By the epoch-making labours of Silvestre de Sacy (1758–1838), which first placed Oriental learning and especially Semitic grammar on a broad and thoroughly scientific footing, a new impulse was given to Hebrew philology, which since that time has moved with the advance of general Semitic studies, and can hardly again fall into devious paths. The great teachers of Hebrew in the present century have been two Germans, Gesenius and Ewald,—the former excelling in method and lucidity of exposition, the latter in range of view and creative fertility of ideas. Among the direct or indirect disciples of these great scholars may be reckoned almost every Hebraist in Europe, and to them is mainly due the revival in Eng- land of a branch of learning which had almost become extinct through the prevailing dilettantism of last century.
Helps to the Study of Hebrew.—Grammars.—The principal modern methods are those of Gesenius, Ewald, and Olshausen. Gesenius’s larger work, his Lehrgebdude der hebrdischen Sprache, (Leipsic, 1817), is still useful for occasional reference. His smaller grammar has passed through innumerable editions, and in its most recent shape, as recast by Rodiger and finally by Kautzsch (1878), holds its ground as one of the best books for learners. Davies’s version of Rédiger’s Gesenius is the best of several English translations (1869- 1876). The method of Gesenius is mainly empirical. Much more philosophic, but less simple and sometimes arbitrary in its refine- ments, is the Ausfiihrliches Lehrbuch of Ewald (8th ed., Gottingen, 1870), of which the ‘‘Syntax” has been translated into English by Kennedy (1879). The shorter Sprachlehre fiir Anfanger (4th ed., 1874; Eng. trans. by Smith, 1870) is valuable but too difficult for ordinary beginners. Olshausen’s Lehrbuch (Brunswick, 1861) is in- complete, the syntax having never appeared; but it Is, on the whole, the best and most scientific exposition of the Hebrew gram- matical forms. Twoelementary grammarson Olshausen’ssystem have been translated into English,—Bickell’s Grundriss (Leipsic, 1869- 1870 ; English by Curtiss, 1877) and Land’s Hebreewwsche Gram- matica (Amsterdam, 1869; English by Poole, 1876). The latter work has some peculiarities which detract from its utility, and neither Bickell nor Land supplies a proper syntax. Miiller’s Schulgram- matik (Halle, 1878) is also mainly on Olshausen’s method with the addition of an excellent syntax. In English A. B. Davidson’s Introductory Hebrew Grammar (3d ed., Edin., 1878) may be com- mended to beginners as a good practical method and easy introduc- tion to the larger scientific grammars. Of other more extensive works may be named Bottcher’s Ausfiihrliches Lehrbuch, posthum- ously edited by Miihlau (Leipsic, 1866-68), a huge book serving as a sort of grammatical concordance to the Old Testament ; Luzzatto’s Italian Grammatica (Padua, 1853-69), which is valuable from the thorough Jewish scholarship of the author, the Latin grammar of Roorda, and in English the works of Kalisch (1862-63) and Green (New York, 1861). Among useful monographs on special points of grammar may be named Philippi, Wesen und Ursprung des Status Constructus (Weimar, 1871); 8. R. Driver, Zhe Use of the Tenses in Hebrew (Oxford, 1874); Giesebreeht, Die Hebréische preposition Lamed (Halle, 1876); Davidson, Outlines of Hebrew Accentuation (1861). For comparative purposes, in the absence of & comparative system of the Semitic languages, which is hoped for from Renan, the hints in Wright’s Arabic Grammar will be found most valuable.
Lexicons.—Far superior to all other lexicons is the Thesaurus of Gesenius, completed by Rodiger (Leipsic, 1829-1858). Gesenius published also a Handwirterbuch—of which the 8th ed. by Mihlau and Volck (Leipsic, 1877-78) contains a good deal of new matter not always improvement —and a Lexicon Manuale in Latin (2d ed. by Hoffmann, 1847), of which there is an English translation. The Handwérterbuch of Fiirst (2d ed., 1868; Eng. trans. by S. Davidson, 1871 ; 3d ed. by Ryssel, 1876) proceeds on very faulty etymological principles and must be used with great caution. On Hebrew synonyms Pappenheim’s Yrt'ét Sh’léméh (1784-1811) is the principal work.
Concordances.—The Concordantie of Buxtorf (1682) were re- printed by Beer (1863). Fiirst’s Concordance (1840) contains a good deal of supplementary matter, part of which is of little use. For the particles the (incomplete) concordance of Noldius (1679; ed. Tympius, 1734) is useful.
In addition to modern books the advanced student will sometimes find it useful to recur to older works, especially to the Jewish grammarians and lexicographers, but these need not be detailed here.
For the later Hebrew of the period of the Mishna, and for the new words and technical terms in the scholastic Hebrew of the Middle Ages, the best lexicon is Buxtorf’s Lexicon Chaldaicum Talmudicum et Rabbinicum (1640). The recent reprint is not so good. A new lexicon by Levy has been in the course of publication since 1875 (Neu-hebriiisches und Chaldéisches Worterbuch). The beginner will find the Lexicon breve Rabbinico-philosophicum appended to Buxtorf’s small Lexicon Hebraieum very useful, and may also consult the treatises in Reland’s Analecta Rabbinica (1702). In reading Rabbinical Hebrew it is well to have Sclig’s Compendia Pocum Hebraico-Rabbinicaruim (1780), The similar work of Buxtorf is less full.
On the whole subject of this article consult Gesenius, (2. schichte der hebriiischen Sprache und Schrijé (Leipsic, 1817); Renan, Histoire générale des langues Sémitiques (4th ed., Paris, 1864).
writing usually known under this name, or less correctly as the Epistle of Paul the Apostle to the Hebrews, bears in the oldest MSS. no other title than the words IIpds ‘EBpaious, “To the Hebrews.” This brief heading embraces the whole information as to the origin of the epistle on which Christian tradition is unanimous. Everything else—the authorship, the address, the date—was unknown or disputed in the early church, and continues to form matter of dispute in the present day. But as far back as the latter part of the 2d century the destination of the epistle “to the Hebrews” was acknowledged alike in Alexandria, where it was ascribed to Paul, and in Carthage, where it passed by the name of Barnabas, and no indication exists that it ever circulated under another title.[1] At the same time we must not suppose, as has sometimes been done, that the author prefixed these words to his original manuscript. The title says no more than that the readers addressed were Christians of Jewish extraction, and this would be no sufficient address for an epistolary writing (xii. 22) directed to a definite circle of readers, a local church or group of churches to whose history repeated reference is made, and to which the author had personal relations (xiii. 19, 23). The original address, which according to custom must have stood on the outside of the folded letter, was probably never copied, and the early and universal prevalence of the present title, which tells no more than can be readily gathered from the epistle itself, seems to indicate that when the book first passed from local into general circulation its history had already been forgotten. With this it agrees that the early Roman Church, where the epistle was known about the end of the Ist century, and where indeed the first traces of the use of it occur (Clement, and Shepherd of Hermas), had nothing to contribute to the question of authorship and origin except the negative opinion that the book is not by Paul. Caius and the Muratorian fragment reckon but thirteen epistles of Paul; Hippolytus (like his master Treneeus of Lyons) knew our book and declared that it was not Pauline. These facts can hardly be explained by supposing that at Rome during the 2d century the book had dropped out of notice, and its history had been forgotten. Clement, Hermas, Hippolytus form a tolerably continuous chain, and the central Church of Rome was in constant connexion with provincial churches where, as we shall presently see, the epistle had currency and reputation. Under these circum- stances an original trustworthy tradition could hardly have been lost, and it must appear highly questionable whether the author and address of the book were known at Rome even in the time of Clement. The earliest positive tradi- tions of authorship to which we cau point belong to Africa and Egypt, where, as we have already seen, divergent views were current by the end of the 2d century. The African tradition preserved by Tertullian (De Pudicitia, c. 20), but certainly not invented by him, ascribes the epistle to Barnabas. Direct apostolic authority is not therefore claimed for it; but it has the weight due to one who “learned from and taught with the apostles,” and we are
told that it had more currency among the churches than
- ↑ See the full refutation of supposed exceptions to the uniformity of this tradition in Zahn’s article ‘‘ Hebrierbrief”? (Herzog-Plitt. R. Z., vol. v. p. 657).
