Prayer Tents Bible References - Prayer Tents

HEBREW, BIBLICAL

Hebrew belongs to the Semitic family of languages, a subgroup of the larger Afro-asiatic family which includes Egyptian, Berber, and the more modern Cushitic, Omotic, and Chadic (e.g., Hausa) groupings. The Semitic family, attested as early as the 3rd millennium b.c.e. (e.g., Akkadian), survives up to the present (e.g., Arabic, Hebrew), and is divided into eastern and western branches. The eastern branch is represented by Akkadian, the language of the Babylonians and Assyrians, and most likely Eblaite, known from the archive found at Tell Mardikh in Syria. In the western branch are South Semitic (Ethiopic [Geʿez] and South Arabic) and Central Semitic. The latter denotes Arabian languages (e.g., Classical Arabic and several modern dialects) as well as Syro-Palestinian (Northwest Semitic) languages which are traditionally divided into Aramaic and Canaanite subgroups. Hebrew is a Northwest Semitic language which belongs to the Canaanite subgroup along with sister languages Phoenician, Ammonite, Edomite, and Moabite. Hebrew also shares an affinity to Ugaritic, though its precise position within the Northwest family is still debated.

History

Hebrew is well-known as the language of the Hebrew Bible (OT), even though it went by different names in biblical times (e.g., śĕpaṯ kĕnaʿan, “the language of Canaan,” Isa. 19:18; yĕhûḏîṯ, “Judahite,” 2 Kgs. 18:26, 28; 2 Chr. 32:18; Neh. 13:24; Isa. 36:11, 13). During the Hellenistic period, the designation Hebraios, “Hebrew,” is found in the prologue to Ben Sira and Josephus (Ant. 1.1:2). In rabbinic literature it came to be known as lĕšôn haqqoḏeš, “the holy language” (m. Soṭa 7:2).

The study of Biblical Hebrew is a very complex endeavor involving many disciplines such as linguistics, comparative Semitics, epigraphy, orthography, textual criticism (e.g., Dead Sea Scrolls, LXX, Targumic, and Masoretic studies), not to mention a basic grounding in historical-critical methodologies such as redaction criticism. Redaction criticism underscores how all of the biblical texts underwent a late editorial process making them difficult to use to reconstruct the early history of the language. Some scholars, especially those associated with the Albright school, have argued that archaic features in poems such as Exod. 15; Judg. 5; Ps. 68 give evidence of the character of Hebrew in the early Iron I period. Scholars who wish to reconstruct an even earlier stage of the language (proto-Northwest Semitic) have no biblical texts dating to the Late Bronze period and are forced to rely on cognate material such as the Ugaritic texts, Amorite personal names, and the Amarna tablets. Even though the Amarna tablets are written in Akkadian vocabulary, they reflect a distinct Northwest Semitic morphology and syntax which are attributed to their native Canaanite setting.

When it comes to the Iron Age, the character of Hebrew can be studied not only from the biblical texts, but also from extrabiblical inscriptions such as the Gezer Calendar (10th century), the Kuntillet ʿAjrud pithoi (8th century), the Khirbet el-Qom tomb inscription (8th century), Samaria ostraca (8th century), Siloam inscription (8th-7th century), Arad Letters (6th century), Lachish Letters (6th century), and numerous seals from the 8th to the 6th centuries. The Hebrew found in the Bible is broken down into archaic Hebrew (gleaned primarily from biblical poems which have preserved earlier features of the language that find corroboration in the early extrabiblical epigraphic sources), preexilic Hebrew (often called Classical Biblical Hebrew) and postexilic Hebrew (often called Late Biblical Hebrew). Some scholars have seen signs of a Transitional Biblical Hebrew between the latter two stages.

Grammar

The Hebrew alphabet, written from right to left, consists of 22 signs which are used to represent 23 consonants (the same sign was used for both /ś/ and /š/; later these were distinguished by the Tiberian Masorah with a diacritical dot to the upper left and right respectively). Two of the signs also represent the glides /w/ and /y/.

The chart above provides a very approximate schematization of the Hebrew consonants, with the vertical axis representing the place of pronunciation and the horizontal axis representing the manner in which the consonant is pronounced. It is unclear how /ś/ was pronounced originally; it becomes homophonous with /s/. It should also be noted that the Tiberian Masorah represented a distinction between stop and spirants in the six letters b/ḇ, g/g, d/ḏ, k/ḵ, p/p, t/ṯ (a dot was placed in the middle of the stops).

There is considerable debate over the character of the Hebrew vocalic system. The oldest form of the language did not employ vowel indicators. At a later stage several consonants (w, y, and h, known as matres lectionis) were used to mark final and, at a later point, medial vowels. The Tiberian system of vocalization (a mostly infralinear system of pointing used in the majority of today’s Hebrew Bibles) contains signs to mark vowels (a-class: pataḥ, qameṣ; i-class: segol, ṣere, ḥireq; u-class: ḥolem, šureq, qibbuṣ, qameṣ-ḥaṭup) and half-vowels (known as shewa or ḥaṭep-shewa; if unstressed, the diphthongs aw and ay contracted to ô and ê, respectively). It should be underscored that this system represents a late tradition which marks quality but not quantity.

Hebrew nouns have two categories of grammatical (morphological) gender. In general, the masculine is unmarked while the feminine can be marked (â with h mater lectionis, -at, -t, -et) or unmarked. Hebrew has three categories of number: singular (unmarked), plural (most masculine nouns marked by -îm; most feminine by -ôt/ōt, although there are well-known exceptions to each and collectives also occur), and dual (-ayim). Some dual forms also serve as the plural form (e.g., body parts). Definiteness can be marked by the prefix h- on both nouns and adjectives (attributive and demonstrative). In its earliest form Hebrew nouns were marked for three cases (with -u, -i, and -a endings for the singular; -ū and -ī for plural; cf. Classical Arabic, Akkadian, Ugaritic), yet this system has all but disappeared except for some vestiges. In its place Biblical Hebrew uses what is called a “construct chain” to represent the genitive where the first of two juxtaposed nouns is in a “construct state” (or “bound”) to the second; in such “bound forms” the first noun loses its definite article and can undergo vowel reduction or contraction. The accusative can be marked (although it is not obligatory) by the use of -ʾeṯ prior to the direct object (commonly when the object is a definite noun or a proper name). The nominative is unmarked.

The Hebrew verbal system is, without doubt, the most debated part of the grammar. Hebrew roots are basically triliteral, with quadriliteral roots occurring only rarely. Biliteral roots are mostly allomorphs of triliteral roots. There are seven primary stems (or “themes”; known in Hebrew as binyanim) including the qal (basic or simple unaugmented form), niphal (prefixed n-; originally medio-passive, later passive, reflexive, resultative), piel (doubled middle radical; factitive), pual (passive of piel), hiphil (some forms contain prefixed h-; originally causative), hophal (passive of hiphil), and hithpael (infixed -t- form of piel; reflexive, iterative, reciprocal). Most of the stems can also be used in forming denominative verbs, with piel and hiphil stems utilized most often. In addition to these seven stems known from the Masoretic pointing, scholars have also reconstructed the original qal passive (pointed by the Masoretes as puals and hophals). There are also rarely attested derived stems known as the polel (active), polal (passive), and hithpolel (reflexive) which reduplicate the final root letter of hollow verbs (cf. also geminate roots) as well as palal (reduplicated third root consonant) and pilpel (reduplicated biconsonantal root) stems.

Most traditional grammars describe the verbal system as including suffixal perfective (“perfect” or qatal) and prefixal, nonperfective (“imperfect” or yiqtol) conjugations as well as participles (active and passive), imperatives, jussives, and infinitives (the so-called infinitive construct can function as a verbal noun [taking pronominal suffixes], an infinitive, or a gerund; the so-called infinitive absolute is misnamed; it primarily functions as an adverb emphasizing or complementing the main verb, although it can also substitute for a finite verb). Yet, in addition to such simplified presentations, there is a vast amount of scholarly literature debating the fine points of Hebrew grammar from a linguistic perspective.

Verbal System

Diachronic vs. Synchronic Approaches

Hebrew grammarians — past and present — differ with respect to whether they see Biblical Hebrew as having a temporal or aspectual verbal system and whether it should be analyzed synchronically or diachronically. Diachronically, scholars have traditionally looked at the verbal system as having two primary conjugations: the suffixal perfective (“perfect” or qatal) and prefixal, nonperfective (“imperfect”; yaqtul ˃ yiqtol). Recently, scholars using a comparative Semitic approach (especially Amarna Canaanite and Ugaritic; cf. also Akkadian) have emphasized the existence of a “short” yaqtul preterite/jussive form (in contrast to the “long” yaqtulu imperfective form) to address the vexing question of the so-called waw-conversive (wayyiqtol) forms. Synchronically, some scholars have identified five basic forms: perfect, imperfect, narrative (=waw-consecutive), converted perfect, and volitive (including jussive, cohortative, and imperative forms). Of these, the imperfect and the converted perfect could be paired according to function as could the perfect and the narrative forms. At the same time, discourse grammarians have paired the narrative and converted perfect forms as sequential over against the nonsequential perfect and imperfect forms.

Tense vs. Aspect

The debate over whether the Hebrew verbal system is temporal or aspectual is ongoing. The analysis of Hebrew as an absolute tense system dates back to Ibn Janah. Modern scholars who argue for Hebrew being some type of a tense system (cf. Paul Joüon–Takamitsu Muraoka, Gotthelf Bergsträsser) often theorize that Hebrew is a relative tense system in which a tense does not so much indicate the point in time of the speech-act (although it can do such) as it situates the verb in relation to the speaker (anterior or posterior). As a result of the work of H. G. A. Ewald and S. R. Driver, as well as more recent studies in the Slavic languages and Greek, the majority of modern grammars of Biblical Hebrew since the mid-19th century have emphasized that Hebrew has an aspectual verbal system (e.g., Bruce K. Waltke–Michael P. O’Connor). These works emphasize that Hebrew is a “tenseless” system; verbs are more properly analyzed according to duration or “the contour of a situation in time.” Thus a perfective verb describes a complete or completed (even punctual) action, while an imperfective verb describes an incomplete or durative (even habitual) action.

Bibliography. D. J. A. Clines, ed., The Dictionary of Classical Hebrew (Sheffield, 1993–); P. Joüon, A Grammar of Biblical Hebrew (Rome, 1991); L. Koehler, W. Baumgartner, and J. J. Stamm, The Hebrew and Aramaic Lexicon of the Old Testament (Leiden, 1994–); T. N. D. Mettinger, “The Hebrew Verb System: A Survey of Recent Research,” ASTI 9 (1973): 65-84; A. Sáenz-Badillos, A History of the Hebrew Language (Cambridge, 1993); C. L. Seow, A Grammar for Biblical Hebrew, rev. ed. (Nashville, 1995); B. K. Waltke and M. P. O’Connor, An Introduction to Biblical Hebrew Syntax (Winona Lake, 1990).

Theodore J. Lewis

Prayer Tents Bible References - Prayer Tents

HEBREW, BIBLICAL

Eerdmans Dictionary of the Bible (2000)