a i m i t e could n o t pronounce t h e letter v correctly; b u t it by no means follows t h a t his writing would show a n y signs of this inability. Some scholars have a t t e m p t e d to distinguish t w o dialects in the OT, others three (North Palestinian, South Palestinian or Simeonic, and Jewish : so Bottcher, Lehrb. i. 15 ff.), b u t i t m a y be doubted whether there is a single grammatical form which can with safety be said to belong t o one dialect r a t h e r t h a n another. If it be t h e case t h a t revisers have introduced uniformity where t h e r e were previously m a r k e d differences, we cannot now get behind their work. I t is, however, possible t o note in several of the O T narratives peculiar words or usages which may have been characteristic of t h e tribes from which those narratives emanated, t h o u g h t h e extent of t h e l i t e r a t u r e a t our command does n o t j u s t i f y us in asserting this positively. T h u s rnio ( J g 135) m a y be Danite for ' r a z o r ' (Arab, musa), yea* ( J g Gileadite for ' w i t n e s s ' ( E t h . samcti; cf. P r 2128), jpa Manassite for ' t o r u l e ' (Jg 918). Several o t h e r curious phrases occur in t h e history of

6. Periods.—With regard t o t h e periods of t h e language of t h e OT i t is generally agreed t h a t t h e lJks. of Chronicles, Ezra, Nehemiah, Esther, Ecclesiastes, and Daniel display sufficient difference from t h e style of most of t h e remaining books t o j u s t i f y t h e application of some term like New Hebrew to t h e language in which t h e y are composed. A l l these books have in common the

* e-9' NH^PP Jer 15io (=mukallilu-ni, Schultens); iruD Job4 5 (=minhu); 152 ' j j i j o i n . Apparently, the use of in and im to form the plural was optional, see Mic 3 12 quoted in Jer 20^8. From Jer 253 a n d Ezk 143 it might seem that the preformative of the 4th and 7th conjugation might be pronounced K.

* e.g. Ezk 1633 ma, Bab. nidit (Meissner, Babyl. PHvatrecht, p. 149); poy, Assyr. isku (ib. 127); D'ODJ nikasu, ib. f For India see Comm. on 2 K 1022. Lagarde (Ges. Abh., first Essay) suggests an Indian origin for jsk, C213 (Ca and TED. t One of the early Rabbis suggested that JYi~Cp in Gn 495 was the Greek word /¿¿%cttpot, (K. Eleazar quoted in Levy, 1\~HWB, iii. 116). The identification is tempting, as the word is exceedingly obscure ; but it is not certainly right. One other preexilic word eofrs is certainly identical with the Greek t«JU«*« (known to Homer); it is un-Semitic in form, and would seem to belong- to a monogamous community ; and can be derived without much difficulty from Greek roots. The word v ? ^ (Ex 2018 etc.) seems to be a contraction of the Aram, v^p 1 ?, which in its turn can scarcely be anything but the Greek Xa^a-ctS-; for it has no Semitic affinities, and means ' a meteoric light,' which ¡s the very sense the word has in old Greek writers (e.g. ¿Eschyius, Vhoiiph. 590, Xa/Mrults tedaepoi, mentioned among physical terrors). How this word got into Hebrew and Aramaic seems a mystery. of 2 K 930 etc. seems to be the Greek iU'no), ' a s u p e r i o r ' (i'd:), which occur n o w h e r e else. All of those would seem t o be d i a l e c t i c ; and t h e last, which is t h e masculine of a word t h a t occurs f r e q u e n t l y in the feminine, is certainly so. T h e story of Joseph (Gn 37-50) h a s a whole vocabulary of its own ; as dialectic t h e r e m a y be characterized t h e words for ' j u s t ' ({3), ' s a c k ' (nnnEN), ' restore to his p l a c e ' (U3 Vy Tart), 4 l o a d ' (jj'e). T h e word for ' j u s t , 5 which occurs live times in t h i s narrative, b u t for which in t h e same sense we have to go to Syriac a u t h o r s , m u s t certainly have m e t us elsewhere in t h e OT, if we possessed other documents of t h e same place and t h e same time as those to which t h e original story of Joseph belonged. A l t h o u g h m a n y of t h e expressions which t h e documents employed by t h e compilers contain m u s t have been as unintelligible to t h e m as t h e y are to us, t h e cases in which they endeavour to i n t e r p r e t or to emend t h e m a r e rare. A case of an emendation occurs in J g 3 22, -3, b u t both a l t e r n a t i v e s are obscure to us. In 1 S 9ltJ a t t e n t i o n is called to t h e ancient i m p o r t of a word, ar.d in Gn 1414 a hard word is glossed, b u t in n e i t h e r case is t h e ancient philology unequivocally confirmed by modern. W h e r e we have parallel n a r r a t i v e s (as in G11 15-- 3 , D t l 41 , and Nu U 44 ) we can sometimes t r a c e t h e remains of a n c i e n t i n t e r p r e t a t i o n s of difficulties. T h e reason t h a t these glosses are so few is probably to be found in t h e f a c t t h a t with the Hebrews as with tlie A r a b s a book is r a t h e r t h e possession of an individual or a f a m i l y (Dt 31'^) t h a n of t h e public ; t h e skeleton w r i t i n g almost necessitates an authorized e x p o n e n t . A second reason is probably to be found" in t h e t e n d e n c y to abridge, which has reduced t h e Israelitish l i t e r a t u r e to so small a compass.

E

W h e t h e r it is possible to obtain a n y fixed linguistic epochs in t h e classical a n d ante-classical l i t e r a t u r e seems exceedingly d o u b t f u l . I t is indeed possible to tell A r a m a i s m s by phonetic rules but

L A N G U A G E O F T H E OLD TEST. as Aramaisms meet us in very early literature,—e.g. one of the characteristic words in the story of Jeplithah is an Aramaism, a word which occurs also in Deborah's song/—no argument as to date can be drawn from their occurrence, except when they belong to the classes already noticed. From the fact that the Canaanitish and Aramaic peoples have the same modification of the old Arabic alphabet, which they, indeed, subsequently developed somewhat differently,—from the fact that the oldest Aramaic most resembles Canaanitish, and t h a t one of the oldest Canaanitish inscriptions which we possess contains an Aramaic word,+ it would seem that the two nations though speaking different languages migrated simultaneously, and, until the final extinction of Canaanitish, did not cease borrowing from each other's vocabulary. We should obtain more fixed points from the internal growth of the language, if the literature were sufficiently large to enable us to name with precision the inventors of words; but this we are not able to do. Most of the passages t h a t might seem of use for the history of particular words, turn out not to be so. In Jer 23^ the use of the word massa for ' oracle' is emphatically forbidden ; but we find it employed nevertheless by authors far later than Jeremiah (Mai l1). The words of Dt 248 seem to imply the existence in some form of the technical rules of Lv 13 and 14, but it is impossible to say how many of the terms there employed existed in tlie time of the Deuteronomist. A very little of the sacerdotal^ terminology can be traced back to those ancient times before the Canaanites separated into nations,J but for the origin of most of it we have no data. The poetical books have been left out of the above considerations, because choice and archaic language is characteristic of the poetry of all nations, and the widely divergent dates assigned by the best scholars to various psalms show the difficulty that is felt in distinguishing the really archaic from affected archaism. The five poetical books of the OT would seem to have emanated from different schools, and the Psalms and Proverbs probably also contain materials collected from very different ages. That they emanated from schools is shown by the predominance in each of a peculiar vocabulary, which in the case of the Psalms would seem to have been inherited by the authors of the much later Psalms of Solomon. The obscurity and rarity of the expressions is in other cases no clue to the date of the Psalms, for some of the least intelligible phrases are found in compositions which are agreed to be exceedingly late.g The Proverbs are remarkable as professing to embody the compositions of non-Israelites, but the chapters in which these are collected may perhaps have been translated, as indeed the text of Pr 251 implies that the proverbs of Solomon were. The nature of the collection prevents it from preserving much of the popular language, as the proverbs of most nations do, and as a collection of sayings current among the Israelites, such as those to which the prophets occasionally refer (cf. Jer 2329 3 1 23, Ex 11'), would undoubtedly have done. But these exhibit the re* Moore in his valuable commentary says such an Aramaism is impossible in Old Hebrew; but is not this a ' Machtspruch'? Similarly, Dillmann tries to explain awaj- a ' W i n Gn 426. of 2 S 1711-, T ; of Jer 205, a r e a i s 0 Aramaic. If the form kutt/n be everywhere Aramaic, as it seems to be, it would be ditlii'ult to point to any portion of the OT that would be certainly free from Aramaism (see Hos 8«, 1 S 15. 19). Another striking case of a word known only from the Aramaic is 'ip'^qra in Hezekiah's ode (Is 38!6).

L A N G U A G E OE T H E O L D TEST.

33

mains of a somewhat developed philosophical, or perhaps we may say mystic vocabulary, and are marked by the further recurrence of several phrases, which, though not technical, seem to have been employed only in the school of the writers.* The Book of Job, which is ostensibly non-Israelitish throughout, is probably, from a linguistic point of view, the most remarkable in the OT, though to what extent (if at all) it contains non-Israelitish materials cannot with the present evidence be determined. Choice and obsolete phrases seem to be paraded here, as in the artificial poetry of th» Arabs ; but the commentary which may originally have accompanied them has not been handed down. Modern criticism is inclined to ascribe this book to a series of m i t e r s ; but if so, they must hav« had access to the same sort of literature, for eren a portion of such doubtful authenticity as the Elihu speeches differs from the rest, not so much in the quality of the language as in the quantity of obscure and striking expressions, many of winch can here be interpreted (like those in the rest of the book) from the Arabic and Aramaic languages. It is probable t h a t the Canticles preserve more of the popular style than any other portion of the OT poetry. The matter is such t h a t the employment of a rustic dialect lends it a special charm ; but the dialect cannot any more than the others be located. The language of the Lamentations has some peculiarities of its own, but also has much in common with that of the Psalms, t The separation of the sources and the fixing of the dates of the pieces composing the OT has been attempted with varying success by modern critics. Neither the earliest nor the latest verse in the OT can be named with certainty, but there is probably none either earlier than 1100, or later than 100 B.C. That the earliest fragments were in verse must not be hastily assumed, since the Oriental peoples employ verse not only to commemorate, but also to glorify the past; i and, owing to the considerations that have already been urged, the verses which are occasionally quoted in the older historical books in connexion with particular events must, until further discoveries of literature, be located rather by religious and political than by linguistic data. The continuity of the Hebrew language would seem to have been finally snapped with the taking of Jerusalem by the Romans; circumstances having forced the survivors of t h a t catastrophe to adopt some other idiom for the ordinary needs of life, though it has not ceased to carry on a sort of existence to this day, partly as a learned language, partly as a vehicle of communication for members of the Jewish community throughout the world. The commencement of its decay is no doubt to be dated from the time when acquaintance with another language was necessary for high offices of S t a t e ; and this would seem to have been the case in Hezekiah's time (Is 36"), and was probably the case earlier. During the first exile and after it, acquaintance with some other language was requisite, not only for the official, but for the ordinary householder ; and though Nehemiah busied himself with the maintenance of the Jewish language in its purity (1321e-), his own style gives us no exalted notion of his standard in t h a t matter. The question, however, of the precise epoch at which Hebrew ccased to be a living language is fraught with considerable difficulty, owing to the dearth of materials for settling it. Joseplius, who survived the Fall of Jerusalem, says (BJ, Preface,

* e.g. i n a ' to despise,' n'S' for ' a witness' i ^ n n . t ns'til in the patera of Baal Lebanon. t Driver's Introduction to the Literature of the OT contains ! e.g. abe>, b'bl, n^p (at any rate the verb). W j would seem important observations on the usage of the different writers to have been borrowed by the Egyptians, whence the Copt ! Thus the author of the historical manual Al-Fakhri (circ chid. 12o0) quotes the verses of the poet at Al-EajJi (circ. 100»' on § See e.g. Psa 74. 80. Omar II. (ob. 720). VOL. I I I . — 7

54

L A N G U A G E OF T H E O L D TEST.

§ 1), that being a Hebrew, he had written a history of the war in his native language; but when lie proceeds to state that the whole East, down to the remotest of the Arabs, had access to that work, such a description applies better to Aramaic than to Hebrew. The passages in the writings of the Rabbis which bear on this question are too late to give trustworthy information.* 7. Biblical Aramaic.—The earliest Aramaic documents which we possess are the inscriptions first published by E. Sachau in the Collections of the Berlin Museum for 1893, which certify the existence of a written Aramaic language for the early part of the 8th cent. B.C., or earlier, just as the inscriptions on weights and indorsements on Assyrian contracts, collected in the second volume oi the CIS, certify it for the latter half of the 8th cent, and later. The opinion of M. Maspero, (I.e.) that evidence for the existence of the Aramaic language is to be found in far earlier Egyptian documents, is now accepted by Egyptologists. As has already been observed, the oldest Aramaic is without a number of the characteristics t h a t serve to distinguish the later language from Canaanitish ; but it seems possible that this phenomenon is in part due to the influence of the Canaanitish orthography, since the Aramaic representation of the letters th and dh does not seem derivable from the Canaanitish and old Aramaic sh and z, whereas it is easily derivable from those letters themselves. In grammar this language shows some striking affinity with the S. Arabian dialect Sabsean ; but in vocabulary the earliest Aramaic seems to agree remarkably with Canaanitish, and though several words which are ordinary in Aramaic only figure in poetical language in Heb., this is what is frequently found in the case of kindred nations. The area within which the Aramaic language was employed seems even in Babylonian times to have been very g r e a t ; Ave have Aramaic inscriptions and papyri found in Syria, Babylonia, Egypt, and Arabia, which there are good grounds for regarding as earlier than Cyrus. Its employment even in the 8th cent. B.C. as a diplomatic language (Is 36 n ) implies an Aramaic hegemony either in politics or literature of some previous century; for it seems clear t h a t the only languages ever employed in this way are such as have for one of these reasons become important to members of many nationalities. The Aramaic verse in Jer (1011) is shown by the form of the word ' e a r t h , ' and the termination of the word 'shall perish,' to belong to the earliest form of Aramaic of which we have cognizance ; but the fact that the ordinary Aramaic for ' e a r t h ' occurs in the second half of the verse shows t h a t no confidence can be placed in the tradition, and it is highly probable t h a t the old Aramaic forms should be restored throughout. The influence of Assyrian on the old Aramaic was very considerable in matters aifecting vocabulary— such as to leave a permanent mark on the language; but on the grammar and syntax it would seem to have had either less effect or a different effect from that which it exercised on Canaanitish. The accession of the Persians to world-empire seems to have again largely affected the Aramaic vocabulary ; and the documents in Ezra which belong to the Persian period bear witness to the influx of Persian words, which, if these documents are genuine, the language must almost a t the commencement of t h a t period have undergone. The idiom of these documents agrees remarkably with that of the papyri edited in CIS (ii. Nos. 145if.), which some scholars have suspected of Jewish origin. The Aramaic parts of Daniel are char* Weiss in his Studien zur Mischnaksprache (in Hebrew), collects seme passages which, though of interest, lead to no definite conclusion.

L A N G U A G E O F T H E O L D TEST. acterized by a distinctly more modern idiom than t h a t of Ezra ; and, indeed, contain such decidedly Hebrew constructions that it is evident that either their author thought in t h a t language, or they represent a translation from it. Of the Aramaic inscriptions which have been discovered, perhaps those of Palmyra approach most closely the language of Daniel. The language has begun to assimilate Greek words, but there is as yet no regular system of transliteration. The language is rigidly distinguished from the later Christian Aramaic by the preservation of the old passive forms, by the fact that the emphatic form still has the force of the definite article, as well as by certain peculiarities of grammar and orthography. The later Jewish Aramaic, while in some of these matters it has developed uniformly with the Christian dialect of Edessa, in others has retained the older forms, and in vocabulary differs widely from all Christian dialects, save t h a t known as Palestinian Syriac. Unlike the language of Canaan, Aramaic held its ground during the integrity of the Roman Empire in the East, developing a variety of dialects and of scripts, and, though ousted in the seventh and succeeding centuries by A.rabic, it has still representatives in the dialect of the Christians of Mesopotamia, which the missionaries Stoddart, and, more recently, Macleane, have endeavoured to provide with grammar and vocabulary, and in some other less known dialects. LITERATURE.—The history of the earliest grammatical studies in Hebrew is sketched by W. Bacher, 'die Anfange dar Heb. Grammatik,' in ZDMG xlix. 1-62 and 334-392; for i,he few notices of grammar to be found in the Talmuds see further A. Berliner, Beiträge zur Heb. Grammatik im Talmud u. Midrasch, Berl. 1879. Bacher's papers carry the history of Hebrew grammar and lexicography down to the end of the 10th cent.; while the invention of the vowel-points is coinected with the labours of the Massoretes, the first actual author of a grammatical treatise was the Gaon Saadya (ob. 941), whosie work, however, exists only in quotations; to the 10th cent, belong the Risalah of Jehudah Ion Koraish, ed. Barges and Goldberg, Paris, 1842, the Mahbereth or dictionary of Menahem I b i Saruk (ed. H. Filipowski, Lond. 1854; see also Siegmund Gross, Menahem B. Saruk, Breslau, 1872), and the Teahubhah or ' Response' of Dunash B. Lab rat (ed. R. Schroter, Breslau, 1866 ; of. S. G. Stern, ' Liber Responsionum,' Vienna, 1870); to the lll.h cent, the 'Bookof Hebrew Roots'of R. Jonah, called Abu 'l-Walid Merwan (ed. by A. Neubauer, Oxford, 1875, cf. Neubauer, ' Notice sur la lexicographie H6braique,' in Jouin. Asiat. 1861), and his grammar, called Harrikmah (ed. Goldberg, Frankf. 1866). See further for this early period Ewald u. Dukes, Beiträge zur Geschichte der ältesten Auslegung u.s.w. des A. Testamentes, Stuttgart, 1844. We are brought nearer to modern times by the works of Abraham Ibn Ezra, Moz'ne I'shon halfkodesh (ed. Heidenheim, Offenbach, 1791), Sefer Sahith (ed. Lippmann, Fürth, 1827), and Safah B'rurah (ed. Lippmann, Fürth, 1839); see also Bacher, Abraham Ibn Ezra ah Grammatiker, Strassburg, 1881. To the same century belongs the lexicon of Solomon Ibn Parhon, completed at Salerno, 11G0 (ed. S. G. Stern, Pressburg, 1844; cf. M. Weiner, Parthon als Grammatiker u. Lexicograph, Offen. 1870). Still more important were the grammatical and lexicographical works of David Kimhi (1160-1235), whose Michlol has been often printed, first at Constantinople, 1534 ; see also J . Tauber, Standpunkt u. Leistung des R. JD. Kimhi als Grammatiker, Breslau, 1867. His dictionary, called Sefer hashshorashim, has alio been repeatedly printed, most recently by Biesenthal and Lubrechc, Berlin, 1847. The European study of Hebrew and Chaldee commences with the grammars and dictionaries of Sebastian Muns ;er and Pagninus, 1525-1643; in the next century the Thesaurus Gra mmaticus of J. Buxtorf, Basel, 1663, was of considerable importance. In this century the works of W. Gesenius have, notwithstanding many rivals, maintained their popularity ; his Hebrew grammar, which first appeared at Halle, 1813 (tollowed by the more elaborate Lehrgebäude, Leipzig, 1817), has repeatedly been re-edited and translated; the 26th edition, revised by E. Kautzsch, appeared in 1896 at Leipzig, and was translated by Collins and Cowley, Oxford, 1898. Of Gesenius' rivals the most eminent was H. Ewald, the author of both a larger and a smaller grammar; the 8th edition of the former, called Ausführliches Lehrbuch der heb. Sprache, appeared at Göttingen, 1870, the Syntax of which was translated by Kennedy, Edinburgh, 1879. Other important works on Hebrew grammar are J. Olshausen's Lehrbuch, Brunswiek, 1831; Fr. Böttcher's Ausführliches Lehrbuch, Leipzig, 1866 (ia man» respects the fullest that has yet appeared); B. Stade's Lehrbuch, Leipz. 1879 (these three do not touch the syntax); F. E. König, Hist.-krit. Lehrgebäude, Leipzig, 1881-1897. Driver's Hebrew Tenses (3rd ed., Oxford, 1890); Harper's Element» of Hebrm

L A N G U A G E OF T H E

APOCRYPHA

Syntax (London, 1890); and Wiekes' Treatises on Hebrew Accentuation (Oxford, 1881-1887), are of great importance. Lexicography is mainly represented by various editions of the dictionaries of (Jesenius (Handwörterbuch, Leipzig, 1810, 13th ed. by Buhl, 1899 ; new edition by Brown, Briggs, and Driver in course of publication; Thesaurus, 1835-1S5S, finished by E. Rödiger); while these can be supplemented by the Concordances, of which that by Mandelkern, Leipzig, 1896, is the newest and fullest. The grammar of the Aramaic; parts of the \ OT has been treated most recently by K. Marti in Petermann's j series, Leipzig, 1896, and H. Strack, Leipzig, 1896. Some of the j more important monographs on special questions have been noticed above; but the various journals devoted to the study :

of the OT, e.g. the American Hebraica and the German ZATW,

M well as those devoted to Jewish literature and to Oriental ; study, contain more articles of importance than can be noticed i here—1899. D . S. M ä R G O L I O U T H . j

LANGUAGE OF THE APOCRYPHA.—The Apocr y p h a m a y with fair accuracy be described as a collection of works e m a n a t i n g f r o m J e w i s h comm u n i t i e s in t h e period between t h e close of t h e OT Canon and t h e c o m m e n c e m e n t of t h a t of t h e N T . Most of these books seem t o have been composed in H e b r e w , a few in A r a m a i c , and t h e rest in G r e e k ; b u t as t h e y were preserved in t h e Christian c o m m u n i t y , t h e Hebrew and A r a m a i c originals were a t a n early t i m e lost or neglected, and their place t a k e n b y Greek t r a n s l a t i o n s ; a n d in t h e case of some, which never acquired l a s t i n g a u t h o r i t y , t h e Greek t r a n s l a t i o n itself h a s been lost, and t h e w o r k preserved, if a t all, in secondary versions. T h i s h a s occurred in t h e case of t h e Books of Enoch and of Jubilees, which are known chiefiy t h r o u g h Ethiopic versions; while t h e F o u r t h Book of Ezra, t h e Apocalypse of B a r u c h , and t h e A s s u m p t i o n of Moses, a r e k n o w n in secondary translations,—in t h e first case in a v a r i e t y of languages, in t h e second in Syriac, and in t h e t h i r d in L a t i n . Books 2 and following of Maccabees a r e k n o w n to have been w r i t t e n in t h e l a n g u a g e in which we possess t h e m ( G r e e k ) ; a n d t h e same is probably t h e case w i t h t h e Epistle of J e r e m y ; b u t t h e r e m a i n i n g books would seem t o be all translations, t h o u g h i t is n o t a l w a y s easy to distinguish Hellenistic Greek f r o m t r a n s l a t e d Hebrew. T h e m o s t a m b i t i o u s in point of style is t h e Wisdom of Solomon, which few even now regard as a t r a n s l a t i o n ; y e t t h e proof t h a t it is one is dilti cult t o elude ; for 1410 4 for t h a t which is made shall be punished together with him t h a t made i t ' is clearly a mistranslation of a sentence t h a t is quoted in t h e Midrash on Gn 48 {Rabbet, § 96) dbo •raj/an jo pynsj "¡3 imyn p pjnsa» ' j u s t a s t h e worshipper is punished so is t h a t which was worshipped,' t h e t r a n s l a t o r ' s m i s t a k e being d u e t o his giving t h e verb my its A r a m a i c sense ' t o do or m a k e , ' whereas t h e a u t h o r used i t in its Hebrew sense ' t o worship.' I t may be added t h a t t h e Greek of t h i s verse (rb ITpaxO^v abv ru opiuavri Kokaad-nGerai), which really means ' t h a t which has been done shall be punished t o g e t h e r w i t h h i m t h a t did it,' shows signs of mistranslation t h a t could have been detected w i t h o u t t h e aid of t h e original. ^ It is, however, certain t h a t t h e translator's object Avas r a t h e r to provide a masterpiece of Greek rhetoric t h a n to reproduce his original i f a i t h f u l l y ; and in t h e absence of material s it seems impossible to fix with precision t h e limxts of t h e w o r k translated, or the character of t h e original l a n g u a g e , which m u s t in a n y case have shown signs of Greek influence. T h a t t h e book called Ecclesiasticus o r t h e W i s d o m or t h e P r o v e r b s of J e s u s Ben-Sira was originally w r i t t e n in H e b r e w we k n o w from t h e s t a t e m e n t of t h e Greek t r a n s l a t o r in his p r e f a c e ; b u t the d a t e of t h e disappearance of t h e original is a m a t t e r of obscurity. J e r o m e professes to have seen it. T h e w r i t i n g s of t h e earlier R a b b i s contain & certain n u m b e r of q u o t a t i o n s from it, which are collected b y Cowley a n d N e u b a u e r ( A portion of the Orig. Hebrew of Ecclus., Oxford, 1896); t h i s collection,

L A N G U A G E OF T H E A P O C R Y P H A

35

however, requires considerable reduction. The reason for its disappearance is doubtless t o be found in t h e passage in t h e G e m a r a of B. Sanhedrin (f. 1006), in which it is asserted t h a t a J e w would risk his eternal salvation by reading i t ; t h e passages, however, which are cited t h e r e both for a n d a g a i n s t t h i s opinion, seem very i n a d e q u a t e for e i t h e r purpose. From these q u o t a t i o n s we should g a t h e r t h a t t h e a u t h o r used a language similar to t h a t of t h e Mishnic authors, i.e. a highly developed New H e b r e w ; and t h i s t h e r e seems no reason to doubt, though it is likely t h a t t h e q u o t a t i o n s are n o t scrupulously accurate. I n an essay by t h e present writer, published in 1890, reasons were b r o u g h t forward for t h i n k i n g t h a t m a n y of t h e differences between t h e Greek and t h e Syriac versions, both of which were made from t h e original, could be solved by t h e assumption t h a t t h e writer used New Hebrew w o r d s ; and t h a t t h e writer used a nine-syllable m e t r e , of which t h e base was a foot called in Greek Bacchic, consisting of a short, a long, and a s h o r t : t h e middle syllable being invariably long, w h e r e a s t h e o t h e r s were common. Ben-Sira, however, professes to be in t h e m a i n a compiler from t h e OT (24-'}, which he doubtless imitated constantly ; b a t in t h i s he is doing himself an injustice. In 1896 a leaf was b r o u g h t over f r o m Cairo cont a m i n g a portion of Ecclus. in Hebrew, followed by t h e discovery of other portions, published in t h e work mentioned above, while y e t o t h e r portions a w a i t publication.* T h e present writer has shown grounds (I'he Origin of the Grig. Ihb. of Ecr.lus., Oxford, 1899) for t h i n k i n g this Hebrew a retranslation m a d e in t h e 11th or 12th cent. A.D., p a r t l y f r o m t h e Syriac and p a r t l y from a Persian version of t h e Greek. + T h e r e m a i n i n g poetical book in t h i s series, t h e P s a l m s of Solomon, would seem to have been rendered i n t o Greek by a specially skilful h a n d : had we t h e original, it is probable t h a t it would reveal little difference in expression f r o m m a n y P s a l m s in t h e P s a l t e r ascribed to David. Of t h e post-biblical historical w r i t i n g of t h e J e w s occasional f r a g m e n t s a r e to be f o u n d in t h e T a l m u d , e.g. B. Kiddushin, f. (jtia. T h e old forms a r e still retained, t h o u g h t h e writer introduces w i t h o u t scruple vulgarisms of hi« own age. I t is probable t h a t t h e historical portions of t h e Apocr y p h a were in a style similar to this, b u t of course we c a n n o t be sure. The Book of J u d i t h is k n o w n to h a v e been w r i t t e n in H e b r e w from 3 9 , where t h e word ' s a w 5 evidently is a mistranslation of a H e b r e w word signifying ' p l a i n ' ("mro); t h e s t a t e m e n t of J e r o m e t h a t Chaldee was the original language of t h e book, m u s t t h e r e f o r e be regarded as inaccurate. A t t e m p t s t h a t have been made to find m i s t r a n s l a t i o n s f r o m t h e Hebrew in t h e other books, e.g. in Tobit b y F. Rosenthal (Vier Apocryphische Biicher, 1885), and in 1 Mac by t h e s a m e scholar (das erste Makkabaerhuch, 1867, p. 6} seem to have produced no convincing result. The t i t l e of the l a t t e r , which is handed down by Origen, sarbeth sarbane ' h i s t o r i c historioJarunr seems c e r t a i n l y Aramaic, and indeed Syriac (7/ics. Syr. col. 4323. 4), and it is u n l i k e l y t h a t a Hebrew book would have a t i t l e of t h i s sort. T h e prophetic and apocalyptic style is represented b y works ascribed t o Baruch, Ezra, and others. T h e Book of B a r u c h consists very largely of phrases t a k e n from t h e OT, and hence t h e elaborate reconstruction of t h e original by K n e u c k e r (Leipzig, 1879) probably gives a correct idea of t h e a u t h o r ' s style. I n t h e Apocalypse of B a r u c h some * See now Wisdom qf Ben Sira, by Schechter and Taylor Camb., 1899; and G. Margoliouth in JQR, Oct. 1899. t See Konig and Margoliouth in Expos. Times, August 1899 and foil, months; also Smend in ThL, Sept. 1890; L6vi >u REJ Ap.-June 1899 ; and Bacher in JQR, Oct. 1899.

i

| | I

36

LANGUAGE OF THK NEW TEST.

LANGUAGE OF THE NEW TEST.

relics of the original Hebrew can, it has been known as the ' Common D i a l e c t ' KOLVT), SC. STAXE• t h o u g h t (R. H. Charles in his edition, pp. xliv- KTOS), a prominent abode of which for two cer.turiea liii) be discerned in errors of t h e translation ; and or more before the Christian era was the em Dire of the same is said to be t h e case with the Assumption the Ptolemies and their capital Alexandria. " Here of Moses (R. H. Charles in his edition, pp. x x x i x - dwelt myriads of expatriated Jews, to whom in xlv). Too little of the original language can in time their native or ancestral tongue became so any case be recovered to enable us to speak with unfamiliar t h a t a Gr. translation of their sacred certainty of its character. books was prepared to meet their needs (approximately between B.C. 285 and B.C. 150 ; see SEPTUAD . S. MARGOLIOUTH. LANGUAGE OF THE NEW TESTAMENT.—The GINT). TO this version much of the reverence felt subject of this article is the species of Greek in for t h e Heb. originals was soon transferred, c,nd its common use by all Jews resident outside of Paleswhich our canonical N T Scriptures are written. A person familiar with A t t i c Greek, who should tine did much to fix and perpetuate the t y p e of t a k e in hand for the first time a Greek NT, Greek it represents. T h a t Greek, a f t e r undergoing could not fail to be struck by its peculiar the modifications resulting inevitably from the use idiom. ^ A p a r t from traits which distinguish of separated localities and intervening generations, one portion of the volume from another (see V. furnished the vehicle by which the revelation of p. 41 below), the language in general would seem God through Jesus Christ was given t o the world. strange to him—by reason of the admixture of I t s origin discloses its fitness for i t s providential popular, n o t to say plebeian, terms in its vocabul- office. I t embodied the lofty conceptions of t h e ary ; _ by its occasional outlandish and hardly Heb. and Christian faith in a language which intelligible phrases and constructions; by the brought t h e m home to men's business and bosoms. meagre use of t h e connectives and other particles It was an idiom capable of such use as not t o by which the earlier writers give balance, shading, forfeit the respect of t h e cultivated (see, for and point to their periods; by the comparative example, Ac 17'J2ff- 2624ff-); yet, in substance, i t avoidance or irregular use of t h e genitive absolute, was the language of everyday life, and hence attraction, and other syntactical devices for secur- fitted for the dissemination of the gospel by ing compactness and gradation in the presentation preaching wherever Greek was spoken. I t differs of t h o u g h t ; and throughout by a style which, evidently from t h e language of writers like Philo though often monotonous, is conspicuous for its and Josephus, who, though of Heb. extraction, directness and simplicity; a style which, while i t addressed themselves to t h e educated classes and shows occasionally the digressions and broken or aspired after idiomatic elegance of expression. I t anacoluthic sentences characteristic of colloquial occupies apparently an intermediate position beand uneducated utterance, is seldom encumbered tween the vulgarisms of t h e populace and t h e with parentheses or protracted and entangled studied style of the litterateurs of t h e period. periods ; a style obviously the expression of men It affords a striking illustration of the divine policy too simple, self-forgetful, and earnest to pay much in putting honour on w h a t m a n calls * common.' heed to literary elegancies or the established rules (c) History.— The true nature, however, of this of the rhetorician. noteworthy idiom was for a time in certain quarters Before considering in detail the characteristics of unrecognized. This is surprising in view of t h e this variety of Greek, thus distinctly marked in deviations from t h e classic standard which stare one vocabulary, construction, and style, we must notice in the face from every page of the NT. Moreover, briefly its name, its origin, and its history. t h e educated man among t h e apostles f r a n k l y con(«) Name. — Some of the names proposed for fesses his lack of t h e graces of classic diction (1 Co this peculiar idiom are evidently too restricted in 23-4 l 17 , 2 Co 11 s ); and competent judges of Greek their reference, as respects time or place or both among the early Christians, such as Origen (e. Cels. (as, ' t h e ecclesiastical dialect,' ' t h e Alexandrian vii. 59 f., Philocalia, iv., ed. Robinson, p. 41 f.) and dialect,' 'Palestinian Greek'). Others, like 'Jewish Chrysostom {Horn. 3 on 1 Co l 17 ), not only are forGreek,' ' Jewish-Christian G r e e k / though intrin- ward to acknowledge the literary inferiority of sically appropriate, have failed to gain currency. the biblical language, but find evidence in t h a t fact B u t the appellation ' Hellenistic Greek,' iirst sug- both of the divine condescension to the lowly and gested apparently by the younger Scaliger, is now of t h e surpassing dignity of the contents of revelaalmost universally accepted. Protests on t h e tion in that, though destitute of the charms of ground t h a t this name not only fails to indicate polite literature, it could y e t command ti e allein w h a t direction the language deviates from giance of the cultivated. Leading scholars of t h e ordinary Greek (and consequently is less descriptive Reformation period also (Erasmus, Luther, Melanthan ' i i e b r a i c ' or ' Aramaic G r e e k ' would be), chthon, Beza) held in the main t h e same correct b u t is also inherently tautological or meaningless, opinion. But early in the 17th cent, this opinion because t a n t a m o u n t to ' Greekish Greek,' are encountered emphatic dissent, which led to a dispowerless to dislodge it. Its adoption has been cussion (known as the ' Purist Controversy' i which favoured, doubtless, by the use of 'EM^«rnfc was protracted for more than a century, and conin Ac (61 9'-*1 ll 2 0 var. lee.) as t h e designation of ducted at times with no little heat. T h e heat was grecizing or Greek-speaking Jews. The applica- largely due to the circumstance t h a t those who tion of the term ' d i a l e c t ' to t h e Gr. of a particular denied the classic purity of N T Greek were t h o u g h t locality and period is infelicitous, since t h a t term by their opponents to dishonour t h e divine author has already been appropriated by the idiom of the of the book. But if these over-zealous champions several branches of the Greek race. of the divine honour had had their way, they would (6) Origin.—The literary supremacy of Athens have disproved t h e claim of the volume to be t h e production of Greek-speaking Jews of the 1st cent., (e. B.C. 50(1—B.C. 300) had caused her dialect, t h e Attic, gradually to supplant t h e forms of the and have nullified t h e philological evidence it affords t h a t , a t t h a t epoch, there entered a new and translanguage used by the other families of t h e Gr. race ; and t h e diffusion of Greek was much forming energy into t h e realm of human thought. furthered through t h e conquest and colonization We see the foolishness of God to be wiser than (A full bibliography of this instructive of the East by Alexander the Great and his suc- men. sessors. In this process of diffusion, however, the controversy, with a critical estimate of t h e arguments advanced on both sides, is given in Attic dialect itself was modified by t h e speech and usages of the nations among which it spread, till Schmiedel's Winer, § 2). at length there arose a cosmopolitan type of Greek The peculiarities of t h e N T language will b"

LANGUAGE OF THE NEW TEST. most conveniently exhibited in connexion with the several elements entering into its composition, viz.— T. The later or ' C o m m o n ' spoken Greek. II. The Hebrew or spoken Aramaic. III. The Latin and other foreign tongues. IV. The religious or distinctively Christian element. T o the consideration of these will be subjoined— V . A summary view of the peculiarities of Individual Writers. VI. Some of the linguistic Problems in the N T , with the aids t o their solution. VII. A glance at the Bibliography of the s u b j e c t The peculiarities noticed in the first four divisions may be classified as ( A ) Lexical, and (B) G r a m m a t i c a l : — T h e former comprising—a. New Words, and b. New Meanings; the latter, a. Peculiarities of Form, and b. Peculiarities of Construction or Syntax. A t the outset it should b e noted that not a little uncertainty still exists with regard to many points of d e t a i l ; and the limits of the present exposition will restrict for the most part the examples and specifications given to a few representative particulars.

LANGUAGE OF THE NEW TEST.

37

airo^rjixo^, airo^deyyofxai, &iroTOfj,ia (-/tws), airo^¿xw, acraXiVTos, acr^/xtoi', arazeros, aTt/x&frw, avyafa, avd&dijs, aii^co, auro^etp, ai'^iw, dipavros, aippifa, /Sap^ai, fiaaTiifay fipexu, f3pdjtlXt]/j.^/ls 4 help,' d7roTd