|
The Chosen Language of a Chosen People; A History of the Hebrew Language
by
Abbreviated Chronology of Significant Historical Events
Egyptian Captivity "For thou art an holy people unto the Lord thy God: the Lord thy God hath chosen thee to be a special people unto himself, above all people that are upon the face of the earth" (Deut. 4:27). The House of Israel, in the time of Deuteronomy being the Jews, received many transcendent promises of the Lord. Though they would be scattered among many nations because of their unbelief, a remnant would remain and gather to Zion. While the Latter-day Saints believe the House of Israel includes any who come unto Christ through baptism, the Jews more narrowly interpret the House of Israel to include only themselves. In this paper, however, I will not liken the scriptures about the House of Israel to any specific people, but to a language--the Hebrew language of the Jews. Indeed, the stages in history of the language--Biblical Hebrew, Mishnaic Hebrew, Medieval Hebrew, and Modern Hebrew--follow the pattern of prophecy regarding the House of Israel: the language would enjoy a period of greatness, then be scattered and taken into captivity, and left as a remnant to come forth and blossom as the rose. Biblical Hebrew "And I will make of thee a great nation, and I will bless thee, and make thy name great; and thou shalt be a blessing" (Gen. 12:2). "And I will scatter you among the heathen, and will draw a sword after you: and your land shall be desolate, and your cities waste" (Lev. 26:33). The period of language history known as Biblical Hebrew began with a period of greatness; Hebrew was the language of the Bible -- a work which many revere and which indeed blesses the earth. But this period of greatness ended as Hebrew suffered its first scattering "among the heathen" as the Aramaic language gained dominance. The greatness of Hebrew comes from its association with the Bible and the patriarchs therein -- great prophets like Abraham, Noah, and Moses. Despite this association, however, Hebrew did not spontaneously appear with the recording of Genesis; Hebrew must have existed, at least in spoken form, previous to the Biblical record. However, there is no record to indicate the earliest existence of Hebrew. Some clues do exist in the origin of the language’s name and classification. Belonging to the family of Semitic languages, a term derived from Shem, the name of Noah’s eldest son, Hebrew is sometimes referred to as Irvi, a form of Shem’s descendant’s name (Weinberg 4). Whether or not the language surfaced in the days of Noah, Hebrew was the language of the Israelites even before the Egyptian captivity (Weinberg 10). And even before the time of the Israelites, nomadic clans known as Habiru spoke Hebrew (Ausubel 196). This form of early Hebrew, or "Canaanite" perhaps marks the beginning of the great Biblical Hebrew of the Old Testament. Even with Hebrew extant versions of the Old Testament, it is difficult to know what Biblical Hebrew was like. While some clues exist, deliberate alterations have compromised the historical accuracy of this language record. We do know (from Judges 12:5-6) that an incorrect pronunciation of "Shibboleth" distinguished Ephraimites from the Gileadites, therefore indicating that Hebrew dialects existed following the Egyptian exile (Ausubel 196). Other stylistic differences exist as well. We can divide Biblical Hebrew into three eras or styles: Archaic (the poetry of the Pentateuch and Early Prophets), Standard (Biblical prose), and Late (Chronicles and other later books) (Kutscher 12). Since the canonization of the Bible took more than a thousand years to complete, the Hebrew of the first books logically should not be the same as the Hebrew of the later books (Weinberg 13). The large amount of time which passed allowed the language to change and thus create the differing styles. If the passage of time marked the styles of Biblical writing, however, why can’t we date the books of the Bible? Indeed, Kutscher relates that the Biblical books cannot be dated linguistically (12). Two primary reasons account for this inability and seeming contradiction: the interference of language "levelers" or redactors and the use of "King’s Hebrew." After the canonization, a group of wise men known as the Masoretes, who wanted to preserve the pure text and proper pronunciation of Hebrew, set out to edit the language (Weinberg 15). The Masoretes, however, were not the first to tamper with the language of the Bible. As Weinberg indicates, in early Hebrew (recorded on the Gezer Tablet), there are no matres lectionis, or vowel letters. Yet, in later records (Mesha Stele, Samariah, and Shiloah), matres lectionis exist at the end of words. Even later, in the Lakhish Ostraca, matres lectionis are seen within words. Because the use of matres lectionis in the Bible does not follow a consistent pattern, one can conclude that someone interfered attempting to create a uniform standard for matres lectionis and failed (Weinberg 12). Such deliberate language leveling explains why Biblical books do not depict a thousand years’ worth of language change. Besides this language tampering, the use of "King’s Hebrew" limits the Bible’s historical reflection of Hebrew. As earlier indicated, different Hebrew dialects existed. Weinberg uses this assumption, asserted originally by Chaim Rabin, to indicate that Biblical poetry exhibits a classical or literary Hebrew separate from any of the dialects. Thus, this written form of the language could remain static while the spoken dialects changed (Weinberg 13-14). Therefore, we logically know that the language must have been changing during Biblical times; yet deliberate interference and use of a literary form of language obscure our vision of how this change naturally occurred. Further change, brought about by language contact, metaphorically scattered the great Biblical language of Hebrew. The Israelites’ contact with other peoples is evident in accounts of the Old Testament. The languages of these other groups, therefore, influenced the Hebrew of the Israelites. Most prominent of these influences was Aramaic, which had, according to Kutscher, inundated the Near East and become the lingua franca of the Babylonian and Assyrian empires (71-73). Therefore, during the Babylonian exile from 586 B.C. to 536 B.C., the Israelites would have been especially influenced by the language of their captors. Weinberg indicates that upon returning from their 50-year exile, the Israelites, now using the square Aramaic characters which constitute today’s Hebrew script, needed Aramaic translations of Hebrew (Weinberg 14, 18-19). Schwartz indicates that the Aramaic influence gained even more authority as Achaemid emperors like Darius I, who came to power in 521 B.C., favored Aramaic so much that they may have named it the official language of administration. Aramaic wielded more authority as it inundated every level of society; the common people even acquired personal scripts of Aramaic on papyrus and leather (Schwartz 20-21). Although the Jews had successfully escaped their captivity in Babylon, their language remained imprisoned by Aramaic’s dominance. Mishnaic Hebrew "For I am with thee, saith the Lord. to save thee: though I make a full end of all nations whither I have scattered thee, yet I will not make a full end of thee: but I will correct thee in measure, and will not leave thee altogether unpunished" (Jer. 30:11). "And they shall fall by the edge of the sword, and shall be led away captive into all nations: and Jerusalem shall be trodden down of the Gentiles, until the times of the Gentiles be fulfilled" (Luke 21:24). "Yet I will leave a remnant that ye may have some that shall escape the sword among the nations, when ye shall be scattered through the countries" (Ezek. 6:8). Though not "altogether unpunished," or unchanged by Aramaic’s dominance, scattered Hebrew witnessed a resurgence in the Mishnaic period. This resurgence, however, would end with another captivity for both the Jewish people and their language. During this captivity, however, both the people and the language would be preserved despite their scattered condition. Following a time of Aramaic dominance, Hebrew resurfaced as a form of nationalistic pride. Indeed, this resurgence of Hebrew marked a new era in its history. Weinberg relates the idea of Joseph Klausner that Mishnaic Hebrew began to evolve in the time of the Hasmoneans (22). The Hasmoneans revolted against the ruling Seleucids who had favored a Greek influence (Werblowsky 181) in 167 B.C. and ruled Palestine from 152 to 137 B.C. (Schwartz 26). The Hasmoneans used the Hebrew script (which they couldn’t even read) on their coins as a symbol of "Judean national defiance" (Schwartz 26-27). From this time until the Romans destroyed the temple in Jerusalem in 70 A.D., the language and those who knew it (the curatorial class) enjoyed power and prestige (Schwartz 30). This return to Hebrew (which also sparked literary classicism [Schwartz 30]), hints of the renewal and restoration promised the chosen House of Israel. But this era of prosperity would not last; the language and the people would yet be conquered and scattered. In 70 A.D. the Romans, under Titus, sieged and captured Jerusalem. Mishnaic Hebrew, therefore, ceased to be spoken as its surviving speakers were scattered throughout the world (Horowitz 6, Ausubel 199). While Horowitz indicates that Hebrew was still used in prayer, study, and Torah reading (6), Schwartz emphasizes that contemporary synagogue inscriptions were not even in Hebrew -- but in Aramaic and Greek. Schwartz continues that the symbols of Hebrew, namely the temple and the prestigious curatorial class, no longer existed (34-35). The scattered Jews of the Diaspora (the exile following the Roman conquest) therefore abandoned Hebrew and spoke the languages of the different areas where they lived (Schwartz 38, Kutscher 15-16). The Jewish people still held on to their language, though their Hebrew skills deteriorated in disuse. Schwartz illustrates this point in emphasizing that the epitaphs of some Italian and Egyptian Jews read Shalom, though misspelled and sloppily carved and even occasionally written in Greek letters (42). Again, the language suffered in captivity. However, not all written forms of Mishnaic Hebrew suffered such deterioration; a remnant was preserved. Kutscher tells how Rabbi Yehuda Hannasi and his students worked to compile the oral traditions which had existed for centuries and record them in the Mishna, Tosefta, and Halachic Midrashim. As this was in 200 A.D. (after the language had ceased to be spoken), many of his students did not even understand all of the Hebrew (Kutscher 116). This recording of the Oral Law and the newly-acquired literary status of a former vernacular constitute the historical milestones of Mishnaic Hebrew (Weinberg 21). This, like Biblical Hebrew, would remain and endure in its written form long after its decline in speech. Medieval Hebrew "Yet behold, therein shall be left a remnant that shall be brought forth . . ." (Ezek. 14:22). "And it shall come to pass, that as ye were a curse among the heathen, O house of Judah, and house of Israel; so will I save you, and ye shall be a blessing: fear not, but let your hands be strong" (Zech. 8:13). The remnant of Hebrew from earlier periods witnessed a glorious renewal in the Medieval period. Hebrew was "brought forth" in this Golden Age of literature and thought. Although this era ended in the all too familiar misfortune and persecution (and hence, language decline), the people began to see their language as a sacred gift or blessing which would help them regain their lost nationalistic status. The renewal of Hebrew in the Medieval period actually relates to events which took place in Greece. Ausubel relates how Emperor Justinian, wanting to protect his Christian faith from "pagan intellectuality," closed the schools in Athens in 529 A.D.; the neighboring Arabs then perpetuated Greek philosophy and thought. Because many Jews lived in the heart of the Arab lands, they took part in this Golden Age of thought (Ausubel 9-10). This new era of enlightenment introduced new fields and new ideas, and hence, new words into the Jewish culture. Kutscher lists some of these new ideas requiring new terms: philosophy, math, astronomy, astrology, geography, medicine, mysticism, chess, music, translation, writing, and printing. Jewish lifestyle and custom changed in this Golden Age, thus requiring new terms to describe home, school, and synagogue life (Kutscher 162, 168-72). The new thoughts of the era thus necessitated new vocabulary. Because these new concepts and ideas were often introduced in another language (mostly Arabic), it was the work of translators to find or coin appropriate Hebrew terms. Kutscher explains how translators could "Hebraize" a technical Arabic term, or make "loan translations" (expressing a foreign phrase with Hebrew words of similar meaning). This changed Hebrew syntax by creating more "Arabisms," new tenses, and new meanings (Kutscher 163-64). Even this renewal, this "Golden Age of Hebrew" exhibited much foreign influence. Medieval Hebrew witnessed further change amid what Weinberg calls the "war of grammarians" (31). In the eleventh century Hebrew scholars produced many arguments about grammatical or metric details (Weinberg 31). Significant among these scholars were the men of the Qimhi family. All contributing to recorded Hebrew grammar, Joseph Qimhi introduced a new ten-vowel system (replacing seven-vowel system), Moses Qimhi proposed the "pqd" root for verb patterns and wrote a concise manual, and David Qimhi incorporated both Joseph’s and Moses’ ideas in an especially logically-organized manual that was easy to teach from (Weinberg 32-33). Other analyses of the time included comparative studies with Biblical Hebrew, Mishnaic Hebrew, Aramaic, and Arabic (Weinberg 34). During this time, the Jews became especially aware of their language and wrote much to analyze it. This Medieval period was not merely a scholarly era for Hebrew, however; historically significant poetry also surfaced during this language renewal. Weinberg describes how the piyyutim (religious poetry from the era) also changed the language casting weak verbs into different patterns, shortening and lengthening words, deriving verbs from nouns and nouns from verbs, creating words by analogy, and creating words using roots and forming patterns (29). These poets used Biblical Hebrew, Mishnaic Hebrew, and Aramaic, and were quite fond of word plays (Kutscher 156). With scholars paying so much attention to grammar at this time, it is no wonder that they criticized these poets’ flippant attitudes and reckless changes (Weinberg 29). Indeed, as Weinberg indicates, "Conforming to the subtleties of its subjects . . . [these poets created] a complicated, capricious, cryptic language that is often nothing short of a riddle" (29). Whether a benefit or a detriment, these religious poets did introduce significant language change. Yet, the Golden Era saw other poets and other changes in Hebrew. Spanish and Italian Jews especially witnessed the rise of secular poetry. Weinberg explains that while this poetry necessitated changes to conform to rhyme and meter, its authors did not have such a predilection for breaking rules; instead, the new topics related to the secular emphases introduced changes in terms and idioms (29-30). This was the first time Hebrew was used to express poetic satires, love lyrics, and poems of mood and sentiment (Ausubel 199). Hebrew, in this Medieval period, wielded a sort of silent power; though not commonly spoken, it was renewed as a medium of literary expression during this Golden Age of thought. Unfortunately, the language again witnessed decline as the familiar misfortunes of the Jews returned. This time, however, the Jews’ captors were not a conquering people; Ausubel describes how the Crusades and the Black Death in the fourteenth century devastated European Jews. It was the resulting unsettled social, economic, and cultural conditions which sent Hebrew into a rapid decline. Even during these difficult times, however, the people remembered the roots and the history of their miraculous language, thus giving it the identity of "the sacred tongue" (Ausubel 199-200). Perhaps they had an inner sense that their language would play an important role, that it would be a blessing in the coming events. Indeed, the chain of events beginning in the late eighteenth century played an integral role in preparing for the ultimate restoration of the Jewish nation and the Jewish language. The Berlin Enlightenment (a Biblical Hebrew revival) inspired by Moses Mendelson to reform ghetto Jews, spread to Russia in the late 1700’s (Ausubel 199). This movement was squelched by the government-inspired pogroms following the assassination of Czar Alexander II in 1881 (Weinberg 39). About the same time of the Russian expulsion, Zionist ideas were gaining popularity. In 1789 Eliezer Perelman, a Russian Jew, published "A Burning Question," an essay about the national and linguistic revival of Hebrew (Weinberg 39). Indeed, the dawning of the twentieth century welcomed a new age of opportunity around the world; and the Jews seized their part in the new professions, fields, disciplines, education, and immigration (Harshav 12). The persecution in Russia, the later British prohibition of more immigration to Israel, the lack of refuge from Nazi persecution, as well as the more positive steps toward civil rights and later opportunities in Russia motivated the Jews to seek the formation of a new world culture (Harshav 6-8). This formation happened largely in Palestine as a wave of immigration brought many Jews to their homeland in the 1880’s and 1890’s (before British regulation) (Weinberg 40). This set the scene for the advent of modern Hebrew. Modern Hebrew "The wilderness and the solitary place shall be glad for them; and the desert shall rejoice, and blossom as the rose" (Isa. 35:1). Every period in the language history seems to include some sort of glory or renewal followed by a captivity or subjugation; but in the last linguistics era, Hebrew finally witnessed a lasting and strikingly successful revival. The restored greatness of Hebrew during this Modern era (reminiscent of the greatness of Biblical Hebrew), seems to foreshadow the restoration of the Jews to their former glory as the Lord’s chosen people. The language renewal begins, against this backdrop of cultural revival in the Jewish homeland, with Perelman (having changed his name to Ben-Yehudah) spurring the movement for language change (Weinberg 40). Harshav describes the small beginnings of this revolutionary movement. Ben-Yehuda spoke only Hebrew to his wife, who understood little. But he often used gestures to communicate since he lacked many of the necessary words anyway. Seeing as he spent most of his time working on a Hebrew dictionary, however, he spent relatively little time communicating in the first place. He isolated his newborn son, Ben-Tsiyon, from the world to prevent language contamination. Although Ben-Tsiyon did pick up other languages from his mother, he became the first native speaker of a revived modern Hebrew. Ben-Yehuda convinced four other families (usually consisting of at least one Hebrew teacher) to embark on this journey of language revival; but they were not nearly as committed as he. In the early days of the revival, therefore, one could hear only stammering Hebrew in Israel and find sadly substandard Hebrew-only schools with a few devoted teachers (Harshav 106-8). Even the Language Committee Ben-Yehuda established in 1890 was short lived (Weinberg 40). Despite its slow beginnings, Ben-Yehuda did not give up on his unprecedented dream of reviving a "dead" language. With the turn of the century, things started looking up. Weinberg describes these positive events starting in 1903 when teachers organized and officially decided on Hebrew as the language of teaching. In 1904, the Language Committee was re-established, this time with the support of the finest philologists, educators, and writers. The goal of this Language Committee was to "unify and regulate the pronunciation, grammar, and spelling of Hebrew, as well as to shape a mechanism for the coining of new words, terms and idioms" (Weinberg 40). Here, the regulatory Language Committee seems reminiscent of the Masoretes in Biblical Hebrew times. Yet, as with the Masoretes preserving efforts, formal efforts of language change enjoyed only limited success. The real revolution began when, as Harshav declares, children born in Israel perceived Hebrew to be their native language; thus as they used Hebrew as a tool to dissociate or rebel from their foreign born, immigrant parents, the language became a unifying force (Harshav 144). Outside events like World War I, the Russian Revolution and civil war, and the Ukraine pogroms of 1919 also helped unify and consequently strengthen the efforts and tendencies toward a Jewish revolution (Harshav 68). Weinberg describes the influence Hebrew had acquired by 1910: it was the language of schools, homes, books, theater, radio, speeches, lectures, discussions, songs, correspondence, street and storefront signs, announcements, and conversation. It even had different levels of speech -- from formal, to colloquial, to slang. Furthermore, it no longer resided only in Palestine, having spread to Poland, Lithuania, Romania, Czechoslovakia, Hungary, Greece, Austria, Holland, Germany, the United States, South Africa, and Argentina through school systems, clubs, and other programs (Weinberg 41-42). This rose didn’t just blossom; it grew. Not only was language change a result of revolution, it figures in as a cause as well. The literature in Hebrew helped perpetuate the revolution (Harshav 25). Providing a vehicle for revolutionaries to express thought, the literature also opened the door for more revolutionary firsts. This modern era saw the first Hebrew fiction in the late 1700’s and the first Hebrew novel in 1853 (Weinberg 37-38). Periodicals gained increasing importance as they featured articles about "ethics, education, biblical exegesis, Talmud, biography, and the contemporary scene . . . spreading knowledge and enlightenment among the Jews" (Weinberg 36-37). The restored language had become a revolutionary tool. The restoration of the language brought about many changes within the language itself. Weinberg lists quite a number of these modifying processes: reviving words in older literature, "filling slots" by using existing consonantal roots and new word patterns, Hebraizing non-cognate languages, making loan translations, back-borrowing from Yiddish and Ladino (language descendants of Hebrew), and utilizing the people’s creativity. The people essentially controlled which of the introduced changes would endure. The people’s speech also profoundly affected the grammar (which was basically modeled after Biblical Hebrew but developed largely on its own). The orthography is still subject to ongoing debate (Weinberg 40-42). Indeed, other debates continue over taking r a more conservative or a more tolerant approach to accepting slang as a legitimate Hebrew form (Weinberg 44). This current debate only testifies of the living, breathing nature of Hebrew. While some like to think that modern Hebrew was resurrected from a dead language, I don’t think the Jews would appreciate such a Christian connotation. Furthermore, a language that existed, even thrived in written form during its conversational absence cannot be considered dead. How could a dead language undergo so much change as did Hebrew during the Mishnaic and Medieval periods? No, the history of Hebrew, which began with as the thriving language of the Bible, may have endured a time of captivity, then emerged again as both result and tool of revolution, but it didn’t die. Hebrew was scattered and gathered perhaps in a type of the Jewish people whose language it is. Works Cited Ausubel, Nathan. The Book of Jewish Knowledge. Crown Publishers, Inc., New York, 1964. Harshav, Benjamin. Language in Time of Revolution. University of California Press, Berkeley and Los Angeles: 1993. Horowitz, Edward. How the Hebrew Language Grew. KTAV Publishing House Inc., USA: 1960. Kutscher, Eduard Yechezkel. A History of the Hebrew Language. The Magnes Press, The Hebrew University, Jerusalem: 1982. Schwartz, Seth. "Language, Power, and Identity in Ancient Palestine." Past and Present: A Journal of Historical Studies. Oxford University Press for the Past and Present Society, Oxford. 146, February 1995: 3-47. Weinberg, Werner. Essays on Hebrew. Scholars Press, Atlanta: 1993. Werblowsky, R. J. Zwi and Geoffrey Wigoder. The Encyclopedia of the Jewish Religion. Adama Book, New York, 1986. |