RELIGIOUS ENCYCLOPEDIA
Hebrew Language
decameters, and elegiac pentameters, which maybe divided into smaller parts and interchange with one another. Grimme, however, has his strophes consist of from two to four verses with from two to five tone-beats, but thinks that the verses must have the same measure; consequently verses of four beats and three beats, or of four and five beats, are not interchangeable, while those of four may interchange with verses of two beats, and verses with five beats (2+3) interchange with verses of two and three beats. In general agreement with this scheme are the conclusions of the exhaustive investigation of Sievers, who found, however, a definite rhythm, fitted both for song and recitation, the so-called pseudo-anapest meter. But too much caution can not be exercised in judgment of these systems, for in all there are admitted difficulties. Every system of metrics rests not only upon laws, but upon incalculable quantities, which no acuteness can discover where every tradition is wanting. But difficulty attends search for the laws of expression, inasmuch as the original pronunciation is no longer certainly known. Moreover, the text is by no means certain; in places it is demonstrably corrupt. Another difficulty is found in the uncertain boundaries of Hebrew poetry. The Masoretes have furnished only Psalms, Proverbs, and Job with poetical accentuation; but this is decidedly erroneous, since other books contain poetry. In different compositions different forms may be expected, as, for instance, in the recited speech and the chanted song; and while it is undoubtedly true that most prophecy contains true poetry, it is hardly conceivable that the authors felt themselves bound to any particular meter. Bickell is able to remove all of these objections by citing Syriac analogies, but proof is entirely lacking that the Hebrews had the same method of making poetry as the Syrians. Moreover, Bickell is forced to ignore the Masoretic notations, and his system is absolutely irreconcilable with Josephus's and Jerome's statements. More probable is the other system, though Ley and Grimme with their rules go far beyond recognized knowledge. In favor of this system there are strong reasons : in the first place, the Masoretic accentuations can be utilized; in the second place, good results are obtainable in spite of a doubtful text; and it is hardly to be denied that double verses of three plus three tone-beats occur so frequently that they may be conceived as governing the normal meter of the Israelites; and besides, the system harmonizes with the statements of Josephus and Jerome. To this it must be added that there are remarkable analogies in Babylonian literature Another form of Hebrew poetry, the so-called Kinah or dirge-meter, has been richly illuminated through the investigations of Budde. This is a common line followed by a shorter broken one, usually three tone-beats followed by two, in which Ley and Grimme see lines of five tone-beats (Amos v. 2; Ezek. xix. 2; Isa. i. 21 sqq., xiv. 4 sqq.; Lam. i.-iv.); this measure seems most fit to represent the mood of the mourning-women. When this meter is found in such poems as Ps. xix. 7, sqq. lxv. 5-8, lxxxiv. 1 sq., ci.; Isa. xxxii. 9-14, it is to be regarded as merely a poetic device. (5) Finally the Old Testament has
alphabetical (acrostic) poems, Ps. ix.-x., xxv., xxxiv., xxxvii., cxi., cxii.,cxix.,cxlv.; Lam. i.-iv.; Prov. xxxi. 10 sqq., and no doubt Nahum i. 2-ii. 3 (according to Bickell also Ecclus. li. 13-20). Among these are many variations, from such Psalms as cxi. and cxii., in which a new letter begins every half-verse, to Ps. cxix., where every letter is eight times repeated as an initial. In some the alphabetical order is barely visible (Ps. ix. sq.; Nahum i), a fact which can be due only to faulty transmission; indeed, it seems that Gunkel and Bickell have been able practically to reconstruct the Nahum passage. These alphabetical songs tell further that the poets developed the stanza in its unity, and in complexity carried it at least as far as to the length of sixteen lines, as in Ps. cxix.; a further development was the refrain used in Ps. xlii. 5, 11, xliii. 5, 11, lix. 9, 17, Ixxx. 3, 7, 19; also in the Prophets, Amos i. 3, 6. A variation of this is found in the repetition of the opening verse (Isa. v. 8, 11, 18,22; Hab. ii. 9, 12, 15). Considering such facts as these, many students have followed Koster in supposing that all Old Testament poetry must be composed of stanzas; but a difference of opinion has arisen upon the question whether single lines (so Sommer, Delitzsch) or the distich or tristich (so Hupfeld) should be considered the unit of the stanza. This question has found an elaborate treatment in D. H. Miiller's Die Propheten in ihrer urspriinglichen Form (Vienna, 1896), but his results appear to be as doubtful as Bertholet's division of Ezek. xv. and Bickell's and Duhm's of Job iii. (F. Buhl.)
Bibliography: I. From the comparative standpoint consult: W. Gesenius, Geschichte der hebraischen Sprache und Schrift, Leipsic, 1815; E. Renan, Hist, generate des langues semitiques, Paris, 1863; B. Stade, Erneute Prilfung des zwischen dem phbnizischen und hebraischen Verwandtschaftsgrades, Leipsic, 1875; F. Hommel, Die semitischen V biker und Sprachen, Leipsic, 1883; P. de Lagarde, Uebersicht uber die im Aramaisch, Arabisch und Hebraisch ubliche Bildung der Nomina, Gottingen, 1889; W. Wright, Lectures on the Comparative Grammar of the Semitic Languages, Cambridge, 1890; J. Barth, Die N ominalbildung in den semitischen Sprachen, Leipsic, 1894 ; O. E. Lindberg, Vergleichende Grammatik der semitischen Sprachen, Gothenberg, 1898; H. Zimmern, Vergleichende Grammatik der semitischen Sprachen, Berlin, 1898; T. Noldeke, Die semitischen Sprachen, Leipsic, 1899.
On the history of the study of the Hebrew language: H. Ewald and L. Dukes, Beitrage zur Geschichte der altesten Auslegung und Spracherklarung des A. T., Stuttgart, 1844; H. Hupfeld, De rei grammatical apud Judozos initiis antiquissimisque scriptoribus, Halle, 1846; L. Geiger, Das Studium der hebraischen Sprache in Deutschland, Breslau, 1870; A. Berliner, Beitrage zur hebraischen Grammatik im Talmud und Midrasch, Berlin, 1879; S. Baer and H. L. Strack, Dikduke ha-teamim des Ben Ascher, Leipsic, 1879; W Bacher, Die hebraische Sprachwissenschaft vom 10. bis zum 16. Jahrhundert, Leipsic, 1892; idem, Die Anfange der hebraischen Grammatik, ib. 1895; E. Nestle, Marginalien und M aterialen, Tubingen, 1893. Grammars and lexicons are by: W. Gesenius, Hebraische Grammatik, Leipsic, 1813, 26th ed. by E. Kautzsch, 1902, Eng. transl., Edinburgh, 1880; idem, AusfiXhrliches grammatisch-kritisches Lehrgebaude der hebraischen Sprache, ib. 1817; idem, Thesaurus philologicus criticus Ungues hebraicee V. T., ib. 1835-58; J. Olshausen, Lebrbuch der hebraischen Sprache, Brunswick, 1861; F. Bottcher, Ausf uhrliches Lehrbuch der hebraischen Sprache, 2 vols., Leipsic, 1866-68; H. Ewald, Lehrbuch der hebraischen Sprache, Gottingen, 1870, Eng. transl., Edinburgh, 1879; B. Stade, Lehrbuch der hebraischen Grammatik, Leipsic, 1879; E. Konig, Lehrgebaude der hebraischen Sprache, ib. 1881-97; A. Miiller, Outlines of Hebrew Syntax, Edinburgh, 1888; S. R. Driver, Use of the Tenses in Hebrew, London, 1892; F. Brown,
Hebrew Language Hebrews. Epistle to the