by certain rulers in league with the “Habiru.” Whereas some have endeavored to link this up with the Israelite conquest of Canaan, the evidence does not seem to support such view. Professor T. O. Lambdin says of the Habiru: “Although many features of the Habiru problem remain obscure, it is clear from numerous references that they consisted mainly of unlanded vagrants who entered into a dependent status as agricultural laborers or soldiers in exchange for maintenance.” (The Interpreter’s Dictionary of the Bible, Vol. 4, P. 532) Professor Kline also states: “The term ha-BI-ru is usually regarded as an appellative denoting nomads, dependents, or foreigners. . . . the phonetic equation of ʽibri [Hebrew] and ha-BI-ru is highly improbable. Moreover, the extant evidence suggests that the ha-BI-ru were professional militarists with a non-Semitic nucleus. . . .”—Douglas’ The New Bible Dictionary, p. 511; see EGYPT, EGYPTIAN (History).

So, too, with the Egyptian term ʽApri or ʽEpri. While attempts have been made to apply it to the Hebrews, the evidence shows that it continued to be used in Egyptian inscriptions long after the Hebrews had left Egypt. As Professor A. Lukyn Williams states (Hastings’ Dictionary of the Bible, Vol. II, p. 326): “. . . the identification is, to say the least, very precarious.”

HEBREW, II

The Hebrew language was used for the writing of the major part of the inspired Scriptures—thirty-nine books in all (according to the division of material as found in many translations), composing some three-quarters of the total content of the Bible. A small portion of these books, however, was written in Aramaic.—See ARAMAIC.

In the Hebrew Scriptures, the name “Hebrew” is not applied to the language, the name there being applied only to individuals or to the people of Israel as a whole. Reference is made to the “Jews’ language” (2 Ki. 18:26, 28), “Jewish” (Neh. 13:24) and the “language of Canaan” (Isa. 19:18), which, at that time (the eighth century B.C.E.), was primarily Hebrew. In the Christian Greek Scriptures, however, the name “Hebrew” is regularly applied to the language spoken by the Jews.—See HEBREW, I.

ORIGIN OF THE HEBREW LANGUAGE

Secular history does not reveal the origin of the Hebrew language—or, for that matter, of any of the most ancient languages known, such as Sumerian, Akkadian (Assyro-Babylonian), Aramaean and Egyptian. This is because these tongues appear already fully developed in the earliest written records men have found. (See LANGUAGE.) The various views advanced by scholars concerning the origin and development of Hebrew—such as those claiming that Hebrew derived from Aramaic or from some Canaanite dialect—are therefore conjectural. The same may be said for attempts at explaining the derivation of many words found in the Hebrew Scriptures. Scholars frequently assign an Akkadian or an Aramaic source for many of these words. However, as Dr. Edward Horowitz comments: “In the field of etymology [the study of word origins] there are wide differences of opinion among scholars, even among the very best of them.” He then cites examples of explanations by renowned scholars of the etymology of certain Hebrew words, in each case showing that other prominent scholars disagree, and then adds: “And so we have these never ending differences between equally highly respected authorities.”—How the Hebrew Language Grew, pp. xix, xx.

The Bible, then, is the only historical source giving reliable evidence of the origin of the language that we know as Hebrew. It was, of course, spoken by the Israelite descendants of “Abram the Hebrew” (Gen. 14:13), who, in turn, was descended from Noah’s son Shem. (Gen. 11:10-26) In view of God’s prophetic blessing on Shem (Gen. 9:26), it is reasonable to believe that Shem’s language was not affected when God confused the language of the disapproved people at Babel. (Gen. 11:5-9) Shem’s language would remain the same as previously, the “one language” that had existed from Adam onward. (Gen. 11:1) This would mean that the language that eventually came to be called “Hebrew” was the one original tongue of mankind. As stated, secular history knows no other.

QUESTION OF THE LANGUAGE’S STABILITY

History is replete with examples of languages changing over long periods of time. The English spoken in the time of Alfred the Great (of the ninth century C.E.) would seem like a foreign tongue to most English-speaking persons of today. It might, therefore, seem likely that the language originally spoken by Adam would have changed substantially by the time the writing of the Hebrew Scriptures began with Moses. The long life-spans enjoyed in that 2,500-year period, however, would be a definite factor operating against such change. Thus, there was only one human link, namely, Methuselah, needed to connect Adam with the Flood survivors. Additionally, Shem, who was evidently a pre-Flood contemporary of Methuselah for a number of years, lived well into the lifetime of Isaac. And less than one hundred and fifty years elapsed from the death of Isaac (1738 B.C.E.) until the birth of Moses (1593 B.C.E.). This overlapping of the lives of individuals several generations apart would serve to maintain uniformity of speech. Of course, the extent to which these human links, such as Shem and Abraham, lived in close geographical proximity is not always known. Regular communication is an important factor in language stability.

That not all of Shem’s descendants continued to speak the “one language” of pre-Flood times in its pure form is evident from the differences that developed among the Semitic languages, including Hebrew, Aramaic, Akkadian, and the various Arabic dialects. In the eighteenth century B.C.E. (about the year 1761 B.C.E.), Abraham’s grandson and grandnephew used different terms in naming the heap of stones they had set up as a memorial or witness between them. Jacob, the father of the Israelites, called it “Galeed,” while Laban, a resident in Syria or Aram (though not himself a descendant of Aram), used the Aramaean term “Jegar-sahadutha.” (Gen. 31:47) The dissimilarity of these two terms, however, need not indicate a major difference between Aramaean and Hebrew at this point, inasmuch as Jacob seems to have faced no particular problem in communication there in Syria. Undoubtedly, as new circumstances and situations arose and new artifacts were produced, certain words would be coined to describe such developments. Such terms might differ from place to place among geographically separated groups of the same language family, even while the actual structure of their language remained very much the same.

Among the Israelites themselves, some small variation in pronunciation developed, as is evident by the different pronunciations given the word “Shibboleth” by the Ephraimites during the period of the judges (1473 to 1117 B.C.E.). (Judg. 12:4-6) This, however, is no basis for claiming (as some have) that the Israelites then spoke separate dialects.

In the eighth century B.C.E., the difference between Hebrew and Aramaic had become wide enough to mark them as separate languages. This is seen when King Hezekiah’s representatives requested the spokesmen of Assyrian King Sennacherib to “speak with your servants, please, in the Syrian [Aramaic] language, for we can listen; and do not speak with us in the Jews’ language in the ears of the people that are on the wall.” (2 Ki. 18:17, 18, 26) Although Aramaic was then the lingua franca of the Near East and was used in international diplomatic communication, it was not understood by the majority of the Judeans. The earliest known non-Biblical written documents in Aramaic are from about the same period, and these confirm the distinction between the two languages.

Had both Hebrew and Aramaic diverged from the original “one language,” or did one of them preserve the purity of that primary language? While the Bible does not specifically say, the implication is that the language in which Moses began the writing of the inspired Sacred Record was the same as that spoken by the first man. The history of pre-Flood times and of early post-Flood times, as set forth in Genesis, was obviously preserved in an oral and/or written form down till Moses’ day. Logically, those preserving it were those adhering to worship of Jehovah.

If written, such history would contribute notably to the preservation of the purity of the original tongue. Even if that history were passed on by oral tradition (which seems less likely), it would still serve to maintain the stability of the original speech. The extreme care that the Jews of later times showed in endeavoring to conserve the true form of the Sacred Record illustrates the concern that would surely have been shown in patriarchal times to transmit accurately the earliest record of God’s dealings with men.

Further reason for believing that the Hebrew of the Bible accurately represents the “one language” of pre-Babel times is the remarkable stability of the Hebrew language during the thousand-year period in which the Hebrew Scriptures were written. As The International Standard Bible Encyclopaedia states: “One of the most remarkable facts connected with the Heb[rew] of the O[ld] T[estament] is that although that lit[erature] extends through a period of over 1,000 years, there is almost no difference between the language of the oldest parts and that of the latest.” The same work later observes: “It is needless to add that the various writers differ from one another in point of style, but these variations are infinitesimal compared with those of Gr[eek] and Lat[in] authors.”—Vol. III, p. 1833.

KNOWLEDGE OF THE LANGUAGE REMAINS INCOMPLETE

In reality, knowledge of ancient Hebrew is by no means complete. As Professor Burton L. Goddard says: “In large measure, the O[ld] T[estament] Hebrew must be self explanatory.” This is due to the fact that so few other contemporaneous writings in the Hebrew language have been found that could contribute to understanding of the word usage. Among those of any importance are the “Gezer calendar” (a simple list of agricultural operations thought to date from the middle of the tenth century B.C.E.), some ostraca (inscribed pieces of broken pottery) from Samaria (mainly orders and receipts for wine, oil, barley and generally assigned to the early part of the eighth century B.C.E), the Siloam inscription (found in a water tunnel of Jerusalem and believed to date from the reign of King Hezekiah [745-716 B.C.E.]), and the Lachish ostraca (probably from the latter part of the seventh century B.C.E.).

Additionally, there is a Phoenician inscription on the sarcophagus of King Ahiram in Byblos (Gebal), its language closely resembling Hebrew and thought to be from the start of the first millennium B.C.E.; also the Moabite Stone, apparently from the late tenth or early ninth century B.C.E. The language on the Moabite Stone is very similar to Hebrew, as might be expected in view of the Moabites’ descendancy from Abraham’s nephew Lot.—Gen. 19:30-37.

The total of the information on all these inscriptions, however, is but a small fraction of that found in the Hebrew Scriptures.

The Hebrew Scriptures, themselves, though covering a wide range of subjects and employing an extensive vocabulary, by no means contain all the words or expressions of ancient Hebrew. The Siloam inscription and the Lachish ostraca, for example, contain certain word and grammatical constructions that do not appear in the Hebrew Scriptures, yet these constructions are clearly of Hebrew origin. Undoubtedly the ancient vocabulary of the Hebrew-speaking people contained many more “root” words, plus thousands of words derived from these, than are known today.

Aside from those portions of the Bible definitely known to be written in Aramaic, there are quite a number of words and expressions found in the Hebrew Scriptures for which the original “roots” are unknown. Lexicographers classify many of these as “loan words,” claiming that Hebrew borrowed these from other Semitic tongues, such as Aramaic, Akkadian or Arabic. This is speculation, however. As Dr. Edward Horowitz states: “But sometimes the borrowing is so ancient that scholars do not know which language did the borrowing and which was the original owner.” It seems more probable that such questioned terms are genuinely Hebrew and are further evidence of the incompleteness of modern knowledge of the scope of the ancient language.

Among the evidences pointing to a rich vocabulary in ancient Hebrew are writings from the start of the Common Era. These include non-Biblical religious writings forming part of the Dead Sea Scrolls, and also the Mishnah, a body of rabbinical writings in Hebrew dealing with Jewish tradition. Writing in The Encyclopedia Americana (1956 ed., Vol. 14, p. 57a), Professor Meyer Waxman says: “Biblical Hebrew . . . does not exhaust the entire stock of words, as is proved by the Mishnah, which employs hundreds of Hebrew words not found in the Bible.” Of course, some of these could have been later additions or “coined” expressions, but doubtless many were part of the Hebrew vocabulary during the period of the writing of the Hebrew Scriptures.

WHEN DID HEBREW BEGIN TO WANE?

It is popularly held that the Jews began to change over to Aramaic speech during their exile in Babylon. The evidence for this, however, is not strong. Modern examples show that subjugated groups or immigrants can and frequently do retain their native tongue over periods far longer than seventy years. Particularly since the Jews had the divine promise of a return to their homeland, it may be expected that they would be little inclined to drop Hebrew in favor of either Akkadian (Assyro-Babylonian) or Aramaic, the lingua franca of that time. True, Aramaic passages and words are to be found in the exilic and postexilic books, such as Daniel, Ezra and Esther. This is not unusual, however, inasmuch as those books include accounts of events taking place in Aramaic-speaking lands, as well as official correspondence, and deal with a people subject to domination by foreign powers using Aramaic as a diplomatic language.

Nehemiah 8:8 describes the “putting of meaning” into and “giving understanding” in the reading of the Law. It has been suggested that Hebrew was not then perfectly understood by the returned exiles and that some Aramaic paraphrasing was done. However, the text itself seems to point more to an exposition of the sense and application of what was being taught in the Law, rather than to some clarification of linguistic terminology or grammatical forms.—Compare Matthew 13:14, 51, 52; Luke 24:27; Acts 8:30, 31.

Actually, there is no reference in the Bible to any abandonment of Hebrew as the daily tongue of the people. True, Nehemiah found certain Jews who had Ashdodite, Ammonite and Moabite wives and whose children did not know “how to speak Jewish.” But the mention of this factor in connection with Nehemiah’s indignation at the Jews involved in these marriages with non-Israelites indicates that such slighting of Hebrew was strongly disapproved. (Neh. 13:23-27) This might be expected in view of the importance given to the reading of God’s Word, which was till then mainly in Hebrew.

The period from the close of the Hebrew canon (likely in the time of Ezra and Malachi in the fifth century B.C.E.) down till the start of the Common Era is not dealt with to any extent in the Bible. Secular records are also few. But even these give little support to a changeover from Hebrew to Aramaic on the part of the Jewish people. The evidence indicates that many of the apocryphal books, such as Judith, Ecclesiasticus (not Ecclesiastes), Baruch, and First Maccabees, were written in Hebrew, and these works are generally viewed as dating from the last three centuries before the Common Era. As already mentioned, some of the non-Biblical writings among the Dead Sea Scrolls were also in Hebrew, and Hebrew was used in compiling the Jewish Mishnah centuries within the Common Era.

Because of these and related facts, Dr. William Chomsky states: “The theory held by some Jewish and non-Jewish scholars that Aramaic had completely displaced Hebrew is without any foundation and has been effectively disproved.” If anything, it is more likely that the Jews became a bilingual people, but with Hebrew prevailing as the preferred tongue. As Dr. Chomsky says of the Mishnaic Hebrew: “. . . this language bears all the earmarks of a typical vernacular employed by peasants, merchants and artisans. . . . On the basis of the available evidence it seems fair to conclude that the Jews were generally conversant, during the period of the Second Commonwealth, especially its latter part, with both languages [Hebrew and Aramaic]. Sometimes they used one, sometimes another.”—Hebrew: The Eternal Language, pp. 207-210.

The strongest evidence, however, favoring the view that Hebrew continued as a living language down into the first century of the Common Era is found in the references to the Hebrew language in the Christian Greek Scriptures. (John 5:2; 19:13, 17, 20; 20:16; Rev. 9:11; 16:16) While many authorities hold that the term “Hebrew” in these references should instead read “Aramaic,” there is good reason to believe that the term actually applies to the Hebrew language, as is shown in the article on ARAMAIC. When the physician Luke says that Paul spoke to the people of Jerusalem in “the Hebrew language,” it seems unlikely that he meant thereby the Aramaic or Syrian language. (Acts 21:40; 22:2; compare 26:14.) Since the Hebrew Scriptures earlier distinguished between Aramaic (Syrian) and “the Jews’ language” (2 Ki. 18:26), and since the first-century Jewish historian Josephus, considering this passage of the Bible, speaks of “Syrian” and “Hebrew” as distinct tongues (Antiquities of the Jews, Book X, chap. I, par. 2), there seems to be no reason for the writers of the Christian Greek Scriptures to have said “Hebrew” if they meant Aramaic or Syrian.

That Aramaic was widely used throughout Palestine by that time is acknowledged. The use of Aramaic “Bar” (son), rather than Hebrew “Ben” in several names (such as Bartholomew and Simon Bar-jonah), is one evidence of familiarity with Aramaic. Of course, some Jews also had Greek names, as did Andrew and Philip, and this would not of itself prove that their common speech was Greek, any more than Mark’s Latin name would prove that this was the common language of his family. Evidently four languages were current in Palestine in the first century of the Common Era: the three mentioned in the Bible as appearing on the sign over the impaled Jesus’ head (Hebrew, Latin and Greek [John 19:19, 20]) and, the fourth one, Aramaic. Of these, Latin was undoubtedly the least common.

Jesus may well have used Aramaic on occasion, as when speaking to the Syrophoenician woman. (Mark 7:24-30) Certain expressions recorded as spoken by him are generally considered as of Aramaic origin. Yet, even here there is need for caution since the classifying of these expressions as Aramaic is not without question. For example, the words spoken by Jesus while impaled on the stake, “Eʹli, Eʹli, laʹma sabachthaʹni?” (Matt. 27:46; Mark 15:34), are usually considered to be Aramaic, perhaps of a Galilean dialect. However, The Interpreter’s Dictionary of the Bible (Vol. 2, p. 86) says: “Opinion is divided in regard to the original language of the saying and as to whether Jesus himself would more naturally have used Hebrew or Aramaic. . . . documents indicate that a form of Hebrew, somewhat influenced by Aramaic, may have been in use in Palestine in the first century A.D.” In reality, the Greek transliteration of these words, as recorded by Matthew and Mark, does not allow for a positive identification of the original language used.

One further evidence for the continued use of Hebrew in apostolic times is the testimony that Matthew’s Gospel was originally written by him in Hebrew. This evidence is also considered in the article on ARAMAIC.

It appears, then, that Hebrew began to wane primarily after, and as a result of, the destruction of Jerusalem and its temple and the scattering of Its remaining inhabitants in the year 70 C.E. Nevertheless, its use was continued in the synagogues wherever the Jews spread. From about the sixth century C.E. onward, particularly, zealous efforts were made to maintain the purity of the Hebrew text of the Scriptures by those Jewish scholars known as the Masoretes. And particularly from the sixteenth century onward interest in ancient Hebrew revived and the following century saw intensive study of other Semitic tongues begin. This has contributed to a clarification of the understanding of the ancient language and has resulted in improved translations of the Hebrew Scriptures.

HEBREW ALPHABET AND SCRIPT

The article on ALPHABET discusses the origin of the written alphabet. The Hebrew alphabet was composed of twenty-two consonants, several of these evidently being able to represent two sounds, giving a total of some twenty-eight sounds. The vowel sounds were supplied by the reader, guided by the context, much as an English-speaking person fills in the vowels for such abbreviations as “bldg.” (building), “blvd.” (boulevard), and “hgt.” (height). It is believed that the traditional pronunciation of the Hebrew Scriptures was kept alive and handed down by those specializing in reading the Law, Prophets and Psalms for the instruction of the people. Then, in the second half of the first millennium C.E., the Masoretes devised a system of dots and dashes called vowel points, and these were inserted in the consonantal text. Additionally, certain accent marks were supplied to indicate stress, pause, connection between words and clauses, and musical notation.

The earliest Hebrew inscriptions known are recorded in an ancient script considerably different in form from the square-shaped Hebrew letters of later documents, such as those of the early centuries of the Common Era. The square-shaped style is often called “Aramaic” or “Assyrian.” Just when the change from one style to the other became effective is not known. Some believe the transition began as early as the fourth century B.C.E. However, as Professor Ernst Würthwein says: “What is certain is that for a long time the Old Hebrew script remained in use alongside the square script. It is still used, for example, for the lettering of coins from the time of the revolt of Bar Kochba (132-135 A.D.) and in fragments of Lev. xix-xxiii which were found in 1949 during a further search in Qumran Cave I near the Dead Sea.”—The Text of the Old Testament, p. 4.

Origen, a Christian writer of the second and third centuries C.E., stated that, in the more correct copies of the Greek translations of the Hebrew Scriptures, the Tetragrammaton or sacred name of Jehovah was written in Old Hebrew letters. This has been confirmed by the discovery of a fragmentary leather scroll tentatively dated as between 50 B.C.E. and 50 C.E., containing the Minor Prophets in Greek. In this scroll the Tetragrammaton appears in the ancient script. Aquila’s Greek version (of the fifth century C.E.) also contains the divine name written in Old Hebrew letters.

Dr. Horowitz says: “It was the old Hebrew alphabet that the Greeks borrowed and passed on to Latin, and it is the old Hebrew alphabet that the Greek most