Skip to main content

Full text of "Recent Works on the Lexicon and Grammar of Hebrew-Aramaic"

See other formats


Early Journal Content on JSTOR, Free to Anyone in the World 

This article is one of nearly 500,000 scholarly works digitized and made freely available to everyone in 
the world byJSTOR. 

Known as the Early Journal Content, this set of works include research articles, news, letters, and other 
writings published in more than 200 of the oldest leading academic journals. The works date from the 
mid-seventeenth to the early twentieth centuries. 

We encourage people to read and share the Early Journal Content openly and to tell others that this 
resource exists. People may post this content online or redistribute in any way for non-commercial 

Read more about Early Journal Content at 
journal-content . 

JSTOR is a digital library of academic journals, books, and primary source objects. JSTOR helps people 
discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content through a powerful research and teaching 
platform, and preserves this content for future generations. JSTOR is part of ITHAKA, a not-for-profit 
organization that also includes Ithaka S+R and Portico. For more information about JSTOR, please 


■•Dbm' mw-ta nwiiN nan ncinni njcs'M nnayn pc^n p!)0. 

Thesaurus totius Hebraitatis et veteris et recentioris. Auctore 
EuESER Ben Iehuda, Hierosolymitano. Schonebergi apud 
Berolinum in aedibus Prof. G. Langenscheidti. I (nnV3 — K), 

T t: 

II (npsn — Ei''a), III, parts 1-5 (mt — n»i5an ). pp. 1396. 

Hebrdisches und aramaisches Worterbuch sum Alien Testament. 
Mit Einschaltung und Analyse aller schwer erkennbaren 
Formen, Deutung der Eigennamen sowie der massoretischen 
Randbemerkungen und einera deutsch-hebraischen Wortregis- 
ter. Von Dr. phil. u. theol. Eduard Konig, ordentlichem 
Professor und Geh. Konsistorialrat in Bonn. Leipzig: DiE- 
terich'sche Verlagsbuchhandlung (Theodor Weigher), 
1910. pp. X + 665. 

Vorstellung und Wort "Friede" im Alien Testament. Von Dr. Lie. 

WiLHEi/M Caspari, in Erlangen. Giitersloh: C. Bertelsmann, 

1910. pp. 168. 

The line of demarcation between biblical and post-biblical 
Hebrew is a fluid one. Mishnic Hebrew projects into the canon, 
just as biblical Hebrew is met with in Mishnah and Talmud. 
Saadya was the first to collect in a lexidion a list of biblical hapax 
legomena which may be explained by the aid of post-biblical 
Hebrew. When due deduction is made of Scriptural reminiscences 
in the Mishnah (e. g. Peah 2, 2 = Isa. 7, 25; 4, 9 = Levit. 2, 2; 
Kelim 1,9 = Joel 2, 17 ; Sukkah 5, 4 comp. I Chron. 25, i ; Abot 
4, 18 = Prov. 3, s) and the conscious imitation of biblical style 
(sporadically in prose, as in the historical baraita i^iddushin 66a, 



where observe the 1 consecutive six times ; more frequently in 
poetic (paitanic) pieces, comp. Megillah 6a, Moed kafan 256, 
Ketubbot 1040, Abodah zarah 246, Abot derabbi Nathan 38; then 
in maxims, in the apocalyptic mishnah Sotah 9, 15, in liturgical 
pieces with their parallelismus membrorum and the like), there is 
imbedded in the tannaitic literature much of the Old Hebrew 
vocabulary for which there was accidentally no room in the 
Scriptures. Scriptural Hebrew is also found in the Hebrew Sirach 
and in the undoubtedly pre-Christian sectarian document pub- 
lished by Schechter. Not that Scriptural Hebrew persisted in 
tannaitic times in its pristine purity; but the development from 
the golden era of the language to its silver stage was a natural 
one and is witnessed already in the canon. The Mishnic Hebrew 
is naturally colored by the Aramaic vernacular, but Aramaisms 
are met with in the Bible some of which ascend into early times; 
for in the process of mixture — if mixture it be called — not only 
chronological sequence but also local and dialectal forces must be 
studied. In the days of Rabbi, Hebrew was still a spoken language 
in some nooks and corners, as on the other hand the subject- 
matter of the tannaitic literature brought about a necessary syn- 
tactical change as well as an enrichment in the line of particles. 
So much is certain that the student of the biblical Hebrew finds 
it necessary to overstep the limits of the canon for the elucidation 
of the language of the canon itself. The current great lexica of 
the Talmud and Midrashim inconveniently enough combine the 
Hebrew and Aramaic material together; moreover the connection 
with the biblical stage is lost. This evil is now obviated by Ben 
lehuda's Thesaurus. This is one feature of the work. Another 
equally important side to the gigantic work is the record made (in 
foot-notes) of the native lexicographical expositions of the mediae- 
val period. Of the mediaeval Hebrew lexicographers none is as 
important as Ibn Janah who is quite modern and whose views de- 
serve to be consulted on every point. Moreover, an insight into 
the current (traditional?) exegesis of the Jews is gained by 
consulting the use to which biblical words and phrases have been 
put in the productions of the great Spanish poets who were them- 
selves no mean exegetes. For with them the third period of the 
Hebrew sets in; I prefer to call it Neo-Hebrew, while the tannaitic 


language should be designated as late Hebrew. In so far as Neo- 
Hebrew became the vehicle of rhymed poetry in Arabic meter it 
meant a conscious reversion to the Hebrew of the Scriptures. It 
is Rapoport who has shown (Introduction to Parhon) how in the 
days of Judah Halevi and his fellow-singers Hebrew was ill suited 
to the dialectic and philosophico-scientific genre of literature ; how 
when the Neo-Hebrew muse had taken marvelous flights, the very 
same poets reverted to the vernacular when they had to write on 
philology or philosophy. It is the merit of the great translators 
to have created the Hebrew prose; to what extent the rich treas- 
ures of Arabic were drawn upon is well known ; it is equally 
known how many of the "innovations" became naturalized, a 
permanent fixture for all times. Ben-Iehuda has excerpted the 
mediaeval poetic and prose works in Hebrew, and his labor, at 
present unique, reveals at once the richness of this later stage of 
Hebrew. There is hardly a scientific term for which there does 
not exist a good Hebrew equivalent, whether a new content has 
been put into old material or a new vocabulary coined ad hoc. 
Another reversion to biblical Hebrew occurred at the end of the 
eighteenth century after the Hebrew of the mediaeval period had 
been debased largely through the subject-matter of the latter cen- 
turies which was mainly halakic. I am speaking of prose Hebrew, 
for poetry, though meter and form changed in the Occident, moved 
largely in the channels of the older standards. The Measefim 
ushered in the fourth period of the Hebrew, the modern Hebrew, 
the language of esthetic and popular practical literature. The 
modern European languages naturally exerted a certain measure 
of influence, and to that extent Hebrew lost I will not say in 
purity — for purity is a standard for pedants — but rather in its 
organic native make-up. With the transition of the center of 
gravity for Hebrew culture to the Orient, particularly to Palestine, 
where the exigencies of circumstances — Palestine represents a 
conglomerate of the Jewries of the world — make imperatively for 
the cultivation of Hebrew as a living language, Hebrew is return- 
ing to its ancient home and is brought once more into contiguity 
with its sister dialects, Arabic specifically. In view pf what is 
really happening in Palestine even the philologist will hestitate to 
subscribe to Noldeke's pronouncement (article "Semitic Lan- 


guages," Encyclopaedia Britannica, nth edition, p. 6226) that "the 
dream of some Zionists, that Hebrew — a would-be Hebrew, that is 
to say — will again become a living, popular language in Palestine, 
has still less prospect of realization than their vision of a restored 
Jewish empire in the Holy Land." Words belonging to the newest 
coinage and described as actually in use either in the latest liter- 
ature or in living popular speech are marked as such in Ben 
lehuda's Millon. A few examples may not be out of place. |»Dn3K 
"oxygen," pjniS "hydrogen," D^OIN "nitrogen," n»)3« (= Arabic 
hajariyyah) "macadamized road," |'3S (Aramaic for pna "tin"; 
on the principle of utilizing doublets, hence a principle of economy, 
then introduced for) "zinc"; )n3S (from the Aramaic i<^3X 
but |1^3N would be more correct) "lead pencil"; a'TK "polite," 
ruanx "politeness" (from the Arabic); 2n2n^ "flirt," D''3n3riS 
"flirting"; |BlN "cyclist," D^JBK (but "wheel" is )SlS , not jSk) 
"bicycle"; nnIX "radium"; nb^^ "cancer" (bsiK used by Ibu 
Tibbon); DbS (comp. DSKHJ) "brown"; nWOS (the vocaHzation is 
open to criticism) "art of painting"; njSS "fashion"; 'ibS "ash- 

T ; T T 

gray" ; HIpX (comp. Arabic kadaha "strike fire") "revolver" ; na3 
"doll"; D33 (comp. D333 in the Mishnah) "gypsum"; raj-flM 
"coquetry" ; n333 "kindergarten teacher" ; b"^ (comp. Aramaic) 
"waiter" ; nW'iynn "interest (,Interesse)" ; mtl (comp. Arabic) "min- 
istry" ; n'll "rose color" ; if (comp. Aramaic) "transparent" ; mOt 
(comp. Aramaic) "singer (chanteuse)." The proportion of 
new words is after all a small one. It shows how when the total 
of the Hebrew vocabulary belonging to all ages and coming from 
all corners has been collected — a vertiable "gathering of the dis- 
persed" — ^there is but little occasion for innovation. Words with 
which we have been familiar in the latter-day literature are proved 
to have been current as far back as the tannaitic times when 
foreign (principally Greek and Latin) words became naturalized 
in Hebrew and Hebraized in form. For this is the sign of a living 
language that it can assimilate foreign words and make them avail- 
able for new derivatives after the fashion of Hebrew. An unassim- 
ilated foreign word remains barren ; but a word naturalized and sub- 


mitted to the Hebrew cast becomes itself the fruitful parent of new 
formations. Ben-Iehuda's industry is simply marvelous. What is 
done for other languages by learned academies and societies work- 
ing together has been accomplished by the devotion of a single 
scholar. There will probably be found omissions; I have myself 
come across a few examples. But where so much is given it is 
gratuitous to cavil because more is not offered. Ben-Iehuda is at 
home in the whole range of Semitic philology. He has perused 
modern grammars and articles scattered in learned magazines. He 
has an opinion of his own where a difference of views obtains 
among grammarians and lexicographers. His etymological 
excursuses will prove valuable. What he has to say on the vocal- 
izations of the names of the consonants ("alef," "gimel," "dalet,' 
etc.) will command itself to judicious scholars, although it must be 
granted that for such words antedating the nikkud the traditional 
vowel symbols adjusted to a different phonetic principle should 
not be used. Elsewhere, likewise, Ben-Iehuda has made errors in 
the vocalization, not to mention misprints. Misprints abound also 
in the English. On p. 970a, footnote, read "getiimis" for "genus." 
The author should use more caution in the future. It is also to be 
regretted that the author has not followed the Oxford Gesenius 
(and the mediseval Hebrew lexica) in placing derivatives under the 
root, instead of arranging them alphabetically. Perhaps this de- 
ficiency can be made good in an appendix. An introduction is 
to accompany the work upon its completion which will deal with 
the history of the language in all its phases and an outline of 
Hebrew grammar. Ben-Iehuda's Millon should be in the hands of 
every student of the Scriptures and every teacher of Hebrew. It 
should be a matter of honor for all Jews who love their national 
tongue to support the author financially, that is by subscribing to 
the great work now slowly but steadily going through the press. 

Professor Konig's Hebrew and Aramaic Lexicon to the Old 
Testament comes as a fit sequel to a series of works by the same 
author dealing with the grammar of biblical Hebrew and extending 
over a period of thirty-seven years (a dissertation on "thought, 
sound, and accent as the three factors of language-making demon- 
strated in Hebrew" appeared in 1874 when the author was teaching 


school at Dobein; the monumental Hebrew Grammar in three 
parts, "Historisch-kritisches Lehrgebaude der hebraischen Sprache 
mit komparativer Beriicksichtigung des Semitischen tiberhaupt," 
was published in 1881. 1895. 1897; in 1900 appeared he work on 
"stylistics, rhetoric, and poetics of the biblical literature," a sub- 
ject hitherto treated only casually but never on so comprehensive 
and thorough a scale ; the next year 'was given to the publication 
of a monograph setting forth the place of Hebrew in the Semitic 
group of languages, "Hebraisch und Semitisch, Prolegomena und 
Grundlinien einer Geschichte der semitischen Sprachen"; a short 
Hebrew Grammar for beginners saw the light in 1908). The chief 
feature of this Dictionary is that it sums up the author's linguistic 
studies in connection with the biblical languages, preeminently the 
Hebrew; as a sort of index to Konig's Grammar (including the 
Rhetoric) it will prove more than welcome to students of the 
Hebrew Scriptures. There is no scarcity of modern Hebrew lexica. 
English-speaking scholars have their Oxford Gesenius which in 
the opinion of the writer is the best work of its kind in any 
European language, though the Germans will persist in using the 
latest editions of the German Gesenius which because of its 
up-to-date bibliographical references cannot be dispensed with even 
by those who possess the English edition. The merits of the Eng- 
lish Gesenius consist chiefly in the syntactical matter which is to 
my knowledge nowhere presented with that fulness of detail. The 
independent work by Stade-Siegfried had pointed the way in that 
direction ; its basic principle — the elucidation of word-meanings 
from the Hebrew itself — was a check upon the extravagances of 
the comparative method which pervaded the earlier German editions 
of Gesenius — one need only think of the scathing criticism from 
the pen of I^agarde directed against the "Staatsrate," not to speak 
of Fiirst's etymologies which were really beneath criticism. As a 
matter of fact, the cognate languages cannot boast of as thorough 
a range of lexicographical works as does the Hebrew (and biblical 
Aramaic). Payne-Smith's Thesaurus Syriacus and Dillmann's 
Ethiopic Lexicon come perhaps nearest the ideal; the Assyrian 
Dictionaries operate with the method of elucidating the language 
on its lexical side from within, quite after the fashion of Stade 


and Siegfried for the Hebrew. But we possess no Arabic Lexicon 
worthy of the name. For Lane is merely a collection of excerpts 
from the native lexicographers; useful as it certainly is as far as 
it goes, a Thesaurus of the Arabic tongue on modern lines and 
with first-hand recourse to the literature is still a desideratum. 
Whatever of comparative matter adorns the Hebrew dictionaries 
— it is largely ornamental — comes from dictionaries, and not from 
the literature, and the element of doubt attaches to it throughout. 
No wonder that in the recent lexicographical works the comparative 
"Beiwerk" is signalized as occupying a less important place by the 
very script in which it is printed or by the parentheses within 
which it is placed. Konig has not withstood the temptations of 
registering the comparative evidence, and with a view to students 
less familiar with the cognate languages all such matter is trans- 
literated, a custom hitherto adopted for Assyrian only. What 
constitutes the chief characteristic of Konig's work, however, is 
the attention to the semantic development on lines worked out 
fully in the "Stylistik." Another point is the registration of 
difficult grammatical forms in alphabetic order. The linguistic 
matter of the masoretic glosses (such as appear in the manual 
editions of the Bible) is equally entered. The Aramaic of the 
Bible is treated in an appendix, with due regard to the Egyptian 
finds. To students who operate with Konig's grammatical works 
— and for an exhaustive mastery of the niceties of Hebrew gram- 
mar they should be in the hands of all earnest students of the 
Scriptures — the Dictionary will be indispensable. No well ap- 
pointed University or College library should be without them ; no 
"seminar" work should be attempted unless all of them are within 
easy reach. For private study the student who can ill afford the 
expense of costly text-books will in probability, at least in English- 
speaking countries, possess himself of the Oxford Gesenius. For 
be it said with no disparagement to Konig's Dictionary: it will 
prove useful mainly by the side of his other works of which it 
is a summary, while the other lexica, though in themselves more 
costly, can be used to advantage in connection with any Hebrew- 
grammar. The professional scholar, the academic teacher for 
instance, must perforce have them all on his shelves ; not the least 


reason being the full discussion of mooted problems which he will 
find in this latest Hebrew Dictionary, that by Konig. 

Caspari's little book is a monograph on the word "Peace" 
(DlbB*) . "On earth peace," with this expression the advent of the 
Messianic era is signalized in the song of the heavenly host in 
Luke 2, 14. The message has its roots in Judaism. The author 
works backwards from the Hellenistic writings through the pro- 
phets and Psalms to the earlier pre-exilic seers until he reaches the 
prophet of peace par excellence, Isaiah. Two chapters are then 
devoted to the usage of the verb U?V in the Old Testament and in 
the cognate dialects and to DI7K' in proper names and in the 
formulae of salutation. The last chapter is in the nature of a 
summary in which the development of the meaning of the Hebrew 
word for "peace" is sketched. At first an expression for security 
based on compacts between individuals, it gradually transcends the 
private connotation by assuming the signification of public safety 
and welfare within the nation; with the rise of the monarchy and 
the consolidation of the nation war becomes a national duty con- 
curred in by the prophets, though it cannot be said that empire 
building was part of the politics of David and his successors; 
Isaiah is the first to place himself in opposition to the martial spirit 
of the dynasty by proclaiming the message of the cessation of 
warfare between nations and the advent of the era of universal 
peace. "Peace" now assumes a religious signification, and Psalm 
8s is its highest expression. God, the author of peace, speaks 
peace unto his people, and to his saints. His salvation is nigh 
them that fear him. Peace is an inward harmony with God and 
righteousness. "Mercy and truth are met together, righteousness 
and peace have kissed each other." Just as the programme of 
universal peace among nations is the precursor of ideas which are 
seriously taken up in our own day, so is the incorporation of peace 
in the scheme of salvation a preparation for the Gospel. So far 
the author whose little study has above all the merit that it is 
readable throughout proving that even lexicographers need not be 
the dryasdusts that they are currently held to be. 


Neue Beitrdge sur semitischen Sprachwissenschaft. Von Theodor 
NoLDEKE. Strassburg : Verlag von Kari, J. Trubner, 1910. pp. 
viii + 240. 

While this work is not specifically devoted to Hebrew- 
Aramaic, it is certainly inclusive of it. Comp. the Hebrew-Aramaic 
indexes on pp. 106 f., 200 f. Hebrew-Aramaic loanwords in 
Ethiopic are discussed on pp. 32-46; the two languages are dealt 
with along with Arabic and Ethiopic in the essays on words with 
counter-sense (addad), nouns from biconsonantal roots, interchange 
of initial « and'w or haraza, interchange of initial w or hamza and 
y, participles and adjectives from "hollow roots" (pp. 67-216). But 
even in the essay which heads the book (on the language of the 
"Koran, pp. 1-30) the student of Hebrew or Aramaic will find much 
that will concern him. Thus on p. 3, note I, the problem of the 
vowel of the prefix in the imperfect of the J^a\ is adverted to. 
Noldeke is of the opinion that it is not the dialectal i which is met 
with almost exclusively in the cognate languages that calls for an 
explanation, but rather the a in Hijazic nadkuru and in Hebrew 
DIP', ab' . Similarly Noldeke expressed himself in WZKM., IX 

' T T 

(1895), 16, note i; he believes that in primitive Semitic both i and 
a were used, though in consequence of the operation of analogy 
(Ausgleichungen) it is difficult to establish their original spheres. 
Contrast Barth, ZDMG., XLVIII (1894), 4-6, and Brockelmann, 
Grundriss, I (1908), 560 f. (the latter's strictures against Ungnad, 
ZDMG., LIX (1905), 766, may be met by the explanation that the 
imperfect of fa'ula verbs was subsequently assimilated to that of 
fa'ila verbs; witness the small number of fa'ula verbs preserved 
in Hebrew and comp. Lagarde, tjbersicht, 8). The rules which the 
Arab grammarians (comp. Ibn Hisham, Banat Su'Sd, ed. Guidi, 
p. 92 ff. ; Sibawaihi, II, p. 275 ff. ; see Fleisher, Kleinere Schriften, 
I, 96 ff. ; Howell, II, 11 f.) give for the permissibility of replacing 
a by i are borne out by Hebrew where i certainly manifested itself 
first in fa'ila verbs (^pi contrasted with ab\ ^iXBri'' by the side of 

T AT : V 

ibrT" ; when the accent advances, — is replaced by — : IVBH' , comp. 
nJSIsn but mS'' ; hence the singular to VdW Exod. r, 7 is 


DVV ; to point niy on the analogy of nOV ibV is to commit a 

-■■■\" '-r ~|- ~r 

schoolboy's blunder; comp. also n3DB' imperf. 331^' with Arabic 

i'lam; while HDIp by the side of 2"}}! is accommodated to /a'o/a 
verbs, the rarer 'a^D and the regular mat are proper forms; the 
~r in pfap'' should not be placed on the same footing with that in 
133' ; in the former instance i goes back to « (from «), comp. 
iltps by the side of nok : Pinsker, K13D, 154). Even the dialectal 
Arabic form nu'buduhum (Fleischer, /. c, 98 (not 198, as Brockel- 
mann, p. 561; writes) ) may be paralleled in Hebrew : D^ajin Exod. 
20, s; Deut. 5, 9; D13S3 Deut. 13, 3. — In the third part of the 
same essay Noldeke deals with foreign words (chiefly Hebrew and 
Aramaic) in the Koran to which an arbitrary or mistaken notion 
was given by the prophet. Thus JpllS "redemption" became 
"revelation" ; ni3t "merit, virtue" assumes the meaning of "alms" 
(comp. on this point, however, Dalman, Worte Jesu, 71 ; Well- 
hausen, Skiseen, VI, iv) ; itTO "word" is turned to "religion"; TTAV 
"row, proper order" (note 4 on p. 26 deals with mib' Isa. 28, 25 
with which miC Panamu inscription is compared) to "chapter 
of the Koran"; Xn"'3nD = nitTO to "sentence, verse"; pvo 
"dwelling" to "almsgiving"; '^yi "pray" to "bless"; sjjn "ungodly" 
or (so in Syriac) "heathen" to "monotheist." — Of the interesting 
observations in the essay on the Hebrew-Aramaic loan-words in 
Ethiopic I would single out the statement (p. 36, note 6) that 
Arabic kahin was borrowed from the Aramaic (at first in the sense 
"priest," so in Sinaitic inscriptions; in the time of Mohammed it 
came to mean "diviner") ; p. 37, note 3, we learn that Hebrew D33 
originally meant "enter'' and that the meaning "gather" which it 
assumed in the Mishnah was due to contamination with Aramaic 
E'W; according to p. 38, note 3, the phrases DlptJ*! Dn, p Dn have 
nothing to do with Din "spare"; interesting is the list of Semitic 
verbs meaning "throw" and then used metaphorically for "reproach, 
calumniate," among them «\^3 compared with Ethiopic gadafa 
"throw," p. 47, note 3; on p. 52, note 3, Noldeke rejects the theory 
of Daiches {JQR., XX (1908), 637 ff.) that in a number of places 
in the Bible nmn is used in the sense of "castles, fortified places," 


though he admits that the sense would fit Job 3, 14 admirably and 
that the connection with mihrab has forced itself on other scholars ; 
"but then the text of Job is so uncertain." — In the prefatory re- 
marks to his essay on words with counter-sense Noldeke acknowl- 
edges his debt to L,andau, but he does not fail to add that neither 
the critical acumen of that scholar nor his knowledge of the 
"other" Semitic languages goes very far. Noldeke follows Geiger 
in regarding 3NnO Amos 6, 8 as an intentional correction for the 
original 3JjnD; hence it is no case of a didd. 3'lpn II Kings 16 
(not 6; p. 6g, note 2), 14 appears to mean "remove''; "but the 
text is hardly intact" (comp. Robertson Smith, Semites, 2d ed., 
486). A grammatical didd underlies the employment of SVS forms 


in an active sense (Wnx Cant. 3, 8; contrast Barth, Nominalhil- 
dung, § I22c). nO'ia "within" means properly "faceward from the 
point of view of the god dwelling in the adyton." Jewish IIS, XmiXi 
SnjJ , prop, "light," in the sense of "evening" is a clear case 
of confusion of limits. An emotional counter-sense underlies He- 
brew D?i?, nD?i5 "derision," D?i5nn "deride" over against Aramaic 
D?p "praise" (but Ezek. 16, 31 seems to presuppose the latter 
meaning also in Hebrew). A well-known example of euphemistic 
counter-sense is found in TiriJ iJD , D'J'y "IIXD for "blind." 
Noldeke is rightly cautious in assuming the same for 113 in the 
sense of b?p or f^^J ; "if the euphemism did not proceed from 
the authors, then the diaskeuasts of the text are to be charged 
therewith." X731X "food" and 'J?T "pasture" in the sense of 
"dung" are instances of euphemism for the sake of decency. It is 
gratifying to see Noldeke accepting the Set)tuagintal reading IpPI 
in Prov. 14, 34. With reference to the etymology of 1S3, Noldeke 
ranges himself on the side of those who assume the original 
meaning to have been "cover." — The essay on nouns from bicon- 
sonantal roots is introduced by a friendly polemic against Barth 
and Philippi who among moderns are most pronounced in favor 
of the theory that the biliteralism of such nouns is only a seeming 
on2, and that in truth they originated in triconsonantal roots; and 
in a footnote he discountenances the theory that all forms from 
"weak" roots were primitively so constituted as to reveal the weak 


radicals as real consonants (to mention one example, ta^ulu goes 
back to original lakifulu). As is well known, the problem has been 
much discussed. The modern biliteralist is, it is true, not to be 
placed beside Menahem ben Saruk. Still there is much common 
ground on which they both stand. Noldeke himself is led by the 
logic of his theory to assume, if you please, roots consisting of 
but one consonant followed by a vowel (comp. the nouns "water," 
"lamb," "mouth"). It cannot be maintained that with the means 
at our disposal the problem is any nearer a definitive solution than 
it ever was. Either theory is plausible as far as it goes, and either 
has its insurmountable difficulties. I cannot share Noldeke's 
opinion that the old doctrine of Gesenius is for practical purposes 
the easier one. The Ewald-Miiller-Wellhausen method (let it be 
so named rather than theory) has great practical advantages. The 
intricacies of the three classes (y"J?, '"IV, '"ip) are much more 
easily taken hold of by the learner if we adopt their method. But, 
regrettable though it may be, the method breaks down in certain 
particulars. If ab' and D?P' preserve the characteristic stem-vowel, 

T T 

why is the reverse the case in 3B', D^i?'' ? Certainly 30] is more 
easy of explanation if we assume contraction (= iinsabibu) ; oSp] 
may then have been formed direct from 3D' by lengthening the 
vowel which was retained. Again, the full forms, comp. e. g. 33b 
(farr-un is apparently a late formation, comp. J'JV in biblical 
Aramaic), seem to favor the contraction theory; the long vowel 
makes the contraction impossible in early Semitic at any rate where 
long vowels were impossible in closed (hence geminate) syllables. 
As for the nouns, it is certainly conceivable that when bina-n was 
phonetically developed out of binai-un it might be misconceived as 
bin-an and thus lead to bin-un. Noldeke, it is true, does not go as 
far as Stade; but even his smaller Ust is open to discussion. The 
tendency to shift the forms from one class to a-nother is no more 
than what we find in all forms from the so-called weak roots. 
Ultimately it is perhaps a question of root-formation (basic theme 
and determinants). On p. 123 there is a slight error in detail. 
0U*"11 cannot be a pausal form. On an earlier occasion (ZDMG., 
XXXVII (1883), 540) Noldeke pronounced D»ni Jerem. 16, 16 


a Piel form. That is certainly correct; it is gratifying to see that 
herein Noldeke agrees with Ibn Janah (i. v.; Van Janah, by the 
way, rightly accounts for the absence of the dagesh by comparing 
^ifpa ; comp. also ^D'D). — It has long been recognized that in 
certain instances 3"B and 1"B roots are closely related. One need 
only think of 3X3 (comp. Aramaic and Arabic 3X3 "plant, es- 
tablish" and Hebrew HSSD by the side of 3X'nn). The transition 
of the one consonant into the other cannot be a matter of 
phonetics. Some 3"B roots clearly have their origin in the N 
stem of a biconSonantal root. But it cannnot be maintained that it is 
the case universally. Noldeke would not go so far as to postulate 
on the basis of parallel forms with dagesh ( tPXN by the side of 
IV^I e. g.) parallel 3"B roots; the very oscillation of the authors 
of the punctuation should put one on his guard. On the other 
hand, he cannot understand why y^n and n'Xn should not be 
derived from 3X3, nX3 . The ketib form II Sam. 14, 30 is no 
clue; "how bad our Samuel text is is well known." — The long 
recognized intefchange of initial 1 and '• in Hebrew is usually 
viewed as a phonetic phenomenon. But it cannot be maintained that 
Hebrew really shows an aversion to initial l: comp. 11 "pin, peg"; 
post-biblical pTII "careful," etc. Nor can it be said that after a 
prefix closing with a consonant ' is impossible ; comp. by the side of 
Snmn a form like n^nn . Noldeke seems to incline to the opinion 
that from the very beginning there existed parallel roots with 1 
and ^. — Proceeding from the observation that what is called a 
participle in Semitic (fs'il-un e. g.) is really an adjective or noun, 
Noldeke approaches the problem of the Hebrew participles like Dpi 
etc. Some are intransitive and might recall the adjectives of the 
type fa'al (D3n, \ap, etc.); but there are also transitives. D'B'ia 
Ezek. 32 30 goes well enough with the perf. {^^a (D^pipn II Kings 
16, 7 is pronounced an error of transcription; il"iina Jerem. 4, 
31 was taken by the authors of the vocalization as "sick"; read 
Ton's ; but there is no necessity to put the accent on the penultimate 
with Noldeke), but 310 is Aramaic ab. While nO goes well with 


the perfect flD, no such parallelism obtains in the case of 111, {•P, 
etc. The Dp forms are peculiar to Hebrew; nevertheless Noldeke 
gives a list of Arabic adjectives of the type rah-un "windy." The 
problem is really only stated, not solved. With a view to the 
participles of the N stem (PtapJJ by the side of P^p3 ) the view 
which Noldeke mentions in the first place only to reject it may 
still have something in its favor. — Whether the positions assumed 
by Noldeke will meet with universal assent or not, the book is so 
replete with erudition and sound judgment that no student of the 
Hebrew or Aramaic language can fail to learn much from the 
great master of Semitic philology. The grain of scepticism which 
permeates the book may be welcomed as a check upon all the 
extravagant theories to be met with elsewhere. "I seek," says the 
learned author in the Preface, "above all to establish facts, and as 
for matters which it is really impossible to know, I venture at the 
most modest conjectures. I leave it to bolder investigators to 
determine how the characteristic forms of the Semitic languages 
were developed both phonetically and semantically from their pre- 
Semitic antecedents. It is an easy matter to construct beautiful 
systems of linguistic "Prahistorie," but the question always remains 
whether the real process was not after all a totally different one." 

Gesenius' Hebrew Grammar. As edited and enlarged by the late 
E. Kautzsch, Professor of theology in the University of 
Halle. Second English edition. Revised in accordance with 
the twenty-eighth German edition (1909) by A. E. CowlEy. 
With a facsimile of the Siloam inscription by J. Euting, and a 
table of alphabets by M. Lidzbarski. Oxford: at the 
Clarendon Press, 1910. pp. xvi + 598. 

Hebraische Grammatik. Mit tlbungsbuch. Von Prof. Hermann 
L. Strack, der Theologie und Philosophic Doctor. Zehnte und 
elfte, sorgfaltig verbesserte und vermehrte Auflage. (Clavis 
Knguarum Semiticarum. Edidit Hermann L. Strack. Pars 
I.) Miinchen: C. H. BECK'scHeVeRi,AGSBUCHHANDi,uNG (Oscar 
Beck), 1911. pp. xii + IS9 + 128.* 

Grammatik des Biblisch-Aramdischen. Mit den nach Handschriften 
berichtigten Texten und einem Worterbuch. Von Prof. D. Dr. 


HgRMANN L. Steack. Fiinfte, teilweise neu bearbeitete 
Auflage. (Clavis linguarum Semiticarum. Edidit Hermann 
L. Strack. Pars IV.) Miinchen: C. H. Beck'sche Veriags- 

BUCHHANDLUNG (OsCAR BECK), IQII. pp. +40 + 60.* 

A lengthy review by the present writer of the twenty-seventh 
German edition of Gesenius-Kautzsch's Hebrew Grammar appeared 
iti the AJSL; XIX (1903), 159 fif., and it is a matter of gratification 
to him to find that the review is not merely adverted to in the 
Preface (English ed., p. v) to the new edition, but has been largely 
acted upon throughout the book itself. Comp. §§ gm; lod; 21/ 
(in two places) ; 26i; 27a; 44c; 6ig; 63m; Gycc; 68i; ysdd (but T 
must disclaim responsibility for the emendation; I merely pointed 
out that if a transposition be resorted to the vowels should be 
— — and not——) ; p. 224, n. 2; 228, n. 2; § Qid; p. 288, n. I (but 
"regular" of the Engl, translation obscures the point), not to men- 
tion misprints which have been corrected. Of course, it was not to be 
expected that the learned Halle grammarian whose recent demise 
is a source of deep regret would accept all criticisms; and so 
some points remain on which opinions will differ. The Phonology 
is still largely what it was in the preceding editions ; it is the 
weakest portion of the book and requires re-writing in toto. But 
Kautzsch's Grammar is nevertheless the best for the ripe student; 
it can well serve as the basis of class-room instruction, and a 
teacher who is master of the subject will easily supplement its 
deficiencies. Its bibliographical references are up-to-date, still more 
so in the English edition which has had the advantage of many 
suggestions from so thorough a student of the Hebrew language 
as Prof. Driver. It is also gratifying to know that Prof. Driver's 
son, Mr. Godfrey R. Driver, of Winchester College, has had a 
share in the correcting of the proofs of the Hebrew index and 
the index of passages. The translator aptly adds the Scriptural 
proverb: 3S nOK''' D3n p. — While Kautzsch's book is for the 
advanced student, no better text-book may be recommended to the 
beginner than Strack's little Grammar now appearing in its tenth 
and eleventh edition. The merits of the work are well known: 
it is eminently concise and practical, yet betrays in every point the 
author's familiarity with the entire range of theoretical questions. 


The Hebrew and German exercises are well chosen and graded; 
helps are af5forded for the study of texts not incorporated in the 
manual; a short and useful glossary completes the volume. Atten- 
tion is also paid to the training in reading unpointed texts; one 
such text is derived from Mapu's ilJlB }1DK. Strack calls atten- 
tion to Baer's Tiltkun which may be had for the price of one mark 
and which will be more than serviceable for the purposes of reading 
unvocalized texts. — Strack's Manual of the Biblical Aramaic is 
equally a Splendid piece of work both from the theoretical and 
praetical point of view. The cognate matter from the Egyptian 
Aramaic (chiefly on the basis of the Assuan publication) has been 
faithfully registered. Both in this book and in the Hebrew 
Grammar there is a full bibliography which is singularly up-to-date. 
The Aramaic texts have been revised after a large number of 
manuscripts; of those with superlinear vocalization full specimens 
are given. There is also a useful glossary. Surely there will be no 
room for the regrettable phenomenon recorded by the learned 
author that out of a hundred German theologians ninety are unac- 
quainted with the biblical Aramaic. A better text-book and a less 
expensive (the price of the bound volume is but M. 2.50) there 
is certainly none, if only the will to learn exists. 

Dropsie College Max L. Marcous